1 Friday, 21 March 2003

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 9.08 a.m.

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Good morning. Please be seated.

6 May we hear the case, please.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning. This is Case Number IT-97-24-T, the

8 Prosecutor versus Milomir Stakic.

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And the appearances as far as we can see anybody

10 there.

11 MR. KOUMJIAN: Good morning, Your Honour. Nicholas Koumjian, Ann

12 Sutherland, and Ruth Karper for the Prosecution.

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Good morning. Thank you. And for the Defence.

14 MR. LUKIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Branko Lukic, John

15 Ostojic, and Danilo Cirkovic for the Defence.

16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I hope, Mr. Lukic, you feel better than your

17 voice sounds today.

18 MR. LUKIC: I'm okay, thank you.

19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. Anything to be discussed

20 beforehand? No, then please, bring the witness, the expert, into the

21 courtroom.

22 It was yesterday in the afternoon that it was confirmed that not

23 only on Monday, Mr. Stanar will arrive, but also Mr. Kuruzovic can be

24 heard as of Wednesday next week. If the parties could please be so kind

25 and think about the question based on our experience whether it would be

1 appropriate to continue with the hearing next Friday. Next Friday

2 originally was a day off. We had no schedule for this day. But

3 especially under the prevailing circumstances and maybe problems with the

4 international air traffic, I would hear submissions by the parties on

5 whether it's possible to sit on Friday next week as well.

6 [The witness entered court]

7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: But let's concentrate now on General Wilmot.

8 Good morning.

9 THE WITNESS: Good morning, sir.

10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: You're prepared to continue?

11 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Mr. Koumjian, please.

13 WITNESS: RICHARD WILMOT [Resumed]

14 Cross-examined by Mr. Koumjian: [Continued]

15 Q. Good morning, General.

16 A. Good morning, sir.

17 Q. Sir, when we finished, I was trying to articulate a question about

18 the Hambarine incident. Would it be correct that given that the

19 information that was available was that there was a shootout as you

20 mention in your report.

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And that as Dr. Mujadzic said, one Muslim was shot, and the people

23 in the car were shot, including two Serbs were killed. Would it be

24 appropriate to investigate to see what exactly had happened and what the

25 sequence of events was in order to determine whether the people at the

1 checkpoint were justified in shooting in self-defence?

2 A. Well, such action might be appropriate, to conduct an

3 investigation and see where to go from that point. On the other hand,

4 there was chaos and confusion in the area, and the military had lost at

5 least one person at that event, and so they apparently decided to press on

6 and to go further than -- and could go beyond an investigation and take

7 action immediately.

8 Q. Sir, the Hambarine incident, you mentioned three attacks that

9 happened in Prijedor, and you talked about a period of calm preceding

10 those. But actually the Hambarine incident was not the first shedding of

11 blood in Prijedor, was it?

12 MR. KOUMJIAN: Perhaps to speed things up, could the witness be

13 shown S345.

14 THE WITNESS: Thanks.

15 MR. KOUMJIAN: I'll try to avoid questions that are somewhat

16 rhetorical.

17 Q. Sir, S345 is a combat report. If the first page could be put on

18 the ELMO, please, so that everyone can see. And I'm focussing on the very

19 bottom of the first page. The report is dated the 3rd of May, and it

20 indicates on the bottom "In Prijedor, the uncle of the murdered conscript

21 Radenko Dzap killed two and seriously wounded two Muslims. The motive for

22 the killings was revenge." This wasn't mentioned in your report, but in

23 fact this would indicate that what would appear to be an ethnically-based

24 murder, two Muslims killed and three wounded, had taken place shortly

25 after the takeover. Correct?

1 A. That's what the report indicates, yes.

2 Q. Thank you. Now, sir, before the military conducted operations in

3 Hambarine and Kozarac, there were many orders for disarmament. That was a

4 topic of discussions and negotiations in fact, between the two sides. Is

5 that correct?

6 A. Yes, sir.

7 Q. Yesterday, we looked at S28.

8 MR. KOUMJIAN: If the witness could be shown S60, S6-0, and at the

9 same time S389 and S152, to speed things up.

10 Q. Yesterday, we saw that on the -- sorry. Just to remind us that

11 yesterday we saw on S28, that was the meetings of the 5th of May, that

12 there was a point regarding disarmament, point number 7. I'm now showing

13 you the meetings of the 15th of May of the Council for National Defence of

14 Prijedor Municipal Assembly. And if you look -- if you can just put the

15 first page on the ELMO.

16 A. 158, sir?

17 Q. S60. S6-0, sorry.

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The next page, please.

19 MR. KOUMJIAN:

20 Q. Sir, again this is a meeting attended by Dr. Stakic and

21 representatives of the 43rd Brigade, Vladimir Arsic, commander of the

22 22nd -- or the Kozara light brigade; Pero Colic; and Slobodan Kuruzovic,

23 the TO commander. Do you see that point number 4 of the discussions of

24 the National Defence Council was the disarmament of paramilitary

25 formations.

1 A. I see that.

2 Q. Thank you. If we look at S389 which we had read one of the

3 articles regarding the Hambarine announcement and the discussions

4 regarding the --

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: To avoid duplications, you can see point 5 of

6 the agenda?

7 THE WITNESS: Taking over the duties of the military department.

8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: What would be your comments on this? Would it

9 be --

10 THE WITNESS: Well, it was an agenda item apparently. I certainly

11 don't know that the duties of the military department were taken over, and

12 in fact disarmament of paramilitary formations was also only an agenda

13 item as listed here. And I note that --

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please feel free to look on the following pages

15 covering point 4 and point 5. If the usher could please put it on the

16 ELMO in a way that we can read it.

17 You can see the conclusion?

18 THE WITNESS: Can you slide it a little bit so we can see it.

19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. And then please, on the next page,

20 AD 5.

21 THE WITNESS: Well, it certainly looks like a major endeavour, and

22 what did it say about the press on -- the media on the previous page? Can

23 you put that back up, please. Slide it up a little bit. Slide it up some

24 more.

25 And "with the assistance of the media, the public security station

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 in concert with the army's command should draft the plan of disarmament

2 after which the actual process should be set in motion and with the

3 assistance of the media." I really don't understand what we're talking

4 about, how does the media play into this?

5 MR. KOUMJIAN:

6 Q. Sir, in your experience in dictatorships, is it common for the

7 government to control the media and to use the media to control the

8 population?

9 A. Yes, it is, and certainly the media could be used as a propaganda

10 tool. And so if that's what the inference is, then I can understand it

11 from that standpoint.

12 Q. I'm sorry.

13 Going to S389, sir, we read S389-1A yesterday regarding the

14 demands on Hambarine. These, sir, are announcements that appeared in an

15 issue of a local newspaper. I'm now turning to page 2, please, S389-2.

16 I'm just going to read selected paragraphs of this document, and if you

17 would like me to add anything, please feel free.

18 In the middle of the second article, S389-2A, the middle

19 paragraph -- the witness should be shown the translation. Sorry.

20 THE REGISTRAR: We don't have an English translation, it was on

21 the transcript.

22 MR. KOUMJIAN: It was handed out. I'm sorry. It's S389-2A.

23 Ms. Karper indicates it was just handed out Friday. I'm sorry. If we

24 don't have it now, I could move on to another... The second page.

25 Q. Sir, in the middle paragraph of this article dated the 23rd of

1 May, it indicates "the Prijedor municipal Crisis Staff hereby revokes the

2 decision on the deadline for the surrender of weapons by 1500 hours on 27

3 May" --

4 THE INTERPRETER: Will you slow down please, Mr. Koumjian.

5 MR. KOUMJIAN:

6 Q. "The Crisis Staff orders immediate and unconditional surrender of

7 weapons and military equipment. At the collection point set up in Zarko

8 Zgonjanin barracks by 1800 hours today, 23 May, the latest."

9 Moving on to the next article, but on the same page, the last

10 paragraph, it indicates: "The Crisis Staff and the regional command shall

11 see the operation of disarming paramilitary formations through to the

12 end. There has been a strong warning that the order to remove blocks from

13 all roads in the area of Prijedor Municipality must be carried out,

14 particularly from the section of the Prijedor/Banja Luka Highway between

15 the local communities of Kozarusa and Omarska."

16 Sir, this article was also dated the -- this announcement, the

17 24th of May. Would it be correct, then, to say that any military

18 commander in that area would have been aware of roadblocks in the Kozarac

19 area, would have been aware that the people in Kozarac were not willing to

20 surrender their weapons, and were opposing the occupation of Kozarac by

21 the forces aligned with the SDS government, and would expect there to be

22 combat if they tried to move in and occupy Kozarac?

23 MR. OSTOJIC: I would object to the form of the question, Your

24 Honour.

25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Some reasons.

1 MR. OSTOJIC: Specifically with respect to the word "occupation."

2 MR. KOUMJIAN: If Mr. Ostojic suggests another word, I'll use it.

3 MR. OSTOJIC: I'm not here to suggest anything for counsel, but

4 it's inappropriate in light of the evidence that we heard over the course

5 of the last 11 months.

6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The final assessment of course will be with the

7 Bench, but if you could use another term.

8 MR. KOUMJIAN: Sure.

9 Q. Perhaps the General could help me. When you take over territory

10 and control it, what word do you use in the military?

11 A. When you take over territory and control it.

12 Q. When you take over territory from a population that's against your

13 force --

14 A. That's opposed to us.

15 Q. What do you call that?

16 A. You're occupying it, I would say. So the question is, sir? I've

17 lost myself here in the question.

18 Q. Now you're really testing me. The question was that: Given the

19 situation that existed at the time, public announcements, clear public

20 knowledge that there were -- there was opposition to the occupation that

21 the people of Kozarac had erected some type of defence and roadblocks,

22 that a military commander would expect if you drive military vehicles or

23 troops towards Kozarac, would expect combat?

24 MR. OSTOJIC: Same objection, Your Honour. If the Court would

25 like, I can expand on it. Quite candidly, I believe the evidence, with

1 all due respect, doesn't show that there was occupation in Kozarac. The

2 people in Kozarac were specifically those people who set up the blockades

3 initially, as were defined throughout the witnesses, both the Prosecution

4 witnesses and the Defence witnesses. To imply that there was an

5 occupation by other forces, namely from the SDS, as the question clearly

6 indicates, is erroneous and is misleading and it's suggesting facts that

7 are not in evidence at all. So I think it's distorted.

8 The question could be placed, if I may suggest, that the people

9 within Kozarac who were maintaining positions there while they were armed,

10 should a military convoy pass through an armed checkpoint that they may

11 perceive to be hostile.

12 MR. KOUMJIAN: Thank you, I'll accept that question.

13 Q. Sir, could you answer Mr. Ostojic's suggested form of the

14 question.

15 A. The military was in the area. There was a faction of people in

16 that area that didn't want the military there. They apparently set up

17 checkpoints. They apparently set up roadblocks on occasion. When the

18 military commander moved through there, he should have recognised that

19 there was a threat there against his forces, and therefore he could expect

20 trouble. He might expect trouble. He might take certain precautions to

21 ensure that his troops were safe, and he might be ready also to respond in

22 the event that he was brought under attack.

23 Q. In fact, sir, wouldn't it make more sense, from what you know

24 about the events, that it wasn't a convoy passing through Kozarac that was

25 attacked, but there was an attack on Kozarac that was resisted?

1 MR. OSTOJIC: I'll object to the form of the question, Your

2 Honour, again, and I would ask the Court to look at the report by the

3 OTP's military analyst specifically who gives a definition as to what

4 occurred, and that's inconsistent clearly on its face and all fours with

5 their own expert's view of the events in his report.

6 MR. KOUMJIAN: That's --

7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: At this late stage of the procedure, it's

8 extremely difficult to intervene for a Chamber. But on the other hand, I

9 think it's the right for each party to articulate the own opinion and to

10 put the case to the witness, may it be supported by evidence or not. It's

11 just to put the case to the witness. And I think it's not misleading at

12 all.

13 MR. OSTOJIC: If I can just, Your Honour, I agree that they should

14 put the case in front of the witness. But the Defence is thinking the

15 case is what their witnesses have said the case is. So if they have

16 called a military analyst who works for the OTP and has articulated a

17 certain position, that's what the case should --

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Sorry to interrupt. We don't want to have

19 closing arguments right now.

20 Would Mr. Koumjian please proceed.

21 MR. KOUMJIAN: Yes.

22 Q. Sir, as a military commander, would you send a -- your forces to

23 drive through areas occupied by a hostile enemy without -- and not expect

24 them to come under attack?

25 A. It would depend upon the formation that I sent through that

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 so-called hostile area. If I was involved in a show of force, I would

2 send a military organisation that was sizable, that was well-armed, and

3 then I might not expect an attack at all. So it has a lot to do with how

4 that force was presented as it went through that so-called threatened

5 area.

6 Q. Thank you, sir.

7 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, I'd like the witness to look at a few

8 pages of transcript, and so everyone has copies, I can hand them out. We

9 have some for the booth.

10 Perhaps we have one copy for the B/C/S booth, and I'll try to read

11 slowly. I believe it starts with the testimony of Mr. Jusuf Arifagic on

12 page 7.123 of our trial transcript.

13 Q. You'll see that he was asked: "Are you aware of a request issued

14 by the Banja Luka command concerning a passage of a military convoy on the

15 24th of May, 1992, when the conflict in Kozarac broke out?" Answer: "I

16 am not." Question: "But you must be aware of the fact that on that day,

17 there was a convoy of military vehicles moving from the direction of Banja

18 Luka?" Answer: "Yes, I heard that."

19 Question from Mr. Lukic: "You heard when Kapetan Cirkin was being

20 briefed by a local checkpoint there, that is the checkpoint from

21 Jakupovici, who was telling him that a military convoy was approaching?"

22 Answer: "Yes." Question: "You also heard when Kapetan Cirkin issued

23 commands to the person who had called him from that checkpoint, that is,

24 when he told him that he shall let the tanks come close to him, close

25 enough so that he could destroy them with a hand-held rocket launcher,

1 with a Zolja?" Answer: "Yes, but the convoy did not consist only of" --

2 Answer: "Yes, but the convoy did not consist only of tanks but also of

3 infantry troops. It was not an ordinary military convoy moving along a

4 road; it was a classical military attack."

5 Question: "Do" you know that at least one of the tanks was

6 destroyed?" "Yes, I think that's what I heard subsequently, that one was

7 destroyed and that one was put out of order. Whether this information is

8 accurate, I don't know, I was not there."

9 Sir, another witness testified who had been a high-school student

10 at the time, and that is Sanja Poljak. On page 6.328 of the trial

11 transcript, beginning on line 23, he said: "I remember clearly around

12 1.00 in the afternoon, I was sitting in my house. I was having lunch. On

13 the table we had a radio set, tape recorder -- how should I say it? I was

14 listening to Radio Prijedor. At that time, they had news on the radio,

15 and they carried a piece of news which really scared me in a way. They

16 said that unless the barricades were removed from the Banja Luka/Prijedor

17 main road, Kozarac and the surrounding areas would be attacked."

18 Going to page 6.333, Mr. Poljak's testimony, he was asked on line

19 10: "I want to stop and go back and ask you some questions about what

20 you've just told us. You said that shooting started and shelling. Can

21 you describe to us exactly what you heard and saw." Answer: "That was --

22 how should I put it? Suddenly the shooting came, and then shells started

23 falling. The shelling began. You had the impression they were coming

24 from all possible directions. They fell on fields and on houses. It all

25 happened at once."

1 "So you heard the sounds of shooting and then the shelling began?"

2 "I don't think the shelling stopped before Wednesday. Shells were falling

3 all the time." Question: "We're now talking about the 24th of May and do

4 you remember what day of the week that was? Answer: "Sunday." Question:

5 "When you say that shells were coming and falling everywhere, how much

6 time was there between on average to your best estimate between when you

7 would hear the explosions of these shells?" Answer: "Well, every two or

8 three minutes, I don't know exactly. I just know that shells were falling

9 all the time."

10 Question: "What was being shelled? Did it seem to you that any

11 particular area was being targeted? What was there to be hit?" Answer:

12 "They targeted everything. Even when we started to run across the fields.

13 There were no houses there but still also those areas were being shelled,

14 the forest too. Maybe they were watching us with binoculars, but they

15 were shelling all the areas. I had the impression that shells were

16 falling literally all over the place, so we retreated slowly, and as soon

17 as we heard a shell whistle by, we would just run for shelter."

18 And then Mr. Poljak was asked on page 66 -- 6.334, the very bottom

19 line, 25 -- well, excuse me, 23: "Did anyone who was present at the

20 barricade tell you at any time what happened there?" Answer: "When we

21 were retreating, we reached a forest. We paused to get some rest. There

22 was a creek there and the place was quite sheltered, and my cousin told me

23 there what had happened." Question: "What did he tell you happened at

24 the checkpoint?" Answer: "They were there, and suddenly a tank drove up

25 from the direction of Omarska. And in the spot where the barricade was,

1 perhaps 2 or 300 metres from there, there was a creek and a forest. And

2 as the tank drove across the bridge, it was followed by a group of

3 soldiers who then lined up beside the tank and they started shooting, the

4 shooting began." "Did your cousin tell you whether the people at the

5 checkpoint or barricade fired back at the tank or at the soldiers that

6 were coming from Omarska?" Answer: "Yes, they did fire back a bit, and

7 then they fled."

8 Sir, to avoid -- let me first ask you, sir, would it be a

9 classical attack formation to approach a point where forces are deployed,

10 dug in, by having tanks flanked by infantry?

11 A. Yes, that could be a formation that was used. I note that the

12 first -- the first witness said something about yes, but the convoy did

13 not consist only of tanks, but also of infantry troops. It was not an

14 ordinary military convoy moving along a road. It was a classical military

15 attack. Convoys can move along the road with tanks and armoured personnel

16 carriers and troops and supply trucks and all sorts of vehicles, and it's

17 still a convoy. So I'm not sure that I understand what the witness is

18 talking about here.

19 But in answer to your question, yes, an attack on a point can

20 consist of a combination of armour and infantry working in league with

21 each other.

22 Q. Thank you. Sir, I want to talk to you a little bit about the

23 balance of forces that existed at the time. Is it correct that there was

24 not a balance of forces, that there was overwhelming force in favour of

25 the VRS/SDS side?

1 A. From what I've read, it sounded like there were about a thousand

2 to 1200 what we called or what someone called red berets in that

3 particular area. There were apparently foot soldiers. They were

4 apparently -- maybe even soldiers that operated as guerillas at night and

5 in terrorist activities and so on and so forth. So if you're asking me if

6 there was an imbalancer between the tank and that soldier of the berets, I

7 guess there is. But a military commander doesn't choose up sides here and

8 say, Well, look they have got a bunch of infantry soldiers over there, so

9 I can only use infantry soldiers over here --

10 Q. That's perfectly understood. That's not my question. I

11 understand there's no obligation to balance your force to the enemy's.

12 A. No there isn't.

13 Q. I think that's understood.

14 A. Yes, it was out of balance, but there was no obligation to balance

15 it. Besides, this is a command decision. It's a military decision. It's

16 in the stove pipe.

17 Q. As a -- despite the fact that you read that this was ordered by

18 the Crisis Staff according to the announcements in the newspaper, that is

19 still your opinion?

20 A. Well, I'm not sure it was ordered by the Crisis Staff. You say

21 that the media was the tool, one of the tools of that particular

22 government. So I can see that that tool was used, maybe someone else made

23 a decision like a commander, and he only asked that Crisis Staff to make

24 sure that the population knew it by putting it out in the media.

25 Q. Would it change your opinion if you heard that Dr. Stakic made a

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 statement that this was a -- that we decided to attack Kozarac?

2 A. "We"?

3 Q. Yes.

4 A. So now he is involved in the decision-making of the military? He

5 may have said that, but I doubt that he's the one that concluded the

6 attack plan, developed the forces that would go in, created the

7 formations, devised the tactics and the techniques. I don't think he did

8 that. I don't think he could do that. I don't think he would be

9 authorised to do that, and I don't think the military would even talk to

10 him about that.

11 Q. That's clear, sir. There's no allegation that he was a

12 tactician. The question is whether or not he influenced the military and

13 effected that attack.

14 MR. KOUMJIAN: So I would ask the usher to please hand out S187.

15 A. Sir, may I respond to that last comment?

16 Q. Certainly.

17 A. Under the principle of unity of command, I don't think that he

18 would influence a military at all. It was probably a military decision if

19 such an attack was conducted, because after all, they have limited

20 resources and they make choices. So I don't think Dr. Stakic could say to

21 them, attack over here in zone A and forgot about zone B. I don't think

22 so.

23 Q. Sir, who does tell the military what to do? When the military

24 attacks citizens of its own country, are you saying they do that on

25 completely their own decision or do they follow political --

1 A. No, they take a look at the threat in the area. They take a look

2 at the intelligence, and they make decisions based on that. Those

3 intelligence reports go up and down the chain of command, and some higher

4 authority in the military decides we're going to go here and do something

5 about this situation here. I just don't think it takes place from

6 outside.

7 Q. Broadly if -- sorry. Broadly if I could interrupt, would it be

8 correct that it's the political leadership that would set such goals as

9 where the borders of this new state would be, whether it would have access

10 to the sea, strategic goals such as that?

11 A. I imagine that strategic goals such as that are the purview of the

12 political arm of the country.

13 Q. The military would carry out those strategic goals, it would be

14 their job to fulfill those goals correct?

