1 Thursday, 30 September 2004
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.08 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in this courtroom, and also
6 those assisting us in the interpreters' booth and the technical booth.
7 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Case Number IT-00-39-T, The Prosecutor versus
9 Momcilo Krajisnik.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
11 Is the Prosecution ready to call its next witness?
12 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS: Yes, Your Honour, we are.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then in respect of this witness, protective
14 measures were ordered in another case, and they continue to exist. The
15 protective measures are pseudonym and facial distortion, so for the
16 entrance of the witness into the courtroom, we have to pull the curtains
18 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, while that's occurring, there's a number
19 of matters I wish to raise.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Ms. Loukas.
21 MS. LOUKAS: I've raised with Ms. Karagiannakis an objection I
22 have to an aspect of the summary, and Ms. Karagiannakis -- of course, the
23 summary not being evidence -- that is agreed to excise that particular
24 portion from the summary. The other aspect, Your Honour, is that my case
25 manager has just been handed some documentation in relation to the -- the
1 witness next Tuesday, and I would indicate that that's the first that the
2 Defence knew that this particular witness would be called next Tuesday.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 MS. LOUKAS: I've just had a discussion with Mr. Hannis in
5 relation to this. I think it's unfortunate if the -- if we're given this
6 sort of late notice. I understand that the circumstances are that this
7 witness was taken off the 92 bis list, placed on the viva voce list, and
8 what have you. But in any event, our first notification that this is the
9 witness for next Tuesday is just now. And I'd just like to place that on
10 the record, that this places the Defence under constant, enormous pressure
11 in relation to these questions.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Would that mean that you would need more time
13 to prepare for cross-examination or...?
14 MS. LOUKAS: Well, Your Honour, I haven't -- at this stage it has
15 just been handed to us. I don't -- at this stage I don't even -- I
16 haven't had a chance to have a look at the material.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Is it a crime-based witness?
18 MS. LOUKAS: I'm assuming so.
19 MR. HANNIS: Yes, Your Honour. This is a crime-based witness.
20 This is a witness from Kljuc Municipality which was one of the
21 municipalities that we neared 90 per cent agreement on during the proposed
22 agreed facts project. But we have no objection if after reviewing it and
23 after the witness has testified the Defence requests some additional time
24 to prepare for cross-examination, but we do think it's a relatively simple
25 witness as witnesses in this case go.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Ms. Loukas, I would then like to hear from you
2 any further. The Chamber has discussed the schedule to come, and perhaps
3 you would gain some extra time if we are dealing with quite a lot of, I
4 would say, household matters, such as exhibits still to be discussed and
5 to be admitted perhaps on Monday that might give you some extra time
6 because I don't think that the whole of the Defence team would be --
7 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed, Your Honour. Now, just in relation to the
8 next witness, in addition, I would indicate that I would be -- as this is
9 a witness under -- that is proposed to be dealt with under 89(F), and I
10 would indicate that I would be proposing to object to the Bosnian
11 statement. The -- I think there's two statements proposed to be tendered
12 under the 89(F) procedure by the Prosecution. That's the statement under
13 the auspices of the ICTY, and the second one being the Bosnian statement.
14 JUDGE ORIE: That's first one of the 26th of August, and the 3rd
15 of November. Although there seems to be some confusion as to the date in
16 some respects.
17 MS. LOUKAS: The previous Bosnian statement under 1998. Of
18 course, it's a discretionary matter for Your Honours, but taking into
19 account the discussion of these matters in the Appeals Chamber decision
20 from the Milosevic trial on the relationship between 89(F) and 92 bis, of
21 course, Your Honour does have a discretion in relation to these matters.
22 And, Your Honour, I would submit that the statement taken under the
23 auspices of the ICTY as opposed to the statement taken in 1998 by the
24 Bosnian authorities does, in fact, have all the hallmarks that are
25 enumerated by 92 bis. And in those circumstances, and quite frankly, it
1 doesn't add anything in my submission to the ICTY statement, that then I
2 would be submitting areas in the realm of speculation, and in those
3 circumstances I would be objecting to the Bosnian statement. And I also
4 would note in this context that Your Honours already noted that the
5 witness was subject to protective measures in the Brdjanin trial. In the
6 Brdjanin trial, in the Brdjanin trail the approximate merely tendered the
7 ICTY statement and not the Bosnian statement.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Karagiannakis.
9 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS: Well, Your Honour, just to clarify what I'm
10 going seek admission of in the first place. There are in fact two
11 statements and one additional information provided by the witness. The
12 first statement is the 31 March 1998 taken by AID. That's the first
13 statement the witness ever gave about the events in the municipality. The
14 second statement is -- was taken on the 26th of August and the 3rd of
15 November 1999. So that's the ICTY statement. And then you have the
16 additional memorandum of 2000.
17 Now, the objection is in relation to the first statement, and I
18 have the following points to make. My learned friend says there's no
19 additional-- it doesn't really add anything. In fact, it's -- the first
20 statement is the most detailed statement about what the witness saw and
21 experienced in the municipality. Much of what's in the statement is
22 actually a direct recounting of what happened in meetings that he
23 personally participated in. The witness is able to come here and affirm
24 the contents of his statement, and of course he's open to
1 Further, it has been the practice of this Chamber to allow such
2 AID statements to be admitted, and then obviously allow counsel to
3 cross-examine on what they might think is speculation or otherwise. And
4 finally, in relation to 92 bis, the AID statement does not mention
5 Mr. Krajisnik, and therefore does not -- would not breach even by analogy
6 any interpretation of the Rule 92 bis, and nor would it breach 89(F).
7 Those are my submissions, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, you said that the Bosnian statement had
9 all the hallmarks of 92 bis. You hear that Ms. Karagiannakis says that it
10 fits well in the limits put by 92 bis.
11 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, the point I was making there, of course,
12 is that there are -- there are -- there are certain aspects that must be
13 covered to make a statement admissible under 92 bis, the certifying
14 officer and what have you, and the various matters that are contained
15 within the rule, and that those are the matters that I'm referring to.
16 As to the other points that are made by Ms. Karagiannakis, I think
17 that the point of substance that I wish to make is there is a world of
18 difference between, as Your Honours will note from your experience of
19 these statements, a world of difference between the manner in which a
20 statement a taken by the offices of the International Criminal Tribunal
21 and the statements taken by AID. And in those circumstances, Your Honour,
22 if the Prosecution wishes to proceed under 89(F), I would submit that the
23 evidence should be listed in the usual viva voce form as opposed to
24 attempting to rely on the shortened 89(F) procedure by tendering both the
25 ICTY and the AID statement.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let me ask you then the following: 92 bis is
2 not limited to ICTY statements, is it?
3 MS. LOUKAS: No, it isn't, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: That's one. And the second question I would have is
5 that the whole specific procedure for 92 bis in respect of presiding
6 officers, et cetera, of course, if the witness appears and will give his
7 testimony mainly viva voce, although elements under 89(F) are confirmed by
8 the witness, then, of course, I would say there's a whole Bench who could
9 put the same questions to the witness as usually are put to the witness by
10 a 92 bis presiding officer because that officer, of course, plays a very
11 important role if the witness does not appear, nor for
12 examination-in-chief nor for cross-examination. So would we miss anything
13 if we would put the same questions to the witness if he appears here as a
14 viva voce witness, compared to what a presiding officer confronts the
15 witness with?
