1 Tuesday, 27 July 2004
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.07 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, case number IT-00-39-T, the
7 Prosecutor versus Momcilo Krajisnik.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
9 Before we continue, there were still a few matters relating to
10 the exhibits of yesterday that were in need for clarification. Can it be
11 given now or ...?
12 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, we'll need to do that after the first
13 break, after I consult with Mr. Gaynor and Mr. Tieger.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we'll wait. But perhaps you could add
15 one. My attention was drawn by the registrar to the fact that the CD-ROM
16 that was provided yesterday of the video clip, that it contains B/C/S
17 undertitling only, whereas - it's not clearly in my mind - but whereas
18 the registrar has drawn my attention to the fact that on what we saw
19 yesterday, we had English subtitles as well. So perhaps we could compare
20 that it's exactly the same on that CD-ROM as what we've seen in court.
21 We'll deal, then, with that at a later stage.
22 Anyhow, we had, but it's quite some time ago, decided that all
23 Sanski Most exhibits will be dealt with together, so even if no final
24 decision would be taken today, nevertheless the clarification is needed
25 to keep on track.
1 MR. HANNIS: We'll check on that as well, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And perhaps even we should wait with that
3 until Ms. Philpott is back, because the present registrar has not been
4 present during all the Sanski Most evidence presented.
5 Then I have another question for you, Mr. -- I don't know whether
6 to -- I see with you in court today is --
7 MR. HANNIS: Yes, Your Honour, Tom Hannis, on behalf of the
8 Office of the Prosecutor. Stephen Margetts is with me, Your Honour, and
9 he'll be leading today's witness.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then perhaps I'll put my next question to
11 Mr. Margetts rather than to you.
12 On the list of witnesses we would hear this week, we find the
13 next witness, who is an unprotected witness.
14 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We find him scheduled for eight hours. On the
16 65 ter summary, we find him for three hours. And therefore, of course,
17 you'll understand that I was most curious to see what was on the list
18 that was provided today, and there is no time schedule at all. Is it
19 three hours? Is it eight hours? Is it ...?
20 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, formally it's eight hours. We will
21 attempt to finish him earlier. So we expect six to eight hours.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And the three hours from the 65 ter were
24 MR. MARGETTS: Effectively the basis that we worked on was the
25 eight hours.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 Mr. Hannis.
3 MR. HANNIS: Your, I think at the time we filed the 65 ter we had
4 additional viva voce witnesses from Kljuc. In the course of reshuffling,
5 we've tried to have him introduce some of that evidence that those
6 witnesses are now 92 bis for.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That explains the change in the position.
8 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I wonder if I might just inquire. It
9 seems a very simple point. We still are not 100 per cent clear whether
10 those time estimates are intended to include an allowance for
11 cross-examination in accordance with the guidelines or whether they're
12 simply talking about the Prosecution's --
13 JUDGE ORIE: It's always, as I understand, examination-in-chief
15 MR. STEWART: That's what we understood, Your Honour. I wanted
16 to clarify. Thank you.
17 JUDGE ORIE: No. It's -- in my mind, the 60 per cent are always
18 added to get a reliable court scheduling.
19 If there's nothing else at this moment to be raised, then I'd
20 like Mr. Usher to bring the witness into the court.
21 [The witness entered court]
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Egrlic, can you hear me in a language you
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't hear a thing.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Egrlic doesn't hear a thing. Could you
1 please check whether he's on the right channel, Mr. Usher.
2 THE USHER: He's on the right channel now.
3 JUDGE ORIE: He's on the right channel.
4 Can you now hear me?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Could you -- may I invite you to stand up. Before
7 giving evidence in this court, the Rules of Procedure and Evidence
8 require you to make a solemn declaration that you'll speak the truth, the
9 whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The text of this declaration
10 will be handed out to you by the usher. May I invite you to make that
11 solemn declaration.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
13 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you very much. Please be seated.
15 WITNESS: ASIM EGRLIC
16 [Witness answered through interpreter]
17 JUDGE ORIE: You'll first be examined by Mr. Margetts, counsel
18 for the Prosecution.
19 Mr. Margetts, please proceed.
20 Examined by Mr. Margetts:
21 Q. Mr. Egrlic, please state your full name.
22 A. My name is Asim Egrlic.
23 Q. Were you born on the 27th of July, 1952 in the municipality of
24 Kljuc in Bosnia and Herzegovina?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Have you lived in Kljuc all your life, apart from a short period
2 between 1992 and 1995?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Are you by ethnicity Bosniak?
5 A. I am.
6 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, I'd like to show the witness the
7 first map that is listed on the exhibit list.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
9 And that map would have number P ...?
10 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the number will be P221.
11 MR. MARGETTS:
12 Q. Mr. --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Before you put any questions -- Mr. Stewart, is
14 there any dispute about where Kljuc is, the municipality?
15 MR. STEWART: No, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Then please proceed, Mr. Margetts.
17 I take it that the parties agree that it's where the green spot
18 is on the map.
19 Yes, please proceed.
20 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, could the second map be presented to
21 the witness.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. They would then be P222.
23 And may I ask the parties whether the parties consider this map
24 to depict the villages in the municipality of Kljuc?
25 Mr. Stewart, is the Defence position that P222 depicts the
1 villages in the municipality of Kljuc?
2 MR. STEWART: Apparently so, Your Honour, yes.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 Mr. Margetts, of course, if you have any additional details to
5 ask the witness, but this is not a matter that could keep us apart.
6 Please proceed.
7 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, we'll refer back to that map at a
8 later time in the examination.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's fine.
10 MR. MARGETTS:
11 Q. Mr. Egrlic, I'm now going to run through a summary of your
12 qualifications and work history. Please listen carefully to what I say,
13 and when I'm finished, I'm going to ask you whether the summary that I've
14 run through is correct.
15 You graduated from Sarajevo university in 1977 with a Bachelor
16 of Science and Architectural Engineering degree. In December 1977, you
17 joined the company Sana in Kljuc, where you worked as an architectural
18 engineer. In the period April 1979 to March 1980, you performed your
19 compulsory military training with the JNA. You remained with the company
20 Sana until 1986, when you set up your own private building construction
21 engineering firm.
22 In 1991, following the multiparty elections, you took up the
23 position as president of the Executive Board of Kljuc Municipality.
24 After the war, you returned to Kljuc in September 1995, where you
25 obtained employment as president of the Municipal Chamber. After this,
1 you were appointed mayor of Kljuc. You then gained the appointment of
2 Minister for Energy and Industry in the cantonal government of the Una
3 Sana canton in Bosnia.
4 And finally, you were appointed president of the cantonal board
5 of the SDA.
6 In the year 2000, you opened a private enterprise specialising in
7 architectural design, and you continue to work in your private firm to
9 Mr. Egrlic, is that an accurate summary of the various positions
10 and appointments that you have held?
11 A. Yes, it is.
12 Q. I'd now like to deal in more detail with the period leading up to
13 the war in Bosnia, starting with late 1990 through to early -- through
15 During the period 1991, were you resident in Egrlici?
16 And is Egrlici a small commune situated about two kilometres or
17 thereabouts from Kljuc city?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Just before the multiparty elections in Bosnia in late 1990, did
20 you join the SDA party?
21 A. That's correct.
22 Q. And what was your position in the party?
23 A. I was elected president of the municipal organisation of the
24 Kljuc SDA.
25 Q. Was there another Muslim party in Kljuc, namely the Muslim
1 Bosniak organisation, or the MBO?
2 A. Yes, there was.
3 Q. And was Omer Filipovic the leader of the MBO?
4 A. He was.
5 Q. Who was the president of the SDS party in the municipality of
7 A. It was myself.
8 Q. Sorry, I meant to refer to the Serb party, that is, the Serbian
9 Democratic Party. Who was the leader of that party?
10 A. The leader of the SDS was Veljko Kondic.
11 Q. Now, prior to 1990, did you have any association with Veljko
13 A. We worked together in the same company called Sana Kljuc.
14 Q. And did the Serb party win more seats in the multiparty elections
15 in Kljuc than the Muslim parties?
16 A. Yes. The SDS had a majority in the Municipal Assembly.
17 Q. After the elections, was Jovo Banjac of the SDS party appointed
18 to the position of president of the municipality?
19 A. That's correct.
20 Q. Prior to 1990, did you have any association with Jovo Banjac?
21 A. Jovo Banjac also worked in the same company, so we had daily
23 Q. For what period of time did you have these daily contacts with
24 Jovo Banjac?
25 A. Approximately those meetings would last between 15 and 20
1 minutes. We would meet in order to discuss the daily activities, since
2 Mr. Banjac was the technical manager of the company where I also worked.
3 Q. For how many years did you work with Mr. Banjac at this company?
4 A. About ten years.
5 Q. Was Omer Filipovic elected vice-president of the Kljuc Municipal
7 A. Omer Filipovic was the vice-president of the Municipal Assembly,
8 and he was deputy to Mr. Banjac.
9 Q. What position did you hold in the municipal government?
10 A. After the first multiparty election, I was elected the president
11 of the Executive Board of the Municipal Assembly of Kljuc.
12 Q. Following the multiparty elections at the end of 1990 and prior
13 to the start of the war in Croatia in the middle of 1991, what was the
14 relationship like between the ethnicities in Kljuc?
15 A. The relationship was good.
16 Q. When the war started in Croatia in 1991, were there mobilisation
17 calls to the young men of Kljuc and did the Muslims respond to those
19 A. There were mobilisation calls; however, young Muslims refused to
20 go to wage a war in Croatia.
21 Q. Why did they refuse to go to Croatia?
22 A. They refused because they believed that an unjust war is being
23 waged in Croatia against a people and against the dissolution of
24 Yugoslavia, and they did not want to take sides with anybody in that war.
25 Q. When you say "an unjust war," why do you say that?
1 A. Because from the territory of the Municipality of Kljuc and other
2 municipalities in Bosnia and Herzegovina, first volunteers went to those
3 front lines, and they waged this war against Croats in their own
5 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, I'd like to show the witness the next
6 exhibit. It's the one that's actually listed fourth on the exhibit list,
7 dated 21 September 1991, and the translation ERN is L0023457.
8 Q. Mr. Egrlic, do you recognise this announcement?
9 MR. MARGETTS: Sorry, Your Honour, could that exhibit be given an
10 exhibit number.
11 JUDGE ORIE: It will be P223 and P223.1 for the translation into
13 I see that the translation bears the script "draft translation."
14 I take it that it's a final translation now or ...?
15 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour. Would you like us to amend that
17 JUDGE ORIE: No. Let's be very practical. It's now on the
18 record that this draft translation is a final translation. You checked
19 that. And it's the translation.
20 Please proceed.
21 MR. MARGETTS:
22 Q. Mr. Egrlic, do you recognise this announcement?
23 A. I do.
24 Q. Were you the joint author with Mr. Filipovic of this
1 A. Yes, I was.
2 Q. You'll see in the middle of the page there is a heading which
3 states "Announcement," and under that there is a paragraph which
4 commences "The Muslim residents of Kljuc." And it proceeds to state
5 that the Muslims of Kljuc were under no obligation to serve in the JNA
6 units, and then refers to the issue of the constitutional order in
8 Can you explain what the issue was that concerned you in respect
9 of the constitutional order as at September 1991.
10 A. Well, above all we were concerned by the fact that the Presidency
11 of Yugoslavia at that time was a collective body which was supposed to
12 have command over the JNA no longer had such control. And a war broke
13 out first of all in Slovenia and then in Croatia, and also there was a
14 risk that this war might spread to Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the
15 Bosniaks, the Muslims, in such circumstances found themselves in a very
16 unenviable position, which is why we reacted in this way; which is why
17 they didn't want to respond to the call-up from such an army, because it
18 was no longer a Yugoslav army in the sense of the term under the
19 Constitution of the former Yugoslavia.
20 Q. In the announcement, you refer to the conflict in Croatia as a
21 Serbian-Croatian conflict. If the SFRY Presidency was not functioning as
22 a Supreme Commander, who was controlling the Yugoslav army?
