1 Tuesday, 8 March 2011
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.02 a.m.
6 JUDGE MORRISON: Good morning, everybody. Before we continue
7 with the evidence, one or two matters to deal with. First of all, it's
8 plain to be seen that Judge Kwon is absent and will be detained for the
9 rest of this week. So we will be sitting under the auspices of
10 Rule 15 bis.
11 Mr. Tieger, have you got an estimate for the time that's likely
12 to take the Prosecution to examine in-chief? Last week it wasn't
13 possible for you to give one.
14 MR. TIEGER: Correct, Your Honour. Mr. Robinson made the same
15 inquiry in connection with preparation for cross-examination.
16 I indicated to him that I considered that it was extremely likely that we
17 would consume at least the full day today for examination-in-chief, and
18 it was difficult to estimate beyond that. Again, that's just an estimate
19 under the circumstances -- the best estimate under the circumstances but
20 that's the information I provided him and the same information I would
21 provide the Court.
22 JUDGE MORRISON: Thank you. Any observations as to that,
23 Mr. Robinson?
24 MR. ROBINSON: No, thank you, Mr. President.
25 JUDGE MORRISON: Mr. Tieger, concerning the private session
1 passages of General Smith's testimony, it would be useful if the
2 Prosecution could state on the record which of those sessions and which
3 documents it now seeks to have reclassified as public documents, and then
4 the Chamber can order the Registry to do that.
5 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Mr. President. I don't have -- I know we
6 communicated the precise page references and the documents as well. I
7 don't have that in front of me. I'll take the next opportunity to do so
8 if the Court will permit me.
9 JUDGE MORRISON: Well, that's one way. The other way of dealing
10 with it is to -- is for me to tell you what information the Tribunal has
11 as to that. 11379, lines 19; 11380, line 14; 11401, line 20; 11405,
12 line 4; and 11889 to 11895.
13 And then the following portions should continue to be
14 confidential under Rule 70: 11377 to 11379, line 18; 11380, line 15 to
15 11381; 11383 to 11395; 11397 to 11401, line 2; 11405, line 5 to 11406,
16 line 1. And 11834 to 11838.
17 MR. TIEGER: That would be, just for the transcript, 11834 to
19 JUDGE MORRISON: And the document is P2269.
20 MR. TIEGER: That's correct, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE MORRISON: And if the Prosecution is content with that
22 information, then the Chamber will order the Registry to have those
23 reclassified as public documents.
24 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Mr. President.
25 JUDGE MORRISON: To make it plain, that extends to the
1 audiovisual record as well. Any observations, Mr. Robinson, as to that?
2 MR. ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. President. I question why any of the
3 material has to continue to remain protected under Rule 70. I think our
4 arguments that were made also ought to be part of the public record given
5 that there is now no reason whatsoever to have those materials be
6 confidential. So it's our request that all of those pages be released to
7 the public, not simply the testimony, but the argument about that too.
8 I think it's part of -- it's important that the public record be clear.
9 When pages are released later, only the most fanatic aficionados of this
10 trial will actually read them when -- and the information that would
11 otherwise have been public to the majority of the people who are watching
12 the proceedings during the testimony of the witness will be lost, and so
13 when we are making something public after the fact, I think it's
14 important to -- that it also include the arguments as to why it should
15 have been private in the first place.
16 JUDGE MORRISON: Well, Mr. Tieger, you've heard that. Perhaps
17 you can formulate a response and we'll deal with that later.
18 In addition, there is a ruling the Chamber wishes to issue at
19 this stage, referring to the Prosecution's supplemental submission
20 request concerning the Trial Chamber's order in relation to outstanding
21 exhibit issues, Witness KDZ289 filed on 7 March 2011, which requested the
22 Chamber to admit into evidence the public and under seal versions of the
23 statements of Witness KDZ289 now that the required attestation as under
24 Rule 92 bis(B) has been provided. Having reviewed KDZ289's certified
25 statements, the Trial Chamber is satisfied that the certification
1 procedure fulfils the formal requirements of Rule 92 bis(B). The Chamber
2 therefore requests the Registry to record that the confidential version
3 of KDZ289 witness statement is admitted into evidence under seal as
4 Exhibit P486.
5 The Chamber also requests the Registry to assign an exhibit
6 number to the document with Rule 65 ter number 90140A, which is the
7 public version of KDZ289's witness statements, and to record that it is
8 admitted into evidence.
9 That being done, we should now continue to hear the witness's
11 Mr. Prstojevic, I'm sorry that there has been a delay, but you
12 will understand that there are administrative matters which crop up and
13 have to be dealt with, but we are now in a position to continue. Thank
15 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Mr. President.
16 WITNESS: NEDJELJKO PRSTOJEVIC [Resumed]
17 [Witness answered through interpreter]
18 Examination by Mr. Tieger: [Continued]
19 Q. Good morning, Mr. Prstojevic. Can we call up --
20 A. Good morning.
21 MR. TIEGER: Can we call up P960 very quickly, please?
22 Q. Mr. Prstojevic, just before we adjourned the other day, we were
23 looking at P960, the instructions for the organisation and operation of
24 organs of the Serbian people in Bosnia-Herzegovina in emergency
25 conditions dated 19 December 1991. And if we can turn to the next page,
1 please, the document begins with a preamble indicating concerns that the
2 Serbian people in Bosnia-Herzegovina will be taken out of Yugoslavia, and
3 in light of the development of the overall political and security
4 situation, goes on to identify tasks, measures and other activities to be
5 implemented over the entire territory of the -- of Bosnia-Herzegovina in
6 every municipality where the Serbian people live, and it's broken down
7 into two variants, Variant A and B.
8 And if we could turn to the next page, please.
9 It's also broken down into two levels, as we see on the next
10 page, Variant A first level, Variant B -- Variant A second level,
11 Variant B first level and a Variant B second level.
12 Turn to the first level, I'll indicate to you that the -- and
13 you're free -- I'm sure you recall the document, but you're free to look
14 to see whether the instructions for the first level for both Variant A
15 and B are essentially the same. The first level, first instruction, is
16 to introduce around-the-clock duty service in all SDS municipal boards
17 and ensure constant communication and cooperation with all local boards
18 on the territory of the municipality.
19 Mr. Prstojevic, did you and the officials in Ilidza implement
20 this provision of the instructions?
21 A. Yes. But not entirely.
22 Q. Let me turn quickly to point number 3, SDS municipal boards shall
23 immediately establish Crisis Staffs of the Serbian people in a
24 municipality and then it goes on to explain aspects of the Crisis Staff's
1 Did you and the other officials in Ilidza establish a Crisis
2 Staff pursuant to the instructions?
3 A. We established a Crisis Staff of the Serbian Municipality of
4 Ilidza on the 2nd of January, 1992.
5 Q. Turning to the next page in English, point number 4, which --
6 that provides that the SDS local authorities shall convene and proclaim
7 an Assembly of the Serbian People in the municipality composed of
8 representatives of the Serbian people in the Municipal Assembly and so
10 Did you and the officials in Ilidza convene and proclaim an
11 Assembly of the Serbian People in the municipality pursuant to the fourth
12 instruction in the body of the instructions?
13 A. We convened an Assembly of the Serbian People of Ilidza, made up
14 of all SDS reformist and SDP [Realtime transcript read in error "SDA"]
15 deputies. The majority of them were in attendance and then on the 3rd of
16 January, 1992, we formed an Assembly of the Serbian People of Ilidza.
17 MR. TIEGER: Call up 65 ter 14399, please.
18 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: The transcript reads
19 "SDA" and the witness said "SDP."
20 MR. TIEGER:
21 Q. Mr. Prstojevic, 65 ter 14399 is a document dated January 3rd,
22 1992. And it states, pursuant to the Article 265 of the constitution of
23 SRBiH and the will of Serb people of Ilidza municipality expressed at a
24 plebiscite held on 9 and 10 November 1991, and in accordance with the
25 instruction by Serb Democratic Party of Bosnia-Herzegovina main
1 committee, number 079, dated 19 December 1991, the Assembly of Serb
2 People of Ilidza at the session dated January 3rd, 1992, has rendered the
3 following decision on proclaiming Serb Municipal Assembly of Ilidza.
4 Do you recognise that document, Mr. Prstojevic, and is that the
5 formalisation of the implementation of step number 4 or item number 4 in
6 the December 19th, 1991, instructions?
7 A. I do recognise it. This is our decision. So formally, from all
8 Serb deputies, together with all the others, we established and
9 proclaimed an Assembly of the Serbian Municipality of Ilidza. That was
10 publicised immediately within the next few days because that was a public
11 act and a public document.
12 Q. Did you notify the Bosnian Serb leadership that Ilidza had
13 implemented this step?
14 A. I think that our administration department, as a rule, should
15 have done that. Mr. Momcilo Ceklic, the secretary of the Assembly,
16 should have forwarded this document to the relevant organs of the Serbian
17 people of Bosnia-Herzegovina, primarily to the president of the
18 National Assembly of the Serbian people of B and H.
19 MR. TIEGER: And can we turn to the next page of the document,
20 please? Sorry, and one more page beyond that, to the last page actually.
21 And also in the B/C/S, please.
22 THE REGISTRAR: Mr. Tieger, we just have the one page in B/C/S.
23 MR. TIEGER: Well, that seems to be a slight technological glitch
24 but let me see if we can come up with that. Meanwhile, I will read to
25 the witness what is contained in the English translation.
1 Q. Mr. Prstojevic, at the very end of the document, after it states
2 that this decision shall enter into force immediately and shall be
3 published in "Javnost," a Serb people paper, and then it's stamped and
4 signed by the president of the Assembly, it indicates the following:
5 "Submitted to," and that's the portion that is shown in English
6 on the page, "Serb Assembly of BIH, for the attention of the president.
7 SDS BiH, for the attention of the president. SDS BiH main committee, for
8 the attention of the president. SDS main committee, for the attention of
9 the president." And so on, naming some local officials.
10 Is that consistent with your understanding that the
11 implementation of item 4, at the first level for the instructions, was
12 brought -- was reported to the Bosnian Serb leadership?
13 A. If it is stated in the document who the recipients are in the
14 Serbian language, that is what the administration exactly did, and they
15 made it -- mailed it through regular post. However, I have to underline
16 that when establishing a Crisis Staff, we immediately deviated from this
17 instruction by not strictly abiding by it. It was not convenient for us
18 to have a document appointing the president of the -- the commander of
19 the Crisis Staff in advance. The commander of the Crisis Staff was,
20 rather, elected by the municipal board.
21 Q. Did the officials in Ilidza, yourself included, consider it your
22 obligation to deliver to the Bosnian Serb leadership this document
23 reflecting your implementation of the instructions?
24 A. Well, of course, we should have passed on this document to the
25 relevant bodies of the Serbian people in the Serbian Bosnia-Herzegovina.
1 Q. Now, Mr. Prstojevic, you indicated a moment ago that -- let me
2 find that. Before I move on I wanted to ask you one more thing.
3 MR. TIEGER: If we could call up 65 ter 1619, and before we do
4 it, Your Honour, I would tender 14399.
5 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit number P2408.
6 MR. TIEGER: I'm sorry, it was 16199.
7 Q. Mr. Prstojevic, you see before you now, or you should see before
8 you now, a document dated 3 January 1992, from the Assembly of
9 Serbian Municipality Ilidza, stating that the Serb Assembly of the Ilidza
10 municipality in its first session held on 3 January 1992, based on its
11 received authorisations and the obvious necessity made the proposal of
12 the decision. And it goes on to describe -- to start an initiative on
13 the regulation of the status of Serb volunteers, their family members and
14 the members of the Territorial Defence units, to make and adopt a
15 decision regarding men of military age, and to immediately take the
16 appropriate measures for the protection of the interests of the Serbian
17 people in the territory of Ilidza, including protection of work
18 organisations, institutions, et cetera. And it indicates that the
19 decision has been forwarded to the Serbian Assembly of Bosnia-Herzegovina
20 for further realisation, and like the document we saw before, it was
21 delivered to the president of the Serbian Assembly, the president of the
22 SDS, the president of the Main Board, and so on.
23 Mr. Prstojevic, do you recognise this document and is this one of
24 the first decisions taken by the Assembly of the Serbian Municipality in
25 Ilidza after its establishment pursuant to the 19 December instructions?
1 A. Yes, I recognise it, but this is not a decision. This is a
2 proposal for a decision taken at our first session, to the effect that we
3 are proposing to the Serbian Assembly of Bosnia-Herzegovina three things.