16 MS. LOUKAS: Well, Your Honour, of course in essence, I suppose
17 that was the view of the majority in the case in question. But I think
18 that the points made by Judge Hunt in his dissenting opinion in relation
19 to the nature of evidence in chief are worth noting. And particularly,
20 the point he makes about the fact that there's often a world of difference
21 between what appears in black and white on a piece and what actually the
22 witness attests to once they get into a witness box, and the subject to a
23 proper evidence, nonleading evidence in chief. And it's on that basis, on
24 the basis of substance, Your Honour, that I maintain my objection.
25 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand since you rely not only on the
12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and
13 French transcripts correspond
1 decision but also on the observations made in the dissenting opinion of
2 Judge Hunt.
3 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, Your Honour.
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 JUDGE ORIE: Having read both statements and the -- being informed
6 about the additional information sheet, the Chamber considers that we
7 could proceed with this witness also under 89(F). But as far as the
8 summary is concerned, I haven't seen it, would there be any agreement
9 between the parties on what the summary -- which, of course, is again not
10 a summary which is mainly for evidentiary purposes but to inform the
11 public -- can we expect that the parties can agree on how to inform the
12 public on what's in the 89(F) summary.
13 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS: Your Honour, we've discussed the summary and
14 my learned friend had an objection. I've excised that part that was
15 objected to, and I think we can proceed on that basis.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas.
17 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, as I'm happy to proceed on that basis as
18 Ms. Karagiannakis indicates and I foreshadowed earlier, we have had this
19 discussion about the summary. I have indicated that there is a particular
20 phrase I want to excise. Ms. Karagiannakis has agreed to that in view of
21 the fact that the summary is for the information of the public and is not
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, then, we'll proceed.
24 Madam Usher, would you please escort the witness into the
1 [The witness entered court]
2 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Witness. I'll call you Witness 48
3 since the protective measures granted in respect of you in another case
4 continue to have their effect in this case. That means that we'll use a
5 pseudonym, 48, Witness 48, and that facial distortion is effective. That
6 means that no one sees your face in the outside world.
7 Before giving evidence, 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 is now handed out to you
10 by Madam Usher, and may I invite you to make that solemn declaration.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
12 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Please be seated. Let me just check whether the
14 facial distortion is effective. It is effective.
15 Ms. Karagiannakis, you may proceed.
16 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS: Thank you, Your Honour.
17 WITNESS: WITNESS KRAJ 48
18 [Witness answered through interpreter]
19 Examined by Ms. Karagiannakis:
20 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS: Could the witness please be shown the
21 statements of 31 March 1998.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Karagiannakis, would the pseudonym sheet not be
23 the logical first one to be presented to the witness.
24 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS: Could the witness please be shown the
25 pseudonym sheet.
1 Q. And could you just -- without saying anything else, could you just
2 confirm that the details contained there are correct.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, that pseudonym sheet would have the
5 THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit Number P302 under seal.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, the information here is
9 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS: Thank you. Could the witness please be shown
10 the statements of 31 March, 26 and 3rd November -- 21 March 1998, 26 and
11 3rd November 1999, and the additional memorandum dated 26 June 2000 in his
13 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Karagiannakis, you said the 26th of June. I have
14 a different date on my...
15 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS: Sorry, Your Honour, 29th of June.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
17 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
18 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS: Could those statements please be given
19 numbers. And I should foreshadow with the Court that they would be, if
20 admitted, exhibits under seal as they identify the name of the witness.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Yes, to the extent necessary. Would you please
22 review them and see whether in all respects.
23 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS: We can undertake, Your Honour, to -- I can
24 undertake to do the necessary redactions so there is a public version
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that would be preferred.
2 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS: Witness do you --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, that would be -- well, perhaps we go
4 in chronological order. The first one is the 31st of March 1998. That
5 would be...?
6 THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit P303.A.
7 JUDGE ORIE: And the next one would be the 2000, the memorandum of
8 conversation, 29th of June 2000.
9 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS: Your Honour, I understand the next one is the
10 1999 ICTY statement.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, yes, your idea of chronology is better than
12 mine, Ms. Karagiannakis.
13 The next one would then be the 26th of August and 3rd of November
15 THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit P303.B.
16 JUDGE ORIE: The next one would then be the 29th of June 2000.
17 THE REGISTRAR: P303.C.
18 JUDGE ORIE: And the additional information sheet, I take it,
19 Ms. Karagiannakis, would be dealt with in viva voce testimony.
20 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS: That's right, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please proceed.
22 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS:
23 Q. Witness, could you have a look at the statements in front of you.
24 Do you recognise these statements as statements that you have given to
25 Bosnian authorities and representatives of the ICTY?
1 A. Yes, I can identify these statements as statements that I did
3 Q. Did you have a chance to review these statements prior to today's
5 A. Yes. I had the opportunity of reviewing them before testifying
7 Q. Are you satisfied that these statements are a correct and
8 accurate -- are correct and accurate and that you are willing to confirm
9 that to the Court?
10 A. Yes. They are a correct reflection of what I want to confirm
11 today before this Trial Chamber.
12 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS: Your Honour, I now propose to read out a
13 summary in open session of this -- of the statements.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so, Ms. Karagiannakis.
15 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS: The witness states that the president of the
16 SDS in Bosanska Krupa was Miroslav Vjestica. He was also a representative
17 of the party at the republican level. Another member of the SDS who held
18 a high position was Gojko Klickovic. The witness states that Gojko
19 Klickovic appeared to be in the coordinator for SDS activities in the area
20 of Bosanska Krupa and that he seemed to be the most important person in
21 the SDS in the operational sense. A crisis staff was formed by the SDS in
22 Bosanska Krupa before the start of the war.
23 In September 1991, Milan Martic was arrested and taken to the
24 police station at Bosanska Otoka. This caused commotion and civil unrest
25 amongst the Bosniak population. The Serbs had organised a paramilitary
1 group in the hills and had threatened to attack Bosanska Krupa if Martic
2 was not released. Martic was subsequently released. After the release of
3 Martic, Gojko Klickovic went to the field to tell Serb paramilitaries in
4 the surrounding area that Martic had been released, and therefore they no
5 longer had to threaten Bosanska Krupa.
6 Klickovic stated that the local SDS had 5.000 armed men under its
7 control. During 1991, Biljana Plavsic came to Bosanska Krupa. During
8 this visit, she met with the local SDS. In 1992, a proposal was put
9 forward by the SDS about the division of the municipality. They asked for
10 a separate Serbian Bosanska Krupa to be established. The SDS produced a
11 document in the form of a programme asking the -- asking for the division
12 of the territory into Serb and non-Serb areas. On 20 April 1992,
13 paramilitaries surrounded the Bosniak village of Arapusa. Klickovic was
14 asked to explain to the forces that the state was functioning and that the
15 law would take its proper role but he did not do so. He told the
16 commander of the paramilitary forces to remain at their positions. On 20
17 April 1992 a meeting was held in the municipal building. The people
18 present included Fikret Abdic, a member of the Bosnian-Hercegovina
19 Presidency; Klickovic, Vjestica, the president and vice-president of the
20 SDA. Klickovic and Vjestica once again requested a division. They said
21 that running the municipality in tandem, living together, was out of the
22 question. They wanted to have Serb territory, and the Serbian people had
23 voted for them to work towards that aim.
