1 Monday, 15 February 2010
2 [Rule 54 bis Hearing]
3 [Open session]
4 [The accused entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.36 a.m.
6 JUDGE KWON: Good morning, everyone in the courtroom.
7 Could the court officer please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Case number
9 IT-95-5/18-T, the Prosecutor versus Radovan Karadzic.
10 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Madam.
11 Your Excellencies, and ladies and gentlemen. Today we are
12 holding a motion hearing to discuss several binding order motions filed
13 by the accused. There remain seven of these motions pending concerning
14 Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, France
16 written submissions in relation to them. Following a Status Conference
17 held on 28th January, the Chamber determined that it would be helpful to
18 hear from the representatives of these states and the accused at the
19 hearing to be held today. Representatives of the seven states were
20 invited to attend today's hearing; however, following further submissions
21 from the accused, it was determined that it was unnecessary for
22 representatives of Italy
23 10th February, the Netherlands
24 outstanding documents to be delivered to the accused, one would be
25 provided before the hearing and that it was making urgent arrangements
1 with regard to the second. As a result, the Chamber was of the view that
2 representatives of the Netherlands
4 Finally, on 12th February, Friday last week, Bosnia and
6 unable to organise its representatives and send them to The Hague
7 for the hearing. The Chamber would like to express its disappointment
8 that this is so and would like to emphasise that hearings such as this
9 one conducted pursuant to Rule 54 bis are held for the benefit of the
10 states rather than any other party.
11 At such hearings, the states can be heard before a determination
12 is made by the Chamber on whether they should be compelled to disclose
13 documents to any of the parties before the Tribunal. Given that Bosnia
14 has failed to use this opportunity, the Chamber would proceed to consider
15 the accused's motion concerning Bosnia without hearing from its
16 authorities. We are, therefore, sitting today in the presence of the
17 accused, the Prosecution, and representatives of Croatia, France
19 behalf of the Chamber for their attendance and their contributions to
20 this hearing.
21 Let me first introduce the members of the Trial Chamber to you.
22 I'm Judge O-Gon Kwon from South Korea. To my right is
23 Judge Howard Morrison from the United Kingdom; and to my left,
24 Judge Melville Baird from Trinidad and Tobago; and to my far right,
25 Judge Flavia Lattanzi from Italy
1 I would now like to ask each of the representatives to identify
2 for the record who they are and which state they are representing at this
3 hearing. I will follow the alphabetical order.
4 For Croatia
5 MR. PARO: [Microphone not activated].
6 JUDGE KWON: If you turn on the microphone when you speak, and I
7 was told, Ambassador, this is the first time ever in the history of the
8 Tribunal that five languages are interpreted at the same time, so to make
9 a pause between each statement. Please go ahead, Ambassador.
10 MR. PARO: I'm sorry. My name is Josip Paro, and I'm Ambassador
11 of Croatia
12 JUDGE KWON: Thank you very much, Ambassador Paro.
13 For France
14 MR. FLORENT: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Mr. President.
15 Jean-Luc Florent, deputy director of legal affairs in the Ministry of
16 Foreign Affairs.
17 MS. DE MATHA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
18 Ginette de Matha, Chargee de Mission with the direction of legal affairs
19 in the foreign affairs ministry.
20 MS. RENAULT: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
21 Celine Renault, Chargee de Mission in the defence ministry in France
22 the direction of legal affairs.
23 MR. VILLEMAIN: [Interpretation] Jacques Villemain, Legal Advisor
24 with the French embassy in The Hague
25 JUDGE KWON: Thank you very much.
1 And then for Germany
2 MR. LAUFER: [Interpretation] Mr. President, my name is
3 Thomas Laufer. I'm Ambassador of Germany here in The Hague.
4 MR. TRAUTMAN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, my name is
5 Sebastian Trautman. I represent the Ministry of Justice in Berlin
6 MS. ACHILLES: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. My
7 name is Susanne Achilles. I'm the second secretary in the legal
8 department of the German Embassy in The Hague.
9 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
10 And lastly for Iran
11 MR. ESFAHANINEJAD: Thank you, Mr. President, my name is
12 Mahmoud Esfahaninejad, deputy for legal and international affairs of the
13 embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iran in The Hague.
14 MR. MOKHBEROLSAFA: Thank you, Mr. President, my name is
15 Ali Mokhberolsafa, legal advisor to the embassy of Islamic Republic of
17 MR. SABERI ANSARI: Thank you, Mr. President, my name is
18 Behzad Saberi Ansari. I'm the legal counsel of the embassy of the
19 Islamic Republic of Iran
20 JUDGE KWON: Thank you very much.
21 Mr. Karadzic, I see that you are again here on your own and I
22 understand you will not be joined by any of your legal advisors today.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Microphone not activated].
24 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
25 JUDGE KWON: Could you repeat with your microphone on.
1 THE ACCUSED: [No interpretation].
2 JUDGE KWON: Are we hearing interpretations?
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, it is.
4 JUDGE KWON: If you could repeat.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, I would like to greet all the
6 Excellencies present here. As for my presence here on my own, this is
7 how it should remain until the end of this hearing. Concerning my
8 associates, I have two of them at the moment, one of them in The Hague
9 and in fact I do not need them for this particular section of our work.
10 JUDGE KWON: Very well.
11 Can I also have the appearances for the Prosecution.
12 MR. TIEGER: Good morning, Mr. President, Your Honours.
13 Alan Tieger, Hildegard Uertz-Retzlaff, and Iain Reid appear for the
15 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Tieger.
16 Before we move into the submissions, there are a few procedural
17 matters that should be addressed. As you know from the Scheduling Order
18 issued last Thursday, 11th of February, each of the accused's motions
19 will be discussed separately, with only the representatives of the state
20 concerned present in the courtroom, together with the accused and the
21 Prosecution. That means that following my opening remarks, I will ask
22 the representatives to leave the courtroom, with the exception of the
23 representatives of Germany
24 discussion of the motion hearing and motion relating to Germany, those
25 state's representatives will leave the courtroom and the representatives
1 of France
3 How the submissions are being made, the representatives of the
4 states not in the courtroom are free to observe the hearing from the
5 public gallery. They will be able to see and hear everything unless we
6 go into private session to discuss confidential matters, in which case
7 the audio will not -- will be turned off.
8 I was also told that there are two witness rooms in the back of
9 the courtroom where the representatives of the state which is to be heard
10 next can wait until they are asked to come into the courtroom if they so
12 The next matter I want to deal with is any application for a
13 private or closed session hearing. Given that much of the filing in
14 relation to this hearing are public and that many of the states have made
15 no mention of national security issues in their filings, the Chamber has
16 decided that it will proceed in public session until a specific issue
17 requiring us to go into a private session arises. It is for the
18 representatives concerned to notify the Chamber when they believe we have
19 reached the point and the Chamber will then consider whether a private
20 session or closed session is necessary.
21 If the Chamber decides to go into private session or closed
22 session, those watching the hearing in the public gallery will not be
23 able to hear what is being said in the courtroom, nor will the hearing BE
24 broadcast to the public. In addition, those portions of the transcript
25 that are in private session will not be available to the public. Indeed,
1 only the parties and the state concerned will receive a copy of those
2 portions of the transcript that are in private session.
3 I note also that on 10th of February, 2010, Germany filed a
4 notice of objection, reiterating its position that the binding order
5 motion concerning it should not be granted on the basis that the accused
6 has not satisfied the requirements of Rule 54 bis. I'm explaining this
7 in the presence of representatives of all states concerned as a way of
8 introduction of the structure of the Rule 54 bis procedure. However,
9 should the Chamber decide otherwise and grant the motion, Germany
10 requests that it be granted a reasonable period of time to assess which
11 documents, if any, will raise national security concerns. Once these are
12 identified, Germany
13 Rule 54 bis (F). Given that these are all measures which are to be
14 considered in the event of the Chamber granting the motion, the Chamber
15 does not consider it necessary to go into private session for the
16 purposes of today's discussion. Much of that discussion will be
17 concerned with the requirements of Rule 54 bis rather than a detailed
18 analysis of certain documents. However, as I said above, if the
19 representative of any states are of the view that a specific issue should
20 be discussed in private session, they should inform the Chamber
22 If any representatives have any questions about this, please feel
23 free to raise them now.
24 Then there's another matter. As you know, the Chamber has
25 invited the Prosecution to attend this hearing. Unless the accused or
1 any representatives request the discussion of a particular issue or
2 document to be heard ex parte, the Prosecution shall be here throughout
3 the hearing and have access to the transcript of the hearing. In this
4 regard, I would like to know if there are any objections to that from the
5 representatives of the states or the accused. I see none.
6 Finally, before we begin, I would like to note that this hearing
7 is scheduled to last one morning session only, during which we intend to
8 hear all the representatives of the attending states as well as the
9 accused. Accordingly, I would strongly encourage everybody to focus on
10 the main points of contention rather than outlining all of the arguments
11 already made in the writing -- in the written filings. All submissions
12 are to be addressed to the Chamber and we will give the appropriate party
13 the opportunity to respond when necessary. Of course, given that Bosnia
14 has chosen not to send its representative, we can be a bit -- a little
15 more flexible with our schedule issued on 11th February and can allow
16 extra time, if necessary, to the participants in the hearing.
