1 Thursday, 14 March 2013
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness takes the stand]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.01 a.m.
6 JUDGE KWON: Good morning, everyone.
7 Yes, Mr. File, please continue.
8 WITNESS: STEVO PASALIC [Resumed]
9 [Witness answered through interpreter]
10 MR. FILE: Thank you, Your Honour.
11 Cross-examination by Mr. File: [Continued]
12 Q. Good morning, Mr. Pasalic -- Professor Pasalic.
13 A. Good morning.
14 Q. When we left off yesterday I was asking you about page 39 in the
15 English and page 37 in the B/C/S of your report and how you came up with
16 the distribution of ethnic groups in table 3. You pointed me to table 2,
17 which has a breakdown of population by age and sex but not ethnicity, and
18 then you explained to me that you used a differentiated birth rate
19 formula to generate those figures but you could not specify a paragraph
20 in the report that showed those calculations.
21 Now, I want to go to the next page of your report and show you a
22 place where a similar thing happened. This is in paragraph 115. We have
23 some figures from table B2.2 of P4994 which was Dr. Tabeau's report, and
24 then you add a column that says "Should be" with different percentages.
25 Now, you have a footnote there that just says that the data is taken from
1 your own scientific book, but there's no explanation as to how you
2 arrived at those figures; correct?
3 A. Yes, I can explain that table. The figures are correct, and they
4 show the difference between the results of Dr. Tabeau and mine. This
5 table follows from the previous misstated data and from table 2, the age
6 structure of the population.
7 With these figures we have shown that those born until 1980 in
8 Dr. Tabeau's report and in my report differ in numbers. The column
9 should be -- is based on the calculation of these variables of age
10 structure and the differentiated birth rate as well as natural population
11 growth which shows that in the Serbian population --
12 Q. Professor, once again I'm just looking for the calculations. I'm
13 looking for where these numbers come from. I understand that you're
14 using different variables that produce it, but I'm wondering how can
15 anyone try to replicate these numbers if you don't show them how you're
16 doing the calculations.
17 A. The calculation is very simple and can be found in other
19 Q. Which paragraph? Can you point me to the paragraph, please?
20 A. Then I would ask for a little patience. Paragraph 92 in the
21 B/C/S version.
22 THE INTERPRETER: Could Mr. File kindly speak into the other
23 microphone as well please or switch on both microphones. We can hardly
24 hear him. Thank you.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Under the table, the variable of
1 population growth by ethnicity. If you apply this variable in your
2 calculation, then you easily arrive at the result that the Serbian
3 population is more numerous in the age group born until 1980, but the
4 population growth is half that of the Muslim population, and then we get
5 these results which differ from those of Dr. Tabeau, because the share of
6 the Serbs until 1980 relatively speaking is much greater than -- than
7 according to her calculations in which she used her methodology.
8 Q. I'm sure --
9 A. These are all original data from vital statistics.
10 Q. Okay. But I'm sure you see the problem which is that here you
11 have percentages but there is no calculation anywhere. That's point.
12 There's no indication of your methodology.
13 A. If I may. I can show that in the example given in paragraph 110
14 after table 2. I show a calculation applied to the example of one
15 municipality. All other calculations are done along the same lines,
16 because the same variables and the same formula are used. In such
17 analyses, it is unnecessary to burden the report with calculations and
18 mathematical statistical formulae. It is important to present the
19 results parallelly to those of the OTP's expert and point out the
20 differences, and the differences are obvious. I stand by the accuracy of
21 my data. I think that there is no doubt about the accuracy, but we --
22 you must apply demography and statistics.
23 Q. Again, I --
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If I may, the transcript -- in line
25 8, the word "vital statistics" is missing.
1 MR. FILE:
2 Q. To be clear, Professor, the calculation that you did in paragraph
3 110, which you're relying on now, is a calculation that produces in point
4 4 the total population born before 1980, and that's the total population
5 of 3.523.437. And I'm asking you how you produced a figure that has a
6 breakdown of internally displaced persons between Serbs, Muslims, Croats,
7 and others, and you have percentages. There's literally no connection
8 between a calculation that produces a complete population for a country
9 and a calculation that produces percentages of internally displaced
10 persons broken down by ethnicity. They're not related, are they?
11 A. Both have to do with paragraph 92. I gave per mils percentages
12 that I apply in table B22 in the calculation of percentages allocating
13 the share of Serbs, Muslims, and the refugee population. I thereby show
14 that the data for vital statistics must be used and namely the
15 differentiated vital population growth. That is an essential variable
16 that the OTP expert did for the take into consideration and this is the
17 greatest difference between us.
18 Q. Okay. I want to ask you about the next table, which is table 4
19 on page 41 of the English and page 38 to 39 of the B/C/S. Now, the
20 source for this is an RS government list of refugees and displaced
21 persons in Republika Srpska; correct?
22 A. Table 4 is presented on the basis of a primary data source, and
23 that is the comprehensive census of displaced persons and refugees which
24 was taken immediately after the war in the most important year, and that
25 year is 1996. If you want me to explain this table.
1 Q. Not at the moment. I'm going to ask you some questions about the
2 table, actually. It covers exclusively the territory of Republika
3 Srpska; correct?
4 A. This table covers the territory of Republika Srpska, but there
5 were persons from all over Bosnia-Herzegovina and also from without
6 Bosnia-Herzegovina, persons who came to the territory of the RS, which
7 shows their intensive demographic movements in all directions.
8 Q. So just to compare this with the Tabeau report, this misses some
9 of the municipalities that are covered by the Tabeau report, and it also
10 includes some that are not included in the Tabeau report, is that right,
11 in terms of the overlap?
12 A. This is an aggregate report for refugees and displaced persons
13 who came to the RS. In other tables which we can also look at, we deal
14 with municipalities that Dr. Tabeau also dealt with --
15 Q. I'm not asking about other tables.
16 A. -- that's what we can compare.
17 Q. I'm not asking you about other tables, I'm asking about this
18 table. Are these all Serbs that are included within this table?
19 A. No. We will see that later --
20 Q. Okay.
21 A. -- when we come to the structure of the refugees and displaced
23 Q. And --
24 A. It cannot be seen in this table but they're dominant.
25 Q. And these are all people who arrived in Republika Srpska, not
1 people who fled the Republika Srpska.
2 A. In my reports, I don't know if the annex was admitted. There
3 were both people who came to the RS and those who left the RS. These are
4 migration flows and counter flows. But this table shows the overall
5 process, and it was not necessary to show some data about refugees and
6 displaced persons based on some samples. She didn't use that primary
7 source. And in some other tables we show from where these other persons
8 came to the RS. I repeat that this is a primary data source, and it is
9 extremely valid as compared to secondary data sources which we used by
10 Dr. Tabeau.
11 Q. Could you please just answer my question directly. I asked you
12 whether this table covers people who arrived in RS exclusively but not
13 people who fled the Republika Srpska.
14 A. In this case this table covers all the persons -- all the persons
15 who came to the territory of the RS from other -- some other territories.
16 It is clearly stated here.
17 Q. Okay. So don't you see a problem then in terms of methodology
18 here in the sense that you're using numbers that can't be compared to the
19 data in the Tabeau report because she's talking about people who fled
20 some but not all of the territories that are covered in this table and
21 other territories that are not covered in this table? There are multiple
22 ways that this doesn't interact with the data in Dr. Tabeau's report;
24 A. That is the essence, indeed, to show the whole process, but that
25 is missing in Dr. Tabeau's report. She only shows migration flows in one
1 direction, and we show the other direction. So we can show the totality
2 of the process in both directions, and that is the essence of demographic
3 movements during the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina. We cannot understand any
4 process -- or, rather, we will have a distorted picture or wrong
5 statistics if we only look at one aspect of the process without taking
6 into consideration the causes and consequences.
7 Q. Okay. I want to ask you about a calculation question or issue
8 which is earlier in your report. It appears on page 31 of the English
9 and 28 of the B/C/S. It's at paragraph 85.
10 You're claiming that in the addendum to the Tabeau report she
11 made errors of calculation when determining the number of people born
12 before 1980 in order to look for matches of eligible registered voters in
13 OSCE voting register for 1997, and in paragraph 85 you say that her
14 figures are "not real" and that this can be easily proven using Bijeljina
15 as an example. In paragraphs 85 to 86, you explain that Dr. Tabeau
16 listed the number of Bijeljina inhabitants before -- born before 1980 as
17 totaling 81.650 in 1991, and you say that because the 1991 census shows
18 the total population of Bijeljina as 96.988, the consequences that
19 Dr. Tabeau's numbers would show 84.18 per cent of the population born
20 before 1980, and presumably this is because if you divide 81.650 by the
21 total population of 96.988, you get 84.18 per cent. And then you
22 describe this result in paragraph 86 as absolutely incorrect, and you
23 say, and now I'm quoting your report:
24 "According to the age structure in Bijeljina in 1991, Bijeljina
25 25.584 residents younger than 18 or 26.37 per cent. This is irrefutable
1 proof that it is impossible for Bijeljina to have had only 15.82 per cent
2 of inhabitants aged less than 18, the share given by international
3 experts in annex A1. Such sudden changes in age structure are not
4 possible in only seven or eight years. Likewise, the data on the
5 population of all ethnicities, including the Muslims, as presented in
6 annex A1 for all presented municipalities was also done in an erroneous
7 and incorrect way."
8 Now, have I accurately described your objection to Dr. Tabeau's
9 calculations there?
10 A. You interpreted everything based on these two paragraphs. These
11 two are the ones where constitute the most striking proof that Dr. Tabeau
12 calculated wrongly on the very simple example that at Bijeljina
13 municipality we showed that -- that there is a huge difference in the
14 population born before 1980, and I will show gladly how we arrived at
15 these figures, and by inference also the data for all the other
16 municipalities are wrong.
17 Q. So let's go to the next page of your report, which is paragraph
18 91. You reiterate this point using a chart of the age distribution of
19 the population of Bijeljina in 1991, and you say at the bottom of the
21 "The table shows that the estimates given by the international
22 experts were exaggerated and may not be taken as relevant data for
23 production of evidence in any significant case that treats such
24 demographic issues."
25 So what I want to do with you now is just to do a sort of back of
1 the envelope calculation with you using your own table that we see here
2 to approximate the percentage of the population that was born before
4 MR. FILE: So if we could switch to Sanction for a moment,
6 Q. Can you see there your table from paragraph 91 which shows the
7 age distribution of the population of Bijeljina according to 1991 census
9 A. Yes, yes.
10 Q. The left-hand side column shows the age group and the right-hand
11 side column shows the number of individuals who were included in that age
12 group; right?
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. So if you want to figure out from this approximately how many
15 people were born in 1980 or after, and this data comes from 1991, then
16 you're essentially looking for people who are between the ages of 0 and
17 11; right?
18 A. In the first two categories 0 through 9 and 10 through 14,
19 everyone is included. Yes, until the age of 11, you're right. And in
20 the second category we consider half of the population relevant as those
21 born until 1980, because if we were to consider the whole age group it
22 would consider those born after 1980 as well. We calculate that based on
23 the differentiated natural population growth.
24 Q. Well, strictly speaking it's not half. It's 40 per cent, right,
25 because the ages are 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14, so there are five year
1 groups and we're looking for 10-year-olds and 11-year-olds?
2 A. Yes, two and a half and two and a half. The interval is five
3 here. In statistical tables these are nominal limits, and these
4 intervals are the calculated as the upper limit of the previous group
5 minus the lower limit of the previous group.
6 Q. Okay.
7 A. That's how it's done in statistics.
8 Q. Okay. So if you -- if you want to produce this number, you start
9 by pulling out all the people who are 0 to 9 years old, and we can
10 actually go to the next -- there we go. You pull out that number first,
11 and then you select out the 10-year-olds and the 11-year-olds. If we go
12 to the next slide. And the next one. You select that group of people to
13 include the total population, if we're approximating, of 0 to 11;
15 A. 0, 11, and half of 12 in that year. We make an estimate of age
16 12 and divide -- and split it in two, two equal parts, if we want the
17 period up until 1980.
18 Q. But actually wouldn't you also be splitting the age 9 into two
19 parts? So as a result, the total would be 0 to 9 plus age 10 and 11;
20 right? Not half. It's two fits.
21 A. There is no need for 9. This is the whole contingent of those
22 born after 1980; that is, minors. There is no need to split them. The
23 problem is the group from 10 to 14 years. Some were born before 1980,
24 others after 1980. This is where you have to calculate and apply
25 estimates to establish how many were born before 1980 and how many later.
1 Q. Okay.
2 MR. FILE: And I apologise to the registrar for switching back to
3 e-court for a moment.
4 Q. The reason this is surprising to me is I'm using your own
5 methodology for doing this kind of calculation from page 34 of your
6 report where you actually do this for Prijedor.
7 MR. FILE: So could we just look at -- it's the top of page 34 in
9 Q. And do you see what I'm saying? It says at the top the age
10 structure of the population of Prijedor in 1991, and you've got the same
11 categories that you have listed for Bijeljina --
12 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. Let's find -- yes. We see the
13 B/C/S. Yes. Please proceed.
14 MR. FILE:
15 Q. And then in the paragraph afterwards it says:
16 "Therefore, if we take away all the residents in the 0-9 age
17 group and the relevant proportion in the 10-14 age group," and then in
18 parentheses you have two-fifths.
19 You don't have one-half, you have two-fifths. Now do you see how
20 that's different from what you're just telling me?
21 A. I'm following.
22 Q. So shall we return to the calculation that we were doing before
23 using your own methodology here.
24 A. Two-fifths apply to age 10 and 11. This does not yet include the
25 half of the 12-year-olds, because the total size is 5, that is the
1 interval, plus age group 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. We take two-fifths, which
2 is 10 and 11, and then we estimate one-half of age 12. The methodology
3 is completely the same for Bijeljina, Prijedor, and any other
4 municipality. It only differs from the variable based on differentiated
5 natural population growth and that's why we get different percentages.
6 Q. But that's not what you do in your report. In your report, you
7 take two-fifths of the 10 to 14 age group. If you do the math, that's
8 what that is. That's two-fifths. And then you say we get to the result
9 that in 1991, and then you have a simple subtraction from the total
10 population from the group of 0 to 9-year-olds and then the 10 and
11 11-year-olds. There's nothing there about taking half of the
12 12-year-olds and adding them to this number. I'm sorry to focus on the
13 details, but that's not what you put in the report.
14 A. The only possibility that I see is that this was skipped while in
15 the printing, that it was omitted, but it's impossible that it had not
16 been taken into account in the calculations when you look at the final
17 results which you have at the end of paragraph 93.
18 Q. Professor, how was it skipped in the printing when you actually
19 you do the numbers? You subtract 19.667 from 112.543 and you arrive at
20 98276 for Prijedor. That's not a printing error.
21 A. I think it is. I think that it was most probably omitted.
22 However, even if we were to include here half of year 12, the result
23 would be even more -- would prove even more my point for this
24 calculation. The data here is somewhat less than it should be, but the
25 methodology is -- points out the difference between what we used, the
1 method that we used, and Dr. Tabeau, her methodology also on the example
2 of Prijedor.
3 If you look further at the differentiated birth rate, you will
4 see the percentages that show that there was a far greater share of the
5 Muslim population born after 1990.
6 Q. I'm not asking --
7 A. In other words, their numbers of the -- of those born before 1980
8 were smaller, lower, objectively than Dr. Tabeau presented it.
9 Q. All right. Let's return to this calculation relating to
10 Bijeljina, and we're going to do it the way that you did it in your
11 report, and then we can make an adjustment afterwards for this half of
12 the 12-year-olds.
13 MR. FILE: Now, if we could go to the next slide.
14 Q. That shows the addition of these two groups which adds up to
16 MR. FILE: And if we could go to the next slide.
17 Q. Now if you do a percentage this way, what you produce is a number
18 that is 16.68 per cent of age 0 to 11, which is people born 1980 or
19 later, and then 83.32 per cent of people aged 12 or over, i.e., born
20 before 1980.
21 Now, this -- first of all, this is an approximation because we're
22 taking an evenly distributed assumption of every age group, and it's
23 probably not precisely that way. So this will be different from
24 Dr. Tabeau's figures probably somewhat because she counted individual
25 people, but these figures are awfully close. Dr. Tabeau said 84.18
1 per cent, and we have 83.32 per cent.
2 Now, even if you were to add half of the age 12-year-olds, we can
3 even -- we can do this calculation, actually.
4 You have to add 666 people to 16.184, which gives 16.850, and
5 then you divide by 96.988, and you end up with 17.37 per cent?
6 JUDGE KWON: An older group being 82.6 per cent.
7 MR. FILE: Thank you, Mr. President.
8 Q. So again, even if we follow this methodology that you're telling
9 us about today that's different from what you had in your report, you
10 still get a number that's quite close to the number that Dr. Tabeau
12 Now, let's revisit for a moment your criticism, because you said
13 in paragraph 86:
14 "According to the age structure in 1991, Bijeljina had 25.584
15 residents younger than 18 or 26.37 per cent."
16 But the point is, Professor, Dr. Tabeau wasn't interested in
17 people who became voting age in 1991. She was interested in the people
18 who became voting age in 1997 because those were the people who were
19 going to show up in the 1997 voters register. So it doesn't matter what
20 percentage of residents were younger than 18 in 1991. What matters is
21 what percentage of residents were younger than 12 in 1991.
22 So my question is that when you claim that Dr. Tabeau has made a
23 mistake that infects all the municipality's figures in her annex A1, it's
24 actually you who've made the mistake, and this is a pretty fundamental
25 mistake, isn't it, for a demographer? To use the word that you used
1 yesterday, this is kind of an amateurish mistake, isn't it?
2 A. Yes. Yes. And I claim with absolute certainty and please let me
3 prove this. It is correct that Dr. Tabeau used the matching method where
4 she matched the information from the census of 1991, those who were born
5 before 1980, and the voters' registers of 1997 in order to show that in
6 1998 those who had the right to vote. In other words, who were of mature
8 Now, our methodology shows that it is impossible that between
9 1991 and 1997 for this population to have grown old so fast and that we
10 get 84.18 per cent of those who had the right to vote in 1997 and 1998.
11 Those were -- these were the oldest populations in some countries of
12 Europe. Let me remind you of this, that in 1991, the average age in
13 Bosnia and Herzegovina was 33, which in percentage points means that
14 about 75 of the grown-ups had the right to vote. It is impossible to
15 have this transformation from 75 per cent that I've calculated here to 84
16 per cent of those who were born before 1980 and who have the right to
17 vote by 1997, because this would be a very sudden aging of the
18 population, and this is where we show the difference.
19 MR. FILE: Mr. President, we have the final slide of this in
20 e-court as 65 ter number 24766, and I would tender that.
21 JUDGE KWON: How do we view that?
22 MR. FILE: I think if we switch to e-court it should come up.
23 JUDGE KWON: Very well. 24766.
24 Any objection?
25 MR. ROBINSON: No Mr. President.
1 JUDGE KWON: We'll receive it.
2 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P6198, Your Honours.
