1 Thursday, 15 April 2004
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.16 p.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Case number IT-00-39-T, the Prosecutor versus
7 Momcilo Krajisnik.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
9 Mr. Stewart, is the Defence ready to continue the
10 cross-examination of Mr. Treanor?
11 MR. STEWART: Yes.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Madam Registrar -- Madam Usher, would you
13 please escort the witness into the courtroom.
14 [The witness entered court]
15 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon to everyone, including you,
16 Mr. Treanor. Important matters never become a routine, so therefore if I
17 remind you that you're still bound by the solemn declaration you've given
18 at the beginning of your testimony, this is not routine but an important
20 THE WITNESS: Yes, of course, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart.
22 WITNESS: PATRICK TREANOR [Resumed]
23 Cross-examined by Mr. Stewart: [Continued]
24 MR. STEWART: Thank you, Your Honour.
25 Q. Mr. Treanor, good afternoon.
1 A. Good afternoon.
2 Q. As I indicated yesterday immediately before the adjournment, I
3 wanted to come on to the question of the six strategic goals, as they
4 are often called, which you had -- for the reference, you had dealt with
5 in your evidence before this Court. The beginning point is 17/09 or
6 17/10 of the transcript, where you went through those goals.
7 MR. STEWART: There are a couple of documents which it would be,
8 I think, quite helpful for everybody to have reasonably to hand. They
9 are in -- the main ones are in file or bundle 12.
10 JUDGE ORIE: I brought the next four. It would certainly have
11 been helpful if I would have been aware that it was the twelfth binder
12 that --
13 MR. STEWART: Oh, I'm so sorry, Your Honour. We --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Well, no, we'll solve -- we'll solve the problem
15 anyhow. But just to remind you that whenever you move even more quickly
16 than expected, to --
17 MR. STEWART: No, absolutely, Your Honour. It's entirely my
18 fault. I should have seen that we'd race on through the bundles.
19 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, in the meantime, we have an extra copy
20 here, if it would be of assistance to the Court, of that particular
22 JUDGE ORIE: Let's start. I'll have a copy soon.
23 MR. STEWART:
24 Q. The two particular items which it is helpful for everybody to
25 have to hand or in mind are the minutes or record of the 12th of May,
1 1992 Assembly of the -- it's the 16th session of the Assembly of the
2 Serbian People, the 12th of May, 1992, and that's at tab 127, and in
3 particular at page 13 of the English version of that document we have
4 Mr. Karadzic going through the six goals. And that's at the B/C/S
5 version pages 7 and 8.
6 The first point is this, sir, Mr. Treanor: The Sixteenth
7 Assembly, which is one that I've just mentioned where these strategic
8 objectives or strategic goals were discussed, that was on the 12th of
9 May, 1992, that was the first Assembly, Serb Assembly after the outbreak
10 of war, wasn't it?
11 A. It was the first session since the -- it was the 6th of April, on
12 which day the -- or late in the evening the Fifteenth Session was held.
13 It's basically the outbreak of the war --
14 Q. Yes, I understand, Mr. Treanor. So you're saying that the
15 precise definition of the outbreak of war is a matter of some debate.
16 That's really what you're saying.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. All right. Well, anyway, we needn't get into it, because there
19 was that previous session, and this was -- and this particular -- so that
20 earlier session came, one might say, right in the middle of the period
21 when everybody would accept that sometime, broadly, war broke out.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. I'm not -- I'm not entering into, I should say, technical
24 definitions of "war," legal definitions of "war," states of war, as
25 opposed to imminent states of war, and so on. I'm talking about what you
1 might call real-life war, fighting that broke out in a serious manner. I
2 should just clarify that.
3 So far as you've been able to see -- well, the background was
4 that the -- on the 7th of April the independence of the Serb Republic of
5 Bosnia-Herzegovina had been proclaimed or declared by the Serbs, hadn't
7 A. Yes, I believe it was the evening of the 6th of April to the
8 7th of April, in a late-night session.
9 Q. And the European Union - or perhaps it was the European Community
10 at the time, I don't know - had suspended negotiations?
11 A. I'm not sure precisely what the technicalities were, but
12 negotiations were not ongoing at that time.
13 Q. Yes. The European Community was not prepared to continue
14 negotiations while this extreme state of hostility continued.
15 A. I'm not sure what their position was on that issue at that time.
16 Q. That's fair. The -- from your reading of the materials that you
17 have seen, is it fair to say that at least a number of the deputies in
18 the Serb Assembly were in a fairly warlike frame of mind?
19 A. When?
20 Q. At the 12th of May, 1992.
21 A. At that session.
22 Q. Yes, at that session.
23 A. Yes, I would say so.
24 Q. Among other things, they had, apart from simply the fighting,
25 they had heard reports of atrocities against Serbs, hadn't they?
1 A. I really can't recall whether that's reflected in the record of
2 the session. It may be.
3 Q. As always, if you don't know, that's an entirely fair answer. If
4 you don't know, that's just what I invite you to say. That's the
5 position you --
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. You don't know on that. Okay.
8 And they also -- can you say whether it's apparent that a number
9 of the deputies also felt that they, the Serbs in Bosnia-Herzegovina, had
10 in some sense been thrown out of Yugoslavia?
11 A. I can't recall that that was expressed.
12 Q. What --
13 A. It may have been, and I have read the whole session. It's rather
14 lengthy, and I can't recall that having come out.
15 Q. Would you accept from everything you've seen and your reading
16 that at this particular point, 12th of May, when they held the Sixteenth
17 Session of the Serb Assembly it would have been at the very least
18 politically very difficult, verging on the impossible, for the Serb
19 leadership to present to the deputies in the Serb Assembly and argue for
20 the Cutilheiro Plan in terms?
21 A. Well, the -- I don't know. After all, the Cutilheiro Plan was
22 not really a plan. It was a framework for negotiations.
23 Q. Can you say whether your impression from the material you've
24 looked at is that the Serb leadership at that time - and I'm still
25 talking about 12th of May, 1992 - despite the extreme hostilities,
1 apparently wanted to continue the international -- internationally
2 sponsored negotiations if at all possible?
3 A. Well, I know that certainly prior to that they -- Dr. Karadzic
4 had issued a platform relating to the continuance of negotiations. So I
5 think it's fair to say that he would have been in favour of continuing
6 those negotiations under certain conditions.
7 Q. Is the -- is the position that, as at 12th of May, 1992, Dr.
8 Karadzic in particular was faced with the type of difficulty that we've
9 considered before, which was that he -- if he were at some point to
10 continue with these internationally sponsored negotiations he had to sell
11 that to the Serb Assembly?
12 A. Well, at some point he -- he would -- he would have.
13 Q. And at that point, it wouldn't be -- I mean, it wasn't an easy
14 selling job.
15 A. Well, it's not clear to me that that's what he was doing on May
16 the 12th. I don't think that was imminent at that point.
17 Q. Could you go - because I think it's helpful if we all refresh our
18 minds, and it's fair to you, Mr. Treanor - could you go to tab 127 in
19 Volume 12. And we've got the minutes of the Sixteenth Session that I
20 referred to, chaired, not surprisingly, by Mr. Krajisnik, as the
21 President of the Assembly, and this is - and we've looked at it already -
22 but this is the meeting, and it's recorded in the minutes at which the
23 six strategic goals were discussed in some detail, isn't it?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. They're not -- they're not identified as a separate item on the
1 agenda, in the first place, are they?
2 A. No.
3 Q. And, in fact, they weren't the subject of a separate specific
4 decision either, were they? Identified as such in the minutes.
5 A. That's a good point. The goals as set forth in the record of the
6 session are part of the report that Dr. Karadzic delivers, which is an
7 agenda item, I think. I think it's -- it would be the first agenda item.
8 Q. Mm-hm.
9 A. And at the end of that report, the Assembly adopts or approves
10 the report. That is the only record of the goals being adopted in the
11 record of the session, as far as I can tell.
12 Q. Yes. Mr. Treanor, I should make it clear it's not my case that
13 the goals were not adopted and approved by this meeting, because they
14 plainly were in exactly the way you describe. They formed part of Dr.
15 Karadzic's report under item 1, and the report was adopted and approved,
16 wasn't it?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. The six strategic objectives - I think somebody has called them
19 goals in the past, but everybody knows what I'm talking about if I use
20 "goals"; anyway, it's shorter - they were published, we know, in the
21 Official Gazette, and that's at tab 130, dated at the bottom -- we've
22 been over this ground -- dated at the bottom the 12th of May, because
23 that's the date of the -- of the decision as part of the broader adoption
24 of the report by the Assembly, the actual publication being a
25 considerable time later, apparently the 26th of November, 1993.
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. That's right, isn't it?
3 The -- it might be helpful, if it's not inconvenient to you,
4 Mr. Treanor and others, it might be helpful, since it is a single page,
5 if you -- it's up to you, but if you wanted to take it out and just have
6 it on one side, because I'm going to invite some comparison between what
7 was said in the minutes of the session of the 12th of May and what
8 appears in the Official Gazette. So rather than having you jumping
9 backwards and forwards from one tab to the other, that single sheet can
10 easily come out.
11 The discussion of these goals -- actually, "goals" is the word
12 that is used in the English translation of the minutes, and that's where
13 I got it from. The discussion is at page 13 of the English. It starts
14 at page 7, and goes on to page 8 of the B/C/S version. And we have about
15 -- you highlighted these in your evidence before. Just before halfway
16 down, the paragraph beginning "The Serbian side in Bosnia and
17 Herzegovina." You have that, Mr. Treanor, do you?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Are you going to -- may I ask, are you going to work from the
20 English on this or from the B/C/S, or both?
21 A. That -- I would say both. It depends on what you're going to be
23 Q. Well, I'm simply going to be asking you questions from the
24 English, because I'm afraid that's all I can do. I just wanted to be
25 clear. You, of course, Mr. Treanor, you're entirely free. It's the
1 documents you put in and you have both versions.
2 A. Well, refresh my memory. It was on pages ...
3 Q. It should be on page 7. I was looking at it. It should start at
4 page 7 of the B/C/S version, possibly page 8.
5 A. Yes, I have it.
6 Q. The -- so we start off -- and this is Dr. Karadzic talking. He's
7 introduced this by saying "It would be best if a truce could be
8 established." That's the passage immediately above.
9 "It would be best if a truce could be established right away and
10 borders set up, even if we were to lose something in the manner of the
11 European Community proposes and agrees with the three national
13 And then he continues: "The Serbian side in Bosnia and
14 Herzegovina, the Presidency, the government, the Council for National
15 Security which we have set up have formulated these strategic priorities,
16 that is to say, the strategic goals for the Serbian people. The first
17 such goal is separation from the other two national communities and
18 separation of states."
19 My first question here for you, Mr. Treanor, is: Looking at the
20 way that Dr. Karadzic expresses it there in the minutes - and I'm sure
21 that you're going to find it helpful to look at the B/C/S version for
22 this - but may I also -- I did suggest you took out 130, the Official
23 Gazette publication, but I expect it was the English version that was
24 taken out, but I would invite --
25 A. I have the original as well.
1 Q. You've got the original. I was going to say, I invite you to do
2 it, because this is the comparison. Can you say whether in your view
3 there is any discrepancy between the way in which Dr. Karadzic expresses
4 the first goal and the way in which it is expressed in the publication in
5 the Official Gazette?
6 A. Well, yes, the words are different.
7 Q. Okay. So -- so discrepancy in the sense of the wording being
8 different. So beyond that, then, is there any discrepancy, in your view,
9 as far as the meaning is concerned?
10 A. Well, there are two differences. In the published version, the
11 formulation is shorter, and it's not a full sentence.
12 Q. Yes.
13 A. Dr. Karadzic's speech here contains a complete sentence: "The
14 first goal," et cetera.
15 Q. Yes. So let's ignore the first such goal, because in a sense
16 that's the equivalent of the number 1, isn't is, in the Official Gazette.
17 So we can put that to one side.
18 A. Yes. In addition, the word for "separation" as is used in the
19 translation of the Assembly record is razdvajanje, which means to sort of
20 put in two. The root there is the word "two."
21 In the Gazette item, the comparable word which seems to have been
22 rendered in the English translation of the Gazette version, if I can
23 describe it that way, has been rendered as "establishing borders;
24 separating." And the root of the Serbian word is razgranicenje, the root
25 of that word being granice, which means border or frontier.
1 So the idea -- the root idea of that word is the forming of
2 borders, as opposed to dividing in two.
3 Q. Mr. Treanor --
4 MR. STEWART: I wonder if I might just pause there, Your Honour,
5 and invite -- and ask question to whoever is equipped to answer it. This
6 won't be Mr. Treanor. It's a practical matter.
7 I was curious in my own mind as to what would happen when
8 Mr. Treanor gave that answer on the transcript, that the -- that I
9 thought that what would happen was that the -- when Mr. Treanor used the
10 B/C/S word, that it would appear as a B/C/S word. If it appeared as an
11 English word, it would rather destroy the point of the answers. And I
12 see that what has happened at the moment, and this may be just be a
13 temporary matter, that we get "[B/C/S spoken]." If that is at some point
14 then substituted by the actual words being put in, there's absolutely no
15 problem. I simply don't know.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. From what I understand, it doesn't only say
17 "[B/C/S spoken]," but also a sign appears after that which indicate that
18 is there's still something to be filled in, as far as I understand. And
19 this is confirmed by the registrar.
20 MR. STEWART: Oh, that's fine. It's simply a practical question,
21 because I didn't know the way it worked, Your Honour. Clearly without
22 that, the transcript wouldn't make a lot of sense to any later reader.
23 JUDGE ORIE: No. We'll --
24 MR. STEWART: Thank you.
25 JUDGE ORIE: And whenever you receive the transcript, you always
1 can draw our attention to it if it doesn't appear --
2 MR. STEWART: Of course.
3 JUDGE ORIE: -- in any way useful for the Defence. Please
5 MR. STEWART: Thank you, Your Honour. But that does entirely
6 clear up that point. Thank you.
7 Q. It doesn't mean, I don't for a moment have to digest
8 Mr. Treanor's answer, Your Honour, because I do. I may not be totally
9 alone in that.
10 A. There is one other minor difference, if I may be allowed to --
11 Q. Please. Yes, of course. Thank you, Mr. Treanor. That's what I
12 was inviting.
13 A. The Assembly version is written or rendered in the Ijekavian
14 variant of the language, as opposed to the Gazette version, which is in
15 Ekavian variant.
16 Q. So in the -- does it -- what I'm getting at really is because of
17 course we're aware of the underlying politics here. Is there, in your
18 view, is there a discrepancy between what Dr. Karadzic was saying, and
19 particularly the bit of that sentence "separation from the other two
20 national communities, separation of states," as it appears in the B/C/S,
21 and the B/C/S version of the Official Gazette. Is there in your view a
22 discrepancy which is of political -- possible political significance?
23 A. Well, the key word or words that are used here are "different."
24 They have different meanings. They both undoubtedly have more than one
25 meaning, more than one sense. And I would be fairly confident that some
1 of those senses would overlap but some of them would not.
2 Now, whether a native speaker - and here I would have to confess
3 my linguistic limitations - especially a legal scholar would find an
4 important difference in meaning between those two words in these
5 contexts, I don't know.
