1 Friday, 2 July 2004
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.15 a.m.
6 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning. I'm sorry we were delayed for a
7 little this morning. May I remind you, Mr. Svicevic, of the affirmation
8 you took at the commencement of your evidence which still applies.
9 Ms. Somers.
10 MS. SOMERS: Thank you very much, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE PARKER: I beg your pardon. I see Mr. Rodic.
12 MS. SOMERS: Sorry.
13 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I apologise to my learned
14 friend. Defence has prepared a complete document, technically correct,
15 the same one that we presented yesterday with a couple of pages missing.
16 And now, the missing page has been provided, both in English and in B/C/S.
17 I made it available to my colleagues from the Prosecution last night, and
18 I would now ask the usher kindly to distribute this.
19 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Rodic.
20 Ms. Somers.
21 MS. SOMERS: Thank you, Your Honour. When my learned colleague
22 said he made it available last night, he means last night. So we will try
23 to work accordingly.
24 WITNESS: RADOSLAV SVICEVIC [Resumed]
25 [Witness answered through interpreter]
1 Cross-examined by Ms. Somers:
2 Q. Good morning. Shall I call you Dr. Svicevic, Colonel Svicevic?
3 What is your -- what title do you use now so I don't get it wrong?
4 A. Doctor.
5 Q. Dr. Svicevic, a couple of points I wanted to pick up from
6 yesterday's examination, your date and place of birth, if you would be so
7 kind, please.
8 A. 7 January 1947, a place called Prijepolje.
9 Q. That is in which republic, please?
10 A. Serbia.
11 Q. And your ethnicity?
12 A. Serb.
13 Q. Can you also clarify, are you a psychologist or a psychiatrist?
14 Is it -- I know you went to a medical faculty, but it wasn't clear what
15 your credential was, actually.
16 A. At the beginning, I said clearly that I read philosophy at the
17 university, majoring in clinical psychology. I got both my degrees in
18 psychology, specialising in stress and myocardial infarction.
19 Q. Did you practice, were you a clinical psychologist with a
20 patient-client base during the course of your career?
21 A. Yes. After completing my studies, I worked in the psychiatry
22 clinic of the medical academy. I worked in a centre for personnel
23 selection to meet the requirements of the JNA as an expert in the area of
24 suicide. I transferred to the General Staff in the first half of the
25 1980s where I dealt with cases of deaths, especially suicides. And in
1 that capacity, I took part in international congresses.
2 Q. So you have had a considerable amount of experience on the
3 psychologist-patient level with dealing with trauma, with grave crisis?
4 That is an area that you would have dealt with, as opposed to, let's say,
5 child psychology, family counseling, that kind of...?
6 A. Yes. I mainly dealt with adults because that is the natural
7 population of the army.
8 Q. And when you were in the military, did you also run a column in
9 Narodna Armija about your psychologist or visiting your psychologist? I'd
10 come across something and I wanted to ask you about it and see if that was
11 a -- I don't want to use the term, kind of a dear Abby-type scenario, if
12 you know what that refers to, but did you have a column where people could
13 write to you and you would respond anonymously?
14 A. Yes, there was something of the kind.
15 Q. Okay. And how successfully was that received by the persons in
16 the military? Was it used?
17 A. Well, if you do some kind of work, you imply, like to believe,
18 that there is some use in it. Otherwise you wouldn't be doing it.
19 MS. SOMERS: I'm going to ask, please, for the usher to distribute
20 a copy of a column from Narodna Armija and ask you a little bit about how
21 it worked, what types of responses.
22 Q. It's in both languages. My understanding is you -- you are
23 relatively fluent in English as well. Is that correct, Doctor?
24 Dr. Svicevic?
25 A. I'm not fluent, but I have a solid command of English. I can
2 Q. All right. The article that I'm looking at is on the right-hand
3 side in the B/C/S, and the translation is the -- well, the psychologist
4 with you is -- seems to be the name of the column. And is that your
5 signature? Is that your name at the bottom of the column? Is this a
6 column that you were using to assist various members of the armed
8 A. Yes, Dr. Radoslav Svicevic.
9 Q. That's not a second Dr. Radoslav Svicevic?
10 A. No, there isn't.
11 Q. And this was dated 10 May 1990. The topic is one that -- kind of
12 advice for the lovelorn, but it also has a deep -- a deeper meaning. And
13 you -- it talks about a young man who because of his looks and inferiority
14 complex and expressed concern to the point where he was thinking of the
15 worst, and you gave a certain amount of advice.
16 How many of such columns did you actually write? How many answers
17 did you give to persons on this level? How long did this column run?
18 A. A couple of months, I believe. But I ran such columns in many
19 other magazines in Serbia, and this answer fits into one of my previous
20 answers concerning my professional preferences and my specialisation in
21 suicides. This letter reflects a crisis involving suicidal intentions,
22 and my answer is addressed to a man who was obviously in a crisis. I
23 believe this is a correct, professional, and human gesture on my part, I
25 Q. I'm sorry, Madam Interpreter.
1 The discretion -- at the bottom, there is kind of a little section
2 that says that discretion is assured, everything is code named. Now, you
3 said you also wrote in other publications. Which ones did you participate
4 in? Which ones did you write in and where were they? Were they in Serbia
6 A. They were in Serbia, in newspapers and publications with high
7 circulation. It would take me some time to recollect their names. But I
8 also wrote in professional magazines. So I wrote in publications intended
9 for the masses, but also in professional papers. And what is added here,
10 discretion is guaranteed, that is something that was added by the editor.
11 I had nothing to do with it.
12 Q. Your works or your column was also seen in other republics, not
13 just in Serbia. And when you were doing private writing, did it go beyond
14 Serbia as well?
15 A. The whole territory of Yugoslavia was covered, especially in
16 1995 -- sorry, 1990. This issue is from 1990. At that time, it was
17 distributed across the whole territory of Yugoslavia, not only in Serbia
18 and Montenegro.
19 Q. In the course of your being in the command of the 2nd Operational
20 Group, did you also find yourself in a position to offer psychological
21 assistance to any of the troops within that composition?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. How was that accomplished? Did you have -- were you offered an
24 office or did you make the rounds and visit the units in their various
1 A. There were three places, three clinics, most usually in the
2 Trebinje hospital where traumatised patients who also had physical
3 injuries would come. Another place was at the command of the 2nd
4 Operations Group, and on a couple of occasions I went directly to visit
5 troops in the field. Maybe it would be interesting for you to hear about
6 these interventions in the field.
7 Q. I'll get back to that.
8 MS. SOMERS: If I may ask, please, that this exhibit be admitted
9 into evidence.
10 JUDGE PARKER: I'm tempted to ask of the relevance.
11 MS. SOMERS: Background, Your Honour. I think this is part of --
12 this is a liaison officer who is very much a part of the public who is
13 known, and he also has a specialty which I think is very relevant to some
14 of the issues that are going to be discussed.
15 JUDGE PARKER: At the moment, my eyes are yet to be opened. But
16 very well. It will be received.
17 MS. SOMERS: Thank you.
18 THE REGISTRAR: This document is P213.
19 MS. SOMERS:
20 Q. Was there a trust that was built up between you and the troops?
21 A. I am by nature the kind of man who tends to build such
22 relationship with all people. And with troops, I also had a sent mental
23 relationship because they were young men the same age as my children. And
24 if you want me to and if we have time, I can elaborate on the topic for a
25 long time. But I would -- I doubt it.
1 Q. As much as I would like to, the time becomes a factor. But thank
3 Did you have any concern for the effects of the conflict on the
4 other side? How did you view what war does to both sides?
5 A. I could offer you at this moment a paper if you could accept it
6 which would best reflect the profile --
7 Q. I don't think we need that kind of detail. But was that something
8 in your -- did you factor the effect of conflict also in how you, perhaps,
9 counseled people? I mean, certainly you were in a conflict where people
10 once worked together and now they were fighting with each other. How did
11 you deal with that with your patients in the field?
12 A. I don't understand the question. I worked following my
13 professional and humane ethics. But I do not understand the meaning of
14 your question. If you would clarify it, I would be pleased to answer it.
15 Q. The problems that affected the troops in the 2nd Operational
16 Group, would you agree that the same types of problems affected the troops
17 on the other side, affects of conflict?
18 A. I am confused by this question because in the operations group, we
19 did not have any troops. We had a couple of soldiers who were gofers for
20 the command of the operations group. But the area covered by the 2nd
21 Operations Group involved troops from the 37th Corps and the 9th Naval
22 Sector, and problems sometimes arose that called for my attention as a
23 professional. I said yesterday that I joined the 2nd Operations Group
24 because of psychological and social problems that arose in the field,
25 especially in the mobilisation in the area of Nevesinje, from which these
1 units were formed. If you mean by your question whether I had empathy for
2 the other side, I certainly did. In addition to the fact that I am an
3 officer, and I believe an honourable man, I'm also a good Christian. And
4 I would not like others to suffer what I would not like inflicted on
6 Q. Thank you, Dr. Svicevic.
7 Now, I want to just confirm something. Yesterday, you indicated
8 you were in -- under three different commanders of the operations group.
9 You indicated Cokic, Ruzinovski, and Strugar. Correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. You mentioned a person named Sofronije Jeremic.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. The authority that Mr. Jeremic enjoyed that you defined on behalf
14 of the commander of the 2nd Operational Group to make decisions, how did
15 you work with him? Were there -- he was a liaison officer, you were a
16 liaison officer. How were you splitting your duties, or who made that
18 A. By the nature of things, all communications were in the 9th Naval
19 Sector, all communications equipment was there. And whenever we wanted
20 something sent, we had to address ourselves to Sofronije Jeremic, at least
21 when those communications were meant for the representatives of Dubrovnik
22 and the European Community.
23 Q. And who was Celebic? Could you please tell us who that person
24 was. I believe his name may have come up.
25 A. Warship Captain Celebic, in other words a naval officer, was a
1 member of the main inspection service of the JNA, and in that capacity he
2 arrived with a group of others in the area of Herzegovina. And when I
3 would leave to visit with my family, he would stand in for me in contacts
4 with Jeremic and with representatives of Dubrovnik and the European
6 Q. So Jeremic was part -- Jeremic was part of the 9th VPS, and
7 Celebic came from the inspectorate to the 2nd Operational Group specially.
8 Is that correct?
9 A. Yes, he was there from the establishment of the 2nd Operations
10 Group. He was part of the establishment in Belgrade as well as in
12 Q. Your position as liaison officer required you to have a fair
13 amount of interface with the media and the public. Had you been aware of
14 that at the time you were made or placed in this position, that you would
15 have this type of exposure?
16 A. Well, I didn't give it much thought, but it would impose itself.
17 I held a responsibility, and my responsibility also included the lives of
18 others and well being of others. So yes.
19 Q. There was a considerable amount of attention placed by the
20 international community on the events in the Dubrovnik area. You would
21 agree with that, I assume, wouldn't you?
22 A. Absolutely so, yes.
23 Q. Did you find yourself having to make an effort and take great care
24 in the statements you would make to the public as a result of the -- the
25 attention that was paid on the area?
1 A. Well, spontaneously, conducive to my way of behaviour and with
2 full awareness of my responsibility, that's what my conduct and behaviour
3 was. I always tried to make it proper, and I mentioned two situations
4 yesterday when I reacted emotionally.
5 Q. Did you find yourself having to -- excuse me, let me rephrase
7 The relationships that you had to establish with the European
8 Community Monitoring Mission, ECMM, and your counterparts on the Croatian
9 side, did you find that there was great effort that had to be exerted by
10 you -- was there pressure for you? Was it difficult for you to reach out
11 to these people?
12 A. No. I didn't find it difficult. I didn't need to exert extra
13 effort because communications with people was part of my profession, part
14 of my job.
15 Q. Do you remember a monitor fairly early on by the name of Adrien
17 A. Yes, I do.
18 MS. SOMERS: I'm going to ask if we can, please, to recall -- I
19 don't know -- it's D -- it's -- Mr. Stringer's statement was admitted into
20 evidence by the Defence. And I'd like to make a few references to it and
21 ask you a couple of points about some things Mr. Stringer said. D1,
23 Q. There was a discussion yesterday about reaching across lines and
24 having communication. And Mr. Stringer on page 12 of his statement has
25 made a reference to something that he said you said. And the question
1 about establishing direct contact with the Croatians came up.
2 "The crisis committee said there were no problems in Cavtat and
3 that the police are able to cope and that no military presence was
4 required. They offer to establish direct telephone link between the JNA
5 and the Croatian Army, but this was declined by the JNA on the grounds
6 that the Croatian Army, ZNG, is an illegal organisation. Colonel Svicevic
7 said that it was a 'terrorist organisation' from one party performing a
8 genocide, fascist ideology."
9 What would be behind those words "terrorist organisation, one
10 party," why would that preclude your having direct communications with the
11 other side? Would that not have been -- whatever the other side may have
12 been in your eyes, would it not have facilitated a peaceful solution?