4 Therefore, we were not authorised to pass this kind of decision but,
5 rather, to make proposals only, and that was up to the Serbian Assembly
6 of BiH to either accept or reject it. It was not up to us to decide.
7 And from this decision, you can see who it was forwarded to and it was
8 forwarded exclusively to the Serbian Assembly of BH, and you can see that
9 because number 1 is the only one encircled.
10 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, I tender this document, please.
11 JUDGE MORRISON: Mr. Robinson?
12 MR. ROBINSON: No objection, Mr. President.
13 JUDGE MORRISON: So be it.
14 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that's Exhibit P2409.
15 MR. TIEGER:
16 Q. Mr. Prstojevic, you indicated a few moments ago that officials in
17 the -- the SDS officials in Ilidza established a Crisis Staff.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. What was the composition of that Crisis Staff, Mr. Prstojevic?
20 Who was in it?
21 A. I said that we didn't automatically act according to the
22 instructions. At the municipal council, I wanted a democratically
23 elected commander of the Crisis Staff, which was not in accordance with
24 the instructions, and the Crisis Staff elected me as the commander of the
25 Crisis Staff. The Crisis Staff comprised municipal functionaries who
1 worked at the Ilidza municipality, the people's deputy, the commander of
2 the TO staff, and representatives of the local Crisis Staffs. I would
3 like to emphasise that by forming the Crisis Staff of the municipality of
4 Ilidza and by establishing the Assembly, we completed the instructions.
5 The functionaries who worked at the Ilidza municipality and I myself
6 continued to work normally in the joint Assembly of the municipality of
7 Ilidza, and we would not do anything else in accordance with the
8 agreement until the beginning of the war in April 1992.
9 Q. Who was the top Serbian police official in Ilidza?
10 A. Muslim Edin Mlivic was head of the police. He was chief of the
11 public security station. The number 2 man was a Serb, commander of the
12 police station, that was Mr. Tomo Kovac, and according to the functional
13 principle, he was also a member of the Crisis Staff.
14 Q. Was the Crisis Staff of the Serbian Ilidza accountable to the
15 state and political bodies that issued the 19 December instructions?
16 A. I said that we completed this formal part, and that until the
17 beginning of the war we didn't do anything, and we were not responsible
18 to anyone for anything. There was no action and there was no
20 Q. Mr. Prstojevic, do you recall that during the course of your
21 testimony in the Krajisnik case, you were asked about subordination and
22 accountability of the Serbian Crisis Staff in Ilidza, and would it
23 refresh your recollection about accountability if I indicated what that
24 exchange consisted of? You said the following at page 14619:
25 "The Crisis Staff at Ilidza was basically set up and operated in
1 line with the instructions that I saw here. And I've referred in the
2 interview 093, I believe, 093, it is quite clear that the responsibility
3 of the Crisis Staff had to do with the fact that they were accountable to
4 the state and political bodies that issued those instructions and asked
5 for them to be implemented. Basically, coordinating activities of the
6 Crisis Staff would be subject to consultations and agreement with the top
7 political and state leadership."
8 Now, first of all, Mr. Prstojevic, that's -- and do you agree
9 that's what you said during the course of the Krajisnik case, under oath?
10 A. It's exactly what I'm saying. We founded the Crisis Staff
11 pursuant to the instructions with the change that the municipal board
12 would be electing the commander of the Crisis Staff. We established the
13 Assembly. So we completed that formal part, and informed the Assembly of
14 the Serbian People of Bosnia-Herzegovina. And thereby, we felt that we
15 had done our part of the job responsibly, in a responsible way. We
16 published that it and this was published by the Bosnian and Herzegovinian
17 press. Then we didn't have any other activities. We were not warned by
18 anyone about having to do anything either. Thus, the formal hierarchy
19 exists. Above the Ilidza Assembly is the Assembly of the Serbian People
20 of BiH but we didn't do anything, and I don't have any evidence or any
21 documents of anyone from the leadership of the Serbian people warning us
22 about anything or about us having to report back about anything. I am
23 not disputing the hierarchy at all. It exists in all countries, all
25 Q. The Crisis Staff established at the beginning of January 1992
1 continued to exist into April and May 1992, correct?
2 A. The Crisis Staff was established, as I said, and it didn't do
3 anything until the 3rd of April, 1992. On the 10th of April, 1992, a new
4 Crisis Staff would be established in line with the new Assembly that had
5 nothing to do with this instructions. From the 5th of April, 1992, and
6 that will be the basis of continued work. Practically all my wartime
7 activities and work of the functionaries, the commanders of the TO staff
8 and the civilian protection in Ilidza was determined by the war and the
9 new Assembly from the 5th of April, 1992, that numbered 70 deputies, and
10 that issued the authority to the president of the Assembly to form the
11 Crisis Staff and in the -- and gave him unlimited authority in the
12 imminent threat of war time period.
13 Q. A few moments ago you described the composition of the
14 Crisis Staff established in January of 1992. What do you claim was the
15 difference between the composition of the Crisis Staff established on the
16 10th of April and the Crisis Staff that had existed up to that time? For
17 example, did you continue as president of the Crisis Staff?
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think that it's not fair to the
19 witness. He said that that was the party Crisis Staff and this one was
20 the municipal Crisis Staff. The municipal -- the municipal staff is an
21 organ of the government, whereas the other one is a party organ.
22 MR. TIEGER: Well, perhaps I should be cross-examining both the
23 accused and Mr. Prstojevic on this subject. I think I made a distinction
24 between the two that was perfectly fair and allowed the witness to answer
25 the question, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE MORRISON: Well, that was my view.
2 Mr. Witness, can you deal with that issue?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Could you please repeat the
5 MR. TIEGER:
6 Q. Certainly, Mr. Prstojevic. A few moments ago you described the
7 composition of the Crisis Staff established in January of 1992. What do
8 you claim was the difference between the composition of the Crisis Staff
9 established on the 10th of April and the Crisis Staff that had existed up
10 to that time? For example, did you continue as president of the
11 Crisis Staff?
12 A. The difference is in the fact that there I was elected by the
13 municipal board, and that was in line with the instructions. The second
14 time that I was appointed commander of the Crisis Staff, it was because
15 the Assembly of the 5th of April declared an imminent threat of war to
16 the Serbian people in Ilidza because the Muslim leadership had already
17 proclaimed, on the 5th of April, a general mobilisation --
18 THE INTERPRETER: On the 4th of April, interpreter's correction.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- a general mobilisation of the
20 units of the Territorial Defence, units of the MUP, units of the civilian
21 protection, and the confiscation, the seizing, the robbing of weapons
22 from the JNA and from the MUP. This was practically a declaration of war
23 in relation to the Serbs and the Croats, and that is why our Assembly,
24 already the following day, as soon as we heard this, proclaimed the
25 imminent danger of war, imminent threat of war, and gave unlimited powers
1 to the president of the Assembly to form a new Crisis Staff.
2 MR. TIEGER:
3 Q. Mr. Prstojevic, with respect, I think now that you have
4 essentially both repeated and elaborated on the accused's objection,
5 I would ask you to answer my question which was about the composition of
6 the staff. Do you understand that question?
7 A. The composition of the Crisis Staff of the 10th of April was
8 completely different from the previous one. There are a lot of new
9 people there but the functional connection was still maintained, meaning
10 that some functionaries from the MUP and the Territorial Defence were in
11 it. That composition of the Crisis Staff was more numerous, too.
12 Q. You were still president; is that right?
13 A. I carried out the function of the president from the
14 5th of April, 1992. Up until then I was the secretary for inspection of
15 the Municipal Assembly of the -- of Ilidza, and my last day at that post
16 was the 3rd of April, 1992.
17 Q. The commander of the Territorial Defence, the Serbian Territorial
18 Defence, Mr. Markovic, was still a member of the Crisis Staff; is that
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Mr. Kovac, the commander of the police and the leading Serbian
22 official in the MUP was still a member of the Crisis Staff and attended
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Now, I asked you a bit about subordination and you've talked
1 about the functional connection and the hierarchy as it -- and referred
2 to hierarchy that you compared to all other states. Let me ask you what
3 body and what person was at the top of the hierarchy of the -- of, first,
4 the Serbian authorities before April and then after April?
5 A. In April, the top political organ was the Presidency of
6 Bosnia-Herzegovina, where our representatives, Madam Biljana Plavsic and
7 Mr. Professor Nikola Koljevic, were a part of it. That was the top
8 leadership. After the war began, I don't know the exact date, when the
9 Assembly of the Serbian People of Bosnia-Herzegovina was established, the
10 highest body again would be, when it was formed, the Presidency of the
11 Serbian people of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and the president of the Assembly
12 and the government were the other bodies.
13 Q. Who was the pre-eminent leader of the SDS? Who was the top
14 leader of the SDS?
15 A. Before the war, and after the war, the president of our party was
16 Dr. Radovan Karadzic.
17 Q. And with respect to the time when, in April, when the
18 institutions of Bosnia-Herzegovina began not to function with respect to
19 the Serbian people, and the organs of Republika Srpska were being formed,
20 who did you consider to be the leadership of that new entity and of the
21 SDS? And again going from the top down, whether elected or not. Who
22 were they, in order?
23 A. I have to say here that for some 15 days or more, we didn't even
24 know what was going on with the leadership of the Serbian people.
25 Madam Biljana Plavsic was in Sarajevo, held as a hostage. We didn't know
1 if President Karadzic was alive. We didn't know where Nikola Koljevic
2 was. We simply didn't know what was happening to anyone for the first
3 15 days or longer. The key decisive part of the beginning of the war, as
4 far as Ilidza was concerned, meant that we were working on our own during
5 that time. And only around the 20th of April, we would find out that
6 President Karadzic was alive, we would see some members of the
7 government, and the Prime Minister, the president of the Assembly, and so
8 on and so forth, and I don't know -- I already said that -- I didn't know
9 when the Presidency would be formed, and exactly when that happened,
10 because we didn't follow that. The wartime situation didn't permit us to
11 do that. We were simply doing what we had to do in order to protect our
12 people from suffering.
13 Q. Mr. Prstojevic, let me see if I can't refresh your recollection
14 about something you indicated in the -- during the course of the
15 Karadzic [sic] case was perfectly clear. At page 14566, you were asked
16 by Judge Orie, with respect to the period in 1992:
17 "... when the institutions of Bosnia-Herzegovina did not function
18 well anymore and the Serbian Assembly and later Republika Srpska was
19 established. Who did you consider to be the leadership of that new
20 entity, and of the SDS? Please, from the top going further down.
21 Whether they were elected or not, that's another matter. Just name them
22 from the top down."
23 And you said:
24 "That is perfectly clear. Dr. Radovan Karadzic,
25 Mr. Momo Krajisnik, Prime Minister Djeric, ministers of internal affairs
1 and the Minister of Justice."
2 Now, that's what you said under oath in 2005, correct,
3 Mr. Prstojevic?
4 A. That is absolutely correct, but that refers to this period, from
5 the time we found out -- when we saw the leadership all together,
6 assembled in Ilidza. Up until that time, the situation was chaotic, and
7 I even made a mistake there. At the time, around the 20th of April,
8 I think that the Prime Minister was Miodrag Simovic. It wasn't Djeric,
9 actually. Djeric came later, which also indicates that I was thinking
10 about this period when the Pale government began to operate because on
11 the 18th of April, the president, Dr. Radovan Karadzic, the president of
12 the Assembly, Mr. Momcilo Krajisnik, about eight members of the
13 government, the president -- the Prime Minister Simovic, would come to
14 Ilidza and that is where they discussed where the seat of the government
15 would be. The decision was not made at the time, but we were told that
16 we would be told where the government would be located. After that, on
17 the 18th of April, I don't know, maybe in five or six days or more, it
18 was reported that the government would be located at Pale and that the
19 Prime Minister remained in Sarajevo because he couldn't get out of the
20 Muslim part of Sarajevo. And that's when that hierarchy began to
21 function. It's not something that I'm disputing.
22 Q. Well, a couple of things, Mr. Prstojevic. First of all, are you
23 aware that Mr. Djeric was elected the president of the government, that
24 is the Prime Minister, at a session of the Assembly of the Serbian People
25 of Bosnia-Herzegovina, on -- on or about March 24th, 1992, about a month
1 before the period -- the date that you mentioned?
2 A. I'm not aware of that.
3 Q. Secondly, you referred to a meeting on or about the 18th of April
4 in Ilidza, involving Dr. Karadzic, Mr. Krajisnik and others, to discuss
5 where the seat of the government would be. Is it correct that that was a
6 meeting to discuss the political and military situation and one of the
7 topics was where the seat of the government would be?