23 A. Serbia was controlling it.
24 Q. What effect did the failure of the Muslims to respond to the
25 calls for mobilisation have on the relations between the ethnicities in
2 A. The Serbian Democratic Party and the Serbs, who were supporters
3 of theirs, misunderstood this declaration, this announcement, and they
4 interpreted it as meaning that the Bosniaks in the Municipality of Kljuc
5 were taking sides with the Croats and did not want to participate in the
6 conflicts with them, and this led to a deterioration of relationships and
7 the work of the municipal -- of the Assembly organs was put into
8 question, as well as the security situation in the territory of the
10 Q. Were the Muslims siding with the Croats?
11 A. No, they weren't.
12 Q. The Muslims didn't respond to the mobilisation calls. What
13 effect did this have on the ethnic mix of the soldiers that constituted
14 the JNA units?
15 A. Given that the Muslims failed to respond to the call-up, the
16 composition of the JNA became -- the JNA became composed of just one
17 ethnic group, because the Serbs would respond to the call-up, so that the
18 JNA on the whole became a Serbian army.
19 Q. When the volunteers returned from the Croatian front line to the
20 Kljuc municipality, what effect did that have on the security situation
21 in Kljuc?
22 A. When the volunteers left Kljuc and returned, when they went to
23 the battlefield in Croatia and returned, the security situation
24 deteriorated and got worse every day, because they would leave with
25 weapons and there were provocations and there was shooting in the town.
1 They would leave and return with weapons. So there was shooting in the
2 town and citizens became afraid of such behaviour, and there was a lot of
3 fear in the territory of the municipality and a lot of disturbances.
4 Q. When the volunteers returned with their weapons, did they retain
5 possession of those weapons or did they return those weapons to the JNA
7 A. They would go home with their weapons.
8 Q. And in that way did the young Serbian men obtain armaments?
9 A. Yes.
10 MR. MARGETTS: I've finished with that exhibit, Mr. Egrlic, so
11 you can put the document up.
12 Q. I'd now like to turn to the declaration of the Autonomous Region
13 of Krajina. When did you first hear of the Autonomous Region of Krajina?
14 A. I first heard about that region in mid-1991.
15 Q. How did you hear about the Autonomous Region of Krajina?
16 A. It was no secret, because Kljuc municipality had previously also
17 been part of the Chamber of Commerce of Banja Luka, and that included 17
18 municipalities from the Krajina region, and initially it was claimed that
19 the Chamber of Commerce was being formed again for commercial cooperation
20 between municipalities in the territory of Bosnian Krajina.
21 Q. That first body that was formed, was that known as the Community
22 of Municipalities?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. At the level of the Kljuc municipality, who proposed that Kljuc
25 should join the autonomous region?
1 A. This is a proposal that I heard Jovo Banjac, the president of the
2 Assembly, make.
3 Q. What was the view of your party, the SDA, to this proposal?
4 A. Initially the SDA thought they should accept such a proposal if
5 it was a matter of uniting municipalities on a commercial basis.
6 Q. When the proposal was put to transform from a Community of
7 Municipalities to a joinder of the Autonomous Region of Krajina, what was
8 your party's position?
9 A. We didn't accept such a proposal because we thought that this no
10 longer amounted to forming a sort of commercial cooperation. I wasn't
11 regionalisation in that sense. It in fact amounted to a state entity
12 within the territory of the State of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
13 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, I'd like to present the next exhibit
14 to the witness. This is the exhibit which is the fifth exhibit on the
15 list, with the translation -- the English ERN 01909474.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
17 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, could that exhibit be given a number.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The registrar will give it a number.
19 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the number will be P224 and P224.1
20 for the English translation.
21 MR. MARGETTS:
22 Q. Mr. Egrlic, I refer you to point 4, which appeared at the bottom
23 of the first page of this document. If you could look at that paragraph
24 where it states that "We resolutely reject the proclamation of the
25 Autonomous Region of Krajina," and proceeds stating, "The proclamation is
1 completely unconstitutional, unacceptable." Does that accurately set out
2 your views in respect of the Autonomous Region of Krajina?
3 A. It does.
4 Q. Mr. Egrlic, do you recognise this statement and were you the
5 author of this statement?
6 A. I do recognise it, and yes, I am.
7 Q. I refer you to the second page of the document and the second
8 full paragraph in the document, which commences just a little under
9 halfway down that page. In this paragraph, you state that "The adoption
10 of this proposal in respect of the autonomous region is a demonstration
11 of force by the majority, but violence brings no solution." Can you
12 comment on that passage?
13 A. This decision on linking up the Municipality of Kljuc with the
14 Autonomous Region of Banja Luka was made without the knowledge of the
15 official organs of the Municipal Assembly, and the Serbian Democratic
16 Party, given that they had the majority in the Municipal Assembly,
17 accepted this decision as a party and they linked up the Kljuc
18 Municipality to the Autonomous Region of Krajina. They acted as a
19 majority within the Municipal Assembly and they acted in a violent and an
20 undemocratic way when they took this decision on linking up the
21 Municipality of Kljuc to the Autonomous Region of Krajina. And we saw
22 that this involved taking such a decision by force.
23 Q. Further on in that paragraph in the final sentence, you appeal to
24 the citizens to abstain from using this as a reason to upset the peaceful
25 life in the area. Did you see this decision as a decision taken by one
1 ethnicity and did you see that it was unconstitutional and could have
2 grave effects on the peaceful life that you had previously enjoyed in
4 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, the -- Mr. Hannis did indicate
5 at the very beginning of this morning that Mr. Margetts would be leading
6 this witness this morning, and Mr. Margetts has kept that promise. That
7 is a very leading question. It's in fact -- it's several leading
8 questions wrapped into one.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts, would you reformulate your questions.
10 Please do so.
11 MR. MARGETTS:
12 Q. Mr. Egrlic, in this document you state that the decision to join
13 the autonomous region is unconstitutional, and you state that this could
14 lead -- you request the citizens to abstain from upsetting the peaceful
15 life in Kljuc. Can you comment on those two statements.
16 A. We thought that the decision was unconstitutional, since the
17 usual procedure hadn't been respected. The usual procedure in the
18 municipality wasn't followed. Secondly, it's unconstitutional because
19 the then-Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina didn't recognise the
20 unification of municipalities into a sort of state formation in Bosnia
21 and Herzegovina. We believed that this decision could cause restlessness
22 among the citizens, could cause disturbances, which is why we didn't want
23 this decision to affect the good relationships in the territory of the
24 Municipality of Kljuc.
25 Q. Mr. Egrlic, if I could refer you to the last sentence on the
1 second page of this document. It states: "We are against any
2 mobilisation which has not been approved by the Ministry of National
3 Defence of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina."
4 Why was that? Why were you opposed to a mobilisation that was
5 not sanctioned by the Bosnian state?
6 A. We were against such mobilisation because it wasn't in accordance
7 with the law and the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, because a
8 ministry at the level of the state had been bypassed and mobilisation was
9 being conducted by the local authorities in the Municipality of Kljuc.
10 And their objective was to mobilise people to be engaged in the
11 battlefields in Croatia, which is something that we did not support. As
12 a result, we made it quite public that we were against such mobilisation.
13 Q. Which party was promoting and implementing the mobilisation?
14 A. The SDS supported this mobilisation and believed that it was
15 necessary to support the Serbs in certain places in the territory of the
16 Republic of Croatia.
17 Q. Mr. Egrlic, I've finished with that document.
18 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, if Mr. Egrlic could be shown the next
19 exhibit, which is the document which is third on the exhibit list, dated
20 17 September 1991.
21 JUDGE ORIE: That, Mr. Registrar, if I'm not mistaken, gets
22 number P225.1 for the English and P225 for the original B/C/S.
23 THE REGISTRAR: Yes.
24 MR. MARGETTS:
25 Q. Mr. Egrlic, can you take a look at this document. Do you
1 recognise this information?
2 A. Yes, I do.
3 Q. I refer you to the last sentence of the first paragraph, the
4 first major paragraph under the heading "Information." And in respect of
5 the declaration of the Autonomous Region of Krajina, it's stated that
6 this policy, which is promoted by the SDS is supported by invoking the
7 historical principle or the ethnic principle, whichever is more
8 convenient." Can you comment on what was meant by the term "the ethnic
10 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, should we not just make it clear with
11 the witness what this document is before getting into the content?
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Of course we know from the list what it's
13 supposed to be.
14 But Witness, could you -- Mr. Egrlic, could you tell us, if you
15 recognise it, what is it?
16 MR. STEWART: Perhaps I should make it clear. I don't mind in
17 the least the witness being led on such a simple point as what's in the
18 list. It's just that, as Your Honour points out, we know, because we got
19 the list, what it is, but nobody else listening to this case has the
20 faintest idea.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Do you know what it is?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is information for the public
23 from the Muslim Bosniak Organisation, from the Municipal Committee. They
24 were part of the Party of Democratic Action, and they were together in
25 the coalition in the Municipal Assembly of Kljuc. This is a document
1 which informs the public of the proclamation of the so-called Autonomous
2 Region of Krajina by the Serbian Democratic Party, or rather, it informs
3 them of the fact that the Municipality of Kljuc is joining the autonomous
4 region. And it also states our view of this event, and we inform the
5 public in this document about the situation.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
7 Please proceed, Mr. Margetts.
8 MR. MARGETTS:
9 Q. Mr. Egrlic, the author of this document is Omer Filipovic, the
10 vice-president of the municipality; is that correct?
11 A. Yes, it is.
12 Q. Returning to the final sentence at the bottom of the first major
13 paragraph. Why did Mr. Filipovic refer to the ethnic principle being
14 invoked in the context of this declaration of the autonomous region?
15 A. Well, he said that because as far as the Municipality is Kljuc is
16 concerned and its link to the Autonomous Region of Krajina, this was done
17 without the agreement of the Bosniaks and their political representatives
18 from the municipality, and in fact the Bosniaks in that area were ignored
19 and their opinion on the matter was also ignored. So in fact this ethnic
20 principle was applied. This means that if one ethnic group supported the
21 idea that the Municipality of Kljuc should join the autonomous region,
22 this meant that the matter had then been settled.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts, it may be a detail. You said this
24 document was a document by Omer Filipovic. I see "Muhamed Filipovic."
25 Is that something to be ...?
1 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour. That was my error.
2 Q. Mr. Egrlic, can you refer to the signature on the bottom of this
3 page. Do you recognise that signature?
4 A. Yes, this is Mr. Muhamed Filipovic's signature. He was the
5 vice-president of the municipal organisation of the Muslim Bosniak
6 Organisation in Kljuc.
7 Q. Was his brother the president of that association, that is, was
8 his brother Omer Filipovic?
9 A. Yes, he was.
10 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, may I make a -- just a simple
11 practical suggestion. Again, we can see from the list which we have in
12 advance the method by which apparently this particular content was
13 disseminated to the public.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's -- I just had the same in my mind. It
15 gives information.
16 Could you please clarify that, whether -- because now we have a
17 piece of paper where the list says something in addition to it.
18 Q. Mr. Egrlic, was this document distributed in the Municipality of
20 A. This document was information for the general public which was
21 read out on the radio.
22 Q. I'd like to refer you to the sentence that starts at the bottom
23 of the first page and proceeds over into the second page, and it states:
24 "Politics and democracy entail dialogue and tolerance. Politics and
25 democracy as interpreted by the SDS entails dictates, ultimatums and
2 Does that accord with your views as to how politics should have
3 been conducted in Kljuc and the failings of the SDS in Kljuc?
4 A. When it came to this association of Kljuc with the autonomous
5 region, we believed that the opinion of Bosniaks should be heard and
6 respected, given the fact that in the territory of Kljuc municipality
7 there was a great number of Bosniak residents and given the fact that
8 their rights were not respected when this decision was made unilaterally
9 by just one political party. That's why we believed that their -- that
10 tolerance and democracy had been bypassed and that this decision had been
11 made unilaterally respecting the will of only one ethnic group. We
12 believed that the other ethnic groups should have been consulted and that
13 their will should have also been respected.
