1 Friday, 1 March 2002
2 [Open session]
3 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Please be seated.
5 [The accused entered court]
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Madam Registrar, can we have the case called,
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case number
9 IT-99-36-T, the Prosecutor versus Radoslav Brdjanin and Momir Talic.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning, Mr. Brdjanin. Are you hearing me in a
11 language that you can understand?
12 THE ACCUSED BRDJANIN: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honour.
13 I can hear you and I understand you.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Mr. Brdjanin. General Talic, I don't
15 know if you speak English, but are you hearing me in a language that you
16 can understand?
17 THE ACCUSED TALIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honour. I
18 can hear you in a language that I understand.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning to you too. Appearances for the
21 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, Joanna Korner together for the first
22 time with Julian Nicholls, another member of the team, who is here this
23 morning to protect me from Defence counsel. And as usual, Denise Gustin,
24 case manager.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Ms. Korner and good morning to the whole
1 team. Appearances for Mr. Brdjanin?
2 MR. ACKERMAN: Good morning, Your Honours. I'm sorry that I had
3 so intimidated the Prosecutor. I'm John Ackerman. I appear with Milka
4 Maglov and Tania Radosavljevic for Mr. Brdjanin.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning to you. And appearances for General
7 MS. FAUVEAU-IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning,
8 Mr. President and Your Honours. I am Natasha Fauveau-Ivanovic and I'm
9 assisted by Maitre Fabien Masson. I'm representing General Talic. I
10 would also like to apologise to the Chamber on behalf of Maitre de Roux
11 who is absent today and will be absent the following week too, because of
12 medical treatment.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Madam Fauveau. And good morning to you
14 as well.
15 So preliminaries. Regarding the schedule of sittings right
16 through the end of July, I have gone through it, I have not discussed it
17 as yet with the other two judges mainly because I wanted to check one
18 thing, also because I had made arrangements accordingly that when we met
19 and discussed the schedule for the first three or -- for the first months,
20 anyway, in particular with regard to the Easter period. I have a
21 recollection that we had agreed that we will stop from the 22nd and
22 recommence on the 4th of April. That's what I remember. I have asked
23 Ms. Thompson to check it out for me and I'll come back to you after that
24 because it's not just me who has that recollection but also my two
25 colleagues. So we will come back to you later on after the break on
1 that. Yes, Mr. Ackerman?
2 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour, I think you're probably right about
3 that. I intended to look at that piece of transcript and just forgot. I
4 didn't remember what date we were supposed to recommence and I got in a
5 hurry and just forgot to look.
6 MS. KORNER: My recollection was -- I'm sorry, I managed to do my
7 back in slightly, but my recollection was that it was the 2nd of April
8 because we had a discussion about April Fool's Day, so it was the Tuesday
9 immediately following.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: I'm not contesting that. I'm just -- I just want to
11 find out, that's all. Ms. Thompson will dig it up.
12 So the other thing -- yes, my microphone is on. I think you
13 wanted to mike submissions on the procedural point that you briefly hinted
14 at at the end of yesterday's sitting, Mr. Ackerman?
15 MR. ACKERMAN: You're speaking about the journalist situation?
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, exactly because it's something that I asked you
17 to mention so that we would more or less come prepared for it this morning
18 and then we can deal with it.
19 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I wonder if we could have the argument
20 in private session? I know that because it's press, there has been
21 interest in it. There are a number of reasons why the second journalist
22 involved has certain concerns and unless anybody -- Mr. Ackerman objects,
23 I think it would be helpful if we just hold this discussion in private
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Any objection, Mr. Ackerman?
1 MR. ACKERMAN: Well, I'm fundamentally opposed to non-public
2 proceedings in an International Court, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Let me suggest something before you continue. Can
4 we go into private session now for a few minutes until Ms. Korner tells us
5 or rather expands on what she has just said? That may be enough to
6 convince you to go or to continue in private session after that.
7 MR. ACKERMAN: It may be and that would be fine, Your Honour, if
8 you want to do that.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: And Madam Fauveau?
10 MS. FAUVEAU-IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I have no objections
11 because I think that it doesn't concern me, or rather that it doesn't
12 concern my client.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, but it concerns the whole process actually
14 because we could come across other similar instances later on where you
15 would have an interest. So I --
16 MS. FAUVEAU-IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, as far as
17 the private session is concerned, I am opposed to it as Mr. Ackerman is,
18 but in this case, I can't express a position because Ms. Korner said that
19 this part did not concern my client in particular.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: So let's go into private session for a few minutes
21 first and then depending on what you ever to say, Ms. Korner, we will
22 decide whether to continue it in private session for a while or whether to
23 go public once more.
24 [Private session]
12 Page 2525 – redacted – private session.
12 Page 2526 – redacted – private session.
6 [Open session]
7 JUDGE AGIUS: So Mr. Ackerman, you have the floor.
8 MR. ACKERMAN: Thank you, Your Honour. My position was stated to
9 some extent yesterday. I'll call that position number 1. And that is,
10 that the date of these interviews is in March of 1993, which is well
11 beyond the time of the indictment.
12 MS. KORNER: January, January.
13 MR. ACKERMAN: I'm sorry, January, 1993. It's beyond the term of
14 the indictment and I think therefore irrelevant. It's fairly clear that
15 the subject matter of the interview was Mr. Brdjanin as a minister of the
16 government was being asked his views regarding the cantonisation plan put
17 forward by Vance and Owen and at that point, all parties were seeking
18 to -- it appeared that the Vance-Owen Plan was going to basically freeze
19 the situation as it existed, that there would be a Serbian canton, a Croat
20 canton, and a Muslim canton. And so that's what he was being asked to
21 comment upon, his views regarding that process, which I think lends no --
22 sheds no light whatsoever on the events of 1992. It was a political
23 situation of the moment that is not relevant to any of the issues in this
25 Argument number 2, and this is situational because we are only in
1 one spot at this point and the spot we are in is with regard to
2 (redacted) --
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Didn't you yourself suggest that you would be
4 saying, Mr. Ackerman, instead?
5 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour, you've not commented on my age
6 recently, perhaps you should. I don't know what to do at this point.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Please have it redacted.
8 MR. ACKERMAN: X1, Witness 1. Witness 1 was not able to have a
9 conversation with Mr. Brdjanin because he does not speak his language, and
10 so he was totally dependent upon what someone else told him that
11 Mr. Brdjanin was saying. And it seems to me, if we are interested in the
12 best evidence, then if anyone is going to come to give evidence about that
13 conversation, it should be the person who actually was speaking the same
14 language as Mr. Brdjanin and heard the exact words of Mr. Brdjanin. So I
15 think that fairly well states my position in that regard.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Ms. Korner?
17 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, the Prosecution say this: The interview
18 itself took place just outside the period of the indictment, we accept
19 that. But so close to it that we say that the words used by Brdjanin are
20 indicative and which one can see when taken with the other evidence in
21 this case, of his intention in respect of what the Prosecution say was the
22 ultimate aim of this whole campaign, namely the expulsion, the forcible
23 expulsion of non-Serbs from the territories known as the ARK. Your
24 Honours, the fact that those words were uttered at a time outside the
25 period which you are concerned with, we say is irrelevant because we say
1 that Your Honours are entitled to infer from what was said in January,
2 1993 --
3 JUDGE AGIUS: To all intents and purposes the alleged words could
4 have been said just yesterday and they would still be relevant to the
5 events of ten years ago. So that point you needn't elaborate.
6 MS. KORNER: That's our position.
7 Your Honour, the second matter is a much more complex matter
8 really in one sense. Mr. -- now I'm doing it and that's why I asked for
9 private session. It is impossible. The witness made a statement.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Witness 1.
11 MS. KORNER: He signed an acknowledgement to attend. The second
12 man hasn't made a statement. I appreciate that, as I said before, that
13 the first man doesn't speak the language and was relying on the second
14 person to interpret. But as I think I said earlier, it's no different
15 from effectively an investigator seeing a witness and taking a statement
16 through an interpreter. Your Honour, the weight of course Your Honours
17 will perhaps take into account the fact that this wasn't directly said to
18 him. Your Honours, that in a sense is a subsidiary matter, although as I
19 say, the first man has a -- or his ex-employers have instructed counsel to
20 argue the matter. It was due for hearing on Monday but because there are
21 still these matters outstanding, I think Your Honours agreed that it could
22 be put back and I so informed counsel for the first witness. It may be
23 that at the moment all that Your Honours are required to do is to give a
24 ruling first of all whether or not the conversations or the interview is
25 in itself admissible. The matter of how it then comes before the Court is
1 something I believe that Mr. Ackerman and myself may still be able to
2 discuss and perhaps arrive at some agreement.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: I will just give you very briefly my first
4 thoughts. Then with the understanding that I will discuss it with the
5 other two judges, unless I have an indication that there is agreement
6 straight away. If we need to discuss it further, we will discuss it
7 further and come back to you. But what I think should be the approach --
8 I notice that there are some parts in the witness's statement, although I
9 acknowledge that this is not an exhibit as yet, but this is why I always
10 ask to be handed copies of the witness statements before, because that
11 would put me in a better position to take certain decisions. At the end,
12 at the very end of this witness statement, Witness 1 says, "I am willing
13 to speak with investigators for the Tribunal, but I hesitate as a
14 journalist to testify before the Court. I would prefer that my statement
15 and article stand for themselves. However, if that were not possible, I
16 would be willing to testify, that the quotes accredited to Brdjanin are
17 true and accurate." And I would take this as the starting point, very
18 starting point, because I have the prospects of a witness coming here in
19 this courtroom in a position whereby he can follow-up and confirm this
20 statement that he has made in the written statement he gave to the
21 Prosecution. In other words, that he is telling us that he is in a
22 position not only to testify, if he is constrained to, he wouldn't like
23 to, but if he finds himself with his back to the wall and he needs to
24 testify, then he is in a position to confirm to us that the quotes
25 accredited to Brdjanin are true and accurate. So that's point one 1.
1 Point number 2, if you look at the centre of the first page of the
2 statement, where he describes the interview he and Witness 2 had with
3 Brdjanin, he is not exactly giving a picture or describing an event as if
4 he were just a passive observer, not understanding what was happening. In
5 other words, as I understand it, as I take it, there were three men
6 involved in this interview, your client, Mr. Ackerman, as it is alleged
7 here, and Witness 1 and Witness 2. It was Witness 2 who was being
8 proactive in the sense. It was Witness 2 who knew the language and was
9 conducting the interview. But Witness 1, who presumably, as I take it,
10 did not understand the language, says, throughout the interview, Brdjanin
11 seemed very self-assured. We didn't have to work hard to obtain from
12 him. In retrospect, I think Brdjanin was indicating to us that he was not
13 yet totally in command of the expulsion policy because he talked about how
14 he would do things if he were in charge. And he goes on and on and on.
15 This is not a man, a witness, who has just been a passive observer
16 depending exclusively for Witness 2 to draw up some or more conclusions.
17 It seems to me that we have a witness who at least to an extent can give
18 us some information.
19 Third point I wanted to make was that I fully understand that if
20 Witness 2 is not brought forward to give evidence in private, in closed or
21 whatever kind of session, then it may well end up with us having a
22 situation whereby we would have heard Witness 1, taken stock of his
23 perhaps witness statement to an extent, and come to the conclusion that
24 the article as such, given the circumstances of this being basically and
25 essentially a hearsay evidence par excellence, does not reach that
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 standard which has been accepted and applied by this Tribunal in the past
2 for the -- for giving weight, probative weight to that particular
3 document. In other words, remembering or reminding you that what is
4 important for this Chamber is not whether the document itself ought to be
5 admitted in evidence or not. Rather, it is the probative value that it
6 can receive that is important. We may end up in a situation whereby we
7 would have heard Witness 1 but come to the conclusion that for all intense
8 and purposes, his evidence is not going to be of any importance to us.
9 But I would still think that we ought to go ahead with Witness 1 and I
10 would suggest at this point in time just to put Witness 1 in the utmost
11 liberty, make him feel comfortable in giving evidence, to offer some kind
12 of, I don't know whether we go into private session or some sort of -- to
13 make sure, in other words, that Witness 2 is not mentioned in the course
14 of his evidence, if necessary, especially if that person is, as you put
15 it, Ms. Korner, possibly in danger. The Trial Chamber has every interest
16 in protecting him. And on that score, perhaps we could also entice
17 Witness 2 to come forward and testify if he knows that his evidence will
18 be given in closed session.
19 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, neither witness -- well, Witness 1, I
20 think it's more a situation of his ex-employers. The American press takes
21 a very strong line, and I understand in the United States has a certain
22 amount of protection from testifying, which is certainly not available in
23 England and Wales. I think it's the principle of whether the journalist
24 should be testifying that both of them are urging although, as I say,
25 Witness 2 has severe concerns, personal concerns.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: I wouldn't make a suggestion to you obviously
2 because I don't think you need suggestions from the Trial Chamber, Ms.
3 Korner, you're experienced enough. But I do seriously think that maybe
4 the case of considering, affording him some kind of protective measure
5 before he gives evidence because this is serious business. I mean, in my
6 country more or less the situation is very similar to yours. We would not
7 be in -- strictly speaking, there is no such thing as a privilege attached
8 to the professional journalist, and theoretically speaking, if a
9 journalist in giving evidence refuses to give certain information,
10 technically speaking, he or she could be subject to -- but we never resort
11 to that. More or less we try each -- I have tried it in my -- the whole
12 time -- my whole career, to protect the journalist as much as I could,
13 respecting the confidentiality that he has a right to, even if it may not
14 be a legal right, not to disclose his source of information and other
15 information. It is important. I think it is important. And more or
16 less, since we do not have a rule here, I would say that the Trial Chamber
17 would be more or less rather tend to protecting rather than exposing the
18 witness to any possible prejudice or danger, especially physical danger.
19 So I would suggest to you to consider, seriously consider what I have
20 stated, and I'm sure -- I think more or less, I mean although I was saying
21 what I personally think with the reservation that I will discuss later, I
22 think -- I take it that more or less we are on the same wavelength and we
23 can go along on those lines.
24 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I'm grateful for those indications. Can
25 I take it that Your Honour is ruling that this interview is admissible?
1 Because that's the argument that was raised.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: The argument -- Ms. Korner, when I have a witness
3 who has previously confirmed to you that he is in a position to testify if
4 asked to and forced to, testify that the quotes accredited to Brdjanin are
5 true and accurate, how can I refuse to admit it?
6 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, the argument from Mr. Ackerman was
7 because it was outside the indictment period it was --
8 JUDGE AGIUS: No, that is, as I'm trying to explain, if in the
9 course of the evidence it transpires that what was stated to Witness 2 and
10 Witness 1 outside the period of the indictment refers exclusively to
11 events outside the period of the indictment, and do not shed a light,
12 throw a light on the events preceding the dates of the interview, or
13 related to the events falling within the time frame of the indictment,
14 then obviously I'm going to stop the witness and say, "We don't need you
15 any more." But as it is, even on the face of it, I think -- I think that
16 the evidence could throw a light on the possible frame of mind that the
17 accused may have had in 1992, April to December. If that is not the case,
18 obviously I'm going to throw this witness out.