8 A. I apologise but it is not correct, what you say. What is correct
9 is that the meeting was exclusively held to see where the seat of the
10 government would be. It's correct that there was a vote in the
11 government, four to four. Part were in favour of the government being in
12 Ilidza, and the other part was for the government to be located outside
13 of Ilidza. So it was half and half. The meeting was chaired by Simovic,
14 Miodrag Simovic. At the meeting, I, as the president of the
15 municipality, as well as five or six of my men who attended that meeting,
16 felt it was necessary for us to inform our leadership about the
17 military-security situation, meaning we are ruling out the political
18 situation because from the beginning of the war, we did not have any
19 political actions, and neither did we divide the people according to
20 which party they belonged to. It was our initiative to inform the
21 leadership in a way that is the proper thing to do, in the introductory
23 Q. We will be talking about that meeting later in your examination,
24 Mr. Prstojevic, so I will defer any further questions about that for the
25 moment. Let me turn -- let me continue, however, talking about the
1 nature of the institutions in Serbian Ilidza, and the hierarchy and
3 MR. TIEGER: And in that connection, if I could call up
4 65 ter 00575.
5 Q. This document, Mr. Prstojevic, is dated 16 April 1992. It's a
6 document from the Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina Ministry of
7 National Defence, and it's pursuant to Articles of the constitution of
8 the Serbian Republic of BH, and it's a decision that a
9 Territorial Defence of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina shall
10 be formed.
11 First of all, do you recognise that document, Mr. Prstojevic?
12 A. I cannot recognise this document. However, I can see what it
13 contains. Therefore, I assume that this is an original document.
14 Q. Let's continue to the last page. It bears the name of
15 Bogdan Subotic as Minister of Defence, and there is a stamp from the
16 Municipal Secretariat for National Defence.
17 First of all, you recall that Bogdan Subotic was the Minister of
18 Defence of Republika Srpska?
19 A. Yes, I do.
20 Q. Did -- what effect did -- if any, did this decision have on the
21 Territorial Defence in Serbian Ilidza?
22 A. This decision, as far as the territory of the Serbian Ilidza is
23 concerned, produced a consequence in terms that we knew that the
24 Ministry of Defence of the Serbian people of B and H had become
25 operative, that it's starting working, and that in a way a structure was
1 being put in place of hierarchical TO defence units.
2 Secondly, and I have to underline this, this decision relating to
3 Ilidza was rather belated. If we hadn't done what we had, I would not
4 have survived. We -- actually not we, but I personally, pursuant to the
5 authority of the Assembly, I declared a general mobilisation on the
6 6th of April, and I have with me the original of this decision, which is
7 very illustrative of how we worked. That was the first decision that
8 I took based on the authority vested in me by the Assembly. And
9 I already said that on the 5th we already declared an imminent threat of
10 war. In other words, for the whole 10 days we were ahead of the Ministry
11 of Defence of Republika Srpska.
12 I can produce this decision with the original stamp and my
13 original signature, and it is a very indicative decision. It was
14 forwarded to the Crisis Staff, the Secretariat for National Defence, to
15 the Ilidza Public Security Station, and it was put on a public board.
16 Therefore, it was placed in the public domain and it was also kept in
17 archives. Not a single document that either I or the Crisis Staff
18 adopted were -- was a strictly confidential one. Our intention was for
19 us to operate in open so that all citizens, regardless of their
20 ethnicity, would know what we were doing. And I would gladly present
21 this decision to this honourable Chamber in order to inspect it.
22 Q. Please provide that to the Registry, Mr. Prstojevic, and we'll
23 have that marked.
24 MR. TIEGER: Sorry, Your Honour, I should have asked for the
25 Court's permission but I thought that would be the manner in which --
1 JUDGE MORRISON: If the witness is volunteering a useful document
2 then, of course, that should be provided.
3 THE REGISTRAR: That's Exhibit P2410, Your Honours.
4 MR. TIEGER:
5 Q. Mr. Prstojevic, did the 16 April decision by Subotic essentially
6 approve and formalise what Ilidza had already implemented on the ground?
7 A. I don't understand this question. It cannot formalise anything
8 retroactively. However, from that moment on, the TO staff of the
9 Serbian Republic of BH was set up, as well as municipal TO staffs that
10 were part of the whole hierarchy, and hierarchical links. It has nothing
11 to do with what we had done before this.
12 Q. Well, perhaps you can explain something, then, in -- during the
13 course of the Krajisnik case at page 14541. You were talking about this
14 decision and you said:
15 "In Ilidza, the units of the Territorial Defence had been
16 mobilised earlier because the formal official in charge of Ilidza before
17 the war was in his proper position and everything functioned well, and
18 the decision that came only sort of approved and formalised the -- what
19 we had already implemented on the ground, and approved that our steps to
20 prepare the defence of the Serb Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina were
22 First of all, is that what you stated under oath in the Krajisnik
23 case and was that correct?
24 A. How I formulate that in the Krajisnik case is something that
25 I would like to hear from the CD. It is sure that in your translations
1 from Serbian into English, there is a huge number of mistakes. Or if a
2 word is translated in a different manner, it can alter its meaning.
3 I would like to say, although reluctantly, that some of the interpreters
4 during my interviews left out entire portions of my statements when
5 translating, and I don't understand that a document can verify anything
6 retroactively. However, it is true that the TO Staff Commander was
7 Dragan Markovic, a Serb, but he was not a member of the SDS. He was a
8 Serb, though, and it made our job easier.
9 Q. Did you consider, Mr. Prstojevic, that the appointment of
10 General Subotic as the republic-level Minister of Defence signalled the
11 establishment of the hierarchy of the TO in -- for the Serbian Republic
12 of Bosnia-Herzegovina?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And do you recall that that took place -- do you recall when that
15 took place?
16 A. To my recollection, that was in the third decade -- in the third
17 part of April. It wasn't on the 16th. God knows when we received it.
18 Never mind, we did receive it, but it could not have arrived on the 17th.
19 It could have arrived only from the 18th onwards, inclusive the 18th,
20 because, quite simply, at that time the postal service was not operating.
21 Q. Well, in 2005, you were fairly emphatic about a particular date,
22 and let me read you your testimony at page 14542. You said, then, when
23 you were asked about the chain of command of the Serbian Territorial
24 Defence, from Ilidza up to the top level of command, you said -- and that
25 was a question by the Judge, you said:
1 "Up to the 10th -- up to the 11th of April, 1992, the chain of
2 command did not exist. What existed were only advisory meetings and
3 briefings. Did I say 11th of April, 1992? Yes. From the 11th April on,
4 when General Subotic was appointed Minister of Defence, consultations
5 with the Ministry of Defence and the minister himself began, and from
6 that point on, the hierarchy was established."
7 Is -- again, Mr. Prstojevic, is that what you said under oath
8 during the course of the Krajisnik case and was that accurate?
9 A. This means that my memory was better at the time, or that I knew
10 the date when Minister Subotic came out publicly with his statement of
11 the 11th of April, and if I said that, then it is correct. As for this
12 document, what I'm saying now is also correct. It was dated the 16th
13 at -- and it took at least two days for the postal service to deliver it.
14 Therefore, I stand by my evidence in the Krajisnik case, and the evidence
15 given here. They are simply complementary.
16 JUDGE MORRISON: Mr. Tieger, sitting schedule today is that we
17 are going to sit until 1.45. I propose we take a break now for
18 30 minutes until 10.45. We will sit again and then -- until 12, break
19 until 12.30 and then continue on till 13.45, if that's convenient.
20 MR. TIEGER: I'm in the Court's hands, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE MORRISON: We will rise now for 30 minutes.
22 --- Recess taken at 10.15 a.m.
23 --- On resuming at 10.45 a.m.
24 JUDGE MORRISON: Yes, Mr. Tieger.
25 MR. ROBINSON: Excuse me, Mr. President, before Mr. Tieger
1 resumes I wonder if I could just raise one point with respect to the
2 nature of this examination. In some instances, Mr. Tieger has been
3 putting to the witness testimony that he gave in the Krajisnik case. In
4 particular, I call your attention to a paragraph 23 of the transcript,
5 when he elicited that the witness had said that from the 11th of April
6 on, when General Subotic was appointed as Minister of Defence,
7 consultations with the Ministry of the Defence and the minister himself
8 began and from that point on the hierarchy was established.
9 That was the portion that Mr. Tieger read out. But in the same
10 transcript, a few lines later, the witness had said:
11 "However, if you allow me one more thing, from that date, the
12 16th of April until the 19th of May, when the Army of Republika Srpska
13 was created, for the most part, in the area of Ilidza municipality, our
14 staff of Territorial Defence organised our defence on its own initiative,
15 with the verbal support and minimal, almost symbolic logistical support
16 from the Ministry of Defence of Republika Srpska."
17 So we don't feel that in that instance the whole passage was
18 actually read to the witness, which would have been more fair since the
19 witness himself doesn't have access to the transcript and isn't able to
20 raise those issues himself.
21 Secondly, in the Popovic appeals decision of the 1st of February,
22 2008, entitled, "Decision on appeals against decision on impeachment of a
23 party's own witness," in paragraph 26 it indicates that it should be the
24 Trial Chamber who decides -- or the parties should apply for permission
25 from the Trial Chamber when it is going to embark upon impeaching its own
1 witness. And it's unclear from the way Mr. Tieger is doing it whether
2 he's genuinely trying to refresh the witness's recollection or whether
3 he's actually using the testimony to impeach the witness. And I think
4 that he ought to be -- when he's using it for impeachment, he ought to be
5 making -- asking for permission from the Trial Chamber before doing that.
6 Thank you.
7 JUDGE MORRISON: Mr. Tieger?
8 MR. TIEGER: Yes. First of all, Your Honour, I think these kinds
9 of discussions should take place outside the presence of the witness. If
10 Mr. Robinson knew he was going to raise it, as I assume he did, he should
11 have alerted the Chamber's officials. If we are going to continue this,
12 and I think the Court wants a response, I understand the witness does not
13 understand English, he may be able to remove his headphones. I want to
14 say before he does, however, that I'm -- one of the things I'm going to
15 say that is that the passage that was read by Mr. Robinson was not
16 precisely relevant to the point I was asking the witness about, and
17 I don't want the witness to be -- to have it suggested to the witness
18 that I'm misleading him by asking -- by quoting him portions of the
19 transcript out of context. But to continue the discussion, I think that
20 should be either outside the presence of the witness, either physically
21 or with his earphones off, if that -- if that means he's effectively not
22 participating in procedural discussions.
23 JUDGE MORRISON: I'm simply wondering at the moment whether it's
24 necessary at all, Mr. Tieger. There are two aspects to this, it seems to
25 me. First of all, if the Defence have a valid point, that's a point that
1 can be put to the witness and emphasised in cross-examination.
2 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE MORRISON: Secondly, and I speak just for myself at the
4 moment, I wasn't under the impression myself that you were seeking to
5 impeach the witness, and obviously, if that position came to pass, no
6 doubt you would make it plain to the parties that that was your
8 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, I indicated earlier that in the course
9 of a -- another discussion, but a related discussion, that there can
10 sometimes be -- that -- in the course of illuminating to the extent
11 possible the information that a witness may be able to provide the
12 Chamber, that may occur in the context of what is normally viewed as
13 refreshing recollection, it may occur in the context of what may be seen
14 as impeachment and so on. For that reason I raised all of those
15 possibilities with the Court earlier so that the Court was aware of --
16 and indeed also the manner in which we would proceed in this fashion with
17 open-ended questions to the extent possible, proceeding toward a focus on
18 particular passages that might further illuminate the issues involved.
19 That's what I'm attempting to do. I don't understand from either the
20 Popovic case or the practice of this Chamber or the practice in other
21 cases that that entails a moment-by-moment request for permission to
22 delve into prior statements, and it would be quite -- I think --
23 unnecessarily awkward and inefficient if we were to do that. I think the
24 manner in which we have been proceeding is entirely fair. The Court can
25 follow it, as can the Defence, and I don't think it's involved any
1 burdens or difficulties that warrant a change in the approach.
2 JUDGE MORRISON: Well, Mr. Robinson, you've made your point, and
3 it's a point that is proper to make, but I think we can continue
4 effectively, if perhaps robustly, without a constant intervention as to
5 seeking permission to impeach, unless and until there is a radical
6 impeachment that falls entirely outside the concept or scope of
7 aide-memoire. Yes, let's continue.
8 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Mr. President.