6 Q. Yes. Well, that's very fair, then, Mr. Treanor. So far as
7 Dr. -- what Dr. Karadzic said is concerned - because after all, we can
8 accept that's what the deputies heard on that particular day, after all,
9 isn't it?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. So far as what Dr. Karadzic is saying is concerned, I think you
12 said that that -- that the word there implied -- I don't know if the word
13 used was "splitting," but splitting into two -- in fact, it would be
14 three in this case. But that's not a relevant detail in a sense,
15 linguistically, is it?
16 A. That, I don't know, whether that particular word can be used for
17 splitting something into more than two parts.
18 Q. It would have to be -- to put it that way, it would have to be,
19 wouldn't it? Because otherwise it would make no sense at all in this
20 context, because he's absolutely plainly and explicitly talking about
21 three national communities. So it seems unlikely that Dr. Karadzic
22 would have made such an elementary linguistic blunder as to use a word
23 that could only apply to the splitting into two, when in fact there were
24 three entities.
25 JUDGE ORIE: May I ask you whether there's -- I have some
1 difficulties in understanding what you say, but perhaps you could clarify
3 If there are three parties and one party want to split up or --
4 from the other two, you could call them a bipartition, isn't it; the two
5 on the one side and one on the other side? But since you -- you are
6 confronting us and the witness with the linguistic blunder, as you say, I
7 just wonder whether --
8 MR. STEWART: I think on reflection, no. On reflection, hearing
9 what Your Honour has said, no. I can see that it wouldn't necessarily be
10 that. I see that.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please proceed.
12 MR. STEWART: It may be a splitting into two parties even though
13 there are three nations involved. So I withdraw the suggestion, then, of
14 it being a linguistic blunder.
15 Q. Let's go back to it --
16 MR. STEWART: Excuse me.
17 [Defence counsel confer]
18 MR. STEWART:
19 Q. As I understand it, Mr. Treanor, you're very fairly -- because
20 after all, you -- although you speak a lot better B/C/S than most people
21 round here who don't come from that part of the world, you acknowledge
22 you're not a native speaker, so you're having difficulty, and as you
23 frankly acknowledge, the limitations of your knowledge of the language
24 don't really enable you to pronounce expertly on these nuances.
25 A. In this case, certainly.
1 Q. Yes. Is the -- what I really want to get to is how this ties
2 in - and I don't want this to be a mystery - how this ties in with the
3 Cutilheiro Plan, or I think when I used the phrase "Cutilheiro Plan" you
4 said it was a framework for "negotiation." But again, as a shorthand
5 label, I'm pretty sure it has been referred to as the "Cutilheiro Plan"
6 in the past, and there's no secret what I mean.
7 I would like to put the text of that plan -- it will have to be
8 in English. Whether it was originally in English or French or both, I'm
9 afraid at the moment I don't exactly know. Do you know, Mr. Treanor,
10 whether the outcome of the meeting in Lisbon under the aegis of
11 Mr. Cutilheiro was officially published in English or in French or in
12 Portuguese, for that matter, or what?
13 A. Well, there are two so-called agreements which I think you are
14 referring to here. One is known as the Lisbon Agreement; the second one
15 is known as the Sarajevo Agreement, both named after the site of the
16 negotiations at which those agreements were reached. The Lisbon
17 Agreement was reached in Lisbon in February 1992. And as you indicated
18 yesterday, Mr. Izetbegovic later expressed reservations about that
19 agreement and negotiations had to resume again, resulting in the Sarajevo
20 Agreement of, I believe, the 18th of March, 1992, which suffered a
21 similar fate.
22 So we have two agreements, the Lisbon Agreement and the Sarajevo
23 Agreement, and the Sarajevo Agreement was the -- chronologically, the
24 latter of the two. So that would have been the point at which the
25 negotiations broke down.
1 Q. Do you happen to know whether it was reached in one particular
2 language only? And if so, which language?
3 A. Ah, yes, the question. The version that I have seen is in
5 Q. Yes. The version of -- well, perhaps both, but the Sarajevo
6 Agreement, the version you've seen is in English.
7 A. I think the only version of that agreement that I may have seen
8 is -- would have been published in the newspaper in B/C/S. But as far as
9 the other one is concerned, I have seen an original document in English,
10 and I believe both agreements were published in English in a large
11 compendium of documents relating to the former Yugoslavia.
12 Q. Yes. It's -- well, it's ultimately, if it becomes an issue, no
13 doubt it is checkable. I apologise for not having been able to check it
14 specifically in advance. And you referred to having read the Sarajevo
15 Agreement in the newspaper in -- well, I don't suppose the newspaper
16 regards it as B/C/S, but what we call B/C/S. But, of course, that itself
17 could have been a translation.
18 A. Yes, I presume it was. I say if I saw it, and I can't quite
19 recollect that specifically. But I do have in my mind's eye the Sarajevo
21 Q. Yes. Does it -- well, it follows -- is it the case that the --
22 this Cutilheiro or these Cutilheiro agreements, the Lisbon Agreement and
23 the Sarajevo Agreement, are not in fact anywhere in the papers that you
24 have produced for the purposes of your evidence to the Court?
25 A. I think I quoted from one or other or both of them. I had them
1 in front of me at that time. I don't believe they were offered as
2 exhibits, however. They certainly were not cited in our report.
3 Q. Yes. The -- it's -- really the purpose of my question is a
4 practical one, which is that we were engaged in the not unfamiliar
5 exercise to us of searching for something, not knowing for certain
6 whether it was there at all, which mean that is the search can go on to
7 infinity, since you don't know whether it's there. We weren't able to
8 find it, so it look as if the reason we couldn't find it was actually
9 because it wasn't there. Nice and simple.
10 MR. STEWART: Well, I don't -- in a sense, there was an implicit
11 invitation to anybody else in court who would say, "Well, I know exactly
12 where it is and it's in Volume such and such," but nobody has leapt to
13 their feet and said that, so I rather assume I can proceed on the footing
14 that we didn't find it because it wasn't there.
15 Which means, simply as a practical matter, then, it means, Your
16 Honour, what I'm going to do is -- we have -- as you often do these days,
17 we have been able to pull down from the Internet what appears to be the
18 text of the Sarajevo Agreement. So, Your Honour, we've prepared copies
19 of that -- yes.
20 In fact, I should make it clear that what we have done is we have
21 pulled down an English text of what appears on the face of it to be the
22 Sarajevo Agreement. We've also been able to pull down a B/C/S version,
23 but they're not the same. One is not -- there's no indication at all -
24 and we suppose that neither is a translation of the other, because they
25 come from independent sources on the Internet - so we naturally hope that
1 they have some close relationship to each other, since they purport to be
2 the same document. But they're not a translation, as far as we know,
3 either of the other.
4 Your Honour, my apologies that we haven't supplied this
5 particular document in advance for the interpreters. We should have
6 enough copies so that it's available to them now. The reason for that,
7 I'm afraid, is simply the absence of any suitable gap between downloading
8 the stuff from the Internet and the present moment.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, in respect of what you told us about
10 the source of the documents you just provided, we'd rather give them two
11 different numbers, because usually we'd use ".1" for the translation of
12 another document, but since this is not, I'll ask Madam Registrar to
13 provide numbers to these documents but unrelated numbers.
14 THE REGISTRAR: The English version will be Defence Exhibit
15 number D5, and the B/C/S version, Defence Exhibit number D6.
16 MR. STEWART: In the light of your answers a few minutes -- I'm
17 so sorry.
18 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, I would just ask if it's possible to
19 have a couple of additional details about the provenance of these
20 documents, in particular the websites from which they were procured. And
21 although I realise things are moving quickly at this stage of the case,
22 if it would be possible to be provided with these documents prior to the
23 beginning of the courtroom session, it would be greatly appreciated.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. As far as websites is concerned, let's not
25 spend time on it at this moment, but I take it that you could provide
1 Mr. Tieger during the break with the websites. And then if there's any
2 problem remaining, then we'll hear about it. Yes.
3 MR. STEWART: [Microphone not activated]
4 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
5 MR. STEWART: [Previous translation continues] ... I have in mind
6 to identify the website would be the right thing. Whether we can
7 actually do it on the first break, I'm not actually sure.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Before the weekend.
9 MR. STEWART: We'll do it very soon.
10 JUDGE ORIE: And we also have been provided with the map. Is the
11 map attached to one of these documents?
12 MR. STEWART: Ms. Philpott actually asked me. And the map is a
13 separate -- came down as a separate item, again, from a different
14 website, I suppose. It's from another source altogether.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 MR. STEWART: It's from --
17 JUDGE ORIE: But is it related to -- are you going to tender
18 it --
19 MR. STEWART: At the moment, perhaps I -- perhaps we can ignore
20 it. I don't think it's not terribly exciting as it stands. I don't
21 think it will cause any consternation.
22 JUDGE ORIE: It doesn't get a number at this point. Please
24 MR. STEWART: We'll just leave that for the moment, Your Honour.
25 Q. Yes. In the light of your answers, your helpful answers about
1 the terminology and Lisbon and Sarajevo, I suppose superficially
2 confusing me, this particular printout is -- is headed "The Lisbon
3 Agreement statement of principles," but then at the end it says
4 "Sarajevo, 18th March 1992, as agreed." I suppose, I can just suggest, I
5 suppose what happened, Mr. Treanor, is that having started off in Lisbon,
6 it didn't get re-titled at the top, but it's got the Sarajevo date at the
8 A. Yes, it does.
9 Q. Is this -- well, first of all, have you any reason -- perhaps you
10 might need to take a minute or so just to take a look at it. Have new
11 reason to doubt that this printout is a printout of the agreement reached
12 in Sarajevo?
13 A. Well, if you're referring to the English, I would have to say
14 that I certainly could not accept it as the text that I am familiar with,
15 given the rather glaring discrepancy you've already pointed out. In
16 general terms, I think it is. But given that there is one glaring error
17 in there, without further checking it I couldn't say that there aren't
19 JUDGE ORIE: May I just ask: If these documents are presented as
20 possibly the same, possibly translations, may I ask your attention,
21 Mr. Stewart, to paragraph F, which takes two lines in the B/C/S version
22 and some six lines in the English version. Then I further read --
23 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, may I say straightaway, I -- despite
24 the injunction from Your Honour not to interrupt, may I? Because it may
25 shorten things. Your Honour, I've just been informed -- I think I can
1 answer Your Honour's question straight away.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 MR. STEWART: With respect. May I?
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, of course. Because I also saw 28th of February,
5 1992, and the 18th of March, 1992 in the two different languages.
6 MR. STEWART: Yes, I can see that Your Honour was going to point
7 out some significant discrepancies. The information I've just been given
8 is the English version is the Sarajevo Agreement; the B/C/S version is
9 the Lisbon Agreement, so it's -- I was absolutely unaware of that until a
10 moment ago. So that obviously explains why there may be significant
11 discrepancies. My apologies for that.
12 JUDGE ORIE: That's clear. We are talk about two different
13 documents in two different languages.
14 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, the probably the best thing for us to
15 do is to -- when we, the first time we get the opportunity, is to see if
16 we can download if English version of Lisbon and the B/C/S version of
17 Sarajevo and then we'll have both pairs of agreements. My apologies for
18 that. I simply had -- well, none of us did - up to that point I had no
19 idea that what was apparently the same agreement was in fact the Lisbon
20 version of B/C/S.
21 For the -- that opportunity to get the B/C/S version of Sarajevo
22 should arise pretty soon, Your Honour, but let's go ahead, if we may, on
23 the basis of the English version. And there would be -- I take it there
24 would be every opportunity for Mr. Treanor to check at some point whether
25 anything special arose out of the B/C/S version of the Sarajevo
2 Q. Where we're getting to with all that complicated preamble about
3 which agreement is what and what language it's in and so on, Mr. Treanor,
4 is this: That -- the broad thrust of what I'm putting to you in relation
5 to all these goals is that there is a close correlation between the six
6 strategic goals as adopted and approved at the Bosnian Serb Assembly and
7 the Cutilheiro Plan. That isn't a question at this point. That's just a
8 basis so that you can understand where it is I'm going, then, with a
9 series of questions.
10 When we look at goal 1, which is expressed in the Official
11 Gazette -- take one or the other -- as "Establish state borders
12 separating the Serbian people from the other two communities." And in
13 Dr. Karadzic's -- the translation of Dr. Karadzic's version, the first
14 such goal is "Separation from the other two national communities." So
15 there's not a lot of difference in English, despite what you've said
16 about B/C/S.
17 That broadly reflects, doesn't it, what we see in A1 of the
18 Cutilheiro document in front of us - and I'm talking about the English
19 version now, the Sarajevo Agreement.
20 A. Just to make sure that I've understood properly, I understand the
21 question to be whether the first strategic goal as set forth in the
22 Assembly session version and the Gazette version corresponds to point A1
23 in the Sarajevo Agreement.
24 Q. Yes.
25 A. My answer to that would have to be no, there is a tremendous
1 difference. The strategic goals call clearly for the creation of a state
2 boundary between the Serbian entity and -- on the one hand, and the other
3 two entities, on the other. The premise of the Sarajevo Agreement is
4 that Bosnia and Herzegovina would itself be a state composed of three
5 constituent units. So that is a very important difference between the
7 Q. Is there -- and, of course, you do have the, Mr. Treanor,
8 whatever the precise wording of the B/C/S version of the Cutilheiro
9 document, there would be no issue between us. It's quite clear that the
10 Sarajevo Agreement did proceed on the basis that Bosnia and Herzegovina
11 would be a single state, so we don't have to debate that.
12 Is it crystal clear to you that what Dr. Karadzic is talking
13 about in the Assembly on the 12th of May, 1992 involves separate states?
14 From an international point of view, that would be.
15 A. I certainly take that to be his meaning there and the meaning of
16 the Gazette item. Those two documents, of course, do not stand alone.
17 We have the Declaration of Independence, in fact, of the Serbian Republic
18 in early April, from all of which it appears that it was their
19 intention -- and an intention in their view already carried out -- that
20 they be a separate state from the rest of Bosnia.
21 Q. So far as the second strategic goal is concerned, now, that is
22 the establishment - and it's summarised in the Official Gazette as
23 "Setting up a corridor between Semberija and Krajina." And that is
24 summarised in those simple terms by Dr. Karadzic at the beginning of what
25 he said about this, at page 127 -- I'm sorry, tab 127 in bundle 12, page
1 13 of the English but probably by now on page 8 of the B/C/S.
2 A. Yes, I have it.
3 Q. The second -- and Dr. Karadzic said -- and after all, it's quite
4 a long time since we looked at this originally in your evidence,
5 Mr. Treanor. The second strategic goal: "It seems to me as a corridor
6 between Semberija and Krajina, that is something for which we may be
7 forced to sacrifice something here and there, but this is of the utmost
8 strategic importance for the Serbian people because it integrates the
9 Serbian lands not only of Serbian Bosnia and Herzegovina but Serbian
10 Bosnia and Herzegovina with Serbia, and the Serbian Krajina with Serbian
11 Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia. So that is a very important strategic
12 goal which we have to achieve because there will be no Krajina, Bosnian
13 Krajina, Serbian Krajina or alliance of Serbian states if we do not
14 secure that corridor which will integrate us and give us unimpeded flow
15 from one part of our state with another."
