1 Wednesday, 15 September 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Good morning to everybody.
6 There is still one matter pending, Mr. Thayer. These are the
7 documents you have tendered so far. Most of them have been received, but
8 from your list, the last part of it, the fourth part, there are some
9 matters open. We have received P992 because this is clearly related to
10 our witness, Mr. Kingori. It is his OTP statement. But we have not made
11 any decision about P993, 994, 995, 996, and 997. If I'm not mistaken, I
12 got an information but through the Registry from the OTP that they have a
13 different record. I don't know how you will proceed, Mr. Thayer. If
14 there is no showing that there is any relation between this witness and
15 these documents and you haven't used them, I don't see the basis for
16 tendering and admitting them.
17 Mr. Thayer.
18 MR. THAYER: Again, Mr. President, good morning to you and
19 Your Honours. The relation to the witness is simply that these documents
20 were either shown to the witness in his prior testimony by various
21 parties. I believe mostly by Defence counsel during his
22 cross-examination. I think there may have been one or two that were
23 shown in redirect examination by the Prosecution. So they were used,
24 shown, to the witness last time around. As I said yesterday, the only
25 thinking behind including them on the list of exhibits was to assist
1 Your Honours in making sense of the Popovic trial transcript as you
2 reviewed it so that you could literally see in front of you what the
3 witness was seeing at the time. Otherwise you'll have no access to these
5 Again, for example, there were some video stills which were shown
6 by one of the Defence teams to the witness. They are not that clear but
7 I figured I'd give Your Honours the opportunity to at least see what the
8 witness saw so that you can make your assessments of the testimony. So
9 that's the connection to the witness that we saw and that was the
10 thinking behind including these. Again, if Your Honours don't feel the
11 need to have these exhibits to assist Your Honours, that's fine, but that
12 was the reason we put all these documents on there because they were used
13 with him.
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Indeed, but this is the difference: They were
15 used but not tendered and not admitted into evidence. And to have that
16 in evidence in our trial, there is a need to show it to the witness, to
17 deal with that with the witness. For instance, the OTP statements with
18 two other witnesses, I don't see any purpose of tendering them with this
19 witness. You may do that with the other witnesses if they will be
21 MR. THAYER: That's fine, Mr. President. We are not clamoring to
22 put Mr. Nuhanovic's statement before the Trial Chamber, it's not
23 something that we feel an independent need to, as far as I know. So that
24 is perfectly fine. Perhaps -- and we've gone -- I think we've gone back
25 and forth on this suggestion in the past, but it may be a solution to
1 simply MFI these documents in the event that the Trial Chamber feels the
2 need to go back and look at them. They are not in evidence. The
3 Prosecution will not be seeking to otherwise use them, but they will be
4 available for the Court's review. That may be an intermediate solution.
5 If that doesn't please the Court, then we'll just proceed as,
6 Mr. President, you've suggested and maybe they will surface at another
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The Chamber will mark them for identification,
9 but I'm not sure why you didn't use the diary of this witness with this
10 witness during examination-in-chief, P996.
11 MR. THAYER: The reason, Mr. President, was it wasn't used by the
12 Prosecution in the last case. Frankly, the diary surfaced in the middle
13 of his examination. Just to give you a brief background, he testified in
14 December of 2008. We learned during his proofing that he had in fact
15 managed to smuggle out one of a few notebooks that he had kept at the
16 time. However, that was back in Nairobi
17 return to Nairobi
18 We made it available to Defence counsel. They used it during their
19 cross-examination to some degree. We didn't feel it necessary to re-open
20 our examination-in-chief or to add additional examination based on the
21 diary. So we -- the Prosecution didn't use it, but it was used by
22 Defence counsel. And I didn't see any need to affirmatively use it
23 before this Trial Chamber.
24 I think the contents of the diary are perfectly consistent with
25 what he has already testified about. The extent to which the Defence
1 used it is in the record, but again, I thought it might be helpful to
2 have the hard copy available for the Court to review if Defence counsel,
3 for example, is reading from it or has read a portion, but the -- or, for
4 example, if the witness has read certain portions to himself on the
5 record, if it doesn't come in, then nobody knows what anybody is talking
6 about. You'll have the page reference, perhaps, but not the actual text.
7 So theoretically, Mr. President, what we could do is somehow use
8 all these documents so that we have a connection here before this
9 Trial Chamber, but I didn't think that would be productive. So that's my
10 thinking on that.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Thayer, the Chamber is of the view that these
12 documents can only be admitted into evidence if they are tendered through
13 the current witness. These documents not related to a prior and received
14 transcript of a statement or testimony in another case.
15 Mr. Tolimir, do you want to respond?
16 Mr. Gajic.
17 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. President. Good
18 morning to everyone in the courtroom. As far as the statement of
19 Hasan Nuhanovic goes, we really cannot see any great link with the
20 testimony of this witness in the Popovic case. But as far as the other
21 documents are concerned we have no objection whatsoever, especially P995.
22 It is a part of the report on Srebrenica of the Dutch Institute for War
23 Documentation. That is a document which is both relevant and the
24 information contained in it was used in the cross-examination of this
25 witness, although it may not have been tendered in the Popovic case.
1 As far as the notebook of this witness is concerned, we would
2 just like to see this notebook in the Serbian language as soon as
3 possible so I could convey the contents, summarise it to Mr. Tolimir.
4 Since we had no time to review this notebook, it was written in longhand
5 in English and it's not so easily legible, we think that one should be
6 marked for identification.
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The Chamber is of the view that it is not
10 possible to receive them, the documents P993 through P997 into evidence
11 because they were not used with this witness and not admitted in a prior
12 trial either. The documents P995 and 996 have no translation yet. They
13 couldn't be received but they are all already marked for identification
14 with the given numbers. So this the decision of the Chamber. The
15 documents may be used with another witness or by the Defence, it's to the
17 Now, the witness should be brought in, please.
18 [The witness takes the stand]
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Good morning, sir. Please sit down. Welcome
20 back to the courtroom. May I remind you that the affirmation to tell the
21 truth that you made at the beginning of your testimony still applies.
22 Sorry for the delay, we had to discuss a procedural matter.
23 Mr. Tolimir has some more questions for you.
24 Mr. Tolimir.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. Let me
1 greet all those present. I wish peace unto this house. May this day and
2 this whole trial be completed in keeping with God's will, not necessarily
4 WITNESS: JOSEPH KINGORI [Resumed]
5 Cross-examination by Mr. Tolimir: [Continued]
6 Q. Welcome, Mr. Witness. I would appreciate it if we could
7 continue. Before we embark upon a new area of questioning, I'd like to
8 go back to that question that remained open yesterday about Tuzla
9 protected area, because it was contested here that it was a protected
10 area. On page 5382, lines 22 and 23, you said that Tuzla was not a
11 protected area of the United Nations and the Prosecutor said the same.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we now show 65 ter 1980,
13 which is the UN Security Council resolution of May 1993. We will look
14 just at the operative part of this resolution. We haven't got it yet.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Gajic.
16 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] I've just noticed that it's not
17 uploaded in e-court under this number. It's 1D286. That's the number
18 under which it was uploaded. For the record, the same document is on the
19 Prosecutor's 65 ter list.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Page 2 of this
22 resolution, could it please be shown. Thank you.
23 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Recalling the provisions of Resolution 815 of 1993 on the mandate
25 of UNPROFOR and in that context acting under Chapter 7 of the charter,
1 item 3 says:
2 "Declares that the capital city of the Republic of Bosnia
4 towns of Tuzla
5 surroundings should be treated as safe areas by all the parties concerned
6 and should be free from armed attacks and from any other hostile act."
7 Now item 4 says:
8 "Further declares that in these safe areas the following should
9 be observed:
10 "A, the immediate cessation of armed attacks or any hostile act
11 against these safe areas, and the withdrawal of all Bosnian Serb military
12 or paramilitary units from these towns to a distance where from they
13 cease to constitute a menace to the security and the inhabitants of these
14 towns to be monitored by the United Nations military observers."
15 It will also be relevant for our discussion to look at
16 paragraph 6, which says:
17 "Requests the Secretary-General to take appropriate measures with
18 a view to monitoring the humanitarian situation in the safe areas, and to
19 that end, authorises the strengthening of UNPROFOR by an additional
20 50 United Nations military observers, together with related equipment and
21 logistical support and in that connection also demands from all parties
22 and others concerned to co-operate fully and promptly with UNPROFOR."
23 Now, based on what I've just read I'd like to ask you, could you
24 tell us, on this basis, did the Security Council with its Resolution 824
25 recall that Tuzla
1 A. Based on what you've said, Your Honour, I think it declared Tuzla
2 a UN protected area. What I had said earlier is that personally I did
3 not -- I had not included Tuzla
4 that I gave. I did not indicate Tuzla. And that has been the
5 contention, but that does not mean that Tuzla was not a UN protected
7 Q. Thank you for this answer. We see from this that in these areas
8 there were varying regimes of work, both on the part of the military
9 observers and the balance of powers in Sarajevo, Tuzla, Bihac, and
10 protected areas Srebrenica and Zepa and Gorazde. There was a variety of
11 mandates; is that true or did everyone have the same mission?
12 A. Your Honour, I really don't understand the question because the
13 mission of the UN was the same except in the UN protected areas, which
14 was different from the other areas of former Yugoslavia. And also the --
15 Q. Thank you. I will rephrase my question to try to make it
16 clearer. Did a military observer in Srebrenica and Zepa have the same
17 mission as the military observer in Tuzla, Bihac, Gorazde, or Sarajevo
18 We are talking about the mission carried out on the ground, not the
20 A. If you are talking about the mission, it was the same for
21 military observers who were in UN safe areas.
22 Q. Thank you. In Srebrenica, in addition to all the other tasks
23 that other missions elsewhere performed, did you also have the additional
24 task of ensuring that the area is indeed militarised, because other teams
25 did not have this demilitarisation component?
1 A. Your Honour, when I went there in that enclave, that is,
2 Srebrenica, the mission was the same as has -- had always been before and
3 even thereafter in now -- the other protected areas, that is. On the
4 side of demilitarisation, it had already been done, and let's get it very
5 clearly that demilitarisation by the time we arrived there had already
6 been done. All the heavy weapons had been removed from the Muslims and
7 taken to a safe area. That is the same with all the other enclaves. By
8 the time we arrived there in 1994, 1995, all that had been done, so
9 there's nothing new that we were going to do. We were not going there to
10 demilitarise that place.
11 Q. Thank you. Could you please, when you see that my microphone is
12 on, let me ask you an additional question. Were there any weapons in
13 other areas, Sarajevo
14 Srebrenica and Zepa?
15 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: Were the weapons
16 removed in other areas such as Sarajevo
17 they were removed in Srebrenica.
18 THE WITNESS: I request that we specifically go to Srebrenica.
19 If the question is concerning Srebrenica, I will tell that you the
20 weapons had been removed and taken to Bravo Company, where they were
21 stored. In other areas, I don't know where they had been taken to,
22 except maybe Sector East where I can tell that you they had been put in
23 various locations, not one location. But in Srebrenica it was in one
24 location, that is Bravo Company, where they had been taken to. So maybe
25 other observers will tell you where the weapons were kept in those other
1 safe areas.
2 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Could you please assist the Trial Chamber and tell them whether a
4 zone is demilitarised if only heavy artillery is removed whereas all the
5 rest remains in use. Thank you.
6 A. I'm trying to understand your question, but when you say some who
7 are in use --
8 Q. Please answer the question directly. You can say whatever but we
9 need an answer.
10 A. Your Honour, demilitarisation was a removal of the weapons from
11 the locals. And that was done. That was done and they were moved to
12 the -- to the Bravo Company and we found them there, and we could see
13 them. We could count them. We had a list of all the heavy weapons which
14 were there.
15 But as I said yesterday, if you're talking about a comparison
16 between the arming of the Bosnian Serb army and the Muslims really is of
17 no comparison. There were small arms here and there but that does not
18 mean that there were not demilitarised --
19 Q. Please, I didn't ask you that. I asked you whether -- please,
20 could you answer my question, if you remember what I asked you and then
21 you can say whatever you wish after that.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir. Mr. Tolimir, I think this is not
23 appropriate, what you are doing with the witness at the moment. You are
24 putting questions and I think we all have the obligation to listen to the
25 answer. You shouldn't interrupt him so many times, and he is providing
1 you with an answer as is he able to do that. Listen to the answer.
