1 Thursday, 28 October 2004
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.07 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in the courtroom, which is
6 not as cold as the last few days.
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 I was informed that where the failure in the heating the last few
12 days was fixed, that the next step to make is to fix the air conditioning,
13 so that I hope that the temperature will go down.
14 First of all, I'd like to know, Mr. Tieger, is there any response
15 to a confidential motion which would cause us to go into private session?
16 MR. TIEGER: No, Your Honour. The Prosecution has reviewed both
17 submissions. We're satisfied that there's more than sufficient
18 information upon which the Court can base its determinations.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then there's no need to go into private
20 session. I might have some additional information for the Prosecution in
21 respect of conflicting treaty obligations, or international obligations,
22 but that would come later.
23 Then, Madam Usher, would you please escort the witness into the
25 MR. STEWART: Customary in these circumstances in England for me
1 to ask for permission to take my wig off, but I've already taken that
3 JUDGE ORIE: As a matter of fact, I thought that you had taken the
4 liberty already.
5 MR. STEWART: Well, it simply doesn't go with this clothing,
6 Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Stewart, just take care that you don't
8 catch a cold sooner or later.
9 [The witness entered court]
10 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Radic.
11 THE WITNESS: Good morning.
12 JUDGE ORIE: I'd like to remind you that you're still bound by the
13 solemn declaration you've given at the beginning of your testimony.
14 Mr. Stewart.
15 WITNESS: PREDRAG RADIC [Resumed]
16 [Witness answered through interpreter]
17 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
18 Cross-examined by Mr. Stewart [Continued]:
19 Q. Mr. Radic, good morning.
20 A. [In English] Good morning.
21 Q. In your evidence given on Wednesday, and for the reference, it's
22 page 78, you said, when you were asked: "So that, for example, in
23 relation to policing matters" -- please excuse me one moment, Your Honour.
24 The headphones I've got on are not the same ones that are connected to
25 the ... That's better.
1 At page 78, it was, for everybody's reference, on Wednesday, you
2 were asked by Mr. Tieger: "So that, for example, in relation to policing
3 matters, you would most likely expect the instructions to come from the
4 minister, minister of the interior or whatever the precise phraseology
5 would be, that was responsible for policing."
6 I think that yesterday, of course you're getting what I'm saying
7 in translation, but when I used in English the phrase "minister of the
8 interior," you seemed to be happy with that, Mr. Radic, as the label for
9 that particular minister responsible for policing. Is that correct?
10 A. [Interpretation] That's correct.
11 Q. Having been asked that, you would most likely expect instructions
12 to come from the minister, and you said: "Absolutely correct. That's
13 what the case was before the war during the war, and it's still like that
14 now. There is this subordination."
15 And then, well, you were asked about instructions. But,
16 Mr. Radic, you're not suggesting that the minister interfered with
17 day-to-day policing matters in your region or your municipality, are you?
18 A. That is -- it is difficult to even assume that whenever anything
19 happened he would not have been informed by the chief of the security
20 services centre. He would have received a request by the minister to the
21 effect of informing him as to what had happened.
22 Q. What I'm exploring with you, Mr. Radic, is this: That policing
23 activity involves all sorts of on-the-ground actions which in some cases
24 don't even get reported back to your local police station if they're just
25 incidental matters in the course of a day, but that the minister - and
1 this is correct, isn't it - the minister is only concerned in policing
2 activities so far as larger policy issues or strategic issues or major
3 problems are concerned?
4 A. I am not aware of whether the minister deals only with strategic
5 issues. That is the policy of the police. But the subordinates would
6 receive orders from him and report back to him. I say that I merely
7 assume that it could not have been otherwise because they did not have
8 links with any other bodies, particularly not with the presidents of
9 municipal assemblies.
10 Q. Let's be specific, Mr. Radic. Do you yourself have any personal
11 knowledge of instructions or reports going backwards and forwards between
12 the minister of the interior and the police in your region or your
13 municipality, for that matter, in 1991 and 1992?
14 A. I am not aware of anything specific, but judging by the police
15 activities, one could assume so. But I haven't seen these documents.
16 Q. Well, can you give an illustration of some specific instruction or
17 report going backwards and forwards between the minister of the interior
18 and the police in the region which you derive from some assumption or
19 inference yourself?
20 A. Let us take, for instance, the dismissal -- the removal of people
21 who have in any way tried to assist me in maintaining peace in the town of
22 Banja Luka. At that point, they would be removed and replaced by others.
23 From that, I infer that such an instruction had come from the ministry,
24 because it was only the ministry that could have appointed or removed such
1 Q. Can you give us a single example of such a removal or replacement?
2 A. Commander of the public security station, Mr. Vladimir Tutus, was
3 replaced on account of that. Mr. Kutlija was replaced on account of that
4 and was clearly informed as having been replaced for that reason.
5 Q. And your inference then is that his removal and replacement were
6 on the instructions of the minister?
7 A. There was nobody else who could have removed him and appointed him
8 immediately afterwards in Bijeljina, therefore, far from Banja Luka.
9 Q. Now, you've been asked quite a lot of questions, Mr. Radic, about
10 what might or might not have been said to you, and that's what I want to
11 explore, on the question of ethnic cleansing, deportation or some such
12 other word or label in Banja Luka. On Wednesday this week, you were
13 asked, and the transcript reference is page 31, you were asked by
14 Mr. Tieger: "Did Mr. Krajisnik and Mr. Karadzic" -- that's the order in
15 which their names often get presented in this case: "Did Mr. Krajisnik
16 and Mr. Karadzic ever complain to you that Banja Luka had not been
17 properly cleansed, that is, that there were still Muslims and Croats in
18 Banja Luka?" And then you said: "The two of them never did, never
19 directly." Then a little bit further on, foot of page 32,
20 His Honour Judge Orie asked you whether they'd ever come one by one, just
21 Mr. Karadzic, just Mr. Krajisnik, and complain to you, by whatever means,
22 that Banja Luka had not been properly cleansed. You said you couldn't
23 remember. And then His Honour asked about the meeting. And you said:
24 "No, not at a meeting. No, there was no mention of that. The fact that
25 Banja Luka would have to do the job or to give me instructions to do that.
1 I must say that I would have refused quite certainly."
2 Now, I want to try to clarify with you first, Mr. Radic. It
3 seemed to be clear from your evidence yesterday that you never had any
4 business meetings at which you and Mr. Krajisnik were present.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Tieger.
6 MR. TIEGER: I think that is not a correct presentation of the
8 JUDGE ORIE: Wasn't it sit-down meetings?
9 MR. TIEGER: I think it also focused on the period prior to April
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could you please -- Mr. Stewart, I do not
12 remember, but perhaps I'm mistaken. Then please correct me. I think the
13 question yesterday was about sit-down meetings and the limitation in time
14 is not --
15 MR. STEWART: What I put to the witness this morning, Your Honour,
16 was -- well, I'm just looking to see. It seemed to be clear from your
17 evidence yesterday that you never had any business meetings at which you
18 and Mr. Krajisnik were present.
19 Your Honour, that was based on the passage at page 81 of the
20 transcript on Wednesday, when I asked the question: "Well, you've said a
21 little bit earlier you had no meeting with him alone." And him was
22 Mr. Krajisnik. "Just the two of you, because I asked you specifically.
23 But it seems from the answer you've just given that the slightly wider
24 meeting at which there was you, Mr. Krajisnik, and other, any other
25 people, what you've said, just said, applies to that. You never had any
1 specific meeting of that type, including Mr. Krajisnik; that's correct?"
2 That was a question. The answer from Mr. Radic was: "I can even state
3 quite certainly that even if we had a broader meeting with other people,
4 it never had anything to do with any business decisions or anything like
5 that. It was just -- happened to be a courteous exchange after some
6 meeting and I state once again that I never had a meeting with
7 Mr. Krajisnik, any contact with him, nor did he with me, because, quite
8 simply, the jobs we did were different, so we didn't have any need to meet
9 except at meetings of the Main Board, of course, but then I did not have a
10 meeting with him. I was there with all the members of the Main Board."
11 Well, I must say, Your Honour --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Business decisions.
13 MR. STEWART: -- seems to be absolutely supported and confirmed by
14 that passage --
15 JUDGE ORIE: At least it's now put to the witness in the right
16 context, as far as time is concerned, Mr. Tieger.
17 MR. TIEGER: It's the precisely right context, Your Honour. Page
18 80, Mr. Stewart says: "Let's give it a time frame now. In 1990, 1991,
19 and 1992, so let's say from multi-party elections up to the start of the
20 war, let's say, did you ever have any sit-down meeting with
21 Mr. Krajisnik," et cetera. And that was the time frame upon which those
22 questions were premised.
23 JUDGE ORIE: To seek clarification, it doesn't -- you just have
24 read the transcript of what the witness said, and could you please keep in
25 mind that if there's any relevance of time, Mr. Stewart, that we will not
1 miss it. Please proceed.
2 MR. STEWART: Well, I must say, Your Honour, that Mr. Tieger's
3 objection was absolutely unfounded there, because apart from anything
4 else, there are two points. First of all, the witness's answer appears to
5 be perfectly general, but even if we assume that it's linked to the time
6 frame I gave him, nobody could possibly be sensibly supposing that all
7 this evidence in relation to the meetings with Dr. Karadzic and
8 Mr. Krajisnik could have taken place outside the time frame of 1991 and
9 1992. That would simply be absurd.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger.
11 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, the time frame posed by Mr. Stewart
12 himself yesterday went up to April 1992.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The question is whether the time frame further
14 is the beginning of further questioning on something the witness had to
16 MR. STEWART: [Microphone not activated]
17 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
18 MR. STEWART: With respect, Your Honour, Mr. Tieger should read
19 what he's citing to the Court more carefully, because what I said at page
20 80 was: "Did you ever have -- let's give it a time frame now. In 1990,
21 1991, and 1992 so let's say from multi-party elections up to the start of
22 the war, let's say." So that takes it from -- right through 1990, add an
23 extra year 1991 and then up to the beginning of the war. So I'm prepared
24 to take it to there but I will then, in order to clarify with this witness
1 Q. Mr. Radic, you said yesterday -- I'm sorry -- on Wednesday -- you
2 can state quite certainly that even if we had a broader meeting with other
3 people it never had anything to do with any business decisions or anything
4 like that, et cetera. And that's the passage that I read just now. Would
5 that answer be different if we were talking about the period from April
6 1992 onwards? Tell me if the question is not clear.
7 A. The question is clear. I have already answered that question to
8 the Prosecutor as well, yesterday, and I've said that up until the war, I
9 knew of Mr. Krajisnik only through the National Assembly of Bosnia and
10 Herzegovina. And I had no direct contacts with him whatsoever. From the
11 start of the war onwards, I also assert that I had no need for any such
12 meetings, nor did I meet alone with Mr. Krajisnik. It was only at broader
13 meetings that we possibly exchanged some words, but it was no special
14 separate meeting between myself and Mr. Krajisnik, the two of us alone.
15 That's what I've said yesterday and I repeat today. We would meet, but
16 again, not the two of us alone, after the war, when I had a couple of
17 contacts with Mr. Krajisnik. And that's what I've said yesterday as well.
18 MR. STEWART: Yes, Your Honour. Ms. Cmeric mentions to me that at
19 line 15 on this page, page 9, line 15, where the transcript refers to no
20 special separate meetings between myself and Mr. Krajisnik, the word
21 "business" came -- in the witness's language, of course, but the word
22 "business" came in there as well.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It's noted down and I take it it will be
24 checked on the basis of the audio recording.
25 Mr. Stewart, I think, as a matter of fact, it doesn't -- is of
1 such influence that we couldn't continue. It's just for the transcript
2 that it has been --
3 MR. STEWART: Oh, indeed, Your Honour. Yes.
4 JUDGE ORIE: So please proceed.
5 MR. STEWART: It's just useful to make these observations as we
7 Q. So I don't know there to be any doubt about this, Mr. Radic, so I
8 want you to have a full opportunity to clear up any misunderstanding here.
9 So your statement that: "Even if you and Mr. Krajisnik had a broader
10 meeting with other people, it never had anything to do with business
11 decisions or anything like that, which is your quoted answer, that applies
12 to the whole time frame: 1990, 1991, 1992, and then, in fact, onwards
13 from that date?
14 A. Is that a question?
15 Q. Yes.
16 A. That's correct.
17 Q. So would you agree, then, Mr. Radic, that having had no such
18 meetings with Mr. Krajisnik, that any suggested meeting at which questions
19 of the efficiency of ethnic cleansing or the efficiency or completeness of
20 deportation or removal of non-Serbs from Banja Luka could not have taken
21 place between you and Mr. Krajisnik, with or without other people being
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. Did -- you've given a general answer, which logically covers this
25 already, but nevertheless, so that there is no misunderstanding at all,
1 I'm going to put it in the more limited, specific form. Did you ever
2 receive any communication, in any form whatever, from Mr. Krajisnik,
3 concerning ethnic cleansing, deportation, expulsion, removal of non-Serbs
4 from anywhere to anywhere?
