110331IT

Page 12088

1 my best to finish today so that he may be able to travel home. And I

2 kindly ask everybody to be as brief as possible so that we may, indeed,

3 finish today.

4 Thank you, Mr. President. I apologise for this introduction.

5 And I would like to point out to you, Mr. Obradovic, that since

6 we speak the same language, do follow the transcript. And once the

7 cursor stops, then you may start with your answer.

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We'll start with what you remember,

10 and I would like to display document -- I don't know which document it

11 is. It was the last document, 65 ter 7298, about chemical weapons. That

12 was the last one yesterday.

13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This is now P2155.

14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

15 Cross-examination by Mr. Tolimir:

16 Q. [Interpretation] we can see it, but it's barely legible. That's

17 why I will read out the portion of the document about which I'll ask my

18 question.

19 Please take a look at -- now we can't see it like this. Please

20 return to the first view. Actually, we don't have to read at all.

21 This says that I requested for chemicals, in my document.

22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Perhaps it is possible that the Prosecution would

23 give a hard copy of the B/C/S version of this document to the witness.

24 That would help him to read it with the full text. And most of the text

25 we have read -- or Mr. McCloskey has read into the transcript yesterday.

Page 12089

1 Perhaps you can save some time not to do it again.

2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

3 In that case, let us please see P488 so that the witness may be

4 able to see all information to which this document of the Prosecution

5 refers. We'll get back to this document later.

6 Now we can see the document.

7 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

8 Q. Please take a look at the paragraph starting with -- the

9 paragraph after paragraph 4. It would -- or, rather:

10 "The most propitious means of their destruction would be to use

11 chemical weapons or aerosol grenades and bombs. By using these means, we

12 would accelerate the surrender of Muslims and the fall of Zepa."

13 This is what this document says, and it was sent to the

14 Main Staff.

15 Here's my question: Is the term used "chemical means" or

16 "chemical weapons"? Please re-read what I have just read out.

17 A. The language used is "chemical means."

18 Q. Thank you. Are all chemical means considered chemical weapons;

19 do you know that?

20 A. No.

21 Q. Thank you. Can you please point out the difference between

22 chemical means and chemical weapons to us, if you know, since you did not

23 use any, but you may have some knowledge from school.

24 A. I'm not sure, but I think that chemical weapons include means

25 that are used at longer ranges and by artillery pieces or aircraft.

Page 12090

1 Q. Thank you. Please tell us, do chemical weapons have certain

2 effects on those against whom they are used, whereas these chemical means

3 do not have longstanding effects?

4 A. These bombs mentioned under 3 are hand-thrown. Actually, these

5 grenades are hand-thrown, and they have only a short time effect.

6 They're filled with tear gas.

7 Q. Thank you for mentioning this.

8 My legal assistant complained several times yesterday about the

9 terminology used in the interpretation, "mine" versus "grenade." Can you

10 comment on that?

11 A. [No interpretation]

12 Q. [Overlapping speakers] ... please slow down and do make a break

13 between question and answer. Thank you.

14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, both speakers are overlapping very

15 much again. Please pause between question and answer.

16 Go ahead, please.

17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

18 I apologise both to the witness and you. I was hurrying.

19 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

20 Q. Yesterday, during the examination-in-chief, this B/C/S term

21 "mina" [phoen] was interpreted into English as "grenade." Did you

22 yesterday speak about shells or about grenades?

23 A. [No interpretation]

24 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: The B/C/S term "mina" in

25 this context was correctly interpreted as "grenade" into English.

Page 12091

1 Could the witness please repeat his answer.

2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I would like to ask the witness to look on the

3 screen where we have the record. You can see if this -- it is still

4 moving, then the interpretation has not stopped. And, therefore, please

5 start only with your answer when the interpretation and the recorder has

6 stopped.

7 Could you please repeat your last answer. It was not recorded.

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, yesterday I used the

9 term "grenade" and the term "bomb." I did not use the term "shell." And

10 I explained that shells are fired from artillery pieces.

11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

12 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

13 Q. Speaking about the correction of terminology, on page 69 of

14 yesterday's transcript you spoke about weapons. And what was recorded in

15 the transcript was the combat arms organ. Did you speak about a weapons

16 organ?

17 A. If your question refers to what I spoke about regarding the

18 organisational structure of the staff, I spoke about the combat arms

19 organ, which means every combat arm had its organ in the staff sector.

20 In other words, there was an infantry organ, an artillery organ, an

21 armour and mechanised units organ, an APC protection organ, engineers

22 organ, et cetera.

23 Q. Thank you. So you spoke about organs in charge of the combat

24 arms, which was interpreted as organs in charge of weapons.

25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Gajic.

Page 12092

1 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I apologise, but I

2 must intervene.

3 The term "combat arms" is used again. I believe that "branches"

4 would be a more correct interpretation.

5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We are, as you know, Mr. Gajic, in the hands of

6 the interpreters. But we have the tape, and that can be checked at a

7 later stage.

8 Please continue, Mr. Tolimir.

9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

10 Could we now see Exhibit P2155. We up-loaded it to e-court this

11 morning because after the end of our session yesterday the Prosecutor

12 provided us the document. The reference is 2155.

13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: P2155. It is the document we had on the screen

14 at the beginning of this session, and the witness has a hard copy of it.

15 I think it's not the right document.

16 Now it is appearing.

17 Mr. Tolimir --

18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I didn't want this.

19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: -- we have it on the screen now.

20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Now we're interested in item 3,

21 "Special hand-grenade M-79 AG-1." We also have a picture of this

22 hand-grenade, so we can show it.

23 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

24 Q. Could you please explain to the Trial Chamber what a hand-grenade

25 is and how it is used? Please take a look at the picture first before

Page 12093

1 you reply. Thank you.

2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Gajic, I would like to have the answer first,

3 and then you may give your comment on the interpretation.

4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

5 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

6 Q. Can you tell us if you've ever seen a defence hand-grenade and

7 what that is?

8 A. A defence hand-grenade -- or, rather, a hand-grenade can be

9 either a defensive or an offensive hand-grenade. This is a special

10 hand-grenade, M-79 AG-1. Military police units were armed with these

11 hand-grenades for special procedures in riot control, in assault actions,

12 and in order to render enemy forces' combat incapable.

13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

14 We'll have a picture that we can provide to the OTP and the

15 Trial Chamber.

16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Gajic.

17 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, since the document was

18 submitted late last night, we were unable to up-load it to e-court. But

19 we have a photograph of the hand-grenade, and perhaps we can put it on

20 the ELMO.

21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Indeed, we should do that, with the assistance of

22 the Court Usher.

23 THE ACCUSED: [Microphone not activated] [Interpretation] Thank

24 you.

25 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the accused, please.

Page 12094

1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Thank you, Usher.

2 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

3 Q. We see in front of us a special hand-grenade M-79 AG-1. The

4 information about it is in English, but you will see that it was

5 manufactured in the Trajal factory in Krusevac. You will see that in the

6 second paragraph. And you will also see that it uses CS-1 gas and that

7 it was used by the police.

8 Would you say that it is an offensive or defensive weapon if it

9 was used by the police in peacetime?

10 A. Its effects do not pertain to wartime activities. The effects

11 are for special tasks that are usually carried out by the police.

12 Q. Thank you. As you can see in the information, there's everything

13 about that grenade here. Do you know that this grenade, filled by the

14 so-called CS-1 gas, which is mixed with a pyrotechnical mass that we call

15 tear gas?

16 A. Yes, I'm aware and familiar with the term "tear gas."

17 Q. Thank you. We could then say, for the benefit of us lay persons,

18 that this gas is tear gas. This is its popular name. Do you know

19 whether this grenade was used for riot control, for controlling football

20 fans, in peacetime? Was it used by the police for those purposes?

21 A. Yes.

22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

23 Please, could we look at --

24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, will you use this photograph again?

25 And my second question: Are you tendering it as a document?

Page 12095

1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

2 I would like to tender this document into evidence. And now we

3 are going to use another document, and we will remove this photo from the

4 ELMO. Thank you.

5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The first photograph will be received as an

6 exhibit.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit D200, Your Honours.

8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Both, yes.

9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Now we have a second photograph on the screen, --

10 on the ELMO. Please continue.

11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

12 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

13 Q. And now we can see something on the screen, which is a rifle

14 grenade and its technical characteristics. In the Prosecutor's document,

15 it is called "M-83."

16 Please, do you know what the composition of the rifle grenade is,

17 SK M-83, a grenade that you can see on the screen in front of you?

18 A. It is filled with the same type of agent, i.e., tear gas.

19 Q. Thank you. My question is this: Do you know whether tear gas

20 falls under the category of aerosols?

21 A. I don't know that.

22 Q. Thank you. Have you ever heard of those little sprays that women

23 carry in their purses to protect themselves from attacks?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Do you perhaps know that these protection devices are filled with

Page 12096

1 aerosol? Thank you.

2 A. I don't know whether we could use the term "aerosol," but I think

3 I know what you mean, and the answer is yes.

4 Q. Thank you. Would it be the same aerosol that is used in riot

5 control or in controlling football fans at football games by all the

6 police forces of the world? Thank you.

7 A. Yes. But those sprays contain a lower quantity of the agent.

8 Q. Would the group of chemical compounds that the Prosecutor spoke

9 about yesterday belong to the group of lethal or non-lethal chemical

10 agents? Thank you.

11 A. They are non-lethal agents, and they have only temporary effect.

12 Q. Are they then combat agents or non-combat agents?

13 A. Non-combat.

14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, you said, on page 9, line 6 and 7:

15 "In the Prosecutor's document, it is called M-83."

16 Just as a clarification, I see here in this description of

17 self-propelled hand-grenade the following sentence:

18 "Like the MTHSD M-83, it was also marked as school rifle

19 grenade ..."

20 I would like to ask the witness: Is this, what we can see on the

21 ELMO, a hand-grenade M-83 or a different one?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All training equipment is marked in

23 yellow, and they are used exclusively for training. But the shape is

24 identical to combat equipment, so non-training equipment, in other words.

25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: What we can see on the photograph on the ELMO, is

Page 12097

1 that an M-83 used for training?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. However, their

3 appearance is identical. Only this yellow stripe and yellow letter --

4 letters tell us that this is a school rifle grenade.

5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much for that clarification.

6 Mr. Tolimir.

7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

8 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

9 Q. Thank you, Witness. For the transcript, we have to say, I may

10 have made a mistake. Under 2, it says:

11 "Chemical rifle grenade SKE M-83."

12 This is in the document provided to us by the Prosecutor. You

13 see the document in front of you; right?

14 A. Yes, chemical rifle grenade SKE M-83.

15 Q. Thank you.

16 A. And the model of the grenade is M-79.

17 Q. Thank you. Can we explain, for the benefit of the Trial Chamber,

18 the significance of those numbers, M-79 and M-83? Could you please

19 explain to the Trial Chamber and to us, if you know? Thank you.

20 A. Your Honours, "M" here refers to the 83 model or the year 1983

21 make, and the "79" means that the grenade was produced in the year 1979.

22 Q. Thank you. Could you tell the Trial Chamber whether you know if

23 such chemical weapons or this particular chemical weapon was used in

24 troops training? Is it still used by all the militaries and police

25 forces in the world? And was it also used in all our police forces in

Page 12098

1 the former Yugoslavia until 1995?

2 A. Your Honour, the programme of training also encompasses a

3 topic on the use of protection means, such as protective mask. And such

4 a protective mask was applied and then troops would go through a chamber

5 filled with tear gas for the training purpose.

6 Q. Thank you. Is the purpose of those chemical weapons, used by all

7 police forces in the world and previously used in the former Yugoslavia

8 by the police and by the army, is their purpose to apply force against a

9 certain person to render him incapable of performing a certain activity?

10 A. Tear gas was used as a means of riot control, forcing certain

11 groups who barricaded themselves in a place to leave that place. And the

12 effect of this tear gas is only temporary; it is not lethal.

13 Q. Thank you. Yesterday you were asked whether it is more humane to

14 use this weapon, as a non-lethal agent, or would it be more humane to use

15 a lethal weapon instead of a non-lethal weapon? Thank you.

16 A. Of course it is more humane to use a non-lethal weapon.

17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

18 THE INTERPRETER: Could the accused please switch on the

19 microphone.

20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

21 I apologise, Mr. President. Could this document please be

22 tendered into evidence.

23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It will be received.

24 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D201, Your Honours.

25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

Page 12099

1 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

2 Q. Mr. Obradovic, since you told us yesterday that you had never

3 spoken about the regress [as interpreted], that you didn't approve it,

4 that you did not react to it, is it perhaps because that weapon is not a

5 combat weapon and that it was not at the disposal of the Main Staff for

6 combat? It was only part of the training equipment of the protective

7 regiment. Thank you.

8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey.

9 MR. McCLOSKEY: I'm sorry, but the translation doesn't make sense

10 in English. I don't know what a regress is or how I see it, and so I

11 don't know -- we're not going to know what the answer means. We should

12 try it again maybe more slowly. They might catch it.

13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The beginning of your question, Mr. Tolimir, is

14 recorded in the following way:

15 "Mr. Obradovic, since you told us yesterday that you had never

16 spoken about the regress ..."

17 Would you please repeat this first part of your question.

18 THE INTERPRETER: The word used was "request."

19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The interpreters helped us. You were talking

20 about request. Now it's --

21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

22 Obviously it was a translation mistake.

23 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

24 Q. My question started like this: Yesterday you were asked and then

25 you answered that you never considered this document. And then my

Page 12100

1 question was this: Was it because of the fact that this equipment was

2 training equipment for the military police and that the document

3 basically referred to the military police?

4 A. If you're talking about this document, we could not review this

5 document or consider it because we never received it.

6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

7 Can we now display 65 ter 7298. Can we see it again on the

8 screen.

9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It is on the screen. If you press the --

10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. Thank

11 you.

12 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

13 Q. Mr. Obradovic, as you can see, the document never reached you, as

14 you have told us. What we see there is "PkPO." What does that mean?

15 A. That means the assistant commander for logistics.

16 Q. Can you please read the sentence under number 3, where the types

17 of rifle grenades are listed. What does it say? Okay, I'll read it:

18 "The 27th Logistics Base shall transport the aforementioned means

19 to the command post of the 2nd Battalion of the 65th Protective Motorised

20 Regiment and hand it over to the authorised representative of the

21 65th Protective Regiment."

22 Thank you.

23 My question is this: Does this mean that the means were sent

24 exclusively to those to whom they were intended, pursuant to the rules of

25 the former Yugoslavia? In this case, it would be the military police for

Page 12101

1 the purposes that you have explained to us.

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. [Microphone not activated]

4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Microphone.

5 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

6 Q. Thank you, Mr. Obradovic. We have now completed the group of

7 questions about the use of training non-combat weapons. Thank you. And

8 now we will take questions one at a time.

9 But before that, let me ask you this: When we're talking about

10 the enemy forces in the territory of the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina

11 and the Republic of Croatia, which waged war against us, did they also

12 use the same weapons for their regular activities?

13 A. Yes.

14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Judge Mindua has a question.

16 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Yes, Witness.

17 You recall that I put a question to you yesterday regarding P488.

18 It's an exhibit that's signed by General Tolimir regarding his

19 "chemical weapons," and regarding another document signed by the

20 Lieutenant-Colonel Miroslav Cvijetic. So the letter signed by

21 Lieutenant-Colonel Miroslav Cvijetic is now on the screen.

22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I'm sorry. We have now the other document signed

23 by General Tolimir on the screen. Shall we go back to the other one?

24 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] No, no, not necessarily.

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] [Previous translation continues]...

Page 12102

1 the document.

2 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you very much,

3 Witness.

4 So yesterday you said that it was possible that the letter from

5 General Tolimir, from 21 July 1995, which bears the number P488, was a

6 way to decoy or was a decoy to deceive the enemy. Now, after what you

7 told us this morning, I would like to know if you still stand by what you

8 said, or do you have some doubts this morning about it?

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't have doubts. I told the

10 Prosecutor that in my previous testimony I was unable to explain this and

11 that this was illogical to me and that then subsequently, while I was

12 here and when I read the Directive 7.1, I found that there could be some

13 logic in the security support in the Directive 7.1, because we in the

14 Staff did not discuss this memo that is addressed personally to

15 General Miletic. I'm referring to the memo that we now see on the

16 screens.

17 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Witness, I'm not really sure I

18 understood your question [as interpreted]. As a matter of fact, I'm not

19 quite sure you answered my question.

20 You seemed to say yesterday that the letter of 21 July 1995

21 from -- written by General Tolimir could have been addressed or sent, or

22 drafted, rather, to scare the enemy, to deceive the enemy as to the

23 proposal of the use of chemical weapons or chemical means, so I would

24 just like to know if you still maintain that this morning. Is this still

25 a possibility, to your mind?

Page 12103

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not claim, not even

2 yesterday. I simply made a parallel with my answer that I gave to the

3 Prosecutor in another case. I merely allowed for this possibility.

4 Here, we should make a distinction between chemical assets and poisons,

5 because chemical assets I used in various situation, including peace

6 situation, while poisons are simply used in war. Of course, poisons also

7 come within the domain of chemistry.

8 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.

9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey.

