14083 Monday, 16 May 2011
[The accused entered court]
--- Upon commencing at 2.17 p.m.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Good afternoon to everybody in the courtroom and to those who are listening to the proceedings.
Are there any matters to be raised? Mr. McCloskey.
MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes. Good afternoon, Mr. President, Your Honours, everyone.
Mr. Thayer is back. I have had a chance to speak to him, and we will continue to speak on the topic of the closing of the Prosecution's case.
I can tell you right now that we have decided that PW-055's 65 ter 133, we have decided to withdraw. There's roughly about five other witnesses that are either not speaking to us or are very sick or are those difficult issues but that we're going to have to turn up a bit more pressure on to try to get a commit. You may see us going for subpoenas, things like that. But we'll continue to talk this week and see if we can give you any more clear idea.
And I started briefly with -- discussions with Mr. Gajic, since they have indicated there will be a 98 bis challenge. And in looking at any past practices, it's clearly in your discretion on how to do it. The Defence can either, as you -- can either go first and make arguments for whatever period of time, and then we can go, and then there can be a 14084 rebuttal or there doesn't have to be a rebuttal. So I'm looking to you for guidance on that, because ideally we would like to get that done that last week before the recess. I'm not sure it's going to be possible, but we do need -- and Mr. Gajic will be looking into how long he may need for that so that we can see if we can plan it. But we'll be looking for you on how that procedure will work.
In any event, I just wanted to let you know that little bit of information, and we'll keep working on it so we can all plan the next couple of months.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. This was, indeed, the purpose of raising the matter last week. We are grateful for your information and the update we have received.
MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Greetings to everyone, to the President, to the Trial Chamber. And I would just briefly like to say something about our discussions with Mr. McCloskey on this issue. Unfortunately, the Defence at the moment cannot provide you with any more precise information. We are dealing with current witnesses, but we do not believe that we would be able to start with the 98 bis proceedings before the beginning of the summer break. There is a lot of material in this case. We still have to hear quite a few witnesses. And after we will have heard the main parts of their testimony, maybe we'll be able to give you some indication as to whether we'll be asking for 98 bis, how many witnesses we might have, and so on and so forth. We will definitely inform the Chamber as soon as we can. We are 14085 working on it. Of course, we have a few very demanding witnesses before us; Mr. Butler, Mr. Milovanovic. And I believe maybe a month or a month and a half before it is necessary to present argumentation in regard to Rule 98 bis we will be able to give you our position. This is our assessment, of course, which can change, but this is the best we can do at the moment.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you to you as well, Mr. Gajic. Mr. McCloskey.
MR. McCLOSKEY: I just wanted to mention, one of the things I had mentioned to Mr. Gajic is the possibility of us, the Prosecution, doing their argument before the end of the -- before the recess started, even if there was a few witnesses that were left, because I'm sure a few witnesses left wouldn't make any major difference in a 98 bis argument. So I've discussed that with him, and I know he'll consider it, though I don't know if he'll want to go along with it, and that's perfectly understandable. So I just wanted you to know that was a possible option. Obviously, as you know, Mr. Thayer won't be with us afterward, and while I intend to take a major portion of that argument myself, I normally like to assign other key pieces to other people, Mr. Vanderpuye and Mr. Thayer, so ...
And I would not expect the Prosecution to need more -- well, we would not need more than two days for such an argument, I can't imagine. Given the legal standard and the points of evidence that have been proven, I don't see us needing more than two days, just to give you an idea of what we're looking at, though. Of course, as we look closer, you 14086 know, I would like to have the freedom to revise that, but that's generally what we're looking at.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much for your additional information.
MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I received an e-mail from the Prosecutor, where he's indicating or, rather, proposing that 98 bis argumentation should be presented before the end of the Prosecution case, but my position is that we cannot accept that. 98 bis argumentation should be presented after the presentation of the OTP case and before the Defence case, if necessary, of course.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. First of all, we are looking forward to receiving an update in the next couple of days from the Prosecution about their position of withdrawing some witnesses, as you indicated, Mr. McCloskey. Secondly, the Chamber will consider the information we have received today by both parties, and we will for sure come back at a later stage and give some guidance as we understand the procedure in relation to 98 bis submissions.
Thank you very much. The witness should be brought in, please.
[The witness takes the stand]
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Good afternoon, sir. Please sit down.
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Welcome back to the courtroom. 14087 Again, I have to remind you that the affirmation to tell the truth you made at the beginning of your testimony still applies.
WITNESS: DRAGOMIR KESEROVIC [Resumed]
[Witness answered through interpreter]
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir is continuing his cross-examination. Mr. Tolimir, you have the floor.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. Greetings to everyone here. May the peace reign in this house, and may God's will be done in these proceedings, and not mine. I would like to welcome Mr. Keserovic here and to apologise to him again for having to stay here in the Hague during the weekend. And here are my following questions.
Cross-examination by Mr. Tolimir: [Continued]
MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
Q. Mr. Keserovic, we discussed document D64 just before we broke, and I would like to ask for this document to be put on the screens. It's D64, and it was in relation to something that Mr. McCloskey had asked us to clarify. I have a few questions for you in relation to this document that you can see on the screen before you.
My first question is: Is this a document of the Drina Corps, its Intelligence Department, dated 12 July 1995, strictly confidential number 17/897? Thank you.
A. Yes, we can see that in the heading. It's a document of the Drina Corps. We cannot see the signature at the moment, but --
Q. Thank you. And the heading always tells us who prepared the 14088 document; is that correct?
A. Yes, according to the rules of the Command and Staff War Service.
Q. Thank you. This document, in its entirety -- was it, in its entirety, forwarded after the Drina Corps received it from the Sector of Intelligence and Security Affairs?
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And, yes, could we please turn to the following page so that we can see the signature.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Gajic.
MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, a small intervention. I think it's important for the understanding.
5 page, line 24 -- [In English] "Who prepared the document."
[Interpretation] I think Mr. Tolimir said "who processed the document," not "who prepared the document."
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Gajic. There's a huge difference between "processed" and "prepared."
MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
Q. But, Mr. Keserovic, thank you for waiting. You didn't have time to answer the question. We were interrupted.
But my question to you was: This telegram that was received from the Main Staff, was it forwarded to all the units of the Drina Corps and all the users in its entirety? Thank you.
A. Yes, it was forwarded.
Q. Thank you. Can one see from it that the telegram that had been sent from the Drina Corps, as we can see here, that it was received by 14089 the Drina Corps on the 20th of June at 2150?
Q. Can we see that it was received on the 12th of July at 2200?
Q. And can we see that it was sent or forwarded to the end user at 2210?
Q. Can we also see on this last page that the document had already been filed in the subordinated units, as we can see here in the stamp, Command of the 2nd Romanija Motorised Brigade, the 13th of July? Thank you.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey.
MR. McCLOSKEY: Excuse me, Mr. President. The date was wrong on line 25 on what I'm looking at. It's June. And it's an important document, so I think we should get that right.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, that was part of your question. You should verify what you are talking about.
MR. McCLOSKEY: Sorry. It's also -- it says "20th of June," and this is, I think everyone agrees, a 12th of July document.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir.
MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
Q. Mr. Keserovic, can we see on the document "12th of July, 1995" and the time of receipt and the time of processing and the time of the 14090 forwarding of the document to the subordinated units? Thank you.
A. Yes. All three terms are listed in there, "Received" and all the rest.
Q. Thank you.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we please have the document moved so that the signature is visible.
MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
Q. General, the person who processed this telegram, did he put under the text the function and the name "General Major Zdravko Tolimir"; is that correct? Thank you.
A. The one who processes the document put only one part of your function, just "Chief," believing or counting on something that we cannot see here in the decoded document, that this would imply the chief of the Sector for Intelligence Affairs.
Q. Thank you. When the person who has processed the telegram signs it with his superior officer's name, why would he do that and what are his intentions? Can you tell the Chamber that?
A. Most often the intention is to get the units to carry out the tasks with more seriousness, and also there are some intelligence information that units of lower level couldn't have obtained using their own sources and it is, therefore, necessary to point out that the information contained had been gathered at the highest level. And they transfer the order using the authority of the chief of sector at the top level, at the top level of the VRS.
Q. Thank you, General. 14091
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we please have in the e-court the first page of the document so that I can put a different question. He probably needs to see it because since the last time we were together he may have forgotten the content. Thank you.
MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
Q. General, the person who processed this document, did he -- in addition to sending it to all security organs of the Drina Corps, did he send it also to General Krstic at the forward command post at Pribicevac and Colonel Popovic to the forward command post in Bratunac?
A. Yes, the commander of the corps and all the levels above him are persons or officers who are originally being briefed about all the documents issued by the Security Service. In other words, the command structures need to be made aware of the requests made in this document.
Q. Thank you, General. Please, on the basis of the parameters that we have seen while reading the telegram, can we conclude that this document was available to all the intelligence organs within the corps and commanders of the operation that was being carried out? Thank you.
A. Yes, it was available to all of them.
Q. Later on, when you arrived in the zone of the corps between the 17th and the 18th, did you find out whether the proposal that's contained in the telegram was acted upon? Thank you.
A. I am not sure I have fully understood your question.
Q. Thank you. In that case, let me put it differently. Upon your arrival to the Drina Corps's zone after the fact, on the 7th -- on the 14092 17th of July, did you find out from the organs in the Nova Kasaba that they were carrying out the registration process according to the orders by the security organs or the Security Administration? Thank you.
A. Yes. The commander of the Military Police Battalion, Malinic, told me that.
Q. Thank you. Did Malinic tell you who issued him this order and what else was going on in Nova Kasaba on that day? Thank you.
A. Malinic told me that Colonel Beara had forwarded the order. I'm not sure how. I think it was via the duty officer of the unit. And the order was that Nova Kasaba Stadium was to be location where the POWs would be gathered and where they would be registered, including all the basic data on them. He also told me that the process that was well underway had been interrupted and suspended, stopped, by General Mladic, the commander of the Main Staff.
Q. Did Mladic interrupt or stop this for the purpose of addressing the POWs?
A. Malinic stopped, after he was told to do so by the commander of the Main Staff, to register the POWs. In the meantime, General Mladic addressed the POWs. I'm not sure that I know whether Mladic issued any further orders to Malinic, but I do know that as of that moment, and maybe even before that, Malinic was active in blocking the road between Kasaba and Konjevic Polje.
Q. Thank you. Did Malinic tell you that journalists also came to the Nova Kasaba football field to take footage of the POWs?
A. I don't remember him telling me anything about the journalists. 14093
Q. Thank you. Did he tell you that immediately after the address by General Mladic he took the POWs immediately, as ordered, to Bratunac?
A. Yes. I already said that. Immediately after that, means of transportation, mainly buses, came to the area of Nova Kasaba. As far as I remember, it was mainly buses, and the POWs were transported in a convoy to Bratunac.
Q. Thank you. Does that mean that on the 13th, in Nova Kasaba, POWs were being registered until the moment they were transferred to Bratunac? Thank you.
A. Yes, one can put it like that, until the arrival of the commander of the Main Staff, and then they were loaded onto the buses and left.
Q. Thank you.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we please see D152 on the screen.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: I have to stop you for a moment. Before we leave this document, I would like to put a question to the witness. I need some clarification because I'm slightly confused. Can you help me.
