1 Friday, 7 December 2012
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.34 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in and around this
7 Madam Registrar, could you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case
9 IT-09-92-T, the Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
11 Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
12 [The witness takes the stand]
13 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Fraser.
14 THE WITNESS: Good morning.
15 JUDGE ORIE: I'd like to remind you that you're still bound by
16 the solemn declaration you have given at the beginning of your testimony
17 the day before yesterday.
18 WITNESS: DAVID FRASER [Resumed]
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, if you're ready to continue your
20 cross-examination, you're invited to do so.
21 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
22 Cross-examination by Mr. Ivetic: [Continued]
23 Q. Good morning, General.
24 A. Good morning.
25 Q. I'd take to take up where we left off yesterday, and I'd like to
1 ask you would you agree that it is legitimate always to attack enemy
2 fighters regardless of where they happen to be even when they are
3 organising a football match near the front lines?
4 A. I would agree that it is legitimate to attack enemy fighters.
5 Regardless where they happen to be is something that I would question,
6 but if they were having a football match and they were legitimate
7 fighters, that would be -- that would be okay.
8 JUDGE ORIE: The question was when they were organising a
9 football match, not whether they were having a football match.
10 THE WITNESS: If they were -- yes.
11 JUDGE ORIE: So organising a football match perhaps played by the
12 youth or --
13 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, that's why I was saying I would
14 question where -- regardless where they are, it's where they are -- if
15 they were just fighters that were having a football match together,
16 fighters with warriors with warriors, that would be fine, but if they
17 were working with civilians or something that would not be legitimate.
18 JUDGE ORIE: It would depend on the circumstances.
19 THE WITNESS: Yes.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
21 MR. IVETIC: Thank you.
22 Q. Can you tell me, sir, have you ever heard are you familiar with a
23 US military doctrine called the overwhelming force doctrine?
24 A. I am not.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Bolton.
1 MS. BOLTON: It's irrelevant now that the witness has answered as
2 he has.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Your objection is moot.
4 Please proceed.
5 MR. IVETIC:
6 Q. Are you familiar, sir, with the United States Army War College in
7 Carlisle, Pennsylvania?
8 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Bolton.
9 MS. BOLTON: I object to the relevance of that question,
10 Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic.
12 MR. IVETIC: It's leading into a document that I'm going to be
13 using that was authored by that institution, Your Honours.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Okay, well, let's see whether the document is
15 relevant. Does it make that much of a difference whether he's familiar
16 with it?
17 MR. IVETIC: I think it helps us put into context his views on
18 proportionality and that he's testified to in this trial.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Come to your point as quickly as possible and let's
20 see what happens.
21 MR. IVETIC: Fair enough. If we can call up 1D460.
22 Q. Sir, the document that we are waiting for on the screen is an
23 article from the spring 2009 publication of "Parameters" which is the
24 United States Army senior professional journal published by the
25 United States Army War College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, and as we can
1 see it's entitled "The End of Proportionality" by Jonathan F. Keiler.
2 And if we can turn to page 2 on the screen, I'd like to focus on the
3 second -- the first full paragraph on that on that screen that's on the
4 top half of the page and it begins --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you, Witness, are you familiar with this
7 THE WITNESS: I am familiar with the publication, yes I am.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
9 MR. IVETIC:
10 Q. And I will now read for you, sir, it says:
11 "American doctrine does acknowledge the concept of
12 proportionality. Field manual (FM) 27-10 the law of land warfare
13 specifies: 'Those who plan or decide upon an attack, therefore, must
14 take all reasonable steps to ensure that the objectives are identified as
15 military objectives or defended places within the meaning of the
16 preceding paragraph but also that these objectives may be attacked
17 without probable losses in lives and damage to property disproportionate
18 to the military advantage gained.' The reference to the manual's
19 preceding paragraph (chapter 2, paragraph 40) is noteworthy. There the
20 list of acceptable targets is rather broad, including defended cities and
21 towns, factories, warehouses, ports, railroads, and other places that
22 offer an enemy a military advantage or accommodation, all venues that by
23 their very nature could have large civilian populations. The
24 proportionality rule does not negate attacks on such facilities so long
25 as a reasonable military necessity exists and that necessity can be
1 reasonably balanced against anticipated civilian casualties."
2 Sir, I want to ask you were you aware of these concepts and this
3 field manual from the United States Army and the concept of a defended
4 city when preparing your statement for this trial?
5 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Bolton.
6 MS. BOLTON: I object on the basis of relevance, Your Honour.
7 Two reasons: First of all, we're not dealing here with American doctrine
8 and what the American field manual has to say. And secondly, this
9 article is from 2009 so the quoted portions are the manual as it existed
10 at that time.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, the manual's dated 1945.
13 JUDGE ORIE: The objection is overruled. This witness has
14 expressed himself on many occasions on -- on what was legitimate, what
15 was not, what was proportionate, whatnot, and that may be explored by
16 Mr. Ivetic. Please proceed.
17 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
18 Q. Sir, again I ask you were you aware of these principles and the
19 principle of a defended city and this field manual of the US Army when
20 making your statement in these proceedings?
21 A. Just to be clear, this manual as written in 1945?
22 Q. The original FM is dated 1945 -- 1955. I apologise.
23 A. I was not aware of the manual. I'm aware of the periodical that
24 this author is writing in, and therefore I'm not -- I was not -- I've not
25 read the American law of land warfare. I am educate and trained in the
1 Canadian and NATO law.
2 Q. Does the Canadian and/or NATO law include a concept of a defended
3 city being an appropriate target for a fire mission?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Under your -- strike that. I would like to ask you if you're
6 familiar with General Vahid Karavelic?
7 A. No.
8 Q. If I --
9 A. Okay. Sorry. Is -- are you referring to the commander of the
10 1st Bosnian corps in Sarajevo?
11 Q. Yes, I am, sir.
12 A. I am familiar with him.
13 Q. If we can call up document 1D00468 in e-court. And while we wait
14 for that, sir, this is the witness statement of General Karavelic given
15 in 2001 to the Office of the Prosecutor of the Tribunal, and I would be
16 interested in page 12 of the same in e-court of the section entitled,
17 "Artillery tactics of the SRK." It's at the second half the screen and,
18 sir, you can perhaps follow along with me where it is recorded there that
19 General Karavelic said:
20 "The SRK seemed to use the standard types of barrage, rolling,
21 protective fire, selective fire and concentrations. I did not notice a
22 reduction in the intensity of artillery fire during the period. They
23 probably used the standard JNA doctrine of retaining a 'unit of fire' for
24 each weapon as a reserve and requested resupply before this 'unit of
25 fire' was touched."
1 Sir, at any time you were in Sarajevo did General Karavelic ever
2 make such statements known to you about the artillery tactics of the SRK?
3 A. I don't recall him ever mentioning that to me, no.
4 Q. Would you agree with me that you would have to defer to
5 General Karavelic as to the types of artillery doctrine that were
6 standard in the JNA?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Just a few more questions, sir. Do you consider that a member of
9 an armed force, that is to say a combatant, ceases to be one once he
10 removes his uniform?
11 A. In what context?
12 Q. In the context of being a potential target of a fire mission to
13 liquidate or to neutralise or to defend from?
14 A. That would be a difficult question to answer, because again the
15 context is important to determine if positive identification of that
16 individual can be made. Positive identification.
17 Q. Let me ask it this way: In situations where a combatant cannot
18 distinguish himself from the civilian population but carries his arms
19 openly during deployments and engagements, would they still be considered
20 a legitimate target?
21 A. First of all, if there is any doubt into the determination if
22 this person is combatant or not then it behooves the person that has the
23 ability to fire not to fire if there is doubt. Positive identification
24 is required.
25 Q. [Overlapping speakers] would openly carrying arms be positive
2 A. The fact that somebody is carrying a weapon in by itself may not
3 constitute a requirement to engage unless that person is posing an
4 imminent threat or danger to whoever is pulling the trigger. The fact
5 that someone is carrying a weapon in the context of Sarajevo, a lot of
6 people did, but what is the requirement, what is the military necessity
7 to engage that person? It becomes very -- this is a complicated question
8 he's asking.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let's move on, Mr. Ivetic. We are not here to
10 have a conversation about all kind of relevant facts on the theoretical
11 level, but we're here to focus on what the witness observed and sometimes
12 how he experienced that, but then on the ground when he was in Sarajevo.
13 Let's proceed.
14 MR. IVETIC: Okay.
15 Q. Am I to understand your testimony to mean that no fire mission
16 should be undertaken unless there can be guaranteed a zero per cent
17 possibility of collateral damage?
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, did you not hear my guidance on the last
19 question? You're just continuing.
20 MR. IVETIC: [Overlapping speakers]
21 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] Okay, but at the same
22 abstract and theoretical level and that's what I tried to avoid at this
24 MR. IVETIC: I apologise, Your Honours, but this witness
25 statement is on this topic, and so I believe I'm entitled to --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, always in the context of what he experienced in
2 Sarajevo, isn't it?
3 MR. IVETIC: Actually, no. I believe on proportionality he's
4 talking generals. He's not -- he's talking of principles and the formula
5 that he believes needs to be used before a fire mission is undertaken.
6 So I believe it is theoretical in this sense.
7 JUDGE ORIE: I think he discusses that in the context of his
8 testimony, but if you understood your own testimony to give theoretical
9 positions in general not linked to your experience, Mr. Fraser, please
10 tell us.
11 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, my answers in the context of Sarajevo,
12 in the context of the educational training foundation that I had at the
13 time, the rules and regulations in the context of that time for that
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Would you please focus your questions on that,
16 Mr. Ivetic.
17 MR. IVETIC: I will.
18 Q. In the context of Sarajevo, sir, is it your position that no fire
19 mission could be undertaken unless there was a zero per cent possibility
20 of collateral damage?
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, it don't help by just adding a kind of a
22 formula. You understand that.
23 MR. IVETIC: But he has a formula. The Prosecution has presented
24 a formula, Your Honours. Are we going to disregard his testimony from
25 the Prosecution? If that is the case then I have no questions.
1 JUDGE ORIE: In some respects where he gives general sweeping
2 statements, the Chamber might be hesitant to give weight to that, yes, if
3 that's what you're asking for.
4 MR. IVETIC: Okay.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Carefully consider to what extent general
6 theoretical statements and to what extent it is linked to his experience
7 in Sarajevo. By the way, zero per cent, the question, I'd say guarantee
8 zero per cent in life, Mr. Ivetic, I'd like to know exactly where we -- I
9 get the zero per cent guarantees on whatever subject, not only in
10 military matters. Please proceed.
11 MR. IVETIC: Okay.
12 Q. Sir, at page 9 of today's transcript, temporary transcript,
13 line 2, you are quoted as saying that your answer are in the context of
14 Sarajevo in the context of the educational training foundation that you
15 had at the time, the rules and regulations and the context of that time
16 for that theatre. Could you tell me what rules and regulations that
17 existed at that time for that theatre identified the acceptable
18 percentage or level of collateral damage upon which you were relying in
19 testifying here today?
20 A. The question was not about percentage. It was a factor in
21 consideration in engagement. First of all, military necessity; secondly
22 is proportionality; third, collateral damage. And this is not a black
23 and white. It was a very complex issue that all people on the ground,
24 Muslim, Serbian and UN had to consider. And I have been consistent in my
25 testimony as to saying one warring faction engaging another warring
1 faction within those context, that was something that the UN would watch
2 and only comment as required and we have shown here in evidence of some
3 balanced reporting.
4 I understand the difficulty of warring factions trying to fight
5 each other when they're in the middle of a city of noncombatants which
6 makes the task of both sides exceptionally difficult, which makes even
7 the analysis of those three criteria that I talk about even more
8 important for them to make sure that the effects that they are trying to
9 instill on each other is limited to each other and not to the
10 noncombatants in surrounding the warring factions difficult.