5 A. No, never.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Radic, the Chamber finds it necessary to inform
7 you that the answer you've given about a meeting on which you testified
8 yesterday in quite some detail, and where you now say that such a meeting
9 could not have taken place, that it's difficult to reconcile these two
10 answers, and that if one of the answers would not be the truth, that this
11 could -- this could be understood as being a false testimony. Yesterday
12 you answered some questions I put to you on a meeting with Mr. Krajisnik
13 and Mr. Karadzic, on which -- in which you said you were blamed for, and
14 I'm not insisting on the precise wording, but you are blamed for not
15 having expelled non-Serbs from Banja Luka, and as a result, that there
16 were too many non-Serbs remaining in Banja Luka. And the answer you've
17 just given seems to be difficult to reconcile with that. I'd just like to
18 draw your attention to that and to make it clear to you that whenever you
19 would not speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
20 that this might give rise to a suspicion of contempt.
21 Please proceed, Mr. --
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I may be allowed, Your Honour, to
23 say something.
24 JUDGE ORIE: If there's any -- if you find any misunderstanding
25 in -- misunderstanding on the part of the Chamber, then please address us.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The text that I have before me here,
2 it said the end, three dots, then Karadzic. And then it said Kraj, K-r-j
3 [as interpreted], that that was an error, that it wasn't Krajisnik, but
4 Karadzic, and then and the question raised was why there were so many
5 Muslims and Croats, and my answer was: That is true. The lawyer asked
6 the quell quite clearly. He said: Did Mr. Krajisnik ever suggest to you
7 that ethnic cleansing be conducted? And I said: No, never. And if you
8 go back to what it says in the text, then it says: Kraj, K-r-a-j, three
9 dots, then Karadzic, and then it says the error was that it said
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But -- well, of course, you were asked by
12 Mr. Stewart about any meeting that would have taken place with
13 Mr. Krajisnik, whether alone or with anyone else. So your answer this
14 morning has not to be understood as a denial of what you said yesterday,
15 that you had a meeting with Mr. Krajisnik and Mr. Karadzic --
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yeah, you're right.
17 JUDGE ORIE: In which Mr. Karadzic blamed you for --
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not only him, but others too.
19 Others blamed me too and criticised me for the fact that there were still
20 Muslims and Croats, when all the other cities had been cleansed.
21 JUDGE ORIE: But at least in this one meeting where Mr. Karadzic
22 and Mr. Krajisnik were present, that Mr. Karadzic expressed this.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Krajisnik didn't ask me that
24 question. I said that he never asked me that question.
25 JUDGE ORIE: I asked you whether Mr. Karadzic expressed that to
1 you in a meeting you had together with Mr. Krajisnik or Mr. Karadzic, as
2 you testified yesterday, as a matter of fact.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yesterday it was said that the
4 K-r-a-j, three dots, was a mistake, that it was a mistake having mentioned
5 Krajisnik at all. If you find the text, then you'll see the beginning of
6 his name, K-r-a-j, three dots, and then it was said that it was a mistake,
7 an error.
8 JUDGE ORIE: I'll read the relevant part of yesterday's transcript
9 and see whether your answer today is in denial of your testimony of
10 yesterday. One moment, please.
11 If the matters could give me -- I have to find it, but ...
12 MR. STEWART: What is it Your Honour is looking for?
13 JUDGE ORIE: The questions I put to the witness yesterday.
14 MR. STEWART: Yes, it was at about, about page 47. There was a
15 run of -- I think Your Honour is talking about the questions -- it was the
16 hypothetical question that Your Honour put to the witness at page 47, I
17 think. The whole run of the transcript, I think, begins around page 41,
18 this particular issue, and then -- because Your Honour did ask some
19 questions and make some comments from page 41 onwards. "Mr. Radic, you
20 are explaining a lot to us now." That's page 41, line 12. "Why questions
21 are put to you." And then we go on to ethnic cleansing and then there's a
22 whole run of consideration of the issue until we get to page 47. Is that
23 what Your Honour is seeking?
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Specific part. I'll put it to you at a later
25 stage. I have difficulties in finding exactly what I'm trying to find.
1 You may proceed, Mr. --
2 MR. TIEGER: Sorry, Your Honour. I don't know if it will be
3 helpful, but I think Mr. Stewart mentioned page 47 at one point. It
4 appears to me that he correctly identified the commencement of the
5 questions the Court appears to be focused on, and it seems to conclude at
6 page 48, the middle of page 48.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think that's what Mr. Stewart --
8 MR. STEWART: That's absolutely right. I -- yeah. It really goes
9 down to about line 17 on page 48 and then we do go on to something else,
10 linked, but a specific issue, which doesn't really carry the matter any
12 JUDGE ORIE: I put it to you yesterday when we spoke about a
13 meeting with Mr. Krajisnik and Mr. Karadzic that you were blamed for not
14 having expelled non-Serbs, and I asked you: "What did they then expect
15 you to do with that?" That you would have to feed and to give medication
16 to those present: "To leave them, that they would leave the area, that
17 they would leave the territory so that there was no need to feed them any
18 more. Is that what they suggested or what the one who spoke suggested?"
19 And then your answer was: "They probably had meant that the same should
20 be done as did the other side, that had expelled the Serbs and solved
21 their problems that way, that is to say, the Croats and the Muslims." My
22 next question was: "So then you are blamed for not having expelled
23 non-Serbs, as Serbs were expelled from other territories with, as a
24 result, that there were too many non-Serbs remaining in Banja Luka who had
25 to be fed and -- is that a correct understanding of -- and had to be given
1 medical care? Is that a correct understanding of your testimony?" And
2 then you said: "You've understood it well."
3 All these questions were put in the context of a meeting you had
4 with Mr. Karadzic and Mr. Krajisnik, in which Mr. Karadzic spoke the
5 words, and therefore, I corrected myself when I said not they, but the one
6 who spoke. Is the answer of this morning to be understood as a denial of
7 such a meeting having taken place with Mr. Karadzic and Mr. Krajisnik, or
8 is this a misunderstanding? If ...
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said that never with the two of
10 them did I have a separate meeting at which that was discussed, a separate
12 JUDGE ORIE: Please clarify yourself. If it was not a separate
13 meeting, what kind of a meeting then it was.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That means that there was some
15 meeting, a broader kind of meeting, and that people would step to one side
16 to discuss one topic, for example. So it wasn't with that particular
17 purpose in mind, what we've just been discussing here, but we did step to
18 one side, and I was blamed and criticised for the fact that there were so
19 many Croats and Muslims in Banja Luka and in the executive organs of the
20 Municipal Assembly as well, and in managerial posts and so on and so
21 forth, when the case wasn't like that in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
22 JUDGE ORIE: You testified yesterday that it was not only the
23 presence of non-Serbs in the governmental bodies, but also that you were
24 blamed for not having expelled non-Serbs from the territory, which you had
25 to feed and which you had to take, in medical terms, care of.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Because we asked them to send us the
2 medicaments and food and everything else for the entire population. The
3 Serbs were coming into us from Bosnia-Herzegovina, whereas these other
4 people weren't going anywhere.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And this was in Banja Luka in a meeting where
6 Mr. Krajisnik and Mr. Karadzic were present?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In a broader meeting.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but where these two persons were present and
9 where Mr. Karadzic was speaking; is that ...
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, and I just said that here, that
11 Mr. Krajisnik never said that to me.
12 JUDGE ORIE: So we have to -- I now better understand that we have
13 to make a distinction between separate meetings and meetings. But this is
14 not a denial of what you testified yesterday; is that a proper
16 Please proceed, Mr. Stewart.
17 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I wonder if the witness could be asked
18 to leave court for a few minutes.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If there's anything you'd like to raise in his
21 Mr. Radic, could you please follow for a moment ...
22 [The witness stands down]
23 MR. STEWART: Your Honour --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Stewart.
25 MR. STEWART: Your Honour eventually got the witness to the
1 position a few minutes ago where the witness denied that there was any
2 contradiction between two pieces of evidence between which there is an
3 absolute inevitable contradiction. There simply is. The problem,
4 Your Honour, we submit, is this: That Your Honour has great authority
5 sitting on the Bench, and Your Honour's brother Judges have great
6 authority sitting on the Bench. We have had submissions before and we've
7 had discussion, if I may respectfully put it that way, before about the
8 ambit of questions from the Bench, and I made an objection a long time ago
9 in relation to another witness altogether that was overruled, and
10 Your Honour -- Your Honours said that it was only in the most exceptional
11 circumstances there should be any objection to questions from the Bench
12 and that those particular circumstances had not been exceptional, which
13 left me struggling to think of circumstances which would be sufficiently
14 exceptional. But the difficulty is that with the authority that the Bench
15 has, our submission is that it is even more important for the Bench to
16 take care in relation to leading questions than for counsel. And this
17 witness we have seen; he has gone backwards and forwards. And if we now
18 look at the evidence he's given this morning, and that's rather difficult
19 for us to look at immediately, as a simply mechanical thing, but if we
20 look at the evidence he's given this morning and we compare it carefully
21 with the evidence he's given yesterday, and we compare it with what he
22 said in the interviews, it's riddled with contradictions and it's riddled
23 with acceptance by this witness of suggestions put to him by other people
24 which he then subsequently withdraws. We are in a very dangerous area
25 with a witness of this type when leading questions are put to him and he's
1 invited to agree. But added to that, that Your Honour's warning, in
2 effect, to this witness in relation to perjury, which, with respect, if
3 Your Honour is giving the warning to the witness on the issue of perjury,
4 we might have suggested to Your Honour it could be given even more
5 explicitly than Your Honour gave it. So because if there is to be a
6 warning at all, then it really needs to be in the absolutely -- in
7 absolutely unequivocal terms and we suggest that that warning, if given as
8 a warning, could be given more explicitly than it has been.
9 But the difficulty with a warning like that is that it actually
10 operates as a threat to a witness. I'm not suggesting, Your Honour, that
11 of course that's Your Honour's intention. That would be quite improper.
12 But that is the effect. Because when a witness comes along and gives
13 evidence, and this may be an extreme case that we have here in court this
14 morning, but it's a feature of evidence in criminal law, civil cases, for
15 that matter, that witnesses do contradict themselves, that they do retract
16 evidence, that they do -- sometimes they simply correct it. But they
17 often do.
18 Now, in practice, Your Honour, it's up to other people, perhaps,
19 whether they launch prosecutions for perjury, in practice, prosecutions
20 for perjury I think in any jurisdiction are extremely rare in relation to
21 contradictions within the evidence that is given as opposed to evidence
22 which is then provably false by comparison with external events. So
23 realistically speaking, that doesn't happen, because, after all, that
24 would be a tremendous disincentive to a witness to correct and retract his
25 evidence as he goes along. So as a matter of policy, that would actually
1 undermine the interest of justice, for witnesses to feel that inherent
2 contradictions in the course of their evidence were going to expose them
3 to such risks. That should not be the position. The position should be
4 that a witness, as far as possible, ought to feel free to correct,
5 retract, withdraw his evidence as he goes along in the case, and should be
6 encouraged to do so, if at any point he feels that his earlier evidence
7 was not correct. Because where one should end up with a witness is the
8 witness saying: Well, I said this the other day. I might have said this
9 the other day. You asked me this the other day. But this is what I am
11 And a reminder to the witness that he's given a solemn
12 declaration, or in other jurisdictions he's on oath, may be appropriate,
13 but what Your Honour has -- the position that Your Honour has put the
14 witness in is that he's been told: Well, you answered a whole lot of
15 questions to the Bench yesterday, and you've given some answers this
16 morning under questioning by counsel, and the answers are inconsistent,
17 which they plainly are, Your Honour. After all, that's what my job is, to
18 some extent. They plainly are inconsistent. The answers are
19 inconsistent. That inconsistency is exposing you to a risk. And then if
20 I can put it this way, Your Honour: Have a hard rethink, Mr. Witness,
21 about whether perhaps what you said yesterday in answer to questions from
22 the Bench wasn't true.
23 Your Honour, this is not intended that way, but it is in the end
24 inordinate pressure on a witness to say: Well, yes. Actually, now you
25 mention it, yes, what I did say to the Court yesterday was true.
1 Your Honour, I was proposing anyway, of course, to explore and put
2 to the witness aspects of what he said to the Court yesterday, because
3 there is clearly a contradiction. But, Your Honour, I do invite the Trial
4 Chamber to take note of the observations that I've just made and to
5 proceed with great caution in relation to such matters. And please also,
6 may I respectfully ask that when I, and my colleagues request speak for
7 themselves, my colleagues on the other side of the case, but when I am
8 cross-examining a witness and we are getting into the area of exposure of
9 contradictions, that I might be allowed more latitude to continue with my
10 cross-examination and to explore the matter on behalf of my client, not,
11 of course, and I couldn't even presume to do that, because I can't -- the
12 Bench has every right and duty and responsibility to then come in with
13 whatever questions it feels appropriate at an appropriate stage. But I do
14 particularly invite the Bench to allow in this essentially adversarial
15 procedure, whatever the mixture of different systems, to have greater
16 freedom to complete and -- proceed with and complete my cross-examination
17 before we have the sort of exchanges and the sort of questioning that
18 we've had over the last 20 minutes or so.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, the Chamber will proceed with great
20 caution. The Chamber deemed it necessary to give a warning and Rule
21 91(A) and briefly explain to the witness the reason why the Chamber at
22 that moment wanted to give that warning. The witness then asked
23 permission to address the Court, in which he explained that it was a
24 matter of misunderstanding, and it was at that moment my duty to explore
25 whether it was a misunderstanding or not. That's what I did. But the
1 Chamber will proceed with great caution, as you asked the Chamber to do.
2 You may proceed. Could we escort -- could you escort the witness into the
4 [The witness entered court]
5 MR. STEWART:
6 Q. Mr. Radic, is it your position that you recall Dr. Karadzic
7 complaining directly to you that there had not been insufficient steps
8 taken to remove non-Serbs from Banja Luka?