10 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes. Mr. President, it's the position of the

11 Prosecution that this is the situation where the law - I believe it's

12 Rule 90, though I'm not sure - is that the party putting questions is

13 obligated to put his case to the witness so that it's clear to all of us

14 is the position that -- in this case, is this document a decoy or is this

15 a document -- a real document, and that the chemical weapons are as

16 pointed out in the books and that's what it's talking about. That's what

17 this law is designed to do so that we don't have the confusion that we

18 have. So it's the obligation, in the Prosecution's view, that the

19 Defence should put their case so that it's clear. Is this document a

20 real document that's talking about these sorts of chemical weapons or is

21 it a mine -- or is it, excuse me, a decoy? And I believe that's what

22 that Rule is designed to help us with. I apologise for not having the

23 number. It has to do with putting your case to the witness.

24 [Trial Chamber confers]

25 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President. It's 90(H)(ii).

Page 12104

1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: To make it clear for everybody in the courtroom,

2 Rule 90(H)(i) reads as follows:

3 "Cross-examination shall be limited to the subject-matter of the

4 evidence-in-chief and matters affecting the credibility of the witness

5 and, where the witness is able to give evidence relevant for the case for

6 the cross-examining party, to the subject-matter of that case."

7 And the next paragraph:

8 "In the cross-examination of a witness who is able to give

9 evidence relevant to the case for the cross-examining party, counsel

10 shall put to that witness the nature of the case of the party for whom

11 that counsel appears, which is in contradiction of the evidence given by

12 the witness."

13 This is the Rule Mr. McCloskey is referring to.

14 Taking into account this Rule, Mr. Tolimir, could you explain

15 what is your position on that and what are you putting to the witness in

16 relation to this document?

17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

18 My questions pertain to chemical assets, and Mr. McCloskey now

19 spoke about weapons, and there is a big distinction between combat assets

20 and chemical assets. I never spoke about chemical weapons. I spoke

21 about chemical assets.

22 Let us take a look at the document on the screen.

23 Paragraph 4, the second paragraph, where it says it would be best

24 if we could achieve the destruction by use of chemical assets. I always

25 speak about assets. I never speak about weapons.

Page 12105

1 Can we now have -- and as for the parallel with the previous

2 testimony of this witness in another case, I didn't make any parallel. I

3 know nothing about it.

4 Can we now have 2798 [as interpreted], the 65 ter number. That's

5 a Prosecution document. Thank you.

6 Okay, now we have it. It's 65 ter 7298. Thank you, I apologise.

7 7298, and it is P2155.

8 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

9 Q. Let us take a look at item 1, where it says:

10 "The Command of the 27th Pob," Logistics Brigade, "shall, for the

11 needs of the Drina Corps, transport the following items:"

12 My question is: In this document, do they speak about weapons or

13 assets? In the previous document, did I speak about chemical weapons or

14 chemical assets? Thank you.

15 A. General Tolimir, a minor correction. It's not the 27th Brigade,

16 it's Logistics Base, and they are to transport the assets, and not

17 weapons.

18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

19 Mr. President, I consistently spoke about assets. The witness

20 consistently spoke about assets. We never spoke about weapons. If

21 Mr. McCloskey wants to examine, in his re-examination, about weapons, he

22 may do so, but I spoke about assets and both these documents spoke about

23 assets.

24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Please continue.

25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

Page 12106

1 I would now like to see P122. Thank you. Can we have that in

2 e-court.

3 And before that, I have only one more question related to the

4 previous subject-matter because of what the Prosecutor said.

5 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

6 Q. Is it possible to consider the use of those chemical assets they

7 use in order to frighten the enemy and create certain propaganda effect?

8 A. It is possible to view it like that, because the other side would

9 not know what exactly you mean when you say "chemical assets."

10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey.

12 MR. McCLOSKEY: This brings up the 90(H)(ii) situation. Is his

13 position in cross-examination, as required, that this document is genuine

14 and it's a proposal as stated, or is it a document merely to be a decoy,

15 to be transmitted out? It's his -- he's -- it's incumbent upon him to

16 say that in cross-examination.

17 Now, perhaps Mr. Gajic can provide us the position of the

18 Defence, but that's what this Rule is about, not leave us guessing is

19 this a decoy or not. I think they can suggest that they don't need to

20 answer it that way, but that's what this law is trying to get is so that

21 the cross-examiner let's the trier of fact and the other party know what

22 he's getting at. It can't be one or the other under this law. So right

23 now it's -- is it either a document that's meant for a decoy and not real

24 use or is it a real proposal to drop chemical assets on the enemy?

25 That's what this law requires the Defence to tell us.

Page 12107

1 Now, perhaps in this case Mr. Gajic could tell us.

2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I don't think that this could be the role of

3 Mr. Gajic. That should be the role of Mr. Tolimir himself.

4 But, Mr. McCloskey, if you look at the question Mr. Tolimir was

5 putting to the witness on page 19, lines 21 through 23, he's not asking

6 if the document is a decoy. He is, instead of that, asking, Is it

7 possible to consider the use of those chemical assets, the use in order

8 to frighten the enemy, and so on.

9 Mr. McCloskey.

10 MR. McCLOSKEY: And I -- that's exactly the way I took it as

11 well, Mr. President, but it also -- it gets closer to the decoy issue.

12 So it -- I thought at first, no, he's gotten away from the decoy issue;

13 now he's talking in a kind of a hybrid situation. So I am still left, --

14 I don't know what the position of the Defence is on this point, and

15 I think this Rule is designed to make it clear so that we all know what

16 their position is. That's a duty that is placed on the Defence in

17 cross-examination. It's one of the few duties that the Defence has,

18 under the law, has to clear up, in my view.

19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Not only the Defence, but every cross-examining

20 party if it's the Defence case.

21 MR. McCLOSKEY: Especially the Prosecution in cross-examination,

22 absolutely.

23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, what is your position?

24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

25 My position is: All this that Mr. McCloskey says, and if he

Page 12108

1 doesn't have anything else to charge me, okay, I'll accept everything.

2 I'm going to ask the witness to say something, and then you can judge for

3 yourself whether it was a suggestive question or not, leading question or

4 not.

5 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

6 Q. Can you tell us, when --

7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, it was not a question of leading

8 questions. But is it your position that the document is a decoy to

9 mislead the enemy? That was the question of Mr. McCloskey. Are you in

10 the position to clarify that? You may need the assistance of Mr. Gajic.

11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

12 I don't need the assistance of Mr. Gajic. I'm going to clarify

13 this through my questions. There is no other way to do it.

14 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

15 Q. My question is: When chemical assets are used in stadiums and

16 demonstrations --

17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Please wait a moment.

18 [Trial Chamber confers]

19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The Chamber has considered the situation. We

20 recall that the question of decoy and propaganda in misleading the enemy

21 came up during the examination-in-chief by answers of the witness and not

22 by questions of Mr. Tolimir. He commenced his cross-examination this

23 morning, and I was referring to the clear language of the question we are

24 talking about. At the moment, we don't see any need to put the Defence

25 case to the Chamber and the witness by asking these questions.

Page 12109

1 Mr. Tolimir, please carry on.

2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. Thank

3 you to the members of the Chamber.

4 I already managed to put forward a part of my question to the

5 witness.

6 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

7 Q. So, once again: Mr. Obradovic, when those chemical assets are

8 used in stadiums, demonstrations, and riots, isn't the message then sent

9 only to those who are directly affected by the use of those assets or to

10 everybody else present at the stadium or in the demonstrations or in the

11 riots? Thank you.

12 A. Well, if you are talking about the direct --

13 [French on English channel]

14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I have to stop every speaker. We now receive

15 French translation in the English channel, and the answer of the witness

16 was not fully translated or not given; I have no idea. The answer starts

17 with the words:

18 "Well, if you are talking about the direct --"

19 And then it stops.

20 Please repeat your answer, and I hope that now we can receive it

21 now in English.

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

23 If you are referring to the direct effect to the people in the

24 immediate vicinity, that's one thing. However, those people who are

25 watching that what is happening from a distance, they also get the

Page 12110

1 message.

2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Obradovic. I have

3 no more questions related to this topic, the topic of the so-called

4 chemical assets.

5 Can we now have P122. I already requested it earlier, P122.

6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It's on the screen, Mr. Tolimir.

7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

8 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

9 Q. So now we can see the document. It was written on the

10 29th of July. Can you see that?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Does the first sentence say:

13 "On the 28th of July, 1995, the Muslim side, on several occasions

14 through UNPROFOR, asked for cessation of combat activities of the VRS in

15 Zepa"?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. "... saying that they are going to accept all terms of the

18 agreement signed on the 24th of July."

19 My question is: Do you know that an agreement was signed on the

20 24th which stipulated the surrender of all the weapons and then they

21 refused it?

22 A. I was aware of that agreement but not of its contents.

23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

24 Now we can show the agreement, itself, so we can see it.

25 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

Page 12111

1 Q. Do you maybe happen to know that Mr. Rupert Smith, in these

2 proceedings, gave a statement about those events, and he said that he had

3 information that negotiations with Slobodan Milosevic were underway so

4 that the Muslim armed forces could cross the Drina River into Serbia?

5 That's what he told us here three days ago. Do you maybe know about it?

6 A. No, I don't.

7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

8 My Legal Assistant is now going to give us the exact reference,

9 the date, and the page of the transcript.

10 Thank you. I apologise. Now I found it. It was in P602.

11 Because in line 12 to 7 during the cross-examination, Mr. Rupert Smith

12 said the following, I quote:

13 "I know that Carl Bildt led the negotiations, and I knew that at

14 the time."

15 Now he's talking about the time that he was in Zepa:

16 "I knew that he achieved something and that it was possible for

17 those people to cross the Drina River. Now, how that was done and who

18 informed whom about what, I don't know exactly. I was told that this was

19 classified information, that the negotiations were underway, and I did

20 not know anything else about it at the time."

21 Thank you. I still have to say one thing. General Smith spoke

22 about it when he was asked about the situation in Zepa while he was in

23 Zepa on the 26th and the 27th. So if he was then aware of the fact that

24 the parties were negotiating, is it then justified to think that the

25 Muslims could maybe cheat on that agreement and that they are not going

Page 12112

1 to observe it? So when Tolimir points out the possibility of cheating,

2 is it something realistic? Thank you.

3 A. Yes, only I didn't know what made you arrive at these

4 conclusions.

5 Q. Thank you. I'll read out to you the second paragraph of this

6 document.

7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: You made a reference on page 24 to a document

8 P602. I think that must be a mistake. And cross-examination of the

9 witness Rupert Smith in lines 12 to 7, that can't be right either. If

10 you are reading from a document, you should give a correct reference.

11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

12 I apologise for this wrong start. The transcript page is 11602.

13 11602, lines 12 through 17. I misread it, and that's why you got the

14 wrong reference. Anyway, the right reference is 11602,

15 pages [as interpreted] 12 through 17, and it's the transcript of the

16 22nd of March.

17 Thank you. If I may, I would like to ask the witness a question

18 now. Thank you.

19 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

20 Q. Please take a look at the second paragraph on the following page

21 in English:

22 "In order to avoid being cheated by the Muslims, the

23 implementation of the cessation of fire was conditioned by the liberation

24 of all VRS members captured at Majevica, Lisaca, an Vijenac, in return

25 for the liberation of the same -- the release of the same number of

Page 12113

1 Muslims from the Batkovici Camp ..." et cetera.

2 This document was written on the 28th, as we can see in the

3 letterhead, and it mentions cheating as a possibility. Is it possible

4 that the officer on the ground who knows the situation informs the

5 superior command, stating his opinion and his assessment of the

6 situation? Thank you.

7 A. Yes. That's why he is there in the first place.

8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I'm waiting for the recording of the answer of

9 the witness. Thank you.

10 Mr. McCloskey.

11 MR. McCLOSKEY: We heard that the general said that the document

12 was dated the 28th. The document is, of course, dated the 29th. So I

13 just -- that is an important document, so I just thought the

14 record should -- we should catch that now.

15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.

16 Mr. Tolimir.

17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. McCloskey, for

18 assisting. I'm glad you made it clear that it was the 29th, the last day

19 of combat activities and the day when they crossed the Drina.

20 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

21 Q. Please tell us, since it is said in this document, and

22 Judge Mindua also asked you about it yesterday, that I said that the

23 prisoners should not be registered until the cessation of combat

24 activities -- take a look, please, we can see it here, where I say:

25 "The persons you take prisoner until the cessation of fire shall

Page 12114

1 not be registered or their name made public to the international

2 organisations. We will keep them for the case if the Muslims do not

3 carry out -- do not honour the agreement or manage to break out of the

4 encirclement."

5 Does this one day of non-disclosure until the cessation of

6 fire -- is this a long time-period, when it comes to registering them

7 with the International Red Cross? Thank you.

8 A. No, that's not a long time-period, considering the conditions

9 under which we worked and waged war.

10 Q. Thank you. Tell us, from your practice, is it usual to register

11 prisoners during combat activities as soon as they are taken prisoner or

12 only when there is a cessation of fire?

13 A. Prisoners are taken at different locations. Sometimes it's one

14 prisoner or two or three, but they are taken to a collection point

15 outside of or away from combat activities.

16 Q. Thank you. What is the purpose of this non-registering? Is it

17 waiting for the combat to cease or is the purpose keeping them

18 unregistered permanently?

19 A. The limiting factor here is the cessation of fire. It limits the

20 time-period of non-registration.

21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

22 Let us take a look at document P1434. Thank you.

23 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

24 Q. While we're waiting -- oh, here it is. It's a document of the

25 command of the 1st Podrinje Light Infantry Brigade. It's their Security

Page 12115

1 and Intelligence Organ, and it was drafted on 30 July. And my report was

2 dated 29 July, so this is only one day later. And what does it say:

3 "Since 28 July, 1995, the following Muslims have had the status

4 of prisoners of war placed in the military holding centre in Rogatica."

5 And this is followed by a list of Muslims with the status of

6 prisoners of war.

7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we please go until the end of

8 the list, that is, item 45. That is the 45th prisoner of war registered

9 with the Rogatica Brigade.

10 So we're here at the end of the list, and we see that all of them

11 are listed here, including the paragraph at the bottom of page 2.

12 Could we please see it. Could we please see paragraph 2 in

13 e-court. Thank you.

14 THE INTERPRETER: Page 2, interpreter's correction.

15 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

16 Q. We can see item C, "Treatment." It's on the following page in

17 English. I quote from the first paragraph here:

18 "In keeping with the orders of General Tolimir and his

19 instructions, we have taken all necessary measures, and as far as

20 possible --"

21 I can't see this well.

22 A. "Mainly."

23 Q. " ... mainly honoured. Among others, the following was done."

24 And then it goes on to speak about the categories of prisoners.

25 And then we see the sixth bullet point, or the seventh, actually:

Page 12116

1 "The healthy are in one room, the wounded and sick in another

2 room, and the members of the former leadership are in a third room."

3 And then the following bullet point:

4 "Atlantida is separated and is placed at another location that

5 has better accommodation."

6 The person in question is Avdo Palic. The following bullet point

7 says:

8 "The effendi is allowed to pray in a room five times a day."

9 Now, tell us, please, can we see from this document that all

10 prisoners of war who were available at the time, pursuant to my orders,

11 were registered with the Red Cross? Thank you.

12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey.

13 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, General Tolimir just said that the

14 person called Atlantida is Avdo Palic, and I would like to agree with the

15 Defence on that fact so we can get an agreed fact on the record. As we

16 know, statements that the Defence say are not facts and not part of the

17 record, but it appears that he is offering that as a fact, and so I would

18 accept his offer and agree with him. It's an awkward situation, I

19 understand, but I am sure he'll agree with me on that. But then it would

20 at least give you the ability to hold that as a fact.

21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey, this, I take it, as an invitation

22 to the Defence to negotiate on that fact?

23 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, it is, basically, yes, because I'm --

24 I think he said this a couple of times, so I'm pretty sure that's what he

25 wants you to know. And, of course, under our situation, for you to be

Page 12117

1 able to count on that, we need an agreement, as far as I'm reading and

2 understanding how we've -- how you have set up his questioning.

3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Indeed, the parties should come in contact and

4 discuss this topic. But now we are in cross-examination of the witness,

5 and the last question was:

6 "Sir, can we see --" and I quote:

7 "Can we see from this document that all prisoners of war who were

8 available at the time, pursuant to my orders, were registered with the

9 Red Cross?"

10 That was the question. Could you please answer that.

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, this is what this document

12 speaks about.

13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

14 I must say that I actually said, According to the assertions of

15 the OTP, the person called Atlantida is Avdo Palic. This wasn't my

16 assertion. And then this also mentions an effendi who is allowed to

17 pray. Let us clarify.

18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, may I interrupt you.

19 Just for the record, I see on the record, page 29, lines 16 to

20 18, I quote:

21 "... and then the following bullet point:

22 "'Atlantida is separated and is placed at another location and is

23 a better accommodation.'

24 "The person in question is Avdo Palic."

25 "Avdo" is not included yet in the record. But you were not

Page 12118

1 referring to the Prosecution's position. You said that. This is what we

2 have heard and what we have on the record.

3 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: The interpreter may have

4 misheard what the general said.

5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. That may be checked on the

6 tape.

7 Please continue. We don't need any discussion. I just wanted to

8 clarify the record. But we have now received the notice of the

9 interpreters.

10 Please continue.

11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

12 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

13 Q. The second bullet point below "Atlantida" says:

14 "The effendi is allowed to pray in the room five times a day."