14 Q. As at September 1991, what did you believe the annexation of the
15 Municipality of Kljuc to this Serbian Autonomous Region would lead to?
16 A. It was clear by that time that the establishment of the
17 autonomous region - with all of the bodies that had been established
18 already, with the army that had already existed at the time - that it was
19 a paralegal state in the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina and that it
20 was against the interests of the Bosniak people and that ultimately this
21 could lead to the deterioration of political and security situation in
22 the Municipality of Kljuc and even in Bosnia and Herzegovina as a whole.
23 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, I'd like to show the witness the next
24 exhibit. Now, this one will be found as the exhibit four from the bottom
25 on the first page of the exhibit list, and the date that's ascribed to it
1 is 1 December 1991. The document itself is undated. And the translation
2 reference is L005-7782.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, this would have number ...?
4 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the number will be P226 and P226.1
5 for the English translation.
6 MR. MARGETTS:
7 Q. Mr. Egrlic, can you have a look at that document. I refer to the
8 second paragraph on the first page -- sorry. In light of Mr. Stewart's
9 request that we identify the nature of the documents, I'll proceed to do
11 This document purports to be a decision --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts, before we continue. On the first line
13 of the original, I clearly see a date, the 10th of April, 1991. In the
14 English translation, I do not see any date at all. Is this explained
15 by that it is a draft translation or ...?
16 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, that is clearly an error. We will
17 have that rectified. This is intended to be a final translation.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It's I think the third time in two days now
19 that by reading for ten seconds a document and comparing it with the
20 original that differences are easily identified. I would prefer if the
21 parties would do that themselves and correct it prior to presenting the
22 evidence and these translations in court.
23 Please proceed.
24 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour, we will attend to that.
25 Q. This is a decision signed by Jovo Banjac and appears to be the
1 proposal from the SDS party to put to the Municipal Assembly the issue of
2 the joinder to the autonomous region. Mr. Egrlic, have you seen this
3 document before?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. When did you first see this proposal?
6 A. I saw it in front of the municipality building. The Assembly
7 meeting was held with this being an item on the agenda, so this was
8 discussed by the Assembly in order to arrive at a final decision.
9 Q. Earlier you stated that the usual procedure was not followed by
10 the SDS in putting this decision to the Assembly, then voting for it.
11 What was the usual procedure that was followed and how was that procedure
12 avoided by the SDS in regard to this issue?
13 A. The bypassing of the procedure referred to the fact that a
14 decision was made to join the Municipality of Kljuc to the Autonomous
15 Region of Bosanska Krajina without a proper Assembly meeting. Once we
16 learnt about that and once the information was disseminated to the
17 general public, they decided to present this decision to the Municipal
18 Assembly for its confirmation, and this is the proposal of the decision
19 which was put on the agenda of the Assembly meeting. The Assembly heard
20 this decision and made a decision on whether to adopt it.
21 Q. When you said it wasn't a proper Assembly meeting, what do you
23 A. The procedure was not followed because a unilateral decision by
24 one party meant that the Municipality of Kljuc was annexed to the
25 autonomous region in mid-1991 without this issue having been discussed at
1 a meeting of the Municipal Assembly. It was only after we reacted and
2 after we informed the general public about that that this issue was
3 properly discussed as an item on the agenda of the Municipal Assembly
5 Q. You stated that you worked with Jovo Banjac, the president of the
6 municipality, for some years. When this autonomous region was
7 proclaimed, did you discuss this with him? And if so, what did he say
8 about it?
9 A. We discussed this on several occasions. During the preparations
10 for the Municipal Assembly meeting, his position was that the
11 Municipality of Kljuc had to join the Autonomous Region of Bosanska
12 Krajina. They claimed at the time that this was actually an organisation
13 of municipalities that would promote economic growth and intermunicipal
15 Q. When you say that he said he had to implement this decision, did
16 you think he had any choice in the matter?
17 A. I don't think so. I don't think he had a choice, because other
18 municipalities bordering on the Kljuc municipality territory had already
19 arrived at such a decision. And I'm talking about the municipalities
20 with a large majority of SDS members in their respective municipal
22 Q. Are you saying that Mr. Banjac, as president of the municipality,
23 was bound to follow the policies of the SDS?
24 MR. STEWART: That's a pretty leading question, Your
25 Honour. It's apparent -- I won't go into it, because it's quite obvious
1 from what this entire case is about, it's apparent that there's quite a
2 big jump from the witness's answer to Mr. Margetts's question.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, there is a jump. Could you proceed by smaller
4 steps and less leading, because this is part of the core of the case.
5 MR. MARGETTS:
6 Q. Mr. Egrlic, did you discuss this matter with Veljko Kondic, who
7 you also had worked with for a number of years?
8 A. Yes, I did. During the preparations for this meeting at the
9 interparty council, we all put forth or positions and opinions on this
10 matter. Mr. Kondic was adamant in his belief that they could reach that
11 decision with the votes of only one party member, because they had a
12 large majority. And he also believed that this had been implemented
13 already at the beginning of the year and this would be just a
14 confirmation of the decision that had already been adopted by the SDS
16 Q. Mr. Egrlic, in your answer, you state that the decision had
17 already been implemented at the beginning of the year. Can you clarify
18 that. Are you referring to the decision to join the Community of
19 Municipalities, or are you referring to the decision to join the
20 Autonomous Region of Krajina that was presented outside the usual
21 procedures of the Assembly?
22 A. Actually, there's no major difference between the two decisions.
23 Initially, in the initial stages, the name was different; however, the
24 essence of the matter is the same. And the Kljuc municipality joined
25 first by the decision of the Municipal Board of the SDS and later on when
1 we reacted and said that the procedure was not followed in accordance
2 with the statute of the municipality, this decision was put forward at
3 the Assembly meeting and it was confirmed by the members of the Municipal
4 Assembly, who were members of the SDS party.
5 Q. Whilst it may have turned out that the decision to join the
6 Community of Municipalities and the decision to join the autonomous
7 region were effectively the same, was it not your perception that the
8 joinder of the Community of Municipalities was acceptable because that
9 was limited to economic associations?
10 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, what Mr. Margetts is doing now
11 is he's putting a very leading question for the simple reason that he
12 doesn't like the answer that he got to the previous question, so he's now
13 trying to get the answer that he wanted, which is not the answer that the
14 witness gave, by putting a leading question and effectively to reverse or
15 nullify the answer that he doesn't like. And that's not a proper way to
16 proceed in examination of a witness.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. In the earlier part of the testimony, the
18 witness, of course, said something about the difference between the two,
19 so to that extent there could be some confusion which Mr. Margetts is
20 entitled to clarify. Perhaps the way in which it is done could be more
21 -- and I'll just reread the question.
22 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, with respect, I'd suggest that
23 we need to be very clear that there is in fact confusion, there is in
24 fact a difference, because at the moment we don't see it. The witness
25 has made it quite clear that there were different names. I think the
12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and
13 French transcripts correspond
1 phrase used -- the name was -- "Initially, in the initial stages, the
2 name was different; however, the essence of the matter is the same."
3 That's what the witness has very clearly said.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But that's not what exactly was said in his
5 earlier testimony.
6 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, with respect then, I do suggest
7 that we need to be absolutely clear that there is genuine confusion to be
8 cleared up.
9 JUDGE ORIE: We'll deal with that in the last two minutes before
10 the break.
11 If you'd please now go to your next subject and I'll find the
13 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, we oppose Mr. Stewart's application
14 on the basis that we have merely been repeating what was said in the
15 earlier testimony and what is set out clearly in the documentation that
16 the witness has confirmed represents his opinion. If Your Honour would
17 allow me, could I proceed just to clarify this matter in the next few
19 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, if you would give the source of where you said
21 that, the earlier testimony. If you could give page and line to
22 Mr. Stewart.
23 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, might -- --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps we'll do the following: We're next to a
25 break anyhow. I'll ask the witness to leave the courtroom so that we can
1 discuss this procedural issue. We'll settle the matter, and then after
2 the break, Mr. Egrlic, your examination will continue. And the break
3 will be -- it depends a bit on how much time we'd need for the procedural
4 issue, but something close to half an hour.
5 Mr. Egrlic, you may follow the usher out of the courtroom.
6 [The witness stands down]
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts, could you please at the point earlier
8 in the testimony where the witness made a distinction between
9 accepting -- well, let's say a kind of economic cooperation in the area
10 and that ...
11 [Prosecution counsel confer]
12 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, I have to apologise to the Court.
13 The difficulty is this, that the transcript I have before me does not
14 have the capacity to scroll back. I can refer to the previous exhibits
15 that have been shown to the witness.
16 JUDGE ORIE: If you'd find the exhibits, I'll try to find the ...
17 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, we're very distressed to find
18 that equality of arms, or inequality of arms, might mean that we have
19 this exhibit on the Defence side but the Prosecution don't. It could
20 be -- I'm not sure whether the computer to Mr. Hannis's right has that
21 facility. We have a laptop on the table that does have that facility.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I take it that under normal circumstances the
23 Prosecution would have an opportunity to do the same. If there's any
24 fundamental problem, then -- and if it could not be solved, then, of
25 course, the Chamber will look after the equality of arms, but ...
1 Mr. Margetts, if you'd refer to the documents.
2 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour. The document is P224.1, and the
3 paragraph that was specifically referred to was paragraph 4 of that
4 document, where Mr. Egrlic had stated that he and the SDA party
5 "resolutely reject the proclamation of the Autonomous District of Krajina
6 as a successor of the Community of Municipalities and judge this act to
7 be completely unconstitutional and unacceptable."
8 JUDGE ORIE: I'm looking at the transcript where -- I think it's
9 -- it starts at page 13, approximately in the middle, where it's
10 explained that it started as a Chamber of Commerce --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, someone is calling.
12 Well, it seems not to be a mobile phone, because they would be
13 seized anyhow.
14 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, may I make this practical suggestion?
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 MR. MARGETTS: It is possible for me to elicit an explanation
17 from the witness in a form, I'm sure --
18 JUDGE ORIE: What do we get now? I get on my earphones
19 conversations of other people.
20 Oh, no, I see. Yes. Okay, that's settled now.
21 Please proceed.
22 MR. MARGETTS: -- in a form that I'm sure will be acceptable to
23 Mr. Stewart, it's not necessary for me to lead him on this issue. I
24 didn't expect Mr. Stewart's objection, given the previous evidence. But
25 since he has objected, I'm quite happy to deal with this issue without
1 leading him on it.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 Mr. Stewart, page 14, line 6: "We didn't accept such a proposal
4 because we thought that this no longer amounted to forming a sort of
5 commercial cooperation. It wasn't regionalisation in that sense. It in
6 fact amounted to a state entity within the territory of the State of
7 Bosnia and Herzegovina."
8 That would clearly, I would say, explained where what was
9 presented as commercial cooperation turned out, at least in the view of
10 the witness, turned out to be a state within the state. And therefore,
11 if he later says that it was all the same -- well, of course, I'm now
12 summarising and perhaps not doing justice to the details of what he
13 said -- there's certainly a matter which is a matter that would need
14 further clarification.
15 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 MR. STEWART: -- I thought a moment ago Mr. Margetts said that he
18 wasn't pursuing the matter. It's --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I'm just saying that you made an objection.
20 If Mr. Margetts does not want to pursue the matter, fine. If you can
21 settle it during the break, fine. But we'll not stop him from seeking
22 further clarification if he wishes to do so.
23 MR. STEWART: Well, could I also say, Your Honour that, we
24 wouldn't mind a few quiet minutes to sort this out, because we wondered
25 over the last few minutes whether we're operating in a courtroom or a
1 telephone exchange, and simply sorting out what's on the transcript where
2 and so on.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, I gave you some clues.
4 MR. STEWART: Well, thank you, Your Honour, yes.
5 JUDGE ORIE: I'll hear from the parties upon return.
6 We'll resume at five minutes to 11.00.
7 --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.
8 --- On resuming at 11.02 a.m.
9 [The witness entered court]
10 JUDGE ORIE: Before we resume with the examination of the
11 witness, is there any need to further expound on what we discussed before
12 the break?
