1 Friday, 15 April 2005
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in this courtroom.
6 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case number
8 IT-00-39-T, the Prosecutor versus Momcilo Krajisnik.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
10 Mr. Stewart, are you ready to continue the cross-examination of
11 Mr. Trbojevic?
12 MR. STEWART: Yes, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Usher, could you escort Mr. Trbojevic into the
15 Meanwhile, I address the Defence on the following issues, as far
16 as protective measures are concerned in view of -- no, not protective
17 measures. On 92 bis admission KRAJ 431 in relation to Sokolac, in the
18 statement, the witness talks about a book, a book that we are informed was
19 disclosed to the Defence early March and a 30-page English summary and
20 since the Defence reserved the right to make any further submissions in
21 relation to the admission on the basis of the information in that book, we
22 wonder whether there are any further submissions on that.
23 THE WITNESS: Witness entered.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Trbojevic. Please be seated.
25 MR. STEWART: Well, I wonder as well, Your Honour, and I shall
1 locate the book and see what the point is. At the moment, I'm quite
2 unable to give Your Honour any information at all in relation to that
4 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps you could also pay attention to KRAJ 674 in
5 relation to Zvornik where on the 2nd of March, two statements were
6 disclosed which might give rise to further submissions as well so that we
7 have the final position of the Defence.
8 MR. STEWART: Of course, Your Honour, I will attend to those and
9 put them on to my to-do list.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I will hope they are soon on your done list.
11 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I have both lists, one of them, of
12 course, is permanent.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Trbojevic, first of all, welcome again. Thank
14 you for coming back. It's quite an effort, the Chamber is aware of that.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
16 JUDGE ORIE: At the beginning of your testimony last week, you
17 have given a solemn declaration that you will speak the truth, the whole
18 truth and nothing but the truth. You are still bound by that solemn
19 declaration. I also informed you at that time that if there's any answer
20 which you would -- if there is any question which you think answering
21 might incriminate yourself, then you can then address the Court and we'll
22 see whether we will compel you to answer that question or whether we leave
23 it and allow you not to answer the question.
24 WITNESS: MILAN TRBOJEVIC [Resumed]
25 [Witness answered through interpreter]
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, please proceed.
2 MR. STEWART: Thank you, Your Honour
3 Cross-examined by Mr. Stewart: [Continued]
4 Q. Good morning, Mr. Trbojevic.
5 A. Good morning.
6 Q. In your interview with the -- Mr. Margetts, it mainly was, you
7 talked about Mr. Maksimovic and you said that he was influential as
8 "leader of the caucus," was the way it was put, that's as the leader of
9 the SDS members caucus in the Bosnian Serb Assembly, wasn't it?
10 MR. TIEGER: Sorry, Your Honour, could we have a page reference,
12 MR. STEWART: 18 of the English.
13 JUDGE ORIE: We've got two statements.
14 MR. STEWART: It's the first one, Your Honour. It's --
15 JUDGE ORIE: The March.
16 MR. STEWART: Yes, the March one.
17 Q. Would you tell the Trial Chamber how you would rate and assess the
18 level of influence that Mr. Maksimovic had?
19 A. Mr. Maksimovic was the president of the deputies' club at the
20 Assembly. He led this club. What exactly his position in the party was,
21 I'm not sure I knew and I couldn't tell you now. I knew that he came from
22 Foca, and in that area around Foca he enjoyed some authority in the party.
23 What exactly his position was within the party, I can't tell you exactly.
24 I believe he was also president of that Serbian cultural society called
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Trbojevic, the question was not what his position
2 in the party was, the question was how you would rate and assess the level
3 of influence which might be not directly related to positions he held. If
4 you don't know, no problem, but ...
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I could not tell you anything
6 specific about that.
7 MR. STEWART: All right. We'll move on then to another point. At
8 page 30, it is, Your Honour, of the same interview, -- Your Honour, I
9 don't believe it's unfair, I'm not troubling the witness with the B/C/S
10 copy, these are short reference points in the interviews at this stage.
11 It was put to you by Mr. Margetts, he said, "So operationally, you think
12 the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Ministry of Defence, and to some extent,
13 Ministry of Justice was being run by Karadzic and Krajisnik," and I
14 believe it's fair to comment that the word "operationally" was introduced
15 by Mr. Margetts and was not picking up a specific word of yours. But in
16 answer to that, you said, "Yes, the police and the army definitely, and
17 when justice is concerned, Karadzic was in capacity of his authority. The
18 function he had was making decision of appointment so practically the
19 justice was also in his hands."
20 Now, I want to break those three down separately, the police, the
21 army, and the justice. Mr. Trbojevic, do you, in fact, have any knowledge
22 yourself of Mr. Krajisnik being involved operationally in the running of
23 the police.
24 A. No, I don't.
25 Q. Do you have any knowledge yourself of Mr. Krajisnik being involved
1 operationally in the activities and running of the army?
2 A. No, I don't.
3 JUDGE ORIE: My question then, to you Mr. Trbojevic is why did you
4 say then that when Mr. Margetts put it to you that operationally the
5 Ministry of Internal Affairs, of Defence, and to some extent the Ministry
6 of Justice was being run by Karadzic and Krajisnik, you answered that with
7 a "yes." What was the basis on which you gave that answer.
8 A. Your Honour, I believe I have already explained this in some
9 detail using the example of the Ministry of Justice. As for the Ministry
10 of Defence, that is the minister of defence and the minister of the police
11 who were reporting to the president of the republic, I believe I also said
12 more than once that this link bypassed the Prime Minister. Mr. Margetts
13 was trying to formulate questions in the way that was most convenient to
14 him and I had no reason to jump at his every word and challenge things.
15 My job was to tell what I knew.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do understand that. So your "yes" was based
17 on circumventing the Prime Minister in reporting; is that what you
18 intended to say.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I intended to say that the link
20 between the minister of defence and the minister of police with the
21 president was stronger and it bypassed the Prime Minister.
22 JUDGE ORIE: The question put to you by Mr. Margetts was about
23 Mr. Karadzic and Mr. Krajisnik. You explained that as far as the Ministry
24 of Justice was concerned, it was your -- you were focussing on Karadzic,
25 would that be different for the other ministries, that's police and army.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Formally speaking, the minister of
2 police and the minister of Defence report to the president of the republic
3 as to the Supreme Commander in a state of war. However, the fact that
4 Karadzic and Krajisnik sit in the same building and see each other and
5 cooperate every day remains. We, from outside, never witnessed the
6 situation in which one of them would have some information while the other
7 one wouldn't have it.
8 In practical terms, whatever was reported to one of them should
9 have come or reached the desk of the other as well. That was the
10 practical implication.
11 JUDGE ORIE: You said "should have reached," at the same time I
12 hear you saying that it could not have been otherwise. Is that -- that's
13 more or less an assumption. Is that what you tell us?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Since I did not sit together with
15 them, I can only assume that it was so. But that assumption is based on
16 the fact that they were sitting next to each other and from their conduct,
17 one could never conclude that one of them had more information than the
18 other or less.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Stewart.
20 MR. STEWART:
21 Q. So your proposition that you never witnessed the situation in
22 which one of the two of them would have some information while the other
23 wouldn't have it, Mr. Trbojevic, the practical position must have been
24 that you were generally not in a position to test that, were you?
25 A. I had neither occasion to test it nor any need to do so.
1 Q. You were the judge, weren't you, in the -- in a --
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. -- case brought against -- it was a criminal case, wasn't it,
4 brought against Mr. Karadzic and Mr. Krajisnik; correct?
5 A. Correct.
6 Q. And you expressed, and I just invite you to confirm what you say.
7 In your second interview in May of this year, and it would be at page 12
8 of the English in the middle of the page there's an answer that begins, --
9 well there's a question from Mr. Margetts, "It's okay. Do you recall the
10 decision? Do you recall that case clearly and what, in fact, occurred?"
