²⁶²³⁵

Wednesday, 10 September 2003

[Open session]

[The accused entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, two short matters before the witness returns. First, there was yesterday a notification that we would be seeking to change the order of the next two witnesses from C-007 -- sorry, from being Van Baal followed by C-007 to being C-007 followed by Van Baal. The reason for that notification was that we understood that if C-007 was detained until tomorrow as opposed to being completed today, there would be very substantial travel cost implications. In the event, when I checked the matter further, there are no significant implications. I'm sorry that that notification was given because it was avoidable. I don't know if either the amicus or the accused has made preparations based on the notification. We are happy to proceed with either ordering of the witnesses today.

JUDGE MAY: I'd be grateful if these changes could be kept to a minimum. I understand there may be occasional logistic difficulties, but it does add very much to the strain on those involved in the case if there are changes of this sort.

So the plan is that we hear Mr. Van Baal as originally notified and then C-007.

MR. NICE: Indeed, unless the accused or the amicus, having received our letter yesterday, would now prefer us to go into the other ²⁶²³⁶ order.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Mr. Kay, any problems about that?

MR. KAY: Yes. We had changed our arrangements, but we are able to go back to how we'd originally planned it. So we're happy with it reverting to the original order.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, you've heard the story. I don't know whether you got the message that they were thinking of calling C-007 first. Are you ready if in fact we start with Mr. Van Baal?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Van Baal, according to the list I received, was due to testify today. This is the first I hear of C-007. But otherwise, I agree.

There's something else that I should like to raise, Mr. May. Last night --

JUDGE MAY: Sorry. Let me just get that straight. So we will -- we will finish the witness we're hearing. We will then go on with Mr. Van Baal, but there is one other matter first. I'll return to what you wanted to raise.

But the other matter was Witness B-1610. Did you want to ask him any further questions?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That is the witness for whom you provided additional transcript yesterday; is that right?

JUDGE MAY: Yes, the additional matter yesterday.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have nothing to ask in connection with that additional material except to say that it is visible from that material too that earlier he indicated an officer of whom he said was on ²⁶²³⁷ the spot. He said that he was a representative of the army of Republika Srpska and not of the JNA. So that's what he said in that additional material as well, but I have no reason to call him to ask him more about that. I just wished to draw your attention to that point.

JUDGE MAY: Just one moment. We note what you say, and you can draw our attention to it at an appropriate time.

Mr. Nice, it would appear that witness can be released.

MR. NICE: Thank you very much. The other very short matter is this --

JUDGE MAY: There was another matter from Mr. Milosevic. Yes. There was something else you wanted to raise.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would like to say, Mr. May, that I never received any response regarding my objection to an enormous amount of material that is being disclosed to me. Most recently, there was additional material. In fact, last night I received this pile of material relating to Mr. Van Baal, and this morning, just before entering the courtroom, I received some additional matter relating to Mr. Van Baal who is going to testify now. The night before last, I received this large pile of documents in the Detention Unit regarding Mr. Ramic, who is testifying now. So I received it on the eve of his appearance, and I feel that this is not permissible practice.

Furthermore, I should like to remind you once again that many months ago and several times since, I asked you when you think I will have time to review thousands of tapes and about half a million pages that I ²⁶²³⁸ have been served with, and your response has always been that you will consider the matter. I never received your answer. And this additional provision of piles and piles of documents during the testimony of witnesses I think is totally unacceptable, as is the practice of accumulation of material which it is physically impossible to read through.

JUDGE MAY: During the course of the trial there have been many breaks which has given you the opportunity to review other matter, but of course if there is a specific matter, we will look at it, and in particular, we will inquire of the Prosecution what is going on at the moment.

Mr. Nice, can you help us? And it's not satisfactory if a great deal of material is disclosed late. I bear in mind, of course, that you will say that all this material has been disclosed before.

MR. NICE: Not necessarily on this occasion. I think that so far as Mr. Ramic is concerned, some of the material disclosed under Rule 68 was disclosed late. I'll find out further why it wasn't disclosed earlier. I'll check on the position in relation to General Van Baal before he comes to give evidence, and I'll give you an account then, if I may. But as to Mr. Ramic, there was, I think, some late disclosure as to the various court records, some of which the accused may have turned to or may be turning to this morning.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, what is the full extent, in quantitative terms, of the late disclosure?

MR. NICE: In relation to Mr. Ramic, again I'd have to find out. ²⁶²³⁹ I can't give it to you immediately. But on this occasion I don't think I'm in a position to say it's repeat disclosure. As you will know, the Rule 68 obligations on us are very extensive, which is why, of course, we had another meeting yesterday with the amicus in order to ensure that everything that was being done that could be done, meetings which, as you know, unfortunately the accused's associates do not attend despite always being invited. We endeavour through those meetings to ensure that parameters are set to ensure timely production of Rule 68 material. Whether there has been an oversight on this occasion or a change of parameter or some other reason for the late disclosure, I don't know, but I will look into it and report back to you both as to quantity and the reason.

JUDGE MAY: I think we must set aside some time in the next week to consider these matters, but I think now we should get on with the witness.

Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, this is the amount I received for Mr. Ramic, this pile for Ramic the night before last, for a witness who started testifying yesterday.

Secondly, you gave me an additional 45 minutes for Mr. Ramic yesterday, but I have too many documents and more questions, so that 45 minutes will not be sufficient, so I wanted to ask you for an extension of time for the cross-examination of this witness.

JUDGE MAY: Let us begin the cross-examination. We will consider the matter in due course. ²⁶²⁴⁰ Yes.

MR. NICE: One other very short matter. The Chamber will recall that the witness Lilic produced some documents of Council for Harmonisation meetings which contained stenographic notes of what the participants, including the accused, said. They've been submitted for translation. They're now back in draft translation form, about 700 pages in English. The revised authorised translation will probably take several more weeks. There's nothing we can do about that. The accused, of course, has the originals so he will understand the documents should he need to cross-examine on them.

I inquire whether the Chamber would like to have these documents, which are potentially valuable documents and may contain exculpatory material on which the accused may rely, or apparently exculpatory material on which he may rely earlier or whether they'd rather wait until several weeks pass and the official versions are available.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: We'll have the draft translation.

MR. NICE: Thank you.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. We'll have the --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I just say, Mr. May, that I don't have those documents of the Council for Harmonisation that Mr. Nice and Mr. Lilic have provided.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Mr. Nice, perhaps you would check that out, please.

MR. NICE: I will. ²⁶²⁴¹

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Let's have the witness.

MR. NICE: While the witness is coming in, the accused may wish to check Exhibit 469, tabs 39 to 46, I'm informed.

[The witness entered court]

WITNESS: MUSTAFA RAMIC [Resumed]

[Witness answered through interpreter]

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Ramic, I'm sorry you've been kept waiting. We've had some administrative matters and procedural matters to deal with. When we finished yesterday, I said that you should have the opportunity of seeing Exhibit D184. If that could be shown to the witness.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

JUDGE MAY: Is there any comment, Mr. Ramic, you want to make about that or not?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have never seen this document before. I see it for the first time now. So it is a terrorist act that was mentioned yesterday with respect to the alleged mining, as Mr. Milosevic said, or blowing up of a train that was heading for Serbia carrying weapons from Brcko.

First of all, it is possible that this is an authentic document as it bears the date from 1991. Secondly, what I do notice here, all the signatories of this document are people who later on during the war were actually tormentors and criminals in relation to detained citizens in the town of Brcko. This applies to the signatories of these documents. Those are the very same people. Thirdly, I repeat no weapons were ever taken from Brcko towards Serbia, only in the opposite direction did weapons ²⁶²⁴² come. So I also wish to add why would anyone who wanted to protect himself destroy weapons that were being taken away from their environment? They would only welcome such an event.

And in the final analysis, even if any such activities were engaged in, I was not aware of them, and quite clearly I do not recollect any response from the army either. The commander of the garrison, Mr. Milinkovic or anyone else did not comment on this, because if they had, I would have remembered it. So if there were any such terrorist preparations, then they may have been engaged in by individuals. That's my comment.

JUDGE MAY: Wait a moment. The names of the signatories who you say were criminals and tormentors, can you tell us who it was?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It says here the first document noted by Petar Kaurinovic. He was one of the tormentors and investigators during the war in the premises of the then SUP. That is the police premises on the aggressor side.

Then there is Zoran Kondic who was also a member of that same group, then Krsto Mihajlovic, also an investigator who was a member of that group, then Zoran Kondic is repeated, and Krsto Mihajlovic. His name appears again.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think that the contents of the statement has nothing to do with this generalised accusations against persons who signed the statement. ²⁶²⁴³ Cross-examined by Mr. Milosevic: [Continued]

Q. [Interpretation] In those days, they were official officers in the Secretariat of the Interior in Brcko. Isn't that right, Mr. Ramic?

A. Those are persons who were part of the police, and the investigators on the part of the aggressor side after the war. They were indeed policemen before the war as well, but they were operating even after the aggression and the occupation of Brcko.

Q. Mr. Ramic, this statement is from 1991, and it relates to an act of terrorism with respect to which an investigation is undertaken. And this explanation of yours about certain subsequent roles of those people has nothing to do with this statement. My questions relate to that statement.

A. Mr. Milosevic, I did not see these documents, but they were signed only by the persons that I have already described. Therefore, I first wish to state that they may have been compiled retroactively. However, even if they were compiled contemporaneously, their purpose was to provoke dissent on an ethnic basis and discord on an ethnic basis. That is my explanation.

Q. So the confiscation of explosives and the investigation conducted were designed to provoke ethnic conflict.

A. I said yesterday that there was a lot of arms trafficking. I'm not denying that. I am not also denying that some explosives may have been confiscated. I'm just denying the allegation that this was intended to blow up an army convoy heading towards Serbia.

Q. But that is what the statement says, the statement that has been ²⁶²⁴⁴ shown to you.

A. Yes, but that statement was written by these people that I have described.

Q. The statement was given by the man caught with the explosives. Are you also familiar with the fact referred to in that statement that these men mentioned, Vinko Vucicevic, Zeljko Gasparevic, Marko Kovacic, Antun Terzic were all members of the MUP of Croatia and of a special purpose unit, and that, following orders of their commander Martin Matkovic, they were about to carry out this act of sabotage, that is, blowing up a convoy at the railway station in Brcko, carrying military equipment. You have the statements of Ivanovic, Vucicevic, and Gasparevic. Are you denying that too?

A. No, I'm not denying that either. That may be true. I'm just repeating that I did not see this document before, and I repeat that in those days I do not recollect this situation as having occurred.

Q. Very well, Mr. Ramic. Now, tell me, is it true that the bridges across the Sava at Brcko were secured on one side of the river by members of the Brcko police station, which was under your control, and on the other side of the river by members of the MUP of Croatia? Is that right?

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. Why, then, are you claiming that those bridges were destroyed by the Serbs on the 1st of May?

A. That is quite clear, and it has been proven repeatedly up to now. First of all, we have living witnesses who were there on the spot. Secondly, a series of indications point to the army having done it on the ^{26245 BLANK PAGE 26246} Brcko side. As I repeat, we have witnesses living today who were guards, policemen on the bridge and who were captured. Each and every one of them claim first that a military vehicle arrived carrying members wearing camouflage army uniforms, that they first captured a group under the bridge and that, after that, a second group arrived which captured a police patrol on the bridge, and a third group brought a vehicle in SMB colour, pushed it onto the bridge, and the captives heard the people talking who were using the Ekavian Serbian dialect, and it is deduced from that that this was a group of elite troops that had come from Serbia.

Q. So though nothing has been proven, you drew your conclusion. But what has been proven is this act of sabotage by these people who are named in that statement, and you nevertheless conclude that the bridges were destroyed by the Serbs or, rather, the JNA, according to what you are saying now.

A. Precisely so. It was destroyed by the JNA or organised by the JNA.

Q. And you say you have proof of that.

A. I'm telling you about the evidence. I didn't know you would ask me about this, and I could provide evidence. There are witnesses who are still alive who were policemen and guards who claim that they were taken captive by men wearing camouflage army uniforms.

Q. Very well. You've explained that. You don't need to repeat it. So you have on the one hand a statement about an act of sabotage naming all the perpetrators, and on the other hand your allegation that certain unidentified -- ²⁶²⁴⁷

JUDGE MAY: No. No, Mr. Milosevic. This wastes time. This is argument. You're going to try and argue with the witness. That's not what he's here to do.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. Let me go on then.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Ramic, as president of the municipality of Brcko, you certainly know where the Dizdarusa local commune is. Am I right?

A. Yes.

Q. Is it correct that it was precisely with your approval and the approval of your brother that in the area of Dizdarusa, as far as back as 1991, an armed unit was established which was the 3rd Company of the 108th Brigade?

A. No, that is not correct.

Q. I'm going to give a document to you which was seized awhile ago, and it shows in the area of Dizdarusa 284 soldiers. This is the document. It has a certification on the last page, like the other documents, stating that it is faithful to the original. Dizdarusa, persons from 1 through 284. There are all kinds of troops there, including crews for anti-aircraft guns and so on and so forth. So the list goes from number 1 to 284. And the date of arrival is the 1st of May, the 1st of May, the 1st of May, and so on and so forth, including all the dates of arrival. The numbers are there of automatic rifles that they were issued with. Please take a look. Take a look at this list.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would also like to have it exhibited, because that is the 108th Brigade, the 3rd Company, Dizdarusa, ²⁶²⁴⁸ a list of persons, starting from number 1 all the way up to 284. Please take a look.

MS. PACK: Your Honour, may I can make a few observations about the exhibits that the accused has produced. They are not documents the Prosecution has seen before, and I the opportunity overnight of trying to find if we have them in our database. We don't. I understand the policy has been generally in the past that such documents are tendered for identification as opposed to exhibited, and I'd ask that be the position in relation to these documents. Most certainly the ones which are numbered 3 thus far. I think it was D179, D180, and D184 about which this witness has expressed reservations as to their authenticity. Certainly he said in respect of D179 and 180, which were the documents dated 1995, that he thought they were fabricated.

JUDGE MAY: Plainly the accused is getting a great deal of information, and it may be a matter of course for us to consider when we are considering how much support he has. Where would such documents have come from do you think, Ms. Pack?

MS. PACK: I would have thought they would come from the authorities in Republika Srpska, because it seems to me that they are -- they are -- well, they're headed Republika Srpska, Brcko Public Security Station. I think they have an authentication case stamp, at least on some of them on the reverse. I'm afraid I don't understand it because it's in Cyrillic. Perhaps the accused might be able to assist as to what that says. I should imagine that that's where they're from. I only say -- I don't push this but I say just generally it may be this would give the ²⁶²⁴⁹ opportunity to the Prosecution to examine these documents further and ascertain their authenticity if they're marked for identification rather than exhibited now.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: Yes. The answer, Ms. Pack, is this, that we will not change the position about these documents, but if it proves in due course that they are not authentic and you've got evidence to challenge them, of course you can bring that forward. And if it proves to be unauthentic, they won't be taken any notice of. And furthermore, it will tell us something about the source from which they've come. On the other hand, if they're authentic, we'll have to consider what weight to give them. The fact that documents are admitted does not mean to say they are accepted as truthful or their content is truthful.

