1 Friday, 1 June 2007

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The witness entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 9.08 a.m.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning, everybody.

7 Madam Registrar, good morning to you. Could you be kind enough to

8 call the case, please.

9 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is the case

10 number IT-05-88-T, the Prosecutor versus Vujadin Popovic et al.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, ma'am.

12 All the accused are here. Defence teams, I only note the absence

13 of Madam Nikolic and Mr. Haynes and Ms. Condon. The Prosecution is

14 Mr. McCloskey, Mr. Nicholls and Mr. Thayer. Anyone else? No. Witness is

15 present. Good morning to you, General.

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Welcome back. Let's hope we'll finish

18 with the testimony as early as possible so that you can go home.

19 Mr. McCloskey. How much more time do you require?

20 MR. McCLOSKEY: I just have three or four documents. I think we

21 should get it done hopefully in 20 minutes if we don't get into any real

22 long discussions. Good morning, everyone.

23 WITNESS: MANOJLO MILOVANOVIC [Resumed]

24 [Witness answered through interpreter]

25 Re-examination by Mr. McCloskey: [Continued]

1 Q. Good morning, General. I think we remember your answer yesterday

2 when were you asked about General Gvero and his responsibility or his

3 potential dealings with prisoners. Who would be the primary assistant

4 commander that may be dealing with prisoners of war issues?

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Josse?

6 MR. JOSSE: We are a little unclear as to whether Mr. McCloskey

7 meant General Gvero there. If he did, then fair enough.

8 MR. McCLOSKEY: I was asking about which assistant commander would

9 be dealing mostly with prisoners. He'd said that it wasn't Gvero's

10 primary concern and so I was asking who would it have been.

11 MR. JOSSE: Thank you. I think I'm being oversensitive.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. No. I would have done exactly the same,

13 Mr. Josse.

14 MR. McCLOSKEY: I'm sorry I didn't quote what he said but my

15 recollection was that it wasn't --

16 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead, go ahead.

17 MR. McCLOSKEY:

18 Q. General, I think you can answer the question if you understood

19 it. I know we sometimes confuse things but we are not meaning to.

20 A. In the organisation of the army of Republika Srpska or the corps

21 or commands, there is no person or a team designated to work with

22 prisoners of war. Prisoners of war are interviewed and interrogated by

23 the intelligence and security organs. As for the accommodation of

24 prisoners of war, and providing for their security, the concern for the

25 respect of international conventions with respect to the prisoners of war

1 is in the hands of the administration for logistics. That is also in

2 charge of setting up prisoner of war camps.

3 Q. Do the military police have -- usually have responsibility for

4 prisoners of war on the brigade level?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And are they overseen by the chief of security, generally, related

7 to issues of prisoners of war?

8 A. When it comes to the use of the military police, the person in

9 charge is the security organ, regardless of the issue, be it the prisoners

10 of war, escorting convoys or any other police task.

11 Q. All right. If we could go to a document that mentions prisoners

12 of war, it's number 131, and I've got a -- we have a -- both a teletype

13 version and a handwritten version, originals, which I think it would be

14 easier, General, if you took a look at both of them. I think the teletype

15 may come up on the screen but if I could get some help from the usher,

16 I'll let you take a look at them.

17 You can see it on the screen. It's a pretty good copy. But there

18 is also -- let me hand you the originals. The screen, there is also a

19 handwritten version which is the page -- which is page 2, if we could flip

20 to that so that everyone can see the handwritten version. And if you

21 could, General, if you could look at the original handwritten version to

22 your right, and it's in Cyrillic, do you recognise that handwriting by any

23 chance? I know it's been a long time.

24 A. I'm not familiar with the handwriting. I can only see that the

25 assistant commander, General Major Z Tolimir is indicated down here.

1 Q. Okay. Well, Let's go back to the typed version so you can

2 concentrate on that and you have the original in front of you, which is

3 page 1.

4 This is a document that we see that's from the command of the 1st

5 Podrinje Light Infantry Brigade which we know to be Rogatica, dated 13

6 July, from the -- and it says, to VRS, Main Staff, to General Gvero

7 personally and it's entitled "Accommodation of R/Z." What does R/Z mean?

8 A. Prisoners of war.

9 Q. Okay. And this talks about accommodating prisoners of war from

10 Srebrenica, and I won't go over all of it but it talks about using them

11 for agricultural work. And it says it would be best if this new group,

12 which has not been in contact with the other prisoners of war. First of

13 all, this is the 13th, I think you were in the Krajina, so do you know

14 anything about this agricultural work and Rogatica, prisoners, anything

15 like that?

16 A. The month of July is not the time of harvest. The region is

17 mountainous so I really don't know what agricultural work could that refer

18 to. I only know that there is a horse farm between Rogatica and Sokolac.

19 That's the only thing that comes to mind. Apart from that, I really

20 wouldn't know what agricultural work could be referred to.

21 Q. Okay. And can you tell us anything about -- we see that it's

22 addressed to General Gvero personally at the Main Staff, from Tolimir.

23 Can you -- and I don't want to you speculate but can you -- what can you

24 tell us about why General Gvero would be receiving this information

25 personally?

1 A. Probably, I think, because at that time General Gvero was the

2 oldest officer, the oldest general, in the Main Staff. Yesterday we

3 looked at a document where it says that General Tolimir was sent mail to

4 the forward command post of the Drina Corps, and now the document is sent

5 to the Main Staff addressed to General Gvero probably because Gvero must

6 have been the oldest general at the command post. That's the only

7 explanation I can give you.

8 Q. All right. Now, the translation said oldest general. I don't

9 think age makes a difference.

10 MR. JOSSE: Don't lead. Just ask, please.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Mr. McCloskey.

12 MR. McCLOSKEY:

13 Q. Can you tell us whether or not you meant to say oldest or did

14 you-- was there a translation issue?

15 A. The most senior by function, and by rank.

16 Q. Okay. Thank you. All right. Let me go to another document.

17 This is 65 ter number 36. You may have had a chance to see that, and I've

18 got a hard copy, if that's easier for you because it is a -- it is a

19 two-page document. And this is a document, again Main Staff, from the

20 Main Staff, dated 13 July, it's very urgent to the commands of the Drina

21 Corps and several Drina Corps brigades that we recognise, and it's

22 entitled, "Order to prevent the passage of Muslim groups toward Tuzla and

23 Kladanj." And it's entitled, "An order" and I won't go over all the

24 order. I think you can take a look at it. I don't know -- have you --

25 have you seen this document before, General?

1 A. No, I haven't.

2 Q. Well, feel free to take a look at it so that I can ask you a

3 couple of questions about it, and I'm not really -- I'm not going to go

4 into the detail of the order. What I'm mostly interested in is the fact

5 that it is an order from the Main Staff and it's -- and it's in the name

6 of assistant commander Lieutenant General Milan Gvero, and what I'm

7 interested in is is there anything unusual about him issuing an order like

8 this in his capacity based on what your earlier description of his duties

9 and the duties of the Main Staff were?

10 A. I don't know -- are you asking me to confirm, deny or provide my

11 opinion?

12 Q. Provide your opinion on whether or not this would -- this appears

13 to be something that would be done in the normal course or is there

14 something unusual about General Gvero --

15 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Josse?

16 MR. JOSSE: On what basis is my learned friend asking the witness

17 to provide his opinion? As an expert? We suggest that in reality, this

18 is straying into the field of expertise and the Prosecution have never

19 advanced this particular gentleman as an expert.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: Well, but the -- this is all prompted by the reply

21 of the witness himself. He said, "I don't know. Are you asking me to

22 confirm, deny or provide my opinion?" And he's being asked then to

23 provide an opinion but I think it's the opinion of the witness, not --

24 there is no indication that he's being asked this question as an expert.

25 Exactly. He was a superior in any case. So I don't see the difficulty.

1 JUDGE KWON: Can I see the signature before that? I'm not sure

2 that this was signed by General Gvero.

3 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, this is --

4 JUDGE KWON: I see General Zivanovic at the end.

5 MR. McCLOSKEY: Well, we may have a computer issue. I apologise

6 about that.

7 MR. JOSSE: Of course I was going to come to that later, Your

8 Honour.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Josse.

10 MR. McCLOSKEY: We better go to 45. I'm sorry. Thank you,

11 Mr. President. The witness has the correct one but thank you, Your

12 Honour. So let's get that up there and go to the second page to make sure

13 we've got the right one. There we go. Thank you.

14 General, I was -- based on the earlier descriptions you've given

15 in response to Defence counsel about the responsibilities of assistant

16 commanders, their ability to issue orders, can you -- yeah, give us your,

17 as his superior, your opinion of this. Is this -- can this be viewed in

18 the normal course of business or is there something unusual about this?

19 A. The unusual thing is this. This is an executive document of a

20 staff sector which I conclude by the number 03/04, this is the indication

21 of the staff sector. It was signed by assistant commander, I don't see

22 the initial, Lieutenant General Gvero. It all depends on whether the

23 commander of the Main Staff, General Mladic, had previously authorised

24 General Gvero to sign executive orders, because this executive order can

25 be also treated as a combat order. I cannot tell you whether this was

1 done legally or illegally. It would be in keeping with the law if the

2 commander of the Main Staff had authorised General Gvero to issue

3 executive orders and it would be against the law if General Gvero had not

4 previously been authorised to issue them.

5 Q. Did you ever know General Gvero throughout the war to issue

6 significant combat orders without authorisation from General Mladic?

7 A. Never ever any one of us issued a combat order without special

8 authority by Mladic and I have already told you when this could take

9 place. It could have taken place only if General Mladic sent one of his

10 assistants to a part of the front line and authorised him to command

11 forces in that part of the front line. Like for example he gave me

12 authority to look after Bihac, Lukavac 93, Glamoc, Grahovo. I would have

13 been so much better off if I hadn't been authorised to deal with these

14 front lines.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. One moment, Mr. McCloskey. We -- because I

16 forgot earlier on and I apologise. We are sitting pursuant to 15 bis this

17 morning. Judge Stole can't be with us.

18 MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you, Mr. President.

19 Q. All right. General, just a couple more. If we could now go to 65

20 ter 2754, now we've gone to -- we are going to General Miletic this time,

21 and hopefully the B/C/S will come on to your screen but I'll just slowly

22 give us a background. I have a again it's Main Staff of the army

23 Republika Srpska and it's got that confidential number 03/4-1654, and

24 it's, you can see, to the 1st Krajina Corps and the Drina Corps, for the

25 information of the 1st Zvornik Infantry Brigade, commander or Chief of

1 Staff personally. Now I won't get into this, but I would like you to have

2 a chance to read it so if we could -- thank you.

3 But we can see from this that it has to do with dispatching units

4 to the Zvornik Brigade, and on the 15th of July, which I think is a date

5 1995 that everyone recognises. And we see at the bottom that General

6 Miletic's name and again standing in for the Chief of Staff. Same general

7 question I had before: Is there anything unusual about this or is this in

8 keeping with the job descriptions and responsibilities that you have told

9 us about General Miletic earlier?

10 A. There is nothing unusual in here. This is not even an order. It

11 is not a directive. This is just information, as far as I can see from

12 the text. Somebody from the Main Staff, I suppose it was the commander

13 himself, had agreed with the commander of the 1st Krajina Corps to assist

14 the 1st Zvornik Brigade by sending an infantry company. In other words,

15 this information was sent both to the 1st Krajina and the Drina Corps and

16 the commander of the Zvornik Brigade was copied so as to let him know that

17 the company will arrive, in keeping with the previous agreement as

18 indicated under number 1 in line 1. This is nothing unusual. And as for

19 the signature standing in for the Chief of Staff, I believe we have

20 already discussed that.

21 Q. Yes. So that's -- that would be -- this kind of work would be the

22 kind of thing that you would have expected him to stand in for you with?

23 Is that correct?

24 A. Yes. This is information. Under item 4, it says here the

25 orientation time, 1400 hours, the arrival of the company, around 2000

1 hours. This is just a warning to the brigade commander, I believe that it

2 was Pandurevic, that the company would arrive, that he should provide for

3 their accommodation, and the information was also to the command to -- of

4 the Drina Corps so as to inform them of what was going on in the area of

5 their responsibility.

6 Q. All right. Thank you. The next one I'd like to go to is 65 ter

7 number 191. And this is a 25 July 1995 document in the name of General

8 Tolimir, and it's again from the 1st Podrinje Light Infantry Brigade and

9 it's -- there you can see it, entitled "very urgent" and it's the Main

10 Staff of the Republika Srpska army, personally to General Gvero or

11 Miletic. And before I ask you about your thoughts on that particular

12 address to General Gvero or Miletic, if you could take just a bit of time

13 to read the document. I'm sorry, I don't have the B/C/S, so we'll need to

14 use the screen.