11 I hope Your Honours are able to -- to find that.
12 JUDGE ORIE: I have some difficulties in finding it.
13 MR. STEWART: It should be on or very near to page 12,
14 Your Honour. It should be on page 12 of the second interview transcript.
15 MR. TIEGER: I know there's been some -- may have been some
16 discrepancies. I have it at page 13 if that's of any assistance.
17 MR. STEWART: That is of great assistance, thank you.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
19 MR. STEWART: We've all suffered, Your Honour, a bit, from the
20 different versions of these interviews and slight discrepancies in
21 numbering. The passage I have, anyway, I hope Your Honours now have it,
22 it's -- yes. Mr. Trbojevic says, "I remember a lot. I remember rather
24 Q. And first point was, you said, "I was convinced there was no
25 evidence." And then about four lines from the bottom of that answer, you
1 are recorded in the English as having said, "It looked, it seemed like it
2 was something framed by the police."
3 And then about 20 or 30 lines further on which may or may not be
4 over a page, about three quarters of the way through a long answer from
5 you, there's a reference to "Then we had like construction expert and then
6 we established that that bill was exact. It had on this bill exactly what
7 was done as work," and that was a bill which, from a private constructor,
8 that Mr. Krajisnik had paid.
9 And then the end of the answer you said, "And it was more than
10 obvious that he was like ... that was a witness ... police he was like a
11 police witness who was like, forgiven sequence of many activities in order
12 to testify against Krajisnik and Karadzic. On the other, on the other
13 side, there was no material evidence on who/which would support his
15 I just invite you to confirm, Mr. Trbojevic, that that is your
16 view, those were your conclusions and that remains your assessment of that
17 case brought against Mr. Krajisnik and Mr. Karadzic.
18 A. At this point, I stated exactly what was done in that case, what I
19 decided in that case. It's all written in the judgement. I believe that
20 it is also stated that the Supreme Court reversed the judgement and
21 ordered a retrial; however, my colleague, the new judge, made the same
22 decision as I did. The Prosecutor filed an appeal, I believe it was
23 Nurija Hodzic, the republican prosecutor, gave up on that appeal, so the
24 decision of the court became valid, came into force.
25 Q. So the ultimate result was a complete acquittal for Dr. Karadzic
1 and Mr. Krajisnik?
2 A. Correct. Correct.
3 Q. From your knowledge of Mr. Krajisnik and his work, if somebody
4 was, in relation to political activities, police activities, army
5 activities, any of these things that were going on at that time in the
6 summer of 1992, if anybody was reporting to Mr. Krajisnik, would you
7 expect to see written instructions, orders, memoranda, and reports from
8 Mr. Krajisnik relating to those matters?
9 A. I did not see them and I have no knowledge about him issuing any
10 orders, written instructions, or such like.
11 Q. Yes. My question was a slightly different one, Mr. Trbojevic. It
12 was asking you, based on your knowledge of Mr. Krajisnik, in that
13 situation, would you expect if Mr. Krajisnik was being reported to, to see
14 such material coming from Mr. Krajisnik?
15 A. I said I didn't see any such thing although I understand the logic
16 behind your question. My conclusion would be that it would -- that one
17 could expect that Mr. Krajisnik serious person whether or not takes
18 everything very seriously, should respond to people with instructions, a
19 comment, an order, or something like that. But having seen none of that,
20 I can't say that it happened. That it was exactly that way.
21 Q. I'll put it a different way, Mr. Trbojevic. Mr. Krajisnik is a
22 very well-organised man in his work, isn't he?
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. And part of his approach to organisation is that he does very
25 often log things, note things, make lists in writing; do you know enough
1 about his work to be able to confirm that?
2 A. I cannot say I know enough because I was not a member of his
3 office, but I could see easily that he was always writing something down.
4 Q. You were asked, and this is at page -- I'm going to have to do my
5 best on these page references, Your Honour. It should be at page 44 -- 43
6 or 44 of the English transcript of the second interview.
7 You were asked by Mr. Margetts, or in a sense you were not asked
8 by Mr. Margetts, he said, "I am" -- Mr. Margetts says, "I am not
9 interested in peace negotiations or peace plans."
10 MR. STEWART: I hope Your Honours have that.
11 JUDGE ORIE: It's page 45 in our version.
12 MR. STEWART: I'm grateful, Your Honour.
13 Q. He sags "I'm not interested in peace negotiations or peace plans."
14 And you said, "But negotiations, talks about the peace plans was the --
15 was the basis of the politics."
16 Then Mr. Margetts said, "I'm not interested in them because they
17 are on the public record and I know everything about them. There's
18 nothing ..." And then you said, "But you don't know what we were talking
19 about." Mr. Margetts said, "No, there's nothing you can tell me that is
20 of any interest to me because I am very well informed on that peace
21 negotiations ..." And then he, well, steered you, I think perhaps that's
22 a fair way of putting it, steered you on to another topic?
23 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, before that continues, I think it would
24 be more fair to characterise the latter portion of Mr. Margetts's remarks
25 as explaining the reason why he was asking the witness not to go into
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 detail about peace negotiations and that was a limited time.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, fair or not. I mean, Mr. Margetts is not
3 at trial here. I establish that at that moment, Mr. Margetts was not
4 interested to hear any further from the witness for whatever reason.
5 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honours, it's -- I'm sorry, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE ORIE: I took it that Mr. Stewart was not blaming
7 Mr. Margetts but was just representing what was in the transcript.
8 Please proceed.
9 MR. STEWART: It's touching that Mr. Tieger should leap to
10 Mr. Margetts's defence, but I was just intending to be just descriptive; I
11 hope I was. The -- but what I was going to ask you, Mr. Trbojevic, was to
12 please expand upon the answer which was not pursued. Then when you
13 said, "Negotiations, talks about the peace plans was the basis of the
14 politics." And please explain to the Trial Chamber what you meant and
15 what you mean by that,"... those negotiations and talks were the basis of
16 the politics."
17 A. I meant to say quite simply that it was a fact of life that the
18 activity of the National Assembly concentrated, for the most part, on
19 those ongoing negotiations. Every time that a group of our
20 representatives at those negotiations would come to the Assembly, meetings
21 were held where we discussed everything that was tabled at the
22 negotiations, what was noted, what the International Community offered or
23 demanded, what we can accept, what we can't accept, in which way. So most
24 of our time, and most of our energy had to be devoted to deliberations of
25 this peace process, the prospects and the possible consequences of their
1 failure, what sanctions we could expect in the event of failure.
2 You will probably remember that the contact group decided at one
3 point to interrupt these negotiations and suspended all contact with
4 representatives of the Serbian side and so on and so forth. It was simply
5 the central topic, the centre of attention. Everything revolved around
6 it. Everything depended on it. So we were busy considering whether the
7 war was coming to an end, whether we could expect an end, whether we could
8 expect international sanctions.
9 It was the main practical issue, the central issue of the entire
10 life of our Assembly.
11 Q. Mr. Trbojevic, do you remember the adoption of the law on
12 supplementing the constitutional law for implementing the Constitution of
13 the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina? That's a bit of a
14 mouthful, but early in June 1992, the Presidency adopted that law, to try
15 and refresh your memory, which related to the expansion of the Presidency
16 during a state of war. Do you have any recollection of that?
17 A. I cannot say that I have any concrete recollections of the actual
18 conversation. The date was there.
19 Q. Do you recall that provision was made for the Presidency to be
20 expanded during a state of war?
21 A. We made quite a few comments about that later on. I remember
23 Q. It is correct, as far as you're concerned, is it, Mr. Trbojevic,
24 that no -- there was, in fact, no declaration of a state of war made by
25 the Bosnian Serb leadership, was there?