15 Here's my question: Did you know that there was an effendi in

16 Zepa and that he was taken prisoner? Thank you.

17 A. An effendi is a priest. I suppose that there would be one,

18 because Zepa is a populated place with a house of worship. But I didn't

19 know that he was taken prisoner.

20 Q. [No interpretation]

21 THE INTERPRETER: Could the accused please repeat his question.

22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, you started with your question while

23 the interpretation was going on. Please repeat it.

24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

25 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

Page 12119

1 Q. Did you know that in Zepa there was an effendi who was a priest

2 and another effendi who was not and he was the president of the

3 War Presidency of Zepa? His name was Hajrudin.

4 A. I didn't know that.

5 Q. Thank you. Actually, his name was Hajric, not Hajrudin.

6 Let's see what a member of the War Presidency said about that on

7 the 13th of August, 2010.

8 On transcript page 4543, lines 14 through 22, here's what he

9 says, this other member of the War Presidency:

10 "As far as I know --"

11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Could you please repeat the page number. It was

12 not recorded.

13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

14 The 30th of August, 2010, transcript page 4543, lines 14 through

15 22. Thank you.

16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. Please continue.

17 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

18 Q. Here is what this witness said, I quote:

19 "As far as I know, Mr. Hajric was not a religious minister in

20 Zepa. He was a hodja, but he was not a religious leader. Before the

21 war, he worked in another village. In Zepa, there was a hodja, and he

22 was there during the war and performed these duties. As far as I know,

23 he was a hodja in Pozeplje," he, referring to Hajric, the one taken

24 prisoner, "and when the war broke out, he came to Zepa. At any rate, he

25 didn't work as the hodja of Zepa because during the war another person

Page 12120

1 did that job and that was the same person who had been there earlier.

2 Hajric simply at that time did not go about that job."

3 Then the question was:

4 "Was he president of the War Presidency? Did he work as a

5 hodja?"

6 On page 4544, lines 2 through 3, he replies:

7 "No, never. That was his capacity when he worked as hodja in

8 another place in 1992."

9 Now we will show you the agreement that you wanted to see. We

10 will show it in e-court. Thank you.

11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could the Court please produce --

12 thank you.

13 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

14 Q. Was the hodja treated fairly? Was he allowed to exercise his

15 religious rights and freedoms, the one who was taken prisoner? Thank

16 you.

17 A. I believe that the treatment was fair. The Islamic faith orders

18 its followers to pray five times a day, and here we see that he was,

19 indeed, allowed to pray five times a day.

20 Q. [Microphone not activated]

21 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the accused, please.

22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Your microphone, your microphone. You need your

23 microphone.

24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Thank you,

25 Mr. President. I apologise to the Trial Chamber and to you, because at

Page 12121

1 the moment I don't have the agreement on me. I thought I did, but I

2 don't. I promised that I would show it to you. Its number is D51, my

3 Legal Adviser tells me.

4 Could the Court please produce D51, and then you will be able to

5 see it on the screen. We will not dwell upon it too long.

6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We have it on the screen now.

7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

8 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

9 Q. You see we have this agreement, and it says in its first

10 paragraph:

11 "Agreement on the disarmament of the able-bodied population in

12 the Zepa enclave."

13 And then paragraph 1, line 1, it says:

14 "On 24th of July, 1995, the following agreement was reached

15 between Rajko Kusic, on the one side, and Hamdija Torlak, on the other,

16 in the presence of UNPROFOR representative Sejmon Dudnjik."

17 And then the document proceeds to describe the agreement, where

18 it says that:

19 "All Muslims will hand in their weapons."

20 Under bullet point 2, we can see that:

21 "Avdo Palic shall issue an order to his troops to withdraw from

22 the defence line and refugee groups together with the population, and

23 from the centre of settlements and villages, and not to try to cross

24 illegally through the territory of Republika Srpska."

25 Thank you.

Page 12122

1 My question is this: Does the document have or could it form the

2 basis for an estimate that the Muslims dragged their feet when it came to

3 this surrender, since they avoided to sign the document -- the agreement

4 from the 24th to the 29th, when I issued that document that we saw

5 previously on the screen? Thank you.

6 This is document P122, in which I spoke about possible deceptions

7 on the part of the Muslims.

8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, I have to stop you. This is a very

9 confusing way to put questions to the witness. You have put a question

10 to him and didn't wait for his answer, and now you're going on and on.

11 You have quoted from different documents in the transcript. Please let

12 the witness answer.

13 Sir, do you recall the last question?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My answer to the previous question

15 would be, Yes, the person who was appraised of the agreement and who was

16 on the ground can draw a conclusion on what was happening on the ground

17 and the aberrations in the conduct of the people from what was achieved

18 by the agreement that had been reached.

19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir --

20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: -- it is the time for our first break. It's not

22 helpful to read too many documents into the record. Thank you very much.

23 We adjourn and resume at 11.00.

24 --- Recess taken at 10.32 a.m.

25 --- On resuming at 11.07 a.m.

Page 12123

1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The Chamber would like to raise the problem of

2 today's hearing and today's session and if it is likely or not likely

3 that we will finish with the witness today.

4 The Chamber would like to make very clear for you, Mr. Tolimir,

5 that you are not at all under a time pressure. You requested six hours.

6 You will have the six hours. You will have even more, since the

7 Prosecution has used more. To make that very clear. If you think you

8 will be able to finish today, that's fine, but the Prosecution needs time

9 for re-examination, I suppose. And, therefore, both parties should

10 consider if it's really a good idea to have this extended sitting today

11 if the witness has to come back at a later stage anyway. You should

12 think about that during the second session and we should agree at the end

13 of the second session on that.

14 But, now, please continue your cross-examination.

15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

16 I'll try and finish as you have instructed me. I'm going to

17 follow the same schedule of questions that the Prosecution has used so

18 they will not need to re-examine.

19 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

20 Q. On the 29th of March, on transcript page 11928, the Prosecution

21 asked you whether the 327th Brigade has become part of the VRS after the

22 abolishment of the 11th Corps of the JNA. You said "Yes." And then on

23 line 10, you were asked whether that brigade became part of VRS. Again

24 the question was asked and again you say "Yes."

25 Bearing in mind the reference, page numbers, my question is this:

Page 12124

1 Did Muslim and Croat officers leave your brigade after their respective

2 republics had been recognised by the European Union and NATO as

3 independent states, and did only Serbs remain in your brigade? Thank

4 you.

5 A. I believe that I stated in one part of my answer that when the

6 Slovenians left for Slovenia and the Croats for Croatia, the Muslim

7 members joined the BiH army. And when the officers from Serbia went back

8 to Serbia and Montenegro, people who remained were not all Serbs, but, in

9 any event, they were members of the Serbian people, and only a few of

10 them represented some other ethnic groups for their own interest.

11 Q. Thank you. Could you please tell us the dates or periods

12 whenever you answer a question because this is very important for the

13 record.

14 I would like to repeat just one part of my question. I would

15 like to rephrase it as well.

16 When did Slovenians return to Slovenia, when did Croats return to

17 Croatia, when did Serbs return to Serbia, and when did Muslims from

18 Bosnia and Herzegovina leave the JNA units in Bosnia and Herzegovina?

19 Could you please give us a time-frame for all of that.

20 A. Some left even before the recognition of particular republics of

21 the former state. And those who went back to Serbia and Montenegro did

22 that after the decision on the withdrawal was reached on the 19th of May,

23 I believe. And when the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina was

24 recognised - the process was completed on the 6th of April - that's when

25 the whole process ended, in terms of people going back to their

Page 12125

1 respective republics.

2 Q. Thank you. Could you please tell the Trial Chamber who

3 recognised the secession of Slovenia, Croatia, and Bosnia? You used the

4 term "after the recognition." Who was it who recognised those republics,

5 which international body? Was that the Security Council, the

6 European Union, NATO? Who was it who recognised those states?

7 A. First, there were some individual states who did that. And when

8 it came to Bosnia and Herzegovina, I believe that the Federal Republic of

9 Germany was among the first who recognised it. And then there was the

10 Holy See. And later on the Security Council also recognised those

11 republics.

12 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us whether after the war in Slovenia,

13 and you will tell us when that happened, whether the secession of

14 Slovenia followed the war in Slovenia and whether any of the European

15 states recognised Slovenia as an independent state? Thank you.

16 A. The Republic of Slovenia was the first republic to secede from

17 the former state. I don't know exactly whether that was in 1991. After

18 a very short war, Austria and Germany were among the first states that

19 recognised Slovenia.

20 Q. Do you remember, as a member of the army and the brigade

21 commander, whether Croatia remained an integral part of the

22 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia after the secession of Slovenia?

23 A. Yes, in formal and legal terms it was still an integral part of

24 Yugoslavia.

25 Q. Thank you. Do you perhaps know whether the republics could

Page 12126

1 secede from the federal state of Yugoslavia of their own will, without a

2 prior consent of all the other republics that constituted the Federal

3 Republic of Yugoslavia, and do you perhaps know how the Constitution of

4 the federative state of Yugoslavia envisaged such a situation?

5 A. In the Constitution, there was a term "unity until secession,"

6 but that was a condition that applied on people's or ethnic groups. When

7 it came to the secession of particular republics, all the members of the

8 federations had to agree to that.

9 Q. Thank you. Please, could you tell us whether the other members

10 of the federation, Serbia, Macedonia, Croatia, and others, approved the

11 secession of Yugoslavia [as interpreted] or not?

12 A. I don't know. I don't think so.

13 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter's correction: The secession of

14 Slovenia.

15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

16 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

17 Q. Did you discharge the duties as a brigade commander in Derventa

18 during the war in Croatia?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Do you know what year was the war in Croatia taking place and who

21 was the president of the federal government at the time?

22 A. The war in Croatia was in 1991, and in 1992 the president of the

23 Presidency at the time was Jovic.

24 Q. Thank you. Was Stipe Mesic perhaps the president of the

25 Presidency during the war in Croatia? When was Stipe Mesic the president

Page 12127

1 of the Presidency?

2 A. Yes. After Jovic, according to the principle of rotation,

3 Stipe Mesic assumed those duties.

4 Q. Isn't this a unique example in the world? A republic is trying

5 to secede from the federal state and its member, presiders of the federal

6 government? Wouldn't that be a precedent?

7 A. Yes, it is nonsense because as a member of the Presidency he

8 swore that he would serve the federal state and that he would fight for

9 its sovereignty and integrity. On the other side, he does just the

10 opposite and helps its break-up, and he helps the Republic of Croatia,

11 which is trying to secede.

12 Q. [No interpretation]

13 THE INTERPRETER: Could the accused please repeat the question.

14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: You have to stop yet again. You are overlapping

15 again. The last question of you, Mr. Tolimir, was not interpreted and

16 not recorded because the speaker was still -- the witness was still

17 speaking and his answer was in translation. Please repeat your last

18 answer, and be reminded -- your last question, and be reminded not to

19 overlap.

20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I'll

21 bear that in mind. I repeat my question.

22 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

23 Q. Do you know what Mr. Stipe Mesic stated after he had left his

24 position as the president of the Presidency of the SFRY and when the

25 secession of Croatia from Yugoslavia was recognised? Thank you.

Page 12128

1 A. I don't know if I'm going to quote his words correctly. In any

2 case: My mission is accomplished, Yugoslavia no longer exists.

3 Q. Thank you. Mr. Obradovic, do you remember, who was it who

4 imposed and set conditions for him to be the president of Yugoslavia at

5 the time when Croatia waged war against the rest of that same Yugoslavia

6 and wanted to secede from it by force? Thank you.

7 I apologise. Let me be precise.

8 What international body was it that imposed Mr. Mesic as the

9 president of Yugoslavia?

10 A. I believe that it was the Security Council that insisted that the

11 principle of rotation that had been in place should be honoured.

12 Q. Are you perhaps sure that it was the Security Council, or maybe

13 somebody else?

14 A. Let me correct myself. I stand corrected. It was the

15 European Community. I apologise.

16 Q. Thank you. Are these examples of the European Community

17 interfering with the internal affairs of Yugoslavia, both the

18 European Community and its [indiscernible] commission, that highlighted

19 the formulae that you explained for us?

20 A. Judging by the course of events, my answer would be yes.

21 Q. Thank you. My question is this: Do you know, before the

22 15th of May and before the establishment of the VRS, did Muslims and

23 Croats leave your brigade and returned and joined their respective

24 national armies?

25 A. Some parties, namely the HDZ and the SDA, that were ethnic

Page 12129

1 parties, exerted influence on the officers of the JNA, and they recruited

2 them for their newly-established militaries, the Patriotic League and the

3 National Defence or the Territorial Defence, respectively.

4 Q. Thank you, Mr. Obradovic. Do you perhaps know when is the day of

5 the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina celebrated, when is the day of the

6 Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina celebrated, and when the Patriotic League

7 was established, in what month?

8 A. I believe that it was the end of March or the beginning of April.

9 Q. Could you please give us the year for the record? Thank you.

10 A. In 1991.

11 Q. Thank you. Could you please tell the Trial Chamber whether the

12 rest of the men who were on the strength of your brigade joined the VRS,

13 or were they forced to defend themselves from the newly-established

14 military formations that threatened them? Thank you.

15 A. I was talking about the officers. However, the influence of

16 national leaderships was exerted on everybody. The brigade bore the

17 so-called R classification, which means that it was manned from the

18 reserve forces.

19 Q. Thank you.

20 A. Therefore, under the influence of those parties and leaderships,

21 did not respond to mobilisation calls and failed to join their units.

22 Q. Thank you. Could you please tell us whether anybody from the

23 reserve strength of your brigade participated in the war in Croatia?

24 A. Nobody from my brigade participated in the war in Croatia.

25 Q. Thank you. Do you know whether any of the other JNA units

Page 12130

1 deployed in Bosnia and Herzegovina were used in the war that was waged in

2 Croatia against the JNA? Thank you.

3 A. Yes. I know that some units from the 5th Corps of the former

4 JNA, that's the corps that was stationed in Banja Luka, because a

5 significant area from which they withdrew their manpower was in Croatia.

6 Q. Thank you. Since your brigade was from the R classification,

7 when the 17th Corps of the JNA was evacuated on the territory of

8 Bosnia and Herzegovina after the decision of the European Union and after

9 the control of the cease-fire in Croatia, is it then logical that those

10 soldiers who are reservists from those places should remain in the

11 establishment of which they used to belong before that in their own place

12 of residence and that they should be on the list of military conscripts

13 in that place?

14 A. That's what would normally happen. Yes, that's what happened.

15 They mostly remained. And a certain number of officers also remained in

16 that area. I also remained in that area because I hail from

17 Bosnia and Herzegovina.

18 Q. Can you tell the Trial Chamber, if you know, where was the

19 headquarters of UNPROFOR during the war in Croatia that was observed by

20 the EU observers who at the time wore white uniforms? Thank you.

21 A. I'm not sure. I think that their headquarters was in Zagreb.

22 But also the representatives of European Community used to come in white

23 uniforms.

24 Q. Thank you. Do you maybe remember whether the whole federation

25 gave the assets from the former federal government and sent them to the

Page 12131

1 headquarters in Sarajevo?

2 A. I wouldn't know about that.

3 Q. Thank you. Do you know that during the war in Croatia all the

4 representatives of the international community left Sarajevo for Zagreb?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Thank you. Does that point to a conclusion? How could a certain

7 territory be safe for them until the end of the war in Croatia and then

8 that territory was not safe for them when the war in Croatia ended?

9 Thank you.

10 A. I don't know.

11 Q. Thank you for that answer.

12 A. It was probably the question of their own attitude and

13 convictions.

14 Q. Thank you for your answers. On which date did you join the

15 establishment of the VRS together with the remaining manpower in the

16 brigade? Thank you.

17 A. I think it was the 19th of May, 1992.

18 Q. Thank you. Did then the complete establishment of the

19 17th Corps, headed by General Jankovic, leave all the barracks and all

20 the garrisons and crossed over to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

21 because those people wanted to live in Yugoslavia?

22 A. Yes. Only those who chose to stay in Bosnia and Herzegovina did

23 not leave.

24 Q. Thank you. Could you please tell us whether the

25 Army of Republika Srpska was formed independently after the 19th of May

Page 12132

1 when Jankovic left with his corps and after the decision and the pressure

2 exerted on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to promulgate such a

3 decision, the decision to withdraw the republican organs belonging to

4 other republics from the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina?

5 A. Yes. Together with the remainder of those volunteers, in the

6 given circumstances in the territory, I joined the 1st Krajina Corps,

7 that is, the corps that was headquartered in Banja Luka. The former

8 corps was headquartered in Tuzla; I mean the 17th Corps.

9 Q. Thank you. Since there was some confusion about whether

10 European Union or United Nations took part in that process, can you tell

11 us, would it be logical, would it be justified, for the Security Council

12 to decide that a certain state should leave its sovereign territory, or

13 was it decided by some other organs? Thank you.

14 A. This was based on the general attitude of the European Union.

15 Q. Thank you. Since you were a member of the army before the

16 outbreak of war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, tell us, was the war in

17 Bosnia and Herzegovina incited from abroad? And after such incitement,

18 such as the recognition, did the break-up of Yugoslavia ensue? Thank

19 you.

20 A. The act of recognition, itself, did stir up the conflict, in a

21 way.

