1 Friday, 2 March 2012
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.02 a.m.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning
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 May we have the appearances, please.
11 MS. KORNER: Good morning, Your Honours. Joanna Korner, together
12 with Sebastiaan van Hooydonk, Case Manager, and, today, an intern is with
13 us, Edin Cengic. No relation, I gather.
14 MR. ZECEVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Slobodan Zecevic,
15 Slobodan Cvijetic, Eugene O'Sullivan, and Denis Stoychev, appearing for
16 Stanisic Defence this morning. Thank you.
17 MR. KRGOVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Dragan Krgovic,
18 Aleksandar Aleksic, Miroslav Cuskic, Joyce Boekestijn, and
19 Milena Dzudovic, appearing for Zupljanin Defence.
20 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
21 When we took the adjournment yesterday, we had before us an
22 application from counsel for the Prosecution, in terms of the documents,
23 65 ter 30005 and 30019. I hope I got the numbers correct. 14.
24 The -- the documents may be admitted and marked.
25 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P2457 and P2458, Your Honours.
1 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
2 And if there is nothing further, would the usher please escort
3 the witness back to the stand.
4 The -- as I recall, the Court Officer informed us yesterday that
5 the -- Mr. Cvijetic had used exactly half of the two hours allotted -- of
6 the global two hours allotted to the Defence.
7 So, Mr. Krgovic, or Mr. Aleksic, as the case may be, you have an
9 [The witness takes the stand]
10 JUDGE HALL: General, good morning to you. Before I invite
11 counsel for Mr. Zupljanin --
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
13 JUDGE HALL: -- to begin, I remind you of your solemn
16 MR. KRGOVIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
17 WITNESS: SLAVKO LISICA [Resumed]
18 [Witness answered through interpreter]
19 Cross-examination by Mr. Krgovic:
20 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, General.
21 A. Good morning.
22 Q. My name is Dragan Krgovic, and on behalf of the Defence of Stojan
23 Zupljanin, I'm going to ask you a number of questions relating to your
24 yesterday's evidence.
25 Let's start briefly with your CV. If I understood correctly, you
1 have finished the highest schools that existed in the former Yugoslavia,
2 including the Command Staff School, which trains the highest-ranking
3 officers; is that correct?
4 A. Yes. There was also the National Defence School in the JNA, but
5 I didn't finish that. That was its name, and that's the highest level of
6 education. It's above the Command Staff Academy. However, the war broke
7 out, so I didn't have a chance.
8 Q. General, when the war broke out in Yugoslavia, you, who remained
9 in Republika Srpska, both the officers and the soldiers, abided by the
10 rules and regulations of the SFRY armed forces because those were quite
11 good regulations, and you applied them in your work.
12 A. When the war broke out, I was in Knin in Croatia as the chief of
13 the mechanized motorised unit of the Knin Corps. After that, I was
14 transferred to the Banja Luka Corps which is currently in
15 Republika Srpska, or Bosnia-Herzegovina. I became commander of TG 3.
16 And during the war, I became the commander of the military schools in
17 Banja Luka.
18 Q. Among other things, you applied the regulations adopted from the
20 A. We applied the regulations of the Yugoslav People's Army.
21 Q. Now I'm going to show you a document which is L12, tab 26 of the
22 Zupljanin Defence.
23 I'm going to show you the rules on the implementation of the
24 rules of international laws of war in the armed forces.
25 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please repeat the page
2 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] If we can enlarge the Serbian
3 version, please.
4 Q. When you responded to the Prosecutor's question, you explained in
5 great detail the state of war. Basically, when it comes to the armed
6 forces, it is important that they are at a state of war either when an
7 attack is carried out or when the state of war is declared; is that
9 A. Yes, it is.
10 Q. And, in order for certain powers of commanders to be implemented
11 in practice, the pre-condition is that the force -- armed forces are in a
12 state of war?
13 A. Yes, that is an important factor.
14 MS. KORNER: I'm sorry, is counsel suggesting that a state of war
15 had been declared in 1992?
16 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] No. No, that's not what I'm
17 saying. I am just saying that it is irrelevant whether there is a state
18 of war declared or not, but only if there is an attack or an armed
19 conflict that comes into place, and I'm going to demonstrate this on an
21 Can we go to page 22 in the Serbian and also 22 in English, and
22 specifically, Article 42.
23 Q. It reads here:
24 "The armed forces of the SFRY shall be in a state of war from the
25 moment a state of war is proclaimed or from the moment an armed attack
1 against the SFRY begins."
2 Which actually began in 1991, when the conflicts in Croatia
4 A. That's correct. The armed forces of the JNA and the armed
5 forces -- elements of the armed forces that were mobilised and that were
6 part of the JNA were in a state of war.
7 JUDGE HALL: I -- although counsel for the Prosecution didn't say
8 anything, Mr. Krgovic's editorial comment about 1991, I take it that this
9 is -- that there's no issue about this.
10 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, yes. I've already made my objection.
11 This is, we say, and, indeed, as the General himself said, in order for
12 the powers to be there, a state of war had to be declared; proclaimed as
13 the word is. And his complaint throughout was that it wasn't. Because
14 that limited his powers in law.
15 I don't want to go into a legal comment about this, but the
16 editorial comment is, in my submission, is incorrect, and shouldn't be
18 JUDGE HALL: That struck me as well, Ms. Korner.
19 MS. KORNER: But having made my objection, Your Honour, I didn't
20 think there was much point in getting up and objecting again.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. Krgovic.
23 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. General, look at paragraph 2, which elaborates the theory that I
25 just presented. And it says that the proclamation of the war need not
1 coincide with the commencement of the armed conflict but may precede it
2 or follow it.
3 Do you agree with what is stated in this paragraph?
4 A. I do.
5 Q. General, please, take a look at the next article, 48, page 24 in
6 the Serbian and also 24 in the English. Of this same document.
7 MS. KORNER: I think I'm going to object to this whole line of
8 questions. These regulations clearly all refer to a time when there was
9 the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Whether or not they had an
10 application there may be a matter of law. But what the General is being
11 asked to do is interpret a law, which, in our submission, he's not even
12 qualified to do. This is a matter of legal argument and discussion and
13 one that has been carried out throughout. He can say that what his
14 understanding was of his position as a general. He cannot interpret
15 these laws.
16 JUDGE HALL: I didn't understand that to be the thrust of
17 Mr. Krgovic's question, and he would correct me if I got it wrong.
18 What I thought he was doing, and, hence, my concern about the --
19 the -- the insertion about 1991, was using the law as a given. The
20 general's competence to speak to it as a matter of law being neither here
21 nor there.
22 But that being the foundation, and then the questions that would
23 be put to the witness being -- well, on the basis of this legal reality,
24 what happened at such and such a point. That is what I thought -- that
25 is where I thought he was going.
