|
Content
/ Colormap • Page 4689 • {1/96}
(1)Tuesday, 27th June 2000 [Open session] [The witness entered court]
--- Upon commencing at 9.36 a.m. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Good morning to the technical booth, to the interpreters, to the legal assistants and court reporters. Good morning, Madam Registrar. Good morning, Mr. Harmon and Mr. Cayley. Good morning, Mr. Petrusic and (10)Mr. Visnjic. Good morning, General Krstic. Good morning, Witness. Can you hear me? THE WITNESS: [Int.] Yes. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] You are now going to read the solemn declaration handed to you by the usher, please. (15) THE WITNESS: [Int.] I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
WITNESS: WITNESS CC JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Please be seated. (20) THE WITNESS: [Int.] Thank you.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] I hope you're comfortable.
Approach the microphone, please. Thank you.
The usher is going to show you a piece of paper. Please tell us
if your name is written on it. Give us a yes or no answer if it is or is
(25)not.
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Thank you. You will now be answering questions put to you by Mr. Cayley who is the gentleman standing up to your right. (5)Mr. Cayley, your witness. MR. CAYLEY: Good morning, Mr. President, Your Honours, Mr. Petrusic, Mr. Visnjic. Thank you. • EXAMINED by Mr. Cayley: • Q.: Witness, during your evidence, in order to ensure that your (10)identity is not revealed to the outside world, I will be referring to you as "Witness CC." I'm going to ask you some preliminary questions to which you can simply answer yes or no. Your nationality is Bosnian; is that correct? • A.: Yes. (15) • Q.: You are a Muslim by faith; is that correct? • A.: Yes. • Q.: You did not serve in the JNA, the army of the former Yugoslavia, because you were, I think, too young for military service; is that right? • A.: Because I had enrolled in the faculty of veterinary studies which (20)meant that I could defer my military service. • Q.: Did you ever serve in the JNA? • A.: No. • Q.: Am I right in saying that you joined the Bosnian army in October of 1992? (25)
• A.: Yes.
(5) • A.: Yes, that was in March. • Q.: You underwent some training for a period of 15 days. What did that training involve? • A.: At that training we learnt about the various devices and equipment that was used by the JNA at the time, the range of that equipment, how the (10)mobile surveillance centres worked, interference centres, jamming centres, and so on. That means that we learnt about interception devices and surveillance. • Q.: The equipment and devices that you're speaking of were, in essence, radio or communications equipment; that was the equipment that (15)you were trained upon. • A.: Yes. After that training, we had to do a test; that is to say, we had our final examinations. But I don't think we actually did those examinations because of some of the operations that were going on at the front. (20) MR. CAYLEY: If, Mr. Usher, you could get Prosecutor's Exhibit 138 for me and place it in front of the witness. • Q.: Now, Witness, you were in a unit at Okresanica known as a PEB. Was this the PEB of the 21st Division of the Bosnian army? • A.: Yes, it was. (25)
• Q.: What does "PEB" stand for?
• Q.: Am I right in saying that the 2nd Corps of the Bosnian army and, indeed, the State Security Service of the Bosnian government had listening posts at the same location, at Okresanica? (5) • A.: Yes, as far as I remember, that is correct. It did, yes. • Q.: So there were, in fact, three separate units at Okresanica who were involved in monitoring activities. • A.: Yes. • Q.: Could you just point on Prosecutor's Exhibit 138 to the location (10)Okresanica. Witness, if you look at the top of the map, it is, in fact, marked. • A.: Up here, yes. Here it is. MR. CAYLEY: Let the record show that the witness has identified the green circle marked "Okresanica" as the location of his place of work (15)at the interception centre of the 21st Division. • A.: It is on Mount Majevica. This is the mountain, Mount Majevica. • Q.: Witness, there is another location on that map marked Konjuh. Are you aware that there was also a listening post at Konjuh? • A.: Yes, I knew that. (20) • Q.: Now, at Okresanica, which army were you principally listening to? • A.: The army of Republika Srpska. • Q.: Now, I'm right in saying that in July of 1995, you were working at Okresanica? • A.: Yes. (25)
• Q.: Now, very, very briefly, because the Judges have now heard this on
• A.: You mean our method of work, is that what you want to know about? (5) • Q.: Exactly, Witness.
• A.: Well, we had three work posts or three devices, sets of equipment,
that we worked with. When we were on the job, after arriving at our post,
we would consult the operator who was working, who was on duty. We'd ask
him what he'd been listening in to; we would take a look at his notebook,
(10)what he had recorded and what he had made a note of; and the operator
would tell me what I should pay attention to in particular, if there was
something very important, what I should monitor.
Then I would sit down at my work post. I would put my headsets
on. The equipment would scan the frequencies and it did this non-stop,
(15)all the time, and if I would intercept a conversation, the -- actually,
the device which intercepted the conversation would stop of its own. But
on occasion, it would not stop automatically. Then we would stop it and
go back to that particular frequency. We would then switch on the
recording device which we called an Uher tape recorder and record the
(20)conversation. So we'd press a button on the Uher so that we could go back
to the conversation that had been taped. We would then introduce it into
the notebook, transcribe it.
After transcribing the conversations, we would hand them over to
the unit commander who would then introduce the information into a
(25)computer and then would, I think, send it further on to the division.
• Q.: Witness, how did you identify the participants within any particular conversation that you were listening to? • A.: In my case, if the participant introduced himself, there were (5)cases where the participant in the conversation would introduce themselves, and then we knew this, and we would take down their names or nicknames and even the ranks that they held. And if it was a lieutenant, we would put "L" or "P" for Pukovnik. If we did not know who the participants were, we would put an "X" or a "Y". (10) • Q.: Did you ever come to be so experienced that you recognised voices without the actual participant identifying him or herself on the radionet? • A.: Yes, yes, I did have experience of that kind. I could recognise certain voices, yes. • Q.: If there was any part of the conversation which you couldn't (15)clearly hear, what procedure did you adopt if you couldn't transcribe what was being heard on the tape recorder? • A.: There were parts of conversations or words that were not sufficiently audible. I would then rewind several times and try to discern the words or parts of sentences, but if I failed, I would call the (20)commander and the others who were working there, and we'd go -- wind the tape back 20 or 30 times, sometimes, and listen to it together to try and decipher what the words were that were inaudible. If that failed, then I would place three dots for that segment.
MR. CAYLEY: Mr. President, this witness has very few intercepts
(25)to actually introduce into evidence, but what I will do now for the sake
(10) • Q.: Now, Witness, you've previously looked at this book in my office. Do you recognise this book? • A.: I recognise it. • Q.: Is this a 21st Division notebook? • A.: Yes. (15) • Q.: How did you recognise this notebook? • A.: I recognised it by the lines and this number, and the RRU800 that it says here. And that's open and closed, that's how we did it, the lines, the squares. • Q.: And indeed, I think this notebook contains your handwriting, does (20)it not? • A.: Yes. MR. CAYLEY: If the witness could now be shown Prosecutor's Exhibit 356, and it's 356/1C please, Mr. Usher.
• Q.: Now, Witness, don't read this conversation out, nor should it be
(25)placed on the ELMO because it identifies you. Is this an intercept that
• A.: Yes, it is my conversation. • Q.: And indeed, without stating it, that in fact is your signature, is it not, that can be seen? (5) • A.: Yes. MR. CAYLEY: Now, if we could go to, back to Prosecutor's Exhibit 297, and in fact, Mr. Usher, if you could go to page 236, those are the last three digits of the evidence registration number. • Q.: Do you see the same intercept within the notebook, Prosecutor's (10)Exhibit 297, that you've just identified? • A.: Yes, I do. I see it. MR. CAYLEY: For the purposes of the court record, the witness has confirmed that Prosecutor's Exhibit 356 is an extract from Prosecutor's Exhibit 297, at page 236. (15) • Q.: Now, Witness, if you go back to the page before, so back to page 235, what is the date at the top of that page? • A.: The 13th of July, 1995, Thursday. • Q.: There is only one other intercept prior to your intercept at eight minutes past eight. Your intercept was taken down at 1602, at two minutes (20)past four in the afternoon. Would you agree with me that your intercept was taken down on the 13th of July, 1995? • A.: Yes. The 13th of July, 1995, that is also my conversation.
• Q.: Thank you, Witness. This is a very brief intercept which I will
read into the record. It starts at the top with the frequency:
(25)"836.000 (Channel 19) 1602 hrs, Participants: X - Y
(Y.:) Uh-huh. (X.:) Where Malinic's unit is. They said that there are over 1,500 (5)gathered at the stadium. (Y.:) What? (X.:) There are 1,500 at the stadium in Kasaba, fuck it. The duty officer down there said that we probably won't let anything get by. There are more ... that hasn't finished ... (10)(interference)" And then it's signed. I won't read the signature into the record because it identifies the witness. MR. CAYLEY: If the Witness could be given Prosecutor's Exhibit 295. (15) • Q.: Witness, could you examine that notebook in front of you very briefly and state whether or not you recognise it. • A.: I do. • Q.: Is this a 21st Division notebook? • A.: Yes. (20) MR. CAYLEY: Let the record show that the witness has confirmed that Prosecutor's Exhibit 295 is identified as a 21st Division notebook. If the witness could be shown Prosecutor's Exhibit 357/1B. I apologise, Mr. President, the French translation is missing so we owe that to the Court. (25)
• Q.: Witness, is this a conversation that you took down?