11 MR. IVETIC: General, I thank you for your time.
12 Your Honours, I have no further questions for this witness at
13 this time.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Ivetic.
15 Ms. Bolton, do you have any further questions for the witness in
17 MS. BOLTON: I do. Thank you.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Proceed.
19 Re-examination by Ms. Bolton:
20 Q. With respect, General, to the document that's still on the screen
21 before you, the third paragraph underneath "Artillery tactics of the
22 SRK," begins with the statement:
23 "It was very difficult to engage in counter battery fire against
24 the SRK gun batteries. Our mortars were generally out of range and could
25 not reach their positions."
1 And this is the General Karavelic speaking about the ABiH mortars
2 in the city, I take it. Is that consistent with your observations of the
3 Sarajevo theatre?
4 A. It was.
5 Q. I'm going to move on to an issue that was raised with you on your
6 very first day of testimony cross-examination, which had to do with
7 munitions depots, storage facilities, and production factories for the
8 military, and in answering questions about whether those would constitute
9 legitimate military targets, you responded hypothetically that they
10 would. And why -- can I ask you, did you have any knowledge of the
11 existence of any military production or storage facilities for ammunition
12 and weapons within the city?
13 A. I'd heard about them, but I did not have any personal knowledge
14 of where they were.
15 Q. And when investigating shelling incidents in the city - and when
16 I say "when" I mean by UNPROFOR - did you ever see any evidence or were
17 there any reports where there seemed to be evidence that perhaps a
18 munitions factory had been hit?
19 A. There were no reports that I either read or heard about of a
20 possible munition factory being part of that engagement, no.
21 Q. And if you were successful in hitting a factory, a munitions
22 factory with one or two mortar shells, would that be effective in
23 destroying a building?
24 A. The use of a mortar to engage a building is -- has marginal
25 effect just because of the size of the round. So the chances of
1 destroying or seriously damaging a building are questionable, but if it
2 was a munitions building, the possibility of a secondary explosion if a
3 round was able to succeed, it would have been significant, and again I
4 don't recall of any incidents of any secondary explosions that would
5 indicate something more than what was on the ground.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Bolton, I gave some guidance to Mr. Ivetic.
7 That guidance is relevant for you as well.
8 MS. BOLTON: Yes. Thank you, sir. I'm going to move to the
9 questioning of excerpts from General Rose's information report, which was
10 1D or ID004213. I'm content to -- if -- simply put the propositions to
11 the witness unless you want the documents displayed, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 MR. IVETIC: For the record, it's 1D423.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We always prefer to have the text before us,
15 but this being clarified --
16 MS. BOLTON: Thank you. Could we please go to page 5 in both
17 documents. Could you try page 6 in the B/C/S. My apologies. Sorry,
18 page 4. I apologise, Your Honour. I couldn't get this document to open
19 this morning for me. Perhaps I'll just read the passage into the record
20 if that's acceptable, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: I'd like to follow the context as well. Could you
22 find the page.
23 MS. BOLTON: It is page 5 in the English, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
25 MS. BOLTON: And the passage I wish to ask about simply is that
1 passage at the beginning of paragraph 2. General Rose -- we had
2 discussed yesterday in your evidence your feelings and some quotes from
3 General Rose about the UNMOs, and paragraph 2 of page 5 of his
4 information report he has stated that:
5 "Thomas was an excellent UNMO, outstanding, very hard working and
7 And I'm wondering you had said that you knew Mr. Thomas. Do you
8 agree or disagree with that assessment.
9 A. I agree with that assessment. Roy Thomas did an awful lot of
10 work to bridge the gap between the UNMO organisation and Sector Sarajevo.
11 He worked very hard, very professional.
12 Q. And was he successful --
13 JUDGE ORIE: This is found on page 7 at the bottom in B/C/S.
14 MS. BOLTON: Thank you, Your Honour.
15 Q. And was he able in his -- during his tenure to improve the
16 quality of the UNMO reporting at all?
17 A. I think there was a marginal improvement in the quality of
18 reporting with his insistence on proper formatting, proper details to the
20 Q. Okay. You were also asked about a passage in General Rose's
21 statement about General Ganic having a secret police to snipe at trams.
22 And I would like to show you an excerpt from his subsequent evidence
23 under oath in the Karadzic proceedings.
24 MS. BOLTON: And that document is identified as ID -- sorry,
25 1D0045 -- it's actually, I think, a portion of his transcript,
1 Your Honour, that has not been uploaded by the Defence. I could give the
2 page references, which are 7334 to 7335 of that transcript.
3 JUDGE ORIE: But the Chamber would like to have it before it.
4 MS. BOLTON: Yes. I just wondering if there's another way to
5 access it. Ms. Stewart, I think, is going to assist.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Bolton, what was again the day of that
8 MS. BOLTON: May I have a brief indulgence, Your Honour. I'm
10 [Prosecution counsel and Case Manager confer]
11 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Bolton, if you --
12 MS. BOLTON: I'll have to come back to that area, Your Honour
13 [overlapping speakers].
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, if you please proceed. Could you meanwhile --
15 MS. BOLTON: [Overlapping speakers] I'm having trouble locating
16 that. My apologies.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Could you meanwhile -- do you know the date of that
19 MS. BOLTON: I've just written down the transcript numbers,
20 Your Honour, and I've obviously written down the wrong numbers.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but is that the same transcript or the same
22 testimony, the same day as the portions Mr. Ivetic referred to?
23 MS. BOLTON: It -- the transcript numbers I've written down are
24 transcript numbers in the 7.000 range, which clearly must be wrong.
25 JUDGE ORIE: But is it the same day? That's -- because you said
1 it's not in the selection by Mr. Ivetic, so I wondered whether it's the
2 same day or a different day.
3 MS. BOLTON: Without -- I didn't write down the date, just the
4 transcript page numbers, so I don't know which of the two days it is.
5 JUDGE ORIE: That's clear. If you please would try to find out.
6 MS. BOLTON: Yes, my apologies, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: And it was in the Karadzic case?
8 MS. BOLTON: I have written down that it was Dr. Karadzic who
9 posed the question.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. We'll have a look. And it was -- the witness
11 was General Rose.
12 MR. IVETIC: If I can clarify, the -- the 1D numbers that are in
13 evidence I believe are only General Fraser's testimony. So if it's
14 General Rose who is testifying to which I'm aware of, it's not going to
15 be the 1D numbers. They are not going to be the same transcript.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
17 MS. BOLTON: Thank you. No, that was very helpful. Thank you,
18 Mr. Ivetic. It is actually -- I was trying to refer to a portion of
19 General Rose's testimony and so I have been looking in the wrong spot.
20 The page numbers are correct and we will get General Rose's testimony
21 then. Thank you very much.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed meanwhile.
23 MS. BOLTON: I'm told by Ms. Stewart that we're going to show it
24 in Sanction.
25 JUDGE ORIE: As long as we can see it, it certainly helps.
1 MS. BOLTON: Could you scroll up, please. Yes. It starts at the
2 bottom on line 24, Your Honours.
3 Q. Dr. Karadzic says:
4 "Since we are talking about this, General, do you remember that
5 Ejub Ganic had organised secret police that sniped the trams in Sarajevo
6 and all those incidents were supposed to be assigned to the Serbian side,
7 the Serbs were to be blamed for all that [sic]?
8 "A. Well, as I explained before, we had no
9 intelligence-gathering capability, so I wouldn't be -- have been at the
10 time able to confirm or deny such an allegation and I certainly can't do
11 so today."
12 Was it correct, sir, that UNPROFOR had no intelligence-gathering
14 A. That is correct. Because we were the UN we did not do that.
15 Q. And are you aware that there was never -- I think you testified
16 you weren't aware that there were even allegations of this secret police;
17 is that correct?
18 A. I've never heard anything about that, no.
19 Q. Thank you. At page 5839 of the transcript of these proceedings,
20 your evidence yesterday, you were asked the question:
21 "Would you agree with me that the inspection of these convoys,"
22 and this was in the context of humanitarian convoys, "by the Serbs, by
23 the VRS, was a legitimate and appropriate function to determine if
24 weapons or munitions or other contraband was present in the same?"
25 And you answered:
1 "Theoretically, but it never materialised that way. Our
2 experience was - and I stand by my statement - the freedom of movement
3 and those convoys, Serbs overplayed that comment that you just gave me,
4 that question."
5 What did you mean when you said the Serbs overplayed that
7 A. We experienced a severe restriction of movement for the UN and
8 humanitarian convoys into the enclaves and Sarajevo. Many excuses were
9 used why there was a restriction of movement, but the -- ultimately the
10 humanity aid ear-marked for noncombatants was being restricted and that
11 was as a result of Serbian action.
12 Q. And were you ever aware of actually there being a founded
13 allegation of weapons in a humanitarian aid convoy?
14 A. I don't recall ever hearing about any weapons being found on a
15 convoy, and I've only testified against the one incident where the French
16 were moving ammunition around.
17 Q. And that was an allegation?
18 A. That was an allegation. It was for somebody else, but it was for
19 French use, and we talked about that yesterday.
20 Q. While we're on the topic of humanitarian aid delivery, could you
21 tell me whether the International Committee of the Red Cross was involved
22 in delivering humanitarian aid in Bosnia?
23 A. I think they were, but because it was the Red Cross, they were
24 very particular to keep their distance away from us because they had to
25 show and be impartial to all parties. Therefore, they were not
1 associated with one -- with the UN or us. They kept their distance in
2 order for them to execute their mandate for all people of Bosnia.
3 MS. BOLTON: May I please have Exhibit P587.
4 Q. You will recall this document was discussed with you yesterday,
5 sir. It's the order of General Mladic from the 10th of April, 1994, and
6 if on the English version we could please go to page 2.
7 Do you recall yesterday you were cross-examined about
8 paragraph 4, which refers to the portion of the order where the VRS was
9 ordered to immediately block all UNPROFOR and humanitarian organisations
10 convoys and their teams which happened to be in the Republika Srpska
11 territory. Remove and secure the convoys and bring in the personnel and
12 secure them at a safe place. Do not treat them roughly in the process.
13 Would the personnel of humanitarian organisations, were they
15 A. Nobody in the UN were combatants, no.
16 Q. And would there -- they played any role whatsoever in the
17 decision to call in or request NATO air-strikes?
18 A. None whatsoever.
19 MS. BOLTON: May I have 65 ter 08594, please.
20 Q. This is an order issued by deputy commander
21 Colonel Milutin Skocajic on the 10th of April, 1994, which is the same
22 day as the order we had just been looking at. It's issued to all units,
23 and you will note that item number 3 is a reference to blocking all
24 UNPROFOR convoys on the spot, disarming them, take them to a collection
25 centre at a designated location and place them under control of our
1 units. If they resist, use force as you would against any other enemy.
2 You were asked yesterday -- you commented on the previous order
3 that had said not to treat them roughly. Can I ask when you refer to
4 using force against any other enemy, was first of all the UNPROFOR
5 personnel an enemy of the Republika Srpska?
6 MR. IVETIC: Objection. Calls for speculation as to how the
7 Army of Republika Srpska regarded other entities.
8 MS. BOLTON:
9 Q. Were you --
10 JUDGE ORIE: You're rephrasing your question, I take it,
11 Ms. Bolton.
12 MS. BOLTON: I am.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please do so.
14 MS. BOLTON:
15 Q. Were you -- as far as you were concerned were you combatants in
16 this conflict?
17 A. UNPROFOR was not a combatant. We had no dispute with either
18 warring faction. And I find that this statement is repulsive.
19 Q. And what is the fact that this order is issued on the same date
20 as the previous order we had been looking at tell you about the chain of
21 command in the VRS?
22 MR. IVETIC: Objection. Calls for speculation, and there has to
23 be a foundation to link the two documents together as I don't believe
24 there has been yet. The language -- the orders given are not identical.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Bolton, would you please rephrase here as well.