3 JUDGE KWON: I'm not sure Doctor has understood your question,
4 last question, whether Dr. Tabeau was interested in the percentage of
5 voting people in the year of 1991. So she didn't pay any attention to
6 those who were 12 to 18 in 1991, did she?
7 MR. FILE: Yes. The people -- she did. The people who were 12
8 to 18 in 1991 are voting age in 1997. So it's only the 0 to 11-year-olds
9 that we're concerned with excluding.
10 JUDGE KWON: Yes, I misspoke. Please continue.
11 MR. FILE: I'm actually going to move to table 12 unless Your
12 Honours think that I should pursue this further.
13 JUDGE KWON: Let me -- bear with me a minute. Please continue.
14 MR. FILE:
15 Q. I want to look at this large table that you have, table 12, that
16 runs from English page 46 to 53 and B/C/S page 43 to 50. Now, this table
17 purports to show the number of households who moved into various
18 municipalities in Republika Srpska as measured in 1996, and it shows the
19 number of households that moved in from other municipalities and regions;
21 A. That's correct, the number of households.
22 Q. And some of these are indictment municipalities and some of them
23 are not; correct?
24 A. The table shows the municipalities with migrating populations,
25 the populations that arrived into the municipality. From the case of
1 Mr. Karadzic, we just wanted to show by some data, comparative data, that
2 those municipalities are not representatives and that the indictment
3 municipalities are not -- that the demographic movements in those
4 municipalities are not so expressive as we would say in demography and
5 demographic analysis. We will show that later. So the 20 Karadzic
6 indictment municipalities. Should we explain the table?
7 Q. Well --
8 A. Can I explain it, because it's a bit complicated?
9 Q. I'm going to ask you some questions about it, but I'm just
10 wondering you also included some municipalities that are not in the
11 indictment; correct?
12 A. This table did not include the municipalities where people from
13 other municipalities came except from the municipalities in the Karadzic
14 case, because our goal was to show the difference between our results and
15 the OTP expert's results.
16 Q. Okay.
17 A. And that the figures are far lower than shown in those reports.
18 Q. I don't think you're answering my question, but --
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I propose that we show at least
20 one version. Because these are figures, we don't really need to have
21 translation into English. Could we just show the table and perhaps zoom
22 in on it.
23 MR. FILE:
24 Q. I'm going to ask you a question about what -- what data this --
25 this table provides. It does not provide data on ethnicity; correct?
1 A. In this case, no, because these are demographic movements of
2 members of all ethnicities in larger and smaller percentages.
3 Q. So then this is what I don't understand, is in your report at
4 paragraph 130, which is page 43 of the B/C/S, you say:
5 "The relative decrease in the proportion of one ethnic group in
6 the general population may be due to the departure of its members but
7 also to the arrival of another ethnic group."
8 But this data that you're using doesn't show the arrival of
9 another ethnic group. It shows the arrival of households, period.
10 Ethnic group is not a variable that's measured here; right? Actually,
11 you've already answered that question. Let me show you where you do this
12 again after table 12. It's paragraph 132. You say:
13 "Let us have a look at the influx of Serbian families to the 20
14 municipalities in the Karadzic case."
15 And then for the next page and a half you use the same data to
16 look at three of the 20 municipalities, and again you're using data with
17 no information about ethnicity and you're claiming that you're proving
18 something related to the movement of ethnic groups. Is that correct?
19 A. First of all, these are data from the census, so I was not the
20 one who created them. They were given without the ethnicity category.
21 They were given in total numbers. But the essence of these tables is
22 what I say in paragraph 132 where we show that in Banja Luka, in the
23 Dr. Karadzic case, only 22.5 per cent of people arrived from the -- from
24 the municipalities that his case is concerned with and not all 100
25 per cent. So we show that this sample of municipalities is not
1 representative and that in fact the data is exaggerated.
2 Now, if we were to analyse --
3 Q. [Overlapping speakers]... the key -- the key thing is --
4 A. It is true that these are predominantly Serbian households that
5 gravitated from other areas towards Republika Srpska, and we refer to
6 this as the principle of connected vessels, and this applied to all
7 ethnicities. You cannot take this in isolation, because one change would
8 automatically cause a change in the other group. These are living
9 individuals, they are human beings, and we show that these movements are
10 very complex. That's what we're pointing out.
11 Q. You're saying that they're predominantly Serb, but there is no
12 way you can give us a figure because you don't know. This data doesn't
13 tell you. So we just have to take your word for it and assume that it's
14 a lot but we don't know how many.
15 A. Well, in that sense you could say so, but I don't have the right
16 to change the data source because that's what I'm referring to here.
17 This is a census of refugees and displaced persons. Anything other would
18 be just my arbitrary estimation or assessments that are not valid, and I
19 was very careful to stay away from that. In other words, I tried to
20 corroborate, support every data with primary source data -- data source.
21 Q. Okay. I'd like to switch gears and ask you about your criticisms
22 of the 1991 census as a source. You say in your report and you also
23 testified yesterday that the census reports were not verified, that the
24 process data was never published, and you complain third of all that the
25 results were published in 1995 in Croatia. I'd like to start with that
1 last critique.
2 At paragraph 57, this is page 25 of the English and page 24 of
3 the B/C/S, regarding the fact that the 1991 census results were published
4 in Croatia in 1995, you say:
5 "... it is unusual and even absurd that a serious study should be
6 based on census results of one country that were published in another
7 maybe even more biased country."
8 Now, first of all, what do you mean when you call Croatia an even
9 more biased country?
10 A. That's only a hypothetical assumption that there might be bias
11 there, because in wartime another state is publishing in part the results
12 of a census in another country, which is totally absurd. You can't find
13 a similar example anywhere else in the world. The state bureau of
14 statistics in Croatia published part of the data from the census in
15 Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1995 that relates to the entire population.
16 Now, from the aggregate level, meaning the entire Bosnia and
17 Herzegovina, all the way down to the towns and places, and that's why we
18 said this was totally absurd. In scientific circles, that's unheard of.
19 It was a surprise to us. And we challenge this information because this
20 was never ratified by the then the National Assembly in
21 Bosnia-Herzegovina which is a must, and this I corroborate by quoting
22 someone who was an official of the bureau of statistics.
23 MR. FILE: Can we please look at 65 ter number 242L, please.
24 Q. What you will see on your screen in a moment, Professor, is the
25 1991 census results that were published in 1995 in Croatia. I'm going to
1 show you a page with statistics for Vlasenica. I just chose this because
2 I used it with another witness relatively recently.
3 MR. FILE: This will be at e-court page 2 in the B/C/S. And if
4 we can zoom in on Vlasenica. Maybe we should just make the B/C/S full
6 Q. In this what you have -- you have a total 1991 population of
7 33.942 in Vlasenica. Then you have Croats, 39; Muslims, 18.272; Serbs,
8 14.359; Yugoslavs, 340; and others, 477. Okay?
9 Now, I want to compare that with 65 ter number 12121A.
10 MR. FILE: If we could do that, please.
11 Q. And what you will see here when it comes up are the 1991 census
12 results published in Sarajevo for Vlasenica.
13 MR. FILE: And for the record, the .mif information indicates
14 that this was seized by the OTP from the Ministry of the Interior in
15 Sarajevo on 15 September 1994.
16 Now, if we could go to e-court B/C/S page 4.
17 Q. You will see Vlasenica in the middle, and here you see the same
18 numbers, 33.942 for the total population -- I'm not going to read them
19 all, but they're the same. The only difference is they don't have a
20 percentage, and the ethnicities are listed in a different order. That's
21 the only difference. Otherwise, these are identical. Don't you agree?
22 A. Well, we did not challenge the difference in the figures. What
23 we see on the screen now are the first results that were published by the
24 Bureau of Statistics of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the raw, the first
25 results, not final. This shows the number of inhabitants but not the
1 national -- but not the breakdown by ethnicity. This was only later
2 published by the State bureau of Statistics of Croatia, but there is a
3 third source, the federal bureau of statistics, which provided a detailed
4 analysis. It is possible that in some municipalities there are certain
5 differences in the figures because - I repeat - these were the initial
6 results from Bosnia-Herzegovina that were not further analysed and
7 published, but I have to say that it is strange that a census would be
8 published by one state for another state under these conditions. So that
9 is our main objection, not looking at every figure and so on. These are
10 not relevant matters.
11 Q. But if the numbers are the same, then what does it matter where
12 it was published? How can bias enter into the question if the numbers
13 are the same?
14 A. That's nonsense. You say that one state would not publish its
15 census. We, too, used that information, that data, because we didn't
16 have anything better, so we used the data from the State Bureau of
17 Statistics of Croatia for the same figures, but it is indicative that
18 during the war another state would publish your results, the results of
19 your census. We could also ask why it wouldn't have been published by
20 another state, by Serbia or Republika Srpska and so on. We did not go
21 into challenging all of these figures. We didn't do that. But I
22 apologise. I have to say these are just partially published results, not
23 full results. Just total numbers and ethnicities.
24 MR. FILE: Could we tender these please, Mr. President.
25 A. We'll admit them both.
1 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P6199 and P6200, respectively.
2 MR. FILE:
3 Q. Let's talk about this objection that you're raising now. You
4 mention it in your report as well at paragraph 58. This is page 25 to 26
5 of the English and page 24 of the B/C/S. Now, here you pull out this
6 quotation from Nora Selimovic's detailed description of the procedure
7 followed. She was the expert advisor for aggregation and analysis of
8 data and the development of the methodology in the field of demography in
9 the BH agency for statistics in Sarajevo.
10 Now this is in the Tabeau report, and she says -- you pull this
11 quotation where she says:
12 "The bureau of statistics was not able to produce and publish all
13 tables that had to be prepared according to the programme of data
14 processing. After the end of the military conflict, the statistical
15 office managed to publish some more data in connection with the
16 population and households. The data on dwellings and agricultural farms
17 were not published because this material never passed the phase of
18 logical control."
19 Now in your report at paragraph 59, you go on to say:
20 "Therefore our thesis on incomplete data from the 1991 BH census
21 is fully confirmed by this quote."
22 And this is the point you were just making. But if we look at
23 P4993, which is the annex, Annex B of sources, you omit to mention that
24 three paragraphs later in that exact same passage Nora Selimovic says:
25 "The official data published on the population has passed all
1 control phases including the control for duplicates that was conducted on
2 the level of each municipality.
3 So I put it to you, Professor, that what you're doing here is
4 misrepresenting what's in the Tabeau report. You're making sweeping
5 claims about how the census data is incomplete and unreliable, but you're
6 basing it on the fact that some data about dwellings and farms was never
7 published because it had not passed through some controls, whereas the
8 rest of the data had been fully checked. That's what you're doing here
9 in your report; right?
10 MR. FILE: And by the way the citation for Tabeau quotation is
11 e-court page 17, B/C/S page 15, and it's written on the page as page 206
12 because it came from the Milosevic report.
13 Q. But that is what you're doing, right, Professor? You're
14 misrepresenting what was in the Tabeau report.
15 A. No, no, no, no. No. Please, paragraph 58 is Selimovic's quote,
16 not mine.
17 "Information regarding residents and any land in the person's
18 possession, that was never published because that was never logically
20 Those are not my words. It's merely a quote that I'm using to
21 demonstrate the incomplete nature of data used for the 1991 census. It's
22 been 20 years and we still don't have all the information from that
23 census processed. We have the initial results from the 1991 census, and
24 we have the Annual Gazette of the bureau from 1998 which only tells us
25 about the age groups but that is all we have.
1 Q. So can I then ask you about --
2 A. I stand by my allegations, every inch of the way.
3 JUDGE KWON: Just pause -- bear in mind our conversation is being
4 translated. You should put a pause.
5 Shall we see the actual word in P4993, the passage you referred
7 MR. FILE: Yes, Your Honour. As I was saying, it's -- it's in
8 e-court page 17 of P4993. Oh, sorry. It's actually -- yes, that's
10 Q. The relevant passage --
11 JUDGE KWON: How about the B/C/S page?
12 MR. FILE: I actually don't have that. Oh, no, I do. It's page
13 15. Pardon me.
14 Q. What you can see here is the quotation that Professor Pasalic is
15 referring to is that which occurs just above "concept de jure." And
16 actually it starts on the previous page in the English. And then at the
17 bottom of that section with concept de jure, you have the subsequent
18 explanation by the census official explaining how official data on the
19 population had passed all control phases.
20 JUDGE KWON: Where do we find that passage.
21 MR. FILE: It's the third paragraph below "concept de jure."
22 It's a one --
23 JUDGE KWON: "The official data published on the population --"
24 MR. FILE: Yes.
25 JUDGE KWON: "-- has passed all control phases including the
1 control for duplicate that was conducted on the level of each
3 The question was whether Dr. Pasalic took this paragraph in
5 MR. FILE: That's the question.
6 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Doctor. Yes, Professor.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I can tell, we're looking
8 at people who are temporarily employed outside Bosnia and Herzegovina.
9 We're talking about the control stage including the illumination of
10 duplicates. So this is the match -- matching method used by Dr. Tabeau,
11 and we're not talking about complete data from the 1991 census. So
12 there's something I'm unsure about as to how the two were actually linked
13 together. We're talking about de jure and de facto. These are two
14 concepts that are applied in a census. What does de jure mean? That
15 concept means that all the population there physically present in
16 Bosnia-Herzegovina is registered as long as they've been there for at
17 least a year, which means in actual fact that everybody found in the
18 territory is registered. So I'm talking about this in order to drive the
19 point home about persons temporarily living and working abroad outside
20 Bosnia-Herzegovina. But I don't think that all of this has to do with
21 the 1991 census.
22 MR. FILE:
23 Q. None of that -- none of that is -- is mentioned there. It just
24 says that official data published on the population has passed all
25 control phases. It doesn't say only matching or only control for
1 duplicates. It says all control phases. And at the top, that's where it
2 talks about agricultural farms and dwellings that were not published
3 because it hasn't passed a phase of logical control. So there's a pretty
4 clear distinction there, isn't there?
5 A. No. As soon as we're talking about duplicates, the reference is
6 to the matching method used by Dr. Tabeau. We don't have that method and
7 we make no reference to it. The previous quote is clearly -- the
8 previous passage is quote by Nora Selimovic saying that the control phase
9 was not taken into account when the census information was processed and
10 analyzed. Each census goes through a number of different stages, data
11 collection, data grouping, data analysis, and the eventual publication.
12 This process never completed in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
13 Q. Okay. I'm going to move on to a different subject because we're
14 a little bit limited on time.
15 Dr. -- Dr. Tabeau used a statistical technique to estimate the
16 number of killed in Sarajevo called capture-recapture or multiple system
17 estimation. Now on the 26th of April 2012, when Dr. Tabeau was
18 testifying, Dr. Karadzic challenged the validity of capture-recapture
19 technique, this is at transcript page 28188, and Trial Chamber noted
20 after he said:
21 "I challenge the formula, but if you do so it will be noted that
22 your expert is challenging this formula itself."
23 And I would note that you were physically present in the
24 courtroom that day. Now, from your report at paragraph 47, you call this
25 technique "the imaginary formula." So I need to ask you, do you dispute
1 the validity of this formula?
2 A. Then as now, I do. Why? It's a mathematical and statistical
3 formula which does not, not by a long shot, give a realistic result of
4 the phenomena being studied here. We have shown here on a number of
5 occasions that Dr. Tabeau was to all practical intents using a
6 non-existent source of information. The list of victims in Sarajevo in
7 the period between 1992 and 1994. That list was never completed, and the
8 data from that list was never published. I can demonstrate here today
9 using the authentic statements of Dr. Tabeau, the bureau director, my own
10 affidavit, and the statement taken from Dr. Sestanovic.
11 Q. Pardon me for interrupting, but there's a distinction here that's
12 being missed. I'm not asking you about the sources that she was relying
13 on. I'm asking you about theoretically whether you believe that this
14 formula is valid mathematically. That's the question. Not about in this
15 case with different sources, just is it a valid formula?
16 A. If you look at it as isolated from the phenomenon it's supposed
17 to be applied to, it might be seen as valid. However, the application is
18 wrong because when information was calculated using that formula,
19 non-existent information was used. So what do you end up with? A
20 totally fictitious figure, which means nothing at all. That is the gist
21 about Sarajevo.
22 May I just add one thing. How can it be a census procedure is
23 underway for two years, when according to UN standards applied throughout
24 the world, you must do it in no more than two weeks? The procedure takes
25 no more than two weeks, whereas here you have a census effort that was
1 two years underway, and then you find information suggesting that the
2 project started in 1994, and yet elsewhere the author claims the
3 information is not fit to be published because the software available is
4 insufficient. That is less than serious way --
5 Q. Professor --
6 A. -- to treat important information like this, and that is what
7 really chiefly and above all undermines Dr. Tabeau's report. You have it
8 right there.
9 Q. Professor, we're done talking about the census.
10 A. The information does not exist. You won't find it anywhere.
11 Q. Professor, we're done talking about the census. I'm asking you
12 about this theory, and I would challenge that notion that it was done in
13 two years. It was done in 15 days. There's evidence of that in the
14 Tabeau report. I'm not going to ask you about that. I want to get back
15 to this capture-recapture question, because you claim that it's absurd to
16 use a Muslim funeral home as one of the two independent sources to
17 calculate death rates in Sarajevo, but you're -- you're ignoring how she
18 estimated death rates for Muslims first and then she applied the same
19 rate to other ethnicities. That was the methodology she used. So you
20 can't say that other ethnicities are being missed or left out of this
21 approach; right?
22 A. First I'll answer by way of metaphor. If you have theory with no
23 practice, it's empty. If you have practice with no theory, it's blind.
24 And that is what you might choose to apply here. So you have a
25 theoretical formula which is then erroneously applied or, rather, the
1 statistics applied in order to test drive the formula is entirely
2 erroneous because it doesn't even exist. The result thereby obtained is
3 devoid of any value at all. Dr. Tabeau had nothing but the best
4 intentions to use this table and then apply this formula to this table
5 containing figures. The information was never published. That is the
7 Could we please scan the information that I'm offering, authentic
8 data that I brought along. This is a very important source and I have it
9 here with me in my set, and that applies to all the players throughout
10 these reports.
11 Q. I want to ask you just a few questions about your Srebrenica
12 component of your report before we close.
13 JUDGE KWON: Sorry, could I -- I wanted to note that doctor's
14 report has two para 9 -- 47s. So I was confused. Yes, let's continue.
15 MR. FILE: Thank you, Mr. President.
16 JUDGE KWON: 47 appears after 48 again.
17 MR. FILE:
18 Q. I'm now looking at page 106 of your report in English at the
19 bottom. At and certain point the paragraph numbers stop so I'm going to
20 use page numbers, and this is page 105 of the B/C/S at the bottom. So
21 now we're talking about the Srebrenica report that Dr. Tabeau issued, and
22 you say in this paragraph:
23 "The standard statistical method of matching is not applied
25 And then in the next paragraph, this is on English page 107,
1 B/C/S page 105, you say that by applying "a correct methodological
2 approach, it's possible to identify 16 per cent of persons in the 1991
4 Now, I'm sure you will recall having read Dr. Tabeau's report,
5 which P4995, that there is an extensive discussion of academic literature
6 and approaches to data matching in Annex 5. That's pages 67 to 76 of her
7 report. And then in Annex 6 there's a detailed discussion of how the
8 matching approaches were used for each data source, and that's at page 77
9 to page 104. Now, by contrast you just say standard statistical method
10 of matching is not applied correctly, and then you have this figure, 16
11 per cent, which it looks to me like you pull out of thin air.