16 If we look at the Cutilheiro Plan, as I've labeled it, A1, that
17 we looked at a moment ago: "Bosnia and Herzegovina would be a state
18 composed of --" and leave aside your comment on the first goal --
19 "composed of three constituent units based on national principles and
20 taking into account economic, geographic, and other criteria." And may
21 be also look at E, a definition of the constituent units: "A working
22 group will be established in order to define the territory of the
23 constituent units based on national principles, taking into account
24 economic, geographical, and other criteria." So a repetition of those
25 criteria as have been stated in A1, "A map based on the national relative
1 will be the basis of work in the working group and will be subject only
2 to amendments justified by the above-mentioned criteria."
3 Now, the -- Mr. Treanor, would you say -- of course it may not
4 have been easy, but that the goal expressed as the second strategic goal
5 was, in principle and subject to negotiation, consistent with the
6 principles stated in the Cutilheiro Plan in A1 and E?
7 A. Well, I would say that the achievement of the second goal is
8 extremely problematic on the basis of the Sarajevo Agreement. If I'm not
9 mistaken, and this would be reflected in the records of the sessions of
10 the Bosnian Serb Assembly especially in February and March 1992, it was
11 the Bosnian Serb delegation that had insisted on the primacy of ethnic
12 criteria in the delimitation of the entities. So whether they would be
13 in a strong position to push for some other criteria in particular areas
14 is open to question.
15 Q. What --
16 A. But if we look at the map of the Lisbon Agreement that you have
17 presented me, we can see on that map --
18 Q. This is the map that I said a few minutes ago I put on one side.
19 You've got it, so we had better introduce it formally, since you now wish
20 to refer to it, Mr. Treanor. It came from me; I accept that.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And I think it would get numbered D7,
22 Madam Registrar, if I'm correct. And that is a map with words written in
23 B/C/S. And you tell us, Mr. Stewart, that it is an attachment to the
24 Sarajevo or to the Lisbon Agreement? As far as I can see, on the bottom
25 it only says that it's a Cutilheiro map, but that doesn't answer the
2 MR. STEWART: It's the -- I'm instructed that it's the - from
3 Mr. Krajisnik, Your Honour - that it's the Sarajevo Agreement.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 MR. STEWART: Mr. Treanor said Lisbon, but I think at least just
6 because he assumed it was Lisbon.
7 THE WITNESS: Well, I'm under the impression that this map came
8 from the same source that the B/C/S version of the Lisbon Agreement came
10 MR. STEWART:
11 Q. It didn't in fact, Mr. Treanor. It's understandable that --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let's be -- if we do not know whether this map
13 belongs to the Lisbon or the Sarajevo Agreement, then I wouldn't mind
14 that reference is made to this map, but then, rather, let's say map D7,
15 whatever it represents.
16 MR. STEWART: Yes. We'll double-check, Your Honour, what it is.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 MR. STEWART:
19 Q. So map D7, Mr. Treanor, you were going to make some comment based
20 on map D7.
21 A. Yes. I apologise.
22 Q. Yes.
23 A. I'm simply using this map because it's the one before me.
24 Q. Yes.
25 A. And I think it illustrates the point I want to make. There are
1 of course other maps I think some of which may have been used in the
2 course of my testimony, but this map clearly does not provide for a
3 corridor of the type described in strategic goal number 2. I would call
4 the Court's attention to the top of the map, the black area, which is
5 Croatian in the middle of the northern boundary. Under that there's the
6 white area, in which is the Muslim part. And on either side, the striped
7 portions which are Serbian.
8 So this particular map, I guess we don't know what its status
9 was, but if this is the basis of negotiations, it does not provide for a
10 corridor. I believe that this map reflects the ethnic majorities in the
11 various municipalities. If not, we can always turn to such a map. But
12 that demographic situation in that particular part of Bosnia makes the
13 realisation -- again, makes the realisation of a Serbian corridor on the
14 basis of ethnic composition extremely problematic. The other two
15 national communities seem to dominate in that area, and presumably, it
16 would have been very loathe to cede territory to the Serbian entity in
17 that area.
18 Q. Is there in fact, just to clarify -- I think so in fact you did
19 describe it really very clearly, Mr. Treanor, but so there's no scope of
20 misunderstanding, this is what I would call the sort of large blob of
21 black towards the top right-hand or north-east part of the map. That's
22 Croatian, or that's Croat territory.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Then as the legends -- even I can handle that Cyrillic -- as the
25 legends tell us, the horizontal stripe of -- that's Serbian territory,
1 and the white is Muslim. And then we've got Sarajevo, of course, as the
2 diagonal hatched part. Is there -- it appears that there is a small gap
3 between the top -- the north-eastern Serb territory, which is -- that is
4 -- probably that's Semberija.
5 A. Semberija.
6 Q. I beg your pardon, Semberija. And then of course the very large
7 south -- north-western Serb territory, that's Krajina.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. We've got a whole lot of Croat territory. And then there looks
10 to be a tiny little gap. So in fact -- is it correct that between
11 Semberija and that north-eastern Croat territory there is in fact a
12 small, relatively small bit of Muslim-occupied territory?
13 A. Yes. There is territory there which is indicated as Muslim here.
14 I wouldn't say particularly small.
15 Q. I beg your pardon?
16 A. I wouldn't say it's small, especially when combined with the fact
17 that the Croatian territory seems to enter into it. So there's --
18 Q. I think I introduced the word "relatively" because I'd realised
19 that it's -- you can't just jump over it on the ground, Mr. Treanor.
20 So clearly on any footing some cooperation, whether it's by
21 negotiation, exchange, or whatever, some cooperation is needed in
22 practice with both Muslims and Croats in order to establish such a
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Now, what I wasn't suggesting to you, in fact, Mr. Treanor, was
1 that the Lisbon or the Sarajevo Agreements, any of the Cutilheiro
2 proposals, plans, frameworks actually specifically provided for such a
3 corridor. What I was putting to you was something different, which was
4 as a goal for the Serbs it is at least in principle consistent with the
5 notion of territories being defined to take into account economic,
6 geographical, and other criteria.
7 A. It certainly would have been open to them on the basis of this
8 agreement as -- this agreement being the basis of negotiations, to enter
9 into negotiations for accord on that basis, yes.
10 Q. So far as the third goal or the third objective is concerned,
11 again this involves a corridor, and it's described in the Official
12 Gazette as "Establish a corridor in the Drina River Valley; that is,
13 eliminate the Drina as a border separating Serbian states." And the,
14 roughly speaking -- and I think roughly is perhaps enough for our
15 purposes, but you can say if it isn't. If we look at the same map, D7,
16 the Serb territory in the north-east, Semberija, that we were talking
17 about, does the Drina River at the border you're talking about, it runs
18 along the eastern side of that top north-eastern swath of Serb territory;
19 is that correct?
20 A. Well, I'm sorry, I'm preoccupied with another issue because I've
21 noticed there's a discrepancy in the wording between the two versions of
22 this goal, which is a matter you were interested in before in connection
23 with goal number 1.
24 Q. I remain interested, Mr. Treanor. Should we just park that point
25 for a moment, please.
1 A. This section of the map does provide for a very narrow, at two
2 points, corridor, and that is the first part of the goal between the
3 northern section, Semberija, and going all the way down to the southern
4 section which is Eastern Herzegovina. There is continuous territory
5 there, apparently. I'm looking at the northern bottleneck, which is a
6 little obscured, and there's a similar bottleneck in the south.
7 Now, the Drina does not form the border -- the eastern border of
8 Bosnia along the entire length of the eastern border of Bosnia, and I
9 must confess my geographical knowledge or memory is a bit deficient, but
10 I can see that part of the Muslim area here does directly abut on the
11 eastern border of Bosnia. Whether at that point the Drina is in fact the
12 border, I don't know. We'd have to look at a topographical map to --
13 Q. I think what I was putting to you, Mr. -- you're absolutely
14 right, Mr. Treanor, it doesn't -- and I wasn't suggesting that the Drina
15 River goes all along the eastern border there of Bosnia-Herzegovina. It
16 just -- it's just not that long a river. What I am saying is that if we
17 go above what you described as the two bottlenecks, the northern
18 bottleneck of that swath of Serb territory that goes from north all the
19 way to the south, the northern bottleneck, if we go above that, and then
20 it -- the Serb territory broadens out, that the Drina River goes along
21 much of the eastern border of that bit of Serb territory.
22 A. Well, the issue here is whether it goes along the eastern border
23 of the Muslim bit.
24 Q. And then -- yes, and then down -- not right down into all that
25 southern Serb territory but along that eastern border, and then -- well,
1 I don't know how far down it goes, Mr. Treanor. In fact, it -- yes, it
2 looks -- it does in fact go all the way round that little inlet, we see,
3 to the south of the Muslim territory, where it joins along the eastern
4 border more Serb territory.
5 JUDGE ORIE: May I ask you: Do we have to continue with this
6 conversation between two gentlemen where the Drina River is? I mean, if
7 you want to draw the attention to the Drina River, the Chamber would like
8 to be presented with a map or whatever, or one of the maps that is
9 already in evidence. But I've listened now for almost one and a half,
10 two minutes to where the Drina River might have been.
11 Mr. Treanor, could you indicate where in accordance with the
12 third objective, where the corridor was supposed to be established on
13 this map? Can you indicate that?
14 THE WITNESS: Well, Your Honour, that --
15 JUDGE ORIE: The map could be put on the ELMO so that you could
16 point at it. Oh, it's already on the ELMO. I see.
17 THE WITNESS: I have to admit that would require a bit of
18 interpretation on my part.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Could you indicate that on a map which is more
20 detailed in geographical terms. If we would have another map, could you
21 say it's to be located there or there; that's how we have to understand
22 the third objective.
23 THE WITNESS: Well, Your Honour, as I say, I would have to
24 interpret a bit. But my interpretation of this goal is that the border
25 would run the entire length of this eastern border.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But --
2 THE WITNESS: Of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
3 JUDGE ORIE: That would be the corridor?
4 THE WITNESS: Of the Serbian entity --
5 JUDGE ORIE: And where -- yes. Well, it's clear to me now what
6 is --
7 THE WITNESS: Allowing --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Could you indicate where exactly that corridor --
9 because we're talking about "Establish a corridor in the Drina River
10 Valley" -- where would that corridor be needed and to be established?
11 Could you indicate this on the map?
12 THE WITNESS: Well, I made allusion to that earlier, Your Honour.
13 To my mind, this goal seems to have two parts.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 THE WITNESS: Establishing a border for the Serbian entity along
16 the entire length of the Drina.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 THE WITNESS: And indeed along the entire length of the existing
19 BH border, which would give it a border with Serbia and Montenegro, along
20 the entire length of that border, perhaps leaving Muslim enclaves, as
21 Dr. Karadzic refers to, in this area but enclaves that would not be on
22 that border. Now, that's the border -- that's the border part.
23 The corridor part refers to having, I believe, a continuous
24 connection between this part of the country and this part of the country,
25 Eastern Herzegovina being a very important region for the Serbs. So they
1 wanted a continuous connection territorially down the middle, so to
2 speak, that's between bits of Muslim territory.
3 JUDGE ORIE: So if I may interrupt you, on this map the corridor
4 from objective 2 seems not to be there, in terms of this map, whereas the
5 connection to be established by the corridor of the third objective seems
6 to be present on this map. Is that a correct understanding, although
7 there are some bottlenecks?
8 THE WITNESS: Yes, barely. Yes, with two bottlenecks.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed, Mr. Stewart.
10 MR. STEWART: [Microphone not activated]
11 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
12 MR. STEWART: Thank you.
13 Q. If we look at the Cutilheiro Plan, the Sarajevo Agreement, the
14 English version, we've got A1, which we've already looked at: "Take
15 account of economic, geographic, and other criterias in establishing the
16 three constituent units." We've got D2, towards the end of D2, because
17 that's quite a long provision, the last few lines on the third page of
18 the printout: "A constituent unit may establish and may maintain
19 relations and links with the other republics and with organisations in
20 them provided that these relations and links are consistent with the
21 independence and integrity of Bosnia-Herzegovina." And then -- no, stop
22 there, A1 and D2.
23 And this -- I suggest to you that the elimination of the Drina as
24 a border between Serbian states, which in this case would be the
25 Republika Srpska as it came to be known and Serbia, is consistent with
1 the underlying principles in those parts of the Cutilheiro Plan.
2 A. In my view, that's not what's being referred to here.
3 Q. So you regard this as more limited, do you, in some way?
4 A. Well, when it says "establish and maintain relations and links" I
5 take that to mean something on the order of diplomatic, political,
6 economic, military, whatever, relations and links; the links perhaps
7 referring to communications links, roads -- roads, air service, that sort
8 of thing. But I don't think the focus here is on territorial issues
9 per se.
10 Q. Well, wouldn't -- well, wouldn't the elimination of the Drina as
11 a border separating Serbian states be entirely consistent with the notion
12 of, admittedly, close relations and links?
13 A. Indeed. That's why they wanted that.
14 Q. Yes. But that's what I'm saying. That's what the Cutilheiro
15 document is saying. It talks about establishing and maintaining
16 relations and links with the other republics and with organisations in
17 them. Those links can include the elimination of a border, can't they?
18 A. Well, the elimination of -- well, I don't think you mean
19 elimination of a border. The establishment of a border between two
20 states can facilitate the establishment and maintenance of relations and
21 links, certainly.
22 Q. Well, let me give you a simple illustration. Although they
23 remain independent sovereign states, in many respects borders between the
24 member states of the European Union have been eliminated, haven't they?
25 There's no passport control, for example.
1 A. What the Bosnian Serb leaders wanted to do basically was
2 eliminate a state border between themselves and Serbia or not -- I guess
3 in their terms they did not want to see the establishment of a state
4 border between themselves and Serbia. They were in Yugoslavia. Serbia
5 was in Yugoslavia. And the only border between them was what they
6 referred to as an administrative border. They did not want to see a
7 state border established between them, which is in my understanding of
8 the basis of these negotiations precisely what would have been
9 established, which was something they had brought themselves to accept
10 that they would have to live with a state border between themselves and
11 Serbia and Montenegro for at least a certain period of time.
12 But, on the other hand, they wanted the ability to establish
13 various sorts of relations and links with Serbia and Montenegro and
14 organisations within them. And I dare say that the leaders of the HDZ
15 wanted to do the same thing in regards to Croatia.
16 That is what is being referred to here. The establishment of --
17 and the corridor along the Drina -- and here we get into the difference
18 in wording between the two versions of this goal. But if we just take
19 that goal to mean what I have indicated, that they would have a border
20 along the length of the eastern border, giving them contiguous territory
21 with Serbia and Montenegro, that would certainly facilitate the
22 establishment of such relations and links, which is why they very much
23 wanted to do so.
24 Q. Now, it may be -- well, we know what ideally from their point of
25 view the Bosnian Serbs wanted. That's clear. It's equally clear, I'd
1 suggest, that Dr. Karadzic and others realised perfectly well at this
2 point, didn't they, that getting exactly what you wanted was unlikely?
3 A. At this particular point in time, yes.
4 Q. But the --
5 A. This was --
6 Q. Sorry.
7 A. This particular feature of the plan, if the Court will recall the
8 discussions in the Bosnian Serb Assembly from late February 1992, was
9 sold, if I can use that expression as you have, to the Assembly on the
10 basis that what was being agreed to as a whole within the framework of
11 the negotiations at that time was only a first step toward their ultimate
13 Q. Well, the -- perhaps the point is what in the third strategic
14 goal is actually inconsistent with the principles in the Cutilheiro, the
15 Sarajevo Agreement?
16 A. Well, here we get into the issue that I've alluded to a couple of
17 times, the difference in the wording between the two versions of that
18 goal, which also could bring us to a question of the interpretation of
19 one of those wordings. In the Assembly version, there is reference to
20 "the elimination of the Drina as a border between two worlds." In the
21 Gazette version, there is reference to "the elimination of the Drina as a
22 border between Serbian states." That certainly says to me that they
23 wanted to be in the same state with Serbia and Montenegro; that was their
24 goal. That goal, as I think I have indicated more than once, would have
25 been at sharp variance with the basis of the Cutilheiro negotiations
1 which foresaw the maintenance of Bosnia and Herzegovina as a state.