1 MS. BOLTON:
2 Q. Okay. With respect to the previous order, do you recall any
3 mention in the previous order to placing units on combat readiness?
4 A. I remember that.
5 Q. And with respect to the previous order, do you recall any mention
6 of being prepared to fire at air-borne targets firing on receiving an
7 order to do so from the command post or independently in the case of an
8 attack from airspace?
9 A. I recall that too.
10 Q. Do you recall, and with respect to paragraph 4, there being a
11 reference in the previous order to recalling personnel who maybe on
13 A. I recall that.
14 Q. In terms, then, of the similarity of the documents, can you
15 comment on that?
16 MR. IVETIC: Objection, calls for speculation.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Well, similarity -- shouldn't we first ask the
18 witness whether there's any similarity in his view between the two
19 documents, having read them?
20 Do you see the documents to be of a similar nature, Mr. Fraser?
21 THE WITNESS: Your Honour --
22 JUDGE ORIE: And if so, why?
23 THE WITNESS: I see similarities in the two documents. They
24 refer to similar references to combat readiness, similar. Rules of
25 engagement of aircraft, similar. Recalling of leave, these are all
1 consistent between the two documents.
2 JUDGE ORIE: You say similar subjects are dealt with in the two
4 THE WITNESS: The subjects are dealt with in -- in the similar
6 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Ms. Bolton.
7 MS. BOLTON:
8 Q. And do you recall whether the -- in the previous document we had
9 been discussing the Drina Corps was one of the corps to which
10 General Mladic's order was to be distributed?
11 A. I recall that.
12 Q. In terms of -- does -- sorry. In terms of this order, does there
13 seem to be a relationship between the order of April 10th issued by
14 General Mladic and this order?
15 MR. IVETIC: Again, Your Honour --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic.
17 MR. IVETIC: -- calls for speculation.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Well, relationship. Do you mean in terms of time or
19 do you mean in terms of -- what is your question exactly, Ms. Bolton? If
20 you want the witness to draw conclusions, perhaps it's more for the
21 Chamber to do that, whether there is a link between the two, unless the
22 witness can add something which assists the Chamber in determining
23 whether or not there is a relationship. If you want to ask the witness
24 about that, please do so.
25 MS. BOLTON: Thank you, sir.
1 Q. Well, based on your experience as a military officer in issuing
2 orders and responding to orders and passing on orders to the
3 subordinates, could you tell me what relationship you understand or
4 believe there to be between the original document, the original order,
5 and this document?
6 A. The original order from Mladic had a distribution list which
7 included this -- this Drina Corps command. The subjects in the Mladic
8 document are similar in the subjects in this document which as a military
9 officer and the way that militaries work and it doesn't matter what
10 country they're in, this document appears to me -- clearly is an excerpt
11 and a reaffirmation of the information coming out of the document issued
12 by General Mladic.
13 Q. And the fact that it is issued the same date, what does that tell
14 you about the efficiency of communications and command and control within
15 the VRS? What does that suggest to you based on your military
17 MR. IVETIC: Objection. Calls for speculation on facts not in
18 evidence, as perhaps they are in the same room. I mean, there's all
19 these other factors that could be determinative and by asking such an
20 open-ended question we are just getting speculation that won't assist the
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 JUDGE ORIE: Although the objection is denied, Ms. Bolton, I
24 think that your line of questioning intended to draw the attention of the
25 Chamber on certain matters, and you have achieved in drawing our
1 attention to the matters you had in mind, and we'll finally determine
2 whether and what kind of relationship there is between the two documents
3 if we need to do that. Please proceed.
4 MS. BOLTON: Yes. Could I ask that be marked as the next
5 exhibit, please, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Document 08594 receives number P608,
8 Your Honours.
9 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
10 MS. BOLTON: Could I ask, please, for 1D00457, please. This
11 should be the witness's statement from 1997, and I'll be looking at
12 page 15.
13 Q. While that's being brought up, sir, you recall you were asked
14 some questions yesterday about allegations of UN smuggling and this
15 appeared at page 5845 of the transcript, and you were asked:
16 "To your knowledge were any UN officers or employees ever
17 disciplined for their role in any such black market activities?"
18 And you answered:
19 "During the time that I was there, no, because the investigations
20 were ongoing when I left."
21 MS. BOLTON: Could I please have page 15. And could we focus in
22 the English on the very last paragraph.
23 Q. I'll read you a quote from that paragraph, sir:
24 "There were always allegations from the Bosnians against the
25 Russians regarding arming the Serbs and black marketeering. We had
1 reports of black marketeering from Grbavica which was the central area of
2 Serb-held Sarajevo where the Russian troops were deployed. There was
3 some truth to the allegation. On one occasion after Gobillard had
4 assumed his duties as sector commander, a French check-point stopped a
5 Russian water truck bound for Sarajevo and he found it full of rancid
6 meat destined for the city. The sector commander ordered an
7 investigation by the Russian battalion commander. After several
8 incomplete reports from the Russian unit, Gobillard demanded a full
9 report that said some officers and NCOs were guilty."
10 Does that refresh your memory as to this incident?
11 A. I recall the incident and --
12 Q. And -- I'm sorry?
13 A. I recall that General Gobillard was frustrated with the lack of
14 due diligence in the investigation by the unit to determine the guilty
15 parties. And I don't recall if anyone was actually found guilty in the
16 end, but the point was made by General Gobillard that this was completely
17 unacceptable and that activities like this had to stop.
18 Q. And this was an incident that involved smuggling into a Serb-held
19 area of Sarajevo?
20 A. This was an incident involving a Russian battalion moving meat
21 into the city, into the Muslim-held territory.
22 Q. And what is the Grbavica component of it then?
23 A. It's where the -- the Russians were located on that side of the
24 confrontation line.
25 Q. You were asked some questions yesterday about Sniper's Alley, and
1 you were read some portions of the Karadzic transcript from your
2 testimony which is 1D00454, and I'll tell you the transcript page that
3 I'm looking at would be starting on page 8122.
4 Could we go to 8121, please. And if we could concentrate on the
5 bottom half of the page starting around line 15. Thank you.
6 There was some issue yesterday that Justice Moloto raised as to
7 whether the questions that were posed to you were specific to
8 Sniper's Alley or not, so I wish to read to you the full portions of the
9 transcript leading up to the excerpts that my friend put to you
11 "Q. I would like you now to focus on sniper activity in
12 Sarajevo. Do you recall that there were screens between positions of the
13 Army of Republika Srpska and the Muslim territory?
14 "A. Yes, I remember those screens for sea cans, yes.
15 "Q. Thank you. And do you agree that these screens could
16 protect civilians and others in Muslim territory from Serb fire but not
17 from fire from Muslim forces?
18 "A. That's correct, because they were designed to protect from
19 the Serb side.
20 "Q. Thank you. Did you have the intention and did you put in
21 any efforts to erect any more of such barricades and to increase the
22 safety," next page, please, "measure against infantry fire?
23 "A. We had a concerted effort to erect barricades to increase
24 safety throughout the city where they were needed, not just simply on
25 Sniper Alley.
1 "Q. Thank you. Is it correct that the authorities in the Muslim
2 part of Sarajevo did not agree, and that this effort to erect barricades
3 was halted?"
4 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Bolton, you are reading.
5 MS. BOLTON: Too fast?
6 Q. "You can look at page 24 of your statement if you like," and he's
7 quoting from page 24 of your statement, says:
8 "The sector tried to improve the situation as regards barriers by
9 putting more. Sometimes the city wanted it, sometimes they didn't."
10 When you were asked that series of questions, did you understand
11 Dr. Karadzic to be referring solely to the Sniper Alley area of Sarajevo
12 or the entire city of Sarajevo?
13 A. Probably the entire city of Sarajevo.
14 Q. I want to ask you, sir, about -- I'm sorry, Your Honours. Is it
15 time for the break?
16 JUDGE ORIE: It is time for the break. If this would be a
17 suitable moment --
18 MS. BOLTON: It would be, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: -- we'll take the break now. Could you tell us how
20 much more time you'd need after the break.
21 MS. BOLTON: I have about 20 minutes, Your Honour.
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 JUDGE ORIE: Twenty minutes are granted after the break.
24 Could the witness escort -- be escorted out of the courtroom.
25 [The witness stands down]
1 JUDGE ORIE: We will take a break and we will resume at 5 minutes
2 to 11.00.
3 --- Recess taken at 10.33 a.m.
4 --- On resuming at 10.58 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
6 Meanwhile, Mr. Groome, I do not know exactly whom to address, but
7 I think everything is clear as far as protective measures for the next
8 witness are concerned, and you are still -- you have not received any
9 decision on your request for leave to reply on the 92 ter motion that
10 leave is granted.
11 MR. GROOME: Thank you, Your Honour.
12 [The witness takes the stand]
13 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Bolton, you may proceed.
14 MS. BOLTON: Thank you, Your Honour.
15 Q. Yesterday near the end of your evidence, sir, and this appears at
16 page 5907 of the transcript, you were asked the following question:
17 "Would you agree with me that there were Bosnian Muslim military
18 units scattered throughout Sarajevo and that the Muslims sometimes
19 purposely intermixed them with civilian areas, mixed them into civilian
21 "A. Yes, they did."
22 That was a compound question, so I just want to break it down.
23 First of all, did the confrontation line in Sarajevo run through any
24 civilian areas around the perimeter of the city?
25 A. It did.
1 Q. And were there civilians still living in buildings close to that
3 A. There were.
4 Q. And in those areas were troops interspersed with the civilian
6 A. They were.
7 Q. Could I also remind you of your testimony on this issue from the
8 Galic proceeding, which Ms. Stewart will be displaying. It's page 11199
9 of that proceeding, and the ID number is 1D00449.
10 MS. BOLTON: Madam Registrar, can you bring it up under 1D00449.
11 And it should be page 11199.
12 Q. Yes. So at line 10 you were asked the following question:
13 "Q. You just gave the answer, Colonel Fraser, that and I quote
15 "'Shelling was directed either towards the Presidency, various
16 parts of the city, not principally any military position.'
17 "What do you mean by not principally any military position?
18 "A. In the middle of the city there were no positions. The
19 confrontation lines were a little bit more to the outside. So when
20 shelling happened inside the city, when we would go out [sic] and
21 investigate or the UNMOs would go in and investigate, for the most part
22 there were only civilian communities or people in those areas, no
23 military target that we could identify."
24 Do you recall that testimony, sir?
25 A. I do.
1 Q. And is it correct?
2 A. It is.
3 Q. Yesterday you were asked some questions about two allegations of
4 sniping incidents pertaining to Bosnian military troops. One was an
5 incident that you described as staged where some French soldiers had come
6 along and that this was something that was apparently being done on
7 video-tape. Have you ever seen any video-tape of this alleged incident?
8 A. I have not. I don't recall ever seeing it.
9 Q. And similarly, there was an allegation of a video perhaps
10 existing of some ABiH soldiers shooting at Muslim civilians. Have you
11 ever seen such a tape?
12 A. I have not. I've only heard about it.
13 Q. And in all your time in Sarajevo, are those the only incidents
14 that you've ever heard of this nature where there seemed to be some
15 confirmation from UN troops?
16 A. That's all I recall.
17 Q. And during that time period, how many UNPROFOR men would have
18 been in the area or women?
19 A. We had several thousand UNPROFOR men and women in
20 Sector Sarajevo.
21 Q. And was this an issue that they would have been required to
22 report on if they had seen evidence of this nature?
23 A. Yes, they would have been.
24 MS. BOLTON: May I have 1D00474, please.
25 Q. And just while that's being brought up, you may remember some
1 questioning yesterday about an incident that you personally eye witnessed
2 where there was some fire involving vehicles. You were in the second
3 vehicle, you said, and some bullets hit the vehicle carrying the sector
4 commander. Did you believe that the firing at -- that -- at the sector
5 commander's vehicle was intentional or unintentional?