13 MR. MARGETTS: No, Your Honour. We've had discussions with
14 Defence counsel during the break, and we're content with the way we'll
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then please proceed, and the Chamber is happy
17 that you resolved the matter.
18 Please proceed.
19 MR. MARGETTS:
20 Q. Mr. Egrlic, in early 1991, when the Community of Municipalities
21 was formed, did the SDA object to Kljuc being a part of the Community of
23 A. At the beginning it did not object, since the explanation was
24 that it was an association of municipalities for commercial reasons, and
25 Kljuc had previously also been part of the Banja Luka region, and the
1 headquarters of the Chamber of Commerce were located in Banja Luka, so it
2 would be logical for those municipalities to remain within that Chamber
3 of Commerce.
4 Q. So insofar as the organisation was formed for commercial reasons,
5 you had no objection to it.
6 A. No.
7 Q. When the proposal was put to join the Autonomous Region of
8 Krajina, you did object. What was it you objected to about the joinder
9 to the Autonomous Region of Krajina?
10 A. We objected to joining the autonomous region because this no
11 longer seemed to be a matter of associating municipalities for the
12 purpose of commercial cooperation. It resembled a sort of state within
13 Bosnia and Herzegovina. It was beginning to resemble a sort of state
14 within Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Bosniaks did not support this,
15 which is why we stated and we made it known that we were not in favour of
16 such an organisation.
17 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, I'd like to show the witness the next
18 exhibit, and this is the exhibit that appears sixth on the exhibit list,
19 with the translation ERN L0023471.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, that would get the number --
21 THE REGISTRAR: The number will be P227 and P227.1 for the
22 English translation.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
24 Please proceed, Mr. Margetts.
25 MR. MARGETTS:
1 Q. Mr. Egrlic, have you seen this document before?
2 A. Yes, I have.
3 Q. What is this document?
4 A. This is an official statement from the Muslim Bosniak
5 Organisation in which it is stated that they support the Party of
6 Democratic Action. It has to do with the political and security
7 situation in the territory of the Municipality of Kljuc.
8 Q. Mr. Egrlic, was this document distributed to the citizens of
9 Kljuc or was its content communicated to the citizens of Kljuc in or
10 around September 1991?
11 A. They were informed about it over Radio Kljuc.
12 Q. I'd like to refer you to the first sentence in the second
13 paragraph, which states that "The Muslim Bosniak association is opposed
14 to any arming of people which may fall outside the context of orders
15 issued for mobilisation of the Territorial Defence or reserve police."
16 In September 1991, what was your knowledge of the arming of the
17 people in Kljuc?
18 A. This was a reaction to individuals being armed, and that was
19 taking place at that time in the territory of the Municipality of Kljuc.
20 And this is why the Party of Democratic Action reacted in this way and
21 later the Muslim Bosniak Organisation reacted in this way too, because it
22 was noticed that the Serbian population was being armed in two ways:
23 Firstly, a mobilisation was being carried out and weapons were being
24 distributed which were then taken to people's homes; and secondly, in
25 certain areas it was noticed that weapons were being delivered by
1 military helicopters. This is why we stated that this was not the
2 appropriate way to preserve the peace in this area.
3 Q. I refer you to the third paragraph in this document, which states
4 as follows: "We use this opportunity to invite representatives of other
5 peoples and political organisations to join open interparty talks as we
6 strongly believe that this is the only way to reach desired effects.
7 Violence would bring nothing but chaos, and in the end people would still
8 have to talk to each other."
9 I also refer you to the first sentence of the last substantial
10 paragraph on page 2, which reads: "We want to talk around a table, not
11 over the barrel of a gun."
12 Can you comment on those statements.
13 A. In this way, we were attempting to organise a discussion about
14 this matter, given that the security and political situation had
15 deteriorated. We wanted to speak about this openly, and we wanted to
16 attempt to deal with the situation and resolve the difficulties and avoid
17 having the population armed, as we thought that this was to -- this was
18 not useful in the area. We thought that it would be normal to try and
19 preserve the peace in the area and to preserve the good relationships.
20 We attempted to do this through interparty discussions.
21 Q. What was the response of the representatives of the SDS to your
22 attempts to discuss the security issues in the context of interparty
24 A. All political representatives responded to this proposal for
25 discussions apart from the SDS representatives.
1 Q. Thank you, Mr. Egrlic. I've finished with that document.
2 In 1991 and 1992, what positions did Radoslav Brdjanin hold?
3 A. Your Honours, could the question put to me be more specific?
4 JUDGE ORIE: Would you please reformulate your question,
5 Mr. Margetts.
6 MR. MARGETTS:
7 Q. Mr. Egrlic, do you know of a man named Radoslav Brdjanin?
8 A. I do.
9 Q. In 1991, was he a deputy in the Serbian Assembly?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And when the Autonomous Region of Krajina was formed, what
12 position did Radoslav Brdjanin hold?
13 A. He was the President of the Crisis Staff of the Autonomous Region
14 of Krajina.
15 Q. When did you first hear of the Crisis Staff of the Autonomous
16 Region of Krajina?
17 A. It was around mid-1991.
18 Q. Did Brdjanin communicate with the SDS representatives in Kljuc?
19 A. He did.
20 Q. How did he communicate with them?
21 A. Well, he communicated with them, since people from the SDS went
22 to joint meetings in Banja Luka, and he communicated with them on the
23 phone by using the fax, et cetera.
24 Q. When you say he communicated by using the fax, did you ever see
25 any facsimile that he sent to the representatives in the SDS in Kljuc?
1 A. I saw one such fax.
2 Q. When you saw that fax, how did you come to see a copy of it?
3 A. It was probably received by -- because of a mistake made by the
4 secretary. She brought the fax to my office with the other mail,
5 probably by mistake.
6 Q. When you received it, what did you do with it?
7 A. As I saw that the fax wasn't for me, I made a copy and I returned
8 the original to Mr. Banjac through the secretary.
9 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, I'd like to show the witness the next
10 exhibit, which is the next one following -- under P227. It's dated 29
11 October 1991.
12 JUDGE ORIE: That will then be P228 for the original in B/C/S and
13 P228.1 for the English translation.
14 Q. Mr. Egrlic, have you seen this document before?
15 A. Yes, I have.
16 Q. Is this the facsimile that you received?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. You say you copied this document. Did you retain the copy you
19 made of it?
20 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, it seems an obvious correction.
21 Mr. Margetts refers to it as a fax. In fact, it's really -- we suggest
22 it's fairly obviously a telex, because it says so, apart from anything
23 else, and that is consistent with the format. We might as well have that
24 cleared up, in case we're wrong about that.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We might have almost forgotten about the
1 existence of telexes, but it very much has the appearance of a telex.
2 MR. MARGETTS:
3 Q. Mr. Egrlic, we have referred to this document as a facsimile. Is
4 this document in fact a telex?
5 A. Yes.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. This is the document as you copied it?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is the document that I copied
8 and that I had with me.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Was there a stamp on it already when you copied it?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Then it's not a telex. It's then a telefax copy of
12 a telex, I take it, because otherwise the stamp could not be there,
13 because stamps cannot be put on a telex. It seems that -- at least, it
14 has the appearance - but perhaps the parties could discuss it over the
15 next break - it seems to be a telex which then has further been
16 transmitted, perhaps through telefax. Although there's no ID of any
17 telefax -- no dates, no times. Unless the stamp -- well, the witness
18 said the stamp was on it already when he copied it.
19 Mr. Margetts.
20 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, in the next few questions, I'd just
21 like to clarify exactly what the status of this particular version of
22 that document is.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. I was too eager, perhaps.
24 Please proceed.
25 MR. MARGETTS:
1 Q. Mr. Egrlic, the copy of this document that you had in 1991, what
2 happened to it?
3 A. Well, after a certain period of time, they started implementing
4 the items that have been listed in the document.
5 Q. Mr. Egrlic, at this stage I'm just referring to the physical
6 piece of paper that you held in your hand. Did you take that home with
7 you? And if so, what happened to the document and where is it today?
8 A. I took it home with me, but my house was set on fire and it burnt
9 down, as did other objects and items there.
10 Q. However, the document you have before you today is another copy
11 of that document that you saw in 1991.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Did you speak to Mr. Banjac about this document?
14 A. Yes. I said that I had seen the document and that the contents
15 of the document seemed to amount to introducing a state of emergency,
16 which is only appropriate in a time of war.
17 Q. What did he say to you in response to your comments?
18 A. He said that this was an order from above, and he joked. When I
19 asked whether Mr. Brdjanin was really of this opinion, he said, "Forget
20 about Brdjo. Brdjo is mad." And that was the end of it.
21 Q. Whilst his response was nonchalant, did subsequent events appear
22 to indicate that this document was a document to be considered seriously?
23 A. Yes. On the basis of this document, a number of steps were taken
24 by the SDS, the Serbian Democratic Party, so that in the forthcoming
25 period these items were implemented.
1 Q. Were most of the items listed, numbered 1 to 14, implemented by
2 the Kljuc SDS?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. You'll note, Mr. Egrlic, in the first paragraph of the document
5 there's a reference to a meeting of all municipal presidents on
6 26 October 1991 in Banja Luka which was chaired by Dr. Karadzic. Did you
7 discuss with Mr. Banjac whether or not he attended this meeting?
8 A. No, I didn't, but I knew that he was in contact with him, since
9 he would travel to Banja Luka.
10 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, I'd like to show the witness the next
11 exhibit and that is the next one on the exhibit list, dated 31 October
13 Q. Mr. Egrlic, do you recognise this document?
14 A. Yes.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Registrar, I don't have the number.
16 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the number will be P229 and P229.1
17 for the English translation.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
19 Please proceed, Mr. Margetts.
20 MR. MARGETTS:
21 Q. Mr. Egrlic, I'll repeat the question: Do you recognise this
23 A. Yes, I do.
24 Q. Are you the joint author of this document?
25 A. I am.
1 Q. Was the content of this document communicated to the people of
3 A. It -- the contents of the document were made known over the
5 Q. Can I refer you to the second paragraph, and in particular the
6 last sentence in the second paragraph. The document refers to the telex
7 which we have just seen and marked as Exhibit P228 and summarises the
8 contents of this telex as being a "direction to organise life in
9 conditions of war." Is that an accurate statement of what you considered
10 the telex from Brdjanin dated 29 October 1991 to be?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. In response to that telex, you drafted this document and made
13 this plea to the people of Kljuc.
14 A. That's correct.
15 Q. Can I refer you to the second page of the document and the last
16 two paragraphs that appear there, and I'll quote those paragraphs and
17 I'll ask for your comment in relation to them.
18 You stated: "We cry out in plain language: Let those who want
19 to wage war, let the war move into their homes but without us, the
20 Muslims of Kljuc. We are happy with the way things are. They have
21 learned to live honestly and modestly and even in this crisis are
22 managing without the war or the results of war.
23 "Therefore, let this address of ours be yet another appeal for
24 peace, even though we know that it will not echo far or see the light of
25 day because there are forces whom the information blockade suits fine.
1 That is why this is the last plea with which we ask those whose minds
2 have been clouded by Mars to come to their senses."
3 Mr. Egrlic, what did you intend to communicate by this plea, and
4 to whom was this plea directed?
5 A. It was directed to those forces from the Serbian Democratic Party
6 which entered ever deeper into the preparations for war in the territory
7 of Kljuc municipality and to all the citizens. The aim was to provide
8 them with information as to what was going on in the territory of Kljuc
9 and what activities were being undertaken.
10 Q. And by communicating with the citizens, what were you hoping that
11 the citizens' reaction to this communication would be?
12 A. We were hoping that the healthy forces that still existed in all
13 the ethnic groups would condemn these activities and that the system of
14 armament would be interrupted and that people would not be dragged into a
15 war situation.
16 Q. I refer you back to the last sentence of the second paragraph,
17 where you stated that the facsimile from Brdjanin was tantamount to
18 "organising life in conditions of war." When you wrote that, were you
19 referring to the items 1 to 14 [Realtime transcript read in error: "4"]
20 and in particularly, were you referring to the direction to set up a
21 command of the town and to set up round-the-clock duty?
