1 Friday, 11 January 2013
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.02 a.m.
5 JUDGE DELVOIE: Good morning to everyone in and around the
6 courtroom. Mr. Registrar, could you call the case, please.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case number
8 IT-04-75-T, the Prosecutor versus Goran Hadzic. Thank you.
9 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you. May we have the appearances starting
10 with the Prosecution, please.
11 MR. STRINGER: Good morning, Mr. President and Your Honour.
12 Douglas Stringer with Alexis Demirdjian and Thomas Laugel for the
14 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
15 For the Defence, Mr. Zivanovic.
16 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. For the Defence of
17 Goran Hadzic, Zoran Zivanovic and Christopher Gosnell. Thank you.
18 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
19 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: Your Honours, just before we bring in the
20 witness, slightly before the beginning of the testimony of Dr. Nielsen we
21 were informed that there was no possibility to sit extra sessions in case
22 the cross-examination isn't completed within the regular time. I just
23 wanted to verify that that is still the position because I know that
24 Dr. Nielsen was pretty keen to finish his testimony within this block.
25 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Demirdjian, no way we could do that. Even --
1 even if we had decided to sit an entire extra hearing, it wouldn't have
2 worked, because as far as we know now, the Defence would need more or
3 less six hours. Is that confirmed?
4 MR. GOSNELL: Good morning, Mr. President. Four to six. I think
5 we can stand by that depending on how it goes.
6 JUDGE DELVOIE: Four to six.
7 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: Thank you, so I apologise, Your Honours. I
8 understood the Defence needs slightly over four hours in which case four
9 to six there's no way. You're quite right. I apologise.
10 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
11 MR. STRINGER: Mr. President, sorry. Just while we're on this
12 and I haven't spoken to Mr. Demirdjian about this yet, but there was a
13 prior witness one who the Chamber might recall testified in closed
14 session who has to come back later to finish his cross-examination, and
15 for that witness the Chamber gave the Prosecution leave to speak to the
16 witness before he left in order to get an idea of what time frames would
17 and would not work for him to return for the completion of his
18 cross-examination. We did that in the presence of someone from victim
19 witness section and the request here I think would be if -- and we could
20 do it in the presence of the Defence, perhaps the Prosecution, someone
21 from the Defence, simply have a few words with Mr. Nielsen at the end of
22 today to get an idea of if there are any particular time frames that
23 would be good or bad in terms of planning his return.
24 JUDGE DELVOIE: Anything from the Defence?
25 MR. GOSNELL: That's fine, and we're happy to be present. We
1 don't think we have to be present for that discussion. We're happy to
2 take the Prosecution's word on Dr. Nielsen's preferences in that regard.
3 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you. So for planning purposes,
4 Mr. Stringer, that seems fine.
5 MR. STRINGER: Thank you.
6 JUDGE DELVOIE: Is the Prosecution aware of the Defence motion to
7 replace the translation of Defence Exhibit D5, and if so, could you take
8 a position on it?
9 MR. STRINGER: Yes. I can take a position on it at this moment,
10 Your Honour. We've seen it. To be honest, I haven't studied it myself.
11 I've asked someone to take a look at it, but I haven't got the position.
12 I can -- would it be acceptable if we gave the Chamber our position on
13 that before the end of today's proceedings?
14 JUDGE DELVOIE: Of course. Thank you.
15 MR. STRINGER: Thank you.
16 JUDGE DELVOIE: The witness may be brought in.
17 [The witness takes the stand]
18 JUDGE DELVOIE: Please be seated, Dr. Nielsen. Good morning to
20 THE WITNESS: Good morning, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Demirdjian.
22 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: Thank you, Your Honours.
23 WITNESS: CHRISTIAN AXBOE NIELSEN [Resumed]
24 Examination by Mr. Demirdjian: [Continued]
25 Q. Good morning, Dr. Nielsen.
1 A. Good morning.
2 Q. I have two topics left, I think about half an hour to complete
3 this examination, and I would like to pick up where we left off yesterday
4 with -- in relation to the police in the RSK. If you remember, we left
5 off on the issue of the relationship between the army and the police. I
6 would like to look at some documents about the establishment of police
7 stations and the first document I would like you to look at is
8 65 ter 6041 at tab 342.
9 Now, this is a document dated the 8th of December, 1991, issued
10 by the command of the 1st Proletarian Guards Mechanised Brigade. Now,
11 this is again in the same format as some of the documents we've been
12 seeing yesterday. I'd like to draw your attention first to item number
13 1, which is at the bottom of the first page in the English version and in
14 the B/C/S at the top of the first page.
15 You can see here that again the army is reporting about the
16 establishment of civilian authorities, and I think we see this repeatedly
17 in other documents. If we turn to page 2 in the English version, item 3,
18 you can see that in the B/C/S version, here there's a discussion about
19 the establishment of police -- of a police station in Negoslavci. I'd
20 like to have your comment, because you have seen several documents as
21 part of this collection of documents which were received after the
22 completion of your report, and I would like you to perhaps give a bit of
23 an explanation to the Trial Chamber as to what you have seen in terms of
24 the establishment of police stations in the region of the SBWS.
25 A. First, I would like to draw the Chamber's attention to the fact
1 that there is again something missing from the translation of this
2 document. The recipient is not just the command but the command's organ
3 for civilian affairs. So that is an important aspect, since that is the
4 organ that -- of the military that most often was concerned about the
5 formation of civilian authorities, including the police.
6 Q. Yes.
7 A. This document otherwise conforms to something I had observed in
8 previous collections of documents in which I discuss among other places
9 in paragraph 173 of my report which is the extensive assistance offered
10 by both the federal secretariat for internal affairs in Belgrade and also
11 the republican Ministry of Internal Affairs of Serbia in the forming of
12 secretariats of internal affairs also called police stations or stations
13 of public security later on the territory of Eastern Slavonia, Baranja,
14 and Western Srem.
15 The authorities from Belgrade, from the two ministries of
16 interior there, or internal affairs, rather, played an extensive role in
17 providing expert assistance and to some extent also provided personnel,
18 most of those personnel being Serbs from other parts of Croatia who had
19 been dislocated from the Croatian Ministry of Internal Affairs.
20 I would also beg the Chamber's patience just for me to clarify a
21 point that I made yesterday which I believe may have been misleading. I
22 was asked yesterday about paragraph 56 of my report where Mr. Hadzic in
23 his capacity as president of the RSK signed a promotion letter for
24 Milan Martic. I responded when asked by the Prosecution that I believe
25 that Mr. Hadzic had made that promotion based on the powers invested in
1 him by Article 78 of the constitution. However, I was not comfortable
2 with my answer. I went back and I examined that document this morning,
3 and if the Chamber examines the letter itself, the promotion order
4 itself, you will be able to see that Mr. Hadzic based that decision, that
5 promotion, on Article 117 of the Law of Defence of the RSK and on
6 relevant articles of the Law on Armed Service in the armed forces of the
8 So again I would just like to set the record straight on that.
9 Thank you.
10 Q. Thank you for that clarification, Dr. Nielsen, and if we have
11 time I'll display that document in a moment. And looking at this
12 document again, it is part of the collection that you reviewed after the
13 completion of your report; is that right?
14 A. Yes, it is. And as I noted although this is a new document, it
15 conforms to other documents I had been able to review previously and
16 which I had previously cited in the report.
17 Q. Thank you. Now, pending a revised translation, Your Honours, to
18 fix the missing item, may I ask for this document to be admitted. Well,
19 marked for identification. I apologise.
20 JUDGE DELVOIE: Yes. Thank you. Marked for identification
21 pending translation.
22 THE REGISTRAR: It shall be assigned Exhibit P377.
23 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
24 MR. DEMIRDJIAN:
25 Q. Dr. Nielsen, you just indicated that the police in Croatia, the
1 Serb force -- the Serb police force in Croatia received the assistance of
2 the Serbian MUP in establishing some of these police stations. I would
3 like you to look at the following document, which is 65 ter 6045 at
4 tab 344. This is a document issued on the 9th of December. So the day
5 after the one we just saw. This is from a different unit. This is the
6 town command in Ilok.
7 Now, again we see this is a report on the situation on the
8 territory relating to the organisation of civilian life, and again if you
9 look at item 1, this discusses again the establishment of civilian
10 authority in the region. So it seems to be an issue which is always
11 addressed in item 1. If we go to page 2 in the English version and this
12 is under item 3, you will see again at this time a police station is
13 established in Ilok, the previous document with Negoslavci. I'm
14 interested in the second part of the sentence here which again indicates
15 that it was formed by the MUP of Serbia, and then it adds that it is now
16 under the authority of the SAO SBWS. I'd like you to comment on that,
17 whether this is something you have seen in other documents and -- well,
18 generally what would be your comment on this passing of -- of authority?
19 A. It is my observation based on examining this and other documents
20 that again not just the MUP of Serbia but also the federal secretariat
21 for internal affairs in Belgrade played a quite extensive role both in an
22 advisory capacity in terms of personnel, logistics, and not least in
23 terms of financing of the police organs in Eastern Slavonia, Baranja, and
24 Western Srem. This, it should be noted, was not an assistance that was
25 without periodic tensions and was to some extent resented by certain
1 members of the Serb organs of internal affairs in Eastern Slavonia,
2 Baranja, and Western Srem, but over time it was in the interests of both
3 Belgrade and the local authorities to transfer control of the police to
4 those regional authorities in that area.
5 I would also point out from a comparative perspective that this
6 is very similar to what we can also see during a slightly later time
7 period in north-eastern Bosnia, particularly in Brcko and Bijeljina.
8 Q. Thank you, Dr. Nielsen, for that clarification.
9 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: Your Honours, may I tender this document.
10 JUDGE DELVOIE: Admitted and marked.
11 THE REGISTRAR: It shall be assigned Exhibit P378. Thank you.
12 MR. DEMIRDJIAN:
13 Q. At this time I would like to display 65 ter 6108 which is at
14 tab 370.
15 Now, Dr. Nielsen, in relation to the creation of these police
16 stations, from the documents that you have seen before even commenting on
17 this document, what was the composition of these police stations, to your
18 knowledge, in terms of the ethnic background of these police stations?
19 A. If we are speaking of the period from which this document dates,
20 that is early 1992, based on what I've been able to observe, these police
21 stations seem to have undergone a transformation so that by this time
22 most of them were if not exclusively staffed by Serb police officers,
23 staffed to a very overwhelming extent by police officers of Serb
25 Q. Now, if we look at item number 1 at the bottom of page 1 in the
1 English, we see that a TO staff is in the process of being formed. And
2 if we turn to page 2 in the English version, we can remain on page 1 in
3 the B/C/S version. And the top page 2, you can see here that again
4 during the formation of the TO it indicates here that the majority are
5 settled persons of one nationality of the Serbian people. And this is
6 about the TO.
7 If we go to item number 2 which is at page 3 in the English
8 version, and in the B/C/S that is page 2. You see here at -- there's a
9 discussion about the establishment of civilian authorities and that five
10 to six members have been appointed to the Executive Council of the local
11 commune. And again a little bit lower you see that the police station
12 has been established in that area.
13 Now, there's a sentence there that says the police force in all
14 populated areas is composed of active and reserve formation. And based
15 on this documents and others that you have seen are you able to clarify
16 that portion there, active and reserve formation?
17 A. I know that in conflict areas of both Croatia and Bosnia
18 Bosnia-Herzegovina there was a mobilisation of the reserve police forces
19 that took place during this period starting in many places at various
20 times in 1991 and that this also led to a very large increase in the
21 numbers of police officers on all sides.
22 Q. Under this item number 2, we see that there are comments about
23 unresolved issues vital to the successful work of the police, and we see
24 a number of bullet points in the form of dashes. If we could turn to
25 page 4 in the English version and page 3 in the B/C/S version. I would
1 like us to look at the last bullet point, which is at the bottom of
2 page 4 in the English version and at the top of page 3 in the B/C/S
4 There's an issue here about the co-operation between the local
5 council and the police organs and the issue of daily complaints on the
6 work of the police. Have you seen documents which relate to the quality
7 of the work of the police in that region?
8 A. Yes, I have. It can be said that particularly as concerns the
9 reserve staff of the police and other more recent additions to the police
10 staff in the various SAOs, including Eastern Slavonia, Baranja, and
11 Western Srem, it is the case that there were concerns about the
12 backgrounds of a number of the police officers, some of whom according to
13 various documentation, including police and military documentation,
14 seemed to have been suspected of having criminal past, and there are a
15 number of documents I have reviewed which indicate also documents by the
16 DB of Serbia reporting on this area, that they suspected a large number
17 of persons in the police of being involved in criminal activity for
18 personal economic gain in this situation of people being resettled and
19 houses being left vacant.
20 I would note that that speculation, particularly on the part of
21 the DB of Serbia included speculation that some persons in the SAO
22 government of Eastern Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem were involved
23 in such exploitation of the situation.
24 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: May I offer this document, Your Honours.
25 JUDGE DELVOIE: Admitted and marked.
1 THE REGISTRAR: It shall be assigned Exhibit P379. Thank you.
2 JUDGE DELVOIE: [Microphone not activated] Mr. Demirdjian, may I
3 interrupt you for an administrative matter.
4 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: Yes.
5 JUDGE DELVOIE: [Microphone not activated] I have been told that
6 I forgot to --
7 THE INTERPRETER: Would the Presiding Judge please --
8 JUDGE DELVOIE: Oh, I'm sorry. I have been told that I forgot to
9 mention that we sit pursuant to Rule 15 bis, Judge Hall absent, and the
10 record should reflect that. Thank you.
11 MR. DEMIRDJIAN:
12 Q. Dr. Nielsen, I would like you to look at the next document which
13 is 65 ter 6114 at tab 372. This is a document dated the
14 28th of February, 1992, from the town command of Mirkovci, and it is sent
15 to the 1st Mechanised Corps. It deals with the town command first in
16 Mirkovci and the organisation of civilian life. If we go to -- well,
17 first of all, if we go to page 3 in the English version, and that is
18 page 2 in the B/C/S version. It indicates here that it is according to
19 the Law on Temporary Territorial Organisation, the law we saw yesterday,
20 that settlements have been established, and you can see here that some
21 settlements are liberated and there's also a mention of settlements that
22 are completely abandoned.
23 Again based on the documents that you have seen, are you able to
24 comment on this distinction between liberated villages and abandoned
1 A. First, let me just to my previous response note that the type of
2 concerns about the police's behaviour is something that I discussed at
3 several places in the report but I will direct the Chamber's attention to
4 paragraph 150 in my report where the RDB of MUP Serbia notes that the
5 Assembly of the RSK as late as September 1992 had a quite most vociferous
6 debate about the insufficient or unsatisfactory behaviour of certain
7 portions of the police in the RSK.
8 To your question, as I read it in the documents produced by
9 various Serb authorities and by the JNA, the distinction that they make
10 between liberated villages and abandoned villages I take it to mean that
11 abandoned villages are those where the indigenous population departed
12 before that area was taken over, liberated, in their language, by the use
13 of military force. That is, there is perhaps a distinction here between
14 those areas, those settlements, in which people had for whatever reasons
15 preventively departed and those where they were forcibly expelled.
16 Q. Yes. Can we now move to page 4 in the English version, and I
17 believe that this is still on page 2 of the B/C/S version. Yes.
18 You see this large paragraph at the bottom of the page. It
19 indicates here that pursuant to a decision of the government on municipal
20 administrative organs, it has been decided to form a Secretariat of the
21 Interior in the municipalities. However, following sentence indicates
22 that the SUP of Vukovar had created three police stations on the
23 territory of the municipality of Mirkovci. Let me just remind you this
24 is the Mirkovci town command riding. So they seem to be highlighting a
25 contradiction between these two decisions. Have you seen, and again this
1 may be related to the issue of sources, have you seen documents relating
2 to the organisational structure of the MUP in early 1992 in the RSK or in
3 the SBWS?
4 A. I've seen a number of documents that pertain to the
5 organisational structure of the MUP in early 1992 and the RSK. However,
6 as concerns the area of Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem, the
7 documentation is as I have already mentioned, very, very sparse, and most
8 of what one can as an analyst conclude about the structure of the police
9 in those areas has to be arrived at on the basis of inferences from the
10 mention of the existence of various police organs in a larger number of
12 I am aware and I think this document is an accurate reflection of
13 that, that there were a not insignificant number of disputes in this area
14 between at times the police and various representatives of the SAO as to
15 how policing was to be structured geographically and also conflicts --
16 they had conflicts regarding personnel issues.
17 Q. Okay. Thank you for that. Could you now take a look at the next
18 document which is 65 ter 6180 at tab 385, please.
19 You will see this time that this is a document issued by the
20 12th Corps, the command of the 12th Corps, on the 27th of April, 1992.
