1 Thursday, 9 December 2004
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.29 p.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Case number IT-00-39-T, the Prosecutor versus
7 Momcilo Krajisnik.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
9 The Chamber also regrets that we were not in a position to start
10 in time.
11 Mr. Stewart, are you ready to continue cross-examination of
12 Mr. Mandic?
13 MR. STEWART: Yes, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Before doing so, but perhaps I don't know,
15 Madam Usher, whether Mr. Mandic is nearby or not, but I would need
16 approximately 90 seconds before he comes in.
17 First of all, I'd like to draw the attention of the parties to the
18 fact that we should finish this witness by tomorrow, by Friday, and that
19 the Chamber would need approximately 45 minutes on Friday for procedural
21 Then, finally, may I give the following guidance to the Defence,
22 and it's guidance by way of example. This Chamber, which is composed of
23 professional Judges, this Chamber does understand, even without any
24 further explanation, that a signature of a speaker of an assembly is
25 normally the expression of the fulfilment of the professional duties of
1 that speaker, that is, to sign texts adopted by that assembly, and is, as
2 such, rather an expression that the speaker fulfilled his constitutional
3 duties related to that position, rather than anything else, and certainly
4 is not, as such, an expression of any special involvement in the creation
5 and/or the adoption of the relevant text.
6 This is just by way of an example. Some questions were put to the
7 witness which really could have been saved because the Chamber understands
8 this, even without further explanation of the witness. Perhaps it's, as I
9 said, it's guidance by way of example. I would like to ask the Defence to
10 keep that in mind, and I'd like to ask the usher now to escort the witness
11 into the courtroom.
12 MR. STEWART: Well, may I just say, Your Honour, we welcome that
13 guidance, and I understand it to mean that Your Honour is inviting us to
14 apply it by analogy to similar situations. Your Honour, we would have
15 been more cautious before that guidance, since occasionally emphasis is
16 laid by the Prosecution on such formal matters. But we find that guidance
17 extremely helpful, Your Honour, and we will apply it sensibly by analogy
18 in every available situation.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I take it that the Prosecution, by listening to
20 the guidance we gave to you, also understands this to be of some
21 importance for the Prosecution as well
22 [The witness entered court]
23 [Witness's counsel entered court]
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mandic, good afternoon.
25 Mr. Tomic, good afternoon to you as well.
1 Mr. Mandic, may I remind you that you're still bound by the solemn
2 declaration you've given at the beginning of your testimony.
3 Mr. Stewart, please proceed.
4 WITNESS: MOMCILO MANDIC [Resumed]
5 [Witness answered through interpreter]
6 Cross-examined by Mr. Stewart: [Continued]
7 Q. Mr. Mandic, good afternoon. Mr. Mandic, earlier on in the case,
8 in the course of your evidence, I mean, that was on Tuesday, the 23rd of
9 November, and for everybody's reference, it's at page 83 to 85. I'm
10 totally giving up on the continuous transcript exercise, which didn't work
11 for any of us.
12 You gave some evidence in relation to Mr. Krajisnik and
13 Mr. Prstojevic, and we've already explored that in the course of this
14 cross-examination, Mr. Mandic, and I certainly don't propose,
15 Your Honours, to go over that again.
16 But very specifically, you said, it's at page 85 of your evidence,
17 that: "Mr. Krajisnik could give him", that's Mr. Prstojevic,
18 "Instructions in terms of how he should exercise power in Ilidza."
19 Mr. Mandic, just a single question here. You don't suggest, do
20 you, that Mr. Krajisnik had any formal authority which enabled him to give
21 instructions to Mr. Prstojevic as his formal superior?
22 A. No. No, I didn't mean the formal authority, but his authority as
23 the president of the National Assembly.
24 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honours, I don't propose to go back over
25 that ground, because apart from the formal position, the other area was,
1 we believe, adequately covered in cross-examination.
2 Q. Mr. Mandic, then moving to a totally different area, then. The --
3 you said earlier in your evidence in this case, and this is -- the day is
4 Monday, the 29th of November. And you -- at page 9. You were asked by
5 Mr. Tieger: "Did the government make known to the Presidency its concerns
6 about irregularities and inhumane treatment in detention facilities and
7 camps?" And you asked for clarification, whether Mr. Tieger, the
8 Prosecutor, was referring to the Presidency of Republika Srpska, and he
9 confirmed he was. You said: "Yes. That was done on a daily basis."
10 Mr. Mandic, when do you say that that process began, that the
11 government was making known to the Presidency on a daily basis such
13 A. I don't remember when such a practice started, but it was in the
14 course of 1992. For a certain period of time after the outbreak of armed
16 Q. But over the early months of the armed conflict, your position,
17 Mr. Mandic, is that the government was not in possession of significant
18 information about irregularities and inhumane treatment in detention
19 facilities and camps; that's right, isn't it?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And that it was broadly -- we'll come to this a little bit later
22 in the course of your evidence, but broadly speaking, it was sometime in
23 or possibly shortly before August that concerns about irregularities and
24 inhumane treatment in detention facilities came to be more openly and
25 obviously voiced and debated, wasn't it?
1 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, excuse me.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 MR. TIEGER: This is a reference to a particular -- I mean, this
4 is a paraphrasing, I believe it is paraphrasing. I'd like some particular
5 transcript reference, if Mr. Stewart is directing the witness's attention
6 for a particular part of his testimony.
7 JUDGE ORIE: The parties may ask for a literal quotation to the
8 extent needed.
9 Mr. Stewart, Mr. Tieger is complaining about -- that you are
10 rephrasing the evidence in such a way that it would not -- paraphrasing
11 the evidence in a way which would not be appropriate. You're invited to
12 draw the attention of the witness to the specific portion of the evidence
13 by literally quoting it.
14 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, Mr. Tieger will have to be more
15 specific because I'm not with him on that. I don't understand. I was
16 attempting to quote specific passages absolutely as closely as could
17 sensibly be done, which I believe I did. And I'm -- it's simply not clear
18 to me, Your Honour. I'd invite information as which bit I've inaccurately
20 MR. TIEGER: No. And I appreciate the fact that on earlier
21 occasions Mr. Stewart was directing our attention to portions of the
22 transcript and reading from those portions of the transcript. But now he
23 seems to be talking about the information available and the timing of that
24 information, and I am -- I don't believe we were directed to a portion of
25 the transcript from which that arises. I wasn't complaining about a
12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and
13 French transcripts correspond
1 general practice. I was complaining about the most recent question.
2 MR. STEWART: Yes. So far as most recent question is concerned,
3 Your Honour, I wasn't purporting -- where I had quoted specifically from
4 the transcript, and that's in relation to the phrase "irregularities and
5 inhumane treatment in detention facilities and camps" that appeared in my
6 question, and I was actually reading from the transcript. And the "daily
7 basis" was a phrase from the transcript. But when I was putting to the
8 witness a few moments ago that his position, I think it's just disappeared
9 off the screen, but his position was that it was -- or I was putting it to
10 him that it was around August or just before August, I wasn't purporting
11 to put a specific passage from the transcript to the witness at all. I
12 was doing what one can legitimately do in cross-examination, is -- I was
13 putting a proposition to him and inviting his agreement of it.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Stewart, as far as I see, the phrase where
15 the "daily basis" comes in reads, and perhaps we should draw the attention
16 of the witness to that portion of the evidence he gave, is when you said
17 that -- the question then put to you was: "Did the government make known
18 to the Presidency its concerns about irregularities and inhumane treatment
19 in detention facilities and camps?" Then you asked: "Are you referring
20 to the Presidency of the Republika Srpska?" And then your next answer
21 was: "That was done on a daily basis. The communications and reports
22 were discussed in order to overcome these problems that arose at the
23 beginning of 1992, when the whole war chaos broke out." And then the next
24 question was: "And we were talking about government sessions in June
25 1992. In June 1992, through the beginning of December 1992, who were the
1 members of the Presidency?" So then it continued.
2 That is the evidence your attention has been drawn to by
3 Mr. Stewart.
4 Mr. Stewart, if you have any questions, please proceed.
5 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, I'm afraid I still don't follow.
6 It's not my obligation, unless it's in some way obviously misleading, it's
7 not my obligation, and I apprehend the Trial Chamber wouldn't welcome it
8 if I always went right through the whole of every question and answer
9 rather than stopping at what I, for the purposes of my cross-examination,
10 fairly regard as the critical points. And Your Honour has drawn attention
11 to the passage in which it's absolutely clear that I quoted literally,
12 including the exchange by way of clarification between Mr. Mandic and
13 Mr. Tieger.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 Mr. Tieger.
16 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, the concern is simply this, and perhaps
17 it's easier to understand what's being conveyed when you hear it rather
18 than when you're in the course of speaking it, which is sometimes
19 difficult. Mr. Stewart began that series of questions, if I recall
20 correctly, something -- because he was quoting from the transcript,
21 something along the lines of "in the course of your evidence." And then
22 as he moved through it, as he indicated, when he came to the last
23 question, he departed from something that the witness said during the
24 course of his evidence and was instead moving to something else. But
25 he -- instead of signalling to the witness that that was no longer the
1 case, in fact I think he used the expression "and your position is," which
2 certainly would have the risk of suggesting to the witness that that was
3 something that was said during the course of his evidence, and that needs
4 to be made clear.
5 JUDGE ORIE: The matter has been clarified at this moment. As a
6 general rule, I gave guidance to the parties that if there's any feeling
7 that the other party would misrepresent the evidence given and hinting to
8 it as if it were the evidence, and I now understand that there was some
9 confusion about what exactly was the evidence and what was the general
10 line of the evidence. The party not happy with it may ask for literal
11 quoting, and of course, as expected, not to do that unnecessarily.
12 Please proceed.
13 MR. STEWART: It seems, Your Honour, with respect, it seems to
14 have been an entirely innocent misunderstanding on both sides, if I may
15 put it that way, in relation to that particular point. The -- excuse me,
16 Your Honour, I had to remind myself and be sure that we didn't stop with
17 the question, because I am quite interested in answers.
18 Q. Yes. What I was putting to you, Mr. Mandic, and not, to make it
19 clear, not based on any specific item in your evidence, was that the --
20 just putting the proposition to you to see whether you agree with it,
21 that, broadly speaking, it was sometime in or possibly shortly before
22 August 1992 that concerns about irregularities and inhumane treatment in
23 detention facilities in Republika Srpska came to be more openly and
24 obviously voiced and debated.
25 A. That's right.
1 Q. Mr. Mandic, you have, and again, I'm not pointing to any specific
2 item in the transcript, but you have referred, and I invite you to
3 confirm, that you were yourself, in the summer of 1992 and certainly
4 through to August, September 1992 - I beg your pardon - you were a keen
5 proponent of the unification of the civilian and military judiciary,
6 weren't you?
7 A. Yes. On two occasions, I addressed the president of the Republic,
8 Dr. Karadzic, in writing, to speak his mind on this proposal and to
9 instruct me if he saw -- thought to start working on the unification of
10 the civilian and military judiciaries.
11 Q. And among the problems with the bifurcation of the civilian and
12 military jurisdictions was sheer shortage of judges, wasn't it?
13 A. From the very beginning of the establishment of Republika Srpska,
14 that is, the passing of the constitution, the civilian and military
15 judiciaries had been divided. And in the beginning of the war, some
16 judges went over to the military prosecutor's office and judiciary because
17 salaries were higher there. This was the basic reason.
18 Q. So among other difficulties, that was -- that was hampering your
19 ability to establish an effective civilian judiciary in Republika Srpska?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. You were -- the position is this: We can look at documents at
22 necessary, Mr. Mandic, but I want to avoid unnecessary grinding through
23 paper where we can. But the position was that you, in July 1992, you
24 specifically proposed to the government that there should be unification
25 of military and civilian judiciary, and the government, under Mr. Djeric,
1 rejected your proposal?
2 A. I believe I addressed the president of the Republika Srpska,
3 Dr. Karadzic. There is a document to prove that, I think. Mr. Tieger
4 showed it to me. I think that I addressed the president of the Republic
6 Q. Mr. Mandic, I'm going to accept your, with respect, if I may put
7 it this way, I'm going to accept that element of the answer that that's
8 how you channelled the proposal. But it is correct that the government
9 then considered your proposal and the government, under Mr. Djeric,
10 rejected it?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And that was at the -- you may not remember this specifically,
13 Mr. Mandic, or perhaps you do, but at the 39th session of the government,
14 on the 14th of July, 1992. Do you -- it's a rather detailed suggestion.
15 A. I don't remember.
16 Q. Mr. Mandic, we can show you the document, which is -- was among
17 Mr. Treanor's exhibits, Your Honour. It was P65, tab 13 -- I'm sorry.
18 Binder 13, tab 179. Do you have that? And it's item --
19 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
20 MR. STEWART: Mr. Mandic -- thank you.
21 Q. It's item 24. Well, we see that this is headed -- it's minutes
22 from the 39th session of the Republika Srpska government, held on the 14th
23 of July, chaired by -- it says Mr. Beric, but we've seen that before.
