1 Monday, 17 March 2008

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The witness entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 2.15 p.m.

6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good afternoon to everybody in the courtroom.

7 Madam Registrar, could you please call the case.

8 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good afternoon,

9 everybody in the courtroom. This is case number IT-04-83-T, The

10 Prosecutor versus Rasim Delic.

11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. Could we have the

12 appearances for today, starting with the Prosecution.

13 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President. Good afternoon, Your

14 Honours, counsel and everyone in and around the courtroom. Daryl Mundis

15 and Kyle Wood for the Prosecution assisted by Alma Imamovic-Ivanov, our

16 case manager.

17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much and for the Defence.

18 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honour, good

19 afternoon colleagues from the Prosecution and everyone in and around the

20 courtroom. I am ray Vasvija Vidovic and Nicholas Robson, Defence counsel

21 for General Rasim Delic, with our case manager, Ms. Lana Deljkic.

22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. Mr. Hubo, good afternoon.

23 Just to remind you that you made a declaration at the beginning of your

24 testimony to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing else but the

25 truth. You are still bound by that declaration. Okay.

1 Thank you very much. Mr. Robson.

2 WITNESS: HAJRUDIN HUBO [Resumed]

3 [Witness answered through interpreter]

4 Examination by Mr. Robson: [Continued]

5 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Hubo. On Friday afternoon, Mr. Hubo, you

6 were explaining to us problems in obtaining information from the

7 El Mujahedin Detachment, and in that connection, I would like to show you

8 a series of documents.

9 MR. ROBSON: Your Honours, could document D967, please be brought

10 up on the screen.

11 Your Honour, I see that this copy on the screen is rather poor, I

12 wonder if I may be permitted to give a hard copy to Mr. Hubo.

13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sort it out with your opposite number, if they are

14 agreed. If they have seen the document.

15 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] It's the same document that we see

16 on the screen. Oh you just want to show a hard copy to make sure --

17 MR. WOOD: No, objection, Your Honour.

18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

19 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] So for the record what we can see

20 here is a document with the heading, rules on keeping records of

21 registration and deregistration of place of residence for foreigners who

22 are members of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina armed forces in

23 times of war.

24 Q. Mr. Hubo, have you -- are you familiar with this document at all?

25 A. Good afternoon. This document did circulate in the course of our

1 work and it referred to, as you can see, actually it was the rules on

2 keeping recording of registration and the deregistration of place of

3 residence for foreigners who are members of the Republic of Bosnia and

4 Herzegovina armed forces in times of war.

5 Q. Can you tell us the date that these rules were issued?

6 A. These rules were issued on 23rd June 1994, and signer is the

7 Minister of Defence and Minister of Interior of Republic of Bosnia and

8 Herzegovina. But the time when it actually was published was 13

9 June 1994, and it was published on the 23rd of June, 1994.

10 Q. And do you know -- were these rules in force?

11 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm sorry, the translation says by the time when

12 it actually was published was the 13th June 1994 and it was published on

13 the 23rd of June, 1994. That is one and the same thing. Was it printed

14 on the 13th and published on the 24th, or what is the position?

15 MR. ROBSON:

16 Q. Mr. Hubo, perhaps you could just repeat the last part of your

17 answer and just explain when the document was -- was issued?

18 A. The document was signed on 13 June 1994, probably at the session

19 of the government, and it was published in the Official Gazette of the

20 Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina on the -- on the 23rd of June, 1994.

21 So at the time when it was published, it actually came into

22 force.

23 Q. Okay. If we look at Article 12 it says: "These rules stipulate

24 the ways in which records are kept of the registration and deregistration

25 of the place of residence of foreigners who are members of the Republic

1 of Bosnia and Herzegovina armed forces."

2 Now, last week we spoke about foreigners that joined the

3 El Mujahedin detachment. Do you know, should these rules have applied to

4 those foreigners who joined the El Mujahedin Detachment?

5 A. Yes. These rules applied to all foreigners, members of the armed

6 forces. And so let me just clarify, it also applied to the foreigners

7 within the detachment.

8 Q. And if we look at Article 2, what it says is: "The foreigner

9 under Article 1 of these rules or the commander of the unit or

10 institution to which the foreigner belongs shall submit within seven days

11 of joining a unit a registration of residence form for the foreigner to

12 the Municipal Secretariat for National Defence in the area in which the

13 foreigner is staying ..."

14 Mr. Hubo, do you know what this reference to a registration of

15 residence form means? What was it that was supposed to be supplied to

16 the Municipal Defence Secretariat?

17 A. These rules defined the manner in which every foreigner is to

18 register, his place of residence, because the normal procedure was when a

19 foreigner would enter a country, the registration of his stay in the

20 country would have -- should be with the Ministry of Interior. I suppose

21 that in this particular case and in many cases such a form did not exist

22 once a person joined a unit of the armed force, there was -- here this

23 provides for the possibility for a subsequent report or registration by

24 the command of the unit at the time when this foreigner joined the armed

25 forces.

1 So in any case, this registration should be available to the

2 Ministry of the Defence and of course for all those foreigners who were

3 with -- within the unit, and here, in particular, it speaks of the

4 municipality in which that unit was.

5 Q. So a registration form should have been provided to the Municipal

6 Defence Secretariat. Are you aware following June of 1994 any situation

7 in which the El Mujahedin Detachment passed such information to the

8 Municipal Defence Secretariat in compliance with these rules?

9 A. According to information that I received from the Secretariat for

10 Defence, this was never done by the detachment as a unit.

11 MR. ROBSON: Your Honours, could I move to admit this document

12 into evidence.

13 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I need a clarification on this

14 document, please.

15 Witness, please, the commander that is mentioned under Article 2,

16 and he is mentioned in the three paragraphs of Article 2, is he supposed

17 to be the commander of a regular unit of the army, or can it -- could he

18 also be the commander of a volunteer unit, which is exactly the case of

19 the El Mujahedin Detachment. I don't quite understand this.

20 Could you please read the -- read Article 2 and maybe enlighten

21 me?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, as you can observe, in

23 the last paragraph of Article 2, and I'm not a legal lawyer, but there

24 were lawyers working in my office and in the Secretariat for Defence you

25 will see that it says here: "The commander of the unit, under Article 1,

1 Article 2 in this case, shall be the senior officer in the position of

2 commander of an independent battalion or above."

3 In other words, all commanders at this level and in particular in

4 this -- in the case of this unit, that's what it referred to, they

5 were -- this provision also referred to them.

6 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Yes. So this third

7 paragraph could also make reference to the commander of the El Mujahedin

8 Detachment, this commander of the unit could very well be the commander

9 of El Mujahedin Detachment detachment.

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right.

11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

12 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Hubo, I know it frequently happens that you

13 have things stated in the laws that are not really performed in practice.

14 Now, the existence of the El Mujahid Detachment was well-known.

15 These rules came about and they were also well known, and now you tell us

16 that no member of the El Mujahid Detachment ever registered as he should

17 have done, according to these rules.

18 What did you do about it?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In that respect, we compiled a

20 so-called data base for every unit and we tried, we received for, in a

21 certain period of time we received some information. When I say "some,"

22 it means that we received them as they were forwarded by the unit from

23 the corps command. All this information that we received from this unit

24 we forwarded on to the secretariats, the centre for security services and

25 other organs. So everything that we came into possession as the command,

1 we informed of all the relevant institutions. But I have to say right

2 here that the information that we obtained did not meet all the contents

3 that were provided for by these rules, and other regulations. In other

4 words, what we had under our control, we did, and you're absolutely right

5 when you speak of the compliance with legal provisions, but I'm telling

6 you about the -- the procedures that we used as we used, and of course we

7 were obliged by the law to act within that scope.

8 JUDGE HARHOFF: So, after all, did you get some information about

9 the El Mujahid Detachment. Could you tell us what that information was,

10 and how it was provided, by whom?

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm glad that you've asked this

12 question.

13 In the second phases or latter phases of the organisation of the

14 corps, we used electronic media. So we looked for additional auxiliary

15 information. We refer to this as a data base. This database consisted

16 of a list of all members of the corps. This is 35 and 40.000 people.

17 This database was done by the subordinate units and we used this as

18 auxiliary documentation so that we can control the personnel better and

19 direct them better. At one point, this information on a floppy disk as I

20 mentioned earlier that individual who could come from the unit so from

21 time to time he would bring the floppy disk. The information was as it

22 was compiled within the unit in all its aspects: The contents, the form,

23 and all other aspects. This is all that we could obtain. All the

24 information that we had, I have to stress again, we forwarded to other

25 institutions as provided for by the law and within the capabilities that

1 we had. So this was an attempt on our part to obtain as much information

2 as we could so that we could comply with all these requirements that

3 were -- all the requirements that were set forth in the different legal

4 documents. If you ask me whether that was enough, it certainly wasn't

5 either in form or in content, substance, up until the end of when this

6 unit was actually disbanded.

7 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.

8 Now, I'm still not sure that I understood what the information

9 was that you actually did get on these floppy disks and who was it that

10 gave the disk to you.

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The information consisted of the

12 following: The name and last name, date and place of birth, military

13 speciality or VES for short, the date of entry into the army, completed

14 education, level of education, high school or university, and a host of

15 other personal data that we had within the corps command for each member,

16 so that we were able to, when asked to provide an officer who was an

17 engineer, we would use this database to submit a request for this profile

18 and then the programme would automatically give us a list of all

19 engineers that we had within the corps. We call this a database for each

20 member of the army because we also had situations where family member

21 would inquire about their relative. Whether there were alive or not, and

22 we would use this to find out that information. Whether that person was

23 still there, whether -- in what unit and what kind of status.

24 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Hubo, I think we are misunderstanding each

25 other. It seems to me that you have been telling me how the system

1 worked in general. The information that I was asking you about, was

2 whether you received any general information about the members of the

3 El Mujahid Detachment and was that fed into your database, because I

4 understood you to say just a while ago that after all you did, in fact,

5 get some information about the El Mujahid Detachment, and I'm curious to

6 know what was that information?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The information was provided to us

8 in a period of time from this unit, with some information, information

9 that were -- that was collected within the unit itself, and there are

10 instances where we have listed of all the members of the unit. This was

11 provided by the unit itself with the name and last name and where the

12 person was from, when they joined the army, when they completed or left

13 the army, so it was provided by the unit. And at one point they were

14 forwarded into electronic form, and this base from this unit is what we

15 used so that we could further do the part of work that was within our

16 jurisdiction.

17 I don't know if I was clear in my answer.

18 JUDGE HARHOFF: You were perfectly clear and maybe we did not

19 misunderstand each other or I did not misunderstand you when you spoke to

20 us just a while ago, because all the information that you mentioned in

21 your first answer to me, the name and the last name of the member, the

22 date and place of birth, the military specialty, the date of entry into

23 the army, the complete education, the level of education, the high school

24 and university, was that information that you received also from the

25 El Mujahid Detachment?

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We received some information, and

2 this information was, as it were, not in proper form, and more often than

3 not it was useless. It was impossible to use them.

4 JUDGE HARHOFF: In what sense "useless"? Because it would seem

5 to be to be quite comprehensive information at least about some of the

6 members of the El Mujahid Detachment, including the previous education

7 that these gentlemen had.

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well I'll give you an example. For

9 instance, you have information where each name begins with Abu on a list

10 of names it's impossible that the hundred-or-so people are all called

11 Abu. It is possible that there is no information on which country they

12 came from and so forth. So all of this actually to us meant that this

13 information was incorrect, and we couldn't uses it as official data.

14 JUDGE HARHOFF: The other question I had was who gave the disk to

15 you? Was that a member of the El Mujahid Detachment who came by your

16 office and handed over the disk to you, or how did you get it?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I mentioned earlier, I believe on

18 Friday, that there was an individual who came to us. His name was

19 Muris Supic and this person, in fact, was the only individual who

20 communicated with us. He came whenever he chose and brought whatever he

21 chose, as it were, and that's when they forwarded this information.

22 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence, may it

23 please be given an exhibit number.

24 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the document will become Exhibit

25 number 1312.

1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

2 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

3 Q. Mr. Hubo, just to pick up on a point from Judge Harhoff's

4 questions.

5 Within the information that was provided to your organ, did the

6 El Mujahedin Detachment ever provide information such as passports

7 numbers or identification numbers for any of the members?

8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Wood.

9 MR. WOOD: Objection, Your Honour, that's a leading question.

10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Robson.

11 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, I disagree. I can certainly rephrase

12 it though. If that may be to no avail now that I have raised the

13 question with the witness.

14 JUDGE MOLOTO: If you think you can rephrase, please do.

15 MR. ROBSON:

16 Q. Let me, first of all, clarify another point.

17 It was unclear to me whether the El Mujahedin Detachment provided

18 information about the previous experience of its members or not. Could

19 you tell me what the situation was?

20 A. Maybe I wasn't quite clear, but I told the honourable Judge a few

21 minutes ago, even the information, this database that we received, we

22 didn't even receive information as to which country this individual --

23 any individual came from let alone passport numbers and so on. And we

24 absolutely had no other information but those that were forwarded by

25 them, as far as the organ in which I worked was concerned.