6 A. We thought incident was a -- was a one-off. It was somewhat
7 suspicious, but at the same time, we just happened to be at the wrong
8 place at the wrong time with a bunch of soldiers in the middle of the
9 night, and we just got caught in the crossfire.
10 Q. You have before you 1D00474, which you were asked about
11 yesterday. May I have in English page 2, please, near the bottom.
12 You were asked about a different portion of this statement or
13 this document yesterday, sir. I want to read you from the last
15 "At 1000 hours during the day a meeting was held between
16 General Galic and General Soubirou at the request of General Soubirou,
17 who plans to analyse the issue of freedom of movement of the UN,
18 downsizing the weapons grouping points and opening the direct road
19 Sarajevo-Pale. General Galic emphasised that these were," if I could
20 turn the page, please, "not in his competence and proposed the issue be
21 resolved at the highest level as part of the overall problem of
23 Is this an example of the kind of issues you described in your
24 testimony where it appeared General -- sorry, the Sarajevo corps
25 commander had to defer to the higher commander?
1 A. This is an example of that, yes.
2 MS. BOLTON: And may I have 1D00466, please.
3 Q. This is a document you authored, you told us yesterday, that's
4 your signature on the document. Under paragraph 2, it's written:
5 "General Gobillard explained his letter to General Mladic and
6 the proposal to renegotiate the TEZ/DMZ agreements. He asked
7 General Milosevic for his opinion about this proposal," and then it says,
8 "vague reply, not his level."
9 What does the "not his level" mean?
10 A. It refers to --
11 MR. IVETIC: Calls for speculation as to what the individual who
12 made the statements meant by the statement.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Let me see. This is the witness's document. He is
14 asked to explain what he meant by that. Where's the speculation,
15 Mr. Ivetic?
16 MR. IVETIC: It's the reply by General Milosevic he's being asked
17 to speculate about.
18 JUDGE ORIE: No. He's asked to explain why he used this language
19 in reporting on his meeting with Mr. Milosevic. So that there's no call
20 for speculation.
21 Please proceed. You may answer the question. What did you mean
22 by not his level?
23 THE WITNESS: General Milosevic did not have the authority to
24 discuss any of those details pertaining to the TEZ/DMZ agreements. He
25 referred to his commander, General Mladic.
1 JUDGE ORIE: That's what he told you.
2 THE WITNESS: That -- from the discussion, that is exactly what
3 we took away from it.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And this is how you have written it down
6 THE WITNESS: This is how I shortened it up.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you. Please proceed, Ms. Bolton.
8 MS. BOLTON:
9 Q. Finally, the last document I want to ask you about, sir, is P580.
10 Now, this is -- as it's being brought up I'll remind you the document you
11 examined with respect to plans to bomb the tunnel entrance in the airport
12 area. Do you recall that document, sir?
13 A. I do.
14 Q. And you'll recall that there was a mention of front line
15 positions or forward positions of the VRS in that area being
16 approximately 500 metres from the target, and were you familiar with what
17 those positions looked like in that area?
18 A. I recall the UN position was just a small hut that had a couple
19 of soldiers in it with a gate, and the Serbs had some trench lines
20 nearby, and there were some -- again similar positions where a couple of
21 soldiers would be positioned to observe what was going on in that area.
22 Q. Now, if a soldier is in a trench, would they be considered in
23 terms of an explosion protected somewhat by that?
24 A. To a -- to a degree, yes.
25 Q. Now, in questioning you yesterday, Mr. Ivetic suggested to you
1 that we'd heard evidence from a witness, a John Hamill, about the
2 explosive capabilities of a 120-millimetre mortar, and I just wish to put
3 another portion of what he said to you. And I think it's -- is it
4 available in Sanction? Yes.
5 MS. BOLTON: And this appears for Your Honours' assistance at
6 pages 5519 to 5520, and I believe it's actually on page 5520, the brief
7 part I'll be referring the witness to. Sorry, the Court Officer needs to
8 switch into Sanction I'm advised.
9 JUDGE ORIE: We will wait and see what we see on our screens.
10 MS. BOLTON: Could we scroll down, please, on the page. Thank
11 you. Sorry, could you scroll up just a little bit. Thank you.
12 Q. All right. So I show you this portion just so you can satisfy
13 yourself, sir, looking at line 15, that we're talking about mortar bombs.
14 And if we could then move to the next page starting at line --
15 MS. BOLTON: Sorry, just scroll up to the very, very last -- the
16 bottom of the page of 519. Thank you.
17 Q. Bear in mind it starts on the last line of 25 that:
18 "For a 120-millimetre bomb, the lethal radius" --
19 JUDGE ORIE: You're reading, Ms. Bolton.
20 MS. BOLTON: Thank you:
21 Q. "... is 54 metres and the danger zone for unprotected troops is
22 500 metres radius. For protected troops, in other words, troops who are
23 in trenches, for example, it's still 250-metres radius which means that
24 within 250 metres radius of the detonation of a 120-millimetre mortar
25 bomb it is possible to be injured. It's not necessarily the case that
1 one would be injured, but it is certainly within the bounds of
3 Would you agree that given that there were trenches in the
4 positions near the tunnel entrance approximately 500 metres away, that
5 the explosive effect of this bomb would have to be 500-metre danger zone
6 for protected troops?
7 A. It's -- it's suggests so from this document.
8 Q. And do you recall what the surface was around the tunnel? Was
9 there a building? Was it just round?
10 A. The tunnel entrance was in amongst a number of buildings, small
11 houses, with a road in front of it. So much like a small village type of
13 Q. So if the artillery commander's reason for not wanting to fire
14 because he did express concern about his troops, is that he might
15 endanger his troops who are 500 metres away in trenches. Is that, based
16 on your experience, an appropriate weapon to be using in an urban
18 A. Based on this document and what I've read about this weapon
19 system, my answer is no.
20 Q. Now, in your responses yesterday to questions from Mr. Ivetic,
21 you seemed to suggest that while the danger zone or the lethal radius
22 might have been -- it's a possibility that that's why the artillery
23 leader was concerned about using the modified air bomb on the tunnel, you
24 seem to suggest that you thought it was more likely the other scenario,
25 which is that there were concerns about the beaten zone with this weapon.
1 Am I fairly stating your evidence?
2 A. The head of artillery had concern that -- that he could not
3 accurately put that weapon on the ground in -- where this tunnel entrance
4 was given -- given the proximity of the other troops on the ground.
5 Q. Could -- brief indulgence, Your Honour. Could we just have the
6 document displayed to assist the witness, please. It's P580, I believe.
7 And could you just explain to us what it is that makes you think
8 that that was the concern as opposed to the scenario that the Defence has
9 put to you?
10 A. In the document, it states, fifth line down:
11 "A detailed estimate of all structures in the immediate vicinity
12 of the tunnel entrance has been performed."
13 If further goes on to say not about the UNPROFOR check-points of
14 200 metres but:
15 "Our forward end is located some 500 metres away from the tunnel
16 entrance ..."
17 "... I gave up as firing would have endangered our forces and UN
19 So 500 metres, he did not have assurance that he -- from this
20 document that that bomb could land at the tunnel entrance because he
21 thought that within 500 metres his troops would have been endangered,
22 which indicates that this was not the right weapon system to use for that
24 Q. Can I just ask why he would have included or what the relevance
25 is from a military perspective of including the direction of fire?
1 A. The direction of fire is a function of what he would have been
2 considering in his determination of the beaten zone of the distance --
3 the probability of the distance of where that weapon system would have
4 landed. It would have landed in a -- not at a point, but there's a -- in
5 the military term there's an envelope of it will land in a certain area,
6 and this -- our colonel seemed to be somewhat concerned about that area
7 and the effects of that weapon system with his own troops and the UN.
8 MS. BOLTON: Thank you very much, General. I have no further
9 questions of the witness.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Can I just ask one question to better understand
11 this. Can you say anything about whether the projectile falls short or
12 long, that is over the target, and is that risk greater than the
13 diversion to the left and to the right? Has it got anything to do with
15 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, the beaten zone is -- looks like an
16 ellipse, so from the point of origin, it's longer than it is wider, the
17 beaten zone. So the point of origin of the firing where his troops
18 are -- for this example, if it was 500 metres from the target, you could
19 also assume that there is a distance past the target that this weapon
20 system could potentially go to. But from the document it don't appear to
21 have been any other, you know, UN troops or Serbian troops on that side.
22 His concern was on this side. But the beaten zone as you have described
23 is longer than it is wide.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
25 THE WITNESS: It's -- it's the trajectory of how this thing
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The percentage of going further or shorter is
3 more than the percentage of the radiation left and right, and that makes
4 the beaten zone the ellipse.
5 THE WITNESS: Correct, sir.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you. That's clear to me.
7 Mr. Ivetic, any further questions?
8 MR. IVETIC: Yes, four questions arising out of the redirect
9 examination, with your leave.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please.
11 Further cross-examination by Mr. Ivetic:
12 Q. Sir, during my cross-examination of you we talked about
13 investigations into smuggling. In particular we talked about a task
14 force, I believe, by the UNCIVPOL, the civilian police, and the comments
15 that you have made that the Serbs should have worked with that entity
16 instead of doing the inspections of the -- of the convoys. The
17 Prosecution has now presented you with a portion of your 1997 statement
18 talking about Russian troops smuggling meat. Was that the same smuggling
19 that you and I were talking about or is it a different incident?
20 A. The task force that I talked to you about yesterday was a
21 different task force. It was a more omnibus investigation on black
22 marketeering. The reference to my statement was an incident that the
23 French troops discovered themselves and that was an in-house
24 investigation conducted by the Russian battalion commander under the
25 direction of the sector commander.
1 Q. Thank you for that clarification. Now I'd like to ask you about
2 a document that was shown during the redirect.
3 MR. IVETIC: And if we can have on the left-hand side P608 in
4 English, and on the right-hand side P587 in English to assist the witness
5 with the questions that I have for him. If we could have the English
6 version of the document on the right which I believe is Exhibit P587.
7 And if we can have the second page of the English on the right-hand side
8 of P587. I apologise again. The second page of the P587, which is the
9 document on the right.
10 Q. General, if we can focus on the item number 3 in the order by
11 Colonel Skocajic on the left, and if we can compare it with item number 4
12 of General Mladic's order on the right. Would you agree with me that the
13 treatment of UNPROFOR persons to be detained is not identical in the two
15 A. That is correct.
16 Q. As a military officer, would you agree that a subordinate officer
17 who relays different orders from those that his superior has given to him
18 is acting contrary to the functioning of a good chain of command and
19 control and is in dereliction of his duties?
20 A. True.
21 Q. And would you agree with me as a subordinate unit its orders
22 would be sent downwards toward units subordinated to it rather than
23 upwards to its superior?
24 A. Traditionally, yes.
25 Q. Thank you again, General, for the clarifications.
1 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, your questions relates to different
3 orders. You consider the one order to be contradicting the other one or
4 using different language or -- because you are talking about dereliction
5 of the duties. There is a kind of an implied suggestion that in the one
6 document orders are given which are contradicting what the person giving
7 that orders was ordered by his superiors. Is that the basis of your
9 MR. IVETIC: Yes, it is, Your Honour, and I believe it's based on
10 the plain meaning of the language of paragraph 4 which says do not treat
11 them roughly in the process, and paragraph 3 in the other one which says
12 if they resist, use force as you would against any other enemy, which is
13 an order which is not contained.
14 JUDGE ORIE: You would say not to treat someone roughly is
15 something totally different from using force?
16 MR. IVETIC: Correct.
17 JUDGE ORIE: I mean, you can use force by detaining someone, and
18 then nevertheless treat someone not roughly, that is, not to beat him or
19 to -- I mean, I'm just trying, because in your question it was all rather
20 hidden, if I could say so, and I'm trying to understand what the
21 suggestion was. You have explained that now to us.
