1 Tuesday, 29 January 2002
2 [Open session]
3 --- Upon commencing at 9.06 a.m.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: [Microphone not activated] Call the case, please.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour. This is the case number
6 IT-99-36-T, the Prosecutor versus Radoslav Brdjanin and Momir Talic.
7 [The accused entered court]
8 JUDGE AGIUS: [Microphone not activated] Good morning,
9 Mr. Brdjanin. As usual, I address myself to you first. Can you hear me
10 in a language you can understand?
11 THE ACCUSED BRDJANIN: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honour,
12 yes, I can.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning, General Talic. I put the same
14 question to you.
15 THE ACCUSED TALIC: [Interpretation] Good morning. Yes, I can hear
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Good morning, everybody. We start with
18 the appearances. Prosecution?
19 MS. KORNER: Joanna Korner, Andrew Cayley and Denise Gustin, case
20 manager, for the Prosecution.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Defence for Mr. Brdjanin?
22 MR. ACKERMAN: Good morning, Your Honours. I'm John Ackerman.
23 With me are Tania Radosavljevic, Milka Maglov and Milos Peric.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: And for General Talic?
25 MS. FAUVEAU-IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I'm Natasha
1 Fauveau-Ivanovic, lawyer from the Paris Bar. I'm replacing Mr. de Roux
2 and Mr. Pitron, and I'm assisted by Fabien Masson.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. I think we can continue from where we
4 left yesterday, but before, I would like to be updated on the four motions
5 by Mr. Ackerman. I was assured yesterday, towards the end of the hearing,
6 that the few final documents were being made available, so I suppose they
7 should be of some use.
8 MR. ACKERMAN: I received this morning in my box downstairs some
9 additional material, I believe, on Witness 99. With regard to the other,
10 I guess it's three -- or two or three motions, I think there are still
11 some outstanding matters there and there may be some outstanding on 99.
12 I'm not positive about that. No. I'm told they are all in with 99, so
13 we'll certainly be prepared to go forward with that next witness without
14 any difficulty at all.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you.
16 So yes, Ms. Korner?
17 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, before I recall Mr. Inayat, can I just
18 go back to the Rule 92 issue and offer the Prosecution's apologies to Your
19 Honour? As I've told the Defence, we were contacted yesterday and we
20 discovered that in our hurry we had made rather a mess of the papers we
21 had given to Your Honour. And we've provided a copy of the letter that
22 when we returned the papers we gave to Your Honours on the subject.
23 Can I just explain so that everybody understands? The witnesses,
24 when they made the declarations, were dealing with the statement which had
25 been translated into the Bosnian language, plus any attachments.
1 Obviously, they couldn't read the English so it had to be in their own
2 language. But what we provided to Your Honour now is just English
3 versions, I hope. Obviously, if Your Honours require to see the actual
4 Bosnian ones, we can provide them but you can't read them so ...
5 JUDGE AGIUS: First of all, we can't read them. Secondly, I don't
6 see why we should bother with that unless there is a very special reason.
7 MS. KORNER: I'm grateful.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Which we don't have anyway.
9 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, we will recall Mr. Inayat straight
11 I'm sorry, one further matter. We discussed, after the Court had
12 risen yesterday, this question of the numbering of exhibits.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
14 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, of course, at the moment, the exhibits
15 that I'm going through are those which the Defence take objection to their
16 admission, and no doubt they are going to explain to Your Honour the
17 grounds for it when we've finished. And so we considered the matter with
18 the Deputy Registrar and thought it would probably be better if the actual
19 numbering took place after Your Honours have admitted such -- all or such
21 JUDGE AGIUS: No objection to that.
22 MS. KORNER: And we will refer to them for the transcript by their
23 disclosure number and describe what the document is so that one can see on
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Actually, I discussed this a little bit this morning
1 with Madam Registrar, and more or less we are in agreement that that
2 should be the approach unless Mr. Ackerman comes up with some novel idea
3 which is better than yours and mine.
4 Yes, Mr. Ackerman?
5 MR. ACKERMAN: Well, here is -- maybe I'm not -- I'm missing
6 something but I don't think so. Some appeals lawyer who has never heard
7 of this case five years from now is -- or three years from now or whenever
8 it is, is working on the appeal in this case. And he's able to find in
9 the transcript that Exhibit P84 was admitted. And so he looks for the
10 transcript portion where it was offered and whether there were any
11 arguments against it, whether there was a proper objection made to it or
12 not, and he can't find it because it's not P84 at that point. It's some
13 other number. And he has no way to know what that number is. Unless we
14 create some kind of an elaborate scheme of double numbering or something
16 JUDGE AGIUS: We can't possibly go into that much detail. My
17 suggestion is that at the moment there is a document which is being
18 contested. That document will be numbered. In other words, while we will
19 be dealing with this mass of documents, there may be an incident at some
20 point in time relating to a particular -- one particular document from
21 that mass. If the documents would not have already been numbered until
22 then, waiting for them to be renumbered -- to be numbered later on, then
23 we will have to number it then.
24 Because obviously what Mr. Ackerman is saying is that there must
25 be some point of reference when the question -- okay. I've made the same
1 mistake now. I apologise to the interpreters.
2 Let me hear what you have to say. I mean, we have to find a way
3 which will make it easy for everyone and also keeping in mind that later
4 on, after this trial is over, whoever will be dealing with the appeal - if
5 there is an appeal, as Mr. Ackerman has suggested already that there will
6 be - will obviously have to deal with a humongous number of documents.
7 And the references must be clear and unequivocal.
8 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour, can I just continue for just a second
9 before Ms. Korner?
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
11 MR. ACKERMAN: I know that what the registry wants is for a
12 different number to be attached to documents which are admitted from those
13 which are not admitted. I think that's the registry's position. What I'm
14 saying to you is that is not -- that doesn't make sense, in terms of the
15 record. There is absolutely nothing wrong with there being a document
16 called P84, and either it is admitted or it's not admitted but it remains
17 P84 from the moment we begin talking about it until the moment we're
18 finished talking about it. So you can always do a search of the record
19 and find every instance where P84 was discussed. You can do an electronic
20 search and find that, and that solves every problem there is. It's just a
21 matter of giving it one number the first time we talk about it and keeping
22 that number absolutely all the time. And if it's admitted --
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, that is necessary, important, yes. And that's
24 how it's going to be.
25 MR. ACKERMAN: Then I have no problem.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: So the only problem arises if there is a lack of
2 proper identification of that particular document, in other words, if it
3 is referred to by the Prosecution by a particular number and then it is
4 referred to by the Defence in a different number. So that's the only
5 problem that can arise. But I don't envisage it happening.
6 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, the difficulty is --
7 THE REGISTRAR: Excuse me. Because you all speak English, can you
8 please slow down so that the French interpreter and B/C/S interpreter can
9 catch up with you all.
10 MS. KORNER: I'm perfectly aware that Ms. Fauveau speaks excellent
11 English, but I appreciate the problem with the B/C/S.
12 Your Honour, the difficulty is this: If they're all numbered with
13 a "P," as we go -- as each document is mentioned, then it is not clear
14 whether it has been admitted or has not been admitted when you look at the
15 transcript. That's the real problem.
16 In addition, at the moment I'm not -- I'm following the order of
17 the documents to which objection is taken. If they are numbered as I
18 refer to them, then the whole sequence will go out of order, and it will
19 be just as difficult.
20 My suggestion is - and I'm not clear what the difficulty is - that
21 for the purposes of the transcript, I will refer to them by their
22 disclosure number plus a description of what the document is. If Your
23 Honour decides to admit into evidence the whole bundle of documents that
24 Dr. Donia is going to refer to, obviously, you will certainly be admitting
25 some into evidence because no objection is taken. Then they will be
1 numbered. At the end of the day, it will not be difficult to sort out the
2 appropriate court number because there will be a full index which will
3 show that document, whatever it is now, P1, P2.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Ackerman.
5 MR. ACKERMAN: With all due respect, Your Honour, that simply does
6 not work. To try to rely on some kind of a subsequently prepared index,
7 we tried that. The index of documents in the Delalic case was absolutely
8 completely out of whack. What the index set of documents was had nothing
9 to do with what the document was. Part of that had to do with changing
10 court deputies several times during the trial. And I think there was some
11 confusion with that. But whatever it was, it didn't work, and it was mess
12 at the end of the case. There is nothing wrong, I submit to you, to take
13 these documents that are in these books and take the first document in the
14 book and call it P3 and subsequently number every number P4, P5, P6, P7.
15 So if she's talking about a document this morning that I'm objecting to,
16 that document might be P9. And at the end of this whole process, you will
17 decide that whatever number of these are admitted and whatever number of
18 them are not, and the record will be clear that P4 was admitted, that at
19 page 175 it was objected to, at page 217 it was admitted. But if you
20 start creating a system where what you have to do to find all of those
21 references to that is search three or four different numbers, like 2.273,
22 the Prosecutor's number, or P8, the registry's number, or BD something or
23 other which would be the line number, it just becomes unworkable. And we
24 have to think about what the transcript is going to show, not what we see
25 here in court.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: I still think that what Ms. Korner suggested can
2 work. There shouldn't be any difficulty. Because if this bundle here
3 which constitutes the totality of the documents on which Dr. Donia will be
4 examined by the Prosecution, and this bundle is given a exhibit number,
5 Exhibit number P3 or whatever, then we can easily, easily provide that the
6 integrity of this bundle remains unaffected. Then I don't see any
7 difficulties because each document has got, I suppose, what is the
8 disclosure number.
9 Am I correct?
10 MS. KORNER: Each document has written across the top a disclosure
11 number, except for the extra ones that were handed at the last moment.
12 So --
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Those, we can number. Those, we can number, and
14 there should be no possibility for confusion because it would be document
15 D6104 in bundle Exhibit P3.
16 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I'm sorry, I raised this here, and I'm
17 going to have to back down on this. I bow to the greater experience of
18 Mr. Cayley and Mr. Ackerman who have dealt with these trials before. They
19 say it does become exceedingly difficult. So I'm afraid we're going to
20 have to find some method of identifying the ones that Your Honours do not
21 admit separately. But for the moment, it does seem -- as I go through
22 each document, we should give it a number as I go through it.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.
24 MS. KORNER: So I'm sorry, it's my fault. But Mr. Cayley and
25 Mr. Ackerman agree on this.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Would that create havoc with the registry?
2 THE REGISTRAR: Not really, Your Honour. And I just feel sorry
3 that this kind of management of documents creates such a problem here.
4 Before the trial start, we actually advise both parties to attend
5 this trial management meeting which was providing the approaches how to
6 manage all these documents. But at that time, it seems like all this
7 Defence counsel, they don't want to attend this meeting, so that we can't
8 reach this kind of agreement before the trial starts.
9 But from the registry point of view, we normally separate two type
10 of binders. One is for the admitted evidence, that is, exhibit. The
11 other binders consist of all these non-admitted documents. So in the --
12 at the end of the trial, we can always find where is where. And plus the
13 appeal number always is the official numbers for all these exhibits. So
14 there's no difficulties whatsoever to find where this exhibits is.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: We can work it like that, then. Okay?
16 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I was wholly unaware of anything called
17 a trial management meeting. But I'm told by Ms. Gustin there was such a
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Neither was I.
20 MS. KORNER: But nobody attended, apparently.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: It's no problem. I mean, let's not look at what
22 happened in the past months, and look forward -- don't look behind when
23 the journey lies ahead, they say.
24 MR. ACKERMAN: I agree. I just have to say that the meeting that
25 was suggested to me was characterised --
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Forget it, Mr. Ackerman. Don't take it as a
2 criticism. I'm just suggesting not to look behind when your journey lies
3 ahead. More or less, we have now agreed on the system that should be
4 followed and we will follow that system.
5 So please call witness Mazhar Inayat.
6 MS. KORNER: Yes. Your Honour, when he comes in, I think I'll
7 have to go back over the documents that we've discussed and just give them
8 a number as we go through.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. No problem. If you need some time for that,
10 you will have ample time for it.
11 THE REGISTRAR: So can I give some numbers to yesterday's
13 MS. KORNER: I don't --
14 THE REGISTRAR: The first one is 00403850, and that should be --
15 MS. KORNER: No, no, no. That isn't going to work. If we are
16 going to number them - I'm sorry - then we ought to go through the bundle
17 numbering them sequentially, even the ones which aren't disputed.
18 THE REGISTRAR: I just want to finish up yesterday's business.
19 [The witness entered court]
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning, Mr. Inayat.
21 THE WITNESS: Good morning, Your Honours.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: You will now be asked to make the same solemn
23 declaration you made yesterday.
24 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honours.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
1 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
2 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
3 WITNESS: MAZHAR INAYAT [Resumed]
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. You may sit down, and Ms. Korner from
5 the Prosecution will be resuming her examination-in-chief.
6 MS. KORNER: Yes.
7 Examination by Ms. Korner: [Continued]
8 Q. Mr. Inayat, just to let you know we are going to just go back to
9 the beginning of the bundle of documents. You needn't reply because I'm
10 just going to get them numbered on the transcript.
11 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, the first document in the bundle, which
12 is a -- in the Serbian language only, which was numbered 00403770, will
13 become P3. Your Honour, it's -- I understand that each document, whether
14 it's in English or in the Serbian language, has to have a slightly
15 separate number so Your Honour can identify which one one is looking at,
16 so that if we can cause the English P3, for example, A, and the B/C/S,
17 P3B. There is only a B/C/S one here, so that would be P3B.
18 The second document in the bundle, which has the disclosure number
19 1.118, will become P4 in English -- P4A in English and P4B in B/C/S.
20 The third document, with the disclosure number 1.119, will become
21 P5, A and B.
22 The next document, with the disclosure number 7.221, P6, A and B.
23 The next document is only in the Serbian language. It has the
24 number 00403782, becomes P7B.
25 Then the next document is 7.221, which will become Exhibit 8, A
1 and B.
2 The next document -- I'm sorry, I better distinguish. They bear
3 the same disclosure number. 7, A and B, was the decision on the
4 municipality of Laktasi, joining the Bosanska Krajina community, yes, 7.
5 And then document 8, A and B, is the decision on the conclusion of the
6 agreement by Bosanska Gradiska.
7 The next document, Your Honour, now this is the subject of
8 objection, but I understand the objection was purely the lack of
9 translation, from Mr. Ackerman, so that will be 9, P9B, and it's got a
10 number 00403700.
11 Your Honour, the next one --
12 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, because there is something wrong here.
13 MS. KORNER: Oh, right.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's go back. Yes, Ms. Korner, pleases, let's go
15 back to document behind tab 4, which has number 00403782.
16 MS. KORNER: Yes.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: That, according to the sequence in my bundle ought
18 to be document P7B. Are you suggesting another number?
19 MS. KORNER: No, I've lost track.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Same here. So -- but we need to be in
21 consonance and the reference numbers must be the same. Otherwise we'll
22 get confused.