19 MS. KORNER: Thank you, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: It's as simple as that. I cannot a priori exclude
21 because he stated something in 1993 it necessarily couldn't be relevant to
22 the events happening in 1992.
23 MS. KORNER: Well then, Your Honour, I see Mr. Ackerman is on his
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, as usual.
1 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour, I just want to say that since you have
2 made your ruling regarding relevance that I really have no further
3 argument to make regarding this matter, because what I cannot do and will
4 not do is try to interfere with the Prosecution's right to call relevant
5 evidence of any kind that they want to call. So I think it now becomes a
6 matter between the Trial Chamber and the Prosecutor as to securing the
7 attendance of these witnesses.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. And that's up to you, Ms. Korner, as I said.
9 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honour, I was hoping to be able to have a
10 further discussion with Mr. Ackerman, but if it's unfruitful, if it's not
11 fruitful, then I will make arrangements. As I say, the witness should
12 have been here on Monday to answer, but counsel couldn't make that day and
13 suggested Wednesday of next week but because it was still up in the air
14 may we come back to Your Honour about a date.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, certainly. Yes, Mr. Ackerman.
16 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour, I wasn't saying that I wouldn't
17 discuss the matter with Ms. Korner. What I was saying was that it is not
18 appropriate for me to argue to the Chamber that relevant evidence ought
19 not be called if the Prosecution can call it. That's all I was saying.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. So the other thing -- yes, Ms. Korner?
21 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, can I just mention two matters?
22 Administratively? Firstly, the humanitarian organisation has now
23 considered Your Honour's ruling, the statement will be disclosed. We are
24 just getting them together today. However, I'm told that having told the
25 Chamber that we would like to call them immediately after the Easter
1 break, one of the witnesses will not be available. He will be away. And
2 so we will have to make arrangements so we won't seek to call them
3 immediately then.
4 Secondly, I forgot yesterday, I'm afraid, and I hope that the
5 slight delay won't matter to say the witnesses for next week. I know we
6 are supposed to say Thursday but I keep forgetting. Your Honours, the
7 witnesses will be 7.175. Your Honours already have the statement.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, exactly.
9 MS. KORNER: 7.158. Your Honours will be given the statement.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: So basically we are skipping 7.197 for the moment.
11 MS. KORNER: We are going to, can we say, 7.197 almost certainly
12 will not be called at all because we consider that his evidence has
13 already been covered.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.
15 MS. KORNER: Then, Your Honours, I'm not sure, my feeling is that
16 7.158, who rather like the present witness is a very document heavy one
17 will probably take the rest of the week but in case we have also got 7.152
18 and 7.42. The -- all of these witnesses, Your Honour, require -- are
19 protected witnesses.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: I know. Yes. Okay. So there is another
21 preliminary issue that arises from yesterday's sitting. Those three
22 documents, Mr. Ackerman?
23 MR. ACKERMAN: Yes, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: What the Trial Chamber requires from you is some
25 kind of a reliable affirmation that those -- regarding the source of those
1 three documents tending to prove that there is some indicia of
3 MR. ACKERMAN: Yes, I have it. Your Honour, while we are on that
4 subject, I need to ask the Chamber your views regarding a matter of
5 evidence and procedure.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
7 MR. ACKERMAN: I am accustomed, both in the United States and in
8 my practice before this Tribunal in a prior case, to a procedure whereby
9 it was -- it would be permissible for me to confront a witness with a
10 document that had not been disclosed to the Prosecution if my only purpose
11 in doing so was for the purpose of impeachment of the witness. In other
12 words, if I'm not offering the document for the truth of its contents, but
13 only for the limited purpose of what light it might throw upon the
14 credibility of the witness, then it doesn't come within the reciprocal
15 disclosure rule and the rules of this Tribunal. And I would ask the
16 Chamber to agree with me that that is the case and that if I do not want
17 to offer a document for the truth of its contents but only to attack the
18 credibility of a witness, then I'm not required to disclose it to the
19 Prosecutor in advance.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: But, Mr. Ackerman, I know it's only 20 to 10.00 but
21 we are all very much fully awake already, but what was the purpose of
22 these three documents? The purpose of bringing forward these three
23 documents, as I understood it, was to prove that when the witness stated
24 yesterday or the day before that no Serb was ever prosecuted for having
25 failed to respond to the mobilisation, call for mobilisation, he was not
1 saying the truth. And you were purporting to prove him wrong, or to prove
2 that he was saying a lie, telling a lie, by bringing forward three
3 documents tending to prove that three Serbs had been prosecuted. So
4 basically, how can you argue now that you are not trying to prove the
5 truth or the contents of these three documents? I mean --
6 MR. ACKERMAN: Very simple, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: You can only prove that the witness was not telling
8 us the truth if what is contained in those three documents actually means
9 that there were charges brought against three Serbs.
10 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour, it's very simple. I would say to you
11 that you cannot consider the content of those three documents as an offer
12 of proof by me that three Serbs were actually prosecuted. I can bring
13 witnesses to prove that, and I will probably will do that. The only
14 purpose of using a document like that, if you're doing it strictly for
15 impeachment purposes is to give the witness an opportunity to say whether
16 he changes his position based upon seeing the documents. If he says, yes,
17 fine, if he says no, fine. But it deals with his credibility, not with
18 proof of the contents of the documents. I have just been informed that
19 that was also the rule that was applied in the Srebrenica case, that a
20 document did not have to be disclosed if it was used only for impeachment
22 JUDGE AGIUS: But there you may have a point in certain
23 instances. You may have a point in certain instances. But in this
24 particular case that we are dealing with, this is certainly not the case
25 because the purpose of using these three documents was, as I have just
1 explained to you, that you are confronting the witness with three
2 documents in which you state to him that three persons with Yugoslav names
3 were charged with having failed -- with Serb names, were charged with
4 having failed to respond to the call for mobilisation. In other words,
5 that they were charged, as against what he had stated earlier, namely that
6 to his knowledge, no Serb was ever prosecuted for this offence.
7 MR. ACKERMAN: Yes, I'm saying to you --
8 JUDGE AGIUS: So basically how can you avoid bringing, discussing
9 with the witness at least the contents of these documents?
10 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour, the line --
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Definitely you should never put the Prosecution in a
12 position whereby they are taken by surprise and they are not in a position
13 to -- this is not a case of you having the birth certificate of the
14 witness who comes here and says, I was born on the 18th of March of 1940,
15 and you know that he was not born on the 18th March of 1940. It is not a
16 case of a witness coming forward and saying, "I never had a passport," and
17 you have a photocopy of his passport.
18 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour, I've made my --
19 JUDGE AGIUS: And you tell him, "This is your birth certificate.
20 This is your passport." This is something different.
21 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour, I've made my point for the record, and
22 as always, I will respect your rulings. I always will. With regard to
23 the source of these three documents, what I can tell you right now, Your
24 Honours, is the following. I sent an e-mail message to one of my
25 investigators in Banja Luka immediately after court yesterday, saying, "I
1 need to know where you got the documents showing criminal charges filed
2 against Serbs who failed to respond to the mobilisation. I must advise
3 the Chamber in the morning." The response reads: "I got them from OMO,
4 [No interpretation]. They used to be called [No interpretation]. I have
5 the approval from the Minister of Defence. That's the response."
6 And if necessary --
7 JUDGE AGIUS: What does that mean?
8 MR. ACKERMAN: I'm not sure what -- maybe the interpreters can
9 tell you what [No interpretation] translates to. I think it's the Defence
11 THE INTERPRETER: A department of the Defence Ministry.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: A department of the Defence Ministry.
13 MR. ACKERMAN: I can bring this particular investigator to
14 testify, if the Chamber wants me to.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, are you happy with that, Ms. Korner?
16 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, there are two matters that arise from
17 this. First of all, if Mr. Ackerman is saying that he's not putting
18 forward these documents for the truth of their contents, then they are
19 completely irrelevant. They don't get admitted at all and all that -- if
20 he doesn't know whether they are true or not, he intends to call evidence
21 at a later stage to prove either the authenticity or the truth of the
22 contents, or live evidence from Serbs, then the proper way of putting
23 things is to put to the witness, "You're wrong or you're not telling the
24 truths," however they feel about it, and not try to put in documents which
25 he says he has no idea whether the contents are true. That's the first
2 The second matter is this: Under Rule 67(C), Mr. Ackerman, having
3 invoked the provisions of Rule 66(B), that is reciprocal disclosure, the
4 Rule 67(C) states the Prosecutor shall be entitled to inspect any books,
5 documents, photographs and tangible objects which are within the custody
6 or control of the Defence and which it intends to use as evidence at the
8 At the moment, the excuse being used is, "I don't know what I
9 intend to use as evidence." That may or may not be right in respect of
10 some documents, but we submit that clearly, where documents are intended
11 to be used, because it's clear in advance that the witness is going to say
12 something like this, then we are entitled to see these documents in
13 advance and not just produced on the day when they are intended to be
15 Your Honour, with respect to whether or not what Mr. Ackerman has
16 just said is sufficient to establish the source, Your Honour, for the
17 moment, I'm not proposing to pursue that matter any further until I can
18 take some instructions about this. But our submission would be simply
19 that these documents, if Mr. Ackerman doesn't know whether they are true
20 or not, are not being put forward for the truth of their contents, but
21 merely to in some way impeach the witness, that does not in itself make
22 them admissible.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: I can't accept Mr. Ackerman saying that these are
24 not being put forward in a way you have just described it because
25 basically if you look at these documents and the fifth line after the name
1 of the person charged, you have, "By ethnicity, Serb, citizen of SFRY."
2 So basically, the whole -- the importance of these three documents lies in
3 that word, and the fact that he was trying to make use of these three
4 documents to contradict or prove the witness wrong in stating that no Serb
5 was ever prosecuted for this crime or for this offence because I'm not
6 quite sure whether it was a crime or an offence, I see that there is some
7 kind of a difference in treatment the way it was conceived, but any way --
8 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honour, at the moment, the situation is
9 this --
10 JUDGE AGIUS: I think they can be admitted for the moment and then
11 we see afterwards.
12 MS. KORNER: All right. Except that can I just remind Your Honour
13 the evidence from the witnesses -- these aren't charges. These are
15 JUDGE AGIUS: I've taken that into consideration already.
16 Definitely. And from the face of these documents, on the face of it, each
17 document does not purport to be a real charge. I mean, I don't know what
18 it is, I have never seen anything like it in my life. But any way,
19 perhaps you would be in a position to enlighten us later on by means of
20 some other kind of evidence or other kind of witness, Mr. Ackerman, what
21 these documents are because that -- the importance or relevance of these
22 documents could well arise at some future point in time, when we have a
23 clearer picture because until now I don't have a clear picture.
24 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour, I fully believe there will come a
25 stage in this case when I will be able to put on evidence that a number of
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Serbs were in fact charged with offences for failure to respond to the
2 mobilisation, a number of Serbs were fired from their positions in various
3 industries for failure to respond to mobilisation. I think I can -- I
4 will bring evidence to prove all those things. I'm disturbed a bit by
5 Ms. Korner's comment that I should not be offering documents as evidence
6 if I think they are not true. I haven't suggested to you that I think
7 these are not true. I's in the same position she is. She has thousands
8 of documents she has no idea whether they are true or not. They were
9 taken from various places in search and seizure. Some of them have no
10 signatures or stamps. She can't you that those are true. She can't tell
11 you that the contents are true. She has no idea. And it is true of all
12 of us. We all gather up documents where we gather up documents. We don't
13 know if they are true or not. What I'm saying to you, and not
14 specifically with regard to these documents, all I'm saying to you is that
15 it is the law where I am used to practising, and in at least two cases
16 that I know of in this Tribunal, that if you want to impeach a witness
17 with a document, and you're offering it solely for impeachment purposes,
18 not for the truth of its contents, then it does not need to be disclosed.
19 And Rule 67(C) which the Prosecutor refers to makes it fairly clear that
20 you have to disclose that which you intend to use as evidence at the
21 trial. In other words, evidence that you're offering for the truth of its
22 contents. That's my position. And I understand the Court's ruling and I
23 am not arguing that these particular documents should fall into that
24 category. And I have given today the Prosecutor a large number of
25 documents that I received just yesterday. They haven't been translated
1 yet. I am just passingly familiar with what they say.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Madam Fauveau is smiling.
3 MR. ACKERMAN: I suspect I will use them in some way but I don't
4 know. But I've given them to them as she requested I do yesterday.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Please do follow the practice that I suggested to
6 you yesterday. I fully understand that there may be instances where you
7 honestly don't know whether you would be making use of a document or not.
8 MR. ACKERMAN: I just need --
9 JUDGE AGIUS: If you wait and then decide at the very last moment
10 that you're going to make use of that document, and come here and surprise
11 not just us, the three judges here, because we would be surprised too, but
12 your colleague on the other side, who has every interest in the case as
13 much as you have, and every right, and who I understand have not been
14 withholding any information from you and have fully honoured their
15 commitments and their obligations under the Statute and under the Rules as
16 far as disclosure is concerned, then I have to protect the Prosecution.
17 Just as much as I would protect the Defence if they did the same thing to
18 you. All I asked was you had them a day before, two days before, you
19 could have given these documents to Ms. Korner saying, "Probably I will be
20 making use of these. I'm sorry I don't have them translated. These
21 purportedly are such and such a thing." And that would have saved us a
22 good hour easily.
23 MR. ACKERMAN: We discussed that yesterday, Your Honour, and I
24 accepted your position on it and this morning I handed her documents that
25 arrived just yesterday that I haven't translated. So I'm doing what you
1 have suggested that I do.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Ackerman.
3 MR. ACKERMAN: And this morning I wanted to try to suggest to you
4 that there were situations where I didn't have to disclose documents if I
5 was going to use them for impeachment only.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: There may be such situations yes, I agree with you.
7 There may be such situations, but certainly I don't see these three
8 documents falling within that particular category that you tried to
9 suggest this morning, because first question to the witness was, "You see
10 these documents?"
11 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour, I don't want them in that category.
12 I'm offering them for their contents, not as impeachment and you've
13 accepted them that way so I'm not arguing about these documents.
14 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honour, that's a complete reversal. I
15 understood one moment ago these were being put in for impeaching the
16 witness. Now we're --
17 MR. ACKERMAN: That's just not true. When I stood up I said to
18 you I want to raise a matter regarding the Rules of Evidence.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: But why should you raise a matter regarding a Rule
20 of Evidence that is not before us at all? I mean, if you're talking about
21 three documents which you are presenting or bringing forward as a proof of
22 the truth of the contents, why should you argue with regard to another
23 rule or practice or decision or procedural rule of this Trial Chamber that
24 has got nothing to do with that?
