1 Monday, 16 September 2013
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.33 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in and around this
7 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case
9 IT-09-92-T, the Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
11 There were a few preliminary matters to be raised. Prosecution
12 first. Mr. McCloskey.
13 MR. McCLOSKEY: Good morning, Mr. President. Regarding your
14 question yesterday about 65 ter 17 --
15 JUDGE ORIE: I didn't call you yesterday. I thought that would
16 be inappropriate but --
17 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes. We're starting off -- can I come back in?
18 Thank you for that.
19 There was a 12 June document by General Mladic that made
20 reference to an agreement of -- on June 4th about perhaps transport of
21 supplies to the enclave and other issues. You asked us to see if we
22 could find evidence of such an agreement. We did find about four
23 documents that suggest an agreement and some results of that. We've sent
24 the documents to the Defence last night, and we were just talking. We
25 could provide them in a bar table, we could go over them, we could
1 surprise Mr. Butler with them. A couple of them are on areas that I was
2 planning on going through re-direct with Mr. Butler. So we're at your
3 disposal for that.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, do you have any views on whether and how
5 they could be used.
6 MR. IVETIC: I believe Mr. McCloskey has re-capsulated [sic] what
7 we discussed, the four documents that we could do them as an agreed bar
8 table at the end of the evidence of the witness, or a written submission,
9 or however Your Honours decide. They're notes from the 4 June meeting
10 between General Janvier and General Mladic. A 12 June letter from
11 General Mladic and then a portion of -- a translation of the notes of the
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. McCloskey.
14 MR. McCLOSKEY: I can also in about a minute give you what it
15 appears to me -- what the information would appear -- or what our
16 argument in the bar table would say as well.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, there seems to be no disagreement to bar
18 table them.
19 MR. IVETIC: Correct.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Therefore, if you still wish to use them with the
21 witness, you have an opportunity to do so. So we'll wait with the bar
22 table until the end of the examination, and then we'll see whether it's
23 just bar tabling them or whether you pay any attention to it. We don't
24 know yet the content. We leave it in your hands at this moment.
25 Then we'll further hear from you.
1 Mr. Ivetic, for the Defence.
2 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, D00361 was marked for identification.
3 The B/C/S has been located -- oops, I'm sorry, the translation has been
4 located it is in e-court as 0449-7473-0449-7473-ET. I would ask that it
5 be linked with the original B/C/S and that that document then be admitted
6 as a normal or a regular exhibit.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Was the lack of a translation the only reason to
8 oppose admission? Or were there more reasons?
9 MR. IVETIC: I think it was, but if I can ask my colleagues. I
10 believe that was the Birac Brigade report about the fuel levels in the
11 vehicles, if I'm not mistaken, that for which we did not have the
12 translation, we just had the B/C/S of -- if my recollection is accurate.
13 JUDGE ORIE: If it is just that problem, then we could resolve it
14 right away.
15 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, no problem -- no objection.
16 JUDGE ORIE: No problem.
17 Madam Registrar, you are instructed to attach the English
18 translation just mentioned by Mr. Ivetic to the original B/C/S version of
19 D361. D361 admitted into evidence.
20 Any other matter? If not, could the witness be escorted into the
22 Meanwhile, I use the time to put on the record that the Chamber,
23 on the 3rd of September of this year, has informally granted a
24 Prosecution request to use a comment chart with Witness Milovanovic.
25 And there was another matter, we are still waiting for a response
1 follow-up on what we discussed last Friday, that is, that the Chamber
2 admitted portions of a prior testimony of Witness Music. The Prosecution
3 sent an informal communication requesting leave to add approximately 11
4 lines, those being page 12.832, line 21, until 20.833, line 6. And we
5 are still waiting whether the Defence objects that addition.
6 [The witness takes the stand]
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, when I -- yes, it should be -- I don't know
8 whether I misread, but the last one should be 12.833.
9 Good morning, Mr. Butler.
10 THE WITNESS: Good morning, sir.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Butler, I would like to remind you again that
12 you're still bound by the solemn declaration you've given at the
13 beginning of your testimony. Mr. Ivetic will now continue his
15 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, please proceed.
17 MR. IVETIC: Thank you.
18 WITNESS: RICHARD BUTLER [Resumed]
19 Cross-examination by Mr. Ivetic: [Continued]
20 Q. Good morning, sir.
21 A. Good morning, Mr. Ivetic.
22 Q. I'd like to start off by talking about a military doctrine known
23 as the "overwhelming force doctrine." Are you familiar with that
24 doctrine, sir?
25 A. I think I'm familiar with the idea. I don't know if I've heard
1 it as the "overwhelming force doctrine", but I believe I know what you're
2 talking about.
3 Q. Well, let me see if we have the same definition. The doctrine
4 I'm talking about has the aim to apply massive or overwhelming force as
5 quickly as possible upon an adversary in order to disarm, incapacitate,
6 or render the enemy militarily impotent with as few casualties and losses
7 to our own forces and to non-combatants as possible. Is that the
8 doctrine that you were thinking about that you weren't sure whether it
9 was called overwhelming force?
10 A. Yes, sir, I'm familiar with the general idea, yes.
11 Q. And is such a doctrine taught and used by the US army and its
12 ally forces?
13 A. I would suggest to you that most military forces have at least
14 some variation of this type of doctrine, or at least a tactic as such.
15 Q. Could a layperson, without military background and training,
16 inartfully and inaccurately describe the application of tactics similar
17 to these as "making the conditions for the enemy's life unbearable"?
18 A. I would suggest that certainly the phrase "making the conditions
19 for the enemy's life unbearable" could, as an isolated phrase, be taken
20 as hyperbole by somebody without a military background, without
21 understanding the broader context of where it is delivered in.
22 Q. Okay. Now I want to briefly discuss with you some aspects of the
23 former SFRY military doctrine --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you Mr. Ivetic.
25 MR. IVETIC: Yes.
1 JUDGE ORIE: A layperson, not familiar with matters, could do
2 anything. Apparently what you are trying to bring to our attention
3 through this witness, is that when those words were used that it may have
4 been the expression of the person using those words, either in writing or
5 in speech, that he may have made that error. That is what you are
6 suggesting, I take it, rather than to keep it all in the --
7 MR. IVETIC: [Overlapping speakers] --
8 JUDGE ORIE: -- because a layperson can misinterpret, can talk
9 rubbish on anything he doesn't have any knowledge about. So therefore if
10 that is what you want to bring to our attention, then don't keep it in
11 the abstract. Focus on what someone said, then of course you can find
12 out whether he was a layperson, whether he had specific knowledge of
13 circumstances, and we get to the core of the issue.
14 Please proceed.
15 MR. IVETIC: Thank you.
16 Q. Sir, I was talking about directive 7. Did you understand it that
17 way in my question?
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. McCloskey.
19 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, if he's talking about directive 7, it would
20 be best to read it because that's not the wording of directive 7.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, are you -- when you were talking about
22 directive 7 and if there's any suggestion that you misquoted it, would
23 you please be so kind to literally quote it.
24 MR. IVETIC: Yes, Your Honour, as my question perhaps
25 demonstrated, I wasn't quoting directly from the document. I don't have
1 the exact language before me. But if we -- let's pull it up. Let's go
2 this way. One moment, please. I believe it's P1469. And perhaps
3 counsel can assist with the page number for the text that you wanted
5 MR. McCLOSKEY: It's in the Drina Corps section. I don't recall
6 what page. I should be able to recite but I can't.
7 MR. IVETIC: If we can go to the next page then. And the next
9 MR. McCLOSKEY: It's near the end.
10 MR. IVETIC: If we can go from the back and work our way
11 backwards then. I believe two pages back. What I suggest is -- it's not
12 this page. I suggest we leave this for the break and I'll find the exact
13 page references without spending time on that we can move on to other
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It's on the screen now. We just found it.
16 MR. IVETIC: Ah, there it is.
17 Q. Now, reading the text that's before you, I repeat my question:
18 Could this, in your opinion, be a layperson, in-artfully, describing a
19 tactic similar to the overwhelming force tactic that we just discussed
20 and that which is taught -- or that you said most militaries have a
21 similar tactic?
22 A. Well, again taking into -- directive 7. Colonel Miletic, who
23 drafted this document, is not a layperson. He is, at this time, a senior
24 colonel in the VRS, who shortly thereafter becomes a general or at least
25 a major-general. He is the chief of operations for the VRS Main Staff.
1 That is not a definition of a layperson.
2 Q. Is Mr. Karadzic a definition of a layperson for you?
3 A. Whether he has a military background or not, one has to accept
4 that by 1995 he has been the supreme commander of the VRS for three years
5 in combat, he has military advisors, both the Main Staff as well as other
6 military advisors. He's not, you know, he's not a military officer per
7 se, but I don't know that I would call him a layperson any more than I
8 would call the president of the United States a layperson in that sense.
9 Q. And yet directive 7.1 was required after 7.0?
10 A. It was published after 7.0 as a more technically oriented
11 document for the military.
12 Q. And doesn't that, by its virtue, mean that the original document
13 had some layperson terms and was not adequate for the technical
14 orientation -- operation of the military?
15 A. No, sir. I mean, as I've testified before 7/1 supplements
16 directive 7 and it is more focused towards concrete military tasks. I
17 mean, the language here, you know, "by planned and well thought out
18 combat operations ..." and then it goes on to "create unbearable
19 situation," that needs to be turned into a military task. You know, when
20 one looks at a doctrinal book, armies are taught to attack, defend,
21 delay, conduct ambushes. There's not a chapter on how to make an
22 unbearable situation. That larger objective needs to be taken and given
23 in more concrete tasks to the military units that have to carry out that
24 goal. That's what I mean in the sense of taking it and making it more
25 technical in nature for the units that have to carry it out.
1 Q. Can you confirm if your review of the Yugoslav JNA military
2 yielded any documentation or information --
3 A. If I can -- sir, you might want to check on your client. I don't
4 know that he's feeling particularly good this second. Sorry.
5 Q. I'm told that we can proceed. Thank you, sir.
6 Can you confirm if your review of the Yugoslav JNA military
7 yielded any documentation or information that the doctrine of All
8 People's Defence foresaw that "cities were to be defended to the last
10 A. I, when I looked at my -- or and I looked at the JNA military
11 doctrine, obviously there is a large body of discussion with respect to
12 defence of an urban area, but I don't think I ever came across the phrase
13 that "cities were to be defended to the last resident."
14 Q. Okay. Fair enough. If we can call up 1D01235 in e-court. And
15 while we wait for that I can tell you this is a decree on the force of
16 law of defence published by the BiH Presidency in the Official Gazette in
17 the Republic of BiH 20 May 1992. And if I can have Article 51 of the
18 same which is found at page 18 in the English, page 3 in the B/C/S. And
19 we'll see here it reads:
20 "All citizens between 15 and 60 (men) or 55 (women) have the
21 right and obligation to train for defence, if fit to attend training.
22 Exemptions are pregnant women, mothers of children below the age of seven
23 and persons declared unfit for training.
24 "The Government shall issue regulations for pertinent
1 At the time of doing your research and analysing the events, were
2 you familiar with such a provision being effective and in existence?
3 A. Well, again I didn't do too much research on the ABiH military
4 doctrine, but certainly this language is consistent with the same
5 language that I've seen on the VRS side or on the RS side. It was a
6 standard staple of mandatory military service that all three sides took
7 from the SFRY.
8 Q. And if we can continue with this theme, I'd like to re-visit some
9 matters from the Popovic case, 1D1246. And if we can please have page 55
10 in e-court which should correlate to transcript page 20.559 in that
11 case's transcript. And actually, I apologise. It would be the next --
12 the next page, page 56, which would be transcript page 20.560, if we can
13 look at line 8. And you're talking about the SFRY All People's Defence
14 in this section. And it reads as follows:
15 "Q. The basis of this concept for the society in former
16 Yugoslavia, which was based on self-management, the basis of the concept
17 of All People's Defence was that someone -- that everybody should take
18 part, in one way or another, to defence?
19 "A. Yes, ma'am. I mean, it's a reflection of the -- one, the
20 past history of the former Yugoslavia under occupation during World War
21 II, and also a reflection of their modern defence strategy, which called
22 for a situation where, if invaded by either the NATO Bloc or the Warsaw
23 Bloc, you know, recognising they didn't have the military force to
24 forestall that invasion, they would adopt a strategy of insurgent warfare
25 within their own country as a way of making a foreign occupation so
1 expensive that an opponent would ultimately leave. So, you know, in that
2 context, that is what All People's Defence resolved around, the fact that
3 not only all individuals but all sectors of the Yugoslav state would be
4 part of that defence."
5 Is this part of your testimony in Popovic case accurate to your
6 recollections about this topic?
7 A. Yes, sir, it is.
8 Q. Now, when talking about these directives that were written, and
9 in particular let's focus on directive 4 with you, do you agree that when
10 these were drafted they would have been drafted by persons that -- that
11 had this doctrine or background of the former SFRY that all sides adopted
12 in mind and that it has to be understood within that context?
13 A. Well, I mean, as I testified last week when somebody asked me the
14 exact same question, clearly the people who drafted directive 4 in that
15 context, you know, understood that the ABiH military forces that were in
16 East Bosnia would draw support from the local Bosnian Muslim population
17 that was there, just like the VRS officers who were former JNA were
18 trained in that doctrine, certainly the ABiH officers were as well. I
19 mean, so both sides had an understanding of what would be
20 counter-insurgency warfare.
21 Q. Okay. Now I want to explore with you demilitarisation of the
22 enclave of Srebrenica. You testified, in your direct, that General
23 Morillon unilaterally declared Srebrenica a safe area, and am I correct
24 that this occurred after the Sarajevo authorities of the BiH forbade the
25 UN-sponsored evacuation of civilians from Srebrenica in 1993?
1 A. I'm not sure of the timing, which came first. I can tell you
2 that you are obviously correct that the UN was at a point in time
3 removing civilians from the encircled area, and that at a point in time,
4 the ABiH stopped them from doing that. I think it was that that
5 predicated the UN Security Council declaring or formalising it a safe
6 area, but I -- I just -- it's been a while since I've looked at that
7 component so I can't give you the exact dates.
8 Q. From your -- from your perspective as a military man, was the
9 prohibition issued by the Sarajevo authorities preventing the further
10 evacuation of civilians from Srebrenica in accord with their obligations,
11 especially under Article 17 of Geneva Conventions 4 and the Additional
12 Protocols like Article 51 in relation to precautionary measures of a
13 defending military force?
14 A. I understand that the ABiH and even to some degree the
15 United Nations' perspective was that by evacuating the population, that
16 they were becoming complicit in an ethnic cleansing campaign. Having
17 said that, as I military professional, now my view was: I would have
18 liked to see the civilians out of there had I been given a choice or a
19 vote on that one.