1 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honours, that's the real problem, isn't
2 it? Is this the legal reality. By this stage, 1992, which is the stage
3 we're talking about, Yugoslavia has been dissolved.
4 JUDGE HALL: No, sorry. When I mean the legal -- when I say the
5 legal reality, the -- this as an item that's in the law library.
6 MS. KORNER: Yeah.
7 JUDGE HALL: That --
8 MS. KORNER: Oh, I see it. Well, then -- well, Your Honours, in
9 that event, yeah.
10 JUDGE HALL: Yes, please proceed, Mr. Krgovic.
11 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. General, in 1992 when you served in Bosnia-Herzegovina, was there
13 a factual state of an armed conflict?
14 A. Yes, there was. And in my area of responsibility, I considered
15 that to be a state of war. I considered that as a commander and I acted
16 in accordance with international laws of war. Regardless of whether it
17 had been declared or not by the Supreme Command and the Main Staff, I
18 thought that I should apply the relevant provision and I treated the
19 situation in my area as a state of war.
20 Q. General, please look at Article 48, which defines who constitutes
21 the armed forces that are subject to these provisions.
22 Under item 1, we have a detailed description of the formation and
23 it says that in addition to these units, a police unit can also be
24 treated as such?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And you would agree that these regulations that pertain to
2 soldiers equally applied to members of the police force?
3 A. Yes. Everything that is in an area of responsibility is
4 subordinated to the highest command, and in that particular area was the
5 tactical group, as well as I said yesterday Operations Group Doboj.
6 A state of war prevailed in that area, and I acted in accordance
7 with the regulations that pertained to a state of war, which means that
8 the police was also under my command and control. The police in my area
9 of responsibility. That equally applied to businesses and enterprises,
10 and I was fully entitled to mobilise any resources from various
11 companies, institutions, et cetera.
12 Q. General, the reason for that was not because you wanted that but
13 because it was the obligation of any commander that might find himself in
14 the similar or identical position.
15 A. Yes. That was the case in the whole of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and
16 particularly in the Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, as it was
17 called at the time.
18 Q. In discharging your duties, when you issued commands and orders
19 to your subordinate units, you didn't do that as Slavko Lisica but as an
20 institution, a commander, commander of the tactical group?
21 A. Yes. And -- and I am a bit perplexed about why this issue of the
22 relationship between myself and Bjelosevic is being constantly raised.
23 This is the relationship between two institutions. Mr. Bjelosevic had
24 his own associates, and with them, he discussed the state of war and the
25 requests of the command in that area. And, of course, the commander and
1 his command did have to consult with professionals in his line of duty.
2 However, orders had to be obeyed because it was demanded by the command
3 and I was at the head of that command. Don't forget that we had other
4 organs there. I had my assistant for security issues, and he co-operated
5 with both the civilian and military police forces.
6 Q. Thank you, General. You talked about this extensively, but I'm
7 going to ask you something different.
8 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Krgovic, before you leave this issue, I would
9 like to ascertain whether it is now your case that there was as of 1991,
10 legally speaking, a state of war?
11 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. But in specific
12 areas where there were armed conflicts. Not in the entire territory, but
13 in war-torn zones. And, in fact, where there were armed conflicts, when
14 you had two opposing parties, a state of war prevailed. Although, if I
15 may add, when it comes to the authority of a commander, it was irrelevant
16 whether a state of war was proclaimed or not.
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: Maybe we should ask the witness to --
18 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] [No interpretation]
19 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I'm sorry. First -- sorry.
20 Your Honours, if the witness is going to be continued to ask
21 questions, then he ought to take his earphones of. If there's to be --
22 oh, he speaks. Of course, he does. Thank you. He would have to leave
23 court, Your Honour. Of course, Mr. Krgovic is speaking in Serbian.
24 MR. KRGOVIC: I not pose any further question in this topic,
25 so ...
1 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, I think it's -- this is going to lead
2 to a discussion but it can wait until the witness is finished because
3 this is has not been brought up in these terms before.
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: Please proceed.
5 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. General, concerning commander's power in terms of commanding the
7 units that are subordinate to him -- let's leave aside the powers
8 vis-a-vis the civilian authorities and companies, et cetera. But when we
9 speak about the duties and of a commander in terms of commanding, there
10 is no difference whether there is a state of war or a state of imminent
11 war being declared when we speak about an area of combat operations?
12 A. Yes, you are right. There is no difference.
13 In my view, as a commander, I thought that to be a state of war,
14 and I acted accordingly. Whether it had been declared in the formal or
15 legal sense was irrelevant to me.
16 Q. I'm going to show you now a document, and I would like you to
17 comment it.
18 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Please, can we have 1D368 in
19 e-court. That's tab 25 of the Zupljanin binder.
20 Q. General, this is a document issued by the Main Staff of the armed
21 forces of Republika Srpska, Military Prosecutor's Office.
22 Can you please take a look at page 31 in the Serbian, the last
23 paragraph; and, in the English, it's page 8.
24 Look at the penultimate paragraph, which says:
25 "In order for the command of the Main Staff to have a full
1 understanding of types and number of these criminal offences, all unit
2 commands shall..."
3 And I quote:
4 "... work on the detection of all the cases ... ," and I
5 underline, "... all the cases of war crimes committed against humanity
6 and international law in their area of responsibility ..."
7 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we move to the next page,
9 JUDGE HARHOFF: [Microphone not activated]
10 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] One page forward, please, in the
12 Q. "... in the area of their responsibility."
13 Now, General, by issuing these guide-lines, the Main Staff is
14 saying exactly what you told us today, i.e., that in an area of
15 responsibility of certain unit, commands are obliged to work on all the
16 cases that are an incident happening in the area of their responsibility?
17 A. That is correct. And that is how we acted.
18 Q. So this is not your own interpretation of Colonel Lisica, but
19 these are the instructions of the Main Staff issued with regard to
20 specific areas of responsibility; is that correct?
21 A. Yes, it is.
22 Q. Now look at the next paragraph, which describes the procedure.
23 And it says that the command are duty-bound to ...
24 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please give us the exact
1 MS. KORNER: I'm sorry, Mr. Krgovic hasn't got his earphones on.
2 It would really help if he does, because the interpreters have not got
3 what you just put to them.
4 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I'm going to repeat, and I'm going
5 to speak more slowly.
6 "Inform the closest military police, security, and military
7 judicial organs about any crime they discover ..."
8 Q. And this is what you have just confirmed a minute ago. And this
9 is the first paragraph in English on this page --
10 MS. KORNER: [Previous translation continues]... I'm sorry, I
11 should have objected earlier. Mr. Krgovic is doing what I objected
12 yesterday in respect of Mr. Cvijetic. He is reading out and commenting
13 himself - not even the witness - on what's in a document. This witness I
14 doubt very much has ever seen or knows anything about.