24 His Honour draw the attention. It's an obvious misprint. Mr. Djeric.
25 And you're not present, but Mr. Radovic is attending on your behalf.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and
13 French transcripts correspond
1 Item 24, which is on page 3 of the English, Proposal of the
2 Ministry of Justice and Administration Regarding the Transfer of Functions
3 from Military Courts to Civil Courts. You were the moving spirit of that
4 proposal, weren't you, Mr. Mandic?
5 A. Yes. And Mr. Radovic was my deputy.
6 Q. And then that item is dealt with at page 8 of the English, page 7
7 of the B/C/S. And it says the decision is with respect to the letter of
8 Ministry of Justice and administration, the following was concluded:
9 "Military justice organs are already formed, so there is no need that the
10 authorities are shifted from them to regular courts. However, all
11 measures should be taken so that all the organs can start functioning."
12 And then there's a different proposal that follows. So that was
13 the rejection of the proposal.
14 A. Yes. I see this document now for the first time in 12 years.
15 Q. And then what happened after that was that you were reluctant to
16 accept that final -- as the final decision, weren't you, Mr. Mandic?
17 A. In my opinion, for the purposes of the rule of law, the judiciary
18 had to be unified, with special department, the civilian and the military
19 ones, in order to ensure the rule of law as soon as possible. Not only
20 did I submit these proposals to the government, as the OTP showed to me,
21 I -- there were two documents with which I addressed the president of the
22 Republic, who, in the state of an imminent threat of war, he could pass
23 decrees with the force of a law that could be submitted for verification
24 to the parliament. However, I never received any sort of a response to
25 these letters. This means that it took place two months and ten days
1 after my appointment as a minister of justice.
2 Q. And you were, as we have seen, you were unsuccessful in persuading
3 the government to adopt your proposal. You didn't obtain a positive
4 response from the president of the Republika Srpska, Dr. Karadzic. That's
5 right so far, isn't it?
6 A. You're right.
7 Q. But as you have specifically indicated at page 14 of your evidence
8 on the 29th of November in this case, you did obtain some support for your
9 idea from Mr. Krajisnik?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And specifically, what Mr. Krajisnik did agree to do was to bring
12 the matter before the Assembly?
13 A. I think that I received support from Mr. Krajisnik for the
14 unification of the judiciaries at the level of Republika Srpska. In my
15 personal contact with him. As for the submission of this proposal either
16 to the agenda of the government or the Assembly, Mr. Krajisnik had no
17 authority to do that. I could myself, in writing, submit these proposals
18 to either of these two branches of government. Mr. Krajisnik gave his
19 approval or support to my idea that I was lobbying for ever since I had
20 been appointed minister of justice.
21 Q. But is -- I'll pause for a moment. Let us all catch up with that.
22 Is this the position, then, Mr. Mandic: Are you saying that you -- well,
23 effectively, you had the right to have your proposal brought up and
24 discussed before the Assembly?
25 A. Both before the Assembly and the government, but also before the
1 president of the Republic.
2 Q. So what I put to you about Mr. Krajisnik, does it come to this:
3 That Mr. Krajisnik was at least in a positive, practical way, he --
4 because he was the president with functions in relation to agendas and
5 timetables and so on for the Assembly, he was at least supportive in that
6 position in ensuring that, within a reasonable time, your proposal was put
7 on the agenda for an Assembly meeting?
8 A. We didn't discuss this. Mr. Krajisnik supported my efforts
9 through the government and the president of the Republic to have this
10 matter discussed and adopted at the level of the government and the
11 Assembly, as far as I remember. I was unable to place this on the agenda
12 of the Assembly directly without the approval of the government. I was
13 unable to circumvent the government. As an executive branch of government
14 that gave its approval to all the draft proposals that were then forwarded
15 into the parliamentary procedure for adoption as laws.
16 Q. Well, you did get it onto the agenda- I'm now coming to another
17 document, Mr. Mandic, again from Mr. Treanor's exhibits. It's P65, and in
18 this case it's bundle -- sorry, bundle 14. I beg your pardon. Bundle 14,
19 tab 213. And this is -- these are -- well, it's a transcript of a
20 tape-recording of the Republika Srpska Assembly's 22nd session, which was
21 held in Zvornik, I have a note, on the 23rd and 24th of November, 1992. It
22 says all that information except the Zvornik, that I've added, but it's
23 there somewhere that it was in Zvornik.
24 For some slightly mysterious reason, what is at page 88 of 123 in
25 the English version is page 11 of the second part. So there's some
1 slightly different numbering in the B/C/S. I think you perhaps just have
2 the second part, Mr. Mandic. But towards the end there should be some
3 lower numbering towards the -- in the second half the document, where it
4 starts again 1 through to 11, if you have that.
5 MR. TIEGER: Excuse me, Your Honour. Logistical issue. I'm
6 looking at the exhibit to which counsel referred, and I see in the
7 English, the beginning of the session at page 1 and what is clearly the
8 conclusion of the session at page 79 of the English, at least in the --
9 when I refer to the tab of the particular binder that was identified. I
10 don't know if there's an explanation for that.
11 MR. STEWART: It's --
12 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
13 MR. STEWART: So sorry. It's in two sections in the B/C/S, but in
14 the English it's got a single ERN number, which is 02149632 to 02149749.
15 And that numbering appears on every page right through to 123 of 123. So
16 we don't stop at page 79, or whatever it was. The explanation, we seem to
17 have been provided later, perhaps, than Mr. Treanor's evidence. This may
18 be the explanation - with this translation. But the document that I'm
19 looking at came to us from the Prosecution. I suppose the explanation is
20 that perhaps it came to us after the exhibit formally was put in through
21 Mr. Treanor. That's the best I can offer at the moment, I'm afraid.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've found it in B/C/S.
23 MR. STEWART: Yes. I think the problem at the moment - thank you,
24 Mr. Mandic - is there are people in court who need to have it who haven't
25 got it. So we're members of a restricted club here, you and I, and one or
1 two others.
2 JUDGE ORIE: It seems there's -- if it has been split up in two
3 different portions, where some of it -- numbering continues in English,
4 numbering restarts in the B/C/S version. That's what I -- and I think, as
5 a matter of fact, that the B/C/S also says part 2 on the new page 1. Is
6 it true that the first two words are "part 2" and then it continues that
7 it's Mr. Dragan Kalinic who speaks. It seems to be --
8 MR. STEWART: Your Honour is right.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 MR. STEWART: It does say that.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, may I mention that on page 123, what
13 we've got now of the English, but on the last page of the second part of
14 the B/C/S, there is a stamp, an official stamp.
15 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, I certainly see both parts of the B/C/S
16 to which counsel refers. If there's some simple way of resolving this at
17 the moment, if anyone has the second -- additional copy of the second
18 part, we can certainly move forward and take care of the -- any lingering
19 logistics later.
20 JUDGE ORIE: The second part in English or ...
21 MR. TIEGER: I have -- both parts are in the binder in B/C/S, but
22 the -- our documentation in court with -- contains --
23 JUDGE ORIE: The English version just numbers through until 123,
24 and then it comprises both part 1 and part 2.
25 MR. STEWART: I think the problem is that Mr. Tieger's English
12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and
13 French transcripts correspond
1 doesn't go far enough and when Mr. Hannis isn't in court, the Prosecution
2 team have real problems with B/C/S.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Does it mean your English stops at 78.
4 MR. TIEGER: 79.
5 JUDGE ORIE: 79. Yes. Then you have a problem. The only thing,
6 if at this moment we could have the relevant English text on the ELMO.
7 MR. TIEGER: Thank you.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Then it would certainly help us out. So this is now
9 to be returned to the witness, the B/C/S version, and, Mr. Stewart, if you
10 would always indicate what page we are on in English, and Madam Usher will
11 then put that on the ELMO.
12 MR. STEWART: Yes, indeed.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
14 MR. STEWART: Yes, of course, Your Honour, I will.
15 Q. So -- well, the English doesn't -- you, Mr. Mandic, you've had the
16 right page for ages, but for everybody else, I'm on page 88 of the
17 English, where it says: "We have another item," and it's Mr. Krajisnik
18 who's speaking there, of course, because he's presiding over the session.
19 "We have another item, the proposed decision on uniting military
20 and civilian judiciary." And then Mr. Mandic, you speak. You see that
22 A. Yes. I have to apologise to this Honourable Chamber, the
23 Prosecution, and the Defence. I fail to remember that this was ever
24 discussed before the Assembly. The only memory I have of it was through
25 the documents that I have seen in my interviews with the Prosecutor. This
1 document, I'm seeing it for the first time after Zvornik, and this is why
2 I could not remember that the matter was ever discussed before the
3 Assembly. So once again, my apologies.
4 Q. Well, Mr. Mandic, I don't presume to speak for His Honour, but may
5 I just say that I doubt that the Trial Chamber requires any apology for
6 you when you don't remember. Probably only requires you to make it clear
7 when you don't remember as the most helpful thing at all?
8 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, is that a fair --
9 JUDGE ORIE: You're right.
10 Mr. Mandic, there's no need to apologise for not remembering
11 something, because it's quite understandable.
12 But please proceed.
13 MR. STEWART: Thank you, Your Honour.
14 Q. So, Mr. Mandic, I -- again, I want to try and take it shortly
15 here. In a nutshell, you speak, and of course you're supporting your own
16 proposal. You point out that it would require a change in the
17 constitution and the law. You give your reasons -- it's over the page in
18 the English. You refer to the large number of appointments of prosecutors
19 and judges. You say that you have a lot of problems with the matter of
20 jurisdiction. You often don't know whether a person has been on leave,
21 whether he's a civilian or a conscript. You're referring there to what
22 would, under a unified system, then, be an absolutely unnecessary issue to
23 get involved with, whether somebody is subject to civilian or military
24 jurisdiction when they're brought before the court, and they might be
25 brought from the wrong one. That's the problem, isn't it, that you're
1 referring to there?
2 A. Yes. The issue concerns the subordination of courts. If there
3 was only one judiciary, if there had been only one judiciary, there would
4 have been fewer problems compared to the number of problems that I
5 discussed before the Assembly in Zvornik.
6 Q. And you also make it clear here, don't you - it's about six lines
7 from the bottom of the English - you say: "I think that this proposition
8 is justified," or proposal, it would be probably in English, "I think this
9 proposal is justified for now, but after the war they will again be
11 So you were, if I might put it this way, you were selling it to
12 the Assembly on the basis that it was -- it was the right course in the
13 particular circumstances during the wartime conditions, but eventually you
14 would expect to see a more conventional division of jurisdiction?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And then we see the presiding, it is in the English translation,
17 that's clearly Mr. Krajisnik, who then says: "If I understood correctly,
18 we should adapt the constitution in order to be able to accept it. I
19 think that this should be an initiative, but first we must hear the
20 opinion of the army, then the initiative should go to our constitution
21 commission and ministry and the headquarters or, in fact, military
22 prosecutor and military judiciary should rewrite it for the next session.
23 This is my suggestion."
24 So the -- you would interpret that, Mr. Mandic, as a following
25 wind or support from Mr. Krajisnik?
1 A. Yes, as I have indicated already.
2 Q. And then we see -- but public support in the Assembly, as opposed
3 to --
4 A. An official one.
5 Q. And then General Gvero, and who exactly was he?
6 A. He was a member of the Main Staff. I think he was either the
7 deputy or assistant to the Chief of Staff, Ratko Mladic. He was in charge
8 of the internal politics within the military.
9 Q. And he was -- well, you -- well, it's probably quicker if I just
10 read it. He says: "I've asked for a word, but I wouldn't if I knew that
11 this was only an initiative, one of these duties is on me, but I'm not a
12 lawyer by vocation. This proposition is, in my opinion, rather strange.
13 We should talk about what is in favour and what is against this
14 initiative, but I think that we would act in contradiction with the
15 constitution and the usual practice. Thank you."
16 And then Mr. Krajisnik brings - it was a fairly short discussion
17 there - to an end, and concludes that the initiative, or proposal, it
18 might be called, should be given to our ministry to contact with the
19 headquarters and discuss it with the constitution commission. He says:
20 "After the proposition is again presented to the Assembly, we shall
21 discuss it."