20 Getting the civilians out of that particular scenario, in my mind
21 should have overrode a decision as to whether or not they're complicit in
22 ethnic cleansing. Once you get them out of that there, you can have that
23 argument. Using them in that particular context, again, if I had a vote,
24 I wouldn't have voted to do that.
25 Q. If we could briefly take a look at Exhibit P23. This is a
1 demilitarisation agreement dated 8 May 1993. I first want to know when
2 it comes up. Are you familiar with this document from your research and
3 did you review it at that time?
4 A. Yes, sir, I did.
5 Q. In that case, if we can turn to the last page, and it is signed
6 by the most senior military officers of both the VRS and by the ABiH on
7 the one hand, and also signed by General Morillon. Based on your
8 knowledge of military law, international law, are parties able to
9 conclude binding local agreements to declare areas demilitarised zones
10 where military activity will not take place?
11 A. Yes, sir, they can.
12 Q. Do you consider insofar as the ABiH did not demilitarise the area
13 as per the prior agreement, that military actions in 1993 of the VRS were
15 A. With respect to Srebrenica, I believe I've been consistent that
16 because the -- what was first OG8, Operational Group 8, and then later
17 the 28th Division, was never fully disarmed and, in fact, I believe that
18 the historical record will note that it continued to conduct military
19 operations throughout the period, I've always testified that I believed
20 that that represented a lawful object of attack.
21 Q. Okay. And I'd like to put some specifics to this, if we can look
22 at 1D1249 in e-court. Once we get that up I think we'll see it's dated
23 the 20th of April, 1993, from General Halilovic of the ABiH. And now
24 that we have the English on the screen, could you take a look at it and
25 see if you believe you would have had an opportunity to review this
1 document in the course of your work?
2 A. I don't know if I would have looked at this document in detail
3 for my reports, but certainly I have seen it and I believe in some
4 context I've testified about it several times since then.
5 Q. I'd like to ask you about the first part of this, the first
6 paragraph that reads:
7 "We hereby inform you that no meaningful progress was made in the
8 negotiations on the demilitarisation of Srebrenica held on 19 April 1993.
9 It was specified that the aggressor, regardless of the contents of the
10 already signed agreement on demilitarisation of Srebrenica town, insisted
11 that all units at defence lines surrender their weapons, thus
12 demilitarising the area as they see it, which would be separated by a
13 line of disengagement."
14 Now, I'd like to ask you this interpretation of demilitarisation
15 that Mr. Halilovic's aggressor is -- the person he terms as aggressor, is
16 advocating, is that not in fact precisely what is meant by the term from
17 your military background?
18 A. Well, I -- I'm not sure I understand your question.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Neither does at least some of the Judges, so could
20 you please rephrase it.
21 MR. IVETIC: Yes.
22 Q. This interpretation of "demilitarisation," the part that the
23 aggressor -- he says the aggressor's insisting on that all units at
24 defence lines surrender their weapons, thus demilitarising the areas as
25 they see it, which would then be separated by a line of disengagement.
1 Isn't that precisely a key aspect of the concept of a demilitarised zone,
2 as you understand it, as a military analyst?
3 A. I guess looking at this context, the discussion was over whether
4 or not it was simply the town of Srebrenica that was demilitarised or the
5 surrounding area which the army still occupied. And again, that is one
6 of the -- the broader issues that was discussed. I mean, one would think
7 in a larger demilitarised zone it would mean just that. Military troops,
8 if you're in a demilitarised zone, you're not supposed to be carrying
9 weapons and things of that nature beyond, you know, maybe side-arms for
10 select cases of self-defence. So, I think that's what the context of
11 this first paragraph is discussing.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Ivetic, just for my understanding, do I
13 understand you to be asking whether insisting on surrender of weapons is
14 the same thing as demilitarisation by agreement?
15 MR. IVETIC: No, Your Honours, my question was specifically as to
16 the concept of a demilitarised zone as understood under military law. I
17 believe it's an international -- internationally recognised concept, and
18 that this was part of the definition, whereas Mr. Halilovic is claiming
19 that the aggressor, the other side, is insisting upon this in error as my
20 reading this document.
21 Q. Perhaps Mr. Butler can assist us. Is it correct when using the
22 term "aggressor," the ABiH is usually referring to the -- is referring to
23 the VRS?
24 A. Well, that is correct. I mean, when they use the phrase
25 "aggressor," they refer to the VRS.
1 MR. IVETIC: Does that address Your Honour's question?
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: It does not, but you may carry on.
3 MR. IVETIC: If we can look at the next part.
4 Q. "UNPROFOR's view of demilitarisation, which is fully supported
5 by us, is full demilitarisation of Srebrenica and a small area around it,
6 visible to the naked eye, where the only armed persons would be the
7 civilian police. Therefore, it is necessary to pull out all armed
8 persons, soldiers, and reserve policemen and reinforce defence lines to
9 the maximum. We are fully supported in this by Morillon and Wahlgren and
10 the entire international public (community)."
11 Is this idea of having Srebrenica appear demilitarised to the
12 naked eye but having defence lines reinforced to the maximum, consistent
13 with the spirit of demilitarised zones under international law on the one
14 hand? Let's ask that first, sir.
15 A. Again, I'm not an international law expert. I mean, I can see
16 obviously where the ABiH would draw a military advantage if this was the
17 scenario, but again, as you indicated in your earlier testimony, the
18 warring parties or the leaders of the warring parties, you know, are
19 obviously able to conclude any type of agreement, in this respect, that
20 they want. So again, I mean, that's, you know, they can do whatever they
21 want on this but, you know, from my perspective, I mean, you can clearly
22 see where the ABiH would enjoy a military advantage here.
23 Q. And having studied the demilitarised agreement that eventually
24 was reached or were reached, would this description, by General
25 Halilovic, be consistent with the spirit and letter of those agreements?
1 A. Again, the 28th Division and OG8 never fully disarmed throughout
2 the territory. So whether or not they were consistent with the spirit of
3 the agreement or not, you know, I'm not sure I'm the best person to say
4 that. But I can tell you that from an objective perspective, you know,
5 the OG8, and then later the 28th Infantry Division, did conduct military
6 activities and they were conducting those activities armed. So they did
7 not behave in a demilitarised manner.
8 Q. One last part I would ask your assistance to analyse -- the last
9 paragraph of this document which is:
10 "We need to fortify defence lines and urgently send a kurban,"
11 and the translator's note that this is a sacrifice or a victim, "to
12 Naser. The disarmament of our troops is out of the question - not a
13 single soldier, much less a whole unit. The 2nd Corps Command has to
14 find a way to send the kurban."
15 Did your research reveal what sacrifice, or victim, the ABiH was
16 planning for Srebrenica's military forces to give Naser Oric already in
18 A. No, sir, I don't know what that phrase means.
19 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, can we tender this as the next
20 available exhibit number?
21 MR. McCLOSKEY: No objection.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, I see in English on page 1 that there's
23 handwriting on the handwritten 178. In the original, however, I see that
24 there's more handwriting there --
25 MR. IVETIC: I do see that, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE ORIE: -- which seems not to be translated.
2 MR. IVETIC: I agree and I just noticed on the bottom left there
3 is some handwriting --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but that is translated.
5 MR. IVETIC: Oh, is it?
6 JUDGE ORIE: I think yes, that seems to be translated. Any idea
7 what that is so we could ask for? I mean if it's just -- if you have any
8 idea on what it might mean then -- or if Mr. McCloskey would have any
10 MR. IVETIC: I believe the first word is "cuvati," which would be
11 "to keep" --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Therefore, it would be perhaps an instruction where
13 to store the document --
14 MR. IVETIC: Yeah.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Is that the understanding of the ...
16 MR. IVETIC: I'm told by Mr. Lukic it means to keep -- I guess to
17 store and keep in mind.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 MR. IVETIC: Which we should probably get the --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Well, we do not know who wrote it.
21 MR. IVETIC: Right.
22 JUDGE ORIE: It seems not of vital importance for the
23 understanding and for the testimony about this document. So therefore,
24 although I'm usually not very much inclined to accept documents which are
25 not fully translated, at the same time I would have to consult with my
1 colleagues whether we do have to insist on a further translation. It
2 seems we do not insist.
3 Therefore, Madam Registrar, the number would be ... ?
4 THE REGISTRAR: Document 1D01249 receives number D366,
5 Your Honours.
6 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
7 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
8 Q. I next want to look at 65 ter number 17957. And in relation to
9 this document, it's dated 21 May 1993 and is, again, from the ABiH side
10 of things, this time in relation to Zepa. And I think you can see the
11 first part indicates:
12 "Pursuant to the authorisation of the SVK," and the translator
13 says "Supreme Command Staff R BH OS, confidential number 02/639-3 dated
14 20 May 1993, the plan to demilitarise Zepa was inspected by an officer of
15 the Army of the Republic of BH and an officer of the aggressor, as
16 organised by UNPROFOR.
17 "The opinions, views and conclusions are as follows ..."
18 And then we see there that UNPROFOR representative Mr. Valentine
19 was the UNPROFOR individual for this and he has some conclusions that are
20 numbered as 1 through 6. I would like to look at 1 through 3 with you.
21 They read as follows:
22 "1) that UNPROFOR has fully complied with Articles 1, 2, and 5 of
23 the Agreement;
24 "2) that the Serb side has complied with its duties in the
25 Agreement in sequence;
1 "3) that our side has not complied with Article 3 and that
2 UNPROFOR does not want a museum in Zepa, referring to the content and
3 type of weapons that were handed over ..."
4 Did you have this document, or this type of information,
5 available to you that the Serb side was deemed to have complied with its
6 duties under the agreement, whereas the ABiH side had not and attempted
7 to pass off pieces that were described as belonging in a museum, as the
8 weapons that they were handing over?
9 A. Yes, sir, in the context of both Zepa and Srebrenica, many of the
10 weapons that the ABiH did hand over as part of the demilitarisation were
11 considered to be obsolete or inoperable. So they had very little
12 military value anyway.
13 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, I would like to tender this document,
14 but I see we don't have the B/C/S original. So I propose we MFI the same
15 and hopefully the Prosecution can provide the original, as it is their
17 MR. McCLOSKEY: No objection. I'm sure we can find it.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
19 THE REGISTRAR: Document 17957 receives number D367,
20 Your Honours.
21 JUDGE ORIE: And is marked for identification.
22 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
23 Q. I'd now like to take a look together at 1D00882. While we wait
24 for that, I can introduce it as being dated 11 August 1995 by a Mr. Ramiz
25 Becirovic, who is said to be the Chief of Staff of the ABiH forces in
2 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, just for the record this is
3 Exhibit D270.
4 MR. IVETIC: Oh, I apologise.
5 Q. And if we look at the first few lines of this, I think it's
6 something that you probably have seen before, but there is the use of the
7 term "Chetnik" to describe Serbs. Based on your research, was that
8 intended to be a derogatory term meant to dehumanise the enemy?
9 A. Yes, sir, it certainly was a derogatory term.
10 Q. And would you agree that the term was used consistently by both
11 the head of the ABiH party and the political leadership of the BiH, both
12 in official written documents as well as in TV and newspaper
14 A. Again, I've never studied that particular issue, so I don't know
15 if I can give you an informed comment of how consistently it was used by
16 those individuals. I can say that, you know, it was a common --
17 certainly among ABiH documents and things that I've read.
18 Q. Now if we can turn to page 2 in both the English and the B/C/S of
19 this document and if we can focused on the bottom of the page in the
20 English and it starts off there, sir:
21 "It was very difficult to organise joint logistical support,
22 since every local community had its own logistics and fed its army. We
23 tried to agree that when a Serbian village was liberated, the entire
24 booty would be directed to joint warehouses and then be divided into
25 equal parts. However, as soon as a village was liberated, the people
1 would rush in and everyone took what he wanted. As a result, further
2 attempts to establish joint logistics were abandoned."
3 Sir, does this provide an example of the civilian population
4 taking part in hostilities and supporting the ABiH?
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Where does it talk about the civilian population,
6 Mr. Ivetic?
7 MR. IVETIC: "Every local community had its own logistics and fed
8 its army."
9 MR. McCLOSKEY: Could that be more specific? I thought he was
10 referring to the part about the people rushing in, and Mr. Butler needs
11 to know what he's talking about with this because -- as opposed to free
13 MR. IVETIC: I apologise, what part have I not read to? I
14 thought I gave him the whole paragraph.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Apparently the way in which Judge Moloto understood
16 the question and Mr. McCloskey understood the question was that you
17 referred to the latter part of the portion you read and not at the
18 beginning part. That seems to have created some confusion. Could you be
19 as specific as possible, Mr. Ivetic.
20 MR. IVETIC: Okay.
21 Q. The reference to "every local community had its own logistics and
22 fed its army," could that be understood as an example of the civilian
23 population taking part in hostilities and supporting the ABiH?
24 JUDGE ORIE: Could we split that up in one, taking part in
25 hostilities --
1 MR. IVETIC: Yes.
2 JUDGE ORIE: -- and second supporting the ABiH.
3 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, and that was the point I was going to
4 make. Certainly the local population did support the ABiH forces in a
5 rather decentralised manner in that area. So they did provide food,
6 shelter, and what they could to the army. Again, doing that doesn't
7 necessarily mean that they're participating in hostilities.
8 MR. IVETIC:
9 Q. Okay. Now let me focus on the second part of this that's on the
10 next page in the English. In relation to the statement here that as soon
11 as a village was liberated, the people would rush in and everyone took
12 what he wanted, did you, in the course of your research, discover whether
13 that included civilians?
14 A. It did. I mean, again looking at the context of what was
15 happening there during the winter of 1992 and 1993, you know, they were
16 deep within occupied territory and it doesn't surprise me that when they
17 would take a village over, that they would try and strip it of everything
18 they could use, both the military and the surrounding civilian
20 Q. And in your opinion, would that be the civilians taking part in
22 A. I wouldn't -- I wouldn't frame it as such, no.
23 Q. Okay. Now if we can turn to page 5 of the English, page 4 of the
24 B/C/S, it's the second full paragraph in the English.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Just for my understanding, Mr. Ivetic, otherwise I
1 might miss the gist of your questions. The people, including civilians,
2 rushing in and taking whatever he wanted, let's say someone takes their
3 window-frame or a door or a --
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: TV --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Or a TV or --
6 THE WITNESS: [Overlapping speakers] -- I think in their context,
7 it would be food primarily, they didn't have electricity out there.
8 JUDGE ORIE: No, but they might have expected to have electricity
9 once again. I mean, is it your suggestion that that -- that that is the
10 type of activity which would become taking part in hostilities or even
11 supporting the army? Because you could also -- taking whatever you want,
12 if the army wants to keep everything together and use it in an organised
13 way, could also be understood as undermining the activities of the army.
