1
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered
court]
4 --- Upon commencing
at
5
JUDGE MOLOTO: Good morning, everybody.
6
Will you please call the case, Mr. Registrar.
7
THE REGISTRAR: Thank you and good
morning, Your Honours. This is
8
case number IT-04-83-T, the Prosecutor versus Rasim Delic.
9
JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very
much.
10 May we have the appearances for
today, Mr. Mundis.
11 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President.
12 Good morning, Your Honours,
Counsel, and everyone in and around
13 the courtroom. Daryl Mundis, for the Prosecution, assisted
by our case
14 manager, Alma Imamovic.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
16 For the Defence.
17 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Good
morning, Your Honours. Good
18 morning to our learned friends from the
Prosecution. Vasvija Vidovic and
19 Nicholas Robson representing General Delic,
with our legal assistant, Lana
20 Deljkic.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Madam Vidovic.
22 Yes, Mr. Robson.
23 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, the witness is not in court
because the
24 Defence has asked for some time to raise an
important housekeeping issue.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
1
MR. ROBSON: It relates to Dzemal
Vuckovic, who is scheduled to
2
testify later today.
3
Your Honours, the Defence would wish to object to the Prosecution
4
proposal to lead the evidence of this witness pursuant to Rule 92 ter,
and
5
also we object to the manner in which the Prosecution is proposing to
deal
6
with the documents associated with that witness.
7
If I can set out the background to this matter, and I apologise
8
because I'll need to do so at some length.
9
On the 19th of October of this year, the Prosecution sent a letter
10 to the Defence, setting out a list of all
the witnesses that it was
11 proposing to call pursuant to Rule 92 ter,
and the witness, Dzemal
12 Vuckovic, was contained within in that
list. At that stage, the
13 Prosecution had disclosed a witness
statement to the Defence, dated the
14 22nd of September, 2006, in which it
referred to 21 documents. The
15 Defence, therefore, prepared its
cross-examination on the basis of that
16 statement and also took on board the likelihood
that the Prosecution would
17 seek to admit all of those 21 documents.
18 Now, on Friday, the 2nd of
November, the Prosecution sent a
19 further letter to the Defence, and in that
letter it stated that the
20 Prosecution had revisited its exhibit list
and noticed that there were
21 many bulletins and special information
reports contained within the list.
22 It then indicated a wish to raise or use
those bulletins and special
23 information reports in connection with the
evidence of Vuckovic.
24 In this letter, the Prosecution set
out a procedure that it said
25 it would follow. It said in calling Vuckovic, it would get him
to adopt
1 his
statement. The Prosecution would ask him
to describe the procedure by
2
which the bulletins and the special information reports had been
produced,
3 and
then the Prosecution would tender all of the bulletins and special
4
information reports in a summary fashion.
5
Now, that was on Friday morning.
On Friday afternoon, the
6
Prosecution sent a further e-mail to the Defence, setting out a
7
provisional exhibit list for the witness Vuckovic. In the provisional
8
exhibit list, it mentioned 117 PT documents of which 94 were these
9 bulletins or special information reports. Now, not all of the PTs related
10 to just one document. One of the PTs, 1910, contained a collection
of
11 around some 70 bulletins within the one PT.
12 So, in total, all the exhibits the
Prosecution were proposing to
13 use with this witness amounted to some
2.000 pages. And as I say, the
14 Defence were just put on notice of this on
Friday.
15 The e-mail also said that the
witness wished to make changes to
16 his original witness statement, and,
therefore, the Prosecution proposed
17 to prepare a new consolidated witness
statement dealing with the changes
18 and also touching upon the new documents
that the Prosecution wished to
19 have admitted into evidence. That was the state of play on Friday.
20 Now, on Saturday evening, after
7.00, the Prosecution sent a new
21 consolidated statement for Mr.
Vuckovic. It's a 30-page document and,
in
22 many respects, rewrites that witness's
original statement. A lot of the
23 content within that document -- within the
original document has been
24 struck out or amended. I should also say that this document was only
sent
25 in the English language as well.
1
Within this new document, it referred to some 92 new documents
2
that were not mentioned in the original witness statement.
3
JUDGE MOLOTO: Let me understand.
4
An additional 92 to the about 187 that you got, 117 plus 70 within
5 one
PT that you got Friday afternoon?
6
MR. ROBSON: On Friday afternoon,
Defence received notice the
7
Prosecution wished to use 117.
8
JUDGE MOLOTO: And in one of the
PTs, there were 70 pages, so it
9 was
about 187.
10 MR. ROBSON: There were 70 documents.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Seventy documents, yes. So there are about 187.
12 Now the 90 that you are mentioning now is
in addition to the 187?
13 MR. ROBSON: It was included within the --
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: 187?
15 MR. ROBSON: -- 187, yeah.
16 Also within the new statement,
there is a table in which the
17 Prosecution has set down a brief
description of what some of these PTs
18 purport to be about, and some of those --
some of those descriptions are
19 erroneous.
So, Your Honour, that's the background to this matter.
20 So having set that out at length,
it is the Defence's submission
21 that the Prosecution should not be
permitted to call this witness pursuant
22 to Rule 92 ter, nor to simply tender these
documents and have them
23 admitted in a summary fashion, and we rely
upon a number of reasons for
24 that.
The first, as is probably no surprise to you, is that essentially
25 the Defence has not had time to prepare
properly for this witness.
1
As I mentioned earlier, the Defence initially prepared on the
2
basis of the original statement.
It's now received, as I say, some 2.000
3 new
pages at a very, very late stage. The
document, the new statement,
4 has
only been disclosed in English. I can
inform you that last night, at
5
9.39, a B/C/S version of the statement was disclosed to the
Defence. The
6
consequence, of course, is that the Defence has not been able to take
7
proper instructions from General Delic on the contents of this
statement,
8 nor
the documents which it's been proposed -- the Prosecution is proposing
9 to
use.
10 Now, what I would like to remind
the Trial Chamber of is a
11 decision that was issued in September,
because it's my submission that
12 this is ground that the Trial Chamber has
been over before, previously. If
13 you recall, in September, the Prosecution
filed a motion in which it
14 sought to admit the evidence of three
witnesses and in which it simply
15 wished to tender the exhibits of those
witnesses which were referred to in
16 their witness statements, and the Trial
Chamber issued a decision on the
17 27th of September in which it rejected that
approach.
18 In that decision -- and I should
say that in respect of that
19 Prosecution motion in September, it was
also an 11th-hour motion in which
20 the Prosecution had not disclosed
statements and documents in the B/C/S
21 language.
The Trial Chamber held that, with such a late application,
22 risks endangering the right of an accused
to a fair trial arose. It also
23 held that such an approach impacts upon any
expeditiousness which may have
24 been gained from the use of Rule 92 ter, as
the Defence was unable to
25 properly prepare for
cross-examination. And, thirdly, the
Trial Chamber
1
held that it was not in the interests of justice to allow the
Prosecution
2 to
proceed using the Rule 92 ter procedure with such an approach.
3
In my respectful submission, Your Honours, we have a very, very
4
similar situation here again; 11th-hour application, documents not
5
disclosed in the B/C/S language.
And, similarly, as with the earlier
6
decision, it's my submission that it would not be in the interests of
7
justice to enable or permit the Prosecution to take such an approach.
8
The second argument I wish to raise is that the Prosecution is
9
seeking to introduce a very substantial amount of evidence onto the
trial
10 record without any proper scrutiny or any
process to determine whether
11 there is a proper basis to admit that
evidence.
12 In the Trial Chamber's decision of
the 27th of September, the
13 Trial Chamber pointed out the importance of
the guidelines on admission
14 and presentation of evidence and conduct of
counsel in court in this
15 regard.
In that decision, the Trial Chamber pointed out that in paragraph
16 18 of those guidelines, a party calling a
witness will be permitted to
17 show documents to a witness during the
direct examination of a Rule 92 ter
18 witness, and such documents may be tendered
into evidence; in other words,
19 it made it clear that if a Rule 92 ter
witness came, any attempt to tender
20 documents through that witness should be
done as a separate part during
21 the viva voce stage.
22 The decision also emphasised the
importance of a party
23 demonstrating a relation between the
witness and the document being
24 proposed to be admitted into evidence.
25 In my submission, Your Honours, if
the Prosecution are permitted
1 to
introduce documents in such a summary fashion, the normal process by
2
which the Trial Chamber can scrutinize each document before it's entered
3
onto the record, to ensure that only relevant documents go onto the
4
record, is lost. Also, the
Defence will lose the opportunity to confront
5
each and every document as it is brought up in court.
6
Thirdly, Your Honours, as I've mentioned, the new statement of
7 Mr.
Vuckovic refers to an enormous amount of documents, and I would remind
8 the
Trial Chamber and the Prosecution of the guidance given by the Trial
9
Chamber on Friday, the 26th of October, and that was in relation to the
10 first Rule 92 ter witness that the Chamber
heard. And on that occasion,
11 His Honour Judge Harhoff emphasised to the
Prosecution that if they wanted
12 to have documents admitted through a Rule
92 ter witness, then it should
13 only be a small number of documents. Judge Harhoff mentioned that he had
14 in mind one or two documents.
15 Your Honour, Judge Moloto, you
emphasised to the Prosecution that
16 the purpose of the Rule 92 ter exercise is
it should save time, and you
17 pointed out that you might save time on the
leading side, but the result
18 could be that you're expanding it on the
cross-examining side. So
19 essentially, in my submission, that's what
we're looking at here today.
20 Finally, Your Honours, just to
close on this point, and this is
21 really more an observation: This witness is an important witness, and
22 what the Defence would point out is that it
would seem that the
23 Prosecution are seeking to use this
approach of calling witnesses through
24 the Rule 92 ter procedure, tendering a lot
of documents, new documents,
25 through that witness, and they are
reserving this approach for the most
1
important witnesses or certainly some of the most important witnesses.
2
This is an approach that we, in principle, object to.
3
Now, it's obviously a matter to the Prosecution as to how they
4
conduct their case, but it's the Defence's belief that the Prosecution
5
should really be calling these important witnesses viva voce; and if
there
6 are
important documents to be put through these witnesses, then that
7
should be done during live testimony rather than adducing or seeking to
8
tender these documents in this summary fashion that will not allow for
9
proper scrutiny of the documents before they're admitted into the trial
10 record.
11 Your Honour, the remedy that I'm
seeking today, in conclusion, is
12 that the witness should be called viva voce
rather than being called
13 pursuant to Rule 92 ter.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Robson.
15 Mr. Mundis.
16 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President.
17 I'll be extremely brief, as my
colleague Mr. Neuner has been
18 dealing with this witness and is obviously
not in the courtroom at the
19 moment.
20 As a starting point, let me perhaps
just briefly offer the Trial
21 Chamber a proffer of what Mr. Vuckovic will
testify about, because I
22 believe that that sets forth relevant
information that Your Honours need
23 with respect to this issue.
24 This witness worked in the Security
Administration and was the
25 person who was in charge of compiling the
security bulletins. We've seen
1 a
small number of those documents here in court.
This witness received
2
information reports from subordinate units, including the corps, the
3
various corps, took those information reports, analysed and compiled
them,
4 and
created the security bulletins. He is,
in effect, the author of a
5
large number of these security bulletins which are on the Prosecution
6
exhibit list.
7
However, this witness is not in a position to testify about the
8
underlying events described in those documents. He is, in effect, the
9
compiler of the information that he receives. He compiled the
10 information, he did some analytical work,
he reduced the scope of some of
11 those incoming reports, perhaps, and
created the bulletins. He's not
12 going to be in a position, my understanding
is, at least from speak to go
13 Mr. Neuner.
14 My understanding is that the
witness will not be in a position to
15 comment about the accuracy of the
information he received, about the
16 sources of the information that he
received, et cetera. He is, in effect,
17 similar to a witness who would be an
archivist, for example. Someone who
18 would
say, "I created these bulletins," or, "Information came in to
me, I
19 compiled the information, I forwarded it
along." He's not going to be in
20 a position where he's going to have
independent knowledge about each and
21 every thing that was written in those
security bulletins.
22 So, in effect, the purpose of what
he's going to be testifying
23 about is simply how the bulletins were
created and what he did with them.
24 That is the limit of his testimony with
respect to the bulletins.