12 So I'm right when I say that there's nowhere in your report where
13 you explain what this correct methodological report is or how you
14 generated a number like 16 per cent; right?
15 A. Again, this is a very complex problem and something that we have
16 addressed before. The matching method is a pattern used by Dr. Tabeau.
17 The results thereby obtained -- obtained are in this case not as reliable
18 as she claims. We used our own calculations and we were only able to
19 identify a total of 16 per cent such persons based on what we called the
20 identification key, which is what we demonstrate in table 1, the
21 discrepancies in terms of matching, table 1 and table 2. Persons who
22 actually exist and persons who actually don't exist. And were they taken
23 into account when doing the actual matching procedure or not. So there's
24 your best illustration, and it's no more than a couple of examples
1 Q. Right.
2 A. So the methodology never had any hope of delivering valid data.
3 That is the gist of our complaint.
4 Q. So that's the only support for this. It's this table 1 and table
5 2 which show up on page 111 of your report which are literally just lists
6 of four names and showing how there's a difference in the date of birth
7 in four records. There's no calculation, there's no explanation of what
8 kind of identification key you're talking about or how it was applied.
9 That doesn't appear anywhere in this report.
10 A. In our opinion that would have gone too far, stating all the
11 identification keys. If you want to challenge a theory, you need
12 something representative, a single example such as tables 1 and 2,
13 thereby undermining another expert's decision to use the methods that
14 they did.
15 Why would we go on using 15, 20, 50 different tables if we can
16 only use two and it's all there for all to see? You have information
17 under A here, information under B. It's quite obvious that the names are
18 the same, the father's names are the same, birth years are different, but
19 the identification figures are all the same. So this is very confusing.
20 It creates a muddle in the head of anyone looking into it.
21 Q. Okay.
22 A. So it was quite sufficient for us to show this in order to
23 demonstrate that the method would not be delivering any valid results.
24 Q. I want to ask you about page 110 in English in the middle of the
25 page and page 109 in B/C/S at the top half of the page, because here you
1 claim that Dr. Tabeau's report automatically excludes any match of a name
2 on the missing-persons' list and an identical name on the voters register
3 in a different part of the country; right? The part of the quote -- the
4 part that you quote says:
5 "A match of missing people and registered voters was not accepted
6 if the locations were clearly inconsistent; for example, if a person was
7 born, lived, and went missing in Eastern Bosnia according to the missing
8 lists but registered to vote in and for a municipality in a completely
9 different part of the country according to the voter list."
10 And then in the following paragraphs of your report you use this
11 quote essentially to accuse Dr. Tabeau of intentionally dismissing
12 evidence that an alleged Srebrenica victim might be alive and registering
13 to vote somewhere else. Now, have I accurately described your objection?
14 A. You have accurately described it, but it is not my intention to
15 accuse anyone of anything. We are simply disagreeing about facts,
16 because Dr. Tabeau used a method that in our submission is impractical,
17 inaccurate, and impracticable. So we're trying to build our own case to
18 show why that is so without in any way intending to impeach anyone or
19 indeed accuse anyone of deliberately trying to conceal something, but we
20 don't necessarily agree on the methodology, and you know, we researchers
21 normally say in science there can be no compromise.
22 Q. Perhaps I used the wrong word. You're not accusing her, but
23 you're saying she's wrong, and I think this is different from what she
24 actually says in her report, at P4995, which I think we should call up
25 now at page 73, because I think it's important to show what she actually
2 MR. FILE: Is this the right page? There we go. It's the middle
3 of the page.
4 Q. What you can see here is she's describing how it was difficult to
5 match the ICRC and PHR missing persons lists with the 1997 voters
6 register because they produced -- those two databases did not have very
7 many variables in common and the result was that they produced lots of
8 extra potential matches that could not be excluded by other variables.
9 So the issue here was to identify matches that might be
10 potentially false and then inspect them more closely. Now, as it's
11 apparent from this middle paragraph, the quote that you pulled related to
12 this process. The idea was that a match could not be automatically
13 accepted if there were location inconsistencies. And in the key part
14 which you don't mention in your report, in the next paragraph, what we
15 see is that data from the 1991 census was used to verify the potential
16 matches because there's more data in census records. They overlapped
17 much more comprehensively with both missing persons lists and the voters
18 register. So you can see that by comparing these records with the census
19 they could see if they were really the same person or not.
20 JUDGE KWON: Where do you have it?
21 MR. FILE: It's the paragraph that starts with: "The use of data
22 from the 1991 census was crucial in concluding whether a pair of
23 potential matches of records from two different lists represented the
24 same person." It's that paragraph, Mr. President.
25 Q. So my question for you, Professor, is that using the quotation
1 that you did to assert that Dr. Tabeau was intentionally ignoring
2 evidence that an alleged Srebrenica victim might be alive and registering
3 to vote somewhere else is actually highly misleading based on what she
4 actually wrote in her report. Do you accept that?
5 A. Well, I'm unable to accept that. I'm trying to not use these
6 cumbersome words such as "ignoring something" or "someone" and so on and
7 so forth. But that doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with the method
8 she used when comparing all that information. The matching method for us
9 is the method that gets the best results, the most reliable results.
10 That is not necessarily our position but that is the position taken by
11 Dr. Tabeau in her report. We are changing tack here using a different
12 method to so that that is not necessarily the case, and we applied that
13 idea, that method to Srebrenica and all the other information,
14 particularly in view of the fact that the checklist for the 1997, 1998
15 register is entirely inaccurate.
16 Dr. Tabeau also talks about voluntary voters' registers. What
17 does that mean, voluntary? That means it's not necessarily something you
18 must do. You choose whether you want to go along or not. What does that
19 mean? And I think all of our discrepancies actually stem from that
20 regarding the information presented by Dr. Tabeau. So that is the gist
21 of this schism between the two approaches and then that leads to further
22 discrepancies down the road.
23 JUDGE KWON: Mr. File, the quotation that you referred to is one
24 referred to in footnote 57 in Dr. Pasalic's report. Page 110.
25 MR. FILE: Yes, Mr. President, that's the one.
1 JUDGE KWON: Then if you are putting that that's a
2 misrepresentation, why don't we take a look at the actual paragraph
3 Doctor refers to?
4 MR. FILE: We have, Mr. President, and perhaps I wasn't clear
5 enough in explaining, but that comes from the sentence just above the
6 paragraph that I was referring to. It's on the same page that's
7 currently up in e-court. You can see at the bottom of the paragraph
8 essentially in the middle of the page it says: "A match of missing
9 people and registered voters was not accepted," and then it goes on, and
10 that's the sentence the Professor is referring to.
11 JUDGE KWON: And the Professor put footnote 57 [Realtime
12 transcript read in error "67"] and refers to pages 6 and pages 16 of two
13 reports. Did you check that?
14 MR. FILE: I did. Those are old reports and --
15 JUDGE KWON: So that's an erroneous quotation is it your
17 MR. FILE: It's a -- it's a correct quotation, but the -- the
18 text of the annex is the same. In other words, in -- in all versions of
19 these reports, this description of the process is the same.
20 JUDGE KWON: Very well. I'll leave it at that.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] My apologies. Footnote 57 or
22 footnote 67 as the LiveNote states, which is it?
23 JUDGE KWON: I said footnote 57.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
25 MR. FILE:
1 Q. Okay. I wasn't going to address this but because you just
2 mentioned it, this question of the voluntary registration, I just want
3 to -- I just want to point you to a comment that Dr. Tabeau makes in
4 P4993, which is at page 219, where she's describing this voters register,
5 and she says:
6 "The total population of the country was approximately 4.3
7 million in 1991, whereas an estimate of 3.4 million people was given for
8 1995 by the 1998 world population prospects, United Nations 1999. It is
9 clear that the 2.13 million voters constitute a large and reliable sample
10 of the 18-plus population. Its size is big enough to prevent errors
11 related to the persons not registering to vote."
12 So my understanding is that you just have a disagreement with
13 Dr. Tabeau about whether this is a representative sample or not. Is
14 that -- that's the nature of your disagreement. And if you could just
15 answer with a yes or a no I'd appreciate it, because we only have one set
16 of questions left.
17 A. Just very briefly. Where does Dr. Tabeau get the information
18 back 1995 there were 3.4 million inhabitants there overall? No one ever
19 presented that particular calculation. How can you be familiar with
20 certain components of an overall phenomenon if you're wrong about the
21 whole. We don't have the estimate issued by any public institution from
22 1996, so it's all speculation. That's what I'm trying to say. Now,
23 where did she arrive by matching the 1997, 1998 information 200.000
24 people, 300.000 people, 3 million people? If she has something official
25 to show for it, perhaps she should come forward and do so. I
1 demonstrated that two years ago.
2 Q. Okay. A different subject. You served for a period of time as
3 deputy minister for education in Republika Srpska; correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And in 2006, Milorad Dodik proposed to appoint you as the RS
6 minister of education but that was blocked by the Office of the High
7 Representative; correct?
8 A. No. I was never shown that. This is a result of some
9 disagreements within the political party to which I then belonged, but
10 there were no formal official challenges by the High Representative.
11 Q. Isn't it true that --
12 A. Because there was no reason for anything to be challenged.
13 Q. Isn't it true that the office the High Representative objected to
14 Serb nationalist commentary that was appearing in children's school
15 textbooks that you were authoring?
16 A. National commentary you're talking about is something quite
17 random. The textbooks are written according to established programmes
18 and plans. I happened to be one of the authors. These books are
19 regularly reviewed and very favourably, so all they reflect is something
20 that is part of the curriculum for students of a certain age. Now,
21 whether anyone actually liked these books or not, well, that's another
22 matter all together, but these books have been in use for a full 10 years
23 and they are still being republished. So that tells you all you need to
25 Q. I understand your point, but I am actually interested in whether
1 other people liked these books, and in particular I'm interested in
2 whether or not the Office of the High Representative had a problem with
3 the content of the books which caused you not to be appointed as RS
4 minister of education. That's the question.
5 A. I understand your question. Back in 2001 when I was deputy
6 minister of education, we tried to agree on something called the core
7 curriculum at the republic level back then, and that also included the
8 textbooks that I co-authored. There were different views being
9 expressed, so we used the standardised set of these core criteria, and
10 these have been used for 12 years in Bosnia-Herzegovina, ever since 2001
11 across Bosnia-Herzegovina because the jurisdiction for education is on
12 Republika Srpska as an entity, the 10 cantons and the Brcko district.
13 It's not down to Bosnia-Herzegovina as a whole.
14 My conviction about the -- what was the case back in 1996 has
15 nothing to do with my scientific research and me as the author of those
16 textbooks. It was more of a political conviction on part. It's due to a
17 change in that situation that I quit the party and quit my political
18 position, the office that I held back then.
19 MR. FILE: If we have time, could we just look at
20 65 ter number 24762, please.
21 Q. What you'll see in the B/C/S version in a lower left is an
22 article in Oslobodjenje from 25 February 2006, and in the first paragraph
23 it says:
24 "The PM designate for the composition of the new Government of
25 Republika Srpska, Milorad Dodik, declared on Friday in Banja Luka that
1 Anton Kasipovic should be appointed to the position of minister of
2 education of Republika Srpska, because during the verification phase the
3 OHR had objections on the proposal to appoint Stevo Pasalic from the
4 party of democratic progress to the function. Pasalic is currently
5 assistant to minister of education of Republika Srpska, and according to
6 Dodik the OHR had certain objections to his work on preparations of
7 school books."
8 Now, did Mr. Dodik ever tell you about those objection?
9 A. This is the best illustration of how journalists take great
10 liberties in erroneously interpreting a subject matter. I wasn't a
11 member of Milorad Dodik's party back then, firstly. Secondly, I was not
12 directly in touch with him. Thirdly, we're not talking about the
13 information presented here. This is all off the record chitchat and
14 rumours. These are not authorised pieces that were eventually published.
15 I deemed this to be entirely unimportant. Why didn't anyone just decide
16 to pick up the phone, call me, and ask me to make a statement? This is
17 entirely irrelevant. This is just politics. It's not scientific
18 research. And politics where I come from is a complex matter. Take my
19 word for it.
20 Q. And so my final question then is yesterday, when you were talking
21 about being awarded a medal by the President of Republika Srpska for
22 outstanding scientific research, the Njegos medal, is this by any chance
23 the same person - this is Milorad Dodik - who gave you that award; right?
24 A. It's not a medal, it's a decoration, as we say. Njegos, first
25 rank. Milorad Dodik is President of Republika Srpska, it's an
1 institution, and he happens to be the incumbent right now. There's a
2 procedure when these high decorations are rewarded. There's a selection
3 process, and then the final stage where the eventual decision is taken,
4 and this is where the president of the republic gets involved. It's
5 obviously an enormous honour for each citizen to be awarded this highest
6 of all possible state decorations for his professional activity.
7 Needless to say, I am very proud of my achievement and of being awarded
8 this decoration for my scientific research, because that is all I got it
10 MR. FILE: I have no further questions, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE KWON: We'll have a break for half an hour and resume at 10
12 past 11.00.
13 --- Recess taken at 10.40 a.m.
14 --- On resuming at 11.14 a.m.
15 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Karadzic.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Good morning. To
18 Re-examination by Mr. Karadzic:
19 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Pasalic.
20 A. Good morning, Mr. President.
21 Q. I would like to start with the latest topic dealt with. Can you
22 tell us how this -- how these supposed 2.13 million voters, in what
23 relation do they stand to my 20 municipalities and how these 20
24 municipalities of mine could be representative or perhaps what kind of
25 conclusion can one draw from this?
1 A. Let me repeat what we have been saying already. Twenty
2 municipalities and such examples are not a representative sample by a
3 long shot, the more so since these municipalities were selected on a less
4 than neutral basis, and they do not reflect the entire process that's
5 being dealt with in the Tabeau report. Therefore, the results arrived at
6 by the OTP experts are irrelevant, because they have no practical
8 Q. Thank you. On page 20 of today's transcript, you were asked
9 why -- or how come you observed the fact -- the unusual fact that Croatia
10 is publishing demographic data of a neighbouring country. So let me ask
11 you if Croatia took part militarily in the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina?
12 A. Officially, I'm not a military expert, but it's a notorious fact
13 that Croatia did take part, active part, in the war in
14 Bosnia-Herzegovina, and we can establish a link between that and the fact
15 that a statistical bulletin was printed there that included the census
16 results. This is inappropriate, but the facts are beyond dispute.
17 Q. Has Bosnia ever been part of a Croatian state?
18 A. Yes, certainly. Whoever knows how the Kingdom of Serbs,
19 Croatians, and Slovenians came about in 1918, which then became the
20 Kingdom of Yugoslavia in 1929, knows that there were banovinas or perhaps
21 counties in that country. One of them was the Croatian Banovina, and
22 this is sometimes mentioned even today in historical context to
23 illustrate the pretensions or Croatia's aspirations to parts of
25 Q. Did Croatia initiate trials that included demographic issues?
1 A. There have been such initiatives. I observed them in the 20
2 years I followed this subject matter. From professional circles or
3 institutional circles we can say that these initiatives are unfounded or
4 blown out of proportion from the aspect of demography and some other
5 aspects. Some expert reports that had such aspirations in the area of
6 demography have been rejected before this court, and they were drafted by
7 some Croatian experts.
8 Q. Thank you. On page 7 of today's transcript, you were asked about
9 the error of a one-sided approach to a complex phenomenon, and you
10 answered that question or those questions. The inclusion of the -- of
11 another aspect such as the demographic movements of Serbian population,
12 how does that affect the relative ratios of other populations and
13 demographic movements?
14 A. Oh, it absolutely affects them. A relative number stands for a
15 relative share in something, but when you also have another component,
16 namely an absolute number, which includes that process, then the relative
17 indicators change. One -- one relative number can rise, whereas another
18 can diminish. And it is very important to include the Serbian population
19 and other populations in order to get an overall picture of a complex
20 process. A partial observation of a process will not give a relevant
21 result. In fact, it will depict a distorted historical image without any
23 Q. Thank you. Tell us very briefly for what reasons or, rather,
24 what can cause the diminution of the share of one population in the
25 overall population? For example, the share of Muslims in one
1 municipality. How can it be changed and on what does it depend?
2 A. There are several factors that can affect that share, and that's
3 why a partial approach is not valid. For example, there can be temporary
4 movements out of one territory due to combat activities. That territory
5 may be controlled by the army of that ethnic group, or there can be
6 movements out of towns to rural areas, and there can either be motives
7 such as economic or joining families. There are a number of factors that
8 can bring about such changes, and these changes in the movement of
9 persons were not taken into consideration in the OTP report. This is
10 what we call the principle of connected vessels in demography. It is
11 present in all demographic movements in BH, especially during the war.
12 Q. Thank you. Let me ask you about one municipality.
13 Bosanska Krupa is excluded. Now, how would you characterise the
14 displacement of population from Bosanska Krupa which was a combat area to
15 Sanski Most in the same entity of the RS? Would you characterise that as
16 a persecution and ethnic cleansing or differently?
17 A. I have already answered that question. This is conscious
18 movement of population to a safer place to protect them from combat
19 activity. So not the expulsion of non-Serb population by Serbian
20 military formations but, rather, providing safety to the population at
21 another place because they would be jeopardised by combat activities.
22 This can by no means be characterised as ethnic cleansing, because it is
23 differently motivated. Ethnic cleansing is a fast and forcible removal
24 of population from a certain territory. That is the international
1 Q. Thank you. How does the right to return -- in what connection is
2 the right of return with ethnic cleansing? Does the right to return
3 affect that notion at all?
4 JUDGE KWON: I'm not sure this is a field to be covered by the
5 Doctor's expertise. In the cross-examination, the issue of ethnic
6 cleansing was not dealt with in that sense. I would like you to move on.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right.
8 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. On page 6 of today's transcript you mentioned that sometimes it
10 is possible to research and -- the whole population, and in some cases
11 you must work with samples. What should be given a priority? What is
12 more accurate even under the conditions that would allow an ideally
13 representative sample?
14 A. No matter what the sample is like, even the most representative
15 one cannot give such precise data that the entire population can give.
16 So priority is certainly to be given to the whole population, because
17 that will yield an absolutely accurate result.
18 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us in what condition Yugoslavia was and
19 the notion of being Yugoslav in 1991 with regard to the political
20 processes in Slovenia, Croatia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina?
21 MR. FILE: Your Honour, I would object to that.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The topic of being Yugoslav. I ask
23 to be allowed to introduce the question to provide a basis. I will not
24 ask leading questions.