13 A. Before I came to The Hague, I looked at some videotapes, and I
14 have a videocassette in my possession in Belgrade which records the
15 contacts I had with Mr. Stringer. And within the frameworks of what was
16 said then and what can be seen, and after all the other observations, that
17 that meeting was conducted in a proper manner, that it was a good meeting,
18 and that it was the start of our contacts where we can say that the
19 principal officer performing the liaison officer was Mr. Jeremic, and also
20 Mr. Zec, who was warship captain at the time.
21 Now, what it says here as being part of my statement, I can accept
22 the fact that I said that, although I don't remember having said it. The
23 reason I said it, if I did, is that the paramilitary organisations were
24 considered to be embodied in the Croatian National Guards Corps, and the
25 official terminology of the General Staff of the Army of Yugoslavia were
1 referred to in that way, and the directive was that from these positions
2 the opposite side, and this applied to the area of the whole of Croatia...
3 Q. Thank you.
4 The discussion yesterday to which you -- which mentioned that
5 Mr. Van Houten did not want you to continue as a negotiator seemed to have
6 caught you by surprise.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Do you know or do you recall a person with whom you may have
9 negotiated named Petar Poljanic?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Who was Mr. Poljanic, if you could remember with that, please?
12 A. He was the representative of Dubrovnik, but I didn't contact with
13 him much. Djuro Kolic was the principle negotiator, but Mr. Poljanic,
14 Mr. Obuljen but Mr. Poljanic from time to time.
15 Q. And you dealt with Mr. Kolic as well?
16 A. Mostly with Kolic.
17 MS. SOMERS: May I ask, please, to have distributed by the usher
18 an exhibit.
19 Q. Doctor, you have in front of you -- do you have a -- you have it
20 in front of you? Dr. Svicevic, is it --
21 A. Yes, I'm reading it.
22 Q. This is a fax that was sent by Mr. Poljanic as the president of
23 the municipal assembly of Dubrovnik. It was sent to General Strugar and
24 to the ECMM on the 7th of November 1991 indicating that "representatives
25 of our municipality who are involved in talks in Cavtat with
1 representatives of the JNA in the presence of the European mission
2 representatives in an effort to find peaceful solutions to the present
3 situation and avoid further loss of life and the destruction of property
4 have complained several times about the way in which the talks are being
5 handled by your representative, Lieutenant Colonel Radoslav Svicevic, who
6 they say is constantly obstructing any attempts to find any kind of
7 practical solution to problems faced by the civilian population,
8 especially those relating to the repair of water and electricity networks
9 and supply. This person is constantly airing his political views which
10 makes the talks difficult, although at the same time he emphasises that
11 political issues should be solved at other higher levels. According to
12 their latest report, the behaviour of Mr. Svicevic at the meeting of 6
13 November 1991 escalated beyond all bounds. He directly obstructed efforts
14 to reach an agreement on solutions that had been on the agenda for weeks
15 and rudely insulted our representative, Mr. Djuro Kolic by crassly
16 comparing him to the war criminal Artukovic. In order to restore normal
17 communication, I am taking the liberty of asking you to appoint along with
18 Mr. Svicevic or instead of him an officer of higher rank who will have a
19 constructive approach to resolving the humanitarian issues advocated by
20 the representatives of the European Community Monitoring Mission."
21 Were you called into the command of the 2nd Operational Group any
22 time after the 7th of November to discuss this letter or the contents of
23 this letter?
24 A. On a regular basis daily, depending on the needs, of course, and
25 what was on the agenda, I would go to the command of the 2nd Operational
1 Group for meetings, and at times they were with General Strugar, too.
2 So -- but actually, this is the first time I see this document. I don't
3 know -- I'm not aware of a document with this content coming into the
4 operational group.
5 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] The question that my learned
6 colleague posed is improper because as we can see from the document it
7 wasn't sent to the 2nd Operational Group, but to the VPS of Boka. That
8 is, the naval sector of Boka. So that is quite clear and says so in line
9 1 and line 2. It says "send to the Boka VPS," and then it says later on
10 "to Boka VPS command." It says that in two places. Thank you,
11 Your Honour.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I be allowed to comment.
13 MS. SOMERS: Your Honour, if there is an objection on the floor, I
14 don't know how --
15 JUDGE PARKER: The objection is noted. But I also notice it's
16 addressed to General Strugar. So if you would carry on with your
18 MS. SOMERS: Thank you.
19 Q. My question was: Did General Strugar discuss the content of this
20 letter with you at a point after the 7th of November?
21 A. Quite obviously we did not discuss this because had we discussed
22 this letter, it would have been shown me. This is the first time I see
23 this letter. But if I may be allowed to explain or comment in a few
25 Q. Tell me, were you aware of the fact that Mr. Poljanic and
1 Mr. Kolic objected to how you were conducting yourself and its -- the
2 effect of your conduct on negotiations?
3 A. Only in one situation, and that was when I said that there were
4 two incidents. I meant one -- may I be allowed to explain, one that is
5 mentioned here with respect to Artukovic and --
6 Q. Just tell us, who is Artukovic for the record, please.
7 A. May we take this in sequence, please. May I be allowed to
9 Q. [Previous interpretation continues] ... I want to get the
10 questions answered.
11 JUDGE PARKER: Will you allow the witness to answer the question.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, this conduct is essential and
13 is very important to me, so would you please allow me to answer because
14 this touches upon my moral integrity, in a way.
15 At one point in this document, it says that Svicevic stresses that
16 political questions should be solved at another higher level. And that is
17 how it was. We dealt with general issues related to the Dubrovnik region,
18 whereas they went on to politicise all the problems that occurred. And I
19 stressed that political issues should be solved at other higher levels,
20 which meant that we dealt with humanitarian issues.
21 Now, who was Artukovic? That is that second incident that I
22 wanted to raise with respect to my sojourn in the area. Mr. Kolic during
23 our talks would very often stress that his mother was a Serb. And I
24 remember a meeting when another incident took place where some people had
25 a fallen casualty, and I said that Andrea Artukovic's mother was a Serb,
1 too, and Andrea Artukovic was a well-known Ustasha criminal, and that is
2 he worked in the official ideology during World War II, the Ustasha
3 movement, and he was characterised as such. So an incident did arise with
4 respect to that. And at another meeting, because of the fact that
5 Mr. Djuro Kolic thought that I said something against him, I apologised.
6 MS. SOMERS: I would ask that this exhibit be --
7 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
8 MS. SOMERS: I would ask that this be admitted into evidence,
10 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic.
11 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] The Defence objects to the
12 introduction of this document. Because the witness says he never saw this
13 document, he has not identified it in any way, the document is not signed,
14 it is an unknown source, unknown origins, so there are no grounds that
15 have been laid for this document to be entered as an exhibit.
16 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Somers.
17 MS. SOMERS: Your Honour, the witness is fully familiar with the
18 content of the document, has commented on it, knows who the authors of the
19 document is, and it is highly relevant.
20 JUDGE PARKER: The document will be received.
21 THE REGISTRAR: This document is P214.
22 MS. SOMERS:
23 Q. Doctor, you also in the course of your duties have been quoted
24 considerably in the media, and I wanted to ask you a few points about some
25 of the quotes where your name has appeared in the media, both within areas
1 in Yugoslavia and outside.
2 MS. SOMERS: If I could ask, please, to distribute this document.
3 I regret that there is no translation, but I believe that -- it is a small
4 article, and the interpreters have it, and I believe I can ask you for
5 your assistance, Doctor. It would be very helpful.
6 Q. What is before you, if you would be kind enough to read the title
7 of it. It says "war chronicle," but if you would give us a hand it would
8 be very helpful. Are you able to do that, Doctor, where it says Ratna
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Would you be kind enough just to read it to us in your language
12 and it will be picked up by the interpreting section.
13 A. You want the whole text?
14 Q. [Previous interpretation continues] ... title part, please.
15 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, what newspaper is
16 this? What article? Where does it come from? When? I really don't
17 understand the course that the cross-examination is taking. What
18 newspaper is this from? What is the date? I can't see anything here in
19 addition to the fact that we don't have the translation. But that's of
20 lesser importance.
21 MS. SOMERS: Please allow me if I may to inquire of the doctor if
22 he's familiar with this particular publication.
23 Q. Have you seen this publication before in any of its forms?
24 A. No, certainly not.
25 Q. Then just for purposes of perhaps taking a look -- in the middle
1 of it where it says 7/11/91. 7/11/91, now this is whether or not we seek
2 to admit it, I just want to ask a question of it. It happens to discuss
3 wartime events, and on the 11 -- it cites for November 11th a comment that
4 is attributable to you --
5 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour.
6 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic.
7 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I object to this manner of
8 cross-examination. The witness has not seen the document. We do not know
9 from which newspaper the document is taken. All we have is a piece of
10 paper in front of us, and on the basis of that piece of paper the witness
11 is being asked questions. I really don't understand what this is all
13 MS. SOMERS: Your Honour, I would like to just ask if the comment
14 that is in there is attributable, is correctly attributable to him, and
15 move on.
16 JUDGE PARKER: Perhaps you might ask the witness to read it and
17 ask whether the comment is correctly attributable to him.
18 MS. SOMERS: Will do. That is what my --
19 JUDGE PARKER: Without him reading it aloud at this stage.
20 MS. SOMERS: Without him.
21 Q. Would you be kind enough to take a look at what is in the -- do
22 you see, Doctor, I'll point it to you, where it says 7/11/91.
23 A. It is not true that I could have said this, "a schizophrenic
24 Mesic." I certainly could not have said that, and did not say it, refer
25 to Mesic as being schizophrenic.
1 Q. Thank you, Doctor.
2 MS. SOMERS: If I could ask for --
3 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
4 MS. SOMERS: Terribly sorry.
5 Q. Doctor, this is the text of an article from 25th October 1991 out
6 of -- the author of the article is a Marcus Tanner. And the title of it
7 is "Federal army tightens siege of Dubrovnik." It is from The
8 Independent, and this is a summary of the article. There is a -- about in
9 the middle of the page, "federal army leaders in Zagreb yesterday denied
10 shelling the historic Old Town. A local army commander, Colonel Radoslav
11 Svicevic, also dismissed Croatian claims that army artillery damaged parts
12 of the Old Town as `lies and fabrication'. Captain Milan Zec commanding
13 of frigate at nearby Plato said that the army had specific orders not to
14 damage the Old Town area and accused the Croats of detonating several
15 buildings in Dubrovnik themselves as part of a 'diabolical fascist plan to
16 destroy the Old Town and then blame the Yugoslav Army.'"
17 In October of 1991, what did you know about any allegations from
18 your contacts either with the media, the ECMM, other foreign dignitaries
19 or international organisations, or your own units about the alleged
20 shelling by the JNA of the Old Town of Dubrovnik?
21 A. First of all, this document makes no sense because it says "local
22 army commander Radoslav Svicevic." I never was a local army commander,
23 and I don't think this deserves any further comment. However, I will
24 answer your questions.
25 At that time, there was a second round of rumours about great
1 damage inflicted on Dubrovnik. According to all the information and
2 intelligence that we gathered through the 2nd Operations Group and other
3 sources, we could not see that there was any damage to Dubrovnik, at least
4 not the kind of damage that they seemed to emphasise. And that was one of
5 the reasons why a visit was organised by journalists and ambassadors to
6 Dubrovnik. So the initiative for that visit and tour of Dubrovnik which
7 followed on the 28th of October, and that is after this, came directly
8 from the command of the 2nd Operations Group.
9 Q. Did you yourself visit Dubrovnik during that period of time to
10 confirm whether or not there was damage? When I say "Dubrovnik," I mean
11 the Old Town of Dubrovnik.
12 A. No. As agreed with Frigate Captain Sofronije Jeremic, it was he
13 who accompanied the group because he was a naval officer and knew the town
14 very well.
15 Q. Did you think that the claims were exaggerated so that you would
16 be quoted as suggesting that the damage was lies and fabrication? Did you
17 believe it was exaggerated or not true?
18 A. I did not say there were lies or fabrications. I said according
19 to all the information available to us, that's what I said, there was no
20 such thing. Maybe you could say we did not have enough information, but
21 according to all the information we had, there was no shelling of
22 Dubrovnik. And finally, after this tour by journalists and ambassadors,
23 it was noted that a small house in Radzura Boskovica Street was damaged,
24 and media representatives analysed this damage and commented upon it. And
25 from all that analysis, it seemed to follow that this projectile could not
1 have come either from the sea or from land, although of course I'm not a
2 ballistic expert. I hope I have answered your question.
3 Q. So after the, as it were, inquiry by the public or by the media,
4 you addressed the issue, and you were misquoted. Is that what you're
5 suggesting, that you were misquoted, but that you did comment about the
6 allegations of damage from shelling by the JNA?
7 A. No, I said I emphasised that according to our information, there
8 was no such damage. I insisted on that. And that is also why I insisted
9 together with General -- with Colonel Strugar that this tour of Dubrovnik
10 be organised for journalists. And indeed, shortly a group of 40 reporters
11 toured Dubrovnik. There was one reporter from Associated Press who made
12 photos and noted that there was light damage, saying as well that he
13 couldn't tell how it was inflicted.