17 I would also like to note that we have decided to start with
19 the issues that need to be discussed in the remaining motions. Following
22 the accused will be asked to make his submissions relating mainly to
23 whether there have been any developments since the last
24 Status Conference. After that, the floor will be given to the
25 representatives of the states to make their submissions. The accused
1 will be given an opportunity to reply and the Chamber may also ask
3 We shall have a ten-minute break now in order to escort the state
4 representatives, other than Germany
5 if there's any question in relation to procedural matter, I will hear
6 them. I see none then. So the representatives of Germany are therefore
7 free to speak in their own language because we have a German interpreter,
8 as I said, and then we shall adjourn now for ten minutes for the
10 --- Break taken at 9.55 a.m.
11 --- On resuming at 10.06 a.m.
12 FEDERAL REPUBLIC
13 JUDGE KWON: Good morning again, Mr. -- Ambassador Laufer.
14 The Chamber notes that the issues arising from the binding order
15 motion involving Germany
16 discuss in relation to other states. This is because Germany is
17 disputing that it should provide the accused with the documents requested
18 in his motion, as falling under categories 1 to 7 on the basis that they
19 are not relevant and/or necessary to the accused's trial, which is one of
20 the requirements of Rule 54 bis. In this regard, the accused has
21 submitted in his reply brief of 28th September, 2009, referring to the
22 Appeals Chamber's ruling that a state does not have a standing to
23 challenge relevance of the documents sought. However, the Trial Chamber
24 is of the view that Appeals Chamber's ruling should be interpreted in
25 such a way that it is ultimately for the Trial Chamber to decide whether
1 or not the specific material sought is relevant and necessary, and that
2 once the Trial Chamber has determined that the material sought is
3 relevant and necessary, states are not allowed to challenge the relevance
4 or necessity of the material. Therefore, the Chamber is of the view that
5 it can be assisted by hearing from the states on the issue of relevance
6 and necessity, until it finally makes its decision on the issue. It is
7 for this reason that Chamber ordered the Prosecution to file its
8 submission on the issue of relevance.
9 So having said that, I wonder if you, Mr. Karadzic, have any
10 observation to this issue. If you are of a different view, please
11 elaborate on the point that the Chamber should not hear from Germany
12 the issue of relevance and necessity.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I do not object to the
14 Trial Chamber hearing the arguments of the state, which is reluctant to
15 provide the necessary documents. However, the fact is that it is up to
16 the Trial Chamber to be the judge of that. And my arguments will clearly
17 show that all the documents in question are indeed necessary. For
18 various reasons they're relevant, they're necessary, because they're
19 going to show not only what happened on the ground and who we were
20 dealing with, who the Serbian side was dealing with and what it had to
21 face, which armed force it had to face, and what the scale of all that
22 was. They will also show that the state members of the United Nations
23 violated the arms embargo, that they -- that the witnesses from those
24 states, the state members of the United Nations, were very dubious
25 objectivity and impartiality, that impartiality in Bosnia and Herzegovina
1 on the part of many states was also violated, that members and
2 representatives of the United Nations and members of the United Nations
3 were on the side of a warring party rather than neutral parties.
4 I would like to hear His Excellency, the ambassador of Germany
5 and I'm very grateful to him and his associates for being here today.
6 However, I am also prepared to provide arguments about the relevance and
7 necessity of all the documents that the Defence has requested. I would
8 also like to confirm that we wanted to avoid encumbering the
9 Trial Chamber further, but the fact is that this is of the utmost
10 importance for the entire war in Bosnia and Herzegovina and primarily for
11 the conduct of the representatives of the international community, or
12 rather, some of the states' representatives of the international
13 community. And there is no way we can establish the truth without such
15 I am prepared to discuss each and every motion and explain why
16 each of the documents is both relevant and necessary. Thank you.
17 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
18 Now we will hear from you, Ambassador Laufer.
19 MR. LAUFER: [Interpretation] Your Honour, indeed on two occasions
20 in our letters dated 25th of September, 2009, and also dated
21 10th of February, 2010, we asked that the submissions of the defendant
22 are not admitted because we believe they do not fulfil the requirement
23 arriving from Article 54 bis of proceedings, and hence it's still not
24 clear to us because Mr. Karadzic is facing the accusation of genocide and
25 other crimes, and it is not clear why it should be required. And we
1 stick to our position. We ask that the defendant to limit him to
2 happenings -- and that we shouldn't go back to political events between
3 1991 and 1995, because otherwise this trial is going to be political
4 academy and it's not going to be a Tribunal. So this is my position as
5 far as this case is concerned.
6 Of course, all in all we checked and made sure whether there
7 should be documents regarding to the demand made by the defendant, but we
8 did not see that especially in his -- what it says in number 1 to
9 number 7, that there should be such relevant documents, that they should
10 exist. Of course there are conferences about -- and meetings about such
11 relevant documents, but the documents that we have pertain to national
12 security or pertain the protection of third states. And we cannot
13 disclose that without the permission of those third countries.
14 There's also the question of the German Parliament. The
15 German Parliament is a democratic organ of the Federal Republic
17 a letter from Mr. Altmaier where he makes an explanation about this. The
18 Parliamentary Control Committee is going to convene in about six to eight
19 weeks' time and they're going to deal with this question once again, and
20 we might possibly also have a further notification from that particular
22 Your Honour, if in case, if the Chamber accepts the motions under
23 number -- Articles number 1 to 7, we already said in our letter on --
24 dated 10th of February, we need enough time in order to look into the
25 matter as to which documents would be within the remit of the federal
1 government and which would be relevant for a disclosure. And what we
2 have seen so far, it does not apply in any of the cases, and we have
3 also, in as far as the Rules of Procedure and Evidence clause 54 bis is
4 concerned, we need to talk about this again. I just want to state quite
5 clearly that in order to make the proceedings quite quick, that we
6 believe - also in the interests of the Prosecution - that the disclosure
7 should be limited to be -- to actual deeds because I don't think we're
8 talking about the political state of affairs in Bosnia at the time.
9 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Ambassador Laufer.
10 Mr. Karadzic, would you like to respond to this briefly?
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I absolutely do
12 not agree with what His Excellency, the German Ambassador, has just
13 stated. The events in Bosnia and Herzegovina were not part of a vacuum;
14 they were provoked by certain circumstances. Those events were impacted
15 by all the sides and all the parties, and there were at least four
16 parties involved: Serbs, Croats, Muslims, and the international
17 community. And within the international community, as the proceedings
18 are going to show, we had individual states which were present there with
19 their troops and their intelligence services that acted independently on
20 behalf of their governments because we, ourselves, did not allow any
21 state to act on its own behalf. We also had member states of NATO and
22 some of their staff worked for the NATO, not for the United Nations.
23 As far as the issue of genocide is concerned, genocide is mostly
24 linked to Srebrenica, although this has also been extended. The issue of
25 the smuggling of weapons that arrived through Germany from -- and
1 departed from Ramstein airport in Germany, that is of some significance.
2 That issue has a lot of significance and will impact on the testimonies
3 of international witnesses and UN member states that violated the arms
4 embargo imposed on Bosnia and Herzegovina.
5 I'm prepared to deal with every issue and with every document.
6 I'm not going to mention the name of the gentleman from B and D [as
7 interpreted], I don't want to go into private session, but it must be of
8 some concern what that gentleman did in the military observers' mission
9 and at the same time he was a member of the intelligence service of
11 about who killed whom in the civil war. Those countries knew that, they
12 knew of all that, even when they heard -- before they heard of Karadzic,
13 that even predicted that there would be 250.000 victims. We have to see
14 now how come that the number of victims was smaller.
15 We can absolutely not arrive at a full picture and have a fair
16 trial and a fair sentence if we do not have all the elements and if such
17 important countries as Germany
18 going to say what certain American officials did, even unbeknownst to
19 their government during Tito's era. Not only did those countries
20 predicted what would happen in Yugoslavia
21 Bosnia-Herzegovina. Some of them were actively involved in the break-up
22 of the former state of Yugoslavia
23 happen there. But this is not the issue at hand here. At this moment
24 these are the most specific things that need to be discussed, and even
25 these things from 1 to 7 and even 8 are very specific requests and the
1 proceedings would not be complete and would not be fair without them. If
2 Your Excellency is interested in each particular item, I am prepared to
3 explain to His Excellency, the German Ambassador, why each of them is
5 Not only did we defend ourselves from the entire world or from
6 the Western part of that world, to be more precise, because they had
7 their troops within the Bosnian army, not only were many resolutions
8 violated, particularly the arms embargo --
9 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, let's deal with it one by one. Let's
10 start with item 8 you just referred to. Germany submitted that it
11 couldn't find any item in relation to item 8. Do you have any say to
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, if we're talking about the
14 same thing, you're referring to the transcripts of the statement and the
15 intercepts of my conversations. Well, I assume that Germany
16 them because they have done -- worked a lot on this. They should have
17 something, some intercepts on my activities related to Srebrenica, in
18 view of the fact that they also had intelligence personnel on the ground.
19 So they should have some knowledge as to what was happening. I did
20 manage to find one intercept which is actually of exculpatory nature,
21 which was provided by Croatia
22 is out there because I'm sure that I haven't received all of it. In
23 other words, I have to assume that Germany must have such documents
24 because there was a lot of German presence there, both in the UNPROFOR
25 and on the ground.
1 JUDGE KWON: Do you have any substantive material that would
2 substantiate your allegation that Germany
3 material in relation to that category?
