1 Thursday, 8 September 2011 2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning to
6 everyone in and around the courtroom.
7 This is case IT-08-91-T, the Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and
8 Stojan Zupljanin.
9 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
10 Good morning to everyone. May we have the appearances, please.
11 MS. KORNER: Good morning, Your Honours. Joanna Korner and
12 Crispian Smith for the Prosecution.
13 MR. ZECEVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Slobodan Zecevic,
14 Slobodan Cvijetic, and Ms. Deirdre Montgomery, appearing for Stanisic
15 Defence this morning. Thank you.
16 MR. KRGOVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Dragan Krgovic,
17 Aleksandar Aleksic, and Miroslav Cuskic, appearing for Zupljanin Defence.
18 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
19 And if there is no reason to delay it, may the usher please
20 escort the witness back to the stand.
21 [The witness takes the stand]
22 JUDGE HALL: General Kovacevic, good morning to you. Before I
23 invite Mr. Cvijetic to continue his cross-examination, I give you the
24 usual reminder about your solemn declaration.
25 Yes, Mr. Cvijetic.
1 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
2 WITNESS: VIDOSAV KOVACEVIC [Resumed]
3 [Witness answered through interpreter]
4 Cross-examination by Mr. Cvijetic: [Continued]
5 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, General.
6 A. Good morning.
7 Q. We're going to continue, and I'm going to show you an exhibit
8 that we saw yesterday but not these particular provisions. So this is
9 L31, exhibit from our law library.
10 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction, L33.
11 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. And it's your tab 3.
13 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] We have to wait for the document
14 to appear on our screens. At least there's nothing on my screen. Now we
15 have it.
16 Q. Let us just look which particular piece of legislation this is.
17 This is the Law on National Defence of the Serbian Republic of
18 Bosnia-Herzegovina. We looked at it yesterday. That's the law dated
19 28th of February, 1992, which you can see the heading.
20 Can you see the heading?
21 A. Yes, I can.
22 Q. And let's move immediately to page 2 in the Serbian, and the same
23 page in the English version.
24 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] We need Article 6.
25 Q. General, could you please just take a look at it to see what it
2 A. I am familiar with this particular article, and I relied on it in
3 my report.
4 Q. What I would like to emphasise is that in the process of
5 organising and preparing for the defence, among other powers that the
6 president of the republic has, can order the use of the police unit
7 during wartime and in peacetime and also in some other emergency
9 Now, General, this is consistent with your position and also the
10 position that stems from the principle of singleness of authority; is
11 that correct?
12 A. Yes. And we have here the president discharging the duties of
13 the Commander-in-Chief.
14 Q. Now, while we are still on this article, let us just elaborate a
16 In other words, nobody else in the military hierarchy except the
17 president of the republic cannot order this particular use; is that
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. This cannot be the prerogative of the minister of the interior
21 even, to order the police to take part in armed activities?
22 A. Unless the president of the republic delegates some of his powers
23 on him, then that is the case.
24 Q. Yesterday we said that it was possible for the president to
25 delegate --
1 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please slow down and could
2 the speakers please pause between questions and answers. Thank you.
3 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I'm going to repeat my question
4 because it's not been recorded due to the fastness of my speech.
5 Q. So yesterday we discussed and talked about the fact that the
6 president of the republic may delegate this particular power to the
7 commander of the Main Staff, the commander of the Main Staff can delegate
8 it to the corps commander, and the corps commander can delegate it to the
9 brigade commander.
10 Now, you explained to me that these powers can be transferred up
11 to that level. These powers relating to the use of police units and the
12 process of resubordination; is that correct?
13 A. Yes, it is.
14 Q. If the minister of the interior decides independently, without
15 relying on any order or a request coming from the military structures and
16 military command, to use the police, that would constitute the
17 overstepping of his authorities, and he would encroach on the
18 competencies of military organs and commanding officers; is that correct?
19 MS. KORNER: I'm sorry. Before the general answers, it's unclear
20 to me what the question is. If the minister of the interior decides
21 independently without relying on any order or request coming from the
22 military structures, military -- to use the police.
23 To use the police to do what?
24 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. I said but obviously it wasn't interpreted to use it in armed
2 Is now question now complete? General, can you give me an
4 In such case, he would be overstepping his authorities and he
5 would encroach on the authorities that he is not entitled to, those of
6 the president and others from the military hierarchy?
7 A. I have been speaking these last few days about combat activities
8 where only singleness of command and resubordination can exist. And
9 therefore I agree with you. And I would like to underline that that
10 applies only to combat activities as Ms. Korner rightly pointed out.
11 Q. The minister of the interior, within the ministry, may order this
12 kind of use but exclusively by doing so and executing an order of the
13 superior command. He can never do it independently; is that correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Very well. Let's move now to page --
16 JUDGE HALL: [Previous translation continues] ... Mr. Cvijetic,
17 before you move on.
18 General, the -- I understand perfectly the answers that you have
19 given to the series of questions that Mr. Cvijetic put, but is there such
20 a thing, in practice, as an implied delegation or the -- having regard to
21 the theoretical and formal structures, particularly based in the laws
22 that you have prescribed, did it always have to be formal and specific?
23 Do you understand my question?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I'm afraid I haven't
25 quite understood your question. Are you talking about the use of police
1 or about the powers that the minister has?
2 Can you please be more specific.
3 JUDGE HALL: Well, I'm thinking of the -- the delegation of
4 authority to the minister, and I'm concentrating on the answers that you
5 gave to Mr. Cvijetic's last set of questions. The -- could there be or
6 was there ever a situation in practice where, although there was no
7 specific directive or permission given to the minister to have the police
8 engage in combat activities, within the practice of what was happening at
9 the time, could the minister have -- could it be implied that the
10 minister had any such authority, although no paper trail, as it were, of
11 any such delegation could ever be found.
12 Is that clearer?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Now I understand your question,
14 Mr. President.
15 It is possible these things happened in practice. But, in my
16 view, it is much less relevant how a certain police unit becomes
17 integrated into army structure. The military theory and the rules and
18 regulations say that once it becomes part of the military structure,
19 which means as part of combat activities, there can only be one
20 individual in command. The way in which it was incorporated, attached,
21 or whatever, is not so important. The essence of the theory of
22 resubordination says that once it is there, it is under single command
23 and this commander shall be responsible for its use and its possible
25 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
1 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I called up page 6 in Serbian and
2 page 8 in English of this same document. We need Article 39 to be
3 enlarged, please.
4 Q. General, you can follow this document on your screen as well,
5 although you have a hard copy, I understand.
6 General, we already discussed yesterday the use of
7 Territorial Defence units in discharging the public security duties. Do
8 you remember that?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. What I would like to emphasise here is that this form of
11 engagement is also decided by the military command, the military
12 hierarchy, and the president; is that correct?
13 A. Yes, it is.
14 Q. Therefore, if we construe the previous provision and this
15 provision together, that is an obvious example of a singleness of
16 authority. We have one commander who is commanding both the police and
17 the Territorial Defence. Is that the pyramid of the singleness of
18 authority that you are talking about?
19 A. Yes, it is.
20 Q. Very well. Thank you.
21 General, speaking about this provision, and in order not to
22 revisit it, let's go back to page 2 in the Serbian and page 3 in English.