15 A. It could very well be if there were military implications

16 associated with those goals.

17 Q. If one of those goals was the separation of nationalities, it

18 would be the military's responsibility, if that was so ordered by the

19 political leadership, to carry that out?

20 A. If that was one of the goals, and I certainly haven't taken a look

21 at what the goals may have been, but yes, that could be true.

22 Q. Sir, on page 6 of 187, S187, this is a transcript of an interview

23 with Dr. Stakic. And at the bottom, the last question by the reporter

24 was: "On the way here, we drove past Kozarac. And from what we know,

25 there was a big battle in Kozarac. What happened there?" Dr. Stakic:

1 "That is precisely where that Muslim extremism escalated because Kozarac,

2 with its surroundings, had around 20.000 Muslims. And in Kozarac itself,

3 which has 10 to 12.000, we found original lists with 3 and a half

4 thousand, or to be precise, 3.791 members of the illegal Muslim

5 Territorial Defence, the number of each gun, and the date on which it was

6 issued, and other light and medium heavy weapons. We had indications that

7 this existed before; however, the fact and the moment when they came out

8 to the Prijedor/Banja Luka main road and blocked around 10 kilometres of

9 it at the entrance to and exit from their territory, and all local access

10 roads, the army -- actually, we made a decision that the army and police

11 go up there and lift the blockade of that road."

12 Is it still your position that Dr. Stakic could have had no

13 influence on that decision?

14 A. He might have influenced the decision, but it looks to me like

15 there must have been some sort of threat evaluation also conducted which

16 allowed the commander to make the ultimate decision and to take the

17 action. I still don't think that Dr. Stakic said, "Commander, go do

18 that."

19 Q. Thank you. Sir, does this brief excerpt that I read also indicate

20 that Dr. Stakic apparently had detailed briefings about the results of the

21 combat operations and that he lists the exact number of members of the

22 Territorial Defence?

23 A. I'm sure that materials flowed back and forth into his

24 organisation which he probably read, and I'm sure that being resident in

25 the area, he had some idea of the statistics and the demographics of the

1 area. So I presume that he was quite familiar with what was taking place

2 in the region where he lived, in his neighbourhood.

3 Q. Thank you. Sir, on footnote 91 of your report, you quote

4 Witness P. And on line 15, beginning on line 12, he's asked about guns in

5 the possession of the Territorial Defence. I'll give you time to find

6 that. That was footnote 91 of your report.

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And he answered: "Well, a number of rifles had been bought from

9 the Serb reservist coming back from Croatia and from the battlefield there

10 and sold rifles to the local population. What the ratio between the

11 received and purchased rifles are, I do not know. I cannot tell you. The

12 only thing I do know and I heard about was that there was about 400

13 rifles. And how many automatic, how many semi-automatic, I do not know.

14 As far as ammunition is concerned, well, some amount was mentioned, but

15 the policeman said, 'Well, we can defend ourselves for five minutes, and

16 then we're finished.'"

17 And then, sir, there's also a report, footnote 75 of your report,

18 which is a report from the Prijedor public security station dated the 5th

19 of July. And point number 7 indicates the weapons and ammunition seized.

20 16 automatic rifles, 7 M48, 184 hunting rifles, 24 hunting carbines, some

21 pistols and MK rifles. What I'm really interested in are the last two

22 items on the next page, pistol ammunition, 540; hunting ammunition, 500.

23 Sir, does it appear to you that the defenders of Kozarac had very

24 little ammunition at their disposal?

25 A. Well, in this expose, they have very little ammunition, but who

1 knows what they have behind it? I think it's a very limited report. 540

2 rounds of ammunition when properly used can take out 540 people, so I can

3 take that position as easily as the position that you've taken on this

4 point.

5 Q. Sir, would it make sense if you were a commander of those forces,

6 would you expect to be able to attack and defeat the JNA/VRS forces that

7 were in the area?

8 A. Attack and defeat the JNA forces in the area, probably not. But

9 you could certainly disrupt, cause chaos and confusion, reduce the

10 economic situation in the area to absolute -- a nothing, ruin the -- just

11 completely distract everybody from normal life. So this kind of conflict

12 in this situation is one in which a conventional force is probably -- is

13 probably not the force to be countering the organisation that's there.

14 But that's what was available, so they used the conventional force to do

15 so. It's a very difficult situation, there's no doubt about it.

16 Q. Sir, the -- I want to take advantage of your expertise in weapons,

17 which I don't have. A Winchester rifle, can you explain to the Court what

18 that is.

19 A. Somebody named Winchester built a rifle, and I'm not sure exactly

20 which rifle we're talking about now. Maybe it's a 30-calibre rifle,

21 possibly it's as a rifle that you use if you're a hunter, and I'm not a

22 hunter. Possibly you use that kind of rifle to bag a deer or animals of

23 that size for consumption.

24 Q. Sir, as a former intelligence officer, if you received

25 information, and just for counsel and the Court, I'm referring to S162-5,

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 the newspaper article about the arrest of Becir Medunjanin, that the

2 commander of the Territorial Defence in Kozarac was arrested with a

3 Winchester rifle, would that suggest to you as a military intelligence

4 officer that additional evidence that the defenders were very poorly

5 armed?

6 A. I don't think it would suggest anything to me. If you came into

7 my house in Sedona Arizona and arrested me today, you would find a

8 45-calibre pistol. And I don't think that any intelligence officer could

9 make anything out of that. I don't see it as significant, and as an

10 intelligence officer, I wouldn't make any evaluation of the fact that the

11 gentleman had on his person or in his home, wherever he was arrested, a

12 Winchester rifle.

13 MR. KOUMJIAN: Could the witness be shown S350, please.

14 Q. Sir, again, taking advantage of your experience and I give credit

15 to the Court - I'm about to plagiarise a question that was asked of

16 Mr. Brown by one of the Judges, Judge Vassylenko, can you, sir, explain to

17 us -- you don't have to refer to the article right now. This question is

18 a little separate.

19 As a military expert, in a situation where there are people

20 defending territory and dug in, they have chosen the ground, they have had

21 time to build fortifications and to dig in, and you are the attacker,

22 would it be correct that normally we would assume much greater casualties

23 on the side of the attacking force than on the side of the dug-in

24 defenders who are -- who have chosen the ground?

25 A. Interesting question. And it very much depends upon the ratio,

1 the combat power ratio between the defender and the attacker.

2 Conventional wisdom says it takes a ratio of about 3 to 1 to successfully

3 succeed in an attack. Now, if the commander that's attacking has the

4 capability to prepare the defensive positions in that he can conduct

5 artillery and air strikes against those positions, then move tanks

6 forward, move his artillery forward to continue the attack, move his

7 infantry in, I don't think that the defender would necessarily have the

8 advantage. It all depends on the formations. It depends on the tactics.

9 It depends upon the fire power of the attacking force.

10 THE INTERPRETER: Can the witness slow down, please.

11 THE WITNESS: Yes, I can.

12 MR. KOUMJIAN:

13 Q. Thank you, sir. Looking now at S350, it's a combat report.

14 A. Is that this one, sir?

15 Q. Yes, sir. Of the 1st Krajina Corps, and it's regarding the

16 destruction of the Green Beret in the wider area of Kozarac. You see

17 under point number 4 that it indicates that in the wider area of Kozarac

18 village, then lists the villages, Kozarusa, Trnopolje, Donja Jakupovici,

19 Gornji Jakupovici, Benkovac, Ratkovic, that these areas had been entirely

20 freed of Green Berets, 80 to 100 Green Berets were killed, and about 1500

21 captured. It indicates our own casualties are five killed and 20 wounded,

22 and minor damage already repaired on the track assembly of two M84 tanks.

23 Sir, as a military intelligence officer, would this results --

24 knowing what you know about the attack on Kozarac, would these results, 80

25 to a hundred Green Berets killed and only 5 of the attacking force killed,

1 suggest that perhaps these Green Berets were killed after being taken into

2 custody, after surrendering?

3 MR. OSTOJIC: Object to the form of the question, Your Honour.

4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Some reason, please.

5 MR. OSTOJIC: Well, if counsel could state which witness claimed

6 this hypothetical that is not only purely speculative but it just an

7 attempt on his part to distort the evidence, their witnesses not one of

8 them have suggested dispute the fact that many of their witnesses were

9 actually in and around the Kozarac area at the time.

10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please, no evaluation of evidence at this point

11 in time. May the witness be asked on the basis of the document we have

12 before us.

13 MR. OSTOJIC: My objection on the basis would be speculation, Your

14 Honour.

15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: When we have a document before us, I don't think

16 it's speculation. When the question is just based on this, and once

17 again, please, may I ask both parties to refrain from starting an attempt

18 to anticipate the closing arguments.

19 THE WITNESS: Let me take a shot at your question. As a military

20 intelligence officer, would this, knowing what you know about the attack

21 in Kozarac, would these results 80 a hundred Green Berets killed and only

22 5 in the attacking force killed suggest that perhaps the Green Berets were

23 killed after being taken into custody after surrendering. Well, not

24 necessarily so. Because in earlier questioning, you pointed out to me the

25 heavy concentrations of artillery fire in the area, and artillery shells

1 were falling everywhere and coming from every direction, is what your

2 question said or what the witness stated. And so it seems to me that some

3 of that firing could have been very much targeted against the Green

4 Berets, and certainly 80 Green Berets could have been killed in that kind

5 of an attack.

6 I guess the point you're trying to make, but there were only 5

7 killed on the other side. Well, we also talked about the imbalance of

8 fire power and capability between the JNA and the Green Berets. So I

9 would assume that the JNA, being in some ways and in some cases an

10 armoured force, offered more protection to its soldiers because it was

11 armoured, and therefore its casualties would normally be less.

12 MR. KOUMJIAN:

13 Q. Sir, somewhat in response to Mr. Ostojic's request, there was a

14 Witness B that testified in this case. If as a military intelligence

15 officer, if you discovered the bodies, and I cannot quote the number, I'm

16 looking for the transcript, but of a group - I'm sure it was more than

17 six - individuals in police uniform lying in a parking lot, shot dead,

18 would that suggest to you an execution?

19 A. Well, it certainly could, especially if they were all lined up in

20 a row as if they had been collected or they had been organised so that

21 they could be assassinated, and they fell right where they were

22 assassinated. That would certainly suggest an execution to me.

23 Q. Thank you.

24 Sir, you mentioned, and you correctly stated, that under the laws

25 of war, those people involved in hostilities, defenders, can be taken to

1 camps, can be detained during the conflict. Sir, there's testimony in

2 this case that the defender of the -- the commander of the Territorial

3 Defence in Kozarac, Becir Medunjanin, was taken to Omarska, the commander

4 of the attack on Prijedor the 30th of May, Slavko Ecimovic was taken to

5 the camps, and both of these individuals were tortured and killed. Is

6 that within the laws of war?

7 A. Absolutely not. Prisoners are to be treated fairly. And they are

8 not to be tortured. They are not to be killed. They are not to be

9 raped. They are not to be beaten. And so that is absolutely contrary to

10 the rules of the Geneva Convention. And those people who are responsible

11 for that should have been investigated and action taken against them.

12 Q. Before we leave the Document S350 --

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Sorry, just one question. Who would have to

14 take action and to report to which body? What would be the role of the

15 military court?

16 THE WITNESS: Well, in this case, it would certainly be within the

17 confines of the military. At least from everything I've read, it looks as

18 if the military established, operated, maintained, and administered these

19 camps. They did have some assistance apparently from the police. But it

20 would in my view fall on the military that such investigations and

21 follow-up would be their responsibility. One can say, well, they were the

22 ones that perpetrated those acts in the camp. They did. But somehow,

23 they must have been uncovered. They are being presented here in this

24 case, and follow-up action on those people should have been the result.

25 MR. KOUMJIAN:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 Q. Sir, would you agree that whoever it was that established the

2 camps and made decisions to detain people would have a responsibility for

3 ensuring the safety of those individuals?

4 A. No, I don't think so. Administer, maintain, and operate are the

5 operative words here, I think. Establishing the camp is simply selecting

6 the piece of ground where the camp could be set up.

7 Q. Sir, I'm talking about a decision, when I say establish a camp, to

8 detain individuals, to put them into a place, to keep them there against

9 their will. If you decide to put someone into that custody, aren't you

10 responsible that they are treated humanely and that they are not killed?

11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May I ask to pause between question and answer.

12 THE WITNESS: Okay.

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Continue, General.

14 THE WINTESS: Yes, I'm just rereading the question again. I still

15 take the position that it is the role of the military to ensure that these

16 people are treated humanely. The establishment of the camp, that's a

17 minor decision, and it involves facilities. It involves somebody saying

18 you can use those 12 buildings over there that have a fence around them

19 and open up a camp or facility. But it's the people that are there, it's

20 the people that are on site, it's the people that are in the daily

21 business of policing, securing, administering the detainees in that camp

22 that are responsible.

23 MR. KOUMJIAN:

24 Q. Okay, I'm sorry. Before leaving S350, the document in front of

25 you, if you could look at point number 2, do you see that it indicates the

1 forces that were at the disposal of the attacking force and that

2 participated in the conflict? It says: "Components of the 343rd

3 Motorised Brigade, an enlarged motorised battalion, supported by two

4 105-millimetre Howitzer batteries and one M84 tank squadron." Would you

5 say that this force was overwhelming stronger than the information you

6 have about the defending force?

7 A. Yes, I would say that it was overwhelmingly stronger than the

8 defending force. I would also say that every prudent commander goes with

9 all that he's got. He takes everything he's got.

10 Q. That's understood. Sir -- just to correct the record, I said

11 Witness B as in boy, it should be "P" as in Paul, page 337, where the

12 witness to testified to seeing at least ten bodies.

13 Sir, if these are prisoner of war camps, you do not detain

14 civilians. Correct? Civilians, those people not taking part in the

15 hostilities cannot be detained as prisoners of war?

16 A. As a general rule, you certainly don't detain civilians. But in

17 some circumstances, you're forced to do that. Because you've got to sort

18 out who is a civilian and who is the person who is causing the problem,

19 doing things at night that you don't want them to do. So you may have to

20 detain a whole large group of people, you may have to move them to a camp

21 and interrogate them to sort out who they are and what they are doing and

22 why they were in that region or that location. It could turn out very

23 well that they were simply people who lived there and they were caught up

24 in the combat situation. But you have to figure that out, and the only

25 way to figure it out may be to detain them, to ask them questions, and to

1 see how they fit into the greater picture.

2 Q. Sir, would you detain -- are you justified in detaining those who

3 are participating in Gandhian-like resistance, nonviolent resistance,

4 political resistance?

5 A. Probably as a general course, general course of events,

6 Gandhian-like resistance, absolutely peaceful resistance, I would say

7 probably not.

8 Q. Going to your stove pipe analysis for a moment -- excuse me, let

9 me stay on the subject of prisoners of war.

10 MR. KOUMJIAN: If the witness could be shown S238.

11 Q. If you establish a prisoner of war camp, you are required to allow

12 the International Red Cross to visit. Correct?

13 A. Yes, sir.

14 Q. Every military makes sure that their commanders understand that.

15 Correct?

16 A. It's normally very much part of a training programme.

17 Q. S238A is a newspaper article from the local newspaper Kozarski

18 Vjesnik dated the 27th of July, 1992, regarding a visit from leaders of

19 the regional Crisis Staff and other individuals from Banja Luka, the chief

20 of the regional police, to Prijedor. And I'm interested in the quote on

21 the last page. Apparently at this meeting, it indicates -- first before

22 I -- that there was present Vladimir Arsic, Milomir Stakic, and Simo

23 Drljaca, among others. And Predrag Radic, who was the president of the

24 Municipal Assembly of Banja Luka, spoke about the significance of events

25 in Prijedor and his views concerning Banja Luka. And I'm interested in

1 the very last four lines where he says: "The International Red Cross has

2 been trying for days to reach Prijedor. But as we have stated, we will

3 make it possible for them only after they have personally acknowledged the

4 situation of Serbian refugees and captives in Odzak, Rascani, Travnik,

5 Zenica, Sarajevo, Konjic, and many other places."

6 Sir, is it proper to prohibit the International Red Cross to visit

7 POW camps because you want them to first go see the camps on the other

8 side?

9 A. In principle, no, it's not -- it is not good form to prevent the

10 Red Cross from visiting camps.

11 Q. Sir, one of the -- I may have to come back later to this.

12 A. All right.

13 Q. I'm sorry, I have it. I have a new document, if it could be

14 distributed. It has the ERN number 00848550. It's one of the documents

15 cited in Mr. Brown's report and previously disclosed but not exhibited,

16 not given an exhibit number.

17 Sir, this document is dated the 3rd of --

18 MR. KOUMJIAN: I don't know if Your Honour wants to give it a

19 number now.

20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Immediately, this would be S426. Thank you,

21 Madam Registrar.

22 MR. KOUMJIAN:

23 Q. Sir, this is an order from General Talic, the commander of the 1st

24 Krajina Corps, which included the region of Prijedor dated the 3rd of

25 August, 1992, in which he indicates that he's received verbally an order

1 from the main staff commander that a visit by an international committee

2 and a team of reporters to the detention camps in Manjaca, Trnopolje,

3 Omarska, and Prijedor had been approved to take place within the next two

4 days.

5 Would this indicate to you that the command of these camps had

6 knowledge that the foreign journalists were going to visit on the 5th of

7 August, 1992?

8 A. Well, how did you arrive at the date the 5th of August? Did I

9 miss something here?

10 Q. Well, there's testimony that that is the date of the visit, and

11 this order dated the 3rd of August indicates "within two days."

12 A. Yes, it appears as if the appropriate personnel have been notified

13 and it's -- it appears to be within the military chain.

14 Q. The first sentence of the second paragraph says: "In this regard,

15 all measures are to be taken to make conditions in these camps

16 satisfactory."

17 Sir, the conditions in the camps by law should have been

18 satisfactory before people were detained there. Correct?

19 A. Absolutely correct.

20 Q. By the way, sir, do you know the difference between the Manjaca

21 camp and the Omarska and Keraterm camps and how they were structured and

22 who was running the camp?

23 A. The details of who was running the camps by name, no, I don't

24 know. But I believe in the documentation that I looked at, it appeared to

25 be military people running the camps, and they seemed to be the ones that

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 were in charge. And there were some instances where they were assisted by

2 elements of the police.

3 Q. Thank you, sir.

4 Moving back to your stove pipe analysis and the chain of command,

5 fundamental to that, as I understand it, is that an officer follows the

6 orders of his superior in the military and is not influenced by

7 politicians or political factors in the area. Correct?

8 A. Correct.

9 Q. In your report, you footnoted, footnote 81, an interview with

10 Radmilo Zeljaja, and I'd like you to please take a look at that document.

11 And specifically, if you could look to the page that's stamped at the

12 bottom 00332748.

13 MR. KOUMJIAN: Could that be put on the ELMO. I don't know if

14 Your Honours all have a copy of that. Perhaps it could be put on the

15 ELMO.

16 Q. Sir, at the top of that page that begins -- that's stamped 2748.

17 A. What page?

18 Q. It's stamped at the bottom 2748 as an ERN number. I think this

19 document also has an S number. 274. Excuse me, S274. So perhaps we

20 should use that. I'm sorry.

21 Sir, in this interview, Colonel Radmilo Zeljaja says -- states:

22 "It is true. The brigade command was, because of that, immediately linked

23 to the leadership of the SDS giving them important support, as they do for

24 all decent Serbs, to organise themselves for self-defence in case of an

25 attack by the Muslims forces. As to the security and intelligence at that

1 time, we cover this entire region in order to gather information about SDA

2 involvement, its activities, plans, et cetera. Precisely at those

3 turbulent political times of the dissolution of Yugoslavia and the JNA,

4 some of its units joined the army of the then Serbian Bosnia-Herzegovina.

5 Surely, we considered all those options then in the command and army

6 headquarters. And I can say here for the first time that we were forced

7 to keep quiet and not to carry out certain orders by our headquarters,

8 which is not typical for soldiers. One of these orders was to move

9 technical equipment, weapons, and the brigade from this region to Serbia."

10 So, sir, would this indicate to you that the chain of command had

11 been breached in the 43rd Motorised Brigade, and that Radmilo Zeljaja and

12 the headquarters of that brigade were influenced by political issues and

13 political leadership, and not simply following commands?

14 A. Well, it's not clear to me. It says that because of that

15 immediate link to the leadership of the Serb Democratic Party, giving them

16 important support as they do for all decent Serbs, I don't know if we're

17 talking about actual support, if we're talking about we're going to be

18 your cheerleaders, let's stay in touch. I'm not sure what it means. And

19 then I guess your other point is, farther down, about not accepting

20 orders. "We were forced to keep quiet and not to carry out certain orders

21 of our headquarters," which is not typical for soldiers. "One of these

22 orders was to move technical equipment, weapons, and the brigade from the

23 region of Serbia."

24 Q. Why don't you please read the next sentence also.

25 A. "I repeat that I am saying this for the first time. It may cost

1 me." Who knows. "We burnt that telegram as we were ready, especially

2 Colonel Arsic, at that time, he was the commander of the brigade and I was

3 the chief of staff. We knew that from the day of mobilisation onwards, we

4 would lead the people. We would look into battle until the very end. The

5 fight for the goals that we are fighting for now, we have never given up

6 these goals, and this is the creation of a Serbian state in these areas."

7 It sounds as if in these troubled times that there were certain members of

8 the Serbian democratic party that influenced the military.

