Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 30517

 1                           Wednesday, 28 November 2012

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.

 5             JUDGE KWON:  Good morning, everyone.  Yes, Mr. Harvey.

 6             MR. HARVEY:  Good morning, Mr. President, Your Honours.  May I

 7     please introduce Mr. Trajce Gjorgjiev who has been working with my team.

 8     He is from Macedonia and has been of invaluable assistance to us these

 9     past many months.

10             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

11             Yesterday, the Chamber issued its decision on the Prosecution

12     motion to exclude evidence of Angelina Pikulic, and it will now issue an

13     oral ruling on the Prosecution's motion to exclude in part the evidence

14     of Witness Branislav Dukic and the Prosecution's motion to exclude in

15     part the evidence of Witness Radojka Pandurevic, both filed on the

16     21st of November, 2012.  I will refer to those two motions as the Dukic

17     motion and the Pandurevic motion, respectively.

18             In the Dukic and Pandurevic motions, the Prosecution requests

19     that certain portions of the proposed Rule 92 ter statements of these two

20     witnesses be excluded as they are irrelevant to the charges in the

21     indictment in that they pertain to crimes committed against Serbs.

22             The accused responded on the 26th of November, 2012, opposing

23     both the Dukic and Pandurevic motions.  In relation to the Dukic motion,

24     the accused argues that Dukic's statement contains relevant evidence

25     regarding the locations, conduct, and movement of the ABiH, which are

Page 30518

 1     live issues in this case.  With respect to the Pandurevic motion, the

 2     accused argues that Pandurevic's statement includes evidence that

 3     pertains to the take-over of Hadzici municipality and rebuts adjudicated

 4     facts which judicial notice was taken in this case.  Furthermore, in

 5     relation to both motions, the accused argues that evidence concerning the

 6     mistreatment of Serbs in Sarajevo is relevant to show why the VRS would

 7     want to target ABiH forces that were committing crimes against

 8     Bosnian Serbs and explain why some individual Serbs may have committed

 9     crimes out of rage or revenge.

10             As a preliminary matter, the Chamber reminds both parties once

11     again of the utmost importance of filing witness-related motions in a

12     timely manner.  The Chamber notes that the Pandurevic motion was filed

13     over three weeks after the accused filed his Rule 92 ter notification for

14     Pandurevic and that this witness is scheduled to testify this week.  As

15     is the case for the accused, the Chamber expects the Prosecution to file

16     its witness-related motions sufficiently in advance so that the accused

17     can respond and the Chamber can rule on the said motions prior to the

18     witness's arrival in The Hague.

19             Turning first to the Dukic motion, the Chamber notes that Dukic's

20     proposed 92 ter statement is concerned, almost entirely, with detailed

21     descriptions of crimes committed against the Serbs and against Dukic in

22     particular.  It also contains some references to previous meetings

23     between Dukic and the Prosecution.  As such, the Chamber considers that

24     Dukic's evidence is not relevant to the charges in the indictment.  While

25     his statement does contain some remote references to the positions and

Page 30519

 1     military activity of the ABiH and the Bosnian Croat forces in and around

 2     Sarajevo, these are not only minimal but also general in nature and thus

 3     are not sufficient in and of themselves to warrant admitting parts of his

 4     statement.  Accordingly, the Chamber decides, proprio motu, to exclude

 5     the evidence of Branislav Dukic in its entirety.

 6             With regard to the Pandurevic motion, the Chamber finds that

 7     paragraphs 1 to 12, 55, 56, 61 to 63, 65 and 66 of Pandurevic's

 8     Rule 92 ter statement are of relevance to the charges in the indictment.

 9     The remainder of her statement, however, is comprised of tu quoque or

10     otherwise irrelevant evidence and will therefore not be admitted.

11     Because Pandurevic's Rule 92 ter statement remains comprehensible even if

12     the irrelevant portions are redacted, the Chamber orders the accused to

13     redact the statement and remove the irrelevant paragraphs.  Accordingly,

14     the Chamber grants the Pandurevic motion in part and excludes

15     paragraphs 13 to 54, 57 to 60, 64, and 67 of Pandurevic's witness

16     statement and the associated exhibits therein.  The Chamber allows the

17     accused to tender the remainder of Pandurevic's statement pursuant to

18     Rule 92 ter should the accused still wish to call Pandurevic to testify

19     in this trial.

20             In addition, in relation to the accused's argument as to the

21     relevance of the tu quoque evidence in Pandurevic and Dukic Rule 92 ter

22     statements, namely that it will explain why the VRS targeted ABiH forces

23     and why some individual Serbs may have committed crimes in revenge, the

24     Chamber wishes to make it clear that the accused is not charged with

25     targeting ABiH forces but with targeting civilians.  Furthermore, the

Page 30520

 1     jurisprudence of this Tribunal is clear, starting with the Tadic appeal

 2     judgement, that personal motives of physical perpetrators of crimes such

 3     as revenge, for example, are not relevant to determining the

 4     responsibility of the accused.  Accordingly, since the tu quoque evidence

 5     offered here is not relevant to the responsibility of the accused as

 6     alleged in the indictment, the Chamber will not allow him to introduce

 7     detailed and comprehensive evidence of such nature under the guise of

 8     relevance to this trial.  The Chamber urges Mr. Karadzic and Mr. Robinson

 9     to bear this in mind.

10             Having said that, could the Chamber move into private session.

11             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Excellencies, may I say

12     something for the record?

13                           [Trial Chamber confers]

14             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. Karadzic.

15             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] With all due respect, I have to

16     express my disappointment, because I am being accused here for spreading

17     fear amongst the Serbs --

18             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Karadzic, we will not entertain your statement

19     with respect to your disappointment with the Court's ruling.  The Court

20     has issued its ruling, and there's other steps to take on your part if

21     you're not satisfied with its ruling.

22             Yes, Mr. Tieger.

23             MR. TIEGER:  Mr. President, in light of the Court's reminder

24     concerning the timeliest possible notice about witness-related matters, I

25     wanted to bring, therefore, to the Court's attention the matter that can

Page 30521

 1     be considered hot off the presses.

 2             Last night at 9.00 p.m. we received copies of the signed

 3     statement of KDZ318, who was due to give evidence tomorrow morning.

 4     Earlier in that day the Chamber had limited the cross-examination of this

 5     witness to one hour.  In this new statement we now find 11 paragraphs of

 6     new evidence, some of which, as it happens, relates to the testimony of a

 7     witness about to take the stand.  It refers to 11 new associated exhibits

 8     that were not mentioned in the original notification, the 92 ter

 9     notification on October 30th, and none of which are on the Defence 65 ter

10     list, and five of which are not translated.  Despite repeated warnings to

11     Dr. Karadzic and his associates about the extent of last minute changes

12     to statements, the practice continues, and this kind of late notice of

13     new material is manifestly unfair and obviously and directly affects the

14     Prosecution's capacity to effectively prepare for cross-examination.

15             Under these circumstances, we would urge that any new information

16     of that sort be led live and that the Prosecution -- that the

17     cross-examination of the witness be held over so the Prosecution can

18     prepare adequately -- for the Prosecution and furthermore, obviously that

19     any untranslated documents not be permitted to be used under these

20     circumstances.  Thank you, Mr. President.

21             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.  The Chamber will look into the matter.

22             MR. TIEGER:  If I may, I'm sorry to -- there is one additional

23     matter I wanted to raise today.  I had alluded to it earlier.  I don't

24     want to raise it now because it's a relatively lengthy submission.  I

25     don't mean a matter of a half hour or so, nothing of that nature, but I

Page 30522

 1     think it would be better if I raise it at the beginning of the next

 2     session so I wanted to alert the Court.

 3             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you would you like to add anything to this,

 4     Mr. Robinson?

 5             MR. ROBINSON:  No, thank you, Mr. President.

 6             JUDGE KWON:  Could the Chamber move into private session briefly.

 7                           [Private session]

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 30523

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7                           [Open session]

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  We're now in open session, Your Honours.

 9             JUDGE KWON:  Is there any reason for you to make that submission

10     at the next session, Mr. Tieger?

11             MR. TIEGER:  If the Court wishes I can make it now,

12     Mr. President, if that's what you're suggesting.

13             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

14             MR. TIEGER:  Mr. President, this concerns a matter that has been

15     raised by now repeatedly.  The Chamber will recall that at the

16     28 September Status Conference we first raised our concern about the

17     Defence failure to provide adequate summaries, factual summaries,

18     pursuant to Rule 65 ter(G).  Now, at that time we advised the Court that

19     rather than demand an immediate enforcement of the Rules and a Rule in

20     particular which is designed to ensure both the fairness and efficiency

21     of the proceedings, we were willing to work with and had been working

22     with the accused and his staff toward a workable solution and to try to

23     be as accommodating and flexible as possible, and we mentioned in

24     particular our willingness to accept statements in lieu of 65 ter

25     summaries, especially in the context of a case that's heavily dependent

Page 30524

 1     on 92 ter so that that would obviate any unnecessary work for the

 2     Defence.

 3             We came back to the Court on October 15th, the

 4     Pre-Trial Conference, and advised that despite our efforts, there was no

 5     success in the attempt to reach a workable solution.  We told the Court

 6     about the hundreds of witnesses for whom there was neither a statement

 7     nor an adequate factual summary.  We identified for the Trial Chamber the

 8     nature of some of the so-called summaries, including things along the

 9     lines of significant senior figures in the military or the police who we

10     were advised would testify about their roles and activities regarding

11     Srebrenica and its aftermath, obviously wholly topical and useless

12     description of the fact that the witness will testify about a

13     particular -- in the context of a particular component or the 90 separate

14     municipality witnesses who were expected to "explain why some Muslims

15     preferred to leave the municipality" or the many cut-and-paste summaries

16     where the name of one municipality was substituted for another because

17     the sweeping generalisations provided would work as well in one

18     municipality as another.

19             We told the Court that the situation was neither acceptable nor

20     workable, and despite our efforts, we had been told that we could not

21     expect to receive summaries even past the first quarter of the next year,

22     and as we explained that means we would be operating in the dark and were

23     operating in the dark with respect to the municipalities, the Srebrenica

24     component and the hostage component.  We told the Court at that time that

25     we needed dead-lines.  The Court -- and we suggested some specific

Page 30525

 1     dead-lines, in fact.  The Court urged us again to go back to the accused

 2     and try to do what we could to work out some compromise solution, and we

 3     did just that.  We went back.  In fact, we took up on a suggestion that

 4     the Trial Chamber had made which I think was made at page 28839 of the

 5     Pre-Trial Conference where the Court suggested going back to the witness

 6     list and seeing if there are some witnesses that the Defence team already

 7     knows it would not be calling, and we sought as at least a preliminary

 8     matter the provision of some kind of A and B list or will call or won't

 9     call list so we could at least begin to assess the magnitude of the

10     problem in light of a more realistic assessment of that list.

11             That -- there was a delay in providing that, but when we finally

12     got it, it quickly became apparent that that list was useless.  We

13     quickly found people who had been on the so-called B list, that is the

14     less likely to be called list, appearing on the list of people soon to be

15     called, and we found people who had been on the A list who were dropped

16     completely from the case.  So it became clear to us, and it's been

17     acknowledged by the Defence, that that was not a useful list and provided

18     us with no further insights or opportunities to craft an appropriate

19     compromise.

20             So I'm back today to seek dead-lines.  And I need to emphasise,

21     Mr. President, that this is not a failure of negotiation; it is instead a

22     failure by the Defence to complete the tasks envisioned by the Rules and

23     required by the Rules that would allow a reasonable and even generous

24     compromise to take place.  The Rules obviously envision that when -- when

25     a party assembles its witness list it goes out, it identifies witnesses,

Page 30526

 1     it then goes out to find out what relevant information those witnesses

 2     may or may not have, and then in some fashion, usually through a factual

 3     summary as contemplated by 65 ter(G), it transmits that information to

 4     the other party and to the Court sufficiently in advance so that the

 5     integrity of the proceedings and the efficiency of the proceedings are

 6     not impaired.

 7             And instead of complying with that Rule, it appears that the

 8     Defence instead went out, identified witnesses, and then instead of

 9     perfecting that process as the Rules contemplate, it simply threw that

10     name on a list and went out to find more witnesses.  And so what we have

11     is a list -- a lengthy, bloated, excessive list of people, many of whom

12     the Defence has not only failed to identify what relevant information

13     they have but has failed to communicate with at all.  As

14     Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff mentioned to Mr. Robinson during the course of our

15     discussions, this is not a witness list.  This is a wish list.  It's only

16     the image of a witness list.

17             So instead of operating within the meaning of the Rules and the

18     spirit of the Rules at a time when that was provided, the Defence used

19     that time to simply assemble the largest possible witness list and now

20     is -- is trying to do the work it should have done earlier at the expense

21     of the Prosecution and indeed the Court.

22             So we don't have the information we're entitled to have months

23     after we were entitled to have it, which has manifold effects.  We can't

24     do the preparation, research or investigation that would otherwise be

25     possible.  We can't identify recurring themes and make assignments in a

Page 30527

 1     rational and efficient way.  We can't identify the extent to which

 2     witnesses contradict each other.  There are a myriad ways in which we are

 3     handicapped and unfairly prejudiced by the practice that the Defence has

 4     introduced, and indeed it's a reflection of what the Court alluded to at

 5     page 28827 of the Pre-Trial Conference:

 6             "We are at this point very concerned that you and your legal team

 7     appear to be openly disregarding all the rules and practices established

 8     and followed during the Prosecution case."

 9             Mr. President, under these circumstances, we continue to operate

10     in the dark with respect to the municipality, Srebrenica, and hostage

11     components.  We can't begin under these circumstances.  It's extremely

12     unfair, and we need the concrete dead-lines we proposed earlier.  We had

13     previously proposed November and December.  That was about a month ago.

14     That means November -- that meant November for completion of the

15     municipalities component and December for completion.  That means getting

16     all the statements in or summaries in - and I'll speak about that in just

17     a second - by the end of those particular months.  So now that would mean

18     completion of the municipalities and the hostages component, information

19     and provision of that information by the end of December, and Srebrenica

20     by the end of January.

21             Now, again we don't insist on a needless formality; that is the

22     Defence goes out and gets statements and then spends additional time

23     transforming that information into a 65 ter summary.  Obviously this is a

24     92 ter case.  The Defence has to go out now and meet the witnesses and

25     get the information that they failed to get earlier.  That's -- they need

Page 30528

 1     to do that in the form of statements.  There is no reason to do it twice.

 2     They should simply get it in the form of a statement or draft statement

 3     as they've been doing and transmit that to the Prosecution and to the

 4     Court.

 5             Now, as mentioned, we spoke to Mr. Robinson in the context of our

 6     efforts to reach some workable mutual accord.  He suggested that the

 7     Defence's working -- the Defence won't be able to do it because their

 8     prioritising one component at a time and only staying so far ahead.  What

 9     we said in response I'll say to the Court as well, and that is that

10     presumes the deployment of their resources to a -- toward a fixed

11     objective, and that is the completion of all the 65 ter summaries or in

12     this case all the statements for a witness list that has been repeatedly

13     identified as excessive, as containing witnesses who provide irrelevant,

14     marginal, or manifestly needlessly cumulative information and that's been

15     alluded to by the Court on a number of occasions.

16             If the Defence finally undertook a realistic appraisal of the

17     witness list and focused on the witnesses who are most needed, then, in

18     our submission -- and deployed their resources appropriately, the kind of

19     obstacles that they have insisted prevent their compliance with the Rules

20     of this Court would dissipate.  In any event, the Court cannot permit

21     this flouting of the Rules which has now gone on for an excessive --

22     well, been excessive for quite a while, but this now threatens to further

23     affect the Prosecution's ability to prepare for witnesses as it is

24     entitled to do.  We struggled through the Sarajevo component.  That was a

25     bit different because the Defence had front loaded it slightly but during

Page 30529

 1     the process we learned what an adverse impact it can have on our ability

 2     to prepare for their remaining components and that's why I'm before the

 3     Court today and now advising the Court that no compromise solution has

 4     been reached or appears possible and dead-lines need to be imposed.

 5     Thank you, Mr. President.

 6             THE ACCUSED:  May I respond?

 7             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  I was listening to French translation.

 8             Yes, Mr. Tieger.  To be clear, what are the specific remedies you

 9     are seeking that is to be done within the respective dead-line again?

10             MR. TIEGER:  The submission of, in this case, statements for the

11     witnesses who are to be called for the municipalities and hostage

12     component by the end of December, and the submission of statements for

13     witnesses who are to be called for the Srebrenica component by the end of

14     January, and in the event that -- for witnesses who now appear on the

15     list and statements are not provided, those witness are considered to be

16     no longer on the list because the Rules have not been complied with.  And

17     if the Defence later wants to -- seeks to add them to the list for good

18     cause obviously the Rules provide for that possibility if good cause

19     exists.

20             JUDGE KWON:  And what about the summaries?

21             MR. TIEGER:  Well, the Rules obviously -- excuse me.  Excuse me,

22     Mr. President.  The 65 ter(G) refers to summaries, but we are operating

23     in a 92 ter environment, so knowing that the Defence has to prepare the

24     92 ter statements, it's not our intention to make them prepare the

25     statements as they will be doing and then spend additional time

Page 30530

 1     converting those into summaries.  So the statements will suffice in lieu

 2     of the summaries, and we've been clear on that with them from the outset.