In the headline, I see "Command of the Drina Corps, Intelligence Department." Who was the head of the
Intelligence Department of the Command of the Drina Corps in mid-July 1995?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The Drina Corps Command, according to what I know, and I think that it was so, did not have an intelligence department. It had an intelligence/security affairs department which 14094 comprised both of those functions. That's how it was in most of the corps, including the Drina Corps. The chief of the
Security/Intelligence Affairs was Lieutenant-Colonel Popovic, and the Intelligence Department, I'm not sure, but included at that time Major or Lieutenant-Colonel Pajic. I think so. I'm not 100 per cent sure.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think we all agree that Mr. Tolimir was not a member of the Command of the Drina Corps but of the Main Staff. Was it customary that a member of the Main Staff would sign a document sent out by the Command of the Drina Corps?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. And there is just one thing. For some reason, in order to speed up the process technically, so it's a technical matter that the heading was changed, while the contents stayed the same. There are technical omissions here, so that, in any case, General Tolimir should not have and did not sign documents of the Drina Corps Intelligence/Security Department.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Is it possible, taking into account your statement that the content remained the same, that there was a command, an order, from the Main Staff to the Drina Corps which was in this way forwarded to a lower level?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the way I understood the document is like this: There is an original document - it should exist - from the chief of the Sector for Intelligence and Security Affairs of the Main Staff, General Tolimir, which came to the departments of the Sarajevo Romanija and the Eastern Bosnia Corps, as we 14095 can see here, and that document was just passed along by the department of the Drina Corps to their subordinate units without processing it analytically, without creating a new document. They just, roughly speaking, cut and pasted it and sent it as such. So there is just one document. There are differences there. There is one document from the Main Staff, from General Tolimir, and there is this one from the Drina Corps, but the contents of both are identical. That was simply the practice in order to speed up this process of informing everybody about the tasks. This is how we used to do it in practice.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much for this explanation. Would you agree that a person who has no information about the structure and the persons involved would form -- could form the impression that Mr. Tolimir was the chief of the Command of the Drina Corps Intelligence Department, if you combine the heading and the signature?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, one could conclude that from this, with the proviso that there is a memorandum at the bottom, the square one, containing the processing times, the time of receipt and of distribution, so this would then possibly indicate that the document did not originate from the person who was in the heading. But, generally, if you just looked at it, you would probably draw the same conclusion that you did.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. Mr. Tolimir, please continue.
MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation] Thank you. 14096
Q. Mr. Keserovic, do you know if, in the practice of the Intelligence/Security Sector's work, a general would negate or deny anything that was written by their subordinates, pursuant to the law, or would he always accept that?
A. No, I'm not aware that you ever disputed something by your subordinates in relation to any assignment that you issued.
Q. Thank you, Mr. Keserovic. I had to ask you this in order to avoid any dilemmas. I wouldn't want anybody to think that I was saying that this was not my document. I did not deny that any documents were mine, issued in wartime, just like you said now.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now look at D152, please.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: This document shouldn't be broadcast because it's confidential.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
Q. Mr. Keserovic, we're not going to read out the first and last name. This is a protected witness. You're looking at the statement of a witness, and later on we will see.
But can we now look at page 3, please, paragraph 1 on that page. Thank you.
Perhaps it would be even better to look at page 2, the last line in that sentence.
I'm going to read the sentence beginning on page 1: "Some were taken to a special, separate group on the pitch, and we were all sitting," the witness said, "for about an hour after I 14097 arrived. General Ratko Mladic came."
So he arrived, and then we will look at the jeep -- if you look at the next page, maybe we can scroll down.
"He arrived in the jeep, and I think that he was in uniform. I knew this was Mladic because I recognised him, and I was told that he would come. I was some 10 to 15 metres away from him when he gave a speech, standing at the side of the pitch. He spoke without a loud-speaker, quite normally, because it was very quiet. He said that he was General Mladic and that we would all be exchanged, that there were hundreds of Serb lines between here and Tuzla and that not even a bird would be able to get through those lines. He said we would be organised into groups to collect all the bodies from the hills, and then we would be taken to Bratunac to have lunch there. He then chose five of his men to begin making lists of our first and last names, which took almost an hour."
Please, based on what this witness says about the 13th, when he was captured, can you see from this that General Ratko Mladic, the commander of the Main Staff, registered all those who were prisoners of war and that he ordered a subordinate of his to do that? Thank you.
A. This information about General Mladic saying or, rather, organising that all the names be taken is not something that I had. Malinic never told me anything about it. This is the first time that I'm hearing about it. But it's evident from this statement that this did happen.
Q. Thank you. In view of this statement by this Prosecution 14098 witness, a person from the B&H Army, does that indicate that General Mladic wanted to record as large a number of prisoners of war as possible on the 13th, just as this witness here is talking about, precisely the 13th? Thank you.
A. Well, it's difficult for me to speculate about the motives of General Mladic, whether he wanted to show that there was a larger or a smaller number of them. But if he wanted to have them registered, I assume that the idea was to show the precise number of prisoners of war.
Q. All right, please. Thank you. These activities regarding the registering of prisoners of war, do they, de facto, coincide with the measures that were ordered, in the instructions that we were just looking at, to register as high a number as possible to avoid manipulation about the fact that Srebrenica was, in fact, a demilitarised zone? Thank you.
A. Yes, from the context, that does seem to be the same goal.
Q. Thank you. On page 18 of the transcript of the 9th, I think -- I apologise for not preparing that earlier. That is the transcript of the 10th. Then on page 18, line 21, you were asked by the Prosecutor if we had the escort of prisoners is any category, and you answered, on page 21, line 18, that "escorting" refers to all categories of persons that needed to be transferred from one location to another, which means that this could also apply to prisoners of war.
Now I'm putting a question to you because of the transcript. Because in the English "sprovodjenje" is being interpreted as "escorting." Can you please tell us whether "sprovodjenje" means transfer of persons, materiel, and equipment from one place to another 14099 for the purpose of their security, the security of the road that they are using, and so on and so forth? Is this a more complex action that encompasses also security of the transport and the vehicles that are part of the transport? Thank you. Can you please explain that, as an expert? Thank you.
A. Yes, precisely that. When someone who is responsible for personnel, for equipment, and for prisoners of war, and it could also be some other persons who were interesting, from the security point of view, decides that they need to be transferred, then the military police unit would provide personnel who would provide security for this transport on that particular road, regardless of the manner in which they were being transferred. They could be secured while walking or using vehicles of any type. There are different types of escort activities. It could be a motorised escort. They could be walking on foot. There could be a direct one, as was the case here, within -- inside the vehicles. So different modalities are possible.
In any event, this is a complex action whereby the unit carrying out the transport undertakes the responsibility for the security of persons and equipment on that particular section of the road.
Q. Thank you, Mr. Keserovic. You also, on this page, on page 19 of the transcript of the 10th, in line 1, were asked:
"Would the security organs need to inform the commander, as far as prisoners of war are concerned?"
Because the question refers to that. So my question is this: Would the security organs first of all find out from the commander first 14100 that a transport needed to be carried out and after that they would need to report back to him and not inform him about how this particular task was done? Could you please explain this to us? Thank you.
A. Yes, it's like you said. The security organs would find out from the commander about the assignment, and then they would report back to him after the assignment was carried out. And then the informing would go from the superior to the subordinate, and the reporting back goes from the subordinate to the superior. That is the difference.
Q. Thank you. When, in this specific case, the prisoners of war were transferred from the pitch to Konjevic Polje, did the police first receive information about it and then proceed to carry out the transfer from that location to the destination where they were supposed to be transported?
A. Yes, they were issued the assignment by General Mladic, the authorised official, the commander of the Main Staff.
Q. Thank you, General. On page 34 of the transcript of the 11th of May of this year, you are talking about what Malinic told you when, on the 17th of July, 1995, you arrived at Nova Kasaba, and that that was the first time that he informed you that there were prisoners of war in Kasaba, some 2- to 3.000 of them, and that it was his task to register them all and transfer them from Nova Kasaba to Bratunac. Was that how it happened, and are you -- do you want to add something to it if I perhaps missed something? Thank you.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Gajic.
MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, for the transcript, 14101 we're talking about page 13966.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. Mr. Keserovic, what is your answer?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My answer is that this is, in essence, what Major Malovic [as interpreted] informed me about and what General Tolimir said just now is actually what I stated a number of times in my testimony so far. This is my best recollection of that particular matter from that time.
MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
Q. Thank you, Mr. Keserovic. I asked you this because you are finding out for the first time from Malinic about the number of people and the location. I'm asking you this; my question is this: Did he then tell you 2- to 3.000, and was that why you were not able to be so precise about it?
A. Yes, he said between 2- to 3.000, because he did not register all of them, he did not complete the definite list at the time.
Q. Thank you. Mr. Keserovic, are you aware that Mr. Momir Nikolic, on the 11th of April of this year, on page 76, lines 17 to 19, said, more or less, that that was the number of prisoners of war who were accommodated in Bratunac? Thank you.
A. I did not have occasion to see Mr. Nikolic's testimony. I'm not familiar with what he said and whether he confirmed it or whether the numbers tally.
Q. Thank you. Because you were unable to see that before, I wanted to quote a part of the transcript from that testimony of the 14102 11th of April, page 76, lines 17 through 19.
Mr. Fluegge, the Presiding Judge, asked the following: "How many people died in the column, having in mind the column breaking through from Srebrenica via Baljkovica to Kladanj?" Nikolic responded by saying:
"In my estimate, between 3- and 4.000 people from the column lost their lives, but I really don't know any more than that, and it would make no sense for me to speculate."
That is what he said. When Judge Nyambe asked him how he came up with the assessment of 92 per cent of those who were killed, at page 79, lines 3 through 10, he said:
"The basis for my assessment is the knowledge I have about the number of people who were separated in Potocari, I'm also discussing assessments here as well. I saw many people who were taken prisoner throughout the period in question on the spot, and en route from Srebrenica to Konjevic Polje, and onwards from Konjevic Polje. I base my estimate on that information. I counted the people who were separated in Potocari. I also know how many were taken prisoner and temporarily accommodated in Bratunac and Kravica."
My question is this: Did you know already or do you hear for the first time that Nikolic actually counted the people he had in those locations, as he answered to Judge Nyambe? In other words, there is a piece of information indicating how many people there were in Bratunac?
A. Until now, I really had no occasion to know that Nikolic counted 14103 them. The information he provides is something that I was not aware of; not in that sense, in any case.
Q. Thank you. Momir Nikolic, in his testimony and in his statement, which is number 7280, at page 12, line 6, he said that on the 12th and the 13th there were between 600 and 650 people. Then in line 15 at page 74, he said -- it's actually lines 13 through 15, he said: "I have in mind the 400 prisoners in Konjevic Polje." My question is this: Did you know that Nikolic separated only 650 men in Bratunac when he separated the able-bodied men from the rest and that he said that he knew of only 400 prisoners in Konjevic Polje?
A. I really don't know what Momir Nikolic was doing at the time. I hear of this information for the first time, and it's difficult for me to address it in any way.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey.
MR. McCLOSKEY: The basis of my objection was his answer, because this could go on forever. This has never been part of his testimony, Momir Nikolic. It has nothing to do with Nova Kasaba or Malinic, in this sense. And the numbers that he's picking out, it's difficulties to say where he's even getting these. So this -- I would object to this kind of confusing, calling-for-speculation sort of questions.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, what is your position?
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the questions about numbers are rarely seen through the prism of witness statements and other documents by the Prosecution. I don't know why that is so. I'm asking this of the witness because the RS government also drafted a report in 14104 which they approximated the figure of those killed at 8.000. If we don't have specific data, how can the RS government have it? I'm asking the witness about this because at the time he was a member of the VRS.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, you have every right to ask questions about the knowledge of this witness about numbers of victims, about numbers of separated men. But now you are putting the evidence of another witness to him, and he told us very clearly he really had no occasion to know that Nikolic counted them. This witness told us that he doesn't know anything about the testimony of the witness Nikolic. Therefore, you should ask him about his knowledge and not about the testimony of another witness. That would be much more helpful. Please continue.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I believe it is in the interests of all of us to come up with a figure which can be presented to the public. The witness did not deny what Mr. Nikolic said. He just simply stated that he wasn't aware of it.
MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
Q. Mr. Keserovic, do you know --
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, this is the reason why I asked you to ask the witness about his knowledge. He clearly indicated that he doesn't know anything about the testimony of Mr. Nikolic. Please put questions to the witness about his knowledge.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I was just about to ask him about his knowledge when I was 14105 interrupted.
MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
Q. Mr. Keserovic, do you know what the RS government based their figures on, because you were in the RS at the time? What were the sources, what was the information they relied on when they included the figure of 8.000 people killed in Srebrenica? Did they rely on some documentation that we may find useful?
A. When I worked for the Ministry of Defence, and I believe I've answered this already, I did have some knowledge as it existed within the Ministry of Defence and the VRS. That information was provided to the commission. They seemed to be dissatisfied with these initial figures and information, which stopped at several thousand, and the Office of the High Representative in Bosnia-Herzegovina reacted to it. They removed the commission president from his post and replaced some of the members. Then they issued them some tasks. I left the position shortly afterwards, and I was no longer informed of the events. What I do have, in terms of information from the time, which I gained through discussions with different people, is that the figure was arrived at by Mr. Smail Cekic on the Bosnian side. He took some of their information, as well as certain lists, and put them in the report. And then the government, under a certain amount of pressure, had to accept that as its own report. That is what I heard. Whether indeed it was true, I don't know. There may have been all sorts of things involved. But simply put, the government did not, at the time, have valid documentation which could provide specific figures. 14106 Another thing about the report. There was something else which indicates the lack of seriousness and professionalism in the work surrounding it. There was a list of participants in the Krivaja operation in 1995, and that list comprises some 23- or 24.000 names, which is basically science fiction. They simply collected all war lists, the so-called VOG-8, starting with all units from the Drina Corps down, and they merged it all together, coming up with that number. The situation one worked in at the time did not allow for a professional approach to the matter to be completed. This is what I know from the relevant period of time.
Q. Thank you, Mr. Keserovic. We showed you D176. I would kindly ask that it be shown in e-court again so that we could see that the figures we have been referring to in the course of your testimony have been covered up or doctored.
Could we have page 5 of the document. Let us look at the last paragraph, the last sentence on the page: "According to our rough estimate and information, the corridor up to now" --
Let's now flip the page.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, please provide us with the relevant -- the number of the relevant paragraph in English as well.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. It is the next page in the English version, the last paragraph on page 5 in the Serbian. This sentence begins with: "The 22nd of July, 1995 ..." 14107 Aleksandar, could you be of assistance and tell us what the page is in English?
It is page 9 in English. [Microphone not activated]
THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The 22nd of July, 1995. I don't seem to have the right page now. Could we please have the last page, where I started reading, beginning with: "According to our rough estimate ..."
Thank you. I apologise. Something seems to be wrong with the hardware, and I don't read English. I started reading a sentence which lacks its end. We don't see the rough estimate figure. Perhaps there is a figure in the English text, but not in the Serbian, in any case.
[Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, it's a question of your preparation of the examination, not of the hardware or the software. The documents are on the screen, and you just should give the right number of the pages and the paragraphs.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I would kindly ask the e-court to assist. I specified the page. Perhaps they can find the corresponding pages in both languages. There is no other way for me to know.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Please give us the page number in B/C/S first.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In B/C/S, it's page 5, and page 7 in English, as far as I can see. Page 7, bullet point 5 in English. We can see it in Serbian. It's the last sentence. I quote: 14108 "In our rough estimate and in information, the corridor was up to now used by ..."
And then we have something missing when the document was copied, photocopied. Therefore, we can't see how many people actually used the corridor.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: And now your question, please.
MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
Q. My question is this: Mr. Keserovic, do you know why the Muslims were covering up or hiding the exact figures of people who crossed the territory of the RS via Baljkovica when they used the corridor en route to Nezuk and Kladanj?
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey.
MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection. There's no factual foundations for that assertion at all, and certainly not from this document.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. --
MR. McCLOSKEY: I'm not aware of it. I mean, he should have a foundation for any fact in a question.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, indeed, you said: "Do you know why the Muslims were covering up or hiding the exact figures of people?"
Please give a reference for this statement included in your question. Or rephrase your question.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I put the question on the basis of this document. Everything in the document has been translated except for the number of people who had passed through the corridor. 14109
MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
Q. And this is my question: If the Muslims tried to hide that --
JUDGE FLUEGGE: No, Mr. Tolimir. That's not correct. It was everything translated. You can see it. The last line in B/C/S ends because there was not a proper -- there is not a proper copy. In the English, you see:
"According to a rough estimate and our intelligence, a total number of ..."
And then the text is missing. It's exactly the same. It's not a translation issue.
Why do you put the question that the Muslims were hiding a number of people? It's not in here, in this document. This sentence says something different. It's not very precise, but it's something different.
Put a question to the witness, but rephrase it, please.
MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
Q. Mr. Keserovic, do you know how many Muslims passed through the corridor, and is it something that any of the fighting factions ever published?
A. I did have an opportunity to hear different estimates. However, not one of them was precise or reliable. Initially, the estimates were just derived, although the number of inhabitants of the enclave was not known. And using that as the basis, the figures concerning the column were between seven or eight on one end and maybe up to 15.000 people who were involved in the break-through. I don't know which of the numbers 14110 are more or less reliable, but I did not hear any really relevant and reliable data.
Q. Thank you, Mr. Keserovic. Since it was not known, how many people set off from Srebrenica, is it or was it possible to find out how many of them arrived at Nezuk?
A. Upon their arrival in the territory of Tuzla or the zone of the 2nd Corps of the BH army, it was possible to determine the number of people who got out.
Q. Thank you, Mr. Keserovic. Among people who are doing research on the issue in Republika Srpska, is there any view on why was it never determined how many people actually left and how many people arrived after passing through the corridor, and why was it that the Muslim authorities never published any data on it?
A. I can only say that the views on various data are very different. There are different assessments, different interests, and there's too much unclear about what was going on during the conflict, about what the nature of the conflict was, and many other things. Each of the sides has its own truth, and these truths cannot be reconciled. And it is, therefore, very difficult to use the data in any serious assessment or conclusion-making process.
Q. Thank you, Mr. Keserovic. If you would know the number of -- exact number of people who managed to get out because they were registered, they received later some financial aid, would all that help avoid future problems and inconsistencies?
A. Yes, most probably. 14111
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please, can we please have D151 on the screen, but it must not be broadcast to the public because it's a document that came in through a protected witness. We should also not read out any data on the witness.
MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
Q. And after you've seen the first page, I'd like to move immediately to the following page, where we can find the text that I want to ask you about. Thank you.
We will read the third paragraph on this page. It starts with the words:
"As we were breaking through from this area in the same direction in which the first group of our people went, we encountered warnings or markings which stated -- or signs saying 'Mined.' I assumed that our people who had passed earlier through these areas left those signs. From there, we headed towards Pobudjska Kamenica, where we met with part of the first group, but the Chetniks surrounded us there and opened fire on us, killing over 300 people and wounding a large number. We were in disarray."
And that's the end of quote. This is my question to you: Did you have an opportunity to hear that there were losses or casualties in the Muslim column while they were trying to make their break-through from Srebrenica towards Nezuk via Baljkovica? Thank you.
A. At a later stage, there was information that there were a lot of casualties in the fighting. There was also information which I'm not 14112 closely informed about but that there were suicides by hanging or shooting at oneself en route. So on the route to Tuzla, and especially during the last conflicts with the Zvornik Brigade, that they did have casualties, but the number -- what the number is exactly, I wouldn't know. But when you're making a break-through, when you're trying to get out of an area where you're surrounded, well, one must expect a lot of casualties.
Q. Thank you. Can you tell us whether Muslims ever made public any information about the number of casualties during the break-through from Srebrenica to Nezuk via Baljkovica?
A. I don't know anything about that.
Q. Thank you. Do you know that casualties, such like these that were casualties of the fighting, that they're included in the number of victims who were summarily killed in various reports?
A. There is obviously something wrong with the figures. During the last year or two, efforts are being made to make a classification of even those people who had been buried in the Memorial Centre in Potocari, because some killed who had been buried there actually fell in various other conflicts throughout the 1992-to-1995 period, even those who simply died of natural causes, or people who died somewhere else, on some other battle-front but who were from the area of Srebrenica. When will all this be cleared up? I don't know. But the process is underway slowly. But something is happening. And there is information, clear information, that the victims of Srebrenica, the alleged victims of Srebrenica, include various people who may have died in many different ways. 14113
Q. Thank you.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now please see 1D100, page 7 in e-court, lines 10 to 17.
THE REGISTRAR: This is entered into evidence as Exhibit D166. Thank you.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. While this document is coming up, I would like to put a question to the witness.
In your last answer, you told us about efforts to find out the realistic number of victims, and you gave us your opinion about those buried in the memorial in Potocari. What is the basis of your information that there were people buried who died of natural causes, at least not as a result of the killings? What is your source?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My source is public information that the committee, joint committee, for the search of the missing from the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina is submitting to the public, and they did confirm. So this is the information provided by the committee dealing with these issues. And according to them there are people who were not killed in July or were not killed there, but that for certain ethical reasons, and this is something that different -- both sides in the committee, members from both sides confirm, that for ethical reasons people were buried there because they were from there or because their families asked that. In other words, I have this information at my disposal based on what the committee for the search of the missing is publishing. 14114 And the state organs, I must add, are imposing upon them, and all the others who are dealing with this issue, to complete the investigation. It was also something that was discussed in the Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in the Council of Ministers of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Requests were sent to leaderships of various entities, of the two entities there. In other words, this is a story that is very topical in Bosnia for the last year or two.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you. You just said "my source is public information." Did you have the opportunity to read this report from the joint committee or did you get the information by the media?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mostly from the media. And I rely mostly to information that was stated at assemblies of -- at the meetings of the Assembly, where various officials present such information.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Did you have the opportunity to read the report itself?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. Mr. Tolimir, please continue. There is some minutes left before the break.
MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
Q. General, before you, you can see a report by a witness who testified here on the 14th of March, 2000 [as interpreted]. The witness's name is Jean-Rene Ruez, and he said this area was processed in 1996 by a team of experts from Finland who worked there in 1996: 14115 "It was unrelated to our activities. They collected the remains, but one must add that 600 bodies were found in the area, bodies of victims that were killed during fighting, in ambush actions, during shelling, and possibly through other types of events that are difficult to explain. It is difficult to determine whether it was a situation where fighting was involved or something else."
And this is my question to you: Do you know that the 600 victims in question are -- both by the OTP and by the commissions in Bosnia and Herzegovina, are treating the 600 as people who were summarily executed, although Mr. Ruez here tells us that they were killed in fighting? Thank you.
A. I already spoke about that. I believe that there were no attempts to differentiate between the conditions under which people were killed or died, that everyone was put into the category of victims, according, at least, to information by the Government and the leadership of Republika Srpska and its commissions. That's the only information that I basically have.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: First of all, the witness, Ruez, was not interrogated in the year 2000, but 2010, on the 14th of March, just at the beginning of this trial. Just a correction to the record, page 32, line 11.
Then you have the floor, Mr. McCloskey.
MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes. Again, I object to this statement with no -- there's no legal -- there's no factual foundation that it's the OTP's position that people in 14116 these woods were killed in summary executions. In fact, it's the OTP's position, as it's been clearly stated in Mr. Janc's testimony, that there were -- I can't remember the exact numbers, but it's up to 800, 900 surface remains found in that area, and it's -- our position is precisely what Mr. Ruez's position was. It's very difficult to determine if those people were murdered, died in combat, died of shelling, how they were killed. So when he says the OTP has suggested these were summary executions, he's wrong. And unless he can cite some sort of place where that is said, you know, he should get his facts right. And I believe I probably stood up over the months here and said that we do not contest that there is at least a thousand surface remains in this area, that it's unclear how they died. That has the position ever since Mr. Ruez first said it, I think, in the Krstic case. So this fantasy should stop.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, you should reconsider your position about the position of the OTP.
I think it's the right time for the break. We must have the first break now and resume quarter past 4.00.
--- Recess taken at 3.46 p.m.