Yes, Mr. Ramic. I'm sorry. You've been looking at that document. Is there anything you want to say about that one? This is the list, apparently, as alleged -- just a moment. Let me get this right. Is this right: It's alleged to be a list of a company formed in 1991 with 284 members, or a brigade. Is that what it claims to be? Could you tell us that and then you can comment on it.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have quite a few things to say in relation to this document. First of all, on the front page of this document it says that it is the 108th Brigade, the 3rd Company, in Dizdarusa.

I would like to clarify the fact that the 108th Brigade was established on the 17th of May, 1992. And the war and the occupation of ²⁶²⁵⁰ Brcko took place on the 1st of May. That is to say 17 days after the occupation while the aggressor side had already committed an aggression vis-a-vis the territory of Brcko that had remained free. This list actually constitutes a list of the entire male population of the local commune of Dizdarusa. It was obviously compiled with the intention of probably collecting some men on the basis of this list. But I repeat, this could have taken place only after the 17th of May, 1992, because until then, the name, the 108th Brigade, did not exist at all. Another thing, this document is stamped by Republika Srpska. It bears a seal of Republika Srpska; that is to say, that it was found and authenticated probably later. This also indicates that its validity is in line with such a view, and that's probably clear. On the basis of that, I conclude that this is no document indicating the existence of some kind of 3rd Company of some 108th Brigade before the war actually started. That's my comment.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Ramic, please take a look at this starting from number 1. You can see that there is a date when each and every soldier or member joined in, and that was the 1st of May, and then in order. There are many of them who joined up on the 1st of May because that's when the war broke out over there.

Secondly, is it correct that when you refer to the stamp of Republika Srpska, that you are actually referring to the authentication of the document itself, because that's what it says on the reverse side of each and every document, that this was done in order to authenticate the ²⁶²⁵¹ fact that this is a photocopy which is fully identical to the original. So this is practically a form, and it is accompanied by this seal, and it says "Is equal to the original and consists of ten pages." So this is the official authentication of documents that were found. The 3rd Company --

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, you know making speeches is not allowed. You can ask the witness questions.

Now, what the accused seems to be putting, Mr. Ramic, is that this is a genuine document which has been found by the Republika Srpska, and that is stamped on it, and he seems to be suggesting that it's an earlier date than the 17th of May, 1992, which you suggest. Can you help as to that?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I've been trying to say the following: This document is a list of men from the local commune of Dizdarusa. By no means does it constitute a list of some kind of a company. It is not signed by any designated official from the command of the brigade or the command of the company. Absolutely there is no proper list here, which means that it could have been written by anybody. Secondly, Your Honours, I've been trying to say that even if we were to accept that this is something authentic by way of a list, it can by no means mean that this was done before the 108th Brigade was established. And I repeat, the 108th Brigade, that is a well known thing, was established on the 17th of May, 1992.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Ramic, please read the date when people joined up, starting ²⁶²⁵² from number 1. Doesn't it say the 1st of May?

A. Mr. Milosevic, what you call this date of joining up is not what is written here. It says the date of arrival. That's what's written here.

Q. Yes, date of arrival in the unit.

A. No, it doesn't say the date of arrival in the unit. It says date of arrival. It doesn't mean that it has to be a unit necessarily.

Q. Does it say the 1st of May?

A. It says the 1st of May, et cetera, et cetera, it's not only the 1st of May, so on and so forth. However, I claim that no company could have been established on the 1st of May, because the 108th Brigade did not exist, and I believe that this is quite clear.

Q. This could have been proclaimed to be part of the 108th Brigade a few days later, but it could have changed names, but it's the 3rd Company of Dizdarusa.

A. Mr. Milosevic, the occupation of Brcko took place on the 1st of May. Even if I were to accept what you are claiming now, this could have happened only after the moment of occupation.

Q. All right. All right, Mr. Ramic. I'm going to show something else to you now.

JUDGE MAY: No you're not. We're going to look at that document first of all.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please give it to the amici. One speaks Serbian, and he can read it and he can tell you what kind of a document this is. ²⁶²⁵³

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, we will do the following: We will -- we will look at it ourselves, so we'll ask the usher to go and get the document and hand it to the Bench. We'll then decide what to do with it next.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: Yes. We'll mark this one for identification since there is a dispute about its nature.

THE REGISTRAR: 1 --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honours.

JUDGE MAY: Just -- go on.

THE REGISTRAR: 185.

JUDGE MAY: D. We'll give it now to the Prosecution to look at briefly and then hand it to the amicus. In due course, if need be, the Prosecution can have it back.

Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Ramic --

JUDGE MAY: I'm sorry. Mr. Ramic, I'm sorry. You were going to say something. Yes. What do you want to say?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I wanted to say that this is a list of men from the local commune, and somebody wrote this date in hand, the 1st of May, and it just meant that these men lived in the territory of that local commune on that date, nothing more than that.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right. So the fact that it is written that this is the 3rd ²⁶²⁵⁴ Company from Dizdarusa, that doesn't mean that it's a military formation? That it's a list of civilians who lived at that locality; is that what you're saying?

A. Yes. I mean that that is what it means.

Q. All right. If that's what it means, then here's another document that has to do with this same company. It is also handwritten. It is also an original. It also has a certification coming from the appropriate authority that it is identical to the original, and then there is the company number and then the 1st Platoon, and then its entire composition, and then the 2nd Platoon, and then various squads, the 1st, 2nd, 3rd Platoons, then it can be seen who is anti-armour, who is a guide, who is in reconnaissance. So it is all there. And as you can see, this is a formation of the Muslim army.

Please take a look at this document as well. It can be seen that you have platoons, that you have a squad for recoilless guns, a squad for anti-aircraft guns, and a squad for mortars. So this is the Dizdarusa, the 3rd Company. Please take a look at this document and you will realise that this is a military formation, if the first document was not sufficient because it only said the 3rd Company. You will see all the platoons and squads here as well.

Mr. Ramic, while you're looking at this, is it correct that Dedovic Ramiz was commander of the 1st Platoon?

JUDGE MAY: Just one moment. Let the witness first of all have a look and then you can ask him some questions about it when he's had the opportunity to comment. ^{26255 BLANK PAGE 26256}

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I've been looking through this document, and for me it constitutes a list that includes the commands of platoons, et cetera, et cetera, and it is entitled, "The 108th Brigade, Dizdarusa, the 3rd Company." There is no original date here which could show when this was compiled. So this may be a list of some kind of composition but by no means could it have been compiled prior to the 17th of May.

Another thing: Mr. Milosevic, this was not a Muslim army. If that's the army we're talking about, it was the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina. And as proof of the fact that it was a multi-ethnic army, please take a look at this list that you're giving me. The 5th Platoon, the commander of the 5th Platoon is Dragan Hajduk. A person with that kind of name certainly was not a Muslim.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. But look at the names. 95 per cent of them are Muslim.

A. Correct. The local commune of Dizdarusa had a population which was 95 per cent Muslim.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Ramic, is the list handwritten or typed?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this is a handwritten list. It is not typed, and I repeat, I do not see any reliable or competent person as a signatory of the list or anybody who had any command function in the 108th Brigade. There is no signature. So it is a list written by hand which, again, could have been written by anyone.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Ramic, are you claiming that those were not the people who ²⁶²⁵⁷ constituted a military unit that was known as the 3rd Company and their division into platoons? The 1st commander Ramiz Dedovic, the 2nd Amir Serifovic, Ramiz Halilovic of the 3rd Platoon, Hazim Hasanovic of the 4th Platoon, and Dragan Hajduk of the 5th Platoon that you mentioned a moment ago. Isn't all that written on this list? Is that right or not?

A. Mr. Milosevic, I'm not denying this. Maybe you didn't understand what I was saying. I am saying that this list, we can't tell when it was compiled. That is not clear.

Secondly, if it was compiled and if it is original, it could only have been compiled after the 17th of May.

Thirdly, I am not denying that there was a Dizdarusa company in the 108th Brigade, but it came into being after the 17th of May, 1992.

JUDGE MAY: We'll have a look at this document.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: Perhaps you could assist, Mr. Ramic. This is a handwritten document. We can't read, of course, the writing on it, but it appears to be a list, as I understand your evidence, of the 3rd Company, 108th Brigade. It's handwritten. It's in -- appears to be in some sort of formation. But it's your evidence that there was such a company of such a brigade but that it was formed after the occupation; is that right? So really, there's no --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, precisely so.

JUDGE MAY: So there is a dispute that there was such an organisation. The only issue which is apparently in dispute is when it was formed. Would that be right? ²⁶²⁵⁸

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's right, sir.

JUDGE MAY: Thank you very much. We'll admit this. Give it the next number, please.

THE REGISTRAR: D186.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. If I could hand it in. Thank you. Yes. Let everybody see it, please.

Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Ramic, the first document I showed you about the 3rd Company Dizdarusa contains the date of the 1st of May that you yourself have read out?

JUDGE MAY: We have been over that. We're not going back to it. Again, it's a case of your arguing with the witness. You've heard his evidence. There is no point going over it again. We will have to make a decision about this in due course.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Is it clear that on that list next to the names of persons there's an indication of the type and serial number of the weapon issued to that person? Have you managed to look at that when you looked at the document? I'm talking about the first list. From Dizdarusa.

A. Yes. There are certain numbers and indications, markings.

Q. Doesn't AP mean an automatic rifle and next to it the serial number consisting of several digits?

A. I don't know what it means. I'm not denying that it could not be ²⁶²⁵⁹ interpreted that way. It could be something else also. But I am repeating once again the company could have existed only after the 17th of May and, therefore, also the armaments of that weapon -- of that company. I'm sorry.

Q. Very well. I think that we will now have a clearer indication regarding the time.

I'm asking you, Mr. Ramic, is it true that as early as 1991, as in Dizdarusa, you formed a similar unit in a local commune called Stari Rasadnik and that there was a so-called spatial unit and a manoeuvering unit consisting of companies and platoons? Is that right?

A. No, it is not.

Q. It's not right. Very well, then. I'll give you now a document. Local commune it says up there, Stari Rasadnik, manoeuvre unit, manoeuvreing unit which means a mobile unit. This is a typed document this time, and it is signed by the Staff Commander of the Territorial Defence of the local commune Meksud Imamovic. You know Meksud Imamovic, I assume?

A. I can't quite remember, but I'm not denying that.

Q. Well, he signed this document, and in handwriting he wrote on each page: "Place of mobilisation will be secret, but in the case of an emergency, the -- where the unit will rally will be indicated on the call-up paper." Which means that the unit was formed before, because if it was formed after the war broke out, why would the place of reporting be secret? And on each page it is indicated that the place -- rallying place will be secret, but in case of urgency, the place will be indicated on the ²⁶²⁶⁰ call-up paper. And at the end, it says the commander of the TO staff, Meksud Imamovic.

You have here mortar crews of 82-millimetre mortars, trucks. The specialties are indicated of individual members of the unit. As far as I can see, again all of them are Muslims. So we're talking about the Stari Rasadnik local commune, a manoeuvre, a mobile unit, and an indication that the place of mobilisation will be kept secret but should an urgent need arise, it will be indicated on the call-up paper. And you have the signature of Meksud Imamovic whom you don't see to remember; is that right?

A. I may know him.

Q. Oh, I see. You may know him. Fine.

JUDGE MAY: Let the witness see the document.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Here, I've opened it on the page with his signature, and then you can look at it from the very beginning, from page 1.

A. Your Honours, I would like to comment on this document as follows: Again, this is a list of men from a local commune who formed squads of Territorial Defence, but it is not clear when this document was compiled. That is the first point.

Secondly, Mr. Milosevic, mention is made here of the Territorial Defence of the local commune.

Your Honours, I wish to state that after the events of the 1st of May and after the already-mentioned appearance on local television and disclosure by television that the war had started, that is the attack by ²⁶²⁶¹ the aggressor JNA of the local commune of Dizdarusa - in fact, this was in the afternoon, about 4.00 p.m. - after that I only just managed to get out of that area. And that same day, in the evening after this, being the president of the municipality, I gave instructions for the Territorial Defence to be formed on the free part of the territory. So if that is the list of that Territorial Defence, I am not denying it, but I repeat that the date is lacking on this document, and we can discuss that.

Q. But look, on page 1, 2, and 3, in the right-hand margin there is this note written every time by Meksud Imamovic, saying that the place of mobilisation will be kept secret, but in the case of an urgent need or an emergency, it will be indicated on the call-up paper.

A. Mr. Milosevic, reference is made of the place of mobilisation. I wish to remind you that the word "mobilisation" means rallying and gathering for the purpose of forming a military unit, which means that it had still not been formed.

Q. Surely the existing military unit that had been formed, this note relates to that unit, that it is then that it will be mobilised, so that a unit is ready. And you can see from the companies and squads that the unit is ready. And it says that the place of mobilisation shall be kept secret, but in the case of an emergency, it will be indicated on the call-up paper.

A. What is in dispute, Mr. Milosevic? I'm not denying that Territorial Defence units were formed in local communities defending themselves from the aggression after the aggression took place about 4.00 ²⁶²⁶² p.m. on the 1st of May. I'm not denying that. After that, Territorial Defence units were formed. So after the aggression, a Territorial Defence was being formed in free territorial -- free local communes, yes.

Q. And then the place of mobilisation was kept secret, and the Territorial Defence did not operate; is that what you're saying?

JUDGE MAY: I'm going to stop this. I'm going to stop this. You've had your opportunity to cross-examine about this document, and you're now arguing with the witness again. Give it the next number, please.

THE REGISTRAR: [Inaudible]

JUDGE MAY: Yes, if we can have it back, please, the document. Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Ramic, I assume you're familiar with the local commune Brod.

A. Yes.

Q. I have complete data about the Brod local commune, the special unit commanded by Pasic Ismet, and then the manoeuvre unit, or the mobile unit, divided up into squads, companies, the couriers. This is quite a voluminous document speaking of a very numerically large military formation for this local commune alone, that is, the Brod local commune. They even have a part of the military police. And at the end, it says that the place of mobilisation will be Johak, across the river. That is what is indicated at the end of this document consisting of several pages. And again there is a certification indicating that it is true to the original, the certification being made by the authorities of Republika ²⁶²⁶³ Srpska as these documents are that they confiscated during the war. So please look at this document. It is typewritten, and it relates to the local commune of Brod.

JUDGE MAY: Would you like to look at it, Mr. Ramic. It doesn't seem to have got a date, as far as I can see. If it has one, please tell us. If your comments are the same, perhaps you can just say that and we could get on more quickly, if we're going to have a number of these documents.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it is a similar document that Mr. Milosevic is producing here, a list of men from the local commune formed into platoons and similar units of the Territorial Defence of that local commune. It does not have a date. What I am claiming is that this is a list -- if it is original, because there is no proof that it is original. It is typewritten and certified with a stamp of Republika Srpska, which means retroactively. There's no signature nor any name of a person who could be considered responsible, a commander. But if it is original, I repeat it could only have come into being after my instructions to form Territorial Defence units in free local communes. And this occurred after the occupation of the town of Brcko.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Ramic, you were president of the municipality. I assume you know well that there is a secretariat for administration in the municipality where documents are certified and stamped to indicate that a document or a photocopy of the document is true to the original. So that is what you will see on the back of each page, a stamp of the competent ²⁶²⁶⁴ body in the municipality, indicating that the photocopy is identical with the original. Is that so?