21 Looking at the preamble, it refers to an order of the 17th of April to
22 equip the police force in the Krajina SAO, Eastern Slavonia, Baranja, and
23 Western Srem. Are you able to give some comments to the Trial Chamber
24 about the assistance coming this time from the army as opposed to the
25 assistance we saw earlier from the Serbian MUP in establishing police
1 forces or equipping them?
2 A. The only statement I can make concerning that topic is that I'm
3 aware that the police in various areas of what later became -- or what
4 had -- excuse me, by this point become the RSK, did receive material
5 assistance from various units of the military and as I noted yesterday,
6 I'm aware that the TO of SAO Krajina was, to a significant extent,
7 transformed into police units in a -- in an attempt to circumvent the
8 disbanding of the TO required by the Vance Plan.
9 Q. And on that point if we look at item number 1, it -- the order
10 requires the command of the 51st Mechanised Brigade to ensure the loading
11 and hand-over of painted M-60 OTs to the Krajina SAO Police force. First
12 of all, do you know what M-60 OTs, that acronym represents?
13 A. Yes, those are armoured personnel carriers.
14 Q. Okay. And do you have any comment on this sentence?
15 A. I'm aware both from documentation and I would have to say as a
16 point of more general knowledge because I've actually been in the
17 position to see photographs of this occurring, that a number of military
18 vehicles, armoured personnel carriers and other similar military vehicles
19 were in the spring of 1992 painted or I should say repainted from a
20 military olive drab colour into a dark blue paint conforming to the
21 colour associated with the police and as such they were transformed into
22 police units or police equipment and therefore were not demobilised.
23 Q. Are you familiar with the author of this document?
24 A. Yes, I am. I believe he was the commander of the Novi Sad Corps.
25 Q. Thank you.
1 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: Your Honours, may I tender this document.
2 JUDGE DELVOIE: Admitted and marked.
3 THE REGISTRAR: It shall be assigned Exhibit P380.
4 Q. I'd like now to move to the last topic I have today, Dr. Nielsen,
5 which relates to the last section of your report starting at
6 paragraph 201, which deals with Zeljko Raznjatovic, aka Arkan. Before
7 looking at any document I'd like to ask you perhaps as a general starting
8 point based on the documents you have seen and the analysis you have
9 made, you have referred to a number of documents where Arkan is either
10 appointed or awarded, et cetera.
11 Could you tell us in general whose -- whose support that Arkan --
12 was Arkan present in Eastern Slavonia in late 1991 and early 1992?
13 A. That precise question with whose support was he present in
14 Eastern Slavonia in late 1991 and early 1992 is the subject of intense
15 speculation in many of the documents that I have reviewed. The general
16 assumption that I see being made and I want to make it clear that this is
17 not my assumption but the assumption of various actors in
18 Eastern Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem during this period, their
19 assumption is that he is present in that area with the support of either
20 the Ministry of Defence of the -- of Serbia or -- and/or, I should state,
21 the support of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Serbia, in particular
22 the state security department of -- or division of that ministry.
23 Q. To your knowledge, which of these ministries, these two
24 ministries you've just mentioned, which ministries did he belong to if
25 that's the right verb to use. Was he a member of one of these two?
1 A. Based on the totality of documents I've been able to examine, not
2 just in terms of preparing this report but in terms of earlier research
3 that I conducted also related to his presence in Bosnia-Herzegovina, is
4 my conclusion that he was affiliated with and for a considerable point of
5 time was, if not employed, at the very least had an official association
6 and identification with the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Serbia and
7 particularly the State Security Service.
8 Q. And having taken that into consideration in looking at
9 paragraph 201 of your report where you indicate that this time in
10 September 1991 it is Goran Hadzic who appoints Arkan as commander of TO
11 centre in Erdut, how can we reconcile these views or are they mutually
12 exclusive? Could you explain that, please.
13 A. I am not certain how I would personally reconcile it other than
14 to simply state that as an analyst this is the documentation that has
15 become available to me and therefore I saw fit to include it in this
16 report. What is clear is that the State Security Service and the
17 military -- I should say the State Security Service of Serbia and various
18 TO and JNA organs in the period of 1991, 1992, and indeed later as well,
19 report on an association between Arkan and Hadzic and that this
20 includes -- this seems to be substantiated by a number of occurrences in
21 which they appear publicly together, including in the video we viewed
22 yesterday, although, that was of course in Bijeljina in
23 Bosnia-Herzegovina. It also is the case that the DB of the MUP of Serbia
24 I note in paragraph 208 states in October 1992 that they had sources
25 stating that Hadzic, and I quote:
1 "Namely Hadzic is frequently seen in the company of Arkan on the
2 territory of Krajina, which is in the source's opinion politically
3 damaging for Hadzic and the RSK."
4 I'm also aware that there were later rumours, and I stress that
5 these were rumours, but rumours that were apparently significant enough
6 to be included in reports of the DB of Serbia that there was some
7 consideration that Hadzic -- Mr. Hadzic and Arkan might attempt to
8 confront or replace Milan Martic.
9 I would also just note, and of course there's a whole section of
10 my report about this relationship, but I would note in paragraph 205 that
11 at a session of the SFRJ Presidency held on the 16th of April, 1992,
12 General Zivota Panic also commented that as he stated, and I quote,
13 "Hadzic runs." He uses the term "voditi [phoen]" or "vodi [phoen],"
14 "onvoti [phoen]":
15 "He is running Arkan. He is running him like some bodyguard. It
16 is necessary to ask Hadzic, and tell him to remove Arkan from the area."
17 I would note that Panic's comment seems to reflect Panic's
18 conclusion that Mr. Hadzic had some authority over Arkan's presence in
19 that area. Again, I stress that there is an intense speculation, intense
20 speculation by the police, by the military, the TO, and the JNA during
21 this period as to who is exactly behind Arkan, but the sum of the
22 documents show that the general perception both among the authorities and
23 the civilian population, Serb and Croat, and otherwise of the area, was
24 that Arkan was supported by very significant powers in Belgrade and that
25 he was untouchable.
1 Q. Dr. Nielsen, thank you for that explanation and I think you
2 partially answered a question I asked you yesterday in relation to the
3 video which we saw Arkan being present in Bijeljina with Goran Hadzic in
4 the presence of Biljana Plavsic.
5 First of all, maybe if I could ask you that question now in
6 relation to that video. We saw that this -- you told us this was around
7 April of 1992, and from your recollection, what was -- what had happened
8 in Bijeljina? Was there any significant event for Hadzic and for Arkan
9 to be present at that location?
10 A. I think it's a matter of public record, and I'm -- at this late
11 stage in the Tribunal's history I'm not always sure to what extent I'm
12 permitted on the stand to make reference to judgements that have been
13 through appeal of this Tribunal, but I'm certainly aware of the fact that
14 numerous evidence exists to demonstrate that or Arkan's forces, the Serb
15 Volunteer Guard, entered Bijeljina municipality at the beginning of
16 April 1992, ostensibly, they argued, to protect the local Serb population
17 from Muslim extremists. There was quite a number of violent acts
18 committed in the municipality after Arkan's forces entered, and this
19 caused great concern in Sarajevo where the war had not yet started and
20 led to the media reports mentioned in the video yesterday by Ms. Plavsic.
21 Ms. Plavsic, who was a member of the Presidency of the still existing
22 Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina went with Mr. Fikret Abdic and
23 several others to Bijeljina to see for themselves what had actually
24 occurred on the ground and that was the context in which we saw her in
25 Bijeljina next to Arkan and Mr. Hadzic in the video yesterday.
1 Q. Can I ask you, Dr. Nielsen, based on the documents you have seen
2 whether you are able to inform the Trial Chamber at least how long this
3 relationship -- well, you said there's a lot of speculation about the
4 control over Arkan, but how long is the relationship between Arkan and
5 Hadzic would have lasted?
6 A. I can direct the Chamber's attention to again this section of the
7 report where in paragraphs 210 and 211 I refer to various documents, both
8 open-source documents that -- in which persons, including Mr. Hadzic
9 himself, speak of his relationship with a Mr. Raznjatovic or also known
10 as Arkan. In particular, I note that in paragraph 210, I quote an
11 article from a Belgrade newspaper in which Milan Martic are referred to
12 Arkan as being, and I quote, "a special advisor of the president of the
13 RSK, Goran Hadzic, and that he," Arkan, "has the right to be present at
14 government sessions." And I note that particularly the presence of Arkan
15 at government sessions apparently at the behest of Mr. Hadzic was not
16 always met with approval by other members of the RSK leadership.
17 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: On that note, may we display 65 ter 1643 at tab
18 399, please.
19 THE REGISTRAR: Mr. Demirdjian, this is Exhibit P190 - thank
20 you - confidential.
21 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: Shall we move into private session then, please.
22 JUDGE DELVOIE: Private session, please.
23 [Private session]
11 Pages 2513-2514 redacted. Private session.
14 [Open session]
15 THE REGISTRAR: We're back in open session Your Honours. Thank
17 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
18 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: Thank you. Your Honours, this concludes my
19 examination-in-chief. At this moment, I would like to tender both
20 Dr. Nielsen's report which is at 65 ter 2837, as well as the errata sheet
21 which we disclosed in December; that is at 65 ter 3678.
22 Now, I am aware that the Defence has issued its objections to the
23 matter of admitting the report at this moment. We do not see the
24 practicality proposed by the Defence in terms of deferring your decision
25 on the admission of the report until final judgement. If anything, one
1 wonders what we are supposed to argue during the closing submissions if
2 you haven't reached a decision by then.
3 Looking at the jurisprudence of the Tribunal, there are generally
4 four criteria that we are supposed to consider when admitting a report.
5 Of course, first of all, you are to decide whether you consider
6 Dr. Nielsen to be qualified as an expert, and we would submit that based
7 on the questions that we asked at the beginning of our
8 examination-in-chief that Dr. Nielsen is an expert both in history and in
9 MUP-related matters.
10 Secondly, you are to decide whether the report is reliable, and
11 based on the jurisprudence again the reliability of a report can be
12 inferred by a sufficiently supported report, supported by sources
14 The third criteria is that a report is relevant and has probative
15 value in relation to the issues in this case. And again I don't believe
16 there is any dispute on the fact that Dr. Nielsen's report is relevant to
17 the issues in this case. And finally that the content of the report fall
18 within the accepted expertise of the witness and again the report and our
19 examination-in-chief yesterday and today focused on the background, the
20 context and the history of the conflict as well as to the police forces
21 in the RSK which again are participants in the conflict.
22 So for all these reasons, we would propose to tender the report
23 as well as the errata sheet, and I will deal with the documents
24 separately. Perhaps we could just hear about the report first.
25 JUDGE DELVOIE: Can we hear from the Defence.
1 MR. GOSNELL: Mr. President, I would reserve our position on
2 whether or not Dr. Nielsen is an expert until after the
3 cross-examination. Only on that basis can we say whether we agree or
4 disagree with the propositions that are presented by the Prosecution.
5 The more significant point, however, than the recognition of Dr. Nielsen
6 as an expert or not as an expert are the documents that are relied on,
7 and we have sent an e-mail to the Prosecution and to the Chamber
8 detailing a selective list of certain documents that we suggest could not
9 meet the threshold of admissibility, and -- and that is the issue that we
10 are more concerned with than the characterisation of Dr. Nielsen as an
11 expert or not an expert.
12 If I can just add to that a specific objection, and it's
13 illustrated by the last document that was used in court here today and
14 I'm not going to go into it in detail. We're in public session. It's a
15 confidential document but I will remind Your Honours that that is a
16 document that refers to events in 1995. Now, the document is dated 1994,
17 but if you look at the contents of that document that is a document that
18 refers to events in 1995, more than a year after the end of the crimes
19 alleged in this indictment.
20 In a superficial sense, in a tabloid journalism sense, you could
21 look at that document and say, Well, this is somehow probative of a
22 relationship, in quotation marks. It could be probative of some type of
23 criminal activity. But does it bear any relationship in a legal sense,
24 in an evidential sense to the crimes that are alleged in this indictment?
25 We suggest that these certainly don't, and they don't meet that threshold
1 of admissibility. And we would suggest that that's an example of the
2 type of document that appears in the footnotes to this report that should
3 not be admitted merely because it is cited in the report, and that seems
4 to me to be the position of the Prosecution, and that's a position we
5 object to.
6 JUDGE DELVOIE: Let's for the moment stick to the admission of
7 the report itself. Your position is, Mr. Gosnell, that you would like to
8 reserve your final position until the end of the cross-examination.
9 That's right, isn't it?
10 MR. GOSNELL: That's correct, Mr. President.
11 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Demirdjian, do you have a problem with that?
12 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: Your Honours, the determination of the expertise
13 of Dr. Nielsen itself is not necessarily reliant on cross-examination.
14 However, if you feel that it would be more sensible to wait until the end
15 of cross-examination, we could return to that part of the argument at
16 that point. At this stage, however, there's a question left as to
17 whether the report is also admitted or not considering the conclusion of
18 the examination-in-chief. If I can make an analogy with a 92 ter witness
19 who confirms that this is his report, that it is accurate and true to its
20 content, I would submit that at this stage we could admit the report, and
21 at the end of the cross-examination we could deal with the other matters
22 such as the expertise and -- yes.
23 MR. GOSNELL: If I may say, Mr. President, that's not a very good
24 analogy. The admissibility of a 92 ter statement is expressly prescribed
25 in the rules. There are a couple of conditions. If those conditions are
1 fulfilled the statement can be admitted. An expert report, as you know
2 and as the Prosecution's own very apt discussion of the law indicates, is
3 a more -- a broader exercise. There's been no voir dire on this expert's
4 cross -- this expert's expertise. We've had no opportunity to question
5 him on that expertise. You've heard no submissions from us on whether or
6 not he meets those requirements. So we suggest that it would be
7 premature to determine that his expert -- that his report is an expert
8 report until there have been some questions asked on those matters.
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 JUDGE DELVOIE: We will indeed wait until the end of
11 cross-examination to make a decision on this -- on this subject, as well
12 as I suppose, Mr. Demirdjian, on the documents.
13 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: Yes. I would -- I think it would make perfect
14 sense to then discuss the documents as well.
15 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you very much. Cross-examination.
16 Cross-examination by Mr. Gosnell:
17 Q. Good morning, Dr. Nielsen.
18 A. Good morning.
19 Q. My name is Christopher Gosnell. I represent Mr. Hadzic in these
20 proceedings, and I'm going to ask you a few questions over the course of
21 today and probably -- well, at some future date to be decided. If any of
22 my questions are not clear or you require any further elaboration, please
23 feel free to ask me for that. Do you understand?
24 A. Thank you, yes.
25 Q. Now, earlier today you described -- you were discussing support
1 being given by the federal secretariat for internal affairs in Belgrade
2 and also the republican Ministry of Internal Affairs of Serbia in the
3 forming of secretariats of internal affairs and police stations, and
4 that's at page 5 of today's transcript.
5 And then you were asked after that discussion by the Prosecutor
6 about what that meant in terms of control, and -- and the precise
7 question was, "I'd like you to comment on the passing of authority." And
8 in response to that you said that:
9 "But over time it was in the interests of both Belgrade and the
10 local authorities to transfer control of the local police to those
11 regional authorities in that area."
12 Now, that's in your -- that's in your transcript today. It's not
13 in your report. But do I take it from your answer there that you're
14 suggesting that at some point there was, in fact, effective control over
15 police stations and the police in the district of the SBWS by organs
16 of -- well, let's start with the federal secretariat of internal affairs
17 and the Serbian MUP?
18 A. I would state that, yes, at some point particularly during 1991,
19 there was certainly effective control over some police stations and some
20 of the police in Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem by organs of the
21 federal secretariat of internal affairs and the Serbian MUP, yes.
22 Q. And I recall yesterday, Dr. Nielsen, and I'm not trying to put
23 you in a box, that these matters were very much contingent on individual
24 situations and personalities; is that correct?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And would you agree with me that -- well, let me put it this way:
2 Can you having -- having accepted that there are indications that there
3 was control by these institutions, these Serbian and federal institutions
4 over certain elements of the police and the SBWS, can you provide, and
5 again we're dealing with matters that you have described as contingent,
6 but can you provide any general insight based upon the documents that you
7 have reviewed as to when that authority would have been transferred to
8 officials in the SBWS?
9 A. Let me first just make an important distinction that I think is
10 perhaps a little bit too implicit in what I stated so I'd like to make it
11 explicit. In addition to my agreement with your characterisation of what
12 I said earlier, I would point out that not only are there police stations
13 or units of the police over which it seems to me various internal affairs
14 organs from Belgrade had control, but there were specific bases, or I
15 think perhaps the better term that is more frequently used in the
16 document, training centres that seemed to have been exclusively under the
17 control of organs affiliated with Belgrade, and as such distinct from --
18 I would make a distinction between such training centres and secretariats
19 of internal affairs that had, for example, existed since 1945 and in
20 which Belgrade was playing a temporary control in 1991.