24 Serbian children should learn Serbian history, Serbian books, et
25 cetera. It was agreed that there would be another meeting that evening at
12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and
13 French transcripts correspond
1 9.30 p.m. However, the SDS members did not show up for that meeting.
2 That night, the Serbs were particularly active in evacuating the town.
3 On 21 April 1992, none of the senior officials of Serb ethnicity
4 showed up for work at the municipal building.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Karagiannakis, I notice that the -- at least the
6 French translation which I can follow is already a few lines behind, and
7 that's -- they are not to be blamed for that. So could you please adapt
8 your speed.
9 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS: The witness was told by citizens and observers
10 that paramilitary units had started assembling on the hills around the
11 town. Serb citizens were leaving the town in droves. Immediately after
12 the JNA commander, General Ninkovic, left the municipality building on
13 that day, the Serbs started shelling the town with mortars from all
14 directions. Once the shelling started, people in the town started to flee
15 towards Cazin and Bihac. After the attack started, spontaneous resistance
16 was put up by local people with hunting weapons, and 70 police with about
17 200 reserve police. This lasted about four days and allowed 90 per cent
18 of the population to flee from the town.
19 The witness crossed over to the left bank of the Una River on 21
20 April 1992. He saw the town of Bosanska Krupa burning from the other side
21 of the river. The Serbs kept the entire right bank of the River Una and
22 expelled the non-Serb population from the town and villages on the right
23 bank. The property of the Bosniaks in houses and flats on the right side
24 of the river was looted. 12 civilians were killed in the first wave of
25 the attack on the town. Many people were taken to Jasenica camp and later
1 to the Petar Kocic primary school in Bosanska Krupa.
2 On 23rd April 1992, there were renewed negotiations which took
3 place in Bosanski Petrovac. Vjestica was the SDS representative from
4 Bosanska Krupa. At the meeting, the participants discussed how to stop
5 the conflict and make a buffer zone. The Serbs proposed that the border,
6 that is, the line of separation, be the River Una, and that the buffer
7 zone should be manned by JNA units or by Stojan Zupljanin's police force
8 which would come from Banja Luka, and also the municipal police.
9 Three or four meetings were held around that time, but nothing was
10 resolved. The SDS was in a more favourable position than if the SDA had
11 agreed to all of their demands, and it was clear that the SDS was not
12 prepared to give back the area they had seized.
13 In 1995, the Bosnian Army successfully retook the areas of
14 Bosanska Krupa, Bosanski Petrovac, and Sanski Most. The witness returned
15 and saw that the mosque and the 400-year-old Catholic church had been
16 destroyed. The orthodox church showed bullet damage but was not destroyed
17 and still remains in the town today. All of the Muslim villages and whole
18 areas of Muslim housing in the town which were of no military significance
19 were destroyed.
20 That concludes the summary, Your Honour.
21 If we could go into private session. And the basis for this,
22 Your Honour, is I'm is going to be asking the witness to provide the bases
23 upon which he says certain things in his statement, and this would
24 possibly require him to recount meetings at which he was present with a
25 limited amount of other people which, taken together, could identify him.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You would like to go into private session right
2 away to start with. Then we'll first go into private session.
3 Witness 48, perhaps I explain to you a bit of the procedure. Ms.
4 Karagiannakis has just read out a summary of what is in your written
5 statements. That is to inform the public about those elements of the
6 evidence that are not repeated in this courtroom, but of course the
7 public should know what the evidence is about. We'll now turn into
8 private session because you'll be asked a few questions on meetings
9 and perhaps the answers to those questions might identify you as a
10 person. So therefore, we go now into private session. That means
11 that the outside world doesn't hear what you will say.
12 [Private session]
11 Page 6408-6419 redacted. Private session.
12 [Open session]
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we now move into open session. And I have to
14 clarify that already on the basis of your request to move into private
15 session that we moved into private session. But then, of course, in
16 private session, the Chamber granted your request. And therefore, we
17 remained in private session in order not to give any identifying
18 element -- not to make any identifying element public during the
20 Please proceed, Ms. Karagiannakis.
21 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS:
22 Q. Could you just confirm that -- confirm that that map shows the
23 position and border of Bosanska Krupa before the war started.
24 A. Yes, this map does show the position of the Municipality of
25 Bosanska Krupa before the war.
1 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS: Could the witness please now be shown map 2.
2 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit Number P305.
3 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS:
4 Q. Now, could you take a pen and mark with the number 1 the location
5 of Arapusa village, a blue pen.
6 A. [Marks]
7 Q. Is that being shown -- I'm sorry, Your Honour. Is that being
8 shown on the monitor, the map?
9 Could you please indicate on the map to your left-hand side by
10 marking it with the number 1 in blue pen the...
11 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Karagiannakis, the question is whether we can use
12 your computer programme and the ELMO at the same time, or whether that's
14 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS: Perhaps, Your Honour, in these circumstances,
15 we can simply use the ELMO.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we use the ELMO.
17 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS: Thank you.
18 Q. Can you just tell the Court how far away Arapusa village was from
19 Bosanska Krupa town.
20 A. If you're asking me, Arapusa is about 18 kilometres from the town
21 of Bosanska Krupa.
22 Q. And what was the ethnic makeup of the town?
23 A. It's a village inhabited by Muslims.
24 Q. And what was the ethnic makeup of the surrounding villages?
25 A. The surrounding villages were Serbian ones. The population of
1 those villages was Serbian.
2 Q. Now, in your statement --
3 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS: Actually, Your Honour, I'm going to now ask
4 the witness a question about his role in relation to this village which
5 could result in him being identified. So I ask for private session.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Ms. Karagiannakis, I will grant your request,
7 but not after having asked you another question about maps. It's not the
8 first time that this happens. You provide us with one map without scale,
9 the whole of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and you provide us with another map with
10 a scale on it. If you compare the contours of the large map of the
11 Bosanska Krupa Municipality, if you compare that with the contours of the
12 Bosanska Krupa Municipality on the map with the scale, you'll see that the
13 second one is a projection. If you just look at Bosanska Krupa south to
14 north on the small map, it is more kilometres or more distance than from
15 east to west. However, on the other map, east to west is longer than
16 south to north. That means that one of the two maps is not precise. And
17 if that would be the map with the scale on it, then it's of no use to have
18 a scale on it because it's a projected map. So therefore, it's not the
19 first time. It happened in Sanski Most as well. So in order to get the
20 right impression of distances, perhaps precise maps, not projected ones,
21 would have to be preferred. This is just a general observation I made --
22 I make at this moment. It's not a reason to immediately change them all.
23 But everyone should be aware that these maps are printed on a different
25 We'll now turn into private session.
1 [Private session]
11 Page 6424 redacted. Private session.
11 Page 6425 redacted. Private session.
11 [Open session]
12 JUDGE ORIE: You may proceed. We are in open session again.
13 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS:
14 Q. Now, I'd like to move on to the topic of the attack on Bosanska
15 Krupa town on the 21st of April and its after-effects. At paragraph 39 of
16 your 1999 statement you state that citizens had told you that
17 paramilitaries had surrounded the town on 21 April.