A. Mr. Milosevic, I am not denying the method of certification of documents that you have told us about, but I am saying that this is a stamp of Republika Srpska dated 1994. So that is absolutely retroactive, many years later.

Q. Surely when the documents were confiscated, after the confiscation who knows how much later they made copies and certified that the copies were true to the original.

A. Mr. Milosevic, are you denying the following: That in 1994 Republika Srpska could have, over a period of several years, learnt all the names of the combatants of the 108th Brigade? Furthermore, all the documents of citizens stayed behind in the archives, so can you deny that this was not a document construed in 1994 by the authorities of Republika Srpska?

JUDGE MAY: We will make a decision about this document. It's no point arguing about it. We'll give it the next number, please.

MS. PACK: Your Honour, might I again make the observation that this document be admitted marked for ID on the basis of the --

JUDGE MAY: Let us see it. It's not disputed that there was a territorial unit. It's not disputed that this may have been a list, although it's not plain, when it came into being. The document is stamped, as is accepted. It is a list for what it's worth. The crucial issue is when it came into existence, and as to that there is no evidence on the document. ^{26265 BLANK PAGE 26266} So we will admit it. If you, in due course, can cause doubt on its authenticity, then that will mean it's not taken any notice of, but for these purposes we'll admit it.

MS. PACK: Thank you, Your Honour.

THE REGISTRAR: D188.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Ramic, tell me, please, these local communes - Brod, Dizdarusa, Stari Rasadnik - in the territory that you held during the war or was this territory held by the Serb forces? Is this the territory that was held by you throughout the war; Dizdarusa, Brod, Stari Rasadnik?

A. At the moment of occupation, that is to say the 1st of May, 1992, this was territory that was free territory, territory where we were.

Q. And for how long did this territory remain free, as you had put it, in your opinion? When did this territory stop being free territory according to your information?

A. During the war, there were war operations, and the aggressor side pushed us out of these territories. I cannot say anything for sure now, but we did keep parts of the city of Brcko free.

Q. I'm asking you about these three local communes that I referred to just now. How long were they in the hands of your forces? Just tell me that.

A. They were free during -- well, local commune of Dizdarusa and the local commune of Rasadnik and the local commune of Brod were free for a few months, perhaps even for a year from when the war broke out, that is to say, from the 1st of May, 1992. ²⁶²⁶⁷

Q. So these formations were held -- so these units held this territory?

A. These territories were protected and held by the units of the 108th Brigade, and I'm not denying that within these units there weren't any platoons or squads from these units -- from these local communes. They were integral parts of the 108th Brigade.

Q. Let us just wait for them to put their headphones on again.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, we will give you until the end of this session, which means you will have had rather more than 20 minutes more than you've already told, i.e., a 50 per cent extension, which will be more than enough. Yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Then I will just try to include these documents, please.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Do you know who Sakovic Semso is?

A. Yes.

Q. Was he president of the local commune of Brodusa and director of the Sava company?

A. Yes.

Q. Was he involved in activities related to the procurement of weapons for Muslims?

A. I'm not aware of that.

Q. All right. And is it correct that in the local commune of Stari Rasadnik, Meksud Imamovic, Becirevic Nedzad, Nejdelko Esad, Asic Ahmed [phoen], Sukalac Mujo [phoen], Mustafa Halilovic, and Ismail Semsudin were ²⁶²⁶⁸ in charge of receiving these weapons in this local commune? Is that correct or is that not correct?

A. Mr. Milosevic, in order to be able to answer your question, I have no idea what kind of weapons you're talking about.

Q. All right. Since you have no idea what kind of weapons I'm talking about -- there weren't any weapons there, is that what you're trying to say? So all the weapons listed in these documents were invented?

A. There were no weapons in an organised and systematic fashion until the aggression took place on the 1st of May.

Q. All right. What I have here is information similar to the kind I showed yesterday, and it says here: "In Brcko, Brka, Maoca, the road and settlements there were only secured by armed Muslims. Later on it became obvious that they wanted to have such persons on patrols so that weapons could be transported. The director of KRO Sava was Semso."

THE INTERPRETER: This is too fast for the interpreters. The interpreters note it is being read too fast and the interpreters don't have these documents.

JUDGE MAY: Don't read too quickly, Mr. Milosevic. Just remember the interpreters.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. May, but my time is short. Of course I'll bear that in mind too.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. And then it says: "The arming of members of the SDS was done through the Ramic brothers, the top people -" that's you and your brother ²⁶²⁶⁹ - "Semso Isakovic; and the director of the work organisation Laser, Vejzovic Ibrahim; director of the customs zone, Didais Ismet [phoen]; the director of the work organisation Zitopromet, Drpljanin Saban. And weapons for the most part came from Croatia through the old bridge on the Sava River. Operations related to arms deliveries were carried out by Pezerovic Zekerija and Hasim. He held a weapons shop legally, and then with the assistance of a policeman on the bridge --"

JUDGE MAY: Now, look. You're taking up your time reading this entire document out. Just try and summarise it and put it to the witness. What is the point of this? What is the point of all this?

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Is what I read out correct, Mr. Ramic?

A. No, it's not.

Q. And is it correct that people of Serb ethnicity, for example, Ilic Zivko who had a shop with mixed goods in Gornji Rahic, and a year before the war he had to leave his shop and also the house that he had in Stari Rasadnik, he did not sleep there for five or six months before the war broke out, precisely because of such developments. Was this characteristic?

A. Your Honours, may I just make a brief comment? Mr. Milosevic, you yourself collide with what you've been saying. Yesterday you were trying to prove to me that the police, and this police were all ethnic Bosniaks, stopped the smuggling of weapons. Now you're telling me today that this same police made it possible to carry out armament, and you say that I was one of the persons who organised this. That's the first thing I wish to ²⁶²⁷⁰ say.

Please do not interrupt me, because I have not finished, Mr. Milosevic.

Yesterday you said to me that there was some kind of a meeting in Rasadnik concerning the organisation of Stragar [phoen] or whatever.

Q. We haven't got time.

A. We have got time. I have to answer you. And you mention the name of a person who is an ethnic Serb and now you're telling me that these persons of Serb ethnicity had to flee from Stari Rasadnik. Are you not contradicting yourself?

Q. I am quoting an Official Note to you, Mr. Ramic, and this was written in Brcko and it describes all your activities before the war and I would just like to have it exhibited here.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Let the witness see the document so he can comment on it.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I've highlighted what I believe are the most important parts in order to save time. Do you know these persons? Did they do what is written there or not?

A. I know -- well, this is a long list of people. I know quite a few of them. Semso Isakovic, you mentioned him and I know him well. And also these other people you mentioned, I know them well too. I deny that they organised and carried out any type of armament before the 1st of May, 1992. So that's what I'm denying.

Secondly, this document that you call a document also bears the ²⁶²⁷¹ date of the 18th of October, 1995.

Q. Yes, like the previous ones that contain documents about what was going on there then.

A. Yes. So this means that this document was compiled at the very end of the war, and I think that the war was almost over or over at the time.

Q. All right. Tell me, then, is it correct that some weapons were used, and I claim that you procured them in this way, were used to open fire against the JNA in the JNA garrison?

A. No, that's not correct. I don't know about that.

Q. All right. You say on page 8 of your statement that as for the rest of the war, in Brcko, May 1992, that you spent that in the free part of Brcko. That is your very own expression.

A. It is possible that is what I wrote. It means the free part of the municipality of Brcko.

Q. So these local communes that you've described and that we've been discussing did not belong to that part?

A. They did. They did too.

Q. Until when?

A. Well, we just mentioned that awhile ago. Rasadnik and Dizdarusa were free for a few months. I cannot tell you exactly for how long.

Q. All right. Tell me -- but since they were free, tell me, what did you use to defend those areas that you called free areas if you did not have any weapons?

A. Mr. Milosevic, that is quite clear. In the Yugoslavia that ²⁶²⁷² disappeared, a certain number of people had their very own weapons, hunting weapons or something similar to that.

Q. All right. But --

A. Mr. Milosevic, let me answer. A number of people were members of the legal pre-war organisation of the Territorial Defence, so they had weapons. A number of people were professionals in the police force or in the reserve police force. They also had weapons. So those are the weapons concerned.

Q. All right, Mr. Ramic. I really haven't got the time to go into that any further now, but it is quite clear that you had to have weapons if you managed, as you had put it, to hold a certain part of Brcko so that it would not be taken. Do you know that as far as you are concerned and your brother and another person and other persons in Republika Srpska, on the 9th of November, 1995, criminal charges were brought against you indicting you of the crime of armed rebellion? Do you know about that?

A. No, I don't know about that. I had heard about this only accidentally after the war was over, and I think that it was towards the end of 1995 or beginning of 1996 that we were accused of some kind of a war crime. It is only then that I heard about this.

Q. All right. Do you know -- I am going to let the witness have a look at these documents all together, because these are court documents, that the public prosecutor's office on the 9th of June, 1994, indicted you for the crime of a war crime against the civilian population. Are you aware of that? And you're the first indictee listed in that indictment. So this is the 9th of June, 1994. ²⁶²⁷³

A. That's the document that you refer to. That is something that I heard about only after the war.

Q. And are you denying that you issued an order for the attack against the Serb village of Bukovac that was carried out in September 1992?

A. Of course I deny that.

Q. Oh, you deny it. And that then you killed a great many Serbs and you took the rest to concentration camps where they were tortured, abused and some were even physically liquidated. All of this is written in this indictment.

A. Mr. Milosevic, that is what is written in a document which, as you said yourself, was compiled in 1994 concerning events from 1992. Your Honours, may I just make a comment? Your Honours, I wish to make a comment. The mentioned indictment against me and against some other persons at the end of the war is something that was construed. It is a construction that was characteristic of the aggressor side; after having committed crimes, they accuse the victim of such things. That is the first point I wish to make.

Secondly, Mr. Milosevic, not even theoretically let alone practically I could not have issued an order for an attack against this village that you have just referred to for a simple reason; because already at that time the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina was already in existence, it had its own chain of command, and I as a representative of the civilian authorities was outside that chain of command, so this was not possible even theoretically. ²⁶²⁷⁴

Q. So you did not order an attack against the civilian population and these civilians that are --

JUDGE MAY: He said that. The witness has dealt with that.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. And these civilians that are mentioned in this indictment, were they killed or not? Were they taken to concentration camps or not? Were they tortured or not? Just answer that.

A. Mr. Milosevic, that is a farce, what you've just referred to, and you know that.

Your Honours, please bear in mind that this is a matter of accusing the victim, not the criminal, and that was characteristic of the Serb side and --

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Ramic, we have these matters in mind. We've heard this sort of allegation against witnesses before, and you must understand that if we admit these documents, we do so merely as documents and it doesn't mean that we put any weight on them at all. We will have to consider them in the light of all the evidence. We know that allegations were made against victims because we've heard that they've been made. So it's a matter that we have in mind.

Yes. Let us tidy up the documents. The document of the 18th of October -- just a moment -- the 18th of October will be admitted for -- marked for identification. I have it here. I'll hand it in. We'll get the next number.

THE REGISTRAR: D189, marked for identification.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Yes. Do you want to -- ^{26275 BLANK PAGE 26276}

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Further on --

JUDGE MAY: Do you want to exhibit this indictment, Mr. Milosevic?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I've already quoted three documents, Mr. May, because I'm saving time. And I have because I'm saving time.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Do you know that there was an indictment issued against you for the attacks on Vujicici, Gajevi, and Bukovac Serb villages, and this has to do with several persons, in September 1992?

A. Your Honours, I would like to make a comment in this regard as well. Mr. Milosevic, you're talking about the same thing.

Q. That's not correct.

A. You are talking about the Bukvik case. Mr. Milosevic, I know this better than you know. I know that next to Bukvik is the village of Bukovac, the village of Vitanovici, and the hamlets that you mentioned. All of this is within the area within this territory. Your Honours, in September 1992, the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina - rather the 108th Brigade - had a clash with the aggressor side at those positions, and the result of these -- this conflict are probably some casualties that Mr. Milosevic referred to.

Q. And those people who were taken to concentration camps and where their skulls were broken and where they were beaten -- cut up and beaten up, is that -- ²⁶²⁷⁷

JUDGE MAY: No. Absolutely not. You've already put these kind of allegations. The witness has denied them. They're not improved by repeating them. Now, let's get on. You've got two minutes left.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, these are different indictments pertaining to different villages, although Mr. Ramic says that it is all one and the same thing. So please bear that in mind.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Do you know that the court in Brcko issued on the 5th of July, 1995, a sentence in which you were convicted of various crimes, and you and your brother Ibrahim, and it was a 15-year prison sentence?

A. You are talking about the document that I mentioned I had heard about in 1995. That is what I heard about, that it was some kind of a court that had convicted me of some kind of war crimes. This is a pure farce. And this means playing games with the crimes of one side, and they want to ascribe it to another side.

Q. Please. This is a judgement of a court --

JUDGE MAY: Yes, he's dealt with it.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. -- in Brcko.

JUDGE MAY: He's dealt with it. He says it was a farce. Now, let's move on.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think that this is a farce, Mr. May. And all of these are facts. These are court documents, and this is a judgement. This is no longer an indictment. This is --

JUDGE MAY: Very well. Your time is now up. You've made the ²⁶²⁷⁸ point. We will consider what to do with all the court documents together, and after the -- after the adjournment we will hear from the amicus, if he has any questions, and then the Prosecution.

We will adjourn now. Twenty minutes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I asked for these court documents to be admitted into evidence. I assume that Mr. Ramic is not going to challenge their authenticity.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Are you seeking my answer for this?

JUDGE MAY: No. No. We know what your answer to this is. We'll consider what to do about them and then we will adjourn.

--- Recess taken at 10.34 a.m.

--- On resuming at 10.55 a.m.

JUDGE MAY: We will admit the court documents. We do so without, of course, passing any judgement upon them or also indicating whether they have any weight at all. We do so merely to record the fact that such documents are in existence. We will begin with the indictments. Have you got those documents, Mr. Milosevic? Perhaps you could hand the two indictments in, and we'll deal with the judgement separately.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Here they are, Mr. May. I have the indictment dated the 9th of November, 1995, or, rather, criminal charges, then the indictment of the 9th of June, 1994. I have quoted from all of them. Then the indictment of the 14th of July, 1994; the indictment of the 16th of July, 1994; the indictment of the 26th of July, 1994; and ²⁶²⁷⁹ judgement -- the judgement --

JUDGE MAY: Let's -- just a moment. Let's have the indictments first, all together, and we'll just give them one number.

THE REGISTRAR: D190.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. That's the indictments. And the judgement we will give the next number to. If you would hand that in, please.

THE REGISTRAR: D191.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. We will get the number for the judgement, please. 191. Thank you.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Ramic, were you aware of these indictments and the charges?

THE WITNESS: No, I didn't know about them. I learnt quite by coincidence after this date when those alleged indictments were issued. So I think this was -- I'm not quite sure whether it was November or December, 1995, or January, February, 1996.