9 Q. Mr. Prstojevic, just before we adjourned, I had been asking you
10 some questions about the Territorial Defence, and let me ask you this:
11 When the VRS was formed, the Army of Republika Srpska, did the TO of
12 Ilidza then merge into the VRS, the VRS units?
13 A. When the Army of Republika Srpska was formed, practically
14 Territorial Defence units were the Army of Republika Srpska. That was
15 one and the same thing. There was no segment outside of the
16 Territorial Defence. You are asking me whether they merged as if those
17 were two separate entities. TO ceased practically to be a TO, and it
18 became Army of Republika Srpska.
19 Q. You also mentioned earlier the Serbian -- the MUP, at least you
20 mentioned a MUP official and the existence of the MUP in Ilidza. Was a
21 Serbian MUP formed in Ilidza and when did that occur?
22 A. The MUP is another entity or a component which is solely dealing
23 with the safety of citizens, the protection of the citizens and territory
24 and public law and order. According to what I know, in compliance with
25 agreements reached at the highest level of Bosnia-Herzegovina, a division
1 was agreed to be carried out on or around the 1st of April, throughout
2 the republic, i.e. in Sarajevo. In practical terms, this division was to
3 take place between the 3rd and -- between the 1st and 3rd April. In a
4 way, this division was completed and the 3rd of April is the crucial date
5 indicating that on that date the Serbs from the special base of Krte,
6 which was the best special MUP base in the whole of Bosnia-Herzegovina,
7 abandoned it, and that was on a Friday, that was the last working day of
8 that week, and they had never returned since. And from that point on the
9 MUPs started operating independently.
10 In other words, after the 3rd of April, the MUPs, the Muslim one,
11 the Serbian one, and later on the Croatian one, started operating
13 Q. And was the Serbian MUP in Ilidza, after its creation,
14 subordinated to the republic level of the authorities of Republika Srpska
15 or the Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina?
16 A. Well, there are hierarchical links between the MUP and the
17 government of Republika Srpska, and it is subordinated.
18 Q. And ultimately, was the president of the republic or the
19 Presidency at the very top of the hierarchy in Republika Srpska? That is
20 the highest body and the highest official?
21 A. Well, that's self-explanatory, i.e., that the Presidency of the
22 Serbian Republic of BH was the highest authority in Republika Srpska.
23 Q. Now, we've been focusing over the last few minutes on the period
24 of April or so, with some reference to May as well. Let me ask you
25 whether, in April and May of 1992, and even later, there were also
1 paramilitary groups in Ilidza.
2 A. There were certain groups that could be considered paramilitary
3 groups. However, I have to explain here that by mobilisation rules, the
4 territorial -- of the Territorial Defence imply the volunteer principle
5 of incorporating volunteers, groups or individuals into the TO units and
6 later into the Army of Republika Srpska or the MUP. And in that sense,
7 the volunteers would be coming individually, from all Serbian lands, as
8 well as Serbs from America, from Canada, from the European Union
9 countries. If organised or self-organised groups were arriving, they
10 would, at some point, tend to exhibit some disobedience, regardless of
11 whether they were part of the MUP or of the military, and there were also
12 from our local units of the Serbian army, that would at a certain point
13 in time try to be more independent of the command, especially in
15 Q. Well, first of all, let's begin by having you tell the Court who
16 some of these paramilitary groups were. Whether you call them
17 paramilitary groups or volunteer groups. First of all, was there a group
18 associated with Mr. Seselj's party?
19 A. I don't know specifically how linked they were because if a group
20 came, they would introduce themselves. They would have to report to
21 Ilidza. When the Crisis Staff was there they would have to report to the
22 Crisis Staff. Later they would have to report to the brigade command or
23 the MUP. Sometimes we could receive them all, myself, the commander of
24 the brigade, the chief of the MUP. I don't know if they belonged to
25 Seselj or not. It's very difficult to establish that because the
1 Radical Party in Ilidza was founded, I think, sometime in June or July,
2 July 1992. I do have that piece of information but I don't have it with
3 me, because it was registered in Ilidza. But I am aware that they said
4 that they belonged to the Radical Party. Our local unit, the unit of
5 Gavrilovic, Brne, mostly it was that one.
6 Q. And in addition to saying that they belonged to the
7 Radical Party, were they visited by Mr. Seselj himself? And did he tour
8 their positions?
9 A. Mr. Seselj visited the Serbian Municipality of Ilidza on one
10 occasion. Before that, he toured a unit that was made up of local Serbs
11 from the area of Sarajevo. It was the unit of Brne Gavrilovic, and the
12 visit really provided just moral support, psychological support. That's
13 all we had from it. But I'm not aware that Mr. Seselj got ready a single
14 truck of humanitarian aid for Ilidza. No.
15 Q. And how many times did Mr. Seselj visit Brne's group and did that
16 indicate the extent to which they were connected?
17 A. Mr. Seselj came to Ilidza twice. The first time I received him,
18 he came to the Municipal Assembly building, and the second time, since
19 the Radical Party had already taken root in Ilidza during the war, it
20 started its struggle for power before we started with our party
21 activities or paying attention to who was in what party, he didn't even
22 deign to come and visit me at my office at the Municipal Assembly of
23 Serbian Ilidza. He was more busy with promoting the Serbian Radical
24 Party, using his authority.
25 Q. And visiting Brne's group, correct?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Were Arkanovci, that is forces of Zeljko Raznatovic, also known
3 as Arkan, in Ilidza in April and May 1992?
4 A. Arkan's group did not come to Ilidza in April. According to what
5 I know, Arkan never came to Ilidza. However, a smaller group of his men
6 came to Ilidza on the 12th of May, when we had quite intense fighting on
7 that day, on the south-western front. The group stayed there on the
8 12th, the 13th, which was a quiet day. They arrived on the 12th in the
9 evening. On the 13th, they came to see me. They visited me at the
10 Crisis Staff. They were interested about the organisation, the defence
11 lines, mostly in the military and security situation.
12 On the 14th of May, we had a horrendous attack on Ilidza by
13 Muslim forces, at the interior and the exterior defence ring, stretching
14 for some 30 kilometres of the front. That day they took part in
15 defensive actions. You could say that they fought exceptionally well.
16 But for some reasons unknown to me, they left our territory immediately
17 after the 14th of May. Perhaps it was the 15th or the 16th of May. I
18 don't know. Because the fighting was intense that day, they had I don't
19 know how many wounded, perhaps that was also one reason for their
21 MR. TIEGER: And let me quickly call up 65 ter 3075 -- excuse me,
23 Q. Mr. Prstojevic, that's an intercepted telephone conversation
24 involving Mico Stanisic and Nedjeljko Zugic. It's relatively brief so
25 I ask you to look at that. Mr. Stanisic -- and it's dated 15 May 1992.
1 Mr. Stanisic indicating the Serb MUP is calling, and some exchanges.
2 Then towards the bottom of the page in English and also in Serbian, Zugic
3 indicates he's in the Serb Municipality of Ilidza with Vuk, Mlaco,
5 And if we turn the page, please.
6 Stanisic wants to know what the situation is like. Zugic says,
7 We have got reinforcements from Gagovic, some Arkanovci and Seseljevci
8 came. And Stanisic says, Good.
9 And is that a further reflection of the presence of Arkanovci and
10 Seseljevci in Ilidza at that time?
11 A. I cannot comment these conversations just based on the text
12 alone. The date does coincide with the date that I said they were there.
13 As for the other names that Zugic mentions, I don't know them. I don't
14 know if these are people from Arkan's unit or from some other unit. I
15 don't know.
16 Q. Well, Mr. Prstojevic, do you recall that at that time, you
17 yourself -- first of all, let me ask you who was Mr. Gagovic who is
18 referred to in this conversation?
19 A. Gagovic is one of the assistant commanders from the JNA army.
20 That was still the JNA at the time. However, it's incorrect that we got
21 any help from Gagovic at the time because, as a rule, he was the one who
22 needed help. Perhaps it was technical assistance, but as far as the
23 manpower is concerned, we were the ones who were protecting the JNA
24 barracks in Lukavica.
25 Q. You were in contact with Mr. Gagovic during that period of time;
1 is that right?
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. And, in fact, the day before do you recall that you were speaking
4 with Mr. Gagovic about, among other things, Arkanovci?
5 A. I probably did. The fighting was going on, and the Arkan's men
6 were participating, so probably, yes, I did.
7 MR. TIEGER: And let's look quickly at 65 ter 31679.
8 Q. Mr. Prstojevic, this is a conversation that you listened to
9 previously at least once and perhaps more. So I'll ask to you read it
10 quickly and I'll direct your attention to certain portions.
11 A. I have something to say here. All intercepted telephone
12 conversations provided to you by AID, either are not original or the most
13 original. Why? In the conversations that I listened to, when I use a
14 strong word, it can be heard very clearly, and when I am speaking about
15 something humane, warmer, that is quieter, less audible. Secondly, when
16 the interpreters or translators translate that same conversation,
17 telephone conversation, into English, they often change a word or use a
18 word that changes the meaning, or they drop some text, they put three
19 dots, they say "unclear." Even here you can see such examples, in three
20 places that I can see with three dots in one second. So I would prefer
21 to hear the original of the conversation, of this intercepted
22 conversation, so that I could establish the differences from the original
23 and the transcribed text and point them out. That is my general position
24 towards all documents.
25 Q. Well, Mr. Prstojevic, I'm going to leave this to the Court but
1 let me point out that this -- see if you recall that, among other things,
2 you heard the entirety of this conversation during the course of the
3 Krajisnik case and you had heard it earlier as well, as you indicated to
4 the Court at that time, at page 14557. You indicated that you didn't
5 recall the conversation but listening to your own voice and:
6 "... listening to Gagovic's voice and trying to place it all
7 within the context of the military situation at the time, which is quite
8 clear to me, well, of course, I can admit to having participated in this
9 conversation. So obviously I was at Ilidza and Lieutenant Gagovic from
10 the corps command at Lukavica."
11 Now I'm going to direct your attention to particular portions.
12 If you then want to hear the audio of the conversation, we can do that,
13 but you may be able to answer the question without recourse to the
14 particular audio. And further, Mr. Prstojevic, let me tell you that
15 these conversations are transcribed in Serbian from the audio.
16 Now, if we could turn the page, please -- well, first of all
17 before we do, let me -- there is -- towards the bottom of page 1, the
18 conversation reflects you complaining about hardware and Gagovic replying
19 about someone who has manpower but not hardware, et cetera. So that's a
20 bit of the subject. At the end you say:
21 "Popadic is there on the terrain, at the spot. At least two
22 vehicles, two armoured personnel carriers should be replaced at this
24 And if we could turn the page, there is further conversations,
25 Gagovic asks:
1 "Are the APCs that arrived yesterday all right?"
2 You say:
3 "Yes, the ones that arrived yesterday."
4 He asks if there is a tank in working order and you should pull
5 out the APCs. You respond you're not sure if anything is in working
6 order, two tanks, three APCs and so on. Gagovic curses. And you say:
7 "And those two yesterday are with Arkan's men."
8 Mr. Prstojevic, do you have any reason to doubt that the passage
9 in which you're referring to the APCs being with -- or to the hardware
10 being with Arkan's men is a transcription error or does it refer to the
11 presence of Arkan's forces in Ilidza and your awareness of that and
12 working with them?
13 A. Well, first of all, I accept what I said earlier, because
14 generally, I really don't recall the conversation, but when I recognise
15 my voice and the voice of my collocutor and knowing the military
16 situation, the wartime situation at the time, then I can explain.
17 However, it's correct that it the AID has been providing to you copies of
18 telephone conversations and that in this conversation, in a number of
19 places, what I said has not been translated in its entirety.
20 Secondly I do not dispute in this conversation anything what
21 I said before and I can explain what I said before, but you just need to
22 put specific questions to me.
23 Q. I did. Does this accurately reflect the presence of Arkan's
24 forces in Ilidza and your awareness of that and you're working with them?
25 A. I said that I received Arkan's men, headed by Legija, on the 13th
1 at the Crisis Staff. On the 14th of May, at 5.08, when the attack on
2 Ilidza began, at the front, some 30 kilometres, these men were also
3 participating in the fighting at a specific sector of the front, and it's
4 not in dispute that they also had some of their own hardware and that, in
5 battle, if they knew how to handle an APC, they would then take it and
6 use it in the fighting and in the defence. That's what happened
7 ultimately, as far as I can remember.
8 Q. What was left out of this conversation, Mr. Prstojevic, that you
9 want to tell us about, if anything?