22 MR. IVETIC: I can perhaps ask one additional question that might
24 JUDGE ORIE: Well, there's no need to do that. I think when you
25 agreed with what was put to you, Mr. Fraser, by Mr. Ivetic, did you
1 consider at that moment whether these two documents, whether the second
2 was contradicting in the order given compared to the order received?
3 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, I did not -- I answered the counsel's
4 question --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Which on the general basis of if you give a
6 different order than you receive, then you're violating your duties.
7 THE WITNESS: Correct, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's clear to me, perfectly clear. The
9 matter has been clarified, as far as I'm concerned.
10 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Fraser, this concludes your testimony in
12 this court, but before I ask you to be escorted out of the courtroom,
13 Ms. Bolton, you said you would deal with three documents at the end of
14 the testimony of the witness. Now, I do not know whether you need the
15 witness for that. It is about 65 ter 8735, 9741, and 189. We haven't
16 heard you about it.
17 MS. BOLTON: No. Your Honour, I do wish to still address you on
18 those exhibits. We don't need the witness, and I'm -- I notice that
19 there is another witness that we're hoping to get through today.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 MS. BOLTON: I'm content to deal with that first thing Monday
22 morning if you like or come back later today.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. You'll deal with it at a later stage. Then
24 there was another issue, the MFI for P582 which you tendered and there
25 was a problem with the late -- not the late disclosure but the late
1 announcing that you would use it with this witness.
2 The Chamber wondered why you wished that document to be admitted
3 into evidence where two other documents already state that a -- I think
4 it was a 500-kilogramme aerial bomb was fired and at Hrasnica. We do not
5 know why you wanted 582, to establish that fact which is already clear
6 from the other two documents.
7 MS. BOLTON: That was the relevance of the document. I can
8 indicate that we have recently filed a 92 ter statement for one of the
9 authors of the document, so I anticipate it will be seeking to introduce
10 it either through that witness or this witness.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And the late announcement doesn't -- is not
12 valid for the next witness to come.
13 MS. HARBOUR: Correct, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Then perhaps it would be the wisest to leave it
15 MFI'd until the next witness who apparently authored the
16 document appears.
17 MS. HARBOUR: That's agreeable.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Then that's how we will proceed.
19 Which means, Mr. Fraser, that -- don't feel superfluous we don't
20 need you anymore. I would like to thank you very much for coming in, for
21 having answered all the questions that were put to you, and you are
22 excused and you may follow the usher.
23 THE WITNESS: Your Honours, thank you.
24 [The witness withdrew]
25 JUDGE ORIE: The next witness to be called will testify if -- we
1 are well informed, with face distortion only; is that correct?
2 MS. HARBOUR: That's correct, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then -- well, the usher left the courtroom,
4 but could the next witness then -- we need the curtains down for the
5 witness to enter the courtroom. Could we already pull the curtains down,
6 and could the next witness be -- could the next witness be escorted into
7 the courtroom once the curtains are down.
8 MS. BOLTON: May I be excused, Your Honour?
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please, Ms. Bolton. We move into closed
10 session when the witness enters the courtroom. I think screens should be
11 put in place.
12 [Closed session]
20 [Open session]
21 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
23 Witness, we'll wait for a second until the curtains are up.
24 Witness, I'd like to inform you first of all that you'll give your
25 testimony with the protective measure of face distortion, which means
1 that the outside world will not see your face but will still hear your
2 voice and will know your name.
3 Before you give evidence, the Rules require that you make a
4 solemn declaration of which the text is now handed out to you. May I
5 invite you to stand and make that solemn declaration.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
7 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
8 WITNESS: DRAGAN MIOKOVIC
9 [Witness answered through interpreter]
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Thank you, Witness. Just a second,
11 please. If the Prosecution is ready to examine the witness, you may
13 MS. HARBOUR: Thank you, Your Honour.
14 Examination by Ms. Harbour:
15 Q. What is your full name?
16 A. My name is Dragan Miokovic.
17 Q. Mr. Miokovic, have you given statements to the
18 Office of the Prosecutor on the 14th of November, 1995, on the
19 25th of February, 1996, and on the 27th of October, 2010?
20 A. Yes, I have. I gave those statements.
21 MS. HARBOUR: Could we please have 65 ter 28592 on the screen.
22 Q. Mr. Miokovic, is this your statement from the
23 14th of November, 1995?
24 A. Yes, that is my statement.
25 MS. HARBOUR: Could we please turn to page 2 of the statement.
1 Q. In paragraph 2, are there any changes that you wish to make to
2 this statement?
3 A. I joined the police in 1987, not 1986, as it reads here.
4 MS. HARBOUR: Could we please now have 65 ter 28594 on the
6 Q. Is this your statement from the 25th of February, 1996?
7 A. Yes, it is.
8 MS. HARBOUR: Could we please turn to page 2. We appear to have
9 two versions of the English document on the screen.
10 Q. In paragraph 1, Mr. Witness, did you wish to make any changes to
11 this statement?
12 A. Where it says 23rd November, we need the year and the year is
14 MS. HARBOUR: Could we please have 65 ter 28593 on the screen.
15 Q. Is this your statement from the 27th of October, 2010?
16 A. Yes, it is.
17 Q. If the Chamber were to consider these three statements in
18 conjunction with the corrections that you've made today, would they have
19 an accurate record of your evidence?
20 A. Yes. With these corrections that would be an accurate and
21 precise record of my statement.
22 Q. If I were to ask you questions similar to those asked when taking
23 those statements, would you give the same answers in substance?
24 A. I would give the same answers. Only in view of the lapse of time
25 I would prefer to have in front of me a document or the documents that
1 could probably be helpful in refreshing my memory.
2 Q. Now that you have taken the solemn declaration, do you affirm the
3 truthfulness and the accuracy of these three statements?
4 A. I'm fully aware of the solemn declaration, and I stand by
5 everything that is recorded in these statements.
6 MS. HARBOUR: I would like to tender these into evidence,
7 Your Honour.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, the numbers would be?
9 THE REGISTRAR: Document 28592 receives number P609,
10 Your Honours. Document 28594 receives number P610, Your Honours. And
11 document 28593 receives number -- Exhibit P611, Your Honours.
12 JUDGE ORIE: I do not hear any objections from the -- I don't
13 know who to address. Mr. Stojanovic, no objections. So P609, P610, and
14 P611 are admitted into evidence.
15 MS. HARBOUR: I would like to read a summary of the witness's
16 evidence at this stage.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
18 MS. HARBOUR: From December 1993, the witness was an investigator
19 for the CSB Sarajevo. He led teams in investigating sniping and shelling
20 incidents in Sarajevo until the end of 1995.
21 He led a team in investigating three mortar shells that impacted
22 Livanjska Street on 8 November 1994. The first impact killed a teenage
23 girl instantly, leaving her brain on the street. Two hours later, two
24 shells struck 20 metres away killing another woman. Mr. Miokovic's team
25 investigated these sites and concluded that all three shells had been
1 fired from Bosnian Serb-held position.
2 Mr. Miokovic also investigated two incidents of trams struck by
3 sniper fire on Zmaja od Bosne Street on 23 November 1994. The incidents
4 were 15 minutes apart. In the first incident two passengers were
5 wounded, and in the second one was killed and three were wounded. The
6 investigative team concluded that both trams had been struck by sniper
7 fire from the direction of Grbavica, which was under Bosnian Serb
9 Mr. Miokovic also investigated a sniping incident on
10 3 March 1995, in which a tram was hit by sniper fire at the intersection
11 of Zmaja od Bosne Street and Franje Rackog Street injuring several
12 passengers. The investigative team determined that firing had come from
13 the direction of Grbavica.
14 After the conflict ended, Mr. Miokovic was involved with other
15 members of the CSB Sarajevo in reintegrating the areas of Sarajevo
16 previously occupied by the VRS. In the course of searching and securing
17 the formerly VRS-occupied areas, Mr. Miokovic and his colleagues found
18 fortified facilities bearing the typical characteristics of snipers'
19 nests. Mr. Miokovic was involved in searching one of the Grbavica
20 skyscrapers. There he found at least ten sniper nests facing Sarajevo
22 Q. Mr. Miokovic, I'll now ask you some questions --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. -- Ms. --
24 MS. HARBOUR:
25 Q. In your November 1995 witness statement, which is now admitted as
1 P609, in paragraph 2, you state that you worked in the Stari Grad police
2 station until 1993 and then transferred to the CSB Sarajevo. When did
3 you transfer to the CSB Sarajevo?
4 A. I was transferred to the CSB Sarajevo on the
5 3rd of November, 1993.
6 Q. What was the name of the department in the CSB Sarajevo where you
8 A. The department for violent, sexual crimes, and crimes against
9 international law.
10 Q. What is your ethnicity?
11 A. I'm a Serb.
12 Q. Were you the only Serb in the CSB Sarajevo?
13 A. No, I wasn't.
14 Q. Were there other people from other ethnicities employed within
15 CSB Sarajevo?
16 A. At the time at the CSB Sarajevo, as far as I can judge 20 to
17 25 per cent of the employees, i.e., police officers, were non-Muslims.
18 Q. And when you say "non-Muslims," could you be more specific?
19 A. I was referring to Serbs and Croats.
20 Q. During your time at CSB Sarajevo, how many war-related shelling
21 incidents did you investigate?
22 A. I cannot give you an accurate figure, but definitely more than
24 Q. How many sniping incidents did you investigate during that time?
25 A. Given that during the sniping and firing lethal consequences were
1 not so frequent, I conducted fewer investigations than the one involving
2 the shelling, but I think I was involved in about 100 or thereabouts.
3 Q. Were you ever under fire as you conducted your investigations?
4 A. The entire area of Sarajevo at the time was a risky area. On
5 four separate occasions during investigation the area where I and my team
6 were came under artillery fire, on all four occasions.
7 Q. From 1992 to 1995, how frequently did the trams run in Sarajevo?
8 A. During that period, the tram service was not regular in Sarajevo.
9 Only during the periods when the so-called truces were negotiated or
10 signed, but generally speaking, the tram service in Sarajevo was very
12 Q. And who was riding on the trams, generally speaking?
13 A. Basically the passengers on these trams were civilians, most
14 often elderly people, women, who tried to get from A to B within the city
15 to do some chores that I suppose in most cases had to do with survival.
16 When I say "survival," I mean the purchase of foodstuffs.
17 Q. When you said that the tram service was not regular and the tram
18 only ran during periods of so-called truces, could you elaborate a bit
19 more? How did -- how did that play out in reality?
20 A. During the siege of Sarajevo there were really many situations
21 when at various levels political, military, or whatever, the so-called
22 truces were being agreed. These truces were supposed to include mutual
23 cease of fire. There were situations when after a truce had been agreed
24 two or three days would follow that were relatively peaceful. During
25 these periods of tranquility or relative peace for a day or two, the
1 trams would start running. The fact that the trams were running had
2 it -- practical value which means people could use transportation instead
3 of walking. Similarly, once the tram service was restored, that had a
4 significantly positive psychological effect on the inhabitants of
5 Sarajevo, because by that very fact the situation in the town appeared to
6 be normal.
7 Q. Did both sides during these periods respect the cease-fires with
8 respect to the tram lines?
9 A. The respect of cease-fire, speaking of Sarajevo, was a relative
10 issue. I am not going to analyse who was in breach of cease-fire, but
11 according to my experience, it was very hazardous to try and rely on the
12 fact that there was cease-fire in place and that everyone was safe
14 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Harbour, I'm looking at the clock. I think
15 we're close to the time where we should take a break. If you find a
16 suitable moment within the next one or two minutes.
17 MS. HARBOUR: This is a good moment, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: All right. Then we turn into closed session and
19 we'll remain in closed session until the beginning of the next morning
20 session, so as to not lose unnecessary time.
21 [Closed session]
13 [Open session]
14 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
16 Ms. Harbour, once the curtains are up you can resume your
17 examination of the witness.