9 Q. Sir, would you say that the smoke was coming out of the side of

10 the stove pipe at that?

11 A. The smoke in that instance may have been coming out of the side of

12 the stove pipe.

13 Q. If you turn to the next page -- sorry I hope you have it out. In

14 the first full paragraph, I'm going to go to the middle, and I'll read it

15 out. You can follow with me. "We did not manage to establish any normal

16 relations at all with the SDA, the party, that was then in power. Of

17 course, we then offered maximal help and support to the SDS, both in

18 organising preparations and advising them, in order to overcome certain

19 problems and to take power. The role of the militia is undeniable here,

20 the role of Mr. Drljaca and Mr. Jankovic, who carried out the orders

21 directly. I must emphasise here in this region, and more or less everyone

22 knows that, the very close cooperation between the army and police. Such

23 cooperation was also established with the leaders of the party, and the

24 people in power, the Crisis Staff, and all decent Serbs who were and still

25 are of importance for this town."

1 Sir, does it sound to you that the military leadership of the 43rd

2 Brigade was very closely linked to the police and the Crisis Staff?

3 A. Well, from my cooperative standpoint, yes, they were very linked.

4 So "cooperation" is the key word here. And I don't find that unusual.

5 If, for example, the military needs housing for its soldiers coming into

6 town, they might very well visit with the city officials and arrange to

7 use a school gymnasium to house the troops overnight. That's

8 cooperation. So the word "cooperation" is used, and I can see and

9 understand that that could be a very normal process.

10 Q. Sir, can the civilian leadership influence personnel decisions,

11 promotions, or the hiring or firing of military officers, the positions

12 that they hold?

13 A. In my experience, they don't. I would think it would be very

14 disruptive to the military officer who is in the military. He would ask

15 himself, well, who do I work for?

16 Q. Thank you.

17 MR. KOUMJIAN: Could the witness be shown S392, D51, S26, and

18 S27. I'll start with S392, please. If that could be put on the ELMO,

19 because I don't think everyone has a copy, the first page.

20 Q. S392 is a -- it's marked "Military Secret, Confidential," dated

21 the 9th of June, 1992. And entitled "Report on the Autonomous Region of

22 Krajina Crisis Staff Decision." And sir, I think it's understood in this

23 Court that that's a civilian body. It indicates: "One of the issues that

24 was discussed at yesterday's session of the autonomous region Bosnian

25 Krajina Crisis Staff was the general personnel policy in the army of the

1 1st Krajina Corps."

2 Going down a sentence: "An ultimatum was issued" -- let me read

3 it. "It was stated that within the units of the 1st Krajina Corps, the

4 14th logistics base, and the units of the air force and anti-aircraft

5 defence in Banja Luka garrison, there were 67 officers of Muslim or

6 Croatian nationality. An ultimatum was issued requesting removal of these

7 persons from vital and command posts by 15 June, 1992, or they will take

8 control over the armed forces. We consider their demand to be justified,

9 but it is impossible to find adequate professional replacements among the

10 reserve staff and active officers of Bosnian origin -- originating from

11 Bosnia-Herzegovina, are not arriving from the Federal Republic of

12 Yugoslavia."

13 Then, if we look, sir, at D51, a subsequent report dated 13th

14 June, it indicates halfway down in paragraph 6, on the second page,

15 paragraph 6, "the purging of officers on an ethnic basis remains a topic

16 of discussion because of the danger that it may very soon result in

17 deficiencies in the units, but it is proceeding in the spirit of the order

18 received."

19 And, sir, if you could look at a couple documents related

20 specifically to Prijedor, S26, indicates -- dated the 5th of May: "Eso

21 Bucan is hereby dismissed from the post of commander for logistics

22 security effective as of 5th of May, 1992. This decision shall take

23 effect on the day of its adoption, and Major Radmilo Zeljaja shall see to

24 its implementation."

25 S27 is the next document. This indicates that Vahid Ceric is

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 hereby dismissed from the post of assistant commander for the organisation

2 of mobilisation and personnel affairs as of the 5th of May. And again,

3 Zeljaja is responsible for implementation.

4 Sir, does it appear to you that in the spring, summer of 1992,

5 personnel decisions of the newly-formed Serbian army were influenced by

6 political leadership in Prijedor and the ARK region.

7 MR. OSTOJIC: Object to the form of the question, Your Honour.

8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think the witness may be asked to comment on

9 these documents and what it says. And there needs no other comment on

10 this. The documents have a language, and it's for the witness to explain

11 what he can read from these documents.

12 MR. OSTOJIC: The question is put in the form that's

13 inappropriate, because he first cites Exhibit 392, and then follows from

14 his question a presumption that 392 precedes the other two documents. So

15 it's inappropriate in all its sense to the form. You can't have something

16 that happened subsequent, and then ask him, was this based on this

17 directive which happened one month later? It's simply not only illogical,

18 but it's inappropriate.

19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think the General has all the powers to read

20 and to follow the rules of logic. So please, answer the question.

21 THE WITNESS: Who did the document go to, first of all? Who is it

22 addressed to? It's a decision statement. It's that "I've decided" signed

23 by the president of. Is it an action item? Did it go here? Were these

24 actions taken? Were the results apparent? Did these people lose their

25 jobs? I don't know. All I see is a decision paper.

1 MR. KOUMJIAN:

2 Q. Could you see that it's copied to the individual involved and

3 Major Radmilo Zeljaja.

4 A. I do see that.

5 Q. I'm talking about S27 and S26.

6 A. I do see that. Did they lose their jobs as a result of that

7 action?

8 Q. Sir, you're saying that did they lose their jobs as a result of

9 that action, you would agree that the political leadership had very

10 significant influence in that it could determine personnel, promotions,

11 and positions within the brigade?

12 A. I guess my problem is that I don't understand how this --

13 MR. OSTOJIC: Excuse me. Again, I object to the form of the

14 question. I could explain it, Your Honour, because I think it's not a

15 deliberate attempt, but these members, if Mr. Koumjian can establish were

16 members of the brigade or of the TO at that time, so it's significant

17 whether they were part of the civilian at that time on May 5th or were

18 they part of the military at that time, which ultimately after May 12th as

19 the Court very well knows was incorporated and was disbanded after May

20 20th. I mean, it's relatively clear. These are significant events.

21 MR. KOUMJIAN: That's not objecting to the form. That's an

22 argument which counsel can make.

23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Absolutely. And I really, for the third time, I

24 ask now explicitly the Defence, please refrain from anticipating closing

25 arguments. There is nothing -- even following your words, your own words,

1 there is nothing what one could regard as an objection to the form of the

2 question. So therefore, please answer the question, General.

3 THE WITNESS: Well, it appears as if they did have influence over

4 the personnel situation as it existed in the army. I wonder if, however,

5 in the final analysis, it's a legal order? I mean, what happened here to

6 the military chain of command? How can all of a sudden a civilian fire

7 you from the army if he is not even in the army to begin with? So I

8 wonder about this decision and its validity and its legality.

9 So it's a very confusing issue for me, and based on my experience,

10 I've never seen anything like it before. And I can't imagine how we got

11 to this kind of decision, and I can't imagine if it was carried out. It

12 also seems to be somehow associated with earlier events where certain

13 members of the JNA were defecting from that force early on and helping to

14 create a different army. And it seems to me maybe that these people, if

15 they were identified as being part of that group, maybe somehow, there's

16 an association there.

17 So as a military expert, I don't understand how this could

18 possibly work when it's not formalised within the institution called the

19 army, and yet someone here has made a decision and said "you are no longer

20 part of the military." So it's somewhat confusing.

21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think this is an appropriate point in time --

22 THE WITNESS: It's about as far as I can go. I just don't

23 understand it.

24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We will come back to this, but before we have

25 the break, we have a logistic question. I think based on the long

1 cross-examination, and it will continue, it is only fair to give

2 additional time for the re-examination to the Defence. Therefore, my

3 question, first of all, to you, General, is: What is your actual flight

4 schedule?

5 THE WITNESS: My flight schedule is to depart tomorrow morning at

6 11.30 from Amsterdam to Los Angeles.

7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So you would be available this afternoon?

8 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, absolutely.

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Any objections by the parties to continue this

10 morning until 12.30. That would allow us to continue in Courtroom I as of

11 2.00 until 4.30.

12 MR. KOUMJIAN: No objection.

13 MR. LUKIC: No objection, Your Honour.

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Then we will proceed this way.

15 The trial stays adjourned until 11.00.

16 --- Recess taken at 10.33 a.m.

17 --- On resuming at 11.04 a.m.

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please be seated.

19 I just learned that we can only start at 2.15, and then continue

20 until 4.45 in Courtroom I this afternoon.

21 Mr. Koumjian, please proceed.

22 MR. KOUMJIAN:

23 Q. Sir, General, would you agree that anyone employed is influenced

24 by those people who are paying their salaries?

25 A. Yes.

1 MR. KOUMJIAN: Could the witness be shown S77.

2 Q. Sir, S77 -- sorry.

3 Perhaps the first page could be put on the ELMO so that all could

4 see it. I see it's there.

5 Sir, this indicates -- this conclusion of the Crisis Staff signed

6 Milomir Stakic dated the 16th of June, 1992, indicates that Simo Drljaca,

7 who was the chief of police as you know; Ranko Travar, who was the

8 secretary for the economy; and Radovan Rajlic are charged with making a

9 comprehensive review of the possibilities and set criteria and recommend

10 to the Crisis Staff the manner of payment to and catering for the army and

11 the police in Prijedor.

12 Would this indicate to you that there was funding by the municipal

13 authorities for at least part of the army and police budgets?

14 A. I don't know what part of the police budget and the army budget

15 we're speaking of. There's operations and maintenance. There's all sorts

16 of budgets probably divided into separate accounts. So I really don't

17 know if we're talking about personnel payments or what it is we're

18 discussing here.

19 Q. Okay. Thank you.

20 MR. KOUMJIAN: Perhaps, then, the witness could be shown S250.

21 Q. Sir, S250, as it is coming, I'll explain to you, is a document of

22 the decisions passed by the Municipal Assembly of Prijedor confirming

23 decisions of the Crisis Staff during the time when the Crisis Staff was

24 meeting in place of the Municipal Assembly. I'm just going to go

25 through - this is a lengthy document - a few of the decisions, and ask you

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 at the end about whether you find them significant. And particularly,

2 sir, I'm interested in whether this affects your view of the influence of

3 the civilian authorities over the army, over the police, and over the

4 detention camps.

5 On the 29th of June -- excuse me, 29th of May, 1992, the

6 enactments passed on that date, decisions 3 and 4, regard dismissing the

7 Serbian Territorial Defence commander, and 4, determining that the

8 Territorial Defence is no longer required.

9 On the 31st of May, the first conclusion, prohibiting the return

10 of POWs to Trnopolje and Prijedor.

11 Going, if you could flip the page two pages over, to the 5th of

12 June, page 3, the first order forbidding unauthorised shooting. The fifth

13 order on procedures by the military police and the public security

14 station. The ninth order, on the forming of a logistics unit.

15 Going to the 6th of June, the fifth order, making Crisis Staff

16 members responsible for providing efficient security for the hospital.

17 The seventh conclusion, on the continuation of the blockade measures.

18 Flipping the page, page 4, going to the very last, the bottom of

19 the page, enactment on the 9th of June, conclusion number 13, making the

20 regional command responsible for transferring equipment from a road

21 company, Kozaraputevi to the collection centre, Orlovaca.

22 Flipping the page, the fifth page, the 10th of June. The first

23 conclusion, requesting the municipal secretariat to report on the

24 logistics base; the second conclusion, assigning the duty of providing

25 security for the Trnopolje camp to the regional command.

1 Going to the 11th of June -- I'll skip that, excuse me. It

2 doesn't relate to the police and army specifically.

3 Flipping the page, page 6, these are first decisions from the 12th

4 of June at the top of the page. Number 5, conclusion on the

5 liberalisation of the procedure for issuing movement permits to citizens;

6 conclusion number 8, concerning the continuing operation of the logistics

7 base in Cirkin Polje and the provision of food for refugees and prisoners.

8 Going to the 16th of June, first conclusion, assigning members of

9 the Crisis Staff the duty of preparing a system of supplying food to the

10 army and police troops.

11 Flipping the page, page 7, the first order concerning the

12 formation of a single intervention platoon. And sir, I don't know -- I

13 believe we could show you the full order, but it concerns a joint

14 intervention platoon made up of members of the military and the police.

15 The fourth order concerning the obligation to report on procurement of

16 military equipment. The 11th -- this is from the 17th of June, the 11th

17 conclusion concerning pay for the reserve police force for the month of

18 April 1992, specifically answering your question about whether that

19 concerned pay.

20 Going to the 23rd of June, the 6th conclusion on page 8, directed

21 to the regional command to ensure uniformity of Serbian army insignia.

22 The 22nd of June, the third conclusion, responsibility for collecting

23 refugees from Cela, Donja Puharska, and Trnopolje.

24 Flipping the page, page 9, enactments passed on the 2nd of July,

25 the first conclusion concerns coordinating the wartime disposition of the

1 military and police. The second conclusion, again going to pay,

2 concerning the obligation to pay military and police members.

3 And, sir, please pay particular attention to the fourth

4 conclusion: "Prohibiting the individual release of persons from

5 Trnopolje, Omarska, and Keraterm."

6 And then flipping the page, page 10, to the enactments passed on

7 the 24th of July, finally, the seventh decision, rationalising the public

8 security service?

9 A. Which one was that?

10 Q. 24th of July, page 10, decision number 7, rationalising the public

11 security service, that being the local police.

12 Sir, there is a lot of evidence from these conclusions, wouldn't

13 you agree, that the Crisis Staff issued directions to the military and to

14 the police and provided them with necessary support in concerning

15 logistics and pay, for example?

16 A. My comments are that it would appear as if there are several

17 connections here. And yet, they are not fully explained in the rationale

18 for why they were put in place, not fully explained. For example

19 conclusion on page 9 that deals with prohibiting the release, the

20 individual release of persons, from the three camps. What motivated

21 that? What caused that? Was that to protect those persons if they were

22 sent back out in the public domain? Would they be in more danger than if

23 they were kept in the camp.

24 So while I see these enactments, and while I understand the words

25 that appear on the paper, I don't understand the rationale and the reason

1 for many of them. While I can see the point that you've made about if

2 your employee [sic] pays you, does he influence you, and you have

3 presented me with documentation here that suggests that the civilian

4 authorities at that level paid the military way, well, maybe that's the

5 system that was in place. In maybe other armies that I'm familiar with,

6 the funding for the military came from the top, from the federal

7 government and down. Maybe in this system, the funding came from the top

8 but it went through political channels down to the lowest level where the

9 money was distributed.

10 So I'm not so sure that it's important where the money was

11 distributed from. The fact is that the civilian authorities somewhere

12 along the line paid the bill and paid the wages of the people that were

13 employed by the military. So I see a lot of declarations and enactments.

14 Some of them I think one can take on face value and understand their

15 reason and purpose, and some I don't understand and therefore can't really

16 comment on -- from a professional standpoint.

17 Q. Thank you. So your suggestion is that the conclusion prohibiting

18 the individual release of persons from, for example, the Omarska camp,

19 might have been taken to ensure the safety of those people, to keep them

20 in the Omarska camp?

21 A. I was only trying to point out that there must be a rationale for

22 many of these decisions taken, and maybe that's rationale for that one and

23 I selected that one because it seems to be a significant one and one that

24 seems to be quite important. It stands out in stark relief. So if it

25 stands out in stark relief, one must ask: Why did they do it that way?

1 What happened? What caused this to take place? Why were these civilian

2 authorities involved in this? So my point is I'm not sure that I know.

3 Q. Sir, my suggestion to you is that in fact this conclusion shows

4 that contrary to your opinion that the military was operating and

5 maintaining the camps, that people were detained there on the decision of

6 the Crisis Staff, they could not be released without the Crisis Staff

7 approval, acting through Simo Drljaca, the chief of police and a member of

8 the Crisis Staff. And let me put that to you. And before you answer, I

9 would like to play a video. And it has not yet been marked. And I'd like

10 the transcript -- it's very short, it's eight minutes long, Your Honour,

11 to be distributed.

12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Madam Registrar -- sorry.

13 THE REGISTRAR: This would be marked S427, the video, and 427-1,

14 the transcript.

15 MR. KOUMJIAN: The wrong video is on. There's another video that

16 the Prosecution gave.

17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The video you intend to play is the except from

18 video 000-2433. Correct? Interview.

19 MR. KOUMJIAN: With Mr. Prcac.

20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And Tariq Malik.

21 MR. KOUMJIAN: Yes, thank you.

22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: This would be then be provisionally marked S427.

23 MR. KOUMJIAN: If we can hold it for a second, stop it for a

24 moment.

25 Q. Sir, just while it's being distributed, let me just explain, this

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 is an interview conducted by an investigator of the OTP, and this is

2 Mr. Prcac, who was a member -- retired member of the Prijedor police who I

3 believe has stated he was called back to duty to work at the Omarska camp.

4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The transcript would be S427-1A.

5 MR. KOUMJIAN: If everyone has the transcript, we can proceed to

6 play - I want to make sure the booths have the transcript, yes - to play

7 the video.

8 Excuse me, the booths are not ready yet, if we can wait a moment.

9 I'm sorry.

10 This is a nonsimultaneous translation, so that's why it takes

11 eight minutes. Mr. Prcac will speak in Serbian, and then there's a

12 translation into English. Just wait for a signal that the booths are

13 ready. Okay. Okay, we can play the video, please.

14 [Videotape played]

15 [Please refer to Exhibit S427-1A for

16 videotranscript]

17 MR. KOUMJIAN:

18 Q. Sir, just for your information, the people -- witnesses have said

19 that approximately 120 names were called out from the Keraterm camp, but

20 on buses that were then sent to Omarska. A group of bodies of over 120

21 bodies was exhumed in the municipality next to Prijedor, Sanski Most, and

22 through DNA analysis, those that were identified were identified as being

23 from among this group of 120 names called out at Keraterm and then sent to

24 Omarska.

25 Given what you've just heard, that Simo Drljaca signed this order,

1 that 125 names from the Omarska camp were called out and then taken on

2 these buses, isn't it abundantly clear that the authority to detain, to

3 decide who would be in the camp and who would be taken out of the camp,

4 that Simo Drljaca, a member of the Crisis Staff had that authority?

5 MR. OSTOJIC: Your Honour, if I may have an objection, although I

6 cautiously move on that in light of the Court's prior instruction.

7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please, continue.

8 MR. OSTOJIC: Well, if my learned friend can point out where in

9 the transcript it says that which he alleges and purports, if he can just

10 show me on the two pages that we have where it mentions the Crisis Staff.

11 I also have other objections in connection with this document, although

12 the Court provisionally admitted it already. But we could address that

13 outside the presence of the witness or perhaps at another time.

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think coming first to the last point, I think

15 after one year of procedure, you should know it's not provisionally

16 admitted, it is provisionally marked. This is an absolute different.

17 MR. OSTOJIC: I stand corrected.

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Second, related to the Crisis Staff, I think it

19 wouldn't be too difficult to rephrase this question.

20 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, I believe I stated Simo Drljaca, a

21 member of the Crisis Staff. I don't think that that's in dispute.

22 MR. OSTOJIC: To be very candid with the Court, it distorts

23 obviously what this witness said, and he said that he was acting in a

24 position that -- again, I don't want to argue.

25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please don't argue. We are under the impression

1 of that what we have heard, what we have seen in the transcript, and the

2 witness is only asked to comment on this. And I think it's true, save you

3 came to know the conclusions in the meantime, that Mr. Drljaca was, in

4 fact, a member of the Crisis Staff.

5 MR. OSTOJIC: I understand that, Your Honour, but --

6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So please, let's hear the answer of the expert.

7 THE WITNESS: Mr. Drljaca is also a member of the police force, is

8 he not?

9 MR. KOUMJIAN:

10 Q. Yes, Mr. Drljaca was the chief of the police for the Prijedor

11 Municipality.

12 A. So in which role was he acting in this case when he went out with

13 his bus and his vehicles and his guards and took these 120 people? Was he

14 a police officer or was he a member of the Crisis Staff? It's not clear

15 to me. I don't know which role he was playing, and so I really can't

16 comment on the event.

17 Q. Sir, my question was directed to your testimony regarding the

18 military controlling and maintaining the camp. Is it clear that Simo

19 Drljaca had the authority to take 125 people out of the camp, and does

20 that affect your opinion that it was the military that ran the Omarska

21 camp?

22 A. I think I said it was the military and the police in conjunction

23 with each other. I think I said that I felt like the military was

24 probably the ones that administered, operated, and maintained the camp,

25 but I think I also said that the police were also involved. So if the

1 chief of police of the area would show up at the camp, it might be very

2 logical that those in charge of the camp at that moment, and I see it was

3 a civilian gentleman who was a former police officer, retired, might very

4 well turn over those 120 people. Maybe he simply knew no better.

5 The fact of the matter is that here was a police chief, he was an

6 authority. The police helped protect the camp, and he took away 120

7 people. I don't know if he was acting as a police officer or as a member

8 of the Crisis Staff.

9 Q. Sir, was the chief of police, Simo Drljaca, a professional

10 policeman?