1 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, I'd like to bring up a document at this

2 stage. It is Exhibit 663.

3 Q. Mr. Hubo, this document is several pages long in the B/C/S

4 version. First of all, if I could just ask to you take a look at the top

5 half of the page. Do you recognise the document at all?

6 A. Yes, I recognise this document. It has a number, and the

7 heading, has a date, so -- and this document is in the form that the

8 corps produced, the documents that the corps produced.

9 Q. And if we could just go to the last page in the B/C/S version.

10 We see a name there. Do you know who was the author of this

11 document?

12 A. This document was prepared by a person who worked on the issue of

13 registration of individual conscript, and EH I think this could have been

14 Emir Hurem. E/H, that means that this same person prepared the document

15 and also printed it out.

16 Q. And we can see that the document bears your name, is that right,

17 it was sent out in your name?

18 A. This is the usual form in which the document would appear. My

19 signature is not there, but it could have been there. So if someone

20 officially requested, we had the obligation to provide the information

21 that we had available. In this particular case, the military security

22 service probably requested this information, and they probably did

23 security checks for whatever reasons, this was not something that we

24 would go into but what we had in our database we made a copy of and

25 forwarded it to them.

1 Q. And if we can go back to the first page in the B/C/S, so that we

2 can touch upon what you just mentioned.

3 We can see there that this -- well, can you tell us who was this

4 document sent to?

5 A. The document was produced by the 3rd Corps command, the

6 confidential number is 05/4. 05 means that it is the organ for

7 mobilisation and personnel affairs. Then it says Zenica 7th of May,

8 1995. The subject is a list which was sent to the military security

9 service department of the 3rd Corps command. It says on your request.

10 This means that there was an ongoing activity with the aim of obtaining

11 reliable information and this was done by the military security service

12 in cooperation with the Ministry of Defence because we were trying all

13 the time to obtain reliable information about the individuals. As can

14 you see also on the basis of this list, it is very hard to get accurate

15 information. You can see that there is information missing, if you look

16 at the contents of the document, which you can also see and this is

17 something that I said to His Honour, the Judge. There's a list of names

18 saying Abu countless times. As to the place and date of birth in the

19 third column there's the information there for some individuals, for some

20 it is missing, and there's a number of deficiencies an information

21 missing there.

22 Q. Okay. So this document was produced within the 3rd Corps. Do

23 you know what the source of the information was for this document?

24 A. The sole source of information in all of the other documents that

25 were made are out of this was the disk and whatever the El Mujahid

1 Detachment delivered to the 3rd Corps. All the other documents were

2 produced on the basis of this database that was compiled in the unit. We

3 had no other possibilities of dealing with that.

4 Q. And was there any -- do you know, was the information verified

5 once it was received on the floppy disk before this list was produced?

6 A. Do you mean whether we double-checked the information?

7 Q. That's right.

8 A. We weren't able to do that. We were complaining about this and

9 as a result probably the military security service which had tried

10 dealing with the other state organs of the Republic of Bosnia and

11 Herzegovina to make double-checks in its own right, we, as the command,

12 tried to track down some information that we were interested in and that

13 we needed.

14 Q. Mr. Hubo, I'm told that during your answer you mentioned the MUP,

15 the Ministry of Interior and that has not been captured in the

16 transcript. Did you mention that at all?

17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Wood.

18 MR. WOOD: Your Honour, I object to that. That is essentially a

19 leading question. If there's a problem with the transcript, the Defence

20 counsel can say can you please repeat your last answer. When he says

21 something was mentioned that didn't appear in the transcript that is a

22 way that he can suggest the answer or suggest or guide the testimony of

23 the witness. I would suggest, Your Honour, that the best way to do that

24 so as to avoid any kind of leading question is to say, Can you please

25 repeat your last answer.

1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Robson.

2 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, my only concern with

3 that approach is that the -- often the witness's answers are fairly

4 lengthy and we have had a few situations now where I have asked the

5 witness to respond and it has been a fairly complicated approach. I have

6 certainly no problem in asking the witness to repeats the answer if that

7 is what the Bench would like. As to the suggestion that we could somehow

8 lead the witness, Your Honours, clearly, the proceedings are videotaped.

9 There are capture -- there would be ways to see whether or not we were

10 suggesting that the witness -- we were putting to the witness that he

11 should perhaps move to the issue of the MUP, so I was really just trying

12 to save time.

13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let's try to observe the rules before we try to

14 save time.

15 Could you ask the witness to repeat himself, please.

16 MR. ROBSON: Yes.

17 Q. Mr. Hubo, I don't know if you can remember my last question. Are

18 you able to repeat for us what you told us a minute ago?

19 A. I'm afraid I can't repeat it in the form I used initially, but I

20 can give you the gist. This list was send to the military security

21 service department of the corps command, probably with a view to carrying

22 out checks and verifying some information. The military security service

23 operated professionally with the organs of the Ministry of Interior, just

24 as the organ for personnel also cooperated with the organs professionally

25 with the military security. You had organs of the army, the professional

1 organs, which in their own line of activity cooperated with respective

2 state organs.

3 Q. Thanks. Your Honours, we can put this document away, and I'd

4 like to turn to another one --

5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let me just find out one little point.

6 Mr. Hubo, is it your testimony that this kind of list would be

7 the kind of list that would have been generated in compliance with

8 Exhibit 1312, that is the document that we saw a little earlier?

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am afraid I didn't quite

10 understand your question, Your Honour.

11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Before we were shown this document, we were shown

12 another document which was entitled "Rules on the Registration of

13 Residents of Foreign Fighters." Do you remember that document?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I have a copy of it in front

15 of me.

16 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's right. My question is: Is this list being

17 generated and supplied in compliance with that document, with those

18 rules, or are these two completely unrelated?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In this specific case one has

20 nothing to do with the other.

21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

22 You may proceed.

23 MR. ROBSON: Exhibit 110, please.

24 Q. Mr. Hubo, can you tell us what you see on the screen in front of

25 you? Are you able to make it out?

1 A. I can see here an order by the corps commander, a document which

2 was made. I can't see the date clearly. The 8th of May, 1995. And

3 which has to do with the update of personal information.

4 Q. Is this order signed?

5 A. I don't see that it is signed. And it is quite unusual that it

6 does not bear a date in item 5.

7 Q. Hmm. And can we see who was this document sent to -- or, sorry.

8 Let me ask that again.

9 At the bottom of the page we can see that if the document was to

10 be sent, which unit should it have gone to?

11 A. Yes, it says delivered to the El Mujahid Detachment and files.

12 Q. In point number 1 of this order what it states is: "For members

13 of the ARBiH foreign nationals submit information on personnel file which

14 is a supplement to this document to the corps command department for

15 organisation mobilisation and personnel affairs."

16 First of all, is that your organ that this information should

17 have been sent to?

18 A. Yes. That is the organ I was heading.

19 Q. And where this document refers to submit information on personnel

20 file which is a supplement to this document, what would you expect to

21 find together with this document, this order?

22 A. Of course every supplement or annex is always a part of the

23 document.

24 Q. And can you describe for us what you say the annex or supplement

25 would have looked like or should have looked like?

1 A. There was a form which was called, I suppose PERS 7, which was

2 customary form, which all the commands should have received from the

3 Municipal Defence Secretariat.

4 Q. Okay. So just so I'm clear, you would have expected to find an

5 example of such a form with this document. Is that your evidence?

6 MR. WOOD: Objection, Your Honour.

7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Wood.

8 MR. WOOD: Not only is that a leading question in that the form

9 of it suggests the answer, but it is also cumulative. It's asked and

10 answered.

11 JUDGE MOLOTO: It is also?

12 MR. WOOD: Cumulative, Your Honour. It's been asked and

13 answered.

14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Robson.

15 MR. ROBSON: Well, first of all, Your Honour, the witness gave

16 his last answer, so I'm simply building upon what he told us. It is --

17 my question was certainly just to ascertain with clarity what he meant by

18 his last answer, and I don't believe it was cumulative, it was just ...

19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Well, I suppose strictly speaking in form it is

20 leading, but I can understand you are building. Perhaps if it had been

21 put like how that form was delivered or how it was sent, if indeed it

22 makes a problem to suggest that it is sent together with a previous

23 document.

24 MR. ROBSON: I think the answer is clear enough, looking at it

25 once again. So I'm going to move to a different question, if I may.

1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Maybe before you move to a different question, I'd

2 like to ask a question to the witness as a follow-up to the question I

3 asked a couple of minutes ago.

4 Mr. Hubo, was there ever a list drawn up of foreign fighters in

5 compliance with Exhibit 1312? Exhibit 1312 being the document that you

6 have in front of you there in hard copy, registration of residence of

7 foreign fighters. I'm asking you this question because you're saying to

8 me -- you said a little earlier that the list that was now on the screen

9 has nothing to do with that document when I asked you whether it was

10 drawn in compliance, you said no.

11 And my question was to you is, was there ever a list generated in

12 compliance with those rules.

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I told you that I

14 didn't know whether that particular document was produced in compliance

15 with the document I have here before me. The only list that they did

16 produce was the one that we saw. Now as to whether they compiled the

17 list in accordance with the document I have here, that unit should have

18 sent it to the Municipal Defence Secretariat, that particular list.

19 JUDGE MOLOTO: You did not say you don't know when you answered

20 my question. I'll refer you to page 16, lines 11 and 12. Let me start

21 at line 8 where my question is. I said that's right my question is this

22 list being generated and supplied in compliance with that document with

23 those rules or are these two completely unrelated?

24 Your answer was: "In this specific case one was nothing to do

25 with the other."

1 You didn't say I don't know. And it is because of this answer

2 that I'm asking you this follow-up question. I want to know if these two

3 documents have nothing to do with each other, was there ever a list

4 generated in compliance with those rules? And the second reason I'm

5 asking you this question is because those rules call specifically for

6 residential particulars, and this list doesn't give residential

7 particulars, nor does it provide for a column for residential

8 particulars.

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this information was

10 not compiled pursuant to that document that I have here.

11 JUDGE MOLOTO: I understand that. You have told me that before.

12 Now my question is: Was there ever a list generated pursuant to

13 those rules; in other words, did your department comply with those rules

14 and ask from the members the information that those rules is asking for,

15 or was it just a law that was made and was never observed.

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The role of our organ was not to

17 make that list itself. The units were supposed to draw up the lists and

18 send them to the secretariat. We were not making the lists.

19 JUDGE MOLOTO: I hear you, sir. I understand you. Do you know

20 whether those lists were ever made? Were they made by the units or by

21 whoever? Do you know whether they were ever made in compliance with

22 those rules?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know that.

24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

25 Yes, Mr. Robson.

1 MR. ROBSON:

2 Q. Mr. Hubo, I want to take you back to the last answer that you

3 gave me a few minutes ago.

4 You said that concerning this order, this unsigned order, you

5 were you would have expected there to be an annex, and in the annex there

6 should have been a form which you said was called, you suppose, PERS 7.

7 I'd now like to look at the next page in the B/C/S version, and

8 we can also look at the next page in English to see what was actually

9 together with this document.

10 Is this the form PERS 7 that should have been with the order or

11 you would have expected with the order?

12 A. No. This is not a form of any sort.

13 Q. And the information that we see on the page in front of us, have

14 you ever seen this -- this list before?

15 A. I can't tell you whether I saw these lists or not, but they are

16 lists just as many others. Probably this list was made in the unit. You

17 can see that by the font and all the hallmarks of the document. It was

18 copied, obviously.

19 Q. And when you say it was -- when you say probably this list was

20 made in the unit, which unit are you referring to?

21 A. Well, throughout the time -- all the time I meant the

22 El Mujahedin Detachment as the specific unit, the peculiar unit.

23 Q. Just going back to the first page again, please, and the document

24 we see there.

25 You told us that the document was from May 1995. Do you know,

1 was there an attempt to get the El Mujahedin Detachment to submit

2 information on a personal [Realtime transcript read in error "personnel"]

3 file to your organ?

4 A. Whatever we had --

5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, Mr. Robson. Did you say personnel file or

6 personal file?

7 MR. ROBSON: Personal file.

8 JUDGE MOLOTO: The transcript says personnel.

9 MR. ROBSON: Thank you. It has been corrected.

10 Q. Could you give us your answer, please, Mr. Hubo.

11 A. All the information we received was received in the electronic

12 form we had occasion to see.

13 Q. And just to go back to my question, what I was asking you was

14 whether you were aware of any attempt by the 3rd Corps to get the

15 El Mujahedin Detachment to submit information set down in a personal file

16 to your organ.

17 A. All the time there were attempts, not only on the part of my

18 organ but on the part of the other commands as well, to obtain

19 information from them. I said that countless times now. And this was

20 the case throughout the time, through to the end of the war, and we

21 weren't able to get anything more than what we had in fact received from

22 them.