18 MS. HARBOUR:
19 Q. Mr. Miokovic, you've told us about the positive psychological
20 impact of the tram service when it was running because the town appeared
21 to be normal. Typically, how many days would this kind of normalcy last?
22 A. Unfortunately, as a rule it never lasted for very long, and the
23 worst thing is that after such periods, what followed was quite tragic,
24 or the consequences that followed after such periods were tragic.
25 Q. What were those tragic consequences?
1 A. People would be killed or seriously wounded. The citizens of
2 Sarajevo would be killed or seriously wounded.
3 Q. Now, specifically with regard to the trams, were there killings
4 and serious woundings that occurred that impacted the trams?
5 A. Absolutely. Given the fact that there were always quite a lot of
6 people on the trams when fire was opened on trams, the results were
7 frequently tragic and the people in the trams would be killed or wounded.
8 Q. In your experience from living in Sarajevo during the siege, what
9 was the effect that snipings on trams had on the population of Sarajevo?
10 A. Apart from these tragic consequences that as a rule followed,
11 such action was a kind of terrorist action, the purpose of which was to
12 terrorise the population, if you define terrorism as acts committed in
13 order to spread fear and panic for the purposes of obtaining a military
14 or political objective.
15 Q. Did you investigate the tram sniping on the 3rd of March, 1995?
16 A. Yes, I did, together with a team that carried out the on-site
18 MS. HARBOUR: Could we please have 65 ter 10456, page 7 in the
19 English and page 6 in the B/C/S.
20 Q. Once you have had a chance to look over this, we can turn the
21 page for you to see the full document. Do you recognise this document,
22 Mr. Miokovic?
23 A. Yes. This is an official report that I drafted having carried
24 out an on-site investigation.
25 Q. What was your role in this investigation?
1 A. As can be seen in the second paragraph on page 1, given the fact
2 that the investigating judge from the high court in Sarajevo was in
3 charge of this on-site investigation, according to the law on the penal
4 procedure in force at the time, the investigating judge was in charge of
5 that on-site investigation, and given the department I worked in, my task
6 was to co-ordinate all the activities carried out by the other team
7 members, all the members of the Sarajevo CSB, but they were from various
8 departments, and I had to co-ordinate all these activities.
9 Q. Based on your investigation, what conclusions did you reach
10 regarding the perpetrators of the sniping?
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic.
12 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Microphone not activated]
13 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Could you switch on your microphone, Mr. -- or lift
15 it up, yes.
16 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] This question put in this way
17 means that the witness is being asked to draw certain conclusions.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If you phrase it differently, then what the
19 outcome of the investigation was as reported, Ms. Harbour, that might
20 resolve the matter.
21 MS. HARBOUR:
22 Q. Mr. Miokovic, what was the outcome of the investigation as you
23 reported in your official report?
24 A. The outcome was that when the tram was hit, it was going from the
25 west to the east, from the new part of town to the old part of town. It
1 was hit on the right side. Fire had been opened from the Grbavica area,
2 which was under the control of the Army of Republika Srpska at the time,
3 and I would be grateful if I could have a look at the next page of this
5 And on this occasion, two passengers in the tram were wounded.
6 Q. If we could go back to the first page. The very first line in
7 the report refers to, "The shooting from the aggressor positions." What
8 does the term "aggressor" refer to here?
9 A. For four years Sarajevo was under siege, under attack. May I
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you may continue.
12 No loud voice. No consultations.
13 Please proceed.
14 THE WITNESS: So Sarajevo was under siege, under attack, and
15 there is no doubt about the fact that the VRS was responsible for this.
16 The force that launched this attack is the attacker, and within the
17 context of a war the term "aggressor" is more appropriate than the term
18 "attacker." In all the reports that I drafted, this is the term that I
19 would use. When I drafted this official report and all the other
20 official reports, I was convinced that my official reports would be used
21 in trials that would be held in Sarajevo. I'm totally convinced that --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Whatever your convictions are, the question was what
23 you meant by "aggressor." I take it that you meant by "aggressor" the
24 Bosnian Serb side of the conflict; is that correct? Whether you found
25 them to be aggressors or not is a totally different matter and is not for
1 a witness of fact to explain to the Chamber.
2 Ms. Harbour, you may proceed.
3 Mr. Stojanovic.
4 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. That
5 would be our request too. The witness has already used the term
6 "occupation," "an act of terrorism," and he explained what he meant by
7 the term "an act of terrorism" and the term "aggressor." As you have
8 instructed, could the witness please refrain from making such comments.
9 It is for us to deal with such legal issues here.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, your previous objection was not very
11 constructive, although perhaps from a formal point of view right. Your
12 present intervention was totally unnecessary in view of my intervention.
13 You may proceed, Ms. Harbour.
14 MS. HARBOUR:
15 Q. Mr. Miokovic, without making any -- without dealing with any
16 legal issues or the legal -- the legal meaning of "aggressor," could you
17 just tell us why you used that term in your report?
18 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Harbour, I think I indicated that it was not of
19 relevance for us. What we'd like to know is if a reference is made to a
20 certain party, which party that is, why it was, and what the personal
21 feelings and that is not --
22 MS. HARBOUR: Your Honours, I understand that fully. I'm not
23 actually asking what his personal feelings are. I would like to know
24 his -- I would like to know procedurally whether there was a reason to
25 use that report in the procedural context in which he was working.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then put a focused question --
2 MS. HARBOUR: Yes, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE ORIE: -- on that specific issue whether he was instructed
4 to do so or whether that was whatever. Focus then on the matter you want
5 to raise and let's avoid that happens again what happened before.
6 MS. HARBOUR: Yes.
7 Q. Mr. Miokovic, you've heard the Court's concerns, and I would ask
8 you what -- was there a procedural reason in the context of the procedure
9 of your investigation and in the context of prosecutions in Bosnia for
10 using the term "aggressor"?
11 A. There were no instructions issued with regard to this matter. I
12 used this term and the term was used to refer to the positions held by
13 the Army of Republika Srpska.
14 MS. HARBOUR: If we could go to the last page of the report,
15 please. Sorry, page 2 of -- just the following page after this, please.
16 Q. Here the penultimate paragraph of the report states:
17 "After tram number 268 was hit, trams driving behind it also came
18 under fire from the same aggressor positions, but there were no
20 In your experience, how common was it for multiple sniping
21 attacks to be carried out on trams on the same day in the same area?
22 A. It wasn't unusual. Such things happened just as such a thing
23 happened on at that day.
24 MS. HARBOUR: Could we turn to page 11 in the B/C/S and page 12
25 in the English, please.
1 Q. Where was this photograph taken?
2 A. This photograph was taken in Sarajevo. Of course, at the
3 so-called Marin Dvor tram stop if you'll -- the photograph was taken from
4 the east, in fact, looking from the east to the west.
5 Q. Is this where you conducted your investigation?
6 A. Yes. That is the site at which we conducted our on-site
8 Q. What is the building that is in the background on the left-hand
9 side of the photograph?
10 A. At the time that was the building of the Executive Council of
11 Bosnia and Herzegovina. Today it is the building of Federation of Bosnia
12 and Herzegovina.
13 MS. HARBOUR: For the Chamber's frame of reference, in the
14 Sarajevo map book, Exhibit P3, and map number 20, that building is
15 number 4.
16 Q. And what street is this taken on?
17 A. This is Zmaja od Bosne Street. That is what it is called now.
18 Q. How far removed was the investigation from the place where the
19 tram was hit?
20 A. I think the distance was between 100 and 150 metres. The tram
21 was hit about 150 metres to the west of the location from which this
22 photograph was taken.
23 Q. And why didn't you conduct the investigation on site where the
24 tram was hit?
25 A. In many cases when trams were fired on and hit, after the tram
1 had been hit the driver would continue to drive the tram and so that he
2 could stop at a place which was safe or at least fairly safe, and this is
3 what happened in this case too.
4 MS. HARBOUR: Could we please turn to page 24 in the English and
5 page 29 in the B/C/S.
6 Q. This document is entitled "Criminal report." Could you please
7 explain the purpose of this document.
8 A. In accordance with the provisions of the Law on Criminal
9 Procedure that were valid at the time, after an on-site investigation had
10 been carried out, all the documents that had been drafted in relation to
11 the crime in question would be put together and sent as a criminal report
12 to the Prosecution in Sarajevo so that the Prosecutor in charge could
13 take appropriate action. This document shows how this criminal report
14 was compiled, what it looked like.
15 Q. Under the statement of reasons, we see that 3 March 1995, the
16 date of this incident, was the Muslim holiday of Bajram. Why was this
17 information included in the criminal report?
18 A. Because Bajram is the most important Muslim holiday, and this
19 could be an important factor for the prosecutor's office in relation to
20 assessing the seriousness of the crime.
21 MS. HARBOUR: Could we please turn to page 3 in both languages.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Before we do so, Ms. Harbour, could I ask you one
23 question. In the English translation we find ERN references to all the
24 photographs. However, the ERN references on the photographs themselves
25 in the B/C/S version are different. Is there any explanation? I take
1 it, as a matter of fact, that you wanted them to be corresponding. For
2 example, the first photograph you -- let me just see, which is on page 11
3 in the B/C/S, and you have shown that to us, bears an ERN number ending
4 with 3579. Now, if I look at the English translation of the document and
5 look at page 12 -- 12 of the English, if that is the corresponding part,
6 and I think you said it was, then I notice that the first one is ending
7 6371 ERN, "Front of tram, garage number 268, which was hit around ...,"
8 isn't it? I'm trying to follow what you have shown us, and I see that
9 the ERN numbers on the photographs are not the same as the ERN numbers
10 mentioned in the English translation.
11 MS. HARBOUR: Your Honour, I will look into this. If there is a
12 discrepancy, I can submit it for verification of the translation.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, if you would please do so, unless I have
14 misunderstood or unless I've made a wrong --
15 MS. HARBOUR: I see the discrepancy certainly.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. If you would pay attention to it. I don't
17 think that it affects the evidentiary value, but we'd like to have
18 everything accurate on the record.
19 MS. HARBOUR: Yes.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
21 MS. HARBOUR: Could we please have page 3 in both of the
23 Q. Mr. Miokovic, can you tell us what this document is?
24 A. This is a dispatch from the security services centre to the
25 Ministry of the Interior of Bosnia and Herzegovina, to certain
1 departments. When dispatches were sent, this meant that it was a matter
2 of internal communications within the police force.
3 Q. This is dated 3 March 1995, and if we look at about halfway down
4 the paragraph, it refers to a tram sniping and a victim who was injured
5 and the victim's name is obscured by what appears to be highlighting in
6 the original document. Do you recognise the victim of this incident?
7 A. I can recognise the surname, Sabanovic.
8 Q. Do you know who this person is?
9 A. I personally know this young man.
10 Q. Is this dispatch related to the tram sniping that you
11 investigated on the 3rd of March, 1995?
12 A. This incident isn't directly related to the on-site investigation
13 I carried out in relation to the tram incident. It's a separate
15 Q. Now, in your official report, you referred to other sniping
16 incidents that occurred on the same day. Would you have considered a
17 dispatch such as this or other documents in your -- making your official
19 A. Dispatches are used for internal communication within the police
20 force, and in a dispatch you have a certain level informing higher or
21 lower levels about a given event or about given events. This dispatch
22 was drafted after information had been obtained about the incident in
24 MS. HARBOUR: Could we please have page 1 of this document.
25 Q. Mr. Miokovic, this is the first page of the investigative file
1 that the Bosnian authorities provided to the Office of the Prosecutor,
2 and each of the documents listed was in the file. Now, instead of going
3 through each one individually with you, would you just look at the list
4 and explain how the documents on this list would relate to your
6 A. The first bullet point below the word "Evidence" is a dispatch
7 sent by the police station in charge who was the first to receive a
8 report on the incident. Then they dispatched their uniform officers to
9 the scene to investigate what had happened, and on the basis of that,
10 they sent a dispatch to higher levels describing the incident.