23 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Can you please zoom in on
24 Article 11.
25 Q. Read it through, please, and then I'll put a question to you.
1 Have you read it?
2 A. Yes, I have.
3 Q. I'm going to ask you to go back to the Law on
4 All People's Defence of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and
5 the same law with the same title of the Socialist Republic of
6 Bosnia-Herzegovina. I suppose that you are familiar with the provisions
7 contained therein because we are talking here about the concept of
8 All People's Defence.
9 So you know that within that system all participants within the
10 country were obliged to prepare for the situation of an imminent threat
11 of war or war, and, to that end, to adapt their organisation, draw up
12 wartime plans, establish sort of war staffs of their own that would
13 direct these organs under such circumstances.
14 Are aware with these provisions from these earlier laws?
15 A. Yes, I am. And that was implemented in practice. There were
16 even some military exercises and police exercises carried out. Each
17 local commune, municipality, district, and republic were obliged to
18 adhere to these provisions of the law.
19 Q. This obligation was equally valid for the state organs, including
20 the ministries; is that correct?
21 A. Yes, it is.
22 Q. The Ministry of the Interior was also obliged to have its own
23 plan of work in the event of an immediate threat of war, or a war, to
24 have proper organisation structure in place, to have its own staff that
25 would be directing this organ, and so on and so forth.
1 That's what the law says; is that correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. In your report, in paragraph 56, quote the Law on Defence of
4 Republika Srpska, and you are actually listing here the specific
5 obligations of the Ministry of Interior within the context of the
6 preparations for defence.
7 Can you see your paragraph 56?
8 A. Yes, I can.
9 Q. So you will agree with me that from the time when the federal law
10 was in force until the last one that you referred to, this obligation
11 remained continuous and identical; is that correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Now I'm going to show you a document. It's in your tab, I think,
14 14. And it's Exhibit 1D46.
15 You can look the whole -- at the whole document in tab 14, and,
16 after that, we're going to comment on it. Yes, it's tab 4 -- 14 in our
18 A. I've read it.
19 Q. General, this order by the minister of the interior, you will
20 agree with me, that it is an example of the application of the obligation
21 that was defined for the minister in the laws that we just looked at.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. In other words, he defines the ways in which the
24 Ministry of Interior is supposed to function in the case of the imminent
25 threat of war or war.
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Have you noticed that the ministry is supposed to split in two
3 parts? One part, which will continue performing their regular duties and
4 tasks related to public order; and another part, which may be used in
5 combat activities if competent military command submits such a request.
6 Have you noticed this split?
7 A. Yes, I have.
8 Q. The minister here says that usual peacetime laws and regulations
9 should be applied to the first part, the laws and regulations regulating
10 the normal work of the ministry.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. However, the second part of the ministry, let's call it the
13 uniformed part, people carrying arms, in paragraphs 7 and 8 of this
14 order, the minister says: Military regulations shall be applied to this
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. You, as an expert, noticed this split of the ministry in some
18 other segments of work as well in these particular circumstances. For
19 example, when you discussed the co-operation between the military organs
20 and the police organs. This co-operation could only exist in relation to
21 the first part of the ministry, the part that continued performing their
22 regular tasks.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. However, there can be no co-operation with the second part of the
25 ministry, the part that is being used in combat activities. Because this
1 part is now an integral part of the military structure and subordination,
2 so there can be no talk of co-ordination or co-operation. There are only
3 orders that are carried out.
4 Am I correct in saying this?
5 A. Yes, you're correct. If you take a look at paragraph 7 of this
6 order by the minister, you will see in the third subparagraph:
7 [As read] "While participating in combat operations, the units of
8 the ministry shall be subordinated to the command of the armed
9 forces ..."
10 Q. Now that you mention this, let me ask you the following: Is this
11 the essence of the relationship between the military and the police in
12 time of war or imminent threat of war?
13 A. Mr. Cvijetic, I'm afraid your question is not precise enough. I
14 cannot understand it.
15 Relationship is a very, very wide term. If we talk about
16 relationship between the military and the police, that's imprecise. I
17 keep emphasizing here that the relation is very clear, and then there is
18 a command relationship in existence only when the police is part of the
19 command structure of the army.
20 Q. Your answer was not interpreted in a very precise way. Could you
21 please repeat it.
22 A. I said that I did not fully understand your question. And then I
23 repeated what I had already stated. The relations between the military
24 and the police units, when the latter are engaged in combat activities,
25 are clearly defined, and then we can only speak of a command
1 relationship. The police units are, in such a case, subordinated to a
2 military commander.
3 Q. When I put the question to you, I had in mind your previous
4 answer, when you said that it is far more important what kind of
5 relations we have once the police arrives -- arrives into the military
6 structure and is resubordinated to the military commander. That is why I
7 wanted to emphasise what I perceived as the essence of the -- their
9 A. You're right. Now I understand what you wanted to ask me in your
10 previous question.
11 Q. Very well. So the essence of this relation was condensed by you,
12 if I can put it that way, in a paragraph of your report. It's
13 paragraph 217. And I would like you to confirm whether this
14 paragraph talks about the topic that you've just discussed here.
15 A. This is precisely what I wrote in paragraph 217. The subject
16 matter of our recent discussion, and, indeed, the discussion in the past
17 few days.
18 Q. Thank you.
19 General, let me close on this topic. You have been here for
20 quite a number of days here, answering our questions, and I think that
21 now we have the clear picture about the hierarchy, the pyramid and the
22 principle of the singleness of command --
23 MS. KORNER: [Overlapping speakers] ... Sorry, can we not have a
24 speech, please.
25 MR. CVIJETIC: Okay. Okay. Okay.
1 Q. [Interpretation] General, the pyramid of the command over the
2 armed forces has only one summit.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Any occurrence of parallel command encroaches on the principle of
5 the singleness of command and subordination, as well as impinging on the
6 system of defence; is that right?
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. Any parallel command will not be tolerated by the military
9 hierarchy and structure. Is that so?
10 A. That is correct.
11 Q. So, if, in a zone of responsibility of a corps commander, a
12 well-armed group of, say, volunteers appears, numbering 1- to 200 men,
13 and they take part in combat activities; however, with their own command,
14 with their own tactics and with their own strategy, without respecting
15 the military hierarchy, the military tactics, and the military strategy,
16 what are the powers at the disposal of the corps commander in this
17 particular situation?
18 A. The corps commander has powers and competencies enabling him to
19 summon the officer commanding over this particular group and to order him
20 that they should all voluntarily be transferred into the hierarchy and
21 under the command of the corps. If they refuse to do this, he has the
22 power and, indeed, the duty to disarm them, to break them apart, and,
23 ultimately, destroy in case that they resist his orders.
24 JUDGE HARHOFF: General, what do you mean by "destroy them"?
25 Would that be to arrest them and incarcerate them? Or do you mean
1 something else?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if this group puts up
3 an armed resistance against the regular units of the corps, then the
4 regular units have the powers to engage them in combat.
5 I agree with you that the corps commander - and I said that his
6 first option would be the offer of voluntary surrender - and then, of
7 course, he also has the option of arresting them and prosecuting them.