• Q.: And you recognise your handwriting. • A.: I recognise it. MR. CAYLEY: If, Mr. Usher, you could turn, in Prosecutor's (5)Exhibit 295, to page 639. • Q.: Witness, do you see this same conversation in the notebook that's in front of you, to the left of you? • A.: Yes. MR. CAYLEY: For the purposes of the record, the witness has (10)confirmed that the extracted conversation, Exhibit 358, is contained within Prosecutor's Exhibit 295, at page 639, 640. I will not read this particular conversation into the record. If the witness could be shown Prosecutor's Exhibit 358. • Q.: Do you recognise this conversation, Prosecutor's Exhibit 358? (15) • A.: I recognise it, yes. • Q.: This is a conversation which you took down. • A.: Yes. • Q.: If you could look at the notebook to the left of you and simply turn one page, do you see the conversation that you've just identified in (20)the notebook? • A.: Yes, I can see it. Yes. MR. CAYLEY: Let the record show that the witness has confirmed that Prosecutor's Exhibit 358 is an extract from Prosecutor's Exhibit 295, at page 642. (25)
• Q.: Now, let's date these two conversations together, Witness, because
MR. CAYLEY: If, Mr. Usher, you could turn back to page 638 of Prosecutor's Exhibit 295. • Q.: Do you see a date on that page, Witness? (5) • A.: Yes, the 15th of July, 1995, Saturday. • Q.: Could you turn the page. Do you see the first intercept which you identified, Prosecutor's Exhibit 357, on the next page? • A.: I see it. • Q.: On the next page, at 0955, on page 642, do you see Prosecutor's (10)Exhibit 358? • A.: Yes, I see it. • Q.: So would it be correct to say that both of these intercepts were taken down on the 15th of July of 1995? • A.: Yes. (15) • Q.: Let's keep turning the pages from 642 to 643. Do you see any dates on 643, 644? In fact, there are no dates on that page, Witness. • A.: No. No, I can't see that. • Q.: On 645, 646, there are no dates. • A.: No, I don't see that. (20) • Q.: 647, 648? • A.: No, there aren't any. • Q.: 649, 650? • A.: No, none. • Q.: And then on 651, 652, what date do you see? (25)
• A.: The 16th of July, 1995, Sunday.
(5) • A.: Let me just say that everything we did, we did for the requirements of our army, principally. We did this with the highest responsibility, to the best of our ability, because any serious error would be detrimental to our fighters and our army. I could never even dream -- not in my wildest dreams did I ever think I would be sitting here (10)when I was recording and intercepting the conversations and doing the job. MR. CAYLEY: Mr. President, I have no further questions for the witness so I can offer him for cross-examination. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Thank you very much, (15)Mr. Cayley. Witness CC, you are now going to answer questions which Mr. Visnjic is going to put to you. Mr. Visnjic, you have the floor. MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Thank you, Mr. President. (20) • CROSS-EXAMINED by Mr. Visnjic: • Q.: Witness CC, while answering questions put to you by the Prosecutor in the course of the examination-in-chief, you said that you completed training. • A.: Yes. (25)
• Q.: How long did the training last?
• Q.: During that training course, were you trained in the procedure for preserving documentation on interception? • A.: No. (5) • Q.: In the course of the training, were you familiarised with any rules which govern these activities in anti-aircraft warfare? • A.: As far as I can remember, no. • Q.: Later on while you were working, were you informed on rules? • A.: Yes, there were rules, of course. There were shifts. We knew (10)exactly what had to be done, how many people worked. We worked around the clock. We had to have a serious attitude towards our work. Where the conversations are intercepted, how they are intercepted, whom they are forwarded to. And what happened afterwards with those conversations, I don't know. So those were the rules that applied in the army of (15)Bosnia-Herzegovina. • Q.: How were you informed about those rules? • A.: As much as I needed to do the job, to that extent. • Q.: Just a moment, please. Because of the interpretation, we should make pauses in between the questions and answers. (20)The rules that you just described, were they in writing? • A.: The shifts were written out on the doors so you knew who worked when and for how many hours. That was hung up on the door, and this was written out by the department Commander, or rather the squad Commander. So I knew exactly when I would be on duty and for how long. (25)
• Q.: Did you have written instructions as to the way you should
• A.: No. No, we knew that. This was told to us orally. • Q.: But who told you? • A.: The squad Commander. (5) • Q.: Did the squad Commander inform you about the plan on electronic surveillance? • A.: Which frequencies were to be monitored, he would tell us. If something was important, then he would tell us precisely which frequency we should monitor, but he told us this orally. (10) • Q.: Did you have an order for electronic surveillance? • A.: I don't know. • Q.: Did you know whom you should listen to? • A.: Yes, we knew that. • Q.: In the event you were to capture another conversation, for (15)example, by the HVO or the international forces, what was the procedure? • A.: As far as I can remember, as far as I'm concerned, I never heard conversations by the HVO or the international forces. • Q.: How long were your shifts at Okresanica? • A.: Seven days at Okresanica, seven and seven at home. (20) • Q.: When there was a change in shift, was there a formal handover of duty? • A.: Yes, there was a handover of duty. • Q.: Was this done in writing? • A.: No, orally. (25)
• Q.: Did each of you while using communications equipment have their
• A.: We divided up in the division so that everyone had his own equipment. So, for instance, I spent 90 per cent of my time working on a Kenwood. So mostly we trained on a particular type of equipment so it was (5)easier for each one of us to use it later on. • Q.: Does that mean that you had had your own complete set that you used? • A.: Yes. Not all the time, but most of the time I would sit at this Kenwood. I had a tape recorder, a notebook attached to each device, a (10)rotator for the antenna. There was a tape recorder, a rotator, and notebook. Pens, of course. • Q.: When you mentioned notebooks, did each device have its own notebook? • A.: Yes, each device had its own notebook. (15) • Q.: I think that I read or heard that you had three sets of equipment? • A.: Yes, three. • Q.: Does that mean that notebooks were used simultaneously for three different devices? • A.: So each operator sitting at a particular device would write down (20)in his notebook. • Q.: Tell me, do you know where the notebooks came from, how you were supplied with notebooks? • A.: No, I don't know. • Q.: There appears to be a problem with the interpretation, yes. (25)
• A.: I can hear.
MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] • Q.: Was each one of you responsible, in a sense, for a certain notebook? (5) • A.: Yes, yes. The notebook had to be there on the table, and while working, you couldn't move it anywhere else. You couldn't move it away from the table. While you were working, you had the notebook there in front of you, and you were responsible for it. • Q.: Did you write up anything for these notebooks? (10) • A.: The commander would write on the notebook when it was issued and the day it was completed. I can't remember exactly. I think some notebooks had stamps. I'm not sure about that, whether all of them had stamps or some of them. I think there was even a stamp, that it was stamped. (15) • Q.: Do you remember where this stamp appeared? • A.: No, I can't remember at all. It seems to me there was one, but I can't remember where. • Q.: Do you perhaps remember in the case of these two notebooks? • A.: I do not remember. (20) • Q.: Upon completing your work, what happened with the notebooks? • A.: The squad commander would take them, and I don't know. I think he sent them to the division, probably. There was a contact between -- from division to division.
• Q.: Tell me, how did you transcribe the conversations in the
(25)notebooks?
• Q.: When you say that you took down the time, did you transcribe the (5)conversation immediately after intercepting it? • A.: I would first write down some conversations on a piece of paper, and then write it out nicely in the notebook, but first on an ordinary piece of paper. • Q.: But you wrote them into the notebook in the order in which you (10)heard them? • A.: Yes. But when copying them into the notebook, I didn't follow the same order. • Q.: Does that mean that the conversations written in the notebook are not in time sequence? (15) • A.: There are cases. For example, it says 9.15, and for the next conversation, 8.15. So that is the explanation. Sometimes I took down the conversations according to my own judgement as to which one was more important, and in consultation with the commander, of course. • Q.: Did you ask the commander in what order you should write down the (20)conversations in the notebook?
• A.: No, no, only in terms of the importance of the conversation. I
asked him, do I have to write them down in order; and I remember him
telling me clearly that it wasn't so important to write them down in
order. Whether one would be at 8.15 and the next one at 9.15, that wasn't
(25)important, but the important thing was that the conversation was recorded
• Q.: When you wrote out the conversations in the notebook, did you write down every word that you heard on tape? • A.: I wrote down every word I heard starting from "hello" until the (5)last word, except, of course, those that couldn't be heard. • Q.: And you considered it to be very important that every single word should be noted in the notebook; is that what you are saying? • A.: Yes, that was, for us, the approach. We considered every word to be important. (10) • Q.: Did you take care to follow the word order? • A.: Yes, of course. We did our very best to be faithful to the original word order. That's what we had to do. • Q.: Tell me, what was the procedure with the tapes once they were filled out? (15) • A.: I can't tell you. We sometimes turned the tape around and used it again, the same tapes, when we were out of tapes. • Q.: When a conversation was written out on a piece of paper, do you know how it was sent on to the command? • A.: No, I don't know that. I can't tell you that. (20) • Q.: Did you perhaps say earlier on that the conversation was forwarded by telephone?
• A.: I know that there were some urgent messages. I did say that there
was this inductor telephone, and then the commander would call up directly
the command of the 21st Division and report to them orally what we had
(25)captured if something was really extremely urgent and it needed immediate
• Q.: What was the regular procedure? • A.: I really don't know. I can't tell you, and what happened afterwards. (5) • Q.: In your shift there were several soldiers. How many? • A.: About nine, mostly nine soldiers. But of course, the number varied occasionally, but mostly we were nine. I remember that. • Q.: How long was your duty working on the device? How long did it last? (10) • A.: Four hours, sometimes eight. • Q.: How many operators were working simultaneously in the same room? • A.: Three operators. • Q.: Who sent the reports to the command? • A.: The squad leader, the squad commander, and the platoon commander. (15)He was there, too. I don't know which one of the two of them, but one of the two of them. • Q.: When handing over your duty during your working day, did you write down anything about the condition of the equipment or things like that? • A.: No, we did this orally. When I would come on duty, I would review (20)the conversations that were intercepted by my colleague, and then I would ask him whether there were any interferences, and then he would tell me if he had something to tell me regarding things I had to devote particular attention to. This was done orally. • Q.: Were all the soldiers in your group equally trained for this job? (25)
• A.: No, they were not. Some were less, some were better. For
• Q.: When you say less well-trained, you mean regarding intercepting (5)the signal? • A.: No, no, regarding certain technical things, knowledge about physics and things like that. But as regards interception, we were more or less the same. I was no poorer than they in capturing conversations, noting them down, and recording them. I knew what I was doing just as (10)well as they. • Q.: So if we're talking only about the process of interception and transcription, in that respect you were all more or less equally trained; is that what you said? • A.: Yes, more or less. As regards those particular activities, I can (15)say that we worked more or less equally well, not perhaps time wise. Some needed more time; one was slower in writing than someone else. But we did the job more or less equally well. • Q.: In answer to questions by my learned friend Mr. Cayley as to whether you can identify a certain conversation, did you actually (20)recognise your handwriting? • A.: Yes. Yes, absolutely so, I recognised my handwriting. • Q.: Do you remember the contents of those conversations? • A.: I remember one. • Q.: Among those that have been referred to specifically? (25)
• A.: Yes, among those that were referred to specifically.