--- On resuming at 4.17 p.m.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, please continue.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. We will continue where we left off. I would just like to see page 1D52, lines 23 to 25, so that the witness can see what Mr. Janc said in his testimony on the 18th of May, 2010. I'm going to quote for the 14117 transcript, and, if possible, if we could show that to the witness. We have what Mr. Janc said --
We're now looking at what Mr. Ruez was saying. Can we see what Mr. Janc was saying. Thank you.
This is the Bare area. This is what Mr. Ruez was talking about, and those 600 victims. Can we now look at the testimony of Mr. Janc of the 18th of May, 2010.
On page 1D52, lines 23 to 25, I asked him the following, I quote: "Do you believe --"
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, we would like to receive the correct page. I think we are now looking at page 1952 and not 1D52. There is no page 1D52.
Please carry on.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 1952; this is what I says -- and that's what it said and this is what it says here, 1952, line 23: "Do you consider that all the people buried -- the bodies buried in mass graves were, in fact, victims who were deprived of their life in an illegal manner? Thank you."
And then can we now look at 1953, lines 4 to 6. He says the following:
"My position would be the same as Mr. Ruez's, that the people buried at the primary and secondary mass graves were victims of a crime." And then later Mr. Janc said that all were presented as victims of a crime, regardless of how they were killed, whether in battle or out of it. 14118
MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
Q. My question is this, Mr. Keserovic: Were the victims of a crime those victims also who were killed at Baljkovica?
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, to avoid confusion, please, you gave a reference to the first two quotations, but not to the last one. I would like to know where I can find a statement of Mr. Janc that they were presented as victims of crime, regardless of how they were killed. Where do you find -- where can we find that?
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I am not going to stand by what I said. Let's disregard what I said. I'm not able to provide you the exact reference. The previous two references are sufficient for me to be able to put this question to the witness. Thank you.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: I really would like to remind you to be very careful if you make such an interpretation of testimony of a witness. Sir, do you recall the question of Mr. Tolimir? No, there was no question yet.
Please put a question to the witness. No, the question was:
"Were the victims of a crime those victims also who were killed at Baljkovica?"
That was the question. Could you please answer the question.
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I really don't know what happened near Baljkovica. If we're thinking about those who were killed in action in the conflict between the forces who were trying to break through and forces that were trying to prevent that, then these are not victims of a 14119 crime, but constitute legitimate military targets. If anything else happened, I really don't know anything about it.
MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
Q. Thank you, General, sir. I don't want to spend any more time on this matter, since I need to complete my cross-examination. I would like to ask you now to look at D202 in e-court, please. Can we now look at page 15 in the Serbian and page 16 in the English. Actually, page 19 in the Serbian and page 16 in the English. This will be Article 17. Thank you.
Now we can hear Article 17. We'll go over it quickly. These are the rules on the authorities of the corps command in peacetime. My question is: Did we work according -- or operate under that rules, in the Army of Republika Srpska?
A. Yes, we did. All the rules were taken over.
Q. All right. Thank you. We can see what the Organ for Intelligence Work was doing. I would just like to read the first item. That states -- the first Article of this, which states: "Planning, organising, and directing intelligence and reconnaissance activities in the corps' zone of responsibility." And above that, it says:
"The Organ for Intelligence and Reconnaissance Work is responsible for:"
And then it goes on to enumerate all the responsibilities of that organ, down to paragraph 12.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we show all of that, please, 14120 on the screen to the witness so he could see what these responsibilities are, so that I could then put my question to him.
MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
Q. Yes, we can see the rest of the items, listing the responsibility:
"Organising the collection, processing, organising the use of intelligence ..."
And so on and so forth, all the way to paragraph 12: "Undertaking other work as prescribed by the regulations on intelligence and security of combat activities and the instructions on the organisation of work of the corps command."
My question is: The intelligence organ, was it duty-bound to provide the command with any and all information indicating the activities, the intentions, and the plans of the enemy in wartime?
A. Yes, that is the main area of work of intelligence/security.
Q. My second question on this is this: Intelligence organs, were they just professional organs in each of the commands where they were located of the corps, the Main Staff, the brigade, and so on? Were they just professional organs? Thank you.
A. Yes, they were professional organs, expert organs.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And now can we look at page 35 in Serbian, page 30 in English, please. Thank you.
MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
Q. We can see here Article 29 talking about the security organ. We will do the same as the intelligence organ and we'll just briefly go over 14121 the main points and read the preamble. The preamble about the work of the security organ:
"The security organ is a specialised organ of the command for organising and implementing security measures and undertaking other specialised work in the field of security that is placed under its responsibility by special regulations and is in this regard responsible for:"
And then it goes on to list all its responsibilities in 14 paragraphs that you are going to have a look at. And then once you look at what's on this page, we'll move to the next page so that you could see that as well.
Now we can move to the following page so that we can look at the other paragraphs, numbering from 5 to 14. I would just like to quote from paragraph 9, and then I would like to put my question to it. Paragraph 9, in the work of the security organ:
"Expertly directing security organ and the military police in the corps command and units and in other JNA units in the zone of responsibility, organising, directing and co-ordinating their activities, providing assistance and controlling their work, especially in regard to counter-intelligence work and tasks."
In view of these 14 paragraphs, my question to you is this: Security organs, were they professional organs in the commands, and was their primary task, as it states in this paragraph 9 here, counter-intelligence jobs and tasks?
A. Yes. Yes, it was a professional organ. 14122
Q. Thank you.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now look at article on the Intelligence Support of the Armed Forces, and in e-court that would be 00672, page 24, Article 14. I repeat, "Intelligence Support of the Armed Forces, Rules." Can we look at page 24, Article 14, please. In English, it's page 18. Thank you.
I'm going to quote this article. We will not go through the whole rule. It states:
"The intelligence organ of the superior command staff of the armed forces directs and co-ordinates the expert work of the intelligence and reconnaissance organs and reconnaissance units in directly subordinate commands, staffs, and units; provides expert assistance; and controls their overall intelligence and reconnaissance activity."
MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
Q. My question is this: This Rule on Intelligence Support of the Armed Forces, are the intelligence organs defined exclusively as expert organs responsible for the assignments and work that I have just read out in Article 14?
A. Yes, this is how it is under the rules.
Q. Thank you. And can you please tell us whether, in practice, also the commands in the units of the Army of Republika Srpska, the security organs and the intelligence organs, operated pursuant to the manuals and rules? Did they only carry out professional work that was part of their responsibility?
A. In the units where I was, and according to what I know, they did 14123 carry out professional duties, for the most part.
Q. Thank you.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now look at Rule D203 in the e-court.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, you just have used the document 65 ter 672. It's not in evidence yet, although you have used it with another witness earlier in this trial.
MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] You're absolutely correct, Mr. President. We omitted to ask that it be tendered during the testimony of Colonel Salapura, and now we would like to ask the Chamber to admit this document.
[Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir and Mr. Gajic, I was informed that the document 65 ter 672 contains 144 [Realtime transcript read in error "244"] pages. It's a lengthy document, and you have used some pages with specific paragraphs. Could you please tell us if you are tendering the whole document or only those parts you have used or a specific chapter with certain paragraphs. I don't know. I was told by the Registrar that the heading -- the title of the document you have uploaded is different from the whole title because it refers only to specific parts of it.
Could you please clarify it, Mr. Gajic.
MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, document 65 ter 672 is originally on the 65 ter list of the OTP, and we would like to tender the 14124 entire document. The reasons, I think, are clear to the Defence and to the OTP. First of all, the document regulates an activity that Mr. Tolimir was involved in during the armed conflict. Secondly, this is a rule that was implemented by the intelligence organs during the armed conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina, meaning the Army of Republika Srpska. Of course, there is no time to go through all of the rules with witnesses in the courtroom. That would require a lot of time. But we believe that the authenticity and the application of the rules during war is something that is not being disputed here.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Gajic, this was not the question. If you are tendering the whole document, the heading should reflect the content. Mr. McCloskey.
MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes. We have no objection to the whole rule book going in. They're meant -- these rules are meant to be viewed as a whole, and if you find yourself going through this rule book, it may make a reference to some other paragraph you may want to look at, but we should get the right rule book in. And, of course, I'm confused which rule book we're talking about, but we have no objection to the rule books going in in their entireties.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Gajic.
MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, just one thing. On page 40, line 23, you said that it had 244 pages. What I have before me amounts to 144 pages --
JUDGE FLUEGGE: This is exactly what I said. 14125
MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] -- in the Serbian.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: This is exactly what I said, but it was probably wrongly recorded. No problem.
MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I just realised what you wanted to indicate in your question.
The Defence, of course, did not upload its own copy of the manual on intelligence support. We simply relied on what was uploaded by the OTP. So when it says "paragraph 14" and so on in e-court, it probably reflects something that the OTP intended to use with the witness. We simply relied on the entire document in e-court, and the issue is of a technical nature only.
We would just kindly ask the OTP to delete a part of the remark that accompanies the document.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: The document 65 ter 672 will be received as an exhibit.
THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter document 672 shall be assigned Exhibit D248. Thank you.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir, please carry on.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. Could we please have D203, page 10 in the Serbian and 11 in the English version, item 23 of the rules.
We can see it now in both languages. I wanted to read something from the rule:
"An officer of a security organ of a command, unit, institution, 14126 or staff of the armed forces provides specialist management for a military police unit. He recommends the use of the military police unit to the senior officer of the command, unit, institution, or staff, and is responsible to him for the state and activity of the unit. In managing the military police unit, the security organ officer under paragraph 1 of this item has the same rights and duties as officers of arms and services of commands, units, institutions and staffs of the armed forces in managing units of the arms and services of those commands, units, institutions, or staffs."
MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
Q. My question is this: My Keserovic, did the security organs have any greater power, in terms of managing or command, as compared to other organs of the commands?
A. If I recall well, I believe this question was put to me already. In any case, security organs enjoyed the same rights and duties as did other officers and organs of commands of other branches and services. The rights were the same. Everyone was accorded the same status.
Q. Thank you.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Let's look at D202, then. Page 17 in the Serbian and 14 in the English version. We had that on the screen a moment ago. It is the rules on the corps command authority in peacetime. Page 17 in the Serbian and 14 in the English language, and we should rotate the Serbian page.
MR. TOLIMIR: [Interpretation]
Q. We see item 2.4, "Organs for Branches," Article 14: 14127 "Organs for branches are specialist organs of the staff responsible for the combat readiness of corps branch units, and in this regard they shall:"
And we have a number of tasks enumerated in items 1 through 16. My question is this: Did the same tasks apply to security organs vis-à-vis military police units; in other words, that they were responsible for their combat readiness and use according to commander's decision?
A. Yes, all of these rules are very similar, and they flow from the same basic documents, that is to say, the Law on Defence, the Law on the Armed Forces that were in place. It is all derived from the legislation. The tasks are the same. The only difference is that they are specific to the service or branch they apply to.
Q. Thank you. In keeping with the provisions of these rules, as well as in keeping with the laws they invoke, did all command organs, including the security organ, have to abide by them, exercising their rights and duties in accordance with the provisions thereof?
A. Everyone had to work according to the rules, depending on their position and title, as well as depending on their responsibilities that are based on the rules and laws.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Keserovic, for having come here. I apologise for having put so many repetitive questions in relation to the questions of the OTP. I wish you a safe journey back, and may you enjoy a fruitful future, and health to you and your family. 14128 Your Honours, this would be all we had of the witness, and I wish to conclude my cross-examination. I would like to thank all of those who assisted us, and I would like to apologise, yet again, for the mistakes I made in the course of the examination.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much, Mr. Tolimir. Mr. McCloskey, do you have re-examination?
MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President. Re-examination by Mr. McCloskey:
Q. Good afternoon, General.
A. Good afternoon.
MR. McCLOSKEY: Could we go back to I believe it's D64, the 12 July document that was in the name of General Tolimir. And I have an original here, just if it may be of any help. I'll just wait for the English to come up.
And I think it's fairly represented in the screen, too, but it's just always good to have the original. If we could get some help to get that to the witness.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes.
MR. McCLOSKEY: And if General Tolimir would like to see it, or the Chamber, but --
JUDGE FLUEGGE: It should be given to the witness. You may put questions to him. But before that, Mr. Gajic should have the opportunity to look at it.
MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] No, Mr. President. We just wanted to have a look at the document since we have not had occasion to see it in 14129 its original form.
MR. McCLOSKEY: And while --
JUDGE FLUEGGE: It should be given to the witness. Mr. McCloskey.
MR. McCLOSKEY: All right.
Q. And as we can see, as we've gone over it, it says "The Command of the Drina Corps Intelligence Department," and then it lists "Very Urgent" to various groups.
And then can we go to the next page. And here we can see where it's from General Tolimir. And the stamps, one we see it as received. I believe it's 2150 hours on the 12th. And then we see a stamp from the 2nd Romanija Motorised Brigade. And the 2nd Romanija Motorised Brigade is a brigade from the Drina Corps; correct?
A. I think the brigade changed its position. If I recall well, I believe it belonged for a longer period of time to the Sarajevo Romanija Corps than to the Drina Corps, but it is possible that for a while it was part of the Drina Corps. It may have been resubordinated to it specifically for this task, although I'm not certain. I seem to remember that most of the time it was inside the Sarajevo Romanija Corps, but I do not exclude the possibility that it was part of the Drina Corps as well.
Q. Sokolac, Svetozar Andric, part of the Drina Corps for a long time. Does that help refresh your recollection, originally General Krstic's brigade? 14130
A. I really can't be specific as to these units. If General Andric was the commander, then he was a brigade commander in the Drina Corps. Based on that, one would conclude that it was a Drina Corps unit. I know that he was in the Drina Corps unit. As for Sokolac, it was in the area of responsibility of the Drina Corps, in a way. I must repeat that I seem to remember that at a certain point in time the brigade belonged to the Sarajevo Romanija Corps.
In any case, Svetozar Andric and the brigade he commanded were in the Drina Corps.
Q. I'm sorry, General, I've made a mistake. That's the Birac Brigade, which is Sokolac. The 2nd Romanija Brigade is Mirko Trivic. Does that ring a bell?
A. Mirko? I think that brigade was in the Sarajevo Romanija Corps.
MR. McCLOSKEY: Well, let's look at who this is addressed to, if we could go back to the first page.
Q. So can you see one of the addresses is the "2.Rmtbr"?
A. The 2nd Romanija Motorised Brigade, yes.
Q. All right. So, in any event, it's an addressee. Now, isn't it possible that the explanation for this is that General Tolimir sent this from the Drina Corps Command, that this isn't a pass-on document, that General Tolimir was at Vlasenica and provided this document and so it was sent under his name from where it was sent from, received by the 2nd Romanija Brigade?
A. I agree that General Tolimir could have sent a document from any command post because he was an officer of the Main Staff. He was the 14131 chief of sector of the Main Staff. In different periods of time, the Main Staff, too, moved location. What was impossible, however, was for him to send it as the chief of the Intelligence Department of the Drina Corps. That could not and should not have been possible. It would be against the rules. He could not have sent it on behalf of the Intelligence Department of the corps.
Q. But he could certainly have sent it from the Intelligence Department of the corps, from the -- which would have been the communication unit from Vlasenica?
A. Yes, he could have sent it from any communications hub of the VRS.
Q. All right. And let me see if I can refresh your recollection. The Judge asked you about who the chief of intelligence was for the Drina Corps, and do you remember a
Lieutenant-Colonel Svetozar Kosoric?
A. Yes, yes. I completely forgot about him. I think he was in the Intelligence and Security Department in charge of intelligence. Svetozar Kosoric, yes. I completely forgot about him.
Q. And in the Drina Corps in July 1995, he would have been part of the staff under the chief of staff, correct, where intelligence departments usually are in corps?
A. Intelligence organs, in principle, could and were, because of the way the commands worked in reaching decisions, connected to the chief of staff. But the general presumption, and we have the department in question here, should not allow for that possibility. I'm not sure that 14132 any VRS corps had a separate intelligence and a separate security department. I think the functions were joined up to the level of corps, in terms of intelligence and security. If they had two departments, then it is possible that the chief of the Intelligence Department was with the chief of staff.
Q. All right. Well, we'll leave that to others. And you'll recall that you did have a chance to look at your interview statement given to Mr. Ruez 12 October 2000? It was a tape-recorded statement. I think we talked briefly about it at the beginning of the direct examination.
A. Yes, I had an opportunity to see the printed version of the transcript concerning Mr. Ruez's interview in 2009.
MR. McCLOSKEY: And that is -- it's in e-court as 65 ter 7368. Mr. President, this was something I had not planned on using, but this is a new 65 ter number. But based on some testimony which I'll go over, I wanted to ask him a few questions about it, if I could.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: The previous document is still in the possession of the witness, I think. It should be given back to the Prosecution.
MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: We shouldn't forget that.
MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes. And this should be, in B/C/S, e-court page 71, and page 82 of the English.
Q. And it's on the topic that you spent a lot of time with General Tolimir on, and that is what Major Malinic had told you about those prisoners at Nova Kasaba, especially about the lists. And as 14133 you'll recall, you told Mr. Ruez about that way back when, and I want to go over some of what you said to Mr. Ruez.
And we should see, at line 9 in the English, it says -- Mr. Ruez asked you:
"What does he tell you in his reports regarding the events in the vicinity of Nova Kasaba, the 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th ...?" And you say:
"I'm not sure if he told me on that occasion, but around that time, during those days, he said that on the part of the Nova Kasaba-Konjevic Polje-Bratunac road we captured a number of soldiers of the 28th Division or the persons from Srebrenica, and then I think that he told me that Colonel Beara ordered that all of them should be gathered in the soccer field in Nova Kasaba. In his assessment, because he didn't count them properly, around 2500 people were gathered. He allegedly, because I didn't check it out, he allegedly started making lists of the arrested persons, but this was stopped by the arrival of General Mladic, who gathered those people up and addressed them. Allegedly, he told them that they would all be evacuated to where they wanted to go, towards Tuzla, because he [sic] supposedly set off for Tuzla. After that, it must have been the 13th. According to Malinic, buses arrived in the area of Nova Kasaba, and that group was driven to Bratunac, and then in a number of places those people were taken over by the troops of the Bratunac Brigade. There, he lost track of them, and I don't know what happened after that."
Do you stand by that statement you gave Mr. Ruez? 14134
A. I believe that later we made some clarifications. Up until the point when they were transferred to Bratunac, I think that immediately, even when Mr. Ruez was still there, that there was a misunderstanding and that we immediately corrected it, saying that the forces -- they were handed over to the forces in the zone of the Bratunac Brigade. I'm not sure that these were the troops of the Bratunac Brigade. And, secondly, I didn't understand this last part that you quoted. He did not have any information, he lost contact, and that he doesn't know what's happening with the prisoners of war. I don't think I said that every trace of them was lost, just that he didn't know anything about them. But that would be all that I mean to point out to you. And I think if one keeps reading on, everything will be clarified.
Q. Okay. And it says what you said, that he just lost track of them, not that he lost all trace of them.
Okay, then I'll read a bit more. Ruez says: "Did he tell you what he did with the lists of names that he prepared prior to General Mladic arrived to address the prisoners on that soccer field?"
And you say: "No, I don't know if I asked him pointedly, but I have never seen it. I think that at one moment either Malinic or someone else said identification documents were taken from those people, not from all of them but from some of them. But later on, they lost track of them and what happened to those documents."
Do you stand by that statement? 14135
A. Yes, to that effect. Major Malinic said that some of the persons present -- in any case, I'm not sure whether it was all of them who had been registered or just some, but that from some of them, at least, their IDs were taken. And I don't know what happened to the IDs and such documents.
Q. And Mr. Ruez goes on and asks you: "What happened to the lists?" And you say in the next line:
"I don't know if anyone asked, but he said he started making lists. He had divided them into groups of those he had gathered --", or, "He had registered and those who were waiting to be registered. I don't know what was the ratio between registered and unregistered prisoners, and I don't know what orders he received concerning that list when General Mladic came."
And so just to reiterate, he asked you about that, and you said: "I don't know if anyone asked, but he just started making lists." And you don't know of any orders that Malinic received concerning the lists.
Nowhere in this statement or in your similar evidence in the trial where you testified in the Blagojevic case do you mention Malinic receiving an order from Beara to make lists. So is that correct; is it the first time in this trial that you're telling us that Beara is -- ordered Malinic to make lists?
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tolimir.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, in the following line of the document that Mr. McCloskey is quoting, we can see mention of 14136 Colonel Beara. It would be very useful if the lines 19 to 22 could be read out to the witness before he starts answering the question. Thank you.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: This is part of the question of Mr. Ruez to the witness.
Q. Same question, General. And you can, of course, see the whole segment there. But the basic question is: The first time ever you have mentioned Beara ordering or telling Malinic to make lists was in this courtroom; correct?
A. Well, sitting here, I don't think I can distinguish between these things, and I'm not sure if this is the first time I'm saying this. But I think that in relation to the lists, on every occasion I responded by saying that Malinic had started registering the people and making the lists until he was interrupted by Mladic, and that the football pitch in Nova Kasaba was the location that was determined by Beara. Now, whether I have or have not mentioned that Beara was the one who insisted that the lists be made, I'm not sure. But I found out at some later stage, and this is the information that I have, that Beara was the one who wanted to have the lists made. I cannot really now distinguish between the 2000 -- year 2000 and 2004, and cannot clearly say what came from second-hand knowledge and what was my personal experience. It's very hard for me to answer your question now.
Q. Okay. And if we just -- for General Tolimir, we go down to the 14137 next question.
Mr. Ruez says: "When he received the instructions for the information from Colonel Beara," and that would be Malinic, "was Colonel Beara physically present on the ground at that location or did he communicate these things through other means?"
And you answer: "I'm not sure, but I think it was passed to the duty officer at the command post that these means -- through the means of communications or by telephone."
And that's basically what you've said in the last day or two, the same thing; is that right?
Q. And then Mr. Ruez says: "Did you have, during these days, any contacts with Colonel Beara?"
And you say: "Not until the 19th, in the evening, or the 20th, when he appeared in the command post. I knew -- actually, I was told by General Tolimir that he was in the headquarters of the Drina Corps." Now, if you recall yesterday [sic], I believe you told me that General Tolimir, on the morning of the 17th, had told you Beara was in the zone of the Drina Corps; here you're telling Ruez that he was in the headquarters of the Drina Corps. Is that right?
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey, I think you forgot that yesterday was a Sunday. I'm quite sure that you are referring to last Wednesday or 14138 Thursday.
MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you, Mr. President. That weekend just -- I lost it somewhere. You're absolutely right. It was a -- must have been a Thursday.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Keserovic.
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I understand that this may be a crucial issue, but it's closer to this being somewhere in the zone of the Drina Corps than -- but it's possible also that I was told that he was in the Command of the Drina Corps, because then my memory may have been more alert than it is now. Whether he was in the command itself, in Vlasenica, or at the forward command post, I don't know, but certainly he was in the zone of the Drina Corps.
MR. McCLOSKEY: Okay. One last reference to this and we'll go on, but if we could go to, it should be, 74 in the B/C/S and 85 in the English.
Q. And I hope you can find it in the Serbian, but it begins about a third of the way down the page. It's -- well, it's number 9 in the English. And Mr. Ruez says:
"I return to the lists. Do you know if a process of stopping writing these lists was due to a fact that the prisoners were transported to Bratunac, or did General Mladic or Colonel Beara give any order related to the process?"
JUDGE FLUEGGE: These are, in B/C/S, the lines 13 through 16.
Q. And your answer is: 14139 "Not Beara, but Mladic. I am just trying to say what Malinic told me - no need to write anything, because all of them there are going home. Then he addressed them and interrupted the process." So do you recall Malinic telling you that -- what Mladic told him, No need to write anything because the Muslims are going home?
A. Yes, I think that's exactly how he put it, There's no need to write it down. And that's what he told them when he addressed them, There's no need to make lists because you'll be going home.