2 Carry on, please.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
4 Yesterday in the course of one hour I managed to put only six questions.
5 If that's the way he goes on answering today, I can immediately tell you
6 that I will no longer cross-examine. I have over a hundred questions
8 I asked the witness whether demilitarisation means that only
9 heavy artillery is removed. Can he please answer me first and then he
10 can go on talking about other things, and according to your instructions,
11 I will not interrupt him again. Thank you.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, I agree with you. Sometimes some
13 witnesses have a very lengthy answer, but every witness does it in a
14 different way, like the Prosecution and the Defence put some lengthy
15 questions to witnesses. On the other hand, I think the witness has
16 answered your question several times already what in his understanding
17 demilitarisation means in these so-called safe areas.
18 The last question again, Mr. Kingori, related to heavy weapons,
19 but before you answer, Mr. Thayer.
20 MR. THAYER: Mr. President, I would just note a couple of things
21 briefly. First, these questions were asked yesterday, exactly the same
22 questions, and Colonel Kingori provided a very detailed answer to the
23 best of his ability. If General Tolimir doesn't like the answers, then
24 he can ask a different question, but to threaten the proceedings with
25 taking his ball and going home and not further cross-examining witnesses
1 because, frankly, he is asking repetitive questions is not helpful to
2 this process.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Judge Nyambe has a question for the witness.
4 JUDGE NYAMBE: No, not really for the witness, just to clarify
5 the current dialogue. If you go to page 10 of today's transcript,
6 line 1, the question -- line 4, the witness said in answer to the
7 question from General Tolimir:
8 "... demilitarisation was a removal of the weapons from the
9 locals. And that was done."
10 I think that, to me, is an answer to your question, no?
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, if you focus on the key of your
12 questioning, please carry on, but be patient with the witness, please.
13 Carry on.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. And
15 thanks go to the Prosecutor and the witness. I will not have any
16 sub-questions. I can only ask the witness whether all the weapons were
17 taken from the Muslims in Srebrenica. He was an observer. He was there.
18 I will respect his answer. I give him the floor. Thank you.
19 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, it forces me to repeat the same answer
20 that I gave yesterday, that the removal of the heavy weapons was done and
21 even the other weapons was done, but then you could not be able to ensure
22 that all small arms, all pistols, AK-47s were removed from the locals in
23 Srebrenica itself. So that really does not -- if you compare with the
24 weaponry that the Bosnian Serb army had, really, there's no comparison.
25 So you cannot compare with the arming with the small arms that the
1 Bosnian Serbs had -- the Muslims had and the heavy weapons that the
2 Bosnian Serb army had. Here, as I said yesterday, they had the tanks,
3 they had the heavy artillery, they had the mortars, the rocket-launchers,
4 and all those heavy weapons.
5 When we talk about artillery, artillery we are talking about the
6 heavy ones, the 155 millimetres, et cetera. And those were heavy
7 weapons. It was also an organised army, a conventional army, that is the
8 Bosnian Serb army, as compared to what we had in the enclave, there was
10 So concerning the small arms fire that we may have had, and
11 because we noted it in the situational reports that occasionally we could
12 hear some small arms fire, there are times that we could see some of the
13 Muslims inside there with small arms is in our reports. But that does
14 not compare with what the Bosnian Serbs army had at all. It does not.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It was an answer that we have received yesterday
16 already. That is very clear. And Mr. Tolimir, to make the best use of
17 the time available for you and everybody else in the courtroom, please
18 try not to repeat a question which is already answered. That's all I
19 what want to say. Please go ahead.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
21 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Yesterday, we did not hear the following question: Did the UN
23 forces and military observers have to ensure the parity of weapons of the
24 Serbs around Srebrenica and the Muslims in Srebrenica? Thank you.
25 A. No.
1 Q. Thank you. In the demilitarisation agreement, is there a single
2 provision according to which the Serbs were supposed to either surrender
3 or reduce their weapons? Thank you.
4 A. What they were supposed to do, that is, the Bosnian Serb army,
5 was to refrain from attacking the UN protected areas. That is one thing
6 that I know. And they had to remove their weapons from an aggressive
7 posture, a posture that threatens the people who are living in the
8 enclave. That is, they had to remove them from positions close by the
9 enclave to ensure that the people inside the enclave feel safe and not
10 threatened. This did not happen because they still positioned themselves
11 in attacking positions in areas that we have already put in our situation
12 reports where we had the rocket-launchers, the anti-aircraft guns and
13 also the artillery weapons which were actually facing the enclave. This
14 was a threatening posture.
15 Q. Thank you. Please can you answer my question again because you
16 didn't answer. If you cannot remember my question, I'll repeat it. In
17 the demilitarisation agreement, was there a single provision pursuant to
18 which the Serbian army had to reduce the parity of their weapons in the
19 area around the enclave of Srebrenica? Thank you.
20 A. That I do not know.
21 Q. Thank you. Please, you said before the Trial Chamber that you
22 had undergone training before you went to Srebrenica and that training
23 took place in Zagreb
24 demilitarised zone was being armed again by means of helicopters and in
25 other ways? Did you learn that the Muslims were being armed yet again?
1 Thank you.
2 A. No, we did not learn that.
3 Q. Thank you. When you arrived in Srebrenica as a military
4 observer, did you see a single command military structure in Srebrenica,
5 and did you inspect any such structures and did you introduce yourself to
7 A. Your Honour, what I can say is that there was no conventional
8 military or army in the Muslim side. It was not there. The fact that
9 they had someone they could call a Chief of Staff or an intelligence
10 officer does not necessarily mean that they had a conventional army. You
11 can imagine, you know, some -- the opposing side, that is the Bosnian
12 Serb army, they had all the way up to generals. In the enclave itself,
13 that is the Muslim side, as far as I am concerned, they had no such
14 rankings, and if they had, really, where would you position an army in
15 Srebrenica itself? An army, and you know very well because, Your Honour,
16 you are an army general, so at least you know, an army is composed of
17 three divisions minimum.
18 Q. Thank you.
19 A. Each division is composed of three brigades as a minimum. Each
20 brigade is composed of three units and all the supporting arms. Each
21 unit is composed of three companies. Really, in such a small enclave
22 where would you hold all that? So it was not an organised army. And it
23 was a rag-tag, you know, if we can call it that, it was something that
24 was not organised at all. But compare it with the Bosnian Serb side.
25 They had everything, they had all the support weapons, they had the
1 infantry itself, and it was a complete army with the proper structure.
2 We did not see that proper structure in the Muslim side at all.
3 Q. Thank you. As a military observer, did you receive a task to
4 reduce the Army of Republika Srpska to the level of the command structure
5 that existed in Srebrenica, or perhaps not? Thank you.
6 A. We did not have such a role.
7 Q. Thank you. You mentioned the Chief of Staff and the security
8 organ, did they exist at all despite the fact that the Muslims did not
9 have a proper army, as you have just explained?
10 A. I hope you are asking the Chief of Staff, he was there. There
11 was a Chief of Staff, Ramiz Becirovic. He was the Chief of Staff for the
12 Muslim side. And as for the issue that you talked about concerning the
13 reduction of the army on the other side, that is on the Bosnian side,
14 really it was not in our mandate. I just want to elaborate slightly
15 further. It was not in our mandate to reduce. But it was in our mandate
16 to ensure that we observe the violations to the cease-fire agreement, you
17 know, atrocities that may be committed from either side. And mainly the
18 ones who had the more advanced weaponry, you know, here we are talking
19 about the ones -- the Bosnian Serb side are the ones who were in a more
20 aggressive position.
21 So we had to hold meetings from -- you know, with both sides to
22 ensure that at least we would bring these people to an understanding and
23 that we reduce the suffering of the people in the enclave because as far
24 as the UN was concerned, this was a protected area and the people therein
25 had to be protected from aggression from outside. From outside, here I
1 mean from the Bosnian side army -- Bosnian Serb army. So that was in our
2 mandate and we had to ensure that.
3 Q. Thank you. Since that was your mandate, can you finally answer
4 me this: Did you meet with that fictitious Chief of Staff of whom you
5 said that he existed and the security organ when you arrived in the
6 protected zone? After you've answered me that, we can continue talking
7 about other things. Thank you.
8 A. Your Honour, I've even mentioned his name. I met him and I've
9 even mentioned his name, Ramiz Becirovic.
10 Q. Thank you. I quoted from the resolution that the number of
11 observers was increased by 50 in the protected areas despite the presence
12 of UNPROFOR. Can you tell me what the difference was between your role,
13 the role of protecting the areas, as you said it, and the role of
14 UNPROFOR? What was the difference between your two mandates?
15 A. I've already explained, and I think I explained yesterday, the
16 role of the UN military observers, so I think the best thing now I will
17 explain the role of UNPROFOR, if you didn't get it yesterday.
18 UNPROFOR were armed. These were battalions and they were armed
19 and they had to protect the --
20 Q. Okay. Thank you.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Thayer.
22 MR. THAYER: Really, Mr. President, I think the witness was
23 interrupted mid-answer. If he had finished, then I'll sit down, but I
24 think he was literally in the middle of a sentence before he was cut off
25 by the accused.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think he was at the beginning of his answer.
2 You were asking for the difference between the -- between UNPROFOR and
3 the role of the observers. The witness wanted to explain that related to
4 your answer. You should listen to him.
5 Please continue your answer.
6 THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir. The military -- the UNPROFOR were
7 armed battalions which were sent to the former Yugoslavia with the aim of
8 doing their mandate as given by the United Nations Security Council.
9 They were to protect those people who were inside there, but the mandate
10 in some cases actually did not allow them to use force. I think there
11 are two different mandates, but at least one thing we can note, they had
12 a proper structure of -- from the commanding officer all the way down to
13 the lowest level, that is the section. And they manned the observation
14 post, they manned the surrounding areas, and they ensured that there is
15 peace inside the former Yugoslavia
16 Different UN detachments, that is different battalions, were
17 given different areas to man. Like we had several, I think there were
18 about ten or so battalions from all over the world, including a Kenyan
19 battalion which was there somewhere in Knin. But if you go back to the
20 military observers, these were senior officers ranking from major and
21 above and sometimes you could get some captains who were there to observe
22 the VCFAs, that is a variation to the cease-fire agreement, and report.
23 They were not living in the normal barracks. They were living together
24 with the locals so that they can be able it to integrate with them, know
25 how they operate, and know their culture, and ensure that they are free
1 to give them any information that can help bring the warring factions
2 together. They were also there to ensure that they bring -- they get --
3 they hold meetings with both factions so that they can understand the
4 problems which are facing them and so that they can be able to convey
5 whatever they are told from this side to this other side to bring the
6 warring factions to a better understanding and maybe even end of the war.
7 Another reason why the military observers were not armed was to
8 ensure that they are safe in that they could not be attacked because they
9 don't have any weapons. We could hear of attacks on the battalions but
10 on the military observers, it was very rare, very rare. It happened, but
11 very rare, because these people were not armed and they were free to move
13 Another point to note is that the military observers, though
14 unarmed, used to provide protection even to some of the battalions
15 against the aggressors. They could be able to provide security for the
16 UNHCR, the IOM, and all those other organisations when they are moving
17 from one point to the other because it was known that the report from the
18 UN military observers was stronger than even the others from the
19 quarters. It was stronger because it was based on facts, not hearsay.
20 It was based on facts, and before you write something you had to make
21 sure that you are writing the truth because it would involve a lot of
22 other issues and it was taken very seriously all the way up to the
23 UN Security Council. So, basically that is the difference between the
25 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Thank you. Thank you for your explanation. Could you please
2 tell us whether you UNMOs had a book of rules which you had to follow in
3 your work, and did it differ from the book of rules that UNPROFOR and
4 other structures present in the protected area of Srebrenica had to
5 observe and work by? Thank you.
6 A. I've said it before but I will still say it again, that we were
7 different. We had a different structures, even administratively. We had
8 different reporting systems. Sometimes we could be able to compare
9 notes, but mainly our structures were different. For the observers it
10 started from the team, that is the observer team. Like team Srebrenica,
11 we could report to our senior military observer who was in headquarter
12 Sector North-east and it would go to the chief military observer in
14 This was different from the UNPROFOR side. UNPROFOR had their
15 own structures and they had to go all the way to the general who was the
16 commander of the UN peacekeeping force in Bosnia -- in former Yugoslavia
17 We were different. We had different reporting systems. The work system
18 was different and we knew it and understood it as such.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And was there a book of rules for the observer
20 mission Mr. Tolimir was asking for?
21 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, it was different.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: But was there a book of rules?
23 THE WITNESS: Yes --
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Did you have one?