9 JUDGE ORIE: I apologise for interrupting. Did you intend to say
10 that there had not been insufficient.
11 MR. STEWART: I didn't, Your Honour. Thank you. The double
12 negative was unintended. But I'll do the whole question again. Thank
13 you, Your Honour.
14 Q. Mr. Radic, is it your position that you recall Dr. Karadzic
15 complaining directly to you that there had been insufficient steps taken
16 to remove non-Serbs from Banja Luka?
17 A. These comments of his were not addressed to me only but to the
18 entire leadership in the Assembly of the town of Banja Luka, especially
19 those who were deputies and who were the ones who conveyed this message
20 that more had to be done in order for the Muslims and Croats to leave to
21 their areas, just as we've had Serbs arriving from other parts of
22 Bosnia-Herzegovina and from Croatia. So it was not addressed to me
23 solely; it was a criticism levelled at the entire leadership. And once
24 again, I emphasise: These were not formal meetings devoted to that
25 purpose alone.
1 Q. At the beginning of your answer to that question, you said that:
2 "These comments were addressed to the entire leadership in the Assembly of
3 the town of Banja Luka."
4 Let's be very clear, please, Mr. Radic. Which Assembly are you
5 talking about there?
6 A. The Assembly of the town of Banja Luka and the Executive Board.
7 Q. So when you talk of Dr. Karadzic addressing the entire leadership
8 in the Assembly of the town of Banja Luka, was that a meeting of the
9 Assembly of the town of Banja Luka?
10 A. No. To the individuals from the Executive Board and to
11 individuals from the legislative branch of government. One must know that
12 some of the members of the Executive Board were also deputies and could
13 also have discussions on this issue at Pale.
14 Q. When was this meeting?
15 A. I have no idea. I would not be able to tell you when the meeting
16 was held. There were several meetings held on -- for several purposes, in
17 Banja Luka, and again I repeat that these were not formal meetings
18 convened for that particular purpose, for that particular matter that we
19 are discussing now.
20 Q. When you say you have no idea, Mr. Radic, I want to press you a
21 little bit. Let's take it in steps. Was it before or after the beginning
22 of the war?
23 A. After the beginning of the war, not before the war. Before the
24 war, we had a multi-party assembly that had its members in the Executive
25 Board, and the government was a multi-ethnic one.
1 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction. We had a multi-ethnic
3 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, I'm told by Ms. Cmeric, and it
4 would be quite a significant change, that that answer actually began:
5 Before the beginning of the war and after the beginning of the war.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Radic, was your answer that it was before and
7 after the beginning of the war? And we are now talking about the meetings
8 where this issue was addressed. Did you say before and after, or after
9 the beginning of the war?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've said that before the start of
11 the war, there was no need for it, because both the executive and
12 legislative branches of government were multi-ethnic. Therefore, before
13 the war, there was no such thing. After the war, in the very beginning,
14 both branches were still multi-ethnic, but it was only later when this
15 practice was introduced in Bosnia-Herzegovina for the people, for the
16 ethnicities to relocate. That's when this was the case. And that's what
17 I said -- that's why I said not before the war, but after the war.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Stewart.
19 MR. STEWART: Well, that seems to be pretty clear, Your Honour,
20 from the explanation.
21 Q. May I just remind us all, really, but you specifically, Mr. Radic:
22 I'm asking you at the moment about a particular meeting that you have
23 referred to. You're clear about that, aren't you?
24 A. I know that you're looking for a specific meeting, but I've told
25 you that after the war, there were many meetings convened for different
1 matters. There were some ceremonies as well, if you know what I mean by
2 this. If there was some sort of a purpose to celebrate something, then
3 you would have the leadership of Banja Luka convened, and it was also at
4 that time that this matter would be raised, because it was quite obvious
5 that the numbers of the Croat and Muslim populations present in Banja Luka
6 were much higher than elsewhere in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
7 Q. Mr. Radic, I don't know how the phrase gets translated into
8 Serbian, but in English, we are going round the houses here with you. So
9 please, I'm not looking for a specific meeting. Your evidence has been of
10 a specific meeting, and therefore, I am asking you questions about that
11 meeting. So let's go back to where we were. I am -- this particular
12 meeting that you referred to, at which Dr. Karadzic addressed the
13 leadership in Banja Luka, leadership of the Assembly, and so on, you said
14 it took place after the beginning of the war, and you explained why.
15 Did it take place, as far as you recall, during the period when
16 Banja Luka, the Krajina, was cut off from south-eastern Bosnia, certainly,
17 i.e., that is, between the beginning of the war and the 26th of June when
18 the corridor was opened?
19 A. Let's take it from the end. There wasn't a single meeting. That's
20 what I keep repeating. There was not just one meeting, nor was it a
21 meeting with the entire leadership. Rather, there were several contacts
22 through which we received information about the dissatisfaction with our
23 actions in this particular matter. Of course, that all this took place
24 after the war, rather, after the opening up of the corridor. Therefore,
25 from April up until 1994, 1995. But I wasn't referring to a single
1 meeting with the entire municipal leadership present, where Mr. Karadzic
2 assigned certain tasks to us. Mr. Karadzic was exposed to the pressure of
3 those who were saying that this had not been done in Banja Luka, whereas
4 they had in their respective parts done everything. That's why we still
5 had mosques left standing and that's why we still had Muslims and Croats
6 living there, because we did not adhere to some unwritten rules valid in
7 the rest of Republika Srpska. So I was not referring to a single meeting
8 where we were given this task. And please do not insist on a single
9 meeting, because it was not just that one.
10 Q. When you say it wasn't just that one, Mr. Radic, was that meeting
11 that you referred to a few minutes ago one of a number of meetings?
12 A. When I say, for instance, festivities, that could be the
13 celebration of the patron saint of Banja Luka, where the president of the
14 Republic would come. There would be a festivity, following which he would
15 say that we had not done what others had. The other occasion could be at
16 Pale, when you would have deputies from Banja Luka present there, and they
17 would happen to say that we had not done in our town what others have done
18 in Republika Srpska.
19 Therefore, it wasn't just one meeting, nor was there this
20 particular one meeting where it had been stated that we should do this.
21 Q. Dr. Karadzic. How many times did Dr. Karadzic come to Banja Luka
22 after the beginning of the war up to the end of 1992?
23 A. I am really unable to answer the question of how many times he
24 arrived there. Sometimes he would not go to Banja Luka at all, because he
25 had other obligations and would go about fulfilling them. It is very
1 difficult for me to say how many times he was in that part that we call
2 Krajina and how many times he visited Banja Luka. I don't remember. But
3 it was on quite a few occasions that he did.
4 Q. How many times did you clap eyes on Dr. Karadzic between the
5 beginning of the war and the end of 1992 in Banja Luka?
6 A. If I knew the answer to that question, I would be able to tell you
7 how many times he visited there. I really do not recall how many times I
8 saw him, how many times and what the occasions were, and so on. There
9 were, for instance, there was the promotion inauguration of recruits in
10 the Army of Republika Srpska, the celebration of the patron saint of Banja
11 Luka, then the National Assembly of Republika Srpska, I told you that we
12 would hold the National Assembly in different towns, or when he would pass
13 through Banja Luka and just inform us that he was there. But he was on
14 his way and went on. Now, if I were able to tell you how many times I saw
15 him, I would be able to tell you how many times he came. That is,
16 however, difficult for me. He did tour Republika Srpska as president of
17 Republika Srpska. How many times, I cannot say, and I would not like to
18 give an incorrect number and then be told by His Honour that I did not
19 state a correct number of visits by Mr. Karadzic. But there were quite a
21 Q. I hope it's entirely for His Honour what directions he gives to
22 you, Mr. Radic, but I believe that His Honour might say to you that doing
23 your honest best to remember or to give the answers to these questions and
24 to remember such things as how many times somebody came is not going to
25 cause you any problems or dangers or risks. If you are doing your honest
1 best to produce such information as accurately or as approximately as you
2 can remember, I don't believe there will be a difficulty.
3 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I hope that's a fair summary.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Radic. Mr. Radic, a question is put to you as to
5 the number of meetings. If you say: Well, it's my recollection there
6 were approximately 25 or 50 or 3 or 8, please tell us, if you can; if you
7 cannot, then of course you can't answer that question. But since you said
8 there were quite a few, if you could be more precise, even if you'd be not
9 sure about the exact number, please give that answer. If you can't, then
10 you can't.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I would perhaps be close to
12 the number of 20 meetings, possibly 20 meetings, on different occasions,
13 because when we had the patriarch of the Orthodox Church coming, and then
14 there were other occasions as well, not only when there were Assembly
15 sessions and then he had some business matters to deal with me.
16 Therefore, let's say about 20 times that he visited or passed through
17 Banja Luka and informed us that he was there during the war.
18 MR. STEWART:
19 Q. Have I got my logic right, Mr. Radic? It seemed to follow from an
20 answer you gave earlier that Mr. Karadzic did not come and would not have
21 come to Banja Luka during that period without your seeing him. Is that
23 A. Well, there were occasions when he did arrive without me seeing
24 him. He would merely spend a night there and then continue onwards. And
25 actually, as a rule, I never knew where he was going to spend the night.
1 Q. Yes. Mr. Radic, may I simply make it clear: This isn't a
2 question, but just so that it can help us to proceed. You see, you're the
3 witness giving evidence, and when you give an answer and then I proceed to
4 ask you questions on the footing or on the basis of the answer that you've
5 just given, that's -- I have to do that, Mr. Radic. So when you tell me
6 and tell the Tribunal, as you did a few minutes ago, that if you knew how
7 many times you'd clapped eyes on Dr. Karadzic during that period, you
8 would know how many times Dr. Karadzic had been in Banja Luka, I, in my
9 simple way, draw the inference that when Dr. Karadzic came to Banja Luka,
10 you must have seen him. Do you follow? There is a question at the end.
11 Do you understand why it is that I put questions to you in that form? Do
12 you understand that?
13 A. I do understand you, and I am answering your questions to
14 His Honours, and I said that I've seen him for some 20 times perhaps. And
15 now when you ask me were there occasions that he would visit without you
16 seeing him. Well, there were. I would hear of his arrival, especially
17 towards the end of the war.
18 Q. All right. Mr. Radic, of course I'm primarily concerned, let's
19 make it clear, with occasions on which you, at least as a minimum saw
20 Dr. Karadzic. Leave aside when he passed through without you having any
21 dealings with him at all. Do your best, Mr. Radic. Between the beginning
22 of the war and the end of 1992, how many times do you say that you saw,
23 with your eyes, Dr. Karadzic in Banja Luka?
24 A. I've just said that. Around 20, perhaps 25 times at most. That's
25 what I've said. I suppose it was some 20 times.
1 Q. And same question, but applied to Mr. Krajisnik. How many times
2 did you clap eyes on Mr. Krajisnik in Banja Luka between the beginning of
3 the war and the end of 1992?
4 A. I would mostly see him during the sessions of the National
5 Assembly of Republika Srpska in Banja Luka, when these sessions were in
6 Banja Luka. That's when I was invited to attend the Assembly as a host,
7 as president of the Municipal Assembly. Otherwise, as I said, I did not
8 meet with Mr. Krajisnik alone on other occasions. So these would be the
9 kind of occasions that I would see him.
10 Q. So doing your best, Mr. Radic, what was the answer to my question:
11 How many times did you clap eyes on Mr. Krajisnik in Banja Luka between
12 the beginning of the war and the end of 1992?
13 A. As many times as the number of sessions held there. There could
14 have been maybe three or four sessions held in Banja Luka. Otherwise,
15 they would hold them in Prijedor, Bijeljina, I believe also in Brcko, at
16 Pale, and Trebinje, and so on. Therefore, some three to four times. But
17 I cannot tell you the exact number. That's when the National Assembly was
18 convened in Banja Luka, and Mr. Krajisnik would be there.
19 In addition to that, he might have been invited to some of the
20 festivities there, but this was very rarely. Mr. Krajisnik spent most of
21 his time at Pale and perhaps in the eastern part. But in the -- this
22 western part, particularly in Banja Luka, I don't believe that he was
23 there more often than for the times when the National Assembly met in
24 Banja Luka.
25 Q. So is this right, then, Mr. Radic. It may seem obvious, but I
1 just want to get it clear: That if we check, because there are such
2 records, then if we check to see how many sessions of the Assembly of the
3 Republika Srpska, previously known as Serb Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina,
4 but how many sessions of that assembly were held in Banja Luka from the
5 public records, that's going to give me the answer to the question I just
6 asked you: How many times was Mr. Krajisnik in Banja Luka. That would
7 tell us, wouldn't it?
8 A. That would tell you, but I cannot recall how many sessions the
9 Assembly had in Banja Luka. If there were five of them, then the
10 occasions were five. But I don't believe that there were more than four
11 sessions held there, because the sessions were also held in other towns.
12 And of course, most often, it was convened at Pale.
13 Q. Mr. Radic, I don't need to trouble you on anything which is easily
14 checkable from obtainable records. We don't need to worry about that. I
15 just want to make it clear, then: You said he might have been invited to
16 some of the festivities there, but this was very rarely. So can we take
17 it that if he was, which you apparently don't know, those were certainly
18 not visits on which any business discussions took place in which you and
19 Mr. Krajisnik were participants?
20 A. That's correct.
21 Q. And on any of the occasions -- we are at the moment dealing with
22 that period, from the beginning of the war through to the end of 1992. But
23 on any of those occasions that Mr. Krajisnik, you say, came to Banja Luka
24 for Assembly sessions, Assembly of Republika Srpska, do you say that there
25 were any business discussions at which you and Mr. Krajisnik were present
1 outside the Assembly meetings themselves?