22 So the upshot there, Mr. Mandic, was that the -- in the face of
23 clear expression of opposition on the part of a military person, the
24 matter was -- well, it was -- would it be fair to describe: It was pushed
25 over to be discussed elsewhere, to be brought back on some unspecified
1 date, if necessary, before the Assembly?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And is it correct that it never did get adopted?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Now, you were asked - and this is specifically at page 14 of the
6 transcript of the 29th of November in this case - you were asked by
7 Mr. Tieger: "Did you inform Mr. Krajisnik about the consequences or
8 effects of the poorly functioning judiciary?" And your answer was: "I
9 mostly consulted Mr. Krajisnik on this issue, and he helped me greatly,
10 because he was informed about the issue of the poor functioning of the
11 judiciary, and it seemed to me that I had his support in this idea of mine
12 to unify the judicial system at the level of Republika Srpska."
13 Mr. Mandic, is it possible for you to say when you first consulted
14 Mr. Krajisnik about this particular issue?
15 A. Now that my memory has been refreshed a little bit, if it was on
16 the 27th of July that I proposed this at the session of the government,
17 that is, July 1992, so I must have consulted Mr. Krajisnik before that.
18 So it could have been sometime in early July, but I cannot recall the
19 exact date. Those consultations, of course, would have been oral ones,
20 and the debate of this proposal of mine followed. But we probably had
21 discussed the proposal beforehand.
22 Q. Yes. In fact, Mr. Mandic, it's on the record of the documents as
23 I put to you that the -- it happened a little bit earlier than you've just
24 said, because the session of the government at which it rejected your
25 proposal was itself the 14th of July. So it was at least a couple of
1 weeks or so earlier than you've just described. But if I, just to
2 clarify, you're saying, really, whenever you presented your proposal, you
3 would have had some discussion with Mr. Krajisnik just before you
4 presented it?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Did you have a detailed discussion with Mr. Krajisnik about the
7 disadvantages and effects of the divided jurisdiction or did you just
8 summarise for him the essential problems?
9 A. The main problem was the functioning of the judiciary and the rule
10 of law, generally speaking. All of the prisons were under the competence
11 the military. Formally speaking, we tried to take over individual
12 facilities, buildings belonging to the judiciary and similar. But this
13 was not allowed by the military. My idea was to place this under one
14 system. I did not inform Mr. Krajisnik in detail on that occasion as to
15 what this unified judiciary would include and would be comprised of. I
16 merely spoke to him about the situation which was very difficult and the
17 fact that the military was somehow alienated from the rest of the system.
18 I try to put this within the rule of law, within the system of the
19 judiciary generally speaking, and I received full support in this regard
20 from Mr. Krajisnik.
21 Q. What were the essential practical negative effects of the divided
22 judiciary at the time that you were appointed minister of justice? Just
23 after the middle of May 1992.
24 A. I was appointed on the 19th of May. One month before that, I had
25 been informed that I would be the minister of this civilian judiciary. At
1 the time of my appointment, the only employees were myself, my driver, and
2 my secretary. We didn't have any infrastructure to speak of. We didn't
3 have any means to establish the judiciary in such a short period of time
4 at the level of Republika Srpska.
5 Throughout those days, I spent a lot of energy. I invested a lot
6 of effort, together with five or six other individuals who had been
7 employees of the judiciary from before, to establish these five courts,
8 five district prosecutor's offices in every municipality. Now, what
9 happened? For instance, we would appoint, within 10 to 15 days, a certain
10 number of people to various offices, and since the salaries and the
11 competences, generally speaking, were much better in the military, those
12 individuals would resign and go over to the military. So that was a major
13 problem, the problem which involved human resources.
14 As for the organisation, the military had inherited all of the
15 mechanisms, all of the structures, infrastructures, from the former --
16 from their military, both in the prosecutor's office and the judiciary.
17 There was a lot of conflict of competences, conflict of jurisdiction,
18 because they had competence over everything that was taking place in
19 relation to the war, everything involving active-duty servicemen. And the
20 majority of the male population of able-bodied men were in the military in
21 those days.
22 Let me give you a very banal example. A murder, a theft, or a
23 similar offence. Until we actually went to the scene of the crime, we
24 were not aware of who the perpetrator was and who the victim was. If one
25 party was in the military and the other not, that would further exacerbate
1 and complicate the situation. This led to a high level of inefficiency
2 within the military and within the judiciary, generally speaking, and this
3 bothered me as a professional. On several occasions, we tried to take
4 over the correction facility in Foca from the military. We established a
5 commission to that effect, but they simply didn't want to hand over such
6 facilities to the judiciary, which rightfully had competence over such
8 At the same time, we kept receiving information of a number of
9 instances of abuse and other problems that were taking place in those
10 facilities which were under the military at the time.
11 The third reason for that was, financially speaking, the situation
12 would have been much better if this unification had taken place. We would
13 be given adequate facilities, we would have adequate human resources, and
14 all of that put together would lead to a rule of law.
15 And another thing that really bothered me was the behaviour of
16 some officials from the military who were simply not adaptable enough and
17 were not democratic enough in their mind-set. In all of this, I had the
18 support of Mr. Krajisnik, both privately and before the Assembly, where he
19 opposed the military on this occasion. He was a public servant with a lot
20 of experience, and he emphasised the need to change the constitution, and
21 he refused this at that time, and he really invested a lot of effort in
22 trying to find the best possible solution at the time.
23 Q. You said that you referred to receiving information of a number of
24 instances of abuse that were taking place in those facilities under the
25 military. What sort of abuse are you referring to there?
1 A. Well, I was referring to what was happening to the detainees who
2 were kept in those facilities, non-Serb population.
3 Q. Well, what was happening about which you received information?
4 A. Well, I think that they were not treated in accordance with the
5 Geneva Conventions, I mean the people who either happened to be there at
6 the time or were at one point brought there.
7 Q. And when did you first become aware yourself of such abuses?
8 A. At the sessions of the government, it was the minister of the MUP,
9 minister of the interior, who informed us thereof. I don't know when this
10 was. I don't know the exact date. But it was in accordance with the
11 information that was collected on the spot, in the field. People who
12 worked in the field informed the relevant authorities of this situation,
13 and the government at one point was able to establish that this treatment
14 was not in accordance with both internal and international regulations.
15 These facilities were 99 per cent under the control of the military, and
16 only to a little extent under the control of the police.
17 Q. You were asked, and this is at page 15 of the transcript on the
18 29th of November, Mr. Tieger said to you: "And is it fair to say that the
19 poor functioning of the judiciary exacerbated the problem of trying to
20 improve the exchange of prisoners and other detained persons or their --
21 or the conditions that they faced in detention facilities?" And your
22 answer was yes.
23 I want to just ask you about each of those, for the moment,
24 separately. First of all, the proposition that the poor functioning of
25 the judiciary exacerbated the problem of trying to improve the exchange of
1 prisoners and other detained persons. In what way would a better
2 functioning judiciary have improved the handling of the problem of
4 A. The problem of exchange was presented as a problem of the state,
5 of the government, and that is why a commission was established at one
6 point by the government. This commission relied on the Ministry of
7 Justice for various professional reasons. And the unification would have
8 led to better living conditions and better treatment of the persons who
9 were detained in the facilities throughout Republika Srpska. These are
10 the two elements that Mr. Tieger described as the reasons for which I
11 requested this unification of the judiciary.
12 Q. Just really wishing you to be a bit more specific, Mr. Mandic,
13 about the, if you like, the mechanism by which a better functioning
14 judiciary would have improved the position in relation to exchange of
15 prisoners. What -- if you could just explain how that would have come
16 about. What would have happened differently that then would have had the
17 result that exchange would have gone better?
18 A. At that time, I believed that a unified judiciary would function
19 better in terms of the subordination between the district and municipal
20 courts. We would dispose of more information about the people who were
21 held, and in this way, the commissions would function better. There were
22 representatives of the judiciary there, the MUP, the civilian authorities,
23 and the military, and for this reason, initially we had the problem with
24 the flow of information, because Republika Srpska was cut off into several
25 regions. Due to the war, the flow of information from certain areas into
1 the head office was a flawed one. In addition, the army kept everything
2 confidential, as a military secret, which additionally aggravated the
4 Q. Is it this, Mr. Mandic: That so long as the military and civilian
5 judiciary remained separate, it enabled the military to operate more as a
6 law unto themselves, without outside control from the civilian
8 A. That is exactly what I tried to show.
9 Q. And you were asked, the second limb of what you were asked by
10 Mr. Tieger at page 15, as I cited it a few minutes ago, the proposition
11 that the poor functioning of the judiciary exacerbated the conditions that
12 prisoners faced in detention facilities. Was it in relation to those
13 conditions essentially the same problem, that the military were able to
14 operate without, in your view, effective control by civilian authorities?
15 A. Yes. Throughout my term of office as a minister, the army was
16 entitled to control the detainees, and we're talking about more than 90
17 per cent of them who were held either as prisoners of war or under a
18 different status. But it was the army who decided about them, regardless
19 of the fact that the technical assistance in some of these facilities was
20 provided by the civilian judiciary, that's to say, by the people employed
21 in the civilian judiciary. The army was the organ of government which
22 refused to adapt itself to other factors at the time, and there was
23 nothing one could do about it.
24 Q. And you were asked, and this is at the foot of page 21, same day,
25 29th of November, you were asked: "Did you tell Mr. Krajisnik what you
1 had heard or were made aware of concerning irregularities and inhumane
2 treatment in detention facilities and camps?" My first question there is
3 that you making Mr. Krajisnik aware of inhumane treatment in detention
4 camps was part of your convincing him that your proposal for the
5 unification of the judiciary was a good idea; is that right?
6 A. Yes, among other things.
7 Q. Your answer to that question, when you were asked if you did tell
8 Mr. Krajisnik what you heard or were made aware of concerning
9 irregularities and inhumane treatment was, and I'm quoting it from the
10 English transcript at the top of page 22: "In general, I mostly informed
11 Mr. Krajisnik of all the issues that I was aware of to consult with him on
12 this particular branch of government."
13 Mr. Mandic, do we take it that you -- it was not your job, and you
14 didn't, in fact, report to Mr. Krajisnik in detail on some frequent basis
15 as to what you knew?
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger.
17 MR. TIEGER: Yes. There was a specific follow-up question to the
18 series of questions to which counsel has just directed his attention on
19 the 30th of November.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Tieger, would that not be a matter to be
21 dealt with in re-examination, if you think that it's incomplete what
22 Mr. Stewart draws our attention to?
23 MR. TIEGER: Well, I guess my view is it's both -- it's probably
24 more fair and perhaps more efficient as well if there's a -- if the
25 witness's attention is directed to a particular passage and -- I know
1 Mr. Stewart has made efforts to continue quoting the appropriate -- the
2 passage necessary for context.
3 MR. STEWART: With respect, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Let me say the following.
5 MR. STEWART: I don't mind, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Well, if you wouldn't mind, no problem, but usually
7 if you stop halfway and then take out of context a certain quotation, I
8 would agree that then the whole of the part should be read to the witness.
9 If, however, on the next day, questions related to that would come up,
10 it's not necessarily then -- yes.
11 MR. TIEGER: I agree with Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. But I see Mr. Stewart seems to agree, at
13 least --
14 MR. STEWART: For this reason, Your Honour: That I don't, as a
15 matter of fact, I don't take it and I don't believe it's intended, I don't
16 take it as in any way an objection or criticism, because I don't expect
17 Mr. Tieger expects me to have total mastery of what's on every day of the
18 transcript. So if it's helpful, which it may be, for me to have this put
19 together with some other reference on the following day, then I certainly
20 invite that, with respect.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Tieger, could you --
22 MR. TIEGER: Yes, Your Honour, and --
23 JUDGE ORIE: -- same day or next day.
24 MR. TIEGER: No. It's on the 30th and it's on page -- again, I
25 have a --
1 JUDGE ORIE: If you could just allow me to open the 30th, then
2 I -- and if instead of giving pages, if you give me one word which I could
3 search for, then that goes quicker.
4 MR. TIEGER: Before I move to the next intercept. This takes
5 place immediately after the recess and when we resumed at 1.02 p.m.
6 That's a useful guide.
7 MR. STEWART: Mr. Tieger, of course, has different page numbers
8 from the --
9 MR. TIEGER: In the sequential transcript it would be 9072. And
10 the -- that date begins at 8996.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, the resumption at 1.02 -- search for
12 1.02 is on page 77.