8 MR. CVIJETIC:
9 Q. [Interpretation] General, there is one thing I would like to know
10 in the end. What is the scope of the competency of military commanders
11 in case of an imminent threat of war? So my question is very direct and
12 very specific: Does this hold true in the whole territory where this
13 particular emergency had been proclaimed? I'm talking here about the
14 powers of the commanders.
15 A. The powers of the commanders pertain to all military officers
16 throughout the territory where the imminent threat of war had been
18 Q. General, thank you. I have no more questions for you.
19 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, my cross-examination
20 is finished.
21 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Mr. Cvijetic.
22 Yes, Ms. Korner.
23 Cross-examination by Ms. Korner:
24 Q. General Kovacevic, just before I turn to your report and other
25 matters, on that last answer, I just want to make sure we all understand.
1 The powers of a commander in an area where, as you put it, a threat of
2 war has been declared, pertained to military officers.
3 That's correct, is it?
4 A. That's correct. However, we should be more precise here,
5 Ms. Korner, when defining what is military personnel, how we defined this
6 term during the imminent threat of war, if you permit me.
7 Q. Can I say, I'm going to come onto that, because there is a very
8 clear definition, is there not, of who or what is a member of the
9 military, in the law.
10 A. Ms. Korner, in case of an imminent threat of war, and you can see
11 this from the documents that I analysed, a general public mobilisation is
12 proclaimed. The duty to report to the mobilisation is a duty on all
13 citizens, I think males between 17 and 60 and females between 17 and 55.
14 So they are all military conscripts.
15 Q. Yes. That's fine. But it doesn't apply -- as I say, we're going
16 to look at the definition of who is in the military later.
17 It does not, therefore, apply to those who are in the police
18 unless they have been - and let's use the word "resubordinated" because
19 everybody has been using that - they have been resubordinated into the
20 military, attached to the military.
21 A. Yes, the police had its reserve force, if that's what you're
23 Q. I just want to make it clear so that we don't have any more
24 discussion or argument about this. Military personnel does not include
25 members of the MUP unless they have been resubordinated to the military.
1 Is there a problem with the question, General?
2 A. I lost my thought, Ms. Korner.
3 I didn't follow you carefully enough. Could you please repeat
4 the question.
5 Q. I will. From what you have told us, the military -- I'm sorry,
6 let me just get the exact answer.
7 Military -- the powers of commanders, you told Mr. Cvijetic,
8 pertain to all military officers throughout the territory where the
9 imminent threat of war has been complained -- proclaimed.
10 I now repeat the question: All military officers does not
11 include members of the MUP, reserve or fully authorised, unless they have
12 been resubordinated to military command.
13 A. Precisely, Ms. Korner. However, we saw a number of cases when an
14 entire MUP force was resubordinated to military command.
15 Q. Yes. General, I'm not arguing that at all. I just wanted to
16 confirm that's what you were saying, and you've confirmed that's what you
17 were saying.
18 All right. I now would like to ask you about your report in
19 general, and your expertise.
20 I'm just going to get my ...
21 Apart from the written report that you produced for the Popovic
22 and others case, have you ever produced a report before, or since
23 Popovic, and before this one, for the purposes of trial proceedings?
24 A. I have not, Ms. Korner.
25 Q. Have you ever testified before, because you weren't asked that
1 earlier on, in any of the trials either in Serbia, Croatia, or in Bosnia
2 and Herzegovina for war crimes committed during the 1992 to 1995
4 A. I have not, Ms. Korner.
5 Q. So I take it from that this is the first time that you have
6 testified as an expert in any kind of court proceedings.
7 A. Precisely.
8 Q. Do you understand -- and I don't mean this in any rude or
9 insulting way. Because it's the first time, do you understand the rules
10 that govern expert testimony?
11 A. Ms. Korner, when approached by the Defence counsel, I understood
12 my role here to appear as a military expert witness. In this sense, I
13 prepared, wishing to assist the counsel and the Chamber.
14 Q. Yes. I understand how you came to testify, and I'm going to come
15 back to that one as well. I'm asking you now whether you understand what
16 the duties of an expert witness, or, indeed, an expert in any kind of
17 proceeding, are.
18 A. The way I understood the words of the Presiding Judge and when I
19 pronounced my solemn obligation, that my duty here was to tell the truth
20 and nothing but the truth.
21 Q. Yes, I'm sorry. I quite understand that, General. But what I'm
22 asking you is you have any idea of what is required of an expert and, in
23 particular, an expert's report. And can you tell us what you understand
24 is the duty of an expert when preparing a report for court proceedings.
25 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Objection. It is an unclear
1 question. Ms. Korner should put a direct question to the expert. What
2 is she seeking to extract? Otherwise the witness will not understand.
3 JUDGE HALL: [Previous translation continues] ... indeed I was
4 going to suggest, Ms. Korner, that the -- the way the question, the
5 open-ended way in which the question is phrased would be difficult even
6 for a lawyer to answer. And since you have the advantage of
7 cross-examining, I would have thought it would be more helpful if you
8 would directly suggest to him what the obligations of an expert are, and
9 go from there.
10 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I appreciate that I have the right to
11 the ask leading questions, but I thought, in fairness to the General, I
12 ought to give him a chance before I put to him various matters to see if
13 he can tell us what he understands his duties were before he prepared the
14 report. But I'm perfectly prepared to put the -- the various things to
16 Q. Do you understand that it's the duty of an expert to be
18 A. The way I see my duty is that I'm here to tell the truth and that
19 I need to provide an accurate interpretation of military rules and
20 regulations that I refer to in my report.
21 I'm also here to use those rules and regulations, in order to
22 provide an accurate interpretation of the documents put before me by the
23 Court in this case.
24 Q. Let me explain to you, then, General, what I mean by "objective."
25 Do you understand that you have to look at the material with an
1 open mind before coming to a conclusion about that material?
2 A. Ms. Korner, first, you need to tell me what specific material you
3 have in mind and what conclusion of mine may have been one-sided or
5 Q. Believe you me, General, I'm going to come to all of that. But,
6 at the moment, I'm trying to establish, so that the Court understands and
7 all of us understand, whether you approached the material that you are
8 were asked to deal with by the Defence with an open mind?
9 And let me explain what I mean by "an open mind." That you
10 didn't just look at material for documents or statements which supported
11 what the Defence wanted you to say?
12 A. Ms. Korner, the focus of my report was on military rules,
13 documents, and regulations. I attempted an interpretation of those rules
14 and regulations which I also relied on in order to interpret the
15 documents provided by Defence in the course of the past few days.
16 Q. Well, I'm sorry, General, we'll see in a moment that that's not
17 right, that your report doesn't just deal with military documents, rules,
18 and regulations. So I will repeat for the last time the question I
20 Do you understand that as an expert it is your duty to look at
21 documents with a -- and rules and regulations, with an open mind?
22 A. I agree with you.
23 Q. Right. Do you understand that an expert report should also
24 include matters which do not support the -- the theory or the side which
25 you are trying to advance?
1 A. Ms. Korner, I used the documents, rules and regulations that I
2 could gain access to, and this is what I based my report on.
3 Q. All right. Well, I'll come onto, then, what you were given
4 access to in a moment.
5 In writing a report, do you understand the importance of giving
6 source -- sources for the -- the matters that you put into the report?