10 A. Well, I cannot know that, but if you let me see the beginning
11 again I'm going to tell you where three dots appear. One, two, three,
12 fourth line from the bottom, there are some things missing. Sixth line
13 from the bottom, three dots, something is missing because three dots in
14 the Serbian language means that something more is being said. Also the
15 fourth or the fifth row from the top, again you see three dots. Again
16 something is left out. So you cannot really get a true picture of the
17 conversation. This conversation is not that important but there are some
18 that are important. There is practically nothing of dispute here.
19 Q. Good. And we will listen to some telephone conversations,
20 Mr. Prstojevic, but you should be cautious about interpreting these
21 transcriptions. You've had a chance to hear the intercepts, correct?
22 Many of the intercepts? Just "yes" or "no," please, because I want to
23 ask a question after that.
24 A. I did, yes, but at that point in time, I didn't have this text in
25 front of me to be able to compare, to say, for example, in line 5, they
1 dropped this and this and this.
2 Q. And you've had a chance to hear that people talking on the
3 telephone often interrupt each other or talk over each other and that's
4 what you see three lines representing, when a person speaking concludes
5 that portion, another person picks up, and the transcribers can't capture
6 the entirety of that conversation. You've noticed that, haven't you,
7 Mr. Prstojevic?
8 A. Well, no. Three dots in the Serbian language means that the
9 speaker said something else. Where two conversations are overlapping,
10 then this guy here would mark "unclear" or something else.
11 JUDGE MORRISON: Maybe just my eyesight but in the fifth line
12 from the bottom, I perceive it's four dots, not three.
13 MR. TIEGER: Well, Your Honour, I'm not aware that that is an
14 intended distinction, unless it ...
15 JUDGE MORRISON: Well, the only reason I mention it is the
16 witness was very specific about what three dots meant. There may be
17 nothing in it but there may be.
18 MR. TIEGER:
19 Q. Well, Mr. Prstojevic, can you respond to the Court? Do you have
20 a view on what four dots mean instead of three?
21 A. They practically mean the same thing, and perhaps indicate even
22 more words than three dots.
23 Q. The Court will have the audios and we will be hearing some other
24 audios as well, Mr. Prstojevic. Were there -- besides Brne's group and
25 Arkan's group, were there other paramilitary groups that arrived in
1 Ilidza in April and May 1992?
2 A. I say this: In April, there were no outside groups, none. Brne
3 came in June -- actually, in July. He came and he was within the MUP
4 contingent. The Arkan people came when I already mentioned. Later
5 during the year, a Zvornik unit appeared from Zvornik from Republika
6 Srpska. They referred to it also as Zvornik Chetniks. I noticed that
7 group in December. At one point, there was a group belonging to some
8 Bokan, also numbering some 15 men. These are small formations. This
9 group was billeted -- well, all of them had to be included either in a
10 MUP or in the army. When it was placed within one of these forces, it
11 didn't take part either in the fighting or the defence because there were
12 no attacks at that particular time. And then they returned wherever they
13 came from.
14 As time went along, Ilidza got quite organised, everything was
15 functioning, and all the personnel had to be placed under the command of
16 the units of the Army of Republika Srpska. The brigades. And only at
17 the beginning, at one point in time, Brne's group was in the MUP, but
18 then later, at the end of the year, it became part of the Igman Brigade.
19 And these things that I'm saying, I have written documents about that. I
20 have them here. I have the conclusion from the second session of the
21 Ilidza Municipal Assembly from 1992, which literally states that each
22 individual, each group, must be part of the Army of Republika Srpska.
23 MR. TIEGER: I'd like to turn to P2302, please? And Your Honour,
24 may the previous intercept be admitted, please?
25 JUDGE MORRISON: The witness did say there was nothing in there
1 which he contested, so yes.
2 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P2411, Your Honours.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Excuse me, am I right in thinking
4 that intercepts are being admitted as MFI'd documents? Or have we
5 changed this practice without me noticing it?
6 MR. TIEGER: Excuse me, Your Honour, but under the guidelines
7 when a participant recognises the intercept, that is not MFI'd but
9 JUDGE MORRISON: Well, that was the view I took. Certainly aware
10 the witness can't -- the witness is saying that it's not, in his
11 recollection, complete, but that part of it which is there he accepts as
12 being accurate. In that case, there is nothing to MFI.
13 MR. TIEGER: Correct.
14 JUDGE MORRISON: So I think that answers your question,
15 Dr. Karadzic. It's only where there is a disputed part of the text in
16 terms of the text which is there that it's necessary to MFI it. It's
17 always open to add to the document, if indeed there are omissions.
18 MR. TIEGER: We certainly have had intercepts where there is
19 nothing in particular disputed, but where, in line with the protocol, the
20 witness is not a participant, then they have been MFI'd.
21 JUDGE MORRISON: Yes, there must be a distinction drawn between
22 those intercepts where the witness is a participant and those that
23 aren't, but I'm grateful for you drawing it to my attention,
24 Dr. Karadzic, in any event.
25 MR. TIEGER:
1 Q. Mr. Prstojevic, the document before you now is an approval dated
2 July 9th, 1992, from the war board of commissioners, Serbian Municipality
3 of Ilidza, and it bears your name and a signature and a stamp. Is that
4 your signature?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And it is an approval for Branislav Gavrilovic, the commander of
7 all SAO Romanija volunteer units, to conduct the admission and training
8 of Serbian volunteers using the motel facility in Gladno Polje. First of
9 all, is -- I think you've mentioned his full name, but
10 Branislav Gavrilovic is the Brne you've been talking about before, right?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And is this a reflection of Brne's subordination to the Serbian
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Mr. Prstojevic, you have referred during the course of your
16 testimony to meetings and consultations, sometimes to specific ones,
17 sometimes more generally, and I'd like to ask you some questions about at
18 least a couple of them.
19 A. Allow me to explain this approval to a greater detail. If you
20 permit me to explain how this particular premises were allocated.
21 Q. I'm -- first of all, Mr. Prstojevic, a witness is indeed entitled
22 to explain, but the mechanics of how the facility was allocated to Brne
23 may not be of the utmost relevance to the Court at this moment.
24 JUDGE MORRISON: I think that's probably true. If you could
25 simply answer Mr. Tieger's question at the moment, and if necessary, the
1 explanation can follow.
2 MR. TIEGER:
3 Q. I wanted to turn to a topic, as I say, you've alluded to before,
4 and that was meetings and consultations that took place between officials
5 in Ilidza, including yourself, and the leadership of Republika Srpska.
6 First of all, Mr. Prstojevic, let me turn your attention to the period
7 just before April 1992. Do you recall that there was a meeting of a
8 military/security nature toward the latter part of March 1992, that is
9 before the 1st of April?
10 A. I heard of that meeting from other people's stories, specifically
11 from two of our people who attended the meeting. I suppose that this
12 meeting was held at the level of the city of Sarajevo. In that meeting,
13 security and political situation was being discussed. They briefly
14 informed me about what they had heard at this meeting.
15 Q. And when you say "other people," are you referring to other
16 members of the Crisis Staff at that time?
17 A. No. I was referring to two officials from Ilidza municipality,
18 i.e., the president of the Executive Committee of Ilidza municipality,
19 and the TO Staff Commander of Ilidza municipality, and that was a period
20 when we operated jointly, without any problems.
21 Q. Well, the -- the president of the Executive Committee, was that
22 Mr. Kezunovic, and the president of -- and the commander of the TO, that
23 was Mr. Markovic, right?
24 A. Radomir Kezunovic.
25 Q. And were they both --
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And were they both members of the Crisis Staff?
3 A. Yes, they were, but the Crisis Staff was inactive at the time.
4 Q. So they told you there had been a meeting of a
5 military/security -- a security and political nature. What did they tell
6 you was discussed at that meeting? Well, first of all, let me ask you
7 who else was present at that meeting.
8 A. I said that I didn't know at which particular level this meeting
9 was held, and who attended. Now, by analogy, since two officials from
10 our municipality attended, I can only assume that people from other
11 municipalities, holding similar offices, were in attendance as well.
12 Q. Was the meeting also attended by people from the leadership of
13 the party?
14 A. I don't know, but if it was held at the city level, somebody
15 should have been there, but as I said, I don't know.
16 Q. Did the president of the Executive Committee or the commander of
17 the TO tell you not only that people from the leadership of the party
18 were present but also what the people from the leadership of the party
19 had said?
20 A. All I remember about this meeting is that in the portion of the
21 meeting relating to the security situation, there were people of lower or
22 middle range of ranking who were rather optimistic because they did not
23 believe that the Serbian people were actually in danger as they were, and
24 that if they came under attack, it would have been much easier to defend
25 ourselves than we, in Ilidza, thought. And perhaps this situation might
1 have prevailed in some of the municipalities. And they realised that
2 these people are full of self-confidence and that they were, I won't like
3 to say this, but that they were militant. However, our situation was
4 completely different. It was a very difficult and uncertain one.
5 Q. Well, you said that -- you just said you don't like to refer to
6 it as such but it was militant. Was there threatening rhetoric used by
7 persons at the meeting? And in particular, persons who were from the
8 leadership of the party?
9 A. Listen, I don't know who said that and whether it was a commander
10 of a staff from a municipality or someone from Sarajevo or someone
11 completely different. All of this ended, all this exchange of
12 information, over coffee. And now, in the year 2003 and later, somebody
13 is asking me about this. I mentioned this and now it turns out that this
14 was a critically important meeting, but it wasn't important at all
15 because no specific tasks were passed on to us in Ilidza as a result of
16 that meeting. Because, had that been the case, I would have remembered
17 that very well and I would have known whether I would comply with that or
19 Q. Well, first of all, Mr. Prstojevic, the people who were -- first
20 of all, I didn't get an answer to my question, although you're free to
21 offer clarifications when they are useful. Was there threatening
22 rhetoric used at the meeting?
23 A. Yes, by some people, but only under the scenario of us coming
24 under an attack. If we became the subject of an aggressive move made by
1 Q. Wasn't it the case, Mr. Prstojevic, that that threatening
2 rhetoric was about what would or should happen if there wasn't an
3 agreement on the -- with the Bosnian Muslims, about the organisation or
4 division of Bosnia?
5 A. No, no. That was not the case. Now, I will quote an original
6 sentence that I heard from one of the two men that I mentioned earlier,
7 and I apologise to everyone present in this courtroom. Somebody
8 literally said the following:
9 "If we fail to reach an agreement, if we are attacked, we are
10 going to fuck their mothers."
11 So this is this exaggerated self-confidence, not to qualify it as
12 militancy. I don't know any harsher word than this one.
13 Q. And at the time, Mr. Prstojevic, based on your discussions with
14 the Ilidza representatives who were present, did you understand that to
15 mean that there would essentially be division one way or another, either
16 by -- in a peaceful manner or by force?
17 A. I didn't give it a thought. I realised if it comes to armed
18 fighting, some people believed that would easily push back the Muslim
19 forces and we didn't share their opinion, because war was in the air
20 already. Everybody could see that.
21 Q. Mr. Prstojevic, let me turn your attention, if I may, to an
22 interview you gave to the Office of the Prosecutor in November of 2003,
23 at a time closer to the events that we are discussing than now. That's
24 65 ter 07875. And I believe that's page 11 of the English and page 7 of
25 the Serbian. And begin with the portion where you say: "At that meeting
1 there was a lot of threatening rhetoric" -- well, first of all, to maybe
2 orient you, Mr. Prstojevic, you say -- if you see the portion that says:
3 "Sometime before the 1st of April," and that may be on the previous page
4 in B/C/S for you.
5 A. I can't see it.
6 Q. You see it at the bottom of the page now? The bottom of the --
7 the bottom of the page where -- the very end of you speaking on that
9 A. I don't know the beginning that you're referring to.
10 Q. I'm just trying to orient you before moving you on to the next
11 page and indicate we are speaking that particular meeting. So where it
12 says, [B/C/S spoken]. All right, and you give the date of the meeting.
13 Now let's move to the next page in B/C/S.
14 A. Well, this is what I'm telling you all the time, that the Serbian
15 and the English version do not correspond to each other. So the
16 beginning is missing.
17 Q. I was actually directing your attention to the bottom, not the
18 beginning. All right. If you'll follow now at the top of the -- toward
19 the top of the page you say the following:
20 "I understood that at that meeting there was a lot of -- at that
21 meeting there was a lot of threatening rhetoric. Like if we cannot agree
22 and we cannot find an agreement, we will do this, this and this, and I'm
23 sorry to use this word, but we'll fuck their mother," et cetera.