2 A. There were none.
3 Q. Mr. Radic, if I put it to you that there were two Assembly
4 sessions of Assembly of Republika Srpska in 1992, after the beginning of
5 the war, held in Banja Luka, the first on the 12th of May, 1992 - and we
6 see that very clearly, actually, from documentation that's in court for
7 the course of your evidence - the first on 12th of May, 1992, and the
8 second spread over two days, 11th and 12th of August, 1992, does that at
9 least match what you can remember?
10 A. I haven't understood you. What is it that I'm supposed to
12 Q. I'm sorry. I'll put it -- that perhaps wasn't crystal clear,
13 Mr. Radic. I'll put it again. I'm putting to you that -- first of all,
14 before we get to the actual question. I'm putting it to you that there
15 were two sessions of the Assembly of Republika Srpska held in Banja Luka
16 in 1992, after the beginning of the war. One was on the 12th of May,
17 1992, and the next one was over two days, on the 11th and 12th of August,
18 1992. I'm asking you whether you remember anything to contradict what
19 I've just said, that there were just those two meetings of the Republika
20 Srpska Assembly during that period, up to the end of 1992, in Banja Luka.
21 A. Up until the end of 1992, not up until the end of the war. Quite
23 Q. I specifically said up until the end of 1992.
24 A. Because I've said four to five. You say two. But that's until
25 the end of 1992. It is possible that there were only two sessions until
1 the end of 1992, but to tell you the truth, what the -- what was discussed
2 at these sessions, that's something I cannot remember. But it is quite
3 possible that there were these two sessions there.
4 Q. If -- well, if there were -- Mr. Radic, take it from me. There
5 were at least meetings of the Assembly of Republika Srpska in Banja Luka
6 on those dates. That's not going to be an issue in this case.
7 First of all, do you now, having been given those dates, can you
8 say that you were at both of those sessions, in May and August 1992?
9 A. I will again use the term "possibly," but as a guest. I was not a
10 deputy. I would be invited as a guest to listen at the debates of the
11 National Assembly. Most frequently, Mr. Stewart, since I had other
12 town-related businesses to attend, I would usually leave the Assembly
13 after -- at the interval, because I did not have the right of addressing
14 them, just of listening to them. So it is possible that I was there, but
15 as a guest.
16 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, it's extremely close to the time when
17 we customarily have a break.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Usually have a break, yes. Could you give us any
19 indication on the question which --
20 MR. STEWART: Well, I'm trying to give consistent answers,
21 Your Honour. I'm -- of course, I -- in the light of the way things have
22 gone, of course I'm going to be longer. What I do know, Your Honour, is
23 that I do have a little bit of material which Mr. Krajisnik brought with
24 him first thing this morning. So I don't know what that includes. But,
25 Your Honour --
1 JUDGE ORIE: You sometimes invite persons to give an approximate
3 MR. STEWART: Indeed, Your Honour. I'm going to do that. No.
4 I'm going to say that I -- I am confident that I won't go beyond the next
5 break, Your Honour. I'm not so confident about saying more than that, not
6 having reviewed this particular material. But I think it unlikely that I
7 would need to go the whole of the next session.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, your confidence of yesterday has been
9 shaken a bit already, but --
10 MR. STEWART: Not entirely within my control, Your Honour, as
11 Your Honour I know accepts.
12 JUDGE ORIE: I wanted to say something about that.
13 MR. STEWART: Of course.
14 JUDGE ORIE: We'll have a break until 5 minutes to 11.00.
15 MR. STEWART: I think it's why I didn't give a guarantee,
16 Your Honour. I was that careful.
17 --- Recess taken at 10.29 a.m.
18 --- On resuming at 11.01 a.m.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Usher, could you please escort the witness into
20 the courtroom.
21 Mr. Stewart.
22 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, there's a small point on the transcript
23 which could conveniently be dealt with while the witness is coming in.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
25 MR. STEWART: I'm trying to read it and stay near enough to a
2 [The witness entered court]
3 MR. STEWART: It's at page 22, line 19.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 MR. STEWART: It's the answer, which I tried to correct, but
6 apparently I still got it wrong again. "After the beginning of the war,
7 not before the war" - that's all right, that sentence, apparently - and
8 then the next sentence: "Before the war" and then it should include "and
9 after the beginning of the war, we had a multi-party assembly."
10 So that's where the reference --
11 JUDGE ORIE: That's what he explained later, during a short period
12 of time, yes.
13 MR. STEWART: -- created some slight confusion --
14 JUDGE ORIE: So specific attention will be paid to that portion of
15 the transcript.
16 MR. STEWART: Thank you, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Then you may proceed.
18 MR. STEWART: Yes. Thank you.
19 Q. Mr. Radic, you talked about, almost in passing, in a sense, but
20 you mentioned that deputies who were present in Banja Luka for Assembly
21 meetings of the Republika Srpska Assembly said something to you about the
22 position in Banja Luka relating to the presence of non-Serbs. That's
23 right, is it, that deputies of the Republika Srpska Assembly broached that
24 topic with you?
25 A. Well, the deputies of Republika Srpska, I don't remember whether
1 there were five or six of them from Banja Luka in the National Assembly
2 itself. They just conveyed the opinion that in Banja Luka there were far
3 greater number of non-Serbs than there were Serbs in other municipalities.
4 Of course, they never conveyed any directives that this should be
5 cleansed, but it was a criticism to us in the authorities in Banja Luka,
6 because of that fact. And that was true. There were more Muslims and
7 Croats in Banja Luka than there were Serbs in the municipalities where
8 they were the majority population.
9 Q. But you didn't -- or you wouldn't have accepted it as a valid
10 criticism; is that right?
11 A. Well, it was the truth. It was true that we had more Muslims and
12 Croats in our town than there were Serbs, for example, in Sarajevo, Bihac,
13 which had been completely cleansed and still is today, and so on and so
14 forth. So that was true. But we couldn't reconcile ourselves to doing
15 the same thing they had done, that is to say, to expel part of the
16 population, people like that were coming in to Banja Luka and telling us
17 what had happened to them in those towns that they were expelled from.
18 Quite simply, Banja Luka could not act in similar fashion.
19 Q. So it's right that you -- you say it was a fact, it was the truth,
20 if you compare the numbers. But what I put to you is correct, isn't it,
21 that you wouldn't have accepted that as a valid criticism of any actions
22 or inactions on your part?
23 A. How we took this criticism is borne out by the fact that at the
24 end of the war in that exodus afterwards was the largest exodus of
25 citizens from Banja Luka that took place, according to Cornelio
1 Sommaruga's observation and we did not accept this as an order having to
2 do that forcibly. From our conduct and behaviour you can see how we
3 understood this.
4 Q. Did the deputies bring any pressure on you in connection with
5 this? I'm talking about those five deputies that you've mentioned.
6 A. No, they didn't bring pressure to bear. But they just told us of
7 this stance of theirs. And as I say, there were people working in the
8 municipality to whom the deputies conveyed this and, for example, there
9 was a misunderstanding that I myself had with the president of the
10 Executive Board, insisting that his vice-president, Antun Ruzic, who was a
11 Croat himself, should remain in that post because he wasn't able to get
12 another job in Banja Luka. He was ill himself and he had some children
13 that he had to bring up. And unfortunately, he died after the war.
14 Q. Now, I just want to explore with you, Mr. Radic, an answer which
15 you gave a little while ago before the break. You had said that
16 Mr. Krajisnik might have come to Banja Luka at the time of - just wait
17 until I've given the question, Mr. Radic - that he might have come to
18 Banja Luka at the time of festivities, and you didn't know, but he might
19 have done, and I asked you, and you said: Well, if he did, then there
20 weren't any business meetings. And I was -- business meetings, I was
21 really picking up a phrase from your evidence which you've talked about
22 business. So there weren't any business meetings.
23 Now, I want to be crystal clear from you, please, Mr. Radic. If,
24 and it's an if, if Mr. Krajisnik did come to Banja Luka on any other
25 occasion from the beginning of the war until the end of 1992, than the
1 Assembly meetings of Republika Srpska, you didn't have any sort of
2 political discussion meeting with Mr. Krajisnik or Mr. Krajisnik and
3 others, did you?
4 A. There are two questions there in one. First, whether I remember
5 if Mr. Krajisnik came, and then if he did come, did I have a meeting with
7 Q. Mr. Radic, let's be clear. Actually --
8 A. So do you want me to answer the second question first?
9 Q. Actually, we all fall into that trap sometimes, but actually there
10 aren't two questions. It's based on a hypothesis. You said you weren't
11 sure whether -- it might become. So the question is a single question.
12 After all, if he didn't come then for heaven's sake there's no question
13 because you can't have had a meeting with him if he didn't come. But if
14 he did come, it's the single question whether you had any sort of
15 political discussion, meeting, with Mr. Krajisnik or Mr. Krajisnik and
16 others on those occasions.
17 A. Mr. Stewart, I said that Mr. Krajisnik did come when there were
18 National Assembly meetings of Republika Srpska. And I state again that
19 after those sessions there were no political talks with Mr. Krajisnik as
20 the English would say, face to face. I didn't have any face to face
21 meetings with him. Does that satisfy you?
22 Q. It will have to, up to a point, Mr. Radic. You're anticipating a
23 further question. I think I'm going to scrap the one I asked you before.
24 You've brought us back to the occasions on which he did come to
25 Banja Luka for Assembly meetings. So I'm going to operate on your
1 territory here, Mr. Radic, and ask you about that.
2 When he did come to Banja Luka then for Assembly meetings of
3 Republika Srpska, you say there were no political talks with
4 Mr. Krajisnik, as the English would say, and we do, face to face. You
5 didn't have any face-to-face meetings with him. Can I be clear that apart
6 from anything you heard Mr. Krajisnik say to the Assembly, that you
7 participated in no other discussions on any political issues at all at
8 which Mr. Krajisnik and you were both present?
9 A. You mean at the Assembly?
10 Q. Mr. Radic, I mean apart from the actual Assembly sessions.
11 A. Mr. Krajisnik and I were members of the Main Board of the SDS, but
12 that, once again, wasn't face-to-face meetings; it was a group of people.
13 Q. Just leave aside the Main Board for the moment, then, Mr. Radic.
14 We are talking about the occasions on which Mr. Krajisnik -- well, all
15 right. Let's clarify this. We're talking about the occasions on which
16 Mr. Krajisnik came to Banja Luka for Assembly meetings of Republika
17 Srpska. Now, you're saying, are you, that on those occasions - and we've
18 only identified two, in fact - on those occasions, you're saying there
19 might have also been a Main Board meeting? Is that what you're saying?
20 A. No, I didn't say that. I wasn't clear on whether you were asking
21 me whether I talked to Mr. Krajisnik after the Assembly session or on some
22 other occasion. And I said to you that after the Assembly, I did not have
23 a chance of having any kind of discussion with Mr. Krajisnik. And yes, I
24 was at the Main Board with him, but that is not an Assembly meeting. So
25 are we talking about meetings after the Assembly or perhaps after any kind
1 of meeting whatsoever? Because there were different types of meetings,
2 not only the National Assembly, not only meetings of the Main Board.
3 There was, for example, the Holy Synod Assembly session meeting, with the
4 patriarch, Mr. Pavle, arrived. So I can only assume that at one of those
5 two meetings Mr. Krajisnik was probably present. I assume, I don't claim,
6 because I can't actually remember whether he was in Banja Luka when the
7 Holy Synod had its meeting. But I didn't have any talks with him on that
8 occasion either.
9 Q. Let's try -- I'm going to put a --
10 A. Please, it says here "the Holy Sinard." It's not "Sinard". It's
11 Synod, S-y-n-o-d.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That will be corrected, Mr. Radic. Thank you
13 for your assistance.
14 MR. STEWART: Thank you, and that's how I was spelling it in my
15 own head as we were hearing it.
16 Q. I'm going to put a proposition to you, Mr. Radic, and I just want
17 you please, as I'm sure you always do, I want you to listen very carefully
18 and tell me whether you agree with the proposition.
19 The proposition is this: That on the occasions when Mr. Krajisnik
20 came to Banja Luka, according to your evidence, for Assembly meetings of
21 Republika Srpska from April to December 1992, there were no political
22 meetings or discussions in which you and he were both -- or at which you
23 and he were both present, apart from the Assembly sessions themselves?
24 Now, is the proposition clear?
25 A. I must say that I cannot remember that ever afterwards, after the
1 meetings of the National Assembly, that there were any gatherings at which
2 anything like that was reviewed. If there is something to bear that out,
3 please remind me of it. But as I say, I cannot remember that there were
4 any political gatherings or meetings at all which was -- which did not
5 have to do with the National Assembly.
6 Q. And when you say "afterwards," because you've used that phrase,
7 can we take it the same applies to before, during, or after the Assembly
8 meetings on those occasions when the Assembly took place in Banja Luka?
