Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 6391

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

17 down.

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

Page 6392

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.


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.

Page 6393

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

Page 6394

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

25 cross-examination.

Page 6395

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.

Page 6396

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

Page 6397












12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and

13 French transcripts correspond













Page 6398

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

22 evidence.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, then, we'll proceed.

24 Madam Usher, would you please escort the witness into the

25 courtroom.

Page 6399

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.


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.

Page 6400

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

4 number?

5 THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit Number P302 under seal.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, the information here is

8 correct.

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

12 language.

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

25 available.

Page 6401

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

14 1999.

15 THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit P303.B.

16 JUDGE ORIE: The next one would then be the 29th of June 2000.


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.


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?

Page 6402

1 A. Yes, I can identify these statements as statements that I did

2 give.

3 Q. Did you have a chance to review these statements prior to today's

4 testimony?

5 A. Yes. I had the opportunity of reviewing them before testifying

6 today.

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

Page 6403

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

Page 6404












12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and

13 French transcripts correspond













Page 6405

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

Page 6406

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.

Page 6407

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]

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

Page 6408











11 Page 6408-6419 redacted. Private session.















Page 6420

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

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

19 testimony.

20 Please proceed, 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.

Page 6421

1 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS: Could the witness please now be shown map 2.

2 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit Number P305.


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

13 impossible.

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

Page 6422

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

24 basis.

25 We'll now turn into private session.

Page 6423

1 [Private session]

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

Page 6424











11 Page 6424 redacted. Private session.















Page 6425











11 Page 6425 redacted. Private session.















Page 6426

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 [Open session]

12 JUDGE ORIE: You may proceed. We are in open session again.


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,

Page 6427

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.

Page 6428

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

22 statement?

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

Page 6429

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

3 areas.

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

8 time.

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

Page 6430

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

12 activities.

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.


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

Page 6431

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

Page 6432












12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and

13 French transcripts correspond













Page 6433

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

24 incident.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's clear.

Page 6434

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]

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

Page 6435

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

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.


25 Q. Witness, before testifying here today, did you have an opportunity

Page 6436

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

4 conversation?

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

Page 6437

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.

Page 6438

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.


7 Q. Do you see the declaration that -- the declaration in front of

8 you?

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.


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.

Page 6439












12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and

13 French transcripts correspond













Page 6440

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.

Page 6441

1 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

2 Please proceed, 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

6 today?

7 A. Yes, I did have a chance to review this document prior to my

8 testimony.

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

Page 6442

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

Page 6443

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.

Page 6444

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.

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

Page 6445

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]

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

Page 6446











11 Page 6446 redacted. Private session.















Page 6447











11 Page 6447 redacted. Private session.















Page 6448

1 [Open session]


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.


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

Page 6449

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

12 witness.


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.

Page 6450

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

Page 6451

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.


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?


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

24 the...

25 I have to apologise, Ms. Karagiannakis, because it seems that

Page 6452

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

8 before.

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

Page 6453












12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and

13 French transcripts correspond













Page 6454

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

Page 6455

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

6 break.

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.

Page 6456

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

9 objection.

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

17 objection.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Let's then do it very practically.

19 Madam Usher, could you then please escort the witness into the

20 courtroom.

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.

Page 6457

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.


15 Madam Usher, could you please escort the witness out of the

16 courtroom.

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

Page 6458

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

11 statement.

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,

Page 6459

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

14 nature.

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

Page 6460

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.


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

Page 6461

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

13 Friday.

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

19 courtroom.

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.