21 But to answer your question, I think again it is contingent. It
22 varies over time. But roughly speaking once we get past of the formation
23 of the RSK in early 1992, control seems to pass definitively to the
24 authorities of the RSK. That having been said, it's also clearly visible
25 in the documents of -- in particular the DB of Serbia, that a number of
1 personnel in the RSK remained, if not outright, employed certainly very
2 predisposed to representing Belgrade's views in the RSK MUP.
3 Q. Okay. And in -- and I recall that you said that the
4 documentation in respect to the SBWS is, in your words very, very sparse.
5 Would it be fair to say based upon the documentation that you haven't
6 seen any evidence that authority was transferred before that date that
7 you've given, February 1992?
8 A. Again, I think to come back to the word contingency, it varies
9 from municipality to municipality, in some cases from village to village.
10 So certainly I can see some documents in which that authority was
11 transferred before that date. In other areas it seems to maybe have been
12 transferred even after that date. So it's difficult, again because of
13 this very, very sparse documentation, to make any general observations
14 about that issue.
15 Q. Well, if I can just go back to your second-to-last answer and
16 perhaps to digress a little bit, you made reference to this distinction
17 with respect to training centres. Do you have any particular training
18 centres in mind?
19 A. Yes. I could mention two. One is perhaps less germane for this
20 case. This is the training centre for police forces that was established
21 at Golubic near Knin which I mention in paragraph 167 of my report. The
22 other training centre that's much more relevant to the present case is,
23 of course, the training centre in Erdut, or school as it was sometimes
24 also called.
25 Q. So do I understand your answer now, your third-last answer
1 correctly, that you were saying that your belief is that Belgrade had
2 primary control over the training centre in Erdut that was occupied by
3 Arkan in 1991?
4 A. That is my understanding of the training centre at Erdut, that
5 the perception was that -- I would say that it was Arkan's training
6 centre, that he was in charge, and as I noted in an answer earlier this
7 morning, the general perception was that Arkan was a person who enjoyed
8 the protection and favour of federal or Serbian organs based in Belgrade.
9 Q. And just to leave this issue on training centres and to go back
10 to the general question about authority being exercised by institutions,
11 federal institutions, or Serbian institutions, would you make the same
12 observation about control over police in respect of the many documents
13 that we have now seen indicating that the JNA also had a very substantial
14 role in certain areas in setting up the police?
15 A. I'd like you to clarify, please, what you mean by would you make
16 the same objection about control over police.
17 Q. Sorry, I didn't say "objection" I said "the same observation."
18 So just to clarify this, would you agree with me that the JNA by virtue
19 of providing support, guidance, advice, initiative, was also exercising
20 authority over certain elements of the police in the SBWS?
21 A. Only to a limited extent and I'll explain why. There's a
22 substantial difference in the position of the JNA and their civilian
23 affairs organs when they talk about the police. It's abundantly clear
24 that they really do not wish to be involved in policing and they are
25 desperate and very keen to see proper police organs be established and
1 functioning as soon as possible. That's quite different from Arkan, for
2 example, who is very much keen to retain as much control as possible.
3 Q. Well, I couldn't agree with you more about that, Dr. Nielsen, as
4 a general matter, but we've seen quite a few documents and I'm going to
5 go through you -- through them with you a little bit later, but as a
6 general matter, you wouldn't say that the JNA through its town commands
7 and through its civilian liaison officers was not in fact exercising
8 significant influence if not outright authority over police stations, and
9 let me be precise about this, in the area of OG south, so Ilok and the
10 other areas in the eastern part of SBWS?
11 A. As I stated yesterday, I believe that in those areas in which no
12 police stations or police forces were functioning either because the
13 police were incapable or unable to operate or for whatever other reasons,
14 they're -- the JNA by default ends up doing -- engaging in activities
15 which under normal circumstances, and indeed even according to various
16 laws during times of emergency or a war, should be conducted by police
17 forces. So to that extent this is not in a way exercising outright
18 authority over police stations if those police stations do not exist, but
19 it is fulfilling the place which the police normally should be
21 I would note that again on the exact authorities of the town
22 commands and that particular aspect of your question, I would certainly
23 defer to the military expert.
24 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: This is not an objection. Just to clarify. At
25 page -- well, in the last question on page 30, line 19, my learned friend
1 referred to OG south. Just so there is no confusion, none of the
2 documents that we showed today referred to the period of time that OG
3 south was in existence. I think this is more of a military matter which
4 we will see later in the case, but from the documents that are in at
5 least on our 65 ter list definitely OG south was not in existence as of
6 the end of November. If that helps my learned friend.
7 MR. GOSNELL: Well, when I say OG south, I mean the area that was
8 after November 1991 occupied by the 1st Guards Brigade and the 1st Guards
9 Division, and there are many documents from units from that division that
10 are referenced in Dr. Nielsen's report and in his proofing note.
11 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: Those are separate units.
12 MR. GOSNELL: Right, but --
13 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: Yes.
14 MR. GOSNELL: -- what I would suggest is -- I'm going to come
15 back to this issue in detail, so I propose to just leave these general
16 questions for now and we'll come back and look at the documents with more
17 specificity. Could we have P180, please. And this is tab 326B of the
18 Prosecution list.
19 Q. Dr. Nielsen, can you give an estimate of how many documents over
20 the course of the years that you've worked on matters in the former
21 Yugoslavia you've looked at?
22 A. All documents.
23 Q. All documents that were created by, let's say, MUP forces in
24 Bosnia and Croatia and Serbia during that time period?
25 A. Well, I do not -- I didn't have a clicker with me so I didn't
1 count them all, but I believe that I have stated in my previous testimony
2 before this Tribunal that it's certainly in the hundreds of thousands of
3 pages. I mean, the Banja Luka collection which is predominantly a MUP
4 collection held by the OTP which I examined every single page of is alone
5 143.000 pages. And that's but a small part of what I have been able to
7 Q. And you have undoubtedly read many arrest reports or information
8 or official notes about crimes allegedly committed in those areas; is
9 that right?
10 A. Yes. The documentation I reviewed included an abundant number of
11 such reports.
12 Q. And based on your review of that documentation, was it your
13 impression that narcotics use was a significant problem in these -- in
14 this documentation or noted as a problem?
15 A. It is certainly my observation based on reviewing documents from,
16 in particular, Bosnia and parts of the RSK that just as was the case with
17 almost all kinds of what I would call order crime, that is crime that
18 normally takes place in society even when at peace, narcotics use and
19 narcotics trafficking increased quite dramatically with the outbreak of
20 the war. And some persons who had previously been narcotics dealers, for
21 example, are observed by the police in both Bosnia and Croatia to
22 actually be using the opportunity provided to them by the war to form
23 paramilitary organisations which they then in turn use to capitalise in
24 controlling the narcotics trade. This was also done by certain units
25 affiliated with the State Security Service of Serbia.
1 Q. So was use of narcotics among the population a serious problem in
2 your perception?
3 A. I would say that I cannot say that I've seen figures on whether
4 the use of narcotics increased but certainly narcotics related crime
5 seemed to have increased after the outbreak of armed conflict in the
6 former Yugoslavia.
7 Q. And by that you're referring to, I assume, people who are
8 producing -- producing or smuggling drugs to onward locations such as
9 Europe or elsewhere; is that right?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. So given that background, and this may be a small point but I
12 just want to clarify it, did you find it puzzling when you were looking
13 at this document that's in front of you that the president of the RSK
14 would have intervened, and you say it was a very rare intervention to
15 issue an order in respect of law enforcement directed at dealers of drugs
16 which seems to imply direct distribution?
17 A. Let me deal with your question in two parts. When I said it was
18 a very rare intervention, what I mean is that having looked at the
19 available RSK MUP documentation, the available documentation which I can
20 say as an analyst constitutes clearly only but a portion of the larger
21 documentation produced by the RSK MUP or by the Presidency of the RSK.
22 That available documentation contains only a small number of
23 interventions or orders given by Mr. Hadzic directly to the MUP. And
24 the -- it is as such -- as such a rare instance that I cited it in the
25 report. I -- whether it was puzzling one could say yes in some ways but
1 I have to say that in the overall context of the -- I'm sorry. I'm
2 getting a lot of noise in my headphones. Thank you.
3 Unfortunately, having examined all of these documents on the
4 police in various parts of the former Yugoslavia, it is the case that I
5 do not find this order that unusual. It actually fits, as I think I noted
6 yesterday, some similar orders that I've seen in the RS and some similar
7 orders that I'm aware of given, I believe, also in Croatia.
8 Q. And did those orders explicitly mention narcotics or did they use
9 this word "dileri"? "Dileri." I believe that's the word that you used?
10 A. Yes, that's the word used in the document, dealers and resellers.
11 I have seen other documents in the collections of the RS MUP that refer
12 to the arrests of dealers of narcotics using the same terminology.
13 Q. Let me put something to you and see whether or not you consider
14 this a possibility. Could the reference here to dealers and resellers
15 refer to individuals who are engaging in a black market of exchange of
16 dinars for Deutschmarks?
17 A. I cannot exclude that possibility. That would be a possibility,
19 Q. And do you know that that was in fact a serious economic problem
20 in some areas and contributed substantially to inflation and other
21 negative economic effects?
22 A. That is absolutely correct and I would point out that again based
23 on the totality of documentation I have established or been able to
24 examine, very often the people who were involved in currency exchange
25 were also involved in the illicit trafficking of other documents,
1 gasoline, narcotics, cigarettes, yes.
2 Q. And when I earlier characterised your observation that this was a
3 rare intervention, of course there's always the possibility there is
4 something out there that we're not aware of, but you would agree with me
5 wouldn't you that your observation is based on what you have reviewed
6 that this intervention was, in fact, rare?
7 A. As an analyst I can only conclude based on what I have and not
8 based on what I do not have, but if I can also state again, because we
9 have, for example, on many of the documents we have reference numbers
10 under which those orders or communications were logged, and that is one
11 way, at least mathematically speaking, we can see that unfortunately we
12 only have one small bit of a much larger collection.
13 Q. Right. And in respect of such numbers you can't tell very much
14 about the origin from the President's office, can you, because this
15 document, as is illustrated in this document, this is a
16 Ministry of Interior document that is incorporating apparently some other
17 document; correct?
18 A. That is correct. Nothing can be said based on this document
19 alone about the number of orders issued by the Presidency of the RSK.
20 Q. And just to look at the first sentence in quotation marks.
21 You'll note that it says:
22 "Based on evaluations and standpoints of the
23 Supreme Defence Council of the Republic of Serbian Krajina ..."
24 Now, would you agree with me that that would appear to indicate
25 that this is in fact a decision that is being made effectively by the
1 Supreme Defence Council?
2 A. Yes, a council, it is my understanding, of which Mr. Hadzic was a
3 part as in -- in view of his role as president of the Republic of the
4 Serbian Krajina.
5 Q. I'm done with that document, thank you. Am I right in saying,
6 Dr. Nielsen, that this is your first report about affairs and
7 institutions in Croatia?
8 A. It is not the first report I produced about this particular
9 topic. There was another report produced for the Stanisic-Simatovic
10 case, but I did not testify in that case based on that report.
11 Q. Had you authored the section of that report concerning affairs or
12 institutions in Croatia?
13 A. That report was co-authored by myself and one other analyst who
14 worked in the leadership research team, and I had authored primarily the
15 portions of that report -- or written primarily the portions of that
16 report dealing with Bosnia and Herzegovina and to some extent the organs
17 of the federal secretariat of internal affairs and the ministry of the
18 republic -- of internal affairs of the Republic of Serbia.
19 Q. Right. So the chapter in that report that does concern the RSK
20 and Croatia you were not the primary author of that chapter; right?
21 A. That is correct.
22 Q. And would it be fair to say that your primary focus throughout
23 your many years of service at the ICTY has been the Republika Srpska.
24 A. Yes, that is a fair statement.
25 Q. And you've had the opportunity to go into the field and review
1 archives on site, is that right?
2 A. Yes, and I would point out that that did include on at least one
3 occasion a mission to the archives of the Republic of Croatian where I
4 participated as part of a larger team that examined SAO and RSK
5 documentation that is also cited in this report.
6 Q. And when was that?
7 A. If memory serves, that would have been in the summer of 2004.
8 Q. And was it then the responsibility of other persons to -- since
9 you did not author the chapter of the Stanisic report, the Stanisic
10 and Simatovic report, concerning Croatia, am I correct in thinking that
11 the documents that were obtained during that trip in 2004 were primarily
12 analysed, reviewed, chosen by other individuals and not you or am I not
13 correct about that?
14 A. That particular mission was a part of a longer series of missions
15 to obtain as many relevant documents as possible about Serb related
16 entities or controlled entities in Croatia. I was but one of at least
17 half a dozen analysts who at various stages visited the archives of the
18 Republic of Croatia to select documents based on criteria that we had
19 discussed in The Hague, selection criteria that we discussed in
20 The Hague. Obviously since it was not just military organs but also
21 police organs based on my experience with the RS MUP, I had a good idea
22 of what kind of documentation might be relevant and that's one of the
23 reasons I was sent down there. However, I was not the primary analyst at
24 that point who was tasked to subsequently examine and analyse these
25 documents again because I at that point in time was focusing mainly on
1 the RS MUP and on the MUP of Serbia and the federal secretariat for
2 internal affairs.
3 Q. And is it correct that those were the types of documents that you
4 were primarily looking for when you were on that mission?
5 A. No. I state again that particular mission I was exclusively
6 looking for documents that were related to Serb-controlled entities in
7 Croatia. Of course, as it happened, if we found a letter of
8 Mr. Krajisnik that had been sent to Mr. Martic, for example, that would
9 be relevant for both areas of research. But primarily on that mission I
10 was, if you will, seconded to work on helping the review of a very, very
11 large collection of documentation held in Zagreb.
12 MR. GOSNELL: I see the time, Mr. President.
13 JUDGE DELVOIE: Indeed, thank you, Mr. Gosnell.
14 Dr. Nielsen, we take the first break now and come back at 11.00.
15 You will be escorted out of the courtroom. Thank you.
16 [The witness stands down]
17 JUDGE DELVOIE: Court adjourned.
18 --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.
19 --- On resuming at 11.02 a.m.
20 [The witness takes the stand]
21 JUDGE DELVOIE: Please proceed, Mr. Gosnell.
22 MR. GOSNELL: Thank you, Mr. President.
23 Q. Dr. Nielsen, yesterday you testified that you did not yourself,
24 and this is at page 2406 of the transcript, conduct, on I quote:
25 "Conduct a substantial number of searches on the OTP databases
1 for documents relevant to this report."
2 Can you tell us precisely how many such searches you did run or
3 how long you spent engaging in such searches?
4 A. I do not have a precise figure of how many searches I conducted.
5 Since I was not physically present at the OTP during the period in which
6 I was preparing my report, I was conducting those searches on the -- I
7 think we all agree, very wonderful EDS system, and trying to supplement
8 the documents. I had already been provided by the OTP with additional
9 documents. However, in most cases where I identified documents that I
10 believed were in the possession of the OTP that I wanted to examine of --
11 in the context of preparing the report, I asked them to retrieve those
12 documents from the databases and send them to me on DVDs.
13 Q. So in terms of -- and I certainly don't want to bore everyone
14 with getting too technical, but in terms of being able to conduct text
15 searches of the OTP databases, is it fair to say that your ability to do
16 that was rather limited in this case?
17 A. I conducted text searches of the OTP databases that have been
18 disclosed in the electronic disclosure system. Again, as you know, that
19 is not a perfect tool. I think I'll agree with all Defence counsel about
20 that. That having been said, I was under the impression, but it was not
21 something that I thought I needed to do in the end, that had I insisted
22 on coming to The Hague and running my own searches, I would have been
23 welcome to do so.
24 Q. But you didn't do that; right?
25 A. No.
1 Q. And globally how would you compare the extent of research you did
2 into documentation that went into, for example, the Mico Stanisic report
3 as compared to the extent of research and investigation you were able to
4 do in respect of the report in this case?
5 A. It was a smaller extent both in terms of time and in terms of the
6 total amount of documentation I was able to examine. Again, that is a
7 link also in part to the, I think again let's use the term very, very
8 sparse amount of documentation that is available on this subject matter
9 compared to the RS MUP.
10 Q. You've already said that -- testified that you did not rely on
11 any -- well, perhaps I should not say that you've said this. Perhaps I
12 should just ask you. Is it correct that you have not relied on any
13 witness statements or any witness testimony in preparing your report in
14 this case?