1 A. At that time, at the beginning of 1992, no.
2 Q. Well, in fact, by the Bosnian Serb leadership or organs at any
3 time in 1992, or at no time was there a declaration of a state of war;
4 that's correct, isn't it?
5 A. I don't think so.
6 Q. Sorry, "you don't think so," did you say? Did I read and hear
7 that right?
8 A. I cannot tell you now.
9 Q. All right. That may be one of those ambiguous answers,
10 Your Honour.
11 Are you saying that you can't be sure but you think there was not
12 such a declaration of a state of war?
13 A. I cannot give you the dates when -- who declared war on who.
14 That's what I meant. As far as I can remember, in 1992, the Serb side did
15 not declare a state of war.
16 Q. Was it your view, as a lawyer at the time that -- well, did you
17 have a view on whether the expanded Presidency was legally constituted or
19 A. My view was that first and foremost, a state of war should not be
20 declared. I thought that moving on to a regimen of a state of war would
21 require legal regulations and institutions that would lend themselves to
22 organising a state of war throughout society. And since I knew that we
23 did not have the legal regulations or institutions required, and we had a
24 government that was more or less organised along civil lines, we did not
25 manage to have a kind of organisation which would be normal, let alone
1 move on to wartime authorities.
2 My position was that that should not be done. In principle, it is
3 difficult to justify an organ like the War Presidency which includes
4 members of the Presidency, the president of the Assembly, as the
5 representative of the legislature, and the Prime Minister as the
6 representative of the executive government. This is an adding up of
7 different functions that is hard to justify.
8 Q. Why do you say that it's hard to justify, Mr. Trbojevic?
9 A. The legal system, the division of powers, the democratic
10 independence between the different branches of government is thereby
11 destroyed completely. There is no parliamentary life in that way. There
12 is no control over legality or anything.
13 Q. You were asked about exercise of executive powers. This was at
14 page 81 of the -- I'm sorry, it was at page 33. I think it should be page
15 33 of the transcript of your second interview, the one in May.
16 I hope Your Honours have -- as a reference point, a question from
17 Mr. Margetts, "Your observations at the time was that Krajisnik was more
18 organised and an effective decision maker." If Your Honours have that as
19 a reference point?
20 JUDGE ORIE: Not yet, but we'll find it.
21 MR. STEWART: It should be either page 33 or very close.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, 33.
23 MR. STEWART: Yes, Thank you, Your Honour.
24 Q. Then I -- that's a reference point because I'm then skipping to
25 Mr. Margetts's next question where he says, "Did you observe that it was
1 Krajisnik that was exercising executive decision-making power?" That was
2 his question to you, Mr. Trbojevic. And then you said, "There were no
3 really executive decisions that we could see, but you could see them at
4 some meetings ..." Just pausing there, when you say "there were no really
5 executive decisions that we could see," who, in that answer, is "we"? Or
6 are "we"?
7 A. I assume that I meant the government as an organ.
8 Q. Right. Then moving on in your answer, then, you said, "No really
9 executive decisions that we could see." Then you went on to say, "But you
10 could see them at some meetings at the Assembly, and then at the
11 Krajisnik's cabinet at the Assembly before leaving Sarajevo and also at
12 the club of deputies."
13 I'm not going to ask you about the Assembly, Mr. Trbojevic,
14 because it's a public meeting of which there's a record, but the next
15 point, "Then at Krajisnik's cabinet at the Assembly." Are you -- you're
16 talking about -- when you say "Krajisnik's cabinet," meetings that you
17 personally attended, are you?
18 A. I must admit that I do not quite understand what you just read out
19 to me. As for meetings in Mr. Krajisnik's office when he was --
20 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I suggest then perhaps Mr. Trbojevic
21 should have the B/C/S transcript - this should be found at page 28 - if
22 he's not readily grasping the point.
23 I'm very much obliged. Thank you.
24 JUDGE ORIE: I hope there's only one version of that. I think it
1 MR. STEWART: Yes, Thank you, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ORIE: If you find it, Mr. Trbojevic.
3 MR. STEWART: Yes, I think we can pick it up, I think we've even
4 got lines for you. You should be able to pick that up around line 29/30,
5 you should pick up --
6 JUDGE ORIE: There are two versions because mine does not contain
7 any lines, the one I just gave to the witness.
8 MR. STEWART: Well, a lined version of B/C/S was produced at some
9 point but perhaps that luxurious item has got mislaid.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Trbojevic, do you find the line where it
11 reads, "Did you observe that it was Krajisnik that was exercising
12 executive decision making power?"
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
15 MR. STEWART:
16 Q. So it's your next answer or your answer to that question,
17 Mr. Trbojevic, that I'm concentrating on. "There were no really executive
18 decisions that we could see," and you had indicated a few minutes ago that
19 you believed that by "we" you must have meant the government. Then you go
20 on to say, "But you could see them at some meetings at the Assembly," and
21 I said I wouldn't ask you now about the Assembly, "And then at Krajisnik's
22 cabinet at the Assembly before leaving Sarajevo."
23 So I was asking you then with reference to "Krajisnik's cabinet at
24 the Assembly before leaving Sarajevo," whether you're talking there about
25 meetings that you personally attended? That's my first question.
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And can you give, then, an example of an executive -- what you
3 would describe as an executive decision taken at such a meeting?
4 A. I've said already that I haven't seen any executive decision.
5 Q. Just to clarify then, Mr. Trbojevic, your first couple of lines of
6 that answer you gave in the interview reads, "There were no really
7 executive decisions that we could see, but you could see them at some
8 meetings." So Mr. Trbojevic, I'm just suggesting as an introduction to
9 this question, the way it reads is that there's some qualification of that
10 assertion that you could see them sometimes.
11 But is it this, Mr. Trbojevic, you're essentially saying that
12 whether or not there were some minor or insignificant decisions taken, the
13 first line of that answer is your position: There were no really
14 executive decisions that you could see.
15 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger.
17 MR. TIEGER: I wasn't going to seek the full response as long as
18 the focus was sort of on locations, but if it's a matter of interpreting
19 what the witness meant by the first part of his answer, I think his
20 attention needs to be drawn to the full answer especially given the
21 potential ambiguities of what is meant by "them."
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
23 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, I certainly wasn't intending --
24 well, two things. I thought for a moment to invite the witness to read
25 the answer but I rather assume that a very experienced lawyer by
1 Mr. Trbojevic would have cast his eyes down those lines.
2 Q. Have you, in fact, while we've been considering this,
3 Mr. Trbojevic, have you had an opportunity to read the whole of the eight
4 lines of your answer there?
5 A. Yes. Yes.
6 Q. Thank you.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps you could invite the witness to further
8 clarify what he exactly meant.
9 Mr. Trbojevic, could you further elaborate on what you -- what
10 your answer was about? Because there seems to start with executive
11 decisions which you say and you repeated it now, you have not seen, and
12 then you continue with matters that happened at meetings of which you at
13 least said that the meetings and the -- Mr. Krajisnik's cabinet at the
14 Assembly, you attended.
15 Could you explain exactly what you meant by this answer?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Basically, the investigator and I
17 were not discussing decisions here but rather the relationship between
18 Karadzic and Krajisnik. I was explaining that I had the opportunity at
19 Mr. Krajisnik's office before leaving Sarajevo, and after that, at the
20 MP's club, on several occasions of seeing debates, discussions taking
21 place, different views being expounded.
22 I described here that Krajisnik always made a maximum effort and
23 that he managed to do so to treat Karadzic as his boss. And I presented
24 my own assessment that when there was a discussion regarding particular
25 issues, that Krajisnik's word carried more weight in terms of quality, in
1 terms of content, than Karadzic's.