 3             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you, Mr. Tieger.

 4             Yes, Mr. Karadzic, Mr. Robinson.  Would you like to respond?

 5     Yes, Mr. Karadzic.

 6             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Excellency.  I'm waiting

 7     for the interpretation to finish.

 8             I'm grateful to Mr. Tieger for having raised the topic, but I

 9     would like to remind you that I have prepared tens of witnesses that the

10     Prosecution gave up on and also some municipalities that were dropped

11     from the indictment at a later stage.  That is one thing.

12             Secondly, I would like to remind you of over 100 cases of

13     violation of Rule 68.

14             Also, I would like to remind you that during the Prosecution

15     case, we had only two investigators who were supposed to match the years'

16     long investigation carried out by the Prosecution.  We come from a system

17     that involves investigating judges who carry out an investigation for

18     both sides.  Here we are helpless.  There is no way we can conduct the

19     kind of investigation that the Prosecution had conducted.  Secondly, we

20     haven't been given enough time.  Our modest request was to start in

21     March, and that was very restrictive too.

22             Further on, if you look at all the resources they had, primarily

23     all the human resources they had, and if you look at what we have,

24     although many people work for my Defence free of charge, pro bono, and

25     they can barely keep up with the tempo.  We will be examining two or

Page 30531

 1     three witnesses a day, after all, so it is absolutely impossible for us

 2     to meet any dead-lines in this situation without new people and possibly

 3     more time.  Also, when the Prosecution was in a similar situation, they

 4     were given certain breaks, and they could prepare.

 5             That is what I know.  Those are the facts.  That is what we're

 6     grappling with.  Maybe Mr. Robinson can add something from a legal point

 7     of view, but, Your Honours, there is no way of conducting a trial that

 8     would be fair for us, us who come from a different system where a proper

 9     and fair investigation is carried out on behalf of both parties before

10     the trial actually commences.

11             If our requests are not met, a shadow of doubt will be cast on

12     the legality of the proceedings and the Tribunal itself.  Perhaps

13     Mr. Robinson can add something to that.

14             Anyway, may I conclude by saying that we are falling on our face.

15     We are working so hard, all of us.  All of those who are working pro bono

16     are also falling off their feet, but there is such a lot of work, and

17     there are many details involved.  There are a lot of adjudicated facts

18     and so on and so forth.  So if we see, for example, that a witness is

19     denying an adjudicated fact, then we are not going to dwell on the

20     matter; then we have to deal with the same matter with another witness,

21     but that takes time.

22             If the Trial Chamber accepts these dead-lines that we're going to

23     ask for certain breaks, it would be a great pity indeed if these

24     proceedings were to be unfair or incomplete.

25             Could Mr. Robinson please say something from a legal point of

Page 30532

 1     view.

 2             MR. ROBINSON:  Yes, Mr. President.  First of all, I want to say

 3     that we have done everything possible to work with the Prosecution to

 4     give them as much information as we have concerning the testimony of the

 5     people that we want to call as witnesses.  So we have now disclosed some

 6     160 statements in e-court which are available to the Prosecution at the

 7     rate of about 25 witnesses for the first month, and I expect it will pick

 8     up a little bit now that the times for cross-examination will be

 9     shortened, but that's six months or more worth of advanced notice of what

10     exactly the witness will say in court since we hardly ever elicit any

11     additional information from the witness.

12             So we also tried to give the Prosecution disclosure of everything

13     that we have concerning these witnesses.  It's essentially an open file

14     disclosure policy.  The problem is that we don't have more information

15     about what some of these witnesses are going to say until we interview

16     them.  We could provide a summary that's of greater detail as required by

17     the Rule if some of those are deficient, but even as the Prosecution

18     recognises, to do that will essentially be speculating or guessing or

19     imagining what these witnesses would say unless we've actually had the

20     opportunity to interview them and take a statement from them, and that

21     wouldn't be of value to anyone and would just use up the very limited

22     resources that we have.  But if there's been a failure under Rule 65 ter

23     to provide an adequate summary in any particular case, I would urge on

24     the Prosecution to file a motion to identify the particular witness

25     number and we will do our best to enhance the summary if that's what is

Page 30533

 1     required to comply with what the Prosecution feels it needs.  But as a

 2     practical matter, we simply don't have the resources to take statements

 3     from all of the witnesses that we intend to call by the end of December

 4     or by the end of January, and if there's been one principle that the

 5     Prosecution has made very successful -- very successfully advocated

 6     before this Chamber, it is that evidence is not excluded when there is a

 7     delay in disclosure, and so to ask us to face the sanction of excluding

 8     evidence for which we have been unable to have an investigator take a

 9     statement from a witness by the end of December or the end of January is

10     really not very practical and certainly not reciprocal when you take into

11     account over 400 statements that the Prosecution failed to disclose to us

12     during the -- by the dead-line it was given, for which not a single piece

13     of evidence was ever excluded, or the thousands of Rule 68 documents

14     which the Prosecution failed to provide with -- within the time required

15     by Rule 68 for which not a single document was ever excluded.

16             So I think it's better for the Prosecution and the Chamber and us

17     to continue to try to work together with the limited resources that we

18     have to do the maximum, to give the Prosecution as much notice as we can

19     of evidence, and if they're disadvantaged by late notice, then the

20     Chamber can employ the remedy which it did in our case, which is to

21     postpone the cross-examination of the witness or maybe even postpone

22     their appearance as a result of any prejudice caused to the Prosecution.

23             Thank you very much.

24                           [Trial Chamber confers]

25             JUDGE KWON:  Could you like to add anything, Mr. Tieger?

Page 30534

 1             MR. TIEGER:  Well, I'm just -- only -- there are many things I

 2     could go into.  I think the Court can probably take the comments on board

 3     and assimilate them, but I can't help but note that there's not even a

 4     shred of acknowledgement of what the Court has alluded to previously and

 5     that is the nature of this witness list and its manifestly excessive

 6     nature and the impact it has on this very problem.  Instead -- instead

 7     the discussion is, again as it was when we were talking to Mr. Robinson,

 8     assuming that the Defence resources are being deployed against an

 9     intractable and fixed obstacle or issue and that is the witness list and

10     the attempt to provide information pursuant to the Rules for all of these

11     witnesses.  In many respects, it gets back to the original decision by

12     the Defence to assemble an extremely unrealistic so-called witness list

13     in contravention of the Rules, one that has been recognised by the Court

14     to be unrealistic on numerous occasions.

15             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.  The Chamber will take this issue under

16     advisement and issue a ruling in due course.

17             Unless there are any other matters, we'll bring in the witness.

18             MS. WEST:  Good morning, Mr. President.  Good morning,

19     Your Honours.  Just an administrative matter from yesterday.  When we

20     ended with the witness we were speaking about document 65 ter 09365.  I

21     would like to ask that that be admitted into evidence, please.

22             MR. ROBINSON:  No objection.

23             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  That will be admitted.

24             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit P6005, Your Honours.

25                           [The witness takes the stand]

Page 30535

 1                           WITNESS:  VELIMIR DUNJIC [Resumed]

 2                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

 3             JUDGE KWON:  Good morning, Mr. Dunjic.  I apologise for your

 4     inconvenience.  There were matters to deal with on the part of the

 5     Trial Chamber.

 6             Once the witness is in the --

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning to you too.

 8             JUDGE KWON:  I'd like to note that the Chamber is sitting

 9     pursuant to Rule 15 bis, with Judge Lattanzi being away due to her urgent

10     personal matters.

11             Yes, Ms. West, please continue.

12             MS. WEST:  Thank you.  May we have 65 ter 24201, please.

13                           Cross-examination by Ms. West:  [Continued]

14        Q.   Good morning, Mr. Dunjic.  Yesterday when we broke --

15        A.   Good morning to you as well.

16        Q.   Yesterday when we concluded, we had just been speaking about the

17     arrests that took place in December of 1992, and early on in your

18     cross-examination you had conceded that you were dismissed from the VRS

19     in January of 1993 and that dismissal was involuntary.  I'd like to focus

20     in on that.

21             Sir, isn't it true that in the middle of January you were told by

22     Commander Galic that by January 26 you were going to be -- you were going

23     to have to leave and your contract would not be extended?

24        A.   That is not true.

25        Q.   Okay.  But as we saw in the last document from yesterday, wasn't

Page 30536

 1     it true that by the end of December -- or excuse me, by December 16, the

 2     day after the arrests, the SRK was already considering your dismissal?

 3        A.   The Sarajevo-Romanija Corps, whether they considered that after I

 4     left, I don't know, but the document that was shown to me yesterday is a

 5     document in which the colonel I arrested proposes those measures.  That

 6     is that.  It's not about the decision or meeting in the corps.

 7        Q.   Thank you.  Mr. Dunjic, isn't it correct that between August --

 8     excuse me, September of 1992 when you joined the Igman Brigade and

 9     January of 1993 when you were dismissed, that Brne and his paramilitary

10     unit were never meaningfully under the command of the SRK?

11        A.   First of all, let us clarify something.  I was appointed

12     commander of the Igman Brigade.  I did not just join it.  That was my

13     first point.

14             Secondly, although I find you highly likable, you cannot -- you

15     cannot suggest to me that although according to Galic's statement there

16     were 1 per cent or according to my statements there were 3 per cent of

17     volunteers, and you are ignoring the ruling of the Supreme Court.

18     According to the ruling of the Supreme Court, they lost the attribute to

19     volunteers.  They joined the military, and they're not paramilitaries

20     therefore.

21             I commanded thousands of men, and I did not focus on those units.

22     I did not focus on that unit only.  That was minor compared to the total

23     manpower.  I had other problems there as well.  I mentioned in the

24     beginning that I was the only professional soldier in the unit.

25     According to your documents, according to the documents you have, you saw

Page 30537

 1     in my statement that there was fighting every day, that there was

 2     shelling every day.  And yesterday I also omitted to tell you when you

 3     asked me about the conversation with Prstojevic, most of the

 4     conversations that we had had to do with the shelling of the transformer

 5     station at Vrelo Bosne, the destruction of that station which was later

 6     destroyed.  Anyway, the focus of my work was defence, defence from

 7     everyday attacks, care for civilians and even care for civilians on the

 8     other side, if you will, in relation to the transformer station and the

 9     cuts in water supplies, but this unit was a volunteer unit, not a

10     paramilitary unit.

11        Q.   Okay.  And again, for the fourth time you've brought up the

12     Supreme Court decision and we'll get into that, but at the moment we're

13     talking about your dismissal.  Now, we're going to look at the document

14     before us and this is dated 18 January, but it speaks about an event that

15     happened on the 14th of January, and it talks about an incident that

16     occurred in your apartment between members of military police and

17     Brne's Chetniks, and it says - and this is a MUP document - We have

18     learned on that day the commander of the SRK Corps, Galic, gave a

19     cocktail party at a hotel in order to celebrate his promotion to the rank

20     of general and on which occasion he informed you to leave your command

21     post on January 26 and that the corps will not extend your contract.

22             Sir, this in fact did happen; correct?

23        A.   Not correct.

24        Q.   [Overlapping speakers] go ahead.  I'm sorry.  You said?

25        A.   Not correct.  First of all, that's not the way correspondence

Page 30538

 1     evolves in the military.  My superior officer does not say you're going

 2     to stay until then and then you're not going to be there.  This is done

 3     in writing.

 4             Secondly, I did not come to the Army of Republika Srpska on the

 5     basis of some contract.  I came on the basis of an order, and I can leave

 6     the army on the basis of an order and those were the rules that were in

 7     force in the Army of Republika Srpska and in the JNA as well.

 8        Q.   Thank you.  But let's go on to what happened after the party.

 9     And following the end of the ceremony, Major Dunjic invited General Galic

10     to his apartment in Hadzici, telling him that he did not need an escort

11     and they were going to his apartment, Dunjic's apartment, for a drink.

12     Once they, Dunjic and Galic, arrived at his apartment, they were joined

13     by Brne's men and after a while persons present came to provoke

14     General Galic and the general was forced to endure the unpleasantness.

15             So, sir, after -- on this evening after this cocktail party, was

16     there an occasion when you went back to your apartment with

17     General Galic?

18        A.   I'll tell you about that, but after that I would kindly ask for a

19     private session, closed session, if possible for private reasons,

20     primarily for the sake of General Galic, Your Honours, if that would be

21     possible.

22        Q.   Well, why don't we first -- why don't you first tell us what

23     happened at the apartment.

24        A.   First of all, it's not that I invited General Galic to my

25     apartment.  We were celebrating in the Srbija Hotel in Ilidza and

Page 30539

 1     Mr. Morillon was present, the commander of the Foreign Legion, and that

 2     unit of the UN.  Mr. Galic was present, I was present, and presidents of

 3     municipalities were there.  There was this official protocol involved.

 4     Mr. Galic spoke, Mr. Prstojevic spoke, Mr. Morillon spoke, and I did too.

 5     There were cocktails.  After the official part, I left that party, and I

 6     went to my apartment, and Galic came to my apartment at his own

 7     initiative, and privately.  He [Realtime transcript read in error "I"]

 8     did not come to the command post.  He came to my apartment.

 9             Should I go on?

10        Q.   [Overlapping speakers] this --

11        A.   I've asked kindly --

12        Q.   This document written a few days after this event discusses some

13     actions that took place there and it uses the word "unpleasantness," and

14     so should we assume from the event that took place on that evening that

15     your dismissal soon followed?

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] There is a small imprecision in the

17     transcript.  Line 24, [In English] "I did not come to the command post."

18     [Interpretation] The witness said that "he" did not come to the command

19     post.  He said that he, the general, did not come to the command post.

20     So if that matters, then it should be corrected.

21             MS. WEST:  Thank you, Mr. Karadzic.

22        Q.   Sir, can you answer my question.  Did you shortly thereafter

23     leave the SRK?

24        A.   It's not that I left shortly afterwards.  I was replaced in

25     writing.  I received an order, and I obeyed that order.

Page 30540

 1        Q.   This document goes on, and it says:

 2             "As soon as the military police found out Galic's whereabouts,

 3     his escort immediately went there to get him, at which time the clash

 4     between him and Brne's Chetniks occurred and also fire was opened from

 5     sidearms.  From Hadzici General Galic was transferred from Butile and

 6     subsequently on to Pale."

 7             And then in the last paragraph:

 8             "We have been informed in the army circles across the area of

 9     Hadzici, Ilidza, and Butile there are rumours that the general was

10     arrested on that occasion and the reason being cited for this is that he

11     had dismissed Major Dunjic from the SRK."

12             Sir, the decision to arrest General Galic, failed decision to

13     arrest General Galic, on that evening, that was a decision that you made

14     all your own just like the arrest you made in December; correct?

15        A.   No, that's not correct.

16        Q.   After --

17        A.   Can I explain why it's not correct?  First of all, you said

18     Mladic and it's not Mladic, it's Galic, and then also there was no

19     decision and General Galic was not arrested, and after that there was no

20     clash with the military police.  This entire document is incorrect,

21     because it's not correct that Brne's Chetniks were there.  That's not

22     correct either.  I was in my apartment as a private person.

23     Commander Galic came with his own escort, armed, into my apartment, and

24     there were a few people there.  One was a member of the Ilidza MUP, and

25     then later on the chief of the Ilidza MUP came as well.  There were no

Page 30541

 1     Chetniks there as you put it, Brne's Chetniks.  That is the way you are

 2     putting it.  Let me be very precise.

 3             MS. WEST:  Your Honour, may I tender this document?

 4             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit P6006, Your Honours.

 6             JUDGE KWON:  The witness once stated that he wanted to go into

 7     private session, but the Chamber saw no reason, so I don't think we need

 8     to deal with it.

 9             MS. WEST:  I don't.

10             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Robinson.

11             MR. ROBINSON:  Yes, Mr. President.  We can deal with that in

12     redirect if Dr. Karadzic thinks it's something that should be brought up.

13             JUDGE KWON:  If necessary.

14             MR. ROBINSON:  Yes.

15             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, please continue Ms. West.

16             MS. WEST:  Thank you, Mr. President.

17        Q.   Sir, you just mentioned a short time ago that you left shortly

18     thereafter.  How quickly did you leave the area?

19        A.   Well, I believe that was two days after the order, so two days

20     later I left on my own for Serbia.  I believe it was two days later.  I

21     can't tell you with great precision, perhaps a day or two or three, but I

22     left the command post immediately and then privately I returned and went

23     back.

24        Q.   And even after you left, isn't it true that Brne and his unit

25     went on to live up to his criminal reputation?  You knew about that, did

Page 30542

 1     you not?

 2        A.   No.  Once I received the order, I was absolutely not interested

 3     in any of that.  Once I received the order to leave the post of brigade

 4     commander, I had no further interest in that, absolutely nothing, after I

 5     left that area.  This would have been the 26th or the 27th of January, so

 6     I didn't care anymore about the unit or anything else, because I was

 7     disappointed.  I was disappointed by this decision and the actions that

 8     led to this incident.  This is why I requested a closed session.

 9        Q.   Who took over the command of the brigade after you left?

10        A.   I believe a few days after I left Mr. Spasoje Cojic arrived but I

11     didn't see him.