9 A. If there were, since I was not a deputy myself, I was not able to
10 attend meetings of that kind. Before the Assembly, of course, people
11 would be convened to the deputies to agree and coordinate their views with
12 the president of the Assembly, but I had nothing to look for there because
13 I wasn't a deputy myself. Now, during the Assembly meeting itself, there
14 were no interruptions to discuss any separate issues, and after the
15 Assembly sessions, if there was an analysis of any kind then it was an
16 analysis of the Assembly, to which I, as a guest, had nothing to do there.
17 I was a guest, in the capacity of guest, not as a member of parliament on
18 a footing of equality with everybody else, the popular assembly, Serbian
20 Q. You agree, Mr. Radic, that on occasions of political meetings,
21 where there are a lot of people there, this is standard, isn't it, and
22 nothing special, perhaps, to where you were living and working, there were
23 people milling around, there are formal meetings, there are informal
24 meetings, there are people running into each other in the corridor, there
25 are people perhaps having a cup of coffee or in the bar or whatever.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 That's politics. There are lots and lots of those types of discussions
2 going on, aren't there?
3 A. Well, I'd exclude politics when I'm having a cup of coffee. Yes,
4 we did have a cup of coffee, and I can't say that we held political
5 discussions over coffee. There would be chatting afterwards, but it
6 wouldn't be a political discussion. Of course, there were political
7 meetings, including the meetings that were mentioned yesterday and the day
8 before by the Prosecutor, for instance. But after that, we would go our
9 own ways, go our separate ways, very quickly after that. There were no
10 further political discussions. And let me say straight away that, as far
11 as Mr. Krajisnik is concerned, I had very few contacts with him, very
12 little contact with him. If you insist upon this matter, I would like
13 somebody to refresh my memory and remind me when it was that I could have
14 had a meeting with him, because quite simply, as I say, his job was one,
15 mine was another. When he came to the Assembly meetings at Banja Luka, I
16 myself was a guest. When we were at the Main Board, I would go back
17 quickly, not have to spend the night there, because it's a long way from
18 Pale to Banja Luka. You have to go a roundabout way, a circuitous route.
19 So I didn't have occasion to talk to Mr. Krajisnik at all, and he was
20 there too as a member, as I was myself. Perhaps in terms of hierarchy, he
21 was somewhat higher up, but he wasn't the person that I would talk to
22 after Main Board meetings.
23 Q. So there was between April and December 1992, there was simply no
24 occasion on which Mr. Krajisnik was present, together with you and others,
25 at which any questions of ethnic cleansing, deportation, expulsion,
1 removal of non-Serbs from Banja Luka, could have taken place; that's
2 correct, isn't it?
3 A. Correct. Right.
4 Q. And beyond the end of 1992, does what I've just put to you and
5 what you've just agreed with apply also to the whole of 1993?
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. And is it right that you have no specific recollection of any
8 occasion on which Dr. Karadzic raised with you or in your presence, apart
9 from Assembly sessions, any questions of ethnic cleansing, deportation,
10 expulsion, removal of non-Serbs from Banja Luka?
11 A. I have already said that it was his criticism mostly of what we
12 had not done and what the others had done, and this could have been
13 interpreted, and we interpreted it as a criticism, directed at the
14 leadership of the town of Banja Luka, which had failed to do what the
15 other towns had done, not only in Republika Srpska but even more so in
16 Bosnia-Herzegovina, for example.
17 Q. How was that criticism expressed -- well, was that criticism
18 expressed to you by Dr. Karadzic?
19 A. Well, he expressed this criticism to me and to the people who had
20 greater connections with Pale, such as the deputies. When they go there,
21 he would say: Gentlemen, you didn't -- haven't done what the other
22 municipalities have done, for example so that would reach us down below.
23 Of course, we had different views on the matter. The result was that
24 Banja Luka was the last from which people left. And as I say, most of the
25 people left in 1995, after the month of August. And similarly, it is also
1 true and a fact that in Banja Luka there is not a single mass grave.
2 However much you may search for any. I said I would be willing to dig
3 myself if anybody found a mass grave anywhere. Looting and killings did
4 occur, but there's not a single mass grave.
5 Q. Did Dr. Karadzic ever express that criticism to you on any
6 occasion when you and he were both physically present?
7 A. No. No, he didn't.
8 Q. And did he ever express that criticism to you in a telephone
9 conversation between you and him?
10 A. I said he didn't, neither in a telephone conversation or in
11 writing. He only sent one letter to me, corresponded with me once in
12 writing, to inform me that the commission would re-examine some of my
13 stands, positions. When I had an 11-member commission examining me on
14 some of my positions, that is the only occasion that he used his right as
15 president vis-a-vis me, the president of the Municipal Assembly. And I'm
16 sure you have that document yourself. The establishment of a commission
17 to assert the exactness of the allegations I had made in interviews given
18 to various newspapers, journals, and so on.
19 Q. Mr. Radic, you were asked yesterday some questions by His Honour
20 Judge Orie, and we've been over some of this ground already this morning,
21 but I'm afraid we are going to have to go over some of it again to get
22 everything as clear as we possibly can.
23 His Honour asked you, in relation to the interview that you'd --
24 that had been conducted in July 1991, at which -- sorry, 2001. I beg your
25 pardon. July 2001 -- that if Ms. Korner - perhaps you remember
1 Ms. Korner - but if Ms. Korner had asked you whether, during this meeting
2 or such meetings - and that was a reference to supposed meetings with
3 Dr. Karadzic and Mr. Krajisnik - you had been blamed for there being too
4 many remaining non-Serbs in Banja Luka, whether you would have been less
5 hesitant to say: Yes, that's what they blamed me for.
6 And then you referred to criticisms and so on.
7 And then a little bit later on - it's page 48 of the transcript -
8 His Honour said: "So then you are blamed for not having expelled
9 non-Serbs, as Serbs were expelled from other territories, with, as a
10 result, that there were too many non-Serbs remaining in Banja Luka who had
11 to be fed, and is that a correct understanding of, and had to be given
12 medical care? Is that a correct understanding of your testimony?" And
13 you said: "You've understood it well." And His Honour put to you: "And
14 that's what was said in meetings you had with Mr. Karadzic and
15 Mr. Krajisnik?" And you said: "Along those lines. Those were the
16 suggestions made mostly. Nobody ever mentioned the methods of ethnic
17 cleansing at all," and so on.
18 Now, when His Honour put to you: "And that's what was said in
19 meetings you had with Mr. Karadzic and Mr. Krajisnik" and you said "along
20 those lines."
21 JUDGE ORIE: May I just, Mr. Stewart, interrupt you for one
22 second. If you would look at the line starting my question with the words
23 "and that's." And if you would then look at the sixth word, in connection
24 with the fifth word, I am not quite sure that not the word "a" should be
25 added, and perhaps the "s" stricken out from that sixth word. I'm not
1 sure, but I'd like to check as a matter of fact on the audiotape what I
2 exactly said. I'm just saying this to you at this moment in order to
3 avoid whatever discussion later on I had -- of course, you can continue on
4 the basis of this, but I just want to tell it to you now and not say:
5 Well, if you had that in your mind, you should have told me at the time.
6 I think I used the wording such that you understand what I mean.
7 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, that's very helpful and I appreciate --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps we should --
9 MR. STEWART: -- I do --
10 JUDGE ORIE: -- our next breaks.
11 MR. STEWART: I very much appreciate the slightly coded and
12 understandable way in which Your Honour has put the point to me.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
14 MR. STEWART: Your Honour and I are being asked to speak one at a
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 MR. STEWART: But I -- we -- so we --
18 JUDGE ORIE: I apologise also on behalf of Mr. Stewart.
19 MR. STEWART: Thank you, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
21 MR. STEWART: I appreciate that. The -- Your Honour, it's -- I'm
22 nearly at the end. It's such an important point, Your Honour, that I
23 really think we should be clear before I proceed. It's a nuisance, I
24 know, but it is a very important area.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If you'd have any other issue at this moment to
1 deal with, we could do that. Otherwise, if we have a break now, we would
2 be -- we might not -- we might have too long a period until the -- until
3 the next -- too long a period for ending at a quarter to 2.00. So if you
4 would have another subject, and I'll certainly try to do my utmost best to
5 see whether we can clarify the issue I just raised during the next break.
6 MR. STEWART: I don't know whether it's good news or bad news,
7 Your Honour, but I don't have other points. So that indicates that my
8 cross-examination shouldn't be very much longer, but it does present the
9 immediate practical question.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Stewart, I think we should have a break at
12 this moment, and whether we could deal with the matter in 20 minutes or
13 not is still to be seen. I'll see whether it will be possible to have an
14 excerpt of the audio of that very moment to see whether we can -- I'm not
15 sure. I'm simply saying this. I'm not sure. But I just thought that if
16 it would be the case, then it could have some consequences which I'd
17 rather avoid to occur.
18 We'll have a break for at least 20 minutes, but ...
19 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
20 JUDGE ORIE: I think it would be wisest to have a break until a
21 quarter past 12.00. We adjourn until a quarter past 12.00.
22 --- Recess taken at 11.35 a.m.
23 --- On resuming at 12.24 p.m.
24 JUDGE ORIE: I checked during the break the transcript. The
25 reason why I did this, because I had in the back of my mind that I not
1 only used the plural, but also the singular. As a matter of fact, I did
2 that, but one page prior to that, where I said meeting or meetings, this
3 meeting or meetings. And I wasn't sure that it was where I said it. I
4 checked it, and the transcript is correct in every respect. So that could
5 be the basis for further questions.
6 Before we do so, however, I'd like to ask a few questions to the
7 Prosecution, but in private session. It will not take very long, I take
8 it, but ...
9 [Private session]
22 [Open session]
23 JUDGE ORIE: We are in open session again.
24 Madam Usher, would you please escort the witness into the
1 [The witness entered court]
2 JUDGE ORIE: You may proceed, Mr. Stewart.
3 MR. STEWART: Thank you, Your Honour.
4 Q. So, Mr. Radic, just to refresh our memories here on the immediate
5 past, I'm talking about at page 47 of yesterday's transcript at -- I'm
6 sorry. Page 48 we'd got on to. I'll just recap. His Honour Judge Orie
7 said: "So then you were blamed for not having expelled non-Serbs, as
8 Serbs were expelled from other territories, with, as a result, that there
9 were too many non-Serbs remaining in Banja Luka who had to be fed and - is
10 that a correct understanding of - and had to be given medical care. Is
11 that a correct understanding of your testimony?" And then you said:
12 "You've understood it well." And Judge Orie said: "And that's what was
13 said in meetings you had with Mr. Karadzic and Mr. Krajisnik?" And then
14 you said: "Along those lines. Those were the suggestions made mostly."
15 And then, so, Mr. Radic, as an observation first, before I then
16 get to the question: It appears that -- well, I'll put it in the form of
17 a question. It appears that you were accepting what was implicit in His
18 Honour's question, that discussions of these matters had taken place in
19 meetings that you had had with Mr. Karadzic and Mr. Krajisnik. So, first
20 of all, do you agree that what I have just quoted to you from the
21 transcript certainly appears to contain your acceptance of that implicit
22 element of His Honour's question, that there were such meetings of
23 Mr. Karadzic and Mr. Krajisnik at which there were such discussions?
24 A. Yes. I said that yesterday. However, I also said that such
25 criticisms were not levelled at me by Mr. Krajisnik but by Mr. Karadzic.
1 And that was written down, although I don't have it here on the screen.
2 That's what I said. I said that this was not done by Mr. Krajisnik but by
3 Mr. Karadzic. Later on, I also said that Mr. Krajisnik did not discuss
4 this topic with me, be it individually with me, the two of us alone, or at
6 Q. When you, in effect, accepted what His Honour was saying, that
7 that was what was said in meetings you had with Mr. Karadzic and
8 Mr. Krajisnik, and you said "along those lines," that was as to the
9 content, but you didn't dispute or comment or protest in any way at the
10 assumption there had been such meetings, did you understand His Honour's
11 question to relate only to meetings of the Assembly of Republika Srpska?
12 A. These were not formal meetings convened for that particular topic
13 we've been discussing here. These were meetings convened after the
14 Assembly session for some other purposes. And once again, I emphasise
15 that I was not given any sort of an order to ensure that non-Serb
16 populations left the area. I was simply criticised for having many more
17 Croats and Muslims in Banja Luka than Serbs in the other areas. And this
18 was written down. But I've also said that this was not something that
19 Krajisnik said. And if you look back at what was said, it can't be seen
20 here, you'll see that that's what I said.
21 Q. Mr. Radic, the -- I have been reading transcript of your interview
22 in July 2001, transcripts of your evidence that you've been giving in this
23 trial in the course of this week, and I have been listening and/or reading
24 to -- or listening to and/or reading what you've been saying this morning
25 about all this. And I apologise that this isn't a question. This is
1 simply a statement. At the moment, Mr. Radic, I am having great
2 difficulty in reconciling your answers, which is why I'm exploring it.
3 Mr. Radic, according to the evidence which you have given this
4 morning, there were no such meetings that you had with Mr. Karadzic and
5 Mr. Krajisnik at which this question of non-Serbs being expelled or
6 removed from Banja Luka was discussed. That's correct, isn't it? That's
7 been your evidence this morning.
8 A. There were no, so to speak, explicit statements to the effect
9 that's what the case is, ethnic cleansing has to be carried out. We were
10 being criticised for the fact that there were more Croats and Muslims in
11 our municipality than there were elsewhere, in other areas. I've been
12 saying this several times now. These were not statements concerning
13 ethnic cleansing. These were just passing references by Mr. Karadzic, and
14 I said that there was not a single occasion when Mr. Krajisnik addressed
15 me on this topic.