Q. All right. Now I want to go to a section of your cross-examination. It was, in fact, right in the beginning of your cross-examination by General Tolimir. It begins --
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey, you have used the OTP statement of the witness. Are you tendering it?
MR. McCLOSKEY: I think, given this situation, yes, I would. Thank you.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: It will be received.
THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter document 7368 shall be assigned Exhibit P2221. Thank you.
Q. And you'll recall that he started asking you about your stay together with Colonel Jankovic. This begins at page 13995. And General Tolimir says:
"Was everyone in the administration aware of the fact that Jankovic was there only to interpret and that he was summoned to Srebrenica precisely for that purpose; namely, just to be an 14140 interpreter?"
He goes on and suggests to you that he was just a translator of documents at times and that his assignments there were related to UNPROFOR and ICRC as an interpreter. And you agreed with him. Have you seen the now famous video of General Mladic and Radoslav Jankovic trying to interpret for the Dutch Battalion commander Karremans and his staff at the Hotel Fontana on the 11th of July, 1995?
A. I can only say that while responding to a question by Mr. Tolimir I don't think I agreed that Jankovic was only an interpreter. If I remember correctly, I said that I could not identify what his exact task was but that he was used as an interpreter. And as for the footage of General Mladic in Hotel Fontana, no, I didn't have an opportunity to see that.
Q. All right. Well, what you said to General Tolimir when he suggested that to you, which is -- I'm responding to his suggestion as much as your answer, was, you said:
"I was aware that Jankovic was used as an interpreter, and that is why I was not aware what his precise role was within the Intelligence Administration besides that."
And then he goes on. Well, General, I want to ask you, since you were there on the 17th and met with Jankovic, if you know of some other duties he was involved in that I suggest were not related to being an interpreter. And if we could go to P554B. 14141 Sorry, I'm told it's not on my list. It should have been.
[Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
JUDGE FLUEGGE: This should not be broadcast. It's a confidential document.
MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you, Mr. President.
Q. Now, General, this is an intercept the Muslims took. It's dated 17 July, at about 2055 hours. Were you back at the Main Staff by then on the 17th?
A. I'm not sure. Most probably I was on my way to the Main Staff, but I was not there yet.
Q. All right. Well, just in looking at this, it's between someone they identify as C and someone they identify as T, and J is Colonel Jankovic. And we can see that someone's asking for Colonel Jankovic, and then Jankovic says: "Yes, I'm listening." T says: "Well, Jankovic ..."
Jankovic says: "Yes." T says: "Listen here. Miletic said ..."
And then Jankovic says: "Yes." T says: "That you should write what you want to do." Jankovic says: "Yes."
And T says: "And send it urgently by code to Tolimir ." Jankovic says: "I'm in no position to write, man. I'm calling here, and there is ..."
And T says: "Listen to what I'm telling you." Jankovic says: "All right." 14142 "And the commander will decide what [sic] Tolimir and send you a ..."
They don't make that out. And Jankovic says: "Fine."
T says: "Well, all right. Take care, mate." And Jankovic says: "Goodbye."
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey, I think you misspoke. The fourth line from the bottom, it should read:
"And the commander will decide with Tolimir and send you a ..." And then illegible.
MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you, Mr. President. I missed that.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Gajic.
MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I believe that the version on the screen in Serbian does not correspond to the version read out by Mr. McCloskey.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Are you referring to the same sentence, Mr. Gajic?
MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the entire text. Mr. Tolimir and myself are trying to find that segment of the intercept but haven't had any success. In the version in Serbian, we see something completely different.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: That was, indeed, the case. It was the wrong page. Now we have the right page. The second part of this document in B/C/S should be the same as the English version.
MR. McCLOSKEY: And I apologise for that. 14143
Q. General, please, if you don't see something I'm saying, let me know and it gets a little late, and we ... so take a look, please, if you could, at that. And it's a simple point.
Did you become aware, on the evening of the 17th when you returned to Crna Rijeka, that Colonel Radoslav Jankovic, who you spent a good part of the day with, needed something urgently and that he was told to write it down? Anybody ask you about that or mention that to you?
A. I really don't remember anything in relation to Jankovic and that evening except what involved me.
Q. All right. And you've testified about that already, so I won't ask you.
MR. McCLOSKEY: Could we go to P2168.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: While this comes up, the Chamber would like to know a different thing, Mr. McCloskey.
Will you call the person you talked about, Malinic, as a witness in this case? I don't have the list with me.
MR. McCLOSKEY: We are trying to and we hope to. That's one of those people that I think we're getting close to reaching a time.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
MR. McCLOSKEY: Could we go to page 2 in the English. And I'm going to leave it, if I could -- well, we could try page 2 in the B/C/S. And if we could go to the next page in the B/C/S.
Q. And now, General, you may have to take my word on this, but do you see those initials at the bottom?
A. Yes. 14144
Q. What are those initials?
A. I had an opportunity to see this document. You showed it to me. On the basis of its content, I'd say it's Radoslav Jankovic, but I don't know his signature.
MR. McCLOSKEY: All right. Let's go to page 1 of the B/C/S, because while it's in Momir Nikolic's name, it's the same as the handwritten one, and I think it's much easier to read, though I'm not going to ask you to go through the whole document. I just want to ask you about this bottom part.
Q. We see the first paragraphs is talking about wounded prisoners, and the second part is the -- something to do with the Dutch Battalion, Colonel Karremans, and the third one is Medecins Sans Frontieres - pardon my inability to speak French - MSF.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey, are you sure that we have the right page in B/C/S on the screen?
MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, that --
JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think so, yes.
MR. McCLOSKEY: -- should be -- I'm sorry about the quality. It should be paragraph 3 that we see is that big paragraph.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes. Thank you. Indeed, yes. Please carry on.
Q. And Jankovic says -- it talks about: "Will you please use your influence to see to it that all UN and international organisation transports go via Ljubovija. Otherwise, 14145 you'll have difficulties providing them with an escort." And by the way, we see that this is to the Main Staff of the VRS, the Intelligence and Security Sector, as well as to the Drina Corps Intelligence and Security Sector.
So what Jankovic -- and then Jankovic goes on, and this is what I want to ask you about --
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey, you say Jankovic is telling this.
MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: I don't see any reference to Jankovic in this document. It is signed by Momir Nikolic.
MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, that's why I went -- you see, the English side has got those initials, that's "RJ." The --
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Your position is it was drafted by Jankovic and signed by Nikolic; is that correct?
MR. McCLOSKEY: No. It was what the witness said, Your Honour. He's seen this before, that the rough draft was done by Jankovic and then when Jankovic took it to be typed up, it got typed up and put in the name of Nikolic. Nikolic testified to that, and that's basically what the witness said, part of. I'm sorry I didn't get you the whole story. I know there's lots of pieces, but I don't think there's any disagreement on that. The initials on the handwritten are "RJ," and this is what Nikolic testified to. And the witness just said what he said about having read the document and thinking it was Jankovic, based on the content, I believe.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: At the end of the day, we hope to be in a 14146 position to understand that.
Please carry on.
MR. McCLOSKEY: I'm sorry I didn't make that clear, but we can -- well, we can go back to the -- let's just go back to the last page of the -- let's go to the next page of the B/C/S. That's the last page of the document, which is basically the same content as we see in the English translation and as we see in the document under Momir Nikolic's name.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Perhaps leave it like it is on the screen at the moment, and then please continue.
MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you. That's a good idea.
Q. Well, and what I want to ask you about: It says Jankovic is asking the Main Staff:
"Will you please tell me what stand to take, in terms of authorisation for evacuation of the international organisation MSF, in fact, how to deal with the so-called local staff? This also applies to the interpreters of the military monitors and UNPROFOR." Do you know what he's talking about when he's asking the Main Staff how to deal with the local staff of MSF?
A. I think here that I'm not sure if I connected the things properly. One side of this document is printed, it's typed, and the other page on the other side is in -- is handwritten. Are the contents the same? Is this allegedly Jankovic's handwriting? Probably it is. Is this the same document or is this two different documents? I'm not quite sure about that that, because when you go back to the first page, then we 14147 have the security organ, Momir Nikolic. It's a printed document. What is written here and what Jankovic is asking for, some stand, what I can remember is this: During the evacuation of the prisoners of war or the wounded from the Bratunac Medical Centre, there were problems with the local authorities or the local population, some people from Bratunac, regarding their request that all prisoners of war cannot be evacuated and that there are those among them who allegedly committed crimes earlier. So I think that this could refer to that, what Jankovic is asking.
Q. Well, General, do you know, when you were there on the 17th, the entire local population had been shipped out on the 13th and that there were wounded left over? And according to your testimony, you saw ICRC actually take some of those wounded away, leaving some behind. Do you remember that? And the Judge asked you a question -- Judge Nyambe asked you a question about that.
A. I'm not thinking of the local population, the Bosniaks or the Muslims. I'm thinking about the local population in Bratunac, which is Serbian. They didn't go anywhere. As far as I understood Jankovic, they were creating problems relating to the evacuation.
Q. Do you remember that MSF and the military monitors - we'll call them UNMOs here - had local staff who would have been able-bodied Muslim men that were still in the Potocari area on 17 July, when you were there, and on the 18th of July, when this letter goes out asking what to do with them? Do you have any recollection about that? You were in the centre of this, so that's why I'm asking you. And so was Jankovic. And it's 14148 not just translations, is why I'm asking this.
A. I don't know. As for the evacuation, I said what I knew, how the International Committee of the Red Cross that day, in the afternoon, carried out the evacuation. But as far as I can recall, they did not evacuate everyone. A number of people stayed. And then on the following day or a day or two after that, they were evacuated.
Q. Was Jankovic helping organise that in any way or helping as an interpreter in any way the evacuation of those wounded with ICRC on the 17th that you actually saw?
A. I saw Jankovic there conversing with that woman, a certain Lucy, and with people around who were discussing things relating to the evacuation. I don't really remember the details.
Q. So were those part of his tasks that General Tolimir had talked to you about?
A. I think that one of the tasks was to stop by the medical centre and just see, to follow the evacuation. I think that was the essence of what he was supposed to or what I was supposed to convey to him. He was just supposed to be there and watch as the evacuation was proceeding, just to follow what was going on. I did not transfer any particular responsibility, nor convey any particular tasks to him in relation to that.
Q. So, General, you're saying it was Jankovic's job just to go watch?
A. Well, I don't know if you could put it like that. In order to see, to know, he had to be in touch with somebody, to talk. I don't know 14149 if we can just say "watch" and "observe" without that implying that he was also communicating or in contact with anyone else.
Q. So him communicating with Lucy would not be something outside his normal job or task as an intel officer working under Tolimir?
A. Of course. The mission was there. It had specific assignments. And because he was an officer, he could have an intelligence interest in seeing what was going on, how things were going on.
MR. McCLOSKEY: All right. One more document to see if this has to do with mere translations or some other kind of work. And if we could go to P383B. And this - I see a note - is under seal.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: It should not be broadcast.
MR. McCLOSKEY: Now, we need to go to the intercept. It's 19 July. It's now the next day. And we want to go to the one that starts at 1432 hours. I've got page 3 on both English and B/C/S. It's not correct in the B/C/S. Maybe we should go to the next page.
Yes, that's -- that's it.
Q. And this is -- we see at 1432 hours on the 19th, the participants are Jankovic and a Colonel Djurdjic. Can you tell us who Colonel Djurdjic was? Or was there a Colonel Djurdjic at the Main Staff?
A. I think there was a Colonel Djurdjic, but I'm not sure in which sector he was, whether he was in the Morale Sector or at the sector -- actually, the Administration for Co-operation with International Organisations and Foreign Representatives. He was somewhere, but I'm not 14150 sure what his job was.
Q. All right. Well, that's part of the record in this case. Does it -- do you -- does it -- can you recollect that he was involved in dealing with international organisations, convoy approvals, and the like?
JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think he just stated it in his last answer.
MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President, you got part of that.