25 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, we had our own regulations and rules
1 to follow --
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
3 THE WITNESS: -- which were different.
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
5 Please carry on, Mr. Tolimir.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
7 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Could you please tell us this: How did your regulations regulate
9 your work as UNMOs in the demilitarised zone of Srebrenica, and could you
10 also please tell us what -- what was the name of the regulation that you
11 had to follow, that book of rules? Did it have a title, did it have a
12 name, and if it did, could you tell us the name of that regulation?
13 A. Your Honour, I can't remember the name of those regulations, but
14 we had ours which were different from those of the UNPROFOR. And even
15 the work that we were doing was different, other than for some areas
16 where we -- you know, they were coinciding. You know, some areas we had
17 to consult each other. But our work was very different from the work of
18 the UNPROFOR.
19 Secondly, the regulations that governed the UN military
20 observers, as I've said earlier, was very different.
21 Q. Thank you. I apologise for having asked you this again. I
22 didn't know that you had regulations and that's why I asked you what was
23 the title of your book of rules. In addition to UNMO -- in addition to
24 regular tasks that UNMOs had and that are described in the regulations,
25 did UNMOs also have to supervise the implementation of agreements if such
1 an agreement was signed by the warring parties in an area? Thank you.
2 A. Your Honour, I believe I've already answered that when I said we
3 were to ensure the observance and that the violations to the cease-fire
4 agreement were not done.
5 Q. Thank you. I will remember your answers if your answers are
6 shorter. In order to help me not to repeat myself, try to help me and
7 provide more succinct answers. I apologise for the repetitions and I'm
8 kindly asking you tell me whether in Srebrenica there was a cease-fire
9 agreement that was assigned by the warring parties? Thank you.
10 A. There was a cease-fire agreement that had to be observed in the
11 whole of former Yugoslavia
12 Q. Thank you. In addition to the cease-fire agreement, was there
13 any other agreement that you got to review when you came to take up your
14 duties as UNMO in Srebrenica?
15 A. Your Honour, we did not go there to review any cease-fire
16 agreement. That was not in our mandate, and that is your question, and
17 we did not go there to review any.
18 Q. Thank you. I'm asking you now about the demilitarisation
19 agreement, not the cease-fire agreement. Was there a demilitarisation
20 agreement that was in place at the time when you were there, and did
21 anyone show that agreement to you or any other UNMO?
22 A. Your Honour, the cease-fire agreement was also composed of the
23 demilitarisation in the UN protected areas. It was all encompassing, but
24 if we put the emphasis more on the UN protected areas, those inside the
25 enclaves were to be disarmed and their arms -- I'm actually repeating
1 what I had said earlier. Their arms put in a safe area, but the ones
2 outside, and still giving an example of Srebrenica, we are talking about
3 the Bosnian Serbs army, they were to refrain from posturing in an
4 attacking mode in a way that would threaten the safety of those inside
5 the enclave. They were also to refrain from attacking them at all. And
6 that is why the UNPROFOR -- that is the UN protection through an army
7 battalion was ensured. It was already in the enclave to ensure that that
8 does not happen. And that is for the same reason that the military
9 observers were put inside there to ensure that these, if it happens, is
10 reported immediately to the UN system so that they can be able to do
11 something themselves as a UN system.
12 So at least the UN had already taken care of that, that is it's
13 protected and there are systems to ensure that if violations are done,
14 it's reported immediately.
15 Q. Could you tell me if you have ever seen an agreement on
16 demilitarisation between the Muslims in Srebrenica and the Serbs around
17 Srebrenica, or between the Bosnian Serbs army, as you call it, the VRS,
18 and the Bosnian Muslims?
19 A. Your Honour, maybe it's not coming out clearly or we are not
20 understanding each other during the question and answer sequence, but if
21 I can just tell you we had the cease-fire agreement and that is what I'm
22 emphasising on. This is the one that also had the demilitarisation bit
23 of all the UN safe areas, all the UN protected areas. It was encompassed
24 in that cease-fire agreement. So if you are directing the question to
25 show like if there was an agreement between the Muslims and the Bosnian
1 Serb army, I don't remember seeing anything like that, that they
2 themselves had agreed other than what was agreed as their cease-fire
4 Q. Thank you. Since when you were giving your statement you
5 attached a great number of documents including your diaries, did you also
6 attach this cease-fire agreement?
7 A. No, I did not.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Thayer.
9 MR. THAYER: Mr. President, just to make it clear for the record,
10 when the witness -- and I don't think there's any dispute from the
11 Defence on this. When the witness gave his OTP witness statement in
12 1997, which I presume is what General Tolimir is referring to here, he
13 did not have the diary or was not asked for it. So that was not, as I
14 said before, provided at that time. We only learned about the existence
15 of this notebook in 2007. I just wanted to make that clear for the
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you. [Microphone not activated]
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President and thank
19 you Mr. Thayer. We'll come to his statement later and we'll look at all
20 the documents the witness attached when he was giving the statement.
21 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Let me ask you this: Do you know of the existence of a
23 demilitarisation agreement between the Army of Republika Srpska and the
24 army of the Bosnia-Herzegovinian Federation concerning Srebrenica?
25 A. Your Honour, I think I've just answered that, I don't know. But
1 if it's in a different way, I don't know, but I've already answered that.
2 If you want me to repeat it, I'll do exactly that.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: [Microphone not activated]
4 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Go on, repeat it. I'm asking you, are you aware. There's
6 nothing to repeat. Are you aware?
7 A. You're asking me whether I know of an existence of a
8 demilitarisation agreement and I said that the demilitarisation that I
9 knew of was what was in the cease-fire agreement. I did not get to see
10 any other document on demilitarisation that is between the Bosnian Serb
11 army and the Muslim side. I did not see it.
12 Q. Thank you.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we now show in e-court D21 so
14 that the witness can finally see this agreement in accordance with which
15 he was supposed to work.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: While this will be coming up, Mr. Tolimir, you
17 have used 1D286 [Realtime transcript read in error "1D216"], are you
18 tendering that document, it's the Security Council resolution?
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President, we are
20 tendering it because it was contested both by the Prosecution and the
21 witness that it existed.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It will be received.
23 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Please witness --
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir. Mr. Tolimir, we want to hear the
1 D number.
2 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D114.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Now, please continue.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we see page 2 in e-court,
5 please. Only in Serbian, the English page remain.
6 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
7 Q. We can see in Serbian this document which says:
8 "Agreement on the demilitarisation of Srebrenica and Zepa
9 concluded between lieutenant -- sorry, Lieutenant-General Ratko Mladic
10 and General Sefer Halilovic in the presence of Philippe Morillon."
11 It's a demilitarisation agreement. Let us look at the preamble.
12 "Confirming their will to establish peace within the territory of
13 Bosnia and Herzegovina as stated in the agreement between contracting
14 parties concluded on May 8, 1993
15 "Confirming Resolution 824 of the Security Council in which its
16 declared that the towns of Zepa and Srebrenica and their surroundings
17 should be treated as safe areas by all the parties concerned and should
18 be free from armed attacks and from any other hostile act.
19 "Confirming also that the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949
20 and the protocol additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949
21 and relating to the protection of victims of international armed
22 conflicts, (Protocol I), are fully applicable in the conflict in Bosnia
23 and Herzegovina
24 General Mladic and General Sefer Halilovic.
25 Would you please tell us, was this agreement based on the
1 decisions included in the UN Security Council resolution on the
2 demilitarised zone of Srebrenica?
3 A. Your Honour, you can already see the section that you read
4 concerning confirming Resolution 824 of the Security Council in which is
5 declared that the towns of Zepa and Srebrenica and their surroundings
6 would be treated as safe areas by all the parties concerned. So this was
7 through a UN resolution which we already had, and also the cease-fire
8 agreement, as I've already said earlier.
9 Q. Is it clear from this agreement that the signatories wish the
10 balance of power between Muslim and Serb forces be in conformity with
11 Geneva Conventions and its additional protocol?
12 A. It's my understanding that is not what it means. If you look at
13 the way it's worded, if it was to ensure parity, then we could not have
14 declared one side a safe area. The UN would not have declared one side
15 the safe area, it's got to be the same. That's both inside the enclave
16 and outside. But now you can see one side has been declared a safe area.
17 Q. Thank you. I asked you whether the signatories wanted to base
18 this agreement on Geneva Conventions and Protocol number 1 as written in
19 the preamble as their commitment. Now, what the Security Council
20 decided, whether they will have parity or not, I cannot go into that.
21 A. I kindly request you reframe the question.
22 Q. I will. Why did the signatories choose Protocol number 1 rather
23 than Protocol number 2, because the Geneva Conventions have both? They
24 chose Protocol number 1, do you know why? If you don't know, it's not a
1 A. I do not know why they chose one resolution. I don't know the
2 reason for that.
3 Q. Thank you. Do you know that Protocol 1 stipulates
4 demilitarisation, whereas Protocol number 2 does not?
5 A. I do not know.
6 Q. Thank you. And do you know that Article 60 of that Protocol
7 number 1, indicated here, of the Geneva Conventions governs the issue of
8 establishment of demilitarised zones?
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: First the answer, please.
10 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, the issue at hand is somehow different
11 from the -- I mean, how we are -- where we are heading, in that the
12 demilitarisation had already been done. Whether it was through whichever
13 protocol or whichever resolution, demilitarisation had already been done
14 even by the time we arrived there. It was done and it can be seen even
15 in the documentation that is already with us. It had already been done.
16 So it really does not matter whether a certain protocol or a certain
17 resolution allowed or did not allow demilitarisation. The fact is it had
18 already been done. And we were there to observe whether there would be
19 any violations to the cease-fire agreement and report about it. And we
20 carried out our tasks as far as our mandate allowed us. So we were not
21 in any violation to any protocol or resolution. We just did our work
22 according to what our mandate told us to do.
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Thayer, you were on your feet.
24 MR. THAYER: Yes, Mr. President. I think Colonel Kingori has
25 been very clear that he understood that they were operating under a
1 cease-fire agreement which made somehow reference to a demilitarisation
2 agreement. He has made clear that was all encompassing. He is now being
3 shown a demilitarisation agreement which he may not have seen before, we
4 don't know because General Tolimir hasn't asked him whether he has ever
5 seen this before, in fact.
6 He has been asked now questions about Protocol 1 and Protocol 2
7 of the Geneva
8 his knowledge. I think if we keep on this line of questioning about
9 subparts of the protocols in an agreement that we don't even know whether
10 Colonel Kingori has seen, is not going to be productive. If there's some
11 specific point that General Tolimir is trying to make or if there's some
12 understanding he is trying to arrive at, then maybe there's a better
13 question that can be asked. But asking him academic questions about
14 whether a subpart of Protocol 1 incorporates something I'm not sure is
15 particularly helpful, particularly when we haven't established whether
16 this witness has seen this agreement before -- this specific agreement
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, you've heard the concern of
19 Mr. Thayer. You should try to use your time for cross-examination in the
20 best way to get answers from this witness what he can tell you what you
21 want to know. That's all what I want to say. Please carry on.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. My legal
23 assistant will find exactly the reference where I asked the witness, and
24 I asked him explicitly, have you ever seen the demilitarisation
25 agreement, and then I showed it to him saying, here you can see it --
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: You have all that on the record. Please continue
2 your questioning.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, but in his objection
4 Mr. Thayer said I never asked the witness if he had seen it. I want to
5 say for the record that I did. And second, I have the right to test the
6 credibility of this witness.
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes, you have the right. This is not in dispute.
8 Please carry on questioning the witness.
9 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Could you please look at section 1 where it says: "The
11 Demilitarised Zone." In English, you can see the heading halfway through
12 the page.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: What is your question?
14 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
15 Q. My question is: Did the witness see this, and now I can ask a
16 specific question. Does this designate specifically what the
17 demilitarised areas are and does it say indeed demilitarise the areas of
18 Srebrenica and Zepa?
19 A. Yeah, if you look at what is written there, it indicates the
20 areas of the -- the demilitarised areas of Srebrenica and Zepa.
21 Q. Thank you.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Because of this objection that was
23 voiced on page 23, I asked the witness about this agreement that we are
24 now looking at.
25 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Can you tell us based on what you've just read and seen here
2 whether, when taking up your duties of UNMO in Srebrenica, did you know
3 the exact borders of the demilitarised zone of Srebrenica and were they
4 marked as such on the ground and on the map that you used?
5 A. Yes, I was shown. We went round all the whole of the enclave and
6 we also went through all the -- the whole cease-fire line and all the
7 observation posts that had been put by the DutchBat so at least we could
8 be able to know where, and on the map it was indicated very clearly, but
9 on ground we saw it also.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we now show Article 3. We
11 are not going to read all of this agreement, but Article 3 of this
12 agreement signed by General Mladic and General Halilovic.