11 A. I see the word "professional" used in several documents. I

12 presume that the word professional in those cases means that they are

13 professionally trained and prepared to serve as police officers or

14 military officers or whatever the profession might be. I'm not sure if

15 the police chief was trained at some formalised institutions and worked

16 his way through the ranks, patrolman and on up through the ranks of the

17 police to become the chief or not. He may have been a political

18 appointee. I'm not familiar with his background.

19 Q. You made the point I believe in your testimony that -- or perhaps

20 it was in your report, that an officer, and in this case you were

21 referring to the military, would be interested in pleasing his superiors,

22 those who could appoint or promote him. Do you know how Simo Drljaca came

23 to be the chief of police in Prijedor?

24 A. No, I don't.

25 Q. So you mentioned that he could have been a political appointee.

1 Would it matter, effect your view, as to how responsive he would to the

2 political leadership if he was a political appointee appointed or elected

3 at the municipal level as opposed to owing his position only to an

4 appointment by the republic-level Minister of the Interior?

5 A. There could be -- there could be some differences here depending

6 on the level from which he was appointed. But I would also assume that

7 there must be some sort of a commissioning process or some sort of

8 paperwork that the man would sign and agree to in which he pledges to do

9 his very best and to be nonbiased and to not come under the influence of

10 anyone, but to see his duty as he saw it. I'm only guessing there. But I

11 would think that such documentation might exist and would put him on

12 notice that he was to act as an individual and for the best good of the

13 people that he was to please.

14 Q. Sir, if I told you that Simo Drljaca had the dubious background of

15 being a lawyer by profession and had worked in the schools prior to being

16 nominated for this position by a Serbian Municipal Assembly dominated by

17 the SDS, would that affect your view of whether he would be responsive to

18 the political leadership of the SDS in Prijedor?

19 A. Well, I don't think the part about him being an attorney would

20 complicate the matter at all. That would mean to suggest to me that he

21 was probably a very bright individual, number one. Not completely

22 understanding the culture as it existed at that time and in that place,

23 I'm not sure that I can comment on whether or not he would be responsive

24 or who he would be responsive to. I simply can't give an answer. I don't

25 know.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 Q. Part of your stove pipe analysis is that a subordinate reports to

2 a superior regarding -- takes orders from, and then reports the results of

3 those orders to the superior to which he is responsive. Correct?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And I believe you said that the -- under the stove pipe, that

6 person would not then be reporting to civilian leadership or responding to

7 orders by the civilian authorities. Correct?

8 A. In my experience, that's true.

9 MR. KOUMJIAN: Could the witness be shown S114.

10 Q. Sir, giving you a little time to read this, this document is dated

11 the 1st of July, 1992. The addressee, Crisis Staff of the Municipal

12 Assembly of Prijedor. And that it indicates "In reference to your

13 documents of the above numbers and dates, we hereby inform you that," and

14 lists a series of conclusions, orders, and documents and decisions, and

15 whether or not they are being complied with. Just to highlight a few, the

16 first conclusion by which the release of prisoners is prohibited is being

17 fully observed. Would that indicate to you that Mr. Drljaca was obeying

18 the orders of the Crisis Staff regarding the release of prisoners?

19 A. Yes, it indicates that that's taking place.

20 Q. Thank you.

21 MR. KOUMJIAN: If the witness could now be shown S - I believe

22 it's 4-0 - S407.

23 Q. Sir, S407 is a document from the Ministry of the Interior Banja

24 Luka, Security Services Centre, and indicates it's from the commission for

25 the inspection of the municipalities Prijedor, Bosanski Novi, and Sanski

1 Most police stations submitted a report concerning the situation as found

2 and questions relating to prisoners, collection centres, resettlement, and

3 the role of the SJB in connection with these activities.

4 I just want to highlight a few sentences from this report in the

5 interests of time. If we go to the first page, the second full paragraph

6 in the fourth line, it indicates, "In order to solve the problem that had

7 arisen, the Crisis Staff of the municipality of Prijedor decided to

8 organise reception and accommodation in the settlement of Trnopolje for

9 persons who sought protection, and that prisoners of war should be held

10 for processing in the building of the Keraterm work organisation in

11 Prijedor, or in the administrative building and workshop of the iron ore

12 mine in Omarska."

13 If we then turn the page and go to the fourth full paragraph, the

14 first sentence, and it's referring above to the Keraterm facility, the

15 fourth paragraph begins: "Pursuant to a decision of the Prijedor

16 Municipality Crisis Staff, the army brought prisoners of war to this

17 facility. The SJB was given the task of securing the facility with

18 employees of the active and reserve forces of the police. The Banja Luka

19 security services bureau and the Banja Luka corps command were informed

20 about the capture of persons and were actively involved in the solution of

21 the situation."

22 And then on the same page, the last two lines indicate: "On 27

23 May, 1992, pursuant to the decision of the Crisis Staff of the

24 Municipality of Prijedor, all the prisoners from the Keraterm facility in

25 Prijedor were transferred to the facility in Omarska."

1 Again, sir, is this report consistent with the view that Simo

2 Drljaca and, in fact, the army, were bringing prisoners to these camps

3 pursuant to a decision of the Crisis Staff of Prijedor?

4 A. It's not clear to me. I think that the Crisis Staff of Prijedor

5 established camps and said we can put them at this location, that

6 location, and this location, and then the army and the police moved people

7 to those facilities as space was available. I don't think this

8 documentation shows that the Crisis Staff actually told them who to put

9 where.

10 Q. Okay.

11 MR. KOUMJIAN: Thank you, Your Honour. Thank you, General, this

12 concludes my cross-examination.

13 THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir.

14 Questioned by the Court:

15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Very briefly, General, based on all that what

16 you have read, seen, heard, is in your opinion any -- is there a slightest

17 doubt that during the period of April through, say, September 1992, there

18 was a state of armed conflict in the municipality of Prijedor?

19 A. There certainly was, sir.

20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I appreciate the clarity of your answers and the

21 clear distinction between the setting up of a camp and running a camp. I

22 think in part, you answered the question already. Who would be in charge

23 to arrest persons that would be brought to these camps?

24 A. Sir, based on your question, I'm thinking about a combat

25 situation. I'm thinking about an event where two forces meet somewhere,

1 and someone raises their hands and drops their weapon. That is an arrest,

2 I suppose, that word could be used, or someone is being captured.

3 "Capture" is probably a better word for me. That person who is being

4 captured would be moved off the front line immediately and interrogated to

5 gather the immediate information they might have. And then all logic says

6 that persons with others who have been captured should be moved to the

7 rear to a camp where, first of all, they are taken from the battlefield

8 and they are no longer a threat to the people that captured them. And

9 number two, since they have been disarmed, they are now in a protected

10 area. They are no longer in the combat. They are no longer in the combat

11 situation. Then they are interrogated again. It's the military that

12 makes arrest; it's the military that does that capturing in the scenario

13 that I have painted for you.

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And then it would be consequent that the

15 investigation could take place both by military and police within the

16 camp. Correct?

17 A. And by "investigation," sir, do you mean the interrogation of the

18 captive? In my view, it would seem that the military would make

19 further -- or conduct further interrogations, at least initially, to

20 determine what else this individual may know about the battlefield and the

21 deployment of enemy forces. I then see that it might be possible for that

22 captive to be turned over to the police so that we could -- we could --

23 they could determine exactly who this person is. Are they really a

24 combatant or are they a noncombatant who should end up ultimately being

25 returned to their home?

1 And so I can see maybe a two-tiered interrogation, unless it's

2 very clear in the first case that the person who has been captured is a

3 soldier, then I don't see the police interrogating them at all. If it's

4 not clear, then I could see and understand why the police might want to

5 know the equivalent of their security social number, their address, their

6 place of work, and then sort out from all of that whether or not they are

7 simply a noncombatant who was caught up in the combat situation and

8 detained.

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: If the result of this interrogation would be

10 that a person allegedly has committed a crime, is under suspicion, what

11 would be the next step?

12 A. In my view, one would have to determine their status. Is that

13 person who has been captured a military person of the opposing force? Is

14 that person who has been captured simply a civilian? If that person is a

15 civilian person, then it seems to me that they would eventually be turned

16 over for investigation and the possible indictment to civilian

17 authorities. If that person was military, then possibly the military

18 would take some action to prosecute them based on the crimes that they had

19 allegedly committed.

20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: In front of which court?

21 A. I would say in the case of the military, it would be in front of a

22 military court's martial. With regard to a civilian, I would presume it

23 would be a civilian court.

24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: In case there is suspicion that the own military

25 forces or members of these military forces allegedly have committed a

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 crime, who would then be in charge of hearing these cases and preparing

2 the indictment first?

3 A. That's very clear. It would be the military force of which that

4 person is a member. So if a soldier has committed a crime and he belongs

5 to army A and he's investigated by army A, he's interrogated by army A,

6 and he's brought to court martial by army A.

7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Based on the documents and your entire research,

8 you would know who would be the military court in charge for these crimes

9 if so -- if committed in Prijedor Municipality?

10 A. My examination of the documents showed a clear representation of a

11 military justice system within the army that evolved from the JNA. A

12 court's martial system, a way of giving justice, offering justice, to a

13 soldier who has committed a crime. So it's clear in those documents that

14 such a system did exist.

15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So you would expect that in those cases you

16 mentioned previously that would be under the jurisdiction of the military

17 court, it has to be expected that the military court would act, and

18 persons would be brought then to this military court. Correct?

19 A. That's correct, sir, yes.

20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you.

21 But then coming back to the two questions, setting up a camp and

22 running a camp, the question of release was already discussed. But let's

23 turn to another point. Would it be for the military to arrest an elected

24 president of the Municipal Assembly of, say, Prijedor? Could there be any

25 consolation that justifies the military to arrest the president of the

1 Municipal Assembly?

2 A. It's a very interesting question with some very interesting

3 implications. In my view, it's a situation where the military, if it had

4 information that strongly suggested that the elected president is a

5 criminal, then that information has to be turned over to the appropriate

6 authority that has jurisdiction over that president. And I presume we're

7 back to the police. I don't see that the military could arrest the

8 civilian. It just doesn't seem to fit in my mind and in my experience.

9 But if they had information that there was something wrong with this

10 individual, then they have to turn it over to whoever has jurisdiction

11 over them with regard to criminal actions.

12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May the witness please be shown Exhibit Number

13 S162-5B-1.

14 Focus on the picture, yes. I take the liberty to read out that

15 what we have received as the English translation of this article.

16 "Subject: Arrest of Becir Medunjanin and his family. Yesterday, in one

17 of the numerous dugouts in the village of Bezici of Kozarac, members of

18 the army of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina captured Becir

19 Medunjanin, another member of the Sana Una region war staff of Alija

20 Izetbegovic's army. He was captured with his older son, Enes, and wife,

21 Sadeta, and with Suad and Fehid Trnjanin, members of the Kozarac Crisis

22 Staff.

23 "The military carried out this operation of capturing Becir

24 Medunjanin, the leader of the Muslim extremists of Kozarac, over a period

25 of 15 days. Not a single soldier was wounded during the capture of Becir

1 Medunjanin yesterday morning at about 8.00, while at the same time five

2 members of the Green Berets were eliminated. They had been the personal

3 security for the leader of the Kozarac Muslim extremists.

4 "During the arrest, a considerable amount of documentation and

5 arms were captured. Among them was a Winchester rifle, the personal

6 weapon of Becir Medunjanin, who over the past few years had been

7 proclaiming himself a great peacemaker."

8 What would be your immediate comment on this text and the picture

9 you can see?

10 A. Well, Your Honour, maybe I misunderstood your first question. I

11 thought you were asking me would the military be authorised to arrest a

12 civilian authority that is associated with that military organisation?

13 But in this case, in the case that you've shown me here, it appears as if

14 this gentleman was a leader of the extremist group --

15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: It's a totally different person.

16 A. Totally different situation. These two situations are not tied

17 together. All right, fine.

18 I would say that the military organisation that was in the area at

19 the time found that this man was the leader of an extremist group, was

20 therefore declared part of the threat and part of the enemy

21 infrastructure. He was protected by five Green Berets, and so therefore,

22 he was captured. And I don't know what his disposition was from there.

23 But he was captured, and he was apparently taken away.

24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And is there any justification to arrest at the

25 same time the entire family and produce this humiliating situation as

1 depicted here?

2 A. No, absolutely no justification for that. I'm sure the man's wife

3 is not an enemy of the existing force or the public. And no, that's

4 uncalled for, totally uncalled for.

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Do you know what was the role of Becir

6 Medunjanin before the takeover?

7 A. No, sir, I don't.

8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I don't have any further questions.

9 Judge --

10 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, counsel asked me for the basis of my

11 question about the 125 names called out. On the videotape we saw from the

12 interview of Mr. Prcac. The testimony of Witness B regarding the names

13 called out at the Keraterm camp is at page 2.243 of the trial transcript,

14 and in the report of Mr. Sebire, he indicates that 126 bodies were exhumed

15 in December 1998 at Hrastavo Glavica and discusses the identification of

16 those bodies.

17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Judge Vassylenko.

18 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: General, can you tell us what was the total

19 numerical strength of Serbian military units in Prijedor Municipality

20 before the Hambarine incident?

21 A. I don't know.

22 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: What weapons were they armed with?

23 A. Through the documentation, it appears that they were armed with

24 105-millimetre Howitzers. They were armed with a certain number of

25 tanks. I think they had a certain number of armoured personnel carriers.

1 I didn't see any reference -- and obviously they had small arms for the

2 infantrymen. I didn't see any reference to, for example, multiple rocket

3 launchers or -- I didn't see any reference to - although they may have had

4 available to them - anti-tank weapons. There's a possibility that they

5 did have that sort of equipment.

6 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: My next question: What was total numerical

7 strength of Bosnian Muslim armed units and how they were armed?

8 A. I've seen references to Muslim armed units up to 750 to 1250

9 people. It appears as if from the documentation that I saw that most of

10 those people were armed with infantry weapons, sidearms. I think they did

11 have some rocket launchers. In fact, I believe they destroyed a couple of

12 tanks with rocket launchers. They certainly didn't as far as I can tell

13 from the documentation I looked at, they didn't have any armoured

14 vehicles. They didn't have any armoured personnel carriers. They didn't

15 have any multiple rocket launchers. Obviously they didn't need any air

16 defence equipment. So much of what you would see in the normal formation

17 and layout of an army and --

18 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness slow down, please.

19 A. Much of what you would see in the normal layout of a table of

20 organisation and equipment for a modern army was not available to them and

21 they did not have.

22 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: Then, General, was it feasible for the Muslims

23 to provoke armed conflict?

24 A. Yes, absolutely feasible. If someone is shooting at you, even

25 though it's coming out of a sidearm or a long gun, you might provoke

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 conflict that way. You might provoke combat.

2 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: But was it feasible to provoke armed conflict

3 hoping that they win this conflict?

4 A. I don't know about their expectations on winning. I can tell you

5 that in Afghanistan, the Muslims there told me consistently that they

6 would win and the Soviet army would be defeated. I couldn't understand

7 it, I couldn't see it, but it worked. It happened. So I have no idea

8 what their mental motivation may have been, their spiritual motivation.

9 But somehow they were involved in this conflict, and I think people enter

10 conflict with the idea they are going to be victorious.

11 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: In your report, page 40, you stated that the

12 military response to the Hambarine incident lasted approximately six,

13 seven hours. And -- but you didn't mention what was the area of the

14 military operation? What was the battle zone? How large was the battle

15 zone?

16 A. From the documentation I looked at, it expanded from the point of

17 the initial contact into a rather large area. I would presume that what

18 happened was that the attacking force used reconnaissance by fire. They

19 would go into an area, and they would begin firing. And if they received

20 return fire, then they would continue into that area to clean up whatever

21 resistance they came upon. And they probably used this tactic repeatedly,

22 reconnaissance by fire, and they got fire in return. So that area

23 expanded and expanded. I don't know ultimately how large it was. I'm not

24 sure if we're talking about 100 square kilometres or 1.000 square

25 kilometres. But I can see that that would be how this action would have

1 unfolded.

2 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: Was this area populated with civilians?

3 A. Yes, it was. And that was one of the very significant problems,

4 and sorting out and separating civilians and trying to keep from killing

5 them and getting them involved must have been a very, very significant

6 ordeal, in fact.

7 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: Have you any idea about the casualties among

8 civilian population?

9 A. I do not, sir. But I imagine that there were -- there were many

10 casualties. And it's an unfortunate, terribly unfortunate circumstance of

11 warfare.

12 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: So can we come to the conclusion that armed

13 forces were used indiscriminately and disproportionately in this

14 situation?

15 A. I'm not sure that I'm going to come to that conclusion. I can

16 simply tell you that there was one force that was disproportionately

17 stronger and more well-equipped than the other. And so in the use of

18 their weapons systems and their tactics, they may have made a

19 disproportionate size attack and covered a disproportionate amount of

20 territory. I don't know if they did it purposely, indiscriminately, or

21 not. I simply know that it probably happened that way.

22 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: Yesterday, you stated that Serbian armed units

23 overreacted.

24 A. Overreacted.

25 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: Yes.

1 A. I probably did that in the context that there was an attack in

2 that area called -- I believe it's Stari Grad. Excuse my pronunciation,

3 and that they actually levelled that entire I will call it neighbourhood

4 or suburb. I'm not familiar with the size nor the number of buildings

5 there. But that is definitely, sir, an overreaction. And being a

6 military person, it is disappointing to me to see when that sort of

7 activity occurs.

8 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: Thank you, General, I have no more questions.

9 A. Thank you very much.

10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Judge Argibay, please.

11 JUDGE ARGIBAY: No questions. Thank you.

12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: It is now for the Defence.

13 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

14 Further examination by Mr. Ostojic:

15 Q. On page 31 of today's transcript, specifically line 1 through 3,

16 General, you were asked by my learned friend at the OTP: "Anyone who is

17 employed is influenced by those people who are paying their salaries."

18 And your answer was in the affirmative, namely yes.

19 Now, sir, would you think that if a military analyst such as you

20 and Brown whose report you reviewed, would you think that his report, sir,

21 since he's being employed and paid for by the OTP, do you think his report

22 is influenced and the conclusions that he reviewed and the conclusions

23 that he offered before this Court, do you think those would be influenced

24 by the employer, namely the Prosecution, the very people who we are

25 adversary to? Do you think that would influence him?

1 A. I think as a concept, yes, he would be influenced. If I work for

2 IBM, I'm going to be influenced by IBM. If they want me to wear a suit

3 and tie every day, I wear a suit and tie every day. Why? Because in two

4 weeks, they are going to give me my paycheque. Yes, the influence is

5 there

6 Q. Do you think, sir, as a military expert when you come into this

7 Court and you don't review the military regulations of the very people or

8 community in which you're going to offer testimony on, namely, the VRS or

9 the JNA, do you think the Prosecution by omitting that and omitting and

10 preventing Mr. Brown from reviewing those documents, do you think they may

11 have influenced him so that he wouldn't render an opinion that would be

12 considered objective, reasonable, and prudent before this Court?

13 A. I would say that the wider body of knowledge that he reviewed

14 looked at, took into consideration, would give him a broader base to

15 respond to questions. If he was prevented or distracted from doing that

16 by his employer, then it seems to me that that is somewhat of a failing

17 and a shortcoming.

18 Q. And the other experts that testified by the OTP, if they were

19 employed by the OTP, paid by the OTP, meaning the Office of the

20 Prosecution, sorry, paid by the OTP, do you think that would influence

21 their opinions as they gave? Let me just highlight some of them.

22 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour, I will.

23 Q. Let me just highlight some of them, Ms. Ewa Tabeau, a demographic,

24 do you think her report would be influenced by her employer, namely the

25 Prosecution?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Do you think, sir, the police officer who may have testified in

3 this case by the name of Mr. O'Donnell, do you think his testimony might

4 be slightly influenced by the virtue of the fact that he receives a cheque

5 by the very people who are adversary to us?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Do you think, sir, that this gentleman who did some, at least

8 three exhumations, Nicolas Sebire, although he can't remember how many

9 hours he spent working on a project, do you think he would be influenced

10 by our adversaries over there because he receives a paycheque by them?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Do you think one of their criminal investigators, Mr. Inayat, do

13 you think by him doing an analysis on documents for this Court, that he

14 would do an objective report that would be neutral, or because he's

15 getting paid by the OTP and is on regular salary by the OTP, do you think

16 he would be influenced by the OTP as to what his conclusions might be,

17 General?

18 A. Probably so.

19 Q. Now, General, I don't pay you, but you are paid through the

20 Tribunal. Correct?

21 A. I hope so.

22 Q. Well, we'll address --

23 A. That's correct. I hope I'm paid a little bit by the Tribunal.

24 Q. Now, sir I'd like to show you, if we may again, Exhibit 187,

25 please. I think it was S187, and you were asked a couple questions in

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 connection with page 6 of that document.

2 Do you have that document on the ELMO, sir?

3 A. Apparently so. Yes.

4 Q. Is it page 6 there? Now, the Office of the Prosecution asked you

5 about a specific quote purportedly that Dr. Stakic made in this

6 interview. And this interview apparently occurred, and I think we can

7 stipulate to that, approximately six or so months after the events as they

8 unfolded in the spring and summer of 1992. So I'm not sure of the exact

9 month because it's not set forth in this document.

10 But immediately above the section that the OTP referenced you, do

11 you see, sir, at the top of the ELMO that Dr. Stakic says things such as

12 "I am against war"? You're going too far now. It's right in the middle

13 of the page there. Where it says: "No, I couldn't and not only because

14 there were no signs of it, but because of my personal upbringing and

15 stand." And then Dr. Stakic goes on to say: "I am against war." Do you

16 see that?