23 MR. ACKERMAN: Might it make sense, Your Honour, for us to take a
24 15 or 20 minute break and let us work all these numbers out?
25 JUDGE AGIUS: No. I was going to suggest to Ms. Korner to take
1 them ten at a time for the time being and see if there are any problems
2 with those ten, and then proceed with the next ten, and we will do it like
3 that and make sure we know which documents we are talking about, okay? So
4 this -- I'm correct here, this should be document P7B.
5 MS. KORNER: Yes, I'm sorry.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Behind tab 5 is a document which I have in both
8 MS. KORNER: Yes.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: And this is the decision on the municipality of
10 Laktasi joining the Bosanska Krajina municipalities. It is 00403783 and
11 that disclosure number 7.221, and that according to me, or according to
12 the sequence that I have here, should be P8A, correct? With the B/C/S
13 version P8B, correct?
14 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, yes.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: So now, the next document that I have, between tabs
16 6 and 7, is the decision on the conclusion of the agreement to join -- the
17 Bosanska Gradiska municipality decision to join the Bosanska Krajina, and
18 this is 0040 -- I suppose it's 3925 or 39 -- I don't know, I can't see the
20 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I don't think it matters.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: This would be P9A.
22 MS. KORNER: Yes.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: And the B/C/S version, which follows, would be P9B,
24 correct? And I think you can take it up from here now and continue.
25 MS. KORNER: Your Honour this was -- the next document only in
1 B/C/S --
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Which Mr. Ackerman complained about yesterday?
3 MS. KORNER: Exactly. But I think it's only because of lack of
4 translation and we will get it translated. So that's P10.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: P10B.
6 MS. KORNER: B.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Let's stop here for the moment. Are you
8 happy with this classification for reference purposes?
9 MR. ACKERMAN: I'm just absolutely struck with --
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Delighted? Exhilarated?
11 MR. ACKERMAN: Yes.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: So we can proceed.
13 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, the next document with the disclosure
14 number 1.53, is objected to.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
16 MS. KORNER: How are we going to mark - I ask for guidance from
17 anybody - a document that at the moment Your Honour hasn't ruled on?
18 JUDGE AGIUS: No. What is your suggestion, Madam Registrar, in
19 this regard?
20 THE REGISTRAR: I would like to suggest remain as it is, 1.53, OTP
21 document, if it has not been admitted it.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: But then if it's not admitted, it's going to be
23 removed from this file and it goes into a separate file.
24 THE REGISTRAR: Another binder.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Another binder, and will you give it then another
1 separate number or will it always remain as it is document OTP 1.53?
2 THE REGISTRAR: 1.53, unless you want to give it another mark for
3 identification number, MFI and MFI1.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: MFI.
5 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, it would help because if -- at the end
6 of the day, we are going to ask Your Honour for a ruling. If it stays out
7 of the sequence until the ruling, then the numbering will be completely
8 out of sequence.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: That is what I want to avoid.
10 MS. KORNER: I would suggest that we call it P11, I think we've
11 got to, slash MMI or whatever the thing is, MFI? Marked for
13 JUDGE AGIUS: What is the difficulty if it becomes P11? Then
14 ultimately, if this Chamber decides to -- not to admit it, and it goes in
15 the other binder, it remains P11 over there as well but in the index that
16 you will have, you will have an annotation, "P11 moved to unadmitted
17 documents"? And the index in that case would start with P11. I think we
18 can work like that.
19 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour. I take your point. I'm just
20 trying to differentiate between this exhibit and that --
21 JUDGE AGIUS: I know. That was a suggestion that was made to me
22 in the first place before I started this trial, but I thought it would
23 confuse matters rather than simplify them. The reason is very simple,
24 that now counsel will be referring to that document. How are they going
25 to refer to it? Because it has the potentiality of being admitted or of
1 not being admitted and it can't have two references.
2 Mr. Ackerman?
3 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour, you're absolutely right. We have a
4 spreadsheet here that has a column in it. It has the number of the
5 exhibit and whether or not it was admitted. It's simple. You just say
6 admitted, yes or no. But you maintain that same number sequence
7 regardless of whether it's admitted or not. Otherwise the record is a
9 JUDGE AGIUS: I think that's the way we should follow. That's the
10 way I am used to, but I don't want to create new systems here, but I think
11 it makes sense to follow that pattern, that system.
12 Can you live with that, Ms. Korner?
13 MS. KORNER: Yes, Your Honour, I'm quite happy.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. This will be P11, P11A.
15 MS. KORNER: And then the --
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Because there is also a version of it in B/C/S.
17 MS. KORNER: There is. And Your Honour, I remind -- yes, that
18 this one is subject to a challenge.
19 Your Honour, that was the last document we dealt with yesterday in
20 evidence. The next document, with the disclosure number 1.59, Your
21 Honour, is also subject to challenge. It will become P11A --
22 JUDGE AGIUS: P12.
23 MS. KORNER: P12A and B.
24 Q. Mr. Inayat, could you tell us where the Office of the Prosecutor
25 acquired that document?
1 A. Can I please once again have the ERN number?
2 Q. Yes. The original is 00403854.
3 A. This document was also handed to one of our investigators,
4 Mr. Grant MacIntosh, on 25th of April, 1996, by Mr. Boro Blagojevic.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Ms. Korner, can I ask you a simple question. Will
6 you be producing Mr. Grant MacIntosh later on as a witness?
7 MS. KORNER: I've never actually heard of Mr. Grant MacIntosh
8 until now -- or rather, from Mr. Inayat. But I gather he's a investigator
9 who left the OTP some -- well, perhaps Mr. Inayat can explain who or what
10 Mr. MacIntosh was.
11 A. Mr. Grant MacIntosh was an investigator from the United States of
12 America, and he worked with Team 1, that is, the team that I'm working on
13 now, and probably left sometime at the end of -- in the summer of 1997.
14 So he's not working in the Tribunal any more for the last three or four
15 years now.
16 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, if Your Honour felt it necessary, no
17 doubt we could make inquiries and bring him back here to explain that.
18 Q. But as I understand it, Mr. Inayat, the records that were kept
19 show that he received this document on this date. Is that so?
20 A. Yes. The records that I have checked clearly indicate that
21 Mr. MacIntosh took possession of this document on 25th of April, 1996 in
22 Banja Luka personally from Mr. Boro Blagojevic. That's what the records
23 state very clearly.
24 MS. KORNER: In one sense, Your Honour, it might be quicker to
25 witness summons, if Your Honour feels this is necessary, Mr. Blagojevic
1 and bring him here from Banja Luka.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: [Microphone not activated]
3 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Your Honour. Microphone.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Ms. Korner, as you know, I come from a
5 jurisdiction where we interfere very little with the way the Prosecution
6 conducts its own case and the way the Defence conducts its defence. So
7 it's up to you. I mean, I may in the course of the trial make suggestions
8 to you and to the Defence where I -- we think there are loopholes which
9 should be filled in the interest of our common search for the truth. But
10 certain decisions will have to be taken by you with no interference from
11 this Chamber, anyway.
12 What I would also like to know is whether these records that you
13 are referring to and which you have consulted are easily available to us
14 in case we require them or in case the Defence need to verify them.
15 THE WITNESS: Your Honours, I'm not aware of the procedure,
16 whether the Defence can have access to those records. But certainly, if
17 this Honourable Chamber wants, we can bring those records down.
18 What happens is whenever we receive any evidence, the investigator
19 who receives it in his possession is supposed to fill out information
20 index form, or also called the IF. And there's a very exhaustive IF
21 database. And that is the database that I have referred to to find out
22 the sources for all these documents. And of course we can make available
23 copies of documents which Mr. Grant MacIntosh received from Boro
24 Blagojevic in which it is very clearly stated the date and the time -- I'm
25 sorry, I don't think the time is mentioned. But certainly the date and
1 who received it and who gave it to Mr. Grant MacIntosh.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: You can proceed, Ms. Korner.
3 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, may I say, if necessary, I can call
4 evidence from someone who is here who was present when this particular set
5 of documents was handed over.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: That may be important.
7 Yes, Mr. Ackerman.
8 MR. ACKERMAN: Well, I'd just comment that it would seem to me
9 that the Chamber may well want to know what it was Mr. Blagojevic said
10 these documents were at the time he handed them to MacIntosh. If he
11 said, "Here are some unsigned drafts that were never implemented," that's
12 one thing. If he said, "These are official documents that Mr. Kupresanin
13 forgot to sign," that's another thing. Or if he said, "These are
14 documents that Mr. Kupresanin refused to sign," that's another thing.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: You're jumping the gun, Mr. Ackerman. That's merits
16 of the -- you're dealing with the contents and the probative value of
18 MR. ACKERMAN: Absolutely. And I wasn't commenting on that.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: And we're not concerned with that matter or problem
20 for the time being. What we are concerned at the time being with is the
21 source as it is being confirmed and explained by witness and any questions
22 of -- preliminary questions as to admissibility if these arise, if and
24 MR. ACKERMAN: I totally agree with that. All I was suggesting is
25 that the Chamber might someday want to know this --
1 JUDGE AGIUS: I told you already, Mr. Ackerman, and I told
2 Ms. Korner that we want to interfere very little. I mean, the onus of the
3 burden of proof which rests with the Prosecution is well known to the
4 Prosecution, and your position is also one which does not need any
5 elucidation from this Chamber.
6 So please go ahead. And then you will obviously have all the
7 facilities that you will require to complete the exercise that you need
8 for the purposes of proving your case. Thank you.
9 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I'm grateful. For the moment, we shall
10 be relying on the source as --
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Exactly.
12 MS. KORNER: -- given to Your Honours by Mr. Inayat.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Exactly.
14 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, that's that document. The next
15 document, with a disclosure number 2.247, which will become Exhibit P13A,
16 in English, and B, in B/C/S, which is the stenographer's notes of the
17 Serbian Democratic Party meeting in July of 1991.
18 Q. The number, Mr. Inayat, is --
19 MS. KORNER: Forgive me, Your Honour. I'm just trying to find the
20 first number in the Serbian language, 00928629.
21 Your Honour, it's the subject of challenge as well.
22 A. Yes, this document -- a copy of this document was given to the OTP
23 on the 2nd of March, 2000 in Sarajevo by an official of the AID Sarajevo.
24 And the person of the OTP who received this document is Mr. Bernard
25 O'Donnell. He received this document from the AID official in Sarajevo on
1 2nd of March, 2000.
2 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, he is here. He was the gentleman who
3 would have given evidence had the objection to the Variant A and B
4 document been maintained.
5 The next document, Your Honour, with the disclosure number 1.58,
6 which is an assembly announcement of the Assembly of the Community of
7 Bosnian Krajina Municipalities. That will become P14A and B, objected to
8 again, despite the fact that as far as I can see, the original bears a
10 Q. The number is 00403848.
11 A. This again is a document that was received by my colleague Grant
12 MacIntosh in Banja Luka. And the document was given by Mr. Boro
13 Blagojevic on 25th of April, 1996.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: [Microphone not activated]
15 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Ackerman and Ms. Fauveau, considering that there
17 is what appears to be an official stamp of the Socialist Republic of
18 Bosnia and Herzegovina and some handwriting on the B/C/S version of this
19 document, do you still sustain your objection?
20 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour, the title of the document indicates
21 that it's a document of the Assembly of the Community of Bosnian Krajina
22 Municipalities. That's the Skropstina -- Opstina, whatever that language
23 is at the top. That's what that means.
24 The stamp that's on it is a stamp of the SFRY, the Socialist
25 Federation of the Republic of Yugoslavia. That has nothing to do with --
1 with what appears at the top of the document that says it's from a
2 different source. And I'm not good at reading the stamp, but I think
3 that's what it says.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, that's what it says.
5 MR. ACKERMAN: And it may have just been the stamp that was handy
6 at the time. I'm not sure. But it is -- there's something curious about
7 the document, for sure.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. So for the moment, we'll leave it at that.
9 And we'll continue.
10 MS. KORNER: With respect, Your Honour, I don't think something
11 curious about the document is a proper grounds for objection.
12 However, moving on to the next document, which will become --
13 JUDGE AGIUS: P15.
14 MS. KORNER: -- P15A and B, disclosure number 1.120, objected to.
15 Q. The number, Mr. Inayat, for this document is 00911179.
16 A. This particular document was submitted by the BiH embassy. The
17 liaison officer brought this document on the 28th of August, 1996, and the
18 document was received in possession by the then-chief of investigations,
19 Mr. Cees Hendriks.
20 MS. KORNER: Could Your Honour forgive me just one moment while I
21 just check something here.
22 Then the next document, with the disclosure number 7.221, which
23 becomes 14 -- 16.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: 16A and B.
25 MS. KORNER: Objected to, Your Honour. Again, one with a stamp
1 and what appears to be a signature in the original.
2 Q. The number, Mr. Inayat, begins at 00403852.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: This is contested as well?
4 MS. KORNER: It is.
5 A. Can I please request you once again to repeat the number.
6 Q. 00403852.
7 A. Yes. Yes.
8 Q. Could you tell us where that comes from.
9 A. Yes. 00403852, this, again, is a document that was received by
10 Mr. Grant MacIntosh in Banja Luka on 25th of April, 1996. And it was
11 given by Mr. Boro Blagojevic.
12 Q. The next document, P17A and B, more assembly minutes. The version
13 in the Serbian language begins with the number SA011, and then an
14 emergency phone call, 999.
15 A. This particular document is part of a collection that was
16 identified and viewed and scanned by staff of the Office of the
17 Prosecutor. On 22nd of February, 1995, the documents were available for
18 review in the Ministry of Interior in Sarajevo. So this particular
19 document has come from that collection.
20 Q. The next document, P18 --
21 JUDGE JANU: 17.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: No. That was the last one. Now is 18.
23 MS. KORNER:
24 Q. It's a document which is an agenda of the Community of the Bosnian
25 Krajina Municipalities, the original Serbian version, 00403854.
1 A. This, again, is a document that was received by Mr. Grant
2 MacIntosh in Banja Luka on 25th of April, 1996. The person submitting
3 this document was Mr. Boro Blagojevic.
4 Q. The next document, P19, with a disclosure number 7.221. It
5 appears to come from the republican Territorial Defence staff. And the
6 original B/C/S version begins with the number 00870220.
7 A. This is a document that was submitted by the liaison officer from
8 the BiH embassy in The Hague on 22nd of July, 1999. And the records that
9 I have looked at indicate that the Prosecutor received this particular
11 JUDGE AGIUS: [Microphone not activated]
12 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: May I ask the Defence teams whether you still
14 sustain your objection. Please refer to the first page of the B/C/S
15 version of this document. On the first page, top left corner, there seems
16 to be an official stamp; and top right, there seems to be another official
17 stamp. It's true that at the end, the document does not appear to be
18 signed by anyone.