12             MS. WEST:  May we have P02305.

13        Q.   This is something that happened a couple weeks later.  I'd like

14     to see if you know about it.  This is another MUP document, and it

15     regards that gentleman.

16             We're just going to read the first paragraph.  It's

17     February 12th, official note:

18             "We are in possession of intelligence that paramilitary

19     formations, more specifically the group commanded by

20     Branislav Gavrilovic, aka Brne, knew the exact date of the arrival of the

21     new commander of the Igman Brigade and were even preparing his

22     liquidation.  Namely, the mentioned group of Chetniks, while the brigade

23     was commanded by Major ... Dunjic, had the freedom of decision and

24     practically implemented some of their own ideas, both in the political

25     sphere and in military life."

Page 30543

 1             Sir, up until that point, and this is February of 1993, would you

 2     agree that Brne's unit under the power of the local civilian political

 3     authorities and the republican level political authorities operated

 4     outside the command of the SRK and under your command, which is the

 5     reason you were dismissed?

 6        A.   Well, now you're confusing me.  Yesterday, you suggested that

 7     Mr. Gavrilovic had problems with Prstojevic, whereas now you're

 8     suggesting that he was under their command.  So all of this is absolutely

 9     unclear to me.  And as for this document, I don't know anything about it.

10        Q.   Okay.  Thank you.  We'll move on.

11             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we please have the reference

12     which would suggest that Brne was under the command of the republican

13     leadership, under their influence?  Fifteen, 16, 17.

14             JUDGE KWON:  Ms. West.

15             MS. WEST:  Thank you, Mr. President.  This regards evidence that

16     you received in Prosecution case in chief.  An example of that would be

17     the intercept we showed yesterday between Brne Gavrilovic and Seselj

18     where Seselj indicated that he had just spoken to --  he had called

19     Karadzic's office and left a message that he was going to take all the

20     paramilitaries out if Karadzic didn't do something about it.  You also

21     received evidence that -- you've also received evidence that other

22     members of the republican political leadership, for example, Plavsic have

23     had involvement with the paramilitaries and that's the basis of my

24     question.

25             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.  Let's move on.

Page 30544

 1             MS. WEST:  Thank you.

 2        Q.   I just want to briefly go back to something that you talked about

 3     yesterday, and you spoke about this a few times, and you said that

 4     ideological differences somehow influenced whether people understood

 5     units to be paramilitary or not.  And at transcript 30506, you said:

 6             [As read] "I'm telling you that paramilitary units in the heads

 7     of many officers of the former JNA were paramilitary only because they

 8     were called Vucak, Wolves, and other names, and by the same analogy the

 9     Deltas and the seals are also paramilitary formations.  Those how those

10     people reasoned due to ideological differences, whereas I was not

11     interested in any ideological differences."

12             So I just want to touch upon this briefly because it still

13     remains a little bit unclear to me.  Is it your testimony that someone

14     who had a more objective perspective, someone who was not burdened by

15     ideological differences may not consider, for example, Brne's unit to

16     then paramilitaries?  Do I understand this correctly?

17        A.   Yes, you understood me perfectly well.

18        Q.   Thank you.  May we have P02855, please.  So I want to take your

19     example and then show you a document and ask you a question about this.

20     And in particular you mentioned the Wolves.  We're going to look at a

21     document from July of 1992, and it's a report on paramilitary formations

22     in the territory.  And this is a report from Tolimir at the time.  And in

23     the first paragraph he writes:

24             [As read] "Paramilitary formations and groups are an important

25     feature of the war in the former Yugoslavia.  The paramilitary formations

Page 30545

 1     in the territory have special identifying names."

 2             And he lists the names.  And one of the names he lists are the

 3     Wolves, which is something you mentioned.  And they display iconography

 4     ranging from Orthodox ornaments and symbols to Chetnik and Vietnam war

 5     symbols.  And then he goes on and says:

 6             "Their main characteristics are as follows:  They're mostly

 7     composed of individuals of low moral quality and in many cases of persons

 8     previously prosecuted for crimes and offences and even convicted for

 9     crimes of murder, robbery, larceny, and the like.  And very often such

10     units have in their rank pathological criminals whom the conditions of

11     war and general lawlessness have brought to the fore."

12             And if we can turn to page 4 of the English and page 5 of the

13     B/C/S, please.  It's towards the bottom in the English and it's going to

14     be at the top of the B/C/S.  It speaks about the Wolves detachment:

15             "The detachment of Veljko Milankovic from Prnjavor has about 150

16     men and is, as of recently, formally under the command of the 1st KK.

17     Members of this detachment are involved in extensive looting and recently

18     attacked the Tactical Group 3 command post, arresting one SR BH army

19     colonel in the process."

20             So now we've taken your example, the Wolves.  Would you agree

21     with me from what we've read, and maybe perhaps from what you might have

22     known, would you agree in this case even an objective observer might

23     consider this behaviour that I've described to be a negative influence?

24        A.   Madam, 20 years after the war, this statement -- or, rather, this

25     document will provoke a reaction among the people from where the Wolves

Page 30546

 1     are.  They will provoke laughter first and then disappointment.  Mr. --

 2             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreter could not catch the name.

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Was a fighter for the Serb matter

 4     for the survival of the Serb people in this area and his unit,

 5     irrespective of this document, cannot be classified as a paramilitary

 6     unit, and you can check that now 20 years after the war.

 7             MS. WEST:

 8        Q.   Thank you for your comments.  I just want to address one last

 9     topic with you, and it's something that you yourself has brought to your

10     attention and today you did it for the fourth time.  You -- you mentioned

11     a Republika Srpska Supreme Court decision of 1992, and as I understand

12     it, you're suggesting that it's -- this decision gave you a reason or

13     gave you some sort of rationale as to why you legitimately took Brne's

14     group under your command and they weren't paramilitaries anymore.  They

15     didn't qualify as paramilitaries anymore.  Can you explain this to us?

16        A.   Yes, I can.  I did not care about ideological differences.  The

17     unit, or, rather, the Savo Derikonja Detachment, was already there within

18     the area of responsibility of the brigade when I arrived.  I abided by

19     the decision of the Supreme Court.  And this unit, as I've already said

20     in my statement, had not committed any crime that would be a breach that

21     would constitute a breach of the Geneva Conventions, and you also saw and

22     I told you a moment ago what the percentage of men in that unit was.  You

23     could see that I did not pay much attention to this unit, not because I

24     wanted to cover anything up, but because our focus was totally elsewhere

25     and not on what you've been insisting on for the past two days.

Page 30547

 1        Q.   Sir, the concept of the Supreme Court decision giving you some

 2     cover was not at all mentioned in your statement, yet you have four times

 3     brought it up during your testimony.  Was this decision discussed for the

 4     first time during your proofing with Mr. Karadzic?

 5        A.   No.  No.  I didn't even discuss this either with the Defence team

 6     or Mr. Karadzic, the decision of the Supreme Court.  And as I've already

 7     told you, it wasn't just a decision that guided me but also my

 8     ideological beliefs.  I didn't care where a fighter came from or what

 9     their past was.  All I saw was a fighter who would obey my orders, and I

10     didn't care about what their future would be or what their past was.  I

11     was focused as a professional soldier only on the defence of some 10.000

12     or so Serb people there, whereas who was a member of the Radical Party or

13     the Communist Party or the SDS, I couldn't care less.  Whether someone

14     had been -- had served a prison term before they arrived there, that was

15     irrelevant to me.  All that I cared about was that they would obey my

16     orders.  And again, I have to repeat that they constituted 1 to

17     3 per cent of the total number of men in my unit.  So not only was I not

18     interested in this or involved in thinking about this, that was not the

19     primary concern of mine.

20        Q.   I noticed yesterday and again today that you have some written

21     notes in front of you that you refer to.  Are those your own handwritten

22     notes?

23        A.   Yes, these are my own notes, handwritten notes.

24        Q.   And I see that they're on the back side of the actual statement.

25     Were these notes taken recently during your proofing or are these notes

Page 30548

 1     from some other time?

 2        A.   Well, first of all, this is not a statement, but I did also jot

 3     something down on the statement itself, but the documents that I received

 4     jogged my memory, so then I just jotted some things down, and I don't see

 5     that there's any problem with that.  As a responsible person, I felt that

 6     I needed to prepare for this.

 7        Q.   Nor do I.  I was just enquiring about the notes.  Can we have

 8     65 ter 17403.  Sir, I want to show you one more document.  17403, please.

 9     And I suspect you probably haven't seen this before.  This is the

10     Official Gazette of Republika Srpska, and we're going to focus in on

11     numbers 743 and 744, and in the English, that would be page 3, please.

12     And for 744, this speaks about a decision that took place in the Assembly

13     on August 12th, 1992.  This is about -- less than a month before you

14     came.  And the Assembly adopted the following decision on the

15     establishment of the Supreme Court of the Republika Srpska, that the

16     Supreme Court Republika Srpska is being established, and then the next

17     cite, 744, says the Assembly during the session held on

18     November 24, 1992 - so this is well after you came - adopted the

19     following decision on the appointment of the judge of the Supreme Court

20     of the Republika Srpska and then it gives the name.

21             Mr. Dunjic, it's difficult to see how the Supreme Court's first

22     decision could have been in effect giving you leeway to adopt

23     paramilitaries into your brigade in September of 1992 when the judges had

24     not yet fully been appointed by November of 1992.  Can you understand how

25     this doesn't make any sense?

Page 30549

 1             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is misleading.

 2             JUDGE KWON:  Why do you think it's misleading?  What's your

 3     basis, Mr. Karadzic?

 4             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, because the judges were

 5     changing all the time.  I mean, one judge would be appointed, another one

 6     would have left.  And it doesn't show here that the -- that this was a

 7     complete panel of judges.  It was just the appointment of this one

 8     particular judge.

 9             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the accused please repeat the last

10     portion of his reply.

11             JUDGE KWON:  Could you repeat your last sentence, Mr. Karadzic.

12             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] When the suit was established,

13     there were already Chambers that could operate, that could work, and

14     there were two levels of court.  They could work at two levels.  But the

15     judges kept changing.  There were new judges being appointed, other

16     ones -- the old ones would have left, and so on.  And it doesn't say

17     anywhere here that the court was in fact established in November.

18             JUDGE KWON:  The witness has heard already what Mr. Karadzic

19     said, but would you like to respond, Ms. West, or reformulate your

20     question?

21             MS. WEST:  I think at this point maybe we'll show him another

22     document and then we can go from there.  P01468, please.  And these

23     are --

24             JUDGE KWON:  Number again.

25             MS. WEST:  P01468.

Page 30550

 1        Q.   These are minutes from an Assembly session end of October, early

 2     November 1992.  And if we can go to page 2 of the English we're looking

 3     at the agenda and it's number 31.  And on the agenda at this date there

 4     is a draft decision on appointment of the Republika Srpska Supreme Court

 5     judges.  So Mr. Dunjic you've -- you've seen these documents.  You've

 6     heard my question.  You've heard even Mr. Karadzic's comments, but can

 7     you tell us how it is in -- on September 4th 1992, when you entered --

 8     appointed brigade commander, a Supreme Court decision already existed

 9     somehow making paramilitaries legal and legitimate members of the VRS?

10        A.   Well, obviously you either did not read my statement properly or

11     perhaps you did it deliberately, but I state there that soon, and I

12     didn't say on the 4th of September, I said that soon that unit was placed

13     under the command, under my command.  And I said yesterday that in the

14     second half of 1992, there was a decision that provided for these units

15     being treated not as paramilitary.  They wouldn't have that attribute.

16     But, rather, as volunteer units.  And I didn't mention the

17     4th of September, nor did I say that in my statement.

18        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Dunjic.

19             MS. WEST:  Thank you Mr. President.  I have no further questions.

20             JUDGE KWON:  Do you tender that Official Gazette?

21             MS. WEST:  Thank you for that reminder.  Yes.

22             MR. ROBINSON:  We object, Mr. President.  There's no basis for

23     it.  The witness hasn't provided any basis for the point upon which

24     Ms. West sought to make; in fact, there is to problem with the

25     Official Gazette in principle, but there's no relevance given the answer

Page 30551

 1     of the witness.

 2             JUDGE KWON:  Is the fact that a judge was appointed and the --

 3     after the -- following the establishment of the Supreme Court not

 4     relevant, Mr. Robinson?

 5             MR. ROBINSON:  Yes.  It's not relevant.  For example, the de jure

 6     appointment doesn't mean that the ICTY came into existence that day.  So

 7     it's not relevant to anything.  The appointment of a single judge is not

 8     relevant to any point that was made.

 9             JUDGE KWON:  Would you like to respond, Ms. West?

10             MS. WEST:  Only to say, Your Honour, that that was not the only

11     thing that was pointed out in the gazette.  The other matter had to do

12     with the decision on the establishment of the Supreme Court itself which

13     happened less than a month before this gentleman came into command.  So I

14     would imagine that's -- that's relevant.

15                           [Trial Chamber confers]

16             THE ACCUSED:  May I ...

17             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. Karadzic.

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I just wanted to warn that in this

19     document, too, you could see that people were relieved of duty and new

20     people appointed.  This was an ongoing process.  You can see it if you

21     look at this document.

22             JUDGE KWON:  So what probative value it will have is a matter to

23     be assessed later on, but the Chamber finds it relevant at the moment,

24     prima facie, and we will receive it.

25             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit P6007, Your Honours.

Page 30552

 1             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Karadzic, I take it you have something to -- for

 2     your re-examination.  Do you think you can finish it in relatively short

 3     period of time?  Otherwise, we'll take a break.

 4             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, your Excellency.  I can

 5     be even quicker, because I don't have any redirect other than I would

 6     like to thank Mr. Dunjic, but I would also like to point something out

 7     that has nothing to do with the witness himself but has to do with the

 8     way -- the questioning.

 9             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.  Unless there are matters to be asked by

10     my colleagues, that concludes your evidence, Mr. Dunjic.  On behalf of

11     the Chamber, I'd like to thank you for your coming to The Hague to give

12     it.  Now you are free to go.

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.  I thank you.

14                           [The witness withdrew]

15             JUDGE KWON:  Who is the next witness, Mr. Robinson?

16             MR. ROBINSON:  Mile Sladoje.

17             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.  I take it given the time --

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would just like to say one

19     sentence if you allow me.

20             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. Karadzic.

21             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I know that the words of the

22     Defence or the Prosecutor do not constitute evidence, but I would really

23     appreciate it if Ms. West quoted documents properly.  For instance, the

24     5528 document -- or, rather, P2228, there is no mention of

25     paramilitaries, but, rather, volunteers, and there is also no mention

Page 30553

 1     that he called the foreign office but, rather, Pale, and that he couldn't

 2     reach Radovan.  This would help to avoid misleading the witness.  Because

 3     this is what Madam West said on page 27:

 4             "Thank you, Mr. President.  This regards evidence that you

 5     received in Prosecution in chief.  An example would be an intercept you

 6     saw yesterday between Brne Gavrilovic and Seselj, where Seselj said he

 7     called Karadzic's office and said he was going to take all paramilitaries

 8     out if Karadzic didn't do something about it."

 9             [Interpretation] So the interpretation that was given to this

10     intercept is completely false.

11             JUDGE KWON:  That was a submission made in response to Chamber's

12     request, but -- but your point has been made, and we note it.

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 30554

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17                           [Private session]

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 30555

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8                           [Open session]

 9             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  We'll redact the lines 21 to 22 of page 3.

10             The Chamber will have a break for half an hour and resume at

11     5 past 11.00.

12                           --- Recess taken at 10.34 a.m.

13                           --- On resuming at 11.06 a.m.

14                           [The witness entered court]

15             JUDGE KWON:  Good morning.  Could the witness take the solemn

16     declaration, please.

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will

18     speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

19                           WITNESS:  MILE SLADOJE

20                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

21             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.  Please take a seat and make yourself

22     comfortable.

23             Yes, Mr. Karadzic.

24             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

25                           Examination by Mr. Karadzic:

Page 30556

 1        Q.   [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Sladoje.

 2        A.   Good morning.

 3             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we please have 1D6400 in

 4     e-court.  We have it in Serbian, too, although this is sufficient.

 5     Mr. Sladoje will probably be able to recognise it.

 6             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 7        Q.   Mr. Sladoje, did you provide a statement to the Defence team and

 8     is it the statement that is before you?

 9        A.   Yes, it is.

10        Q.   I'm waiting for interpretation, and I would kindly ask you to do

11     the same since we speak the same language, and we don't want to create

12     problems for the interpreters.

13             Does this statement contain accurately what you stated?

14        A.   It does.

15        Q.   Thank you.  Did you sign the statement?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   Thank you.  If I were to put the same questions here today as the

18     ones that were put to you during the taking of the statement, would your

19     answers be basically the same?

20        A.   Yes, they would.

21        Q.   Thank you.  I will now read out the summary in the English

22     language.

23             JUDGE KWON:  If it is admitted.

24             Yes, Ms. Edgerton.

25             MS. EDGERTON:  Yes.  Thank you, Your Honours.  Just before any

Page 30557

 1     ruling on the admission of the statement, I'd have one request.  The

 2     redaction, and I've spoken to my friend Mr. Robinson about this, the

 3     redaction of paragraph 28 of the statement which relates to a dropped

 4     incident.