25 The more over-arching point,
however, which goes to the issue of
1 the
Defence challenge to the use of Rule 92 ter, let me briefly state, I'm
2 not
sure that the Defence has standing to even raise that issue. The
3 Defence should not be in a position to tell
the Prosecution how to lead
4 its
case. We have chosen to use the 92 ter
procedure for a number of
5
witnesses. Those witnesses have
been identified to the Defence, and it is
6
certainly well within the Prosecution duties and responsibilities to put
7 the
evidence before the Trial Chamber that the Trial Chamber needs in
8
order to reach the ultimate decisions on this case. The means and methods
9 by
which we do that, as long as they conform to the Rules and the Statute,
10 is a matter for the Prosecution.
11 Let me indicate that in this type
of situation, the obvious remedy
12 would be if the Defence requires additional
time for cross-examination, so
13 be it.
It's very clear, given the timing, that it's extremely unlikely
14 that Mr. Vuckovic would commence
cross-examination today under any
15 circumstance; and if the Defence certainly
needed more time to prepare
16 him, obviously we're not sitting tomorrow,
and they'll have adequate time
17 between today and Wednesday afternoon, when
we sit, to prepare for
18 cross-examination.
19 All of the bulletins and special
information reports that have
20 been referred to by my learned colleague, Mr.
Robson, were on the
21 Prosecution exhibit list. It's not like
these documents simply appeared
22 Saturday at 7.00 in the evening. They were all on the exhibit list.
23 They've all been disclosed. What we have simply done is updated the
24 exhibit list with adequate notice to the
Defence.
25 I will tell the Trial Chamber, with
respect to some of the time
1
issues Mr. Robson raised, Mr. Neuner met with this witness for several
2
hours on Friday afternoon. He met
with the witness for more than ten
3
hours on Saturday. All of these
bulletins were gone through by the
4
witness. The new 30-page
statement, that Mr. Robson refers to, we
5
produced and disclosed to the Defence and the Chamber's legal officers,
a
6
redline version, so the Defence could see exactly what was deleted, what
7 was
added, and what was changed. More than
ten of those 30 pages are
8
simply a table that describes all of the bulletins that the witness was
9
shown.
10 My understanding, from speaking to Mr.
Neuner, is that in a
11 conversation with Mrs. Vidovic, it was
decided that the descriptions,
12 which Mr. Robson has indicated contain some
erroneous information, those
13 descriptions are being removed from the
final version of the statement.
14 The witness, this morning or today, is
meeting -- actually, as I speak, is
15 meeting with Mr. Neuner, going through the
Bosnian language version of the
16 statement which was translated and
disclosed late last evening, in order
17 to sign the Bosnian language version of the
statement without the
18 erroneous descriptions in the accompanying
table.
19 We are doing everything we possibly
can to comply with the Rules
20 and to comply with the time limits that the
Trial Chamber has imposed upon
21 the Prosecution, and this procedure that we
have proposed with respect to
22 this witness and perhaps other witnesses
certainly complies with the Rules
23 and, in our respectful view, is a matter
for the Prosecution in terms of
24 how we present our case.
25 [Trial Chamber
confers]
1
MR. ROBSON: Your Honours, perhaps
if I could just respond to two
2
points raised by my learned friend.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes.
4
MR. ROBSON: Mr. Mundis has
suggested that the proper remedy for
5
this situation is to allow more time for Defence to cross-examine the
6
witness. With respect, Your
Honours, that would not solve the situation.
7 The
problem is that it's the late disclosure of this material, and the
8
real issue is the Defence has not had proper time to prepare and take
9
instructions, and that is something that will not be remedied by giving
10 Defence additional time to cross-examine
this witness.
11 The second point I would say, Your
Honour, is that it's been
12 suggested that the Defence may not have
standing to make this objection.
13 I'd refer the Trial Chamber back to a
discussion that took place several
14 weeks ago when the idea of using Rule 92
ter witnesses was first brought
15 up, and the Defence on that occasion said
that we would, in each instance,
16 reserve the right to object if we thought
it appropriate. If the Defence
17 sees a situation where the Prosecution are
not conforming with the spirit
18 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence and
the rights of the accused and
19 the Statutes are jeopardised, we will
object each and every time.
20 Finally, Your Honours, just to say
that there are more witnesses
21 to come.
There are more witnesses the Prosecution are proposing to call
22 under Rule 92 ter, important
witnesses. We don't have the exhibit
lists
23 for those witnesses, and we are certainly
bringing this problem to the
24 Trial Chamber's attention because we don't
want this issue to arise each
25 and every time there's an important Rule 92
ter witness.
1
JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr.
Robson.
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3
JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Mundis, two
questions I would like to raise
4
with you.
5
In your address, you said you gave adequate notice to the Defence,
6 and
what do you mean by "adequate notice"?
7 MR. MUNDIS: In terms of the exhibits to be shown to the
witness,
8
that was done on Friday, and I believe that that complies with the Trial
9
Chamber guidelines with respect to two days of notice with respect to
the
10 exhibits.
That's what I was referring to, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes.
Tell me, the exhibits that you show two days
12 before you come to court, are they not the
exhibits that are listed in the
13 65 ter list of which you gave long-time
notice?
14 MR. MUNDIS: Absolutely, Your Honour. I mentioned that earlier,
15 that certainly all of the documents we're
talking about are on the exhibit
16 list, which was filed more than a year
ago. All of these documents were
17 disclosed to the Defence a year ago, more
than a year ago. What we're
18 simply talking about are the documents to
be shown to this witness, and
19 the Defence was put on notice about those
documents on Friday.
20 And as I've indicated, it's
unlikely that the cross-examination
21 will begin today, anyway, so the Defence
will certainly have until
22 Wednesday at 2.15 to review that material
with respect to the specifics of
23 this witness.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.
My second question to you is:
What are
25 these information reports intended to show,
so many of them? If this
1
witness has got no personal knowledge of the contents and he's just
giving
2 us
an explanation of how he compiled these documents, why can't that be
3
shown, demonstrated with one copy?
4
MR. MUNDIS: Well, it could be,
Your Honour, and that's precisely
5 why
Mr. Neuner and the Prosecution team have proposed doing this in a
6
summary fashion; in other words, we're not proposing to sit down with
this
7
witness and have him flip through a large binder, which is what we're
8
talking about, and indicate that each and every one of those documents
was
9
created by him. He's done that in
the statement. The written statement
10 refers to each and every one of these
bulletins.
11 He will then, perhaps, be asked to
explain how they were created,
12 how he compiled them, and verify that, in
fact, all of those documents
13 were created in the manner in which he has
said that they were. The
14 contents, certainly, is a question of
weight that the Chamber may give to
15 those documents in the future.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: I think we are at cross-purposes. My question
17 was:
If he is to tell us how he compiled these documents, why can't the
18 Prosecution tender one copy of those
documents, of those reports, instead
19 of tendering a whole either 94, 117, 187 of
them in summary form, because
20 he is not speaking to the contents of these
documents anyway.
21 MR. MUNDIS: That is correct. He is, however, the author of the
22 documents.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: I understand that.
24 MR. MUNDIS: The documents contain information about the
El
25 Mujahedin Detachment. They contain information about incidents
involving
1
that unit. They contain a wide
range of references to the El Mujahedin
2
Detachment, and that's why each and every one of the documents that have
3
been selected are important and relevant to this case. It's not a
4
question of one of the documents; it's a question of a series of
documents
5
over a period of time where the El Mujahedin Detachment is discussed or
6
incidents involving that unit are discussed.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.
8
JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Mundis, can I
just put a couple of questions
9 in
extension of what the Presiding Judge has already asked you.
10 First of all, I point to our
guidelines, which you referred to
11 yourself, and I think the idea with the
guidelines was that the other
12 party should be given two working days'
notice before the start of the
13 testimony for that other party to read and
study the documents. Now, it
14 doesn't seem to me that this requirement is
fulfilled if you notify the
15 other party Friday evening for the witness
to testify Monday morning.
16 That's my first question.
17 My second question relates to your
interpretation of Rule 92 ter,
18 and this, mind you, has been the subject of
discussions and exchange of
19 views several times during this trial. I cannot claim that I have any
20 authoritative interpretation of this Rule,
but my own understanding of the
21 Rule is that there is and there should be
limits as to the number of
22 documents that can be tendered through a 92
ter witness, simply because
23 the purpose of the Rule lies in the
possibility of not having to examine
24 in chief the witness but let his statement
come in as a replacement of the
25 examination-in-chief, and then some
documents may be admitted through that
1
way.
2
But to imagine or to claim that the Rule 92 ter procedure would
3
enable any party to tender as many as 2.000 pieces of paper, I think, is
4
clearly beyond what was contemplated by Rule 92 ter. I'm not sure, even
5 if
you look at it from a broader perspective, that it is meaningful to
6
just load all the evidence you have on the Judges' table, simply because
7 there
are limits even as to what the Judges can digest; and so, therefore,
8 we
would expect each party to carefully select the evidence that includes
9
material of probative value which is relevant to the indictment.
10 And, so, unless you tell us that
all of these extra bulletin
11 reports, each of them, does include
material about the activities of the
12 El Mujahid Detachment and the other
Mujahedin groups, which is the basis
13 of the indictment, then I would be
reluctant to accept all of these extra
14 bulletin reports.
15 MR. MUNDIS: First of all, Your Honour, let me respond to
the
16 guidelines with respect to the working-day
issue. I do accept that, and
17 as I've indicated, this witness is not
likely to start cross-examination
18 until Wednesday at any rate, given the
amount of time that we've spent on
19 this issue and the fact that Mr. Sehic
still has to finish his direct
20 examination and be cross-examined, and then
Mr. Neuner would conduct a
21 limited direct examination of Mr.
Vuckovic. I think that's about as far
22 as we're going to go today, at any rate.
23 With respect to the Rule 92 ter
procedure and documents, let me,
24 as a general rule, indicate that I believe,
with all due respect, Your
25 Honour, that there is going to continue to
be a matter of disagreement
1
about the number of documents we can tender through a 92 ter
witness. The
2
Prosecution position is that a 92 ter witness is no different than any
3
other witness with respect to exhibits; and, simply, we -- our position
is
4
that if we need to show a witness five exhibits or ten exhibits or
twenty
5
exhibits, we can do that whether the witness is viva voce or 92 ter.
6
That's certainly the Prosecution's position.
7
With respect to what's been indicated as 2.000 documents, that's
8 not
exactly right. It's perhaps 2.000 pages.
9
JUDGE HARHOFF: That's what I
said.
10 MR. MUNDIS: But the fact of the matter is that my team
has gone
11 through each and every one of the bulletins
and there is, in fact,
12 relevant material in each and every one of
the documents that has been
13 selected and which were shown to this
witness. That's not to say that
14 each and every one of the 2.000 pages has
relevant material. I don't
15 believe that's the case. Some of these are 10- or 15-page bulletins of
16 which perhaps one paragraph or even one
sentence might be of relevance and
17 probative value, because the bulletins contain
information on all of the
18 corps.
19 So, in terms of Defence time for
preparation, they really need to
20 focus their attention on those sections
concerning information relating to
21 the 3rd Corps. Material about the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 6th, 7th
Corps are not
22 really of relevance to this case. So it's -- from within those numerous
23 bulletins, there is certainly relevant
material which has probative value
24 contained in each and every one of the
documents. That's precisely why
25 they were selected, and that's exactly why
they were put on the exhibit
1
list in the first place.
2
JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
3
Now, just in response to your interpretation of the guidelines, I
4
think that the guidelines do require each of the parties to submit the
5
lists of documents two working days before the start of the testimony,
and
6
this goes regardless of how many days it may then last until the other
7
party gets a bite, comes to the point of cross-examining. So I think your
8
interpretation of the guidelines is not completely in line with the
spirit
9 in
the guidelines.
10 As to your second question -- or
second answer about the correct
11 understanding of what Rule 92 ter allows a
party to do in terms of
12 admission of documents, I guess we'll have
to hand down a ruling on that,
13 so as to specify the way in which this
Chamber understands the Rule.
14 Maybe the time has come where the Chamber
should hand down such a ruling,
15 but I shall have to confer with my fellow
Judges about this issue.
16 In any case, if you have been able
to identify, out of those many
17 bulletins reports, a few places in each
where you have relevant evidence
18 about the El Mujahid Detachment and the
Mujahedin groups, I think it would
19 fall upon your shoulders, then, to direct
the Chamber's and the Defence
20 Counsels' attention directly to these,
which will perhaps enable us to
21 have a better look, rather than having to
read all the 2.000 pages and
22 find for ourselves the few places that you
have identified.