13 MR. STEWART: Yes.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 MR. STEWART: Yes. That's -- it seemed it must be around 76, from
16 the --
17 MR. TIEGER: And as you can see in the --
18 MR. STEWART: It's 77, Your Honour, at -- yes. I see: "Did you
19 tell --" yes. Shall I say, I have absolutely no problem with that
20 whatever, Your Honour, and I'll quote that passage to the witness as well,
21 and it will be helpful to link it together.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
23 MR. STEWART:
24 Q. Mr. Mandic, everybody's already got the reference and that doesn't
25 assist you, but Mr. Tieger returned to this point and he quoted to you
1 that question and answer, as I have just done. And then said: "I just
2 wanted to ask you whether informing Mr. Krajisnik of all the issues
3 included the issues of conditions in detention facilities and camps." And
4 you said: "I will repeat what I said last time, and that is that whatever
5 I considered or whatever I noticed regarding the government, I informed
6 Mr. Krajisnik and asked him what to do and what should be done to overcome
7 these problems. I most certainly informed him on the situation in Kula,
8 because that was the only facility where I had access to in April and May
9 of 1992. And as for the other facilities, prisons, collection centres and
10 other facilities where prisoners of war were sheltered, or people who had
11 undergoing ethnic cleansing and were held by the army and the police, a
12 commission was set up to visit those camps. They submitted written
13 reports to me and to the government on the situation there. And then
14 through government, we would inform the Assembly and Mr. Krajisnik and all
15 the deputies, and thereafter we would propose measures to be undertaken in
16 order to rectify the situation. On behalf of the Presidency of the
17 Republika Srpska, Dr. Biljana Plavsic was in charge of this particular
18 segment, and she was involved in coordinating the issues with the
19 International Red Cross and other international organisations in charge of
20 these particular issues, including all the commissions from the State
21 Commission downwards to the municipal commissions."
22 And then you were asked: "And was the information, therefore,
23 available to the government and available to you, as minister of justice
24 during that time, concerning camps and allegations about conditions in
25 camps made known to the president of the Assembly, to Mr. Krajisnik?" And
1 you said: "Concerning all the information that I have pertaining to these
2 particular issues, besides government, I also informed Mr. Krajisnik, and
3 he knew about that."
4 Now, Mr. Mandic, the first question that I have, then, arising in
5 relation to that is -- concerns your own contacts with Mr. Krajisnik, your
6 own direct discussions with Mr. Krajisnik. And that's not a question yet.
7 The question is: When you were discussing yourself with Mr. Krajisnik,
8 did you refer to irregularities and inhumane treatment in detention
9 facilities and camps as part of your reasoning for the proposal to unify
10 the military and civilian judiciary?
11 A. Yes, among other things.
12 Q. Did you give Mr. Krajisnik, in relation to that, a broad outline
13 of the problem of irregular and inhumane treatment, or did you go into
14 detail about it with him?
15 A. In my opinion, I did not dispose of the amount of information that
16 he had as president of the Assembly. I would convey to him my concerns,
17 but in broad terms. I didn't want to bother him with the details, as
18 president of the Assembly. I just wanted to give him the totality of the
19 problems including those in the prisons, in order to overcome them as soon
20 as possible, because that was in accordance with our view of how these
21 matters should be dealt with.
22 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I don't know, given when we started, I
23 don't know where -- what Your Honour prefers in relation to the break.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, if a suitable moment would be there now,
25 or within the next seven or eight minutes, then -- I don't know what you
1 still have on your mind as far as questions.
2 MR. STEWART: Well, I'm in the middle of a discrete topic and
3 could carry on for five minutes or so if that were convenient to
4 Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Would that complete it or not, the next five minutes?
6 MR. STEWART: You never know, Your Honour, do you, because I'm
7 only asking the questions. There's a chance, but I can't say for sure.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Let's see whether we can finish in the next
9 seven minutes. Please proceed.
10 MR. STEWART:
11 Q. Specifically, Mr. Mandic, you said, and this was page 78 on the
12 30th of November, you said: "I most certainly informed him,"
13 Mr. Krajisnik, "on the situation in Kula, because that was the only
14 facility where I had access to in April and May of 1992." So you had been
15 there yourself personally, hadn't you, Mr. Mandic?
16 A. Yes. I went there. Because, as I've already mentioned, I
17 established the Sarajevo district and basic courts, and I had an office
18 there that I established there when I was appointed minister. And I'm
19 referring to a compound of buildings that were next to the prison.
20 Q. So what specifically, so far as you remember, Mr. Mandic, which is
21 the furthest anybody can ever go, what specifically did you then give
22 Mr. Krajisnik by way of information about Kula?
23 A. I was at Bistrica Hotel, on Jahorina. That is on the edge of the
24 Dobrinja neighbourhood of Sarajevo. That's where there was intense
25 fighting at the time between Serbian and Muslim forces around the Olympic
1 Village of Dobrinja, whereby the territories controlled by the Serbs who
2 in a way severed. On the one side, Lukavica, Pale, and Kotorac, and on
3 the other side, Ilidza, Rajlovac, Vogosca, and other large neighbourhoods.
4 That's where the Serb forces tried to make a corridor to connect these
5 neighbourhoods, and the Muslim forces, on their part, tried to link up the
6 old centre of Sarajevo with the neighbourhood of Hrasnica, Sokolovic
7 Kolonija, and so on. For this reason, very often there were civilians who
8 found refuge in Kula because of the fighting that took place. This was
9 even fighting in the buildings themselves in the urban areas, and that's
10 where I would go, and I'd inform Mr. Krajisnik about the situation there.
11 There were cases when people in Sarajevo didn't want to accept those
12 newcomers. There were cases of people who couldn't return to their homes
13 because they were wrecked. And I think that even ten years later, some of
14 these neighbourhoods and homes remain in ruins. And that's what these
15 discussions were about. I believe it was in August that we could finally
16 establish control over this Kula prison from the police force.
17 Q. When do you say you first informed Mr. Krajisnik about the
18 situation in Kula?
19 A. I don't remember, but it was in early 1992.
20 Q. Well, early. We'd better try and be specific about "early." You
21 had access to Kula in April and May 1992, so you're talking about after
22 your visits there.
23 A. I never came to Kula in April. I was at Vraca, as member of the
24 MUP. It was only in May that I went up to Pale, or that's to say to
25 Jahorina. Afterwards, it was in May/June that I started coming to the
1 neighbourhood of Lukavica. One of the reasons for this was that at one
2 point a decision had been taken for the government to be relocated to
3 Ilidza. Mr. Bozidar Antic and I were tasked with finding adequate
4 facilities to house the government, although after a certain period of
5 time they gave up this idea. I believe this gentleman was a member of the
6 government in charge of the economy.
7 Q. So can we clarify, then, Mr. Mandic: When you said -- it's at
8 page 78 of your evidence on the 30th of November, because I was quoting
9 your words, you said: "I most certainly informed him, Mr. Krajisnik, on
10 the situation in Kula, because that was the only facility where I had
11 access to in April and May 1992." You're now saying to the Trial Chamber
12 that actually the April was a mistake, that it was actually only in May
13 that you personally had access to Kula?
14 A. That must have been a mistake. I was definitely at Vrace in
15 April. I was based there with the police. You see, it is difficult to
16 remember 12 years later whether it was the 20th of April or the 15th of
17 May that I went to Pale. I cannot really recall at this point.
18 Q. We can take it, can we, then, that whatever you did report or
19 inform Mr. Krajisnik about in relation to Kula, it was after your visit
21 A. Yes.
22 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I wonder -- I may have one or two more
23 questions in this area, but in the light of the minutes that have slipped
24 by, that may be --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 MR. STEWART: -- a point for the break.
2 JUDGE ORIE: We'll then have a break until 20 minutes past 4.00.
3 --- Recess taken at 3.54 p.m.
4 --- On resuming at 4.24 p.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Usher, please escort the witness into the
7 [The witness entered court]
8 [Witness's counsel entered court]
9 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Stewart.
10 MR. STEWART: Thank you, Your Honour.
11 Q. Mr. Mandic, when you informed Mr. Krajisnik of the situation in
12 Kula, did that information include what you saw as inhumane treatment
14 A. I never saw any inhumane treatment at Kula. As far as I knew,
15 there was nothing inhumane that took place in Kula. My information
16 concerning the facility at Kula, the living conditions there, the prison,
17 the judiciary, and all, that's what I disposed of, in general terms.
18 Q. So what was the -- if you like, what was the extremity of your
19 concern? What were you most concerned about at Kula that you passed on to
20 Mr. Krajisnik?
21 A. I had never witnessed any of the members of the police who held
22 under their control people at Kula who had either been there from before
23 or had found shelter there from the fighting that took place in the
24 general area. The major concern lay in the very high fluctuation of
25 people in this prison facility and the very slow pace at which the needs
1 of these people were provided for, like the food, clothing, and so on.
2 But it mostly concerned the general developments and the goings-on in the
3 Sarajevo area, including the Kula facility, that I informed Mr. Krajisnik
5 Q. Mr. Mandic, you were asked, and the reference here is page 42 of
6 the transcript on the 29th of November - you were asked about an exhibit
7 which is P447. I think it's probably helpful if you do have that exhibit,
8 447. And what was put to you was a passage which appears on page 3 of the
9 B/C/S version and at the very top. I'm afraid I can't help you more
10 specifically than that, but in the English version it's at the very top.
11 And it's the sentence that runs, and I think it's been corrected,
12 actually, from what we see in the typed version in the English, so that it
13 reads: "The army, crisis staffs, that is, War Presidencies." I hope I'm
14 right in assuming that's been corrected. The army crisis staffs, that is,
15 War Presidencies, have requested that the army round up or capture as many
16 Muslim civilians as possible. And they leave such undefined camps to
17 internal affairs organs.
18 And then at the top of page 43, you said, in answer to -- it was a
19 question by way of clarification from His Honour, Judge Orie. You said:
20 "Your Honour, the Crisis Staff, or rather, the War Presidencies that were
21 composed of civilians in authority requests the military and the armed
22 forces to have as many Muslims as possible ethnically cleansed. It was
23 not the army that requested that, but the army was requested to do that."
24 Mr. Mandic, there is no -- you have no awareness whatever, do you,
25 of Mr. Krajisnik being in the least bit involved in this particular
1 request that's described, to have as many Muslims as possible rounded up
2 or captured?
3 A. Mr. Stewart, I gave you my interpretation of this -- several lines
4 of this paragraph, and that's in my answer concerning what the minister of
5 the interior had written. This particular type of information was held
6 only by the ministry that later on, through the government, forwarded to
7 all the other bodies, this particular information.
8 Q. Yes, Mr. Mandic. What I was asking you about was specifically
9 whatever did happen here. I was inviting you to confirm that you have no
10 knowledge whatever of Mr. Krajisnik's being in any way involved in this
11 particular request for the rounding up or capture of Muslim civilians.
12 A. Definitely not. I am certain of the fact that Mr. Krajisnik had
13 never put forward such a request for Muslims to be rounded up or for these
14 camps to be established.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, may I take it from this last question
16 that you've dealt with the unification of the military and the civilian
17 judiciary? Because I'd like to seek some clarification, some issues
19 MR. STEWART: Well, certainly, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 Mr. Mandic, I'm asking you a few questions now, because it might
22 still be fresh in your memory. You told us that Mr. Krajisnik was
23 supporting your efforts through the government and the president of the
24 Republic to get the unification of the civilian and military judiciary on
25 the agenda of the Assembly, and you also explained to us that in order to
1 get it on the agenda, you would need the approval of the government or the
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Did you try to get it on the agenda just on your own?
5 Did you make an attempt to convince those who you would have to convince
6 to get it on the agenda first?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it is improper for me,
8 as a minister in the government, to put an item on the agenda of the
9 Assembly without the government's approval. It has to go through the
10 government. As far as I remember, I was doing this with the assistance of
11 Mr. Krajisnik, who put this item on the agenda of the Assembly, contrary
12 to what the government or the president of the Republic wanted.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Did you first ask the government to get that
14 item on the agenda?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Since the government had refused my
16 proposal, as we could see in some of the documents here, I did not seek
17 their approval, because the government having refused my proposal, this
18 particular item could not be placed on the agenda of the Assembly, despite
19 my insistence. So this was an unusual, even illegal procedure of placing
20 the item on the agenda.
21 JUDGE ORIE: And now, how finally did you get it on the agenda?
22 Was it Mr. Krajisnik who, upon your request, did it without informing the
23 government, or was it that he supported you to get the approval of the
24 government to have it put on the agenda?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe Mr. Krajisnik placed it on
1 the agenda on my insistence, without the government's support.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I have one more. Your testimony reads as
3 follows: "Mr. Krajisnik supported my efforts, through the government and
4 the president of the Republic, to have this matter discussed and adopted
5 at the level of the government and the Assembly, as far as I remember."
6 That seems to be different from what you just answered. It at
7 least suggests, and I understand it, but please correct me when I'm wrong,
8 that he supported your efforts to get it on the agenda through the
9 government or through the president. And if you'd like, I'll read it
10 again to you.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if I may be allowed to
12 explain. Through personal contacts and consultations with Mr. Krajisnik,
13 I was given his support to present this proposal for the unification of
14 the judiciary before the government, where the proposal was rejected. He
15 also supported my initiative to propose this in writing to the president
16 of the Republic, which I did, but I, however, received no answer.