25 MR. ACKERMAN: It is very simple. I may have a document in my
1 possession right now that I may want to use for impeachment of the next
2 witness that is coming up, not for the truth of the contents but just to
3 impeach that witness. I know that if I give that document to the
4 Prosecutor, they will then give it to the witness and the witness will
5 have a chance to concoct some story that explains it which he wouldn't be
6 able --
7 JUDGE AGIUS: I appreciate you're trying to save the Trial Chamber
8 a lot of time. Thank you Mr. Ackerman.
9 MR. ACKERMAN: You're welcome, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Ms. Korner.
11 MS. KORNER: I don't know why this has turned into a major
12 argument but, Your Honour, I strongly dispute Mr. Ackerman's reading of
13 Rule 67(C). I'm assisted by my own American expert who is sitting to my
14 left this morning. I understand --
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Maybe he's from Texas
16 MS. KORNER: I understand that it is a rule in the United States
17 that there is a difference between documents used to impeach a witness and
18 documents which are then put in, but Mr. Ackerman is asking for these
19 documents to be made exhibits. If that's not evidence, what is?
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
21 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, any documents that Mr. Ackerman seeks to
22 put in as exhibits or indeed I would -- and certainly as exhibits, are
23 evidence, to use as evidence, and he must comply, in our submission, with
24 Rule 67(C).
25 Now, as to whether there is a difference between putting a
1 document before a witness and saying, "I want to you read this document.
2 Do not tell us what the contents are. Having read that document, do you
3 still wish to adhere to the answer that you gave or the evidence that you
4 gave?" If the answer is, "Yes, I do," then that's the end of the matter.
5 Those documents don't go in. They are not evidence. Your Honours don't
6 even hear what the document is. Indeed I suppose on that basis we don't
7 hear. But if a document is to be put before a witness, Your Honours are
8 to be given copies, then that document is being put in as evidence.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: I think we can close the matter here and proceed,
10 Mr. Ackerman. These three documents are being admitted as exhibits and we
11 move from there.
12 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour, I agree almost completely with what
13 Ms. Korner just said.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: You couldn't but agree.
15 MR. ACKERMAN: With the possible exception, with this exception.
16 It would be improper for me to put a document to the witness for
17 impeachment purposes and also keep it from the Prosecutor. I think I
18 would have to disclose it to the Prosecutor at that point.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Definitely.
20 MR. ACKERMAN: Yes. But beyond that, I agree with her. It
21 shouldn't go into evidence if I'm not offering it into evidence. And I
22 think that's true.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Of course. That stands to reason. So can we call
24 the witness in? Please admit the witness.
25 [The witness entered court]
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning, to you, Mr. Dzonlic. Sorry to have
2 kept you waiting but we had some very heated arguments on procedural
3 matters before you came in not having to do anything with you. You will
4 be now asked to make the usual statement promising to say the truth, to
5 tell us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Then you
6 may sit down and we will continue with the cross-examination. Please go
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
9 WITNESS: AMIR DZONLIC [Resumed]
10 [Witness answered through interpreter]
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
12 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: You may sit down. Good morning to you, once more.
14 Mr. Ackerman you may proceed.
15 MR. ACKERMAN: Thank you, Your Honour.
16 Cross-examination by Mr. Ackerman: [Continued]
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Before you start, do we need to provide the witness
18 with any documents that you are going to refer to beforehand so that we
19 don't waste time each time we need a document?
20 MR. ACKERMAN: Yes, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's identify those straight away and have them
22 handed to him.
23 MR. ACKERMAN: I hope I can get them all. BD31, P227, P470.
24 There is a document, disclosure 3.111, which is Official Gazette Banja
25 Luka number 11, which I might refer to, might not. P295, P43, P153.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Now, Mr. Ackerman, before you continue, the Trial
2 Chamber has taken the liberty, at least with the Prosecution, and I
3 thought it was something known to everyone, that before a witness is going
4 to give evidence, more or less we try to ask for information as to which
5 documents will be made use or reference will be made to in the course of
6 the testimony. The Prosecution has been cooperative in that regard. More
7 or less before Mr. Dzonlic was coming over, we knew that he was going to
8 be asked or these documents will be made use of in the course of the
9 evidence. If you could adopt -- you and of course the Defence team for
10 General Talic, the same system. I understand that you may have to
11 increase or decrease or vary the lists as we go along in the course of the
12 examination-in-chief, but if before, say, a day or two before you start
13 your cross-examination, you let us know which documents we need to have
14 before us, you would be helping the Trial Chamber a lot.
15 MR. ACKERMAN: I'd be happy to do that to the extent that I'm
16 capable of doing it, Your Honour. There is no reason for me to try to
17 hide anything from anybody.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: It's not an imposition. It's a suggestion that the
19 Trial Chamber makes.
20 MR. ACKERMAN: I think maybe with only one or two exceptions these
21 are all documents that the witness was referring to yesterday.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: No, no, I don't agree with you at all. More than
23 half of the documents have not been asked upon in the course of the
25 MR. ACKERMAN: Maybe you're right.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Of course I am.
2 MR. ACKERMAN: Probably are. You usually are.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Actually they say that I only was wrong once and
4 that's when I said I was wrong.
5 MR. ACKERMAN: You thought you were wrong and you weren't.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Ackerman, let's proceed.
7 MR. ACKERMAN:
8 Q. Good morning, Mr. Dzonlic.
9 A. Good morning.
10 Q. You told us that you didn't personally know Mr. Brdjanin on the
11 first day you testified here, didn't you?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. You told us that he was in the republican assembly from the Banja
14 Luka region?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. When you say Banja Luka region, do you mean Banja Luka
18 A. I mean the region of Banja Luka.
19 Q. How -- I've not heard that term before. What is the region of
20 Banja Luka? Is that more than the opstina?
21 A. Yes. It covers several municipalities.
22 Q. Is that the Autonomous Region of Krajina? Is that what you're
23 talking about?
24 A. No, I'm not talking about that. I know that there was a region
25 and I know that he came from the Banja Luka region. I wasn't referring to
1 the Autonomous Krajina when I used that term.
2 Q. Does that region have its own government of some kind?
3 A. No, no.
4 Q. Where is it defined as a region? How -- is it some formal, legal
5 concept or is it just an informal thing or what is it? We've not heard
6 that before here. So you could help us, I think.
7 A. Bosnia and Herzegovina was divided up into regions, not officially
8 by law but there was the Bihac region, the Banja Luka region, the Tuzla
9 basin, the Sarajevo region. And that is what I was referring to.
10 Territorially in general terms, and not as a legally defined term.
11 Q. Have you seen a map that shows these regions?
12 A. No.
13 Q. So they are not formal in the sense that they have been drawn on
14 maps or anything like that?
15 A. No. It was customary to refer to the Tuzla basin region, the
16 Bihac region, the Banja Luka region, which covered Banja Luka and a couple
17 of surrounding municipalities which were by their industry and
18 economically linked together. And that is what I meant when I said from
19 the Banja Luka region area.
20 Q. Should we -- maybe you can help us with this. Should we take it
21 from your testimony that people were elected to the assembly from these
22 regions, like Mr. Brdjanin was elected to represent the Banja Luka region
23 in the assembly?
24 A. No, no. People were elected by municipalities, on municipality
25 lists. Only I don't know on which municipality list he was, but I do know
1 that he came from the region of Banja Luka and later, I learnt that he
2 came from the Celinac municipality which is in the immediate vicinity of
3 Banja Luka. So when I use the term "region," I meant that he came from
4 Banja Luka or the surrounding area. However, the election lists were
5 drawn up for each municipality.
6 Q. So are you saying that you now know that Mr. Brdjanin represented
7 the Celinac municipality in the republican assembly?
8 A. Now, not now, but then in 1991 and 1992, I didn't know that he was
9 from Celinac. I didn't even know that he was from Banja Luka. I wasn't
10 sure on which list his name figured but I later learnt that he was from
11 the Celinac municipality, and as far as I know to this day, he is from
12 Celinac municipality, though I never saw any documents showing where he
13 was born, where he lived, or where he resided, which was -- you had to be
14 registered in a particular municipality for at least six months to be able
15 to appear on the list of candidates, as far as I can remember.
16 Q. Let me -- I must have asked that question very inartfully. What I
17 was trying to ask you was, do you now know that during the time you're
18 testifying about, that late 1991, early 1992, that Mr. Brdjanin was in the
19 republican assembly as a representative of the Celinac municipality?
20 A. Yes, yes.
21 Q. And you also told us that if you were a representative from a
22 particular municipality, then you were required, to the extent possible,
23 to attend the municipal assembly meetings of that municipality; correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And so Mr. Brdjanin, as a representative from Celinac would have
1 been required to attend the municipal assembly meetings in Celinac;
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. You also told us that you thought he was on the candidates list in
5 Banja Luka for the elections, multi-party elections in 1990 and let me ask
6 that you take a look at Exhibit BD31, and tell me first of all if you
7 recognise what it is.
8 A. Yes. I do.
9 Q. Do you see the list of candidates for the SDS?
10 A. Yes. I do.
11 Q. That list has, I think, 130 names on it. Do you see
12 Mr. Brdjanin's name on that list?
13 A. No, I don't see it.
14 Q. You told us that you heard Mr. Brdjanin make certain statements on
15 the radio in 1991 and 1992, statements about Muslim people, about the
16 numbers who should remain in the Banja Luka region. You're familiar with
17 the statements I'm referring to, are you not?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Would you like to change your testimony about that and agree with
20 me that, first of all, you didn't hear those statements but were simply
21 told that he had made such statements?
22 A. No. I wouldn't like to change my testimony, and I cannot agree
23 with you that I heard it from someone else.
24 Q. Would you like to change your testimony and agree with me that it
25 was only in 1993 that you heard or someone told you they had heard
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Mr. Brdjanin say certain things on the radio?
2 A. I didn't say -- when I said I heard him, I didn't say that he said
3 such and such a thing in 1992, and in 1993 something else. When I was
4 speaking, I think we were talking about what he said in 1991, and in 1992
5 and 1993, as far as I can remember, in the statement I made. When I said
6 in 1991 he said there should be a plebiscite of the Serb people and a Serb
7 state should be formed and Yugoslavia -- that a part of Bosnia-Herzegovina
8 should belong to Yugoslavia.
9 Q. Let me ask you if you agree or disagree with the following
10 statement: "He was very frequently on the radio, TV, and in the
11 newspapers, especially in 1993. Before that, he was obviously not
12 considered respectable as a spokesperson of the SDS. In 1991 and 1992, he
13 was rarely interviewed." Do you agree or disagree with that statement?
14 A. I don't know as to what you're saying, that he was a spokesman.
15 Whether it was frequently or infrequently is something again that I cannot
16 comment on, but I do know that I personally heard him on the media, the
17 radio, and some statements in the local newspaper Glas.
18 Q. So is it your testimony, then, that you disagree with that
19 statement that I just read to you?
20 A. Could you read it out to me once again, please?
21 Q. Yes, I will. Referring to Mr. Brdjanin, "He was very frequently
22 on the radio, TV and in newspapers, especially in 1993. Before that, he
23 was obviously not considered respectable as a spokesperson of the SDS.
24 In 1991 and 1992, he was rarely interviewed."
25 A. Regarding 1993, I can't know because I left on the 26th of
1 February, 1993, so at the beginning of the year. But let me say again,
2 whether it was frequently or infrequently is something I can't say, and I
3 don't know what that means, "frequently or not." But I personally did
4 hear him. As for this statement you read out, it's something I don't know
5 what to say about. I don't know what is meant by "frequently or not
6 frequently" being interviewed.
7 Q. How about just the statement, "In 1991 and 1992, he was rarely
8 interviewed"? Would you agree with that statement?
9 A. I can't say. I can't say that I agree or disagree, because I'm
10 not qualified to speak about the media. All I can say is that I
11 personally heard him on the media. Not once but several times, I heard
13 Q. So can I take it that your answer is that you don't know if that
14 statement is true or not?
15 A. Yes, you could.
16 Q. Thank you. Who did you meet with about your testimony that you
17 were going to give here before you actually came into the Trial Chamber
18 and started testifying? Who did you discuss your testimony with before
19 coming into the courtroom?
20 A. With no one. I didn't discuss my testimony with anyone before
21 entering the courtroom.
22 Q. You never had any meetings with the Prosecutor about your
24 A. I had talks concerning my statement and certain corrections in
25 that statement. I was given my statement to read through. I don't
1 consider that to be a meeting in the sense that you asked me. I had made
2 several statements previously, and when I came here, I was given the
3 statement to read out again. If you're referring to that meeting, then,
4 yes, I did have that meeting.
5 Q. Did you have any conversation of any kind, whether it was a
6 meeting, a telephone, correspondence, any form of communication, about the
7 subject of your testimony with any person other than a representative of
8 the Office of the Prosecutor prior to coming here and giving your
10 A. I just communicated with my parents, to let them know that I was
11 coming here. No, I didn't have any communication with anyone concerning
12 my testimony.
13 Q. Did you not have meetings with some people from the AID office?
14 A. No. I didn't meet with them. They drove me to the airport in an
15 official car, from my home to the airport, but I didn't have a meeting
16 with them of any kind.
17 Q. How long a drive would that have been?
18 A. I waited in front of my building from 1.15. They were due to come
19 at 1.30. I was ready at 1.15 waiting. They were a bit late, maybe five
20 or ten minutes. There was a van, and there were other people inside, and
21 they apologised because they needed to transport these other witnesses who
22 were coming to testify, and the trip to the airport took about half an
23 hour, half an hour.
24 Q. And you had no discussion with the AID people or any of these
25 other witnesses about the testimony you were coming here to give?
1 A. We said we were going to The Hague. It was known that we were
2 going to The Hague, that those people were going to The Hague too, but we
3 didn't discuss our testimony.
4 Q. Okay. I want to change subjects now. I want to go to the issue
5 of the mobilisation. You told us in your direct testimony that you
6 represented some people with respect to mobilisation orders that they had
7 received, correct?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And you told us that you had been instructed by your clients to
10 pursue this matter I think your words were, up to -- "up to some
11 international court." Is that what you said?
12 A. Yes. That is what I said.
13 Q. What international court did you tell these clients in 1992 had
14 the competence to hear their issues regarding mobilisation?
15 A. I didn't say anything to them about that. There was the Court in
16 Strasbourg for human rights violations and they said that their rights
17 were in jeopardy and they themselves said that they would like this to be
18 taken right up to the level of international courts. But I didn't tell
19 them which particular courts I had in mind.
20 Q. Do you contend that there was an international [Realtime
21 transcript read in error "small"] court that would have jurisdiction over
22 the mobilisation orders in 1992 in former Yugoslavia?
23 A. These were not just cases of mobilisation. There were cases
24 regarding employment and property rights, and mostly those people who were
25 saying that they would like to take those cases to international courts,
1 they were people that had such property complaints and complaints
2 regarding employment and not in connection with mobilisation, for which
3 they would address international courts.