13 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Here is Article 3. It says:
15 "Every military or paramilitary unit will have either to withdraw
16 from the demilitarised zone or submit/hand over their weapons.
17 Ammunition, mines, explosives and combat supplies in the demilitarised
18 zones will be handed over/submitted to UNPROFOR."
19 Is it clear that all lethal weapons should be turned over to
20 UNPROFOR in the demilitarised zone?
21 A. Yes, and I've said that earlier.
22 Q. Below there is a passage:
23 "The hand-over of all weapons shall be observed by a team of
24 three officers from both sides together with UNPROFOR officers."
25 Does that mean that UNPROFOR was supposed to take and collect all
1 the weapons and ammunition as written in Article 3?
2 A. It doesn't say that. All it says is that submitting or handing
3 over of weapons will be observed, not carried out by, but observed, by a
4 team of three officers from both sides together with UNPROFOR officers
5 who will arrange the places where the hand-over will be done. So the
6 UNPROFOR is to arrange where the weapons would be put, and in this case,
7 what I know is that it was done by and put in the B Company compound of
8 the DutchBat. So UNPROFOR did that.
9 Q. Thank you. Does that mean that the -- in fact, if the UNPROFOR
10 did not do that, was the Army of Republika Srpska supposed to go into the
11 zone and take away all the weapons as written in Article 1?
12 A. To me it's a bit difficult to understand that question. I don't
13 know whether ...
14 Q. I'll rephrase it. Since the agreement expresses a mutual wish of
15 both sides, did the other side, in this case the Army of
16 Bosnia-Herzegovina, officially communicate to UNPROFOR or the observers
17 that they had turned over all the weapons, ammunition, and combat
18 supplies from the demilitarised zone?
19 A. I think it's good, Your Honour, to get the whole thing from the
20 beginning, in that there was a series of military observers and even the
21 battalions being changed from time to time. So you can see this was done
22 in 1993. 1993 I was not anywhere close to that place. So the process
23 that was followed should have been, according to my understanding, in
24 accordance with what is written here.
25 We, as military observers who went there, and I personally went
1 there in 1995, so me, I found an already demilitarised place with the
2 weapons in one area. So to say whether it was followed or whatever, I
3 cannot be able to tell. All I know is that ... if I can continue.
4 All I know is that demilitarisation had already been done and all
5 the weapons were put in one particular area, as had also been done in
6 other areas in former Yugoslavia
7 it had been done. Furthermore, the handing over of these weapons to this
8 particular place -- you know, because the way you asked the question is
9 like the Bosnian Serb army had to go inside there. Really, how they had
10 done it, I do not know. But demilitarisation had already been done. We
11 witnessed that it had been done. The weapons were put in one particular
12 place, and there was a list of all those weapons which were there.
13 Q. Thank you. You said that that was the case in all demilitarised
14 zones in the former Yugoslavia
15 also a protected area, in the same way as they did in Srebrenica? Thank
17 A. My belief is that it was the same in all the UN protected areas.
18 Q. Thank you. Did you know or did you just believe that the same
19 things happened in Bihac, Tuzla
20 is this just your opinion, something that you think happened?
21 A. I said I believe, and in case you are seeking my opinion, I did
22 not observe it. I did not go there in those other areas, so if you want
23 me to be specific, I just know about Srebrenica. I can talk about
24 Sector East, that is the Eastern Slavonia, because at least those areas I
25 worked there. But what I said is that I believe. I do not know. I
1 never observed in those other areas that you are talking about.
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Thayer.
3 MR. THAYER: And I know the Prosecution is really a broken record
4 on this issue, Mr. President, but I just want to note again for the
5 record that the fact that the Srebrenica enclave was not fully
6 demilitarised is not a matter in contest as far as the Prosecution is
7 concerned. This Chamber has ruled in its 17 December 2009 decision on
8 adjudicated facts, and I would note numbers 46, 47 and 48, that the
9 demilitarisation was conducted but not all weapons were turned in, that
10 there were helicopters regularly flying, that the 28th Division was
11 rearming itself and so forth.
12 Again, General Tolimir is free to choose how to use his time, but
13 we have spent I don't know how long on this issue of demilitarisation and
14 it is, frankly, again, not in dispute as far as the Prosecution is
15 concerned. And Colonel Kingori has exhaustively detailed his
16 understanding of that process and what he observed.
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much that you are drawing all our
18 attention to the decision on adjudicated facts, but now I think it's an
19 appropriate time to have the first break and I would like to ask
20 Mr. Tolimir to take into account what just -- what Mr. Thayer was just
22 We adjourn and resume at 11.00. Someone will assist you during
23 the break.
24 --- Recess taken at 10.34 a.m.
25 --- On resuming at 11.03 a.m.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir. Sorry, there must be one correction
2 made for the sake of the record by the Registrar.
3 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you, Your Honour. The last Defence exhibit
4 admitted, D114, is 65 ter 1D286 and not 1D216 as recorded.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. And now please carry on,
6 Mr. Tolimir.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you to Madam Registrar, and
8 now could I reply to the Prosecutor's remark in only 30 seconds or less.
9 In the testimony of this witness, the witness has spoken on several
10 occasions about the parity of forces and the need for the parity. And he
11 has also said that the demilitarisation was over, that all the arms
12 landed with Bravo Company and it's all on the record. I had to test the
13 credibility of the witness who was a military observer who was supposed
14 to observe the situation. He still claims and he keeps on claiming
15 things that simply are not the fact, and even the Prosecutor admits that
16 they are not, and that's why I had to test the credibility of the witness
17 because I wanted to point to some things and possibly to see whether
18 there is a bias when he is speaking about a parity because he is supposed
19 to be dealing and talking about a military agreement which was accepted
20 by all the sides. Thank you.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And now go ahead, please.
22 THE WITNESS: I don't know whether, Your Honour, you can allow me
23 to say something?
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think you should wait for the next question by
25 Mr. Tolimir.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
2 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Please tell us, Zepa and Srebrenica -- or, rather, only
4 Srebrenica was a protected area, and in addition to that, did the sides
5 also agree for Srebrenica to be a demilitarised zone by means of that
6 agreement, yes or no?
7 A. First of all is that I may require to start with clarifying on
8 something that you've said, that I talked about need for parity between
9 the forces of the Bosnian Serbs and the Muslim side. I did not say that
10 and I have not said that during the course of my stay here. I've not
11 said that, that there was need for parity.
12 Secondly, on the demilitarisation of Srebrenica, please note that
13 it was demilitarised. It was a UN protected area. Whether it was fully
14 demilitarised, as I said yesterday, is what one cannot be able to
15 understand because at least we could see some people with small arms and
16 it's also in our situation reports that we could see them. So mopping up
17 every bit of weapon, every bit of fire-arm, it's a bit difficult in
18 normal circumstances, but at least most of the weapons were handed over.
19 Q. Thank you. And my next question based on your previous answer is
20 this: When you saw the small weapons, as you have described it, in the
21 hands of militarily able men, did you report about that to anybody, and
22 did you seize it from them?
23 A. As military observers, we did what we were supposed to do; that
24 is, report about those weapons, not seize them. Our work was not to
25 seize the weapons, but we reported and is on record, is in some of my
1 sitreps -- in our sitreps and also in my statement.
2 Q. Thank you. My next question based on your previous answer is
3 this: Did there come a time for you to make it known to the Army of
4 Republika Srpska, as one of the parties to the agreement, that Muslims
5 were openly carrying weapons in the demilitarised zone of Srebrenica?
6 Thank you.
7 A. Your Honour, in fact I've not even said they were openly carrying
8 weapons. It was just a few instances that we noted that they were
9 carrying some weapons. It's not always. So in that time we reported to
10 our headquarters about it and for the -- on the side of the Bosnian Serb
11 army, we never discussed that, but if there was need for that, we still
12 could have discussed it because in most cases when you meet the other
13 side, regardless of whether it's the Bosnian Serbs or the Muslims, there
14 are some issues you really do not have to discuss with them. But
15 provided we have reported to the UN headquarters, we had done our work.
16 Q. Thank you.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could the court please produce
18 Article 5 of this agreement, paragraph 4 and 5 of the demilitarisation
19 agreement. We can now see paragraph 5. Can the court please produce the
20 following page in the Serbian language. Thank you. The following page
21 in the Serbian language. Thank you.
22 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
23 Q. We are looking at the first paragraph on this page:
24 "Non-combatants except members of UNPROFOR who are in or who are
25 willing to enter the demilitarised zone are not permitted to have in
1 their possession any weapons, ammunition or explosives. Weapons,
2 ammunition and explosives in their possession shall be seized by
3 UNPROFOR. Combatants will not be allowed to enter or to be in the
4 demilitarised zone."
5 Thank you. Based on what we've just seen, this provision of the
6 agreement that was signed by both sides, we can see that there was a ban.
7 And did that ban apply to all combatants, and that non-combatants who are
8 found with weapons, explosives or other lethal weapons should have those
9 seized from them? Thank you.
10 A. Yes, that was to be done, but I may require to remind you again
11 that I was a military observer, not UNPROFOR. So our work was not to
12 seize any weapons. Ours was to report and we used to do that.
13 Q. Well, this is exactly what I'm asking from you, to say exactly
14 how things were.
15 My next question is this: Was Ramiz Becirovic a combatant?
16 A. Your Honour, I don't know what you mean by a combatant. In the
17 sense that him being a Chief of Staff of the Muslim Army, really he
18 belonged to the Bosnian Muslims army. So I don't get you, please.
19 Q. Thank you. Thank you.
20 Please look at the paragraph in English where it says:
21 "Combatants will not be allowed to enter or to be in the
22 demilitarised zone."
23 That's the last -- did you find it?
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Last sentence of Article 5.
25 THE WITNESS: I hope you are talking about where it's written,
1 and I may read:
2 "Non-combatants who are in or who are willing to enter the
3 demilitarised zone, except members of UNPROFOR, are not permitted to have
4 in their possession any weapons, ammunition or explosives. Weapons,
5 ammunition and explosives in their possession shall be seized by
7 If that's where you are referring to --
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: No, to the next paragraph.
9 THE WITNESS: "Combatants will not be allowed to enter or be in
10 the demilitarised zones." And that's why I said Chief of Staff, that is,
11 Ramiz, belonged to the army. But you become a -- and that's why I asked
12 you what you mean by a combatant because if you are not in the war
13 position, in the war posture, if you are not armed, you are not, as far
14 as I can understand, a combatant. You can be a rival to the other group
15 but you are not a combatant because you are not fighting. You are not
16 ready to fight. So as far as we were concerned, Ramiz was not armed
17 whenever we met. He was never in uniform, so he was not a combatant.
18 But he belonged to an army, but he was not a combatant. He was not in a
19 ready-to-fight position.
20 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Thank you. Do you know the definition of a combatant in terms of
22 the international law? If you don't, it doesn't matter. I'm asking you
23 just whether you do know or not. Thank you.
24 A. The meaning of the word "combatant" varies, and the way I
25 understand it in this situation is that it's someone who is ready for
1 war, someone who is ready for combat, because combatant is -- you know,
2 combat is war. And you cannot be ready for war if you are not, first of
3 all, in uniform, you are not armed, and you don't have an army. You
4 don't have a combatant force with you, so you cannot be a combatant at
5 that particular moment. That does not necessarily mean that later on
6 when you go and get into uniform, arm yourself, and lead an army, that
7 you were not a combatant. But at that particular moment, earlier, as
8 I've said, you are not a combatant at all. As far as I understand the
10 Q. Okay. This is the first time I hear that Becirovic was not a
11 combatant, although he was a Chief of Staff. However, in your opinion,
12 is a combatant a person who bears arms but does not wear a uniform? In
13 other words, can you be a combatant if you fight in civilian clothes?
14 A. Your Honour, I will still try to answer that question and say
15 what I said earlier. You know, if you are not in uniform, you are not in
16 a ready-to-fight posture. You are not in a combat mode. You really
17 cannot be termed a "combatant." You and myself, yeah, we are not
18 combatants. But you have a military history, I have a military history,
19 but we are not combatants because we are not in a ready-to-fight
20 condition or situation. So not everybody you see around is a combatant
21 just because he has military experience or he has a position in the
22 military, no. That is my understanding. And even if you go out there
23 and find Dutch soldiers, even outside here, who are not in uniform and
24 they're not ready for combat and there's no war that particular day, they
25 are not fighting, really you can't call that person a combatant, as far
1 as I can understand the situation and as far as I know.
