1 Monday, 7 March 2005

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 9.08 a.m.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone. Madam Registrar, would you

6 please call the case.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Case number IT-00-39-T, the Prosecutor versus

8 Momcilo Krajisnik.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, is the Defence ready to cross-examine

10 Ms. Hanson?

11 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, we haven't -- I don't think even

12 Mr. Hannis knew that examination-in-chief had finished.

13 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I understood that the Court was going to

14 consider my request for some additional time. I have reviewed the list,

15 Your Honour. There are four documents remaining that were not part of her

16 report that were for presentation only. I think I could do that in 15

17 minutes or less, and I would request an opportunity to do that.

18 [Trial Chamber confers]

19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hannis, you're allowed to spend 15 minutes on --

20 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honour.

21 JUDGE ORIE: -- further examination-in-chief.

22 Yes, Madam Usher. Would you escort Ms. Hanson to the courtroom.

23 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, while that's happening, may I simply

24 inquire when Your Honours would propose to deal with the outstanding

25 reports back on housekeeping matters.

1 JUDGE ORIE: I intend to do that later this day, but as you may

2 have noticed, sometimes I take the last minutes before the break rather

3 than the first minutes after the break.

4 MR. STEWART: Yes. Your Honour, may I say of course we're

5 entirely in Your Honour's hands how that happens but there is a problem

6 about taking the last minutes before the break which is, since we don't

7 know exactly how long it will take Your Honour, we run into that

8 difficulty. With the greatest respect, Your Honour, it may be that taking

9 the very beginning of a break is -- just from a practical point of view

10 has some advantage.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it has some advantages. It has some

12 disadvantages, Mr. Stewart.

13 MR. STEWART: Well, if Your Honour is talking about time

14 constraints, Your Honour, we assure Your Honour that we have nothing to do

15 on that except to report and deal with it as briskly as possible.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

17 [The witness entered court]

18 WITNESS: DOROTHEA HANSON [Resumed]

19 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Ms. Hanson. May I first of all remind

20 you that you're still bound by the solemn declaration you've given at the

21 beginning of your testimony. The examination-in-chief will continue for

22 another 15 minutes.

23 Please proceed, Mr. Hannis.

24 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honours.

25 Examined by Mr. Hannis: [Continued]

1 Q. Good morning, Ms. Hanson. When we left off on Friday there were

2 still some matters I had not been able to ask you about. In the interest

3 of time, I'm just going to talk about the four remaining documents that

4 were presentation only as the others are either footnotes or otherwise

5 mentioned in your report.

6 With that, the first one I'd like to go to is presentation

7 tab 315, and it's master tab number 439. This is from a 26 May minutes of

8 the joint meeting of the TO battalion command and the Kalinovik command.

9 Could you tell us why you put this in your presentation folder.

10 A. As we see from the documents that I have footnoted, the -- the

11 Trnovo Crisis Staff set up the TO and coordinated closely with the command

12 of the TO. Here we see a joint meeting of the battalion command and the

13 military post Kalinovik. We note that Colonel Bundalo and Lieutenant

14 Jovovic division commander were present, and they state that all four --

15 in the middle of the page, both in B/C/S and the original: "All forces in

16 Trnovo will be returned under the command of Kalinovik. So Kalinovik take

17 all forces in Trnovo should the situation deteriorate." So coordination

18 between the TO and local military there.

19 Q. Thank you. The next one I wanted to show you is master tab 442,

20 which is presentation tab 316, and these are minutes from a meeting of the

21 Trnovo Crisis Staff.

22 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I think I'm all right with this one,

23 but I'm just inviting Mr. Hannis just to go a tiny bit slowly on this for

24 this reason: That the master tab reference -- I was intending to work

25 this morning from my computer on these matters where I have this material,

1 but the numbering has changed. The -- and also the master tab numbers or

2 the master tab numbers just given don't appear at all because the numbers

3 run out before we get there, and the presentation tab numbers have

4 changed, something I've mentioned to Mr. Hannis. I think I've got this

5 one which is minutes from SDS Trnovo Crisis Staff which used to be 318 and

6 is now 316.

7 Is it -- may I simply inquire through Your Honours. The

8 translation reference is L0017057, is it?

9 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, I'm just pointing out that the

10 translation that I'm working on is ET 02276221.

11 MR. STEWART: 316. Yes, thank you very much. I think I see that.

12 Well, I hope I do. Document related to mobilisation of conscripts and

13 addressed to Crisis Staff.

14 THE WITNESS: No. Minutes of the meeting of the SDS Crisis Staff,

15 27 May 1992.

16 MR. HANNIS: Actually, Your Honour, I have an extra hard copy of

17 the three documents I'm going to show I can hand to Mr. Stewart for his

18 use this morning.

19 JUDGE ORIE: If you could do that.

20 MR. STEWART: That would be much appreciated, Your Honour. Your

21 Honour sees the difficulties with this numbering.

22 Thank you. I'm grateful, Mr. Hannis, thank you.

23 MR. HANNIS:

24 Q. Now, Ms. Hanson, if you could tell us what you wanted to bring to

25 our attention in this document?

1 A. Once again, the close ties between the Crisis Staff and the TO

2 command and the involvement of the Crisis Staff in the preparations for

3 military actions, the first line Radivoje, the president of the Crisis

4 Staff, tells Danilo to make a list of command personnel and "let us verify

5 it one of these mornings." Danilo Goljanin, you will recall, was chief of

6 the TO command staff. I find it significant that the Crisis Staff here is

7 seeking to verify the command personnel.

8 At the bottom of the -- towards the bottom of the first page in

9 the B/C/S, third -- second speech by Radivoje in the English translation,

10 at the end he says: "We can or, rather, we must establish contact with

11 the army in Lukavica and Kalinovik." Again, contact with the army.

12 On the next page in the B/C/S, still on the first page in the

13 English, Danilo says -- yes, it's towards the bottom of the B/C/S,

14 02276222, the speech by Danilo. He reports discussion at the command last

15 night, and he says: "As concerns the defence of Trnovo, Bundalo

16 completely agrees with the concept except that the forces for taking the

17 village should be stronger." So reporting conversation with Bundalo about

18 plans for what he terms the defence, but -- of Trnovo but the defence

19 includes forces for taking over the village.

20 And lastly at the very bottom of the English page and on the next

21 page in the B/C/S, just wait to go see -- yes. Speech by Radivoje in the

22 lower half of 02276223. Radivoje says: "We will hold all meetings

23 together from now on." I take this to be with the TO command. So close

24 coordination and preparations for military actions including taking over

25 the village.

1 Q. Thank you. The next one I want to show you, now we go to another

2 municipality in your Rajlovac case study, presentation tab number 319.

3 It's master tab number 13. This is from minutes of a meeting of the

4 Bratunac SDS Municipal Board in October of 1991. Can you tell us about

5 this one?

6 A. As I noted in my report, Bratunac is an exception to the pattern

7 of Crisis Staffs first being established after the 19 December

8 instructions, that is at the end of December. In Bratunac, the minutes of

9 the Municipal Board show that the SDS Municipal Board formed a Crisis

10 Staff in late October 1991. However, this Crisis Staff follows the

11 pattern of being formed on the orders of the SDS leadership.

12 I would note in the agenda item 2 is implementation of tasks and

13 conclusions reached by the Serbian Assembly of BiH, and number 3,

14 appointment of a -- of the Crisis Staff in Bratunac municipality with the

15 purpose of implementing protective measures for the Serbian people.

16 Under item 1 in the minutes the president told the board about the

17 founding of the Serbia Assembly, its tasks and aims. The board

18 unanimously accepted all the tasks. And item 3, a Crisis Staff is formed.

19 In my report a similar document when the information first came to

20 Bratunac at this time, the Crisis Staff is -- the meeting is held and the

21 tasks assigned explicitly, it says, on the order of Karadzic. Here he is

22 also conveying the information from the Assembly.

23 Q. And I --

24 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Hanson, may I ask you, you said on item 2 it is

25 implementation of tasks and conclusions reached by Serbian Assembly. I

1 read agenda item 2, "election and appointment of the Crisis Staff," or am

2 I wrong? Or am I on the wrong document?

3 THE WITNESS: This is 02 --

4 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that I'm in the wrong document. I am in

5 319 now. I should be in 319 now.

6 THE WITNESS: That's where I am, 319.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'm sorry. Please proceed.

8 THE WITNESS: There are two similar meetings, one of a smaller.

9 The first meet something a smaller of what he calls the Presidency of the

10 Municipal Board which says much the same information. And then a few days

11 later this is the meeting of the larger Municipal Board.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

13 THE WITNESS: With similar agenda. That's what I was referring.

14 MR. HANNIS:

15 Q. And do you have any explanation for how it is that a Crisis Staff

16 was formed in Bratunac in October of 1991 when we didn't see Variant A and

17 Variant B instructions until December?

18 A. We do see at this time that Karadzic declares a state of emergency

19 in the SDS, and there are many references to municipal boards receiving

20 and implementing his reports for a state of emergency. Bratunac is the

21 only one that, as I say, forms a Crisis Staff but it does so explicitly --

22 explicitly ties it to instructions from Karadzic.

23 Q. Thank you. And finally the last one I want to show you is

24 presentation tab 325, Your Honours, master tab number 432, and this is

25 from a February 1993 meeting of the SDS Municipal Board.

1 A. Yes. In February -- on February 1, 1993, it was the first session

2 of the Municipal Board since the outbreak of the war, and Mr. Deronjic

3 gives a perspective of the outbreak of the conflict. I find significant

4 here his statement -- this is on the right-hand side of -- in the B/C/S of

5 02192726, in which he says: "The Main Board of the SDS and the local

6 boards were the only bearers of activity for preparation and organisation

7 of Serbian people and giving resistance to the enemy." So noting again

8 that the role of the SDS in organising the Serbian people. In fact he

9 says they were so good at military organisation -- says at the bottom of

10 the English first page -- in the middle of the B/C/S page: "It was

11 estimated that the situation today would have been much better and all the

12 military goals might have been achieved if the command of the Operative

13 Group Drina of the former JNA did not interfere." So in the general

14 context of this speech he's saying how well they had organised and

15 prepared for war and perhaps he says could have done even better.

16 Q. Thank you.

17 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, two other matters. One is I think when

18 I introduced presentation tab 319 I gave the wrong master tab reference

19 for that. It should be 431 is the master tab number. And finally, Your

20 Honour, earlier in my presentation we had two documents in which

21 Ms. Hanson had indicated we believe that it was Mr. Krajisnik's signature

22 on. Those were the appointments of some republican War Commissioners. I

23 believe the documents were presentation tab 75 and 76. And we had

24 inquired what the Defence position was on that. I wanted to bring that up

25 again before I've left the matter.

1 And with that I have no further questions for this witness.

2 MR. STEWART: Yes. Is that -- that is Mr. Krajisnik's signature

3 on both those documents.

4 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] I have an additional question to

5 put to the witness regarding your report, Witness. Do you have it in

6 front of you? Do you have your report in front of you? I would like us

7 to go back to page -- yes. I'd like us to have a look at page 14 of your

8 report regarding the role of the Crisis Staffs. Number 35, paragraph 35.

9 If I understand you correctly, what you're saying is the Crisis

10 Staff was there to ensure coordination between the police, the army, and

11 what you call the paramilitaries, and we are talking about coordination

12 between these organisations and the political party. Am I understand you

13 correctly -- do I understand you correctly?

14 THE WITNESS: Yes. And I would also add -- yes, the party and

15 also the government, that is, the municipal structures and the Bosnian

16 government organs.

17 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Am I mistaken in thinking that

18 within the Crisis Staffs there were commissioners, in other words,

19 representatives, people who were entitled to talk on behalf of these

20 institutions?

21 THE WITNESS: In Crisis Staffs as opposed to War Presidencies, I

22 have not seen any indication of their commissioners. In Djeric's

23 instructions of the 26th of April, 1992, he does say that commissioners

24 will be appointed. But I do not see in documents of Crisis Staffs anybody

25 named as commissioner. We saw in the discussion in November 1992 in the

1 Assembly the significance given to deputies. They said whether it's a

2 deputy from the Assembly or a commissioner isn't important, but I do

3 not -- although I see Assembly deputies as members of Crisis Staffs, I do

4 not see them referred to as commissioners.

5 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] As for the War Presidencies,

6 there were commissioners within the War Presidencies, weren't there?

7 THE WITNESS: That is what is stated in the presentational

8 decision of 31 May 1992. I'm checking my memory, but I do not recall

9 seeing anybody as a commissioner on something that we know of that is

10 identified itself as a War Presidency. It seems that in that sense, the

11 presidential decision on War Commissioners, which superseded the decision

12 on the formation of War Presidencies, was -- was intended to form War

13 Commissions where the role of the commissioner was clarified. We know

14 there were commissioners before the formation of -- before that decision

15 on War Commissions, but we do not see them, their presence or activity

16 reflected in minutes of Crisis Staffs and War Presidencies.

17 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Paragraph 38 of your report you

18 same the problem: [In English] "Krajisnik in his role as a member of the

19 Presidency responsible for the work of -- of the republican

20 commissioners."

21 [Interpretation] That's where I do not really understand. Would

22 you be able to clarify that sentence for me, please?

23 THE WITNESS: We know from the minutes of the Presidency of 6 July

24 1992 that Krajisnik was named as the member of Presidency responsible for

25 the work of commissioners. We know from his speech in the Assembly in

1 November 1992 that he says he was very well-informed about the work of all

2 the commissioners. So I see that his identification as the member of the

3 Presidency responsible for the work of commissioners he had that task that

4 no one assigned to him that until then seems to have been perhaps

5 genuine -- generally shared among the Presidency, but he was given that as

6 an explicit task. And as he said in his speech, it worked well. He knew

7 what they were doing. He knew that they did their work well.

8 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Let me go a bit further. When

9 you write "responsible for the work of the republican commissioners," what

10 do you mean? What do you mean exactly? What does it mean? Because for

11 me it means that he was responsible for the actions of the commissioners.

12 Therefore, he was due to follow and supervise their work. What did you

13 understand from the -- from reading the documents you studied about that

14 matter?

15 THE WITNESS: On the basis of those minutes and the other

16 documents I've seen, responsible in the sense of he was the member of the

17 Presidency to which commissioners would turn first. Of course it's

18 important to understand that not everything that happened strictly

19 according to the normative documents. Informal relations played a great

20 role, and it could well happen that someone in the municipal organ might

21 have turned to Karadzic or somebody else first out of -- from knowing him

22 or from formal lines, but within the Presidency as they were dividing up

23 their tasks, Krajisnik is the one who is to deal with and to know about

24 commissioners.

25 I do not understand it to mean responsible in the sense of any --

1 bearing the consequences of their actions necessarily more than any other

2 member of the Presidency, but the point of contact is how I see that.

3 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Thank you, Witness.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. President Hannis, no further questions?

5 MR. HANNIS: No, Your Honour. I would only note for Judge

6 Hanoteau that we have a witness coming next week who will talk more about

7 commissioners.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Stewart, are you ready to cross-examine

9 Ms. Hanson?

10 MR. STEWART: Yes, Your Honour.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Hanson, you will be cross-examined by

12 Mr. Stewart, Defence counsel.

13 Cross-examined by Mr. Stewart:

14 Q. Ms. Hanson, the -- between 1990 and 1992, and according to your

15 CV, you were engaged in research in Belgrade.

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. What was the -- what was the precise period in terms of month to

18 month?

19 A. I arrived in August 1990. I believe my work didn't really start

20 until September, and I left in May of 1992.

21 Q. And was your research into specific fields?

22 A. It was research for my dissertation work. I was at the time a

23 graduate student at Yale University in modern Balkan history. The topic

24 of my dissertation was the army of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in the period

25 between the First and Second World Wars, and the bulk of my research in

1 Belgrade I did at the archives of the Military Historical Institute of the

2 Yugoslav People's Army.

3 Q. And your curriculum vitae of course gives your various study

4 periods and your work appointments. There was not a list appended of

5 publications. Do you have publications?

6 A. No. I have two translations that I made that -- one in a book and

7 one in a journal, but no original writings.