4 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour, the transcript has rendered my
5 question to be contended that there was a "small court"?
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, I see that.
7 MR. ACKERMAN: And what I'd asked him was, "Do you contend that
8 there was an international court"?
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, you are right, Mr. Ackerman.
10 MR. ACKERMAN: I have to ask the question again because I don't
11 think it was answered.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: The transcript contains an obvious mistake. You
13 certainly did not ask the witness whether he contends there was a small
14 court, but you asked him whether he contends there was an international
15 court that would have jurisdiction over the mobilisation orders in 1992 in
16 former Yugoslavia. So I think with my statement now the position is
17 clarified and we can go ahead.
18 MR. ACKERMAN:
19 Q. Mr. Witness, would you answer that question: Do you contend that
20 there was an international court with jurisdiction over these matters that
21 you just mentioned?
22 A. No, I do not contend that. I never did.
23 Q. And so as a good lawyer you advised your clients that there was no
24 international court that could deal with their complaints?
25 A. I didn't tell my clients. I'm saying what the clients were
1 saying. I didn't say that to them. That's what I made clear a moment
2 ago. I didn't mention any international court. I just said that at the
3 time I was aware that there was a human rights court in Strasbourg and I
4 knew that we couldn't go to that court because we were not members of the
5 Council of Europe. I was saying that my clients were saying that, and not
6 myself. Maybe due to my occupation, I wouldn't have to answer this
7 question because this relates to counsel-client privilege but if you
8 insist, I am telling you what I said, but it wouldn't be ethical for me to
9 go into that.
10 Q. Mr. Dzonlic, I will not insist that you answer a question, please
11 understand --
12 JUDGE AGIUS: I would suggest, Mr. Ackerman, that you proceed with
13 some other point, some other question.
14 MR. ACKERMAN:
15 Q. I'm going to talk to you now about people losing their jobs. You
16 told us that you had clients who had lost their jobs because of decisions
17 made by the Crisis Staff of the Autonomous Region of Krajina; correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And you told us that these clients brought you documents which, on
20 their face, said that they had been dismissed because of an order of the
21 Crisis Staff.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Do you have those documents?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Do you have them with you?
1 A. Not here.
2 Q. Did the investigator of the Prosecutor ask you for those
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Did you given them to the investigator for the Prosecutor?
6 A. Yes.
7 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour, they have not -- I don't think, been
8 disclosed to us and I think it's very important that they be disclosed.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Korner?
10 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I do know something about this but the
11 situation is, and can I confirm, he did offer them and the investigator
12 rang and we said that we couldn't take them because they weren't his to
13 offer them to us. They [Realtime transcript read in error "we"] were his
14 clients' files and they were confidential so they were never taken, but he
15 certainly did offer them to us and we don't have them. I can confirm that
16 we didn't take them.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, Mr. Ackerman. I just want to --
18 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. One moment, Mr. Ackerman. I just want to
20 check something in my records because I have an indication, an impression,
21 that the witness in his statement made some kind of reservation about
22 these documents, saying precisely what Ms. Korner has just -- yes,
24 MS. KORNER: Can I ask for the note to be corrected as well? My
25 answer a wasn't "we were his clients' files" but "they were his clients'
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, please. Any way, we will come to this later
4 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I have -- given evidence but I can call
5 the investigator if necessary, if Mr. Ackerman requires to confirm that.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Well, in each case, where he mentions even the names
7 of his clients, it does state that he has -- still has in his possession,
8 the original files.
9 MS. KORNER: What Your Honour may be thinking about is when I
10 dealt with this matter in examination-in-chief, I asked a series of
11 questions about whether he'd been able to contact any of his clients to
12 obtain their permission for us to have the files.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: You probably are right, Ms. Korner.
14 MS. KORNER: It's a very moot point and one which we couldn't
15 resolve at the time as to whether or not the clients still retained their
16 rights of privilege in these files, but we decided to be safe rather than
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Can we proceed for the time being, Mr. Ackerman?
19 MR. ACKERMAN:
20 Q. Your honour, the witness was asked directly, "Did you give these
21 to the investigator for the Prosecutor?" just now, and his answer was
22 "Yes," and what his statement might say is of no moment. What he just
23 said right here in open was he gave them.
24 Secondly, these are documents that were provided to the client by
25 their business, the place they worked. They are not part of any
1 attorney-client privilege. They can't be part of any attorney-client
2 privilege that I'm aware of and if the witness is going to testify that he
3 has documents saying that they lost their job because of an order from the
4 crisis staff, then those documents need to be produced. And I demand that
5 they be produced. I request that they be produced. And if he's correct
6 that the Prosecutor has them, then the Prosecutor should give them to us.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Dzonlic --
8 MS. KORNER: Your Honour -- I'm sorry, Your Honour. I just stated
9 we don't have them. We didn't take them. They were offered to the
10 investigator. I can call the investigator to say that and if Mr. Ackerman
11 requires it, I will. If Mr. Ackerman requires Mr. Dzonlic to have those
12 documents -- produce those documents, well, then, I have no doubt some
13 arrangements can be made or we can try to in Sarajevo, but, Your Honour,
14 we do not have them.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Dzonlic?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said, and I was asked by the
17 attorney whether I had those documents, I said that I didn't have them on
18 me but that I do have possession of them, and when I said that I gave the
19 documents, what I meant was that, when I was examined, I said that I had
20 the original documents, and I gave them those documents to look at, but I
21 didn't officially hand over those documents to the Prosecution as
22 evidence, because of the ethics of my job and for other reasons.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. I think we have to stop here for the time
24 being because we have overstepped by five minutes and my attention has
25 been drawn to that fact. We will recommence at 11.00. Thank you.
1 --- Recess taken at 10.34 a.m.
2 --- On resuming at 11.03 a.m.
3 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, may I apologise? I gather I've kept
4 you waiting.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: No problem. [Microphone not activated] Yes. Just
6 one follow-up. Bad news, Mr. Ackerman. I wasn't right when I said we
7 were supposed to resume or we had agreed to resume on April the 4th. The
8 Registry has located the part in the transcript of the session of 21st
9 January, and I'm reported as having said -- I'm the culprit. I take all
10 the responsibility. Okay, so let's go back. We start on the 23rd, break
11 from the 8th until the 13th, recommence on the 14th, right through the
12 21st, then break from the 22nd, I gave you an extra day now, break from
13 the 22nd until April the 1st, resuming on April the 2nd in any case. I
14 wouldn't have liked to resume on April the 1st because I don't know
15 whether you have taken me seriously. So that is the position.
16 So the agreement is that we will resume on April the 2nd. If you
17 require more time than April the 2nd or you want to resume later than
18 April the 2nd, because of logistics in particular, do let me know and we
19 can -- one day here or one day there wouldn't make a difference because we
20 will make up for it later.
21 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I'm going to make inquiries today to see
22 whether there is any problem getting the witnesses here because it will
23 mean them coming here on Easter Sunday actually, if not Easter Saturday
24 and it may cause a difficulty, but I will check that out.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Keep us informed. And if we need to adjust the
1 timetable, you know, taking another couple of days off in that week and
2 then adding another couple of days sitting somewhere else, we can do
3 that. It's a question of -- the important thing is that we go ahead.
4 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, may I correct? I was told this morning
5 that I think all our lists of the numbers of witnesses were -- there was
6 one wrong number, number 8, the witness I said we were going to --
7 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, let me locate the paper because that, I
8 think, is here. Yes, what is the problem?
9 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, there are two witnesses with the same
10 name. It's Witness number 8, who in fact does not have the number 7.197
11 but 7.103, who we are skipping.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: I see. No. In my list, witness number 8 is 7.197.
13 And witness number 13 is also 7.197.
14 MS. KORNER: Exactly.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: And they both have the same name and I would assume
16 that they are the same person.
17 MS. KORNER: No. They are different. So it's witness number 8
18 who in fact has the disclosure number of 7.103, who we propose to admit --
19 omit completely.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Exactly. We will get to know the name later.
21 Obviously for our purposes, I think Mr. Ackerman and Madam Fauveau can
23 MS. KORNER: The first names are different but it's the surnames
24 that are the name.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: The person that you are going to dispose of, in
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 other words --
2 MS. KORNER: Not to call.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: You said you wouldn't require him would be number 13
5 MS. KORNER: No it's number 8.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: So it's no longer important for us to know who he is
7 at this point.
8 MS. KORNER: Exactly.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.
10 MS. KORNER: I'm afraid that that happens quite a lot from certain
11 areas, a lot of people have the same name.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Number 13 you're going to produce as a witness later
14 MS. KORNER: Exactly.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you. And in fact, I didn't raise the matter
16 up myself. I should have actually because the number was the same. But
17 one has the asterisk and the other one doesn't. So one was seemed to be
18 protected and the other one wasn't. Okay.
19 MR. ACKERMAN: I'm a bit confused now is the order then,
20 Ms. Korner 7, 9, 10, 11?
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, correct.
22 MS. KORNER: Yes, it is.
23 MR. ACKERMAN: Thank you very much.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: And Ms. Korner, while you are still standing, do I
25 still take it that witness number 19, 7.167, will not be produced?
1 MS. KORNER: Yes, Your Honour, that is so. That was a Rule 92 and
2 in the light of Your Honour's ruling we have taken the decision not to
3 call him.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: And that between 14 and 15, there is an additional
5 witness, number 7.4, correct?
6 MS. KORNER: Oh, yes, yes, Your Honour, that's right.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Are you aware of that, Mr. Ackerman?
8 MR. ACKERMAN: Let me see. I've got a 7.4 at place 15.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. I said between 14 and 15 because that's where
10 I marked him.
11 MS. KORNER: I think, Your Honour, we updated the list and
12 clearly, Your Honours, and myself are still working off the old list.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: I am. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Korner.
14 I think you can bring forward the witness. Yes, Mr. Dzonlic,
15 again sorry to have kept you waiting but we were discussing a few
16 matters. Mr. Ackerman will continue with his cross-examination of you.
17 Thank you.
18 MR. ACKERMAN: Thank you, Your Honour.
19 Q. Mr. Dzonlic, before we broke, you had told us with regard to these
20 documents we were discussing, you know what I'm talking about, don't you?
21 A. Yes, I do.
22 Q. You told us that you showed them to the investigator for the
23 Prosecutor; correct?
24 A. Yes, that's right.
25 Q. You have testified about their contents here in this courtroom;
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And you now take the position that there is some kind of a
4 privilege attached to documents that you have shown to the Prosecutor
5 investigator and talked about here in the courtroom that would prevent you
6 from giving us the documents?
7 A. Well, I said that this is a question of ethics. This is -- this
8 concerns the client-counsel privilege, the client-counsel relation.
9 Q. Well, didn't your showing them to the Prosecutor's investigator
10 concern the client-counsel privilege relation? Didn't you violate that by
11 showing them to the Prosecutor's investigator?
12 A. I showed these documents to them to confirm what I knew, but I
13 didn't present them as an official -- as official proof to the Court, to
14 the Tribunal, and it was not taken as evidence by the Chamber. I really
15 don't have the consent of all my clients to submit these documents and to
16 submit them as official evidence to the Tribunal.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, Mr. Ackerman. Let's specify what these
18 documents we're to start with. Because before we start even discussing or
19 putting questions to the witness, whether he violated then or would
20 violate now the confidentiality rules between advocate, counsel, lawyer
21 and client, we better specify what documents we are talking about. What
22 were these documents? What did you show to the interrogating officer at
23 the time?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I showed the investigators documents
25 on, to be specific, the termination of employment, the decision of the
1 Crisis Staff, on mobilisation. My objection or complaint filed against
2 this decision, the decision of the court on determining a sentence, most
3 of the documents were of this kind. And my relation with my clients, I
4 never told anyone about what we had spoken about, and I consider that
5 these documents are public ones. If the Trial Chamber and the Defence
6 wants to obtain these documents it's quite simple. It is possible to
7 carry out an official investigation in the municipal court for
8 misdemeanors in Banja Luka for the period of 1992 and there is certainly
9 about 5.000 such cases and the court dealt exclusively with such cases in
10 that -- during that period. I don't want to enter into the Defence's
11 strategy but I think that the Defence is making it more difficult for
12 itself, because --
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Please don't enter into arguments with Defence
14 counsel. Mr. Ackerman here is -- has a task to complete. He is has a
15 responsibility towards his client. He may enter sometimes in
16 confrontation with you. You are a lawyer, you have also been a Judge.
17 You understand that. He's doing his duty. So the Court will protect him
18 in as far as he does not go beyond what his duty is. So please, I think
19 you have answered the question as far as the Trial Chamber is concerned.
20 Mr. Ackerman, can we go ahead? Because one of these documents
21 actually, which is P255, which he was shown, and I remember him saying
22 that this was or could have been the type of document that his clients
23 were showing him as being the cause or the basis for the termination of
24 their employment.
25 MR. ACKERMAN: Yes, Your Honour. I'm prepared to go forward.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Because basically there may be one of all the
2 documents that he has mentioned, there may be one, which one could argue
3 with a lot of ifs and buts that could be covered by confidentiality or --
4 but the rest? Where does confidentiality come in?
5 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour, I'm prepared to go forward. I'm going
6 to take your guidance and be more specific with regard to what I'm asking
7 the witness.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you Mr. Ackerman.
9 MR. ACKERMAN:
10 Q. Mr. Dzonlic, let me be more specific about the exact documents
11 that I'm asking you about. You said in your testimony that you had
12 clients who lost their jobs because of the decision of the Crisis Staff,
13 and that they brought you documents which presumably were from their
14 employers saying that they had been dismissed because of the decision of
15 the Crisis Staff. Is that the case? Do such documents exist?
16 A. Such documents do exist, yes. For failure to respond to the
17 mobilisation call and the decisions of the Crisis Staff, according to
18 these decisions, the employment of certain people was terminated.
19 Q. Do the documents say on their face that the dismissal action was
20 taken because of a decision of the Crisis Staff? That's my question. Not
21 the mobilisation call but the decision of the Crisis Staff.
22 A. Not because of a decision of the Crisis Staff but because of a
23 failure to respond to the mobilisation call.
24 Q. So when you told this Chamber the other day that you had documents
25 showing that clients lost their job because of decisions of the Crisis
1 Staff, you were not correct, were you? That you had documents that would
2 show that?
3 A. I don't see in what respect I was not correct. I said that
4 because of the decision relating -- concerning the failure to respond to
5 mobilisation, and for this reason, employment -- people were dismissed.
6 Anyone who failed to respond to mobilisation would lose his job. Apart
7 from those who had been assigned war obligation -- work obligations and
8 this had been assigned to people for whom the Crisis Staff had given
9 authorisation to work and for people who had provided this -- a copy of
10 this war plan, they would be assigned work obligations and all the others
11 had to go to the army or to the front. All the others weren't able to go
12 to their jobs and for this reason, their employment was terminated.
