Genocide Testimony Behind Closed Doors?
Day 280-81
Genocide Testimony Behind Closed Doors?
Day 280-81
With only a few days remaining in its case in chief against Slobodan Milosevic, time that continues to be cut short due to the Accused's ill health, the Prosecution is rushing through some of its most important witnesses relevant to the charges of genocide and complicity in genocide. When B-1804, a Bosnian Serb officer, appeared, the Prosecution's direct testimony consisted of a recital of topics that were contained in his written statements, submitted to the Court. The one exception occurred when Geoffrey Nice, lead prosecutor, highlighted the witness's assertion that no Yugoslav Army (VJ) troops participated in the Srebrenica campaign. Had it not been for Mr. Nice's re-examination of B-1804 following Milosevic's cross examination, the public was left wondering whose witness he was. Indeed, throughout cross examination he seemed more helpful to the Accused. Appearances, however, are sometimes deceptive in this trial where a significant amount of evidence is given in writing and in closed session (to protect the witness or his family).
Unusually, Milosevic's cross examination was just that -- a cross examination instead of a speech. He asked carefully crafted questions designed to elicit a yes or no answer, apparently following the witness's written statement. The art of cross examination includes the ability to phrase a question to elicit the answer one wants and Milosevic showed he was able to do that. The witness was also cooperative, answering in one or two words for the most part. He agreed with a number of Milosevic's points, though most were not relevant to Srebrenica, the focus of his testimony. Often, he replied that he lacked information, 'was told about,' or 'read about' the event Milosevic described. He affirmed that orders the Accused showed him said what they said. While being cooperative, he gave no direct evidence on many issues. Witness B-1804 had chosen a noncombative style to meet Mr. Milosevic.
For example, the Accused suggested to him that since the Serbs and the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA) were interested in preserving Yugoslavia, it gave the impression they were allied. B-1804 answered, 'Perhaps it did.' Milosevic followed up by asking if there was anything wrong in that. 'Not at first,' replied the witness, leaving much unsaid.
Another time, Milosevic asked whether the JNA attempted to remain neutral. The witness responded, 'Until the attack on Kula Grad.' Milosevic corrected him: 'I assume you mean the attack FROM Kula Grad.' To which B-1804 answered, 'You could look at it that way, too.' The difference defines the aggressor.
More successfully, Milosevic secured B-1804's agreement that his unit had not committed any crimes, that he didn't know of any liquidation plan by the military leadership, and that it is unlikely any order to abide by international conventions would have prevented revenge attacks when the Serbs took Srebrenica. He also said he did not know if anyone from the Serbian Ministry of the Interior (MUP) was operating in Bosnia.
In response to Amicus Branislav Tapuskovic, B-1804 agreed he had made no mention of any kind of plan linked to widespread, systematic destruction and harming of civilians. Of course, he had told the Court before that he was not in the upper levels of the leadership. Mr. Tapuskovic got him to estimate that between 500 and 1500 Bosnian Government soldiers were killed in fierce fighting with the VRS in the area of Srebrenica. He based his estimates on witness statements the Prosecution had shown him, he said. Even if this figure is correct that 1500 Bosniaks killed in Srebrenica died in combat, at least 6000 more remain unaccounted for. In addition, many ligatures and blindfolds were found among bodies exhumed from mass graves.
Mr. Nice began re-examination by asking the witness to verify the following order of March 17, 1995 to the Drina Corps: 'By a planned and well-thought-out combat operation, create an unbearable situation of total insecurity of life with no hope of further survival for the inhabitants of Srebrenica and Zepa.' B-1804 explained that this was a broad document, 'issuing more extensive assignments for longer periods of time' than the other orders Milosevic had earlier presented to the Court. A July order, for example, issuing instructions to separate the enclaves of Zepa and Srebrenica and reduce their size to a tight urban core, was made in furtherance of the March order, the witness explained.
Witness B-1804 also agreed with the Prosecutor that oral orders differed from written orders, such as those to abide by all international conventions and laws concerning the treatment of prisoners of war and civilians. When Milosevic presented two of these orders to him during cross examination, the witness said he had never seen them before.
