³⁷³⁸⁷

Tuesday, 15 March 2005

[Open session]

[The accused entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let's deal first with the outstanding matter of the exhibits. We will admit the videotape and the ten clips as one exhibit.

THE REGISTRAR: That will be under D287. Under seal?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. And then we'll mark for identity, pending translation of the pages referred to, tab 1, excluding pages 47 to 126.

THE REGISTRAR: That will be D28 -- D288, and marked for identification, MFI.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Tab 2. Tab 2 is not admitted. We will admit the two Prosecution statements, one from Investigator Sutch and Witness number 3.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, I'm grateful. I remember that there's an outstanding Prosecution Exhibit issue. It's the CNN clip, played in the cross-examination of Bakic, and I recall when I applied to have it produced as an exhibit Ms. Higgins was on her feet, ready to argue the point. She's not here today but no doubt Mr. Kay is ready to deal with it.

The Chamber will recall that the clip had sound but at its playing there was no sound heard. Under the usual pressures of time, I said I didn't want it to be played again and for the audiovisual booth to connect the sound because what was important was what was seen, and the witness ³⁷³⁸⁸ acknowledged that indeed part of the clip was one of the camps at Blace. So on that grounds I ask the Chamber to admit it, but I haven't heard the grounds of objection, if any.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I don't know if Mr. Kay is ready to deal with it.

MR. KAY: Ms. Higgins was going to take the objection but I am aware of the issues. It was a tape that was produced where the witness indeed only accepted that one of the clips was of Blace, so in our submission that is a clip that would be material evidence and should be admitted.

In relation to the other clips that weren't admitted, there was no evidence of the date of those particular film shots, that they were indeed of Blace, or any other details that spoke of their provenance - date, time and place being the most important matters - so in our submission, they didn't take the evidence in the trial any further.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Mr. Milosevic. Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [No interpretation]

JUDGE ROBINSON: I didn't get that in translation.

THE INTERPRETER: Can you hear the English interpretation now?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The witness challenged everything that was said on that recording, and if Mr. Nice wishes to exhibit this, he has to do it through another witness.

Now that I've taken the floor, may I say that in relation to the previous witness, tab number 1, that is to say the tapes, I wish to point out at the very outset, as I did already, that the tapes are pretty long, ³⁷³⁸⁹ about 3 hours, and only by way of illustration I played a few clips, but I am tendering the tapes in their entirety. I want them to be admitted into evidence in their entirety, because they contain the interviews conducted in extenso with Albanians, Egyptians, and Roma.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: On the last point, so far as I am aware, the tapes that were provided covered pages 1 to whatever it is, 44, 127 to the end of tab 1, and I assume that those tapes are the subject of your order that they be admitted, and we'd have no observation on that. If the accused is able to show us that there are other tapes with broader interviews, then clearly we would object to them because we've never had them and they haven't been the subject of evidence. There is a tape that covers tab 2 and clearly that's excluded by the order that you've made.

JUDGE ROBINSON: So you say it's only those parts that were --

MR. NICE: Yes. It's only pages 1 to 44 of tab 1, and 127 to the end of tab 1, and that's it.

[Trial Chamber confers]

MR. NICE: But, Your Honours, that is pretty well all we got. I mean, we did review them over the weekend, and that's what we got, along with tab 2.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, we maintain the order that what will be admitted or marked for identity is all those portions of the tape which cover pages 1 to 44 and 127 to the end. ³⁷³⁹⁰

THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, the number to the statements, two statements; 837 for the statement given by Sutch and then 838 Witness 3, yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I think Mr. Milosevic wanted to say something, Mr. Nice.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I believe that it is inappropriate to take these statements, to admit these statements over the telephone. This is Witness number 3. We have the tapes. If Mr. Nice wishes to challenge anything that Witness number 3 said on the tapes, he can call the witness himself. Getting statements by telephone that we don't even know what they are, and on the other hand not challenging what is on the tapes, that is totally inappropriate. He can call the witness any time. Call the witness and have him testify here.

JUDGE ROBINSON: You're speaking so much like a common lawyer now, Mr. Milosevic, but we do admit hearsay here.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, on the other argument that the accused raised in relation to the Blace CNN tape, the Chamber will want to have in mind that the witness, out of the blue, raised allegations that CNN, and later the BBC, had really concocted evidence for its footage. That's what led us to go and find a CNN tape so we could say to him here is a CNN tape at the relevant time and it shows real events. And to some degree he admitted it. If there's a problem of our not having heard the soundtrack, we could, of course, listen to the soundtrack and see what it says about the dating and location but my respectful submission would be that in light of the way this issue was raised, not by us but by the witness, it ³⁷³⁹¹ would be appropriate for the tape to go in as it is.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, we'll need to examine the transcript to remind ourselves of the evidence, and we'll give a decision later on that.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, I'm grateful. And in the meantime I'll have the soundtrack listened to again in case that's something I want to draw to your attention.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. NICE: Thank you.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Now, Mr. Milosevic, your next witness.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Robinson. I call witness General Radomir Gojovic.

[The witness entered court]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let the witness make the declaration.

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

JUDGE ROBINSON: You may sit.

WITNESS: RADOMIR GOJOVIC

[Witness answered through interpreter]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, you may begin your examination. Examined by Mr. Milosevic:

Q. [Interpretation] General Gojovic, where were you born and when?

A. I was born on the 1st of February, 1943 in the village of Sekiraca, the municipality of Kursumlija, the Republic of Serbia.

THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please be asked to slow down. ³⁷³⁹²

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. What is your education?

THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters note that it is impossible to follow the witness at this speed.

JUDGE ROBINSON: General, I'm asking you to listen to me. The interpreters can't follow you because you're speaking too quickly. Please speak a little more slowly.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Should I repeat what I said?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. More slowly.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] After completing elementary school, I completed the infantry school for non-commissioned officers in Sarajevo. That is to say I completed high school in Sarajevo and university in Sarajevo. I have a degree in law.

I got my Master's Degree at the University of Belgrade, the law school of the University of Belgrade, the department for criminal law.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, tell us briefly, how did your career develop? What positions have you held, and what ranks did you hold?

A. After completing school, I remained at the schooling centre in Sarajevo, and I was there for five years. I was commander of the platoon of cadets, but then I was transferred to another school, and I commanded a platoon of 82 millimetre mortars for two and a half years, and then I was commander of another platoon for recoilless guns. In the meantime, I got my degree in law, and I started working in the legal department. I started working for the military court in Sarajevo. After completing my ³⁷³⁹³ internship and after passing the bar examination, I was deputy military prosecutor in Sarajevo for four years. Then I was an investigating judge in the military court in Sarajevo for four years. That was the regular term in those days. Then for five years I was deputy attorney-at-law in Sarajevo and at the same time secretary of the disciplinary court of the command of the 7th Army.

After that, I returned to the court again, and I was president of the Chamber for four years, and then I was deputy president of the court for four years, and then I was deputy military prosecutor and military prosecutor in Sarajevo, respectively, until June 1992. Then I was transferred to Belgrade, and I was deputy supreme military prosecutor for about two and a half years, and then president to the military court in Belgrade for five years from January 1994 until the 16th of June, 1999, when I was appointed chief of the legal department of the General Staff of the army of Yugoslavia, and then chief of the legal department of the Ministry of Defence until the 31st of March, 2001, when I retired after 40 years of active service.

I held all the regular ranks, that is to say starting from private, private first class, and so on and so forth. When I got my degree in law, I became a lieutenant, and I got my commission. Then I had regular promotions. However, I had to pass an exam in order to become a major. I had to take all the necessary military subjects, and I successfully passed that examination. I got all my other ranks without passing any examinations because that was not a requirement.

Q. Just to spell something out very precisely, General: After you ^{37394 BLANK PAGE 37395} got your degree in law, as an active military officer, you were transferred to the legal department of the JNA at the time.

A. Yes.

Q. When did you start working in the legal department? That is to say from the troops you were sent to the legal department. When was that?

A. The 13th of October, 1971.

Q. So from the 13th of October, 1971, until 2001 you have -- you worked without any interruption in the legal department, and you held legal offices within the military?

A. Yes.

Q. Thank you, General. Just a brief question which does not have to do with your very own activity, but what was the ethnic make-up of the JNA?

A. As far as the soldiers are concerned, it was proportionate to the ethnic make-up of the able-bodied men who came to do their military service. As far as the officers are concerned, again it depended on the number of personnel who opted for military service, because this was a voluntary thing. People applied. However, at the highest level of command, there was almost parity, and this was not proportionate to the actual number of population of the different ethnic groups. Specifically, in the legal department, there was practically proportionality. I'm talking about the Sarajevo court and the prosecutor's office as far as the legal department is concerned. However, as far as the other regular units are concerned, the situation was the way I described it. ³⁷³⁹⁶

Q. Very well, General. We do not have any detailed information about the ethnic composition of the officers of the JNA, but we do have a review, a survey, in tab 1. I am sorry. I seem to have a problem here with the binder in tab 1.

See please take a look at tab 1. You can put on the ELMO. My photocopy is not very good. If you have a copy of your own that is more legible, I would appreciate it if --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] With the permission of the Chamber, I can take out my own copy. I have a good one.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, you may use your own copy.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I emphasised here -- I must say we don't have data here covering a large -- a long period, but this is a review of the national structure of the JNA, and staff attrition, staff drain during 1992. That is the year when Slovenia, Croatia, followed by Bosnia and Herzegovina, seceded. Would you please put that on the ELMO.

A. I will have to look at my own copy.

Q. Here it is. The English copy is quite clear. No need to put on the ELMO the other one.

A. This is a review of the national structure of the JNA from end 1992. By that time, a part of the staff had already left, but under number 1 we see Montenegrins - we're speaking now about officers - 5.46 per cent; Croats 7.41 per cent or 2.678; Macedonians 2.915 or 8.07 per cent; Muslims 2.079 or 5.75 per cent; Slovenians 396, that is 1.10 per cent; Serbs 21.338, that is 59.04 per cent; Albanians 472, that is 1.31 ³⁷³⁹⁷ per cent; Yugoslavs 3.386 or 9.37 per cent; and others, that is other national minorities, 902, that is 2.50 per cent.

Q. Sorry to interrupt you, General. We are talking here exclusively about commissioned personnel. We're not talking about conscripts or non-commissioned personnel; exclusively officers.

A. That is correct.

Q. So this is dated 31st December, 1992, by which time --

A. Yes. The greatest part of Slovenes and Croats had already left, whereas personnel of other ethnicities still remained.

Q. And now we have data for 1992.

A. Yes. Montenegrins 295, that is 2.46 per cent; Croats 1.517, that is 12.64 per cent; Macedonians 2.190, that is 18.25 per cent; Muslims 1.363, that is 11.36 per cent; Slovenes 211, that is 1.76 per cent; Serbs 4.771, that is 39.75 per cent; Albanians 319, that is 2.66; Yugoslavs 1.116, that is 9.30 per cent; others 220, that is 1.83 per cent. And in the last column we see the numbers remaining at the end of the year.

Q. So we can see the structure, the composition.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I should like to tender this tab 1 into evidence.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, admitted.

THE REGISTRAR: Can I give one number to the whole binder?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, give a number for the binder.

THE REGISTRAR: It will be D289.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, you spent your entire career in the army. I would like ³⁷³⁹⁸ to ask you if it was important who belonged to which ethnicity in the functioning of the JNA.

A. It really didn't matter at all, except that in political terms care was taken that the ethnic structure of the country was represented in the composition of the personnel. What mattered was the quality of work and performance.

Q. Is it fair to say that in terms of composition and tasks the JNA was a truly Yugoslav institution?

A. The very name of the Yugoslav People's Army speaks to the fact that it was really Yugoslav People's Army, and that's how it was created during the national liberation war. It was on those bases that it grew and continued to develop until the former Yugoslavia broke up.

Q. We are coming to the increased tensions in the former SFRY and the aggravation of the crisis. Would you tell me how those forces in Slovenia, then Croatia, followed by some other parts of the former Yugoslavia, worked towards secession and how they viewed the JNA. What was their attitude towards it?

A. With the arrival the separatist forces on the political scene, the first thing that happened was that a groundlessly negative campaign of slander began against the JNA. They began saying that the army was superfluous, that it was an unnecessary expenditure from the budget and that it was not in the interests of all the republics. This was followed by various incidents in public places, provocations against soldiers serving their duty outside their home republics. This happened at football matches, in coffee bars. Officers became targets later as well. ³⁷³⁹⁹ And among other measures to counter this, the order was issued to go to work in mufti instead of uniform. That is a measure that was accepted by our personnel with great difficulty, but it was something intended to help them save -- to help save them from provocations. The second measure was that --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, General.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Where were you when the Yugoslav crisis that you just began describing began? Where were you when the first problems occurred in the functioning of the Yugoslav army as the common army of all the republics?

A. I was the military prosecutor in Sarajevo, so I was very well -- very familiar with all these problems, because all the criminal and other reports arrived at my desk regarding attacks against JNA personnel.

Q. And where were you just before the war broke out in Bosnia and Herzegovina?

A. In the barracks of Viktor Bubanj.

Q. Could you tell us very briefly something about your experience from the time you spent in the Viktor Bubanj barracks. I'm speaking only of the time when incidents began until the time you left Sarajevo. Give us first the time frame, if you can tell us the dates, and then describe your experience. But before that, tell us one thing: This Viktor Bubanj barracks, was it the headquarters of the military justice organs?

A. Yes. That was the seat of the military court and the military prosecutor's office. That was also the place where the detention units, the office for the development of military maps, and there was a section ³⁷⁴⁰⁰ of military police which partly catered to the military justice organs and partly to staff, to the staff.