JUDGE ROBINSON: So I take it then you were never arrested pursuant to these indictments.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, of course not. That's out of the question. And I consider this to be an absolute farce. I could say a lot of things about it.

JUDGE ROBINSON: The judgement then would have been done in absentia?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Probably. Probably. I had no idea about it.

JUDGE MAY: Sorry. Mr. Tapuskovic. ²⁶²⁸⁰

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, several days ago - or to be precise, on the 8th of September, 2003 - as amici we received quite a large number of documents under Rule 68, containing exculpatory elements, and among them - I don't want to fatigue you with all of them - and in view of what Mr. Slobodan Milosevic has already raised, I have selected only a few documents from 1993. That is prior to the establishment of this Tribunal. Two documents are dated January 1993 and two are from February of the same year.

In all four cases, that is, all four documents relate to criminal charges for the crime -- for war crimes against civilian population pursuant to Article 142 of the Criminal Code of the SFRY; and pursuant to all those criminal charges, the event, the place, the date, the victims are indicated. And in all those criminal charges, the first accused is Mustafa Ramic. I have four others, but I don't want to tire you with them. I think that this could be something that you should take into consideration as it comes from the OTP.

Questioned by Mr. Tapuskovic:

Q. I would just like to ask the witness whether he is aware of the events covered by these charges, where it is stated that the locals of the village of Bukovac recognised you as having participated in certain acts that you are charged with in these indictments.

A. If I may explain. You're asking me to respond regarding events.

Q. Well, for example, let us take this event of the 11th of February [as interpreted], 1992 at 1730 hours. The names of victims are mentioned. Eight persons were killed, and it says here that certain number of ²⁶²⁸¹ inhabitants of the village of Bukovac recognised you as the perpetrator of those acts. Do you know anything about that?

A. A moment ago you said the 11th of February, 1992.

Q. No, the act was committed on the 11th of September, 1992, by units within the 108th Brigade, and then you are mentioned as the first, having been identified by some inhabitants of the village of Bukovac. Do you know anything about this?

A. Your Honours, allow me to expand on this to be able to answer the question. Within the free territory of Brcko where I was amongst others and which was defended by the 108th Brigade, there was an area with the village of Bukvik including the other mentioned villages far behind the frontline about 7 or 10 kilometres behind. And this area is an area of ethnically pure Serb villages, and we knew there was an organised armed group there. However, the BH army did not go into that area, and there were no incidents for all of four months. So the aggression or, rather, the occupation of Brcko occurred on the 1st of May, 1992. Then we have May, June, July, August, and events started happening at the beginning of September.

Throughout this period of time, the brigade endeavoured on several occasions to talked to these armed men, members of some sort of military structure in those villages, for them to be peacefully disarmed so that this area too could join in the defence. These talks went on for a long time, and there were no conflicts.

However, I wish to point out on several occasions during that period, what happened was that the occupiers broke into areas that it ²⁶²⁸² wanted to annex and committed a number of crimes. Prompted by this and also on the basis of reports received after the line of communication was cut between the other side and this group, that is the occupiers' side and these villages, this line of communications went through our free territory, and when it was cut it was established that the occupying side was preparing to enter into that area.

I learnt about this all subsequently from the command of the 108th Brigade, because I personally was not involved in this as I was the civilian representative of the authorities. What happened was that a representative of the brigade tried once again with a white flag to enter this village and to talk to the people, and he was killed. After that a conflict broke out and got out of control. I don't know exactly what happened there, but anyway, the 108th Brigade did take control of the area, and I must say that they found large quantities of weapons, four heavy machine-guns, several grenade launchers, about 100 to 200 automatic rifles, lots of explosives, bombs, et cetera, et cetera.

Q. Were there any victims on the Serb side?

A. I believe there were. But what I'm trying to say is all those victims were armed.

Q. Could you just say something in connection with the second criminal charges pressed against you. Reference is made to an attack on the village of Bijela in Brcko municipality committed on the 11th of June within 1130 on 1400 hours, and in this attack, according to these criminal charges, you are the first suspect. Again there were a number of victims. Do you know anything about this event? ²⁶²⁸³

A. The village of Bijela is deep within the free territory behind the frontline some 15 or 20 kilometres behind it. You should bear that in mind first of all.

Secondly, that village had a mixed population with about 70 per cent of the locals being of Croat ethnicity and 30 of Serb ethnicity. And from the very beginning of the armed conflict, the moment of occupation, the 1st of May, this village joined in the defence together with the other structures. I am not denying that there was an attack on that village, and I cannot deny that something happened that I was not aware of. And a further comment on my part, Your Honours, which I would like you to bear in mind, I'm probably mentioned there as the person who headed the civilian authority at the time. And the mention of my name within the context of the war, conflicts, and battles is absolutely absurd.

Q. Your Honours, I wouldn't like to dwell on those documents any further, but I think that the Court should have them to look at them as these are documents disclosed by the OTP. They are four criminal reports, and I'd like to have them exhibited, I think?

JUDGE MAY: Yes, give them the next C number, court number.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise. This first page bears my signature, but that is how I received it.

JUDGE MAY: That can have a number in a moment. Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Your Honours, I would just like to ask the witness a few things about what the Yugoslav People's Army did when all this started on the 1st ²⁶²⁸⁴ of May and it has to do with the events on the bridges. You were questioned in great detail about this event, Witness, on the 10th and 12th of December by the Prosecution. So could the Prosecution give the witness his statement which he gave in December 1998. Mr. Ramic, would you look at page 7, please, fourth paragraph. Here is what you said at the time regarding the events in connection with the blowing up of the bridges. In the fourth paragraph you said: "Three days before the bridges were blown up, I was so concerned about the possibility of conflict that I sent my family to Zagreb." Is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. In the next paragraph you say: "By this time I noticed I was being followed." Who was following you?

A. The answer to that question also requires some explanation.

Q. It's not essential, Your Honours. My question really is that you said that, "The night when the bridges were blown up, I spent that night at my sister's." Is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. So you had no direct knowledge as to what exactly was going on at the bridges?

A. I didn't quite understand the question. What do you mean I didn't have any knowledge. About what?

Q. You said that you were staying at your sister's. Throughout your statement, which you have in front of you, you did not mention anywhere that the JNA had anything to do with the blowing up of the bridges. Nowhere did you say that. ^{26285 BLANK PAGE 26286} Look at page 8, paragraph 3. When you were making a statement and when you were interviewed by the OTP, and on the day it happened, you said: "Somebody tried to provoke a conflict by blowing up the bridges." Nowhere did you say that the JNA had anything to do with the blowing up of the bridges in your statement of December 1998. Why? Can you explain that?

A. Mr. Tapuskovic, I explained a moment ago that the blowing up of the bridges was done by the Yugoslav army, its representatives, and it was organised by it.

Q. I understand that, but I'm asking you why you didn't say this in your statement.

A. You are misinterpreting this paragraph. What I am saying, that in the conversations on that day, that is the 30th of May in the morning, the day before the occupation, in the negotiations with the army, it was clear to me and to us who did it and why. I tried to prevent the outbreak of the conflict, and of course the main thing I had to do was to talk to the army, the potential opposite party. And in those negotiations, to achieve what I wanted, that is to calm the situation down rather than provoke the conflict, I couldn't start the talks by accusing them.

Q. I understand that, but why didn't you tell the investigators what you said today, that is that the Yugoslav People's Army had blown up the bridges? Why didn't you say that in 1998? I can understand that you didn't say that two days after the event, but why didn't you say it in 1998? Why didn't you tell the OTP that straight away? What is your explanation? ²⁶²⁸⁷

A. Probably the conversation did not take that course. Maybe they didn't ask me. Maybe at that point in time I didn't say that. But I didn't say that anyone else had done it or that I didn't know who had done it.

Q. Could you explain what was the interest of the Yugoslav People's Army which had heavy weapons, tanks that were coming to and from Serbia, bringing them there or taking them away from there, what interest would the JNA have to be deprived of bridges? Because a serious army such as the JNA was at the time simply couldn't function without bridges. So how would it be in the interests of the JNA to destroy the bridges when their conflicts had not even started?

A. That is where the answer lies, Mr. Tapuskovic. The interest was because that bridge was the umbilical cord linking Brcko and Croatia, which by then was already winning the war against that army. So that on the other side there was a free territory which could have assisted free Brcko, and the army wanted to cut that off, to cut off our rear. That was -- the second reason was that by destroying the bridges, and it used an excessive amount of explosives intentionally, which caused absolute panic in town so that it was impossible to organise any defence properly.

Q. Yesterday you mentioned that at the time there were about 150 civilians on the bridge when it was blown up. Is that right?

A. Yes. These were civilians that were crossing the bridge coming from Croatia, citizens returning home who were working somewhere, as gastarbeiters who were returning home for the May Day holidays, women and ²⁶²⁸⁸ children.

Q. So when the bridge was blown up they were all on the bridge?

A. Yes.

Q. Does that mean that there were very many casualties? You never mention that anywhere in your earlier statements. You didn't even mention knowing of any single victim.

A. Mr. Tapuskovic, maybe that is not stated in this written document, but there are plenty of -- there's plenty of evidence, witness statements. There were more than 100 casualties.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Ms. Pack.

MS. PACK: Can the witness be handed Defence Exhibits D190 and D191.

JUDGE MAY: While that's happening we'll get the C number, the court number for the last bundle.

THE REGISTRAR: C13. Re-examined by Ms. Pack:

Q. Mr. Ramic, look at the first pages of those two documents you've been handed. Just the front page.

A. Yes.

Q. Before today, have you seen either of those documents that you've been handed before?

A. I saw it only yesterday when you showed them to me, madam, but never before that.

Q. Have you seen an indictment before, or a judgement issued by the ²⁶²⁸⁹ Republika Srpska authorities?

A. I haven't ever.

Q. You live now in Sarajevo. Have you returned to Brcko since you left?

A. Yes. I go to Brcko very often.

Q. Do you have family in Brcko?

A. Yes. I do have family there. Two of my brothers live there and my sister lives there and some other members of my family.

Q. Have you or they received ever any documentation about criminal proceedings against you or details of specific charges against you?

A. As regards what you've been saying to me now and what you've shown me, no, never. Nobody ever received any such thing. I haven't been informed of any such thing.

JUDGE KWON: But, Ms. Pack, I couldn't understand him when he said that he had seen the document yesterday.

MS. PACK: Perhaps I can ask the witness just to look at each document in turn.

Q. The first document, D190, look at the first page and look, please, at what it's headed. Is it an indictment?

A. It says, "Criminal report," dated the 9th of November, 1995, by the Ministry of the Interior of Republika Srpska.

Q. Did you see this specific document yesterday or when you arrived in The Hague?

A. No, not yesterday. Your Honours, I made a mistake. When I arrived in The Hague, at one point in time you showed it to me, but it ²⁶²⁹⁰ wasn't yesterday.

MS. PACK: Perhaps the witness can be handed the amicus exhibit, the C number, C13.

Q. Mr. Ramic, I don't want to confuse you, but this is a third document, and again you can see that that document has a different heading. Perhaps you could identify the date of that document and identify the heading of that document.

A. This is a criminal report submitted by the military prosecutor's office in Bijeljina, and it's dated the 18th of January, 1993.

Q. And is it in fact that document and documents of a similar nature to that which were shown to you on your arrival at The Hague?

A. Yes, that's right.

MS. PACK: I don't want to confuse the witness, Your Honour, but the documents produced by the accused today aren't documents held by the OTP.

Q. Just a couple of further questions, Mr. Ramic. Have steps ever been taken to bring you or any of the other individuals named on that document to trial?

A. I'm not aware of that. I was not informed, anyway.

Q. Tell the Court, please, the circumstances in which you first heard of any criminal proceedings against you.

A. Well, I've already said a short while ago, during our previous discussion, that regarding the judgement pertaining to alleged war crimes in which I'm mentioned too, I heard about that quite accidentally. I cannot say when and where exactly. Somebody told me about this or ²⁶²⁹¹ somebody showed me an excerpt from a newspaper article at the time, and it came from the side of occupied Brcko. But this was already 1995 or 1996. And the headline said, "Accused of war crimes," and then my name is mentioned in the text. It's the first time I ever heard of this.

Q. Tell the Court, please, have you heard since that time of any further matters relating to those charges?

A. Yes. Yes. This was a year and a half ago. I read in the newspapers that the court in Brcko, in the district of Brcko, that's what it is nowadays, so the court in Brcko pardoned the persons accused for war crimes. My name is mentioned too, and I was surprised by this. May I make a further comment? May I speak about this?

JUDGE MAY: Briefly, yes.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So I was surprised, and I addressed the court in writing. I managed to find their telephone number too, and I phoned this judge and I asked what kind of war crime was involved, and I wrote a letter of protest, asking them to stop all proceedings and not to mention me as a war criminal at all and that I would not accept any kind of pardon or amnesty for something I had never done.

JUDGE MAY: Ms. Pack, I think we need to get to the bottom of this story, these allegations having been made. If it's right that the Court has issued an amnesty, then it's obviously something this Court should know about because it might have an effect on our understanding of the situation. So perhaps the Prosecution would look into that and come up with an answer.

MS. PACK: Yes, we'll look into that. The only documentation we ²⁶²⁹² held were the documents released on Monday which the amicus questioned the witness about. So I will make sure that's looked into.

Q. Mr. Ramic, one or two further questions. The list that you have seen on which you are identified with other persons in those indictments and charge sheets, generally, who are the people named in those indictments? Don't name them, just say generally what type of person is named.

A. In respect of all these charge sheets and criminal reports in all these cases, more or less the same persons are involved. These are primarily the top people of the civilian authorities of the free territory of Brcko. Then there is the entire command of the 108th Brigade, then people from the state security service, and perhaps I can put it this way too, an occasional individual or two that I do not know. But more or less it involves the same people; the top people of civilian and military authorities of the free territory of Brcko.

Q. Ethnicity?

A. These persons are of Bosniak and Croat ethnicity.

Q. Finally, Mr. Ramic, your reaction when you heard that you had been given a pardon was what?

A. I've just said. I was very upset. I phoned this judge and I asked quite simply to stop all of this, and I asked where all of this came from, and he told me that he had no other legal possibility other than doing what he had already done, namely amnesty. However, I did address an official request in writing to this court, stating that I refuse this amnesty and that I wanted this invented process to be terminated ²⁶²⁹³ altogether and annulled.

MS. PACK: No further questions, Your Honour.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Pack, perhaps you could find out too whether the amnesty or the pardon, was that in relation to the same charges for which there was a conviction and a judgement. I'm a little confused.

MS. PACK: I will find that out. It seems to me I have not seen the -- well, I've seen them very briefly, the documents that the accused produced. It looks like they all date in chronological order from the charge sheets to the indictment to the judgement. And it looks like the amnesty was dated sometime after that, but I will certainly check that.

JUDGE ROBINSON: And Mr. Tapuskovic. Mr. Tapuskovic, could you help me with this: In relation to the document produced by the accused which was a judgement and which obviously it seemed to me would have resulted from a trial and a judgement in absentia, firstly, I take it that there is provision in Republika Srpska for a trial in absentia, but what I wanted to ask you was whether one can proceed to a trial in absentia without attempting to enforce the indictment. Can you just proceed straight to a trial in absentia without attempting to serve the indictment on the accused?