22 A. Yes. All of that mostly referred to the activities that were
23 being undertaken as if there was a war. The introduction of the town
24 command meant the interruption of work of all the legally and
25 democratically elected bodies of government. In practical terms, this
1 was the introduction of a military administration in this area.
2 Q. Who controlled that military administration?
3 A. It was the Crisis Staff of the SDS.
4 Q. You saw this order from Brdjanin. Did you consider that this
5 military administration was controlled by the Regional Crisis Staff?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. You saw in this telex that the order followed a meeting in Banja
8 Luka on the 26th of October with Dr. Karadzic. Who did you think
9 ultimately controlled this military administration?
10 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, before this question is pursued, we
11 need to be very clear that this witness is a witness of fact. He is not
12 here as an expert witness; he is not here to express opinions, unless
13 those opinions are based on facts within his knowledge. So the basis of
14 any such question where his opinion is being sought must concentrate on
15 whether in the first place he knows of any facts. And then he should
16 tell the Tribunal what facts he knows and not stray into opinion, which
17 we've had in the past sometimes in the case, matters of speculation or
18 views which are simply not based on fact. And it is important in these
19 critical areas that that's the way the matter is approached.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Margetts, would you lay a proper factual
21 foundation for any questions about who controlled who.
22 Please proceed.
23 MR. MARGETTS:
24 Q. Mr. Egrlic, when you received the facsimile of 29 October 1991,
25 did you read it?
1 A. I did.
2 Q. Did you observe that the order from Brdjanin was made following a
3 meeting with Karadzic on 26 October 1991?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. On the basis of that fact, did you come to a conclusion as to
6 whether or not Karadzic knew of these 14 steps that were set out in this
8 A. It says on the document that it was drafted in agreement with
9 Mr. Karadzic, so it is beyond any dispute that he knew.
10 Q. When you read that document, did you see --
11 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, could that document be returned to
12 the witness.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Usher, would you please assist.
14 MR. MARGETTS: That is Exhibit P228.
15 JUDGE ORIE: 228.
16 MR. MARGETTS:
17 Q. When you read that document, Mr. Egrlic, did you see that it is
18 headed "Order of the SDS Sarajevo"?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. When you read "Order of the SDS Sarajevo," who did you think
21 constituted the leadership in Sarajevo?
22 A. I can see from the document that the leadership of the party
23 drafted this order and forwarded it to the lower levels, down to the
24 municipal committees or boards. And the leader of the SDS at the time
25 was Mr. Karadzic. And in his inner circle was Mrs. Plavsic,
1 Mr. Krajisnik, Mr. Koljevic, and so on and so forth.
2 Q. When you read the words "Order of the SDS Sarajevo," who did you
3 think in the leadership in Sarajevo was ordering that this take place?
4 A. I thought that it was the president [Realtime transcript read in
5 error: "Presidency"] of the SDS who had obviously discussed it with his
6 associates and agreed on it.
7 Q. Just to clarify that previous answer. It says: "I thought it
8 was the Presidency of the SDS." Did you say "Presidency" or did you say
10 A. The Presidency, headed by Karadzic.
11 MR. STEWART: Question number one is what he said. Question
12 number two is what he chooses to give as his answer now. I don't know,
13 of course, but sitting to my left is somebody that does know. We believe
14 he did say "president." So first of all, we need to establish what he
15 did say in the first answer; and then if he wants to change it or expand
16 it and so on, then at least the Trial Chamber can see that that's what
17 he's doing.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Let me first ask you: When you first answered that
19 question for the first time, did you say "president" or did you upon the
20 additional question by Mr. Margetts expound your answer and say
21 "Presidency," headed by Mr. Karadzic? What was your first answer?
22 I'm not saying whether it's right or wrong. That's not the issue. I'd
23 just like to know. Otherwise, we have to replay the tapes.
24 What was your first answer, that it was obviously the president
25 or the Presidency?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I first said that it was the
2 president with his associates, and his associates were members of the
3 Presidency of the party.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Of course, there's always an opportunity for
5 the parties to -- let me just scroll back for a second.
6 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters may confirm that it was "the
7 president" the first time.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you for the confirmation by the
10 I'll just reread the part. So the main distinction between the
11 first answer is that it was the president with his associates, and the
12 second answer was the Presidency, headed by the president. That has been
14 Please proceed.
15 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, since we have had a break to clarify
16 the record, I'd just like to refer back to line 11.34.07, and there's a
17 reference there to the numbers 1 to 4. I think that's an interpretation
18 error. The transcript should read "1 to 14."
19 MR. STEWART: Yes, we agree with that, Your Honour. We remember
20 that was what was said and that's what it appeared on the transcript. So
21 we agree with that correction.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's then corrected.
23 Please proceed.
24 MR. MARGETTS:
25 Q. Mr. Egrlic, you referred to the president and his associates.
1 Who were his associates?
2 A. Mr. Nikola Koljevic, Mrs. Plavsic, Mr. Karadzic. Those were the
3 people who were the top of the leadership of the SDS party in Sarajevo.
4 Q. Mr. Egrlic, I asked you about the president and his associates,
5 and we may have a misunderstanding here. When I was referring to the
6 president, I was referring to the president of the party, Dr. Karadzic,
7 not the president of the Assembly, Momcilo Krajisnik. Who were the
8 associates of the president of the party, Mr. Karadzic, that you were
9 referring to?
10 A. Members of the Presidency of the party, the individuals whose
11 names I have mentioned. In addition to their duties in the state bodies,
12 they were also members of the SDS leadership.
13 Q. Mr. Egrlic, I'm sorry to ask you this again, and I know you've
14 named various people as the associates of Mr. Karadzic, but I need to
15 just clarify this matter, because I think there may have been some
16 misunderstanding earlier. So I'll just ask you to state again who were
17 these associates of Mr. Karadzic that you were referring to. If you
18 could just name them again.
19 A. I meant Mrs. Plavsic, Mr. Nikola Koljevic, and Mr. Krajisnik.
20 MR. STEWART: Your Honour --
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Yes, I was about -- I don't know whether you
22 have the same in your mind or not. I'll let you first see and then we'll
23 see whether it's the same.
24 MR. STEWART: We'll see if same minds think alike, Your Honour.
25 Mr. Margetts has find finally got the answer that he had to keep
1 on casting his line into the water for. It is improper of Mr. Margetts,
2 we suggest, to have introduced the name "Mr. Krajisnik" into the question
3 that began: "Mr. Egrlic, I asked you about the president and his
4 associates. We may have a misunderstanding here. When I was referring
5 to the president, I was referring to the president of the party,
6 Dr. Karadzic, not the president of the Assembly, Momcilo Krajisnik."
7 We perceive that as a deliberate introduction of Mr. Krajisnik's
8 name into the question, and that was -- the harm had been done by the
9 time the question was asked, and I didn't object because it's been done
10 and it's apparent what has been happening, and then when we cross-examine
11 and/or when we make our submissions later in the case, this whole passage
12 will have to be looked at it.
13 But we will ask Mr. Margetts -- it was perhaps not consciously
14 deliberate to do it that way, but to be extremely cautious. Mr. Margetts
15 knew what he was looking for here as the answer, and it required the
16 utmost care to make sure that the question was not formulated in such a
17 way as to signal the answer, because these are the critical areas of the
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Although it was in the first time, as far
20 as I remember, that Mr. -- the name of Mr. Krajisnik was mentioned by the
21 witness a couple of times before that. So it's not a new introduction,
22 although it was in this question newly introduced.
23 But I have a totally different question for the witness, although
24 perhaps related, because that's the basis of the whole part of this
1 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, may I respond to Mr. Stewart's
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If there's anything to be added --
4 MR. MARGETTS: I appreciate that in some circumstances
5 Mr. Stewart would be correct, but in the specific circumstances of this
6 question and this answer, Mr. Stewart's comments, I don't think, have any
7 weight at all, the reason being that there was clearly an error in the
8 answer. The question was: Who are the associates of Mr. Karadzic? And
9 there was clearly a simple error of inserting the name "Karadzic," who
10 cannot be an associate of himself.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 MR. MARGETTS: Instead of the person that had been named earlier,
13 Mr. Krajisnik. And I attempted in the most fair way to correct what was
14 merely an error.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think I already related a bit the complaint
16 by Mr. Stewart. Nevertheless, the question could have been put again to
17 him and asked, listen well, and without mentioning that name, although
18 that name was not such a surprise in view of the previous testimony just
19 a couple of lines before. So I would say it's not -- the objection could
20 certainly be of guidance for you to -- if you want to repeat the
21 question, not then in the repetition to perhaps add something that was
22 not in the earlier question that was misunderstood by the witness. And
23 at the same time, it's not that of a surprise since the name was
24 mentioned before.
25 Mr. Egrlic, I would like to ask you the following: Before we had
1 this discussion on what your first answer and what your second answer
2 was, "president," "Presidency," in your first answer you said the
3 following: "You see, I can see from the document that the --" no, I have
4 got the wrong source now.
5 When you were asked: "When you read the words 'order of the SDS
6 Sarajevo', who did you think in the leadership of Sarajevo was ordering
7 that this take place?" And then your answer was: "I thought that it was
8 the - and we later clarified that - the president of the SDS, who had
9 obviously discussed it with his associates and agreed on it."
10 What made it obvious to you that he discussed this with his
11 associates, especially in view of who you later named as being his
12 associates? What made it obvious? Is it from the document, or was there
13 any other reason?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I draw this conclusion based on the
15 fact that in this document it says that under the leadership of
16 Dr. Karadzic this meeting had been held. And a meeting implies that his
17 close associates were present. And this also implies that members of the
18 Presidency of the party were there as well as the representatives of the
19 power from lower levels from the territories of municipalities in Bosnia
20 and Herzegovina. That is why I believe that all of them were somehow
21 abreast of this.
22 JUDGE ORIE: The document in its English translation says that an
23 order was made public "At the meeting of all the municipal presidents on
24 the 26th of October, 1991, chaired by Dr. Karadzic." In your answer, you
25 referred to the -- you say the document says under the - as it is
1 translated - the leadership of Dr. Karadzic. I take it that you refer to
2 the chair of Dr. Karadzic over this meeting, as this document says. And
3 you say: "A meeting implies that his close associates were present,"
4 whereas the document does not say any more than that this was a meeting
5 of the municipal presidents.
6 What makes you believe that a meeting of the municipal presidents
7 would necessarily be -- would have been held in the presence of the other
8 associates you mentioned, which I would say were of the central SDS
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In practice, it was known that the
11 president of a party did not attend a meeting on his own, without his
12 associates, and the title itself, "The order of the SDS Sarajevo," speaks
13 for itself. It shows that the leadership of the SDS had agreed on this
14 order and handed it down to the lower levels.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But these are two different issues. The one
16 is who had previously agreed on the programme which was then made public
17 in a meeting; and the second issue is who were present at that meeting.
18 That's not the same.
19 Let's start with the second part. You say it was publicly known,
20 I think you said, that the president would not -- let me just try to find
21 your words: "The president of the party did not attend a meeting on his
22 own." Is that known for public meetings, for private meetings, for --
23 how was that known?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I meant the system that was
25 followed in the organisation of meetings. It would be normal to expect
1 that the president, when it came to discussing such important issues,
2 that the president would not be alone, that he would rather come
3 accompanied by his closest associates, and that a meeting of this
4 importance, where such important issues were discussed would be held in
5 the presence of his associates.
6 JUDGE ORIE: That's the inference you make. That's clear to me.
7 Please proceed, Mr. Margetts.
8 I put these questions because there has been a long examination
9 on who exactly were the associates, where -- and of course I kept clearly
10 in my mind that we need a factual basis for putting questions to a
11 witness, especially if it comes to inferences, and it was, at least for
12 me, totally unclear from a factual point of view and what's the use of
13 further talking about things that have been repeatedly been presented to
14 this Chamber if there's not the link with the special event we have in
16 Please proceed.
17 MR. MARGETTS: Thank you, Your Honour.
18 Q. Mr. Egrlic, you stated earlier that you knew the president of the
19 Municipal Assembly, Mr. Banjac, very well from prior to 1991. During
20 1991, he was president of the Municipal Assembly and you were president
21 of the Executive Board. Can you tell me how frequently you would meet
22 with him.