Q. In any case, it was the seat of non-combat units, with the exception of this military police unit that served as security for the military court and military prosecutor's office, the map development unit, et cetera.

A. As for attacks against the barracks, I would like to give you one illustration. The first conflict began much earlier, in a place called Listica, near Mostar. A freight vehicle was hauling a broken tank. It was escorted by a team of military police from Mostar, and when they arrived at a place between two rocks, the road was blocked by stones. The driver got out of the vehicle, fire was opened at him, and he was killed. Behind him a lance corporal who accompanied him opened fire in the direction of the attackers, and after that, Ludvig Pavlovic, Ludvig Pavlovic's body was found. It was a man who served ten years in prison as member of a group that -- a terrorist group that infiltrated Yugoslavia at that time. He was not executed, although he was given the death sentence, because he was below 21 years of age. He had served his sentence and was released a year before this incident.

So the first incident involving a killing happened at that time. The perpetrator was Ludvig Pavlovic, a man who, after serving ten years in prison, immediately joined those forces.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Are these incidents --

THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: 19 years in prison.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Are these incidents of attacks on the barracks ³⁷⁴⁰¹ the subject of any allegation in the indictment?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] As you well know --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Is this evidence responding to an allegation in the indictment? If it is not, we don't want to hear anything more about it. Move on to something that is relevant to the charges in the indictment.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, the very substance of what is written in what you call the indictment to the effect that there were some joint criminal enterprise in the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina aimed at expelling the Muslims begs the question what kind of joint criminal enterprise it could be. If it was the other side whose conduct provoked this rather than the side which is indicted, if we're talking about a plan, who would have been able in Yugoslavia, in Serbia, or the JNA to plan attacks against the JNA? What the general is telling us came as a great surprise for him, for other officers, and for the Yugoslav public in general.

In peacetime, for a peaceful freight transport of the JNA to be attacked, for soldiers to be killed -- and this is relevant, because this is how it all started.

JUDGE ROBINSON: So this is sort of background evidence. You're leading up to something which is definitely related and specifically related to allegations in the indictment.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Certainly.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Very well. Because I want to be quite clear that we're not going to accept evidence which is not related to the indictment. ^{37402 BLANK PAGE 37403} I'm not going to accept evidence for evidence's sake. It must be related to allegations in the indictment. If the barracks were attacked and the Serbs responded and out of that response Serbs were killed or Muslims were killed and that is an allegation in the indictment, then that is obviously relevant. But if not, you will have to struggle, as you're now doing, to establish relevance. But I will allow this. Move on.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Robinson.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, for how long were you under siege in the barracks of Viktor Bubanj?

A. We were under siege, a complete siege, for about a month and a half. Just before that, we were under surveillance, under observations by people who watched who was coming in and out of the barracks. And after that, our electricity and water supply were cut off, and we were completely isolated.

Q. General, tell us kindly, whether the army - and when I say "the army," I mean the army in the broadest sense; your institution including your court, the military unit guarding you apart - the army in general in Sarajevo, did it do anything that could possibly serve as a provocation for this incident?

A. The Yugoslav army at the time did not do anything that could be remotely provocative to the other side. On the contrary, it acted with utmost restraint at the cost even of great losses to itself so as to be safe from any allegations of provocation.

Q. Was the Viktor Bubanj barracks shot at? Was there any shooting ³⁷⁴⁰⁴ around the barracks while you were there?

A. Yes. I was there around in May 1992. At the beginning, as I said, there was surveillance and blocking of the entrance. Freight trucks and buses were used to make a roadblock in front of the barracks, and provocations started. I will describe it.

As soon as dusk would come, they fired flares and started shooting at a nearby settlement. The barracks is on a hill, and there are houses overlooking the barracks. So the -- these forces surrounding us kept using these tracer ammunition.

I kept asking my subordinates, What's going on? Why are they doing this? Until I heard a report on the radio, a journalist saying that he was near the waterworks watching and reporting that the Viktor Bubanj barracks is shooting at the settlement nearby with barrage fire. So they kept shooting with this tracer ammunition, and anyone watching could mistakenly be under the impression that there is shooting from the barracks.

In addition, they also opened fire at Hrasno, which is also a nearby populated centre, and it has a school for handicapped children. They also shot at this school from the mortar. And the reporter kept reporting, "Now they are shooting from the mortar at the school for handicapped children."

JUDGE ROBINSON: I must tell you that I want short answers and, Mr. Milosevic, you must pose specific questions, and short answers. That way the evidence is better appreciated and understood.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Robinson. Mr. Robinson, on ³⁷⁴⁰⁵ several occasions exhibits were shown which were the map -- a map of Sarajevo. So I think that it will be permissible for us to place the map of Sarajevo on the overhead projector for the general to show us all this, because this is very important. The Viktor Bubanj barracks had no combat units. He's already explained that. And from Mojmilo hill or from underneath Mojmilo hill on one side of the barracks Muslim paramilitaries shot civilian targets across the barracks and broadcast over the radio that it was the army who was firing at civilian targets from the Viktor Bubanj barracks. That's what he told us. And I think it would be a good idea if he were to indicate this on the map. The map of Sarajevo has been an exhibit in this case. I don't think I need tender it especially here. I just want the general to use it and to show us what happened where.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, show it. But bear in mind that I asked you whether the attack on these barracks was the subject of any allegation in the indictment, and you were not able to point to any particular section of the indictment. You gave a very general answer. This is not advancing your case.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, a lot is said in the indictment about Serb forces, as they're called, and you for the JNA said the Serbs for a moment ago, although you can see that the JNA, and you had an exhibit to show this out, was composed of different ethnic groups. It says that the Serb forces allegedly committed crimes against the civilian population. There's a great deal of that in the indictment. So that's not something that is in dispute, the fact that this is contained in the indictment. ³⁷⁴⁰⁶

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Can you show us General, now, please?

A. Well, this isn't a very good copy. I can't really see what's on this map. I haven't brought my strong reading glasses. Yes. This is the Viktor Bubanj barracks here.

Q. General, you have to point on the overhead projector, not on the screen.

A. This is the Viktor Bubanj barracks. That's it here. And then this empty space. Then there's the settlement called Otoka here, which is full of high-rise buildings, more than 20 floors, and they overlook the barracks. This is Mojmilo hills, as some people call it, or the Mojmilo range. And here it says Novi Grad. That's where the waterworks is, the water supply for the city. The water flows down naturally, down the slopes of the hill. And the shooting across the barracks came from this area here, across the buildings towards this settlement here. And the mortars --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Thank you, General. Mr. Nice, is the attack on the Viktor Bubanj barracks mentioned anywhere in the indictment?

MR. NICE: To my recollection, no, it doesn't feature.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I will not hear any more evidence on this specific incident. Move on to another topic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think that putting things in formal terms like this, Mr. Robinson, is highly improper, because if we look at counts 4 to 7, page 14 of the B/C/S version of the indictment, and ³⁷⁴⁰⁷ I'll find it in English as well in other counts, that's no problem --

JUDGE ROBINSON: What is the page?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The B/C/S translation is page 14. I have the indictment in Serbian, and it refers to Bosnia-Herzegovina, and it says: From the 1st of March or around about that date 1992 to 31st of December, 1995, Slobodan Milosevic, acting alone or in concert with others in a joint criminal enterprise planned, aided and abetted, ordered, perpetrated or in other ways supported and aided and abetted the planning or execution of the annihilation, killing and deprivation of life of principally Bosnian Muslims, et cetera, et cetera. And then it goes on to enumerate and list Sarajevo among the towns mentioned. You have 1 million and 1 nonsensical things in this indictment and now you tell me that something isn't relevant. And we're talking about the testimony of General Gojovic here who was present in the Viktor Bubanj barracks, who was watching the Muslim forces targeting their own civilian targets and facilities and accusing me and the army of doing what you are accusing me here of.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I have already ruled that I will not hear any more evidence. You have not satisfied me as to the relevance of this. The paragraph that you've referred to does not substantiate the relevance. Move on to another topic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. Robinson. Then --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let me make it clear, Mr. Milosevic: Evidence of Serb suffering, it may be relevant. It may be relevant if, as I indicated before, if the barracks were attacked and the Serbs responded to the ³⁷⁴⁰⁸ attack and in that response Serbs were killed, then, yes, if that is an allegation in the indictment, because that would be your answer to it. But merely to bring evidence of violence against Serbs when it is not included in the indictment does not satisfy the requirements of relevance. If there is a paragraph in the indictment relating to this, then you should show it to me, but you have not. Mr. Nice said there wasn't. But I'm still trying to find if there is a paragraph. If there is a paragraph, then we can look at it, because it is a very big indictment.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just let's get one thing clear: Mr. Robinson, I am not moving to prove the Serb suffering here. General Gojovic, in this specific case and in the answer to my question, is testifying how the Muslim forces shot at civilian parts of Sarajevo, targeted civilian parts of Sarajevo, and those crimes were ascribed to the JNA. So we're not talking about the suffering of the Serbs. We're talking about the overall civilian population which was targeted by the Muslims and then this ascribed to the barracks he was in. So it would appear that the military court or military attorney's office, prosecution's office shot at the surrounding buildings. This was anti-Serb propaganda or, rather, anti-Yugoslav propaganda at that time and anti-JNA propaganda, whereas it was a crime to which he is testifying. And we're not talking about the Serbs here, we're talking about the suffering of the civilian population, and he is saying that it was the Muslim forces shooting the high-rise buildings.

JUDGE ROBINSON: You should have explained that earlier. You should have explained that earlier. Your contention, then, is that what ³⁷⁴⁰⁹ is ascribed in the indictment to the Serbs is properly attributable to the Muslims. That's a different matter.

What section is that? What section of the indictment? Same, 37?

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Nice, if you can help us. The only remaining charge in relation to Sarajevo is Markale shelling?

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Nice, please.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Nice, Mr. Milosevic is directing attention to page 13 of the Bosnia indictment, counts 47, extermination, murder and wilful killing, and at two parts of that there is reference to Sarajevo, and then particular parts in brackets. And the case that he is making, as I understand it, or suggesting he might make, is that the attacks were attributed to the JNA when they were carried out by others, and that's a defence, if made out. But as I understand the witness so far, all he's talking about is flares and some sort of tracer bullets. He's not, as I recollect it, so far given any evidence of an actual attack on the Muslims carried out by anyone. It was a sort of attempt to set up the JNA and the press, and then the press reported it as if the JNA were carrying out an attack. But what was being used was, I think, flares and tracer bullets rather than an actual attack.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, yes. May I, hearing this exchange through the Court, invite the accused and those who are assisting him -- and I know he avoids an interest in procedural matters, but can I invite him to attend to the fact that for his assistance, for the assistance of his associates, at the end of the Prosecution case we provided a document in electronic format that summarises paragraph by paragraph for each ^{37410 BLANK PAGE 37411} indictment, including background paragraphs for two of the indictments, the evidence that the Prosecution has relied on. And this material is searchable. It's searchable electronically. So if he wants to assert that something about Viktor Bubanj barracks is relevant, he has an easy way, or his associates have an easy way to get at what if anything has been said about that. At the moment I'm engaged in the search myself through LiveNote.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Are you saying that the Prosecution might not have relied on this?

MR. NICE: I'm just seeing to what extent these barracks were ever referred to. He must -- it's up to him what he does, but he and his professional associates before taking time with the sort of things that he's discussing this morning, have been provided by us and by the court systems which are all electronically searchable with a range of tools to enable him to focus his evidence.

Now, of course, because we don't get long, detailed witness statements, we can't in advance say irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant because we don't know what's coming until the witness opens his mouth usually. But I would encourage the accused and his team -- I notice he's studiously not interested in what I'm saying -- to focus their attention. Sometimes it's a bit like knocking your head against a brick wall, but I'm doing my best to help him.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, in future when you bring witnesses who are going to testify to facts, I'm going to ask you before they ³⁷⁴¹² testify to point me to the count or paragraph in the indictment to which the evidence relates. With a lot of help from everybody, we have identified in paragraph 36 the reference to Sarajevo, Novi Grad, and in light of the case that you are putting forward that what was attributable to -- what was attributed in the indictment to the JNA is properly attributable to the Muslims, we'll allow the examination to continue, although I don't know how much more you have to extract from the witness on this point.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please. Microphone for the accused.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] My microphone is switched on. Mr. Robinson, the main purpose of bringing in this witness is Kosovo. However, the witness did do duty in Sarajevo, so I can't call the witness back twice. He was present there.

And I think what Mr. Nice is trying to say is a vulgarisation which goes against the intelligence of each individual. It's not a question of whether it says Viktor Bubanj barracks anywhere. General Gojovic could have been at any other place. So Mr. Gojovic is not testifying about the Viktor Bubanj barracks. He could have been in some other place. What he's doing is that he's testifying to having been an eyewitness to the shooting from Mojmilo hill at civilian targets on the other side, and at the same time he was listening over the radio to broadcasting which was saying that where his court was stationed, that is to say the Viktor Bubanj barracks, that it was the Serbs or the JNA that was doing the shooting. So this is not --

JUDGE ROBINSON: I've stopped you, Mr. Milosevic. I've already ³⁷⁴¹³ explained the circumstances in which you will be allowed to continue this examination-in-chief.