16 Q. Mr. Radic, it goes further, doesn't it? You have been saying this
17 morning, and I'm just inviting you to make it as clear as can be made,
18 that there was not a single occasion on which the question of ethnic
19 cleansing, expulsion, removal of non-Serbs from Banja Luka was discussed
20 when you and Mr. Krajisnik were both present, if we leave aside Assembly
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger.
23 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, I've tried to give Mr. Stewart as much
24 latitude as possible, but I think it's clear now that that question has
25 been asked and answered, more than once.
1 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, many questions have been asked
2 and answered more than once, but -- well, I'll go a small way with the
3 witness present, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: I'll allow you to put this question to the witness.
5 I wouldn't fully disagree with what you said in response to that. But --
6 MR. STEWART: Yes, I understand, Your Honour. Thank you.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps, Mr. Radic, I'll put -- Mr. Stewart is
8 putting to you that this morning, at various moments, you said: Well,
9 there could not have been such meetings or such occasions where we could
10 have discussed this matter. And he says that this is difficult to
11 reconcile with what you told us yesterday and what was just put to you.
12 That's, I think, the question Mr. Stewart is putting to you. He said:
13 How could you say that such meetings could not have taken place, and at
14 the same time, you told us about such a meeting yesterday?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I kept saying here that a formal
16 meeting dedicated to what was now discussed by Mr. Stewart never took
17 place, that this was always on the occasion of something else taking
18 place, whether an Assembly session or something else. It was on that
19 occasion that I would be criticised for the large numbers of the Muslims
20 and the Croats.
21 Now, here you keep insisting on this one meeting being held for
22 that, and I keep saying that there was no such one meeting dedicated to
23 this particular issue. And specifically, Mr. Krajisnik never told me, not
24 even at a broader meeting, involving more persons, anything about ethnic
25 cleansing. And I don't know how many times I ought to repeat this in
1 order to really say what I am supposed to be saying.
2 MR. STEWART:
3 Q. All you're supposed to be saying, Mr. Radic, is the truth, as best
4 you can remember it. That's absolutely basic. So let's proceed on that
6 Also, Mr. Radic, I'm going to have to invite you, please, not to
7 concern yourself with how many times you might have previously answered a
8 particular question. That is a matter for the Trial Chamber to concern
9 themselves with and to give directions on, and it's a matter on which we
10 counsel have responsibilities. It is not your problem. Please, when
11 you're asked a question, even if you think you've been asked it a hundred
12 times, if you're asked the question, please answer it.
13 Mr. Radic, was there ever an occasion on which you and
14 Mr. Krajisnik were both present when Dr. Karadzic made any sort of
15 criticism in relation to ethnic cleansing, expulsion, removal,
16 deportation, presence of numbers of non-Serbs in Banja Luka?
17 A. It is possible that there was. But the last part you mentioned,
18 that was what was mentioned, the greater numbers of Muslims and Croats.
19 But there was no mention of ethnic cleansing. But it is possible that
20 there was this issue discussed. That's why I insisted on that error where
21 the names of Krajisnik and Karadzic were put together.
22 Q. You see, and just to remind you: His Honour's questions
23 yesterday, in effect, accommodated your objection to the phrase "ethnic
24 cleansing," and so the gist of His Honour's questions were: Well, if we
25 take away ethnic cleansing and we talk in terms of expulsion, then would
1 your evidence be different, in effect, or would you accept such-and-such a
2 position. And that's how it proceeded.
3 So -- and the answer you've just given, you said, and you've given
4 evidence to that effect, that the numbers of non-Serbs remaining in Banja
5 Luka came up in some discussions. But let's take it in stages. Was there
6 ever an occasion on which you and Mr. Krajisnik were both present when
7 Dr. Karadzic made any sort of criticism in relation to ethnic cleansing?
8 A. Whether Mr. Krajisnik was there or not, I cannot claim with
9 certainty. I say it is possible. But I do know that it was Mr. Karadzic
10 who criticised me. Now, whether Mr. Krajisnik was there, I cannot
11 confirm. And I've been saying this from the very beginning. Why put
12 Krajisnik and Karadzic together at all costs, when Mr. Krajisnik never
13 expressed this criticism, be it individually or in a meeting?
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Radic, it's not for you to put questions to why
15 certain persons are united in one question. If you would, however, like
16 to know, it would be on the basis of your statement.
17 Now, the issue is: You have told us yesterday that you are not
18 happy with the ethnic cleansing expression, that that was not the terms
19 that were used. You also told us that in meetings with Mr. Karadzic and
20 Mr. Krajisnik, the remaining numbers of non-Serbs in Banja Luka was put to
21 you and that you were blamed for not having done the same as was done in
22 other municipalities. You made clear to us that it was Mr. Karadzic who
23 expressed those words. And you also testified that it was during meetings
24 with -- or at least a meeting with Mr. Karadzic and Mr. Krajisnik being
25 present. Is this correct? Yes or no.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When talking about Mr. Karadzic, the
2 answer is yes. As for Mr. Krajisnik, it is possible that he was there,
3 because the nature of the meetings was such that we were all there.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Yesterday you told us that, when I specifically
5 asked you whether this was said in meetings with Mr. Karadzic and
6 Mr. Krajisnik, you, as you did this morning, you confirmed that that was
7 the case. I think you also explained to us that this was a meeting which
8 was not a formal meeting of the Assembly, but that it was just in the
9 margin of such meetings. Where you now say that it was possible that
10 Mr. Krajisnik was present, when you said yesterday this was said at
11 meetings where Mr. Krajisnik and Mr. Karadzic were present although
12 Mr. Karadzic expressed those words.
13 Do we have to understand you -- answer of today to say that
14 yesterday, when you said it was in meetings with Mr. Karadzic and
15 Mr. Krajisnik that that was not a correct answer?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not saying that Mr. Krajisnik
17 was not there with Mr. Karadzic. But it does not mean that he took part
18 in it all. It was Mr. Karadzic who told me what I told you. And it
19 wasn't Mr. Krajisnik.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Krajisnik was not expressing those words,
21 he was not -- he did not take part in it, but was he present, at least
22 during one?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He was present, as I say, but he did
24 not take part in the conversation, nor did he say anything on that
25 particular issue.
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, the Chamber considers the subject
3 sufficiently dealt with at this moment. So you may proceed.
4 MR. STEWART: What subject, Your Honour, please?
5 JUDGE ORIE: The subject of the presence of Mr. Krajisnik at an
6 occasion where Mr. Karadzic expressed words on the issue of too many
7 non-Serbs remaining in the Banja Luka area. And I think that this is what
8 the issue is really about.
9 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, may I ask for the witness to leave
10 court, please, before I make my next submission?
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 MR. STEWART: Thank you.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Radic.
14 [The witness stands down]
15 MR. STEWART: My submission is very simple.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, this is absolutely the wrong approach.
18 This is an absolutely unfair approach to adopt. We have been to-ing and
19 fro-ing with this witness with him chopping and changing his answers. The
20 Trial Chamber has exercised its prerogative to ask extremely leading
21 questions, and the witness has gone backwards and forwards and at the
22 point where Your Honour has led the witness back to the position in which
23 the Prosecution largely want him to be, the Trial Chamber is then saying
24 the subject is closed. In the middle of my cross-examination, the Trial
25 Chamber intervenes, undermines the answers which I have obtained out of
1 the witness, and the contradictions I've obtained out of the witness,
2 leads him back to this point and then says that's the end of the question.
3 JUDGE ORIE: No. It's not the end of the question.
4 MR. STEWART: The end of the topic.
5 JUDGE ORIE: The contradiction in the answer is still there.
6 MR. STEWART: Well --
7 JUDGE ORIE: I mean, let's not discuss the matter any further,
8 Mr. Stewart. The Chamber is not unaware that this witness testified that
9 he had a meeting with Mr. Krajisnik and Mr. Karadzic where Mr. Karadzic
10 spoke about certain subjects. The Chamber is also not unaware that the
11 witness also testified that such meetings could not have taken place at
12 the same time, that such meetings did not take place, apart from Assembly
13 meetings. So the Chamber is fully aware, and it's not the last word of
14 this witness which is the final word for the Chamber. But we have to stop
15 somewhere, because the risk is there that if we would continue with this
16 line of questioning, that it would be one quarter of an hour to the left,
17 another quarter of an hour to the right. I mean, the Chamber is aware of
18 that. And that could perhaps continue for hours. So on the basis of the
19 testimony given until now, the Chamber has decided that the -- this
20 factual matter has been dealt with sufficiently.
21 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, my -- my only submission on that
22 is that what Your Honour sayings would, in principle, be more consonant,
23 with respect, with a fair approach to this witness's evidence if the Trial
24 Chamber's questions were not so clearly questions which were supportive of
25 and consistent with what the Prosecution wished to get from this witness
1 rather than what the Defence wished to get from this witness.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The Chamber has noticed that you consider the
3 questions of the witness to be supportive to the Prosecution and insupport
4 [sic] of the Defence. The ruling is there. If you would have any further
5 questions to the witness, we could ask the usher to escort the witness
6 into the courtroom. And if not ...
8 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, actually, well, the only thing I did
9 want to do, but if I need the witness back to do it, then the witness
10 comes back to do it, is we would like the whole of the statements of this
11 witness to be in evidence, not as his evidence, because he hasn't endorsed
12 them all in that way, but we would wish the whole of those statements to
13 go in and be available as part of the evidence.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Perhaps we could discuss this matter.
15 Mr. Tieger, this has come into the mind of the Chamber as well, although
16 we might have a slightly different approach.
17 MR. STEWART: Sorry, Your Honour. I said statements. I beg your
18 pardon. It was a slip of the tongue. Your Honour knows I mean the
19 transcripts of the interviews.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Of course.
21 MR. STEWART: Yes.
22 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber has considered whether we should admit
23 them into evidence, which would make those transcripts exhibits. Because
24 the relevant portions have been read to this witness. At the same time,
25 the witness has read some B/C/S portions of the statement which are not in
1 the transcript. He has done that during a break. So I'd like to hear
2 from the parties whether it would be more appropriate to admit them into
3 evidence or to mark them for identification so that at least the copies
4 are there and that whomever at a later stage would like to see what the
5 witness has read is able to do so. So should it be in evidence or should
6 it just be marked for identification?
7 MR. STEWART: I'll just have a word, if I may.
8 [Defence counsel confer]
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart.
10 MR. STEWART: Yes. Your Honour, the Defence would wish the
11 documents to be in evidence, because we wish to be able to say: Yes,
12 that's what -- that's what Mr. Radic did say on those occasions during the
13 course of those interviews.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Tieger.
15 MR. TIEGER: That's acceptable, Your Honour. If I could raise one
16 minor point.
17 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber will follow the preference of the Defence
18 not objected by the Prosecution. If they are tendered, we'll admit them
19 into evidence rather than to mark them for identification.
20 MR. TIEGER: I would note with respect to a similar issue, there
21 is a -- as I know counsel is aware, a similar reference to this issue in
22 the Brdjanin transcript. I would like to have that -- I can either ask
23 about it in redirect or have it just simply have it agreed upon for
24 admission. It's just a few pages, roughly 22319, line 11 through 22321,
25 line 10. But we're dealing with the matter in this fashion then it seems
1 it would be more efficient.
2 MR. STEWART: Yes, in principle, what's sauce for the goose is
3 sauce for the gander, as we say, Your Honour, as well. No, we couldn't
4 possibly object to passages of the Brdjanin transcript going in in that
5 way. Yes, that was the evidence given in the Brdjanin case. And if it
6 turns out on examination that there might be more pages in due course
7 which might be relevant, then we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.
8 JUDGE ORIE: The position of the parties is clear. Then,
9 Madam Usher, could you please escort the witness into the courtroom.
10 MR. STEWART: Just like to note while -- I'm sorry, Your Honour.
11 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
12 [The witness entered court]
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, any further questions to the witness?
14 MR. STEWART: No, Your Honour. The observation I was just going
15 to make was that Ms. Cmeric has expressed quite a lot of unhappiness over
16 the translation of those -- the transcripts of those interviews. I'm not
17 entirely sure of the order of events as far as the translation is
18 concerned, but we just want to have a look at that, Your Honour, and
19 perhaps come back to it in due course. It's not something we can explore
20 today anyway.
21 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand. If there are any submissions to be
22 made on incorrectness of translation of the statements, we can't deal with
23 it at this point and at a later stage we'll have to find out whether it
24 has had any influence on the testimony of this witness in this court.
25 Mr. Tieger, any need for further questions to the --
1 MR. TIEGER: No, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Judge El Mahdi has one or more questions for
3 you, Mr. Radic.
4 Questioned by the Court:
5 JUDGE EL MAHDI: Thank you, Mr. President.
6 [Interpretation] Witness, I should like, please, to know a little
7 more about this question that you were asked during your testimony, and
8 I'm referring to what you said with respect to the interventions of
9 deputies and their insistence upon the fact that you were not doing or not
10 following the directives along the lines of having a presence, if I can
11 put it that way, of the Croat and Muslim inhabitants, at least in the
13 Now, in this context, you were asked a specific question, and it
14 was about realistic power, the realistic power that the deputies had. And
15 you said, among other things, that: Yes, they did wield power, because
16 they were the elected deputies, elected by the people. And you also
17 added, and I'm quoting you in English: [In English] [Previous
18 translation continues] "... and if they have a skilful leader like
19 Krajisnik, then ..." [Interpretation] And that's where you stopped.
20 Now, my first question is this: What were you going to add? What
21 were you going to say in that context?