22 Q. Thank you. Looking at the situation from the aspect of the

23 international law, is it lawful for certain countries to recognise the

24 secession of certain parts of some other country before the

25 Security Council does that same thing?

Page 12133

1 A. That is not lawful.

2 Q. Thank you, Mr. Obradovic.

3 Let us now move on to the diagram that you were shown on page 24

4 of the transcript dated the 29th of March. It's 65 ter 7295. If you

5 have the original diagram that you yourself drew, it would be good if you

6 could keep it at hand so that we can compare it with the diagram that was

7 shown to us by the Prosecution on the screens and that now bears a number

8 65 ter 7295. Thank you.

9 We can now see it on the screen. It's 65 ter 7295. This is the

10 diagram used by the Prosecution during the examination-in-chief.

11 And if you have your original diagram at hand, could you please

12 compare the two diagrams and tell us which elements from your diagram

13 were not faithfully reproduced in this diagram?

14 A. I don't have my own diagram at hand. When we talk about the

15 differences between what we see on the screens and what I drew, I can

16 tell you that the differences pertain mostly to the lines of

17 communications and command.

18 In my diagram, at the same level, looking from left to right,

19 will you find the sectors of the Main Staff, and then you can see the

20 lines going towards the commander, because each sector has a connection

21 with the commander.

22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

23 Can I ask the Usher to hand you the diagram that you drew by your

24 own hand so that you don't have to speak without it. My Legal Assistant

25 can hand you the diagram if the Prosecution does not have it at hand.

Page 12134

1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes, it should be forwarded to the witness.

2 Mr. McCloskey, the Chamber has also two copies -- hard copies of

3 that. I'm not sure if we have already admitted these two diagrams into

4 evidence.

5 Mr. McCloskey.

6 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, yes. The purpose of my direct

7 with that diagram was to allow the witness to correct it. And I do have

8 our most latest corrections which I provided last night to the Defence so

9 they could review it to see if they had any changes or concerns, so I

10 wouldn't be asking the original that he helped us fix, but I do have

11 another one. I was waiting to speak to Mr. Gajic before I offered it

12 into evidence. And, of course, his original, no objection it going into

13 evidence.

14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.

15 Mr. Tolimir, please continue.

16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. Thank

17 you, Mr. McCloskey.

18 First, I would like to take a look at the difference between this

19 diagram, which was the basis for the examination-in-chief, and the

20 original diagram drawn by the witness. And then later on we can also

21 take a look at this new diagram that was mentioned just now in order to

22 find out whether there are still some differences between that diagram

23 and the original diagram.

24 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

25 Q. Can you tell us, what differences can you see between the diagram

Page 12135

1 on the screen and the diagram drawn by you? Let's go from left to right.

2 Thank you.

3 A. I wrote and drew the first item on the left side, and that first

4 item is "Staff Sector," and there is a connection between the

5 Staff Sector and the commander.

6 Q. And who was in that Staff Sector?

7 A. Lieutenant General Manojlo Milovanovic.

8 Q. And then ...?

9 A. And then at the same level, Sector for Moral Guidance, Religious

10 and Legal Affairs, Lieutenant-Colonel General Milan Gvero. And then in

11 the same level follows Sector for Logistics, headed by General Djukic.

12 And then continuing in the same level, Sector for

13 Organisation, Mobilisation and Personnel Affairs, Major General Skrbic.

14 Following in the same level, Sector for

15 Intelligence and Security Affairs, headed by

16 Major General Zdravko Tolimir. And then in the same level, Autonomous

17 Administrations, beginning with Administration for Planning, Development,

18 and Finance, headed by General Tomic. And still in the same level,

19 Administration for Air Force and Air Defence.

20 Q. Thank you. Did you indicate ranks for all the officers who were

21 commanders or chiefs?

22 A. Well, at the beginning I did indicate it for you and some other

23 generals. And then after the intervention from Judge Mindua, I gave

24 precise information about the rank of each person because colonel-general

25 is a higher rank than lieutenant-general and major-general.

Page 12136

1 Q. Let us now take a look again at the diagram. Can we see that

2 every officer has his rank and function mentioned here?

3 A. Well, this is in English, so I wouldn't know about the ranks.

4 Also, the sequence is not the same. I insisted on this. And I gave the

5 sequence of sectors according to the establishment book because it also

6 shows a sort of hierarchy. First you have Staff Sector, which is headed

7 by the person performing the duty of the deputy commander, and then they

8 are ranked sequentially. And at the bottom we find administrations,

9 which are of lower ranking but they are autonomous.

10 Q. Thank you. We are going to see more about this hierarchy in

11 65 ter 3903, which is the rule book. However, what you just said is

12 sufficient for me. I also know that Mr. McCloskey told us that he

13 prepared a new diagram, so now we can also check whether this new diagram

14 corresponds to your handwritten diagram. And if not, you should tell us

15 what should be corrected. Thank you.

16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Is that new diagram, the corrected one, already

17 in e-court?

18 MR. McCLOSKEY: No, Mr. President. I was hoping to get the

19 exchange of information before we put it in e-court so that we wouldn't

20 be, hopefully, having too many drafts. But I don't think there's going

21 to be any disagreement on this, the ranks or the hierarchy. It's all

22 very well established. We had some issues, understanding his Cyrillic,

23 is why I had to do a bit of that in the court. So I don't think there's

24 any problem here. We should work together to be able to get a good

25 diagram reflecting the general's views on this.

Page 12137

1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We had this exercise of pointing out the actual

2 ranks at the relevant time of the people in the diagram yesterday, and

3 that was, indeed, a good clarification.

4 Mr. Gajic, I saw you on your feet.

5 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I have a copy that I

6 received from the Prosecution. Apart from the ranks, there are some

7 small differences compared to the copy that is currently in e-court.

8 I think, nevertheless, that this diagram drawn up by the Prosecution

9 should be given to the witness for him to take a look.

10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes, please. If there are more copies available,

11 the Chamber would like to receive some as well.

12 I see the Prosecution has given one copy to the witness directly.

13 If the Chamber --

14 Mr. McCloskey.

15 MR. McCLOSKEY: We have them for the Chamber.

16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.

17 Mr. Gajic.

18 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I would be grateful

19 for a copy for myself, if there is one. If not, I'll rely on my memory.

20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Now you have one.

21 Please continue, Mr. Tolimir.

22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

23 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

24 Q. Considering the time and your wish to travel back, I will not --

25 I'll try not to waste much time.

Page 12138

1 Take a look at this schematic and see if it matches your

2 original. Thank you.

3 A. The sequence in which the sectors are depicted does not match my

4 original. I said that it was important to honour the sequence as laid

5 out in the establishment book. It starts with the Staff Sector and goes

6 on with some other sectors in the relevant sequence. That is the

7 difference, and I consider it important because that's how it is laid out

8 in the establishment book.

9 Q. Thank you, Mr. Obradovic.

10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Talking about this, could we please

11 see 65 ter 0393. That's the rule book about the powers of the staffs and

12 corps commands in peacetime. The sequence is also dealt with there. The

13 page reference -- well, we see the cover page now in both languages.

14 Then there is page 2.

15 Could we please see page 3 in Serbian, which is page 2 in

16 English. Thank you.

17 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

18 Q. Here on this page, page 2, we see that under the commander there

19 are the other organs in the very sequence that you have explained. And

20 under 2.4, we see it says "Organs for Branches." Yesterday this was a

21 disputed issue. What can you tell us about this organ?

22 A. The combat arms organ was headed -- or each of these was headed

23 by the representative of one of the combat arms of the army, starting

24 from the infantry and then followed by the artillery, armoured and

25 mechanised units, engineers units, communications, APC defence, and the

Page 12139

1 artillery and rocket units of anti-aircraft defence.

2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

3 Let us see page 17 in Serbian and page 14 in English, where this

4 combat arms organ is dealt with. Let's see how it was translated.

5 I see that the translation is correct.

6 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

7 Q. And we see that it explains -- or, rather, do explain to us what

8 this organ is for and what its remit includes.

9 A. It's stated right at the beginning. It says:

10 "Organs for Branches are specialist organs of the staff

11 responsible for the combat readiness of corps branch units, and in this

12 regard, they shall:"

13 Q. Thank you. Please tell us what these combat arms so, or, rather,

14 their chiefs, that is, the officers serving in these combat arms.

15 A. They keep an operative register of these combat arms units. This

16 has to do with both the personnel and the armaments, and they are in

17 charge of building the combat readiness of these units. Based on these

18 registers, they can make proposals to the Chief of Staff about the use of

19 any such unit at any given time.

20 Q. Thank you. Since they submit proposals for use, do they have the

21 right to command these units in accordance with their proposals? Thank

22 you.

23 A. They do not have the right to command these units, and that is

24 why I insisted on this in my schematic and depicted the lines of

25 subordination between the commander and the individual units. And I

Page 12140

1 forgot to enter one unit which is -- which is a unit catering for the

2 needs of the Main Staff.

3 Q. Thank you. Since you're a highly-trained officer, which we know

4 from your CV, can you tell us who it is, then, who commands the units?

5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And possibly we can look at

6 Article 6 on page 5, which is the third page in English and the fourth

7 page in Serbian. Thank you. Actually, it's page 4 in English and page 5

8 in Serbian. Thank you.

9 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

10 Q. We see Article 6 here, and it reads:

11 "The right to command units and institutions of the organic

12 compound of KoV/Land Army Corps, is under the exclusive responsibility of

13 the commander. Units and institutions outside the corps' organic

14 compound, those temporarily subordinated, are commanded and controlled by

15 the commander only within the limits of the stipulated authorities'

16 powers."

17 Please explain this to the Trial Chamber.

18 A. It is clear that the commander has the exclusive right to command

19 units. At certain points in time it is possible to re-subordinate a unit

20 that belongs -- that organically belongs to another unit. It can be

21 re-subordinated to the corps and then the corps commander - and the corps

22 has been reinforced with that unit - gets the right to command that unit

23 in a certain area and during a certain time-period, but he cannot go

24 beyond that.

25 Q. Thank you.

Page 12141

1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Let us now take a look at page 7 in

2 Serbian and page 6 in English, where the powers of the commander are

3 explicitly stated.

4 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

5 Q. I will read it out first and then ask my question. I quote:

6 "The commander shall command and control subordinate units and

7 institutions within the scope of the responsibility received," or

8 authority received. "He shall be responsible to his superior for his

9 work and the situation in subordinate units and institutions and for

10 proper and timely execution of work and tasks in the competence of the

11 command organ."

12 You, as an officer who commanded a brigade and who was in a high

13 position at corps level and also in the Main Staff, please interpret this

14 provision for us, and how does it apply to the commander with regard to

15 his subordinates and institutions?

16 A. This is based on the singleness of command. The commander has

17 the exclusive right to command, and he is responsible for the overall

18 level of combat readiness. And for that, he is responsible to his

19 superior; he, and nobody else.

20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

21 Let us now look at page 7 in Serbian and 8 in English. We're

22 interested in paragraph 6, which is about controlling the security organ.

23 This is item 6 of Article 9.

24 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

25 Q. Could you please explain to us the difference between the B/C/S

Page 12142

1 term "rukovodjenje" and "control" in English?

2 A. The B/C/S term is "rukovodjenje i komandorvanje," which is

3 translated into English as "command and control." Institutions are

4 controlled, whereas units are commanded.

5 Q. Thank you. I will read it out. It says:

6 "Controls the security service," the commander is meant, "and is

7 responsible for the security support to the command and subordinate units

8 and institutions and takes measures in line with the rules and his

9 authority."

10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey.

11 MR. McCLOSKEY: If the general could direct all of us, and

12 especially the interpreters, so when he is reading one of these important

13 sections the interpreters are able to get the -- this is the CLSS, and

14 there's a lot of work that's gone into this, and so now we're -- the

15 words are, of course, changing because of the nature of the languages, of

16 course. But if he can direct them so that the interpreters can see that,

17 then the record will be consistent with the document.

18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: In fact, Mr. Tolimir did that.

19 On line 15, page 54, he said :

20 "This is item 6 of Article 9."

21 And he was reading the item 6. But I think at this point in time

22 the interpreters didn't get the same wording as we can see in the

23 translation on the screen. But I think this is now clear on the record,

24 what --

25 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes. It's very difficult, obviously.

Page 12143

1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Gajic.

2 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, we have slight

3 problems with the translations of some terms. That's why Mr. Tolimir is

4 trying to explain the meaning of some of them with the witness. I hope

5 that we will be able to agree with the Prosecution on some translations.

6 Unfortunately, we are not always in the position to scrutinize all

7 translations.

8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This will be an ongoing problem in all trials in

9 this Tribunal.

10 Mr. McCloskey.

11 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, we will work together with him.

12 However, the definition of "command" is something that is so

13 fundamental to this case that we will -- we should get together

14 immediately on this so that there's no disagreement on that crucial

15 point. This isn't just a document that we're trying to figure out. This

16 has been fundamental and been part of this institution for many years.

17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Gajic.

18 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I apologise, but the

19 problem here is not with the word "command" or "commanding." The problem

20 is the B/C/S term "rukovodjenje" or, in English, "directing," whereas

21 it's being interpreted as "control" or "controlling."

22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Indeed that might be the problem.

23 Mr. Tolimir, please continue.

24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

25 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

Page 12144

1 Q. Mr. Obradovic, since you were commander at your time and you both

2 commanded and controlled, please tell the Trial Chamber what "command" is

3 and what "control" is, because you said that units are commanded and

4 institutions are controlled.

5 A. I believe that --

6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Please continue. Please continue with your

7 answer.

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe that yesterday or the day

9 before yesterday I said that commanding or command has five functions

10 according to the theory according to which the JNA worked and later the

11 VRS. The first function of command is planning; that accounts for

12 25 per cent. Secondly, there's organisation; it accounts for

13 50 per cent. Third is issuing orders, which accounts for 10 per cent.

14 Fourth is co-ordination, which accounts for 10 per cent. And fifth is

15 "kontrola," which accounts for 5 per cent of the total. In principle,

16 units are commanded; whereas institutions are controlled, which in B/C/S

17 it's -- the verb is "rukovoditi."

18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Would you please provide me of an example of an

19 institution existing at that time which would relate to this comment you

20 gave us? What is an institution?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the training centre

22 is not a unit; it's a training institution.

23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.

24 Mr. Tolimir.

25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

Page 12145

1 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

2 Q. Mr. Obradovic, since there are different translations, the B/C/S

3 terms "rukovodjenje," "kontrola," and "komandorvanje," under item 6 we

4 see that it says, in B/C/S, "rukovodi." Does that mean that such

5 services as the Security Service or support arm are actually -- actually

6 fall under the term "rukovodjenje," "control"?

7 A. [No interpretation]

8 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat his answer.

9 THE WITNESS: [No interpretation]

10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Now we have really trouble. If you look at the

11 transcript, you can see the interpreters didn't catch everything and they

12 asked you to repeat the answer. We are dealing with specific terms and

13 their meaning, and now we are slightly confused, if you look at the

14 transcript.

15 Could you please repeat your answer very slowly.

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I mentioned one

17 institution, the Military Schools Centre, but the sectors are not units

18 at the level of command. So within the command, there is control, but

19 units are commanded. And clearly the commander implements command

20 through lower-level commands, whereas planning, organisation, issuing

21 orders, and what is called "kontrola," in B/C/S, is carried out through

22 his command organs in the Main Staff.

23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey.

24 MR. McCLOSKEY: Perhaps I can just identify the problem, which

25 has always been a problem. It's a language problem.

Page 12146

1 The terms "rukovodjenje" and the verb that the translator gave us

2 and the term "kontrola" both get translated in English as "control," but

3 they're essentially two different concepts in the -- in the JNA and VRS.

4 So that's where we have problems, and that's why the translation issues

5 are so difficult.

6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Gajic.

7 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, unfortunately I know

8 that probably other participants in this proceeding are confused. I'm

9 the only one here who speaks both Serbian and English. I think that the

10 translation of "rukovodjenje" should be "directing" or "direction." And

11 as for "control," it's "kontrola." The word is almost the same in

12 Serbian and English. You can find it under the quotation mark here.

13 I think that this Defence is going to spend lots of time merely

14 to request the verification of this transcript, but this is something

15 that we are definitely going to have to do, and it's really going to take

16 lots of time.

17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I'm not convinced that it is necessary to dwell

18 on this any further. We have all the problems now on the transcript, we

19 have the comments, the different definitions, and at a later point in

20 time we should try to get an authorised translation.

21 Mr. McCloskey.

22 MR. McCLOSKEY: On that point, Mr. President, this concern was

23 litigated in the Popovic case. These materials were given to CLSS and

24 they came through with their final version on this after their experience

25 and study. So we have been through this before. And we will connect

Page 12147

1 with Mr. Gajic and CLSS to try to have him see that, but I don't believe

2 there's any reason to go through this all over again. It's the identical

3 issue. CLSS has dealt with it. It should be reflected in these

4 documents.

5 Now, if he comes up with documents that are a little different,

6 we may have to revisit it, but this is a fundamental core document that

7 has been dealt with, that was dealt with by CLSS.

8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. Not to waste more time, we

9 should continue.

10 Mr. Tolimir.

11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

12 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

13 Q. I would like the witness to state whether practical actions of

14 "rukovodjenje" and "komanda" and "kontrola" are three different things,

15 in practice.

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Can you explain the difference between "rukovodjenje" and

18 "kontrola"? Because this seems to be in dispute.

19 A. "Kontrola" is performed by the commander by way of his immediate

20 insight or through his organs. It is performed in a certain space, in a

21 certain time, in a certain unit. "Rukovoditi" means to direct or manage

22 a certain institution or part of the command in its realisation of the

23 task assigned. And a part of "komandovanje," "command," is "kontrola."