13 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, may I interrupt? Because I think
14 Mr. Ackerman has put to the witness that he told the Chamber the other day
15 that you had documents showing that clients lost their jobs because of the
16 decisions of the Crisis Staff. Your Honour, I think one needs to look at
17 what he actually said and Mr. Ackerman can put his exact words to him. I
18 think that would be helpful. Your Honour, it's in the LiveNote. I don't
19 know whether an official transcript has yet been produced, for the 26th of
20 February, on my version it's page 69.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Can you read it out, Ms. Korner, please?
22 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, yes. Your Honour, the question was -- I
23 put to him the document of the Crisis Staff that is Exhibit 255.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: That's the one I mentioned myself earlier.
25 MS. KORNER: Exactly, and I said:
1 Q. Mr. Dzonlic what were the circumstances in which many of
2 the clients were bringing you a copy of this decision?
3 A. People would come to see me because they had been
4 dismissed from their work after this decision and they
5 would bring decisions on terminating their employment in
6 which reference was made to this decision. I told the client
7 each client that if it was possible for the client to provide
8 me with this decision from its company, they should ask their
9 employer to provide them with this decision. They would then
10 go back to their company - I don't know how they obtained this
11 - they didn't all manage to obtain the decision, but quite a
12 few of them brought these decisions to me on the basis of
13 which their employment had been terminated and the grounds for
14 the termination were cited as this decision. And he then
15 explained that he had two or three copies.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Ackerman.
17 MR. ACKERMAN: That's exactly what I was referring to, the
18 document that was brought by his clients citing the decision of the Crisis
19 Staff as the reason that they had been terminated and then what he goes on
20 to say is he asked if they could find that decision and bring it to them
21 and I think he understands that I'm asking him about the documents the
22 clients brought showing they had been terminated, dismissed because of a
23 decision of the Crisis Staff so I don't think there is any difference
24 between what I'm suggesting and what Ms. Korner just read to you. I'm
25 prepared to move on, Your Honour. Unless Your Honours want to pursue this
2 JUDGE AGIUS: No, I feel no need to pursue it any further. It's
3 so obvious when a client comes to you telling you his or her lawyer, legal
4 adviser, "I've had my job terminated," what that client can produce is a
5 letter of dismissal or of termination of employment. Then the question
6 arises as what is contained therein, whether there is a specific reference
7 and it seems that the specific reference, according to his testimony
8 before, was to the decision of the -- contained in P255 which I could
9 remember very as being the document that he was referring to throughout.
10 MR. ACKERMAN: And he's now told you today that that's not the
11 case, that the document that the clients brought him referred to the
12 mobilisation order.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Of course the clients don't bring -- I mean, in my
14 country, the basis is an act of parliament. No client is going to bring
15 you the act of parliament.
16 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour, the matter is completely confused then
17 at this point.
18 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I think we better ask Mr. Dzonlic to
19 confirm he actually said that yes, he did get a copy of this of that
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, yes, eventually they did bring him this. But
22 what they brought him initially was the letter of dismissal.
23 MR. ACKERMAN: That's what I'm talking about. He told you that
24 the letter of dismissal referred to a decision of the Crisis Staff as the
25 basis for the dismissal.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: And he also said that several of them brought him
2 also copies of.
3 MR. ACKERMAN: That's not what I'm inquiring about. That has
4 nothing to do with my question. He told you that they brought letters of
5 dismissal, that on their face said the dismissal was because of a decision
6 of the Crisis Staff. That's what I'm asking him about.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Made reference to whatever it is, a proclamation or
9 MR. ACKERMAN: I'm sorry, Your Honour, Ms. Korner just read you
10 his testimony and that's what he said. Today now he says "No, that's not
11 what those documents say. They only refer to failure to respond to
12 mobilisation." I've made my point. I don't need to make it any clearer,
13 I don't think.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Dzonlic, I will let the interpreters finish
15 first. You have presumably followed the exchange and the debate for the
16 last few minutes. Are you in a position to clarify the position to us?
17 What did your clients hand to you, what kind of documents did they hand to
18 you, and in particular, if there was a document expressing the termination
19 of their employment, what did that document normally specify as being the
20 reason for the termination? And also, I will put a direct question to
21 you: Was there a reference in these documents to what was shown to you as
22 document -- Exhibit number P255 being the decision of the Crisis Staff of
23 the ARK region, of the Autonomous Region of Krajina?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Most of my clients would bring me
25 decisions on the termination of employment. In some of the decisions, it
1 was quite explicitly stated that this was for failure to respond to
2 mobilisation. And that for these reasons, this person's employment was
3 being terminated. In other decisions, on the termination of employment,
4 it stated that on the basis of the decision of the Crisis Staff on
5 mobilisation and failure to report to one's job for three days, employment
6 was being terminated; That concerned the majority of documents. A few
7 clients brought me a decision which had been signed and had a stamp from
8 the Crisis Staff, a decision of the Crisis Staff, because the Crisis Staff
9 forwarded its decisions to economic agents too. And I have perhaps two or
10 three decisions from the Crisis Staff. They were not the originals but
11 they were photocopies of this decision, paragraph 1, 2 and 3.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: I think that's clear enough, Mr. Ackerman. We can
13 proceed with the next question.
14 MR. ACKERMAN: I think it's not clear at all, Your Honour, but I
15 will proceed because you instructed me to.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: If it's not clear to you, you may put any further
17 question you may like. The Chamber is not stopping you. But can I -- can
18 you tell us what's not clear now?
19 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour, we have now, as far as tell, three
20 different versions.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: To me, it has always been clear from the very first
22 time he opened his mouth on this matter.
23 MR. ACKERMAN: Well, let me explain my confusion, Your Honour, and
24 maybe you can clarify it for me. He says, "My clients came into the
25 office and brought me a piece of paper. It was a piece of paper from the
1 place they were employed that said, 'You are hereby dismissed.' And the
2 reason for your dismissal is that you failed to respond to mobilisation."
3 That's fine. I can accept that. But what he told you initially was that
4 on the face of the document it said the reason for dismissal was a
5 decision by the Crisis Staff.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: With reference to mobilisation and the failure to
7 respond to the call for mobilisation.
8 MR. ACKERMAN: That's fine.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: It's a question of putting a juxtaposition of one
10 with the other and bringing them together in the same context. This is
11 why he sent them back and asked for a further documents to come forward.
12 MR. ACKERMAN: If there is a document that says that his client
13 was terminated based on a decision of the Crisis Staff, not because of
14 mobilisation, but on a decision of the Crisis Staff, then I would -- I
15 think that document should be produced. Because I suggest to you that I
16 don't think it exists. I think the document that exists is a document
17 that says they were terminated because of failure to respond to
18 mobilisation. The mobilisation was ordered by the Serbian Republic of
19 Bosnia-Herzegovina not the Crisis Staff. If there is a -- if there is a
20 document that says they were terminated because of actions of the Crisis
21 Staff, I think it should be brought here.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: I see your point but we don't have it.
23 MR. ACKERMAN: That's my point.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: You certainly have a valid point but we don't have
25 the documents.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 MR. ACKERMAN: And I think you should order them to produce them.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: If he has them.
3 MR. ACKERMAN: He says he has them. He claims to have them.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Dzonlic?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Shall I just try to add something?
6 Some people would lose their jobs not only because of failure to respond
7 to the mobilisation call but directly as a result of the decision of the
8 Crisis Staff, and if we are to go back a little in time, we will see that
9 at all managerial posts, certain senior positions could be held only by
10 citizens of Serb ethnicity. That was a decision of the Crisis Staff. So
11 that people who held managerial positions would automatically lose their
12 jobs pursuant to this decision, because they were not Serbs.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: But were there any of such persons amongst your
14 clients? I mean clients that had lost their job not because of failure to
15 respond to the mobilisation call but because they held managerial
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There were such clients, yes. Who
18 had held managerial posts and lost their jobs merely because they were not
19 of Serb ethnicity.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: My question to you, do you have any objection or
21 reservation in making these documents or some of them available to the
22 Prosecution? Or to this Trial Chamber? Ten years after?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have certain documents that I gave
24 the Prosecution to examine. I did not oppose showing them to them. But
25 then the problem of a procedural nature arose. I didn't have permission
1 to offer these documents as evidence. If that is necessary, I can provide
2 it for examination, and I leave it up to the Trial Chamber to rule whether
3 it is my duty and obligation to provide those documents. Of course, I
4 think that we should bear in mind the rules of ethics, but I am at your
5 disposal. I don't know whether I have to do this but if I'm given such
6 instructions I will do so without further ado.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: I think the matter ought to stop there for the time
8 being, Mr. Ackerman. That's his answer. Whether he should be forced to
9 produce the documents or not, I don't think ought to be debated in his
10 presence in any case.
11 MR. ACKERMAN: Okay. I'll move on, Your Honour.
12 Q. In your direct testimony, you talked to us about the Crisis Staff
13 of ARK, and what you told us, and I'm referring to page 2322 of the
14 transcript, you told us that the Crisis Staff was responsible for all
15 segments of life on the territory of Bosanski Krajina, and you were asked
16 to elaborate and you said, "Well, all segments of life means, 'ranging
17 from the economy, information, agriculture, the use of power, electricity,
18 education, culture,' so the Crisis Staff took over all control over all
19 aspects of life."
20 MS. KORNER: Can I just ask what day, sorry?
21 MR. ACKERMAN: That would have been the 26th of February.
22 Q. Do you stand by that testimony, Mr. Dzonlic?
23 A. I stand by everything I have said.
24 Q. Did the Crisis Staff have an office in Banja Luka?
25 A. It was based in Banja Luka but where its office was, I don't know.
1 Q. Do you even know if it had an office?
2 A. I don't know that.
3 Q. You never saw a Crisis Staff office, did you?
4 A. No.
5 Q. You never went to a Crisis Staff office or met anybody at a Crisis
6 Staff office, did you?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Do you know how many people were employed by the Crisis Staff?
9 Did you ever learn that?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Did you ever hear who -- I assume if the Crisis Staff was
12 responsible for all of these segments of life, economy, information,
13 agriculture, power, electricity, education, culture, that there would have
14 been a Crisis Staff minister for each one of these segments of the
15 economy. That's the way it should have been; correct?
16 A. It had an executive council.
17 Q. Well, the executive council was Mr. Erceg and three other people,
18 wasn't it?
19 A. I don't know.
20 Q. Are you saying that it's the executive council that was
21 responsible for economy, information, agriculture, power, electricity,
22 education, culture and all aspects of life?
23 A. We saw from the decisions signed by the president of the executive
24 council, as far as I can remember now, that referred to these various
25 segments of life and that he was in charge.
1 Q. Are you aware of the percentages of Serbs, Croats and Muslims in
2 Banja Luka in 1990, 1991?
3 A. Yes, I know that very well. I participated in taking the census
4 in 1981 and 1991.
5 Q. And the census of 1991 showed what, do you know off the top of
6 your head without looking?
7 A. Officially, when we completed the census for Banja Luka
8 municipality, 98.500 Serbs, 28.700 Bosniaks, 29.500 Croats, and I think
9 26.000 Yugoslavs and 8.000 others. As far as I am able to remember just
11 Q. All right. You told us that in the judiciary in Banja Luka, in
12 1990, 1991, there was one Croat judge; correct?
13 A. Until 1993, until I left the Banja Luka, I remember that there was
14 only one Croat judge left at the municipal court in Banja Luka.
15 Q. I'm talking about before any people were dismissed, like you
16 testified people were dismissed. Before any dismissals that you testified
17 about, there was only one Croat judge, isn't that what you told us?
18 A. No, no. I didn't say that there was only one Croat judge. I said
19 that only one had been left, only one judge of Croat ethnicity, that he
20 had not been fired, and that he remained in his position.
21 Q. All right. I misunderstood you and I apologise. So before --
22 A. That's fine.
23 Q. Before all of this, how many Croat judges were there? I know you
24 probably can't be totally accurate but just your best estimate?
25 A. Out of the total number of judges, there may have been, shall I
1 say, -- well, I don't know. There were several, maybe ten, but I can't
2 really say.
3 Q. Do you know what the total number of judges were?
4 A. I don't know the total number of judges.
5 Q. You told us about a commission that you set up that had four
6 members, dealing with human rights, that sort of thing, and you
7 established offices for that commission; is that correct?
8 A. Yes, correct.
9 Q. Can you give us some sense of how large these offices were that
10 you had established for your commission?
11 A. It was an office in perhaps the oldest town -- building in Banja
12 Luka, an old Bosnian house, the size was five by four metres.
13 Q. It was just a single room, this office?
14 A. Just that one, single room.
15 Q. All right. And I think you told us that you needed to accommodate
16 quite a large number of people who, once they learned about your
17 existence, were coming there?
18 A. Not to accommodate them. I didn't say that. I just said that
19 when people learned about the existence of this office, a large number of
20 them would come to the office and as the house had a large yard, then
21 those people would be in the yard. And there was a large walnut tree and
22 wooden benches and they would sit there or stand around there. I don't
23 think I said that we needed to accommodate them.
24 Q. I'm sorry. I used a word that got translated in such a way that
25 you totally misunderstood me. I didn't mean that you were providing them
1 with housing and clothing and food and things like that. What I meant was
2 that you had to take care of whatever issues these people had come there
3 to discuss with you in this office.
4 A. Yes, yes.
5 Q. You talked to us about people losing their jobs, and you told us
6 that when people lost their jobs, were dismissed from their employment,
7 that because the flats that they lived in were owned by the company they
8 had been employed by, they then lost their flats and were left with no
9 choice but to leave the area. Is that what you told us?
10 A. Yes, yes.
11 Q. Can you tell the Trial Chamber of just one case where someone was
12 forced from their flat, against their will, without being assigned another
13 flat to live in in Banja Luka?
14 A. Just one? There were hundreds every cases.
15 Q. All I'm asking you to tell us is -- if you can tell us one?
16 A. I don't understand how I can tell you about one. I know of a case
17 of a person being evicted from his flat without another flat being
18 provided for him.
19 Q. Can you tell us that person's name? You don't have to. I'm not
20 going to make you tell us that person's name but can you tell us that
21 person's name?
22 A. If necessary, I will. My father-in-law, not to go any further
23 than that. He is my wife's father. My aunt. There you are. They are my
24 relatives. I wouldn't like to mention clients' names.
25 Q. What company was he employed with?
1 A. My father-in-law, just before the war, retired. He used to be
2 employed in the Institute for the Construction of Banja Luka, it was
4 Q. So he was not dismissed from his job?
5 A. No. He wasn't dismissed, no.
6 Q. My question was can you tell me someone who was dismissed from
7 their job that was then forced from their apartment without being assigned
8 another one.
9 A. I told you, my aunt's son, my cousin. He was employed in the
10 company called Cajevac, Rudi Cajevac.