2 I'm looking for some of the wording. Well, at the beginning of
3 day one: "Bosnia and Herzegovina would be a state composed of three
5 So goal 3 seems to fly directly in the face of that.
6 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, there's no -- I'm sorry, there's no
7 magically convenient point to break in this questioning, so I'm entirely
8 in Your Honour's hands as to --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll -- if this is a suitable moment, we'll
10 adjourn until five minutes past 4.00.
11 --- Recess taken at 3.44 p.m.
12 --- On resuming at 4.09 p.m.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Stewart.
14 MR. STEWART: Thank you, Your Honour.
15 Q. Mr. Treanor, have you -- have you ever read a book written by
16 Mr. Alija Izetbegovic? It's got a very simple title, I think, in
17 English. "Memoirs" I think is all it's called.
18 A. No.
19 Q. Okay.
20 MR. STEWART: What I'm going to do at the moment is we -- I
21 haven't copied the whole book. I'm sure we could get hold of a copy of
22 the book. What we have done is we've copied a single page. It's
23 written, not surprisingly, in B/C/S.
24 No, I haven't done a translation, Your Honour, because what I'm
25 going to put to Mr. -- well, I haven't done a translation because I
1 couldn't do a translation, but apart from that. We haven't got a
2 translation because what I'm going to do at this stage is put to the
3 witness a short passage from the book itself, and depending where we go
4 with this translation in his answer, it may be absolutely unnecessary to
5 obtain any separate translation.
6 Q. The passage that is relevant is the -- just the very last
7 paragraph, and in fact there's a particular bit within that. So,
8 Mr. Treanor, may I invite you to give us your translation of the last
9 paragraph on that page.
10 MR. STEWART: I should say, Your Honour, I apologise for the
11 underlining and marking and so on, but in the end we came to the
12 conclusion that it didn't really signify anything very much or wasn't
13 tendentious in any particular way.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Shouldn't we ask the witness to read it in
15 B/C/S slowly so that the interpreters can provide us with a translation?
16 MR. STEWART: Yes. That's a very helpful suggestion, Your
17 Honour. Thank you.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Treanor, please read it in the original
20 THE WITNESS: I'll do my best, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: And for these circumstances, usually it's better to
22 have already a copy. If there is any spare copy for the booth, then it's
23 easier for them to translate it.
24 MR. STEWART: We did it, Your Honour, this time. Thank you.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "In such a situation, a sovereign
2 B and H in a free community for us is the only guarantee for life in
3 dignity and freedom and not only for the Muslim people but also for the
4 Serb and Croat people. In view of the composition of the population,
5 such Bosnia and Herzegovina must have special relations with Serbia on
6 the one hand and Croatia on the other, and regardless of whether these
7 two republics, states would be mutually linked and in what way. We
8 believe that this can be resolved.
9 "Serbs must not have the feeling that they are separated from
10 Serbia by a state border or Croats separated from Croatia. Therefore,
11 there should be no passports for Serbs on the Drina or for the Croats on
12 the Una."
13 Q. And that, Mr. Treanor, I can tell you was said by Mr. Izetbegovic
14 at the First Congress of the SDA in 1991.
15 Looking again at D2 of the Cutilheiro document and particularly
16 the last sentence, and looking at what Mr. Izetbegovic has said there
17 against strategic goal number 3, would you agree that what is being
18 talked about in strategic goal number 3, "elimination of the Drina as a
19 border separating Serbian states," now appears to be consistent both with
20 D2 in the Cutilheiro document, the Sarajevo Agreement, and with what
21 Mr. Izetbegovic himself had expressly said in December 1991?
22 A. Okay. I think at this point I'm being asked to compare three and
23 possibly four documents.
24 Q. I think three at the moment, but four if -- yes, four if we
25 take --
1 A. The two versions.
2 Q. -- both the minutes of the Serb Assembly and the Official Gazette
3 version. Yes, it would be four, Mr. Treanor. But let me perhaps -- I
4 hope I rephrase it sufficiently closely to the way I phrased it the first
5 time. It's that in the -- that the strategic goals, whether they're
6 expressed -- the strategic goal 3, whether it's expressed in the form as
7 at the meeting of the Serb Assembly, Dr. Karadzic's version on the day or
8 in the form subsequently published in the Official Gazette, that
9 strategic goal is consistent both with the Sarajevo Agreement and with
10 what Mr. Izetbegovic himself had expressly said.
11 A. Well, just to remind myself, if not to remind the Court,
12 strategic goal 3, the Gazette version refers to "The establishment of a
13 corridor in the valley of the River Drina, that is, the elimination of
14 the Drina as a border between Serbian states," which I have -- take to
15 mean that the Bosnian Serb Republic would become part of the same state
16 as Serbia and Montenegro.
17 If we turn to point A2 in the Sarajevo Agreement, we can read
18 that, according to this provision, "Bosnia and Herzegovina would continue
19 to have its existing borders and neither the government of Bosnia and
20 Herzegovina nor the governments of the constituent units will encourage
21 or support claims to any part of its territories by neighbouring states."
22 In D2, we read that "a constituent unit may establish and
23 maintain relations and links with the other republics and with
24 organisations in them provided that these relations and links are
25 consistent with the independence and integrity of Bosnia and
2 In the Izetbegovic document, we see reference at the beginning to
3 "a sovereign BH." We then see reference further on to "such a BH having
4 special relations with Serbia on the one hand and Croatia on the other,"
5 irrespective of whether these two republics are linked with each other or
6 not or indeed are independent states.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Before we continue, may I ask one thing I'm
8 wondering. Mr. Tieger, because I see that at this moment the Defence is
9 seeking to establish that the six strategic goals are not inconsistent
10 with the Cutilheiro Plan, whatever, or the documents, or the book of
11 Mr. Izetbegovic.
12 Let me first ask: Is it the position of the Prosecution that the
13 six strategic goals are inconsistent or irreconcilable with the
14 Cutilheiro Plan or with the book of Mr. Izetbegovic -- the position of
15 Mr. Izetbegovic at that time, or -- what's the position of the
17 Because I can imagine -- let me try to make a comparison. If I
18 would say I'd love to earn a million dollars and -- or at least to have a
19 million dollars and then later on I either work hard and I earn those
20 million dollars or I find another way by stealing them, what is our
21 situation? Is it a position of the Prosecution that there's anything
22 wrong with the starting point, or is it the position of the Prosecution
23 that this starting point might explain what later happened, that is,
24 either work hard or go out at night and steal a million dollars? What's
25 the position of the Prosecution? Because I wonder whether there's any
1 disagreement on this issue and then, of course, the strategic goals as,
2 well, some relevant point in the history.
3 Mr. Tieger, could you answer that question?
4 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, I'm afraid I won't be able to answer
5 that as comprehensively as I'd like. I certainly understand the point
6 the Court is driving at, and I think that's a useful insight. What I can
7 say are two things, I think: Number one, with respect to that particular
8 perspective, starting from a particular objective, a particular
9 motivation and the distinction between that motivation and the manner in
10 which it may be achieved, I think we probably could come to some kind of
11 consensus with the Defence.
12 At the same time, I think the way the issue has been framed by
13 the Defence in the course of the examination this afternoon reflects the
14 fact that there are distinctions to be made, as emphasised by Mr. Treanor
15 in his examination.
16 That's all a way of saying that yes, I think if we sat down, a
17 good deal of the consensus that the Court appears to see could be
18 reached, but that discussion hasn't taken place. We were just presented
19 with the issue of the Cutilheiro Plan, as you saw, this afternoon. And
20 again, as it was framed in the course of the examination, I think
21 significant distinctions were addressed by the witness.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So, therefore, there are two issues: The
23 first one is that at least to say the language, in the six strategic
24 goals, even if in their different version is not exactly the same and if
25 you compare them with other documents, there are differences in language
1 and it's a matter of interpretation on what exactly these differences in
2 language stand for and whether this is an indication whether or not it's
3 inconsistent, it's entirely clear to the Chamber at this moment that --
4 the point the Defence wants to make, and we are just -- I think at this
5 moment at the third objective. There are six further to go.
6 Perhaps if you would have in mind that it's clear to the Chamber
7 what point you'd like to make. Perhaps it could be made a bit quicker.
8 Of course, you're dependent on the answers of the witness. But if you
9 look at the lines the questions take in the transcript and the lines the
10 answer take in the transcript, then I couldn't say that the witness is to
11 be blamed for the length of time.
12 Please proceed, Mr. Stewart.
13 MR. STEWART: Your Honours, it would be -- if I could write the
14 answers as well, Your Honour, that would -- that would really speed
15 things along.
16 JUDGE ORIE: It would. Yes. Yes, I do understand. But
17 unfortunately you cannot.
18 MR. STEWART: It would be nice to earn a million dollars as well.
19 But it's been done before. Your Honour, yes, in so far -- I will proceed
20 a little bit on the third objective because it --
21 Q. In considering the third objective, Mr. Treanor, you -- and in
22 responses you're really proceeding from the footing, well, the Serbs here
23 are looking for separate state independence of the Serb Republic within
24 BH, aren't you?
25 A. Well, the implication of the wording of the third goal and this
1 Gazette version seems to me to be precisely that and not only the wording
2 of that goal but, of course, their action in declaring independence in
3 early April, that they wanted a separate state.
4 Q. Just let me ask you this, then: If they had a separate state,
5 why would they need to be talking about the Drina River as a specific
6 strategic objective at all? Because if they're next door to Serbia and
7 they are an independent state, then if Serbia will have them, they can
8 have Serbia and that's the end of the matter. They've got a deal.
9 A. Well, Dr. Karadzic laid that out in his explanation in regard to
10 the third strategic goal.
11 Q. Yes. But what I'm putting to you there, Mr. Treanor, is that
12 entirely separately from the question of whether the Serb Republic is a
13 separate state, the third goal makes sense when set alongside the
14 Cutilheiro document and Mr. Izetbegovic's statement. It makes sense even
15 in the context of the Serb Republic remaining part of what single overall
16 state of Bosnia-Herzegovina, doesn't it?
17 A. We never did finish comparing the documents. I don't think that
18 goal 3, as I think I indicated before the break, is -- it would be
19 difficult to achieve within the framework of the Cutilheiro -- of the
20 Sarajevo Agreement.
21 Q. All right.
22 A. And as far as the Izetbegovic document is concerned, which I was
23 asked about before, we can see that there is no reference to any
24 constituent -- separate constituent units within BH. There's only a
25 reference to a separate BH -- a sovereign BH, I'm sorry, a sovereign
1 BH -- having relations, special relations with Croatia and Serbia. And
2 there's -- the only particular that's mentioned there is eliminating the
3 feeling that Serbs and Croats might have that the state border which
4 would exist would separate them from Serbia or Croatia, and the
5 willingness to overcome this feeling by letting them cross the border
6 without passports.
7 This is quite a different thing than eliminating the border
8 between two states and between two entities, the Bosnian Serb Republic
9 and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as it existed on the 12th of May,
10 1992, and thereby becoming one state.
11 Let us recall that the Constitution of the Bosnian Serb Republic
12 defines that republic as part of Yugoslavia. This is far different from
13 what Mr. Izetbegovic is talking about.
14 Q. I think we may have got to the point where we would move into the
15 realm of argument and interpretation of documents, and so I won't proceed
16 with further questions in relation to the third goal.
17 So far as the fourth goal is concerned, establishing a border on
18 the Una and Neretva River, is it correct, Mr. Treanor, that in the
19 Cutilheiro document, as agreed in Sarajevo, the Una River was in fact
20 marked as the border of a Serb or the Serb constituent unit within
22 A. Well, the only map I have before me is the one you submitted to
23 me, and I really can't tell definitely from this map whether the
24 separation line in the extreme north-west is along the Una. I rather
25 suspect that it isn't, because I think this map is probably based on the
1 municipal boundaries, and the Una did cut through certain municipalities,
2 notably Bosanska Krupa.
3 Q. The position is you're not actually -- you're not in a position
4 this afternoon to tell us yourself whether it was or it wasn't.
5 A. On the basis of this map, yeah. Yes. I can't say whether this
6 map -- I cannot definitely say whether this map indicates a border along
7 the Una.
8 Q. And you can't recall yourself from your previous reading of
9 documents --
10 A. Well, my recollection --
11 Q. -- whether it did or it didn't.
12 A. -- of these maps is that they were based on -- and they were
13 based on the municipal boundaries. And let's remember that the maps were
14 only supposed to be, as the agreement, a framework for negotiation. So
15 it would have been open to the Bosnian Serbs in the course of the
16 negotiations to -- if -- well, to seek a border on the Una, which would
17 not have involved a very large shifting of whatever border is in fact
18 indicated on that particular map, because we're not talking about great
19 distances up there, either between the external boundaries of the
20 municipalities I'm referring to in the Una or indeed, the length of the
21 Una River itself.
22 Q. Well, perhaps I can wrap the remainder of these points on the
23 strategic goals into one simple question. Is it the position that
24 however difficult or easy it might have been, no part of goals 4, 5, or 6
25 was inconsistent with the Sarajevo Agreement? And you may need a moment
1 just to refresh your memory as to goals 4, 5, and 6.
2 A. Yes. I think I'm ready. 4, 5, and 6. We have discussed the Una
3 already. The Neretva, again if we look at this map, the border of the
4 Serbian entity on the map doesn't even come close to the Neretva River,
5 especially in its lower reaches.
6 We had a - thank you - we had a telephone conversation that I
7 presented between certain Bosnian Serb leaders and certain Bosnian Croat
8 leaders in which they discussed the issue of the Neretva, and the Court
9 may recall that the Croats found it very amusing that the Bosnian Serbs
10 would even pretend to claim territory up to the Neretva River. So I
11 would say that this particular goal within the framework of the Sarajevo
12 Agreement would have been a very difficult, if not an impossible
13 realisation. Again, bearing in mind that this is a framework for
14 negotiations and anyone presumably -- any party to those negotiations
15 could bring up any issue they would like.
16 That is goal 4. Goal 5 --
17 Q. 6 is access of --
18 A. Well, in Sarajevo --
19 Q. 5 is Sarajevo and 6 is access to the sea.
20 A. Sarajevo, goals 5. There doesn't seem to be any particular
21 reference in the Sarajevo Agreement to Sarajevo; the map has indicated as
22 a separate area. Goal 5 calls for its division. So that would seem to
23 be a difference there. Under goal 5, in its Gazette version, Sarajevo
24 would be divided indeed between two states, whereas under the Sarajevo
25 Agreement framework it would of course be within one state.
1 Goal 6 --
2 Q. Sorry, you say 5 involves -- just pausing a moment -- 5 involves,
3 you say, division into two states?
4 A. Yes, goal 5 in its Gazette version reads: "With a view to the
5 city of Sarajevo --" I'm sorry -- "the division of the city of Sarajevo
6 into a Serbian and Muslim part and the establishment in each of those
7 parts of effective state authority."