23 Q. Okay. Turning, then, to some of the attempts, the other attempts

24 that you made to obtain information, could I please bring up document

25 D997.

1 Mr. Hubo, we have in front of us a document dated 2nd of June,

2 1995. If we can just go to the second page in the English document and

3 if we can look at the bottom of the B/C/S. Could you tell us who this

4 order is from?

5 A. This order comes from the commander of the 3rd Corps, and derives

6 from the document of the General Staff of the army of the BH dated the

7 25th of June, 1995.

8 MR. ROBSON: Could we go back to the first page in English,

9 please.

10 Q. If we look at point 1 in the order, it say states: "Form a

11 commission for the reconstruction and definition of the period of service

12 in the ARBiH for 1992 in the units for which there are no appropriate

13 records."

14 And then if we look at point number 4 we can see it says: "I

15 hereby appointed the following members of the commission," and we see a

16 list of names there.

17 Do you recognise any of the names on that list?

18 A. I know them all, all the individuals listed here.

19 Q. The first name on the list is Senior Lieutenant Mustafa Spahic

20 and we can see that he works for the section for mobilisation and

21 personnel affairs. Is that the same organ that you worked for?

22 A. Yes. This individual belonged to the organ I worked for.

23 Q. The document refers to the formation of a commission. Do you

24 have any knowledge of -- of whether a commission was actually formed in

25 June of 1995?

1 A. The commission was definitely set up, and it had a mixed

2 composition, as it were. You can see in item 4 in the third column that

3 the individuals from all the other departments of the corps were

4 involved. The legal affairs department, the military security service

5 department, head of office and typist, or rather the person who typed out

6 these documents and they had time-limit of one month to -- I mean, all

7 these persons who were nominated into this commission had one-month

8 deadline to determine and establish the information sought herein.

9 Q. And if you are able, can you explain for us what the role of the

10 commission was?

11 A. The role of the commission was to establish the length of service

12 in 1992 of the members of the BiH army, in respect of the individuals

13 who -- for whom such records do not exist. So this addresses the units

14 who did not keep records properly but in doing so they had to comply with

15 the law with the provisions of the Law on Administrative Procedure,

16 whilst using all the individuals and organs that were placed at their

17 disposal.

18 Q. Now, you've told us during your evidence that, as far as you were

19 aware, the El Mujahedin Detachment did not keep records. Do you know

20 whether this commission looked into the El Mujahedin Detachment?

21 A. I cannot give you an answer. I know that at a later stage had

22 the commission done its job, we -- the -- we would have had a much

23 clearer situation.

24 So evidently the commission did not complete its job, and I don't

25 know if they sent a report or who they sent a report to, and that report

1 should have contained all the particulars about their work.

2 Q. Mr. Hubo, there's translation issue. Could you please repeat

3 your last answer for us once again.

4 If you recall, my question was: Do you remember whether there

5 commission looked into the El Mujahedin Detachment?

6 A. It was duty-bound to deal with all the cases as provided for by

7 the order. I am not familiar with the report that they should have

8 compiled as per item 6, which they should have sent to the corps

9 commander.

10 However, based on the documentation and the later confrontation

11 with the same problem, evidently this commission did not do its job

12 properly. It had not been done the way it should have been done.

13 Q. Thank you.

14 MR. ROBSON: This document could be put away and if we could

15 please bring up -- oh, Your Honour, please could it be admitted into

16 evidence before it disappears.

17 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it

18 please be given an exhibit number.

19 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the document will become Exhibit

20 1313.

21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

22 MR. ROBSON: Thank you. Could we please have exhibit 1138.

23 Q. Again, Mr. Hubo, the quality of this copy on your screen is not

24 particularly good. But are you able to make out what it says?

25 A. Not quite.

1 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, unless my learned friend opposes, I

2 suggest that the witness has a hard copy again.

3 Q. So, Mr. Hubo, we can see here a document dated 27th of October,

4 1995. With the heading instruction on the engagement and records to be

5 kept of foreign citizens in the BH army and it is from the 3rd Corps

6 commander, General Mahmuljin.

7 Are you familiar with this document as all?

8 A. Yes, I'm familiar with this document.

9 Q. And can you explain what it is that General Mahmuljin is trying

10 to do by way of this document?

11 A. This document is dated 27th October, 1995. This is a new attempt

12 to draw attention and insist on the uncompliance with the provisions of

13 the laws and other documents, which prescribe the manner and method of

14 treating foreigners who were engaged in the army units. And, again,

15 mention is made of foreigners who were in the units from earlier on, that

16 they should provide a statement, stating that they were voluntarily

17 joining the unit.

18 Since this hadn't been done in the appropriate manner, there were

19 attempts to have all these statements provided to -- forwarded to the

20 corps command so that the corps command could carry out this duty in

21 place of the units by the date as stated here by the deadline of 15

22 November 1995.

23 Those units who do not provide the statements will not be issued

24 by -- will not be issued statements by this command or certificates by

25 this command as to the movement of personnel. Any movement of personnel

1 or new personnel joining in or leaving a unit have to be reported within

2 24 hours to this command, so, in other words, this is another attempt to

3 try and excerpt some pressure on units to comply with all the provisions

4 so not only the units but also their commands.

5 Q. So we're clear, if we look at point number 4, who should the

6 statements have been delivered to within the corps command?

7 A. In item 4 it says each foreign citizen shall -- or statements

8 given by each foreign citizen shall be delivered to the corps command to

9 the mobilisation and personnel department by 15 November 1995 at the

10 latest.

11 So this is the -- a deadline of some 15 days or so, so that this

12 job can be completed, documentation compiled and files created and

13 forwarded to the Secretariat for National Defence.

14 Q. So it should have been forwarded to your organ. Is that right?

15 A. That's right.

16 Q. And do you know, after the 27th of August [sic], 1995, did your

17 organ ever receive any statements relating to foreign members of the

18 El Mujahedin Detachment?

19 A. I have never seen such statements.

20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Robson, is it after the 27th of August, or of

21 October?

22 MR. ROBSON: October, Your Honour, I believe I said October.

23 JUDGE MOLOTO: The transcript says August, just to make sure the

24 transcript is correct.

25 MR. ROBSON: If the transcript could be corrected so that it is

1 the 27th of October, 1995.

2 Q. And the final point on this document, Mr. Hubo, if we look at the

3 bottom of the document and if we can go to the second page in English,

4 was this order, does it appear to be the case that this document was sent

5 to the El Mujahedin Detachment.

6 A. It says here delivered to. It probably means forwarded to. And

7 it says in the bottom left part of the document whom this should be

8 delivered to, and I suppose it was.

9 Q. Do we see the name El Mujahedin Detachment there on the list?

10 A. Yes, we do. We can see in the second column.

11 Q. Thank you.

12 MR. ROBSON: Your Honours, this document can be put away now.

13 And if I could bring up another one. It's Defence document D1026.

14 Q. Mr. Hubo, are you able to make out what this document dated the

15 13th of November, 1995 says? Is it legible on the screen in front of

16 you?

17 A. Yes, it's legible. This is an order from the corps commander,

18 which was prepared by the organ that I headed. As we can see from the

19 top left corner where it says confidential number 05, this is the organ.

20 The document is dated 13 November 1995, and the subject is examining an

21 updating files of establishment of units, order. It says here that this

22 order shall regulate the following: On 14 November 1995 analyse the

23 establishment of the El Mujahid Detachment unit. The task mentioned in

24 item 1 of this order shall be carried out by the following officers, and

25 then it lists them: Captain Senad Tahto, on behalf of the military

1 security service; Senior Lieutenant-Colonel Mustafa Spahic, on behalf of

2 the organization, mobilization, and personnel affairs; Senior Lieutenant

3 Senad Mesic, on behalf of the legal affairs department.

4 Q. And were you aware of the 3rd Corps commander ordering the

5 creation of this team of officers in November 1995 to analyse the

6 establishment of the El Mujahedin Detachment?

7 A. Yes. It was clear. This order arose from the need to compile

8 this information and update it. So a committee or a commission was

9 formed, a mixed commission and the purpose, their objective was to carry

10 out this task.

11 Q. And do you have any knowledge of whether or not the commission

12 was able to carry out its task?

13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Wood.

14 MR. WOOD: Objection, Your Honour. Leading.

15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Robson.

16 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, I think from the witness's last answer

17 it's clear that he was aware of this commission being formed. He was the

18 assistant commander of the section, and the question I put was phrased in

19 such a way to give the witness the possibility of declining knowledge,

20 so --

21 JUDGE MOLOTO: The objection is overruled.

22 MR. ROBSON:

23 Q. Mr. Hubo, do you remember the question? Are you able to answer

24 it?

25 A. No commission ever managed to carry out the task as it was

1 expected and as it was supposed to be carried out. That is the gist of

2 my answer.

3 MR. ROBSON: Your Honours could this document please be admitted

4 into evidence.

5 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it

6 please be given an exhibit number.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the document will become Exhibit

8 1314.

9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

10 MR. ROBSON: If this is an appropriate time.

11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. We will take a break and

12 come back at 4.00.

13 Court adjourned.

14 --- Recess taken at 3.31 p.m.

15 --- On resuming at 3.59 p.m.

16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Robson.

17 Mr. Robson, how much longer are you still going to be.

18 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, I will try and finish within 20

19 minutes.

20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.

21 MR. ROBSON:

22 Q. Mr. Hubo, moving to a new issue, you told us that you did receive

23 some information from the El Mujahedin Detachment. Do you know at any

24 time was there ever any attempt to control membership of the El Mujahedin

25 Detachment?

1 A. I answered a number of times the same question. There were

2 ongoing attempts, up until the end of the war, but, unfortunately, that's

3 all that they remained, attempts.

4 MR. ROBSON: Could I show the witness document -- I beg your

5 pardon. Show the witness Exhibit 591.

6 Q. Mr. Hubo, this is a document dated the 22nd of April, 1995, from

7 the 3rd Corps security department. Could you tell us who this document

8 is addressed to?

9 If you are unable to read this document, please let me know and

10 we can provide with you a hard copy.

11 A. This is a document dated 22nd April 1995, sent to the department

12 of security -- from the department of military security, to the

13 department for legal and personnel affairs, to the attention of the

14 assistant commander. This document was also forwarded to other services,

15 the service the military security of the 3rd Corps, the

16 counterintelligence department, and to the organs of the military

17 security of the 3rd Corps command.

18 Q. And in the first paragraph of the document it says: "Upon the

19 order of the 3rd corps commander, staffing of the El Mujahedin unit was

20 limited and further admittance of fighters was suspended, both from

21 abroad and our citizens."

22 Before I ask you my question, did you receive this document in

23 April 1995 that's addressed to you?

24 A. Yes, I did.

25 Q. And are you able to comment at all on that first paragraph which

1 refers to staffing of the El Mujahedin Detachment being limited and

2 further admittance of fighters being suspended?

3 A. At one point, it was realised that the unit was filled up to the

4 manning levels that were actually foreseen by the formation units, and

5 the corps commander issued a decision to prohibit further reassignment of

6 these -- of these soldiers to El Mujahid detachment. In order for this

7 order to be complied with and carried out, the military security service

8 was also involved in this operation to supervise the compliance with this

9 order, and probably they also could apply some sanctions for all those --

10 to all those who did not comply with it.

11 Q. And do you know, did the El Mujahedin Detachment comply with the

12 direction to then suspend further admittance of fighters into the unit?

13 A. In fact, they continually forwarded requests, trying -- he

14 continually forwarded requests trying to actually circumvent this order.

15 But in legal and formal terms the corps command no longer reassigned men

16 and personnel from other formations.

17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, Mr. Robson. I just want to ask for

18 clarification.

19 Who is the "he" referred to in this answer, Mr. Hubo?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Perhaps if you can remind me of the

21 context.

22 MR. ROBSON:

23 Q. Could you tell us who or what continually forwarded requests to

24 try and circumvent the order that we see in front of us?

25 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ... [Microphone

1 not activated]

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's an it, it's the detachment

3 command. When I say "he" or "it," I mean the detachment. I apologise if

4 I omit to mentioned the name. I just want to make it clear that most

5 often I refer to that unit, the detachment.

6 MR. ROBSON: Your Honours, this document can be put away.

7 If we could please bring up Exhibit 590.

8 Q. Mr. Hubo, are you able to make out what is on the screen in front

9 of you? Again, the quality of this document is not particularly good.

10 A. The point of this document, in fact what it consists of is an

11 order of the corps commander of 9 August 1995, ordering that the persons

12 mentioned in the order immediately be returned to the 328th Mountain

13 Brigade, and this order came as a result of information that the military

14 security service provided, because can you see in the heading where it

15 says pursuant to report from the military security service, and for the

16 purpose of consistent implementation so they attempted in this manner,

17 too, to provide that the order of the corps command be complied with.

18 So these fighters, probably like the others, left their units on

19 their own and the military security service was aware of this, and they

20 demanded that these men not be admitted into the El Mujahid Detachment

21 but return to their original unit.

22 Q. If we can just scroll down the page in English, and -- and if we

23 can go into the second page in English.