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] According to the laws that were in force throughout this territory at that time, and at that time they were practically applied in the entire territory in spite of the situation, first of all, the court of law would have to do everything possible in order to make sure that the accused person is present, primarily to have the indictment served upon the person involved. And if ²⁶²⁹⁴ that does not succeed, then this person is summoned to trial. And if that does not succeed, then a trial can be held in absentia. Then a judgement is reached. If the accused person ever appears before the court of law afterwards, then there has to be retrial. And if we see that there is a judgement that was passed, and we do see that there was a judgement that was passed, then the trial would have to take place all over again. That is in accordance with SFRY regulations.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Tapuskovic.

MS. PACK: Your Honour may be assisted by asking the witness a few questions about the jurisdiction of the court in Brcko.

JUDGE MAY: Briefly.

MS. PACK:

Q. Just so far as you're aware, Mr. Ramic, the court in Brcko, the present court, the Brcko District Court, did that inherit all proceedings that had been issued under the jurisdiction of the Serb court in Brcko during the war?

A. Yes. Precisely during this conversation that I've already referred to with this judge from that court, the question was raised of how they could amnesty persons involved in proceedings that were conducted by this - how should I put it? - war court of Republika Srpska. The answer I got was that the administration of the district of Brcko legally inherited all previous legal enactments and processes.

MS. PACK: No further questions.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Ramic, that concludes your evidence. Thank you for coming to the International Tribunal to give it. You are free to go. ²⁶²⁹⁵

[The witness withdrew]

JUDGE MAY: Perhaps the legal officer would come up. Mr. Nice, you can help us about Brcko. I don't want to prolong this, but at some stage we need bringing up-to-date as the present state there.

MR. NICE: I think it is under separate administration, but we will ensure the position is before you with dates of relevant decisions about it. I've seen the material recently. I'll look into it over the break. You presumably would like it in evidential form rather than just from the counsel's role.

JUDGE MAY: Well, I think if counsel would tell us and then if there is any argument about it, we can get it in evidential form.

MR. NICE: I'll get a swift chronology prepared and make it available to you by the next break.

JUDGE MAY: It can't be a matter of reasonable debate. Yes.

MR. NICE: Staying with Brcko and the last witness there was the question of the late disclosure or later than usual disclosure of Rule 68 material. As the Chamber knows, the duty of disclosing under Rule 68 imposed by the Rules involves a great deal of material that we have to produce to the accused and we do so. We then produce material that is witness specific shortly before the witness comes because it's much more helpful for him and it also means that we don't produce Rule 68 material for witnesses who in any event don't come which would simply burden him more.

In this case it happened that the material to be disclosed to him ^{26296 BLANK PAGE 26297} fell for review a little later than usual. Whether this was a hangover from the holiday period or not, I'm not sure, and he got that bundle of material he revealed to you on the day before, which was later than usual. His cross-examination reveals that the material we provided to him was similar to but in a sense weaker than the material that he had himself because although we haven't been able to compare them, it looks as though the indictments and so on that he produced, which are not available to us, are simply the successor documents to the charge sheets that we were able to produce. So in reality he was not inconvenienced or prejudiced in any way but of course we will do all we can to ensure that the flow of 68 material to the accused goes a sufficient number of days before the witnesses come to give evidence to help him in his preparation.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, at present your practice, the practice of the Prosecutor is to search all documents that it has to see whether it has any Rule 68 material.

MR. NICE: Yes. If you remember, the overall 68 regime has been described in our several reports, and what we have done is identify a series of search criteria that we apply, and as the Chamber will recall, we regularly remind the Chamber and the amicus and the accused of what the search criteria are so that if they think there's variation that's required, we can consider it and apply it.

In addition to that, when any witness comes to give evidence, his name is searched generally within the system. That produces, depending on the witness, a small to enormous amount of material which was then retrieved, printed in hard copy form normally, reviewed by lawyers to see ²⁶²⁹⁸ which items within that material qualify for Rule 68 disclosure. Now, there may well be, and I think probably frequently is, an overlap between what is 68 for a specific witness and what will already have been disclosed as part of the general exercise of looking for exculpatory material. But regardless of that, when a witness is coming to give evidence, we search the material, produce what has to be produced for us to review and hand over shortly before the witness --

JUDGE ROBINSON: No. I asked the question because I have been developing a view that Rule 68 does not necessarily achieve fairness for all the parties. I believe it is impracticable and unduly onerous. My own view is that it needs to be looked at, to be reviewed and revised so that it is more practicable without doing an injustice to the accused.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, I'm interested to hear those views, and I know that the matter is under general consideration, consideration to which the Office of the Prosecutor is making its contribution. But until there is any change in the Rule, we have to comply with the Rule as it operates on us.

Can I turn then to the position with respect to General Van Baal, because the accused drew to your attention that he was provided with some material later again than I would have preferred. In his position, several binders worth of material were identified as needing review, or at least a binder or so, some 130 documents. For internal reasons that I needn't trouble you with, they fell for review later than one would normally have desired. Some 15 documents were identified as needing to be disclosed and one additional one was ²⁶²⁹⁹ identified last night, making 16 documents in all, and I hold up the quantity of material in my hand that was disclosed to the accused. It's a combination of press reports, Sitreps of the kind with which the Chamber will be familiar and other documentation. It is not a particularly dense or slow read although, of course, it is documentation that I would have preferred the accused to have had earlier than yesterday.

JUDGE MAY: Let us hear the witness in chief, then begin the cross-examination, and we will see if any issues arise. We will have the witness, please.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, while the witness is coming in, two things. You will see that I am joined today by --

JUDGE MAY: Does the Registry have a point? We are told the witness, Mr. Nice, will be giving evidence with interpreters.

MR. NICE: I should have mentioned that, yes. He speaks what to an English man would be regarded as perfect English, but coming from Holland with a finer tradition of speaking foreign languages he considers there are imperfections and would rather express himself accurately through a Dutch interpreter.

[The witness entered court]

MR. NICE: Your Honours will see that I am joined by Mr. Ierace who has particular experience in the area of Sarajevo and who indeed will be taking some Sarajevo witnesses.

JUDGE MAY: If the witness would take the declaration, please.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak ²⁶³⁰⁰ the truth and nothing but the truth.

WITNESS: ADRIANUS VAN BAAL

[Witness answered through interpreter]

MR. NICE: Your Honours, before I forget, although I shan't be referring to it myself, the large map of Sarajevo is available at short notice, providing an easel can be found, should the accused wish to examine, or cross-examine, on any matters of detail.

Q. Your full name, please, sir.

A. Van Baal.

Q. You're a general in the Dutch army.

MR. NICE: And Your Honour, the witness's testimony in the earlier Galic trial has been admitted subject to the provisions of Rule 92 bis (D) and with cross-examination. In those circumstances, I will read from a summary of the evidence he gave on an earlier occasion, asking him a couple of matters in viva voce evidence and producing one composite exhibit.

Q. General Van Baal, I'm about to read a summary of the evidence you gave. I shall attempt to do so at a speed that is suitable and will respond to corrections if I go too fast.

This witness was a member of the Dutch army since 1966, chief of UNPROFOR from the 24th of February 1994, and on arrival in Sarajevo in the aftermath of the Markale market incident, sensing that the atmosphere was one of horror where there was an explicit appeal for help. In his judgement there was a centralised and effective command system operating within the VRS which was conducting the battle around ²⁶³⁰¹ Sarajevo through the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps, the SRK, whose commander was General Galic, a commander popular with his troops and over whom he had great authority.

Galic was subordinate to General Mladic, however, General Milovanovic, chief of the Main Staff of the VRS, also exercised considerable influence over General Galic in day-to-day affairs. The witness was able to confirm contents of a 12th of April, 1994, document which noted that nothing occurs in that region under BSA control without headquarters' knowledge as a result of excellent military discipline.

One of the witness's main tasks was to gather or organise the gathering of heavy weapons from the warring factions as part of the total exclusion zone proclamation which was a unilateral decision of NATO to which the warring parties agreed to comply.

The total exclusion zone, a circle with a radius of about 20 kilometres centred on Sarajevo, was established by the NATO council and within it heavy weaponry could not be deployed so that it had either to be removed or placed under UNPROFOR control at weapon collection points. Generally the zone was respected and the witness's estimate was that 99 per cent of heavy weapons on the Serb side were placed under the control of Serb forces. However, several weapon systems were removed by the Serb side without permission, were deployed and fired. Further, in the summer of 1994, Serb units made several attempts to remove weapons from a collection point and occasionally or infrequently following application of the agreement, the Serb side did fire heavy ²⁶³⁰² weaponry, there being an increase in this use of heavy weaponry after the 5th of August.

During the time of his presence in Sarajevo, the witness observed because of the relative success of the total exclusion zone, most destruction occurred in local skirmishes at some points along the confrontation line.

As to sniping and following the total exclusion zone agreement, there was initially a sharp reduction in the use of small arms as well as of heavy weaponry by the warring parties. There were sniping incidents which were investigated by the commander of the Sarajevo sector, General Soubirou, carried out under the auspices of the chief UNMO. By March 1994, however, UNPROFOR reports indicated that snipers were being used more actively in Sarajevo, and the witness raised the issue with General Milovanovic at his first meeting with him on the 16th of March in Pale. Milovanovic stated that the trams in Sarajevo should not run until the Serbian bus system was functioning as well and that if UNPROFOR allowed the trams to run, he would see to it that the trams and passengers on them would be targeted.

Following that meeting, trams did run, and passengers while on the trams or waiting for them were targeted by snipers so that the witness formed the view that Milovanovic was able to influence sniper activity against trams.

In his earlier testimony, the witness was able to read from an UNPROFOR Sitrep of the 3rd of August, 1994, which recorded that on that date at about 1:00 p.m., a sniper operating from a Serbian building shot ²⁶³⁰³ against a tramway, lightly wounding three Bosnian civilians --

THE INTERPRETER: Mr. Nice, please read slower. Thank you.

MR. NICE: My apologies. -- also recording the anti-sniper sniping team operating from the Holiday Inn alongside what was known as Sniper Alley returned fire to the sniper.

The witness is able to confirm that there were several such incidents in July and August of 1994. He did not know if UNPROFOR anti-sniping teams ever targeted snipers on the Bosnia side as well, but he confirms that there were sniping incidents on both sides. He thought it unlikely that trams would be hit accidently by an exchange of fire along the confrontation line and rejects entirely the suggestion that they were hit by crossfire or ricocheting bullets. In his judgement, the fact that the trams from time to time carried soldiers travelling, other than on active service I suppose, doesn't make it a legitimate military target. One way or another, his opinion is that that doesn't make a legitimate military target of the trams.

UNPROFOR started negotiations with the warring parties for an anti-sniping agreement in May of 1994, the agreement being signed in August following an incident on the 14th of August when an 11-year-old child was shot dead on the tram. Both sides claimed they had no control over snipers operating from their respective territories. The sniping from the areas controlled by the Bosnian Serb army was intended and planned to cause terror. The objective was apparent to the ²⁶³⁰⁴ witness by their sniping of defenseless citizens, women, children, who were unable to defend or protect themselves at unexpected places and unexpected times. His judgement was that women and children appeared to predominate among civilian casualties.

Generals Rose and de la Presle, along with Viktor Andreev, repeatedly and vehemently protested to the VRS leadership about the sniping of civilians in Sarajevo. General Soubirou attempted to protest to General Galic and his liaison officers but following the Gorazde crisis of April 1994, General Mladic forbad contact with UNPROFOR at any level below that of General Van Baal and General Milovanovic, and in particular he wanted no further contact with General Rose, requiring to speak at the level of the four star General de la Presle. Occasionally this witness, General Van Baal, was able to protest orally to the SRK liaison officer, Major Indjic, about the deliberate and indiscriminate shelling and sniping of civilians in Sarajevo from the VRS side of confrontation lines. The responses from both Indjic and Milovanovic varied from a denial that they could control snipers to blaming the enemy for targeting their own civilians.

In his prior testimony, the witness read from a document generated by the UNMO, the military observer mission of the United Nations, for the 13th of July of 1994 which noted that on the 12th of July, the commander of the 1st Battalion of the Bosnian Serb army Ilidza Brigade had admitted sniping by that army from a location known as "the house for the blind people."

On the topic of proportionality, the witness expressed the view ²⁶³⁰⁵ that the use of Serb artillery to neutralise one sniper operating from a room or indeed a sniper's nest in an apartment block where there may have been civilians was disproportionate as use of force. The way to deal with snipers was by snipers.

Further, after proclamation of the total exclusion zone, the conflict was minimised so that, for example and in respect of proportionality, an attack on Bosnian positions in Marsal Tito barracks in Sarajevo could no longer be justified.

Further, the heavy weapons of the Bosnian army were controlled by UNPROFOR with the exception of possibly a very sporadically used 120-millimetre mortar operating from the vicinity of the airport and possibly in respect of tank fire from near the Kosevo hospital at Serb positions. He had serious doubts that a factory making uniforms could be a legitimate target, but I think he'll probably express his opinion more strongly than that if pressed on it.

A command centre in the city on a lower or ground floor in the judgement of the witness could be targeted legitimately with artillery or mortars if no civilians were present in the building. As to the airport, on several occasions Bosnian forces at Butimir used small-arms fire on approaching and departing planes, consequently closing the airport for periods of time. The witness's evidence included that at the end of March 1994, General Mladic urged repeatedly that a cease-fire be imposed throughout Herzegovina, Bosnia-Herzegovina, on condition that the safe areas including Sarajevo be demilitarised. Turning to what that would involve, what military presence there was that would need to be ^{26306 BLANK PAGE 26307} demilitarised, the witness observed in the evidence that there were a large number of military installations in Sarajevo including mobile targets such as military trucks, and he had heard of rumours of a weapons workshop in Marsal Tito barracks but I think nothing more than a rumour. Your Honours, can I turn to the production of the one exhibit through the witness which I trust Your Honours have. The transcript of his evidence, I think, should perhaps be the first tab in his exhibit and then the composite three-part document the second tab.

THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit number 534.

MR. NICE: In error I read that the witness was the chief of UNPROFOR. He was the Chief of Staff of the UNPROFOR. I am grateful to Mr. Ierace for seeing that I misread that. And in the Exhibit 524 [sic], we look, please, at tab 2 as I think it is then. You see a three-part composite document, the first being an outgoing table dated the 8th of August, part of the total exclusion zone agreement and dealing with how Serbs were to have access to their impounded weapons particular purposes.

Q. Is that correct, General?

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. The second page sets out the points of agreement of the total exclusion zone agreement. It can be read at leisure if necessary but under point 1, there was to be unrestricted movement of UNPROFOR verification patrols where possible with a BSA liaison officer. And if we turn to the third sheet, to the protocol of understanding between the civilian military representatives of the Republika Srpska and UNPROFOR, we see at item 4 that at the heart of this ²⁶³⁰⁸ agreement really was that neither the Serb nor the Muslim side should be permitted to engage in military activities of any description, this including even the consolidation of trenches or their forward movement or similar activities. Is that correct, General?

A. That's correct.

Q. One piece of oral evidence from you if you would be so good or -- yes.

On the 20th of March, 1994, General, did you receive a report to the effect that there were remote controlled mines placed under Canadian Battalion armoured personnel carriers, and as a result of that did you seek a meeting with Karadzic?