I'm looking at the 65 ter summary, which we have allowed. We have allowed the 65 ter summary. It's very brief. There's no reference in it to Sarajevo. And I will insist in the future that when you bring witnesses as to fact, that you tell us what count or paragraph of the indictment the witness's evidence relates to. So continue.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson --

JUDGE ROBINSON: I don't want any more answer. We've been through this enough. Continue. If you don't wish to continue, we can stop. We can stop the examination-in-chief.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I do not want to give you an answer, any more answers. I'm seeking an explanation. So please be kind enough, in view of your profession and professionality, to provide me with an explanation. And here is what my question is: It says here in point 5, page 2, and you can find that in the other indictments --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Point 5 of what?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Of the Bosnian indictment. Take a look at what it says. If the word "perpetrator" -- when the word "perpetrator" is used in the indictment, the Prosecutor does not wish to suggest that the perpetrator committed any of the crimes personally. So perpetrator in this indictment relates to taking part in a joint criminal enterprise in the -- together with the perpetrators or co-perpetrators. And then paragraph 6 says: "Slobodan Milosevic participated in the joint criminal enterprise as set out below. The purpose of this joint ³⁷⁴¹⁴ criminal enterprise was the forcible and permanent removal of the majority of non-Serbs, principally Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats from large areas of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina," et cetera, et cetera. And then it goes on to say that some sort of joint criminal enterprise had been planned.

So please explain to me, as in general terms I am being accused and Serbia is being accused and the JNA is being accused of everything that took place on the territory of the former Yugoslavia, whether that in itself, then, is grounds for you to say find the exact point where, let's take as a metaphor, the Viktor Bubanj barracks is mentioned, or anything else. You don't have a specific crime that I have been accused of except taking part in this joint criminal enterprise which hasn't been supported by any proof or evidence as yet and which cannot be supported by proof or evidence because it is quite clear that nobody could have planned that Croatia's secession and Slovenia's secession would ever have taken place.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I am going to stop you now because this is going on too long. We have already found in relation to the Viktor Bubanj barracks a count in a paragraph in the indictment to which it might relate. I have said that in those circumstances, in light of the case that you are putting, I will allow you to proceed with the evidence. So let us proceed.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General Gojovic, do you know anything about sniper attacks in Sarajevo? Or let me be even more precise: Were you personally targeted by sniper shooters? ³⁷⁴¹⁵

A. Yes, I was a target of sniper shooters when the attack against the Viktor Bubanj barracks started. This was Sunday morning, 5.00 a.m., mid-May 1992. The barracks were attacked from all sides because this is a built-up area. They chose that particular moment, the morning, because usually people go to the toilet after they get up in the morning. So as soon as I walked into the toilet from the other side, a sniper shooter targeted me. Fortunately, the window had a metal frame about two fingers wide, and the bullet hit the metal frame and that saved me. Otherwise, I would have been hit in the forehead. Only a sniper could have targeted that by using optical sights.

I worked there as a prosecutor, and my office was attacked by a hand-held rocket launcher, the Armbrust, German manufactured. As far as I can remember, the shell did not explode, so I was lucky. That was when I started believing that there was something called good luck, because the barracks were attacked three times.

The first attack was the fiercest one at three levels; sniper fire, machine-gun fire, and hand-held rocket launchers. The second attack was the office of the commander of that unit. This was a captain, and the Armbrust hit that office. His colleague called me before that on the telephone -- or, rather, called him, hoping that he would in his office and wanted to speak to him on the telephone. However, he had moved out of that office. He felt that something might be wrong. He sought shelter in another office. And at that moment when he was talking on the telephone from the other side, because they were asking him to surrender, his entire office was destroyed. There was a terrible explosion and all ³⁷⁴¹⁶ the walls crumbled, and I saw that this shell was indeed very powerful. That's what I saw then.

Q. General, except for the attack on Viktor Bubanj, which was not a combat area, do you remember the attack against the Yugoslav People's Army centre? In order to be very clear, to make things perfectly clear to everyone here, this is practically an officers' club. This is a cultural club of the JNA.

A. Yes. That is what happened. I apologise to the Trial Chamber, but I think one has to look at the entirety of what happened in Sarajevo. Please don't hold this against me, I don't want to lecture you in any way. Sarajevo was the centre and the source of the conflict and also that was the final stage of the conflict. The entire state leadership was there and everything happened right there. That is why this is so important. And it is the month of May that is of critical importance; the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd of May as far as JNA units are concerned. First of all, on the 1st of May, a vehicle was attacked that -- a catering vehicle transporting food. This is in Dobrovoljacka Street, practically where the previous event had happened where the driver, a soldier, was killed. And Boran Belic [phoen], a lawyer who was an officer then too, he was my intern at the prosecutor's office and he was the assistant duty officer, and he went to transport this food for lunch. The soldier managed to drive for about 200 metres, and then he died.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm also thankful for the window which saved your life so that you're able to give evidence here today, but concentrate your answers and try to make them as brief as possible. ³⁷⁴¹⁷ Mr. Milosevic.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry I did not give an answer concerning the JNA club, the officers' club. I said that these were the three critical days. So the following day, the 2nd of May, that's when the JNA centre club was attacked. This is in the centre of town, this is a cultural institution, and I don't know why they attacked it. Major Bogojev, an ethnic Macedonian, was the commander there. He was head of that club, and he had a few soldiers there, and also there were some members of his staff who were civilians. The director of the club was wounded very seriously. He survived but he was very seriously wounded. A few soldiers were wounded too, and they needed medical assistance. And an APC went there or, rather, armoured vehicle went there to pick them up. They didn't send an ambulance but an ACV so that no one could attack them.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I'm struggling to find the evidence of this particular piece of evidence. You must direct the witness to evidence that is relevant. You will not be allowed to roam at large.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General Gojovic --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I'm thinking of all the witnesses who testified here about some kind of Serbian misdeeds in Sarajevo, which was all supposed to support what Mr. Nice has asserted. So it's not only what is written here but also in what we have to look at is what his witnesses said too.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] ^{37418 BLANK PAGE 37419}

Q. General Gojovic, do you know something about sniper fire in Sarajevo at the time when you were there?

A. I know about sniper fire. Sniper fire came from town, and they were targeting civilians. I had information to that effect. And these sniper shooters were primarily targeting civilians. When a group of people in uniform would pass by, nobody would target them, only the civilians. So if we are talking about true adversaries, then it would be the enemy side that would be attacked. At first it was Serbs who were killed the most, and we were wondering how come. Serbian women wear black as a sign of morning. Muslim women do not wear black clothing when they are in mourning. Then also they could distinguish between the head dress the different people wore; Muslim, Serb, et cetera. So all of this was done by way of provocation, to say it was the Serb snipers who were shooting. This is information I received from people who were actually eyewitnesses. So that is what I wish to say on account of that, and this is general knowledge.

Q. Tell us, General, at the time you were the military prosecutor, weren't you?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you start any proceedings at the time in relation to the events that you just told us about?

A. Yes. Proceedings were initiated in terms of what happened in Dobrovoljacka Street when the command of the 7th army was moving from one building to another under the protection of the UN Protection Forces commanded by General MacKenzie, a Canadian general at the time, and an ³⁷⁴²⁰ entire crew was killed by high voltage electricity. This was on the 2nd of May. Eight soldiers altogether.

And on the 3rd of May what happened happened in Dobrovoljacka Street: Five officers, four colonels, one lieutenant colonel who was in the medical corps, and also a civilian who was a member of the military, and also three other officers were wounded, a general and several soldiers.

Proceedings were initiated at the time against Ejub Ganic, because at that time he was standing in for Alija Izetbegovic. Alija Izetbegovic was not in the country at the time. So he was the one who was in charge of this entire operation.

Then Avdo Hebib, who was assistant minister of the interior; Jusuf Pusina, who was one of the top people in the ministry; Dragan Vikic, who was commander of the special units of the MUP; and there was Jusuf Prazina, who is a well-known criminal who had a big paramilitary unit of his own; and there are one or two other people, I think, who were indicted on the occasion.

The prosecutor then issued the indictment, and all these documents have been provided to the Office of the Prosecutor of this Tribunal however no action was taken in this respect. So I wish to point that out. Anyway, an agreement was reached that the command of the entire army would be moved out under UN protection. In front was a white UN vehicle with a white flag --

JUDGE ROBINSON: General, what were these people charged with? You mentioned, I think four persons. ³⁷⁴²¹

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Which people?

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Ejub Ganic, Hebib --

A. Oh, yes, yes. The organisation and commission of an attack of -- against the column of -- that was moving from one building to the other. Eight persons were killed. Three soldiers were -- three colonels were wounded, three officers, I can even give their names, and several soldiers as well.

JUDGE ROBINSON: The attacks on civilians, were they charged with attacks on civilians, or that was a different incident?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You mean Ejub Ganic.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This specifically had to do with the attack against this column where these people were killed.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, just a second. Just a minute. What was the outcome of these prosecutions?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The investigation was completed, but these people were not accessible to our authorities. The JNA withdrew after that. The case was moved to Belgrade. There was an arrest warrant. These people were not brought to justice, but all the documentation has been provided to the OTP here, because this column was not a combat column. They did not have combat security. They were not moving in combat deployment. They were under protection of the United Nations. ³⁷⁴²²

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Kay, I don't know whether you're in a position to assist us. We have been discussing among ourselves the question of the relevance of this particular evidence. On each occasion that I have asked Mr. Milosevic about relevance, he has a stock answer that he's charged with a joint criminal enterprise, as though that lets in every conceivable piece of evidence that is at his disposal, and that can't be the case.

I have allowed him to continue this examination on the relatively narrow basis that he's saying that what has been attributed to him or attributed to the JNA in the indictment in relation to Sarajevo is properly attributable to Muslims, Muslim fire. The evidence is not going in that direction.

MR. KAY: It's perhaps a matter of presentation. I was considering the indictment as matters were developing and looking at count 3 and paragraph 33 and what is set out there, and paragraph 34. The Court will notice that Sarajevo is cited in paragraph 33, and the allegation in paragraph 34 is that by the use of force, attacking and taking over control of towns and villages in the territories of Bosnia and that this was done as a way of creating conditions for persecution. Sarajevo itself is defined in Schedule A of the indictment as a specific place for killings was in fact excluded under the Rule 98 ruling of the Court, but the generality of the issues concerning Sarajevo have remained within the indictment. And if the witness is describing conditions of living within Sarajevo from his own experience that could be ³⁷⁴²³ held to have been the responsibility of the Muslim forces rather than the forces said to be under the control of the Serbian authorities, then there is an issue being put forward before the Court that is a valid defence to that matter. How long and how extensive it should be is another matter. But one can see from the indictment there, at paragraphs 33 and 34, that there may be issues from this evidence that could be considered from that perspective.

There are wide allegations within these indictments, and that can be one of the problems in -- in having to deal with so many issues. You get to the outer edges of evidence and matters arise and evidence comes before the Trial Chamber as a result of what is contained within the indictment.

If that is the intent and purpose of the use of the witness in relation to this aspect of his testimony, there may be grounds for it. In many respects, if one looks at his exhibits, he has much more specific evidence relating to his role within the military prosecution system, which perhaps are of greater importance than his personal experiences on this issue.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Kay. So we allow it on the basis that it is a sort of a background evidence to what happened in Sarajevo. It is evidence that establishes the environment in which the alleged crimes took place.

But, Mr. Milosevic, you can't take this particular piece of the evidence much further.

We are going to take the break now for 20 minutes, and when we ³⁷⁴²⁴ come back, I'd like you to move on to evidence that is more directly relevant.

MR. NICE: And, Your Honour, if -- in case it's of any help or interest, Ms. Dicklich has identified a passage in Lord Owen's evidence where the barracks were referred to. It turns up in a report of Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali that the accused read out where it was said that the barracks were under attack, and that wasn't challenged.

JUDGE KWON: It was also dealt with by Malesevic.

MR. NICE: Malesevic, yes, in a different setting. Your Honour is ahead of me. I can simply repeat, and I don't know how I can do more than repeat, the accused should use the tools we provided him if he wishes to make his evidence focused. Everything has been done to assist him.

MR. KAY: By that Mr. Nice means the fillbox document, which I think --

MR. NICE: I certainly do.

MR. KAY: Yes, it's the fillbox document that's the important one.

MR. NICE: And it's a document that I've been providing from time to time, and I hope I will continue to provide because I know it assists the parties.

MR. KAY: It's very helpful.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Mr. Milosevic, the fillbox document prepared by the Prosecutor is available to you and you should use it. We are going to take the break now for 20 minutes. We are adjourned.

--- Recess taken at 10.32 a.m. ³⁷⁴²⁵

--- On resuming at 10.57 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: A short point for your consideration relating to the time consumed this morning in procedural matters. The Court knows that the two-thirds allocation is to cover Prosecution cross-examination and procedural matters. Where procedural time is taken in the course of the accused's examination-in-chief, it has a double effect on the Prosecution because, of course, if it comes -- if it comes away from the accused's time, then the two-thirds allocation is itself reduced and part of that two-thirds allocation is immediately consumed by the administrative time taken.

The Chamber will note that in an effort not only to meet but indeed to beat the two-thirds allocation, I am now cross-examining wherever possible for 50 per cent or less of the actual time taken in evidence in chief. The Chamber may think, and I don't ask for an immediate reaction, of course, but the Chamber may think that this morning's consumption of time by procedural matters caused entirely by the accused's preparation or lack of preparation of his evidence with a focus on the issues in the case is an example of time that should properly simply be part of his examination-in-chief time and shouldn't count as administrative time that reduces the time available to the Prosecution. I'd invite the consideration of that.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, that's -- that requires a mathematical calculation that may be beyond me at this stage.

JUDGE KWON: You know what matters is the time spent for ^{37426 BLANK PAGE 37427} examination-in-chief and re-examination, at the end of the day.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, my understanding is that the totality of time for -- Your Honour is quite right about that but the total allocation of two-thirds is for cross-examination and administrative matters and therefore every piece of administrative time reduces for two reasons the time available to us, and that's what I'm concerned about.

JUDGE ROBINSON: And from whom is this time now to be taken Mr. Nice?