17 A. Not yet, I'm still looking for it.

18 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Mr. Technician. They are zooming in to

19 actually practically on the centre of the page.

20 A. Is it in the paragraph that starts with, "No, I couldn't."

21 Q. Yes, just continue to read that.

22 A. "Not only because there was no signs of it, but because of my

23 personal upbringing and stand I am against war, against force. I am in

24 the favour of reaching agreement."

25 Q. Now, let me ask you this, sir, about Dr. Stakic, although you came

1 here as a military expert, if I gave you a hypothetical question that

2 Dr. Stakic consistently before, during, and after the events of the spring

3 and summer of 1994 [sic] continued to maintain a position of peace and

4 continued to maintain a position of tranquility, would you describe

5 Dr. Stakic as the OTP may have as Gandhi-like?

6 MR. KOUMJIAN: Objection, the hypothetical is not related to any

7 facts in evidence. And as counsel pointed out, it's clearly beyond this

8 witness's purported expertise.

9 MR. OSTOJIC: If I may reply, Your Honour.

10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I don't want to interfere, as I didn't with the

11 Prosecution. But please remember that the Gandhi-like, this expression is

12 already in evidence and apparently the Prosecution made reference to this.

13 MR. OSTOJIC: I understand. If I may just respond quickly or

14 reply to what my learned friend said, that there's no evidence --

15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: No argument, please in the moment. Put your

16 question to the witness. The objection is dismissed.

17 MR. OSTOJIC:

18 Q. Let me move on to another point in any event.

19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So does it mean that you don't want to have an

20 answer?

21 MR. OSTOJIC: He can give us the answer. That would be fair.

22 THE WITNESS: Would you restate the question, please.

23 MR. OSTOJIC:

24 Q. Sure. If there was evidence in this case, and I strongly suggest,

25 sir, there is, specifically if we look in November 1991, which is

1 S-016-46A, if we look at the document that was marked and introduced into

2 evidence of May 9th, 1992, so looking at the events, some evidence before

3 the spring and summer of 1992, some during May 1992, some after, such as

4 S187 that you just reviewed, and some even before that, but during the

5 events, S261, and I'm citing that purely for my learned friend who had an

6 objection that, and if Dr. Stakic consistently repeated the fact that he

7 is in favour of peace and against war, and against using forces, how would

8 you describe that, sir, as someone who would be inclined to influence the

9 military to attack any enemy or would you describe that person as the OTP

10 described others as Gandhi-like?

11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Sorry, the last part of the question is not

12 correct. It was not the OTP describing Dr. -- another person as

13 Gandhi-like.

14 THE WITNESS: I would describe that person as reasonable. I would

15 describe that person as a person who confined -- who can find alternatives

16 to problems. I would describe that person as a person who is diplomatic.

17 I would describe that person as one who is searching for solutions that

18 don't require man's -- in humanity demand to be exercised. I was a

19 soldier. I guess it's still in my blood. But if there's never another

20 war, then I would be very, very happy indeed. We do not need war.

21 MR. OSTOJIC:

22 Q. We couldn't agree with you more, General.

23 Let me ask you this, sir: With respect to the attack on Kozarac,

24 May 24th, 1992, you were asked with respect to the arming of the Muslims

25 at the checkpoint, and I think they described a Winchester rifle that may

1 have been used, as your report indicates, sir, and as is quite clear, two

2 tanks were destroyed during that attack. Correct?

3 A. That's correct.

4 Q. Do you, sir, under any consideration would opine that those two

5 tanks that the military, namely the VRS, had while they were proceeding on

6 the Prijedor/Banja Luka Road on or about May 24th, 1992, do you think

7 those Winchester rifles had the capacity or the capability to destroy

8 either one of those tanks?

9 A. No.

10 Q. So those persons that were at this checkpoint who initially

11 provoked and killed one of the military personnel, were they armed more

12 significantly than just with hand-held guns and Winchester rifles?

13 A. Obviously.

14 Q. Why is it so obvious?

15 A. Because you don't destroy two tanks with a sidearm or a long gun.

16 Q. Sir, we talked about some influence that Dr. Stakic purportedly

17 had between the police and the military. I perhaps was neglectful in not

18 showing you documents, but presume this as being true. Unless of course

19 there is an objection. If Dr. Stakic had a brother-in-law who was

20 mobilised in the military and there was a request by the brother-in-law's

21 family to release him from the military, and Dr. Stakic could not and did

22 not release that individual, namely his brother-in-law from the military,

23 and that young man ultimately died as a result of his service, would that

24 indicate to you that Dr. Stakic had any influence over the military if he

25 couldn't get his own brother-in-law out of the military?

1 A. It doesn't sound like he had any influence, because if he did, he

2 would certainly have been get his brother-in-law out from under that

3 military obligation.

4 Q. Same question, sir: What if Dr. Stakic hypothetically had a young

5 nephew from his wife that also was mobilised and also died as a result of

6 the events in the spring and summer of 1992 and also was asked to see if

7 he could influence anyone to release that individual from the military,

8 and yet Dr. Stakic couldn't and didn't, and that young nephew of his

9 ultimately perished. Would that, sir, indicate that Dr. Stakic had

10 influence over the military?

11 A. It doesn't suggest that he had influence over the military. No,

12 not at all.

13 Q. Doesn't it, in fact, sir, suggest quite the opposite, that he had

14 no influence whatsoever, and Dr. Stakic couldn't, despite the fact that he

15 was president of a municipality, he couldn't have any power and didn't

16 have any power whatsoever even to have one of his relatives released or

17 relieved from military duties during the spring and summer of 1992?

18 A. That's how it looks.

19 Q. Now, let's talk a little bit about reasonableness and being

20 prudent as a military person. Sir, if a military is taking a convoy

21 through a road, is it required, sir, to take side roads to avoid potential

22 conflict, or does it, sir, in a reasonable and prudent manner advise the

23 potential individuals who would be considered the enemy, for example, on

24 May 24th, 1992, it's prudent is it not, and reasonable, is it not, that

25 the military would issue an ultimatum advising those persons at the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 checkpoint that they are passing through, informing them that they are

2 passing through and only seek safe passage? Is that reasonable that

3 that's what the military should do?

4 A. I would say that that's more than reasonable.

5 Q. Likewise, turning to the events of May 22nd, the attack on

6 Hambarine, was it reasonable for the military and was it prudent for the

7 military prior to immediately engaging the individuals at the checkpoint

8 to first request that the perpetrators of the crime, namely the killing of

9 two VRS soldiers and the wounding of two others, that they issue a request

10 that the perpetrators of that crime be turned over? Is that reasonable

11 and prudent?

12 A. That's very reasonable.

13 Q. That's what they did in this case. Correct?

14 A. That's correct.

15 Q. Now, the perpetrators of those crimes did not and refused to

16 otherwise surrender the individuals at issue, and the military subsequent

17 to that issued another ultimatum that advised them that if the

18 perpetrators were not turned over, they were going to go into the hamlet,

19 find them, and then attack ensued. Correct?

20 A. Correct.

21 Q. Now, let me ask you this about the political people in the

22 community --

23 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel and witness make a break

24 between question and answer, please, and can the counsel slow down.

25 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you for being patient thus far. I will.

1 Q. Sir, do you think it's irresponsible of the civilian authorities

2 once they learn of the fact that members of the military were shot,

3 killed, injured, is it irresponsible for them to issue a public

4 announcement telling the people of the village of Hambarine that there is

5 an event that may occur, that the military has informed everyone of, that

6 the military has obviously issued an ultimatum warning the civilians about

7 the situation so that there can be safety? Is that reasonable for the

8 civilians to do so or unreasonable?

9 A. No, it's very reasonable. It's a cooperative effort. They are

10 cooperating with the military, and they are helping to notify the

11 population so that in the end, there will be a good result possibly and a

12 result that doesn't require combat.

13 Q. Thank you.

14 MR. OSTOJIC: Your Honour, we only have about 15 more minutes, and

15 I don't know that it's necessary to break, but I'll obviously defer to the

16 Court.

17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think so, because we have to discuss the

18 admission of evidence in the presence of the expert. Maybe he can assist

19 us in this exercise. And therefore, without any doubt, we have to

20 continue as envisaged at quarter past 2.00.

21 MR. OSTOJIC: Fair enough, Your Honour. Just wanted

22 clarification. May I proceed?

23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes.

24 MR. OSTOJIC:

25 Q. Sir, with the Court's permission and the assistance of the usher,

1 can you be shown Exhibit S426.

2 Sir, you're looking at what was previously identified or is

3 identified as S426. There were some questions from counsel regarding that

4 document dated the 3rd of August, 1992. Sir, isn't it correct that that

5 document does not show on the distribution list the civilians or

6 Dr. Stakic?

7 A. That's correct.

8 Q. Now, this document, sir, clearly shows, or at least you could help

9 me with this, that there was a verbal order from the army main staff

10 permitting a visit by the international committee and a team of reporters

11 to the detention camps, Manjaca, Trnopolje, Omarska, and they identify

12 Prijedor within the next two.

13 Sir, doesn't this order indicate and in fact it wasn't the

14 civilian authorities who approved or allowed the visit to these detention

15 centres or camps, but in fact it was the army main staff commander?

16 A. The army main staff commander.

17 Q. And the fourth paragraph on that, it also identifies that the

18 chief of security shall appoint a security officer from the 1st Krajina

19 Corps to escort the international committee.

20 A. Yes, that's what it says.

21 Q. Now, who's issuing this order to the chief of security, the

22 military or the civilian authorities?

23 A. Military. It's for the commander.

24 Q. Now, during the times of threat of war, imminent threat of war, or

25 a state of war, when there's a mobilisation that's on the territory, the

1 military can mobilise as you've stated in your report and from the

2 documents that you've reviewed, the military can mobilise property as well

3 as individuals including police reservists and active policemen. Correct?

4 A. That's correct.

5 Q. Let me show you, sir, a Defence 65 ter number 356, if I may.

6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: You may, but please be aware that we didn't

7 decide on the amendment of the exhibit list in this part. We are still

8 with Document 249. Then there is a gap. And then it restarts with 560.

9 MR. OSTOJIC: I'm not --

10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please proceed. It's --

11 MR. OSTOJIC: It should be in one of his binders.

12 THE WITNESS: What are we looking for?

13 MR. OSTOJIC: There are some markings on this, but we could place

14 this on the ELMO. That would be fine. 356.

15 Q. Sir, just so we could speed this up in the couple minutes that we

16 have, this is a document from the 1st Krajina Corps command dated the 9th

17 of June, 1992. Correct?

18 A. Yes, it is.

19 Q. Below, if we can just have the technician assist us, or the usher,

20 so that we may look at the highlighted portion.

21 A. Paragraph 4 in this case.

22 Q. We're talking on this date, early on to the events of the spring

23 and summer 1992, namely, the 9th of June, 1992. Correct? And does it not

24 show here that the military is identifying problems related to the

25 functioning of the civil authorities. Correct?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And sir, in your review of the documents within those seven or so

3 binders that are before you, did you see a consistent pattern where the

4 military were complaining about the inefficiency and the lack of

5 functionality of the civilian authorities?

6 A. Yes, I did.

7 Q. What binder is that in, if you can point out those documents for

8 us?

9 A. It's in volume 1.

10 Q. And sir, there are many, if not an exhaustive amount of documents,

11 which show among other things that civilian authorities according to the

12 military had lost their functionality and in fact have been inefficient

13 during the spring and summer of 1992?

14 A. This is true.

15 Q. Now, would you find it somewhat surprising that the OTP military

16 expert, when he testified in this case, didn't look at those very

17 documents, and for some reason during his testimony, he didn't review

18 those documents but claims to the Court that he's giving an objective

19 opinion in connection with the relationship between the civilians and the

20 military, and the civilians and the police? Don't you, sir, think that as

21 a reasonable person in order to claim that you're giving an objective

22 opinion, you should review the documents --

23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Sorry, I can't admit such a hypothetical and, to

24 a certain extent, even unfair question.

25 MR. OSTOJIC: If Your Honour will remember, there were 90

1 documents that were given to us pursuant to Rule 68 --

2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We should not discuss this in the presence of an

3 expert.

4 MR. OSTOJIC: Very well.

5 Q. Sir, let me show you the next document which is 65 ter number 368,

6 with the assistance of the usher. This is a document, sir, dated the 17th

7 of June, 1992, and I'll direct your attention first to the first page so

8 that you can tell us who created the document or from what source it comes

9 from.

10 A. It came from the corps command in this case, 1st Krajina Corps

11 command.

12 Q. Can I direct your attention, sir, to the second page of that

13 document. And during that date that we've just identified based upon that

14 document, which was the 17th of June, 1992, does the military, sir, report

15 their awareness of activity by smaller extremist SDS, Serbian democratic

16 party, groups clashing with our units since looting is their motive for

17 fighting?

18 A. It does.

19 Q. Now, the VRS, which is the military, 1st Krajina, both 5th Kozara

20 as well as the 43rd Motorised Brigade, composed according to the OTP of

21 solely Serbian soldiers ethnically pronounced, here in their report as

22 early as June 17th, 1992, the military itself is using a word which I'm

23 going to have you define as "clashing" with SDS, namely Serbian, extremist

24 as the word is reflected. First define for me what that word militarily

25 speaking "clashing" means?

1 A. It means they're fighting. They are meeting each other in

2 firefights probably.

3 Q. Is that significant, sir, for the military since members of the

4 SDS, which is the party that purportedly was in control of the Prijedor

5 Municipality, that the military in light of this would be less reluctant

6 to take orders from any civilians, not to take instruction from any

7 civilians, because, in fact, as early as the 17th of June, 1992, they

8 were, in fact, clashing with the very members that the OTP claims that

9 they are taking instruction and direction from?

10 A. Yes.

11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think it's time now for the break. But

12 before, we should provisionally mark those documents provisionally marked

13 as 65 ter 356, Defence. This would be D110. And the provisional 65 ter

14 368 of the Defence would be D111.

15 The trial stays adjourned until quarter past 2.00, continued in

16 Courtroom I.

17 --- Luncheon recess taken at 12.37 p.m.

18 --- On resuming at 2.34 p.m.

19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Good afternoon. Please be seated.

20 May we add to the appearances that the Prosecution is now

21 represented also by Ms. Joanna Korner.

22 And without further ado, please continue, Mr. Ostojic.

23 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour. Good afternoon.

24 Q. Good afternoon, General Wilmot.

25 A. Good afternoon, sir.

1 Q. Sir, just going to just try to walk you through --

2 THE INTERPRETER: The witness's microphones are not on.

3 MR. OSTOJIC: If you can just click the little buttons for your

4 microphone, sir.

5 Q. Sir, after the three attacks or incidents that we were discussing

6 today, namely Hambarine, Kozarac, and the city/town of Prijedor, I want to

7 show you a couple of exhibits that followed those events from our 65 ter

8 list number. With the Court's permission and the usher's assistance, we

9 would like to show you 65 ter number 357 document dated the 8th of June

10 from the 1st Krajina Corps and have that placed on the ELMO, please.

11 THE WITNESS: I'm getting Serbian --

12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: This would then be provisionally marked D111.

13 Correct?

14 THE REGISTRAR: 112.

15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: 112, then, okay. We have to come to the

16 question of whether it's already 65 terred or not. Please proceed.

17 MR. OSTOJIC:

18 Q. General Wilmot, are you able to hear me in English?

19 A. Yes, I had possibly Serbian in the background. I was trying to

20 eliminate that. I think it's done now.

21 Q. Now, looking at this exhibit that's in front of you dated the 8th

22 of June, 1992, there's some highlighted marks there. And it's a military

23 report, obviously, issued to the main staff, which is their daily report,

24 and it cites there where it's highlighted, even though it's approximately

25 nine days since the attack on the city/town of Prijedor, "there continues

1 to be some activity and there continues to be a conflict still in the

2 area," does it not?

3 A. Yes, that's the case.

4 Q. Specifically in the area of the Prijedor/Banja Luka Road where the

5 incident on May 24th, 1992, occurred when the convoy attempted to pass and

6 it was provoked and ultimately resulted in retaliation or a response by

7 the military.

8 A. That's correct.

9 Q. Would you turn to the next page, please.

10 A. Excuse me.

11 MR. OSTOJIC: With the Court's permission, if the technician can

12 scan just a little further out.

13 Q. Now, we're looking at paragraph 8 or I'm directing your attention

14 to paragraph 8, there seems to be a comment issued by the military that's

15 highlighted there. Can you tell me what that says.

16 A. "Energetic measures are still being taken to prevent crime and the

17 war profiteering."

18 Q. What does that mean, sir?

19 A. It sounds as if there are rogue bands and thugs travelling

20 throughout the area, and there is energetic response to take them under

21 task and prevent them from profiteering in the area.

22 Q. Okay. Let me take you to another document, if I may, and have the

23 Madam Registrar give you Document Exhibit S407, please.

24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: This would be provisionally D113.

25 THE REGISTRAR: Sorry, it's already Exhibit S407, Your Honour.

1 MR. OSTOJIC: I think we're referring to the prior document, are

2 we not, Your Honour?

3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: It's extremely difficult --

4 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the Presiding Judge, please.

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: -- The exercise you are doing today is -- I have

6 to be careful with my words, but receiving a stack of documents in a case

7 this morning, and then expecting that we are ready to discuss these

8 documents immediately, this is not the way a court should proceed. But we

9 have to take into account the interest of the expert, being here only

10 today. And therefore as an exception, unfortunately we have to proceed

11 this way. But don't be surprised that a lot of confusion will emanate

12 from this, and I have to emphasise that there was no one decision amending

13 the exhibit lists of the Defence related to these documents you're

14 providing us now. Only that the transcript is clear on this.

15 So Madam Registrar, please once again, the document we have before

16 us now is?

17 THE REGISTRAR: S407, Your Honour. And if I'm correct, we only

18 used one 65 ter document, 357, which is marked D112. Correct?

19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Right.

20 MR. OSTOJIC:

21 Q. General, just can you help me with what's the date of the

22 document, Exhibit S407, sir?

23 A. 14 August, 1992.

24 Q. The military in our report in our 65 ter number of a document that

25 was provided to us by the OTP dated the 22nd of August, 1992, Exhibit 411,

1 Defence 65 ter, it states in that report "the report states that after

2 foreign reporters visited Omarska and Trnopolje, nobody wants to accept

3 the responsibility for orders for mass deportation of civilians in the

4 camps." And that's 411. When you look at S407, and the Prosecutor asked

5 you questions about the establishment of the camp, can you please turn to

6 page 4 of that document. And tell me how many people does Mr. Simo

7 Drljaca report that have been killed or died at the detention centres?

8 It's in the first paragraph, I believe the first two lines.

9 A. It says two persons of Muslim ethnicity died of natural causes,

10 and 49 persons left the investigation centre in an unknown manner.

11 Q. Sir, I don't want you to speculate, but would it be a reasonable

12 assumption to conclude that Mr. Simo Drljaca was, in fact, reporting

13 things that were inaccurate and untrue?

14 A. It could very well be.

15 Q. Based on the evidence, sir, that you reviewed, and I believe that

16 there's no dispute, from the outset of the case there was no dispute, as

17 to the number of Muslims citizens who lost their lives regrettably in

18 those detention centres, do you think that Mr. Simo Drljaca was accurate

19 when he said that two had lost their lives, or was he simply as the report

20 on 65 ter number 411, simply trying to cover up or blame others?

21 A. It could very well be that he was understating the facts to cover

22 up some situation that he didn't want to have revealed.

23 Q. In that same report, S407, where Mr. Drljaca states that the camps

24 were established purportedly by the Crisis Staff, can we take that at face

25 value given the fact that he completely distorts the number of the victims

1 that suffered during the spring and summer of 1992 in those detention

2 centres?

3 A. That could very well be an inaccuracy also.

4 Q. If I may show you just one or two more exhibits, sir.

5 MR. OSTOJIC: D12 to be shown to the witness.

6 Q. Sir, this is an exhibit --

7 MR. OSTOJIC: If I may just proceed while we're getting the

8 document, Your Honour.

9 Q. This is an exhibit that you listed on your report as you had

10 reviewed, I'd like you to turn to the second page of that exhibit, though

11 it seems to be -- page 2 on the bottom, sir. And does it say on the top

12 the ERN number L, as in Larry, 0001605?

13 A. It does.

14 Q. There's a translator's note on that exhibit, sir, and within that

15 exhibit, it states on the third sentence, which starts on the third line

16 proceeding on the fourth line: "The statement seems unbiased, and is

17 equally critical of Muslims and Serbs." It continues. This statement

18 that a Muslim individual who was apparently within the Green Berets or the

19 Patriotic League or some other paramilitary formation in the Prijedor

20 Municipality certainly seems to be from your review as well, sir,

21 unbiased. Correct?

22 A. Correct.

23 Q. And you relied on that report. Correct?

24 A. I did.

25 Q. Would it surprise you, sir, that if an expert offered by the OTP,

1 a military analyst, was giving testimony and what he claimed to be

2 objective but he did not review such a report from a Muslim who gave a

3 rather exhaustive detailed recount of the activities as they existed in

4 the spring and summer of 1992 in Prijedor?

5 MR. KOUMJIAN: Does counsel have a page to cite. I don't believe

6 that was Mr. Brown's testimony.

7 MR. OSTOJIC: That's my very point. He did not review that

8 document at all.

