1 Thursday, 16 October 2003
2 [Open session]
3 --- Upon commencing at 9.09 a.m.
4 [The accused entered court]
5 JUDGE AGIUS: So Madam Registrar, please proceed with calling the
7 THE REGISTRAR: Case number IT-99-36-T, the Prosecutor versus
8 Radoslav Brdjanin.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, madam.
10 Mr. Brdjanin, can you follow the proceedings in a language that
11 you can understand?
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Good morning to all. Yes, I can
13 follow in a language I understand.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, and good morning to you.
15 Appearances for the Prosecution.
16 MS. SUTHERLAND: Good morning, Your Honours. Ann Sutherland,
17 Julian Nicholls, assisted by Denise Gustin, case manager for the
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning to the three of you.
20 Appearances for Radoslav Brdjanin.
21 MR. ACKERMAN: Good morning, Your Honours. I'm John Ackerman with
22 Aleksandar Vujic and Kelli Sarrett.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Mr. Ackerman. Good morning to you and
24 your colleagues.
25 So, any preliminaries?
1 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour, I have two matters that come under the
2 heading "loose ends." We need to go into private session to talk about
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Let's go into private session for a while.
5 [Private session]
13 Page 20969 – redacted – private session
25 [Open session]
1 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't foresee that that witness will ever come for
2 cross-examination, so it's not likely. It's a foregone conclusion,
3 actually. When will Ms. Korner be back with us?
4 MR. NICHOLLS: Monday, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Tomorrow's witness is in whose hands? Is it in
6 your hands, Mr. Nicholls?
7 MR. NICHOLLS: That will be Mr. Tieger, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: I thought so. He lost his way?
9 [Trial Chamber confers with registrar]
10 [The witness entered court]
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning, Mr. Treanor. I'll ask you to
12 repeat -- could you kindly repeat your solemn declaration once more,
14 WITNESS: PATRICK TREANOR [Resumed]
15 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
16 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, sir. Good morning. You may sit down,
18 and Mr. Ackerman will proceed with his cross-examination.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Do we need both microphones switched on or is one
21 [Trial Chamber confers with registrar]
22 Cross-examined by Mr. Ackerman: [Continued]
23 Q. Good morning, Mr. Treanor.
24 A. Good morning.
25 Q. How are you this morning?
1 A. Very good, thank you.
2 Q. I got yelled at by the translators after yesterday's session for
3 going way too fast through difficult material, and I want to apologise
4 first of all to the translators for that.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Ackerman.
6 MR. ACKERMAN: And see if you and I can help each other go a bit
7 slower to give them a chance to do the fine job that they always do.
9 A. I'll do everything I can, certainly.
10 Q. If you catch me going too fast you let me know. So let's try to
11 be a little more considerate of their job today.
12 We left off yesterday with just kind of a reminder of January
13 11th, 1992, and the decision made by the Badinter Commission on that date.
14 That's the event that prompted the proposition that a referendum be held
15 in Bosnia-Herzegovina regarding the issue of independence, wasn't it?
16 A. Yes, I believe that's correct.
17 Q. Now, if we go back to October, when there was a -- sort of the
18 first blow-up in the parliament, where the Serb delegates walked out and
19 there was a vote to make the application for independence, basically.
20 That wasn't a permanent split, Serb delegates returned to the parliament
21 at a later date and they were present for the debate that then occurred on
22 the 25th of January of 1992, weren't they?
23 A. Well, a couple of things there. I don't think the vote on the
24 14th of October was directly, literally a vote to apply for recognition.
25 As for the participation of the SDS deputies in the assembly, they did
1 continue to participate but on a selective basis, and they did not return
2 en masse to the assembly. How many were present for the debate on the
3 20 -- was it the 25th or the 26th of January, I'm not sure, but certainly
4 they were represented there.
5 Q. Well, the session lasted for 17 hours, so it may very well have
6 been parts of both days. At that session, Momcilo Krajisnik was serving
7 as president of the assembly, wasn't he?
8 A. I believe so, yes.
9 Q. And the matter for discussion at that point was whether or not to
10 hold this referendum. There was a resolution to hold a referendum, and
11 that's what was being debated. And the Serb delegates, first of all,
12 tried again to have the matter referred to the council for national
13 equality that we talked about yesterday, which effort failed; yes?
14 A. Right.
15 Q. And then, when that failed, Mr. Krajisnik announced that the
16 session was adjourned, and I think at that point the Serb delegates
17 departed, Krajisnik was replaced by a member of the SDA, and the proposal
18 to hold a referendum then was passed?
19 A. I will have to take your word for that. I'm not familiar with the
20 transcript of that session.
21 Q. My --
22 A. I haven't read the transcript.
23 Q. My information about it is coming from Exhibit DB1, page 105. If
24 we could take a look at it. It's right under the heading called "The
25 parliamentary showdown."
1 "The debate in parliament over the adoption of the referendum took
2 place January 25 and ended when the Serb deputies withdrew after a
3 majority consisting of Bosnian Muslim and Croat delegates turned down a
4 Serb motion that the matter be placed before the not-yet-established
5 council for national equality. When Momcilo Krajisnik, the Serb president
6 of the assembly, attempted to adjourn the session, he was replaced by a
7 member of the SDA and the proposal to hold a referendum was adopted in the
8 absence of the SDS members in the form proposed by the Muslim deputies.
9 The decision placed the Bosnian government and the Serbs on a collision
11 Do you have any reason to dispute the contents of that paragraph?
12 A. Well, as I say, I have not read the transcript of that session, so
13 I cannot confirm or dispute the accuracy of what's written here. From the
14 task that the Court set me yesterday to look into some of the statistics
15 that were presented in this book, I have become a bit wary of what may be
16 in this book in general. So I would not want to make a statement about
17 the accuracy of any statement in this book without being familiar with the
18 documentary basis.
19 MR. ACKERMAN: All right.
20 A. I certainly do accept the proposition that a resolution to hold
21 the referendum was passed on that day.
22 Q. Let's stop here for a minute and go back to the task that you were
23 asked to look into yesterday, and I take it from what you've just said
24 you've done that.
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Could you tell us what you found.
2 A. Certainly. I have consulted the reports of the electoral
3 commission on the balloting that was held beginning on the 18th of
4 November, 1990. The electoral commission wrote three reports. They're
5 all published in the Official Gazette of the Socialist Republic of
6 Bosnia-Herzegovina. There's one report regarding the elections for the
7 Chamber of Citizens, another report for the elections to the Chamber of
8 Municipalities, and another report for the elections to the Presidency.
9 The report regarding the elections to the Chamber of Citizens, which I
10 believe was the issue in question yesterday --
11 Q. The question was: What are the invalid votes all about?
12 A. Right, in relation to the balloting. The report on the elections
13 for that chamber report the results for each of the seven constituencies
14 separately. They give the total number of people registered to vote and
15 the total number of people that voted. The report does not give any
16 indication of invalid ballots. It does toward the end of the report give
17 percentages for the voting in each of those constituencies separately but
18 does not give a total. It would appear from that report that the two
19 figures in question are simply the total number of people registered and
20 the total number of people voting, that is, the category of non-voting
21 people simply seems to include those that did not go to the polls. It
22 makes no reference at all to invalid ballots. The report of the electoral
23 commission on the balloting for the presidency, since it is a -- what is
24 done on a republic-wide basis, contains figures on a republic-wide basis
25 for the total number of voters registered and for the total number of
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 people voting, and it also includes a report on the number of invalid
2 ballots, invalid ballots, in that election. It reports the number of
3 invalid ballots as 127.291, which is out of a total of 2.339.958 people
4 voting. So that is an invalid -- a rate of invalid ballots of something
5 in the order of 5 per cent.
6 Now, the book by Arnautovic on the elections of 1990 which was
7 mentioned yesterday in connection with this matter contains a section on
8 the results of the election. In the section on the results of the
9 balloting for the Chamber of Citizens, on page 108, Arnautovic quotes the
10 figures for voting in that election. However, the figures he gives
11 actually come from the report on the balloting for the presidency. The
12 essential point is that he notes that about three quarters of the people -
13 and gives the exact figure - voted and repeats the statistic that I just
14 gave, the figure, of invalid ballots and he says that's about 5.5 per
15 cent. Now, I have -- or one of my staff members has in fact added up the
16 numbers for the individual constituencies. Those numbers are a little bit
17 different from the numbers that were reported as regards to the balloting
18 for the Presidency. I don't know why. The total comes out to 3.018.206
19 registered voters in that voting, of whom 2.338.727 voted. So that's a
20 turnout rate of about three quarters, which is consistent with
21 Mr.Arnautovic says and consistent with what is reported about the
22 presidential balloting and consistent with the figures reproduced in the
23 table in the exhibit you showed me yesterday, except that that table
24 labels those votes as invalid, and in fact it appears that they were not
25 invalid ballots. Those were simply the percentage of people that did not
1 go to the polls at all.
2 Q. Did you have a chance to look at the Oslobodjenje article from
3 November 20th, 1990 that is listed as the source for this information?
4 A. No. I looked at the report of the electoral commission, which is
5 the --
6 Q. I knew you had done that. I just wondered if you also looked at
7 the Oslobodjenje?
8 A. No. Let me just finish the task that the Court set me yesterday.
9 Arnautovic, on page 207 of his book, reproduces the text of the law on the
10 elections, and this is in connection with the compulsory voting issue.
11 Article 5 of that law states that -- I'm sorry, and this law was published
12 in the Official Gazette of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina on
13 31 July 1990. Article 5 of that law states that: "A citizen registered
14 in the general electoral list cannot be deprived of the list to vote nor
15 can he be hindered in voting. The freedom of voting and the secrecy of
16 voting is guaranteed. No one may -- can on any basis summon a voter to
17 responsibility because of voting, nor demand of him that he say for whom
18 he voted or why he has not voted."