14 MS. SOMERS: I would ask, please, to move this article in to
16 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
17 THE REGISTRAR: This document is P216.
18 JUDGE PARKER: I think you mean 215?
19 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, the previous --
20 JUDGE PARKER: That is not an exhibit.
21 THE REGISTRAR: Excuse me. This is P215.
22 MS. SOMERS: Would you, Madam Usher, please distribute an article
23 that again we regret that we were unable under time constraints to get a
24 translation, but the portions I think you'll be able to assist us with.
25 JUDGE PARKER: As with the Defence when they were in the similar
1 position, you will provide translations in due course if these are
2 translated -- if these are received?
3 MS. SOMERS: Of course, yes.
4 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
5 MS. SOMERS:
6 Q. Dr. Svicevic, I have in Serbo-Croatian basically two pages, one of
7 which has smaller print and it is the complete article. And the other one
8 is a bit enlarged so that the area of emphasis is easier to read. But it
9 is a copy of an article from Politika from 25 October 1991. It is a --
10 the title of it is "old Dubrovnik was not bombed, shelled, bombed.
11 Where is Politika from? What type of publication -- where does it
12 hail from? Where is it based out of?
13 A. It's a very reputable Serbian-Belgrade newspaper.
14 Q. On the article -- sorry, I will actually hold it up so that --
15 it's a little difficult, but I have yellowed it so you can perhaps direct
16 the Chamber's attention to the area I'm looking at, it's yellowed, in the
17 larger text and also to my learned colleagues opposite, and also to you,
18 Doctor, I'm going to ask you about a quote in there, if I may. It's over
19 on the -- as you look at the article, if you look at the bigger print, the
20 right-hand side -- could I ask you just to look up for a second and I'll
21 show you where I'm looking.
22 A. Yeah.
23 Q. This is the bigger print. If you could be good enough to assist
24 us -- first of all, was I correct in the title of the article? What is it
25 entitled, please?
1 A. It's a newspaper headline. Newspaper headline written by a
2 journalist, I stress. "Old Dubrovnik was not shelled."
3 Q. And above it, there's a little kind of a byline above it. What
4 does that say, please, if you would be kind enough?
5 A. "Representatives of this town implore" --
6 Q. This area right here.
7 A. "From the Dubrovnik front line."
8 Q. Okay. If you could just give us then -- underneath the title, if
9 you would be good enough to read what it says. I'd stop and see -- you
10 started to do it.
11 A. "Representatives of this town implore that fire be ceased. JNA
12 does not accept a cease-fire, demanding instead that paramilitaries lay
13 down their arms. After a land attack, there followed a naval assault on
14 Kupari and landing, after which this place was taken hold of by the JNA.
15 Five killed and 22 JNA members wounded."
16 Q. If you look at the area that I have yellowed, and I'll show you
17 again, over on the right hand, there is a -- your name is mentioned.
18 Could you read the sentence in which your name is mentioned, please.
19 A. "Lieutenant Colonel Telebak [phoen]" --
20 Q. [Previous interpretation continues] ...
21 A. "It's a fabrication that the JNA fired even a single shell on
22 Dubrovnik. Lieutenant Colonel Radoslav Svicevic and Frigate Captain Milan
23 Zec said the same. Commanding officer Milan Zec, whom he found at the
24 position close to Dubrovnik, does not rule out the possibility there were
25 explosions in Old Town of Dubrovnik, but he fears that he might be a
1 beginning of that terrible plan of Tudjman's mercenaries to blow the whole
2 ancient town up because JNA units are coming closer and closer to
4 Q. And the date of this article, if you could confirm it, please.
5 A. Here it says 24th of October.
6 Q. This is -- you have described this as a reputable newspaper. In
7 your view, this is a reputable newspaper.
8 A. Yes.
9 MS. SOMERS: I would ask to move this into evidence, please.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At that time -- I just wish to add,
11 it was also the official the government newspaper. The official
12 government medium.
13 MS. SOMERS:
14 Q. Government of?
15 A. I mean, the authorities of Yugoslavia. At that time, the Federal
16 Republic of Yugoslavia.
17 Q. Thank you.
18 MS. SOMERS: Sorry. May I again request that it be assigned an
19 exhibit number and move into evidence.
20 JUDGE PARKER: The translation into English noted its date as the
21 24th of August -- of October. Is it not the 25th?
22 MS. SOMERS: It is, sir, the 25th. I didn't catch that. Thank
23 you very much.
24 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
25 THE REGISTRAR: This document is P216.
1 MS. SOMERS:
2 Q. Dr. Svicevic, you have indicated you're aware or you were aware at
3 the time of the concern raised over the allegations of shelling by the JNA
4 of the Old Town area so much so that news -- that the media was invited to
5 go and see. Are you able to indicate to us what if any disciplinary
6 inquiries, punishment, may have been meted out as a result of the -- well,
7 perhaps let's just ask what inquiries internally are you aware of that may
8 have been initiated as a result of these allegations? Do you know of any?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Thank you.
11 Yesterday, during examination-in-chief, there was a discussion
12 about some correspondence or about allegations that were raised from a 4
13 November 1991 communication to Admiral Brovet from General Strugar. Do
14 you recall there was a discussion about some allegations about gases and
15 hotels and ECMM monitors' allegations, and I believe you said that a
16 monitor was removed as a result of this particular incident. Do you
17 remember discussing that yesterday?
18 A. I remember yesterday's discussion. But your question doesn't
19 really tell me anything now.
20 Q. How -- do you know how that set of allegations got to the
21 attention of Admiral Brovet so that General Strugar had to respond? How
22 did he become -- how did Brovet become aware of it, if you know?
23 A. I have no idea. I can give you a guess, but that was at the level
24 of a superior command.
25 MS. SOMERS: Can I ask, please, just to recall for a moment D50,
2 Q. Doctor, this exhibit was introduced by the Defence. That's why it
3 has a D as part of its numbering. And it is a communication to a
4 Colonel Lukic, Lieutenant Svicevic, inform the general and act in
5 accordance to his decision. Urgently -- it is from Admiral Brovet.
6 "Urgently deliver the information regarding the allegations from the
7 protest of the international monitoring mission, EC, from the
8 3/11/1991" -- it's a bit loosely translated, sorry. But you yourself did
9 not transmit these allegations to General Strugar? They had to come from
10 Admiral Brovet?
11 A. Yes. But they did not come to me directly from Admiral Brovet.
12 It had to follow the chain of command. I have had to receive it from
13 General Strugar or his assistants, Stankovic or --
14 THE INTERPRETER: There was another name the interpreter didn't
16 MS. SOMERS:
17 Q. Or ECMM went directly to Admiral Brovet because they did not get
18 any response locally?
19 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, regarding
20 interpretation, just one thing: A part of the sentence is not on record
21 where he said that he had no direct communication with the superior
22 command. That is, with Admiral Brovet.
23 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
24 MS. SOMERS: I see that there is -- let me just confirm. I don't
25 know which name may be have refer -- have been referred to, but Lukic,
1 Svicevic, I'm not sure, if there's a question.
2 Q. I'm sorry, it was your response that had a name that was not
3 picked up by the interpreter. Could you think back to what your answer
4 was. You said Stankovic or -- you had said or "I have had to receive it
5 from" -- yeah. What would that be.
6 A. General Damjanovic or Stankovic, his close associates.
7 Q. General Strugar --
8 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Here again, Your Honours, and I'm
9 sorry, Mrs. Somers, to interpret you. The whole sentence that followed
10 this one that my learned friend is discussing with the witness is witness:
11 "Namely, that Mr. Svicevic had no direct communication with Admiral Brovet
12 whatsoever." That is the sentence that is missing and was uttered by the
14 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. We have that now in the record.
15 MS. SOMERS:
16 Q. If you're suggesting that it would have gone up the chain and
17 back, this letter does not bear that out. It appears to have missed the
18 chain, gone to the top and was sent back. Can you explain why that would
19 happen with so many high-ranking officers to have been there to have
20 responded to an ECMM complaint?
21 A. Do you mean the signature Colonel Lukic and Lieutenant Colonel
22 Svicevic? Is that what you mean? Because I don't see any other reference
23 to my name.
24 Q. No. What I'm suggesting is "urgently deliver the information
25 regarding the allegations from the protest of the international monitoring
1 mission." Why does that come from Admiral Brovet, who is by all accounts
2 a superior officer, commander, commander to the 2nd Operational Group?
3 Why is it not originating through the structured interaction of the 2nd
4 Operational Group and the European Community? Why was it not relayed to
5 your commanding officer?
6 A. Well, is this an integral part of the document?
7 Q. There is a request to make sure to deliver information. Why --
8 A. That is it, yes.
9 Q. [Previous interpretation continues]....
10 A. Well, this came precisely through regular channels designated for
11 communication. It came to the operations group. And the person in
12 charge, I cannot identify this signature, forwarded it to me. So this
13 document came from Admiral Brovet, to the 2nd Operations Group, and
14 according to the nature of things, what follows is that the persons are
15 identified within the 2nd Operations Group to report on the matter.
16 Colonel Lukic was designated as assistant to the commander, so I don't see
17 any breach of hierarchy. It is precisely an illustration of adequate
18 hierarchy in a relationship between the superior commander and assistants
19 within the operations group.
20 MS. SOMERS: I will ask to recall a document in one second that
21 perhaps will assist you.
22 JUDGE PARKER: The point of your question has escaped the witness.
23 MS. SOMERS: I think perhaps if I show him --
24 JUDGE PARKER: That's the problem.
25 MS. SOMERS: If I show him a document, it will probably make it a
1 bit easier to see.
2 JUDGE PARKER: Can we just do it directly?
3 MS. SOMERS: We can try.
4 JUDGE PARKER: And quickly.
5 MS. SOMERS: Yes.
6 JUDGE PARKER: You were the liaison officer between the command of
7 the 2nd Operational Group and the monitoring mission in and around
8 Dubrovnik. Is that correct?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE PARKER: Did you receive the document of protest or
11 complaint from that monitoring mission yourself?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. Protests were channelled
13 through the Military Naval Sector. And if there was any dissatisfaction
14 or protests which occurs sometimes in the course of negotiation, superiors
15 from the European Community addressed it to the General Staff. All these
16 are possibilities. However, I personally did not receive any protest
17 addressed to me, nor was it possible to send anything directly to me
18 because, after all, in an organised army there is an organised way of
20 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much.
21 MS. SOMERS: Thank you, Doctor.
22 Q. Are you saying that you were unaware of the allegations by ECMM
23 monitor Luke Daras about the hotels, that you had no knowledge of those
24 allegations by the JN --
25 A. Yes.
1 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, my learned friend is
2 confusing the witness. She should point out which document she is
3 referring to and show the witness the document so that he is able to
4 provide an adequate answer. At this moment, he is not clear on which
5 document he's supposed to answer. My --
6 MS. SOMERS: [Previous interpretation continues] ... I think it
7 will be helpful for just a moment to pull back P104, and please show it to
8 the witness. We will do this quickly before the break.
9 JUDGE PARKER: We will break at about a quarter to.
10 MS. SOMERS: Fine. Thank you, Your Honour.
11 Q. Dr. Svicevic, what you have been shown is an exhibit that is
12 directed to Admiral Brovet from General Strugar dated 4 November 1991.
13 And it is following the document you just looked at that we were
14 discussing from the 3rd of November. And do you see the incidents that
15 are referred to, allegations that the general is responding to point by
16 point to Admiral Brovet? This is what the subject was, and some of it was
17 discussed yesterday.
18 A. I said yesterday that I participated in the drafting of this
19 document, and of course I am familiar with everything that is written.
20 Q. If you participated in the drafting of the document, are you
21 claiming you were unaware of the facts that are alleged in the document?
22 Are you saying that you didn't know about the allegations raised by the
23 Croatian side that are the subject matter of this document that had to go
24 to Admiral Brovet at his request?
25 A. What do you mean whether I was -- if I was aware or not? I could
1 only have been informed as opposed to going somewhere to see with my own
2 eyes. Knowledge is one thing, and information is another.
3 Q. [Previous interpretation continues] ... By whom?
4 A. By the European Community, representatives of the European
5 Community, and I say that they objected. And I say that. So I interpret
6 matters correctly here. My knowledge does not imply in this case any
8 Q. [Previous interpretation continues] ...
9 A. I am just the transmitter.
10 Q. When were you informed of the allegations? When were you told of
11 this --
12 A. Well, through our regular contacts, and this is a summary of the
13 characteristic contacts, not all of them. And something that ought to
14 correspond to the demand sent by the General Staff as to about how an
15 information should be sent out. And this is one case.
16 Q. Did you notify General Strugar of these allegations from the
17 Croatian side transmitted through the European Union?
18 A. In the reporting, that was regular, and it followed the report of
19 the operational group sent out to the General Staff. Everything that was
20 of interest from each of the meetings would be reported on, both by me and
21 by members of the other operational group at our two-day reporting.
22 Q. And it took prompting from Admiral Brovet to get a response?
23 A. Your question is improper.
24 Q. Why?
25 A. It's improper because or incorrect because I indicated to you that
1 the communication went through regular channels. Admiral Brovet,
2 General Strugar, General Strugar to his assistant, and then down to me.
3 So there is no reason, and I apologise for having to say that, for you
4 to -- well, let's avoid any unnecessary terms. But there's no need for
5 you to tell me that I had to be encouraged by Brovet to do that. This is
6 the normal channel of communication in the army.