15 A. Is it correct that I have not relied on any witness statements or
16 any witness testimony collected by this Tribunal or made at this
17 Tribunal. However, as you will undoubtedly have discovered in going
18 through the footnotes on - excuse me -- on a rare number of occasions I
19 do cite witness statements collected by authorities in the former
21 Q. And that again is different, is it not, from the research or the
22 work that you did in preparing the Mico Stanisic report; correct?
23 A. No. That is actually incorrect. I -- as I stated yesterday, the
24 methodology I applied in producing the current report is precisely the
25 methodology I applied in terms of source selection in producing the
1 report on RS MUP. It was the policy, long-standing policy of the
2 leadership research team that we not avail ourselves of witness
3 statements or witness testimony in preparing our reports. And to be very
4 clear, what I mean by that is of course we had awareness of certain
5 witness statements. Some of us had even been present when a certain
6 witness statement had been taken in our capacity as analysts. However,
7 those documents were not permitted according to our methodology to be
8 cited in our analytical products, and certainly not in the reports that
9 we produced for court.
10 Q. Would you nevertheless say that it informed your analysis?
11 A. Only to the extent that I was always trying to see whether the
12 statements made by the witnesses to the extent that I had time to review
13 those statements was corroborated independently by the available
14 documentation produced especially by the police.
15 Q. And that would strengthen your confidence in various propositions
16 contained in those documents; is that correct?
17 A. Yes, if there was corroboration.
18 Q. The reason I ask you this question is because in the Stanisic
19 case at page 4808 you were asked a question about your preparation for
20 testimony and so I want to make sure that you understand that is the
21 context. I'm not suggesting that this is what you said in respect of
22 preparation of the report, but nevertheless, in respect of preparation
23 for testimony, the answer that you gave to the question as to whether you
24 had reviewed witness statements, the answer you gave at 4808 is:
25 "Yes. I have had the opportunity to read at an earlier date a
1 very small number of statements of Prosecution witnesses. I am more
2 familiar with their actual statements today in this court as I have been
3 to the best of my ability following this case by reading the publicly
4 available transcripts on the web site."
5 Now, I'm not saying there's any contradiction here, but I suppose
6 my question is would you say that that is true also in respect of this
7 case? Have you been following the testimony, and have you read
8 statements that have gone into your -- or have informed the preparation
9 of this report even if you don't explicitly cite them?
10 A. I can tell you precisely what I have made myself aware of before
11 arriving here this week. I read all of the Sense agency's reports on
12 their web side which are of course summaries of the testimony of previous
13 witnesses in this case. I did not read any of the transcripts to date in
14 this case. I simply did not have time to do that. And around Christmas
15 I was sent a DVD, with the Court's permission I understand, containing
16 the testimony and statements of several protected witnesses, and I
17 reviewed -- so, yes, I did review those transcript portions, but I didn't
18 read any of the other transcripts available on the web site, and I read
19 their statements, and that is all of what I have reviewed to date from
20 this case since it began in I believe October.
21 Q. Did you read all of the testimony of the protected witnesses that
22 was sent to you without identifying any names? Have you read all of it?
23 A. Yes, I have read all of the transcripts that were sent to me. I
24 believe there were four protected witnesses.
25 Q. Now, when you -- and you testified that there is a very sparse
1 documentation in relation to the events that you have been analysing to a
2 large extent. Can you elaborate for us as an analyst when you consider
3 the combination of a very sparse documentary foundation combined with an
4 analytical methodology that, in effect, excludes examining testimonial
5 evidence, how does that affect, in your view, the confidence that you
6 would place in the conclusions that you reach in your own report in this
8 A. Well, it is my view, and to some extent my hope, that by drawing
9 the Chamber's attention, the Court's attention, to the numerous documents
10 that I was able to review and which I did cite in this report I will
11 perhaps be able to augment the Court's general and specific knowledge
12 about certain events, structures, organisational facts, et cetera,
13 pertaining to the police in the Serb-controlled entities in Croatia
14 during this period.
15 Of course, compared to the level of documentation and the source
16 base that I had in RS MUP, I'm able to make much less headway in terms of
17 understanding how these entities functioned and I've been very frank
18 about that. I think for that very reason it is essential, and I said
19 yesterday I was very grateful to hear that the Court is able to hear the
20 opinion and testimony of those witnesses, because that will be I believe
21 crucial in establishing an accurate picture of what transpired in those
22 areas and in the police.
23 Q. And would you agree with me that there's an accumulated
24 background knowledge that arises from working on one specific area such
25 as the RS over a period of many years, and even if you're not explicitly
1 relying on testimony, it deepens your analysis of the documents in terms
2 of the types of conclusions that you can offer in an expert report; is
3 that correct?
4 A. I believe that statement is accurate regardless of any topic.
5 Q. All right. Yesterday you described to some extent your reliance
6 on books, and you said at page 2411 that Croat sources would have a
7 very -- in describing bias in response to a question by the President,
8 Judge Hall [sic], you answered:
9 "Croat sources would have a very high interest in portraying the
10 Serbian side and their actions in the most negative light possible."
11 Do you remember that?
12 A. Yes, I remember that.
13 Q. As I recall, you said that on that basis you chose not to place
14 significant reliance on such sources; is that correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Did you consider the possibility, however, that that bias does
17 not always render such sources unreliable, and in particular, would you
18 agree with me that if there were accounts from Croatian sources that were
19 favourable to Mr. Hadzic, that all else being equal, that would -- that
20 would enhance their reliability?
21 A. That sounds like a logical proposition.
22 Q. And did you, aside from the -- I believe there's one book from a
23 Croatian academic that you relied on, did you seek out or know about any
24 other books authored by Croatian sources that might contain such
1 A. In the period since I was tasked to write this report, that is
2 since approximately January 2012, the only source of that type which I
3 have read and here I'm speaking of published sources since we're on that
4 topic, are the memoirs of Josip Boljkovac who was, of course, a minister
5 of internal affairs for the Republic of Croatia during the period. And I
6 frankly cannot recall off the top of my head what Mr. Boljkovac says
7 about Mr. Hadzic in particular, but I had made the decision prior to
8 reading the book that I was not going to cite the memoirs of Croat police
9 officers or members of the Croat -- Croatian government.
10 Q. Have you read that book carefully?
11 A. I read it, yes.
12 Q. Carefully?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Do you recall whether there is any reference to Mr. Hadzic in
15 that book?
16 A. As I stated, I believe that there is -- or, I did not state this
17 but I will state it now. I will restate that I cannot recall off the top
18 of my head what he says about Mr. Hadzic in particular but I am quite
19 confident and do recall that he does mention Mr. Hadzic.
20 Q. We're going to come to that book, but I was just wondering about
21 your methodology and whether it's sound to -- and I believe this was the
22 implication of what you've said earlier, to categorically exclude Croat
23 sources merely because they are Croat sources; in particular, in cases
24 where the bias might work in the other direction and render them more
1 A. I'm certainly happy to review whatever excerpts from that book
2 you wish to present to me.
3 Q. Now, we're just for the moment going to stick with methodology
4 and I want to continue to ask you some questions about how you analyse
5 bias. Did you -- you would agree that there would be other circumstances
6 in which bias would be significant in assessing the reliability of a
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And what other types of bias were you looking for when you were
10 preparing your analysis?
11 A. Well, for example, I believe I referred yesterday to the
12 political infighting that was occurring within the RSK and within the SAO
13 organs in the entire period from their establishment in 1990 until 1995,
14 and that as such I believe that speaking as an analyst, we need to tread
15 carefully when various members of those organs are making disparaging
16 statements about other members of those organs to, for example, the DB of
18 Q. You've encompassed two questions I'm going to ask you about. The
19 first is about the political infighting. Are you aware that there was
20 significant and in some case quite bitter political infighting between
21 Mr. Hadzic and Mr. Martic?
22 A. Yes, and I believe that I made reference to that in the report,
23 or at least allude to it.
24 Q. And in relying on Mr. Martic on at least one occasion where you
25 allege that Mr. Hadzic wished to remove Mr. Martic in favour of Arkan,
1 did you take into account that bias in including that statement in your
3 A. Yes, I did. Again, I think it is important from a methodological
4 perspective to distinguish between whether something is included in the
5 report as in the shape of a statement in the report that Mr. Martic made
6 a certain statement about Mr. Hadzic, and any statement that I as an
7 analyst believe that this was actually a true statement. In other words,
8 to take another example we had earlier today, when Mr. -- or General
9 Zivota Panic says something at a meeting of the Federal Presidency, it is
10 highly relevant I believe for the Court to note that that statement was
11 made. What the Chamber makes of it and is of course has to be examined
12 in the totality of evidence including evidence by witnesses who were
13 themselves present there. That is one of the reasons that you may have
14 noted there actually aren't conclusions as such in the report. I am in a
15 sense mechanically walking the documents in the court rather than stating
16 that I agree with what those documents actually state.
17 Q. Can we take that to be the case for the totality of your report,
18 that there are occasions -- in fact, I would suggest to you that it's
19 almost the rule in the course of this particular report that you have
20 seldom actually weighed in behind the documents that you have -- or the
21 accounts that you have described and said, "I conclude that this is
22 true"; correct?
23 A. It is correct to state that do I as a rule, and this is true
24 generally speaking as an analyst, not perceive it as my role to come in
25 and say whether something is true or not. If I'm able to find documents
1 that disagree with each other then I try to show that those persons
2 disagreed about a particular event and characterised it in different
3 ways. I refer to a number of those conflicts which are characterised
4 power struggles, for example, characterised differently by various
5 actors, but I'm highly aware again particularly in light of the sparse
6 nature of the documentation that I've been able to examine that this is a
7 small portion of the overall evidence and particularly because of the bad
8 state of documentation, much of this chapter of the former Yugoslavia's
9 history will need to be reconstructed based on witness statements which
10 of course have their on methodological problems and biases.
11 Q. And would you in fact agree that Arkan was a convenient, if I can
12 use this expression, whipping horse for individuals who wanted to
13 discredit others? A good way to do it would be to associate them with
14 Arkan. Would that be an observation that you would agree with based on
15 your review of the documentation and your understanding of the motives
16 behind some of those documents?
17 A. I cannot exclude that at times some persons have used Arkan, to
18 use your term, as a whipping horse in order to discredit others.
19 However, I would point out that for the bulk of the period under
20 examination here, the vast majority of the actors in Serb-controlled
21 entities in Krajina often had very positive opinions of Arkan and
22 therefore were not using him as a whipping horse but in many cases were
23 themselves rushing to associate themselves with him as a patriotic actor.
24 Q. One aspect of this that I find interesting and I'm not sure what
25 your views are on it is you've testified that you have reviewed evidence
1 that Arkan was affiliated or under the authority of or controlled in some
2 way by the DB of Serbia while at the same time you rely on DB reports
3 making various assertions about his criminal conduct. Can you help shed
4 some light on how you view the dynamic between on the one hand he is a
5 part of the DB and on the other hand there are elements of the DB that
6 are attempting to apparently discredit him or associate him with criminal
8 A. Thank you for that excellent question. I think this is one of
9 the more fascinating aspects of the collapse of the former Yugoslavia.
10 When we look at the police, and this is true. I want to make it very
11 clear, not just in Serb-controlled entities but in the Bosnian Muslim
12 portions of the police, in the Croatian controlled portion of the police
13 that there is a protracted struggle going on in the police between a
14 large section of the police who are professionally trained, who grew up
15 in Yugoslavia, who were proud of the fact that they had been implementing
16 the constitutional laws of Yugoslavia throughout their careers and upheld
17 law and order, and the large influx of nationalist police officers and
18 personnel that took place at the end of the 1980s and the beginning of
19 1990, and it is abundantly clear even in the sparse available
20 documentation that this is the case in Eastern Slavonia, Baranja, and
21 Western Srem as well. It was the case in Vojvodina. And many career
22 police officers, both in the public security service and the State
23 Security Service, were very resentful and looked very disapprovingly at
24 the actions of people such as Arkan. I provide actually a number of
25 documents from as far back as the 1980s where it was known that Arkan was
1 a career criminal and therefore we need to remember that the police and
2 even the vondit [phoen] State Security Service of Serbia is not a
3 monolith. There are people, operational officers who had worked for
4 years and who had covered Serbian extremism in their -- in the ambit of
5 their work in, for example, Novi Sad, and these are the people who
6 authored the types of reports that we see. So even though they are
7 actually subordinate legally to the persons at the top of the MUP who are
8 making use for Arkan and similar persons and providing them with the
9 assistance they need, these persons are instinctively and professionally
10 bound to file the types of reports that they file here.
11 Q. That may be one explanation but I have another possible
12 explanation that I would like to hear your comment upon, and that is: Do
13 you think there is any possibility that some of these sources are in
14 effect trying to for one motivation or another disavow the connection of
15 these institutions of which they are part with the individual in
16 question? In other words, are they by virtue of these creating a paper
17 record to say, We have nothing to do with this particular individual,
18 with Arkan?
19 A. I cannot exclude that possibility, but in the -- particularly in
20 the case of the correspondence from, for example, the state security
21 centres in places like Sremska Mitrovica, Ruma, Novi Sad, one certainly
22 does not gain the perspective or conclusion from examining those
23 documents that that is the primary motivation for writing such reports.
24 And I would also note that these reports are almost all classified at a
25 very high level, which means that whatever disavowal they might have been
1 engaged in would have been available to only very few select readers.
2 Q. And what about reports by -- and you had addressed this in your
3 testimony yesterday to some extent but you haven't gone into detail, what
4 about reports by JNA -- various JNA sources in respect of Arkan?
5 A. What is the question?
6 Q. Well, the question is whether or not there would be -- let's
7 start with this question: Is there the same element of some would
8 welcome Arkan and others would -- who are from a more professional
9 background might wish to discredit or be open about discussing his
11 A. I think that's a relatively fair characterisation, yes.
12 Q. We're going to come back to some documents in particular, but I
13 just wanted to address those questions with you now as a matter of
14 general methodology. And on that subject, you did testify yesterday and
15 now that you have reviewed some testimony in this case and that you did
16 consider it to be relevant but that nevertheless you haven't changed any
17 aspect of your report.
18 Can you explain what that means? Why did you choose not to
19 change any aspect of your report based upon testimony that you considered
21 A. Well, I can tell the Court that when I was first -- when it was
22 first suggested to me in December that I be permitted to examine the
23 testimony and the witness statements of a small number of protected
24 witnesses, my initial reaction, and it is still my reaction today is,
25 Well, okay, I will do that if the Office of the Prosecutor thinks it is
1 useful and if the Chamber permits it, but I as an analyst and as the
2 author of this report am not certain what I am actually supposed to do
3 that with that knowledge. And what I mean by that is because, number
4 one, in accordance with the methodology that I've explained, even if I
5 had read it a year ago, I could not have cited it. Number two, I
6 cannot -- and again, as I am always fond of pointing out I'm not a
7 lawyer. I know that I cannot legally be the vehicle for introducing
8 those persons' testimony into this court. This is why they are called as
9 witnesses. So, yes, my knowledge of the subject matter has been
10 expanded, and as an analyst and historian that is always interesting and
11 of course I could see that their evidence was germane and relevant to
12 subjects I discussed in my report but I cannot see how I can go in and
13 amend my report, and I do not see it as my role to comment on the
14 veracity of what the witnesses say; that is for the Court to decide.
15 Q. Did you think that you had -- let's say that you had considered
16 that you did wish to change your report, did you believe, were you told
17 that you would be able to make such amendments?
18 A. As soon as I raised the epistemological point that I just raised,
19 it was a moot point. I mean, there was -- I -- I effectively said that I
20 will not change my report, and said that before reading the statements
21 because of the methodological considerations that went into drafting the
22 report in the first place. If I opened that door, then logically I
23 should be reading a whole lot more witness statements and suspect
24 statements and availing myself of those.
25 Q. But has the testimony that you have read affected your answers
1 during your direct examination?
2 A. No. And again, I would like to make it clear that there are
3 certain things that I could say now regarding certain paragraphs in my
4 report, I'm not going to say which ones because we're in open session and
5 I am aware that this is closed-session testimony that we are talking of
6 here, there are certain paragraphs in this report in which certain very
7 detailed events took place where I had a part of the puzzle. I was now
8 made aware of a larger part of that puzzle because I read that testimony.
9 But to answer your question, what could I have said? My answer would
10 have been and I'm also aware that a certain person testified and this was
11 actually not so. Again my assumption as an analyst is that the Court has
12 now become aware of these person's company and they will take that into
13 consideration when they weigh that testimony compared to the documents in
14 my report.