18 A. I apologise. What was the number of the paragraph in the
19 statement from 1999?
20 Q. 1999, paragraph 39. And also, please, look at paragraph 2 of
21 the --
22 A. Yes, I've found it now.
23 Q. Can you also now look at the paragraph 2 of the 2000 memorandum.
24 A. Yes, I've found it.
25 Q. Where you provided some additional information about that point,
1 and you say in that paragraph "I do not see the units for myself. I was
2 in the municipality with observers, and they told us -- they told us and
3 they said the soldiers did not have the dress code of ordinary soldiers."
4 Now, could you please tell us who were the observers you were referring to
5 in the 2000 statement.
6 A. They were representatives of the United Nations, in fact. They
7 were people in white clothes. They had previously come to the
8 municipality. Their uniforms were completely white. And on the whole,
9 they would discuss the situation in the field. These people came a little
10 earlier on that day, and they were there from 10.00 in the morning -- they
11 were in my office from 10.00 in the morning. But at the time of the
12 attack, they took out protective equipment from their bags. I don't know
13 whether they were expecting something or whether this was their usual
14 equipment that they had. But I know that they put on flak jackets and
15 other items that served to protect people in such situations.
16 Q. Thank you. And you just said that they were representatives of
17 the United Nations. And in paragraph 39 that's in front of you, you refer
18 to ECMM monitors. Were both of those groups there, or would you like to
19 clarify that for the Court?
20 A. Well, look, all the people who came from the outside, all the
21 foreigners, we frequently mixed up these terms. We frequently mixed up
22 the United Nations and the European Community. For us, they were
23 observers on the whole, and we didn't make any significant distinction
24 between UN representatives and representatives of the EC. Perhaps they
25 were from the EC, but this wasn't of any particular importance for us.
1 Q. Thank you.
2 A. I'd like to add that they were not armed. They weren't
3 representatives of the military. They were civilians.
4 Q. Now, I'd like to refer you to paragraph 17 of your 1998 statement.
5 And there you describe the shelling of the town. You've also described it
6 at paragraph 43 of your 1999 statement.
7 Now, in this paragraph, the first line, it states "the first shell
8 was fired on the town from Serbian positions" -- sorry, "the first shell
9 was fired on the town from Serbian positions fell shortly after General
10 Ninkovic left towards Jasenica." Now, did you personally witness the
11 shelling of the town?
12 A. Yes, I was an eyewitness of the shelling of the town. My official
13 car which was an Audi 100, it was white and parked in front of the
14 municipal building, this car was the first thing to be hit. The bonnet
15 was hit, and it was no longer possible to use it. So I crossed over to
16 the other bank on foot. I've just remembered another detail I would like
17 to mention. I found a piece of shrapnel which ended up at my feet. When
18 I lifted it up, it was still hot. So this was material proof that it
19 wasn't a dream. It was reality, and a very terrible reality.
20 Q. Now, in paragraph 17, it states that the first shell was fired
21 from Serbian positions. What's the basis for your knowledge of that
23 A. When you said from Serbian positions, I have to explain the
24 location of Bosanska Krupa. Bosanska Krupa is in a valley. And the
25 surrounding hills are inhabited by Serbs, especially the part in the
1 direction of Grmec. So we could call them positions or something else,
2 but that is where they were physically present. They lived in those
4 On the other hand, it wasn't possible for an attack to be launched
5 from the other side because no one else had such weapons. So I couldn't
6 go to check whether those positions were there, but I'm sure that they
7 were there and had such weapons because only they had such weapons at the
9 Q. Thank you. Now, could you please look at paragraph 45 of your
10 1999 statement.
11 A. Yes, I've found it.
12 Q. It states that once the shelling started, people in the town
13 started to flee towards Cazin and Bihac. Now, as far as you knew the
14 people that were fleeing, can you tell us what ethnicity they were.
15 A. Citizens of Bosniak nationality were fleeing, although not
16 everyone fled in that direction. There were some people who didn't have a
17 sense of direction. There were people who were in a state of shock. And
18 there were others who didn't flee at all; they didn't want to go anywhere.
19 But most of the people who fled were people of Bosniak nationality, and
20 they fled in this direction.
21 Q. Now, you mentioned other people who didn't flee at all. Did you
22 subsequently learn what happened to those other people that didn't flee at
23 all? And if you did learn, can you tell us how you know that.
24 A. The people who didn't flee anywhere, the people who remained in
25 the houses were taken away to camps later on. And exchanges were arranged
1 for certain people. I know about this because my mother was one of those
2 people. My aunt, my uncle as well. Many of my relatives didn't want to
3 flee, and they were, in fact, expelled. They had to leave their homes,
4 and they were taken to Bihac.
5 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS: Just one last question before the break,
6 Your Honour.
7 Q. You mentioned here a number of your relatives. Without mentioning
8 any of their names, please, can you tell me whether to your knowledge any
9 of these people were involved in any military activities.
10 A. No, none of them were. On the whole, these were people who
11 weren't fit for military service, and they did not take part in military
13 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS: That might be a convenient moment,
14 Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it is, Ms. Karagiannakis.
16 We'll adjourn until 5 minutes to 11.00.
17 --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.
18 --- On resuming at 11.00 a.m.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Karagiannakis, you may proceed.
20 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS:
21 Q. Before the break, witness, you mentioned that your relatives had
22 told you about what had happened at the municipality after the takeover.
23 Could you tell -- please tell me what the ethnicity of your relatives who
24 told you was.
25 A. All my relatives who remained in Bosanska Krupa and who were later
1 expelled were Muslims, Bosniaks by ethnicity.
2 Q. Thank you. At paragraph 22 of your 1998 statement and paragraph
3 54 of your 1999 statement, you say that 12 civilians were killed during
4 the attack, initial attack on Bosanska Krupa. How did you come to know
5 about these 12 civilians that were killed?
6 A. On the basis of information brought in by the civilians who had
7 been expelled and also the representatives -- well, I'm going to refer to
8 them as representatives of the international community, whether they were
9 European officers or whoever, but anyway, representatives of the
10 international community who had an insight into the situation, on the
11 basis of what they told us, I came to learn that there were dead people
12 out in the streets. And we decided that on the 6th of May, two completely
13 identical groups on both sides, that is to say, representatives of the
14 international community and representatives of the civilian powers and
15 authorities, the Red Cross, and the medical corps, that we would meet in
16 front of the department store and take the necessary equipment to collect
17 up the bodies of the people lying around Bosanska Krupa. So this meeting
18 was supposed to take place on the 6th of May, and we set out in the number
19 provided for and with all the members present and ready. However, when we
20 arrived at the tunnel, the railway tunnel just before the bridge, the
21 shelling and shooting started. And we were stopped in our intentions of
22 proceeding further. And the vehicle was hit, a vehicle belonging to the
23 international community that was transporting us. And we took refuge in
24 the tunnel. We sheltered in the tunnel.