19 So I would infer from that that in conforming with general
20 Yugoslav practice that voting was not compulsory.
21 JUDGE AGIUS:
22 MR. ACKERMAN: Thank you.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: The information that you have given us certainly is
24 very important. I thank you for taking your time to dig this up.
25 MS. SUTHERLAND: Do you want to make that document --
1 JUDGE AGIUS: I would -- he is your witness, basically. He's not
2 a Court-appointed expert. So if you want to tender it, I have got nothing
3 against and I would rather think it should be needed.
4 THE WITNESS: I have here copies --
5 MR. ACKERMAN: I have no objection.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: No objection on your part then.
7 THE WITNESS: -- of the three electoral commission reports.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Mr. Treanor.
9 MS. SUTHERLAND: If that could be given Exhibit number P2683.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't know the number, Ms. Sutherland.
11 MS. SUTHERLAND: It's the next Prosecution number.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. So we'll have as soon as it is available we'll
13 have photocopies made and we'll receive it in evidence. Thank you.
14 MR. ACKERMAN:
15 Q. Okay. Let's go back to this assembly session of January 25th now.
16 Now, as I suggested, this session lasted for 17 hours. Are you aware that
17 the reason for -- a major reason for the length of that session had to do
18 with negotiations that were going on throughout the session in an effort
19 to try to come to some kind of an agreement between the parties on the
20 regionalisation of Bosnia so that all could agree with the referendum to
21 support the referendum?
22 A. Well, again, I'm not familiar with what went on at that session
23 per se. I certainly do know that there were negotiations going on in
24 various fora, including the international, that attempted to seek an
25 agreement among the parties in the republic, on the basis of some sort of
1 regionalisation or cantonisation, I think was the term they were using at
2 that time.
3 Q. Yes. In Exhibit DB-1 on page 106, there is a quotation from
4 Oslobodjenje's article regarding this session, which speaks of what went
5 on there. It's a bit long, and I'm really not interested in reading the
6 entire thing. It's on the ELMO. We should go up to the top that begins
7 "During the course of the session." I'd invite you just to very briefly
8 read through it and then perhaps you'll agree with me that what was going
9 on was a serious effort to try to solve the issue, and it actually seems
10 to have come quite close with an agreement between Muhamed Cengic and
11 Radovan Karadzic, which apparently then got vetoed by Alija Izetbegovic,
12 according to this article, if this article is accurate.
13 Have you managed to read through it?
14 A. I'm almost finished.
15 Q. All right. Take your time.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. I think the only question I have is just to invited you to comment
18 on that if you feel you'd like to. Otherwise we can go on to the next
20 A. Well, again, all I can say is I know that a -- the proposal to
21 hold the referendum was adopted at that session. I can't comment on the
22 accuracy of that report, since I'm not familiar --
23 Q. All right.
24 A. -- with the documentation that might lead me to make a more
25 well-founded statement.
1 Q. Let's look now at Exhibit P102. It's now the next day, January
2 26th. There's apparently a meeting of the Assembly of the Republic of the
3 Serbian People of Bosnia-Herzegovina, at which some conclusions are
4 adopted. And the first of those refers to the previous day's action in
5 the republic assembly. The decision to hold a referendum for the citizens
6 of Bosnia and Herzegovina which would be a basis for transforming Bosnia
7 and Herzegovina into an independent state was adopted in an irregular
8 manner and without the presence of the Serbian deputies. As an act by the
9 legal representatives of the Muslim and Croat peoples in Bosnia and
10 Herzegovina, it can be binding only on members of those two peoples. For
11 the Serbian people of Bosnia and Herzegovina, this decision is invalid and
12 directed against their existential interests.
13 Now, what's happening there is the Serbian representatives are
14 declaring their position regarding the invalidity of the previous day's
15 actions of the republic assembly, aren't they?
16 A. This is certainly the expressed view of the Bosnian-Serb assembly.
17 Q. I'm interested in whether you know anything about what the next
18 paragraph means. It reads: "The decisions forbidding further work of BH
19 representatives in all federal organs and institutions and replacing the
20 governor of the BH National Bank are also null and void."
21 Do you have any idea what that's about?
22 A. I don't know the specific decisions being referred to, but I can
23 only infer, and it would seem to be within the logic of what was happening
24 that there came a time when the -- one or another of the organs of the
25 Socialist Republic, and I don't know which one and I don't know when,
1 decided that that republic would no longer participate - I think it
2 actually might have been on the 14th of October. I think one of those
3 decisions points in that direction - that representatives of the republic
4 would no longer participate in the federal Yugoslav institutions. I'm
5 pretty sure that is in the 14 October -- one of the 14 October documents,
6 one of the resolutions that was adopted over the objections of the SDS
7 delegates. Now, the decision to dismiss the governor of the National
8 Bank, I don't know anything about that.
9 Q. You don't know if that was the Serb governor of the National Bank
10 that was dismissed by the --
11 A. I don't know.
12 Q. - Alija Izetbegovic government? Let's look now at paragraph 2.
13 "At the conference of the legitimate representatives of the three
14 state-forming peoples of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Assembly of the
15 Serbian people in Bosnia and Herzegovina will endeavour to achieve
16 agreement on the already initiated democratic transformation of Bosnia and
17 Herzegovina, in the direction of finding the best state solution for each
18 people. If this solution were to be common to all three peoples, then the
19 democratic participation of the citizens and nations of BH in a referendum
20 at which the achieved agreement would be confirmed could be acceptable to
21 the assembly of the Serbian people."
22 It appears to me that what they're saying there is we're not
23 giving up on trying to arrive at an agreed solution to this problem. We
24 still believe that there is a way to cantonise and then become independent
25 with everyone in agreement. Isn't that what that says?
1 A. Yes, it certainly indicates that, and in fact negotiations did
3 Q. Yes. All right. The next document I want to refer to is P36.
4 Now, I think this document, Your Honours, has been admitted under three
5 different numbers, P36, P106, and P2070. I believe those are all the same
6 document. But in any event, the document that I'm interested in is a
7 document of 3 February 1992, and it is a conclusion of the assembly of the
8 Autonomous Region of Krajina. So we've now gone from 26 January to 3
9 February, just a few days later. And there's an apparent meeting of the
10 assembly of the Autonomous Region of Krajina, where conclusions are
11 adopted regarding the referendum. Paragraph 1 provides that municipal
12 assemblies in the Autonomous Region of Krajina should not organise any
13 activities regarding the holding of the referendum on an autonomous,
14 sovereign, and independent Bosnia and Herzegovina scheduled for 21
15 February and 1 March 1992.
16 In paragraph 2, "The referendum on an autonomous, sovereign, and
17 independent Bosnia and Herzegovina is unconstitutional and illegal because
18 it was called by an unauthorised organ in contravention of the
19 constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. (The decision taken by the rump
20 assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina without representatives of the Serbian
21 people is an act of terror by the fiendish anti-Serbian coalition of the
22 SDA, Party of Democratic Action, and the HDZ, Croatian Democratic Union,
23 against the constituent Serbian people.) As such, it should not be
24 conducted in the municipalities of the Autonomous Region of Krajina."
25 Basically, what the assembly seems to be saying in this document
1 is that since the decision to hold the referendum was taken without the
2 participation of the Serbs as a constituent nation, it's illegal and
3 unconstitutional, and therefore the legitimate organs of government, the
4 municipalities, should not involve themselves in organising the holding of
5 an illegally ordered referendum; correct?
6 A. Well, I have to take your word for what paragraph 1 says, since
7 it's largely illegible on the screen here, but I think that is the sum and
8 substance of what's going on here.
9 Q. I'll let you put -- I'll put my copy on the ELMO so you can read
10 it, because I ...
11 A. Fine, thank you.
12 Q. Okay.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. All right. And I'm wondering, Your Honour, if the Prosecution
15 might want to substitute a clean copy for the exhibit that's not readable.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't think there is a need for that,
17 Mr. Ackerman.
18 MR. ACKERMAN: But the official record of this Tribunal is going
19 to have a document that nobody can read if we don't substitute one that's
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Anyway, I can give you mine, actually. No problem.
22 But if you have a spare copy --
23 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, for the Presiding Judge.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Sorry about that. Anyway, if you have a spare copy,
25 Ms. Sutherland, you can make it available and we'll substitute one
1 document for the other.
2 MR. ACKERMAN:
3 Q. The next document I want to refer you to is DB164, which is a
4 large document. It's the Official Gazette of the Serbian people in
5 Bosnia-Herzegovina, year 1, issue number 4. It's a document that's about
6 140 pages long. In fact, it's exactly 140 pages long.
7 On page 48 of that document, you'll find the law on internal
8 affairs, beginning on that page. The document contains a number of laws:
9 The law on government, law on National Defence, Internal Affairs, National
10 Bank, a financial audit, public revenues, establishment of radio, TV.
11 Right now I'm interested in the law on Internal Affairs and I'd
12 like you to look at Article 32, which you'll find on page 54. Now, the
13 law on Internal Affairs is basically the law that sets out the law and
14 procedures regarding, among other things, the activities of the police,
15 isn't it?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Article 32 says this: "A Municipal Assembly and its Executive
18 Council may submit their proposals and opinions to the ministry's head
19 office and make motions regarding issues pertinent to security on the
20 territory of the municipality and to the work of their security services
21 centre and public security station. The ministry's head office is
22 obligated to consider the proposals, opinions, and motions of the
23 Municipal Assembly and its Executive Council and to reply to them, stating
24 its stances and measures taken."
25 This section provides that if a municipality has proposals,
1 opinions, and motions regarding the operation of the police, that they
2 should submit those to the head office of the ministry, doesn't it?