17 Therefore, in respect of these two segments of the government, he
18 unofficially provided his support, whereas when it came to the Assembly,
19 he placed this item on the agenda to be discussed.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That certainly clarifies your earlier answers.
21 You told us that it appears from the minutes that Mr. Krajisnik
22 opposed the military. Could you indicate where exactly you find
23 Mr. Krajisnik opposing the military in relation to this subject.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Gvero tried to have it removed
25 from the agenda and to leave it undiscussed entirely. As president of the
1 Assembly, Mr. Krajisnik wanted to have the opportunity for this to be
2 debated again between the two ministries, the Ministry of Defence and the
3 Ministry of Justice, or rather, the Ministry of Defence and the Main Staff
4 of the military on the one side and the Ministry of Justice on the other
5 side. Therefore, the proposal of Gvero and these other people from the
6 military was not accepted, that this be removed from the agenda. He gave
7 me the opportunity to have it presented once again, that my proposal be
8 discussed once again, despite the fact that there was resistance from the
9 military and insistence from the military that it be removed from the
10 agenda. This was the attitude of Mr. Gvero, and this is what his act was
11 all about.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just read to you what the words of
13 General Gvero were, in English: "I have asked for a word, but I would
14 not, if I knew that this was only an initiative. One of these duties is
15 on me, but I'm not a lawyer by vocation. This proposition is, in my
16 opinion, rather strange. We should talk about what is in favour and what
17 is against this initiative. But I think that we would act in
18 contradiction or decontradiction [phoen] with the constitution and the
19 usual practice."
20 That's what he said. You understand this to be removal of the
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, to a certain extent also a
23 mockery on the part of Mr. Gvero. If this is what he said, that this was
24 strange and in contravention of the constitution, that he wouldn't even
25 discuss it, although it was merely a proposal. So this was actually
1 belittling my proposal on something that was of our common interest. It
2 is my opinion that a proposal to have a unified judiciary could not be
3 thought of as strange.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do understand. Were you aware that, in
5 military circles and military judicial circles, that there was opposition
6 against your plans?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I talked about this with
8 General Todorovic, I believe was his name. He was the president of the
9 supreme military court. And in my conversation with him, I didn't
10 experience neither understanding nor rejection. However, as far as the
11 General Staff and the people who were in charge of the military, generally
12 speaking, are concerned, I did experience a certain amount of resistance
13 and a lack of understanding for my idea.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you for those clarifications.
15 Please proceed, Mr. Stewart.
16 MR. STEWART:
17 Q. Mr. Mandic, did General Gvero or any of the other military people
18 concerned, did they make an attempt to have this particular item taken off
19 the agenda before the meeting even took place?
20 A. No. I don't remember. I don't know, Mr. Stewart.
21 Q. You were asked, and this is page 44 of the transcript on the 29th
22 of November, you were asked: "Was the MUP cooperating with the army in
23 combat operations and other activities related to events in the field?"
24 And you said that: "Yes, it was."
25 What -- if you can say: What was the degree of cooperation that
1 you were aware of by the MUP with army combat operations and other
3 A. The MUP was subordinated to the military. In all combat
4 activities, the military had the command over the MUP, whose members were
5 treated as all other members of their units. This was in accordance with
6 the constitution during the immediate threat of war, and it was also in
7 accordance with the order issued by the president, the president of the
8 Republic, that is.
9 Q. Could you look at or could you be given, please, Mr. Mandic,
10 document P450, Exhibit P450. And you perhaps recall this. This is a
11 document coming from Mr. Tomo Kovac, of the Ministry of the Interior, and
12 addressed, and we see that, two recipients, the Serb Republic president,
13 that was Dr. Karadzic, wasn't it, and Serb Republic prime minister, that
14 was Mr. Djeric at this time, 8th of August, 1992. Those were the two
15 recipients or addressees, weren't they?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And this was -- just for the reference, this document was put to
18 you and considered in your evidence as pages 49 and 55, and surrounding
19 pages, on the 29th of November. And the second paragraph of the English
20 says: "The basic problem in the field is that not all authorised organs
21 are involved in the process of accommodating these people ..." that's
22 detainees "... or in their further treatment. Therefore, there are cases
23 where MUP members accept or in some cases even take part in capturing
24 people in the war zones. After that, they arrange accommodation for them
25 and a way of life. They determine the duration of their detention and
1 their entire destiny. In another form, this is done by members of the
2 Serb army, who are also involved in all the phases of the treatment of
3 prisoners, similarly to the previous case."
4 Can you say why it was that Mr. Kovac would have regarded this as
5 a problem?
6 A. With your permission, Your Honours, the previous document of
7 Minister Stanisic, I think, should be compared and explained in relation
8 to this one, the Kovac document, because they are connected when it comes
9 to the combined work of the police and the military. The document that I
10 had in front of me a moment ago.
11 Q. So that's the document 447 that we were looking at a moment ago,
12 P447. And Mr. Mandic, you're then going to offer some explanation by
13 comparison of these two documents.
14 A. Yes, because as a former police officer and a person who knew both
15 of these individuals, and in light of my knowledge of the problems within
16 the police at the beginning of the war, I had professional contacts both
17 with Tomo Kovac, while I was deputy minister, before the war, and with
18 Mr. Stanisic. All of the problems presented by Mr. Kovac were also
19 presented by Mr. Stanisic in the information that bears the date the 18th
20 of July. Assistant to the police, the sixth man in the chain of
21 importance, presented his concerns to the president of the government, to
22 the prime minister, and this was placed on the agenda of the meeting which
23 was chaired by the prime minister. This was somehow somewhat illogical.
24 Also in light of the relationship between these individuals and their
25 respective offices within the government.
1 I had no reason to doubt the concerns of Mr. Kovac. He was to be
2 promoted very soon, and he eventually became the minister of the interior.
3 After 1995, that is, after the events in Srebrenica, after everything that
4 has happened in between, now I can express certain doubts as to the
5 concerns expressed in this document.
6 Q. But was the -- at least one of the specific complaints of
7 Mr. Stanisic and Mr. Kovac that MUP members were being sucked too much
8 into the war operations?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. You were asked a number of questions by Their Honours on
11 Wednesday, the 1st of December, that was. First,
12 His Honour Judge Canivell asked you some questions. And at page 10 of
13 that transcript, His Honour asked you, he said -- he asked you about the
14 list of 57 locations. This was of prisons or detention facilities
15 provided and about which Mrs. Plavsic explained what she felt was
16 necessary in a television interview. And His Honour said: "You
17 recognised that some of those places were located in Serbia, but what
18 about the others? You knew about the existence of the others, the people
19 that were inside?" And he -- His Honour asked you to relate that to
20 previous questions he'd asked.
21 You said that the list that you had seen was actually the first
22 time you'd ever seen it. You knew there were some such camps outside
23 Bosnia and Herzegovina, but it was Biljana Plavsic who was in charge of
24 these matters. You said: "I was aware of some of those locations that
25 she mentioned, but these were mostly within the Sarajevo area, the canton
1 of Sarajevo, whereas Ms. Plavsic got her information on the other places
2 through the military, through the MUP, or through the top leadership, and
3 the list that we saw here yesterday or the day before yesterday was a list
4 that I saw for the first time then."
5 Now, in indicating sources of information that Mrs. Plavsic might
6 have had in relation to such matters, you indicated Mrs. Plavsic's
7 responsibilities in relation to humanitarian activities. You've already
8 said something about that. You don't suggest, do you, Mrs. Plavsic
9 wouldn't have got information about such matters from Mr. Krajisnik, would
11 A. Yes. Actually, she couldn't obtain that information from
12 Mr. Krajisnik. She based her activities on the information that she had
13 received from the police and the military.
14 Q. And you were asked by His Honour Judge El Mahdi, you were asked a
15 number of questions. You -- at page 19, same day, 1st of December,
16 His Honour said: "I would like to put a question to you. Did the army
17 depend on someone; in other words, was the army subordinated to the
18 civilian authority, or was it working under the influence of the civilian
19 authorities?" And you said: "No. The supreme military commander was the
20 president of the Republic, and the chief of the General Staff was the
21 second-ranking man issuing orders to the army. They were responsible to
22 no one but their own institutions, from the lowest to the highest. The
23 chief of the General Staff and the president of Republika Srpska."
24 And then His Honour said: "And during the time that you yourself
25 were the minister of justice, and if I'm not mistaken, you took your
1 office in May 1992," which was obviously correct, "until the end of
2 November 1992, could the cabinet of ministers control the army? Did they
3 have a say in it, or what was the role of the civilian cabinet of
4 ministers?" And you said: "At that time, there was a military justice
5 system and the chief of the General Staff was in charge of it. He was in
6 charge of all segments of military power and authority. The civilian
7 authorities, even the government, were unable to make decisions contrary
8 to the law on defence and the positions of the army and the president of
9 the Republic. This was the case when an imminent threat of war had been
10 declared and when all institutions were subordinate to the military."
11 After all that, Mr. Mandic, my question is a short, simple one.
12 It's correct, isn't it, that Mr. Krajisnik, as president of the Assembly,
13 had no authority over the army?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And he had no other position which gave him authority over the
17 A. No, he didn't.
18 Q. You were also asked by His Honour Judge El Mahdi -- I'm beginning
19 with the middle of a question, which I hope His Honour will forgive me
20 for, at the foot of page 22 of the transcript on the 1st of December.
21 His Honour said: "I would like you to tell me now what sort of a
22 relationship existed between the executive branch of the government, that
23 is, the government itself, and the Assembly, that was the legislative
24 branch of the government." And you answered: "At the beginning of the
25 war, and for the most part of the first half of the war, the legislative
1 power was wielded by the president of the Republic. Under the
2 constitution, Article 83, I believe it was, he was entitled to pass laws
3 himself, without the parliament, concerning all spheres of life: The
4 army, police, justice, all the areas. The parliament had the duty to
5 verify the law passed by the president of the state at its next session."
6 I suggest --
7 A. Yes. Yes, that is correct.
8 Q. Probably for the English speakers, I suggested that "ratify" is
9 probably the word that would commonly appear in that context.
10 At -- and you said that -- I'm sorry, you said that and then
11 His Honour said: "Yes, but did the government answer to the Assembly for
12 its activity?" And you said: "Yes." And His Honour said: "For
13 instance, in this case, the government would report to the Assembly about
14 its actions taken and activities."
15 Now, was this the position, Mr. Mandic: That the government was
16 certainly constitutionally under an obligation to keep the Assembly
17 informed as to its activities, number 1?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And of course, in this -- I apologise to Their Honours if this is
20 elementary, Mr. Mandic, but I seek your agreement. Of course the
21 government had to act under whatever laws were passed by the Assembly or,
22 in the particular circumstances, under the procedures as you had described
23 them in evidence, decreed by the president of Republika Srpska. That's
24 elementary, isn't it?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. But the government was the executive organ with day-to-day
2 responsibility for running Republika Srpska?
3 A. In the executive branch of the government, yes.
4 Q. And it was not the function of the Assembly to direct and
5 interfere day by day with those executive functions?
6 A. Yes, you're right. Mr. Stewart, sometimes when you ask me a
7 question, and if I say "yes," I have a feeling that I will just confirm
8 your question, or if I say "no," that it will be completely different. So
9 can I please ask you to be a bit more specific when you phrase your
10 questions. Because the interpretation may cause misunderstanding. "No"
11 can turn out to be "yes," and the other way around.
12 Q. Mr. Mandic, I'm aware of that problem. I think Ms. Cmeric would
13 like to consult me on linguistic matters or allow herself to be consulted
14 by me, perhaps; I don't know.
15 Yes, it seems that there is exactly -- it happens in a single
16 language, Mr. Mandic. It seems that we do occasionally run into this
17 double-negative problem. But I believe, and Your Honours, I believe that
18 in practice, Your Honours are not troubled by ambivalence or ambiguity as
19 to whether the witness is agreeing with a proposition. If at any point
20 that does happen, then if anybody is troubled by ambiguity, I'm sure they
21 would say so.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If the witness feels that by answering by yes
23 or no, the true sense of what was said would be lost, the witness is
24 allowed to explain to us what he meant to say in answer to the question.
25 MR. STEWART: Indeed, Your Honour. I couldn't possibly not, with
1 respect, endorse that.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 MR. STEWART:
4 Q. Yes, Mr. Mandic. In effect, I think what everybody is saying is
5 if you feel the slightest nervousness that there's any doubt that you're
6 accurately expressing your views, then please say so and we'll make sure
7 that it's covered, and any confusion, as best we can, is cleared up.
8 The last question I asked you, so let's just clear that up so
9 there's no ambiguity. I'm suggesting to you that it was not the function
10 of the Assembly to direct and interfere day by day with the executive
11 functions of the government, and I'm inviting you to say whether you agree
12 or disagree with that proposition.