24 Q. Thank you, Mr. Obradovic. And now we are going to obey the

25 advice of the Presiding Judge and move on to another topic.

Page 12148

1 Can you take a look at page 19 in Serbian, page 16 in English. I

2 would like to take a look at 2.6, "Organ for Intelligence Work"; more

3 specifically, Article 17.

4 Now you have it in front of you.

5 Since there are some translations in circulation where those

6 three words are used interchangeably, I would like us now to take a look

7 at the exact competence of the Organ for Intelligence Work. I quote

8 Article 17:

9 "The Organ for Intelligence and Reconnaissance Work is

10 responsible for:

11 "Planning, organising, and directing intelligence and

12 reconnaissance activities in the corps' zone of responsibility."

13 My question is: Based on item 1 in Article 17, can he command,

14 does he have the right to command, or does he merely perform planning and

15 organising?

16 A. Command is an exclusive jurisdiction of the commander. He can

17 only plan and organise activities and also direct intelligence organs of

18 the subordinate units in their activities in the field of gathering and

19 processing of information, information pertaining to the enemy, to the

20 combat zone, to the weather, to his own forces, and so on and so forth,

21 in land and in the air, and elsewhere, depending on where they are.

22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Just a moment. I would like to clarify

23 something.

24 You said, Witness:

25 "Command is the exclusive jurisdiction of the commander."

Page 12149

1 In itself that seems to be clear. But referring to this

2 Sector for Intelligence, are you referring to the commander of the

3 Main Staff or the assistant commander for security and intelligence?

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The commander discharges this duty

5 through his assistant, who heads the Sector of Intelligence and Security

6 Work, who then forwards this to the Intelligence and

7 Security Administration, and down there to the units. So they plan and

8 organise intelligence and security and reconnaissance activities. He

9 directs the subordinate intelligence organs in the subordinate units and

10 defines the core of their activity in information-gathering field.

11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.

12 You said "he." To whom are you referring?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm referring to the intelligence

14 organ at this level. Here, it happens to be the corps. If we talk about

15 the Main Staff, then I'm referring to the chief of the

16 Security Administration --

17 THE INTERPRETER: Intelligence Administration, interpreter's

18 correction.

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- because the chief of sector is

20 going to delegate his authority to the chief of the administration.

21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I didn't quite understand. You said --

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the Intelligence and

23 Securities Sector is headed by Major General Tolimir. The segment

24 pertaining to intelligence work within the sector falls within the

25 purview of the chief of the Intelligence Administration, headed by

Page 12150

1 Colonel Salapura.

2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And, again, you said "he" -- just a moment.

3 "He can only plan and organise activities and also direct

4 intelligence organs ..."

5 You are referring to Mr. Salapura or General Tolimir?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we are not talking

7 about combat activity here; we are talking about intelligence-gathering

8 activity. Commander, through General Tolimir, who is the chief of the

9 sector, requests something that is Tolimir then going to forward to

10 Colonel Salapura, and then he is going to plan the intelligence activity.

11 That's his job. He heads that segment of the sector.

12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.

13 Mr. Tolimir.

14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

15 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

16 Q. Mr. Obradovic, since you told us that intelligence/security

17 organs plan and organise, can you tell us explicitly, do they have the

18 right to command any of the units within their establishment? If it's

19 the corps, within the corps; if it's a brigade, within the brigade; if

20 it's the staff, within the staff. Do they have the right to command?

21 A. They do not have the power to command.

22 Q. Thank you. Does that mean that they are only competent to plan,

23 direct, and organise, and only the commander can command?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Thank you.

Page 12151

1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now take a look specifically

2 at the work of the work of the intelligence organs. We now see that the

3 Trial Chamber, itself, is interested in the work of intelligence organs.

4 And now let us take a look at the security organs. It's item 7, page 35

5 in Serbian.

6 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not catch the page in

7 English.

8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we zoom in. It's Article 29 in

9 Chapter 7. All right. You can see now Article 29.

10 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

11 Q. Now, here we can see Article 29, which goes as follows:

12 "The security organ is a specialised organ of the command for

13 organising and implementing security measures and undertaking other

14 specialised work in the field of security that are placed under its

15 responsibility by special regulations and is in this regard responsible

16 for:"

17 Et cetera.

18 So, since Article 29 forms the basis for all other items that

19 follow here, from 1 to 14, could you tell us, is it possible for the

20 security organ in any situation to command any establishment, even a

21 small squad which is the smallest formational unit?

22 A. He does not have that authority.

23 Q. Thank you. Can you explain the words "the security organ is a

24 specialised organ"? What does it mean, "a specialised organ"?

25 A. Every level of command will have security, organ who is

Page 12152

1 professionally trained to perform security work, and that is the meaning

2 in which he plans and organises work of the subordinated security organs

3 within that field.

4 Q. Thank you. What's the difference between being professionally

5 trained for one thing and being specialised for it?

6 A. Well, being professional is more general and being specialised is

7 more narrow.

8 Q. I apologise, but I have to ask you because in the transcript

9 sometimes these two words appear as synonyms; they are translated by the

10 same word.

11 Here in item 1 we can see:

12 "Uncovering and preventing intelligence and other subversive

13 activities of foreign intelligence services and hostile Yugoslav emigrés

14 aimed against the corps and the armed forces as a whole and their members

15 for undertaking tasks in peacetime, emergency situations, during an

16 imminent threat of war, and in wartime."

17 My question is: When we talk about specialised/professional

18 intelligence organs, are they responsible to the commander for all that

19 is listed here, all those activities of uncovering subversive activities

20 in peacetime and imminent threat of war? Thank you.

21 A. Yes, they report to the commander for their activity of

22 preventing such activities within the zone of responsibility of the

23 corps.

24 Q. Thank you. Item 2 begins with "Uncovering," and that work is

25 characteristic for the whole item too.

Page 12153

1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, I have to stop you because the

2 record stopped. I don't know what happened.

3 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I see we only can follow the record on LiveNote.

5 In e-court, it stopped on page 64, line 11. But we have it in LiveNote.

6 Mr. McCloskey.

7 MR. McCLOSKEY: Just -- I think it will save time.

8 And the general said that this applied in the situation of the

9 corps. Could we clarify if this would also be the same for the

10 Main Staff.

11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir.

12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

13 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

14 Q. The duties that the security organ has in the corps, are they

15 equivalent to their duties at the level of the Main Staff? In other

16 words, does the security organ of the Main Staff have the right to

17 command lower units?

18 A. It does not have the right to command. However, its activity is

19 expanded to the general zone under the control of the VRS, while the

20 corps organs are only responsible for the zone under the control of the

21 corps.

22 Q. We don't have much time, so let us take a look at item 1. It

23 says:

24 "Uncovering and preventing intelligence and subversive

25 activities."

Page 12154

1 Item 2:

2 "Uncovering and preventing hostile activities ..."

3 Item 3:

4 "Undertaking counter-intelligence measures and activities ..."

5 Item 4:

6 "Participating in uncovering and preventing serious crimes ..."

7 Item 5:

8 "Performing security checks on persons ..."

9 Item 6:

10 "Participating in proposing, prescribing, and organising security

11 and self-protection measures ..."

12 Seven:

13 "Participating in planning --"

14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Please slow down.

15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

16 I shall repeat.

17 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

18 Q. Six:

19 "Participating --"

20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Just continue, please.

21 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

22 Q. Seven:

23 "Participating in planning and programming security training ..."

24 And then:

25 "Participating in making the utilisation plan ..."

Page 12155

1 And so on and so forth. Let us stop here at item 8. Or maybe we

2 can also go on over to number 9:

3 "Expertly directing security organs ..."

4 Ten:

5 "Proposing officers for reinforcement of security organs ..."

6 Eleven:

7 "Completing security preparations of members of the corps ..."

8 "Completing preparations for working conditions of emergency ..."

9 Thirteen:

10 "Performing jobs in the field of planning, development, and

11 routine preparations ..."

12 Fourteen:

13 "Performing other work and tasks prescribed by the Rules of

14 Service of Security Organs of the Armed Forces and other

15 professional/specialised regulations."

16 Now, bearing in mind those 14 items which define the work of the

17 security organ in the corps, is there a single item bestowing the right

18 to command, and does all this -- at the level of the corps, is this all

19 equivalent to the level of the Main Staff, only the zone of

20 responsibility is wider? Thank you.

21 A. Yes, the tasks are identical, but the scope is different -- or,

22 rather, the size of the territory is different and there's no command

23 competence.

24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

25 Can we now go to bullet point 5 of Article 29, or, rather,

Page 12156

1 paragraph 5 in Chapter 7, the security organs.

2 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

3 Q. That paragraph reads:

4 "Performing security checks on persons engaged for peacetime and

5 wartime service in corps commands ..."

6 My question is this: Yesterday, on the examination-in-chief, you

7 were shown a document in which I say that the commander's order was not

8 carried out and that the sabotage unit was not manned to the full

9 capacity. Please, was that within my authority, to carry out the

10 security check, and is that why I asked them why they did not recruit the

11 necessary number of men? Thank you. Would that have anything to do with

12 my authorities and with the commander's order? Thank you.

13 A. This pertains to the scope of your duties. And let me just

14 explain for the benefit of the Trial Chamber: Even when men were

15 recruited for JNA units ... let me just say this: Military police units

16 wanted to have only the first category, recruits, meaning the most

17 capable men, and I believe that the document I saw yesterday or the day

18 before spoke about manning of the Sector for Personnel Affairs and that

19 some criteria were not respected when recruitment was carried out.

20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

21 Can we now look at Chapter 7, entitled "The Security Organs,"

22 Article 29, paragraph 9 in that article, which reads:

23 "Expertly directing security organs and the military police in

24 the corps command and units and in other JNA units in the zone of

25 responsibility ..."

Page 12157

1 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

2 Q. My question: At the level of the administration, does the

3 security organ expertly direct security bodies in the entire military

4 police and the units that are deployed in the area of Republika Srpska?

5 Thank you?

6 A. The answer is yes.

7 Q. Thank you. For the sake of clarity, let me ask you this: Look

8 at paragraph 14. Skip a few and go to 14. It says here:

9 "Performing other work and tasks prescribed by the Rules of

10 Service of Security Organs and the Armed Forces and other applicable

11 regulations."

12 My question is this: Do you know that those other tasks can also

13 encompass any obligation given to them by a court or a prosecutor's

14 office to collect information about perpetrators of crime that he's

15 duty-bound to investigate, and that they even have to carry out

16 investigations and investigative procedures? Are you aware of that? Is

17 that something you are familiar with from your command practice? Thank

18 you.

19 A. Yes. The service had a special book of regulations applicable to

20 the work of the security organs, and these were the only rules that were

21 applied.

22 Q. Thank you. In that case, were special training courses organised

23 for military police, soldiers and officers, to teach them their duties?

24 Were such training courses organised for all military police staff,

25 soldiers and officers alike? Thank you.

Page 12158

1 A. Yes. And I believe that one of the tasks should also read under

2 "directs," that one of the tasks should be training lower levels for

3 security tasks, and that's why training courses are organised, either for

4 security officers or for military policemen and military police units.

5 On the other hand, the other administration organised such training

6 courses for scouts, and that segment was part of the chief of the

7 Administration for Training's duty. He was the one who was supposed to

8 unify all of the training activities.

9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Look at the clock. We need the second break.

10 We have still some technical problems. At least some of the

11 screens in e-court do not function properly and we are not able to make

12 some highlights. That should be done during the break.

13 But I'd like to raise the question if we would be able to

14 conclude the examination of this witness today. Is that likely, that you

15 may finish, including giving time for the Prosecution for re-examination?

16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

17 I believe that we will finish today. We'll do what we planned.

18 And if we can't cover any of the areas with this witness, there will be

19 other officers who will be able to answer the questions that this witness

20 didn't have the time to answer. I'll do my best to finish the

21 cross-examination in keeping with your instructions.

22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: You have only used two hours of your six hours.

23 You should take that into account.

24 Mr. McCloskey.

25 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President.

Page 12159

1 And I know General Tolimir wants to allow this person home, but

2 he has also started to hurry, and I would ask that he not have to do

3 that. I did not get into the security and intel branch with this

4 witness. We concentrated on operations. But he, of course, can and has,

5 and I think this witness has an important contribution. But I certainly

6 don't think he should be hurried through it. It's too important. These

7 regulations are too important. And I would -- you know, I hate to bring

8 the witness back, but we can make arrangements to bring him back when it

9 is best for him. It can't be next week because of another witness, but I

10 would say, especially on this important material, if we could slow down,

11 take it easy. I think it's important for you to hear it and for him to

12 be able to fully cross-examine this witness on these topics. Getting

13 into Slovenia, leaving Yugoslavia and things, no. But this particular

14 topic, I really encourage the general to take his full time. It's

15 important for both parties. Most of what I'm hearing, I agree with. We

16 have not charged General Tolimir with being a commander. And so I do

17 have redirect on these issues so you can see where we have some

18 disagreements, but that has opened it up to intel and security.

19 So if we could slow it down. And I think it's just the way it's

20 turned out; unfortunately, I think we're going to need to bring the

21 general back.

22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This would be the position of the Chamber as

23 well. We don't want to put any pressure on you, Mr. Tolimir, to conclude

24 your cross-examination at an earlier time than indicated at the

25 beginning. It is -- what do you think? Is it likely that you will

Page 12160

1 finish today? I don't think so. You indicated you need six hours. And

2 this is also for you a very important witness.

3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

4 He's important for all of us, for you and for me. I respect what

5 you said. He's an expert. I will ask him about everything. And I'm

6 very willing to give time to Mr. McCloskey for his re-examination. I

7 don't want to hassle this witness into coming back again because we can't

8 finish today.

9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We can't have both, not to bring the witness back

10 and conclude today. I think this is not possible. And, therefore, we

11 should decide not to have an extended sitting. It's very tiring for the

12 witness and for you, Mr. Tolimir, and we have to protect you in that

13 respect. We should have the normal hearing time of today. You should

14 continue your cross-examination after the break, and we will ask the

15 Prosecution to bring the witness back at an appropriate time and to the

16 full convenience of the witness. I think this is the best we can do at

17 the moment.

18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

19 I think that your previous decision would be better, for us to

20 work longer today for me to finish my cross-examination today and to

21 leave time for the Prosecution for his re-examination. I will, indeed,

22 leave that time to the Prosecutor.

23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This is your desire. We will stand by that.

24 We'll have an extended sitting today.

25 We must have our second break now, and we will resume five

Page 12161

1 minutes past 1.00. A little shorter break.

2 --- Recess taken at 12.38 p.m.

3 --- On resuming at 1.10 p.m.

4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes, Mr. Tolimir. Please continue.

5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

6 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

7 Q. Before this break, I asked whether the organs occasionally are

8 tasked by the investigating judge to conduct investigation. Please give

9 us the answer to this question so that we may proceed.

10 A. Yes. These are the jobs that are, among others, mentioned in

11 item 14.

12 Q. Thank you. Since you mentioned the Rules of Service of the

13 Security Organs of the Armed Forces in which all this is regulated, we'll

14 show these Rules of Service now and ask you about what you know from

15 practice, whereas there will be other witnesses here to testify.

16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] the document is 65 ter 390. Could

17 we please see it, 65 ter 00390, for the witness to be able to see what

18 I'm asking him about. Could we please see page 5 in Serbian and page 6

19 in English.

20 In both versions -- can the translation to Serbian be moved.

21 Thank you. And can we now look at bullet point 1, which speaks about the

22 competence of security organs.

23 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

24 Q. Under 1, we read:

25 "Security organs, as specialised organs of commands, units,

Page 12162

1 institutions, and staffs of the armed forces carry out duties of state

2 security that are placed within their competence by the law and

3 regulations issued pursuant to the law for the purposes of detecting and

4 preventing activities aimed at subverting or disrupting the social order

5 established by the Constitution of the Socialist Federative Republic of

6 Yugoslavia ..."

7 My question: When it comes to this definition of the work of the

8 security organs, isn't it identical to the definition found in the rules

9 on the work of the corps commands, with the only difference being that it

10 covers the entire territory in all the activities of the armed forces?

11 Thank you.

12 A. Yes, the definition covers all of the organs in the territory of

13 the state; all of the security organs, that is.

14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

15 And can we now look at page 10 in English, page 9 in Serbian,

16 Chapter 2. The title is "Management of Security Organs."

17 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

18 Q. Let's look at bullet point 16, or paragraph 16, and see what it

19 says. We are reading from Chapter 2, "Management of Security Organs,"

20 from regulations of the work of the security organs in the armed forces.

21 Paragraph 16 reads:

22 "The security organ is directly subordinated to the commanding

23 officer of the command, unit, institution, or staff of the armed forces

24 in whose strength it is placed in the establishment, and it is

25 responsible to that officer for its work, while JNA security organs in

Page 12163

1 organisations for NVO are responsible to the competent assistant federal

2 secretary for national defence."

3 Thank you.

4 My question: Does this paragraph 16 encompass the work of

5 security organs at all levels and in the entire Yugoslav People's Army,

6 consequently the entire Army of Republika Srpska, which adopted the

7 rules?

8 A. Yes, this applies to the entire military force.

9 Q. Thank you. So does paragraph 16 relate to all organs in all

10 commands, units, and staffs in the armed forces?