14 That came to my mind, and therefore I was wondering how you read this and
15 whether it would -- how it would be to take part in hostilities.
16 MR. IVETIC: I think the analysis would have to look at the
17 specific facts, and that therefore more analysis would be required than
18 to make a full appraisal of the actions just based upon a --
19 JUDGE ORIE: But you asked it on the basis of this text; that's
20 exactly my concern, Mr. Ivetic. When I now say: How do we then have to
21 understand this? You say, well, we need more facts, but you asked the
22 question without reference to any facts, just on the basis of this text.
23 Let's leave it to that. Please proceed.
24 MR. IVETIC:
25 Q. If we can focus on the second full paragraph that is on the page
1 before us. It says:
2 "After we got those two agreements on the demilitarisation of
3 Srebrenica, we had to disarm completely. We barely managed to secure
4 some older weapons in disrepair to hand over to UNPROFOR while the troops
5 hid the rest at their homes."
6 First of all, sir, in your opinion was there an organised intent
7 on the part of the ABiH to deceive the international community that it
8 had demilitarised, since we now see similar tactics in both Srebrenica
9 and Zepa as to the handing over of older weapons subsequent to the
10 signing of the demilitarisation agreements?
11 A. Yes, sir, I believe it was.
12 Q. And this comment that the troops hid the rest of the weapons at
13 their homes, what would be the effect of taking weapons and introducing
14 them into a civilian dwelling? Would that dwelling retain its civilian
15 status according to your understanding of military doctrine and
16 international law?
17 A. Of all of the things that are going to be a fact-by-fact
18 analysis, whether or not taking a weapon into a civilian dwelling, I mean
19 one weapon or 50 or a hundred makes that suddenly now a legitimate object
20 of attack, again it's going to have to be on the specifics. Again, the
21 analogy I keep in mind on this is that clearly, you know, people working
22 in a military hospital are armed for self protection and, you know,
23 because they're also storing weapons there for soldiers who come in for
24 treatment. The mere possession of those weapons in a military hospital
25 does not make it a military object of attack. I don't know, you know,
1 like I said, does one weapon in a civilian house make it an object of
2 attack, I would doubt it. Would a hundred? That might be different
3 under the circumstances.
4 Q. Thank you.
5 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, I see we're at the time for the first
7 JUDGE ORIE: It's time for the first break.
8 Could you give us an indication, Mr. Ivetic, how much time you
9 would still need.
10 And the witness can meanwhile leave the courtroom.
11 MR. IVETIC: A little more than an hour, Your Honours.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Little more than an hour.
13 [The witness stands down]
14 JUDGE ORIE: We take a break and we'll resume at ten minutes to
16 --- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.
17 --- On resuming at 10.51 a.m.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
19 Meanwhile, any news from the Defence already on adding to the
20 92 bis portion of -- in relation to Witness Music?
21 MR. IVETIC: I'm told -- one moment, please.
22 [Defence counsel confer]
23 MR. IVETIC: I'm told we're still collecting the transcript pages
24 to have them reviewed by our staff in the back.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we'll wait for further messages.
1 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, we do have a B/C/S of D00367,
2 which was the MFI number. It's doc ID 01857879-0.
3 JUDGE ORIE: May I take it that you would like to have it
4 attached to the --
5 MR. IVETIC: Yes, Your Honour --
6 JUDGE ORIE: -- to the exhibit.
7 MR. IVETIC: -- I would.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, could you please attach the
9 document just referred to by Mr. McCloskey to D367. Once it is done, it
10 can be admitted.
11 [The witness takes the stand]
12 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
13 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
14 Q. Sir, just before the break and I think at least once before in
15 your answers you have sought to draw the analogy to a hospital and have
16 given your testimony about that. Would you agree with me, sir, that
17 hospitals have a separate definition from other civilian structures and
18 that is pursuant to Article 22 of the first Geneva Conventions, and thus
19 an analogy between a hospital and any other civilian structure, that
20 depending on the circumstances may be converted to a military purpose, is
22 A. I didn't mean to compare them in the technical sense like that.
23 It was simply trying to explain in a broader sense the analogy -- maybe a
24 better analogy, for example, would be what happens or what happened, you
25 know, in Iraq when military forces would go in and search homes. The
1 fact that they would find a weapon from an insurgent in a home did not
2 make the home a military object subject to destruction. On the other
3 hand, if people were firing at military troops from that home, that home
4 would become part of a military object, it being used for a military
5 purpose, and thus it would be potentially subject to destruction. So
6 again, that's why I go back to, you know, it would -- at what point in
7 time -- getting to your broader question, at what point in time civilian
8 population or civilian objects lose their protection and become the
9 object, or at least, potentially subject to attack by a military force,
10 is a very fact-specific exercise that has to be looked at.
11 Q. Okay. I'd like to move to another document, but before I do, do
12 you believe that the UNPROFOR sent a sufficient number of forces to the
13 enclaves of Srebrenica and Zepa in order to permit them to fulfil their
14 task of demilitarising those areas?
15 A. I don't believe the UN ever believed that they had enough people.
16 The UN report notes the fact that they actually did come up with a figure
17 of how many people they would need to enforce that, and I believe the
18 UN's own report discusses that they could not find countries willing to
19 put the troops in there to do that. I mean, the consequence is obviously
20 that, no, the UN never have enough troops to fulfil their mandates there.
21 Q. Thank you, sir. Now if we can look at 65 ter --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic.
23 MR. IVETIC: Yes.
24 JUDGE ORIE: You included in your question, and I don't know
25 whether exactly the witness has observed that, that the demilitarisation
1 was the task of UNPROFOR, which of course is something I don't know
2 whether you noticed that, that that was part of Mr. Ivetic's question.
3 And therefore the question is: Do you consider that demilitarising
4 Srebrenica and Zepa was the task or responsibility or that the UNPROFOR
5 play a role and what role. Did you intend by saying -- by answering that
6 question, did you include an admission of that?
7 THE WITNESS: With respect to UNPROFOR, one of their concrete
8 roles was to guard the weapons that had been turned in. Another role
9 that they had was to essentially maintain a perimeter around the enclave
10 to prevent military activity going on, military forces, from the ABiH
11 passing through to attack the Serbs, Serbs passing through to attack the
12 Muslims. They never had enough personnel to do that. And again, going
13 back to the UN's own report, the UN itself, as a body and consequently
14 UNPROFOR, was very ambiguous about whether their mandate actually
15 included enforcing a demilitarised zone.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So it was not -- it was part of the question
17 and by answering the question you did not specifically address to what
18 extent it was the task of UNPROFOR to demilitarise.
19 Mr. Ivetic, we have heard a lot of evidence on that. I think we
20 have looked in detail about the -- all the texts that cover that, so
21 therefore I'm not seeking to re-visit all that but just to make clear
22 that in your question you should avoid to include matters which may not
23 be properly observed by the witness in preparing his answer. Please
25 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honour. If we can look at 65 ter
2 Q. While we wait for that, I can introduce it to you, sir, this is a
3 list of some 27 pages in the English of combat operations carried out
4 within the 2nd Corps zone of responsibility by the ABiH and signed by
5 General Delic during the time-period of 1992 through 1995. First of all,
6 sir, would this zone include the Srebrenica and Zepa enclaves?
7 A. It should, yes, sir.
8 Q. Did you see, or do you believe, that you had access to this
9 report at the time that you were doing your analysis?
10 A. I don't believe I've seen this document before, no, sir.
11 Q. Okay. If we could turn to page 12 in the B/C/S and page 18 of
12 the same in English. Based upon the dates, going in sequential order, I
13 believe this is where we start with the activities subsequent to the
14 demilitarisation agreements.
15 If we start with 2 June 1993, which is number 428 on the list,
16 and if we go through the entirety of the list -- or, excuse me, not
17 through the entirety of the list, but if we go all the way through June
18 1995, which is number 633 on the list, it would appear that the ABiH
19 admits to undertaking 205 combat actions during that same time-period
20 before the VRS executed the Krivaja 95 operation. Does that figure
21 accord with your review and research?
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. McCloskey.
23 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, and could Mr. Butler be given a bit of time
24 to review that. He would also, I think, need a map to determine if any
25 of these villages are in the enclave. Because I don't see how it's
1 relevant if we're talking about all 2nd Corps action all up and down the
2 defence line.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic.
4 MR. IVETIC: Yes, Your Honours.
5 JUDGE ORIE: If we could give some additional time and would
6 you --
7 MR. IVETIC: Sure, I could --
8 JUDGE ORIE: -- give a map -- I don't know exactly what -- what
9 the relevance and what you want to establish through these questions
10 but --
11 MR. IVETIC: I simply want to find out whether, in his review, if
12 the entirety of the actions in this zone of responsibility are
13 encapsulated by this document which he says he did not see. So I'm
14 trying to see whether he had knowledge, even though he didn't see the
15 document, of the facts contained therein, Your Honours.
16 JUDGE ORIE: So therefore the witness would have to look at the
17 whole of the list in detail and see -- then tell us whether they're all
18 in here, but that makes sense only if the witness claims to have
19 knowledge of all this type of --
20 MR. IVETIC: Right --
21 JUDGE ORIE: -- this text of this because otherwise he couldn't
22 tell us whether it's complete or not.
23 MR. IVETIC: Right and that's why I was asking if he had that
24 information. If he does then he would have to look at the list and if he
25 does not then it's a moot point and we move on.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Would you be able to see whether this list is
2 complete after you would have taken your time to -- if you would have had
3 an opportunity to know exactly where it all is?
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We have only one page of this list on the screen
5 in English.
6 JUDGE ORIE: And there are 27 pages.
7 Witness, do you think you could do that at all?
8 THE WITNESS: Not over a 20-minute break, sir.
9 JUDGE ORIE: No, I do understand that.
10 THE WITNESS: It is feasible, obviously, with the time and, you
11 know, the necessary resources for me to go over this list and to at least
12 identify which of these combat actions are directly related to, or could
13 potentially be related to, Srebrenica and Zepa. It would -- again, it
14 would take me some time, but it is something I could accomplish.
15 JUDGE ORIE: What means "some time" for you in this respect for
16 27 pages of this kind?
17 THE WITNESS: Probably -- I could do it probably inside a week,
19 JUDGE ORIE: That -- Mr. Ivetic, I leave it in your hands --
20 well, first of all, of course we -- before a witness comes in and then is
21 tasked with a job of a week, that would need more than just a request
22 from the Defence. I wonder, Mr. Ivetic, what purpose it would finally
23 serve --
24 MR. IVETIC: I agree --
25 JUDGE ORIE: -- finding out what the witness knew.
1 MR. IVETIC: I think again, if we get back to my question: Did
2 he have knowledge of military actions undertaken by the 2nd Corps within
3 the zone of responsibility during the time-period between the
4 demilitarisation agreement and the end of 1995. If he says he had that
5 in mind when he did his analysis, it's a fruitful effort; if he says he
6 did not have that in mind, then it's not -- and we don't gain anything by
7 having his analyse the 27 pages to see which ones relate to the enclave.
8 So again I --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Well, your question was -- you took the witness, I
10 think, to a certain date and a number on the list and then your question
11 was -- you said: It would appear that the ABiH admits to undertake 205
12 combat actions during that same time-period and whether that does -- that
13 figure accord with your review and research? I do now understand that
14 the simple answer is no because you never analysed this, although, and
15 that may be the question Mr. Ivetic would like to put to you, is whether
16 a number of 200 combat actions after a certain point in time, whether
17 that is more or less consistent with the overall impression you have
18 gained from your research?
19 THE WITNESS: Well, that would -- that would be my answer. I
20 mean, as I've testified before -- I mean, with respect to the
21 28th Division and OG8, they did conduct military operations.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
23 THE WITNESS: Whether the number of 215 with 2nd Corps matters or
24 not, I mean I -- from a military perspective, I mean obviously I'm aware
25 in broad sense, the military operations and I do take that into account
1 in my reports. I -- so --
2 JUDGE ORIE: They were not rare, they happened with certain
3 frequency. But my first question would be: Apart from 205, I never
4 noticed that there's a great dispute about the 28th Division engaging in
5 all kind of military actions during that period of time.
6 MR. McCLOSKEY: I haven't seen any yet. Mr. Butler, is the
7 foundation of the Prosecution's case that, from his reports and his
8 testimonies he lays it out. And my objection to this would be the
9 relevance of 2nd Corps. He's talking 2nd Corps, not 28th --
10 28th Division is inside the enclave. 2nd Corps is -- there's a very long
11 front line and Mr. Butler may know it better than I do. But the actions
12 along that entire front line, I don't see how that gets to be relevant --
13 MR. IVETIC: I agree.
14 MR. McCLOSKEY: -- to our case and this first page, I don't
15 recognise any of the villages inside the enclave or outside the enclave
16 on this page. And I think -- my guess is Mr. Ivetic and I can agree,
17 looking at this list, which of these are inside or immediately outside of
18 the enclave and probably just as well as Mr. Butler can.
19 MR. IVETIC: That's probably true --
20 JUDGE ORIE: You would say you would do the job which would take
21 Mr. Butler approximately a week. Okay, there's an offer -- there seems
22 to be an agreement. Let's move on.
23 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
24 Q. If -- if we can look at one -- pardon me, Exhibit D17. And while
25 we wait for that, sir, this is a document dated the 30th of June, 1995,
1 and I think we'll see it's for the command of the 28th Division of the
2 ABiH in Srebrenica. And I can tell you that the signature on the next
3 page is Mr. Becirovic, the Chief of Staff, whom we have discussed before.
4 I would like to focus first on item number -- well, the first part, the
5 results that have been achieved during this one operation report, 13
6 Chetniks killed and I think you testified about this in another case,
7 that you can't tell whether the Chetniks that are mentioned here would
8 include civilians or be limited to military personnel. Am I -- is my
9 recollection correct about that?
10 A. Yes, sir. I believe that I discussed this document at length in
11 the Tolimir case.
12 Q. And if we see the next part in item number 2 it says:
13 "In order to prevent enemy forces from sending additional forces
14 from the Srebrenica and Zepa areas to the Sarajevo theatre, two acts of
15 sabotage were carried out near Srebrenica - on 23 June 1995 at Osmace and
16 on 23 June 1995 in Bijela Stijena near Koprivno, and the following
17 results achieved ..."