13 A. I fully agree with you, Mr. Stewart. The Assembly could not,
14 neither by virtue of its function nor was it possible for it to control
15 day-to-day functioning of the government. The government was vested with
16 executive power, and the military had military power.
17 Q. Now, you were then asked by - this is at page 23, the same day,
18 1st of December - by His Honour Judge El Mahdi, immediately following on
19 those questions and answers, His Honour said: "For instance, in this
20 case, the government would report to the Assembly about its actions taken
21 and activities. As far as you know - let me just find an appropriate term
22 for this - can you tell us: Was the government informed about the
23 goings-on on the ground? And I primarily refer to what was going on in
24 the detention facilities, in other words, the destiny of the detainees,
25 was it in some way told about it to the parliamentary deputies?" And you
1 answered, Mr. Mandic: "The MPs," that's the deputies, "were very
2 well-informed about the goings-on on the ground. They came from different
3 areas, from different municipalities. They had firsthand information from
4 the area where they resided in. As for the government and the level of
5 the information that it had about the collection and detention facilities,
6 they received information from the army and the police and they received
7 as much information as there was, but the main sources of information were
8 the army and the police respectively from the detention facilities that
9 they held, and these were all the detention facilities that existed until
10 the end of 1992, where prisoners were held."
11 Now, Mr. Mandic, that in summary -- I wanted to read the full
12 answer so there's no misunderstanding, but in summary, you're describing
13 two sources of information there: The deputies, coming from the different
14 parts of Republika Srpska, number 1; and number 2, the army and the
16 Now, Mr. Mandic, if the deputies were fully informed about
17 everything that was happening in their localities, and if at all times
18 they reported what -- everything that they knew to their colleagues in the
19 Assembly, and to the government, for that matter, then it would follow
20 logically that everybody knew everything that was going on the whole time.
21 So I'd like you to clarify for the Trial Chamber, Mr. Mandic: At the time
22 that you became minister of justice, how effective was the channel of
23 communication through the deputies from around Republika Srpska in
24 conveying to the members of the Assembly and the government what was
25 actually happening around Republika Srpska in relation to detention
2 A. Let me try to explain once again. When I talked about the
3 deputies and the presidents of the municipalities, I was referring to the
4 individuals who were members of War Presidencies or crisis committees.
5 This means that they were informed of what was going on in their
6 respective areas, where they worked, or rather, where they lived. It was
7 very difficult for the Assembly to meet on a regular basis or to have
8 sessions in a given area. The meetings were held at various places,
9 because the movement was very difficult, the movement of the deputies from
10 one part of Republika Srpska to the other. So when I talked about the
11 deputies, when I talked about those people, I was referring to their
12 responsibilities and the competences that they had in the areas where they
13 lived and worked.
14 As for the government, the government was briefed during the
15 Assembly sessions by those people or through the military and the police.
16 They were also informing the government of the goings-on in the entire
17 territory of Republika Srpska. Very often, a commission would be
18 established within the government and tasked with going out into the field
19 to find out for themselves what was actually happening. Because there was
20 a lot of misinformation as well, through various media, both Muslim and
21 Serb media, but also through some international media as well. So this is
22 why some of us in the government were rather confused when faced with all
23 this information and misinformation at the same time.
24 Q. At the point, and it's a convenient point to take, Mr. Mandic, at
25 the point that you became minister of justice, so 19th of May was your
1 formal appointment, so let's say during that tail end of May. Let's take
2 that as a period. How efficient and reliable was the flow of information
3 into the government about what was happening in detention facilities in
4 the different parts of Republika Srpska?
5 A. In the first month or so, there was very poor -- there was a very
6 poor flow of information in all the segments of government. Bosnia and
7 Herzegovina was cut off in terms of roads, in terms of communication
8 lines. It was difficult to get reliable information about what was going
9 on in an area 30 kilometres away from Sarajevo, for instance.
10 MR. STEWART: Your Honours, Ms. Cmeric believes that there was a
11 reference in that answer which may have got lost, which included the word
13 JUDGE ORIE: Again, if something is missing, we should not say
14 what's missing, but ask -- give the context to the witness and then I
15 don't think it's dramatic here, but --
16 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, I do recall Your Honour's
17 injunction. Ms. Cmeric is exceptionally reliable on a single trigger word
18 like that, and I wouldn't say it if I weren't completely confident in that
20 JUDGE ORIE: If it would not be on the basis of Ms. Cmeric's
21 observations, I would have reacted far more strongly.
22 MR. STEWART: Indeed, Your Honour I understand.
23 JUDGE ORIE: And that is an appreciation of Ms. Cmeric.
24 MR. STEWART: But thank, Your Honour. Ms. Cmeric is appreciated
25 all around.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Cmeric, could you give us the words where --
2 nearby you think something was missing.
3 MS. CMERIC: Your Honour, it should be -- second sentence. It's
4 in line -- it's page 51, line 22. So before words "Bosnia and
5 Herzegovina" there's a sentence missing.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mandic, you told us that in the first month or so
7 that there was a very poor flow of information in all the segments of the
8 government. And then you said: "Bosnia and Herzegovina was cut off in
9 terms of roads," et cetera. And it seems that part of what you said was
10 missing. Could you tell us what you said, in addition to what I just put
11 to you.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When I said "chaos," I believe that
13 this word adequately reflects the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina in
14 that first month.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you for your clarification.
16 Please proceed, Mr. Stewart.
17 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
18 MR. STEWART: Thank you.
19 Q. Mr. Mandic, you were asked some further questions by His Honour
20 Judge El Mahdi, and I'm looking at page 27 of the transcript on the 1st of
21 December. And in the middle of Judge El Mahdi's question, he said:
22 "Leadership of Republika Srpska, when you say this, what do you exactly
23 mean by it?" And you said: "The political means, the core leadership of
24 the Serbian Democratic Party, that was the party bearing the power in
25 Republika Srpska, and the state functionaries were the ones heading the
1 state, the parliament, and certain regions." And His Honour said: "Can
2 you be more precise and tell us their names?" And you said: "The
3 personnel policy was run at the time by Dr. Karadzic, Dr. Biljana Plavsic,
4 Dr. Nikola Koljevic, Mr. Momcilo Krajisnik, Rajko Dukic, and some other
5 leaders of the regional boards of the Serbian Democratic Party whose names
6 I cannot recall at present."
7 On the 24th of November -- excuse me, Your Honour. It's a day
8 that's lying on the floor down here. I'll just go and pick it up.
9 On the 24th of November, at page 19 of the transcript, you had
10 said: "Concerning the recruitment of personnel, and with the consent of
11 Rajko Dukic and Karadzic, each municipality, the town and the region,
12 proposed three members each from their own ethnic groups. The recruitment
13 commission, Dukic and Karadzic, coordinated views with us and we had
14 chosen the best people to be admitted into our ranks."
15 I just want to clarify first with you, Mr. Mandic, so we don't get
16 anything unfair here, that when you were talking about recruitment of
17 personnel in that passage that I've just cited, you're talking, are you,
18 in substance, about the same personnel policy as was being considered in
19 answer to His Honour Judge El Mahdi's questions? We're talking about the
20 same general issue of recruitment and appointment of personnel, are we?
21 A. I don't believe that this refers to the same periods of time. In
22 1991, when I was elected, appointed deputy, and when we were hiring people
23 from the entire area of Bosnia and Herzegovina into the ministry, the main
24 person in charge of personnel was Rajko Dukic, as the president of the
25 Main Board of the SDS, and Dr. Radovan Karadzic, as president of the
1 party. The main proposals of candidates from the regional and municipal
2 levels throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina were the political leaders of SDS
3 in these respective areas. I did not mention Mr. Krajisnik in this
4 context because I never knew the man until mid-1991. And as far as
5 personnel matters were concerned, he was never interested in the people
6 working in the MUP until 1992, nor did he take any part in it.
7 Therefore, for the high functionaries of the MUP, the approvals
8 were given by Rajko Dukic and Dr. Karadzic, and for the lower-ranking
9 officials, those would be the political leaders of the respective levels
10 that would provide their approvals.
11 Now, when I mentioned Mr. Krajisnik as part of the core political
12 ^J state leadership, I was referring to 1992 and the nomination of
13 ministers, general managers of the important public companies, chambers,
14 and other organs that were object of election in 1992.
15 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I have no further questions of
16 Mr. Mandic.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Stewart.
18 Mr. Tieger, is there any need to re-examine the witness?
19 MR. TIEGER: I believe I have a brief re-examination, Your Honour.
20 It won't take much time. I need to retrieve a document. I didn't
21 anticipate we'd finish quite this quickly. But I won't be long.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Perhaps we would then first have a break
23 until -- because usually we have a break at 5.30. We had a late start
24 today. But we could have a break now if that -- if it would be --
25 MR. TIEGER: I think that would be suitable, Your Honour. Thank
2 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll have a break until a quarter to 6.00.
3 --- Recess taken at 5.24 p.m.
4 --- On resuming at 6.04 p.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, are you ready to start, or Mr. Margetts,
6 are you ready to start the re-examination of the witness?
7 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, yeah, but we have -- I think it was
8 clear to the Court that we didn't anticipate the cross-examination would
9 finish until sometime tomorrow, so we scrambled to get as many relevant
10 documents as we could. I appreciate the fact that the Court wishes us to
11 proceed, and under such circumstances, we would be prepared to do so.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'd prefer to proceed, yes. Although it might
13 have surprised you, it's not a surprise that -- I don't know whether you
14 ever asked Mr. Stewart what he expected, when he would expect to finish
15 his cross-examination. He might have had valuable information for you.
16 MR. TIEGER: Well, the -- I didn't check with Mr. Stewart today,
17 it is true. However, earlier estimates would have had us concluding
19 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Let's start, and let's see what happens.
20 Mr. Mandic, Mr. Tieger will have one or more questions for you.
21 Mr. Tieger.
22 Re-examined by Mr. Tieger:
23 Q. Mr. Mandic, I think at one point during your cross-examination you
24 made reference to, and I have the sequential numbers, which would be at
25 page 8667, if that becomes relevant. But this is a prelude to my
1 question. You made reference to the fact that actually, in terms of rank,
2 you were the top official, top Bosnian Serb official, in the joint MUP.
3 In fact, it wasn't the case, was it, Mr. Mandic, that you were the
4 top-ranking Bosnian Serb official in the joint MUP?
5 A. The top-ranking Bosnian Serb in the joint MUP was the deputy
6 minister, Vitomir Zepinic.
7 Q. Now, did Mr. Zepinic, along with Mr. Delimustafic, the minister of
8 interior, have a well-known nickname by which they went? Are you familiar
9 with the nicknames Boro and Ramiz?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And first of all, is it correct that Boro and Ramiz is a reference
12 to two characters from World War II who fought together against fascism,
13 one Serb, one Muslim, and who thereafter became effectively the symbols
14 of -- or among the symbols of brotherhood and unity?
15 A. I know that there was a sports hall in Pristina called Boro and
16 Ramiz. And you're probably right, Mr. Tieger, that these were men of
17 different ethnicities who were friends, to say the least. If they were
18 historical figures, then I don't know who they were.
19 Q. Well, first of all, as a general matter, are you familiar with the
20 use of their names as synonyms for brotherhood and unity?
21 A. Yes, for the area of Kosovo.
22 Q. And were Mr. Zepinic and Mr. Delimustafic known as the Boro and
23 Ramiz of the MUP or of Bosnia and Herzegovina?
24 A. Mr. Tieger, this was more an object of derision rather than
25 something serious, and I will explain to you what this is all about so
1 that you and the Honourable Trial Chamber and the Defence can understand
2 this. Mr. Delimustafic, as minister of the interior from the ranks of the
3 Muslim people, was the richest man in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Conversely,
4 Dr. Vitomir Zepinic was a person living in a bed-sitter in the
5 neighbourhood of Otici [phoen] in Sarajevo. It was an apartment that had
6 an area of 42 square metres. Now, you can imagine what their relationship
7 and cooperation were like. If you need further explanation, I will
8 provide them to you.
9 Q. Well, is it -- was it the case that Mr. Zepinic was in favour of a
10 joint MUP?
11 A. Initially, we were all in favour of a joint MUP, in the beginning
12 of 1991, when we became functionaries in the joint MUP.
