1 Wednesday, 7 September 2011
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.07 a.m.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours.
6 This is case IT-08-91-T, the Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and
7 Stojan Zupljanin.
8 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
9 Good morning to everyone. May we have the appearances, please.
10 MS. KORNER: Good morning, Your Honours. Joanna Korner assisted
11 by Crispian Smith for the Prosecution.
12 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.
13 Slobodan Cvijetic and Ms. Deirdre Montgomery for the Stanisic Defence.
14 MR. KRGOVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Dragan Krgovic,
15 Aleksandar Aleksic, and Miroslav Cuskic appearing for Zupljanin Defence.
16 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
17 On Monday, I had invited counsel to consult and report on the
18 status of the maps and the map book. Is any progress to report on that?
19 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, I don't know. Mr. Zecevic asked
20 for -- to consider it until Tuesday. Then I think I spoke to him in the
21 morning, because -- just to identify which book I was talking about,
22 which is the one of the ethnic maps, because there's a separate book
23 which has got a mixture of maps in it. And that was the last I heard.
24 And I see that he is not here today.
25 The other matter that we were going to consider together, that is
1 to say, Mr. Krgovic and myself, was this question of this translation.
2 And I rather feel it has gone back to CLSS again. I see Mr. Krgovic
3 nodding. They've sent it back one more time to see if anything further
4 can be translated. So once CLSS get back to us, then we'll know which
5 document is going to be the exhibit.
6 But I -- I don't know whether Mr. Cvijetic can help with the
7 situation is on the maps. As I see -- as I say, Mr. Zecevic is not here
9 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
10 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] The only assistance that I can
11 offer to say that we are going to have Mr. Zecevic back during the first
12 session. He is fully informed about the issue, so we won't be waiting
13 for an answer too long.
14 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Mr. Cvijetic.
15 Would the usher please escort the witness back to the stand.
16 [The witness takes the stand]
17 JUDGE HALL: General Kovacevic, good morning to you. Before I
18 invite Mr. Krgovic to continue, I remind you, you're still on your oath.
19 Yes, Mr. Krgovic.
20 MR. KRGOVIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
21 WITNESS: VIDOSAV KOVACEVIC [Resumed]
22 [Witness answered through interpreter]
23 Examination by Mr. Krgovic: [Continued]
24 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, General.
25 A. Good morning.
1 Q. Yesterday when we left off and finalized our discussion about
2 your expert report, we were dealing with paragraph 232, and you more or
3 less answered my questions in relation to that paragraph.
4 Can you now look at paragraph 233 of your report. In this
5 paragraph, you speak about co-operation. And then, further on, in
6 paragraph 234, you speak about the fact that corps command establishes
7 co-operation with the organs of socio-political communities.
8 Could you please briefly explain to us the difference between
9 co-operation and a co-ordinated action and all the other actions that you
10 dealt with in your report.
11 A. Co-operation is one of the manners of regulating relationships in
12 the course of the execution of a combat task. It evolves and runs within
13 an area between representatives of a command that is in charge of the
14 carrying out of a combat task, on the one hand, and representatives of
15 the civilian authorities in that particular area, on the other; the area
16 where the combat operations are being carried out. This kind of
17 co-operation is envisaged in regulations and legal documents, and the
18 contents of this co-operation is also regulated by a decision taken by a
19 commander. A plan of co-operation is drawn up which sets out the
20 contents, the issues, the timing, and the place, and the people
21 responsible for co-operation.
22 Unlike a co-ordinated action that we discussed yesterday, here,
23 we have a relationship of equality between the parties; representatives
24 of the command and representatives of the civilian authorities. In other
25 words, there is no subordination or resubordination, unlike a
1 co-ordinated action, in which case the commander is in command and
2 everybody else are subordinated to him.
3 JUDGE HARHOFF: General, when you explained to us in your answer
4 to Counsel Krgovic that co-operation would be running between the
5 representatives of a command in charge of the combat and, on the other
6 hand, the representatives of the civilian authorities in that particular
7 area, would that include representatives from the MUP?
8 And I'm asking because it is unclear from your paragraph 234 and
9 235 whether the MUP and the local police authorities would be included in
10 the co-operation carried out by the army commander.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this
12 paragraph pertains both to representatives of the Ministry of the
13 Interior deployed in the area. When I said "authorities," I included
14 police in that notion because I think that police is part of the
15 authorities, and I also had in mind other civilian authorities operating
16 in the area.
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: I understand. Thank you.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, I would like just to add
19 one thing, if I may.
20 But that means only if the police is not subordinated to the
21 commander in charge of the task. That is to say, if they are carry out
22 their regular police work, then we have this kind of co-operation.
23 However, yesterday when we spoke about the instances when it is
24 subordinated to a commander, then there is no co-operation involved.
25 JUDGE HARHOFF: Can I ask you to clarify this? Because if the
1 army commander requires resubordination of a police unit to take part in
2 a combat action, I would assume that this does not include the entire
3 public security station so that there would still be police
4 representation left in the area with whom the army should cooperate.
5 Do you understand my question?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I understand your question,
7 Your Honour.
8 And you are right. That is precisely the case. Only those
9 elements that are subordinated to a commander in the course of carrying
10 out combat actions, there is no co-operation whatsoever. However, those
11 elements that remain within the public security station are the ones with
12 whom they cooperate. And I had them in mind when I spoke about this.
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, General.
14 My questions were just triggered by the fact that the police is
15 not mentioned directly here, nor did you refer to it directly in your
16 answer to counsel Krgovic.
17 But thank you. The matter is clear. Back to you, Mr. Krgovic.
18 MR. KRGOVIC:
19 Q. [Interpretation] General, in your response to Judge Harhoff's
20 question, you said that this mode of co-operation exists in the sense
21 that everybody is within their respective scope of responsibility. Can
22 you elaborate a bit on what you answered to Judge Harhoff.
23 A. The easiest way to explain this is by citing specific examples.
24 A commander will designate a representative of the command to
25 cooperate on the ground on specific issues. If these issues involve
1 recruitment of army conscripts, then this representative of the command
2 is someone who is dealing with personnel issues and he comes up with
3 specific requests, proposals, and requirements, goes to the National
4 Defence organ that keeps records of all young men and other able-bodied
5 men, and the two then agree, based on the previously agreed plans, what
6 to do, or they agree and solve the current issues based on the authority
7 bestowed upon them from their respective seniors.
8 Co-operation involves reaching an agreement on a specific issue
9 in order to carry out the task in a most efficient way within a given
11 Q. Thank you, General.
12 JUDGE HARHOFF: General, just another small question for
14 How did this co-operation take place in practice? Were meetings
15 held with the representatives of the socio-political institutions and the
16 local SJB or CSB and the labour organisation that you referred to in
17 paragraph 235?
18 Were meetings called and held, and were they public? How did
19 this unfold in practice?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, if the conditions and the
21 situation on the ground were such as permitting that, then meetings were
22 organised between the brigade commander and the president of the
23 municipality, with his team. Or between a unit commander and a manager
24 of a work organisation, if it has to do with this particular work
1 During those meetings, they agree on the issues that are of
2 mutual interest, and they draw up a plan of co-operation that I spoke of
3 before, and that is followed by assigning specific tasks to specific
5 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
6 MR. KRGOVIC:
7 Q. [Interpretation] General, in the previous paragraph, you were
8 involved more in theoretical issues relating to a co-ordinated action and
10 Can we now look at 2D00046. And it's tab 110 in your binder.
11 General, what you see here is an order for further operations,
12 issued by the command of the Military Post 2207, Kljuc, dated 9th of
13 July, 1992?
14 In paragraph 2, we have tasks given to units, and I'm going to
15 read subparagraph (a). That's the one I'm interested in.
16 It reads:
17 [As read] "The 17th Light Infantry Brigade, reinforced with a
18 reconnaissance platoon, a military police squad and a police platoon is
19 to block, search and mop up the Donji Biljani, Domazeti, Botonjici,
20 Jabukovac, Osmanovici and Brkici sectors."
21 General, I'm particularly interested with regard to this order in
22 this sub-item. Can you briefly comment on the relationship between this
23 police unit, or, rather, police units and their role in the process of
24 the carrying out of this order.
25 A. Before answering your question, let me just correct a mistake.
1 You started to read but it wasn't the 17th Brigade because we see it says
2 2/17. Of course, you're not a soldier. But this means the 2nd Battalion
3 of the 17th Brigade. This is just for the sake of precision. That was
4 the only mistake.
5 This subparagraph 2(a) clearly shows that a police platoon is
6 subordinated to the commander of the brigade, I think. I cannot tell for
7 sure because in the letterhead we just see the military post number.
8 Anyway, it means that the police platoon carries out its task as
9 part of the complement of that brigade and that it is subordinated to the
10 command of that unit. We have already said that this relationship
11 presupposes singleness of command and subordination.
12 Q. In this particular case, if a member of this resubordinated
13 police platoon - it is resubordinated to military command - were to
14 commit a crime or a disciplinary infraction, whose responsibility would
15 it be to instigate proceedings?
16 A. Throughout the time this police platoon is part of the complement
17 of this brigade, in case of any disciplinary infractions or misdemeanours
18 or criminal offence committed by individuals belonging to the police
19 platoon, it is exclusively the brigade command that is responsible for
20 instigating such proceedings. The command of the brigade to which this
21 police platoon belongs at the time.