7 Certainly matters of fact.
8 A. Yes, I do.
9 Q. And what's the reason for that? Why is that important?
10 A. I used some general written material that can be found in the
11 attachment to my report.
12 Q. No. I -- I'm coming on to -- I will come onto the specifics.
13 But I'm asking you now: Why it is important - you say you know it's
14 important - to give sources. Why is that important?
15 A. I presume it is important in order to tell the truth, and I
16 undertook that obligation as an expert before this Court.
17 Q. All right. Well, let me put it to you as I -- do you understand
18 that it's important so that what you say, based on a source, can be
19 checked by anybody who is reading the report?
20 A. Precisely.
21 Q. Do you agree that an original source is better than a secondary
22 source? And I'll explain what I mean by that. In other words, that the
23 original document, or the original account, is better than a secondary
24 source who has put it into a book or reporting on it?
25 A. It depends, Ms. Korner, on the context and topic. I wouldn't
1 necessarily ascribe advantage to either one or the other. I'm not sure
2 what you have in mind specifically.
3 Q. Well, wouldn't it be better to look at the original of a military
4 order rather than somebody describing that military order in a book?
5 A. I agree with you. If the original is accessible.
6 Q. Yes. Obviously if it is not accessible, I accept.
7 Now, do you understand the importance of accurate quotes? If
8 you're quoting from a document or from a book that it should be quoted
10 A. I agree with you.
11 Q. All right. Now, can I ask you about your methodology in
12 preparing this report.
13 You set it out at page -- just a moment. Let me just find it.
14 Yep. Well, I don't think ... just a moment, Your Honours, I'm sorry. I
15 was going to say that the methodology isn't ...
16 Yes, notes on methodology. Page 5 in the English. The report is
17 0031D2. I have no idea, I am afraid, what it is in the B/C/S, so I'm
18 going to have to rely on the Defence.
19 MR. KRGOVIC: Paragraph number.
20 MS. KORNER: Same page, is it?
21 MR. KRGOVIC: Paragraph is better to --
22 MS. KORNER: Yes, okay. You're quite right. Yes, paragraph 11.
23 It's page 5 in each, I understand.
24 Q. Now you say in paragraph 11 after you describe what your approach
25 was to analyse and synthesise documents. "The basic method I used was
1 analyse and synthesis." Can you just explain what you mean by that?
2 A. It is a well-known method used in the production of many a
3 report, even scientific papers. One analyses the contents of certain
4 documents, rules, and regulations. The crux of the matter is the
5 contents, based on which, one can make conclusions.
6 Q. I understand analyse. What does analyse and synthesise mean.
7 What do you mean by synthesise?
8 A. It is the result of a thinking process. One analyses documents
9 and draws conclusions. By using specific parts, you make a whole.
10 Q. So what synthesise means is your analysing the documents and
11 drawing conclusions from them?
12 A. That is correct.
13 Q. And if the conclusion was contrary when you'd analysed these
14 documents to the -- what you'd been asked to show, would you put that
15 into the report?
16 A. If I came across such a instance, I would have to specify it in
17 the report.
18 Q. All right. Now, I'm going to move from the general to the
20 When were you first asked to compile a report on behalf of
21 Mr. Zupljanin?
22 A. I believe I mentioned that yesterday. It is a fact that I had
23 very little time to prepare this report. I think I was approached in
24 late February or early March of this year.
25 Q. Really? Well, presumably you have an exact note of the date.
1 Could you tell us, please, the exact note of the date.
2 A. I think the date is the 1st of March.
3 Q. Can I ask what you're referring to there, General.
4 General, the piece of paper you've just put back into your
5 brief-case. You can take it out again. Can I ask you what it is,
7 A. It's an overview of the time flow. It was forwarded to the
9 MR. KRGOVIC: Your Honour, it's confidential. It's a time sheet
10 for the Defence.
11 MS. KORNER: That may be so, but I'm going to ask to see it,
13 MR. KRGOVIC: No. Because it is correspondence between Registry
14 and with the expert. It is not possible.
15 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, I think it's relevant. It's not
16 privileged. And I'm going to ask Your Honours to allow me to have a look
17 at it because the amount of time that the General spent working on this
18 report, and actually in his own interest, is relevant.
19 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
20 JUDGE HALL: The ...
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
23 JUDGE HALL: This matter is a little more complex than first
24 appears. We would return to it.
25 Could you continue --
1 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated]
2 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we have no problem in
3 showing this. But since this touches upon a sensitive relationship
4 between OLAD and the expert, I believe it should be done in consultation
5 with the Registry to see whether this should be published publicly.
6 As for the contents, we have no objection to having it shown to
7 Ms. Korner.
8 JUDGE HALL: Well, the Registry, in terms of that separate
9 question, that is something that the Registry is going to inquire into
10 and advise the Chamber accordingly.
11 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] First, this should be checked; and
12 if it is not a problem, Mr. Kovacevic will provide it.
13 JUDGE HALL: [Previous translation continues] ... Yes.
14 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] That was the gist of my objection.
15 JUDGE HALL: [Previous translation continues] ... Yes.
16 MS. KORNER:
17 Q. General, by whom were you asked to do the report?
18 A. By Mr. Dragan Krgovic, Defence Attorney.
19 Q. Was that request in writing or verbally?
20 A. It was a verbal request, as far as I recall. I knew him from
21 earlier times. As I have said, we worked on a previous case together.
22 Q. Yes, I understand that; the Popovic case.
23 What were the terms of reference? What were you actually asked
24 to do a report on? And, again, did you get those terms of reference in
1 A. I'll be honest: We discussed in his office for a few hours.
2 That was the first time round.
3 I hesitated to accept the task because the police is an
4 institution I'm not familiar with, or to be more precise, I'm less privy
5 to its working than the military institutions are.
6 However, in conversation with Mr. Krgovic, I realized that the
7 topic of my report was to be the use of the police in combat activities.
8 That is why I accepted.
9 In order for it to be explained, such use of civilian police in
10 combat, we need to view it through military terms, military documents and
11 military rules. The terms include military command, resubordination,
12 coordinated action, and attachment. Once I realized that, I accepted to
13 draft a report of that nature.
14 Q. First of all, General, thank you for telling us. As you said -
15 and it's not a criticism of you at all - you are not in any sense an
16 expert in police matters, are you?
17 A. That is correct. Except when the police is used in combat
19 Q. All right. I'll come back to that one.
20 You've never studied, have you, the interaction between police
21 and military from the point of view of the police?
22 MR. KRGOVIC: What does it mean?
23 MS. KORNER:
24 Q. You've never looked at the documents about the police use by the
25 military from the police side. The documents that the police issue. And
1 I don't just mean for 1992 -- for 1992 to 1995.
2 A. In my CV, Ms. Korner, I stated that the focus of my work was
3 education and training of members of the unit of which I was part of. I
4 educated and trained those members, but in order to be able to do that, I
5 had to read a huge number of books, cover various areas of expertise, and
6 read documents.
7 For example, each new regulation, when it is published that
8 pertains to the army, I have to take it to the unit and to brief my unit
9 about this particular regulation.
10 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... Yes.