19 MS. KORNER: I think it is, Your Honour. It's signed. The
20 photocopying is bad. It's stamped and signed.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Oh, I see. On mine, it doesn't appear to be.
22 MR. ACKERMAN: I see no indication that it's signed, Your Honour.
23 The second thing that I would tell you is it doesn't seem to be
24 relevant to Mr. Brdjanin's case, so I probably would be willing to
25 withdraw my objection because of that.
1 I also will tell you that I will withdraw my objection to P16.
2 Apparently, there was a miscommunication or something because I
3 wouldn't -- I can't tell you why I might have objected to that, because it
4 appears to be properly signed and stamped.
5 So P16, I withdraw on. P18 -- actually, P19, the one we are
6 looking at now, I also will withdraw since it really is not relevant to my
8 JUDGE AGIUS: And Ms. Fauveau?
9 MS. FAUVEAU-IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I maintain my objection,
10 Your Honours, because this document appears to be an official document
11 sent by the Territorial Defence to the Presidency, and it seems to me
12 inconceivable for the Territorial Defence to send to the President of the
13 republic such a document without signing it and stamping it, according to
14 Yugoslav law.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. So you know the position and we proceed from
16 there. Thank you.
17 MS. KORNER: Yes. That was P19.
18 Q. The next document, P20, A and B, minutes of the SDS council,
19 objected to. The numbering for the original document - it's a slightly
20 odd numbering, but it seems to say 1MSAO142.
21 A. Yes. The records have indicated that we received this particular
22 document from two sources. First of all, we were given this on 22nd of
23 February, 1995, when a large collection was reviewed in the Ministry of
24 Interior, which I have referred to earlier also, but again this document
25 was given to us in the Celebici trial -- not to us but it was submitted in
1 the Celebici trial by the Defence counsel, Ms. Edina Residovic, on 3rd of
2 November, 1997, so our records have it from two sources.
3 MS. KORNER: Since Mr. Ackerman was in the Celebici trial perhaps
4 he'd like to tell us whether he admits this document.
5 MR. ACKERMAN: I also have nothing to do with what Ms. Residovic
6 did in the Celebici trial. I wouldn't want to suggest she got it from the
7 same MUP source that the Prosecutor did.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Please go ahead.
9 MS. KORNER: So the objection is maintained? Thank you. That was
11 Q. The next document, P21, further stenographic record of the minutes
12 of the SDS Assembly, 24th of October, and that begins with -- it's
13 disclosure 2.248, the numbering SAO012055. I think we can short-circuit
14 this, Mr. Inayat. Another part of what's called the Sarajevo collection?
15 A. That's correct.
16 Q. Anything with the numbering SA?
17 A. Has come from the Sarajevo collection, which was scanned on 22nd
18 of February, 1995.
19 Q. Next document, P22, disclosure number 5.9, original bears a stamp
20 of apparently receipt at the top, but objected to, number 00941754.
21 A. This document was identified and reviewed and selected and taken
22 into possession in the MUP office in the office -- Ministry of the
23 Interior offices in Bihac on 17th of April, 2000, and the person who took
24 this copy is Ms. Alison Kipp, who works as an analyst and is also
25 currently working in the Tribunal.
1 Q. The next document, P23, disclosure number 1.61, objected to,
2 number 00403858.
3 A. Yes. This is once again another document given by Mr. Boro
4 Blagojevic on 25th of April, 1996. The receiver was Mr. Grant MacIntosh,
5 and the document was given in Banja Luka.
6 Q. And just so we note in passing, if we turn to the second page of
7 the original, there is some, apparently, handwriting on it.
8 The next document, P24, further transcript, 11th of December,
9 and --
10 JUDGE AGIUS: 24?
11 MS. KORNER: 24, I'm sorry.
12 Q. The original numbering is 00898228.
13 A. This particular document was given by the BIH embassy, by their
14 liaison officer, on 18th of November, 1999, and the person, the
15 investigator who received this document here in The Hague is
16 Mr. Dassanayke. He is from Sri Lanka, and I apologise for not being able
17 to pronounce his last name, but he is working currently in the OTP.
18 MS. KORNER: Then the next document will be P25, Your Honours.
19 There is no objection raised to this one because that's the one about
20 which we had the argument or didn't have the argument. It's what's known
21 as the Variant A and B document. Equally, that will be P25. I should,
22 for the purposes of the record -- as Your Honour knows, there are a number
23 of versions. This is copy number 96 that will carry that.
24 Then the next document, again as I understand it, not objected to,
25 P26, that would -- it's the Assembly of the Serbian People in Bosnia and
1 Herzegovina, stenographic record for the 24th of March, 1992. It's no
2 more signed or dated than any others, but it's not objected to.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Ms. Korner, just clarify this for the Chamber,
4 please. Is P24, A and B, objected to?
5 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, it was objected to -- 24?
6 JUDGE AGIUS: 24, yes.
7 MS. KORNER: Yes, it is. That's the transcript of the --
8 JUDGE AGIUS: I would imagine, Mr. Ackerman and Ms. Fauveau, that
9 you are no longer objecting to 26, A and B, because 26B appears to bear a
10 signature at the end, at the very end of it, while 24 has exactly the
11 same, 24 has a signature at the end.
12 MS. KORNER: Yes, Your Honour, both of them seem to be identical
13 records in the sense of records. Both bear a signature, apparently, of
14 the person who transcribed them. I agree with Your Honour. I am unable
15 to distinguish - which is why I said to Your Honour it's not easy - why
16 one is objected to and one is not.
17 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour, I have no foundational objection with
18 regard to either 24 or 26.
19 MS. FAUVEAU-IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Nor do I, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: So no more objection to document 24, P24, A and B.
21 And we move to P27.
22 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, yes. That is not objected to so that is
23 -- bears the number 00403870.
24 The next document is P28, no translation available at present but
25 no objection, so that's P28B. It's disclosure 2.411.
1 The next document, P29, no objection, decision by Kotor Varos to
2 join the ARK, disclosure number 2.416.
3 The next document, P30, it may be that the objection is because
4 there is no translation, because it appears to be very stamped and very
5 signed to me. I wonder if Mr. Ackerman could confirm that's correct.
6 MR. ACKERMAN: Yes, that's correct.
7 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, that's therefore P30, disclosure number
8 2.381. The translations will be arriving for these documents.
9 Q. The next document, P31, objected to, disclosure number 2.260, the
10 original version begins with the number 00403873. Mr. Inayat, can you
11 tell us where that comes from?
12 A. This again, Your Honours, is a document given to us on 25th of
13 April, 1996, received by Mr. Grant MacIntosh, submitter was Mr. Boro
15 Q. And the final document in volume 1, P32, objected to, and the
16 original 00403902. I think I can guess, Mr. Blagojevic again?
17 A. I'm just trying to find that document on this list. Excuse me,
18 should it, Ms. Korner, be on this list that I'm looking at?
19 Q. Yes, it's been missed off. Perhaps you can just check from the
20 main record, see whether you can see it.
21 A. Yes. Yes. Again, this is a document that was submitted by
22 Mr. Boro Blagojevic, you're right, on the 25th of April, 1996.
23 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, that concludes volume 1 of the documents
24 Dr. Donia is going to refer to.
25 Volume 2, then, Your Honour, in volume 2, the first document again
1 is the shorthand notes of the assembly. Perhaps we needn't trouble -- is
2 this objected to? It's the same form, signed by the shorthand writer.
3 MS. FAUVEAU-IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I don't think that we
4 contested this document.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Ackerman? Disclosure 2.251.
6 MR. ACKERMAN: I seem to only have an English version, Your
8 MS. KORNER: There is a B/C/S at the back.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: [Microphone not activated]
10 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
11 MR. ACKERMAN: B/C/S at the back of what?
12 JUDGE AGIUS: At the end of the original and B/C/S language, there
13 appears a signature which is identical to the one we found in P24 and
14 P26. Will you withdraw the objection?
15 MR. ACKERMAN: I guess I objected because I don't have the B/C/S.
16 It's not in the book that was handed to me.
17 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, it's perfectly possible --
18 JUDGE AGIUS: That can easily be solved.
19 MS. KORNER: That can easily be sorted out on the basis it is in
20 B/C/S, signed by the stenographer.
21 MR. ACKERMAN: If it has the same signatures as the other
22 documents, then I have the same position.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. This will be document.
24 MS. KORNER: P33.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: A and B.
1 MR. ACKERMAN: I assume that will be given to me rather soon.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: I take it there is a commitment on the part of the
4 MR. ACKERMAN: Thank you.
5 MS. KORNER: Then the next document, I don't think anybody
6 objected to, so that is a transcript of the meeting of the club of SDS
7 deputies, 28th of February, P33, A and B.
8 The next document, objected to --
9 THE REGISTRAR: P34.
10 MS. KORNER: I think I'll let Mr. Cayley give me the numbers.
11 The next document 35, A and B, disclosure 2.263, objected to,
12 B/C/S version starts 00403934.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Inayat?
14 THE WITNESS: Can you please give me the disclosure number?
15 Because now I'm looking at the big exhibit binder.
16 MS. KORNER:
17 Q. It's 2.263.
18 A. Yes. The document from 29th of February, 1992, this document,
19 Your Honours, was given on the 25th of April, 1996, again by Mr. Boro
20 Blagojevic and Mr. Grant MacIntosh received it.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Ackerman?
22 MR. ACKERMAN: The B/C/S version of the first document has been
23 found under this tab. We've now transferred it to its appropriate place
24 and you don't have to give it to us any more.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
1 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, that's that document.
2 Q. So the next document, which will be P36, an assembly instruction
3 dated the 21st of February, 1992, both stamped and signed by
4 Mr. Kupresanin. However, objected to. The number, Mr. Inayat, 00403891.
5 A. Ms. Korner, I would like to know the Exhibit number because --
6 MR. ACKERMAN: No objection. The foundation objection is
8 MS. FAUVEAU-IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] We did not object to it.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.
10 MR. ACKERMAN: I just want to make sure, Your Honour, because
11 Ms. Korner is representing documents that -- as to having no objection,
12 make sure that the record shows that the only objection that we are
13 dealing here with regard to these documents is an objection as to their
14 foundation. There may be other objections with regard to them that have
15 not --
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Point taken, yes, obviously.
17 MR. ACKERMAN: Thank you.
18 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I'm assuming this is no objection - when
19 I say "no objection" - to its admission at present, whatever else may be
20 said about it. That was P36.
21 The following document, no objection at present taken, P37, which
22 is an agenda for an assembly session on the 4th of March, 1992. That's
24 P38, objection. I take it that's withdrawn as well, though? It's
25 the same type of document, stamped and signed by Kupresanin.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: P38?
2 MS. KORNER: P38.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: At least the document that I have bears no signature
4 or stamp.
5 MS. KORNER: The document dated the 15th of April, 1992? Are we
6 looking at the same?
7 JUDGE AGIUS: If we are talking of what would be P38, A and B,
8 that is the disclosure 2.264, between tabs 34 and 35.
9 MS. KORNER: That was -- I'm sorry, I thought that was -- we have
10 dealt with that, P37, Your Honour. No objection, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: No. That's not P37. That's P38. P37 is the Banja
12 Luka document dated 21st February, 1992, which is between tabs 33 and 34.
13 MS. KORNER: All right. Did Your Honours -- I'm sorry. This is
14 the trouble with doing it on one's feet like this. I think in future
15 we'll have to try and pre-number in advance in some fashion.
16 But Your Honours started this section with the 25th of February
17 assembly minutes at P33; is that correct?
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, correct.
19 MS. KORNER: The following document --
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Is 34?
21 MS. KORNER: -- is 34. That's the 28th of February, 1992.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Correct.
23 MS. KORNER: Then the document after that, the 29th of February,
24 is 35.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, correct.
1 MS. KORNER: With the disclosure number 2.263.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, correct. And the next document --
3 MS. KORNER: 21st of February, instruction, P36.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: That's -- the document that we have which comes next
5 following the one you just mentioned earlier is one dated 3rd February,
6 1992. It's a document purporting to be emanating from the Socialist
7 Assembly of the Autonomous Region of Krajina, Banja Luka. And the
8 official number of the document --
9 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, may I then -- I thought we'd cleared up
10 everybody's binders. May I ask what the Defence have behind number 32.
11 MR. ACKERMAN: 1.17.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: The same here.
13 MS. KORNER: Then ours is wrong. All right. Whatever that
14 document is had better be --
15 MR. ACKERMAN: 36 to have been signed by Mr. Kupresanin, and we
16 have no objection to foundation.
17 MS. KORNER: Yes, Your Honour, I have it now. I'm so sorry. So
18 Your Honours, P36 -- I'm sorry.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: P36 would be this document, to which there is no
21 MS. KORNER: 1.17.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Correct.
23 MS. KORNER: Is the next document in everyone's binders, then, the
24 document of the 21st of February?
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Correct.
1 MS. KORNER: Thank you. P37, please. Although it was objected
2 to, I take it that objection is withdrawn?
3 JUDGE AGIUS: It has been withdrawn, yes.
4 MS. KORNER: All right. Then the next document, the 4th of March
5 assembly --
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Correct.
7 MS. KORNER: -- is P38.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Correct. And this is objected to, I understand.
9 MS. KORNER: Yes.
10 Q. Mr. Inayat, 00403941.
11 A. Can I please have the exhibit number.
12 Q. No, because it doesn't seem -- yes, I'm sorry. Maybe it's 2.264.
13 A. Yes. This is a document that was given to us in Banja Luka on
14 25th of April, 1996, received by Mr. Grant MacIntosh, submitted to
15 Mr. Boro Blagojevic.
16 MS. KORNER: Then the next document, also objected to --
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Why is it objected to, Mr. Ackerman and Ms. Fauveau,
18 if it bears the stamp and also the signature of Kupresanin?
19 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour, there's no reason whatever. The
20 nearest I can figure out, we must have gotten confused between my
21 communications to Ms. Korner with regard to document numbers, because I
22 wouldn't have objected to this document. And so we're going to have to
23 kind of be careful as we go forward, because we may have gotten a number
24 off or something. I'm not sure about that.
25 MS. KORNER: I think one of the problems is if we could -- if both
1 Defence counsel could adopt the same system, namely, giving us the numbers
2 of the ones they do object to, not the ones they don't object to.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
4 MS. FAUVEAU-IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] We do not object to this
6 JUDGE AGIUS: That's 39A and B.
7 MS. KORNER: The next document, 40A and B, not objected to.
8 Sorry, and I should -- for the purposes of the record, that's disclosure
10 The next document will be 41. And again, no objection. That's
11 disclosure 2.38, the 28th of April assembly decision -- 28th of April,
13 Then the next document, which is 42, disclosure number 2.274, not
14 objected to.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Are you sure it's not objected to?
16 MR. ACKERMAN: It's supposed to be objected to.
17 MS. KORNER: Well, I haven't on my marking.
18 MR. ACKERMAN: That was supposed to be objected to. So somewhere
19 the numbers got mixed on us.