11 Q. And he was dismissed for what reason?
12 A. Because he didn't respond to the mobilisation call, and he
13 couldn't enter the factory and three days later, he was fired, and maybe
14 two months later, he was evicted from his apartment.
15 Q. Did he live in that apartment by himself or did he have a family?
16 A. He had a family.
17 Q. And was he assigned another apartment to move to?
18 A. No. He had to leave Banja Luka, and he is now living, I think
19 it's in Sweden.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: You don't have to tell us where he's living.
21 MR. ACKERMAN:
22 Q. When you -- I'm going to move to another subject now, about -- you
23 told us that you made several trips to the headquarters of the 1st Krajina
24 Corps to try to get permission to go to Manjaca. You recall that
25 testimony, do you not?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And just as a practical matter, how were you getting back and
3 forth from your home to the offices of the 1st Krajina Corps? Were you,
4 walking, bicycling, driving? How were you doing that?
5 A. On foot. I went on foot. I walked.
6 Q. And did you have to go through barricades or checkpoints to get
8 A. No.
9 Q. You eventually got permission to go to Manjaca and you drove there
10 in a vehicle owned, I think you said, by Ibrahim Makic, did you not?
11 A. Yes, yes.
12 Q. Did Mr. Makic have to get some kind of a travel permit to permit
13 him to drive his car to Manjaca?
14 A. As far as I can remember, we all had to given our documents, but
15 Mr. Makic, in addition to a copy of his ID card also had to provide a copy
16 of his traffic licence for his vehicle, and it was on the basis of those
17 documents, I think, that we were given permission to go to Manjaca.
18 Q. I'm speaking right now about your first trip there, did you have
19 to go through checkpoints or barricades upon leaving Banja Luka or
20 anywhere along the way?
21 A. Could you please repeat your question? I'm sorry.
22 Q. Referring to your first trip to Manjaca, in Ibrahim Makic's red
23 Kombi, did you have to go through any checkpoints or barricades from the
24 time you left the place you left from in Banja Luka until you got to
1 A. No. We didn't. We didn't have to pass through any checkpoints.
2 Q. I take it that Ibrahim Makic lived in Banja Luka?
3 A. I think, yes, he lived in Banja Luka. I think it was in the
4 Vrbanja district. I'm not quite sure, but I think that is where he lived
5 and that is part of Banja Luka so he did live in Banja Luka.
6 Q. And his -- this red Kombi that he had that you talked about, was
7 it a Renault?
8 A. I don't know whether it was a red Renault. It could have been a
9 Ford Kombi van.
10 Q. You just don't know?
11 A. It was quite old. I think it was a Ford van.
12 Q. All right. Did you ever see him driving it around Banja Luka?
13 A. No, not until that time when we went to Manjaca.
14 Q. Did you see him driving it around after that?
15 A. No, I didn't see him.
16 Q. You said that -- you told us that -- actually I'm going to skip
17 some questions here, Your Honour. I think I'll not go into this.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Ackerman.
19 MR. ACKERMAN:
20 Q. This red Kombi, I'm talking now about not the one that Makic drove
21 around but this other red Kombi that you talked about, you told us that
22 that red Kombi was designed to put people in fear and make them want to
23 leave Banja Luka. That was your impression; correct?
24 A. I think that was its main purpose.
25 Q. It's true, isn't it, that people wanted to leave Banja Luka
1 because they didn't want to be mobilised?
2 A. One of the -- I -- could you please ask me that question once
3 again? I do apologise. Could you repeat the question, please.
4 Q. It's true, isn't it, that people wanted to leave Banja Luka
5 because they didn't want to be mobilised?
6 A. No, that is not true.
7 Q. It's true, isn't it, that Serbs left Banja Luka to avoid being
9 A. There were Serbs too, who left Banja Luka, and the reason, I don't
10 know their reasons.
11 Q. Well, if a young Serb was mobilised, he might be sent to fight in
12 the front lines and get killed; right?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. You know, don't you, that Serbs left Banja Luka to avoid being
15 mobilised and sent to the front lines, sons of rich families, primarily?
16 A. I know some Serbs who left. Whether they were sons of wealthy
17 families, I don't know that, but I do know that individual Serbs left
18 Banja Luka because they didn't agree with the overall situation, and did
19 not want to join the army, to go to war.
20 Q. Right. And Croatians in Banja Luka didn't want to join the army
21 and fight against other Croatians in Croatia, did they?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. They did want to join the army and fight against Croatians or did
24 I misunderstand your answer?
25 A. They didn't want to join the JNA and to fight in Croatia against
1 Croats in Croatia.
2 Q. And you're aware, are you not, that Alija Izetbegovic instructed
3 Muslims not to respond to the mobilisation for the war in Croatia, saying
4 that it was not the Muslims' war and they shouldn't go there and fight?
5 You heard that, didn't you?
6 A. That is not true. You've perhaps misinterpreted that
7 information. Mr. Alija Izetbegovic on behalf of the Presidency of the
8 Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina called on all the citizens of
9 Bosnia and Herzegovina, not the Muslims, but all the citizens of Bosnia
10 and Herzegovina, not to respond to the mobilisation call and not to go to
11 war in Croatia because that was not our war, and he meant the state of
12 Bosnia and Herzegovina. And it is not right that he called on the
13 Bosniaks. I didn't hear that. And I do know that he called on all the
14 citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina not to go to that war.
15 Q. Well, at the time, Bosnia-Herzegovina was a Republic of the
16 Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, wasn't it?
17 A. In those days, it had already been recognised, that is both
18 Croatia and Slovenia had been recognised. So that the former Socialist
19 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was no longer that, what it was by name,
20 because Slovenia and Croatia had already acquired their independence.
21 Q. But Bosnia-Herzegovina had not. It was still part of the SFRY,
22 wasn't it?
23 A. It was a part of the SFRY but I was saying which SFRY. Not the
24 one that used to include all the former republics, because with the
25 dissolution of Yugoslavia, sovereignty and independence of Slovenia and
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Croatia were recognised, so that Bosnia and Herzegovina did not have the
2 same status that it used to have before these two republics' independence
3 was recognised. So that it's a -- it's a fact that Bosnia and Herzegovina
4 was still not independent at the time. That is a fact.
5 Q. And during that war that was going on in Croatia, when there was a
6 mobilisation call, like the Croats and the Serbs, the Muslims didn't want
7 to be mobilised and go fight in that war either; correct?
8 A. The majority didn't want to go. The majority didn't want to go.
9 Q. Under the laws of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in
10 existence at that time, what were the penalties for failing to respond to
11 a mobilisation call?
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Dzonlic, only answer the question if you are in
13 a position to answer it. I know you are a lawyer, but if you're not in a
14 position to answer that question, don't answer it.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I couldn't tell you with precision
16 what the penalties were. I think --
17 MR. ACKERMAN:
18 Q. That's fine. You know there were penalties for failure to respond
19 to the mobilisation call under the laws of the Socialist Federal Republic
20 of Yugoslavia, don't you?
21 A. Yes, yes, of course.
22 Q. And you know that a lot of people were leaving to avoid being
23 mobilised or being punished for failure to respond to mobilisation,
24 both -- Serbs, Muslims and Croats, all three?
25 A. The mobilisation applied to all citizens.
1 Q. Now, in addition to this red Kombi that you said put people in
2 fear and made them want to leave, you also said that there were other
3 things going on in the Banja Luka area that put people in fear and made
4 them want to leave; correct?
5 A. Yes, that's correct.
6 Q. It's your position, is it not, that this was a deliberate thing,
7 that the persons in charge, the Serbs, were deliberately trying to create
8 a climate of fear to force people to leave, Muslims and Croats, non-Serbs,
9 to leave Banja Luka and the Krajina area? That's your basic position, is
10 it not?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. What I would like to do with you now, Mr. Dzonlic, is go through
13 the process that was required for you, once you had decided to leave Banja
14 Luka, the process that you had to go through to get permission to leave,
15 and I'd like to go through these kind of one at a time. One of the things
16 you told us that you had to do was go to the police; correct?
17 A. You didn't first have to go to the police. You had to go to the
18 police in order to leave. You had to go to the police to deregister, to
19 say you were leaving and to say that you were going to resettle somewhere
20 else and the second place you were going to register in would usually be
21 in some other country.
22 Q. Let's go with first. What was the first place you had to go,
23 first thing you had to do?
24 A. I said that there was not a first thing you had to do. It wasn't
25 as if you had to do one thing first. You could first go to the housing
1 organ and get a certificate confirming that you didn't have a certain
2 rights to a flat, and then you could go to get a certificate saying that
3 you had sold something. There was no definite sequence that had been
4 established, but in fact you had to go through the entire procedure.
5 Q. Let's just try to go through them one at a time and I think the
6 order, as you said, is not important. When you'd go to the police, the
7 purpose in going to the police was what? What did you have to do when you
8 got there?
9 A. You had to fill in a form, which -- with which you would register
10 and deregister. Would you have to say that you were leaving,
11 deregistering and you would also have to write down your new place of
12 residence. So you would have to state that you were leaving a certain
13 address on such and such a date, and would you have to state that you were
14 going to be resident at a certain different address on a certain date, and
15 then the competent organs in the police would enter this in your identity
16 card on the third -- on the second or third page of the identity card.
17 They would make a note of the date of deregistration. They would put
18 their stamp on the third page of that identity card then.
19 Q. If you were going to move from Banja Luka to Belgrade in 1989,
20 you'd have to do the same thing, wouldn't you?
21 A. No.
22 Q. No? You weren't required to go deregister with the police before
23 you left town?
24 A. We were free to move. I went to Zagreb on 50 occasions. I never
25 deregistered. We never had to do that.
1 Q. You didn't go there to live there. You went there to visit;
3 A. You asked me when you go to Belgrade, so do you mean when you go,
4 when you move to live somewhere else? I didn't understand you well.
5 Q. That's what I meant. That translation, my word choice was
6 probably bad. If you wanted to move from Banja Luka to Belgrade, change
7 your residence, in 1989, you'd have to go through this same process,
8 wouldn't you?
9 A. Yes, yes, the same process.
10 Q. You told us that you had to go to, I think, National Defence;
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And what would happen there?
14 A. As we were all liable for military service, and we had our
15 military booklets, and a certain records in which our data had been noted,
16 and our mobilisation post as a reservist was stated there. You would have
17 to take your booklet, that booklet there, you would have to take your
18 uniform with you if you had one, you would have to hand over your uniform
19 and hand over that booklet and deregister, deregister with the
20 secretariat, I suppose, and then you would get a certificate stating that
21 you had deregistered with the secretariat.
22 Q. Now, in 1989, if you were going to move from Banja Luka to
23 Sarajevo, you'd have to do the same thing, wouldn't you?
24 A. I don't know. I don't know about that.
25 Q. The whole idea of this was you were part of a reserve army
1 basically, the TO, and for them to be able to call you up, they had to
2 know where you were. So if you were going to move from Banja Luka to
3 Sarajevo, you had to inform National Defence you were changing your
4 residence, didn't you?
5 A. Believe me, I really don't know. I really don't know that.
6 Q. That would make sense, wouldn't it?
7 A. I could not comment on this because I don't know. For
8 registration and deregistration of your place of residence, yes, I'm aware
9 of this, but I don't know about this other issue.
10 Q. Do you know if you were emigrating, leaving the country to move to
11 Europe, the United States or somewhere else, that in 1989, you had to go
12 to National Defence, turn in your military identification, your uniform,
13 all those things? You know that was the case, don't you?
14 A. I don't know that.
15 Q. It Would be sensible, wouldn't it? Doesn't that make sense?
16 A. You're insisting on an answer but as I said, I don't know. You
17 may or may not accept my answer, but I don't know. Even if someone
18 emigrated, in such a case, that means he might leave without contacting
19 anyone. I don't know. I really can't comment on this because I don't
21 Q. Well, please understand that I'll always accept your answer that
22 you don't know. I can't make you know something that you don't know. If
23 you don't know something, just say so. That's just fine. Okay? You told
24 us you would have to go to the court. What would happen there? What
25 would you do at the court?
1 A. When you went to the court, you had to submit an application to
2 them for a certificate stating that no criminal proceedings were being
3 conducted against you.
4 Q. Now, when you would do that, would you have to stand in a line?
5 Were there -- was there a whole line of people there trying to get such
7 A. There probably was. I don't know. Probably, because I, as the
8 lawyer for some people, I would get these certificates, I had access to
9 the records of the court, there were people who were waiting in line
10 there, an application would be made, submitted to the municipal court, and
11 the certificate could be obtained from the high court, in another court,
12 so you would submit the application to the municipal court and after two
13 or three days, would you go to the higher court in order to obtain this
15 Q. And when you did it for yourself, didn't you get one of these
16 certificates yourself when you were getting ready to leave?
17 A. I had to get all these certificates too because, as I said, I
18 finally got this authorisation to leave but they then took it away.
19 Q. The certificate you got from the court they took away from you?
20 Is that what you're saying?
21 A. No, no, no. The authorisation to leave, to resettle. But all of
22 these certificates that I received from the courts and from all other
23 institutions, they would be returned to them again in some other office,
24 maybe it's a matter of 14 or 15 certificates, and we then had to return
25 all of these, pay 50 marks in order to receive one certificate for
1 resettlement, for moving away.
2 Q. When you went to the court to get your certificate, the one that
3 you got for yourself when you were getting ready to move away, did you
4 have to stand in line there?
5 A. I never waited in the court, as an ordinary client. As a lawyer I
6 was able to enter without waiting, and to submit certain applications.
7 This was the court records where lawyers could go. There were people who
8 would record things there and as lawyers we were able to enter freely.
9 That was related to our work.
10 Q. In 1989, if you were applying for a passport, you'd have to go to
11 the court to get this certificate, wouldn't you?
12 A. For a passport, I'm not sure whether for a passport or for an
13 identity card. Perhaps for a passport it was necessary to have a
14 certificate showing that you hadn't been sentenced and that no criminal
15 proceedings were being conducted against you. I think that this
16 certificate was necessary when a passport was being issued.
17 Q. Yes. And what you had to pay -- you said you paid 50 marks but
18 wasn't it 50 dinars?
19 A. 50 marks. 50 German marks.
20 Q. How many dinars would that be?
21 A. I don't know. Believe me. I didn't say that I paid 50 marks for
22 this certificate from the Court. I paid a certain tax, court tax. I
23 don't know how much it was exactly. I gave 50 marks. That was an
24 office. When we would collect all these documents, we would go to that
25 office which was across the road from -- when you crossed the city town in
1 Banja Luka, where there was a building of the local commune. This is
2 where we would provide -- where we would hand in all the documents we had
3 collected and we would pay 50 marks and would then receive a certificate
4 stating that we had paid 50 marks. They would take all those documents
5 and would then issue one document, an authorisation -- which would be the
6 authorisation for moving away. And I paid 50 marks on this occasion.
7 Q. You told us that in addition to the police, national defence and
8 the court, you also had to go to various public offices. What were those
9 public offices you had to go to?