 5             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  I was about to raise that issue, but both

 6     parties agree to that redaction.

 7             MR. ROBINSON:  Yes, we'll agree to that redaction.

 8             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.  Then -- otherwise no objection to the

 9     admission of the statement as well as four associated exhibits?

10             MS. EDGERTON:  Correct, none.

11             JUDGE KWON:  I have one point with respect to one associated

12     exhibit, but there's no problem in admitting them at this moment.  Shall

13     we give the number now.

14             THE REGISTRAR:  Yes, Your Honour.  Statement 65 ter 1D6400 will

15     be Exhibit D2479; 65 ter number 1D8556 will be D2480; 65 ter 1D8557 will

16     be Exhibit D2481; 65 ter number 1D8558 will be Exhibit D2482, and

17     65 ter number 1D8559 will be Exhibit D2483.

18             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.  Please continue, Mr. Karadzic.

19             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

20             [In English] Mile Sladoje is an economist by education and

21     training.  He completed his compulsory military service in Kragujevac and

22     Ruma in 1973 and 1974 in the artillery branch.  He first learned about

23     the arming of Muslim forces in 1991, when a Muslim business associate

24     asked him if he was interested in selling ammunition, offer which he

25     declined.

Page 30558

 1             He was a member of the 1st Battalion of the Ilidza Brigade.  From

 2     April 1992 until June 1992, he was commander of the Nedzarici Barracks.

 3     From June 1992 until March 1993, he was assistant commander of the

 4     battalion for moral and religious affairs.  From March 1993 until

 5     October 1993, he was battalion commander, and then when three battalions

 6     merged into one, he was appointed assistant commander for logistics and

 7     half a year later assistant commander for the newly formed battalion.

 8     His battalion did not have a single professional officer nor trained

 9     snipers.

10             Following March 1992, local Serbs held neighbourhood watches in

11     front of their houses.  After successfully repelling an attack by Muslim

12     paramilitaries on 8th of April, 1992, local Serbs continued to organise

13     themselves and eventually formed a line of defence, which remained more

14     or less unchanged until the end of the war.

15             The opposing units belonged to the 101st and 102nd Brigade of the

16     1st Corps of the BH Army.  His battalion was in an inferior position

17     since buildings in the area under Muslim control were mostly high-rises

18     from where they fired with snipers.  Muslim forces also blocked access to

19     their positions with mines.  Their front lines were only 30 to 50 metres

20     away from his unit's position.  All positions held by the opposing

21     brigades were in civilian areas.  There was not a single entire --

22     entirely civilian settlement there in which they did not have an enemy

23     unit or a military target.  His unit also had knowledge of the existence

24     of enemy military targets in the depth of the enemy territory.

25             The orders of the brigade were to use ammunition sparingly and

Page 30559

 1     only when attacked by the enemy.  His battalion conducted exclusively

 2     defensive operation -- operations except for a single occasion when they

 3     improved their tactical position on Stupsko Brdo to facilitate defence.

 4     The goal of his battalion was to defend their houses, protect the

 5     civilian population, and prevent Muslim forces from reaching Ilidza.  Had

 6     the opposing forces broken out in the parts of Sarajevo under Muslim

 7     control -- under Serbian control, it would have had a critical impact on

 8     the other fronts on the -- in the course of the war in BH.  The permanent

 9     order for his battalion was to open fire only in response to enemy fire

10     and only at observed firing positions.  It is possible that there were

11     civilian collateral casualties on the line of disengagement since their

12     firing positions were in the vicinity or in apartment buildings

13     themselves.

14             He had no intention of causing civilian casualties or terrorising

15     or exerting psychological pressure on civilians under the control of

16     Muslim authorities and has never heard anyone in his unit, the superior

17     commands or civilian authorities had such intentions.  His unit never

18     received or issued any such order, orally or written.  On the contrary,

19     superior commands and him personally issued orders that civilians in the

20     part of the city under Muslim control should not be the target of an

21     attack.  Conversely, civilians in his zone of responsibility, including

22     women, were often targeted by snipers or subjected to the artillery

23     attack.  His unit built makeshift sniper barriers from the blankets,

24     tarpaulins, wooden planks and plywood which blocked the view of the enemy

25     snipers.

Page 30560

 1             His brigade complained to UNPROFOR about frequent enemy attacks

 2     from civilian zones.  When fired -- when fire was returned, they would

 3     complain that his unit was targeting civilian facilities.

 4             The brigade did not prevent the delivery of humanitarian aid,

 5     except when they had information that they were bringing -- were being

 6     used for illegitimate purposes as was in case in 1994 when flack jackets

 7     were confiscated from the French battalion convoy.  Soon afterwards the

 8     rapid intervention forces targeted Serbian positions with particular

 9     intensity on civilian buildings, causing several civilian casualties.

10     They had knowledge that goods from humanitarian aid convoys had passed

11     through their zone of responsibility and were being sold in the black

12     market and exorbitant -- exorbitant prices and the Serb civilians had to

13     pay to be able to flee from -- to Serb-held territory.

14             Regarding incidents at Hakije Turajlic 33 [sic] in Dobrinja on

15     12th of July, 1993, Mile Sladoje states that no orders to target

16     civilians were issued and that no line of sight existed between their

17     positions and the scene of the alleged incident.

18             Regarding incident in the area of Alipasino Polje on

19     22nd of January, 1994, Mile Sladoje states that there were no mortars at

20     Home for the Blind and that no one from their command ordered the

21     shelling of the place of the alleged incident.

22             Regarding the incident of 18 June 1995 --

23             MS. EDGERTON:  I'm sorry, I wouldn't normally interrupt

24     Dr. Karadzic at this point, but we've just agreed to redact that

25     evidence.

Page 30561

 1             THE ACCUSED:  Mm-hmm.  This one is redacted, yes?  Okay.

 2             Regarding the incident near the junction of Nikole Demonje at

 3     Bulevar Avnoja in Dobrinja on 25th of May, 1994, Mile Sladoje states that

 4     no orders to fire at that intersection were issued, that no line of sight

 5     existed between their positions and the scene of the alleged incident and

 6     that they did not have snipers with that kind of range in their

 7     battalion.

 8             Regarding incident at Djure Jaksica Street in the west end of

 9     Sarajevo on the 26th of June, 1994, Mile Sladoje states that no orders

10     were issued to fire at the girl who was allegedly killed at the scene of

11     this incident.

12             [Interpretation] Thank you.  I have no questions for Mr. Sladoje

13     at this point in time.  I turn the floor to the Prosecution.

14             JUDGE KWON:  Before that, shall we upload 1D8558.  Which is

15     entitled as "Military positions of ABiH in civilian zones."

16             In para 18, the witness stated that a police station, RTV

17     building, wire factory, the UNPROFOR base, Astra and Uniklima, all these

18     buildings were marked, but I wonder whether the UNPROFOR base was also

19     marked on this map.

20             Mr. Sladoje?

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  The PTT in Djering [phoen]

22     building.

23             JUDGE KWON:  So UNPROFOR was based on that building.

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

25             JUDGE KWON:  As you noted, Mr. Sladoje, your evidence in chief

Page 30562

 1     was admitted in writing in lieu of your oral testimony, and now you'll be

 2     cross-examined by the Prosecution.

 3             Yes, Ms. Edgerton.

 4             MS. EDGERTON:  Thank you.

 5                           Cross-examination by Ms. Edgerton:

 6        Q.   Mr. Sladoje, we've already met one another yesterday.

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   And thank you for that.  I'd like to start your cross-examination

 9     by asking you to confirm a few of the things we discussed, if that's

10     okay.  So first of all, can you confirm you were actually based in

11     Nedzarici area throughout the war?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   And your battalion headquarters was initially located at the

14     barracks and in the barracks compound in Nedzarici?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   And at the end of 1993, when the first 1st, 2nd and

17     3rd Battalions of the Ilidza Brigade which covered Nedzarici,

18     Aerodromsko Nasilje, and Kasindol were amalgamated into one battalion,

19     this headquarters was moved to a location on Kasindolska Street.

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   In March 1993, you succeeded Radivoje Grkovic as commander of the

22     Serb portions in Nedzarici when he left the 1st Battalion.

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   And you were eventually replaced by Svetozar Guzina, who took the

25     post of battalion commander when the three battalions were joined into

Page 30563

 1     one?

 2        A.   That is correct.

 3        Q.   And yesterday, you agreed with the estimate that the

 4     Nedzarici Barracks compound was about 300 to 350 metres from the school

 5     for the blind; correct?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   And the Faculty of Theology -- as for the Faculty of Theology

 8     which you mentioned in your statement, would you agree with the estimate

 9     that it's about 200 metres from the barracks compound?

10        A.   Between 150 and 200.

11        Q.   Thank you.  And yesterday I showed you a map that you saw was a

12     black and white version of your own marked map which is now D2481, but

13     that had been extended to show the approach to the airport, and I asked

14     you to mark your battalion's entire area of responsibility on that map.

15     Do you remember that?

16        A.   Yes, absolutely.

17        Q.   Thank you.

18             MS. EDGERTON:  Could we have a look, please, at 65 ter 24222.

19        Q.   And I hope shortly on the screen you'll be able to see the map

20     you marked yesterday.

21             Now, we see -- well, first of all, do you recognise the map that

22     you marked yesterday on the screen in front of you?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   And the -- do the green lines on this map extend -- or more

25     accurately, do they represent the complete area of responsibility of your

Page 30564

 1     battalion?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   And the green dot on this map with the letters KP on it, do you

 4     agree that the green dot denotes the location of the check-point on

 5     Kasindolska Street?

 6        A.   That is correct.

 7        Q.   And that check-point is on the road that the UN used to and from

 8     the airport; correct?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   And that check-point was under your battalion's control?

11        A.   It was not under our control, because one could freely pass

12     through.

13        Q.   Who operated that check-point?

14        A.   No one did.

15             MS. EDGERTON:  Your indulgence for a moment, Your Honour.  I

16     realised that I've completely forgotten, in fact, it's not necessarily

17     for the Prosecution to request that, but I've forgotten to request that

18     the witness be given a caution pursuant to Rule 90, and those sorts of

19     matters, obviously better late than never.  So if I could just pause and

20     extend my apologies for having forgotten.

21             JUDGE KWON:  Very well.  Yes.  Mr. Sladoje, although you have

22     already started giving evidence, I would like to draw your attention to a

23     particular Rule here at the Tribunal.  Under this Rule, Rule 90(E), you

24     may object to answering a question from the Prosecution or the accused or

25     even from the Judges if you believe that your answer will incriminate

Page 30565

 1     you.  I mean by "incriminate," I meant something you say may amount to an

 2     admission of your guilt for a criminal offence or could provide evidence

 3     that you have committed an offence.  However, even if you think your

 4     answer will incriminate you and you do not wish to answer the question,

 5     the Tribunal has the discretion to oblige you to answer the question.

 6     But in such a case, the Tribunal will make sure that your testimony

 7     compelled in such a way shall not be used as evidence in other case

 8     against you for any offence other than false testimony.

 9             Do you understand what I have just told you?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I do.

11             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you, Mr. Sladoje.

12             Yes, please continue, Ms. Edgerton.

13             MS. EDGERTON:  Thank you, and apologies again.

14        Q.   And we'll move on from that last point, Mr. Sladoje, to just

15     conclude this brief section related to our discussion yesterday.  Can you

16     confirm that yesterday you also indicated you were linked with the

17     Ilidza Brigade command by way of an induction communication system?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   And you also had means -- you were also able to communicate with

20     the brigade command by telephone?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   And you would use couriers during combat activities in the event

23     other means of communication were inoperative?

24        A.   This is correct.

25        Q.   The Ilidza Brigade command was headquartered on the Velika Aleja

Page 30566

 1     in Ilidza in the former Sipad building?

 2        A.   Correct.

 3        Q.   And battalion commanders briefed the Ilidza Brigade commander

 4     every day by telephone?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   And battalion commanders also attended briefing meetings at the

 7     brigade headquarters, but those were held no more than once a week at

 8     best and also depending on the need.

 9        A.   Correct.

10        Q.   Thank you.  Now, that concludes the areas we discussed yesterday.

11     I'd like to move on to some specific parts of your statement and refer to

12     paragraph 6 to begin with where you mention two areas, Vojnicko Polje and

13     Mojmilo.  And in that regard I'd like to show you a photograph.  It's a

14     panoramic photograph, 65 ter number 24212.

15             Do you see a photograph on the screen in front of you?

16        A.   I do.

17             MS. EDGERTON:  Now, I wonder if my colleague would be able to

18     just zoom in one magnification.  Thank you.

19        Q.   Now, Mr. Sladoje, this picture was taken in August 1996 from

20     scaffolding at the theological faculty, and I'm just wondering if you

21     could tell us do you see these two areas you referred to in paragraph 6,

22     Mojmilo and Vojnicko Polje?  And if you need to have this zoomed in a bit

23     more, just say.

24        A.   Yes.  Mojmilo is to the right and Vojnicko Polje to the left.

25     There is more to those areas than we can see here, but there they are.

Page 30567

 1             MS. EDGERTON:  Could my colleague then zoom in on the hill in the

 2     centre of this photograph, please.

 3        Q.   Could I invite you, Mr. Sladoje, to take the marker in front of

 4     you and draw a circle around the area you recognise as Mojmilo?

 5        A.   [Marks]

 6        Q.   Would you mark that with an M?

 7        A.   [Marks]

 8        Q.   And Vojnicko Polje?

 9        A.   [Marks]

10             MS. EDGERTON:  And for the record, that's marked with a VP.

11        Q.   Could we have you put your initials on this zoomed-in image and

12     date that, please.  It's the 28th of November today.

13        A.   [Marks]

14             MS. EDGERTON:  Could that be a Prosecution exhibit, please.

15             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

16             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit P6008, Your Honours.

17             JUDGE KWON:  Do you want to tender the previous map marked by the

18     witness?

19             MS. EDGERTON:  Yes, of course, Your Honour, and apologies.  I had

20     completely forgotten.

21             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  That will be admitted as Exhibit P6009.

22             MS. EDGERTON:  Now, could we go back to the underlined panorama,

23     65 ter 24212, and zoom a little bit to the right.

24        Q.   Now, Mr. Sladoje, would you agree that to the right of the area

25     you marked as being Mojmilo you see part of Dobrinja?

Page 30568

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   Are those the apartment buildings in the distance?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   Could you just mark Dobrinja, as you've done before, with a

 5     circle.

 6        A.   [Marks]

 7             I made a mistake.  It looks like D6, whereas it should be D5,

 8     because that's the name of the settlement, Dobrinja 5.

 9             JUDGE KWON:  You can delete it and rewrite.

10             THE WITNESS: [Marks]

11             MS. EDGERTON:

12        Q.   Thank you.  Now, what's the apartment blocks that you see even

13     further to the right of Dobrinja 5?

14        A.   That is also Dobrinja, Dobrinja 1, Dobrinja 2, and Dobrinja 3

15     and 4 would be further afield, but we can't see it here.

16        Q.   So the apartment blocks to your right you recognise as the areas

17     of Dobrinja 1 and 2?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   Could you just mark those the same way, please, with a D1 and a

20     D2.

21        A.   [Marks]

22             One cannot see Dobrinja 2 in the photograph.  The buildings here

23     are in Dobrinja 1, whereas Dobrinja 2 and its buildings are behind that.

24     It's not easy to mark it here.

25        Q.   That's fine.  Could we get you to sign and date this image,

Page 30569

 1     please, and we'll do one more marking on this panorama before we leave

 2     it.

 3        A.   [Marks]

 4             MS. EDGERTON:  Could that be the next Prosecution exhibit,

 5     please.

 6             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit P6010, Your Honours.

 8             MS. EDGERTON:  Thank you.  If we could go back to the unlined

 9     panorama, please, 24212.  And if we could go over to the left-hand side

10     of the image now, please.  Thank you.

11        Q.   Now, is that the area -- is that part of the area of

12     Alipasino Polje that you see to the left-hand side of the panorama,

13     Mr. Sladoje?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   Could you mark that for us, please.

16        A.   [Marks]

17        Q.   And just sign and date, please.

18        A.   [Marks]

19             MS. EDGERTON:  And just on this panorama, that would be the next

20     Prosecution exhibit, please, Your Honours, and I'll move on.

21             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

22             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit P6011, Your Honours.

23             MS. EDGERTON:  Thank --

24             JUDGE KWON:  Do you not think that we need to admit the whole

25     panorama as well?

Page 30570

 1             MS. EDGERTON:  Mr. Reid was asking me that very question,

 2     Your Honour, and I wasn't sure yet, but now that we've come to the end, I

 3     think it's quite appropriate.

 4             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  Exhibit P6012.

 5             MS. EDGERTON:  Thank you.

 6        Q.   Now, Mr. Sladoje, based on the information in your statement,

 7     would you agree that these are some of the civilian areas where people

 8     lived in apartment buildings that you've described?

 9        A.   Yes, civilians did live there.  These are civilian

10     neighbourhoods, but between Nedzarici and these buildings there was a

11     line of separation and fighting took place there.