20 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I think I really must ask that both
21 Defence counsel now adopt the same system, which is a simpler one, not
22 what we do not object to but what we do. Because I think what's happened
23 is because Mr. Ackerman was doing it different, we have in fact made some
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
1 MS. FAUVEAU-IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] We also challenge this
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.
4 MS. KORNER:
5 Q. Mr. Inayat --
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Ackerman.
7 MR. ACKERMAN: One of us is French and one of us is American, and
8 we're supposed to do it different, I think.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: I definitely will not get Ms. Korner to answer that
11 So we take it --
12 MS. KORNER: I'm so sorry, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: We will take it, Ms. Korner, that this is being
14 objected to.
15 MS. KORNER: Yes, all right.
16 Q. Mr. Inayat, that's disclosure number 2.274.
17 A. This is a document given again by Mr. Boro Blagojevic on 26th of
18 April, 1996. Mr. Grant MacIntosh received it in Banja Luka.
19 MS. KORNER: The next document --
20 JUDGE AGIUS: P43.
21 MS. KORNER: -- P43. Although I have no note that it's objected
22 to, I imagine that it is, because it is --
23 JUDGE AGIUS: I wouldn't imagine so. I would be very surprised,
24 because the document that I have, if we are talking about the same
25 document, that is, the 14th July 1992 document bears the signature of
1 Mr. Kupresanin and also the stamp of the country that -- in Bosnian.
2 MS. KORNER: Yes, Your Honour, you're right.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: But it seems to be the Assembly of the Autonomous --
4 MS. KORNER: Yes, Your Honour. I'm sorry. I was looking --
5 you're right. It does. So that's P43.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Do I take it that there is no objection?
7 MR. ACKERMAN: No, I don't think I advised Ms. Korner that I
8 objected to this.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: And Ms. Fauveau?
10 MR. ACKERMAN: And I have no objection to this.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: And Ms. Fauveau?
12 MS. FAUVEAU-IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] And we do not object to
14 MS. KORNER: P44 is the next document. 17th of July.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Again, this is --
16 MS. KORNER: It's probably not P40. Let's call it P43.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: 44, it would be.
18 MS. KORNER: I'm sorry, 44. 17th of July.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Again, this bears the same signature and stamp.
20 So I take the position is the same as before. No objection to
21 this document?
22 MR. ACKERMAN: Yes. No foundation for objection, Your Honour.
23 MS. KORNER: Just so -- because in order to deal with some of the
24 issues Your Honour raised yesterday in the judgement to add to the
25 weight --
1 Q. Mr. Inayat, where did this document, disclosure number 2.277, come
3 A. This document was also given by Mr. Boro Blagojevic to
4 Mr. MacIntosh on 25th of April, 1996.
5 MS. KORNER: The next document, P45, no objection. That's the
6 22nd of April, 1992 public announcement.
7 The next document, P46.
8 JUDGE JANU: Five.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: No, 46.
10 Again, there should be no objection here.
11 MS. KORNER: Your Honour is right. Just for the purposes of the
12 record, 2.27 is the disclosure number.
13 The next document, dated the 13th of May, again no objection,
14 P47. And it's a document dated the 13th of May, 1992.
15 May I just ask, Your Honour, is this one of the ones where the
16 signature of Mr. Brdjanin -- may I ask through Your Honour, is this
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Ms. Fauveau.
19 MS. KORNER: It's Mr. Ackerman.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Ackerman. Sorry.
21 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour, I gave Ms. Korner a list of documents
22 that we'd suggest are the signature of Ms. Brdjanin. If this was in that
23 list, then we do not contest it on that basis. If it wasn't in that list,
24 then we do. The list is complete, as far as I know. And if there's any
25 change, I will advise her, but I can't do it standing on my feet right
1 here now.
2 MS. KORNER: All right. Thank you.
3 Your Honour, that was P47.
4 The next document, P48, is objected to, disclosure number 2.272.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Again --
6 MS. KORNER: I think that's withdrawn.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: This bears the signature of Kupresanin, I
9 MR. ACKERMAN: Foundation is waived, Your Honour.
10 MS. KORNER: The next document, which is a fax message, is not
11 objected to. That is P49. A fax message, I should say, dated the 7th of
12 May, 1992.
13 P50, minutes. Now, according to my note, this is objected to.
14 It's the 12th of May session, Banja Luka, disclosure number 2.257.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Again, I would like to address this question to the
16 Defence teams. There seems to be -- it seems to me that this document in
17 its B/C/S version on page 5 bears the stamp of the Republika Srpska and
18 also the signature of --
19 MS. KORNER: Krajisnik.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: -- Krajisnik. Do you maintain your objection?
21 MS. FAUVEAU-IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I withdraw my
23 MR. ACKERMAN: Right now, Your Honours, I must maintain it,
24 because I simply can't figure out what the relationship is between the
25 first five pages and the balance of the document. That may be clear to
1 everyone in the courtroom but me.
2 MS. KORNER: If Mr. Ackerman looks at page 4 of the English
3 translation, he will see there "President of the Assembly, Momcilo
4 Krajisnik," signed, stamped.
5 MR. ACKERMAN: I just can't make heads or tails of what happens
6 after page 5, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.
8 MR. ACKERMAN: It probably is authentic, but I can't say so right
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
11 THE WITNESS: I think I heard the Exhibit number being stated as
13 JUDGE AGIUS: No, it's I think 2.21.
14 MS. KORNER:
15 Q. 2.21. Sorry, my fault.
16 A. 2.21, yes. This document was given to us by the secretary of the
17 RS assembly, Mr. Rajko Stanisic, on 6th of February, 1998 in Pale. And
18 this was received by staff of the Officer of the Prosecutor personally.
19 Q. Yes, thank you.
20 MS. KORNER: P51 is a -- a military document with the number 4.972
21 disclosure. And that's objected to.
22 Q. Mr. Inayat, where did we get that?
23 A. Can you please repeat the exhibit number once again.
24 Q. The disclosure number is 4.972.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: And this is -- before you reply, Mr. Inayat.
1 And Mr. Ackerman and Ms. Fauveau, I refer you to the first and
2 last pages of the B/C/S version of this document. On the first page there
3 on top right, there seems to be a stamp of the 1st Partisan Brigade with a
4 handwritten insert, including the date.
5 On the last page, there is also what is purported to be the
6 signature of Momcilo Dmitrovic. Do you maintain or sustain the objection,
7 or would you like to withdraw it?
8 MR. ACKERMAN: I didn't object.
9 MS. KORNER: It's Ms. Fauveau for General Talic who objected.
10 MS. FAUVEAU-IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I maintain my objection,
11 Your Honours, because it seems that this stamp on the first page does not
12 correspond to the person who signed the document, and the persons in the
13 document do not correspond to the brigade. So I might withdraw my
14 objection if I know the source of the document.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: So -- Mr. Inayat.
16 A. Yes. Disclosure number 4.972, this particular document was given
17 to us by the BiH embassy through their liaison officer on the 31st of
18 October, 1996, and the person who received it in the Office of the
19 Prosecutor is Mr. Johan Du Toit, who is still currently working in the
20 Office of the Prosecutor.
21 MS. KORNER: In fact, he's a lawyer working for the Prosecutor,
22 Your Honour.
23 Then the final document, Your Honour, of the minutes or an excerpt
24 from the transcript of the 50th session of the Assembly of the Republika
25 Srpska, they are objected to.
1 Q. Mr. Inayat, I think you can confirm that this document was
2 personally handed to Mr. O'Donnell. Is that correct?
3 A. Can you please tell me the exhibit number of this.
4 Q. Yes.
5 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, it was referred to in the statement made
6 by Mr. O'Donnell. It's 00845781. Disclosure number, I'm sorry, 2.424.
7 Q. If you look at the original list, Mr. Inayat, you'll see it's
8 referred to with the ERN numbers. It's the last -- if you look at the
9 handwritten note, it's the last document.
10 A. Oh, 00845781?
11 Q. That's the one.
12 A. Yes. This is a document that was given to Mr. O'Donnell. And I
13 believe this was personally given by Mr. Rajko Stanisic, the secretary of
14 the RS assembly. And Mr. O'Donnell received this document.
15 Q. In addition, Mr. O'Donnell would have testified to the fact that a
16 statement was --
17 MR. ACKERMAN: Well, I don't think it's appropriate for Ms. Korner
18 to tell you what he would have testified to. That makes her a witness.
19 MS. KORNER: Is the objection maintained?
20 JUDGE AGIUS: [Microphone not activated]
21 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, he is right. Let's go ahead.
23 Are you finished with the witness for the moment?
24 MS. KORNER: I'm asking if the objection is maintained. I don't
25 want to spend any time proving these things more strictly than I have to,
1 but I will. Is the objection to this -- to the admissibility of this
2 document maintained?
3 MR. ACKERMAN: Well, Your Honour, among other things, I have what
4 might be a ten-page English version and what might be a 200-page B/S/C
5 version. It's impossible to correlate the two. And so, you know, who
6 knows what's not -- it just takes time to work it out. But in any event,
7 there's no signatures or anything like that on it.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. So that's the position. And we'll take
9 it as the objection being maintained.
10 Yes, that's the last document. What we have there is a
11 translation into English of Mr. Kupresanin's speech, and the rest
12 obviously contains much more than that.
13 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated]
14 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the Prosecution.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Microphone.
16 MS. KORNER: It is the P52, the full -- I'm sorry, a partial
17 English translation of the 50th session of the Assembly of the Republika
18 Srpska, but the full transcript is there in the original.
19 Your Honour, those are the documents.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. And you would have objected had the
21 Prosecution not disclosed the full transcript of the meeting in B/C/S.
22 MR. ACKERMAN: Absolutely, Your Honour, that would have been worse
23 than what we have now, probably. May I make a request at this point?
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, certainly.
25 MR. ACKERMAN: Mr. Inayat has, throughout his testimony, referred
1 to and used as a source of information documents - I can't remember what
2 he called them, they are exhibit indexes or something like that -
3 documents that were prepared by the person to whom the document was
4 handed, as a contemporaneous record of that process, and, for example,
5 this MacIntosh or McGregor, or whatever his name is, from the United
6 States who received all these documents from Blagojevic made records at
7 the time that the witness has been referring to. For the purposes of
8 cross-examination, I would ask that copies of those records that the
9 witness has been referring to be provided to me so I can use them during
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Do you have an objection to that?
12 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I note the time. I don't think that
13 there is any problem --
14 JUDGE AGIUS: We have to break.
15 MS. KORNER: -- but may I take the opportunity at the break to
16 consult and if necessary to make --
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Certainly.
18 MS. KORNER: Because that concludes my examination-in-chief.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: There will now be a break of 25 minutes. We will
20 resume at 5 past or 10 past 11.00. Thank you.
21 --- Recess taken at 10.42 a.m.
22 --- On resuming at 11.15 a.m.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: So while we wait for Mr. Inayat, the decision on the
24 Rule 92 bis motion will be handed later on in the day, early in the
25 afternoon, I would suppose.
1 MS. KORNER: Thank you very much, Your Honour. Could I just
2 mention that Mr. Inayat extracted the forms to which he's been referring,
3 or a selection, and we've given them to Mr. Ackerman. They are not
4 copied. They are internal forms and Mr. Ackerman has agreed to hand them
5 back to us at the end.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: So you may sit down.
7 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honours.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: And you will be continuing your evidence on the same
9 solemn declaration that you entered first thing this morning.
10 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you. Yes, Mr. Ackerman?
12 Cross-examined by Mr. Ackerman:
13 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour, I've actually been given four forms.
14 Does this cover all of the documents, these four forms?
15 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, just a selection. We didn't realise
16 that you wanted every single one of them. To extract the whole lot would
17 have taken considerably more than the half-hour break.
18 MR. ACKERMAN: Can I ask the basis upon which this selection was
19 made, so I'll know what I'm dealing with here?
20 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, Mr. Inayat made the selection. Perhaps
21 he can just explain the basis.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: I would imagine so, yes.
23 THE WITNESS: Yes. Your Honours, what I did was, when I was asked
24 to bring these forms down -- first of all, I would have preferred to bring
25 examples for all these documents. However, the computer was -- the
1 network is very slow currently at this point. So what I did was I
2 selected four documents at random, four ERN numbers at random, to give
3 Mr. Ackerman some idea, and all those four forms are for documents that we
4 spoke this morning about.
5 MR. ACKERMAN:
6 Q. I take it you are prepared, are you not, to relate a form that I
7 have to a particular document?
8 A. I think I can.
9 Q. All right.
10 A. If you give me the exhibit number and --
11 Q. I can't go anywhere near that, but maybe you can. We'll get there
12 eventually but I don't want to start that so we will do some other things
13 first. Good morning, Mr. Inayat.
14 A. Good morning.
15 Q. I'm John Ackerman. I'm counsel for Mr. Brdjanin in this case.
16 And I have, I think, not very many questions for you. I want to take you
17 back to your testimony yesterday where you were talking about the various
18 searches and seizures that you did in connection with this case or in
19 connection with maybe more than this case. The first one you talked about
20 was a visit that you made to Prijedor, I believe, on 12 December, 1997?
21 A. That is correct.
22 Q. One of the things that I'm curious about is, when you would go,
23 for instance, to the municipal building in Prijedor, what you were looking
24 for, at least partially, were records from that municipality that were the
25 kind of records that municipality would have kept in the regular course of
1 its business?
2 A. That is correct.
3 Q. And you, in fact, found such records?
4 A. We did.
5 Q. Every time you went to a municipality with a search warrant,
6 whether it was in Prijedor or Banja Luka or any of the other places you
7 might have gone, you would find those kinds of records?
8 A. On the -- as far as the searches of municipal buildings in
9 Prijedor and Banja Luka are concerned, we were able to seize more
10 documents in Prijedor than in Banja Luka.
11 Q. Yes. And my question is: Were you able on, say, that first day
12 in Prijedor, when you seized 53.000 pages of documents, were you able to
13 copy all those and leave copies with the Prijedor municipality for their
14 official records?
15 A. We didn't do that. It was not possible.
16 Q. So you just took the records of that municipality and took them
17 off to The Hague?
18 A. Precisely. That is what we did.
19 Q. Does the Prijedor municipality -- it's just now trying to function
20 without those records?
21 A. We have not returned them any copies, so I guess so.
22 Q. So I take it, then, if some historian were trying to conduct
23 historical research regarding the events that happened in that area during
24 the year 1992, they would have a very difficult time because none of those
25 documents would be available to them?
1 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't think the witness ought to be put in a
2 position to answer that question.
3 MR. ACKERMAN: All right.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: I mean, he's not in a position to answer it.
5 MR. ACKERMAN:
6 Q. What you know -- as far as you know, the documents, the sole
7 repository of those documents now is the Tribunal.