The former officer seemed reluctant to name the crimes committed by his compatriots at Srebrenica. Referring to a euphemism used by the Amicus, Mr. Nice asked how certain people at Srebrenica were 'deprived of their lives?' Was it in combat or by other methods? B-1804 replied they were killed in different ways. When the Prosecutor persisted, he conceded that those not killed in combat were killed in 'illegal ways.' The closest he was able to come to a more specific description of events was a reference to mass killings and the names of two execution sites, Orahovac and Petkovci. Finally, responding to the Prosecution's question about Vinko Pandurevic's July 15 combat report to the effect that a number of additional people would have to be let go, the witness replied, 'They were not let go to freedom. They were executed later.' [Perhaps several thousand men, mostly soldiers, in a column trying to break through Bosnian Serb lines, were allowed through until orders were given to stop. The remainder were captured and detained with other Muslim men and boys, and eventually executed.] Only those familiar with the events of Srebrenica would have clearly understood that B-1804 was talking about the execution of thousands of Muslim men and boys, following the fall of the safe haven of Srebrenica.
Milosevic had elicited the witness's agreement that he was not under the command of the JNA/VJ in any way, despite continuing to be paid by it. On redirect, Nice asked him if he still agreed with his written statement, 'I considered myself to be a member of the JNA.' B-1804 told the Court he still agreed with that. Also on re-examination, he testified that all the officers in his unit, 15 to 20 of them, received their pay from Belgrade. This adds but one more layer to the considerable evidence the Court has heard that Belgrade supported the VRS.
The Accused had also gotten the former army officer to testify that he believed the VRS could have survived without the support of the JNA/VJ, quite the opposite of what Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic told the RS Assembly in 1994 and 1995, respectively. Mr. Nice asked if a military unit can survive without its officers, to which B-1804 emphatically said that not a single military unit can survive without the officers leading it. He also admitted that he had no knowledge of the financial level of support the VJ provided to the VRS.
Finally, Mr. Nice re-established the witness's original emphasis that he had no knowledge whether the Serbian MUP were involved in the war in Bosnia. Milosevic had made it appear that he knew they were not.
What the Court heard in private session about the witness's knowledge of the Srebrenica massacres remains inaccessible to the public to protect the witness's identity. Threats against witnesses obstruct the trial by keeping evidence from the public, as well as keeping witnesses from testifying at all. What we do know from witness B-1804, however, is that the Geneva Conventions were not followed in events associated with Srebrenica. One can assume, the Court knows much more.
Unusually, Milosevic's cross examination was just that -- a cross examination instead of a speech. He asked carefully crafted questions designed to elicit a yes or no answer, apparently following the witness's written statement. The art of cross examination includes the ability to phrase a question to elicit the answer one wants and Milosevic showed he was able to do that. The witness was also cooperative, answering in one or two words for the most part. He agreed with a number of Milosevic's points, though most were not relevant to Srebrenica, the focus of his testimony. Often, he replied that he lacked information, 'was told about,' or 'read about' the event Milosevic described. He affirmed that orders the Accused showed him said what they said. While being cooperative, he gave no direct evidence on many issues. Witness B-1804 had chosen a noncombative style to meet Mr. Milosevic.
For example, the Accused suggested to him that since the Serbs and the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA) were interested in preserving Yugoslavia, it gave the impression they were allied. B-1804 answered, 'Perhaps it did.' Milosevic followed up by asking if there was anything wrong in that. 'Not at first,' replied the witness, leaving much unsaid.
Another time, Milosevic asked whether the JNA attempted to remain neutral. The witness responded, 'Until the attack on Kula Grad.' Milosevic corrected him: 'I assume you mean the attack FROM Kula Grad.' To which B-1804 answered, 'You could look at it that way, too.' The difference defines the aggressor.
More successfully, Milosevic secured B-1804's agreement that his unit had not committed any crimes, that he didn't know of any liquidation plan by the military leadership, and that it is unlikely any order to abide by international conventions would have prevented revenge attacks when the Serbs took Srebrenica. He also said he did not know if anyone from the Serbian Ministry of the Interior (MUP) was operating in Bosnia.