MR. NICE: This time is undoubtedly time to be taken from the Chamber's allocation.

JUDGE BONOMY: What was administrative after the witness started his evidence?

MR. NICE: Well, I understand that the way the time is being logged, and I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, is that once a significant procedural discussion is initiated, as it was by the Chamber, that that then starts to count as administrative time. I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, but that's my understanding.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, I believe that is so. Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It's on now.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General Gojovic, you gave us a series of examples from the time when you lived in Sarajevo, which was the critical time. Can we note from the entirety of your experience in Sarajevo from that time that the JNA ³⁷⁴²⁸ was under attack rather than attacking anybody?

A. Precisely. Precisely. In only those three days, 26 members of the JNA were killed without the JNA firing a single bullet.

Q. Does that mean that the JNA did not exercise its fundamental right to self-defence?

A. That's precisely what it means.

Q. Were you in Sarajevo when the Vaso Miskin Street incident occurred?

A. I was.

Q. Can you tell us something about this incident and your knowledge about it.

A. I can only tell you what I know from eyewitnesses. It happened on the 27th of May. People were waiting in queue to buy bread in a small street of Vaso Miskin, which is lined by shops on both sides. A man called Lizdek Nedeljko, who was on his way to a friend's apartment to pick up some documents in a residential area overlooking the Markale marketplace, saw cameras being set --

MR. NICE: [Previous translation continues] ... obviously or potentially. The witness is clearly not speaking of personal knowledge but of things he's heard from others. In light of his position as a lawyer working in the office of the prosecution in Sarajevo, military prosecution, no doubt he has had access to the original material, if any, that reflects what these eyewitnesses have said, and I think it may be helpful for us to know before he's allowed to go on further summarising hearsay material in this way whether we are going to be provided with ³⁷⁴²⁹ statements or the best reports of this material, because it's going to be difficult for us to deal with it later and it's far better for us to know straight away whether we've got reports, witness statements, matters of that sort or if this is just going to be a general hearsay account that I will simply not be able to deal with.

JUDGE ROBINSON: General, how did you get this information?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Regarding the events in Vaso Miskin Street, I have no documents because it was outside the jurisdiction of the military prosecutor's office. However, regarding the attacks against the members of the JNA, I have documents. What I can tell you about the Vaso Miskin Street incident, I have only accounts from an eyewitness, a man who was passing along that street, who saw cameras being set up, people seeking shelter. There is a book shop there, the Seli Maslesa [phoen], with a -- its entire facade is glazed. It's a very small street.

JUDGE ROBINSON: The man gave you this information in what circumstances?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was on that same day, because he was going to see a friend to pick up some documents nearby. I went out into Lukavica on the 25th of May, and right after that event, on his way back he saw the bodies of people killed, and there were no traces of shells or grenades. There was only one mortar shell that fell. I know the man, so I asked him. He has experience from police work, a local from Sarajevo. He said no -- no question, it was a setup by their own people.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Did the man come to you to give this information? ³⁷⁴³⁰ Did he give the information to you in your official capacity? That's what I was trying to find out.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, not in his official capacity. I asked him as a friend.

JUDGE ROBINSON: In your official capacity.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. I didn't ask him in my capacity as military prosecutor because that was outside my jurisdiction. It was an incident involving civilians in town, so it was outside my jurisdiction. However, I asked the man what happened, because the reports, the official reports said that a shell came from Serbian positions, and he said no way, cameras had been set up before the event. And later when he was on his way back, he passed through the same street, and he saw that there was no sign of grenades or shells fallen. And I asked him if it could be a shell that fell from a distance, and he said, no, it was a mine.

They had a man, Usnir Hakic [phoen], who was an expert in explosive devices, in anti-terrorist activities, and he was very well-versed in the methods of setting up explosions. The next day, they used hammers to crack the asphalt and create the impression of some outside damage, but that was --

JUDGE BONOMY: General, when you say that a shell came from Serbian positions, the official report said the shell came from -- you mean from JNA positions, do you?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

JUDGE ROBINSON: From where? ³⁷⁴³¹

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Already at that time Serbs had their own Territorial Defence units which took up position on surrounding hills, and the JNA was not involved in any way. In general, the JNA did not take part in any combat activity. Our units were manned completely by conscripts.

JUDGE BONOMY: So when you say that you had access to papers in relation to your responsibilities for this matter, what were the allegations that you investigated?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I investigated incidents of the 1st of May, 2nd of May, and the 3rd of May. On the 1st of May there was the killing of the soldier and the wounding of a corporal --

JUDGE BONOMY: No, no. I'm asking about this particular incident. Did you investigate anything in relation to this incident?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no, no. I just had a conversation with this eyewitness.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: I'm grateful for the additional information obtained. In my submission, this evidence should not be admitted. We've heard its course already and we see that its purpose is to suggest that this was a set-up. This is evidence apparently from someone known to the witness although his name has yet to be given. If such a person exists who can give evidence of there being no camera -- cameras set up in advance and he's in a position to give evidence that there were no signs of shells and that the pavement was broken up with hammers, then that man has to be here. We can't possibly, in our respectful submission, rely on this form ³⁷⁴³² of material which contravenes Rule 95. It is simply obtained by a method which would show doubt on its reliability, and there is no reason why the original witness shouldn't be here.

As to the reference to an official report, again if there is any intention to rely on the official report, the official report and arguably its maker should all be available. But this is not an unimportant issue, this it is an important issue where we've got the potential for detailed evidence, and it's detailed evidence which should be provided, not that form of scrappy hearsay.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Doesn't it just go to weight, Mr. Nice?

MR. NICE: Your Honour, of course one can say always that evidence is admissible even right at the edges of conceivable admissibility on grounds of weight, but a better course might be, with something as clear as this where the evidence shouldn't be given in this form, the accused should have, if he wishes to rely on this material, have got better form of evidence, the better course might be to say that this cannot conceivably constitute evidence of value in this court and then I shan't have to deal with it at all. Otherwise, I'm going to have to try and deal with it. What will I have to do? If we don't hear from the accused the name of the person he speaks of, I shall then have to get the name of the witness in cross-examination. I'll then succeed or fail in finding the person, and so on and so forth.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, we don't have the best evidence rule here. It's evidence that is relevant and probative.

MR. NICE: Absolutely. But we also have a rule that says that ³⁷⁴³³ evidence should not be admissible if its obtained by methods which cast doubts on its reliability or if its admission is antithetical to and would damage the integrity of the proceedings.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, I don't think that rule is applicable here at all.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, I respectfully differ because, if I may just explain this, to take hearsay evidence of this almost anecdotal kind would contravene the first part of that rule.

Your Honour, those are my submissions. The alternatives are as difficult as I've already indicated. And I'm reminded, of course - I sometimes forget it - because it constituted such a part of our history that it's ingrained in all our memories, that does this meet the Appeals Chamber's ruling on summarising evidence? There it is. We were refused that.

JUDGE BONOMY: General, who was the person who gave you this information?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was given this information by Lizdek Nedeljko, a military policeman who was born in Sarajevo. In fact, a village near Sarajevo. Unfortunately, I have to say that he was killed in an ambush set by Muslim forces on the road to Kalinovik in 1994.

MR. KAY: Your Honour, did you want some observations?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. KAY: Yes. Hearsay evidence is admissible at the Tribunal. We've heard that so many times echoing during the Prosecution phase of the case. ^{37434 BLANK PAGE 37435} Mr. Milosevic doesn't have to prove anything here, and sometimes I think the objections that are being made by the Prosecutor are on the basis that he has to prove his evidence to the same standard as they do. That isn't the case. And the details given by this witness who has a position of responsibility as reported to him by someone who would be considered a person in a position below him is a chain of command and reporting --

JUDGE ROBINSON: He just told us the person is dead.

MR. KAY: Yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. The evidence is admissible. Proceed, Mr. Milosevic. Specific questions and short answers.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The answers to these questions will be very brief.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, you heard here many allegations to the effect that JNA supplied arms to Serbs in Bosnia and Herzegovina. You lived in Bosnia for a long time. I will enumerate several military factories: Vitez, Novi Travnik, Bugojno, Gorazde, Bihac, Mostar. All these military factories manufacturing military equipment, did they remain in the hands of Bosnian Muslims?

A. Yes, they did, but you omitted Konjic, the largest military plant producing ammunition for military weapons.

Q. I didn't mention them all. But for instance, Vitez manufactured the greatest part of explosives and everything that was destroyed was destroyed from the explosives from Vitez; is that correct? ³⁷⁴³⁶

A. Yes. It was a special-purpose plant for military purposes, the largest factory of explosives.

Q. Thank you, General. Tell me, did you have occasion to talk to Alija Izetbegovic?

A. Yes, I did, on the phone.

Q. When was that and what was the occasion?

A. It was the first time that arms were transported across the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina. A team of policemen from Zagreb transported arms by trucks in the autumn of 1991. Trucks were brought up to Capljina and Mostar and left there. After that, the policemen were going back --

Q. Tell us, whose policemen?

A. Policemen of the MUP of Croatia, from Zagreb.

Q. And they escorted this transport, two trucks carrying weapons from Croatia?

A. Actually, it was a place near Zagreb, Tuskanac, so where there is a MUP base.

Q. And where did the trucks arrive?

A. One to Mostar, one to Capljina. Both places are in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Q. So they arrived from Zagreb. Those two policemen from Zagreb, what happened to them?

A. The trucks continued along the Riviera highway [phoen], and the policemen went back, going through Bosansko Grahovo. That is a purely Serb area and they were stopped, their vehicle was checked, and automatic ³⁷⁴³⁷ rifles were found in their vehicle. That was against the law. They were only allowed to carry pistols. They were arrested and taken somewhere towards Bihac, then to Banja Luka and on to Sarajevo. In Sarajevo, they considered what to do with them. They took their statements, and one day --

Q. Just a minute. In their statements did they confirm that they had brought previously two trucks with weapons from Zagreb to Capljina?

A. Yes, they did. The republican prosecutor was at a loss what to do. He obviously didn't want to get involved in proceedings. He called me on the phone to inform me of the matter. I came to have a meeting with him, and that was discussed at a meeting in the military prosecutor's office, and it was agreed that it was a case of preparation for supplying arms for combat, and I suggested they be transferred to military prison pending trial before a military court, and indeed they were supposed to be taken to the military detention unit before 7.00 p.m. that day. I came back home that day around 4.00 p.m. The telephone rang. I answered the phone, and it turned out to be a call from Alija Izetbegovic's office. I was very surprised. It was the first time that the office of Alija Izetbegovic wanted to speak to me. I asked what is it about, and they told me the -- President Izetbegovic wanted to speak to me. I introduced myself, quoting my rank. I said, "President, I'm at your service," and he said, "I didn't want to speak to you. Why are you talking to me?" And I said, "Well, it was a call from your office." Then he mentioned the incident involving those policemen. I informed Izetbegovic of what had been agreed, that they were ³⁷⁴³⁸ supposed to be taken to the military prison. Izetbegovic said, "I wanted to speak to my prosecutor." I was at a loss, and I answered perhaps provocatively, "How come you have your own prosecutor? There is only one military prosecutor." To that he answered, "Never mind. You go on doing your job. We'll take care of ours."

Later on, on the evening news, I heard those men were released and there was a great outcry about that. They were released to go home to Zagreb.

Q. Explain to me, please, why it was necessary for this transport of the truck with the arms for Mostar and Capljina to come under the authority of the military prosecutor's office.

A. Because the arming was not legal. It bypassed the legal organs, and this was preparatory work for an armed uprising. And the act was committed, and it came under the military prosecutor and his competence and authority.

Q. Was it military armament, military weapons?

A. Well, I don't know but it was weapons for the army and not for the police. It wasn't police-type weaponry.

Q. Very well. Now, does that have anything to do with Mesic, a statement in 1991, which was a public statement. First of all, tell me whether you have heard about it, and secondly whether this was brought into connection with the fact that the conflict should be moved to Bosnia-Herzegovina to lift the burden of Croatia.

A. Yes. That was his statement. When he withdrew from Belgrade to Zagreb, he made a public statement. He said, "I have done my duty. ³⁷⁴³⁹ Yugoslavia exists no longer." So that was the statement which for the general public was astounding. And then he continued to speak in a calm fashion. He said that now the conflict should be transferred to Bosnia and Herzegovina, which would make Croatia's position easier. And anyway, that statement passed by without being noted. I myself as a prosecutor looked at some other statements that were made by him, the fact that he said, "Yugoslavia existed no longer," was not interesting to me, but what I noted was the other statement made about the conflicts. And so I followed the behaviour on the ground, and the statement was accompanied by accelerated activities in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Q. When did you yourself leave Sarajevo?

A. I left Sarajevo on the 30th of May, 1992.

Q. Under which circumstances was that?

A. After the barracks were deblocked. When the siege was lifted, an agreement was reached for us to be able to leave the barracks, and we left on the 25th of May, in actual fact. We went to Lukavica and -- or, rather, I went to Lukavica and then a helicopter took me to Belgrade, and I used channels which were not controlled by the Muslim units.

Q. Did you know about the order for the JNA's withdrawal from Bosnia-Herzegovina?

A. Yes, and it was under that order that all the units were dislocated and moved, and I watched this from Serbia.

Q. So it was pursuant to that order that you yourself withdrew from Bosnia-Herzegovina; is that right?

A. Yes. ³⁷⁴⁴⁰

Q. Thank you, General Gojovic. We're now going to go on to another area and discuss Kosovo and Metohija.

Tell us, please, what position in the Yugoslav army were you when the NATO aggression against Yugoslavia was launched.