24 We can see that the document bears the name Sakib Mahmuljin.

25 Mr. Hubo, do you know whether the El Mujahedin Detachment

1 complied with this order of the 9th of August, 1995 and returned the

2 listed men to the 328th Mountain Brigade?

3 A. I can't tell you if I know or not. It was his duty to comply

4 with in order and to report on it, to submit a report. And from what you

5 can see in the left bottom corner of the document where this was or whom

6 this was forwarded to, the department of military security of the

7 3rd Corps command, it's obvious that the military security also had to

8 actually monitor this, because we did not receive such reports, and there

9 was a desire to obtain them.

10 Q. Just to clarify one point. You said it was his duty to comply

11 with the order. Who were you speaking of when you said it was his duty?

12 A. I will try to be brief so that we can understand what's -- and

13 avoid using he or it.

14 So if you look at item 3 it says the commander of the

15 El Mujahedin Detachment is responsible for the execution of this order

16 and shall inform this command in writing by 1500 hours on 10 August 1995

17 at the latest. So this is an urgent order if you look at the date there,

18 of 9 August 1995, so the order should be complied with immediately by the

19 commander of the detachment.

20 Q. Thank you.

21 MR. ROBSON: Your Honours, this document can be put away and if

22 we can please bring up Exhibit 1167.

23 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Robson, would you kindly elicit from the

24 witness, and I'll leave it to you to put the questions if that's

25 preferable, elicit from the witness some more information about the

1 authority of the 3rd Corps commander to actually assign people to the

2 El Mujahid Detachment.

3 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, I was just about to move to that

4 specific point and you see from the document when it comes up --

5 JUDGE MOLOTO: If you're going to move to that point, may -- can

6 I clear something with the witness based on the exhibits that have been

7 put to him so far?

8 MR. ROBSON: Yes, Your Honour.

9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Hubo, do you know whether the 3rd Corps or any

10 authority within the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina did do anything to

11 enforce compliance with these many orders that we have been seeing sent

12 to the El Mujahedin Detachment and with which the El Mujahedin Detachment

13 did not comply?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it is difficult to

15 answer your question. I could tell you about the procedures with others,

16 but in this particular case, I cannot really give you an answer; but

17 certainly the organs of the military security service were focussed on

18 this, and it was their responsibility to inform the commander and it --

19 of what measures they were bringing. So I cannot really answer your

20 question as to how it was actually was and whether it was. But in this

21 particular case, we did not have the appropriate measures to enforce

22 compliance. In other words, this is --

23 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please be asked to repeat the

24 last part of the sentence. Just the last few words.

25 JUDGE MOLOTO: You are requested to repeat the last part of the

1 sentence. The interpreter didn't hear you.

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So through my office and the orders

3 that I had access to, I did not have the feeling that anything was

4 accomplished in this area.

5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Your answer has given some explanation which gave

6 me the impression we were not on the same page. Part of it says you did

7 hear what I'm saying. But let me just repeat myself so that we have a

8 clear understanding.

9 We have seen a number of orders being sent to the El Mujahid

10 Detachment to do certain things. Every one, without exception they have

11 not complied. Did the authorities of the army use the disciplinary

12 measures within the laws of -- of the army to ensure compliance? Are you

13 aware of this having been done at any stage?

14 Now I'm asking whether you are aware of it, so your answer is

15 going to be yes, I am aware; or no, I'm not aware. And if you are aware,

16 you will say, these are the measures that were taken.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I suppose that -- well, the body

18 instituting such criminal reports or measures was the military security

19 service. I am not aware of what they were doing within the corps

20 command, if anything.

21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

22 You may proceed, Mr. Robson.

23 MR. ROBSON: Exhibit 1167, please.

24 Q. So, Mr. Hubo, a moment ago we previously saw a document dated the

25 9th of August, 1995, in which the 3rd Corps commander was ordering men to

1 be returned from the El Mujahedin Detachment to the 328th Mountain

2 Brigade.

3 If I could ask you about this document in front of us, dated the

4 16th of August, 1995.

5 MR. ROBSON: And, Your Honours, first of all, perhaps we can go

6 to page 2 so we can clarify who the order is from.

7 Q. This also is from the 3rd Corps commander. Is that right?

8 A. Yes, the order of the 3rd Corps commander.

9 Q. And if we can go to point number 1 in the order. Can you explain

10 what the 3rd Corps commander is ordering?

11 A. In item 1 of the order the 3rd Corps commander orders that Kozlic

12 Himze Nermin, who had so far had the position in the third large PVO

13 should be assigned provisionally. That's the provision.

14 Q. And where is he being assigned to?

15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can see a little more of the English so that we

16 know this person that is being mentioned.

17 MR. ROBSON: Page 2, please.

18 Q. So we can see the persons being assigned to the El Mujahedin

19 Detachment. Is that so?

20 A. Yes, that's correct.

21 Q. Are you able to explain what is happening with this order, why --

22 perhaps could you explain why the person is being assigned to the

23 El Mujahedin Detachment, if you know?

24 A. I don't know what the reasons behind his assignment were, and of

25 what nature they were. However, in the preamble, what you don't have

1 here but can you see on page 1 of the English version - can you turn to

2 page 1 perhaps of the English version - in the Bosnian version it says in

3 the preamble, pursuant to Article 43, paragraph 1 of the decree law on

4 compulsory military service, and then all the relevant legislation is

5 listed as well as the Presidency decisions and the last part of the

6 paragraph says: "Pursuant to the proposal of the El Mujahid Detachment

7 command, number and dated." So it was that detachment that proposed the

8 reassignment of the individual and 3rd Corps carried out the

9 reassignment. I don't know what the reasons behind the reassignment

10 were, but probably the documents state something about that.

11 Q. Okay. You don't know the reason for the reassignment. So --

12 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, I don't whether I can usefully explore

13 that issue any further with the witness.

14 JUDGE MOLOTO: I don't know what it is that you want to explore,

15 Mr. Robson. It is up to you. You decide.

16 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, I'm referring to the question raised by

17 His Honour Judge Harhoff --

18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Oh, okay.

19 MR. ROBSON: -- when he wished to ask the witness about the

20 assignment of people to the El Mujahid Detachment.

21 JUDGE HARHOFF: I'm just unsure and I will just leave it to you

22 if you think that this is anything that should be explored. But I'm

23 unsure -- I'm unsure it about the significance of the correspondence of

24 the relation between General Mahmuljin of the 3rd Corps on the one side

25 and the El Mujahid Detachment on the other side and that's why I asked

1 the question. But I will leave it to you to see if you want to take it

2 any further. I mean, to me it does suggest some sort of a will to

3 establish something that might look like subordination or at least

4 cooperation, but I leave it to you, as I said, Mr. Robson.

5 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, you've left me the discretion, so I'm

6 going to move on and I'm going to deal with my final topic today; and I

7 hope I can deal with this quickly.

8 Q. Mr. Hubo, just to take you back to the initial part of your

9 evidence when you talked about the Municipal Defence Secretariat and you

10 explained that the Municipal Defence Secretariat was responsible for

11 replenishment of men in army units. Did you know, did the Municipal

12 Defence Secretariat have any other role apart from dealing with

13 replenishment?

14 A. Specifically speaking about the army, the secretariat also had

15 the obligation to requisition materiel and technical equipment for the

16 needs of the army.

17 Q. And do you know, was there any law or regulation that governed

18 the requisition of materiel for the needs of the army?

19 A. In the preamble of the decree 19/92, the decree on the criteria

20 and norms of the assignment of men and materiel, provides for the

21 obligations that the secretariat had vis-a-vis the armed forces.

22 Q. Okay. So the decree you mentioned, that's the document that

23 we've already looked at.

24 MR. ROBSON: So could I please bring up Exhibit 1310.

25 Q. So, Mr. Hubo, this is document that we looked at on Friday during

1 your testimony. Could we please look at Article 59, which is at page 16

2 of the English version. And it's page 12 in the B/C/S.

3 If you could just look at the first part of Article 59. Are you

4 able to comment on what this provides?

5 A. Article 59 speaks of the takeover of resources from their owners

6 for the needs of the users in the context of the armed forces or the MUP

7 shall be carried out through the municipal secretariat. In other words,

8 the secretariat is responsible for the requisitioning of assets from

9 their owners.

10 Q. And if you know, can you help us, what was the procedure by which

11 the Municipal Defence Secretariat would requisition assets and provide it

12 to a user?

13 A. This was the procedure in accordance with the instant Article,

14 the user of the assets, in other words, the unit which needed to

15 requisition some resources would submit a written application for the

16 requisitioning of a given asset and address it to the secretariat.

17 As a follow-up, the secretariat examined the situation and the

18 possibilities and where it was realistically possible, the secretariat

19 requisitioned the relevant items from the owner, and handed the

20 requisitioned goods on to the requesting unit, along with the relevant

21 minutes and all the underlying documentation. In any case the

22 secretariat was the mediator between the owner of the assets and the user

23 of the assets, in this particular context, the armed forces.

24 Q. And in terms of the resources which was covered by this decree,

25 what sort of things were included within that term?

1 A. It included facilities, vehicles, all the equipment used by the

2 armed forces, from computers to office premises, et cetera. The army had

3 a wide range of needs. There was no other way of procuring these goods

4 other than through this procedure, and this is the way the armed forces

5 procured their materiel.

6 Q. And when you say facilities, can you be a little clearer? What

7 do you mean by "facilities"?

8 A. I meant buildings, premises, necessary for the stationing of the

9 command and the billeting of men, above all.

10 Q. So you've said the Municipal Defence Secretariat was responsible

11 for assigning these resources to military units. Once the resources were

12 assigned to a unit, was there any type of continuing duty to oversee the

13 use of the resources?

14 A. The Ministry of Defence, in this case its Defence Secretariat,

15 had the possibility to constantly assess whether the resources were used

16 as had been primarily intended, and this was one of the duties of the

17 secretariat to examine the actual possibilities and possible uses to

18 which the resources could be put.

19 MR. ROBSON: And, Your Honours, if I could bring up my final

20 document. It's D999.

21 Q. Mr. Hubo, are you able to explain to us what this document is?

22 A. This document is a record on the inspection of utilisation of

23 facilities appropriated for the purposes of the military unit 5689,

24 Zenica, which is the El Mujahid Detachment.

25 A commission was set up comprising the representatives of the

1 district Defence Secretariat, the ministry's department in Zenica, which

2 means the municipal officer there, and the representative of the military

3 unit 5689. It was established here that the commission had conducted a

4 field inspection and found that the appropriated or requisitioned

5 facilities of Vatrostalna and Apatinska Pivara were being properly

6 utilized, and it is also stated that the facilities were socially owned.

7 The note reads that the Apatinska Pivara was not requisitioned due to an

8 error, so a subsequent requested submitted for it to be appropriated and

9 that this was a pending issue.

10 Q. Just so we're clear, which authority or body would have been

11 responsible for determining that subsequent request?

12 A. The Defence Secretariat.

13 MR. ROBSON: Your Honours, I move that this document be admitted

14 into evidence.

15 JUDGE HARHOFF: What does it show, Mr. Robson? Can you have the

16 witness explain this to us?

17 MR. ROBSON:

18 Q. Mr. Hubo, are you able to explain what's going on, what this

19 document describes?

20 A. The article we referred to earlier governs that the Defence

21 Secretariat had the ongoing duty to examine the possible uses and the

22 condition in which the requisitioned facilities were. It also had the

23 duty to oversee whether the facilities were put to use as had originally

24 been intended.

25 In this particular instances he went out into the ground to

1 examine precisely this. All these organs had to establish whether the

2 facilities had indeed been requisitioned and whether it was being used as

3 intended. It had to carry out its duty -- this duty as will all the

4 other units.

5 JUDGE HARHOFF: But, Mr. Robson, we need from the witness an

6 explanation as to then who requisitioned the Vatrostalna facility for the

7 EMD, and what is the significance of the inspection which showed that, in

8 fact, the El Mujahid Detachment was using the facilities properly.

9 MR. ROBSON:

10 Q. Mr. Hubo, can you tell us who was it that requisitioned the

11 Vatrostalna facility for the El Mujahid Detachment?

12 A. I suppose that it was requisitioned by those who requested it and

13 I presume that this unit submitted this request or some other unit that

14 had previously been stationed there. It any case, the Municipal Defence

15 Secretariat was the competent body to ensure that the facility is

16 requisitioned for their purposes and to oversee whether the requisitioned

17 facility was indeed being used for the purposes initially cited, in order

18 to avoid the abuse of such facilities. Some instances of abuse had been

19 reported elsewhere.

20 JUDGE HARHOFF: So I'm sorry, but I need to understand why we're

21 doing this.

22 I sit with the picture that the El Mujahid Detachment requested

23 the acquisition of this building. Now, for some reason the requisition

24 was never formally filed but nevertheless the El Mujahedin then took over

25 the building and subsequently this municipal body came to inspect the

1 facilities to see if everything was all right. They came, and they were

2 able to see that, yes, the facility was being used for the purpose for

3 which it was requested, and so they left.