11 The two next documents are also dispatches, but in this case they
12 were sent by the Sarajevo CSB. They refer to the same incident and
13 depict the actions taken in that regard by the Sarajevo CSB. The next
14 two documents are official reports, the first one provided by the
15 Centar SJB and the second one provided by the Sarajevo CSB. That
16 contains a written description of the activities undertaken by these two
17 police institutions with respect to the incident in question.
18 This is followed by forensic examination reports which contained
19 a detailed description of traces and evidence found on the spot, and also
20 provided is a photo file. Then we have written statement of eyewitnesses
21 or the victims. Then we have two official notes by the CSB, which also
22 refer to statements taken from two individuals. Then we have a medical
23 record of the people who were injured and criminal report, as the one we
24 have seen earlier, to which all these documents listed above are attached
25 and forwarded to the prosecutor's office.
1 MS. HARBOUR: I'd like to tender this document into evidence.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
3 THE REGISTRAR: Document 10456 receives number P612,
4 Your Honours.
5 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
6 MS. HARBOUR: I'm now going to ask Ms. Stewart to play a short
7 video-clip, which is 65 ter 22788A.
8 [Video-clip played]
9 MS. HARBOUR:
10 Q. Do you recognise where this took place, Mr. Miokovic?
11 A. This took place on Zmaja od Bosne Street near the
12 Faculty of Philosophy in Sarajevo.
13 Q. How far away was this from the tram sniping that you investigated
14 on the 3rd of March, 1995?
15 A. This is a location that is between the spot where the tram,
16 according to eyewitnesses, was hit and the place where the on-site
17 investigation was carried out. This video-clip was made at the location
18 which is much closer to the spot where the tram was hit than the place
19 where we did our investigation.
20 Q. Do you know the individual who was shot in the clip?
21 A. I don't know this boy, but looking back at that time, I know that
22 his aunt was a cook in one of the police stations, and in that way I
23 became familiar with that incident.
24 MS. HARBOUR: I'd like to tender this into evidence.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
1 THE REGISTRAR: Document 22788A becomes Exhibit P613,
2 Your Honours.
3 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence. Can I seek
4 clarification with you, Ms. Harbour, on the following matter: We have
5 looked at this inventory on the first page of the document. You have
6 shown B/C/S page 3 to the witness where the name was not legible and the
7 witness explained to us that that was -- he knew the name of that boy,
8 and it was not related to the incident he investigated.
9 Now, he later explained for bullet point 2 that, and together
10 with bullet point 3, one of them is the document you've shown him, that
11 they were related to the incident he investigated. So that seems
13 I don't know whether you noticed that, but at least it confuses
14 me slightly, because I understood that it was a report about what may
15 have happened at another moment, that they -- it starts with 5.00 in the
16 afternoon instead of briefly after midday.
17 Witness, could you clarify that you earlier said that this
18 report -- you remember of that name not well visible. You knew the name
19 of the boy. It was not related to the incident, and that at the same
20 time when going through this inventory, you said that bullet point 2,
21 which is that report we find on page 3 relates to the same incident. I'm
22 slightly confused by that.
23 THE WITNESS: This dispatch that you refer to where this young
24 man Sabanovic is mentioned has been shown to me during proofing preceding
25 this trial. This young man was not injured in the tram that I
1 investigated. He was wounded in the same area where the tram was
3 JUDGE ORIE: So if you said that bullet points 2 and 3 were
4 related to the incident you investigated, that at least for bullet
5 point 2, that is not accurate because it is something that happened in
6 the same area but is not something you investigated.
7 THE WITNESS: Your Honours, let me be quite clear. I did not
8 investigate the wounding of this man Sabanovic.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please proceed, Ms. Harbour.
10 MS. HARBOUR:
11 Q. Did you also investigate a tram sniping incident on the
12 23rd of November, 1994?
13 A. Yes, I did.
14 MS. HARBOUR: Could we please have 65 ter 10070 on the screen.
15 Q. Do you recognise this document?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. What is this document?
18 A. This is an official report that I prepared after the on-site
19 investigation of the incident involving firing at the tram.
20 Q. This report discusses two trams that were hit by bullets while
21 they were travelling on Zmaja od Bosne Street from east to west,
22 resulting in one dead and three wounded, and I would like to focus
23 first -- on the first tram that was hit. So if I could draw your
24 attention to the paragraph beginning "At 1530 hours" a little more than
25 halfway down the page.
1 Could you tell us from which direction perpetrators fired on the
3 A. From the direction of Grbavica.
4 Q. Did any bullet pierce the tram?
5 A. In this particular instance we failed to find the damage caused
6 by a bullet when it hits a hard surface, whether the tram itself or the
7 windows. So on that basis we concluded that the bullet came through a
8 partially opened window on the left side of the tram and that it caused
9 the consequences that occurred inside the tram.
10 MS. HARBOUR: Could I please tender this into evidence,
11 Your Honours.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
13 THE REGISTRAR: Document 10070 becomes Exhibit P614,
14 Your Honours.
15 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
16 MS. HARBOUR: Could we now have 65 ter 28565 on the screen.
17 Q. Mr. Miokovic, what is this document?
18 A. This is an official photo file compiled by the forensic and
19 crime-scene investigation team, i.e., the technician who was on the spot
20 during the on-site investigation.
21 MS. HARBOUR: Could we please have page 3 in the English and the
23 Q. Now, I know this photograph is not very good quality, but from
24 the text underneath it, could you please tell us on what side of the tram
25 we see that the bullet entered?
1 A. This tram was hit on the left side.
2 MS. HARBOUR: And if we could please have page 5. Sorry, I
3 believe it's page 4. Yes.
4 Q. What is this a photograph of?
5 A. This is the interior of the tram. This photo was taken inside
6 the tram, and it shows this partially opened window through which the
7 bullet entered the tram.
8 Q. Now, I would like to tender this into evidence and show you a
9 colour version of this photograph.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
11 THE REGISTRAR: Document 28565 becomes Exhibit P615,
12 Your Honours.
13 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
14 MS. HARBOUR: Could we please now have 65 ter 28564. And page 4
15 is what we'll be looking at, page 4 in the B/C/S. If we could zoom in on
16 the area around the 1 and the arrow. Yes. Excellent.
17 Is it possible to turn the photo? Thank you.
18 Q. What is this white round circle on the window, Mr. Miokovic?
19 A. Since this photograph was taken inside the tram, this white
20 circle is a small knob that one uses to open this sliding window on the
22 Q. And can we see what the arrow is pointing to in this colour
23 version of the photograph?
24 A. It is pointing to the area of the open window, that is to say the
25 space that is not covered by glass because the winnow was open.
1 MS. HARBOUR: Could I tender this into evidence, please.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
3 THE REGISTRAR: Document 28564 becomes Exhibit P616,
4 Your Honours.
5 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
6 MS. HARBOUR: Could we please have 65 ter 13020 on the screen.
7 Q. Do you know what this document is, Mr. Miokovic?
8 A. This is a record compiled by the crime scene technician, and it
9 is always attached to a photo file.
10 MS. HARBOUR: Could I tender this into evidence, please.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
12 THE REGISTRAR: Document 13020 becomes Exhibit P617,
13 Your Honours.
14 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
15 MS. HARBOUR: Now could we please have 65 ter 12998 on the
17 Q. Could you tell us what this document is, Mr. Miokovic?
18 A. This is another report prepared by the crime scene investigation
19 department, or, rather, the crime scene technician who attended.
20 Q. Under number 4 in the second sentence it states that a bullet
21 entered from the rear right-hand side window. Can you explain why this
22 report says the bullet entered through the right-hand side window while
23 the other documents we've looked at refer to the left-hand side.
24 A. This is definitely a mistake, a typo made by the person who typed
25 the report. Since this report is attached to the photo file, it can
1 quickly and easily be checked, and the documents will show that this was
2 a clerical error.
3 MS. HARBOUR: I'd like to tender this into evidence,
4 Your Honours.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Document 12998 becomes Exhibit P618,
7 Your Honours.
8 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
9 MS. HARBOUR: Could we please have 65 ter 10084 on the screen.
10 Q. Mr. Miokovic, could you please review this document and let me
11 know if this is related to the incident that we've been speaking about.
12 A. This is an official note compiled by a police official after he
13 interviewed the people injured in the incident that we are discussing.
14 MS. HARBOUR: I'd like to tender this into evidence,
15 Your Honours.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
17 THE REGISTRAR: Document 10084 becomes Exhibit P619,
18 Your Honours.
19 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence. I am looking at the
20 clock, Ms. Harbour. I think we have spent another hour, and is it time
21 for a break?
22 MS. HARBOUR: This would be a perfect time for the break,
23 Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ORIE: How much time would you need after the break?
25 MS. HARBOUR: Half an hour.
1 JUDGE ORIE: That's more than you asked for, considerably more
2 than you asked for.
3 MS. HARBOUR: Could I get an estimate of how much time I've used
4 thus far?
5 JUDGE ORIE: I think approximately one hour and fifteen minutes,
6 and you asked for one and a half hour, isn't it?
7 MS. HARBOUR: That is correct, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE ORIE: And you spent a lot of time on details which, if not
9 in dispute, would not have needed the attention you gave to it. If a
10 photograph says that the arrow shows to the open part of a window then to
11 spend two or three minutes with a witness to find out whether that is an
12 open part of the window is of course not very helpful. The Chamber is
13 able to read that and -- we first go into closed session.
14 [Closed session]
17 [Open session]
18 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
20 Ms. Harbour, you may proceed.
21 MS. HARBOUR:
22 Q. Mr. Miokovic, after the conflict ended, did your department at
23 CSB Sarajevo investigate the sniping nests in the previously occupied
24 territory of Sarajevo?
25 A. After the reintegration of Sarajevo, all the police forces from
1 the CSB, once they had entered the area searched the terrain with the
2 primary objective of ensuring that the citizens could live safely in the
3 area. My department participated in that action, and in the course of
4 these searches of the terrain, in the course of the searches conducted in
5 the buildings that had been under the control of the VRS during the war,
6 we found, amongst other things, a number of fortified features that had
7 most probably been used by snipers for sniper activity.
8 Q. In the area of Grbavica did you find any such facilities?
9 A. Yes. We found a number of such facilities there.
10 Q. Which direction were the snipers' nests facing?
11 A. Are if we're talking about the buildings in Grbavica, they were
12 all facing the town. They were facing the Zmaja od Bosne Street or the
13 Holiday Inn Hotel.
14 Q. How many snipers' nests were found in the Grbavica area?
15 A. I can't answer your question with any precision. I personally
16 participated in the search of four skyscrapers that were used for such
17 activity, and in one of the skyscrapers that I also searched we found ten
18 such nests.
19 MS. HARBOUR: Could we please have 65 ter 19709. And could we
20 please go to page 7 in the B/C/S and the English.
21 Q. What can you tell the Chamber about this photograph,
22 Mr. Miokovic?
23 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Objection. Your Honours, I
24 think it's first necessary to lay a foundation for this question. We
25 need to know whether the photograph was taken at the time that this
1 witness was involved in the on-site investigation.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, is this a photograph taken during one of
3 your investigations?
4 THE WITNESS: Your Honours, as far as searching the terrain is
5 concerned, no on-site investigations were carried out. The only thing
6 that was done is that photographs of the positions were taken.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Let me stop you there. This photograph, was that
8 taken in an investigative activity in which you were involved?
9 THE WITNESS: I don't know. I don't know.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Have you seen this photograph before?
11 THE WITNESS: It was shown to me in the course of the proofing.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Did you ever see it before?