8 Q. And those particular translations, are they in any particular way

9 germane to the issues with which -- on which you're giving evidence to

10 this Trial Chamber?

11 A. One is not. The other would be. It is -- it was a translation of

12 some statements or one statement, I honestly can't recall at this moment,

13 that appeared in the book called "Why Bosnia" edited by -- I'm sorry, I

14 forget the name of the editor. It's in the library and I can obtain a

15 copy of that book. It was published during -- I think in 1993.

16 Q. And what was the particular topic there?

17 A. It was statement of a Bosnian Muslim who had survived an execution

18 in Karakaj in Zvornik, I believe.

19 Q. So --

20 A. There might -- there were other statements as well. I'm sorry.

21 That's just when they were. It was a collection of statements of Bosnian

22 Muslims regarding the conflict. It was -- but it was only translation, I

23 repeat. It was a translation.

24 Q. It sounds as if they were specific, related to a specific

25 incidents?

1 A. Yes. It was nothing general. It was experience of ordinary

2 people in the war.

3 Q. But, Ms. Hanson, you are -- is it right to say you were in effect

4 the team leader for the purpose of preparing this report?

5 A. I'm not the team leader. I -- in the LRT that would be Pat

6 Treanor, but this report is -- in writing this report, I received the help

7 of my colleagues mostly in terms of having documents brought to my

8 attention because other people in the team would know that I'm working on

9 Crisis Staffs, would show me documents they came across that they thought

10 would be of interest. And the first section of the report on the other

11 bodies I also received some -- I relied upon or looked at the work of

12 colleagues who wrote about those. But I am the principal person on the

13 team for the question of Crisis Staffs, municipal Crisis Staffs.

14 Q. When I say "this report" I should make it clear. I'm talking

15 about your report dated 13 July 2002 as slightly amended on the 26th of

16 November, 2004.

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. That's the shorthand of your report.

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. The LRT, is that legal research team? I --

21 A. Leadership research team.

22 Q. Leadership research team. And Mr. Treanor is the head of that

23 team?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. So from what you're saying in answer to my question about whether

1 you were the team leader for these purposes, the position as you've

2 described is this: That in fact the team leader for the purposes of this

3 report, the one I've referred to, is Mr. Treanor?

4 A. He is my team leader. I am a member of the LRT. I wrote this

5 report. I don't know what you mean in for the purposes of this report.

6 Q. Well, Ms. Hanson, it is this: I had put it to you that you were

7 the team leader. You said, well, no. And your answer indicated that if

8 so far as there was a team leader, which presumably there must be, it was

9 Mr. Treanor. So let me take if from there. Was Mr. Treanor involved in

10 any way in the preparation of this report?

11 A. Like my other colleagues, he brought to my attention documents

12 that he thought would be relevant, and as the leader of my assigned work

13 group, the leadership research team, he reviews -- he reviewed this and

14 all other documents that go out under our names. All -- all reports or

15 memos are issued through Mr. Treanor.

16 Q. So the process is this, was it, Ms. Hanson, that your -- your

17 final draft report went to Mr. Treanor? Is that right?

18 A. I'm trying to recall. The final draft, because it's not --

19 because this report in its final form was for the Court, I'm not sure that

20 he would have had a final sign-off on this form. But in general, my

21 written memos and reports he signs off. They go through him.

22 Q. Yes. I had -- Ms. Hanson I should make it clear and to the Trial

23 Chamber I had deliberately and specifically avoided the phrase "signing

24 off" in that question, because, Ms. Hanson, I was going to assume, and

25 please confirm if this is correct, I was going to assume that the actual

1 signing off of this report was done by you because it is your report. Is

2 that correct?

3 A. The actual signing off of this final form I would say was done by

4 me.

5 Q. That is why I avoided that phrase and therefore put it to you that

6 before you signed off, the final draft of your report before signing off

7 went to Mr. Treanor?

8 A. I honestly don't recall whether -- because there is the final

9 final, once all the footnotes are checked and double-checked, in the sense

10 of that final final form, because it did not take the form of a memo which

11 is -- goes through Mr. Treanor, I can't say for sure at what was the last

12 stage at which he cast his eyes upon this. But certainly -- certainly he

13 looked at -- looked at it right up until the end, but because this goes

14 from me to the Court, I would not say that this final final version -- the

15 version that goes to the Court goes through him. It has my name on it.

16 Q. Ms. Hanson, forgive me. I think we've already so far as agreement

17 is necessary, I think we've already agreed about that. At the point where

18 you personally sign off your report, that is your report subject to the

19 amendment in November, which is relatively minor. So I think we've agreed

20 about that.

21 The -- is it this, then, that possibly leaving aside footnotes

22 that either the first version or something extremely close to the last

23 version of the text on the body of your report went to Mr. Treanor?

24 A. Yes, that's a fair statement.

25 Q. And if Mr. Treanor -- well, either he did have or if he had had

1 any suggestion or proposals or questions, then he either did or would have

2 raised them with you?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Did you, without exploring into any detail, did you have debate

5 and discussion with Mr. Treanor in the course of preparing your report

6 about the text of your report?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. What were -- expressly and explicitly, what were your instructions

9 for the preparation of this report?

10 A. My instructions were to write a report on the municipal Crisis

11 Staffs of the Bosnian Serbs, on their functions, on their role in the

12 state and their actions in the municipalities.

13 Q. And were those instructions given to you in writing?

14 A. No.

15 Q. When were they given to you?

16 A. I'm just trying to reconstruct when I was assigned to the -- the

17 team dealing with this area. When I was assigned to this team, I was told

18 in general terms that my work would involve Crisis Staffs and I was to

19 look into the issues that I named, and as the work evolved it became -- it

20 gradually took on the form of an actual report, but it started just as a

21 research. And it was in the spring, and I'm -- I'm -- can't recall if it

22 was the spring of 2000 or 2001 right now, I'm sorry. I can check my -- my

23 work and tell you when I started, but I can't remember.

24 It was actually -- now I can reconstruct. It was 2001. Sometime

25 in the spring of 2001, Mr. Treanor told me I would now be working on the

1 team, Bosnian Serb team, and that I was to look into Crisis Staffs. As I

2 said, it evolved towards this report but I was not originally told, "Write

3 a report for the Court."

4 Q. Is this the -- is this the only report which you have signed off

5 on for a Trial Chamber in this Tribunal?

6 A. This is the only full research report. For the Milosevic case I

7 had written a much shorter memo of I believe about eight pages on a fairly

8 restricted question, the question of the Supreme Defence Council, and I

9 signed a declaration regarding that report. So I believe it did enter the

10 Milosevic case in that way, but I did not appear in court, and I don't

11 know to put the fate of that memo.

12 Q. When you were given your instructions for the preparation of this

13 report, who gave them to you?

14 A. Mr. Treanor.

15 Q. And did he -- do you recall? Did he give them to you at a

16 face-to-face meeting between you and him?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Did you make a note of the instructions he was giving you?

19 A. Not at the time.

20 Q. When did you subsequently make a note?

21 A. Well, I made notes as I began researching, but I did not make a

22 note of any assignment as such. As I said, it was told in general terms

23 find out about Crisis Staffs, but it was in such general terms as to where

24 I should start researching. There were no specific -- nothing more

25 specific than what I said earlier.

1 Q. So is it -- is it a process under which the -- your terms of

2 reference evolved as you were doing the work?

3 THE INTERPRETER: [French interpretation on English channel].

4 JUDGE ORIE: Because I now receive French on channel 4. Perhaps I

5 speak a few more words. I do not hear any more French so I take it --

6 MR. STEWART: Is that a takeover by the French language, Your

7 Honour, or is it in addition to the other channel?

8 JUDGE ORIE: No, it was -- if you would call it a takeover. It

9 was French nothing else.

10 MR. STEWART: I was teasing Judge Hanoteau, Your Honour.

11 THE WITNESS: Yes. I would say the -- the assignment evolved as

12 it went along.

13 MR. STEWART:

14 Q. Yes. So would you -- would you then summarise, Ms. Hanson, what

15 you -- what you would -- understood your instructions to be at the point

16 where you signed off the report?

17 A. By that time, it -- it was -- I understood my assignment to be to

18 explain to the Court the functioning of Bosnian Serb Crisis Staffs, their

19 role in the state and the powers they had.

20 To -- at first I would say it was not necessarily clear at the

21 beginning that this would get to the Court. It was for all of us to

22 understand Crisis Staffs. By the time the report was signed off, it was

23 clearly intended to play a role in the court.

24 Q. At what point did it become clear that there was to be a report

25 for the purposes of the case against Mr. Krajisnik and Ms. Plavsic?

1 A. I cannot now recall the point in time at which -- I would say the

2 evolution came as it became clear that there was enough good material to

3 write a substantive report and as -- there was enough there to answer.

4 There was enough to be said, and the Prosecution team felt that this was,

5 as I understood them, this was something that needed to be addressed in

6 the case.

7 Q. So is this what happened: There was an express request from the

8 Prosecution team to produce a report with a view to giving evidence in the

9 case against Mr. Krajisnik and Ms. Plavsic?

10 A. Again, I would say the request evolved. First the Prosecution

11 team wanted to know about Crisis Staffs, and then on the basis of my

12 report, they then asked for the -- they then felt the report could also --

13 could be used for court and should be. I should write a report or

14 continue to work on it, expand my report to that end.

15 Q. It's clear, your department, you are a -- there's no mystery about

16 it. You are a resource for the Prosecution, aren't you?

17 A. Yes. We are part of the Office of the Prosecutor.

18 Q. But -- so, Ms. Hanson, it's clear, isn't it, that beyond the

19 slightly general description that you've given of your instructions and

20 the nature of the report, the evolution involved or reached the point at

21 which your report was to be specifically directed towards the case against

22 Mr. Krajisnik and Ms. Plavsic?

23 A. It reached a point at which it would in itself as a report play a

24 role in the case, yes.

25 Q. Well, it plays a role in the case, Ms. Hanson, because you are

1 here and your report is before the Trial Chamber. But more specifically,

2 at the risk of repeating my question to you, the report was to be

3 specifically directed towards the case against Mr. Krajisnik and

4 Ms. Plavsic, wasn't it?

5 A. The report was -- when I -- knowing that I was writing a report

6 for court is different than writing, as we all do in the LRT, shorter

7 memos specifically responding to Prosecution requests about specific kinds

8 of evidence. This was intended to explicate Crisis Staffs for the benefit

9 of the Prosecution but also for the benefit of the wider court.

10 Q. Now, what do you mean, Ms. Hanson, when you say "for the benefit

11 of the wider court"?

12 A. I mean that I'm here -- I also write smaller, as I said, or carry

13 out smaller research assignments that assist the Prosecution, retrieving

14 various kinds of evidence, analysing documents, but they don't all reach

15 the level of this, of getting to court. They answer smaller questions as

16 well. And knowing that this was -- this was for the Court, I would say I

17 knew when I was writing it in this version that it was not just for the

18 Prosecution. It was to provide everyone with an understanding of Crisis

19 Staffs, not to argue the Prosecution's case.

20 Q. Let's -- I put it to you, Ms. Hanson, the -- your job and your

21 task is entirely consistent with your assisting the Prosecution and with

22 your -- of course in accordance with the solemn declaration you give

23 assisting the Trial Chamber to your honest best. That's -- both of those

24 bits are true, aren't they?

25 A. Yes, that's why I'm here.

1 Q. Ms. Hanson, it's a little -- I suggest a little disingenuous to

2 suggest, for example, that you're here to help and benefit the Defence.

3 You're not suggesting that surely, are you?

4 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I object to the form of the question.

5 That's argumentative.

6 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, it stems -- I'm sorry. It stems

7 directly from what the witness herself has said. It was to provide

8 everyone with an understanding of Crisis Staffs, and everyone includes the

9 Defence. So my question is trying to obtain a proper explication of that

10 witness's answer specifically given in this court.

11 JUDGE ORIE: You say everyone includes the Defence.

12 MR. STEWART: Well, it does as a matter of -- if you assert it in

13 those terms, of course it does, Your Honour. And what I'm putting to the

14 witness is precisely what I did put, that it's a -- I don't mean in the

15 least -- in the least bit offensively, Ms. Hanson, and please don't take

16 it that way, but --

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could you please specify. If you say here to

18 help and benefit the Defence, I take it to help and benefit the Defence in

19 understanding the functioning of the Crisis Staffs or in any other way to

20 help the Defence?

21 MR. STEWART:

22 Q. I'm suggesting, Your Honour, that what I'm putting to the witness

23 is this: That when Ms. Hanson says that it was to provide everyone with

24 an understanding of the Crisis Staffs not to argue the Prosecution's case,

25 I was putting to Ms. Hanson that the idea of course it may enhance

1 everybody's understanding somewhere that the idea that Ms. Hanson, that

2 part of the purpose was to help the Defence's understanding of the

3 position. That's just unreal.

4 A. I'm here to present the documents which cast light upon those

5 issues of the Crisis Staff. I would hope that the more information would

6 help everyone. I'm not saying that I'm -- I'm not here to argue anybody's

7 case. I'm presenting the documents as I understand them.

8 Q. Ms. Hanson, if we -- if we the Defence had asked to sit down and

9 interview you and go through your report with you, you would hardly have

10 agreed, would you?

11 A. It --

12 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, that calls for speculation on her part.

13 MR. STEWART: All right. I withdraw the question then if that's

14 too speculative.

15 Let's focus -- I don't really want to pursue this particular

16 specific line any more with respect, Your Honour.

17 Q. Let's get back to this. It's described as research report

18 prepared for the case of Krajisnik and Plavsic. Ms. Hanson, at some point

19 instructions were either given to you, weren't they, or it's clearly

20 understood by you that part of the purpose of this report was to explore

21 and present links and actions and involvement of Ms. Plavsic and

22 Mr. Krajisnik in relation to Crisis Staffs. That's right, isn't it?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And apart from any general exploration and research into Crisis

25 Staffs and apart from any research which would apply to anybody with any

1 involvement, you have included -- and that was part of the purpose of the

2 report, you have included matters where you believe you have found those

3 specific links between Ms. Plavsic and Mr. Krajisnik and the Crisis

4 Staffs?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. What -- not document by document, of course, there are hundreds of

7 footnotes anyway, Ms. Hanson, but by in first place description of

8 categories and sources, could you please summarise the sources of the

9 material on which you prepared your report?

10 A. For some Crisis Staffs we have minutes of meetings. Some of these

11 are very extensive collections. So I looked at minutes of Crisis Staffs.

12 I looked at other documents we have from Crisis Staffs to Crisis Staffs

13 about Crisis Staffs such as municipal Official Gazettes where we have

14 those, minutes of the -- minutes of the government, minutes of the

15 Presidency, Assembly minutes, intercepted conversations, then larger

16 collections of documents that were from -- from municipalities about

17 municipalities, and then a great many documents from the RS government

18 archives. And as I said, other documents were brought to my attention by

19 other people, so I would look at those and then relate it -- documents

20 related to those. So various kinds of collections, various kinds of

21 documents.

22 Q. If the first place, Ms. Hanson, and -- [B/C/S on English channel].

23 MR. STEWART: I suppose it was about time the English language got

24 its comeuppance, Your Honour.

25 THE WITNESS: Could you repeat the question. I was listening to

1 it in B/C/S but I'd prefer to hear it in English.

2 MR. STEWART:

3 Q. I will do my best in my language, Ms. Hanson. I was asking you in

4 the first place if you could give some estimate of the total amount, total

5 number of documents which were examined for the purpose of preparation of

6 your report.

7 A. The number would be in the thousands, but I couldn't say anything

8 more specific than that.

9 Q. Tens or hundreds?

10 A. Tens. Less -- ballpark figure, between 110.000 [sic] actual

11 pages, I would say, of some -- some -- you know, in reviewing a collection

12 I might glance at a document and say it's no use and move on, and in that

13 sense I would say it was thousands.

14 Q. I'm sorry, the transcript doesn't help you or anybody for the

15 moment there because it's come across as between 110.000 actual pages.