22 A. Well, without a doubt, Mr. Krajisnik was very skilful. He was a
23 very skilful leader and a very skilful president, who was well able to
24 chair meetings and to have those meetings arrive at conclusions. Now,
25 it's quite another matter how the deputies used that. Some of them would
1 come with requests and demands that weren't discussed at all, nor were
2 they made at National Assembly meetings.
3 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] May I interrupt you there,
4 Witness. I am interested more in knowing, within the scope of this
5 subject, the interventions made by the deputies and their insistence upon
6 the fact that there was a malfunctioning in Banja Luka in the extent to
7 which you were not following the example set and the directives given
8 obliging you to replace or get rid of or carry out a balancing policy, or
9 expelling the non-Serb population, in view of their numbers, their
10 existing numbers.
11 A. Your Honour, I didn't receive any order to expel the non-Serb
13 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] No, no. I wasn't speaking about
14 orders. It seemed to me -- I seemed to understand you as saying that the
15 deputies, five or six of them, at least, encouraged you to react
16 differently, in the sense of getting rid of a certain number of non-Serb
18 A. You also asked me whether they intervened to have Croats and
19 Muslims dismissed from their jobs.
20 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Yes. And it is that subject that
21 I'm interested in.
22 A. My answer to you, Your Honour, is the same answer that I gave here
23 previously, that I did not allow, I did not permit people to be dismissed
24 from their jobs. But not especially in the Municipal Assembly where they
25 worked, not especially there.
1 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Yes, I understand that. But my
2 interest lies elsewhere. We have the facts, and you have confirmed that
3 the deputies intervened either to have you get rid of the non-Serb
4 functionaries, officials, or -- and to expel a certain number of non-Serb
5 inhabitants. So that's a question. Do you say yes or no? Was that the
6 case or was it not?
7 A. They couldn't say to me that I should expel them. What they said
8 was that there were too many of them and that this should be solved and
9 resolved in the same way it had been resolved in other municipalities. So
10 you must know, Your Honour, that in the municipalities in Republika
11 Srpska, the process had already been completed. And as it had indeed in
12 Bosnia-Herzegovina itself.
13 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Yes. But in your opinion, what
14 was the relationship between those deputies and the Presidency of the
15 Assembly, for example?
16 A. Well, the type of relationship that always exists between the
17 president of the Assembly and the deputies. What is concluded at the
18 Assembly, the deputies were duty-bound to implement on the ground. But I
19 saw on many occasions that what they had asked for was not the position
20 taken by the People's Assembly itself. One of them asked for example that
21 the vice-president of the Assembly be expelled from his office so that he
22 could replace him. And when I said what are you doing he said he was
23 interpreting the laws that were enacted at the Assembly and he was just a
24 teacher. So there were cases and examples of that kind quite a lot but I
25 was always opposed to that and I don't say that Mr. Krajisnik gave
1 instructions to that effect at all.
2 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] No. I'm not saying that. I
3 should just like to go back to what you yourself said when you said that
4 these deputies gained an importance, took on more importance through the
5 fact that they had a skilful, as you yourself said, leader. Therefore, my
6 question is quite simply this. It's a very simple question. I would like
7 to understand what you have told us. So why, when it comes to deputies
8 and their power, the power they yielded, did you add that they gained
9 their importance or weight, that they gained more weight through the fact
10 that they had a president who was indeed, as you said, skilful? So my
11 question, quite simply, is this: The power that the president of the
12 Assembly wielded, did it go beyond the powers of a president of a mere
13 president of the Assembly? Or did he have the power that he exerted over
14 his deputies and then this explains what you yourself said and quoted?
15 A. I said a moment ago that they acted and behaved outside their
16 competences and that Mr. Krajisnik was a very skilful president of the
17 National Assembly who led them and solved problems with them. It does not
18 mean that what they asked me to do that they ever heard that from him.
19 And that proved to be so because what they asked me to do was something
20 they could not have heard from Mr. Krajisnik, either at the National
21 Assembly or elsewhere. So they came from those heights up above, took --
22 assumed this high-up position and tried to behave in that way.
23 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] And now this brings me to my last
24 question, which has to do with what you said, and I'm quoting you [In
25 English] [Previous translation continues] ... the unwritten rules."
1 [Interpretation] You said that there were certain unwritten rules or
2 directives which were applied in all the municipalities, in the sense of
3 getting rid of the non-Serb inhabitants. Now, do you know something more
4 about that, the source of those unwritten rules, where that came from?
5 A. Well, those rules were not equal for all municipalities. It
6 depended on who and how individual things were interpreted, things that --
7 decisions made by the government or brought up at assemblies. And one of
8 them was this delocation of the population or the rationalisation of
9 accommodation, as we referred to it.
10 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Came from whom?
11 A. Well, it came from those people who insisted upon the
12 implementation of this and it reached the enterprises in some way.
13 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [In English] Who are these people?
14 A. I never saw the document myself, but it arrived at the enterprises
15 and companies, and that's how they settled the question of their
16 combatants, those who were factory employees.
17 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] And you didn't ask yourself where
18 the documents emanated from, where they originated from? You didn't ask
19 yourself that question, you didn't have information about the source of
20 the documents?
21 A. No, because it was never brought up at the municipal meeting of
22 Banja Luka, for example, Municipal Assembly meeting of Banja Luka. So I
23 can't say if such a document existed, I can't say who gave such an
24 instruction and that's what I said before. I said there were some very
25 strange sources on the basis of which some people, for example,
1 interpreted the fact that a music professor was at the source of
2 information and that's why he should be dismissed from his job. So even
3 if a document did exist, it had to have said that a music teacher was not
4 an important -- importantly placed.
5 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] But a music teacher can also play
6 a political role, can he not, and we have had testimony to the effect that
7 there were certain refrains which represented an ethnicity, things that
8 were said representing an ethnicity. So he wasn't an ordinary professor.
9 For example, a professor of music can have political overtones. But let's
10 move on.
11 Anyway, with respect to what you said about the unwritten rules,
12 what you're saying now is that you didn't have any information as to who
13 these rules came from; is that right?
14 A. Yes, that's right. Although, as a rule, they would come to us, to
15 the municipality, looking for protection. And we never adopted a document
16 of that kind in the Assembly. We didn't get it from the National Assembly
17 or from the government. We never received a document of that kind which
18 would allow us to act that way in any particular case. So those are the
19 sources on the basis of which things like that happened.
20 JUDGE EL MAHDI: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Radic, I have a few short questions for you.
22 Would you please carefully listen to the question.
23 First you testified about the knowledge of Mr. Sommaruga of, well,
24 a large number of non-Serbs going through the territory of Banja Luka.
25 A. Serbs.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Let me then ... Yes. Yes. You said he was aware of
2 that. Did he agree with these transports, in your view?
3 A. Serbs, you mean?
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. No, no. Mr. Sommaruga. Because you told about
5 his knowledge.
6 A. Yes. Cornelio Sommaruga. Mr. Sommaruga came by helicopter. He
7 flew over Banja Luka at a time when 250.000 Serbs from the Knin Krajina
8 were passing through Banja Luka. And he was frightened of what he saw.
9 Because the information he received was that in every second or third
10 truck there were weapons. Now, had those people entered the city centre,
11 they would have destroyed it. So we let them go, circumvent Banja Luka
12 and pass around it. He saw President Koljevic's own [as interpreted].
13 They talked late into the night. Mr. Koljevic went to Pale and had a
14 meeting with Mrs. Lucy Santer [phoen], and they wrote -- compiled a
15 document about the voluntary departure of the non-Serb population, signed
16 by Mrs. Lucy Santer and Mr. Koljevic, and I think that I gave a Mr. Conner
17 that - Mrs. Conner - that document when she was in Banja Luka.
18 Mrs. Korner. If you don't have it in your archives I shall be happy to
19 send it to you both in English and in Serbian.
20 So after that, as I say, that was the greatest exodus that took
21 place, when the realisation of the treaty began to be implemented, the
22 treaty on the departure of the population, where these people were taken
23 off to the Croatian border. He was afraid that untoward incidents would
24 take place when -- there was a clash with 250.000 armed Serbs who had been
25 expelled from Croatia came to a head.
1 JUDGE ORIE: If you'd just allow me one second to reread your
2 answer. It's still not entirely clear to me why the non-Serb population
3 had to leave as a result of the arrival of 250.000 Serbs from the Knin
4 Krajina. Because you put them in the same context.
5 A. I'm not putting them in the same context, Your Honour.
6 Mr. Cornelio Sommaruga put them in the same context because he was
7 terribly afraid of the possible consequences of a clash breaking out
8 between people left without their homes and saw that this place was
9 inhabited by non-Serbs. So that was the reason. The reason was: Let's
10 get rid of them for the time being until this convoy of 250.000 people
11 goes through and then have the population return. And I can tell you that
12 in Banja Luka, 95 per cent of the property that was not destroyed was
13 returned to the Muslims and Croats. That is what is happening in
14 Prijedor, and so on and so forth, elsewhere. So that was his idea because
15 he was petrified, and I think he was right to have been petrified and
16 terribly afraid of this happening.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I now understand better the context.
18 Did you ever visit the Omarska camp when there was -- when there
19 were still detainees? I'm just asking you whether you did or not.
20 A. Yes, I did, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: What caused you to visit Omarska camp? What was the
22 reason why you went there?
23 A. Well, I have to say that the organisation of that visit, and I
24 myself, well, yes, I did have reason to go and see it but the organisation
25 of the visit was Mr. Brdjanin, because he wished to have a see whether
1 anything could be done to get those people away from there. That was his
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Were you aware of a situation that existed that
4 perhaps should change?
5 A. When I saw what the situation was, I immediately asked the
6 representative of the ICRC to go and register those people urgently.
7 Because once their names are taken down and listed in the camp, then you
8 put an end to all unfortunate incidences, anything evil happening. And
9 then I asked him if we could find a way to get the people away altogether.
10 JUDGE ORIE: My question was focusing on what you knew before you
11 went to Omarska, because I do understand your last answer to be that when
12 you saw what the situation was during your visit, what did you know or
13 what did you hear or see about possible situations in Omarska before you
14 went there?
15 A. I think that immediately after the events, that information did
16 pour into us. They even suggested from the Prijedor authorities that they
17 would send these people to us to Banja Luka, for example. What would we
18 do with all those people in Banja Luka in addition to all the refugees
19 that we had from all over Bosnia-Herzegovina coming to us and from the
20 Knin Krajina? So what I did then was I went to see for myself. I
21 responded to the invitation and went to see for myself.
22 JUDGE ORIE: You said that immediately after the events, that
23 information did pour into us. Could you tell us what information. That's
24 one. And then by which means that came to you.
25 A. The links between Prijedor and Banja Luka were not severed.
1 People who had relatives in Omarska, for instance, came and said what was
2 going on there. And it was through them that I learnt that the people
3 were living in terrible conditions on the premises of an Omarska mine,
4 others in Keraterm, which was a tile factory. They were completely
5 inappropriate conditions. Nobody had prepared for that. They just put
6 the people in these premises, the premises they had. But they had no
7 proper conditions to accommodate those people. And when I saw Omarska, I
8 had had enough. I'd seen enough. I came back and said what I said, what
9 I told Mr. Manning [phoen].
10 JUDGE ORIE: You now told me what information came to you, and you
11 mentioned as the source relatives from Omarska. And you said: "For
12 instance, came to see you." Were there any other sources of information,
13 apart from the relatives that came to you?
14 A. Well, that kind of information was not given out in the papers, in
15 the form in which I saw things. Quite simply, the detainees, the
16 prisoners in Omarska and in Keraterm were there, but I learnt the real
17 truth of the matter from the Serbs, whose parents, for example, lived
18 nearby, were near the Omarska mine and detention facility, for example,
19 and of course, afterwards bench called us to have a look for ourselves and
20 we saw it all. We didn't receive any other information, because not
21 everybody had access to those sites, just the people that were allowed in,
22 permitted to enter, asked to be allowed in.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Was there any foreign media coverage that gave you
24 some information?
25 A. At the time, at that time, no, they could not. The foreign media
1 could have access only once the people had been transferred to the
2 military barracks at Manjaca. Then they could go up to them and talk to
3 them. But otherwise, while they were down there, no, they couldn't. It
4 was all blocked off.
5 JUDGE ORIE: How were you aware that the foreign media could have
6 access once the detainees were transferred to Manjaca? How do you know
8 A. Because they came to see me too. Because, as far as I was
9 concerned, Manjaca, for us, the civilian authorities, was ex-territorial.
10 It was a military facility, a military premises. And when they came back
11 from there, I remember Jelinek, a lady journalist from Austria, a case in
12 point, she came to see me and then we discussed that whole issue.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Did you see the result of this press coverage in any
14 way on television broadcasted? I mean, those journalist reports. Did you
15 see them?
16 A. As for journalist reports from that locality in Republika Srpska,
17 no. They were not broadcast. They were broadcast in Austria, in Holland.
18 There were some even in Norway. Broadcast in the countries from which
19 those journalist had come to film it all. There were even -- there was
20 even a crew from Japan, for example. But quite understandably, you
21 couldn't have had Japanese reports and Norwegian reports and it was only
22 after all that that I learnt from some journalist that they had filmed all
23 this, of course with the presence of representatives of the ICRC and the
24 military authorities.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Were you satisfied with the conditions in which the
1 detainees were in Manjaca, once transferred to there?
