Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 2494

 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

13     Prosecution.

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 --

Page 2495

 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


Page 2496

 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

19     you.

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.

Page 2497

 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

Page 2498

 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

Page 2499

 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

 7     RSK.

 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

Page 2500

 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

Page 2501

 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

24     ethnicity.

25        Q.   Now, if we look at item number 1 at the bottom of page 1 in the

Page 2502

 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

Page 2503

 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

 3     version.

 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.

Page 2504

 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

25     villages?

Page 2505

 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

Page 2506

 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

11     documents.

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

Page 2507

 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.

Page 2508

 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?

Page 2509

 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:

Page 2510

 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.

Page 2511

 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.


Page 2512

 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]

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 2513











11 Pages 2513-2514 redacted. Private session.
















Page 2515

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14                           [Open session]

15             THE REGISTRAR:  We're back in open session Your Honours.  Thank

16     you.

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


Page 2516

 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

13     basically.

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.

Page 2517

 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

Page 2518

 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


Page 2519

 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

Page 2520

 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.

Page 2521

 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

Page 2522

 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

Page 2523

 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

Page 2524

 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

20     fulfilling.

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

Page 2525

 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

Page 2526

 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

 6     examine.

 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.

Page 2527

 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

Page 2528

 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,

18     yes.

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,

Page 2529

 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

Page 2530

 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

Page 2531

 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

Page 2532

 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

Page 2533

 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.

Page 2534

 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

20     Yugoslavia.

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

Page 2535

 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

Page 2536

 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

Page 2537

 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

 7     case?

 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

Page 2538

 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

25     statements?

Page 2539

 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

25     reliable.

Page 2540

 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

 7     source?

 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

17     Serbia.

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,

Page 2541

 1     did you take into account that bias in including that statement in your

 2     report?

 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

Page 2542

 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

Page 2543

 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

 7     activity?

 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

Page 2544

 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

Page 2545

 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

10     activities?

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

20     relevant?

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

Page 2546

 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

Page 2547

 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

Page 2548

 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

Page 2549

 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

17     matters.

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,

Page 2550

 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

Page 2551

 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

Page 2552

 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

12     issues.

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

Page 2553

 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

15     Tribunal.

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

Page 2554

 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

15     version?

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?

Page 2555

 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

Page 2556

 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

 8     paragraph.

 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

Page 2557

 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,

12     yes.

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

Page 2558

 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

 6     concern.

 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

21     report?

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

Page 2559

 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

Page 2560

 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.

Page 2561

 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

21     here.

22        Q.   Well, I appreciate that answer, sir, and we can remove this

23     document.

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

Page 2562

 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

Page 2563

 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

Page 2564

 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

Page 2565

 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

13     research?

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

22     government?

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

Page 2566

 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

 6     it?

 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

Page 2567

 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

Page 2568

 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

13     TO.

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

Page 2569

 1     government?"

 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,

23     yes.

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

Page 2570

 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

 4     needs."

 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

Page 2571

 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

 8     municipality?

 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

15     warfare.

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,

Page 2572

 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?

Page 2573

 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;

Page 2574

 1     correct?

 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

16     document.

17        Q.   Who is assigned to the 1st Military District based in Belgrade;

18     right?

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

Page 2575

 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

Page 2576

 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

13     document.

14             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Demirdjian, did you deal with it in your

15     examination-in-chief?

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

Page 2577

 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

Page 2578

 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;

 8     correct?

 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

Page 2579

 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

Page 2580

 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.

Page 2581

 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.

Page 2582

 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

18     that.

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

22     JNA?

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.

Page 2583

 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

 4     moment.

 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

20     you.

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

23     there?

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

Page 2584

 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.

Page 2585

 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,

Page 2586

 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."

Page 2587

 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

Page 2588

 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

Page 2589

 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

Page 2590

 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

22     there.

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

Page 2591

 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

Page 2592

 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

Page 2593

 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

Page 2594

 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

Page 2595

 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

Page 2596

 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

12     separate.

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

Page 2597

 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


Page 2598

 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

14     now.

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.

Page 2599

 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.