16 A. 1.000 and 10.000.

17 Q. Between 1.000 and 10.000?

18 A. I've been saying thousands. It's certainly more than a thousand.

19 So when I say thousands, I mean a couple thousand.

20 Q. Ms. Hanson, we must see vastly in excess of a thousand pages just

21 in the presentation binders let alone the master binders, don't we?

22 MR. HANNIS: I don't think it's clear when we're talking about

23 pages or documents.

24 JUDGE ORIE: When you're referring -- when you told us between 1

25 and 10.000, were you taking about pages or about documents?

1 MR. STEWART: I do accept that correction, Your Honour. I have

2 elided documents and pages. So.

3 JUDGE ORIE: I ask just to clarify that, and I see Ms. Hanson is

4 thinking.

5 THE WITNESS: To be honest, Your Honour, I wasn't counting. I

6 would say documents, but some documents are one page, some are more. I

7 didn't read many documents of hundreds of pages. So I would -- this is --

8 I'm not trying to be evasive, I simply don't tell you in any more precise

9 terms, but I would say it was in the thousands, both of pages and pretty

10 much that as of documents since many documents are one page.

11 MR. STEWART:

12 Q. Ms. Hanson, I'm not suggesting you're being evasive about it and

13 of course my not distinguishing documents and pages didn't help. I

14 acknowledge that.

15 Can we just try and quickly approach it a different way. Can you

16 form a rough estimate of the ratio between the material which is actually

17 presented -- is given to the Court in the master binders and the material

18 you looked at which has not found its way into master binders? Just as

19 best as you can do.

20 A. I would say maybe roughly 10 per cent.

21 Q. 10 per cent what?

22 A. Of the documents that I looked at and read as useful in some way,

23 not counting the ones I simply looked at and said irrelevant. But I would

24 say maybe 1 in 10 of documents that I read got here. Again, that's a

25 rough estimate.

1 Q. Ms. Hanson, that's helpful. Thank you. The -- well, the Trial

2 Chamber will decide whether they find it helpful. It's the answer to my

3 question.

4 JUDGE ORIE: May I seek a clarification. If you say 1 in 10 of

5 documents that I read got here, do you mean in the material presented to

6 us or in your thinking? You understand it?

7 THE WITNESS: Yes, yes. I would say of -- of the documents that I

8 actually read and got some information from, that I found relevant, that

9 contributed to my understanding of the Crisis Staffs, I would say roughly

10 1 in 10 of those was cited in my report or in my presentation. That's a

11 very rough impression I have sitting here, because for one municipality I

12 might have dozen -- hundreds of pages, and another municipality I might

13 have many fewer. So the -- the proportion wouldn't be the same all over.

14 And some documents will say the same thing in different ways. But of

15 documents that contributed to my understanding of the Crisis Staffs, as an

16 order of magnitude I would say about 1 in 10 was cited.

17 MR. STEWART:

18 Q. That's just a little bit -- I'd slightly avoided all, withdrawn

19 the verb presented because of the distinction between presentation binders

20 and master binders, so I had -- I had understood you to be saying that

21 when you say documents that got here, I'd understood that as meaning the

22 master binders. His Honour explored the matter further.

23 If it's 10 per cent which has contributed to your thinking and

24 been used, then of course it follows that the total is even more than if

25 the 10 per cent is what's in the master binders, isn't it?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Ms. Hanson, then, the -- when you say -- when you refer to

3 material that -- that you have looked at, and of course I want to make it

4 clear it's totally understood that some pieces of paper just get turned

5 over and put on one side, we all do that, but when you say that you have

6 done that, for these purposes that includes any members of the team to

7 whom you've delegated that task, does it?

8 A. I did not delegate tasks as such to other members of my team.

9 Other members of my team would review document collections and come across

10 documents for their own purposes, which they would then bring to my

11 attention, and I would look at those documents and others related to it,

12 but I would not -- did not tell members of my team, Go and find this for

13 me. Tell me about this or that. It was more they would -- they would

14 bring specific documents or collections that they thought would be

15 relevant to my attention.

16 Q. So when you had material for your own perusal, you would peruse it

17 yourself rather than pass it down the chain?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Was that because you felt that that was what, that the only

20 confident, reliable way of doing it?

21 A. Yes. I was writing the report so I would look at the documents

22 relevant to my report.

23 Q. What -- again it has to be -- well, I don't know whether it has to

24 be fairly rough. That rather depends on the record-keeping, Ms. Hanson.

25 What -- what would you assess or what can you tell the Trial

1 Chamber is the total number of hours that you've spent writing this

2 report?

3 A. As I said, I received the assignment in the spring of 2001, and

4 the report was finalised a year later. I did not work only on that report

5 in that year. I had many other taskings. But this was my largest

6 research project in that time.

7 Q. Does that mean that you spent more than half your time on it

8 during that year?

9 A. More than half, yes. I would -- I can't recall everything I did

10 that year, but that seems a fair assessment, yes.

11 Q. And can we take it that at least some significant part of the rest

12 of your time when you were -- all your time was spent on Crisis Staffs in

13 the broadest sense during that period, wasn't it?

14 A. No, no. I would answer questions on all kinds of -- kinds of

15 topics. Crisis Staffs was my main research, as I said, but I still had

16 other obligations as a member of the leadership research team and would

17 answer other kinds of questions.

18 Q. Would a fair summary be then that you say more than half your time

19 during that period was spent on this report? Would it be a fair

20 suggestion, then, that more than half of the rest of your time was spent

21 on Crisis Staffs?

22 A. No. I meant that more than half of my time was spent on Crisis

23 Staffs. Crisis Staffs and report as -- I see as the same thing, the --

24 this ongoing research that evolved -- this ongoing research into Crisis

25 Staffs that evolved into that report. That I would say would take up more

1 than half my time, but there were other matters on which I conducted

2 research.

3 Q. How many people were -- how many people were involved in the

4 writing of this report that work here in your department?

5 A. I wrote the report. The first few paragraphs I did rely on

6 material written by one colleague for another report, but I looked at the

7 documents involved and reached the same conclusions.

8 There were four or five other people in my section, as I said, to

9 whom -- who would bring documents to my attention, who would help me in my

10 understanding of some issues, but I -- I wrote the report. So you say

11 involved in the writing of the report. I work in a team but I talked to

12 other people. But in terms of the selection of -- pardon me. The

13 selection of documents and the conclusions reached, it is my work.

14 Q. Yes. The report that you mention, the report of one of your

15 colleagues, you said you relied upon the material written by one colleague

16 for another report, is that a publicly available report in the sense that

17 it has been presented to --

18 A. I believes it was presented in the ARK case, Brdjanin case. There

19 was another report by Mr. Treanor, a report by Mr. Treanor in that case.

20 Q. So it's Mr. Treanor you're referring to --

21 A. Well, --

22 Q. I'm just asking you to clarify it.

23 A. The passage involved was -- the paragraphs were written by another

24 colleague, Andrew Corin, on the background. The -- the -- if I could just

25 refer to the report.

1 Q. Well, I think it would be helpful if you could just give an

2 idea --

3 A. The legal origins --

4 Q. -- of which passages. You're not talking about the executive

5 summary. You're talking about the next section, the legal origins.

6 A. Correct, Paragraphs 5 through 8.

7 Q. Yes.

8 A. Yes, paragraphs 5 through 8. That report was like -- was similar

9 to Mr. Treanor's report in this -- in this case, and I -- I looked at -- I

10 used the research of a colleague in that passage, but as I said I looked

11 at the documents and reached the same conclusion. I didn't just cut and

12 paste and never look at the --

13 Q. So the very last sentence, then, at paragraph 8 in your report --

14 well, in fact one can -- or take the whole sentence. I'm really

15 particularly focusing on the bit from the semicolon. But the whole

16 sentence, five, six lines up: "The Crisis Staffs were entrusted by the

17 party to operate on their own initiative in accordance with the policies

18 and positions of the SDS until they were able to ensure the conditions for

19 the municipal organs of the new Bosnian state to function; however, they

20 were themselves in accordance with the policies and positions of the SDS

21 responsible to a considerable extent for the creation of the crisis

22 conditions and the collapse of the regular organs of municipal

23 government."

24 Was that sentence or any significant part of that sentence drawn

25 from that other report?

1 A. No. That was my sentence. I'm -- the part that I meant the --

2 was relying on the colleague's work was the more -- the legislature

3 involved in the other paragraphs.

4 Q. The legal stuff?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. That's not your field, Ms. Hanson.

7 A. The -- I could have written it, but because the work had been done

8 by a colleague, I didn't do it. But the legal stuff in terms of I can

9 look at a municipal statute or a constitution as well, and I did for other

10 aspects of my work. I'm simply saying I didn't bother to repeat the

11 research of that -- of those paragraphs because it had been done. As I

12 said, I looked at his sources. I could have written those paragraphs, but

13 I'm acknowledging that the original work had been done by someone else.

14 Q. Did -- just because anybody in -- any of the team that contributed

15 to this work on your report claim any firsthand knowledge of any of the

16 relevant events in, let's say, 1990, 1991, 1992 in Bosnia?

17 A. I believe one member of the team was in Bosnia at some point

18 during the war, but I'm not sure whether he was there as early as 1992.

19 He worked for a different organisation. So in that sense he has some

20 firsthand knowledge, but as I say, I don't think he was there as early as

21 1992.

22 Q. Does it follow therefore from the way you just put that that this

23 particular colleague didn't give you or didn't purport to give you for the

24 purpose of the writing of your report the benefit of any firsthand

25 knowledge which he might have had from Bosnia during that period?

1 A. Correct. He did not give me any such firsthand knowledge for --

2 for the writing of this -- for any of the -- anything relating to this

3 report. He did not.

4 Q. Is the -- is your report, therefore, based entirely on -- well,

5 I'll make it clear as a preface, Ms. Hanson. I'm going to ask you whether

6 it's based entirely on documents. Now, of course you've got something in

7 your brain when you start to read the documents, so let's take that as a

8 given, but so far as sources and information for the purposes of this

9 report is concerned, is it based entirely on research into documents?

10 A. Documents as understood in the larger sense of intercepted

11 telephone conversations as well.

12 Q. Ms. Hanson, yes, of course I --

13 A. Yes, yes, yes.

14 Q. -- will acknowledge and --

15 A. Yes. This document is based on the documents in that sense, yes.

16 Q. The -- and I think you've already indicated in evidence, but

17 perhaps confirm that you have not yourself been engaged in a study of the

18 broader context except so far as directly necessary for the purpose of

19 writing this report.

20 A. Could you explain what you mean by the broader context --

21 Q. I will give you an example. When you were asked about membership

22 and dates of the expanded Presidency, you -- you disclaimed knowledge of

23 that because that sort of issue you regarded, is this fair, as -- well,

24 for others, if you like, but not a necessary part of your work for these

25 purposes?

1 A. Not -- it is not a part of this report. It is certainly a

2 question that I could be expected to answer in the course of my daily work

3 as a member of the leadership research team in my office with all my notes

4 and sources available, but in -- here in the courtroom talking about

5 Crisis Staffs, I did not want -- couldn't speak with any confidence at

6 that moment about it. It's something that I could easily answer, as I

7 say, in my office with my other sources, but it's not my area of expertise

8 that I could speak with total confidence in the courtroom.

9 Q. Can we take it, Ms. Hanson, when we explore your report, which I

10 promise you we are going to do very soon, can we take it that there is no

11 significant supporting documentation for the propositions in your report

12 beyond what you draw attention to in the footnotes or -- and/or have

13 referred to specifically in your evidence already to this Trial Chamber?

14 A. There are many documents which support specific conclusions. I

15 made a selection for the footnote. For each footnote I would make a

16 selection of what I thought were the best examples, the most clear and

17 concise examples. There are many other documents which support in a

18 general way what I say but not in a way that can be usefully referenced to

19 a particular page or sentence or so.

20 Q. Ms. Hanson, with that you've actually answered my next question,

21 so we got two for the price of one, there.

22 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, that does actually conclude -- unless I

23 can think of anything wonderful over the break which Your Honours might be

24 about to take. That concludes that chapter, if you like, of my

25 cross-examination. So I would move on -- if this is a convenient point

1 for the break, I would move on to the substance of the report immediately

2 after the break.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think this would be a good moment then for

4 the break rather than to start for the next five minutes with your next

5 subject.

6 So we will adjourn until ten minutes to 11.00, and the Chamber is

7 looking forward to your wonderful thoughts.

8 --- Recess taken at 10.25 a.m.

9 --- On resuming at 10.55 a.m.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, please proceed.

11 MR. STEWART: Thank you, Your Honour.

12 Q. Ms. Hanson, may we -- you've got a copy of your report in front of

13 you, I take it. May we look, please, at paragraph 20. In the second

14 sentence you say that: "Municipal Crisis Staffs received orders from and

15 reported to the SDS leadership via the Main Board, the Bosnian Serb

16 Assembly, or personal approaches to Karadzic, Momcilo Krajisnik and

17 others."

18 Now, we can -- so we can break that up, can't we, into category 1

19 received orders, and category 2 -- received orders from -- and category 2,

20 reported to. That would be -- do you agree that would be a reason way of

21 breaking down your proposition there?

22 A. Yes. You can say -- you can put it that way.

23 Q. I was advising you of your agreement, but that is how I'm going to

24 do it.

25 So, Ms. Hanson, let's take -- let's take orders, then, first.

1 Crisis Staff received orders from the SDS leadership via various organs

2 and people.

3 You -- your footnote 24 here -- or your footnote is number 24, and

4 you give your examples of orders from the SDS central organs. And,

5 Ms. Hanson, can we take it that consistently with the approach which you

6 had indicated immediately before the break, you have looked for the

7 clearest and best - was your word - examples to illustrate the points in

8 the body of your report, haven't you?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. So may we look, then, at the first item, and the way I'm doing it,

11 Ms. Hanson, is so far as possible to take the presentation binders, it may

12 be occasionally that we're thrown onto the main binders, but that

13 document , it's the first footnote on page 9, SDS, the 19th December,

14 1991, instructions; letter by secretary of Executive Committee. And

15 that's presentation binder 2, tab 61. Now, I just want to be clear how

16 physically we're going to handle this because you don't have the

17 presentation binders in front of you, do you, Ms. Hanson?

18 A. I don't have them yet. May I clarify something?

19 Q. Yes, please.

20 A. It's a semicolon, so that I take as the first example the 19

21 December instructions, and then the letter by the secretary of the

22 Executive Committee is another item.

23 Q. Yes. Yes.

24 A. It looks like they were run together.

25 Q. Yes. The instructions themselves?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. We will come to those, but specifically the letter --

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. -- by secretary of Executive Committee. And that's at

5 presentation binder 2, number 61, tab 61. If at any time, Ms. Hanson, you

6 see immediately or if at any time it's not the right document, I'm sure

7 since it's your report you will inform the Trial Chamber and, please, me

8 straight away.

9 But this is the letter that's referred to in the footnote, isn't

10 it, letter by secretary of Executive Committee?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Agreed?

13 A. Yes. It's --

14 Q. So as -- this is in -- in its essentials, this is, if you like, a

15 high-level notification to the Crisis Staffs that they are going to be

16 replaced by War Commissions.

17 A. No. This is a letter to the presidents of three of the --

18 governments of three of the Serb autonomous regions that Crisis Staffs are

19 going to be replaced. It's the same information, but it's a question of

20 to whom it's addressed.

21 Q. Ms. Hanson, if I've got it clear what you're saying, you're saying

22 yes you agree with the proposition I put to you with -- put to you that

23 this is a notification that Crisis Staffs are going to be replaced by War

24 Commissions. We agreed on that?

25 A. Yes. But it's not two Crisis Staffs. That's how I took --

1 Q. Let's take it in stages, Ms. Hanson. You were agreed on that?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Right? Where you're differing with the way I put it is that

4 you're saying that it isn't in fact notification to the Crisis Staffs but

5 it's addressed as somebody else?

6 A. Addressed to the commissioners, people who are going to be

7 commissioners for the Crisis Staffs.

8 Q. So the only difference is that as a support for your proposition

9 in the text that municipal Crisis Staffs received orders, in this

10 particular instance the particular example which you have put in the

11 footnote here is not a direct receipt of orders by municipal Crisis

12 Staffs?

13 A. It is directed to the War Commissioners who are to work in the War

14 Presidencies. So as members of that body, it's directions to them.

15 Q. And well as notification of that change to the addressees, of

16 course, of this particular document, they are being told that they should

17 continue as War Commissioners to perform the duties set out in Article 4

18 of the decision.