• A.: I have a very rough impression of it, yes. In general terms I remember it. MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Mr. President, I have no further (5)questions for this witness. Witness CC, thank you. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Thank you very much, Mr. Visnjic. Mr. Cayley, any additional questions? (10) MR. CAYLEY: Very few, Mr. President. One thing I did want to note for the record is that I have the two original notebooks here which my learned friend Mr. Visnjic has had the opportunity to review outside the courtroom, and indeed he can look at these again if he wishes. I have just one point of clarification with the (15)witness. • RE-EXAMINED by Mr. Cayley: • Q.: Witness, you worked for the PEB unit that was attached or reporting to the 21st Division; is that correct? • A.: I can't hear the interpretation. (20) • Q.: You worked for the PEB unit that was reporting to the 21st Division; is that correct? • A.: Yes. Yes, the 21st Division.
• Q.: You stated in your examination-in-chief that there were two other
units, one of which was a unit that was reporting directly to the 2nd
(25)Corps of the Bosnian army.
• Q.: Were you at all familiar with the procedures that were being used in the 2nd Corps PEB, or were you only aware of the procedures that were being used in your own unit, the 21st Division PEB? (5) • A.: I knew only about the procedure that we used in the 21st Division. I had no contact at all with the 2nd Corps, and I can say that these boys from the 2nd Corps, I didn't know any one of them, actually, until I arrived there. I knew one who came from the same place as I, that he was from Srebrenik, but I didn't know he was working there, because I (10)went to see them only once. I just peeped in. I had no insight into what they were doing and how. MR. CAYLEY: Thank you, Witness. Mr. President, just for the reference of the Court, I previously made a comment about this, but Your Honours may wish to review (15)Prosecutor's Exhibit 328, 334, and 358 together. I anticipate there will be argument about the detail that emerges from those three exhibits at some stage, but you may wish to review those three documents together. Thank you, Mr. President. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Very well. Thank you very much, (20)Mr. Cayley. Judge Fouad Riad, any questions? Madam Judge Wald? • QUESTIONED by the Court:
JUDGE WALD: I just have one. You didn't put down every day, did
(25)you? I mean, the date, July 15th, July 16th, did you do that every day,
• A.: We did that every day. Every day the date had to be written down. All conversations intercepted on that day were noted down in the notebook under that date. (5) JUDGE WALD: And that's true of Exhibit 295, notebook 2, the notebook that you were asked to identify the exhibits from? • A.: Yes. Yes, it is. JUDGE WALD: All right. That's all I have. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Witness CC, you said that you (10)believed that there were stamps on the notebooks but you can't remember exactly. When you spoke about these stamps, does it remind you of some official records or something like that? What I'm saying is when you saw the notebook for the first time, when it was absolutely empty, was anything written on it already or not (15)before you started writing into it? • A.: No. No, the notebooks were completely empty. Completely. Nothing could be written in them. It was not allowed. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Another question. You said that the order of transcribing messages was not important, it was the hour and (20)the date that was important. This brings me back to the question of my eminent colleague Judge Wald. What about the hour? Was the hour always important; the time, in other words? • A.: Yes, the time was always important.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] And the date? What about the
(25)date?
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Why do you think when you were doing your work that the time and the date was important? Why did you think it was important? (5) • A.: Well, simply the date had to be known, when the conversations were recorded, so as to avoid any confusion there might be down there in the centre. Wherever they processed these messages, in the division or the corps, they had to know when each conversation was intercepted. And also if the conversation is linked to any operations, they had to know when (10)those operations took place. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Did it happen that the date or the hour was not written down? I'm not thinking of you, I'm thinking of all of you. Could it happen that you forgot to write these things down? • A.: Probably it's possible. It's possible. It can happen that (15)somebody may forget to write it down. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Thank you, Witness. We have no further questions for you. JUDGE WALD: I'm sorry. Maybe if the witness can't, the Prosecution might be able to help me on this. I can't find any notation (20)of July 17th in Exhibit 295. Where have I missed it? I find the 16th and I find the 18th but I can't find the 17th. That's tab 17; the 18th is on 688. MR. CAYLEY: Your Honour, to be completely frank with you, I have actually been through these and I think the 17th of July is missing. (25)
JUDGE WALD: I just wanted to make sure that I hadn't omitted
MR. CAYLEY: You're referring to Prosecutor's Exhibit 295? Yes, it is missing, that date. JUDGE WALD: Thank you. (5) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] So, Witness, we have some matters to regulate regarding tendering of exhibits. Mr. Cayley, you have something to say, I think, regarding exhibits and tendering those that you used in your examination-in-chief.
MR. CAYLEY: Thank you, Mr. President.
(10)Subject to the Court's existing ruling, I would ask for admission
into evidence of Exhibits 295 and 297. In respect of the other three
exhibits, I would ask for admission of 356, 357, and 358 into evidence;
357 and 356 should be under seal because they identify the witness.
Excuse me one moment, Mr. President. MR. CAYLEY: My learned friend Mr. Harmon has reminded me that the notebooks themselves, 295 and 297, should be under seal because they again identify the witness. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Visnjic, are we still going (20)to wait for your position? MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Mr. President, our position is almost formed, but because of these three latest exhibits, perhaps we could state our position after the break.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] So, Madam Registrar, you will
(25)take note of these exhibits so we may determine what to do with them
MR. CAYLEY: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Harmon would like to address the Court, so if I could move out of his way. (5) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Very well. Mr. Harmon.
MR. HARMON: Mr. President and Your Honours, good morning, and
good morning to my colleagues.
We have one additional exhibit, Prosecutor's Exhibit 348; two
(10)binders, 348/1 and 348/2. My colleagues have received these exhibits
before I am seeking their introduction into evidence.
These exhibits contain copies of various excerpts from notebooks
and include typewritten, transcribed intercepted conversations as well.
Some of these have been referred to in the next witness' testimony.
(15)To orient Your Honours to this exhibit, if Your Honours don't
already have a copy of it, perhaps it could be distributed and I can
orient you through it so it will be easy to use in the future should it be
admitted.
I can tell Your Honours, while we're waiting for the distribution,
(20)that we're asking that these two exhibits be admitted for the time being
under seal. We will come back to the Court and ask that portions of these
be removed from the seal.
If I may orient Your Honours, then, I'll use the first of the two
binders, 348/1, to orient you. At the beginning there is a table of
(25)contents and there are four tabs in the exhibit, and it is
JUDGE WALD: Mr. Harmon, excuse me. Mine say "Exhibit 364" and (10)the transcript says "348" or "248." Which is it? MR. HARMON: I apologise. I've been given a binder that says 348 so it should be -- JUDGE WALD: My binder says "364." Just so we know, we can determine what the number is. (15) MR. HARMON: We treat the Judges better than we treat the Prosecutors. JUDGE WALD: So it's 364? MR. HARMON: That's correct. JUDGE WALD: Okay. All right. (20) MR. HARMON: That's all, Your Honours. Thank you.
JUDGE WALD: I have one further question.
Just so I understand, these transcripts or these excerpts that are
contained in these two binders, some of which may come in or be referred
to by the next witnesses or a subsequent witness' testimony, these are not
(25)the same as any of the ones we've been dealing with in the last week. I
MR. HARMON: Some of them are. JUDGE WALD: But some of them aren't, they aren't -- MR. HARMON: Some of them are not. (5) JUDGE WALD: So if we keep these two binders during the subsequent witness' testimony, we can take back and put away the earlier intercepts, or will we need reference to the earlier intercepts again? Just because it's getting very crowded up here on the bench. MR. HARMON: It is, it is. And we will stage manage to the best (10)we can, Your Honours. The sets that you're going to receive through the next witness -- JUDGE WALD: Okay. MR. HARMON: -- there are voluminous sets of binders, and we will indicate to Your Honours which are going to be used on which day in order (15)to make more space up there. JUDGE WALD: But we can put away the ones we've dealt with this week or not? MR. HARMON: Yes. JUDGE WALD: Thank you. (20) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Petrusic, what is your position, the position of the Defence, with respect to these exhibits?
MR. PETRUSIC:
[Int.] The Defence has received the
folders several days ago, binders, from the Prosecution, but with respect
to our comments with regard to the contents, we will do so after the
(25)break, if we may, because we feel that we should take them all together
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Very well. Witness, we thank you for coming to the International Tribunal. We wish you bon voyage back (5)to your country and every success in your work, but please stay seated for a few more minutes. We're going to have a break now, a 20-minute recess.
--- Recess taken at 10.42 a.m. (10) --- On resuming at 11.07 a.m. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Harmon. MR. HARMON: Mr. President, we seek admission of all of the documents that we have previously tendered in the last seven days, and I await hearing the position of the Defence, and then I will respond. (15) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Well, Mr. Petrusic, let's hear you.
MR. PETRUSIC:
[Int.] Mr. President, Your Honours, in
accordance with the ruling of the Chamber of the 19th of June, the Defence
would like to state its position regarding exhibits tendered since then to
(20)the present.
The Defence will make a general objection regarding all the
exhibits together, and that general objection will apply at the same time
to each exhibit individually. The reasons for our objection to those
exhibits are as follows: If the notebooks were kept by members of the
(25)army of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and according to the testimony of the
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Thank you very much, Mr. Petrusic. (10)Mr. Harmon, please.
MR. HARMON: Mr. President and Your Honours, we are seeking
admission of all of the exhibits that we have tendered that relate to
these intercepts.