8 Q. Yes. I don't know about the B/C/S, Mr. Treanor, but I suggest to
9 you that read into the trade "state authorities" a division into two
10 separate independent states is reading an awful lot, that "state
11 authorities" simply mean in effect public authorities, government organs.
12 It would mean that in each part you've got to have some effective
13 authorities running the place.
14 A. Well, again, the Bosnian Serb Republic had declared its
15 independence at the beginning of April. Its Constitution stated that it
16 was a part of Yugoslavia. Goal 3 has called for the elimination of the
17 Drina as a border between Serbian states. I would infer from that that
18 the Serbian portion of Sarajevo was going to be within the Serbian state.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Tieger.
20 MR. TIEGER: Just to clarify the record, Your Honour - and it may
21 be helpful - I think the witness spoke about division between two states,
22 and I believe he was essentially quoted back by Mr. Stewart as saying
23 "division into two states." Perhaps that's the source of some confusion
25 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I recognise the fine distinction. I
1 had thought a few minutes ago, but perhaps I was overoptimistic -- I had
2 thought a few minutes ago when I put my compendious question to you that
3 there was nothing inconsistent with goals 4, 5, and 6 with the Sarajevo
4 Agreement that I had got a yes. But it now seems that I haven't got a
5 yes, Mr. Treanor.
6 A. I thought I'd been giving my answer to that point by point. I'm
7 at point 6, strategic goal 6 right now. If I could address that.
8 Q. I beg your pardon? I thought I had got a yes, so I'm just
9 clarifying. You will have to take them one by one, then.
10 JUDGE ORIE: May I just interrupt. If Mr. Treanor would deal
11 with objective 6, we could then see whether you would have a yes on the
12 sixth objective. But on 4 and 5, as far as I understand you,
13 Mr. Treanor, there's no yes that there -- to the question of Mr. -- that
14 they are consistent with the Cutilheiro Plan.
15 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour. I had lost the question,
16 and now I understand from you that the question is are they consistent
17 with the Cutilheiro Plan?
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think as a matter of fact, that you said Una
19 River not considerably different; Neretva River, certainly; Sarajevo,
20 it's the division into two states with all the subtleties that have been
21 added; and now we're up to strategic objective 6, I think.
22 But if, Mr. Stewart if you are, by not having a yes on all three
23 you would refrain from the sixth, then we'll hear from you. Otherwise, I
24 think we are at the sixth objective.
25 MR. STEWART: Yes, I'm happy to go on to the sixth. I've got the
1 position -- yes. Even if I'd then get tempted to go back, let's go on to
2 6, as His Honour suggests, Mr. Treanor.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
4 THE WITNESS: The sixth objective is simply stated in the Gazette
5 version as an outlet of the Republika Srpska, as it's called here, a name
6 which was not adopted until August 1992, an outlet to the sea.
7 Dr. Karadzic in his remarks refers to this goal, although it is
8 the last goal, as very important. He makes clear in his remarks that
9 what is being referred to by an outlet is not some sort of commercial
10 agreement for the use of a free port or something of that nature but is,
11 in fact, a territorial claim against Croatia. As he explains this goal,
12 they want a territorial outlet to the sea through territory which up to
13 that point and indeed continues to be part of the Republic of Croatia.
14 This is something that has absolutely no place in the Sarajevo
15 Agreement whatsoever. Croatia was not a party to the negotiations, and
16 none of the parties to the negotiations could have conceded that to the
17 Bosnian Serb party to those negotiations.
18 MR. STEWART:
19 Q. Mr. Treanor, the conclusion from that, though, is that there is
20 no inconsistency between the sixth goal and the Sarajevo Agreement, isn't
22 A. Well, I suppose if you take the absence of something from it, in
23 that light, yes, you could say that.
24 Q. Putting it another way, if the Serbs can sort it out with
25 Croatia, it's no particular concern for the Muslims in particular in BH,
1 is it?
2 A. If they had come to an agreement that that did not impinge upon
3 what the Muslims considered to be their interest, then yes, I believe
4 that's true.
5 Q. Can I just go back to number 4, though, because I'm trying to
6 narrow it down, the differences between us. So far as number 4 is
7 concerned, the two rivers, the -- leaving aside the question of whether
8 these things are easy or difficult to achieve, I do press you that
9 however difficult they might have been, there is no inconsistency between
10 either limb of the fourth goal and the Sarajevo Agreement.
11 A. Well, yes. If the other parties had agreed to that, again -- and
12 as I said several times, the agreement was a basis for negotiations and
13 they could have negotiated anything, and -- that is, the Bosnian Serbs
14 could have raised any issue in the negotiations, except presumably an
15 outlet to the sea -- and it would have been open to the other sides, to
16 other parties to that negotiation to concede their demands.
17 Q. Could we just look at the document that's at tab 127 of
18 Volume 12.
19 [Microphone not activated]
20 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please --
21 MR. STEWART: Could we go to page 50 of the English version. I'm
22 sorry, I don't know what page it is in the B/C/S.
23 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
24 Q. Perhaps if you wouldn't mind just going back to the previous
25 page, because we see it's where Mr. Krajisnik starts speaking, towards
1 the top of page 49. And he's moving that we adopt the conclusions.
2 Dr. Karadzic has had quite a lot to say. Then Mr. Krajisnik -- do you
3 see that? Momcilo Krajisnik: "I move that we adopt the conclusions"?
4 A. That's page 50?
5 Q. That's at 49. I moved back one page from page 50. 49 now.
6 A. At the top or the bottom?
7 Q. Towards the top. Momcilo Krajisnik: "I move that we adopt --"
8 A. Oh, the very top. Yes.
9 Q. It's page 37 in B/C/S. "I move that we adopt the conclusions.
10 We've heard quite a few proposals. I should try to make a summary, but
11 before that I want to say that we would need some time but we will get
12 used to the generals and the generals will get used to us. In any case,
13 the most important thing that we all mean well."
14 Then he -- I think you highlighted a passage towards the bottom,
15 about ten lines up: "As for the goals, I would just like to offer an
16 explanation, since I've also taken part in adopting these goals. We must
17 make a choice regarding one thing."
18 Then he says: "The first goal is the most important one. And in
19 relation to all other goals, all other goals are sub-items of the first
20 one. Have we finally decided to separate from the remaining two national
21 communities, we can part from them if Bosnia and Herzegovina is to be
22 torn into three parts. What kind of share will each of us get all
23 depends on the elements I presented. That's why it would be good, my
24 dear gentlemen, to take care to leave enough space for division. I shall
25 be a bit immodest; do not hold it against me. We once placed the option
1 on our agenda of making a map and should anyone offer us 80 per cent of
2 the territory, we still would not be able to work out a partition."
3 And then -- I want to try to avoid simply reading the whole
4 lot -- but he goes on about ten lines down saying that "wherever there
5 were Serbs, it was Serbian territory that represented a mobilisation of
6 the entire Serbian people. We shall in an organised and fair manner
7 provide our people with a roof over their heads. Resettle them if need
8 be; we shall not put them in a genocidal position. I know that I myself
9 may remain in" -- well, Muslimania, he calls it. It has an unfortunate
10 ring in English, but we see what he means.
11 "But I have no regrets. But the rest of the people should be
12 happy. Now we can see which territories are free. We are all fighting
13 for self-contained territories of a piece with the corridors so that all
14 of us will be in a single area that is linked with Serbian and
15 Montenegro. These things will surely be in our options, Serbian Krajina
16 and this Krajina, the Bosnian one, and the corridor and a large portion
17 of -- Bosnia -- a large portion of Northern Bosnia and Semberija and
18 Romanija, and I do not know whether the part of Sarajevo where I live
19 will fit in, but I have no regrets. We must not put our individual goals
20 before this goal."
21 And then about 15 lines down: "Therefore --" do you see in the
22 middle of a line a passage beginning: "Therefore I propose that we form
23 a body, assign the two governments -- " Do you see that?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. -- "to take the other steps necessary --"
1 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters do not have time to find the
2 exact words in the original.
3 MR. STEWART:
4 Q. Include this in the --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Stewart the interpreters need a bit more
6 time to find the words in the original.
7 MR. STEWART: So sorry. I beg your pardon.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Would we have -- Mr. Treanor, could you assist us to
9 see whether we find -- where we find this in the original, what page --
10 or is the page known to the interpreters?
11 THE WITNESS: I believe it's somewhere on page 38, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let's give a minute to the .
13 THE INTERPRETER: Your Honour, the counsel can go on. We will
14 try to locate it as we go.
15 MR. STEWART: We have it then now, Your Honour, where it begins
16 in English "therefore I propose."
17 "Therefore, I propose that we form a body, assign the two
18 governments to take the other steps necessary to connect the two Serbian
19 areas and to include this in a declaration helping the two political
20 options or two ruling political parties to reconcile some options that do
21 exist. I do not think that the differences are big, but they are
22 obviously there. The mention of national symbols, I apologise. I must
23 tell the generals that these Serbs are not chauvinist. They do not hate
24 individual Muslims, but they have been burnt often enough in individual
1 And then -- I don't want to read the whole passage here,
2 Mr. Treanor, endlessly, but you have -- you have read a great deal of
3 material in connection with this case, and it is apparent that you have
4 read all the minutes and records and notes of the various organs of the
5 Bosnian Serbs and those under the aegis of the Assembly, the Serb
6 Assembly and Republika Srpska. Is it fair to say that throughout 1991
7 and 1992 that wherever we see Mr. Krajisnik addressing any of these
8 bodies, and particularly the Assembly, because then we have a full
9 record, that Mr. Krajisnik is consistently towards the reasonable,
10 flexible, prepared to compromise end of the spectrum in his
11 pronouncements and his guidance and his speeches and statements?
12 A. Well, that covers a lot of territory, and I'm -- perhaps for the
13 reason that I've read so much of this, it's hard for me to bring all of
14 it into mind and analyse it instantly from particular points of view.
15 I think I would say that -- I will say that he attempts to get
16 consensus within the Assembly, certainly. On the other hand, that
17 doesn't mean he doesn't have any firmly held views. I think one of them
18 that I have singled out is his insistence that the Bosnian Serb Republic
19 at some point in time rejoin Serbia and Montenegro within the same state.
20 Q. Mr. Treanor, you will probably be pleased to know that I'm
21 leaving the six strategic objectives behind us.
22 I would like to turn to the question of Variants A and B.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Before doing so, Mr. Stewart, may I ask you: Are
24 you tendering into evidence the page of the book of Mr. Izetbegovic?
25 MR. STEWART: Oh, yes. Yes, please, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE ORIE: If you -- let me give you some guidance as to how to
2 deal with parts of books.
3 MR. STEWART: Thank you.
4 JUDGE ORIE: The parties are required to always give sufficient
5 context. That means one page should be accompanied by the previous page
6 and by the next page as well. So just in order to give the direct
7 environment in which the -- for example, the part you started reading was
8 "under such circumstances." Well, then, of course, you should have read
9 what the circumstances were.
10 Then if it's a very small part read into the transcript, even
11 then we'd like to have at least that page translated. And if an English
12 translation does exist, you are required to inform the other party about
13 the existence of an English translation of that book. It might be,
14 because the experience learns that there are a lot of these kind of books
15 that are translated into English. And preferably we'd like to know
16 whether we could find it in the library of this institution so that --
17 especially the translation, so that the Chamber also is in a position to
18 read the context that is in evidence.
19 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I'm very grateful for that guidance.
20 I don't see any practical difficulty in our complying with it.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And then it gets number D8 anyhow, is at least
22 the -- and then you'll provide the translation of that page at a later
24 MR. STEWART: Well, if there isn't already --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 MR. STEWART: -- as Your Honour has indicated, a book which has
2 done that job for us.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And if the translation as published is
4 unreliable, then of course it could always be that -- you never know,
5 that we would require at any stage a translation by our translators. But
6 let's start with the translation as it is published.
7 MR. STEWART: Yes. Well, if it is published, we will check in
8 the first place to see whether we consider there is any unreliability,
9 and then no doubt others will perform the same check.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then --
11 MR. STEWART: Thank you, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed to A and B, which is only the
13 beginning of the alphabet, isn't it?
14 MR. STEWART:
15 Q. Mr. Treanor, just to remind ourselves -- well, first of all, the
16 document which is being called "Variant A and B" is in bundle 6.
17 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I hope I haven't encouraged the Trial
18 Chamber to dispense, throw away bundle 6 for the moment.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You couldn't expect us to bring all 18 all the
20 times, but we'll find 6 somewhere.
21 MR. STEWART: I don't, Your Honour. And I confess that I myself
22 don't bring all 18 all the either.
23 So 6, and it's at tab 66. I think it's the first one, actually,
24 in bundle 6.
25 Yes, in calling it 6/66, I think we'll put a line after the first
1 6 to avoid any misunderstanding.
2 Q. And in your report, you deal with this particular topic at --
3 well, it starts at 61, paragraph 61 of your report. That's fair, is it,
4 Mr. Treanor? That's where you would agree that this is where this
5 particular specific topic begins?
6 A. No. In fact, it begins with the last sentence in the previous
7 paragraph, the paragraph -- paragraph 61 should have begun with the
8 sentence starting with the words "more importantly towards the end of
9 1991," the very top line --
10 Q. Yes, I see.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. So a lead-in to paragraph 61.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Yes. Thank you. And then -- well, I simply mention that. I'm
15 not going to -- to read through all that. Let's just to give the Trial
16 Chamber the reference again to where it starts in your report.
17 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I did have the opportunity shortly
18 before the Court sat this afternoon to inspect the different copies, or
19 in some cases, versions in fact of this particular document in the
20 Evidence Unit, and I did ask - and I received total cooperation - I did
21 ask that they could come down to court this afternoon. And maybe here
22 they are.
23 JUDGE ORIE: No. That's my binder number 6, Mr. Stewart.
24 MR. STEWART: Oh, is it? Sorry. I leaped to all sorts of
25 unwarranted conclusions.
1 The Prosecution, I think it was to be channelled through -- well,
2 I think Mr. Tieger has got them.
3 MR. TIEGER: Yes, here they are. So --
4 MR. STEWART: Thank you.
5 MR. TIEGER: As desired by the --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Would you like to have them on the ELMO, or what
7 would you like to do with it?
8 MR. STEWART: I think the best thing -- of course, I hope Your
9 Honour will appreciate that having only inspected them myself and then
10 they being originals I had to be ask for them to be brought down rather
11 than being able to take them away with me. I haven't been able to do
12 anything to obtain copies at this point. So of course I'm in the
13 Tribunal's hands.
14 JUDGE ORIE: No. If you'd just -- if you'd like to present them
15 to the witness, perhaps they could be put on the ELMO. We'll have an
16 opportunity then later to inspect the originals ourselves if needed.
17 MR. STEWART: Yes, thank you, Your Honour. I don't think it's
18 going to be too unmanageable. Your Honours shouldn't be too disturbed,
19 I think, by the fact that there are apparently perhaps 40 or so pages. I
20 don't believe it's going to be necessary for me to go through all of
21 those, by any means. However, it is going to be necessary for me to see
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 MR. STEWART: Thank you very much. Because otherwise I can't --
25 yes. Thanks. Thank you.
1 Q. I'm going to start, Mr. Treanor, by handing to you two -- they're
2 very helpfully separated into little plastic folders. There are two
3 copies or versions of this document each bearing the number 100.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Tieger.