15 As we can see, this appears to regard prisoners and a bit about

16 Zepa and the agreement about the status of prisoners, and if you could

17 take particular attention to paragraph 2, the last -- the last sentence in

18 paragraph 2, we can see that they are talking in paragraph 2 about the

19 Muslims demand that General Gobillard come to Zepa as UNPROFOR

20 representative and representatives of ICRC and it says, "Pass on to

21 UNPROFOR a request to send an officer of colonel rank from Sarajevo sector

22 to UNPROFOR check-point 2 at Boksanica to monitor the execution of the

23 agreement."

24 And what I wanted to ask you about first of all is this paragraph

25 that says, "Make a note to them that we don't want them to send a general,

1 considering that we have information that they want to take advantage of

2 his presence according to similar scenario when they took advantage of the

3 presence of General Morillon in Srebrenica in 1993." Now I think we are

4 all familiar enough with the situation with General Morillon in 1993 that

5 we don't need to talk about that too much. But can you tell us briefly

6 why Tolimir is worried about having a general from the UNPROFOR? And of

7 course you can incorporate 1993 into the answer. I just, as you know, ask

8 you to be as brief as you can.

9 A. Well, I do have to mention General Morillon and year 1993 for the

10 simple reason that at the time General Morillon abused his position as

11 force commander of the UNPROFOR for Bosnia-Herzegovina and entered a

12 Srebrenica that was already under blockade. It was just before the

13 enclave in Srebrenica was created, or the protected area. On so-called

14 yellow land, I was with Morillon. I met with Morillon. And Tolimir was

15 part of that delegation. And he knew all that was going on. So all that

16 Tolimir is doing in this document is invoking his own experience from

17 1993. I have some sort of original, and it doesn't say exactly, "we

18 demand." It says, "Please remind them not to send officers with the rank

19 of general." I believe it was about an exchange of prisoners. "A colonel

20 will do because we have information that they want to abuse his presence

21 according to the same scenario as they abused the presence of Morillon in

22 Srebrenica in 1993."

23 So this is all about applying some standards of conduct to that

24 situation in 1995.

25 Q. So is it your view that it would be easier to control a UNPROFOR

1 colonel than it would be a general like Morillon?

2 A. An UNPROFOR colonel, whoever he is, would not have the same powers

3 as a general, because the UNPROFOR did not have that many generals, after

4 all. It had a Chief of Staff for Bosnia-Herzegovina, and it had one at

5 the UNPROFOR headquarters, and both of them had greater powers than some

6 colonel who was chief of sector, and that colonel -- sorry -- that

7 general, if he came, he would also have the right to issue orders because

8 Morillon came in February 1993 in Srebrenica with 19 soldiers. He mixed

9 in with Muslim soldiers and even if we had wanted to attack, we couldn't

10 because UNPROFOR served them as a human shield, and that's one of the

11 things that Tolimir must have been afraid of. He thought that Muslims

12 could go back on their agreement, as they did many times before, and they

13 would have a general as protection.

14 Q. So just my short question was: Was it -- would it be easier to

15 control a colonel than a general and prevent a colonel from taking

16 advantage like Morillon did, in your words?

17 That's supposed to be a yes or no question but you can always

18 explain it if you can't answer it that way, General. Answer it the way

19 you feel best fit to do so, of course.

20 A. Certainly, it's easier to control a colonel because a colonel has

21 no authority to change an agreement. In this case, an agreement had been

22 reached with the mediation of the UNPROFOR on an exchange of prisoners,

23 but when it is supposed to happen, Muslims can go back on it and say, "We

24 don't want the exchange." If a general of the UNPROFOR were present, he

25 could agree with the Muslims or not. If he does agree, then the whole

1 thing falls through. But a colonel is not in a position either to agree

2 with the Muslims or not. He can in no way influence the initial

3 agreement. So I would choose yes, it is easier to control a colonel than

4 general.

5 Q. Okay. And then could we go back to the front page, where I

6 mentioned previously that we see personally to General Gvero or General

7 Miletic, and again can you tell us your view why Tolimir would address it

8 to either of them like that, if you can -- if you think you can answer

9 that?

10 A. The sequence would be Gvero, then Miletic. It's obvious that

11 Tolimir doesn't know which of the two is at the Main Staff, and he's

12 sending this document to the Main Staff to be handed to whomever the

13 messenger finds. But there couldn't be anyone but Gvero and Miletic.

14 Q. Okay. Thank you. I've got one more last one. We are about

15 there. This is 65 ter 2517, and I do have an original -- it's a one-page

16 document but I think it's probably easier if the general has an original

17 or a photocopy of the original just so -- the scrolling is sometimes

18 difficult.

19 Okay. This, again, is from Tolimir, from Rogatica, the 1st

20 Podrinje Light Infantry Brigade. This one is dated 21 July, which is of

21 course close to the time that you were at the Jela restaurant, which was

22 the 20th of July. Again marked "very urgent." And this one is personally

23 to General Miletic entitled, "The situation in Zepa." And it's, we can

24 see, providing information about the evacuation of the population, and

25 that the Muslims are shooting at the UNPROFOR base in order to provoke

1 NATO's action. Suggesting that the UNPROFOR and international

2 organisations not be allowed to come into the area. And number 4 he

3 says, "We believe that we would be in a more advantageous position for

4 direct negotiations after we inflict losses on the enemy's military

5 personnel." That's of course an appropriate strategy in any wartime

6 negotiation, I -- would you agree with me on that, General?

7 A. I'm sorry, I was busy reading. Could you repeat the question?

8 Q. Yes. I should have let you read that first. I'm just asking

9 about the paragraph 4 where it says that, "We believe that we would be in

10 a more advantageous position for direct negotiations after we inflict

11 losses on enemy's military personnel," and I've said would you agree with

12 me that that's of course appropriate conduct in a war and that can help

13 negotiations if you're in a stronger military position?

14 A. Well, first of all, let me say what I think about this document.

15 It's a completely legal document. General Tolimir is suggesting something

16 while not being able to get in touch with the commander of the Main Staff

17 because he simply doesn't know where the commander is. So he's sending

18 this document to General Miletic personally, knowing that Miletic is

19 certainly at the Main Staff, and that he will convey the information to

20 General Mladic, who would make a decision. You're asking me if it is

21 normal in the context of negotiations to threaten with weapons, et

22 cetera.

23 Unfortunately, war is not diplomacy. In war, you negotiate from

24 the positions of power. The UNPROFOR in this context is usually the

25 mediator in negotiations. Muslims are trying to push the UNPROFOR to

1 accept Muslim conditions. So Tolimir is suggesting we do the same so we

2 get into a position of power, namely, threatening that the Muslims have to

3 agree to certain conditions; otherwise, we would attack, as has happened

4 before.

5 Q. Understood. Now let's go to paragraph 5. And it says, "The most

6 propitious means of their destruction would be uses of chemical weapons or

7 aerosol grenades and bombs. Using these means we would accelerate the

8 surrender of Muslims and the fall of Zepa." And I don't want to overdo

9 this chemical weapons thing. Can you tell us what he is likely talking

10 about when he says chemical weapons? If you know?

11 A. Regardless of what General Tolimir is talking about here, this is

12 not usual and it's not allowed. It is not allowed to use chemical weapons

13 in traditional warfare. When I say traditional warfare, I mean one that

14 does not allow for biological, chemical or nuclear weapons, so Tolimir was

15 not supposed to even suggest this to the commander. And the commander, if

16 he's a mature one, would never accept such a proposal. I personally did

17 not approve of this passage at all.

18 Q. Okay. I think most armies in the world had or -- and have

19 collections of chemical weapons in their arsenals and I believe the JNA

20 did. Can you tell us what the options of chemical weapons would be in

21 this so we can get an idea of maybe what he would be referring to?

22 A. You mean the technical means allowing for chemical weapons to be

23 used? Do you mean the technology used in order to apply chemical

24 weapons?

25 Q. No, I don't mean the delivery means such as mortars or artillery

1 or aerial bombs or anything like that. I'm asking about the chemical

2 itself. What if -- in fact did you know did the JNA have chemicals? I

3 mean all these armies, as you know, had chemical weapons. Some are worse

4 than others, and I just want to get your view, if you can, what in the

5 context of the Zepa environment those -- what might be used in that

6 context.

7 A. As far as I learned at school, there are five types of chemical

8 weapons: One --

9 Q. Excuse me, General. I think the Judges were deliberating, and

10 they need to hear you, I'm sorry, if we could give --

11 [Trial Chamber confers]

12 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead, General, if you can answer that question.

13 You said, "As far as I learned in school, there are five types of chemical

14 weapons." What we are interested in is what kind of chemical weapons the

15 JNA had, just that, please.

16 Yes, Madam Fauveau?

17 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I do not see the

18 pertinence, the relevance of this question, which kind of chemical weapons

19 did the JNA have four years after it ceased to exist. If the Prosecutor

20 wants to ask what kind of chemical weapons were in the possession of the

21 VRS, that's a different thing, but I don't see why he's asking about the

22 JNA.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: The question, if he puts that question, the answer

24 is going to be yes, and it takes us back to square one. So let's -- I

25 don't think you need to comment. Let's proceed, because the witness has

1 already said that they inherited lock, stock and barrel what the JNA had

2 before and what was in their possession.

3 Yes, go ahead, General, please.

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think, to cut a long story short,

5 all armies in the world have chemical weapons and all of them know they

6 are not allowed to use it, and the justification we all use when we are to

7 answer why we have it in the first place is to respond to the enemy's

8 chemical attack. Now, this was one day after I was attacked by the enemy,

9 by Croats, at Italian's peak and I lost 56 of my soldiers when attacked by

10 chemical weapons by the Croats, but this is no justification. I'm saying

11 again Tolimir should not have called for use of chemical weapons.

12 MR. McCLOSKEY:

13 Q. Can you just quickly --

14 JUDGE AGIUS: How much more time do you need?

15 MR. McCLOSKEY: Maybe five minutes.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. And do you still think that -- you won't

17 be able to finish by 10.30, then. Mr. Nicholls and Mr. Ostojic, do you

18 still need 30 minutes and 30 minutes?

19 MR. McCLOSKEY: For the next --

20 JUDGE AGIUS: For the next witness.

21 MR. NICHOLLS: I think I need about half an hour or less, Your

22 Honour. That's my estimate.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: And you, Mr. Ostojic?

24 MR. OSTOJIC: Anywhere from 45 to an hour, Mr. President.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Okay. Thank you.

1 MR. McCLOSKEY:

2 Q. And could you just list us the potential options for chemical

3 weapons that -- I think you said there were five types.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Madam Fauveau?

5 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Could we agree that these were the

6 weapons that the VRS had in July 1995 or are we going to seek from the

7 general to -- an explanation what kind of -- what five kinds of chemical

8 weapons any army could have had?

9 [Trial Chamber confers]

10 JUDGE AGIUS: We are only interested in what the VRS had at the

11 time, I mean, obviously.

12 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, I'd like to stick with the JNA if

13 we could and then perhaps then move, like you said.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: The JNA was May -- May 1992. The General yesterday

15 explained the transitory period between the official creation of the VRS

16 on the 12th of May of 1992 and its effective coming into existence on the

17 23rd, I think, of May of 1992. After that, to my knowledge, chemical

18 weapons also have a shelf life. So -- and perhaps that can be confirmed

19 by the witness. So what we are -- what is relevant for the case is the

20 time period, time frame, when Tolimir is writing about these chemical

21 weapons and that obviously refers to what the VRS had at the time.

22 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President, I understand and I agree and I

23 was getting there. I just wanted to start with that foundational JNA,

24 then VJ, then VRS, but we can just cut to the chase and --

25 JUDGE AGIUS: I think so. I mean, yes, in the meantime I notice

1 Mr. Bourgon.

2 MR. BOURGON: Good morning, Mr. President. I simply note for the

3 record that the issue of chemical weapons was not raised in direct

4 examination, it was not discussed in cross-examination, and now we are

5 going completely beyond the scope of what this witness is to bring to this

6 trial, to contribute to this trial. It's not an issue in the indictment.

7 No one is accused of using chemical weapons. My colleague has announced

8 at the beginning of this morning, he said, I've got about 20 minutes

9 and --

10 MR. McCLOSKEY: I'm going to object if we are going to go into a

11 long rambling speech to be --

12 MR. BOURGON: Well, we are.

13 MR. McCLOSKEY: -- outside the presence of the witness --

14 MR. BOURGON: We are, we are.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: Please, please, please, Mr. Bourgon, Mr. Bourgon.