7 Q. Where is Admiral Brovet based? Where was he at the time based?
8 A. In Belgrade at the General Staff. I think he was the number-two
9 man after General Kadijevic, in fact. I beg your pardon, Adzic, it was
10 Adzic who was chief of the General Staff. So Brovet -- the second man, so
11 Brovet was number three.
12 MS. SOMERS: I would ask, please, to have the usher distribute a
14 Q. Doctor, are you familiar with the -- these bulletins from the
15 federal secretariat, this type of publication? Have you seen this before,
16 the type of publication, not necessarily this one?
17 A. No. I see this for the first time. This form of bulletin. Not
18 the contents, but the form.
19 Q. Are you aware that the federal secretariat puts out bulletins?
20 A. I don't know. I can only assume that this was for the purposes of
21 some narrow circle of commanders or the commanders of units on the
22 territory of the former Yugoslavia who received this kind of bulletin
23 because the nature of this kind of bulletin in my opinion, and I see no
24 markings of confidentiality or anything like that, but I do think it
25 contains certain elements of a confidential nature because I see the
1 commander of the Novi Sad Corps was mentioned and everything that went on
2 in Yugoslavia during that period of time.
3 Q. This is dated -- this is from Belgrade, 5th of November 1991. And
4 I would turn your attention to page 6, please, in the B/C/S. Is there a
5 corresponding translation?
6 MS. SOMERS: We will promise the Chamber a translation if the
7 document is admitted.
8 Q. Page 6 of the B/C/S where you are -- there is a reference to you.
9 Would you be good enough, please, to read out what it says about
10 Lieutenant Colonel Svicevic.
11 A. Lieutenant Colonel Svicevic launched energetic protests because of
12 the observations made by members of the European mission, member Luke
13 Daras, who said to the BBC arbitrarily that on the 2nd of November in
14 Dubrovnik two hotels were hit."
15 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I apologise for
16 interrupting my learned friend, but the document that was provided to the
17 witness is incomplete, and this can be easily seen because we have pages 3
18 and 4, no page 5, so the context of what she is asking is completely lost.
19 In the lower right-hand corner we see the number of the page, and on page
20 6 we see the continuation of the text that was on page 5, which we do not
22 JUDGE PARKER: A valid point, Mr. Petrovic.
23 Ms. Somers.
24 MS. SOMERS: Yes, Your Honour. That is -- apparently, this is
25 what was provided from the source. The ERNs are consecutive. I will
1 limit my comments so it does not taking anything out of context, and I
2 accept there appears to be potentially a page that was not turned over.
3 Might have been blank.
4 JUDGE PARKER: Well, it's hardly blank --
5 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour --
6 JUDGE PARKER: -- if you look at the content.
7 MS. SOMERS: I'm saying that I don't have a previous page. I
8 understand that, Your Honour. But I don't have a previous page that
9 matches up, and for some reason the ERN indicates this is what we had as a
10 consecutive series.
11 If the Chamber would permit me simply to inquire whether or not
12 the date, 2nd of November, as is reflected, which is what I'm interested
13 in asking about, is correct. And that would be the extent of the inquiry.
14 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour.
15 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic.
16 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] With your permission -- thank you.
17 On page 4 of the document you have before you, you can see that we have
18 the beginning of something that is not continued on page 6.
19 JUDGE PARKER: I agree.
20 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Because the ERN numbers --
21 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
22 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] The fact that the ERN numbers
23 follow on from one another doesn't mean a thing because we can't see the
24 context. We can't see what part this particular paragraph refers to, the
25 paragraph highlighted by my learned friend. Is it a letter, a report, a
1 comment? We know nothing about that, what it's all about. And I don't
2 think that she should therefore ask anything about that because we can't
3 see what this belongs to. As you can see, the document, for example, on
4 page 2, is composed of some reports dated the 4th of November, then page
5 2, once again we have a letter by the federal secretary for national
6 defence, but what it's about we don't know.
7 On page 6, we have a mention of another report, newspaper article.
8 Now, what the second paragraph that was quoted from paragraph [as
9 interpreted] 6 refers to, we are not able to see. So I don't think that
10 we can ask questions on this. It leads to general confusion.
11 MS. SOMERS: If we just put the bulletin down and not even look at
12 the bulletin, and may I just ask a question.
13 JUDGE PARKER: Go right ahead, Ms. Somers.
14 MS. SOMERS: Thank you.
15 Q. On November 2nd, is that the date where allegedly two hotels were
16 shelled by the JNA? Was it referring to November 2nd? Do you remember?
17 A. I mentioned yesterday something linked to Luka Daras, and that was
18 my protest with respect to the officers captured and one of his statements
19 to the effect that on that day just one dog was killed in Dubrovnik. So I
20 think that was taken out of context. It should be contained in this
22 Q. You've answered my question. Thank you.
23 MS. SOMERS: Excuse me just a moment.
24 Q. Do you know -- are you familiar with an officer who is part of the
25 2nd Operational Group in the Dubrovnik area named Gojko Djurasic? Do you
1 know him? Did you know him?
2 A. Yes, and he has just testified here. He was the commander of
4 Q. Now, he was able to establish a direct contact with members of the
5 Croatian side on issues of great importance to his, meaning Djurasic's
6 area of -- zone of responsibility. Did you ever go up to that area to see
7 how the -- I'm sorry, yes, go ahead. Go ahead.
8 A. In Mokosica on two or three occasions, negotiations were held with
9 representatives of Dubrovnik and the European Community.
10 Q. And did you have occasion to see how things were working between
11 the Croatians and I believe it was Colonel Djurasic's command there?
12 A. According to the information we had, it took place within the
13 frameworks of the basic agreements reached and regulated with Mr. Kouchner
14 and representatives of the Dubrovnik authorities. That means that life in
15 Mokosica for the most part functioned normally.
16 Q. Would you be able to confirm that there was a constructive
17 relationship between Colonel Djurasic and the Croatian side to facilitate
18 the -- the situation you just described in Mokosica?
19 A. In view of the fact that I myself was not informed about any
20 protest from the representatives of Dubrovnik or the European Community
21 linked to Mokosica at that time when the commander of Mokosica was
22 Mr. Djurasic, I can only assume -- or rather, I can state that everything
23 was in order.
24 Q. Thank you, Doctor.
25 MS. SOMERS: Your Honour, I'm going to be going into another area.
1 If we're going to break in a few minutes, shall we -- shall I start it or
2 shall I just wait for the time after the break.
3 JUDGE PARKER: May I ask you of you a time indication.
4 MS. SOMERS: About one more hour.
5 JUDGE PARKER: We will break now, I think, and resume in 20
6 minutes' time.
7 --- Recess taken at 10.44 a.m.
8 --- On resuming at 11.07 a.m.
9 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Ms. Somers.
10 MS. SOMERS: Thank you very much, Your Honour.
11 I would ask the usher to please distribute -- I'm going to wind
12 up. I found one or two other points that I wanted to get before I
13 transition, and then I'll move on.
14 Your Honours, I have been informed that the witness has to
15 actually be out of here relatively -- well, by 1.00. I just wanted the
16 Chamber to know there is time limitation.
17 JUDGE PARKER: Don't forget that there is re-examination.
18 MS. SOMERS: I understand. That's why I'm -- so any -- what I'm
19 saying is that I --
20 JUDGE PARKER: Just move on, quickly, don't explain.
21 MS. SOMERS: Your Honour, you understand. Got you.
22 Q. Doctor, because of your factors, I'm going to ask you to try to be
23 brief in your responses, and I'll try to be very direct in my questions.
24 I'm showing you a document from ECMM dated 6 November 1991. It is
25 a daily report. You dealt with the ECMM regularly, did you not?
2 A. When I was in Trebinje within the operations group, yes, mostly.
3 Q. And just if you turn the page to page 2, this document also
4 discusses matters such as the 11 points, the 11 points. Do you see the
5 reference? I'm looking at the English. I didn't -- I don't think it will
6 be page 2 necessarily in the Serbo-Croatian. If you look at the second
7 page in English where it says page 2, see, about four lines -- five lines
8 from the top, it makes reference --
9 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, may I be of
10 assistance. It is at the end of the B/C/S, and that will facilitate this
11 for the witness. So if you follow the Serbian version, Witness.
12 MS. SOMERS:
13 Q. The reason I'm asking you about the 11 points is that these are
14 matters, are they not, that were discussed between yourself and the ECMM?
15 This is a regular type of report that would come from ECMM. Correct?
16 A. I don't know if it was a regular report because I don't know who
17 it was addressed to. Perhaps Split and Zagreb.
18 Q. Looking at page 3, could you turn over in the English page 3,
19 please, English. At the bottom of page 3 in English, it says "EC monitors
20 during the discussions made at least four alternative proposals, all of
21 them rejected by the JNA, in particular, providing JNA -- in particular,
22 providing a JNA liaison officer in Dubrovnik and accepting a Croatian
23 liaison officer behind their lines."
24 What was your view on the idea of putting a JNA officer
25 Croatian -- behind Croatian lines; and then the reverse, a Croatian
1 officer behind JNA lines? How did you view that?
2 A. As a very constructive proposal, and this was followed by the fact
3 that the European monitors ought to be on our side, too, and I mentioned
4 that position of mine yesterday, I believe, as well.
5 Q. At the very last page in English, there is a reference to you.
6 It's a bit difficult to read. My apologies for the copy quality. It
7 begins actually on the bottom of the page before it, and it says:
8 "According to our sources, the JNA representative warned us according to
9 our sources, JNA sources, one of your members might be killed by Croatian
10 terrorists in order to arrest the JNA -- I think it's arrest the JNA in
11 the eyes of the world. He added that 3.000 armed people/Ustasha fascists
12 are in the centre of Dubrovnik, but EC monitors seem not to know it. The
13 Croatian side protested against this -- against this insult. They will
14 request the replacement of Lieutenant Colonel Svicevic as negotiator."
15 It is signed by various members of the EC. Can you indicate
16 whether or not as of the 6th of December the European Union monitors
17 addressed the concerns of the Croatians about you continued status as
18 negotiator to you?
19 JUDGE PARKER: Do we mean the 6th of November rather than
21 MS. SOMERS: I'm sorry, absolutely right. November.
22 Q. I'm sorry, Doctor. I meant -- I'll rephrase it for you. I'm
23 awfully sorry.
24 Can you indicate whether or not as of the 6th of November the
25 European Union monitors addressed the concern of Croatia's as to your
1 continued status as a negotiator?
2 A. Possibly this was just the result of the incident with Mr. Kolic.
3 However, I must say that I never had from the General Staff any criticism
4 addressed at my -- at me for my behaviour and my work. And had there been
5 any need for criticism, for criticising my work, the General Staff could
6 at all times withdraw me from my post, and I would have been very happy
7 for that to have happened. But, of course, time does not allow us to go
8 into the details. This went Dubrovnik. The team was set up. And we
9 objected and asked that the representatives of the European Community come
10 in. And as the people of Dubrovnik were their hosts, they had more
11 contacts and could have served up more information to them. So I don't
12 want to question the credibility of the European Community or undermine it
13 in any way. All I want to say is they could have added on to their
14 information which was sometimes improper. They could have been briefed
16 Q. Now, you indicated in your answer just now the General Staff did
17 not level any criticism. Did General Strugar level any criticism towards
18 you about the allegations from the Croatians?
19 A. No, because General Strugar had direct contacts with the General
20 Staff, and quite certainly any criticisms or shortcomings on my part, if
21 he had received orders to act upon them, would have been implemented. I
22 would have been reprimanded or replaced or something of that kind. But
23 this is part of the conversations we had. We defended our interests. We
24 defended our principles --
25 Q. I'm sorry to cut you off, but because of your time constraints and
1 your flight I want to move on, if I can.
2 MS. SOMERS: I would ask that this document please be admitted.
3 JUDGE PARKER: [Microphone not activated]
4 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I see no grounds for
5 the document of one negotiating side not seen by the witness, and the
6 witness is not able to state anything about this. He's never seen it and
7 had it in his hands or has any connection to it that it can be introduced
8 through this witness. I don't think that stands. Thank you, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE PARKER: What is it going to add to the record we already
10 have, Ms. Somers?
11 MS. SOMERS: It's -- it's an indication of the sequence of
12 complaints, Your Honour. I think it is relevant --
13 JUDGE PARKER: But you have that recorded in the transcript from
14 your questioning.
15 MS. SOMERS: We do.
16 JUDGE PARKER: So what's the tender going to add?
17 MS. SOMERS: It can assist in other points that indicate the
18 interaction between the two sides.
19 JUDGE PARKER: If you're wanting it in to deal with other matters,
20 that is a further reason for Mr. Petrovic to object and a further basis
21 upon which it will not be admitted.
22 MS. SOMERS: I think that it is sufficient --
23 JUDGE PARKER: And that is the decision.
24 MS. SOMERS: Okay. Thank you, Your Honour.
25 I'd like to ask you to recall, please, Madam Usher, P61 slash --
1 excuse me. I think it's 28.