11 A. Yes, but to a lesser extent, and it is applicable only to the

12 level of the unit where they operate.

13 Q. Thank you. Let's look at bullet point 22, where it says, and I

14 quote:

15 "An officer of a security organ, of a command, unit, institution,

16 or staff of the armed forces provides specialist management for a

17 military police unit. He recommends the use of the military police" --

18 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter apologises.

19 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

20 Q. "... senior officer of a command, unit, institution or staff of

21 the armed forces supervises the work of subordinate security organs

22 according to the general regulations."

23 My question is this: Is it true that all levels of command, an

24 officer in the security organ of those units, institutions, and staffs of

25 the armed forces of the Army of Republika Srpska, control the work of the

Page 12164

1 security organs, according to general regulations? If so, what general

2 regulations are here implied?

3 A. These organs control the subordinated security organs, which

4 means that the security organ of the Main Staff controls the security

5 organs in the corps and other units which are tied to the commander of

6 the Main Staff and also in the institutions, within the purview of their

7 own tasks and duties, meaning within the purview of security tasks.

8 Q. Thank you. Is it correct to say "subordinated organs" or "organs

9 in subordinated units"? What is correct? Thank you.

10 A. This refers to security organs in subordinated units and

11 institutions.

12 Q. Thank you. In order to be even more precise: Who is the

13 security organ in corps or in the brigade subordinated to? Thank you.

14 A. The security organ in the brigade command reports to the brigade

15 commander. A security organ in the corps reports to the corps commander.

16 In battalions and divisions, there was a desk officer for security, and

17 that desk officer reported to the battalion or division commander.

18 Q. Thank you. While you were brigade commander, did all security

19 organs in your brigade report to you? Thank you.

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Did all organs report to you, as commander, while you were a

22 member and commander of that brigade? Thank you.

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And when it comes to the organs from commands superior to your

25 command, did they have only professional and specialised authority over

Page 12165

1 the security organs in your brigade?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Let's not go into any further detail of those legal provisions.

4 Let's look at page 22 in Serbian and page --

5 THE INTERPRETER: Could the accused please repeat the page number

6 in English.

7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Would you please repeat the page number in

8 English.

9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

10 Now we are looking at Chapter 4, page 22 in Serbian and page 30

11 in English.

12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Page 22. It can't be the same. To which

13 paragraph are you referring?

14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

15 In English, the page is good; but in Serbian I need Chapter 4.

16 And now we see it at the very bottom of the page, "The Work of Security

17 Organs in War." This is what I wanted, paragraph 85 of Chapter 4.

18 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

19 Q. And I read from that paragraph, where it says:

20 "In war, security organs act in accordance with the provisions of

21 these rules and other rules and regulations that regulate the work of

22 security organs, adapting their own activity, methods, and means of work

23 to the wartime conditions."

24 And then the second passage in the same paragraph reads:

25 "In combat activities, security organs organise and implement

Page 12166

1 measures of counter-intelligence security, and they participate, within

2 the framework of their competence, in the organisation of security

3 measures and the self-protection of commands, units, institutions, and

4 staffs of the armed forces or organisations for NVO ..."

5 My question is this: When we looked at paragraph 85, did we see

6 that security organs in war -- or, rather, in combat activities, organise

7 and implement measures of counter-intelligence, and they, themselves, are

8 not in command? Thank you.

9 A. Yes, that's how I'm reading this bullet point.

10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I apologise to the interpreters.

11 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

12 Q. Was that also the case in practice? I'm going to repeat the

13 question: Was that the case in practice while you were the commander of

14 the war brigade in that event? Thank you.

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Thank you. And was that the common practice in the units of the

17 Army of Republika Srpska, where you later worked and where your work also

18 included your membership in the Main Staff? Thank you.

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Thank you. Please, let's not spend any more time on these

21 regulations, as I've already said. Could you please just listen to an

22 example that I'm going to give you to enable the Trial Chamber to

23 understand all the other things that we didn't talk about.

24 The police organs and the security organs, at every level of

25 command, are they duty-bound to have undergone training, and are they

Page 12167

1 also duty-bound to carry themselves in keeping with the regulations that

2 regulate their obligations? Thank you.

3 A. Yes. Officers and non-commissioned officers who were appointed

4 to positions in the security organ or the military police previously had

5 to be trained by attending training courses.

6 Q. Thank you. Here's a question: A military police officer, while

7 controlling traffic or checking the ID of any person at Derventa,

8 Han Pijesak, Vlasenica, Belgrade, was he duty-bound to go about the

9 checking of the ID or taking in or arresting a person in the same manner?

10 A. Yes. A military police officer was duty-bound to do so in

11 accordance with the rules for the -- the rule book of the military

12 police.

13 Q. Thank you. The Trial Chamber knows the rules in force in the

14 Bratunac Brigade best. The whole military police company had only about

15 30 or so -- was only about 30-strong, and they carried out all possible

16 duties, traffic control, control of persons, and this and that. Did the

17 commander have to issue an order to a soldier when he checked somebody's

18 ID or controlled traffic or do anything from the remit of the military

19 police organs? Thank you.

20 A. The commander couldn't be present with every military police

21 officer. The military police patrol a place or patrol along an axis, and

22 they carry out their tasks independently.

23 Q. Thank you. Did the security organ of the Bratunac Brigade then

24 only make proposals to their commander what the military police will do

25 and the commander would issue orders that they would control traffic on

Page 12168

1 this or that road, on a given day, or that they would check the identity

2 documents of persons in a certain area or at certain check-points, and so

3 on, and then they would go execute their duties pursuant to the orders of

4 the commander? Thank you.

5 A. The security organ made proposals to the commander, which is part

6 of the preparation process for the command's decision-making. The

7 commander could either accept the proposal fully or partly. He could

8 also change or amend it. And then the operative officers then

9 transformed that into the commander's orders, pursuant to which the

10 paramilitary [as interpreted] police acted.

11 Q. Thank you. The commanding of the security organ by the commander

12 then consisted in the commander's taking into consideration the proposals

13 of the security organ and then issuing relevant orders orally or in

14 writing? Thank you.

15 A. Once the commander had heard and adapted or possibly amended the

16 proposal, that would become part of his order through his operative

17 officers, and the commander of the military police would then carry out

18 that order.

19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Let us now take a look

20 at the military police rule book, which is P01297. Could we please see

21 it, P01297, Chapter 2, on page 9 in Serbian, and it's on page 10 in

22 English.

23 Please rotate the document correctly.

24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, I would like to ask you if you are

25 tendering the documents you have used, 65 ter 6903 and 65 ter 00390.

Page 12169

1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

2 Yes, I seek to tender the documents the Prosecution has

3 introduced through this witness, the one that I have just used in respect

4 of the security organs and one more.

5 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter didn't catch the number.

6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 65 ter 00390.

7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I'm not sure if the Prosecution introduced them

8 into the trial. You did it. It is my understanding. Otherwise, we

9 would have already an exhibit number, but we don't.

10 Both documents will be received.

11 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit D202 and D203, Your Honours.

12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Would you please indicate which D number belongs

13 to which 65 ter number.

14 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter 6903 is D202, and 65 ter 390 is D203,

15 Your Honours.

16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.

17 Mr. Tolimir, please continue.

18 At a later stage, we should consider which of the diagrams we

19 should receive into evidence. We have now dealt with three of them, but

20 we can postpone a decision on that.

21 Mr. Tolimir, please continue.

22 Mr. McCloskey.

23 MR. McCLOSKEY: I think we need to get that number straight. I

24 believe it's 393, not 693.

25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think the numbers are correct on the screen.

Page 12170

1 65 ter 6903, that was the rule book we have received at D202. The other

2 one is 65 ter 390, which is now D203.

3 MR. McCLOSKEY: We'll follow up on that. Hopefully that's

4 correct.

5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.

6 Mr. Tolimir.

7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

8 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

9 Q. We're now looking at document P01297, Chapter 2, item 12, page 9

10 in Serbian and page 10 in English. I'll read out item 12, which is about

11 the command and control of the military police. It says:

12 "The officer in charge of the military unit and institution

13 within whose establishment the military police unit is placed or to which

14 it is attached" --

15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Please slow down. The interpreters didn't

16 catch it.

17 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

19 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

20 Q. Bearing in mind what I have just read out from item 12, namely,

21 who has the right to command the military police, tell us, from practice,

22 who commands the military police unit in a brigade, in a corps, or in the

23 Main Staff, respectively. Thank you.

24 A. In brigades, if there -- there can be infantry brigades or

25 motorised brigades. There is a military police unit of the fourth rank,

Page 12171

1 and it's commanded by the brigade commander. In a corps, that's a unit

2 of battalion level and which is commanded by the corps commander. And a

3 military police unit in the Main Staff is commanded by the commander of

4 the Main Staff.

5 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: Instead of "fourth

6 rank," it should be "a company."

7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. I apologise to the

8 interpreters.

9 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

10 Q. Let us look at item 13, which is about the professional control

11 of the military police. I quote:

12 "With respect to specialty, the officer in charge of the security

13 body of the unit or institution within whose establishment the military

14 police unit is placed or to which it is attached controls the military

15 police. He makes suggestions to the officer in charge of the military

16 unit or institution on the use of military police units and is

17 responsible for the combat readiness of the military police unit and the

18 performance of their tasks."

19 Thank you. End of quote.

20 Who is in charge at any level of command to control the officers

21 in the security units of their level? Thank you.

22 A. This control refers to professional tasks that are exclusively

23 related to the activities of a security or military police. At all

24 command levels, the security organ, from the professional aspect,

25 controls the military police unit with regard to training, enhancing

Page 12172

1 their activities, and the security organ makes proposals to the commander

2 about the use of the military police.

3 Q. Thank you. Since different terms appear in the transcript,

4 please tell us if you spoke about "kontrola" or "rukovodjenje." Thank

5 you.

6 A. I spoke about "rukovodjenje," which I can also see in the

7 transcript.

8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

9 In that case, I would like it to be recorded in the transcript

10 that you spoke about "rukovodjenje," as is, indeed, stated in item 13 of

11 the rule book of the military police of the armed forces. I didn't want

12 to go into this any deeper. I only asked you, as a professional, a

13 trained professional, to tell us what it was like from your practice in

14 commands at lower levels than yours.

15 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

16 Q. Here's my question: If the organs of security and military

17 police, for part of their tasks, carry out their tasks, to who are they

18 responsible, to whom do they report to, and to whom are they subordinate,

19 in a brigade or at the level of the Main Staff? Thank you.

20 A. They report to the commander, starting from the battalion

21 commander, then the security organ in the brigade reports to the brigade

22 commander, the security organ of the corps reports to the corps

23 commander, and the security organ of the Main Staff reports to the

24 Main Staff commander.

25 Q. Thank you.

Page 12173

1 A. It's the same when we speak about the services in logistical

2 support or, if in the context of the Main Staff, if we speak about the

3 combat arms organ. The combat arms organ controls the branch units

4 professionally, but they don't have the right to issue orders.

5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey.

6 MR. McCLOSKEY: Could I just ask for a clarification? Did it say

7 the intel and security organ or the security organ of the Main Staff?

8 Because I wasn't aware that there was a security organ of the Main Staff.

9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, could you please clarify that with

10 the witness.

11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

12 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

13 Q. Mr. Obradovic, in your answer, you spoke about organs, and in the

14 transcript we see the term "combat arms organ." Did you speak about that

15 or did you only speak about the security organ of the military police?

16 Thank you.

17 A. I spoke about the security organs of the military police. But at

18 the end I drew a parallel to the services in logistical support as well

19 as the combat arms organs that are part of the staff, because the chiefs

20 of services controlled the services professionally downward. Likewise,

21 the combat arms organs professionally control the branch units.

22 Q. Thank you. I did not read out the second section of item 13,

23 which is on page 9 in Serbian and page 10 in English, from the rule book

24 of the military police. Let us take a look at this second section of

25 item 13 and if it matches what you have just said. I quote:

Page 12174

1 "When controlling a military --"

2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We need that document on the screen. If I'm not

3 mistaken, this is D202, but I'm not sure about that.

4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

5 We need to look at Chapter 2, item 13. It's about the command

6 and control of the military police.

7 Now we can see it. Let us check the Serbian version. Oh, we

8 need the adequate paragraph in Serbian for the witness as well.

9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, is this the right document you want

10 to have on the screen?

11 Mr. Gajic.

12 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I believe that the

13 previous document was the right one.

14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Okay. Let's go back to that.

15 But I must confess I'm confused by the numbers now. I would like

16 to ask the Registrar to provide us with the right 65 ter number for the

17 document D202.

18 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, this is 65 ter 393, not the one that

19 we previously assigned.

20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.

21 And which one is it we now have now on the screen?

22 THE REGISTRAR: P1297, Your Honours.

23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.

24 Mr. Gajic.

25 MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I apologise, I really

Page 12175

1 don't like doing this. However, I should emphasise page 85, line 12; we

2 still find the term "combat arms organs," and that's not what the witness

3 said.

4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This is what we heard through the interpreters.

5 Mr. McCloskey.

6 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes. I think we can all see that part of the

7 problem is we're going too fast.

8 And just on the other topic: Even if the general was to finish

9 now and not to do anything with convoys or any of the other material,

10 which I can't imagine him doing, for me to be able to respond to the

11 security section is going to take more than the time allowed, so I think

12 we should just be realistic at this point; we're just not going to be

13 able to finish today, based on my estimate of how long I will need.

14 Because I know the general, by this time, he can't be anywhere near

15 finished, I don't think. And even if he is, I still would need more time

16 myself.

17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Do you know, up to now, the amount of time you

18 will need for re-examination?

19 MR. McCLOSKEY: I would like to have an hour and a half at this

20 point, and that is -- sometimes I'm able to go lesser than that, but at

21 least an hour and a half. But in order to be able to properly find the

22 line and page and make sure everyone's comfortable with that, that takes

23 a fair amount of preparation. I could, you know, punch through it on the

24 fly, which is what -- you know, we do that. But given where we are in

25 the cross-examination, the only -- an hour and a half left, and that

Page 12176

1 we're missing things, numbers are off, I would just prefer that we just

2 slow it down and come back again later.

3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey repeated his proposal from earlier

4 today. What is your position, Mr. Tolimir?

5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

6 My position is as follows: I still have at least three and a

7 half hours of examination. Everything else I leave to Mr. McCloskey.

8 But I don't want this witness to leave under the warning and the caution

9 that he has been given. I would like him to finish the testimony. If

10 Mr. McCloskey needs another day or two days for his redirect, I'm going

11 to finish right away because I can go through these subject-matters with

12 other witnesses. I think that I should be given at least half an hour

13 more. And then if it's really so important for him, you can give him

14 even more than that. Thank you.

15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey.

16 MR. McCLOSKEY: The general has stated he needs three and a half

17 hours, and that's within the time he estimated. For him now to turn that

18 into 30 minutes is not good for the Prosecution. It's not good for

19 anyone. And I, of course, am selfishly looking after my own ability to

20 prepare for my redirect. But to say he needs three and a half hours,

21 which is within his time-frame, and I overtook mine, he should be given

22 that now, for the record. And we -- no one wants keep -- ask the general

23 to come back, but that's just, I think, -- my math tells me there's no

24 other way.

25 [Trial Chamber confers]

Page 12177

1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It shouldn't go forth and back.

2 We will have our next break now, and we will resume at half past

3 2.00 for the next session, and we will see how you proceed with your

4 cross-examination.

5 Please bear in mind that you are entitled to have your full time

6 you requested and even some more time because the Prosecution used more

7 time for the examination-in-chief.

8 We adjourn and resume half past 2.00.

9 --- Luncheon recess taken at 1.52 p.m.

10 --- On resuming at 2.33 p.m.

11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes, Mr. Tolimir. Please continue.

12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

13 I'm about to finish with the topic that we've begun earlier.

14 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

15 Q. Can you take a look at item 2 under number 13, where it says:

16 "When controlling a military police unit, the officer in charge

17 of the security body from paragraph 1 of this item has the same rights

18 and duties which the officers of arms services, of military units and

19 institutions have in controlling the units of arms and services ."

20 So is it a correct supplement to what you said earlier when you

21 were discussing this item?

22 A. Yes. That's the parallel that I mentioned earlier, the parallel

23 with the security organs.

24 Q. Thank you. I have one more question about this document. This

25 is the rule book of the military police of the armed forces of SFRY.

Page 12178

1 Does it pertain to all the levels of the military police and the security

2 organs? Thank you.

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Thank you. Does it pertain to all the security organs within the

5 armed forces and within the VRS? Thank you.

6 A. Yes. We took over the legislation from the former JNA.

7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

8 I don't have any more questions about this document. I have

9 another group of questions to work through, and then I will be able to

10 give more time to Mr. McCloskey.

11 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

12 Q. Yesterday, you were asked about Directive 7 and 7/1, and

13 occasionally 7/6 as well; is that true? Thank you.

14 A. Yes, it was about the Directives 7 and 7/1.

15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

16 Can we now take a look at Directive 7/1, and it is contained

17 within P1199. P1199. Thank you.

18 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

19 Q. And while we are waiting for it, tell me the following: When a

20 command element is issued, such as a directive or an order, what is the

21 maximum period of validity of such a document? Thank you.

22 A. The document ceases to be valid when all the tasks assigned

23 therein are accomplished or a new document is drafted.