8 A. That's correct.
9 Q. The Prosecutor's office.
10 A. That's correct. The evidence unit.
11 Q. All right. How many -- do you have any idea how many boxes of
12 documents that 53.000 pages that you took from Prijedor involved?
13 A. I'm afraid I cannot give a precise number of boxes that we used,
14 but there were definitely more than 20 boxes.
15 Q. Was it -- I mean, were they carried in a truck or a car, or do you
16 know -- just to give the Tribunal some idea of what a mass this might have
18 A. When you say they were carried, you mean from Prijedor to Zagreb
19 and then on to The Hague?
20 Q. Yes.
21 A. Yes. They were transported in a UN vehicle.
22 Q. A truck?
23 A. A big UN vehicle. Sort of a truck but --
24 Q. Okay. You told us that -- oh, I take it that these searches were
25 not announced in advance. You didn't call up these places in Prijedor and
1 let them know you'd be there next week to do searches.
2 A. No, that was not done.
3 Q. The moment you arrived at the scene was the first that they knew
4 of a search being conducted.
5 A. The local officials at those locations, they found out when we got
6 there, yes.
7 Q. You indicated that you had taken with you people from SFOR and
8 the, I think, IPTP or something like that.
9 A. IPTF.
10 Q. IPTF, for reasons that the area was not totally secure and there
11 were concerns about safety and things of that nature with regard to your
12 presence there and what it was you were doing.
13 A. That is correct.
14 Q. It's true, from the knowledge that you have, at least, from that
15 incident, that the ethnic tensions that existed during the war had not
16 dissipated completely by that time.
17 A. I'm not so sure about the ethnic tensions at that time in 1997.
18 All I tried to point out yesterday was that there was some reservations on
19 our part as to how we will be received by the local officials and --
20 Q. Okay.
21 A. -- whether the searches will be allowed to be done.
22 Q. I want to go -- and I think it will be sufficient just to refer
23 generically to these information index forms. I take it this is a
24 standard form that is used and has been used for some time by the
25 investigative units of this -- of the Prosecutor's office when it gathers
1 up evidence.
2 A. That is correct. And just let me clarify, that before the
3 introduction of the information index form, we had a similar procedure.
4 And that form was called TIF. So from the very beginning, we have had
5 this procedure.
6 Q. Right. And just from looking at these forms, there is certain
7 information that the one who prepares it, that -- I guess that's the
8 person who is designated in the blank "created by." Is that right?
9 A. If you please let me have one copy, and then perhaps I can
11 Q. Absolutely. I assumed you had copies of all these.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Ms. Korner, do you want this document to be placed
13 on the ELMO so that you can follow better?
14 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I'm familiar with the form. I don't
15 think we need -- but if Your Honours want to see it, maybe --
16 MR. ACKERMAN: I think we should put it on the ELMO. I agree,
17 Your Honour.
18 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I'm sorry. Just one moment. Before
19 that happens, it does occur to me that these are internal forms and not
20 really intended for public dissemination, and therefore putting them on
21 the ELMO automatically makes them public. I'm sorry that we didn't manage
22 to get copies, but we can do copies very quickly so that Your Honour
23 can --
24 JUDGE AGIUS: What we can do actually -- we don't need to wait for
25 copies. We can have a look at the document, and then we will know exactly
1 what Mr. Ackerman is referring to and what Mr. Inayat will be responding
3 Mr. Inayat, are you in a position to reply to that question?
4 THE WITNESS: I'd request Mr. Ackerman to please repeat that
5 question once more.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Ackerman, could you repeat the question,
8 MR. ACKERMAN: Yes, I will.
9 Q. There's a space on the form where it says "created by," and then
10 there are some letters that appear in there. I assume that identifies the
11 person who created this particular index form.
12 A. That is correct. That's his last name, and plus the initial of
13 the first name.
14 Q. Yes. And that would have been a person who was present at the
15 time the document was seized, whether it was the thing you were doing
16 there at the municipal building in Prijedor where you were making these
17 records or -- or what. But the person would have been present when it
18 was --
19 A. That is not the case. Normally, a document would be created by an
20 investigator who has received the documents. But if these are B/C/S
21 documents and we don't understand the substance, then what we do is pass
22 on the information to a special section where B/C/S language staff can
23 create these documents for us. So most often you will find that the
24 person who has created the document may not have actually been the person
25 who has seized or received the document.
1 Q. So that person, the one I'm looking at, has a series of letters
2 beginning with the letter "B," B-e -- and I -- and I don't think I should
3 read it all. But begins with the letter "B," and that person then would
4 receive information from the person who is designated as the receiver.
5 A. That is correct, yes.
6 Q. And then transfer that information onto a form such as this.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. So there must be some other form that is between the receiver and
9 the information index form.
10 A. Yes. If we have a large collection of documents that have to be
11 IF-ed, that is, information indexed, what we do is we receive from the
12 evidence unit a pre-IF form. That particular form has to be filled in by
13 the person who has received these documents. What he will do is -- or
14 she -- she will indicate where documents are received from, who received
15 them, who submitted them, and this pre-IF form then will go along with the
16 documents to the person who will create these IFs. So that person has the
17 information. So we have the pre-IF forms also.
18 Q. If that person were to come to me, for instance, and I were to
19 say, "I have these six documents for you," and I were to describe to him
20 those documents and say, for instance, "These documents are drafts that
21 were never circulated, but I thought you might like to have them," where
22 is that recorded, or is it?
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Inayat, are you aware of any such cases, to
24 start with?
25 THE WITNESS: Personally, Your Honours, I'm not aware of such a
2 JUDGE AGIUS: So are you in a position to answer that question?
3 THE WITNESS: I'd rather not, because that may not be correct
5 MR. ACKERMAN:
6 Q. But my only question is: Is there, in the process by which you
7 receive documents, is there a provision for recording in any way the
8 representation that the person who turns over the document makes to the
9 investigator at the time the document is turned over?
10 A. I personally have been present at three such searches where
11 persons were giving us the documents. But perhaps I did point this out
12 yesterday that the sheer amount of documents were so much that it was not
13 possible for the person who was giving us the documents to get into these
14 kind of details.
15 Q. Okay. I think maybe I -- I think the way I've asked the question
16 has misled you, and I didn't mean to do that.
17 Let me talk specifically about the situation where Grant MacIntosh
18 was handed documents by Boro Blagojevic. Is there any provision in the
19 way your office handles documents for Mr. MacIntosh to have recorded in
20 any way what it was that Boro Blagojevic, the representations that he made
21 about what these documents were?
22 A. First of all, let me inform you that Mr. Boro Blagojevic indicated
23 documents to Mr. Grant MacIntosh and other members of the staff. Members
24 of the staff then went through those folders and identified the documents
25 that they wanted. It wasn't that Mr. Boro Blagojevic was selecting those
1 documents for us. The members of the Office of the Prosecutor selected
2 those documents and when they came back, they submitted that evidence with
3 the IF form.
4 Q. So Mr. Blagojevic just gave investigators from your office access
5 to a series of documents or a file of documents or files of documents?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. All right. And to your knowledge, there was never any
8 communication between them and Mr. Blagojevic regarding what the documents
9 actually were, what they represented, that he made no representations to
10 them with regard to the documents, to your knowledge?
11 A. I think Mr. Grant MacIntosh, if he's called, perhaps can answer
12 that question. I can't.
13 Q. Now, another thing that I see on this form is -- if you go down
14 into kind of the second section of the form where it has type, language,
15 date, things of that nature?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. There are designations across there, "chain of custody, no." What
18 does that mean?
19 A. That the document was not seized under the procedure of chain of
20 custody. That's what it means. Had it been seized under chain of custody
21 procedures, then the answer would have been yes.
22 Q. What are chain of custody procedures?
23 A. I'm told there is a senior investigator, Your Honours, in this
24 Office of the Prosecutor who is currently a deputy investigation
25 commander, who has been dealing with all chain of custody matters.
1 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, if -- I didn't think chain of custody
2 was an issue, but if there is an issue on chain of custody, I will call
3 the investigator who is qualified to deal with it.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: A question on what procedure was precisely followed
5 in chain of custody is very pertinent, but I don't think the witness is in
6 a position or should be asked that question. I don't think he is the
7 person, the right person, to answer that question.
8 MR. ACKERMAN: I'm not asking about any specific documents, Your
9 Honour, but just what that particular blank means.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. But he is not the ideal person or the best
11 evidence that you could have on the subject. I mean, you have the word of
12 the Prosecution that should information be required on the procedure
13 followed in chain of custody, that would be made -- that would be brought
15 MR. ACKERMAN:
16 Q. So as a team leader of an investigative team, you don't have
17 information about what these things on here mean?
18 A. No, I do. But I was only saying that I'm not qualified to give
19 more exhaustive detailed information on chain of custody. I know that
20 normally when we seize material during search and seizure operations,
21 chain of custody procedures are followed, and that's what I was trying to
22 explain yesterday also, that an evidence register form is created under
23 the chain of custody procedures.
24 Q. Well, you actually create these forms yourself at times, do you
1 A. Yes, we do.
2 Q. I mean you specifically.
3 A. I have created over a couple of hundred such forms.
4 Q. And one of the things that you have to complete when you do that
5 is this question, chain of custody?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And you must have some knowledge about what you're supposed to put
9 A. I have the knowledge - this is what I'm telling you - that if I
10 have seized material in the field, and if these are original documents,
11 like we did in 2000 October in Prijedor Police Station and some other
12 places, we created those forms on the chain of custody and I put the
13 answer here "yes," to show that.
14 Q. Okay. That's fine. Thank you. I assume the blank signed and
15 certified referred to whether or not the document is signed and whether or
16 not it's certified?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. So if you acquire a document that has a signature on it, you would
19 put "yes," it's signed; if you acquire a document that is certified as a
20 true copy of a document that's in a record somewhere, you could put "yes"
21 on certified?
22 A. That's correct.
23 Q. Okay. You've spoken -- I'm through now talking to you about these
24 documents, Mr. Inayat. Thank you very much.
25 You have spoken about an organisation called AID, and you've told
1 us what AID stands for. Could you tell me again?
2 A. My understanding is that AID stands for Agency for Investigation
3 and Documentation.
4 Q. That's an agency of what organisation?
5 A. Formerly this agency was known as the State Security Service, the
6 SDB, and in January of 1996, it was transformed and called Agency for
7 Investigation and Documentation.
8 Q. Does it belong to an NGO or a government or --
9 A. No, no. It belongs to -- it's a government agency.
10 Q. Of what government?
11 A. Under the BiH government.
12 Q. Okay. And their mission is to gather documents regarding events
13 during the war? Is that what they are doing?
14 A. And also to take statements from victims and witnesses.
15 Q. So they are basically investigators of what happened during the
16 war in Bosnia-Herzegovina?
17 A. That's correct.
18 Q. And they work on behalf of the BiH government in that regard?
19 A. I believe so.
20 Q. And when you talk about receiving documents from the MUP in
21 Sarajevo, what you're talking about is the Bosnia-Herzegovina Ministry of
22 the Interior?
23 A. That is correct.
24 MR. ACKERMAN: Thank you. That's all I have.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Ms. Fauveau, would you like to cross-examine
1 the witness?
2 MS. FAUVEAU-IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I will have a few
3 questions, yes.
4 Cross-examined by Ms. Fauveau-Ivanovic:
5 Q. Good morning, sir. I'm Natasha Fauveau-Ivanovic and I represent
6 General Talic. I would like us to go back to the documents seized in
7 Banja Luka for a moment. You told us yesterday that these documents were
8 seized simultaneously at different locations?
9 A. That's correct.
10 Q. You also said that you were in the municipal building?
11 A. For the most part of the day, yes, I was in the municipal
13 Q. Were you at any given moment at the Security Services Centre, in
14 the radio building or in the presidential palace?
15 A. I did not visit any of those three locations that you've just
17 Q. In that case, I will limit my questions to the town hall
18 building. In the town hall, you said that you were together with
19 representatives of SFOR and IPTF. Were there also any officials of the
20 Republika Srpska present there?
21 A. Yes. I apologise if I didn't mention that yesterday. For our own
22 protection, the RS authorities also assigned RS police officers and they
23 accompanied us throughout the search and seizure operation.
24 Q. During the seizure of documents, did you select documents or did
25 you take all the documents? Did you make a selection?
1 A. Yes. We did select documents. I mean, of course, there was a lot
2 of material available to us, and of course, we couldn't have picked up
3 everything. So we were making a random selection. So you are right. I
4 mean, I confirm that selection was made to some extent.
5 Q. Could you explain to us on the basis of which criteria you made
6 that selection?
7 A. We were, of course, interested basically in the 1991, 1992 period,
8 documents pertaining to this specific period, and also early 1993. So as
9 we were searching the material that was all made available to us, we had
10 access to any place we wanted to go to, we were specifically looking for
11 the material that was for 1991, 1992 and 1993. We were, of course, very
12 keen to look for municipal assembly documents such as minutes, meetings,
13 and memorandums, and similarly we were also interested in seeking out
14 documents of the outgoing and the incoming correspondence between the
15 municipal assembly and the municipal authorities, between other organs of
16 the Banja Luka municipality. So -- but primarily we were focusing on the
17 1992, 1993 period, with the municipal assembly documentation.
18 Q. During this seizure, did you use the official register of the
19 municipality, the register of their documents?
20 A. I apologise, I don't quite recall that such a register was made
21 available to us.
22 Q. When seizing these documents in the town hall building, can you
23 confirm that all those documents were official documents of the
24 municipality, or is it possible that there may have been private documents
25 that happened to be among them?
1 A. Before I answer this question, I would just like to clarify myself
2 on a previous question that you asked about the criteria. I need to point
3 out that during our searches, we were also very keen to look for documents
4 pertinent to the ARK assembly, the Autonomous Region of Krajina assembly,
5 and the ARK Crisis Staff meetings, and we couldn't find really much on
7 To your question, I believe I'll have to go and review the
8 evidence register forms once again. I personally believe that most of the
9 material that we seized was official, that consisted of official
11 Q. Yes, but my question was: Is it possible that among those
12 documents there may have been one or two that were not official?
13 A. We seized over 145.000 pages of documents from the municipal
14 building and the CSB, so I'm afraid I just can't say at this point of time
15 that we may have seized a couple of documents that were private in nature
16 and not official.
17 Q. So it's possible, then, is it not?
18 A. Everything is possible.
19 Q. I am not quite sure whether this is part of your competence, but I
20 would like to know when this indication "ERN" was placed on the
22 A. You mean specifically on the documents that were seized from the
23 municipal building in Banja Luka?
24 Q. Yes, yes.
25 A. The document was, as I pointed out yesterday, seized on 27th of
1 February, 1998. Then the documents were transported to the Tribunal. And
2 it -- we started the scanning process very soon. And at that point the
3 ERN numbers, the unique 16-digit numbers, were assigned to each and every
4 page that was seized.
5 Q. Is it possible that this reference number was not placed on all
6 the documents?