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In this particular case, item 8, I
5 don't have any such substantial evidence, but it would be very unlikely
6 that Germany
7 does not have any documents. But as for the other items, of course I do
8 have such supporting documents -- evidence.
9 JUDGE KWON: One of your arguments on relevance is that these
10 documents are relevant to your count, Count 11, of taking hostages. What
11 can you say about the claim that whether the UN personnel was combatants
12 or civilians is irrelevant to the charges under Count 11? What is your
13 observation to this?
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Excellency and Your Honours,
15 the Defence will dispute the position that armed representatives of
16 international forces, whose commander is -- whose commander is the
17 commander who issues orders for bombing, that such personnel should be
18 considered civilians. In -- also the participation of such personnel in
19 fire correction, in fire control and so on, who were on the ground, we
20 will show that they were there. They were present. But what I would
21 like to say is that the taking of hostages, which is charged under
22 charge 11, was not something that had been ordered; it was done
23 spontaneously and in panic.
24 What I'm trying to say is that people perceived these
25 representatives, these armed representatives, of the international
1 community as biased. It's not only their perception; they were biased.
2 So it isn't just that the people perceived them as combatants of one of
3 the sides in the hostilities. They actually were part of the hostilities
4 and they did side with one side in the conflict, and that is what we are
5 going to show. And of course there was such a perception, but if that
6 perception among the people was actually grounded, if we can show here
7 what all the things that were -- all the measures that were taken on
8 behalf of one side and taking one side, that cannot be considered as
9 being unbiased. That is in flagrant violation of international law.
10 JUDGE KWON: Your last comment leads me to the issue of the --
11 next issue of the credibility of international witnesses. When you are
12 saying that these documents are relevant in assessing -- to the
13 assessment of credibility of international witnesses, do you have
14 specific witnesses in mind?
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would not here name
16 the witnesses, but two of them are ambassadors, for instance, the two
18 that was imposed on Bosnia and Herzegovina. They were in contact with
19 the Bosnian and Croatian governments as well as the Iranian government
20 via Croatia
21 weapons and military equipment and provided support, significant support,
22 to one of the sides in the conflict. So how can we consider their
23 representatives to be unbiased when their states were biased?
24 The Excellencies here will speak or testify to the guilt of the
25 Serbian side based on words, not an deeds. But ambassadors of a country
1 that was actually involved in the violation of the arms embargo and was
2 an interested party in the outcome of that war, the length of that war,
3 and its intensity, how can we expect them to be unbiased witnesses here,
4 the representatives of such states?
5 JUDGE KWON: I leave the matter there.
6 Finally I would like to touch upon the issue of Srebrenica --
7 just a second. Oh, yes, Ambassador Laufer.
8 MR. LAUFER: [Interpretation] Mr. Chairman, if you allow me, I
9 would like very briefly to comment on the conduct of the defendant here
10 because what he's just said is typical for the way he assesses documents,
11 numbers 8 and 11, items 8 and 11 of the motion, which we've just heard
12 explained in somewhat greater detail. He's working on the basis of
13 assumption. He's simply claims that certain people whose names obviously
14 he's obviously reluctant to give us had precise knowledge of certain
15 events. Nobody can possibly check up on this, but he uses such an
16 assumption as the basis for instigating research in all sorts of archives
17 which a country has which cost a lot of time and effort is something
18 which I find very inappropriate under the circumstances.
19 I'd also like to point out that item number 11 where it's talking
20 about a parliamentary investigation, which also pertains to the behaviour
21 of German intelligence officers, is an issue on which the German
22 Bundestag, the parliament, has decided that there are no documents that
23 have ever existed on this and that, if possible, there may only be a sort
24 of result of an internal discussion ever put on paper, and that, of
25 course, is to be seen as strictly confidential, highly confidential
1 document concerning the rules governing confidentiality of documents in
3 I would also like to mention that the way the defendant has
4 explained himself is not exactly helping us to motivate us to accede to
5 his demands.
6 JUDGE KWON: Ambassador Laufer, to be just clear, when you refer
7 to number 11 it refers to the paragraph number of the accused's motion,
8 not the item number itself.
9 MR. LAUFER: It was number 8. Your Honour, just a second.
10 [Interpretation] Mr. Chairman, it is 7, indeed, I was wrong, you
11 are right. It is 11, not 7. I had another document and made the
12 mistake. Sorry.
13 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Ambassador Laufer.
14 Now I turn to the issue of Srebrenica.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Excellency, could I say a
16 word, please?
17 JUDGE KWON: Very briefly, Mr. Karadzic.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would not confine my request to
19 item 8. Much more significant are items 1 through 7. The Austrian
20 government actually pointed to the Government of Germany and they told us
21 that the German government actually conducted investigations at the TWRA,
22 which was actually a company that was a mask for the arms sales to Bosnia
23 and Herzegovina
24 would appreciate it if we could look at all the previous seven items,
25 they're very significant, and they deal with very important information;
1 and without them, it could not be considered that the accused was
2 actually given an opportunity to defend himself.
3 JUDGE KWON: I take it the German government is well aware of
4 your request.
5 Now back to Srebrenica. In this regard I would like to ask the
6 Prosecution the following four questions. Although they submitted in
7 their prior submission, so I wonder whether Prosecution is in the
8 position to answer the following questions, whether the Prosecution
9 challenges the following four facts: Number 1, Srebrenica was not
10 demilitarised; 2, ABiH forces in the Srebrenica enclave launched attacks
11 from the -- from inside the enclave; 3, arms were smuggled into the
12 enclave; and finally 4, the ABiH -- ABiH forces in the Srebrenica enclave
13 were legitimate military targets.
14 Mr. Tieger.
15 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour. Your Honour, to the best of
16 my knowledge, the Prosecution has addressed these issues in its previous
17 submissions, alluding to the pre-trial brief, perhaps to the opening
18 statement, to the adjudicated facts that were submitted, and certainly
19 acknowledge that, again, as indicated in our previous pleading, that
20 those are -- the Prosecution was not asserting that the enclave was
21 demilitarised, as we said here; the Prosecution does not dispute that
22 arms were present in and smuggled into the Srebrenica enclave after it
23 was declared a safe area; that the enclave was not demilitarised; and
24 that attacks by Muslim forces from within the enclave against Bosnian
25 Serb forces and villages continued after the establishment of the
1 Srebrenica safe area. So I don't think that issue is a matter of
2 dispute, as we pointed out more than once.
3 JUDGE KWON: I wanted to be clear, Mr. Tieger, as to the
4 number 4. You mentioned in your brief number 1 to 3, but I don't
5 remember having heard from you on number 4, whether -- I speak again,
6 whether the ABiH forces in the Srebrenica enclave were legitimate
7 military targets.
8 MR. TIEGER: Yes, Your Honour. I don't think we've ever taken
9 the position that military forces are not legitimate military targets, so
10 I think that was implicit in our previous submissions.
11 JUDGE KWON: So I now turn to Mr. Karadzic.
12 In light of the concessions by the Prosecution you just heard,
13 can you explain to the Chamber why you find it necessary to obtain all
14 these documents?
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I appreciate the
16 acknowledgement by the Prosecution as to the truthfulness of these four
17 items, which leads us to the conclusion then - and we can draw that
18 conclusion today - that the decisions that I made or the Republika Srpska
19 army in relation to Srebrenica were legitimate. However, that charge
20 remains in the indictment.
21 There is another issue here, there is the issue of the
22 surrendered arms, we knew that there -- the origin of the arms. There is
23 an arms factory in Tuzla
24 from Tuzla
25 in order to find out where all these weapons came from, which sides, and
1 who all actually participated in all these events that caused so much
2 trouble, including at the time when the Cutileiro Plan was being worked
3 out. We have to see what actually happened then. But the fact remains
4 that the charge in the indictment remains and I am charged with taking
5 action against Srebrenica, although it is quite clear that we did not
6 even intend to enter the Srebrenica enclave. We actually wanted to leave
7 a way open for them to leave the enclave. What Mr. Tieger is saying,
8 that there were attacks there in fact, I have to say that these attacks
9 were really very, very violent. We had evidence that some of these
10 fighters from the Srebrenica enclave returned to the enclave with a chain
11 of Serb ears around their necks. We have to establish all the facts of
12 the events and actually shed full light on the events in Srebrenica.
13 So it is very important where the weapons came from and it is
14 important because we want to show and we want to question how unbiased
15 can representatives of such countries be as witnesses in this trial.
16 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, it is one thing that there's a
17 legitimate cause in waging a war, but it's totally a separate matter how
18 it is waged. So in this regard, Mr. Karadzic, I would like to remind you
19 that the purpose of this trial is to judge whether you are guilty of
20 charges as alleged in the indictment. And this is not an opportunity for
21 you to produce a white book of all the events that took place at the
22 time. And I would advise you to concentrate on defending yourself
23 against the charges in the indictment.