16 MR. BOURGON: He keeps interrupting, Mr. President.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.

18 MR. BOURGON: It's not me.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: He shouldn't have said "rambling,"

20 attributed "rambling" to your speech for -- to start but you shouldn't

21 have reacted the way you did. The way I'm used to and my colleagues are

22 used to is, if you feel aggrieved, you seek the protection of the Trial

23 Chamber and we do it in a civilised way, in a calm way, without pointing

24 fingers and without raising our voices. Agreed?

25 MR. BOURGON: Fully agree, Mr. President.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. So Mr. McCloskey, can you please comment on

2 the substantive part of his intervention?

3 MR. McCLOSKEY: The principal reason I'm using this document was

4 because it's personally directed to General Miletic so that I can ask the

5 general how this fits into his position at the time that he has described

6 pursuant to Defence questions and the substantive matter of the document

7 is relevant to that, and if I can get through the document, I think you'll

8 see what I'm getting at and I think the Court will understand the document

9 better, they'll understand General Miletic's role better in the receipt of

10 these kinds of documents and the kind of information that he would be

11 getting but I -- besides that, I don't want to go into it. I can go into

12 it, but we should do it outside the presence of the witness so we don't

13 waste his time and distract him and --

14 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Madam Fauveau?

15 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. President, for three days the

16 witness has been explaining the role of General Miletic. I think we all

17 understood that Miletic received documents from the front line and

18 transmitted them to the commander. I don't see what influence the

19 contents of any document can have on the role of General Miletic that

20 simply transmitted that information to the commander or anybody else.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: Don't you think it would benefit you if there is an

22 explanation rather than have a document which on the face of it presents

23 you with what it does? It's up to you, but let me confer with my

24 colleagues, please.

25 MR. McCLOSKEY: Could I respond just briefly?

1 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.

2 MR. McCLOSKEY: Ms. Fauveau states her defence that General

3 Miletic is a transmitter of documents. This is the whole point that I'm

4 getting into this document.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: This is precisely why I have made the comment that I

6 did -- that I made.

7 [Trial Chamber confers]

8 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Madam Fauveau?

9 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Your Honour, without going into an

10 argument, I do have to oppose the way the Prosecutor presented these

11 documents. This document has absolutely no influence on the role of

12 General Miletic as a person who was transmitting documents. If somebody

13 wants to say that General Miletic is responsible for something that

14 somebody else wrote in a document --

15 MR. McCLOSKEY: I'm sorry, Your Honour.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: We can't have this in the witness's presence. Our

17 position -- please, Madam Fauveau.

18 Our position is as follows: We don't believe we ought to go for

19 any intent and purposes into the details regarding the existence, nature

20 of chemical weapons in possession of the VRS at the time. It is relevant

21 only insofar as chemical weapons are mentioned in this document allegedly

22 signed by General Tolimir and addressed to General Miletic. I think,

23 having heard you, as well, Mr. McCloskey, you should restrict yourself to

24 asking the witness why would General Tolimir speak or address out of all

25 people General Miletic in relation regarding the possible use of chemical

1 weapons and we move ahead.

2 MR. McCLOSKEY: I understand and I think that's a very good

3 question. The point that I'm trying to make with chemical weapons is

4 there a particular chemical weapon that is tear gas and it's not a very

5 heavy chemical weapon and that may be what we are talking about here and I

6 don't want to leave the impression that this is mustard gas. That's what

7 I'm trying to get to. We don't know what it is but tear gas was in the

8 possession of -- I believe, and that's what I want to bring up so we don't

9 believe the impression that this might be some killer --

10 JUDGE AGIUS: You're testifying.

11 MR. BOURGON: Can I make my speech, too?

12 MR. McCLOSKEY: I tried --

13 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Bourgon. I don't think there is need for

14 it. But I suppose -- I suggest that you proceed with the question that we

15 have indicated and we proceed from there.

16 MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you, Mr. President.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: And again, please keep calm. I mean it's very

18 important. I know everyone is tired. The witness is tired too. So

19 let's --

20 MR. McCLOSKEY: And I will.

21 Q. The question is: Why would General Tolimir speak or address of

22 all people to General Miletic in relation to the possible use of chemical

23 weapons?

24 A. Well, I have answered that question at the beginning of debate on

25 this document. Because General Miletic was the only general who was in

1 his place at the Main Staff, and he was able to convey this opinion of

2 General Tolimir to General Mladic. No more than that. Miletic was not

3 asked to answer, just to be a go-between because Tolimir didn't know who

4 his commander was -- where his commander was. Sorry.

5 Q. Okay. The last paragraph says, "We believe" --

6 JUDGE KWON: Can I --

7 MR. McCLOSKEY: Please.

8 JUDGE KWON: -- clarify? If General Miletic was the only person in

9 the Main Staff, why did he have to put personally to General Miletic? If

10 he's the only person, then he would see the document naturally.

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] General Tolimir was the assistant

12 commander for intelligence and security. In order to avoid any confusion,

13 it is possible, when the typist received this document from Tolimir, that

14 he gave it to one of his organs who were at the command post at the time.

15 If he was not entitled to have contacts with the commander, he could have

16 been a lower ranking officer. He could have received the document, he

17 could have given it to somebody who would then in turn still have to come

18 to Miletic to ask him what to do with the document.

19 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

20 MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you, Your Honour.

21 Q. All right. The last part, "We believe that we could force Muslims

22 to surrender sooner if we would destroy groups of Muslim refugees fleeing

23 in the direction of Stublic, Radava and Brloska Planina."

24 Now, that particular information personally to General Miletic,

25 first of all --

1 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. One moment because I notice Madam Fauveau.

2 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I really don't

3 understand why we are going into the details of this document that was

4 signed by a third person who at least for the time being is not part of

5 this case. General Miletic cannot be held responsible for something that

6 another person drafted, and the Prosecutor has not provided any evidence

7 that some actions were taken on the basis of this particular document.

8 [Trial Chamber confers]

9 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's hear the question first because the question

10 as such hasn't been asked as yet. Yes, Mr. McCloskey, could you get to

11 what your question is? Go ahead.

12 MR. McCLOSKEY:

13 Q. Is this an appropriate or a legal military -- or not legal but

14 what is his view of this statement about destroying Muslim refugees?

15 JUDGE AGIUS: His, it means Tolimir's?

16 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know what General Tolimir

19 meant when he wrote this.

20 MR. McCLOSKEY:

21 Q. Is it allowable in your army to destroy groups of refugees that

22 are leaving?

23 A. No. That's a different issue, but it is not allowable.

24 Q. If army is mixed into those refugees, is that another issue, which

25 I won't get into but just to clarify it? If there are army mixed in with

1 the refugees, can that be a legitimate target, in your army?

2 A. It cannot be considered a legitimate army, if the army is not

3 opening fire. I've told you already that the Muslims often used civilians

4 as human shield for their own army.

5 Q. All right. Then my question would be the same as the previous

6 paragraph. Why, if you know, would Tolimir be choosing to tell General

7 Miletic, in particular, that his -- what appears -- his opinion that "we

8 believe we could force the Muslims could surrender sooner if we could

9 destroy the refugees"? Why would he pick out Miletic in particular for

10 such a statement? If you know. Or if it's the same answer as before, we

11 can --

12 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Madam Fauveau?

13 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I believe that the

14 witness has already answered on several occasions that General Miletic

15 conveyed information to General Mladic, that this was his function in the

16 Main Staff, and I really --

17 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection, Your Honour.

18 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] -- don't see why this question is

19 being asked again.

20 MR. McCLOSKEY: [Microphone not activated]

21 JUDGE AGIUS: Please, I see that is a little bit too much

22 electricity around today. Mr. McCloskey, Ms. Fauveau was still addressing

23 the Chamber. You should have waited until she had finished and then I

24 would have given you the floor, after which Mr. Bourgon would have had

25 his. So let's go back and do this in a civilised way, as I said.

1 Madam Fauveau? Could you please conclude your objection?

2 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. President, actually, I was at

3 the end of my objection. I was just going to say that the witness has

4 already repeated on several occasions that General Miletic conveyed

5 documents that arrived at the Main Staff to General Mladic, and I don't

6 know why this question is being asked with regard to every single

7 paragraph of this document.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: Still, Mr. McCloskey, at the end of his

9 intervention, not the one that he made when you were still addressing the

10 Chamber -- before -- was an invitation to the witness that if his answer

11 is the same as before, we don't need to bother, let's move on. So I think

12 we can calm things down and the general, with his sense of discipline,

13 will understand me perfectly well.

14 If your answer is as it was to the previous question, just tell us

15 yes, and we move forward.

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. This would have been the same

17 answer for the third time. Miletic was just an intermediary in conveying

18 orders from one person to another.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Mr. McCloskey, before you proceed with your

20 next question, do you wish to address the Chamber?

21 MR. McCLOSKEY: No, Mr. President.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. And Mr. Bourgon, I take it that you also

23 do not need to address the Chamber.

24 MR. BOURGON: There is no need, Mr. President, thank you.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: Please calm down. Let's finish the week as -- in an

1 acceptable manner.

2 Yes, Mr. McCloskey.

3 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes.

4 Q. General, is it possible that the chemical weapon referred to here

5 by General Tolimir to General Miletic is a form of tear gas called CS,

6 which is relatively non-toxic?

7 A. We did not have any other chemical agents. What we had, we got

8 from the police. Those were tear gases used by the police and the

9 artillery ammunition, every fifth grenade in keeping with the JNA rules,

10 was filled with one of the chemical agents, either a tear gas or the

11 choking agent. Tear gas is not toxic, where the choking agent does leave

12 some consequences.

13 MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you very much, General. I have no further

14 questions.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you. Yes, Mr. Zivanovic?

16 Mr. Bourgon? Let's take one by one. I see four already. Yes,

17 Mr. Zivanovic?

18 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. With your

19 leave I would like to ask just one question relative to his answer on page

20 24, lines from 14 to 16, and the question was about legitimate targets, if

21 the army is mixed with the refugees. This is what I would like to put a

22 question to the witness.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's hear the question and that would make it

24 easier for us to decide. Address it to us, please, first, and General,

25 you don't answer it before we give you the green light.

1 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] In the witness's answer, it says

2 that this target cannot be considered legitimate if the army is not

3 opening fire.

4 Further cross-examination by Mr. Zivanovic:

5 Q. My question to the witness is this: Can this be considered a

6 legitimate target if the army mixed with the refugees, irrespective of the

7 fact that it is not opening fire, is advancing and coming on to the

8 territory under the control of the army of Republika Srpska? In other

9 words, can the army go anywhere if it's mixed with the refugees

10 irrespective of the fact that it is not opening fire and whether this

11 action must be tolerated by the VRS?

12 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Thank you. You've got the green light.

13 Go ahead. If you can answer that question or this question.

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Even in this case, fire cannot be

15 opened because the intermediaries in the war exist for that. In this

16 particular case, it is UNPROFOR and UNPROFOR should be addressed and

17 sought protection from.

18 MR. ZIVANOVIC:

19 Q. [Interpretation] Can I ask a very specific question? If UNPROFOR

20 is not there, we had situations that the 28th Division was withdrawing

21 from Jaglici and Susnjar after the fall of Srebrenica through the

22 territory of the Republika Srpska army towards Kladanj and Tuzla. There

23 was no UNPROFOR there. Does the witness consider that even if this case--

24 JUDGE AGIUS: Slow down.

25 MR. ZIVANOVIC:

1 Q. [Interpretation] There was no basis for opening fire on these

2 forces?

3 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, General. Yes, Mr. Josse?

4 MR. JOSSE: Objection, Your Honour. This is trying to make this

5 witness into an expert. He's never been put forward as an expert and in

6 our submission, this line of cross-examination should not be allowed.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: We are actually delving into legal matters, not

8 exactly military matters. But I need to confer with my colleagues.

9 [Trial Chamber confers]

10 JUDGE AGIUS: We are deciding in a very simple, straightforward

11 matter, without needing to decide on your objection, Mr. Josse. Our

12 position is that we have heard enough on this and we don't need the

13 general to answer the question, the second question that Mr. Zivanovic

14 put.

15 Any -- I had noticed earlier on Mr. Bourgon, Madam Fauveau and

16 Mr. Krgovic, in that order. Mr. Bourgon, do you wish to put a question?

17 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to ask to --

18 with leave of the Court, I would like to ask a question to the witness

19 concerning something that was raised, a new issue that was raised by my

20 colleague on page 3, line 9.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: On page?