3 A. That's what it seems to say here, yes.
4 Q. And once that has been submitted, then the ministry has an
5 obligation, it looks to me like a firm obligation, to consider the
6 proposals, opinions, and motions, and reply, informing the municipality as
7 to their position regarding these issues and the measures that they're
8 taking to implement or not implement the suggestions from the
9 municipality; right?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. The next article I want to refer you to is Article 46, and that's
12 on page 58. This article basically speaks of special powers granted the
13 minister of the interior and certain of the minister's authorised officers
14 in the event of certain emergency situations. Let's look at the exact
15 language: "In the discharge of duties and responsibilities to protect the
16 constitutional order, the lives and personal safety of people, to protect
17 property from destruction, damage, and theft, to maintain law and order
18 and the safety of road traffic, as well as, in the event of general danger
19 caused by natural disasters, epidemics, and so forth, the Minister or his
20 authorised representative or, in emergencies, other authorised officers as
21 well, may issue special orders to citizens, enterprises, and other legal
23 Now, there's nothing in there that mentions a state of war as one
24 of the emergencies that would justify the minister exercising these
25 extraordinary powers, is there, although one might extrapolate that from
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 some of the language.
2 A. Yes, it certainly does not limit it to that situation. It's much
3 broader, yes.
4 Q. It speaks specifically, however, the natural disasters, epidemics,
5 and things of that nature. But in any event, it does authorise the
6 minister and other authorised officers of the ministry to issue special
7 orders to citizens, enterprises, and other legal entities in case of an
8 emergency situation that's outlined therein, doesn't it?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. So in the appropriate emergency, the minister or other authorised
11 ministry officer could issue binding orders to an enterprise, to - I don't
12 know - to do something to assist the emergency, I suppose, or to a
13 citizen, along the same line, all designed for the protection of
14 constitutional order, lives, safety, property, maintaining law and order,
15 road traffic, things of that nature; right?
16 A. Yes. I would only add that in my reading of the original of this
17 article, there is no "et cetera." It seems to be limited to natural
18 disasters and epidemics.
19 Q. So after epidemics, the "et cetera" doesn't appear. That raises
20 an interesting issue, and we might as well look at it now, because I don't
21 know the answer to it. Keep that document and take a look at P2330.
22 P2330, sir, is another copy, another translation, apparently, of
23 the same law on Internal Affairs. And the language of Article 46 is
24 slightly different, and it's been my assumption that that's a translation
25 difference rather than a change in the law. But you're correct; it
1 doesn't include the "et cetera" in this translation.
2 A. That's correct.
3 Q. So it's just -- it's the same -- it's the same law, just
4 translated slightly differently; is that a fair statement?
5 A. It appears to be, yes.
6 Q. All right. If -- in an appropriate emergency, then, it seems, and
7 if - and this is a big "if" - if the ARK Crisis Staff were a legal entity,
8 which I think it probably was not, but if the ARK Crisis Staff were a
9 legal entity, in an emergency the minister of the interior could issue
10 orders to the ARK Crisis Staff; correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. All right.
13 A. Although one would have thought that if this was meant -- "other
14 legal entities" was meant to include sociopolitical organisations, such as
15 the municipalities, it would have said that, and not merely lump them
16 under the rubric of other legal entities. But that's a matter of legal
17 drafting and whatnot that I'm not competent to comment on. I just point
18 that out.
19 Q. It may be a legal expert from the former Yugoslavia would be able
20 to tell us that legal entities is a term of art that has specific meaning,
21 and I don't know whether it is or not. But we may come to that some day.
22 I want you to look now --
23 A. It says legal persons in the original. In legal parlance, maybe
24 legal entities, but, I don't know, to me, that wouldn't be a given in my
25 mind that it would include sociopolitical organisations which is another
1 well-recognised and established concept in Yugoslav law.
2 Q. You're saying in the Serbo-Croatian, as you translate it, that
3 should be translated legal persons rather than legal entities?
4 A. That's the way I would translate it. I'm not sure whether there
5 is a difference.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Don't forget, Mr. Ackerman, that we're dealing with
7 a country where you have a civil law basis, and in civil law countries,
8 the notion of physical persons as against moral persons under the
9 philosophy of law is somewhat different from how you learn it in the
10 States or how I learnt it in my country or how you learn it ... So you've
11 got body corporate, moral persons, those which are legally constituted,
12 those which are not incorporated, and so it gets complicated. So it's not
13 just a matter of translation. It's a matter of knowing exactly what falls
14 under which category of persons, legal persons, under Bosnian law or under
15 Yugoslav law. And frankly, if you ask me, I don't know.
16 MR. ACKERMAN: Well, I wouldn't have forgotten that, Your Honour,
17 because I never knew it. I appreciate your pointing that out.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: But do take that into consideration, because under
19 civil law the notion of persona for the purposes of rights and obligations
20 is somewhat more limited than it is under common law.
21 MR. ACKERMAN: All right. I think we're finished with that, but I
22 do want to -- just while we're talking about translations, ask you this
24 Q. In the course of preparing your reports, and because you are
25 apparently quite fluent in Serbo-Croat, did you find that a lot of the
1 translations of documents that you were consulting were inaccurate?
2 A. Well, we don't use translations, in principle, and we work from
3 the original documents. In cases where we easily know the translation ERN
4 number, because it appears on an exhibit list or something like that, we
5 will put it into the report as a -- in order to facilitate matters for
6 the -- for readers that may not know the language. But we do not use the
7 translations, per se. We do not check the translations. Obviously,
8 we -- myself and people in my section have occasion to set eyes on
9 translations, and we sometimes do find that we do not agree with those
11 Q. When you say "we," who are you talking about?
12 A. Myself and my staff.
13 Q. You understand that the Trial Chamber does rely on translations,
14 since the Trial Chamber is -- does not have the fluency in Serbo-Croat
15 like you do, and so even though you don't rely on translations, this Court
16 does, and to a great extent, the judgement in this case will rely on those
17 translations. And so --
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
19 MR. ACKERMAN: The question I -- okay. I'm sorry.
20 MS. SUTHERLAND: Mr. Treanor has already said that he doesn't rely
21 on translations, so he's not in a position to answer Mr. Ackerman's
23 MR. ACKERMAN: I don't think she's heard the question.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: It is very relevant, of course. It is very
25 relevant, because there is a suggestion being made by Mr. Ackerman that
1 while -- that the translations that are made available to the Court may
2 not always be that reliable. And he was trying to get the witness to deal
3 with this subject, even though the witness has said that he himself and
4 his staff do not rely on the translations but on the originals. But maybe
5 he is in a position to tell us why he relies on the originals rather than
6 on translations, whether it is because from his own experience he finds
7 that translations are sometimes unreliable or whether -- I don't know. I
8 mean, it's up to the witness himself to clarify this. But it's certainly
9 a relevant question.
10 So, Mr. Treanor, more or less I take it that you understand where
11 Mr. Ackerman is heading. I don't think he needs to finish his question
12 until -- unless Mr. Ackerman himself thinks that he ought to finish his
14 Mr. Ackerman, can the witness answer your question or do you want
15 to conclude it?
16 MR. ACKERMAN: I think you're right. I think he probably knows
17 where I'm going. If he does, he can answer.
18 THE WITNESS: I think I know where you're going, and I will
19 comment on that issue to the best that I can. And if that doesn't
20 sufficiently enlighten the Court, I'm prepared to answer any other
21 question in that regard.
22 I've been involved in doing research and analysis using foreign
23 language sources for over 30 years, multiple languages from multiple
24 archives and countries, this, that, and the other thing. I never had the
25 luxury of having a translator translate them for me, so I took the trouble
1 to learn the appropriate languages, to a sufficient degree that I was able
2 to perform my research and analysis. That's just the way I work. That's
3 the way the people in my section work. They had similar experiences. So
4 we brought that experience to this institution and those methods to this
5 institution. When we add to that the fact that in very many, if not
6 virtually every case, after a document was acquired, there would be a
7 lapse of sometimes considerable time in having a translation done, and
8 indeed sometimes translations are never done. Sometimes they're only done
9 once we call attention to a document. Anyways, we're in a position to
10 immediately start using the given document in the original language in our
11 further research and analysis.
12 So the issue of translations is not one that easily occurs to us.
13 It only comes to our attention when someone draws it to our attention or
14 when very frequently by chance, as indeed in the course of my testimony
15 here, that we have the opportunity to see a translation side by side with
16 the original. I have in the course of my testimony, I believe
17 spontaneously on a number of occasions, called the Court's attention to
18 translations with which I disagreed. But again, this is only on a rather
19 chance basis. It is not the job of my section, and I have -- I may say
20 stoutly resisted any move in that direction to translate documents or to
21 revise translations.
22 Q. I understand that completely. I did just kind of a quick count
23 just now in my head. I think since we started yesterday, you and I, we've
24 looked at about 20 documents, and in three or four of those documents you
25 pointed out what you believed were translation errors, which would be an
1 error rate of, I think, 15 or 20 per cent. I find that to be sort of
2 frighteningly significant, don't you?
3 A. It would depend. It would depend on the error.
4 Q. Well, the next question becomes whether --
5 A. And indeed, let me also comment. There can be legitimate and
6 there is legitimate disagreements among translators of equal
7 qualifications of how they may translate things.
8 Q. That's where I was just going --
9 A. The persons/entities -- I don't know.
10 MR. ACKERMAN:
11 Q. The question becomes whether your translation is the correct one
12 or whether the professional translators in CLSS have made the correct
13 call, doesn't it?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. All right. But if there is in fact an error rate of 15 or 20 per
16 cent, that's a significant situation in a case where the question is
17 whether or not matters have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt?
18 MR. NICHOLLS: Your Honour, I think this is an inappropriate
20 JUDGE AGIUS: These are submissions, but I'm letting him carry on
21 because I want to see how weak or weaker his argument is. So let him
22 finish. Mr. Ackerman is an experienced lawyer.