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I will do
1 my best --
2 JUDGE KWON: Just a second.
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Karadzic.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] What I wanted to say was that what
6 the Prosecution conceded with regard to all these four questions relating
7 to the enclaves, and this also applies to the conduct of the ABH or
8 Muslim army. And this is very useful and helpful and is going to
9 simplify the whole procedure and relieve some of the burden from the
10 Defence in order to prove certain things. However, the fact remains that
11 the sources of the weapons that arrived were in many countries that
12 support this Tribunal who hold me responsible for many things and whose
13 high representatives will appear here, either as Prosecution witnesses or
14 I shall have, myself, to call some of them. In addition to the
15 significance of the conduct of the BH army - and we are happy to see that
16 this has been acknowledged - the conduct of all other participants in our
17 war is equally important. That involves the procurement of weapons,
18 transportation, and delivery and subsequently distribution of weapons
19 throughout Bosnia-Herzegovina. All of this, of course, contributed to
20 the duration of war. We would have ended the war much sooner had not
21 only one side been persuaded and convinced that they could have
23 JUDGE KWON: That's it. Thank you.
24 I have a very short question for Germany. Although the practices
25 and standards may vary depending upon the countries -- states and then
1 the fact that one country adopts certain regime does not necessarily mean
2 that the other countries also follow that. But just for consistency, in
3 relation to category 6, Ambassador Laufer, the -- I will not name it,
4 just in case, my understanding is that some countries are providing with
5 those -- such documents to the accused or to the Chamber. So I wonder
6 whether the thing is that Germany
7 security interest or that it has to do with the domestic law which does
8 not allow co-operation with the Defence?
9 MR. LAUFER: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we do not have a reason
10 not to co-operate with any parties in the proceedings. I would like to
11 emphasise that. For one thing, the motions made by the defendant are not
12 sufficiently detailed. The defendant wants to have everything, wants to
13 have all the documentation that has ever been written about the various
14 subject matters. And -- but you can also look at the newspapers or the
15 news agencies. He can ask for their reports. What we need -- what we
16 are lacking is the selection mechanism in order to locate the documents
17 that would be relevant, and documents that would be relevant. But what
18 we've seen so far only just shows that either the government doesn't have
19 such documents, there might be other institutions, or it might be the
20 security services or other agencies. And secondly, we're not sure that
21 those documents exist and they might be highly classified, top-secret
22 level; hence, we cannot disclose them. And I've already submitted those
23 two reasons, and in my opinion they still apply.
24 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Ambassador Laufer. The Chamber will
25 confer briefly.
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 JUDGE KWON: I see the time.
3 Ambassador Laufer, if you have anything further to raise, please
4 do so.
5 MR. LAUFER: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would suggest that my
6 colleague would clarify one matter that has already been mentioned as
7 well, if you allow him to do so.
8 JUDGE KWON: Of course.
9 Mr. Trautman.
10 MR. TRAUTMAN: [Interpretation] Yes, thank you, Your Honour. I
11 would like to point out one thing. The accusation is about Srebrenica
12 and events running it, and as you already asked the Prosecution as to how
13 far there were military activities in Srebrenica. And the accused
14 himself said in his motion under number 9 of his explanations, has
15 pointed out that Bosnian archives have shown as to how far arms were
16 delivered to Srebrenica. And in this respect, the motion is not clear
17 because it's -- he always refers to arms being transported to Srebrenica
18 with the help of German troops or NATO troops. But the question is how
19 far arms have reached Srebrenica, if at all.
20 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
21 Mr. Karadzic, do you have anything to raise with respect to
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Unfortunately, I have to express my
24 disappointment. A study produced by the Dutch government has established
25 that the Turkish and Malaysian members of UNPROFOR had smuggled weapons
1 valued at $15 million --
2 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, it's not the time for you to repeat
3 what you said already. I see the time. Now I would like to invite the
4 French representatives --
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honour, may I say a word only,
6 just one sentence?
7 JUDGE KWON: Very well.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm sorry I have to say this, but I
9 would kindly ask His Excellency, the German ambassador, to bear in mind
10 that both Secretary Warren Christopher, President Clinton,
11 Lord Carrington, and all French high officials have identified Germany
12 some party which is very much responsible for the events that took place
13 in our country, and I'm going to pursue this line of providing evidence
14 that this is the case. And I don't know why documents that I requested
15 cannot be provided to this Court without any prejudice or any jeopardy
16 for Germany
17 JUDGE KWON: That's it.
18 Ambassador Laufer and Mr. Trautman and Ms. Achilles, thank you
19 for coming to the Tribunal. Now you may be excused.
20 So --
21 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, if I may make one point in response
22 very quickly to a couple of the comments that were made before the
23 representatives of Germany
24 JUDGE KWON: Okay.
25 MR. TIEGER: And that's only as a -- taking off on the point that
1 the German representatives were making that there's -- pointing out the
2 gap between the issue raised by the accused of arms coming into the
3 country and whether or not they reached Srebrenica. There's also the
4 further risk of conflating what was known at the time with what can
5 potentially subsequently be accused -- be established.
6 The accused has referred to various perceptions, the perception
7 of people who were involved in taking hostages, the perception of arms
8 being present in the Srebrenica enclave before a military operation was
9 launched. These documents have nothing to do with that perception; it's
10 what was known at the time that the accused has raised as a gap between
11 these documents that are being sought and what was known. And we have --
12 we need to avoid a situation, which appears to be present here, where the
13 accused seems to be saying: If I had only been aware of certain secret
14 documents at the time, that I might have had a basis for launching a
15 legitimate military operation or for a further perception about the
16 status of the people who were taken hostages. So I urge the Court not to
17 fall prey to that distinction. The issue is perception at the time, what
18 was known at the time, and not what the accused may subsequently attempt
19 to prove through documentation that he clearly didn't have at the time.
20 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Tieger.
21 Before that I'd like to clarify with the audio/video unit that
22 whether we can go further 50 minutes without any break.
23 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour, we can.
24 JUDGE KWON: Just briefly, Mr. Karadzic.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] There is no secret, as far as we
1 are concerned, that this weapons and this equipment did indeed arrive in
2 Srebrenica. That's why these two enclaves were linked, which was
3 contrary to the agreement on enclaves. Helicopters used to come to
4 Srebrenica. The four documents provided by the Bosnian government only
5 confirmed the arrival of the weapons in Srebrenica. As for the question
6 that His Excellency has asked, whether it had actually arrived, it was
7 being confirmed by the Bosnian government. We knew that as well because
8 this weapons were used to shoot at us and to kill us, and we were aware
9 of these helicopter flights. That's why we shot them down.
10 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. That's it for Germany.
11 Thank you again, Ambassador Laufer.
12 Now I invite the French representatives.
14 JUDGE KWON: Good morning again, Mr. Florent, Mr. Villemain,
15 Madam de Matha, and Madam Renault.
16 Mr. Karadzic, in your memorandum of 8th of January this year, and
17 at the last Status Conference, you indicated that you received one
18 document from France
19 that should be provided to you. Also, I understand that you have agreed
20 on the application of Rule 70 conditions to the one document you
21 received. I'd like to hear from you now that whether there have been any
22 developments since.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Nothing happened in the interim
24 period. As you know, on the 2nd of June and on the 30th of June and in
25 the beginning of January I wrote about this issue relating to France
1 believe that France
2 a significant presence, particularly in the area of Sarajevo, and their
3 presence was manifested in a variety of ways. Even President Mitterrand
4 visited the airport in Sarajevo
5 that he demonstrated that the airport was safe for landing. This was
6 followed by 10.000 sorties bringing humanitarian aid which considerably
7 improved the humanitarian situation in Bosnia.
8 Generals such as de Lapresle and Gobillard, who are well-known,
9 were directly and fully informed about the situation. I think that every
10 single request that I made and every single paragraph contained therein
11 is something that I need to explain further, if necessary.
12 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
13 I will give the floor to the representatives of France
14 MR. FLORENT: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. On an
15 introductory note I would like to remark that France and its government
16 has also co-operated and will continue to co-operate with the Tribunal.
17 Our country contributed actively to its inception since we are a member
18 of the UN Security Council. I would like this to be quite clear from the
19 outset. As far as we are concerned, we are fully aware of this
20 obligation to co-operate, which is ours pursuant to the Statute of the
21 ICTY and the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of this Tribunal but also as
22 regards the French law which applied to the disclosure of documents in
23 this case. And according to us, these rules and regulations in France
24 cannot be simply dismissed.
25 Now, as far as the requests and numerous applications are
1 concerned stemming from the accused addressed to France, we have already
2 provided, I believe, a number of answers. I believe that these answers
3 do not seem to satisfy the accused, but as far as we are concerned, we
4 don't have much to add, Your Honour, in light of what we have already
5 disclosed in one way or another to the accused through the Tribunal.
6 As you know, among those applications made by the accused, we can
7 focus on three types of documents, A, documents which in light of their
8 diversity and scope and for some of the documents are vague require and
9 still require on our part documentary research to make sure that these
10 documents exist, if indeed these do. And category items 1, 4, 5, and 11,
11 as well as item 10, as this has been formulated in the application made
12 by the accused through the Trial Chamber. The French authorities looked
13 into these requests and conducted researches to that end. After this
14 research work, we found a document relating to a meeting held by the
15 French Ministry of Defence, American and German ministries of defence in
16 Key West
17 forwarded to the accused through a verbal note on 7th of December, 2009.