15 This is all pure comment. Fine for the speech, but this is not
17 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm not making
18 statements. I am putting things to the witness to ask him whether he
19 acted that way.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think the lady is mistaken in her
21 assumption that I don't know anything about this. You cannot be a
22 commander of a formation without being familiar with this law because all
23 your actions on the law are based on laws and regulations. So any
24 commander from a commander of an independent battalion up to a division
25 commander was duty-bound to read and act in accordance with the rules and
1 regulations on the state of war. There wasn't anything arbitrary about
2 this. We were -- we had to work in accordance with the law and that's
3 what we did.
4 So the lady is wrong when she says that the commander doesn't
5 know about this. He does.
6 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, I'm sorry just to make it absolutely
7 clear. I'm not saying that the general doesn't know anything. My
8 objection is that unless he says he has seen this document and is aware
9 of its contents and in doing what he did was following this document,
10 then what Mr. Krgovic is doing is purely commenting himself.
11 JUDGE HALL: Except, Ms. Korner, I would have thought that the --
12 the alternate route that Mr. Krgovic is following is without the witness
13 specifically speaking -- admitting knowledge of this particular document,
14 he is nevertheless aware of the principles. And I take your point about
15 Mr. Krgovic blending the principles distilled in this document with the
16 way he phrases his question, and certainly he should be careful that he
17 doesn't, as it were, end up putting to the witness not only the -- what
18 the document says but what he think it is means.
19 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] Exactly.
20 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
21 MS. KORNER: Sorry.
22 He wants to put to General Lisica that this is the principle, was
23 he aware of, and did he follow it, that's fine. But not the way he is
24 doing it at present.
25 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this is exactly my
1 point. I showed a document to the witness, a document containing certain
2 principles, because the Prosecutor suggested that these weren't general
3 principles but that the General's actions were based on his arbitrary
4 decisions. That's what I'm dealing with. I'm showing the witness the
5 principles of the Main Staff and the regulations he says that he applied.
6 No more than that.
7 JUDGE HALL: Except that you should -- you should not put your
8 own gloss on it. That's the difficulty that we have, Mr. Krgovic.
9 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Sir, let's take a look at document 1D368,
11 tab 25 [as interpreted]. Oh, I apologise ... it's actually document
13 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: 192.
14 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] Sorry, what was the tab?
15 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Tab 27.
16 Could we please zoom in. Could this handwritten part be
18 Q. General, the document I just showed you were the guide-lines of
19 Main Staff. And this is the cover letter showing to who the document was
20 sent. It is signed by Colonel Vukelic. You told Ms. Korner that you
21 knew the late Colonel Vukelic, didn't you?
22 A. Yes, I did.
23 Q. And this is a handwritten indication of who this document was
24 sent to. Below this line, we saw -- see that it says:
25 "To all units under the command of the 1st Krajina Corps."
1 Was it -- did you receive it too?
2 A. Yes, I did.
3 Q. General, I'll move onto a different topic now.
4 Answering the Prosecutor's question, you spoke about town
5 commands and the like. I'll show you a JNA regulation.
6 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please see 1D388. And
7 that's tab 16 of the Stanisic Defence binder.
8 Q. General, this is an instruction.
9 Let's go to the third page in Serbian, please.
10 You can see the signature. It says:
11 "Federal Secretary of National Defence, Army General,
12 Veljko Kadijevic."
13 A. Yes, I can see it.
14 Q. In 1991, and for a part of 1992, Mr. Kadijevic was in that
15 position, wasn't he?
16 A. Yes, he was.
17 Q. Let us now go back to page 2 of this document, and let's focus on
18 the bottom of the page.
19 Paragraph 6, the last subparagraph. Please read it. It says
21 "In places where civilian authorities do not function ...
22 envisage and propose to the command measures which must be prepared and
23 success to be taken in order to protect citizens and legal persons ..."
24 I needn't go on reading.
25 And my question to you, General, is this: In the area of
1 responsibility, when the unit is in or near a populated place, it's up to
2 the command to decide which measures to take for the civilian authorities
3 to work properly and to establish law and order in a given area; right?
4 A. That's correct. That's what we did too. I appointed the town
5 commander of Derventa. Then the town commander of Brod. Because, under
6 the given circumstances, neither Derventa nor Brod could function.
7 Because neither in Derventa nor Brod were -- was there any Serbian
8 population left. They were either driven out, arrested, or killed. The
9 investigative bodies were able to collect this information and then it
10 became clear to me what had happened in Posavina because that's what we
11 call the region. All the authorities, civilian and other, were
12 subordinated to the military command, that is the command of TG 3. We
13 issued orders for the protection of the citizens and orders as to whether
14 schools could open or not, depending on the situation and the combat
15 activity of the enemy. I believe that's clear enough.
16 Q. I'm going to show you another document, General. 1D403. Tab 13
17 in the Zupljanin Defence binder.
18 General, this is a -- this is an order from the command of the
19 19th Partisan Brigade about the setting up of the defence command of the
20 town of Donji Vakuf.
21 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please see the last page.
22 Q. Take a look at item 5, where the brigade commander even appoints
23 the chiefs of the public security station. He appoints Sefulo Sisic,
24 captain first class, and he appoints deputies and assistants. What this
25 commander did is in keeping with his powers and in keeping with the need
1 that existed in that area; right?
2 A. Yes, that is correct. And I worked in much the same way.
3 Q. General, let me go back to the beginning of your evidence, when
4 the Prosecutor was showing you lists of officers who remained in the VRS
5 or joined it in 1992.
6 Most of them, if not all, were active-duty JNA officers who had
7 been trained in the JNA, but they were not trained for a war of the kind
8 that broke out in Bosnia-Herzegovina; correct?
9 A. No. We were not being trained for a civil war or a religious and
10 civil war, to put it that way. Because that's something that surprised
11 both me as a trained officer and I believe the police too. They hadn't
12 been trained to keep or maintain law and order in civil war conditions.
13 I don't believe that they were.
14 Bearing in mind our military education and training, we acted as
15 the circumstances required, and we took decisions that we thought
16 appropriate for that time and place. The principles were the same:
17 Single authority and subordination. Everybody was subordinated to the
18 zone commander, area commander, without exceptions. The police, the
19 civilian authorities, assembly deputies, anybody. They were all
20 subordinate to the commander of that area of responsibility, and it
21 couldn't be otherwise.
22 That was new to us too, but that's how we worked.
23 Q. Due to the shortage of officers, that is active-duty officers in
24 the VRS, and the fact that they were not trained for this kind of war,
25 there were many problems in the first year in the functioning of the VRS;
2 A. Yes, there were problems, because we had up to 5 per cent of
3 active-duty personnel and 95 per cent were reserve officers or NCOs, so
4 that reserve officers would command battalions or brigades who had not
5 been trained for either commanding or for acting in the state of war the
6 same way we, active-duty officers, had been trained. Their training was
7 inferior to ours.