23 MR. NICHOLLS: He's making argument --
24 JUDGE AGIUS: He's also giving an indication of how strong his
25 argument is, and that's why I let him go on, because then I am in a
1 position to make an assessment on how strong the submission is.
2 MR. ACKERMAN: All right.
3 Q. We have --
4 JUDGE AGIUS: And he's understood. He's shifting to another area
5 straight away.
6 MR. ACKERMAN: That's correct, Your Honour.
7 Q. I want to go now to April 6th and some of the events subsequent to
8 April 6th. April 6th was the day that the European Community granted
9 recognition to Bosnia-Herzegovina; right?
10 A. Yes, I believe so. Again, 5th, 6th, 7th.
11 Q. Okay. Let's look at DB165, please. DB165 is a document dated 15
12 April, about a week after independence had been granted, recognised. This
13 is a decision of the Presidency, using the emergency powers of the
14 Presidency of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, first of all
15 declaring a state of imminent threat of war, and second of all, ordering
16 mobilisation of the Territorial Defence in the whole territory of the
17 Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina; correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And then we see later, further down in that document, that the
20 assembly then confirmed that decision on 12th of May of 1992.
21 A. That's correct.
22 Q. Do you recall what date it was that Izetbegovic issued his
23 declaration of imminent threat of war and mobilised the TO in
25 A. The precise date, no. I think it was shortly after the
1 recognition date. I'm not positive, though.
2 Q. And prior to the 15th of April, wasn't it?
3 A. Again, I believe so, but I don't have the document in mind, so
4 I ...
5 Q. Now, if we go, then, to document P153. P153, the next day after
6 this declaration. Then the Defence Minister of the Serbian Republic of
7 Bosnia-Herzegovina issues some decisions and an explanation. It refers to
8 the order of the Presidency. In paragraph 1, it says that: "The
9 Territorial Defence of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina shall be
10 established as an armed force of the Serbian Republic of
11 Bosnia-Herzegovina. Command and control will be exercised." And it says
12 something about the municipal district and regional staffs, the republican
13 staff of the SBih TO. In the second decision, a state of imminent threat
14 of war is declared, general public mobilisation of the TO in the entire
15 territory of the Serbian Republic of BiH is hereby ordered. All military
16 conscripts have to make themselves available to TO staffs.
17 Finally, down in the explanation right at the very end, "In the
18 preparations for training and deployment of the TO units, effect
19 cooperation with the JNA units and, where possible, establish unified
21 So the next day, April 16th, the minister is issuing his orders
22 regarding this matter.
23 A. That's correct.
24 Q. Now, the next document I want you to look at is -- and keep that
25 document. Look at P167 now, please.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Now, the document we've just been looking at from Subotic is
2 decision number 1/92 of 16 April 1992, isn't it?
3 A. The one we just looked at previous to this?
4 Q. Yes, the Subotic decision.
5 A. Yes, that's correct.
6 Q. If you look now at this document, P167, in the preamble you'll see
7 it's issued pursuant to the Subotic decision that we just looked at.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Now, the Subotic decision was 16 April. The decision we're
10 looking at now, by Milorad Sajic, doesn't happen for about 18 days. It
11 happens about 18 days later, on 4 May of 1992, doesn't it?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Now, to the extent that it orders a mobilisation, calls for a
14 mobilisation, I take it it's a bit redundant, since Subotic did that two
15 weeks before, unless, of course, no one paid any attention to Subotic.
16 A. On the face of it it would seem to be redundant. Again I don't
17 know what the legal niceties are.
18 Q. But presumably if Subotic ordered it two and a half weeks before,
19 there should have been no need for Sajic to order it two and a half weeks
20 later. But in any event, that's what the document says. Plus it does
21 have some additional language regarding curfew and surrender of weapons by
22 paramilitary formations and individuals, doesn't it?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. All right. If one wants to view this document, and I suppose one
25 could view this document as an implementation within the Autonomous Region
1 of Krajina of Subotic's order, simply passing it along, then one wonders
2 why it took that many days for it to happen. Do you have any idea?
3 A. No, I don't.
4 Q. Okay. Let's look now -- let's -- well, just a minute. Let's look
5 now at P188. And I hope you've still got the Subotic order, because --
6 A. No, I don't.
7 Q. Okay. That's P153. I'm sorry. We need P153 back, along with
8 P188. Now, P153, back there in April, ordered a mobilisation of the TO in
9 the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Then we come to this
10 decision on 12 May, a bit less than a month -- about three weeks later.
11 And Article 2 of this decision -- first of all, Article 1 says that the
12 Army of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina is hereby formed.
13 Article 2 then takes those TO units that were mobilised by Subotic and
14 says with regard to them: "Former Territorial Defence units and staffs
15 are hereby renamed as units and commands of the army, the organisation and
16 formations of which shall be determined by the president of the Republic."
17 So those TO units are just being taken basically out of the All
18 People's Defence category and brought into the army as units of the
19 regular VRS at this point, aren't they?
20 A. Well, I might state it as -- in the following manner, that the
21 Territorial Defence is being sort of converted into the army.
22 Q. As I understand it, they actually became light brigades or
23 something like that in the army.
24 A. That's my understanding as well, yes.
25 Q. The other thing that you see kind of fairly clearly in this
1 Article 2 is that the president of the Republic is in effect the
2 commander-in-chief of the army.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. All right. I think, Your Honour, this would be an appropriate
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Treanor, we are going to have a short break, 25
7 minutes, which means 25 minutes from now. Thank you.
8 --- Recess taken at 10.25 a.m.
9 --- On resuming at 10.59 a.m.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Ackerman.
11 MR. ACKERMAN: Thank you, Your Honour.
12 Q. The next document I want to look at, sir, is P222. This is a
13 decision, presumably of Dr. Radovan Karadzic of 31 May, 1992. It provides
14 in Article 1, "War Presidencies shall be formed in municipalities of the
15 Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina where the assembly and executive
16 organs are unable to exercise their authority."
17 So it follows that the pattern in Article 1, that we've seen
18 before, that emergency bodies can be implemented where the assembly is
19 unable to meet, exercise its authority, and in this case also including
20 the executive organs; right?
21 A. Yes, that's correct.
22 Q. It then talks in Article 3 about what that War Presidency should
23 do. "It should organise, coordinate, and adjust activities for the
24 defence of the Serbian people and for the establishment of the lawful
25 municipal authorities. It should perform all duties of the assembly and
1 the executive organ until those organs are able to convene and work. It
2 should create and ensure conditions for the work of military organs and
3 units in defending the Serbian people, and carry out other tasks of state
4 organs if they are unable to convene." Correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And then finally in Article 5, it says that these War Presidencies
7 had to be formed within 15 days of the date of this decision, or by
8 basically the middle of June and on that date the Crisis Staffs would
9 cease to operate; correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Article 2 sets out the composition. The War Presidency consists
12 of a republic commissioner, and then generally the president of the
13 Municipal Assembly or his deputy, or the vice-president, president of the
14 Executive Committee or his deputy, or the vice-president; or a citizen
15 chosen from among the representatives or committee members.
16 Are you aware of any War Presidency that was formed anywhere in
17 Bosnia-Herzegovina, headed by a republic commissioner, appointed by the
18 president, with the membership set out in Article 2?
19 A. Well, first of all, let me just say that this is a decision signed
20 by Radovan Karadzic, but it states in the preamble it was taken by the
21 presidency rather than by him personally. I have seen numerous
22 appointments of war commissioners. I have not seen - which doesn't mean
23 they don't exist or we don't have them - documents which would set out
24 the - I'm sure we do have them, but I can't recall them to mind. I think
25 I just was looking at one. No. It's of an earlier date. Sorry - setting
1 out the exact composition of the War Presidency.
2 Q. Well, --
3 A. I cannot confirm that.
4 Q. Tell us this: Tell us which municipality in the Autonomous Region
5 of Krajina that we are concerned with did away with its Crisis Staff and
6 established a War Presidency that was headed by a republic commissioner
7 appointed by the president, by the presidency.
8 A. I'm not aware that any -- I've not seen a document appointing any
9 war commissioner in the ARK region.
10 Q. All right. So as far as you know, this decision was ignored by
11 every municipality in the Autonomous Region of Krajina. You couldn't show
12 us otherwise, could you?
13 A. Well, I can only state in that regard, and this issue is extremely
14 confused, and the documentation on it is incomplete, that there was a
15 decision which I think was referred to in my direct examination issued by
16 the same body, that is, the presidency, about ten days later, which, on
17 the face of it, explicitly stated that it abolished this decision.
18 Q. Trust me, we're going there. But I would like you to answer the
19 question I did ask you. So far as you know, this decision was ignored by
20 every municipality in the Autonomous Region of Krajina. You couldn't show
21 us otherwise, could you?
22 A. Well, again, the word "ignored," I don't know what happened
23 precisely. Obviously, this decision was deemed to be problematic by the
24 presidency, and they changed it.
25 Q. Well, let me try it a different way. Can you tell me one
1 municipality in the Autonomous Region of Krajina that implemented this
2 decision in its terms?
3 A. In the precise terms set out here, no.
4 Q. All right. Let's go, then, to Exhibit P269, which is the next
5 document and the one you were talking about. Now, this is the one that
6 you were alluding to in your answer to my previous questions. This one is
7 dated 10 June 1992, again presumably signed by Dr. Radovan Karadzic. And
8 it's a very similar document, again a decision, and this time it calls for
9 formation of War Commissions in the war-afflicted municipalities of the
10 Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, or where there is a threat of war;
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And again, it sets out the composition of these War Commissions.