5 MR. TIEGER: Yes, Your Honour. Those have remained in the
6 Evidence Unit. I'm not sure what chain of custody issues that all might
7 entail, but to the extent possible I'll just ask that they remain in the
8 condition --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I don't know what happens if we put the
10 plastics on the ELMO, whether it gives a huge reflection or --
11 Madam Usher, could you please put them back into the -- and see
12 what happens if we -- I think it works well on the -- on the ELMO, even
13 in plastic.
14 MR. STEWART: [Microphone not activated]
15 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
16 MR. STEWART:
17 Q. Mr. Treanor, you have -- as I understand it, you have looked at
18 all these documents before.
19 A. Well, quite frankly, I'm not sure whether I have looked at each
20 and every copy. I -- I don't think I ever made a point of doing that at
21 any one time. I have seen various copies over time, but I can't say
22 that -- although I may have, but I can't say that I have seen all of them
23 or examined all of them.
24 Q. Yes. Thank you. Now, this one that you're being shown as the
25 number 100 on it in the -- towards the top right-hand corner. Could you
1 just -- it's easier if I ask you to describe. This is -- is this
2 apparently an original, in the sense that the number "100" is written on
3 in ink, as opposed to it being a photocopy?
4 A. Well, I would have to --
5 Q. You'll need to have a look. Of course, yes.
6 A. I really have to -- I would say that is photocopy of number 100.
7 Q. And I think I handed up two plastic folders. I think the other
8 one is also -- if we could put that on the ELMO. I think that also shows
9 the number 100. Could you just have a glance at that as well and tell
10 the Trial Chamber whether that also appears to be a photocopy or whether
11 that's got a ...?
12 JUDGE ORIE: I'd like to see, once Mr. Treanor has looked at
13 them, both upper parts of the pages on the ELMO so that we can compare
14 the relevant parts.
15 MR. STEWART: Of course.
16 A. I would have to say that is also a photocopy.
17 Q. Yes. And just before, then -- of course --
18 JUDGE ORIE: It's not necessary to take them out. But I would
19 just like to have the upper one-fifth part of both the documents --
20 MR. STEWART: Your Honour --
21 JUDGE ORIE: As -- how do you call this? Tiles on the roof.
22 Yes. That's the way.
23 MR. STEWART: If you could just take to His Honour what I gave
24 you, please, then --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Well, this is -- for the time being, this -- yes,
1 that's clear to me.
2 MR. STEWART: I'm sorry, I misunderstood. Does Your Honour wish
3 also physically to see them now?
4 JUDGE ORIE: It depends on what further questions there'll be
5 there. But I have an impression for the time being, and I might ask the
6 originals, to see them at a later stage.
7 MR. STEWART:
8 Q. Mr. -- I'm so sorry. The young lady has put them both back into
9 the plastic folder. I was actually going to ask you to look at one of
10 them - either, I don't think it matters - and just say whether you can
11 confirm - it's a B/C/S document - whether it matches the B/C/S version of
12 this document that you have been working from for the purposes of your
14 A. Sorry, I need to see the ERN number.
15 Well, the ERN number of the copy that is cited in footnote
16 number 182 is different from these. Unfortunately, the footnote does not
17 state which copy it is.
18 MR. STEWART: Excuse me one moment, Your Honour. [Defence
19 counsel confer]
20 MR. STEWART: [Microphone not activated]
21 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
22 MR. STEWART: Sorry.
23 Q. You're finding the ERN number, are you, towards the right-hand
24 corner in the top of the document?
25 A. Unfortunately, it's in different places in different documents.
1 MR. STEWART: May I hand -- this is also numbered 100 and I think
2 this is the one. We've just been matching the numbers. I think this is
3 the one that you apparently were working from --
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. -- for the purposes of your report.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And is that the one which is copied into your bundle into file 6?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And are the -- so the three documents we've looked at so far all
10 numbered "100", they are either photocopies of each other or photocopies
11 of the same source document, are they?
12 A. Well, I'll have to look at --
13 Q. Yes, you may need to just check that.
14 A. -- this particular one.
15 Q. It's sufficient for these purposes, Mr. Treanor - I'm certainly
16 not going to want the Trial Chamber's time to be taken up with going
17 through every line.
18 A. Yes, that appears to be what it is.
19 Q. The -- and then we've got -- well, perhaps I could just also ask
20 you: Could we just -- the one that's on the ELMO at the moment, could we
21 just move it so that we see more of the top of the page, please, so the
22 other way. Thank you. And that number 26 in a circle at the top?
23 A. It appears to be. It's cut off, of course.
24 Q. We -- I'm sorry?
25 A. It's cut off, of course. It appears to be number 26.
1 Q. I think on the others we saw similar numbers. I say "similar"
2 because I think one of them had 26 and one of them perhaps had "26"
3 crossed out, yes, with "24". Just to -- do you know what those numbers
4 are, who put them on, what they're for?
5 A. Yes, I believe I do. I believe this copy of the document came
6 from or was found in a collection that we referred to as the Sarajevo
7 collection. The Sarajevo collection represents documents which were
8 seized by the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina after the
9 commencement of the war in -- at the commencement of the war in early
10 April, so therefore sometime after that. I'm not sure exactly when, for
11 which lot of documents. They seized many documents in different
12 locations. One of those locations was the office of the SDS and I
13 believe that this document was found among those documents.
14 During the course of the war, the documents, as far as I know,
15 were in the custody of the State Security Service - I'm trying to get the
16 right name at that time - at that time, it was still known as the State
17 Security Service of, at that point in time, the Republic of BH. During
18 the time that the officials of the State Security Service had custody of
19 the documents, they created an inventory of those documents, in the
20 course of which work they developed a classification system, if I may put
21 it that way, to identify each of the documents in the inventory.
22 In the upper right-hand corner of the middle document, which we
23 see on the screen, you can see the letter "B" -- "B-1" apparently 1, and
24 something after -- I can't -- the one below looks like "K 2," something
25 of that nature. And then we see the numeral "26," which I'm trying to
1 get to.
2 They classified the documents in the following fashion: They put
3 various documents in various places in their office. These documents
4 wound up in what is referred to as Cabinet B, hence the "B" in the upper
5 right-hand corner. The documents within the cabinet were, of course,
6 arrayed on the shelves. The Roman numeral I refers to the shelf number;
7 that is the top shelf. The next letter refers to a folder that was on
8 that shelf, and they were designated A, B, C, going through the alphabet.
9 Occasionally there are two folders with the same letter, so you might say
10 K1 or K2, if that's what this is. And, of course, they used the letters
11 of the B/C/S alphabet, so you'll have designations such as NJ, which is
12 one letter in B/C/S, or LJ, and of course the letters with the
14 Now, within each folder they designated each document according
15 to the order the document was found in within that folder, working from
16 the top. So this is document number 26 within the folder that has that
17 designation B1, K2, whatever it is. Unfortunately from various points of
18 view, they chose to write all this information on the document itself.
19 So that's what the various handwritten markings at the top of the
20 document indicate.
21 Now, there came a point in time - I think I know what your next
22 question might be - there came a point in time when they took certain of
23 the documents out of their folders, having identified them as being
24 particularly relevant or particularly important, and they put them in
25 another folder, the important document folder, and they numbered them all
1 over again within that folder. And so that's what I believe the number
2 "24" refers to.
3 Well, let me just finish the story by saying that the originals
4 -- that is, those documents, the ones that they found and had in their
5 offices and were working with and made an inventory of and designated in
6 this fashion -- are, in principle, now, in this building in the Evidence
7 Unit. Now, of course, since we're talking about documents that were
8 seized at various offices and indeed residences and such, many of those
9 documents were themselves photocopies. So we find within that collection
10 as "original documents," that is, original as seized documents, which are
11 in fact photocopies.
12 Q. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Treanor. That -- it's an important thing to
13 clear up. But you certainly have cleared it up.
14 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I think we're approaching -- probably
15 we'll need a break at that point.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We will then have a break until quarter to
18 --- Recess taken at 5.27 p.m.
19 --- On resuming at 5.48 p.m.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, please proceed.
21 MR. STEWART: Thank you, Your Honour.
22 Q. Mr. Treanor, you said just shortly before the adjournment that
23 these documents - that is to say, these various copies and versions of
24 what we call Variants A and B - were found in the -- had been kept in the
25 SDS office. Can you be more specific as to what office you mean?
1 A. Yes, I can be more specific as to which office I mean, but I am
2 speaking from memory, and I believe there are records and other evidence
3 that may be available on this issue. I believe that the Cabinet B
4 documents were seized from the SDS office in the Holiday Inn.
5 Q. I'm handing up to you now --
6 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, of course I'm going to try to narrow
7 down the number of versions of this that we need to worry about for the
8 future, but may I hand up -- it's a version which looks very similar to
9 the ones numbered 100 that we saw before, but this one has the numbering
10 096 in the same place as the previous ones had 100.
11 Q. If you can see that. But may I draw your attention -- I wonder
12 if that could all be taken out of the plastic folder. Perhaps it already
13 has. If Mr. Treanor could now, please, have a look at that whole
14 document. It's paper-clipped together. It's got, if we look on -- oh,
15 this is a B/C/S document, of course.
16 But if we look on the fourth page, we've got a number of
17 manuscript annotations, and we see, two pages on, another annotation with
18 an exclamation mark apparently and then some underlining, and then on the
19 penultimate page of the document, I think it is, against paragraph 6 --
20 part 2, paragraph 6 -- there's a further manuscript annotation. Are you
21 able to help the Trial Chamber at all as to who, what, when, why, how
22 those manuscript annotations appear?
23 A. The only thing I can say is that this appears to be a photocopy
24 of one generation or another of a document on which those handwritten
25 notations may have been made at one time or another. Whether -- of
1 course, whether they were made at the same time, I don't know. But
2 everything in this document appears to be -- to have been photocopied.
3 I don't know that this particular copy came from the Sarajevo
4 collection, by the way. It has a low ERN number, which would lead me to
5 suspect that it does, but it may not. The previous documents had numbers
6 which are easily identifiable with the Sarajevo collection, so it's
7 possible that this copy came from a different place.
8 Q. Is it -- just in a sense to start at the beginning. This
9 particular version, whatever generation, it is a photocopy; but this
10 particular document with manuscript amendments, is that something you
11 remember seeing before?
12 A. -- I believe I have seen number 96 before, yes.
13 Q. Yes. Have you -- have you studied the manuscript amendments at
14 any point before?
15 A. I don't believe so, quite frankly.
16 MR. STEWART: I'd suggest, Your Honour, that the best thing,
17 rather than take time on that now, the best thing is that when we do get
18 these relevant documents copied we will all have the opportunity to see
19 those manuscript amendments and see whether they might be of any further
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If they are copied; if they are used, then of
22 course. Nevertheless, I would like to have it just to get an impression.
23 MR. STEWART: Of course, Your Honour. Yes.
24 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that you can continue with the other one.
25 MR. STEWART: Yes, I can, certainly.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Please carry on.
2 MR. STEWART: If I may simply continue, Your Honour. May I just
3 hand to the witness another copy of the same document he's just been
4 looking at, also numbered 96. I think perhaps -- you're going to kill
5 me. I'm going to ask you to take it out again, please. I'm sorry.
6 They're really hard to put in, and now I've asked you -- I chickened out
7 of putting it in myself.
8 Q. I just would like you, please, Mr. Treanor, just to confirm that
9 -- as far as I can see, it's the same as the previous document you looked
10 at. It's another copy. If you and I agree about that, Mr. Treanor, then
11 that's at least one piece of paper that I think we can put on one side.
12 A. Well, of course, I don't have the other one in front of me,
13 but --
14 Q. Well, it's there. It's --
15 A. Well, this -- the second copy that I was given has a notation at
16 the top of the first page. Again, it looks like a number within a
17 circle, which the first copy does not have.
18 Q. Yes. Otherwise, Mr. Treanor, all I'm trying --
19 A. Well, I would have to compare the handwritten notation --
20 Q. Mr. Treanor, I want to make it clear that unless Mr. Tieger or
21 the Trial Chamber, of course, have any problem with it, all I'm really
22 doing is having looked at them, it seems to me that they are simply the
23 same. I want to give you the opportunity of saying, "Well, they're not."
24 But if you would like to just check a couple of those manuscript points,
25 if you're satisfied. Anyway, others will be able to see.
1 A. All I would say, these copies come from different places.
2 They're both copy number 96, but because they have different notations on
3 the front page which appear to be in pencil, that would lead me to
4 believe that they came from different places.
5 Q. Perhaps we can deal with it this way, Your Honour, that the
6 Prosecution would have an opportunity of seeing whether they consider
7 there was any material difference between these two pieces of paper.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Is the typewritten part the same or is there any --
9 MR. TIEGER: No. I think it's an important distinction to draw,
10 Your Honour. And you're correct, it's not an issue.
11 MR. STEWART: And I think the manuscript amendment. Because that
12 was the one that had -- sorry, annotations. That was the one that had
13 the manuscript annotations. But those appear to be the same as well.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I couldn't see that, because I've seen only
15 one copy.
16 MR. STEWART: Of course.
17 JUDGE ORIE: But ...
18 THE WITNESS: They certainly appear to be.
19 MR. STEWART:
20 Q. Yes. Well, let's take it as that being the position for the
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
23 MR. TIEGER: Let me just say two quick things, if I may: Number
24 one, it may be significant -- it would be significant if they came from
25 two different places if there were two different documents and the
1 manuscript notations might indicate that; and secondly, I just wonder if
2 Mr. Treanor is the appropriate person and this is the appropriate time to
3 be make those particular distinctions, in any event.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 MR. STEWART: I have no problem with that, Your Honour. I was
6 actually --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Let's be very practical. I do understand that all
8 the document that is have been presented now with or without handwriting
9 and copied, with the same handwriting on them or not, is the same
10 typewritten documents, that the parties do not disagree on that. And
11 what the relevance of this fact now established is, we'll learn that
13 MR. STEWART: And then this is -- it's getting fainter now. This
14 is a fainter copy of again, this number 96. Again, it looks essentially
15 to be the same document or derived from the same source as the previous
17 Q. Wherever it gets us to, Mr. Treanor, would you agree with that?
18 A. Well, it's the same typewritten document. The quality of the
19 copying is very bad. It appears to bear the same handwritten notations,
20 except on the front page where it does not have the numbers at the top
21 that I referred to on the one copy.
22 Q. Thank you. And then a further document. Perhaps we could have
23 the -- you'll be relieved to know, no plastic folders at the moment with
24 these -- Perhaps we could have the front page, the cover page on the
25 ELMO, please.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
2 MR. STEWART: Yes.
3 Q. The front page of this has got all sorts of stamps and numbers
4 and so on which are slightly different, aren't they, from what we've seen
5 before, --
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. -- Mr. Treanor? Could you just give us a run-through what we see
9 A. I'm not sure that I've ever seen this one before. It's number
10 104. It has a stamp right above the copy number, and it's the stamp of
11 the Institute for the Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity of the
12 Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina in Sarajevo. It has some sort of
13 registration number within that stamp, and then below the copy number,
14 that is, copy number 104, there's another block that says "attachment" or
15 "Annex number 1-12."