Q. The convoy -- was he involved in convoy material at all? I'm sorry for being repetitive.
A. One of those two -- well, I think that is the sector, but I'm not 100 per cent sure. It's either that Sector for Co-operation, which includes convoys and everything that is part of that co-operation in general contacts with representatives of the international community, or the Sector for Morale, but I think that it's more likely that it was this other Sector for International Organisations and Co-operation with International Representatives.
Q. Okay. And let's go through this and see if we can make out what he's doing and get your -- see if you recall this or if you can tell us what kind of task this is that he's doing.
We see Djurdjic begins by: "Is this Jankovic?" Jankovic says: "Speaking."
I won't repeat all of it. And it goes on: "Is it you?"
"Yes, it's me," says Jankovic. Djurdjic says: "We should talk, but I've got to make an effort." Jankovic says: "Okay." 14151 And then Djurdjic says: "Regarding what you were asking." And Jankovic says: "Yes."
And we'll recall what he was asking in the previous document of the 18th, if it may or may not apply.
And Jankovic says: "Yes." And Djurdjic says: "The boss has ordered that they be halted." Jankovic says: "Yes."
And the Djurdjic says: "This is what he wrote." Jankovic says: "Yes."
"That Kristina Smit, the nurse, can go." Does the name Kristina Smit, a nurse with MSF, ring any bells with you? Does -- do you remember that?
A. No. These names, Daniel O'Brian and Kristina Smit, I cannot remember.
Q. All right. Well, then it goes down and, as you say, it mentions Dan O'Brian.
Jankovic says: "Yes." Djurdjic says: "The physician?"
Jankovic says: "Yes." Djurdjic: "Can you hear me well?"
Jankovic says: "Yes." "Do you hear me well?"
"I can hear you." Djurdjic says now: "And only women and children can go. Understand?" 14152 And Jankovic says: "And what about those young men?" And Djurdjic says: "Others, no. I don't know. They might require --"
It may say "the whole group to go," but it's an unclear sentence. Jankovic says -- it's unclear what he says.
And Djurdjic says: "Say again?" And then Jankovic says: "That they will require but they have government's permission for all of them to go."
Djurdjic says: "Goddamn it. Can we do this through the girl? I have to ask her to act as a mediator here, and now I'll -- we can't -- we can't -- we're having a one-way conversation."
Jankovic says: "Listen." Djurdjic says: "Yes."
Jankovic says: "So they have permission from the Koljevic government."
"Yes." Can you tell us who the Koljevic government is?
A. Well, if there's no error here, there is nothing like that. It didn't exist. Professor Koljevic was a member of the Presidency, one of the vice-presidents of Republika Srpska at the time.
Q. All right. Thank you. Then it goes on. Jankovic says: "That they can all go, they have a list ." Djurdjic says: "Yes, I know, but here, man, I can see the names of a certain Abdulah Kurtovic, Ibrahim Ibrahimovic ..." 14153 Jankovic says: "Yes."
And then there's a list of a whole lot of other names. I won't go into all of them.
Jankovic says: "Yes." Djurdjic says: "Two, four, six, seven men."
Jankovic says: "Yes. They are taking them as local staff, and they have permission from the Koljevic."
Djurdjic says: "All right, they have the permission, but you know what the procedure -- you --"
Excuse me. Let me start over. "All right, they have the permission, but you know that the procedure you, too, took part in ..."
Jankovic says: "Great." Djurdjic says: "Pardon?"
Jankovic says: "Great, if that's your position, it's good." Djurdjic says: "The procedure is such, goddamn it, that it should be checked whether those who -- are they able-bodied or older than 60?"
Jankovic says: "They are able-bodied." Djurdjic says: "They are?"
Jankovic says: "Yes." Djurdjic says: "So that's the procedure. And you saw what you left behind in Bratunac the other day."
Jankovic says: "Okay." Djurdjic says: "Am I right?" 14154 Jankovic says: "Okay."
Djurdjic says: "And they, if they agree, let them go in their vehicles and take those women and children."
Jankovic says: "All right." Djurdjic says: "And the little orphan, too, some small kid ..." Then they talk about elderly persons. And it goes on: "Two elderly, let them go. Let the elderly go."
"Okay." And then Djurdjic says: "Let the elderly go. And tonight, when Toso arrives, you and him must make sure you consult some more, please." And Jankovic says: "All right, I will. When is Toso coming?" Djurdjic says: "In the early evening."
Jankovic says: "Okay." And they'll be in touch.
"Cheers." Now, did you discuss, when you were with Jankovic on the 17th of July, the problem with able-bodied local staff -- able-bodied men, the local staff of any international organisation?
A. No -- or, rather, I don't recall talking about the staff. I know that at the DutchBat base I saw a younger man, an interpreter, who would be around there. I remember just recalling him of the local staff, and at least that's what he said who he was. He was serving juices and coffee and at the same time he said that he was an interpreter. And other than that there was no talk about these matters.
Q. Who did this -- 14155
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey, it is really time for the second break. But if you have only one question left, you should put it to the witness. Or if you need more time, perhaps after the break.
MR. McCLOSKEY: I do need a little more time, Mr. President.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: After the break.
MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: We must take our second break and resume at 20 minutes past 6.00.
--- Recess taken at 5.51 p.m.
--- On resuming at 6.21 p.m.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey, before we continue, could you tell us how many more minutes or hours you will use with the witness in re-direct?
MR. McCLOSKEY: No, I will finish by the end of the day.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: There's no chance to start with the next witness, I take it.
MR. McCLOSKEY: No, and we had Mr. Janc as a potential gap-filler, but -- and I've spoken to Mr. Gajic, so I think -- we think it's probably best we'll just start with General Milovanovic first thing tomorrow morning.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Okay. Thank you very much. Please continue.
Q. General, you had mentioned there was one of the local staff was serving you, I believe. Do you know who that person was working for? 14156
A. He wasn't in the local command, but in the DutchBat Command as local staff. Probably he was working there. He was from Srebrenica, and they probably gave him a job as an interpreter. That's what I understood, in any case.
Q. And do you have any knowledge of General Tolimir, in those days -- on the 19th, as is suggesting in this intercept, of Tolimir helping Jankovic sort out the issue of whether or not the able-bodied men of MSF would be kept or would be let go?
A. I really don't know anything about that.
MR. McCLOSKEY: All right. I'd offer -- well, this is already in evidence.
So one more document on this topic, 65 ter 2230. And, Mr. President, this topic is not on my list. It was on my Salapura list. I didn't get to it. And with the cross-examination on this topic, I didn't transfer it to my re-direct list. I apologise about that.
Q. So, sir, we see this is a document in B/C/S, and I think we can keep it in B/C/S, but it's just a list of names.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey, it's under seal. It should not be broadcast.
MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, thank you.
Q. It's an MSF document. It's a list of names, and you'll agree with me that these are Muslim names.
And if we could just go to the end, the last page. It should be page 5. 14157 We can see that the names "Daniel O'Brien" and
"Christine Schmitz." Those are the two names that were mentioned in that last intercept we saw?
MR. McCLOSKEY: And, Your Honour, just to save some time, I can tell you that the name -- the Muslim names on this list are the same names that are in that intercept, so I would offer this into evidence.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: It will be received, under seal.
[Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
MR. McCLOSKEY: All right. And --
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Do you have a translation?
MR. McCLOSKEY: You know, we've never done an English translation because -- well, we'll ask for one, though. It sort of speaks for itself, but it would be a good idea to have an English translation.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: In that case, it will be marked for identification, pending translation.
THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, 65 ter document 2230 shall be Exhibit P2222, under seal. Thank you. Marked for identification, pending translation.
Q. And, lastly, on this same topic of you and Mr. Jankovic dealing with ICRC on the 17th, could we have 65 ter 507.
And, General, I just -- we can see that this is an ICRC press release called "Communication to the Press," dated 18 July, and it talks about -- you can see that it's entitled "ICRC evacuates 88 wounded from 14158 Bratunac and Potocari."
And just in that first paragraph, it says that: "Three medical teams of the International Committee of the Red Cross, coming from Pale, Bijeljina, and Belgrade, evacuated 88 wounded people from Bratunac and Potocari on 17th and 18th July." Given that you were in Potocari, do you -- does this appear to be some of the people that you witnessed ICRC evacuate on the 17th?
A. I think that those who were at the Bratunac Medical Centre perhaps -- I don't know about Potocari, but I think at least half of these people are those who were in Bratunac.
Q. All right. And the last paragraph says that: "The ICRC is also concerned about the fate of thousands of people whose families, displaced to Tuzla, have lost all track of them. It's requesting from the highest Bosnian Serb authorities to give access to all persons captured during the latest events in Srebrenica." Do you remember that by the 18th of July there were press reports like this of thousands of people missing from Srebrenica?
A. I don't remember that at all. I don't think that thousands were mentioned. I'm not sure when was the first time that I heard about it. At that time, though, definitely not.
MR. McCLOSKEY: All right. I'd offer this into evidence.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: It will be received.
THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter document 507 shall be assigned Exhibit P2223. Thank you.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: And just for the record, the previous document is 14159 P2222. It was not recorded.
Please carry on.
MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you.
Q. And, General, you'll recall that when -- that Judge Fluegge asked you about when General Krstic became commander of the Drina Corps, and if -- and you mentioned that there should be some documents about that, I think something to that effect.
A. Yes, there should be an official order appointing him the corps commander. However, I believe that you or someone else showed me an order of the 13th, signed by General Krstic as commander. Given that I couldn't be specific on the issue, I think somewhere -- it's sometime when the operation began, General Krstic was appointed commander. I believe a few days later he was made commander of the Drina Corps.
MR. McCLOSKEY: All right. And, Mr. President, I've got a couple of documents on that point. If I could go into those with him just to help clarify your questions.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes, please.
MR. McCLOSKEY: All right. Can we have 65 ter 729.
Q. And, General, take your time to take a look at this. I don't know if it's something anyone has shown you. But we see that it's from the Command of the Drina Corps, dated 13 July, entitled "Hand-over of Corps Commander Duties." And it's in the name of the chief of the Personnel and Legal Affairs, Lieutenant-Colonel Radenko Jovicic, and we see it's send out to several brigades, including the 2nd Romania Motorised Brigade, from our previous questions. And we see 14160 that it says:
"Pursuant to the decree of the president of the Republika Srpska, in the presence of the VRS Main Staff commander, Colonel Ratko Mladic, the hand-over of duties of the Drina Corps was carried out on 13 July ..."
And what does this indicate to you, this document?
A. This document tells me that as of the moment when, in the presence of General Mladic, the hand-over took place on the 13th of May [as interpreted], General Krstic became commander of the Drina Corps, and that before him it was General Zivanovic who was the commander. This includes all rights and duties that people in such a position have to abide by.
Q. We were told that you said the 13th of May. Is that correct?
A. No, the 13th of July.
Q. All right. And we see we have a -- it looks like a received stamp. I don't see anywhere that we can tell what unit received it. Do you?
A. It's not here. This is a standard stamp. Perhaps someone would be able to identify the signature, but I don't know the codes of the officers in this unit. Therefore, I'm unable to tell you who this is.
Q. Did you hear the account that after General Mladic left the area of Nova Kasaba he went towards the Crna Rijeka but stopped by the Vlasenica headquarters and that afternoon/evening had a brief hand-over of command to General Krstic? Have you heard about that?
A. No. I am not familiar with any details pertaining to the 14161 hand-over.
MR. McCLOSKEY: All right. And could we offer this into evidence?
JUDGE FLUEGGE: It will be received.
THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter document 729 shall be assigned Exhibit P2224. Thank you.
MR. McCLOSKEY: And could we go to I believe it's 65 ter 1601. Sorry, it's P1601.
And we can see that this is from the Drina Corps Command on the 13th of July. It's a regular combat report to the Main Staff of the VRS. Could we go to the next page in both documents. I'm sorry, can we go to -- it's a little longer than I thought. Could we go to the end.