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And that's it. I mean, it didn't -- in essence, this particular

21 document says no more than those two things, doesn't it?

22 A. There are other things to be read from this document, but --

23 relevant to this issue, yes.

24 Q. Ms. Hanson, I put to you one can't really read -- although there

25 are some details of days, one can't read into this document any more as

1 any sort of information or instruction than the two points that War

2 Commissions are going to replace Crisis Staffs and that the duties are

3 to -- to be to carry on performance of those set out in Article 4 of the

4 decision. Really --

5 A. Yes, yes. I simply -- I use this document for slightly other

6 information, but relevant to what you're talking about here, yes, that is

7 correct what it says there, yes.

8 Q. Right. And the next items you refer to in the footnote, SAOs,

9 24 February 1992 decisions. And this is a batch of items, isn't it, that

10 follows -- that follow in the next -- the next few sections? We can look

11 at 2, 63, tab 63. Is that -- is that one of those items or not?

12 A. Not presentation tab 63 that I see. I believe those decisions

13 were not in my presentation. So they'd be in the master binder.

14 Q. Is this the master binder available? Could that be available to

15 you, number 2. Yes, I think this is in fact an example of somewhere where

16 we have to switch to the master binder, not the presentation binder. So

17 that -- my apologies, that reference would there. So if you go to tab 62

18 in the master binder. Do you have that, Ms. Hanson?

19 A. Yes, we've found it. The binder's a little awkward.

20 Q. So 62 is dated 24 February, SDS Executive Board at its 8th Session

21 held on 6 February adopted the following, and the decision was that

22 Mr. Lukic, though we actually -- we all seem to be perfectly confident

23 that that's a typo or miswriting and that it should be the same person,

24 Rajko Djukic?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Which is mentioned on the bottom. It's a coincidence that he's

2 the person there.

3 The -- it's -- it's a notification of his appointments with a

4 summary of his tasks; correct?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And then 2, 63 is a very similar document, isn't it, relating to

7 of course a different person and a different SAO?

8 A. Tab 63.

9 Q. Yes.

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Yes, 63. Correct?

12 A. Correct.

13 Q. 64 doesn't really seem to be different from 63. Perhaps is there

14 some explanation?

15 A. Tab 63 I have the appointment of Radoslav Vukic, and on tab 64,

16 Vojo Krunic, and Radomir Neskovic. So it's a series of decisions.

17 Essentially the same decision but different names.

18 Q. Well, what's happened --

19 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, it may be I'm the unlucky one here.

20 What has happened is that I have the Vukic appointment twice in different

21 tabs in a slightly different form and I don't have the document that

22 you've just referred to.

23 Q. But it doesn't matter, perhaps, because, Ms. Hanson, even blind on

24 that particular point I'm simply inviting your confirmation that what is

25 at 64 is essentially -- it's the same type of document. It's the same

1 type of notification. It's the same type of appointment simply relating

2 to different people and a different place?

3 A. It is.

4 Q. Thank you.

5 A. I've put on the ELMO the original because I see the translation is

6 the same -- is a translation of another document but the original can show

7 you its different names.

8 Q. And then -- so the translation's the problem. There is a flaw in

9 the bundle as far as the translation is concerned?

10 A. Yes. Would you like me to read the original?

11 Q. Perhaps for the record if you -- not the whole thing I suggest,

12 Ms. Hanson, but perhaps if you just read those key introductory sentences

13 so that it is on the record as to what it is.

14 A. Just the only difference -- the sentence that is different from

15 the others is: "[Interpretation] The members of the Executive Committee

16 of the SDS of the BiH, Mr. Vojo Krunic, and Mr. Radomir Neskovic, shall be

17 designated as members, coordinators entrusted with coordination for SAO

18 Eastern Herzegovina."

19 [In English] So another difference is to which SAO they're

20 appointed.

21 Q. Thank you. So that's 60 -- or 65 is a similar document that

22 relates to Mr. Sarac and Mr. Djukic. The SAO or the SAO as I've learned

23 this morning is called in the business, Romanija?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Then 66. Again, would you prefer -- it's a corresponding document

1 relating to Mr. Jovanovic and Mr. Prijic, and they've been slightly

2 differently phrased in the English anyway. They were appointed

3 coordinators of the city -- it's not phrased differently. Coordinators of

4 the city of Sarajevo.

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Similar corresponding document; correct?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And then the last one in this batch at binder 67 relates to

9 Mr. Mihic and Mr. Babic, Mr. Slobodan Babic for the Northern Bosnia SAO or

10 SAO?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. So what we've got -- what we've got so far in your footnote, just

13 a checklist, what we've got so far as your examples of orders are the

14 19th December, 1991 instructions themselves?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Which we haven't dwelt on for the moment. The notification on the

17 31st of May, 1992, from the Executive Committee of the SDS that Crisis

18 Staffs are to be replaced by War Commissions, and that their duties are to

19 be Article 4 and so on, and then these -- this batch of appointments of

20 particular gentlemen in relation to particular places to this designated

21 role of coordinator?

22 A. Yes. And that they are -- one of their jobs is to involve

23 themselves in the work of the Crisis Staff.

24 Q. But -- well, Ms. Hanson, --

25 A. That is in the decisions there.

1 Q. Yes. Well, Ms. Hanson, would you probably agree if they weren't

2 going to do that there wouldn't be much value in their appointment at all,

3 would there?

4 A. I don't know what else -- there's indication of other jobs they

5 did, but I would just note that their job was -- one of the tasks assigned

6 was to be involved in the work of the Crisis Staff.

7 Q. So, Ms. Hanson, that's the -- that's the sum total of what you

8 have been able to present to the Trial Chamber as orders received from the

9 SDS leadership to municipal Crisis Staffs?

10 A. I also presented what I thought were relevant excerpts from

11 Assembly sessions and intercepted phone conversations in the presentation,

12 but those were not in my report.

13 Q. Yes. We'll come to -- we'll come to Assembly sessions, then, but

14 as far as -- and the other matter you mentioned, but so far as identified

15 orders sent, in some way addressed, in some way finding their way into the

16 hands of municipal Crisis Staffs directly or indirectly, this is the sum

17 total of what we see as orders from the SDS leadership?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. So do you agree not one of those relates to any specific action to

20 be taken by anybody in relation to the work of any Crisis Staff?

21 A. No. The 19 December instructions have steps to explicate what the

22 Crisis Staffs are to be.

23 Q. Let me make that clearer then. The 19 -- 19 December instructions

24 as you present them are a -- they're a general order applicable to all the

25 Crisis Staffs intended to be established in accordance with those

1 instructions.

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. The documents that we've just looked at involve appointments, a

4 reference to duties in general terms rather than in relation to any

5 specific contemplated action. Agreed?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. And they include, of course, notification of the specific

8 appointments that are mentioned in those documents. Agreed?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. None of them gives any order to any specific municipal Crisis

11 Staff to perform any specific action. Agreed?

12 A. Of those documents at this time, yes, that I agree.

13 Q. So we -- do we see anywhere here, leaving aside what you say about

14 the December 1991 instructions, but let's leave those aside for the

15 moment, do we see any order from the Main Board of the SDS?

16 A. Leaving aside the 19 December instructions, which are apparently

17 issued by the Main Board, no. Of the other documents that we have looked

18 at here, no.

19 Q. And as far as these documents are concerned, we clearly don't see

20 any, or do we, from the Bosnian Serb Assembly?

21 A. Of these documents, no.

22 Q. And we don't see any order coming from there Karadzic personally

23 or Mr. Krajisnik in any of these documents we've just looked at, do we?

24 A. In these documents we have looked at, no.

25 Q. So just -- although we won't explore that right now, but so far as

1 the Bosnian Serb Assembly is concerned, your position is this, Ms. Hanson,

2 is it, that such orders as came from the Bosnian Serb Assembly we can and

3 must read in the minutes of those Assembly sessions?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Is it correct, Ms. Hanson, that there is no written order that you

6 have been able to identify given to any municipal Crisis Staff by

7 Mr. Krajisnik?

8 A. No written orders, correct.

9 Q. Right. Let's -- let's look, then. That's orders, because I said

10 I would divide it up into orders and reports. So let's now consider

11 reports.

12 The -- and you have --

13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, if it would assist you, before you

14 started cross-examination on this point I already at paragraph 20 made a

15 note for myself: See sources in footnote 24. So you are extensively

16 dealing with it, which I do not mind, but if you would have put the last

17 question to the witness and if the answer would have been the same you

18 would have saved quite some time. So it was something that had already

19 attracted the attention of the Chamber.

20 Q. I'm sorry, Your Honour. I'm always grateful for any help from the

21 Trial Chamber. I'm not absolutely clear what it is Your Honour is

22 suggesting I might cut out there.

23 JUDGE ORIE: If I make a note, see the sources in footnote 24,

24 that is because it needs -- at least it came into my mind that the

25 footnote might not give the support one would wish for that portion of the

1 report.

2 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I'm grateful for that observation.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And then if -- under those circumstances, of

4 course you are dealing with a professional Bench, then the point is made

5 far more quickly than in front of a jury.

6 MR. STEWART: Indeed, Your Honours. And Your Honours are dealing

7 with a professional advocate who does appreciate the difference between a

8 jury and a professional Bench.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

10 MR. STEWART:

11 Q. Ms. Hanson, can we look at reports, then, because in fact the

12 distinction in presentation which I suggest is one you make yourself very

13 helpfully in the footnote, so you give examples of reporting to central

14 organs, and here if we look first at the telex from the SDS Crisis Staff

15 Bijeljina to, always a hard one that one, to SDS Main Board, that is in

16 presentation, or I hope it is, presentation binder 2 at tab 45.

17 And this is certainly on its face, Ms. Hanson, it is a report

18 addressed to the SDS Main Board. That's what it says there. And it is

19 certainly, at the foot, on its face sent from the or by the Crisis Staff

20 of Bijeljina. That's what it says.

21 It says, then, and I'm reading of course from the English at the

22 top: "Report on the situation as at 2000 hours on 1st of April, 1992."

23 And so on. "Inter-ethnic conflicts, signs possibly subsiding. A short

24 time ago the National Defence Council of the Bijeljina municipality held a

25 meeting at which the following conclusions were made."

1 Ms. Hanson, where does the -- please explain. Where does the

2 National Defence Council of the Bijeljina municipality fit in?

3 A. It was a municipal council consisting of, I believe, the president

4 of the municipality, the secretary -- the secretary of -- municipal

5 Secretariat for National Defence, probably the head of the municipal TO

6 staff, other figures. I could -- I could get some more details on it, but

7 it's an organ that existed all -- in the legislation of the Socialist

8 Republic of Bosnia. It's a -- I mean, there were provisions for this in

9 all municipalities, as far as I know, intended to discuss issues of

10 defence.

11 Q. So this is -- the National Defence Council, then, was not in any

12 sense, was it, a body established by the Bosnian Serb community?

13 A. In this sentence, it's not clear. As we know, according to the

14 19 December instructions, when the Serbs formed their Serbian

15 municipalities, they were to set up municipal organs. So it is possible

16 that a Serb municipality had its own Serb municipal National Defence

17 Council. At this time they just referred to it as the National Defence

18 Council of the Bijeljina municipality. So I would read that to mean of

19 the existing legal Bijeljina municipal government. So I would not take

20 that to be a specifically SDS body.

21 Q. And do you agree that that -- the contention that you just put

22 forward would be, if anything, supported by item 1, that the leaders of

23 the SDS and SDA shall address the citizens on Radio Bijeljina, and 3, that

24 ethnically mixed patrols shall be formed of members of the JNA and SGB?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. And -- well -- so the curfew, and His Honour Judge Hanoteau I

2 think asked a question specifically relating to item 2, and that means of

3 course that the curfew which is, on its face, isn't it applicable to all

4 citizens without distinction was decided upon by that body, the National

5 Defence Council?

6 A. That is what this report indicates.

7 Q. So accepting that on the face of this document it is in simple

8 terms a report by the Crisis Staff of Bijeljina to the SDS Main Board, in

9 fact all it does is report a decision of that other body altogether?

10 A. And at the bottom it simply also notes that they will remain on

11 the highest level of alert. They, the Crisis Staff, not the National

12 Defence Council, is how I read that last sentence.

13 Q. Then the next item in your footnote, Novo Sarajevo, is a -- what's

14 described as a special session -- sorry, I didn't give the reference.

15 Tab 46. That's presentation binder 2, tab 46. It's a special session of

16 the Municipal Board, SDS Novo Sarajevo out of the room of the municipality

17 Assembly, and the particular point to which you drew attention here

18 related to the last couple of paragraphs where Mr. Andric is making a

19 proposal. And then there's a -- there's a sort of mini debate going on,

20 isn't there, involving Mr. Lackanovic and Mr. Andric; correct?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And Mr. Lackanovic, my apologies to him in his absence if I'm not

23 pronouncing it right, but Mr. Lackanovic states his opinion that the first

24 item of the agenda should be discussed by the Assembly of the party. The

25 first item on the agenda -- first of all, we don't see an agenda, do we?

1 A. I think he's referring to the sentences right above there.

2 Andric's proposal for an agenda, because I don't see any other agenda.

3 Q. Yes. That's -- invite your confirmation. There is no separate

4 agenda. It is that proposed agenda coming from Mr. Andric. That's the

5 way you read it?

6 A. That seems the most logical reading there.

7 Q. And then Mr. Lackanovic's proposal that should be discussed by the

8 Assembly of the party. What do you -- what do you understand as being

9 meant by the Assembly of the party in Mr. Lackanovic's comments?

10 A. Because the Assembly in the next paragraph specifies Bosnian Serb

11 Assembly. Here I would take this to be most likely the Municipal Assembly

12 of the party. The SDS had at the municipal level -- it had a party board,

13 the Municipal Board, but there was also a Municipal Assembly of the

14 members of the party or representatives of the party membership at the

15 municipal level. It --

16 Q. The -- yes, I'm sorry, I interrupted you.

17 A. It says the Assembly of the party and the next sentence says the

18 Bosnian Serb Assembly. I think it's -- they seem to be making a

19 distinction so I would -- there, but it's not completely clear.

20 Q. Would you agree, the distinction between being made Mr. -- or the

21 essential distinction between Mr. Lackanovic's proposal and Mr. Andric's

22 proposal is that Mr. Lackanovic is saying that the matter should be

23 discussed at the local level or the municipal level, and Mr. Andric is

24 saying no, it -- the work should be discussed at the national level or the

25 republic level?

1 A. Well, I think what they're doing here is dividing in two the

2 problems contained in 1, problems within the party and the responsibility

3 of the president, and Andric is making a distinction that the Municipal

4 Board can discuss the problems of the president, Mr. Prijic. But as far

5 as the work of the Crisis Staff, that is a matter for the republic level

6 Assembly.

7 Q. Ms. Hanson, I don't think there's any dispute between us. If we

8 park on one side the issue of the discussion of the work of the president,

9 Mr. Lackanovic is also suggesting that the Crisis Staff work should be

10 discussed at the municipal -- at the municipal level, isn't he?

11 A. No. Mr. Dobrilovic is.

12 Q. I beg your pardon?

13 A. In that sentence.

14 Q. I'm so sorry. I beg your pardon. Mr. Dobrilovic comes into the

15 conversation. I'm so sorry. Yes, Mr. Dobrilovic makes that -- in that

16 paragraph he makes that suggestion. Quite right. He makes that

17 suggestion. It's discussed at the local level by the Assembly party, and

18 Mr. Andric is saying no, it should be discussed at -- what do they call

19 it, the national level.

20 A. Yes. I read this as an indication -- the time between the Crisis

21 Staff and the Assembly level -- the national level. That's why I -- yes.

22 Q. And when Mr. Andric refers to the Bosnian Serb Assembly having

23 formed the Crisis Staff, he's actually wrong, isn't he, about that?