18 And then it lists them. The question that I have for you, first
19 of all, are these activities consistent with your investigation, that is,
20 that often times the military actions of the 28th Division were intended
21 to divert the VRS from sending their troops to respond to attacks by
22 other ABiH units including the 2nd Corps within its zone of
24 A. Again, many of the attacks that the 28th Division undertook were
25 specifically designed to keep the VRS military forces surrounding the
1 enclave as opposed to being sent to other places on the battle-field
2 where they might play a big role. It could be 2nd Corps in this
3 particular case talking about the Sarajevo theatre you're talking about
4 ABiH 1st Corps.
5 Q. Okay. And as a military analyst, would you agree, since we see
6 items number 3 and 4 on this same document if we scroll down, also
7 talking about diverting the enemy forces from the Sarajevo theatre
8 towards -- by conducting attacks surrounding Srebrenica, that in fact the
9 VRS's focus on the Srebrenica region was intended by the ABiH?
10 A. Is your question -- did the ABiH conduct military operations, one
11 of the primary purposes being to tie-down forces around Srebrenica and
13 Q. Yes.
14 A. Yes, sir.
15 Q. If we can now look at 1D1271. This is a coded cable from the
16 United Nations. If we could turn to page 2 of the same, I'd like to ask
17 you about item number 3 "restrictions on movement BSA liaison officers."
18 And it says:
19 "The BH, the BiH has imposed numerous restrictions on movement
20 (ROM) on UNPROFOR. The historical trend is that ROM are levied wherever
21 the BH, BiH is undertaking military activity or attempting to pressure
22 UNPROFOR. Over the past two months, the BiH has applied ROM in Sector
23 North East and South West and presumably to screen their military
24 activities, and also to force the withdrawal of the BSA liaison officers
25 from Tuzla and Gornji Vakuf."
1 First of all sir, is the area know as Sector North East that is
2 discussed here, an area that includes the Srebrenica enclave?
3 A. Yes, sir. It would be.
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Ivetic, you should really slow down while
5 reading and take into account, please, everything has to be translated
6 into French.
7 MR. IVETIC: I apologise and I will try to address that.
8 Q. If we can look at item (a) under this topic, dealing with regard
9 to Sector North East.
10 "In January 1995, the BiH imposed a blockade of Sector North East
11 to protest the presence of the BSA LO at Tuzla Air Base (TAB). Access
12 was restricted to HQ Sector North East stationed the TAB, as well as to
13 several company locations and resupply into several observation posts
14 (OPs). Following the departure of the BSA LO, restrictions were slowly,
15 but not completely, lifted. OPs in the northern region of the Sector, as
16 well as UNPROFOR movement in the Sapna Thumb and the west of the
17 Srebrenica enclave, are the subject of restrictions imposed by the BiH.
18 Concurrently, an unprecedented number of BiH fuel and supply convoys have
19 been seen moving into the northern region of the Sector."
20 Now, first of all, sir, this reference to fuel and -- BiH fuel
21 and supply convoys that are seen in this region, would you expect that we
22 are talking about military or civilian convoys?
23 A. I expect that, in the context of this discussion, that we would
24 be talking about materiels for military purposes.
25 Q. Did you have any information about this time-period from which
1 you would be able to give us more specifics as to the -- these activities
2 and the types of convoys? Or the numbers of convoys I should say?
3 A. No, sir, I don't.
4 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, I would tender this document as an
5 exhibit at this time.
6 MR. McCLOSKEY: No objection.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Document 1D01271 receives number D368,
9 Your Honours.
10 JUDGE ORIE: D368 is admitted.
11 MR. IVETIC:
12 Q. And, if we can turn to page 4 of this document, one more item I'd
13 like to discuss with you, sir, to see if you had this in mind. It is at
14 the bottom of the page and begins with the line "thirdly" and reads as
16 "Thirdly, the government's actions are designed in part to
17 convince the international community that the Cessation of Hostilities
18 Agreement is not working, with the aim of discrediting the Bosnian Serbs.
19 In fact, it is the Bosnian Government which is proving the more difficult
20 by imposing new restrictions on freedom of movement and refusing to
21 attend Joint Commission meetings. As a result UNPROFOR is in a position
22 of stalemate" if we can go to the next page "and problems cannot be
23 properly addressed through the Joint Commission process. Serb
24 restrictions, on the other hand, have eased considerably, although tight
25 controls are still imposed on fuel deliveries to the enclave. It must,
1 however, be kept in mind that UNPROFOR has no access to Serb-controlled
2 areas, and that military observers have not returned to the Brcko
4 Now, this information here from the beginning of 1995 that paints
5 a picture that while the Serb side was relaxing its restrictions, the BiH
6 was, in fact, the party working against the agreements in place. Did you
7 have such information, and take into account such information, in the
8 process of doing your work?
9 A. I've -- I have seen this document, obviously. I was aware of the
10 broader context when I was writing my reports, and in fact, you know, as
11 part of the historical overview of my narrative report I indicate the
12 fact that the VRS was growing aware that, you know, 1995 was going to be
13 a year of decision, at least with respect to the military framework.
14 They understood that at some point the ABiH was going to abandon the
15 cease-fire, just like they also understood that down the line that the
16 Republic of Croatia was going to re-enter the war to a large degree. So
17 clearly, you know, to make those observations I had to have some
18 understanding of what was happening in January of 1995, and again this
19 document paints an accurate picture of the UN's perception of what was
20 going on.
21 Q. Thank you, sir. Now I'd like to move again back to the
22 time-period just before the Srebrenica Krivaja operation. Did you know
23 that on the 12th of May, 1995, General Manojlo Milovanovic went into the
24 field in the Drina Corps area to examine the activities in that area?
25 A. I may have. I don't recall at the moment. It may have been
1 something I looked at.
2 Q. If we can turn to 1D1246 and page 32 of the same, which should
3 correlate to transcript page 20.536 of the Popovic transcripts. And I
4 would like to focus on line 20 and thereon. It reads as follows, sir:
5 "My question is this: On the 12th of May, 1995" --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, you made it a -- more or less a habit to
7 read all the portions of documents and transcripts, where the witness
8 could read it for himself, which takes a third of the time, and then you
9 ask a focused question. And then, if the documents or the transcript is
10 then exhibited, then we can move on. Could you please try to see whether
11 it is really necessary to read such long portions and where you can do
13 MR. IVETIC:
14 Q. If we can direct your attention, sir, to lines 20 through 23,
15 does that refresh your recollection whether or not you had knowledge of
16 General Milovanovic's visiting the Drina Corps area in -- on the
17 12th of May, 1995?
18 A. Yes, sir. From my answer, I take it I did not have knowledge of
19 that event when she asked.
20 Q. Okay. Would you agree that in times of absence by
21 General Mladic, General Milovanovic would have been in a de jure role as
22 deputy commander of the VRS?
23 A. By virtue of the regulations and the organisation of the
24 Main Staff, if General Mladic is absent or otherwise unable to exercise
25 command of the Main Staff, his deputy, General Milovanovic, would have
1 taken that role, yes, sir.
2 Q. Would you agree that that -- that there was no separate or
3 specific order required for General Milovanovic to fulfil that role, that
4 it would be an automated process?
5 A. I don't disagree that it -- that he would need a formal order to
6 do that. I do disagree that it's an automated process. Obviously, as
7 General Mladic's deputy, General Milovanovic is going to be closely
8 engaged with whatever scenario is taking place and he will clearly, you
9 know, again in co-ordination with General Mladic, know under what
10 circumstances he's authorised to take command.
11 Q. Okay. Well, now we've -- you've testified about your knowledge
12 of the fact that General Mladic left the Srebrenica area and participated
13 in some meetings and other events in Serbia in July of 1995. Would you
14 agree that there would be no need for General Mladic to issue any order
15 for his deputy commander to assume command in his absence?
16 A. I disagree. I mean, General Mladic -- I mean, if we take --
17 first of all, if we look at July of 1995, I believe I've already
18 testified that, given the circumstances at the time, General Milovanovic
19 was on the Krajina and that in the absence of General Mladic, if he was
20 unable to take or exercise command, that it would be General Miletic as
21 the chief of operations who would do that. Now -- so in that particular
22 context would whomever was the person who would assume command, if it's
23 General Milovanovic or if it's General Miletic, yes, they would need to
24 co-ordinate with General Mladic in order to know at least what the
25 circumstances are going to be by which he's not able to exercise command.
1 Merely leaving an area or even in the case of General Mladic going across
2 the border to Serbia would not normally create the circumstances by which
3 General Mladic would essentially relinquish command of the VRS. You
4 would have to look at the actual circumstances involved with respect to
5 his ability to exercise command.
6 Q. Did you perform an analysis, either in your -- any of your
7 written works how General Mladic's physical absence from the zone of the
8 VRS would be treated under the relevant VRS regulations, rules, and
10 A. Yes, sir. I looked at that very closely because obviously very
11 early on in the investigation we knew that, one, General Mladic was
12 indicted for Srebrenica already; and two, that we were able to place him
13 in Belgrade on days where components of the crime took place. So we did
14 look very closely at what were the mechanisms with respect to the VRS in
15 the circumstance if General Mladic could not exercise command, who the
16 next responsible people would be. My conclusion in looking at all of the
17 material and as well as various interviews of individuals who were on the
18 Main Staff is that the fact that General Mladic went to Belgrade during
19 those days does not mean that he has relinquished command to anybody.
20 I've not heard testimony from any VRS officer that I recall talking to
21 who has indicated that they were aware that on the 14th and 15th that
22 General Mladic wasn't in command and that command of the VRS had been
23 assumed by either General Milovanovic as the deputy or by General Miletic
24 as the chief of operations. So, I mean, we did look at it. I certainly
25 looked at it, but there's no evidence that would support that theory.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Butler, the question was focusing primarily, I
2 think, on relevant VRS regulations, rules, and structure. Now your
3 answer was, I would say, for 90 per cent what happened in fact.
4 THE WITNESS: Well, within the regulations, sir, to be clear,
5 it -- simply being out of the zone of responsibility does not
6 automatically create the circumstances by which you can no longer
7 command. And so, I mean, that -- again, there was a regulatory basis for
8 that and that is what we looked at, to see if there was a practical
9 answer to that.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
11 Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
12 MR. IVETIC:
13 Q. Did you perform any factual investigation to ascertain the method
14 of transportation used by General Mladic during his travels and the
15 technical specifications of those transport means, including
16 communications devices available or not, on the same?
17 A. We did. And again, when I say "we," the broader investigation
18 did. He did travel by automobile. I don't know that I can say that the
19 vehicle that he travelled in had the ability to communicate while he was
20 driving, no, sir.
21 Q. Okay. Now I want to turn back and rewind a bit to the beginning
22 of July 1995 and the Krivaja 95 operation. You in your direct
23 examination have stated that General Mladic or others from the Main Staff
24 were out in the field with the commanders at the corps level and I
25 would -- is it your understanding that they were also out there with
1 commanders of the brigades or battalions directing and commanding
2 directly the actions of these as to the Srebrenica campaign? Am I
3 understanding your evidence to be like that?
4 A. General -- well, first General Gvero and then General Mladic were
5 located at the IKM forward headquarters of the Drina Corps during the
6 relevant days. There they would have had access to the Drina Corps
7 Chief of Staff and his staff officers and I believe at various times the
8 commander of the Bratunac Brigade, who was also there. Obviously, I
9 believe the Court has seen the 11 July 1995 video where General Mladic
10 and other officers are walking through Srebrenica, where he's addressing
11 the various brigade commanders. But I don't believe that during the
12 run-up from the 10th, when he first arrived, his place would have been at
13 the IKM. He would not have been in the field, sitting behind various
14 brigade or battalion commanders.
15 Q. And do you believe that while at the IKM he was able to interject
16 himself and issue commands directly to the subordinate units of the corps
17 or that anyone from the Main Staff could do so?
18 A. Not anyone from the Main Staff could do so, but certainly
19 General Mladic could and I believe that there are several documents I
20 talked about where he did.
21 Q. Okay. In this regard, would you agree with the description of
22 the VRS Main Staff as a strategic organ rather than an operational organ?
23 A. It -- whether it was designed that way or not, the reality was
24 that it functioned at both the strategic level as well as the operational
25 level. In a perfect world, the VRS would have been simply strategic and
1 dealing with the larger issues of the army. The fact was that it was
2 heavily involved in operations as well, certainly with respect to
3 corps-level operations.
4 Q. Would you agree with me that, in a traditional sense, a strategic
5 organ would be one that plans actions involving two or more corps and
6 would not be involved in planning operations that are within one corps'
7 zone of operations?
8 A. Correct, sir. I mean, and again when you look at the Krivaja 95
9 operations plan, you see just that. The plan was designed by and
10 authored, essentially, by the Drina Corps and briefed to the Main Staff
11 for their approval. Since almost all of the assets involved in that came
12 from the Drina Corps, there was not necessarily a requirement to
13 co-ordinate with either the neighbouring corps, the Herzegovina Corps or
14 the East Bosnia Corps or the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps, for resources or
15 things of that nature.
16 Q. If I could try to understand your testimony where you claim the
17 VRS functioned as both an operational and as a strategic organ. The
18 information that I have is that as of January 1995, the Main Staff was
19 only staffed at 37 per cent of the officers that were foreseen under the
20 establishment, 41 per cent of the necessary junior officers, and
21 50 per cent of the necessary soldiers or non -- non-officers. In
22 reaching your conclusion, did you have that kind of a picture and that
23 kind of information in mind?
24 A. Well, again, yes, sir. I mean, while I don't understand -- or I
25 don't recall the specific numbers, and I think I've testified I've never
1 done analysis of the specific numbers, I understand that they were
2 understaffed. My response to that is: So were the corps. So while the
3 manning of the Main Staff was low, the fact is that it was comparable to
4 the staffs of the corps that they were controlling, which is why you see
5 sometimes the Main Staff being involved in lower-level planning or even
6 execution of corps operations because of the recognised deficiency.
7 Q. Okay. Now, I think in my cross you earlier confirmed that none
8 of the orders that you reviewed which originated from General Mladic
9 expressly ordered commission of crimes, and you spent a lot of your time
10 in direct speculating as to the plans and intent of persons based on
11 words and deeds of others. I'd like to look at what --
12 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection. That's argumentative. Had he been
13 speculating, that would have drawn an objection, and I didn't hear any
14 objection to speculation. So those kind of comments are argumentative.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, could you please put a question to the
17 MR. IVETIC: Yes, I could.
18 Q. I would like to focus on what General Mladic is actually recorded
19 as having said at various points. If we could first have --
20 JUDGE ORIE: I asked you to put a question to the witness, not to
21 continue argument. Please proceed.
22 MR. IVETIC: I'm sorry, I'm a bit confused as to what is
23 considered argument out of that.
24 JUDGE ORIE: A question, please.
25 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
1 If we can have 65 ter number 04624.
2 Q. And this will be your corps command responsibility report.
3 MR. IVETIC: And if we can have page 28 of the same. It will be,
4 I believe, two pages forward in the B/C/S, focusing on paragraph 7.4 of
5 your report -- sorry, next page in the B/C/S. There we go.
6 Q. Sir, here you talk of guide-lines for criminal prosecution of
7 offenders that were issued on 6 October 1992 by -- that were forwarded by
8 General Mladic from the VRS military prosecutor's office. First of all,
9 would you agree that these guide-lines forwarded by General Mladic are
10 entirely proper and appropriate from a military aspect, covering all the
11 type of legal prohibitions that you would expect to find in a
12 professional, modern army?