23 I would like you, as a courtesy to
the Bench, to continue to do so
24 also in the future, not only to notify the
Defence of which paragraphs or
25 sentences that you are referring to, but
also to do so to the Bench,
1
because we are, in the end, the recipients of your evidence.
2
MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Your
Honour.
3
With respect to -- let me start, then, in order to correct the
4
two-day rule, the Prosecution will not call Mr. Vuckovic today. We will
5
commence his direct examination on Wednesday, which should cure the
"two
6
working day" problem that has arisen with respect to the
announcement of
7 his
exhibits.
8
My colleague, Mr. Neuner, indicates he will be in a position to
9
indicate precisely which paragraph or sentence or page of each of the
10 bulletins is directly relevant. I believe that will take him until
11 tomorrow morning in order to do, but we
will certainly disclose that in
12 the form of most likely a table, indicating
precisely which page,
13 paragraph, or sentence is particularly relevant
and probative to these
14 issues, and that will be disclosed as soon
as it is available both to the
15 Defence and to the Chamber's legal staff.
16 I believe, as I've indicated, Mr.
Neuner tells me that will take
17 him the most of the rest of today and into
tonight in order to have that
18 accomplished, and we'll have that disclosed
tomorrow morning to the
19 Defence and to the Trial Chamber.
20 I should also just use this
opportunity, however, to again
21 telegraph an issue that we have raised on
several prior occasions,
22 particularly when this issue comes up, and
that goes to the issue of a
23 motion to tender documents from the Bar
table. We are in the position or
24 in the process of compiling such a
motion. I would hope it would be
25 available within the next
1
I will indicate, as a starting point, with respect to this witness
2 and
these bulletins, that in the event the Prosecution is unable to get
3
these documents into evidence through this witness, who again is the
4
author of these documents, I am certainly putting the Defence on notice
5
right now that these bulletins will be among those which we will be
6
tendering from the Bar table in the future, in the event we're not able
to
7 use
this procedure with respect to this witness.
8
So our position is it's much better for the Defence to have the
9
author of the documents and be in a position to cross-examine him as to
10 how the material, how the bulletins were
created, rather than to have
11 those documents be the form -- be submitted
in the form of a motion from
12 the Bar table based upon the witness's
testimony as to how they were
13 created.
14 JUDGE HARHOFF: I'm just waiting for the French translation.
15 Mr. Mundis, I find myself in a
conundrum here. If this witness is
16 unable to testify to the contents of the
reports, which I understand he
17 will be, I mean, he will be unable to
testify about the correctness of the
18 information included in these reports, then
what is the purpose for the
19 Defence to cross-examine him on the
contents?
20 As far as I understand, but I may
be wrong - and please tell me so
21 if I am - as far as I understood, the only
thing this witness can testify
22 to is whether or not that information was
passed on to General Delic. Is
23 that correct?
24 MR. MUNDIS: Your Honour, at this point, I'm going to
defer to
25 Mr. Neuner, who, as I've indicated, has
spent more than 12 hours
1
discussing these documents with the witness and is in a much better
2
position than I am to inform the Trial Chamber about what the witness
can
3 say
with respect to each and every one of the bulletins.
4
MR. NEUNER: Good morning, Your
Honours.
5
I tried to explain what the witness may do without intending to
6
testify about the witness's position, but I just try to give an indication
7
about the witness's position in the system. In essence, what I have
8
learned the last days spending with the witness is that he is, as part
of
9 the
Security Administration of the General Staff, subordinated to
10 Mr. Jasarevic, the head of that Security
Administration.
11 Incoming documents, for example,
relevant to this trial coming
12 from the 3rd Corps were then, as the
witness told me, divided by
13 Mr. Jasarevic to the different sections
within the Security
14 Administration, including to his section,
the Analysis Department. He, as
15 head of the Analysis Department, had, so to
speak, the first grip on
16 documents from the 3rd Corps, for example,
and was within his Analysis
17 Department then assigning the analysis of
these documents to certain
18 people working for him.
19 So these people then wrote an
analysis about the incoming reports
20 from the 3rd Corps, for example, and later
on proposed to him that these
21 portions out of the document are relevant
to be included into a bulletin
22 which went to Mr. Delic and other members,
such as the president of the
23 Presidency, such as the prime Prime
Minister, the Minister of Defence, and
24 so on.
So it was not possible to include information into the bulletin
25 without this witness having it assigned
before an analyst, without the
1
witness getting the proposal from the analyst back, and proving that, so
2 to
speak, the information proposed would go into the bulletin.
3
So, while the witness may not have had the -- may not have done,
4
himself, the analysis, he was certainly in-depth involved in the
selection
5
process, in the process of approving that a certain amount of
information
6 went into a bulletin.
7
I hope this helps to understand the importance of the witness. He
8
can, out of this position, probably also make a comment about a certain
9
portion, if Your Honours or if the Defence wishes to cross-examine him
on
10 this.
11 [Trial Chamber
confers]
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: We're going to take a break and come
back. We will
13 reconvene in a short while.
14 Court adjourned.
15 --- Recess taken at
16 --- On resuming at
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Paragraph 20 of the Guidelines on Admission
and
18 Presentation of Evidence and Conduct of
Counsel in Court states: "Barring
19 exceptional circumstances, with the leave
of the Trial Chamber, the
20 parties may not tender into evidence
lengthy documents such as books where
21 only portions thereof are relevant to the
evidence of the witness through
22 whom the document is tendered; rather, when
seeking the admission into
23 evidence of such documents, be it during
examination-in-chief,
24 cross-examination, or re-examination, each
party is requested to specify
25 which portions of the document it seeks to
have admitted. Each tendering
1
party is also requested to submit electronic versions of the portions of
2 the
documents sought to be admitted."
3
The Chamber is of the view that this is an exceptional
4
circumstance, and the exceptional circumstance is there in the fact that
5
these documents are intended to be tendered not for the truthfulness of
6
their content but for proofing a particular pattern. This witness,
7
therefore, in the Chamber's understanding of the purpose for which he is
8
being called, cannot be cross-examined on the content, but can be
9
cross-examined on what he did with the documents.
10 It does not seem to be extremely
necessary, therefore, to know
11 exactly what is in the documents
themselves; and even if we do know,
12 that's not what this witness can talk
about. For that reason, the Chamber
13 feels that the documents may and can and
should be admitted through the 92
14 ter procedure.
15 Judge Harhoff wants to say
something.
16 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, Mr. President.
17 I was having difficulties with the
Prosecution's interpretation of
18 Rule 92 ter, and so I used the break to
study the history of that
19 particular provision in our Rules. I want to, for the record, say that my
20 understanding was perhaps not quite
correct, because I have been able to
21 ascertain that when Rule 92 ter was
introduced about a year ago, there was
22 no understanding of any formal limit as to
the number of documents that
23 could be admitted through this procedure.
24 Still, I do have difficulties with
the way in which crucial
25 evidence is admitted through the
application of Rule 92 ter. This goes to
1 the
number of the documents; although, I realise that there is no formal
2
limit to the number of documents in the history of Rule 92 ter. It also
3
goes to the nature of the witness, and it goes to the directness of the
4
evidence that is being introduced, because I would have preferred,
5
somehow, if the evidence that is contained in these reports could be
6
introduced in a more direct manner.
7
The reason I go along with the decision, and I do, is that, as the
8
Presiding Judge outlined very clearly in his handing down of the
decision,
9 is
that these is, indeed, exceptional circumstances. The exceptional
10 circumstance, as far as I see it, is that
there is no other way in which
11 this evidence could be introduced, because
even if we were to use Rule 65
12 ter and have this witness examined as a
viva voce witness, we would be
13 facing the same problem; namely, that he
could not testify to the
14 truthfulness and the accuracy of the
information included in these
15 reports.
16 So we would not be helped by using
any other procedure. For that
17 reason, I will go along with the decision
that we will admit these
18 documents by way of Rule 92 ter; but, as
the Presiding Judge also said, of
19 course, in the end, we will only look at
the paragraphs that will be
20 identified by the Prosecution. So it's an admission with a caveat.
21 Thank you.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Judge.
23 Just to make a formal rendering,
then, the objection is overruled.
24 The Prosecution is allowed to tender the
documents through 92 ter,
25 provided, of course, that they follow
paragraph 20 of the guidelines; that
1 is,
identifying the specific parts that they want shown.
2
Thank you very much.
3
Can we call the witness now.
4
Yes, Mr. Mundis.
5
MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr.
President.
6
Just to take advantage of the time while the witness is being
7
brought in, I mentioned this to my learned colleagues from the Defence,
8 the
Prosecution has now replaced the Krcmar statements with redacted
9
versions of the statements. Those
original statements were marked for
10 identification as 642, 643, and 644. The redacted versions have now been
11 substituted for the unredacted
versions. The redacted versions are now
in
12 e-court; and, consequently, the Prosecution
would move for the admission
13 of 642, 643, and 644, which were previously
marked for identification.
14 Thank you.
15 [The witness entered
court]
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Any comment from the Defence on that point?
17 MR. ROBSON: No, Your Honour, that's fine.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.
Then the specific MFI documents are admitted
19 into evidence, and they are marked as
exhibits according to their
20 respective numbers.
21 Thank you very much.
22 Good morning, sir. Sorry, we didn't --
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good
morning, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just to explain why we didn't call you at
9.00, we
25 had some housekeeping problems to sort out before we could call you. I
1
hope you didn't feel very lonely while you waited.
2
Let me just remind you that you are still bound by the declaration
3
that you made at the beginning of your testimony yesterday - I beg your
4
pardon, it was on Friday - to tell the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing
5 but
the truth. Okay.
6
Mr. Mundis.
7
MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr.
President.
8 WITNESS: AHMET SEHIC (Resumed)
9 [Witness answered
through interpreter]
10 Examination by Mr.
Mundis: [Continued]
11 Q.
Good morning, Mr. Sehic.
12 A.
Good morning.
13 Q.
When we left off last week, sir, we were talking about what you
14 had observed in Kesten on
15 you arrived there. Can you tell the Trial Chamber, sir, the
approximate
16 number of prisoners or detained persons
that were present in Kesten on
17 that day at that time?
18 A.
Around 50. I'm not sure, but I
would say around 50.
19 Q.
And how many soldiers from your battalion or from your -- yeah,
20 from the 5th Battalion of the 328th
Mountain Brigade were present at that
21 time?
22 A.
I said that in the general sector of Kesten village, there were
23 about a hundred soldiers altogether.
24 Q.
And how many soldiers of the 2nd Company of the 5th Battalion were
25 in Kesten, in the
1
that time?
2
A. That's what I meant when I
said "a hundred." I meant a
hundred
3 men
from the 2nd Company. That's what I
meant.
4
Q. But my question, sir,
is: How many of them did you observe in
the
5
village of Kesten when you arrived on
6
A. At first, I saw a dozen of
them in the vicinity of the hall.
7
Q. Can you tell the Trial
Chamber, sir, what happened to these
8
prisoners or detained persons shortly after your arrival?
9
A. These detained Serb soldiers
had been kidnapped by the Arabs and
10 other soldiers of the El Mujahid. I believe they were all Arabs, but I
11 don't know which unit they belonged to,
actually.
12 Q.
What do you mean by "kidnapped," sir?
13 A.
The Arabs took them by force from the army, i.e., from the 2nd
14 Company that had originally captured these
soldiers.
15 Q.
Can you describe, sir, the situation by which, as you put it, the
16 Arabs took them by force from the army?
17 A.
I can't give you any details of that event. When I arrived at
18 Kesten, they had already surrounded
them. A majority were already
19 outside, almost all of them actually, and
some 20 Arabs, or maybe even
20 more, had surrounded their group.
21 And as far as I could understand,
an Arab who could also speak
22 Bosnian said that those were their
captives, but my deputy, Muhamed
23 Omerasevic, tried to explain to him that
those were soldiers that had been
24 captured by the 2nd Company. But since the Arabs outnumbered us, we could
25 not protect them, and the Arabs, very soon
after that, took them away.
1
Q. Now, Mr. Sehic, when you say
"took them away," can you tell the
2
Trial Chamber whether any of the prisoners or detainees remained in Kesten
3
after the Arabs took them away?
4
A. Two children, two civilians,
remained in Kesten. None of the
5
soldiers remained.
6
Q. Who were these two children,
these two civilians, as you put it?
7 Who
were these people?
8 A.
They were Serbs.
9
Q. Do you know approximately how
old these children were?
10 A.
Fifteen and 17, or maybe 14 and 17 approximately.
11 Q.
What happened to those two individuals?