25 MR. FILE: That was my objection -- my objection was not about
1 the subject, it was about the form of the question and the content which
2 is vague. I don't think that's going to produce a helpful answer, in
3 what condition Yugoslavia was.
4 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Let's see how Mr. Karadzic is going to
5 reformulate his question.
6 Yes, please continue, Mr. Karadzic.
7 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. All right. Professor Pasalic, in 1991, declaring oneself as
9 Yugoslav, did it mean the same thing as before 1990 when the first
10 multi-party elections were held, or did it change due to some political
11 processes in Yugoslavia?
12 A. The 1991 census in all of Yugoslavia took place under conditions
13 of strong political and ethnic tensions. There were clear ambitions for
14 the succession of Slovenia, Croatia, and other Yugoslav republics, and
15 the census showed that in those republics that artificial category of
16 Yugoslavs had practically disappeared from their census results. It
17 still existed in Serbia among the Serbian population that was
18 traditionally connected with that category of being Yugoslav. We have
19 shown that in all censuses preceding 1991. That is why we --
20 THE INTERPRETER: Could the expert please repeat the sentence.
21 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. Could you start over again after you
22 referred to census -- "in all censuses preceding 1991."
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. If I understand correctly,
24 the 1991 census was taken in all of Yugoslavia except Kosovo and
25 Metohija. It was clear at that time that the census was burdened by
1 political and ethnic tensions, that there were clear ambitions by some of
2 the then Yugoslav republics, Slovenia, Croatia, and others, to secede
3 from Yugoslavia, and in the censuses in that -- those republics, the
4 number of Yugoslavs suddenly dropped, whereas that category had been
5 significantly present in earlier censuses. A higher number of Yugoslavs
6 was present in Serbia and in areas where the Serbs were the majority
7 population. That is why we -- we criticise the -- we object to the
8 category of Yugoslavs in Bosnia-Herzegovina and subsuming it under
9 "others," because in the 1991 census there were many dozen ethnicities
10 under "others." The 1991 census held in Yugoslavia differed in that
11 respect from all other -- other previous censuses, and there had been a
12 number of censuses. The first one was held in 1948, and it went on until
14 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Thank you. On page 82 of today's transcript, you were asked --
16 or, rather, on page 82 of your report, you were asked why you object to
17 the validity of the voters register in 1997. Now, supposing that the
18 same kind of source had been used in 1997, namely a census, would the
19 inclusion of one pre-war year and two post-war years would have
20 affected -- would it affect the research into the demographic
21 consequences of the war, that is one pre-war year and two post-war years?
22 Even under ideal conditions.
23 A. Even under ideal conditions, the 1991 census and a supposed 1997
24 or 1998 census would not have produced identical results even without the
25 war. Since there was a war, some processes were generated or, rather,
1 intensified, but from the professional point of view, it is unacceptable
2 to compare the results of the 1991 census, which was held under peacetime
3 conditions, with the 1997 results which were never verified as a primary
4 source. That's what I meant when I was speaking about comparing apples
5 and pears, because those -- those data were not collected with the same
6 methods, because one of them was taken based on a sample and on a
7 voluntary inclusion in the voters register, and then from that you infer
9 We missed 22 years of primary data sources from 1991 on. Without
10 them we cannot draw valid conclusions. Today, this is the greatest
11 burden for all strategic planning in Bosnia-Herzegovina, without even
12 going into the post-war period.
13 But let me conclude. Demographic movements, globally speaking,
14 and this includes Bosnia-Herzegovina, have been very intensive. That is
15 why I wanted to stress in this report that demographic losses must be
16 viewed from all aspects for the period of the past 20 years, and that can
17 produce valid results.
18 Q. Thank you. Did you have occasion to observe whether demographic
19 movements and changes existed in 1991 up until April 1992 when the war
20 broke out and whether they were excluded or at least underlined in the
21 findings of the OTP experts? How can they be separated from the wartime
23 A. Absolutely. There were such demographic movements before the war
24 when the populations migrated within Bosnia-Herzegovina and outside
25 Bosnia-Herzegovina because they were beginning to feel insecure and
1 feared the possible breaking out of a war because there were ethnic
2 tensions that were rising up until the event of the war, and then there
3 are the changes and demographic movements after the war. So if we look
4 at them in the first, second, and third stage, only by doing that can we
5 actually draw accurate conclusions about the movements in general.
6 Now, in those pre-war -- in the pre-war period, if I am correct,
7 if I recall this correctly, they were -- that was completely ignored in
8 the OTP expert's reports, but they were very important. It would be very
9 interesting to analyse why those changes began in late 1991 and then
10 1992, and then the intensity changes during the war period of those
11 movements, and then there is another period, the third stage after the
12 war when the intensity changed again. So these three periods are very
13 significant for any kind of serious research.
14 Q. Thank you. Where can we find the results of these movements of
15 demographic changes before the war, during it, and afterwards?
16 A. In my report --
17 MR. FILE: I object at this point.
18 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. File.
19 MR. FILE: I'm going to object at this point. I didn't ask him
20 about the parts of his report relating to the demographic changes before
21 and after the war.
22 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Karadzic.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] But the Prosecutor challenged the
24 position of Professor Pasalic, claiming that the census -- his position
25 on the unreliability of the register's votes of 1997. So what I'm trying
1 to ask here is this: Even had this census had been ideal --
2 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: There is a lot of noise.
3 We could not hear the last portion of the -- of the --
4 JUDGE KWON: You were not heard. The last part of your comments
5 were not heard. Could you repeat.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I said, but I'm not sure what has
7 been recorded in the transcript. The OTP raised this issue. They
8 challenged the validity of comparing two sources, two types of data
9 sources, that Professor Pasalic did between 1991 and 1997.
10 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. So my question is this: Even if this had been a census and not
12 voters' registers, how would that have affected the outcome and where can
13 we see that -- what would the consequences have been had the two post-war
14 years and the last year of the war been included, because two of those
15 years were non-war years, but they have been represented as years that
16 were the consequence of the war?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, absolutely. We wanted to
18 show that after the post-war period --
19 JUDGE KWON: Pause. Pause, please. Yes, Mr. File.
20 MR. FILE: My observation is that the 1997 census as a source is
21 perfectly acceptable as a subject for questioning. That does not offer
22 any insight into what happened before the war, which is part of the
23 question that Dr. Karadzic asked about, and I didn't ask any questions
24 about that.
25 JUDGE KWON: But we have to see whether it has any relation or
1 bearing on the accuracy of the census if it had taken place. I will
2 consult my colleagues.
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE KWON: Yes. The Chamber will allow the question.
5 Yes, Dr. Pasalic.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Observing the phenomena right
7 before the war from the census in 1991 and then demographic changes in
8 the course of the war and the demographic changes of the three post-war
9 years, this is extremely important in any research. According to our
10 opinion and our research, the OTP expert reports have simplified this
11 process to a large degree, and they only matched information and data
12 between 1991 and 1997 as their -- as if there had been nothing happening
13 in those other years in between. So that is why we challenged the
14 voluntary voters register as invalid. That cannot be used as a primary
15 data source because it is irrelevant for what had happened in the war
16 period, because this was happening three years after the war where a lot
17 of people were already migrating out of Bosnia-Herzegovina and, on the
18 other hand, there was a number of people returning to Bosnia and
20 As I explained yesterday, about 500.000 people returned to Bosnia
21 and Herzegovina, 527.000 remained abroad wanting to become permanent
22 residents there, but there was another process at the same time in those
23 post-war years, people leaving Bosnia-Herzegovina. So we can prove this.
24 There are only four regions in BH today that have a larger number of
25 residents than they had before the war. That's Tuzla, Sarajevo,
1 Banja Luka --
2 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not catch the last place.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All the other areas have lower
4 numbers of residents than in 1991. So this is what we mean when we
5 call -- when we talk about aggregate demographic losses in
6 Bosnia-Herzegovina, but this is something that the Prosecutor did not go
7 into at all, or, rather, its experts. They simplified these demographic
8 changes and movements which then produces a distorted statistic and a
9 distorted picture of all of those events, and this is what we've been
10 persistently trying to show, that you have to shed some light on all of
11 these three stages and their causality, the stage between the war, during
12 the war, and after the war.
13 MR. KARADZIC:
14 Q. Before the war. [B/C/S spoken] [No interpretation] [In English]
15 Before the war, during the war, and after the war.
16 [Interpretation] Thank you. I will be done very soon, but could
17 you please tell us before that what happened with the activities of the
18 High Representative -- or, rather, were you disqualified by a decision
19 taken by the High Representative?
20 A. No, absolutely not. I insisted on getting some kind of written
21 record of this, but I never received anything either oral -- orally or in
23 Q. Thank you. But were some people excluded from all political --
24 disqualified from all political rights and even some normal work rights,
25 and how widespread was this?
1 A. Well, it is well known that that was the case. I don't know
2 exactly the number. A large number of people were disqualified, but as
3 we know, many of them in the meantime have returned and were re-included
4 in all the processes. They returned to their work in the political
5 arena, but I was never on any such list, nor was I ever prohibited from
6 doing any kind of work in this entire 20-year period.
7 Q. Thank you. Did you know that some of those people were
8 disqualified and suspicious, deemed suspicious because they assisted
9 me --
10 MR. FILE: Objection, Your Honour. This is starting to become an
11 argumentative question.
12 JUDGE KWON: Leading.
13 MR. FILE: And leading.
14 JUDGE KWON: And has nothing to do with the cross-examination.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, it does have to do with the
16 cross-examination. The question is the significance that should be
17 placed on the decisions -- or, rather, not decisions but indications that
18 there were decisions taken by the High Representative, and this was
19 something raised by the Prosecution. The Prosecution introduced this
20 topic of the High Representative, and I just wanted to see what weight
21 can be given to his actions let alone to his presumed intentions.
22 JUDGE KWON: That has nothing to do with alleged assistance to
23 you. Shall we move on, Mr. Karadzic.
24 MR. ROBINSON: Well, excuse me, Mr. President. I think
25 Dr. Karadzic's point here is that the Office of High Representative
1 disqualified a number of people because they had assisted Dr. Karadzic
2 when in fact they hadn't, and therefore accusations made by that same
3 office about the -- Dr. Pasalic are entitled to less weight than they
4 might otherwise appear to be from the Prosecution's cross-examination.
5 JUDGE KWON: But he should have put that in a neutral way instead
6 of leading -- in such a leading way.
7 MR. ROBINSON: Well, if he could reformulate the question but ask
8 on that same topic, I think that would be a good solution.
9 MR. FILE: May I respond, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. File.
11 MR. FILE: I don't think this witness is here to talk about the
12 decisions of the High Representative with regard to other individuals.
13 JUDGE KWON: But you raised the issue --
14 MR. FILE: I did, but --
15 JUDGE KWON: -- to challenge the credibility of the witness or
16 for whatever purpose.
17 MR. FILE: Yes, but I think this point is a point for argument.
18 It's not for this witness to give evidence about unless there's some kind
19 of foundation for his knowledge of the actions of the
20 High Representative, but that hasn't been established yet.
21 JUDGE KWON: So let's see whether Mr. Karadzic has some
22 foundational question. Do you follow, Mr. Karadzic?
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Excellency, but I have a
24 problem with my old habits when I was from the prosecutorial period where
25 I put leading questions, but I'll try to rephrase my question.
1 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Did you know -- were you aware of what -- what attitude the
3 High Representative and what treatment he meted out against individuals
4 that he felt or considered had some kinds of -- some kind of thing with
6 A. Well, I am a public figure, and I'm very well aware of all the
7 developments in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and that's also necessary for my
8 professional work, and I absolutely know, and I know the names of the
9 persons who were disqualified by the High Representative, and that was a
10 large number, claiming that they directly assisted in or participated in
11 the Karadzic case.
12 Q. Thank you. And what, if anything, out of all that turned out to
13 be correct? Was it ever established in a relevant -- in a relevant way
14 that someone was disqualified just -- that it was justified in some
16 A. Well, practically all of these individuals were -- it was -- they
17 were relieved of all these charges and no one has ever proved that any of
18 these individuals ever participated in any of the actions that were --
19 that they were suspected of. So what everybody knows, that is what I
20 know, and that's how it was.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Professor Pasalic. I
22 have no further questions. Thank you for coming to testify, although you
23 have a cold.
24 JUDGE KWON: Very well. That concludes your evidence,
25 Professor Pasalic. On behalf of the Chamber, I would like to thank you
1 for your coming to The Hague to give it. Now you are free to go.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you for hearing me.
3 [The witness withdrew]
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 JUDGE KWON: While we are waiting for the next witness, the
6 Chamber now turns to the accused's notice of a special defence of
7 reprisals as to count 11 filed on the 14th of December, 2012.
8 Having reviewed this notice and the Prosecution's submission
9 filed on the 5th of March, 2013, the Chamber finds that reprisals does
10 not constitute a "special defence" under Rule 67(B) of the Tribunal's
11 Rules of Procedure and Evidence. It is a general defence that is best
12 addressed in the judgement if raised and necessary following the
13 conclusion of the case.
14 THE ACCUSED: I hope Mr. Robinson understood it better than me.
15 MR. ROBINSON: Yes, I understood it, Mr. President, and I'll
16 discuss it with Dr. Karadzic.
17 [The witness entered court]
18 WITNESS: JOVAN NIKOLIC
19 [Witness answered through interpreter]
20 JUDGE KWON: Would the witness make the solemn declaration.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
22 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
23 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Nikolic. Please be seated and make
24 yourself comfortable.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
1 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Karadzic.
2 Examination by Mr. Karadzic:
3 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Nikolic.
4 A. Good morning, President Karadzic.
5 Q. We need to observe a pause between questions and answers and also
6 speak slowly so that everything can be recorded. As for the pause to be
7 observed, you can follow the interpretation on the screen. When it
8 stops, we can go on.
9 Did you give a statement to the Defence team?
10 A. Yes, I did.
11 Q. You were in haste to answer my question. Please observe a pause.
12 A. Yes, I did.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we please have 1D7196. Thank
15 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Is that the statement that we have just addressed, Mr. Nikolic?
17 A. Yes, it is.
18 Q. Thank you. Please don't be confused by the redactions. The
19 Chamber has its reasons, thinking that some of the elements contained in
20 your statement might unnecessarily encumber these proceedings.
21 Did you read and sign this statement, sir?
22 A. Yes, I did.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can the witness please be shown the
24 last page for identification purposes.
25 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Is that your signature, sir?
2 A. Yes, it is.
3 Q. Thank you. Is this statement a faithful reflection of what you
4 told the Defence team that interviewed you?
5 A. I think so, yes.
6 Q. Thank you. Were I to ask you these same questions today, would
7 your answers in essence still be the same?
8 A. Yes, in essence they would.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. I would like to tender
10 this statement under 92 ter.
11 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Nicholls.
12 MR. NICHOLLS: Good morning, Your Honours. No objection. I was
13 just a little bit concerned about the answer to the question:
14 "Q. Is this statement a faithful reflection of what you told the
15 Defence team that interviewed you?
16 "A. I think so, yes."
17 I don't know if that has some doubt built into it of whether it
18 is a faithful reflection or "accurate" to use the wording from the
19 Statute of what he said. I'd like to know.
20 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, could you clarify with the witness.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
22 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Sir, when you signed this statement did you read it before you
24 signed it? Did you notice anything that needed changing or anything that
25 was inaccurate or inaccurately reflected?
1 A. I read the statement. I don't think any changes have to be made.
2 Q. Thank you.
3 JUDGE KWON: Yes. We'll receive it.
4 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D3126, Your Honours.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Now I would like to read out a
6 summary of Mr. Nikolic's statement, after which I would like to show him
7 a document. I would like to appeal to the other party's understanding,
8 because we failed to notify them in good time, although the document has
9 been around for a very long time. It is 1D7910. So perhaps they would
10 like to have a look while I read the summary. The relevant page -- pages
11 are 18 and 19. These are the two pages that I will be showing the
13 I will read the summary in English.
14 [In English] Jovan Nikolic was born on 25th of October, 1948, in
15 the village of Kravica, Bratunac municipality. He currently resides
16 there and is the principal of the Branko Radicevic primary school in
18 Following the killings of a Serb and Muslim in August 1970,
19 Muslim-Serb relations in Bratunac municipality worsened. Serious
20 incidents during 1990-1991 caused tensions to escalate. For instance,
21 the SDA Muslim party refused to obey the JNA and instead created their
22 own Territorial Defence. Other incidents included an altercation in
23 Bratunac over the removal of conscript records and the establishment of
24 nightly village guard duties in response to provocation by the Muslim
25 population in the Kravica settlement.
1 As a member of the Municipal Board of the SDS, Jovan Nikolic
2 attended board sessions that assessed the existing political situation
3 and discussed means of peaceful settlement. The SDA Muslim party members
4 frequently attended these meetings. All completed agreements to divide
5 the municipality and the police forces had been annulled due to the
6 complication and further disagreement by Miroslav Deronjic and
7 Ljubo Simic.
8 In April 1992, a Crisis Staff was established composing of
9 individuals holding key positions in the municipality, including
10 Jovan Nikolic himself. The Crisis Staff initiated a decision to disarm
11 all individuals who owned weapons illegally. After an unsuccessful
12 attempt, a second attempt was scheduled to take place on the 9th of May,
13 1992, to disarm extremists in the Glogova village.
14 However, in Srebrenica on the 8th of May, 1992, the Muslims
15 killed Goran Zekic, a national deputy and president of the
16 Municipal Board of the SDS in Srebrenica and a respected judge. This
17 event, along with the previous deaths of Serb volunteer -- Serbs
18 volunteering to leave their municipality caused the situation to get out
19 of control. Jovan Nikolic states that the killing of Muslims in the
20 Glogova area was not intended by anyone in the municipal or military
21 leadership, nor had a decision to that effect been adopted.
22 Muslim paramilitary units attacked Kravica for the first time on
23 the 27th of May, 1992. From then on, attacks occurred almost every day,
24 including a large-scale attack on the 7th of January. This is 1993.
25 This is Orthodox Christian Christmas. This attack in Kravica resulted in
1 46 deaths, 86 wounded, and approximately 750 houses burnt down.
2 On the 24th of December, 1992, Mr. Jovan Nikolic was wounded
3 during an attack and been declared permanent disability. Due to his
4 disability, Jovan Nikolic was no longer militarily engaged and instead
5 was appointed as a director of agricultural co-operative in Bratunac in
6 February 1995.
7 After significant riots at the Kravica co-operative sector on the
8 14th of July, 1995, Jovan Nikolic went to the Bratunac municipality to
9 inform authorities of the incident. Upon being informed, the municipal
10 authorities immediately took action to clean up the terrain with bodies
11 of those killed being transported and buried in Glogova.
12 As a member of the Kravica Territorial Defence Staff and the
13 municipal board of SDS, Jovan Nikolic participated in discussions to
14 allow a humanitarian convoy for Srebrenica to pass through. It was
15 President Radovan Karadzic who had encouraged the population of Kravica
16 to allow this convoy to pass through. Jovan Nikolic never witnessed
17 President Radovan Karadzic issuing any orders that endangered the safety
18 of Muslims in Bratunac and contends that President Radovan Karadzic was
19 not aware of the incidents that had occurred in Bratunac at that time.