A. At that time, I was president of the military court in Belgrade when the attack started, and with the proclamation of a state of war and the mobilisation that followed for the military courts and prosecutors, I had my wartime assignments as president of the military court attached to the command of the 1st Army, and that's the position I held at that time.

Q. And how long did you remain performing that duty as president of the military court attached to the command of the 1st Army?

A. Until the 16th of April, 1999.

Q. And where were you assigned then?

A. On the 16th of April, I was appointed to the position of head of the legal department in the general staff of the army of Yugoslavia. During the state of war it was the legal department pursuant to the war organisation system.

Q. When you were discharged as president of the military court, did they need your own agreement?

A. Yes, they did.

Q. Why?

A. Because this is provided for by the law. For the judges and prosecutors to be relieved of duty and take up another appointment agreement is required of those individuals. So we had to respect those provisions of the law. ³⁷⁴⁴¹

Q. And do you happen to know what the reasons were for you to be appointed head of the legal department in the general staff of the Yugoslav army?

A. Well, what I know is that General Ojdanic, who was the Chief of Staff of the Supreme Command, called me up on the telephone and told me that he would like to have a conversation with me in that connection. He came the next day. He came to court. We talked, and he said that the mobilised courts under their war obligation weren't functioning as well as they could and that he had been assigned the task, and this is what he said, "The president asked me --" the president of the republic, that is Mr. Milosevic -- "asked me to find a proper solution for that work to be improved," and General Ojdanic had previously talked to the president of the supreme military court and supreme military prosecutor, he told me. He asked for their opinion, and after holding consultations, they decided upon me, because I had been appointed all the duties that exist in the judiciary. I had gained sufficient experience both as a military man and as a legal man for me to be able to function under those conditions and organise the work of military courts and the military prosecutor's office better.

Q. Let's just be specific here, General Gojovic. So the chief of the legal department of the staff of the Supreme Command, as -- appointed to that position, you were the topmost official in the Supreme Command of the army of Yugoslavia for those matters; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Thank you. Tell us now, please, what acts, legal acts spoke of ^{37442 BLANK PAGE 37443} respect to be shown for international humanitarian law by the members of the JNA and the army of Yugoslavia, both in the SFRY and in the FRY.

A. There are a number of legal acts. We have the constitution, the laws, the bylaws and the provisions emanating from that. The constitution of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Article 16 of the constitution, this is mirrored in the SFRY constitution as well, provides for the fact that international covenants and agreements which have been confirmed and published in conformity with the constitution and other rules and regulations of international law are component parts of the internal legal order. That is roughly what the formulation says, what Article 16 says, and it is on the basis of that constitutional provision that the law on defence of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Article 19 of that line is an imperative norm which expressly states that members of the Yugoslav army who take part, who participate in combat operations are duty bound to adhere to the rules of international war law and other rules and regulations on humane conduct towards prisoners of war, wounded persons and the protection of the civilian population. So that is the law on defence, and the law on the Yugoslav army also has a similar provision in Article 31, stipulating that military personnel during combat operations have the right to use firearms and other weapons in keeping with combat rules governing combat operations.

So it is these rules and regulations which govern combat operations. Then we also have the law, criminal law of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia with 15 articles. 155, in particular, deals with international humanitarian law, crimes, crimes of genocide, crimes against ³⁷⁴⁴⁴ the civilian population, crimes against wounded persons, prisoners of war, et cetera, et cetera. So all this is provided for. We also have the criminal procedure law for military courts and military prosecutors to prosecute individuals who perpetrate crimes of that kind. So those are the rules, regulations, and laws. There are also other laws governing this and bills as well, draft laws which give instructions on the application of international war law, and we -- this refers to the addition which held true in 1988, and it is pursuant to those instructions that all the previous rules and provisions are incorporated with additional explanations given. It is a lengthy set of instructions as to how these rules and regulations are to be applied in practice and international humanitarian law respected. Then we also have the rules of service of the JNA itself, the army of Yugoslavia, which also stipulate matters of this kind at a lower level.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, since the constitution -- General Gojovic was answering my question as to the legal acts which provided for these obligations. He mentioned the constitution of Yugoslavia, the SFRY, the FRY constitution, the law on the army of Yugoslavia, the law on defence, the rules of service. These are all documents that have already been tendered and introduced into evidence so I do not include them into my exhibits. They are general documents having the force of law. And I just add in tab 2 the instructions that the general mentioned at the end, that is to say regulations on the applications of international laws of war in the armed forces of the SFRY. It's been translated into English. ³⁷⁴⁴⁵ So that, then -- those, then, are the instructions, and you will find them in tab 2.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, were those the regulations and instructions that you mentioned?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Has General Gojovic got a set of instructions?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I don't have them, but I think there is only one set of instructions so that would be them then.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'd like to tender that into evidence, please.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I be allowed to continue?

JUDGE ROBINSON: When it's been given a number. Oh, it's tab 2.

MR. NICE: Tab 2 is already exhibited, Ms. Dicklich informs me. It is therefore -- 319, tab 69.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Tab 69. Yes, please continue.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Robinson.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General Gojovic, do you know whether in the army of Yugoslavia before the NATO aggression people were educated in the sphere of international humanitarian law?

A. Yes, education was done on the basis of a protocol which was signed by the defence minister and a representative of the International ³⁷⁴⁴⁶ Red Cross.

Q. Did the International Red Cross committee participate in that, in educating the troops?

A. Yes. They had lecturers.

Q. General Gojovic, what did every soldier in the army of Yugoslavia have to know? Let me be very specific: What did every soldier of the army of Yugoslavia have with him within the frameworks of his regular kit and equipment, which is linked to international humanitarian law?

A. Well, every soldier had within his kit, once he was issued a kit, he had a Code of Conduct, rules of behaviour during conflict and wars, which stipulate his rights, how he is to behave, how he is to behave to the wounded, to POWs, with the civilian population, and other definitions. So this is an extract in condensed form setting out the basic rules, and this is a document published by the General Staff. And then we had the international Red Cross Committee's instructions translated into Serbian and the Cyrillic alphabet, a booklet containing all these facts, and also in strip form showing soldiers how to behave with POWs, casualties, wounded persons, civilians, and so on.

Q. Well, let's focus for the moment on this little booklet setting out the code of conduct for fighters, for combatants.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Gentlemen, I have provided a photocopy of this booklet in tab 3 but I have the original booklet or brochure here to show you what it looked like. And this is it. It's a plastic --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we have it. ³⁷⁴⁴⁷

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] -- covered, laminated handbook.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. At the top it says the "Army of Yugoslavia, Supreme Command Staff." Is that, therefore, the topmost authority, the supreme authority order issuing orders to all members of the armed forces lower down the ranks?

A. Yes.

Q. Therefore, the rules issued by the Supreme Command Staff for fighters, does it take the form of an order? Is that an order to the combatants and soldiers?

A. Yes, certainly.

Q. Now, in the photocopy -- actually, the document has four -- the laminated handbook contains four pages -- or, rather, it only has two pages, and the format is a little larger than a driver's licence so you can carry it in your pocket.

Let's go through the document. This is something that was issued to each and every soldier in a highly resistant form to wear and tear -- is resistant to wear and tear and soldiers can carry it with then at all times. We see that there are on the first page 3, on the second 4 and 5 chapters or sections very briefly set out over those three pages if you omit the title page which gives us the title of the document. But anyway, the rules of combat. This is what it says: "Fight only against soldiers. Attack only military targets. Respect civilians and civilian facilities. Limit destruction solely to what is required by the assigned task. Respect the sign of the Red Cross. It protects the wounded, sick, medical ³⁷⁴⁴⁸ staff, Red Cross personnel, ambulances, Red Cross aid transports, hospitals, first-aid stations and facilities of the Red Cross." Number 2, the second chapter or section: "Treatment of wounded enemy soldiers." Wounded enemy soldiers. "Pick them up from the battlefield. Give them assistance. Turn them over to the medical staff. Respect medical staff and facilities. Remove them from the battlefield. Help them, turn over to your superior or to the nearest medical team. Respect medical staff and facilities. Protect wounded and sick enemy members. Protect civilian vessels engaged in saving the wounded." The third section is entitled "Enemy Prisoners." "Spare their lives, disarm them, turn them over to your superior officer, treat them humanely. Their families must be informed about their captivity." Then we come to the fourth session, entitled "Civilians." "Respect them. Treat civilians under your authority humanely. Protect them against acts of violence. Retaliation and taking of hostages is prohibited. Respect their property. Do not destroy or loot it." Then we come to section 5, "International Humanitarian Law" is the title, and it goes on to explain that, "In times of war certain rules must be respected even against the enemy. These rules are contained in the four Geneva Conventions," et cetera, et cetera. And, "As signatory of the Geneva Conventions and the Additional Protocols, Yugoslavia is obliged..." And, "The Geneva Conventions protect the following categories of people: The wounded and sick in armed forces and field and medical staff (First Convention)." The wounded and sick members of the armed forces on sea and shipwrecked; and the third convention, prisoners of war; the fourth is -- ³⁷⁴⁴⁹ deals with occupied territories and civilians.

And then, "Article 3, which is the same for all four conventions and ordains the humane treatment of persons not taking part or who no longer take part in the hostilities. This Rule in particular prohibits inhumane treatment, taking of hostages, torture and summary execution without a trial, saying that trials must be held with all the prescribed guarantees."

And then it goes on to say that the "State signatories of the Geneva Conventions take it upon themselves to ensure equal treatment of all wounded, regardless of whether they are friend or foe; respect for the physical integrity, honour and dignity, family rights, moral and religious convictions of every individual; prohibit torture or inhumane acts; summary execution without a regular trial, extermination, taking of hostages, looting and destroying civilian property; allow delegates of ..." et cetera.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We know you can read it. What is the -- what is the point? What's the question that you're putting to the witness?

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General Gojovic, in view of the fact that the Supreme Command Staff gave these rules of conduct to every soldier, did this go down the entire chain of command, and what measures were taken in order to observe this Code of Conduct throughout?

So this goes from the command down the chain of command. Was this handed over silently or was this explained to every soldier?

A. This was explained to every soldier. Everybody had this document, ^{37450 BLANK PAGE 37451} and officers also had strict orders to have this carried out in terms of practical conduct during combat.

Q. You mentioned that in addition to these instructions that were given to the Supreme Command Staff, rules of conduct were also given to all soldiers, rules that contain sketches, drawings in relation to all these rules of conduct that are already contained in the rules of conduct. Also, there are some empty forms where names and surnames are supposed to be filled in; the father's name, address, postcode.

A. In case any prisoners are taken. So this was by way of a reminder so that all of those who have a visual type of memory could make their way.

Q. Also, there is the first page here, the most elementary instructions regarding first aid. So this was also given to all soldiers, wasn't it?

A. Yes, that is correct.

JUDGE ROBINSON: General, was it the responsibility of your office to prosecute soldiers or anybody else who breached these many regulations?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Prosecution was taken over by the military prosecutor during the war, military courts. It was my duty to ensure that the work of courts and public prosecutors -- or military prosecutors' offices was ensured in an unhindered manner and also to put all their work together with regard to these particular matters.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll come back to that. Mr. Milosevic, continue.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could you please admit tabs 3 and 4, ³⁷⁴⁵² that is to say tab 3 that I quoted, and --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And the rules of conduct. Everything I quoted, actually.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. There is also an aide-memoire here for all the members of the Yugoslav military. I have it here in the original. It is also a laminated booklet, so it is for all the members of the army of Yugoslavia who are in an area that is subjected to diversionary and sabotage actions. It dates back to June 1998. I'm not going to quote it. I wish to draw your attention to page 6 of this handbook, General. I assume that you have a copy.

A. Yes.

Q. The one but last paragraph says: "Take energetic measures to prevent non-combat behaviour on the part of individuals, units, and commands. Page 7, then.

JUDGE KWON: Is it tab 4 or tab 5? I think it's tab 4.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It should be tab 4.

JUDGE KWON: Tab 4.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. On page 7, it says inter alia - I do not have time to illustrate all of it - it says --

THE INTERPRETER: Could the interpreters please have a reference? We are cannot find it in the document.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, the interpreters are asking, I ³⁷⁴⁵³ believe, that the document be placed on the ELMO so that they can follow it.

JUDGE KWON: Under what title is the passage in?

JUDGE ROBINSON: It doesn't seem to correspond to the tab you have mentioned, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Tab 4, this handbook for members of the army of Yugoslavia.

JUDGE ROBINSON: What's the title of it?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm now quoting briefly from number 1, that is to say the procedure for members of units of the VJ in case of a threat to lives, materiel, or buildings in --

JUDGE KWON: English version, page 3, penultimate paragraph, "Take energetic measures..." Tab 4.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. And then in the third paragraph it says, "Take energetic measures to prevent unsoldierly behaviour of individuals, units, and commands." And then further on under the same heading, it says that the following principles have to be abided by in combat action. There are bullets there, and the second one says: "When enemy groups operate from established buildings or built-up areas, after warning them, use weapons for directly targeting and selectively destroy the enemy and buildings from which they operate." And then there is chapter 3, "Procedure for arresting members of diversionary terrorists groups." And it says: "For as long as a member of a DTG uses weapons or resists, treat him according to the rules of combat, but after he lays down weapons and stops resisting, treat him as ³⁷⁴⁵⁴ follows..." And then it says arrest him and identify him. Then an investigation is carried out.

JUDGE ROBINSON: What is the question? You're now giving the evidence. I don't believe the question is whether you had the appropriate laws and regulations.

Do you want to have this one admitted?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, by all means. It should be exhibited.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Now I'm putting a question to you, General Gojovic. The rules that we tendered a few minutes ago and then the ones with illustrations, that is something that all soldiers had, didn't they? Then this handbook for VJ members engaged in areas affected by sabotage and terrorist activities, was it handed out to all soldiers or officers only?