12        Q.   And based on the evidence in your statement, you would agree that

13     these areas Vojnicko Polje, Mojmilo, Dobrinja, Alipasino Polje are all

14     areas that you could reach with your weapons?  They were in range of your

15     weapons?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   And also in your statement you said there was not a single

18     entirely civilian settlement there which didn't have an enemy unit or

19     other military target in it.  So from that, could we say that there's

20     actually no area that you saw on this panorama where you didn't expect

21     civilians to be?

22        A.   That's not what I stated.  There were civilians there, but among

23     the civilians it was the military that was using practically all

24     buildings for their purposes.  Say in Mojmilo it was the sports hall that

25     was used for putting up units.  Elementary schools, kindergartens and

Page 30571

 1     other big buildings were used for these purposes.  Most often that's what

 2     they did.  They located their units among the civilian population and it

 3     is impossible to say practically for any area that there were no units --

 4     there were no civilians there.  People had to live somewhere.

 5        Q.   In paragraph 12 of your statement you said the permanent order

 6     for your battalion was "to open fire only in response to enemy fire and

 7     only at observed firing positions."  So I want to ask you to explain what

 8     that means.  Does that mean it's okay to shoot provided you were only

 9     responding to enemy fire from positions you saw firing?

10        A.   Well, you explained it very well.  I wouldn't have anything

11     special to add to that.

12        Q.   And was there a requirement that your response -- no.  I'll move

13     on, actually.

14             Now, if we go over to paragraph 18 and the map you marked as

15     D2482, you named a number of what you considered to be military targets,

16     and I'd like to look at D2482, which was 65 ter number 1D8558.

17             Can you see that clearly, Mr. Sladoje?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   So, now, were able to -- you marked the Standard factory, the

20     Zora chocolate factory, and the TAM factory.  Were you able to see those

21     locations from your positions?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   And would you agree with me that these were -- these locations

24     were actually front-line locations?  They aren't in depth at all, are

25     they?

Page 30572

 1        A.   No.  They were in depth of the territory in terms of the

 2     separation line.  They were further away.

 3        Q.   How far?

 4        A.   Well, the Standard would be, say, 1 kilometre, perhaps somewhat

 5     less.  I'm not quite sure.  If we'd start with the Standard building,

 6     then we could go on the same number of kilometres.  The student

 7     dormitories, the wire factory is a bit further off.  I marked those

 8     locations because that's where soldiers were involved in preparations.

 9     That's where they were receiving ammunition.  They used this for their

10     normal purposes, and they also had machinery in these factories.  I was

11     familiar with these factories.  So they used this for their own purposes.

12        Q.   And these places, some of which you've just mentioned and some of

13     which you've not, Geodeski, Vodovod, RTV, Astra, Uniklima, RNK, Tornica

14     Zica [phoen], those actually weren't in your direct line of sight, were

15     they?

16        A.   No.  No.  We couldn't see Uniklima, Astra, Boras, the land survey

17     institute.  They're further away, so we could not see those facilities.

18     However, according to the intelligence we had and according to what we

19     heard from people who were coming from Sarajevo, we knew that these

20     buildings were used for military purposes.

21        Q.   And, actually, you couldn't see the UNPROFOR headquarters from

22     your locations either, because we just saw on the panorama that you had

23     the skyscraper apartment buildings of Alipasino Polje in the way.

24        A.   They could be seen from the left-hand side of the positions that

25     we held.  It wasn't a particularly good view, but you could see the

Page 30573

 1     configuration of the building.

 2        Q.   Now, you named streets.  You named Prvomajska and Geteova Street,

 3     and to your knowledge because you're from Sarajevo, those were also

 4     residential areas where civilians lived in apartment buildings, weren't

 5     they?

 6        A.   Yes.  But also there were soldiers in each and every

 7     neighbourhood.  The civilian population lived in Nedzarici.  There was

 8     the barracks there.  There was this unity of the army and the civilian

 9     population, because impossible to live in any other way.  That is to say

10     that not a single neighbourhood was civilian only.  It is a neighbourhood

11     where people live, but also the military was stationed there, and that is

12     practically the way it is in all urban areas where there was a military

13     presence.

14        Q.   So you must accept, given what you've just said, that there's a

15     pretty high risk of civilian casualties when firing on any of these areas

16     in the depth of the city.

17        A.   Correct, but how can you expect us not to open fire if our

18     positions are jeopardised?  And the other side includes both civilians

19     and soldiers.  They are both present there.  So it is the soldiers who

20     are firing at us that are jeopardising the civilians on that side.

21             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have to intervene in the

22     transcript.  The witness said, "How could we open fire at enemy soldiers

23     who are jeopardising our positions and our soldiers and civilians."

24             JUDGE KWON:  "How could we not open fire."

25             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] How can we not open fire?  How can

Page 30574

 1     we not open fire if we are jeopardised.  How can we not open fire at

 2     enemy soldiers.

 3             JUDGE KWON:  We can carry on.  Do you confirm having said that,

 4     Mr. Sladoje?

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I will repeat it once again.  This

 6     is what I said:  If fire is opened by the enemy side against our

 7     positions, it is not possible.  Perhaps this would be a clearer answer:

 8     It is not possible for us to fire at military objectives only without

 9     jeopardising the civilian population because they were there and very

10     often civilians were used for that kind of thing.  Even if they were not

11     used for that kind of thing people had to live there and military units

12     operated from such an area, so in fact they were among civilians and that

13     is why this happened, as I stated.  There was this collateral damage

14     among the civilians because we fired at military targets.  I do not

15     exclude the possibility of civilian casualties.

16             MS. EDGERTON:

17        Q.   Thank you.  You talked in your statement about a couple of

18     incidents, one of them being the shelling of a waterline on 12 July 1993,

19     and you said you heard about this incident a few days after it allegedly

20     happened.  I have two questions.  First of all, why do you say

21     "allegedly" in your statement?  Are you disputing the incident took

22     place?

23        A.   I am still not sure that the incident did occur because the

24     Muslim side often took advantage of such gatherings.  Even when there was

25     a cease-fire, all of a sudden incidents would occur during those days.

Page 30575

 1     My suspicion is that they did this on purpose in order to accuse us and I

 2     heard about that in incident on television.  It was possible to watch BH

 3     television.  I found out about that, and later on I did not investigate

 4     the matter and also I did not have an opportunity of seeing any kind of

 5     ballistic findings, but my suspicion is that these shells were fired from

 6     Butmir.  There was a factory there Hidrogradnja, or, rather, Sigma.  And

 7     most often that's where they operated from because that is across

 8     Nedzarici and most often it was the people and commander of Nedzarici who

 9     were accused because this was coming from that side and what is

10     symptomatic is that they would have people gather to play ball in such

11     areas; for example, a little girl playing in an area where there were

12     operations.  This is simply something that is staged, rigged, incorrect

13     therefore.

14        Q.   You said it was possible to watch BiH TV.  So what did you hear

15     about this incident on BiH TV?

16        A.   Well, I just heard that it happened.  It was those brief news and

17     nothing more than that.  Also, the accusation that this had been fired

18     from the positions in Nedzarici.

19        Q.   Now, just about your positions.  In respect of this incident, you

20     also said that no line of sight -- there was no line of sight between

21     your positions and the scene of the incident, but you have some

22     experience now, after your training with the JNA and your service, some

23     experience with mortars, don't you?

24        A.   I don't know.

25        Q.   Well, do you know that -- you must know that a mortar is an

Page 30576

 1     indirect fire weapon?

 2        A.   I absolutely agree with you.  May I just ask you something,

 3     please?

 4        Q.   If you have a question, Mr. Sladoje, I think it's more

 5     appropriate that you direct your questions to the Chamber rather than to

 6     me.

 7        A.   I do apologise.  I didn't know what the rules were.

 8             Mr. President, may I put a question to the Prosecutor?

 9             JUDGE KWON:  No.  You're not supposed to ask a question, but in

10     the course of your response if there's anything you'd like to add, you

11     may do so, Mr. Sladoje.

12             MS. EDGERTON:

13        Q.   Now, you've just agreed that a mortar is an indirect fire --

14        A.   I understand.  Thank you.

15        Q.   Sorry for interrupting.  I didn't mean to.  You just agreed that

16     a mortar is an indirect fire weapon so you must also know that mortar

17     crews don't actually need a line of sight to acquire and engage a target.

18        A.   You're absolutely right.  I know that.  However, there is this

19     other thing.  When I said that we did not have a line of sight, that

20     meant that at that point in time when there was a gathering taking place

21     somewhere, we had no idea that people were gathering there.  We could not

22     see that.  We did not know that.  So that's why I'm saying it.  That's

23     why I'm putting it that way.  I mean, it would be a layman's -- a

24     layman's statement if I were to say that a mortar can open direct fire

25     only.  Of course I know how a mortar fires.  So that is where the

Page 30577

 1     difference is.

 2             I believe that you were in Nedzarici and in Dobrinja, and it's

 3     probably clear to you what the positions are, where we were and where the

 4     other side was.

 5        Q.   Just to move on to another one of those incidents, and it's a

 6     sniping incident.  You talked about it in your statement, and it involves

 7     an allegation of firing - and I'll give you exactly the paragraph

 8     number - firing at an intersection on Bulevar Avnoja and

 9     Nikole Demonje Streets in Dobrinja, and you said that the distance

10     between the target at that intersection and the theological faculty was

11     over 1.500 metres away.  So I'd like to ask you since you know the

12     distance between the target and the faculty, do you have any idea of the

13     distance between the target and the confrontation line?

14        A.   Well, I knew that earlier on because I lived in that area and I

15     knew how far away Dobrinja was, and that's why I stated that.  This

16     incident if it occurred about 1.500 metres away, we did not have a sniper

17     rifle with that kind of range.  The range of a sniper rifle is usually

18     between 800 metres and 1.200 metres.  And I know that you assumed that it

19     was fired from the Faculty of Theology.  We did not have a sniper there.

20     There is that opening there, and it was claimed that that was a sniper

21     nest.

22             We did have a recoilless gun there, and we used it in

23     contravention of military rules because we had no other way of dealing

24     with the guns at Alipasino Polje.  We could only do it by using a

25     recoilless gun.

Page 30578

 1             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  Could the witness please

 2     be asked to speak into the microphone.  Thank you.

 3             MS. EDGERTON:

 4        Q.   I'm going to ask you some more questions, Mr. Sladoje, and when

 5     you do that you might have to lean forward a little bit more so the

 6     interpreters can hear your answers more clearly.

 7             This Chamber has actually received evidence Mr. Sladoje that the

 8     gap between the incident location and the confrontation line is

 9     approximately 550 metres.  And for the record that's in P1620, page 54.

10     Would you agree with that?

11        A.   Perhaps I could agree as far as the front of our defence position

12     is concerned, because there is one position at Dobrinja 5, and then

13     there's also Dobrinja 2 and 3 there.  And from these positions one could

14     not operate at all because if you noticed these buildings in Dobrinja 5,

15     there is this entire line there.  There is the line of separation there,

16     so you cannot really operate in that way from these positions where these

17     positions are 550 metres away.  Now, if what you mean is the

18     Faculty of Theology, that is further afield.  Now, I don't know which

19     positions you're referring to.  From which position did you think that

20     this could be engaged?

21        Q.   [Microphone not activated] Well, I think I was --

22             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

23             JUDGE KWON:  Microphone.

24             MS. EDGERTON:  Pardon me, Your Honours.

25        Q.   I think I was pretty clear.  My question was about the distance

Page 30579

 1     between the incident and the confrontation line, and I understand you to

 2     agree that it was approximately 550 metres between the incident site and

 3     your forward defence positions.

 4        A.   I agree, but I do not agree with another thing you said.  You

 5     insist that we fired from the point where the distance between our sides

 6     was the smallest.  I don't see how you can claim that, that it came from

 7     the forward line or that it came from Stupsko Brdo.  I mean, there was

 8     also the Stupsko Brdo where we had positions by the institute for the

 9     blind.  That is where we differ.  I explained that, and could you please

10     check this once again.  Our closest separation line with Dobrinja 5 was

11     100 to 150 metres perhaps even not that much.  However, this Dobrinja 5

12     sheltered Dobrinja 2 and Dobrinja 3.  We could not operate there if --

13        Q.   Mr. Sladoje, we're getting a little bit off topic, and I'm going

14     to try and bring you back to the topic by calling up something for you to

15     look at.  It's P1620, page 54, please.

16             JUDGE KWON:  I was told that we will not broadcast this.

17             MS. EDGERTON:  Thank you.

18        Q.   Now, can you --

19             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.

20             MS. EDGERTON:  Oh, pardon me.

21             JUDGE KWON:  Ms. Edgerton, can you explain why this should be

22     confidential?

23             MS. EDGERTON:  I actually have no idea, Your Honours.  I was

24     completely surprised to hear that it should not be broadcast.

25                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

Page 30580

 1             JUDGE KWON:  I was told that certain part of this document is

 2     confidential, and we have a public redacted version as P1621.  Shall we

 3     use that?

 4             MS. EDGERTON:  Again my apologies.  I'm doing that a lot this

 5     afternoon.

 6             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

 7             MS. EDGERTON:  Now that we have this, can we just enlarge the

 8     photo on the top of the page.  Thank you.

 9        Q.   Now, Mr. Sladoje, the blue circle on this photo, which is the top

10     photo on page -- on P1621, page 54, the blue circle marks the location of

11     the incident.  The arrow where you see the box that says "550 metres" is

12     the approximate location of the confrontation lines.  Can you just answer

13     yes or no, would you agree with that?

14        A.   I cannot discern or recognise this.

15        Q.   This is a satellite image that marks the location of the incident

16     in green, anti-sniping barriers, that marks the location of the

17     confrontation lines at 550 metres from the incident location.  Would you

18     agree that 550 metres is an accurate estimate of the location of the

19     confrontation lines from the incident location?

20        A.   I do apologise, but I'm saying once again I'm not familiar with

21     this image.  Can you please explain it a bit to me.  Where does this red

22     marking start?  Where is this actually from?  I mean, please help me with

23     this.  Help me identify this position here.

24        Q.   We'll move on and I'll come back to it in a different way.  Thank

25     you.

Page 30581

 1             I want to come back to the subject of humanitarian aid.  In your

 2     statement at paragraph 23, you said that in the fall of 1994, you stopped

 3     a convoy of French battalion at the intersection of Kasindolska Street -

 4     that's the check-point that you said nobody ran - and confiscated 90

 5     flack jackets intended for Muslim forces.  So under whose orders did you

 6     do that?

 7        A.   We found out by way of intelligence that the French, the French

 8     battalion, were transporting flack jackets, and this was not humanitarian

 9     aid.  We received this intelligence from the brigade command because that

10     is at brigade level, and at the intersection at the check-point we

11     stopped the French soldiers and we found 90 flack jackets.  On the basis

12     of my statement, you said now that it had been unmanned.  Well, it wasn't

13     manned all the time, but it was from time to time.  There wasn't any need

14     for someone to be there all the time because our positions were nearby

15     and all humanitarian convoys went by normally unless in such situations

16     when we received this kind of information beforehand.  It is a fact we

17     took away flack jackets.  I think you would agree with that, that flack

18     jackets are not humanitarian aid.

19        Q.   And when you received this information from the brigade command,

20     nobody told you that the flack jackets were actually the property of the

21     UNPROFOR French battalion?

22        A.   They were the property of the French battalion, but the French

23     battalion was deployed at the airport.  It didn't have a unit of its own

24     in Sarajevo.  So there was no need for it to transport these flack

25     jackets.  I don't believe that soldiers from another country would

Page 30582

 1     transport flack jackets to another army, because each army has their own

 2     logistics.

 3        Q.   And what did you do with the flack jackets?  Where did they go?

 4        A.   We handed them over to the brigade command, and of course they

 5     were later used by the soldiers.

 6        Q.   Later used by the Serb soldiers.

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   So they were never returned to the UN forces?

 9        A.   No.

10        Q.   Could we have a look at P2455.  It's a document that's

11     unfortunately only in English, so I'm going to read you a passage that

12     I'd like to ask you about.  It's an UNPROFOR Weekly Situation Report for

13     the week of 5 to 11 March 1995.  And if we could go over to page 5,

14     paragraph 12, there's something I want to ask you about.

15             This says that on March 9 1995 - and it's about a halfway through

16     the paragraph - the Serbs stopped a French truck with 126 new advanced

17     flak jackets valued at 350.000 Deutschmarks and the Serbs took the truck

18     and the flak jackets but allowed the soldiers to go free.  So reading

19     this, it actually sounds like there was more than one instance where you

20     confiscated flak jackets.  Am I correct in that?

21        A.   In the area of responsibility of my battalion, or, rather, the

22     1st Battalion command there was only one such instance.  Perhaps this

23     happened elsewhere, but I'm not aware of that case, that incident.  But I

24     declare with full responsibility that this happened only once, as I've

25     said.  Whether the figure was correct I'm not absolutely certain, but it

Page 30583

 1     did happen as I related it here.

 2        Q.   All right.  So perhaps we're talking about the same incident

 3     because earlier in this paragraph the author writes:

 4             "At the infamous Sierra 4, an illegal Serb check-point on the

 5     main road from the city to the airport, another hijacking has taken

 6     place."