25 And then the officer who was the representative of the
12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and
13 French transcripts correspond
1 international community contacted the other side where there was also his
2 counterpart, another officer of the international community. The code
3 name was Echo Charlie. I remember that. And Gojko Klickovic at the time
4 gave orders, or rather said there were no operations underway and no drive
5 to collect up dead bodies could go ahead. So he didn't allow us to get to
6 the meeting point and put our plans into practice to collect up the
7 bodies. The civilians who had been killed were later on -- their bodies
8 were brought in to the Cazin Municipality where they were buried. And I
9 attended the funeral. There were 12 bodies. 12 people were buried on
10 that day.
11 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS: Thank you.
12 Could we go into private session now, Your Honour. I would like
13 to ask the witness about a meeting.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Perhaps before doing so, is it the position of
15 the Prosecution that these are -- because we haven't heard any further
16 details about people that were killed. It could be all kind of
17 circumstances under which they were killed. Is that -- is it the position
18 of the Prosecution that it's intentional killing of civilians, or is it --
19 it could be collateral damage of shelling.
20 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS: The information the Prosecution has -- is
21 provided by the Prosecution, which is in paragraph 22 of the 1998
22 statement and 54 of the 1999 statement which is -- which the witness has
23 recounted now. Those are the only details we intend to lead about this
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's clear.
1 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS: From this witness, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ORIE: From this witness. I do understand.
3 Then we turn into private session.
4 [Private session]
18 [Open session]
19 JUDGE ORIE: It's confirmed on my screen that we are in open
20 session now.
21 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS: Now I would like to move on to a different
22 topic, which is intercepts.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
24 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS:
25 Q. Witness, before testifying here today, did you have an opportunity
1 to listen to intercepted communications, and did you identify the voices
2 of the participants as being Miroslav Vjestica and Radovan Karadzic in one
3 conversation, and Miroslav Vjestica and Momcilo Krajisnik in the second
5 A. Yes. I did identify the people you mentioned yesterday when I
6 listened to the tapes.
7 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS: Could the witness please be shown the next
8 exhibit, which is a declaration. It contains the witness's name, so it
9 should be under seal.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, that would be number?
11 THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit Number P306 under seal.
12 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS: I should explain for the benefit of the Court
13 that the witness should be shown the declaration, but the declaration is
14 the first in a package which contains the intercepted communications in
15 both languages, and an audio CD of those communications. But I don't
16 propose to ask him about the contents.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it's just -- it's the first in a package. You
18 mean that other intercepts will follow?
19 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS: No, these are the only two intercepts. It's
20 just -- it's his declaration about the voice recognition, and then
21 followed by what he has recognised.
22 MS. LOUKAS: Just in relation to this, Your Honour, I understand
23 that this exhibit is purely for the purposes of voice identification. I
24 would make one point at this juncture, Your Honour, and that is that, of
25 course, we've heard evidence from the witness in relation to his contacts
1 with the person, Mr. Vjestica. But Your Honour, I don't think that in the
2 circumstances the witness is in a position based on personal knowledge to
3 identify the voices of either Mr. Radovan Karadzic or
4 Mr. Momcilo Krajisnik.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, well, whether or not you can cross-examine the
6 witness on that, I can tell you, Ms. Loukas, that even although I never
7 met Pavarotti I certainly would recognise his voice for other reasons. So
8 it's not as such because he never met someone --
9 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed. Indeed, Your Honour. But nevertheless I
10 think we must always apply the best-evidence rule, and the best evidence
11 in relation to questions of voice is from somebody who is actually had
12 considerably more personal knowledge of the person than the witness has
13 had. I just put that marker down so Your Honour is aware.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do understand that might require under
15 circumstances that you'd need two witnesses to identify voices. But for
16 the time being -- the best-evidence rule, of course, which is well known
17 in the common-law tradition does not in exactly the same way operate in
18 this Tribunal. But it certainly -- it's something to be aimed at to try
19 to find the best evidence for whatever you want to establish.
20 MS. LOUKAS: Well, indeed, Your Honour. I mean, The situation is,
21 of course, when we're dealing with this sort of -- the hybrid nature of
22 the Tribunal and the combination of common-law principles and civil-law
23 principles, nevertheless whilst the Tribunal can inform itself in any way
24 it sees fit, nevertheless they are matters that go very importantly to the
25 probative nature of the evidence in question.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it certainly may has some effect on the
2 probative value and weighing the evidence.
3 One second, please.
4 Yes, I just reread your objection. You may proceed,
5 Ms. Karagiannakis.
6 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS: Thank you.
7 Q. Do you see the declaration that -- the declaration in front of
9 A. Yes, I do see that.
10 Q. Does this declaration bear your signature?
11 A. Yes. My signature is on the declaration.
12 Q. And does it attest as to the -- your voice identification on these
13 two intercepts?
14 A. Yes, it does attest to that.
15 Q. Thank you.
16 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS: I've concluded with that exhibit, Your Honour.
17 If the witness could be shown the next exhibit --
18 JUDGE ORIE: These exhibits are to be returned to -- yes, please.
19 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS: Yes.
20 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
21 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, as far as the numbers are concerned,
22 could you please assist us.
23 THE REGISTRAR: The transcript of the intercept dated 24/06/1991
24 will be P306.A. And the transcript of the intercept conversation of
25 05/06/1991 will be P306.B. And the CD of the intercepts, P306.C.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and
13 French transcripts correspond
1 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
2 THE REGISTRAR: And this exhibit, P307.
3 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, just in relation to that CD, I'm just
4 wondering if the Prosecution might have a spare copy of that particular CD
5 for the Defence.
6 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS: I understand, Your Honour, that an audio was
7 sent to the Defence. However, we will endeavour to comply.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Perhaps I first ask you, Ms. Loukas, the
9 transfer of the CD to the Detention Unit yesterday, finally was it
10 successful, yes or no?
11 MS. LOUKAS: It was successful, Your Honour, unfortunately, yes.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Is it in relation to this that you would like to have
13 a spare copy, or is it -- has it -- is it totally unrelated?
14 MS. LOUKAS: Well, in fact, Your Honour, the -- Ms. Cmeric tells
15 me that we don't have a CD, a separate CD of the nature that was just
16 tendered to the Tribunal.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, okay.
18 Ms. Karagiannakis.
19 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS: We'll endeavour to assist, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ORIE: We'll find a practical solution for that. Thank you
21 for your cooperation.