A. As to the last document, all officers had it down to the lowest level of command, starting from squad leader, platoon leader, company commander, and further on up. So this was primarily for them, but also crews had it, crews for weapons that required that kind of manning.

Q. All right. Tell me, General, in tab 5 you also have a very short booklet. I have it here in the original. That is a summary of the Geneva Conventions dated the 12th of August, 1949, and the Additional Protocols. It was printed in the Cyrillic script, and it was provided by the ICRC. Who was this given out to, the summary of the Geneva Conventions and the Additional Protocols?

A. This was also handed out to all officers. That is to say every ³⁷⁴⁵⁵ officer had this summary of the Geneva Conventions.

Q. And finally, in tab 6 there is a booklet containing the basic postulates of the law of war, summary for officers, summary of rules of combat conduct, and a programme of training. It says that this is an excerpt from a handbook of F. De Mulinen on The Law of War for the Armed Forces. So this is something that is used throughout the world; isn't that right, General Gojovic?

A. Yes.

Q. All right.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we please have these tabs admitted into evidence as well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So this was given to officers, wasn't it?

A. Yes. It was not only given to officers, everyone had a copy on them.

Q. I understand. I was not accurate enough when I put my question. So I understand what you're saying.

In addition to the measures mentioned so far in terms of observing humanitarian law, all of these measures that were taken before the aggression, what orders were issued during the aggression that have to do with observing humanitarian law? Which ones are you aware of?

A. I am aware of two orders of the Supreme Command Staff. One was adopted on the 2nd of April, 1999, and the second one was adopted on the 10th of May. I myself drafted the second one, and General Ojdanic signed it as commander of the General Staff. And this order was given from ³⁷⁴⁵⁶ Supreme Command level to observe humanitarian law, and this was done by way of an interpretation. So it accompanied all these instructions that we've already referred to.

And then on the 10th of May, a second order was issued which was put in the imperative. This provided explicit orders in terms of what should be done. Every soldier was duty-bound to take all measures to have this abided by by his own personnel. If this is not observed, then this -- the said officer will be held responsible. Of course I'm providing a free interpretation now. Measures will be taken to prevent all violations of the Geneva Conventions, and if such violations occurred, then all measures will be taken in order to prosecute such persons, to inform the military prosecutor thereof, and to initiate proceedings in such cases. So this was said quite specifically, that each and every officer was held personally accountable for having these rules of conduct observed. This went from top level, from Supreme Command level.

Q. All right. You are particularly referring to personal responsibility that was highlighted in this order issued by the Supreme Command. In point 2 of this order, it says: "I order," and it says he is personally accountable --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is tab number 7, gentlemen.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So it is paragraph 2.

THE INTERPRETER: Could the interpreters please have a reference. The reading is very fast.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, the interpreters cannot follow ³⁷⁴⁵⁷ you. Go a little slower.

MR. NICE: Tab?

JUDGE ROBINSON: It's tab 7.

MR. NICE: And that's already in evidence as 323, tab 5.

JUDGE KWON: It's noted.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Very well. So paragraph 2: "Any individual, whether military personnel or civilian, who violates or orders --" I hope that the interpreters have found this. So "military personnel or a civilian who violates or orders, incites, assists or participates in the violation of the principles, rules and regulations of international laws of war shall be held personally responsible for that violation. Ignorance of the provisions of the rules and regulations of international laws of war shall not exclude the liability of those who violate these provisions." And then further on it says what their duties are. Paragraph 4 specifically says: "Any military officer who knows that there have been violations of the principles, rules and regulations of international laws of war and does not initiate disciplinary or criminal proceedings shall be held personally responsible."

And then it says: "The superior officer of any person who acts contrary to the provisions of items 1 to 4 herein shall gather evidence against that person," et cetera. And then it says in paragraph 6: "Go through the annex to this order regarding criminal reliability for war crimes and other serious violations of the international laws of war and crimes against humanity and international law with members of Yugoslav ^{37458 BLANK PAGE 37459} army commands, staffs, units and institutions."

In the same tab there this is the annex that this order insists upon, that is to say that this annex be studied with all members of the VJ, "Annex regarding criminal liability for war crimes and other serious violations of the international laws of war and crimes against humanity and international law." This is a very detailed document, this annex. I really don't want to read it out now.

Do you have anything special to say in relation to this, General, in view of the fact that you prepared these documents?

A. I just wish to add very briefly that my intention was to state things very explicitly so that there would not be a trace of doubt in anyone's mind that there would be any kind of tolerance with regard to any such behaviour. So the highest level of command states this unequivocally, to all commands, to all units, to all commanders, all who take part in this action, that they have to observe all these rules and principles, that there may be no deviations, otherwise everyone will be held personally accountable.

Q. All right, General.

JUDGE KWON: General. General Gojovic, if you could tell me the reason why this order was issued at the date 10th of May, 1999.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This was preceded by an order of the 2nd of April, 1999. In this order, in the last paragraph, this order is made null and void. That is, in paragraph 7 of this order of the 2nd April, 1999. The purpose was for the highest level, the Supreme Command Staff, not only to distribute those general rules but to support it with ³⁷⁴⁶⁰ an explicit order from the Supreme Command Staff, the highest level, because by that time - and we will get to that when we come to the area of actual proceedings - we have had already some incidents involving deaths, and this inspired the Supreme Command Staff to issue this order as an additional measure of caution.

JUDGE KWON: General, do you have with you the order of 2nd of April?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Unfortunately, no, I don't.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Proceed --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] But if you allow me. It was similar to the one that we saw here, although it was put in more general terms. But I suggested to General Ojdanic, and he accepted, that we draft this order in more explicit terms in keeping with the military law. That is the only difference.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, can you help us get this order of the 2nd April as well?

A. That should be no problem. It's in the archives. I just didn't know that it would be required. But it can be obtained.

Q. Thank you. Now, we come to the "however."

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General Gojovic, however, or should I say unfortunately, despite all the measures that were taken that you described before and after the NATO aggression, despite all the measures taken to ensure adherence to ³⁷⁴⁶¹ international humanitarian law, violations of humanitarian law by members of our armed forces still occurred.

A. Yes, they did.

Q. Would it be fair to say that your key, your principal activity in this period was to monitor the work of military judicial bodies, including violations of humanitarian law and issues related to trials, et cetera?

A. Yes. After the military judicial bodies were organised to work in wartime, my job was to monitor their operation, including all the proceedings, all the legal actions taken to prosecute violations and offenders.

Q. Very well. I suppose that even in that time minor offences were in the majority.

A. Yes, yes, yes.

Q. You mentioned military courts and military prosecutors' offices --

MR. NICE: [Previous translation continues] ... no doubt there's a subtle purpose behind it, but I'll winkle that out in due course in cross-examination but for the time being might we apply the rules.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Not allowed, Mr. Milosevic. Leading.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I didn't even have time to ask the question. I'm just getting ready to ask my question.

JUDGE ROBINSON: No, no, no. What you put was -- was a leading question.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No. I tried, Mr. Robinson, to understand what the witness said before. He said, "And many other acts, and as in every other pyramid of criminal offences, there are many more ³⁷⁴⁶² criminal offences where violations of international humanitarian law are in the minority."

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, let's not play around. You know very well that the question was improper, leading, and you're perfectly capable of formulating it in a proper manner. So I expect you to do that.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. Very well, Mr. Robinson. I shall not dwell on this before we get to the statistical data.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Witness, you mentioned that you monitored the work of all the military judicial bodies and specifically the establishment of military courts and military prosecutors' offices. My question is: When were military courts and military prosecutors' offices established in wartime, and when were military prosecutors appointed for wartime?

A. With the declaration of the state of war, and the mobilisation was carried out be the 26th of March pursuant to the order on mobilisation, all the military prosecutors and judiciary were activated.

Q. Tell me, when did those military prosecutors and judiciary disband?

A. With the termination of the state of war that was stipulated by the law or, rather, the order announcing the state of war. So with the end of the war or the state of war, their functions were terminated.

Q. Tell me, General, what was the last time that military courts existed in the territory of Yugoslavia before 1999?

A. It was during the World War II, and they continued to operate until 1947. From that time until 1999, they had never been established ³⁷⁴⁶³ again because, fortunately, there were no wars.

Q. And according to the letter of the law, they were created again with a term of office envisaged to exist until the end of the wartime.

A. Yes. That was the stipulation of the order on military courts and military prosecutors' offices.

Q. Tell me now, what was the level at which it was decided that the system of military courts and military prosecutors' offices was not operating efficiently enough, and whose was the initiative to improve their work?

But just before you answer that, you mentioned mobilisation. Tell me, what was the particular problem in the functioning of those courts and prosecutors' offices in the initial days?

A. There were certain difficulties. First of all, our establishment that envisaged military courts was not calibrated well enough. It envisaged a minimal number of posts and we concluded that it needed to be increased. And another problem was that we didn't have enough officers in peacetime to fill all the vacancies in the newly established military courts and military prosecutors' offices. We needed to engage the reserve staff. There were people who were qualified, who had degrees in law, who had passed bar exams, but their -- those people, those reserve officers had not worked in courts before. They worked in various other institutions such as employment bureaus, et cetera, so they could not find their way in their new jobs and that was a problem. It was a hindrance to their good performance, so it was necessary to carry out this reorganisation. ³⁷⁴⁶⁴

Q. When you say they worked in other jobs before, you mean the jobs they had in peacetime, before the beginning of the war, before they were mobilised?

A. Yes, because they used to be civilians in reserve forces. They had wartime assignments as any other civilian.

Q. Now, tell me, at what level was it decided that the system of military courts and military prosecutors was not functioning well enough, and whose was the initiative to improve and enhance the system and to maximise its efficiency?

A. I said already it was concluded at the level of the Supreme Command Staff. In my conversation with General Ojdanic, he told me that it was necessary to enhance the work of this system, that there was certain difficulties, and that President Milosevic demanded that some solution be found to deal with this problem. That's how I came to be appointed in my new position, because I had experience in all these various jobs.

Q. Tell me, how was the reorganisation and the operation of military judicial organs stipulated during wartime?

A. When we say "military judicial bodies," we imply both the military courts and the military prosecutors' offices. This should be borne in mind. This was regulated by the law on the military prosecutor, which governed the work of the military prosecutor during wartime, and the law on military courts governed the work of military courts. That's Article 7, paragraph -- that is Article 74 to 76; and in the other law, Article 36 to 38. ³⁷⁴⁶⁵ It stipulated that during wartime, peacetime courts ceased to function, that is lower courts are disbanded, making way for military courts. This was further detailed in the decree governing the work of the military prosecutor or, rather, military courts, and a separate enactment that governed the work of the military prosecutors in wartime. Both were developed by the government.

Q. Thank you, General.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Gentlemen, I should only like to go through the exhibits that the General has just mentioned. Let me draw your attention to the fact that under tab 8, you will find a photocopy of the Official Military Gazette of Yugoslavia, that is the official body promulgating various enactments and laws. This one is dated 13 February 1998. This is the decree on the operation of the military prosecutor's office during wartime. This was mentioned by the general. Under tab 9, you will find the law on military courts. The general invoked the law on military courts.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. And you invoked, particularly, General, one provision. Is it the one on page 2 of this law, that is chapter 11 --

THE INTERPRETER: Chapter 2, in fact, interpreter's note,

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. -- "Organisation and Jurisdiction." In case of wartime -- "In case of a state of war, military courts of first instance referred to in Article 8 of this law shall cease to exist while the supreme military court shall continue to operate at the seat of the Supreme Command ^{37466 BLANK PAGE 37467} Headquarters. During the state of war, military courts -- lower military courts shall be established at the commands of military districts, divisions, corps, armies, the air force, and air defence command and the naval command." That was Article 74.

Other articles deal with appointments, removals from office and relief of duty of presidents, judges, and judge jurors of military courts by the president of the republic on the recommendation of the Chief of Staff.

The next article says the rules of procedure of military courts and proceedings before these courts in case of state of war shall be governed by the federal government.

Under tab 10 we have another Official Gazette.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We have reached the time for the second break. We will now break for 20 minutes.

MR. KAY: Could tabs 8 and 9 be made exhibits.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

JUDGE KWON: But I have to note that tab 5, which was admitted, has no translation.

MR. KAY: One's being -- there is an English language version of it, but it's very difficult to obtain. There is none in Geneva at the ICRC, as we're informed, but we're trying to get our hands on it. Tab 6 has already been introduced into evidence as, Your Honour Judge Kwon probably knows.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just -- just one thing. My associates have been told that this is a document that can be found on a ³⁷⁴⁶⁸ website, the website of the International Red Cross. That's why we did not undertake to provide a translation.

Under this tab in this binder, we have the document as printed in Cyrillic for our purposes. This is a document published normally by the ICRC, and our version is identical to the version that can be found among ICRC documents. Just as we didn't translate Geneva Conventions, not to waste time and resources.

I believe it can be admitted, it is admissible, because it is the same public ICRC document in the Serbian version in Cyrillic script.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll take the break now. We are adjourned.

--- Recess taken at 12.19 p.m.

--- On resuming at 12.42 p.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Continue, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Robinson.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. We left off, I believe, discussing tab 9, General Gojovic. In tab 9, I quoted a portion of the provision which says that the rules of procedure are prescribed by the federal government, and I'd like to draw your attention now to tab 10. It is also the Official Gazette of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, dated the 4th of April, 1999, where the provision on the application of the Law on Criminal Procedure During the State of War. It was enacted by the federal government. What is the substance, the main points of this decree on the application of the law on criminal proceedings during the state of war? Does it differ in any way, materially speaking, in substance, from the ³⁷⁴⁶⁹ provisions which hold true during times of peace? And generally speaking, where are the differences, if there are any?