2 61-28, tab 28.
3 Q. Could I ask that it be put on the ELMO, please. Is it from the --
4 excuse me. Yes. Would you be good enough to put it on the ELMO, please.
5 Thank you.
6 This memorandum cites a number of conditions that were accepted in
7 order to effect the return of the monitors to the Dubrovnik area after
8 their departure in November following a number of events. Now, I want to
9 just ask you, who was Bernard Kouchner by title? What was his -- what was
10 his title, if you know?
11 A. He was a well-known personage within the Medicins San Frontieres
12 organisation. I think he was the direct representative of the European
13 Community, and De Mistura along with Minister Kouchner as a representative
14 of the United Nations.
15 Q. And Mr. Van Houten was a very high-ranking member of the European
16 Community, the head of the mission. Correct? Both very high-ranking
17 European officials. Would you agree?
18 A. I only had contacts with the European Community coming in to the
19 territory of the 2nd Operational Group, so I really can't comment further
20 on the hierarchy of the EC on the territory of the former Yugoslavia. I
21 can't address that. That I don't know.
22 Q. Did you view the allegation about threats against monitors as one
23 that was seriously considered by the ECMM people as well as the
24 internationals generally? What was your view of it?
25 A. In our contacts, there was never the fear that they said that
1 something could happen from our part. We did everything to ensure their
2 security and safety when they came to our side because we were always
3 afraid that some incident might not break out which would act to the
4 disadvantage of our own side. So we couldn't have even envisaged threats
5 at all let alone having them carried out because I was well aware of what
6 this would all mean in the long term.
7 Q. You were shown yesterday the letter from Mr. Van Houten to
8 Mr. Kouchner indicating that you were deemed not to be an acceptable
9 negotiating partner. Now, if you look at the document in front of you,
10 among the various conditions that are put to enable the ECMM to return,
11 the first condition is that "people who threaten monitors are not suitable
12 partners in negotiations and should be excluded from all negotiations
13 while monitors are to be present."
14 The second condition: "Written guarantees concerning the security
15 of monitors from both parties shall be given beforehand by parties
16 involved and local commanders and authorities. Under no circumstances are
17 they, or the locations where they are staying or operating to be fired
18 upon or otherwise threatened."
19 The reference to "threatening monitors" was the very first point
20 in a series of points to be agreed upon. After the 25th of November, how
21 much were you allowed to participate in the negotiating process? Did you
22 continue with the negotiating process?
23 A. Certainly. I was part of the negotiations until the day, maybe
24 the 7th or maybe the 2nd when there was a crisis. It could have been the
25 6th. On the 7th and 8th, I was in Belgrade. After that visit to
1 Belgrade, I returned. And I have notes to attest to that in my working
2 notebook. First of all, I didn't see this document --
3 Q. [Previous interpretation continues]... You did participate --
4 A. Of course.
5 Q. And this document bears a place for the endorsement of
6 General Damjanovic from the command of the 2nd Operational Group. If you
7 look toward the back of the document, you will note that, that there is a
8 place for his signature. Do you see?
9 A. I don't know -- yes, I see that. But I don't know on what basis
10 I'm supposed to believe this document authentic. I don't see any
11 signatures here. And what attracted my attention here is that
12 Mr. Kouchner is in the last position here, whereas according to the nature
13 of things he should be first.
14 Q. Did General Damjanovic ever tell you you are not to participate
15 further in negotiations?
16 A. No, he did not because --
17 Q. Did General Strugar ever tell you you are no longer to participate
18 in negotiations?
19 A. In army, there are orders. I would have received an order not to
20 participate in negotiations any longer. There can be no compromises in
21 the army.
22 Q. Thank you, Doctor.
23 Turning to some comments you made yesterday about the 5th of
24 December, you indicated that there were daily meetings in the 2nd
25 Operational Group. Now -- and I think 1800 was the time you referred.
1 Was that general time for the daily meeting in the 2nd Operational Group
2 or does it vary?
3 A. Well, it could have been an hour before or after until a member of
4 the team from the field would arrive or an assistant of the commander in
5 case the commander was busy elsewhere. So if you allow for this
6 possibility, the delay could have been one hour.
7 Q. Now, on the 5th of December, was General Strugar present at the
8 daily meeting which I think you put at 6 -- at 1800 hours?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Who else was present at that meeting?
11 A. The usual team of the 2nd Operational Group that was located in
12 Trebinje at the time.
13 Q. You yourself as a negotiator know that normally -- well, you know
14 the importance of being sure that cease-fires are adhered to. Did
15 General Strugar at that meeting discuss the cease-fire and the
16 negotiations that had been negotiated that day?
17 A. General Strugar always insisted that we adhere to agreements,
18 especially cease-fire agreements. Second, he insisted on preserving the
19 lives and health of his personnel. And thirdly, contacts with units
20 within the 2nd Operations Group were discussed.
21 Q. Specifically, on the 5th of December at the daily meeting, was the
22 cease-fire that was negotiated with its comprehensive set of negotiations
23 discussed by General Strugar, were those persons present at the meeting?
24 A. It was part of the regular daily discussion about cease-fires
25 because we needed to discuss every day the maintenance of peace including
1 the cease-fire.
2 Q. [Previous interpretation continues] ... Did he discuss the
3 cease-fire and the comprehensive negotiations which were in their entirety
4 to take effect the next day on the 6th of December, those which had been
5 negotiated on the 5th? Was that set of negotiations discussed by
6 General Strugar at the meeting?
7 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I would be grateful to my learned
8 friend if she would repeat her question because the B/C/S interpretation
9 does not quite correspond.
10 MS. SOMERS:
11 Q. Did General Strugar discuss the cease-fire and the comprehensive
12 negotiations in their entirety -- which were to take effect in their
13 entirety the next day on the 6th of December, these negotiations having
14 been arrived at on the 5th of December that very day?
15 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] We have a problem again, and I'm
16 very sorry that I'm interrupting my colleague. Your question is whether
17 it was discussed on the 5th of December, if I understood you correctly. I
18 should like the witness to be clear on this because he might understand
19 from the B/C/S interpretation that you want him to answer about the
20 meeting on the 6th.
21 MS. SOMERS:
22 Q. The daily meeting of the 2nd Operational Group on the 5th of
23 December, did General Strugar discuss the comprehensive cease-fire
24 negotiations which had been negotiated that day and which were in their
25 entirety to take effect the next day, on the 6th of December, did he
1 discuss them on the 5th of December with persons present at that meeting?
2 A. I don't know which set of negotiations you mean.
3 Q. Are you telling us, Dr. Svicevic, that you were unaware that there
4 were comprehensive cease-fire negotiations being discussed between the
5 highest levels of the Croatian government, that is, Ambassador Rudolf,
6 Cifric, Kriste, and the JNA with its designated representative
7 Admiral Jokic? Are you saying you were unaware of those negotiations?
8 A. Yes, I emphatically claim that I was not aware of that.
9 Q. Did you perhaps hear about them for the first time at the meeting
10 of the 5th of December at the 2nd Operational Group meeting at 1800 hours?
11 A. No. This was not discussed. Only an informal conversation with
12 General Damjanovic I received the information that earlier that day a
13 meeting had taken place in Dubrovnik, the meeting you just mentioned.
14 Q. Did General Strugar inform those persons present at that meeting
15 that there was a cease-fire for the next day?
16 A. The cease-fire negotiations were facing a stalemate. I don't
17 recall any discussion about a cease-fire that was about to take effect.
18 Moreover, I don't recall any discussion over cease-fire to start the next
19 day. This was simply not discussed.
20 Q. Are there minutes taken of these meetings, these daily meetings?
21 Is there some means of recording what is discussed at these meetings, that
22 memorialise these meetings?
23 A. Yes. Minutes were made, plus Colonel Filipovic kept a journal.
24 And after these briefings, we received reports from the 37th Corps and the
25 naval sector, and these reports received every evening would reflect all
1 these underlying reports and all the information for that day. Plus I
2 have my own journal, my own working notebook, and if there had been
3 anything at that time concerning cease-fires and negotiations with
4 Dubrovnik I would have certainly noted that.
5 Q. The 6th of December, the meeting that was held -- the daily
6 meeting held the 6th of December, I think you mentioned yesterday that you
7 had come to learn during the day, during the day of the 6th of December,
8 that five structures in the Old Town had been burned, and you mentioned
9 the Serb Orthodox church as one of them. Did you convey this information
10 to General Strugar once you learned it? Was it raised at the meeting on
11 the 6th of December?
12 A. I think when we received this telegram between 3.00 and 4.00 p.m.,
13 General Strugar had already left Trebinje having received an urgent
14 invitation to come to Belgrade.
15 Q. What time did General Damjanovic tell you that General Strugar had
16 to depart, I believe -- I think in yesterday's transcript you said
17 suddenly to Belgrade. What time did you hear this from
18 General Damjanovic?
19 A. I don't know at what time I learned about this. I just remember
20 that he left suddenly. I remember the fact alone. In any case, it had to
21 be after 3.00 or 4.00 p.m. because when the telegram arrived, he was no
22 longer there.
23 Q. The allegations of the destruction or the burning of the five
24 structures, what response, if any, did you observe to come from the 2nd
25 Operational Group when that information was given to it?
1 A. After that, their naval sector was asked to provide information.
2 However, we didn't receive any notes, not any that I was shown at least.
3 Q. And what did the command of the 2nd Operational Group do about
4 that? I didn't ask you about the naval sector; what did the command do of
5 the 2nd Operational Group?
6 A. Well, that is part of superior responsibilities of control and
8 Q. The meeting of the 6th, the daily meeting of the 6th, was
9 General Strugar present?
10 A. You mean the evening briefing? No.
11 Q. [Previous interpretation continues] ... Late afternoon or evening
12 briefing, yes. What time would that have been and was General Strugar
14 A. I said it could have been 6.00, one hour less or one hour later.
15 At that time, Strugar was already in Belgrade.
16 Q. At that meeting, was there any discussion of shelling by forces of
17 the 2nd Operational Group directed toward the Old Town of Dubrovnik?
18 A. First of all, I don't understand how the shelling could have
19 originated from the 2nd Operational Group because the 2nd Operational
20 Group did not have any forces of its own that it commanded directly.
21 Q. Was there a discussion about shelling that came from units under
22 the command of the 2nd Operational Group? Was shelling discussed --
23 sorry, was shelling directed against the Old Town discussed at all at that
25 A. As I said yesterday, the subject of our discussion was fighting
1 around Mount Srdj where five of our soldiers had been killed. Then came
2 discussion about the telegram that I showed around, and information --
3 additional information was required. And after that, things followed
4 their course.
5 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, something is missing
6 in interpretation again. Then discussion concentrated about the telegram,
7 and the information we asked from the naval sector. We don't see all of
8 that in the translation.
9 MS. SOMERS:
10 Q. Yesterday, you were asked about your recollection of a meeting in
11 the headquarters or in Trebinje on the 6th of December between
12 General Strugar and Colonel Colm Doyle of the ECMM. This meeting was
13 apparently considered somewhat important to even Belgrade. I'm going to
14 show you an article, please.
15 Doctor, this is the same Narodna Armija that your column appears
16 in, so you're familiar with the publication. Correct?
17 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour.
18 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Petrovic.
19 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] You will certainly remember that we
20 already had a discussion before this Trial Chamber about this article, and
21 this article has already once been rejected by the Trial Chamber when the
22 Prosecution tendered it. I kindly ask that this be borne in mind and that
23 we refrain from discussing a decision that the Trial Chamber has already
24 made. And if necessary, we can find this decision in the transcript. And
25 I would appreciate it if this issue would not be reopened.
1 MS. SOMERS: Your Honour, the -- putting to a witness, an
2 appropriate witness, of an article that may not have made it in because it
3 was not put to an appropriate witness in chief should be no bar for
4 putting it in cross. The relevance of the article, and this -- I will
5 turn the Chamber's attention to the second page in English. It starts at
6 the bottom of the first page. There are a number of points of relevance,
7 but in particular, as raised by the Defence yesterday, on Colm Doyle.
8 "Unfortunately there is no peace in the area of the responsibility of the
9 2nd Operations Group. This is the case not because of the presence of
10 unshaven Serbian and Montenegrin reservists as some media in Bosnia and
11 Herzegovina and Croatia call them, but because of the activities of
12 paramilitary and Ustasha formations in the area. Colm Doyle, the head of
13 the European Community's Monitoring Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina,
14 could see this for himself when he visited Trebinje and some other places
15 in Herzegovina and with General Strugar and his associate some ten days
17 This is about General Strugar and the types of very important
18 meetings this he held. I think this is highly relevant and I think this
19 is the appropriate witness to discuss it.
20 JUDGE PARKER: It is relevant. Whether this witness is
21 appropriate or knows anything concerning this article is yet to be
22 discerned. So you will have to be careful and well-directed in your
23 questioning before you get to the point of justifying any revisit of the
24 question of the admissibility of this document.