24 And then were you asked, And when you heard those words that you
25 quoted, was it your understanding then that it was the case of the
1 ethnicity being imposed and one being destroyed, which is a reference to
2 the last sentence you'd said previously:
3 "And the relations or balance were 50/50 and who will be
4 destroyed, it was not known, it was relative."
5 And in answer to the question whether it was one ethnicity being
6 imposed and one being destroyed you said:
7 "In essence this should not be understood that roughly, but in
8 essence, it's division by hook or by crook, or in a peaceful manner, or
9 by force."
10 Now, Mr. Prstojevic, that's what you said in November of 2003.
11 Is that a correct understanding of what was conveyed to you about that
12 meeting? And I will continue to the end of that tape in a moment but
13 I wanted to do it a step at a time.
14 A. I have an explanation here. I have an explanation. There is the
15 word here used, destroyed, and that's the worked used by your man, the
16 investigator, and I immediately responded by saying that basically that
17 wasn't so roughly put, that all this was about was about division by
18 force or in a peaceful manner. And for better understanding of the
19 overall situation I added that the political relations between the SDS,
20 SDA and HDZ party leaderships were spilling over on to the lower levels.
21 Q. And just to clarify, Mr. Prstojevic, the -- again with respect to
22 the threatening rhetoric that you referred to earlier, that was used by
23 the people that you -- that was used by people from the leadership; is
24 that correct or not?
25 A. I don't know which people --
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is more than a leading
2 question. The witness never said that people from leadership used these
3 threatening rhetoric. It was record -- it wasn't recorded anywhere that
4 those were members of the leadership.
5 MR. TIEGER:
6 Q. Mr. -- I'm not sure that's accurate but, in any event, it's
7 easily rectified. Mr. Prstojevic, was the threatening rhetoric you
8 referred to used by people from the leadership?
9 A. No. They didn't. And if leaderships attended this meeting, then
10 I would have been invited to come and attend the meeting for sure. And
11 I wasn't invited.
12 JUDGE MORRISON: Mr. Witness, it rather begs the supplementary
13 question: If it wasn't the leadership, who was it that was using the
14 threatening rhetoric?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This rhetoric was used by
16 participants such as TO staff commanders or presidents of Executive
17 Committees, because that was the level of that specific meeting. And
18 that means that these people came from other city municipalities.
19 JUDGE MORRISON: Yes, Mr. Tieger.
20 MR. TIEGER:
21 Q. Mr. Prstojevic, let me turn your attention to a couple of
22 portions of your testimony regarding this meeting during the course of
23 the Krajisnik case. At page 14514, you were discussing that, the
24 beginning of your comments state -- start with there was a meeting of
25 military/security nature before the 1st of April, and you identify two of
1 the same participants that you've mentioned here. And then we continue
2 on to page -- that's contained at page 15 -- 14513. And then you
3 continue on page 14514:
4 "And they told me that some people from the leadership of the
5 party, they told me the names but I don't remember them now, they told me
6 that some people were either militant or excessively optimistic ... we'll
7 defeat them without any problem," et cetera. That's one passage.
8 Then you continue to talk about the meeting further and identify
9 the -- some of the militant language, then that you specifically
10 identified, including that we will "fuck their mother." You confirm that
11 at the bottom of page 14516, and were asked:
12 "And when you referred earlier to some people from the leadership
13 who were making militant statements, were those the nature of the
14 statements to which you were referring?"
15 And your answer was:
16 "What I had in mind was that meeting and people who attended the
17 meeting, precisely."
18 And you also referred to those people on page 518 as "those
19 people who were forwarding certain guidelines to the lower ranks, as it
21 Now, that was your testimony in 2005, Mr. Prstojevic, under oath.
22 You referred to members of the leadership of the party. Those are not TO
23 commanders, are they?
24 A. Correct, but I'm not disputing any of this, as having said that.
25 I stand by that, but obviously this refers to the leadership of the city
1 of Sarajevo, which means that that is the first level above the
2 municipality. That's also our leadership. And in the hierarchy of the
3 organs of the Serbian Democratic Party and state organs of power and the
4 administration, the city of Sarajevo ranks above the municipality.
5 Obviously, we are talking about a city meeting, and I'm saying it now.
6 At the level of the city.
7 JUDGE MORRISON: Mr. Tieger, we will break now until 12.35.
8 --- Recess taken at 12.03 p.m.
9 --- On resuming at 12.35 p.m.
10 MR. TIEGER:
11 Q. Now, Mr. Prstojevic, before the recess, we had been focusing on
12 the meeting that took place sometime before the 1st of April. Did you
13 understand that meeting, Mr. Prstojevic, to have anything to do with the
14 activation of the local phase of activity, the second phase of
16 A. I cannot speak about that. People didn't give me any
17 assignments, and the second phase of the instructions, we didn't realise
18 at all, we didn't implement them. As for whether the second phase was
19 discussed or not at the meeting, it's something that I really cannot
20 remember right now.
21 Q. Well, let me see if this refreshes your recollection,
22 Mr. Prstojevic, because this is back in 2005. This -- you were asked at
23 page 14512, during the course of the Krajisnik transcript, during the
24 course of that case:
25 "Mr. Prstojevic, my question was about the second level of the
1 December 19th, 1991 instructions and whether you recall being present at
2 or hearing about any meeting discussing that."
3 And then you were directed to a portion of your previous
4 interviews, in which you were asked:
5 "How did you receive the information in relation to the policies
6 that you were meant to apply in Ilidza?"
7 And you responded:
8 "Mostly there were certain meetings and that one meeting, if you
9 don't remember well, you also asked me when the second phase of local
10 phase was to be activated. It's a little foggy in my memory but maybe
11 some people from Ilidza were present at that meeting but I was not."
12 And that concludes the quote from your interview. And then the
13 question continues:
14 "And then you went on to describe some of the people who might
15 have been there."
16 And then you went on to describe the information that was passed
17 on to you from the Ilidza representatives in attendance at the meeting.
18 And you were asked:
19 "... does that refresh your recollection about any meetings about
20 which you heard -- that concerned the second level of the December 19th
22 Your answer was:
23 "I fully stand by the statements that I made in the previous five
24 days at different times. My statement tells exactly how it was."
25 And then you go on to describe:
1 "There was a meeting of military/security nature before the
2 1st of April."
3 Mr. Prstojevic, without delving into the details of what you were
4 told, that is verbatim, about that meeting, does that refresh your
5 recollection that you were told that the meeting had something to do with
6 local -- with local phase activation?
7 A. I am not disputing anything I said in my testimony in the case of
8 Mr. Momcilo Krajisnik. Let me say that. But I cannot claim that this
9 was discussed at the meeting, the implementation of phase 2 of the
10 instructions, when I didn't hear that. We didn't do anything at Ilidza
11 based on the instructions other than what we've already seen. The Crisis
12 Staff didn't and the Assembly didn't. So in my opinion, it's pointless
13 to discuss this oral reporting.
14 Q. Mr. Prstojevic, you also indicated that there were other
15 representatives of other municipalities present at that meeting. Let
16 me -- that's correct, isn't it?
17 A. Yes. You don't hold a meeting only with two representatives.
18 Q. Let me --
19 MR. TIEGER: Before I do call up this next exhibit, the --
20 Your Honour, the Registry has kindly reminded me that 65 ter 00575 was
21 not tendered for admission. That's the 16 April 1992 order that was
22 extensively discussed. And I would ask that that be moved into evidence.
23 JUDGE MORRISON: Yes.
24 THE REGISTRAR: That's Exhibit P2412, Your Honours.
25 MR. TIEGER: Can we call up 65 ter 10926, please?
1 Q. Mr. Prstojevic, 65 ter 10926 is a report on the activities and
2 operations of the Trnovo SDS Municipal Board from 1 January 1992 to
3 31 May 1992. And it refers, among other things, to -- at the outset of
4 the document to 24 meetings between the SDS Main Board and the Crisis
5 Staff during that period -- and the Crisis Staff during that period. And
6 the issues of preparing and organising the Serb people --
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If I may ask to have the reference?
8 Where is the document from, who signed it, to see what it is? For now
9 it's just a piece of paper.
10 MR. TIEGER: I explained what it was, what its date was. And it
11 was timely noticed. It's from the Trnovo SDS Municipal Board. It's a
12 report, as it indicates at the bottom of the document, from the state
13 security sector of Trnovo, and it reports on events in that municipality.
14 Q. And Mr. Prstojevic, I was going to -- I was in the midst of
15 saying that the document also, in addition to the number of meetings,
16 indicates that questions of preparing and organising the Serb people for
17 armed rebellion against the Muslim people were mainly discussed at
18 meetings and provides details. If we could turn to page 2 of the English
19 page --
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] But, please, this is -- this is a
21 paper of the Muslim secret service. This is not a document of the
22 Serbian Democratic Party.
23 JUDGE MORRISON: Dr. Karadzic, let the witness answer the
24 question as to whether or not the contents are matters within his
1 MR. TIEGER:
2 Q. If we could turn to page 2 of the English and remain on page 1 of
3 the Serbian, toward the bottom of the page in Serbian, Mr. Prstojevic,
4 you'll see the following, Radivoje Draskovic informed the SDS Municipal
5 Board members of Radovan Karadzic's order regarding the introduction of
6 the second level of readiness. The organisation of a guard's duty
7 service and taking control over Serb territory. For that reason,
8 immediate SDS local board meetings were to be held and the local boards
9 were to be informed of this. The weapons received were to be
11 Couple of questions, then, Mr. Prstojevic. Is it correct that
12 Trnovo is a neighbouring municipality in the Sarajevo area?
13 A. Yes. But they border with us over a very large area, and the
14 border is on the south and southeastern part of mostly mountainous
15 regions and there is no border that would divide inhabited settlements.
16 The border lies along the hilly area, the mountain ranges, along rivers,
17 and so on and so forth.
18 Q. Thank you. Does the information in this report, concerning the
19 information that the SDS municipal board members of Trnovo received,
20 further refresh your recollection about the interest at that --
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have to intervene. We have a
22 falsified report of the Muslim secret service that is reporting that some
23 units would be formed and our position was always that we are only and
24 exclusively relying on the JNA, and the Prosecutor is asking the witness,
25 who wasn't there, whether this falsehood corresponds to something that he
1 knows. This is really too much. If the OTP doesn't have any authentic
2 documents, then it shouldn't insist on the indictment. This is not a
4 MR. TIEGER: Okay. I had previously raised the issue of -- well,
5 first of all, let me ask the witness to take off his headphones, if
6 I may, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE MORRISON: Yes. It would assist, rather than leave the
8 Court, Mr. Witness, can you just remove your headphones for the moment?
9 Thank you.
10 MR. TIEGER: Well --
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If I may help, on page 51,
12 Mr. Tieger said that this was a document of SDS. This is a document of
13 the Muslim secret service, which is slandering and blackening the SDS in
14 Trnovo. The witness was not present at those meetings and now he's being
15 asked to legalise an illegal document.
16 JUDGE MORRISON: That's not what the witness is being asked at
17 all, Dr. Karadzic.
18 MR. TIEGER: And, in fact, Your Honour, I think it's clear that
19 there is little point in asking a witness to provide -- a witness --
20 well, not any witness but witnesses in this position, to provide
21 information after being provided an answer by the accused in the guise of
22 an objection. And I will -- the question was appropriate, but it's
23 certainly been largely pre-empted by this intervention, which I don't
24 think was inadvertent.
25 JUDGE MORRISON: Well, it's probably best from your point of view
1 to leave it there, Mr. Tieger, but from the Court's perspective,
2 Dr. Karadzic, that's correct, it's obvious that if you make an
3 intervention in the middle of a witness's testimony of that nature, it is
4 bound to affect or can tend to affect the answer that he gives. It's an
5 improper thing to do, and in future, please ask that you wish to make an
6 intervention and explain the nature of it and it can be done in the
7 absence of the witness.
8 Yes, Mr. Tieger.
9 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Mr. President.
10 JUDGE MORRISON: Perhaps the witness could --
11 MR. TIEGER:
12 Q. Mr. Prstojevic, I had basically asked you whether the contents of
13 this document refresh your memory about what was happening in your area
14 at that time, concerning the interest in ensuring that the municipalities
15 were moving forward in anticipation of a possible conflict, and the
16 absence of an agreement with the Muslims.
17 A. I cannot comment on this document because it's a document of the
18 neighbouring municipality, and there are two sizes of letters in it from
19 two different typewriters. Secondly, the document is not really
20 refreshing my recollection about anything specific. I haven't read it
21 here, not even a tenth of it, I don't even have any need to read it.