22 Q. Tell us, General, following up on your previous answer, is there
23 an obligation in place, an obligation of the commander who has instigated
24 disciplinary proceedings or possibly criminal proceedings, to inform the
25 police organ from which this police platoon had come originally?
1 A. Yes, that is understood. That would also be the duty of the
2 brigade commander upon instigating the proceedings that I mentioned.
3 Q. Please take a look at document P00060.3. It is under tab 95 in
4 your set of documents.
5 This is an order of the command of the 5th Corps dated 1
6 April 1992. We see that it was sent to the Command of the 10th Partisan
7 Brigade. Please take a look at the last page of the document;
8 specifically, at the signature block.
9 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] That's page 3 in e-court.
10 Q. You will see the name of Major-General Momir Talic.
11 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Now let's return to page 1.
12 Q. Item 1 of this order. The last-but-one paragraph says:
13 "Establish full co-operation with the authorities in Sanski Most
14 municipality and co-ordinated action with TO and police units."
15 From the point of view of practice and doctrine -- or let me
16 start another way.
17 Could you please comment on this paragraph first and then I'll
18 ask you a question.
19 A. Well, I'm focussing my attention on the date stated here as a
20 date when the order was issued. And it says 1 April 1992. That means
21 that the Yugoslav People's Army was still present in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
22 Here, the commander orders that during the execution of this
23 task, co-operation with the authorities in Sanski Most municipality shall
24 be established, as well as co-ordinated action with TO units - the
25 then-TO which was still present in the area - together with the JNA.
1 And, finally, the police is also mentioned, that there should be
2 co-ordinated action with them.
3 Now, it is unclear whether this police was already subordinated
4 to some military unit pursuant to some decision because I cannot tell
5 from this. This word "co-ordinated action," first of all, pertains to
6 the TO and not so much to the police in this specific case. But it's
7 difficult for me to draw conclusions because I have no information as to
8 the position of the police here.
9 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Krgovic, just for clarification, I note that
10 the English -- in the English translation of this document, it doesn't
11 actually use the expression "co-ordinated action." It says
12 "collaboration," which is yet another term and could well lie somewhere
13 between co-operation and co-ordinated action.
14 So I just want to check whether we're talking about the same
16 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, you have rightly
17 identified this problem. This is a mistranslation because the Serbian
18 word "sadejstvo" is correctly translated as co-ordinated action.
19 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you for this. This means if we are to
20 understand the General's theory correctly, that when General Talic orders
21 here that co-ordinated action be taken with the TO and police units, that
22 would require or presuppose, would it not, that those police units and
23 the TO had been resubordinated to the army at some earlier point in time.
24 Because, otherwise, if they had not been, then they would only be
25 involved by means of ordinary co-operation.
1 General, have I understood you correctly.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Precisely, Your Honour.
3 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour, for this
5 Q. General, when you spoke about the principles of resubordination
6 and the singleness of command, I'll show you a document.
7 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please Exhibit 2D00118.
8 That's tab 88 in the Zupljanin Defence binder.
9 Q. General, this is an order issued by General Talic. The date
10 stated is 2 January 1992, but can I see the reception stamp saying
11 2 January 1993. This has been discussed already.
12 Here, General Talic, in item 1 of the order, appoints
13 Colonel Dragoslav Djurkic commander of the police brigade of the
14 Banja Luka CSB; whereas, the previous commander,
15 Lieutenant-Colonel Bosko Peulic, is to return to his functional duties.
16 And in --
17 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Krgovic, the document that is currently up is
18 confidential so it shouldn't be broadcast publicly.
19 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, that is correct, Your Honour.
20 [In English] Is it necessary to go to private session or we
21 just ...
22 JUDGE HALL: Perhaps, if you are going into the details of this
23 document, we could move briefly into private session, yes.
24 [Private session]
11 Pages 23744-23748 redacted. Private session.
6 [Open session]
7 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
8 JUDGE HALL: The document should, of course, be removed from the
10 MR. KRGOVIC:
11 Q. [Interpretation] General, yesterday, in answer to a question of
12 His Honour Harhoff and my question concerning the withdrawal of units at
13 the end of the combat assignment, when there was no longer need for them
14 to be used, would you please look at this document, 1D00264, which is
15 your tab 92.
16 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please zoom in.
17 Q. See, this is a document of Tactical Group 3 from Banja Luka sent
18 to the Doboj CSB. And the subject or reference is: Withdrawing of
19 police forces.
20 So the commander of the tactical group says the following:
21 [As read] "I have understood your proposal regarding the
22 withdrawal of police forces from combat operations. We are satisfied
23 with the work of the police ... so far, and we have thus decided to pull
24 them out for a short while to give them rest so that we could engage them
25 in upcoming operations. The reasons you provided are valid, but it seems
1 to us that you do not understand the situation that we are faced with. I
2 do not authorise the withdrawal of police forces. Otherwise, the front
3 would soon -- the front line would soon reach Doboj, and you no longer
4 have the territory you can control."
5 And so on. The other part is of no relevance to us.
6 General, could you please comment on this document in light of
7 your earlier answers?
8 A. In this document where the commander of the tactical group
9 replies, I suppose to the chief of the Doboj CSB, it is clear that this
10 police unit was resubordinated to this commander and that the conditions
11 were not yet ripe for that unit to go back, or to be returned, to the
12 CSB. That is to say, that the commander here explicitly emphasises that
13 he did not authorise the withdrawal of that unit from the military
15 Q. Now, we need a clarification because in the second sentence he
16 says that: "We have decided to pull them out for a short while to rest
17 so that we may engage them in upcoming operations."
18 Can you tell us, once you have a unit removed from the front line
19 and sent to rest and after that is detached again to take part in the
20 operations, what is the relationship between this particular unit and the
21 command? Does anything change in that regard?
22 A. Taking a rest is something that is regulated by rules and should
23 be implemented periodically, either between combat actions or while there
24 is an break in the commission of tasks.
25 However, during these rest periods, every member of this unit
1 still remains within the unit and is responsible exclusively to the
2 commander of the unit to which he had been assigned.
3 Q. I am now going to show you --
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: [Previous translation continues] ...
5 JUDGE DELVOIE: [Previous translation continues] ...
6 JUDGE HARHOFF: Sorry.
7 Before we leave this document, I would ask the General to give us
8 his interpretation of the background of this dispatch. Because it would
9 seem to me that Colonel Lisica was responding to a request from the Doboj
10 CSB to have the police unit transferred back to civilian authority. And
11 so this raises the question of -- of whether the police, or the MUP, had
12 any role in the -- in the transfer of police units from the police to the
13 army and back again.
14 Was this ordinary practice, that the police could ask the army to
15 have its police unit back? Do you know how the practice was at the time,
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, it is obvious, Your Honours,
18 from this document -- or, rather, it is probably evident that the
19 operation of the Doboj CSB has been disrupted and that, for that reason,
20 the chief of the centre is addressing the commander and requesting his
21 police unit to be returned to him, in order for him to operate
23 However, one cannot glean from this document when this unit had
24 been sent to join the army structure and up until which time it was
25 supposed to remain carrying out its tasks. And in that sense, I believe
1 that this action taken by the chief of the CSB is justified. Because he,
2 himself, is facing problems due to the shortage of manpower. But we can
3 see from this document what kind of response he received from the
4 tactical group command.
5 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you. So there was nothing extraordinary in
6 the CSB Doboj's request. That's how I understand your answer.
7 Is that correct?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe that's correct.
9 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thanks.
10 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Krgovic, just one moment, please.
11 General, the last -- in the last sentence of this dispatch it
12 says: "We welcome all forms of co-operation and assistance between the
13 military police and the police force [sic]."
14 Is it co-operation in the -- in the Serbian text; and what is
15 meant to be said here?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I suppose that, having rejected the
17 request, he caused the CSB chief to become quite angry and he's offering
18 a kind of reconciliation, in quotation marks, by saying what he says
20 However, in reality, elements of the CSB still remained on the
21 ground, but he is talking now about the co-operation between this
22 institution and the army.
23 JUDGE DELVOIE: So you would agree that there is some
24 contradiction between, on the one hand, the resubordination, and, on the
25 other hand, the offer of co-operation. Unless we would -- this would
1 pertain to different unities [sic] in the police.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, a police unit that is
3 removed from the police force and resubordinated and given to this
4 commander of a tactical group, there's no co-operation in that domain.
5 They can only co-operate with those elements that remained on the ground.
6 JUDGE DELVOIE: That's exactly what I meant, yes. Thank you.
7 JUDGE HALL: Sorry, on the same sentence, ought I read anything
8 into the I appreciate, General, that this isn't your document but ought I
9 read anything into:
10 "We welcome all forms of co-operation and assistance between the
11 military police and the police forces."
12 As opposed to the military and police forces. Why is the
13 military police specified? Ought I to read anything into that?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, nothing special. Most often,
15 that's how co-operation unfolded.
16 Yesterday I told you that a security organ was in most cases the
17 one who cooperated with the police on behalf of the command, and military
18 police is part of that security organ. And, in my view, I think this was
19 simply an amicable statement to the effect that the co-operation would
20 remain in place and that he shouldn't resent the fact that, at that point
21 in time, he was not able to send back the unit that he had requested.