23 A. We would meet almost every morning. The reason for that was the
24 fact that we discussed our daily activities and we had our first cup of
25 coffee together. And having this cup of coffee, we would discuss the
1 activities that lay ahead of us on that day.
2 Q. During the course of these morning-coffee sessions which you had
3 on a daily basis throughout 1991, would you discuss with him the policies
4 of your party and the policies of his party?
5 A. Yes. There were different topics that we discussed. We had
6 quite open discussions on all of the issues.
7 Q. Mr. Egrlic, I've finished with the document that we were looking
8 at, so that can be returned.
9 You stated that you had quite open discussions with him and that
10 you discussed the policies of your respective parties. In the course of
11 those discussions, did you gain an impression as to the extent of
12 authority that Mr. Banjac had over the policy decisions made in Kljuc
13 within the context of the policies that were set within his party?
14 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I don't know why Mr. Margetts adds on
15 the last bit of the question, because it's completely unnecessary. The
16 question could and should have simply stopped at "authority that
17 Mr. Banjac had over the policy decisions made in Kljuc." We do invite
18 Mr. Margetts to keep the questions at a minimum and not add anything
19 which might be regarded as a pointer to where the question is going.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts, would you like to respond.
21 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour. It doesn't seem possible to me
22 when you're talking about a leader of the SDS in a municipality to be
23 discussing anything else when you're talking about the level of his
24 independent authority than his authority within the context of the party.
25 So whilst I accept Mr. Stewart's comment that the question could have
12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and
13 French transcripts correspond
1 stood without that addition, it doesn't appear to me to either add or
2 take away anything. And I'm quite happy for the question to proceed on
3 the basis of what was his authority in respect of the policies set in
5 MR. STEWART: Yes, Your Honour, that --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. There are two aspects: First of all, if we're
7 talking about policies, I think it would be fair to narrow them down so
8 as to exclude at what time the garbage bins should be put out of the
9 houses -- well, all kind of other matters, so to narrow that down. That
10 is not necessarily done by referring to the party. You could name the
11 issues or -- so therefore, I think to one extent I agree with
12 Mr. Margetts that narrowing down the field of what could be covered by a
13 question - I mean, policies could be a lot of other things as well -
14 where we are focussing on certain matters of policy, I would say; on the
15 other hand, not necessarily done by relating it to party issues.
16 But please proceed.
17 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, may I comment, Your Honour?
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 MR. STEWART: Mr. Margetts's response actually reinforces my
20 point and makes it: That precisely because the context was clear, which
21 I agree with - I agree with that comment of Mr. Margetts's; it didn't
22 need saying - the difficulty is that if you then -- the damage has been
23 done now, so I'm really making the objection because I want to signal it
24 for the future --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 MR. STEWART: -- that by the time I object to the question, the
2 damage has been done. The objectionable part of the question is there.
3 To introduce something which is admittedly part of the clear context as a
4 specific part of the question is capable of giving a pointer as to where
5 the question is going and it should be avoided.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The -- yes, I think I said that, that if you
7 want to narrow down the issue in order to exclude all of the irrelevant
8 things, that you should not do so, or as I said, not necessarily do that
9 by referring to the party, because that's, of course, another issue. So
10 to that extent, I think I partially agreed with your comments, and
11 Mr. Margetts may proceed.
12 MR. MARGETTS:
13 Q. Mr. Egrlic, during the course of 1991 when you had these daily
14 meetings with Mr. Banjac, did you gain an impression as to what extent
15 Mr. Banjac was able to make independent decisions?
16 A. He could take decisions that fell within the scope of the
17 president of the Municipal Assembly and decisions for which he had
18 authority at the municipal level.
19 Q. Can you describe to the Court what those matters that he had
20 independent authority in regard to were.
21 A. Well, preparations for the Assembly for certain decisions that
22 were to be discussed at the Assembly. This mostly had to do with tasks
23 relating to the municipal administrative organ and to tasks relating to
24 public utilities in the territory of the municipality. It also had to do
25 with decisions relating to the economy, to the extent that the Assembly
1 had influence on such matters. So these are the tasks dealt with at the
2 municipal level.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Let's try not to -- on the basis of the objection,
4 I'm afraid that we are getting nowhere, because we're trying to
5 circumvent that.
6 Mr. Egrlic, you told us that you had -- you frequently had
7 conversations with Mr. Banjac on a daily basis. We discussed a couple of
8 minutes earlier the telefax or telex you had seen with instructions, that
9 he -- were apparently sent by the SDS Sarajevo through the intermediary
10 of Mr. Brdjanin. During your conversations, did you ever gain any
11 awareness of Mr. Banjac being exposed to such instructions or guidance on
12 other occasions than this specific occasion where you saw the telex?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I noticed towards the end of 1991
14 and at the beginning of 1992 that there were some very important issues
15 in the territory of the municipality and that he wasn't able to deal with
16 them on his own until he had consulted with the higher authorities. That
17 is quite natural, since he personally had authority as president of the
18 Assembly to deal with certain issues on an independent basis.
19 JUDGE ORIE: When you say "higher authorities," what kind of
20 authorities you would have in mind?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, when I say "higher
22 authorities," I am referring to the higher authorities in Banja Luka. I
23 have an example I can provide you with: When they decided to change the
24 insignia on uniforms, given our different points of view, given that we
25 were of the opinion that they shouldn't be changed until the Constitution
1 of Bosnia and Herzegovina as a state was changed, they nevertheless
2 proceeded to change these insignia. And finally --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'm interested to know what authority was
4 consulted, but perhaps you were just about to tell me.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He confirmed with the leadership of
6 the party and with the organs that had already been established in the
7 Autonomous Region of Banja Luka.
8 JUDGE ORIE: When you say "leadership of the party," did you mean
9 at the regional level --
10 MR. STEWART: Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 MR. STEWART: May I say, Your Honour, with the utmost respect,
13 although the Trial Chamber naturally has considerably more freedom, I
14 suggest there should be limits to the extent to which questions from the
15 Trial Chamber should lead. If that question had come from the
16 Prosecution --
17 JUDGE ORIE: You would have objected.
18 MR. STEWART: I would undoubtedly have objected.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 MR. STEWART: And Your Honour, with respect, I do present the
21 same objection.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE ORIE: I found it appropriate to consult my colleagues
25 first before I would continue.
1 You interrupted me, Mr. Stewart, when I said "leadership of the
2 party." Did you mean at the regional level, the municipal level, the
3 republican level? I wanted to open all levels. You then interrupted me
4 and you objected.
5 Could you tell us: When you said "the leadership of the party,"
6 what level you had in mind?
7 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I beg your pardon, Your Honour. I,
8 with respect, Your Honour --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, you may later --
10 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, it will be too late. With respect,
11 Your Honour, the reason I interrupted was precisely because the damage is
12 done if I don't step in when I see the objectionable part of the question
13 coming. And Your Honour, the same applies; and Your Honour, must, with
14 respect, give me the latitude, please, as Defence counsel, to do that. I
15 don't wish any discourtesy whatever in interrupting, Your Honour, and I
16 hope that I would never do so unnecessarily. When I see that --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask the witness to take his headphones off.
18 Could you please take his headphones. Do you read and understand
19 English? Perhaps before -- do you read and understand English? Perhaps
20 -- I'm sorry.
21 Do you read and understand English? No? Then perhaps the
22 witness could take his headphones off.
23 Mr. Stewart, you're invited to say where you think I unacceptably
24 leaded the witness.
25 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, the reference -- Your Honour
1 was -- it was clear. I was in fact right. Your Honour --
2 JUDGE ORIE: No, whether you were right or not, I want to ask you
3 where you think I leaded unacceptably the witness.
4 MR. STEWART: Yes, Your Honour, my comment that I was right was a
5 lead-in to the point I was saying.
6 JUDGE ORIE: It was an unnecessary lead-in. Please proceed.
7 MR. STEWART: Well, I don't accept that, Your Honour. But with
8 respect, I accept that ruling. I've said it now.
9 When I interrupted Your Honour's question, Your Honour had
10 referred -- I better be careful to make sure I've got it absolutely
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 MR. STEWART: And I'm not simply operating on fallible human
14 memory. Excuse me, Your Honour. I have to lean over to the laptop here.
15 Yes. Your Honour said, "When you said leadership of the party,
16 did you mean at the regional level?"
17 Now, Your Honour, I supposed at that point because of the tone of
18 Your Honour's question and the way of which it was phrased, the question
19 was inevitably going to go on into other possibilities.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 MR. STEWART: And because it was clearly going to go on into
22 other possibilities, I felt it was necessary for me to register my
23 objection before Your Honour went into those possibilities, because those
24 were the substance of my objection. So that is why --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But, Mr. Stewart, if we're talking about the
1 leadership of a party, it should be further identified - also in favour
2 of the accused - what level that was. And I have carefully chosen not to
3 start with the highest level and to say "the regional level," because on
4 the basis of the information the Trial Chamber received until now,
5 Mr. Krajisnik was not on the regional -- I would say the Banja Luka level
6 but on a -- a higher level active in the party, and I carefully chose not
7 to mention that first in order to avoid leading. I want you to know
9 If you say "at what level," that would be -- would have been
10 another way of dealing with that. By the knowledge the Chamber gained
11 until now, we know that the SDS was mainly organised on the local
12 municipal level, on the regional level, and on the highest, the state
14 I wanted to make sure that -- to the witness what my question was
15 about, including all possible levels, certainly not mentioning the level
16 that many have said your client was at, to mention that first.
17 Is there any need to respond? Otherwise, I'll continue.
18 MR. STEWART: Yes, indeed there is, Your Honour. Because -- may
19 I refresh my memory on the transcript after that objection.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 [Defence counsel confer]
22 MR. STEWART: Yes. Your Honour, then Your Honour said, "I found
23 it appropriate to consult my colleagues first before I continue. You
24 interrupted me, Mr. Stewart, when I said 'leadership of the party.' Did
25 you mean at the regional level, the municipal level, or republican level.
1 I wanted to open all levels. You then interrupted me and you objected.
2 Would you tell us..."
3 And then you ask the question, Your Honour: "When you said the
4 leadership of the party, what level did you have in mind?"
5 So in the preamble or the introduction to that question, Your
6 Honour then did expound exactly that range of possibilities which was
7 precisely the substance of my objection, and the --
8 JUDGE ORIE: What other levels would there be, as a possibility?
9 MR. STEWART: It was unnecessary to state them, Your Honour,
10 because whether they're presented in ascending order or descending order
11 makes no difference. The presentation -- I would have objected if the
12 Prosecution had put the question in that form, because it is precisely
13 presenting the witness with, if you like, a menu of choices. The witness
14 is a graduate engineer. The question "what level" is quite sufficiently
15 comprehensible to this witness without having all the levels spelt out
16 for him so that he can see which of the boxes he is required to tick in
17 the course of his evidence.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, what is a leading question? A leading
19 question is a question which either suggests the answer to be given to
20 that question or a question which includes a suggestion of something that
21 exists which has not yet been established. If you say that this question
22 was leading to the extent that it suggests that it should be the
23 highest-step level, the medium level, or the low level, then you're right
24 that it suggests one of these three answers. If you would say that the
25 question suggests something that has not yet been established, which
1 would be that there are these three kinds of -- three levels of -- three
2 levels of leadership, I would say that the Chamber takes the position
3 that these three levels as such have been established and are not without
4 proper foundation.
5 Let me -- give me one second to consult with my colleagues.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE ORIE: The decision of the Chamber is that the objection is
8 rejected. To the extent that there was any leading element in this
9 question, it was not unacceptable, in the view of the Chamber.
10 Could the witness please have his headphones on again.
11 The Chamber at the same time conveys that even if mentioning a
12 certain part in a question is not necessary, it's not therefore
13 unacceptable to do it.