14 A War Commission shall consist of a republic commissioner. And if you
15 look at Article 4, that republic commissioner is to be appointed by the
16 presidency. So the War Commission shall consist of republic commissioner
17 and four members chosen from among the most prominent citizens on crisis
18 staffs, the business community and the ruling party. In other words, a
19 five-member War Commission; correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. It says in Article 5 that this should happen within 15 days, or
22 otherwise by the 25th of June. It says that crisis staffs cease to
23 operate once the War Commissions are established. And it annuls the prior
24 decision that we were talking about?
25 A. Right.
1 Q. To create War Presidencies; correct?
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. Now, neither of these decisions says anything about regional
4 organisations, regional crisis staffs, anything of that nature, does it?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Again, let me ask you this: Do you know of any municipality in
7 the Autonomous Region of Krajina which, in response to this decision,
8 formed a War Commission consisting of five members, headed by a republic
9 commissioner appointed by the presidency?
10 A. Well, again, I'll have to rephrase that. In the terms of this
11 document, it wasn't for the municipality to form the War Commissions; it
12 was for the presidency to appoint a war commissioner. The war
13 commissioner would form the commission. And as I stated previously, I
14 have not seen, although I have seen numerous appointments of war
15 commissioner, I have not seen the appointment of a war commissioner to an
16 ARK municipality.
17 Q. All right. If you look again basically at both of these
18 documents, what is clear from these documents in terms of a line of
19 authority is that it's clearly a line of authority from the presidency to
20 the municipalities, with no intervening regional body of any kind
21 involved; correct?
22 A. There is no mention in either of these documents of regional
24 Q. All right.
25 A. That is true.
1 Q. Let's look now at P270, please. Now, both of those prior
2 documents that we were just looking at were called decisions. The one
3 you're looking at now, P270 document, is called a decree. Do you have any
4 idea what the difference is between a decision and a decree?
5 A. Is this a translation question?
6 Q. I don't know whether it is or not. Is it?
7 A. I'd need to see the original of the document. I'm sorry. Can I
8 see the translation? Yes, I would translate that as "decision."
9 Q. Okay. So you would say that decree --
10 A. And it was translated -- the same word was translated in that
11 manner in the previous documents.
12 Q. All right. This one is dated 13 June 1992. "The formation or
13 activity of any self-organised armed groups and individuals is hereby
14 prohibited on the territory of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and
15 Herzegovina. Existing groups and individuals shall be obliged to place
16 themselves under the sole command of either the army or of the Ministry of
17 the Interior of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina within
18 three days."
19 Article 3, submission to the sole command of the army or the
20 police also implies strict observance for the strictures of international
21 law. This is a decision of 13 June 1992.
22 Can you tell us if this decision was implemented in the Autonomous
23 Region of Krajina?
24 A. That gets a little bit beyond the sphere of my competence. I
25 would say, and I'm trying to --
1 Q. I'll accept --
2 A. Yes, there were efforts to implement it there.
3 Q. I'm perfectly willing to accept that it's not within your
4 competence, if that's the position you want to take. That's okay with me.
5 I won't insist on an answer. But if you do have an answer, I'd appreciate
7 A. I believe there were.
8 Q. All right. Finally, I want to look again, because I think you may
9 not agree with me about this. I want to look again at P285. We looked at
10 it yesterday. And just to draw your attention to it again. And maybe you
11 don't even need to look at it. This is the assembly session of the
12 Autonomous Region of Krajina in which they considered and approved the
13 decisions of the ARK Crisis Staff and War Presidency, or whatever it was
14 called. You recall that, on 17 July 1992?
15 A. Yes. This is the document we saw yesterday.
16 Q. And once the assembly met on July 17th and considered the
17 decisions of the Crisis Staff -- by the way, we don't have any idea what
18 decisions and conclusions were considered, since there's no list of them,
19 do we?
20 A. No.
21 Q. But in any event, once this happened, that signified the end of
22 the ARK Crisis Staff, didn't it? It didn't function after that; correct?
23 A. Well, I think -- I think there are indications that it did, which
24 are discussed in the addendum.
25 Q. Well, I know you discussed that in the addendum, but I couldn't
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 find, and I looked pretty hard - I couldn't find any decision or
2 conclusion of the Crisis Staff after that date. Look at P273, for
4 Now, as far as I know, P273, dated the second day of July, 1992,
5 is the last document to come out of the ARK Crisis Staff. And this is a
6 document that's actually issued and signed by Boro Blagojevic, isn't it?
7 A. Yes, it appears to be.
8 Q. And it appears that in this document, Boro Blagojevic, on behalf
9 of the Crisis Staff, is appointing some kind of a coordinating body that
10 Mr. Brdjanin is part of, plus some other people. My question is: Do you
11 know of any conclusion or decision or document issued by the ARK Crisis
12 Staff after 2 July 1992?
13 A. No, not offhand. I think there's a table in the -- one of the
14 appendices to the addendum that lists all the decisions that we have been
15 able to recover.
16 Q. Yes. Well, it's certainly the last one that I think is in any of
17 the documents that we have existing. The only other thing I would point
18 out is, as late as 2 July 1992, this staff, according to this document,
19 continues to call itself a Crisis Staff, doesn't it?
20 A. Yes. We certainly have reference in the letterhead here to the
21 Crisis Staff.
22 Q. Yes. Mr. Treanor, I want you to know that I appreciate your
23 efforts to answer my questions and to give as full and complete answers as
24 you could. I really do appreciate that. And I don't have any more
25 questions for you. Thank you.
1 A. Thank you.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Mr. Ackerman.
3 Ms. Sutherland, is there going to be a re-examination?
4 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes, Your Honour. Mr. Ackerman intimated that he
5 would take approximately an hour, so I may have to take an early break at
6 some stage.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: It's up to you. Do you prefer to take a break now?
8 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes. Just a short break to get the documents
10 JUDGE AGIUS: How much time do you require?
11 MS. SUTHERLAND: Ten minutes.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Ten minutes.
13 MS. SUTHERLAND: Thank you.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Is that okay with you, Mr. Ackerman?
15 Mr. Treanor, we have to have another short break. I'm sure you
16 understand why. And we will reconvene in ten minutes' time, all right?
17 And after that -- how long do you think your re-examination will take,
18 Ms. Sutherland?
19 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, you know I'm a bad estimator of
21 JUDGE AGIUS: If you say one hour usually it means one day,
22 but ...
23 MS. SUTHERLAND: I'm hesitant to say, but not more than an hour.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Trbojevic used to tell me that: I'm hesitant to
25 say. We need to plan, because we're taking a ten-minute break now and we
1 will require another 25-minute break later. We need to know.
2 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, I just -- I don't think you heard
3 me. I said I don't think I will be not more than an hour.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. So we'll have a ten-minute break now and
5 then we see what the position, what the situation is afterwards. Thank
7 --- Break taken at 11.22 a.m.
8 --- On resuming at 11.37 a.m.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Please be seated.
10 Yes, Ms. Sutherland.
11 MS. SUTHERLAND: Thank you, Your Honour.
12 Re-examined by Ms. Sutherland:
13 Q. Could Mr. Treanor be given Exhibit P2351, please. It's his
14 addendum report.
15 Mr. Treanor, yesterday Mr. Ackerman took you to page 5 of your
16 report, paragraph E6, and questioned you in relation to the variant A/B
17 document of 19th December 1991. That paragraph, E6, that's contained in
18 the executive summary, is it not?
19 A. That's correct.
20 Q. And you expanded more in your report with respect to this document
21 on pages 22 and following; is that correct?
22 A. Well, I could check the page number. In regard to this issue in
23 general, I followed up on this myself. That particular document in the
24 issue of the establishment of the crisis staffs is dealt with in
25 paragraphs 37 through 45 of the current exhibit, as well as in paragraphs
1 60 through 64 of Exhibit 2352, which is what I call the main report.
2 Q. Yes. And in fact, paragraph 37 starts -- is on page 22 of the
3 report. Mr. Ackerman questioned you about any evidence that anybody
4 created a Crisis Staff because of this document. I want to take you now
5 to several documents, and we can hopefully spend a brief time in relation
6 to that. Can you look at this first document, and may it be marked as
7 Exhibit P2684.
8 Mr. Treanor, that's conclusions of the SDS --
9 MR. ACKERMAN: Excuse me. Are we going to be favoured with a copy
10 of this? Wait until --
11 JUDGE AGIUS: -- Mr. Ackerman. Do you have a copy now,
12 Mr. Ackerman?
13 MR. ACKERMAN: I do, Your Honour. Thank you.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you. And this is the document that was
15 disclosed to the Defence --
16 MS. SUTHERLAND: Today, at this moment, Your Honour. It's dealing
17 with a municipality which is not within the ARK region. But, as we will
18 see, it's in relation to the variant A/B document and the issue that
19 Mr. Ackerman raised yesterday.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead.
21 MS. SUTHERLAND:
22 Q. Mr. Treanor, this is a document, the conclusions of the SDS
23 Zvornik municipal board meeting held on the 22nd of December, 1991, some
24 three days after the instructions dated the 19th of December, 1991.
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. We can see in that document that the Crisis Staff is elected, in
2 paragraph 3?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Mr. Ackerman also asked you questions yesterday about whether
5 there was any documents where the person in charge of the Crisis Staff was
6 referred to as a commander.
7 A. I believe that's correct.
8 Q. And we can see here that Branko Grujic is listed as the commander
9 of the Crisis Staff.
10 A. That is correct.
11 Q. Mr. Ackerman also asked you questions yesterday about
12 whether -- and this was in relation to the set-up of the Crisis Staff,
13 whether there was a coordinator for negotiations with the other two
14 parties, namely, the SDA and the HDZ.