13 THE WITNESS: No.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Bolton, we have a document before us --
15 Ms. Harbour. I apologise. I still have to adapt.
16 Would you please keep this in mind when you put questions to the
18 MS. HARBOUR:
19 Q. Yes. Perhaps it would be best to start at page 1 of this
20 document. This is a photo documentation booklet entitled "Discovery of
21 Many Sniping Nests." It's dated the 13th of May, 1996, and the location
22 is at the Grbavica Street, an address on that street. Were you involved
23 in searches on that street?
24 A. Yes, in Grbavica Street, yes, I was.
25 Q. And did you come across sniping nests in that -- during those
2 A. Yes, we came across sniper nests.
3 Q. Now, perhaps you won't remember the exact snipers' nests that you
4 saw, but if we show photos of similar nests, would you be able to shed
5 any light on what is depicted based on your experience in that search?
6 A. Yes, I do, but I'd like to remind you of the fact that given all
7 the time that has passed, even if you showed me a place that I had
8 visited, I couldn't really confirm that, yes, that is the place in
9 question. A lot of time has passed since the events we're dealing with.
10 Q. I understand. Could we now go back to the photo we were looking
11 at which was at page 7. Now, based on your experience with this search
12 of the snipers' nests, what can you tell the Chamber about this
13 photograph in addition to what they can read themselves at the bottom of
14 the photograph?
15 A. These sacks were used to fortify the area, these sacks of earth
16 or of sand. This was done in order to protect those who were inside.
17 And there is an opening that you can see in the photograph that could
18 describe as a gun-hole, a loop-hole.
19 MS. HARBOUR: Could we please go to page 9.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask the following question: Did you find
21 during your searches similar constructions of sandbags with a small
23 THE WITNESS: Well, yes, Your Honours, and this is what it looks
25 JUDGE ORIE: You've answered my question.
1 Please proceed, Ms. --
2 MS. HARBOUR: Could we please turn to page 9.
3 Q. Now, this is a photograph taken from a different advantage point
4 but from the same room that the other photograph we just looked at was
5 taken. What can you tell the Chamber about this photograph?
6 A. Here one can see that the direction that the gun hole is facing
7 is the Marsal Tito Barracks, or, rather, the Zmaja od Bosne Street.
8 Q. Was this the location of any of the sniping incidents that you
9 investigated during the war, during the siege?
10 A. There were many incidents in the Zmaja od Bosne Street. This was
11 the result of sniper activity. And the trams that I'm testifying about
12 were hit in that street.
13 MS. HARBOUR: Your Honours, in the interests of time, instead of
14 going through more photographs, I'd like to tender this document.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
16 THE REGISTRAR: Document 19709 becomes Exhibit P620,
17 Your Honours.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic. Mr. Stojanovic, you're on your
20 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] We object to having this photo
21 documentation admitted into evidence through this witness. The first
22 page shows who took the photos and when, and the witness quite clearly
23 stated that he cannot say whether he was involved in these photographs.
24 We also have transcripts that relate to these photographs, and we can see
25 who participated in taking these photographs. These transcripts do not
1 contain the name of the witness that we have here today.
2 JUDGE ORIE: The witness has testified that what he saw in one of
3 these photographs was similar to what he saw when he did similar
4 investigations. Apart from that, the witness identified what could be
5 seen through one of these holes which is a sufficient basis for admission
6 of this document into evidence.
7 Madam Registrar, you already assigned a number. It was -- P620
8 is hereby admitted into evidence.
9 Please proceed. Nevertheless, Ms. Harbour, if one of the authors
10 would at any point in time would testify, I don't know if any of them is
11 on the list, of course would give greater latitude in interpreting and
12 evaluating what was not discussed with the witness.
13 Please proceed.
14 MS. HARBOUR: Yes, Your Honours. We're very mindful of the
15 probative value of these photos and will seek to further explain them to
16 the Chamber as we can.
17 JUDGE ORIE: That's understood. Please proceed.
18 MS. HARBOUR: Since Mr. Miokovic's statements cover his
19 investigations of the 8 November 1994 shellings on Livanjska Street and
20 these are also covered to some extent by adjudicated facts and in the
21 interests of time, I'm going to instead of discussing this incident with
22 the witness I'm going to simply ask him to authenticate reports from this
23 incident and also the investigative video. Could I please have
24 65 ter 10050 on the screen.
25 Q. Mr. Miokovic, do you recognise this document?
1 A. Yes. This is an official report that I drafted having completed
2 the on-site investigation in Livanjska Street.
3 MS. HARBOUR: I'd like to tender this into evidence.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Document 10050 becomes Exhibit P621,
6 Your Honours.
7 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
8 MS. HARBOUR: Could we please have 65 ter 12942A.
9 Q. Mr. Miokovic, do you recognise this document?
10 A. This is also an official report of mine, a report that I drafted
11 after an on-site investigation into an incident that also occurred in the
12 Livanjska Street. This incident occurred immediately after we had left
13 the site, once we had completed the first on-site investigation.
14 MS. HARBOUR: And could we please have page 4 in the English and
15 page 3 in the B/C/S, which is a different document.
16 Q. Mr. Miokovic, do you recognise this document?
17 A. This is an official note drafted by colleagues from the
18 investigations department. They were involved in the identification of
19 the people who had been wounded or killed in this particular incident.
20 MS. HARBOUR: I'd like to tender this into evidence.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
22 THE REGISTRAR: Document 12942A becomes Exhibit P622,
23 Your Honours.
24 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
25 MS. HARBOUR: Could we please have 65 ter 22665. This is
1 actually a video, and I'm just going to ask Ms. Stewart to play the first
2 several seconds of the video.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Before you do so, the previous document
4 contains redactions. That is because these were other documents also the
6 MS. HARBOUR: Yes. The way that these were translated, they just
7 translated the entire investigative file without making page breaks. So
8 we've redacted the translations that don't correspond directly to the
10 JUDGE ORIE: That's clear. Thank you for your explanation.
11 Let's have a look at the video.
12 MS. HARBOUR: Now, we'll just play the first several seconds.
13 Q. And, Mr. Miokovic, please tell us if you recognise this video.
14 [Video-clip played]
15 MS. HARBOUR: That's sufficient. Thank you.
16 THE WITNESS: This is a video record made at the on-site
17 investigation launched into the first incident in Livanjska Street.
18 JUDGE ORIE: The portion played started at 3 seconds and lasted
19 until 9.8 seconds.
20 MS. HARBOUR: Yes, Your Honour. I would tender this entire
21 video. It is four minutes long.
22 JUDGE ORIE: And it depicts the investigation, I take it?
23 MS. HARBOUR: That is what the witness has testified, I believe.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but the remainder, of course, as well.
25 MS. HARBOUR: Yes, exactly.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
2 THE REGISTRAR: Document 22665 before Exhibit P623, Your Honours.
3 JUDGE ORIE: P623 is admitted into evidence.
4 MS. HARBOUR: I have no further questions, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. Harbour.
6 Mr. Stojanovic, it might not be very useful to start for only six
7 minutes the cross-examination. Could you tell us on the basis of the
8 examination-in-chief whether your estimate of the time you would need in
9 cross-examination is still what it was?
10 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, our initial
11 assessment of four hours has been reduced to two and a half hours, and I
12 think that will be sufficient time for us to cross-examine the witness.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we can finish for the day. There are no
14 other procedural matters to be raised.
15 I'm looking at the parties, but first of all could the witness be
16 escorted out of the courtroom once we're in closed session.
17 [Closed session]
23 [Open session]
24 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. In the expectation that the booth still
1 have the text before them, I'd like to give an oral statement on behalf
2 of the Chamber.
3 The Chamber will deliver a statement regarding the Prosecution's
4 Notices of Compliance with the Chamber's decision on Mladic motion for
5 access to completed cases, which was rendered on the 7th of September of
6 this year, on the 1st, the 19th and the 25th of October, 2012. The
7 Prosecution filed Notices of Compliance with the Chamber's decision on
8 the Mladic motion for access to completed cases for which access to
9 confidential inter partes materials was granted to a limited extent,
10 namely Prosecutor versus Ranko Cesic, Prosecutor versus Goran Jelisic,
11 Prosecutor versus Darko Mrdja, and Prosecutor versus Milan Martic.
12 In paragraph one of the Cesic and Jelisic notices, the
13 Prosecution states that none of the witnesses in those cases will be
14 called by the Prosecution to testify in the Mladic case and that
15 consequently, in line with the Chamber's decision, there are no
16 confidential inter partes materials in those cases to which the accused
17 Mladic should be granted access.
18 The Chamber is concerned that the relevant paragraph of the
19 access decision has been misinterpreted and is therefore now providing
20 some clarification.
21 Paragraph 15 of the access decision states the following:
22 "Any transcript of testimony from witnesses in common with the
23 completed cases and this case will fall under the Prosecution's
24 disclosure obligations under Rule 66(A)(iii)of the Rules. Thus any
25 access granted by this decision will relate only to transcript of
1 testimony from witnesses which are in common with the completed cases and
2 this case but which the Prosecution has decided not to call in this case,
3 filings and exhibits."
4 Thus the fact that the Prosecution has decided not to call
5 witnesses in common with the completed case and this case is not the
6 decisive factor as to whether access to confidential inter partes
7 material, i.e., transcript, filings, or exhibits, should occur. Whilst
8 the approach taken by the Prosecution is only evident from the Cesic and
9 Jelisic Notices of Compliance, the Chamber is concerned that the same
10 approach may have been taken in relation to the other cases in this
11 category, Prosecutor versus Darko Mrdja and Prosecutor versus
12 Milan Martic.
13 The Chamber therefore suggests that in light of this
14 clarification, the Prosecution revaluates its disclosure approach to
15 ensure that it is in line with the clarification and paragraph 15 of the
16 access decision.
17 There is a second matter that the Chamber has noted in relation
18 to the notices filed for the Martic, Galic, and Dragomir Milosevic case
19 materials. Annex B of these notices include lists of material still
20 subject to Rule 70 for which the Prosecution first needs to receive
21 clearance from the provider. The material listed includes Tribunal
22 decisions, transcripts of Tribunal testimony, and witness statements of
23 witnesses in common with this case and the completed cases. Such
24 transcripts and statements would normally fall under Rule 66(A)(ii)
1 First, to the extent that the Prosecution has sought the relevant
2 Rule 70 provider's consent to disclose and is yet to receive such
3 consent, the Chamber urges the parties to immediately inform the Chamber
4 should the parties experience any problems or if the consent is refused.
5 Second, to the extent that the documents listed in the annex may
6 contain Rule 70 material within them and the Prosecution is awaiting the
7 consent of the relevant Rule 70 provider, the Chamber expects the
8 Prosecution to redact such information from the relevant documents. Such
9 redacted copies should be provided to the Defence as soon as possible
10 until the Rule 70 provider's consent to disclose -- to disclosure in this
11 case is obtained. At that point the Chamber expects the Prosecutor to
12 provide unredacted copies to the Defence.
13 Third, in relation to those materials listed in Annex B related
14 to witnesses not in common with this case in the completed cases and for
15 which Rule 66(A)(ii) disclosure does not apply, the Chamber encourages
16 the parties to immediately inform the Chamber of any problems being
17 experienced in gaining such consent. The Chamber is also particularly
18 concerned when the Rule 70 provider refuses to provide its consent for
19 the disclosure of material which has been disclosed to other accused
20 before this Tribunal.
21 And this concludes the Chamber's statement.
22 Mr. Groome, you're on your feet.
23 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, we will comply with everything that
24 you've said. We will re-evaluate our practice with respect to access to
25 other cases, and in light of the fact that we have filed notices, we will
1 either file an additional notice confirming that we are in compliance or
2 we'll be filing new notices.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Groome.
4 With apologies to all those assisting us for being five minutes
5 late, we adjourn for the day, and we'll resume Monday, the 10th of
6 December, at 9.30 in Courtroom III.
7 We stand adjourned.
8 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.18 p.m.,
9 to be reconvened on Monday, the 10th day
10 of December, 2012, at 9.30 a.m.