A. I received an oral report, no written report, but the information is correct.

Q. Following your initial approach, did you understand that the mines were removed but did you find that they'd then been repositioned under another armoured personnel carrier and did that lead to your going to Pale on the 21st of March there to meet Karadzic and Galic?

A. That's correct.

Q. You approached Karadzic and asked for resolution of the problem. Can you summarise, please, his response and apparent authority?

A. He recognised that the heavy weapons close to Sertici would be -- that had been positioned within the 20 kilometre perimeter and assigned General Galic to bring those weapons outside the total exclusion zone in the direction of Visoko about 800 metres in north-western direction.

Q. That's the heavy weapons that needed to be moved. Did Galic ²⁶³⁰⁹ appear to agree with Karadzic or not, and if so, how was that disagreement resolved?

A. Galic indicated that by moving the heavy weapons, they would be in visual range of the town of Visoko where the Muslim army was positioned, and that would be a vulnerable position. Galic was told to move the weapons anyway, to dig them in, to make them less vulnerable.

Q. And this was, of course, movement of weapons in accordance with the total exclusion zone agreement which needed some time to take effect; correct?

A. That's correct. These weapons were only moved -- were only discovered long after the establishment of the total exclusion zone. First it was attempted to remove those weapons and then on 19 March, General Rose ordered to put the weapons under the control of UNPROFOR.

Q. As to the mines that you understood had been placed under the Armed Personnel Carrier, how was that resolved at this meeting?

A. This was the second occasion that armed personnel carriers were provided with mines. Mr. Karadzic expressed his amazement to General Galic. He had expected that after the previous night's orders these mines would have been removed from below the APCs. I told him that it was confirmed that the mines were still there. Then he ordered Galic to make sure that the mines were removed from under the APCs. And after some time it was reported both by General Galic and through my contacts in Sarajevo that the mines had been removed from below the APCs of the Canadian Battalion.

Q. At this meeting, what Karadzic did and how Galic responded ²⁶³¹⁰ convinced you of what in respect of the existence of command and control at a centralised level?

A. First of all, Galic accepted the orders from Karadzic. Secondly, he made sure that by his command and control system he could be informed at a soon -- soon that the mines had been removed from below the APCs. That was only possible if there was an exact execution of the orders and the communication system, a technical communication system that enabled him to hear from Bosnia-Herzegovina what had been done. R

Q. Thank you, General. You'll be asked some further questions.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic. Cross-examined by Mr. Milosevic:

Q. [Interpretation] General Van Baal, as far as I understand, on the 27th of January, 1994, when you were a brigadier general of the Dutch army, you were appointed to duty in Bosnia; is that right?

A. That is not correct. On 24th of February, I went to Bosnia to act as Chief of Staff of --

Q. I understood that you had been appointed earlier on but that on the 20th of -- 24th of February you took up your duties officially, took over the duty of Chief of Staff.

A. I was appointed by the Dutch government on 24th January. I took my position on 24th February.

Q. That is precisely what I was asking, General. You were appointed in January and you took over your duties on the 24th of February, 1994. Is that right?

A. I was nominated, and the appointment was done by the UN from 24th ²⁶³¹¹ February.

Q. And that is when you took over your duties and started actively performing those duties as of that date; is that right?

A. 24th February, that's correct.

Q. You performed those duties, as far as I can see, up until the 28th of August, 1994. Is that right?

A. That's correct.

Q. Tell me, please, General, during the time when you took over these duties and became Chief of Staff, was there a significant shortage of UN officers who were needed to collect intelligence information on the spot?

A. There was sufficient personnel, both in Bosnia-Herzegovina command and United Nations military observers to perform the observations.

Q. Yes. But on page 2, paragraph 6, of your statement, you say that instead of 26 men that had been assigned to collect information, only five were actively working on that.

JUDGE MAY: Let the witness have a copy of his statement.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's correct. It has to do with the organisation of the Bosnia-Herzegovina command where expressly it was indicated that it was not mandated to collect military intelligence. Working within the mandate, there was sufficient capacity to collect intelligence and to do investigations.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I wanted to clear that up, because that is what it says in the last paragraph of page 1, at least in the Serbian translation. You say that 26 men had been appointed to gather intelligence, but the UN ²⁶³¹² structure did not have the means to accommodate these functions, which meant that in real terms only about five were working.

A. This information in the text is correct. The headquarters of the BH command used to be composed of the structure of the NATO organisation aimed at warfare. In this NATO organisation, 26 persons were planned to do intelligence work. In the context of BH command, these 26 people were not needed because the UN supposed that they were going to be provided with information from the warring sides and it was not necessary to build up their own organisation. That's what I wanted to make clear.

Q. Well, then that's very useful as an explanation, General. Does that actually mean that the UN mission, in performing these activities, could not rely exclusively on its own and direct information from the ground but had to utilise other sources of information, as you just mentioned, coming from the warring parties and even using the media as a source?

A. Bosnia-Herzegovina's command's mandate was that with collaboration of the parties that had requested us to do our work. That's correct.

Q. Very well. You were under the direct command of General Rose, weren't you, while you were Chief of Staff, throughout your term in office.

A. That's correct.

Q. Is it true that as the force commander of the UN in Bosnia, he frequently criticised not only the media but other missions too, that they were frequently providing incomplete and very often biased reports from the ground? Incomplete, incorrect, and biased. ²⁶³¹³

A. No comment to this.

JUDGE MAY: Is it right that you're going to call General Rose?

MR. NICE: He's on the witness list. As you will appreciate our ability to call -- I'm not ever in a position to undertake absolutely to call witnesses because of the needs to cut witnesses for reasons of time, but he is certainly on the list at the moment.

JUDGE MAY: So questions of that sort could more accurately be asked of him.

MR. NICE: Certainly.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, my question related to facts and not to individuals, so I would like to hear the position of General Van Baal about it.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. This diversity of information, since you relied as you yourself say to sources outside the UN mission, did this affect the overall situation on the ground?

A. Eventually all information that reaches you has the effect that you form your own opinion. So it must have had an effect. But how sources from outside the mission had an influence to the opinions of General Rose, I cannot judge. He will have to say that by himself.

Q. Yes. But in your own opinion, could you say how sources outside the UN affected your own conclusions?

A. I based my opinion on the facts that I recognised that were brought to me through the lines in the Bosnia-Herzegovina command and ²⁶³¹⁴ other source that reported to me, such as UNHCR and --

Q. Very well. You performed the post of chief of staff of the mission during a period when the well-known Gorazde crisis occurred and NATO forces acted against the positions of Republika Srpska.

A. That's correct.

Q. And during your term of office, you had numerous meetings with the highest level representatives of the authorities of the Republika Srpska, didn't you?

A. That's correct.

Q. From your statement, I see that your first meeting with the president of the Republika Srpska, Radovan Karadzic, at Pale, took place on the 20th of March.

A. That's correct.

Q. It says here that the meeting lasted about three hours. The meeting arose from the following set of circumstances: "General Rose had departed on leave for a week. He left at about 1600 hours. Before he left, we discussed the total exclusion zone and the taking custody of unauthorised heavy weapons close to Visoko," et cetera. So the discussion focused on the overall agreement rather than a particular incident. I gathered from your answer to Mr. Nice's questions that you went there prompted by a particular incident.

A. That's correct. The incident that was discussed before, that is, the item that remote controlled mines under APCs -- had been placed under APCs.

Q. But you mentioned something else here, General. What it says in ²⁶³¹⁵ this paragraph when you talk about your meeting with the president of Republika Srpska, Dr. Karadzic, that you discussed taking custody of unauthorised heavy weapons in the total exclusion zone near Visoko by members of the Canadian Battalion. So wasn't the content of your three-hour long meeting the question of weapons in the total exclusion zone? You say that the meeting lasted three hours.

A. The meeting took three hours, that's right. It was organised at the occasion of the situation of the previous day where I ordered on behalf of General Rose to the Canadian Battalion to bring the heavy weapons that were in that zone under UNPROFOR and the situation that was created because the Serbian forces of the Ilijas Brigade threatened the Canadian Forces. And the measures that I took then made us decide to address the request of General Karadzic to discuss this in Pale the next day. The immediate occasion was the invitation by Mr. Karadzic to me. Later on that night, we had another contact when it turned out that the remote-controlled mines under -- had been placed under APCs. So the occasion was expressly the threat by the Serb soldiers to UNPROFOR.

Q. In the transcript, and as I don't understand Dutch, I'm not sure what General Van Baal said, it says that he asked at the request of General Karadzic. That is probably a mistake because he was president of the Republika Srpska, not general. Is it true, General, that the total exclusion zone covered an area of 20 kilometres radius from the centre of the town of Sarajevo?

A. That's correct, with the centre being a coordinate that had been established in the decision of the NATO council from where the circle had ^{26316 BLANK PAGE 26317} to be drawn with a radius of 20 kilometres.

JUDGE MAY: We will adjourn now. General, we're going to adjourn now. One of the usual adjournments. We will break for 20 minutes. I must warn you formally, as we warn all witnesses, not to speak to anybody about your evidence until it's over, and that does include the members of the Prosecution team. Could you be back, please, in 20 minutes.

--- Recess taken at 12.16 p.m.

--- On resuming at 12.40 p.m.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, you speak about these mines. The information I have shows that it was the artillery pieces of the army of Republika Srpska that were mined in case they fall into Serb hands, not the transporters of the Canadian Battalion. Is that correct or not?

THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction, Bosnian hands.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is not correct. The Canadian Battalion, without using their weapons and heavy weapons from the Serb army, the Bosnian Serb army were impounded, seized. There was -- this was without any fire.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I understand that, but it was my understanding on the basis of the information I have that these artillery pieces had been mined, the ones that were left behind by the army of Republika Srpska, not the APCs of the Canadian Battalion. Am I right or not? ²⁶³¹⁸

A. I cannot confirm or deny that. I didn't have the opportunity to personally see where the mines were placed under the artillery of the Serb forces. What I do know what was reported and confirmed to me from several sources is that Serb soldiers from the Ilijas Brigade told the Canadian soldiers to be -- to remain in their own vehicles for their own safety and told them there were remote-controlled mines. That was reported to me from several sources.

Q. I assume not the APCs but underneath the equipment of the army of Republika Srpska. Is that right, General?

JUDGE MAY: That's not what the witness has said. You should listen to what he says.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right, Mr. May.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. When you talked about this particular site where weapons were, the representatives of Republika Srpska then claimed that their weapons were outside the total exclusion zone or on its very outskirts, to be quite precise; is that correct?

A. Mr. Karadzic showed me on a Russian map where, according to him, the total exclusion zone indicated that the arms were within the total exclusion zone. The centre of this circle was assumed to be the historic centre of Sarajevo. This was not what was at hand because the total exclusion zone had been imposed by the NATO council based on a coordinate that was 800 metres from the point where Karadzic had drawn the circle. This caused the weapons to be at a distance of 800 metres from the perimeter of the total exclusion zone, but they were within the total ²⁶³¹⁹ exclusion zone. They were in several locations in the presence of Serb soldiers and global positioning measurements confirmed this.

Q. Tell me, General, as far as I understand this, the difference was involved in the following: Since we are talking about a 20-kilometre zone, it amounted to 800 metres. So there was differences between the maps, the Russian map shown by Karadzic and your GPS. That's where the difference was; is that right?

A. The difference was not in the maps but in the fact that the total exclusion zone had been declared and both parties had agreed to the regime, and the centre -- it was not depend on the map used by the parts, but it was imposed by the NATO council. That was the point.

Q. All right. All right. It was my understanding that these were a few pieces of equipment that were within this 800 metres. Were there any targets engaged in Sarajevo and in the surrounding area from that particular area, from those pieces of equipment at that time?

A. That was not at hand. Within the 20-kilometre radius, there were not authorised weapons systems that were not under the control of UNPROFOR. That was a point of dispute. That was true for all weapons systems, whether they were within 800 metres or not from the perimeters, all systems within the 20-kilometre radius.

Q. I understand that. My question was whether these pieces of equipment, these weapons that happened to be within these 800 metres were used to engage targets. Did anybody shoot from these weapons?

A. The point was not if they were used but if they could be used. ²⁶³²⁰ They could be moved besides. They -- after they had been put at a weapon collection point, they were under the responsibility of the Ilijas Brigade, and they could be moved and deployed at any time. So it was -- we wanted to remove them from the total exclusion zone because it was contrary to our agreement. That was the point.

Q. All right. All right. I understand that that was the point, to remove them from the total exclusion zone, but at that time when the agreement was enforced, these weapons were not used for shooting at all, although they were within those 800 metres. Is that right, General?

A. It is not the point.

Q. All right. But was there any shooting coming from these weapons?

A. At any rate, from the time we discovered them, that was only late in March, they were under control. UNMO inspected them regularly, also to discuss the removal of these weapons. In that period, we could not find any use of those weapons.

Q. All right. Thank you very much. So on the 20th of March at 1730 hours, you took control over this weaponry and then you say you were surrounded by a unit of the army of Republika Srpska consisting of about 600 men from the Ilijas Brigade; is that right?

A. Not immediately at 1530 hours, only later in the afternoon this took place that the Serb -- Bosnian Serb Ilijas Brigade in large numbers surrounded the Canadian brigade. That's correct.

Q. Yes. But you yourself say on page 4, in paragraph 2, you say: "At 1730 hours, the Canadians went with 45 APCs to the unauthorised weapons near Visoko and brought the heavy weapons under control. Then ²⁶³²¹ they found themselves surrounded by approximately 600 Bosnian Serbs, VRS soldiers from the Ilijas Brigade," and so on and so forth. So that means that then at 1730 hours, you did place these weapons under your control. Is that right, General?

A. That's correct.

Q. Now, when they surrounded you, did any soldier of Republika Srpska open fire at your men? Was there any incident of this nature involved? Were any of your men injured or was there any kind of conflict that they had caused?

A. No weapons were used by the Serb soldiers. There was a threat that from 1930 hours fire would be opened.

Q. All right. Your first contact with Karadzic was over the telephone then after that particular event. And then you say that after that, he issued an order for the withdrawal of the soldiers of Republika Srpska from that position, and that was indeed done within 15 or 20 minutes; isn't that right?

A. That's correct.

Q. On page 4 in paragraph 4, you say that this was a clear indicator to you that the army of Republika Srpska had a very centralised command and control structure and excellent communications. Is that right?

A. That's correct.

Q. So you had contact with the president of Republika Srpska, and you asked him to have the soldiers of the army of Republika Srpska withdrawn, and he acted exactly the way you wanted him to. Isn't that right?

A. That's correct. ²⁶³²²

Q. And you say that the command and control structure was very centralised. Was it more or less centralised than that in any other army in the world? Isn't that customary for an order to be carried out once it is issued by the Supreme Commander? Isn't that logical?

A. It is logical.

Q. In your statement, on page 4, paragraph 4, you say that the members of the Canadian Battalion in the field, after the withdrawal of the Serb forces, discovered that the Serbs had laid remote-controlled mines under some of the APCs. Some of the APCs you say.