11 A. So I had an opportunity to encounter various contents.
12 Q. Right. I'm sorry, General. I think you didn't understand the
14 Have you ever looked at documents produced by the MUP before the
15 conflict when there was a federal state, or states of Yugoslavia, or
16 during the conflict of the police, apart from what you've been shown by
17 Defence counsel?
18 A. Well, I had an opportunity to see them earlier in practice, not
19 to a large extent though. There was some sort of co-operation with MUP
20 units, and there were some contacts between the army and the police.
21 Q. All right. I don't want to spend more time than that.
22 You had a conversation of some hours with Mr. Krgovic. Did you
23 make notes --
24 JUDGE HALL: Ms. Korner, it's --
25 MS. KORNER: Oh, sorry.
1 JUDGE HALL: Is it a convenient point.
2 MS. KORNER: Yes.
3 JUDGE HALL: I have a question of Mr. Krgovic before we rise. So
4 perhaps the witness can be escorted out of the courtroom a little ahead
5 of us.
6 [The witness stands down]
7 JUDGE HALL: And, Mr. Krgovic, this comes back to the question
8 the Chamber has indicated that it would deal with, Ms. Korner's
9 application and your objection.
10 Did I understand you correctly to say that you would have no
11 objection to the document in question being shown to the Prosecutor
12 without it being -- coming into evidence as a public document?
13 Is that your position?
14 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this is the list of
15 hours that the witness has to account for to the Registry.
16 JUDGE HALL: [Previous translation continues] ...
17 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] And the problem we see here --
18 JUDGE HALL: [Previous translation continues] ... I know what it
19 is. But my precise question is -- and I appreciate the matter of it not
20 being made an item of evidence. My only question is whether I understood
21 you correctly when I thought you had said that you had no difficulty with
22 counsel for the opposite side seeing it and leaving it at that without --
23 the question of it being a matter of evidence not arising.
24 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, just to see it but
25 not to ask any questions about it or use this document for whatever
1 purposes that might arise.
2 MS. KORNER: [Previous translation continues] ... of course, I
3 don't have to see the document. It was merely to short-circuit things.
4 I could simply ask the General to tell us each day that he worked on this
5 report, and that wouldn't be objectionable. But it would waste an awful
6 lot of time.
7 JUDGE HALL: [Overlapping speakers] ... I just wanted to
8 clarify --
9 MS. KORNER: [Overlapping speakers] ... Yes.
10 JUDGE HALL: -- because you said you would return to it.
11 MS. KORNER: So I will be asking questions on it.
12 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, you know what the
13 problem is? In principle, this is inequality of arms of parties in the
15 If you ask somebody to prepare a report and that is what the
16 Prosecution was doing with the people who were working for them, in that
17 case, they didn't have to record the number of the hours. However, when
18 we engage an outside expert we to have the -- know -- the number of
19 hours, and we have to ask him or her about how many hours he spent
20 because we have no other available records. And this is this principle
21 of inequality and the inferior position of the Defence with respect to
22 the OTP.
23 MS. KORNER: [Previous translation continues] ... to do with
24 inequality of arms. It's to do with how much time the expert had to do
25 the report and look at the documents, which is a relevant issue and is
1 something, as I say, in fairness to him. If he had a limited amount of
2 time, that may explain a lot of things.
3 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Then put a simple question to him.
4 Ask him quite simply.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE DELVOIE: Ms. Korner, why don't you just ask: How many
7 hours did you work on it?
8 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I can. But I'm anxious to see exactly
9 how many hours he worked on it.
10 JUDGE HALL: Anyway, we'll take the break and come back in 20
12 --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.
13 --- On resuming at 10.57 a.m.
14 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, may I just briefly
15 address the Bench with regard to the last topic that Ms. Korner and I
17 During the break, I received information that the document that
18 the witness has with him is basically my document. In other words,
19 that's a translation of the summary of his report that I was supposed to
20 submit to the Registry but somehow he has retained this copy. In it, it
21 is roughly stated how many hours were used, which -- and that report was
22 supposed to be submitted to the Registry.
23 So basically that's my document. Pursuant to Rule 70(A) which
24 reads that reports, memoranda and other internal documents that are
25 connected with the investigation or preparation of the case and have been
1 drafted by any of the party, its associates or assistants are not subject
2 to disclosure or notice in line with the provisions of the said Rule.
3 So we have a crystal-clear situation here, Your Honours, that is
4 our internal document that shouldn't be disclosed or publicised for any
5 purposes whatsoever.
6 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, could I just know what -- would
7 Your Honours be kind enough to establish how Mr. Krgovic received the
8 information over the break.
9 JUDGE HALL: Well, I could --
10 MR. KRGOVIC: Informed by the Registry.
11 JUDGE HALL: Yes. The -- during the break, the Chamber requested
12 the Registry to have sight of the document that the witness had, and the
13 Registry was the means of communication with Mr. Krgovic.
14 MS. KORNER: I see. Well, Your Honours, I don't want to waste
15 time on pursuing the matter. I'm not sure it is as clear-cut that this
16 is a privileged document. But nonetheless, if it is a privileged
17 document, it's been waived by being supplied to the witness, is not, in
18 any sense, part of the team investigating. But I don't think it is
19 necessary to waste any more time on this. So perhaps we can carry on.
20 JUDGE HALL: So we have the witness back on the stand and we'll
22 [The witness takes the stand]
23 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
24 MS. KORNER:
25 Q. General --
1 JUDGE HALL: The --
2 MS. KORNER: Oh, sorry.
3 JUDGE HALL: I should point that the first communication of the
4 Court Officer would have had counsel. Counsel hasn't seen the document;
5 so it's been an oral communication between the Registry and counsel.
6 MS. KORNER:
7 Q. General, I want to go back to look at the document you looked at
8 for when you were first instructed.
9 Do we understand this, that this is a document that contains your
10 hours and a summary of your potential evidence prepared by Mr. Krgovic?
11 A. I believe so. The document is in English.
12 Q. All right. General, can I ask you, then, please, can you tell
13 us, did you keep your own record of the time you spent compiling this
14 report, in order to submit it to Mr. Krgovic?
15 A. No, I didn't keep any special record of that.
16 Q. Well, I'm sorry, how did you -- how did you -- or well, I should
17 ask you this first.
18 Did you give Mr. Krgovic any note of the hours you spent
19 preparing this report?
20 A. No, I didn't give him any written notes. I just informed him
21 orally, off the top of my head.
22 Q. Well, General, wasn't it made clear to you that the time you
23 spent and which you supplied was the basis on which the Registry would
24 pay you?
25 A. I was aware of that fact.
1 Q. You were aware of that. Well, didn't you think it important,
2 therefore, to keep an accurate record of the time that you spent working
3 on this report?
4 A. Well, I had this all -- all this information, Ms. Korner, in my
6 Q. Really. All right. Can you tell us, then, please, General,
7 between the 1st of March -- well, firstly, when did you submit the report
8 to Mr. Krgovic?
9 A. I don't remember the exact date, Ms. Korner.
10 Q. General, did you submit the report by post or by e-mail?
11 A. I took the report personally to Mr. Krgovic at his law office.
12 Q. All right. When was that?
13 A. I don't know the exact date, but I believe that it happened about
14 a month after I had worked on drafting the report.
15 Q. All right. Well, let's have a look. You can use the document
16 that you were provided with. You told us that you were first instructed
17 on the 1st of March. When is the last day, according to the document
18 that you have in your possession, that you worked on the report?