10 A. You had to take from the cadastre office, the land registry
11 office, which was in the municipality of Banja Luka, your certificate of
12 property, which showed whether you had property or not. And then you had
13 to go to get -- to the title deeds office, which was part of the municipal
14 court, and you with would have to get a certificate of -- on property, if
15 you owned real estate, or you would receive a certificate showing that
16 you were not the owner of real estate on the basis of the records in the
17 -- on land -- of the land registry. You would then have to go to the
18 post office to obtain a certificate showing that you weren't a telephone
19 subscriber, or that if you were, that you were cancelling your telephone
20 subscription. And then you would have to go to the water supply board and
21 the sewer board - I think that's what the firm was called - in order to
22 obtain a certificate stating that your supply system was being cancelled,
23 and that the refuse collection was being cancelled. You would then have
24 to go to the fund -- the resources management in the municipality of Banja
25 Luka in order to obtain a decision stating that you didn't owe any taxes
1 or that you weren't liable for taxes, or that if you were, that you had
2 paid all your taxes. Then you would have to go to the housing organ.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Ackerman, I have to stop you and I have to stop
4 the witness because now he's repeating almost verbatim when he has already
5 told us before. You were proceeding in an orderly manner, asking him
6 particular questions in relation to each particular visit that he was
7 supposed to make before he could resettle elsewhere. Could you please go
8 ahead as you were proceeding before, if you still need to do that, without
9 having the witness to go over and over again, repeating what he has
10 already told us?
11 MR. ACKERMAN: Yes, Your Honour.
12 Q. Mr. Dzonlic, all these public offices that you had to go to to get
13 all these certificates was something you would have to do in 1989 if you
14 were moving from Banja Luka to Belgrade, isn't it? You would have to
15 disconnect your water, you would have to disconnect your sewer, you'd have
16 to get a certificate that you didn't owe any money, you'd have to
17 disconnect your telephone, you'd have to do all these things, wouldn't
19 A. I don't know, because I don't know anyone who moved. I don't
20 know that.
21 Q. Well, you told us, when you first testified about this -- you're
22 now saying you don't know. You told us, when you first testified about
23 this, that this process where you had to go through, the police, the
24 national defence and the court and all these public offices, was set up by
25 the Crisis Staff. That's what you said. Now you're telling us you don't
2 A. Could you please clarify this a little? You were speaking very
4 Q. In your testimony to this Trial Chamber a day or two ago, you said
5 that this process that you've described, going to the police, the national
6 defence, the court, and all these public offices, was set up by the Crisis
7 Staff. Now you're saying you don't even know. What's the truth?
8 A. I know that the entire procedure had been established after a
9 decision by the Crisis Staff on the manner of leaving, and on issuing
10 certificates. Before, such procedure did not exist, if someone wanted to
11 leave. You have just asked me whether all this was in 1989, whether it
12 was the same in 1989. I don't know whether it was the same in 1989 but
13 all I do know is that you first had to deregister, to say that you were
14 leaving your place of residence, and I know that at that time the people
15 did not have to go through that procedure when they had to leave. And
16 furthermore, earlier on, when you wanted to leave, you didn't have to
17 obtain a certificate, an authorisation to leave. You were free to leave.
18 But as identity cards were public documents, you had to regulate this
19 matter, but you did not have to receive some sort of particular
20 authorisation to leave because you wanted to leave. That's what I was
21 saying and that's what I was thinking about.
22 Q. Mr. Dzonlic, do you understand that what you're saying is being
23 recorded in a transcript? You understand that?
24 A. Yes, I do.
25 Q. And what you just told us over the last ten or 15 minutes was that
1 before the war, in 1989, you had to go to the police and go through this
2 same process to move. You knew that to be true. With regard to the
3 National Defence, you said you didn't know. With regard to the courts,
4 you said you didn't know, but you knew you had to do it to get a
5 passport. With regard to all these various public offices, I asked you if
6 you had to do it before and you said you didn't know. You had told the
7 Court, you had told this Tribunal under oath that this was a process that
8 was set up by the Crisis Staff, that the crisis staff said you had to go
9 to the police and the National Defence and the court and the cadastre
10 office and all these other public offices. What I'm saying to you, and
11 what I suggest to you, is that you did not tell the Chamber the truth when
12 you told them that, because you've just now told us that you had to do it
13 before or you don't know that you had to do it before. Now, what is it?
14 What's the truth?
15 A. Everything that I said is true. You can claim whatever you like.
16 What I said, I stand by what I said. And as far as I can remember, this
17 was also a decision of the Crisis Staff on issuing certain certificates.
18 We were all -- in order to leave Banja Luka, we all had to go through this
19 procedure in order to obtain permission to leave. That's what it was
20 called. Officially it was called a certificate for leaving and the people
21 called it permission to leave. We had to go through all of this in order
22 to obtain this permission to leave. And it was only then that we would be
23 allowed to leave. And I stand by what I said. I don't see that I said
24 anything else, anything other than that.
25 Q. Where is this decision from the Crisis Staff you're talking
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 about? Have you seen it since you've been here?
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Ackerman, please proceed.
3 MR. ACKERMAN: I'm sorry.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead.
5 MR. ACKERMAN: Okay.
6 Q. Where is this decision from the Crisis Staff that you talk about?
7 Have you seen it since you've been here, the one that required you to do
8 all these things?
9 A. I think that this was yesterday or the day before yesterday, that
10 at that point in time the Prosecutor asked me whether I was referring to
11 those certificates, when I was speaking about the certificates. And the
12 decision of the Crisis Staff -- there was a decision of the Crisis Staff
13 on issuing certificates for departure and certificates on the property
14 owned by citizens, and I said that I was referring to those certificates.
15 I -- at the moment, I don't know about other decisions and whether --
16 perhaps you too -- whether you too were aware of these decisions. You
17 were following the proceedings. I confirm that I was referring to those
18 certificates because each citizen had to receive a certificate permitting
19 him to leave. There must have been people who left illegally without
20 those certificates. But whoever wanted to leave in accordance with this
21 had to go through such a procedure.
22 Q. Well, I understand what you're saying now is that you had to have
23 a certificate to permit to you leave. And I understand that. That's not
24 what I'm asking you about. What you told us was that this process you
25 described -- you went in great length in your testimony describing the
1 process that you were going through again today and the judge stopped
2 you. You said that entire process was set up by the Crisis Staff. And
3 what I'm asking you is, is there a decision of the Crisis Staff that you
4 have seen since you've been here that says you have to go to the police
5 and the National Defence and the court and the cadastre office and all
6 these other public offices and get certificates from all those offices.
7 Is there a such a decision of the Crisis Staff and if so, have you seen
9 A. I didn't say that there was a decision of the Crisis Staff on that
10 but that there was a decision of the Crisis Staff stating that you had to
11 receive such a certificate. But as far as this procedure is concerned, I
12 didn't say that there was a decision of the Crisis Staff saying -- listing
13 a number of items that had to be done. I said that on the basis of the
14 Crisis Staff's decision it was necessary to obtain certificates to leave
15 and a certificate on property in order to be able to take your property
16 out, you had to go through -- I'm not quite sure what kind of procedure
17 relating to property, but you had to get this certificate for permitting
18 you to leave. And in order to obtain this certificate, you had to go
19 through this entire procedure and only at that point would you receive
20 such a certificate permitting you to leave. And I said that earlier on,
21 it was not necessary to have a certificate permitting to you leave, and
22 that this procedure did not exist, because no one needed a certificate if
23 someone wanted to leave on a voluntary basis.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: With that, I think we have to break for the next 25
25 minutes. We will resume at 5 to 1.00. Thank you.
1 --- Recess taken at 12.29 p.m.
2 --- On resuming at 1.02 p.m.
3 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, just before the witness comes in, could
4 I just mention the timetable again? I've consulted with the investigator
5 responsible for arrangements with the VWS who bring witnesses here. It's
6 thought that possibly the last witness for the Banja Luka municipality may
7 still be actually giving evidence after the Easter break because we are
8 going back and back again, but if not, and to be on the safe side whereas
9 I'm asked to ask you if you could, say, split the difference and make it
10 the 3rd of April which is the Wednesday rather than the Tuesday.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Knowing that if I remember well --
12 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, I'm saying this subject to correction, but it
14 may well be that on that particular -- on that Friday on that particular
15 week, may be court maintenance. I have the impression that it is.
16 MS. KORNER: We worked on the basis it's court maintenance, no
17 sitting on the 22nd.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Good. So the understanding is, Madam Fauveau
19 and Mr. Ackerman, that we will be resuming on the 3rd and not on the 2nd
20 of April.
21 MR. ACKERMAN: I'm sorry, Your Honour, I'm having trouble with
22 LiveNote. Yes. I understand I think what Ms. Korner said, we will not
23 sit on the 22nd and we will not sit again until the 3rd.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
25 MR. ACKERMAN: That's fine.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: In other words, your better half will have to --
2 MR. ACKERMAN: Put up with me for an extra day.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
4 MR. ACKERMAN: She won't be angry with you about that, Your
6 JUDGE AGIUS: When I say your better half, I mean it. Can we call
7 the witness, please? Thank you. She is not a lawyer, too, is she?
8 MR. ACKERMAN: Yes.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: She is as well?
10 MR. ACKERMAN: Yes, she is. She works for the government, Your
12 JUDGE AGIUS: At least she doesn't work pro. Bono
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Dzonlic, we will continue with your
14 cross-examination. Mr. Ackerman, you may proceed.
15 MR. ACKERMAN: Thank you, Your Honour.
16 Q. Mr. Dzonlic, the last answer that you gave us regarding these
17 tasks that one had to do before leaving Banja Luka, your last answer was,
18 "I didn't say that there was a decision of the Crisis Staff on that. But
19 there was a decision of the Crisis Staff stating that you had to receive
20 such a certificate."
21 In your testimony on February 27th, starting at page 2398,
22 Ms. Korner, you had been talking about the -- all these things you had to
23 do, this list that you and I went through this morning, and Ms. Korner
24 said to you, "You said a that departure from Banja Luka was clearly
25 established and orchestrated by the authorities. Why do you say that?"
1 Then another question right after that. "You say you knew the
2 authorities arranged it. How do you know that?" And then up a fairly
3 long answer, about departure and all the things that one had to go
4 through, and you talk about electricity bills, heating bills, power
5 distribution centre, the public institutions, the court, the Defence
6 Secretariat, your answer goes through that whole list you and I were
7 talking about. And then Ms. Korner says in question,
8 Q. I'm sorry. I'm going to stop you for a moment. I think
9 before we go any further, was this something that always
10 happened? In other words, before these events in 1992, or was
11 this something that had only happened as a result of the
12 Crisis Staff and the like?
13 A. This was the result of decisions of the Crisis Staff.
14 Before that, it never happened.
15 Now, that was your testimony.
16 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, in fact, can I interrupt? Mr. Ackerman
17 has the same facility I do, it's 2389, if Your Honour is looking for it.
18 MR. ACKERMAN: I've got 2398.
19 MS. KORNER: Thank you.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Please proceed. Mr. Dzonlic,
21 MR. ACKERMAN:
22 Q. That was your testimony, Mr. Dzonlic, at whatever page it
23 appears. Now, do you want to take back what you told us before the break
24 that you didn't say there was a decision of the Crisis Staff on that?
25 That you had to go through all this process?
1 A. I am not taking it back. I said that before, we didn't have this
2 procedure for permission to move, which all of us had to go through.
3 Before the war, there was no such procedure for someone to leave his own
5 Q. Well, I think the transcript will speak for itself, Mr. Dzonlic, I
6 don't think it's of any value for me to proceed any further with you on
8 This Crisis Staff of the Autonomous Region, you saw the documents
9 showing who the members of the Crisis Staff were. We looked at several of
10 them here yesterday or the day before. You recall that, don't you?
11 A. Yes, I do.
12 Q. And I think you'd agree with me, wouldn't you, that in addition to
13 the listed names, it's pretty clear that the Crisis Staff would also have
14 included representatives from the other municipalities that were part of
15 the Autonomous Region of Krajina, wouldn't it?
16 A. I don't know that because I don't know all the people on the list
17 of the Crisis Staff. Those that I do know are from Banja Luka. As for
18 the others, I don't know where they are from.
19 Q. That's kind of my point. The municipalities outside Banja Luka
20 wouldn't have for a minute put up with a Crisis Staff that was only people
21 from Banja Luka, would they?
22 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honour, I'm sorry, I object to that
23 question. How can he say what people from other municipalities would have
24 put up with.
25 MR. ACKERMAN: Well, if he doesn't know he's free to say, I've
1 already told him, that he can say he doesn't know any time he feels like
3 JUDGE AGIUS: [Microphone not activated]
4 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Your Honour, please.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: ... is a valid one.
6 MR. ACKERMAN: Okay. I'll ask it differently.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: You rephrase it, it's better.
8 MR. ACKERMAN: I will.
9 Q. Do you know whether representatives from all these other
10 municipalities that were part of the Autonomous Region of Krajina would
11 have consented to a Crisis Staff that was made up of all people from Banja
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Again, it's a question which I wouldn't expect him
14 to answer in any case. How can he answer for others?
15 MR. ACKERMAN: I'm just asking him if he knows. Maybe he does.
16 If you don't want him to answer the question, that's fine with me, Your
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Are you aware of what Mr. Ackerman is asking you, as
19 a fact? Or as a possible fact? Because it's also a hypothetical
20 situation that he is putting to you.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am aware that it is an assumption
22 and I can answer in the form of an assumption. I assume that the Crisis
23 Staff was composed of representatives of the whole territory, and that
24 probably all the members of the Crisis Staff were not from Banja Luka
25 municipality alone, that is my assumption. I don't know that. I just do
1 know the people that I knew and whom I have identified, they were from
2 Banja Luka.
3 MR. ACKERMAN: Could I ask that the witness be shown Exhibit
4 P242? Well, that is not anywhere near the document that I thought it was
5 going to be. Apparently we have an exhibit numbering problem, Your
6 Honour. And it's obviously my mistake.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: According to my records, at least to my binder, 242
8 is a copy of a draft translation of a decision by the Serbian -- by the
9 Autonomous Region of Krajina Crisis Staff to found an agency for
10 population movement.
11 MR. ACKERMAN: I think it's 247 is the one I'm looking for. I
12 think it's 247. I've got a 242A and a 247B. I think it's probably 247.
13 The disclosure is 2.64.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: 2.64 is 247, yes.
15 MR. ACKERMAN: I'm sorry.
16 Q. Now, Mr. Dzonlic, you have before you Prosecution Exhibit 247, and
17 the B/C/S version is 247B. This is a -- refers to a meeting of an
18 organisation apparently called Intermunicipal Agreement Sanska Unska
19 [phoen] area of 14 June, 1992, with representatives from Srpska Krupa,
20 Bosanski Petrovac, Bosanski Novi, Bosanska Dubica, Prijedor, and Sanski
21 Most; is that correct?
22 A. Yes, correct.
23 Q. And if you look at paragraph 1, just below the listing of the
24 agenda you'll find language in B/C/S had starts with [No interpretation].
