Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 35420

 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

Page 35421

 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

18     paragraphs.

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

Page 35422

 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.

Page 35423

 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.

Page 35424

 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

22     persons.

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

Page 35425

 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;

23     correct?

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

Page 35426

 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

Page 35427

 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

20     page:

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

Page 35428

 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

 3     1980.

 4             MR. FILE:  So if we could switch to Sanction for a moment,

 5     please.

 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

 8     data?

 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

Page 35429

 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;

14     correct?

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.

Page 35430

 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

 8     English.

 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

Page 35431

 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

Page 35432

 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

15     16.184.

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

Page 35433

 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

11     produced.

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

Page 35434

 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

 7     age.

 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.

Page 35435

 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;

20     correct?

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

Page 35436

 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?

Page 35437

 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

Page 35438

 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

Page 35439

 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

Page 35440

 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

 5     screen.

 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

Page 35441

 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.

Page 35442

 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

Page 35443

 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

19     checked."

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.

Page 35444

 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

 6     to.

 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

 9     correct.

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

Page 35445

 1     control for duplicate that was conducted on the level of each

 2     municipality."

 3             The question was whether Dr. Pasalic took this paragraph in

 4     consideration.

 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

Page 35446

 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

Page 35447

 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

Page 35448

 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

Page 35449

 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

 6     problem.

 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

24     correctly."

25             And then in the next paragraph, this is on English page 107,

Page 35450

 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

 3     census."

 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

25     really.

Page 35451

 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

Page 35452

 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

Page 35453

 1     wrote.

 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

Page 35454

 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.

Page 35455

 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

16     submission?

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:

Page 35456

 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

Page 35457

 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

24     know.

25        Q.   I understand your point, but I am actually interested in whether

Page 35458

 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

Page 35459

 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

Page 35460

 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

 9     for.

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

17     everybody.

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?

Page 35461

 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

 7     significance.

 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

24     Bosnia-Herzegovina.

25        Q.   Did Croatia initiate trials that included demographic issues?

Page 35462

 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

22     value.

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

Page 35463

 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

25     definition.

Page 35464

 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

Page 35465

 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

Page 35466

 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

13     1991.

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,

Page 35467

 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

 8     conclusions.

 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

22     developments?

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

Page 35468

 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

Page 35469

 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

Page 35470

 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

19     Herzegovina.

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,

Page 35471

 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

22     writing.

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?

Page 35472

 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

Page 35473

 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.

Page 35474

 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

 5     me?

 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

15     cases?

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

Page 35475

 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.

Page 35476

 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

14     you.

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]

Page 35477

 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?

Page 35478

 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

12     witness.

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

17     Bratunac.

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.

Page 35479

 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

Page 35480

 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

Page 35481

 1     the case.  I will read it, and then Mr. Nikolic can listen to the

 2     interpretation.

 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

14     municipality.

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

Page 35482

 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

Page 35483

 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."

Page 35484

 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

12     Sarajevo."

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

20     continue.

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

Page 35485

 1     page.

 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

Page 35486

 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

16     arrived.

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

Page 35487

 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

13     co-ordination.

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

Page 35488

 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

12     reason.

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

23     witness.

24             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

25        Q.   Mr. Nikolic, did we show you this document during the proofing?

Page 35489

 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

17     identification?

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.

Page 35490

 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.

Page 35491

 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

Page 35492

 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

18     changes.

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

Page 35493

 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

Page 35494

 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."

10             Correct?

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 --

Page 35495

 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

 3     "genocide."

 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

 7     go.

 8        Q.   All right.  This is 10th October 2005Bosnia 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?

Page 35496

 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."

Page 35497

 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

Page 35498

 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

Page 35499

 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

Page 35500

 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

Page 35501

 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.

Page 35502

 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

15     unfolding."

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

25     sight.

Page 35503

 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

18     dressed."

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

Page 35504

 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 --"

Page 35505

 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

Page 35506

 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.

Page 35507

 1             JUDGE KWON:  I don't see any difficulty with admitting it in its

 2     entirety.

 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.

Page 35508

 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

 7     masks?

 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

18     incident?

19             JUDGE KWON:  If you are leaving this topic, let me ask a

20     question.

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.

Page 35509

 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

Page 35510

 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

24     killed."

25             MR. NICHOLLS:  Then if we can turn to page 7 of the English.

Page 35511

 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:

23             "No."

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

Page 35512

 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

12     was:

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

Page 35513

 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

25     Skelani.

Page 35514

 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

Page 35515

 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.

Page 35516

 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

13     Zvornik.

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

Page 35517

 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

22     them.

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

Page 35518

 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.

Page 35519

 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

13     here.

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

Page 35520

 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."

Page 35521

 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

11     states:

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

Page 35522

 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

15     that.

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

Page 35523

 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

 7     minutes.

 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

20     minutes.

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

Page 35524

 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?

13             "Yes.

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

16     title?

17             "President of the municipal government, president of the

18     Executive Council.

19             "Okay.

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."

Page 35525

 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.

Page 35526

 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

17     ongoing.

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

Page 35527

 1     information?

 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?

 8             "Yes."

 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

Page 35528

 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

13     warehouse?

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.

Page 35529

 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

20     minutes.

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.

Page 35530

 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

10     minutes.

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

24     corner.

25             All right.  The sound's not working.  Because of that I will skip

Page 35531

 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

Page 35532

 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

Page 35533

 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

Page 35534

 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.

Page 35535

 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

Page 35536

 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

Page 35537

 1     perpetrators of these crimes.

 2             MR. NICHOLLS:  I seek to tender that clip and I have no further

 3     questions.

 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

14     3.30.

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

Page 35538

 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

21     profession?

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?

Page 35539

 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

 8     Kravica?

 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

21     present.

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

Page 35540

 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

13     preparations?

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.

Page 35541

 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

 8     it.

 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.