12 A.
I took the two children with me and put them in a van. My deputy
13 was in the van. He returned to the command post with me. I drove them in
14 the direction of the command post. En route, in the
15 came across a patrol of the military
police. I pulled over and handed the
16 two children over to them, since they were
civilians.
17 Q.
Now, let me focus your attention back on the group of persons
18 taken away by the Arabs. Can you tell the Trial Chamber about that
group
19 of persons taken away, in terms of their
gender and ages?
20 A.
All the prisoners were male, and the ages ranged between 20 and
21 50, at the most.
22 Q.
Other than these male prisoners, did the Arabs take away anyone
23 else?
24 A.
I don't know. I didn't see that.
25 Q.
After the Arabs took this group of persons away, did you ever see
1
that group again?
2
A. No.
3
Q. Did you, at any point after
the Arabs took the group away, see any
4 of
the Arabs who had taken the persons away again?
5
A. I'm not sure. Probably not.
6
Q. Can you describe whether you
observed anything as you left in the
7 van
with the two persons you've described as children? Did you pass
8
through any villages on that occasion?
9
A. I passed through the
10 soldiers.
It seemed to me that they may have been those prisoners, but
11 I'm not sure.
12 Q.
Can you describe for the Trial Chamber what you meant by "a group
13 of soldiers" that you observed in the
14 A.
As I was passing through the
15 some 50 metres away from the spot where I
saw the group standing with
16 their backs facing me. I -- the thought occurred to me that they
might be
17 those very prisoners, but I am not sure.
18 Q.
After handing over the two, as you've called them, children to the
19 military police in Marici, where did you
go?
20 A. I
went to the command post. I ordered the
assistant commander for
21 Moral Guidance to draft a report and to
send it to the Moral Guidance
22 organ of the brigade.
23 Q.
Other than this step that you took, sir, what steps, if any, did
24 you take to brief the commander of the
328th Mountain Brigade, Mr. Zilkic,
25 on what you had observed in Kesten?
1
A. Yes. I went to the forward command post of
Commander Zilkic right
2
away and reported to him on all the events at Kesten. It was a verbal
3
report.
4
Q. And when you say, sir, that
you did this "right away," do you
5
recall the approximate time and date that you orally reported this to
6
Commander Zilkic?
7
A. On the 11th of September, at
around 1600 hours, 1600 hours.
8
Q. What concerns, if any, did
you have at the time the Arabs took
9
this group of prisoners away?
10 A.
All the orders we received from the superior command contained an
11 item specifying what was to be done with
persons captured and with war
12 booty.
The soldiers who did the military part of the task would be
13 rewarded, i.e., certain incentives would be
applied. I explained the
14 details to the commander, i.e., that the
soldiers of the 2nd Company took
15 the persons prisoner and that they ought to
have been rewarded for it, as
16 had the commanding officers who were
there. However, they took the
17 prisoners away, thus depriving the soldiers
of the benefits that were due
18 to them.
19 Q.
Do you recall, Mr. Sehic, whether at that time, on 11 September
20 1995, you had any concerns about the safety
or well-being of the persons
21 being taken away by the Arabs?
22 A.
At that point in time, no, not in particular, because the Arabs
23 themselves had had quite a few
prisoners. I thought that they would use
24 the prisoners to exchange them for their
own who had been captured or that
25 they would use these prisoners to receive
the benefits that were, in fact,
1 due
to the 2nd Company men. Those were my
thoughts at the time.
2
Q. What do you mean, sir, by you
thought that they might use these
3
prisoners to receive the benefits that were, in fact, due to the 2nd
4
Company men?
5
A. The benefits were rewards,
incentives, citations, that sort of
6
thing.
7
Q. Did you ever come to learn,
Mr. Sehic, what happened to the group
8 of
prisoners taken away from Kesten on
9 A.
Officially, no, never.
10 Q.
What about unofficially?
11 A.
Initially, there were stories to the effect that they had been
12 exchanged.
There were various stories collating, misinformation and
13 disinformation. It's quite difficult to say what these
stories were now,
14 more than 12 years later.
15 Q.
Do you ever recall, sir, whether this group of prisoners was ever
16 discussed at any briefings that you
attended within the 328th Mountain
17 Brigade?
18 A.
Perhaps, in the days shortly following that period, to my question
19 as to what was going to happen to the
soldiers of the 2nd Company who had
20 done that task, whether they would be
rewarded or not, the commander
21 responded that he didn't know what was
going to happen because he didn't
22 know whether the prisoners had been
exchanged or not, which meant that the
23 commander himself did not have any
information, and the same was true for
24 his subordinates.
25 MR. MUNDIS: I would ask now that the witness be shown
Exhibit
1
646. That's Exhibit 646.
2
Q. Mr. Sehic, do you see the
document on the screen in front of you?
3
A. Yes.
4
MR. MUNDIS: Perhaps if we could
go to the original, the second
5
page of this exhibit.
6
Q. Can you tell us, sir, what
this document is?
7
A. This is a list of captured
Serb soldiers, drafted by my assistant
8 for
Security.
9
Q. And who was the assistant for
Security?
10 A.
Mr. Izet Karahasanovic.
11 Q.
Do you know when Mr. Karahasanovic drafted this document and
12 where?
13 A.
I think it was written on the 11th of September, after 1300 hours,
14 in the
15 Q.
Now, at the very top line, we see a date and the time. Do you
16 know who made those markings on this
document?
17 A.
The date was written by Mr. Karahasanovic; whereas, I added the
18 time at a later stage.
19 Q.
And when you say, sir, that this is a list of captured Serb
20 soldiers, where were these Serb soldiers
captured?
21 A.
Well, I don't know where. Perhaps
they were exchanged. I don't
22 know.
23 Q.
What happened to the people who were listed on this document?
24 A.
I don't understand. Can you be
more specific about what happened?
25 Q.
Earlier today, sir, you described how the Arabs took a group of
1
persons away. Are these the same
persons or different persons, or do you
2 not
know the answer to that question?
3
A. I think those were the same
persons, and I mean the ones on the
4
list here.
5
MR. MUNDIS: Can we go, please, to
the first page of the document,
6 the
original. I should just inform the Chamber
that when these were
7
ERN'd, the documents were ERN'd in the incorrect order, which is why the
8
pages were like this.
9
Q. Sir, again, I ask you if you
could carefully look at this document
10 and tell the Trial Chamber whose handwriting
appears on this page of the
11 document.
12 A.
The list of Serb soldiers was written by Karahasanovic. Whatever
13 I added to the text, I underlined.
14 Q.
Sir, that was -- when you made a reference to text that you
15 underlined, that was when you were
interviewed by an investigator of the
16 Tribunal; is that correct?
17 A.
Yes.
18 MR. MUNDIS: I'm going to ask, if the usher could assist,
if the
19 witness could be provided with an
electronic pen.
20 Q.
I'm going to ask you, sir, to underline any text on this page
21 which you wrote, personally.
22 A.
[Marks]
23 Q.
Now, Mr. Sehic, I'm going to ask you, sir, about this part that
24 you've underlined, which is the part that
you, yourself, wrote. Do you
25 recall when and where you were when you
made these handwritten markings on
1
this document?
2
A. I made these additional notes
as soon as I learned the
3
information. It was at a later
stage, not contemporaneously. I made
some
4
annotations even after the war, in 1997 perhaps. I'm not sure.
5
Q. Can you take us through, sir,
the text of what's written after the
6
name of the person listed next to number 51? Can you tell us what that
7
refers to?
8
A. "Four, Arabs took away
right away," is that what you meant?
9
Q. Yes. Can you tell us what that refers to,
"Four were taken away
10 by the Arabs"?
11 A.
At first, Company Commander Sogolj informed me that the Arabs had
12 taken away four prisoners right away;
however, they handed these four
13 prisoners to the soldiers of the 2nd Corps
to use them as help to pull out
14 seriously-wounded or killed soldiers. I'm not sure.
Subsequently, I
15 learned that the four Serb soldiers were
exchanged, but I'm not sure about
16 that.
17 Q.
Do you know, sir, when and where these four prisoners were handed
18 over to the 2nd Corps?
19 A.
In the general sector of Kesten, on the very day, the 11th of
20 September, at around 1400 or 1500 hours.
21 Q.
Now, sir, the next line, can you read that out and describe what
22 that refers to, please?
23 A.
In the group of prisoners, there were three women, too, who the
24 security officer separated from the men and
sent them, together with the
25 courier, to the command post of Marici.
1
Later on, I came to know that one of the women had been
2
called "Slobodanka," but this is all second-hand information.
3
Q. Do you recall, sir, who told
you that one of them was
4
named "Slobodanka"?
5
A. It was probably the assistant
for Security or some of the
6
soldiers. I'm not sure.
7
Q. What about the next line?
8
A. "Two soldiers
killed." These were killed Serb
soldiers lying on
9 the
roadside in the Kesten area. I don't
know if they are among the
10 persons listed here. Probably not.
11 Q.
Okay. Do you know the
circumstances under which these two Serb
12 soldiers were killed by the roadside?
13 A.
No, no, neither the time nor the circumstances. I think that they
14 had been killed probably before the other
ones surrendered, since they
15 were lying by the roadside. I'm not sure.
16 Q.
Did you inquire about what had happened to them from any soldiers
17 of your unit who were present?
18 A.
Yes.
19 Q.
What, if anything, were you told after you made these inquiries?
20 A.
Before the soldiers entered the
21 killed.
They must have been killed during the fighting.
22 Q.
Can you tell us, sir, what the next line on this document refers
23 to?
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: May I just interrupt.
25 Had there been fighting in the
1
time on that day?
2
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. There was
3
fighting in the morning.
4
JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very
much.
5
You may proceed, sir.
6
MR. MUNDIS:
7
Q. Mr. Sehic, can you look,
then, at the next line on this document
8 and
tell us what that's about?
9
A. "Two children
released." Those were the two
children I drove in a
10 van. They were civilians.
11 Q.
And what about the next line on the document, sir?
12 A.
This is one of the two who was from Miljevici, and later on we
13 learned that he lived somewhere around
Kotorski.
14 Q.
When you say, sir, "this is one of the two," what are you
15 referring to? What two are you referring to?
16 A.
Two lads, two civilians who were in the van and who were
17 exchanged.
18 Q.
And in the first line of this subcategory, there appears a name.
19 Do you see that name, sir?
20 A.
Yes.
21 Q.
How did you obtain that name?
22 A.
I think that the lad told me what his name was in the van, and
23 that he told me he hailed from Miljevici or
Podvolujak. I'm not sure. I
24 wrote
that earlier on; and after perhaps two or three years, I wrote that
25 he was living in Kotorski.
1
Q. Do you know, sir, what Mr.
Karahasanovic did with this list after
2 he
compiled it?
3
A. I think he submitted it to
the security organs of the 328th
4
Brigade.
5
MR. MUNDIS: I would ask now that
the witness be shown the
6
document previously --
7
JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I have a question regarding this
8
document.
9
I would like to know what were the circumstances and what were the
10 reasons for which, after the war, you put
those written annotations on
11 this document?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was
interested in knowing whether
13 the two children I drove in my van were
exchanged or not, and we came to
14 know that they had been exchanged, indeed,
and that they were alive.
15 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] So
if we were -- if only the
16 children were the main focus of your
interest, why were you then also
17 thinking or being preoccupied by other
prisoners, after the war of course?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In
the beginning, as I said, as we
19 came by information, I added it to this
document. Since I did not learn
20 anything new about the others, I didn't
make any annotations.
21 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation]
Yes, but I still don't
22 understand.
That information, you wanted to do what with that
23 information, to make an investigation? Why did you need this information?
24 I still don't understand.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]
No. I wasn't able to conduct an
1
investigation. I was simply
wondering about these persons. Being a
human
2
being, I was interested in knowing what their destiny was, what fate
they
3
suffered.
4
JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Was it was a personal interest,
5 or
was it for official purposes that you wanted to know this?
6
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was a personal interest.
7
JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, sir.
8
MR. MUNDIS: Your Honours, the
Prosecution would ask that the
9
marked version of this document be captured and admitted into evidence,
10 please.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: I see it's no longer marked on the screen --
I beg
12 your pardon, I'm sorry. The marked portion of that document is
admitted
13 into evidence. May it please be given an exhibit number.
14 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit number
695.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
16 MR. MUNDIS: I would ask now if the witness could be shown
the
17 document previously marked PT2501, PT2501.
18 Q.
Do you see the document on the screen in front of you, sir?