A. That's correct.

Q. Well, that means, since you had control over these pieces of equipment, that this had been done earlier, because soldiers of the army of Republika Srpska did not have access to these pieces of equipment after you had taken them over. Isn't that right, General?

A. Whether they had access or not, let's leave that now, but I can only say that we got a report that Serb soldiers had approached the Canadian forces in the dark and for their own safety they impressed upon them to stay in their vehicles and not to stay outside and for a number of reasons. The Canadian soldiers followed this advice. When in the night these soldiers went outside, they discovered that under their APCs there were remote-controlled mines.

Q. It was my understanding that they had been laid underneath these particular pieces of equipment, the APCs.

JUDGE MAY: We have been round and round this point, and I don't think we're going to get any further. We have the witness's evidence on ²⁶³²³ it. Let's move on to another topic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. The meeting you had with Radovan Karadzic on that occasion was conducted in the presence of General Galic, the commander of the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps; isn't that right?

A. That's correct.

Q. Is it correct that Karadzic at one point in time said to Galic that he had promised him that these explosive devices would be removed as early as the previous night?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you say in paragraph 4, on page 5 that Galic, although according to your impression, did not like that order of Karadzic's acted in accordance with the order issued by his president. Is that right?

A. In first instance that happened during the night, but in the early morning, there were remote-controlled mines put under the APCs of the Canadian Forces, and they were still there when I arrived in Pale around 10.00 a.m. Then I requested again to remove the -- to -- I reported again that remote-controlled mines had been put under the APCs.

Q. Well, it was then that this dialogue took place, the one that I quoted to you only a short while ago that you refer to when Karadzic asked for the mines to be removed, the ones that you had talked about, and that this was indeed carried out?

A. At the second occasion, Galic performed the orders of Karadzic to remove the mines. ²⁶³²⁴

Q. All right. On page 6, in paragraph 2, you say that when you met with the Muslim side, you held meetings with General Divjak, although in your opinion he did not have any power. Isn't that right?

A. That's correct.

Q. Tell me, although you knew this, why did you meet with a person who did not have any power? Wasn't that a waste of time?

A. It was the only contact that I was allowed. General Delic did not want to talk to General Rose or to me, and Milanovic and Hasanovic were not available, so I used the office to -- the offer to talk to General Divjak, and he would pass on the conversation to the other generals I just mentioned, and he could not take any decisions on the issues I wanted to discuss with him. Did he not have the authority. I immediately noticed that.

Q. But you held with meetings -- but you did hold meetings both with Hadzihasanovic and Halilovic; isn't that right?

A. A number of times I spoke to Hasanovic and Halilovic, that's correct, but they were not always available. That's why I used the contact with General Divjak.

Q. All right. And what about the two of them, Hadzihasanovic and Halilovic, were they persons of authority, persons who did have certain powers?

A. I noticed that that was the case.

Q. Who was authorised on the Muslim side to carry out relevant negotiations and to reach decisions? Can you say that?

A. In general, that was General Delic and Halilovic and ²⁶³²⁵ Hadzihasanovic also.

Q. Thank you, General. On page 6, in paragraph 3, you say that you encountered Fikret Abdic in connection with the situation and the war operations in Bihac. Isn't that right?

A. That's right.

Q. Is it correct that he did not want to cooperate then with the Presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina and if so, do you know why not?

A. After my observations during the conversation, I noticed he had no wish to have any contact with the central government in Sarajevo. He didn't trust them. And he very much relied on his own strength and his own coalition.

Q. All right. And do you know that your commander, General Rose, together with Ejub Ganic also visited Bihac and had contacts with Abdic but also with Atif Dudakovic, commander of the 5th Corps who was immediately involved in the war operations there?

A. I don't know what particular time you're referring to, and it's not clear to me which visit particularly you're talking about.

Q. Do you know of the visits of General Rose to this Bihac region together with Ejub Ganic and contacts with Atif Dudakovic, commander of the 5th Corps of the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina?

A. The visit of General Rose's is still clear to me. Whether Mr. Ganic joined General Rose or not, I cannot remember. I do know that General Rose, before I left for Bihac, met General Dudakovic and Mr. Abdic and talked with them.

Q. Tell me, General, do you agree with the assessment made by ^{26326 BLANK PAGE 26327} General Rose that he presented, and I'm going to quote it, he makes the following comment with regarding his meeting with Dudakovic. He says: "I knew this strategy of his from earlier on because it did not differ from the way in which the Muslim army operated in any part of the territory. First of all, attacks around their own positions, then withdrawing into the exclusion zone protesting about the suffering of the population, and thirdly, calls upon NATO and the UN to bomb the Serbs." Do you agree with this assessment of his?

A. I can't ascertain whether that is a quote of General Rose's or not, and I leave that for General Rose to say. I have no comment.

Q. I can quote this from his book, page 127, paragraph 4. He says: "I knew that strategy of his from earlier on because it did not differ from the way the Muslim army operated in any part of the territory. "Number one, attack --"

JUDGE MAY: You have read that out and the witness has given you the answer that he has no comment on it.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. What about your own experience, which was shorter, of course, considerably shorter from the experience of your commander, General Rose? Does it point to the same thing regarding the general strategy of the Muslim forces throughout the war?

A. My experience is that all parties in the conflict have tried to make the Bosnia-Herzegovina command do what they wanted.

JUDGE MAY: That's the UNPROFOR command? ²⁶³²⁸

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. From my situation, it was the Bosnia-Herzegovina command, which is part of UNPROFOR in total. That is right.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. And do you know that the French Colonel Legrier [phoen] sent information to the effect that light Croatian aircraft were often violating the no-fly zone and delivering weapons to Dudakovic's 5th Corps? Do you know about that fact? General Rose refers to that too, so I assume that you are aware of it as well.

A. During my period of office, there was some -- there was some mention that small aircraft and fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters without authorisation were flying over the Bosnia-Herzegovina territory. This was reported to us through NATO channels, but we couldn't confirm. And if General Rose can say something about that with certainty, he must have had the information. I myself was never able to confirm that.

Q. Do you know that on the 1st of April, 1994, Alija Izetbegovic called early in the morning, at 2.30 a.m., General Rose and said to him that there were tanks in the streets of Gorazde?

A. I cannot confirm that as far as a specific telephone conversation is concerned. But I do know that in the run-up to the Gorazde crisis there was regular contact between General Rose and the Muslim government in Sarajevo.

Q. All right. Do you know that General Rose was asked - Alija Izetbegovic asked him, as a matter of fact - to have NATO intervention, air intervention, against Serb-held positions because they were present in ²⁶³²⁹ the zone that was off limits? Is that right?

A. That's right. During the Gorazde crisis, I [as interpreted] regularly insisted that according to the UN Security Resolution 863 rules, the secure zone of Gorazde should be protected in the last resort by air power if need be, airstrikes or close-air support. The Bosnian Muslim authorities repeatedly insisted on this happening throughout the crisis, that's true.

Q. And is this assessment of General Rose's correct, the one that has to do with the following: "My previous experience pointed to the fact that these were exaggerations and that the Muslim requests contained overexaggerations concerning their losses. I called General Leavitt nevertheless and asked him what the latest intelligence was, and he said to me that the pressure against Bosnian forces from Gorazde was no doubt continuing but that there was no other alarming information." Is that correct?

A. The information I had as Chief of Staff was based on observations by MSF and UNHCR representatives in the centre of Gorazde. And from that reporting, it was abundantly clear that tank and artillery fire had been shot at the hospital, among others, in Gorazde, and also that shells had impacted in the town of Gorazde itself. That was a confirmation I received from the PTT building in Gorazde where the observers were. So in my opinion, there was enormous pressure on the town, and there was the use of heavy weapons. And after the event, it appeared there were about 300 casualties.

JUDGE MAY: One matter I'm going to raise while it's on the ²⁶³³⁰ monitors. The witness's answer before last about the Gorazde crisis, the transcript has it, "I regularly insisted that according to the resolution the secure zone of Gorazde should be protected in the last resort by airstrikes." My recollection is that the witness said it was President Izetbegovic who regularly insisted that according to the resolution, et cetera, in the last resort by airstrikes.

Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

JUDGE KWON: It's page 84, line 17.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Tell me, please, General, is it true that Izetbegovic's call and information at the time was incorrect and desired exclusively to ensure NATO strikes on Serb positions?

A. I did not base my opinion on the telephone conversations of the Muslim leaders in Sarajevo but on the reports I received from Gorazde itself. As to the exact content of the conversations between Muslim leaders and General Rose, I don't know. I do know that General Rose told me that the Muslim authorities insisted on the deployment of NATO air force.

Q. Very well. Is it also true - and this is on page 6, paragraph 3 of your statement - that you said that you attended a meeting with Mladic and Delic, and at that meeting Mladic proposed a general cease-fire throughout the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina and not just in Gorazde. Is that right?

A. That is right. This was in the run-up to the Gorazde crisis in the period March 1994. ²⁶³³¹

Q. And is it true that Delic rejected this, that is, Mladic's proposal for a total cease-fire in Bosnia-Herzegovina?

A. That's true. General Delic was primarily interested in stopping the fighting and the skirmishes around Gorazde.

Q. And the cessation of all activities meant also a cessation of activities around Gorazde, didn't it? And Delic would not accept this. He just asked for activities to cease around Gorazde without accepting a complete cease-fire for Bosnia and Herzegovina as a whole. Is that right, General?

A. It's partly right, because General Mladic attached a condition to it, i.e., demilitarisation of all military in the safe areas Tuzla, Srebrenica, Gorazde, Bihac --

THE INTERPRETER: Witness mentioned a few more.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- and this, as far as the general was concerned, was not to be discussed.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Was that a logical requirement? A total cease-fire, a demilitarisation of the safe areas, which would mean security for all, a cease-fire throughout the territory and a demilitarisation of the safe areas. Of course, that do not include the UN which was present there.

A. It was a unilateral demilitarisation of the areas where Bosnian Muslims were in power. It would have meant complete surrender of the Bosnian Muslim army. And as far as Delic was concerned, that was not acceptable.

Q. Those were protected areas, safe areas. Your forces were there, ²⁶³³² which the Serbs never attacked. Isn't that right, General?

A. They were secure areas, that is true, but I'm not saying what my opinion is. The opinion of Mr. Galic is what I reported because that's what you were asking. And it was about the fact -- it says General Delic, begging your pardon - that he could not accept these conditions because, as he saw it, that meant demob'ing the entire Bosnian Muslim army, and that would have meant a total surrender. That was his position, and that's why he didn't want to discuss it.

Q. And do you know that General Delic, on the 7th of April, requested first a complete political agreement on the division of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and only after that could a cessation of hostilities throughout the territory be discussed?

A. I cannot remember whether General Delic went into proposals as specifically as that.

Q. Michael Rose says in his book: "Delic demanded that full political agreement be reached before military negotiations start on a cease-fire."

JUDGE MAY: The witness has given his recollection of these matters, and I don't think there's much point putting what somebody else says about it.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. The witness also says that Delic, as far as I understand it, wanted a political agreement to be reached first. Can one conclude from that that the Muslim side was not interested ²⁶³³³ in a cease-fire but primarily in a division of territory before a cease-fire was reached?

A. For General Delic, what was important in the negotiations under the leadership of General Rose, that what was happening around Gorazde would stop before he was even interested in a total cease-fire.

Q. Very well. But at the time, you were Chief of Staff, and General Rose says for that time period that the message of UNMO officers seemed as if they had been dictated of the Muslim authorities from Gorazde, because they were contrary to everything that the press spokesman of the United Nations stated in Sarajevo. The Serbs never even tried to take control of that town. Does that concur with your own knowledge, General, or not?

A. My knowledge of that period is that General Rose relied more on his own people in Gorazde, his British military, than UNMO officers there. I had no direct access to his British military but to UNMOs and the MSF and UNHCR staff, and I based my opinion on that. What I did notice myself during my visit later to Gorazde, a couple of weeks later, is that there were still clear traces of hostilities and that there were tanks on the edge of Gorazde. The -- I'm sure the intention was not to take in the city with its 30.000 refugees, but there was fighting in its periphery and in the city itself, and it was shot at by tanks and artillery.

Q. Is it true, General, that about that time there were frequent incidents or, rather, attacks by Muslim forces coming from Gorazde outside the safe area and targeting many Serb villages east of the Drina River? Is that correct or not? ²⁶³³⁴

A. At at least two points, General Milovanovic told me that Bosnian Muslim military were -- or had shot at military and civilians. He'd wounded them and killed them. General Milovanovic told me that twice, but I wasn't able to ascertain that myself.

Q. And were you in a position to verify what General Rose said about that, because he writes about that in his book. He says that they fired outside the safe area and burned many Serb villages east of the Drina. Is that your own experience or not?

A. I have not been able to see for myself, and neither was I in a position to have UNMOs in the area. General Rose had at his disposal his own British personnel which he deployed, and maybe on the basis of that he concluded -- again, I'll allow General Rose to say, but I was not in a position, as Chief of Staff, to have my people there on the spot to make observations.

Q. Didn't you as the Chief of Staff know what the commander knew?

A. I'm not saying that in all cases I knew exactly what General Rose knew.

Q. Very well. And is it true, General, that on the 9th of April, 1994, in the hangar of the Sarajevo airport, there was a joint meeting attended also by the American envoy Redmond?

A. I cannot remember. It's possible, but I can't remember.

Q. Did you attend that meeting at that time?

A. I cannot remember whether there was such a discussion or whether I was present. I'd have to look at my notes from that period to see what happened. I can't remember offhand. ²⁶³³⁵

Q. Well, from General Rose's book, it emerges that Redmond --

JUDGE MAY: I don't know if there's much point asking the witness about a meeting which he can't remember if he was at or not. Better ask General Rose about these things or call him to give evidence.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I was assuming, Mr. May, that General van Baal, as the Chief of Staff, knows what General Rose knew.

JUDGE MAY: You've heard his evidence about it. Now, let's move on.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Do you know that Izetbegovic at the time rejected the agreement that had been proposed on the 9th of April at the Sarajevo airport?

A. I don't know.

Q. But you are familiar with the Dayton Accords?

A. Yes, of course.

Q. And do you know that it coincides in many respects with the agreement that was proposed in 1994 when you were the Chief of Staff and which Izetbegovic rejected, as suggested by Redmond?

A. I'm trying to answer your questions as accurately as I can, but it's about the period that I was Chief of Staff in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The Dayton Accords are about 1995. I can't improvise an answer and make a comparison between an agreement of 1994 about Gorazde and the Dayton Accords.

Q. Very well. And is it true that you, on the 10th of April, 1994, after General Rose returned from Split, informed him that tanks of the army of Republika Srpska were at the approaches to Gorazde, and they were ^{26336 BLANK PAGE 26337} directly targeting buildings in the town and that villages in the neighbourhood were burning? Is that right?

A. When General Rose returned, I informed him of all the information I had at my disposal at that time.

Q. However, in your statement, you say that Serb tanks were targeting the hospital in Gorazde and that they hit it several times. You say this on page 7, paragraph 3.

A. Yes. Afterwards I was able to see that the reports that reached us then were based on truth. I was able to observe that personally in Gorazde.