14 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, can I make it clear. I wouldn't go
15 that far. I don't suggest that because a part of a question it is
16 therefore leading. That would be an absurd proposition, and I don't put
17 it forward.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Egrlic, we're back with you. Mr. Egrlic, well,
19 you've heard my question before. When you referred to the leadership --
20 but let me just try to find it again -- what did you have in mind? What
21 level of leadership, as far as the party is concerned?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I had the regional and central
23 level in mind.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
25 Mr. Margetts, you may proceed.
1 MR. MARGETTS:
2 Q. Mr. Egrlic, when you say "the central level," what do you mean by
3 "the central level"?
4 A. Well, I mean the Presidency of the Serbian Democratic Party.
5 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, I note the time. Would this be an
6 appropriate time for a break?
7 JUDGE ORIE: This would be an appropriate time for a break.
8 We'll have a break of 20 minutes. We'll resume at a quarter to 1.00.
9 --- Recess taken at 12.24 p.m.
10 --- On resuming at 12.52 p.m.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Before we resume the examination of the
12 witness, I have to correct one thing. Just before the break, I said that
13 the Chamber rejected the objection, but there was no objection. There
14 was just an indication of what the objection would have been if the
15 question would have been put by the Prosecutor.
16 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, that's -- sorry, that's -- perhaps I
17 should make it clear. That's actually not my position, Your Honour. I
18 would have -- I would have -- well, I want to make it clear, Your Honour.
19 I would -- I started off by saying I would certainly have made the
20 objection if the Prosecution asked the question. It was an objection,
21 and I would wish it to be recorded and noted as an objection, Your
23 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then the objection -- then the objection is
25 The Chamber considered during the break another matter, and that
1 is what are the limits of questions to be put by the Chamber. The
2 Chamber certainly doesn't take the position that leading questions are
3 excluded by all means if they are put by the Chamber, and it's also a
4 matter of fairness of the examination which is at the top.
5 Thirdly, the Chamber wanted to draw the attention of the parties
6 to the fact that only in exceptional circumstances the parties should
7 interfere when the Chamber examines a witness. And the Chamber is also
8 of the opinion that the situation which had happened was not of such an
9 exceptional character.
10 Then, Mr. Margetts, please proceed.
11 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, I would like to show the witness the
12 next exhibit, which is the exhibit dated 7 November 1991, translation ERN
13 is 00568691.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Registrar, that would have number ...?
15 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the exhibit number will be P230 and
16 P230.1 for the English translation.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
18 Please proceed, Mr. Margetts.
19 MR. MARGETTS:
20 Q. Mr. Egrlic, do you recognise this announcement?
21 A. I do.
22 Q. Are you the joint author of this announcement?
23 A. I am.
24 Q. Was this announcement communicated to the citizens of Kljuc?
25 A. It was.
1 Q. Mr. Egrlic, can I -- I will refer to each of the paragraphs in
2 this announcement in turn and I'll invite your comment in relation to
4 The first paragraph I'll refer to is the second substantial
5 paragraph on the first page under the heading "Joint official
6 announcement." And I'll read that paragraph into the record and invite
7 your comment.
8 "In Bosnia and Herzegovina, the homeland of Muslims, Serbs, and
9 Croats, one people - this time the Serb people - have decided to express
10 their desire to break up Bosnia and Herzegovina in an unconstitutional
11 plebiscite, contrary to the common will and interests of the others.
12 Contrary to the will of the Parliament and based on the decision of the
13 self-declared Assembly of the Serb People, established illegally, the
14 Serbs and the SDS are, by this fact, expressing their will to break up
15 Bosnia and Herzegovina, close themselves into strictly nationalist
16 boundaries, and close the door to other peoples for the continued life
17 together in a single Bosnia and Herzegovina."
18 Mr. Egrlic, can you comment on that paragraph?
19 A. This announcement was issued with regard to the plebiscite of the
20 Serbian people at which the Serbian people opted to remain within the
21 former Yugoslavia, and our view of the matter has been expressed here.
22 It was tantamount to breaking up the common State of Bosnia and
23 Herzegovina. It was an illegal act, given that according to the
24 Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, proceeding in such a manner,
25 which leads to breaking up the territory of the state, is
2 Q. Specifically you say that the Serbs wished to close themselves
3 into strictly nationalist boundaries. What did you mean by that?
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts, may I just interfere for one second.
5 The Chamber has heard quite some evidence on these plebiscites, and
6 what -- and to what extent would it assist the Chamber to hear the -- I
7 would say the personal appreciation of certain persons or even of a party
8 on the local level? Would that really add something to what is at the
9 core of this case?
10 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, this particular witness occupied a
11 high-level position in the Kljuc municipality.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 MR. MARGETTS: And had a very close association with the SDS
14 leaders in that municipality.
15 In this particular document in regard to the plebiscite, there is
16 a clear expression by this witness of his contemporaneous opinion of the
17 practical consequences that would follow --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Why don't you then ask him about that. Practical
19 consequences, fine. But your question was: Could you comment on the
20 paragraph? And then we get a comment which is something totally in
21 accordance with what a lot of other witnesses have told us before. So
22 -- if you have specific issues, fine, but then focus on those.
23 Please proceed.
24 MR. MARGETTS: Thank you, Your Honour.
25 Q. Mr. Egrlic, I will proceed by directing your attention to
1 specific parts of this document that are of interest to the Trial
2 Chamber, and I will ask for your comment in relation to the practical
3 consequences of these particular matters.
4 In this first paragraph, you indicate that the direction that the
5 SDS is taking by holding this plebiscite is intended to result in the
6 Serbs closing themselves into strictly nationalist boundaries.
7 Practically, how did it result in Kljuc, in terms of boundaries between
8 the parties -- sorry, boundaries between nationalities?
9 A. This plebiscite resulted in the situation in which only Serbs
10 were asked to give their opinion on this issue. It was a mono-national
11 plebiscite. We believed that would lead to the deprivation of other
12 ethnic groups that resided in the area and the denial of their rights.
13 That's why we didn't agree to this type of public expression on the
14 status of ethnic groups in the former Yugoslavia, because Bosniaks
15 expressed their wish to remain in the former Yugoslavia, however on
16 somewhat different foundations, with a prior agreement with those who
17 wanted to make up this new state.
18 The organisation of a mono-ethnic state was perceived by us as a
19 problem for other ethnic groups which might continue to reside in the
20 area. We thought that their rights would be taken away from them and
21 that that would mean the end of a possibility for them to continue
22 residing in that area.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts, I'd really like you -- we again got a
24 general observation on the situation which is almost too well-known and
25 has got nothing specifically with Kljuc. Please would you guide the
1 witness in a more strict way to get additional information from Kljuc
2 that you are seeking.
3 MR. MARGETTS:
4 Q. Thank you, Mr. Egrlic.
5 MR. MARGETTS: I've finished with that document.
6 Your Honour, I'd like to present the next document to the
7 witness, that is, a document dated 24 December 1991, and the ERN
8 for the translation is 00594891.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, that would then be number 231 for the
10 original and 231.1 for the English translation?
11 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours.
12 MR. STEWART: Your Honour -- I'm sorry. I beg your pardon, Your
13 Honours. I certainly didn't wish to interrupt. Before we finally leave
14 the previous exhibit, there's a rather strange but small point. But the
15 previous exhibit, P230, at the very foot of the first page Your Honour
16 will see the phrase "there would be no plebiscite" with an exclamation
17 mark. Does Your Honour see that? It's the exhibit that we were just
18 looking at a moment ago, 230. The joint official announcement.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Could you show it to me? Because I can't find it.
20 MR. STEWART: It's in the -- I'm sorry, it's 230.1, I think, the
21 English version.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
23 MR. STEWART: Yes, I'm so sorry.
24 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that says, "There would be no plebiscite."
1 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, it's just that that exclamation mark
2 is just not there in the original. It's crept in. Sometimes punctuation
3 does have a force. After all, that's why exclamation marks exist.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So we'll get clarification for the exclamation
6 MR. STEWART: Yes. And then Ms. Cmeric also points out to me
7 that the italicisation of "Yugoslavia" has also been added somewhere.
8 This is -- we don't know how all this happens, but -- it's unfortunate
9 this that happenings, actually, but the same applies there. It's not
10 italicised in the original. Somebody is tinkering a bit somewhere. I
11 don't suggest it's the Prosecution; I'm not suggesting that, anything
12 dastardly, but somebody is tinkering with these translation.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I am even trying to ...
14 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, I note these differences, but -- I
15 don't know whether Mr. Stewart is linguistic expert in both English and
16 B/C/S, but the person who has translated this is. And insofar as the
17 italicisation and exclamation mark had been intended to be a clear
18 translation of the intent expressed in B/C/S, I'm unable to comment one
19 way or the other, other than to observe what Mr. Stewart has observed;
20 that literally the printing is not the same in the English as in the
22 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Let's not discuss this further. I think Mr. Stewart
24 has drawn the attention again to a similar issue which I raised several
25 times before. That means that the Prosecution is invited to look at
1 whether it was proper or not and explain to the Defence, and if it's not
2 proper, to present a new copy, a new English translation of the same
4 Please proceed.
5 MR. MARGETTS: [Microphone not activated]
6 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the counsel, please.
7 MR. MARGETTS:
8 Q. Mr. Egrlic, do you have before you a joint official announcement
9 dated 24 December 1991?
10 A. I do.
11 Q. Do you recognise this announcement?
12 A. I do.
13 Q. Are you the joint author of this announcement and was this
14 announcement communicated to the citizens of Kljuc?
15 A. Yes, and it was.
16 Q. In this announcement, you refer to a pro-war policy and the
17 failure of the SDS to attend the interparty council. Can you comment on
18 these matters.
19 A. This information was a reaction to the security and political
20 situation in the municipality during the time when this information was
21 drafted. More specifically, it refers to the event or the incident that
22 took place when the Serbian army units were departing for Croatia. They
23 were lined up in front of the municipal building in Kljuc. They fired
24 shots from various weapons and thus disturbed the citizens of the
25 Municipality of Kljuc.
1 It was also a reaction to the authorities turning the blind eye
2 to such a situation and particularly to the fact that the SDS
3 representatives did not participate in the multiparty council where this
4 issue was discussed and where a solution was being sought for such a
6 Q. Was it your impression that if the SDS had attended interparty
7 meetings at that stage, the security situation in Kljuc would have
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. At that time, were the interparty discussions faltering?
11 A. There were difficulties, and the work of the Municipal Assembly
12 and its bodies also was faltering due to the deterioration of the
13 security situation.
14 Q. From the end of 1991 up until May 1992, how many Municipal
15 Assembly meetings were there?
16 A. I don't know exactly. After the multiparty election and the
17 establishment of the Municipality Assembly up to May 2000, there were a
18 total of 14 sessions.
19 Q. In your previous answer, you referred to May 2000. Did you in
20 fact mean May 1992?
21 A. You're right. Between the 1st of January, 1991 until May 1992.
22 Q. Was there a Council for National Defence established in Kljuc?
23 A. It was established. According to the statute, this is a
24 municipal body which is established and functions as a municipal body,
25 and it consists of the people who occupy positions -- the positions of
1 the president of the Assembly, the Executive Board, the Chief of Police,
2 the Secretariat for National Defence, and a certain number of people who
3 serve in the Assembly as representatives.
4 Q. In early 1992, how many meetings of this Council for National
5 Defence took place in Kljuc?
6 A. From the beginning of 1992 until May 1992, there were two such
8 Q. Did anything productive come from those meetings?
9 A. It was already the time when the political views were very
10 different and the proposals advocated by the SDA, together with the MPs
11 from the Municipal Assembly, did not take off the ground. The ones that
12 did take off the ground were proposals of the SDS, who had a majority in
13 that council.
14 Q. Whilst the joint bodies of the municipality were not meeting
15 frequently in early 1992, did you, as president of the Executive Board of
16 the Municipal Assembly, continue to occupy an office in the same building
17 as both Mr. Jovo Banjac and Mr. Veljko Kondic?
18 A. I had my office there up to the 7th of May, 1992. It was in the
19 municipality building.
20 Q. Did you continue to discuss matters relevant to the security
21 situation and the government of Kljuc with them up until the 7th of May,
23 A. Yes. But not as often as before that.
24 Q. So instead of discussions on a daily basis, how frequently would
25 you meet with Mr. Banjac in particular and discuss issues with him?