22 MR. BOURGON: Page 3, line 9.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment. I have to go back to page 3. Yes.

24 Please address the question to us first and then we decide if to authorise

25 it or not.

1 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President. The question is very

2 simple. The -- my colleague has put the question to the witness, two

3 questions, as a matter of fact, which relates with the responsibility for

4 prisoner of war at the brigade level and also the answer, what was the

5 responsibility of the chief of security at the brigade level. Those

6 issues were not part of the direct examination, they were not raised on

7 cross, and that's what I would like to ask a couple of questions to the

8 witness concerning both of these issues.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead. Go ahead.

10 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President.

11 Further cross-examination by Mr. Bourgon:

12 Q. Good morning, General. I just have a few additional questions for

13 you. On page 3, at lines number 7 to 9, your answer to my colleague's

14 questions was the following: "When it comes to the use of the military

15 police, the person in charge is the security organ, regardless of the

16 issue, be it the prisoners of war, escorting convoys or any other police

17 task."

18 And my question is simply, would you agree with me, General, that

19 the role of the chief of the security is to advise the commander on the

20 use and the combat readiness of the military police?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And General, would you agree with me that the chief of security

23 has no command authority over the military police in the brigade?

24 A. He does not have direct command authority, but he orders the

25 commander of the battalion of the military police what to do with the

1 police, but he is not the one to assign military policemen to various

2 groups. In the army, there is the term control and command. He has the

3 controlling role when it comes to the police.

4 Q. And any orders that the chief of security would, and I say orders

5 or instructions, or -- that would be assigned to the military police would

6 come from his commander; is that correct?

7 A. This is a very ambiguous question. I suppose you meant the

8 commander who is the chief of security's superior? Is that what you

9 meant?

10 Q. Exactly, exactly, General. Simply for you to confirm that

11 although he may have a coordination or controlling role, he does not issue

12 orders that come from him to the military police. He has no authority to

13 do that?

14 A. Correct. He does not have the authority to command the police.

15 He can propose the commander to use the military police, and if the

16 commander agrees to that then he conveys the commander's orders and he

17 gives instructions to the commander of the military police battalion or

18 company as to what to do, how to proceed.

19 Q. Thank you very much, General.

20 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: Just one moment. Yes, I had noticed you, Madam

22 Fauveau.

23 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I will probably not

24 have any more questions for this witness. I will not ask for your

25 permission to allow me to put questions to the witness, in other words.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Doesn't mean that you will put questions

2 without -- okay. Thank you. Mr. Josse?

3 MR. JOSSE: The Chamber will be relieved to hear that our position

4 is the same.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Judge Kwon, do you have any questions to ask?

6 General, we've come to the end of your testimony, which means

7 you're free to go. I wish to thank you on behalf of the Trial Chamber,

8 Judge Kwon, Judge Prost, Judge Stole, who is not with us today, also on

9 behalf of the Tribunal and on behalf of everyone present here we all wish

10 you a safe journey back home. Thank you.

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

12 [The witness withdrew]

13 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Bourgon?

14 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President. With your permission,

15 after the break, I would like, Mr. President, to address the Court

16 concerning the scope of re-examination and the way re-examination is being

17 conducted, and I cannot do it at this time because I need to consult my

18 colleagues, but I would like to address the Court because, I think that

19 this situation is getting out of hand. Thank you, Mr. President.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: Documents? Yes, Mr. McCloskey?

21 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yeah. I've got a list of 65 ter, 29, that's

22 directive 4.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: It has been circulated. Is it still as it was when

24 it was circulated?

25 MR. McCLOSKEY: Everything but the 2669 A and B. That, you can

1 just cross off the list.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Any objections from any of the Defence teams?

3 MR. JOSSE: Could we have a moment, please? We've literally just

4 been given this list, and it includes a number of the documents that were

5 used in the re-examination, and I think we would appreciate the break

6 before we make any submissions.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. That's fair enough. We'll give you a break.

8 25 minutes. Thank you.

9 --- Recess taken at 10.27 a.m.

10 --- On resuming at 10.58 a.m.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Exhibits. So Mr. Josse?

12 MR. JOSSE: Your Honour, on behalf of General Gvero we object to

13 the admission of 65 ter numbers 45 and 131. For the most part the

14 submission is the same in relation to both of them, although needless to

15 say, the Chamber will need to consider each separately before coming to a

16 decision.

17 We contend that because the witness had no firsthand knowledge of

18 these documents, he conceded that he had never seen them before, it is not

19 proper for them to be admitted through him. In effect, the evidence that

20 he gave in relation to these documents was both speculative, in effect

21 opinion evidence, and that amounted, we submit, to evidence that at the

22 very best could be said to be expert evidence and this witness has never

23 been admitted as an expert pursuant to Rule 94.

24 In addition to that, as I've already said, if the Chamber is

25 against us so far as that submission is concerned, the answers the witness

1 gave in relation to the documents are highly speculative and rely on his

2 opinion.

3 Moving on from that, there's a further ground of objection, and

4 that relates to the way these have been dealt with procedurally. I know

5 that my learned friend, Mr. Bourgon, alluded to the fact that he wished to

6 address the Chamber at some point about to the way things are being done

7 in terms of re-examination, and of course, there is proper re-examination

8 and improper re-examination. But we note and we ask the Trial Chamber to

9 take into consideration the fact that neither of these documents were on

10 the original list of documents, index of documents, perhaps I should say,

11 that the Prosecution provided to us in relation to General Milovanovic.

12 There were a large number of documents on that particular list but neither

13 45 nor 131 were on that list. And then to use them in re-examination is

14 in this way is one thing but then to seek their admission into evidence is

15 another thing.

16 Of course, I accept that they are on the 65 ter list, they have 65

17 ter numbers, but nonetheless, it's one thing for them to have 65 ter

18 numbers and it's quite another thing for the Prosecution not to put them

19 on their list as potential documents for use during the testimony of the

20 witness.

21 I should add in passing the cross-examination that allowed the

22 Prosecution to use these in re-examination was not surprising

23 cross-examination. If Mr. Krgovic in the course of that cross-examination

24 had asked questions which were completely out of the blue and surprising,

25 then that would be another thing, but they weren't. It was standard

1 cross-examination bearing in mind the issues in the case as far as General

2 Gvero is concerned, and then to seek the admission of these documents

3 through this back door route, we submit is highly objectionable.

4 Your Honour, in any event, we put the Prosecution to proof as to

5 the authenticity of both these documents and, finally, and I have nearly

6 finished, one small matter. So far as 131 is concerned, there is a small

7 translation issue which we will need to address with either the court

8 officer or the Prosecution and so the translation as it stands at the

9 moment is not accepted, but that's a separate issue. But for the reasons

10 I've outlined, we object to the admission of these documents.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Mr. Josse.

12 Mr. McCloskey? If you could address the various --

13 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: But I notice also Madam Bourgon -- Madam Fauveau.

15 Not yet.

16 MR. McCLOSKEY: If I could go first because --

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, I think -- I would suggest that he deals --

18 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] In fact, I believe it would be

19 easier to do it together because I subscribe to the objection made by my

20 colleague and I take into account document 2554 -- sorry, 2754.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: In other words, you're adding to the objection also

22 2754 on the same basis, on the same grounds?

23 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Fauveau.

25 Mr. McCloskey? If you could take up the submissions one by one, please?

1 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes. The first that I noted was the argument that

2 the witness did not know of the document or was not part of the document,

3 that argument. And of course, Mr. President, we have for many months now

4 had many, many comments from witnesses on documents that they knew nothing

5 whatsoever about but were in a position to offer views on them. I don't

6 need to use examples. You know them. The Zepa exhibits, for example.

7 And the reason that I believe that you allowed the testimony for

8 the various documents is because of the position of this witness, what he

9 had testified to on direct and cross-examination, and that I think he had

10 valuable insight into the people and the processes, which is what this was

11 all about. So I think if we look at our previous practices and the way

12 that your -- you allowed this evidence in, I don't see any problem

13 whatsoever on -- based on that objection.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: Will you have anyone else dealing more specifically

15 with these two documents, 45, 131, and perhaps also 2754?

16 MR. McCLOSKEY: Well, that's a good question, because General

17 Smith was down for some of these documents, Rick Butler was down for some

18 of these documents, but frankly, after the evidence from this witness, I'm

19 not sure we need to. We can. It's not difficult. And it can come in

20 through someone else if there is any concern whatsoever. And that's -- so

21 that's not a problem. I think as we review what this witness has said

22 about these documents, we hope to restrict some of our evidence that we

23 had in line.

24 Now regarding the objection related to speculativeness, I don't

25 think there was anything speculative about what he was saying. Had it

1 been speculative, I would have trusted the Court to have not allowed any

2 further questions or answers on it, as the Court has done throughout. I

3 thought his insights, while I didn't always agree with him, were valuable

4 and something the Court should see and I don't think that's any grounds

5 whatsoever. And if it had been, the Court would have dealt with it.

6 Not on the original list; well, we have the 65 ter list.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't think you need to address that.

8 MR. McCLOSKEY: Okay.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: We know what the practice has been when it comes to

10 redirect. There is also authenticity, the authenticity issue.

11 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes. Of course, it's our burden to provide

12 authenticity. These documents are coming from the same collections from

13 the documents that have been used massively by the Defence. However, on

14 particular cases, where there is concern, we will provide the -- more

15 evidence of that. In fact, I can tell you that the -- just from my

16 memory, the 13 July document about prisoners and separating prisoners from

17 other prisoners, that document is an original document that was brought to

18 us by Major Obrenovic when he plead guilty. And so that will of course

19 need his testimony to authenticate and you'll here the history of that.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: Which also means that you can use that document

21 direct with Major Obrenovic.

22 MR. McCLOSKEY: Absolutely.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: Yeah.

24 MR. McCLOSKEY: Absolutely. And the fewer I can use with Major

25 Obrenovic, the better, but if there is an authenticity issue, of course.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. I think I can stop you there, Mr. McCloskey,

2 provided my colleagues agree with me. I think we can do exactly as we did

3 with the previous witness. We can mark these for identification pending

4 the authentication issue. And also the possibility that there may be used

5 more directly and more specifically with some other witness. We leave

6 them marked for identification in the meantime, but I need to confer.

7 MR. McCLOSKEY: And Mr. President, so I won't -- Ms. Stewart tells

8 me that on your list there is 65 ter 849, which is something I didn't use,

9 so don't -- so cross that one off your list as well.

10 [Trial Chamber confers]

11 JUDGE AGIUS: Our decision is that we will mark these three

12 documents, that is 65 ter number 45, 65 ter number 131, and 65 ter number

13 2754, for identification purposes only, pending proof of their

14 authenticity. This is the only ground that we are accepting for the basis

15 of not admitting them now and marking them for identification purposes

16 only.

17 The rest are admitted provided they are all translated, which I

18 think they are.

19 We come to the Miletic exhibits. Madam Fauveau, you have got

20 seven documents that you wish to tender. With the exception of the last

21 one, I take it that none have been translated to date? Correct me if I'm

22 wrong.

23 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Yes, there are two that have been

24 translated, in fact, one which was originally in English, 5D391; one has

25 been translated, P150; and the others were marked for identification

1 pending translation. [In English] 5D390.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: 390. I was going to ask to you correct that, in

3 fact. So P150 has been translated already. 390 has been translated

4 already. The rest will remain marked for identification in any case,

5 pending translation, but there is any objection on your part,

6 Mr. McCloskey?

7 MR. McCLOSKEY: These come from these same collections but no, I

8 will not object.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Thank you. Any objection from any of

10 the other Defence teams? None. So P150 and P390 are admitted. The

11 remainder will remain marked for identification pending translation,

12 official translation thereof.

13 Yes, Madam Fauveau.

14 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I still have to

15 respond to the Prosecution. I don't know from which collection these

16 documents originate, but in any case, they all bear the signature of the

17 witness we have just heard.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.

19 MS. FAUVEAU: I'm speaking about a typewritten signature, not a

20 handwritten one.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't think we need to delve into this. So

22 exhibits tendered -- to be tendered by the Gvero team? There is only one

23 to my knowledge and that's 6D129.

24 MR. JOSSE: That's right.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: And I take it this has been translated.

1 MR. JOSSE: It has now, yes.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Any objection, Mr. McCloskey?

3 MR. McCLOSKEY: No, Mr. President.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Any of the other Defence teams wishes to object to

5 the admission of this document? None. So this will become an exhibit.

6 Thank you.

7 Mr. Sarapa, yes?

8 MR. SARAPA: [Interpretation] Just one document for identification

9 since the translation is pending, 7D460.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: Any objection, Mr. McCloskey?