22 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
23 MR. KRGOVIC:
24 Q. [Interpretation] General, one more question in relation to
25 His Honour's question.
1 Now, can you tell me in which domain there is co-operation
2 between military police and civilian police? Which particular area of
3 co-operation can there exist?
4 A. Mr. Krgovic, I'm not an expert either in the matters relating to
5 military police or civilian police. However, what I do know, and what I
6 heard from some briefing sessions that I attended in our command
7 headquarters, I think that, in most cases, that involved the exchange of
8 certain security information, whether about individuals, the situation on
9 the ground, and issues of a similar sort.
10 Q. General, whilst you were in Bosnia and later, did you have an
11 opportunity to pass through a check-point?
12 A. Well, I had an opportunity to come across check-points manned by
13 people who were checking traffic and individuals. At these check-points,
14 it was possible to carry out the work in the form of joint patrols and
15 that was common practice, particularly at the beginning of the war, where
16 we had both members of military police and civilian police because those
17 passing through were servicemen, civilians, and others, and I think that
18 was the reason why, at times, they cooperated together and participated
19 in this together.
20 Q. In your last sentence you said that they co-operated.
21 So can you please clarify what was the relationship between
22 military police and the civilian police, if they are manning one and the
23 same check-point?
24 I was speaking about this subordination or co-ordination or
1 A. Well, we discussed various forms of co-operation, and I cited
2 this as one of the forms of our co-operation. However, one should not
3 exclude the possibility that, if there was a document governing this
4 particular check-point, that this relationship could have been different.
5 JUDGE HALL: The -- so we'll take the break now and return in 20
7 [The witness stands down]
8 --- Recess taken at 10.25 a.m.
9 --- On resuming at 10.52 a.m.
10 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, Mr. Zecevic, having arrived, I asked
11 him whether he objected, and the answer is he does to the admission of
12 the book of maps. So perhaps, Mr. Cvijetic, who is likely to be
13 cross-examining, could leave ten minutes at the end to deal with that
15 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
16 [The witness takes the stand]
17 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. Krgovic. I take it that you're at the
18 tail-end of your very elastic 30 minutes that you mentioned yesterday, at
19 the adjournment.
20 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I apologise for
21 being so long, but some questions also were follow-up questions on the
22 Bench's questions, and then you're also reminded of other things, and you
23 know how it goes.
24 Q. General, I would like you to look at a document and it has to do
25 with what you have already dealt with. It's P00160, and it's tab 16.
1 This is a summary of a meeting of MUP senior officials held on
2 11 July 1992.
3 Let's take a look at the page where Mr. Zupljanin speaks about
4 the topic that you also discussed. That is on the page marked as 5 in
5 your set.
6 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] And the ERN is 0324-1855. In
7 Serbian, that's page 8 in e-court.
8 Q. It's the fourth paragraph from the top where Mr. Zupljanin
9 says --
10 MS. KORNER: [Previous translation continues] ... I'm sorry, you
11 said tab 16. Could I have the tab number, please.
12 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] 116.
13 MS. KORNER: 116. Thank you. [Microphone not activated]
14 MR. KRGOVIC:
15 Q. [Interpretation] It's the fourth paragraph from the top, and
16 Mr. Zupljanin says the following:
17 [As read] "Because of the losses, 20 active-duty and reserve
18 policemen were killed in one single action in Mrkonjic Grad. The role of
19 the police and their direct engagement in combat operations should be
20 defined, and in view of this, the manning of the force. The army has
21 requested the engagement of the entire force. And they are being
22 resubordinated and pushed onto the most difficult lines of combat which
23 should be prevented."
24 Could you please comment, General, in view of your report and
25 your testimony given so far.
1 A. Mr. Krgovic, I have already spoken about this topic these days,
2 and I said that police units would only very rarely, actually
3 exceptionally, be used for the execution of combat tasks because police
4 officers are not trained to do that.
5 However, as we have seen in many documents, things looked
6 different in practice. That is why I personally think that the chief of
7 the CSB rightly pointed out this type of engagement of police officers
8 because it prevented him from doing the work for which the centre, headed
9 by him, is responsible.
10 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
11 MR. KRGOVIC:
12 Q. [Interpretation] The second sentence reads: "The army has
13 requested the engagement of the entire force ..."
14 What does this phrase "entire force" mean to you?
15 A. As far as I've been able to tell from the documents, there are
16 examples where local-level commanders - mostly military commanders -
17 resubordinated the entire police force, and I think that this is what the
18 centre chief had in mind when he said this.
19 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
20 MR. KRGOVIC:
21 Q. [Interpretation] General, the next document is P01094. Number
22 117; the tab number, that is.
23 This, sir, is a dispatch sent out by the Banja Luka CSB in
24 September 1992, and it was sent to: Public security stations; the
25 RS MUP, for their information; and the commands of the 1st and
1 2nd Krajina Corps.
2 I'll read out the first paragraph. Mr. Zupljanin says:
3 [As read] "In recent times there has been an increasing number of
4 requests from lower commands of the Army of Republika Srpska on the
5 territory of the Banja Luka Security Services Centre for the engagement
6 of active and reserve forces of the police in army formations on lines of
7 contact with enemy forces, and requests for the departure of police
8 members in army formations to protect corridors or to go to other fronts
9 all over Republika Srpska."
10 And let us move onto the following page. I'm now reading the
11 last paragraph on page 2.
12 "At the same time" --
13 Please go back one page in English.
14 [As read] "At the same time, we draw to the attention of SJB
15 chiefs the fact that members of the active and reserve police forces may
16 be engaged in combat activities according to the principle of
17 resubordination to a superior army command only in the event that combat
18 activities are taking place on the territory covered by the designated
19 SJBs and with the approval of the chief of the CSB."
20 This document is dated a few months after that speech by
21 Mr. Zupljanin. I would like to hear your comment about this document.
22 A. Mr. Krgovic, this document has a similar content as the speech of
23 the centre chief. He also tries to have police units be used to execute
24 combat tasks only exceptionally.
25 We can see from these warnings given to the chiefs of the public
1 security stations that the CSB chief, who was their superior officer,
2 often wasn't even informed of the use of police units at the local level.
3 It is clear that, under such conditions, it is extremely
4 difficult, if not impossible, for the CSB to execute its basic tasks,
5 especially if you are making plans within your own remit, and for
6 those -- for the execution of those plans, you need forces but you don't
7 know that those forces are being used to do something else.
8 JUDGE HARHOFF: General, could I ask you, if you know, about the
9 use of reserve police forces in situations where the active police force
10 was resubordinated to the army.
11 Was it possible for the SJB chief or the CSB chief to call in
12 reserve police forces to replace those active policemen who had been
13 taken away and resubordinated to the army?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it was possible under
15 one condition: That you have live men in the field. But as I have
16 already said, military commanders probably used police forces often
17 because the available reserve forces were not sufficient, be it army
18 reserves or police reserves.
19 We have seen in a number of documents that commanders used the
20 entire force, both active-duty police and reserve police.
21 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
22 MR. KRGOVIC:
23 Q. [Interpretation] Now let's move to the last topic that you
24 discuss in your report, chapter 6, paragraph 237 and the following.
25 The heading of chapter 6 is: Defence of a Town or City. In this
1 chapter, you deal with the details of town defence.
2 Let us try to clarify something. While setting up the command
3 of -- the defence of a town, who is it, actually, who sets up such a
5 A. The setting up of town commands or settlement commands was
6 envisaged and regulated by military rules and regulations, but it also
7 provided only for exceptional cases. When it becomes impossible for the
8 civilian authorities to function, that is when town defence commands are
9 being formed, and this command engages all the resources and all the
10 structures within the area of responsibility of this commander and places
11 it at his disposal and command.
12 The decision to establish a town defence command is made by a
13 senior officer directly, senior to the commander who is stationed in a
14 particular area or town. Exceptionally, this can be done by a brigade
15 commander, for example, in a specific area.
16 Q. Can you please look at document 1D403; your footnote 121.
17 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Tab 81.
18 Q. General, we see here a document issued by the command of the
19 19th Partisan Brigade dated 13 June 1992.
20 MS. KORNER: [Previous translation continues] ... I'm so sorry,
21 but you said --
22 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] 81.
23 MS. KORNER: -- 81. 8-1. Yes.
24 MR. KRGOVIC:
25 Q. [Interpretation] General, this comes from the command of the
1 19th Partisan Brigade, and it's dated the 13th of June, 1992.
2 Can you please tell me briefly your interpretation of this
4 A. Mr. Krgovic, we again have here a strictly confidential --
5 Q. Is it something similar to the previous document?
6 A. No.
7 Q. It is my duty to care of this, so feel free to comment on it is.
8 A. This document confirms what I said previously, because here, in
9 the heading, before item 1, there is one crucial thing and I read:
10 "Pursuant to document of the command of the 30th Partisan Division ...,"
11 which is one step higher command than the one receiving this, and based
12 on that, the brigade commander is setting up a town defence command and
13 appointing all these people and organs and structures with a view to
14 making it possible for the authorities to function and to facilitate the
15 defence of the population and property in the area of responsibility of
16 the brigade commander.