2 Q. Thank you. Let's talk about a very specific situation. Did you
3 ever see a person, a civilian in Srebrenica bearing arms? And was that
4 person in a ready-to-fight position? What makes a person in a
5 ready-to-fight position in your view? Does it mean that he is bearing
6 arms or that he is wearing a uniform? What is it?
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, I think the witness has explained
8 his position, his understanding of the word "combatant," and therefore I
9 think it's really a pure repetition if you put this question to the
10 witness again. He explained it extensively. Go ahead, please.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
12 Witnesses, fighters from Srebrenica have been here and spoke about
13 bearing arms in civilian clothes because their town was a demilitarised
14 zone, and I can appreciate that. Thank you.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Your next question, please.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
17 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Sir, a military observer -- should military observers be familiar
19 with the Geneva Conventions, and were you familiar with the provisions of
20 Protocol 1, paragraph 60, Article 7 of that protocol? I'm going to read
21 it to you just in case because one cannot always remember things. I will
22 read it. I'm reading from Article 60, paragraph 7 of the additional
23 Protocol 1. This is an additional protocol to the Geneva Conventions,
24 and I quote:
25 "If one warring party makes -- violates provisions 3 or 6, the
1 other side will be exempted from their obligations pursuant to the
3 For the sake of the interpreters I repeat.
4 Article 6, paragraph 7 of the Additional Protocol I to the
6 "If a warring party violates the provisions 3 or 6, the other
7 side will be exempted from their commitments stemming from the agreement
8 assigning to a zone the status of a protected area."
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Thayer.
10 MR. THAYER: Mr. President, if we are going to have a class quiz
11 on the Geneva Conventions and the protocols, I think it's only fair to
12 the witness not to read sections that in turn refer to other sections
13 that aren't being put to the witness. If General Tolimir is truly
14 interested in finding out what this witness has to say or think about
15 certain provisions, then he should do him the courtesy of showing him
16 what he is talking about. He just read a section that refers to
17 provisions 3 or 6. We don't have the articles handy, they weren't on the
18 list. It is extremely unhelpful to the witness to proceed this way.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And in addition, the Chamber is in the same
20 position, we don't know what is the full text.
21 Mr. Gajic.
22 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the Geneva
23 have not been uploaded in e-court because this is an international law
24 that is applied by this Tribunal. It would be crazy to ask for its
25 admission into evidence, and Mr. Tolimir is simply testing the witness's
1 credibility by checking his knowledge of this particular document.
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I understand the position of the Defence but
3 there should be a more appropriate way to deal with that and it is the
4 right of the Defence to challenge the credibility. That is the main
5 purpose of the whole cross-examination, of course. But reading a certain
6 part of a document into the record, it is not helpful to -- if you want
7 to challenge the credibility of the witness. You should do it in another
8 way and just put questions about his knowledge. Ask him if he knows
9 anything about that, then you will get an answer.
10 Mr. Thayer.
11 MR. THAYER: And just to be clear, Mr. President, the Prosecution
12 has no problems, obviously, with the accused testing the credibility of
13 any witness. That's not what is at issue here. What is at issue is the
14 manner in which General Tolimir is going about it. This is not a game of
15 gotcha, and if he has got a copy of the protocols in hard copy that he is
16 reading from, then maybe we can just put it on the ELMO; or if there are
17 particular sections that he can read in full, although that's going to be
18 cumbersome because we've got three now that are referred to, then he
19 should put that on the ELMO as well.
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, can you provide the witness with the
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have the text before me. If
24 necessary, I will upload the document tomorrow in e-court with the help
25 of my assistants. I can go on reading. I have read from the original
1 text of the protocol which is an integral part of the agreement, and I
2 quoted from it.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Again, Mr. Tolimir, if you want to have a clear
4 answer from this witness, you should give him the chance to read that
5 specific part of the Geneva Convention. If you have a hard copy, give it
6 with the assistance of the Usher to the witness, put it on the ELMO, and
7 we can proceed. Otherwise, it's not very helpful just to quote from a
8 quite unknown text. We don't have the full text in front of us.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President, for
10 having allowed the witness to see the document. I had to clarify the
11 matter because I'm interested in the rights of the parties at the time
12 when the witness discharged his mission of a military observer. I was
13 simply interested in the rights of the parties.
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Again, this is not in dispute, Mr. Tolimir, but
15 everybody wants to know what you are reading from. And therefore we see
16 it now on the ELMO. The Defence has given the text to the Court Usher
17 and I hope we can follow what you are now referring to. It is not on the
18 ELMO yet.
19 Mr. Gajic.
20 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the text is in the
21 Serbian language. I'll try and find it in the English as well within the
22 next couple of minutes and forward it to the Registry. Thank you.
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think if you have it only in the Serbian
24 language it will be a problem for the witness to read it, and if then --
25 the other way around, please. Yes. Thank you. But the witness can't
1 read it. Mr. Gajic has indicated that he will try to get an English
2 translation, the English version of that. Perhaps we wait -- you should
3 wait with these questions until you have an English version. Perhaps you
4 deal in the meantime with another topic. It's not helpful to have this
5 on the ELMO. We can remove it.
6 Mr. Tolimir.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. While
8 Mr. Gajic is looking for the text in English, can I ask for an MFI. P82
9 [as interpreted]. We don't have it on the screen.
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, there might be a problem on the
11 record. It is recorded "P82," but I suppose you are referring to D82; is
12 that correct? Because D82 is on your exhibit list.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That's right. That's right,
14 Mr. President. Thank you.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: That will be on the screen. Now we have it.
16 Please continue.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. We see
18 it in both versions.
19 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
20 Q. We can see that this document is dated 29 April 1995. It was
21 sent to the 2nd Corps command to Brigadier Sead Delic personally. And
22 when we look at the signature, we will see that it was written by
23 Salihovic. Salihovic.
24 My question is: Did you have occasion to meet Mr. Ekrem
1 A. Yes, Your Honour, I did.
2 Q. We see that he signed this document. My second question is, on
3 this date indicated here, 29 April 1995
4 in the demilitarised zone of Srebrenica?
5 A. Yes, Your Honour. I think I was there. I arrived in April and I
6 think I was there at this time.
7 Q. Thank you. Look at the first sentence, please. It says:
8 "In your letter, the number and date stated above, we received
9 orders for action regarding discontinuation of engineering works on the
10 UN observation post in the Lozina village sector, on the Srebrenica-Zepa
11 DMZ corridor."
12 Do you know anything about this corridor and about the building
13 of an engineered UN observation post near Lozina village?
14 A. Your Honour, I may be unable to remember the Lozina village, as
15 such, but, you know, building a UN observation post, that was a
16 continuous thing. In areas where we required our observation post to see
17 what was happening on the other side, we would request that, you know,
18 not us as military observers, but UNPROFOR would request for that. At
19 times when some of these posts were not serving the observers well, we
20 would request another area to be worked on. But on this particular area
21 called Lozina, unless maybe I look at the map, I may be unable to
22 remember this particular area.
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And, sir, do you know anything about a corridor
24 which is mentioned in this first paragraph and which was part of the
25 question of Mr. Tolimir?
1 THE WITNESS: On the Srebrenica-Zepa demilitarised zone corridor.
2 The only thing I can remember about such a corridor is that there was a
3 route that was being used by some of the Muslims to get out to Zepa to
4 get supplies into the enclave. This was being done in collaboration with
5 the Bosnian Serbs army. That is, they could be paid something and they
6 allow the Muslims to go out to that corridor to Zepa. I think this is
7 the corridor which is being referred to. And also on their safe reentry
8 into the enclave with the supplies. At times when these payments were
9 not made well or maybe were not honoured, the Muslims would be attacked
10 on their way back and that is the time we would be called that the
11 Muslims have been attacked in such and such a place. But when we
12 investigate further we find that it was because of that non-payment. So
13 there was a corridor. There was somewhere that they were passing through
14 to Zepa and back.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
16 Mr. Tolimir. One moment, Judge Nyambe has a question.
17 JUDGE NYAMBE: Can you just elaborate a little bit on payments
18 were made, what kind of payment, from whom to whom? And if you know, for
20 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, these were illegal payments which were
21 being made. Like it was -- we used to call it like mafia type, in that
22 there should actually be no exit or entry from that enclave, but because
23 of a lack of supplies, and sometimes even the UNHCR convoys were not
24 allowed into the enclave, these people had to devise ways of going out.
25 These merchants had to devise ways of going out. And it's almost
1 everywhere, in any war situation you find that some people who organise
2 ways of getting out to get supplies from outside, come and sell in the
3 enclave, because the people in the enclave do not have those supplies.
4 So it was like a mafia in quotes, an organisation, an arrangement that,
5 We will give you safe passage to Zepa, but you pay this amount. So they
6 used to do that, and we knew it and we used to report about it.
7 JUDGE NYAMBE: Thank you.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir.
9 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Thank you, sir. We'll come later to the humanitarian problems.
11 I'm asking you now if you know anything about the building of the
12 UNPROFOR observation post in the area we've just read about when the
13 Muslims forbade them to continue building?
14 A. Your Honour, the issue raised was on the actual occasion, that is
15 the Lozina village, but if this is another location that I can still
16 remember where there was a tug of war between the Muslims and the
17 UNPROFOR, this was a section whereby the UNPROFOR, that is the DutchBat,
18 wanted to build another observation post, but inside, slightly more
19 inside from the cease-fire line inside the enclave. And the Muslims were
20 not happy about that because they were saying this will draw the Serb --
21 the BSA more towards -- more inside the enclave.
22 So if this is the one that I'm remembering, there was such a post
23 and the Muslims were not happy about it. They were asking the UN -- the
24 UNPROFOR to build it where it was before or slightly further into the
25 cease-fire line, but not inside the enclave.
1 Now, for the UNPROFOR, the reason why they wanted to build it
2 slightly farther inside is because of the incursions by the Bosnian Serbs
3 army. So they felt more unsafe more towards the cease-fire line than
4 towards the Srebrenica area of responsibility. So it was -- I think that
5 was the main problem that was there at the time.
6 Q. Thank you. You presented two options here. In the first option
7 the Muslims wanted to keep these, as you call them, mafia channels open.
8 And in the second option they did not want the observation post to be
9 built because they were afraid of the Bosnian Serb army. Now, which of
10 these two applies to the issue of the building of the UN observation post
11 in the demilitarised zone?
12 A. Your Honour, if that is how you got it, that is not the way I
13 said it. On the mafia channels, I said about the arrangements, the
14 private arrangements which were there between the Muslims and the Bosnian
15 Serb army. On the observation post, I did not say the Muslims did not
16 want that post to be erected there so that they may not be observed, but
17 they wanted it moved to where it was before; that is, more inside the
18 cease-fire line but not inside the enclave.
19 Your Honour, if I may describe that a bit. There was the side of
20 the Muslims and on the opposite side, obviously, the side of the Serbs.
21 But in between there was a corridor that we used to call the cease-fire
22 line. That cease-fire line went around the whole enclave and we used to
23 mark it. We had marked it with grid references and we knew where they
25 So the observation posts were supposed to be in the cease-fire
1 line. It was not just as one line, it was a corridor, sort of. But now
2 the DutchBat were getting shelled from the BSA side and they felt it
3 safer to move slightly inside the enclave. But to the Muslims it was
4 like they were ceding ground for the BSA and that ground was to be
5 protected by the DutchBat. So they were telling DutchBat, You cannot
6 move more inside the enclave, we cannot allow you to come and build this
7 observation post here. Maybe that is the explanation maybe I needed to
8 explain. But if there was something that I have not answered from your
9 question, please ask me.
10 Q. Thank you. I'm asking you again, did the Muslims protest the
11 engineering of the UN observation post because of the mafia channels,
12 from the question of Judge Nyambe, or because they were afraid that the
13 Bosnian Serb army would penetrate into the depth of the protected area?
14 A. It's because they felt the Bosnian Serb army would move more
15 inside. They would be drawn more towards the enclave than they were
16 before. That is, they had their own positions, dug in positions, you
17 know, areas where they had their trenches, and now if the DutchBat moved
18 slightly inside, they would be pulled slightly more inside into the
19 cease-fire line and maybe into the Muslim side of the enclave, that is,
20 in their protected area, and that was the fear. It was not because of
21 the observation of the mafia type. I don't know but if it was, then I
22 was not aware of that.
23 Q. Thank you. This document speaks for itself. It indicates
24 clearly whether the reason was what you say or something else. Let's
25 look a paragraph 5 of this document:
1 "Our side insisted that the UN representatives should
2 unconditionally discontinue further engineering works on the observation
3 post in question and withdraw all personnel from the location until a
4 suitable solution is found."