8 MS. KORNER: I'm querying how this comes within the scope of the
9 evidence that Your Honours had this witness called for.
10 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Krgovic.
11 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, Ms. Korner, in part,
12 dealt with the level of training, the numbers, and the capability of the
13 officers of the VRS to wage war, and now I'm directly dealing with these
14 matters, because Ms. Korner stopped off at a certain point, and I want to
15 clarify some of the replies this witness gave to the Prosecutor. But I'm
16 done with this topic. The witness gave a more extensive answer than I
17 had elicit -- I had wanted to elicit.
18 Q. General, answering the Prosecutor's questions you dealt with a
19 topic; namely, the joint objective, and how you co-operated with
20 different bodies. I understood your answer to mean that the objectives
21 of the strategy of the armed combat of --
22 MS. KORNER: Which answer, what page, please.
23 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I am just mentioning the topic.
24 You aborted it on at least ten places, on ten instances. A joint
25 objective, a common objective. And I'm not going -- going to go into the
1 particulars. I just want to deal with the matter generally.
2 Q. General, your view of the participation in combat and the
3 objectives of the war is basically that armed combat, especially in the
4 area of responsibility of your unit to defend the Serbian people and to
5 set up law and order in a given territory; right?
6 A. That was our task number one, i.e., the defence of the territory,
7 the protection of the civilian population and materiel and technical
8 assets; i.e., the economic potentials of the area, including the
9 protection of soldiers and policemen, of course.
10 We wanted to have as high a degree of discipline as possible
11 because under an enforced discipline, losses are less significant. That,
12 of course, also went for the population that had to be disciplined.
13 Q. Now the goal of your struggle, of your actions, and the people
14 you co-operated with on that score, was not directed against the other
15 people but against the army, supposedly fighting on their behalf?
16 A. Under no circumstances were we engaging members of any peoples in
17 my area. And that goes for the Republika Srpska and Bosnia-Herzegovina,
18 as far as I know.
19 As far as I'm concerned, I can tell that you I set up a battalion
20 called Mesa Selimovic --
21 Q. Can you just slow down a bit, please.
22 A. I set up a battalion called Mesa Selimovic from among able-bodied
23 Muslims. They had confidence in me, and we fought together against the
24 enemies of Yugoslavia and the enemies within Bosnia-Herzegovina.
25 An aggression was committed against Bosnia-Herzegovina on -- by
1 Croat irregulars. In the village of Sijekovac, the population was
2 killed, and the entire village was destroyed. No law enforcement organs
3 investigated into that crime or into the instance where the local
4 population was deported to what is today Croatia. Many of those deported
5 civilians, elderly and children, from Posavina to what is today Croatia
6 were never investigated into.
7 Q. General, this is something that you spoke of earlier on, and
8 there's no need for you to go into that again. I thank you for your
9 answers. I have no further questions of you.
10 A. Thank you.
11 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, I do have an application to make at
12 this stage. I think it may take a little time, and it is probably better
13 that the general leaves court, if that's ...
14 JUDGE HALL: Does it have to be resolved before the general is
16 MS. KORNER: Yes, it does.
17 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
18 MS. KORNER: Absolutely.
19 JUDGE HALL: General Lisica, you would have heard counsel's
20 application. I'm going to ask the usher to escort you from court, and
21 you will be returned when we are ready for you.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
23 [The witness stands down]
24 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, my application -- Your Honours, my
25 application is that I may be allowed to further cross-examine to try and
1 now clarify the two completely conflicting versions that the general has
2 given about the status of resubordinated police.
3 Your Honours, in, of course, his answers in interview and,
4 indeed, what he himself said when answering questions that I was asking,
5 he stated that the police, even when resubordinated, still remained
6 police officers. Your Honours, that is at page of yesterday's
7 transcript, 26938.
8 The question actually is:
9 "That's right, isn't it, that policemen, when resubordinated to
10 the army, still remained policemen?
11 "A. Yes. He was a policeman but under a different hat. Instead
12 of patrolling the streets he was in the trenches, but, nonetheless, a
14 Your Honour, he then went on, when dealing with the -- the
15 disciplinary aspect and this at page 26940:
16 "What powers did you, as a military commander, have to discipline
17 a resubordinated police officer? Could you demote him?
18 "He doesn't have a rank. How I can demote him?"
19 And, Your Honours, that, of course, is -- we would say, is --
20 is -- not any logical but common sense on the actual position that they
21 didn't become members of the military.
22 However, by the time that Mr. Cvijetic had finished, the
23 resubordinated police -- oh, and he also said -- I'm sorry, Your Honour,
24 one further thing, that, of course, they could only be resubordinated as
25 a unit as opposed to individuals.
1 But the time that Mr. Cvijetic had led him willingly, to water,
2 as it were, the police officers were all members of the military, all
3 subject to military discipline, orders, prosecution, and the like, and,
4 indeed, that Mr. Bjelosevic - Your Honours, and that is at page 26978 -
5 throughout the period. The question was:
6 "Mr. Andrija Bjelosevic, while you were in communication with
7 him, was in resubordination by virtue of this order?"
8 In other words, throughout the whole period of the dealings he
9 was personally resubordinated.
10 Now, Your Honours, Your Honours had this witness called to try
11 and elucidate matters on -- on the correct approach to how one should
12 treat resubordination. Within the space of an hour or so, the witness
13 has said two diametrically opposed things. And, Your Honours, it is my
14 application that I may further cross-examination in order to see whether
15 we can get a final answer.
16 JUDGE HALL: Could you -- I'm not sure that I appreciate your
17 understanding of the -- his answers being diametrically opposed. Could
18 you expand on that, please.
19 MS. KORNER: Yes, certainly. Your Honours, he was saying,
20 effectively, in answers to questions from me and, indeed, in interview,
21 that only a unit of police could be resubordinated, not an individual,
22 which is our understanding of what the case is. That even when
23 resubordinated and serving on the front line in a combat, the policeman
24 remained a policeman. He didn't become a member of the army. He was
25 still a policeman but serving under a different hat.
1 But by the end of his cross-examination by Mr. Cvijetic - and,
2 Your Honour, I can read the various passages - he had said the complete
3 opposite and said that a resubordinated - effectively individual - police
4 officer was exactly the same as someone who either was a military
5 reservist or someone who is -- was -- a position -- a work obligation was
6 serving in the army.
7 JUDGE HALL: Yes. But isn't this in the context of his
8 consistent position of the overarching authority of the zone commander?
9 MS. KORNER: Well --
10 JUDGE HALL: In that context, wouldn't the -- what appears to you
11 to be a contradiction, isn't -- doesn't it make perfect sense?