20 [Interpretation] And now could we please have 1D7910. It used to
21 be 65 ter 594, and it might be 52957. Only two pages have been admitted
22 so far at the OTP's request. We want to show the witness something that
23 the OTP failed to show him. The document runs into a total of 22 pages.
24 JUDGE KWON: But we have only English.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Unfortunately, that is apparently
1 the case. I will read it, and then Mr. Nikolic can listen to the
3 Could we please have page 18.
4 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Mr. Nikolic, I will read a portion of the document to you
6 irrespective of your knowledge of English. It will be interpreted to
7 you. These are minutes of a meeting of the Main Board held in Kravica on
8 the 22nd of January, 1992, at 1700 hours.
9 First of all, could you please tell us what the phrase means, the
10 Main Board. Is that the municipal Main Board?
11 A. Yes, that is the municipal board.
12 Q. Thank you. You have the agenda there, police situation in
13 Yugoslavia and in Bosnia and Herzegovina and how it affects life in the
15 Is that, sir, what you had in mind in your statement when you
16 said that political issues were considered?
17 A. Yes. The Municipal Board of the SDS very often reviewed the
18 political situation, the security-related situation across the
19 municipality. Based on that, they adopted a number of conclusions with a
20 view to stabilising the situation throughout the municipal territory and
21 also keeping in mind the talks that were underway at the time with SDA
22 representatives in Bratunac. The Municipal Board of the SDS initially
23 entertained very good relations with them.
24 Q. Thank you. I'll read back to you what Mr. Deronjic, who is the
25 president of the Municipal Board, said by way of introduction. I'll read
1 this in English and you will be receiving interpretation.
2 "[In English] Serbian politics led and represented by Milosevic
3 in Serbia, Karadzic in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Babic in Krajina in
4 sustaining a defeat after defeat. National goals of the Serbian
5 population are not known. The basic programme of the SDS were
6 preservation of Yugoslavia with its all six republics."
7 [Interpretation] And so forth.
8 Do you remember and is this something that was normally the case
9 for the work of the president and other authorities to be considered and
10 analysed at board meetings such as this one?
11 A. That was not the established practice, but the meeting in
12 question here did have that kind of character. There was a concern,
13 understandably bearing in mind our situation in the territory at the
14 time, about these things. I would not like to go into what Deronjic said
15 or may have meant, but the prevailing view was that given the situation,
16 the relationship, the good relations between the various ethnic groups in
17 Bratunac would be lost despite which a common state should survive and
18 make it through these difficult times. There was to be no particular
19 anxiety about that.
20 Q. Why am I criticised here by the late Mr. Deronjic? Is it for
21 extremism or is it for moderation?
22 MR. NICHOLLS: I'm --
23 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Nikolic -- Mr. Nicholls. My apology.
24 MR. NICHOLLS: I'm going to object, Your Honours. I didn't
25 before, but first he read part of the statement -- oh, sorry, the
1 document to the witness and then asked is this what was considered at
2 these meetings, rather than asking what types of things regarding the
3 leadership were discussed at these meetings and then possibly showing him
4 the statement and asking how does this fit in. So it was very leading.
5 He's now asking him to read the statement -- the document,
6 rather, and say what it says about Mr. Deronjic. He should just --
7 assuming the witness could even know what was in Mr. Deronjic's mind when
8 he's making these criticisms, he should just ask a question before using
9 this statement because it's direct.
10 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. That must be very helpful to you,
11 Mr. Karadzic.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
13 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Did you attend this meeting?
15 A. Yes, I did. The meeting was initiated precisely for the reasons
16 that I stated before. The people were showing up here were people in key
17 positions for the Serbs. As I said a while ago, the focus was on more
18 tolerance and flexibility about issues that were crucial to the Serbs
19 across the Podrinje region.
20 Q. Thank you. Mr. Simic [Realtime transcript read in error
21 "Simatovic"] is here quoted as saying that he supports Mr. Deronjic's
22 position, and in the last two lines say:
23 "[In English] If it is necessary, we would call off the
24 obedience to Sarajevo, but we should not abandon or let down the people
25 in Bratunac who trust us and in whom we trust."
1 [Interpretation] Could I have the next page now, please. Here's
2 your reply, page --
3 MR. NICHOLLS: I'm sorry.
4 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Nicholls.
5 MR. NICHOLLS: I'm trying to keep up with this -- with no notice
6 of the document. What Mr. Karadzic read out is not exactly what
7 Ljubisav Simic said. It says "Simatovic" in the transcript.
8 Mr. Karadzic said "call off the obedience to Sarajevo," whereas it says:
9 "We have many other things in Bratunac to deal -- to be dealt
10 with --" sorry:
11 "If it is necessary, we would call off the obedience to
13 So that may make a difference to the witness rather than posing
14 it as a decision which has been made or is a recommendation
15 that's unconditional.
16 JUDGE KWON: I think he read that part but because of overlapping
17 it was not reflected in the transcript.
18 MR. NICHOLLS: In that case I apologise.
19 JUDGE KWON: Thank you for your intervention. But shall we
21 When you switch from B/C/S to English, you should put a pause.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
23 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. I will now show you what you said back then. It is at the bottom
25 of page 19. This is not the right page. Or maybe the bottom of this
2 A. I don't see it here.
3 MR. NICHOLLS: Nineteen, Mr. Karadzic.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. This is all right.
5 MR. KARADZIC:
6 Q. "Mr. Jovan Nikolic: I suggest that during the meeting with him
7 we inform Karadzic that conveying the information from the top to the
8 bases is a problem. Second issue is regarding the option to have Kulin
9 as a currency. The third issue is related to a referendum."
10 [Interpretation] Can you tell us what you meant when you said
11 that there were problems in January before the war with passing down
12 information top down?
13 A. It follows from the discussion at this meeting that we didn't
14 have enough information. That is why we see here -- we see it stated
15 that all information that is significant come from the right source.
16 Your name is mentioned here among others. There were many problems. We
17 were puzzled because we didn't have enough information. We erred. That
18 is why I said that we need information from the right source so that
19 we're sure what -- what things are like. There were different
20 interpretations by Deronjic and other people who were in the highest
21 echelons of the SDS.
22 Q. How did this information interpreted in such a way reach you, and
23 did it prove accurate?
24 A. The president of the Municipal Board of our party, Mr. Deronjic,
25 was a hard-working man, but he also had some character traits which were
1 not impeccable. He was a leader, but he wanted to be even more of a
2 leader. Whenever he wasn't able to impose his will, he would refer to
3 President Karadzic and other men or persons of authority and subsequently
4 would learn that that was unfounded. So there was the opinion in the
5 board that it would be best that information we needed to know be
6 presented through documents and so on.
7 Q. Thank you. How did -- how was information flow during the war as
8 compared to the pre-war period?
9 A. Well, the effects of the war could be felt. A number of members
10 joined the military units. I was one. I went to the Kravica local
11 commune where I was born and we dealt with the war. We had huge problems
12 defending the village. Some people went over to the other side and
13 communication was very difficult. It was very hard to bring together the
14 Municipal Board, but still some people were able to meet and discuss
15 things from the aspect of politics and based on the information that had
17 I was not very actively involved in political life after April
18 because we had a lot to do at Kravica.
19 Q. Let's please go to page 21. The transcript does not reflect that
20 Kravica was left without communication lines and that's why there was no
21 political life.
22 A. Adequate.
23 Q. Maybe I should read this out to you in English:
24 "Mr. Jovan Nikolic said that he spoke with the people and that
25 the Crisis Staff would be established within few days and would be
1 functional. From the item 1 of the agenda, we moved on to the item 2.
2 Miroslav said that the contacts with the army are established and that
3 few companies should be formed which would be subordinated to and --"
4 [Interpretation] And then it was not recorded. What was
5 envisaged? Who should your TO companies be subordinate to?
6 A. The circumstances in our municipality, the precarious situation,
7 including the political situation, resulted in the establishment of some
8 bodies, and by agreement and also based on need, a crisis staff for
9 Bratunac municipality was formed. The military authorities, that is, the
10 army, who were partly present in town and the TO should deal with
11 military matters, whereas Crisis Staffs should deal with creating
12 conditions, monitoring the political situation, and some sort of
14 Q. Let's have the next page, please. Just the first line. Can you
15 tell us if you had any talks with the military. It says here:
16 "[In English] Jovan Nikolic explained that the talk they had
17 with the army representatives."
18 A. Yes. The military was part of the operative structures present
19 there, and the army was a sort of guarantee of safety in the territory
20 where we were.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Your Excellencies, I
22 seek to tender pages 18, 19, 21, and 22.
23 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Nicholls.
24 MR. NICHOLLS: I don't object, Your Honours. I just -- if I
25 caught the date that the statement was signed by the witness, his 92 ter
1 statement, it was the 10th of March. This is the 14th of March. The
2 last time I raised this type of issue with Mr. Robinson, he agreed that
3 it would be better if we got proofing notes with the new information. So
4 I don't object, but I don't know why I didn't get a proofing note.
5 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Robinson.
6 MR. ROBINSON: Yes. Actually, Mr. President, I wasn't present at
7 this proofing, so I don't know if this subject was discussed with the
8 witness, but Dr. Karadzic can advise the Chamber.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Excellencies, I thought the --
10 I thought the whole document had been admitted as P2597, and later it
11 turned out that only individual pages had been admitted. That's the
13 JUDGE KWON: It's a separate matter whether you need to inform
14 the other party, the Prosecution, by way of proofing note if something
15 new arises during your proofing.
16 That's the point, isn't it, Mr. Nicholls?
17 MR. NICHOLLS: Yes. That was a hugely -- a hugely evasive answer
18 by Mr. Karadzic. I think he understands the point is not the fact that
19 he's using this document but that he is asking the witness questions
20 about these meetings, the relationship between the leadership in Bratunac
21 and Mr. Karadzic, and discussions about co-ordinating with the military.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Maybe I can clarify with the
24 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Mr. Nikolic, did we show you this document during the proofing?
1 A. Yes, you did.
2 Q. When you saw me, did we show you this document?
3 A. This document? No, not this one.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, your Excellencies. None
5 of this was part of the proofing. That's why I apologised for not
6 announcing it. We did not use this document during the proofing.
7 MR. NICHOLLS: Well, I won't belabour the point, but even if they
8 didn't use the document during the proofing, if they're going to elicit
9 new information from the witness, again I'm not objecting to the
10 document, but we -- we should be given some notice.
11 JUDGE KWON: I believe that Mr. Robinson will have a word with
12 Mr. Karadzic in this regard.
13 I took a look at the exhibit in Karadzic referred to, P2597, but
14 there we have handwritten note in B/C/S original, but we missed the
15 original here. Shall we admit it in full or mark it for identification?
16 Being -- noting that it is unrevised translation, we better mark it for
18 MR. NICHOLLS: Mr. Reid tells me parts of this are admitted as
19 different exhibits. I'm sure there must be -- that we must be able to
20 connect it up. I don't --
21 JUDGE KWON: So until then we'll mark it for identification.
22 MR. NICHOLLS: Thank you.
23 JUDGE KWON: We mark it for identification. Page 18 to 21 [sic].
24 Shall we give the number.
25 THE REGISTRAR: MFI D3127, Your Honours.
1 JUDGE KWON: Please continue, or you're done?
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, your Excellencies, and I note
3 the time too.
4 JUDGE KWON: Yes. We will have a break for 45 minutes and resume
5 at quarter past 1.00.
6 --- Recess taken at 12.31 p.m.
7 --- On resuming at 1.18 p.m.
8 THE ACCUSED: May I, Excellency, just one question before --
9 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
10 THE ACCUSED: A question to the witness, okay?
11 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Please continue.
12 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Mr. Nikolic, there is one thing that I remain unclear about and
14 that I'd like you to clarify. What was the purpose of invoking me
15 whenever something needed doing although you had nothing directly to do
16 with me but, rather, it was always a go-between who invoked my name. Was
17 that for purely political effect or what?
18 A. Yes, there were situations like that, political situations. When
19 I talked about our president Deronjic and the way he established
20 authority. When a decision needed implementing his way, he would simply
21 invoke President Karadzic. Whenever he said, "President Karadzic said
22 this or said that," we would simply accept it. At a later date we go
23 back to it and what we find is that he used your name as an instance of
24 authority in order to implement his own ideas and decisions,
25 personnel-related decisions, appointments, political decisions sometimes.
1 Very often during our Municipal Board meetings, we had no choice but to
2 accept his words at face value because he invoked your name.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Mr. Nikolic.
4 Your Honours, I have no further questions.
5 JUDGE KWON: As regards the exhibit we marked for identification,
6 I was advised to correct the record as regards the page numbers. We
7 admitted from page 18 to the end, i.e., page 22.
8 Yes, Mr. Nikolic, as you have noted, your evidence in chief in
9 this case has been admitted in writing in lieu of your oral testimony in
10 most part, and now you will be cross-examined by the representative of
11 the Office of the Prosecutor.
12 Mr. Nicholls.
13 MR. NICHOLLS: Thank you, Your Honours.
14 Cross-examination by Mr. Nicholls:
15 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Nikolic.
16 A. Good afternoon, Mr. Prosecutor.
17 Q. What I want to do first is talk about the 14th of July and the
18 critical part of your statement where you describe going to the Kravica
19 warehouse that morning and seeing those terrible sights. Okay?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Now, let me ask --
22 A. No, I was --
23 Q. I was just trying to let you know where I'm going. I'll ask some
24 questions now.
25 MR. NICHOLLS: This for Your Honours and everybody is set out at
1 paras 55 and 56 of your statement. I'll just summarise quickly.
2 Q. Paragraph 55 you came back from Potocari on the 13th where you'd
3 been for just a short time, worked in your office, and then the co-op in
4 Bratunac, went home, and then you talk about how the following day, the
5 14th, you went -- you say:
6 "I went to my office in the morning where I finished up some
7 work." That's in Bratunac. "After this, I went to Kravica with Dragan
8 Nikolic to see how the purchase of raspberries was unfolding."
9 Then in paragraph 56 you state that you arrived, you stepped out
10 of the car, you saw something strange was happening in front of the
11 warehouse, you saw some people there you didn't recognise. These persons
12 were doing the killing, wearing soldier uniforms, but you could not see
13 any insignia, and they wore some sort of masks over their heads. You
14 couldn't recognise any of these soldiers doing the killing; correct?
15 A. That's right.
16 Q. Yeah. But you could tell that none of them were from Bratunac.
17 That's what it says in your statement that you said didn't need any
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Okay. Now, you testified here before to basically the same
21 events in the Blagojevic case as a Defence witness; correct?
22 A. Yes, that's correct.
23 Q. All right. And there again speaking of the 13th, after you were
24 at your office in Bratunac -- the co-operative in Bratunac, excuse me.
25 After being in Potocari you went home. And then the following day, the
1 14th, you said:
2 "I went to Kravica around 9.30 or 10.00..."
3 MR. NICHOLLS: I'm sorry, I should say this is 65 ter 24749 at
4 e-court page 18 and it's T8011.
5 Q. So you went to Kravica around 9.30 or maybe 10.00 on the morning
6 of the 14th you testified to, correct?
7 A. Yes, correct.
8 Q. And the reason there you said was we had not received any weigh
9 bills, the receipts from the sales point in Kravica, nor had we received
10 a report from the people in charge of selling the raspberries, and so you
11 went there with Dragan Nikolic; right? That's what you testified to.
12 A. Yes, that's right.
13 Q. Okay. And then same thing. You see this terrible scene of ten
14 Muslims being laid out flat on the ground and murdered; correct?
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. And again, the people you said in soldier uniforms were wearing
17 masks as they committed this crime?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And one thing, sorry, I forgot you were interviewed by the OTP,
20 the Office of the Prosecutor, I mean, in 2001 by Mr. Peter McCloskey.
21 MR. NICHOLLS: And that's 65 ter 24751. I'm referring to e-court
22 page 28.
23 Q. And there again you said -- what I forgot to ask you is on the
24 13th of July there you said that you were at home in Bratunac around
25 10.00 and you didn't see any buses with Muslim prisoners in Bratunac at
1 night on the 13th of July; correct?
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. All right. And one thing else you were asked about in your
4 interview -- well, I'll strike that. Strike that. Other than this: At
5 e-court page 31 of that interview, and I'm not asking you this as a legal
6 characterisation, but what you saw at the warehouse was so disturbing
7 that you said:
8 "I saw that genocide had been committed in the warehouse. That
9 there was killing, had been killing."
11 A. This was 2001. I was a suspect at the time. I was at the
12 military base in Banja Luka. The interview that was conducted did not
13 essentially change later on. Everything that I did on the 13th and the
14 14th will be reflected equally in all of my later statements.
15 Q. Let me stop you right there. All I'm asking you is -- I'm only
16 asking you one question which is a yes or no. Do you remember that you
17 described that scene you saw in your words - I'm not saying you're a
18 lawyer - as genocide, yes or no?
19 A. I don't remember using the word "genocide." If indeed I did use
20 the word then perhaps I wasn't sufficiently and properly informed about
21 the real meaning of the word, and it wasn't my job to know. It certainly
22 was very sad scene, a sad sight. I did what I did for a number of
23 reasons in terms of telling the truth.
24 Q. Okay. Let me stop you right --
25 A. The Trial Chamber that --
1 Q. Let me stop you right there because you've answered my question
2 and you're going further. You don't remember if you used the word
4 MR. NICHOLLS: Okay. Could I have 65 ter 24752 up, please. I'll
5 wait for page 1 of the Serbian. All right. Looks like -- maybe Mr. Reid
6 can assist. It looks like page 1 of the Serbian is missing. There we
8 Q. All right. This is 10th October 2005. Bosnia and Herzegovina
9 prosecutor's office. Record of examination of the witness. Present
10 Ibro Bulic, the state court prosecutor; witness, you, Jovan Nikolic; and
11 your lawyer, starting at 13.50. And we can see at the bottom of that
12 first page on the left your signature saying you understand the warning
13 given to you that you have to tell the truth in this statement and that
14 giving a false testimony is a criminal offence; correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. All right. Let's go to the last page. Here we are see your
17 signature and the penultimate paragraph in the English and it's the same
18 on your page at the top.
19 "Now, the witness was thereafter advised of his right to have the
20 record read to him before the said record is signed and he says: 'The
21 record has been -- has been read over to me out loud, and I was
22 simultaneously following the text on the monitor, and I do not have any
23 objections to it so I will sign it."
24 And your signature -- this is the question: Your signature is
25 there as well, under witness -- over witness; correct?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Thank you.
3 MR. NICHOLLS: Now, let's go to page 2 of the English, please,
4 and also of the Serbian. Page 3 of the English. Sorry. Sorry, page 4
5 of the English. I'm sorry. And Serbian page 2.
6 Q. Now, I'm going to go through this signed under penalty statement
7 of yours in some detail.