7 A. When the documentation was transported to The Hague, the team
8 immediately assigned log managers who took custody of this documentation.
9 And I personally am not aware that any of the Banja Luka municipal
10 documents escaped registration of ERN numbers. I personally am not aware
11 of that, because I believe that the log managers did a very good job and
12 controlled the documents thoroughly and in a very competent manner.
13 Q. Could you please explain to us --
14 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, again, it isn't something which is in
15 Mr. Inayat's competence, but there are people available who can explain
16 the stamping process, because it was handed over, as he says, to other
18 JUDGE AGIUS: In any case, Mr. Inayat is confirming that he is not
19 aware of any such -- at all.
20 MS. FAUVEAU-IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I'm asking
21 this question because we have received so many CD-ROMs with 10.000
22 documents with no reference on them, and allegedly they come from the
23 municipality building and the Banja Luka radio building.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Well, that may be the case, but you can't expect
25 Mr. Inayat to reply to your question if he is not -- if he doesn't have
1 these documents in front of him. And in any case, one has to see first
2 whether he is the person who could provide us with the correct explanation
3 for that.
4 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, may I say that if Ms. Fauveau wants an
5 explanation of why they didn't have numbers, we can give it to her. But
6 it's not something, as Your Honour says, this witness can deal with it.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Proceed with some other question, please.
8 Thank you.
9 MS. FAUVEAU-IVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. The documents given to you by AID or another physical or moral
11 person, did those persons indicate the source from which they obtained
12 those documents?
13 A. The documents that were given to us by the AID in Bihac,
14 especially during November 1995 and April 1996, that's when -- the biggest
15 collection has come from AID. The operatives who had seized the material
16 gave us the information as to how these documents were received. The
17 members of the Office of the Prosecutor even visited those premises from
18 where those documents were seized. So they did give us this information
19 as to when and how these documentation was seized.
20 Q. Is this specific for AID of Bihac or also for other bodies, for
21 example, the Ministry of the Interior or the Embassy of
23 A. I think I should make it very clear that majority of the documents
24 that have been given to us by AID offices outside Bihac, they deal with
25 witness statements that the AID officials had taken of witnesses and
1 victims. So it's quite clear, because the witnesses do mention at the
2 beginning of their statement the time and date when they had been
3 interviewed and the person who has interviewed them, so I must trust this
4 that the majority of the documents given to us by AID are witness
6 Q. As regards the Embassy of Bosnia and the Ministry of the Interior,
7 what about those?
8 A. The biggest collection that has come from the Ministry of
9 Interior, which we pointed out, the Sarajevo collection, those documents
10 were identified. Almost, like, 23.000 pages of documents were identified
11 by the Office of the Prosecutor -- staff from the Office of the
12 Prosecutor. And we knew -- we had been told how this collection had come
13 to the hands of the Ministry of Interior, so we are aware of where those
14 documents have come from.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment. I think the question referred to
16 documents obtained from the Embassy of Bosnia and Herzegovina --
17 THE WITNESS: Yes.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: -- here in The Hague, I would suppose.
19 THE WITNESS: Yes. I think her question was Ministry of Interior
20 and Embassy of Bosnia-Herzegovina. So I've answered Ministry of
22 JUDGE AGIUS: What about the embassy?
23 THE WITNESS: Yes. The Bosnian embassy has been forwarding us, I
24 would say, documents which sometimes have been duplicates of what we have
25 already received from Bihac and from other local offices in -- of AID
1 offices in Bosnia. And again, let me point out that a lot of the material
2 given to us by the liaison officers have been witness statements. They
3 are of course documents that the BiH forces seized which have also been
4 given to us, that is, copies of what we already got in Bihac earlier.
5 MS. FAUVEAU-IVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. What I'm really interested in: Would it be possible that an organ
7 of Bosnia-Herzegovina or a private person could give you a document which
8 is not a witness statement without identifying the source of that
10 A. As far as witnesses are concerned, I don't think that is possible,
11 because it is true witnesses have also given us documents, but the
12 investigator who has taken possession of those documents is then
13 duty-bound to ask for the source. So I don't believe that there are such
14 cases where witnesses have given us documents where sources were not asked
15 for. However, it is possible that the AID offices when investigators
16 visit the field may have given documents and the investigators may have
17 not checked about the sources of that point.
18 Q. So you do have documents in your offices the source of which is
19 not known?
20 A. In 1999, I know that many such documents where we did not have the
21 sources, the staff from Office of the Prosecutor visited the field to
22 authenticate those documents, that is, to compare the copies that we had
23 with the originals that were being maintained in the field with the BiH
24 authorities. And a lot of certification did take place. And personally I
25 have reviewed in this exhibit list that I prepared that many documents
1 have been certified in 1999 by our staff from the Office of the Prosecutor
2 of the material that you're referring to.
3 MS. FAUVEAU-IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I have no further
4 questions, Mr. President and Your Honours.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
6 Ms. Korner.
7 Re-examined by Ms. Korner:
8 Q. Mr. Inayat, just dealing with that last point, when you say that
9 the documents in the exhibit list were, as it were, certified in 1999, can
10 you explain what you mean by that?
11 A. Yes. In 1999, staff from the Office of the Prosecutor had
12 identified key documents or, I would say, very important documents that
13 were relevant to the ongoing investigations, and they took copies of those
14 documents to Bihac where the -- all the seized collection is -- is being
15 kept - excuse me - while in Bihac, staff of the Office of the Prosecutor
16 then reviewed the copies we had and compared them with the originals that
17 were being maintained in Bihac. After they had satisfied themselves that
18 the copies we have are true copies of the originals, then the staff
19 stamped those copies and signed those copies before bringing it back. So
20 this is what I mean by "certification," or sometimes it is also referred
21 as "authentication."
22 Q. So that was a check to make sure that where we had only been
23 provided with copies, the original was the same.
24 A. Yes. And let me just -- I beg to intervene and clarify something
25 else, that this particular exercise had been also visually certified in
1 1995 and 1996. The person who received the copies in 1995 and 1996 had
2 visually certified by looking at the copies, comparing those with the
3 originals. So what happened in 1999 was to support that certification
4 process one step ahead, you know, by stamping the material.
5 Q. So in other words, you mean that the original investigator who had
6 taken possession would have checked that the two appeared to -- or it
7 wasn't a copy of the original document but hadn't stamped it to say that.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. All right. Now, the only -- the question, actually, was to deal
10 with the source. Are there documents -- what was put to you is there are
11 documents in this institution of which the source, actually where the
12 document comes from, is unknown. Now, are you able to reply about that --
13 a question like that?
14 A. If those documents are mentioned in the disclosure list, then I
15 can say with certainty that there is not a single document where the
16 source is unknown. There may be just one, as I said yesterday, but I can
17 look for the source of that document.
18 But if her question was in a very general way, well, if it was --
19 is there any document in the whole Tribunal - I can't answer that - which
20 has not been sourced properly?
21 JUDGE AGIUS: [Microphone not activated]
22 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please. Your Honour.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: I think, Ms. Korner, this was taken up yesterday
24 when you were examining your witness. And if I remember well, and I think
25 I do remember well, when we visited SU, being "source unknown," you said
1 that documents falling under that category would no longer fall under that
2 category because now the source had been established in the meantime.
3 That's what you said yesterday.
4 MS. KORNER: I didn't say it. The witness said it.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, exactly.
6 MS. KORNER: There was a rather more general question put by
7 Ms. Fauveau.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. But he has replied to that.
9 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, those are all the questions I ask in
10 relation to this exercise. Do Your Honours have any questions for the
12 JUDGE AGIUS: I personally don't. No.
13 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, thank you, then. If Mr. Inayat may step
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
16 MS. KORNER: May I explain what I propose to do if this exercise
17 is to be maintained. Of course there's still for Your Honours to make a
18 ruling whether or not the documents which were the subject of objection
19 should be admitted. But if these objections are going to be maintained,
20 then I'm going to recall Mr. Inayat before we start the Banja Luka
21 evidence to deal with the whole bundle of Banja Luka documents that we
22 wish to put into evidence, going through exactly the same, if I can put it
23 that way, rather tedious procedure and deal with the documents in those --
24 in that way. We will, however, this time pre-number the documents so that
25 we don't have the confusion which was caused by me this morning.
1 Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Inayat.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. You may withdraw, thank you.
3 Yes, Mr. Ackerman.
4 MR. ACKERMAN: Well, I have a suggestion that I think will
5 eliminate or at least cut down dramatically this tedious procedure that we
6 just went through. It seems to me that it is -- tends to be a waste of
7 the Tribunal's time for Mr. Inayat to be called in here to say this
8 document came from such and such a source.
9 [The witness withdrew]
10 MR. ACKERMAN: If Ms. Korner would simply give us the information
11 that she would elicit from him, that would dispose of perhaps most, if not
12 all, of the foundation objections that we have.
13 For instance, today's documents, if I had known before Mr. Inayat
14 testified what he was going to say about many of these documents, I would
15 have withdrawn my objections. It's clear that they did come from an
16 official source.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Ms. Fauveau, would you associate yourself with
18 Mr. Ackerman in that practical suggestion?
19 MS. FAUVEAU-IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President, Your
20 Honours, I support Mr. Ackerman's proposition.
21 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, in fact both Defence counsel are in
22 possession of the indices which identify in each case the source, not to
23 the same extent that Mr. Inayat has done today, in other words, that it
24 was an investigator called Grant MacIntosh. But in the accompanying
25 annex, one will see the legend which indicates every source. If what's
1 required in each case is to identify which investigator from which person,
2 then yes, certainly we can do that.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: So I take it that this is what you will be doing?
4 MS. KORNER: Well, if that's what's required, because the source,
5 as I say, is already indicated on the index. So if I could just ask
6 whether we're required to go into more depth, then we'll do that.
7 MS. FAUVEAU-IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] If I may be more specific,
8 the index that Ms. Korner is referring to, the presumed author is
9 indicated and not the source of the document.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Ackerman?
11 MR. ACKERMAN: I don't think anywhere in that index it says that
12 these documents we were dealing with this morning came from Boro
13 Blagojevic. I don't think that's there.
14 MS. KORNER: That's certainly correct. If that's the sort of
15 information, we will do that exercise. Your Honour, that's very helpful,
16 and I'm grateful to both counsel for that assistance.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: The Chamber too is grateful. That's how actually we
18 would like to see this trial proceed, with this spirit of cooperation.
19 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, then the only matter remains for Your
20 Honours to make a ruling before Mr. Donia comes back, whether the
21 documents that were the subject of dispute should be admitted into
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, and I think we will need to suspend the sitting
24 for a while in order to do that.
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE AGIUS: So the sitting is being suspended for half an hour,
2 30 minutes. We will resume at 12.30 sharp and we will come back with an
3 oral decision, obviously.
4 In the meantime, please do prepare Dr. Donia to start giving
5 evidence because then we will not break as we would have done at half past
7 MS. KORNER: Yes.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
9 --- Break taken at 12.02 p.m.
10 --- On resuming at 12.38 p.m.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Good or bad news, Mr. Cayley?
12 MR. CAYLEY: No news, Your Honour, which is, of course, always
13 good news. Dr. Donia is here. He's getting used to his almost permanent
14 stay now in The Hague. The only thing left to do is for you to rule on
15 the documents and --
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Precisely what we are going to do, with the
17 understanding that this is an oral decision which will remain an oral
18 decision. It will be not -- it will not be reduced into writing, unlike
19 the decision that we gave yesterday.
20 This is an oral decision which this Trial Chamber is giving on the
21 objections raised by the Defence teams of the two accused as to the
22 admissibility of several documents on which Mr. Inayat gave evidence this
23 morning. The Chamber's decision gathers together all these documents
24 objected to in one basket because in its opinion what will be decided
25 applies equally to each of these documents irrespective of the source of
1 the objection.
2 The Trial Chamber is of the opinion, the unanimous opinion, that
3 on the basis of its oral decision of yesterday, January the 28th, relating
4 to the various rules of admissibility of evidence that will be followed in
5 the course of these proceedings, all the contested documents deserve to be
6 admitted in evidence at this stage, particularly for the reasons that I
7 will be mentioning.
8 First, the testimony of Mr. Inayat attributes to each of these
9 documents a source, which in the present circumstances this Trial Chamber
10 has no reason to doubt, saving of course the eventual weight which will or
11 will not be given to the same documents, depending on the evidence that
12 will be forthcoming.
13 Second, the terms in which the various objections raised by the
14 Defence teams were conceived and presented are not such, in the opinion of
15 the Trial Chamber, as to render the said documents a priori devoid of
16 those indicia of reliability which the testimony of Mr. Inayat generally
17 attributes to them.
18 In the circumstances, therefore, the Trial Chamber is of the
19 opinion and is actually disposing of the matter by authorising the
20 admission in evidence of the documents in question.
21 There is, however, a small number of documents that, as it
22 transpired in the course of this morning's -- first part of this morning's
23 hearing, have not yet been translated from B/C/S into the other languages
24 of this Tribunal, particularly the English language. The Trial Chamber is
25 deciding that their present admission will be reversed by this Trial
1 Chamber if the translated version of these documents is not made available
2 to the Defence and to this Trial Chamber within two weeks from today.
3 I think we are giving ample time for this exercise. We're not
4 talking of a large number of documents, and I think they can even -- on
5 basing on the system which you proposed yesterday, they could be
6 translated rather quickly. We are giving two weeks, in order not to put
7 pressure on you.
8 The registrar is also being directed hereby to give to all the
9 documents exhibited this morning and admitted in evidence the official
10 exhibit number.
11 And that disposes of the matter. So I suppose we could now -- if
12 you have nothing to add, we could now proceed by calling Dr. Donia, and he
13 will resume his evidence from where he left it - he never really started
14 it - but from where he left it on the first or the second day of this
16 MR. CAYLEY: Yes, Your Honour. Just for absolute clarity -- your
17 order is very clear, but just so that we know when you're referring to
18 those documents, we're referring to the documents that are numbered
19 Prosecutor's Exhibit 33 to 52, that those are admitted subject to the
20 exceptions that you've mentioned in respect of translations.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. 3 to 52.
22 MR. CAYLEY: 3 to 52.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: The two volumes, the two binders, what was
24 originally going to be and, I suppose, remains as the group of documents
25 on which Dr. Donia will be examined.
1 MR. CAYLEY: Yes, Your Honour. Yes.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: And the other document -- the other binder, which I
3 suppose would serve the same purpose, the second binder is also documents
4 on which Dr. Donia will be examined. No?
5 MR. CAYLEY: That's right, Your Honour, yes.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Exactly. So that is the position. I'm saying that
7 the registrar must now proceed to give these documents their proper
8 exhibit number, because a document does not really remain a document for
9 the purposes of the trial. The moment it is admitted in evidence, it
10 becomes an exhibit. And this is why I prefer, like other of my colleagues
11 in other Trial Chambers, to use the same matter. Okay?