24 A. He's wrong in the extent that the 19 December instructions were

25 apparently issued by the Main Board. We also see in Prijedor a reference

1 to materials received from the Assembly that clearly are the 19 -- judging

2 from the content, the 19 December instructions. So I have seen, not just

3 here, some confusion on the -- where these instructions came from. As I

4 said, there was a meeting of the Assembly on the 21st of December which

5 may go to help to account for the confusion.

6 Q. As you've indicated yourself, Ms. Hanson, it's not unusual to find

7 confusion about legal, political structures, terminology, who is in charge

8 of whom, who reports to whom. That's not at all unusual in everything you

9 have examined, is it?

10 A. I have seen imprecision in the use of terms especially when the

11 municipal level is referring to bodies at the republican level. As we

12 saw, Deronjic refers to the Presidency of the SDS, and I don't believe

13 there is such a body seen elsewhere in the SDS at the national level. So

14 I assume precision, and it appears to be a reflection of either imprecise

15 knowledge or general impression of the leadership is these bodies, and

16 they -- that's where things come from but not precise about which precise

17 body issued it.

18 Q. So -- but this is your first example in your footnote of a report

19 by a Crisis Staff to an SDS central organ, isn't it?

20 A. Well, the second, I believe, because Bijeljina was the first.

21 Q. I'm sorry, it's the second. The second, yes. Agreed?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. But, Ms. Hanson, it's not a report to an SDS central organ by a

24 Crisis Staff, is it?

25 A. No. It's an indication of an expectation.

1 Q. So it is not an example. It doesn't fit the footnote. It is not

2 correctly an example of what it purports to be at all, is it?

3 A. It is not an example of actual reporting here.

4 Q. Let's then turn on, please, to tab 71. It's conveniently in the

5 same binder. Oh, I'm sorry. It is a switch to the master binder. We

6 have to switch to the master binder on this one. It's master binder 2,

7 tab 71.

8 Do you have that, Ms. Hanson?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. This is described in your report as the SDS Crisis Staff sending

11 an appeal to Krajisnik and Karadzic, among others, to help resolve the

12 particular crisis there mentioned.

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Now, the document, and of course I'm working from the English, but

15 I think you worked from the original B/C/S version, Ms. Hanson, the

16 document is headed underneath the fax number and all that sort of

17 stuff, "Serbian Democratic Party of Bosnia-Herzegovina Municipal Board of

18 Zivinice." So on the face of it it's from the Municipal Board; correct?

19 A. Yes. It's signed by the president of the SDS Municipal Board.

20 Q. Yes. And it is addressed not by name but of course it shows on

21 its face that it's addressed among others -- to among others, the

22 president of the Serb Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and there is no

23 dispute that that was Mr. Krajisnik at the time, but for what reason do

24 you describe it in your footnote as the SDS Crisis Staff sending an appeal

25 to Mr. Krajisnik and Mr. Karadzic -- or Dr. Karadzic, among others?

1 A. If I could quickly look at the second page. Well, as I said, it's

2 signed by the president of the SDS, and he says that leaders of the

3 SDS have formed a Crisis Staff. He says that on the first page. In order

4 to negotiate with the authorities. And they describe the course of the

5 negotiations, and they talk about what needs to be done to solve this

6 problem.

7 Perhaps an appeal is too strong, but it is a report on the

8 negotiations and a request for some actions to resolve it. And since as

9 we know according to the 19 December instructions the president of the SDS

10 Municipal Board would be on the Crisis Staff, and it says that the leaders

11 of the SDS have formed a Crisis Staff, I think that a reasonable

12 conclusion that he is -- that Djuro Mihic is on this Crisis Staff that he

13 describes.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, you said that you referred to tab 71 of

15 the master binder. What would that be in the presentation binder, if at

16 all?

17 MR. STEWART: I don't think it was there, Your Honour.

18 MR. HANNIS: It did not have a separate presentation, Your Honour.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

20 MR. STEWART: Yes.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Could in general terms would it be possible to link

22 footnotes to the -- to the master binder, because it's beautiful if once

23 you've found the document in the master binder that you see to what

24 footnote it refers, but very often the Chamber would look at the report,

25 would like to check the footnotes and the sources mentioned therein but is

1 unable to find it -- or have I overlooked something, Mr. Hannis?

2 MR. HANNIS: No, Your Honour. I don't think we have -- we have

3 that document before you. I think that's something we could create. We

4 created our presentation spreadsheet which has references to both the

5 presentation tab and the master tab numbers, but that does not include the

6 items that are only in the master binders. But I think that's a document

7 that we could easily create for you.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Of course the logical order for a Chamber is

9 not to start to check the sources but first to start reading the report,

10 and it's really difficult to --

11 MR. HANNIS: We do have a set of the master binders here, Your

12 Honour, but there's only one set.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Well, that's not at this moment my main problem

14 because we -- but especially for working for us it would be far more

15 convenient if we would have the sources related to whether it's master

16 binder or presentation binder or --

17 MR. HANNIS: If I understand correctly, Your Honour, what would be

18 most helpful for you is a document that contained a cross-reference

19 between each footnote and where it appears in the master binders.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Exactly. Exactly.

21 MR. HANNIS: We will provide that to you as soon as we can.

22 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, we're grateful for that response

23 from Mr. Hannis. Can I say, Your Honour, we do have a number of

24 suggestions but now is not the time to make them in light of experience of

25 this witness and this evidence. The Defence has a number of practical

1 suggestions that we will communicate to the Trial Chamber for whatever

2 help they might possibly be.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Perhaps you'll first discuss them with the

4 Prosecution and see whether you, together, could come to any practical

5 solutions, and then the Chamber would be glad to receive them.

6 MR. STEWART: We certainly will do that, Your Honour, because they

7 would best involve a degree of cooperation and coordination between us, so

8 we will certainly do that.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.

10 MR. STEWART: The -- Your Honour, can I just say, for purposes of

11 my cross-examination, I have prepared on the basis that where something is

12 in the presentation binders, that's the reference I have used, partly,

13 Your Honour, for the sheer physical convenience that there are fewer of

14 the presentation binders. The master binder use would involve far more

15 documents being carried backwards and forwards and carried across court

16 and so on. That's the reason I have done it, Your Honour. It is really a

17 bit late for me to undo that.

18 JUDGE ORIE: No, that's excellent because we have -- at least I

19 took some of the presentation binders with me because they're easier to

20 carry.

21 MR. STEWART: -- there's simply more. We all find the same there,

22 Your Honour. Therefore, what I've done - and I don't claim a hundred per

23 cent perfection on this; I don't think I usually do - but it's only where

24 there isn't a presentation binder reference that I go to the master binder

25 reference. That's my system anyway.

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

2 MR. STEWART: That's the best I can do, so ...

3 Q. Anyway, here we are at master binder 2, 71, still, and,

4 Ms. Hanson, after that little discussion among the Judges and lawyers, you

5 were suggesting, I think - it's gone off the screen now - but it was a

6 reasonable conclusion that a Crisis Staff had been formed, and the

7 implication of what you were saying was this, wasn't it, that it was a

8 Crisis Staff of the nature that has been under discussion in the course of

9 your evidence and referred to in your report?

10 A. It's an indication of an SDS Crisis Staff.

11 Q. Well, what I suggest to you, Ms. Hanson, is that it is clearly a

12 different animal; that although it is described, in inverted commas, as

13 "Crisis Staff" in the translation, and although it is apparently formed

14 by the SDS heads of Zivinice, it is a different animal from the Crisis

15 Staffs that we have been considering and which you have described in the

16 course of your evidence.

17 A. The tasks it deals with here are not tasks explicitly set out in

18 the 19 December instructions, but Zivinice was a Serb minority, that is,

19 Variant B municipality, and in the 19 December instructions, they say that

20 Crisis Staffs there are to monitor the situation, adapt to circumstances

21 and react, and this could be an example of a Crisis Staff reacting to a

22 newly arisen situation on the ground.

23 Q. Well, what I suggest to you, Ms. Hanson, is that there's a

24 clear -- there's a clear unwarranted leap that you're making there, which

25 is, because this particular type of Crisis Staff here is undertaking a

1 task which is in the -- within the broad remit of a Crisis Staff proper,

2 you're jumping to and unwarranted conclusion that this Crisis Staff being

3 referred to is that kind of animal. And that's wrong, isn't it?

4 A. It is an SDS Crisis Staff. It's doing things that are not

5 directly linked to the 19 December instructions. I see no indication in

6 any other evidence that the SDS at the municipal level had more than one

7 kind of Crisis Staff. This document does say that a Crisis Staff was

8 formed to deal -- to negotiate with the authorities, and this document is

9 dated February.

10 Q. Ms. Hanson, this is one of those situations. It's like when a

11 government's got a problem, they set up a working party. Well, perhaps

12 that's not the analogy because that's set up to avoid doing something.

13 But it's a specific body set up to deal with the specific problem, ad hoc,

14 here, immediately. This actual matter is to be sorted out by this "Crisis

15 Staff" and that's its task.

16 A. Yes, but this is -- I would just -- that is true, but this is

17 specifically an SDS Crisis Staff, not a government thing. But yes, yes,

18 the Crisis Staff, as reporting here to the president of the SDS and to the

19 president of the Serbian Assembly, is dealing with these tasks -- seems to

20 be dealing with these tasks mentioned here.

21 Q. And at the very least, because perhaps there will be some other

22 evidence on this, Ms. Hanson, but on what you can read here and what you

23 can see, at the very least, will you accept this: That one cannot

24 reliably draw from this document that this Crisis Staff here was the type

25 of Crisis Staff that we've been talking about throughout in accordance

1 with, according to your evidence, the December 1991 instructions?

2 A. That is correct. We cannot read that from this document alone.

3 Q. You've referred to Zivinice as a Serb minority municipality. Do

4 you know what happened so far as control of Zivinice was concerned

5 throughout the period of war?

6 A. I believe that it remained -- that it was under the Bosnian Muslim

7 -- control of the Bosnian Muslim side.

8 Q. Yes. Well, that's what I've put to you.

9 A. That's my understanding.

10 Q. It was, always was, and always remained throughout the war under

11 Bosnian Muslim control.

12 A. That's my understanding, yes.

13 JUDGE ORIE: May I ask you one additional question, Ms. Hanson, in

14 respect of this? We see the word "Crisis Staff", and we see that it was

15 immediately formed at a moment where an incident -- or at least an

16 incident took place. Is it conceivable that this was a retarded follow-up

17 of the instructions where a Crisis Staff might not have been formed right

18 away, as perhaps it should have done under the 19 December instructions,

19 but that the incident reminded those who were in a position to form a

20 Crisis Staff that the incident was the trigger to do what they should have

21 done already before.

22 THE WITNESS: Yes, I think that's a reasonable conclusion. It's

23 not immediate -- there is no reference, as I said, in this document to the

24 19 December instructions, but it's a possible conclusion from that, yes.

25 JUDGE ORIE: I was just asking whether it was conceivable, but --

1 THE WITNESS: Yes.

2 JUDGE ORIE: And would, then, the Crisis Staff be of the same kind

3 as the others but formed at a -- well, at a little bit odd moment where

4 the SDS heads were summoned to the side, which is usually not the place

5 where you take these kinds of decisions, but would that -- I mean, I'd

6 like to hear your opinion on whether that Crisis Staff, then, finally

7 would be, by its nature, different from the other Crisis Staffs you

8 discuss in your report.

9 THE WITNESS: Given the make-up of the Crisis Staff as laid out in

10 the 19 December instructions, that it would be local party leadership,

11 that is, president, vice-president, people in the municipality who hold

12 positions such as in the police, in the TO - pardon me - but also members

13 of the Assembly and the Main Board, some of those people, reading what

14 this Crisis Staff is doing, it seems that some of the membership would be

15 the same. But whether these same people would continue to meet as such

16 and carry out the tasks of the 19 December instructions, there's no

17 evidence of that in this document. It seems that many of the same people

18 would be on such a Crisis Staff, but it's just because they talk about --

19 discussing -- appointing a commander of the public security station, talk

20 about having the JNA open a checkpoint. We know the Crisis Staff -- or

21 the December 19 instructions also discussed appointing someone to

22 coordinate with the SDA and HDZ, and they mentioned some coordination with

23 that. It seems like there would be many of the same people but there is

24 not enough in this document to say that it would then continue to operate

25 as per the 19 December instructions.

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So there are still some doubts.

2 THE WITNESS: Yes.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Stewart.

4 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] I still have a question, madam,

5 if you will allow me.

6 I would like you to explain what you I wrote in the footnote on

7 page 9. Zivinice, February 1992, the SDS Crisis Staff sent an appeal to

8 Krajisnik and Karadzic among others to help resolve the crisis, et cetera.

9 So far I have not understood what this means, and I have seen no

10 illustration of the said appeal.

11 THE WITNESS: You do not see it as an appeal, just simply --

12 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps we could have a look at the translation as a

13 whole, because we are now limited to just the part which is on the ...

14 THE WITNESS: Yes. As I read it now, I see that -- I agree that

15 over -- appeal is overstating. It's information about what's going on

16 because they discuss problems with the negotiations and they're addressing

17 it to a number of people. I -- I would say it's an appeal in the sense

18 that they're addressing the people and some of the commanders of some of

19 the organs involved, they're discussing a crisis, but I do not -- I

20 agree -- or I do not see that it -- it is a direct appeal as such. It's

21 described as a report, and it's describing some of the problems in the

22 negotiations.

23 A reasonable interpretation would be that it would -- because

24 they're addressing the commands of some of these people, requesting their

25 assistance, but it's not -- it's not as such -- appeal perhaps was not a

1 good word.

2 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Excuse me. Do they request their

3 attention or do they request their assistance or are they attracting their

4 attention?

5 THE WITNESS: In the paragraph the citizens --

6 JUDGE ORIE: Would it be first -- could we have a hard copy of

7 this document in front of us, because I have difficulty from -- yes.

8 MR. STEWART: Your Honours, I wonder whether -- whether I might,

9 and adopting and incorporating Judge Hanoteau's question entirely, I

10 wonder if I might pursue this matter in an attempt to clear it all up as

11 quickly as I can? I promise I'm intending to incorporate Judge Hanoteau's

12 question completely.

13 JUDGE HANOTEAU: Thank you.

14 MR. STEWART: If I break my promise, His Honour will no doubt

15 revert to the question.

16 JUDGE HANOTEAU: I will tell you.

17 MR. STEWART:

18 Q. It is this, Ms. Hanson: I put it to you that what actually

19 happened, as we see here, is that -- and we need to just look a little bit

20 at the account here. What kicked all this problem off was a search of

21 homes of Serb villagers. That's -- we see that in the second paragraph;

22 right? That was the problem.

23 A. Well, the search of Serb homes inspired the Serbs to block the

24 highway.

25 Q. Stay with me, Ms. Hanson, because I think what I just put to you

1 is correct. It started with a search of the homes of the Serb villagers.

2 Agreed?

3 A. It being --

4 Q. The whole issue?

5 A. The barricades.

6 Q. This problem. This piece of paper stems from what started it all

7 off, whatever the causes way back in history to --

8 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Hanson, it reads the immediate motive for such

9 a --

10 THE WITNESS: Yes, yes, search of homes. But I am saying this is

11 a -- it's a report on the barricades.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart will come to that --

13 THE WITNESS: Yes, yes. The search of homes --

14 JUDGE ORIE: -- if you answer first his question. So the origin

15 was the search of homes.

16 THE WITNESS: Yes.

17 MR. STEWART:

18 Q. No doubt it all started in the fifteenth century but I'm going to

19 take it from this date here. It started with a search of the homes of

20 Serb villagers. In response to that or as a reaction to that, the Serb

21 citizens then blocked the road?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. That's what happened next?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Right?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And that was in very colloquial, everyday terms, a crisis.

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Right. So the SDS heads of Zivinice were summoned to the site.

5 In other words, they got news pretty quickly that there was a problem.

6 It's not a huge place.

7 A. Right.

8 Q. News travelled. They went there to try to work it out, as they

9 say, to prevent things from getting out of role?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Right?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. The citizens set the following conditions, one, two, three, four

14 and so on. The citizens were the Serbs who were upset and concerned.