12 MS. KORNER: Well, no, Your Honour, it doesn't because it's a
13 very different posit -- he is saying, My belief, indeed the way I
14 operated, was that I had complete power over everybody.
15 However, and those were in interview, and to me he accepted that
16 there were two parallel chains of command, that he couldn't just, in
17 fact, without -- whether he phrased it as a request or an order, pull in
18 the police as a unit. There had to be some kind of a request and some
19 kind of agreement.
20 What he is now -- and, indeed, even when the police were serving,
21 they still remained policemen. I mean, that's what he said. That is not
22 what he was saying by the end. And, indeed, if I'm wrong, I'm sure
23 Mr. Cvijetic will correct me, but my understanding is that was the whole
24 purpose of his cross-examination.
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: Ms. Korner, we ourselves had questions to the
2 witness relating to the distinction between the various functions in
3 which resubordinated policemen would find themselves because, as with
4 this witness, and with the previous witness, there was an issue about
5 whether it would be the army commander who would be in control of
6 everybody involved, including resubordinated policemen, for the purposes
7 of combat. Whereas, on the other side, there's a separate issue about
8 the, should I say, the prosecutorial cleaning up afterwards in relation
9 to crimes that were committed during the combat or in relation to the
10 combat activity.
11 MS. KORNER: Yes.
12 JUDGE HARHOFF: But so since the witness is our witness, we had
13 intended to put that question and I think that's the right course of
15 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, though -- yes. Can I say -- I accept
17 Can I just say to Your Honours that if you look at page 26970,
18 and this is where the real - we would submit - contradiction within his
19 own evidence comes. It's put to him:
20 "Once they join," this is a resubordinated police, "... they join
21 your unit to take part in combat operations, their civilian authority
22 stops and they participate in combat operations of all rights and duties
23 as everybody else; correct?
24 "Yes. That is precisely right."
25 And then he is taken to the Law on All People's Defence, and
2 "In other words," says the question, "during the time they're
3 resubordinated to you, they are military conscripts belonging to the
4 category of reserve military conscripts. They are duty-bound to follow
5 your orders and comply with military laws and regulations."
6 Now, this is -- and the general willingly agrees and says, yes,
7 that is correct. That's exactly what the law says.
8 Well, Your Honours, of course that's the argument. It's not what
9 the law says, we submit, but for these purposes it's purely a question of
10 clarifying with the general how at one stage he can say these are police
11 officers even while they're resubordinated, and at the next stage say no,
12 they are no longer police officers, they are military conscripts.
13 And that's, Your Honours, where we say there should be some
14 clarification as to what his final word is.
15 We should add that, in our view, what's being conflated here are
16 two different things: One is resubordination which is an official act of
17 a unit, with its own commanding officer; and the, as it were, change in
18 the status of someone who has been a reserve policeman who is then sent
19 his work obligation, changes, and he is sent to the military. And it's
20 our submission that this is where the confusion is arising, and -- I'm
21 not saying deliberately but not helped in the way in which questions were
22 put to the general.
23 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, I must say that I -- I believe this
24 is highly inappropriate. Ms. Korner is making the submissions which --
25 and this is not the time for the final submissions.
1 We understand the law and the -- and the general's questions as
2 we understand it, and we will present that in the -- at the end of the --
3 at the end of the -- our -- in our -- in our final brief and in our final
4 submissions. We -- we certainly believe that everything the general said
5 is in accordance with the law and that is what my colleague,
6 Mr. Cvijetic, put to him, and we will explain why when we make the
8 Now, I don't think this is appropriate at all that Ms. Korner --
9 I understand that probably Ms. Korner and the Office of the Prosecution
10 has a confusion now, but that is just because they have the wrong
11 understanding of the law and of the evidence. That is all.
12 Thank you very much.
13 JUDGE HALL: Well, as we said, we take the practical position
14 that, inasmuch as the general is here, and he is a witness whom the
15 Chamber called to seek to shed some light on this very vexing and not
16 altogether clear issue, and we would ask -- take advantage of his
17 presence here and ask the questions.
18 So if there's nothing further, we would have the witness escorted
19 back to the stand.
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I apologise, just one
23 I didn't want to address this issue in my cross-examination
24 because I believe that that was quite clear, that there was no
25 contradiction in the witness's evidence.
1 The question raised by the Trial Chamber, in that respect, I
2 wanted to show the witness a document issued by General Talic, in which
3 he says and describes the status of these policemen. I'll try to find
4 it. I didn't show it to the witness -- or the previous witness, rather,
5 and it relates to the abandonment of units. That's 1D411. And if the
6 Trial Chamber is going to use this document, that's tab 25. This
7 document clearly shows how General Talic treats the reserve police
8 officers who are resubordinated. It's 23. And if the Trial Chamber is
9 willing to deal with this issue, then I think it would be beneficial if
10 they are shown these documents.
11 MS. KORNER: I'm sorry, Your Honours. If Mr. Krgovic wants to
12 carry on with his cross-examination and show this is the vexed document
13 over what is meant by the -- the telegram from the Main Staff to --
14 passed on by Talic to Stojan Zupljanin. It's that document.
15 So if Mr. Krgovic wants to deal with that, that's fine. But I
16 don't know why he is inviting the Trial Chamber to deal with it.
17 [The witness takes the stand]
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, general. We have resolved the procedural
20 issue in your absence, and the Chamber would have one or two further
21 questions of you before you are released.
22 Judge Harhoff.
23 Re-examination by the Court:
24 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
25 General, you may recall that the reason why we chose to have you
1 brought in as a witness was to help us understand the authority to have
2 crimes committed by resubordinated policemen, and others, investigated
3 and prosecuted either by the military prosecutor or by the civilian
4 prosecutor because this is an important legal aspect of this trial.
5 Now, during your testimony, you seem to have given us answers
6 that may cause some uncertainty, and this is why we revert, once again,
7 to the issue of the powers to investigate and prosecute resubordinated
8 policemen, and others, such as volunteers, for crimes -- for war crimes
9 committed during the time of resubordination.
10 Now, we also appreciate that you, as an army commander, saw and
11 had to see your functions as purely operational, and since you did not
12 perform a function of a military prosecutor, you may not have a clear and
13 full knowledge of what the legal situation was.
14 So my question to you is, general: Do you know if the civilian
15 prosecutors and the civilian police were entitled or obliged to prosecute
16 resubordinated policemen for war crimes committed during the time in
17 which they were in combat?
18 And -- and the practical problem, as far as I understand it, was
19 that the resubordinated police units would often not remain long enough
20 for the military prosecutor to take the necessary action. Because it
21 takes time to investigate a crime and to have it prosecuted. And by the
22 time a possibly indictment would be ready, the police unit would have
23 long gone -- gone back to its ordinary police ranks.