4 This, if anything, shows that things were all right. They were

5 working by the rules, and there was just this little mistake that a

6 formal requisition was never filed.

7 Is that what this document is about?

8 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, the point is and I'll put this as a

9 question to the witness, if I may --

10 JUDGE MOLOTO: It's your witness Mr. Robson and your document.

11 MR. ROBSON:

12 Q. Mr. Hubo, you have explained the procedure for assigning

13 resources, including facilities, and we've discussed the El Mujahedin

14 Detachment. Was the competent body, the Municipal Defence Secretariat,

15 that determined these issues, a military body or a civilian body?

16 A. The municipal organ decided whether to mobilize whether there was

17 such need or not. Not the military organ. The military organ sent

18 requests for that.

19 In this particular instance, the Vatrostalna facility, in my

20 view, had been requisitioned by some other military unit earlier on, and

21 probably it remained requisitioned once the unit left. I believe that it

22 had the status of having been requisitioned since 1992, and this

23 municipal organ merely established that the facility had indeed been

24 requisitioned whereas this other part, this other facility that had been

25 used had not been formally requisitioned; and therefore it speaks of this

1 subsequent request and the need to submit it in order for the facility to

2 be formally requisitioned. Perhaps this is confusing. But can you see

3 there is the 17th of June, 1995 and a great many things happened since

4 1992 I believe that the facility had been requisitioned as early as 1992,

5 but I can't tell you this with precision because I don't have records. I

6 suppose that when the unit took up this facility it was merely the user

7 of the facility that changed but the status of the facility remained the

8 same.

9 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I don't know if this

10 answer is understandable. If I may just put in a word or two concerning

11 interpretation.

12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Which answer, Madam Vidovic?

13 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] The last answer, Your Honour.

14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. Yes, Mr. Wood.

15 MR. WOOD: Before my learned colleague does this, Your Honour, I

16 just want to make sure that the way this is put to the witness is not

17 done in a way that might suggest the answer or suggest another answer

18 that Madam Vidovic might believe that he meant or that he said instead.

19 I don't know if it would be appropriate if we're going to talk about

20 interpretation and if Madam Vidovic is to say this is actually what he

21 said when this is it what the interpretation was, it might be appropriate

22 for the witness not to be present for that, Your Honour, so that we don't

23 suggest any answers to the witness.

24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Vidovic, are you talking about a

25 misinterpretation on the transcript, because if you are then we can just

1 ask the witness to repeat himself.

2 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I refer to

3 interpretation. I'm speaking in terms of what the witness says and what

4 is reflected on the transcript. I didn't give any sort of explanation

5 that could give even the remote intimation of me trying to give a

6 suggestion to the witness, and let me sate this, since this the second

7 time my learned friends have said that I wished to suggest something, and

8 the truth couldn't be further than that. I wish to state that we have

9 been having problems with interpretation all this time, and what I shall

10 be asking in the future, Your Honours, is to have the tape of what the

11 witness said played in the courtroom so that my learned friends would

12 fully be aware of me wishing to merely point to misinterpretation rather

13 than wishing to make any suggestions. I shall ask right after this

14 hearing to be given a tape; and I will react in writing to every

15 inconsistency in interpretation, and I will ask for the interpretation to

16 be corrected. In order to avoid prolonging the testimony of this

17 witness.

18 However, Your Honours, I really resent being told that I am

19 suggesting anything to the witness whenever I want to raise an

20 interpretation issue. This is our right. It is my right to raise such

21 an issue if what the witness has been saying is not correctly reflected

22 in the transcript. I do not wish to be reproached in this manner, that's

23 why I will ask for the tape to be checked after the hearing or for the

24 tape to be checked during the hearing. I really don't think that I

25 deserve such comments as we have been hearing from my learned friends

1 from the Prosecution.

2 Thank you very much for that Madam Vidovic. I want to suggest

3 that the shortest, surest, and quickest way of correcting any

4 misinterpretation issues is just to ask the witness to repeat the answer,

5 and if the answer is still misinterpreted let us point out where the

6 misinterpretation is and let's ask the witness to repeat that portion

7 again and ask the interpreters to listen properly. I think that will be

8 a quicker way and we will finish this trial much quicker that way.

9 Mr. Hubo, Madam Vidovic suggests that the answer you gave at page

10 44, starting from line 3 to line 16, there is a misinterpretation

11 somewhere. I would like to you repeat that answer. I realise it is a

12 very long answer, unfortunately. If you want to be reminded of what you

13 said in that answer, I can read to you what is said in that paragraph and

14 then you can tell us whether it interprets you correctly.

15 The question had been: -- I beg your pardon. The answer starts

16 from line 25 of page 43.

17 The question had been: Mr. Hubo, you have explained in the

18 procedure for assigning resources including facilities. And we have

19 discussed the El Mujahedin Detachment, was the competent body, the

20 Municipal Defence Secretariat, that determined these issues a military

21 body or a civilian body?

22 Your answer was: The municipal organ decided whether -- I can't

23 read this English here. To mobilised whether there was such need -- I

24 don't know what was typed here, not the military organ. They sent

25 requests for that. In this particular incident there and there are some

1 words missing, military unit earlier on and probably it remained

2 requisitioned once the unit left. I believe that it had the status of

3 having been requisitioned since 1992 and this municipal organ merely

4 established that the facility had indeed been requisitioned whereas this

5 other part, this other -- now again, I can't read there word, had been

6 used, had not been formally requisitioned and therefore it speaks of this

7 subsequent request and the need to submit it in order for the facility to

8 be formally requisitioned.

9 Perhaps this is confusing, but can you see this is the 17th of

10 June 1995 and a great many things happened since 1992, I believe, that

11 the facility had been requisitioned as early as 1992, but I can't tell

12 you this with precision because I don't have records. I suppose that

13 when the unit took up this facility it was merely the user of the

14 facility that changed but the status of the facility remained the same.

15 Now, obviously a number of words have been misspelled in the

16 answer, and some of them have been left out. The answer is to me

17 incomprehensible. But if this does help you to remind you of what you

18 were trying to say, I would appreciate it if you could repeat yourself.

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

20 Let me state that I find it difficult to repeat my answer since I

21 didn't learn them by heart, to meet your request I do want to be as fair

22 as possible and repeat.

23 This is a very wide discussion and a deal of it is speculation.

24 I can tell you what I know. On the basis of this document I can tell you

25 that the commission established the status of the requisitioned facility.

1 What I can speculate on the basis of this, if you will agree with me, I

2 think, I don't have a document, that this facility, the Vatrostalna

3 facility had been requisitioned earlier on for the purposes of one of the

4 units of the armed forces which had in the meantime or left somewhere, I

5 don't know whether it happened with it.

6 As for this other facility, the Apatinska Pivara facility, had

7 never been requisitioned, and they established this in the document and

8 the secretariat asked that the unit submit a request so that the facility

9 can indeed be requisitioned and handed over to them for use as was

10 legally proper.

11 This was the sort of procedure conducted by the Municipal Defence

12 Secretariat for which the secretariat was responsible. The units

13 submitted their needs in writing to the secretariat, and the secretariat,

14 in turn, examined what the options were and on the basis of the

15 conclusion of that assessment, they -- the secretariat either

16 requisitioned the sort of goods or not and of course on this -- it was on

17 this that their meeting or not meeting of the requests from units

18 depended. I don't know if I've managed to answer your question fully.

19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Vidovic can tell us that.

20 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] This time the interpretation is

21 correct, Your Honour.

22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

23 Now just clear me on one little point, Mr. Hubo, where do you get

24 it from, looking -- by looking at this document, that Vatrostalna had

25 been requisitioned for purposes of another unit before and where you get

1 that from because I'm not picking that up by looking at the document.

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can conclude this based on my

3 memory, because many units in that period were established and then

4 disbanded, they came and went; and I can't tell you whether this was

5 actually the truth, but I think that this particular facility had been in

6 use much earlier.

7 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's something you remember from knowledge --

8 your knowledge of what happened then, not something you're picking up

9 from the document, this document before us?

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This document only states that the

11 appropriated facility, that it should be -- that it is being utilized

12 properly, it doesn't say when. But based on the document, this is what I

13 can tell you.

14 JUDGE MOLOTO: I guess I can't take the matter any further.

15 Yes, Mr. Robson.

16 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, no further questions.

17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Robson.

18 Mr. Wood.

19 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, I apologize, it was a D document, I

20 missed that. Could I ask for the document to be admitted into evidence.

21 JUDGE MOLOTO: May document 999 please be given an exhibit

22 number. The document is admitted into evidence.

23 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours this will become exhibit number

24 1315.

25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

1 Yes, Mr. Wood.

2 MR. WOOD: Thank you, Mr. President.

3 Cross-examination by Mr. Wood:

4 Q. Mr. Hubo, my name is Kyle Wood, and I represent the Prosecution

5 in this case. I will be asking you some questions now.

6 Now, first off, Mr. Hubo, I just want to understand the context

7 and make sure that the Trial Chamber understands the context of your

8 testimony today.

9 Now, you told us that you took up your duties in the organ for

10 organisation, mobilisation, and personnel affairs in September 1993. Is

11 that correct?

12 A. September 1993 is when the takeover started. It took a while,

13 several months, actually. It lasted several months for the entire

14 takeover to take place.

15 Q. You were there for several months. In fact, you were there until

16 the end of the war. This is the same position that you held. Is that

17 correct?

18 A. The name changed, the number of employees, but, in fact, this

19 organ existed until the end of the war, and it dealt with these issues.

20 Q. And this was essentially a 3rd Corps headquarters organ. Is that

21 correct?

22 A. This was a 3rd Corps command organ.

23 Q. And, again, I don't think you answered my question about how long

24 you remained in this organ. You said that it existed to the end of the

25 war, and it dealt with these issues. You, in fact, were the head of that

1 organ from 1993 until the end of the war. Is that correct?

2 A. That is correct. But I just stress again, that the organ changed

3 the name, and the number of people working for it changed. At some point

4 there were nine men working, at another point there were 13 men working

5 in the organ itself, but I remained at the head of it.

6 Q. So, for example, you never became a brigade commander?

7 A. No, I never became a brigade commander.

8 Q. You were a never a battalion commander?

9 A. No, I was never a battalion commander.

10 Q. And in your position, difficult though it was, you weren't in any

11 position to issue any combat orders to any units in the 3rd Corps. Is

12 that correct?

13 A. I prepared and issued orders in my capacity as the Chief of

14 Staff, and the commanders would sign those.

15 Q. So you didn't issue combat orders for example, that is, to sign

16 them during operations Proljece or Farz?

17 A. No, I didn't have the competence to do something like that.

18 Q. I want to clear up one other thing.

19 You said that you joined this organ in September 1993. That was

20 after the order for the formation of the El Mujahid Detachment had

21 already been issued by General Delic. Isn't that correct?

22 A. Yes, that's correct.

23 Q. So you weren't there when General Delic issued the order forming

24 the El Mujahid Detachment?

25 A. No, I wasn't, not in this period.

1 Q. And generally, Mr. Hubo, you've told the Trial Chamber that

2 military records are important for determining whether somebody was a

3 member of the army. Is that correct?

4 A. Of course it is correct. You have to have records of everything

5 that is happening and that also includes the conscript records.

6 Q. And you told us, for example, that there were women in Vitez who

7 fought in the liberation war but they did not have status as members of

8 the army because the correct lists weren't drawn up. Is that correct?

9 A. That's partly correct. It's not just about lists. It's also

10 about keeping records of them. Records within an official organ that is

11 supposed to keep the records and within whose competence it is. So if

12 you weren't mobilised by a competent organ or you were not on the list of

13 a unit that was established, then you are not a member of the army. And

14 if you were on a list or in the records of that unit, then by this fact

15 alone already, you would earn the status of member.

16 So if a woman was not on file within a unit, then she wouldn't

17 have that status.

18 Q. If your name is on a list in the records of that unit, then by

19 this fact alone you would earn status of a member. Is that your

20 testimony, sir?

21 A. If a unit kept a record of you being on their list that means

22 that you had the status of being a member of that unit.

23 Q. Now, we've heard a lot of testimony over the last couple of days

24 about the Municipal Secretariats. You told the Trial Chamber that the

25 lists that were drawn up had to be sent to the Municipal Secretariats.

1 Is that correct?

2 A. Are you asking me about volunteers or about something else?

3 Q. I'm talking about the formation of any unit.

4 A. Any unit, if a mobilisation was carried out in the normal course,

5 in the normal manner that would be reported to the secretariat. Once the

6 conscript reported to the unit command, the unit would make a record of

7 it, they call his information, and in the end it would compile a list and

8 forward it to the Defence Secretariats, so that they could compare their

9 files.

10 Q. And those records were kept by the individual unit and by the

11 municipal secretariat. Is that your testimony, sir?

12 A. The records had to be kept within each independent unit and

13 almost identical records were also in the secretariats.

14 Q. The municipal secretariats, you mentioned, I think, just at the

15 end of your testimony that those were civilian organs. Didn't you, sir?