2 A. Well, it's like this: Whether I was satisfied or not is of a
3 lesser importance. But I was dissatisfied, let me say, because there
4 weren't the proper conditions there. Right up until the International
5 Committee of the Red Cross arrived and organised health protection, they
6 clothed the people and asked to have the proper standards, or at least the
7 kind of standards that those barracks could provide. Otherwise, where
8 they were, the conditions were very poor, very bad. But once again let me
9 say they were better than they had been at Omarska and Keraterm, for
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Did you participate in any way to have the
12 conditions in Manjaca improved? I do understand that it was a military
13 facility, as you told me. Did you address the military or did you address
14 anyone else to improve the situation?
15 A. I've already said that the International Red Cross committee
16 existed and that I did everything I could in my power to ensure that they
17 had access, to ensure medical protection and care, and of course they had
18 food and they had clothing and they had blankets and everything else that
19 was necessary. And they sent it up there. Banja Luka at that time didn't
20 have all this. They didn't have enough food for it to be able to send
21 food out to that military facility. So, as I say, what we could do, we
22 did. And of course, after that, there was organised transport from the
23 civilian airport in Banja Luka from whence they were flown out all over
24 Europe and got out of there.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Communication with the ICRC, was that done on the
1 municipal level or any other level?
2 A. Well, it was a regional level where we were, because they covered
3 a broader area. So they covered an area that was, for example, under
4 Muslim and Croatian jurisdiction. They went there too, with their help
5 and assistance, from Banja Luka. So that it was of a regional character,
6 a broad regional character. And the very fact that the president of the
7 International Committee of the Red Cross, for example, came to Banja Luka
8 frequently and visited Banja Luka and Sarajevo, speaks to the fact that
9 this was indeed a regional centre.
10 JUDGE ORIE: The decision on whether or not to cooperate with or
11 to lend assistance to the ICRC, was that a decision taken on the regional
12 level or would that need any approval from other levels?
13 A. You see, when these matters are discussed, I wouldn't ask for any
14 sort of an approval. But I must say that the vice-president of the
15 National Assembly of Republika Srpska, the late Nikola Koljevic, he was in
16 charge for these matters. And I had his full support in this area. In
17 addition to this, as vice-president, he was in charge within the
18 Presidency for the humanitarian matters with the international community.
19 Of course, I had his support and was able to have his approval, sometimes
20 even before informing him of anything, he had already undertaken some
22 JUDGE ORIE: Informing him about what?
23 A. Of these events, about what I think needed to be undertaken. He
24 never opposed me. Quite the contrary; I think that he encouraged Ms. Lucy
25 Santer and others who were in charge of Bosnia-Herzegovina to do whatever
1 was in their power. I must say that late Nikola Koljevic, he was a
2 professor, a Shakespeareologist and humanitarian, and whatever is --
3 despite of what is being said about him, he was a human being in the true
4 sense of the word. One could rely upon him and he was -- and he stayed in
5 Banja Luka very often, because he hailed from Banja Luka.
6 JUDGE ORIE: You said he took action already before you informed
7 him. Did you ever in your conversations or discussions or communication
8 with him, did you ever experience that he was aware already of the
9 situation you just described for Omarska and Keraterm as -- I think as
10 terrible conditions and unsatisfactory conditions in Manjaca?
11 A. The very fact of him intervening immediately speaks to the fact
12 that he was informed, that he merely was looking for a way to solve the
13 situation in a way that will be most favourable for the people. But he
14 reacted, intervened immediately, and equally so, he stayed late with
15 Mr. Cornelio Sommaruga at a meeting, until midnight. The very next
16 morning, he was with Lucy Santer drafting the document, signing the
17 agreement, and immediately they started providing for these 250.000 Serbs
18 who were very narrow-minded, especially because of the fact that they had
19 been expelled from an area they had lived for centuries, so they
20 immediately started to try and remove them from the area. They had been
21 expelled from Kordun, Banija, and Lika.
22 JUDGE ORIE:
23 JUDGE ORIE: So is it a correct understanding of your testimony
24 that you understood Mr. Koljevic's actions based on similar knowledge as
25 you had about these conditions?
1 A. The very fact that he reacted immediately shows that he must have
2 known. He probably was well informed about the goings-on.
3 JUDGE ORIE: These were my questions.
4 Is there any need to put any further questions to the witness on
5 the basis of issues raised by the Bench?
6 MR. TIEGER: Yes, Your Honour. One issue.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please do so.
8 Further examination by Mr. Tieger:
9 Q. Mr. Radic, Judge El Mahdi asked you a few questions about the
10 power of the deputies and the relationship between their power and the
11 skilfulness of their leader, in the words that you used in your interview.
12 Now, this is also a matter that was raised and that you discussed during
13 the course of your testimony in the Brdjanin case; is that correct? Just
14 yes or no, sir.
15 A. I apologise. May I say -- yes, yes, that is right.
16 Q. And if I could direct your attention to comments beginning on page
17 22134, line 13. You had been asked a question about a decree issued by
18 Dr. Karadzic. You said: "That's something else so forget about what I
19 said above about the decree law issued by Mr. Karadzic and we'll refer to
20 the part which starts with we were a lower municipal level for them and
21 that is how they behaved. Is that what you're asking me about now?"
22 Question: "Exactly but I don't need you to read it all out, Mr. Radic.
23 Everybody's read it. I'm just asking you if that's what you were saying
24 in terms, in other words, if it was people at the level of deputies like
25 Krajisnik, like Karadzic, and like Mr. Brdjanin, who were planning these
1 matters which then were given as orders to the municipal levels."
2 Answer: "What I wanted to say is quite clear in the text. I said that
3 the deputies thought that they were more important than people at the
4 municipal level and that is how they behaved. I said if they had such a
5 masterful leader as Krajisnik, it resulted from all of this. I never
6 mentioned Karadzic as someone who participated in this."
7 That ends at page 22135, line 1.
8 Understanding that masterful in that context very may well be more
9 correctly translated as skilful, were those your comments, Mr. Radic,
10 during the course of the Brdjanin case, with respect to this passage in
11 the interview?
12 A. First of all, this expression here, masterful leader, I've said
13 several times already that this term "leader," "vodja," in B/C/S, that the
14 English term is the correct one. Because in B/C/S, the term vodja perhaps
15 should be interpreted differently. I -- that is not what I had in mind.
16 I've said a moment ago -- I apologise. May I continue?
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. As such you may continue but let me first ask
18 one thing to the parties. The question was whether this is the testimony
19 of this witness in the Brdjanin case. I do understand that the portions
20 of the Brdjanin testimony will be tendered into evidence anyhow.
21 MR. TIEGER: That's fine, Your Honour. I hadn't specifically
22 identified that and we can dispense with the issue that way.
23 MR. STEWART: Your Honour we were asking ourselves --
24 JUDGE ORIE: It's okay.
25 MR. STEWART: -- one answer, but we didn't bother to say that.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Any further questions, Mr. Tieger?
2 MR. TIEGER: No, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Any questions, Mr. Stewart?
4 MR. STEWART: Sorry, Your Honour. We -- Ms. Cmeric suggests, and
5 actually even without being able to follow the B/C/S, it seems she must be
6 right, that that answer the witness just gave at page 76, lines 3 to 7, it
7 seems to be completely mangled, because first of all -- I don't think the
8 witness could have said: "I said several times already this term leader"
9 and then he gives a B/C/S word, that the English term is the correct one.
10 He must be saying it wasn't the correct one. And then Ms. Cmeric tells me
11 that the rest of the answer has got mangled up in some way as well.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could we ask the witness --
13 You're not asked now any more whether this was your testimony in
14 the Brdjanin case but you made some comments on the translation of the
15 word "vodja." Could you please give them so that we can hear them. So
16 you started that you were then interrupted and there was so the confusion
17 anyhow. So could you please repeat or tell us what you wanted to tell us
18 at that moment about the term vodja?
19 A. To put it simply, I believe it quite sufficient to say "president
20 of the parliament." Now, a leader, a ringleader, that is something that
21 could be perceived in our language as in a pejorative manner, so not just
22 as a person who is leading someone. So to say president of a National
23 Assembly is quite enough. I've never said that he's a leader, vodja, in
25 And there's another matter that I would like to address you, if --
1 with your leave, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. First of all, to -- I now understand that you
3 said you never used the word just pronounced, vodja, and that would have
4 been the term you would have used if you would have referred to him as a
5 leader. And you did not use that term.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Leader could be a party leader,
7 whereas the president of the Assembly is the president of the Assembly.
8 But there's another matter that I wanted to apply to you on. Do I have
9 your leave?
10 Throughout the documents here, two things have constantly been
11 present. In those interviews with Ms. Korner. There were some
12 interruptions with several dots there, where it said that Mr. Krajisnik
13 was skilful. That was -- and then there are some dots following that.
14 And implicitly one could perceive the "him" there as being a manipulator
15 in that sense being skilful, whereas I just wanted to say that he was a
16 skilful president of the National Assembly and he was skilful in running
17 it. Now, what the implementation was like by others, that's something
18 that I told you about. And that's why I also said -- I used the term
19 "Deputate," meaning in that Soviet sense because they thought of
20 themselves very highly, thought of themselves as being superior to the
21 people they were representing. That's how they behaved. And that's why I
22 called them Soviet "deputate."
23 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you once again for clarifying these two issues,
24 Mr. Radic. This conclude your testimony in this court. You've answered
25 the questions of the parties and of the Bench. I would like to thank you
1 very much for having done that and I wish you a safe trip home again.
2 Madam Usher, could you please escort the witness.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
4 [The witness withdrew]
5 JUDGE ORIE: Just a few practical matters. The witness scheduled
6 for tomorrow is a witness which testifies through a videolink.
7 MR. HANNIS: That's correct, Your Honour. We have another witness
8 scheduled for today.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hannis --
10 MR. HANNIS: I'm sorry. We had another witness scheduled for
11 today, Mr. Odobasic, but we weren't able to get to him. We anticipated
12 the videolink would take precedence.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's what I understood. Do you know how much
14 time you would need approximately for - I haven't go the schedule in front
15 of me - for the videolink.
16 MR. HANNIS: That videolink is only for cross-examination.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's -- I -- yes. Since the
18 examination-in-chief, Mr. Stewart, took a little bit over two hours, could
19 you give us an indication on how much time you would need for the
21 MR. STEWART: I'd indicated to the Prosecution earlier this
22 morning that I expected to complete cross-examination before the second
24 JUDGE ORIE: That would be three hours. And that is for two hours
25 and 18 minutes in chief, is quite lengthy.
1 MR. STEWART: I'm just indicating what I said to the Prosecution
2 earlier this morning, Your Honour. But I can't actually remember offhand
3 whether Mr. Biscevic's evidence was shortened by 89(F), which obviously
4 affects the guidelines every time. But I was just trying to do my best
5 there. And I'm aware of the guidelines, Your Honour, which we pretty
6 consistently come well within on the Defence side anyway.
7 JUDGE ORIE: I would not contradict that.
8 MR. STEWART: Thank you, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: With appreciation, I do this. Because we have
10 another few matters on our agenda as well, that is, the parties were
11 invited to give their views on the -- I would say the overall schedule.
12 Perhaps we could find time tomorrow for that as well. Mr. Hannis.
13 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I'm not sure what Mr. Odobasic's
14 schedule is. I know next week we have three days and we only have two
15 witnesses. There's a possibility that if we could get Mr. Odobasic done
16 tomorrow, we might have more time Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, to discuss
17 additional issues.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Backgrounds that was one of the other -- one of
19 the other procedural issues is whether or not the parties finally could
20 agree on the schedule which would include a possibility for the
21 investigators to visit The Hague and not to lose too much time in court.
22 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, we had agreed with the Defence that we
23 thought they could use Thursday and Friday for their meeting next week and
24 that we would then only have witnesses Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday next
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but how many witnesses in view of the original
2 schedule would we lose?
3 MR. HANNIS: One would be pushed over to begin on the 8th of
4 November. That was Mr. Cengic.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Scheduled for how long approximately.
6 MR. HANNIS: Four and a half hours, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Four and a half hours. We'll consider that. Then
8 another outstanding issue we still have is Exhibits 200 to 203.
9 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, that's again my responsibility. I have
10 sent an e-mail to Mr. Resch to try and obtain the information from him.
11 I've advised Mr. Acquaviva of my awaiting that information.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could you in one way or another speed that
13 up --
14 MR. HANNIS: I will, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ORIE: -- so we could finally deal with these matters.
16 Then one -- perhaps a bit more urgent matter is when can we
17 receive the information asked at the beginning of this session? Because
18 we have to take a decision. No. Let me just turn into private session
19 for one second.
20 [Private session]
11 Page 7625 redacted. Private session.
11 Page 7626 redacted. Private session.
11 Page 7627 redacted. Private session.
11 Page 7628 redacted. Private session.
11 Page 7629 redacted. Private session.
1 [Open session]
2 JUDGE ORIE: We are in open session again. The Registry will be
3 instructed that the latter part of the transcript will be made public and
4 not remain confidential, as it is now.
5 We will adjourn until tomorrow morning, 9.00, same courtroom.
6 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.57 p.m.
7 to be reconvened on Friday, the 29th day of
8 October 2004, at 9.00 a.m.