24 So I want to ask you, again, if you know what the legal situation
25 was in respect of who had the authority to prosecute resubordinated
1 policemen who committed war crimes, allegedly committed war crimes,
2 during the time that they were resubordinated to the army.
3 If you don't know, General, then please just tell us that you
4 don't know, and that's the end of it. And, if you know, let's hear your
6 A. In principle, I know that military courts should prosecute all
7 members of the military and the police if they committed criminal
8 offences in the course of performing their combat duties, or war-time
9 duties, and if they committed war crimes.
10 So that should have been within the jurisdiction of military
11 courts, to investigate and to prosecute. If, outside combat operations,
12 the police commit a crime, that should be under the jurisdiction of
13 regular civilian courts.
14 That's how I understand it.
15 JUDGE HARHOFF: Do you mean to say that if - and we just take an
16 example - if a police unit is resubordinated to the police for one week,
17 from Monday to next Monday --
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 JUDGE HARHOFF: Sorry. If a police unit is resubordinated to the
20 military for one week, from Monday to Monday, on the first three days of
21 that week, Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, there is combat activities -
22 there's fighting going on - and during those three days our policemen
23 commit a war crime. Then by Thursday the fighting stops, but the police
24 unit is still with the army for the next three or four days until the
25 following Monday, and then they go back to their police station. During
1 those remaining three or four days of the week, they, again, commit a war
3 So, General, are you saying that for the first crime, it is the
4 military prosecutor who is authorised and who has the power to prosecute
5 the policemen; while for the second crime that they committed outside the
6 action, but while they were still resubordinated, it is for the civilian
7 police and the civilian prosecutor to take charge? Is that your
9 Is that your testimony?
10 A. If a civilian police officer would commit a crime during combat
11 operations - in other words, while he is subordinated to a unit command -
12 this case is to be dealt with by a military court, regardless of the fact
13 that the policeman is no longer involved in combat operations.
14 Proceedings are instituted and before a military court he is going to be
15 held accountable for the crimes he committed. Irrespective of whether he
16 was still involved in combat or he had gone back to his police station.
17 So his whereabouts is completely irrelevant. He might be back at
18 the police station, but the proceedings initiated by the military court
19 have to be brought to an end, whether it takes a year or longer, but
20 that's how it should have been done.
21 I don't know whether it was exactly carried out in practice in
22 that manner. At the academy, we had a course in which we studied various
23 aspects of the law, including the laws of war and how the military
24 judiciary and other organs operated during and after combat ends. These
25 crimes are not subject to the statute of limitation and they are under
1 the jurisdiction of military courts.
2 JUDGE HARHOFF: So, just to be clear, it is your testimony that
3 the military court is the only court who has jurisdiction over a
4 resubordinated policeman who commits a war crime during the time that he
5 was resubordinated; and that the military court remains in charge of the
6 prosecution of these crimes, even for the time after the policeman was
7 sent back to his ordinary unit, his ordinary police unit.
8 So you are saying that the military court remains authorised to
9 try the policeman even long after he has left the army and has gone back
10 to the police.
11 Is that what you're saying?
12 A. Yes, that's what I'm saying.
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 JUDGE HALL: General Lisica --
15 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honours, can I -- Your Honours don't feel
16 it necessary to ask the questions that I was dealing with at all?
17 Because Judge Hall [sic] has just dealt with the -- the Prosecution side.
18 JUDGE HALL: You mean Judge Harhoff.
19 MS. KORNER: Yes. Did I not say Judge Harhoff?
20 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
21 MS. KORNER: I thought I did. No, somebody misheard me. I said
22 "Judge Harhoff."
23 Your Honours, it is a -- can I just make that submission. I'm
24 not going to repeat again. There is a real, in our submission,
25 difference in what he has said at one point and what he has said at the
1 end. And it may be important.
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
4 JUDGE HALL: We are at the point where we would ordinarily rise
5 for the first break of the morning. We aren't going to release the
6 witness at this point. But during the break, the -- counsel from both
7 sides could reflect on whether they would benefit from having each a
8 maximum of 15 minutes more with this witness. And by "15 minutes," I
9 mean 15 times 60 seconds.
10 So we return in 20 minutes.
11 [The witness stands down]
12 --- Recess taken at 10.24 a.m.
13 --- On resuming at 10.57 a.m.
14 MS. KORNER: Your Honours won't be surprised to hear that I've
15 reflected and I'd like my 15 times 60 seconds, please.
16 JUDGE HALL: What about the Defence?
17 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I apologise.
18 Your Honours, if you are willing to give the Prosecution 15
19 minutes, then I will use 15 minutes as well. Although, I think that
20 there is nothing in dispute or nothing contradictory in the witness's
22 MR. KRGOVIC: [No interpretation]
23 JUDGE HALL: Of course, I don't know if the interpreters heard
24 you correctly, but when you said that you would use 15 minutes, I assume
25 you meant to say that you would share 15 minutes. If necessary.
1 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] You introduced this rule, and we
2 have to abide by it, Your Honours.
3 JUDGE HALL: So would the usher please escort the witness back to
4 the stand.
5 [The witness takes the stand]
6 JUDGE HALL: General Lisica, at the request of counsel, we would
7 delay your departure for a few minutes longer while they seek to clarify
8 some of the issues that still -- where we can perhaps benefit from any
9 clarification you are able to given.
10 Yes, Ms. Korner.
11 MS. KORNER: Thank you, Your Honours.
12 Further Cross-examination by Ms. Korner:
13 Q. General, you said yesterday - and can we just confirm this - that
14 when resubordination occurs, police officers are resubordinated as a unit
15 headed by a police commander?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Police officers cannot be individually resubordinated, can they?
18 It has to be as a unit.
19 A. In principle, individuals can also be resubordinated, but it
20 wasn't done. It would be either a police station or their formation as a
22 Q. You also said yesterday in answer to questions to by me that a
23 resubordinated police officer remained a police officer and did not hold
24 a rank in the army. And that's right, isn't it?
25 A. They don't have a rank in the military sense of the word. They
1 probably have their own ranks. I don't know what their ranks are, but to
2 me they are police officers.
3 Q. Quite. Can we just please very swiftly run through how people go
4 into the military.
5 Article 3, which you can see on the screen of the Law on The
6 Military defines who is a member of the military, doesn't it?
7 A. Yeah -- yes, it does.
8 Q. Articles 8 to 24 define the methods of how individuals are
9 inducted into the army. That's right, isn't it?
10 Can we just look, for example, at Article 8. Or let's go
11 straight to Article 12. Please. Sorry. Article 12. And that starts:
12 "Admission to military service..."
13 And then in the following articles, and I don't want to go
14 through them, but presumably you're familiar with this, show how people
15 become members of the army; is that right?
16 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Ms. Korner, but this article
17 refers to the active members of the army.