17 Q. General, can you please go to the last page of this document.
18 And can you please comment on item 5.
19 A. Mr. Krgovic, item 5 is similar to one of the previous documents
20 where we saw that the corps commander is the one designating a military
21 commanding officer to take up command over a police brigade. Similarly,
22 the brigade commander, in this particular instance, who is responsible
23 pursuant to a document issued by the division commander to set up a town
24 defence command and engage and place all forces under single command,
25 hereby appoints a military officer to the post of the chief of the public
1 security station.
2 Q. General, can you please tell us whether the existence of a town
3 defence command was subject to any restrictions and limitations or was
4 that a permanent state? And I'm talking about the -- how it worked in
6 A. The setting up town defence commands, in my opinion, is
7 stipulated by military rules and regulations as an option that should be
8 resorted to only exceptionally. Because, in my view, it is in the
9 interests of both the army and army commanders to have the civilian
10 authorities become operational as soon as possible and that they function
11 properly because soldiers are the one who should be engaged in combat
12 operations, rather than to run the civilian affairs. And that is why I
13 think that these town commands should be formed only exceptionally and
14 that the duration of that state should be as short as possible and that
15 they should be cancelled as soon as the reasons for their existence cease
16 to exist.
17 Q. General, can you please look at another document.
18 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Can the witness be shown
19 Exhibit 2D00132. Tab 86 in the Zupljanin Defence material.
20 Q. General, this is an extract from the minutes of the meeting of
21 the Crisis Staff of Kotor Varos. And you can see here that among those
22 attending this meeting, in addition to members of the Crisis Staff, was
23 Lieutenant-Colonel Peulic. I'm going to read to you item 1:
24 [As read] "the Crisis Staff was familiarized with the military
25 activities of the day by Lieutenant-Colonel Peulic. He also informed the
1 Crisis Staff of a telegram from the Corps Command relating to security
2 for the arrival of the Banja Luka Bishop Komarica for a religious service
3 in Kotor Varos, to be held on Saturday. Measures must be taken to make
4 this possible."
5 And then Mr. Peulic goes onto say: "With regard to the
6 development of events in our area," he ordered that anyone that can carry
7 a rifle must be mobilized. A command -- a defence command must be
8 formed for the defence of town, and he appointed Captain Tepic as the
10 General, could you please comment on this last sentence and this
11 announcement made by Lieutenant-Colonel Peulic?
12 A. Mr. Krgovic, this document does not indicate to what position
13 Lieutenant-Colonel Peulic was holding at the time. I suppose that he was
14 a brigade commander. In compliance with his authorities, he is setting
15 up a command and appointing Captain Tepic, the commander.
16 Q. General, and the last document that I'm going to show is
17 Exhibit 1D00404. It's your tab 104.
18 This is a document you -- signed by Colonel Slavko Lisica, as you
19 can see. In its preamble he makes reference to:
20 [As read] "... the instruction on the work of organs of civilian
21 affairs in times of combat operations and due to demonstrated need, I
22 hereby issue the following order: The Derventa Town Command from today on
23 shall only deal with military issues, whereas, all civilian matters shall
24 be transferred to the civilian authorities?"
25 We heard in your previous answer that there was a restriction or
1 the time limitation for the operational of a town command, and in light
2 of that, can you please comment this document.
3 A. Mr. Krgovic, this order, issued by Colonel Lisica, speaks
4 precisely about the state of affairs in which the conditions for further
5 existence of a town command have ceased to exist, or, rather, that
6 conditions have been created for the civilian authorities to become
7 operational. This is something that we discussed when we commented
8 previous documents.
9 Q. A general question. While a town defence command is functioning,
10 in view of the documents that I show you, to whom are the civilian
11 organs, including the police, are responsible and answerable to?
12 A. First and foremost, they are subordinated to the commander of
13 that command, and they are answerable to them, in terms of their
14 obligation to submit a report on the work that each of them carry out
15 within their respective domains. The town defence commander then
16 forwards these reports to the next level of the command above him.
17 Q. General, thank you.
18 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have no further
19 questions for this witness. Thank you for your patience.
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 JUDGE DELVOIE: Before we go to the cross-examination, could we
22 have P00060.3 on the screen, please.
23 On page 9, line 13 and 14, the interpreters interpreted
24 Mr. Krgovic's question when he cited a document, "establish full
25 co-operation with the authorities in Sanski Most municipality and
1 co-ordinated action with TO and police units."
2 And then, as Judge Harhoff pointed out, the document does not
3 say, translation does not say "co-ordinated action" but says
4 "collaboration." So there is a difference between obviously between
5 interpretation and translation. And on page 20 -- on page 10, line 16,
6 17, and 18, Mr. Krgovic tried to be helpful by testifying that it is a
7 translation mistake. Because the Serbian word "sadejstvo" is correctly
8 translated, he said, as "co-ordinated action." Now it still is as
9 "collaboration" in the document.
10 So I wonder if we should not get it straight officially one way
11 or the other, probably by resubmitting the translation of the document
12 again to --
13 MR. KRGOVIC: I agree, Your Honours, I will do that. I send it
14 to translation.
15 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you very much.
16 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] May I, Your Honours?
17 Cross examination by Mr. Cvijetic:
18 Q. [Interpretation] General, good morning.
19 A. Good morning.
20 Q. I will start my cross-examination by quoting portions of your
21 evidence yesterday.
22 Yesterday you commented on a document which is in tab 15 of the
23 Zupljanin Defence binder, and this is 1D00406. In your report, that's
24 footnote 22. That's where you will find it.
25 You will remember the document.
1 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Could we see page 2.
2 Q. Because that's precisely the page that you covered in your
3 comments. And towards the bottom of that page, it says that this
4 military commander places all police forces under the command of the
5 commander of the area who will, in turn, decide on how to use them.
6 Do you remember discussing this with Mr. Krgovic yesterday?
7 A. Yes. In carrying out combat activities.
8 Q. So you remember it? When asked by His Honour Delvoie as to what
9 that meant, practically, for police, you said that that meant that CSB
10 was basically left without any police members in that area.
11 You also agreed with the comment by His Honour Harhoff stating
12 that that --
13 MS. KORNER: [Previous translation continues] ... I'm sorry, I'm
14 going to object.
15 A. -- unit thus became a legitimate military target. Do you
16 remember that.
17 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] I think the exact words
18 read by the General as opposed to -- said by the General, as opposed to
19 Mr. Cvijetic's summary, need to be read back to him.
20 [Defence counsel confer]
21 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] The General can confirm whether I
22 quoted him correctly but that can be found on pages 16 and 17 of
23 yesterday's transcript.
24 Q. Do you remember discussing this, both with Their Honours and with
25 Mr. Krgovic, these matters?
1 A. Mr. Cvijetic, as far as I remember, I think that only the first
2 of my answers that you referred to is correct; namely, that in this
3 particular case, all police forces were resubordinated to the area
4 commander, thus leaving the CSB without its forces. Or, in other words,
5 without forces needed to carry out police duties.
6 As to the other matter that you mentioned, a comment by the
7 Judge, which I confirmed, that pertained to another document and to
8 another situation; namely, when the brigade commander established a
9 command post in the SJB premises. I made a comment saying that that was
10 not customary and that it thus made the work of that CSB impossible. His
11 Honour Judge Harhoff added that, in that situation that CSB became a
12 legitimate target, which is what I confirmed.
13 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: Not SJB premises but
14 CSB premises.
15 MR. CVIJETIC:
16 Q. [Interpretation] You're correct. You're fully right. I put
17 together those two answers that you gave. You're completely right.
18 Could you please comment on this, because Mr. Zecevic and I
19 concluded that transcript did not accurately reflect what you said.
20 You said that when this commander used the police force in his
21 area for combat activities, you explained what could have possibly led
22 him or induced him to do that. Do you remember giving that answer.
23 MS. KORNER: [Previous translation continues] ... Can I have,
24 please -- I appreciate the problems, Mr. Cvijetic, that he doesn't read
25 English. But Mr. Zecevic does. Could I please have the page and line
1 number of the answer that's being referred to.
2 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I have already said that those
3 were pages 16 and 17 of yesterday's transcript.
4 MS. KORNER: I'd like the proper page numbers of the corrected --
5 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Just a minute. Just a minute.
6 Just be patient. We have found it. Just be patient, please. 23684,
7 lines 5 and 6 is the transcript reference.
8 MS. KORNER: [Previous translation continues] ... Thank you very
10 MR. CVIJETIC:
11 Q. [Interpretation] So I'm asking you directly: What, in your view,
12 could have made that area commander to take this decision?
13 A. Mr. Cvijetic, first and foremost, the specific conditions, the
14 situation, and the course of combat operations; and, primarily, I think
15 that I mentioned the insufficient number of men. Those factors made the
16 commander use police units for combat activities.
17 Q. Very well. General, once an imminent threat of war is declared,
18 once that state was declared in Republika Srpska, priorities were defined
19 in conduct of all state organs, authorities, individuals, army, police,
20 and so on. The main priority was the defence of the country. Wasn't
21 that right?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. All activities of all persons had to be -- had to serve that
24 priority; isn't that right?