19 A.
Yes.
20 Q.
Can you tell the Trial Chamber what this document is, please?
21 A.
This is a regular daily combat report by the brigade commander to
22 the division commander.
23 Q.
And which brigade commander, sir?
24 A.
328th Mountain Brigade.
25 MR. MUNDIS: Could we please go to page 3 of the document
in
1
English and page 2 of the document in Bosnian, and if we could focus on
2
paragraph 4, which is on the bottom in the Bosnian and in the middle of
3
page 3 in the English.
4
Q. Sir, do you see paragraph 4
of this document?
5
A. Yes.
6
Q. Do you see the second bullet
point or the second line under the
7
number "4"?
8
A. Yes.
9
Q. Can you take a moment, sir,
to read that to yourself, and then
10 I'll ask you some questions about that.
11 Have you read that, Mr. Sehic?
12 A.
Yes.
13 Q.
Can you please comment on what's contained under the second bullet
14 point of paragraph 4 of this document?
15 A.
In his regular combat report to the Division, the commander
16 informs them that in Kesten village, 61
enemy soldiers and three women
17 were captured and that two children were
exchanged, i.e., handed over to
18 the military police.
19 Q.
Do you know, sir, how it was that the 328th Mountain Brigade
20 commander had this information?
21 A.
I've already told you that at the forward command post, I reported
22 to him about everything that had transpired
in Kesten, and I suppose that
23 after that the commander drafted a written
report and forwarded it, that
24 report, to his superiors.
25 Q.
And so, sir, so we're all clear, are you telling us that you were
1 the
source of this information contained in this paragraph? This was
2
based on your oral briefing to Commander Zilkic?
3
A. I suppose so, probably.
4
JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Robson.
5
MR. ROBSON: Your Honour,
objection. I'm wondering how that
6
witness can give the answer to that question. If he can, perhaps the
7
witness can explain why, how he knows that he's the source.
8
JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Robson, I've
got a problem with you're
9
objecting, and then you say, "If he can, he can explain
why." What do you
10 want him to do? Do you want him stopped from telling, or do
you want him
11 explaining how?
12 MR. ROBSON: Well, Your Honour, from the question asked, I
think
13 it should be established whether the
witness can -- is in the position to
14 know whether he was the source of this
information or whether there could
15 have been other sources. It was put to him that, "Were you the
source of
16 this information?"
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, and it was because he had said,
"I've already
18 told you that I worked and made a verbal
report to my commander." So he
19 may be a source or one of the sources.
20 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, I withdraw the objection.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
22 Yes, Mr. Mundis.
23 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President.
24 The Prosecution tenders PT2501 into
evidence.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: PT2501 is admitted into evidence, and may it
--
1
MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, if I
could just interject, this witness
2 has
been -- it has appeared previously in proceedings. I understand that
3 it's either an MFI exhibit or it is an
exhibit. I am just trying to find
4 out
what that is. I'm told it's Exhibit
480. It may be that Exhibit 480
5
pertained to a different PT number, but it's the same document, I'm
told.
6
JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. I don't know.
We can find out.
7
MR. MUNDIS: My case manager is
checking that as well, and perhaps
8
I'll move on and then we can revisit that in just a moment.
9
JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.
10 MR. MUNDIS:
11 Q.
Mr. Sehic, I would now like to turn your attention to earlier
12 events; that is, events in January 1995.
13 Are you familiar, sir, with a
location known as "Rudine"?
14 A.
Yes.
15 Q.
Can you tell us where that place is, sir?
16 A.
It is on the defence line of the 5th Battalion, in front of the
17 Paljenik facility or feature.
18 Q.
And, sir, in January 1995, what ARBiH unit, if any, was at this
19 location?
20 A.
The 5th Battalion was on that defence line, and I was its
21 commander.
22 Q.
How long did the 5th Battalion remain on the defence line at
23 Rudine?
24 A.
At Rudine, until January. In
January, five or six firing points
25 were taken over by the El Mujahid unit.
1
MR. MUNDIS: I would ask that the
witness now be shown the
2
document PT1942, PT1942. And
while that's coming up, my case manager has
3
also confirmed that the previous document was, in fact, Exhibit 480 --
4
JUDGE MOLOTO: It's an MFI document.
5
MR. MUNDIS: -- which was marked
as MFI, so we would go ahead and
6
tender that into evidence, please.
7
JUDGE MOLOTO: May the document
then be admitted into evidence
8 and
given an exhibit number.
9
THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that
will remain as Exhibit 480.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.
11 Mr. Mundis, if we can go back to
the transcript, at page 42, line
12 7, you're asking -- I beg your pardon, line
5, you're asking the
13 question:
"How long did the 5th Battalion remain on the defence line at
14 Rudine?"
15 And the answer is: "At Rudine, until January. In January, five
16 or six firing points were taken over by the
El Mujahid unit."
17 They had already been there in
January, so they only stayed for
18 the month of January. Is that the answer, sir?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No,
Your Honour. That defence line
20 was manned by them for some three months or
so, from January to April, as
21 far as I can remember.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: When you say "manned by them," who?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The
soldiers from the El Mujahid
24 unit.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: But my question to you is: Before the soldiers
1
from the El Mujahedin Detachment came in to man that place, how long had
2 the
5th Battalion been there? Because you
told us that the 5th Battalion
3 had
been there in January, and the question by the lawyer was: "How long
4 had
the 5th Battalion remained in Rudine for, before the El Mujahid took
5
over," if you know? If you
don't know --
6
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not sure.
7
JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr.
Sehic.
8
Mr. Mundis, you may proceed.
9
MR. MUNDIS:
10 Q.
Mr. Sehic, do you see the document on the screen in front of you?
11 A.
Yes.
12 Q.
Can you tell the Trial Chamber what this document is, please?
13 A.
A regular daily combat report from the 328th to the Division
14 or - I don't know - in any case, to their
superior command.
15 MR. MUNDIS: Could we please go, in the Bosnian version,
to the
16 middle half of the document, and could we
please go to page 2 in the
17 English version.
18 Q.
Mr. Sehic, do you see, under paragraph 2, the eighth bullet point
19 down?
20 A.
Yes.
21 Q.
This paragraph or this bullet point begins: "In the zone of
22 responsibility of the 5th
Battalion." I'm referring to that
one. Do you
23 see that, sir?
24 A.
Yes.
25 Q.
Can you tell the Trial Chamber what this refers to?
1
A. This is an inspection of the
zone of responsibility in front of
2 the
5th Battalion in the Popovo-Osoje sector -- in the Popovo-Osoje-Rudine
3
sector, in order to take over these firing points that I just mentioned.
4
Q. And can you just tell the
Trial Chamber briefly, what is referred
5 to
when you say "firing points"?
6
A. On any defence line, there
are places where soldiers secure the
7
line. Those are the so-called
firing points on the defence line. They
8 are
trenches or dugouts.
9
Q. Now, sir, this part of the
document makes reference to the Command
10 of the 5th Battalion and officers from the
El Mujahid Detachment made this
11 inspection.
Do you recall who from the 5th Battalion was involved in this
12 inspection of the line?
13 A.
Probably somebody from the Command.
I don't remember. I wasn't
14 there.
I suppose that it was either the deputy, the -- or the assistant
15 for Security and Intelligence, because
those people were the most
16 responsible ones for the defence line.
17 MR. MUNDIS: The Prosecution would ask that this document
be
18 admitted into evidence, please.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it
20 please be given an exhibit number.
21 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number 696.
22 MR. MUNDIS: Can we please show the witness document
PT1943,
23 PT1943.
24 Q.
Sir, do you recognise this document?
25 A.
Yes. These are reports by the
brigade commander.
1
Q. Can you please focus your
attention, sir, on, again, paragraph 2,
2 the
line that begins immediately below the letters "BVG," and this is at
3 the
very bottom of the English. Do you see
what I'm referring to, sir?
4
A. Yes.
5
Q. Can you tell the Trial
Chamber what this refers to?
6
A. I suppose this is a report by
the brigade commander to his
7
superior command, stating that the soldiers of the El Mujahid Detachment
8 had
taken over the six firing points in question towards the end of
9
January 1995.
10 MR. MUNDIS: The Prosecution moves for this document to be
11 admitted into evidence, Your Honours.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it
13 please be given an exhibit number.
14 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number 697.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
16 MR. MUNDIS: We'd ask that the witness now be shown
PT2032,
17 PT2032.
18 Q.
And while that document is coming up, sir, a few moments ago, in
19 response to a question from the Presiding
Judge, you told us that the El
20 Mujahedin unit stayed at that location for
a number of months. Is that
21 correct?
22 A.
As far as I can remember, two or three.
23 Q.
Do you see the document on the screen in front of you, sir?
24 A.
Yes.
25 Q.
Can you tell the Trial Chamber what this document is?
1
MR. MUNDIS: Perhaps if we could
have the full view on the Bosnian
2 version.
3
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is my order for the new
4
hand-over of the six firing points.
I correct the line of defence in
5
order to reduce the number of firing points because the El Mujahid unit
6 had
left that line of defence.
7
MR. MUNDIS:
8
Q. Can you focus your attention,
sir, on paragraph 3 of the document,
9 and
can you comment on that paragraph, please?
10 A.
This means that on
11 5th Battalion or the 2nd Company of the 1st
Battalion were supposed to
12 take the defence line that had previously
been manned by the El Mujahedin
13 unit, and that this had to be carried out
by 1200 hours. This means that
14 the El Mujahedin troops had left that part
of the line in order to man the
15 line so that the line wouldn't be left
unmanned. The soldiers of the 5th
16 Battalion were supposed to take it again.
17 MR. MUNDIS: The Prosecution asks that this document be
admitted
18 into evidence, please.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it
20 please be given an exhibit number.
21 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number 698.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
23 MR. MUNDIS: And can the witness now be shown PT2086,
please.
24 PT2086.
25 Q.
And while that's coming up: Sir,
on Thursday, as reflected on
1
pages 5017 and 5018 of the transcript, you made reference to troops --
30
2
troops directly involved in the operations Proljece and Farz 1995. Do you
3
remember that, sir?
4
A. Yes, approximately 30.
5
Q. Do you see the document on
the screen in front of you, sir?
6
A. Yes.
7 Q.
What is this document?
8
A. This is an order to attack
from the Command of the 35th Division.
9
Q. And to whom is this document
addressed?
10 A.
I can't see the addressee of the document. I -- it was approved
11 by the commander of the 35th Division, and
it was the 328th Brigade that
12 issued this order. It was issued by Commander Zilkic.
13 MR. MUNDIS: Can we please go to page 2 of this document
in
14 Bosnian and page 4 in English.
15 Q.
Do you see, sir, under paragraph 2:
"Our forces," "Nasa Snaga"?
16 A.
Yes.
17 Q.
And the 2nd paragraph or subparagraph under paragraph 2 refers to
18 the 328th Mountain Brigade. Do you see that, sir?
19 A.
Yes.
20 Q.
And, then, if we go down to the bottom or towards the bottom of
21 that page, we see a series of numbers. Do you see that?
22 A.
Yes.
23 Q.
Can you comment upon this part of the document, please?
24 A.
This document refers to the assignment of soldiers from the 328th
25 Mountain Brigade, 12 from each of the
battalions, and their attachment to
1 the
El Mujahid unit. They were mostly used
to carry the wounded.
2
MR. MUNDIS: And, perhaps, in the
English version, we could go to
3 the
top of the next page.
4
Q. Do you see the reference to
your battalion, sir, on this document?
5
A. Yes, the 5th Battalion of the
328th Brigade, ten men.
6
Q. And what was the purpose, as
you've told us this document refers
7 to
the assignment of soldiers from the 328th and their attachment to the
8 El
Mujahid unit, what was the purpose for subordinating soldiers to the El
9
Mujahid unit?
10 A.
The El Mujahid Detachment did not number a lot of soldiers at the
11 time, so they used our soldiers in order to
carry out the wounded.
12 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, objection. The phrase used earlier by
13 the witness was "attachment," and
in the last question by the Prosecutor,
14 it
was asked: "What was the purpose
for subordinating soldiers to the El
15 Mujahid unit?" So it was a leading question, suggesting that
this was
16 subordination.
17 In our submission, there's a
difference between "detachment" -- or
18 there could be a difference between
"detachment" and "subordination."
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: There could be a difference between?
20 MR. ROBSON: "Detachment" --
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: "Detachment" or
"attachment."