 7             So could we be talking about the same incident?

 8        A.   It is possible.  Sierra 4 is precisely the check-point that I

 9     indicated, that I marked, but I repeat, I only know of one incident and I

10     was present when it happened.  Now, whether this was elsewhere or whether

11     there was a difference in the number of these flak jackets, I really

12     don't know, because I have no reason to deny it, nor am I trying to do so

13     because I know that there was a report of -- by the UNPROFOR.  There was

14     also a report compiled, and there is no reason for me to deny this.  I

15     never even tried to do so, because that's how it is.

16        Q.   Now, let's look at another document, 65 ter number 90240.  It's -

17     again in English, unfortunately - an UNPROFOR Sector Sarajevo Weekly

18     Situation Report for 7 April 1995, and at page 2 of this document it --

19     under the heading "Problems at Sierra 4, city blockaded," it has

20     something I'd like to ask you about.

21             MS. EDGERTON:  Page 2.  Oh, and the document's only got one page

22     uploaded, so I think we'll probably just move on, Your Honours.

23        Q.   I actually have only one last question to ask you about, and it's

24     about paragraph 25 of your statement where you talk about the

25     Fatima Gunic school, and you said that, "If the former name of the school

Page 30584

 1     is the Andrija Raso school ..."  You had some information from a cousin

 2     who said that the school was used to house soldiers.  So my question to

 3     you is:  Assuming this school was previously the Andrija Raso school and

 4     it did at some point house soldiers, to your knowledge was it fired on by

 5     the VRS?

 6        A.   Well, first, I would like to correct something.  I didn't say

 7     that my cousin provided this information.  I received that information

 8     from other sources.  Now, she lived in Mojmilo, and she worked at the

 9     school Andrija Raso, and she left Mojmilo in 1992, in May, and based on

10     intelligence, that's where we got information that there was -- there

11     were soldiers deployed at the school, and at the point where we were

12     absolutely certain that there were soldiers deployed at a school, that's

13     the only time that we would open fire.  Otherwise, absolutely not,

14     because the school would be for children and that would have been against

15     all rules and international laws.

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would like to intervene here.

17     The witness also said, and it didn't make it into the transcript, that

18     there were soldiers in other schools too.

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My apologies.  When I mentioned all

20     schools, I mean where we were, at the area where we were, Alipasino Polje

21     and so on.  So that is -- those are the schools that I'm referring to.  I

22     don't know what happened elsewhere in the centre or Novi Grad areas.  I

23     wouldn't know about that.  I was not really interested because we weren't

24     anywhere near there.

25             MS. EDGERTON:

Page 30585

 1        Q.   Did you know that the Andrija Raso school was renamed the

 2     Mesa Selimovic school in November 1994?

 3        A.   I didn't know that.  And what I said was if that was the school

 4     that I meant -- now, I know where Andrija Raso school was, but in view of

 5     the fact that almost all street names have changed in Sarajevo, every

 6     square and everything, I really wouldn't know what new names would be.

 7     I'm not really a tourist guide.

 8        Q.   Did you know who Fatima Gunic was?

 9        A.   No.

10        Q.   Well, Fatima Gunic was a teacher, and she was killed in a

11     shelling on 9 November 1993, in a makeshift classroom.  Had you heard

12     anything about that?

13        A.   No.

14        Q.   She was giving lessons at the time, and a shell fell in front of

15     or outside of the barricaded makeshift classroom, and some children were

16     also killed and there was an investigation.  Had you heard about that

17     investigation?  You watched the media?

18        A.   No.  No.  I really haven't, not really, nor do I know that that

19     happened, nor do I know who this Gunic person was.  I really don't know

20     anything about that.

21        Q.   Did you know that -- so then you heard no information to the

22     effect that the shell was actually found by local investigators to have

23     been fired from Nedzarici?

24        A.   I've never heard of that.

25             MS. EDGERTON:  All right.  Your indulgence for just a moment,

Page 30586

 1     Your Honour.

 2                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

 3             MS. EDGERTON:  I have nothing further, Your Honours.

 4             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you, Ms. Edgerton.

 5             Mr. Karadzic, do you have any re-examination?

 6             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, your Excellency.  I would just

 7     like to thank the witness, but I have no question for him.

 8             JUDGE KWON:  Very well.  That concludes your evidence,

 9     Mr. Sladoje.  I thank you for your coming to The Hague to give it.  Now

10     you are free to go, and we will rise all together.

11             We will have a break for 45 minutes and resume at 10 past 1.00.

12                           [The witness withdrew]

13                           --- Luncheon recess taken at 12.21 p.m.

14                           --- On resuming at 1.12 p.m.

15                           [The witness entered court]

16             JUDGE KWON:  Would the witness take the solemn declaration.

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will

18     speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

19                           WITNESS:  ZORAN KOVACEVIC

20                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

21             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.  Please be seated and make yourself

22     comfortable.

23             Yes, Ms. Sutherland.

24             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Your Honour, may I request a Rule 90(E) warning,

25     please.

Page 30587

 1             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Kovacevic, before you start giving evidence, I

 2     would like to draw your attention to a particular Rule at the Tribunal.

 3     Under this Rule, Rule 90(E), you may object to answering a question from

 4     the Prosecution or the accused or from the Judges if you believe that

 5     your answer will incriminate you.  When I say "incriminate," I mean that

 6     something you say may amount to an admission of your guilt for a criminal

 7     offence or could provide evidence that you have committed an offence.

 8     However, even if you think your answer will incriminate you and you do

 9     not wish to answer the question, the Tribunal has the discretion to

10     oblige you to answer the question, but in such a case, the Tribunal will

11     make sure that your testimony compelled in such a way shall not be used

12     as evidence in other case against you for any offence other than false

13     testimony.

14             Do you understand what I have just told you?

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I do.

16             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

17             Yes, Mr. Karadzic.

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Before we begin, could we please

19     have the term "discretion to oblige you" to be interpreted to the witness

20     as something that is binding rather than a measure of coercion.

21             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.  Now, I take it Mr. Kovacevic has

22     understood it.  Let's continue.

23                           Examination by Mr. Karadzic:

24        Q.   [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Kovacevic.

25        A.   Good afternoon.

Page 30588

 1        Q.   Should I address you by rank since you have been trained at our

 2     military academy?

 3        A.   Feel free to do so.

 4        Q.   You are still in our armed forces, although it has been

 5     significantly reduced.

 6        A.   Yes, I'm warrant officer first class these days.

 7        Q.   Thank you.

 8             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we please 1D6401 in e-court.

 9             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

10        Q.   And while we're on that topic, the highest rank in the army

11     nowadays is that of brigadier; correct?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   Thank you.  Did you provide a statement to my Defence team,

14     Mr. Kovacevic, and can you see it in the English language before you?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   Does it contain what you have stated?  In other words, is it

17     accurate?  Was it read back to you, and did you sign it?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   Thank you.  If today in this courtroom I were to put the same

20     questions, would your answers be basically the same?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   Thank you.

23             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I seek to tender the 92 ter

24     package.

25             JUDGE KWON:  Any objections, Ms. Sutherland?

Page 30589

 1             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Yes, Your Honour, to the fourth document --

 2     fifth document, 1D08458, on the grounds of relevance.

 3             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have a response?

 4             JUDGE KWON:  Just a minute.  Which is dealt with in para 20,

 5     Ms. Sutherland?

 6             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Yes, Your Honour.  It's concerning 1997, and I

 7     just don't see the relevance to the charges in the indictment.

 8             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. Karadzic.

 9             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Excellency.

10     Following the Dayton Accords, all officials in Bosnia and Herzegovina had

11     to undergo strict background checks by the OACD and the

12     High Representative when they were allowed to continue working in any

13     public institution, including the armed forces.  Only those who had not

14     committed mistakes in the past have been allowed back, in other words,

15     who had a clean slate to start.  This is very important from the point of

16     view of credibility as well as conduct during the war.

17                           [Trial Chamber confers]

18             JUDGE KWON:  The Chamber will receive it.  After reading out the

19     summary, I would like you to deal with the previous one, 1D8457, with the

20     witness directly, because it's not clear from the statement what this

21     item relates to, if you wish to tender that.  Please continue -- we'll

22     admit the statement.

23             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit D2484, Your Honours.

24             JUDGE KWON:  And we will admit the first four items first.  Shall

25     we give -- but the first item is the one which is already admitted, so

Page 30590

 1     we'll give numbers for the number 2, 3, and 4.  So 12193 will be admitted

 2     as Exhibit P?

 3             THE REGISTRAR:  2485; 1D8455 will be Exhibit D2486; 1D8456 will

 4     be Exhibit D2487.

 5             JUDGE KWON:  And 1D8458?

 6             THE REGISTRAR:  Will be Exhibit D2489, Your Honours.

 7             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. Karadzic.

 8             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  I would now like to

 9     read out the summary of Mr. Kovacevic's statement in English.

10             [In English] Zoran Kovacevic was mobilised on 8th of May, 1992,

11     as an ordinary private into the ranks of Vogosca Brigade in an infantry

12     unit for the protection of the explosive stores in the Pretis special

13     purpose production company.  In the second half of 1992, he was

14     transferred to the Artillery Unit.  In mid 1993, he went to Banja Luka to

15     complete officer training where he gained the rank of 2nd Lieutenant.  On

16     28th of June, 1994, he entered the 16th Krajina Motorised Brigade of the

17     1st Krajina Corps.  After that, in late 1994 or early 1995, he returned

18     to the 3rd Sarajevo Brigade as an artillery support battalion commander.

19             In March 1992, Zoran Kovacevic saw armed Muslim paramilitary

20     units riding Volkswagen vans with revolving lights, wearing green and

21     dark red berets.

22             The object of his unit's interest was the Zuc facility which was

23     located between Serb and Muslim units and the city and it -- it was the

24     enemy's units located -- where they have been located.  His understanding

25     of the strategy and the objective which the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps laid

Page 30591

 1     down was regard -- with regard to the city of Sarajevo were of a

 2     defensive nature.  Neither he nor his unit understood those actions to be

 3     part of a systematic or widespread attack on civilians.  He had knowledge

 4     that the objective of the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps command was to block

 5     the forces of the 1st Corps of the BH in the city in order to prevent

 6     their exit and use on other fronts in BH.  This breakthrough would have

 7     had negative consequences for the VRS on the remaining fronts and the

 8     course of the war in BH.

 9             The BH 1st Corps army -- 1st Corps was in the city of Sarajevo

10     under the control of the Muslim authorities in the period from April 1992

11     to December 1995.  The units of the 1st Corps of BH Army opposed to

12     him -- his unit were 111th, 112th, and 105th Mountain Brigades which held

13     the dominant points of Zuc, Orlic, Hum, Grdonj, Brijesce Brdo, and

14     Sokolje.  They also had positions in civilian zones including mortars

15     stationed in the Sarajevo maternity hospital.  They also mounted

16     multi-rocket launchers on vehicles and modified anti-aircraft defence

17     weapons for fire against ground targets.  His unit had knowledge that

18     there were military targets behind the lines.

19             His unit took precautionary measures to avoid firing on civilian

20     facilities located in the zone of responsibility of the 1st BH army corps

21     and to reduce collateral civilian casualties.  In addition to this, his

22     unit on more than one occasion abandoned combat or fire operations

23     because of the disproportionate danger of civilian casualties in relation

24     to the military objective to be achieved.  He had no knowledge that any

25     casualties of battle were civilians.

Page 30592

 1             Neither he nor members of his unit or higher or lower commands

 2     had any intention to cause civilian casualties in the part of the city

 3     under Muslim control or accomplish psychological impact or conduct a

 4     campaign of terror against them.  He was never ordered either verbally or

 5     in writing by higher command or civilian authorities to carry out attacks

 6     on civilians of public transportations in the part of the city under

 7     Muslim control, nor did he ever issue such orders.  On the contrary,

 8     instructions received from the higher command or civilian authorities

 9     were that the fire should be open exclusively at military targets

10     threatening their forces.  Verbal orders from superior command, as well

11     as those issued by Zoran Kovacevic to his subordinates stated that

12     civilians in the city under Muslim control must not be the target of an

13     attack.

14             His unit's crews were not fully manned.  Its members were not

15     professional soldiers but reserves.  That means local people and the

16     unit's command staff was not comprised of professional officers either.

17     The ammunition situation in his unit varied, but as time went on

18     ammunition became scarcer and were forced to turn to war time production

19     ammunition.  Orders from the higher command regarding the expenditure,

20     especially of artillery ammunition, prescribed that it had to be used

21     sparingly.  Squandering of the ammunition was not allowed.  He had

22     knowledge of the existence of manufactured -- manufacture of modified

23     aerial bombs for firing on ground targets due to the shortage of -- a

24     shortage of the classic artillery ammunition, while in the

25     Sarajevo-Romanija Corps there were aerial bombs that were unused because

Page 30593

 1     of the no-fly order that was in place.

 2             Regarding incident Markale I on 5th of February, 1994,

 3     Zoran Kovacevic states that to his knowledge, there were no artillery

 4     units or mortars on that axis.  Secondly, knowing the configuration of

 5     the market and the distance from the possible firing point on that axis,

 6     he considers the possibility of a hit on that spot to be minimal and that

 7     it borders on the impossible.

 8             Regarding incident at Dositejeva Street 4A on 16 of June, 1995,

 9     to Zoran Kovacevic's knowledge, nobody from Pretis or his brigade

10     launched an aerial bomb on 16th of June, 1995, at Dositejeva Street.

11             [Interpretation] Thank you.  During examination-in-chief, I would

12     kindly ask that the witness be provided a hard copy in Serbian, perhaps

13     the one I have in my hand.  Thank you.

14        Q.   Could I ask you to read out paragraph number 5 for your own sake.

15     You don't have to do it out loud.  I just want you to be acquainted with

16     its contents.  Have you read it?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   Thank you.  Could we look at 1D8457 next.  Did you read the

19     entire paragraph, because it goes on to page 2.

20        A.   Yes, I have read it all.

21        Q.   Thank you.

22             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we zoom in, please.  Could we

23     focus on the circle which delineates the 20-kilometre perimeter.  The

24     picture's not the best, but did you make certain markings on the map?

25        A.   I can barely see anything.

Page 30594

 1        Q.   Do you see red markings, squares, rectangles, to the north of

 2     Vogosca?

 3        A.   I can see three such shapes.

 4        Q.   Thank you.  Can you explain the Chamber what the circles is and

 5     what the markings stand for regarding paragraph 5 which you read.

 6        A.   The red shapes probably depict firing positions, and the circle,

 7     inside the circle we have the city area of Sarajevo with its environs.

 8        Q.   Thank you.

 9             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Perhaps the witness could be

10     assisted in marking Dobrinja -- sorry, Vogosca, and then the hills

11     between Vogosca and the city, and I would like him to mark Zuc on the map

12     as well.

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This should be Vogosca.

14             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

15        Q.   Thank you.  Mark it with a V.

16        A.   [Marks]

17        Q.   And the range of hills you marked, what is that?

18        A.   That's the general area of the Hum and Zuc features.

19        Q.   Can you put a Z with a diacritic and an H.

20        A.   [Marks]

21        Q.   Thank you.  Can one see the central part of the city to the south

22     of Zuc and Hum from Vogosca?

23        A.   No.  There is no line of sight.

24        Q.   As for the positions refers to in paragraph 5, can you tell us

25     what was their position on the map?

Page 30595

 1        A.   They were turned towards Zuc.

 2        Q.   Did the positions have to do with the howitzer battery that is

 3     mentioned in paragraph 5?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   Thank you.  Could I also ask you to place a date and your

 6     initials in the lower right-hand corner.

 7        A.   Today's date?

 8        Q.   Yes.

 9        A.   [Marks]

10        Q.   Another thing, perhaps I'm asking much, but can you depict the

11     axis towards Dositejeva Street and what would be the distance

12     approximately?

13        A.   I apologise.  I have no idea where Dositejeva Street would be

14     here.

15        Q.   Thank you.  In any case, it's quite far to the centre of

16     Sarajevo; correct?

17        A.   Yes.

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  I seek to tender this.

19     Perhaps it could be under the same number with the markings, of course.

20             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  This will be admitted as the next Defence

21     Exhibit.

22             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit D2488, Your Honours.

23             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Kovacevic, as you have noted, your evidence in

24     chief was admitted in writing in lieu of your oral testimony.  Now you'll

25     be cross-examined by the Prosecution -- Prosecution.

Page 30596

 1             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If I may, two or three short

 2     questions as part of my examination-in-chief.

 3             JUDGE KWON:  I see no problem.  Please continue then.

 4             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 5             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 6        Q.   Mr. Kovacevic, what was the ethnic make-up of your brigade?  Were

 7     there people of other ethnicities in your brigade, and if so, which?

 8        A.   I don't know about the various brigade units.

 9        Q.   How about your unit?

10        A.   In my artillery battalion there were Croats and Bosniaks or

11     Muslims.

12        Q.   If the Serbs were obliged to respond to call-ups, were Croats and

13     Muslims obliged to do the same or were they mobilised by force?

14        A.   Members of other ethnicities also volunteered to the unit and

15     they were made part of it.  They had never been officially mobilised

16     though.

17        Q.   Thank you.  So at first they were volunteers, but did they enjoy

18     the same status as VRS soldiers?

19        A.   Yes, certainly.  They were members of the VRS, and all VRS

20     members enjoyed the same rights.

21        Q.   Thank you.  Given the fact that you had artillery pieces, did you

22     have observation points and where?