5 They are not talking, therefore, about moving it forward or
6 backward but they want the UN personnel to withdraw completely from
7 there, from the separation line. Is that the case?
8 A. Well, maybe you can give me a few minutes to go through this
9 document, if you might.
10 Q. Thank you. There will be questions about other passages, but I'm
11 repeating this one.
12 "Our side insisted that the UN representatives" --
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, Mr. Tolimir, please don't repeat.
14 It is on the record and the witness can see it on the screen. Don't
15 waste time by repeating.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
17 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Would you please read the sentence that I quoted and then tell
19 us, was the UNPROFOR asked here to move forward or backward or was it
20 asked to withdraw completely?
21 A. This observation post, if it is the one I'm remembering, is the
22 one I talked about earlier. And I thought maybe you could assist me by
23 maybe placing a map so that I can -- we can be able to locate the place,
24 but if it was not, then the aim was actually to establish an observation
25 post. The way I still remember it is in that light, that is, it was to
1 be moved more inside and that is where they are just talking about the
2 construction of the OP. But there were so many OPs in the area, and you
3 have a list of all of them. So which one are you referring to, if I may
4 ask, sir?
5 Q. I said I meant the one they were building in Lozina village. I
6 can show you on the map where it was. You said there was a corridor
7 between Zepa and Srebrenica there, that's why I didn't show you the map.
8 But this speaks about unconditional withdrawal of the UNPROFOR and
9 unconditional termination of the building. Unconditional withdrawal. It
10 goes on to say:
11 "Our proposal was fully supported by the chief of military
12 observers, Romilton of Brazil, while the UN liaison officer partially
13 accepted the proposal. That is, he agreed to discontinue further
14 construction of the observation post, as long as he was able to keep his
15 personnel there and use the location as such for observation until an
16 adequate solution was found."
17 If this reminds you of anything, do you know who this
18 Mr. Romilton from Brazil
19 A. Your Honour, I do. I do remember Romilton. He was our team
20 leader. And as is quoted here, he went for that meeting, but I don't
21 know any other reason other than one I've given. But I could have done
22 better if you showed me the map or put the -- the OP and its number, OP
23 Alpha, Romeo, whatever, as is given in my notebook.
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Thayer.
25 MR. THAYER: Your Honour, I think that's the third time that this
1 witness has asked for a very simple thing to assist him in answering
2 these repeated questions from General Tolimir. General Tolimir instead
3 has continued his line of questioning on this passage. I would simply
4 ask General Tolimir to comply with a very simple question and request
5 from this witness. General Tolimir clearly has an exact idea and
6 knowledge of where this location is, what OP it's next to and what area
7 of the enclave it's in. It's not a game of gotcha.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, are you in a position to help the
9 witness with a map or leave this topic because you have got the answer I
10 think two or three times to your question?
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I will
12 certainly show him the map. I was just asking, while we are waiting for
13 that map, if he knew who Romilton was and whether he had had any role --
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: You got the answer. It's no -- no, it is not
15 necessary to repeat anything. You've got an answer to all your
16 questions. I think you have many more questions to put. You should
17 continue with them.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. My
19 assistant will give us a reference to that map that was drawn here by
20 UNPROFOR deputy commander and which has been exhibited. While my legal
21 assistant is looking for this exhibit, could we show P83 -- D83, sorry.
22 Marked for identification.
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Before you leave this document on the screen,
24 that was also marked for identification because the previous witness
25 Nicolai couldn't say anything about the content. Are you tendering that
1 now as an exhibit, which is still on the screen now?
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. Thank you.
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The document D82, marked for identification, will
5 become an exhibit in this case. Now, we move to D83.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Without abandoning the subject, can
7 we show P65 first, and that's the map that the witness wanted to see.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: You should check the number again. It is not a
9 map with this number.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It's D. D. D65. Thank you.
11 Would it be possible to zoom in on this triangle and these arrows and the
12 markings. Thank you.
13 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
14 Q. You see now the observation post that was placed -- do you
15 remember if there was a corridor on this side between Zepa and
16 Srebrenica, if you look at the map and the separation line?
17 A. Yeah, I think I can remember the corridor. It was more towards
18 my right near the bottom. That is where the corridor was towards Zepa.
19 The names there, I cannot be able to read them properly but where it's
20 written "1 Papa Bravo," something like that, that is where the corridor
22 Q. Can you draw in green, if you have that colour, where you think
23 the corridor was in a dotted line?
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can it please be enlarged in the area between the
25 south-west part of the enclave before it will be marked. The left part
1 of the map. To enable the witness to read the names. The left bottom
2 part of the left bottom quarter of this. I think it's better. And now
3 move it a little bit up and to the left. Yes, a little bit further.
4 Thank you. I think that should be sufficient.
5 THE WITNESS: I think this was the general area, and this, from
6 this other side. This was the corridor, as far as I can, you know, try
7 to remember it now towards Zepa.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Very sorry, that was perhaps my mistake that I
9 focussed on the left side. It should be the right side. We should do it
10 again and so that we have a full picture. Can that be moved, the map, to
11 the left side so that we see more of the right side of the map. No, the
12 other way around. Further, further, further, further, further. Further.
13 Sir, is that sufficient?
14 THE WITNESS: Yes. This is sufficient. And I hope the
15 directions -- because I cannot read the names, the direction, I think, is
16 still maybe a bit of an orientation. The north should be the way it is
17 on the map, that is from bottom to top, I think. And if it is, then the
18 corridor remains the way I had marked earlier, that is, this way.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. Now try it again, please.
20 Something wrong with the pen. Or with the system. It's lost again. I
21 think that's fine. And now wait a moment so that the Court Usher can
22 assist you to prepare the system.
23 THE WITNESS: That was the general corridor towards Zepa the way
24 I can remember it.
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
1 Mr. Tolimir, please carry on.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Can the corridor please
3 be drawn in a dotted line for everybody to see. I can't see that the
4 witness has drawn anything. Thank you. The corridor has to cross the
5 separation line.
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The witness has drawn two lines. Perhaps to make
7 it clear, I would like to ask the witness to put a number 1 to one line
8 and to put a number 2 to the other line so that we have a clear
9 indication and can compare it with the record.
10 THE WITNESS: But here, Your Honour, is not a matter of -- the
11 two lines are actually indicating -- what is important is what is in the
12 middle because that was the corridor. It was a wide corridor because
13 they were not using one route. But it was a wide corridor.
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Can this map be
16 tendered into evidence, please.
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This marked map will be received.
18 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D115.
19 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Could you please draw the observation post, where was it? The
21 one for which the Muslims asked for the interruption of engineering
22 works, and can you mark it with a letter Z.
23 A. Your Honour, I cannot be able to remember all the observation
24 posts in this area, but if we go to the grid references, I can easily be
25 able to mark it. But right now, I cannot be able to remember the actual
1 location of the OP.
2 Q. Thank you. Tomorrow we'll prepare the exact co-ordinates of the
3 location that other witnesses have spoken about and that the document we
4 have in front of us also speaks about and then you will be able to do it,
5 because if we were to do it now, it would take a lot of time for my
6 assistants to do.
7 And before that, while we are looking at the map, maybe you can
8 answer me this: What was the military significance of this corridor, and
9 why did the commanders have to write to their superior command to secure
10 it? Was that corridor used only for smuggling or was it also used for
11 other purposes as well?
12 A. These are similar questions like you had asked earlier but I will
13 still answer it, that we knew this corridor was used for smuggling of
14 goods or bringing in goods from outside the enclave, mainly from Zepa to
15 the enclave. So this was the main -- the main activity that was going on
16 here. As I said, the corridor was wide, it was not a line. It was wide
17 because they could not use the same road all the time, they had to
18 change, use the forest, the cover of the forest and all that so that they
19 felt secure, but it was wide.
20 Q. Thank you. I apologise for putting two questions to you in one.
21 My question was this: Did that corridor have any military significance
22 since Muslims requested from their command to put a stop to the
23 engineering reinforcement of the UN observation post in that corridor?
24 Thank you.
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, the witness made very clear during
1 several answers that there were two distinct issues. One was the
2 creation of a new observation post instead of the one in the
3 demilitarised zone. And the other was the corridor for smuggling. The
4 witness stated there was no relation between the two issues.
5 Please go ahead with your questions. If you have received an
6 answer, even if it's not satisfactory for your purposes, that might
7 happen in the course of such a trial, but please focus on something
8 different now.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I'm
10 asking, I've not received an answer and the question is this: Did the
11 corridor between Srebrenica and Zepa have any military significance?
12 Thank you. I've not received an answer to this question, Your Honour. I
13 don't really mind what answer I may receive, but I've not received an
14 answer to the question about the military significance of the corridor,
15 and the witness perhaps knows the answer.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, you are right. You didn't receive
17 an answer to this specific part of your question. The problem is that
18 you did connect this question with an explanation of your understanding
19 of the whole situation and that creates some confusion. This question
20 was not answered and we would like to hear an answer if there is a
21 specific -- if there is significance in that respect.
22 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, the military part that he is talking
23 about is a bit unclear, whether it's from the Muslim side or from the
24 Bosnian Serb army, but in military terms, I can say any road, any high
25 ground is a ground of tactical importance. We call it, and he knows it,
1 a GTI, a ground of tactical importance, in that you can use it for any
2 military activity. And so for the Bosnian Serb army it could have been a
3 very important road. For the Muslims it could have been a very important
4 road, because roads are very important for in the military. So I don't
5 know which military he is talking about, but generally, for military
6 purposes, a road is important.
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: My I ask you in this way: Was this corridor used
8 by the Muslim Army for transporting military devices?
9 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, if that is the question, we were not
10 aware of that.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
12 Mr. Tolimir, please carry on.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Thank you,
14 Mr. President.
15 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Sir, could you please say whether this observation point had any
17 military significance for UNPROFOR? Were they able to observe military
18 activities from that observation post that they were in the process of
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Thayer.
21 MR. THAYER: Until, Mr. President, the witness is able to locate
22 what this OP is to which General Tolimir is referring, any answer he
23 gives is going to be very limited in its helpfulness to the
24 Trial Chamber. This document that General Tolimir has been working with
25 refers to a village of Lozina
1 I don't remember off the top of my head where that's located. The map
2 that General Tolimir has shown the witness is so blurred that the witness
3 cannot identify the OPs themselves. I'm given to understand that there
4 will be a more legible map maybe tomorrow, but until the witness has any
5 idea about what OP General Tolimir is talking about, it's not going to be
6 helpful to this Trial Chamber.
7 And if General Tolimir knows where this location, and I'm sure he
8 does, why doesn't he just tell the witness or point it out on the record
9 for the witness, so that we can move on and have some productive answers
10 for the Trial Chamber as opposed to keeping everybody guessing.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, would that be a helpful suggestion
12 by the Prosecution?
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I do not want to
14 suggest anything to the witness. I am merely testing his credibility. I
15 would like to tell him [as interpreted] whether he remembers any problems
16 with the removal of the UNPROFOR OP and the construction of another one
17 which was better constructed.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: You have heard many answers. Mr. Tolimir,
19 Mr. Thayer asked you for something else. You have heard everything what
20 the witness can tell you about this observation post and creation of a
21 new one. Can you indicate where this village of Lozina
22 Then you could perhaps get an answer to that question, the link to the
23 corridor and the smuggling of weapons. But without indicating where it
24 could be, it is, I think, impossible for the witness. He told you he
25 doesn't know where it is because he doesn't remember the name Lozina.
1 Help the witness and don't repeat what you have said many times.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. If the
3 witness says that he doesn't remember a dispute with regard to the
4 construction of an OP within the demilitarised zone, I'm happy with that.
5 I will not ask for a better answer. I'm just very nicely asking the
6 witness, I showed him the map that another witness marked as a location
7 in dispute and as an observation post in dispute --
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, I have stopped you because this is
9 again a misrepresentation. The witness didn't deny anything about a
10 dispute on the question of this observation post. There was a problem
11 and he testified about that. We are dealing with an absolutely different
12 matter, where is the village Lozina. Help the witness to identify it
13 because he doesn't remember the location of this village and then you
14 will perhaps get an additional answer. But you have heard everything in
15 this respect already.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, whatever I show the
17 witness in the map he will not be able to follow me. I have to get a
18 different map. That's why I said that my assistant would try to make
19 sure to find a better map. You can see how illegible this map is, and
20 I've shown the witness a sector that was drawn by a witness before him
21 and he also marked that sector. There's nothing else that I can show
22 him. I can only try to jog his memory by additional questions that might
23 help him remember the location. Until I'm able to find a new map,
24 there's nothing I can do. Thank you.