18 We had sought protection pursuant to Rule 70 of the Rules of this
20 As far as this category of documents is concerned, we have
21 nothing else to offer at this stage, and in general terms not either, we
22 have nothing else to offer the accused. There were also a number of
23 requests that according to us were addressed wrongly to France, since
24 these were documents that had to do with international organisations,
25 namely UNPROFOR and third parties, third states, and NGOs. We feel that
1 since these documents are not French and do not belong to
3 United Nations or one or other state - it was not up to France to provide
4 such documents which are not in its possession. These were the requests
5 on -- where the items listed under points 2, 7, 8, 9 of the accused's
7 Your Honour, there are also a whole series of requests which are
8 closely linked to a description, locality, and relationships with the
9 French intelligence services. On this point we've been extremely clear
10 and I shall remain extremely clear today as far as this issue is
11 concerned. We feel that it is not for us to forward to the accused or
12 the Tribunal documents which relate to the way in which our intelligence
13 services in France
14 any documents established by these services. The disclosure of such
15 information would reveal the nature and scope of France's ability in the
16 field of intelligence services as well as in which place and in what
17 manner these services operate. This would amount to not abiding by this
18 principle of respecting national security interests, and this
19 substantiates non-disclosure of these documents. Pursuant to Rule 54 of
20 this Tribunal and in light of the French law, communication of sensitive
21 or confidential information is something we are not able to provide and
22 cannot provide.
23 In sum, as I have said in my opening remark, the French
24 authorities, as is customary, wish to co-operate with your Tribunal but
25 feels that in the present case it has met its obligation pursuant to
1 Article 29 of the Statute in light of the accused's application.
2 Thank you, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Florent.
4 In order to be clear, can I ask you whether it is your position
5 that there are no further documents to be found with respect to
6 categories 1, 3, 4, 5, and 11, and partly 10? So that one document you
7 disclosed to the accused was the only one that can be disclosed?
8 MR. FLORENT: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. That is
9 indeed what I have said. It's the only document that we were able to
10 disclose to the Tribunal. Thank you.
11 JUDGE KWON: So my question was if you're not further searching
12 for documents anymore?
13 MR. FLORENT: [Interpretation] We have no ongoing research.
14 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, with respect to the category 5,
15 referring to the meeting in Key West
16 material provided to you by the French authority?
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] My associates are in the process of
18 analysing the document and comparing it with the information that we
19 received from other sources. We will be able to speak about that at a
20 later stage; however, I would like to say that we are grateful to
21 whatever we have received in that respect.
22 JUDGE KWON: And I now turn to Mr. Florent again. With respect
23 to items 6, 9, and partly 10, which France said it could not disclose
24 those materials due to security reasons. So I wonder whether France
25 could advance its argument more specifically, bearing in mind that the
1 Tribunal's jurisprudence on whether states can refuse to produce
2 documents based on national security reasons.
3 MR. FLORENT: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. As far as
4 the reasons for which we are not able to disclose potential documents
5 because I did not say that such documents existed. I addressed this
6 issue as a matter of principle. I explained that the only disclosure, if
7 any, if these documents exist, would provide information, sensitive and
8 essential information, to which the French intelligence services operate.
9 And that is why we feel on the one hand that this has to do very closely
10 with national security interests, and if we apply the Rules of the
11 Tribunal and French law, we feel we have no obligation to disclose the
12 latter. We are also not convinced of the fact that information of this
13 nature would be exculpatory for the accused.
14 Thank you, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Lastly, the -- as for the documents
16 allegedly originated from third parties, for example, UNPROFOR documents,
17 can I ask whether they are in the possession of French government?
18 MR. FLORENT: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. Among the
19 documents that have been requested by the accused as regards the category
20 you've just mentioned, I would like to give you a few examples. Item 2,
21 for instance, the 15th and 16th of February reports established by
22 General de Lapresle to be addressed to Mr. Akashi, Special Representative
23 of the UN, as regards arms delivery in Tuzla. It is clear that on
24 reading this request that this report is a report which the French
25 authority were not an addressee and therefore were unaware of since this
1 report was established by a French gentleman, that is right,
2 General de Lapresle, but this was a document issued by UNPROFOR. This
3 was addressed to Mr. Akashi. Therefore, this report was exclusively an
4 internal report and belonged to the UN. There is no reason why this
5 application should be made and this request be made to France.
6 As far as item 7 is concerned, we are asked for all reports,
7 correspondence, and memos relating to UNPROFOR staff, UN military
8 observers, staff of the UNHCR NGOs between April 1992 with a view to
9 providing equipment to the Muslims in Bosnia. There again our answer is
10 likewise. The same applies to paragraph number 8. So we feel as far as
11 these various requests are concerned, as I said in my opening remark,
12 Mr. Karadzic addressed it to the wrong person.
13 JUDGE KWON: Let me be clear again, you do not deny the existence
14 of such documents, do you?
15 MR. FLORENT: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I don't know whether
16 this is a translation issue. I just indicated that these documents were
17 UN internal documents, which were not addressed to France. So I don't
18 see how France
19 documents that were internal to the UN. Thank you.
20 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour.
21 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Madam Uertz-Retzlaff.
22 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Maybe I can be of help in relation to item 2
23 on -- of the request to France
24 to the states were actually also directed to the Prosecution, and the
25 Prosecution did provide the two items mentioned under number 2, and
1 therefore there is no necessity for any other state to search for them
2 any longer. Therefore, the accused, whenever we disclose something to
3 him, we indicate to which of his requests this does relate. And if he
4 checks, he can see that a lot of documents he has already received from
5 the Prosecution and would not -- there would not be any necessity for any
6 other source to provide that same document. And it's very clear in
7 relation to item 2, but it's also in relation to many other items that
8 were asked from states that he has received quite a number of documents.
9 JUDGE KWON: In addition to item 2, can you help us,
10 Madam Uertz-Retzlaff, understand what other materials in respect of other
11 items the accused has received from the Prosecution so far.
12 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, when we filed our further
13 response to Karadzic motion for postponement of trial, we appended
14 appendix C, and in this appendix you can clearly see which requests were
15 directed to the Prosecution. They're completely listed there. And in
16 the appendix A you can also see what we have provided.
17 In relation to France
18 in relation to point 5. We disclosed materials in relation to point 7.
19 We disclosed materials in relation to point 9 -- yeah, these were the
20 ones in relation to France
21 documents elsewhere, we of course would not be able to know, but if the
22 accused would check what he has received in relation to certain items, he
23 could easily see whether it's really necessary to get the same documents
24 elsewhere again or whether he need any more documents to a certain topic.
25 JUDGE KWON: Could you put that into a writing, that --
1 indicating all the documents disclosed by the Prosecution to the accused
2 that would fall under each item requested by the accused by the binding
3 order motions, covering all the states.
4 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, we can do that, but it will
5 take a bit of time because it's a lot of materials. So -- but we can do
6 that relatively quickly.
7 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
8 In the meantime I would like to ask Mr. Karadzic as regards item
9 number 6, as an example, you are requesting documents that would indicate
10 presence of French personnel in various international organs. Could you
11 explain to us how relevant these documents are to your charges in the
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, thank you, Your Excellence. I
14 would like to say first and foremost, I have before me the pre-trial
15 brief in which it is stated that joint criminal procedure in respect of
16 Srebrenica depending on whether there were weapons there and whether
17 there had been an attack. The Prosecution doesn't say whether such a
18 joint criminal enterprise would have happened if Srebrenica had been
19 demilitarised. France
20 the Serbian state, and it's uncomfortable for me to talk about that here.
21 Your Honours, we agreed to the presence of the United Nations in
22 Bosnia-Herzegovina; however, most Western countries, most NATO countries
23 abused that opportunity and were present in Bosnia and Herzegovina
24 behalf of their own governments and on behalf of NATO. I understand and
25 I appreciate that the issue of the functioning of the French secret
1 services are a matter of national security and I'm going to respect that
2 and I'm going to respect Rule 54 bis and Rule 70. However, let me say
3 that not only did some countries have their intelligence services there
4 illegitimately, without consent, they also had teams for anti-sniper
5 activity, for the elimination of sharp-shooters, and so on and so forth.
6 These are all very important matters. For example, when it comes to
7 item 6 - and I can tell you the same for each item - the issue of Markale
8 is very important because the French investigators arrived on site first.
9 The other incidents around Sarajevo
10 activities are also important. The French government is in possession of
11 the evidence that the Muslims killed their own people by sniping, by
12 other tools in order to accuse the Serbian army. What could be more
13 relevant? How else could we establish the truth and pass a sentence if
14 we do not have that evidence as well? How can we talk about four
15 different joint criminal enterprises that I'm charged with? I can prove
16 that none of them existed, but how can I do that when such obvious things
17 that we know that the French government has we cannot be provided with.
18 I cannot rely on newspaper articles, as the German ambassador
19 stated. Newspaper articles, it is indicated that somebody said something
20 or indicated something or confirmed something, but we need documents.
21 The Trial Chamber is certainly not going to accord the same weight to the
22 newspaper article as they will to an authentic document. You should
23 believe me that several governments had parallel and autonomous presence
24 of important intelligence and active military forces in our country
25 without our consent under the guise of either humanitarian organisations
1 or the United Nations.
2 In this courtroom we're going to see that nothing was what it
3 seemed, everything was different. Journalists, humanitarian
4 organisations, the United Nations, all of those involved the presence of
5 things and people that they should not have involved. We can take items
6 one by one, but the fact remains and the Excellence has just confirmed
7 that France
8 their own behalf and that they have plenty of information. And we are
9 kindly asking them to provide us with all that information, and I assure
10 them that all the confidentiality measures will be applied to such
12 JUDGE KWON: I have one clarifying question for the French
13 representatives. When you said that you were not able to disclose
14 documents related to the categories number 1, 3, 4, 5, and 11, to me it
15 was a bit unclear what it meant. Are you saying that there are more
16 documents but you are not able to disclose them, or that there are no
17 more documents falling in those categories?