8 MR. NICHOLLS: Could we go to the next page of the Serbian, I
9 think. Yes.
10 Q. Now, here you begin -- I'm sorry. Page 2 of the Serbian. My
11 mistake. At the bottom.
12 There's a warehouse next to -- this is concerning the 13th of
13 July, 1995, we can see, the 13th of July. And you discuss the Kravica
14 warehouse. Now we can go to the next page of the Serbian, stay where we
15 are in the English. And there you talk about three Kravica farming
16 co-operative workers, Zoran Eric, Milos Djukanovic, and Miladin Nikolic,
17 and they were workers at the warehouse; correct?
18 A. Yes. They were workers at the co-op, employees of the co-op.
19 Q. Thank you.
20 A. And at the time, they happened to be performing this work.
21 Q. Yes. Now let's go down. Right where we are in the English is
22 fine. I'm at the lower part of the page.
23 "On 13 July 1995, I was at work. During the day I was in the
24 office in Bratunac as well as the agricultural facilities of the
25 co-operative in Bratunac which are located close to Bratunac."
1 Then we go down a bit.
2 "When -- while I was at the agricultural facilities of the
3 co-operative in Bratunac at around 2200 hundred hours in the evening we
4 decided to go to the Kravica farming co-operative. They were
5 Miladin Jovanovic, Perica Vasovic and Miso Eric there. Together we all
6 set out in the car owned by Miladin Jovanovic."
7 And it says he was driving the car and you arrived at the farming
8 co-operative, that is the warehouse, in Kravica.
9 MR. NICHOLLS: Next page the English, please.
10 Q. "It was dark." So this is night-time. "But it was not very
11 late. It was the summertime and there was no light." Then you talk
12 about how Zoran Eric the employee appeared with the gun, told you to turn
13 off the lights.
14 And before my friend objects, and I am going to ask a question,
15 but this is important background.
16 "When he saw me, Zoran Eric approached telling me that people had
17 been killed there and there were a lot of dead people and that they were
18 Muslims from the area of Srebrenica. He also said that the Special
19 Police from Skelani was there. They had problems regarding the prisoners
20 since not all of them were placed indoors. Zoran Eric also told me that
21 before we arrived, the policeman named Krsto Dragicevic from Skelani had
22 been killed after which the shooting of the prisoners started. At that
23 time a policeman came in front of me."
24 He was dressed in the police fatigues armed with a gun and tried
25 to order you to stand guard. You refused and you didn't have to because
1 you were appointed the manager. You were the manager.
2 "At that time, I heard the burst of fire in the direction of the
3 central part of the hangar and the detonation of bombs were also heard."
4 Then you're asked a question by prosecutor Ibro Bulic about
5 whether you saw other policemen present, and you said you didn't see
6 anybody, but:
7 "By the bursts of fire from several rifles, he concluded that
8 there were more persons who were shooting in the direction of the central
9 entrance to the hangar."
10 So you were at the Kravica warehouse at night on the 13th of July
11 as it says in your sworn statement; correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And you were told then that prisoners had been killed in the
14 warehouse; correct? Again as said in your sworn statement.
15 A. I said that on the 13th of July at Kravica there had been a
16 serious incident during which the prisoners seized the guards' weapons
17 and opened fire at the guards upon which the guards fired back and killed
18 the men in the hangar. That occurred on the 13th. I happened to be
19 there that evening. I stayed for about five or six minutes after which I
20 drove back to Bratunac.
21 Q. Stop, stop, stop, because you've answered the question. I didn't
22 ask you where you went next or how long you stayed. You answered
23 question. You were told that men were murdered there that night.
24 I'll continue on the same page.
25 "On the Prosecutor's question to the witness whether he had found
1 out in any other way as to who could have been the perpetrator of those
2 killings apart from what Zoran Eric told him, that they had been
3 committed by the Special Police from Skelani, the witness states that:
4 "'Already the next day it was a generally known fact and a 'open
5 secret' that they had been committed precisely by the Special Police Unit
6 from Skelani since it was rumoured all around that they had done that and
7 nobody else was mentioned, neither an individual or a unit that could
8 have committed those killings.'"
9 So not only were you told there were killings that night that it
10 was done by the Special Police, but also the next day you were told by
11 farm co-operative workers who were there that it was the Special Police
12 from Skelani. Yes or no?
13 A. No.
14 Q. You were not told --
15 A. That was -- that was in the evening hours of that day around 5.30
16 or 6.00, after the incident. There was shooting and in that shooting the
17 commander of the police got killed, and of course we heard which
18 formation that man was belonging to. It was a public secret that the
19 Special Police from Skelani had done that because they -- it was said
20 that they were -- had been doing that on that day. But when I was there
21 in the evening, there were no longer those police officers but other
22 persons, and that's the difference between what you're insisting on and
23 the reality.
24 Q. Okay. Well, what I'm insisting on is that you say in your
25 statement that was sworn and that we will see appears in a judgement of
1 the state court from your testimony there that you saw a policeman there
2 in police fatigues the night of the 13th of July; correct?
3 A. One police officer.
4 Q. Thank you. Thank you. You answered. That was the question.
5 Now --
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Not the entire answer was recorded.
7 One police officer who appeared before me. This "who appeared before me"
8 part was not recorded.
9 MR. NICHOLLS: Thank you.
10 Q. Now, not one word of what we've gone through about your trip to
11 the Kravica warehouse on the 13th of July, 1995, is in your statement
12 which you provided which is now evidence before Their Honours, is it?
13 JUDGE KWON: For the record, on the 13th of July?
14 MR. NICHOLLS: Yes, 13th of July, 1995, at night.
15 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, the 13th of July. That's the
17 date we're talking about.
18 MR. NICHOLLS:
19 Q. Yes. And you have not answered my question. You have excised
20 completely from your testimony here the fact that you were present at the
21 Kravica warehouse on July 13th at around 10.00 p.m.; correct?
22 A. That was not consciously omitted. I wasn't asked about the 13th,
23 only about the 14th, and I mentioned the 13th of July in all my
24 statements and all evidence. There is no reason for me to conceal
25 anything about the 13th of July. That's the day I came there, when I saw
1 things, and why -- and I returned. The -- including the night of the
2 13th. In the proofing the 14th was mentioned, and I was focussing on the
3 14th. However, I'm not evading anything, and I'm ready to tell the
4 Trial Chamber everything I saw there.
5 Q. Okay. Well, we'll continue.
6 JUDGE KWON: Just -- you said, Mr. Nikolic, during the proofing
7 the 14th was mentioned and you were focusing on the 14th. What do you
8 mean by that? In what --
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I wanted to say that in these
10 proofing materials I didn't find the 13th anywhere. I was only asked
11 about the 14th, and that's why my statement mentions the 14th. However,
12 the reason for the omission of the 13th can only be a hazard. It can
13 only be by chance. There's no reason for me to conceal anything I saw on
14 the 13th at Kravica. The day I decided to speak out about the suffering
15 of the Muslims at Kravica, I -- it was clear to me that I wanted for the
16 Serbs to also see the other side. When I came to Kravica to the
17 buildings belonging to the co-op of which I was a director, I saw a
18 horrible sight. A police officer appeared before me, I returned home,
19 and on the 14th my new activities began about the -- by clarifying what
20 had happened on the 13th.
21 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I had huge problems because of my
23 honesty and I was even placed in detention. I was also a witness of the
24 Prosecution and then I was also a witness of the Defence, so I found
25 myself in a precarious situation in that period, the 13th and the 14th.
1 This is probably the worst experience I've had in my life. Later on my
2 brother got killed in the activities around Srebrenica, the fighting.
3 When the Trial Chamber -- and I hope the Trial Chamber understands what I
4 was exposing myself to by testifying about these events rather than
5 putting any kind of or other -- having suspicion against me why I -- why
6 I went to those buildings that belonged to my co-op.
7 JUDGE KWON: Very well back to you, Mr. Nicholls.
8 MR. NICHOLLS: Thank you, Your Honour.
9 Q. Now, you went back to Kravica warehouse again on the 14th of July
10 in the morning, and this is in your statement at paragraph 55 which I
11 read a bit of before.
12 "The following day, 14 July, 1995, I went to my office in the
13 morning where I finished up some work. After this, I went to Kravica
14 with Dragan Nikolic to see how the purchase of raspberries was
16 So understand your testimony, you're at Kravica on the night of
17 the 13th, confronted by a policeman with a gun in fatigues, you're told
18 that Muslims had been murdered in the warehouse, you can hear what you
19 believe to be murders ongoing, and the next morning you go back to the
20 warehouse because you've got to do a raspberry audit or something?
21 A. Among other things that was a reason too. There was the sales
22 point, there was merchandise coming in. I had no information for a day
23 or two, and I had no idea how many victims were inside. We were able to
24 agree with Dragan. We went back there on the 14th and saw an even worse
1 Q. Yeah. And when you were asked a question, this is on page 5 of
2 the English, page 3 of the B/C/S, you stated -- sorry, page 6 of the
3 English, page 4 of the B/C/S, that -- well, I'll have to find it, but you
4 stated that you concluded that on the 14th it was the same group killing
5 men since they wore the same police fatigues as the man you'd seen the
6 night before?
7 A. No. No. On the following day the uniform was a military uniform
8 with a phantom hat, a balaclava on the head --
9 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat the latter part
10 of his answer.
11 Q. Okay. Let me try to help you because I'll show you the part I'm
12 talking about. It's page 7 of the English, my mistake, Serbian page 4.
13 And I'll read it out to you.
14 "On the Prosecution's question whether the police you saw in
15 front of the warehouse on 14 July was the same police he had registered
16 the previous evening, he states that it was and that he made his
17 conclusion based on the police fatigues in which the policemen were
19 Right. So when you were speaking under oath -- let me finish my
20 question. When you were speaking under oath to the prosecutor, you said
21 you thought it was the same unit because the uniforms were the same as
22 the man you'd seen the night before; right?
23 A. Yes. The unit that had committed the killings, that's the unit I
24 meant. As for the people, there were no more people there.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It was not recorded that the
1 witness in his previous answer said --
2 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not understand the accused.
3 Could he please repeat the latter part.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It was not recorded that the
5 witness said that the police officers he had seen on the 13th he did not
6 see again on the 14th.
7 MR. NICHOLLS:
8 Q. Thank you. Which is contrary to your statement. That's my
9 point. You concluded they were the same because of the uniforms. If
10 that's wrong, just say it's wrong and I'll ask you another question.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we please have a reference to
12 the line where it says so?
13 MR. NICHOLLS: I already gave you the reference, Mr. Karadzic --
14 I already gave the reference. He should keep up. It's on page 4 of the
15 B/C/S, I believe.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] But I see neither the page number
17 nor apart from that a page of 50 lines.
18 MR. NICHOLLS: Okay. It should be --
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Maybe you could point at it with
20 the cursor.
21 MR. NICHOLLS: It should begin "na pitanje tuzilastva," "on the
22 Prosecution's question."
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could the witness please be read
24 out the following part:
25 "I didn't see that but I could --"
1 MR. NICHOLLS: No, no, no. The witness has the statement in
2 front of him. It's an inappropriate intervention.
3 MR. ROBINSON: Excuse me, Mr. President, it's not inappropriate
4 for another party to ask that the context of a statement be made
5 available to the witness, so Mr. Nicholls can relax and allow
6 Dr. Karadzic at least to make that request to the Chamber.
7 MR. NICHOLLS: And if I could respond, I disagree that during my
8 cross-examination that the opposing party can tell me what to read out.
9 That's for redirect.
10 JUDGE KWON: Let me take a look. I think sufficient part has
11 been read out to the witness. Let's continue.
12 MR. NICHOLLS: Now, again, if we can go to page 6 -- page 6 of
13 the English.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Print it out, please.
15 JUDGE KWON: I'm sorry, what did you say, Mr. Nikolic?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no, no I didn't.
17 THE ACCUSED: Sorry, I -- I made a mistake, Your Honours.
18 MR. NICHOLLS: If somebody wants a hard copy, I have one.
19 Q. Now, on page 6 of the English, page 4 of the Serbian, there's a
20 prosecutor's question as to what you found out in conversation with
21 Luka Markovic, and you said that Luka Markovic also confirmed to you that
22 the killings had been committed by the Special Police from Skelani;
23 correct? You said that in your statement to the prosecutor. Right?
24 A. I didn't understand you.
25 Q. You told the state court prosecutor that Luka Markovic told you
1 that the executions had been carried out by the Special Police from
2 Skelani. Okay. Thank you.
3 A. Yes. Yes.
4 MR. NICHOLLS: Now, Your Honours, I would tender this statement,
5 because it's been adopted largely. It contains information of the
6 witness's whereabouts and what he did on the 13th of July which is not
7 contained in his statement provided by Mr. Karadzic and it also
8 contradicts much of what the witness said.
9 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Robinson.
10 MR. ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. President. We would not object if
11 there's some particular portion of the statement which contradicts what
12 he said and Mr. Nicholls can point to that, but if there are other things
13 in the statement that Mr. Nicholls would like to elicit, he should do so
14 orally, not to admit a prior statement of a witness.
15 MR. NICHOLLS: The entire statement contradicts what the witness
16 said because the statement implies strongly and states - and we can go
17 back over it - that on the 13th of July, he was in Potocari, then he was
18 at work in Bratunac, then he was at home. The statement then goes on to
19 say on the 14th he went to Kravica to see how the raspberries were going,
20 and the clear implication, the plain meaning of the statement to anybody
21 reading it on its own would be that that's the first time he went to
22 Kravica and the first time he learned about the executions.
23 JUDGE KWON: And this statement -- just a second. This statement
24 is only eight pages long?
25 MR. NICHOLLS: Yes, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE KWON: I don't see any difficulty with admitting it in its
3 MR. NICHOLLS: Thank you, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE KWON: I will consult my colleagues. We'll receive it in
5 its entirety.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P6201.
7 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Nikolic. Did you want to say something?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I wanted to say that the situation
9 with the 13th of July is very clear. July 13 was a workday, and I had no
10 idea what was going on at Kravica. I went to Kravica with three people
11 because we hadn't had any news from Kravica, absolutely none. And it was
12 hard to believe that -- or, rather, it seems hard to believe that
13 raspberries were being harvested during the Srebrenica operation.
14 However, that military operation was going on 30 kilometres from where we
15 were working, and women, children, invalids all were involved in that
16 work. We considered Kravica as a normal area at the time. There was
17 nothing indicating that on 13 and 14 July anything could happen at
18 Kravica, let alone that people could be brought there to be killed.
19 As a -- as a director of the warehouse and the other buildings, I
20 had no such information. I came to the site, and I was confronted by
21 some people. I was informed what was going on. The lights were
22 extinguished and I went home. And on the following day I returned with
23 Dragan, and only then did we find out that there had been many people
24 killed and that those things were going on that we mention in our
25 statements. I do not doubt the events of the 13th of July at all.
1 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Thank you.
2 Back to you, Mr. Nicholls.
3 MR. NICHOLLS:
4 Q. Thank you. Just before we move on from this statement, would you
5 agree with me that there is not one word in your statement to the state
6 court prosecutor that any of the killers you saw at any time were wearing
8 A. The mask and these events took place on the 14th. I said here
9 that under special circumstances after being detained or placed in remand
10 prison because of all of this I -- I read all this, but still that's not
11 how it was.
12 Q. Okay. Now could you answer my question even though it's obvious,
13 that you didn't not mention the masks in your statement at all, did you?
14 A. I can't see any mention, I think.
15 Q. No.
16 A. But it's a fact that there were masks and that's the truth.
17 Q. Are you aware that Milos Djukanovic gave a statement about this
19 JUDGE KWON: If you are leaving this topic, let me ask a
21 Do you have your statement with you, Mr. Nikolic?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Here? Now?
23 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Which you signed.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You mean the statement given in
25 this case.
1 JUDGE KWON: Yes, for -- yes.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] [Overlapping speakers]
3 JUDGE KWON: If you could take a look at the paragraphs 55, 56,
4 and 57. You stated here that you witnessed the killing on the morning of
5 14th. While your memory was so vivid, why did you tell the Defence that
6 you witnessed those killings on the morning of 14th?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] But I was there on the 14th. That
8 was the following day. I didn't see any killings on the 13th. I did see
9 killings on the 14th when I returned from Bratunac. That's when it was
10 happening. And the statement that I gave in paragraphs 55 through 57
11 speak about that.
12 JUDGE KWON: Yes, back to you Mr. Nicholls.
13 MR. NICHOLLS: Thank you.
14 Q. Let me just clear this up quickly. You go there on the 13th at
15 night to the Kravica warehouse at about 10.00 p.m.; correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Then according to you, according to your statement to the state
18 court, you were con fronted by a policeman and Zoran Eric tells you that
19 Muslims had been killed at the warehouse; correct?
20 A. I was confronted by one policeman, not more.
21 Q. Thank you. Thank you. You answered it.
22 A. And he confronted me. He wanted me to go on guard. He
23 mistreated me.
24 Q. You answered the question. You were confronted by one policeman.
25 Zoran Eric who worked at the warehouse told you that night, the 13th of
1 July, that Muslims had been killed, correct?
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. Thank you.
4 MR. NICHOLLS: Could I have 65 ter 24777, please. This is from
5 the Stupar et al judgement in the Bosnian state court which you testified
6 in. It's case number XKR05/24 from July 28, and I want English page 6,
7 B/C/S page 10.
8 Q. Now, this is the judgement, and they refer to your testimony, on
9 the page in English at the bottom, and on your Serbian version it should
10 be there as well -- as well on the bottom of the page. Yeah. You see
11 your name there "svedok," witness Jovan Nikolic.
12 You stated there -- the judgement says that your testimony in
13 that case was that you arrived at the Kravica farming co-operative on 13
14 of July after 10.00 p.m. when you heard from Zoran Eric, also a worker at
15 the farm, that Bosniaks were imprisoned there, that a police officer from
16 Skelani had been killed, and that many people who were imprisoned there
17 at dusk that day were killed in the hangar.
18 [As read] "The witness also said that he learned in the days to
19 follow that the captured men who had surrendered in Sandici were killed
20 there. Eric told the witness on that occasion that the Skelani police
21 unit was also there. According to Witness Nikolic, Luka Markovic, one of
22 the workers, told him that a Skelani Platoon unit was in operation that
23 day close to the Kravica facility and that one member of the platoon was
25 MR. NICHOLLS: Then if we can turn to page 7 of the English.
1 Q. [As read] "Witness Nikolic returned to the Kravica facility on
2 14th July, saw a pile of dead bodies inside the hangar. It was that day
3 that the clean-up went on, continued. Witness Nikolic stated to have
4 witnessed the killing of one group of the prisoners on the morning of 14
5 July. They were lined up in front of the warehouse and killed by the
6 soldiers unfamiliar to him."
7 So you not only said to the state court prosecutor in the
8 statement that we saw what happened on the 13th of July, 1995, you also
9 testified to it the same thing in that trial, correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Thank you.