15 Perhaps there were Muslims as well, but whatever. The citizens were the

16 people who were directly affected and concerned with this incident?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Correct? They in their discussions -- there is apparent, isn't

19 it? They in their discussions with these SDS heads who had been summoned

20 to the site and went out there, they were saying, These are our conditions

21 to lift the block of the road. So it was the Serbs clearly because they

22 said, We'll lift the block of the road if you'll do the following, one,

23 two, three, four?

24 A. Yes, that's here.

25 Q. Okay. Then over the page. The Crisis Staff, right?

1 A. Uh-huh.

2 Q. Ms. Hanson, we can agree that whatever it means, it's the same

3 Crisis Staff at the top of page 2 of the English translation as we have

4 been referring to in inverted commas earlier?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. We've agreed about that. They had first negotiations that didn't

7 result in deblocking. Now, the citizens -- so that's the same people

8 supposedly broadly who have been setting conditions, negotiating about

9 lifting the block, the citizens asked for republican government members to

10 come out and they, according to this, sent letter to the Crisis Staff,

11 Ejub Ganic; right? To the BH Assembly, Mr. Krajisnik?

12 A. Uh-huh.

13 Q. To the government of Serb Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, MUP,

14 Tusico [phoen], et cetera, et cetera. So they were doing what citizens

15 often do to in that situation. They were scatter-gunning or making sure

16 that they sent their complaint to as many people as possible who might

17 sort it out; correct?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And then the citizens have requested someone from the SDS

20 leadership and from the Serb Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina to address

21 them; correct?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. So if there was an appeal by anybody, it was really an appeal by

24 those citizens, wasn't it?

25 A. It was an appeal by those Serbs and --

1 Q. There were. Serbs what do you mean by --

2 A. Yes, Serb citizens. Whether there was a separate appeal or

3 whether this -- and/or whether this letter is part of that appeal because

4 it is addressed to some of the people mentioned, they may have sent a

5 separate appeal or this may be also channeling that appeal.

6 Q. Well, Ms. Hanson, let's look at it. After all, it's very much the

7 thesis of your report that documents mean what they say. It's -- it's

8 really clear, isn't it? It says they sent a letter to the Crisis Staff.

9 It's not a very happy reading of this document that this document is

10 itself that letter, is it?

11 A. I'd like to go back to your first comment, documents mean what

12 they say they do. In reading any document, you have to take into account

13 the context and understand that sometimes documents are written for

14 self-serving purposes. I'm not saying it about this document as well, but

15 I don't want to say that as a blanket statement for every document that I

16 look at that they are to be taken exclusively on face value. In this

17 case, I'm quite happy to look at this document in that way.

18 Q. Ms. Hanson, there isn't going to be dispute between us about that

19 principle.

20 A. Okay.

21 Q. We can no doubt, can't we agree, about the principle that you read

22 every document with common sense in the light of what you know about the

23 context?

24 A. Right.

25 Q. You agree about that. Reading this one, though, but starting --

1 do you agree, starting with at least the presumption that it means what it

2 says. That's where you normally start, don't you?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Right. So it looks from that paragraph, because that's what it

5 says, unless there's something to the contrary, it looks as if a letter

6 had been sent by those Serb citizens to all those people --

7 A. Yes. Yes. To all those people, yes.

8 Q. And in fact, there's an indication, a clear indication that it was

9 a separate document because it records the letter as having been sent to

10 the Crisis Staff, Ejub Ganic; correct?

11 A. That I would take as a reference to the Crisis Staff of the

12 Bosnian government at the republican level. Ejub Ganic was -- I don't

13 know his specific position, but he was a member of the Bosnian government

14 at the time. A different Crisis Staff.

15 Q. Correct, Ms. Hanson, correct. But the point is that this document

16 is not addressed to the Crisis Staff?

17 A. Oh, I see what you mean. Yes, yes, yes.

18 Q. So it's clear that there was a separate document?

19 A. Yes. And I had not read that sentence at this time clearly enough

20 when I made my earlier statement about this could be the request. It is

21 clearly not. There is clearly a different letter involved, yes. I agree

22 to that.

23 Q. And I hope -- I hope Judge Hanoteau will fell that his question

24 has been answered if I put this to you: So far as there was an appeal, it

25 was essentially, in the first place, an appeal by those citizens. Ms.

1 Hanson, I can put it to you and accept that, to a degree, it's reinforced

2 by a document in this form that we see going to largely the same batch of

3 addressees?

4 A. Yes, a letter to the same addressees discussing the problems,

5 reporting on the problems.

6 Q. But going back to your response to His Honour Judge Orie's

7 question, where he put it to you, and Judge Orie phrased it very

8 carefully, as always, and put it to you that it was conceivable that this

9 was a belated - I'm not sure whether that was the exact word, but that was

10 the sense - it was conceivable that this was a belated establishment of a

11 Crisis Staff on the footing that, and I slightly paraphrase, on the

12 footing that these people thought, Oh, ah, we failed to get round to

13 setting up a Crisis Staff, and then they meet a situation, it reminds

14 them, and they do set up a Crisis Staff. And Judge Orie put it to you,

15 was it conceivable. You then said that was a reasonable conclusion, and

16 His Honour Judge Orie rather reminded you that he only asked if you it was

17 conceivable. And so we were trying to get clear whether you were saying

18 that was your conclusion or whether it was a conceivable conclusion.

19 So I am, with all that preamble, because it was a few minutes ago,

20 going to ask you, Are you saying that in response to that possibility that

21 was floated by Judge Orie as a testing question, are you saying that that

22 was a conceivable position, or are you saying that your assessment is it

23 was the probable situation?

24 A. I had forgotten the first word that Judge Orie used. I would say

25 it was a conceivable interpretation here.

1 Q. Is there any -- well, I have to press you. What is -- apart from

2 the use of the phrase "Crisis Staff," what is there to support that

3 conception, I suppose must be the right word?

4 A. It is a Crisis Staff formed by the leaders of the municipal SDS.

5 It is a letter from the president of the SDS to the people mentioned,

6 including the SDS leadership. At a minimum, it is a Crisis Staff of the

7 Municipal Board of the SDS.

8 Q. Well, Ms. Hanson, since, inevitably, your answer in response to

9 His Honour's question dealing with conceivability, must contain an element

10 of speculation, I would invite you to suggest, if that were what happened,

11 or if it had been what happened, does it seem likely to you that Mr. Milic

12 would have signed this document as the president of the SDS Zivinice

13 instead of signing it as the president of the Crisis Staff?

14 A. I don't know how to answer that without speculating, but I would

15 just add that I have seen no other instructions from the SDS leadership to

16 -- about Crisis Staffs -- about forming Crisis Staffs different from the

17 19 December instructions. I don't see the SDS saying, Here's one set of

18 instructions for these kind of Crisis Staffs, and here's instructions for

19 a different kind.

20 Q. Ms. Hanson, I'm not making it clear. That's a different point,

21 really.

22 A. If you could repeat the question about Mr. Milic.

23 Q. I will. I'll put the point to you more explicitly, Ms. Hanson.

24 If, and this is a hypothesis, after all, in response to your

25 response -- based on your response to Judge Orie's questions, if it was a

1 belated formation of the Crisis Staff in accordance with the instructions

2 in December 1991, and the hypothesis is based on the footing that this was

3 the SDS leaders in Zivinice realising that they hadn't got round to doing

4 what they should have done before, so they're establishing the Crisis

5 Staff towards the end of February, which they were supposed to have

6 established in December, then one obvious step that Mr. Milic would have

7 taken would have been to call his document a document coming from the

8 Crisis Staff, to have signed himself as the president, assuming he had

9 become the president, to have signed himself always the president of the

10 Crisis Staff, and to thereby conveyed, admittedly in a slightly cosmetic,

11 defensive way, but thereby conveyed the fact that yes, a Crisis Staff has

12 been formed.

13 A. In February when this was written, the Crisis Staffs of the SDS

14 were still essentially purely party organs. They had not yet assumed a

15 public role, and this document is addressed, amongst others, to ministers

16 in the Bosnian government and the head of the police, the Tuzla Corps. As

17 we saw, those -- the role of the Crisis Staff at this time was still not

18 open, especially in regard to Bosnian government ministries or the JNA.

19 Q. Well, Ms. Hanson, with respect, you can't have it both ways. The

20 -- you're quite right. The dissemination of this document includes,

21 doesn't it, apart from anything else, quite a few Muslims in positions of

22 authority?

23 A. I don't know offhand who were the presidents of the Municipal

24 Assembly of Zivinice were or the police. But yes, it is a reasonable

25 thing. It is going far beyond the SDS and going to open public organs of

1 the Bosnian state. So there are very likely some Muslims, including Ejub

2 Ganic, as mentioned.

3 Q. I haven't checked, but a municipality such as Zivinice was a

4 Muslim municipality --

5 A. Yes, I would expect.

6 Q. The chances of all these people being served so that --

7 A. No, no, no. It's clearly not intended for -- yes, I'm sorry for

8 speaking over you.

9 Q. No, my fault.

10 A. Because we're actually agreeing. Yes, it's not limited to SDS.

11 It's for public consumption. It is addressed to people who are quite

12 likely Bosnian Muslims.

13 Q. So, Ms. Hanson, it's even less likely, then, that the Crisis Staff

14 referred to in this document is that Crisis Staff of the type which had

15 not become public, isn't it?

16 A. It is not informing the wider public here what kind of Crisis

17 Staff it is. It put "Crisis Staff" in quotation marks. It is clearly a

18 Crisis Staff of the Municipal Board of the SDS, but it is addressing an

19 audience far beyond the SDS leadership.

20 Q. You see, I must put it to you, Ms. Hanson, your defence, not a

21 complete defence in the end, but your defence of the possibility that this

22 is a Crisis Staff proper - you understand what we mean by that, a December

23 1991 instructions type of Crisis Staff - is leading to a rather

24 far-fetched position, which is that in a document of this nature, in

25 response to a particular incident, widely disseminated to Serb and Muslim

1 communities, the people in authority, Mr. Milic has, in some sort of

2 slightly coded way, sought to communicate to the SDS leadership that yes,

3 they have formed a Crisis Staff, but at the same time has, in a slightly

4 disguised way, allowed that to be communicated to the Muslim community.

5 That's a fantastic conclusion to reach, isn't it, from a practical

6 everyday, common-sense point of view, Ms. Hanson?

7 A. I can only repeat what I say in the footnote is borne out in this

8 document, that it's a municipal -- SDS Municipal Board -- Crisis Staff of

9 the SDS. Who is trying to talk to whom or convey what it's -- I do not

10 think this document was written expressly to convey, in code or otherwise,

11 information about the formation of a 19 December style Crisis Staff.

12 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I'm proposing to move on from this

13 because one day perhaps somebody will come and give evidence about what

14 really happened in Zivinice, but who knows.

15 Q. Ms. Hanson, let's move on, then, please, to a different matter

16 altogether. And it's the text which is linked to footnote 63. So we find

17 this in paragraph 43 of your report. You say: "The Crisis Staffs --" you

18 say: "The Crisis Staffs reported to central state organs of the Republika

19 Srpska, including the Presidency, the --" I say Republika Srpska; you

20 describe it as RS. That's a compendious term to cover the whole period,

21 isn't it --

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. -- regardless of the exact nomenclature?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. "The Crisis Staffs reported to central state organs of the RS,

1 including the Presidency, the Assembly, and various Ministries ..." And

2 at this point, I just want to ask you about one of those, because I'm not

3 going to keep grinding through every footnote item by item. I assure Your

4 Honours and Ms. Hanson I'm not going to do that, but let's take the

5 Stari Grad example that you give which is over the page. Of course you're

6 very helpful, you put it in alphabetical order so we find that easily.

7 "The Crisis Staff centre requests to RS Ministry of Justice." You see

8 that one?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. I find that only in the master binder.

11 A. Yes. I did not have that in the presentation.

12 Q. And it's in master binder 4 at tab 192. The -- this actually has

13 two -- sorry, Ms. Hanson. Are you --

14 A. Yes, I'm just looking at this.

15 Q. You're there with this document?

16 A. Uh-huh.

17 Q. Just to recap very briefly what it is. It is -- on its face it

18 does come from the president of Crisis Staff of Stari Grad,

19 Mr. Krsmanovic, and it is addressed to the government of Republika Srpska

20 MUP and Ministry of Justice, but you identify the Ministry of Justice in

21 effect as the primary addressee; is that right?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. And Ms. Hanson I'm not quarreling with that because it is -- the

24 main point here is it is to request to start investigation proceedings

25 against Mr. Delic, isn't it?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And it is for some corruption?

3 A. Apparently, yes, that's what they're talking about.

4 Q. But they're alleging criminal corruption?

5 A. The alienation of people's property and disintegration of a

6 company.

7 Q. And then as a sort of an addendum but the last item linked to this

8 there is piece of information that they have appointed Mr. Cecur as deputy

9 manager of the same company.

10 A. The translation says deputy. The original says VD, which is

11 usually "vrsilac duznosti," acting [In English], which I would take to be

12 acting president.

13 Q. So in fact what they have done is they have -- in a sense they

14 have appointed Mr. Cecur to take over or replace Mr. Delic. It looks as

15 if that's what's happened, doesn't it?

16 A. Yes. Mr. Delic is former manager; they have appointed an acting

17 manager.

18 Q. Perhaps you don't know for sure, Ms. Hanson, but it's a pretty

19 reasonable inference from here that that's what's happened. They've

20 kicked out Mr. Delic, and they want him to be the subject of criminal

21 proceedings and they have put Mr. Cecur in in his place.

22 A. I don't know whether they kicked him out or not. He may have run

23 off with the money. It's not clear why he is --

24 Q. You're quite right about that possibility, of course.

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. The -- so this is -- there is a report to the ministry and to the

2 government. There is a report of the appointment of Mr. Cecur as the new

3 manager, the VD did you say I think?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. There is a report. Who would you -- from what you're telling the

6 Trial Chamber about the structure of the Crisis Staffs and the links,

7 there are three addressees here. Which is the -- which is the right

8 target or who is the right addressee for such a piece of information

9 coming from a Crisis Staff?

10 A. The ministry I would take to be a subset of the government in that

11 the government included the minister. So I don't see them as necessarily

12 different addressees, but in terms of what is the criminal

13 procedure, how a charge should be investigated, I don't know the details

14 of how a charge of corruption or embezzlement is to be treated.

15 Q. Ms. Hanson, I just suggest to you there that there's -- perhaps

16 you can't say one way or another. It's pretty obvious that the Ministry

17 of Justice is the right body or the right organ to whom to address a

18 request to start investigation proceedings for these alleged criminal

19 activities. That's not a serious issue, is it?

20 A. I don't know. I don't -- it's also addressed to the Ministry of

21 the Interior, that is the police. I don't know the procedure for the

22 investigation of crime, at what point the Ministry of Justice and the

23 police are involved.

24 Q. All right. That's very fair, Ms. Hanson. You're basically saying

25 you don't know the answer --

1 THE INTERPRETER: Would the speakers kindly pause between

2 question and answer.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, you're invited and you as well,

4 Ms. Hanson, to make a break between question and answer because you're

5 speaking the same language and the interpreters might not be able to

6 follow it.

7 Please proceed.

8 MR. STEWART: I was going to say thank you for the reminder, Your

9 Honour, and then I forgot to make a break between what Your Honour was

10 saying and my answer to Your Honour, so I will try to remember to do

11 that. Thank you for the reminder anyway.

12 JUDGE ORIE: I'm at least glad to hear that we're speaking the

13 same language, Mr. Stewart.

14 Please proceed.

15 MR. STEWART: Yes, it's taken over completely, Your Honour.

16 Q. Ms. Hanson, in relation to the last point, supposing that -- it's

17 a little bit of a hypothesis here, but what I'm asking you is from your

18 examination of the materials and the evidence that you have given in

19 relation to Crisis Staffs and communication of Crisis Staffs, if you had a

20 municipal Crisis Staff that had appointed Mr. Cecur as the manager of this

21 company, question number one, from all the documents you've seen, would

22 you in fact expect a Crisis Staff even to bother to report the matter at

23 all to any central organ of Republika Srpska or the SDS?