15 Q. And you'd agree that in respect of some events that are contained
16 in documents that you have relied on in your report in order to come to
17 certain conclusions, to the extent that it turns out that those events
18 didn't occur or have been misconstrued or not described in the right way,
19 that would have an impact on the conclusions, the overall conclusions in
20 your report; is that correct?
21 A. I find your question somewhat mystifying because I just thought
22 we just agreed there were very few conclusions in my report.
23 Q. Well, to the extent that there are any conclusions, would you
24 agree that to the extent that they're the factual foundation as presented
25 in the documents turns out to be substantially contradicted by reliable
1 testimonial evidence that those conclusions are infirm.
2 A. To the extent that that is the case, and I do believe that that
3 is the case based on my review of that witness testimony, then I am fully
4 confident that a panel of professional international Judges will be able
5 to weight the evidence as is their task and see the totality of the
6 picture of which I can only provide a small part.
7 Q. Could we have 03221, which is Defence tab 4.
8 Now, Dr. Nielsen, I'd like to discuss with you a couple of
9 documents that we've received from the Office of the Prosecutor related
10 to -- well, actually, I don't want to characterise what they're related
11 to. I want to find out from you, actually, what they're -- what they're
12 related to and what they mean. And this document appears to be an e-mail
13 from you to various attorneys of the Office of the Prosecutor. Am I
14 right in understanding that -- well, first of all have you seen this
15 document recently?
16 A. I saw this document most recently when I believe that it was
17 filed in the Karadzic case. And, yes, it is an e-mail I wrote.
18 Q. And you were an employee of the Office of the Prosecutor when you
19 wrote this e-mail?
20 A. Yes, and I think just because this is going to become very
21 relevant in a second, let's get the exact dates of my employment at the
22 OTP. I was employed from mid-June 2002 until the middle of August 2004.
23 That was the first stint at the employment -- at the OTP for me. And my
24 second stint was from the 14th of February, 2006, until the 31st
25 of December of 2007. So this was written during my second period of
1 employment with the Tribunal.
2 Q. And if we could turn to page 2 down at the bottom there is a
3 reference to -- by you. There is a reference to the current draft. Just
4 before we get into the substance, what -- what is the current draft that
5 you're referring to? Current draft of what?
6 A. I was referring in this e-mail to the current draft of a proposed
7 expert report, Prosecution expert report that was being prepared for the
8 case of Stanisic and Simatovic, a report that I had initially started
9 drafting in -- during my first period of employment at the Tribunal and
10 which upon the termination of my employment when I went to the ICC, I had
11 relinquished control of that report, and upon my return to the Tribunal
12 in 2006 there was a discussion of the extent to which I would be involved
13 again in drafting the version of that report that went into court or that
14 would be filed before the Court, keeping in mind that during my second
15 stint of my employment at the OTP I was no longer working as a full-time
16 analyst for the leadership research team but was addressing other
18 Q. [Microphone not activated] And what you say down here in the last
19 sentence --
20 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the counsel, please.
21 MR. GOSNELL:
22 Q. And what you say in the last sentence of this e-mail is:
23 "However, given that the current draft cites verbatim some
24 passages of Ari's report," and above you've referred to Ari as
25 Ari Kerkkanen who appears to be another analyst, and then you go on,
1 "passages of Ari's report without Ari ever being mentioned I want to
2 raise this possible issue."
3 Am I right in understanding that the concern that you're raising
4 here is that there is a report that is going to be submitted under your
5 name that contains work by another analyst who is not identified as one
6 of the authors of the report?
7 A. I can tell you precisely what's going on here. Ari Kerkkanen was
8 an analyst who did not work for the leadership research team but who
9 worked for another team at the Office of the Prosecutor, and he had been
10 for a long time been one of the analysts who had been focusing most of
11 his time and effort on the RSK. He was one of the analysts who was also
12 involved in those document collection missions that took place earlier.
13 He had written and filed an expert report in the Martic case, I believe
14 it was, and after he had testified in the Martic case, I believe at some
15 point in 2005 he had left the Tribunal, and he had made it known that he
16 would not be interested in testifying on the basis of that report in any
17 other cases. He had been asked whether he would be interested in
18 testifying again and he said no.
19 So it was to the degree there would be other cases in which
20 the -- that would deal with the RSK MUP which analysts and which
21 analytical products would deal with that and that is part of the
22 discussion that we have here. What I was trying to highlight, first of
23 all, was the fact that as we can see on this page, the Trial Chamber in
24 Martic essentially discarded Mr. Kerkkanen's report. The other thing I
25 was trying to highlight was that I was probing whether the material that
1 was used in his report was -- to what extent that was going to be used in
2 any future analytical reports that the leadership research team might
3 file, and I want to make reference to page -- I believe it's 13199 [sic]
4 of the Karadzic transcript in which you will find a detailed discussion
5 by Dr. Patrick Treanor, who was the leader of the leadership research
6 team, in which he outlined the methodology used by the leadership
7 research team which, among other things, produced a number of reports
8 where, for example, it was Dr. Treanor's name alone that appeared on the
9 first page, but several unnamed analysts who were also on the leadership
10 research team had written entire sections of that report and although
11 their names did not appear in the report. So this is what I'm trying to
12 find out. Is that what we're doing here or not.
13 Q. [Microphone not activated] And thank you very much for that
14 transcript reference. It's not --
15 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for counsel, please.
16 MR. GOSNELL:
17 Q. Thank you very much for that transcript reference. It's not
18 often that one has a witness providing such references, so I appreciate
19 it very much.
20 A. It should be page "13999." It says "13199" here.
21 Q. And you received a response saying, Thanks, I have seen that
22 passage from the -- from the attorney to whom you've written and what do
23 you propose in terms of your report, and then your answer is, I'm not
24 proposing anything in particular because I am not myself sure to what
25 extent, if any, this will affect the overall report and the testimony
1 about it.
2 Can I first ask you how much of the report at this stage had
3 actually been authored by Mr. Kerkkanen?
4 A. Well, we're now going back to a particular point in time -- I
5 believe my e-mail's from 2007, so we're talking about something that
6 occurred six years ago. I'm not sure at that exact point in time what
7 had -- how much of the report had come into existence and how much of the
8 material he had used or written had been appropriated for the new report.
9 What I can say is that I do recall in -- from my own documentation that
10 it was only later that year that I was able to sit down and review the
11 entire report as it was being filed, again because I was working on other
13 MR. GOSNELL: Could we have 65 ter 03231. It's related to
14 Defence tab 1, even though it is not actually the number given at tab 1.
15 I sent an e-mail at 7.58 this morning. I don't know whether there's an
16 objection from the Prosecution or not on this.
17 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: Your Honours, I didn't want to raise earlier
18 because Dr. Nielsen is perfectly capable of answering these questions;
19 however, we're now getting into issues relating to reports written in a
20 different case about totally different matters, and I'm not sure I
21 understand what is the relevance of these questions in relation to a
22 report prepared in this case from scratch with totally different
23 material. If there is an issue with which the Defence want to impeach
24 the witness, if there's a credibility issue, they should get to it
25 directly. All these background e-mails and matters related to a
1 different case on different topics, again I'm not entirely sure what is
2 relevant. As I say, Dr. Nielsen is capable of answering these questions.
3 I'm not sure if we've laid down the foundation or there's any relevance
4 in it.
5 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Gosnell.
6 MR. GOSNELL: The relevance is to determine whether or not
7 Dr. Nielsen lent his name to a report that he had not authored and that
8 affects his credibility. Now in no way, I want to make very clear, am I
9 making that insinuation at this stage. But in the absence of a statement
10 from the witness that explains to me the situation which has been
11 indicated by documents from the Office of the Prosecutor that leaves many
12 unanswered questions, I would be derelict in my duty if I did not explore
13 these questions with him. They are perfectly relevant to his expertise
14 and the manner in which he has conducted himself as an expert at this
16 JUDGE DELVOIE: And are you saying, Mr. Gosnell, that you
17 wouldn't ask the question directly to the witness?
18 MR. GOSNELL: Well, I to some degree need to lay a foundation as
19 to what we're talking about because it's a fairly specific point, and I'm
20 sorry if it's laborious for the Prosecution and I'm sorry in they're
21 embarrassed by it, but, nevertheless, that's the process that I would
22 suggest needs to be gone through to get to the right questions.
23 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: Your Honours, if that is the reason why my
24 learned friend wishes to use the report now that we have an explanation,
25 I don't have any objection. And again, there is no issue of
1 embarrassment. These are matters that have been disclosed to the
2 Defence, so I don't think we need to take it that far.
3 MR. GOSNELL: Just to insist, I don't plan to go in any way into
4 the content of the report. All I wish to do is to show the witness the
5 cover page and the table of contents, that's it.
6 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: Just a small correction to the transcript. At
7 line 22, I said these are matters that were "disclosed" to the Defence
8 not "closed."
9 JUDGE DELVOIE: Please proceed, Mr. Gosnell, but you could
10 perhaps speed up a little bit to the very purpose of your -- to come to
11 the very purpose of your line of questions.
12 MR. GOSNELL: I'll try to do that, Mr. President, thank you.
13 Q. Now, Dr. Nielsen, is it correct that this is the submitted
14 version of the report that in June 2007 you referred to as being a draft
16 A. It's certainly the title page. There were several drafts of the
17 report, so -- but I'm assuming if this is the ERN version, it was the
18 version filed in Stanisic and Simatovic.
19 MR. GOSNELL: Could we have 03221, please. I'm sorry, I've given
20 the wrong number. It's 03231, Defence tab 1. Sorry, could we go back to
21 03212. Sorry, that doesn't appear to be the document I'm looking for.
22 The correct number should be 03232, and I apologise for that.
23 Q. Now -- now, this -- just to describe this, I mean, this is --
24 this is dated 14th of September, 2009, and your name is there appearing
25 as the author alone; is that correct?
1 A. Yes. While we're on this topic, let me just explain. When I
2 prepared the original RS MUP report for Krajisnik, for the Krajisnik
3 case, I had a brief section on the assistance received by RS MUP from
4 federal and Serb authorities of internal affairs. Subsequently we of
5 course received many more documents that cast light on that important
6 subject. I therefore was encouraged during my first period of employment
7 to take that addendum or portion of the original Krajisnik report and
8 expand it into a full report on the involvement of the federal
9 secretariat of internal affairs in Republic of Serbia Ministry of
10 Internal Affairs in Bosnia-Herzegovina. That is part of what became the
11 report we saw just a moment ago. And then now this is yet another
12 addendum to the Stanisic and Simatovic report. In this case the addendum
13 was authored by myself alone.
14 Q. All right. Can we now about to 03231, please.
15 Now, this document, which is an earlier document, includes
16 Ms. Tromp's name as one of the authors. Can you explain why she has been
17 removed from the subsequent iteration of the report in the same case?
18 A. I think if I looked at those two cover pages as I just saw them,
19 the previous one and this one, it's not the -- it's not two iterations of
20 the same report. It's a report and an addendum. So her name was not
21 removed. She was just not involved in the production of the addendum.
22 Q. All right. Let's go straight then to 1D190, which really gets to
23 the point. And if we go over to page 2 of this document, paragraph 5.
24 Now, this document says that in the course of final preparations
25 to call you, the Prosecution discovered that portions of the report -- or
1 chapters, chapters 1 of the report were not authored by
2 Christian Nielsen. Chapter 1 represents a composite of the work of two
3 individuals. Chapter 3 represents a composite of the work of
4 Ari Kerkkanen and Nena Tromp. Now, first of all, let me just stop there.
5 Is it correct that the chapter 3 being referred to, that's the chapter
6 that concerns Croatia and any Serb entities in Croatia; is that right?
7 A. Yes, that is clearly stated in the first sentence of this
9 Q. Correct. Thank you for that. And then the last sentence says:
10 As such Mr. Nielsen will be unable to properly address challenges or
11 answer questions regarding chapters 1 to 3 of the report.
12 Now, why did you -- why did you tell them that on the one hand,
13 that you would not be able to answer challenges to that portion of the
14 report, whereas the previous document that we've seen lists your name and
15 your name alone as the author of the report to be submitted in that case?
16 A. I think here again to use the old expression mixing, you know,
17 apples and pears or apples and oranges, there is a distinction to my mind
18 between a report on the cover of which two names appear, my name and the
19 name of Nena Tromp. And as far as I know, all iterations of that report
20 that were filed in Stanisic and Simatovic have both names on the cover
21 page. Then there was an addendum, and I was the sole author of the
22 addendum produced as I recall, mainly based on more recent material
23 produced or given to the OTP by the State Security Services of Serbia who
24 were hardly forthcoming in their provision of relevant documentation
25 hence the late arrival of documentation that was relevant and needed to
1 be reviewed and which became the subject of that addendum. So to go back
2 to your question, I did not tell them, if them is the Prosecution, what
3 you say -- say that I told them.
4 Q. Thank you for that correction, but your name and Ms. Tromp's name
5 do appear on the main report as submitted on the 18th of March, 2008, as
6 the authors.
7 Now, wouldn't that imply that at least as of the date of
8 submission of that report the proposition was that you would be in a
9 position, either you or Ms. Tromp or both, would be in a position to
10 vouch for and respond to questions concerning the content of that report?
11 A. That was the position as of the day of the filing of that report,
13 Q. And then did you subsequently object? How is it -- well, let me
14 just ask you: Did you subsequently object?
15 A. I did not subsequently object, no.
16 Q. Would you have been willing to testify and answer questions in
17 relation to that report in the Stanisic and Simatovic case?
18 A. I think here we need to make a distinction between the two issues
19 referred to in paragraph 5 of this filing. One is this chapter 3 which
20 is, as noted, represented a composite of the work of the Ari Kerkkanen
21 and Nena Tromp. As I noted, there had been a practice within the OTP
22 that on some occasions one analyst would in court present the conclusions
23 or analytical observations of several OTP analysts. So pursuant to that
24 practice, I did not have a problem with presenting that portion of the
25 report. The understanding, of course, both by myself and by the
1 Prosecutors was that I would in detail go through all portions of that
2 report, review all of the documentation, read all the primary source of
3 the documentation and make myself capable of responding to questions that
4 any party to the case would have.
5 So there those -- that's how I would respond to that part of the
7 With chapter 1, there is, to my mind, a completely different and
8 much more serious problem, which is that chapter 1 as is stated here, and
9 I quote, "Represents a composite of the work of Budimir Babovic and Nena
10 Tromp." Budimir Babovic was at no point an employee of the Office of the
11 Prosecutor, and I would at no point have agreed had I known that -- that
12 portions of his work had been directly integrated into that report. I
13 would at no point have agreed to testify on the basis of that. That to
14 me was a clear violation of the procedures that we had established.
15 Q. And you say that even if you had done what you just said you
16 would do in respect of these reports, namely review all the primary
17 material yourself, essentially make it your own. Are you saying that
18 even if you had done that, the fact that someone else, a non-employees
19 had been involved in the preparation of the report, are you saying that
20 you still would not have been willing to testify in respect of such a
22 A. Well, I believe I provided a clear answer in terms of chapter 3,
23 the composite work produced based on the work of Ari Kerkkanen and
24 Nena Tromp, again because those persons were both employees of the Office
25 of the Prosecutor. My objection was to chapter 1 which represented a
1 composite of the work of an external expert which to my mind the
2 Prosecution, the Defence, and anyone else is perfectly welcome to call
3 external experts but then they should be testifying on the basis of their
4 reports. And Prosecution, members of the Prosecution, including analysts
5 in the Office of the Prosecutor should not be presenting the work of
6 external experts as their own and I would never have agreed to testify on
7 the basis of that section of the report given that it was produced based
8 on at least in part analysis done by Mr. Babovic.
9 Q. And just to close this topic, could we have Defence tab 3,
10 65 ter 03220.
11 Now you've just told us that your objection to testifying on the
12 basis of that report was the involvement of an external expert so to
13 speak. What we have here is a memorandum disclosed by the Prosecution
14 dated the 28th of March, 2011, and according to this memorandum, you
15 expressed shock when told that portion of the report were Babovic's and
16 Kerkkanen's work. The reason why I'm really focusing on this is because
17 Mr. Kerkkanen is the one who prepared, as I understand it, the portion of
18 the report on the RSK and Croatia; correct?