16 Q. This one I think also has some -- well, it's got some ink
17 markings, but -- I believe. You can forget things very quickly in a
18 minute or two -- I believe they're really just marking along in the
19 margin to draw attention to particular paragraphs, rather than words
20 written on. Do you want to have a look and just confirm that -- without
21 dwelling in detail on them that that's basically the position. Somebody
22 has inked quite a number of lines in the margin against particular
23 paragraphs but not written any words that I noticed.
24 A. There are a few words. These are different notations than we've
25 seen in copy number 96, but again, the whole document here is a
2 Q. Yes. So -- well, thank you. It's different from 96, but you
3 said there are a few words there somewhere.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Yes. Thank you. And then this is -- the next one has got an
6 extra cover sheet, which may be entirely internal. I simply don't know.
7 But this is also a 96. This doesn't have any of those other numbers,
8 then, the 24, 26, and so on. It just has "96." It doesn't appear -- put
9 it this way -- to add anything to the previous versions of 96 that we've
10 said, but perhaps that's the way I'll put the question, Mr. Treanor. Do
11 you -- if you look at this, does it, in your view, potentially add
12 anything at all, have any significance in addition to the number 96
13 documents that we've already seen?
14 A. Well, I don't see any handwritten notations in here.
15 Q. Yes. Does it -- have you got the other -- I'm not sure whether
16 they're with the Trial Chamber now or with you. Have you got the other
17 96s, or -- if -- could you -- I wonder if you could just say whether it
18 appears that they are, again, either copies of each other or derived from
19 the same document. And the clue to that is, I'd suggest, the "96" which
20 has been inked in by somebody. Do they look the same?
21 A. Well, yes. I mean, other than the lack of notations, they would
22 be the same.
23 Q. Yes. I was talking about the actual numbering, the "96".
24 A. Whether the number is the same? Whether it appears to be the
1 Q. Yes, whether it appears to be the same. I don't mean whether
2 it's the same number, as opposed to 95 or 97. Whether it appears to be
3 written --
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. They're exact copies of each other --
6 A. Appears to be.
7 Q. Or of some other document.
8 A. Appear to be.
9 Q. Yes. Thank you.
10 And this -- the next one. We're not far from the end here. The
11 next one has a cover sheet, again, 11/3 -- or it's a Roman II/3, and
12 that's a 104 version. We've seen 104 before. And I'd ask you the same
13 question there, in the same form: Does that appear to -- if you could
14 have a look at that -- Does that appear to potentially add anything of
15 significance, anything different by comparison with the previous number
16 104 document that we had seen?
17 A. This appears to be the same. Except, of course, it's missing the
18 attachment number --
19 Q. Yes.
20 A. -- that was found on the cover page of the first 104.
21 Q. I've found yet another number 100 in the pile. If I may hand
22 that up.
23 The same question here, Mr. Treanor: Does this document
24 numbered 100, does that appear to add anything of significance, of any
25 material difference, as compared with the previous numbered 100 versions
1 that you've seen today?
2 A. It doesn't appear to.
3 Q. Yes. Thank you. And the next one I'm handing up. It looks like
4 number 47 to me, as far as I can see. It's 047. Do you see that,
5 Mr. Treanor?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. This has one or two markings that I saw in briefly inspecting it.
8 Not words but simple markings; one of a heading and one against a
9 particular paragraph. But apart from that, in its typeface and its
10 presentation and content, does it appear to you to be exactly the same as
11 several other versions that we've already seen in the last few minutes?
12 A. Yes, it does, except that this appears to be an original numbered
13 copy; that is to say, the number 47 is written in blue ink.
14 Q. It's actual ink.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Yes.
17 A. And the notations inside the document are in blue ink.
18 Q. Yes, indeed. Yes. It's a blue -- it's a blue ink, isn't it?
19 A. Yes. And this document appears to come from the Sarajevo
21 Q. Yes. But so far that's the -- yes, that's right, that's the only
22 one that appears to be an original, in the sense of bearing --
23 A. Well, in the sense of having blue ink on it.
24 Q. An ink marking, as opposed to something that's pretty obviously a
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And then the next one is numbered 93. It comes with its own
3 plastic folder, again.
4 MR. STEWART: If we could just put the front sheet on the ELMO
5 again at some point.
6 Q. Yes. Well, you're seeing something which, if anyone else had
7 missed it, the usher was alert and said have you seen it, which is that
8 on the back of this last page of this document are some quite extensive
9 manuscript notes. But let's have the -- I don't think we've had the
10 front sheet. Let's have the front sheet, on the ELMO, the cover sheet
11 first, and then perhaps we might have that back page with the manuscript
13 A. Yes. That copy also appears to come from the Sarajevo
14 collection. The number 93 is a photocopy -- a photocopied number.
15 However, there are original blue-ink notations on the reverse of the last
17 Q. Yes. They're quite extensive. We can see that.
18 The -- just -- we won't spend time on it right now, or at least
19 I'm not proposing to spend time on it until people have had a chance to
20 just consider what these are. But could you just tell us what the --
21 say, the first two say, 93A and 93B. Can you read, first of all, what
22 that says?
23 A. Some of it. It is rather Cyrillic handwriting. It tends to be.
24 93A, I'm not sure.
25 93B appears to be Stanisic Mico.
1 93C appears to be Banja Luka, followed by something else.
2 93D is Doboj.
3 93E is Tuzla.
4 93F --
5 Q. Well, I won't for the moment ask you to go right through that,
6 Mr. Treanor. We may, of course, have to come back to that.
7 A. I think 93A is -- might be Stojan Gorazde.
8 MR. STEWART: Does the -- would Your Honours like to see that
9 itself at the moment?
10 JUDGE ORIE: It very much depends on what importance it gets in
11 the further examination of the witness. Just to see some handwriting,
12 the Chamber has seen some handwriting before, so it very much depends on
13 the relevance.
14 MR. STEWART: Yes. I'm not pressing it on Your Honours at all.
15 Q. Then the next --
16 MR. STEWART: Would Your Honour just forgive me one moment.
17 [Defence counsel confer]
18 MR. STEWART: [Microphone not activated]
19 JUDGE ORIE: Microphone, please, Mr. Stewart.
20 MR. STEWART: I'm sorry. May I hand up this. This is also one
21 of four. Perhaps I -- I'll comment in advance, rather than just try to
22 remember it. And then you would be able to confirm or not.
23 Q. This one is on that sort of rather chemical old-fashioned fax
24 paper, because we're going back to 1991. And I should say it's probably
25 just as easy, Your Honour, if I indicate what's there and then
1 Mr. Treanor can look at it and everybody else can look at it, for that
3 This does appear to have been faxed by somebody to somebody,
4 because it says across the top in type, "23/12/91, 13/11, Sipad, Komerc,
5 GM, SA," and it is that fax pager that we're familiar with from some
6 years ago, before plain-paper faxes took over in most parts. It appears
7 to be faxed. It's a faint copy. It looks like the original fax and it's
8 a very faint copy it's got a lot of blue ink underlinings and circlings,
9 but I think not writing. It's got some highlighting on it. It's also
10 got some Tipp-Ex on it of some sort at all. And it's got on the front
11 page -- I said it didn't have words, but on the front page it's got some
12 annotation of actual words in manuscript, the ink throughout being blue.
13 So with that description, may I hand that up to you, Mr. Treanor.
14 You'll see, I think, still, you'll be able to see my summary of whey saw
15 on that document on the screen on the transcript. Perhaps you could just
16 indicate briefly whether you agree whether that's an accurate summary of
17 what we actually physically see.
18 A. Yes. But it doesn't appear to be a complete copy.
19 Q. [Microphone not activated]
20 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
21 Q. Yes. Thank you for that. Thank you, Mr. Treanor. Could you
22 indicate what is the incompleteness.
23 A. There appears to be one or more pages missing from the end of the
24 document. I didn't -- I noticed that when I got to the end, that it
25 wasn't the end. Maybe some of the pages from inside are missing as well.
1 But one or more pages is missing.
2 Q. And it's 104, as I indicated, and we'd seen 104 before.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. I think we've seen it twice before, actually.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Whether it's complete or not is a different
6 question, but the stamp numbers do not correspond with the numbers of the
7 pages themselves, so there's at least something ...
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 MR. STEWART:
10 Q. And, then, the last one, I think it is, has got a different form
11 of numbering. It's -- where we've seen 93, 100, 104 and so on -- or 96,
12 perhaps it was -- we see 101, then a hyphen and a 3. But otherwise --
13 I'd just at this point hand it up to you, please, Mr. Treanor.
14 Could we see the front page. But there is one other very
15 noticeable difference that I suggest to you here. As compared with I
16 think every one of the other documents that we have seen at this run,
17 which is that it is in -- it's in a different typeface with, among other
18 things, the result that the layout is different; it's actually on a --
19 different number of pages. Is document is shorter. It's simply -- I
20 think it's shorter, rather than longer. It's on a slightly different
21 typeface ad it's on fewer pages. I think it's six, as opposed to ten.
22 Perhaps the precise discrepancy doesn't --
23 A. Perhaps I can compare that with the others.
24 Q. Yes, of course I think that's a fair opportunity.
25 MR. STEWART: If Mr. Treanor could be given one of the -- I don't
1 think it matters which one, actually.
2 Q. But identify it for us, so we know which one you're comparing it
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Treanor, may I invite you to take a plain-paper
5 copy, because there were some peculiar aspects on the thermic paper copy.
6 So if you would compare it with one of the many others that --
7 MR. STEWART: Yes, I would certainly -- Mr. Treanor, I'd endorse
8 His Honour's suggestion, with respect.
9 THE WITNESS: Well, that's the one I wanted to compare it with.
10 MR. STEWART:
11 Q. No. For the immediate purposes, Mr. Treanor, His Honour is
12 inviting you to take one of the other copies and not the fax copy as your
13 comparator. Just any one would do, yes. As long as we know which one it
14 is, then.
15 So it's the one numbered 100 that has the number 26 chopped off
16 at the top that you referred to earlier.
17 A. Well, just on a quick examination, the whole document appears to
18 be there, but it is indeed a different layout.
19 Q. It's --
20 A. A different format.
21 Q. To be specific, it is different typeface, isn't it? Well, have a
22 look, Mr. Treanor.
23 A. It's certainly set out on the page differently, and therefore the
24 number -- total number of pages is shorter, but -- so it's certainly a
25 different-type copy.
1 Well, not being an expert in typefaces, I would say that it does
2 appear to be different in that the letters in the shorter version appear
3 to be closer together than the --
4 Q. Yes. I'm only really asking you not because you're an expert --
5 I'm sorry.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Could the Chamber have the last two copies that were
7 in the hands of Mr. Treanor.
8 MR. STEWART:
9 Q. Yes, Mr. Treanor, I was going to say I'm only asking you not in
10 the first place because you purport to be an expert but because you have
11 the documents at the time. But of course the Trial Chamber can see as
12 well as anybody else.
13 A. The letters are darker, of course; although sometimes differences
14 between photocopies can account for that.
15 Q. Of course.
16 MR. STEWART: And Your Honours, since it's the Trial Chamber that
17 now physically has these documents, may I suggest that I think -- this is
18 from recollection that the last document, 101-3, the whole content,
19 although Mr. Treanor has confirmed it's got the same overall content, is
20 then on six pages only, as opposed to I think it's ten -- it's nine or
21 ten on the others.
22 JUDGE ORIE: I can confirm the six, and the other one is ten.
23 You may proceed.
24 MR. STEWART: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour. What -- oh, well, I
25 don't want to be in contempt of court for retaining a clear plastic
1 folder. Whether it came from Sarajevo or out of the budget of the ICTY,
2 I don't know. But for completeness, it goes with the documents.
3 Your Honour, from a purely practical point of view, it may be
4 actually the simplest thing is simply to have the whole lot copied,
5 rather than spend time debating which ones should be copied. So it's a
6 few minutes' work. I think in this particular instance the invitation
7 goes to others to photocopy it because they, I think, would prefer to
8 keep custody of these documents.
9 Could I ask if the Prosecution could arrange that overnight,
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Before doing so, could perhaps, please, these
12 two copies be put on the ELMO again.
13 On the page I opened, could we just move a bit upwards. Yes.
14 And could you perhaps try to put at the same time where it says "2" and
15 then I take it that it says Variant B and then another line in capitals,
16 a similar part. Yes, but that's not the same part. On the other --
17 Mr. Treanor, could you find the relevant part in the --
18 THE WITNESS: Yes, of course, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: So what follows from number 8 and then to -- where
20 it seems to say "Variant B." If you compare those two parts,
21 Mr. Treanor, would you still think that it's a matter of spacing or are
22 there other differences? Perhaps if you concentrate on the --
23 THE WITNESS: Well, we can see --
24 JUDGE ORIE: -- the beginning of paragraph 2.
25 THE WITNESS: We can see -- well, we can't see.
1 JUDGE ORIE: We have to move a little bit downwards, the both of
2 them, I think. Yes. I think now -- yes.
3 THE WITNESS: That in the top version the heading "2, Variant B"
4 is underlined in the bottom version. It's not underlined in the top
5 version. It's underlined in the bottom version.
6 And the second heading that comes on the next line, exactly the
7 opposite is the case.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Is there any other difference in this part, these
9 specific two lines? Perhaps you could concentrate on the B.
10 THE WITNESS: Maybe if I could just have a look at them.
11 What -- in the version in which the top heading is not
12 underlined, the letter B is not enclosed in quotation marks; in the
13 version in which that heading is underlined, the letter -- the Cyrillic
14 letter "B" is enclosed in quotation marks.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could you -- then perhaps -- these were my
16 questions in respect of after having inspected the documents. So if
17 there are no further questions in this respect, Mr. Stewart, you could
18 get your copies back.
19 MR. STEWART: [Microphone not activated] Yes, thank you.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
21 MR. STEWART: [Microphone not activated]
22 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone.
23 MR. STEWART: I'd simply ask the practical question whether
24 the --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.
1 MR. STEWART: Yes. I'd simply ask the practical question whether
2 the Prosecution would be able to arrange photocopying overnight.
3 MR. TIEGER: I don't think that will be a problem, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Tieger.
5 MR. STEWART: Thank you.
6 Q. It may be, Mr. Treanor, that my next question would require us to
7 come back when we've got these documents. But are you able at the
8 moment, on what you've seen, to cast any light on the variations in the
9 form of the document and, in particular, that variation between the
10 six-page document in the darker and apparently slighter smaller typeface,
11 101-3, and for practical purposes all the others which are in another
12 typeface, apparently, and takes nine or ten pages?
13 A. No, I don't have any particular knowledge of a reason for the
14 differences among them.
15 Q. Turning now to perhaps a bit more substance, then. The top left
16 cover page, and of course if at any point you require to look at a
17 document, please say so. But we can I think for now we can work for
18 practical purposes from the copy which is at bundle 6, tab 66. And you
19 have the English and, of course; the original B/C/S version. And it
20 probably doesn't matter which one. It's a copy of the one in the bundle.
21 But it's number 100, anyway, isn't it, the B/C/S?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. The top left-hand cover page, as we've seen before, refers to the
24 Serbian Democratic Party, I'm reading the English, of course, Bosnia and
25 Herzegovina, SDS Main Board. That's correct, isn't it?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Does it say "SDS Main Board" or just simply "Main Board"?