23        A.   Our observation points were for a while at the firing lines while

24     at other times we used forward observation points at the lines held by

25     the infantry.

Page 30597

 1        Q.   Were you in communication with them, with the people at the

 2     observation posts?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   Was the same situation in place throughout the war when you

 5     returned to Vogosca?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  At this stage I have no

 8     more questions of Mr. Kovacevic.

 9             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

10             Yes, Ms. Sutherland.

11             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Thank you, Your Honour.

12                           Cross-examination by Ms. Sutherland:

13        Q.   Mr. Kovacevic, thank you for meeting briefly with myself and an

14     investigator on Monday.  I hope we will be able to move through the

15     examination efficiently.  I would ask you to focus on the question and

16     answer the question that I put, because we are limited in time.  I only

17     have one hour to put some questions to you.

18             You said on Monday that you were mobilised -- when you were

19     mobilised in May 1992, you were part of a platoon of 25 to 30 men; is

20     that right?

21             THE INTERPRETER:  Could Ms. Sutherland speak into the microphone

22     right in front of her.  Thank you.

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't say it was a 25- to

24     30-member detachment.  Oh, you mean the infantry unit.  Yes, that unit

25     numbered 20 to 30 men.  The unit that was the protective platoon for the

Page 30598

 1     ammunitions depot.

 2             MS. SUTHERLAND:

 3        Q.   And two or three months later you transferred to the artillery

 4     unit of the Vogosca Brigade and Zeljko Blavacenin [phoen] was the

 5     artillery unit commander?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   He reported to the brigade's chief of artillery

 8     Sretko [phoen] Gracanin.  And Gracanin's superior was Trifunovic, the

 9     Vogosca Brigade commander, yes?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   You left the area to go to Banja Luka for officer training around

12     the 1st of September, 1993, didn't you?

13        A.   Well, that's about right.  It wasn't really training.  It was an

14     officer school of the VRS.  There is a difference between training and

15     education.

16        Q.   You said when you returned to the area in late 1994, early 1995,

17     that you were made commander of the mixed artillery battalion of the

18     3rd Sarajevo Infantry Brigade which was formally known as the

19     Vogosca Brigade; is that right?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   And Gracanin was still the brigade's chief of artillery and his

22     superior was the commander of the brigade?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   I want to talk to you about the type and number of artillery

25     weapons you had in the period 1992 to mid-1993.  You had artillery

Page 30599

 1     positions at Krivoglavci, Blagovac, Hotonj, and Gradacac.  What type and

 2     calibre of the two howitzer did you have at the Blagovac position?

 3        A.   One howitzer, 105 millimetre; and a 122-millimetre howitzer.

 4        Q.   So besides the weapons that you mention in your statement in

 5     paragraph 4 and the one that you just mentioned now, or, the two that you

 6     mention now, the 105 millimetre and the 122 millimetre, the brigade also

 7     had a number of other weapons, didn't they?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   You had 128-millimetre Plamen?

10        A.   Yes.  That is a 128-millimetre Plamen, and I heard a Praga, which

11     is not the case.  It's not Praga.  It's 128-millimetre Plamen.

12        Q.   That's what I -- that's what I said.  It was obviously -- I

13     didn't speak clearly enough.  You also had 155-million howitzers in

14     Tihovici [phoen] and Zemina Ravan [phoen] and in Kremes, did you not?

15             THE INTERPRETER:  Would the counsel please repeat the names.

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] [Previous translation

17     continues] ... the interpretation.  We had 122-millimetre howitzers.

18             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.

19             MS. SUTHERLAND:  I will repeat the question.

20             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

21             MS. SUTHERLAND:

22        Q.   You also had 155-millimetre howitzers in Tihovici, Zemina Ravan

23     and in Kremes, did you not?

24        A.   In 1992, those were not the positions in 1992, the ones you

25     referred to just now.

Page 30600

 1        Q.   I was talking about the period 1992 through 'til 1993, September,

 2     when you went to Banja Luka.

 3        A.   There was a howitzer battery, a 122-millimetre howitzer battery

 4     at Kremes.  120-millimetre mortars at Krivoglavci, Blagovac, and Hotonj.

 5     A 76-millimetre gun, B-1, at Gradac.

 6        Q.   What about a 76-millimetre gun, ZiS 3, Z-i-s 3, in Blagovac?

 7        A.   A 76-million ZiS gun.  I believe there was one in Hotonj but it

 8     didn't belong to my unit.

 9        Q.   But Hotonj was part of the Vogosca Brigade, yes?

10        A.   Yes.  But not all artillery belonged to my unit.

11        Q.   At the moment I'm asking you about what the brigade had.  What

12     about 122-millimetre howitzer D-30 in Zimena Ravan?

13        A.   A 122-millimetre D-30 howitzer was at Blagovac.  So there were

14     two howitzers, a 105 millimetre and a 122 millimetre D-30 howitzer.  They

15     were the Blagovac.

16        Q.   Thank you.  The brigade are also had -- or the Artillery Unit

17     that you were in also had a tank T-55 and a Praga, did it not?

18        A.   That's not artillery.  A tank is an armoured mechanised asset, a

19     Praga is an anti-aircraft asset, so these are not land artillery pieces

20     and this could not have been part -- within my unit; within the brigade,

21     yes, but not in my unit.

22        Q.   You're right.  You're absolutely right.  Sorry.  I -- I -- I

23     should have said to you:  You had within your Artillery Unit drivers for

24     these vehicles, did you not?

25        A.   Vehicle drivers.  Well, they would be within those units that

Page 30601

 1     service them.  These were drivers of special combat vehicles.

 2        Q.   Okay.  And in 1995, did you have any other artillery weapons that

 3     you haven't already mentioned?

 4        A.   A howitzer battery, a 122-millimetre howitzer battery at Kremes;

 5     a 105-howitzer battery - I can't say exactly in what sector they were.

 6     In the background of Rajlovac some place - then there was a B-1 battery

 7     at Krivoglavci; one Plamen VBR; one Oganj VBR, and that would be about

 8     it.

 9             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Could we have 65 ter 12191.

10             Mr. Kovacevic, this is a list of persons in the artillery

11     section, and we see that you're listed at number 2.

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   [Overlapping speakers] under.  The document is undated, but if we

14     go to the last page we can see that it's signed by Robert Jovanovski.

15     When did Jovanovski take over as the commander of the

16     Sarajevo 3rd Infantry Brigade?

17        A.   Yes, yes, but that wasn't the 3rd Infantry Brigade, the

18     3rd Sarajevo Infantry Brigade but, rather, the Vogosca Brigade.  That's

19     as far as the brigade is concerned.  Now, Robert Jovanovski took over

20     from Miladin Trifunovic.  This was, as far as I recall, in 1992, perhaps

21     the second half of 1992.

22        Q.   Or at the end of 1992?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   And we see here that there are drivers for the Pragas and the

25     T-55 tanks.

Page 30602

 1        A.   Yes.  You can see that, but could we see the top of this document

 2     or, rather, the first page.  This is a list of conscripts in artillery.

 3     Now, at this time, the word artillery comprised everything.  In other

 4     words, whatever was in the artillery battalion and then also what was in

 5     the light rocket and anti-aircraft battalion, and in the armoured

 6     mechanised unit.  So this is an overall list probably for rations of

 7     cigarettes or whatever.

 8             MS. SUTHERLAND:  I tender that document.

 9             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

10             THE REGISTRAR:  That will be Exhibit P6013, Your Honours.

11             MS. SUTHERLAND:

12        Q.   Mr. Kovacevic, you mention in your statement that you had a

13     120-millimetre M-38 howitzer, and in fact you've just testified today

14     about the Blagovac Battalion having -- or, at their artillery position

15     having a D-30 howitzer.  There's quite a -- there's a difference in the

16     ranges between those two weapons, is there not?  The M-38 has a range of

17     11.800 metres, while the D-30 has a range of approximately 15.300 metres.

18        A.   Correct, but this is not a 120-millimetre howitzer but rather a

19     122-millimetre M-38 howitzer.

20        Q.   I'm sorry if I misspoke if I said 128.  I meant 122.  But you

21     agree with me, don't you?  Yeah.

22        A.   Yes, if you mean the range, yes.  These are the technical

23     specifications for those weapons, and it's correct.  One of them has a

24     slightly shorter range and the other one longer, and of course these

25     figures approximately are correct, 11.800 and 15.300.

Page 30603

 1        Q.   And also you said in your statement that -- that you had a

 2     76-millimetre old gun, an M-48(B-1) and then you mentioned today that you

 3     had the more powerful 76-millimetre ZiS-3 gun at Blagovac and there's a

 4     quite a difference between these two guns is there not?  The M-48 has a

 5     range of 8.750 metres, and the ZiS-3 has a range of 13.000 metres; is

 6     that right?

 7        A.   I don't know that the range of ZiS is 13.000 metres, but that

 8     asset was not with me.  What I had was --

 9             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the witness repeat the weapon, please.

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As for the range, it is correct.

11     With D-1 it's 8.750 or something.  As for ZiS, I don't really know.

12     That's an anti-armour asset.

13             MS. SUTHERLAND:

14        Q.   The interpreter didn't catch the weapon you were first referring

15     to.  That was the M-48, wasn't it?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   You mentioned also that the brigade had multiple-rocket

18     launchers.  This is an anti- -- an area anti-personnel weapon not

19     suitable for point targeting in urban environment because its range of

20     error is too great, isn't it?

21        A.   Multiple-rocket launchers are not anti-aircraft assets.

22     Multiple-rocket launchers are --

23        Q.   [Overlapping speakers] Anti-personnel.  Anti-personnel.

24        A.   Those are multiple-rocket launchers.  That's -- that's land

25     rocket artillery which implies that they can be used against targets on

Page 30604

 1     the ground.  They're not -- it's not an anti-aircraft weapon.

 2        Q.   No.  I said -- I'm sorry.  It must have been a mistranslation.  I

 3     said anti-personnel weapon.  So you agree that it's a land -- to be -- to

 4     be used on the ground.  It's also right, isn't it, that the range of

 5     error is -- is -- is quite large?

 6        A.   I don't understand what you mean by "range of error."

 7        Q.   It's not -- it's not precise.

 8        A.   It is precise as specified according to the technical

 9     specifications.  These are multiple-rocket launchers used to target

10     targets on the ground.  I can't say they're not precise.  It depends on

11     the target.  It is true that it is an area weapon, and in that sense it

12     should be rather precise.  I don't know how to put this.  It's not a

13     rifle so that you can pinpoint a target.  Artillery weapons are

14     different.  They have a breadth, a width, a depth, an azimuth, and so on,

15     so they are defined according to several parameters.  These are

16     multidimensional targets.

17        Q.   During the two time periods that you were there, 1992

18     through 'til September 1993 and then again late 1994, beginning of 1995

19     until the end of the war, did the artillery positions remain the same?

20        A.   They remained more or less the same perhaps with some slight

21     adjustments, yes.

22        Q.   And what do you mean by some slight adjustments?

23        A.   Well, perhaps they were moved by a hundred, 200 metres along the

24     line, the front line, because -- well, we had a defence line behind our

25     backs, and this was the only artillery that we had at our disposal so

Page 30605

 1     that sometimes it had to be turned against the outer ring.  So

 2     practically we operated in semi -- in a semi-surrounding position.  We

 3     were turned -- we had positions towards the town but also behind our

 4     backs.  So the territory -- our territory there was very narrow, perhaps

 5     3 to 4 or 5 kilometres.

 6        Q.   And during the -- the two time periods that we just talked about,

 7     did the weaponry stay at the locations you've mentioned in your statement

 8     throughout that period?

 9        A.   At the locations that I mentioned in my statement, yes.

10        Q.   How many 122-millimetre howitzers did the unit -- did the brigade

11     have in 1995?  The brigade.

12        A.   In 1995, toward the end of 1995, I believe that there were four

13     of them.

14        Q.   You mean the 122-millimetre D-30s or all?

15        A.   All 122-millimetre weapons.

16        Q.   And let's say in -- in May, May 1995.

17        A.   I don't know exactly about May 1995, but at the end of 1995 there

18     were probably six to eight.

19        Q.   And so we've just gone through quite a number of additional

20     weapons that -- that the -- that -- that your unit had and the brigade

21     had.  Why did you minimise the holdings of the artillery in your -- in

22     your statement?

23        A.   In my statement, I did not even mention the number of weapons.  I

24     only mentioned howitzer battery.

25        Q.   I'm talking about the types of weapons.  We've just gone through

Page 30606

 1     quite a number of additional weapons that -- that you had.  Many?

 2        A.   I don't see what additional weapons.  There was that

 3     122-millimetre calibre, 105, 76, VBR, Oganj.  I don't know what's

 4     additional.

 5        Q.   The different types of 76-millimetre guns, the fact that

 6     122-millimetre hasn't been mentioned in your statement at all.

 7        A.   Yes.  Yes.  I did mention 122-millimetre weapons in my statement,

 8     but here it says 120-millimetres M-38, but I said 122 millimetres.  Here

 9     it says 120 M-38.

10        Q.   I want to move on now to -- you mentioned that orders came from

11     higher command levels regarding the expenditure of ammunition especially

12     artillery, that it must be used sparingly.  Did you mean that an order

13     came from the corps?

14        A.   Yes.  All orders came from higher commanders.  In other words, we

15     received orders from higher commands and the orders on the expenditure of

16     ammunition was they had to be used sparingly.

17        Q.   And so the brigades had to change their attitude towards the way

18     artillery was being used.  What needed to be changed?

19        A.   The expenditure of ammunition should be minimised.  That was

20     received at the brigade.  And then from the brigade I received an order,

21     an order for operation.  And there was nothing for me to think about as

22     far as the expenditure of ammunition was concerned.

23        Q.   And as part of that order -- or did -- did the -- did the

24     brigades have to submit daily ammunition expenditure reports to the SRK

25     command?

Page 30607

 1        A.   If you believe me, I don't know.  The brigade was my superior

 2     command, and I received my order from them, whereas the brigade would

 3     report to their superior command.  I believe that was the way it should

 4     be, but I don't really know.  I had no insight into how the brigade

 5     operated, nor was it necessary for me to have that kind of insight.

 6             THE ACCUSED:  [No interpretation] [In English] I shouldn't rather

 7     than it was necessary.  [Interpretation] May I intervene in the

 8     transcript.  The witness said I should rather than it was necessary.

 9             MS. SUTHERLAND:

10        Q.   Mr. Kovacevic, what wasn't necessary?  What did you say was

11     necessary?

12        A.   Because that was the superior command.  What the -- what the

13     superior command did, that wasn't something that I had to know.  I didn't

14     have to know about that.  That's how the military structure functions.

15        Q.   But you were advised by the -- the command through the brigade

16     that -- that artillery was being squandered because it was often fired

17     are --

18        A.   I'm not receiving interpretation.

19        Q.   Are you receiving it now?

20        A.   Yes, now I hear it.

21        Q.   But you were informed by the command through the brigade that the

22     reason that ammunition was being squandered was because it was being

23     fired at inhabited settlements and specific buildings when there was no

24     combat action whatsoever; is that right?

25        A.   That is not right.  The corps command had nothing to tell me.

Page 30608

 1     They would relate it to the brigade, and the brigade received orders that

 2     they should not squander ammunition, but what you've just mentioned,

 3     that's rather broad.  So that's not how it was.  We were to prevent

 4     squandering of ammunition and to spare -- use it sparingly, because we

 5     didn't -- there wasn't much of it.  But the context in which you put it,

 6     that's not -- that was not the reason why ammunition was to be used

 7     sparingly.

 8        Q.   I thought you said that the -- the -- the order that came down

 9     from the corps command was then -- that order was passed on to your

10     brigade, was it not, down through the brigade?

11        A.   Yes.  An order came to the effect that we have to use ammunition

12     sparingly, but not for the reasons that you mentioned.

13             MS. SUTHERLAND:  If we can quickly have P2668, please.

14        Q.   Mr. Kovacevic, this is -- this is the order from

15     General Milosevic, and if you can see the second -- second paragraph

16     there.  Does this refresh your memory as to the order that came down from

17     the corps?

18        A.   This is an order from the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps command sent to

19     and then it says there who it was sent to, to brigade commands.  This is

20     the first time ever that I see this order.  And I wasn't even supposed to

21     see this.  This was an order sent to the brigade from the superior

22     command -- or, rather, it was sent to the brigade which was my superior

23     command.

24        Q.   Okay.  I will move on.  In paragraph 12 of your statement, you

25     said that you had knowledge of military targets behind the lines, the

Page 30609

 1     command post communication centres, artillery and mortar, and you said:

 2             "Despite this, during the conduct of combat and fire operations

 3     against military targets located in civilian zones, we took measures to

 4     reduce collateral civilian casualties ..."

 5             How do you reconcile that with what you state in paragraph 10,

 6     and I quote:

 7              "There was no uncertainty in myself or my unit during conduct of

 8     combat or fire operations as to whether operations or fire were being

 9     directed towards civilians.  In other words, we/I never accepted such a

10     possibility and continued fire despite this."

11        A.   Could you please repeat your question.  I understood all the rest

12     surrounding it, as it were, but could you repeat the question itself,

13     please.