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Then please carry on with the next question.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I will
2 move on and tomorrow we will come back to this issue.
3 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Please, as a military observer of the United Nations, did you
5 know whether people were sent to the demilitarised zones to carry out
6 sabotage operations in the rear of the Army of Republika Srpska, or
7 actually, whether people from the demilitarised zones were dispatched on
8 sabotage missions behind the enemy lines, behind the lines of the
9 Army of Republika Srpska outside of the demilitarised zone?
10 A. Your Honour, I don't remember receiving such reports, but it's
11 possible they used to carry them out. You cannot dismiss such an issue.
12 That is, if your enemy is encroaching more on your side, there's a
13 possibility that you try to do something about it.
14 Q. Thank you. Do you know -- and I did not say that either us or
15 somebody else sent you a document to that effect. We are not authorised
16 to do that. But I'm asking you whether you know of any military
17 activities originating from the demilitarised zones and directed against
18 the Army of Republika Srpska; if yes, did you report about that to your
19 superiors? Thank you.
20 A. Your Honour, I hope my memory is serving me right, and I don't
21 remember reports coming in from the Bosnian Serb side on an issue with
22 activities coming from inside the enclave towards the Bosnian Serb army.
23 I don't remember receiving any report of attacks from the Muslim side on
24 the Bosnian Serb army. Unlike what we used to receive from the Muslims
25 of perpetration of force against them by the Bosnian Serb army, attacks
1 coming from the Bosnian Serb army towards the enclave. That is in our
2 reports. But on the other way around, I don't remember any complaint
3 coming to us from the BSA side.
4 On activities to do with the military, that is the Bosnian Serb
5 army, is well documented and in various reports that we made we could
6 hear shells coming in. We could get reports of people injured in the
7 enclave by incoming shells from the BSA positions. That we used to get
8 and we used to report about it. But the other way around, really, I
9 don't remember. And if there was, it was minimal. I'm not very sure,
10 but I don't think there was very much activity coming from inside the
11 enclave towards the BSA.
12 Q. Thank you. When it comes to the Army of Republika Srpska, was it
13 supposed to be in communication with you personally, with UNPROFOR, or
14 with somebody else who was in charge of communications across the entire
15 Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina? Thank you.
16 A. Your Honour, we had direct connection with BSA through an
17 interpreter called Petar who had radio communication. He could contact
18 us any time there's need. Any time there is a requirement for a meeting
19 with either Major Nikolic or whenever there's an issue that they wanted
20 us as military observers to know, he could call us, and we could also at
21 times call him to confirm a few issues. So we were in direct
22 communication with BSA all the time, but as I said, through Mr. Petar,
23 the interpreter.
24 Q. Thank you. Was that direct communication between yourself and
25 the brigade leaning on Srebrenica or between you and the Main Staff? In
1 other words, were you in direct communication only in the -- with the
2 Bratunac Brigade, but also with the Milici Brigade, the Vlasenica
3 Brigade, the Rogatica Brigade, and all the others?
4 A. Your Honour, if you are talking about communication with the
5 other brigades, there has got to be an entry point and the entry point
6 was only one, through the interpreter, that is Mr. Petar, who would
7 communicate with Major Nikolic who was acting like the liaison officer.
8 He was this charge of the battalion which was around there, as far as we
9 knew, and he was the liaison between the military, the Bosnian Serb army,
10 and UN military observers. So we had communication with him. But if you
11 talk about the other military units of the Bosnian Serb who could have
12 been around there or in the vicinity, we did not have any other
13 communication other than through Major Nikolic who you could get, or he
14 could get us, through Mr. Petar.
15 Q. Thank you. Were the representatives of UNPROFOR in Sarajevo,
17 Mr. Petar, or was it just you and the UNMOs in Srebrenica who knew of his
19 A. It may be difficult to know what you are driving at, but Petar
20 was being paid by the UN, so if he was being paid, given allowances by
21 the UN, obviously he was in the system. He was known.
22 Q. Thank you. If Petar was paid by the UN, then let me ask you
23 this: Did the UN command in Srebrenica inform you about the complaints
24 from Sarajevo
25 towards the Serbian zone?
1 A. Your Honour, if there were complaints from the Sarajevo side, the
2 UN military observers therein were to communicate with their
3 headquarters, not with us. So if there was anything they observed, they
4 were to send through the normal channels, not to us but to their
5 headquarters. So maybe it can be checked with the records.
6 Q. Thank you. Did you receive any feedback on any of that? Thank
8 A. Your Honour, I don't think there was to be any feedback because
9 there's nothing we had told them. I mean, according to my answer, it is
10 the team which is on that other side to report about what was happening
11 in that -- in their area of responsibility. They didn't have to send it
12 to us. So what feedback maybe could you be talking about?
13 Q. Thank you. UNMO teams and UNMO individuals at any level, did you
14 exchange information with the UNPROFOR about the activities in the zones
15 that you were in charge of and where you carried out your observations
16 and monitoring? Thank you.
17 A. Your Honour, we were not obliged to do anything like that. We
18 could compare notes at unofficial levels, but really, a military team, a
19 military observer team in a certain area, let's say in Sarajevo and one
20 in Srebrenica, they didn't necessarily have to compare notes, but
21 unofficially they could. Or one could see or access, if you wanted, a
22 report by another team but not necessarily a must. It was not mandatory
23 for you check what the other team is doing.
24 But if I may add, if the headquarters got a report concerning a
25 certain -- from a certain team and would want clarification from another
1 team, they would send the same report and also maybe even add their own
2 words to say, Please check on this, we have gotten a report about this,
3 can you check on whether this is happening in your AOR. And then we
4 would check it and confirm, or deny, or even say, We'll do further checks
5 and then inform you. That could happen. But it's not necessarily that
6 we had to communicate directly with the other teams.
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, I think we must have our second
9 We will adjourn and resume at 1.00.
10 --- Recess taken at 12.31 p.m.
11 --- On resuming at 1.04 p.m.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes, Mr. Tolimir, go ahead.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. Can the
14 court please produce this witness's statement, P9992 [as interpreted],
15 page 2, paragraph 2. Thank you.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Once again, please, P999?
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, that's not what I said. I said
18 5992. Here it is on the screen. Page 2 in Serbian, paragraph 2.
19 THE REGISTRAR: For the record, this is Exhibit P992.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
21 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
22 Q. You speak here about the number of refugees in Srebrenica and you
23 say 42.000. Could you tell us, on what basis did you reach this number?
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Thayer.
25 MR. THAYER: Mr. President, I think we just need to advance a
1 couple of more pages in the English to get to the right paragraph. It's
2 page -- actually page number 2 of the document, so we need to go forward
3 two pages more in the English.
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. In Serbian, that's
6 paragraph 4.
7 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Where it says:
9 "You are showing me a document dated 8 July, summarising the
10 situation on that date in terms of supplies. This document also contains
11 general data about the number of people in the enclave. We got to the
12 number of 42.000 by adding up the information received from the
13 municipality. The numbers are broken down by villages and we also added
14 the number of people who were accommodated in the Swedish Project. When
15 we visited all these villages, we estimated that the figures given us
16 were reliable. The structure of the local population, or rather, the
17 ratio between the local population and refugees, 85 per cent, was given
18 us by the municipality through Osman Suljic."
19 I believe the witness remembers this now.
20 And my question is, how did you arrive at the number 42.000?
21 Would you please repeat for the record.
22 A. Your Honour, this is a figure that we got after adding the
23 information that we already had and what we got from the UNHCR and other
24 UN agencies and NGOs which indicated the population village by village,
25 the estimated population village by village and now we could summarise
1 and get a total of around 42.000. So there was no census that was done
2 but that is the way we came up with that figure, our working figure of
3 42.000 inside the enclave.
4 Q. Well, you say in your statement and now that you arrived at this
5 figure through several sources, Osman Suljic, and the UNHCR, and your own
6 visit to the villages, and the Swedish Project, and that all these
7 figures are reliable in your estimate. That's what you say in that
9 My question is, did you at any time check the reliability of all
10 these figures or did you just take their word for it that these figures
11 are real?
12 A. The only way that one could have tested the reliability of these
13 figures was by doing a census which we could not do, which we did not do,
14 but this was our working figure.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 1D284 is the document we need next.
16 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
17 Q. And before it is displayed, did you at any time express doubts of
18 the figures given you by the local authorities concerning the number of
19 refugees, the number of civilians, the number of humanitarian workers,
20 et cetera?
21 A. Your Honour, in the case of doubting these figures, we know for
22 sure, and even now it still continues, anywhere where humanitarian
23 activities, you know, are going on, you can never be sure of the figures.
24 You can never at any time say this is the exact figure. So we did not go
25 out there to verify. But doubting, at times you can doubt some villages,
1 maybe you can go at the Swedish Shelter and find maybe they look slightly
2 fewer than normal. Maybe you go another village and maybe there are
3 more. So unless you do a proper counting, this was to us a good working
5 Q. Thank you. Let us look at some notes on this document. It says:
6 "Please find attached the required information for statistical
7 purposes which you should not submit for review to international
8 organisations because we are calculating this number of 45.000."
9 That's signed by the president of Srebrenica municipality
10 Fahrudin Salihovic.
11 Now, when you went on field missions, did you ask for lists or
12 were you just told that the number is so and so?
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, I would like to -- since we have no
14 translation in English, I would like to know what it is about, what we
15 are looking at on the screen. You should indicate the heading and the
16 date so that we know what it is about.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. This is
18 a letter from the Srebrenica municipality sent to the section for
19 statistics in Tuzla
20 Srebrenica. And the first line says, Pursuant to your letter number such
21 and such, we hereby provide the following data. 1, the number of local
22 residents in the municipality, 9.791 --
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I was not asking for that, but for the headline
24 and you indicated that, and I see the date 11th of January, 1994. Thank
25 you. And now the answer of the witness, please, if you recall it.
1 THE WITNESS: I just use what, Your Honour, what he has said
2 because I cannot be able to understand what is in this language, but I
3 would assume that what the interpretation has put is the correct one.
4 You can see even the figure we have of around 42.000. The one they have
5 of about 45.000 is very -- is pretty close. So with us, we got the
6 figure when we arrived there. It was part of our brief because it had
7 already been done and maybe reviewed until the time we arrived there when
8 we got that figure. It was a brief that we got.
9 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Thank you for this answer. We can see here that they showed to
11 you a higher number of the population in order to get more humanitarian
12 aid; is that so?
13 A. For sure you cannot discount that, you cannot discount that. So
14 getting an additional figure of, I mean, 3.000 on top, it can make sense.
15 Or maybe even the figure was the correct one, we are not sure.
16 Q. Thank you. They say that they are presenting to you 45.000,
17 whereas in the text above they show how many people they have in fact.
18 But let us look at 1D285 instead.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, are you tendering this document
20 we've just seen?
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We will tender them together
22 because this document explains how much population there was in fact.
23 The document we've just seen says that they are presenting the number of
24 45.000, and this one speaks about the real figures. This document has
25 not been translated, but it's from the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina,
1 municipality of Srebrenica, and it was sent on the 11th of January, 1995
2 the municipal staff of civilian protection, Srebrenica. And it says:
3 "Summary of the number of population and households by
4 municipality local and displaced population, numbers of dead, registered
5 at check-points, the number of dead soldiers and civilians (where some
6 information is available on the place and manner of death and place of
8 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Now, the first box in this table gives the total number of
10 population and that's 36.051, considerably less than 45.000. This was
11 signed by the municipal staff for civilian protection in Srebrenica.
12 Tell me, what duty did Osman Suljic, who you mentioned in your
13 testimony, occupy in the municipality?
14 A. We knew him as the mayor of Srebrenica.
15 Q. Thank you. My second question is, since in this document for
16 which you have no translation, I read that they had a total of 36.051
17 residents. To you they said they had 42.000, and they also said they are
18 presenting 45.000 to international organisations. The difference is
19 almost 11.000. And between the number that you estimated and the actual
20 figure the difference is about 6.000.
21 How do you explain this difference between the actual number of
22 residents, the number you gave in your statement, and the number they
23 presented to international organisations?
24 A. Your Honour, I don't understand when you say "the actual number,"
25 because unless you tell me now what the actual number was, is it 36.000,
1 is that the figure you want to work on? Is that the figure you are
2 taking as the actual figure? And if so, then you must be having a reason
3 for doing that. Is it the 45.000? Is it the 42? Because it seems you
4 already have a stand of the 36.051 as being the actual figure.