First, the appropriate Rule of Evidence that applies in this case
(15)is found in Rule 89(C). "A Chamber may admit any relevant evidence which
it deems to have probative value." Now, Your Honours, in respect of this
evidence, from the content of what Your Honours have heard, the
Prosecutors would submit that intercepted communications and conversations
between General Krstic and members of his staff and other army members of
(20)the VRS, in the time frame from, I believe, the first conversation is
approximately the 9th or 10th of July and past, are relevant to the issues
that Your Honours will be deciding.
Secondly, I think the Court must determine whether the documents
that they have seen, the notebooks, the excerpts from the conversations
(25)themselves, are reliable.
(15) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Thank you very much, Mr. Harmon. Mr. Petrusic, do you have any additional observations to make? MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] No, Mr. President. JUDGE RIAD: Mr. Harmon, you said that the substance of the (20)conversations were the same. Now, just for the sake of knowledge, when several people hear the same thing, don't you think also the words should be the same?
MR. HARMON: I think if people hear the same thing under optimum
conditions, they should be the same; however, as I understand this
(25)testimony to be, there could be different interferences and conditions as
JUDGE RIAD: As far as the discrepancy between the handwritten and (15)the typewritten text, if worse comes to worst, are the audio cassettes available? MR. HARMON: Of a limited number of conversations, yes. JUDGE RIAD: Thank you very much.
JUDGE WALD: I have one question which you may be able to help me
(20)with. It's probably more a legal question than it is factual as to
anything we've heard.
In assessing the reliability or the authenticity of these
documents, why is it irrelevant, as I assume you must consider it since
you didn't put any evidence in this way, why is so-called chain of custody
(25)irrelevant? In other words, these people were looking at these notebooks
MR. HARMON: It can be considered by Your Honours. JUDGE WALD: But we don't have anything to consider. We don't know. None of the witnesses seem to know. MR. HARMON: The witnesses testify that these were sent back to (10)their high command. JUDGE WALD: To the high command, yes. MR. HARMON: That's correct. The Court can consider it, of course, in -- JUDGE WALD: You are here presumably to tell me why we don't have (15)to worry about not knowing. MR. HARMON: Well, I think, first of all, Your Honours, these witnesses have identified the specific notebooks themselves. JUDGE WALD: I understand that. They said, "I know this notebook. That's my handwriting. I was there back in 1995 writing that (20)down." MR. HARMON: Right. JUDGE WALD: But somebody thinking about it really, at least the question goes through your mind, well, you know, where were they in the last five years? (25)
MR. HARMON: I understand. The answer to your question is we did
JUDGE WALD: Okay.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Yes, Mr. Harmon, I have a
question for you.
Perhaps you examined the entirety of the notebooks. Have you got
(15)an idea whether there is an order in all this of registration? If we look
at the registration number, at the Commander's number, perhaps there's a
sort of order. Some witnesses said yes, there is; others said no, there
isn't. Some say that the books were virgin, were empty; others say that
there was something. But they all have registration numbers. Now, are
(20)you able to establish by examining their entirety whether there is any
sequence as to date, and any qualifications of those registration
numbers?
MR. HARMON: I personally don't know the answer to your question,
(25)Mr. President.
MR. HARMON: Yes, we can do that. (5)
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Very well. The Chamber will
make a ruling. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] The Chamber is rendering its decision. (10)Having heard the arguments of the parties and taking into account the spirit of the Statute, specifically the fairness of the proceedings, the right of the accused to examine and have examined the witnesses against him; and taking into account the general principles of criminal law, that is, that the essential objective is to establish the truth, and (15)in order to attain that objective, it is important to have an overall view of the evidence; and more specifically, taking into account Rule 89(C), that is, the relevance of the documents and that they have been identified by the authors to clarify the evidence; and taking also into account Rule 85, the Chamber rules to accept the submission of the Prosecutor and (20)to admit into evidence the totality of the exhibits which are the object of this motion. That is the ruling of the Chamber. So now, Mr. Harmon?
MR. HARMON: I'm now going to turn over the floor to my colleague,
(25)Mr. McCloskey, who will examine the next witness.
MR. McCLOSKEY: I'm sorry, Mr. President, I heard the French, but I didn't have my earphones on so I didn't hear what you just said. (5)
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] I just gave you the floor,
Mr. McCloskey. That's all. MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you, Mr. President. We have, as you probably remember, Mr. Butler from the United (10)States Army who is our military intelligence analyst that will be testifying on some 200, 240 exhibits which are voluminous but, we think, very important for the case. We also have outside a representative of the United States government, Ms. Jessica Holmes, and I think if we invite them both in now, (15)we can get started.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Yes. Let us invite them in,
please. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] I take advantage of the occasion (20)to bid welcome to madam Jessica Holmes and Mr. Richard Butler. Can you hear me well? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] You're going to read the solemn declaration that the usher is giving to you, please. (25)
THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
WITNESS: RICHARD BUTLER JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] You may be seated. I think that you are very familiar with our procedures, so there is no need for me to (5)explain to you what is going to take place. As you know, you will be answering questions put to you by Mr. McCloskey. Mr. McCloskey, your witness. MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you, Mr. President. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Excuse me, Mr. McCloskey, my (10)colleague Judge Wald has asked me whether it is an open or closed session. This is an open session, isn't it? MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, this is wide open, Your Honour. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Thank you very much. You may begin. Please begin. (15) • EXAMINED by Mr. McCloskey: • Q.: Can you tell us your name and spell your last name for the record please? • A.: My name is Richard Butler, last name B-u-t-l-e-r. • Q.: And what is your nationality? (20) • A.: I am a US citizen. I am a military intelligence analyst with the United States Army. • Q.: And can you provide a brief outline of your career advancement in the army?
• A.: I joined the army in 1981. I was an enlisted analyst from that
(25)period until 1984. At that point in time, I became a non-commissioned
• Q.: And can you explain to us what a Warrant Officer is, and how it is (5)different, if it is, from what one would do as a regular officer, lieutenant, major, and up? • A.: A Warrant Officer, as the career track is designed, is to allow individuals to specialise in specific segments of a career field, in my case, within the intelligence career field. By a warrant to do that and (10)as a Warrant Officer, I'm able to focus my entire career on intelligence and intelligence and analytical-related matters, rather than having a much broader aspect that other army officers are expected to have. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. McCloskey, excuse me for interrupting you. You know you speak the same language, and we have (15)interpreters, and I think it is impossible to have interpreters with instantaneous memory. There's also a delay. So we have to bear that in mind, and I ask you to pay attention, both you and the witness, to make a pause between the beginning of your question and the answer. Perhaps one day we will have interpreters with instantaneous memories, but for the (20)moment, they don't exist. MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President. I appreciate that, and we've been trying to tell each other that, and we always seem to go a little fast, so we'll try and slow it down.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] I will remind you by making a
(25)sign without interrupting you with words.
• Q.: Can you describe your current position as an intelligence analyst? • A.: In April of 1997 I was seconded to the Officer of the Prosecutor by the United States government, and I have been performing military (5)intelligence analysis-related functions for the Office of the Prosecutor since April of 1997. • Q.: You've described yourself as an all-source intelligence analyst. Can you tell us what that is and what kind of materials you generally review? (10)
• A.: Well, within the spectrum of intelligence and analysis there are
broad categories. Human-related intelligence, which for the most part is
the review of statements; it is the review of refugee comments; it is the
review of POW interrogations, those types of information that come based
from human sources.
(15)The next discipline is signals intelligence which is the analysis
of information which comes from signals or communications-related
intelligence and many aspects. The analysis of intercepted enemy
communications, for that matter, how that's done.
The next one is the basic category of imaginary intelligence which
(20)is the review of all forms of imaginary, aerial imaginary, ground-based
imaginary, those types of things to allow intelligence information to be
derived from them.
The next category is a relatively newish category, it's called
open-source intelligence, which is now looking at open-source
(25)press-related information and finding and examining and getting
• Q.: Which one of those categories would the documents such as orders, internal military memoranda, military documents come under? • A.: In that case that comes under the broad category of human-based intelligence. The exploitation of captured materials, maps, graphics, (10)orders, the deriving of intelligence from those, those are considered part of the human-based intelligence part. • Q.: And what's the foundation of how you analyse all this, practically speaking? • A.: Essentially, it's going through a very detailed and in-depth drill (15)of reviewing all the material, extracting all of the relevant portions, putting it together and, you know, coming up with a detailed analysis of the overall situation. It is a very in-depth process. • Q.: Can you describe your relevant professional education you've had as part of your army career? (20)
• A.: Initially when I joined the army in 1981, the first level was the
basic intelligence analyst's course; as I became a non-commissioned
officer, the non-commissioned officer professional course; being appointed
a Warrant Officer required additional professional education, both a
basic course and I had to pass a technical certification course before I
(25)could accept my warrant. And now as a senior Warrant Officer, my last
• Q.: How about a college degree? (5) • A.: I have a Bachelor's degree from the University of Maryland which I earned while I was on active duty, and I've currently enrolled as a Master's candidate in international relations, although it's been a while since I've been able to work on it, obviously. • Q.: Can you describe for us the three kinds of areas that this subject (10)has been broken down into in your context of intelligence evaluation?
• A.: Military intelligence as a major discipline looks at three broad
analytical areas. The first area is what we would call the strategic
analysis area, and in that aspect primarily we're looking as military
analysts at the strategic ability of nations or states to raise armies to
(15)make war. There are a lot of technical factors along the lines of force
projection, military industry, mobilisation, those type of broad, basic
strategic assets and outlooks.
The next level that we look at is the operational level, and what
that operational level is, that's that middle level between the
(20)component army, the military army function, and how it interacts with the
military assets of a corps and the relationships between the two.
Essentially, how one takes the strategic vision of what the strategic and
the political level want out of a military, and how you then translate
that into the executable functions which armies and corps do on the
(25)battlefields.