19 A. Until the 31st of March.
20 Q. The 31st of March, all right. And that's the date you say you
21 took it to Mr. Krgovic in his office, is it?
22 A. I don't recall that that was precisely the date, but I think it
24 Q. You see -- are you sure this is an accurate record, General?
25 A. I'm sure.
1 [Prosecution counsel confer]
2 MS. KORNER:
3 Q. You see, your report was filed with this Court on the 28th of
5 A. I know that it was towards the end of March. I may have been
7 Q. What does it say on the document? You've given us the 31st of
8 March. You said -- I asked you what -- when is the last day, according
9 to the document you have in your possession, you worked on the report.
10 You said the 31st of March.
11 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Well, there's a difference between
12 the last day that he worked on it, and the day he filed it. Because
13 there were other problems in the intervening period. So what is recorded
14 there has nothing to do with this.
15 MS. KORNER: All right.
16 JUDGE DELVOIE: Ms. Korner, what -- your question was what does
17 it say on the document you've given us, what document you're referring
19 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated]
20 JUDGE DELVOIE: That's what I heard.
21 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] the one he had in his
22 possession, which is Mr. Krgovic's document.
23 JUDGE DELVOIE: The one you would not pursue questioning about.
24 MS. KORNER: Yes, because I got the distinct impression I was not
25 being encouraged to pursue questioning about, but I may --
1 JUDGE DELVOIE: That is what you are doing. Are you pursuing on
2 this document.
3 MS. KORNER: No, no, I'm trying to get -- Sorry, Your Honours.
4 I'm trying to get the dates when he worked on the report. And all he can
5 tell us is that what's on that document. I'm sorry, Your Honours, I
6 didn't appreciate ...
7 JUDGE DELVOIE: Please proceed.
8 MS. KORNER:
9 Q. General, are you saying that after you'd handed the report to
10 Mr. Krgovic, you did some further work?
11 A. I remember that there were some technical problems.
12 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... what technical problems?
13 A. Well, with regard to footnotes and other technical problems that
14 I'm not good at solving, so I consulted the people from Mr. Krgovic's
15 office, and after I had handed in the documents, we continued touching it
16 up in view of making preparations for my appearance here.
17 Q. All right. So do I understand that the report that was filed,
18 which we have copies of, there are other versions of it?
19 A. No, there are no other versions.
20 Q. Before you produced the final report that was filed, did you send
21 a draft to Mr. Krgovic or anybody else on his team?
22 A. No, I didn't send it to anyone else.
23 Q. Did you have any conversations, with Mr. Krgovic or anybody else
24 on his team before you produced the version that was filed, about the
1 A. As soon as I finished my report, I talked to some professors from
2 the Military Academy about some of the topics that I covered in my
4 Q. All right.
5 A. I also talked to a number of generals and military officers who
6 had been in the VRS throughout the whole period.
7 But that was all in order to verify my views, my conclusions, and
8 for better preparation for this trial. Better preparation of me
10 Q. All right. Well, let's leave it aside, preparation for the
12 Did you talk to these generals before you gave the final version
13 of this report to Mr. Krgovic?
14 MR. KRGOVIC: He already answered on that question.
15 Q. Did you talk to those generals before you prepared the final
16 version of this report.
17 A. No. I first drafted the report by myself.
18 Q. Yes, no. You did a draft of the report - is this right? - then
19 you spoke to the generals, and then you did your final version; is that
21 MR. KRGOVIC: It's misleading. It's completely misleading.
22 MS. KORNER:
23 Q. General, just so that we all understand: Did you speak to the
24 generals before you submitted the report to Mr. Krgovic and after you had
25 done a draft?
1 A. When I talked to those people, I only verified my views, and I
2 made preparations for this trial.
3 Q. I'm sorry, General, it's not an answer to the question. Was the
4 talking to the other generals, when you had done a draft but before you
5 gave Mr. Krgovic the final version, or after you had delivered the final
7 A. After having delivered the final version to Mr. Krgovic.
8 Q. All right. Did you -- I'll go back to my original question.
9 Did you speak to Mr. Krgovic or any member of the Defence team
10 before you delivered your final version about the contents of your
12 A. I spoke to Mr. Krgovic on a number of occasions while I was
13 working on the report.
14 Q. Right. Did you tell him what you were going to put into the
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Did you make any changes to what you were going to put into the
18 report, as a result of your conversations with Mr. Krgovic?
19 A. It was more of a consultation.
20 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... I don't quite understand
21 what that means. What do you mean by "a consultation"?
22 A. Ms. Korner, I wouldn't bring him a document so that he could put
23 in some corrections.
24 Q. No. But I want to know what you mean by "consultations."
25 A. Sometimes I had a dilemma. Then I would ask him, he would give
1 me a reply. I would memorize it. I will go home. I would sit behind my
2 computer, and I would put it into the report that I was currently working
4 Q. Give us an example of a dilemma in which Mr. Krgovic gave you the
6 A. I can't remember with any precision right now. I'm merely
7 answering your questions. And I'm explaining the methods that I used in
8 my work.
9 Q. Yes. When I started asking you questions this morning, I asked
10 you if you understood the duties of an expert. Did you understand that
11 you should have said in the report who had assisted you with the
12 preparation of this report?
13 A. I was not aware of the existence of this obligation. But I
14 emphasise once again: That I drafted the report on my own.
15 Q. But, General, I understand that you did the physical drafting of
16 it on your own. But from what you just told us, it contained input from
17 Mr. Krgovic who solved your dilemma.
18 A. Most often, or to be more precise, it was really a suggestion.
19 Or I shouldn't really say "suggestion." In those cases when I had small
20 problems in interpretation of certain laws and regulations.
21 Q. I'm sorry, do you mean he gave you the interpretation, General?
22 A. He helped me. He helped me to resolve a dilemma. Legal dilemma.
23 Q. But, General, did -- did you understand that, to the reader of
24 this report, this all looks like your own work, your own conclusions,
25 based on, as you put it, your own analysis and synthesis?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And, in actual fact, the reality is that it isn't, isn't it? It
3 contains parts that you got from Mr. Krgovic who solved your dilemmas.
4 Is that right?
5 A. There is no such thing in this report. The dilemmas were only
6 inside my head.
7 Q. Well, firstly, let's go back to these dilemmas then. How many
8 times, if you can recall, did you consult Mr. Krgovic about a dilemma
9 that was in your head?
10 A. For instance, three or four times.
11 Q. Right. You've told us you memorialised what he said and then
12 went back and put it in your report. Why didn't you write it down at the
13 time, rather than trying to remember what he told you?
14 A. Ms. Korner, in the middle of my career, I lost half of one of my
15 fingers, and then, during the remainder of my career, it made it
16 difficult for me to use my right hand for writing. All my speeches,
17 public speeches, speeches on television, all my lectures I did
18 ex cathedra. I was well known in the public as an officer with this
19 practice. I never had a single piece of paper in front of me at the
20 time, and even now I have trouble dealing with the papers.
21 Q. General, is that -- your explanation is that you can't write. So
22 do I understand that you actually didn't type this report?