13 A. Yes, sir, I do.
14 Q. Now, as far as the military courts and military prosecutors are
15 concerned, during the relevant time-period those were under the control
16 of the Ministry of Defence and were not under General Mladic's direct
17 authority. Is that accurate?
18 A. When the conflict began, the military court system was under the
19 jurisdiction of the Main Staff. I believe sometime in the middle of 1993
20 the Republika Srpska made a decision to transfer the military court
21 system from the Main Staff's jurisdiction to the jurisdiction of the
22 Ministry of Defence.
23 Q. Have you ever seen any orders of General Mladic which purport to
24 interfere in the work of the military courts or the military prosecutors
25 as you interpret them?
1 A. No, sir. And in fact, many of the orders that I've seen are from
2 the Main Staff or from corps commanders who are complaining because they
3 want to see a more robust military judiciary and prosecutor's office
4 because they're dealing with a back-log of offences that the courts are
5 unable to deal with.
6 MR. IVETIC: And if we can have D143 in e-court.
7 Q. I think you'll see this is an 11 July 1995 letter to
8 General Smith of UNPROFOR from General Mladic. I'd like to focus on the
9 first two paragraphs and since we don't have the B/C/S. It says:
10 "I have received your letter from 9 July 1995. The Srebrenica
11 enclave has not been demilitarised according to the agreements of
12 19 April and 8 May 1993. The Muslims have not handed over the weapons,
13 mine/explosives and combative means to UNPROFOR. The Muslim forces have
14 abused the special status of the safe area and presence of your forces
15 for preparing and performing of terrorist and other fighting activities
16 against Serb population and the territory of the Republic of Srpska.
17 "I remind you that up to now the Muslim forces have killed a
18 hundred and wounded over two hundreds of Serb civilians by their attacks
19 and infiltrated sabotage-terrorist groups. Several Serb villages in the
20 immediate vicinity of the safe area have been burnt down with not yet
21 seen massacres of civilians. Over last few days they have launched an
22 extensive military action with an aim of connecting with the enclave of
23 the village of Zepa, and have burnt the villages of Visnjica and
24 Banja Lucica and killed their inhabitants. Accomplishing their hideous
25 intentions, the Muslims have not spared even the members of UNPROFOR
1 units. In spite of protecting them, your forces have become their
2 victims too."
3 Now, in your review of the events from this time-period, are
4 these words by General Mladic factually accurate?
5 A. Again, I can't speak to the actual casualty numbers with respect
6 to the villages that were attacked. I am aware, obviously, that the
7 28th Division did attack various Bosnian Serb villages. His words are
8 correct with the fact that it was the Bosnian Muslims who were
9 responsible, to my knowledge, of the death of an UNPROFOR peacekeeper
10 there, so that is accurate. And again, I -- to beat a dead horse on this
11 issue, I've always agreed that the safe area was not demilitarised and
12 that the 28th Division conducted combat operations out of it. I mean,
13 it's that knowledge which gives me the foundation to say that, you know,
14 the VRS was entitled to attack the 28th Infantry Division because it
15 represented a military threat to them.
16 Q. One last thing --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic.
18 MR. IVETIC: Yeah.
19 JUDGE ORIE: -- you again read the whole portion without any need
20 to do that. If the witness would have read it, it would have been
21 sufficient. Please proceed.
22 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, there's no B/C/S of this one, so I
23 think for purposes of the public and of getting it so that my client can
24 understand it, I was entitled to read it.
25 JUDGE ORIE: I wasn't aware that there was no B/C/S version of
1 that. Please proceed.
2 MR. IVETIC:
3 Q. If we can look at the next part:
4 "Atrocities made over innocent civilians have resulted in an
5 action of neutralising Muslim terrorists. Our activities are by no means
6 directed against civilians or the UNPROFOR members being deployed in this
7 enclave. This fact was obvious to a certain number of UNPROFOR members
8 who went over to our territory after one of your soldiers had been killed
9 by the Muslims. They have been accepted in a human way, well
10 accommodated and secure."
11 Based upon your research, are these words by General Mladic in
12 accord with international law or are they criminal per se or unlawful
13 per se as I think that the --
14 A. I mean, again --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Could we first -- could we first seek to establish
16 whether what is written here reflects the events --
17 MR. IVETIC: Yes, yes --
18 JUDGE ORIE: -- before we enter into the next question, that is,
19 whether they're in accord with international law or per se unlawful.
20 Please proceed. Could you --
21 THE WITNESS: That was my first thing. I mean, commenting on the
22 facts, it is obviously factual that many of the UN soldiers did turn
23 themselves over to the custody of the advancing Bosnian Serb forces
24 because they believed it was safer than trying to withdraw through the
25 ABiH military forces. They have been -- they were accepted. Obviously I
1 am aware that at the point in time that NATO forces began bombing Bosnian
2 Serb military forces on the afternoon of the 10th of July, that there was
3 a threat made that if bombing operations resumed or continued by NATO,
4 that the UNPROFOR people would be harmed. So essentially there is some
5 information out there that would suggest that at some point they became
6 potential hostages.
7 MR. IVETIC:
8 Q. Were they physically harmed while in the custody of the VRS, such
9 as to have there be any casualties?
10 A. No, sir, ultimately they were not.
11 Q. And focusing now on these words, do you find them in accord with
12 what you would expect to be accepted behaviour of a military officer or
13 do you find anything in these words to be unlawful per se?
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. McCloskey.
15 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection. What words? There's a lot of words.
16 It's vague.
17 JUDGE ORIE: We had the words and we had the events. We tried to
18 separate them. Could you please be very precise in putting that question
19 to the witness, but perhaps we should do it after the break.
20 MR. IVETIC: Yes, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Then we take the break first.
22 We would like to see you back in 20 minutes, Mr. Butler.
23 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, your time estimate would still --
25 MR. IVETIC: Yes, sir, the same time estimate. We're talking
1 approximately, I would say, 20 minutes.
2 [The witness stands down]
3 JUDGE ORIE: 20 minutes after the break. Then I would like to
4 put the following on the record. There was an issue about the
5 translation -- or, rather, I should say the missing B/C/S translation of
6 65 ter 17957 which initially was MFI'd as D367. Now, a few things went
7 wrong there uploaded -- having been uploaded the same document --
8 different documents under the same ERN number. As matters stand now,
9 I -- D367 is admitted into evidence and the extraneous English version of
10 the document, doc ID 0185-7879 can be removed and then everything should
11 be okay again.
12 Finally, the Defence has informed today - and I'm now talking
13 about D361, so we're leaving D367 behind us - the Defence has informed
14 that the English translation of D361 has been uploaded in e-court under
15 ERN number 0449-7473-0449-7473-ET, and the Chamber has instructed the
16 Registry to attach the translation but the Registry is unable to locate a
17 document under the number as I just read out. And we do understand that
18 the Defence will further look into that matter.
19 MR. IVETIC: Yes, and I can actually respond now if it pleases
20 the Court.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please do so.
22 MR. IVETIC: It is my understanding that that was a Prosecution
23 65 ter number. We have the document that the Prosecution provided as the
24 translation uploaded as a 1D number, but I was told to ask whether we can
25 link a Defence document with a Prosecution document or if that needs to
1 be done by the Prosecution as a technical matter. Otherwise, my
2 information is that we have now uploaded that so that if we are to link
3 ours with the Prosecution document, it can be done and I can have my
4 staff send the appropriate locator information, the 1D number.
5 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, I'm informed that as long as you have
7 uploaded it under a separate ID number, that then Madam Registrar is able
8 to attach that document but it should be uploaded under a separate ID
9 number. If that's done, then the problem is resolved. We'll hear from
10 Madam Registrar after the break if that's not the case.
11 We take a break and we'll resume at quarter past 12.00.
12 --- Recess taken at 11.56 a.m.
13 --- On resuming at 12.16 p.m.
14 JUDGE ORIE: The witness is escorted into the courtroom.
15 Mr. Ivetic or Mr. Lukic, your exploring the 11 lines, has that
16 resulted in any position?
17 MR. LUKIC: Your Honours, we just spoke with Ms. Stewart. We are
18 trying to locate those 11 lines and the connection we have to tie them
19 with so --
20 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] -- Okay then.
21 MR. LUKIC: -- we don't have any response --
22 JUDGE ORIE: We're patiently waiting for the results of all that.
23 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
24 [The witness takes the stand]
25 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
1 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
2 Q. We left off with the third paragraph of the document that's
3 before us and I'd simply like to focus my question on the words contained
4 in that paragraph and ask you if this -- if you find them in accord with
5 what you would expect to be the accepted behaviour of a military officer
6 or do you find anything in these words to be unlawful per se?
7 A. Again, sir, there -- looking at the language of the third
8 paragraph, there is nothing that I would view as being patently unlawful
9 in that language.
10 Q. If we could turn to D00150. This is dated the 4th of September,
11 1995, again from General Mladic --
12 THE REGISTRAR: The document is under seal, Your Honours.
13 MR. IVETIC: I apologise. If we could then not broadcast the
14 same. If we could turn to page 5 in both the English and the B/C/S.
15 Q. I'd like to focus on the second-to-last paragraph in both. And
16 ask you to read that to yourself, where he's talking about wishing to
17 make a full contribution to the peace process, proposing to schedule an
18 urgent meeting of commanders of the warring parties to sign a complete,
19 lasting and unconditional cessation of hostilities on the territory of
20 the former BH.
21 And let me know, sir, when you've read that entire paragraph?
22 A. Yes, sir.
23 Q. Were you aware of the fact that General Mladic consistently
24 sought and asked for the international community to help negotiate a
25 cease-fire and peace across the entire territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina
1 from approximately 1993 onwards?
2 A. I understand that, with respect to -- from 1993 onwards, given
3 the fact that the Bosnian Serb side had achieved what they believed were
4 their war aims, that there were a number of peace feelers going out from
5 the political leadership. I don't -- I assumed that General Mladic would
6 be party to that from the Bosnian Serb side, and certainly in this
7 particular case, you know, given the context of September 1995, NATO
8 aircraft are bombing the VRS and the Croatian army and the ABiH are
9 jointly undertaking Operation Storm and the VRS is losing ground. Again,
10 yes, I can see at this juncture why General Mladic would be requesting a
11 broad cease-fire in order to stop the hostilities for that respect.
12 So again, there were various -- the VRS and the ABiH -- I'm
13 sorry, the RS, given the fact that they'd achieved their war aims from
14 1993 on, were looking to essentially end the war at that point.
15 Q. You mention NATO attacks and actions of the Croatian army and the
16 ABiH in September 1995. Was there also action directly by UNPROFOR and
17 the Rapid Reaction Force, do you recall that?
18 A. If I recall correctly, the Rapid Reaction Force was NATO and not
19 UNPROFOR. So I say -- when I put -- when I say "NATO," that's what I'm,
20 you know, referring to. I don't believe the Rapid Reaction Force was
21 subordinate to UNPROFOR. Again, I could be mistaken but that's not my
23 Q. If I told you that General Smith testified that he personally
24 commanded over the RRF, would that change your opinion?
25 A. If General Smith says that, then that would -- you know,
1 certainly if -- he is the UNPROFOR commander at the time, yes, it would.
2 Q. Irrespective of who commanded the RRF, did -- do you believe that
3 during this time-period the military activities of the RRF, NATO
4 aircraft, the Croat forces, and the ABiH were co-ordinated with one
6 A. I would defer on that question because, one, it was not an area
7 that I studied, it had nothing to do with Srebrenica 1995, and certainly
8 there are much better people than I am to be able to have testified about
9 that with respect to the overall co-ordination if any existed. It just
10 was not an area that I needed to deal with for the area of my study of
12 Q. Okay. Fair enough. I'd now like to go through some recordings
13 with you of Mr. Mladic. And first of all, did you have occasion to
14 review in detail the so-called Srebrenica trial video as we refer to it
15 in these proceedings?
16 A. I have seen versions of Srebrenica trial videos in other cases.
17 In this particular case, I don't know if it's the same version that I've
18 seen or not, so ...
19 Q. Fair enough. I just have some short clips I'd like to go through
20 with you. With the assistance of Ms. Stewart on the opposite side, I'd
21 like to show the first clip which is from 65 ter -- pardon me, Exhibit
22 Number P1147 and is the video that is labelled V000-9265 and I'd ask for
23 the section to be played from 00:43:09 to 00:45:54. And this is, I
24 believe, approximately located at page 17 of the English transcript of
25 this exhibit through page 18. And with that said, I'd like to play the
2 [Video-clip played]
3 MR. IVETIC:
4 Q. Okay. Now, first of all, sir, this clip that we've seen, is that
5 one of the clips that you remember seeing for purposes of prior cases
7 A. Yes, sir.
8 Q. Did your research confirm that it was UNPROFOR rather than the
9 VRS that initiated the decision that refugees would be evacuated from the
10 area based on instructions from BH command and the requests of the
11 refugees themselves?
12 A. Again, what my research reflected is what Colonel Karremans was
13 saying here, his perception that the refugees wanted to leave, and I
14 think there are related documents from the BH command that discuss
15 potentially moving the population out of Potocari. Again, the question
16 of whose idea and under what circumstances is a matter of debate.
17 Q. Well, who asked for this meeting according to Mr. -- Colonel
19 A. Colonel Karremans did ask for this meeting. This is what is
20 known as the first meeting of the three that take place on the 11th --
21 I'm sorry, on the 10th and 11th of July, 1995.
22 Q. Okay. I'd like to now show another short clip, of 36 or so
23 seconds, in the same video from 49 seconds and -- 49 minutes and 5
24 seconds to 49 minutes and 41 seconds, and again with the assistance of
25 Ms. Stewart, who I thank very much for her assistance. And if we can
1 play it.
2 [Video-clip played]
3 MR. IVETIC:
4 Q. And, sir, this is part of the same clip so I won't ask you if you
5 viewed it, but the reference by Mr. -- Colonel Karremans suggesting that
6 they go towards Tuzla, is the ultimate direction in which the refugees
7 were sent -- in the general direction of Tuzla?
8 A. Yes, sir.
9 Q. Okay. And if we could now look at the same underlying video, and
10 it's the part that begins at one hour, 33 minutes, and 41 seconds, and
11 goes to one hour, 38 minutes, and 17 seconds, it's approximately three
12 and a half minutes and I'd like to play that, that begins at page 41 of
13 the English transcript and goes to page 42 of the English transcript.
14 And again, with the assistance of Ms. Stewart, I'd like to play that at
15 this time.