25 MS. SOMERS:
1 Q. Doctor, if a matter is put in Narodna Armija, does that matter
2 suggest that it is of significance to the JNA as a whole, that it merits a
3 place in the magazine?
4 A. No. The Narodna Armija magazine has complete editorial freedom.
5 Journalists are free to interpret information at their discretion. And
6 depending on the deficiencies of the author, articles themselves can offer
7 interpretations that are not free of shortcomings. I don't know what else
8 you want to ask you me about Colm Doyle.
9 Q. Explain, please, what Narodna Armija is, what type of publication
10 is it? Perhaps that might be of help to us.
11 A. It is a publication that has its editorial staff, its editorial
12 board, and was not subject to any sort of censure. It is a free
13 publication like any other publication that is freely circulated in kiosks
14 and other selling points in Belgrade, and its editors have complete
15 freedom, as I already said.
16 Q. Does it reflect activities or matters of concern of the JNA? Did
18 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, my learned friend
19 presented to the Trial Chamber an article about pimples on a 17-year-old's
20 face very recently, so what she is doing now I believe is highly
21 inappropriate and out of place. We are talking about the same magazine,
22 Narodna Armija, the people's army.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And I should like to know that this
24 looks to me like a poll about the Narodna Armija magazine.
25 MS. SOMERS: Is the -- Your Honour, if there's an objection
1 pending before the Court, then I will wait for any ruling. We are
2 attempting to establish the widespread nature of it, the subject matter
3 generally. I can inquire further about its distribution, but I think the
4 Chamber --
5 JUDGE PARKER: We know what the publication is. It's a newspaper,
6 one within the army structure in some way. The issue is whether this
7 article is of relevance to this Trial Chamber. The point at which you
8 focus the issue of relevance is the mention of the visit of Mr. Doyle. Do
9 I correctly understand your position?
10 MS. SOMERS: The focus for today is that. It is in the context of
11 an article which talks about the position of General Strugar, and it
12 appears that two important men's meeting is mentioned in an article. And
13 I think that it certainly -- there seems to be no challenge necessarily to
14 the fact of the meeting. And now, I think it's important to have it as
15 opposed to any other meeting mentioned, perhaps indicates it has relevance
16 above and beyond.
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE PARKER: We will not admit the document.
19 MS. SOMERS:
20 Q. Moving on, the document that was marked for identification only as
21 D92 -- excuse me. I'm sorry, before I go on to that document, you
22 testified yesterday of a meeting in Trebinje on the 6th of December where
23 General Doyle met General Strugar. What time did the meeting commence and
24 what time did it conclude?
25 A. The meeting was brief, 20 minutes perhaps. But certainly not
1 longer than 30. It took place between 11.00 and 12.00. Unfortunately, I
2 didn't note it down precisely in my notebook. And one other thing I want
3 to add about that meeting is that Mr. Doyle came with the intention of
4 talking to Mr. Vucurevic, president of the Dubrovnik Municipality. And
5 since that conversation did not take place because Mr. Vucurevic was
6 elsewhere occupied, Mr. Doyle talked to Mr. Strugar instead. What I mean
7 is that this interview, this meeting was not announced in advance, and the
8 command of the 2nd Operational Group was not prepared for it in any way.
9 Q. Were you there through the entire meeting, from its beginning to
10 its end?
11 A. Yes, of course. Because I was the one who made contact with the
12 liaison officer of the relevant unit, and I agreed to that meeting. I met
13 Mr. Doyle and saw him out later.
14 Q. Who accompanied Mr. Doyle?
15 A. I wrote in my notebook that it was Mr. Sodan [phoen]. I don't
16 know the exact pronunciation. And I noted down next to his name
17 "operations officer" in addition to the liaison officer from the Sarajevo
18 army district.
19 Q. Now, did you note the name Darko Ivic in your journal?
20 A. No, I believe Darko Ivic was a driver, and he was there at the --
21 he was not there at the meeting.
22 Q. So the driver was not present at the meeting, is what you're
23 saying. A person you believe to have been the driver was not present at
24 the meeting.
25 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] First of all, Your Honour, the
1 witness should be asked if he knows who Darko Ivic was and if he attended
2 the meeting. Instead, the witness is being confused. Yesterday, he
3 enumerated all the persons he believes attended the meeting. And he gave
4 a direct statement as to whom he remembers as attending the meeting.
5 JUDGE PARKER: Carry on, Ms. Somers.
6 MS. SOMERS:
7 Q. Did you believe that Darko Ivic was a driver?
8 A. Well, I know the name of Darko Ivic superficially. You're now
9 making me remember somebody. I think that the person I'm thinking of
10 might have been called Darko Ivic. But as I say, I'm not sure, and I
11 don't know the liaison officer I contacted with directly. So I certainly
12 don't know or am not sure about the name of the driver.
13 Q. You said that Mr. Doyle, Colonel Doyle, came to meet with
14 Mr. Vucurevic. Was Mr. Vucurevic a regular visitor to the 2nd operational
15 command -- post?
16 A. No. No. He appeared very rarely. I might have seen him on one
17 or two occasions, but I think the contacts between General Strugar and
18 Vucurevic were -- well, almost nonexistent due to the nature of the work.
19 General Strugar had his own men; Colonel Parezanin, the case in point, and
20 he communicated with the authorities of the Trebinje Municipality.
21 Q. So General Strugar - what you're saying is - decided to give an
22 audience to Mr. Doyle even though another person whom Mr. Doyle wanted to
23 see was not available. Is that your evidence?
24 A. That's part of my recollections. That's how I remember it.
25 Q. Yesterday you indicated that you were first invited, I believe the
1 term was, to come to testify in The Hague on behalf of General Strugar
2 several days before you actually came. Can you give us perhaps a date?
3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, that was not what was
4 said yesterday. What was said yesterday was that several days prior to
5 coming to The Hague he was informed when he was supposed to go to
6 The Hague, and not that it was the first contact he had with
7 General Strugar.
8 MS. SOMERS:
9 Q. When did you gather up your -- well, first let me ask you. The
10 little booklet a copy of which was shown yesterday, what is that called?
11 What is the title of that little booklet on the outside?
12 A. It is "official working notebook" or log.
13 Q. And so when you say "official" this was a book that was used in
14 the course of your duties as liaison officer of the 2nd Operational Group.
15 Is that what you're telling us?
16 A. Yes, that's my notebook in which I recorded my activities, the
17 important points for me, what I deemed to be important at any given time.
18 Q. What you deemed to be important. Did you seek to find this
19 notebook in response to your coming to The Hague?
20 A. No, I already had the notebook prepared earlier on because with
21 Admiral Jokic, for example, I contacted him and I was supposed to be
22 Admiral Jokic's witness. And his lawyer and Admiral Jokic also contacted
23 me, and I was ready to come in and testify on their behalf, on the Defence
25 Q. Are there copies in existence in the archives in Belgrade? You
1 indicated yesterday that you had to make notes to send to the General
2 Staff. Are there copies in existence in the archives in Belgrade?
3 A. There are copies of official reports sent by the operational
4 group, so I wasn't able to send anything directly to the General Staff
5 myself. It would go within the frameworks of the official reports that
6 the operational group sent to the General Staff.
7 Q. Yesterday, in response to a question from one -- from the Judge,
8 you indicated that you took down notes simultaneously, the notes which are
9 contained in the copies in this book, while the meeting was going on. Is
10 that correct? You took down notes simultaneously?
11 A. Yes. Yes.
12 Q. Did you take down the name of every person, and his or her role,
13 who was present with Colonel Doyle?
14 A. Yes, those who were present. I might not have recorded, for
15 example, the liaison officer's name Jovanovic in the notebook because
16 quite possibly if I was supposed to send out a report or if a report was
17 going to the General Staff I would be guided by my recollections and my
18 memory and my notebook just helped me refresh my memory as an aide
20 Q. Is this book in which you took down notes, did you consider this a
21 personal diary or an official notebook assigned to you or given to you
22 from the JNA to maintain records of your official activities?
23 A. It was both my personal diary and official notebook. Now, the
24 selection of what went into the notebook, what I wrote down in the
25 notebook was left to me depending on my decisions. Although I always
1 recorded the concrete events, important events through the negotiations
2 with the European Community, for instance, and meetings with the
3 operational group, what was to be done, but I also jotted down some of my
4 own personal positions and highlighted them because I considered that
5 these notes should help me -- I was going to write a play, in fact, for
6 the theatre about the war. So I hoped to use those -- that notebook for
7 that, and I've written down three screenplays for the national theatre.
8 So I thought that what the diary contained would be of interest.
9 Q. [Previous interpretation continues] ... Did you regularly -- did
10 you regularly carry this book with you everywhere? And by that, to every
11 meeting or every discussion you held that was official?
12 A. Yes. And I have three other notebooks, four in all. But what
13 might have happened was that I would have notebook number 3 with me at one
14 particular time rather than notebook 2 or something like that. But I have
15 a total of four notebooks from that period.
16 Q. Was a Mr. Van Houten -- was Mr. Van Houten present at that meeting
17 with Mr. Doyle?
18 A. No. I don't think so. No, no, he wasn't. Otherwise I would have
19 written it in. I just wrote down their two names.
20 Q. Did you personally have a chance to speak with Colonel Doyle, I
21 mean face to face while he was there?
22 A. Well, not face to face, just within the frameworks of the joint
23 meeting and talks.
24 Q. But you actually spoke with him. I mean, you were close enough so
25 that it was considered a personal meeting? You looked at him; he looked
1 at you?
2 A. Yes, of course, in the presence of the liaison officer and later
3 on in the presence of General Strugar himself.
4 Q. When you say "later on in the presence of General Strugar," you
5 mean in the course of the meeting? Is that what you're saying?
6 A. Yes, in the course of the meeting, of course, when I took him into
7 the premises of the operational group where the meeting was held. That
8 was the venue.
9 Q. Did you see Colonel Doyle at any other time after this meeting,
10 any other time after the 6th?
11 A. No. No, I didn't.
12 Q. I'd like to take a look at the document because in order to avail
13 myself of your having done a rewrite for reasons you described as
14 illegibility, I want to make sure that everything that is there in -- the
15 rewrite is, in fact, what is in the original.
16 But can you take a look -- we have the rewritten portion that all
17 of done. It's part of the -- I believe it's part of the document that was
18 marked for identification.
19 MS. SOMERS: Is it possible, please, to ask the usher to show the
20 witness the second part, the redrafted part.
21 Q. Or do you have it already? Do you have it in front of you?
22 Before you -- can I ask you something before you turn your full
23 attention to that. What was your problem in identifying Colonel Doyle in
24 the photograph? Why did you have some difficulty yesterday?
25 A. 13 years have gone by since then. And we had no contacts after
1 that. The meeting itself was brief, so that is the reason. It follows
2 general psychological laws.
3 Q. Thanks for that.
4 Looking at the rewritten portion that you crafted, do you have it
5 in front of you? There's the --
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Okay. There's a subtitle that says "C." And then Doyle. Do you
8 see that? It says "C. Doyle."
9 A. Page 129.
10 Q. In the rewritten portion, not in the photocopy of the booklet, but
11 you did a rewritten portion. Perhaps the usher doesn't have that.
12 A. I see. I don't have that.
13 MS. SOMERS: [Previous interpretation continues] ... but also
14 please, Madam Usher, but the rewritten portion. Yeah, that's it, that's
15 the -- right, exactly.
16 It appears as an attachment at the back of MFI 92.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, thank you.
18 MS. SOMERS:
19 Q. Let's look at the portion that says "C. Doyle." On the English
20 translation, Your Honours, it's on page 1.
21 You've written -- when you wrote there that "C. Doyle was thankful
22 for the lifting of the blockade of Ploca" --
23 A. Yes, that's what I noted down.
24 Q. "As well as for the direct engagement and the calming of the
25 situation in Neum." Are you finding it, Doctor?
1 A. Yes, yes.
2 Q. [Previous interpretation continues] ... "he believes that the
3 contact between the JNA and the members of the civil authority is very
4 important." Did you hear him say these things to General Strugar?
5 A. Is it recorded here?
6 Q. Well, you've written -- it's written there. Did you hear him say
8 A. I stand by everything that I have recorded. And if it says so
9 here, and that's what I'm asking you. Does it?
10 Q. Well, I'm look -- if you look at "C. Doyle," and then it talks
11 about the visit -- about Ploce and about Neum. Yeah. So you heard, so
12 you were saying.
13 A. Yes. No. No, I found the place. That's what I meant when I said
14 yes. He visited Neum and Mostar, and he is thankful for the lifting of
15 the blockade of Ploce as well as for the direct engagement, et cetera, et
16 cetera, and the calming of the situation in Neum.
17 Q. My question to you is: Did you hear him say these things to
18 General Strugar?
19 A. Well, probably if that's what I wrote because this isn't my
20 arbitrary recording of anything; it is what I heard in this case between
21 General Strugar and Mr. Doyle.
22 Q. Then in the rewritten part, you note that Mr. Doyle is aware of
23 the problem of the disappearance of the pilot. It's under "C. Doyle."
24 MS. SOMERS: And Your Honours, the English translation, same
1 Q. Could you tell us a little bit, what was the issue of the pilot
2 just very briefly?