• Q.: In your analysis of the product for this case, have you had an (10)opportunity to review all three of those levels or review the material with reference to all three of those levels? • A.: Yes, I have. At the strategic level, a lot of that review came about looking at the laws of the Republika Srpska that regulate how the army is formed and how it operates. For the operational level, a lot of (15)that revolved reviewing and examining the former JNA rules and regulations pertaining to corps operations and pertaining to the staff processes and procedures which make those operations happen. And at the tactical level, a lot of it revolved around actually reviewing documents and materials and orders and directives from relevant brigade units. (20)And again, not only did we do that in many senses with the documents, we've been able to interview people as well who have been able to give us insights on how those three areas functioned within the system. • Q.: So finally, can you give us a brief rundown of your actual field, military field experience, from a broad perspective, obviously? (25)
• A.: Very broadly, my first operational job was in Europe, Germany,
JUDGE RIAD: Perhaps it may be useful to correct in the
transcript, "the Warsaw Pact," it is written differently. It's "war so
(25)pact." It is the city, Warsaw.
(5) • Q.: Now, you mentioned briefly when you came to work for the OTP. Can you tell us how it was that a US Army warrant officer could work for the United Nations? What kind of arrangement did you have? • A.: Initially I was seconded over when that programme still existed within the UN. The UN had requested a professional military analyst to (10)help deal with some of the very technical aspects of these military cases. In 1997 they didn't have a lot of that. I continued in the seconded status until December 1998 when that programme ended. Based on the apprehension of General Krstic in November, the Office of the Prosecutor requested from the US government that I continue (15)to remain available to serve the Office of the Prosecutor in an analytical aspect. The US government agreed to do so. From that period, while specifically now I'm still a member of and work for the US government, I am effectively on loan to the Office of the Prosecutor and will be for the duration of this case. (20) • Q.: When did you first begin working providing intelligence analysis to the Srebrenica investigative team?
• A.: Arriving here in April of 1997, within two weeks I was starting to
already work for primarily Eastern Bosnia, and very shortly after that,
within a month I was totally focused on dealing with the aspects of the
(25)Srebrenica case. That has been my primary function since then.
(5) • A.: Well, sitting back and looking at the overall Srebrenica investigation, we always refer to it in many aspects as a three-legged investigation or stool. The primary leg is the actual criminal events and the crime scenes, and the investigative team, as Mr. Ruez is noted, handles that particular aspect. (10)What I was asked to do from a military analytical aspect is to develop the other two legs; one of them being the command and control component, defining what a corps command was, how a corps command operated; more importantly, the roles and responsibilities and authorities of a corps Commander in that aspect. That work is reflected in my first (15)product which is the command responsibility report, which essentially takes in abstract a VRS corps command circa 1995 and lays out the authorities and responsibilities as they are understood and outlined under VRS army laws and under the VRS regulations in effect. The second component of my work dealt with the actual linkage, if (20)we could make such linkage, between the military units of the Drina Corps and the actual crime scenes. That, of course, was the harder portion of the work. It's a much more lengthier product. But that product -- the Srebrenica military narrative is the manifestation of all of that work, the actual linkage of Drina Corps units to the crime scenes. (25)
• Q.: You mentioned that as part of your command study you reviewed JNA,
• A.: One of the first things that we did when trying to examine the (5)regulatory background under which the VRS worked and operated was looked at the former regulations of the JNA. They essentially provide the foundation for that. Most of the professional officers of the VRS were obviously former JNA officers. As we went through and developed that and as we started acquiring (10)more and more military documents from the VRS from various sources, it became quite clear that, in fact, the JNA operating methodologies had been almost completely adopted by the VRS. And then the final component of that was in the interview of many VRS officers, we'd put these regulations to them and they told us flatly that, yes, they did use these JNA (15)operating instructions; they were in the middle of the war and this was all that they had to use. So for almost all aspects, the former operating regulations and instructions of the former JNA are fully applicable to the VRS. • Q.: For your narrative report, we've touched on it briefly, but can (20)you tell the Court what kind of materials you reviewed for the narrative report?
• A.: A lot of material clearly went into the work on the narrative.
The primary document basis, other than the JNA regulations which built out
of the core report, were documents we obtained from the VRS pursuant to
(25)search warrants.
• Q.: So to simplify matters, much of your materials were from what was then called the Zvornik Brigade and the Bratunac Brigade; is that correct? • A.: Yes, sir. • Q.: Was the Drina Corps searched? (20)
• A.: There was not a search conducted on the headquarters of the Drina
Corps. Primarily we could never get an accurate location of where their
archives were. Historically based, what happened after Dayton was within
six months, the Drina Corps headquarters was essentially disbanded and
their units were resubordinated to other VRS formations as part of a
(25)general demobilisation.
(5) • Q.: Now, you had access to the information generated by the investigation; is that right? • A.: That is correct. • Q.: For the purposes of your narrative report for trial, have you cited any witness statements that were not from witnesses that testified (10)in court? • A.: For the purposes of the narrative, the only three instances I used witness statements as opposed to actual witness testimony, two revolved around the fact that they were witnesses who had not yet testified because I got stuck in a production schedule and they hadn't gone yet, and they've (15)since testified. There was only one witness that I used who has not testified who was a survivor of the Orahovac execution site. I needed some information from his report and he was not called because you had heard other survivors from Orahovac. • Q.: So your reference to his statement in your report adds no new (20)material to what the Court has already heard. • A.: No, sir, it does not. MR. McCLOSKEY: Your Honour, I don't know if you may want to make a break here. It's a good place to break.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Yes, Mr. McCloskey, you are
(25)right.
(5) --- Recess taken at 12.30 p.m. --- On resuming at 1.11 p.m. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Let us resume the hearing. I should like to ask Mr. Richard Butler, if possible, to speak a little slower, please. (10) THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Thank you very much.
MR. McCLOSKEY: And Mr. President, if I could just go over some of
the paperwork issues before I get into the questioning again.
As you've heard, Mr. Butler has a narrative report and a command
(15)report, and all the footnotes for both those reports have been put in
several binders. The narrative has eight, and the command has five, and
those are just the footnote sources, so that's like a library for this
material. I don't believe it needs to be overly accessible in the
courtroom because, in addition, we've chosen some 240 exhibits that we
(20)have in some seven to eight binders, and we hope to get two to three of
those a day. It's very difficult to estimate, but those would be the
binders of exhibits, those two to three that we hope to get to during a
day that would be most important for the Court to have in front of you.
There's obviously a lot of duplication in the library source material, but
(25)that's why we've given the separate binders for, for his testimonial
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Yes, Mr. McCloskey. I hope you're not going to bring in the libraries of universities here. MR. McCLOSKEY: No, we don't -- we'll not read too many intercepts (5)if we can help it also, Your Honour. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Very well. Please continue, having said that. Thank you very much. MR. McCLOSKEY: And I would like to just note for the record, we have Exhibit 400-1 which is a declaration of Jan Kruszewski identifying (10)where all the material from the command report came from, and Exhibit 401 is the command responsibility report in various languages. And 401/3 is Mr. Kruszewski's list of all the items and where they came from, and we would like 403-3 to be under seal temporarily because we need to redact some information from that. (15)We have the supporting material for the command report which is 402 which we can give to the Court in any way you would like it at any time. The military narrative is 403A, and it comes in the various languages. Exhibit 404 is the supporting material to the narrative. And with that, I believe we're ready to get started with (20)Mr. Butler again.
• Q.: Mr. Butler, I want to start with the command report, and if you
could briefly summarise for us the structure of the RS government as it
relates to military command and control issues, very simply if you could.
And if we could start with Exhibit 405 on the ELMO that will help
(25)illustrate that structure.
• Q.: All right. Let's go to Exhibit 406, and I want you to specifically look to Article 369 and tell us about that section. • A.: Article 369 is highlighted, and is the specific portion of the RS (10)law of the army that defines that the president of the Republika Srpska is the only person who is responsible for the promotion and appointments and transfers of individuals in the rank of General. • Q.: So where does that fit in just briefly in the facts of the case as you'll be discussing them later on? (15) • A.: As we get into the facts of the case, one of the key events that occurs during the commission of the crimes and beyond is that there is a corps change of command: the outgoing commander, General Zivanovic, the incoming commander, General Krstic. What this designates is or where this becomes important is the recognition is that in that change of command, (20)those command changes can only be made legally under their system by the president of the republic.
• Q.: Okay. Now, in going to another subject in your command report,
the concept of command and control, a term you've already used, if we
could go to Exhibit 407 -- but prior to looking at this exhibit, can you,
(25)can you tell us a bit about what this concept is of command and control
• A.: Again, taking the JNA base documents and regulations pertaining to that, this is just a broad outline of the base function of command and (5)control within the army and how it encompasses all aspects of military operation. MR. McCLOSKEY: I would just note for the Court's attention, in paragraph 63, "Command and control are conscious and organised activities of the Commander of the corps and the bodies of command and," I would add (10)for emphasis, "aimed at engaging and unifying the actions and activities of all units and commands, et cetera. • Q.: Now let's go to the next exhibit, 408A. First of all, tell us what the provisional service regulations of the army of the Serbian Republic are. (15) • A.: In May, June, July, and, in this case, in August of 1992, as the army of Republika Srpska was formed and now operating as an independent entity, the army felt a need to publish a set of regulations pertaining to the daily activities, roles and responsibilities, of all the individuals who were members of the army. These provisional service regulations (20)pertain to the daily activities and the daily rules and regulations of the army. • Q.: So unlike the last documents we looked at, these are actually now Bosnian Serb documents. • A.: That is correct, sir. (25)
• Q.: I want you to look specifically at section 2, "Relations in the
• A.: Essentially, looking at the three relevant paragraphs, paragraphs 16, 17, and 18, paragraph 16 discusses the prospects of when its officer (5)assumes command, along the very general aspect that the senior officer will take command; paragraph 17 deals with the specific issue of members of the army responsible for carrying out orders, particularly in a timely manner without demur and with a full accuracy; paragraph 18 discusses the aspects of the issuing of orders. (10) • Q.: So going back to paragraph 16, I want to ask you about the second paragraph. "If the unit or institution is suddenly left without a commanding officer, command shall be assumed by his deputy or the highest ranking officer." Will that become relevant in the facts of the case as you have analysed them later on? (15) • A.: That becomes relevant in so much as, as the Drina Corps Chief of Staff during the period, General Krstic is also the Drina Corps Deputy Commander. Behind General Zivanovic, General Krstic is the senior most ranking officer in the corps. • Q.: Let's go to Exhibit 409, the Rule of Ground Forces Provisional, (20)again. Now we're getting into the definition of the command roles of a Commander. Can you briefly give us your understanding of the Commander's roles and duties in the VRS?