25 A. Precisely.
1 Q. And that priority could have been the basis for making this
2 decision, in the case of this commander that we just analysed.
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. The development of war events, insufficient amount of time and
5 men, could have been the factors which, sometimes, made the officers to
6 resubordinate units outside of the regular procedures, because the dire
7 conditions dictated that; right?
8 A. Yes. That's precisely what I spoke of.
9 Q. Very well. In order to illustrate priorities, I will put back
10 the document that you looked at today, which is 1D00264, which is tab 92.
11 Zupljanin binder, the one that you have.
12 It will be easy for you to remember this. We recently saw this.
13 This is the reply of Colonel Lisica to the request made by chief of the
14 Doboj CSB.
15 Do you remember this?
16 A. I do.
17 Q. I will try to have you and me interpret this document from
18 another angle, the angle that wasn't covered earlier.
19 Do you see two things here: One, Colonel Lisica opts for the
20 priority here. He opts for defence; right?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And that is the motive and the reason that guided him in writing
23 this answer; right?
24 A. Right.
25 Q. The second matter that one can see here is that he has the last
1 word. He has the last say in this. He is the one who decides on
2 resubordination and so on; right?
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. Before we turn to the next document, perhaps it would be good if
5 we completed the explanation you gave, the explanation of the last
6 sentence concerning co-operation.
7 Colonel [sic], you have already spoken about joint check-points
8 as a form of co-operation. Do you remember that?
9 A. General, since you are addressing me by my rank. It's General.
10 Q. Could that co-operation take place in prosecuting perpetrators of
11 crimes, with everybody doing what they could within their area of
13 A. I think that that co-operation, that type of co-operation, was
14 possible, but I'm really not very well grounded in that matter.
15 Q. Very well. Or perhaps in an area of seizing or -- seizing
16 unlawful fire-arms.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Let's clarify here. If a large number of residents arm
19 themselves with long barrels or with heavy weapons, then there is a
20 danger of an armed rebellion, and in order to disarm them, it would be
21 the military organs that would be competent for that; right?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. However, citizens are entitled to carry weapons, short -- small
24 arms and hunting rifles, providing they have a permit, weapons permit?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. If they procure and hold such weapons without a permit, then it
2 will be in the jurisdiction of civilian police to seize those weapons
3 from them and to prosecute them.
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. So in an operation of that nature, while co-operating, both of
6 them can do their job, can do their duties; right?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. I will show you a Defence exhibit. I don't know whether you have
9 been given our Defence binder.
10 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I will ask the usher to assist us.
11 Q. Keep the other binder because I may be using the Zupljanin binder
12 as well.
13 Would you now please turn to tab 12, which is 1D99.
14 As you can see, this is an order of the Supreme Commander,
15 Radovan Karadzic, handwritten order, where he, in his capacity of
16 Supreme Commander, decides to or requests that a certain number of police
17 forces - I think 60 of them; it is not legibly written, so I can't tell -
18 be resubordinated to the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps; right?
19 A. Yes. He is not asking. He is not requesting. He is ordering,
20 Mr. Cvijetic.
21 Q. Very well. You anticipated my question. That is precisely the
22 area that I will be focussing on.
23 President Karadzic is both the president and Supreme Commander of
24 armed forces; right?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. In a general manner, according to the laws and regulations,
2 decides about the use of the police; correct?
3 A. Yes. I believe that the Law on Defence says that the president
4 of the republic orders the use of the police in combat.
5 Q. General, this is a document in which Mr. Karadzic directly
6 decides about that. He personally issues the order with regard to the
7 use and resubordination of the police; right?
8 A. Yes, but --
9 Q. Please wait for my question.
10 A. Yes, that's correct.
11 MS. KORNER: [Previous translation continues] ... I'm sorry, the
12 General was about to give the answer and was stopped.
13 [Defence counsel confer]
14 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] There is no problem at all. He
15 will answer once I put my question to him.
16 Q. General, the president is basically a civilian; right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. As a civilian, he is not trained to exercise direct command,
19 especially not everywhere and at every time and that would be a physical
20 impossibility; correct?
21 A. Yes, that's correct.
22 Q. But, exceptionally, he can issue an order such as this one;
24 A. Right.
25 Q. He can give such an order because of the priority that we have
1 already discussed, and that is the Defence of Republika Srpska; do you
2 agree with me?
3 A. Yes, I do.
4 Q. As a rule, he delegates his authority to command to the commander
5 of the Main Staff who, in turn, delegates it to his subordinate officers;
6 is that right?
7 A. That's what the laws and regulations state.
8 Q. Tell me now: Until which lower level was it possible to order
9 resubordination? When I say "level," I mean the rank of the officers or
10 units where resubordination about which you've been talking for a couple
11 of days was possible.
12 A. Down to the level of the brigade command.
13 Q. Very well. Let me immediately show you the following document.
14 It is under tab 13, and it is Exhibit 1D100.
15 Please read it and then we'll comment before the break.
16 General, the minister of the interior, Mico Stanisic, is pointing
17 out the same problems that Andrija Bjelosevic, chief of the Doboj CSB,
18 had also pointed out. The police being used for combat activity is
19 something that jeopardizes the work of the organs of the interior.
20 Do you agree?
21 A. Yes, I do.
22 Q. However, the order of the Supreme Commander is -- has the
23 uppermost, the highest priority and had to be executed; correct?
24 A. Yes. An order of a commander must be executed unconditionally
25 and especially an order issued by the president of the republic.
1 Q. In case of non-obedience to this order, the minister would have
2 been subjected to sanctions; correct?
3 A. Yes, that is correct.
4 Q. And let us finish this topic before the break because I have
5 something else for after the -- for the time after the break.
6 You spoke about the principles governing the functioning of the
7 military and the rules and regulations in that regard, but you will
8 certainly agree with me that the conduct, conduct of military officers in
9 the field and the local authorities, especially at the beginning of the
10 war, may also have been influenced by other factors, due to which fact
11 not everything could be in line with the rules and regulations,
12 international conventions, et cetera.
13 Do you agree?
14 A. I do.
15 Q. In the introductory part of your report, you mentioned the fact
16 that -- that many military officers were insufficiently trained to lead
17 the army; is that correct?
18 A. Yes, it is.
19 Q. I'll add some other reasons. The state couldn't start
20 functioning in all segments and in the entire territory at the beginning;
22 A. I agree with you.
23 Q. Military organisation and the organisation of the police couldn't
24 be set up overnight in such a manner as to enable them to function
25 flawlessly; is that correct?
1 A. I agree with you.
2 Q. I suppose that when you are preparing to write your report, and
3 even later, you were able to see decisions of the Crisis Staffs, who were
4 the main authorities in that transitional period who even interfered with
5 defence matters and public security matters.
6 Were you able to see such decisions?
7 A. Yes, I was able to see such documents.
8 Q. Some decisions on the ground were also due to incompetence and
9 disorientation of local -- local officers and commanders; correct?
10 A. That is correct. There were such incidents in the war.
11 Q. And to finish with, in practice and in the documents, were you
12 able to see instances of misuse of police units for combat when there was
13 no justified reason for that?
14 A. Well, I don't remember.
15 Q. But do you allow for that possibility?
16 A. Well, yes, I do allow for the possibility.
17 Q. Very well.
18 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I note the time. I
19 believe it's time for the break, and I would have moved onto another
20 topic anyway.
21 JUDGE HALL: So resume in 20 minutes.
22 [The witness stands down]
23 --- Recess taken at 12.05 p.m.
24 --- On resuming at 12.33 p.m.
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE HALL: While the witness is on his way in, Ms. Korner had
2 asked for ten minutes to deal with this what is now a controversy about
3 the maps. Is there any reason why instead of squeezing it in today, we
4 don't wait until Mr. Cvijetic's cross-examination is finished and we deal
5 with it then, before you pick up your cross-examination.
6 MS. KORNER: None at all, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE HALL: Thanks.
8 [The witness takes the stand]
9 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
10 Q. General, I would like to deal with the introductory part of your
11 report now, and, more specifically, paragraph 2.
12 I will paraphrase because we can all read it anyway. You are
13 saying there that after the breakup of the former SFRY the newly created
14 republics were facing a problem. Possibly lacuna because they didn't
15 have any laws and regulations governing defence so that they had to adopt
16 such laws and regulations urgently. That wasn't an easy thing to
17 accomplish, though, so that in the meantime they had to rely on the old
18 federal laws and regulations.
19 Is that what you say in your paragraph 2?
20 A. Yes, I agree with you.
21 Q. The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was a federation
22 that constituted of six republics.
23 A. And two autonomous provinces; I agree.
24 Q. In the delimitations of powers between the Federation and the
25 federal units, it was the Federation that had remit in defence that,
1 among others, the elaboration of the strategy of All People's Defence,
2 and the only legal armed force, which was the Yugoslav People's Army?
3 A. Yes, that's correct.
4 Q. For that reason, the SFRY adopted the foundation, the legislative
5 foundation which was implemented in all federal units; is that correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. I'll list some of these laws and regulations, such as: The Law
8 on All People's Defence; the strategy of All People's Defence and social
9 self-protection; and Yugoslavia, as a federation, was also signatory to
10 all international conventions, governing, among other, international
11 humanitarian law; is that correct?