1 A. During 1991, we had meetings on a daily basis almost. However,
2 at the beginning of 1992, our contacts may have been once or maybe twice
3 in a week. During the months of April and May, we only had one or two
4 contacts altogether.
5 Q. Thank you, Mr. Egrlic. I've finished with that document.
6 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, I'd like to show the witness the next
7 document, which is a document dated 16 January 1992.
8 JUDGE ORIE: And the number would be, Mr. Registrar ...?
9 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the numbers will be P232 and P232.1
10 for the English translation.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
12 MR. MARGETTS:
13 Q. Mr. Egrlic, have you seen this report before?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. The report refers to a joint meeting of the MBO and the SDA held
16 on the 14th of January, 1992. And I'd like to refer you to the paragraph
17 that appears at the bottom of the first page of this report - that's in
18 the B/C/S version - and it says: "The issue of our municipality topped
19 the agenda at the meeting. Four speakers urged the Muslims to pay back
20 the SDS in the same coin and form their own Muslim municipality in
22 What steps did you take to form a Muslim municipality in Kljuc?
23 A. We presented this idea at a meeting of the Municipal Assembly of
24 Kljuc, and this happened once the Municipality of Kljuc was joined with
25 the Autonomous Region of Bosanska Krajina. The Bosniak people did not
1 find their place in that decision. That is why we thought that the
2 possible establishment of that municipality would result in the Bosniak
3 people being given an area where they will be able to exercise their
4 rights within the entire situation. However, this was just an idea which
5 was never followed through, because there were no conditions in place for
6 a referendum to take place and there were no conditions to hear the
7 people's opinion on that.
8 Q. I refer you to the last paragraph of this document, and it
9 specifically refers to a proposed referendum that was scheduled to take
10 place on the 16th and 17th of February. That referendum did not take
11 place; is that correct?
12 A. It is correct. The conditions for such a referendum were simply
13 not in place.
14 Q. When you say "the conditions for such a referendum," are you
15 referring to the security situation?
16 A. I'm referring to the security and political situation in the
17 municipality. We thought that this might cause dissatisfaction amongst
18 citizens of other ethnic groups and that ultimately this could lead to
19 the disruption of the security and political situation, which would get
20 out of hand.
21 Q. Thank you, Mr. Egrlic. I've finished with that document.
22 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, I'd like to show the witness the next
23 exhibit, which is a handwritten diary.
24 JUDGE ORIE: That would get, Mr. Registrar, number ...?
25 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the number will be P233 and P233.1
1 for the English translation.
2 MR. MARGETTS:
3 Q. Mr. Egrlic, can you open this diary and refer to the first entry,
4 which is headed "Doboj, 5 February 1992." Mr. Egrlic, have you seen this
5 entry for 5 February 1992 and had an opportunity to read it before today?
6 A. The first time I saw this document was when I came here, to The
8 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, wouldn't it be a good idea to
9 establish what the document is first, before we go into entries?
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I took it that you would quickly do that,
11 Mr. Margetts.
12 MR. MARGETTS:
13 Q. Mr. Egrlic, you have before you a handwritten diary which refers
14 to various meetings of the SDS and other matters during the period 5
15 February 1992 through to 29 July 1992; is that correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, there are matters related to this
18 diary that it would be better to deal with in private session, and if,
19 Your Honour -- if we could go into private session.
20 JUDGE ORIE: You'd like to go into private session.
21 MR. MARGETTS: To explain those matters.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We will go into private session. Closed
23 session will not be necessary.
24 MR. MARGETTS: No.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll turn into private session.
1 [Private session]
12 Page 4707 redacted, private session
12 Page 4708 redacted, private session
12 Page 4709 redacted, private session
8 [Open session]
9 JUDGE ORIE: And it's confirmed on our screen.
10 Please proceed. You can put your headphones on again,
11 Mr. Egrlic.
12 MR. MARGETTS:
13 Q. Mr. Egrlic, could you refer to the first entry that is set out
14 under the heading "Doboj: 5 February 1992." As you stated earlier,
15 you've been given the opportunity to read this entry since you arrived in
16 The Hague, and I'd like to ask you a couple of questions about it.
17 Set out under this heading are four agenda items that were
18 discussed at a meeting held in Doboj on 5 February 1992. The first item
19 is a report from the expanded session of the SFRY Presidency. And if you
20 look at the entry for item 1, it states that "Serbia's objective is to
21 ensure that Serbs live in a single state, regardless of what it is
23 Were you aware of this policy?
24 A. [Microphone not activated]
25 Q. In Kljuc, what did you observe in respect of the implementation
1 of this policy?
2 A. [Microphone not activated]
3 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the witness, please.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All the political steps taken, all
5 the political activities that were conducted - and to be more specific,
6 activities that concerned the army and weapons - all these activities
7 were in accordance with these ideas; that is to say, separation from the
8 territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina and annexation to the territory of
10 MR. MARGETTS:
11 Q. Turning over the page, there's an entry under the heading "Item
12 2," which is headed "What stand has the SDS taken on Bosnia-Herzegovina?"
13 Underneath the heading that says "The stand Karadzic and Krajisnik
14 have taken," there is an entry, and it states: "Establish good
15 coordination and firm organisation of the party, the police, the
16 Territorial Defence, and the army." Can you comment on this particular
18 Mr. Egrlic, have you been able to find that entry? If not, I can
19 give you some assistance.
20 A. I haven't found it yet.
21 Q. It appears on the page marked "3 January."
22 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, excuse me.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 MR. STEWART: Mr. Margetts said in referring to this document,
25 "Underneath the heading that says the stand Karadzic and Krajisnik have
1 taken," the entry. Now, we've just quickly double-checked against the
2 B/C/S version, which is obviously the original.
3 Now, we stand to be corrected, but we don't read that as the
4 following material being under the heading "The stand Karadzic and
5 Krajisnik have taken." That doesn't seem to be the way it is set out at
7 JUDGE ORIE: That seems to be the next item.
8 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour, that's quite possible.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps you could have read the relevant line and
10 then would have said that it's under item 2, the fourth or the fifth --
11 the fifth dot or the fifth line. Mr. Stewart is very much insisting, and
12 I would support that, on as neutral as introduction as possible. It
13 makes -- it doesn't serve any purpose here to mention the names.
14 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour.
15 Q. Mr. Egrlic, can you see the page which has the heading "3
16 January" and is marked with the identification marking 01399453? And can
17 you see the item which is the second-last item on the page and appears at
18 the lines which are marked "14, 15, and 16"?
19 Can you read --
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... and can you comment on
22 whether or not this particular objective was implemented in Kljuc.
23 A. It says: "Establish real authority, especially in the Public
24 Security Station, in the SDK, and the radio." It says: "Establish good
25 coordination." This is a little unclear. And then it says: "The
1 organisation of the parties, the police, the Territorial Defence, and the
2 army." As far as these items are concerned, this had already been
3 completed in Kljuc; this had already been done.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Looking at the clock, Mr. Margetts, since
5 Mr. Hannis also needs five minutes.
6 Mr. Egrlic, we'll conclude for today. We'd like to see you back
7 tomorrow at 9.00, I take it in the same courtroom, Mr. Registrar. Yes.
8 May I instruct you not to speak with anyone about the testimony
9 you have been giving today and the testimony still to be given, so speak
10 to no one about your testimony.
11 Mr. Usher, could you please escort Mr. Egrlic out of the
12 courtroom. We'd like to see you back tomorrow.
13 [The witness stands down]
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hannis, there were two issues. I do understand
15 that the CD-ROMs have been resolved by now and it was due to old hardware
16 which could not take everything that was on the CD-ROM. So that matter
17 has been resolved.
18 The two remaining issues?
19 MR. HANNIS: [Microphone not activated]
20 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
21 MR. HANNIS: There was one other matter as I understood with
22 regard to the CD, and that there was some difference between the
23 translation -- or the transcript.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That was one of the issues we raised
25 yesterday, yes.
1 MR. HANNIS: And the subtitles.
2 And I understand that apparently what has happened was that the
3 B/C/S transcript was prepared from viewing the subtitles. The English
4 transcript was prepared from listening to the audio. And so there's some
5 slight differences.
6 What we propose to do is prepare revised transcripts, match those
7 up, and present them to the Court.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Wouldn't it be the best, since these subtitles
9 could be read, if they're taken over in the B/C/S version, that we get a
10 translation from that? Because there might be differences. It's not a
11 very long text. So -- and then the same from what you hear that we get a
12 B/C/S translation. So that --
13 MR. HANNIS: I understand that we can do both versions then, Your
14 Honour, and then we'll have both.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Because to make a merger might even cause more
16 problems than we have already.
17 Then the other issue was about --
18 MR. HANNIS: We will do that.
19 JUDGE ORIE: -- translations of documents.
20 MR. HANNIS: Yes. One other matter before we leave the CDs. I
21 also understand there was another issue about the time notations. That
22 was difference on one transcript than the other.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 MR. HANNIS: And I believe that -- again, that's a product of the
25 translation being done from a different copy. We will get that
1 synchronised so that there's one --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, or no times at all.
3 MR. HANNIS: Or no times at all.
4 With regard to the translation of documents, I understand one of
5 those related to Exhibit 220, which was a diary of the witness, and at
6 one point - I think on page 0200-5359, the English translation at
7 0301-4339 - There were quotations around a statement of -- taken from the
8 diary which -- those quotation marks were not in the B/C/S. I can tell
9 Your Honour that this was a CLSS translation. We will inquire with them
10 about whether there is some sort of a translation protocol or something
11 about written B/C/S from which that could be made, but we think that
12 probably those translation -- those quotation marks should not be in
13 there. But we have to follow up on that.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Finally check and provide us new translation if
15 they -- if they have to be taken out.
16 MR. HANNIS: We will do that, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And then there was another issue or was that
18 -- no, that was this morning about the date in the -- no, there was a
19 date in a draft translation.
20 MR. HANNIS: And I don't have the answer to that one, Your
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So this resolves the matters of yesterday. Of
23 course, a final decision has to be taken still on the admission of these
24 documents. And it is in my mind that we decided once that we would take
25 all the Sanski Most documents together.
1 Ms. Loukas.
2 MS. LOUKAS: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour. Just in relation to
3 the question of the exhibits from yesterday. Of course, there's my
4 outstanding objection in general to the transcripts of that particular
5 video. There's the issue in relation to the translations that of course
6 have been the subject of the discourse between Mr. Hannis and Your
7 Honour. And, of course, just in relation to that -- the question of the
8 diary, I think it would be more appropriate just to have the relevant
9 page that the Prosecution relies on, rather than the entirety of
10 Chapter 1.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Hannis, you could give that perhaps some
12 consideration, whether we could [inaudible] a little bit less diary
13 than --
14 MR. HANNIS: I'll consult and inform the Court.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Perhaps you could see what's relevant.
16 Sometimes it's good to see the next date and the day before.
17 MS. LOUKAS: Precisely, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: A bit of context, but perhaps not too much context.
19 MS. LOUKAS: Precisely, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then finally, I would like to make one
21 observation. Yesterday the Chamber received a motion in relation to
22 translations. This was, as I saw, a response to an invitation three
23 months ago, and I also noticed that the Defence invited the Prosecution
24 to respond within two days and to have a decision taken in two days as
25 well. I don't know whether that time schedule after three months would
1 be the one to be followed.
2 Mr. Hannis, we'd like to hear from you tomorrow about when you
3 would think that you could respond to that motion, which is a motion
4 which, as is repeatedly said in the motion itself, does not always follow
5 the -- well, let's say the mainstream of the ICTY case law. But still,
6 especially if the Chamber has invited to follow under the specific
7 circumstances of this case a different path, the Chamber would like to be
8 thoroughly prepared for that.
9 MR. HANNIS: We can do that.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we'll adjourn with again thanks to the
11 interpreters, we'll adjourn until tomorrow morning, 9.00, same court.
12 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.50 p.m.,
13 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 28th day of
14 July, 2004, at 9.00 a.m.