24 A. It depends, I think, on what the company would be. But if it was

25 a purely local company, and I don't know what the abbreviation ZGP stands

1 for, what kind of company it might be. Some were of more importance than

2 others. But a routine appointment I have not seen other records of Crisis

3 Staffs simply reporting an appointment of a company director as simply --

4 I have not seen such reports per se, just here we are reporting on whom

5 we've appointed to a company.

6 Q. What I'm putting to you overall, Ms. Hanson, is this document is

7 not really -- it's not really a report to any central organ. It is an

8 action by the Crisis Staff, but it is to get criminal proceedings started.

9 It's not a report, and the bit of report at the end is tacked

10 on because it's a natural thing to tack on in those circumstances. If

11 they're going to tell them they want an investigation of Mr. Delic,

12 they've simply added on, that, By the way, we've replaced him. Does that

13 summary of this document fit what you know and fit the reading?

14 A. It is a request, which is what I call it in my footnote, a

15 request, but it is addressed, as we said, to number -- at least three

16 bodies, two or three depending on how you describe them, at the republic

17 level about events on the ground.

18 Q. It's just it's not a report. It's -- a report implies some

19 accountability, doesn't it, and this itself is not a report, is it?

20 A. It is conveying information.

21 Q. All right.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart --

23 MR. STEWART: Your Honour --

24 JUDGE ORIE: If you would think that the matter has been

25 sufficiently explored as the Chamber does.

1 MR. STEWART: I do, Your Honour, yes.

2 JUDGE ORIE: We will have a break until ten minutes to one.

3 --- Recess taken at 12.30 p.m.

4 --- On resuming at 12.55 p.m.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, you may proceed.

6 MR. STEWART: Thank you, Your Honour.

7 Q. Ms. Hanson, may we look, please, at paragraph 38 now of your

8 report. That's where you specifically refer to Mr. Krajisnik, notably the

9 republic commissioner's report to Krajisnik, in his role as the member of

10 the Presidency responsible for work of the republican commissioners.

11 So may we look first, then, at the document in footnote 51, which

12 I find in the master binder at -- I don't have a presentation binder

13 reference, though I've got an uncomfortable feeling it might be in the

14 presentation binder. Is that correct? Well, I am inviting that

15 reference, Your Honour. I -- if that's readily to hand, that might be

16 more convenient for all and sundry. Especially remind myself --

17 JUDGE ORIE: If you give us a number, then --

18 MR. STEWART: It's master binder 3, tab 138.

19 Q. Ms. Hanson, it's precisely because I know we have looked at it

20 before in the course of your evidence that I know it must be in the

21 presentation binder somewhere.

22 Ms. Hanson, a key --

23 MR. HANNIS: I'm sorry, I think it's presentation tab 118.

24 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

25 MR. HANNIS: The Presidency minutes.

1 THE WITNESS: It's the minutes of the Presidency of the 6th of

2 July.

3 MR. HANNIS: That's tab 118 in the presentation binder.

4 MR. STEWART: Then binder 3, 118. Thank you very much. It's

5 really an alternative source for everybody. So It's 3, 138, and then it's

6 master 3, and 118 of presentation.

7 Q. Ms. Hanson, anyway, you've got the document in front of you. A

8 key point here in this meeting as recorded and the basis of, really, most

9 of the discussion was Dr. Koljevic's expressed position, wasn't it?

10 A. I was -- what do you mean by his expressed position? I was

11 looking at the actual agenda item where they divide the tasks, or are you

12 on the first page of the agenda --

13 Q. Yes, you were, Ms. Hanson. But what I was putting to you is, just

14 to reiterate, that, if you like, the central point and the key point from

15 which most of the discussion from this meeting stemmed was Dr. Koljevic's

16 expressed position which we find -- to point you there, we find under item

17 1.

18 A. I see those as separate items of the agenda. Agenda item 1 is

19 Koljevic. Agenda item 2 is positions on the initiative of the Muslims and

20 Croats. There's various business. And agenda item 4 is division of work

21 in the Presidency. I don't see that those -- the entire agenda stems from

22 agenda item 1.

23 Q. All right. Well, let's have a look, then. Item 1. Perhaps you

24 -- does that mean, then, that -- does that mean that, first of all, you

25 have at some point read this whole document, but that more recently in

1 connection with your evidence before this Trial Chamber, you have focused

2 only on item 4?

3 A. Yes. That's -- that's a good description.

4 Q. Well, in that case, although it will take just a minute or two, so

5 -- I'm sure you're a very quick reader, Ms. Hanson, I am going to invite

6 you, and I won't read it into the record myself because that would be

7 unnecessarily time-consuming, but to read the other items --

8 A. I'll read it --

9 Q. -- fairly quick so you'll --

10 A. -- In the translation, just for --

11 Q. Whichever you prefer.

12 A. All right. I've scanned it quickly.

13 Q. All right. So do you see, first of all, under item 1 - I don't

14 want to grind through absolutely everything here - but at the beginning of

15 item 1, in connection with the first item, Dr. Koljevic stated why he was

16 discontented with the work of the Presidency. He was discontented with

17 his own performance and he couldn't endure the work physically or

18 psychologically. He was having family problems. And the efficiency, he

19 made the general statement, the efficiency of the Presidency was low. You

20 see all that?

21 A. Yes, I see that.

22 Q. So he proposed that he resign from the Presidency, that he be

23 appointed Minister of Foreign Affairs, and then the particular request

24 that his family move to and was given an apartment in Belgrade. Then

25 there's -- 4, we won't go into. I'm not suggesting it's unimportant, but

1 it's not germane for present purposes.

2 Then Dr. Plavsic spoke up against anybody resigning -

3 counter-productive, harmful consequences, and so on. So she went along

4 with the Belgrade suggestion. Dr. Branko Djeric said results significant,

5 so he was saying, Well, paraphrasing, don't be too hard on yourself, Dr.

6 Koljevic. And then the Presidency -- over the page, the Presidency

7 operates without division of tasks --

8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, Ms. Hanson has gone through item 1. We

9 have read item 1. Now you're repeating, more or less, aloud item 1

10 again. Could you please come to your point?

11 MR. STEWART: Yes. Very well, Your Honour.

12 Q. The -- and then -- but Dr. Karadzic -- I will skip. Dr. Karadzic

13 stated, "must be discontented with our performance," important that even

14 if we existed, even if we did nothing and so on and then in summary in the

15 next paragraph Dr. Koljevic comes back to not agreeing that the work of

16 the Presidency was good and so on.

17 So so far, just in summary, then, it's not exactly a mea culpa,

18 but Dr. Koljevic in a nutshell is saying I haven't been doing a good job.

19 We haven't been doing a good job. Dr. Karadzic is saying well, actually

20 we haven't been doing so bad a job overall, and Dr. Djeric is saying, and

21 you, Dr. Koljevic, haven't been doing as bad a job as you say.

22 Is that -- I just want to ask you first of all, from your reading

23 of many, many documents in this case, does that broadly reflect a pattern

24 that you've seen, that in the public statements Dr. Karadzic does tend to

25 take a publicly -- and publicly within this sort of meeting as well take a

1 more positive view and describe things as going well when others express a

2 rather different view? Is that a pattern is that you have seen?

3 A. I would agree that Karadzic does at times -- does generally take a

4 positive view. He also does criticise and urge action in other places.

5 As compared to others' views, I can't speak with confidence on that. I

6 don't -- I'm familiar with this case of Dr. Koljevic's discontent, but I

7 couldn't speak to others with any degree of certainty.

8 Q. Then we get to what I suggest to you is a key point here. Dr.

9 Koljevic says, "He stressed that he could not control the republican

10 commissioners and considered that as his failure." You see that, do you?

11 A. Yes, do I.

12 Q. Now, that's clearly indicating isn't it that that was something

13 that was his responsibility, his task, and in his view he not been able to

14 perform it.

15 A. He is saying that he wasn't able to do it. Djeric says earlier

16 that there is not a division of tasks, so I don't see it as exclusively

17 his task. He sees it as his failing. But that was his own exclusive

18 task, I don't see that given Djeric's comments.

19 Q. Well, you've interpreted Djeric's comments but what are next

20 recorded as Dr. Koljevic's comments saying that the duration of the

21 Presidency itself suggested that he was not the right person for that

22 position, that he had reached the limits and could not carry on.

23 Now, he's -- what do you say he's talking about there? Isn't he

24 saying, I'm not the right person to be controlling these republican

25 commissioners. I've failed?

1 A. The sentence on the duration of the session, I think he's

2 indicating he's tired, he's reached his limits. He's saying I cannot last

3 this long. This discussion has gone on long enough. Perhaps he was

4 suggesting he's on the verge of a collapse of some kind. That sentence

5 regarding the duration of the session. I don't see those two sentences as

6 directly related. He says he could not control the republican

7 commissioners, but the second sentence I feel he's referring to how long

8 they've been discussing right now.

9 Q. Well, he clearly is in the first part, Ms. Hanson, we can agree

10 about that. He's just had enough, hasn't he. But when he says he wasn't

11 the right person for that position, those are plainly linked, aren't they,

12 the previous sentence and that?

13 A. Well, if I could read the original. The antecedent is not quite

14 as clear.

15 Q. Explain why. I, Ms. Hanson, like many people in this court can

16 only work with the language we understand so -- and of course if you can

17 explain more fully on the basis of the original, please do.

18 A. [B/C/S spoken]

19 Q. I'm sorry. I wonder if you could give they that again, Ms.

20 Hanson, because I hadn't had my headphones on and I wasn't quick enough to

21 get the translation.

22 JUDGE ORIE: That would not have been different, Mr. Stewart,

23 because I didn't hear any translation.

24 MR. STEWART: Thank you, Your Honour.

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The length of the sessions of the

1 Presidency speak for themselves. That this is not the right place for it.

2 MR. STEWART:

3 Q. Ms. Hanson, I suggest in view of what you were going to say

4 wouldn't it be better if you were to read the previous sentence as well so

5 we could get the two sentences together which I'm suggesting are the ones

6 that may be linked?

7 A. All right. I'll just move to B/C/S. [Interpretation] He pointed

8 out that he cannot handle the republican commissioners, and he considers

9 this to be a failure on his part. The length of the session of the

10 Presidency itself shows that that was not the right place for it and that

11 he could not go any further.

12 [In English] I don't know how it was translated but it seems he

13 was saying the Presidency is not the place for me. I can't stand these

14 long sessions. That is how I read the original as the most likely

15 interpretation.

16 Q. Well, what we've got at the moment is we've got in the

17 translation, forgive me for half sitting, Your Honour, I'm trying to read

18 two items at the same time, I hope Your Honours will forgive that. In

19 the -- in the English translation which we had in the binder, it

20 reads: "Suggested that he was not the right person for that position."

21 That's the key phrase. And what we've got just now was: "That that was

22 not the right place for it," which is not -- that second one is not -- I'm

23 not criticising the interpretation, of course, I'm just saying it's the

24 not so easy to see what he's getting at. So what -- how are you offering

25 to explain this to the Trial Chamber, Ms. Hanson?

1 A. The phrase "on nije za to mjesto" I would translate as "he is not

2 for this place," that is, "this is not the place for him."

3 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters note that what they hear now,

4 "on nije za to mjesto," does indeed mean "he is not for that place."

5 MR. STEWART: Thank you very much for that. That's most helpful.

6 Q. Do you say, then, Ms. Hanson, that there is now ambiguity about

7 whether he's talking about the position as the person to control

8 republican commissioners or position as a member of the Presidency?

9 A. I take it to mean he is referring to the Presidency.

10 Q. So there's no ambiguity as far as you're concerned?

11 A. Not that there's -- other interpretations are possible, but that

12 one sentence, given those -- even -- even putting the two sentences

13 together, I still think it's most likely that he's talking about the

14 Presidency itself. I do not exclude the possibility of your

15 interpretation, but I think simply he's saying, I can't last even through

16 one session. It's not the place for me.

17 Q. Did you -- sorry, I'll following the injunction to --

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, may I ask for one clarification. One time when

19 you read it we have "the sessions" and the other time we have in

20 translation "the session" of the Presidency. Of course the one would be

21 different meaning than the other. The one being that -- I would say more

22 or less the existence of the Presidency whereas the other is the sessions

23 of. You are using "sessions" when you explain it. Could we clarify that?

24 Could you perhaps explain why you take the plural?

25 THE WITNESS: The a genitive plural and a genitive singular are

1 the same. He could be saying -- no, forgive me. It is not the same. It

2 is definitely a genitive plural. It would be the length of this session

3 would be "sjednica." So it's the plural here.

4 JUDGE ORIE: May I ask the interpreters whether they confirm this

5 interpretation. Perhaps I should have asked you first but...

6 THE INTERPRETER: Could the interpreters please see the document?

7 That would make things much easier.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Put it on the ELMO.

9 MR. STEWART: That would be a reasonable request from the

10 interpreters.

11 JUDGE ORIE: I wouldn't expect anything else than a reasonable

12 request from the interpreters.

13 THE WITNESS: The phrase is in the centre of the screen, "sama

14 duzina sjednica."

15 THE INTERPRETER: It's the plural note the interpreters.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, thank you. Please proceed.

17 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I hope it's understood we can't supply

18 all these documents in advance because we don't know when an issue is

19 going to arise. So I hope that's understood with apologies there.

20 Q. The --

21 JUDGE ORIE: Then there's one thing. In the translation we also

22 find the singular. That should then be the plural as well.

23 MR. STEWART: Yes. It works, Your Honour, doesn't it, because

24 with respect, because it wouldn't be very natural to say "the duration of

25 the first session." One would say "this session." But it's clear from

1 what the interpreters say that we're talking about plurals anyway, and

2 then it be "the sessions." So --

3 Q. Well, in any case, Ms. Hanson, as far as that goes it's a general

4 complaint by Mr. Koljevic about the length of the meetings rather than the

5 specific one. But the -- but, Ms. Hanson, he -- first of all, let's agree

6 this. First of all, he does specifically mention and draw attention to

7 control of republican commissioners as -- that's the one task that he

8 specifically mentions in the context of his failure, his own adjudged

9 failure.

10 A. He certainly mentions it. I'm just checking if it's the only one.

11 Yes. So far it's the only one. He specifies that as his -- as his

12 failure.

13 Q. Yes. Which, Ms. Hanson, in a sense -- well, you have the

14 background. You've done the research. You've done this report so that's

15 why you're being pressed for your interpretations of these items. That

16 does strongly suggest, doesn't it, that that was very much his task?

17 A. One of his tasks, yes. I can't exclude that he had others.

18 Q. No, Ms. Hanson, to make it clear, I'm note excluding that either.

19 A. Yeah.

20 Q. But I'm talking about whose task it was. And you've confirmed

21 that. So it suggests that that was very much his task. So if he was

22 going, if that task were going to be attempted by somebody else, well,

23 somebody else would have to be chosen, wouldn't they?

24 A. In as far as the Presidency until this moment had set division of

25 labour, which the other indications in this document is they didn't until

1 now have a specific division of labour for all tasks.

2 Q. Well, Ms. Hanson, may I suggest to you you're drawing that

3 conclusion from what Mr. -- from what Dr. Djeric says, aren't you, about

4 the Presidency operates without division of tasks?

5 A. And also from agenda item 4 in which they set up a division of

6 tasks.

7 Q. Ms. Hanson, agenda item 4, it may be your view, agenda item 4

8 doesn't show that the division of tasks is a new concept, does it? It

9 just shows that for the future, the division of tasks is to be as set out

10 in item 4.

11 A. Yes. And I've seen no previous Presidency minutes setting out

12 such a division of tasks.

13 Q. Now, that's a different matter, Ms. Hanson. I was going to ask

14 you about this. From looking back at previous documents, have you been

15 able to see any indication of who had responsibility? If we take the

16 position before this document, from earlier documents have you seen any

17 indication of who had either formally or as a practical matter

18 responsibility for the republican commissioners?

19 A. No. Before this date, I see know -- I recall no discussion of

20 that.

21 Q. But also more widely, is there any material which indicates any

22 member of the Presidency having responsibility for that task?