19 A. Correct, and I think, you know, this is a historic opportunity
20 for me to be able to comment on hearsay about my own role, because this
21 to me is hearsay. And so here I am as a witness, and what I can tell you
22 is it makes absolutely zero sense to say that I expressed shock when told
23 that portions of the report were Kerkkanen's work. Why would I express
24 shock in 2011 when as we have seen in my e-mail, and I'm very glad you
25 produced that, in 2007 I was cognisant of the fact that parts of
1 Kerkkanen's work were being appropriated for a joint analytical report.
2 To me that was part and parcel of an agreed OTP methodology in the
3 leadership research team when we had several OTP analysts. Instead of
4 walking three analysts into the report -- to the court on one report,
5 sometimes we would have three or four analysts but one witnessing, one
6 testifying analyst who would position himself or herself to testify on
7 the basis of that entire report. So my shock which was present, and I
8 can tell you I was apoplectic when I received this phone call, referred
9 or pertained exclusively to the knowledge that I obtained on that day,
10 that portions of the report were Babovic's work. To me that was as I
11 stated a clear and absolutely unacceptable violation of the standards
12 that I had tried to uphold in producing analytical work and I can tell
13 you that speaking personally, professionally as an analyst, that is the
14 one reason that I have drawn a very clear conclusion and that is that I
15 will never again produce any joint analytical research report that is
16 going into a court case, and that is why I said if I'm going to do a
17 report for the Hadzic case, I will draft it from scratch solely based on
18 my own analysis and my own review of documents.
19 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: I wish to interrupt my learned friend. I've
20 been just informed carefully that this document has a restriction. Could
21 we make sure we don't display it? I mean the testimony itself -- is it
22 not restricted?
23 THE REGISTRAR: The document was not broadcast.
24 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: Very well. Thank you very much.
25 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
1 MR. GOSNELL:
2 Q. So is it -- is it wrong and substantively this is important for
3 questions I might ask you later on, are you -- well, what is your view of
4 the quality of the portion of the expert report in the Stanisic case
5 concerning Croatia?
6 A. I have not re-read recently that portion of the expert report. I
7 haven't looked at it since it was withdrawn as we can see that some time
8 ago. But what I recalled at the time was that it contained a significant
9 number of what I thought were pertinent and potentially relevant points
10 about the operation of the RSK MUP, although the focus there to be clear
11 in that report was not so much on the RSK MUP itself as on the assistance
12 that the RSK MUP had received from Serbia or from the federal Yugoslav
13 authorities and their presence on the territory of the RSK. But to make
14 any more detailed statement about the quality of that portion of the
15 report I would have to revisit it. I want to state again very clearly
16 for the record that that report was not used to draft this report and
17 that this report that we have in front of us today is drafted from
18 scratch starting in January 2012, and therefore to me is an entirely
19 different analytical product, particularly because I wanted to absolutely
20 avoid even the merest association of such problems as the ones we've seen
22 Q. Well, I appreciate that answer, sir, and we can remove this
24 Now, I'd like to move to a new topic and I'd like to plunge into
25 the substance of your report, if I may, and I'd like to start by looking
1 at some of the large number of JNA documents that you -- some of which
2 you have been shown by the Prosecution and others you have not seen but
3 that are either referred to -- referred to in your proofing note or in
4 your report.
5 But just to ask as a general matter in respect of these
6 documents, am I correct in understanding that in a context where there
7 are few police documents from the SBWS, these documents provide a
8 valuable insight by reflection or indirectly as to what may have been
9 going on amongst police entities in the region?
10 A. Yes, that's correct, and I would point out that precisely when
11 one as an analyst encounters such documentation, it's sometimes not clear
12 where to draw the line between whether that documentation should be more
13 appropriately cited in a report on the police or more appropriately cited
14 in a report on the military since those organs have many joint operations
15 and joint dealings. But in a number of cases where there were clear
16 references to the police, I thought them sufficiently relevant to include
17 in my report.
18 Q. Well, let's start going through them. Could we have P365,
19 Prosecution tab 337.
20 For the very first -- this document is from the command of the
21 12th Corps, Chief of Staff Colonel Srboljub Trajkovic, to the command of
22 the 1st Military District.
23 Now, what's your understanding of the territorial location or
24 scope of the 12th Corps at this stage which is the 8th of November, 1981?
25 A. I do not have a well developed understanding of the operational
1 area or area of responsibility of the corps at that particular point in
2 time and I would refer -- or, defer on that and similar questions to the
3 military expert as the sole reason I would look at such documents and I
4 see this is one of the more recent arrivals was to see what it said about
5 the police stations which are among the things mentioned in this report.
6 Q. And we see in the very first two sentences a reference to an
7 order that was issued on the 16th of October, 1991, by the 1st Military
8 District. Now, I've asked you about the 12th Corps. Do you know what
9 the geographic scope or extent was of the jurisdiction of the
10 1st Military District?
11 A. And I would reiterate my response to the previous question.
12 Q. And this order, according to this report, says the order lists
13 the related tasks of local commands, i.e., formation of civilian
14 authority organs with the citizens, compilation of lists of military
15 conscripts, functioning of services needed for the life and work of
16 citizens so that law and order can be establish by the time the police
17 force is formed.
18 Would you agree with me that that seems to imply that at least as
19 of this date there doesn't seem to be any police force present as far as
20 the JNA is concerned at the date that order is given?
21 A. Yes, I agree with that and that is something we discussed earlier
22 and I note that later in the same document they talk about how to enable
23 the formation of, as they call it, legal police stations.
24 Q. And would you agree with me that as of the date of this report
25 anyway, which is the 8th of November, 1991, there is doubt in the minds
1 of the commander of the 12th Corps about whether he should be
2 co-operating with any element of the SBWS civilian government?
3 A. Yes, and that ties into some of my testimony yesterday where I
4 spoke about the fact that the military seems uncertain about the legality
5 of the authorities of this area, including the legality of any police
6 station that they might have formed, and that's the gist of the paragraph
7 further down. It's the first, second, third -- fourth paragraph on
8 the -- in the B/C/S original.
9 Q. If we turn to page 2 of the English --
10 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Gosnell, would this be an appropriate moment.
11 MR. GOSNELL: This would be a very appropriate moment.
12 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you. Dr. Nielsen, second break. We'll
13 come back at 12.45. You will be escorted out. Thank you.
14 [The witness stands down]
15 JUDGE DELVOIE: Court adjourned.
16 --- Recess taken at 12.17 p.m.
17 --- On resuming at 12.46 p.m.
18 [The witness takes the stand]
19 JUDGE DELVOIE: Yes, Mr. Gosnell.
20 MR. GOSNELL: Thank you, Mr. President.
21 Q. Dr. Nielsen, would you agree with me that the reference here to
22 the formation of civilian authority organs with the citizens in your
23 experience of the use of that terminology would also imply formation of
24 the police?
25 A. Yes, and I would just note that the reference I was pointing to
1 in the B/C/S version is actually in the fifth paragraph in the original.
2 Q. Thank you very much for that. And would you agree that the
3 reference here to formation of civilian authority organs with the
4 citizens as well as the other tasks that are prescribed because here this
5 refers to tasks, would you agree with me that this appears to set out a
6 fairly comprehensive agenda for what perhaps could be described as
7 civilian reconstruction?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Now, I don't believe that we have actually seen the original
10 order of the 16th of October, 1991, and I know that this will be a very
11 difficult question for you. Do you have any recollection whether you saw
12 that original order from the 16th of October, 1991, as part of your
14 A. I do not have a recollection of seeing the original order. If
15 that original order has been obtained, then it most likely would have
16 arrived with this most recent batch of documents from the military
17 archives of Serbia.
18 Q. And would you agree with me that it's particularly significant
19 the author's puzzlement about how to deal with the local civilian
20 authorities, in particular of the district of the SBWS, given that he is
21 writing from Dalj, which at this time is or is near the seat of that
23 A. Yes. I would state that I think the author's puzzlement, because
24 it is a similar puzzlement that I have seen in other documents from this
25 period, has nothing to do with geographical proximity but rather with the
1 lack of clarity as to whether these self-proclaimed Serb autonomous
2 districts have legal force or not.
3 Q. Well, I guess what I'm saying is if there's one place you would
4 expect the organs of the district government to exist and be visible to
5 someone such as the author of this report, it would be there, wouldn't
7 A. And as I read the document, the author of the document is
8 observing such organs to some extent. They're not fully operational,
9 many of them, but even to the extent that they do exist, including in
10 Dalj, he is not clear about what degree of legal legitimacy they have.
11 Q. And if we look at page 2 of the English, I believe it would still
12 be page 1 of the B/C/S, in any event, it's the third last paragraph, this
13 author recommends co-operating with the Assembly and the government of
14 the district of SBWS, and what I find significant here is the law that's
15 being invoked by the author. He says to establish and develop authority
16 together with them and by applying the laws of the SFRY and the
17 Republic of Serbia which they accepted as their own.
18 Do you consider that significant, or what do you make of that
19 particular reference?
20 A. I do consider that significant, and as I believe I may have
21 stated yesterday, I think that is an important reflection of the desire
22 of -- often-declared desire of the particular district, the Serb
23 autonomous district, the SAO Krajina and other Serb entities in Croatia
24 to remain bound by the legislation of the SFRY and the Republic of Serbia
25 and to some extent it is reflective also of their ultimate aspirations to
1 join in a greater political unity with those areas.
2 Q. And this author draws a distinction between his recommendation
3 that there should be co-operation with the organs of the SBWS government
4 and the Territorial Defence. Here he says in the last -- the third last
5 and the second last paragraph, in the third last paragraph he says, Yes,
6 let's recognise and co-operate with the government, and then in the
7 second last paragraph he says, But the TO should be disbanded. Do you
8 agree that that's what the document says?
9 A. Yes, I agree. And I note that he would also very much like Arkan
10 to leave as well as other paramilitary formations like Arkan's.
11 Q. And what if anything does this distinction in his own
12 recommendation between the government and the TO, at least as it exists
13 in Dalj, what does that tell you, if anything, about the relationship
14 between the government and the TO in Dalj?
15 A. Well, speaking solely based on the document that we have in front
16 of us, there seems to be at some level even a potential contradiction,
17 because while he, on one hand, Colonel Trajkovic is stating that he
18 regards the Assembly and the government of the -- of Slavonia, Baranja,
19 and Western Srem as a legitimate representative of authority and one that
20 was elected by the Serbian people, he on the other hand seems to not be
21 very fond of the Territorial Defence formed by that same group of people.
22 Now, as to whether his grounds for that are based in military or
23 other law, that would be -- I could only speculate.
24 Q. But would you agree at least that this seems to suggest that in
25 the mind of this author there is a substantial difference in the identity
1 of these two institutions, on the one hand the TO Dalj, and on the other
2 hand the district government?
3 A. Yes, with the caveat again that it seems that one, that is the
4 Territorial Defence, has been formed by the other. In fact, he also
5 asks -- he says, To which extent should we recognise the
6 Territorial Defence of the SAO Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem which
7 is connected to the government. So he sees them as being linked.
8 Q. Well, I don't have the benefit of the original, but in the
9 English you'll note that -- you'll see there's the use of the passive
10 tense, and what it says there is that the Territorial Defence has been
11 formed in the SBWS SO. It doesn't say, at least not as it's translated
12 in English, it doesn't say that the district government has formed that
14 A. You are correct in saying that -- the language states that as it
15 has been formed in the Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem SO, but I
16 would again point out that earlier on the same page we have that question
17 which denotes Trajkovic's understanding that the Territorial Defence of
18 the Serb district of Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem is linked to the
19 government, or as it's translated in English here in the official
20 translation, "which is connected to the government."
21 Q. And where is that reference?
22 A. In the English version which we have in front of us on the screen
23 here, it's the second paragraph on the page:
24 "To what extent should we recognise the Territorial Defence of
25 the Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem SO, which is connected to the
2 Q. But then in the last paragraph at least he doesn't repeat that
3 there's that particular connection, does he?
4 A. It is correct characterisation of the document that he does not
5 repeat that assertion.
6 Q. And of course he doesn't elaborate on what he means when he says
7 connected, does he?
8 A. Not in this particular document.
9 Q. And since you're not a military expert, I'm not going to get into
10 the niceties of the status of the TO at this time, but I simply wanted to
11 explore the issue of his distinction in terms of what he considered to be
12 the level of co-operation with the two entities.
13 Could we now have Prosecution tab 338, which is 65 ter 06026.
14 Now, this document appears to be from the command of the
15 1st Military District to the 12th Corps and the 1st Guards Brigade, and
16 in the preamble it says there that:
17 "The federal secretariat of defence is drafting instructions for
18 the establishing tasks, and competencies of military authorities in
19 liberated places."
20 Do you recall whether you've ever seen that document, the
21 instructions in question that are referred to there?
22 A. I believe this is one of the documents I had a chance to review,
24 Q. And this document appears to say that pending the promulgation of
25 those instructions, this order is being promulgated, and I'm particularly
1 interested in the third bullet item under item 2 where it says:
2 "Establish civilian authorities, take steps to establish law and
3 order, safety of citizens, basic supply functions and other communal
5 Now, again, do you see that this reflects the JNA's assumption of
6 very significant civilian tasks in the area?
7 A. Absolutely, though unfortunately the translation once again does
8 not reflect the B/C/S original fully, because what it actually says is
9 "until the establishment of civilian authorities take these steps." So I
10 think that's an important thing there. Again that confirms what we've
11 been discussing, that they are saying we have to do certain things until
12 those civilian authorities can be established in these areas and they are
13 desirous of those civilian authorities coming into existence.
14 Q. But in the meantime, the concept is that the JNA is going to
15 assume the authority of a government in the area; right?
16 A. Well, they certainly abhor a vacuum, and they are trying to --
17 well aware as we know from other documents of the type of behaviour that
18 is rampant in this area establish some modicum of order.
19 Q. Now, over the page in English at point 5, the author of this
20 report, and again this is a report of the 20th of November, 1991,
21 indicates that the organs of authority in the SO SBWS and the
22 municipalities with the exception of Beli Manastir are still undeveloped.
23 Now, do you agree with me here that there appears to be the
24 introduction of some kind of distinction between the district government
25 of SBWS and the municipalities? We'll get into it further, but do you
1 see that that distinction is being drawn by the author?
2 A. Yes. There was a distinction between the district level
3 authorities and the constituent municipalities within that district.
4 Q. And it says they mostly have only individuals responsible for
5 certain departments or a single commissioner for the municipality or
6 locality. This causes problems and delays in their engagement.
7 Are you aware of the position of a commissioner of a
9 A. I am to some extent aware of that position, and what I mean by
10 that is I've seen that term used in several of the documents that I've
11 reviewed. I'm more familiar with the way it was used in the case of
12 Bosnia and Herzegovina, but often commissioners were established in the
13 short term after the "liberation" of certain municipalities, or in cases
14 where there were the municipality, for example, was threatened by renewed
16 Q. And it says in the last sentence:
17 "The local commands should be show patience in resolving
18 problems, but also persist in their co-ordinating role of bringing
19 together all subjects to ensure that problems are effectively resolved."
20 Now, the word "co-ordination" is a term of art in military
21 lexicon, and I don't propose to go into that with you, but do you see
22 here that this as it's used here in this sentence that the JNA is
23 essentially saying to itself, We need to knock heads together in order to
24 set up this institution?
25 A. If I may, again as I do as an analyst rely on the B/C/S original,
1 I would point out that the B/C/S original to my mind is much more
2 correctly translated as "in its capacity as a co-ordinator," rather than
3 in their co-ordinating role. So in their capacity as a co-ordinator,
4 they are supposed to bring together all these subjects to ensure that the
5 problems are effectively resolved, so, yes, this means this is a joint
6 effort and all hands on deck and we need to establish appropriate
7 civilian authority.
8 Q. And -- and the interlocutor, so to speak, that's being referred
9 to in this paragraph, and we'll come to paragraph 6 in a moment, but the
10 interlocutor being dealt with, the actors being referred to, these are
11 municipal authorities as you read it; correct?
12 A. Yes, that is what's being discussed here, although again from the
13 greater sum of documentation, the -- in the hierarchy of the district,
14 the district authorities also have a role to play and they are mentioned
15 in other documents.
16 Q. Well, it's mentioned in the very next paragraph, in fact. And
17 here it says that co-operation with the government of both the Republic
18 of Serbia and the SO of SBWS will be ensured by the 1st Military District
19 with municipal organs by local commands in whose zones of responsibility
20 they lie.
21 So do you see here that a distinction is being drawn? On the one
22 hand the 1st Military District is going to discuss or resolve issues with
23 the Republic of Serbia and with the district government, whereas the town
24 commands or the commands that are on the ground are primarily to
25 co-ordinate with municipalities?
1 A. Yes, I see that.
2 Q. Then there's a -- the last sentence in that context is
3 interesting and I'd like to know what -- how -- what you make of it. The
4 command of the 12th Corps and the 1st Proletarian Guards
5 Mechanised Brigade and the Vukovar garrison command shall co-operate with
6 the government of the SO SBWS to the extent necessary to resolve problems
7 in their zones of responsibility? How would you interpret that last --
8 and you have the benefit of reading the original. How would you
9 interpret the meaning of that last sentence?