22 However, what is important, I think, for this Trial Chamber is
23 that I have an original document, conclusions of the meetings of -- of a
24 meeting of the SDA and the SDS of the municipality of Trnovo of the
25 16th of April, 1992. I have it here. I can provide it to you. It has
1 an original signature, an original stamp, signed by two presidents in
2 Trnovo, where they agreed on peace and everything else. The Muslims
3 would go back on that agreement overnight, and they would then go on to
4 carry out a horrific massacre of the population in that area. Horrific.
5 Children, elderly, among the victims. And I just happen to have found
6 this document in some archives.
7 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear which archives.
8 MR. TIEGER:
9 Q. Which archives were those, Mr. Prstojevic?
10 A. Well, I have to remind you here, on the 26th of March, 2009, when
11 I was interrogated, at that time I had completed 30 days of questioning
12 that took eight hours, on the majority of such interviews in 2003, 2005,
13 2006, I would come unprepared. I work in a company that numbers
14 200 people. I work ten-hour days. I need to provide my salary, and then
15 when I come for interrogations, they take 20 to 21 hours. But I said in
16 2009, that I would prepare for the following testimonies and that I had
17 question -- reserves on all questions, I had remarks, I had statistical
18 information that would overturn what your investigators think is black,
19 and were looking to split hairs. I will prove in such cases that things
20 like that do not stand. And going through our Ilidza documents, I came
21 across this particular document.
22 Q. Well, let me ask you a question about your effort to prove things
23 in this case. Am I correct, Mr. Prstojevic, that you have -- you are and
24 have for a long time been a vocal admirer and supporter of Mr. Karadzic?
25 A. You know what, this is a very strange question as far as I'm
1 concerned. I am a person who respects the law. To this day and at all
2 times, I have always supported the Serbian leaderships as far as I
3 believe that they were right. And when this was legal. In circumstances
4 when that was not so, I did not support them and I would voice my
6 I am one of the presidents of the Sarajevo municipalities. I'm a
7 person whom the president, Dr. Karadzic, frequently and -- criticised and
8 criticised the most out of all the Sarajevo presidents, because if I
9 believed that something did not suit Ilidza, that we could not implement,
10 I would immediately, that same second, voice my opposition to it.
11 Q. Let me show you a document, Mr. Prstojevic, and ask you if it
12 doesn't reflect something a bit more than that.
13 MR. TIEGER: That's 65 ter 23098.
14 MR. ROBINSON: Excuse me, Mr. President, as I see the direction
15 in which this examination is going, I think that this is clearly now an
16 effort by the Prosecutor to impeach his own witness rather than to
17 refresh his recollection, and I think he had to have the permission of
18 the Chamber to do that under the Popovic decision.
19 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, I would like to reiterate again, I
20 don't believe the Popovic decision requires a case-by-case determination.
21 I don't think that's what the Court sought here, but if this is one of
22 those matters that the Court considered it wanted to weigh in on before
23 I proceeded, of course I'm in the Court's hands. But I think when a
24 witness provides information of that sort and there is further
25 information that may clarify or illuminate or indeed contradict that, the
1 Court is not only entitled to hear it but obligated to hear it.
2 JUDGE MORRISON: There are two aspects to that. First of all, is
3 the nature of the information that's -- you seek to elicit, and secondly,
4 it's the basis on which you seek to elicit the information. That can be
5 a memory-refreshing exercise and the witness has already alluded to the
6 fact that his memory was better in the past than it is at the moment.
7 But it can also touch and concern the issue of impeachment. Now, without
8 ruling on the Popovic or attempting to rule on an interpretation of the
9 Popovic decision, is your question fundamentally now in the nature of
10 impeachment as opposed to simply a question of an aide-memoire?
11 MR. TIEGER: It's probably both in a sense, Your Honour. I'm
12 going to ask the witness about his -- first about his recollection of
13 that, and depending -- and then I'm going to ask him about the accuracy
14 and then we'll see if it turns out to be either an elaboration and
15 expansion and clarification of what he said or a contradiction that is in
16 the basis of impeachment.
17 MR. ROBINSON: Mr. President, excuse me. If I could just add one
18 thing, this whole inquiry is based on trying to show bias, which is
19 impeachment itself. It's not trying to show what happened during the
20 events. This is questioning about his relationship with Dr. Karadzic,
21 his views towards Dr. Karadzic is all now being used to show that there
22 is a bias and therefore it's impeachment in and of itself. Even if it's
23 refreshing a recollection about something that's impeaching, it's
24 nevertheless an impeaching exercise. So I think that it -- and we don't
25 object that you give permission to have him impeach his own witness,
1 that's perfectly permissible for him to do that, but it's our view that
2 it has to be something that the Trial Chamber gives permission on. And
3 particularly in paragraph 26 of the Popovic decision, they say that it's
4 not for a party to decide on its own whether to impeach a witness but
5 it's for the Chamber to decide. So we think that as long as the Chamber
6 makes that decision and it's clear that that's what's going on, then
7 that's fine.
8 MR. TIEGER: Well, Your Honour, the Court may be prepared to rule
9 and I apologise for that.
10 JUDGE MORRISON: That's -- we were just about to -- I was just
11 about to invite my colleagues to join in with a ruling, but by all means,
12 Mr. Tieger.
13 MR. TIEGER: I was just going to say we haven't been as rigorous
14 about isolating or insulating procedural discussions from the witness,
15 especially those that concern him. Didn't ask him to remove his
16 headphones. So if we proceed further, I think that would be appropriate,
17 but I understand the Court is about to rule.
18 JUDGE MORRISON: Sometimes that isolation is more a form than a
19 reality, Mr. Tieger.
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 JUDGE MORRISON: Well, the Chamber is of the view that there is
22 an element, as I think you concede, Mr. Tieger, of impeachment attached
23 to the nature of the questions. We give leave to do so. Generally
24 speaking, it would be better that each time a separate topic was raised
25 which was of itself an indicia of impeachment, that the Trial Chamber's
1 permission was given. But I understand there is likely to be a series of
2 questions now along the same lines, and so we'll take it, until the
3 Trial Chamber otherwise indicates, that you can continue with this line
4 of questioning.
5 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Mr. President.
6 Q. Mr. Prstojevic, the document before you, I'm going to read slowly
7 a couple of portions of it. It refers to a rally that was held in
8 Dobrinja on September 12th, 1996. And it states the following. So I
9 want you to orient yourself to place and time. And this is a newspaper
10 article from the "London Observer" service. It states:
11 "The 3.000 Bosnian Serbs who turned up at the rally were in no
12 doubt for whom they are supposed to vote on Saturday. 'Our unique,
13 legendary Radovan Karadzic is the greatest Serb among us and we would
14 like him to be here now.' Nedjeljko Prstojevic, a minor party
15 functionary, shouted to the crowd."
16 It indicates that the crowd cheered. There was an empty picture
17 frame behind you, where Mr. Karadzic's portrait presumably was supposed
18 to hang, and the article continues:
19 "His absence only heightened the aura of quasi religious mystery,
20 as Prstojevic stretched his obsequious eulogy to absurd lengths. 'He is
21 the man whose picture we hold aloft, like the icon of St. George.
22 Brothers and sisters, for these past years, God must clearly have been a
24 Now, Mr. Prstojevic, were -- did you speak at an SDS rally in
25 Dobrinja in September of 1996, and were those the words you used in
1 connection with Mr. Karadzic?
2 A. I don't remember this. And this looks to me to be a total
3 fabrication, and a total untruth. Moreover, due to the fact that there
4 is a mention of an empty frame and a picture and the rest of it, it means
5 that quite simply at that time there was no need for any kind of rallies
6 to be held in Dobrinja. The only gathering that took place in Dobrinja
7 in 1996 for the Serbian Ilidza and the Serbian Novo Sarajevo
8 municipalities was the pre-election rally, which was of enormous
9 proportions. I hear of this for the first time, and I'm seeing this for
10 the first time, and I think this is rubbish.
11 Q. Did you attend a pre-election rally in -- on or around that time,
12 Mr. Prstojevic?
13 A. I attended the pre-election rally, but I could not have spoken in
14 this manner, and I didn't. These are the words of Biljana Plavsic and
15 other highest-ranking SDS officials. I did make a speech, though, but
16 not a single word quoted here was uttered by me at this pre-election
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] An intervention in the transcript.
19 The witness didn't say that those were the words of Biljana Plavsic. He
20 said that Biljana Plavsic delivered a speech, without saying that those
21 were her words. Could the witness be asked to confirm this?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's correct. I just wanted to
23 indicate how the hierarchy of speakers was observed, from the
24 highest-ranking speakers to the lowest-ranking speakers.
25 MR. TIEGER:
1 Q. Did you speak at all in praise of Mr. Karadzic at that rally,
2 Mr. Prstojevic?
3 A. There was no need for the president of the Serbian Municipality
4 of Ilidza to speak about President Karadzic because he was not standing
5 in the election.
6 JUDGE MORRISON: Sorry, Mr. Prstojevic, the question was not
7 whether there was a need for you to do it but whether you did it.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't speak about
9 President Karadzic at all.
10 MR. TIEGER:
11 Q. Mr. Prstojevic, I want to move on to a subject that you raised
12 early in your appearance here, and that you alluded to again today, and
13 that's a meeting held on or about the 17th of April, 1992.
14 And I want to ask you again: Was there a meeting about the
15 security and political situation in Ilidza on or about the 17th of April,
17 A. It was held precisely on the 18th of April, 1992, in Ilidza.
18 I may have made a mistake before by one day, but I think that's not
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have to intervene again. This
21 question is being asked again, but this time in a certain way, a
22 suggestion was inserted into it that the topic was the political and
23 security situation. The witness said earlier that the only item on the
24 agenda was the seat of the government and that, in turn, it was the hosts
25 who addressed the issue of security situation. If you look back at this
1 question, you can see that it's been repeated, which is something that I
2 am not given the right to do.
3 MR. TIEGER: First of all, this is, once again, an inappropriate
4 intervention. Can the witness remove his headphones, please?
5 I was going to ask the witness about what was discussed at that
6 meeting. As you'll see, I'm, if necessary, going to ask him what he said
7 about the nature of that meeting before, and I hope it is not lost on the
8 Court that despite the fact that the witness previously said, and I can
9 find that reference, that the meeting was exclusively about the seat of
10 the government, but he said nothing about who the hosts raising -- if
11 I checked in the transcript, the first mention of that was by the
12 accused, and I just want to forestall, if possible, interventions by the
13 accused that provide information to the witness about the subject matter
14 at hand.
15 JUDGE MORRISON: Dr. Karadzic, I raised that issue before. These
16 are quintessentially matters for cross-examination, not for intervention.
17 It's very necessary that if you want to intervene again during the course
18 of this witness's evidence, that you indicate before you intervene, and
19 the Court will then determine whether or not the intervention is first of
20 all necessary or whether it should be done in the presence or absence of
21 the witness. Please take that to heart.
22 Yes, Mr. Tieger.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I may do that, Your Excellency, but
24 the fact is that the Prosecution jumps up on their feet every time
25 I repeat a question in this or that form, and they raise objections to
1 that, which are sustained. I'm not disputing that he's asking again --
2 that he is asking the witness again about this meeting. On page 18, 24,
3 the witness already answered this. Now he's asking the same thing for
4 the second time, only this time the witness is not noticing the form of
5 the question. Therefore, I would kindly ask then the Prosecution not
6 intervene if the situation is the reverse one, when I'm repeating the
7 question. I'm talking about page 18, 24. He clarified that it was not
8 about the security and political situation but, rather, that the hosts
9 had offered to provide details about this subject.
10 JUDGE MORRISON: Mr. Karadzic, you've made your point and that
11 point's been taken. But I'm not going to debate the issue with you.
12 Yes, Mr. Tieger.
13 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Mr. President.
14 Q. Mr. Prstojevic, earlier today -- oh.
15 Mr. Prstojevic, earlier today you referred to that meeting and
16 you said, at page 18, that it was exclusively about where the seat of the
17 government would be. Let me direct your attention to two portions of
18 the -- of your testimony in the Krajisnik case, where you discussed that
19 meeting. First, on page 14581, you were discussing meetings in general
20 and the number of meetings that took place and so on. And you said:
21 "I did say before, and I'm going to" -- this is a quote:
22 "I did say before and I'm going to remind you again that at
23 Ilidza, I believe on the 17th of April, there was a meeting of a part of
24 the government at the Crisis Staff and the meeting was about analysing
25 the security and political situation and the possibility of having the
1 government of the Serb -- of the Serb part of Sarajevo there, and the
2 representatives of the government headed by Mr. Karadzic and
3 Mr. Krajisnik were there, and all the Ilidza representatives headed by
4 myself were there as well."