22 MR. ROBSON:
Your Honours, I'm trying to find the exact expression
23 used by the witness. I believe it was "attachment."
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's right.
Okay.
25 Mr. Mundis, do you follow the
drift?
1
MR. MUNDIS: I do, but I think
it's a distinction without a
2
difference, but I'll rephrase the question.
3
Q. Sir, can you tell the Trial
Chamber why men were attached from the
4 5th
Battalion of the 328th Brigade to the El Mujahid unit?
5
A. The El Mujahid unit used the soldiers from the
5th Battalion,
6
i.e., from the 328th Brigade, to carry the fallen and wounded soldiers,
7
which is exactly what is stated in the document. Usually, one of the
8
commanders would go together with our soldiers, which means that those
9
soldiers were not under the command of the El Mujahid unit. They were
10 just assigned to them to assist them with
some tasks, such as the carrying
11 of the wounded.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Could we go to the previous page,
please. Can we
13 go to the previous page on this document,
both. I want the witness --
14 well, stay on the same page in B/C/S.
15 Sir, I would like to understand
something, and you may be able to
16 explain it to us by reading the B/C/S
version. It says here, if you look
17 at the 3rd and 4th Battalions: "11 fighters, plus 15 carriers of the
18 wounded." So it seems as if, from the 3rd Battalion,
not only are we
19 getting carriers of the wounded, but we are
also getting fighters. Eleven
20 of them are fighters and 15 of them are
carriers, so it doesn't look to me
21 as if the battalions were being assigned to
the El Mujahid Detachment for
22 purposes of carrying the wounded only, but
also for fighting.
23 Am I wrong in that?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your
Honour, the El Mujahid unit did
25 not trust the soldiers that manned the
defence line, and it would only
1
very rarely use them in combat because they did not have enough
2
experience. Sometimes they would
use them if the conflict was a
3
smaller-scale one. They mostly
used them to carry their wounded.
4
JUDGE MOLOTO: Would this be one
of those rare occasions where
5
they used them also for combat?
6
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not sure.
7
JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. You may proceed.
8
MR. MUNDIS: Your Honours, the
Prosecution moves this document
9
into evidence, please.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO:
The document is admitted into evidence.
May it
11 please be given an exhibit number.
12 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number 699.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
14 MR. MUNDIS: May the witness now be shown PT2096, PT2096.
15 Q.
Do you see this document, sir?
16 A.
Yes.
17 Q.
Can you tell the Trial Chamber what this document is, please?
18 A.
This is an order by the commander of the 328th Mountain Brigade.
19 Q.
And can we focus your attention, sir, on paragraph 3.
20 MR. MUNDIS: And for that purpose, we need to go to page 2
in the
21 English.
22 Q.
And, again, sir, in the middle of paragraph 3, again, we see some
23 numbers indicated. Can you tell the Trial Chamber what this
document
24 relates to, in terms of these numbers?
25 A.
Again, this is an order by which ten fighters and 30 carriers of
1 the
wounded are assigned from the 5th Battalion for the execution of a
2
certain task.
3
MR. MUNDIS: We would tender this
document into evidence, Your
4
Honours.
5
JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is
admitted into evidence. May it
6
please be given an exhibit number.
7
THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours,
Exhibit number 700.
8
JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very
much.
9
MR. MUNDIS: I note the time, Mr.
President.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
11 Are you saying you it is --
12 MR. MUNDIS: It would be convenient, Your Honour. I'm sorry.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: I beg your pardon. I thought you were saying you
14 just noted it, but you were still doing
something else. Thank you very
15 much.
16 We'll take an adjournment and come
back at half past 12.00.
17 Court adjourned.
18 --- Recess taken at
19 --- On resuming at
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Mundis.
21 MR. MUNDIS: Can the witness now be shown PT2103, please.
PT2103.
22 Q.
Mr. Sehic, can you tell us what this document is, please?
23 A.
I think this is a report of the brigade commander to the commander
24 of the 35th Division.
25 Q.
Can you please --
1
MR. MUNDIS: If we could scroll
down in the Bosnian version to the
2
very bottom of the document, and in the English, if we could go to page
3
3 in
the middle, please.
4
Q. Mr. Sehic, do you see the
very bottom paragraph of this document?
5
A. Yes.
6
Q. Can you tell us what that
refers to, please?
7
A. "Raising the unit's
readiness to full combat readiness, with
8
certain tasks. Take 12 soldiers
out of the reconnaissance unit and 30
9
helpers to carry the wounded, and leave them in the deployment area of
the
10 village of Sehici."
11 Q.
And, sir, can you tell us or tell the Trial Chamber the reference
12 to the 30 carriers for the wounded, what
other unit, if any, were these 30
13 carriers for the wounded deployed with?
14 A.
In the vicinity of the 4th Manoeuvre Battalion or other battalions
15 of the 328th Brigade, that's where they
were probably deployed. That's
16 the area of Sehici. At least this order states that they should
be on
17 standby.
18 MR. MUNDIS: We would ask that this document be admitted
into
19 evidence.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it
21 please be given an exhibit number.
22 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number 701.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
24 MR. MUNDIS: Can the witness now be shown PT2104,
please. PT2104.
25 Q.
Do you recognise this document, sir?
1
A. Yes.
2
Q. Can you tell us what this
document is, please?
3
A. This is the implementation of
the earlier order of the brigade
4
commander, whereby these 30 soldiers were detached from their units to
5
carry out the task of carrying the wounded. The commanding officers who
6
were supposed to be in charge of the 30 men were also designated in this
7
order.
8
At the point in time when the superior command decides to issue
9
such an order, they would be subordinated to the El Mujahid unit --
10 resubordinated to the El Mujahid unit.
11 Q.
If you could please focus your attention on paragraph 4.
12 MR. MUNDIS: And if we could go to the next page in the
English
13 translation, please.
14 Q.
Can you tell us what the meaning of paragraph 4 is?
15 A.
This means that together with the El Mujahid unit, they would be
16 assigned to a given task. Here, this relates to the 30 men assigned to
17 carry the wounded; and, probably, at the
certain point in time, they would
18 do precisely that.
19 Q.
And who signed this document, sir?
20 A.
I personally did.
21 MR. MUNDIS: We would ask that this document be admitted
into
22 evidence, Your Honours.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it
24 please be given an exhibit number.
25 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number 702.
1
JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very
much.
2 MR. MUNDIS: Can the witness now be shown PT2124, PT2124.
3
Q. Again, Mr. Sehic, I'd ask you
if you recognise this document.
4
A. Yes.
5
Q. Who signed this document?
6
A. I did.
7
Q. Can you please look at the
first paragraph of this document. Take
8 a
look at that, and I'd like to ask you some questions about that.
9
A. Yes.
10 Q.
Can you describe or recall -- if you recall, tell the Trial
11 Chamber what this paragraph relates to,
please.
12 A.
Out of every company, ten soldiers were supposed to be assigned to
13 keep the defence lines reached. That meant the total of 30 men.
14 Q.
Can you comment, sir, upon the phrase "with the El Mujahid
unit"
15 at the end of that paragraph?
16 A.
The El Mujahid unit had liberated the Podsjelovo feature in
17 offensive activities; and, as this was a
rather large area, they were
18 unable to hold it themselves. They, therefore, sought assistance from the
19 328th Brigade, or rather, its battalions,
who then reassigned some men out
20 of their units to hold the newly-reached
lines.
21 MR. MUNDIS: The Prosecution asks that this document be
admitted
22 into evidence, Your Honours.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it
24 please be given an exhibit number.
25 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number 703.
1
JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very
much.
2
MR. MUNDIS: We would ask the
witness now be shown PT2130, PT2130,
3 and
if we could please go to about --
4
Q. Let me ask you this,
sir: Do you recognise this document?
5
A. No.
6
MR. MUNDIS: I'll will withdraw
this document. Let's now show the
7
witness PT2162, PT2162.
8
Q. Do you recognise this
document, sir?
9
A. Yes. This is my document.
10 Q.
Can you turn your attention, please, to paragraph 2 of this
11 document.
I'd like to ask if you could perhaps elaborate or comment upon
12 paragraph 2 of this order.
13 A.
It was necessary to select ten most highly-skilled servicemen for
14 combat activities from each platoon,
probably because they were preparing
15 for certain combat actions.
16 Q.
Do you recall, sir, what combat actions?
17 A.
I believe that they were due to liberate the Podsjelovo feature.
18 I'm not sure.
19 MR. MUNDIS: The Prosecution tenders this document into
evidence,
20 Your Honours.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it
22 please be given an exhibit number.
23 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number 704.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
25 MR. MUNDIS: We would now ask the witness be shown PT2323,
PT2323.
1
Q. Do you recognise this
document, sir?
2
A. Yes.
3
Q. Who signed this document?
4
A. I signed it.
5
Q. Can you please look at
paragraph (a) of this document.
6
A. Yes.
7
Q. Can you comment upon what's
being ordered in this document of
8
yours, sir?
9
A. These are soldiers who had
been attached to the El Mujahid unit
10 earlier on and were probably about to be
attached to them again, in order
11 to carry out certain combat tasks on a
given date; that is to say, the
12 26th of July, 1995.
13 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, sir.
14 The Prosecution tenders this
document into evidence, Your Honours.
15 JUDGE HARHOFF: Excuse me, Mr. Prosecutor.
16 Could we elicit from the witness
how the soldiers that were
17 allocated or subordinated to the EMD for
these particular actions, how
18 were they taken back to the 2nd Company?
19 MR. MUNDIS:
20 Q.
Mr. Sehic, do you understand the question Judge Harhoff has asked
21 you?
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: Did you issue a new order to have them
assigned
23 back to you each time, or did they just
come back automatically after
24 having completed the actions for which they
were assigned to the EMD?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They
would come back of their own
1
accord once they completed their assignments. We did not write orders to
2
that effect.
3
JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
4
JUDGE MOLOTO: Do you tender it,
sir?
5
MR. MUNDIS: We do tender it, yes,
Your Honour.
6
JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. It is admitted. May it please be given an
7
exhibit number.
8
THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours,
Exhibit number 705.
9
JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very
much.
10 MR. MUNDIS:
11 Q.
Mr. Sehic, I'd like to turn to one final topic to discuss with
12 you, and that concerns training. Can you tell the Trial Chamber where the
13 5th Battalion of the 328th Mountain Brigade
conducted or underwent
14 training in 1995?
15 A.
Training was normally held in the general area of Gostovici, in
16 the hamlet of Sehici, from where most of
the soldiers in question hailed.
17 Q.
And when you say, sir, "in the area of Gostovici," can you
tell
18 the Trial Chamber in what location or
locations this training was held?
19 A.
For the most part, in the fields in the vicinity of the school
20 building or close to the logistics or rear
command post of the 5th
21 Battalion.
22 Q.
And who conducted the training which you've referred to in the
23 vicinity of the school?
24 A.
Normally, platoon commanders and some of the senior commanding
25 officers of the El Mujahid unit when it
came to religious training. It
1
depended on what kind of training it was.
2
Q. Can you describe for the
Trial Chamber a little bit about this
3
training which you've referred to by the officers of the El Mujahid
unit?
4
A. I did not attend their
training, and I cannot give you the details
5 of
it. Generally speaking, the soldiers, as
they came back from that
6
training, would complain about the El Mujahid officers having been hard
7
upon their heels, asking them to work.
It was mostly religious training,
8 and
some of it was dedicated to them being physically fit, in order to be
9
able to carry the wounded and pull the dead out of a combat area.
10 Q.
Now, with respect to soldiers of the 5th Battalion of the 328th
11 Mountain Brigade who underwent this
training from the El Mujahid unit
12 officers, can you describe for us how that
came about, in terms of how
13 people were selected or sent for this
training?
14 A.
Platoon commanders or company commanders did the selecting. I
15 didn't.
16 Q.
How long would this training last?
17 A.
A couple of days, two to three days, depending on how much spare
18 time the soldiers had. Normally, they didn't have much spare time
because
19 they were duty-bound to be on the defence
line. One unit would be manning
20 the defence line, one would be on standby,
and a third one would be
21 resting.
So they could not have lasted more than a day or two.
22 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. Sehic.
23 The Prosecution has no further
questions at this time, Your
24 Honours.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Mundis.
1
Mr. Robson.
2
MR. ROBSON: If you'll just bear
with me a moment, please, Your
3
Honours.
4 Cross-examination by
Mr. Robson:
5
Q. Good afternoon, Mr.
Sehic. I'll be asking you some questions
6
today on behalf of General Rasim Delic.