3 A. Well, it says "Serbian Democratic Party of Bosnia and
4 Herzegovina," all in capitals. And then under that in mostly small
5 letters but beginning with a capital -- in the first word, it says "Main
7 Q. Yes. Thank you. The -- but I think you've said, but to confirm,
8 there is no record whatever, is there, of this document ever having been
9 -- I don't mean number 100, but you know what I mean when I say "this
10 document." In record whatever of this document ever having been adopted
11 or approved by the Main Board of the SDS.
12 A. Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "a record" in this sense.
13 There are documents which refer to this document, both before and after
14 the 19th of December, but there is no document on the order of, say, the
15 records of the Assembly session at which this document is discussed and
16 adopted by the Main Board.
17 Q. Well, in the case of either a record of any proceedings of the
18 Main Board or a record of any proceedings of the Assembly, we do not see
19 this document ever having been adopted or approved, do we?
20 A. In such a document embodying the proceedings of a session, no.
21 Q. When you -- your implicit qualification in your answer is that
22 somewhere else we see an indication of such adoption or approval; is that
23 what you're saying?
24 A. Well, I -- as I indicated before, there are other documents both
25 before and after the 19th of December, 1991 which appear to refer to this
2 Q. So this is the evidence that you've given previously. And it is
3 pretty clear what you're saying. The evidence you've given previously
4 from which you, including your report, from which you draw inferences
5 that it emanated from the main organs of the SDS.
6 A. I'm sorry, what was the question?
7 Q. That when you say there are documents before and after the
8 19th of December which appear to refer to this document, that what you're
9 saying is - and I think what you have already said - is that you draw
10 inferences from other material that this particular document did have its
11 origin with one or other of the main organs of the SDS.
12 A. Yes. But there's also the fact that this document on its face
13 indicates that it comes from the Main Board of the SDS.
14 Q. Well, it indicates -- you just have in mind that it says "Main
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. So it's -- as a sort of Latin tag for it, omnia praesumuntur or
18 something, that you're starting with a presumption that a document has
19 got on it in a typeface that it's from the Main Board that unless
20 somebody -- unless somebody shows me something different, I'm going to
21 take it that it came from the Main Board. Is that what you're saying?
22 A. Pretty much.
23 Q. At the other end of the document, in the English version it ends
24 up "SDS Crisis Headquarters." Just tell us -- well, tell the Trial
25 Chamber, please, exactly what the B/C/S version of the document says at
1 the end after the last numbered paragraph 4.
2 A. Well, I would render that as Crisis Staff of the SDS.
3 Q. And it's in typeface --
4 A. It's all in capital letters --
5 Q. Yes, apparently -- apparently the same typeface, but in capital
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Nobody's manuscript signature?
9 A. No, no. There's no signature.
10 Q. Are you aware of any place to start -- sorry, you'll have to give
11 it to me again or I'll just have to check what you said. Yes. Are
12 you -- sorry, forget place.
13 Are you aware of any body or organ that ever bore the title - as
14 it appears in B/C/S, of course, in the version you're looking at - of
15 "Crisis Staff of the SDS"?
16 A. There are only two documents that I can bring to mind at this
17 point which refer to a Crisis Staff within the context of the SDS. One
18 is a telephone conversation from, I believe, July 1991 in which
19 Dr. Karadzic tells the caller twice, I believe, that "We have a Crisis
20 Staff." The other is a document from early March 1992 which purports to
21 come from an SDS Crisis Staff. I can't remember the exact wording of
22 that title, whether it was the Crisis Staff of the SDS or something else,
23 but it was -- or spelled out the Crisis Staff of the Serbian Democratic
24 Party. I can't remember the exact words. But "Crisis Staff" was part of
25 the name given to the organ that purported to issue that document.
1 Q. In your evidence in chief and the transcript reference there is
2 1509, you had said that it was a body the time and composition of which
3 you did not know.
4 A. Right. That's correct. Those are just two references to such a
5 body, and it's a composition or -- the date of its formation or duration
6 of its activities are not otherwise known to me through the documents.
7 MR. STEWART: But, Your Honour, I'm coming on to what's really a
8 chapter in -- under this Variant A and B heading. I'm in Your Honour's
9 hands, but it may be that starting a chapter --
10 JUDGE ORIE: No. We'll continue until 7.00, so -- so if that --
11 MR. STEWART: I beg your pardon. I -- sorry, I --
12 JUDGE ORIE: It's quarter to 2.00 in the afternoon to 7.00 in
13 evening, yes.
14 MR. STEWART: I'm sorry, I got it in my head --
15 JUDGE ORIE: A few chapters, yes.
16 MR. STEWART: It was probably just wishful thinking, Your Honour.
17 But the -- I'll press on, then.
18 Q. The Assembly had already adopted a recommendation on broadly the
19 same topic, and that's an introduction to a question.
20 We're going to go to -- may I take you to bundle 4.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If the document could be put on the ELMO. If
22 you could work on that basis, then everyone has it in front of himself.
23 But if, Mr. Treanor, you'd need to look at it more closely, then,
24 of course, you take it off from the ELMO and --
25 THE WITNESS: Perhaps I could look at the B/C/S while the English
1 is on the ELMO?
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That could be a good solution.
3 MR. STEWART: I'm so sorry, it was 62, tab 62.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Could you indicate the page, because in English
5 is --
6 MR. STEWART: Yes. Yes, it's page 2 -- well, in fact, we -- yes,
7 page 2. It's just the front sheet or the cover sheet which is page 1.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If you'd give the whole of the bundle to
9 Mr. Treanor, then he'll find page 2 only in the B/C/S version. If you'd
10 give it to Mr. Treanor, yes, please.
11 MR. STEWART:
12 Q. On the agenda -- this is towards the bottom of page 2 --
13 A. Agenda, yes.
14 Q. -- item 2 is: "Proposed recommendation (decision) on the
15 establishment of Municipal Assemblies of the Serbian People in Bosnia and
16 Herzegovina." So that was the item that was formally on the agenda. And
17 then the discussion starts at page 9 of the English version.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, what pages are you going to deal with?
19 Because then Madam Usher can take them out all at the same time, instead
20 of one by one.
21 MR. STEWART: Oh --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Because now we have to remove it again from
23 Mr. Treanor to the usher and then have to find the pages.
24 MR. STEWART: Oh, yes.
25 JUDGE ORIE: What other pages will you refer to?
1 MR. STEWART: 9, 10.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's also --
3 MR. STEWART: So 9, 10 --
4 JUDGE ORIE: I think Madam Usher took them all out in order to be
5 on the safe time.
6 Okay. We'll now move to page 9, I do understand. Is that
8 MR. STEWART: Yes.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.
10 MR. STEWART: And it's -- it's heading number 2, "Proposed
11 recommendation (decision) on the establishment of Municipal Assemblies of
12 the Serbian People." So it reflects that item in the agenda.
13 Q. We see Dr. Milanovic: "Please read the proposed recommendation
14 decision," the chairman being Mr. Krajisnik, of course, of this
15 particular meeting.
16 "Recommendation." There's a subheading there. And then it is
17 "groups of deputies." Do you see that paragraph, Mr. Treanor? Because
18 you're in the B/C/S --
19 A. Yes, I do. I have it.
20 Q. You're following it in the B/C/S, are you?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Yes. "Groups of deputies of the Serbian Democratic Party in
23 Municipal Assemblies in Bosnia and Herzegovina in which the Serbian
24 Democratic Party does not have the majority of the seats are recommended
25 to pass decisions on the establishment of Municipal Assemblies of the
1 Serbian People."
2 Now, it's -- would you agree it's correct that if we cross-refer
3 to Variant A and B -- we've got that in English. As I said, it's 6/66 --
4 that this, not being exactly the same, but this paragraph of the
5 recommendation is very broadly the same as Variant B, first level,
6 paragraph 4? Do you -- have you got Variant A and B somewhere? It's in
7 Volume 6, the first tab, 66.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, it's true that it's late in the day.
9 If you --
10 MR. STEWART: I realise, Your Honour --
11 JUDGE ORIE: If you are not putting off your microphone, then
12 sooner or later your conversations among Defence counsel will,
13 translated, appear on the transcript, if that's the risk you are taking.
14 But please proceed.
15 MR. STEWART: At least it wasn't the worst that could happen.
16 Q. Looking at first level, paragraph 4, very broadly is it covering
17 the same ground?
18 A. Just to remind myself. We're under Roman II, Variant B?
19 Q. Yes, we are. Yes. I beg your pardon. It's page 5 of the
20 English version of the document. That's right. We're under Roman II,
21 Variant B, first level.
22 A. First level.
23 Q. Paragraph 4.
24 A. Are they approximately the same, is the question?
25 Q. Yes.
1 A. Broadly they're the same. There are some differences.
2 Would you like me -- would you like me to go into them?
3 Q. Well, the differences -- actually, the differences are not
4 obscure, are they -- well, Mr. Treanor, yes. You're the witness. You're
5 the expert. You just identify the differences for us.
6 A. Well, first of all, to cut to the chase, the document adopted by
7 the Assembly, as I think I indicated in my testimony, is a
8 recommendation, and it's a recommendation to the clubs of assemblymen of
9 the Serbian Democratic Party in particular municipalities, and it calls
10 on them to do something, that is, found an Assembly of the Serbian
12 In the Variant A and B document, it isn't quite clear who the
13 instruction is addressed to since it's couched in the infinitive, but it
14 basically says that an Assembly of the Serbian People should be formed
15 from the assemblymen, from the ranks of the Serbian people, in
16 particular municipalities and presidents of the local; that is, the local
17 community within the municipality -- within the municipalities, the local
18 community boards of the SDS.
19 So the composition is a little bit different here, and the actors
20 are described a little bit differently.
21 Q. Where you referred a moment ago to "an Assembly of the Serbian
22 People being formed from the assemblymen from the ranks of the Serbian
23 people," where are you getting the ranks of the Serbian people from?
24 You're looking at the B/C/S.
25 A. Yeah. This is in the Variant A and B document you're referring
2 Q. Yes. But are you looking at Variant A or Variant B at the
4 A. I've got to double-check here. Variant B.
5 Q. I'm sorry?
6 A. Variant B, first degree, paragraph 4.
7 Q. Excuse me one moment.
8 [Defence counsel confer]
9 JUDGE ORIE: Are you referring to, Mr. Stewart, to where the
10 witness told us about the clubs of assemblymen to whom it was addressed?
11 Is that the part you're referring to?
12 MR. STEWART: No. It was -- Your Honour, it was where the
13 witness said -- it isn't quite clear, but line 16 --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I see.
15 MR. STEWART: At line 15: "It isn't quite clear who the
16 instruction is addressed to since it's couched in the infinitive, but it
17 basically says that an Assembly of the Serbian People should be formed
18 from the assemblymen, from the ranks of the Serbian People in particular
19 municipalities..." And I was just slightly puzzled, Mr. Treanor.
20 Q. Are you getting that from -- the reference to the ranks of the
21 Serbian people in particular municipalities, is that coming specifically
22 from the text?
23 A. I'm sorry. I left out a word. From the ranks of the Serbian
24 people in the Assembly of the Municipality.
25 Q. Oh. Yes, that was --
1 A. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
2 Q. No, that was what threw me, there -- Mr. Treanor. It was just,
3 of course, I'm working from the English translation, but I was having
4 difficulty matching that with what you could have got from the B/C/S.
5 Yes, I see. That clarifies that point. The --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, it's now close to 7.00. I don't know
7 whether --
8 MR. STEWART: Yes.
9 JUDGE ORIE: -- your wishes have changed or ...
10 MR. STEWART: Well, it's fairly late in the day, Your Honour,
11 after all, so --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Is there --
13 MR. STEWART: I'm in the Tribunal's hands.
14 JUDGE ORIE: If you'd find a suitable moment.
15 MR. STEWART: That's as suitable a moment as any, if that would
16 be convenient for Your Honours.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Then I'd first like to ask Madam Usher to escort the
18 witness out of the courtroom, but not after, Mr. Treanor, I've instructed
19 you again not to speak with anyone about the testimony already given and
20 still to be given in this court. And we'll sit tomorrow at 9.00, this
21 same courtroom, so we expect you then back, if possible.
22 THE WITNESS: Yes, of course, Your Honour. Thank you.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 [The witness stands down]
25 JUDGE ORIE: Before we adjourn, Mr. Stewart.
1 MR. STEWART: [Microphone not activated] Your Honour, yes.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Tomorrow we'll get copies of all the different
3 versions of this document. Will there be any substantial issue, then, on
4 all these versions?
5 MR. STEWART: [Microphone not activated]
6 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
7 MR. STEWART: I don't think so, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Because if it was your intention to establish that
9 there were different versions and just present different versions to us,
10 I don't know whether there's anything more on your mind to say, "Well, we
11 have handwritten versions. We have six-page versions. We have fax
12 versions. We have --" Is there anything else we'll hear about these
13 versions by tomorrow?
14 MR. STEWART: I doubt it, Your Honour, for this reason: I think
15 having tested the ground by one or two questions to Mr. Treanor, it seems
16 apparent that he personally hasn't got really any significant light to
17 cast on this.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But the first thing, of course, was to
19 establish that there are some different versions. That took us some 50
20 minutes. And if it would have been efficiently, ten minutes would have
21 been good enough. You could have indicated to the witness that we have
22 five copies with the number 100 on it, although with different stamps on
23 it, and then give it to him and say would you agree with me that we have
24 versions with handwriting on it and copied versions of that, handwritten
25 versions, and then it would have taken us ten minutes, certainly not
1 more, to establish that we have these 12 or 13 or 14, how many, and then
2 of course you could have asked him whether he has any explanation than go
3 into any details. But to spend 45 minutes just to hear from him that he
4 has no explanation for the differences is not a very efficient way of
5 examining a witness.
6 MR. STEWART: With the greatest respect, Your Honour, I disagree.
7 The -- it's only at the end of such cross-examination it's possible to
8 look back and see what its value and usefulness has been. It is
9 absolutely essential in relation to such important documents that I
10 should have explored with Mr. Treanor the details of those documents in
11 relation to the numbering, the format, and all those details in order to
12 be absolutely satisfied that they are not of any significance. And it is
13 only by doing a thorough cross-examination in that way that it is
14 possible to reach that conclusion. It is then of course extremely easy
15 to look back and say, "Well, since that is all we have got from it, it
16 could have been got in five minutes." But in fact, with the greatest
17 respect, Your Honour, it could not.
18 And that's the point of such a cross-examination. I didn't wish
19 to spend any longer on those documents than I did. But I did wish to be
20 absolutely satisfied that if there was no significance in discrepancies
21 among these documents, that was clear.
22 The only point which remains now in effect, because it seems
23 unlikely that Mr. Treanor can cast any light, because at the end of the
24 cross-examination in order to avoid us spending unnecessary time
25 overnight and in order to be as clear as we could where we were going
1 tomorrow, I did ask him that question. But there does remain the issue
2 of the manuscript annotations on those documents, which also have to be
3 considered before we can see where we're going.
4 But of course, I do naturally pay the greatest respect to
5 guidance and even rebuke by the Tribunal. But I will say with the
6 greatest respect, Your Honour, I do not believe that inappropriate time
7 was spent on that aspect of cross-examination.
8 JUDGE ORIE: I'm not going to respond to it at this very moment.
9 We'll first adjourn until tomorrow morning. If there's anything
10 more to be said about it, I'll do that. If not, we'll leave it to this.
11 We adjourn until tomorrow morning, 9.00, same courtroom.
12 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.04 p.m.,
13 to be reconvened on Friday, the 16th day of
14 April, 2004, at 9.00 a.m.