Q. And, General, we can see that this combat report is under the name of Commander Major General Radislav Krstic, and we see a received stamp at 1945 hours. Can we conclude anything from this -- from this document, based how it is -- how it's signed off on, especially if we take into account the previous personnel document that we saw that went out or was received to somebody by around 8.00 p.m.?
A. We can see from both things that for at least a few hours before that, Krstic was the corps commander.
Q. Okay. Thank you. Now, just a final topic and something that General Tolimir spent a bit of time with you on. He started at page 14064, and he said to you: "Since you went through various levels of command within the army, the brigade, the corps, always in the military police, could you 14162 tell us, did the police forces have chemical agents for suppressing rebellion or unrest, and did the military police at all levels have such chemical abilities?"
And then you said: "At certain levels in battalions of military police there were units, organisational units of company strength that were called anti-terrorist companies. These companies had at their disposal so-called action chemical agents in packages that were ready-made for manual use, mostly it was tear-gas, and occasionally there would be a special rifle available for a bullet that was -- that included tear-gas. So in some units, and this is the legacy of the JNA, the military police had means for chemical activity."
Now, when you say "these companies had at their disposal ... for manual use, mostly it was tear-gas," what else did they have besides tear-gas, then?
A. I think at the very beginning of the sentence there's something wrong. I don't think I mentioned agents, but assets. There was also a rifle, the Sermolji [phoen] type, that the units were equipped with; at least most of them. In any case, these are assets used to incapacitate people momentarily. These are not, as was just said, active chemical agents in the sense of poisonous gasses to be used in combat. These are merely used for incapacitation, to blind the person or to affect their breathing apparatus. It is only applied temporarily, used in closed or small spaces. And mostly such assets have tear-gas. I don't know of any other chemical assets as being supplied to those units. 14163
Q. Well, you said "mostly," which implies that there is something else besides tear-gas.
A. Well, I probably used the term "mostly" because I use that term too often in my speech. But what I claim is that I only know of active chemical assets charged with tear-gas.
Q. You also said: "These are not, as was just said, active chemical agents, in the sense of poisonous gasses to be used in combat."
Were these -- what were these tear-gas assets to be used for, then?
A. Those assets, the so-called AG and AF assets - I no longer remember their characteristics; I only remember they were called AG and AF - had plastic charges, the so-called AG and AF hand-grenades. They would be thrown. And following their explosion, they would incapacitate the opponent so as to be unable to defend themselves. Due to shock, such a person affected by it would begin vomiting some five to ten minutes later. That's why we refer to them frequently as shock hand-grenades.
Q. So could they be used in combat by the VRS? Was that allowable by the VRS, to use tear-gas in combat?
A. Chemical assets were not used. As for these assets specifically, it was impossible to use them because it is difficult to throw a grenade far by hand. The assets that the military police had could not be used in combat. It wasn't practical.
Q. Well, you mentioned the -- I believe what we would call a rifle-propelled grenade that had -- could be fit with tear-gas. Could 14164 that be used in combat?
A. I am pretty certain I did not mention any rifle-propelled grenades or assets used to fire them. I only referred to a type of bullet, which I believe was less than 20 millimetres, that was filled with tear-gas. One needed the Sermolji rifle to fire it. We see that every day when the police use it in riot control, but this is only at short distances.
Q. All right. And General Tolimir read to you a section, on page 14065, item 36 of the Rules of the SFRY:
"The military police may use other means of coercion, (chemical means) for temporary incapacitation, special vehicles, devices for forcibly halting vehicles) only in extraordinary cases, upon an authorisation by a commander of the army and other high-ranking military officers."
Were you aware of the use of tear-gas hand-grenades and tear-gas bullets, as you call them, to be used against Muslim soldiers hiding out in deep ravines or caves or hidden in buildings or other places, especially in the Zepa operation?
A. I'm not familiar with any such use of those assets. I'm also completely ignorant of the Zepa operation.
Q. Would it be appropriate, militarily, to use that kind of tear-gas weapon against the Muslim army in that situation, to flush them out of a hiding place, to destroy them?
A. I think that certain chemical substances are prohibited under the Geneva Conventions, in terms of humane warfare. I cannot say with any 14165 certainty whether the plain tear-gas belongs to that category. In general, chemical assets are not allowed.
Q. Can you answer my question: Can you use tear-gas to flush out the enemy to kill them, in the VRS in 1995?
A. As far as I know, I don't think it can be used. Before that, I was the commander of an MP battalion, and I never received such an order.
MR. McCLOSKEY: Could we go to 65 ter 7333. It should be e-court page 1 in the B/C/S and 1 in the English.
And this is a JNA manual on the use of these sorts of weapons, Mr. President, that I'd like -- given the questions that General Tolimir asked and the answers he got, I'd like to ask this witness about.
Q. All right. If you could take a look at that first page, it says: "Special hand-grenades M79 ..."
Is that the kind of hand-grenades you were talking about?
A. AF and AG, that was the designation for such hand-grenades.
Q. All right. And so we see here that this is a JNA book on how to use this material, isn't it?
Q. All right. And it says: "Special hand-grenades M79 ..." And then several numbers I won't go into that are in parentheses. "... and chemical hand-grenades with tear-gas or psychochemical agent, intended for temporary incapacitation of people." Then it says:
"Special hand-grenades of AF type are explosive, while those of the AG type are pyrotechnical hand-grenades. Grenades bearing the mark 1 14166 have CS tear-gas charge, and those bearing the mark 2 are charged with a psychochemical agent BZ."
What is a psychochemical agent BZ?
A. If you paid attention when reading, you realise that this rule was back from 1979. I never had occasion to see AF-2 or AG-2 during my entire career. I only saw AF-1s and AG-1s. Hence, I cannot comment on them. Otherwise, I don't even remember having read this rule.
MR. McCLOSKEY: All right. Let's go to page 13 in English and page 12 in the B/C/S. It's the chapter entitled "Use."
Q. And here we can see that the training for these includes many things that don't have to do with riot control; neutralising resistance at small distances, forcing movement of persons in hiding, and: "Therefore, it is most suited for: Searching the terrain; ambushes; surrounding, destroying (capturing) ..."
I won't go through all of this, but it mentions "surrounding" and "destroying" many times in how to use this; throwing it into buildings, using it on terrain. And since the tear-gas, itself, doesn't destroy anyone, what is anticipated here? How does a person get destroyed when tear-gas is used against them?
A. One would conclude from this that if used in combat, in subsequent action, such personnel is destroyed.
MR. McCLOSKEY: All right. I'd like to offer this book into evidence.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Would you please indicate how many pages it contains? 14167
[Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
JUDGE FLUEGGE: I was told 27 pages, Mr. McCloskey.
MR. McCLOSKEY: Yeah, I think so. Some of it is this BZ agent, which, for Your Honours' knowledge, is this psychochemical agent, that the witness doesn't know about, is not part of this case. We don't see that being sent to the Rogatica Brigade. You'll remember what we did see, those were the tear-gas grenades and rifle grenades, just for your memory. But I would have that whole book so you can see it all.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Could we go back to the first page to see the date again.
MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes. We need to blow it up to see the "1988." I think you'll see it. The -- can you put the star, please -- yeah.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: "1981."
MR. McCLOSKEY: Sorry, that's a -- yes.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. It will be received into evidence.
THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter document 7333 shall be assigned Exhibit P2225. Thank you.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Judge Mindua has a question.
JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Yes. Mr. Witness, General, I just have a very simple clarification question.
If I understood correctly, you said, on page 83 of the transcript, that you have never seen this instruction before on the use of these weapons, but I see that the manual was written in 1981 and you 14168 had your training at the JNA, so I'm wondering how -- did you just say correctly that you had never seen this book during the entire -- during your entire career?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I completed the Military Academy in 1981, specialising in armoured units. During my training at the academy, I had no occasion to see these assets. As for units of the military police, I joined them for the first time in 1990, when I was appointed deputy battalion commander. As of that moment on, until the beginning of the war, I became acquainted with most of the assets. As for any individual assets, I never studied each and every one. I did read some general rules, but I never attended such specialised training for military policemen at lower level. My first position in the military police was deputy commander of the Military Police Battalion.
JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Yes. Very well, thank you very much.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey.
MR. McCLOSKEY: And just a couple more things we should be able to finish up.
Could we see 65 ter 7335, and this is a -- this is another document on the same topic, Your Honour, that is in direct response to this issue brought up by the general. It does not have a previous 65 ter, and --
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Gajic.
MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, Defence objects to the 14169 use of this document, since this is something from 2005 and we are addressing events from 1995. As lawyers, I believe this objection is sufficiently clear, and I am reluctant to elaborate any further in front of the witness.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey.
MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, this is -- he was asked about the Geneva Conventions and the use of this material, as far as I recollect, and so I think I'm free to ask him about the ICRC's view on this material, be it 1995 or later. This has been a developing area in military rules and regulations since the Conventions of the 19 -- well, before the 1940s.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: How can the answer of the witness be helpful to assess the position of the ICRC?
MR. McCLOSKEY: The question would merely be: Are you aware of the ICRC's views on the use of riot-control agents in warfare?
JUDGE FLUEGGE: You could put this question to the witness without showing this document.
MR. McCLOSKEY: I very well could, but I know someone would ask me to back up where I'm coming from. But that's not a problem.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Gajic.
MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, of course, the question is legitimate; however, it ought to be limited to 1995. Law cannot be applied retroactively. Something created after 1995 is something we cannot rely on in these proceedings, and there is no need to analyse it in the first place. 14170
MR. McCLOSKEY: Let me be clear. This is not the law. This is just the ICRC's view of the law on a very interesting and complicated area at times. And I'll get to this -- it won't take long at all.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Gajic, I see you're still on your feet.
MR. GAJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, this is certainly an interesting issue. But if we consider this document, I believe we need much more time, since it entails a number of explanations. The document was not translated, and we would probably have to read out at least two or three paragraphs if we want to rely on it in a fashion appropriate. It refers to what countries agreed to it and when the assets in question were used and when they were not used. It is a rather complicated legal matter. I'm reluctant to put our position before the witness so as not to be accused of instructing him.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey.
MR. McCLOSKEY: I don't -- in the sake of time, I don't need to use this now. I'll go to the next document, which is --
JUDGE FLUEGGE: But you should come to an end. We are running out of time.
MR. McCLOSKEY: I just had five minutes taken away, Mr. President.
Q. If I could: Sir, you've talked about the --
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. McCloskey, it is five minutes past 7.00. We are really running out of time. I have no idea -- there's still a list of documents to be used in re-direct. How much time do you need for completion of your re-direct? 14171
MR. McCLOSKEY: Just a couple of minutes. This really was meant to be my last -- last two documents.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Very few minutes. Please continue and conclude as soon as possible.
Q. Sir, were you aware of the protocol for the prohibition of the use of asphyxiating and poisonous and other gasses and of bacteriological methods of warfare of the Geneva -- from 17 June 1925 of the Geneva Conventions?
A. Yes, I did. The whole Army of Republika Srpska was aware of the ban on the use of poisonous agents in general.
Q. And was BC -- BZ, excuse me, as we just saw described in that book from the 1980s, one of those banned chemical agents?
A. I really don't know what "BZ" stands for. I have tried to remember. I don't know what sort of a charge this is.
Q. And were you aware that the ICRC felt that tear-gas should be one of the banned -- one of the banned materials from the 1925 Geneva Convention?
A. I'm not sure that I knew that. But since tear-gas was permitted for use even in peacetime for us, I'm not sure that I knew that there was a general ban on its use.
MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you. I have nothing further.
JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. Sir, you will be pleased to hear that this concludes now your examination and your testimony in this case. Thank you very much that 14172 you were able to come to The Hague and to provide us with your knowledge and recollection. Now you are free to return to your normal activities. Thank you very much again.
We have to adjourn for the day, and we will resume tomorrow at 9.00 in Courtroom III.
[The witness withdrew]
--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.08 p.m., to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 17th day
of May, 2011, at 9.00 a.m.