2 I presented that as my own assessment of the many discussions that
3 were not an introduction to decisions that were to be made but simply
5 JUDGE ORIE: Was Mr. Karadzic present during those discussions as
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Now, I -- when I read this, it was not entirely clear
9 to me whether in those discussions on certain issues, it was Mr. Krajisnik
10 who convinced the others that the line of the boss, Karadzic, was the one
11 to be followed, or whether I have to read it that you say that when
12 Krajisnik and Karadzic were both present and discussions on those issues
13 developed, that finally, the views of Mr. Krajisnik at the end were the
14 prevailing ones.
15 Is it the first interpretation or the second or neither of them
16 which is right?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The latter is the case. Krajisnik's
18 viewpoint would prevail more often but that is my assessment of the talks
19 from before the war, before the Constitution was passed on the Serb
20 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina and then countless meetings of the
21 deputies' club, many talks related to the peace negotiations, and so on
22 and so forth. Quite simply, I think that it is clear.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, please proceed.
24 MR. STEWART:
25 Q. A noticeable difference between Dr. Karadzic and Mr. Krajisnik was
1 this, wasn't it, that whereas Dr. Karadzic had, as you have confirmed
2 before, a tendency to shoot from the hip, Mr. Krajisnik did not; do you
4 A. Believe me, I never heard that figure of speech before, this shoot
5 from the hip, what you said.
6 Q. Well, I only go on the fact that I believe I used it very
7 specifically in this -- in the course of your evidence and it appeared to
8 be translated without difficulty. But perhaps I'm wrong about that.
9 Mr. -- I'll do it again then, Mr. Trbojevic. Dr. Karadzic had a
10 tendency to fire off rather extreme statements and assertions and
11 arguments, didn't he?
12 A. I don't know what you mean by "extreme," but rapid, yes.
13 Q. Well, I'll put a slightly different question then. Dr. Karadzic
14 had a tendency, perhaps rapidly, to produce statements or arguments which
15 appeared not to be fully thought out by him.
16 A. That is correct. He was prone to that, to -- not to go into a
17 more profound analysis, but to formulate what he wanted to say more
18 superficially, though rapidly.
19 Q. Thank you, Mr. Trbojevic. I beg your pardon, I thought you were
20 going to go into a more profound analysis there which I was in the
21 interests of time going to discourage?
22 Q. Mr. Krajisnik did not have that tendency, did he?
23 A. No.
24 Q. So that in a group meeting, or any other sort, but in the meeting
25 of a nature that you described, Mr. Krajisnik's views would be regarded
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 consistently more respectfully because he produced measured, more
2 cautiously-expressed views; is that a fair summary?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. What were -- first of all, when you talk about "the Krajisnik
5 cabinet" you're talking about -- you said Dr. Karadzic was there, you
6 describe it as Mr. Krajisnik's cabinet, so what -- Mr. Krajisnik was in
7 the chair then, was he, at those meetings at the Assembly before leaving
9 A. Yes?
10 Q. And was there purpose to plan and discuss what was going to happen
11 or might happen at forthcoming Assembly sessions? Was that one of the
12 elements of the discussion at those meetings?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And I think you've already made it clear that those meetings
15 included, but just so there's no ambiguity, those meetings included
16 discussions about peace negotiations.
17 A. Yes, later.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Just in addition to that, Mr. Stewart.
19 Mr. Trbojevic, could you give us an example on where the views of
20 Mr. Krajisnik and Mr. Karadzic were not the same and where Mr. Krajisnik's
21 views would prevail at the end of the discussion?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot give you a concrete
23 example. What I described here were several meetings of different types
24 and of different substance. Meetings at Mr. Krajisnik's office while he
25 was president of the National Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina, those
1 were different discussions in terms of what is expected at the next
2 meeting, what can be -- of the Assembly, what can be expected from the SDA
3 MPs, what can be expected from the HDZ MPs. If you remember, especially
4 regarding the subject whether Bosnia-Herzegovina is going to seek
5 independence and separation from Yugoslavia, things like that. How the
6 club of deputies of the SDS would respond to that. How they would react
7 to that. Because we were not interested in having Bosnia-Herzegovina
8 separate from the -- from Yugoslavia.
9 So we were in agreement about 90 per cent, all of us. There was
10 no confrontation. I'm just describing the situation there in terms of my
11 own assessment. Krajisnik was more rational, more serious, more profound
12 in dealing with problems and simply what he would say would carry more
13 weight than what Karadzic would say. That situation would repeat itself
14 when we discussed the peace talks during the war, that situation again
15 repeated itself when we discussed our relations with Serbia which later on
16 imposed a blockade against us. That is what I meant.
17 I cannot give a concrete example now in terms of Krajisnik as for
18 that and Krajisnik as for that, I do not have that kind of confrontational
19 example, a clear example of that kind in terms of the things that I have
20 been telling you about.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Let me then try to find out whether I understood you
22 well. Are you saying that when you discussed issues as what position to
23 take in the Assembly by the SDS or what position to present during peace
24 negotiations, that if there were differences of view, that often,
25 Mr. Krajisnik's view would prevail; that is to say, that his views were
1 then adopted by SDS members that took such a position then in the Assembly
2 or that negotiators would adopt such a position to take in the
3 negotiations. Is that a correct understanding?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Speaking of the Assembly, yes, it is
5 a correct understanding. As for outside negotiations, Karadzic was more
6 strong headed, I would say. He was less amenable to specific suggestions
7 and proposals.
8 JUDGE ORIE: So this phenomena was there as far as the Assembly is
9 concerned but as far as international negotiations were concerned,
10 Mr. Krajisnik's views would not, in a similar way, be adopted by those who
11 would present those positions at the negotiations.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've already said, speaking of
13 international negotiations, Karadzic was more likely to hold on firmly to
14 his position and generally speaking, as time went on, he was less and less
15 amenable to reason, less amenable to the suggestions of others. You could
16 influence him less and less.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Now, you made, although you first put on one line,
18 you now make a clear distinction between issues to be discussed at peace
19 negotiations rather than in Assembly meetings. If you say Karadzic was
20 less amenable to follow the views and he would go his own way, what could
21 you tell us about others being present at those meetings? Would Karadzic
22 go against the majority view or would Karadzic convince the others present
23 that his view, which he finally then would take, was better than another
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Outside the deliberations that were
1 held within the club of deputies or within the Assembly, I did not attend
2 the talks they had with others. My impression was that whatever
3 Mrs. Plavsic said, Mr. Koljevic, and Mr. Buha, did not mean anything to
4 Mr. Karadzic. How he treated Mr. Krajisnik's views in those internal
5 meetings, I really don't know.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, please proceed.
7 Yes, Judge Hanoteau has a question for you.
8 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] In the relations between these
9 two men, Mr. Krajisnik and Mr. Karadzic, that you had the opportunity to
10 witness, did you see Mr. Krajisnik disapprove of anything that
11 Mr. Karadzic had said in the presence of other people and in your
12 presence, namely?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You could not see anything of the
14 kind in public. Mr. Krajisnik was consistent in his deference to Karadzic
15 as the leader and he would never allow himself to openly and clearly
16 distance himself from Mr. Karadzic, his views, in public.
17 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Did you expect from him that type
18 of reaction? Did you regret that he did not react in that way?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Sometimes I did. But I did not
20 really expect him to confront Karadzic because ever since I've known them,
21 I've never seen a direct confrontation.
22 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Then in what circumstances did
23 you regret that?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There were many rounds of talks
25 starting with the preparation and the declaration of the Serbian Republic
1 of Bosnia-Herzegovina through its Constitution and other steps. There
2 were many times when we felt we were on the threshold of a peace agreement
3 up to the moment when we were facing a real possibility of international
4 sanctions just as Serbia did. I am at a loss for a specific example
5 though. I really can can't think of anything.