16 [Video-clip played]
17 MR. IVETIC:
18 Q. Okay. Now, in terms of the overall entirety of General Mladic's
19 words, would you agree that he is promoting the option of a peaceful
20 resolution, whereby the enemy force lays down its arms without further
22 A. Yes, sir. In the context of this, and this is the second meeting
23 on 11 July, he is making the case essentially that if the 28th Division
24 were to lay down their arms and surrender, they would be spared.
25 Q. And in this context at this time, the VRS still thought that the
1 28th Division was tied up in the Bandera Triangle, armed and waiting for
2 them. Is that your understanding?
3 A. Yes, sir.
4 Q. And is there anything -- strike that.
5 He seems to be seeking a meeting with political or military
6 leaders and has proposed a cease-fire at 10.00 a.m. to permit that
7 meeting to take place. Is there anything in --
8 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection. He ordered a cease-fire.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic.
10 MR. IVETIC: Yes.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Well, Mr. McCloskey objects against the way in which
12 you quote what was said, or at least summarise what was said, it being
13 that Mr. Mladic did not propose a cease-fire but ordered one.
14 MR. IVETIC: Fair enough.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then please rephrase your question and put it
16 to the witness.
17 MR. IVETIC: Okay.
18 Q. General Mladic seems to be seeking a meeting with political and
19 military leaders and has ordered a unilateral cease-fire at 10.00 a.m.
20 for that purpose. Do you find anything patently unlawful in these words
21 or are they, in fact, a typical message that you would expect a military
22 commander to make after prevailing in a battle to try to avoid further
24 JUDGE ORIE: Could you split that up, Mr. Ivetic.
25 MR. IVETIC: Sure.
1 JUDGE ORIE: That's a lot of questions in one. The first
2 question apparently be whether there's anything patently unlawful in
3 those words. Is there?
4 MR. IVETIC: Yes, that's correct.
5 THE WITNESS: With respect to him ordering a cease-fire for the
6 purpose of bringing in members of either the Muslim political
7 establishment or the 28th Infantry Division to negotiate their surrender,
8 no, sir.
9 MR. IVETIC:
10 Q. Would you agree that the words of General Mladic are, in fact, a
11 typical message you would expect any military commander to make after
12 prevailing in a battle to try to avoid further fighting?
13 MR. McCLOSKEY: Could we get the specific words, given what
14 General Mladic has just said that's a -- quite a bit to bite off.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, what specific part are you referring to
16 when you ask this question? Are you just limiting yourself to --
17 MR. IVETIC: The requesting --
18 JUDGE ORIE: -- cease-fire and requesting a meeting? Is that
19 what you --
20 MR. IVETIC: No, I would add to that also requesting that they
21 surrender their arms, that the military surrender their arms, and reach
22 a -- send negotiators to reach a peaceful resolution to the situation.
23 Those are the words I'm referring to. I think we've all heard them.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we have heard many more, but if you are
25 focusing on these ones, then the witness may answer the question --
1 unless Mr. McCloskey --
2 MR. McCLOSKEY: And Mr. Butler will concentrate on military
3 terms, but if we could have the context by which that last one was said,
4 survive or disappear. These are connected to what you just said and they
5 should be mentioned.
6 MR. IVETIC: Is that a submission?
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, you said you would limit yourself
8 whether that is of any use is a different matter, but you would say just
9 offering -- asking for a meeting, asking to surrender your weapons.
10 And, Mr. Butler, you're supposed to forget about all the rest
11 that was said --
12 MR. IVETIC: No, let's do the whole thing. Let's do it this
13 way --
14 JUDGE ORIE: No, Mr. Ivetic, that's the way you phrased it,
15 that's where Mr. McCloskey made objections, and I denied that objection
16 because you wanted to limit purely on those words and not on "survive" or
17 "stay and vanish." You apparently have excluded that, fine; then that's
18 your question. If you want to include it, do it then -- again rephrase
19 your question and then we'll hear whether Mr. McCloskey has any further
20 objection against the question. Please proceed.
21 MR. IVETIC:
22 Q. Well, let's first start with the question Mr. McCloskey did not
23 have an objection to or for rather I should say for which you overruled
24 his objection. If we focus on the words of surrendering arms, sending
25 prominent military or political people to negotiate a surrender, ordering
1 a unilateral cease-fire to accomplish the same, in relation to those
2 words, sir, are they the type of comments that you would expect to hear
3 from any military officer from any army in a similar situation where they
4 have --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Similarity of the situation -- situation is not
6 described, Mr. Ivetic. And there of course that's exactly where the
7 problem is and sighing loudly doesn't change that. Please proceed.
8 MR. IVETIC: Well, I don't know how to proceed now, Your Honours.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Then --
10 MR. IVETIC: Because --
11 JUDGE ORIE: -- proceed as you wish to proceed. Your -- the only
12 thing is, if you say "in a similar situation," which you have not
13 defined --
14 MR. IVETIC: I did in my question, Your Honour, the one that you
15 overruled the objection to. There is an objection, it is overruled, is
16 that question then able to be introduced to the witness?
17 JUDGE ORIE: No, you introduced new elements in the question and
18 that, even without an objection, would meet concerns by the Chamber as I
19 expressed before. You've played a long portion of a video and you are
20 referring to a similar situation which makes it entirely unclear.
21 Proceed as you think fit to proceed.
22 MR. IVETIC: I will, Your Honour. I'll proceed with the question
23 that you said was appropriate and that's at page 59, 20 through to 24,
24 where I precisely did identify the similar situation as being a military
25 commander to make after prevailing in a battle to try to avoid further
2 JUDGE ORIE: Is that -- could you answer --
3 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. I mean, in the technical sense that
4 Srebrenica has just been captured, General Mladic is seeking the
5 surrender of the 28th Division rather than to continue to engage them in
6 battle, the fact that he would offer a cease-fire and the fact that he
7 would make the necessary provisions to allow for those individuals to
8 travel to, in this case the Hotel Fontana, to negotiate that surrender, I
9 mean, that's all technically proper.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Next question please, Mr. Ivetic.
11 MR. IVETIC:
12 Q. And in relation to the whole context of events where I believe
13 you've testified that the VRS thought that the 28th Division was still in
14 the Bandera Triangle, do you permit the possibility that his reference to
15 they may vanish or not survive could be in relation to the population in
16 the Bandera Triangle, military and civilian, engaging in hostile
17 activities that he's expecting he will have to commit -- commit combat
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. McCloskey.
20 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection. Anything is possible and this is not
21 Mr. Butler's job to speculate on these sorts of Mladic comments.
22 MR. IVETIC: I would say the opposite. He's a military analyst
23 who's here to tell us what the possible ramifications of words are based
24 upon his knowledge of the facts of the area and I'm asking him now a very
25 pertinent question, I believe.
1 JUDGE ORIE: The witness may answer the question whether he
2 considers it possible that those words have been uttered in relation to
3 the people, military and civilians, in the Bandera Triangle, whether the
4 context of all of it, whether he considered this a possibility.
5 THE WITNESS: Well, yes, sir, that is a possible interpretation
6 of that language.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 MR. IVETIC: If I could have just one moment, Your Honours, to
9 see what the consultation is behind my back.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
11 [Defence counsel and accused confer]
12 JUDGE ORIE: Could Mr. Mladic keep his voice low so that no one
13 else can hear him.
14 MR. IVETIC: I apologise for the delay, Your Honours. If --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic.
16 MR. IVETIC: Thank you.
17 Q. If we can --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Have you done with the words and the interpretation?
19 MR. IVETIC: Yes, I have.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 You have told us, Mr. Butler, that this is a possible
22 interpretation. Is it your interpretation of those words in that
23 context? Or if you say I have no --
24 THE WITNESS: Again, sir, in this particular context I -- I've
25 never -- I've never analysed the words in the sense -- and again, trying
1 to be conservative, what Mr. -- what General Mladic says is what he says.
2 What he means is not something -- just like any of us, I don't interpret
3 what people mean.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Thank you. That's an answer.
5 MR. IVETIC:
6 Q. If we could now view -- and this is part of the -- another video
7 within that same exhibit --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, not a surprise, I take it, that I'm
9 surprised at this moment that you announced that you would need 20
10 minutes, where I'm not saying that only the video you played, but you had
11 a lot of other questions, you started playing the video, and we are now
12 approximately 15 minutes beyond your time estimate. But I just want you
13 to be aware of going quite a bit beyond your last estimate. Please
15 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honours. And I can advise you that
16 I only have two, or actually just the one more short video of
17 approximately three minutes and one or two questions about that and then
18 I'll be concluding my cross-examination.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
20 MR. IVETIC: If we can have the second -- pardon me -- the video
21 in question now is V000-9266 and it is the segment from 9 minutes and 54
22 seconds to 12 minutes and 50 seconds. And it can be found on page 49 of
23 the English transcript for this exhibit and again with Ms. Stewart's
24 assistance we can begin.
25 [Video-clip played]
1 MR. IVETIC: Thank you.
2 Q. Now, in the -- in this clip, again there is the request for the
3 surrender of arms so that the husbands, fathers, and neighbours don't
4 need to die and the one woman says: How do we contact them? Would you
5 agree, under the circumstances, that it is just as likely that they're
6 referring to the 28th Division, that is again to be believed in the
7 Bandera Triangle holed up, that these comments are directed towards?
8 A. Yes, sir. Again, that's a possible interpretation that they're
9 referring to the 28th Division.
10 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, that would be the last question I have
11 for this witness.
12 Q. Mr. Butler, I thank you for the time and I apologise for going
13 over my estimate by a dozen or so minutes?
14 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Ivetic.
15 Mr. McCloskey, any questions in re-examination for the witness?
16 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Then please proceed. Could you give us a time
18 estimate? I'm not asking for seconds.
19 MR. McCLOSKEY: I hope to finish today, though that last section
20 and the Ministry of Defence part about the judicial system did open the
21 doors up, but I really do want to finish today.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.
23 Re-examination by Mr. McCloskey:
24 Q. And, Mr. Butler, just on this last section when the General said
25 on the night of the 11th that he ordered a cease-fire until 10.00, are
1 you aware of evidence of an assault by troops under General Mladic's
2 command on the enclave of specifically Potocari that came from the
3 Bratunac area?
4 A. Starting at -- on the morning of the 12th, as the documents
5 indicate, the special police forces began moving from Bratunac to
7 Q. So when General Mladic said he ordered a cease-fire until 10.00
8 a.m., that was not correct, was it?
9 A. Well, first of all, as the record notes with respect to the
10 intercepts and everything else, I mean there was fighting throughout the
11 night of the 10th as the first part of the column started to break its
12 way through the enclave. So, I mean, certainly -- or not -- through the
13 northern edge of the former enclave. So they weren't aware that -- if
14 this was a cease-fire, it was a broader one.
15 You know, and it's certainly from the context of the special
16 police, I mean, they weren't necessarily firing their weapons, but
17 certainly they were conducting military operations towards Potocari.
18 Presumably they would have fired the weapons had they been fired upon.
19 Q. And, in the context of what General Mladic said at least twice,
20 that it was Muslim options to survive or disappear and for their survival
21 their army must lay down their weapons, and did the entire 28th Division,
22 in fact, lay down their weapons or did they, as you've described, push
23 forward in combat fashion all the way up towards Zvornik?
24 A. The 28th Division did, in fact, attempt to leave the enclave and
25 try to push towards, what they considered, friendly territory.
1 Q. So if General Mladic is offering for their survival, they must
2 surrender, they didn't surrender and the option of -- and the next option
3 was disappearing or vanishing --
4 MR. IVETIC: Objection.
5 MR. McCLOSKEY:
6 Q. So what happened --
7 MR. IVETIC: Misstates the evidence and calls for speculation.
8 JUDGE ORIE: The misstatement of the evidence always is an issue
9 which -- could you please be as precise as possible. But could you
10 assist us, Mr. Ivetic, is it the next option -- if you just quote the
11 words to the witness, that would be preferable.
12 MR. McCLOSKEY:
13 Q. General Mladic said -- gave the option twice, they may survive or
14 vanish. Then he said: For your survival, and then I paraphrase, your
15 men must surrender. Now, as you've just stated, a good part of the
16 28th Division did not surrender. So does it make sense to you,
17 Mr. Butler, that having not followed General Mladic's edict or comments,
18 that the Muslims, by ignoring his comments, faced the other option that
19 he gave and that is vanishment?
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic.
21 MR. IVETIC: Again I would object since we've established there's
22 an alternate meaning under those words.
23 MR. McCLOSKEY: No, we agreed that he's speaking of the
24 28th Division --
25 JUDGE ORIE: No, what the meaning of the words is let's focus to
1 what was said. It's my recollection that in the first one the option was
2 stay -- at least is what the last words -- I want to have them played
3 again if -- I don't want any further discussion. Words are to be quoted
4 literally and that can be the basis of a question and the witness already
5 said that he was not -- he was not explaining those words. He says words
6 are what they are and that's of course what the Chamber will primarily
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE ORIE: I think the first one was "survive or stay and
10 vanish." I think those were the words I remember having read on the
11 subtitles. The second time it was "survive or disappear" and for
12 survival it was required that they would lay down their weapons. That is
13 my recollection of the two portions we looked at. That is, if the
14 parties agree on that, that is then the basis for any further questions
15 without further interpretation of what it means or whether it was --
16 that's the basis for your questions.
17 MR. McCLOSKEY: And, Mr. President, I think given Mr. Butler's
18 reluctance to take over your job and this is clear, we don't need to
19 spend any more time with this.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. That's fine. Mr. Butler said words are
21 words. I'm not the one who should explain them. Therefore, let's move
22 on. The Chamber may have to explain them perhaps at one stage sooner or
23 later. Please proceed.
24 MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you.
25 Q. And, Mr. Butler, the -- you spoke at length about intercepts and,
1 as I recollect, and on cross-examination you mostly have mentioned the
2 2nd Corps intercepts. As part of your review of all these intercepts,
3 did that include MUP intercepts, Ministry of Interior intercepts?
4 A. Yes, sir. I believe that we had intercepts that -- as part of
5 that general body came out of very -- the CSB in Tuzla which we called a
6 subset which was the MUP intercept.
7 Q. And without going into a lot of detail about that, did your --
8 did you gain a certain faith in those intercepts as you did with the
9 others and actually cite them in your report?
10 A. Yes, sir, I did.
11 Q. And, in fact, I believe the 12th July intercept where Mladic
12 makes the remark about - and I apologise, I don't have the exact
13 words - that people -- that they've all evacuated and we'll evacuate --
14 excuse me, they've all surrendered and that we'll evacuate all of them,
15 those that want to and those that don't want to, that was, in fact, a MUP
16 intercept. Do you recall that?