12 MR. NICHOLLS: I'm done with that. Thank you, Your Honours.
13 Q. Now, you said earlier -- I don't have the page in front of me,
14 that you've always been consistent and told the same story or told the
15 truth. Let me read to you some of your testimony when you were here
16 under oath last time in the Blagojevic case.
17 MR. NICHOLLS: This is 65 ter 2479, e-court pages page 22.
18 Q. And this is about the people who committed the executions. The
19 question to you was:
20 "All right. Did you ever find out where those individuals were,
21 where they were from, the ones that were committing those executions?"
22 Your answer:
24 Now, when you testified to that -- wait for the question. Wait
25 for the question. When you testified to that for the defence of the
1 commander of the Bratunac Brigade, you lied, didn't you, because you
2 found out immediately that these killers were from Skelani?
3 A. No. Even then I didn't lie and I'm not lying today either. I
4 testified in the Blagojevic case in 2004. In 2005 I was put in remand
5 prison because of that, and one thing is the statement I gave in remand
6 prison, that is when I was a suspect, and another thing when I gave a
7 statement in this way. There was talk about this police unit but we had
8 no official confirmation.
9 Q. Now, let me read out another part to you.
10 MR. NICHOLLS: This is -- should be e-court page 20. It's T8013.
11 Q. And you were asked again about the executioners. The question
13 "Can you describe --"
14 And you said:
15 "I didn't know then nor could I guess afterwards who these people
16 had been. It's a fact what I saw is true."
17 So you again strongly implied to that trial chamber that there
18 was no way you could give any information on which unit had committed
19 these executions, although on the night of the executions and the day
20 after when there were more executions you were told it was the Special
21 Police from Skelani.
22 A. Yes, because they insisted and asked me about who these were --
23 who these men were, what their names were, and the men who committed the
24 killings on the 14th in military uniforms, they were not members of the
25 brigade. Now you're taking this out of context. I don't have that
1 statement of mine, but that's how it was there, and many things that I
2 described are absolutely true, the killings and that I saw them there and
3 that this was the Skelani police unit that was involved, that on the
4 following day the killing continued, but those were not members of the
5 brigade. They weren't men who belonged to anything where there was a
6 command, anyone who commanded them. This was the essence of my testimony
7 in the Blagojevic case.
8 Now, you can pull out of context any documents, but this is the
9 whole truth.
10 Q. Let's go over the context right here, and then I'll go over and
11 you think about if what you said is correct, that the Skelani -- the 2nd
12 the -- Skelani Platoon of the 2nd Sekovici Special Police detachment was
13 not in any kind of command, all right? But for now we'll get to that.
14 Question -- it's not in your language, unfortunately. Question from
15 Mr. Karnavas, a Defence lawyer.
16 "Q. Okay. All right. Now you said when you saw that you
17 reacted, first of all could you please describe to us whether you
18 recognise these individuals?
19 "A. No.
20 "Q. Can you describe --
21 "A. I didn't know them nor could I guess afterwards who these
22 people had been."
23 Well, you could have guessed these people had been members of the
24 Skelani Platoon since you were told they were Special Police from
1 A. The case, the incident on the night of the 13th had to do with
2 it, and I'm trying before this Trial Chamber and before the public to say
3 that this was a classic example of an incident. The police was guarding
4 those detainees. The detainees went out of control. They snatched
5 rifles and opened fire.
6 Q. You're not answering my question.
7 A. Then there was fight that ensued in which several policemen and
8 their commanders were killed.
9 Q. You're not answering my question. Is it an honest answer --
10 MR. ROBINSON: Well, excuse me, Mr. President, he was answering
11 the question and he should be given a chance to complete his answer.
12 JUDGE KWON: Yes, let him continue.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And I learned that this was the
14 Skelani unit because a man from that unit had been killed. So then
15 immediately we identified who it was, but the previous day I didn't know.
16 The killing was done by men in uniforms with balaclavas. These were some
17 renegades or killers, you can call them whatever you want, but that --
18 and I didn't know a single one of those men and that is why I was
19 detained on remand.
20 JUDGE KWON: Yes, the question from Mr. Nicholls, Prosecutor, was
21 why you did not tell the Blagojevic Chamber that it was Skelani unit.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think I did say that. I think
23 I've said it. It was no secret anymore. We knew exactly that it was the
24 Skelani unit. And as for Blagojevic, in the end I was a witness in a
25 case that was -- that had to do with a soldier, one of the men from his
1 brigade, and he wasn't there.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we just have some information
3 as to what date the page we have before us on the screens is about? Is
4 it the 13th or the 14th?
5 MR. NICHOLLS: Well, it's very clear that it's the 14th. I can
6 answer that easily because in his Blagojevic testimony, the witness
7 again, as in the Defence statement here, never mentioned going to Kravica
8 warehouse on the night of the 13th. As in his testimony -- statement to
9 the OTP, as in his testimony in Blagojevic, as in his Defence statement
10 here, the witness said that on the 13th he was in Potocari, then he went
11 to work in Bratunac, and then he went home. And that it was the next day
12 was the first time there's any mention of going to Kravica warehouse.
13 And I don't want to admit the entire transcript from the
14 Blagojevic case, but there's no way for me to do that in my
15 cross-examination other than reading every line out to show the witness
16 did not mention Skelani or going to Kravica on the 13th.
17 Q. Now, you're from Bratunac; right? Sorry --
18 A. From Kravica.
19 Q. No, I'm sorry. You're right. You're from Kravica. I'm sorry,
20 you're correct. Do you know Mr. Ljubisa Borovcanin?
21 A. Yes, I do. I know Ljubisa Borovcanin very well.
22 Q. You knew him before the war?
23 A. I knew him before the war -- or, rather, no, I didn't, but I knew
24 him before these events. He was the commander of our police, the police
25 in Bratunac.
1 Q. Yeah. And he lived in the centre of Bratunac?
2 A. He lived in Bratunac, yes.
3 MR. NICHOLLS: P02992, please. This is a document dated 10 July
4 1995, it's an order from Tomislav or Tomo Kovac. It's -- you can see it
5 goes to a large distribution list. I won't read it all to save time.
6 And it says:
7 "Based on the order of the Supreme Commander of the Republika
8 Srpska armed forces," Mr. Karadzic, "and in order to crush the enemy
9 offensive from Srebrenica protected zone I hereby order."
10 Part one talks about singling out parts of the MUP to participate
11 in the Srebrenica operation. Part 2 says the unit will comprise the
12 following: 2nd police detachment from Sekovici, 1st Company PJP from
14 Now -- and the commander in part 3 of these forces is appointed
15 Ljubisa Borovcanin from Bratunac.
16 So the forces which you now know and are now admitting committed
17 the executions, the police platoon from Skelani which is part of the
18 2nd Sekovici detachment, was under the command of Borovcanin; correct?
19 A. Well, I don't really know. I've never seen this document. I
20 wasn't a soldier. I was never recruited. I am a disabled veteran, and
21 I've never seen it -- this. As for the killings in the hangar that are
22 tied or connected to the police, I keep pointing out here that it came
23 about as a result of a shooting. We know how it happened there. When
24 people who were guarded by the police seize weapons and rifles and
25 begin -- and open fire on the guards securing them, what else could
1 happen after that?
2 As for this document, I have never seen it. I have nothing to
3 say about it. I don't know -- I don't know what to think about it, nor
4 can I -- I don't see what I can say about this.
5 Q. Well, I'm suggesting to you that as a citizen of Bratunac and you
6 were, before you were unfortunately injured, a soldier and were
7 mobilised, that you would have known that the Skelani Platoon - Skelani
8 is closely associated with Srebrenica, I think you'd agree - the
9 Skelani Platoon of the Special Police was under Borovcanin's command,
10 which is one of the reasons why you never mentioned it and excised the
11 Special Police in all of your statements up until the state court one.
12 A. Well, yes. Even as I sit here. And I probably never will find
13 out how this came about, I mean, how could I get hold of a document of
14 this type as a citizen and a disabled person and a person who had never
15 been recruited? I was perhaps one of some 20 people or so in the whole
16 town that were not recruited at the time, that weren't mobilised. So how
17 could I get hold of a document like this? That's impossible.
18 Q. Yes.
19 A. And I --
20 Q. Yes. I'm not -- I'm not --
21 A. You can mention Ljubisa or any other people. I don't know any of
23 Q. I'm not asking if you have the document. I'll move on. I wasn't
24 going to ask you about this but you keep repeating, and it's in your
25 statement, how this was a classical shooting out of control because a
1 policeman was killed and another one's hands were burned. There were
2 over a thousand people in that warehouse. Other than a couple survivors,
3 every single one of them was executed, and it took hours. So that is not
4 just several bursts of fire in anger, is it?
5 A. There couldn't have been a thousand men because the space could
6 not accommodate as many men. It's impossible.
7 Q. Well, when you force them in -- perhaps it can correct, I'll say,
8 so I don't get an objection.
9 Now --
10 A. [Overlapping speakers]
11 Q. Wait, let me ask you another question. The next morning the
12 execution you saw you described it in your Blagojevic testimony as the
13 men were forced to lie down on the -- face down on the ground. They were
14 then shot in the back in the head. They were then shot under the
15 shoulder blade, and the persons doing the killing were joking about
16 calling it vaccinations; right?
17 A. Well, first let me say this. I was not one of those men who
18 rounded up those men and forced them into the hangar. I wasn't one of
19 those people. Now that's number one. Number two, when I went to the
20 co-operative, which is about 30 metres away, that's -- from that spot I
21 saw what was going on at the other end, and that is what I described.
22 Now, this, too, took some 30 minutes or so. By the time I said,
23 "What's going on here," this man confronted me. He almost -- he
24 threatened to kill me. I was helped by the people who were around there,
25 and I consider this an awful thing that happened.
1 Q. Okay. Let me stop --
2 A. It's a heinous gesture.
3 Q. Yeah. I'm not trying to --
4 A. And I'm not trying to justify what happened --
5 Q. Yeah, nobody is saying you are. But -- well, strike that last
6 part. But what you saw was the men being -- lying down on the ground and
7 being shot one by one, correct, on the 14th in the morning?
8 A. That was a group of some 10, 15, to 20 men who were brought
9 there. They came from the Konjevic Polje direction. That's what I saw.
10 I didn't see them going into the co-operative building. That was on the
11 day before. There are other -- there were other people there and you can
12 also hear what they have to say. It's not exactly the way it is said
14 Q. Okay. 14 July in the morning. Just focus on my question. The
15 men you saw executed were lying down on the ground, the prisoners, and
16 then they were shot while lying down on the ground; correct?
17 A. Yes. Yes, that's correct.
18 Q. That is not a classical uncontrolled reaction to somebody being
19 killed the night before, is it?
20 A. No, that isn't, but there was also an uncontrolled reaction by
21 the people who were either -- there was something mentally wrong with
22 them or they were inspired by retribution. That's not normal. It's not
23 something that a normal person could do and it's not something that a
24 person -- normal person could say.
25 Q. Yeah, but let me stop you now from speculating about what was in
1 the minds of the men you didn't know who were wearing masks who you
2 didn't know who they were. I want to move on to another topic. The 11th
3 of July, 1995, Miroslav Deronjic was appointed civilian commissioner for
4 Srebrenica by Radovan Karadzic; correct?
5 A. Well, yes. I was informed of that. We learned of that in the --
6 from the media. I heard Miroslav Deronjic had been appointed civilian
7 commissioner for Srebrenica and Bratunac municipalities.
8 Q. Thank you. Paragraph 58 of your statement you talk about how you
9 reported this incident, meaning the 14th of July killings.
10 "Immediately after this, I...," that's the 14th of July, seeing
11 these executions, "... I went to the municipality in Bratunac with the
12 intention of informing the municipal authorities about this shocking
13 event at the warehouse at the Kravica co-op. At the municipality I came
14 across Miroslav Deronjic, SDS President Ljubisav Simic."
15 To save time I won't read through all of this.
16 Srbislav Davidovic was also there. I told them that people were being
17 killed and that many had already been killed and that something should be
18 done to remove and bury the bodies. It was then that I realized that
19 they were completely unaware of this incident because they were
20 astonished. Deronjic said that he would inform the Bratunac Brigade and
21 civil protection in Bratunac about this. And here's a recent addition to
22 your statement:
23 "At no point did he mention that he would go to Pale or to report
24 to anyone else, nor did we ever get such information from Deronjic that
25 he reported about this to anyone in Pale."
1 Now that's your truthful statement in this trial; right?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Here's the difficult part. The clean-up crew to remove the
4 bodies on the 14th arrived basically while you were there. Let's bring
5 back up your 2005 statement.
6 MR. NICHOLLS: 65 ter statement 24752. Or it's got a P number
7 now, sorry, but I can't recall what it is.
8 THE REGISTRAR: 6201, Mr. Nicholls.
9 MR. NICHOLLS: Thank you.
10 Q. Which is that -- this is on Serbian page 4, English page 7. It
12 "On the prosecutor's question whether the police you saw in front
13 of the warehouse on 14 July was the same police you registered the
14 previous evening, he states that it was --"
15 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters kindly ask the counsel to slow
16 down when reading.
17 MR. NICHOLLS:
18 Q. "... he states that it was and that he made his conclusion based
19 on the police fatigues in which the policeman was dressed. Having seen
20 how those policemen killed group of ten prisoners, which I described in
21 my previous statement to the police, half an hour or an hour after that
22 Dragan Mirkovic called Kinez to come to the warehouse compound with 17
23 utility workers."
24 So that's the version in your 2005 statement, which has no
25 mention of you going back to Bratunac and reporting to the astonished
1 Miroslav Deronjic.
2 A. I don't know. It's not there, but this is a fact. After this
3 entire event and the attack, I went to Bratunac to the municipality, and
4 I stand by my statement about whom I found there and how everything
5 transpired. I went back there. Then the utility workers came and the
6 clean-up crew in order to clear up the terrain.
7 Q. Well, let me read you an adjudicated fact in this case, and that
8 means a fact that's been accepted that can be rebutted based on evidence
9 in this case.
10 MR. ROBINSON: Excuse me, Mr. President. Before he does that, I
11 notice that he's over the time that you've allotted him and perhaps
12 that's justified, but I think that it should be the practice that the
13 Prosecution asks for permission before exceeding the time, and if they
14 have a reason for it, to state that reason have and the Chamber rule on
16 JUDGE KWON: Yes. The Chamber is aware of the situation and the
17 Chamber has decided to extend his time, but I think he's past just three
18 or five minutes right now and I don't think he's going to last --
19 MR. NICHOLLS: Well, actually I do have some more. I think it's
20 quite important, Your Honour. Probably it could be less than half an
21 hour, about half an hour.
22 MR. ROBINSON: Well, Your Honour, that's why actually I rose,
23 because I think the way he's used this time, he's spent a whole hour on
24 about what is essentially a few paragraphs of a 64-paragraph statement,
25 and I notice from the last witness who had information about 1992 and
1 also Srebrenica events that Mr. Nicholls used the entire time on the 1995
2 events and then only then asked time for 1992 events, and think that it's
3 not -- this has not been the most efficient way to use the one hour that
4 was granted to him. It could have been done a lot quicker and the
5 material could have been more balanced towards covering the statement, so
6 I don't believe that the Chamber should give more than a few more
8 MR. NICHOLLS: Well, if I could briefly respond and maybe I'll
9 ask --
10 JUDGE KWON: No, no, not necessary.
11 As was the case, while trying to comply with the time limit, the
12 Chamber views that time limit as something set on stone. As was the case
13 during the Prosecution's case, we extended Mr. Karadzic's cross time very
14 many, many times. I'll discuss with my colleagues.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE KWON: The Chamber sees no difficulty with giving half an
17 hour more, but we need to rise at exactly quarter to. So we'll continue
18 next week.
19 MR. NICHOLLS: Thank you, Your Honour. So then I have about 11
21 JUDGE KWON: For today.
22 MR. NICHOLLS: Yes. Thank you. All right. Could I have 65 ter
23 24751, please. E-court page 34.
24 Q. This is your interview in 2001, much closer to these events with
25 the OTP. E-court page 34, please. It's not in your language so I'll
1 read it out to you.
2 THE INTERPRETER: Could the Prosecution kindly switch on the
3 other microphone as well. Thank you.
4 MR. NICHOLLS: I'll move over here.
5 Q. This is about reporting the incident on the 14th.
6 "I returned. I went to the municipality. I found the
7 municipality leadership there. I told him about what I had seen in
8 Kravica," which is the murders on the 14th.
9 "Tell me who among the leadership you told this to?"
10 Your answer:
11 "To the president of the municipality.
12 "Who you have seen in Potocari that day or the day before?
14 "What other members of leadership were there that you told this
15 to, and president of the local government Davidovic, what was his exact
17 "President of the municipal government, president of the
18 Executive Council.
20 "Q. Anyone else there?
21 "A. No.
22 "Q. Was Miroslav Deronjic there?
23 "A. No.
24 "Q. What was his position at that time?
25 "A. I really don't know. He had no position."
1 Now, we've already established that you knew at that time that he
2 was, in fact, the civilian commissioner for Srebrenica in charge of the
3 welfare of all the civilians of Srebrenica and Bratunac. You told the
4 Prosecutor he had no position and you told the Prosecutor that he wasn't
5 there when you reported.
6 Now -- wait for the question, please. That's completely opposite
7 of what you said here and in your statement. So were you lying to the
8 Prosecution, or are you lying to this Trial Chamber?
9 A. At that time I -- my role was the role of a suspect, and this was
10 based on this trial in Banja Luka. Now, Vidovic and Simic were present,
11 and when I arrived they were there and then later Deronjic, too, arrived,
12 and that's the truth.
13 Q. Mm-hmm. Yeah. Deronjic had not been indicted yet at this point
14 because he wasn't indicted until July 2002. This is from 2001. I'm
15 suggesting to you you were lying to the OTP not because you were treated
16 as a suspect, you were lying to the OTP to protect a senior SDS official.
17 MR. ROBINSON: Excuse me, Mr. President.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
19 JUDGE KWON: Yes, just a second.
20 Yes, Mr. Robinson.
21 MR. ROBINSON: Since Mr. Nicholls made a statement of fact
22 without asking particularly the witness to comment on that, I think it
23 also is fair to point it out that Mr. Deronjic was never indicted for any
24 of these events in 1995.
25 MR. NICHOLLS: Which I find irrelevant completely to my question.
1 Q. Let me -- you answered the question. Now, let me put this to
2 you. There were two witnesses on Mr. Karadzic's witness list,
3 Ljubisa Borovcanin and Nedjo Jovicic. Nedjo Jovicic was
4 Ljubisa Borovcanin's driver in 1995. Did you know that?
5 A. No. And I don't know Nedjo Jovicic.
6 Q. Okay. Well, just to briefly give you some background, this is in
7 evidence in this case. He was with Ljubisa Borovcanin and Zoran
8 Petrovic, Pirocanac, on the 13th of July, 1995. That's when this
9 journalist Pirocanac filmed bodies in front of the Kravica warehouse.