11 MR. McCLOSKEY: No, Mr. President.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: Other Defence teams, any objection? None. It will

13 be marked for identification pending translation thereof. Thank you.

14 Next witness.

15 MR. McCLOSKEY: And if possible, Mr. President, if I could have

16 maybe five minutes at the end to speak of a matter in private session.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.

18 [The witness entered court]

19 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning to you, Mr. Simic.

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: And welcome to this Tribunal. You're about to start

22 giving evidence. Before you do so, our rules require that you make a

23 solemn declaration, just equivalent to an oath in some jurisdictions, to

24 the effect that in the course of your testimony, you undertake to speak

25 the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The text is going

1 to be handed to you now. Please read it out aloud and that will be your

2 solemn undertaking with us.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak

4 the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

5 WITNESS: SREDOJE SIMIC

6 [Witness answered through interpreter]

7 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, sir. Please make yourself comfortable.

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Mr. Nicholls will put some questions to you.

10 He will then be followed on cross-examination by one or more of the

11 Defence teams. Mr. Nicholls?

12 MR. NICHOLLS: Thank you, Your Honours.

13 Examination by Mr. Nicholls:

14 Q. Good morning, sir.

15 A. Good morning.

16 Q. I have not too many questions for you today and I'll try to get

17 through it as quickly as we can. Could you please tell us your full name?

18 A. My name is Sredoje Simic.

19 Q. When were you born, sir?

20 A. I was born on the 2nd January 1952 in Vrsac. It's a place in

21 Vojvodina, Republic of Serbia.

22 Q. Thank you. And could you tell me what your employment is at

23 present? Where do you work?

24 A. I currently work in a weekly called Svedok, which means witness in

25 Belgrade.

1 Q. And you're a journalist with that magazine, correct?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Could you very briefly tell me about your educational background,

4 in just a few sentences, if you can?

5 A. Well, I went to primary school in Pirana, Rijeka in Slovenia and

6 in Karlovac in Croatia, and I finished university in Zagreb.

7 Q. And you received a degree in law, if I'm correct; is that right?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. When did you begin your career as a journalist?

10 A. I began in March or April 1975, as a journalist.

11 Q. And except for relatively brief periods, is it safe to say you've

12 been a journalist since that time, for over 30 years?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. I want to now ask you some questions about an article you wrote

15 and could we please have 00480 in e-court? If we could go to page 2? Got

16 a problem.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.

18 MR. NICHOLLS: I do have a hard copy if this looks like a long

19 problem. Oh, there we go.

20 Q. Now, sir, I think you'll recognise this but do you recognise this

21 article?

22 A. I don't see the document.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. One moment.

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I see it now.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: Is it okay now? It's okay now but -- because we had

1 the document but we were informed that the witness didn't.

2 MR. NICHOLLS: Thank you, Your Honours.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.

4 MR. NICHOLLS:

5 Q. Thank you. Now, could you just tell us, what is the title or

6 headline of this article?

7 A. "I am not ashamed of any of my" -- and I can't see the rest.

8 Q. You're having difficulty reading the -- oh, I see. It's because

9 it's on two pages. If I could give the witness a hard copy, unless we can

10 bring up both pages together?

11 JUDGE AGIUS: I think if we bring the two pages together, it will

12 so minuscule no one will be able to see it.

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "I am not ashamed of anything I did,

14 and if I need to be put on trial, let that be in my country."

15 MR. NICHOLLS:

16 Q. Okay. What is the date of this article?

17 A. 20th October 2002.

18 Q. And who wrote this article?

19 A. I am the author of the interview.

20 Q. And the person interviewed in this article, who did you interview

21 for this article?

22 A. I did an interview with Colonel Ljubisa Beara, Colonel of the army

23 of Republika Srpska.

24 Q. Okay. Now, the article was published on 29 October. Can you tell

25 us when the interview took place? How soon was it before the publication

1 of the article?

2 A. The interview took place over the course of two or three days, but

3 it was five years ago, and the interview took place after the moment when

4 it became known that the indictment against Ljubisa Beara was opened.

5 Q. Thank you. Your Honours, I think my friend was indicating to me

6 that he heard a mistake in the translation. I'm not sure if that's what I

7 understood from my friend.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Ostojic?

9 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Mr. President. I would just ask the

10 Court to inquire on page 42, line 24, I think there is no dispute as to

11 the length of the interview and that it, in our view, is not accurate how

12 it was translated, so if we could maybe restate it or have him tell us

13 again, when the interview happened, how long the interview took and then

14 how soon before the publication of the interview did the interview

15 actually take place, which is where I think we may have a little

16 misunderstanding.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: And the fact that it would reflect the essence, the

18 gist of your question in the first place.

19 MR. NICHOLLS: Yes.

20 Q. Was this two or three days or two or three hours, the duration of

21 the interview?

22 A. The interview took two hours or just a bit over two hours. But it

23 was two or three days after information agencies published that the

24 indictment against Ljubisa Beara was made public.

25 Q. Thank you. Now, can you tell me, without necessarily giving the

1 names or places of people who helped you, the circumstances of how this

2 interview took place? How were you able to set up an interview with

3 Mr. Beara?

4 A. I had not known Ljubisa Beara before the interview, although I had

5 heard of him, and I knew that Mr. Vojislav Seslj was attacking him because

6 of an incident that I believe happened sometime in the 1990s between

7 members of the JNA and members of the Serb Radical Party. A couple of

8 months before the indictment against Beara was made public, rumours

9 circulated in Belgrade, especially among journalists, that there would be

10 more indictments raised related to the Srebrenica case, and various names

11 were mentioned, among them the name of Ljubisa Beara.

12 Perhaps a couple of months after the indictment was made public,

13 it crossed my mind that I could make an interview with Mr. Ljubisa Beara

14 because he was interesting, in view of the role, the position, he held at

15 the time of the Srebrenica operation, and on the other hand, very few ICTY

16 indictees were prepared to give interviews. If I remember correctly, we

17 had only managed to get an interview with Mr. Nebojsa Pavkovic and

18 Mr. Perisic. Since I was in charge of army security on the publishing

19 board, I knew a lot of officers, retired and active duty, and I thought

20 that perhaps they might help me get in touch with Mr. Beara, whom I didn't

21 know.

22 Q. And during --

23 THE TRANSLATOR: Microphone, please.

24 MR. NICHOLLS:

25 Q. Thank you. And I take it then that you were successful through

1 these contacts in getting in touch with Mr. Beara and setting up this

2 interview?

3 A. Before the indictment was made public, I was not very active, very

4 persistent in my efforts to find Beara. I was busy doing other things,

5 covering the investigation concerning the murder of Zeljko Raznjatovic,

6 Arkan, but when the indictment was made public I concentrated on this a

7 bit more. I found a contact who promised he would try to get me in touch

8 with Mr. Beara but he wasn't sure that Mr. Beara would accept.

9 Q. All right. Now, during the interview, did you use a tape

10 recording device or did you take notes or how did you make a record of

11 what was being satisfied during the interview with Mr. Beara?

12 A. The interview was tape recorded from its beginning to its end.

13 Q. And by "from its beginning to its end," do you mean the entire

14 interview was tape recorded, all of it, on tape?

15 A. Yes, the complete interview was recorded but not all of it was

16 published. The interview that you've shown to me does not reflect the

17 entire interview I had with Mr. Beara.

18 Q. I know you can't be exactly precise but how much of what we have

19 in the article -- how much of the interview with Mr. Beara is contained in

20 the article, in other words, how much of what Mr. Beara told to you

21 doesn't appear anywhere in the article?

22 A. Well, between 45 and 55 per cent. I can't be more precise than

23 that.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Nicholls, I take it, but you can of course

25 inquire with the witness, that the witness did not keep or preserve the

1 tape.

2 MR. NICHOLLS: I was going to get to that Your Honour, but I can

3 ask him now.

4 Q. You can answer this question very simply, you don't need to spend

5 to much time on it, sir, but do you still have the tape of this interview?

6 A. No. I've already said it twice. The tapes are kept for about

7 half a year in the editorial room. It was very hard at the time to obtain

8 those tapes in Belgrade. They were of poor quality and we reused the tape

9 in order to save the resources.

10 Q. Okay. Now, the portion of what Mr. Beara spoke to you about

11 that's not included in the interview, that you decided to leave out, what

12 was that all about? What did you decide to leave out, if you can tell us

13 generally the topics?

14 A. I've already said that Mr. Beara was named by Mr. Seslj with

15 regard to that incident in Montenegro and he spoke at great length about

16 that incident. It seemed that it bothered him quite a lot, because he

17 thought that he was not at all to blame for what Mr. Seslj was accusing

18 him. And you could tell by his reactions that he was not very happy with

19 that.

20 I was interested, i.e., my editor was interested in the

21 indictment. He was indicted not for the crime in Montenegro but for

22 Srebrenica and I focused on Srebrenica, and in addition to that, he spoke

23 at great length about himself, about his life, about his family. He was

24 finding all that very hard, I would say.

25 Q. Now, during the interview did Mr. Beara say anything about

1 Srebrenica that was not included in the article?

2 A. No.

3 Q. Now, we don't need to bring it up again but we can see, if we look

4 at the article, it's still up, if we scroll down a bit, we can see that

5 part of the format of this article is questions by you put to Mr. Beara

6 and his answers. Now, how accurate is the article as a record of the

7 answers given by Mr. Beara during the interview? In other words, the

8 words we see here spoken by Mr. Beara, are those the same words he

9 actually spoke to you and that were recorded on the tape recording?

10 A. Yes. When the interview was being prepared for printing, I tried

11 to keep it as authentic as possible. The only thing that were removed

12 from some filler words or some repetitions, where -- places where

13 Mr. Beara repeated himself. But I would say that in essence the interview

14 is original.

15 Q. And what about your questions? Did you edit any of the questions

16 that we see printed in the article or were those exactly the same as the

17 way you put the questions to Mr. Beara?

18 A. Yes, as a matter of fact, but let me explain. When you do an

19 interview you usually put questions rather broadly in order to explain to

20 the interlocutor what you're interested in but when you word your

21 questions for the newspaper, you have to make them as concise and precise

22 as possible. They don't -- they mustn't be leading. And in that part, I

23 would say that the printed questions do not reflect 100 per cent the

24 questions that I actually put to Mr. Beara. The words are different.

25 Q. And is that if I understood you, to make them shorter and clearer

1 or perhaps just shorter, your questions?

2 A. Yes, you understood me well.

3 Q. A moment ago you said that in Mr. Beara's answers, you would

4 remove -- the only things you removed were filler words or repetition.

5 What do you mean exactly by filler words?

6 A. For example, well, actually, as far as I can remember, he used

7 some expressions that are part of the slang. There were some

8 repetitions. Sometimes he would go over the same grounds again. He would

9 repeat the answers that he had given to the previous question.

10 Q. Okay. And in any of these edits for filler words or repetition,

11 to your mind, in any way, did you change the meaning of his answers at

12 all?

13 A. No. If you omit a filler word, you don't change the meaning of

14 that sentence, so my answer would be no.

15 Q. Did Mr. Beara ask to review the text prior to publication? In

16 other words, did he want to see what you were going to actually write

17 before you published it?

18 A. I believe that I should add something to my previous answer. When

19 Mr. Beara accepted to give me that interview there were three conditions.

20 The first condition was for me to come alone. My contact told me that I

21 should come alone without a photographer or anybody else. The second

22 condition was that no photos should be taken. And the third condition was

23 that I should promise him that I would never tell anybody where the

24 interview had taken place. And we accepted those conditions.

25 When the interview was over, because of the sensitivity of the

1 issues, I offered Mr. Beara to review the interview and without a second

2 thought, he said that that was not necessary and that he had full

3 confidence in me and that he fully believed that I would convey the

4 interview with him accurately.

5 Q. After publication of the interview in Svedok, did you receive any

6 feedback, directly or indirectly, from Mr. Beara, about the article?

7 A. After the interview, I never heard from or saw Mr. Beara, but I

8 did get feedback after a certain time, maybe three, five or even 10 days

9 after the interview, I bumped into the gentleman who put me through to

10 Mr. Beara and he told me that Mr. Beara was extremely satisfied with the

11 interview and that he had no objections whatsoever to the contents

12 thereof.

13 Q. Thank you. I have no further questions at this point.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Mr. Nicholls. Mr. Ostojic or Mr.

15 Meek? I don't know who is -- I think this mainly concerns you. I even

16 doubt if any of the other Defence teams wishes to cross-examine this

17 witness.