12 A. I agree with you.
13 Q. The federal units, republics, had the right to further elaborate
14 the system of All People's Defence and social self-protection and take it
15 to even lower levels. That is, municipalities, enterprises, and so on.
16 And to achieve that, they had the right to adopt republican legislation;
18 A. That's how it was regulated.
19 Q. However, General, all these republican laws and regulations had
20 to be in accordance with the federal laws and regulations, and they were
21 implemented parallelly, weren't they?
22 A. That is correct.
23 Q. And, now, the problem arose which you dealt with in paragraph 2.
24 Yugoslavia was breaking apart and so was its legal system, and the newly
25 established countries don't have their own, so they want to bridge that
1 lacuna by implementing the old legislation and, also, adopting their own
2 new legislation; is that correct?
3 A. That is correct.
4 Q. General, there was a two-fold problem in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
5 First, the Federation broke up, and Bosnia-Herzegovina was
6 internationally recognised as a new country. But inside
7 Bosnia-Herzegovina, it also disintegrated and was split into entities; is
8 that correct?
9 A. That's how it was.
10 Q. So that both Bosnia-Herzegovina and the entities are faced with
11 the same problem: They must bridge the lacuna.
12 A. I agree with you.
13 Q. I'm going to show you two documents now. Tab 2 in the
14 Stanisic Defence binder, and the exhibit number is 1D103.
15 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] 1D103, yes, that's correct now.
16 Q. General, this is the decision on proclaiming the constitutional
17 law for the implementation of the constitution of the Serb Republic of
18 Bosnia and Herzegovina.
19 Let us go to the following page immediately and find Article 12.
20 You are familiar with this provision, General, because I noted
21 that you cited it in one of your footnotes, which means that you must
22 have read it.
23 Is it correct that you read it?
24 A. Yes, it is.
25 Q. Under Article 12, the Serbian Republic of BH takes over all laws
1 and regulations that were implemented in the Socialist Republic of BH in
2 the manner stated here. If they conform to the constitution and until
3 the regulations of the RS are adopted; is that correct?
4 A. Yes, it is.
5 Q. You will agree with me, won't you, that this is one of the ways,
6 a general one, of filling the lacuna, the one that you spoke of?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. I will show you another regulation now, which is tab 3 in your
9 binder, and that's 65 ter 08018.
10 THE REGISTRAR: It is L33, Your Honours.
11 MR. CVIJETIC: Okay. Thank you. [Interpretation] Thank you.
12 Q. General, this is the Law on National Defence, and in the
13 introductory part you can see that it was adopted on the 28th of
14 February, 1992. Do you see that?
15 A. I am familiar with that.
16 Q. So together with the constitution and the constitutional law,
17 this Law on National Defence was adopted too.
18 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Could we now see the very end of
19 this law.
20 Q. I will give you the pages so that you can find it.
21 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] We need page 15 in the Serbian
22 version and page 18 in the English.
23 Q. We need precisely this Article that is on the screen now; Article
25 General, have you had a chance to read it?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Here, when dealing with the matters of national defence the
3 Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina took over the provisions of
4 federal laws from the same area, declaring that in cases of threat to the
5 interests of the republic and so on. You see what it says in the
7 A. Yes, I see, and I agree with you.
8 Q. Then you will agree with me, that by combining the two
9 regulations, the ones that I have just shown you, in the Republika Srpska
10 in the matters of national defence, all republican and all federal
11 regulations and laws that were in force until then became operational.
12 They were incorporated.
13 A. Yes, that's right.
14 Q. And you will agree with me that that meant that the legal system
15 of Republika Srpska from then on encompassed all regulations from that
16 area. In your report, you have a chapter dealing with the relevant legal
17 principles, and now these principles became part of this new legal
18 system. This is in item -- or paragraph 100 of your report and onwards.
19 Is that correct? Am I right?
20 A. You are right, Mr. Cvijetic.
21 Q. The reason why I started discussing this topic with you are
22 precisely the principles.
23 Yesterday, or perhaps even today, you were shown a document from
24 the Zupljanin Defence binder. I wrote it down as being tab 20. So let's
25 open it together.
1 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] This is 65 ter 45D2?
2 Q. Have you found it, General? We need the portion dealing with
4 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Do we have it on the screens? We
5 need Article 173, which has a commentary underneath. We have it.
6 Q. Do you see the text of Article 173 and the commentary, General?
7 Have you had a chance to read it?
8 A. Yes, I have, Mr. Cvijetic.
9 Q. So the Army of Republika Srpska is based on the principles,
10 fundamental principles, that you, yourself, deal with in paragraph 100 of
11 your report. That is to say, the principles of unity of command,
12 subordination, singleness of command, and so on; right?
13 A. Yes, right. But to be even more specific, let me emphasise that
14 it is the command of the army that is based on these principles.
15 Q. I fully agree, and that's what the text says.
16 A. You said it is the army that is based.
17 Q. General, the Yugoslav People's Army functioned on the same
18 principles, didn't it?
19 A. That's right. And we discussed that as well.
20 Q. Would you agree with me that the army of what we called old
21 Yugoslavia, before World War II, functioned on the same principles?
22 A. I agree with you.
23 Q. Given your training and education, you studied military doctrines
24 of other countries. I'm sure that you must have been in touch -- in
25 touch with your colleagues, officers from other armies. Therefore, could
1 you confirm to me that these same principles are applied in other armies,
2 in other countries, and have been throughout history?
3 A. According to what I know, yes, that's right.
4 Q. So would you agree with me that these basic principles in command
5 precede any of the laws that we have here. And would you confirm that
6 all armies in the world, including ours, used these principles, based on
7 their own military doctrine and their own practice?
8 A. I agree with you.
9 Q. Thank you.
10 I will now turn to paragraph 54 of your report so that we can
11 perhaps make a correction or supplement what is stated in your report.
12 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] So could we please now read
13 paragraph 54. We need to see it on the screens for Their Honours.
14 Q. You discuss regulations here, those adopted by the
15 National Assembly, and you say that the Assembly adopted the Law on
16 Defence and the Law on the Army. And then, in the footnote, you specify
17 the dates.
18 You will agree with me, won't you, that you omitted to mention
19 here the Law on National Defence dated 28th of February, 1992. Because
20 that was the first enactment adopted in that field, and we have just
21 quoted it.
22 A. I agree with you, Mr. Cvijetic. Your observation is fully
23 accurate. And, yes, I know about that law, the Law on Defence, from
24 February of 1992.
25 Q. Very well. Thank you.
1 I will now turn to another topic. But before I put my question
2 to you, I will call a document to the screen. That's a document in tab 4
3 of our binder. This document is already in our law library, under L1.
4 We can see now that this is the well-known federal Law on All
5 People's Defence; right?
6 A. Yes. And I have used this law in my report.
7 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Could we now turn to English
8 page 67, and page 18 in the Serbian version.
9 Q. You have mentioned Article 104 in your report and also discussed
10 it at length with Mr. Krgovic. Therefore, I will not deal with it. I
11 will turn to something else, something that we haven't delved into
12 before, so I will ask you to read Article 105.
13 Have you managed to read it?
14 A. Yes, I have read Article 105.
15 Q. General, let's make sure that we remember who decides on the use
16 of these forces. It says here that it is the Presidency, as a collective
17 organ, that decides on the use of forces; right?
18 A. The use --
19 Q. Yes, it says in paragraph 2 of this article that it is the
20 Presidency that decides on it.
21 A. No. It says that "pursuant to a decision of the Presidency," it
22 is the authorised organ that decides.
23 Q. I just wanted to make sure that we remember that it is the
24 Presidency because we will turn to the republican regulation.
25 Let me ask you directly: Could you please explain to us the
1 logic of this resubordination when it comes to the use of the TO units in
2 maintaining law and order? In order for you to be able to give me an
3 answer, we need to check the regulation that I have just mentioned; that
4 is, Regulation L26 in our law library.
5 You have it in your tab 5.
6 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] We are still waiting for the
7 English version. If it's not been translated in full, can we just have
8 page 16 in the Serbian version.
9 Can we zoom in on Article 107.
10 Q. General, would you be so kind to read slowly, as you normally
11 talk, this article, so that the interpreters can interpret it and so that
12 all the parties in the courtroom can hear what is written here.
13 So please read it slowly.
14 A. [As read] "The Presidency of the Socialist Republic of
15 Bosnia-Herzegovina, pursuant to a decision of the Presidency of the
16 Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia referred to in Article 105 of
17 the federal law" - and I would like to add the one that we have already
18 seen - "shall order the use of the Territorial Defence units to carry out
19 tasks of public peace and order and to carry out other tasks of social
21 Second paragraph of the same article reads as follows:
22 [As read] "The Territorial Defence units shall be subordinated to
23 the interior affairs organ in charge while performing duties and tasks
24 from Article 105, paragraph 1, of the federal law."
25 This is the end of this paragraph.
1 Q. Thank you, sir. Now my question is the following: Now, where is
2 the logic of this subordination?