25 In English it reads, "With regard to the previous meeting of the Crisis
1 Staff of the Autonomous Region of Krajina, we can note that most of our
2 proposals have been adopted and have been incorporated into the official
3 positions of the Crisis Staff taken at its 8 June, 1992 session." That at
4 least indicates, does it not, that your assumption is correct, that there
5 were people from these other municipalities in attendance at and making
6 proposals at this meeting of the Crisis Staff?
7 A. I see this document for the first time. However, this first item,
8 since it is of a general nature, the first paragraph doesn't specify what
9 it is they discussed, and what proposals they made that were incorporated
10 in the positions of the Crisis Staff. So I don't know what this relates
11 to. Therefore, I don't understand fully what really you are asking me,
12 what it is you want. Perhaps you could elaborate a little and explain it
13 to me better.
14 Q. I'll try again. All I'm really asking you, I think, is something
15 that's fairly simple. The question I'm asking you is: That document
16 indicates, does it not, in paragraph 1, that representatives from these
17 municipalities listed up above were present and making proposals at that
18 Crisis Staff meeting on 8 June? I'm not interested in what those
19 proposals were, just that it tends to support your assumption that people
20 from other municipalities were members of the Crisis Staff. Isn't that
21 the case?
22 A. One could make such an inference.
23 Q. That's all I'm asking. Thank you. I'd like you to keep that
24 document because we will be referring to it again and I'd now like you to
25 be provided with P227.
1 You looked at this document at some length yesterday and had
2 reviewed it prior to your testimony here; correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And the first decision, number 1, is the decision regarding
5 mobilisation, is it not?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And that decision is signed by Lieutenant Colonel Milorad Sajic,
8 Secretary of the National Defence Secretariat of the Autonomous Region of
9 Krajina; right?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Has nothing to do with the ARK Crisis Staff, does it?
12 A. I wouldn't say that so explicitly, that it has nothing to do with
13 the Crisis Staff of the Krajina region, because here there is reference to
14 the Autonomous Region of Krajina, so it applies to that region as an
15 Autonomous Region of Krajina.
16 Q. But the Crisis Staff wasn't even appointed until the day after
17 this decision was entered. This decision was entered on 4 May and the
18 Crisis Staff wasn't appointed until the next day, 5 May; isn't that true?
19 A. Yes, yes, yes. That's true. But it applies to the Autonomous
20 Region of Krajina, the whole region.
21 Q. I understand that but what you have referred to as the
22 mobilisation order of the Crisis Staff was not the mobilisation order of
23 the Crisis Staff, it was the mobilisation order of the Autonomous Region
24 of Krajina, because the Crisis Staff didn't even exist when that decision
25 was made. That's a fair statement, isn't it?
1 A. Yes, yes. One could say so.
2 Q. Well, it would be correct to say so, wouldn't it?
3 A. Yes, yes, correct.
4 Q. And like some other decisions that you and I have looked at, this
5 one has a preamble, does it not?
6 A. Yes, it does.
7 Q. And that preamble says that the decision is being made pursuant to
8 the decision of the Ministry of the National Defence of the Serbian
9 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, number 1/92, dated 16 April, 1992. That's
10 what it refers to as the authority for it being made; right?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. So when you said that this mobilisation was ordered by the
13 municipal secretaries of defence, it's really not true, is it? It was
14 ordered by the Ministry of National Defence and Lieutenant Colonel Milorad
15 Sajic on behalf of ARK simply followed that order from the Ministry of
16 National Defence of SRBiH; right?
17 A. I said that in the territory of Banja Luka municipality, the
18 call-up papers for the general mobilisation, the general call-up and
19 individual call-up papers were distributed by the municipal Secretariat
20 for National Defence of Banja Luka municipality.
21 Q. Have you seen the document referred to, the decision of the
22 Ministry of National Defence of SRBiH of 16 April, 1992? Have you ever
23 seen that document?
24 A. The one I'm looking at now?
25 Q. No, the one from the Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina,
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 number 1/92, the document that the one you're looking at now refers to.
2 Have you ever seen that document?
3 A. I haven't seen that document. I can't remember. Maybe if I were
4 to see it.
5 MR. ACKERMAN: Could the witness be shown Exhibit 153, please?
6 Q. Do you have it before you?
7 A. Yes, I see it, if that is the one. 1/92?
8 Q. That's the one referred to in Sajic's decision; correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And this decision in Prosecutor's Exhibit 153 declares an imminent
11 threat of war, in paragraph 1, under the second decision. Do you see
13 A. Yes, I do.
14 Q. And the second paragraph in that decision, general public
15 mobilisation of the TO, in the entire territory of SRBiH; correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And finally all military conscripts are duty-bound to make
18 themselves available to the municipal TO staffs in the territory of
19 SBiH -- SRBiH maybe, I don't know. Correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Now, go back now to the Official Gazette and the decision of
22 Lieutenant Colonel Sajic.
23 A. Yes?
24 Q. And what Lieutenant Colonel Sajic is ordering in this decision is
25 a mobilisation of the Territorial Defence; correct?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. All right. Now, let's go to number 2, the Crisis Staff according
3 to this document, was 17 people, and they were all appointed to their
4 position by Nikola Erceg; correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Who you know to have been the president of the executive council
7 of the Autonomous Region of Krajina at that point?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And the Crisis Staff would be available to replace the ARK
10 Assembly if it was not possible for the ARK Assembly to meet. That would
11 be the purpose of the Crisis Staff; correct?
12 A. I don't know about that.
13 Q. Didn't you say that in your statement to the OTP, that the purpose
14 of the Crisis Staff was to take the place of the assembly when the
15 assembly couldn't meet? Do you want to deny that you said that in your
17 A. As far as I can remember, I said that the executive council --
18 MS. KORNER: I'm going to interrupt. I think in this case the
19 witness should not be asked to remember his statement. It should be put
20 to him and let him look at the statement.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: You're right, Ms. Korner.
22 MR. ACKERMAN: Well, let me just look, Your Honour, and make
23 certain that my memory is correct.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Your memory is correct because I remember him making
25 this statement. But there was a previous occasion when in fact you were
1 suggesting to him that he had said this and that and when you could have
2 read it out to him, and I would suggest to you that this should be adopted
3 as the practice.
4 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, if it helps Mr. Ackerman, it's in his
5 second statement at the top of page 5, the paragraph that he may be
6 thinking of.
7 MR. ACKERMAN:
8 Q. What you actually say at the place where -- you don't even have it
9 in front of you. I think you should. It's his second statement, dated
10 May 5, 2001. It would be fair for to you have it rather than me telling
11 you what it says. Just look at the top of -- it might not be page 5 in
12 the B/C/S version.
13 MS. KORNER: I've found it.
14 MR. ACKERMAN:
15 Q. Under a heading called "Crisis Staffs." It's on page 4 at the
16 very bottom of the page, "Krisni Stab," and the first paragraph,
17 [no interpretation]. Do you find that?
18 A. Yes, I've found it.
19 Q. And what you say in there, that "the Crisis Staff is the organ
20 that would make decisions that were once made by a municipal assembly, for
21 example Serb Krajina Assembly, in Banja Luka municipal government,"
23 A. Yes. I said that some of the decisions were taken by the Crisis
24 Staff instead of the municipal assembly, when it was constituted and when
25 it was established.
1 Q. And if you look down into the next paragraph, near the bottom,
2 what you say in your statement is, "The ARK Crisis Staff made the decision
3 for general mobilisation order." And we've just discovered that that's
4 not true, haven't we? That it was -- that was done before there was an
5 ARK Crisis Staff?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Now, we are back to Mr. Erceg appointing this Crisis Staff. The
8 executive council that Erceg was president of continued to function after
9 5 May, 1992, when the Crisis Staff was appointed, didn't it?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And Erceg remained a person who was superior to any of the members
12 of the Crisis Staff, including its president, didn't he?
13 A. I'm sorry, I didn't receive the end of the translation. I didn't
14 hear the entire translation.
15 Q. I'll repeat it. Erceg remained superior to the persons he'd
16 appointed to the Crisis Staff, including its president, didn't he?
17 A. No, he didn't.
18 Q. Isn't it the case that if you have the power to appoint someone to
19 a position, you also have the power to remove someone from that position?
20 A. No. I think that he was -- that his role was a purely technical
21 one, that he was to prepare the adoption of decisions of the Crisis
22 Staff. He, as a member of the Crisis Staff, couldn't be superior to the
23 president and the vice-president of the Crisis Staff.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Ackerman, I wouldn't pursue this because you
25 know, as much as I do, that in many constitutional setups around the
1 world, especially where you have systems of government based on a prime
2 ministerial system, you have the president, the head of the executive, who
3 appoints the prime minister, but it's actually parliament who can easily
4 then, sometimes with just a bear majority, remove the president. So I
5 would leave it at that and not expect the witness to give you further
6 answers on this. Proceed.
7 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honour, with the greatest of respect, I
8 tend -- if Mr. Ackerman, following the guidelines Your Honour has issued,
9 despite his motion suggesting that the rule is contrary to the statute,
10 is -- he's putting his case that in fact it was Mr. Erceg who had the
11 power and not Mr. Brdjanin, well then, I think --
12 JUDGE AGIUS: But the witness has already said no, he was just a
13 figurehead or he served the purpose up to a certain moment, and in fact,
14 maybe because this is something that has attracted my attention, and in
15 all fairness, I was thinking of highlighting it. If you notice, not just
16 addressing you, Mr. Ackerman, but also you, Ms. Korner and Madam Fauveau,
17 of course, you notice document P227, or Exhibit P227, we have here the
18 second issue of the Official Gazette of the Autonomous Region of Krajina,
19 and I say the second issue, indeed the second issue, because this is year
20 1 and it's the second issue, assuming therefore that there was a previous
21 issue. If you look at decision number 1, or decision reported under
22 number 1, you will see that it ends with, "This decision shall come into
23 force on the day it is issued. It will be published in the Official
24 Gazette of the Autonomous Region of Krajina." And we don't exactly know,
25 at least I don't know, when this decision was issued precisely. In other
1 words, when it came into force.
2 The following decision, however, says -- and this was taken on the
3 5gt of May of 1992, says specifically that, "This decision shall come into
4 effect on the day it is adopted and shall be published in the Official
5 Gazette of the Autonomous Region of Krajina." I'm sure that you all
6 notice the difference between one and the other. And you will also notice
7 that this second decision is signed by Nikola Erceg as president of the
8 executive council. And it more or less means that the executive council
9 of the executive -- of the Autonomous Region of Krajina was created before
10 the Crisis Staff of the Autonomous Region of Krajina came into being. So
11 we have first, I suppose, the coming into being of the Autonomous Region
12 of Krajina at a date that -- I think we have come across a document
13 before, which specifies that. We have a decision of the secretary of the
14 National Defence Secretariat of the Autonomous Region of Krajina, making
15 the call-- issuing the call for mobilisation. You have at some point in
16 time already the existence of the executive council of the ARK, and you
17 have the creation of the ARK crisis coming into being sometime, as I
18 understand it, between -- we still have to establish whether actually the
19 ARK crisis came into being before this decision for mobilisation came into
20 force, because it may well be that this came into force afterwards. I
21 don't know. Perhaps you have more information about the details of the
22 facts than we do, but it's something that you ought to keep in your mind.
23 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, we are hoping to call some evidence to
24 deal very simply and basically with the way that the constitution worked
25 and the role of the executive council. My understanding is - and that's
1 all I can say from the documents and from the evidence - the regional
2 assembly in the Autonomous Region of Krajina operated along the same lines
3 as a municipal assembly.
4 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour, I really don't think it's appropriate
5 for either Ms. Korner or I to be making arguments at this point. I think
6 we need to bring out the evidence the way we bring out the evidence.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: We can actually ask Mr. Dzonlic to withdraw and to
8 retire and then we will meet him again tomorrow morning because it's time
9 in any case. But what I meant to say is that we need to articulate this
10 because to us at least it is quite important to know what came first,
11 because it seems to me that first you must have had the creation of the
12 Autonomous Region of Krajina; second, that there must have been created
13 the Executive Council for the Autonomous Region of Krajina; thirdly, the
14 birth of the official -- or the appearance of the Official Gazette of the
15 Autonomous Region of Krajina, especially what would be important for the
16 Tribunal to have in front of it before we proceed any further, perhaps you
17 can indicate it to us from the Banja Luka issue number 1, see what it
18 contained because ...
19 MS. KORNER: We've never -- we put in a request for it. We never
20 recovered it.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: You never recovered it. Because I think I have a
22 suspicion that it may be very important to know what it contained. Of
23 course, I mean, if we don't have it we don't have it. Maybe
24 Mr. Ackerman's -- Mr. Dzonlic, you can withdraw.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
1 [The witness stands down]
2 MR. ACKERMAN: I was just going to say at the end of the day Your
3 Honours will either have this answer or you won't and I'm to not certain
4 which way it is going to go because I am not sure there is a definitive
5 answer. If there is I'm sure it will be presented to you.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: It may be very useful to have because obviously the
7 first, the very first edition of this Official Gazette must have contained
8 the basic documents or the basic information.
9 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, it may or may not. Can I put it this
10 way? Perhaps I can -- seeing that Mr. Ackerman equally has sources of
11 documents, if he has a copy of the first edition, we would be very
12 grateful. As I say we, have a request in with the Republika Srpska
13 authorities for that first edition. We have never received it.
14 MR. ACKERMAN: I don't have it. If I had it I would give it to
16 JUDGE AGIUS: I'm not suggesting that you have it and that you are
17 hiding it from us. Definitely not.
18 MS. KORNER: I was not suggesting it for one moment.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: I know that, Ms. Korner. I think I will leave it at
20 that for the time being, but if this document could be recovered, I think
21 it would shed some light on the very first stages in the life of the
22 Autonomous Region of Krajina.
23 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, what we do have is the Statute for the
24 autonomous region and we have various documents relating to the
25 association of municipalities, which then translate into the assembly.
1 Your Honour, we will deal with it over the break.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. And I wouldn't be surprised if the first
3 issue precisely contained the Statute. I wouldn't be surprised in the
4 least. Because more or less, it's the constitution of, in inverted
5 commas, the constitution of the Autonomous Region of Krajina.
6 I thank you all. I also thank the interpreters for their good
7 work. We will meet tomorrow morning at 9.00 -- sorry, Monday, Monday. My
8 wife decided not to wait for me until I go back to Malta so she came
9 over. If I tell her that I'm working tomorrow, there will be fireworks.
10 So we will meet on Monday morning. I thank you all. And have a nice
11 weekend, all of you. Thank you.
12 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.46 p.m., to
13 be reconvened on Monday, the 4th day of March, 2002,
14 at 9.00 a.m.