3 A. He was conscious or aware of the problem of the pilot who had
4 disappeared, one pilot had disappeared in Mostar. He was kidnapped, and
5 that was discussed by the group. And there was a dose of humour. One of
6 the reasons given as a joke was that he had left to buy some Cevapcici.
7 Q. Who was the pilot?
8 A. He was a pilot of the Yugoslav Army which at that time was
9 stationed at the aeroport in Mostar, that is to say, in the territory of
10 Bosnia-Herzegovina. So that was why this was an occasion for Mr. Doyle to
11 become acquainted with the problem.
12 Q. Then it goes on to say that "the authorities in Mostar have
13 assured him they will do everything to solve this problem." Who in Mostar
14 assured Colonel Doyle that they will do everything, and when was that?
15 When was the assurance given?
16 A. I wrote down what I heard, the authorities in Mostar on that day.
17 The authorities in Mostar assured him that everything would be done to
18 solve the problem.
19 Q. Now, moving on to your rewrite with the translation that we have
20 in front of us, the next entries are found under a subtitle entitled
21 "General Strugar." Can we assume that this is referring to what he may
22 have said at the meeting? Or some of the things he may have said at the
23 meeting if they fall under his name?
24 A. Yes. These are brief notations of the most important points from
25 the conversation. So if that's what I wrote down, that's what he said.
1 Q. Okay. What did he say with regard to the bloodshed, the lifting
2 of the blockade, and genocide? What was that all about? You just have
3 points there, and it's unclear what that was about.
4 A. I wanted to be authentic in writing out this in my notebook. So
5 this was along the line of avoiding bloodshed because if war were to break
6 out in Bosnia-Herzegovina it would be of a far greater intensity which is
7 unfortunately what came to pass. And then the mention of the blockade,
8 that was the regular problem that we were faced with. And we worked to
9 lift it. And on several occasions, General Strugar took the initiative
10 and advocated its lifting, although on the other side there were -- there
11 was criticism, if I'm allowed to quote the position of a captain, a
12 warship captain named Captain Milanovic, who was speaking on behalf of the
13 Military Naval Sector, and I remember it well. I have it in my notebooks
14 as well. I can bring that in, too, if you would like.
15 Q. I think you've answered. We're just trying to get what the
16 general areas were, why they were in bullet-type form?
17 On the next page --
18 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, may the witness be
19 allowed to finish the sentence he started about warship captain, Captain
20 Milanovic from the Naval Sector.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, on the subject of the blockade,
22 one of the positions taken by the officers of the Military Naval Sector
23 was that they were dissatisfied because of the liberal stance taken by the
24 Second Operational Group. And in one of my notebooks I have certainly
25 recorded that, too, and I offered the Trial Chamber the opportunity of
1 seeing that notebook. I can bring them all in.
2 Now, the second question was the problem of genocide. This was
3 more or less a comment to the events that took place before the war in
4 that area of Hercegovina and revival of the recollection of genocide can
5 be borne out -- can become an additional problem in the area.
6 MS. SOMERS:
7 Q. I'm going to ask you to try to be brief. I appreciate your
8 thorough response.
9 On the next page you have an entry where Mr. Doyle is stating that
10 there are 50 people from the European Community, and that they do not pose
11 a threat to anyone. Or did he say that they do not pose a -- I'm sorry.
12 Or was he suggesting that there was a concern about threats posed to them?
13 It's not clear, threats to whom by whom. Could you possibly clarify what
14 was meant there?
15 A. Nobody is threatening them. There were 50 people from the
16 European Community and that they're not being threatened by anyone. So --
17 and of course, the European Community could not threaten anyone. So by
18 the same logic, what this means is that nobody was a threat to them,
19 nobody was threatening them, the EC. And Mr. Doyle is generalising his
20 experiences here from the Bosnia-Herzegovina area.
21 Q. Now, what report are you referring to as Mr. Doyle, C. D. -- is
22 C. D. Mr. Doyle? C. D. Stands for Colm Doyle?
23 It says C. D. did not see the report, under van Houten?
24 A. Yes, yes.
25 Q. What was the reference to Mr. Van Houten. You've indicated he was
1 not present at the meeting. And what was the reference to Mr. Van Houten?
2 A. It refers to one of Mr. Van Houten's reports. So that's why I set
3 it out here. There was a discussion on some report. I'm not quite sure
4 whether it was Colm Doyle or van Houten. It says they did not see the
5 report. I've forgotten about what that was, and that's quite natural. I
6 can't remember now which report this actually referred to.
7 Q. The way you've taken your notes, I mean, up until now, you seem to
8 indicate that the name of the person present is given, and then some
9 points about perhaps discussion. First it was Colm Doyle, then
10 General Strugar, then Colm Doyle, and then you have van Houten underlined.
11 Can you explain that change of format. What was your reasoning there
12 where underlining up to that point had been as to persons present and
14 A. Well, that's just my improvised style of writing, the way in which
15 I kept my notes. I don't think it is subject to criticism. It's just my
16 style, my personal style of keeping my notes and my right to do so.
17 Q. Thank you very much.
18 Now -- excuse me, I just want to keep to my order so I can get you
19 through this.
20 You have a comment there that Mr. van Houten did not see the
21 report. Would you explain that, please.
22 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, that was not properly
23 quoted. It says here C. D. did not see the report.
24 MS. SOMERS: I'm sorry, Your Honour. The next sentence is "van
25 Houten did not see the report." And I have it --
1 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise. My apologies.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I explained that a moment ago.
3 MS. SOMERS:
4 Q. Okay. So -- but how would you know whether or not Mr. Van Houten
5 saw the report, or how would anybody discussing it there?
6 A. There was discussion of the report, and they said that the report
7 hadn't been seen by Mr. Colm Doyle or Mr. Van Houten, who was incorporated
8 into part of the discussion about the report. Now, what report this
9 actually was, I didn't note that down. And of course, 13 years is a long
10 time, so quite rightly I can't remember that. I've forgotten. It's a
11 long period of time.
12 Q. Now, if you could take a look at the photocopies of the so-called
13 excerpts of your working book, what's called the original set for purposes
14 of our discussion, based on which you have told us that you copied these
15 entries legibly in order to submit them to the Court. I'd like to compare
16 the -- that original, the little book itself, copies of the book, with the
17 legible copy that you made.
18 And let's see now, do you have the photocopy of the booklet? Do
19 you have it? Okay, thank you.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Now, does this indicate that the entries all relate -- does it
22 indicate anywhere in that little booklet that the entries relate to the
23 6th of December? Do you find that date anywhere?
24 A. It doesn't say that, doesn't give the date anywhere, no.
25 However, I photocopied the previous page, 126, where it says the 5th of
1 November [as interpreted]. And as I knew that it was on the 6th, this
2 fits. Because the Court, too, has stated that the meeting was on the 6th.
3 And the logical sequence of pages, if you look at page 126 onwards,
4 would make it that.
5 Q. Okay. Now, it's a --
6 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in view of the fact
7 that it says differently in the document, so there's probably a
8 misunderstanding, would my learned colleague please clarify the dates she
9 is referring to and when that date was. The date is set out in the
10 document, but I'd like to hear from my learned colleague whether she is
11 referring to the 5th or 6th or what.
12 MS. SOMERS: I'm referring to the 6th. My question concerned --
13 JUDGE PARKER: And your meaning December. At one point, the
14 transcript shows November.
15 MS. SOMERS: Thank you for catching that. Yes, we're talking
16 about December 6th. And the question is does that date appear anywhere
18 Q. And as I understand your evidence, it follows from the entry that
19 shows a date of the 5th. That is what you said? Although it doesn't have
20 a date on it.
21 A. Yes, I omitted to record the exact date, the 6th. But to make the
22 notes authentic, I didn't want to add anything. I wrote and copied
23 exactly what was written. Of course, it was easy for me to put the 6th of
24 December had I thought necessary.
25 Q. Can I ask you, you said you had an original. Why did you not
1 bring your original? Were you not asked to bring the original? It's a
2 real small book.
3 A. No. I was told by General Strugar's son just before I left, and
4 he organised my departure to The Hague. I didn't actually know when I was
5 going to testify, so it took me by surprise. And he said that there was
6 an accusation linked to -- and an indictment, count in the indictment
7 linked to Colm Doyle, and he asked me whether I had the notes. I found
8 that. It was late on Saturday. And I was due to leave on Sunday. Or was
9 it on Sunday? I asked him to photocopy this for me, and he photocopied
10 it. But I am, of course, willing to offer up the original to the Trial
11 Chamber, along with all the procedural steps that need to be taken.
12 Q. Does this book not contain -- or perhaps you can help us
13 understand why the little booklet does not contain any other relevant
14 matters such as other negotiations or meetings, why only entries that you
15 claim are from the 6th of December and a page from the 5th of December?
16 A. There are other entries. But you ought to decide with the Defence
17 team what you wish the Defence team to bring in for you.
18 Q. On the rewritten, legible copy, the one you've done the rewrite
19 on, the first paragraph under "Colm Doyle," "C. Doyle" rather, reads: "In
20 order to avoid in Bosnia-Herzegovina what has happened in Croatia, it can
21 be avoided if the mission can meet the commanders." Now, that -- there on
22 your -- what I've just read to you from your rewritten copy goes back to
23 your original, you know, the copies of the little booklet that you
24 brought, and it goes to page 1 -- to the end of page 131, right? It's at
25 the end of the page 1-3-1. Is that right?
1 A. Yes, yes.
2 Q. So the continuation of that paragraph should go to 1-3 -- page
3 1-3-2 of the photocopies if what you're calling --
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. -- as the original were written in a chronological sequence, it's
6 kind of the way you'd do it, or in a sequence, the way you would do it in
7 a book. Would you -- would you agree to that?
8 A. Absolutely.
9 Q. It seems to go or goes to 133. And then the entry on page 2, a
10 copy of which I believe was faxed to the Prosecution rather late last
11 night, I haven't had a chance to study that because of the timing of it,
12 but the continuation does not seem to be from 1-3-1 but 1-3-1 continues on
13 1-3-3. Any particular...
14 A. It's a technical error probably -- not probably, certainly. I
15 could have presented to the Court only this part of the photocopy of my
16 working notebook. But in order to make my handwriting more legible, I
17 included this, too. It's just a technical error.
18 Q. Okay. Sorry. I'm sorry to have cut you off.
19 The next paragraph under the same title of "Colm Doyle" begins
20 with, in the rewritten version, "there is respect for the JNA in all of
21 the communities in which he has held talks." Now, that is at the end --
22 the end of that page, page 133, of what you were calling your original.
23 Is that right?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. So it would seem, according to your explanation of how it is put
1 together, that the paragraph should have -- that the continuation of the
2 paragraph should be on page 134 if you're writing in sequence. Right? In
3 the book, in your little book, in the copy of the booklet that you
4 brought, the copy of you -- what you're calling your original. Isn't that
5 right? It should go to 134, right, if it ends on 133?
6 A. Well, that's part of my style of note taking. I usually took down
7 my notes on odd numbered pages and left the left page free for notes on
8 the margins and comments. In my rewrite, I connected different parts into
9 a complete recording of this interview --
10 Q. Let me just ask you: Now, the paragraph from the end of 133,
11 instead of going to 134, then goes to 135. And -- is that right? It goes
12 to 135?
13 A. Yes. But I have just explained to you my style of note taking.
14 This is a part of my method, style. It is part of my cognitive needs to
15 leave certain things open-ended and then --
16 Q. Yes or no would be helpful to we can help get you on your plane.
17 The next subtitle General Strugar -- under the subtitle
18 General Strugar at -- which would have -- based on what you said logically
19 followed from 135 jumps back to page 134 of what you're calling the
20 original, and it continues from the sentence "the families of the
21 reservists are brought to the brink of extinction." And then it makes a
22 leap onto page 136 of what you're calling the original. Do you follow
23 that? Am I correct in how I've connected up your entries?
24 A. You are right. But I'm also right here when I explain that I took
25 my notes on the odd-numbered pages --
1 Q. [Previous interpretation continues] ... That's fine. The next
2 paragraph under subtitle "C. Doyle," which start -- which reads "that they
3 feel that in the parts" and then it goes on, that starts midway at page
4 135 of what you're calling your original, but it doesn't finish on that
5 page. The last sentence of that paragraph, which goes "there are 50
6 people" is at page 137. Have I got that right?
7 A. What we can notice is one thing: The statements on Mr. Colm Doyle
8 are on odd number pages, and statements made by General Strugar are on
9 even-numbered pages. That's how I organised it.
10 Q. Can you just confirm that I have gotten at least the sequence of
11 things right, where it goes back, forth, jumps. I mean, I've at least
12 gotten them linked up so we know where to look to see how things finish.
13 Was I right? Was I correct in how I read it?
14 A. No, you're not right because the valid document is my original, my
15 original photocopy of my working notebook.
16 Q. Now, in fact, the order in which what you're calling your original
17 version, the order in which that has been written, it follows from page
18 131 to page 133 to halfway page 135, back to page 134, to page 136, back
19 to page 135, to page 137. What I've tried to do so that I can understand
20 it, is I've put it in Sanction, and I've also got the layout of it because
21 it needs to be read in its entirety.