13 Q. By the time that you, Mr. Kljajic, Mr. Zupljanin, and other
14 high-ranking members of the joint MUP became proponents of a -- of an
15 ethnically divided MUP, Mr. Zepinic continued to be in favour of a joint
16 MUP; is that right?
17 A. Allow me to proceed with what I was going to say about
18 Mr. Zepinic, Mr. Tieger. At the time the crisis in Bosnia-Herzegovina was
19 in its incipient form in the end of 1991, Mr. Delimustafic - and this was
20 something we established as a service - gave a Mazda 626 as a gift to
21 Mr. Zepinic, and a locality near the Bosko Buha day care centre in
22 Sarajevo. Those were business premises. And he lost credibility in the
23 eyes of all the Serbs because he was, to us, a yes-man of Alija
24 Delimustafic's, who, while being in the joint MUP and discharging his
25 duties there, was also a trafficker in arms, that he obtained from
1 Slovenia and other neighbouring countries. In the beginning of the war,
2 the vehicle gave as a gift by Mr. Delimustafic was found in the
3 neighbourhood of Kotorac, and Tomo Kovac's police torched it and blew up
4 the locality at Lenjinova number 6 that had also been given as a gift by
5 Delimustafic in Grbavica. We called them in a derisive manner as Boro and
6 Ramiz because Delimustafic obtained arms for the Muslims and the other
7 persons served for him as a cover-up while he was touring the area.
8 On the 4th of April, he was asked to resign, to submit his
9 resignation to the president of the Assembly of the Serbian People,
10 Mr. Krajisnik, therefore, not to submit his resignation to the joint
11 Assembly but to the Assembly of the Serbian People, to Mr. Krajisnik,
12 because all the officials knew what sort of a man he was, and that was
13 when he indeed resigned.
14 Q. I may have missed it, Mr. Mandic, but it appears to me that not
15 one word of your answer addressed my question, whether or not Mr. Zepinic
16 was a proponent of the joint MUP at the time of the split of the MUP. And
17 if you'd like, I can refer you to your previous --
18 A. You have to tell me whether he expressed himself in favour of the
19 joint MUP at the official meetings, in his speeches, or whether he lobbied
20 for it in some other way.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mandic, take the question as broad as possible.
22 The question was whether he was in favour and whether you noticed this on
23 private meetings, official meetings, whether -- whatever, tell us what you
24 know about it.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He was always supportive of the
1 views of Mr. Delimustafic and did espouse the idea of a joint MUP.
2 MR. TIEGER:
3 Q. And didn't Mr. Zepinic and Mr. Delimustafic go to areas where
4 there were national tensions and try to lower tensions, prior to the split
5 of the MUP?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Now, you spoke during your earlier testimony, on page 78 of the
8 December 7th transcript, about the arrangements that were made regarding
9 the special units, and that was essentially, if I recall correctly, that
10 there would be -- that a consensus would be required in order to activate
11 the special units, in effect, giving each representative from each ethnic
12 group a veto power over the deployment of the special units.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. So, for example, if there was information that a predominantly
15 Croat village was harbouring weapons, for whatever reasons, the Croat
16 representative could prevent the deployment of the special unit, could
17 prevent the special unit from acting, if he did not want those weapons
18 discovered or confiscated?
19 A. Yes. But this was not abided by by the minister of MUP and the
20 assistant minister for police, Avdo Hebib. In hierarchy, the Muslim
21 leaders were the superior ones, and the agreement was not being
22 implemented, whereas the Serbs and the Croats explicitly asked for all
23 representatives of the three ethnicities to be in agreement over the
25 Q. And this agreement had the effect of effectively dividing the MUP,
1 because if the minister of interior could not put the special unit into
2 motion, then a unified MUP, essentially, didn't exist any more; would that
3 be right?
4 A. What mostly contributed to the division of the MUP was a transfer
5 of the reserve police force to the active police force, and I'm referring
6 to the ethnic Muslims. With the arrival of Mr. Srebrenkovic as assistant
7 minister for personnel, every day hundreds of people were admitted on the
8 force without informing other segments of the MUP prior to that, in order
9 for such a possibility to arise for all the members of the different
11 Q. I think you've already told us some of -- or already given us some
12 of your reasons for why the split of the MUP eventually took place. I was
13 asking you something different, and that was whether or not the division
14 of the special units on an ethnic basis essentially equalled the division
15 of a unified MUP.
16 A. No. First, on the 31st of March, my dispatch was sent out, and
17 only later on was the special unit split up. And this was agreed upon at
18 a meeting in Krtelji. I believe it was on the 2nd or the 3rd of March.
19 Therefore, after my dispatch, where all the three representatives of
20 different ethnicities were present, and on that occasion, the special unit
21 was split up in agreement, so to speak. There were 25 Serb members of the
22 special unit who went to Rakovica, to a facility, in order to take the old
23 facility of the unit at Vraca, that was a school, whereas in the new
24 facility in Krtelji the rest of the special unit remained.
25 THE INTERPRETER: The number was, interpreters note, 35, not 25.
1 A. This was led by Milenko Karisik, who was actually a deputy in the
2 joint special unit. This remainder of the unit in Krtelji in the new base
3 was run by Dragan Vikic.
4 MR. TIEGER:
5 Q. After you felt you had reached an agreement with the special units
6 concerning the ethnic division, did Mr. Zepinic meet with members of the
7 special units?
8 A. I think that Mr. Zepinic was present at the meeting down there in
9 Krtelji when this was agreed upon, but I don't believe that he met with
10 the Serb part of the special unit after it had split up. I can't recall
11 exactly who was present at the Krtelji meeting when they agreed upon the
12 disbanding of the special unit, but I do know that all three ethnicities
13 were represented.
14 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, can the witness be presented again with
15 Exhibit 419, please.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Registrar. Could the witness be given the
17 B/C/S version, and could the English translation be put on the ELMO. Yes.
18 When I say the B/C/S version, I do understand that it's only an English
19 version because it's a -- it's an interview.
20 MR. TIEGER:
21 Q. Mr. Mandic, Exhibit 419 is a transcript of a televised and taped
22 interview you gave to Mr. Djogo, I believe in July or August of 1994. And
23 that -- we actually have a copy of that, if it's necessary for you to take
24 a look at the actual tape, or videotape of that interview.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Would you like to see it again, Mr. Mandic, or would
1 you accept to work on the basis of a transcript?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is the first time I see this,
3 Your Honour. But there's no problem. I can answer the questions on the
4 basis of the transcript.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then, Mr. Tieger, put to the witness what you
6 would like to put to him.
7 MR. TIEGER:
8 Q. Mr. Mandic, let me direct your attention, then, to a portion of
9 the interview which takes place at the time reference number 36:40, if you
10 can find that.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Perhaps you could -- is there a B/C/S version?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Have you found it?
14 MR. TIEGER:
15 Q. Now, there's a reference, as we proceed, probably 15 to 20 lines
16 into that passage of your comments, where you talk about the special
17 meeting regarding -- with the members of the special units. You refer to
18 the right of veto, meaning consensus, that is, if the special unit is sent
19 somewhere, it can't do anything without the agreement of all three
20 officials, of all three nationalities. You make reference to a comment by
21 Mr. Pusina after the meeting that: "There's nowhere to go ..." Mandic
22 has succeeded in dividing MUP. "There is no more unified MUP." And then
23 you comment "because that was in fact the way it was. If Pusina Jusuf, as
24 head of police, I mean that department can't put special unit in motion,
25 meaning Delimustafic, that means unified MUP doesn't exist any more and
1 somehow we carried it out."
2 You then go on to note that: "Unfortunately, however, Vitomir
3 Zepinic, meaning Alija Delimustafic, used all methods and lobbying people,
4 called on our best special unit members, Miodrag Repija, Maric, and
5 Jevtic, I believe, those are our best men, and promised them apartments,
6 this and that, and it came to slight dilemma in the psychic [sic] of those
7 people. You know, it is very hard to leave the system of one country."
8 So, Mr. Mandic, does that refresh your recollection about
9 Mr. Zepinic's efforts to disrupt the agreement regarding the special units
10 and persuade Serbian members of the special units to remain in a unified
12 A. This precisely links up with what I was saying, that Mr. Zepinic
13 had to follow Mr. Delimustafic's line blindly, and for some other reasons,
14 advocate the idea of a joint unit. Now, when I was talking about the
15 Pofalici events on Monday to the Defence and the engagement of the special
16 units in the purely Serb areas, as a result, there was this -- there
17 were -- difficulties there arose in a multi-ethnic MUP, and it was with
18 this agreement that Mr. Delimustafic and Zepinic tried to have people on
19 their side by buying them apartments, and this is -- these are Jevtic,
20 Dusko Jevic [as interpreted] and some others. They were promised
21 apartments to stay with them, in order to have this so-called joint MUP,
22 only in its appearances, and I was against that.
23 Q. And Mr. Karisik reacted to this perceived threat to the division
24 of the MUP; is that right, by informing you, Mr. Karadzic, and
25 Mr. Krajisnik?
1 A. I know that he informed me about that, because Karisik was the
2 second-highest official in the MUP. He was deputy to Predrag Vikic. And
3 as the first one in the Serb cadre in MUP, he informed me and
4 Mr. Krajisnik -- I don't know if also Mr. Karadzic was informed by him. I
5 see that I mentioned it here, but I'm certain that he did inform
6 Mr. Krajisnik and myself.
7 Q. And then Mr. Krajisnik came up with the idea of -- or is it
8 correct that Mr. Krajisnik came up with the idea of calling Zepinic to the
9 Assembly, to Mr. Krajisnik's office?
10 A. I don't think so. I think it was Mico Stanisic's idea.
11 Q. Well, can you tell us, then, why you credit calling Mr. Zepinic
12 back to the Assembly to the "great wisdom of Krajisnik" when you spoke
13 with Mr. Djogo on tape?
14 A. Because at that point, I thought it good for Vitomir Zepinic to be
15 isolated from Mr. Delimustafic, because we knew what their relationship
16 was like. We knew what Mr. Delimustafic was doing behind this screen of
17 Boro and Ramiz. And that's when I believe Mr. Zepinic submitted his
18 resignation to Mr. Krajisnik.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mandic, what was the question? Wasn't the
20 question why you give credit to Mr. Krajisnik during that interview by
21 saying that it was due to the great wisdom of Mr. Krajisnik that
22 Mr. Zepinic was called to the Assembly? That was the question, why you
23 give credit to Mr. Krajisnik, where you, in your previous answer, you said
24 it was actually Mr. Stanisic's idea.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I must have been right
1 in what I was saying. The idea for Mr. Krajisnik to invite Mr. Zepinic to
2 the parliament was Mico Stanisic's, because Mico Stanisic and Vitomir
3 Zepinic, who were both members of the ministerial council of the Serbian
4 shadow government, were in serious conflict. Due to that, Mr. Krajisnik
5 invited Vitomir Zepinic, and I came there, and some other Serb officials,
6 and then Mr. Zepinic submitted his resignation to Mr. Krajisnik from the
7 post of the deputy minister. This was in the premises of the joint
9 JUDGE ORIE: You give a lot of details that are not directly
10 related to the question. Whose idea now was it to call Mr. Zepinic to the
11 Assembly? Was it Mr. Krajisnik or was it Mr. Stanisic?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe it was Mico Stanisic's
13 idea, who suggested that Krajisnik do the practical part of it, to
14 implement it.
15 JUDGE ORIE: And what was the great wisdom, then, of Mr. Krajisnik
16 to call him to the -- was that that he followed Mr. Stanisic's suggestion
17 or ...?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
19 JUDGE ORIE: And why exactly was that a demonstration of great
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] First of all, because of the
22 conflict between Stanisic and his deputy, Zepinic. Second, in our
23 opinion, at the time, Zepinic was working on the breakup of this Serbian
24 special unit, pursuant to an order of Delimustafic, by promising them
25 apartments and various other privileges.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, please proceed.
2 [Prosecution counsel confer]
3 MR. TIEGER:
4 Q. Mr. Mandic, in response to some questions by Mr. Stewart regarding
5 the splitting of the MUP, and in particular, the comments in Ekstra
6 magazine about your responsibility for splitting the MUP and thereby
7 starting the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina, I believe you indicated
8 that you wouldn't boast about something like that, and therefore, believe
9 you had not said it. Would you boast about splitting the MUP and thereby
10 dismantling an independent Bosnia and Herzegovina, and would you regard
11 that as something different?
12 A. At that moment, there was no independent Bosnia and Herzegovina.
13 It came into existence on the 6th of April. And the message was sent on
14 the 31st of March. So the Republic was still a part of the former
15 Yugoslavia. It was called the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
16 Q. But the splitting of the MUP, Mr. Mandic, was an attempt to
17 forestall or prevent or undermine the establishment of an independent
18 Bosnia and Herzegovina, wasn't it?
19 A. No. I only acted pursuant to the decisions of the Assembly of the
20 Serbian People, in accordance with the constitution and the Law on the
21 Internal Affairs. And when I was ordered, or rather, when the Sarajevo
22 Agreement was signed, the agreement on the cantonal organisation of Bosnia
23 and Herzegovina, and based on the Cutileiro Plan, who was an negotiator
24 for Bosnia and Herzegovina, it was then, pursuant to an order by Mico
25 Stanisic, that I sent a memo to all the centres, because I, as chief of
1 one of the departments, was the only one who could do that. This was all
2 stated in the memo that I sent on the 31st of March.