23 A. No. I can use computer. I can type on a computer.
24 Q. But you can't write with --
25 A. I can write, but I hate it. I have difficulties in writing, and
1 I have no need to write.
2 Q. But rather than trying to remember what Mr. Krgovic was telling
3 you, wouldn't it have been better to have taken, even if it was a bit of
4 trouble, the time to write it down?
5 A. Maybe it would have been a better idea.
6 Q. Is there any way of identifying in your report which are the
7 parts on which you got the answer to your dilemma from Mr. Krgovic, as
8 you tell us you can't remember what the dilemmas were?
9 A. I would have to go through the entire report, in order to find
10 those instance.
11 Q. Well, I'm going to ask you to do that, General, with the leave of
12 the Court, right now.
13 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, it may be that an adjournment would be
14 required so that the General can sit there and do it. But I think this
15 is important enough to be dealt with before we go any further because it
16 seems to me that, at the moment, there is a submission that I'm going to
17 be making to Your Honours about this whole report.
18 JUDGE HALL: I hear your application, Ms. Korner, but is -- can't
19 you move on to another area and then come back to this.
20 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, no. Because -- if the answer is I
21 anticipate that the application will be that we're not going any further
22 with this witness.
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. Krgovic.
25 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour --
1 MS. KORNER: [Previous translation continues] ... I think -- if
2 Mr. Krgovic wants to address you on this, then the witness ought to leave
3 court in any event.
4 JUDGE HALL: I --
5 MS. KORNER: Rather than hearing what Mr. Krgovic has to say.
6 JUDGE HALL: Fine. But before he does that, I have a question to
7 ask the witness.
8 General Kovacevic, I don't know whether you understood
9 Ms. Korner's application but how long would it take you to go through the
10 report to isolate the passages that are of concern to her?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, it is going to be
12 very difficult for me. Because those details are, in my opinion, very
13 irrelevant. Otherwise I would be able to remember all those instances
14 right now.
15 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] ... wrongly translated.
16 It must be irrelevant.
17 JUDGE HALL: Yes. On the transcript it says "irrelevant" I heard
19 MS. KORNER: I heard very relevant. I don't think that is what
20 he said - sorry, Mr. Krgovic.
21 Q. General, could you repeat your answer again, please.
22 A. I said to the Presiding Judge that this was going to be very
23 difficult for me to remember the details, the legal details, because they
24 were less important. If I cannot remember them right now on the spot
25 they must have been less important.
1 Q. Well, let's explore a little more. You say the legal details.
2 Can you identify what details you're talking about? Are you talking
3 about your --
4 MR. KRGOVIC: Your Honour, I object on this line of question
5 because it is completely misleading the evidence. The witness first said
6 nothing of this dilemma is part of his report. And now, Ms. Korner,
7 trying to push, to mislead the witness.
8 MS. KORNER: Can the witness leave court, please.
9 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
10 MS. KORNER: I think he speaks some English so --
11 JUDGE HALL: General Kovacevic, the usher will escort you from
12 court to the holding area briefly then we will tell you -- we would
13 inform you as to where we go from here.
14 [The witness stands down]
15 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this is what I want to
17 The witness clearly answered the question posed by Ms. Korner
18 that not a single dilemma was part of the report. And yet Ms. Korner is
19 pressing onto the witness and asking him to show these particular parts.
20 The witness is unable to remember which parts they are because he says
21 that they're not important. To exert pressure on the witness to request
22 him to read through the whole report in order to remember those details
23 is really unnecessary because none of the details are in the report. So
24 Ms. Korner is only confusing the witness with this request. This is my
1 JUDGE HALL: I fully understand --
2 MS. KORNER: Your Honours --
3 JUDGE HALL: I fully understand what you're saying Mr. Krgovic.
4 But the nature of these proceedings are such that it seems to me that
5 opposing counsel is right to press this issue, because what we are left
6 with on the state of the evidence at this point is that the report which
7 has been put into evidence and which is a part of the case for your
8 client was, in part, and it may very well be that at the end of the day
9 you're perfectly correct that such assistance as you gave were totally
10 inconsequential and of no moment in terms of the final work product. But
11 the -- certainly counsel is entitled to explore the -- to the extent that
12 she can, the -- how -- how much this assistance, to use as vague a term
13 as possible may have influenced the result, and to that extent the
14 witness would have to be allowed some time to go through this and answer
15 it, if he is able to.
16 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] ... point draw
17 Mr. Krgovic's attention to the exact question and answer I asked. He --
18 I suppose I ought to go back ... oh, sorry, Your Honours, a little bit
20 I asked at line 19 of page 35:
21 [As read] "Did you speak to Mr. Krgovic or any member of the
22 Defence team before you delivered your final version about the contents
23 of your report?
24 "A. I spoke to Mr. Krgovic on a number of occasions while I was
25 working on the report.
1 "Q. Did you tell him what you were going to put into the report?
2 "A. Yes.
3 "Q. Did you make any changes to what you were going to put into
4 the report as a result of your conversations with Mr. Krgovic?
5 "A. It was more of a consultation.
6 "Q. I don't understand what that means. What do you mean by a
8 "A. Ms. Korner, I wouldn't bring him a document so he could put
9 in some corrections.
10 "Q. No. But I want to know what you mean by consultations.
11 "A. Sometimes I had a dilemma."
12 This is the part.
13 "Then I would ask him, he would give me a reply. I would
14 memorize it. I will go home." I think it must be I would go home. "I
15 would sit behind a computer and I would put it into the report that I was
16 currently working on.
17 "Q. Give us an example of a dilemma in which Mr. Krgovic gave
18 you the answer.
19 "A. I can't remember with any precision now. I'm merely
20 answering your questions and I'm explaining the methods."
21 Then I asked him about the duty to say who had assisted with his
22 report. Question at 37, line 2:
23 [As read] "Q. I understand that you did the physical drafting of
24 it on your own but from what you just told us, it contained input from
25 Mr. Krgovic who solved your dilemma.
1 "A. More often, or to be more precise. It was really a
2 suggestion or I shouldn't say suggestion. In those cases when I had
3 small problems in interpretation of certain laws and regulations.
4 "Q. I'm sorry. Do you mean he gave you the interpretation,
6 "A. He helped me. He helped me to resolve a dilemma, legal
8 Then, in actual fact -- there was a bit about understanding for
9 the reader you had to know who had done it.
10 "In actual fact the reality is, isn't it, that it contains parts
11 that you got from Mr. Krgovic who solved your dilemmas; is that right?
12 "There's no such thing in this report. The dilemmas were only
13 inside our head -- my head."
14 Then going back to the dilemma, he said three or four times. And
15 then we had this explanation about his hand and then identifying the
17 Now, Your Honour, I may as well deal with this right now while
18 the witness is out of court on why I've asked this. If, as I anticipate
19 and he has more or less said he can't give, cannot identify the parts
20 that he got from Mr. Krgovic, and Mr. Krgovic cannot give evidence about
21 this matter, it's one of the problems, I suppose, of direct contact
22 between counsel and a witness. Unless he is going to leave the case and
23 become a witness.
24 The general says he cannot identify either what the actual
25 dilemma was other than it was to do with interpretation or which parts of
1 the report.