14        Q.   Well, you're saying on the one hand that you took precautionary

15     measures to reduce collateral civilian casualties, but earlier on in your

16     statement you say there was no uncertainty as to whether operations of

17     fire were being directed towards civilians, and you never accepted such a

18     possibility and you continued to fire despite it.  So I'm just -- how do

19     you reconcile those two -- two statements?

20        A.   I did not say that despite everything I continued opening fire.

21     As for what the statement says, it means the following:  Civilians were

22     not the target of the artillery units, my artillery.  Civilians were not

23     the targets of the operation of the artillery units.

24             As for paragraph 12, the enemy units were often positioned in

25     civilian buildings and facilities where civilians moved about.  I said

Page 30610

 1     that these were artillery --

 2             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  The witness will have to

 3     slow down.

 4             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. -- Mr. Kovacevic, interpreters are saying to ask

 5     that you are speaking a bit too fast.  Could you slow down and repeat

 6     your answer.

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Certainly.  So military targets in

 8     terms of the deployment of enemy forces was such that they were

 9     positioned in civilian locations.  So these were their staffs,

10     communication centres, artillery positions, their mobile mortars, their

11     mobile multiple-rocket launchers, and that is why I said that despite all

12     of that -- that despite all of that, we did not open fire at military

13     targets located in civilian zones.  Or if that was necessary, we took all

14     measures to diminish or reduce collateral civilian casualties.

15             MS. SUTHERLAND:

16        Q.   But what you say in your statement was that -- is that the three

17     BiH Army units opposing you all positions in civilian zones.  That's what

18     you say in paragraph 8.  And so then if you are responding to fire from

19     those units, then you are firing back into civilian zones, are you not?

20        A.   No.  Military zones.  If you put a tank somewhere, that's a

21     military target.

22        Q.   You've said in paragraph 8 that -- that -- first of all, you say

23     in paragraph 7 that you are responding -- you're responding to fire from

24     the city, and you say in paragraph 11 that you received verbal orders

25     that civilians in the city weren't to be the target.  Are you talking

Page 30611

 1     about -- are you talking about returning fire on the positions that

 2     opened fire on your unit?

 3        A.   As far as the zone of operation of my unit is concerned, the city

 4     had nothing to do with that.  I said at the very outset it was the Zuc

 5     feature, Zuc.  As far as fire from the city was concerned, and there was

 6     such fire, that fire was opened at the municipality of Vogosca

 7     practically every day.  We did not respond to that fire, the fire coming

 8     from the urban zones, because that goes beyond the area of responsibility

 9     of my brigade.

10        Q.   Why did you --

11        A.   The area of responsibility is Zuc.

12        Q.   Mr. Kovacevic, but in your statement in paragraph 7 you say:

13             "... when conducting combat operations, firing or responding to

14     fire from the city."

15             So you're talking here about responding to fire in the city.

16        A.   Fire in town?  I cannot see that now, but I personally and my

17     unit when opening fire carrying out combat operations, we did not

18     understand that as part of a systematic or widespread attack on

19     civilians.  We did not respond to fire from the city of Sarajevo.  The

20     zone of responsibility of my unit is Zuc and what I've already mentioned.

21     So it is the broader area of Zuc.  The city was not within the area of

22     responsibility of my brigade.  Rather, it was the feature of Zuc.

23        Q.   And on the map earlier today you drew a circle which went right

24     down to -- to the -- to the city, did it not?

25        A.   Yes.  To the city itself but not into the city, no.

Page 30612

 1        Q.   So you said you've never had any knowledge that there were any

 2     civilian casualties during the war.  Is that your testimony today?

 3        A.   I did not have such knowledge.

 4        Q.   Never once a commander ever said to you that despite all these

 5     precautions that you -- that it wasn't working and that civilians in

 6     Sarajevo were being killed and injured?

 7        A.   No.  The commander never said that to me.

 8        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ... [overlapping speakers]

 9        A.   As far as Sarajevo was concerned -- sorry.  Once again you're

10     talking about Sarajevo.  The zone of operation is the hill of Zuc.  That

11     is where the enemy's front end was.  Sarajevo for me was the depth.  The

12     city of Sarajevo, that is.

13        Q.   You just said the hill of Zuc, but you said a moment ago -- or

14     you said in your statement that -- that the BiH units opposing you all

15     had positions in civilian zones.  So where were the civilian zones in

16     Zuc?  If you're now saying it's the hill.

17        A.   Yes.  A hill is a geographic feature that can be populated.  As

18     far as Zuc is concerned, it's mostly Serb villages.

19        Q.   And you said that your commander never once said, but did you

20     hear from anybody that there was ever any civilians killed or wounded

21     during operations, your combat operations?

22        A.   I'm not aware of that.

23        Q.   You didn't hear about any people being taken from the detention

24     facilities in Vogosca to work on Zuc who were killed and wounded?

25        A.   No.  I have no knowledge of that.

Page 30613

 1        Q.   You agree that the 3rd Sarajevo Infantry Brigade is in the

 2     north-western part of the front; correct?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   And you purport to have absolutely no knowledge at all on the

 5     technical details of the workings of a modified air-bomb.

 6        A.   No.

 7        Q.   You said you have --

 8        A.   No, I did not say no knowledge.  I said that I did have some

 9     knowledge, that I heard about that, but as for knowledge concerning

10     operations, no.

11        Q.   You said you have some knowledge on the existence of a

12     manufacture of modified aerial bombs which the SRK had in its arsenal.

13     Is that the knowledge you're talking about?

14        A.   Yes.  Yes.  That is what I heard.  It wasn't official.  I heard

15     that that existed.

16        Q.   And you said it was because of the lack of ammunition and also

17     because of the no-fly zone.  It wasn't possible for them to use the

18     aerial bombs in a conventional way by dropping them from aeroplanes.

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   You're aware, aren't you, that by June 1995, the -- the

21     3rd Sarajevo Infantry -- the brigade had a modified air-bomb launcher,

22     didn't it?

23        A.   Probably.

24             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Can we have Exhibit P01283, please.

25        Q.   This is dated the 15th of June, from the corps commander

Page 30614

 1     Dragomir Milosevic, on the delivery of information on the launching gear

 2     and aircraft weaponry.  And it says that four modify air-bomb launchers

 3     will be given to the four brigades in the north-western part of the

 4     front.  Does that refresh your memory as to whether the -- you had a

 5     launcher?

 6        A.   This is a document of the command of the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps,

 7     and this is the first time I see it.  Documents of the corps arrive in

 8     the brigade.  I was not in any kind of contact with corps documents.

 9        Q.   I understand you may not have seen --

10             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the counsel please speak into the

11     microphone.

12             MS. SUTHERLAND:

13        Q.   I understand that you may not have seen this specific order, but

14     does it remind you of the fact that there was an aerial -- a modified

15     air-bomb launcher in your area?

16        A.   Probably.  I can say neither yes nor no.

17        Q.   And do you recall in July of 1995 having to give an aerial

18     air-bomb that was within your zone of responsibility to Major Simic as

19     part of the Talas-1 plan of operation?

20        A.   I don't know anything about that, really.  This is the first time

21     I hear of this.

22             MS. SUTHERLAND:  If we could have Exhibit P01300.

23        Q.   Do you see there in paragraph 2:

24             "Major Simic shall obtain two aerial bombs of 250 kilogrammes

25     from the corps reserves which are currently located at the

Page 30615

 1     3rd Sarajevo Infantry Brigade (the ones that were return from the Trnovo

 2     front) and demand the approval for obtaining another 2, 250 kilogramme

 3     from Pretis"?

 4             Do you recall now whether you provided this air-bomb to

 5     Major Simic?

 6        A.   Again, this is an order of the command of the

 7     Sarajevo-Romanija Corps.  Again, this is one of the orders that I see for

 8     the very first time here.  I see that it says the 3rd Spbr, but this is

 9     an order from the corps to the brigade.  I really do not know.

10        Q.   I understand that you haven't seen --

11        A.   I don't have to know about this at all.

12        Q.   I understand you haven't seen the document, but do you recall the

13     event?  Mr. Kovacevic, do you recall the event?

14             JUDGE KWON:  I'm not sure you -- the witness heard the

15     interpreting.

16             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Oh, sorry, Your Honour.

17             JUDGE KWON:  Could you repeat your question.

18             MS. SUTHERLAND:

19        Q.   Mr. Kovacevic, I understand that you may not have seen this

20     actual document, but -- but do you recall this event occurring?

21        A.   No.  No.  I do not recall this.

22             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Can we have Exhibit P01314, please.

23             THE INTERPRETER:  Would the counsel please speak into the

24     microphone.

25             MS. SUTHERLAND:  My apology to the interpreter.  I have two

Page 30616

 1     microphones on.

 2             Could I have Exhibit P01314, please.

 3        Q.   Sir, this is a document dated the 25th of July, 1995, and it's

 4     from your chief.  If we can go to the second page.  It's from Gracanin, a

 5     request for further ammunition replenishment and it includes aerial

 6     bombs, a request for aerial bombs.  Do you see that?

 7        A.   Yes, I see that.  Item 6 and item 7, I think.

 8        Q.   So you did have modified air-bombs in your zone of

 9     responsibility, didn't you?

10        A.   I cannot claim that.  That is what is asserted by this document.

11     I cannot assert that.

12        Q.   Sir, is it your testimony that -- that you as commander of the

13     mixed artillery battalion didn't know that you had modified air-bombs in

14     your zone of responsibility?

15        A.   I am not claiming that there weren't any there, but I cannot say

16     either yes or no.  This is a request for the replenishment of ammunition,

17     and there is ammunition requested here for weapons that I do not have.  I

18     even see tanks here and self-propelled weapons.

19        Q.   And Mr. Gracanin was chief of artillery of the brigade?

20        A.   The chief of artillery of the brigade is in the brigade command.

21     He is in the brigade command.  He's an organ of the brigade command, yes.

22        Q.   You knew that they were being assembled in the Pretis factory

23     which was in Vogosca didn't you?

24        A.   I had some knowledge, but I did not know.  I'm saying that I had

25     some knowledge in terms of that is something that I had heard of.  So I

Page 30617

 1     had such knowledge.

 2        Q.   And when did you gain this knowledge?

 3        A.   I cannot say exactly now.  I don't know.  It's been a long time.

 4     But I had heard of that.

 5        Q.   You stated in paragraph 23 that to your knowledge nobody from

 6     Pretis or the -- or the brigade launched a bomb on the

 7     16th of June, 1995, at Dositejeva Street.  As I've just shown you a

 8     document dated the day before which shows that they -- the brigade had a

 9     launcher, so it is possible that an air-bomb was launched from the

10     Vogosca zone of responsibility on that day.

11        A.   I am not competent to give an answer to that.  I really cannot.

12     I don't even know where Dositejeva is, as far as paragraph 23 is

13     concerned.  I don't even know where this street is.

14        Q.   Well, if you don't know where the street is, how -- how do you

15     know that nobody could have launched an aerial bomb to it?

16        A.   I assume that that didn't happen.  It would have to be heard,

17     wouldn't it.  This is probably a weapon that creates a great deal of

18     noise.  It should be heard, I assume.

19        Q.   And it's your testimony that you don't recall hearing an air-bomb

20     on the 16th of June, 1995?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   In paragraph 22 you offer certain views on Markale I incident.

23     You weren't in the Sarajevo -- Sarajevo-Romanija Corps in -- or, part of

24     the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps in February 1994, were you?

25        A.   That's right.

Page 30618

 1        Q.   But you say it was explained to you that the trajectory of the

 2     12-millimetre mortar shell -- no.  It was explained to you the trajectory

 3     of it, and also the alleged incoming trajectory pointed towards the

 4     village of Mirkovci -- Mrkovici.  Who explained this to you?

 5        A.   I saw that on television.  So on television there was this

 6     Russian officer, I believe, who gave an expert opinion then, and that's

 7     when I saw that.  And when I spoke to my colleagues and friends, they

 8     said too, that that was the trajectory.  It was all over the media.  As

 9     far as -- as far as this is concerned, if we were to link up at the

10     azimuth the trajectory, I mean, we're talking about laws of physics,

11     aerodynamics, ballistics, targeting tables.  When you combine all of that

12     with the terrain the result is that there is a minor possibility of that

13     kind of thing happening, perhaps, but only in extreme weather conditions.

14        Q.   And you said to your knowledge that there were no artillery units

15     or mortars on that axes -- axis.  This Trial Chamber heard evidence from

16     experts in relation to this incident and also from a commander of -- of a

17     brigade who testified that there were two 120-millimetre mortars and two

18     82-millimetre mortars at the Mrkovici artillery position.

19             MS. SUTHERLAND:  And for Your Honours and the accused, that's at

20     page 29598, and there was also a map which was marked and tendered.

21        Q.   So given that, the statement that you made that there were no

22     artillery units or mortar on that axes is not correct?

23        A.   In the statement I said that to the best of my knowledge along

24     that line there were no artillery units or launchers.  I am not asserting

25     anything because I was not there.  Therefore I cannot claim anything.

Page 30619

 1     However, to the best of my knowledge knowing the situation in that

 2     theatre of war, I think that it is absolutely impossible.

 3             THE ACCUSED: [No interpretation]

 4             MS. SUTHERLAND:  I'm not getting any interpretation.

 5             JUDGE KWON:  Could you -- could you turn off your microphone,

 6     both of them, so that -- yes.

 7             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes.  Perhaps it would be a good

 8     thing if the distinguished Ms. Sutherland could say specifically whether

 9     she is referring to an azimuth of 18 degrees, because that is what is

10     contained in the statement.  Also, in the previous statements of this

11     witness that had been mentioned.  So Serb commanders claimed that it had

12     to do with 18 degrees, and this is what this witness confirmed, that to

13     the best of his knowledge this did not happen at 18 degrees.  And then

14     what we were also discussing, it was 45 degrees.

15             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.  But for planning purpose, how much

16     longer would you need, Ms. Sutherland.

17             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Five minutes.

18             JUDGE KWON:  Do you have any re-examination?

19             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just two brief questions.  I need

20     two minutes at most.

21             JUDGE KWON:  I was told that your time is up, but could you try

22     to sum up as soon as possible, Ms. Sutherland.

23             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Thank you, Your Honour.

24        Q.   And I was referring to the line of trajectory, not the -- not the

25     degree.  In any event, I want to move on, and I want to very, very

Page 30620

 1     quickly, if you can assist the Trial Chamber, I want to show you a map,

 2     and that is P05926.  It is a map of Sarajevo and -- and the environs of

 3     the city.  And I just want you to -- to look at the legend on the map,

 4     and you can -- you can confirm it yourself, but the legend is that one

 5     square box on this map is 1 kilometre.

 6             MS. SUTHERLAND:  And if we can zoom in a little bit so that we

 7     have Sarajevo at the bottom of the map and we have Vogosca in the middle

 8     of the map.  No, down the other way.

 9        Q.   Now, if you agree with me, we can check the legend - if you want

10     to you can confirm it yourself - but one of these squares equals

11     1 kilometre.  So can you just count from Vogosca down to the city as to

12     how many kilometres it is from Vogosca into the city.

13             MS. SUTHERLAND:  If we can blow it up a little bit more.

14        Q.   From Vogosca town down to -- going directly north -- south,

15     sorry, do you count five squares?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   So the artillery positions, one was in Blagovac and the other one

18     was in Krivoglavci, which is just a little north of Vogosca town.  That

19     would -- that would make it at most 6 kilometres, wouldn't it, from

20     those --

21        A.   Yes.

22             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Thank you very much, Mr. Kovacevic.  I have no

23     further questions.

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

25             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.  Yes, Mr. Karadzic.

Page 30621

 1             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 2                           Re-examination by Mr. Karadzic:

 3        Q.   [Interpretation] Just briefly, Mr. Kovacevic.  In addition to

 4     your Artillery Unit, did the 3rd Sarajevo Motorised Brigade have any

 5     other artillery groups on the outer rings that you mentioned during the

 6     cross-examination?

 7        A.   Yes.  Part of my unit was on the outer ring, and also part of the

 8     2nd artillery unit.

 9        Q.   Thank you.  How long was the front line on the outer ring and how

10     long was it on the inner ring, the one towards Zuc and the town and these

11     hills?

12        A.   I cannot say exactly in kilometres now, but the length of the

13     front line was so long that it would have taken three brigades to cover

14     it, not just one.

15        Q.   And what was the expenditure of artillery ammunition as compared

16     between the inner and the outer rings?  Where was the expenditure higher,

17     and what was the margin?

18        A.   Well, I can't really answer that question.  I don't know.  I

19     believe that at certain moments -- or, rather, for the most part the

20     expenditure of ammunition was higher toward the outer ring.

21        Q.   Thank you.  And my last question:  What ethnicity was

22     Robert Jovanovski?

23        A.   I don't know exactly, but I believe that Robert Jovanovski was

24     half Albanian and half Macedonian.  I believe so, but please don't take

25     my word for it.

Page 30622

 1             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, and thank you for

 2     coming to testify.  I have no further questions.

 3             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.  That concludes your evidence,

 4     Mr. Kovacevic.  Thank you for coming to The Hague to give it.  You are

 5     free to go.

 6             We will rise all together, but tomorrow we will start at 11.00.

 7                           [The witness withdrew]

 8                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.46 p.m.,

 9                           to be reconvened on Thursday, the 29th day

10                           of November, 2012, at 11.00 a.m.