Q. Did you personally establish that they had hit the hospital and targeted it?

A. I observed this personally during my visit to Gorazde in the company of the local Muslim authorities and the UNPROFOR troops that were there at the time, and that confirmed earlier reports made by the United Nations military observers.

One of the military observers, after he came back to Gorazde, I spoke to personally and he confirmed the reports.

Q. Tell me, please, is it, however, true that in the immediate vicinity of the hospital there were several mortar positions of the Muslim forces? You must have been able to establish that?

A. That was reported as well.

Q. Is it then clear that forces of the army of Republika Srpska were targeting firing positions that were being used to attack them and not the hospital? ²⁶³³⁸

A. I cannot confirm or deny that. What I did observe is that the hospital had been hit.

Q. Very well. And the safe area was 3 kilometres from the centre of town, wasn't it? That was how it was establish.

A. That was established after a cease-fire was announced. In Resolution 836, the safe area of Gorazde is mentioned, and both parties were informed that the safe area of Gorazde covered an area of about 300 square kilometres. Finally, the Serb military officers brought all people and civilians from Gorazde back within a radius of 3 kilometres. That was the final agreement. The fighting took place before that agreement was reached, and the shooting of the hospital also occurred before the agreement was reached. But the safe area of Gorazde, in accordance with 836, covers an area of about 300 square kilometres.

Q. And it is 3 kilometres from the centre of town; isn't that right?

A. In the final agreement an area was determined which all -- where all parties would refrain from fighting within a 3 kilometre radius from the centre of the city, and that is right. But that was after the area had been reduced from 300 square kilometres to about 27 square kilometres.

Q. Very well. Was that after the NATO airstrike or before it? Airstrike on positions of the army of Republika Srpska.

A. It was after. The agreement was signed afterwards.

Q. Now, since these airstrikes were carried out on positions of the army of Republika Srpska in order allegedly to destroy the tanks that were in the prohibited areas, do you know how many tanks were destroyed in those airstrikes, tanks that had allegedly fired at Gorazde? ²⁶³³⁹

A. Tanks were moving towards Gorazde and were effectively firing. The NATO airstrikes were not very effective in the sense of destroying tanks, as far as I know, but they had the effect that a conversation could take place between General Mladic and UNPROFOR to reach an agreement.

Q. Do you know that an ambulance was destroyed and not a single tank because there were no tanks in that area? The airstrike was absolutely unjustified. There was no cause for it.

A. I saw a photograph showing signs of an ambulance being hit. It was not clear what projectile had hit it, and the rumour was that this had been caused by the deployment of NATO forces, but I did not get any confirmation of that.

Q. Do you know, and I'm quoting from General Rose's book: "On Wednesday the 13th of April, many guests came accompanied by Lord Owen and Stoltenberg who were handed updated reports by the observers from the spot, and they believed that the activities were directed against the heights around town and the main road leading in and out of the valley. Contrary to the propaganda and reports, the Serbs did not target civilian targets, but they did seriously jeopardise the positions of the Muslim army in town." This is what General Rose says, that the Serbs did not target civilian facilities. Do you know that, General Van Baal?

A. I [Realtime transcript read in error "believe"] will leave that to the author of the book, General Rose. What I observed was that during the Gorazde crisis, there were hundreds of casualties and wounded. They were not [as interpreted] caused by a Serb attack on Gorazde.

Q. We all did our very best and used our influence for the conflicts ²⁶³⁴⁰ around Gorazde to come to an end. There were messages coming from all sides if you remember that. I'm sure you do. And appeals addressed towards the parties to the conflict.

A. It did not prove effective.

Q. Very well. General Van Baal, on page 8, paragraph 3, you say that "After the crisis in Gorazde, there was a meeting at the Sarajevo airport between Haris Silajdzic and Momcilo Krajisnik; is that right?

A. That's right. And I accompanied Mr. Silajdzic to the airport and back into town.

Q. Very well. And is it true that at one of your meetings with Silajdzic you asked whether it was possible to transfer people from the eastern enclaves to the territory of the Federation?

A. I asked him that informally on returning from the airport.

Q. Very well. On page 8, paragraph 3, you say that he answered: "We are the victims of the war. We enjoy the sympathy of the international community and the strong support of the United States. We are now going for the gold medal."

Is that right, General?

A. That's right.

Q. Isn't this a quite unambiguous option in favour of war, to sacrifice one's own people to win over the support of the part of the world that calls itself the international community?

JUDGE MAY: That's purely your comment. No doubt if we come to consider it if it's of any significance, we will have to consider what weight to give to it if any, but that's not a question for the witness. ²⁶³⁴¹

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The witness, in his statement, says that Silajdzic told him that he has the strong support of the United States and that he was going for the gold medal.

JUDGE MAY: And the witness has confirmed that. The witness has confirmed that is what he said. Now, what interpretation to put upon it, we may have to decide in due course if it is of any significance. Now, let's go on.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You say at the end of that paragraph that I partly quoted from: "It was obvious that he expected military support from the United States." Is that right, General?

A. That's right.

Q. And they got that military support, didn't they?

A. Bosnia's Muslim government received political and military support, that is right.

Q. Very well. On page 9, in paragraph 6 of your statement, and also in your examination-in-chief today, you mentioned sniping activities, and then you say that you believe that the authority in the army of Republika Srpska for sniping came absolutely from the highest place. Is that what you said?

A. That's right. I also deduct that from the conversation with General Mladic.

THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction; Milovanovic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. And on what grounds do you believe that -- and you say that you ²⁶³⁴² believe that the authority for sniping came from the absolutely highest position in Republika Srpska. What led you to believe that?

A. First of all, General Milovanovic stated that very clearly to me. If UNPROFOR allows trams to drive in Sarajevo, they show that there is peace in Sarajevo. There is no question of that. The Bosnian Serb side, the buses should drive, and that's a totally incorrect picture, because in the rest of the country war is going on, and I'll make sure that passengers will be shot at, and that also happened. At other times, I had a similar -- had a similar conversation with General Milovanovic where he indicated that he was able to mobilise the snipers or to have the snipers' activity ceased.

Q. Very well. General -- very well, General. Will you please focus on what you say on the same page, paragraph 3 of your statement, when you talk about Muslim snipers, and I am quoting you: "There were snipers acting from the facilities of the Bosnian government." Did you say that? And I am quoting you literally: "There were snipers operating from facilities of the Bosnian government."

A. It was observed by UNPROFOR soldiers of sector Sarajevo, that's correct.

Q. Very well, then. Since this is a quite unambiguous statement, that there were snipers operating from within Bosnian government buildings, isn't it illogical that you should accuse the Serb side on the basis of your belief that the decision about sniping came from the highest position, whereas in the case of Muslims who were killing Serbs from Bosnian government buildings, which you were able to establish as a fact ²⁶³⁴³ on the ground, and you have absolute proof that their snipers are operating following instructions from the highest position as they're operating from the very buildings where that highest authority is housed.

A. The question you are asking me -- the question you asked me was, first of all, about the Serb -- Bosnian Serb snipers. In my statement, I indicated that also the Bosnian Muslim side used snipers. There too, the central military authority was informed. There was observed by centre Sarajevo. I did not observe this myself. These were reports that sector Sarajevo made to my headquarters.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. It's the time for us to adjourn. Have you any more questions for this witness, Mr. Milosevic?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just a few more.

JUDGE MAY: Could we get through them in five or ten minutes, try and finish the witness today?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. I'll finish so as not to keep the general here until tomorrow.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Please, General, let us just specify this point. Your conviction regarding sniping when referring to the Serbs, you express a conviction that the decisions came from the highest position, whereas on the other side you have very precise information that sniping is being done from Bosnian government buildings, and then you do not qualify them in the same manner, that is that sniping is being commanded and ordered from the highest positions, sniping against Serbs. Why? Is it important to accuse the Serbs, General? ²⁶³⁴⁴

A. On the subject of the snipers, I spoke with General Milovanovic in person regarding snipers on the Bosnian Serb -- Muslim side. I did not speak with leaders of the Bosnian Muslim government. That's the difference.

Q. Well, you're not going to say that General Milovanovic told you that they, from the top places, were deciding about snipers.

A. General Milovanovic told me that if we made the trams -- if UNPROFOR allowed the trams to drive in Sarajevo, that he would have the trams be shot at. That's what he said literally.

Q. But he did not say that he would use snipers. He said that he was asking for reciprocity, namely, that if trams were operating on the Muslim side, that there should be buses operating on the Serb side. If the trams were safe, then the buses should be safe too. He did not tell you that he would use snipers. Isn't that right, General?

A. Technically speaking, it was only possible with long-bearing small-calibre weapons, that is sniper rifles, to be able to reach the trams. That's a technical issue.

The second point is that it did not only concern the fact having the trams drive combined with supplying spare parts and fuel for the buses, but he would like to stress that it was a wrong sign to the international community to have the trams drive and to have a picture that there was peace, and in other parts of the country there was a struggle going on.

And so there were two arguments, and technically, shooting the trams from the Serb positions was only possible with long-range ²⁶³⁴⁵ small-calibre arms because other weapons were not allowed in that zone.

Q. General, I just wanted it to be established that General Milovanovic was talking to you about reciprocity there, trams and buses. He wasn't talking about snipers. He never mentioned any snipers; isn't that right?

A. He talked about shooting the trams.

Q. He did not mention snipers.

JUDGE MAY: I don't think there's much point going on with the argument.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, in great detail, you exercised control over the exclusion of the heavy weaponry of the army of Republika Srpska from the total exclusion zone around Sarajevo. Why could you not exclude the heavy weaponry that you yourself said the Muslim forces had near the airport and near the hospital? Why didn't you exclude that heavy weaponry?

A. Regarding the hospital, heavy weaponry were placed in a tunnel, near the tunnel. We did not have any access of UNPROFOR. We observed that had when I arrived in Sarajevo, and this did not change during my term. Heavy mortars in the neighbourhood of the airport, these were mobile, so we never even found them, but we observed that they had been used to fire mortar shells.

Q. I understood from what you were saying that you have not read General Rose's book about his mission in Bosnia.

A. I didn't say that. I did read the book.

Q. Well then, since you read the book, tell me whether you agree with ^{26346 BLANK PAGE 26347} what he said. In his book, on page 304, in the afterward - I could quote a greet many other things but I'm just going to read what you told me you've already read yourself - so General Rose says: "I was especially angry at the journalists because of their partial unobjective reporting from Bosnia. Most of the commentators from the east coast of the US during the fighting in Gorazde in 1994 did not write about the misfortune and the difficult economic position of the population. Rather, they talked about torched and destroyed houses. However, the truth was different. These houses that American reconnaissance planes were filming during airstrikes against the Serbs were destroyed for the most part as far as back as 1992 when the Serbs and Muslims were fighting for supremacy in town and when --"

JUDGE MAY: Pause there. The witness should have a chance to answer.

Can you make any comment at all, General, on what General Rose has said?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] General Rose I know from several moments was worried about the impartiality of a number of journalists, but it was established that General Rose realised that some journalists did not have access to Republika Srpska and had to use the possibilities in and around Sarajevo. So he understood that these people had a view, but the possibilities were lacking to gather information, and he expressed his concern about this several times.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. But you see what he says at this point where Mr. May interrupted ²⁶³⁴⁸ me. He says that American reconnaissance planes were filming and so on and so forth.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, there's not really much point going on with this. What you're asking is a witness to comment on what somebody else has said, somebody else's opinions, and in any event, what does it matter -- just a moment. What does it matter, as far as this trial is concerned, whether the witness -- the journalists were biased or not? They're not giving any evidence. We're not relying on what they said. So it doesn't matter.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Here he refers to American reconnaissance planes, aircraft, not journalists. And the point is that he continues to say these were Serb houses without windowpanes, without door frames, et cetera, that the Muslim have completely --

JUDGE MAY: Look, there is no point asking this witness about what General Rose has said. Now you may have the chance if you want to call him. You can call him to give evidence, if that's what you want to say. Now, time is really short. Is there anything more you want to ask the General, any other topic?

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General Van Baal, is this your conviction too? What was represented as victims on the side of the Muslims were actually Serb houses that had been destroyed and torched by the Muslim side, and that was what was being shown in order to justify through the media the policy of aggression against the Serb side. Is that right or is that not right, General? ²⁶³⁴⁹

A. I have no comments to this general statement.

Q. All right. All right. Thank you, General.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Kay. Questioned by Mr. Kay:

Q. Just a very short matter, General. Firstly, you had dealings with Dr. Radovan Karadzic on a personal level; is that right?

A. No. That was on a functional level.

Q. I missed that because I --

A. No. That was on a functional level.

Q. You misunderstand me. What I'm saying is that you had dealings while carrying out your job with Dr. Karadzic; isn't that right?

A. That's right.

Q. And in your dealings with Dr. Karadzic, he exerted control over the issues that you asked him to respond to?

A. That's right.

Q. And he made it clear that he was the leader of the Bosnian Serbs.

A. That's right.

Q. And in relation to General Mladic, again you had dealings with that General who was commander of the Bosnian Serb forces.

A. That is right.

Q. And it was clear to you that he exerted control over those forces.

A. That's right.

MR. KAY: No further questions.

MR. NICE: One matter of clarification if I may. It's the question that was raised on the screen I can see, 13:37 and thereabouts. ²⁶³⁵⁰ Re-examined by Nice:

Q. General, you were asked in respect of something that General Rose is said to have written in his books -- his book, I beg your pardon, about the Serbs not targeting civilian targets in Gorazde. And you were asked a question that included General Rose saying that they did nevertheless seriously jeopardise the position of the Muslim army in town. Your answer, and I'll just read your answer in full and see if it's been correctly recorded. It's as follows. It says: "I will believe," but it means "I will leave that to the author of the book, General Rose. What I observed was that during the Gorazde crisis there were hundreds of casualties and wounded." And the next sentence reads: "They were not caused by a Serb attack on Gorazde." First of all, is that the answer you intended to give?

A. What I meant to say, it was the consequence of a Serb attack on Gorazde. Apparently the word "not" was put in. The wounded and casualties caused in the Gorazde crisis were caused by a Serb attack.

Q. I think the only other question, Your Honour, that I'd like to ask is this: You've explained already but I want to be quite sure we understand it, Mladic's pressure for a total cease-fire, something rejected throughout by the Muslims, if -- if they'd yielded to it, what would have been the effect of the total cease-fire and demilitarisation?

A. In fact, a one-sided disarmament, and the Muslim-Croatian Federation would have been weakened, and it would have been a simple walkover to Republika Srpska. That would have been the consequence, and that is what General Delic stressed, "I will be unprotected if I yield to ²⁶³⁵¹ this one-sided disarmament."

JUDGE MAY: General, that concludes your evidence. Thank you for coming to the Tribunal to give it. You are now free to go. And we will adjourn until to tomorrow morning.

[The witness withdrew]

MR. NICE: Responding to your earlier request in respect of information about Brcko, so far the best official publication I can find for you is the 2001 publication on the website by the Office of the High Representative. I think it contains the facts in the penultimate two paragraphs, contains a certain amount of description as well. I've checked that there has been nothing material that's happened since then. The arbitration award referred to here is still in effect.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. If you'd hand it in. Yes. We will adjourn.

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.03 p.m., to be reconvened on Thursday,

the 11th day of September, 2003, at 9.00 a.m.