22 Then Madam Registrar, the next exhibit, P307, is that a report on
23 the work of the Municipal Assembly and War Presidency from the 1st of
24 January 1992 to the 20th of April 1993 in a draft version?
25 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, it is, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
2 Please proceed, Ms. Karagiannakis.
3 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS:
4 Q. Witness, did you have a chance to review this document prior to
5 your testimony in the Brdjanin case and also prior to your testimony here
7 A. Yes, I did have a chance to review this document prior to my
9 Q. Who is the author of this document?
10 A. The author of this document is Gojko Klickovic.
11 Q. Why do you say that?
12 A. We already discussed the document that the SDS officially sent to
13 the Municipality of Bosanska Krupa as a plan for the municipality's
14 division. I had insight into that document. And many of the elements
15 contained in that document is contained in this report. In fact, I
16 recognise the rhetorics of Gojko Klickovic, the way he speaks, because he
17 worked with me, and we cooperated frequently, sat together, discussed
18 matters, that kind of thing, so that judging by the expressions used in
19 this report I recognise his style and the way he spoke, his words.
20 Q. You mentioned in your answer that many elements contained in the
21 proposal for the separation of the municipality that was presented to you
22 prior to the conflict are similar to those in this document. Could you
23 take the Court to the parts that are similar.
24 A. Mention is made here of the economic reasons, the economic reasons
25 are stated for the separation of the municipality and the political work
1 needed. And then the reasons are enumerated, set out. Now, having known
2 about these events and the contents of this, the only man who could know
3 about all that was Gojko Klickovic. No other person in the SDS was in a
4 position to know things of this kind. So in my opinion, he was the only
5 person who could have compiled a document of this kind.
6 Q. When you mentioned the economic reasons and the political reasons,
7 are you referring to page -- the headings on page 2 of the B/C/S version
8 and page 3 of the English version?
9 A. Yes, that's precisely it. On page 2, you have the basic reasons
10 set out for compiling the project on the municipality's partitioning, so
11 that's the element dating to before the war. And now, this is just
12 slightly rearranged, but basically it's identical. The report is
13 identical to, or rather it confirms the justification for the
14 municipality's partitioning or separation. In fact, we are dealing here
15 with 1993 and the prospects, or rather Gojko Klickovic's visions are quite
16 different here because in 1993, he was the victor, so the prospects and
17 his visions were well known if the situation remained the same as it was
18 in 1993. So he had every reason to write a report of this kind.
19 Q. Now, could I just take you to the third reason under the political
20 reasons that's stated there, and it says "the case involving the Branko
21 Copic monument, which goes beyond mere opposition to the erection of the
22 monument." Can you tell us what happened in relation to the Branko Copic
23 monument? You'll find that point 3, B/C/S version, page 2, under the
24 second underlined heading.
25 A. Yes, I've found that portion. The case involving Branko Copic
1 took on rather broad dimensions, and for me, it was a very difficult case
2 because I was under pressure from the public. In fact, I was facing a
3 dilemma myself.
4 Q. Could I just stop you there. Can you please tell us who Branko
5 Copic was and what the proposal was in relation to the monument.
6 A. Branko Copic was a poet. He had sympathisers throughout
7 Yugoslavia. He was a partisan poet. And he had a broad following amongst
8 all the nations and nationalities or ethnic groups in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
9 As he was born in Bosanska Krupa, he was particularly celebrated and
10 respected in Bosanska Krupa. So the opposition to erecting a monument of
11 that kind, regardless of the fact that it might not have been -- that it
12 might have been illegal in terms of procedure to put the monument up, was
13 very risky business. The SDS wanted to erect such a monument on the basis
14 of some illegal paperwork compiled by Mr. Miroslav Vjestica who was the
15 head of the town planning department previously, and therefore had the
16 possibility of implementing a project of that kind. So I had the dilemma
17 of whether I should forget the fact that the process might not be
18 legitimate and to accept it, or to oppose it. I decided to oppose it
19 because if the monument had been erected, there would have been scope for
20 further acts of that kind in the municipality which would lead to
21 unforeseen consequences. So I was conscious of the risk because not many
22 people would have noted opposition to the legality or not. And there were
23 strong attacks and criticisms from journalists in Belgrade. They tried to
24 depict me as somebody who was against Branko Copic, and by the same token
25 against the Serbian people and so on and so forth.
1 In order to overcome this impasse or the situation, we sought a
2 solution in Sarajevo, and this time, once again, we went to Sarajevo to
3 find that solution. We went to see Mr. Momcilo Krajisnik at the time who
4 was the president of the assembly. And I think that Radovan Karadzic was
5 involved in the case as well. However, I didn't meet him in Sarajevo at
6 the time. We only talked to the president of the assembly, Momcilo
7 Krajisnik. But we weren't able to solve the issue on that occasion, and
8 it is my feeling that they understood what it was all about. And so the
9 case died a natural death.
10 Q. Was the Copic monument actually erected?
11 A. The monument was illegally erected, but the municipal organs
12 ordered the public utilities company from Bosanska Krupa to remove the
13 monument and place it in a warehouse. So the monument was removed from
14 that location.
15 Q. Thank you.
16 Now, in relation to the first point under number 2, political
17 reasons, it mentions the SDA's policy. As a member of the SDA, can you
18 tell us what -- can you comment on that statement.
1 Could we go into private session for the remainder of this answer.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we'll turn into private session.
3 [Private session]
11 Page 6446 redacted. Private session.
11 Page 6447 redacted. Private session.
1 [Open session]
2 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS:
3 Q. Can you please look at paragraph 55 of your 1999 statement.
4 A. I've found the paragraph.
5 Q. There you refer to RS currency as an example of your statement the
6 process of taking over areas and making them part of the RS seemed to be
7 well coordinated. Witness, could you look at the last exhibit and just
8 confirm that that's the currency that you refer to in your statement.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit Number P308.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, this is an example of the
11 currency in question.
12 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS:
13 Q. And can you explain to the Court why you say that supports your
14 statement that this showed taking over areas and making them part of the
15 RS seemed to be well coordinated?
16 A. Well, look, in 1992 I didn't have the possibility of ordering
17 certain events chronologically, but I was in a position to do so in 1995.
18 So this is a comment I made by chance. I came by these bills. By
19 following the events from 1992 to 1995, I put the events in order, and I
20 came to the conclusion that there was a way in which the Serbs coordinated
21 their efforts in Bosnia and Herzegovina. So in 1992, a bill was issued,
22 and it contained the words "the National Bank of the Serbian Republic in
23 Bosnia and Herzegovina." In 1995, the military situation was completely
24 different. And in political terms, Bosnia and Herzegovina could no longer
25 be contained as part of the name of the bank issuing the hundred thousand
1 dinar bill. So this was a stage. And it is on this basis that I came to
2 the conclusion that there had been coordination and that there had been a
3 plan to do things in the way that they were actually done.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas.
5 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, Your Honour. I should just indicate, I'm just
6 marking this at this point, that I do, in fact, object to that first
7 sentence of paragraph 55.
8 JUDGE ORIE: And reasons for your objection?
9 MS. LOUKAS: Well, Your Honour, I take it as is usually the case,
10 we argue these objections in full at the end of the witness's evidence.
11 It's perhaps not appropriate that I give the objection in front of the
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
14 MS. LOUKAS: I can do it now, but not in front of the witness,
15 Your Honour.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Of course, I wasn't aware of the nature of your
17 objection. Perhaps we could do it at the end of the examination-in-chief.