18 MR. FLORENT: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. What I
19 have said is that we have conducted research at the time when we were
20 seized of this request filed by the accused and transmitted by the
21 Tribunal. After this research work, we communicated a document which is
22 mentioned in paragraph 5. Therefore, we have no other documents to
23 disclose. Thank you, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. The Bench will confer briefly.
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE KWON: I'll give you the floor, Mr. Karadzic, after
2 having -- after hearing from -- after giving the floor to the French
3 representatives. If there's anything to raise at this moment?
4 MR. FLORENT: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. No, I have
5 no other issue to raise or comment to make. We have listened carefully
6 to what the accused has said and we had rather not comment such
7 developments. Thank you, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Florent.
9 Mr. Karadzic.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can you hear me, Your Honours?
11 I would just like to point briefly something. (redacted)
6 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour --
7 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Madam Uertz-Retzlaff.
8 [Prosecution counsel confer]
9 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: I just want to remind the accused that there
10 may be protective measures and he has to be careful when he names certain
11 witnesses here in the courtroom. He was very careful with other
12 witnesses earlier this morning, and now he's using names. And that's --
13 he should reconsider. We will also file something for redactions.
14 JUDGE KWON: Thank you very much, Madam Uertz-Retzlaff.
15 Please do bear in mind what Madam Uertz-Retzlaff indicated.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours, I will do my
17 best. I will refrain from mentioning names, but it is a fact that there
18 will be a number of high officials, French officials, mainly from the
19 military whose forces were part of the UN forces in Sarajevo and were the
20 first to actually come to the incident sites where incidents were
21 investigated. And Prime Minister Balladur actually disclosed - this was
22 a public fact - he disclosed that there were documents showing that the
23 Muslims actually attacked their own people. There is no reason to -- not
24 to disclose that here because it's in public evidence, and we would like
25 to express our gratitude to the French who actually had the stamina and
1 the ethics to actually present facts in contravention of what was
2 publicly or widely accepted.
3 And, Your Honour, if necessary I can go through all the items of
4 my list that relate to the French government and the documents requested
5 from the French government and I can explain how they're relevant and
6 significant. And I even have evidence where the Dutch government and
7 other very responsible authors actually claim that these documents that
8 we are seeking actually are in existence.
9 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Florent, do you wish to comment?
10 MR. FLORENT: [Interpretation] Your Honour, no, I don't wish to
11 respond to this question directly. I would just like to thank the member
12 of the OTP for having recalled a number of rules which seemed to have
13 been forgotten by the accused. I will not address these, but for matters
14 to be quite clear I would like to say that the French general that has
15 just been mentioned by the accused were not there representing France
16 were there as part of UNPROFOR and that is in that sense that they
17 reacted and reported to UNPROFOR. This is what I wanted to say.
18 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Florent.
19 Unless there's other matters to raise, that would conclude the
20 hearing with respect to French government. I thank you for coming to the
21 Tribunal and thank you for your contributions.
22 Now we will have a break of 20 minutes and resume at ten to
23 11.00, with Ambassador of Croatia
24 --- Recess taken at 11.31 a.m.
25 --- On resuming at 12.01 p.m.
1 REPUBLIC OF CROATIA
2 JUDGE KWON: It's still before noon, so good morning to you,
3 Ambassador Paro, thanks for coming again.
4 Mr. Karadzic, at the last Status Conference you indicated to the
5 Chamber that you have been provided with 15 documents requested from
7 the requested documents Croatia
8 have not received any response to your letter of 7th January, where you
9 requested a number of additional documents. Have there been any
10 developments since that Status Conference in terms of your correspondence
11 with Croatia
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to
13 express my gratitude to Croatia
14 of some of the documents, but since the last Status Conference to date we
15 haven't had any new developments. And the only thing that I would like
16 to add is that Croatia
17 which either under pressure from the United States or out of a desire to
18 assist the Muslims was always or was in the fulcrum of all the supplies
19 of weapons and materiel in different ways and, if necessary, I can
20 explain what all those different ways were and I can -- and that is why
21 we feel that Croatia
22 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Karadzic.
23 Ambassador Paro, I'll now give the floor to you.
24 MR. PARO: Your Honour, well, I must say that we are not aware of
25 the request of the 7th of January, so such a request has not been passed
1 through the embassy, as it was the case with the other requests, to which
2 we have responded with 15 documents. Also I have received the
3 instruction from my government to say that while we stand ready to
4 provide more documents if we have those documents, providing also that
5 the request is more specific. We don't find the requests specific enough
6 to conduct an effective search for those documents, but what we have
7 passed on is what we have in our possession; anything else, we -- other
8 documents we haven't been able to trace.
9 JUDGE KWON: I find this strange that the accused's submission
10 dated 7th January hasn't been served to Croatia yet. That can be checked
11 out in the meantime.
12 Before that, can I ask the accused whether you are satisfied with
13 the items that you received in relation to categories 7, 9, and 10 of the
14 requested documents?
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have to say that the Defence is
16 really grateful to Croatia
17 outcome. We believe that the documents are more numerous and, to be
18 specific, let me say this: Croatia
19 outset that we weren't precise enough. For instance, on the 2nd of June
20 and then again on the 30th of June, I addressed a letter to Croatia
21 then on the 27th of July, Croatia
22 documents in their possession. But then later on it turned out that they
23 did. So this is just by way of illustration. And we do need to have
24 these documents provided.
25 I have to -- I would like to add that on several occasions
2 army ordered long-range missiles, Croatia which suspected that this might
3 involve chemical weapons and weapons that are actually subject to
4 inspection, in that instance Croatia
5 inspection team before such weapons were to be delivered to the Bosnian
6 side. And the Ambassador approved that. So it is not possible that
8 supplied to Bosnia and Herzegovina via Croatia
9 be used against Croatia
10 United States, seeking inspections, and the inspection was actually
11 conducted. So there is -- that is as much as I have to say regarding
13 There are also numerous meetings with Ambassador Galbraith; with
14 Minister Granic, the then-minister of foreign affairs; with
15 President Tudjman; Nikica Valentic, the prime minister who actually
16 visited Iran
17 best way to supply weapons to Bosnia and Herzegovina. So it is
18 impossible that such documents are non-existent and I hope that Croatia
19 will find a way and perhaps see their own interests in providing them.
20 And I have to say that even at first glance it would appear that Croatia
21 assisted the Muslims in Bosnia and Herzegovina significantly; but on the
22 other hand, at second glance you can also deduce from that that, in fact,
23 this only prolonged the war. Although their original intent was to
24 provide assistance, and all of this before the Tuzla airport was opened,
25 all the weapons, ammunitions, and equipment was actually funneled into
2 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, in its submission dated
3 27th of October, Croatia
4 enough, and Ambassador Paro reiterated that position again. So my
5 question to you is whether you provided -- whether you provided any
6 material that would -- in order to be more specific in your request.
7 THE ACCUSED: [No interpretation].
8 [Interpretation] Your Honours, there are very precise dates here.
9 There seems to be some confusion with channels, but it's all right now.
10 There is completely precise information about the meetings. For
11 instance, the travel and visit by Nikica Valentic, the Croatian
12 Prime Minister at the time, who visited Iran, and there is indicated a
13 date and the week. I believe it was around 30th of April, 1994. Then
14 there are meetings with Ambassadors Redmond and Galbraith, meetings with
15 Mr. Holbrooke. Names are indicated of two American generals who did go
16 to an inspection mission to Croatia
17 only thing we don't know is what they had for lunch; everything else is
18 perfectly obvious.
19 Now, as for categories, the Croatian government should indicate
20 which categories of documents they have, and then we are going to be more
21 specific --
22 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic --
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Here are the dates, Your Honours.
24 JUDGE KWON: -- this new item, seven items, are they the ones
25 that would replace your previous request?
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't think so, Your Honour. I
2 believe it's all cumulative and that all the documents need to be
4 JUDGE KWON: So my question is -- I do not doubt that these
5 additional requests relating to seven items are not specific enough.
6 What I referred to as not specific enough by -- cited by the Croatian
7 authority are related to the previous request. So what other additional
8 material did you provide to the Croatian authority in order to help them
9 find the -- locate the documents with more specific identification?
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I believe you're right, in view of
11 the fact that there are dates, places, and persons involved for every
12 item. For instance, Tuzla
13 meeting with a certain general from France, where they informed that
14 fixed-wing aircraft were in Tuzla
15 correspondence between France
16 followed by the arrival of Turkish representatives and the visit of
17 Muslim and Croatian representatives to Turkey to negotiate the supply of
18 arms to Muslims; the thing about Key West we received through a different
19 channel. Then -- I'm sorry, I'm a bit lost in my papers. But then we
20 have the 31st of March, in fact 10 February to 31st March, some 49 days,
21 a rather narrow time-frame, in which a lot of things happened. Croatia
22 is certainly aware of the C-130 aircraft shipment to the airport of
24 indubitably aware of the meeting and correspondence on the 29 April 1994
25 between Ambassador Galbraith, Ambassador Redmond, and President Tudjman,
1 which marked an intensification of American activity.