16 A. Yes, they were civilian administrative organs.

17 Q. And you were in the ARBiH from 1993 until 1995? Or, actually, I

18 believe you still are.

19 A. You're not right. I was in the ARBiH from 1992 to 1995, then I

20 was in the army of the federation and now I'm a member of the armed

21 forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina, so this is different, in effect.

22 Q. Thank you for that clarification, sir. You're certainly not a

23 part of the municipal secretariats in 1993, 1994, or 1995?

24 A. No. I already said that this was a civilian organ, an

25 administrative organ that was there side by side in addition to the army.

1 Q. And again, we've established that it was up to the secretariats

2 to keep the lists and the individual units. In fact, sir, it wasn't

3 really the responsibility of the corps command to keep any of these

4 lists. Isn't that correct.

5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Robson.

6 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, my learned friend referred to lists.

7 We've established that it was up to the secretariats to keep the lists.

8 But the witness's testimony has been that its records had to be kept

9 within each independent unit and almost identical records which were also

10 in the secretariats.

11 JUDGE MOLOTO: So that question you're objecting to actually.

12 MR. ROBSON: Yes its has been put as lists and that is not what

13 the witness said.

14 JUDGE MOLOTO: It does and the individual units. We have

15 established that it was up to the secretariat to keep the lists and the

16 individual units. Line 8 of page 54 [Microphone not activated]

17 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour that's a question that was put by the

18 Prosecutor so I'm saying that the testimony we've heard today is that

19 records were to be kept and I'm suggesting that it is it wrong for the

20 Prosecutor to put it to this witness that he said listed were to be kept.

21 JUDGE MOLOTO: You want the word record instead of lists. Sorry,

22 I misheard you.

23 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, in our submission this is a

24 distinction.

25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Wood.

1 MR. WOOD: Certain there has been a mischaracterisation or if

2 there's been a problem with the way the witness answered, Mr. Robson is

3 free to explore that and to correct that if there has been an error on

4 redirect. I don't mean to mischaracterise the evidence, but at the same

5 time, I believe there's an appropriate way to handle something like that,

6 and this is not the way.

7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, but at the same time when a

8 mischaracterisation does take place I think it is well within his right

9 to say, Sorry that's not what the witness said. The witness said this

10 and I think let's try to keep to the correct characterisation of the

11 evidence.

12 MR. WOOD: Thank you, Mr. President.

13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Wood.

14 MR. WOOD:

15 Q. So again, Mr. Hubo, it was up to the municipal secretariats to

16 keep these records, or lists, data, as it wasn't the responsibility of

17 the 3rd Corps command to keep these sorts of records or data or lists --

18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry. It doesn't help to keep saying records or

19 data or lists. Are they records, are they lists, are they data. Give

20 them one characterisation, sir. There has been an objection to one

21 characterisation which you keep persisting on, so make your mind what up

22 what characterisation you're going to use.

23 MR. WOOD: I think data, Your Honour, would cover it.

24 JUDGE MOLOTO: As you please, sir.

25 MR. WOOD:

1 Q. So we will try again, Mr. Hubo. It was up to the Municipal

2 Secretariats in the individual units to keep this data. It wasn't up to

3 the 3rd Corps to keep this data. Is that correct?

4 A. I apologise, the term that was used wasn't clear. Well, the

5 competencies were defined by a provision or decree and each unit had the

6 responsibility to keep records of their members and the Defence

7 Secretariat kept records of all military conscripts on the territory of

8 that municipality. The term that is used, that was in use was records.

9 This was the legal term and we applied, we abided by that term.

10 Q. You also told the Trial Chamber that you were informed by the

11 secretariat that they never received information but you didn't have any

12 firsthand knowledge about whether the El Mujahid Detachment gave any data

13 to the Municipal Secretariats. Isn't that right?

14 A. We had regular meetings at the corps command with secretariats,

15 and the district which was responsible for these municipal organs and we

16 had meetings with the municipal organs whenever the need arose at their

17 request. So we exchanged information and were informed of the problems

18 that were -- that existed at that time.

19 Q. My question was, sir, you had no direct firsthand knowledge about

20 whether the EMD submitted any data to the Municipal Secretariats.

21 A. I had the information on the basis of information I received from

22 the municipal secretariat. This was firsthand information.

23 Q. Mr. Hubo, you've told us earlier just in your -- in response to a

24 question that I put that records are important in determining the status

25 of membership in the army. Isn't that correct?

1 A. That's right. The records were key to establishing the factual

2 situation.

3 Q. Isn't it true that another way of telling whether some -- a

4 particular soldier was a member of the ABiH is whether that was person

5 was paid or compensated for his activities?

6 A. You mean military pay or generally?

7 Q. Well, you wouldn't pay somebody as a soldier unless they were

8 actually a soldier in the army. Isn't that correct?

9 A. At one point in time the army did begin to pay their soldiers.

10 There were occasions, situations, where a person was a member of the

11 army, but his company actually paid him because the army did not pay him.

12 There were those situations where companies or firms where people used to

13 work that they paid and assisted these people financially. But it was

14 the responsible of the army to ensure that they get paid.

15 Q. And military records were important in determining whether and

16 how much somebody would be paid. Isn't that correct?

17 A. From the moment when the military personnel received their pay

18 from the army, I can't tell you exactly when this was, but the finance

19 organs, they received lists from the secretariats of who the members of

20 units were and based on these, these people were paid.

21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Vidovic.

22 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise to my colleague if we

23 can just correct the transcript because a portion of the answer that the

24 witness gave is missing, and it is creating confusion. On page 58, as

25 far as what I can see here, or, rather the answer in line 12 where it

1 said that the army was responsible to ensure that someone be -- that

2 something be paid out and then he added a whole sentence after that, with

3 respect to the fact whether this was or wasn't actually paid out; so I

4 would request that the witness be asked about this, because this is an

5 whole sentence here that the witness gave that didn't enter the

6 transcript.

7 Perhaps my colleague can clarify this.

8 JUDGE MOLOTO: If you can, Mr. Wood. I'm lost, because page 58

9 starts with Madam Vidovic speaking on my screen, so when she refers to

10 page 58, line 12, I don't know which part is it, line 12 is on page 57

11 for me. At one point in time, the army did begin to pay the soldiers.

12 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction, Your Honour, page 57.

13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Line 12. Okay.

14 MR. WOOD: Again, Your Honour, I would suggest that --

15 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] The problem is that nobody is

16 waiting for everybody to be done with the translation and you speak --

17 the interpreter can almost not even breathe anymore because everyone is

18 speaking so fast and not making any breaks between questions and answers.

19 JUDGE MOLOTO: That is true. That point is taken, Judge, and I

20 think the parties are warned then to please be aware of that.

21 But, Mr. Wood, I said I'm lost as to where the misinterpretation

22 took place, but maybe the best way to deal with this is to ask the

23 witness to answer the question once again, that was put to him at line 10

24 of page 57: Well, you wouldn't pay somebody as a soldier unless they

25 were actually a soldier in the army. Isn't that correct.

1 That is the question that was put to you and you answered, sir.

2 Can you repeat your answer again, to the extent possible so that we

3 correct the mistake.

4 And let me warn you, the shorter your answers, the easier it will

5 be to repeat them when you have to repeat them, and try to answer just

6 the question as asked, don't expand.

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. It is very

8 difficult to give a short answer to this type of question because there

9 are numerous situations.

10 The question was: If someone was a member of the army, did he

11 get paid for it, compensated for it, and I explained if a man is

12 mobilised, if he is in an army unit, if he came from a company, a firm,

13 he could receive pay from the company still. But it was the

14 responsibility of the state to actually provide for the pay, the

15 soldier's pay.

16 At one point in time, the state began to pay military pay to the

17 soldiers of the army, 20 to 40 marks --

18 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I apologise, the same

19 sentence is being omitted again.

20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Vidovic, give us time. Stand up but keep

21 quiet so that the interpretation gets finished. Just what Judge Lattanzi

22 was saying now. When you speak while the interpreter is still speaking

23 and that's why Judge Lattanzi feels, and I agree with her, they can

24 hardly get time to breath. Make your point. You're saying the same

25 sentence is being left out.

1 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. If you allow me,

2 this is the second time where the sentence the army of Bosnia and

3 Herzegovina did not pay the soldiers. This is the second time that the

4 interpreters is omitting this sentence, the same sentence.

5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can you start again there, sir, but it was the

6 responsibility of the state to actually provide for the payment, the

7 soldier's pay.

8 Carry on there.

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The pay did not exist in the army

10 of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. At one point in time, the

11 soldiers began receiving -- being compensated for, in cash, I don't know

12 what the amount was, 20, 40, marks this was symbolic, but the pay was

13 done based on the lists and records provided for by the unit commands.

14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now again the interpreter -- okay. It has been

15 corrected. Thank you. Carry on.

16 MR. WOOD: I note, Your Honour, the time. It is 5.17. Past time

17 for the usual break. This would be a convenient time for me to break.

18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Indeed. We will take a break and come back at

19 quarter to 6.00.

20 Court adjourned.

21 --- Recess taken at 5.18 p.m.

22 --- On resuming at 5.46 p.m.

23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Wood.

24 MR. WOOD: If I could have Exhibit 114 brought up and shown to

25 the witness, please. And specifically I'm interested in the witness

1 seeing page 120. And I'll clarify it, 120 in the Bosnian, and 131 in the

2 English.

3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Wood, am I right to say this document is dated

4 16th of September, 1996?

5 MR. WOOD: Well, the page that was there originally, yes, Your

6 Honour -- Mr. President.

7 Q. Now, Mr. Hubo, which talked a little bit about compensating

8 soldiers for their service in the army. And you told us that it was

9 important that a soldier would not be paid unless his name was on the

10 proper list.

11 If I could -- we could zoom in a little bit on the top. Yes.

12 Now, Mr. Hubo, we have here --

13 MR. WOOD: Your Honour, before we continue, it has been brought

14 to my attention that this exhibit was admitted confidentially.

15 JUDGE MOLOTO: May the Chamber please move into private session.

16 MR. WOOD: And I do apologise for not bringing that up earlier.

17 JUDGE MOLOTO: And to the extent that it has now been made

18 public, can it be redacted.

19 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're in private session.

20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

21 [Private session]

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Pages 7697-7703 redacted. Private session

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 [Open session]

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

9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

10 Now, you are saying P6263 is not on their list.

11 Mr. Wood.

12 MR. WOOD: Yes, Your Honour. I would note that this isn't

13 technically the first time this has come up. We have had transcripts

14 from the Hadzihasanovic case which were assigned to P numbers. Those

15 were offered into evidence, on second thought my colleague over here

16 decided not to put those into the record because they had been read.

17 Now, in general terms, P06263 is a document that has been signed

18 by this individual. Before the Prosecution knew that he was going to be

19 a witness, we didn't understand the importance this particular document.

20 Therefore it would have been impossible for us to have added it to our

21 exhibit list not knowing that Mr. Hubo would be testifying again.

22 So, again, Your Honour, in the interest of fairness I think it is

23 important that there be a general principle that documents that even

24 though they're not on the Prosecution's exhibit list we still show to

25 witnesses for various different reasons. Including to impeach their

1 credibility.

2 JUDGE MOLOTO: I would imagine Mr. Wood, and I don't know what

3 the practice is between the parties, but I would imagine that if then a

4 document comes up which you suddenly feel you need to use because of

5 particular witness is it going to be called, the obvious thing to do is

6 to give notice to your opposite number.

7 MR. WOOD: Yes, Your Honour, and I did provide notice to them

8 that had this was on our list of documents that we circulated or a list

9 of document that we circulated are a list of documents that we indicated

10 we would be showing to this witness on cross-examination. We also

11 provided a copy of this as well as translations.

12 And I'm not sure, there's confusion on there point. This does

13 not appear in our 65 ter list. It is a P number that has been added when

14 we did our search and found that it was particularly relevant because

15 Mr. Hubo was testifying.

16 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's what I mean. At least to when you give

17 notice to your opposite side to say, Well to explain why it was not in

18 your original 65 ter list in the first place, that now you realise it

19 relates to a particular witness who they are going to call.

20 [Trial Chamber confers]

21 JUDGE MOLOTO: At least just to give them some explanation as to

22 why it was not on your list in the first place. I realise there is quite

23 a bit of mutual disclosure between the parties in this practice and I

24 have never been really to understand how it operates, but it seems as if

25 this is what has been happening in this trial so far. Late documents

1 are -- the opposite party is given notice even if it is late to say we're

2 going use this document and it was not included in the first place

3 because of the following reasons.

4 MR. WOOD: Again, Your Honour, we're checking right now to

5 confirm when notice of this was sent to the Defence.

6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.

7 MR. WOOD: Again, as I said, the importance of this document

8 could not have been apparent to the Prosecution before we got the 65 ter

9 exhibit list from the Defence.

10 JUDGE MOLOTO: I understand that. I understand that.

11 Judge Lattanzi was just adding also that in this situation you

12 also need the authorisation of the Chamber. I'm not quite sure about

13 that. Are you able to address that?