18 MS. LOUKAS: Certainly, Your Honour.
19 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS: That's the end --
20 JUDGE ORIE: This is the end --
21 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS: This is the end of examination-in-chief.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's...
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Could I add something, please.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, if there's something you think to be of
25 importance which you would like to tell us, please do so.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Now, when we follow the events that
2 unfolded, when I claim that there was coordination, this can be supported
3 by what happened in Slavonski Brod, in Dubica, in Prijedor. Territory was
4 conquered in a controlled manner, the territory that was given the name
5 "Republika Srpska." And this all culminated in Prijedor. Things came to
6 a head in Prijedor when they organised the assemblies of the two republics
7 of Serbia from Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. And they supported the
8 unification of the western Serbian lands. I had the opportunity of
9 following that assembly in the territory of the so-called Bihac pocket.
10 And at the time, I, in fact, understood what the Serbs' plan in that area
11 was because Martic also attended the assembly that was held in Prijedor.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. That's what you wanted to add.
13 Ms. Karagiannakis, before we proceed, I'm just trying to fully
14 understand the evidence given in relation to the bank notes. The witness
15 testified about bank notes of 1992, and I see that one of the bank notes,
16 the 5.000 dinar, is of 1992. The other one, the 100.000 bank note seems
17 to be from 1993. The witness testified about -- well, the issuing
18 authority, and I wonder whether in the 5.000 dinar bank note that we would
19 find that just on the other side of the bank note rather than on this one.
20 But I'm not quite sure. I'm trying to decipher, the 100.000 on top, at
21 least I see there's something like "Republika Srpska." That's 1993. But
22 on the other, I have some difficulties to identify anything else than the
23 5.000 dinars which seems to be at the bottom, dark line. I also see that
24 it's issued in Banja Luka and under whose authority. But I cannot find,
25 as a matter of fact, the name of the bank issuing this money, and that
1 should be the National Bank of the Serbian Republic in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
2 So would that be on the other side of the 5.000 dinar bank note?
3 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS: Your Honour, the photocopy I have in front of
4 me, and if we look at Banja Luka, the 5.000 dinar note is at the top. And
5 at the bottom it says Banja Luka 1992.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
7 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS: In the top right-hand corner of my copy, I can
8 make out "Narodna Banka Srpske Republike Bosne i Hercegovine". So it
9 looks like on the copy that I have, above the shield, it identifies the
10 issuing authority.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Could we just have a look at your copy to see whether
12 it's the same as the copy we have.
13 Couldn't it be nice to provide the Chamber with the same sides of
14 the bank notes that you are holding in your hands because you are --
15 exactly what I expected. You are looking at the back side of the copy
16 that we have. It would really be of assistance to look at the same
17 pictures as you seem to because -- is this the one you wanted to tender?
18 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS: Yes.
19 JUDGE ORIE: You didn't.
20 Could I just have -- could it be returned to Ms. Karagiannakis,
21 and could we perhaps after the break seek verification with the witness
22 whether this is the back side. But -- or Madam Registrar, could I please
23 inspect everything in relation to the bank notes that has been given to
25 I have to apologise, Ms. Karagiannakis, because it seems that
1 we -- that the back side of the bank notes were not distributed to the
2 Chamber. So we saw only one side of the bank notes, and that's exactly
3 the side on which I had difficulties to find confirmation of what the
4 witness testified. You will agree with me that the exception confirms the
5 rule that our registrar is the most precise one in this courtroom.
6 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS: Of course, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it's now perfectly clear to me. It was not
9 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
10 JUDGE ORIE: But perhaps before the Chamber gives an opportunity
11 to Ms. Loukas to start cross-examination, perhaps we could have an early
12 break today and ask the witness to leave the courtroom so that Ms. Loukas
13 is in a position to make further submissions in relation to the objection
14 you made.
15 MS. LOUKAS: There's just one further matter, of course,
16 Your Honour.
17 JUDGE ORIE: To be dealt with in the presence of the witness?
18 MS. LOUKAS: Well, probably shouldn't be, Your Honour. The
19 witness can either leave or remove his headphones.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, if we would have a break anyhow, do we
21 need the witness if you address the matter you have in mind?
22 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, there's a matter I wish to address now
23 in the absence of the witness.
24 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand. But should the witness remain
25 standby, or can we, if we have an early break, could we continue after the
12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and
13 French transcripts correspond
1 break so that the witness is now excused.
2 MS. LOUKAS: That's the point I want to deal with, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Sometimes it's -- may I first ask you, do you
4 understand any English or do you speak English?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't speak English. And I
6 understand very little.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Then I nevertheless have to ask you just to leave the
8 courtroom for a second because sometimes issues have to be dealt with in
9 the absence of the witness. So may I ask you to follow the usher for this
10 moment. But to remain standby. We, of course, first have to pull the
11 curtains down.
12 Ms. Loukas, the audio is open. Should we pull the curtains again,
13 and then pull them down again, or is it something that we could deal with
14 even if no one sees us?
15 MS. LOUKAS: Well, Your Honour, I often get the feeling that in
16 view of the absence of the public in the public gallery, that it's not
17 going to make a great deal of difference.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Let's be practical for one second.
19 MS. LOUKAS: Now, Your Honour, just to indicate in relation to
20 this particular witness and the question of the cross-examination, as
21 Your Honour is aware, the Defence up until yesterday was dealing with
22 Mr. Kljuic, and we, of course, haven't had an opportunity to speak with
23 Mr. Krajisnik in relation to this particular witness. And more
24 specifically, we only received yesterday afternoon when we got out of
25 Court the supplemental information sheet which specifically mentions
1 Mr. Krajisnik. And in those circumstances, Your Honour, I would want to
2 have the opportunity to have a conference with my client prior to
3 commencing the cross-examination. So therefore, we would need a longer
4 than the usual 15- or 20-minute break.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that can be arranged, this meeting, during the
7 MS. LOUKAS: I should think so, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE ORIE: How much time would you need, Ms. Loukas?
9 MS. LOUKAS: At this point it's a little bit difficult to
10 determine. The alternative, because we are ahead of schedule at the
11 moment of course, is we could always start the cross-examination
12 tomorrow. We could finish early today, I could go and see Mr. Krajisnik
13 at the UNDU this afternoon, and we could begin and finish the
14 cross-examination tomorrow. Or I can take a longer than usual break now,
15 have a conference with Mr. Krajisnik, and then commence the
16 cross-examination this afternoon. I'm in Your Honours' hands. Because at
17 this stage, we are of course ahead of schedule in any event.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Wouldn't it be the best solution at this moment to
19 finish for the day.
20 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS: No objection, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, if that would be --
22 MS. LOUKAS: That would be suitable. That would allow me the
23 opportunity to have a conference with Mr. Krajisnik at the United Nations
24 Detention Unit this afternoon, and there's of course no way I would need
25 the entire day tomorrow in any event.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps you could then also raise the issue of next
2 Tuesday's witness where you said something about --
3 MS. LOUKAS: Just having received the material this morning,
4 Your Honour, that's correct, yes.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Then first of all, I'd like to explain this to the
6 witness. But just for the time being. There was another issue you wanted
7 to raise.