10 Nedjo Jovicic was present when they took the wounded policeman, Cuturic,
11 to Bratunac healthcare centre from the Kravica warehouse.
12 Now, Mr. Jovicic's testimony -- or statement to the Prosecution
13 is that Ljubisa Borovcanin sent him back to the warehouse to see what was
14 going on because they'd seen piles of bodies there and it appeared to be
15 an execution in progress, and he said that he stayed there for 20 minutes
16 to half an hour at the Kravica warehouse while the executions were
18 MR. NICHOLLS: This is all at 65 ter 24771 and e-court pages 45
19 to 47.
20 Q. Mr. Jovicic then said he returned to Bratunac where he met with
21 Borovcanin, that he reported that these execution were going on to
22 Borovcanin, and that Borovcanin then reported in the SDS office these
23 executions to Miroslav Deronjic. This is at e-court page 51 of that
24 document. I'll read it out to you.
25 "And what action did Borovcanin take after you gave him this
2 "I don't know what he did do after that, but I do know that we
3 went from there to the police station in Bratunac and then we went after
4 that to the SDS premises where he met with Deronjic who was some sort of
5 civilian chief there, and he reported about all that to Deronjic, and he
6 wanted Deronjic to do something.
7 "Were you present when he spoke to Deronjic?
9 So were you not aware --
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Who is giving evidence here,
11 Jovicic, Mr. Nicholls? I see a full page of other people's words here
12 and the man doesn't even know Jovicic.
13 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, this is not a proper comment.
14 Mr. Nicholls explained who Mr. Jovicic was and he's putting the third
15 person's statement. He's cross-examining.
16 MR. NICHOLLS:
17 Q. So there's --
18 A. I don't know Jovicic.
19 Q. That's not the question. Let me ask you my question.
20 A. I never saw Borovcanin at the time.
21 Q. Let me ask you --
22 A. [Overlapping speakers]
23 Q. Let me ask you --
24 A. And I didn't understand you.
25 Q. Yeah. The question is this shows, doesn't it, that in fact on
1 the 13th of July in the afternoon Mr. Deronjic was told about these
2 executions before the 14th when you supposedly told him.
3 A. The execution took place in the evening hours, not in the
4 afternoon. And I don't know if he informed him or not. I'm only saying
5 what I saw. Whether people were acting, pretending as if they had never
6 heard of it before, I don't know. But I think that people were genuinely
7 shocked when we conveyed the information about these executions to them.
8 Q. Well, let me ask you this: On the 13th of July when you came
9 back to Bratunac after being at the Kravica warehouse, after Zoran Eric
10 told you that Muslims had been executed in the warehouse, after you'd
11 been hearing gunfire and explosions at the warehouse, why didn't you tell
12 Deronjic then that it appeared that there were executions at the Kravica
14 A. I came to Bratunac at 10.30 at night. Where would I have found
15 Deronjic? I wasn't a staff member. I had no information, and I had no
16 idea where I could find any one person.
17 Q. All right. So at 10.30 at night knowing that there were
18 apparently executions going on in your warehouse, you felt like you
19 didn't need to pick up the phone, go to the police station, report this
20 to anybody?
21 A. I didn't know who to contact. There was a war on. There was
22 shooting all over the place. And you expect me to go to a police station
23 to inform them what was happening? Even -- I may even have done that if
24 I had thought that there would be any use of that. I simply thought it
25 can wait until the following morning, because executions didn't go.
1 Q. Yes, but you didn't even report it the next morning. You went to
2 the warehouse. You didn't report it until you came back to the warehouse
3 after seeing executions.
4 A. It was night. I called Dragan Nikolic. We agreed to go to
5 Kravica to see what had really happened. I didn't see any executions on
6 the 13th. I only heard of some. When we saw the scene, we went back to
7 the municipality, we informed the people, and then measures were taken in
8 accordance with the respective duties, civil protection, military
9 protection, and what have you.
10 JUDGE KWON: We need to stop here. How much longer do you need,
11 Mr. Nicholls?
12 MR. NICHOLLS: Depending on the -- I'm trying not to cut him off.
13 I get objections when I cut the witness off. And if there are no other
14 problems, I think about 15 to 20 minutes is what I would really request,
15 Your Honours, not more.
16 JUDGE KWON: And I take it you need some time for your
17 re-examination, Mr. Karadzic.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, up to 20 minutes, 15 to 20
19 minutes. If Mr. Nicholls had finished now, I would have needed only 10
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE KWON: The Chamber will rise for the moment and decide
23 whether to have an extended sitting today or not. If the court deputy
24 follow us.
25 --- Recess taken at 2.45 p.m.
1 --- On resuming at 2.58 p.m.
2 JUDGE KWON: For the remainder of the session, we'll sit pursuant
3 to Rule 15 bis, and I found it more efficient to go through with this
4 witness instead of asking him to stay in The Hague over the weekend. I
5 take this opportunity to thank the interpreters and court reporters for
6 their indulgence.
7 MR. ROBINSON: And also we thank you, Mr. President, for your
8 consideration for the witness.
9 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Nicholls, could you try to conclude in ten
11 MR. NICHOLLS: Yes. I'll try.
12 Q. Now, Witness, in 65 ter 24771, at pages 55 to 56, Nedjo Jovicic
13 confirmed that he drove Deronjic to Pale on the 14 July 1995, to have a
14 meeting with President Karadzic and that that meeting happened. Did you
15 know about that meeting between Deronjic and Karadzic on 14 July 1995?
16 A. No, I didn't.
17 MR. NICHOLLS: For Your Honours I won't bring it up, but it's in
18 the appointment diary P02242 at e-court page 91.
19 Could I have the video-clip P04382, please, starting at 50
20 seconds. And this is video of the 14 July 1995 news. SRT Pale.
21 [Video-clip played]
22 MR. NICHOLLS: I don't know why there's no sounds, but I'll ask
23 the parties to note that the date is 14 July 1995 in the top right-hand
25 All right. The sound's not working. Because of that I will skip
1 playing this. Can we just move ahead so that we see Mr. Deronjic there
2 in the transcript.
3 [Video-clip played]
4 THE INTERPRETER: "[Voiceover] ... left this area more than two
5 years ago are coming back too. Civilian authorities have also been
6 established, and Republika Srpska president, Dr. Radovan Karadzic and
7 president of the parliament and Momcilo Krajisnik spoke to the leadership
8 of Srebrenica and Pale today.
9 Announcer 4: The state leadership of Republika Srpska got
10 acquainted with the current situation in the freed municipality of
11 Srebrenica, as well as with the process of establishing the authorities."
12 MR. NICHOLLS:
13 Q. At 01:33.2 that's Miroslav Deronjic; right?
14 A. Yes, that's it.
15 MR. NICHOLLS: Please play.
16 [Video-clip played]
17 MR. NICHOLLS: Okay, let's stop because of the time.
18 Q. Okay. So now do you accept that Deronjic was with the President
19 in Pale on the 14th?
20 A. I can say that this encounter happened in the early morning
21 hours. It may have been around 10.00 a.m.
22 Q. Stop. Stop.
23 THE INTERPRETER: 9 a.m., interpreter's correction.
24 MR. NICHOLLS:
25 Q. Stop. You agree with me that Deronjic met with Karadzic on the
1 14th in Pale?
2 A. I don't know that.
3 Q. All right. Well, we just saw -- I'll move on.
4 A. [Overlapping speakers]
5 Q. If you were talking about paragraph 58 of your statement here
6 where the new addition said that:
7 "Deronjic would inform the Bratunac Brigade and civilian
8 protection in Bratunac about the executions but didn't say that he would
9 go to Pale or report to anyone to else."
10 Now, it's in President Karadzic's diary and what's on the video
11 is that Deronjic came to Pale, and in the transcript of the video it says
12 that he was there to brief the president on the situation in Srebrenica,
13 so whether we believe you or Nedjo Jovicic, after Deronjic --
14 A. Excuse me. This was in the morning hours when I visited the
15 municipality. Early, 9.00.
16 Q. Thank you. After your meeting, the civilian commissioner for
17 Srebrenica is meeting with Pale to brief him on the situation, and the
18 civilian commissioner knows and has been told about the executions.
19 Now, what I want to ask you is after this meeting with -- between
20 Deronjic and Karadzic on the 14th, and actually you'll confirm for me,
21 won't you, they met in the afternoon at about 1.00 p.m., that's when the
22 bodies are being moved to Glogova, aren't they, from the warehouse?
23 A. That's possible.
24 Q. Yeah. And then after this in the days that follow, nothing
25 happens in terms of investigation of this crime; correct? Yes or no, in
1 terms of investigation?
2 A. I don't know whether there was an investigation or who should
3 have conducted it.
4 Q. Okay. Let me -- thank you. Nobody came and took crime scene
5 photos that you're aware of the Kravica warehouse; right?
6 A. There were representatives of the authorities of the civil
7 protection of the power utility companies, but I don't know if anybody
8 took pictures or investigated.
9 Q. Let me put this to you because of the time: In your 2005
10 statement which has been admitted, at page 6 of the English and Serbian
11 page 3 to 4, you said.
12 "I know there has been no serious investigation concerning that
13 prior to the one conducted by the Prosecutor's office of
14 Bosnia-Herzegovina, meaning the one you were giving the interview about."
15 Do you stand by that statement, that there was no serious
16 investigation until 2000 --
17 A. Yes, I do.
18 Q. Thank you. So what the municipality does -you correct me if I am
19 wrong - after being informed of this massive execution is bury the
20 victims in Glogova without getting identification of those victims,
21 without taking photographs of the victims, without taking witness
22 statements from persons present like you; correct?
23 A. Yes, yes.
24 Q. So isn't that reburial [sic] more than just sanitation? Isn't
25 that reburial that's going on on the 14th of July when Mr. Karadzic is
1 meeting with Mr. Deronjic a cover-up of the crime, hiding the bodies?
2 A. I cannot go into that because the corpses were buried immediately
3 next to the road, which is some 300 or 400 metres from the main road. I
4 cannot confirm that this was a cover-up.
5 Q. Okay. Yes or no --
6 JUDGE KWON: What did you mean reburial on the 14th of July?
7 MR. NICHOLLS: Sorry, I meant "burial," Your Honour, not
8 "reburial." I apologise.
9 Q. This is a yes or no question: Do you know that the bodies in
10 Glogova were dug up and reburied in late September, early October?
11 A. Yes, I heard that was done once more. I don't know who did that.
12 I can't comment further. I know that the burial site was in the
13 immediate vicinity of the road and that must have been one of the reasons
14 why they were reburied.
15 Q. Another reason would be to keep people from finding the bodies
16 and evidence of the crime; correct?
17 A. I'm sorry, could you please repeat?
18 Q. I'll just skip it. Now will you agree with me that very shortly
19 after this offence, as you said in your statement, it was an open secret
20 and it was widely known that this massacre had been committed, not
21 necessarily who committed, but there'd been the killings of a bunch -- a
22 lot of Muslims in the Kravica warehouse?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Okay. Thank you.
25 MR. NICHOLLS: I'd like to play another TV clip.
1 JUDGE KWON: I'd like you --
2 MR. NICHOLLS: It's very short.
3 JUDGE KWON: -- to come to the last.
4 MR. NICHOLLS: This is the last part, Your Honours.
5 65 ter 45056. President Karadzic, speaking it's in English.
6 This is a [indiscernible].
7 [Video-clip played]
8 "Journalist: You say that you're for investigation or any kind
9 of trial concerning alleged atrocities. What about the unanswered
10 questions concerning Srebrenica? Will there be conducted some kind of
11 investigation? Would you pledge such an investigation
12 "Karadzic: I have ordered investigation about any allegations
13 and among them about Srebrenica. I was reported that the UNPROFOR people
14 has monitored the whole affair. There was no killing, mass killing, or
15 any killing, and that Muslims have checked many more refugees in
16 Srebrenica in order to get more help for their own army. The same
17 happened Zepa. They have checked 17.000, but even your correspondent Mr.
18 Arnett was there and he has seen 800 -- 8.500 people. So 50 per cent, it
19 had been exaggerated 100 per cent.
20 "Journalist: Dr. Karadzic, finally, after the initialing of this
21 agreement, within the agreement it was talked about trying to find a safe
22 return of these French pilots. It's always been said that your
23 leadership that you know where they are. Where are the French pilots?
24 "Karadzic: No, we -- right now we don't know where they are,
25 although they have ordered an investigation through -- both through the
1 civilian secret service and through the military secret service. If they
2 are alive, we would know soon about that.
3 "Journalist: Are you concerned about their safety?
4 "Karadzic: Yes, I am concerned about their safety because many
5 civilians have been killed by NATO aviation and I'm concerned that
6 something happened to them, but I have some hopes, not evidence, but
7 hopes that they may be alive."
8 MR. NICHOLLS:
9 Q. Thank you. Now, President Karadzic in that clip to the news is
10 speaking to the world, he's speaking about Srebrenica, and he says there
11 were no mass killings, there was no killing. That wasn't true, was it?
12 President Karadzic was lying to the world about the media, wasn't he?
13 MR. ROBINSON: Well, objection, Mr. President. That -- by saying
14 he was lying Mr. Nicholls has taken it too far because that would presume
15 that the witness knows what Dr. Karadzic knew or didn't know about that.
16 So I think he can put his question more precisely and get an answer.
17 MR. NICHOLLS:
18 Q. Well, Dr. Karadzic was saying that there were no mass killings,
19 no killings, that was not true, was it?
20 A. Let me say firstly that Dr. Karadzic did not have true
21 information from the field, or if he had information, it was not
22 reliable. The killings at Kravica and the killings elsewhere, I'm sure
23 were not properly relayed to President Karadzic. It is my conviction,
24 bearing in mind his attitude towards the war and the prisoners of war, he
25 would have reacted differently and initiated an investigation to find the
1 perpetrators of these crimes.
2 MR. NICHOLLS: I seek to tender that clip and I have no further
4 MR. ROBINSON: No objection, Mr. President, but we'd like to know
5 the date of that.
6 JUDGE KWON: Yes, could you tell the number as well again.
7 MR. NICHOLLS: 45056, and I can't give you an exact date. It's
8 from a CNN compilation, but date you can date it generally by the fact
9 that it's speaking about the French pilots which in that issue hasn't
10 been resolved yet. I can try to find a more precise date.
11 JUDGE KWON: Yes, please. We'll admit it.
12 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P6202, Your Honours.
13 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Karadzic. We need to adjourn exactly at
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
16 Re-examination by Mr. Karadzic:
17 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation].
18 Q. Before I begin, on page 96, lines 7 and 8, something was omitted,
19 namely that you said that on the 14th people were killed. The part of
20 your statement was not recorded that they were not under control. Can
21 you confirm that?
22 A. Yes, I can confirm that the persons who in the morning hours of
23 the 14th were killing the prisoners can either be renegades or people out
24 of control, not controlled by anybody.
25 Q. Thank you. Today a video-clip was played where Deronjic says
1 that they came to inform me about the situation at Srebrenica. Can you
2 say to which municipality Kravica belongs?
3 A. Kravica belongs to the municipality of Bratunac. It is
4 13 kilometres from Bratunac in the direction of Sarajevo.
5 Q. You were asked about Ljubisa Borovcanin today. Did you have any
6 information that the events in the warehouse of Kravica on the 13th in
7 the evening were under the responsibility of Ljubisa Borovcanin?
8 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note, could the witness please
9 repeat his answer.
10 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. The interpreters couldn't hear your
11 answer. Could you repeat it.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said that I was convinced that
13 Borovcanin did not command the units at Kravica.
14 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Thank you. Did the police know of the event before you learned
16 of it?
17 A. I'm not sure if the police knew before I did, but there is a
18 situation; namely, one police officer was wounded and another killed.
19 But how exactly the information was conveyed, I don't know.
20 Q. Thank you. On this man Eric who informed you, what is his
22 A. He worked at the co-op. We had this building there and some
23 livestock. He was a manual worker by trade. He only graduated
24 elementary school.
25 Q. Did you see any police officer at 10.30 on the 13th?
1 A. Just the one who confronted me.
2 Q. Thank you. Was it part of your responsibilities to initiate an
3 investigation or inform the police given that the police did it?
4 A. I didn't feel the need to inform the police or the army or
5 anybody there. To my mind, it was my duty to inform the civilian
6 authorities of the municipality, which I did, and they knew what to do.
7 Q. Thank you. Around what hour did the event happen on the 13th in
9 A. Around 5.30 p.m.
10 Q. Did you see the event or was it related to you?
11 A. No, I did not see the incident of the 13th because I arrived
12 there late.
13 Q. Thank you. Did the Defence ask you questions about the 13th?
14 A. No, you didn't ask me about the 13th. There were no such
15 questions or I omitted them from my statement.
16 Q. Thank you. In line 17 of 24740, it says that they were wearing
17 masks. Did you mention that to Blagojevic?
18 A. Yes. I said that they were wearing masks over their faces and
19 that they were armed with automatic weapons. It looked very bad at all,
20 and this detail left a very bad impression on me and everybody else
22 Q. Page 20 in e-court, line 17, is the section I spoke about.
23 Tell me in what capacity you were questioned in the SFOR base in
24 Tuzla and what were the circumstances like?
25 A. In 2002 I was questioned at the SFOR base in Banja Luka about the
1 circumstances of the suffering of the civilians and the co-op that is in
2 the warehouse of which I was the director.
3 Q. You were interviewed as a suspect?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Please tell us what you felt like?
6 A. It was not announced to me what I would be asked about, but when
7 I came there I felt ill at ease. I had nothing to do with what happened
8 in those facilities. I knew that the buildings had to be prepared, keys
9 provided, security and so on. When the investigation took that course,
10 it -- it really shattered me.
11 Q. Was the situation frightening with regard to your future when you
12 heard those allegations or that suspicion that you took part in the
14 A. Yes.
15 MR. NICHOLLS: It's leading, Your Honour. I'm sorry.
16 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. How did you feel? Were you frightened?
18 A. Yes, I was. Just like everybody else. It was 2001. It was very
19 difficult and unpleasant, not only to me but also to all other people
20 mentioned in the context of Bratunac and Srebrenica.
21 Q. You mentioned the sale of raspberries. Is the co-op
22 administration in the same building as the warehouse?
23 A. Yes, it is, only they are separate. There were administration
24 buildings, there were warehouses, and these were facilities used for
25 storing fertiliser and other stuff.
1 Q. In line 4 it was recorded that civilians suffered there. Did you
2 say civilians or prisoners?
3 A. I meant prisoners.
4 Q. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Nikolic, for your testimony.
5 A. Thank you, too, and I wish you the best of luck.
6 JUDGE KWON: Well, that concludes your evidence, Mr. Nikolic. On
7 behalf of the Chamber, I thank you for your coming to The Hague to give
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I ask you for working longer
10 today, because I would have had to stay until next week otherwise and
11 that would have been difficult for me. Thank you.
12 JUDGE KWON: Please have a safe journey back home.
13 The hearing is adjourned.
14 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 3.24 p.m.,
15 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 19th day
16 of March, 2013, at 9.00 a.m.