22 A. It is my right to take my notes in the way which suits me best. I
23 believe it is pointless to discuss this. And I am doing you a favour
24 actually in providing all this and explaining how it's organised to avoid
25 confusion. I don't see why I should be asked to further explain this.
1 That's my style of writing and my style of thinking.
2 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Somers, I would point out that our tapes will
3 run out at the latest at a quarter to. You say the witness must leave at
5 MS. SOMERS: If I can have about seven or eight more minutes so I
6 can get this to you in Sanction. I think it will be fine. I hope that
7 will be --
8 JUDGE PARKER: That's you. What about re-examination?
9 MS. SOMERS: May I have five minutes to wind up. Thank you.
10 Q. Now, if I can just get an assist on Sanction, if you can show us,
11 please, the -- if you have it on your screens. Doctor, you have in front
12 of you a screen, a computer screen. You can probably see the layout.
13 When the pages are put together in a vertical format, they reflect the
14 so-called original version. It doesn't appear to be, and it doesn't
15 appear to be as one would write in a book, as if on loose sheets and then
16 putting them together. Now, can I ask, please, opening on the left side
17 of your screen is the correct version, the corrected version. And then on
18 the right side is what you're calling your original version. And if you
19 can just kind of go down there, you can see the pages skip. The way they
20 should read is on the left. If you were to follow them sequentially and
21 get the whole order, to get the whole story, the text, but the way they're
22 really laid out is on the right. And it's very, very difficult to follow
23 the order. They are not sequential.
24 A. Where is your question?
25 Q. When you have it vertically, it appears that -- I'm sorry.
1 MS. SOMERS: Excuse me just a second. I'm sorry.
2 Q. It appears that the pages have been put together, that the legible
3 set, the corrected, legible set, the rewrite, appears to have been written
4 first, and that someone maybe copied those entries on to the so-called
5 original version. I mean, that's what it looks like when you read it.
6 A. You are not right because if what you were saying were true, that
7 would mean that I had made a forgery. This, however, is an authentic
8 document. But in taking notes, I have the right, I'm entitled to my own
9 style which reflects my style of thinking. This is a completely authentic
10 document, and I stand by that.
11 MS. SOMERS: For the benefit those -- of everyone, I'm going to
12 pass around or ask to be passed around our putting it together with the
13 English translation according to the real sequence, and it tells you where
14 pages end, where pages begin.
15 Q. What has been passed around is taking the English translation to
16 follow the -- what would be in the so-called original if you were to read
17 it sequentially.
18 Is this the format in which you took your notes?
19 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, objection. The
20 format in which this witness kept his notes is reflected in the document
21 before him. And these quasi laboratory --
22 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic, if you would leave your point. I can
23 understand what you're going to put. And the ruling is that Ms. Somers
24 may proceed.
25 MS. SOMERS: Thank you.
1 I'm sorry, Your Honour. I was just...
2 Q. Did you not tell us earlier that all entries from Mr. Doyle were
3 on odd numbers, and all entries for Mr. Strugar, General Strugar, were on
4 even numbers. Now, if you line it up, is that how it really comes out?
5 A. No. Not always on odd-numbered pages, but mostly. You can see
6 that from the moment when he started talking and when I started recording
7 what they were saying. The discussion divided between Mr. Doyle and
8 Mr. Strugar. But this is additional examination on issues that I
9 really -- I mean, I can read this again and I can tell you that this is
10 absolutely accurate. The notes that I took are absolutely authentic. And
11 one thing that can clarify everything is to provide the Court with all the
12 four notebooks that I have as soon as I come to Belgrade. I hope that
13 will be sufficient.
14 But in any case, I bear witness that this is an authentic working
15 notebook, and whatever I did in terms of rewriting was aimed at
16 facilitating your work in following the contents. Maybe this is a proper
17 matter for expertise of some kind. But the only thing I can tell you is
18 that everything here is authentic.
19 Q. And the format of it, I put to you, very much appears as if
20 crafted very specially for its purpose.
21 Are you indicating that you took notes in this format while paying
22 close attention to everything said by two high-ranking officers at a
23 meeting on the 6th of December? Is that what you're telling us? Going
24 back and forth from page to page to point to point. Is that your
1 A. I don't know. It's a moment. I took notes on whichever page came
2 next, whichever was most convenient. All the working notebooks, and I can
3 show them to you all, are like this. Please bear in mind that I'm
4 testifying under oath, and I can assert with full responsibility that this
5 is an authentic document. The thought of anything that you seem to allege
6 something like a forgery never crossed my mind. I assert once again that
7 this is an original, accurate document.
8 MS. SOMERS: No further questions.
9 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Ms. Somers.
10 Mr. Rodic.
11 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I should like
12 to try very briefly to clarify matters concerning this document.
13 Re-examined by Mr. Rodic:
14 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Svicevic, please, take the copy of your
15 working notebook. Is this a photocopy of the original working notebook
16 starting from page 126 and ending with page 138?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Tell me, please, these entries that we see photocopied, are they
19 contained as such in your original notebook?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Did you enter or add anything into this notebook later,
23 A. I swear I did not.
24 Q. Mr. Svicevic, shall we now move on to your rewrite. Please look
25 at it again. Will you be so kind as to tell us, these four sheets written
1 in your hand, which is much more legible than the handwriting we see in
2 the notebook, what are they?
3 A. These are organised notes from the meeting between General Strugar
4 and Mr. Doyle held on the 6th of December 1991 at the command -- the
5 headquarters of the 2nd Operational Group.
6 Q. Please, you need to concentrate on my questions in order to be
7 clear. Here, doing this rewrite on these four sheets, did you copy the
8 contents of the original working notebook in a more legible handwriting?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. On those four sheets of the rewrite, we see four pages of
11 rewritten notes. When were they made?
12 A. On Saturday before my departure.
13 Q. In this rewrite, did you change the meaning of words or anything
14 else compared to the content of your original notes?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Please, Mr. Svicevic, take a look, for instance, at page 129.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. You begin your notes with names, Colm Doyle and Sodan.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Is that the way you began your rewrite? Look at the rewrite now.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. I noticed that my learned friend extracted on to these big sheets
23 certain differences in the rewrite, the rewrite being this document here.
24 Please look at it. This is the rewrite of your original notes. In
25 rewriting the original, did you copy everything exactly in sequence? Did
1 you compare it?
2 A. No, I did not compare it before, and now I see that I missed one
3 page in my rewrite; namely, the notes from page 132.
4 Q. So in your rewrite, you are now noting that you omitted the
5 paragraph found on page 132 of the original of your notebook?
6 A. Yes. And that was pointed out to me today.
7 Q. Please read from the original journal the paragraph.
8 A. "President of the Municipality of Mostar, the JNA and the
9 community must share their faith, good or bad." "Fate," correction.
10 Q. Mr. Svicevic, in this rewrite which you made in order to make it
11 easier for us to read the original, did you perhaps swap certain parts of
12 the original? Did you change their places?
13 A. Possibly. I don't know because I didn't have time to compare.
14 But if we do compare, we can find out for sure.
15 Q. So the things contained in this rewrite, does the content of the
16 notes differ in any way from the original?
17 A. No.
18 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Defence should like to
19 tender this document that was previously marked for identification as a
20 Defence exhibit now.
21 MS. SOMERS: Can we hold off this argument until after the witness
22 is finished, Your Honour. I don't think --
23 JUDGE PARKER: I think it may be better dealt with on Monday in
24 view of the need for the witness to go, if you want to put anything
25 further to the witness, Mr. Rodic.
1 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this document is
2 important to us. And if there occurred an error in sequence in the course
3 of rewriting the original, I would like that to be clear to everyone. And
4 I think we can ask the witness - I don't think he would mind - to rewrite
5 the original once again more carefully. But what is quintessential and
6 what was confirmed by the witness is that the contents of the notes from
7 the original was not changed during the rewrite, which he did only to make
8 it more legible for us. And if that would be of assistance, the witness
9 already suggested making available his original notebook as soon as he
10 comes back home. And we can then compare it with the rewrite of the
12 JUDGE PARKER: What you're contemplating is that at some later
13 time we would receive a further rewritten version and the original. Is
14 that it?
15 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Defence now asks that
16 this document, the photocopy of the working notebook, be admitted into
17 evidence and marked as a Defence exhibit. If there are any doubts
18 remaining, the Defence, together with Mr. Svicevic, are prepared to
19 provide the original so that we can compare the original with the
20 photocopy. At least concerning the pages contained in the photocopy.
21 JUDGE PARKER: There will be no indication from the Trial Chamber
22 whether there are any doubts until we've got all the evidence on this
23 matter and been able to consider it. So if you want us to look at a
24 further considered rewrite of the pages, you will have to seek leave for
25 the witness to be recalled to deal with that. Is that what you're wanting
1 to do?
2 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I should then like to
3 suggest, bearing in mind the needs of the witness, that the witness
4 remains in The Hague today and makes a more careful rewrite of this paper.
5 We shall attach the translation to this document. Maybe that would be
6 more useful than recalling this witness, just for the sake of this new
8 JUDGE PARKER: It is your decision, Mr. Rodic. But the issue will
9 be whether there will be an objection to that rewrite coming into
10 evidence, and there may need to be then further cross-examination on the
11 rewrite. And inevitably, that would have to be at the earliest on Monday.
12 Now, I don't know Mr. Svicevic's commitments. But that's where it is. It
13 will have to be your decision.
14 Could I further indicate that in view of the attention that's
15 being paid to the matter, it appears to the Trial Chamber that the
16 original document ought to be provided as well, the original notebook.
17 So you're faced with the question whether you want to continue the
18 evidence of the witness on Monday to clear up this matter, and there may
19 then be need for some further cross-examination on this point, or whether
20 you want to conclude now the evidence of this witness.
21 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] With your leave, I should like to
22 consult the witness and see what his commitments are, if he can --
23 JUDGE PARKER: You have to come quick. We're right at the end of
24 the tapes, as you know, Mr. Rodic.
25 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Mr. Svicevic, you have heard this discussion. Would it at all be
2 possible for you to remain available to the Tribunal on Monday as well? I
3 believe on Monday morning all this will be clarified.
4 A. If that is important for the Tribunal and if you believe that a
5 significant improvement can be made on what I wrote, I don't know. I
6 believe it could be only a shade of an improvement on what I wrote.
7 Q. Mr. Svicevic, we don't have time to discuss this. Would it create
8 a huge problem for you and could you give us some more of your time on
10 A. I have many commitments indeed, but I am at the disposal of the
11 Tribunal. And if everyone seems to believe that this is important, I'm
12 ready to stay on Monday.
13 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I believe the answer is
15 JUDGE PARKER: We are very grateful, Mr. Svicevic.
16 The hearing will be at 2.15 on Monday in the ordinary course. I
17 don't know when the flights are after that.
18 Yes, Ms. Somers.
19 MS. SOMERS: Your Honour, if there is going to be anything
20 submitted, may we ask, please, this time that it be done in a timely
21 manner so we can --
22 JUDGE PARKER: I was about to say that whatever is rewritten
23 should be shared this afternoon so that the Prosecution has time to
24 reflect on it so that we don't lose time, further time, on Monday.
25 An issue has been made of it by the Prosecution which I think you,
1 as the Defence, should have every opportunity of meeting. That's why we
2 have taken this step of suggesting that you consider your position.
3 Fortunately, the witness is able to meet the special needs.
4 MS. SOMERS: The other point, Your Honour, is the one you yourself
5 raised: The real issue is the original. And that will not cure, I think,
6 the concerns raised. It may not obviate the need for a return. But I
7 just wanted to make sure it was raised.
8 JUDGE PARKER: You anticipate my every thought, Ms. Somers. I was
9 going then to reiterate, Mr. Rodic, that it may be possible to secure the
10 delivery here of the original in the time between now and Monday
11 afternoon, and we could then deal with all those issues at once.
12 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if I have understood you
13 correctly, it would mean this: The first task for the Defence is to ask
14 Mr. Svicevic this afternoon to legibly copy out all his notes from the
15 photocopy of the original of the diary, and we shall do our best to
16 provide a translation. I think the translation is already finished. We
17 will provide it to the Prosecution for them to be able to look through
18 during the weekend. Our new group of witnesses arrives on Saturday.
19 We're going to ask Mr. Svicevic to contact his family or somebody else,
20 and if possible we'll try and have the diary flown in to The Hague to the
21 Tribunal for us to be able to compare the original with this photocopy on
22 Monday. I think that would be satisfactory all round.
23 JUDGE PARKER: Excellent, Mr. Rodic. I would only add that when
24 Mr. Svicevic copies it out again, that he pays particular attention to
25 including all passages and in what he says is the correct order of his
1 notes. So that --
2 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Yes, in the right order. Thank you,
3 Your Honour.
4 JUDGE PARKER: I think in the circumstances, the right course is
5 to adjourn now until Monday at 2.15.
6 [The witness stands down]
7 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 12.54 p.m.,
8 to be reconvened on Monday, the 5th day of July,
9 2004, at 2.15 p.m.