• A.: Well, again, as defined under this JNA regulation, the Commander's
duties, very essentially, are to -- he is legally empowered with the
(25)authorities and the responsibilities to command and direct the activities
MR. McCLOSKEY: I would call the Court's attention specifically to (5)paragraph 65, and one line in that: "He is responsible for harmonising the activities of his command, subordinated commands and headquarters ..." et cetera. • Q.: This document goes on to say in paragraph 66, it starts talking about the Chief of Staff position. Can you tell us about the Chief of (10)Staff? • A.: The Chief of Staff in the corps organisation is the primary person who is responsible for planning, organising, and managing the aspects of the corps staff, that organ which essentially, on behalf of the Commander, directs the activities of the entire corps. Again, as it notes here, the (15)Chief of Staff functions also as the corps Deputy Commander. • Q.: I note that in paragraph 66, in the middle of the paragraph, it says, "He is the only one who, in keeping with the Commander's decision, has the right to give assignments to subordinates." What does that mean?
• A.: Generally, that provision means that while the Chief of Staff, as
(20)the Deputy Commander, is empowered to make the decisions for the brigades,
he generally has to do so within the frame of reference of the overall
guidance of the Commander. So while the Commander in many aspects will
make the larger decisions as to the major movements or the major actions
of the corps, it's the responsibility of the Chief of Staff to give the
(25)series of implementing orders or more specified instructions based on the
• Q.: What role would you expect, based on this definition, the Chief of Staff to take in the planning of military operations? • A.: The Chief of Staff in the planning of military operations is (5)normally the most knowledgable person about the conduct of the entire operation. It's his responsibility to coordinate all of the planning aspects from all of the various organs of the staff, to include the operations organ, the intelligence organ, the security organs, the rear services organs. Ultimately, all of those planning aspects are managed and (10)coordinated by him. • Q.: Let's go now to Exhibit 410, which is a JNA document entitled "Regulations on the Responsibilities of the Land Army Corps Command in Peacetime." Can you tell us what this time and what applicability a peacetime document might have for us? (15)
• A.: Under the former JNA system, which again in many aspects was
adopted by the VRS, and even under the laws, they envisioned regulations
and command of military units operating under three distinct periods: a
period of peacetime, a period of immediate threat of war, and a period of
a state of war. Those are legal distinctions that the Republika Srpska
(20)specifically used to define the legal powers and legal authorisations of
various government agencies to include the army.
These regulations reflect the peacetime status which was, of
course, the normal status, and in the case of the Republika Srpska,
despite a conflict going on, it was a declared state of peace for most of
(25)the period from 1992 to 1995.
• A.: Absolutely. • Q.: Now if we could turn to what is page 6, entitled "Commander," we (5)get into another detailed definition of the command which I don't want to go over, but I do want to point out, as we can see from the ELMO, the highlighted areas. I notice that the Commander is in charge of, and it lists a number of things and I've highlighted here, "Monitoring and directing the work," et cetera, "Monitoring and studying," et cetera, (10)"Monitoring and assessing." The first three points are monitoring for a Commander. Can you explain the significance and importance of a Commander's duty to monitor the situation, as described? • A.: In the sense of monitoring, generally, under the definitions given by these JNA regulations, it's not enough for a Commander to issue an (15)order. He has to take the steps -- and a lot of that, again, is the work of the staff -- to ensure that those orders are implemented. That's part of the programme when giving an order: getting feedback as to whether that order was complied with; if it was not complied with, why?
• Q.: Now let's turn the page, and let's go over to page 8, to "Chief of
(20)Staff."
Again, without getting into a detailed discussion of this, I noted
that under this definition, planning plays a significant role: formulating
and updating the development plan, compiling and updating the readiness
plan, compiling orders for combat training, planning and executing, the
(25)organisation planning. Planning is everywhere. Again, as you've stated,
• A.: That is correct. • Q.: Also on the next page, number 10, what's that? It begins: (5)"Managing intelligence support of security organs for intelligence work ..." • A.: Again, it demonstrates that not only is he responsible as the Chief of Staff for managing the operations aspect, he is also responsible for oversight and managing the activities of the Security Branch. That (10)feeds directly back in to him. A lot of that, again, is part of the coordination role. He is the ultimate coordinator of all of those activities and he is the person who is going to make sure that all aspects of that is in sync. MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, to correct the record, and it's (15)probably my fault, there is a reference to page 10 as what we referred to, when in fact it was paragraph 10 on page 9. • Q.: Mr. Butler, you've mentioned intelligence and security. Can you just briefly describe those two different functions in a corps command so that we can get a feel for where they fit in to the command network. (20)
• A.: In the VRS Corps command structure, intelligence and security are
broken down into two. While related, they're still distinct disciplines.
The Chief of Intelligence works and falls directly under the operations
staff and branch as part of the operative bodies of the corps. The
security branch falls under a separate branch, it's considered to be a
(25)specialised services branch, and that falls under the control and
• Q.: Okay. Now I'd like to go into another area of the rules and regarding the law that governs the duties of commanders to prevent war crimes and punish people involved in war crimes. Has the RS enacted any (5)legislation or any rules or orders related to those subjects? • A.: The Republika Srpska from May of 1992 on did in fact through a series of presidential decrees, laws, and other forms of regulations fairly adequately delineate out the roles and responsibilities of senior military commanders to prevent those types of things from occurring. (10) • Q.: And if we can go to Exhibit 411, Mr. Butler, if you could tell us what this is. • A.: This document is a 13 May, 1992, decree from the -- or order from the president of the -- presidency of the Republika Srpska, or at that time the Serbian republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, pertaining to the (15)application of rules of international law of war on the army of the Serbian republic.
• Q.: All right. And I will briefly read out the most relevant part,
and that would begin with section 2:
"Commanders of all units, as well as each member of the army or
(20)other armed formation who takes part in combat activities, are responsible
for the application of the rules of the international law of war.
"It is the duty of the competent superior officer to initiate
proceedings for legal sanctions against individuals who violate the rules
of the international law of war."
(25)Would a corps commander, in your view, be such an officer?
• Q.: Let's go to the next exhibit, 412. That's entitled "The Regulations on the Application of International Laws of War and the Armed Forces of the SFRY." Okay, we're back to a document from the former (5)Yugoslavia. How does this have relevance to the Republika Srpska and the VRS in particular? • A.: As part of, again, adopting the former operating regulations of the JNA and SFRY, these essentially were adopted and totally used by the army as their operating, regulating guidelines on combat operations (10)pertaining to, to the -- to preventing violations of laws of war. We've been told this by several key officials within the Republika Srpska government that this was, in fact, the applicable document. • Q.: All right. And, without reading it, I would call the Court to the attention of paragraph 20, "Personal responsibility for violations of laws (15)of war," which describes that each officer is personally responsible; and going on to page 15, we have highlighted the second paragraph, "The perpetrators of such criminal acts may also answer before an international court if such a court has been established." In your view, would that include The Hague, where we are today? (20) • A.: Yes, sir.
• Q.: Again, I would call the Court's attention to paragraph 21, "The
responsibility for the actions of subordinates," and 22, which I would
like to take a moment to read out.
"Responsibility for violations of the laws of war committed on
(25)orders. A member of the armed forces shall be liable to criminal
THE INTERPRETER: Could we ask Mr. McCloskey to slow down, please. (5) MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, I'm sorry. • Q.: "-- if he knew that the orders were intended to bring about a violation of the laws of war which constitutes a criminal offence." In your view, would this apply to General Krstic if he received an illegal order from General Mladic? (10) • A.: Yes, it would. • Q.: Now, if we could go to OTP Exhibit 413. Mr. Butler, if you could tell us what this opening letter from General Mladic is, and then go through the document and tell us what the rest of it is. • A.: As I noted earlier, the process of the VRS in early and mid-1992 (15)as it was establishing itself as an independent army, what this letter represents and the document behind it is the guidance and the policies that came out of the Main Staff pertaining to the roles and responsibilities of the army commanders for enforcing the former laws of the SFRY and the military regulations of the JNA and their applicability (20)into the VRS. This document specifically deals with three aspects of military law, the first aspect being crimes against the army, the second aspect being crimes related to failure to respond to mobilisation, and the final aspect dealing with crimes against violations of international law. (25)
• Q.: I'm going to ask both of us to slow down. We'll get the hang of
• A.: In short, what this series of paragraphs does is establishes a positive preventive duty for senior officers and commanders of the army to proactively deal with the issue of war crimes. First, proactively to take (20)the positive steps to prevent them, and second if they should occur, to take the steps to deal with them. It obligates them further that if they do not take these types of steps, that they themselves become answerable for those same criminal offences.
• Q.: Was this an application at the time, in July of 1995, when General
(25)Krstic was the Commander of the Drina Corps?
• Q.: Would General Krstic have been aware of these rules and these laws, in your opinion? • A.: Yes, sir. (5) • Q.: How do you know that? • A.: One of the further, in the scheme of the corps, assistant commanders, one of the assistant commanders is in fact designated the Assistant Commander for Legal, Religious, and Moral Affairs. As part of that there is a subbranch within his staff which is the corps legal (10)officer. That would have been the repository for all of these legal documentations and rules regulating these types of things. • Q.: All right. Let's go now to Exhibit 414, and can you tell us what this is? • A.: This document is the 1993 law on military courts, and this is (15)Republika Srpska law. • Q.: All right. And Article 65, what's the gist of Article 65? • A.: The essence of Article 65 again reflects around the responsibilities for every superior officer to take the positive steps to prevent the individuals who may have committed crimes from fleeing the (20)scene. It establishes the responsibility of the Commander to take those actions for dealing with criminal offences. • Q.: And this now is, in fact, a law at this time? • A.: That is correct, sir.