5 We, from the UN side, when I was there, the figure we had was 42,
6 so me, I remain with the 42. And the other figures, me, I don't know. I
7 don't -- I'm not privy to what was written in these documents. I didn't
8 see these documents, I don't know them. So me, I remain with the 42 that
9 we estimated. And we got good reasons to have such estimates.
10 Q. Thank you. I did not make any assertions on my own behalf, in my
11 own name, because I don't have the right to testify. I'm just presenting
12 to you this figure from the document sent by the chief of civilian
13 protection in Srebrenica. And he wrote in this document that the total
14 number of population is 36.000. And I also showed you the previous
15 document where he said, Present to international organisations that we
16 have 45.000 people here. So they were deliberately deceiving you. The
17 difference between the actual number of them and the figure they
18 presented to others was 10.000.
19 Now, I am asking you, would they be presenting a much higher
20 figure in order to receive more food?
21 A. Your Honour, I've already said that the UN was working on the
22 figure that we had given, that of 42.000. Not the 45 that was -- that
23 you have shown us here, not the 36 that you are calling actual. We were
24 using the figure of 42. So for the other figures, how they got lower,
25 how the others got it higher, I really do not know.
1 Q. I'm not claiming anything. I'm just questioning you on the basis
2 of documents.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And I would like to ask the
4 Trial Chamber if both this and the previous document can be admitted into
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The two documents will be marked for
8 identification, but not pending translation but on another reason. This
9 witness was not able to comment anything of the content of these two
11 One moment, Mr. Tolimir. We need the numbers first.
12 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter 1D284 will be Exhibit D116, marked for
13 identification. 65 ter 1D285 will be Exhibit D117, marked for
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
16 Mr. Tolimir, carry on, please.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
18 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
19 Q. This representative for civilian affairs in this last table at
20 the bottom, the last box but one, said that there were 11.495 residents
21 aged between 18 and 60.
22 My question is, do you consider these to be military-aged
23 population, those aged between 18 and 60?
24 A. Your Honour, where is that figure? I can't see it.
25 Q. There are two tables. We are not looking at the first one, we
1 are now looking at a second one, table 2, where it says "Age and gender
2 structure," and there are three rows in it. Now, the last two columns
3 are people aged 18 to 60, 11.495.
4 Are people 18 to 60 years old considered to be military age? And
5 this is a table that suggests what the actual figures were to the
6 Trial Chamber. This is marked with a cross below the number.
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Be patient with the witness. The witness wanted
8 to answer.
9 THE WITNESS: Can I go ahead? Your Honour, it depends on what
10 you mean by "fighting age" because if this figure between the ages of 18
11 and 60 is what is considered a fighting age in a certain country, it may
12 not be the same in another country. Furthermore, these people you may
13 not know about them, maybe they are not capable in terms of -- they could
14 be disabled, some of them could be disabled. Some of them maybe do not
15 have fingers which they can use, you know, to trigger -- to use the
16 trigger. Others could be maybe even not interested in fighting. Others,
17 you know, after hitting the age of 50, 55, sometimes you become unable to
18 fight. So it really depends on how a person really is.
19 So you cannot go directly and say the 11.495 are of the fighting
20 age, and therefore maybe deduce that they were actually, you know,
21 soldiers. That cannot be the case. Because even some of these maybe
22 were injured before. They could be having that age between 18 and 60 but
23 they could have been injured. So there are so many other factors that
24 have got to be considered, not just the age between 18 and 60. After
25 all, some of them could be, I don't know because I cannot understand what
1 is written here, some of them could be women. I don't know. And women
2 are not known to be used very well in combat. So this figure is not a
3 direct figure to use that maybe, you know, these are soldiers.
4 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Thank you. Women are shown in a separate box, but this M stands
6 for men and you see the figure of 11.495. The women are not represented
7 in the table. But it doesn't really matter, let's go on.
8 Where you discharged your duties in Srebrenica, did people
9 volunteer to join the army or were they mobilised by the command or the
10 authorities on the ground? What was the principle that was in place?
11 A. Your Honour, I think that is a question which is a bit difficult
12 to answer because we never participated in any recruitment of soldiers.
13 In the first place, we did not notice any recruitment. Second, we were
14 not involved if there was any recruitment of soldiers. Whether it was
15 voluntary or otherwise, we were not involved at all. Thirdly, if we
16 could have noticed of any recruitment, we definitely could have reported
17 about it. So we did not notice any, whether voluntary or by force.
18 Q. Thank you. I did not actually ask about mobilisation. I may
19 have been interpreted wrongly. I asked about the principle of
20 voluntarily joining the army, but I understand your answer.
21 A. If you do, that is okay. Because whether voluntary or by force,
22 really we did not get involved in anything like that.
23 Q. Thank you. Well, I wouldn't even ask you that unless you
24 yourself mentioned that that reason had to be taken into account when
25 calculating the numbers. Since you had an insight into the humanitarian
1 situation which can be seen in your statement as well as in the
2 transcript in the Popovic case where on page 19194, lines 21 through
3 line 25, on the following pages speak about the humanitarian situation.
4 And you say, and I quote:
5 "The situation with the food was still a great concern for our
6 staff, and that's what we did every Sunday. That's what we did every
7 week. We provided weekly reports on food, not only in Srebrenica," and
8 so on and so forth, which means that you did look after that issue and
9 that you reported back to your superiors about that.
10 My question to you is this: What information did you use to
11 arrive at the data that you submitted in your daily and weekly reports?
12 A. I request you show me the document that you just read because you
13 have it, maybe it can be put here so I see it.
14 Q. Thank you. This is not a document. This is a transcript, a
15 transcript from a trial, and I told you that it was page 19194, line 21,
16 to 19195, line 5, and this is what you said.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I can repeat if
18 necessary, if not, then the witness has the transcript to peruse.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, don't repeat. It is an exhibit
20 because we received it. It is P950. And perhaps that can be shown to
21 the witness. It is already on the screen. Thank you. Line 21 through
22 the next page, line --
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 19194. 19194, line 21, to 19195,
24 line 5. Thank you.
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I doubt if this is the right page number.
1 There's nothing in it you were asking for. Now we have another page on
2 the screen.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
4 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Do you now see what you said from line 21 onwards? This is your
6 answer. From line 21 where your answer starts. You can read it if you
7 need to read it.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The question Mr. Tolimir put to the witness was:
9 What information did you use to arrive at the data that you submitted in
10 your daily and weekly reports? Could you comment on that, please.
11 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, Your Honour, the food situation in the
12 enclave, as I had said earlier, was of serious concern to everybody, and
13 especially in the UN system. And we were doing weekly food assessment of
14 the whole enclave, and as reported here, not just the village of
15 Srebrenica. It was everywhere. But Srebrenica town itself is the one
16 that was guiding us mostly because that is where they had a bigger market
17 of foodstuffs and everything else. So we would go there, see what is
18 available in the market, and the prices. That would give us a guide on
19 how the situation is. Is it very desperate, is it okay at whatever time,
20 or how is the situation in the enclave? It would just give an indicator.
21 And then we would use the same report to send to the UN headquarters so
22 they can know what is happening there.
23 One thing to note is that these food reports also helped us
24 understand the dynamics in the food procurement, in terms of movement to
25 and from Zepa, because when you find when food came from those other
1 areas like Zepa, the prices went down because at least there was enough
2 supply. The other source of food was from UNHCR, and when the convoys
3 brought the food inside the enclave, part of what these individuals were
4 given, they could make sure that they don't use everything and part of it
5 they sell so that they can also buy other necessities that they were not
6 being provided for by the UNHCR or any other UN agency. Here we are
7 talking about issues like, you know, they could buy toothpaste, soap, and
8 everything else that they were not being provided. So they would sell
9 part of what they have gotten from UNHCR to do that.
10 So in summary, the weekly food assessment was always done by us.
11 We used to do it. And except when there was a problem like, you know,
12 the fall -- during the fall of the enclave, there we could not be able to
13 do a proper assessment, but at other times we used to do.
14 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Thank you. And can you answer my next question, please. Did you
16 find food from humanitarian convoys on the food stalls in the market in
17 Srebrenica and was there food that arrived in Srebrenica from other
18 sources as well?
19 A. Yes, we could find some in the market.
20 Q. Does that mean that foodstuffs arrived in other ways across the
21 separation lines, and if that was the case, do you know how it arrived,
22 apart from being brought in by humanitarian convoys?
23 A. I'll not get tired repeating what I've already said, that --
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Thayer.
25 MR. THAYER: Mr. President, I appreciate that Colonel Kingori may
1 not be getting tired of repeating what he has said, but maybe the
2 interpreters are, maybe the record is. Colonel Kingori just described,
3 about 20 lines up, how food was coming in from Zepa sometimes, how some
4 of that food made it into the market, how some of the people in
5 Srebrenica managed to save a little bit of their UNHCR food to sell for
6 other necessities like toothpaste. This witness gave a very detailed
7 answer and now General Tolimir is repeating the same questions.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: In fact, Mr. Thayer, you repeated some of this
9 answer again, but focus on another topic. You have received an answer
10 and go ahead, please.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, Mr. President --
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: [Previous translation continues] ... for the last
13 four minutes. No discussion, please. Just go ahead.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I did
15 not ask about people selling part of the supplies that they had received.
16 I asked the witness whether foodstuffs arrived in Srebrenica in other
17 ways to be sold on the market. In other words, was the humanitarian
18 convoy supply the only way people obtained food at that time.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think you received this answer. Page 75,
20 line 19 through line 21. Page 76. Please go ahead, and I mean ahead.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. However,
22 if you put that answer in a broader context, then that answer is not an
23 answer to my question, and it's not clear in any case. In other words,
24 whether there was food in Zepa, if it was for sale in Srebrenica, was the
25 food supplied by the Serbs? There must have been other ways if it did
1 not arrive only through humanitarian convoys.
2 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Did UNPROFOR in any way participate in the distribution of the
4 humanitarian aid to the population of Srebrenica? Thank you.
5 A. Your Honour, UNPROFOR was not mandated to supply food to the
6 enclave as such, but they were to provide security for the convoys but
7 for the DutchBat, and especially now we are talking about DutchBat
8 because it was the one that was in that place at that particular moment,
9 was not getting food to go and supply to the residents of Srebrenica.
10 Q. Thank you. Who was it who distributed food and controlled the
11 distribution thereof? Thank you.
12 A. The food was being distributed by other agencies, like UNHCR, and
13 I think there were other -- several other organisations which were
14 providing food and medical care, medical supplies, and other reliefs. So
15 there were several other agencies working there, and I mentioned UNHCR,
16 IOM, MSF, and all the others that were working there. So those are the
17 ones who were helping the people inside the enclave.
18 But specifically for UNPROFOR to get food to go and distribute,
19 really that was not normal. That does not mean that if a company is in a
20 certain location and they have some surplus food, they cannot be able to
21 give maybe an individual something they got, whoever is there, some kind
22 of food or something they got. But that is not distribution, that is
23 just giving somebody something that maybe you have to spare.
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. We have reached the time
25 for the break for today.
1 Mr. Tolimir, are you able to indicate how many more hours you
2 need for your cross-examination?
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, it's very difficult
4 for me to say in view of the lengthy answers provided by this witness.
5 My questions tend to be much shorter than the answer, so it is not very
6 easy for me to give that assessment based on my questions alone. I've
7 not achieved much today. I don't know what is going to happen tomorrow.
8 Please tell me how much more time I have left and then I'll try to ask
9 focused questions. Thank you.
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, I think there were two reasons today
11 that perhaps the progress was not as you expected for your own purposes.
12 It's not only that indeed this witness is providing everybody with
13 detailed answers, which takes some time. On the other hand, if you don't
14 repeat every question three times, you save time for the next questions.
15 You will have realised that this Chamber -- it's not the
16 procedure of this Chamber to limit the time for the examination. It is
17 up it to you to indicate how much time you need. At the moment the
18 Chamber is open to both parties for an extension of time indicated
19 earlier. You will have realised that, and we don't want to change this
20 way of procedure because I think it's the best way in the interest of
21 justice. But you should be aware of the time used by your questioning
22 and the many repetitions. That is my request.
23 Perhaps you can provide us with your estimation tomorrow morning.
24 We have to adjourn now. This estimation is important for the purpose of
25 the Prosecution. They have to call and prepare the next witness and
1 their scheduling of all witnesses of this and the next month. That's the
2 reason why I'm asking you.
3 Sir, I'm very sorry, we have to continue your examination
4 tomorrow morning at 9.00 in this courtroom. We adjourn.
5 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.49 p.m.
6 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 16th day of
7 September, 2010, at 9.00 a.m.