18 Yes, go ahead, Mr. Meek.

19 MR. MEEK: Thank you, Mr. President, Your Honour.

20 Cross-examination by Mr. Meek:

21 Q. Good morning, Mr. Simic. How are you?

22 A. Very well.

23 Q. You've had a chance to review this article obviously before you

24 came here to testify, correct?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. You have just testified, by the way, that subsequent to the

2 interview, Mr. Beara never spoke to you personally, nor did you ever see

3 him again; is that correct?

4 A. Correct.

5 Q. If we could, could we have put on the e-court document 2D127?

6 It's an OTP information report, for the record, dated 16 December 2005.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Nicholls?

8 MR. NICHOLLS: I have no objection, but apparently we have not yet

9 received -- we don't have the list of cross exhibits. If that's available

10 I'd like a copy but I don't object to him continuing.

11 MR. MEEK: Your Honour, I would apologise for that. Our case

12 manager's -- yesterday her grandfather is in the hospital and I think he

13 passed away and she suddenly left the office, and I apologise, my friend.

14 There's only 480, which you already have in, the OTP information report,

15 2D127.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: Yeah. Go ahead.

17 MR. MEEK: I'm sorry. The statement provided to the Belgrade

18 district court of 24 March 2006, it would be 2D128. And the OTP

19 supplemental information sheet dated 30 May 2007, it would be 2D129.

20 MR. NICHOLLS: Thank you.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Meek?

22 MR. MEEK: Thank you, Your Honours.

23 Q. Mr. Simic, there were a few mistakes in that article, were there

24 not, in life we make a few mistakes?

25 A. What mistakes are you referring to?

1 Q. Well, first off, if you could look at the 65 ter 480, I don't know

2 what page it would be in B/C/S but page 4 in English -- no.

3 MR. MEEK: Now I'm at the article, Your Honour. Keep that on

4 there for a second. Okay. We will go to the actual article.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Do you have an idea of which part of the article in

6 the original it is? Because --

7 MR. MEEK: Approximately page 2, under the heading -- page 2 or --

8 under the heading in bold the picture that says, "If they think I must go

9 to The Hague, let them find me and arrest me." And I think the witness

10 actually has the article in front of him in hard copy.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: But the article is a long article. He needs to

12 be --

13 MR. MEEK:

14 Q. Let me read this to you. Just let me read this to you real

15 briefly. You state in your article that as soon as the unsealed

16 indictment against him appeared on the official site of The Hague

17 Tribunal, the courageous Sarajevan Beara left his Belgrade flat and went

18 into hiding. Do you remember him telling you that?

19 A. I'm afraid I don't understand your question. What do you want me

20 to say?

21 Q. I'm going to find it for you in the B/C/S/Serbian, sir, so you can

22 look at it. At the beginning of the article, Mr. Simic, your picture, if

23 you could -- Mr. Simic, just put the article over one page that you have

24 in front of you. Below your picture.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's be more practical. What I suggest, Madam

1 Usher, you approach Mr. Meek and his assistant. They will show you

2 exactly which part of the article they are referring to and then you show

3 it to the witness and we proceed like that.

4 MR. NICHOLLS: If it helps if my friend wants, I've got a larger

5 copy that's much easier to read in hard copy.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. You can use that.

7 MR. NICHOLLS: He can have it if you like.

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I've been able to

9 locate that part.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: That's good. And I thank you for that, Mr. Simic.

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've lost it again. Now it's good.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, your question now, Mr. Meek?

13 MR. MEEK:

14 Q. Mr. Simic, you see the short paragraph that says, "As soon as the

15 indictment, sealed indictment against him appeared on the official site,"

16 do you see that, sir? And you write that Mr. Beara had left his Belgrade

17 flat, correct?

18 A. Yes. I can see that.

19 Q. Now, on the very front of the article, where it starts, you have

20 a -- we may have to go back to the very first page. Okay. It's a byline

21 I think that you wrote, Mr. Simic, under one of the pictures, that says,

22 "senior officer of the army of Republika Srpska" -- there you go, top

23 right up there -- "senior officer of the army of Republika Srpska Ljubisa

24 Beara who ended up on the list." You see that, sir?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Now, in that, that's just your -- that's your writing, correct?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Now, if you'll notice there, you say that he left his comfortable

4 flat and went into hiding, when in fact, when you tape recorded his

5 interview, it was just a flat, correct?

6 A. The comfortable flat is just a matter of style. To me, every flat

7 that somebody owns or somebody lives is comfortable. Hiding might be

8 somewhat far-fetched. I heard from a gentleman whom I had contacted in

9 order to get to Mr. Beara that he was no longer in his apartment and that

10 he went somewhere else to find shelter. I never visited Mr. Beara in his

11 apartment. We conducted this interview at a different place.

12 Q. Thank you. So not only did you never enter any apartment or flat

13 of Mr. Beara's, he never referred to his flat or apartment as being

14 comfortable or plush or anything like that? You agree with that, sir?

15 A. Yes. That was my opinion, my poetic licence, if you will. This

16 is what you do when you edit your own text.

17 Q. Now, could we show on the screen briefly the 2D127? It would be

18 the OTP information report.

19 Paragraph 4, I believe. Now, do you recall first, Mr. Simic,

20 meeting with an OTP investigator named Bursik on or about 16 December

21 2005?

22 A. Yes. My secretary called me when they came. I was just being

23 discharged from the hospital. I was ill at the time. So I was leaving

24 the hospital. I took a taxi and went there.

25 Q. And sir, how long did the -- was it an interview type situation,

1 where the investigator asked you questions and you answered them?

2 A. Well, in my view, it was just an exchange of information.

3 Obviously they did ask me questions. He asked me about the interview, how

4 this came about. He was interested in the tape. He asked me if I could

5 possibly find the tape. I promised I would. And if I did find it, that I

6 would hand it over to The Hague Tribunal, i.e., to the OTP.

7 Q. Thank you. Two follow-up questions. Do you recall whether the

8 investigator had a tape recorder and tape recorded that meeting?

9 A. There were two investigators actually, and there was a lady

10 interpreter. As far as I can remember, one of the investigators asked me

11 questions and the other made notes of the young lady's words, i.e., of

12 what I had said, and then she interpreted for him.

13 Q. Mr. Simic, looking at this information report, which was generated

14 from your meeting with the OTP representatives, including investigator

15 Bursik, do you have any idea why under paragraph 4, they would state that

16 you told them that Ljubisa Beara had telephoned you after the article? Do

17 you have any idea why they would put that in a report when in fact that

18 wasn't the truth and you never told them that?

19 A. I can see it on the screen myself. This must be a translation

20 error, or maybe the investigator misunderstood the interpreter's words. I

21 said on that occasion, and I repeated it before the special court in

22 Belgrade, that after the interview several readers called the newspaper to

23 commend the interview and they also had comments about Mr. Beara as an

24 army officer. I never stated that Mr. Beara had called me. He did not

25 even have my number. So there was no way for him to call me. This must

1 be a mistake. I did say during the interview that several people called

2 the newspaper after the interview, and this must have been misinterpreted

3 or misunderstood as Beara calling me. I've already said that the person

4 who put me through to him told me that Mr. Beara was pleased with the

5 article.

6 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Meek.

7 MR. MEEK:

8 Q. Thank you, sir. Mr. Simic, during this article, Ljubisa Beara

9 told you, in fact, that he did not participate in the preparing of the

10 operation of the Serbian forces entering Srebrenica, correct?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. He also told you that he did not know what was being prepared

13 regarding Srebrenica, correct?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. He also told you that when the Srebrenica operation started, that

16 he personally was on the Bihac front. He told you that too, didn't he?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Then at one point in your article, after he tells you that he was

19 on the Bihac front and had returned, by the time he returned the

20 Srebrenica action was completely over, correct?

21 A. This is what transpires from his words.

22 Q. Now, right after that, at least in the English translation, you

23 have Mr. Beara saying, "One day, when I was taking the mail to General

24 Mladic I saw a large number of buses on all the roads leading from

25 Bratunac to Zepa to Srebrenica." Do you recall that?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Now, sir, I'm not a native speaker of Serbian and I don't

3 obviously know the language, but my friends who are tell me that the

4 saying, "One day, when I was doing something," does not necessarily

5 connote a specific day. Is that true?

6 A. In principle, according to the rules of grammar, that should be

7 the case, yes.

8 Q. And you, sir, as a native Serbian speaker, when it is said like

9 this in an interview, what does that mean to you?

10 A. That there was a lapse of time. It wasn't yesterday, because he

11 would have said yesterday. It wasn't the day before yesterday. There is

12 a word for the day before yesterday. The way I understood it was that it

13 was some time ago.

14 Q. And, sir, when he says, and tells you that he had been on the

15 Bihac front when the Srebrenica action started and did not return until it

16 was over, then he goes on to tell you one day, not previously, but one day

17 I was taking the mail, what -- in the Serbian language, what does that

18 mean to you, sir? Does it mean one day, 10 days, seven days, 14 days?

19 A. I can't give you a precise answer. I know where Bihac is. I know

20 where Srebrenica is, where the operation took place. And it's very

21 difficult to imagine that in such circumstances it would not take more

22 than one day from Bihac to Srebrenica. It must have been a few days. I

23 wasn't there and I didn't ask him about that. He is probably better

24 suited to say this. But it is obvious that a certain period of time did

25 elapse and that this period was not just one or two days.

1 Q. And again, Mr. Simic, just to be clear, that time that had elapsed

2 would have been the time after Srebrenica action was completed and

3 finished, correct?

4 A. That's the way it seems.

5 Q. Mr. Simic, during the interview with Mr. Beara, he also told you,

6 did he not, and when you asked him about mass graves and crimes, he told

7 you, "It is not possible to call out killing in such -- to carry out

8 killing on such a mass scale in the presence of United Nations

9 peacekeepers, even if someone had such an insane idea." Those were his

10 words, correct?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Mr. Simic, during the interview, it's true, is it not, that

13 Ljubisa Beara never used any derogatory terms towards Muslims or Croats,

14 correct?

15 A. No, no, I'm sorry, never.

16 Q. Then you talked to Mr. Beara about the Krstic case, did you not?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And do you recall that Mr. Beara told you then that he had watched

19 the relay of the trial when the Prosecution had asked Krstic something to

20 the effect of, "So, General, you were not involved in the Srebrenica

21 crime?" Krstic said, "I wasn't."

22 Apparently, thereafter, the-- they showed an intercept or a secret

23 recording between the Chief of Staff of the Zvornik Brigade, Dragan

24 Obrenovic, wherein Krstic allegedly told Obrenovic to kill all the

25 prisoners, the 300 or 400 Muslim prisoners that Obrenovic had reported he

1 was holding. Do you recall that?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. He further told you, Mr. Beara told you in regards to the Krstic

4 case and the allegations that had been made, that he was shocked, didn't

5 he?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. And that the papers were writing things about him saying he was a

8 big criminal, correct?

9 A. Yes. He was very upset, troubled. I said that at the very start,

10 in my testimony. He was very upset and he was taking very hard all those

11 accusations made against him, both the Seslj accusations and the -- those

12 related to Srebrenica.

13 Q. And he told you also that these allegations about him being the

14 big war criminal and a big criminal at that time were notorious lies and

15 nonsense, didn't he?

16 A. I don't recall the exact words he used, but that's what he said,

17 and that's in the interview.

18 Q. Okay.

19 A. The interview reflects what he said.

20 Q. All right. Now, the -- I'm going to read, help you jog your

21 memory so we can get through this quicker. He told you, and if it was

22 typed out correctly from the interview, that "someone from the Drina Corps

23 allegedly notified me that there were '2.000 parcels'" and asked what to

24 do with them, and I said, "Arrange them in three, four rows." He went on

25 to tell you, "They wanted to say that I ordered the killing of the

1 prisoners." And that's when he said, "This is a notorious lie and

2 nonsense."

3 Do you recall that, sir?

4 A. Yes, yes. Mr. Beara said that.

5 Q. Just for the record, several places in the article, you have put

6 quotation marks before and after a word or a group of words, such as you

7 did here before 2000 and after parcels. Do you recall that?

8 A. Yes. Well, in the Serbian language, how shall I put it, when you

9 want to convey that something is not true, when you want to even mock an

10 allegation, that's an expression you often use.

11 Q. You stated that approximately 55 per cent of the taped

12 conversation that took place that day was not used in the article, am I

13 correct, sir?

14 A. Between 45 and 55 per cent of the material was used. I can't say

15 exactly. It's been five years. But the part that was left out certainly

16 has nothing to do with Srebrenica.