8 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed, Your Honour. There was the question of my
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could we do the following: We first, since the
11 curtains are down, we invite the witness to come back and explain to him
12 that we will continue tomorrow morning. And then we'll pull the curtains
13 up again, and then you make your objection in relation to the-- or should
14 it be done in private session, or any reason for that?
15 MS. LOUKAS: No, Your Honour. I don't propose to in any way refer
16 to the witness in a way that might identify him for the purposes of the
18 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Let's then do it very practically.
19 Madam Usher, could you then please escort the witness into the
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that the parties will agree that I explain
23 to the witness without pulling the curtains high and then pulling them
24 down again.
25 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, Your Honour. I have no problem with that.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Witness -- no, it's not -- let's keep them down.
2 Witness, in your absence, the Defence has requested to have a
3 break now and to start your cross-examination tomorrow. The Chamber has
4 listened to the reasons and the practicalities. Since we would not finish
5 your cross-examination anyhow today and since there's no risk, I would
6 say, that we would not finish by tomorrow, the Chamber has decided that
7 you'll be cross-examined by counsel for the Defence starting tomorrow
8 morning, 9.00, but in Courtroom III, I think, Madam Registrar -- no,
9 that's for next Monday. Same courtroom, yes. So you're excused for the
10 remaining part of the day. I want to instruct you not to speak with
11 anyone about the testimony you have given or you're still about to give.
12 And we would like to see you back tomorrow morning at 9.00.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've understood you, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 Madam Usher, could you please escort the witness out of the
17 [The witness stands down]
18 JUDGE ORIE: I was a bit late with my instructions to -- well,
19 perhaps, we could have all parties assist in having the curtains up again.
20 Ms. Loukas, sometimes unexpected things do happen.
21 Ms. Loukas, you would like to raise an objection in relation to a
22 certain paragraph of the written statement.
23 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, that's correct, Your Honour. Just in relation
24 to, as I foreshadowed, that first sentence of paragraph 55. Your Honour,
25 the witness has given his evidence in chief that might go towards
1 supporting that particular proposition, and I would submit, Your Honour,
2 that that sort of evidence is of negligible probative value, that sort of
3 sweeping generalisations of that nature are not helpful in terms of the
4 fact-finding exercise that the Trial Chamber must determine and should, in
5 fact, be avoided as part of the evidence taking into account the balancing
6 act that Your Honours must perform under Rule 89 of the Rules of the
7 Tribunal. And in those circumstances, having heard the evidence in chief
8 of the witness that goes towards supporting or otherwise that particular
9 statement, I would submit that a statement of that nature has next-to-no
10 probative value in the circumstances and should be excised from the
12 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Karagiannakis.
13 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS: Your Honour, the objection, as I understand
14 it, goes to the weight and not the actual admissibility of the evidence.
15 The second thing I would like to note is that the witness has indeed given
16 evidence and he has described the basis for that conclusion so that that
17 conclusion must be seen in light of the witness's evidence. And
18 Your Honours are able to judge that and give it the appropriate weight.
19 So it's not really an issue of admissibility, but weight, and therefore
20 that should not be struck from the statement.
21 JUDGE ORIE: You're just relating -- you're just talking about the
22 first line of 55 where the witness, I think, added a few elements for this
23 conclusion which, of course, then in the oral testimony, the conclusion,
24 if it is given additional support, is in evidence anyhow. So I'm just
25 wondering at the practical level if we take it out of the 89(F) statement,
1 then it would be in the oral testimony anyhow, isn't it?
2 MS. LOUKAS: That's true, Your Honour. But I think perhaps
3 it's -- perhaps it might be appropriate for the Trial Chamber to give an
4 indication as to what sort of weight the Trial Chamber would give a
5 statement of that nature in view of the sweeping generalised nature of the
6 statement, in view of the nature of the witness's evidence. It's my
7 submission, Your Honour, that evidence of this nature is not the sort of
8 evidence that the Trial Chamber would use as a basis for forming the
9 requisite fact-finding exercise the Trial Chamber must determine. And in
10 those circumstances, perhaps an indication could be given by the Trial
11 Chamber which would be, I think, helpful to both the Prosecution and
12 Defence as to the approach to be adopted by the Trial Chamber in relation
13 to sweeping generalisations and almost baseless generalisations of that
15 JUDGE ORIE: If I look at the first line which is a sweeping
16 statement to the extent that it covers the process of taking over areas
17 and making them part of Republika Srpska and then qualifies it as
18 coordinated it, whereas the support only deals with a specific element of
19 coordination, in the additional testimony by the witness, he added some
20 other elements, I think the statement as such, the first line, of course,
21 will be interpreted by the Chamber on the basis of the support given. I
22 mean, if there would have been no mentioning of bank notes or what
23 happened elsewhere or nothing at all, then of course the statement as such
24 would not really be of great assistance to establish what happened. What
25 we see is that there's a link between the first line because limits of the
1 sweeping statement are found in the support given to it.
2 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE ORIE: And the Chamber will certainly keep that in mind that
4 on the basis of bank notes, you could not establish coordinated --
5 coordinated taking over of areas and making them part of. I mean, this is
6 a small element, so certainly in order to come to the kind of conclusions
7 the witness comes, one would need far more and a lot of other information
8 as well, and not just the bank notes. So to that extent, the weight of
9 this evidence, also of the first line, will be directly linked to the
10 factual support given to that statement.
11 MS. LOUKAS: If Your Honour pleases.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Would you then still then insist on taking out the
13 first line?
14 MS. LOUKAS: That's adequate for my purposes at this time,
15 Your Honour.
16 JUDGE ORIE: So the explanation is you don't insist on --
17 MS. LOUKAS: No, Your Honour. Clearly the important aspect is the
18 reliance on the actual evidence given by the witness as opposed to
19 sweeping opinions. Thank you, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 Is there any other procedural issue to be discussed at this
22 moment? Mr. Hannis.
23 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I was just thinking that we probably
24 will be done before the full component of the time tomorrow, and I didn't
25 know if the Court wanted to have us prepare to deal with any housekeeping
1 matters, or since Monday is going to be a housekeeping day any way, if
2 we'll finish early tomorrow and just finish then.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, if we finish early tomorrow, would you
4 prefer to deal with all the housekeeping matters or to think them over
5 over the weekend and then to deal with them on Monday?
6 MS. LOUKAS: Well, I must say I think Monday is probably a better
7 idea, Your Honour, because I think we have a whole series of matters that
8 have been left outstanding that we probably, I think the Prosecution and I
9 in conjunction with the updated exhibit list with the Registrar, I think
10 we need to go over in some detail to ensure that this particular
11 housekeeping day, as it were, is most effective. So we cover those loose
12 ends rather than sort of deal with them in a halfhearted sort of way on
14 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber will very much appreciate if you could
15 give a list of housekeeping matters to deal with on Monday, and of course
16 if you provided them we could compare it with our list of housekeeping
17 matters to be dealt with.
18 Then we adjourn for the day until tomorrow morning, 9.00, same
20 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 12.09 p.m.,
21 to be reconvened on Friday, the 1st day of October,
22 2004, at 9.00 a.m.