17 A. Yes, sir, I believe that was.
18 Q. All right. And also Mr. Ivetic spent some time on September 11th
19 speaking of around 16500 onward about -- that you never mentioned the
20 constitution of the RS or the SFRY in your discussions of the law. And
21 so I'd like to go briefly to some of the materials that you did discuss
22 in your -- in particular, I believe it was in your command reports. If
23 we could go to 65 ter 4384. We see this section that it's from the
24 Official Gazette of the Republika Srpska dated 9 August 1993, Law on
25 Amending the Criminal Code of the SFRY. What is this?
1 A. What this document is, essentially, is a decree published in the
2 Official Gazette of the RS where the Republika Srpska is essentially
3 adopting almost, with minor changes, the former criminal code of the SFRY
4 and directing that, you know, it be enforced as the criminal code, you
5 know, retitled and enforced as the criminal code of the Republika Srpska.
6 MR. McCLOSKEY: I offer this into evidence.
7 MR. IVETIC: No objection.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Document 04384 receives number P2182,
10 Your Honours.
11 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence. But could we just
12 first have a look at how long it is, what are we looking at? It is -- by
13 the way it said it is a decree -- the title reads that it is a law and
14 it's three pages I see. Admitted into evidence.
15 MR. McCLOSKEY: All right can we go to 65 ter 4379.
16 Q. Is this the criminal code that was referred to in that -- in the
17 gazette that got adopted by the RS?
18 A. Yes, sir, it was.
19 Q. Let's go to e-court page 69, B/C/S page 66. And we see here that
20 this is chapter 16 of that law; is that right?
21 A. Correct, sir.
22 Q. And have you chosen these and cited these in your report?
23 A. Yes, sir. I believe they were pertinent with respect to the
24 issue of command responsibility, so I did examine these and they are
25 cited in my various command reports.
1 Q. All right. And we can see that there's a genocide article, war
2 crimes against the civilian population, it goes on to talk about war
3 crimes against the sick and war crimes against prisoners of war, is that
4 right, and others?
5 A. Yes, sir.
6 MR. McCLOSKEY: I would offer this into evidence.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The whole quote or is there -- just in order
8 for us to learn that there was a genocide and war crimes against the
9 civilian population article in the former code. Is that --
10 MR. McCLOSKEY: We --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Is there any disagreement about any of the questions
12 you've asked?
13 Mr. Ivetic, any disagreement about genocide article?
14 MR. IVETIC: No, no disagreement over that, although the B/C/S
15 has some handwriting, I don't know what that is in relation to but I
16 don't think it changes the meaning of the printed text.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. McCloskey, 129 pages for the Judges to look at.
18 MR. McCLOSKEY: I'm sorry that we've done that. I just wanted
19 chapter 16 which has basically the applicable statutes that Mr. Butler is
20 talking about.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Okay. Then please upload them.
22 May I take it that there is no --
23 MR. IVETIC: No objection.
24 JUDGE ORIE: No. So if you upload them, they will be admitted.
25 Please proceed.
1 MR. McCLOSKEY: And can we have 65 --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we could already provisionally assign a number
3 to what is still to be uploaded as chapter 6 -- 16 of the criminal code
4 of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
5 Madam Registrar.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Document with 65 ter number pending to be
7 provided receives number P2183, Your Honours.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that number is reserved.
9 Please proceed.
10 [Prosecution counsel confer]
11 MR. McCLOSKEY: We'll assign it 4379A.
12 And if we could go to 65 ter 4646, this should be another order
13 from the gazette of the Serbian people in Bosnia and Herzegovina, this
14 one dated 13 June 1992.
15 Q. And we see here, Mr. Butler, that this is an order on something
16 called the application of the rules of the international law of war in
17 the Army of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia Herzegovina. And we can read
18 to ourselves what this does. Tell us briefly what this is, why it was in
19 your report.
20 A. Yes, sir. One of the documents that I use in my report is the
21 former SFRY regulations pertaining to the application of the law of war
22 or international -- or law -- or international humanitarian law, I guess,
23 with respect to the armed forces of the Republika Srpska. This
24 particular order by Dr. Karadzic, functioning as the supreme commander, I
25 mean, essentially lays out the fact that those 1988 regulations, with
1 respect to how to follow the law of armed conflict within the military,
2 are applicable to what becomes the VRS.
3 Q. All right.
4 MR. McCLOSKEY: I'd offer this into evidence.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Document 04646 receives number P2184,
7 Your Honours.
8 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
9 Please proceed.
10 MR. McCLOSKEY: Could we go to 65 ter 4377. I'm not sure how we
11 got that. Maybe if we go to the next page in the B/C/S. It should be
12 page 2 in e-court. There we go.
13 Q. Are these the JNA regs that were just talked about and were
14 adopted by the RS?
15 A. Yes, sir. I mean, these are the former regulations that were
16 made applicable.
17 Q. All right. I would like to go to -- should be page 62 in the
18 English and B/C/S page 56. And I want to ask you about -- it's the
19 bottom part, basic rights of prisoners of war, number 207 is entitled:
20 "Responsibility of the State for the treatment of prisoners of
21 war by its nationals." And "prisoners of war are under the authority of
22 the Detaining Power, and not of the individual persons or military units
23 which capture them. The Detaining Power shall be responsible for the
24 treatment of prisoners of war. This responsibility does not rule out ...
25 personal responsibility of individuals."
1 It is break time, but, Mr. Butler, I think you can give us your
2 brief analysis of why you've used this and do you view it as important?
3 A. Yes, sir, I have used it. I view it as important as part of a
4 component of the responsibility of the state and the senior leaders of
5 the state to ensure the proper treatment of prisoners of war. The fact
6 that in other trials some defendants have claimed that it, you know,
7 since they were captured by unit X, that their -- the problem of that
8 particular unit that captures them, and again, this lays out that under
9 the regulations that were applicable to them, the VRS being "them," that
10 they understood from these regulations that, you know, the senior leaders
11 of the state, whatever organ they are, share responsibility because it's
12 not an individual who deals with the -- is responsible for ensuring the
13 fair treatment of prisoners, it's the state as the detaining power.
14 Q. And we can see that it also, at the end, says this responsibility
15 does not rule out personal responsibility of individuals. What do you
16 take that to mean briefly?
17 A. That an individual, any member of that unit X, so to speak, if
18 they commit a crime against a prisoner, they can't simply claim that it's
19 the state's responsibility. I mean, as designed there's a two-tiered
20 level of responsibility: Those individuals obviously who are directly
21 responsible for the capture, maintenance, and movement of a prisoner, as
22 well as the overarching state to ensure that all of the proper procedures
23 are filled out.
24 Q. Thank you.
25 MR. McCLOSKEY: It's break time.
1 JUDGE ORIE: It's break time.
2 Could the witness be escorted out of the courtroom.
3 [The witness stands down]
4 JUDGE ORIE: We take a break and we resume at 20 minutes to 2.00.
5 --- Recess taken at 1.17 p.m.
6 --- On resuming at 1.40 p.m.
7 JUDGE ORIE: While the witness is escorted into the courtroom, it
8 turns out that everything in relation to D361 is now correct, has been
9 correctly uploaded, has been attached. Therefore, D361 is admitted into
11 MR. IVETIC: I also have some additional information as to the
12 witness. You asked about the 92 bis I believe witness --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes --
14 MR. IVETIC: -- Music I believe --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 MR. IVETIC: -- is the name of the witness. We have located the
17 transcript portion. We do not have an objection to those additional
18 lines being brought in, but we would renew our objection to have -- and
19 our request to have this witness cross-examined insofar as the lines now
20 being added relate to a contradiction between the written statement and
21 the testimony of the witness during the trial that we believe still needs
22 to be further explored and clarified.
23 [The witness takes the stand]
24 MR. IVETIC: And so I don't know whether this is -- I forgot if
25 this is one where Your Honours have already ruled on our objections --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, there is a decision already. So --
2 MR. IVETIC: Okay.
3 JUDGE ORIE: So if the additional lines, the 11 lines really
4 would change anything not covered by your objections yet and therefore
5 not by the ruling of the Chamber, then, of course, you are invited to
6 make any specific submission. But if you say, We are opposed to it in
7 general terms but not in any different way for these 11 lines, then we
8 leave it as it is and we would then also admit those 11 lines.
9 We'd like to hear from you soon.
10 Mr. McCloskey, please proceed.
11 MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you, Mr. President.
12 Q. Mr. Butler, while we're here we see in -- up on the page 209
13 entitled: "Prohibition of reprisals." And it notes that:
14 "Reprisals against prisoners of war are prohibited in all cases."
15 What is a reprisal in a military context as you would have
17 A. A reprisal is a deliberate decision to essentially commit a war
18 crime for the specific purpose of essentially seeking to deter your
19 adversary who's committing war crimes. It's -- like I said, it is
20 something that occurs in extreme situations. Obviously there's a large
21 body of international law that reflects that reprisals are inherently
22 unlawful because you're essentially always targeting a protected
23 population by doing so. I am aware some countries still believe that
24 reprisals are, in fact, not necessarily lawful but still appropriate in
25 some cases.
1 MR. McCLOSKEY: Let's go to the next page.
2 Q. Just briefly, 216, we note that it just talks about the personal
3 belongings of prisoners of war and that in the middle of the paragraph we
4 see that they shall remain in the possession of the prisoner of war, and
5 early on it talks about clothing, food, identity cards, personal
6 correspondence. Is this something you were aware of when you wrote your
8 A. Yes, sir. I was aware of the requirement that military forces
9 who capture prisoners, you know, again under this paragraph this is what
10 they have to leave the prisoner with.
11 MR. McCLOSKEY: I offer this document in evidence.
12 JUDGE ORIE: 48 -- 84 pages, Mr. McCloskey?
13 MR. McCLOSKEY: Um --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Is there any disagreement about this being part of
15 the law?
16 MR. IVETIC: No, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE ORIE: And do we need the details of that, Mr. McCloskey,
18 or is it just making reference to that reprisals and with the answer of
19 the witness is sufficient for us to know, apart from that, of course,
20 it's -- legal matters, of course, the Court could look into them itself.
21 MR. McCLOSKEY: These are the key pages that I think we're
22 satisfied and, of course, the Trial Chamber can -- will request, as I
23 know it will, if it needs anything else, so I think these few pages we're
24 fine with.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Okay --
1 MR. McCLOSKEY: And we'll sort that out so we --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Make your selection and then we'll reserve a number
3 for it.
4 Madam Registrar, the still-to-be-made selection of articles
5 defining war crimes.
6 THE REGISTRAR: The document with the 65 ter number then to be
7 provided receives tentatively number P2185, Your Honours.
8 JUDGE ORIE: And is reserved for this purpose.
9 Mr. McCloskey.
10 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes.
11 Q. Now I'd like to briefly go into the area that Defence went with
12 you on directive 4 on Friday, September the 13th, from 16753 to 16761 and
13 other areas and that is related to directive 4. And I want to first make
14 a reference to a map that came from the Zvornik Brigade. Its number is
15 19292. I believe it's too big to actually come up on the screen and
16 it -- I do have a blow-up section that should come up on the screen.
17 MR. McCLOSKEY: I've been able to show the map to Mr. Ivetic and
18 just to give the witness and you an idea of -- this is the original map
19 that I'll have a blow-up for. It's a map that is from the
20 Zvornik Brigade and it has a notation of -- Proboj is the name of the
21 operation on it.
22 If we could go to 19292A and just -- and blow that up. It's --
23 it's not a very good blow-up, as we can see. That's the -- I'm sorry,
24 that's the whole map so that -- thank you for that. And I would -- then
25 if we can go to now 19292A --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Could -- apparently Mr. --
2 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, there is no 19292A. It's only ...
3 [Prosecution counsel confer]
4 MR. McCLOSKEY: It's been released.
5 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
6 JUDGE ORIE: It may take a short time to make it to
7 Madam Registrar --
8 MR. McCLOSKEY: Okay --
9 JUDGE ORIE: -- electronically.
10 MR. McCLOSKEY: And --
11 JUDGE ORIE: -- and it seems -- but could -- Mr. Lukic, it seems
12 that Mr. Mladic would like to have a look at the map, or at least he's
13 gesturing one way or another.
14 MR. IVETIC: That is correct, Your Honours. That was the message
15 that was relayed. I don't know whether we have full-sized copies of this
16 map available. I do not recall having received any, although I did just
17 look at it laid out on the floor at the break.
18 MR. McCLOSKEY: The General can have the original as far as I'm
20 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Could the --
21 MR. McCLOSKEY: Temporarily.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, temporarily, we understand that.
23 MR. McCLOSKEY:
24 Q. And, Mr. Butler, do you recall having had a chance to see any of
25 the original or copies of the Operation Proboj maps from the Zvornik
2 A. I recall that when we went through the Zvornik documents that
3 there were a number of maps there. I would have looked at all of them.
4 Q. Okay. Well, this now is up on the screen. It is a blow-up
5 graphic of that original, and we can see that we have red lines and blue
6 lines starting below Zvornik and in the area of Bratunac. You talked in
7 your discussion on this about a pocket, basically, that was surrounded
8 and is this roughly the area that you would have been talking about
9 from -- we see that this is dated 24 -- it says beginning at
10 24 January 1993 and there is nothing in the ending section and if we go
11 to the top we'll see that. Is this the area that was in contention
12 after -- during that period of directive 4 from late 1992 until the
13 creation of the enclave in the spring of 1993?
14 A. Yes, sir, it would have been.
15 Q. All right.
16 MR. McCLOSKEY: I would offer both these maps into evidence.
17 MR. IVETIC: No objection.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar. "Both" means the total map and the
19 portion taken out?
20 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, please. One -- the map 19292 and then it's
21 section 19292A.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
23 THE REGISTRAR: Document number 19292 receives number P2186, and
24 document 19292A receives number P2187, Your Honours.
25 JUDGE ORIE: P2186 and P2187 are admitted into evidence.
1 MR. McCLOSKEY: And could we go to 65 ter 14122. And if we could
2 assist, we might save some time, I have a few of these documents that I
3 will be going over that I would like Mr. Butler to see because it will
4 save time in terms of looking at each page on the computer.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Is the Defence aware of what is contained in the
7 MR. McCLOSKEY: No, but they are welcome to look and it's
8 material that had been previously provided to them and I think largely
9 discussed in most of the past Srebrenica trials.
10 MR. IVETIC: It appears to be primarily information reports and
11 proofing of the witness and some e-mails.
12 MR. McCLOSKEY:
13 Q. So this first one, Mr. Butler, we see it's listed from the
14 Drina Corps command 19 November 1992. It's the last page, on page 4 of
15 the English, is -- we note that it's General Zivanovic's signature and
16 that's -- or his name in any event, and that's on page 2 of the B/C/S.
17 And I just want to focus on this first page. We see that this is
18 19 November. This is about the period that directive 4 came out, is it
20 A. Yes, sir, it is.
21 Q. And we note that there's a mention of Cerska, Konjevic Polje,
22 Glodansko Brdo, Kamenica, Snagovo. Are those some of the areas noted in
23 directive 4 and the follow-up from the Drina Corps on directive 4?