In response to Amicus Branislav Tapuskovic, B-1804 agreed he had made no mention of any kind of plan linked to widespread, systematic destruction and harming of civilians. Of course, he had told the Court before that he was not in the upper levels of the leadership. Mr. Tapuskovic got him to estimate that between 500 and 1500 Bosnian Government soldiers were killed in fierce fighting with the VRS in the area of Srebrenica. He based his estimates on witness statements the Prosecution had shown him, he said. Even if this figure is correct that 1500 Bosniaks killed in Srebrenica died in combat, at least 6000 more remain unaccounted for. In addition, many ligatures and blindfolds were found among bodies exhumed from mass graves.
Mr. Nice began re-examination by asking the witness to verify the following order of March 17, 1995 to the Drina Corps: 'By a planned and well-thought-out combat operation, create an unbearable situation of total insecurity of life with no hope of further survival for the inhabitants of Srebrenica and Zepa.' B-1804 explained that this was a broad document, 'issuing more extensive assignments for longer periods of time' than the other orders Milosevic had earlier presented to the Court. A July order, for example, issuing instructions to separate the enclaves of Zepa and Srebrenica and reduce their size to a tight urban core, was made in furtherance of the March order, the witness explained.
Witness B-1804 also agreed with the Prosecutor that oral orders differed from written orders, such as those to abide by all international conventions and laws concerning the treatment of prisoners of war and civilians. When Milosevic presented two of these orders to him during cross examination, the witness said he had never seen them before.
The former officer seemed reluctant to name the crimes committed by his compatriots at Srebrenica. Referring to a euphemism used by the Amicus, Mr. Nice asked how certain people at Srebrenica were 'deprived of their lives?' Was it in combat or by other methods? B-1804 replied they were killed in different ways. When the Prosecutor persisted, he conceded that those not killed in combat were killed in 'illegal ways.' The closest he was able to come to a more specific description of events was a reference to mass killings and the names of two execution sites, Orahovac and Petkovci. Finally, responding to the Prosecution's question about Vinko Pandurevic's July 15 combat report to the effect that a number of additional people would have to be let go, the witness replied, 'They were not let go to freedom. They were executed later.' [Perhaps several thousand men, mostly soldiers, in a column trying to break through Bosnian Serb lines, were allowed through until orders were given to stop. The remainder were captured and detained with other Muslim men and boys, and eventually executed.] Only those familiar with the events of Srebrenica would have clearly understood that B-1804 was talking about the execution of thousands of Muslim men and boys, following the fall of the safe haven of Srebrenica.
Milosevic had elicited the witness's agreement that he was not under the command of the JNA/VJ in any way, despite continuing to be paid by it. On redirect, Nice asked him if he still agreed with his written statement, 'I considered myself to be a member of the JNA.' B-1804 told the Court he still agreed with that. Also on re-examination, he testified that all the officers in his unit, 15 to 20 of them, received their pay from Belgrade. This adds but one more layer to the considerable evidence the Court has heard that Belgrade supported the VRS.
The Accused had also gotten the former army officer to testify that he believed the VRS could have survived without the support of the JNA/VJ, quite the opposite of what Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic told the RS Assembly in 1994 and 1995, respectively. Mr. Nice asked if a military unit can survive without its officers, to which B-1804 emphatically said that not a single military unit can survive without the officers leading it. He also admitted that he had no knowledge of the financial level of support the VJ provided to the VRS.
Finally, Mr. Nice re-established the witness's original emphasis that he had no knowledge whether the Serbian MUP were involved in the war in Bosnia. Milosevic had made it appear that he knew they were not.
What the Court heard in private session about the witness's knowledge of the Srebrenica massacres remains inaccessible to the public to protect the witness's identity. Threats against witnesses obstruct the trial by keeping evidence from the public, as well as keeping witnesses from testifying at all. What we do know from witness B-1804, however, is that the Geneva Conventions were not followed in events associated with Srebrenica. One can assume, the Court knows much more.