18 MS. KORNER: This something that can be seen by everybody.
19 Q. Do you know, general, whether that is how Articles 8 through to
20 24 define how people get into the army?
21 If you don't know, say so straight away because I haven't got
22 much time.
23 A. I know that's the way it is.
24 Q. All right. Now persons who are under military obligation become
25 military personnel only during the time that they're actually serving;
1 that's right, isn't it?
2 A. This is a peacetime law and this is done in peacetime. What you
3 are saying applies when there are no combat activities.
4 But when there are combat activities, these things are regulated
5 quite differently.
6 Q. Forgive me, sorry. It doesn't matter -- it makes no distinction,
7 does it, even if combat activities are going on, a person does not become
8 military personnel even though is he under a military obligation until
9 such time as he starts in a unit. That's right, isn't it?
10 A. Yes, that's understood.
11 Q. Thank you.
12 A. In other words, he's a military conscript but becomes a member of
13 a unit when he joins the unit and is mobilised.
14 Q. Correct. And as you say, mobilisation is a call-up, if you like,
15 for conscripts. That's right, isn't it? It calls up those who are
16 military conscripts.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. There's a definition of conscripts in Article 319 of the law; is
19 that right?
20 A. It is.
21 Q. Thank you. Now, once a person has completed his military
22 service - that is, ordinary military service, leave aside times of war -
23 he gets a reserve assignment, doesn't he?
24 A. Yes, he does.
25 Q. And that assignment is determined by the Municipal Secretariat
1 for National Defence?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Now, once he is mobilised, an individual can be sent either to
4 the military or to the MUP, or, indeed, another institution. That's
5 right, isn't it?
6 A. It is.
7 Q. And where he is assigned to will be shown in his military
8 booklet, will it not?
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. So if someone is assigned to the MUP, that will be shown in his
11 military booklet. If he is assigned -- or taken out of the MUP because
12 there's a need for more military, that, too, will be shown into his
13 military booklet, if he is taken from the MUP and assigned to the army?
14 A. In practice, it wasn't done that way. If in his military booklet
15 his war-time assignment is with the MUP, then it stays that way. But he
16 can be subordinated to a military unit, a military command as a police
17 officer. There's no need to change his VES; his military speciality. He
18 remains a police officer, and we needn't change his status to that of a
19 military conscript. It wasn't done like that in practice. He remains a
20 reserve police officer at the disposal of the MUP.
21 Q. Right. No, that is the point. I absolutely accept what you are
23 If an individual police officer as part of a unit is
24 resubordinated to the -- the army, then his booklet simply shows, that
25 he's still, as you say, a police officer, doesn't it?
1 A. Yes, it says in his military booklet that is he a member of the
3 Q. Exactly. But if an individual's obligation was changed - in
4 other words, he started off by being made a policeman but there was a
5 need for more members of the military and, therefore, his work obligation
6 was changed from that of the MUP to the military - that would show in his
7 military booklet?
8 A. Not necessarily. In practice, it isn't done that way. He
9 remains a reserve police officer as long as he has that booklet. If --
10 theoretically speaking what you have just described were to happen, in
11 other words, if the police didn't need him, then the Secretariat of
12 National Defence would change it to -- to him and issue him a new
13 booklet, a booklet of a military conscript. But this is theoretically
14 speaking. In practice, this was never done.
15 I hope I was clear.
16 Q. Well, you say -- you say that. This was, I suggest to you, done
17 because it had to be done; otherwise, there was no record of where this
18 individual had been serving.
19 A. I don't understand the question.
20 Q. If someone who had been originally assigned to do his obligation
21 to the police but, in fact, the local unit required more members of the
22 military - full time not resubordinated - then the minister -- the
23 municipal secretariat would change the entry in the military booklet to
24 show that this individual had gone from the MUP to the military; that's
25 right, isn't it?
1 A. That is right.
2 Q. Right. And there's also a form called a Vob 8, isn't there. Do
3 you know about that?
4 A. No.
5 Q. You're not familiar with that form?
6 A. No, I don't -- I don't know it.
7 Q. You're not familiar with the form that, in fact, goes to the unit
8 and shows where an individual has served. Never seen that?
9 A. That's no business of the commander. There is a -- a personnel
10 affairs organ in a command, and they deal with such documents.
11 What you have just described theoretically, they do that in
12 practice. This organ is part of the command, the personnel affairs
14 Q. All right. And, finally, can I ask you to look, please, at the
15 disciplinary measures that are set out for members of the army in
16 Article 68 of this law.
17 "Disciplinary offences shall entail the following disciplinary
19 "Suspension of promotion for a period of six months to three
21 You couldn't, could you, in any way suspend the promotion of a
22 police officer, even when resubordinated?
23 A. No. There was no need. I don't understand. I don't see the
24 point of this question.
25 Q. You could not -- a police officer who you've told us now twice
1 remained a police officer during the course of his resubordination -- the
2 unit's resubordination, you could not, in any way, effect his promotion
3 in the police, could you?
4 A. No. That's -- that's up to the personnel organ. And as for
5 breaches and the like, that is in the remit of the military court or --
6 and the commander. While a police officer is member of a military unit,
7 he is under the jurisdiction of the military court.
8 Q. You say -- you keep asserting now, now that Mr. Cvijetic has
9 asked you questions. But let's look at the reality. It's just right, is
10 it? You could not, nor could the personnel unit in the army, have any
11 effect on the promotion of a police officer, could you?
12 A. You're right. But there was no need for me to do anything about
13 that either.
14 Q. Yes, all right. Let's look at the next one. During the process
15 of resubordination, a police unit was still paid by the police, wasn't
16 it? Not by the army.
17 A. That is correct.
18 Q. So you couldn't impose upon a police officer, even while
19 resubordinated, forfeiture of pay. And by you, I mean you, the army, the
20 personnel, or you personally?
21 A. That is correct. We couldn't. We didn't have to, and we didn't
22 even consider it.
23 JUDGE HALL: And that's your final question, Ms. Korner.
24 MS. KORNER: I dealt with reduction in the ranks, so ...
25 JUDGE HALL: Thanks.
1 MS. KORNER:
2 Q. Yes. Thank you, general.
3 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Cvijetic.
4 Mr. Krgovic.
5 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] If you allow with your leave,
6 Your Honours, I will follow up on the questions asked by Ms. Korner.
7 Further Cross-examination by Mr. Krgovic:
8 Q. [Interpretation] General, talking about members of the reserve
9 force, including the police, members of the reserve force are paid --
10 whether they belong to the police or whether they are reserve soldiers
11 are paid by the organisations where they worked before; right?
12 A. In principle, yes.
13 Q. Only active-duty military personnel, including the rank and file,
14 who are not reservists, were the only ones who got paid by the army;
16 A. That is correct.
17 Q. So talking about a pay, in a situation where police members and
18 reservists were temporarily in your unit, there was no need for you to
19 deal with matters such as forfeiture of pay?