6 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Thank you, Witness.
7 JUDGE ORIE: I have one additional question in this respect.
8 You, in your answer about whether Mr. Krajisnik, in meetings --
9 the question was whether you saw Mr. Krajisnik disapprove of anything that
10 Mr. Karadzic had said in the presence of other people, and in your
11 presence, namely. Now, you focused your answer on what Mr. Krajisnik did
12 in public but the question also included situations where just you or
13 perhaps a few others were present which were not public meetings. What
14 happened in those meetings? Did you there ever witness Mr. Krajisnik
15 disapproving with what Mr. Karadzic said?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There were very few meetings
17 attended by a small number of people that I attended, so I do not have
18 such an example.
19 JUDGE ORIE: You say there were small meetings and thus which of
20 course is not conclusive. If you were talking about smaller meetings, I
21 mean any meeting that was not for the public eye, whether there were 5
22 people or 10 people or 20 people, that's not what I'm interested in. Just
23 non-public meetings irrespective of the number of people present, whether
24 at such occasions you ever witnessed Mr. Krajisnik to disapprove of what
25 Mr. Karadzic said.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At such smaller meetings, I attended
2 only a couple of times. I can't tell you that I attended many of them
3 when I didn't. Whether it was the constitutional committee or some ad hoc
4 group, I can't remember now but I can't think of any example where they
5 would be in open confrontation. With Mr. Krajisnik, you could see that he
6 was making an effort to avoid confrontation and to preserve peace within
7 the house, so to speak, especially in the Assembly, and it was something
8 that you could clearly see in him.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'm not talking about the Assembly because
10 these were, as far as I understand, public meetings. But in your earlier
11 answers, you said about Mr. Krajisnik's views prevailing at the end.
12 Doesn't that require that there were at least two views that were not
13 concurring completely?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know how to explain this to
15 you. When I mentioned the effort to obstruct the demand of Bosnia and
16 Herzegovina to separate from Yugoslavia, I said that there was no
17 disagreement regarding the basic principle and the basic commitment among
18 us. All the talk was about the practical steps that could be made in one
19 way or another.
20 Later, when peace negotiations started, since there were many
21 rounds of these negotiations, concentrating on various aspects and various
22 options that, for us, meant different kinds of obligations, different maps
23 with varying amounts of territory supposed to remain within the republic,
24 varying amounts of territory lost to other parties, internal discussions
25 were necessary; however, I can't say the positions involved were
1 diametrically opposed.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, thank you.
3 Mr. Stewart.
4 MR. STEWART: Thank you, Your Honour.
5 Q. Mr. Trbojevic, you were asked on Thursday, the 7th of April, and
6 it's at page 11.641, about a remark made by Dr. Karadzic that the Serbs
7 had been appointed to be the Muslims' executioners. You remember that
8 remark and no doubt that bit of your evidence, Mr. Trbojevic, do you?
9 A. I remember that, but it was not said by Dr. Karadzic, it was said
10 by a deputy to the Assembly, Dr. Nedic.
11 Q. You're quite right, I'm so sorry, Mr. Trbojevic, you're absolutely
12 right about that. And Mr. Tieger asked you at line 6 on page 11.641, "And
13 what do you find to be irresponsible about his remarks?" And Mr. Nedic is
14 mentioned at the foot of the previous page. "What do you find to be
15 irresponsible about his remarks that the Serbs are to be the Muslims'
16 executioners?" And your answer was, "I said that the entire statement was
17 irresponsible and that it represented an outburst, that it did not, in
18 fact, represent anyone's position or anyone's view. He claims here that
19 the Muslims have been planted on us as a nation which is ludicrous. He
20 claims that someone else had envisaged Serbs as executioners of the other
21 nation which once again is completely unfounded."
22 Mr. Trbojevic, you have never heard or read Mr. Krajisnik saying
23 anything remotely like Mr. Nedic's remarks, have you?
24 A. No.
25 Q. And then you were asked, this is at the next page of that
1 transcript, 11.642, and this time it is Dr. Karadzic, "Dr. Karadzic had
2 stated in the course of an Assembly session, I think it was,, "There is
3 truth in what Mr. Kupresanin has said although known in Europe will say it
4 openly that this conflict was roused in order to eliminate the Muslims,"
5 and Mr. Tieger's question to you was. "Did Dr. Karadzic's remarks reflect
6 his understanding of events on the ground as far as you were aware?"
7 Answer: "They most likely did."
8 Mr. Trbojevic, the assertion that the conflict was roused in order
9 to eliminate the Muslims, again, you have never heard or read any such
10 view being expressed by Mr. Krajisnik, have you?
11 A. No, I did not.
12 Q. And you have no reason to believe Mr. Krajisnik ever has held such
13 a view, have you?
14 A. You are right.
15 Q. And that same day, same transcript, page 11.644, Mr. Tieger put
16 the question to you, "But there was expressed concern, wasn't there, about
17 the number of Muslims who would be in Serb territories because of Muslim
18 birth rates, Muslim demographics." You never heard Mr. Krajisnik express
19 concerns about the birthrate of Muslims, did you?
20 A. I did not.
21 Q. Going back in that same days's transcript to page 11.629,
22 His Honour Judge Orie asked you a question, he said, line 9, "Did you ever
23 experience in your communications conversations with members of the
24 Presidency that they were unaware of any issue you wanted to raise, you
25 wanted to discuss, or you referred to?" And your answer was, "No."
1 Mr. Trbojevic, you never discussed with Mr. Krajisnik matters of
2 military operation, did you?
3 A. I did not, either with him or anybody else.
4 Q. You never discussed with Mr. Krajisnik issues relating to prisoner
5 exchange, did you?
6 A. No.
7 Q. You never discussed with Mr. Krajisnik issues concerning detention
9 A. No.
10 MR. STEWART: I have no further questions, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Stewart.
12 Mr. Tieger, is there any need to reexamine the witness?
13 MR. TIEGER: I have a few questions, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.
15 Re-examined by Mr. Tieger:
16 MR. TIEGER:
17 Q. Mr. Trbojevic, in your testimony last week on Thursday, I believe,
18 you were asked by Mr. Stewart about Mr. Krajisnik's work with the Assembly
19 and his work on international negotiations and whether or not those
20 constituted full-time jobs. Do you recall that testimony generally, sir?
21 A. I do.
22 Q. If I could focus your attention not on the entire period of time
23 during which you interacted with or worked with Mr. Krajisnik but more
24 narrowly on the period of time from April, May, June, July 1992, do you
25 know offhand how many international negotiations were held during that
1 period of time between members of the Bosnian Serb leadership and
2 international bodies or international negotiators?
3 A. I don't know that.
4 Q. If I indicated to you that there were, during that period of time,
5 relatively few meetings but that they included two meetings toward the end
6 of April, a meeting in May, and a meeting in mid-July and a meeting in
7 late July, would that be consistent or inconsistent with your
8 recollection, or can't you say?
9 A. I really cannot tell you that.
10 Q. If I further indicated to you that the minutes of those meetings
11 indicate that they were attended by other members of the Bosnian Serb
12 leadership than Mr. Krajisnik, would that be consistent or inconsistent
13 with your knowledge or do you not know?
14 A. I know that he was a member of the group that was supposed to be
15 involved in those negotiations. I know he travelled abroad to attend
16 those negotiations, but exactly at which meeting he attended, for how
17 long, in which way, I can't tell you.
18 Q. You also mentioned his work with the Assembly and, again, I want
19 to focus on the period of April, May, June, and July of 1992. Do you know
20 of any Assembly sessions other than the Assembly session held on May 12th
21 and the Assembly session we looked at the other day, the 17th Assembly
22 session held on July 24 -- 24th to the 26th?