2 It is well-known that at the beginning of the war in 1992, the
3 United States protested, and on the basis of their protest one arms
4 shipment was seized at the airport. Later the United States changed
5 their position in order to encourage and support Croatia, if not even
6 force Croatia
8 was in Zagreb
9 organisation but it was a cover, in fact, for arms smuggling, and it
10 worked through Croatia
11 there are five points on which Croatia
12 sometimes involved. The delivery of arms to Tuzla, Iranian shipments of
13 arms going through Croatia
14 United Nations and humanitarian organisations, and then Croatia
15 lot about the bombing at Markale and it wire-tapped all our
16 conversations. Croatia
17 our conversations under surveillance.
19 clear and need to be more specified.
20 JUDGE KWON: Before I turn to Croatian representative, let me
21 give you an example. Let's take a look at item number 7 in your -- of
22 your first request, which reads:
23 "All reports, memoranda, cables, and correspondence concerning
24 the delivery, shipment, or use of arms obtained by Bosnian Muslims in
25 violation of the United Nations arms embargo from April 1992 to
1 August 1995
3 Do you not find that a bit broad?
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Only at first glance, Your Honour.
5 Namely, before the opening of the Tuzla
6 a transit station for all these arms shipments, and Croatia took part of
7 these weapons for itself. They know about each rifle, each bullet, each
8 uniform, and each pair of boots that arrived, and they have records on
9 that because it went through them. After the Tuzla airport was opened,
10 perhaps they don't know everything, but before that they took one-third
11 or one-quarter for their own needs and they must be aware of it.
12 JUDGE KWON: Now I turn to Ambassador Paro in terms of the issue
13 of specificity. So if Croatia
14 specification it needs to conduct its search. For example, could
15 Croatian authorities not take the same approach they took when they
16 singled out the previous 16 documents from the said web site in searching
17 for the documents in their own database? Ambassador Paro.
18 MR. PARO: Your Honour, well, I have just been served with the
19 copy of the defendant's letter of the 7th of January, following the
20 receipt of the Chamber's invitation for this hearing. So we have seen
21 the reference on this letter and we haven't been able to trace in
22 otherwise quite ordered archives of our embassy receipt of such a letter.
23 So I believe that this letter has never been served to my government.
24 So -- and hence we couldn't have responded to the request in any way.
25 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we'll look forward to hearing from you on that
1 submission, but we also have the previous request from the accused which
2 is still pending. So we'll deal with it as far as we can.
3 MR. PARO: Yes. So you must be aware of the response, and that
4 is that the document -- the request is not specific enough -- well, it is
5 always saying "all transcripts, all notes," it's very difficult to -- in
6 some cases - I'm not talking about this letter of the 7th of January - to
7 be very precise in trying to focus the documents. So all transcripts,
8 all notes, say, for example, here we have all -- all transcripts, notes,
9 or memoranda of the meetings between Minister Granic and Ambassador
10 Galbraith of the United States at which the possible acquisition of arms
11 from Iran
12 easy thing, but I can't tell you what exactly -- what form of request,
13 what explanation should be provided to us in order to find the documents.
14 It's difficult unless we receive such a document -- such a request
15 specified. So no idea.
16 JUDGE KWON: On a related issue, in Croatian submission you
17 stated that the interested party will be able to search for such
18 material, as suggested by the Croatian Homeland War Memorial and
19 Documentation Centre. Could you elaborate on its meaning?
20 MR. PARO: Not really, no.
21 JUDGE KWON: Since it is the submission from the Croatian
22 Homeland War Memorial and Documentation Centre?
23 MR. PARO: I think it is rather clear what they are saying. So
24 the memorial and documentation centre doesn't have those documents so --
25 or the documents of that kind.
1 JUDGE KWON: Who does the interested party mean?
2 MR. PARO: Well, that is probably -- that refers -- at the
3 Ministry of Justice who requested the documents, that interested party --
4 oh, no, well -- I'm sorry, I'm sorry. The interested party is referred
5 to the Defence.
6 JUDGE KWON: So I was wondering whether the Croatian authority
7 would offer the Defence to look for the -- search for the document
9 MR. PARO: Well, it is said that the documentation centre is
10 ready to give the list of documents, the list of documents and pass it on
11 on the -- in their possession and pass it on on the Defence, which I
12 think is rather generous offer.
13 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. I will leave that there.
14 Another question for you, Ambassador Paro, is whether Croatia
15 in a position to inform us whether the rest of the requested documents
16 are in its possession or not.
17 MR. PARO: We have already stated that the rest of the documents
18 are not in our possession, not as much as we are aware of it.
19 JUDGE KWON: Do you have any observation to the arguments
20 advanced by the accused on Croatia
21 MR. PARO: No. No, I have no comment on that. Because -- well,
22 those are only presumptions.
23 JUDGE KWON: Another issue is the Rule 70 conditions. Is Croatia
24 requesting these conditions pursuant to Rule 70 to apply to the document
25 provided on November -- 9th of November?
1 MR. PARO: Well, could you be more specific on the Rule 7?
2 JUDGE KWON: Rule 70.
3 MR. PARO: Rule 70.
4 JUDGE KWON: So what kind of conditions do you have in mind
5 pursuant to Rule 70?
6 MR. PARO: Well, I -- I don't know, actually, the Rule 70. What
7 does it mean, the Rule 70?
8 JUDGE KWON: When you disclose the additional item on
9 9th of November --
10 MR. PARO: Yes.
11 JUDGE KWON: -- the Croatian authority said "it was declassified
12 with limited use." So I meant to ask you what the limited use would
13 mean. Are you requesting for some protective measures?
14 MR. PARO: Yeah, obviously. Obviously we would not want to --
15 these documents to be made public.
16 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
17 And whether you are in a position to indicate to us how much time
18 you would need in order to respond to the letter you just received, dated
19 7th of January?
20 MR. PARO: Last time when we received a request for the
21 documents, we have been -- we kindly asked the Chamber to give us a
22 reasonable amount of time. So we are aware of the Court's tight
23 schedule, but I have no specific period of time that we would need for
24 that. Well, but certainly a reasonable amount of time, a month or so.
25 Because -- well, those requests are rather general and -- and as
1 indicated in our response, the archives are not always very tidy,
2 especially those that do not concern the developments in Croatia proper.
3 So probably it would require a bit of time to respond to those.
4 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. The Chamber will confer briefly.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE KWON: Unless there are other matters to raise at this
8 Yes, Mr. Karadzic.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm convinced that we must do
10 something about this. I understand what Croatia is saying, but if I may
11 be of assistance, it would be important for us for someone responsible
12 and high-ranking enough from the Croatian government under oath and on
13 pains of punishment for perjury state that the meetings either did not
14 happen or that they do not have the documents about those meetings. The
15 Defence cannot accept that the states who should be co-operating do not
16 co-operate simply by saying, "We don't have this." We don't agree they
17 don't have this.
18 For instance, concerning the 7 January communication, in one item
19 we say Ambassador Galbraith and Ambassador -- and Minister Granic, Iran
20 arms shipments. We don't need all the documentation. We just need the
21 few documents concerning Iranian arms shipments between these people.
22 Number 2, Ambassador Galbraith and President Tudjman, the moment when the
23 green light was given for such shipments, that's April 1994 --
24 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, Ambassador Paro stated that they
25 didn't receive this letter, so I take his word and then there's no point
1 of going into detail at this moment.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I agree, but from the first point
3 we can see specifically enough. We see that it's April 1992 to
4 August 1995
5 Herceg-Bosna until the opening of the Tuzla airport and that Muslims gave
6 the Croats in Bosna a cut. So they have to have information about this.
7 JUDGE KWON: Ambassador, would you like to respond to this?
8 MR. PARO: No, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Then it would conclude the hearing with
10 respect to Croatia
11 to co-operate with us in disclosing the documents requested in accused's
12 letter of 7th January. Thank you again, Ambassador Paro, for coming to
13 the Tribunal. Now you are free to go.
14 So let us invite the representatives of Iran.
15 Good afternoon, Mr. Mokhberolsafa.
16 ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN
17 MR. MOKHBEROLSAFA: Good afternoon, sir.
18 JUDGE KWON: Just making sure you are following in the language
19 you understand?
20 MR. MOKHBEROLSAFA: Yes, I will talk in English.
21 JUDGE KWON: Thank you very much.
22 So far, Iran
23 instead has both argued that the requirements of Rule 54 bis have not
24 been met but that it was not in a position to comment on this and ask for
25 further extension of time.
1 MR. MOKHBEROLSAFA: Yes.
2 JUDGE KWON: As a result, the Chamber is not clear on whether
4 So, Mr. Karadzic, in your memorandum dated 8th January, you
5 stated -- you stated that you're still awaiting a response from Iran
6 during the last Status Conference you were convinced that Iran
7 possession of the requested documents. Have there been any developments
8 with respect to Iran
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, Your Honours. I have
10 understanding for Iran
11 threat of sanctions, but I thought it would be one more reason for the
12 Iranian government to supply all the documents that they have in their
13 possession. They had requested several times -- in fact, there was no
14 response to that item. In three months we have received no reply
15 whatsoever. I have met all the requirements in terms of voluntary
16 provision, and I would not like to resort to a request for a binding
17 order. But it is a fact that Iran
18 agreement about violating that resolution of the United Nations. And it
19 would be useful perhaps to remind the whole world and the United States
20 about this.