17 Q. But a lot of -- a lot -- correct me if I'm wrong, sir, Mr. Simic,

18 a lot of what was left out was Mr. Beara talking to you about the Radical

19 Party leader, Vojislav Seslj, correct?

20 A. No. You didn't understand me. He wasn't talking about Vojislav

21 Seslj. He was talking about the accusations Seslj was making against

22 him. He was saying that he was being framed, that somebody was trying to

23 accuse him of something he wasn't to be blamed for. I think it involved a

24 vehicle that members of the Serbian Radical Party had stolen from some

25 barracks. He wasn't talking about Seslj defensively. He was kind of

1 saying to me that he had nothing to do with it whatsoever.

2 Q. And, Mr. Simic, further, he talked to you about the fact -- and I

3 believe it's even in the article itself and you printed that -- that Seslj

4 was spreading lies about Mr. Beara having killed a thousand Muslims and

5 things like that, correct?

6 A. I don't recall whether it's in that article. If it's in the

7 article, then Mr. Beara said it.

8 Q. Mr. Simic, I'll just point you out and again I don't speak B/C/S,

9 you have the article in front of you, in bold, probably under a picture,

10 you have Mr. Beara quoted as saying, "I lived peacefully until Vojislav

11 Seslj started attacking and slandering me in public. He claimed that I

12 personally killed a thousand Muslim civilians, that I organised the

13 kidnapping of people from a -- of the train." Do you recall that, sir?

14 Can you find it?

15 A. Yes, yes. And he was very indignant about that and he was trying

16 to explain to me that he had nothing to do with it.

17 Q. Not only was he indignant but would you say that he was upset,

18 disturbed, angry about these defamatory and inaccurate statements?

19 A. Well, he really was. He even went pale, which was even more

20 striking, as his hair was grey.

21 Q. I want you to look at the article that you have in front of you.

22 And it's under the question that you asked Mr. Beara, "what really

23 happened in Srebrenica in 1995"?

24 A. I found the passage.

25 Q. Going on down into that paragraph, or that answer about halfway,

1 at least in the English translation, it said, "They had," meaning the ABiH

2 army, "They had no real modern weapons." Do you see that?

3 A. It's not written that they hadn't had any modern weapons.

4 Q. Mr. Simic, could you just read that sentence or that is going to

5 be different in English than it is in your text, in B/C/S, Serbian?

6 A. The answer says, "Srebrenica and Zepa were two separate enclaves

7 under UN protection. Muslims were allegedly disarmed. In Crna Rijeka,

8 there still exist weapons that they had turned over to the peacekeepers,

9 but it's a scrap, old rifles, hand crafted, barely able to shoot.

10 However, they did not turn over real modern weapons. In addition to UN

11 peacekeepers or under the eyes of UN peacekeepers and observers, Muslims

12 wreaked havoc. They left enclaves and attacked surrounding villages. In

13 one place --

14 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter didn't hear the name of the

15 place.

16 A. -- They killed everything and everyone.

17 MR. MEEK: It's Pelemisi, for the interpreter, P-e-l-e-m-i-s-i.

18 Q. Sir, just for the record, then, Mr. Beara told you that, meaning

19 the Muslims and the ABiH army, that they had -- "they did not turn over

20 their real modern weapons, not that they did not have any real modern

21 weapons," am I correct, sir?

22 A. From this answer it follows that they had modern weaponry but they

23 surrendered old, obsolete weapons.

24 Q. Now, as far as speaking personally with Mr. Beara, can you tell me

25 and tell the Trial Chamber what sort of dialect he had, if any, that you

1 noticed, during the interview, when you spoke with him?

2 A. He spoke CroatSerbian, which is a mixture of Serbian and Bosnian--

3 Croatian and Bosnian, rather, with Dalmatian dialect. He had lived for a

4 long time in Split n Dalmatia. I believe he mentioned that during the

5 interview, so no wonder.

6 Q. Now, just a couple more questions, Mr. Simic, and I think we will

7 be finished. Even though -- you've talked about why you went to speak

8 with Mr. Beara, but would you agree that throughout this interview and the

9 article you wrote from the interview, that Mr. Beara would speak about

10 Srebrenica and Zepa?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. All right. In fact, Zepa was mentioned again and again and again

13 when Mr. Beara would talk about Srebrenica, even though you were only

14 interested primarily in Srebrenica?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Now, so once you did the interview -- and by the way, the

17 earlier -- maybe it's a translation error. You earlier said that the date

18 of the article was 20 October 2002. Is that correct? Or was it the 29th

19 of October 2002?

20 A. It's dated 29 October.

21 Q. Thank you. So when you got finished and you thought you had

22 completed the article so that it was ready to go to print, you as a

23 reporter, what did you do, sir? Who did you talk to?

24 A. To the editor-in-chief, who approved the article.

25 Q. And is that a normal thing that a reporter would go to the editor,

1 let the editor read it for any changes, to see if would be printed or not

2 printed and that sort of thing?

3 A. First of all, my editor-in-chief had approved that interview in

4 advance. He approved the conditions set by Mr. Beara for the interview to

5 take place at all. The usual practice is that the editor-in-chief on

6 duty, in charge of that issue, and every issue has its own editor,

7 prepares all the pages, all the articles that go into that issue, and

8 could be sensitive, and he has to look at the articles first.

9 Q. Thank you, Mr. Simic. Did the -- did you have any discussions

10 with the editor in regards to the content of the article that was about to

11 go to press?

12 A. I can't remember, but I know that he told me as I was going to

13 make the interview, to focus on the indictment and on Srebrenica, because

14 that's what we were interested in. I remember -- yes, yes. I remember

15 him saying to me to keep the tape, to keep the tape of that interview.

16 Q. Mr. Simic, you've been a reporter for a very long time, correct?

17 A. Well, rather a long time.

18 Q. And you've interviewed hundreds if not thousands of people for

19 articles, would that be a fair statement?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. From politicians, correct?

22 A. Politicians and ranking military men as well as businessmen.

23 Q. As a journalist, Mr. Simic, do you have any ethical obligations to

24 not print something that you know is patently false?

25 A. Of course. Printing lies is against the law in Serbia, against

1 all laws prevalent in the democratic world, everywhere in the world. When

2 we are preparing texts and dealing with certain issues, we always try to

3 hear both sides, and it often happens with young journalists who do not

4 manage to get to the other side to have their articles refused. Their

5 stories are not printed.

6 For instance, when you give me an interview, there is no other

7 side of the story. That's another possibility, when you are making an

8 interview in which there is no other side, the assumption is that you

9 believe the party giving the interview and you are as well prepared as you

10 possibly can prepare.

11 Q. Thank you, sir. You just mentioned that at times, with, say,

12 young journalists their articles are refused or not published or not

13 printed, correct?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Isn't that the editor's final decision?

16 A. Of course, of course it is.

17 Q. And before the editor would publish a paper, wouldn't he talk to

18 the reporter and ask the reporter, "Well, what do you think about this?

19 What do you think about this article?" And did that happen with this

20 article, sir?

21 A. Young journalists, young reporters, are talked to before and after

22 the publishing. Their attention is drawn to certain matters before they

23 go out to make a story, they are told what to focus on and after the story

24 is written, somebody talks to them to point out any mistakes or something

25 that was not quite professionally written. I have a good standing in my

1 paper, and I don't necessarily get that treatment, but he -- I still

2 wanted to talk to the editor, and he told me not to go into it too

3 broadly, to focus on the indictment of the ICTY and the Srebrenica case,

4 and to elicit the views and position of Mr. Beara on all that.

5 Q. Thank you, Mr. Simic. And also, didn't the editor ask you before

6 it went to final publication what your thoughts are about -- what your

7 thoughts were and impressions of Mr. Beara's demeanour in answering the

8 questions?

9 A. We didn't talk after the interview. That's why he told me to keep

10 the tape, and I'm now sorry I didn't keep it. I probably wouldn't have to

11 be here today and I would have facilitated the work of the Trial Chamber

12 and probably have made it easier for Mr. Beara himself. But I told him

13 about my impressions. I can't really call them opinions, just

14 impressions, that I got during the interview.

15 Q. Would you share those impressions with the Trial Chamber, sir?

16 A. I don't know if it is really relevant. I had the impression that

17 at that critical moment, Mr. Beara hadn't really been there, around

18 Srebrenica. That was the feeling I came away with. I had talked to many

19 people. I had interviewed hard-core criminals before. And you get a

20 feeling that enables to you distinguish when somebody is spinning a yarn

21 and somebody who is really opening their soul to you and telling you the

22 truth. And I told my editor that because of all that, I have a feeling

23 that Mr. Beara was not going to surrender. That was my feeling then. But

24 I'm -- I am now glad that he didn't take an alternative course.

25 Q. Your opinion and impression was that Ljubisa Beara told you the

1 truth, correct?

2 A. Well, yes, but even if he hadn't -- or rather, if I had the

3 impression he wasn't telling me the truth, I would still have published

4 the interview because it is not up to me. I don't have the right to

5 doubt, second guess what he's saying.

6 Q. Correct. I agree with that, sir. One more question. Mr. Simic,

7 if you had felt that or had the impression that he wasn't telling you the

8 truth during that interview, you would certainly tell the Trial Chamber

9 that today under oath, would you not?

10 A. Of course I would. Like I said everything else.

11 Q. And one final question, and it just comes up on your last answer

12 that you are glad now that Ljubisa Beara didn't take an alternative

13 course, I'm not quite sure what you mean by that but I think you recall,

14 you asked him in the interview if he would take a gun and start shooting

15 if he were to be arrested. Do you recall that question?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And do you recall the answer, sir?

18 A. No, I don't.

19 Q. I'm going to read the answer and tell me if it will refresh your

20 recollection.

21 "Will you use force to defend yourself," the question you asked

22 Mr. Beara.

23 And his answer to you was, "No. I won't shoot. These are our

24 children. They are doing their job."

25 Do you recall that, sir?

1 A. Yes.

2 MR. MEEK: Thank you very much. I have no further questions, Your

3 Honour.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Mr. Nicholls, do you have redirect?

5 MR. NICHOLLS: Just briefly, Your Honour.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead.

7 MR. NICHOLLS: If I could --

8 Re-examination by Mr. Nicholls:

9 Q. Sir, I want to go back to one of these soul bearing answers that

10 Mr. Beara gave you and Mr. -- my friend, Mr. Meek read out part of it, and

11 this was to the question and it's on page 2 of the interview. It's the

12 last question, I think, in column 3.

13 The question was: "Are you trying to say that the VRS did not

14 commit mass crimes in Srebrenica?" And the part that was read out to you

15 by Mr. Meek was, "What nonsense, it's not possible to carry out killings

16 on such a mass scale in the presence of UN representatives, even if one

17 had such an insane idea."

18 In the text it goes on, his answer continues: "In order to kill

19 so many people in such a short time, one would need to engage a brigade.

20 I know that sooner or later the truth on Srebrenica will come to the

21 surface, just as we don't know what happened in Markale, everyone knew

22 that the Muslims killed their own people in order to accuse the Serbs so

23 that NATO could launch air strikes against us because of crimes against

24 civilians. I'm convinced that Markale is a mini-Srebrenica and a

25 mini-Zepa."

1 Then you follow this up with a question which is in the next

2 column, "Does it mean that Srebrenica was in fact engineered by the

3 Muslims for propaganda purposes," and Mr. Beara answered, "I'm convinced

4 it was. I don't know what the reason was, but it is monstrous to kill

5 one's own people in order to spite someone." That's exactly what they did

6 in Markale and the bread queues in Sarajevo" --

7 MR. MEEK: Your Honour, I'm just going to object because this

8 article is going to come in. If he wants to read the whole thing out to

9 the Court. I don't know what the purpose is.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: We haven't had the question as yet.

11 MR. MEEK: I know. That's my point, Judge.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: Yeah, yeah, but let him come with the question,

13 because I can anticipate the question and I think you will sit down after

14 that.

15 Yes, Mr. Nicholls.

16 MR. NICHOLLS:

17 Q. That's exactly what they did in Markale and the bread queue in

18 Sarajevo. They killed their own innocent civilians so that we would be

19 blamed so that the Serbs would be presented as criminals to the world.

20 And he goes on to say how only Alija Izetbegovic and his fanatics could

21 come up with such a plan.

22 Now, is that correct? Is that the full answer to the question

23 Mr. Meek's brought to you, that it was nonsense about the killings in

24 Sarajevo -- in Srebrenica because the entire killings of the Muslims had

25 been done by the Muslims themselves for propaganda? Is that what he told

1 you was the truth?

2 A. He told me what I wrote down in the article. Actually, I'm afraid

3 I didn't understand the gist of your question.

4 Q. I'm saying the article is correct, that is what Mr. Beara's full

5 answer was to the nonsense of the crimes in Srebrenica.