12 MR. CAYLEY: Yes, thank you.
13 Your Honour, can we recall Dr. Donia, please.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, please bring Dr. Donia in the courtroom.
15 Now, Mr. Cayley, we need not wait for Dr. Donia, actually. But I
16 would imagine that although Dr. Donia would have a copy of all these
17 documents, they are probably not numbered the same reference -- exhibit
18 numbers that we gave them this morning.
19 MR. CAYLEY: The witness has actually been following these
20 proceedings, which he's allowed to do under the Rules, and he's actually
21 numbered all of his documents basically.
22 [The witness entered court]
23 MR. CAYLEY: What I propose to do, Your Honours, is if the Defence
24 agree to this, is I will reference the tab number in the binder to
25 identify where the document is in Your Honour's files and the --
1 JUDGE AGIUS: And also --
2 MR. CAYLEY: -- and I will also mention the exhibit number at that
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Agreed. We can proceed.
5 Now, Dr. Donia, you will be handed -- will be given the same
6 declaration that you were given the first time you came before this Trial
7 Chamber, and you will be asked to make the usual solemn declaration.
8 Thank you.
9 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
10 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
11 WITNESS: ROBERT J. DONIA [Resumed]
12 JUDGE AGIUS: You may sit down.
13 Now, Mr. Cayley from the Prosecution will continue his
15 MR. CAYLEY: Thank you, Your Honour.
16 Examined by Mr. Cayley: [Continued]
17 Q. Dr. Donia, I'll just let you get settled. If you could have
18 available your report. And I'd like to very briefly recap where we were
19 last time in order to orientate everybody after these few days' break.
20 And if you could go to page 42 of your report, which is the
21 section on regionalisation.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And what I would very briefly like you to do -- I don't want you
24 to go over the general section on regionalisation, but I'd like you to
25 very briefly summarise the section which begins "Regionalisation in
1 Bosnian Krajina," which will take us right into the first series of
2 documents which I'd like you to address.
3 A. In April 1991, the SDS announced that it had begun a -- an effort
4 to form a -- an association or a community of municipalities of the
5 Bosnian Krajina, and I indicated that that began in January of 1991.
6 On April 10th, 11th, and 12th, a number of municipalities with
7 Serbian majority populations in which the SDS controlled an absolute
8 majority of the municipal councils, assemblies, on those three days, a
9 number of those municipalities declared their membership in the community
10 or -- community or municipalities of Bosnian Krajina or the ZOBK.
11 Q. Now, Dr. Donia, if you could refer to the first document in your
12 binder, which is Prosecutor's Exhibit 3.
13 MR. CAYLEY: This, Mr. President, is a document that you will
14 recall was, in fact, very kindly orally translated by the Defence on the
15 last occasion that Dr. Donia was giving evidence. I don't think we need
16 address the translation again.
17 Q. Dr. Donia, what is this document?
18 A. This document reflects the decision of the Municipal Assembly of
19 Kljuc on the 10th of April, 1991 to join the ZOBK.
20 Q. And if you go to the next document, which appears behind Tab 1.
21 And that's Prosecutor's Exhibit 4.
22 MR. CAYLEY: It might be helpful if the English version of this
23 could be placed on the ELMO for the purposes of the public.
24 Q. Whilst we're waiting for this, Dr. Donia - the Judges and the
25 Defence have a copy of this document - could you explain what this
1 document is, very briefly.
2 A. This is the decision of the Municipal Assembly of Titov Drvar on
3 10 April 1991 to join the ZOBK.
4 Q. We'll move to the next document, because they are all very
5 similar. If you go to document behind tab 2, could you explain what that
6 document is? That is Prosecutor's Exhibit 5.
7 A. This is the decision of the Bosanski Petrovac municipal assembly
8 to withdraw from or separate from the socialist-era association of
9 municipalities known as the Bihac Intermunicipal Regional Community.
10 Q. I'm not going to go through all of these documents with you. If
11 you could go to tab 5, the document behind tab 5, which is Prosecutor's
12 Exhibit 8, what is that document?
13 A. This is the decision of the municipal assembly of Laktasi to join
14 the ZOBK on 11 April, 1991.
15 Q. And the last in this series of documents, which is behind tab 6
16 and is Prosecutor's Exhibit 9, what is that document?
17 A. That is the decision of the Bosanska Gradiska municipality to join
18 the ZOBK.
19 Q. Now, Dr. Donia, you've addressed five documents, and those
20 documents, I think, are dated the 10th and 11th of April, 1991, the
21 decisions of these various municipalities. What conclusions did you draw
22 based on the examination of that series of documents, and in particular
23 with reference to the dates?
24 A. Well, the municipalities in question all voted to join the ZOBK
25 within two days, and that led me to conclude that these decisions were a
1 reflection of the SDS decision earlier in April to promote this ZOBK for
2 Serbian-majority municipalities.
3 Q. You've testified here before, Dr. Donia, but if you could try and
4 pause between my question and your answer, that assists the interpreters,
5 because they are also having to find these documents as well, as we go
7 Now, in respect of these declarations, have you seen any other
8 evidence that actually supports the fact that these decisions were made by
9 these municipalities?
10 A. Yes. The Banja Luka newspaper Glas, or Voice, followed these
11 developments very closely and reported on a number of municipalities that
12 voted to associate themselves with the ZOBK on the 10th, 11th and 12th of
14 Q. Can you recall from your memory any of the particular
15 municipalities, the decisions of which we produced to the Court today,
16 that were referred to in those newspaper reports, any single example?
17 A. I can't recall. I thought I had listed the municipalities in my
18 paper but perhaps not. I do recall there was at least one municipality
19 which was mentioned both in the newspaper and by decision of the municipal
20 assembly as reflected in the documents.
21 Q. If I could direct you to page 45 of your report, do you have that
22 in front of you?
23 A. Yes, I do.
24 Q. Could you explain to the Judges the reaction of other political
25 parties in Bosnia to the creation of the ZOBK and these various
1 declarations by municipalities in the Krajina region?
2 A. The reaction in the first instance was considerable surprise. The
3 leaders of the SDA criticised this development as a step taken by a single
4 nation and one party, that is the Serbs and the SDS, and leaders of the
5 other national party, the HDZ, similarly criticised the formation or these
6 announcements as sudden and as having no basis in the relationship to the
7 Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Serbs, who were members of other
8 parties, also reacted strongly. Milorad Dodik, the leader of the
9 Reformist Party in the Bosnian Krajina, noted that his party was not a
10 participant in this initiative, and said it was the act of a single party,
11 the SDS, and suggested that it was required to work this out with the
12 government of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina. A spokesman for the
13 Social Democratic Party expressed a similar concern that his party had
14 learned of this only when the municipal assembly sessions were convened by
15 their SDS presidents.
16 Q. How did the other political parties in the municipality of Kljuc
17 react to the fact that the municipality had become a member of the ZOBK?
18 A. In the Kljuc municipality, representatives of two other parties,
19 the SDA and MBO, two Muslim-dominated parties, stated that they had been
20 misled into thinking that they were electing delegates to the old assembly
21 -- or association of the Banja Luka municipalities and under that guise,
22 they were brought into association with this yet to be formed ZOBK.
23 Q. What happened in Banja Luka at this time as a result of these
25 A. There was an effort in Banja Luka by the SDS leadership to vote in
1 the municipal assembly for association with the ZOBK. However, the SDS
2 did not have an absolute majority in that municipal assembly, which was
3 large, it was 130 deputies. And in addition, one party member was opposed
4 to forming ZOBK. Consequently, the SD -- or the municipal assembly of
5 Banja Luka had not voted to join the ZOBK until very late in April.
6 Q. When you say "one party member," which party are you referring
7 to? You said one party member objected.
8 A. One member of the SDS objected.
9 Q. To joining the ZOBK?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. What happened in Banja Luka on the 21st of April of 1991, as
12 referred to in your report?
13 A. You mean the 25th? No, the --
14 Q. On page 46 of your report you refer to a rally in Banja Luka?
15 A. Oh, yes. I'm sorry. The SDA, not content with these statements
16 of surprise and opposition, organised a rally in Banja Luka, attended by
17 some thousands of people, to protest the decision to move forward by these
18 municipalities of the ZOBK.
19 Q. And just to be clear, that was on the 21st of April?
20 A. That was on the 21st, yes.
21 Q. Let's move ahead a little bit in time to the 25th of April of
22 1991, and if you can explain to the judges what was happening in the
23 municipality of Celinac?
24 [Technical difficulty]
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. It should be okay now. You can proceed.
1 Yes. Dr. Donia, I'm going to read out to you what you had just
2 stated before the interpretation equipment registered a halt. You said,
3 "Oh, yes. I am sorry. The SDA, not content with these statements of
4 surprise and opposition, organised a rally in Banja Luka attended by some
5 thousands of people to protest the decision to move forward by these
6 municipalities of the ZOBK.
7 And just to be clear, that was on the 21st of April?
8 That was on the 21st, yes.
9 Let's move ahead a little bit in time to the 25th of April of
10 1991. And if you can explain to the Judges what was happening in the
11 municipality of Celinac."
12 That was the question which Mr. Cayley put to you. And you had
13 started replying to that question --
14 THE WITNESS: I'll repeat that, if you wish.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, please, because that was missed completely by
16 the interpreters, or the interpretation did not come through, anyway.
17 MR. CAYLEY: Mr. President, could I just intervene on one matter.
18 Q. Dr. Donia, because the translation of the Glas article was
19 essentially done by you, if you could read word for word that extract from
20 your report into the transcript, rather than summarise it. That's on page
22 A. I'll do that, yes.
23 Q. Thank you.
24 A. On April 25, 1991, the organising assembly, constituent assembly
25 of the ZOBK was held in the municipality of Celinac. There were
1 representatives of 21 municipalities present. 14 of those municipalities
2 had already voted in their municipal assemblies to join the ZOBK.
3 At that meeting, Mr. Radoslav Brdjanin welcomed the delegates on
4 behalf of Celinac, the host municipality, and used the words in part:
5 "We reject the Izetbegovic position of some state (structure)
6 between federation and confederation. And if we go toward economic,
7 cultural, and informational autonomy, we will seek people in this region
8 who want to remain in Bosnia, but Bosnia remains in Yugoslavia. If
9 (Izetbegovic) wavers on (supporting) the federation, we will waver on the
10 Republic. We don't accept centralisation of economic and political power
11 in Sarajevo."
12 At that meeting, a president of the ZOBK was elected; that was
13 Mr. Vojo Kupresanin. And two vice-presidents were selected from the
14 remaining candidates; those were Mr. Brdjanin and Mr. Dragan Knezevic.
15 In subsequent speeches, the president, the newly elected
16 president, further asserted this theme of economic disadvantage in the
17 Krajina imposed by Sarajevo and expressed solidarity with Serbs living in
19 Q. Dr. Donia, you stated earlier that 21 municipalities attended this
20 meeting, 14 of whom had actually, I think -- you mention -- if you go to
21 the bottom of page 46, you state: "21 municipalities attended, although
22 only 14 municipalities had voted to join the association." And then you
23 talk about the population distribution in those municipalities.
24 If you can go to Table 1 in the body of your report, which is on
25 page 48. Perhaps you can explain to the Judges exactly what you were
1 getting at when you stated that.
2 A. Well, I simply profiled the 1991 census results of the 14
3 municipalities that had voted by that time, by the 25th of April, to join
4 the ZOBK. All except one of those - that was Kljuc - were municipalities
5 with substantial Serbian majorities, well over 50 per cent.
6 Q. Now, you've already mentioned the part that comes next in your
7 report, which is the Banja Luka situation in respect of joining the ZOBK.
8 What I'd like to do now is to briefly address Table 2, which is the
9 population -- the ethnic composition of those municipalities that were
10 invited to join the Bosnian Krajina founding assembly. And at this time
11 if you could say something about that for the Judges, please.
12 A. Yes. I simply looked at those municipalities that were mentioned
13 at the -- in the press account of the meeting of the 25th of April and
14 looked at the percentage of Serbs, Muslims, Croats, and Yugoslavs in
15 each. It became evident that only one of those municipalities, that is --
16 or two, Banja Luka and Bosanski Novi, had absolute majorities of Serbs
17 living in them.
18 There were, I should add, other municipalities which were invited
19 to join subsequent to the meeting of April 25th. And in fact at this
20 time, let's say, the invitation to join was couched in voluntary terms,
21 both in the language of the founding assembly and subsequently in the
22 official newspaper of the SDS, Javnost.
23 Q. And that table of municipalities that you're referring to is on
24 page 49 of your report, at the top.
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Let's move on, Dr. Donia. If we can go to Tab 8 in the binder,
2 which is Prosecutor's Exhibit 11 and is the second session of the Bosnian
3 Krajina Community of Municipalities. From this document, what were the
4 initial concerns and decisions of that assembly?
5 A. The concerns addressed at the second meeting of the assembly,
6 second regular session, centred on the adoption of a statute for the
7 organisation and also on the establishment of certain institutions by the
9 Q. Now, you -- first of all, you mention the adoption of a statute
10 for the organisation. Can you explain what happened in respect of that
12 A. Yes. On the first page of this document, which is P11, I believe,
13 P11A in the English variant, there is a report on a discussion in which
14 the president of the Banja Luka Municipal Assembly suggested that the
15 draft statute should first be discussed by the municipal assemblies of the
16 municipalities making up the ZOBK. This was -- the opposite position was
17 taken by the vice-president, Mr. Brdjanin, who said, if I can perhaps cite
18 it directly: "I propose that the statute be adopted today as it stands,
19 because we cannot have a SZOBK" -- which would be an assembly of the
20 ZOBK -- "on a voluntary basis. We cannot wait for public debate in the
21 municipal assemblies and convene the community assembly every month."
22 Subsequently, the Statute was passed unanimously by the ZOBK
24 Q. In answer to an earlier question, you stated that this meeting
25 also dealt with the establishment of certain institutions, and I'd like to
1 direct you to item 3 within the extract of these minutes, where the
2 proposals for the establishment of these institutions is discussed, and if
3 you could please say a bit -- summarise what you stated in your report
4 about the establishment of institutions?
5 A. That quote is on page 50 of the report and also the last several
6 lines of item 3 in this document, which would be on the second page.
7 These institutions already existed either at the level of the Republic of
8 Bosnia-Herzegovina or of federal Yugoslavia, and so this proposal to
9 establish these institutions within the ZOBK constituted putting either
10 new institutions or taking over the functions of existing institutions at
11 the level of this new body.
12 Q. Now, Dr. Donia, the suggestion, amongst other things, is for the
13 establishment of a ministry or secretariat of the interior, a judiciary,
14 Prosecutor's Office, public auditing service, a university. Now, what is
15 the significance of the ZOBK in recommending the establishment of these
16 kinds of institutions?