7
A. Good afternoon.
8
Q. Can you confirm, Mr. Sehic,
that before joining the ARBiH, you had
9
little or no military experience?
10 A.
Next to none.
11 Q.
You certainly hadn't served in a position as a commander of an
12 army unit?
13 A.
I hadn't.
14 Q.
And before the war, it's correct to say that you worked as a
15 metalworker?
16 A.
Yes.
17 Q.
Now, you told us that after holding various positions in the
18 ARBiH, it was in March or April of 1995
that you became the commander of
19 the 5th Battalion of the 328th Brigade; is
that so?
20 A.
Yes.
21 Q.
And during 1995, your headquarters was in the
22 and you had a rear command post in the
23 in the hamlet of Sehici?
24 A.
Yes.
25 Q.
Now, the Prosecution has just shown you a number of documents in
1
which the El Mujahid unit is mentioned.
It's correct, isn't it, that
2
during 1995, the El Mujahedin Detachment performed reconnaissance at the
3
front line where your battalion operated?
4
A. Yes.
5
Q. And is it correct to say that
on a number of occasions, the El
6
Mujahedin Detachment would pass through your battalion's area of
7
responsibility without making any announcement?
8
A. Well, they mostly never
announced that.
9
Q. Normally, if one army unit is
passing through the area of
10 responsibility of another unit, the
commander of that unit would expect to
11 receive some sort of communication about
the movement; is that correct?
12 A.
Correct, yes.
13 Q.
And it's right that problems can arise if you have one unit
14 passing through the unit of another without
any sort of communication or
15 announcement?
16 A.
Well, yes. For the most part,
there were problems with the El
17 Mujahid unit.
18 Q.
So the El Mujahedin Detachment didn't communicate to you when they
19 were passing through your area of
responsibility. It's right to say that
20 you could do nothing about that?
21 A.
That's correct.
22 Q.
If I can ask you about the appearance of these members of the El
23 Mujahedin Detachment that came into your area
of responsibility.
24 Would you agree with me that some
of them wore military uniforms;
25 whereas, others wore civilian clothing or
non-military clothing?
1
A. The El Mujahid passing through
my area of responsibility had some
2
sort of uniform, most of them.
But they did not have any insignia, and we
3
believed them all to be or to have been members of the El Mujahid unit.
4
Q. The Prosecution showed you a
document a little earlier about El
5
Mujahedin -- the El Mujahedin Detachment in your AOR.
6
MR. ROBSON: If we could please
bring up Exhibit 698, please.
7
Q. Now, Mr. Sehic, do you recall
being shown this document earlier
8
today?
9 A.
Yes.
10 Q.
You were asked about paragraph 3 of the document, which
11 states:
"By 1200 hours on
12 defence line which had been taken by the El
Mujahedin unit."
13 Now, is it right to say, Mr. Sehic,
that the reason you had to
14 issue this order was because earlier that
day, the El Mujahedin Detachment
15 had simply got up and left the front line
at about 9.00 in the morning?
16 A.
Yes. In the morning, perhaps even
earlier than 9.00, they left
17 the line of their own accord without even
letting us know about it. It
18 was the soldiers who were close to those
positions that told us about it,
19 and I then issued an order assigning these
men to occupy that line.
20 Q.
So they left the line of their own accord. Was the result of the
21 El Mujahedin Detachment doing that a danger
or risk that the enemy forces
22 would simply be able to come down and take
the unmanned line -- front
23 line?
24 A.
Yes.
25 Q.
So you had to act quickly to ensure that the front line was still
1
kept under the control of the ARBiH?
2
A. Yes. I reported to the brigade commander about
that.
3
Q. In your statement, the
statement that you gave to the Office of
4 the
Prosecution investigator, at paragraph 36, you said that the El
5
Mujahedin Detachment came into your area of responsibility and did
6
whatever they wished. Do you
stand by that comment in your statement?
7 A.
Yes.
8
Q. Now, Mr. Sehic, I'd like to
turn to the documents that you were
9
shown concerning the attachment of soldiers from your unit to the El
10 Mujahedin Detachment.
11 Now, earlier on in your evidence,
you told us that those men were
12 used to carry the wounded and fallen
soldiers. It's right to say, isn't
13 it, that when the men from your battalion
were attached to the El
14 Mujahedin Detachment, you defined the tasks
and duties that they had to
15 carry out?
16 A.
Next to a number of soldiers, every -- almost every order also
17 designates a commanding officer who was in
charge of men, and their task
18 was only to occupy the defence lines
reached and to take care of the
19 wounded. The orders would be issued by the commanding
officers in charge
20 of such groups of men.
21 Q.
So it's correct to say that at no time were those soldiers placed
22 under the command of the El Mujahedin
Detachment?
23 A.
Not directly, no.
24 Q.
Could we describe this as being a case of coordination between
25 your unit and the El Mujahedin Detachment?
1
A. The battalion level did not
have any particular coordination with
2 the
El Mujahid unit; however, we were duty-bound to designate a commanding
3
officer to accompany every group of men and who was responsible for the
4
soldiers from the 5th Battalion.
5
Q. So perhaps, Mr. Sehic, just
to clarify that, we could describe
6
this more as a case of cooperation between the two units?
7
A. Yes, more or less.
8
Q. I'd just like to refer to
some of the documents that you were
9
shown.
10 MR. ROBSON: If we could bring up Exhibit 700,
please. And in
11 this document, it's page 2 of the English
version that I'm interested in.
12 Perhaps if we can look at the first page to
establish what the document
13 is.
14 Q.
Do you recognise this document from a little earlier, Mr. Sehic?
15 A.
The brigade commander issued this document.
16 Q.
Yes. I'm interested in point
number 3, which you were asked to
17 comment upon by the Prosecutor.
18 If I could just read out what this
paragraph states, it says: "By
19 1200 hours on
20 tasks on full combat readiness and billet
them in barracks or buildings
21 under full combat gear and with numerical
strength according to the
22 following disposition."
23 And then we can see, Mr. Sehic, in
respect of the five battalions,
24 it gives some instructions about the
soldiers of those battalions.
25 Do you accept that?
1
A. Yes.
2
Q. Now, if we can just look at
the first one, by way of example, it
3
states here: "1st Mountain
Battalion, 12 soldiers for BZ," which I take
4 to
mean "combat tasks," "and 30 bearers for the wounded for the El
5
Mujahid."
6
Would you agree with me, Mr. Sehic, that what the brigade
7 commander
is doing in this order is placing 12 soldiers from the 1st
8
Battalion on combat readiness, and then separately he is instructing 30
9
soldiers to carry out duties as bearers for the wounded from the El
10 Mujahedin Detachment?
11 A.
I've already stated that soldiers who were assigned for combat
12 activities would take the lines
reached. They were mostly not used for
13 combat.
And as for those who were assigned to bear the wounded, their
14 tasks were quite well defined.
15 Q.
So just to clarify that, what I'm trying to get at, from this
16 order, is that the 12 soldiers from the 1st
Mountain Battalion who were
17 tasked for combat readiness, they are not
being tasked to cooperate or
18 work alongside the El Mujahedin Detachment,
are they?
19 A.
No. No battalion was given any
precise assignment to that effect,
20 i.e., the assignment for the ten men from
the battalion.
21 Q.
Okay. Now, we can see that the
date of this document is the 23rd
22 of May, 1995.
23 MR. ROBSON: I'd now like to turn to
Exhibit 701, which is dated
24 the 24th of May, 1995 -- I beg your pardon,
it should be Exhibit 702.
25 Q.
So, Mr. Sehic, would you agree with me that in the last document
1
that we just looked at a moment ago, that was the order of the brigade
2
commander; and what we can see in front of us now, dated the 24th of
May,
3
1995, this is your instructions to your subordinates based on that
order?
4
A. Yes.
5
Q. And, then, it's clear here,
in this order at point number 1, that
6 you
are ordering 30 men to be selected to carry the wounded, and that was
7 in
accordance with the order of Commander Zilkic?
8
A. Yes, yes.
9
MR. ROBSON: Your Honours, we can put this document
away. I'd
10 like to, still on this topic, turn now to
Exhibit 703.
11 Q.
Now, while we're waiting for the document to come up: Mr. Sehic,
12 you told us in your evidence a little
earlier on that when men were
13 attached to the El Mujahedin Detachment,
they would have their own
14 commander?
15 A.
I believe that every statement that I ever issued indicates the
16 person responsible, sometimes even by
name. It would have been the
17 platoon or company commander. It would state clearly that that person was
18 responsible for the execution of a certain
task.
19 Q.
And just to confirm that point, this is a document that you were
20 shown a little earlier. This relates to an order for ten soldiers to
hold
21 the defence line at Podsjelovo. Is it right that, at point number 3, we
22 can see here that you were assigned a squad
commander to that group of ten
23 men?
24 A.
Yes.
25 MR. ROBSON: And still on this topic, and the final point,
if we
1 can
please look at Exhibit 705.
2
Q. Again, Mr. Sehic, this is a
document that you were shown by the
3
Prosecution only a short while ago.
It relates to the attachment of men
4 to
the El Mujahid unit.
5
It's right, isn't it, at point number B, you are clearly
6
indicating there who is to be the commander of the men attached to the
El
7
Mujahedin Detachment?
8
A. Yes.
9
Q. Okay. Thank you.
10 Now, Mr. Sehic, I'd like to turn to
another issue, and that is the
11 issue of other Mujahedin fighters within
the area.
12 Would you agree with me that apart
from the El Mujahedin
13 Detachment, there were other Mujahedin
groups operating in
14 A.
Yes.
15 Q.
Do you know the locations of where any of those -- where the
16 Mujahedin groups were based?
17 A.
Some were deployed in the village called "Borovnica," i.e.,
18 Sehici,, where I was born. Some were born in the
19 the surrounding villages. In any case, they were deployed in the
general
20 sector of Zavidovici.
21 Q.
You've mentioned that they were in Imamovici. Whereabouts is
22 Imamovici in relation to Borovnica, where
you were based?
23 A.
To the northeast from Borovnica.
24 Q.
And are you able to say approximately how far away Imamovici is
25 from Borovnica?
1
A. About 20 kilometres or so.
2 Q.
And it's right to say, isn't it, that these groups were in the
3
Ozren-Vozuca region around the time of the Vozuca action in September
4
1995?
5
A. Yes.
6
Q. Are you able to say when the
group of Mujahedin arrived,
7 approximately,
in Borovnica?
8
A. A somewhat larger group
arrived maybe on the 8th or on the 9th
9
September.
10 Q.
Now, in terms of the appearance of these Mujahedin fighters, could
11 you tell us -- well, is it right to say
that they dressed in a similar way
12 to the El Mujahedin Detachment?
13 A.
Yes.
14 Q.
So some of them would wear military uniforms; is that so?
15 A.
Yes.
16 Q.
Would some of them also wear civilian clothing?
17 A.
Yes.
18 Q.
And would you agree with me that if you were to look at members of
19 the Mujahedin based in Borovnica and
compare them with a member of the El
20 Mujahedin Detachment, you wouldn't be able
to make a distinction between
21 them?
In other words, you wouldn't be able to tell, simply by appearance,
22 which group they belonged to?
23 A.
It would be difficult. Only some
of those stayed in that village
24 and they were referred to by the term
"Kurds." They smoked and they
did
25 not look like Arabs. Some people said they were from
1 not
sure. I can't confirm that.
2
Q. Just to clarify that, did you
say "Kurds," Mr. Sehic?
3
A. Yes. Rumours had it that there were 20 or more Kurds,
and I
4
personally saw them in the Vozuca sector. I was really astonished to see
5
them smoking; whereas, Arabs almost never smoke. I don't remember ever
6
having seen anybody from the El Mujahid unit smoking.
7
Q. And, again, just to clarify
the issue, apart from the Kurds that
8
were in Borovnica, it's right that there were also Arabs based in that
9
village who were similar in appearance to members of the El Mujahedin
10 Detachment?
11 A.
Yes.
12 Q.
Okay. I want to turn to September
1995. You told us how, on the
13 10th of September, the attack was launched,
and how the front lines moved.
14 If I can take you to the 11th of
September, you've explained how
15 you received information that a large group
of Serb soldiers had
16 surrendered to the 2nd Company of your
battalion; is that right?
17 A.
Yes.
18 Q.
You also mentioned that orders had been issued by the 35th
19 Division to the effect that all prisoners
of war had to be taken to a
20 collection point so that military police
officers could take them over; is
21 that right?
22 A.
Yes.