14 I saw you, Mr. Robson, I'm coming to you.

15 MR. WOOD: Your Honour, we're not actually asking that this

16 actually be added to the 65 ter exhibit list. Certainly if we were that

17 would require the leave of the Trial Chamber. This is something that was

18 shown to the witness for various purposes, including for impeachment. I

19 don't believe the rules require in this situation that we do seek leave

20 of the Trial Chamber, though since this is the first situation in which

21 this has arisen, certainly guidelines are welcome.

22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Aren't you going ask that it be tendered into

23 evidence?

24 MR. WOOD: Again, Your Honour, the difference is now that we're

25 in the Defence phase we can't know what documents are going to be

1 relevant and so on. We give notice as soon as we can do that, based on

2 the 65 ter exhibit list. I will ask, I guess that this be tendered into

3 evidence at some point. Certainly the Trial Chamber as a professional

4 fact finder, and can give it whatever weight it sees fit, such -- as long

5 as it meets the other required under Rule 89(C).

6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, Mr. Robson, I was actually communicating

7 with the security at the back there. But you can stand up there.

8 MR. ROBSON: Sorry, I didn't mean to cut off my learned friend

9 there.

10 Your Honour, the position is that on Friday afternoon the Defence

11 received an e-mail telling us which documents the Prosecution intended to

12 use with this witness. On that list were seven documents which were not

13 on the Prosecution's Rule 65 ter list. Of those seven documents two of

14 those documents had been disclosed to us in a portion of material that

15 related to Mr. Hubo arising from ISU searches. This document that we're

16 discussing now is not one of those documents. So, in other words, there

17 were five documents that the Defence got notice of for the very first

18 time on Friday afternoon. The documents were in B/C/S and it is only

19 today that copies translations of those documents have been supplied to

20 the Defence. So certainly we would say that these are documents that we

21 hadn't prior sight of. We have not had prior time to look into them, to

22 see whether there's any authenticity issues and any other issues

23 pertaining to them. We certainly did have the chance to discuss them

24 with Mr. Hubo when he came to be proofed.

25 And now we're in a situation where the Prosecution is trying to

1 use these documents, they haven't told us the reason why they want to use

2 the documents. Mr. Wood said he want do use them for different reason,

3 including impeachment, so I think first of all they have to be clear as

4 to why they are using the document and if they are just using it for

5 credibility purposeless then what would they be trying to do with the

6 document in due course. Would they be seeking to admit it purely just to

7 deal with issues pertaining to credibility or would they be looking to

8 rely upon the substance of the document, the contents, what it speaks of;

9 so this is all unclear as well.

10 And, Your Honour, obviously as I said at the beginning, this is

11 an principle at stake here. Based on what we heard from Mr. Hubo I don't

12 see any cause for the Prosecution to try and impeach his testimony in

13 relation to certificates unless they can point out something that they

14 can show arises from what he has told us in connection with this

15 document, so in a nutshell, Your Honour, this is a document we say the

16 Prosecution should not be able to rely upon.

17 JUDGE MOLOTO: I just have a problem that -- the opposite side

18 must understand completely what the other side wants to use a document

19 for and unless you understand what they want to use it for they should

20 not be allowed to use it. I don't understand that kind of principle and

21 I would like to get a reference for it.

22 As I understand it, and I'm aware of you, Mr. Mundis, if a

23 witness is coming and a particular party wants to impeach that witness, I

24 would imagine that you could bring any document to impeach that witness.

25 And if you say you're using it for purposes of impeachment then of course

1 the Trial Chamber is going to looks at it for purposes of impeachment and

2 purposes of impeachment only, unless you give us another purpose.

3 I think your learned friend has told you he wants to use it for

4 purpose of impeachment and what he said various reasons including

5 impeachment if he uses for other reasons we will see those reasons

6 emerge. If it is impeachment only, it will be impeachment and that's it.

7 MR. ROBSON: I'm following, and I am with you to a certain

8 extent, Your Honour. But what I would submit is that if in fact the

9 Prosecution want to use this document for reasons other than impeachment

10 and then I think, number one, they need to make that clear in due course.

11 But number two, I think then a question arises to whether they should

12 either have asked for permission to add it to the Rule 65 ter list or

13 whether they should it make an application to do so because I think if a

14 document is being used for reasons other than impeachment in other words

15 a Prosecution one to rely upon the substance of it to prove their case so

16 it goes to guilt or innocence then it could well be and we would say it

17 is a scenario where it should be added to the Rule 65 ter list.

18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let me understand you clearly. If it only used

19 for impeachment there is no need for it to be clued in the 65 ter list.

20 Is that what you're saying.

21 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, I --

22 Your Honour, this is a tricky area and I know that the practice

23 varies from chamber to chamber. Our simple position should be that any

24 document should be under the Rule 65 ter list, but particularly those

25 which don't touch on credibility issues, if I can put it that way. I

1 know some chamber take a more relaxed view with regard to documents used

2 to test credibility.

3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Your short answer if it deals with credibility it

4 be can be admitted without being on the 65 ter list. This is what I hear

5 you saying, if I must summarize you.

6 MR. ROBSON: I'll go along with that, Your Honour. But, as I

7 say, the Prosecution has to establish that they've got valid reasons to

8 try and impugn a witness's credibility.

9 JUDGE MOLOTO: You won't know until they impeach them. They

10 don't have to tell you, I'm going to impeach him on this point and on

11 that point. They say this is a document I'm going to use it for

12 impeachment. Unless you really say they must show you the arsenal

13 completely right at the begin, I don't know how you operate.

14 Mr. Mundis, I know have you been standing for quite sometime.

15 MR. MUNDIS: I sat down in the middle there, Your Honour, but

16 thank you very much.

17 I think there is a couple of points that should be made very

18 clear. First of all, as the Presiding Judge was just alluding to, we

19 don't know if we will be impeaching the witness with the document until

20 he is shown the document an offered an opportunity to comment upon the

21 document. This is a document that at least based on the face of the

22 document was signed by the witness.

23 But let me go to the more general point, which is as my learned

24 colleague Mr. Robson has indicated is a question really of principle.

25 During the Prosecution phase of this case, 432 documents were tendered by

1 the Defence during the cross-examination of Prosecution witnesses, not a

2 single one of those documents was on the Defence 65 ter list because at

3 that point in time there was no such thing as a Defence 65 ter list.

4 Similarly, the Prosecution's 65 ter list in effect, applies to

5 documents the Prosecution will be using in the Prosecution phrase of the

6 case. There is simply no way for to us project what documents we might

7 be showing to Defence witnesses in the Defence phase of the case.

8 Alternatively, we could have listed 7 or 800.000 documents on our

9 65 ter list in anticipation of possible documents to be used during

10 cross-examination.

11 A. There's no way that we could have do than. There is no way any

12 chamber would have allowed to us do that. The 65 ter list pertain to the

13 Prosecution case, just as the Defence 65 ter list pertains to the Defence

14 case.

15 Now, if the Defence position is that we are only tendering

16 documents to impeach witnesses, I would urge the Trial Chamber to take a

17 consistent approach and with respect to the 432 documents tendered by the

18 Defence, in cross-examining the Prosecution witnesses we would strongly

19 suggest that those documents only be looked at for the limited purpose of

20 impeaching the witnesses. Again it is a question to paraphrase my

21 learned colleague from the Defence of a principle, and that principle is

22 equality of arms for both sides, and equal rules for both sides. This is

23 cross-examination. We don't know what the witness will say about the

24 document. We don't know for what purpose the document may or may not be

25 used later until the witness is shown the document and afforded an

1 opportunity to comment upon the document, if the document is relevant and

2 the document has probative value and the witness says, Yes this is my

3 document, then the Trial Chamber should be allowed to consider that

4 document on the merits of the document and for the truth of the matter

5 contained in the document. There should simply be no false division of

6 this document goes for this purpose or that purpose. Clearly if it is

7 being used to impeach the witness everyone will know about that. That's

8 not really the issue at this point in time.

9 What we're talking about here in terms of the Defence objection

10 about the 65 ter list, is it is simply impossible for the Prosecution to

11 list every potential document that would be used in the Prosecution case

12 and to be used to cross-examine Defence witnesses when we file that list

13 before trial and we simply have no idea who, if anyone, the Defence will

14 be calling.

15 So I would take issue with the Defence position. I will also

16 indicate as I said at the pre-Defence conference that the issue of

17 documents coming up being discovered, if you will, once we run the names

18 of the Defence witnesses and that this would likely happened I indicated

19 at that point in time the more advance notice we had of the actual

20 schedule of the Defence witnesses the more time the Defence would have in

21 terms of knowing which documents our internal searchs pull up for each of

22 the Defence witness names. I was very clear about that at the

23 pre-Defence conference for this exact very reason.

24 So, I would urge the Trial Chamber to reject the Defence

25 objections and as Mr. Robson has clearly indicated and I believe Mr. Wood

1 as well that we certainly be very helpful at this early stage of the

2 Defence case do get some guidelines on how this type of issue will be

3 resolved.

4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, yes, Madam Vidovic.

5 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, as this discussion

6 that is under way right now is on a very important issue which will

7 probably arise as an issue in the future as well, and we expect to get

8 instructions from the Trial Chamber on them, I would also like to touch

9 upon a general issue outside of what the witness has been speaking of

10 here, and give a general explanation -- actually, add on to what my

11 colleague Mr. Mundis has said. It is it true that the Defence and the

12 Prosecution or in fact that there is an legal principle that is applied

13 here and that is equality of arms and this principle of course applies to

14 both sides and that is correct.

15 However, it is also true that the Prosecution and the Defence are

16 not in the same position when the time for discovery or disclosure is

17 concerned nor are they in the same position to gain insight into the

18 documents that deal with the matters that are at the crux of the case

19 here.

20 Your Honour, before I can compile my 65 ter list, in other words

21 the list that -- that the Prosecutor wants to use in his -- during his

22 case, this preparation goes on for some five years or so. So the

23 Prosecution has have a very long period of time to locate any such

24 exhibits to determine what their strategy will be, and to put those

25 exhibits on their list. In this case, we deal with a -- several thousand

1 documents that are on this list. The case law of this Tribunal has

2 resolved this issue clearly and my colleague Mr. Mundis is very aware of

3 this. I will only mention two cases in which Mr. Mundis himself was

4 involved. In the Hadzihasanovic case, and the Prlic case, the issue was

5 raised on the use of exhibits that the Prosecutor had not included on his

6 65 ter list at the time during the Defence case. The Trial Chamber took

7 a very clear position at least in these two cases, I will mention only

8 these two because I'm aware of them, that those exhibits, those

9 documents, may be used but only in a limited scope. In a situation where

10 it is necessary in order to remind or refresh the memory of the witness,

11 which is what we did so far, and also in a situation where the witness is

12 being impugned.

13 Your Honour, this clearly implies that the Defence must have such

14 documents in time so that it can then use its own right arising from

15 Article 21 of the statute, 20 and 21, in other words to have sufficient

16 time for the preparation of its case.

17 In this concrete situation this meant that we there was no way

18 that this document that we received in the English version that my

19 colleague Mr. Robson was questioning on, so we could not have this

20 document in translation, in English an hour before the trial, we have a

21 fundamental right to the sufficient time to prepare our case.

22 As for this document that the Prosecution is claiming here that

23 he should have forwarded to us, let me inform you of this, Your Honour.

24 The Defence, in a meeting with the counsel, with the Chamber counsel,

25 informed the Prosecutor that it -- very early on that this is a witness,

1 witness, Mr. Hubo, who will be called and who had also testified in the

2 Hadzihasanovic case. I'm certain that we have informed of this at least

3 four weeks before this, and therefore let me say that offering a document

4 like this at the last minute where we have no idea what kind of document

5 is concerned, does it -- this does not allow us enough time to prepare.

6 For every other case, unless it is to impugn the witness and in the event

7 that a document was not provided in time, it is necessary to obtain the

8 decision of the Trial Chamber that this document is can be actually used

9 and this is the position of the Defence.

10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can you confirm or deny that the 432 documents

11 that the Defence used in the Prosecution phase were given notice of to

12 the Prosecution in advance by way of a 65 ter list?

13 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour --

14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Be very short.

15 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, to be honest, I'm not

16 sure that I understand your question properly. Could you please repeat

17 it.

18 JUDGE MOLOTO: I will repeat it. Was a 65 ter list given in

19 advance to the Prosecution during the Prosecution's phase of the trial of

20 the documents that the Defence intended using to cross-examine

21 Prosecution witnesses.

22 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I am still not clear

23 on the meaning of your question. Are you asking me whether we have

24 submitted to the Prosecutor -- I'm really concerned. I'm not sure that I

25 understood the interpretation. I'm concerned about the interpretation

1 today.

2 But was your question -- did it mean. Could you please repeat

3 your question one more time.

4 JUDGE MOLOTO: I will repeat myself one more time.

5 During the Prosecution phase of this trial, did the Defence give

6 the Prosecution advance notice by way of a 65 ter list of the documents

7 the Defence intended using to cross-examine Prosecution witnesses.