3 A. Mr. Cvijetic, what we have here is units of Territorial Defence
4 taking part in the performance of the duty of maintaining public law and
5 order and carrying out tasks which are, in fact, part of the jurisdiction
6 of the Ministry of Interior. That is, in fact, one of their basic
8 Resubordination is being effected in this particular case on the
9 basis of the same logic that we discussed these days because police units
10 are better trained to carry out these tasks than Territorial Defence
11 units, and it is only reasonable that in command and in charge here is
12 the party that is trained and qualified to do so. And as for this task
13 and this particular case, that would be police units or organs of the
15 Q. Sir, we both remember the time when this law was adopted, and
16 this was used if we had major riots or disturbances following football
17 matches and situations of that sort, when the police was -- were unable
18 to cope with the number of rioters; is that correct?
19 A. Yes, that's correct. But there were also situations of that sort
20 in Kosovo as well.
21 Q. So if we follow the same logic now, in wartime, the police force
22 must be resubordinated to the army and Territorial Defence because waging
23 war and defence fall under the jurisdiction of the army and the
24 Territorial Defence who are trained for that.
25 Is that the prevailing logic?
1 A. I agree with you, and I would like to add this. That this
2 applies to wartime; whereas everything else that you said still stands.
3 Q. General, in your report -- now my colleague is telling me that
4 what you said about combat operations hasn't been interpreted.
5 Can you please repeat your answer.
6 A. I agree with you, with your observation, and I would be more
7 precise by adding that in wartime and during combat operation. As for
8 everything else, it remains and is consistent with what you said.
9 Q. So, you said this a number of times, and that is, that the police
10 is not trained and qualified to participate in war as an armed force.
11 A. Yes. To take part in combat operations.
12 Q. Their participation in combat operations, based on the principle
13 of resubordination of which you discussed extensively, should be an
14 example rather than a rule; is that correct -- should be an exception
15 rather than a rule.
16 A. Yes, I agree with you.
17 Q. That would be in compliance with the federal regulations and the
18 republican regulations. In other words, in 1992, the police was not part
19 of the armed forces of the Republika Srpska, nor was it part of the armed
20 forces of ex-Yugoslavia; is that correct? The police force was not part
21 of the armed force.
22 A. That's correct.
23 Q. However, sir, in your report, in paragraph 57, you state that in
24 1994 a change occurred. The police units became part of the armed forces
25 of Republika Srpska and appropriate regulations were adopted to that end.
1 Is that what your paragraph 57 say?
2 A. Yes, that's correct.
3 Q. General, you expressed your own reservation vis-a-vis the
4 decision of competent authorities of Republika Srpska in terms of being
5 authorised to adopt these kind of regulations by abiding -- by abiding by
6 the principle that the police was not trained to carry out this kind of
8 A. I said that it was not a usual occurrence for police forces to be
9 part of armed forces.
10 Q. When you discussed this, we haven't seen this particular
11 regulation from 1994, and I think it would be helpful if we look at it so
12 that we can see in what way the police was incorporated into the armed
13 forces, and this has to do with the principles that we discussed. And,
14 for that purpose, we need a document which is in our law library, and
15 that's L317.
16 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Let us look at page 2 in the
17 Serbian and page 3 in English.
18 Can we zoom in on Article 2.
19 Q. And, General, it's your tab 7 in your binder so you may find it
20 easier to read from the hard copy.
21 Have you found it?
22 A. Yes, I have.
23 Q. This is the Law on the Implementation of the Law on In case of an
24 imminent threat of war or a state of war. And, indeed, in Article 2, it
25 is said exactly as you commented, i.e., that units of the Ministry of the
1 Interior shall become part of the armed forces.
2 Is that what is directly stemming from this article?
3 A. Yes, that's correct.
4 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Can we please have page 4 in the
5 Serbian version of this same document, and page 9 of the English version.
6 We need Article 4. Can we zoom in, please.
7 Q. General, have you managed to read the article? If not, can you
8 please read it out loud.
9 Have you read it?
10 A. Yes, I have.
11 Q. So the amendment to the Law on National Defence is accompanied by
12 appropriate amendment to -- to the Law on the Interior, and it is now
13 provided in detail how units of the interior shall become a part of the
14 armed forces.
15 General, in principle or, rather, let's say that the basic
16 principle remains unchanged. The Supreme Commander remained in command
17 of the army; is that correct?
18 A. Yes. The principle of singleness of authority remains in place
19 because the president of the republic is the Commander-in-Chief of the
20 armed forces.
21 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Let's move now to page 5 in the
22 Serbian version and page 12 in the English version.
23 We need Article 14.
24 Q. Can you please read it carefully and in its entirety.
25 A. Shall I quote Article 4 [as interpreted]?
1 Q. No, no, read it to yourself?
2 A. I've read it.
3 Q. Now, General, if you read it carefully none of the principles
4 that we discussed was changed: The singleness, the resubordination,
5 and --
6 A. And I would add to this, singleness of authority.
7 Q. So even when officially and legally the police force became a
8 part of the armed forces, they are participating on the basis of the
9 principle of resubordination to the army and are integrated into the
10 system of military units, based on the principle of subordination and the
11 execution of commands issued by military commanders; is that correct?
12 A. Yes, it is.
13 Q. General, if we read Article 14 carefully, it seems that the
14 legislature's intention was only to regulate the participation of police
15 in combat operations only when it is resubordinated. They wanted to
16 introduce a certain order in that system, rather than to turn it into
17 a -- an armed force, because we see that basically nothing has been
19 A. I agree with you.
20 Q. Do we also agree that all these principles are obviously older
21 than the law itself?
22 A. Yes, indeed.
23 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to move
24 onto another topic so if that is not a problem, we can finish a bit
25 earlier. I planned my examination with regard to Ms. Korner's need for
1 some time toward the end. But if you so prefer, I can also continue for
2 a while.
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE HALL: How much longer do you expect you would be,
5 Mr. Cvijetic?
6 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I'm certain that I will finish
7 tomorrow by the end of the first session.
8 JUDGE HALL: And are you telling us that you can't usefully make
9 use of the next 19 minutes?
10 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if you insist, I can
11 begin. I -- my proposal was only to stop now because I am about to deal
12 with a completely different topic.
13 JUDGE HALL: Well, perhaps notwithstanding what I indicated at
14 the beginning of this session, if it's the better use of time we could go
15 back to what we originally planned and deal with this map situation. If
16 that's convenient, Ms. Korner, Mr. Zecevic.
17 MS. KORNER: Well, it's what we originally suggested,
18 Your Honour. But I fail to see how Mr. Cvijetic could have planned his
19 cross-examination on the basis that he was going to stop ten minutes, as
20 we never suggested it until we way into morning. However, Your Honours,
21 as I said I'm happy to deal with it whenever.
22 JUDGE HALL: So we -- we would do that.
23 General, you would have gathered from what has just passed
24 between the Bench and counsel that we have certain procedural matters
25 with which to deal and therefore we would excuse you a little early
1 today, and -- so the usher would escort you from the courtroom now but we
2 ourselves would not be rising immediately.
3 So we would continue your cross-examination by Mr. Cvijetic
4 tomorrow, and I believe we're back in Courtroom II tomorrow.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
7 [The witness stands down]
8 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, the witness is asking whether he can
9 take the ...
10 JUDGE HALL: I'm sorry.
11 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, but the witness is asking whether he can
12 take this document with him.
13 JUDGE HALL: Ms. Korner, do you have a problem?
14 MS. KORNER: No, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE HALL: Yes. Yes.
16 MS. KORNER: I have no doubt he looked at them with Mr. Cvijetic
17 when Mr. Cvijetic spoke to him in any event.
18 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE DELVOIE: Before -- before we get to the maps, it's perhaps
21 a good moment to remind the parties of the Andan document that they will
22 have received by now. And ask for the parties' submissions on that.
23 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, Mr. Hannis who dealt with this witness,
24 as far as -- as far as the Office of the Prosecutor is concerned, is
25 proposing to ask that it be admitted. It's apparently an identical copy
1 of another document that is already an exhibit but without the signatures
2 or something like that. So that there's no translation needed but I
3 thought we would leave that to Mr. Hannis to deal with it.
4 I don't know what the Defence want to do with it.
5 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Zecevic.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, that is precisely the case. The
7 witness testified that is he in possession of the identical document but
8 without the signature and then he was requested -- there was a request
9 and the order by the Trial Chamber that he provides that document.
10 As far as I can see, it's the identical as the document that we
11 have exhibited.
12 JUDGE DELVOIE: And you agree with Ms. Korner speaking for
13 Mr. Hannis that it -- the document should be admitted?
14 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, if -- if it pleases the Court. I don't see
15 any particular reason why it should be admitted. Because it's the
16 original document -- it's the -- it's the identical copy of the document
17 which is already an exhibit. Only without the signature. But if it
18 pleases the Court, we do not object this document be exhibited also.
19 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Krgovic.
20 MR. KRGOVIC: I have no problem, Your Honours.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE DELVOIE: Ms. Korner, if we have two identical documents,
23 one with and one without signatures and stamps why should we admit also
24 the one that is without anything?
25 MS. KORNER: I haven't the faintest idea, Your Honours, because I
1 don't remember the first thing about the evidence of Mr. Andan. But I
2 know that Mr. Hannis thinks there is a point. I believe it's to support
3 his credibility. I discussed it -- I'm being given information.