5 And then again, later, you were asked about that same meeting in
6 cross-examination, which you've previously affirmed with some emphasis.
7 And you were asked, basically, was the whole point of that meeting "to
8 make a decision about where the headquarters or at least an important
9 part of the headquarters of the Serb government would be located from
10 then onwards. Is that right?"
11 And your answer was:
12 "As for the meeting held at the Ilidza Crisis Staff on the
13 17th of April, I thought that the main emphasis was on the security
14 situation in Ilidza. Within the topic of the security situation, the
15 seat of the government and the state bodies of the Serbian people of
16 Bosnia-Herzegovina was also discussed."
17 Mr. Prstojevic, does that -- first of all, is that what you said,
18 under oath, in the Krajisnik case? And does it reflect -- does it
19 refresh your recollection about what the main emphasis of the meeting was
21 A. Look, when we are talking about this meeting, I gave my original
22 journal from 1992 to the Chamber and to the OTP, where there are notes
23 relating to this meeting. Now, I don't know exactly what these notes
24 showed, but when I tried to refresh my memory, it became quite clear that
25 we, from the Ilidza, discussed the security situation and we really were
1 keen on having the government in Ilidza. However, some other people from
2 outside said the political and military situation was bad and uncertain,
3 and that had an effect on the vote of the seat of the government, which
4 was tied, four to four. Eventually, President Karadzic and
5 President Krajisnik, who were not members of the government, finally
6 agreed to inform us about the seat of the government. And
7 President Karadzic criticised us by saying literally, "You see what the
8 situation is and you still want the seat of the government to be in
10 I am telling you all these things to the best of my recollection
11 but I am not able to give you a verbatim reproduction of something that
12 I said an hour ago. So one could have said something this way or that
13 way. And that's quite understandable, in view of my age and the fact
14 that I have been a pensioner for over six years. I am living
15 100 kilometres from Sarajevo. Therefore I'm not in a position to
16 reminisce with people about what was happening during the war. I am
17 doing my farm work at my estate.
18 Q. Now --
19 A. I -- as far as I understand, this does not alter the essence of
20 my statement. Neither evidence given by me. Now, this is the question
21 of which is older, the chicken or the egg.
22 Q. Let me deconstruct what you said a bit. You said that
23 President Karadzic criticised you. Let me go back a bit. Was it the
24 case that members -- well, that the commander of the Ilidza TO,
25 Mr. Markovic, reported about what steps Ilidza had taken?
1 A. At that point, he was not the TO commander. It was
2 Obrad Popadic, Captain Popadic. However, Popadic was absent and Dragan
3 was the man number 2. He spoke freely. It was not his task to submit a
4 report. It was I who made an introductory speech and described the
5 situation. But he, being the man who was better knowledgeable about that
6 than I was, said that the situation was pretty bad and critical. He knew
7 that a ferocious aggressor attack by Muslim units was being prepared very
8 soon, and it did happen on the 22nd of April, in which we lost 11 men and
9 have had 56 other personnel wounded. And all of this provoked criticism
10 from Mr. Karadzic.
11 Q. And let me turn to a speech you referred to before in -- during
12 which you spoke about this meeting at the Assembly of the Serbian People
13 of Bosnia-Herzegovina in July of 1992.
14 MR. TIEGER: And made provisions for the page numbers in both
15 B/C/S and English, Your Honour, but not the P number, which is 1356,
16 P1356. At page -- beginning at page 66 in the English and page 67 in the
18 THE REGISTRAR: Mr. Tieger, we have that document until page 10
19 in B/C/S. We don't have a page 66.
20 MR. TIEGER: Well, that's an uploading problem of some sort.
21 Okay. Let's try D92. These are among the documents that came in
22 jointly, Your Honour, and there may have been some confusion about the
23 uploading in connection with that. And the right page in B/C/S? And if
24 we get page 66 in English. If we go back to the previous page in B/C/S.
25 Q. Now you raised some issues in connection with that,
1 Mr. Prstojevic, but I'm first going to begin by reading and please follow
2 in the -- I'm going to read in the English and you follow in the B/C/S,
3 which is on screen. You were speaking at the 17th Assembly, held between
4 July 24th and July 26th in 1992, and you said the following. And I
5 believe you'll confirm that that was a reference to the meeting we've
6 just discussed.
7 "Mr. President, honourable MPs, I have decided to say a few words
8 and ask a few questions that I'm being asked by the citizens of Sarajevo.
9 Namely, when the Serbs started the uprising in Sarajevo and when they
10 seized control over certain territories, there was no government, or at
11 least it was not known where it was then. Moreover, we even did not know
12 if Mr. Karadzic was alive during the first couple of days. When we
13 learned that he was alive and when he visited us in Ilidza and encouraged
14 us, the Serbs from Sarajevo retained control over the territory and even
15 extended their territory in some areas, driving the Muslims out of the
16 territories where they had actually been majority."
17 Now, first of all, Mr. Prstojevic, I know you have raised and
18 want to raise again the question of a particular word, but let me ask you
19 to confirm first that that speech was about the meeting held on or about
20 April 17th or April 18th in Ilidza.
21 A. Yes. But the speech was given on the 18th. I have that in my
22 documentation so we don't have to say either/or. It was on the 18th
24 Q. You said the speech was given on the 18th. This speech was given
25 at the Assembly in July. I understood we are talking about the meeting
1 that took place now you say on the 18th but that you previously said on
2 or about the 17th.
3 A. I said that I established based on my documentation, and when
4 I came to testify in the Krajisnik case I provided the Trial Chamber with
5 the original, where you can see that the meeting at the Ilidza Crisis
6 Staff was held on the 18th of April, 1992. This speech was at the
7 17th Assembly session of the People's Assembly of Republika Srpska, from
8 the 24th to the 26th of June.
9 Q. And you previously raised to the Trial Chamber a concern about
10 this speech and how accurately it captured what you said in explaining
11 what happened at the April 18th meeting, and that concern appears to
12 revolve around a particular word; is that right, Mr. Prstojevic?
13 A. Yes, you are correct, and I can explain that word, if you like,
14 because, see, I have a document here, where it says, "poticali,"
15 "encouraged," here it says, "poticali." The interpreter now in English
16 translated as "pushed back," which I think I said is a military
17 terminology and relates to pushing back the enemy manpower. At the point
18 in time when I testified in the Krajisnik case, the Trial Chamber had in
19 front of it, before them, the word "potjerali," "pushed back," so words
20 can change their meaning. They can change the meaning of the text.
21 I didn't have a written speech. I came out as a guest and I just spoke
22 whatever came to me at the time. So I don't dispute the speech.
23 However, I said, on Thursday, that I was surprised that there is no CD,
24 that a part of the transcript from the Republican Assembly was written in
25 the Cyrillic for a good part and then suddenly there is a different
1 typewriter. Had I known that at that point in time, I would not have had
2 so much confidence in the actual document anymore.
3 However, I can explain this speech of mine. There is nothing
4 controversial in it. If necessary.
5 Q. I don't want you to explain it and I think you explained it in
6 some detail during the course of the Krajisnik case, but what is the
7 document that you have before you that contains a different word from the
8 word in D92?
9 A. I don't know what I got from your investigators, translated my
10 interviews from 2003, and I got this document as well. And then I see
11 the document here. Third, I heard what the interpreter said.
12 Q. Well, Mr. Prstojevic, let me back up a bit, when you testified in
13 the Krajisnik case, you said that you were able to -- that you read the
14 word that was in the text, and it was "potjerali" and you distinguished
15 it from "protjerali," isn't that right? So you read the word as it was
16 in this text and that word was "potjerali"?
17 A. No, no, that's not right. At the time I had the text where it
18 said "potjerali," but I keep claiming that we pushed out the Muslims from
19 the territory where they are practically in a minority, "potisli,"
20 because there is an absolute majority and a relative majority, so this is
21 very important when we look at that. At that time, they were never an
22 absolute majority anywhere in relation to the Christian population, and
23 that is why I use the word "practically." My terminology for the most
24 part is a military kind of terminology, and I, as a reserve military
25 officer used the word "potisli," "to push back."
1 Q. Yes. Mr. Prstojevic, but the text does not use the word
2 "potisli," it uses the word "potjerali," correct? And you acknowledged
3 that during the course of your Krajisnik case?
4 A. No, no, I didn't accept that. I would like to listen to the CD.
5 Here, the word used is "potjecali" [phoen]. That's what it says here,
7 Q. Let me first -- for the Court is in a -- I just want to clarify
8 what is in the text first and you're welcome to explain your -- anything
9 about the speech or the meeting itself but let's not -- let's not allow
10 the Court to be mistaken about what the text is.
11 Let me turn to a couple of portions of the Krajisnik case. And
12 at page 674, you said:
13 "In the translation I have here I can read the word 'potjerali,'"
14 and then you go on to say you wouldn't use that term. And then at
15 page 14676, and the previous reference should have been to 14674, you
17 "I was reading the part in the minutes where it says 'potjerali,'
18 'to chase away,' it doesn't say 'protjerali,' 'to expel.'"
19 Is it correct you said that, Mr. Prstojevic, and does that
20 clearly indicate what can be seen in the document, that the word in the
21 text taken from a tape, is the word "potjerali," "to chase away"?
22 A. No. Please, I would like to remind you about something. During
23 my testimony in the Krajisnik case, you pointed out that the witness
24 questioned this word or these two words in the interview in 2002. This
25 is the word in line 10 at the beginning. Here, at the -- this device and
1 also in the hard copy it says "potjecali." In some texts it says
2 "potjerali." I said "potisli."
3 There is a CD, I listened to it a few days ago, and I know what
4 I said in 2002, in 2003, and in the testimony in the Krajisnik case, and
5 I'm saying the same thing now.
6 Q. Let me address for a moment your attempt to cast doubt on the
7 words used in this text by pointing to a couple of factors. First of
8 all, you point to the fact that a Latin typewriter is used. Are you
9 suggesting in any way, Mr. Prstojevic, that the Assembly of the Serbian
10 People didn't have the use of a Latin typewriter? Or indeed that you in
11 Ilidza didn't have the use of a Latin typewriter?
12 A. This is not something that I want. We did have Latin typewriters
13 in Ilidza and at the Assembly, but as for this part of the transcript,
14 I asked to listen to the CD during the proofing, when I was here.
15 Mitford didn't have a CD. He didn't have the recording, so he brought
16 out all the speeches of all the speakers at the Assembly, and I was
17 surprised when, in the beginning, you have the Cyrillic typewriter up to
18 a certain point, and then after that, the text goes on in the Latin
19 typewriter, but this is a little bit unusual. It should either be typed
20 in the Cyrillic typewriter in its entirety or in the Latin typewriter in
21 its entirety.
22 Q. Would it change your mind about whether that's a significant
23 aspect of this text, Mr. Prstojevic, to know that this was received from
24 the Republika Srpska authorities and stamped as an authentic copy?
25 A. If this is an original, then I accept it, and I am interpreting
1 it, but evidently the interpreters are translating not only this word, I
2 can indicate another word that is important in order to interpret what
3 you are asking me, and it's a little different.
4 JUDGE MORRISON: Mr. Tieger, I think we are going to have to stop
5 for the day there. Is it possible to indicate to the Chamber how long
6 you're likely to need for further examination-in-chief?
7 MR. TIEGER: I considered that the Court might ask me that
8 question, Your Honour, and I thought it might be best if I reviewed the
9 transcript, reviewed the remaining topics and gave the Court a slightly
10 more enlightened view by perhaps the end of the day through your
11 Court Officer, rather than take a more intuitive shot at it right now.
12 But I'm certainly going to need at least another -- at minimum another
13 session and I think whether it requires the bulk of another day I can't
14 say, but I'll do my best to look at the material remaining and reduce it
15 to an absolute minimum.
16 JUDGE MORRISON: Thank you. Very well. Then we will rise for
17 today and we will sit again at 9.00 a.m. tomorrow morning.
18 MR. TIEGER: And Mr. President, just to remind the Court, I'm
19 sure the Court has it on its mind, but we have -- tomorrow and the next
20 day are fixed with the witnesses who were mentioned earlier.
21 JUDGE MORRISON: Yes, that's correct. But of course for forward
22 planning it's still necessary to know --
23 MR. TIEGER: Of course, and I didn't mean to suggest otherwise.
24 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.45 p.m.,
25 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 9th day of
1 March, 2011, at 9.00 a.m.