23 Q.
You've told us that you believe the collection location was in
24 Zavidovici, somewhere near the division
command; is that so?
25 A.
Yes.
1
Q. Now, you've explained that at
a certain point, on the 11th of
2
September, you yourself travelled to Kesten village, where you spoke to
3
your deputy, Muhamed Omerasevic.
Do you remember saying that?
4
A. Yes.
5
Q. Now, were the Arabs, as you
have called them, present in the
6
village when you arrived at Kesten?
7
A. Yes.
8
Q. So you had the chance to see
these Arabs for yourself. Is it
9 correct
that they had no insignia upon them to identify them as belonging
10 to a particular group of Mujahedin?
11 A.
They did not have any insignia.
12 Q.
So would you agree with me that these Arabs that you saw there
13 that day could have been members of any of
the Mujahedin groups present in
14 the Vozuca region at that time?
15 A.
Yes.
16 Q.
Now, your assistant commander for Security, Ismet Karahasanovic,
17 made a list of all Serb detainees. Had he make the list after you arrived
18 there, or did he make it after your
arrival?
19 A.
I believe that he had already made that list. I'm not sure that
20 he included everybody on the list, but I
should have thought so, yes.
21 Q.
Are you able to confirm that Mr. Karahasanovic had the identity
22 cards and papers of the Serb soldiers with
him when he prepared that list?
23 A.
He had some documents.
24 Q.
Do you recall did he take those documents away with him? Are you
25 able to say?
1
A. I believe so.
2
Q. In your evidence, you've
explained how the Arabs took the
3
detainees away. As I understand
your evidence, you yourself left Kesten,
4
accompanied with two young boys.
5
A. Yes.
6 Q.
And you travelled to Krcevine on a route that took you through --
7 I
beg your pardon. And you travelled to
Marici village on a route that
8
took you through Krcevine; is that right?
9
A. Yes.
10 Q.
As you travelled through Krcevine, you saw some men there that you
11 think may have been the detained Serbs, but
you're not able to say for
12 sure; am I correct?
13 A.
Yes, yes.
14 Q.
Did you notice if there were Arabs with those men at the time?
15 A.
They were at a distance of some 50 metres or more. Their backs
16 were turned to me, so I can't be sure, but
I would have thought so, yes.
17 Q.
Now, I want to turn our attention to the list that was prepared by
18 Mr. Karahasanovic.
19 MR. ROBSON: Perhaps if we could bring up the exhibit
which shows
20 the underlined portions made by Mr. Sehic,
695.
21 Q.
So, Mr. Sehic, is it correct that Mr. Karahasanovic gave you the
22 list that he prepared in Kesten?
23 A.
No, not in Kesten, no. Some time
later.
24 Q.
Now, you've explained to the Trial Chamber that you added certain
25 phrases to the list prepared by Mr.
Karahasanovic. You've told us that it
1 was
some time after. Are you able to say
when you made these additions to
2
this list?
3
A. I added some things ten or 15
days later, some other things after
4
three or four months, and the last remarks were added maybe two or three
5
years after the event. As I came
by certain information, I added things
6 on.
7
Q. So the information was added
over a period of time, as long as
8
maybe even three years after the list was prepared?
9
A. Yes, you're right.
10 Q.
Now, I'd like to ask you about what happened after you returned to
11 Marici from Kesten.
12 You told us that you gave a verbal
report to your commander, Fuad
13 Zilkic, around 1600 hours?
14 A.
Yes.
15 Q.
You were also asked if you gave -- if there are any more
16 discussions with the 328th Mountain Brigade
about what happened in Kesten,
17 and your response - and the reference to
the transcript is page 31, line
18 21 - and what you said was: "In the days following that period, it
was
19 discussed as to what was going to happen to
the soldiers of the 2nd
20 Company, whether they would be rewarded or
not."
21 A.
Yes.
22 Q.
You've explained to us that there were financial incentives in
23 place for members of the ARBiH to capture
enemy combatants. Would I be
24 right -- would I be correct in saying that
when you spoke to Commander
25 Zilkic that day, and in the days that
followed, your primary concern was
1
about the financial situation relating to your men?
2
A. The soldiers and the officers
of the 2nd Company that had carried
3 out
the task wanted explanation from me, whether they would be rewarded or
4
not. It was only the money
reward. Sometimes it was recognitions;
5
sometimes it was commendations.
6
So the commander of the 2nd Company should have been rewarded in
7
writing, with a citation or something.
But given the outcome of the whole
8
situation, nobody was rewarded, nobody was promoted. There were no
9 written citations issued or anything.
10 Q.
Okay. Thank you.
11 MR. ROBSON: If you'll just bear with me for a moment.
12 Q.
Mr. Sehic, you met with Commander Zilkic that day, the 11th of
13 September.
14 The Prosecution showed you a
document in the name of Fuad Zilkic,
15 dated the 13th of September, and you were
asked to comment upon that
16 document.
Would you agree with me that Commander Zilkic -- that you can't
17 know what Commander Zilkic did with the
information that you gave to him
18 that day, if anything?
19 A.
No. He was my commander, and I
was in no position, nor did I have
20 to know, what he did with that.
21 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, I have no further questions.
22 Thank you, Mr. Sehic.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Robson.
24 Mr. Mundis.
25 MR. MUNDIS: No questions arising.
1
JUDGE MOLOTO: Judge.
2 Questioned by the
Court:
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Sehic, when you got to Kesten and you saw
these
4
Serb soldiers being taken by the Arabs, did you know whether those Arabs
5
were soldiers or not soldiers?
6
A. I didn't know. I assumed that they were soldiers, but I
didn't
7
expect civilians to be involved in such activities. That's how I assumed
8
that they must have been soldiers.
9
JUDGE MOLOTO: And did you have
any idea what army they might have
10 belonged to?
11 A.
Your Honour, I've already said earlier that it was exceptionally
12 difficult to know which of the Arabs
belonged to what units. We could not
13 communicate with them. For the most part, they did not communicate
either
14 to the troops or to the officers of the
army.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now, you said those Arabs outnumbered
you. Do you
16 remember saying that this morning?
17 A.
Yes.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now, there's something that I don't
understand,
19 because you indicated that there were about
a hundred 5th Battalion
20 soldiers around Kesten on that day. Am I right?
21 A.
In the general area of Kesten, which included an area as far as
22 five kilometres from the place where these
things happened, on the road in
23 the direction of Prokop, the terrain is
quite rugged and the line of sight
24 is impaired. The soldiers were close to that area.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.
Now, forget about people who were five
1
kilometres away. Right in Kesten,
in the immediate vicinity of the
2
capture, are you able to guesstimate how many of the 5th Battalion
3
soldiers were there?
4
A. Around ten, at the most,
judging from what I saw.
5
JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very
much. That explains my query.
6
You also testified, when you were asked questions by the
7
Prosecutor, that there were always orders that specified what should be
8
done with captured persons and booty.
Do you remember that?
9
A. Yes.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: What did the order say should be done with
these
11 people and the booty?
12 A.
The captured soldiers were to be treated in a military fashion.
13 As per the Geneva Conventions, they were to
be handed over to the military
14 police of the 328th Brigade of the 35th
Division, and that's what almost
15 every order contained.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: And at the time, you were aware of those
17 instructions in the order?
18 A.
Yes.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: And according to your observations, were
these
20 captured prisoners being treated according
-- being handled according to
21 the
22 You're saying your orders
instructed you that they must be given
23 over to the military police of the 328th
Brigade. Was that what was
24 happening at the time?
25 A.
For the most part, yes, and I believed that that group was going
1 to
be handed over to the military police, too.
However, the problem was
2
that they wanted to take the war booty for themselves.
3
As for the other prisoners, including the two civilians and the
4 two
children, we always handed them over to the military police.
5
JUDGE MOLOTO: Now, you were asked
earlier a question by Judge
6
Lattanzi as to what your major interest was at the time, and I think you
7 had
indicated that your major interest was the two children; right?
8
A. Yes.
9
JUDGE MOLOTO: You're saying and
do I understand it is your
10 evidence that you were satisfied that the
other prisoners that were taken
11 away were being dealt with okay, and that's
why they were not part of your
12 concern?
That they were being treated according to orders, that's your
13 evidence?
14 A.
Yes.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
That clarifies my point.
16 My last question to you is: You say, when you left Kesten, going
17 to the
18 were plus/minus 50 metres away, and you
believed that they were the
19 captured soldiers?
20 A.
You mean the
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Marici, I beg your pardon, Marici. You were going
22 to Marici, but you were passing Krcevine?
23 A.
I saw a group I was not sure was of those captured soldiers. I
24 believe that they were, but I was not sure
because they had their backs
25 turned to me. I did not see their faces.
1
JUDGE MOLOTO: You didn't
recognise anything about them that you
2 had
seen when you were in Kesten?
3
It was just a belief.
4
Okay. Thank you very much.
5
A. It was in passing.
6
JUDGE MOLOTO: How strong was that
belief?
7
A. I don't know.
8
JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very
much.
9
Yes, Judge Harhoff has a question.
10 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
11 Mr. Sehic, I just have one question
relating to another
12 observation you made in respect of the
prisoners of war, and that relates
13 to the three women that you testified were
there also.
14 I thought you said that the
security officer had delivered them to
15 the command post in Marici. Is that correct?
16 A.
Yes. He separated them from the
men and sent them by courier
17 toward the command post in the
18 JUDGE HARHOFF: So these three women were not taken by the El
19 Mujahid Detachment; is that correct?
20 A.
On the road toward Marici, the El Mujahid vehicle saw the escort
21 accompanying these three women. They pulled over, and they took the three
22 women away with them.
23 JUDGE HARHOFF: I see.
So the three women never reached the
24 command post in Marici?
25 A.
No.
1
JUDGE HARHOFF: How did you learn
this?
2
A. The courier who was supposed
to take them there came to me as I
3
returned from the
4
rather, it was from Kesten that I returned, not from Marici, that the
5
person who was tasked with escorting them there informed me about it.
6
JUDGE HARHOFF: But the three
women, I take it, were civilians,
7 were
they not?
8
A. I'm not sure. I don't know.
9
JUDGE HARHOFF: Were they taken
out of the group of prisoners of
10 war before you arrived to Kesten? Is that why you did not see it.
11 A.
Yes, yes. I didn't see them at all.
12 JUDGE HARHOFF: Did you inquire whether they were civilians?
13 A.
Yes. I inquired about that. One of them said that she had worked
14 in the army kitchens. So she was in the army, and I don't know
about the
15 others.
16 JUDGE HARHOFF: What was your assessment of these three women
17 being taken prisoners of war? Did you consider that a lawful, a legal
18 action or not?
19 A.
I believed that they, too, would be exchanged. Later on, we
20 received some information indicating that
they had been exchanged, indeed,
21 but I don't know.
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: Well, sir, for them to be exchanged as
prisoners
23 of war, they would have had to be taken
legitimately as prisoners,
24 themselves.
You can't take --
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
1
JUDGE HARHOFF: Obviously, you
cannot take civilians and use them
2 as
devices to exchange.
3
So if you were not sure that they were civilians or lawful
4
combatants, I would have thought that you would have inquired about this
5 and
made sure that they were, indeed, combatants and not civilians,
6
because if they had been civilians, they would have been unlawfully
7
detained.
8 A.
The soldier who talked to them said that one of them admitted to
9
having been in the Army of Republika Srpska; whereas, the other two did
10 not admit that, although he believed that,
indeed, all three were members
11 of the army.
12 I have to tell you again that I didn't
see them at all. We
13 expected that they would be handed over to
the military police and that
14 the military police would talk to them, or
rather, that the security
15 organs would act in keeping with the order.
16 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you very much, sir.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Any questions arising, Mr. Mundis?
18 MR. MUNDIS: No, thank you.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Robson?
20 MR. ROBSON: No, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Robson.
22 Sir, Mr. Sehic, that brings us to
the conclusion of your
23 testimony.
Thank you very much for taking your time to come and testify
24 at the Tribunal. You are now excused. You may stand down, and please
25 travel well back home.
1
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
2
JUDGE MOLOTO: You may stand down,
sir.
3 [The witness
withdrew]
4
JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. That brings us to the conclusion of the
5
proceedings for the day. We will
postpone to Wednesday, the 7th, at
6
quarter past 2.00, Courtroom II.
7
Court adjourned.
8 --- Whereupon the hearing
adjourned at
9 to be reconvened on
Wednesday, the 7th day of
10 November, 2007, at
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25