3 And just one thing, Mr. Tieger, that I would like to add. You did
4 not show me the second part of this memo, of this letter, or rather, the
5 second letter that I sent two days later, whereby I was informing them
6 that in the future cantonal organisation of Bosnia-Herzegovina, there
7 would be, as far as the MUP is concerned, a common educational system, and
8 also the provision for common expenses and finances. This letter was sent
9 a day or two days after the first one. My objective was to clarify the
10 first letter, and it was done in the agreement with the representatives of
11 the Serbian people and Mico Stanisic. This memo, this letter, can be
12 found in the MUP in Sarajevo today. This was all in agreement with the
13 Sarajevo Agreement, or the Cutileiro plan, which was initialled by
14 Mr. Alija Izetbegovic, Radovan Karadzic, and Mate Boban.
15 Q. So by your answer, Mr. Mandic, are you saying that the ethnic
16 division of the MUP was not an attempt in any way to prevent or undermine
17 the establishment of an independent Bosnia and Herzegovina?
18 A. Well, it seems to me, to the extent I was aware of the political
19 events in Bosnia and Herzegovina, that the leadership of the Serbian
20 people, and the Serbian people themselves, wanted to arrange, wanted to
21 organise the life in Bosnia and Herzegovina, because they were losing the
22 common state they were living in, that they had been living in, the former
23 Yugoslavia. And they believed that if Croats, Slovenes, and Macedonians
24 had the right to self-determination, then the Serbian people within
25 Bosnia-Herzegovina had the same right to self-determination and that
1 cantons would be formed and that there would be a police force and the
2 military formed alongside ethnic lines. This is all contained in the
3 Sarajevo Agreement and the Cutileiro Plan.
4 Q. I have to ask you again, Mr. Mandic, in that case: Does that,
5 therefore, mean that the ethnic division of the MUP was an effort to
6 prevent what the Bosnian Serb leadership feared as a result of the
7 independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina?
8 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, Mr. Tieger says: "I have to ask you
9 again." We question why he has to ask him again. This witness started
10 off as Mr. Tieger's witness and there does come a point at which once a
11 question has been asked, and it's been asked and developed and answered,
12 there is a point at which it's been asked and counsel should move on.
13 MR. TIEGER: Certainly has been asked, Your Honour, but I don't
14 believe it's been answered.
15 JUDGE ORIE: I think the usual quote is question asked, question
16 answered, but I think, as a matter of fact, Mr. Stewart, from the
17 explanation the witness gives to his answer takes it that it's not a real
18 answer to his question.
19 So therefore, I would allow you to put that question again.
20 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
21 Q. Mr. Mandic, you just told us about the political events, the
22 reaction of the leadership of the Serbian people, their belief about what
23 might happen if some peoples had the right to self-determination, and so
24 on. My question is: Was the ethnic division of the MUP an attempt by the
25 Bosnian Serb leadership to address concerns about the consequences of an
1 independent Bosnia and Herzegovina, and thereby prevent a unified and
2 independent Bosnia and Herzegovina from effectively coming into existence?
3 A. I can only give you my assumption, because I was not a member of
4 the political or state leadership of Bosnian Serbs. I was a high-ranking
5 official within the MUP, and I just carried out the tasks that I had been
6 given. I don't know what the political leadership of Bosnian Serbs was
7 afraid of. I was not aware of their concerns. It is quite probable that
8 that was also one of their concerns, and it is probable that that was one
9 of their fears as well.
10 Q. What, then, did you mean when you said to Mr. Djogo: "I went to
11 Vraca with a 99 per cent chance to be killed as a terrorist." And forgive
12 me. Let me direct your attention to the portion of the interview which
13 takes place at 1:11:00. Just to repeat, you can find that portion, it's
14 about the middle of that section: "I went to Vraca with a 99 per cent
15 chance to be killed as a terrorist. As a man who, at that time, was
16 responsible for dismantling an independent Republic of Bosnia and
18 And the question was: What did you mean by that?
19 A. So two years later, I was explaining to the editor of the Serb
20 television, in light of my memories at the time, what the reasons were for
21 the dismantling of the Serbian MUP and the special unit, and why it was
22 decided at one point that one part of this joint special police force
23 should go to Vraca. I was referring to the sovereign Bosnia and
24 Herzegovina that was actually not sovereign at the time. Those were just
25 my memories of the events two years later. This was just an unofficial
1 conversation that I had with Mr. Djogo at the time when I visited
3 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters correction. After I had arrived
4 from Belgrade.
5 MR. TIEGER:
6 Q. Mr. Mandic, moving on to another subject. You spoke, I believe
7 earlier today, about the chain of command and -- regarding the military
8 and who had the power to issue orders to the Bosnian Serb military forces.
9 And I believe you said that the president of the Republic was at the very
10 top of that chain of command and had the power to issue orders to the
11 military and to the police.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Now, at the time, in fact, there wasn't a president of the
14 Republic; there was a Presidency of the Republic. Isn't that right? That
15 is, from May of 1992 until December of 1992.
16 A. I think that there was a Presidency, yes, and there was a
17 president in the Presidency, Dr. Karadzic. Before him, it was
18 Dr. Biljana Plavsic who had been the president. The Presidency existed
19 for a relatively long period of time. I don't remember exactly how long.
20 What I know for sure is that at the beginning of the war, it was
21 Dr. Karadzic who was elected president of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia
22 and Herzegovina and that there were two vice-presidents as well, Biljana
23 Plavsic and Nikola Koljevic. They were members of the Presidency. They
24 were the Presidency. That is how I remembered that the situation was, and
25 please correct me if I'm wrong.
1 Q. So when you say "please correct me if I'm wrong," I take it that
2 means that you were aware generally of the existence of a Presidency but
3 haven't studied the constitutional documents relating to the establishment
4 of the Presidency or the power of the Presidency.
5 A. Yes. I haven't had the opportunity to study this.
6 Q. Is it also correct that you haven't had an opportunity to review
7 or study minutes of the sessions of the Presidency?
8 A. No. Unless you're referring to the beginnings, the sessions of
9 the government. But no, I never had an opportunity to review minutes of
10 the sessions of the Presidency.
11 Q. And I presume you also haven't had a chance - it seemed
12 incorporated in your answer - to study the provisions of law relating to
13 the establishment of an Expanded Presidency.
14 A. No.
15 Q. And it would follow that you -- if you haven't seen minutes of the
16 sessions of the Presidency, then you wouldn't have had an opportunity to
17 see the listing of the members of that Presidency or Expanded Presidency.
18 A. No.
19 Q. Or to see how regularly or frequently the various members of that
20 Presidency or Expanded Presidency attended the meetings.
21 A. No. No, Mr. Tieger.
22 Q. And so when you spoke about Mr. Krajisnik's power to issue orders
23 to the military or to the police, that was in light of the fact that you
24 didn't know precisely who comprised the Presidency during that time, how
25 regularly those members of the Presidency attended, and what decisions
1 were made during the course of those Presidency meetings?
2 A. When I spoke about this to Mr. Stewart, I referred to
3 Mr. Krajisnik as the president of the Assembly and about his competences
4 as such. I don't remember that his participation in the decision-making
5 process was in any -- had any other form. This was not something that I
6 was familiar with at the time.
7 Q. So your answer to Mr. Stewart was limited to what you understood
8 about Mr. Krajisnik's powers as president of the Assembly only?
9 A. Yes, and also to what I knew from my contacts with Krajisnik about
10 what he was doing, what his authority was. But exclusively, as far as his
11 capacity as the president of the Assembly is concerned.
12 MR. STEWART: I think Mr. Tieger should look at what I actually
13 did ask, because I asked a follow-up question quite specifically after the
14 question that I asked, which Mr. Tieger has just referred to.
15 MR. TIEGER: Well, I don't have the -- of course, I obviously
16 don't have the transcript and I don't have access to the LiveNote in front
17 of me. If there's some way of identifying that particular passage, I'd be
18 grateful. Or if the Court can give me a moment, we can scroll back.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If you have two or three words, specific words,
20 then it's easy to search for that.
21 MR. STEWART: It was towards the very end of my cross-examination
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Do you have one or two words, so that I could
24 find it?
25 MR. STEWART: Well, it would follow on from --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Or the page number. That's fine as well.
2 MR. STEWART: It would certainly follow on from a reference to
3 giving orders to the army, or something like that. I mean, it --
4 JUDGE ORIE: I'll try to find it.
5 MR. STEWART: Formal. The word "formal" appeared. I think formal
6 fogs or something. I'm just trying to remember, but I think I used the
7 phrase "formal position." Certainly the word "formal."
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Tieger, I find on page 46, line 12 -- no.
9 MR. TIEGER: I suspect it's just above that.
10 JUDGE ORIE: No. I'm making a mistake because I'm on the wrong
11 date. I apologise for that.
12 MR. TIEGER: I suspect that the --
13 MR. STEWART: Page 46, line 7, isn't it?
14 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, let me attempt to deal with it, if I
15 may, with the portion that appears to be relevant. If that's not the
16 portion to which Mr. Stewart is referring, I believe he can let us know.
17 MR. STEWART: Well, it was page 46, line 7.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then if you could find that, please,
19 Mr. Tieger, and see whether ...
20 MR. TIEGER: Mr. Stewart, those line numbers do you not
22 Q. Let me ask you -- the first of those two question was, "After all
23 that, Mr. Mandic, my question --" I'm sorry, Your Honour, directed
24 question directed to counsel?
25 MR. STEWART: That's right. I don't know what's happened about
1 the lines. I never understand what goes on.
2 JUDGE ORIE: I'll read the part I take it that ...
3 MR. STEWART: Equality of arms, but inequality of lines between
4 Prosecution and Defence. I don't understand.
5 JUDGE ORIE: After all that, Mr. Mandic, my question is a short,
6 simple one, after a long introduction: "It's correct, isn't it, that
7 Mr. Krajisnik, as president of the Assembly, had no authority over the
8 army?" The answer is yes. And the next question is: "And he had no
9 other position which gave him authority over the army?" The answer was:
10 "No, he didn't."
11 Those are the lines you're referring to, I take it, Mr. --
12 Although without the word "formal."
13 MR. STEWART: Yes. I'd imagined that, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, may I -- it seems that you're struggling
15 through. Would you have any further questions? Because we would then
16 stop now and I would ask you then to continue tomorrow. But if it's just
17 a matter of one or two questions, I would like to ask you to finish now.
18 [Prosecution counsel confer]
19 MR. TIEGER: Well, Your Honour, it depends, obviously, these even
20 seemingly simple questions drag on, but I will make an effort to complete
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. How much time would you still need for that?
23 Because I have already a bad reputation with the interpreters and the
25 MR. TIEGER: Well, I've got two documents I want to focus on,
1 Your Honour. I think it takes -- I would estimate five and no more than
2 ten. But I know the Court has seen us try to move quickly through it and
3 it doesn't always happen.
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, experience teaches us that what seems to
6 be five or ten minutes easily will be 15 to 17 minutes, so therefore, we'd
7 rather continue tomorrow. We might have decided otherwise if there would
8 not have been several procedural issues the Chamber would like to deal
9 with anyhow tomorrow in the afternoon. At the same time, the Chamber
10 still hopes that you would keep to your time-limits. Your indication of
11 time, as you have given today. I don't know whether there are any
12 arrangements made already for Mr. Mandic.
13 Mr. Mandic, are you aware of how your travelling is scheduled?
14 Are you supposed to leave tomorrow in the afternoon or Saturday morning?
15 What's the -- what are the plans? I do take it from your nodding that it
16 will not be -- your departure has not been scheduled on Friday. Is that
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have been informed
19 that the Defence would be questioning me for three days, so I was supposed
20 to travel back on Saturday. This is a new development, the fact that the
21 Defence has finished.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then, under those circumstances, where
23 continuing tomorrow does not change any scheduled arrangements, the
24 Chamber would prefer to continue tomorrow.
25 As I said before to the parties, that the Chamber would need
1 another 45 minutes for procedural issues. That might even be a bit more,
2 because the Chamber would like to deliver a decision also on all the 92
3 bis pending motions at this moment, which is, apart from that, the parties
4 will be provided with the exhibit list tomorrow so that we can quickly go
5 through that in respect of Mr. Mandic, once he has concluded his
7 Mr. Mandic, I again have to ask you to come back, although it will
8 be for a relatively short moment, tomorrow in the afternoon, quarter past
9 2.00, if I'm well-informed, in this same courtroom. We adjourn until
11 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.02 p.m.,
12 to be reconvened on Friday, the 10th day
13 of December 2004, at 2.15 p.m.