15 A. Yes, right.
16 Q. If we go to paragraph 4, we can see that Jovo Ivanovic is elected
17 coordinator for negotiations with the SDA and that he will appoint a
18 negotiating team.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. So while there's no explicit reference to the instructions in this
21 document, is it your view that these conclusions reached at the meeting
22 were based on those instructions?
23 A. Yes. My conclusion would certainly be that given the date of the
24 documents and the language of the document, that these conclusions are
25 based on the 19 December instructions.
1 Q. Thank you. I've finished with that document.
2 MS. SUTHERLAND: Can we have Exhibit P865.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: [Microphone not activated]
4 MS. SUTHERLAND: 2684.
5 Q. Mr. Treanor, this exhibit is the minutes of the 6th meeting of the
6 executive committee of the SDS municipal board in Kljuc held on the 23rd
7 of December, 1991. If I can draw your attention to agenda item 1. Does
8 that show that decisions were made pursuant to the December 19
10 A. Item number 1 in the agenda?
11 Q. Yes. Veljko Kondic and following.
12 A. AD-1. Okay. Yes, indeed.
13 Q. And he informs the meeting of the instructions for the
14 organisation and activities of the Serbian people in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. All organs will be required to act in accordance with the
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Looking now at --
20 MS. SUTHERLAND: Could the witness be shown Exhibit P2063. In
21 order to save time, perhaps the usher can take this document from me and
22 place it on the ELMO machine. This is an extract from the minutes of the
23 third session of the Executive Committee of the Bosanska Krupa Serbian
24 Municipal Assembly held on the 24th of December, 1991.
25 Q. Mr. Treanor, looking at those minutes, can it be seen whether they
1 were relying on the 19 December 1991 instructions? I think if I can take
2 you to AD-3(A).
3 A. Yes. On the agenda at that point there is reference to
4 implementing the instructions on establishing a Crisis Staff.
5 Q. Thank you.
6 MS. SUTHERLAND: Could the witness be shown Exhibit P1153.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Ms. Sutherland, you know how heavily document-based
8 this case is, and I think if Ms. Gustin has a list of --
9 MS. SUTHERLAND: She's provided it, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Okay. So you have it now. All right. Okay.
11 Yes. Okay. Thanks.
12 MS. SUTHERLAND:
13 Q. Mr. Treanor, these -- Exhibit P1153 are the abridged minutes of
14 the meeting of the Prijedor SDS and the SDS assemblymen's club on the 27th
15 of December, 1991. If I can take you to paragraph 1, does this document
16 show reliance on the December 1991 instructions? I'm sorry. Under
18 A. Under proceedings there is a reference to --
19 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour --
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Ackerman.
21 MR. ACKERMAN: This clearly cannot be, because it says it's from
22 the assembly, and the A/B document was not from the assembly. So I just
23 point out that the conclusion he's being asked to draw would be incorrect
24 if he did it.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. But let him comment on it, because the witness
1 can read as much as you can, Mr. Ackerman.
2 THE WITNESS: Well, my response was going to be: There is
3 reference to the instructions forwarded to the Prijedor SDS municipal
4 board by the Assembly of the Serbian People of Bosnia-Herzegovina. I
5 could not say with certainty, based on that wording, that this is what's
6 being referred to, that is the 19 December document is being referred to.
7 In order to strengthen any supposition that it is, I would have to see the
8 original to make sure that the original word in the title of the document
9 was being used, but the reference to the assembly is certainly problematic
10 in this regard.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: And the same applies to the paragraph numbered 1,
12 further up, before the section "proceedings," and that's the agenda items,
13 okay? And that's the implementation of the decisions and positions taken
14 again by the assembly of the Serbian people of BH. So we are still in the
15 same waters there.
16 THE WITNESS: Yes, and there had been a session of the assembly on
17 the 21st of December.
18 MS. SUTHERLAND:
19 Q. Mr. Treanor, if I can take you to the second paragraph under
20 paragraph --
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Under proceedings?
22 MS. SUTHERLAND:
23 Q. The subparagraph 2 of paragraph 1, under "proceedings." Since
24 there were two versions, only version 2, which is relevant to Prijedor
25 municipality, was read out. Further, having read out all of the items in
1 sections A and B of version 2, Miskovic explained what had to be done so
2 far with respect to the instructions. Given that the 19 December 1991
3 instructions had two stages, would the reference there to sections A and B
4 in version 2 make it likely that they were referring in fact to the
5 December 19 instructions?
6 A. Well, this certainly strengthens any conclusion that that document
7 is what is being discussed. I am not familiar with any assembly document
8 among those adopted on the 21st of December that would fit that
9 description. Again, one of my first steps in this regard would be to
10 check the original wording used for instructions.
11 Q. B/C/S is available for you if you want to review it.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: I suggest it's put on the ELMO so that the accused
13 himself can at least follow, and Mr. Ackerman.
14 THE WITNESS: I don't have page 1 here. In the line right below
15 Arabic numeral 1, I do see the word "uputstvo," instructions, translated
16 as instructions in the translation we saw used, and that is the word that
17 is used in the title of the 19 December document.
18 MS. SUTHERLAND: Thank you. I've finished with that document.
19 Could you now be shown --
20 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment.
21 THE WITNESS: It is also used further on in the document at the
22 other passage that was referred to, which is several lines below that.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Do you also see the use of the word "assembly"?
24 THE WITNESS: Yes, by the Assembly of the Serbian People of Bosnia
25 and Herzegovina.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.
2 MS. SUTHERLAND: Thank you, Your Honour. Could the witness be
3 shown this document. Could it be marked as P2685. Again, Your Honour,
4 this is a new document, because it's concerning a municipality which is
5 not within the ARK region.
6 Q. Sir, this is notes of a Crisis Staff meeting of the SDS for the
7 city of Sarajevo. Looking at this document, is the reference to the
8 variant A/B document? And may I say: This document is dated Sarajevo 24
9 December 1991.
10 A. I don't see any -- may I take this off? Sorry.
11 Q. After listing the members of the Crisis Staff, 1 to 9 --
12 A. Yes. It says: "Particular tasks as per the instructions on the
13 organisation and activity of organs of the Serbian people in BH in
14 emergency situations, according to Variant B, under first-degree
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Mr. Ackerman, do you accept that this document
17 forms part -- be admitted, in other words, or not? Do you contest its
19 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour, I've always contested the authenticity
20 of documents that don't have signatures and stamps, and so I would do the
21 same with regard to this one.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. It's still being admitted under the
23 usual caveat.
24 MS. SUTHERLAND: Could the witness be shown Exhibit P1819.
25 Q. This exhibit are the minutes from the first meeting of the party
1 secretariat from the municipality of Bosanski Petrovac, dated the 26th of
2 December, 1991. In that document, is there explicit reference to the
4 A. Perhaps you could point me to the paragraph you're interested in.
5 Q. I can take you to item 2.
6 A. Item 2. Yes, that appears to be a reference to the same
7 documents. It refers to it by its title.
8 Q. And in fact, it says that the document needs to be typed in seven
9 copies and every member of the secretariat is to be given a copy?
10 A. Yes, that's correct.
11 MS. SUTHERLAND: I've finished with that document. If the witness
12 could be shown a new document, and could it be marked Exhibit P2686.
13 Again, Your Honour, this is just being disclosed because it deals with the
14 municipality that falls outside the Autonomous Region Krajina.
15 Q. This exhibit are minutes from a session of the municipal board of
16 the Trnovo SDS held on the 27th of December, 1992. If I can take you to
17 the last paragraph, the subparagraph, under paragraph 2. I'm sorry. The
18 top of page 2, after the persons named.
19 A. Yes, I think we have it.
20 Q. Does that show reference to the 19 December instructions, or some
22 A. Yes. I would say that this is a reference to those instructions.
23 Q. And then the following paragraph goes on to say the Crisis Staff
24 will be appointed at the inaugural session of the Assembly of the Serbian
1 A. Yes, that's correct.
2 MS. SUTHERLAND: Could the witness be shown another new document.
3 MR. ACKERMAN: Excuse me. Let me object to authenticity of this
4 one, Your Honour, P2686A.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: I didn't ask with regard to the first of these newly
6 introduced -- I didn't ask you with regard to the first of these newly
7 introduced documents, because the first one, 2684, bears a signature and a
8 stamp. And basing myself on the approach that you have adopted
9 throughout, I take it that the authenticity of that document is not being
10 contested at this stage.
11 Yes, let's proceed.
12 MS. SUTHERLAND: If the witness could be shown another document.
13 If that could be marked Exhibit P2687.
14 Q. This document is a decision to proclaim the Serbian Municipal
15 Assembly of Ilidza, dated the 3rd of January, 1992. Mr. Treanor, whilst
16 it's not a decision setting up a Crisis Staff, does it make reference to
17 the instructions, Variant A and B?
18 A. Again, since this is the first time I've set eyes on this
19 document, to my knowledge, you might call my attention to --
20 Q. In the preamble.
21 A. -- The part you have in mind. Yes, yes, yes. There's reference
22 to instructions of the Serbian Democratic Party of Bosnia and Herzegovina,
23 Main Board, number 79, of 19 December 1991, which would certainly appear
24 to me to be a reference to the instructions that we are discussing here.
25 The number 79, I would take to mean the numbered copy that this particular
1 municipality received. The document was distributed in numbered copies.
2 We have exemplars of those copies, various numbers. I'm not sure whether
3 we have 79. But my supposition would be that number 79 refers to the
4 numbering of those documents and that is the number on the copy given to
5 that municipality.
6 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honours, if I can take you to Exhibit P25, I
7 think, which is copy 100, and Exhibit P25.1, which is copy number 93. I
8 believe we also have another exhibit, P -- a copy which is numbered 96.