6 A. As far as I could understand him while we were talking, while the

7 interview was being conducted, he considered every crime a crime,

8 irrespective who the perpetrator of that crime was. He also told me about

9 the incident in Montenegro that he was angry about it, that this should

10 not have happened, and that it would not have happened if people had

11 more --

12 JUDGE AGIUS: I think you're avoiding answering the question. The

13 question was a very simple one. It's is this what essentially he told you

14 as the truth, what has been read out to you by Mr. Nicholls?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What Mr. Nicholls read out is what

16 is written in the article, which means that this is what Mr. Beara said.

17 MR. NICHOLLS: Thank you.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes?

19 MR. MEEK: I have a question, Judge, if you don't mind.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: If you address it to us first, please?

21 MR. MEEK: Yes. May I please have one question to clear something

22 up?

23 JUDGE AGIUS: Just let us know what the question is, and then we

24 authorise it or don't authorise it.

25 MR. MEEK: Okay. The question is with this last set of questions

1 my friend Mr. Nicholls has I think misconstrued the witness's testimony.

2 He earlier testified that after interviewing him, and he's interviewed

3 hundreds, if not thousands of people, he had the feeling, the impression

4 and opinion that Mr. Beara was telling the truth that he was not present

5 when it happened and didn't come back until it was over with.

6 Now, other things about Markale, the market and things like that

7 are separate, obviously, and that's what I wanted to ask and clarify with

8 the witness.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Go ahead.

10 Further cross-examination by Mr. Meek:

11 Q. Mr. Simic, very briefly. Earlier when you were describing your

12 feelings and opinions and impressions of Mr. Beara, didn't you in fact

13 testify that you came away from that interview and meeting with Mr. Beara

14 with a feeling that, in fact, he had not been present immediately before

15 the Srebrenica action and didn't come back to that area until it was all

16 over with, as he told you in the part of that interview?

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Nicholls?

18 MR. NICHOLLS: I know you heard the question, but I really don't

19 see how this arises out of my question.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: It does arise. Let's proceed.

21 Go ahead, Mr. Simic, if you could kindly answer that question?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I've already told you that my

23 impression was that Mr. Beara had not been at that location at that

24 critical moment. But that was just my impression, nothing else.

25 MR. MEEK: Thank you, Your Honour.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. I thank you. Is there any of the Defence

2 teams that wishes to -- no?

3 Judge Kwon, Judge Prost?

4 Mr. Simic, that brings your testimony to an end. You're free to

5 go back home. You will be assisted by our staff. On behalf of the Trial

6 Chamber I wish to thank you for having come over to give testimony and

7 also wish you a safe journey back home.

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Nicholls, documents? May I, before we do this,

10 I take it there is not going to be another witness today. I got the

11 feeling that was the agreement yesterday.

12 MR. NICHOLLS: That is correct. That's the way we would like to

13 proceed, Your Honour.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Then can I ask for the indulgence of

15 everyone to proceed until we finish, which shouldn't take us long, and

16 rather than have a break? Except that I have -- yes, Mr. Ostojic.

17 MR. OSTOJIC: Mr. President, I'm not sure but we have a couple of

18 issues we'd like to clear up --

19 JUDGE AGIUS: Yeah, yeah.

20 MR. OSTOJIC: -- with the Court so we need time after the documents

21 to discuss it. We need some guidance on a prior order, among other

22 issues, if the Court permits, we'd like to have five, ten minutes to do

23 that.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Then I think we will need to have a break.

25 We will have the usual break.

1 [Trial Chamber confers]

2 JUDGE AGIUS: So we'll have a 15-minute break.

3 --- Recess taken at 12.35 p.m.

4 --- On resuming at 12.52 p.m.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's start with documents first. Where is

6 Mr. Nicholls? Here he is.

7 MR. NICHOLLS: Sorry, Your Honours. The only document is 480, the

8 newspaper article.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Any objection?

10 MR. MEEK: No objection.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you. No objection, I suppose, from the

12 other Defence teams. It is so admitted.

13 Yes. Now I understand that some of you wish to address the

14 Chamber. Mr. Bourgon, earlier on you had indicated that you wished to

15 address the Chamber.

16 MR. BOURGON: Won't be necessary, Mr. President.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. I thank you and I appreciate that very much,

18 Mr. Bourgon.

19 And Mr. Ostojic?

20 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Mr. President. I did have two points but

21 I'd like first, we had some documents to tender to the Court as well, if

22 we may, and that would have been the information report from the OTP dated

23 the 16th of December 2005, as well as, although I don't think it was

24 covered so in any detail if very little, was the statement provided to the

25 Belgrade district court March 24th, 2006.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: Any objection?

2 MR. NICHOLLS: No, Your Honour, definitely not to the information

3 report. I'm not sure that the -- his prior testimony was covered at all

4 or why it's necessary. But I don't object.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Finished. All right. It's over. They are

6 so admitted. They have both been translated, to my knowledge. One is in

7 English in any case.

8 MR. OSTOJIC: One is in English --

9 JUDGE AGIUS: Yeah.

10 MR. OSTOJIC: -- and has been translated and the other one I

11 understand has also been translated from B/C/S to English because we have

12 that.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you. They are so admitted and they

14 will be numbered by --

15 MR. OSTOJIC: I can give you the numbers, Your Honour. It was

16 2D127 for the December 16th, 2005 exhibit and 2D128 for the Belgrade

17 district court statement of March 24th, 2006.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. I thank you so much, Mr. Ostojic. You wish

19 to address the Chamber on something else?

20 MR. OSTOJIC: Yes. On a housekeeping matter we are looking for

21 some guidance from the Trial Chamber in connection with the intercept

22 briefings that we are all working on. The Court's prior order indicated

23 that the deadline, and we were grateful for the additional week extension,

24 to be filed on the 18th of June, but in reading the order and our

25 discussions in court, it was always envisioned at least from my view that

1 the deadline would be set upon the conclusion of Mr. Rodic's testimony and

2 unfortunately that testimony was not concluded last week, not to blame the

3 OTP on it, but we did have some difficulties with lengthy witnesses at

4 that time. So we're looking for guidance from the Court as to what

5 exactly is the firm deadline so that some of us don't file it and others

6 read into the order suggesting that it's after.

7 We also, just for the Court's information, are working with

8 Mr. Rodic closely, or Mr. Zivanovic is, and we can confirm we think by

9 Monday exactly when he can testify and we are obviously blocking out the

10 dates of two critical witnesses that the OTP has who were -- plead guilty

11 and are coming from other countries. We are not interfering with those

12 dates that they've set in stone, so we will work around that. We hope to

13 get him here before the 20th of June sometime before that in order to

14 conclude his cross and redirect examination.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: I quite understand the point that you have made, but

16 just as food for thought more than anything else for the time being,

17 because obviously this is something that we will need to discuss

18 privately, or in Chambers, wouldn't you also consider the possibility of

19 sticking to the date that we had set before, that is I forgot exactly.

20 MR. OSTOJIC: 18th of June, I believe, Your Honour.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: 18th of June, as being the deadline with the

22 understanding that anything that comes -- that emerges from his further

23 testimony would entitle you automatically to file further submissions

24 because by now --

25 MR. OSTOJIC: We are working on it obviously. We are not looking

1 for an extended delay, but to the extent that something may arise, we

2 thought if a week after his testimony which shouldn't take us more than I

3 believe the 25th of June, quite candidly, because we hope to get him in

4 before the 20th of June in those --

5 [Trial Chamber confers]

6 JUDGE AGIUS: I think we can tell you here and now with the

7 understanding that we are not consulting Judge Stole on this, because he's

8 not here, but ultimately it's us who decide. Here and now we would meet

9 you on that. So we can extend it orally to the 25th, if there is need to

10 extend it further by one day, two days, I don't think it's going to make a

11 difference.

12 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Mr. President and Your Honours. We are

13 very grateful for that.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: And thank you, Mr. Ostojic, for raising it because

15 it was in our mind. We didn't know exactly when he was coming back and

16 obviously we, at least speaking for myself, I was anticipating something

17 like this kind of submission, although we have not discussed it amongst

18 ourselves. Yes, thank you so much.

19 MR. OSTOJIC: And my second issue, if I may proceed, Your

20 Honour --

21 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, of course.

22 MR. OSTOJIC: -- is it involves early in the trial the Court was

23 given and the Prosecutor estimated what the length of their case was and

24 the Court had informed OLAD what they thought the case would be from the

25 OTP standpoint, and I'm a little embarrassed to bring the issue up but

1 it's very critical for all our members of the Defence team and the people

2 who assist us, and that's our budgetary concerns.

3 The Court had indicated at that time in August I believe that

4 there was an 11-and-a-half-month period that they felt the Prosecution may

5 complete their case and I think we have been working at a reasonable good

6 pace. And the issue has come up in other cases and OLAD has essentially

7 generally told us that the Trial Chamber has to convey a message if they

8 think it should be extended because of the breaks that are involved.

9 We're bringing it to the Court's attention, if you don't mind

10 respectfully, to keep it in mind, and if you would like our input on that,

11 we're prepared to discuss it. Obviously, we need the input of the

12 Prosecutor. There are other developments that the Prosecutor would like,

13 I'm sure, to discuss with the Court or from my understanding they would.

14 So it may change but we definitely think it's an important issue because

15 we're coming up to that 10th month and so period.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. We consider it very important too and I can

17 assure you we have been studying it and discussing it amongst ourselves

18 and I would anticipate that very shortly we'll come with our ruling on

19 that matter when the Prosecution is expected to finish their case. But I

20 thank you for raising it.

21 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: But I want to put your mind at rest, all of you,

23 that this is on our discussion table and we have been going through it.

24 Yes, thank you, Mr. Ostojic.

25 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. McCloskey? I think I can anticipate also what

2 you are about to say.

3 MR. McCLOSKEY: I have supported and I continue to support the

4 Defence's financial issues with OLAD, though I'm not sure I'm a party to

5 it but I can support them in that.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: We are not a party to it too, but we have

7 intermittently also given our support without you even knowing.

8 MR. McCLOSKEY: Could we go into private session?

9 JUDGE AGIUS: Of course, Mr. McCloskey. Let's go into private

10 session, please.

11 [Private session]

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 [Open session]

24 THE REGISTRAR: We are back in open session, Your Honour.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, we are in open session. Mr. Bourgon.

1 MR. BOURGON: Thank you, Mr. President. There is one issue I

2 would like to bring at this time to the Court's attention on behalf of all

3 Defence teams. (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment. One moment. And I'm sorry I'm

8 interrupting you like this. Let's go back into private session for a

9 short while, please.

10 [Private session]

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Pages 12445-12449 redacted. Private session

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 [Open session]

8 MR. HAYNES: On Tuesday of this week when you were dealing with

9 the --

10 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.

11 MR. HAYNES: I'm grateful. On Tuesday of this week when you were

12 dealing with the tendering into evidence of documents relating to witness

13 109, that's Trivic, there is no reason I shouldn't mention his name,

14 Mr. Sarapa sought to tender into evidence two documents, 7D550 and 7D551,

15 which you astutely observed had not been released into e-court. They now

16 have. Can they now be tendered into evidence, please?

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. There was no objection to tendering --

18 MR. HAYNES: No, there wasn't.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: -- at the time, although I am under the impression

20 that one of them had already been tendered by someone else.

21 MR. HAYNES: I think it's highly unlikely. They were short

22 passages of witness interviews that we had tailored particularly for that

23 cross-examination.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: In any case, they are so admitted.

25 MR. HAYNES: Thank you.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: No other interventions? Which brings this sitting

2 to an end. As you know, we entertained your request to have a short break

3 in order to be able to reorganise a little bit your ranks, which is badly

4 needed. We have been working hard, incessantly, and we are al somewhat

5 tired. I think the first part of this morning's sitting was revealing.

6 It suggest that you drink less coffee and more Camomile. I think that

7 could be a solution. But, anyway, you know when we will reconvene.

8 Please have a rest while we are not sitting in the course of next week,

9 and then the week after, I suppose we will have all sorts of problems

10 starting with what Mr. McCloskey has referred to and possibly anticipated

11 and also the motion that we are expecting today.

12 Thank you. You know that on the 11th, we are not sitting because

13 initially Mr. Meek had asked for the 11th, too, and we had turned his

14 request down and then we've agreed that it was a well-deserved request, so

15 we acceded to it as well. All right. Thank you.

16 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.18 p.m.,

17 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 12th day of June,

18 2007, at 9.00.

19

20

21

22

23

24

25