24 Q. Thank you. The new document, would it also reference the old

25 document and items contained in the old directive if all the tasks have

Page 12179

1 not been accomplished in the meantime? Thank you.

2 A. Probably the new document is going to contain those tasks which

3 were not accomplished and which were contained in the previous document.

4 Q. Thank you. Can you tell me whether the corps received their

5 tasks in directives, and, more specifically, in which part of the

6 directive? Thank you.

7 A. The tasks are assigned to the corps in the part that pertains to

8 the tasks assigned to their own units.

9 Q. Thank you. Does it mean that each corps receives separate tasks

10 just for itself? Or is it true that general tasks, assigned generally to

11 all the zones, pertain to all the corps?

12 A. Some tasks will be related only to some corps. Some other tasks

13 will be tasks for whose accomplishment it will be necessary to use two or

14 more corps.

15 Q. Thank you. Do you remember the Directive 3 from 1993, and then

16 if you bear in mind that all the subsequent directives until 7/1 ensued

17 after the Directive 3, does that mean that something that is not

18 explicitly mentioned in Directive 7/1 is not any more valid if it was

19 mentioned in Directive 3 and it is not mentioned in Directive 7/1? Thank

20 you.

21 A. If a given directive does not contain reformulated tasks from the

22 previous directive, it means that they are not valid anymore.

23 Q. Thank you. Just one more thing. When a command act is issued,

24 such as a directive or an order, and when it ceases to be valid, can

25 anybody be held responsible later on for any activity that was assigned,

Page 12180

1 for instance, in document 3; for instance, if we are talking about the

2 corps and the decision pertains to the corps?

3 A. I didn't understand you. Are you talking about the

4 newly-reformulated task in the new directive or not?

5 Q. I'm talking about a task which is not mentioned in the new

6 directive. An example: If not a single task from Directive 3 or 4 is

7 reformulated in Directive 7 or 7/1, can it be the basis for anybody's

8 responsibility pursuant to Directive 7/1? I'm talking here about the

9 commanders who are assigned tasks by directive 7/1. Thank you.

10 A. No.

11 Q. One more question. Yesterday you were asked about Directive 7,

12 page 8 in Serbian, and paragraph 2 was read out aloud to you. You will

13 remember it. It said, In case of UNPROFOR leaving -- do you remember

14 that? In case of UNPROFOR leaving. If you remember that, can you tell

15 us, does that task pertain only to those who have UNPROFOR in their zone

16 or could it also pertain to the corps in whose zones there was no

17 UNPROFOR? Thank you.

18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey.

19 MR. McCLOSKEY: It should be simple enough to get that section up

20 there - it's an important section - so that the witness can fully

21 remember what it said. I can give the -- it's P1214, and it's page 11 in

22 the English. And that should be page, perhaps, 16 in the B/C/S.

23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Indeed, this would be helpful for the witness and

24 the Chamber.

25 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation] Thank you.

Page 12181

1 Q. While we are waiting for this, can you tell us whether you

2 remember the questions that the Prosecutor asked you during the

3 examination-in-chief? And can you also answer the question: Does that

4 task pertain only to those forces within whose zone of responsibility the

5 UNPROFOR units are deployed? Thank you.

6 It's page 15 in Serbian. Thank you.

7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And in English?

8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It's the second paragraph, where it

9 says:

10 "In case the UNPROFOR leaves the area of Zepa and Srebrenica, the

11 Drina Corps Command will plan the operation entitled 'Jadar' ..."

12 And so on and so forth.

13 MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]

14 Q. Now, does that task pertain only to the Drina Corps or to all the

15 corps within the VRS?

16 A. The document clearly says that this task pertains to the

17 Drina Corps and the territory within the zone of responsibility of the

18 Drina Corps.

19 Q. Thank you. Are you aware that there were certain announcements

20 by the DutchBat that they would want to leave Srebrenica?

21 A. I don't know that.

22 Q. Thank you.

23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you for coming here, thank

24 you for everything. I wish that you take part in the ceremony that you

25 have to take part in, in the proper way, and may God bless the deceased

Page 12182

1 person.

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I've finished with

4 my part. And I think that Mr. McCloskey, if he wishes to do so, can

5 accomplish his redirect today and we can finish it today. Thank you.

6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much for your efforts,

7 Mr. Tolimir.

8 Mr. McCloskey.

9 MR. McCLOSKEY: Can I just confirm, for the record, that

10 General Tolimir doesn't want to ask him any questions about any of the

11 documents related to convoys that has his initials on it and that

12 material, because this is the only witness that will talk about that. I

13 just want to make sure that there's no rush here.

14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think it is very clear from our discussions

15 which are recorded in the transcript that this was the decision of

16 Mr. Tolimir to conclude his cross-examination at this point in time.

17 MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you, Mr. President.

18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Please commence your re-examination.

19 MR. McCLOSKEY: Now, this would be -- Mr. President and

20 Your Honours, on direct examination I did not have the witness go into

21 detail about the security branch. And General Tolimir has spent a fair

22 amount of time on the regulations and the duties and responsibilities of

23 the security branch, and I would like to go into that to clarify some of

24 those responsibilities and to try to highlight some of those

25 responsibilities so you get a complete picture.

Page 12183

1 And in that regard, I would like to start with 65 ter 1978. It

2 has been MFI'd as P01112. And if -- for simplicity, I would like to be

3 able to give the general -- it's a three-page document, and he would have

4 a better time reviewing it if he, I think, had the three pages and didn't

5 have to squint at the computer.

6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes, please.

7 Re-examination by Mr. McCloskey:

8 Q. So, General, take your time. I believe, since this is

9 dated - you can see it - from the Main Staff, 24 October, I recall that

10 you came to the Main Staff in September, so this would have been a

11 document created at the time you were chief of operations; is that right?

12 But, please, take some time.

13 MR. McCLOSKEY: And for Your Honours and for General Tolimir,

14 while the general is reading that, we can go to the last page of both

15 documents to see who has written this document.

16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: For the record, this document, it was from the

17 year 1994.

18 MR. McCLOSKEY: And we can see that it's from General Mladic.

19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

20 We can't see the second page of this document, so if we could be

21 shown that page. We don't have the document, itself.

22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It's on the screen now.

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have read it.

24 MR. McCLOSKEY:

25 Q. Before I get to it: General, you have testified, and as have

Page 12184

1 others, that the VRS adopted many, or the basic, rules of the JNA, and,

2 in fact, as you've acknowledged in your cross, the rules regarding

3 security and command were from the JNA. Especially, you spent a lot of

4 time with the rules for the corps. Were there various times where the

5 VRS had to adopt those rules to meet their own specific needs and

6 circumstances?

7 A. I don't think I've understood the question perfectly.

8 We took over the rules and regulations governing all sectors from

9 the JNA; the application of rules of engagement, the application of

10 instructions, and so on and so forth. Was that your question?

11 Q. Yes, and you've testified to that. And my question was: At

12 times, as the war wore on, did the Main Staff and the VRS have to adapt

13 those older JNA rules or clarify them for the specific situations that it

14 was facing?

15 A. Experience, from practice, showed that there were weaknesses at

16 all levels and in all areas so that it was necessary to issue

17 instructions to subordinate commands in line with the rules and

18 regulations taken over from the JNA. Many people were insufficiently

19 trained for military service, such as reservists, for example.

20 Q. And I'm sure you remember from the last trial, was there actually

21 one part of the rules in the corps JNA regulations relating to who was

22 the deputy commander of operations that was actually very much against

23 what the Main Staff actually ended up adopting? I think you'll remember

24 how you explained that in the last trial.

25 A. If you mean a comparison with the remit of the corps command, a

Page 12185

1 comparison with the organisation of the work of the Main Staff, then this

2 was about the remit of the Chief of Staff and had to do with the

3 following: The chief of the Department for Operations and Training was

4 the person to stand in for him, and that is the difference.

5 General Miletic, as chief of the Operations and Training Administration,

6 did not have that remit because in the corps staff the organ for security

7 is directly subordinate to the Chief of Staff, and the organ for

8 mobilisation and manning is directly subordinated. At the Main Staff,

9 there was a direct line between the commander and the

10 Sector for Personnel Affairs. There was also an intelligence organ to

11 which security was attached. That was subordinate to the chief of the

12 sector, and the chief of the sector to the commander of the Main Staff.

13 That may be what you had in mind.

14 Q. Yes. Without getting into the details: As I recall it, you

15 testified that the corps rules anticipated that the chief of operations

16 became the Chief of Staff in the absence of the Chief of Staff, but the

17 Main Staff did not adhere to that corps rule and it had a different rule

18 that you've already described. Is that basically correct?

19 A. It was about the following: For example, the chief of the

20 Staff Sector, he was also the deputy commander of Main Staff. In the

21 case of General Miletic, as chief of the administration, according to

22 establishment, he was not simultaneously a deputy staff commander;

23 whereas I, who was General Miletic's subordinate, was chief of the

24 Operations Department and at the same time deputy chief of the Operations

25 and Training Administration.

Page 12186

1 Q. I understand that. And my only point, though, is that the -- if

2 we look at the corps regulations, the Main Staff practice was different

3 than laid out in the corps regulations; is that right?

4 A. I don't know in what respect. I only mentioned the part relating

5 to the structure, namely that the assistant for Intelligence Affairs was

6 subordinate to the chief of the Operations Department in the corps, and

7 to him, the subordinate to him was the Mobilisation and Manning

8 Administration.

9 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat the latter part

10 of his answer.

11 THE WITNESS: [No interpretation]

12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I have to stop you because we don't receive

13 interpretation at the moment.

14 The last sentence which was recorded ended with the words:

15 "... and to him, the subordinate to him was the Mobilisation and

16 Manning Administration."

17 And then the interpretation and recording stopped.

18 Could you please repeat what you have said after that.

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In a nutshell, in the corps staff

20 there is an organ for mobilisation and manning and there is an

21 intelligence organ, and at the Main Staff, that is not part of the

22 Staff Sector. These are two separate sectors there. These two sectors

23 are subordinate to the commander, the Sector for Mobilisation and

24 Personnel; whereas the Sector for Intelligence is an administration as

25 part of the Intelligence and Security Sector.

Page 12187

1 MR. McCLOSKEY:

2 Q. General, my only point is: Because you have testified, and we

3 all agree, that the JNA rules formed the basis of the VRS rules, is it

4 fair to say that it cannot be applied 100 per cent of the time because

5 there are basic differences sometimes, as you've just described, so we

6 have to be careful when looking at the corps rules? We have to be

7 careful because it's not 100 per cent. Would you agree with me on that?

8 A. Well, this rule about the remit within a corps, the only

9 difference is the part that refers to the command of the Main Staff.

10 This part was not identical, but the rules were fully applicable to the

11 corps.

12 Q. General, had we followed the corps rules, under the corps rules,

13 in the absence of Milovanovic, the chief of operations, General Miletic

14 would have been the Chief of Staff; correct?

15 A. That is not correct because these things are not identical. His

16 establishment position did not read also "deputy." And he did have a

17 higher rank than most others. But until June 1995 he was equal to many

18 others, and many in the combat arms organ were actually higher in rank

19 than him -- he. But his establishment position did not have this tag

20 "also deputy," as it did for me, or for somebody else who was at the same

21 time a deputy commander of the Main Staff.

22 Q. I understand that. We're saying the same thing. The Main Staff

23 rules, in that case, were different than the corps rules were, and it had

24 major significance for General Miletic; correct?

25 A. Well, there is a difference at the command level. We are talking

Page 12188

1 about the regulations about competencies in the corps command, and now

2 you're drawing a parallel with the competencies in the Main Staff

3 command. And those are two different command levels.

4 Q. That's my point. We can't use the corps rules to be 100 per cent

5 applicable to the Main Staff because there are differences; correct?

6 A. In the part where the rules were not applicable, they were,

7 indeed, not applied. It is my impression that the rule on competencies

8 appears, because it was drafted. However, the rules on competencies had

9 not been drawn for the Army of Republika Srpska.

10 Q. That was my question, and thank you.

11 Now, as you've had a chance to look at this document, you were

12 back from your injury for a few weeks when this document was drafted,

13 does this -- does this familiar at all to you, this document about --

14 entitled "Instructions on Command and Control Over the Security and

15 Intelligence Organs of the VRS"?

16 A. Your Honours, I've not seen this document before. It was not

17 addressed to any of the sectors. It was drafted in the Main Staff. It

18 was recorded under a number which I don't know. It was probably

19 registered with the Administration for Security and Intelligence or the

20 Sector for Security. I don't know where exactly. It was signed by the

21 commander. Maybe I can read a "za," "on behalf of," here, but the typed

22 signatures of the command of the Main Staff. In any case, it was

23 intended for the subordinated units, i.e., corps commands, to the

24 air force and the Centre of Military School, although there's not a clear

25 list of addressees. However, I assume, looking at the contents of the

Page 12189

1 document, that it was intended for the subordinated commands --

2 Q. Okay. And you have -- before I got off track a little bit. You

3 did say at times the Main Staff had to remind the VRS and educate them

4 regarding the rules, something to that effect, in place, and so I want to

5 go over these instructions, as I believe they're very similar to the

6 instructions -- or the rule that General Tolimir went over, to see if

7 there are any differences or not, in your view. And I don't know if you

8 remember, but the corps rules the general went over were dated 1990, the

9 time of the JNA. Does that sound about right?

10 A. Yes, I believe that that's correct. However, I believe that he

11 also quoted some of the things from the rules of service of the security

12 organs.

13 Q. And do you -- that's correct. And would have those been from the

14 JNA years as well? Do you remember the years?

15 A. We used those rules from the former JNA, regardless of the year

16 when they were published.

17 Q. General, I'm just trying to get an idea of how much older those

18 rules are than this 1994 rule. Do you remember the year of the security

19 rules? Or if you don't, that's fine, we'll be able to -- I note that we

20 were able to go back and look at that document, and it was 1984. Does

21 that sound familiar or would that be within the range you would expect?

22 A. Yes. We used those rules because after 1984, there was new --

23 there was no new edition in the JNA. If there had been a newer edition,

24 we would have used that.

25 Q. All right. Let me just go over some of these to help get your

Page 12190

1 views on them, given that -- would these be an updated version of those

2 older rules, in your view?

3 A. This instruction was based on those rules. It was drafted as a

4 result of certain things that appeared in practice and in the work of the

5 subordinated security organs and subordinated commands. This instruction

6 was intended for subordinated commanders. I'm judging that from the

7 contents thereof.

8 Q. So if we were to be looking at the rules and procedures documents

9 from 1995, these particular instructions would be a better or a more

10 updated view of the underlying rules; is that fair enough?

11 A. I believe that the author of the instruction based things and

12 initiated things that he had in focus. He wanted to highlight some

13 things in order to improve the work of the security organs and the

14 commands in which those security organs operated.

15 Under item 1, the author draws everybody's attention to the focus

16 within the remit of the work of the security organs.

17 Q. Okay. Let me ask you about that. It says:

18 "The field work of the VRS security and intelligence organs

19 primarily includes intelligence and counter-intelligence tasks which,

20 depending on the situation, make up about 80 per cent of their total

21 engagement. The remaining 20 per cent of their engagement consists of

22 administrative and staff, military police and criminal-legal tasks and

23 duties."

24 Now, we didn't see that percentage in the rules that

25 General Tolimir went over, but is this your recollection of how it was

Page 12191

1 divided up?

2 A. Your Honours, in the rules of service for the security organs,

3 there are no percentages; there are just activities. However, the author

4 of the instructions directs people towards a certain focus, how much time

5 they should spend on one activity, how much on the other, and how much on

6 the third. The author of the instructions broke the work down into

7 percentages to help them perform their duties properly.

8 Q. So would this be an example of the VRS adapting those JNA rules

9 to its own specific circumstances?

10 A. These tasks are also contained in the rules. However, the author

11 just wanted to break the work down and express the work and the portions

12 of that work in percentages.

13 Q. Okay. And can you very briefly, if you can -- we see that

14 it's -- there's two kinds of work: the 80 per cent work and the

15 20 per cent work. The 80 per cent worked is called "intelligence and

16 counter-intelligence." And can you just, in the simplest terms, tell us

17 what intelligence is and what counter-intelligence is? But very simple.

18 We don't -- we've heard a lot about that already, but I just want to be

19 able to distinguish it between the next, the 20 per cent tasks.

20 A. Intelligence work is aimed at collecting intelligence, at

21 analysing that intelligence, and presenting that intelligence to the

22 superior command. The intelligence refers to the enemy deployed in the

23 zone of combat activities, its intentions, the situation -- or the

24 overall situation in the zone of intelligence responsibility of the

25 subordinated unit.

Page 12192

1 Counter-intelligence deals with preventing enemy intelligence

2 activities targeting one's own unit.

3 Q. Can you give us one example of counter-intelligence work?

4 A. This would be detecting and monitoring the enemy intelligence

5 organs, their intentions, as well as any individuals engaged in such an

6 activity targeting one's own unit. The way and methodology of detection

7 differ from one service to another. I would not wish to go into that,

8 because I was never a member of any intelligence organ. In any case,

9 they use all sorts of means, and this can be listening in telephone

10 conversations, intercepting radio communications, electronic

11 surveillance. And when something is detected or discovered, measures are

12 put in place to prevent and discontinue any further activities of that

13 kind.

14 Q. Detecting security threats or traitors from within one's own

15 ranks, where does that fall in?

16 A. This is part of the remit of the security organs. That's how

17 they detect those engaged in illegal activities aimed against one's own

18 unit, amongst their own ranks.