2 Your Honours, the one thing about an expert report in order - and
3 it's not, of course, in evidence yet it is merely proposed, awaiting the
4 result of cross-examination - is that it should be the report and
5 conclusions of the person giving evidence. If someone else has assisted
6 him, then he should make it clear in what areas and in what aspects. And
7 Your Honours it would be my application if that is the case, that he is
8 unable to do this, that in fact that all his evidence and, indeed, his
9 report are, as it were, null and void, as it were. And had we known this
10 earlier, if Mr. Krgovic had established that with the witness, how he
11 prepared the report, we probably wouldn't have gone much further.
12 But that would be my application. But one way or another, in any
13 event, Your Honours may feel it's important that he identify where he was
14 given assistance by Mr. Krgovic. Particularly in a report and evidence
15 that purports to support in some respects, not all, the Defence case
16 about resubordination and the police.
17 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in reply to the
18 request by Ms. Korner, I can only say that the application mentioned
19 should be left for the end of the cross-examination and my additional
20 examination of this witness. And then, having heard everything from this
21 witness about his methods, she should maybe then proceed.
22 But, however, the gist of my objection is as follows: Ms. Korner
23 does not have the right to continue the cross-examination of the witness
24 but if she does that, she should do it in a proper manner. Take, for
25 example, the last paragraph read out. The one in which the witness
1 clearly stated that not a single dilemma found its way into the report.
2 Now, to ask the witness to find the dilemmas in the report after
3 having received such a reply is improper. That's the gist of my
4 objection. The witness clearly stated that none of the dilemmas are part
5 of the report. So he cannot be requested to look for something that
6 doesn't exist.
7 That is why I think that Ms. Korner is confusing the witness.
8 She is requesting him to find something that does not exist in the
10 In any case, in relation to the application by Ms. Korner, I
11 respectfully request the Chamber to decide on the application only after
12 the cross-examination and re-direct examination have been finished.
13 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] in fact, the witness
14 is -- has given on the face of it what appears to be slightly
15 contradictory answers but the first answer is clear: He spoke to
16 Mr. Krgovic; he went home; and he put it into his report.
17 Your Honours, my application at the moment that he be given the
18 time to go through that report and see if he can identify any dilemmas
19 that he received assistance on from Mr. Krgovic.
20 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE HALL: The Chamber will rise and come back with a ruling on
23 this application at noon.
24 --- Recess taken at 11.43 a.m.
25 --- On resuming at 12.16 p.m.
1 JUDGE HALL: I -- yes, Mr. Zecevic.
2 MR. ZECEVIC: [Microphone not activated] I'm terribly sorry to
3 interrupt you. I was just wondering over the break, I don't know if the
4 Trial Chamber feels it's appropriate that -- that the Defence of Stanisic
5 is also heard on the matter.
6 JUDGE HALL: Pardon our oversight, Mr. Zecevic. By all means.
7 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honour, on what basis? This is -- it's a
8 separate case. This is the witness not for Mr. Stanisic but for
9 Mr. Zupljanin.
10 JUDGE HALL: But --
11 MS. KORNER: What's the locus for Mr. Zecevic to address you on
13 JUDGE HALL: Let me hear what he has to say and remember the
14 Stanisic team did cross-examine this witness.
15 MS. KORNER: Yes.
16 MR. ZECEVIC: Precisely, Your Honours. As a matter of fact, I
17 would like to first explain to Ms. Korner.
18 We cross-examined this witness and therefore we cross-examined
19 the witnesses for the Prosecutor we're entitled to rely on their answers.
20 Not only that, but we can rely on the parts of the expert report even
21 from the OTP witnesses. That is the connection.
22 Now, Your Honours, the -- we understand that the position so far
23 from -- throughout this trial was that the Trial Chamber will decide on
24 the admissibility of the expert report at the end of the -- of the cross
25 and the re-examination of -- of the expert witness. It was the practice
1 that we had since the very beginning. And the expert witnesses for the
2 Prosecution, the Stanisic Defence, and I think the -- the situation
3 should continue and it will be only logical that it does in this case as
5 From -- as a practical matter, Your Honours, there is -- for
6 Ms. Korner, there is always a possibility that during the
7 cross-examination which I'm -- I think she will conduct, that when she
8 comes to a certain conclusion that she wants to challenge, she can always
9 ask the witness whether this particular conclusion was raised, for
10 example, with Mr. Krgovic or any other person and whether that was the
11 dilemma that was discussed between them. And then we would be able, or
12 you, actually, Your Honours would be able to assess the -- the expert
13 report in all -- with the totality of the evidence concerning that. And
14 that is why we believe that -- we join the submission by Mr. Krgovic,
15 that the decision on the admissibility of this report be -- be taken at
16 the end of the -- of the cross and re-examination of this witness.
17 Thank you very much.
18 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Mr. Zecevic, for your assistance.
19 MR. ZECEVIC: I appreciate it, Your Honours. Thank you.
20 JUDGE HALL: Before you, yourself, said it I appreciated that
21 what -- that your -- that you are praying in aid the point that
22 Mr. Krgovic made.
23 Could the usher please escort the witness in.
24 And while the witness is on his way in, Ms. Korner, could you
25 refer to page 38, lines 18 to 22 of the transcript.
1 MS. KORNER: Sorry, did Your Honour say 28 to 32.
2 JUDGE HALL: [Microphone not activated] 38, lines 18 to 22.
3 MS. KORNER: Where he says, I would have to go through the entire
4 report to find the instances.
5 JUDGE HALL: That's the answer. The question that precedes it.
6 MS. KORNER: "Is there any way in identifying in your report
7 which are the ..." [Overlapping speakers] ...
8 JUDGE HALL: [Overlapping speakers] ... Yes.
9 MS. KORNER: [Overlapping speakers] ... yes.
10 JUDGE HALL: Yes. The Chamber is going to invite you to put that
11 question again, but let's have the witness return to the stand first.
12 [The witness takes the stand]
13 MS. KORNER:
14 Q. General --
15 MS. KORNER: Oh, I'm sorry.
16 JUDGE HALL: General Kovacevic, from time to time, in the course
17 of trials, these procedural issues have to be resolved and that is why
18 you were stood down while we heard from counsel on this matter.
19 The course that the Chamber has decided upon is that we will take
20 an early adjournment today and have you continue tomorrow morning at the
21 usual time that we resume, at 9.00, but the -- overnight, the question
22 which counsel would have put to you and which we will now invite her to
23 put again so that you remember it, is something that we would ask you to
24 reflect upon, and then we will, as I said, continue with your answer
25 tomorrow morning.
1 Could you put the question again, Ms. Korner.
2 MS. KORNER:
3 Q. General, is there any way for you to identify in your report
4 which are the parts on which you got the answer to your dilemma from
5 Mr. Krgovic?
6 And full question was: As you tell us you can't remember what
7 the dilemmas were?
8 JUDGE HALL: So, as I said, you would think about counsel's
9 question and we would hear your answer when we resume tomorrow.
10 So unless there is anything else, we take the adjournment to
11 9.00, and I believe we are still in this courtroom tomorrow morning.
12 MS. KORNER: We think we're back in III, Your Honours, but ...
13 JUDGE HALL: In Courtroom III. Thank you.
14 [The witness stands down]
15 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 12.24 p.m.,
16 to be reconvened on Friday, the 9th day of
17 September, 2011, at 9.00 a.m.