A. Well, the substance of the decree on the application of the Law on Criminal Procedure adopted here is to speed up the procedure itself and to ensure efficaciousness on the part of the courts, the prosecution, and the competent authorities.

And I'd like to highlight some of the articles. I don't want to read them all out, but when it talks about prosecution during states of war, the accused cannot rely on immunity, or where a five-year term of -- while a five-year prison sentence can be enforced. And agreement should -- so that is an important provision.

THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness give the interpreters a reference. Thank you.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And the other article is that individuals can hold legal proceedings, but it has to do with speeding up the process. When it comes to investigations this is an important novelty where the Prosecution can conduct the investigation process. Otherwise, in peacetime in our law systems, the prosecutor does not head the investigations, it is the investigating judge. So here the prosecutor can do so in states of war. And in urgent cases, the investigating judge can take certain actions without request to do so coming from the prosecutor, and so can the organs of the interior, that is the laws -- the organs of apprehension can take certain steps without the prosecutor issuing specific orders.

So that is that provision linked to the investigative process. ³⁷⁴⁷⁰ And the decree also provides for the fact that the prosecutor can raise an indictment without acquiescence from the investigating judge and without conducting an investigation prior to that if he has sufficient elements on the basis of a report filed. And the prison term is up to ten years in those cases. So that is an accelerated process and the time needed for an indictment is reduced to 24 hours, otherwise it was eight days. And a court trial from the time the indictment has been raised can take place after the expiration of a deadline of 48 hours. Otherwise, eight days would be necessary in peacetime. So that is another way in which the proceedings is speeded up. And the deadline for appeals to the sentence is three days. Regularly speaking, in peacetime it would be eight to 15 days.

And another novelty for work of the Supreme Courts in these cases is that, when deciding on appeal, if the Trial Chamber considers that this is not necessary, then the accused and their Defence counsel are not required to attend the proceedings.

All of this was geared towards creating conditions for more efficient procedure and speeding up the cases generally speaking.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Very well, General. Now, do you consider that you have gone through all the essential issues related to the regulation of the authorities of the military courts during states of war?

A. Yes. As far as the competence of the military judiciary, they remain the same. Criminal procedure is initiated against perpetrators in the army and certain other acts which are listed in the law on military ³⁷⁴⁷¹ courts with the application of the provisions I mentioned a moment ago. There is no other difference otherwise. So procedure during wartime and peacetime is basically the same with the differences that I mentioned earlier on.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'd like to tender tab 10 into evidence.

As for tab 11, that contains the law on the military prosecutor. And I should like to draw your attention in particular to Article 11 in chapter 5 which speaks about organisation, the work of the military prosecutor, supreme military prosecutor in wartime situations. I think we've spent enough time on explaining all this. I don't think we should go back to these issues, but I'd like to tender tab 11 into evidence as well with the law on the military prosecutor and those provisions. So I'd like to have that introduced into evidence, admitted into evidence. Thank you.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Yes, 10 and 11 admitted.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Tell us briefly, General, now, what the problems that you encountered were, the questions that had to be resolved through your activities with a view to improving the work of military courts and the military prosecutor. You mentioned briefly some questions related to organisation, establishment, authorisations and competencies, that kind of thing. So just briefly, what were the problems that had to be solved in order to improve the work of all those organs? ³⁷⁴⁷²

A. The prosecutors and judges were replaced who had not worked in these -- in areas of this kind. New Judges were brought in. I insisted upon that. I managed to get the best judges and prosecutors working in criminal law. They were mobilised. Those who did not have ranks of reserve officers were promoted and given ranks. So this was a process that went hand-in-hand, simultaneously, in order to comply with the laws governing military courts. So 125 new judges were appointed, and prosecutors as well, into the military judiciary. That is as far as the work of the courts and prosecutors' offices goes. The number of judges and prosecutors was raised to step up efficiency. And technically speaking, the technical staff, we also replaced the typists there and so on. We had some male typists who weren't good enough, and we mobilised women typists so that we were able to round off the system of organisation for the courts both in the technical aspect and professional aspect, and we improved work generally. So that was the most important part of our work. And then we saw better provisions prevailed, there was better communications between the command and the units, and so on and so forth. So organisational matters and legal matters. That was the substance of it.

Q. Thank you, General. Now, tell us, at what command level did we see the establishment of the first instance wartime military courts and prosecutors?

A. The first instance military law courts and prosecutors' offices were set up attached to the command of the armies, and the corps command, the division commands and the military district commands. So the first ³⁷⁴⁷³ were directly within the composition of the army and its operative part whereas for the military districts we had military territorial organs which had other competencies and the courts attached to the military districts took over cases from the peacetime law courts. So that is as far as the first instance goes.

Q. Tell me now, please, now where was decision-making done on the appeals level?

A. This was done at the supreme court level and the supreme prosecution level. They continued to work at the supreme headquarters, and with the army command departments were set up of the supreme military court and the department of the supreme military prosecutor. So at that level in the second instance this was done in that way.

Q. How many wartime military law courts were there and prosecutors in -- at both instances.

A. I omitted to say that the navy and air force also had their own military courts and military prosecutors' offices established. The total was 21 first instance military courts and military prosecutors and four appeals level military courts and prosecutors in three armies and at the level of the staffs of the Supreme Command as well, which makes a total of 24.

Q. And how many judges and prosecutors were there? And I'd like to draw your attention to tab 12 in this regard, which contains an overview of the numbers of judges and prosecutors, the names of the commands, and so on. And RF is wartime establishment; is that right? List of establishment posts in military judicial organs. That is what is ^{37474 BLANK PAGE 37475} contained in tab 12. My question was how many judges were there?

A. There were 155 judges and 92 prosecutors. Lay-judges -- we also had a number of lay-judges in the Trial Chambers. They were lay-judges, persons who were not actually lawyers, legal men.

Q. All right. On page 1 here we have an overview of establishment posts. So then there is the supreme military court and then the first, second, third command, the air force and the command of the navy, 155. And then the supreme military prosecutor, the same structure, 92, a total of 92. You have a handwritten total here, don't you?

A. Yes.

Q. So you actually added all of this up?

A. Yes, yes. One hundred fifty-five altogether, if you look at first instance and second instance and prosecutors. So there's 155 judges, 92 prosecutors. So 247 persons were required with appropriate qualifications. And in peacetime, there is a total of 55 judges and prosecutors. So all the rest had to come from the reserve force.

Q. So the number went up about five times.

A. Yes. So there was a total of 520 -- 525 lay-judges, and 125 judges and prosecutors were promoted in rank so that they could be appointed, promoted into the rank of reserve second lieutenant, that is.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could you please admit into evidence tab 12?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General Gojovic, a few moments ago you said, if I understood you ³⁷⁴⁷⁶ correctly, that is; if I did not understand you correctly, please do correct me, but it was my understanding that proceedings before the military judiciary is rather special in wartime and that this was primarily reflected in shorter deadlines, if I understood you correctly.

A. Yes.

Q. Now, tell me, these accelerated proceedings, fast-track proceedings before the military judiciary during the war, did it imply any other differences in terms of regular implementation of the criminal law?

A. No. No. There could not have been any other changes, because that would lead to appeal and judgements would have to be abrogated in this -- reversed that way.

Q. In wartime courts, were all rights of accused persons and other parties in the proceedings observed, both those -- both those based on national law and international law?

A. Yes, all rights. For example, as far as Defence counsel is concerned, I would like to give an additional explanation, if you allow me to do so. Defence counsel was not provided for within the judiciary but then they came to be included as well in the organisation. That is to say bar associations were asked to provide attorneys, and we were given the best known attorneys for that purpose. So there were lawyers who acted as Defence counsel and who were mobilised in order to be on this waiting list. So whenever necessary, they served as Defence counsel, but their services were not paid for. That is to say that lawyers were mobilised like all other soldiers except that they did not wear uniform, of course. They were in civilian clothing and they did their proper jobs. ³⁷⁴⁷⁷

Q. Thank you. General, at the time when you worked in the Supreme Command Staff, did you visit military prosecutors' offices and courts, and did you see for yourself how they operated?

A. Yes. I toured all courts and all prosecutors' offices that were established.

Q. All of them?

A. All of them. And I saw for myself how they worked, and I had insight into the difficulties they have in the field, so to speak, because there is always a difference involved between the letter of these instructions and regulations and what actually happens on the ground.

Q. Tell me, General, the Supreme Command Staff, did they insist that their work be as efficient as possible of all these judicial organs?

A. Every day. Every day. It was the Supreme Command Staff that constantly exerted pressure on me to speed up these courts, and prosecutors' offices in particular. They managed to do so. It's easier for prosecutors, though, than it is for courts of law, but there were some impediments even in the courts of law. Deadlines had to be met and there were some other problems. It was difficult to subpoena persons and to issue indictments to accused persons. It was a state of war, after all. However, even these difficulties were overcome.

So in my view and in my deep conviction, this was at a very high level, the overall efficiency.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Are you going to ask him how many prosecutions actually took place in the period between 1st January and 20th June, 1999, or even thereafter, if prosecutions started and continued after the 20th ³⁷⁴⁷⁸ of June, 1999? Are you coming to that in the evidence?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] By all means. By all means, Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, then --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is an unavoidable question.

JUDGE ROBINSON: All right. We'll let you proceed.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You've explained just now when I asked you whether the Supreme Command Staff insisted on efficiency in the work of wartime courts, you said that the answer was yes. And before that you explained that you visited all courts.

A. Yes.

Q. And that you made a personal effort in order to bring efficiency up to a maximum level. In tab 13 there is a document, and it was my understanding that you drafted this document. Was this after this tour you made when you established what the situation was and after you gained personal insight? Was this something that had to be done additionally or, rather, to give additional help to act as help to the work of the organs that you saw?

A. Yes. I really wanted to adopt a practical approach, so that's why I made these guidelines. And even while I was president of the wartime court of the 1st Army, I realised that it was necessary to have something like this for two reasons.

First of all, this was needed by way of assistance and as a reminder, especially to commanding officers, even at the lowest level, how ³⁷⁴⁷⁹ they should act if a crime is committed. So then there is what the military officer responsible should do in terms of the perpetrator, in terms of the crime, et cetera.

I would like to point out as far as the military police is concerned that there were many -- I'm sorry for speaking so fast. There were many people who were not engaged in such activities in peacetime. So they could not really cover all units. So it was necessary to assist the military police organs by giving them this summary, namely what they should do at the moment when a crime is committed, what kind of legal action they should take. It is not necessary only to act, but it is necessary to act in accordance with the law.

Then also the security organs were given instructions, both in terms of the authority they have and also how to carry out arrests and so on, what their obligations were.

And then the prosecutor, what the prosecutor should be doing. I don't want you to misunderstand this, that prosecutors didn't know what they were doing. They know what -- they knew what they were doing and they know what they're supposed to do, but there was a procedure involved, and it was necessary to spell it out clearly.

And also the presidents of Chambers and also the Appeals Chambers were involved in this lengthy procedure, and everybody had to have an overview of all the organs within the military.

So this is the kind of transparency that we were striving for. This was a practical side of this document, and everybody appreciated it. And of course all legal provisions had to be implemented, but this was ³⁷⁴⁸⁰ there just by way of assistance to make their work easier, which is only natural. After all, there was a war going on. The situation is different, not like --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.

JUDGE KWON: General Gojovic, why should this material be confidential and military secret?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It wasn't a military secret. Well, you see, this was standard practice with the typists, the people who were involved in this kind of operational work. They would put such things in just in case. But this was not a military secret. So this is General Matovic's document that was submitted to all units. It could not have been a military secret. It was simply typed with that letterhead, but, no, no it is not a military secret. So this was just clumsiness.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right. On the document itself, there is nothing stating that it's a military secret.

A. Of course not.

Q. It was submitted to all employees?

A. And all commands and all the organs involved in crime investigation.

Q. Could you read the last sentence of the letter, the accompanying letter, where it says that it is a military secret and that it's confidential? What does the last sentence say?

A. It says: "Inform all members of the Yugoslav army of the contents of these guidelines." ³⁷⁴⁸¹

Q. Oh, all members of the army of Yugoslavia. Thank you, General. You spoke about the establishment and all the difficulties entailed from the point of view of your organisation, et cetera. But tell me, when you toured all these military courts and when you familiarised yourself with their work in practice, what were all the problems they had while operating in a state of war, and what was the nature of these problems and difficulties?

A. There were quite a few problems involved. They mostly underlined the problem of the security of work of these military courts because they were within the area of the command posts of the units that they were in. So they were exposed to NATO attacks, and therefore they had to change their locations frequently. Then they would move and then again they would have to organise their entire work at a new location. So their safety and security was one problem.

Then there were practical problems related to procedure, communicating with units, that is. Communications were down, telephone lines, that is. There were other types of communication by way of messenger, but then it was also difficult to send all documents to suspects, to other persons involved, because movement in general was difficult. So these were all the problems they encountered, and they sought explanations, advice.

Also, there were a lot of investigations, and when they went to carry out on-site investigations, it was very hard. It was virtually impossible to find some units. As they were moving from one place to another, units in the field were moving from one place to another in order ^{37482 BLANK PAGE 37483} to protect themselves from NATO attacks. So sometimes they would change their positions three times during the course of a day. So they would learn that the unit they were looking for was in one position, they'd come there, and then the unit moved in the meantime. So it was very difficult to communicate.

Q. At any rate, all these transfers physically affected their work, their investigations, bringing people into custody, et cetera. But as you said a few moments ago, the level of efficiency was very high.