21 JUDGE KWON: Now I would give the floor to Mr. Mokhberolsafa, if
22 there's anything to add to what has been stated in your submission.
23 Thank you.
24 MR. MOKHBEROLSAFA: Yes, I briefly mentioned the statement of the
25 Iranian government in reply to the motion as filed by the accused in this
1 hearing. Actually, I -- to save time, I'm not going through the
2 background to the motion. So I start with the issue of -- the issue that
3 whether the requirement of Rule 54 bis have been met.
4 Rule 54 bis stipulates that:
5 "A party requesting an order under this Rule shall identify as
6 far as possible the documents or information to which each application
7 relates. Furthermore, this party must prove that the documents or
8 information are relevant to any matter in issue in the proceedings before
9 the Judge or Trial Chamber and necessary for the fair determination of
10 that matter. In fact, the requirements set forth in this Rule are
11 qualification of the principles introduced by the Appeals Chamber of the
12 Tribunal in its judgement on the request of the Republic of Croatia
13 review of the decision of Trial Chamber of 18 July 1997 in
14 Tihomir Blaskic case.
15 As the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran has put forth
16 in its previous notes to the Tribunal, which I draw your -- the attention
17 of the Tribunal to note number 320-4/1711, dated 20 October 2009, the
18 accused has not fulfilled his onus in this respect. The requested
19 documents and information are ambiguous, very broad in nature, and
20 therefore difficult to be identified. Also, the documents, if existing,
21 are irrelevant to the case number IT-95-5/18-PT, that the accused is
22 standing trial for.
23 Despite all that, I will now describe briefly the voluntary
24 efforts taken by the Government of Iran to locate and find the documents.
25 In order to extend its highest degree of voluntary co-operation to the
1 Tribunal, the Islamic Republic of Iran transmitted the request of the
2 accused to its relevant organs. I would like to officially announce that
3 the result of the search for the existence and validity of the requested
4 documents was negative, and there were no materials in the documents that
5 could be relevant to the charges against the accused. On the first class
6 of the requested documents that covered a long period, starting from
7 1st April 1992 through 31st December 1995, no documents were found in our
8 archives relevant to the claim raised by the accused.
9 Furthermore, it is noteworthy that the Islamic Republic of Iran
10 did not have any diplomatic relations with some of the mentioned states.
11 On the second class of the requested documents, the relevant Iranian
12 organs have responded that there is no trace with respect to the cargo
13 manifests of the ships and aircraft after such a long time. All related
14 documents including the bills of lading and cargo manifests are usually
15 eliminated within limited period of time after the accomplishment of the
17 Finally, with regard to the last class of the documents, almost
18 all of the documents of the diplomatic relations between the Islamic
19 Republic of Iran
20 reviewed. I would like to announce that no documents containing
21 materials relevant to the case initiated against the accused were found.
22 Now I submit that the requested documents are not necessary for a
23 fair determination of the case. One of the axiomatic principles of
24 international law is the distinction between the jus ad bellum and jus in
1 while the second is regulated -- regulating the conduct of hostilities,
2 in particular the means and methods which are permissible during armed
3 conflicts. Even if one assumes that some states were supplying arms to
4 the parties in an armed conflict, this fact in no way can justify the
5 serious violation of international humanitarian law. Therefore, the
6 requested documents are not necessary for a fair determination of the
7 case as a matter of law.
8 To conclude, for the reasons set out above the Islamic Republic
9 of Iran
10 accused pursuant to Rule 54 bis. Thank you.
11 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Mokhberolsafa.
12 In order to be clear, so you are today submitting not only that
13 the requirements of Rule 54 bis have not been met in terms of relevance
14 or necessity, but also that search has been completed on your part and
15 that no documents have been found?
16 MR. MOKHBEROLSAFA: Based on the instructions I received and
17 statement I just made to the Tribunal, it is my understanding that the
18 search is completed and there is no further searches going on at present.
19 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
20 In his motion, the accused cites several publications or articles
21 in order to support his argument that Iran must be in possession of the
22 requested documents because it has been involved in supplying arms to
23 Bosnian Muslims. So it's -- that I refer to footnote 2 to 8 of his
24 motions. Can Iran
25 MR. MOKHBEROLSAFA: I regret to inform that for the time being we
1 are not able to comment. We are not instructed to any further comments
2 on the motion, and it's only limited to the statement which I just made
3 to the Tribunal.
4 JUDGE KWON: Final question for you, Mr. Mokhberolsafa, is that
6 merits of the request made by the accused. Could you explain more
7 clearly what this means.
8 MR. MOKHBEROLSAFA: As I'm instructed, that statement was at the
9 time that the search was not yet completed, but now the search is
10 completed. It is our understanding that no relevant document has been
12 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
13 I turn to Mr. Karadzic. Take a look at item 2 and 3 of your
14 request, and item 1 as well. Most of them are relating to the events of
15 time-frame in 1992, 1993, and 1994. How does the supply of arms during
16 that time-period relate to or are relevant to the events in Srebrenica?
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I am not accused or
18 charged with the crimes in Srebrenica alone, but also for my political
19 activities starting in 1991 and onwards. In other words, it is not just
20 about Srebrenica, although the weapons did arrive in Srebrenica although
21 it had already been declared a protected zone. We -- what I would like
22 to stress here is that we are not accusing Iran and Iran
23 defend themselves. Let me put it this way: If the Prosecutor does not
24 significantly alter the indictment and delete major parts of the
25 indictment, they will actually put me in a position to defend myself --
1 to request more documents in order to be able to provide a defence.
2 This process cannot -- or these proceedings cannot proceed as
3 they should if we do not obtain documents from certain countries,
4 countries that we are not accusing of anything. Your Honour, loads and
5 loads of weapons, transports by ship and aircraft, were funneled into
7 assistance of major players such as the United States or Croatia
8 was the base for its distribution. And I think I have to reiterate
9 several things here.
10 First, these countries are claiming that some documents that I'm
11 seeking actually belong or the source of those documents is a third
12 party. But then I would appreciate it if they could provide us -- if
13 they could point us as to where to search for those documents. And
14 second, if this is the way it is going to be with the countries that were
15 actors and significant participants in our crisis, then I would
16 appreciate this Trial Chamber to subpoena high officials or to actually
17 request high officials of these countries to state under oath that they
18 do not have the documents that we are requesting. Because co-operation
19 with the Tribunal is something that is a must, and my conduct, the
20 duration of the war, the fury of the war itself and the resulting crimes
21 that weren't really ordered by the commanders but rather by the chaos
22 that was in place at the time -- so how can these sides, these parties,
23 be excused from providing documents when they were participants in
24 them -- of sorts themselves?
25 So we have to have and find responsibility. Under items 1, 2,
1 and 3, item 1 is perhaps a bit more general, but 2 and 3 are rather
2 precise. There were people who were in place as of 4th September 1994 --
3 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, unfortunately you fail to answer my
4 question. Take a look at item number 2, which includes, for example,
5 "contents of the Iranian aircraft which landed at Zagreb
7 1994 ..."
8 How is this relevant to your case, even if it was done with the
9 assistance of the United States or any country?
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this was done by
11 people of -- who were people, flesh and blood, and who can be invited
12 here to testify as witnesses. The weapons came from Zagreb
13 a violation of a UN resolution, flagrant violation of a UN resolution.
14 Secondly, the weapons arrived in Bosnia via UNPROFOR, which in that
15 respect was a warring party, in fact, because it took sides with one of
16 the warring parties. Through humanitarian organisations - and I don't
17 mean just Merhamet, which was a Muslim humanitarian organisation, but
18 many others who were there -- all of this actually provides a basis to --
19 for the Defence which can demonstrate that the charges put forth by the
20 Prosecution are not as they seem. Because if you look at my pre-trial
21 brief, I question there whether if all of these things had not happened,
22 would all of the crimes that are later -- that the Serbs are later
23 charged with occurred at all. If there had been no attacks from the
24 protected zone, would there have been a response? So -- and if this was
25 a legitimate response. And if there is no evidence that this would have
1 happened had it not been actually provoked by vicious crimes coming from
2 the protected zone, then we should show -- we have to be able to show
3 that there is no evidence for this charge in the indictment. And the
4 Serbian side was put in a position to defend their very survival and to
5 act in a situation in which it was put, and not in fact to plan in
6 advance all these crimes as the indictment and the Prosecutor claims.
7 And if the charges remain, we have to have all these documents in order
8 to be able to provide our defence.
9 JUDGE KWON: The Chamber will confer. One moment.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE KWON: Is there anything further to raise,
12 Mr. Mokhberolsafa?
13 MR. MOKHBEROLSAFA: No, I have nothing to add.
14 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Tieger?
15 MR. TIEGER: I'm sorry, Your Honour, just to get it on the
16 record, no, thank you.
17 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic?
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour, except that I hope
19 that the Trial Chamber will actually protect my right to defend myself.
20 JUDGE KWON: Well, then that concludes today's hearing. Thank
21 you all very much for your attendance. The Trial Chamber expresses its
22 gratitude for all submissions that have been made. We will consider them
23 and give a decision in due course. Thank you.
24 The hearing is now adjourned.
25 --- Whereupon the Motion Hearing
1 adjourned at 12.58 p.m.