24 A. Yes, sir, they are.
25 Q. And the next paragraph we see it talks about the figure.
1 "In addition to armed soldiers, there are a certain number of
2 civilians (women, children, the elderly and the frail) in this area. We
3 estimate this figure to be between 10.000 and 20.000 people."
4 Is that a reliable figure in your view, based on your knowledge
5 of this?
6 A. It is -- I think it's towards the 20.000, but yes, sir, it is
7 when you look at the context of the people who then showed up in
9 Q. All right. And then page 2 of the English, B/C/S page 1. And we
10 see that -- it says:
11 "The morale of the civilians is dropping due to shortages of food
12 staples and other vital supplies. We deem that we will crash the enemy
13 resistance in a powerful attack precisely because of their drop in morale
14 caused by joint attacks from all directions."
15 Is this a roughly accurate picture as you've seen from the
16 documents and about this time of the Muslim population?
17 A. It is with respect to November and, of course, as you turn the
18 corner through December and January particularly, it was that -- the
19 winter of 1993 was a particularly harsh winter with a lot of snow in
20 Eastern Bosnia. So there -- they were having all sorts of problems with
21 respect to getting enough supplies or food in. So you see the situation
22 continue to get worse with respect to the basic necessities of food and
23 firewood and things of that nature as each month goes on.
24 MR. McCLOSKEY: I offer that document in evidence.
25 MR. IVETIC: No objection.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
2 THE REGISTRAR: Document 14122 receives number P2188,
3 Your Honours.
4 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
5 MR. McCLOSKEY: 65 ter 04021, please.
6 Q. And we'll see that this is an order from General Mladic that's
7 dated the 7th of December, 1992. There we go. And it's an order to
8 amend directive number 4 that speaks for itself. And then we see the --
9 just the first sentence, it says:
10 "That all targeted objectives of the Army of Republika Srpska
11 must be achieved ... by 13 December 1992 at the latest."
12 And if we could go to the next page. Sorry to make you read this
13 quickly, Mr. Butler. It should be B/C/S page 3. And we see that it
15 "For this purpose, the goals and tasks set out in directive 4 ...
16 November 1992 are to be completed by that date.
17 "Despite the stages formerly set out in directive number 4, the
18 Corps Commands must carry out the following assignments in their zones of
19 responsibility by 13 December ..."
20 And then in number 2 we see:
21 "Liberate Orasje, Trnovo, Konjevic Polje, Cerska, and Teocak."
22 Are the sections Konjevic Polje and Cerska the parts that were in
23 the Drina Corps version of directive 4 that Zivanovic sent out?
24 A. Yes, sir.
25 MR. McCLOSKEY: We'd offer this document into evidence.
1 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, there is a translation issue on the
2 first page. I believe in item number 1 "ciljevi rata" has not been
3 translated. It's not target objectives, it's war objectives.
4 MR. McCLOSKEY: We'll check that out and get an agreement and fix
6 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Madam Registrar, the number ...?
8 THE REGISTRAR: Document 04021 receives number P2189,
9 Your Honours.
10 JUDGE ORIE: And I think the best would be to mark it for
11 identification so that you agree and then come back to the Chamber. It's
12 marked for identification.
13 Please proceed.
14 MR. McCLOSKEY: Could we now go to 65 ter 14062.
15 Q. And we'll see that this is an order for combat dated
16 21 March 1993. It's from the Drina Corps and it's in the name of
17 General Zivanovic and it's -- we can see here on the first page that it's
18 to the commands of the Zvornik Brigade and the Birac Brigade.
19 MR. McCLOSKEY: And if we could go to page 3 in the English and
20 it should be B/C/S page 2 and 3 ...
21 MR. IVETIC: If I can assist, I think there's only two pages in
23 MR. McCLOSKEY: Okay. There should be another page in the B/C/S
24 because there's another paragraph, I think, but -- yeah.
25 Q. In any event, if we could look at paragraph 2.
1 "In accordance with the assignments specified in directive
2 number 4 with addenda, the main forces of the Drina Corps are to continue
3 conducting combat operations in the zone of the Tactical Group Visegrad
4 and the operation aimed at liberating Srebrenica and Zepa ..."
5 And what does this show us about the Drina Corps's objective
6 regarding this issue and can you relate this to directive 4?
7 A. It shows that it hadn't changed yet.
8 MR. McCLOSKEY: I would offer this document into evidence.
9 MR. IVETIC: No objection.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
11 THE REGISTRAR: Document 14062 receives number P2190,
12 Your Honours.
13 JUDGE ORIE: P2190 is admitted into evidence.
14 MR. McCLOSKEY: Can we have 65 ter 09540.
15 Q. Mr. Butler, as you'll see, we've now got a document from the
16 Zvornik Brigade in the name of Vinko Pandurevic. I believe it's dated
17 31 January 1993, entitled: "Report on an unusual incident." I won't
18 read it all, but we can see that around 2400 hours, a mixed column made
19 up of women, children, and armed men from a certain direction fell into
20 an ambush in Crni Vrh sector. The column which numbered about a hundred
21 persons was fired on and dispersed and disappeared from the sector.
22 Was this the kind of activity that you read about as you reviewed
23 the materials related to the events after directive 4?
24 A. Yes, sir.
25 MR. McCLOSKEY: I would offer this document into evidence.
1 MR. IVETIC: No objection.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
3 THE REGISTRAR: Document 09540 receives number P2191,
4 Your Honours.
5 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
6 MR. McCLOSKEY: All right. Can we go to 65 ter 20872.
7 Q. Mr. Butler, this is an intercept dated in the Serbian or the --
8 excuse me, the B/C/S as 6 February 1993 that didn't get in the English
9 translation. And we see that it's from Zivanovic and Gaborovic. And we
10 see a mention of -- Zivanovic is saying:
11 "Are the Turks' houses burning?"
12 Gaborovic says:
13 "They are burning, they are burning."
14 Zivanovic says:
15 "Way to go, as many as possible."
16 Who could this Zivanovic be in this context on this date?
17 A. This would be the corps commander, I believe he's a general at
18 this point, General Zivanovic.
19 Q. And from the content of this, does this appear to be related to
20 the pocket that we talked about?
21 A. It would because the Kosoric that they're discussing is, I
22 believe, the commander of the Milici or the Vlasenica Brigade which would
23 have part of the responsibility for the western side of that pocket.
24 Q. Okay.
25 MR. McCLOSKEY: I offer this into evidence.
1 MR. IVETIC: We would object based upon our objections to the
2 intercepts. I can't see right now the source if there's any additional
3 objections, but I believe this is still in relation to the ABiH
4 intercepts for which we've made our case --
5 JUDGE ORIE: I can't see it on the basis of all this, where it
6 comes from, to what extent any of the objections are applicable to this
7 one as well.
8 Mr. McCloskey.
9 MR. McCLOSKEY: This is not part of the standard collection that
10 we got, so we can provide that information and --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then we'll mark it for identification at this
12 moment and we'll further hear where it comes from.
13 Madam Registrar, the number would be ...?
14 THE REGISTRAR: Document 20872 receives number P2192,
15 Your Honours.
16 JUDGE ORIE: And is marked for identification.
17 Please proceed.
18 MR. McCLOSKEY: Could we go to 65 ter 09134.
19 Q. And, Mr. Butler, this is from the command of the 1st Birac
20 Light Infantry Brigade under the commander Svetozar Andric. Can you tell
21 us, was the Birac Brigade involved in these orders related to
22 directive 4?
23 A. Yes, sir, they were.
24 Q. All right. And calling your attention to paragraph 2, we note
25 that it's:
1 "Our forces which are moving in the wider area of Kamenica,
2 Gajici, and Grobici worked according to plan without major problems. The
3 village of Gobelji has been burnt, and tomorrow the plan is to do
5 Is this consistent with the -- some of the activity that you
6 reviewed as you went through these kinds of documents?
7 A. Yes, sir, it is.
8 MR. McCLOSKEY: I'd offer that into evidence.
9 MR. IVETIC: No objection.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
11 THE REGISTRAR: Document 09134 receives number P2193,
12 Your Honours.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence.
14 MR. McCLOSKEY: And could we have 65 ter number 9059.
15 Q. This is of a similar date, 10 March, Mr. Butler. It's a
16 supplement to a regular combat report to the Drina Corps, this time from
17 the familiar Vinko Pandurevic. He's talking about various terrain, we
18 can see, in the Drinjaca river canyon. I won't go into all of that, but
19 is that the area that was involved in the battle for the pocket that
20 we're talking about?
21 A. Yes, sir. I mean, you look at these locations, they would --
22 they're in that area.
23 Q. The last line of that report:
24 "We propose that the houses should not be torched when taking
25 control of Konjevic Polje, but that they be inhabited by people from
1 Tuzla and other areas."
2 Who do you -- who is he talking about inhabiting these houses in
3 your view?
4 A. One of the common practices that all the parties would do is when
5 various individuals got displaced from an area, in this particular
6 context they're talking about Bosnian Serbs displaced from territory
7 under the control of either the Bosnian Muslim or Croat side, is that
8 they would place them in the houses of individuals from their regions
9 that they displaced. So in this particular context, you know, the
10 presumption here that I'm making is that Konjevic Polje is predominantly
11 still a Muslim-population town. Once they displace that population,
12 rather than burn the houses, leave the houses intact, and that they will
13 populate them, then, with Bosnian Serbs who had been displaced from other
14 areas of Bosnia.
15 Q. Was Pandurevic's unit, the Zvornik Brigade, working anywhere near
16 Andric's unit, the Birac Brigade, in this operation?
17 A. Yes, sir. They were all working in concert on the northern
18 end -- northern side of the pocket.
19 MR. McCLOSKEY: I'd offer this document into evidence.
20 MR. IVETIC: No objection.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
22 THE REGISTRAR: Document 09059 receives number P2194,
23 Your Honours.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence.
25 MR. McCLOSKEY: A last document on this topic, 65 ter 1088.
1 Q. And we'll soon see that this is an order marked "urgent" from
2 General Mladic, dated the 10th of February, 1993. Do your best to read
3 that and we noted that he's talking about the area of Cerska,
4 Konjevic Polje, and Srebrenica and that he concludes in that first line
5 that they're in a hopeless situation. And then the order is to start
6 preparing per this task. And if we go to the next page, we get a little
7 more an idea of this.
8 Is this General Mladic's -- does this order have anything to do
9 with the operations in the pocket that we've been talking about?
10 A. Yes, sir. And again, going back to the Defence's point about,
11 you know, mixing between strategic and operational activities, you know,
12 here you have General Mladic directing, you know, the 1st Krajina Corps
13 to create a unit to send to the assistance of the Drina Corps for their
14 combat activities, it shows the level of involvement that the Main Staff
15 was in with respect to, you know, combat operations.
16 MR. McCLOSKEY: I'd --
17 THE WITNESS: At least on critical parts of the battle-field.
18 MR. McCLOSKEY: I would offer that document into evidence.
19 MR. IVETIC: I have no objection.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
21 THE REGISTRAR: Document 01088 receives number P2195,
22 Your Honours.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence.
24 MR. McCLOSKEY: And could we go to D365.
25 Mr. President, I found this under my pile. You had asked us to
1 look into the January 1995 issue where an MSF was in trouble for
2 smuggling something into the enclave, and so I would just call our
3 attention to D365 to refresh our recollection on that. It's that
4 paragraph at the bottom of the page. I won't read it, but we can see
5 that someone named Jean or Jean, depending on his nationality, or hers,
6 was removed for doing some sort of smuggling.
7 If we could now go to D299. And that document was
8 11 January 1995 --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Before we start rushing, Mr. Ivetic, would you have
10 any questions in -- as matters stand now because it's a quarter past
12 MR. IVETIC: I --
13 JUDGE ORIE: If so, then perhaps we better finish tomorrow
14 morning. That's ...
15 MR. IVETIC: If I do, it would only be a handful, Your Honours.
16 JUDGE ORIE: I beg your pardon?
17 MR. IVETIC: If I do have questions, it would only be a handful.
18 Nothing significant.
19 JUDGE ORIE: A handful is --
20 MR. IVETIC: Five.
21 JUDGE ORIE: How much time would you still need, Mr. McCloskey,
22 because we can't just rush through everything. If it is a matter of
23 five, six, or seven minutes, fine, but if it is more -- then we still
24 would need the co-operation by all those assisting us. But ... how many
25 more documents do you have?
1 MR. McCLOSKEY: There's just one document that clears up this
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 MR. McCLOSKEY: And then the --
5 JUDGE ORIE: But let's -- could that be, if we read that
6 document, would we know what was smuggled and what -- okay, then do we
7 have to -- could the parties not agree that we receive that information
8 by looking at that document from the bar table?
9 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Unless there's anything specific this witness --
11 MR. McCLOSKEY: No --
12 JUDGE ORIE: If not.
13 MR. McCLOSKEY: You'll see that he was smuggling in plumbing
14 tools and some plumbing equipment.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That is clear. I think it is in evidence
17 MR. McCLOSKEY: It is.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it is. I remember that it was not -- not --
19 okay. And then you have one more document or --
20 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, I had the -- somewhat -- of the
21 four documents that answered your question about the agreement that
22 General Mladic referred to --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 MR. McCLOSKEY: -- and my preference is always probably 10 to
25 15 minutes of Mr. Butler's testimony as opposed to the work going into a
1 bar table motion.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I see the point. Let's -- we'll deal with it
3 tomorrow. Let's not try to -- then you would need another 15 minutes
4 tomorrow, Mr. McCloskey?
5 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, we've got to get it done in 15.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, 15 minutes. You know how many seconds that is?
7 MR. McCLOSKEY: I'm going to add them up.
8 JUDGE ORIE: That's 900.
9 Mr. Butler, I give you the same instructions as I did before -
10 you know them by heart - meanwhile not to communicate in any way with
11 whoever about your testimony. We would like to see you back tomorrow
12 morning for a last 900 seconds of examination.
13 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. One quick question on this binder that
14 was given by Mr. McCloskey, do I take this with me or do I return it to
16 JUDGE ORIE: I think Mr. McCloskey would like to have it back.
17 He's gathering all his belongings, including maps.
18 Then, Mr. Butler, we'd like to see you back but then for the last
19 time --
20 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
21 JUDGE ORIE: -- tomorrow morning at 9.30 --
22 THE WITNESS: I understand.
23 JUDGE ORIE: -- in this same courtroom. You may follow the
25 [The witness stands down]
1 JUDGE ORIE: We adjourn for the day and we'll resume tomorrow,
2 Tuesday, the 17th of September, at 9.30 in the morning in this same
3 courtroom, I.
4 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.18 p.m.,
5 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 17th day of
6 September, 2013, at 9.30 a.m.