10 A. Again, we have to see this type of correspondence. It's
11 obviously part of a larger record of correspondence. I think we are all
12 aware of the types of problems they were facing and this is again one of
13 those reminders, if you will, that the relevant organs, both military and
14 civilian, at various levels, municipal, district, et cetera, and as we
15 see including even authorities from Serbia as needed, should get involved
16 in order to address these problems as soon as possible. So that is what
17 I read this document as saying.
18 Q. But do you read that sentence to mean only co-operate no more
19 than necessary, or do you take it to mean actively co-operate with the
20 government to achieve certain ends?
21 A. It says to the extent necessary, and that's an accurate
22 translation of the B/C/S original, and I would just leave it at that,
23 because I think drawing either conclusion that you suggest in your
24 question is not possible based merely on this language.
25 Q. But you'd agree that either reading is possible at least;
2 A. Sure, those are two possible readings of that sentence.
3 Q. And then down at the bottom it says that no organs of authority
4 have yet been established or commissioners appointed for the
5 municipalities of Osijek, Vinkovci, and Dalj. Does that correspond with
6 what you know? Is it true that there were no either commissioners in
7 those municipalities, nor that such municipalities had any other
8 effective organs of government at that stage?
9 A. I can only again refer to my general awareness of the extreme
10 contingency of the re-establishment or establishment of civilian organs.
11 It would be a much more demanding analytical exercise, perhaps a
12 productive one, to go in and try to establish based on the available
13 documentation precisely on which date which municipalities had which
14 organs coming into functioning but I have no reason to doubt the
15 information that is provided by the officer who is the author of this
17 Q. Who is assigned to the 1st Military District based in Belgrade;
19 A. Yes, and who is -- such is my assumption based on other documents
20 like this that I've reviewed. Obviously, there's a lot of detail here
21 and he's receiving this information on a running basis from his
22 subordinate units and trying to also construct as complete a picture as
23 he can of what by all accounts is a very confusing situation.
24 Q. A very confusing situation in which perceptions therefore become
25 all the more important and would you agree with me that this being a
1 report from the 1st Military District, what we're seeing is the JNA's
2 perception, that in the absence of other authorities it continues to
3 assert whether by necessity or desire a fairly broad authority in respect
4 of these areas; correct?
5 A. Perceptions are important to the extent that particularly -- I
6 mean, unless a person is physically located in a given municipality or
7 settlement, that person is obviously reliant upon these subjective
8 conclusions of others who are reporting back to him that various
9 authorities are or are not functioning. What you or I consider to be
10 properly functioning authorities may not be in complete accordance and
11 such might be here as well. I can only mention and I think it's relevant
12 that I know from the greater totality of documentation that I've
13 established that there were problems with some, particularly civilian
14 officials, in Western Srem, Baranja, and Eastern Slavonia who allegedly
15 on paper were performing these functions of civilian authority but who
16 were in fact happily ensconced in their weekend cottages in Vojvodina
17 instead all the while drawing salaries for that.
18 Q. The point being that -- the point I'm trying to make, sir, is
19 that orders are being formulated in Belgrade based upon the perception
20 reflected in this officer's document, saying as far as he's concerned
21 there's no obstacle or impediment to the JNA exercising this needed
22 authority in respect of the tasks identified; correct?
23 A. Again, I would assume that that is the way in which he has to
24 formulate orders. He didn't have much alternative. As to how often this
25 particular commander did or did not go to the field, I have no
1 information about that. Again, as a point of logic and knowing military
2 chain of command, my assumption is at the higher level way up here in
3 Belgrade, he is to the best of his ability trying to make a picture of
4 the situation based on reports from his subordinates and, perhaps if he
5 had time, also by visiting the field.
6 Q. Could we have 06031, which is Prosecution tab 339.
7 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: I apologise. I noticed that at the beginning my
8 learned friend referred to the 65 ter number of this document which
9 reminded me that it hasn't been tendered. Considering that we've been
10 dealing with it in detail, perhaps this should be an appropriate time to
11 tender it in evidence if my learned friend agrees.
12 MR. GOSNELL: Thank you for that reminder. We would tender that
14 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Demirdjian, did you deal with it in your
16 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: I did, Your Honours, and I may have the
17 reference. At page 2487.
18 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you. Admitted and marked.
19 THE REGISTRAR: It shall be assigned Exhibit D19. Thank you.
20 MR. GOSNELL: Could we have 06031, please. This is Prosecution
21 tab 339.
22 Q. This document is from the command of the 80th Motorised Brigade.
23 It says to the command. It doesn't specify further to whom. And it's
24 dated the 22nd of November, 1991, and the content of the document refers
25 to various events in Vukovar, and one of the aspects of this report is it
1 says that there is an 80th Military Police Company being deployed or
2 relocated to Vukovar barracks, and I'd suggest that that implies that
3 there is a Military Police Company present in the area.
4 Do you have any idea and I know you're not a military expert, but
5 how many men are in a company usually in the JNA?
6 A. Well, I know about company strengths in NATO forces to some
7 extent, but I have no idea whether that in any way, shape, or form
8 conform to the size of companies in the JNA. I would point out that what
9 we have in front of me is the archival copy of an order that was issued
10 by the command. So when it says in the B/C/S original "Command A/A,"
11 that is a typical example of an order that is being issued by a command,
12 and of course they file an appropriate copy of that in their archives.
13 Q. Item 2 says:
14 "The Vukovar Territorial Defence Staff in co-operation with the
15 command of the 80th Motorised Brigade will establish organs of authority
16 in local communes and organise their functioning, set up police stations,
17 regulate movements of the population returning to town and their
18 compulsory identification at the Velepromet reception centre."
19 Would you agree with me that for starters that this is an order
20 being given from the JNA to what appears to be a TO unit?
21 A. Such it appears.
22 Q. I should correct myself. It's not a TO unit. It's a TO staff,
23 namely the Vukovar TO staff.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And we can continue to look at the entirety of the document. It
1 goes over to page 2 in the English. Would you agree with me that there
2 is no reference in this document at all to any organ of the SBWS,
3 governmental organ of the SBWS?
4 A. That is correct.
5 Q. And there's no suggestion whatsoever in this document that the
6 JNA or at least the author considers that the JNA is in any way
7 subordinated or under the control or authority of the SBWS government;
9 A. Not in this document. I would also note that I'm assuming that
10 the preface to the document where the author refers the
11 lieutenant-colonel to the newly established situation is referring to the
12 quite recent end of armed conflict in Vukovar.
13 Q. Well, let me ask you this since you're appearing to express some
14 hesitation on this issue: Was there anything in the previous two
15 documents that we looked at that suggests to you that they -- that those
16 organs considered themselves subordinated or under the control of or
17 under the authority of the SBWS government?
18 A. I was not hesitating. I was just making sure I had read the
19 document through before commenting on it, but, no, I have not seen in
20 these three documents that we have now looked at information suggesting
21 that these organs considered themselves subordinate to the SBWS
22 government. There are, on the contrary, suggestions in some of the other
23 documents that they at times would deem it necessary to co-operate with
24 organs of those government -- of that government.
25 MR. GOSNELL: For the record the two documents that Dr. Nielsen
1 are referring to are P365 and D19.
2 I'd now like to tender 06031.
3 JUDGE DELVOIE: Admitted and marked.
4 THE REGISTRAR: It shall be assigned Exhibit D20. Thank you.
5 MR. GOSNELL: Could we have 06041, which is Prosecution tab 342.
6 Q. Now, this is from the 1st Proletarian Guards Brigade to the
7 1st Guards Division which of course would be the superior entity in the
8 chain of command. And it's dated the 8th of December, 1991. And it
9 appears to be signed by someone called Milorad Vujcic, who is a colonel
10 and identifies himself as the commander.
11 Now, this document says that with a view to establishing the
12 situation in individual liberated places in the zone of responsibility of
13 our unit, we submit the following information, and it says that civilian
14 authorities have been established in the villages where there are
15 residents, namely Negoslavci and the village of Petrovci, where they were
16 elected by the local population.
17 Now, is there any surprise there that these officials would have
18 been elected by the local population?
19 A. In the context of the armed conflict in both Croatia and in
20 Bosnia-Herzegovina, it is my experience that when new organs of authority
21 are established after hostilities have ceased, shortly after hostilities
22 have ceased, then those authorities are often formed from below and not
23 from above, and only at later points in time will the government organs
24 that are legally superior to them take a position as to whether to, as it
25 were, ratify those appointments or not. It's particularly in these cases
1 where we see both in Eastern Slavonia, Baranja, and Srem and throughout
2 Bosnia that we get a lot of these personality conflicts, because the top
3 level does not always approve of the people who are appointed right after
4 the end of the conflict at the local level.
5 Q. And is there the same phenomenon within TO staffs?
6 A. That is something that I cannot answer based on the information I
7 have. It would not surprise me, but I cannot based on my own review of
8 documents make that conclusion.
9 Q. Well, that question does intersect at the issue of police forces
10 for reasons that are going to become clear further in this document, but
11 what we see in respect of the Territorial Defence Staff is that according
12 to this author, they "exist in all populated localities, Petrovci,
13 Negoslavci, Barack, Svinjarevci, and they were set up after the
14 liberation and before the arrival of our unit to this area. The STO
15 Territorial Defence staffs have their commanders and deputies as well as
16 three to five members."
17 The least that can be said here from this document is that
18 there's no suggestion at all of any involvement by the district
19 government of the SBWS in the formation of these TO staffs; correct?
20 A. As I stated in a number of places, the police stations were
21 formed, as it were, organically based on whoever was left in that
22 particular area or as we also see here in the third point of this
23 document, in Negoslavci it's the formation of the police station is being
24 done by the MUP of Serbia. So in many cases this is happening at the
25 local level and not at the district level.
1 Q. All right. Well, you've anticipated my next question, which is
2 the MUP does appear to be involved at least in respect of the police
3 station of Negoslavci, the MUP of Serbia to be clear. Does that -- or
4 can you help us understand how it is that personnel from the MUP of
5 Serbia are entering into this territory and engaging in this task?
6 A. Well, I refer at a couple of instances in my report to the fact
7 that there had, for example, been meetings in the federal secretariat for
8 internal affairs where one of the points of discussion was how to assist
9 in the formation of police stations in these border areas, particularly
10 the area of Croatia that was Eastern Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem.
11 Similar discussions took place about some of the towns along the
12 Drina River in Bosnia that are again also bordering Serbia where the MUP,
13 either the federal MUP alone or in co-operation with the MUP of Serbia,
14 played an active role in forming police stations during this period. And
15 it should be said often also in the combat operations that led to these
16 areas being put under Serb control.
17 So when I see this type of document and the mention of a role by
18 the republican MUP of Serbia in the formation of a police station in
19 Negoslavci, this to me is -- it is highly likely that that is linked to
20 these types of policies that had been decided in Belgrade.
21 And again I would make reference - pardon me - to the working
22 group, for example -- this is of a later date, but there are previous
23 meetings like this in paragraph 173 of my report. I talk a bit later
24 about the continued help that's being offered by Belgrade to get the MUP
25 in the RSK up and running.
1 Q. And on page 3 of the English it says:
2 "Our brigade has set up village commands in keeping with the
3 order of the division command. However, the real zone of responsibility
4 does not correspond to the graphic representation attached to the order."
5 So am I right in saying that this person is pointing out that
6 there is some kind of a deviation from what would be expected, namely
7 that the commander in the zone is the one responsible for setting up town
8 commands in those towns in the zone; correct?
9 A. Yes, particularly in areas where armed hostilities had only
10 recently ceased. The actual control of territory on the ground seems not
11 to have corresponded to diagrams, charts, wish lists, or whatever we want
12 to call them that had been composed at higher levels. This is also why
13 we even see when they get around to talking about secretariats of
14 internal affairs in Eastern Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem, we
15 talked about and it's in the report that they would very much have liked
16 to have had such a secretariat in Vinkovci. Vinkovci obviously was not
17 under Serbian control so therefore they found a temporary location for
19 Q. And, again, no indication here of any role by the district
20 governments much less by the district government of the SBWS, much less
21 that the district government is asserting authority or control over the
23 A. There is no such indication in this document. That is correct.
24 MR. GOSNELL: I would tender that document now, please.
25 JUDGE DELVOIE: Admitted and marked.
1 THE REGISTRAR: Just for the record, the document has already
2 been MFI'd as P377 pending correction of the translation. Thank you.
3 JUDGE DELVOIE: So, Mr. Gosnell, no need to do anything for the
5 MR. GOSNELL: No need. Thank you, Mr. President.
6 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
7 MR. GOSNELL: Could we have 06042, which is Prosecution tab 343.
8 Q. This document has a slightly nonuniform translation, but it does
9 appear to be a single document, and it appears to be from the commander
10 of the -- the 3rd Proletarian Guards Motorised Brigade command, commander
11 Slobodan Antonic. It's dated 9th of December, 1991, from
12 Tovarnik village. And over at page 2 we see that local communes have
13 been "formed at the proposal and with the help of the town commands
14 formed from units which were in these areas before us."
15 Now, these again -- it should be clear, but these town commands
16 are entities and organs of the JNA; right?
17 A. Again, as I believe I've stated now on at least two occasions,
18 I'm not an expert on the issue of town commands or the JNA, so I would
19 like to defer on whose creation those are to the military expert. Thank
21 Q. Well, there's no indication of any civilian role or involvement
22 or any involvement of any organ at all of the SBWS in town commands, is
24 A. No. Though again I think this is a very interesting document
25 because we are now in December 1991, and we see the kind of transition
1 starting that I spoke of just a bit earlier, which is that even though
2 they have not been formed at the local level with the involvement of the
3 district authorities, now that we are ostensibly a little bit removed in
4 time from outright armed conflict, the Assembly isn't -- and other
5 authorities are increasingly coming to play a role and that's what I
6 spoke of earlier where we now get this negotiation between whether these
7 formations are allowed to continue to exist as they had been established
8 with those personnel, or whether they needed to be changed in some way,
9 shape, or form.
10 Q. But that's a fair point and I thank you for that clarification.
11 And you'd agree with me, wouldn't you, that this document is saying -- it
12 appears to reflect that indeed that is the direction that there is this
13 transition that is occurring as you've described it, and yet the author
14 of this document says there are currently numerous difficulties in that
15 regard. So you'd agree with me that this seems to indicate that that
16 transition has not yet occurred or at least not effectively; correct?
17 A. One could perhaps say it's on the cusp of occurring. I mean, are
18 now being directly organised is part of the language used in the
19 document. But, yes, it is of course also accurate as the author of this
20 document remarks that there were numerous difficulties encountered in
21 that regard.
22 Q. There's also a reference here to the Tovarnik village police
23 station being set up which performs all the duties and responsibilities
24 of a police station stipulated by the laws of the Republic of Serbia.
25 The police station was established by the MUP of Serbia.
1 Again, any surprise there that the government of Serbia or at
2 least organs of Serbia are involved in setting up these institutions?
3 A. No, I don't find that surprising at all, again for reasons that
4 I've explained previously. Nor is it surprising that it would be
5 performing at least in the interim according to the laws of the Republic
6 of Serbia.
7 As we know, the -- even the district in its construction and in
8 its own evolution during 1991, the Grand National Assembly, the
9 Serb National Council, et cetera, took a very favourable view of relevant
10 Serbian legislation, asked that it be applied in the area of
11 Eastern Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem, and this is hardly an area
12 that would have been likely to have evoked disagreement between the
13 persons running that police station and the district authorities at a
14 later point.
15 Q. And it says in the next sentence that it, namely the police
16 station in Tovarnik, belongs to the Vukovar SUP, Erdut MUP, and it covers
17 the territory which includes and then a number of villages are listed.
18 Have you ever seen the nomenclature Erdut MUP or have you seen it in
19 other documents?
20 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: Sorry, it would be helpful for the Bench if
21 page 3 is displayed because it's not currently displayed on the screen.
22 MR. GOSNELL: Thank you.
23 THE WITNESS: May I also have the relevant B/C/S page displayed?
24 Thank you.
25 That is indeed a fascinating what I can only call an anomaly,
1 because I do not recall seeing other documents that used the term
2 Erdut MUP. They usually referrer to the training centre at Erdut and not
3 to a Ministry of Internal Affairs existing at Erdut. And besides the
4 aforementioned training centre, I have no knowledge that a Ministry
5 of Internal Affairs was at any point established by anyone in Erdut. One
6 can only speculate that this is again indicative of the confusion that
7 obtains in this area during this period.
8 MR. GOSNELL: We would tender this document.
9 JUDGE DELVOIE: Admitted and marked.
10 THE REGISTRAR: It shall be assigned Exhibit D21. Thank you.
11 MR. GOSNELL: [Microphone not activated] Could we have 06045 --
12 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for counsel, please.