9 MR. KOUMJIAN: My recollection is that Mr. Brown said that he did

10 review that document, and it's cited in his report.

11 MR. OSTOJIC: My apologies. I'll refer to the page. If that's

12 true, I'll withdraw the question, Your Honour.

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And at the same time, I would ask you kindly to

14 refrain from unnecessary comments such "he claimed to be objective." I

15 think we should take it that in principle, everybody works as objective as

16 possible.

17 MR. OSTOJIC:

18 Q. Let me show you this document, if I may, sir, that was given to us

19 by the OTP which has the ERN number I believe it's 004, looks like 81850,

20 if we could place that on the ELMO with the Court's permission, of course.

21 Sir, this is a document dated the 19th of July, 1992. Correct?

22 A. Yes, it is.

23 Q. There seems to be on the very first sentence of this document an

24 issue that is attempted to be resolved regarding the superiority or the

25 chain of command, as placed in the parenthesis, between the MUP, which

1 we've established is the Ministry of the Interior, which is the police,

2 and the army. Correct?

3 A. Yes.

4 MR. KOUMJIAN: Just so we can follow, is there an exhibit number

5 or a 65 ter number or do you have a copy that we could follow along with?

6 MR. OSTOJIC: That's my only copy, and I've misplaced the 65 ter

7 number, but it's clearly a document that was offered by the OTP.

8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I'm sorry, I think we can't really proceed this

9 way. You come out of the blue with documents without any numbers, without

10 reference. So please, do the necessary, drop the question now. You may

11 ask for copies, but we are not prepared to work without copies.

12 MR. OSTOJIC: Fair enough, Your Honour. We'll withdraw the

13 question at this time, and we have no further questions of this witness.

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Prosecution, please.

15 MR. KOUMJIAN: If the witness could just be shown D111. It was

16 shown at the end of this morning.

17 Further cross-examination by Mr. Koumjian:

18 Q. You can put my copy on the ELMO.

19 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter number 356.

20 MR. KOUMJIAN: You're welcome to use my copy and just put it on

21 the ELMO. First page.

22 Q. Just to remind us all, this was the document that referred to SDS

23 paramilitaries clashing with the 1 KKR troops. Sir, this is a report of

24 the 1st Krajina Corps of the situation in the territory of the corps. Can

25 you read the names of the municipalities in the section -- or perhaps I

1 could read them, given I have a little more familiarity, a bit more, with

2 the pronunciation probably. Bjelovar, Virovitica, Podravska Slatina,

3 Bosanska Dubica, Nova Gradska, Slovanska Pozega, Prijedor, Banja Luka,

4 Derventa, Lamac, Jajce, and Zenica.

5 Sir, do you know how far these municipalities such as Jajce and

6 Zenica are from Prijedor?

7 A. No, I don't.

8 Q. Do you know if the SDS paramilitaries referred to in that report

9 were in Prijedor or in one of the other municipalities named?

10 A. No, I don't.

11 Q. Thank you.

12 If we can move on. I'm done with that document. Sir --

13 MR. KOUMJIAN: If the witness could be shown S187.

14 Q. In that document this morning, Mr. Ostojic asked you about a

15 statement by Dr. Stakic "I am against war." Sir, in your experience, have

16 you heard politicians giving public statements, politicians, leaders,

17 dictators, any of these individuals giving public statements saying that

18 they are in favour of war, or is it more common for them to portray

19 themselves publicly as peacemakers?

20 A. I don't know if you could take 10.000 politicians and take 10.000

21 statements and take some kind of an average how it would come out. But it

22 seems to me that most of the politicians would say to the public, We are

23 for peaceful solutions to problems. That's probably how it would come

24 out. But I don't have any statistical knowledge of that. I really don't

25 know.

1 Q. Thank you. Can you think of any political leader, dictator, who

2 stated: "I'm in favour of war" or "I'm not in favour of peace"? Can you

3 think of a single instance where a person made that statement?

4 A. Depends on the environment and the circumstances, I suppose. In

5 very recent times, our own president, Mr. Bush, seems to be in favour of

6 military action because of the circumstance that he thinks he finds

7 himself in. He thinks he's -- he thinks that his nation is threatened by

8 weapons of mass destruction, and so he has offered several statements and

9 speeches that would suggest that he wanted to get the international

10 community to back him and go to war, and it looks like that's what's

11 happened. So it depends, very much, sir, on the environment and on the

12 conditions that exist.

13 Q. Thank you. And trying to avoid any recent controversial events,

14 would it be correct to say then that even someone in favour in war is

15 likely to portray themselves as responding to some threat that they

16 envision?

17 MR. OSTOJIC: We object to the form of the question. It calls for

18 speculation, Your Honour.

19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Sustained.

20 MR. KOUMJIAN:

21 Q. Sir, we talked about the difference between civilian and

22 military. Is there some common way of recognising who was a civilian and

23 who was a military official?

24 A. Quite often it's a uniform.

25 Q. Thank you, sir. Civilians do not wear uniforms. Correct?

1 A. Generally speaking, they do not, although there are some uniforms

2 that they wear.

3 Q. Boy scouts.

4 A. A bit outrageous, I suppose, like doormen and people that belong

5 to the salvation army and so forth. So some of them wear uniforms, but

6 normally we can identify military people by uniform.

7 Q. Thank you, sir. You were asked this morning about mobilisation

8 and the ability of a person with influence in the military to exempt their

9 friends or relatives from mobilisation. Sir, you achieved a very high

10 rank in the military. And you commanded a large force, correct?

11 A. Correct.

12 Q. As you clearly were within the military chain of command.

13 Correct?

14 A. Correct.

15 Q. Now, sir, first of all, did you have the authority to exempt, if

16 there had been a draft in the United States, to exempt your friends from

17 that draft?

18 A. In the situation that I was in and in the institution that I was

19 in and in the rules that apply to it, no way.

20 Q. Sir, would a person -- is it generally seen as a patriotic duty

21 and a legal duty to respond to a mobilisation and not to use individual

22 connections to exempt your friends and relatives?

23 A. Yes, I think it is seen generally as a patriotic duty and a legal

24 duty to respond to mobilisation. But then there are ways to respond at

25 different levels and different echelons and different commitments. For

1 example, there are reserve forces, there are national guard forces. And

2 we have sometimes found where people of influence direct their youngsters

3 or their nephews or whoever the case may be into a national guard

4 situation as opposed to a regular army situation to avoid possible

5 exposure to combat. So while in general it's patriotic and so forth,

6 there are ways to even in the institution that I am talking about today,

7 there are ways to avert, to avoid exposure.

8 Q. Sir, is it actually your opinion that you can draw an inference

9 from the fact that Dr. Stakic's brother-in-law was mobilised, you can draw

10 an inference that he did not have influence over the 43rd Brigade in

11 Prijedor because of that fact?

12 A. It's a very difficult question, and I don't think it's one that I

13 can answer, not being fully aware of the culture and the relationship here

14 and the situation and the environment that existed. I don't know. If

15 someone, not Dr. Stakic in this case, but, for example, someone with a

16 great amount of money could get arranged and buy somebody out of the

17 military, there are all sorts of ways of doing this, and I'm not sure what

18 might have existed here and how this system exactly worked.

19 But there's a possibility that Dr. Stakic, if he was very

20 well-connected could get a relation out of being involved in the

21 military. And then on the other hand, there's the possibility that he

22 couldn't do it at all no matter how connected he was. I just don't know.

23 Q. Sir, if you were a politician who sought -- wanted to keep your

24 public image clean and, two, you supported a war that you thought was

25 patriotic, wouldn't you not attempt to influence a mobilisation decision?

1 MR. OSTOJIC: Object to the form of the question, Your Honour.

2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think it's a fair question to a military

3 expert.

4 A. I probably would avoid trying to influence a decision.

5 MR. KOUMJIAN:

6 Q. Sir, you were shown a document this morning about the visit of

7 foreign journalists to Manjaca and to the Omarska camp, and order from

8 General Talic to his command. I want to direct you to something you may

9 or may not have read, and that is the testimony of Mr. Edward Vulliamy.

10 MR. KOUMJIAN: We could hand out the copies of the transcript so

11 that the Court and counsel can follow. We have some more copies.

12 Hopefully everyone has page 7.922 of the trial transcript.

13 Q. Sir, in this particular moment of the trial, a journalist from --

14 who was on that visit to the camps that I believe you indicated you had

15 seen some of that video, Mr. Edward Vulliamy was testifying about a

16 meeting at the Municipal Assembly building with several individuals,

17 including Colonel Arsic and Dr. Stakic. And beginning on line 24, you see

18 that there was a question to Mr. Vulliamy, "You indicated and perhaps I

19 missed something, you indicated that Colonel Arsic encouraged you to go to

20 Manjaca. How was it that that was finally resolved?" And the answer from

21 Mr. Vulliamy was: "I mean, it wasn't resolved. It was resolved by us

22 refusing to go to Manjaca and saying that that's not where we were going

23 to go. Then he said, "If you want to go to Omarska, these are the people

24 you need to talk to.'"

25 Question: "You just made a gesture to your right. Was that what

1 Colonel Arsic did? Is that a gesture he made or explain what you meant.

2 Mr. Vulliamy said: "He made a gesture. I don't know whether he said it

3 by name. And he gestured towards Mr. Kovacevic and Mr. Stakic." For your

4 information, Mr. Kovacevic was a civilian official in the Crisis Staff.

5 Finally, sir, before you answer this question, I'd like to refer

6 you to one short section of S187, page 2. I know the tape was there, I

7 don't know if the tape was cued this morning. So I'm just going to read

8 the particular --

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think it might be helpful. Is it prepared

10 already?

11 MR. KOUMJIAN: I did not cue the tape. The tape is --

12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: No tape. Please proceed.

13 MR. KOUMJIAN:

14 Q. On page 2, and we can hand that out also. It's a very short

15 section of the interview with Dr. Stakic. We have at least three copies,

16 four, five.

17 Sir, in the section marked, the reporter asked Dr. Stakic: "There

18 have been reports in the British press about centres of Omarska and

19 Trnopolje and places like that. Do the authorities in Prijedor have any

20 control or have they had control over places like that?" Dr. Stakic

21 answered: "These places, such as Omarska, Keraterm, and Trnopolje were a

22 necessity in a given moment, and were formed according to a decision of

23 the civilian authorities in Prijedor."

24 Reporter: "So these three camps or how are they" -- Dr. Stakic:

25 "Reception centres." Reporter: "Reception centres were formed according

1 to the decision of your civilian authorities?" Dr. Stakic: "Yes, yes.

2 As I have said, this was a necessity in a given moment when there was no

3 longer any possibility to resolve the question of relations and division

4 of power through agreement by peaceful means, and when extremists from the

5 ranks of the SDA and the HDZ party, but mostly the SDA, which won here and

6 which at one point lost control and started using force, murdering members

7 of the army and the police. We had to set up such centres."

8 Sir, given the fact that Colonel Arsic indicated that the

9 reporters needed the authority of the civilians, Kovacevic and Stakic, to

10 visit Omarska, given what you just heard Dr. Stakic say about what he

11 called "reception centres" having been formed by the civilian authorities,

12 and that "we had to set up such centres," is it still your opinion that

13 Dr. Stakic did not have influence and control of the Omarska and Keraterm

14 camps?

15 A. In the second document that you've given to me, Dr. Stakic is

16 interfacing with a reporter. And he doesn't exactly explain why camps had

17 to be set up. He didn't go on to say that we had to set up the camps

18 because people were being detained and people were being questioned and

19 people were being brought in to a central location. He didn't say that.

20 He didn't say "that's why we set up the camps." And so I don't think that

21 this exchange with the press, with this reporter goes far enough to

22 explain the why the camps were set up. And I go back again to my original

23 idea that the civilians did set up the camps, the civilians did choose the

24 site for the camps because they are the ones that are on the ground and

25 know what facilities might be available.

1 In the case of the other exchange, is the implication here that

2 they had to go to one camp and not the other? We're talking about body

3 language and --

4 Q. Let me make this clear, sir.

5 A. Yes, please do.

6 Q. The evidence is that the Manjaca camp was a strictly military camp

7 run by the military; that the Omarska camp had a commander that was

8 police, Defence witnesses who worked at that camp said that the police

9 provided the security and the army provided an outer ring, perimeter

10 security. So, sir, that's in answer to your question about the difference

11 with the Manjaca and Omarska camp. Given that background, do you see that

12 it's quite obvious that it was the Crisis Staff, Dr. Stakic and Kovacevic,

13 that had the authority to allow the visit to Omarska?

14 A. I think they could provide -- I think they could make a decision

15 to allow the visit to one particular camp as opposed to another, but I

16 don't see how that ties into operating and maintaining and administering

17 the camp. And so I think it was just something that these people agreed

18 to. You go to that camp and not this one. I don't see that it's a

19 smoking gun.

20 Q. General Wilmot, do you believe that you have provided this Chamber

21 with an objective view of the events and the crimes that occurred in

22 Prijedor?

23 A. Hopefully, I have. Yes, I do believe that.

24 Q. Sir, you referred this morning to Becir Medunjanin as an

25 extremist. Why did you choose that word, to describe Becir Medunjanin as

1 an extremist?

2 MR. OSTOJIC: Your Honour, I object to the form of the question.

3 I'd like to be heard on this point.

4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May I hear the reason.

5 MR. OSTOJIC: Yes. I think when the Court asked the question, the

6 article was placed in front of General Wilmot. It was clear that he read

7 from the article and did not formulate an opinion, and questions prior to

8 that clearly stated and suggested he didn't know what capacity he held, he

9 didn't know what his function was at that point. I think that it's unfair

10 to distort the record to claim that General Wilmot called Becir Medunjanin

11 an extremist or anyone else for that matter.

12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think this is a fair statement, and it's --

13 that's indeed what you did. You read out the article.

14 THE WITNESS: I did.

15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Following Mr. --

16 THE WITNESS: And I think the word "extremist" was in the article.

17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: This was in the article, and then later on, I

18 did not continue because you stated that you wouldn't know

19 Mr. Medunjanin. So therefore...

20 But it's for the Prosecution to proceed in this line of questions

21 related to Mr. Medunjanin. And what about --

22 MR. KOUMJIAN:

23 Q. General, I presume you adopt Mr. Ostojic's position about why you

24 used that word.

25 MR. OSTOJIC: I will object to form of the question, Your Honour.

1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: To the best of my recollection, the expert did

2 not use himself and attributed the word "extremist" to Mr. Medunjanin.

3 The question is only that apparently the expert doesn't know who was

4 Mr. Medunjanin. If you want to proceed, then it's for the Prosecution to

5 go ahead and tell about who this person was in the past, and about the

6 fate of this person. I think this is --

7 MR. KOUMJIAN: Thank you.

8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Just to conclude --

9 MR. KOUMJIAN:

10 Q. Just to be clear, and I'm almost, the answer on page 57 of today's

11 LiveNote, when Your Honour was questioning him about the capture of

12 Mr. Medunjanin, at line 14, the witness said: "I would say that the

13 military organisation that was in the area of the time found that this man

14 was the leader of the extremist group, was therefore declared part of the

15 threat, part of the enemy infrastructure." So I stand corrected, and at

16 least in what I've just read, you called him the leader of the extremist

17 group.

18 General, why did you call him the leader of the extremist group?

19 Why did you call the group of people defending Kozarac extremists?

20 A. Because you've handed me.

21 MR. OSTOJIC: Objection, Your Honour, same basis.

22 A. -- You've handed me dozens of pages of documents, and the word

23 "extremist" was on the document, and I picked up on it and I looked at the

24 picture and I saw that the man was being captured, that he was being taken

25 into custody, and unfortunately his family was with him. And I used the

1 word "extremist" because it was on the piece of paper. I don't know if he

2 is an extremist not, but it was on the paper.

3 MR. KOUMJIAN:

4 Q. In fact, in all of the references that you used, those were

5 statements by Dr. Stakic, by the SDS, or by the VRS army. Correct?

6 A. You mean that they were the authors and the instigators who used

7 the word "extremist"?

8 Q. Correct.

9 A. Well, I'm not sure I know who identified and said and pointed at

10 this man and said "you're an extremist" and had it published in a

11 newspaper. But if you say that's where it came from, then the possibility

12 certainly exists. I only used the word because it was on the piece of

13 paper that was presented to me.

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Maybe it can exist, in fact, the expert if

15 Prosecution gives a little bit of the background of Mr. Medunjanin and the

16 fate of Mr. Medunjanin.

17 MR. KOUMJIAN:

18 Q. Sir, the evidence that has been presented that is unrefuted is

19 that Mr. Medunjanin held the position, a civilian position, of secretary

20 of the secretariat for national defence in Prijedor in the elected

21 multiethnic assembly. There also is evidence that Mr. Medunjanin

22 participated in the defence of Kozarac. He has been identified in some

23 documents as the leader of the defence of Kozarac. And the evidence was

24 that he was placed in the Omarska camp, beaten to death, and died in the

25 camp.

1 Do any of those facts make you conclude that he was an extremist?

2 And let me add, his wife was taken from the camp on the bus, and her body

3 has been exhumed.

4 A. No, none of those facts make me believe he was an extremist, and I

5 say again for clarification I only used the word because I saw it on the

6 piece of paper, the document that was handed to me. I'm very sorry that

7 this happened to this gentleman and to his wife, and it's a terrible

8 circumstance.

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Would you see any justification for this?

10 THE WITNESS: No, of course not.

11 MR. KOUMJIAN:

12 Q. Sir, I noticed on your resume that you listed yourself as a

13 consultant for McBreen and Kopko. I may be mispronouncing that. Can you

14 explain that work.

15 A. It's on my resume because I see myself these days as having two

16 jobs, being a private consultant, and also being an employee of the Steele

17 Foundation. And so any time I pick up a new consultancy, I simply add it

18 to my resume so that it looks more rounded and full. I was called by

19 McBreen and Kopko and asked if I could be an expert witness, and when that

20 happened, when I accepted the job, I put it on my resume.

21 Q. So that refers to your work in this case. Is that correct?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Sir, you testified on page 14.067 of yesterday's transcript, I

24 asked you about having read Mr. Brown's report, Ewan Brown, and I said,

25 "Can you tell us if you say any factual errors in Mr. Brown's report."

1 And you said: "No, I don't think I saw any factual errors. In his

2 cross-examination, I see where he and I agree on many points concerning

3 the events that took place at the time, so there was compatibility and

4 essentially I think we agreed on the doctrine." Do you want to correct

5 that or stand by that answer?

6 A. I think it was the doctrine where we generally agreed, and that's

7 where I would come down the strongest. He talked about the words

8 "coordination" and "cooperation," and there are many things that he said

9 that I agree with in terms of doctrine.

10 Q. Sir, given your review of Mr. Brown's report, and your review and

11 use of Mr. Butler's report, would it be correct to say that you find the

12 work of these military analysts for the Office of the Prosecutor reliable,

13 reliable enough to use them in your own report?

14 A. Yes, what they said is very reliable. What they said is quite

15 proper in several instances. I suppose there are differences in when we

16 take a look at did they go far enough, did they look at the other side of

17 the coin, and did they consider the larger picture? So that's probably

18 where some of the differences appear and occur in my mind.

19 MR. KOUMJIAN: Thank you, no further questions.

20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The Defence?

21 Further examination by Mr. Ostojic:

22 Q. General, just a couple questions if I may, on page 12 of today's

23 transcript, Mr. Koumjian from the Office of the Prosecution asked you if a

24 politician wanted to exempt an individual and wanted to keep his public

25 image and continue to support a war effort. Sir, would this politician,

1 if he had a brother-in-law and/or a nephew, would he at the very at least,

2 if he had any influence over the military as alleged, would he use any

3 influence that he had to move these individual, or these individuals, his

4 brother-in-law and his nephew, from the front lines where they would, as

5 in this case, indeed perish? Wouldn't you expect that to be a reasonable,

6 a logical, and a prudent thing for a politician to do? In order that his

7 relatives don't see battle, he would move them in area, perhaps a desk

8 job, or in some other facility as opposed to allowing them to continue to

9 be in the front?

10 A. I see that as -- is this working? I see that as an option that a

11 politician of influence could certainly take. Maybe recognising that he

12 can't prevent his relative from being mobilised, from being drafted into

13 the military, okay, allow that to happen, and then once he's in see if he

14 can influence the position he takes up and keep him out of harm's way if

15 possible. So yes, that could very well happen.

16 Q. Sir, Mr. Koumjian from the Office of the Prosecution also asked

17 you on page 10, "Did you have the authority to exempt your friends from

18 the draft?" And your answer was essentially "no way." Sir, my question

19 to you is: If you wanted to, could you have any your influence with your

20 connections being a brigadier general at the time to move people from

21 either the front line, to move them to a desk job if you so desired?

22 Could you use any influence or did you have any influence to do so?

23 A. First of all, at the time I was in the military, I didn't have any

24 relatives in the military. But I can tell you this: There were certain

25 people in the military who were especially talented and that I caused them

1 to change positions and locations because I wanted them to work for me.

2 So I did have that kind of influence. I wanted Sergeant A to come and

3 work for me in the Pentagon. Now, Sergeant A may have been in Vietnam, in

4 combat, in a combat situation. And because I needed him and because he

5 could help me with pressing business, I could very well influence his

6 assignment and get him assigned to the Pentagon. So yes, that's a

7 possibility.