8 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we acted as far as the

9 obligation of the Defence was, to inform the Prosecutor of other

10 documents that it intends to use, we proceeded exactly in the way that

11 the instructions -- in keeping with the instruction that the Trial

12 Chamber issued. So if the instruction was to provide such documents two

13 days in advance, that's what we did. But I have to repeat, the position

14 of the Defence in that phase is not the same. Nor is the position of the

15 Prosecutor in our phase the same as ours in their phase. Nor is the

16 accused in the same position as the Prosecution.

17 Your Honour, that is exactly why I explained that the Prosecution

18 had five years time to prepare their case and to prepare the 65 ter list.

19 They had five years, we had a much shorter time, and the rights of the

20 Defence are absolutely different to those of the Prosecutor.

21 [Trial Chamber confers]

22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now -- where is that?

23 In terms of the decision of the Trial Chamber of the 24th of

24 July, 2007, adopting guidelines on the admission and presentation of

25 evidence and conduct of counsel in court, at paragraph 1 of the annex,

1 the guide lines goes as follows, in part: The Trial Chamber requires the

2 parties to inform it of the calling order of witnesses at the end of

3 every week for the coming two weeks. Furthermore, the parties shall

4 inform the Trial Chamber five works days in advance of any changes to the

5 calling order. Moreover the parties shall provided a list of documents

6 which they intend to use for the examination-in-chief of each witness, at

7 least two workings days before the start of the testimony and there is no

8 similar guideline relating to cross-examination.

9 I think we will have to go to the guidelines that we have read,

10 together with the Rules of Procedure and Evidence. That being the case

11 at this stage, the think the document is allowed to be used.

12 MR. WOOD: Thank you, Mr. President.

13 If exhibit -- or document P06261 [sic] can please be shown --

14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is it 61 or 63.

15 MR. WOOD: I'm sorry, 63.

16 Q. Now, Mr. Hubo, I see this is up before the screen in B/C/S and

17 now I see that the English is also there. We can see the name here is

18 Abdelilah Karrache born 27/1/66 in Morocco. Now that is your signature

19 at the bottom, is it sir?

20 A. Yes, this is certificate bearing my signature.

21 Q. And we can also see that this indicates this person has been a

22 member of the El Mujahid Detachment that is VJ 5689, since 18/8/1994.

23 And this is exactly the same as the information which is on the document

24 that we just saw, isn't it, sir?

25 A. I don't know if it is the same because I can't recall what it

1 said earlier, but this certificate was issued by the corps command.

2 Q. So this would indicate, sir, that there was information available

3 about the El Mujahid Detachment, at least at the time this was signed?

4 A. There was information in the shape and form that I described

5 earlier.

6 Q. And I just have one addition ideal document, Your Honour.

7 MR. WOOD: And could this please be admitted into evidence.

8 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it

9 please be given an exhibit number.

10 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the document is admitted as exhibit

11 number 1316.

12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. Yes, Madam Vidovic.

13 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would request a

14 written decision by the Trial Chamber connected to the latest decision

15 that it has issued, and we would please request that we be given

16 authorisation to appeal this decision of the Trial Chamber, because I

17 think that this decision of the Trial Chamber is against the fundamental

18 right of the accused and that it is an encroachment of Article 23 of the

19 Statute --

20 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction, Article 20.

21 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] And therefore I would ask to be

22 certified to appeal, to give a certification to appeal this decision.

23 JUDGE MOLOTO: The Trial Chamber will consider your application

24 and will give you a response in due course.

25 MR. WOOD: The document -- with the leave of Mr. President, could

1 the witness please be shown document P06261.

2 Q. Again, Mr. Hubo, you mentioned at various times there were

3 various efforts, including in November 1995, in an attempt to gather

4 information about El Mujahid Detachment.

5 A. Yes, that's correct.

6 Q. Now we can see from this document, sir, that that is your

7 signature at the bottom. It is identical to the signatures that we've

8 seen already.

9 A. Yes. This is my signature.

10 Q. And we can see that it is dated Zenica, 14 November 1995.

11 A. That's correct.

12 Q. We can also see that upon -- it reads upon the inside into the

13 personal record of the Zenica unit, VJ 5023/1 it has been established

14 that El Aref Abd El Lah Mohamed, born on 25/5/1971 in Egypt has been a

15 member of the Zenica unit VJ 5689 since 1 May 1993 until further notice.

16 It also indicates that it will be used for regulating status issues and

17 cannot be used for other purposes.

18 So, Mr. Hubo, in November 1995 you did have good information at

19 least about certain members of the El Mujahid Detachment, didn't you?

20 A. We had information that we received from that unit.

21 Q. But, again, sir, you're certifying this as true and correct. It

22 contains a stamp and it also has your signature. You wouldn't have done

23 that unless you knew that the document that you have signed is true and

24 accurate?

25 A. At the top, if you're able to see that, in the heading,

1 specifically line 3 it says: "Pursuant to the Law on The General

2 administrative Procedure," the public body had to respond to somebody's

3 application for information and it also says that having reviewed the

4 documentation we had, it was on that basis that we issued this

5 certificate.

6 In other words, solely on the basis of the information we had.

7 Q. Thank you.

8 MR. WOOD: The Prosecution has no further questions, Your Honour.

9 I do actually, sorry, Your Honour, wish to tender this into evidence,

10 that is P06261.

11 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it

12 please be given an exhibit number.

13 THE REGISTRAR: The document will become Exhibit 1317.

14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. Yes, Mr. Robson, any

15 re-examination.

16 MR. ROBSON: Just a few questions, Your Honour.

17 Re-examination by Mr. Robson:

18 Q. Mr. Hubo, you were shown exhibit 114 which related to

19 certificates. This was a document that had your signature at the bottom.

20 First of all, do you know who prepared that list?

21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let's see ...

22 MR. ROBSON: Perhaps if we could quickly bring up exhibit 114.

23 MR. WOOD: I would note, Your Honour that this was a document

24 admitted under seal.

25 MR. ROBSON: I'm grateful. If we could please -- let's see,

1 perhaps Mr. Hubo can answer the question without us bringing the document

2 up.

3 A. It was produced mainly by individuals from three departments. I

4 can't give you their names, because the fluctuation of staff was very

5 high. Such a document required the involvement of many more people

6 covering many areas of activity.

7 Q. And the information that we saw in that document, do you know

8 where that information came from?

9 A. The information came from the database that we had in relation to

10 that unit. Solely on that basis. It was based on such information

11 received by the corps command.

12 Q. And you mentioned that three departments were involved in the

13 preparation of the list. Do you know if anybody involved in preparing

14 the list was able to verify the information that was passed over to you?

15 A. We weren't in a position to verify the information and that was

16 the essential point. We were compelled to copy the data we had. It was

17 for this reason that the commission was formed. Let me state that none

18 of the individuals involved offered any money in relation to that. It

19 was due to the situation in which our services were at the time that such

20 records were kept. The Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina only later on

21 formed a council of ministers which investigated matters such as how it

22 came about that some individuals were granted citizenship. I would need

23 much more time to be able to answer this question of yours. But, believe

24 me, we simply didn't have ways of obtaining information and whatever ways

25 we had at our disposal we used them.

1 Q. And it was put to you that on the basis of that list, thousands

2 of marks were paid out to these men. Do you know, were the amounts of

3 money mentioned in marks specified in the list, were they actually paid

4 out to those persons whose names were contained in the list?

5 MR. WOOD: Objection, Your Honour. That is a leading question in

6 that the form of it suggests the answer.

7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Do you have any response.

8 MR. ROBSON: I disagree, Your Honour.

9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Objection overruled.

10 MR. ROBSON:

11 Q. Can you answer the question, Mr. Hubo? Do you --

12 JUDGE MOLOTO: I guess actually the witness answered this

13 question under cross-examination. He said certificates were given.

14 MR. ROBSON:

15 Q. So certificates were issued. Do you know whether thousands of

16 Deutschemarks were paid to these men who were named in the list?

17 A. If you will allow me, Mr. President, this question by the

18 Prosecutor, struck me as insinuating that I had been paying money out to

19 these individuals. I have to stress, that I didn't pay the money or the

20 commission. It was something that was given by the state. These

21 certificates, more or less, fell through. I have to tell you that the

22 coast of these certificates was two per cent. If you had 10.000 marks

23 due to you under the certificates, you were able to sell the certificate

24 to the funds that were eventually set up for some 100 maximum 200 marks.

25 Therefore, their value corroded and one was not able to use them as was

1 initially intended.

2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let's not go to the value. Let me just make one

3 or two points before I hand you over to Mr. Robson.

4 If you got the impression that the Prosecutor was suggesting that

5 you paid them the money, I think that was the wrong impression all you

6 were saying was you certified that those figures were due to those people

7 and therefore the state had to make those payments. And you explained,

8 if I heard you well, that they didn't get the cash but they got

9 certificates in the place of the cash, whatever the value of the

10 certificate after some time.

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, correct.

12 MR. ROBSON:

13 Q. Finally, Mr. Hubo, I would like to ask you about the document

14 P6263, which was admitted as exhibit 1316.

15 MR. ROBSON: Could we just quickly bring this up on the screen,

16 please.

17 Q. Mr. Hubo, do you know where the information came from that has

18 been included within this document, so that the details relating to the

19 name, date of birth, and other pieces of information relating to this

20 Mr. Karrache.

21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, I --

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The information contained here was

23 solely taken from the database that we had, and which had been made by

24 the El Mujahid unit. We didn't have any other sources. We weren't able

25 to go out into the unit to inspect this. We were compelled to rely on

1 the extent of the information provided to us by the units. That's the

2 gist of it. All the other documents that are mentioned, including the

3 ones that are disputable were formed on that basis. I want to make that

4 quite clear.

5 Q. And you were asked by the Prosecution whether through this

6 certificate, you were holding out that the information was true and

7 accurate. If we look at this document, do you say at any stage, or do

8 you warrant at any stage that the information contained therein is true

9 and accurate?

10 A. Can you tell me which document you're referring to, please?

11 Q. The document on the screen in front of us.

12 A. I have to repeat yet again. The document was made on the basis

13 of the information we received from that unit, and it was in no way

14 possible to verify the contents thereof. And that's the gist, the most

15 important bit of it.

16 Q. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Hubo.

17 MR. ROBSON: I have no further questions.

18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Robson.

19 [Trial Chamber confers]

20 Questioned by the Court:

21 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I have a small question,

22 Witness.

23 You told us that sometimes companies or the servicemen had to

24 fight were directly paid by their company. You told us that sometimes

25 people who were in the service were actually paid by their company. Is

1 that it?

2 A. You understood me correctly. But those were rare cases.

3 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Yes, okay, not very often.

4 Now, did this also happen for volunteers? Could it happen that

5 volunteers would be paid by another source than the funds that the

6 military had?

7 A. I can't talk about that. I can tell you about the Zenica Iron

8 Works, that particular company, because I had contacts with the people

9 who worked there. I'm not competent to speak of other issues.

10 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] But this company paid

11 servicemen, paid people who were in the military.

12 A. I repeat, there were rare cases where the company would, in a

13 way, assist its former staff member or worker who was now active in the

14 army. They would send them out packages of foodstuffs or even money.

15 The times were difficult. There were no salaries and it was more of an

16 assistance provided to the worker and his family.

17 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] But also to the military, to the

18 soldiers directly. Not just to his family but also to the soldier

19 himself?

20 A. In that way, the member of the army was also more relaxed,

21 knowing that his family back home had food to eat, unlike others who had

22 to leave home without knowing whether his family would be able to make a

23 living and survive.

24 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I understand that. And there's

25 another thing I wanted to know. Of course it was very difficult when the

1 armija was created. But obviously there was not enough resources, but I

2 thought I understand that business companies where people worked before

3 the war before they were actually called into the service continued to

4 pay -- to pay -- instead of paying the state they would pay the -- their

5 workers so that they could fight in the armija.

6 Did I understand this correctly or not?

7 A. Yes, there were such cases of assistance, albeit it rare, by

8 those who could provide it and were willing to provide it.

9 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Judge?

11 Mr. Robson, any questions arising from Judge Lattanzi's

12 questions?

13 MR. ROBSON: [Microphone not activated]

14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Wood.

15 MR. WOOD: No, Your Honour.

16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

17 Mr. Hubo, this brings us to the end of your testimony. Thank you

18 very much forever taking the time out from your schedule to come and

19 testify at the Tribunal. We hope can you go back home now and join your

20 family. I know that you had to spend the weekend here this last weekend,

21 and at least we now came to the end of your testimony.

22 Are you now excused and you may now leave. Travel well back

23 home.

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.

25 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may stand down.

1 [The witness withdrew]

2 JUDGE MOLOTO: The matter is postponed to tomorrow at quarter

3 past 2.00.

4 Court adjourned -- 9.00? I beg your pardon, is it 9.00. 9.00.

5 Court adjourned.

6 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.02 p.m.,

7 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 18th day of March,

8 2008, at 9.00 a.m.

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25