• Q.: Let's go to OTP Exhibit 415. Is this another Republika Srpska
(25)law?
• Q.: And what's the gist of Article 1 as we have outlined it? • A.: In the sense of this article, it's an individual responsibility for anyone, be that military or civilian, who possesses any information (5)pertaining to or evidence of crimes against humanity or international law, to report that to the relevant authorities. • Q.: All right. And now let's go to 416. Can you tell us what this law is in reference to, as it is relevant to ours? And I would particularly point you and the Court to Article 8 and 9. (10) • A.: As I noted earlier, again under the three states in which the army legally functions, peacetime, imminent threat of war, and state of war, this article pertains to essentially the expanded legal powers of military officers, particularly corps commanders, during a state of war. In looking at Article 8 and Article 9, these articles set the (15)provision up for the corps Commander, or subordinate brigade commanders with the approval of the corps Commander, for convening what are known as emergency military courts or court marshals where they can, in effect, try their own soldiers for various violations of law. • Q.: But these special powers don't arise unless there's a particular (20)kind of state of war in existence; is that right? • A.: These powers to come into effect requires a declared state of war. • Q.: All right. And on that note, let's go to the next exhibit, 417, and can you tell us what this is?
• A.: This is dated 14 July, 1995, and this is a decision on the
(25)proclamation of a state of war in the Srebrenica-Skelani municipality
• Q.: So on July 14th, the powers that you referred to in the early exhibit would have been in effect in the Drina Corps? • A.: For the most part within those elements in the Srebrenica-Skelani (5)municipality, yes, sir. What further occurs related to this is by 29 July, two weeks later, a state of war is declared for the entire Republika Srpska, and in that effect, from 29 July onwards, those powers would have referred to the entire Drina Corps. • Q.: Before leaving this subject, what is your understanding of what -- (10)let me give you a hypothetical. If General Mladic ordered General Krstic to commit a war crime, what would, in your view, General Krstic's responsibilities and powers be to do regarding General Mladic, his Commander? • A.: First, within a sense, his individual legal responsibilities of (15)not following the order. Because as the regulations are very explicit, there is no obligation to follow an order that is criminal at face value. In the sense that General Mladic is a superior, General Krstic in and of himself, probably doesn't have the authority to go out and immediately arrest General Mladic; however, he has the positive (20)responsibility to, again, refer that to the superior officer who can deal with that issue. In this case, it would have been the notification of the president of the Republika Srpska.
• Q.: All right. Let's now go to the rules as they are related to the
security organs, going to Exhibit 418. In particular, I want to give you
(25)a hypothetical involving a corps like the Drina Corps. Can you just
• A.: First, dealing with the responsibilities of the Chief of Security, who is also known as the Assistant Commander for Security, his primary (5)function is the security aspect of the corps, mostly in a counterintelligence aspect. His other primary function is to provide, on behalf of the Commander, management and oversight responsibilities for all issues dealing with the military police. Takeing that to the next step pertaining to where the Chief of (10)Staff fits in, again, in coordinating the actions of the Assistant Commander for Security, and again coordinating the actions of the military police battalion, the Chief of Staff is involved in that process to make sure that their activities are fully integrated to not only the corps plan but also the intent of the Commander. (15) • Q.: So for the corps Chief of Security, who is his boss? • A.: His boss in the hierarchy is -- when the Chief of Staff is wearing his chief-of-staff hat, so to speak, in that function, his boss goes to the Commander. When the Chief of Staff is functioning as the corps Deputy Commander, it goes through him to the Commander. (20)
• Q.: Calling your attention to paragraph 18, "The security organs of
the superior command, unit, institution, or staff of the armed forces
provide specialist administrative services for security organs in
subordinate commands, units, institutions, and staffs of the armed forces
and provide assistance to these organs and organise, direct, coordinate,
(25)and supervise their work."
• A.: In this instance, the superior command to that would be the main security administration of the Main Staff of the army of Republika (5)Srpska. • Q.: How does the Main Staff security organ fit in the chain of command to a corps Chief of Security? • A.: It doesn't fit into the chain of command per se in the functions that the Chief of the Main Security Administration can order the lower (10)Chief of Security Administration to perform functions or tasks of major significance. That Commander, that corps security officer -- corps Assistant Commander for Security works for the corps Commander. It is not an alternative chain of command. Where this chain falls in is what's referred to in the regulations (15)as a technical or management chain; whereas the superior branch organ provides technical advice, technical assistance, in some cases, resources, guidance, and direction for the more technical aspects of security operations. So it's not a command chain, per se; it is very much an advisory and management chain. (20) • Q.: If we could go to Exhibit 419, back to the JNA Rule Corps of Ground Forces, it speaks briefly on the subject of security at page 23, paragraph 73. How does 73 add to the analysis?
• A.: Again, with respect to the analysis, it again shows that at the
corps level, counterintelligence is a primary function, and it again
(25)reiterates that the Chief of Security is responsible for managing the
• Q.: I'd now like to go to another area of the law, and Exhibit 420. (5)This is a law entitled "The Law on the Implementation of the Law of Internal Affairs During an Imminent Threat of War or a State of War." If you could turn the page to page 12 where we have skipped to the law related to the use of police units in combat operations, under subheading 4, can you tell us about what the essence of this law is? (10) • A.: In short, what this law does is it regulates the command relationship between the Ministry of the Interior police units and the army when those police units are performing functions subordinate to the army. It specifies that when they're conducting operations with the army, that they are, in fact, subordinated to the army for the duration of those (15)operations. The one other additional aspect of this article that is noted of significance is the fact that the Ministry of the Interior police are only obligated to perform those functions which have been previously agreed to between the Ministry of the Interior and Ministry of Defence, or are (20)designated by the President before they go under army control. So while the Ministry of the Interior units are under army control for many of the aspects, there are, in fact, limitations on what the army commander can do relative to the people and relative to their mission.
• Q.: So would you expect the police units, the MUP police units working
(25)together with the army on the same operation without the agreement, as
• A.: Unless the functions were agreed to, they wouldn't be working in that function at all. • Q.: This has particular application to combat operations; is that (5)correct? • A.: Yes, sir. • Q.: I'd also like to point you to Article 14 and ask you about this particular sentence: "Police units assigned to combat operations by an order of the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces shall be (10)resubordinated to the Commander of the unit in whose zone of responsibility they are performing combat tasks." What does that mean, " ... the Commander of the unit in whose zone of responsibility they are performing combat tasks"? • A.: In a broad sense, when you look at the historical pattern of MUP (15)operations with the army, generally, the Ministry of the Interior police forces will be resubordinated first to the corps as the general oversight asset. For practical, logistical, and battlefield coordination issues, they would further be resubordinated down to the applicable brigade in whose zone they were conducting operations. (20)Part of this, again, is a practical aspect of coordination; the other part of it is a practical aspect of supply, logistics, food, those things which are better taken care of by the brigade Commander. But in both aspects, it's a clean, physical resubordination to the corps and then to the subordinate brigade. (25)
• Q.: Thank you, Mr. Butler. I would like to now take us to another
(5)
• A.: General Krstic or, at the time in November 1992, Colonel Krstic
was first the Commander of the 2nd Romanija Motorised Brigade, which in
November 1992, when the Drina Corps was formed, that brigade went from the
Sarajevo-Romanija Corps control to the Drina Corps control, physical
resubordination of that unit. He was affiliated -- he was, in fact, the
(10)Commander of that brigade for two years until August of 1994, when he was
appointed to become the Chief of Staff of the VRS Drina Corps.
If I can bring up, I believe, Exhibit 422 -- sorry, 421, this is
the order from the Republika Srpska Ministry of Defence pertaining to the
appointment of General Radislav Krstic, or then Colonel Krstic, as the
(15)Chief of Staff and Deputy Commander.
As is generally designated within the JNA organisational
documents, the position of Chief of Staff and Deputy Commander of a corps
is a function that is normally filled by a senior Colonel, somebody
awaiting promotion to General. What this document is, in May of 1995, is
(20)a request by the corps Commander, General-Major Zivanovic, to the Main
Staff for the early promotion of Colonel Krstic to the rank of
General-Major; again, noting he holds the position of Chief of Staff and
Deputy Commander of the Drina Corps.
We don't have his order which pertains to the actual appointment,
(25)but we see the public announcement of his promotion to the rank of
• Q.: What's the significance of General Zivanovic, in Exhibit 422, recommending an early promotion? • A.: In a practical sense, there's no reason to assume that he couldn't (5)do the job as well as a senior Colonel as he was as a General-Major, and it's reasonable to believe that General Zivanovic felt strongly enough that he should be promoted before his normal term because of the job that he was performing and because of his capabilities to do that. MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, we are now at the stage where I'd (10)like Mr. Butler to just briefly go over some of the personalities involved in the next few days, and it would be helpful if we had the chart of the Drina Corps that is right outside in the next room. We hadn't brought it in before because it blocks the audience, but if we could take a moment to bring that chart in now, that would, I think, help. (15) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Yes. Could Mr. Usher assist, please. So the interpreters and the court reporters can make up for the delay now. MR. McCLOSKEY: I apologise, Mr. President. We've had a lot of (20)exhibits out there but we don't have the right one. It is Exhibit 28 in the small version so perhaps we can use that. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] We can use the ELMO, can't we? It is easier. In that way, the public can see and are not prevented from seeing what we are seeing. Yes. (25)
MR. McCLOSKEY: That should be Exhibit 28.
MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you. • Q.: Mr. Butler, if you could take your highlighter, actually, and let's first point out General Krstic, if you could just highlight his (5)position as the Commander. • A.: [Marks] • Q.: I think we'll be discussing quite a bit of General Krstic. Let's go down to General Zivanovic and just briefly describe where he fits into this. (10) • A.: In the case of General-Major Zivanovic -- he, again, is off to the side on this particular chart -- he is the Drina Corps Commander up to the period of 13 July 1995. When the corps was formed in 1992, he was appointed the Commander of corps and was since then. His position is relevant, and we will see him through parts of the (15)operation, the actual capture of Srebrenica. We will see his physical presence at the first meeting between the Dutch and between General Mladic. After that we don't see physical presence of him except for one instance in Potocari on the 12th. We'll continue to hear from him in the form of intercepts from the Bosnian Muslim army on the 13th and on the (20)14th. After the 15th, or on the morning of the 15th, essentially he will tell us he's no longer making any decisions or authorised to do so, and he essentially disappears from all of our information holdings after the morning of the 15th. [Marks] • Q.: Who is Lieutenant Colonel Vujadin Popovic? (25)
• A.: Lieutenant Colonel Vujadin Popovic is the Assistant Commander or
• Q.: And Lieutenant Colonel Svetozar Kosoric? (10) • A.: Lieutenant Colonel Kosoric is the Chief of Intelligence for the VRS Drina Corps. We see him, his activities, again related to the meetings between the Dutch, the UN, and Muslim representatives on the 11th and 12th of July. We see his involvement with the refugee population in Potocari on 12 July. (15) • Q.: He's notable because of his balding hair and very large moustache on the videos; is that right? • A.: That is correct, sir. • Q.: And who is Major Pavle Golic? • A.: Major Golic is an intelligence officer of the Drina Corps. We see (20)his involvement, particularly first in the series on the 14th, and later on the 16th at the command of the Drina Corps headquarters in Vlasenica where he's active passing information relating to Colonel Popovic and relating to the procuring of fuel and other requirements during the Branjevo Farm killings. (25)
• Q.: Colonel Lazar Acimovic?
• Q.: Colonel Slobodan Cerovic? (10) • A.: Colonel Cerovic is the Assistant Commander for Legal, Religious, and Moral Affairs of the VRS Drina Corps. We see his presence and we note him at the command post of the Drina Corps with multiple discussions pertaining to the handling of prisoners, and further in several discussions where he notes that General Krstic has been apprised of (15)various reports that are coming out of brigade commanders, specifically the Commander of the Zvornik Brigade. • Q.: Colonel Ignjat Milanovic?
• A.: Colonel Milanovic is by position the Chief of Anti-Aircraft
Defence of the Drina Corps. He's a former Deputy Commander and Chief of
(20)Staff of the Bratunac Brigade in early 1992, 1993. We see his primary
role during this period on the 13th, we see him involved in discussions
pertaining to trying to acquire bulldozers or backhoes, probably related
to executions in and around the Srpska Valley or Jadar River area.
We further see him again on the 15th of July when, on behalf of
(25)the corps Commander, he conducts a very detailed tour of the area from
(5) • Q.: Okay. Now that's most, but perhaps not all, of the Drina Corps people that we'll be hearing about. Now let's go to the Drina Corps units, starting with the Bratunac Brigade and Colonel Vidoje Blagojevic. • A.: He is the Commander of the Bratunac Light Infantry Brigade subordinate to the Drina Corps. His personnel are involved in the (10)activities that happen in Potocari on the 11th and -- I'm sorry, on the 12th and the 13th. We further see his units involved in some of the combat operations against the column on the 14th; and some of his units, a small element, which deploys toward Zepa. But he remains for the most part in the physical vicinity of his command post in Bratunac until about (15)the 17th or the 18th of July. • Q.: Now, Major Momir Nikolic?
• A.: Major Momir Nikolic is the Assistant Commander for Intelligence
and Security Affairs of the Bratunac Light Infantry Brigade. By
organisational function in a light infantry brigade, the roles of security
(20)and intelligence are combined. They're not separated out, so he holds
both positions.
We see his involvement on the outside of the initial meetings on
the 11th and 12th with the members of the Dutch, the Muslim population,
and the VRS. We also see his involvement with issues dealing -- we see
(25)him physically in Potocari and his involvement with issues dealing with
• Q.: Could you tell us that last statement again? I don't think it got translated into French. • A.: I apologise. He's also involved with the issues pertaining to wounded Muslims who are being held and treated at the Bratunac military -- (10)or at the Bratunac medical facility. • Q.: That being Momir Nikolic? • A.: Yes, sir. • Q.: Okay. Let's go to the Zvornik Brigade now, and tell us about the Commander, Lieutenant Commander Vinko Pandurevic, but just briefly because (15)the details will come.
• A.: In the case of Lieutenant Colonel Vinko Pandurevic, we see him
commanding elements of the Zvornik Brigade which deploy for the actual
military operation against Srebrenica. On the evening of the 13th, we see
those elements deploy for operations in Zepa. Because of the military
(20)operations which occur later from the Muslim column which are attacking
primarily the units of his brigade in Zvornik, we see him on the morning
of the 15th with those units return back to the Zvornik Brigade area.
Once he arrives back in the Zvornik, we see him active in not only the
defence, but he also sends a series of reports to the command of the Drina
(25)Corps pertaining to issues of Muslims being held in schools in his zone of
• Q.: And Major Dragan Obrenovic? • A.: He is the Chief of Staff and the Deputy Commander of the Zvornik Brigade, and during the absence of Colonel Pandurevic, he is in effect (5)running the day-to-day operations of the Zvornik Brigade. We will see his involvement tracking the movement of the column as it moves from Bratunac north into his zone, in Zvornik zone. He becomes involved in issues of the column and also involved in issues of the handling and holding of prisoners in the schools in the zone of the Zvornik Brigade on the 14th, (10)particularly those that are held at the school at Orahovac. • Q.: And Lieutenant Miomir Jasikovac? • A.: Lieutenant Jasikovac is the Commander of the Zvornik Brigade military police company. We see first his involvement, the military police, on various ambush sites on the evening of the 12th, on the evening (15)of the 13th, as the Zvornik Brigade is now mustering all of their remaining reserve units, the military police being one of those that can be used, as the column is coming north. On the 14th -- or on the evening of the 13th, we see elements of the military police pulled out of those ambush positions and redeployed at (20)the school at Orahovac where the Muslim prisoners are arriving. • Q.: Okay. And were you able to mark the exhibit for Pandurevic and Obrenovic? • A.: My apologies. They're both on the exhibit.
• Q.: And if you could move that exhibit up a bit. There we go. Major
(25)Dragan Jokic?
(10) • Q.: Could you provide more detail about the position of duty officer and how it relates to the functions of any command, both brigade, corps, main staff?
• A.: In a sense, the duty officer is the individual who functions on
behalf of the Commander in the operations centre. It's generally
(15)recognised that one of the functions of command in going out and
inspecting the troops or being with the troops, that the Commander himself
is not physically going to be in the garrison or headquarters 24 hours a
day, yet that is where the information comes in.
Particularly in the case of the Zvornik Brigade, Major Obrenovic
(20)is out with the soldiers at various ambush locations ensuring they're set
up properly, ensuring the resources are used. Major Jokic as the duty
officer, his duty position is in the operations centre where it is his
function as orders and directives and information comes in from higher or
from other units, it is his job to collate that information and then pass
(25)it to the Commander, in this case the Deputy Commander, Obrenovic, later,
(5) • Q.: Captain Dragan Jeftic? • A.: Captain Dragan Jeftic is the Commander of the Engineer Company of the Zvornik Brigade. We see backhoes and bucket loaders under command of the engineer company active in burial operations in Orahovac, at the Petkovci dam, and at the Branjevo Military Farm, and at the site of Kozluk (10)on the 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, and in one case the 18th of July. So it is his unit his responsible for burying those who have been killed at those sites. • Q.: Drago Nikolic? • A.: Lieutenant Drago Nikolic is the Zvornik Brigade Assistant (15)Commander for Security. In this case, because Zvornik is an infantry brigade and not a light infantry brigade, the functions of intelligence and security have been separated. He is the one -- the Assistant Commander for Security. We see him chronologically on the 17th, 18th, and 19th, primarily (20)at the back end of the operation, where his people, again the military police, are rounding up Muslim stragglers from the column. And in many cases, these people are known to be captured, their names are taken down, some of them are interrogated, and they're later missing. • Q.: And you meant July? You meant July when you said those dates? (25)
• A.: I'm sorry, July 1995.
• A.: Captain Milorad Trbic is an intelligence and security officer with the Zvornik Brigade. He, in effect, assists both of the other officers in the performance of their duties. We see him first performing the duty (5)officer function on the 16th of July, 1995, and he's involved in a series of conversations pertaining to the involvement of Colonel Popovic as members of the Drina Corps command and staff are trying to locate him. We further see his involvement several months later as part of the reburial process where, when fuel and resources are allocated to the Drina (10)Corps to perform this reburial process, he is the officer put in charge of the Zvornik Brigade for monitoring the fuel usage to make sure that none of it is illegally or improperly siphoned off from that role. • Q.: Okay. And the last soldier for today, I would think, Sergeant Gojko Simic. (15) • A.: Sergeant Gojko Simic is the Commander of the Fire Support or Heavy Weapons Platoon or the 4th Infantry Battalion of the Zvornik Infantry Brigade. He is identified by one of the survivors of the Orahovac killings as one of the individuals -- or as the individual of the group that's doing the executions. He's in charge of that group. (20)This is on the 14th. Gojko Simic is killed two days later on the 16th of July in combat operations defending the 4th Battalion command post which was then later run over by the Muslim column on its way towards Bosnian Muslim held territory.
MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, that does give us a start on the
(25)next few days, but this would probably be a good time to stop.
(5)
MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President, I forgot to mention, I have
spoken to Defence counsel, and there is a matter that Defence counsel and
the Prosecution need to discuss with the Court very briefly in an informal
setting somewhere, either directly after or perhaps prior to tomorrow
morning. It shouldn't take very long. There's something we just need to
(10)discuss briefly. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] If I understood you correctly, Mr. McCloskey, it would be an informal meeting with the Chamber. Perhaps in my office? (15) MR. McCLOSKEY: That would be excellent. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Would 5.00 be convenient for you? I'm going to ask Mr. Petrusic the same question. MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, that's perfect. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Petrusic, and for you? (20) MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] Yes, Mr. President.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Fine. I will have the pleasure
of receiving you in my chambers with my colleagues at 5.00 today. We can
save on hearing time by doing that. It is better to do that in that way,
then.
(25)Very well, I'll see you at 5.00.
|