23 A. Previous to this -- previous to this.

24 Q. Previous to this.

25 A. No. I do not recall any such indications.

1 Q. Or separately any document indicating any actual or attempted

2 performance of such a task by any member of the Presidency?

3 A. Other than the appointments which we have seen appointing

4 commissioners and confirming the composition of War Commissioners -- of

5 War Commissions, I haven't seen such. I do not recall seeing what you

6 refer to.

7 Q. That position, you'd agree, is in fact among other things

8 consistent with Dr. Koljevic having had that task but seemingly failed to

9 perform it.

10 A. I can't comment on his failure but --

11 Q. No, that's consistent. That is consistent with that position,

12 isn't it?

13 A. I don't see his failure or success as -- I can't judge that from a

14 lack -- from -- from no evidence. Every -- it is consistent with -- since

15 I've seen nobody other than Karadzic until this point signing the

16 appointments, because I believe, although I'll have to check, that the

17 appointments signed by Krajisnik were in fact later, after this date, we

18 see Karadzic appointing and signing the appointments of the commissioners.

19 Other than that, I see nothing inconsistent with this statement of

20 Koljevic or the implication of Koljevic that he was involved in the work

21 of the commissioners, but I can't -- can't say more than that. It is

22 consistent with him having had something to do with the work of

23 commissioners.

24 Q. All right. Well, let's look at item 4, then, which is where you

25 in effect started from for the purposes of your immediate evidence at this

1 hearing. And you correctly refer to the division of tasks recorded as

2 adopted. And we see among other things, for example, Dr. Plavsic. We've

3 touched on that previously in this case, her particular responsibilities.

4 And then UNPROFOR as well. And then questions related to commissioners

5 and the economy, Momcilo Krajisnik. And Ms. Hanson, you'd agree, wouldn't

6 you, that that isn't intended as compendious? Those are two distinct

7 areas of responsibility, aren't they?

8 A. That's how I take it.

9 Q. So it's one, commissioners; and two, the economy.

10 A. That's my interpretation, yes.

11 Q. And Mr. Krajisnik then, according to this agenda, then, this item,

12 then he has been allocated on the face of this document that

13 responsibility from the 6th of July, 1992, onwards; correct?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. But it follows, doesn't it, from your previous answers that

16 there's not the slightest indication of his having had any specific

17 responsibility for that task, the republican commissioner's task, before

18 the 6th of July?

19 A. In his speech in the Assembly in November 1992, Mr. Krajisnik says

20 he was well-informed about all the commissioners and what they achieved.

21 I take that to be some indication that -- well, he says he knew about all

22 of them. Some of those may have been appointed before July. I would have

23 to check the records on the exact appointments of the people he names, but

24 he in his speech does not draw a distinction of the time before he was

25 responsible and after.

1 Q. Well -- so apart from that, for what it's worth, which is no doubt

2 for argument for another day rather than further cross-examination, apart

3 from that speech that you refer to, there's not the slightest indication

4 of Mr. Krajisnik having had any specific responsibility for republican

5 commissioners before the 6th of July?

6 A. Not more than any other member of the Presidency, no.

7 Q. In your report, though, based on this item 4 of the agenda, you

8 are identifying him as the member of the Presidency responsible for the

9 work of the republican commissioners but implicitly from that day the 6th

10 of July.

11 A. From that date he is the member.

12 Q. And not before.

13 A. Not before, as -- not the one member before.

14 Q. Have you seen any material which indicates any performance --

15 leave aside the speech in the Assembly that you mentioned a moment ago,

16 okay? Apart from that, have you seen any material which indicates a

17 discharge or attempted discharge by Mr. Krajisnik of that responsibility

18 allocated to him under item 4?

19 A. Yes. As I said before, I think his signatures on the appointments

20 of two commissioners is an indication of his discharge of those duties.

21 Q. Well, we come to those then specifically, so again, all right,

22 putting those on one side as well. So we've got two items in our shopping

23 basket not to be bought; the Assembly speech and those two signatures. So

24 putting those on one side, is there any material you have seen which

25 indicates a discharge or attempted discharge by Mr. Krajisnik of that

1 responsibility allocated to him under item 4 as from 6th of July, 1992?

2 A. Specifically regarding commissioners, no. Those are -- putting

3 aside the evidence we've discussed.

4 Q. So, then, if we go to the next footnoted items, that's footnote

5 52, and those are in the -- those may also be in the presentation binder,

6 I'm afraid, but they're the next items in the master binder. They're 139

7 and 140. That's master binder 3, items 139 and 140. I'm fairly sure

8 they're going to be found in the presentation binder somewhere as well.

9 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I believe it's presentation tab 75 and

10 77.

11 MR. STEWART: Thank you very much. That's -- well, that will be

12 most helpful to somebody. So it wouldn't make much difference to me right

13 now, but thank you, Mr. Hannis.

14 Q. And those are two -- those are the two items. Of course they're

15 footnoted. That's what you're referring to when you say in paragraph 38

16 of your report: "In that capacity he apparently signed for Karadzic at

17 least two Presidency documents dealing with the appointments of

18 Commissioners." That's what you're talking about?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And I have said earlier today I do confirm on Mr. Krajisnik's

21 behalf that those are his signatures on those documents. What is the --

22 well, first of all, when you say he signed at least two Presidency

23 documents, I'm not quarreling with the logic of "at least," Ms. Hanson,

24 but is the position that that is the sum total of documents which you have

25 seen signed by Mr. Krajisnik in a way which you would describe as being in

1 that capacity?

2 A. These are the only two documents dealing with republican

3 commissioners which I have seen as -- identified as most likely signed by

4 Krajisnik.

5 Q. Well --

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Those are signed by Mr. Krajisnik.

8 A. Yes, but until this morning I could only say most likely.

9 Q. Yes, of course. I understand. But so -- but you have seen no

10 other documents which are or might reasonably be supposed to be signed by

11 Mr. Krajisnik?

12 A. No documents regarding commissioners.

13 Q. That's implicit. I'm sorry, that's implicit in my question, but I

14 make that explicit. Yes?

15 A. I agree, these are the only two.

16 MR. STEWART: I believe His Honour Judge Hanoteau may have a

17 question for you.

18 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Ms. Hanson, I'd like to come back

19 to what we said this morning. Do you have any indication as to the exact

20 role played by these commissioners? And I would also like to know whether

21 in any of these instances, namely the War Commissions, whether these

22 commissioners had any hierarchical power and power over the way these

23 organs operated, or were these commissioners the only links between the

24 commission and political authorities or the army, the command in the army?

25 And did these commissioners have in their capacity the right to give

1 instructions to the commission itself?

2 THE WITNESS: Yeah, this is several things to answer. I hope I

3 will address all your questions.

4 The decision on the formation -- the presidential decision of 10

5 June on the formation of War Commissions specifies that the powers include

6 -- or they have the -- they form the War Commission and can dissolve it.

7 They name the members of the War Commission in the municipality and can

8 dissolve it.

9 MR. HANNIS: I'm sorry, Your Honours. I don't know if it's

10 helpful to have the document in front of you that refers to that. It's at

11 tab 64 in the presentation.

12 THE WITNESS: I would be glad if I could take a look at it too.

13 MR. HANNIS: I'm sorry. I think that's the Presidency's. You

14 want the War Commission's, which is tab 65 -- or 66. I'm sorry.

15 THE WITNESS: Article 4, what I was saying, that the state

16 commissioners form the War Commission - as I noted earlier, the

17 translation is War Presidencies but we've confirmed that it's War

18 Commission - and can dissolve them. To point out, to be quite precise,

19 the second sentence he names the War Commission. In the third sentence he

20 can dissolve the War Presidencies. It is "presidencies" in the original.

21 He conveys directives issued by the War Presidency of the republic. That

22 is in Article 3. To convey directives I see as he gets the directives

23 from the Presidency, goes to the municipality and gives them to the

24 municipal level.

25 We also see in the Assembly discussion about the work of the War

1 Commissions, that they convey the directives and -- to the municipal level

2 and take information back up to the republican level.

3 This is the most precise statement of the duties of the war --

4 republican commissioners. So that is what I base my description of their

5 jobs, that with the evidence from the Assembly of how the commissioners

6 described what they did.

7 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Pardon. To get back to this

8 particular point, we saw earlier on in the previous document that

9 Dr. Koljevic said that he could not control -- he had no control over his

10 commissioners, could not control the republican commissioners. Does this

11 mean that he could -- or, rather, that the status of the person in charge

12 of the commissioners had the power of control over them? Is that what it

13 means?

14 THE WITNESS: That -- that --

15 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] So this morning I understood he

16 received the reports from the War Commissions. He analysed them, and he

17 might have transmitted to them to whoever was entitled to read them. But

18 here in the sentence of Dr. Koljevic, it seems more important that he

19 actually have control over these War Commissioners on the way they worked.

20 THE WITNESS: I agree. That does seem to be what Mr. Koljevic is

21 saying. I -- it's the only indication I have of that sense of

22 controlling. I do not see that elsewhere. I do not see it in the

23 original descriptions. So I can't say more than what you have said.

24 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Thank you, madam.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart. Keeping in mind that we had a short

1 list of matters on which the Chamber would like to receive brief reports,

2 could you find a suitable moment to conclude for the day within the next

3 one, two, or three minutes.

4 MR. STEWART: Yes. Certainly, Your Honour. If I may, I would

5 simply like, while it's on the screen, and to follow up very quickly then:

6 Q. Judge Hanoteau's comment to you a moment ago, Ms. Hanson, where

7 His Honour said, "This morning I understood he, that's Dr. Koljevic,

8 received the reports from the War Commissions, he analysed them and he

9 might have transmitted to them to whoever was entitled to read them."

10 Ms. Hanson, the position is this, isn't it, that whatever his job

11 was supposed to be, you don't point to any material which shows that he

12 actually did receive reports from the War Commissions and analysed them

13 and transmitted them, do you?

14 A. No. I understood the judge's question to be what I meant in the

15 sentence in my report when I said "responsible for," and I meant what

16 we've been talking about, someone assigned in the Presidency to be, as it

17 were, the point of contact for commissioners and that he was not

18 responsible for the consequences of his actions. He was not -- I did not

19 mean to say that I do not see him receiving such reports. That was -- I

20 think the judge was saying his understanding of my response.

21 Q. Thank you, Ms. Hanson.

22 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I can leave cross-examination here

23 conveniently, certainly for the moment, I mean.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Hanson, we have a few procedural issues to be

25 discussed for a couple of minutes, but of course you're not required to be

1 present. May I give you the same instructions as I did before: Not to

2 speak with anyone about your testimony already given or still to be given,

3 and we'd like to see you back tomorrow morning, 9.00, in the same

4 courtroom.

5 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour.

6 [The witness stands down]

7 JUDGE ORIE: Then we could back to what I had still on my list,

8 that is P220. We are waiting for the confirmation by the Defence that it

9 had to receive the document as it was sent on the 28th of February.

10 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, yes, and --

11 JUDGE ORIE: Microphone, please, Mr. --

12 MR. STEWART: I'm so sorry. Yes, and Your Honour, we confirm have

13 no objection to P20.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Then we have D29 and D32. No, let me first -- P22 is

15 then admitted into evidence. That should be the conclusion. Madam

16 Registrar is looking at me as if I'm failing to keep control over the

17 exhibits.

18 MR. STEWART: That's the kind of look Ms. Cmeric gives to me, Your

19 Honour.

20 JUDGE ORIE: That's our fate, Mr. -- D29, D32, revised

21 translations were provided by the Defence. OTP is about to report on

22 whether there's any objections against these translations.

23 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I'm sorry, I'm not up to speed on that

24 issue. I'll have to find out and get back to you.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then are you on any of the others? I'll tell

1 you what they are. That's P -- no, P458, Mr. Stewart. That's for the

2 Defence to report back if there were any further objections against P458

3 in its revised translation.

4 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I'm feeling like goody-two-shoes so

5 far. The answer is we have done our homework on that and we have no

6 objection to --

7 JUDGE ORIE: And P458 new translation replaces the old one and is

8 admitted into evidence.

9 Then, Mr. Hannis, P200/31. You're supposed to address the Defence

10 objections by the end of the week. If you say, I'm not prepared, then at

11 least you have it on your list for tomorrow.

12 MR. HANNIS: Yes, and I understand that we're supposed to receive

13 the revised translations today, so --

14 JUDGE ORIE: Well, it says on my list, it says that due to an

15 administrative error, OTP has not yet addressed the objections raised by

16 the Defence in view of the translation. So you're expected to address any

17 of the objections specifically in view of translations.

18 MR. HANNIS: Yes, Your Honour. I think we're expecting some

19 material back from CLSS that addresses those issues.

20 JUDGE ORIE: So you're still waiting. So "by the end of this

21 week" was the end of last week, but I think it's not --

22 MR. HANNIS: I'm informed we'll receive it today.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Yes. Then the next one is direction of the

24 statement of Mr. Bjelobrk, whether the Defence would decide whether it had

25 any further objections against the redacted statement of Mr. Bjelobrk.

1 MR. STEWART: Yes. What in fact, Your Honour -- I think the

2 position was that we were going to report back to Your Honour on how much

3 time we would need.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do agree with you. You are expected to report

5 on how much time you would need to do that.

6 MR. STEWART: Yes, Your Honour. There is a two-stage process with

7 quite voluminous material. Stage number one involves Ms. Cmeric as the

8 B/C/S speaker, and stage number two involves me as counsel. Your Honour,

9 we haven't quite got to the end of stage 1. Your Honour, realistically

10 given the other cause and key demands, I would ask Your Honour to -- I'm

11 just trying to remember what day of the week we are.

12 JUDGE ORIE: We're on the 7th today.

13 MR. STEWART: 7th today. So it was the 4th. I actually ask Your

14 Honour until --

15 JUDGE ORIE: If we say by the end of the week, if we make it this

16 week.

17 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I wasn't beginning to volunteer such a

18 timetable, with respect, Your Honour. I really do need --

19 JUDGE ORIE: I mean to give us an indication.

20 MR. STEWART: I'm so sorry, Your Honour. Yes, indeed. If it's

21 the 7th today it's going to be the 11th, isn't it, on Friday. Your

22 Honour, I was going to ask for two weeks after that but that actually does

23 take us to the recess. So, Your Honour, may I have until the end of this

24 session? It is -- I've spoken to Ms. Cmeric about it, Your

25 Honour. It is going to require quite a bit of time. She anticipates it's

1 going to take the whole day.

2 JUDGE ORIE: When do we hear from you how much time that would

3 need?

4 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, I'm asking for that time now,

5 Your Honour. I'm saying -- I'm asking for that time until the recess.

6 It's going to take a whole day according to Ms. Cmeric of my time, and

7 that's not so easy to find.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hannis. Any objection?

9 MR. HANNIS: No objection.

10 JUDGE ORIE: We will consider. So you would like to have until

11 the end of the recess.

12 MR. STEWART: Not until the end of the recess, Your Honour. I am

13 undertaking to do it before the recess. Yes, I believe that would be

14 helpful if I were to have that material in before rather than after, and

15 that is what I'm offering, with respect.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And then I do understand that we hear from you

17 then at the same moment about the exhibits in relation to Mr. Bjelobrk.

18 MR. STEWART: It makes sense, Your Honour, with respect. If we

19 can indicate specifically in relation to exhibits as an earlier separate

20 item, we will do but --

21 JUDGE ORIE: We will let you know tomorrow if your request is

22 granted.

23 MR. STEWART: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Then we have, Mr. Hannis, the Defence was asking

25 for -- I think for the audiotapes of D34 and D35, not specifically as an

1 exhibit. These are the interviews, and you would inquire as to whether

2 these tapes can be made available to the Defence.

3 MR. HANNIS: Again, Your Honour, that's one that I'm not familiar

4 with.

5 JUDGE ORIE: We'll hear from you when?

6 MR. HANNIS: Tomorrow morning.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Tomorrow morning. That's fine.

8 Then the next item on my list says matters to be dealt with within

9 two weeks, but that's not over yet, so we'll come back to that.

10 We will adjourn until tomorrow morning, 9.00, same courtroom.

11 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.47 p.m.,

12 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 8th day of

13 March, 2005, at 9.00 a.m.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25