19 Q. Does that fit into counter-intelligence or intelligence?

20 A. Counter-intelligence.

21 Q. Okay. That was very clear and helpful. Thank you, General.

22 Now, the second part, the 20 per cent, mentions:

23 "... administrative and staff, military police and criminal-legal

24 tasks and duties."

25 General Tolimir spent a fair amount of time on what appeared to

Page 12193

1 be military-police-related, so can you just give us the same nice,

2 concise -- your understanding of what military police and criminal-legal

3 tasks and duties would be?

4 A. Military policing referred to those tasks that are carried out by

5 the military police. This most commonly implies providing security for

6 command posts, facilities of special importance, providing security for a

7 commander who is either stationed or on the move. In one segment, this

8 also deals with the regulation of and control of traffic. So those would

9 be tasks under the military policing remit.

10 Q. Do you know what was meant by "administrative and staff"? That's

11 the first thing that is mentioned.

12 A. It depends on the command level. The higher the level, the more

13 pronounced the needs will be for administrative and staff duties. They

14 are relative to planning, manning, replenishing the equipment and the

15 assets level required for the unit of that size.

16 Q. When you say "unit," what kind of unit would the security officer

17 be involved in?

18 A. This refers to military police units and their staffing and

19 manning.

20 Q. All right. And, lastly, "criminal-legal tasks and duties"?

21 Again, just very briefly.

22 A. One of the tasks would be to make arrests of perpetrators of

23 crime within one's unit. Also, collecting and securing evidence to prove

24 the crime in question. Also, submitting such evidence to legal bodies

25 for further proceedings. When I say "legal bodies," I mean investigative

Page 12194

1 bodies.

2 Q. We've seen, in this case, military police guarding and

3 interviewing prisoners of war. Would that be part of their duties?

4 A. I apologise. I failed to mention just a while ago. In military

5 police companies, at certain levels, there were crime departments, and

6 that was their remit. They were the ones that carried out interviews as

7 needed. Members of those departments belonged to the military police as

8 well.

9 Q. And my question about prisoners of war. We've seen military

10 police guarding and sometimes questioning prisoners of war. Would that

11 be a part of their duty?

12 A. Yes. Probably, that was done by members of the crime departments

13 on the strength of the military police.

14 Q. Okay. Thank you for that. That's very clear.

15 Can we now look at the paragraph 2:

16 "The security and intelligence organs are directly commanded by

17 the commander of the unit or institution of which they form a part ..."

18 So if that was a brigade, they would be commanded by the brigade

19 commander. If it was a corps unit, it would be the corps commander.

20 Correct?

21 A. Yes, yes.

22 Q. And you recall hearing this important concept repeated in the JNA

23 corps rules that General Tolimir read; is that right?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. So in this case, this is the same as what the corps rules had

Page 12195

1 already said?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. All right. And then it goes on and says:

4 "... but with regard to professional activities, they are

5 controlled," or "managed," in English, probably, "controlled or managed

6 centrally by the security and intelligence organ of the superior

7 command."

8 So I want you to be able to explain that a little bit. But,

9 first of all, does that mean that, for example, the security officer in

10 the Zvornik Brigade would be managed and controlled by the security

11 officer of the Drina Corps, along this professional line?

12 A. In keeping with the rules that is quoted in here, a reference is

13 made to the command of those units and who has authority over that

14 command. And then later on it says that in professional terms it is the

15 intelligence and security organs of the superior command which are

16 authorised to command it. So when we are talking about the brigade, then

17 their superior professional body is a body in the corps. We have already

18 discussed that when we discussed the term "control."

19 Q. So would it be true that the corps security branch would be

20 professionally managed by the Main Staff security branch?

21 A. Yes, in the professional tasks such as planning, training,

22 manning, materiel support, and similar tasks.

23 Q. So if Lieutenant-Colonel Popovic is the chief of security of the

24 Drina Corps, he would be professionally managed by who in the Main Staff?

25 Who would be his first-line professional manager in the Main Staff?

Page 12196

1 A. The chief of the administration which is within the

2 intelligence/security sector of the Main Staff.

3 Q. And who would that be?

4 A. Well, the chief of the administration, Colonel Beara.

5 Q. Okay. And you've already told us who Beara's direct

6 supervisor is.

7 All right. Can you -- again, this idea of

8 professional management, can you give us an example of what that would

9 involve? For example, can Colonel Beara issue a directive, tell Popovic

10 to do something?

11 A. That level is not busy with writing the directives. He could

12 instruct and talk about the training of the security organs, about the

13 training of the military police, about manning. He can instruct as to

14 how to perform the professional aspect of the task. That's why we say

15 that he is being managed by the superior command and, more precisely, by

16 the professional, specialised organ within the superior command.

17 Q. So when, for example, Popovic receives an instruction from Beara,

18 does that have the effect of an order if it's in the proper course of his

19 professional duties?

20 A. An order is something that should be viewed separately. We are

21 not talking about issuing orders here. Commanding is within the

22 authority of the commander.

23 Q. Thank you.

24 A. The chief of an administration may not issue a task to the

25 military police battalion within the Drina Corps. This is within the

Page 12197

1 authority of the commander. However, through the security organ, in the

2 professional aspect, he can help general, professional, and specialised

3 training in order to enable the military police to perform their tasks in

4 a professional way. But when we are talking about assigning tasks, that

5 is something done by the commander.

6 Q. Does the commander many times decide the task of the military

7 police by receiving proposals from the security officer?

8 A. Let me explain.

9 You mentioned Lieutenant-Colonel Popovic. He was the security

10 organ of the Drina Corps. The exclusive authority to command from item 2

11 rests with the commander. The chief of the Security Administration helps

12 him in planning, organisation, and professional carrying out of the

13 police tasks, which are to be carried out by the unit within the corps.

14 Q. Yes. And I understand that, and I agree with you. My question,

15 though, is: When, for example, Popovic makes a proposal to Krstic, his

16 commander, on how to use the military police, will his commander then

17 issue an order, if he so chooses, based on that proposal?

18 A. Well, I already explained in my previous testimony what a

19 proposal means, not just the proposal by the security organ, but

20 generally speaking, so I can merely propose to the commander to use a

21 military police unit. Whether he is going to adopt my proposal in its

22 entirety, or partially, or whether he's going to amend it, that depends

23 on him. And whatever he adopts, he is going to order. Regardless of

24 whether it was adopted in its entirety or partially, he is going to issue

25 it as an order.

Page 12198

1 Q. All right. And if General Krstic, in this situation, adopts the

2 order -- adopts the proposal of Popovic or decides to do something else

3 that he wants to do, can he pass that order down to the military police

4 through Popovic? Or does he have to go find the military police

5 commander himself?

6 A. The order will go directly to the military police commander in

7 the form of a memo or a document. Normally, it is an order issued to the

8 unit on the level of, say, a battalion. And the operative man is going

9 to write out this order, the one who belongs to the operative organ.

10 Q. Yes, and I understand that the commander issues orders to his

11 subordinate commander, and I agree with that. But my question is: Can

12 Krstic, in this case, pass on the order through the security officer as

13 well?

14 A. If it's a written document. But if it's not, then he is going to

15 simply pick up a phone and issue an oral order. If it's a written

16 document, then it will have to be drafted in the staff, it will have to

17 be logged within the operative organ, and then forwarded to the battalion

18 commander.

19 Q. General, it's a very simple question. Can General Krstic, in

20 this context, pass on an order to Lieutenant-Colonel Popovic that Popovic

21 passes on to the military police?

22 A. He can, but that is going to be the commander's order. Whether

23 it is going to be written or oral or whether it is going to be

24 Colonel Popovic who is going to carry it to someplace, that doesn't

25 matter.

Page 12199

1 Q. Okay. But if you're the commander of the military police unit in

2 the Drina Corps and Lieutenant-Colonel Popovic comes to you and tells you

3 to get in some vehicles and go to a mountaintop, you're going to follow

4 that instruction, aren't you? That passing on the order through

5 Lieutenant-Colonel Popovic has the thrust of an order but from, of

6 course, the commander, passed on through Popovic?

7 A. If I know that the commander issued that order, I'm going to

8 carry it out. If not, I'm going to try to find a way to verify; for

9 instance, if I don't like something in that order and I feel that I

10 should verify it.

11 Q. So if --

12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir.

13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

14 Since the witness already answered, I don't want to pose another

15 question. I only wanted to say that the question should be clear and

16 unambiguous. Thank you.

17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey, please carry on.

18 MR. McCLOSKEY:

19 Q. So if Colonel Beara issued an order or passed on an order, a very

20 serious order of some sort - say he was in a brigade area like the

21 Zvornik Brigade - and he passed it on to, say, the commander of the

22 Zvornik Brigade, would that commander be able to go and speak to

23 General Tolimir or someone else of authority at the Main Staff to

24 determine the validity of that order?

25 A. Since in this case one level was skipped, and that's the corps

Page 12200

1 command, the Zvornik Brigade commander should verify whether that is

2 actually the task to be performed. If he received this written order,

3 then he should report to the corps commander and tell him what kind of

4 task he was assigned. So it means that, yes, he is supposed to carry out

5 the order, but he should also inform his immediate superior about that

6 particular task.

7 Q. Okay. So the commander of the brigade should go up to check on

8 the order to the -- his corps commander. That would be General Krstic.

9 If General Krstic had the same concern about the validity of the order,

10 who should he contact?

11 A. He should verify the authenticity of that order with the

12 commander who has the power to command him. That is the commander of the

13 Main Staff.

14 Q. And if the commander of the Main Staff was in Belgrade and

15 unavailable and the order had been passed on by Beara, who should the

16 Drina Corps commander contact?

17 A. In principle, if the commander is absent, he is going to

18 designate one of his assistants to deputize for him while he's absent,

19 and that person deputizing for him may not command unless those orders

20 are in the spirit of the previous decisions and orders issued by the

21 commander.

22 Q. All right. Now, there's the next section here we've already

23 talked about, but:

24 "With regard to professional activities, they are controlled

25 centrally by the security and intelligence organ of the superior

Page 12201

1 command."

2 And then:

3 "This indicates their full independence in the implementation of

4 intelligence and counter-intelligence tasks and operative combinations,

5 based on the authority set forth in the law and the authority of the

6 appropriate superior organs of the service, and applying methods and

7 means of work in accordance with law."

8 So, General, now here it says that the security person is under

9 the command of the commander, but then it says, in regard to intel and

10 counter-intelligent work, that there is full independence. Do you

11 understand what General Mladic is getting at? How can you be under the

12 command of the commander and yet have full independence?

13 A. This independence is limited to the realisation of intelligence

14 and counter-intelligence tasks. This means that he doesn't grant him a

15 general autonomy, but only limited to this kind of tasks, intelligence

16 and counter-intelligence tasks. This autonomy does not carry with it

17 issuing orders, but only professional directing in carrying out of the

18 tasks belonging to those two areas of work, intelligence and

19 counter-intelligence. I think that this is not in contradiction with the

20 rule that we quoted earlier, the rule about the work of security organs.

21 Q. All right. Would -- the professional supervision by the security

22 officer of the military police in their handling of prisoners of war,

23 would that in any way be considered an intelligence or

24 counter-intelligence task or does that more fit in with the military

25 police legal task side of the thing we've heard about?

Page 12202

1 A. Taking care of the war prisoners is, according to the rules of

2 the former JNA, something falling within the purview of the logistical

3 support. And as we said that a moment ago, people from the

4 Crime Technical Department can carry out informative interviews and, that

5 is to say, gather intelligence.

6 Q. Logistics officers guard prisoners of war? How many logistics

7 officers are there?

8 A. Oh, we are now talking about officers here. Those people have to

9 be accommodated somewhere. They have to be given food. And that is

10 within the competence of the logistical support. Other people from other

11 areas will take on the work from their purview, for instance, the

12 Department of the Morale, Religious, and Legal Affairs, and then those

13 inspectors, or I don't know how to call them, people who are supposed to

14 carry out informative interviews.

15 Q. General, let me give you an example of a specific incident we

16 have in this case.

17 You've already spoken of the military police battalion that was

18 attached -- or, excuse me, the Military Police Battalion of the

19 65th Protection Regiment which was part of the Main Staff. Now, if the

20 soldiers and command of the 65th Protection Regiment military police unit

21 were guarding hundreds of Muslim prisoners and they were being

22 professionally supervised in that task and organised by Ljubisa Beara,

23 would that task that Beara was involved in, organising these prisoners

24 and their holding, would that be -- well, where would that fit in? Would

25 it be the 80 per cent in counter-intel, or would it be the other part, or

Page 12203

1 would it be something else?

2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir.

3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, this was not a part

4 of the examination-in-chief or the cross-examination. Furthermore, the

5 Prosecutor here speculates about who organised the guards. This witness

6 cannot know that. He was not in the Main Staff when this was going on.

7 He was not on the spot when this was going on. So his answer can only be

8 a speculation. I would like this question to be reformulated so that it

9 is clear to the witness and also so that it is in the line with the

10 situation in which the witness found himself at the time. Thank you.

11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey.

12 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, you'll recall the general having

13 this witness discuss specifically the work of the military police, the

14 supervision of the military police work by the security branch, and with

15 the old rules. We now have this clarification before us, and all I'm

16 doing is taking an example, based on these rules, to get an idea of if

17 this is part of the supervision as outlined in the rules that the general

18 brought up. He's brought up the rules. He's defined how they are. He's

19 left a lot of gaps on what things may mean for this case. And I would

20 like for you to fully understand the most recent rules on this point and

21 how they apply, in particular, to this case and this example.

22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I would agree with you. Please carry on.

23 MR. McCLOSKEY:

24 Q. General, it's a simple question. If the MP battalions and their

25 command is guarding hundreds of prisoners and Colonel Beara is there

Page 12204

1 providing organisation, would this fit into the intel/counter-intel, the

2 military police aspect, or something outside of what is anticipated by

3 the rules?

4 A. The rules do not mention percentages. This is mentioned in the

5 instruction. And the number of 80 per cent pertains to the intelligence

6 and counter-intelligence tasks. Physical support, guarding of the

7 prisoners, is not something that falls within the purview of these two

8 activities.

9 Q. General, in this -- there's evidence in this case that military

10 police are guarding prisoners in Bratunac, hundreds of prisoners, that

11 they're guarding hundreds of prisoners in Zvornik, and their security

12 officers are overseeing these tasks. Don't military police get involved

13 in guarding prisoners?

14 A. Well, I didn't deny anything. I merely said that this task,

15 guarding the war prisoners, is something that doesn't fall under either

16 intelligence or counter-intelligence.

17 Q. So does it fall under the military police work, as we see in the

18 rules? The security organ oversees the military police work. Is this

19 sort of military police work, looking after prison ers, something that a

20 security officer would be involved in, or could be involved in, according

21 to the rules?

22 A. I can only speculate about that now. If a military police unit

23 was available at a certain moment, if it wasn't engaged in combat, then

24 maybe the commander could have made a decision to engage it in providing

25 the security. He can do that, and he can do that for any unit that was

Page 12205

1 available nearby and that wasn't engaged in combat activities.

2 Q. General, it's a simple question. The military police are

3 guarding prisoners. Would it be in the remit of the security officer to

4 professionally supervise them in that duty?

5 A. But this task is not either intelligence or counter-intelligence

6 task. The rules say that he controls and manages the professional aspect

7 of the work of the subordinate organs of security and military police

8 units, and this is not a task from that area. And the rules say that it

9 is those tasks that he is managing, professionally speaking.

10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Sir, I would like to invite you to answer the

11 question. The question was not in relation to intelligence or

12 counter-intelligence. The question was:

13 "Would it be in the remit of the security officer to

14 professionally supervise them," that means the military police guarding

15 prisoners, "in that duty?"

16 Could you please answer this question.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the rules do not

18 define guarding as the professional task of the security organ. Whether

19 they were able to do that, the security organs of the Drina Corps or the

20 Main Staff or of some of the brigades, well, I don't exclude that

21 possibility.

22 MR. McCLOSKEY: One last try.

23 Q. No one is suggesting a security officer is actually guarding

24 prisoners. The question is: The military police are guarding prisoners;

25 would the security officer -- would it be in his remit to professionally

Page 12206

1 supervise or organise or assist in the military police's job?

2 A. Mr. Prosecutor, I didn't understand you so that it would be

3 security organs who would do that. I'm talking here about the engagement

4 of a military police unit who, at a certain moment, is guarding people

5 who were captured. And then I say this is not within the remit of the

6 tasks defined by the rules, in part, when they talk about the

7 professional management or control of the military police units by the

8 security organs.

9 Q. So if Colonel Beara was assisting the commander of the 65th --

10 the military police unit of the 65th, if he was supervising his work in

11 the collection, detention, and guarding of hundreds of prisoners, he

12 would be working outside his remit by the rules?

13 A. That work that was done is outside of the scope of work of

14 counter-intelligence.

15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This was not the question. Please focus on the

16 question.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, it can be, but it is not

18 professional assistance or professional supervision, as the rules say.

19 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, I think everyone is very tired. I

20 know I am. I have -- this is a critically important area. We're not

21 through with this document. I have documents by General Tolimir that I

22 believe are examples of these very principles so that we can see how they

23 work in the field and get this witness's view on them. I have evidence,

24 more material, related to chemical weapons. I have more material related

25 to the directives, the issues that were brought up. Directives are key.