8 Q. Do you think, sir, from common knowledge that we see in the papers

9 that we can perhaps take judicial notice of that when former presidents or

10 former presidents of countries have their sons and daughters in a time of

11 war not serve on the direct front line but they are actually removed to

12 reserve forces or to areas of safety? Did that ever occur based upon your

13 experience or knowledge?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. In fact, the current president of the United States, sir, one of

16 the main problems and criticisms of him is that his father was the former

17 director of CIA, former vice-president, and then former president of the

18 United States exercised his influence at the time in order to avoid that

19 his son and his children, including the governor of the state of Florida,

20 to avoid military service at the time when there was a callup. Correct?

21 A. That's correct.

22 Q. At the time, the first Mr. George Bush was the director at some

23 time for the CIA, and he exercised that influence. Dr. Stakic, is there

24 any evidence that you saw, sir, from the documents that he had the power

25 or the ability to influence any of the military in any way whatsoever?

1 A. No, not really.

2 MR. OSTOJIC: I have no further questions, Your Honour.

3 MR. KOUMJIAN: Excuse me, Your Honour, I have one question of

4 Mr. Ostojic's that I don't believe the General answered.

5 Further cross-examination by Mr. Koumjian:

6 Q. Sir, would you take your friends off the front line because they

7 were your friends? Would that be ethnical?

8 A. No, that's not what I said. I said if there was an extremely

9 talented person --

10 Q. Sir, I'm asking you to answer my question. That's not my

11 question. My question was would you take your friends off the front line

12 because they were your friends?

13 A. No.

14 MR. KOUMJIAN: No further questions.

15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Defence, any other questions? I can't see any.

16 I can't, unfortunately, yet excuse you because beforehand, we have

17 to go into some details of the exhibits tendered during your testimony.

18 Let me start with, I hope, the easiest exercise. This would be the

19 video. This was tendered today by the Prosecution as S427. Objections?

20 MR. OSTOJIC: Your Honour, if the Court can just refresh my

21 recollection, is that the eight-minute video and the --

22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Interview of Dragoljub Prcac by Tariq, Malik.

23 MR. OSTOJIC: Yes we do, Your Honour.

24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: For what reasons, please?

25 MR. OSTOJIC: We think that the evidence should be excluded for a

1 number of reasons, Your Honour. We believe that proceeding in the manner

2 and producing evidence at this late stage is clearly an attempt to

3 surprise the defendants with facts that have not been but were clearly in

4 the possession of the Office of the Prosecution from the beginning of this

5 case. If their position was X, they should have produced the documents.

6 To present this evidence now is highly prejudicial.

7 The Defence also believes and objects to the fact that we did not

8 have an opportunity, which is protected under a fundamental right of these

9 rules in this Tribunal, to cross-examine this individual. Instead, we get

10 a statement from this individual in part, although this individual may

11 have given other statements from my understanding he has, the complete

12 record of his statement is not before the Court.

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Prosecution.

14 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, I'm not sure if the Defence position

15 is that any evidence that was produced in the last day or two does not

16 come into evidence, because they have produced an awful lot of evidence in

17 the last day or two. This was in response specifically, it's proper

18 rebuttal, in response to the testimony of their expert which was very

19 strong that only the military controlled the camps and the detainees.

20 This directly contradicted that.

21 As to the right to cross-examine this witness, first, the Tribunal

22 rules do allow hearsay, as counsel knows. Furthermore, unfortunately,

23 this witness is not available. He has an appeal pending before the

24 Tribunal. So he's not available as a witness, and for that reason, we

25 believe it's proper and relevant evidence.

1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: After deliberations, admitted into evidence as

2 S427.

3 Then we had S426. Madam Registrar, if you could assist me,

4 please, this was, if I'm correct, the document from 3 August 1992, 1st

5 Krajina Corps command. Objections?

6 MR. OSTOJIC: No, Your Honour.

7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Admitted into evidence S426A and B respectively.

8 Then let's turn to the tendered documents by the Defence. The

9 first question goes to the Prosecution under the headline right to be

10 heard. We are confronted with a motion of 3rd March where the Defence

11 requests leave to submit Exhibits 561 to 566, and then in addition, we

12 were provided only today with exhibits 250 through 560. I think I had no

13 chance to have a look on these documents.

14 Are there any principle objections against this procedure?

15 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, may I say, we're all rather confused at

16 the moment as to where we are on the Defence exhibits, and that's why I

17 came in because we divided the exhibits between us. We were given a list,

18 proposed exhibit list, which runs from 1 to 560. Then when the expert

19 Dr. Trifkovic came, three volumes of documents were produced which ran

20 from numbers 1 up until I think 500. And then we were given some further

21 additional exhibits last night.

22 Your Honour, between the three of us, we have gone through the

23 exhibits that were on the original list, and by and large, we agree that

24 most of them are admissible, and each of us has marked the ones we would

25 consider inadmissible for the reasons, and that's a small bunch, either

1 relevance or other matters.

2 So, Your Honour, are you now talking about the whole set of

3 exhibits or?

4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think we have to follow the rules and

5 therefore go set by step.

6 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the President, please.

7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The first step would be, no doubt, to decide on

8 the Defence request to amend the exhibit list. This was a motion dated

9 March 3, 2003, related to Exhibit Numbers 561 through 566.

10 Any objections against --

11 MS. KORNER: There's no objection to the application to amend the

12 exhibit list, Your Honour. That's the simplest thing.

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Can we agree? This one request is granted. So

14 the exhibit list is amended. This is the first step.

15 And now let's go through the documents that were tendered today by

16 the Defence.

17 It would start with D110. And let me see where is the exhibit

18 list. This was 65 ter number 356. Objections?

19 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, may I say to shorten matters, there's no

20 objection by the Prosecution to the admission of the exhibits that were

21 put through General Wilmot.

22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Excellent. Then this would be true for D111,

23 D112. I think that's it, Madam Registrar. Correct me if I am wrong,

24 please.

25 So these are in any event admitted into evidence as D110, D111,

1 D112 respectively.

2 Then yesterday, we had already admitted into evidence the report

3 provided by the General and the footnotes. Any problems with the

4 footnotes, first of all, because they have been given numbers today. We

5 have it in a special file. And my question is: Is there any problem

6 related to this?

7 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, to be frank, we have not had the time

8 to review them. But in the interests of time, we don't object. They can

9 come in. We have no objection.

10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes, as I outlined in our general rules on the

11 admission of evidence, a decision is subject to any other decision, maybe

12 this may be reversed for unforeseeable reasons. But nevertheless, it

13 stays, this statement with all the footnotes is admitted into evidence.

14 Then, may I please have additional comments by the Defence, what

15 about the additional binders? I think it was seven or so, seven binders,

16 by the expert?

17 MR. OSTOJIC: The Defence, Your Honour, would also move to have

18 those seven binders introduced and admitted into evidence. We have for

19 the Court and for the Office of the Prosecution an outline, if you will,

20 or an index of those documents within the binders if the Court would like

21 and the OTP to review that. Some of them are overlapping with other

22 documents and with the footnotes, but what we've done is we've broken them

23 down from the binders as they existed.

24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Prosecution, please.

25 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, we haven't -- we do object because,

1 first, we don't know what they are. We were, I understand, provided with

2 them yesterday or the day that the General started testifying. And

3 apparently, they do overlap. We're just going to run into the situation

4 where the footnotes are repeated or the 65 ters are repeated or

5 Prosecution exhibits are repeated.

6 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I think this is why we are somewhat

7 confused, that's because we have been getting documents, the like of which

8 we haven't seen in the last few days. The only bundles of documents that

9 we have received from the Defence are three binders which we went through,

10 the extra documents we got last night which we haven't been through, we

11 have no idea what seven binders Your Honours and Mr. Ostojic are talking

12 about at the moment.

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Admittedly so do I. I only know they are

14 somewhere. I don't know if they are in this courtroom or where they are

15 seven binders. I don't know what it is. I think it's never heard in this

16 courtroom, this way of procedure. I don't know. How can you ask us or

17 request the admission into evidence? As I said previously, normally the

18 judiciary should act blindfolded, but not when it comes to the admission

19 of evidence. So I don't know what we are discussing in the moment.

20 MR. OSTOJIC: Perhaps I could clarify it a little more, Your

21 Honour, and my apologies for that. Each of the documents within the

22 binders are documents received by the Defence from the OTP. As I believe

23 briefly mentioned to the Court, we had all those documents in the B/C/S

24 version and requested their translation. All those documents that are

25 listed in the seven binders are included in our Defence 65 ter list. Of

1 that list we received from the OTP, as I mentioned, the fact that close to

2 60 to 75 per cent of the documents had been translated for the OTP at a

3 prior time, and there was that reason to retranslate them.

4 The documents we believe are important because General Wilmot

5 clearly relied on those documents, although he doesn't reference each and

6 every document. But also we believe that in the interests of justice,

7 since they are not documents that were generated by anyone in particular

8 but documents that the OTP state clearly that they have seized and

9 produced to us, all with their ERN numbers with the exception of what I

10 believe six books, I believe they are not only relevant but that the

11 Court, in order to get closer to the truth and to determine exactly what

12 may have occurred, should look at those documents as well as the testimony

13 of the witnesses.

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May I, before I give the floor to the

15 Prosecution once again, ask General Wilmot: Is this a compilation of

16 yours or a compilation provided by the Defence?

17 THE WITNESS: No, it's a compilation of mine. Of course, I got

18 some assistance from them because I didn't know where the documents were.

19 And I haven't -- a lot of the documents I simply scanned and didn't read

20 in their totality, but I was searching for ideas, thoughts, the flow of

21 activity and so forth, and that's how we got to this series of documents.

22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So one could regard it as the basic documents

23 for your report and you relying on these documents at least in part?

24 THE WITNESS: Essentially that's true, sir. Yes, sir.

25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May I recall that whenever a decision is made,

1 it is possible to reverse the decision, but as to the fact that at this

2 moment, General Wilmot, the expert, has stated that it is his own

3 compilation and the basis for his statement, can I invite the Prosecution

4 that we admit this into evidence today, and of course subject to any other

5 decision and also under the - we discussed it briefly during the break -

6 under all reservations by the Trial Chamber, that in case we identify some

7 documents not related to our case or where there are any other obstacles

8 under the rules to admit these documents into evidence, that document by

9 document a reverse decision can be made?

10 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour --

11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Could we proceed this way.

12 MR. KOUMJIAN: We could if Your Honour actually prefers that and

13 we want to accommodate the Court, the Court staff, and the Defence. But

14 what I understand from what Mr. Ostojic just said, all these documents are

15 on the Defence 65 ter list. It makes much more sense when we have a list

16 and numbers to use that list rather than duplicate and admit seven bundles

17 that apparently are duplicative of either Prosecution exhibits or Defence

18 65 ter list exhibits. I think we're all going to be extremely confused if

19 we do that.

20 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour. We did compile a list of

21 the binders reflecting the 65 ter number, column for the date of the

22 document as it appears on the document, the source, and the title, and the

23 brief description, and we state the volume and section that it can be

24 found within the seven binders. We would be happy to pass that out as we

25 suggested earlier to the OTP, to the Court, and to your staff. If we need

1 to make a reservation like that, we don't object, we just believe that it

2 is necessary to get a complete picture, as we've stated. We understand

3 that it is an irregular way of doing things, and we certainly apologise

4 for that.

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Is it true that all the documents included in

6 these seven binders are already either exhibits by the Prosecution, by the

7 Defence, or by the Judges? No additional document included?

8 MR. OSTOJIC: No, Your Honour. That would not be accurate.

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So there would be additional documents included

10 not yet admitted?

11 MR. KOUMJIAN: I believe Mr. Ostojic said that they were all on

12 the 65 ter list, not yet admitted but on that list.

13 MR. OSTOJIC: Right.

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: On the 65 ter list. Okay.

15 MR. OSTOJIC: And the amended motion that the Court just granted

16 because we have the documents that appear on Mr. Butler's report but are

17 not attached to his report, namely the military documents that we in part

18 referenced today.

19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: But if this is the case, that all documents are

20 already delivered, put it this way, under 65 ter, and you have a

21 compilation, and the list of these documents, then I can't see any reason

22 why we would have to copy this -- I think it would be necessary to copy

23 these seven binders 12 times. And I think we should protect the forest.

24 And therefore it's more than reasonable that we limit ourselves to these

25 lists. And my suggestion would be to admit only this list that we have an

1 overview what is in these seven binders. And these seven binders should

2 be available only once and in the Registry. The transcript has --

3 MS. KORNER: [Realtime transcript read in error "MR. KOUMJIAN:"]

4 May I suggest, as Your Honour rightly said, that at the moment we just

5 admit the list.

6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The LiveNote has frozen. Under the -- yes.

7 Under the impression that -- we can move on. It works again.

8 MS. KORNER: I don't think I'm Mr. Koumjian -- although I agree

9 it's very difficulty.

10 Your Honour, we only admit the list, allow us over the weekend to

11 look at what's on the list. May I say this, we do have an objection in

12 principle to certain documents. And that is extracts from books taken out

13 of context which nobody has explained the relevance at all in particular,

14 in respect of the evidence given by Dr. Trifkovic, the first four --

15 sorry, six exhibits on their list are extracts from books. Number 2,

16 there's no translation at all. That's who defended Bosnia. Number 4

17 deals with events in Sanski Most. And Your Honour, in principle, we do

18 object to these extracts taken from books, taken out of context

19 completely.

20 MR. OSTOJIC: Your Honour, may I briefly reply. I believe my

21 learned friend is looking at a list filed on the 18th of November, 2002,

22 our 65 ter list. We've tendered to the Court a list of the documents

23 within the seven binders, so not to confuse the two and so what we

24 tendered to the Court and what we are asking to be moved into evidence

25 right now are the seven binders that General Wilmot relied on which was

1 essentially, among other things, daily military reports from the 1st

2 Krajina, 5th Kozara, and 43rd Motorised Brigade which we believe are

3 consistent with the testimony that the Court heard and will enlighten us

4 on further facts within that testimony and from those statements and other

5 documents.

6 With respect to Ms. Korner's comments on the 65 ter motion and

7 those six books, we can hopefully resolve that this evening once we meet.

8 I don't know that the books are necessarily critical. We have not at this

9 point moved to include those books as evidence, so I think the point might

10 be moot at least at this stage.

11 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, that's I'm really confused now. On the

12 new list we have been given, those books appear on the last page. Items 1

13 through to 6. That's why I say, I'm really now totally and utterly

14 confused.

15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: To be very pragmatic, can it do any harm or

16 create any prejudice for any of us if they admit only this new list as

17 such, and this doesn't say anything about the documents included in this

18 list? And this would give us access to the basic materials of

19 General Wilmot, and whoever wants can go to the Registry, find these

20 documents compiled in these seven files. And I think this avoids this

21 unnecessary copying of all these documents we have already another time.

22 Can the parties agree with this?

23 MR. OSTOJIC: I'm sure we'll be able to work it out, Your Honour.

24 Thank you for your patience.

25 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, admission of the list absolutely no

1 objection, as I said. Admission of the documents on the list into

2 evidence is a different matter.

3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Absolutely. Absolutely.

4 MS. KORNER: Right.

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Then, Madam Registrar, correct me please if I'm

6 wrong, this list would be J113 -- D113. Correct? Okay. Then this is

7 admitted into evidence as D113A, because it's only in English.

8 Are there any other documents related to our current expert

9 witness, General Wilmot, that we have to discuss in his presence?

10 MR. OSTOJIC: I don't believe so, Your Honour.

11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Apparently this is not the case. There are no

12 further questions. I have to thank you for your expertise, for your clear

13 answers. We have to see how we assess your expertise. And as the body of

14 the United Nations, I do not hesitate if I say that even those comments

15 you made today not relevant for this case are very much appreciated.

16 THE WITNESS: Thank you very kindly, sir, and thank you for your

17 hospitality I'll call it and many politenesses. Thank you very much.

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I wish you a safe trip home, especially under

19 the prevailing circumstances.

20 May I ask the usher to escort the now-excused witness out of the

21 courtroom.

22 [The witness withdrew]

23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Then, it remains for us to discuss hopefully

24 without any additional confusion the remaining documents. And this would

25 be the aforementioned documents tendered by the Defence.

1 What is now -- this is another question. The documents 249

2 through 650, I asked the parties since November last year whether they

3 came to an agreement on the admission of evidence, because the Trial

4 Chamber would be prepared to accept a package solution, save there would

5 be any objections by the Prosecution. And if I understood it correctly,

6 there were only some minor documents to be discussed.

7 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, it's not I'm afraid quite as simple as

8 that. We've only gone through documents 1 to 249. 250 to 650

9 effectively, we think we got last night, with the translations. So we

10 haven't looked at any of those. I can see Mr. Ostojic is shaking his

11 head, so if he tells us we've had them before. So all we can deal with

12 today, and it's really a matter of principle which may assist, is the ones

13 we've looked at, which is 1 through 249.

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think this is fair enough, and we ourselves

15 would have made the reservation that we are not in a situation where we

16 could decide responsibly and conscientiously on documents we haven't seen

17 before. We received these other documents this morning, as outlined

18 beforehand.

19 I learned from Madam Registrar that we need to have a short

20 break. So therefore, the trial stays adjourned until 5 minutes past 4.00

21 that we can go through the remaining documents. And may I ask Madam

22 Registrar to provide the parties with the document "problematic documents"

23 that we can discuss it in this order.

24 --- Recess taken at 3.54 p.m.

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

1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please be seated. Let's turn to the problematic

2 documents in the order. S151A, what about the translation?

3 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I'm so sorry. I'm obviously a bit

4 confused at the moment. We have -- I understand we have an English

5 transcript of this, although the video itself is in B/C/S. And Your

6 Honour wants what, a B/C/S transcript?

7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I have to go back to the --

8 THE REGISTRAR: A new English version, that's what is needed.

9 MS. KORNER: You want a new English version.

10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think it was only a rough translation.

11 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I'm told somebody's working on it. It's

12 more or less ready and it should be available next week.

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Then S368.

14 THE REGISTRAR: The Defence was to specify which part of the

15 electronic database they want accessed.

16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: It's on the list of missing persons from the

17 database Nastradali. May I ask the Defence, is this problem settled?

18 MR. OSTOJIC: It's my understanding that it is, Your Honour.

19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. Then this part in the exhibit list

20 can be redacted, this comment.

21 S393.

22 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, it has been submitted for translation to

23 CLSS. We're just checking to see whether we've had the translation back.

24 As yet, we don't think we have.

25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The problem here was that it was not admitted

1 for now because it was not legible. And then the next step was to provide

2 an original. If my recollection serves me correctly, we sought -- we

3 reviewed this document and found out that it was not possible for the

4 translation -- to have a proper translation.

5 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes, Your Honour. I've got the original from the

6 vault and actually brought it into the courtroom and asked one of the

7 interpreters in one of the booths to see whether they were able to

8 distinguish it so that we could put it on the ELMO and then we would be

9 able to read it. But they said in fact that they -- it was illegible for

10 them. So then we were going to submit it through the official channel to

11 the CLSS to try and get them to see if it could be translated. And so

12 we're just waiting to see whether it comes back.

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you, that we're only clear what the

14 problem is with this. If it's not legible, then it's not legible. We had

15 ourselves especially with the assistance of Judge Vassylenko ourselves

16 problems to read this. So please let us know in the course of the next

17 week whether there is a translation possible or not.

18 D55.

19 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, that was the statute, and Mr. Corin is

20 hopeful to deliver some kind of report next week.

21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: During rebuttal.

22 MS. KORNER: During rebuttal.

23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you.

24 Then an extremely confusing matter once again, the exhibits

25 tendered by Mr. Trifkovic. Unfortunately, I wasn't present during the

1 entire testimony, so therefore it's more or less hearsay or reading the

2 transcript. But the parties were to come together and determine which

3 documents are undisputed and therefore ripe for admission. And then to

4 find out where there's no agreement or no translation in order that the

5 Chamber could rule on these documents. And the idea was to have this

6 admitted as D92, and then in our customary way, add a dash, and then add

7 document by document.

8 May I ask the Prosecution, was there a possibility to go these

9 three binders until now and do you have any objections?

10 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, this is what I have been sort of going

11 back to for the last half hour. These are the documents 1 to 249. Those

12 are the ones that the three of us had gone through. I dealt with the

13 first volume, which for the majority, there is no objection. And it would

14 be easier I think if I indicate the ones to which there is an objection.

15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Excellent. Let's proceed this way.

16 MS. KORNER: And, Your Honour, I go back to what I said earlier,

17 which is the question of these books. And, Your Honour, I go back to 1 to

18 249 which are on the list of the 18th of November, which I think is really

19 the only list we ever had until now. Your Honours, 1 through until 6 are

20 sections of various books which allegedly Dr. Trifkovic looked at. He did

21 not refer to any of the page numbers except in one or two cases, I think.

22 But what has been put in are sections from these books. Book number --

23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: You refer to "Chaos, Some Chaos. Chaos, Some

24 Chaos." These books --

25 MS. KORNER: Items 1, the first is Bosnian warriors, but a man

1 called Hodzic.

2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: These books appearing now as 1 to 6, following

3 522 on the list we received --

4 MS. KORNER: Just today.

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: -- right now.

6 MS. KORNER: It's -- simply the logic of this escapes me

7 completely, but it's now on the last page after 522. You will see items 1

8 to 6.

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And it's not without cynicism that the first

10 article reads "some chaos."