23 A. I really don't know any dates. You have to believe me.
24 Q. In looking at the minutes of a government session held on May 8th,
25 and if I could have a moment to grab that, Your Honour.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Please take your time, if not too much.
2 MR. TIEGER: And that is or will be one of the later tabs,
3 Your Honour, 120, in that vicinity, but I'll indicate that for the
4 registrar on the record at the break, perhaps.
5 Q. It reflects a discussion by the members in attendance, and that's
6 the meeting of the National Security Council and the government at that
7 time, to call a session of the Assembly of the Serbian People in
8 Bosnia-Herzegovina as soon as possible. And as we indicated a moment ago,
9 the Assembly session was held on -- the subsequent Assembly session was
10 held on May 12th. Is that generally consistent with your recollection, if
11 you can tell us, of the length of time it takes to organise an Assembly
13 A. I do not know about this session of the National Defence
14 Council -- National Security Council, rather, because that was the time
15 before I left Sarajevo. The Assembly, the National Assembly was still in
16 Banja Luka and I was still in Sarajevo on the 12th of May, so I don't know
17 how it was organised, that particular meeting of the Assembly, whether
18 helicopters were used or not, because there was no passage from the
19 eastern part of the republic towards Banja Luka by land.
20 How this particular Assembly session was organised, I really don't
21 know. Generally speaking, the convening of an Assembly session involves
22 the collection and copying of material, supplying that material to MPs,
23 organisation of the meetings of deputies' clubs before the meeting and if
24 the Assembly session is taking part in a different location than the usual
25 one, then it also involves finding and organising accommodation,
1 transporting or organising copiers for the background material. So to
2 what extent Krajisnik participated in this, I don't know, but there are
3 quite a lot of activities to organise in connection with an Assembly
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, first of all, it's not entirely clear
6 whether this is still in relation to the answers on the full-time job
7 which suggests that there would remain no time to do other things.
8 To be quite honest, this Chamber knows a few people who have three
9 full-time jobs so therefore, we wonder whether it really assists us
10 greatly to talk about full-time jobs not remaining any time left.
11 You are looking at the clock. We would have only very small
12 number of questions. If we would finish the testimony of Mr. Trbojevic
13 during this session and that certainly could not take more than 12 to 13
14 minutes, at its maximum, 15, we would then be able to prepare for the next
15 witness because we need approximately half an hour to prepare for the
16 protective measures so if we would now have a break, if we would restart
17 at five minutes to 11.00 and then have to break again after 20 minutes,
18 that would perhaps not be a good idea.
19 I don't know how much time you would still need.
20 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, may I simply inquire. I -- perhaps
21 it's a total misunderstanding on my part, because I -- we -- for various
22 reasons, we didn't get the transcript yesterday in time for me to look at
23 it at all, but I had understood, have I got it completely wrong, I had --
24 it had been reported to me I had understood that the next witness was not
25 going to give evidence today.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, there might be some confusion there.
2 MR. STEWART: There clearly is, Your Honour, on my part.
3 JUDGE ORIE: I was a bit confused this morning as well. I
4 wondered whether the witness that we -- that testified yesterday would
5 still be on standby.
6 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, you are perfectly right. The thought
8 came up yesterday later, not primarily in my mind, then some preparations
9 were made which means that the witness would be available but of course
10 Ms. Loukas has not been informed about it so I take it that she is not
11 available unless we receive information otherwise.
12 MR. STEWART: I was -- I would rather Your Honour communicated the
13 news to her than I did, but Your Honour, I -- seriously, Your Honour, I do
14 know -- I'm not saying that under no circumstances could the Defence be
15 ready, I'm simply saying that it is expressly understood by Ms. Loukas
16 that this witness wasn't going to be heard today.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's clear and she is perfectly right.
18 At the same time, let's see when we can finish with this witness,
19 otherwise we will be free to do what we want to do the rest of the day and
20 if Ms. Loukas would be available, the witness would at least be available.
21 Mr. Tieger, how much time would you still need?
22 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, I had estimated about 15 minutes. I'll
23 do my best to expedite this and make it even faster.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, then perhaps let's not try to rush too much
25 because we have three or four questions from the bench as well. Let's ...
1 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
2 JUDGE ORIE: Let's take the break now until 11.00 so we expect
3 that we would not take more than, at its most, half an hour after the
4 break and perhaps, Mr. Stewart, you could use the break to see whether
5 the -- well-known flexibility of Ms. Loukas would enable her to be here
6 but at the same time, I emphasise quite clearly that she doesn't have to
7 apologise if she's not available because she could not but expect that we
8 would resume with that witness next Monday.
9 MR. STEWART: That's very gracious of Your Honour, and in that
10 case, in light of the last remark I will make the call myself rather than
11 delegate it, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you. We'll adjourn until 11.00.
13 --- Recess taken at 10.35 a.m.
14 --- On resuming at 11.04 a.m.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger.
16 MR. TIEGER:
17 Q. Mr. Trbojevic, before the recess [French on the English channel].
18 JUDGE ORIE: [In French] I'm now receiving the French translation
19 on channel 4. Now I can hear it in English.
20 [In English] Yes, please proceed, Mr. Tieger.
21 MR. TIEGER:
22 Q. Mr. Trbojevic, before the recess, I had asked you about the number
23 of times the Assembly met during the period April through July 1992. And
24 is it correct that because the Assembly was not meeting more regularly,
25 that the Presidency and the expanded Presidency took decisions that were
1 then ratified in those Assembly sessions, for example, in the Assembly
2 session we discussed earlier the 17th Assembly session, do you recall that
3 it began with a -- with remarks by Mr. Krajisnik about the long agenda and
4 about the fact that the Presidency had adopted a string of laws and
5 decisions which the Assembly was supposed to ratify, is that consistent
6 with your recollection, sir?
7 A. Yes, that is my recollection.
8 Q. And is it also correct that the Presidency adopted and expanded
9 Presidency adopted conclusions and directives which it communicated to the
10 government for the government to implement and I can direct your attention
11 to particular sessions of the government in which that appears to be
13 For the Court's benefit, I would simply, for examples, tab 23, on
14 June 15th, tab 27 on June 24th, tab 31 on July 11th, but if that's
15 consistent with the witness's recollection, I think there's no need to
16 pull out those individual sessions.
17 Is that consistent with your recollection, sir?
18 A. Well, I cannot say that I remember specifically but there is no
19 controversy about that. The Presidency invoked a particular provision
20 from the Constitution, I can't remember exactly now, I think it was
21 Article 80, saying that at the time when the Assembly cannot be convened,
22 the president of the republic has the right to pass a law which is then
23 later verified by the Assembly. That is indeed what was done.
24 Q. And my question after we touched on that subject of the Presidency
25 passing laws later verified by the Assembly, whether the Presidency and
1 expanded Presidency also issued conclusions and directives which were then
2 communicated to the government for implementation. And I cited a number
3 of specific examples, which it's not necessary for you to look at in
4 particular if it's your -- if the fact that the Presidency conveyed such
5 conclusions to the government for implementation is consistent with your
7 A. I have to admit that I do not recall specific things. There's no
8 doubt once a law is passed, it is passed, and I have to accept that.
9 As for these other things, I really don't remember them.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, could we cut that short? I think the
11 issue could be approached in a different way.
12 Mr. Trbojevic, did the government ever send back any conclusion,
13 proposal, directive or whatever document from the expanded Presidency for
14 the reason that it was not legally constituted since no state of war had
15 been declared?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Tieger.