20 A. There was no need at all to do anything like it.
21 Q. Talking about pay, all members of the reserve force, including
22 the police and the regular - let's call them that - regular reserve
23 force, were, in principle, equal; right?
24 A. In principle, yes.
25 Q. Thank you, general.
1 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] This is all I had.
2 Further Cross-examination by Mr. Cvijetic:
3 Q. [Interpretation] General, I will follow up on Ms. Korner's line
4 of question, and her last question had to do with promotion.
5 You could not effect their promotion in the framework of their
6 police structures, their hierarchy, once they returned to their positions
7 and become police officers again; right?
8 A. I was not involved in that.
9 Q. However, while they are resubordinated, and yesterday you agreed
10 with me that during that time, they have the status of military
11 conscripts, or military personnel, for all those reasons that we need not
12 repeat. So while they have such a status, the one among them who is a
13 reserve military officer because he finished reserve officer's school,
14 can be promoted by the military command in charge to a higher rank if he
15 merits it?
16 A. Yes, he could. And -- and that did happen.
17 Q. Let's continue. You were asked about how people were
18 resubordinated, and the Prosecutor said that it was mostly done as a
19 whole unit headed by its -- its commander.
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. However, that whole unit, including the commander, are all
22 resubordinated and become military conscripts - in other words, military
23 personnel - while they are resubordinated?
24 A. Exactly right. And they're subordinated to the commander of the
25 unit to which they are resubordinated.
1 Q. However, you said -- and that's very true. You said yesterday
2 that you personally could resubordinate a single police officer if there
3 was a need for that.
4 A. I had the right to do so.
5 Q. And let's finally clear up one matter.
6 I didn't show you the Law on the Army and the Law on Military
7 Courts for no reason yesterday, because it clearly define who is military
8 personnel. You cannot command somebody who is not military personnel;
10 A. Well, no, I can't.
11 Q. I'll give an example.
12 You cannot command somebody who is at the same time a soldier and
13 a civilian, who can but is not duty-bound to follow your order, whom you
14 can and cannot punish. So there is no half status. Someone is either a
15 soldier or not a soldier.
16 A. That's true: Either a soldier or not a soldier.
17 Q. Thank you.
18 JUDGE HALL: General Lisica, we thank you for your coming to
19 give -- to assist us at the Tribunal. You are now released as a witness,
20 and we wish you a safe journey back to your home.
21 The usher will escort you from the courtroom while we deal with
22 any housekeeping matters before we take the adjournment.
23 Thank you, sir.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, too. It was my
1 [The witness withdrew]
2 JUDGE HALL: Do either the parties wish to raise any matters
3 before we take the adjournment?
4 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I do. And it really relates to
5 Judge Harhoff's question to Mr. Krgovic this morning, which I am just
6 trying to find, about the Defence case on this aspect of state of war and
7 the like.
8 Your Honours, it -- nowhere in either of the Defences' pre-trial
9 briefs was there -- first of all, any suggestion of the issue that's now
10 emerged; namely, the status of resubordinated police and the like. And
11 certainly nothing about Mr. Krgovic's assertion -- and, as I say, I'm
12 trying to just find the part. It's page 9 - thank you very much - line
13 5 -- yeah, line 8. 5.
14 Judge Harhoff asks:
15 "Mr. Krgovic, before you leave this issue, I'd like to ascertain
16 whether it is now your case," I'm glad that Judge Harhoff added the word
17 "now," "that there was as of 1991, legally speaking, a state of war?"
18 "Yes, Your Honour. But in specific areas where there were armed
19 conflicts. Not in the entire territory, but in war-torn zones. And, in
20 fact, where there were armed conflicts, when you had two opposing parties
21 a state of war prevailed."
22 And then he went on to say when it came to the authority of
23 commander it was irrelevant whether a state of war was proclaimed or not.
24 Now, Your Honours, this has never been stated in those stark
25 terms; as a result of which, no evidence, one way or another, has been
1 called about that. Your Honours, we asked for leave to call an expert in
2 rebuttal and Your Honours declined, saying that there was -- the issue,
3 the main issue on which we wished to call him, namely, the effect of
4 resubordination on the status of police and -- and the follow-up, had
5 been something we'd been aware about before the case started -- before we
6 closed our case. But, Your Honour, this issue, we had no idea was going
7 to arise, at all. And we would respectfully ask that Your Honours have a
8 further look at the statement of the expert witness and reassess, if you
9 like, rather than reconsider, whether some evidence should be called
10 about this from someone who is a genuine expert.
11 JUDGE HALL: If this, on reflection, Ms. Korner, is a concern of
12 some substance, wouldn't you be best advised to flesh this out in a
13 proper motion for the Chamber's consideration?
14 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, certainly, we can do that.
15 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
16 Yes, Mr. Krgovic.
17 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'll be very brief.
18 The issue of the existence of armed conflict and consequently
19 whether there was an obligation to apply the international law of war,
20 which is applied during the state of war, is one of the fundamental
21 issues this Tribunal has dealt with since its establishment. And the
22 jurisdiction of the Tribunal is based on the position that there was a
23 state of war in former Yugoslavia since 1991. It's is a notorious fact
24 that there was armed conflict in 1991 and based on that this Tribunal
25 declared itself as having authority over any events there. So this is
1 hardly surprising. I merely narrowed it down to certain territories
2 where there was fighting.
3 The position of the Tribunal is that in the whole territory of
4 Bosnia-Herzegovina or even former Yugoslavia there was armed conflict.
5 You really need an expert to tell you that? Any by such motion by
6 Ms. Korner to have a military expert to tell us more about it is really
7 pointless. And this is --
8 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Krgovic, again, as with the case of Ms. Korner,
9 may I respectfully invite you to reflect on the position, of course. And
10 when you would have seen her motion, you would know how to respond. But
11 the distinction is between the position of the Tribunal and what is
12 relevant terms of this indictment and the briefs of the file. That is
13 where Ms. Korner is.
14 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, Mr. Krgovic knows perfectly well that
15 I'm not suggesting that there wasn't an armed conflict into which the
16 international laws of war applied. What I'm objecting to is his
17 assertion that a state of war, as defined, undeclared or existed in
18 certain municipalities but not others, and ergo the powers of the police,
19 therefore, did not apply, because they all came under the military.
20 That's the assertion that I'm objecting to.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. So there being nothing further, we will
23 take the adjournment, to reconvene in this courtroom at 9.00 on
24 Wednesday, the 7th. I trust everyone has a safe weekend.
25 Mr. Aleksic, you seem surprised by -- yes. Thank you.
1 I trust everybody has a safe weekend.
2 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 11.30 a.m.,
3 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 7th day of
4 March, 2012, at 9.00 a.m.