11 MS. KORNER: Absolutely. So, Your Honour, our objection is to

12 that. They have never really been dealt with, either by anybody referring

13 Your Honours to the pages. They are parts of this book. We don't know

14 whether they are representative of the whole book or not. May I point

15 out, I don't know who did it, but in book number 1, "The Bosnian

16 Warriors," the copy we have been given has got underlining in the original

17 text which has been repeated in the translation, so it does go. I think

18 we ought to have clean copies go in.

19 For book number 2, "Who Defended Bosnia," no translation has been

20 provided to us.

21 Book number 4 deals with events in Sanski Most, and Your Honours

22 ruled on a number of occasion that we shouldn't put in documents that

23 dealt with municipalities outside of Prijedor. And, Your Honour, the --

24 when I say "books 1 to 6," I would slightly withdraw that of number 5.

25 It's the book by Mr. Sivac. But again, it's only partial. But

1 principally, we would object to parts of books going in which haven't been

2 dealt with by witnesses properly in evidence and without witnesses

3 pointing out what they say the relevance of those books are.

4 Your Honour, shall I deal with --

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I would just add that during the break, the

6 Judges briefly deliberated on this issue, and the objections - your

7 objections - our objections have in common that it's indeed in part out of

8 context and normally, one can read a book, a law, or whatsoever only in

9 context. And in part, the translation is not provided.

10 And in addition, we have reasonable doubts whether this is really

11 necessary, a question of -- let alone the question of relevance at this

12 point in time. Therefore, I would ask the Defence, is it really necessary

13 to make -- to request the admission into evidence of these books? Because

14 then it might be that we would have to ask for the entire book in a

15 language we understand. And isn't it in fact enough that we have admitted

16 into evidence Trifkovic's expertise relying on this, and thereby

17 incorporating this into his expert report? Therefore, may I ask you, are

18 you prepared to withdraw this request related to the excerpts of these six

19 books?

20 MR. OSTOJIC: Your Honour, first of all, if I may clarify for the

21 Court, we were advised by the translation department, and I believe your

22 office, that we should submit only the portions of the book that we felt

23 were relevant to be translated in light of the amount of documents that

24 the department has to translate. That's why we selected certain portions

25 of the book. Quite frankly, I think each of the books should be

1 introduced into evidence because they offer a perspective which I think

2 would assist the Court in coming closer to the truth and would protect the

3 interests of justice in this trial.

4 Secondly, or third, each of these books seems to be an account of

5 first-hand information which we believe is reliable, and therefore

6 necessary in order to get a clear picture.

7 My next, I believe, opinion and basis for asking that the books be

8 introduced into evidence, specifically book number 6, who's author is

9 Mr. Sefer Halilovic, the Court will recall that we had multiple

10 discussions relating to Mr. Halilovic including the possibility of the

11 Office of the Prosecution giving us the statements that he has given to

12 him -- to them them as well as with the possibility of having

13 Mr. Halilovic testify in this case. I think it's necessary to keep things

14 in context that we did not obtain Mr. Halilovic's exhaustive interviews

15 with the OTP, but we know that obviously he's indicted, and we would like

16 that book to be introduced into evidence so that there's no dispute,

17 unless there can be an agreement as to when the Patriotic League was

18 formed, when the Green Berets were formed, and when if indeed the

19 mujahedin were actually in the Prijedor and the Bosnia area.

20 We believe that book being a first-hand account has been

21 translated. We are speculating on that, but we can't imagine that the

22 Office of the Prosecution, while indicting an individual such as

23 Mr. Halilovic, does not have that book in its entirety translated and has

24 used it as some sort of basis for evidence that soon will come forth

25 against that individual in his upcoming trial. We will attempt if the

1 Court wishes to have the entire books translated. We submitted only the

2 portions of the book that we felt were relevant, and we believe that the

3 books should be introduced into evidence for those reasons, Your Honour.

4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May I ask the Prosecution related to the last

5 book only by Sefer Halilovic.

6 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I don't know is the answer to that,

7 whether we've ever had it translated. The persons who are dealing with

8 that prosecution -- I don't know the answer -- no. I mean, it's a

9 different team. That's what I'm trying to say, and I don't know the

10 answer but I could make a check. Your Honour, it doesn't negate the point

11 that I'm making, which is that to put parts of that book in, possibly out

12 of context, without anybody explaining why it is relevant, Your Honour, in

13 our submission, is not a suitable basis for admission. But Your Honour, I

14 will make a check on whether we have a translation in-house.

15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. I think the arguments have been

16 exchanged, and we have to rule on these six books especially, and I think,

17 yes, this was one special problem only.

18 Then may I take it from your statement that there are no other

19 documents in the three files or -- if not, please let me know.

20 MS. KORNER: No, Your Honour. I was going to deal with, as I say,

21 we each dealt with a separate binder, and I know that in the binders 2 and

22 3, there are more documents which seem to have no relevance at all.

23 Between documents 1 to 89, which is what I looked at, Your Honour, I don't

24 know whether Your Honour wants me to indicate to you, but a number of them

25 are already Prosecution exhibits, and I have a couple of queries of

1 relevance in respect of Document Number 16 -- perhaps if I just indicate

2 the numbers, then Your Honours can look at it. Your Honours, sorry,

3 Documents number 11, 16, and 42, 46, 55, and 56. And that is it. But

4 Your Honours, Documents 7; 12; 14; 17 to 19 inclusive; 22 and 23; and 37;

5 64; and 73; and 82 are all already Prosecution exhibits.

6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So therefore, the request by the Defence becomes

7 moot related to these documents. Correct?

8 MR. OSTOJIC: Correct, Your Honour.

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: If Prosecution could be so kind related to all

10 the three binders to give Madam Registrar the numbers you find out.

11 MS. KORNER: Yes, we'll do that.

12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you.

13 MS. KORNER: Then, Your Honour, finally simply this: On 26, we

14 never got a document at all. Actually I think that was an oversight in

15 the bundles. And for number 37, there's no translation. And, Your

16 Honour, on the first set those are the only remarks that I have.

17 Mr. Koumjian dealt with the second set, and Ms. Sutherland the third.

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Let's proceed, please, this way, that you

19 announce where you have objections based on relevance, and then on the

20 second part, those documents which are already admitted into evidence.

21 So, Mr. Koumjian, as I understand, responsible for file number 2.

22 MR. OSTOJIC: Your Honour, if I may interrupt just before

23 Mr. Koumjian, did counsel say 37 they do not have a translation? Because

24 I believe she also said 37 is a Prosecution exhibit, so -- just so that

25 we're clear.

1 MS. KORNER: Yes, you're absolutely right.

2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Microphone, Ms. Korner, please.

3 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, in this binder, there are a great

4 number of documents which while we can't say that they prejudice us, we

5 see no relevance and no value. They generally refer to events that took

6 place outside of Prijedor. But before I go into those, there are a few we

7 seem to be missing. And that would be the 65 ter number 146 and 147, we

8 don't see any -- in my binder, I didn't see any document under those

9 numbers. Under 174 and 175, there was no translation. And 180, we also

10 were missing the document.

11 The documents that I did not see any relevance to the events in

12 Prijedor were numbers 104 - it's actually a very long list - 106; 109

13 through 115, all of those; 118; 119; 121; 123 through 126, all four of

14 those; 130 through 134, those five documents; 136; 139; 141; 143; 148;

15 151; 153; 158; 161; 164; 170; 172; 173; 177; 179; 181; 182; 183; 188; 189;

16 and 193.

17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. I can only say we will rule on this

18 as soon as practicable.

19 Then file 3, please, Ms. Sutherland.

20 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, the same goes for this binder in

21 relation to what Mr. Koumjian said, his opening remarks on binder 2. A

22 number of documents that are irrelevant to the Prijedor Municipality. The

23 ones that are relevant to Prijedor, I think, are 3. I've just lost the

24 list. Number 201, 222, 228.

25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: This would be, because I don't know whether we

1 have all the same binders, starting with -- you say irrelevant from your

2 point of view is Document --

3 MS. SUTHERLAND: No, I'm sorry, Your Honour. I wasn't clear.

4 I've got the binder Rule 65 ter numbers 200 to 249. The three documents

5 that I think are relevant for Prijedor are 201, 222, 228.

6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: This is what I understood. I only wanted to

7 know where you started. 200, correct?

8 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes.

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Any documents already admitted into evidence

10 amongst those?

11 MS. SUTHERLAND: No, Your Honour. There are some other documents

12 that are relevant generally, and that is in relation to Rule 65 ter number

13 200, there are in fact four articles in that one number, so it's the

14 article with the title "Concern About BH."

15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes.

16 MS. SUTHERLAND: The next one is 206 and 207, 208, 209. 211 is,

17 in fact, Exhibit D77. 214, 223, 224. 225 is, in fact, D78. 226, query;

18 possibly 227; 231; 232; 233; 237; 238; 239. I'll just go back to 227,

19 Your Honour. It's dealing with Sarajevo, Mostar, and Bosanski Brod, and

20 there is one sentence -- and it's also dealing with the EC and

21 developments at the Lisbon conference, so we don't object to that coming

22 in.

23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Sorry, you mentioned previously you regard as

24 relevant 201, 222, 228 --

25 MS. SUTHERLAND: They go specifically dealing with events in the

1 Prijedor Municipality.

2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And then those you just listed, you regard as

3 absolutely irrelevant or --

4 MS. SUTHERLAND: I'm saying they are generally relevant. We don't

5 object to them being admitted. They don't specifically mention the

6 Prijedor Municipality.

7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you for this distinction.

8 MS. SUTHERLAND: Also 241 and 245. I'm sorry, I missed those

9 two. No, I'm sorry, Your Honour. 241 and 245 are in another pile of

10 documents.

11 The list I will now give you are other municipalities dealing with

12 events in other municipalities within Bosnia-Herzegovina or even outside

13 Bosnia, which in our submission are irrelevant. And that is the three

14 other articles in Rule 65 ter number 200. Then the following: 202, 203,

15 204, 205, 210, 212, 213, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 221, 229, 230, 234, 236,

16 241, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 249.

17 Then are another lot of documents which deal with refugees

18 which -- not dealing specifically with Prijedor Municipality which in our

19 submission are irrelevant, and they are Documents 220; 225, which is D78;

20 235; 240; 242; and 248. And that completes the third binder.

21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: You mentioned 225 twice. Once on page 39, line

22 9, and then again.

23 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes, I'm sorry, Your Honour, that's because it

24 deals with refugees and it's also --

25 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Ms. Sutherland, please.

1 MS. SUTHERLAND: I'm sorry, yes. Yes, because it's already an

2 exhibit, I withdraw the fact that I said just a moment ago that because it

3 was dealing with refugees it's irrelevant.

4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: All right. Okay. Also here, the Chamber will

5 rule as soon as practical because I think the Defence will stick to their

6 submission that these documents are relevant without any doubt.

7 And then the next question was -- could we go for a moment in

8 private session, please.

9 [Private session]

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 [Open session]

22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Related to Document S419, what about the

23 biography of the author Mirko Pejanovic.

24 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I'm sorry. I did actually provide to

25 the Defence the whole book to take a photocopy of the other day. But I

1 haven't as yet made arrangements for the -- his biography as -- but I will

2 do that so Your Honours can have it on Monday.

3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. What about the other documents given

4 by Mr. Trifkovic spontaneously, the 19th of March, 2003. Is it necessary?

5 Does the Defence tender this document, which is only part of the document,

6 public domain, accessible on the Internet?

7 MR. OSTOJIC: It would be our position, Your Honour, that in order

8 to keep a complete record, that the documents do be introduced in as

9 evidence.

10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So then the single page -- sorry, I forgot the

11 right to be heard by the Prosecution.

12 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I don't object to it. I would rather

13 have liked to have seen the second article as well. But, Your Honour, as

14 far as I'm concerned --

15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Step by step. So the first -- the only one

16 page, once again, only part of an entire document therefore admitted into

17 evidence as D114. Correct, Madam Registrar?

18 THE REGISTRAR: That's correct, Your Honour.

19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. The article by Alfred Rubin, what

20 about this?

21 MR. OSTOJIC: Yes, Your Honour.

22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Objections?

23 MS. KORNER: Well, again, Your Honour, there are -- I do have some

24 reservations, but I'm not prepared to put them forward strongly. I do

25 think, however, it would be better if we saw a second article that he said

1 was conjoined to produce the composite. But as I say, I don't feel

2 strongly enough to pursue that.

3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Admitted into evidence, D115.

4 The third, I think it's settled. Then none of the parties

5 tendered the sample of U.S. commentary on the witness's work on Islam. I

6 think this is really superfluous. We don't need this. But of course,

7 it's for the parties.

8 MR. OSTOJIC: Your Honour, I think it is superfluous, Your Honour,

9 but it is in order to keep a complete record, we could just formally

10 tender. But for whatever it's worth and I think in the transcript it's

11 referred to, so just if anyone goes back to review it, they would know

12 what it is that they are referencing. But we are not really moving one

13 way or the other in connection with that document, but formally I guess we

14 are moving it into evidence.

15 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, well it's slightly different because he

16 merely volunteered that he had them, and nobody looked into them and

17 nobody asked a single question. So I don't see how that takes as --

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Absolutely. Not admitted into evidence.

19 Madam Registrar, that's all? Any problems from your side, from

20 your perspective in the moment?

21 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I just ask Your Honour -- I know we are

22 slightly over but --

23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: No, no, no. We are not -- let's continue,

24 nothing with exhibits.

25 So therefore, before closing the Defence case, I have once again

1 to ask the Defence: Is there any intention to call Dr. Stakic as a

2 witness, or does Dr. Stakic want to give a statement under Rule 84 bis?

3 MR. OSTOJIC: Your Honour, the Defence would ask respectfully that

4 it may close its case on Monday. We have not, under the time constraints

5 with the issues, been able to fully and in my opinion completely resolve

6 that issue. If the Court presses us to close the case today, we will do

7 so respectfully. Then the answer to the question will be that Dr. Stakic

8 will not give a statement pursuant to the rules as they are envisioned.

9 However, if we would be given an opportunity just to clarify any and all

10 issues, to determine clearly that that is the case, we would ask that we

11 close the case formally on Monday of next week.

12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: There is no obstacle to reopen the case if your

13 client decides to make use of his right enshrined especially in Rule 84

14 bis.

15 Anything else? Any motion during the Defence case?

16 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, it's just something Your Honour raised,

17 I think it was on Monday of this week that I want to discuss. But I'd

18 like to do that in private session.

19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: It has to do with the Defence case?

20 MS. KORNER: It has to do -- well, I'm not sure what it has to

21 do. I think it's Your Honours' calling of witnesses it has to do with.

22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: That's the next step.

23 MS. KORNER: All right.

24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May I ask formally the Defence, are there any

25 other motions or any other evidence under Rule 85(ii)?

1 MR. OSTOJIC: Your Honour, the Defence would just like to remind

2 the Court respectfully that when reviewing the objections as to relevance

3 to the documents that we submit, that they specifically focus on

4 paragraphs 26 and 27, although we're unclear as to how facts as cited in

5 the indictment relating as far back as 1991 and allegations with respect

6 to joint criminal enterprise as set forth in those two paragraphs of the

7 fourth amended count, how the Prosecution can now claim that articles

8 contemporaneous with the events as they have alleged should or are not

9 relevant. So we would just respectfully have the Court and direct your

10 attention to that. Other than that, we have no other comments at this

11 time, Your Honour.

12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And no other motions, I understand.

13 MR. OSTOJIC: I didn't hear the Court, I'm sorry.

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: No other motions, no other evidence.

15 MR. OSTOJIC: That is correct, Your Honour. The Defence will

16 formally rest its case.

17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. This then concludes the Defence case

18 under Rule 85(A)(ii).

19 Then we have to turn to the events of next week hopefully to take

20 place. Once again, step by step. I raise the question whether or not

21 during rebuttal, Prosecution intends to call Mr. Dosen, being now

22 available as a witness, during rebuttal?

23 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, that's what I was about to deal with,

24 and could I ask that we go into private session.

25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Private session, please.

1 [Private session]

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 [Open session]

22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May I ask the Defence, do they have -- do you

23 have already an opinion on the 92 bis transcripts?

24 MR. OSTOJIC: Yes, we do have an opinion, Your Honour.

25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May we hear it.

1 MR. OSTOJIC: It's a preliminary opinion, Your Honour, but quite

2 frankly as I understand the Rules of Evidence in this Tribunal, the OTP

3 had an allegation in connection with specifically the town of Ljubija.

4 They apparently have called some witnesses, although now they themselves

5 view it as not enough witnesses, to establish a prima facie case both as

6 to widespread and systematic and as to whether crimes occurred in the town

7 of Ljubija.

8 The Court unfortunately, either pursuant to our motion or proprio

9 motu, did not dismiss during the 98 bis portion of this case the entirety

10 of Ljubija and felt that there was enough evidence in connection with that

11 for the Prosecution. The Defence, trying to meet its obligation, brought

12 witnesses from that town in order to rebut, contradict, and refute the

13 allegations set forth in the fourth amended complaint -- or the fourth

14 amended indictment alleging that specific town. My understanding of

15 rebuttal is to rebut new evidence, not to rehash and reopen their case to

16 add evidence which would assist them because they either failed,

17 respectfully, or neglected to bring forth such evidence.

18 They are not rebutting our witnesses, they are merely adding

19 witnesses to support their initial claim. We still believe that that

20 entire portion should have been dismissed pursuant to 98. We respect the

21 Court's ruling on that. We brought witnesses to rebut that. Now to give

22 them an opportunity to add witnesses in that case would in essence be

23 reopening their case so that they can call witnesses on those issues. We

24 think it is highly inappropriate. It is not a new issue. Therefore,

25 there is nothing to rebut.

1 Rebuttal and rejoinder are for only issues that have arisen that

2 were not covered. This is an allegation that goes to many elements and

3 factors that are in the fourth amended indictment that we have already

4 addressed. So we think it's appropriate for both witnesses, Your Honour.

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I didn't want to discuss the prerequisites of 92

6 bis lengthy today. The only question was in case the Trial Chamber comes

7 to the conclusion that it is admissable on -- during rebuttal under 92

8 bis, would there be a request for cross-examination of these witnesses?

9 MR. OSTOJIC: I apologise, Your Honour. I thought you wanted my

10 general opinion on the issue. Yes, of course the Defence wants to

11 cross-examine these witnesses, and we think it's most important in light

12 of the fact that we brought witnesses which we believe were credible and

13 showed the events which were contradictory to those which they are not

14 supporting. So yes, we would be asking formally to cross-examine those

15 witnesses pursuant to 92 bis.

16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you for this clear statement, because it's

17 now to coordinate the next weeks and to see what is necessary, what time

18 we will need.

19 All the other issues related to the prerequisites and especially

20 the 94 bis admission of an expert report already once rejected by the

21 Chamber, this we can discuss, no doubt, on Tuesday.

22 On Wednesday we start hopefully with the examination, let's call

23 it the examination-in-chief by the Judges, of Mr. Kuruzovic. Any comments

24 on this in the moment?

25 MS. KORNER: No, Your Honour. Your Honour knows the submissions

1 we've made on it, so I anticipate that Your Honours will be giving a

2 warning. But the only other matter is whether Mr. Kuruzovic should have

3 with him a lawyer to represent him.

4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We have already taken this into account, and

5 there would be a standby counsel ready if need may be. I take it from the

6 statement, from the previous statement, that Mr. Kuruzovic was prepared to

7 testify without the assistance of counsel. But under this special,

8 extremely special circumstances, as I said previously, a suspect appearing

9 as a witness, but not indicted, I think it's only fair that if the person

10 so wishes, counsel be present. So if we are in agreement.

11 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, yes.

12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you.

13 Then on Thursday, as to the fact there was an overlapping of a

14 long Status Conference in another case, we switched with the Galic case.

15 And therefore, the hearing, the second day of the hearing of

16 Mr. Kuruzovic, will take place in the morning of Thursday next week. If

17 need may be, and it's really not foreseeable how long this witness will

18 take us, may I ask the parties - I already addressed this issue early this

19 morning - would the parties be prepared to continue Friday, 28? Please,

20 you maybe have the most important problems at this point in time.

21 MR. OSTOJIC: The parties will be prepared to proceed on Monday

22 with the continued cross-examination of Mr. Kuruzovic. I would just ask

23 the Court respectfully that the Court reconsiders our request orally in

24 connection with the written briefs to be submitted, because the time frame

25 is --

1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I asked for Friday, and you answered related to

2 Monday.

3 MR. OSTOJIC: We are prepared to proceed on next Friday, Your

4 Honour, and if necessary, the following Monday as well.

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you.

6 What about Prosecution?

7 MS. KORNER: We're quite prepared, Your Honour.

8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So this would take place in Courtroom I, Madam

9 Registrar, correct? We have just received a new courtroom calendar.

10 We have to decide later in which courtroom we will continue on

11 Friday. So for the moment, the next difficult week seems to be relatively

12 clear. Any other urgent submissions for today? The Defence, please.

13 MR. OSTOJIC: No, Your Honour.

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. Prosecution?

15 MS. KORNER: No, Your Honour.

16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you.

17 This concludes today's and this weeks' hearing. And we continue

18 in the same courtroom. Therefore we may leave some of the documents here

19 in this courtroom. Monday 9.00. The trial stays adjourned until Monday,

20 9.00.

21 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned

22 at 5.09 p.m., to be reconvened on Monday,

23 the 24th day of March, 2003,

24 at 9.00 a.m.

25