9 Thank you. I've finished that document.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, Ms. Sutherland.
11 Mr. Treanor, if you turn the page over, page 2, top of the page,
12 under VI, last part of that paragraph, instructions given by the SDS and
13 BH. Would you say that that is also a reflection of the instructions that
14 you have been telling us about and which appear in the preamble?
15 THE WITNESS: Well, that's a very good question, Your Honour.
16 This reference is to my mind more ambiguous.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Exactly. That's why I'm asking you.
18 THE WITNESS: Or is ambiguous. The previous reference, I think,
19 is clear. This uses the word in the original Serbian, in the plural. In
20 English, there's no difference between the translation of the singular of
21 this word and the plural of this word. This uses the plural of the word,
22 so it's the given instructions of the SDS BiH. So that reference to that
23 particular document which uses the word in the singular is not as strong.
24 It could be reference to a package of instructions or a number of
25 instructions, which may or may not include the one we're discussing.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Treanor.
2 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honours, just so the record is clear, I gave
3 the wrong numbers, and I would just repeat it. Exhibit P25 is copy
4 numbered 96; P25.1 is copy number 93; and P97 is copy number 100.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: All right, Ms. Sutherland.
6 MS. SUTHERLAND: And now we have --
7 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment. I recognise Mr. Ackerman.
8 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour, I'm just trying to find out which word
9 he's talking about which is plural, singular.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: I think instructions.
11 MR. ACKERMAN: Can he refer us to where he's referring, what
12 paragraph, what word?
13 JUDGE AGIUS: In B/C/S?
14 MR. ACKERMAN: Yes.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Treanor, have you followed --
16 A. It's in paragraph 6. I've lost the document here. Okay. I'm
17 putting the original on the ELMO.
18 MR. ACKERMAN: Is it uputstva?
19 THE WITNESS: That is the word I'm referring to, uputstva.
21 MS. SUTHERLAND: If the witness could now be shown Exhibit P750.
22 Q. This exhibit is entitled a brief and it's from the Sanski Most
23 municipal board. If I could take you to nearer the bottom of page 3.
24 Under paragraph B, year 1992, we can see a reference to an establishment
25 of the war staff of the Sanski Most municipality on the 15th of January,
1 1992, and more intensive preparations.
2 A. I'm still looking for B.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Page 3, supposedly.
4 MS. SUTHERLAND: Page 3 of the English translation, subparagraph
6 A. Okay. Year 1992?
7 Q. Yes.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Although there's no reference to the instructions, there's an
10 establishment of the war staff of Sanski Most municipality, less than 30
11 days after the 19 December 1991 instructions.
12 A. Yes, that's correct.
13 MS. SUTHERLAND: Could the witness now be shown --
14 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, Ms. Sutherland, because two lines below
15 that, or if not two lines, it's one, two, three -- it says: Also
16 establishment of the Crisis Staff and TO defence staff of Sanski Most
18 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: So we have the use of war staff and Crisis Staff in
20 the same context, more or less, decisions being taken. I don't know.
21 Perhaps Mr. Treanor can enlighten us on this.
22 THE WITNESS: Well, again, I'd have to study the original.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, exactly. I mean, you need to see the
24 Serb -- the B/C/S version. When is this document dated, Ms. Sutherland?
25 MS. SUTHERLAND: It's undated, Your Honour. It is a typed
1 document with additional handwritten notes at the back.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Has it been objected to by Mr. Ackerman?
3 MR. ACKERMAN: It probably was, Your Honour. It's probably one of
4 these documents that was found on the floor of the bathroom or something.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Whose bathroom?
6 MR. ACKERMAN: I'm certain I objected to it.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Has the witness been provided with the B/C/S
9 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes, Your Honour.
10 THE WITNESS: Yes, I've just received it. One of the problems
11 with these documents is that the set-up of the document and the
12 translation and the original is sometimes a bit different. Okay. Yes.
13 The 1992 is handwritten in this document, out in the margin, and at that
14 point it says: "Formation of a war staff of the municipality of Sanski
15 Most, 15 January 1992, and more intensive preparations." And then two
16 points down we have: "Formation of a Crisis Staff." And in the original
17 here it says: "The STO, which I take to mean the Serbian Territorial
18 Defence, of the municipality of Sanski Most." So there is reference to
19 both the war staff and a Crisis Staff. The reference in between to the
20 formation of --
21 JUDGE AGIUS: District staffs.
22 THE WITNESS: -- district staffs, I'm not sure what the
23 translation is, or regional staffs or whatever - it's a different
24 word - different route than the other words we've been seeing in
25 connection with ARK, for instance, region and district. I take to mean on
1 the lowest level, the level of the local community. I could be wrong
2 about that, but that's what I take that to mean.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: No, but it makes sense, Mr. Treanor.
4 MS. SUTHERLAND: May I continue, Your Honour?
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, please.
6 MS. SUTHERLAND: Could the witness be shown Exhibit P1705.
7 THE WITNESS: Just for the record the phrase that was being used
8 there for the local staffs is the "rejonski stabovi."
9 MS. SUTHERLAND: Usher, perhaps this one can be placed on the
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's do that, because it's -- we are running out of
13 MS. SUTHERLAND:
14 Q. Sir, this is a document, a decision on the establishment of the
15 Serbian municipality of Donji Vakuf. I have the date of the document
16 is -- of a meeting held on the 5th of February, 1992. That document --
17 sorry. The 15th of February, 1992. That document also makes reference to
18 the 19 December 1991 instructions?
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Well, it has been highlighted for you, Mr. Treanor.
20 A. I'm having trouble finding that one. It appears to be a
21 reference. Again, I would compare that with the original title of the
22 document. Yes.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.
24 THE WITNESS: It's using the word in the singular, the word
1 MS. SUTHERLAND: Could the witness please be shown Exhibit P2489.
2 Q. This is a decision on the establishment of the Serbian
3 municipality of Tuzla, adopted at a session held on the 3rd of March,
4 1992. Is the reference -- we can see that there's a reference to the 19
5 December 1991 instructions in this document?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Thank you. And finally, could you be shown a new document. And
8 again, this document is just being disclosed at this point. It's from a
9 municipality which falls outside of the Autonomous Region Krajina.
10 If it could be marked P2688. This is an excerpt from a big book
11 of minutes, and it is the minutes of the meeting of the Bratunac SDS
12 municipal board held on the 23rd of December, 1991.
13 Q. Can I take you to paragraph 2. "The president of the board,
14 Mr. Miroslav Deronjic opened the meeting. He told the members about the
15 meeting of the SDS presidency in Sarajevo. He read the new material, and
16 we moved onto the first point of the agenda."
17 Does the meeting then discuss which variant is applicable to their
19 A. Yes. Under -- in the next numbered paragraph under that, which
20 is -- yes, labelled 1 in the translation. As in the original, "the
21 decision was reached to form the Serbian BiH -- the Serbian BiH, two
22 variants, A and B, were proposed. For us, the variant B was envisaged,
23 second level of organisation." And the word in the original for "level" is
24 stepen, which I have been rendering as degree throughout my testimony.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, but does it read in B/C/S the equivalent of
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 second degree of organisation? I want to know whether there is --
2 THE WITNESS: The second degree of organisation or organising.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Of organising. Okay.
4 MS. SUTHERLAND: Thank you. I've finished with that document.
5 Could you now be shown another document, a new document. Could it be
6 marked P2689.
7 Q. This document is from the Serbian municipality of Foca Crisis
8 Staff, dated the 25th of April, 1992. I just want to take you to the
9 signature block in relation to the question asked by Mr. Ackerman
10 yesterday, were you aware of any documents of -- relating to the commander
11 of the Crisis Staff.
12 A. Yes, that's what it says in this document.
13 Q. The signature block is for the commander --
14 A. For the commander of the Crisis Staff, Miroslav Stanic.
15 Q. Thank you. And finally, one more document --
16 A. And there is a signature and seal on this copy of the original.
17 Q. Another new document, if that could be marked Exhibit P2690. This
18 is a document dated the 10th of May, 1992, from the Ilidza Serb
19 municipality Crisis Staff. And again, it's in relation to the issue of
20 commander, and if I could take you to the signature block.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: If you concede the point, Mr. Ackerman, we can
23 MR. ACKERMAN: I do. It says "commander."
24 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Next.
25 MS. SUTHERLAND: Thank you, Your Honour.
1 Q. And, Mr. Treanor, it's a number of documents that are referred to
2 in the main -- the addendum report, and what you said yesterday, now I put
3 that together with the fact that we have documentation indicating that
4 crisis staffs were indeed in fact formed during the period between the
5 19th of December and the 14th of February. I put these facts together to
6 draw the conclusion that at some point in time after the 19th of December
7 and before the 14th of February, the local, the municipal SDS officials
8 were in fact instructed, believed they had been instructed at least to
9 form crisis staffs.
10 A number of the documents that I've shown you today, are they what
11 you based your opinion on?
12 A. I had not seen before or do not recollect having seen before some
13 of the documents you showed me today. On a quick check, they are not
14 cited in the addendum. There are documents cited in the addendum which
15 speak to that point which would have been basically the documents that I
16 based my statement on. I think the additional documents you have shown me
17 today confirm me in that statement.
18 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, can I just have a moment?
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
20 [Prosecution counsel confer]
21 MS. SUTHERLAND: Thank you, Your Honour. I have no further
22 questions for Mr. Treanor.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. I have very few questions, and more or
24 less to put my mind at rest for the future, for the exercise that we have
25 to do in the future, since, as I explained yesterday, you are an ex parte
2 Questioned by the Court:
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Treanor, I take it that all the documents that
4 you used in your research and in preparation of the two reports were all
5 supplied to you by the Office of the Prosecutor?
6 A. Well, let me -- let's explain how it works. The Office of the
7 Prosecutor, broadly understood and understood to include myself and
8 members of my team, acquires documents in various manners. They are
9 submitted to the Evidence Unit, made available electronically, and myself
10 and members of my unit use that repository of documents for our research.