4 I think, Your Honours -- I've been given information, but I think
5 it would be better if Mr. Hannis makes the submissions himself.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE DELVOIE: Madam Registrar, could the document be given a --
8 an exhibit number, the same exhibit number as the -- the signed one but
9 with a decimal number, .1.
10 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
11 THE REGISTRAR: Then this would be P2349.1, Your Honours.
12 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you very much.
13 MS. KORNER: Thank you very much, Your Honours. I know
14 Mr. Hannis will be delighted.
15 Your Honours, can I just very briefly tell Your Honours what --
16 do Your Honours have the binder here with the ethnic maps? There are 19
17 in total. Admitted so far out of the 19 are 9. I want the other 10,
18 please, admitted. I don't know how we failed to notice that we haven't
19 had them all admitted but there is no rhyme or reason to it. And that's
20 our application.
21 JUDGE HARHOFF: Ms. Korner, can I just make sure that the one
22 that we're speaking of is dated 2010 down at the right-hand side of the
23 cover page, at the bottom?
24 We have two --
25 MS. KORNER: Yes, Your Honours, that's right. It starts with 1,
1 Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina and ends, 19, Zvornik.
2 JUDGE HARHOFF: Correct.
3 MS. KORNER: That's the one. And, Your Honours, if necessary, I
4 can give you the ones which are already admitted, and the ones that
6 JUDGE HALL: So, Mr. Zecevic, could we hear the basis on which
7 you have a difficulty with this application.
8 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes, Your Honours. We do object to this admittance
9 of these ethnic maps, and the -- and the time of admission, if I may say
10 so, proposed by Ms. Korner. Namely, Your Honours, on page 15216, the
11 matter was raised for the first time with Your Honours on the 1st of
12 October 2010. And Your Honour, Judge Hall, said, on -- when Ms. Pidwell
13 was approaching the Trial Chamber concerning this map and Your Honour
15 [As read] "My recollection is that the pieces of it have migrated
16 into the trial as separate exhibits. So consistent with that, I suppose
17 we would exhibit this page."
18 On the 21st of October, 2010, page -- transcript page 16333,
19 Ms. Korner was, again, raising the matter. And Your Honours said:
20 [As read] "It was pointed out to me" - Your Honour, Judge Hall -
21 "but it was pointed out to me that from the time we would have started,
22 separate pages have been individually exhibited and I --"
23 And Ms. Korner then says yes.
24 And Your Honour says: "And I having started out down that path,
25 we must continue."
1 Therefore, the -- the -- the -- the decision of the Trial Chamber
2 was that each and every ethnical map will be separately introduced in the
3 exhibit. At that point Ms. Korner says:
4 [As read] "Well, I think probably the answer is, Your Honour,
5 when we file the bar table motion, if we can just throw in the maps that
6 have already -- that have not already been exhibited as part of that and
7 rather than starting to work out which ones are in and which ones aren't
9 Therefore, Your Honours, at the very least on two occasions which
10 I could find in the transcript the matter was raised. The Office of the
11 Prosecutor said that they would offer them -- these maps as a part of
12 their bar table motion and they haven't. In the meantime, they closed
13 their case and now they want to introduce these maps during the -- the --
14 the Zupljanin case, after Stanisic case was closed.
15 Your Honours, if -- if Ms. Korner would have done what she
16 proposed to do, namely, to offer these documents as -- as part of the --
17 the bar table motion, I would have explained, to the very detail, why I
18 object and why I say these ethnic maps are completely unreliable. I
19 made -- I made a reference to that on -- on the 1st of September, 2010,
20 transcript page 14029 to 14032, when I tried to explain why precisely
21 after one of the witnesses was actually questioning the -- the -- the
22 accuracy of these maps or didn't accept what was proposed and what was
23 stated in this map as accurate.
24 And then we had the argument, and I -- and I explained why I
25 think these maps are unreliable. And I am prepared to give, if
1 Your Honours, I'm prepared to give my reasons why I -- why I say so, that
2 the maps unreliable if Your Honours will permit to do that at that point.
3 MS. KORNER: Perhaps you would like to read Judge Hall's response
4 to your objection as well.
5 MR. ZECEVIC: Ms. Korner, thank you very much but I think you
6 will have the opportunity to address the Court at the proper time. And
8 JUDGE HALL: Since we're at this point, can you remind me as to
9 what my response was.
10 MR. ZECEVIC: I don't know which objection Ms. Korner is
11 [Overlapping speakers] ...
12 MS. KORNER: [Overlapping speakers] ... There was only -- Your
13 Honour, there was one objection, which was never raised again, at that
14 stage about the accuracy of these maps and when it was raised by
15 Mr. Zecevic, Your Honour Judge Hall said:
16 [As read] "Mr. Zecevic, save for maps which are confined to
17 showing geographical features, all maps could probably be criticised as
18 being politically biased in some way or other and it seems to me that,
19 save for counsel giving evidence, which at one point I thought you were
20 in danger of doing, the problem, which the OTP probably accepts, is
21 cured. If cured, it could be by the oral testimony they just elicited
22 from the witness. So in other words the Chambers would have the map and
23 to the extent there are any flaws the Chamber would then have to look at
24 it alongside the explanation given by this witness or any other witness."
25 Your Honours, if you look at the maps, you will see that they
1 repeat the statistics, which are not disputed, of the ethnic breakdown of
2 the municipalities. They also show in -- in -- in colour form, the
3 rough, and it is accepted you can't be entirely accurate, breakdown of
4 each of the villages shown on the map. It is not, in our submission, a
5 question of admissibility. Your Honours have admitted them in each case.
6 It's a question of weight. And, as I say, the statistics which are given
7 at the top are undisputed in this case. They come from the census held
8 in 1991.
9 JUDGE HALL: Thank you for that, Ms. Korner.
10 Mr. Zecevic, what I was -- my inclination is this. First of all,
11 do I appreciate that your objection is two-fold. One, is the time; and,
12 secondly, is the reliability -- whatever is -- it seems to me that in
13 terms of the matter of reliability, as Ms. Korner has reminded us the
14 view of the chamber was that this is a matter for argumentation. It is
15 it inevitable there is controversy in that regard. So it would be a
16 question of weight.
17 But in terms of the other question it seems to me that this rides
18 alongside a motion which the -- I don't know if it's a motion but there
19 is a matter which the Chamber now has under consideration and that is
20 about death certificates. And the Chamber is -- has that under active
21 consideration so could we, inasmuch as the reasoning would be identical,
22 should we wait until we have decided the -- what, in our view, is the
23 correct answer to that issue, and the -- your objection about timing
24 would then be solved or not solved by that decision?
25 MR. ZECEVIC: You're precisely correct, Your Honours. I do
1 believe that this -- the way how -- how the Office of the Prosecutor
2 tried to -- to -- or requested that these documents be admitted is
3 actually a motion to reopen their case and therefore it is quite similar
4 to the issue of the death charts, which -- and I agree that the most
5 sensible way would be to -- to -- to decide on both matters
6 simultaneously when the Trial Chamber is deciding on -- on the proper
7 motion which was made by -- by the Office of the Prosecutor concerning
8 the death charts.
9 But concerning the reliability of this -- these documents, what I
10 was trying to say, Your Honours, is that there is one slight point which
11 I would like to raise. In -- I do agree with Your Honours that it goes
12 to the weight, but in this precise case, where we had the witness who
13 says, This map is not accurate, this map is wrong, then -- then it is
14 possible for Your Honours and everybody else to assess the weight of --
15 of that particular map. And that is precisely why these maps should --
16 should be tendered through the witnesses.
17 In this occasion, we will not have any witness to confirm or to
18 challenge the accuracy of that map. And I stay with what I said, despite
19 what Ms. Korner is saying, that these maps are -- are not reliable and
20 that -- that they were produced by one of the parties to the conflict in
21 the former Yugoslavia for a specific purpose.
22 Thank you.
23 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
24 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] add something else. It's
25 not quite --
1 JUDGE HALL: [Microphone not activated] May I have a moment,
3 MS. KORNER: Oh, sorry.
4 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
5 MS. KORNER: Can I just say one thing --
6 JUDGE HALL: Ms. Korner, it appears to us that this matter is not
7 as easily resolved as we first thought it would be, and we think that
8 procedurally, the Prosecution should file a motion, whether it's a
9 supplement to the --
10 MS. KORNER: [Overlapping speakers] ... But, Your Honour, it's
11 not the same. That's what I was about to say. I'm sorry to interrupt,
12 Your Honour, but just very quickly, because I know you've got to rise.
13 It's not the same category as the death certificates. It is not new
14 evidence. They have all been there, they have all been used in one form
15 or another. We forgot - there's no other word for it - when we were
16 plowing through the MFI documents and the ones we hadn't gotten in, to
17 add the maps as we said we would in the bar table motion.
18 JUDGE HALL: I hear everything you have said, and may I
19 respectfully suggest that you advise yourself as to what to call the
20 motion that you would file.
21 MS. KORNER: I think I will express my feelings to your legal
22 officer after court.
23 Your Honours, for that reason, if Your Honours prefer, we'll put
24 it in writing.
25 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
1 So we take the adjournment to resume tomorrow.
2 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.49 p.m.,
3 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 8th day of
4 September, 2011, at 9.00 a.m.