17 A. Well, these were institutions that were characteristic of a
18 separate state, a republic being formed, or some state-like entity being
19 constructed. In the immediate post-socialist environment of 1991, these
20 were all very important institutions in the -- particularly the economic
21 and communications life of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
22 Q. If we can now move on in your report, still on page 50, to the
23 next significant event which takes place, which is on the 27th of June of
24 1991, and it's subtitled "The Union of the Two Krajinas," can you explain
25 to the Judges what happened during this time period?
1 A. In the course of June, 1991, the leadership of the ZOBK launched a
2 movement to unify with the Krajina across the border in Croatia. This
3 consisted really of two separate acts, one of which was an agreement on
4 cooperation and the other was a statement of political union. Just before
5 this meeting, Nikola Koljevic, who was a member of the presidency of
6 Bosnia-Herzegovina and a leading member of the SDS, visited Banja Luka and
7 cautiously warned that the central leadership of the SDS would not look
8 favourably upon a statement of political union. Despite this, on the 27th
9 of June, the assembly of the ZOBK held a joint meeting with the assembly
10 of the Krajina across the border in Croatia. And at this meeting, they
11 adopted both the declaration on cooperation and the proclamation of unity.
12 Q. If I could now direct you to the document behind tab 10 in your
13 binder, which is Prosecutor's Exhibit 13, and this is a stenogram or
14 record of the session of the SDS, the central party of the SDS, which
15 occurred on the 12th of July of 1991. My reason for showing you this
16 document is to ask you the question: After the declaration on the union
17 of the two Krajinas was made, how did the national SDS party react to
19 A. The national, that is the republic-level, leadership of the SDS,
20 responded very critically to the proclamation of the union of the two
21 Krajinas. Just perhaps to understand the context a bit, two days before
22 this meeting, on the 25th of January -- or of June, 1991, Croatia and
23 Slovenia, those assemblies of those two republics had issued statements of
24 independence, and the -- I think that the members of the assemblies of the
25 two Krajinas looked upon their declaration as closely related to those
1 declarations of independence and justified on the basis of those
2 withdrawals. The leadership of the republic-level SDS did not agree and
3 criticised the formation or declaration as an unwarranted seizure of power
4 and usurping the strategy, which had been adopted by the party at that
5 time, of supporting federal Yugoslavia and its boundaries at the expense
6 of challenges to those boundaries.
7 Q. If I could direct you to some extracts that you've identified
8 within those minutes, first of all page 20, at the top, which is the
9 minutes of what Dr. Radislav Vukic was saying during that meeting?
10 A. The party was -- the SDS was at this point weighing a draft
11 statute of its own, and Mr. Vukic, Dr. Vukic, on behalf of the ZOBK, said
12 -- this is line 4 of that page 20: "On behalf of the regional board of
13 Bosnian Krajina, I would, as regards the statute, call for more power,
14 that is a greater chance for organisation, not only coordination of the
15 regional board so that the people, deputies and assemblymen of Bosnian
16 Krajina have greater democratic rights not to secede but to live together
17 with the Serbian people, but to decide in the territory of the federal
18 unit of Bosnian Krajina which will never let the Serbian Autonomous Region
19 of Krajina," that is the Krajina across the border in Croatia, "fall into
20 Ustasha jaws." This was a statement that, on behalf of the ZOBK,
21 Dr. Vukic opposed, or he wanted included in the statute a recognition of
22 the powers of the ZOBK. That was contrary to the draft statute that had
23 been presented to the party as shown on page 23, when Mr. Trifko Komad is
24 speaking, about two-thirds of the way down that page, where he's quoting
25 from the draft statute. This begins with a dash and then three dots on
1 that page, where he says, "That the main board shall decide on
2 regionalisation and the regional organisation of the SDS." So in the
3 draft statute as proposed by the party's leadership, this topic of
4 regionalisation was to be assigned to the SDS Main Board.
5 And on page 25, we have Mr. -- Dr. Karadzic responding to these
6 two positions and essentially siding with those who had drafted the
7 statute, where Dr. Radovan Karadzic begins to speak, the fourth line down,
8 "Thus the idea of the re-regionalisation of Bosnia and Herzegovina has
9 been present among the creators of SDS ideas from the very start, and the
10 main board has always taken that into account. All ideas on
11 regionalisation have originated from the main board." And then one line
12 down, "I have to say one thing, we have to preserve the strength of the
13 party not to give into power grabbing impulses and 'little Napoleons' who
14 are trying to do things that will harm the Serbian people."
15 On page 29, he goes on to address this question of the federal
16 strategy, at the bottom of the page, the last full paragraph, "I have to
17 say here that the policy of the Serbian Democratic Party is not to divide
18 Bosnia and Herzegovina until others bring it to that point. The SDS
19 furthermore does not approve of the creation of new federal units before
20 the constitutional and legal system has broken down." He's referring here
21 to the union of the -- very probably referring to the union of the two
22 Krajinas. "This cannot be done under our aegis. Those who want to do
23 things that are not in the platform and the statute of the SDS and the SDS
24 views must form their own party."
25 Q. So ultimately, at the republican level in the SDS, what was the
1 view that carried the day in respect of the union of the two Krajinas?
2 A. The union of the two Krajinas in a sense perished from neglect.
3 It was never mentioned, that I can find, in the official SDS paper,
4 Javnost, and in fact, in early July, Dr. Karadzic used terms diametrically
5 opposed to the union of the two Krajinas in referring to the Serbian
6 nation having to defend the western border of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
7 Q. If we could move on now to the document which appears behind tab
8 13, which is Prosecutor's Exhibit 16A - and this you deal with at page 52
9 and 53 of your report - can you explain to the Judges the significance of
10 Prosecutor's Exhibit 16?
11 A. This is one of the notes -- documents that pertains to a meeting
12 of the Assembly of the ZOBK and one of a number of references to the
13 threatened situation of Serbs in the Krajina of -- across the border in
14 Croatia. And in this document, the assembly in this communication states
15 that "we will lead the people" -- let me identify that. Page 2,
16 two-thirds of the way down the page, talking about the ZOBK itself.
17 "Failing that, we shall lead the people to revolt and shall not be
18 responsible for self-organisation."
19 Then at the bottom of the page: "This decision also takes into
20 account the order for the implementation of the final phase of
21 preparations for the general mobilisation of the Territorial Defence and
22 public security reserve forces, as well as the organisation of admission
23 and arming of all volunteers in all municipalities of Bosanska Krajina."
24 So this refers to another order which has been presumably issued
25 which is not a part of this document.
1 Q. What is the date of this communication from the Assembly of the
2 Bosnian Krajina?
3 A. The date is 6 September 1991.
4 Q. So from what you have just stated, you are presupposing that an
5 order of some kind was made prior to the 6th of September to arm and
6 establish volunteer units within the Bosnian Krajina.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. If you could now look at Tab 12, which is a document dated the
9 24th of August of 1991. This is Prosecutor's Exhibit 15, a document
10 entitled "Command of Bosanska Krajina Volunteer Units." And if you could
11 explain the significance of this document and link it with the prior
12 document that we just referred to, Prosecutor's Exhibit 16.
13 A. Well, this looks like the -- it is very likely the document
14 referred to in the 6th of September meeting. This document consists of a
15 cover sheet, signed by Colonel Ostoja Dejanovic, which begins -- this is
16 on page 1 of this document: "We hereby enclose the essay submitted at the
17 session of the representatives of the municipalities of Bosnian Krajina on
18 the occasion of the establishment of the command of Bosanska Krajina
19 volunteer units."
20 The document that this refers to is then, I guess, four pages in
21 English and makes numerous references to the relationship between this
22 mobilisation of Territorial Defence forces and the JNA, the Yugoslav
23 National Army.
24 Just to indicate a few of those references, on what is the first
25 English page of the attached document, page 22 is at the bottom, the
1 second paragraph begins: "The JNA does not have enough forces to cover
2 and protect all inhabited places."
3 Then the fourth paragraph: "The volunteer units organised in this
4 way have only one task to perform: to protect their people from being
5 massacred by enemy forces which irrationally hate the Serbian nation.
6 These units will never be sent to attack some other nation. Their role is
7 purely defensive and nothing more. Volunteer units accept all tasks
8 assigned to them by JNA units pertaining to the defence of the common
9 state, peace, freedom, and equality of the nations which want to live in a
10 common state and which they can carry out depending on their equipment and
12 If I could just move to page 24, and the relationship of these
13 volunteer units to the municipalities, the second paragraph there. It's
14 the fourth, fifth, and sixth lines on page 24: "In order to facilitate
15 better coordination, several municipal staffs should be linked in such a
16 way that a single operative officer supervises several municipalities and
17 coordinates their activities."
18 So I think this document suggests a strong relationship between
19 the ZOBK and a desire to organise volunteer units for defensive Serbian
21 Q. Dr. Donia, before we leave that document, can I direct you to the
22 final paragraph. And if you could just read that out for the benefit of
23 everybody's attention.
24 A. On page 25: "The person who ordered ammunition depots to be
25 opened and weapons to be distributed to the Serbian people obviously knew
1 what he was doing. The Serbian people can now be sure that they have not
2 been abandoned and that there are forces who are taking care of their
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Cayley, we have more or less five minutes left,
5 so I don't know where you stand.
6 MR. CAYLEY: I think I can get through one more document, Your
7 Honour, before we finish.
8 Q. If I could take you back to Tab 9 of your report -- of the
9 documents, I'm sorry, Tab 9 of the documents, which is Prosecutor's
10 Exhibit 12, and page 54 of your report. That's the relevant part of your
11 report where you address this document.
12 This is a document dated the 16th of September of 1991 and is an
13 extract of the minutes of the seventh session of the ZOBK. What, if
14 anything, is significant about the matters discussed in this particular
16 A. The decision was reached at this -- excuse me. Let me pause
17 here. The decision was reached at this assembly meeting to change the
18 name of the ZOBK to letters that are easier to put together, the --
19 namely, the Autonomous Region of Krajina, or ARK.
20 And in stating the nature of this decision, Mr. Radoslav Brdjanin
21 said, and I'm quoting here from the first item, second paragraph: "By
22 this decision, we are ensuring the region's independence. We do not want
23 to bother anyone who does not want to leave Yugoslavia, but nobody here
24 can be allowed to put various kinds of pressure on us, failure to
25 construct major facilities, the oil shortage," et cetera.
1 This decision was reached in the context of other regional
2 associations being founded under SDS leadership in other parts of
3 Bosnia-Herzegovina with substantial Serbian populations. Those
4 associations were called -- also called Serbian autonomous regions. There
5 is a difference in the Serbian version of this between "regija," which is
6 what the ARK was called, and "oblast," which also means "region" in
7 English, but which is the title that the other autonomous regions were
8 accorded by the central party leadership.
9 Q. And I think those -- the creation of those other autonomous
10 regions are referred to in minutes of the main SDS and in another
12 This, actually, would be a good place to stop, because I think
13 tomorrow we can link those two documents together.
14 MR. CAYLEY: So Mr. President, if you're agreed, this would be an
15 appropriate time to pause.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: I think so.
17 THE REGISTRAR: I have just a quick announcement here. Tomorrow
18 we will be sitting in Courtroom III instead of Courtroom I.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. The same time, 9.00, but in Courtroom III.
20 Yes, Mr. Ackerman.
21 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honours, I'm not quite certain how much
22 additional time Mr. Cayley has to take, but with regard to preparation for
23 cross-examination of Mr. Donia, I have been interrupted a bit but I've
24 been working quite hard getting through all the documents. I think -- in
25 fact, I will commit to the Court that I will be prepared to proceed
1 Thursday morning at 9.00, if that's okay with everybody concerned.
2 MR. CAYLEY: I anticipate, Your Honour, that my
3 examination-in-chief may bleed over into Thursday. I'll move as quickly
4 as I can through these documents, but you can see to do it sort of
5 methodically and slowly is better than rushing them through.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: In any case, if that will happen, Mr. Ackerman and
7 his client will certainly not suffer any prejudice. If anything, they
8 will have more time. So that wouldn't create any problems.
9 And the Defence for General Talic more or less should liaise with
10 Mr. Ackerman. Mr. Ackerman should be in a position to tell you how long
11 he expects to have his cross-examination last, and then you should be
12 prepared, and you will be expected to be prepared to start immediately
13 afterwards. Okay?
14 Yes, Mr. Ackerman.
15 MR. ACKERMAN: If you want, just a little kind of small
16 housekeeping matter that will have to be dealt with at some point. It
17 seems to make sense that with regard to the order of cross-examination,
18 what we did in Celebici, which worked extremely well, was we would
19 announce to the Court at some point prior to the cross which counsel would
20 go first because some witnesses are relatively unimportant to me and very
21 important to the other side and so forth. And so if we just tell you in
22 advance, we would hope that will work with you.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, it definitely will. And it will be something
24 that we would appreciate.
25 MR. CAYLEY: One last point, Your Honour, that my learned friend
1 Ms. Korner has raised with me is originally Dr. Donia had planned to leave
2 on Saturday. He has other engagements, and obviously we hadn't
3 anticipated the delays caused by procedural matters, and it would be
4 helpful if the Defence at some stage - I realise not now until I finish my
5 examination-in-chief - could give some kind of estimate of time for their
6 cross-examination so that we can change things like airline tickets,
7 extend hotel reservations. That would be helpful.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Ackerman?
9 MR. ACKERMAN: I really don't want Dr. Donia to be required to
10 stay in this place, where the wind blows 50 miles an hour constantly, any
11 longer than he absolutely has to.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: It's better than it was in some places in the United
13 Kingdom and in Scotland yesterday.
14 MR. ACKERMAN: Better than it is in Texas sometimes too.
15 In any event, it would surprise me if we are not finished with
16 Dr. Donia by Friday when we close our work.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: That's as far as your cross-examination is
19 MR. ACKERMAN: Yeah. I really don't know how long the French will
20 take, but -- I think that both of us can be finished by Friday afternoon,
21 but I can't make that commitment because I don't know -- you never know in
22 cross-examination what kind of responses you're going to get and what they
23 lead to, and what I think will take two hours could take three so -- but
24 the best I can do is that.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
1 MS. FAUVEAU-IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Excuse me, but I was
2 waiting for the interpretation. I think that my cross-examination will
3 not take very long. Obviously, it will depend on Mr. Ackerman's
4 cross-examination, but a priori I think it will be between one and two
5 hours on the outside.
6 MR. CAYLEY: Thank you, Your Honour. That's very helpful.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: I think you can work on that basis and if that is
8 what will actually happen, I mean, I think Dr. Donia can be on his way on
10 So we will resume tomorrow morning at 9.00. We will now go and
11 finish the decision on Rule 92 and hopefully you should get it within the
12 next hour or so.
13 Thank you. See you tomorrow morning.
14 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at
15 1.47 p.m., to be reconvened on Wednesday,
16 the 30th day of January, 2002, at 9.00 a.m.