11 We identify particular documents that we want to use for particular
12 reports on the basis of electronic searches, our knowledge of particular
13 collections of documents, if I can use that word, for batches of documents
14 that come in at one time, since we had been involved in their collection
15 in the first place.
16 And we necessarily have to make a selection of documents to -- out
17 of the universe of documents, relevant documents, to put into a report.
18 We do not necessarily put in every document which speaks to every point,
19 for purposes of economy. For instance, the establishment of crisis
20 staffs. We would not necessarily have felt it necessary to track down
21 every document for the purpose of the addendum, every document that
22 documented the establishment of a Crisis Staff, but merely a few examples
23 to show that in fact it happened.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Let me phrase my question in a more --
25 directly. At one point -- before I proceed, I may require another five
1 minutes, maximum, and then we can call it a day. Can we proceed, or do
2 you require a break, interpreters? I can't see behind the dark windows.
3 We can proceed. Okay. I thank you.
4 At some point in time you were approached by the Office of the
5 Prosecutor and asked to be their expert witness on this subject-matter.
6 A. That's correct.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Were you then furnished with a set of documents
8 which you were to make use of, or were you given access to the archives of
9 the Office of the Prosecution and given the opportunity to make the
10 selection yourself, of which documents you would make use of?
11 A. I think, as a matter of fact, we're talking about both things. We
12 have complete access to all the documents that are in the -- they're
13 available to anybody, anybody in the office of the Prosecutor, and we
14 certainly made use of those. I think we were also given a couple of
15 binders of material perhaps in the vein of: "And by the way, we hear some
16 things that -- about this municipality or something you might find it
17 useful." But we certainly did not confine ourselves to any group of
18 documents that was explicitly given to us for that purpose. The report is
19 based on access to the complete collection of documents.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Was there at any time any request from you or your
21 team for access to further documents which were not available at the time?
22 Was there such a request?
23 A. I'm not aware of any. I'm not sure what you mean by "request."
24 In the normal course of work, there may have been - it may have been, and
25 I can only speculate in interchange, and I'm only raising it to be
1 complete and frank - between myself or a member of my staff and the people
2 working on this case or another case along the lines of: By the way, do
3 you have anything else on this? This is what we've found. It is
4 sometimes difficult to find things in the system, as we call it --
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, exactly. This is why I'm asking, actually,
6 because in the process of going through documents, you may find or you may
7 come across information, an indication of the existence of other documents
8 which may not be readily available, in which case I would take it that you
9 would ask for those documents to be made available if they are available.
10 Was there such a case or not?
11 A. Well, --
12 JUDGE AGIUS: If you don't remember, just say you don't remember,
13 I mean --
14 A. We frequently do ask outside entities, and to include the
15 authorities in the states in the former Yugoslavia, to provide us with
16 copies of particular documents of whose existence we become aware through
17 our reading of other documents. Within the office that may also occur.
18 Does anyone know about this? That happens rather regularly, as one of the
19 tools of research, not simply doing electronic searches on the system and
20 using one's memory, et cetera, but asking people who might know: Do you
21 have anything on this?
22 JUDGE AGIUS: But --
23 A. In a particular case, in regard to this report, I could not bring
24 anything to mind.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Did you at any time engage into any
1 discussion with the Prosecution team in this case on the contents or
2 merits of any of the documents that were given to you or that you were
3 making use of?
4 A. Prior to my testimony?
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, exactly. In the course of your -- the course
6 of in your investigations, research, and preparation of the report. In
7 other words, did you sit down with any of the officers involved in this
8 case to discuss the merits of any of the documents that had been --
9 A. Yes we certainly discussed the documents and I suppose it could
10 loosely be referred to as the merits of certain documents came up.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Are you aware of any other documents or
12 sources of information that are relevant to your task which you did not
13 ask for? You chose not to have, in other words, or not to ask for?
14 A. No.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: I just want --
16 A. We do spend a lot of time --
17 JUDGE AGIUS: No. I just want -- I told you. I'm not putting
18 into doubt your integrity, Mr. Treanor. Don't misunderstand me or misread
19 me. I just want to put on record your answers so that we would be in a
20 better position to evaluate the weight of your two reports.
21 A. Let me just add in that regard that there are certainly sets of
22 documents that we do not have that I would like to have. Whether in every
23 case a request has been made to, say, the authorities of Republic Srpska
24 for those documents, I can't say right now. I'm thinking, for instance,
25 just say the records of the Crisis Staff of Kotor Varos. I don't know
1 whether we have made a specific request for those documents. I know we
2 have made a lot of requests to the authorities of Republika Srpska, and I
3 know that they have not responded to a lot of them.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. And one final but important question.
5 In your report, did you omit, at any time, to mention or refer to events
6 and/or documents which, if mentioned or referred to, would have either
7 weakened the case of the Prosecution or in any way helped the accused?
8 A. Well, Your Honour, as I pointed out yesterday, I'm not a lawyer,
9 and we don't write these reports with a copy of the indictment in any
10 particular case at our elbow. I have to confess, I'm not particularly
11 familiar with the details in the indictment, as it may stand now,
12 certainly in this case. We put in the report what we believe to be
13 relevant, within the scope of trying to keep the report to a reasonable
14 length. If we got involved in putting in a footnote or something every
15 document that we could possibly find on every issue, it would be a massive
16 and unwieldy report and certain a massive and unwieldy documentary annex
17 to the report. One of our duties is certainly to keep our eyes open for
18 any exculpatory evidence --
19 JUDGE AGIUS: This is what I wanted.
20 A. Again, we're not lawyers, but we try to do this to the best of our
21 ability and any such document in any case we bring to the attention of the
22 lawyers in that case. It is not necessarily done via an official report
23 of this type. Indeed, I don't think that would be the proper format for
24 doing that. That's all I can say on that issue.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. And my final question. I refer you to page
1 71, paragraph 186 of the addendum report, the part dealing with your
2 conclusions, and particularly with Mr. Brdjanin's institutional role. And
3 I know that this part is divided into two paragraphs. One explains the
4 other. But I would like some further elucidation from you on the first of
5 these paragraphs, which reads: "The available documentary evidence would
6 not suffice to prove or to infer reasonably a scheme of systematic and
7 mandatory implementation of all Mr. Brdjanin's enactments by the municipal
9 Can you elaborate on that? I will also read, also for the public,
10 the rest of what you write in paragraph 187. "Nevertheless, the available
11 documentary evidence is more compelling in the above-mentioned critical
12 areas: Disarmament, dismissals, resettlement, regardless of the precise
13 state of authority of Brdjanin, his enactments were in fact implemented
14 for these three critical purposes. In these three areas, the available
15 documentary evidence indicates that the municipal institutions acted
16 either directly prompted by Mr. Brdjanin or in a way concurrent and
17 consistent with his policies."
18 So if you take these two together, and particularly the first one,
19 where do we stand, Mr. Treanor? Because we are judging a person here.
20 A. Well, these two paragraphs taken together are conclusions based on
21 the collection of documents that is available to us and that were
22 consulted in the course of compiling this report. The first paragraph
23 refers to documentation about all the decisions. There are 100 and
24 some-odd decisions that we have been able to discover, and they're
25 listed -- the documentation for their implementation in toto is -- leads
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 us to the conclusion in this paragraph, which I think is a -- we're being
2 conservative here in our judgement there, because we do not have
3 documentation on the implementation of a lot of those decisions. So we
4 draw that conclusion. However, in certain areas, we seem to have better
5 documentation, and that leads to the conclusion in paragraph 187. I would
6 add in this connection that, in my view, and to my knowledge, the universe
7 of documents that we have at our disposal, that is, the ones that are in
8 possession of the Office of the Prosecutor, is not complete. I pointed
9 that out before. And it is probably stronger in relation to the three
10 areas mentioned in paragraph 197 -- 187 - I'm sorry - than in relation to
11 other areas, since in the course of the years of collecting documents,
12 documents in that area were deemed to be more significant than documents
13 in other areas. So therefore, more of them were collected.
14 So we're sort of -- the report is -- and what's in it is limited
15 by the documents that are available to us. And I think I can say again
16 safely that over the course of the years, as documents were being
17 collected - and I don't necessarily mean to imply that there was a -- I
18 specifically want to say that there was not a well-thought-out, planned
19 process of doing that over the years and the documents that were collected
20 were not necessarily collected, and probably weren't collected with a view
21 to doing the type of analysis that we have in this section of the report.
22 The analysis is based on such documents as I think happened to be
23 available to us, acquired through the methods I described. What we do
24 see, and we had a demonstration of that today, is that - and this occurs
25 time and again - that the more documents we get, the stronger our
1 conclusions become.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. That brings your evidence to an end. I
3 thank you, Mr. Treanor. If there is no further business, remarks,
4 comments, we stand adjourned until -- yes, Mr. Ackerman. Do we need to
5 change -- stop and change the tape?
6 MR. ACKERMAN: About ten seconds, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Go ahead.
8 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour, I'm assuming that since the Prosecutor
9 chose this person as an expert witness and gave him access to their
10 complete collection via electronic searches that our expert will also be
11 given access to that complete collection that the Prosecutor has, of
12 documents. I'll take that up with the Prosecutor but I assume that will
13 be the case out of fairness.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: I will not comment on that. First you put your
15 request to the Prosecution and then we'll see how the Prosecution responds
16 to that. But I see that the Prosecution doesn't agree with you.
17 We stand adjourned until tomorrow morning at 9.00.
18 Thank you, Mr. Treanor.
19 THE WITNESS: Always a pleasure.
20 [The witness withdrew]
21 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 12.47 p.m.,
22 to be reconvened on Friday, the 17th day of
23 October 2003, at 9.00 a.m.