13 MR. GOSNELL: Could I have 06045, which is Prosecution tab 344.
14 THE REGISTRAR: For the record, 06045 has been admitted as P378,
15 thank you.
16 MR. GOSNELL: Thank you.
17 Q. Now this is from the military command of the town of Ilok, and
18 its authorship is not clear, and it has been sent to the command of the
19 1st Proletarian Guards Mechanised Division. And I'm interested in
20 item 3, which is over on page 2 of the English:
21 "A police station has been established in Ilok and one of its
22 squads has been detached and posted to the village of Lovas formed by the
23 MUP of Serbia and is now under the authority of SAO SBWS. In carrying
24 out its tasks, the police station is subordinated to the command of the
25 town of Ilok."
1 Now, what do you make of this distinction? On the one hand it
2 seems to say that the police station is in some sense under the authority
3 of the district of SBWS, but then the very next sentence says that in
4 carrying out its tasks, the police station is subordinated to the command
5 of the town of Ilok.
6 A. I think we agree, as I understand it, that this is a transitional
7 phase in this particular area of the former Yugoslavia, and we also, I
8 believe, agree that this transition involves first the gradual
9 establishment of civilian authorities which we agree includes the police
10 and that that is something desired by the military that wishes to
11 extricate itself from policing and other civilian obligations and that
12 ultimately although many of these police organs are formed at the local
13 level, eventually they come under the authority of first the SAO Baranja,
14 Slavonia, and Western Srem and later the RSK.
15 Again, we can all read the document. I can only again speculate
16 that at this -- if we call this a snapshot in time, what we have here is
17 a decision stating -- well, we have this police station and some units
18 that pertain to it, and that squad or the police station is now under the
19 authority of the SAO, but since we know that there's some unresolved
20 issues over there which the military is still responsibility for, it's
21 temporarily resubordinated to the military. Again that's speculation,
22 but I think that's as far as we're going to get with that document.
23 Q. Well, the point I'm getting at, sir, is would you agree with me
24 that there appears to be different species of authority and evidence here
25 and that one can't simply draw the inference when one sees the word
1 authority in respect of a particular institution that that reflects an
2 obedience to orders being issued from above? In this case we have the
3 word authority being used to explain the relationship between the police
4 station and the SBWS government while at the same time we have a very
5 explicit description of a subordinate relationship in activities between
6 that police station and the JNA town command?
7 A. I would rather have preferred the word jurisdiction rather than
8 authority in translating the B/C/S term had I had been citing this in my
9 report. Again, it was not available when I wrote my report. But again,
10 I mean, this is a recurring phenomenon to some extent that even long
11 after the RSK, for that matter, is established, there are times at which
12 police units that are under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Internal
13 Affairs which is in turn part of the government which is in turn part
14 of -- in turn part of the RSK or resubordinated, to me again it's a
15 snapshot in time. This shows that what we are moving toward is the
16 establishment of district authority and jurisdiction over the police, but
17 we certainly haven't quite gotten there yet, and for the time being for
18 this particular place, this particular time, this particular action,
19 the -- and it's very clear in carrying out tasks the police station is
20 subordinated to the command of the city of Ilok. So this is, as I
21 understand it, for a specific set of task.
22 Q. I don't believe we're very far apart on this point, but I want to
23 try to explain what I mean in posing the question and put to you what I
24 think the position is. I would suggest to you that one of the issues
25 that was up in the air at this time is what is the geographic scope of
1 the municipalities that comprise the SBWS, and it was up to various
2 organs of the SBWS, namely the -- primarily the Assembly, to determine
3 the scope of the geographic jurisdiction of the SBWS, and therefore it
4 makes perfect sense to on the one hand say this police station at this
5 location is under the authority of the SAO SBWS. In that sense it's
6 within the jurisdictional, the geographic remit, of the SBWS, while at
7 the same time perfectly coherently saying this police station is
8 subordinated in its activities to the JNA which has effective control on
9 the ground. Would you agree with me that that's -- well, I should just
10 ask you what's your comment on that proposition?
11 A. Well, my comment on that proposition is that as you say I don't
12 think we're very far apart, and actually I'm not sure how we are apart
13 on -- we're using different sets of words to describe something that is
14 quite similar.
15 Q. Thank you. And in fact, if we go to the very end of the
16 document, significantly the author seems to believe that at that point
17 there are no civilian authorities in existence; correct? Let me specify
18 that question. There are no civilian authorities in existence in Ilok.
19 A. Well, this is a question how far you can push this one individual
20 document. I would state that in the last sentence of -- or the long
21 sentence that is the last paragraph, what they're sayings as we can see
22 is that they will be required as soon as possible to carry out a concrete
23 analysis and on that basis to consider and commence establishing civilian
24 authorities. You could certainly argue from an analytical point of view
25 that if they are only commencing the establishment of civilian
1 authorities then there are little if any such civilian authorities
2 present at that point in time.
3 Q. Would it shed any light, would your analysis be in any way
4 affected if I were to tell you that there are witness statements that
5 indicate that the JNA was prohibiting, blocking officials from the
6 district government of the SBWS from entering Ilok at this time?
7 A. Again, then we confront the epistemological conundrum of what I
8 do with that information as an analyst. I can only say that if such
9 information is available from witnesses, then I hope that the Court will
10 have the opportunity to hear them if they have not already done so.
11 Q. Could we have P369, please, which is Prosecution tab 347.
12 This is from the 1st Guards Mechanised Division command to the
13 1st Military Distinct, and I would just like to interrupt myself here to
14 make a correction in respect of the last document, which is P378, the
15 authorship actually is clear. It's commander Milan Belic, and that's
16 important, because we will be coming back to other documents authored by
17 that individual.
18 Now, coming back to P369, this is a report from the 1st
19 Guards Mechanised Division to the 1st Military District command, and we
20 have some discussion here about individuals who are former HDZ activists
21 and armed forces members who have left leaving their parents and wives
23 In many settlements in respect of members of the armed forces who
24 have returned, and this is a quote:
25 "The Serbian population through the local TO staffs is exercising
1 pressure to have the population move out completely. On the other hand
2 there have been many requests for the settling of Serbs from Vukovar and
3 other Serbian areas. The pressure is particularly high in Ilok."
4 Now, would you agree with me that at least as a point of
5 departure we see that the 1st Guards Brigade -- excuse me, the 1st
6 Guards Division, which is above the brigade, is taking up this issue of
7 potential harassment in order to induce Croats to leave?
8 A. We addressed this very document yesterday, and I know that it's
9 marked for identification because of the missing header in the
10 translation, but, yes, this is one of the many documents in which various
11 organs of the military are confronting this issue of the forcible removal
12 of Croats from this area, and they are writing to their superiors in the
13 military hierarchy to figure out what to do about this.
14 Q. And the very -- the closing paragraph of the document says, and
15 these are in the nature of inquiries to the higher command question:
16 "How to guarantee the safety of the above categories and while
17 our town commands are here on the territory, particularly when one day
18 these affairs will be taken over by civil authorities."
19 Would you agree with me that that's a clear indication that at
20 that point the town command considers that it is charged with this issue
21 and not yet the civil authorities?
22 A. Yes.
23 MR. GOSNELL: [Microphone not activated] Could we have P370,
24 please. Could we have P370, please, which is Prosecution tab 348.
25 Now, you testified about this document yesterday, and this was
1 the document that provoked your response that there was a highly
2 contingent relationship or that the nature of the relationship in various
3 places between the authority of the JNA and the authority -- other
4 authority was highly contingent. Does that imply that it was primarily
5 local personalities who were driving the nature of that relationship
6 between the JNA and civilian authority.
7 A. That is certainly part of the reason why I used the term
8 "contingent" in the sense that we have to look at what particular place
9 at what particular point in time we were talking about when we make any
10 observations not only about the nature of authority and jurisdictions but
11 also in particular, since this is the issue we have in front of us, what
12 the attitude was of those various organs, police, military, civilian,
13 towards the issue of expulsion of Croats and other persons not of Serbian
14 ethnicity. I think it's important to note that a lot of people on the
15 local level such as the indication in the totality of documents that I've
16 been able to examine, took inspiration or hints or signals from
17 pronouncements made, you know, in the media and by some civilian leaders
18 as well, both -- at all levels, especially in light of the fact that a
19 considerable number of people were during this period propagating the
20 view that continued co-existence between Serbs and others was impossible.
21 If you have media or responsible officials making those kinds of
22 statements that is obviously going to have an effect on the type of
23 issues we have in front of us here.
24 Q. We will certainly be covering those signals, but for the moment
25 could we turn to page 2 of this document in English. And the issue
1 primarily is about the letting of abandoned houses. So this isn't
2 primarily addressing the question of how to curb pressure on Croatian
3 civilians. This is the issue of abandonment and -- sorry, abandoned
4 houses and who should move into them. Do you agree with that in the
5 first instance?
6 A. This document deals with -- with both phenomena. I mean, at
7 least the beginning of the document, the very first question is:
8 "How are we supposed to behave towards residents of Croat
9 nationality who were loyal and who have not had anybody, that is had no
10 relatives in the Croat armed forces. So there's the abandoned houses as
11 we discussed yesterday. There's the houses in which persons of Croat and
12 other ethnicities are still settled. It is a whole pallet of problems
13 that are being addressed in this document.
14 Q. But you'd agree those are -- those aren't intrinsically linked
15 issues, are they?
16 A. Well, I certainly think that they are intrinsically linked in the
17 sense of the fact that both abandonment of houses and later forcible
18 removal are stemming from the presence of inter-ethnic armed conflict in
19 this region.
20 Q. Perhaps I could specify my question. The notion that there
21 should be settlement of abandoned houses does not necessarily imply, does
22 it, that there should be expulsion of any particular category of Croat
23 civilians; correct?
24 A. That is correct strictly speaking. You could absolutely treat
25 the settlement of abandoned houses and make very sure that no settled
1 houses would be -- that no one would be evicted from settled houses.
2 Again, however, that, unfortunately, was not the case here.
3 Q. When you say "not the case here," are you making some reference
4 to this document?
5 A. I'm making a reference to the fact that both issues are relevant
6 here and I do not think it is coincidence that both issues are addressed
7 in this and other documents which again deal with both abandoned houses
8 and the question of possible evictions from settled houses in the same
9 document and on the ground it certainly seems the case that the two
10 issues were linked not least because some of these persons who arrived
11 from Western Slavonia according to the documents, according to the
12 military, TO, and other sources were not particularly interested -- let's
13 say were not particularly patient in waiting to find out whether houses
14 were occupied or not before settling in them.
15 Q. Well, it's the 23rd of December 1991. There appear to be a large
16 number of refugees from Western Slavonia whose houses have -- they've
17 been either been evicted from their houses or their houses have been
18 destroyed. It's cold. And there appear to be vacant houses, at least
19 according to the author of this report. Now, would you -- I would assume
20 that you would not adopt the view under those circumstances that having a
21 frank discussion and adopting a policy about what to do with those vacant
22 houses necessarily implies anything at all about expulsing civilians.
23 A. Again, it's easy to -- to sit here and say that one could calmly,
24 rationally discuss that one topic and not discuss the other one. The
25 fact that both topics are, as it were, co-discussed in a number of
1 documents, including this one, that is you have a series of questions,
2 one series of questions pertains to, What are we going to do about
3 abandoned houses. Another series of questions pertains to, What are we
4 going to do with the pressure to remove people forcibly from homes in
5 which they reside, that to me makes it clear that you cannot other than
6 purely academically and abstractly separate these two discussions. And
7 you're absolutely right that these repeated documents make it clear, and
8 we know that large numbers of refugees, Serb refugees in particular, had
9 been forcibly expelled from Western Slavonia. As you say, it's cold.
10 They're arriving. They're clearly not the most patient of people.
11 That's quite understandable. But this is -- and again a very unfortunate
12 aspect of where we get a spiral of regrettable acts which we can say
13 where did it start, that is a good question, but it's certainly
14 continuing here now with the arrival from Western Slavonia of these
15 people in Eastern Slavonia.
16 Q. But surely you wouldn't say that the only way to avoid becoming
17 implicitly involved in expulsing -- expelling would be a better word.
18 Expelling residents is to simply adopt a policy saying no vacant houses
19 can be settled regardless of the circumstances. You wouldn't adopt that
20 view, would you?
21 A. You will perhaps recall that I referred yesterday to military
22 documents from the same period where they expressed their displeasure
23 with the fact that people were being permitted to move immediately into
24 houses without being given any written documentation, that there was
25 nothing regulating that process, and so at least on the part of some
1 representatives of the military, they were very much hoping that
2 notwithstanding the exigencies that we have just discussed, and I think
3 we agree about of those circumstances there, it would have been highly
4 desirable to have at least attempted to implement some process so that
5 those people who needed to be settled post-haste in abandoned houses
6 could do so in a proper manner. And I think from -- again from the
7 totality of the documentation that that is implicitly linked to the
8 concern that those same military representatives express that in the
9 absence of such procedures, there was an atmosphere in which people were
10 being forcibly evicted, and for those reasons I cannot accept and would
11 not agree with a characterisation of those two issues as being completely
13 Q. Well, in fact what you seem to be saying is that it was vital
14 that proper procedures be adopted to avoid improper conduct and
15 expulsions. Isn't that what you're saying? Is that what you're saying?
16 A. This is precisely what the military representatives are saying.
17 And if we look at the document in front of us, in the second to last
18 paragraph they are saying -- they're reminding themselves and others that
19 they need to take care of public law and order, of security, and of
20 citizens regardless of ethnicity, and that they are not allowed -- they
21 cannot permit themselves to allow any harassment or mistreatment of
22 citizens. So again given the other reports we have, what we know about
23 what types of incidents of mistreatment and harassment were ongoing, the
24 military is, as you say, of the opinion that it would be highly desirable
25 to adopt proper procedures for the regulation of settlement into
1 abandoned houses.
2 Q. And one final question: And you're saying that that was vital to
3 maintaining law and order - correct? - at least in the perception of
4 those JNA officers?
5 A. What I'm saying is that they expressed that this would be highly
6 desirable. I would also note that in one of the documents we viewed
7 yesterday, they expressed concern that some of the arriving families from
8 Western Slavonia were not taking -- one household arriving from
9 Western Slavonia was not taking just one abandoned house but was in fact
10 taking several abandoned houses. So they again wanted to establish a
11 procedure as I see it from the military's perspective at least among some
12 of them their -- their hopes were that the establishment of such
13 procedures could slow down if not eliminate illegal expulsions.
14 MR. GOSNELL: Dr. Nielsen, thank you very much. I'd like to keep
15 you here for a couple of more hours, but I don't think anyone else would
16 be happy about that.
17 THE WITNESS: I wouldn't mind.
18 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you, Dr. Nielsen. Unfortunately, that is
19 not possible, and you'll have to return at some point in time to finish
20 cross and re-examination.
21 In the meantime, I remind you that you are still under oath and
22 that the normal procedures apply about discussing your testimony with
23 other people and talking to one of the parties. Except for the fact that
24 we all agreed that for planning purposes, you could be contacted by the
25 parties in the presence of or with the help of victim and witness section
1 of the Tribunal. So for the moment, your testimony is delayed until
2 further notice.
3 You will be escorted out, and I thank you very much and wish you
4 a safe journey home, if that's where you're going.
5 THE WITNESS: Yes, via Berlin. Thank you very much, Your Honour.
6 Thank you for your clarification.
7 [The witness stands down]
8 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: Your Honours, I know we've passed the time but
9 very briefly. I was reminded that the video that I had played yesterday,
10 the one in Bijeljina with Ms. Plavsic and Goran Hadzic, has not been
11 tender after I asked the question this morning.
12 JUDGE DELVOIE: Yes, okay.
13 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: That was 65 ter 4826.1. I'd like to submit it
15 JUDGE DELVOIE: Admitted and marked.
16 THE REGISTRAR: It shall be assigned Exhibit P381. Thank you.
17 JUDGE DELVOIE: Yes, Mr. Stringer.
18 MR. STRINGER: Your Honour, earlier today Your Honour asked for
19 the Prosecution position in respect of the Defence motion to replace the
20 translation of Exhibit D5. It was filed the day before yesterday, and
21 I've been looking into this this morning, but we weren't aware -- I don't
22 know if the Trial Chamber considers it to be urgent, but I wonder if the
23 Trial Chamber would have a problem with our filing a written response on
24 Monday. I would like to look into it just quickly and consult a bit
25 which I've not been able to do fully while in court today.
1 JUDGE DELVOIE: I don't think that will be a problem,
2 Mr. Stringer. Thank you.
3 Court adjourned.
4 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.05 p.m.,
5 to be reconvened on Monday, the 21st day
6 of January, 2013, at 9.00 a.m.