18 MR. TIEGER:
19 Q. Now, on Friday, His Honour Judge Hanoteau directed you to some
20 portions of your statement concerning the presence of Main Board members
21 at Assembly sessions and the issue of resulting pressure on the delegates
22 and you also described on that date -- you also described on Friday,
23 events in 1994 at discussions where you indicated there was no chance to
24 even start a discussion in the Assembly about other proposals than what
25 Karadzic and Krajisnik were proposing as a result of members of the party
1 alleging that you or others were traitors.
2 First of all, do you recall, generally, that discussion?
3 A. We talked about that.
4 Q. And is it correct that the threat of being called a traitor
5 existed in and was raised in the Assembly in 1992 as well?
6 A. Well, I cannot tell you exactly when this was first used but in
7 that kind of situation, when there is a war on several sides, when there
8 are conflicts all over the place, this term "traitor" is very easily
9 defined and very readily used, also easily accepted for officers who, in
10 any way emphasised their affiliation with the former JNA, they would
11 immediately call them traitors, communist officers, all of those who had
12 this nostalgia towards the former Yugoslavia, and the togetherness that
13 prevailed there were called traitors because now a Serbian state was in
14 the making and so on and so forth. So this term traitor was applied very
15 broadly and, as I said later on in the Assembly, too, regarding such big
17 Q. And I had asked you about the implication of that term and the use
18 of that term in the Assembly in 1992 or earlier, and let me direct your
19 attention, if I may, to a couple of passages from Assembly sessions in
20 that period of time. The first one is the 8th session of the Assembly of
21 the Serbian People in Bosnia and Herzegovina of 25 February 1992 which can
22 be found at P64 and P65, tab 93. And I'm quoting here, Mr. Trbojevic, a
23 portion of Mr. Karadzic's remarks found at page 45 of the English. Let's
24 see if it's necessary to distribute it. And that quote is "However, once
25 the party has adopted a policy, anything else is treason. Anything
1 outside the adopted policy is treason. Assisting the enemy cannot be
2 tolerated. Giving him a way out and confusing the people while being a
3 member of that party, of the Assembly, and the party organs, that cannot
4 be. I will not allow it. I will signal to the people: People, this man
5 is a traitor."
6 And if I could also at the same time direct your attention to the
7 second session of the Assembly of the Serbian People of Bosnia and
8 Herzegovina held on November 21st, 1991, found at P64 and P65, tab 59 at
9 page 12. These are the remarks of Mr. Krajisnik and I quote, "Traitors
10 and outcasts are the most difficult opponents. We would like to send the
11 following message to all those who falter or are neutral, weak, or
12 misguided and who do not feel like traitors. Today, you still have time,
13 tomorrow will be too late."
14 Mr. Trbojevic, is it correct then that the use of and the
15 impression resulting from the term "traitor" also resulted in 1991 and
17 A. I have to admit in 1991 and February 1992, this was not of a very
18 serious character yet, it was before the proclamation of the Serb Republic
19 of Bosnia-Herzegovina and before the Constitution of the Serb Republic of
20 Bosnia-Herzegovina and before we left Sarajevo. It was distasteful
21 political vocabulary, if I can put it that way. At least I did not think
22 that this was a serious threat, what we heard just now, that is.
23 Q. And once the conflict broke out, then the level of the threat or
24 the nature of the threat escalated?
25 A. Well, you know, when you are in a situation of war, the other side
1 treats you as a member of the hostile forces and then conditionally
2 speaking, your side, if it proclaims you to be a traitor then the
3 situation becomes very serious and you can expect all sorts of things.
4 Criteria are quite different once a war breaks out as compared to a
5 situation when we are still conducting political discussions in peacetime.
6 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour, nothing further.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, did the questions in re-examination
8 raise any further need to cross-examine the witness on those portions?
9 MR. STEWART: There's one issue right now for.
10 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone.
11 MR. STEWART: There's one issue right now, I apologise for being
12 dispute I'm actually distracted by one issue which Mr. Krajisnik is
13 raising which may bear on what Your Honours just asked me. Might I just
14 have a minute, perhaps to --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Take your time, and take care that the
16 microphone is switched off.
17 MR. STEWART: Indeed, Your Honour. Thank you for the reminder.
18 [Defence counsel and accused confer]
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart.
20 MR. STEWART: Thank you so much, Your Honour.
21 Cross-examined by Mr. Stewart:
22 Q. Mr. Trbojevic, you were asked in fact, by Judge Orie in the course
23 of Mr. Tieger's questions, whether the government had ever returned any
24 document or rejected any document on the basis that the expanded
25 Presidency was not lawfully constituted. You recall that exchange of
1 question and answer five minutes or so ago?
2 A. I said no.
3 Q. Can you say whether the government actually received any
4 documentation of any sort purporting to come from the expanded Presidency?
5 A. I've said that there were laws and some decisions, but
6 specifically what came was something I could not tell the Prosecutor
7 either. I could not give any specific examples.
8 Q. Is it -- is it your position, Mr. Trbojevic, that as far as the
9 technical, legal, and constitutional establishment of an expanded
10 Presidency is concerned, you, yourself, just don't definitively know what
11 the position was?
12 A. As far as I can remember, this expanded Presidency had been
13 constituted; however, the basic requirement in the Constitution was to
14 have a state of war declared in order to have this kind of thing operate.
15 I thought that the requirements had not been met for that. Formally, how
16 this was constituted, is something I don't know. I don't know whether
17 there was a special session when this Presidency was promulgated. I think
18 that there was a decision for this Presidency to be expanded, I think. I
19 think I saw it, that it was being expanded in order to include the
20 president of the Assembly and the Prime Minister.
21 Q. Now, Mr. Trbojevic, you -- you have already said that you didn't
22 attend any meetings of any expanded Presidency or purported expanded
23 Presidency yourself. Is the position that anything you know about whether
24 there were actually meetings of a body called the expanded Presidency
25 comes from what you can see on paper?
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, I think that has been gone into in both
2 examination-in-chief and in cross-examination and it's been asked and
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, under the present circumstances, I will
5 allow Mr. Stewart to put that question. There might be some follow-up
7 MR. STEWART: Yes, Thank you, Your Honour.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You see, it was envisaged that
9 Mrs. Plavsic and Mr. Koljevic, that is to say, members of the Presidency
10 of Bosnia-Herzegovina who were elected at direct elections constitute the
11 Presidency of the Serb Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina because they had the
12 legitimacy of having been elected in direct sections. Afterwards, a
13 three-member Presidency was proclaimed to be the Presidency when that
14 Presidency included Karadzic and when he became the president of that
16 So the notion of the Presidency was created once Karadzic came
17 into that body which originally was supposed to be made up of Mrs. Plavsic
18 and Mr. Koljevic.
19 Now, where does this expanded Presidency come into the picture? I
20 think I saw a decision on the expansion of the Presidency but the notion
21 of the Presidency itself was practically not split up in any way. I do
22 not remember the notion of the Presidency on the one hand and the expanded
23 Presidency on the other hand, as a practical notion, that is, as something
24 that appears in practice.
25 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I have no more questions.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you.
2 Mr. Tieger, I do not know -- I feel a bit guilty because I said
3 that I'd like to cut matters short when you were referring to tab 23, tab
4 27, and tab 31. I said perhaps a different approach would cut matters
5 short. If you would like, since I stopped you there and since it seems to
6 have become an issue, if you'd like to further explore that on the
7 basis -- if you feel that there's any need, I would give you an
9 I'm not encouraging, but I think it's fair to give you an
10 opportunity to do so because you came with examples and I then put a
11 rather short question to the witness: Did you ever return any proposal,
12 et cetera.
13 MR. TIEGER: No, Your Honour, I think that's fine and I think that
14 documentation is available to the Court and largely speaks for itself.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Judge Hanoteau has a question or perhaps even
16 more for you.
17 Questioned by the Court:
18 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Witness, when Mr. Stewart said
19 "... when a three-member Presidency was proclaimed to be the Presidency,"
20 what do you mean when you say "was proclaimed" would you kindly expand on
21 the word "was proclaimed"?