A. It was very high, and this will become obvious when we speak of the number of cases dealt with, the number of prosecutions, the number of judgements, et cetera. And it was a relatively short period of time, two and a half months, but you will see how they functioned in a situation of war.

Q. Tell me now, in addition to the wartime judiciary, what about the regular judiciary, civilian -- the civilian judiciary, if I can call it so. Were there proceedings initiated before the civilian judiciary that had to do with respect for humanitarian law?

A. Yes, of course. In all situations when the military courts were not in charge, because as I said they prosecuted only members of the Yugoslav army in terms of violations of humanitarian laws and laws of war. All other persons who committed such violations fell under the jurisdiction of regular courts and the regular courts did act. So members of the police and the MUP were -- did not fall under the military judiciary but under the regular judiciary.

So regardless of what happened, whether it happened in a combat ³⁷⁴⁸⁴ situation or not, it was the civilian judiciary that prosecuted the members of the MUP.

JUDGE BONOMY: I wonder if you can clarify something for me, then, General, because I've obviously misunderstood some of your earlier evidence. You gave evidence that there had been no military courts since the end of the Second World War and prior to 1999, and from that answer I assumed that military law had taken over in the whole area from March of 1999. Clearly that was not the case from the answers you've just given. Now, what I'm not understanding is the concept that there were no military courts at all between the end of the Second World War and 1999. I must have misunderstand you somewhere along the line.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, you have misunderstood me. Military courts have existed continuously for 160 years in the territory of Serbia and Montenegro, but these are peacetime military courts. They existed continuously. I was talking about wartime courts in response to President Milosevic's questions, when was the last time that we had wartime courts. They operated until 1947. This is a term I'm using, "wartime courts." I'm referring to courts that existed in times of war, but it's a new organisation, a new -- but peacetime -- I beg your pardon. The jurisdiction is the same except that their number went up and that they had to work more intensively. I don't know if this makes it any more clear.

JUDGE BONOMY: I understand that. Does it follow from that that between 1990 and 1995 that no special arrangements were made to reconstitute the military courts because of wartime or to expand the ³⁷⁴⁸⁵ availability of judges and prosecutors because of war?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In that period, a state of war had not been declared. Therefore, there were no new courts that were established. There were peacetime military courts that could deal with all the cases that were there successfully. The requirement for establishing wartime courts is to have a state of war declared, and that happened on the 24th of March, 1999. Before that, in the territory of the SFRY, no state of war had been declared.

JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Let's just add another explanation. According to the law on military courts, we went through all those tabs, these regular military courts become wartime courts once a state of war is declared, and they cease to be wartime courts when the state of war is abolished. Is that right, General?

A. Yes.

Q. So while a state of war is on, courts become wartime courts.

A. Let me just clarify another matter. Is it only Belgrade, Nis, and Podgorica that have military courts and military prosecutors' offices in peacetime. But we saw that during the war there were 24 military courts established with 20 of them being first instance courts. And in war there were 20 courts of first instance and four of second instance, precisely in order to be able to prosecute crimes in a timely fashion in each and every unit. I think that I explained this properly now, didn't I.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Proceed, Mr. Milosevic. ³⁷⁴⁸⁶

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Robinson.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You have explained, although you are not testifying to that, of course, that proceedings took place before regular courts as well so I'm not going to ask you about regular courts. We'll deal with that through other witnesses. Would you just be kind enough to tell me about this connection. Were there any transfers, referrals of cases between civilian and military courts? And if so, in what cases, in what situations?

A. Certainly there were mutual referrals because one or the other courts did not have jurisdiction, either on the grounds of the place where the crime was committed or for another reason. An investigative judge would go on the crime scene and realise that it's not within his jurisdiction, so he would refer the case to the military district prosecutor's office, and vice versa; if civilian authorities, civilian investigators have already completed an on-site investigation and realised it was not within their competence they would refer the case. Later when the procedure was already under way, an indictment has been brought, after the cessation of the state of war, all cases were transferred or referred to peacetime courts because wartime military courts cannot exist except in the state of war. That jurisdiction ceased.

Q. Tell me briefly, General, what crimes other than violations of war laws were in the jurisdiction of military courts?

A. All the crimes that involved members of military personnel, including conscripts.

Q. What kind of attention was given to that? ³⁷⁴⁸⁷

A. Well, trials were held in those cases, too, but procedures that did not involve violations of humanitarian law or laws of war were easier and speedier.

Q. Now, tell me, speaking of criminal offences which do constitute a violation of international -- sorry, humanitarian law, speaking only of those violations, did the -- did the prosecutors' offices normally decide to qualify these crimes in more severe or less severe terms? In other words, seeking a more severe or a milder sentence?

A. Normally a prosecutor usually goes for the most severe qualification. Whenever a death was involved and the prosecutor found that the act qualified as a crime, he sought to qualify it as a murder, because the law of Serbia and Montenegro makes it impossible to seek a higher sentence than envisaged by the federal law which envisages a death sentence for a war crime. Under republican law, it is usually a prison term from five to 20 years, because the republican law no longer applies the death sentence, whereas the death sentence was actually repealed only a year ago. And even the highest allowed minimum prison sentence was higher during wartime, and the prosecutor was guided by that and sought higher sentences even for crimes that did not involve deaths, such as robberies, assaults, et cetera.

Q. In your position, how were you informed? How did you receive reports? You told me that you inspected personally and toured all military judiciary bodies, but how were you informed of their work?

A. Primarily by the presence of the military -- supreme military court and supreme military prosecutor's office, because they received ³⁷⁴⁸⁸ daily reports from lower levels. They received daily reports on the number of prosecutions, the number of judgements, the number of trials. This was followed by written reports written by assistant commanders of armies in charge of legal affairs.

They made combined reports and submitted them to the Supreme Command Staff. Summaries were then created covering all this data so that the Supreme Command Staff would be informed about this area, the number of investigations, the number of convictions subdivided into categories of perpetrators and crimes, types of crimes.

Q. I suppose that you received this information regularly.

A. Yes.

Q. Under tab 14 we have a number of overviews and charts. Is this an example of this kind of regular reporting? I hope you have found tab 14.

A. Yes. This is an overview.

Q. In tab 14, we actually have several of them. On the first sheet -- it would be better, though, if you read this. The original bears a stamp that says verified by so-and-so.

On the first sheet we have a list of convictions per category of person, type of crime, and length of the sentence of the 15th of May, 1999. First we have an overview of indictees, convictions, crimes, et cetera. So we have four different reports. I would be grateful if you would comment upon each and every one of them.

A. If I may digress a little. I would first deal with the overview, the list of accused by categories. First of all we have indictees and then convictions. They are divided into different categories as of 15th ³⁷⁴⁸⁹ of May, 1999.

In the first column on the left we see category of person; officers, non-commissioned officers, privates, conscripts, civilians in the army, civilians outside of the army, other, and the total within the jurisdiction of military courts.

We have then in another column crimes against the army, failure to respond to a call-up and evasion of military service. This concerns only conscripts, and the number of crimes -- violations of this sort is 2.882. The next category falls under Article 217. Here we have an increased number of offenders; nine officers, four non-commissioned officers, and 649 privates.

The next crime concerns failure or refusal to carry out an article 201. The total of offenders is 24; two officers, one non-commissioned officer, and 21 privates.

The next crime is crimes against property. There are several times of crimes or offences against property. The total number of offenders is 199, some privates, some conscripts. And then we have crimes against life and limb, subdivided, of course, into different categories by gravity. We have 20 offenders in the category of privates and 34 in the category of civilians in the army; the total of 55.

The next column deals with other crimes. The total is 75. So the combined total for all categories is 3.897.

Q. Let me just ask you, murders fall within the category of crimes against life and limb; is that correct? ³⁷⁴⁹⁰

A. Yes. The next overview is the list of on-site investigations, completed investigations, and judgements delivered by courts for various categories. We see that the number of adjudications or, rather, judgements is lower because the total --

THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter seems to be reading the wrong list.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is a list of accused by category of person and type of crime.

THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters note: If it is the list on page 65.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I saw it on the ELMO a moment ago.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let it be placed -- is it on the ELMO? 66.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 66. That -- on page 66 is the list of on-site investigations, completed investigations and judgements delivered by military courts in the army of Yugoslavia as of the 15th of May, 1999. It says "Military courts in the 1st Army's zone of responsibility," followed by military courts in the 1st Army command, et cetera. Air force and navy by strategic group.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If you allow me to intercede with a clarification.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Please go ahead, General.

A. The first list is a summary for all courts, and the one that is on the ELMO now gives the same overview but by courts, detailing information for all courts. The first one I mentioned was a summary for all courts. ³⁷⁴⁹¹ This one on the ELMO now is a breakdown. So we have the same totals, but they are broken down by courts.

Q. Yes. But on page 66, we only have statistics for investigations, completed investigations, convictions, and acquittals. We don't see what it is really about.

In the previous one that you commented upon, we see exactly what you are talking about.

In view of the date, the date is the 15th of May, the courts have -- had been operating, as you described, since the 24th of March. That is for a little over 45 days. By some standards that you accepted in the operation of courts, was it the case that the number of convictions and judgements indicated a certain degree of efficiency; low degree, medium, high efficiency? What would be your assessment as a military prosecutor?

A. Just to say something about the scope of the work: 395 investigations were completed. 997 judgements divided into acquittals and convictions.

THE INTERPRETER: The witness is reading out this too fast.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Regardless of the number of these courts, it is -- it can be qualified as a very high degree of efficiency.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I just wanted to ask: General, how was an investigation initiated?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The investigations would be initiated first of all by unit commanders. It was their duty. It was at the level of company commander. It was his duty to report accordingly if he found out that a crime -- that a violation was committed. Then there ³⁷⁴⁹² were investigation authorities, military police and others at the level of brigade and independent battalions. The main purpose of those units was to detect perpetrators of criminal offences and to collect evidence. They would be the ones who submitted reports to the military prosecutors. And the next level was the investigations judge of the military court. If he found grounds for an indictment, the military prosecutor would initiate proceedings.

JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues] ... would initiate an investigation?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes. If civilian organs find during an on-site investigation that it does not fall under their jurisdiction, they would refer it to the military prosecutor's office.

JUDGE ROBINSON: What I'm trying to find out, could a civilian make a complaint directly to the military authorities, to your authorities, or must the civilian make the complaint to the civilian organs?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Anybody could file a report. Any civilian, any man in the street who became aware of a violation or a criminal offence could report it to the competent authorities, and the prosecutor would be duty-bound to intervene. Any citizen had the right to submit either an oral or a written report.

JUDGE KWON: Just a question out of curiosity: Mr. Nice, you have the B/C/S version of this document?

MR. NICE: Yes.

JUDGE KWON: There is an address at the foot of the document which ³⁷⁴⁹³ seems to be indicating the location of the document. Does this mean this document was taken from the electronic disclosure suite of the Prosecution? Could you tell me about it.

MR. NICE: I'll tell you later. While I'm on my feet, if we're looking at these documents for detail and if the Court looks at the English version of tables 2 and 3, it will probably at some stage need to draw to its attention that row 5 of table 3 is completely in error. It's a repeat of row 5 of table 2, and so you should simply strike out the figures in row 5 otherwise the maths don't work. And if you turn to the B/C/S version of table 3 in substitution for the figures 0, 22, 75, 35, 29, and 11, you should add figures 12, 175, 50, 47, 2, and 1. It's clear what's happened. The interpreter cast -- translator cast his or her eye briefly onto the wrong table when recording the details for table 3.

As to the source of the document, I will do my best.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Nice.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I assume that you were indicating the address at the bottom of page 66. Is that right? It says here: "Documents of the legal department of the General Staff of the army of Yugoslavia." That's at the bottom of that page, if you were talking about page 66. You said there was an address at the bottom of the page. Then on page 67, it says: "47 documents of the legal department GSVJ," the General Staff of the army of Yugoslavia, that is.

JUDGE KWON: Yes. I think it's a location of common drive. We'll ³⁷⁴⁹⁴ find out later.

MR. NICE: Ms. Dicklich's view is that although the D reference is suggestive of it coming from a disk of some kind, she doesn't think it has any connection with the electronic suite. It's a Defence document.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. They were documents of the legal department or administration of the General Staff of the army of Yugoslavia. This is a review as of the 15th of May, 1999.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. But I was asking you something with respect to efficiency, work efficiency. You said that efficiency was very high. I have in mind, of course, the short period of time, that is to say from the end of March to mid-May. That's just a little over a month and a half. And I'm looking at tables 1 and 2 in tab 14. So, General, I'd like you to comment that. For example, on the second table we see that crimes against life and limb, the accused there, incorporates killings. That column incorporates killings. And you have a total of 55 accused and 8 convicted. So would that then, for that period of time, be an indicator of high efficiency, medium, or low efficiency? High, average, or low?

A. Well, the accusations and convictions, it is a high level, because an indictment has already been raised. Now, when it comes to convictions, that was slower. Eight cases or individuals were convicted, which means that not everything -- not all the data was collected. For example, on one day, the judges had 30 trials to deal with in Pristina, for example, ³⁷⁴⁹⁵ the Pristina Corps, I mean. And on that particular day, only three trials went ahead, which means only three accused were brought in. So you can compare why the courts were not able to follow the tempo, the rate.

JUDGE ROBINSON: This will be the last question: Of what kind of killing would a soldier be tried and convicted?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] For any deprivation of life contrary to the law, whether through premeditated, unpremeditated, or whatever. Manslaughter, et cetera. If it can be proved, that would be it.

JUDGE ROBINSON: That has to be followed up but we don't have the time.

We are now going to break for the day, General, and you will return tomorrow at 9.00 a.m. to continue with your evidence. We are adjourned.

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.43 p.m., to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 16th day of

March, 2005, at 9.00 a.m.