22 A. Remember that Karadzic insisted that he should now be elected to
23 the Presidency and that he should be the president of the Presidency. And
24 I remember that then, by way of comment, we said that that was enough
25 violation of the Constitution and that that certainly could not be in line
1 with the Constitution itself.
2 So this notion of the Presidency and even of the expanded
3 Presidency was first mentioned when Karadzic became part of that
5 Now, Krajisnik and Djeric, as people who were supposed to be
6 members of the expanded Presidency, whether they actually became members
7 of that expanded Presidency in real terms, was this an expanded Presidency
8 in a situation of war, whether they did something or were these few papers
9 that came signed by the Presidency come from that three-member Presidency:
10 Karadzic, Plavsic, Koljevic? Believe me, I don't remember the
12 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] I'm terribly sorry, Witness, but
13 you didn't answer my question. I asked you what you meant when you
14 said "a three-member Presidency was proclaimed" to be the Presidency.
15 Now, was it as a result of a law, of a decision? Who made the decision?
16 Was it proclaimed? Was it passed in a local newspaper, in a bulletin, in
17 a gazette, was it stated in an Assembly meeting? I would like to see or
18 find out how it actually happened that this new institution saw the light
19 of day.
20 A. It went through the Assembly, that's for sure. Now, was that yet
21 another addition to that law on the implementation of the Constitution,
22 well, most probably that's the way it was. Most probably it was an
23 amendment to the law on the implementation of the Constitution.
24 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] And was that published? Is it
25 something that became official? Did the population, was the population
1 able to know that such an important institutional change had taken place?
2 A. I think it was. I think it was published.
3 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Then I have a second question for
4 you. Concerning your first statement, on page 18 you speak of the work
5 done by the constitutional commission of which you were a member; is that
6 true? You were indeed a member of the constitutional commission.
7 You are speaking of a position adopted by Mr. Krajisnik who wanted
8 to introduce as an official language Serbian and the Cyrillic alphabet as
9 well as the Ekavian dialect. Do you remember that passage of your
11 Please forgive me ignorance but for my information, what were the
12 languages that were being spoken at the time in Bosnia-Herzegovina,
13 several languages, several dialects, what language could you give me on
14 that topic?
15 A. In those time, the official language was called Serbo-Croatian.
16 Serbo-Croatian. Both scripts were used on an equal footing, the Cyrillic
17 and the Latinic scripts, and they were both taught at school on a regular
18 basis in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The dialect was Ijekavian. In practical
19 terms, that means people used localisms such as "lijepo," the word for
20 beautiful. In Serbia they pronounce it as "lepo." In southern parts, it
21 is "lipo" the vowel is "I" rather than "E." This doesn't make it any more
22 difficult to understand each other. In Bosnia, it was "lijepo."
23 In one of the discussions, it was mentioned that we, as Republika
24 Srpska, in our general rapprochement with Serbia should be using the
25 Ekavian dialect in order to be closer to the Serbian version and with
1 other things being as they were, this was met with support; however, it
2 couldn't be enforced because people speak as they speak. For a while,
3 anchors on the radio tried to change the way they speak and it was rather
4 funny sometimes. If you normally speak the Ijekavian dialect and you try
5 to change it overnight, the result can sometimes be ridiculous but at one
6 point, it was a subject of discussion.
7 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] But you said that the idea
8 emanated from Mr. Krajisnik or at least that's how I understood it.
9 Mr. Krajisnik was trying to convict the person called Maksimovic from
10 Foca, [In English] "to convince him that the constitution should stipulate
11 the Serb language, the Cyrillic letter and the Ijekavian dialect."
12 A. That's correct.
13 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] And the question I have is why
14 did he want that? What intention of his did that reflect? What appeared
15 through these discussions?
16 A. I saw that as a desire to underline one's unity with the people in
17 Serbia proper; however, it simply couldn't go through because it was
18 unnatural, because Serbs in Bosnia-Herzegovina used the Ijekavian dialect
19 and ultimately it was not adopted in the Constitution.
20 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Then just a point of detail,
21 please forgive me, but you indicated in this same statement that
22 Mr. Krajisnik tried to convince Mr. Maksimovic, and you add, [In
23 English] "Even offered him a gold pen just to comply with his request, but
24 Maksimovic refused simply for the reason that Bosnia and Herzegovina was
25 using this dialect ..." and so on.
1 [Interpretation] What happened, exactly? Why would a gift of a
2 gold pen be convincing in the context of a debate on a linguistic issue,
3 I'd like to understand this a bit better.
4 A. It was just a discussion between two people who are on good,
5 friendly terms and Krajisnik just said, meaning nothing special, "I'll
6 give you my golden pen, just sign this." I don't even believe it was real
7 gold, for that matter.
8 I believe Krajisnik just said it to underline how much he cared
9 about this thing, how much he wanted the Serb language to become part of
10 that Constitution whereas Maksimovic, who, on the contrary, put great
11 store on the purity of the Bosnian version of the language, was trying to
12 preserve it.
13 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Thank you, Witness.
14 JUDGE ORIE: I've got a few questions for you, first about the
15 expanded Presidency which was a five-member Presidency, if I well
17 A. Yes.
18 JUDGE ORIE: This was published as well, the new expanded
20 A. Yes.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Was it generally known that the Presidency now
22 consisted of five members?
23 A. I was trying to explain a moment ago that the notion of Presidency
24 appeared when Mr. Karadzic joined Mrs. Plavsic and Mr. Koljevic to make up
25 the three-member Presidency. So in our minds, in everybody's minds,
1 Presidency meant primarily the three of them.
2 As for those two members who were later attached, I can say that
3 Djeric did not feel like a member of the Presidency. He just attended
4 meetings with them not really thinking of it as a meeting of the extended
5 Presidency. I can't recall now that this expanded Presidency was ever
6 some sort of separate authority.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That was not my question. My question was
8 whether it was generally known that the Presidency on from a certain
9 moment existed -- consisted of five persons including Mr. Krajisnik and
10 Mr. Djeric and not of three anymore.
11 A. I'm trying to explain that this is not something that had any
12 practical consequences from the public point of view. I am trying to view
13 this through the person of Mr. Djeric who was formerly a member of that
14 expanded Presidency, he didn't think there was an expanded Presidency.
15 There was a Presidency consisting of Mr. Karadzic, Mrs. Plavsic, and
16 Mr. Koljevic.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And now for Mr. Krajisnik. You said Mr. Djeric
18 didn't consider himself to be a member of the expanded Presidency. Was
19 the same true of Mr. Krajisnik?
20 A. Well, I don't know his personal view of that body, I never heard
21 him refer to the expanded Presidency or voice any doubts about it or
23 JUDGE ORIE: When you say "I did not ever hear him voice any
24 doubts or suspicions," would that include both the existence of the
25 five-member Presidency and his position in it or any of these subjects
2 A. I really don't know what he thought about this expanded
3 Presidency, not at all.
4 JUDGE ORIE: He never said anything to you. Did he ever make any
5 public statement in which he denied his own position in the expanded
6 Presidency -- or I should say in which he denied his position as a member
7 of the expanded Presidency?
8 A. I know nothing about this idea.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you. Then I --
10 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I do have one question, if I may.
11 JUDGE ORIE: I'm not finished yet.
12 MR. STEWART: I'm so sorry, Your Honour. I had impression - my
13 mistake - that you were.
14 JUDGE ORIE: I have one more question on a question by
15 Mr. Stewart. You answered that Mr. Krajisnik did never express any
16 concern about demographics, concerns about the number of Muslims growing.
17 This Chamber has received at least some evidence that such concerns did
18 exist. Are you aware of any, whether public or private, statement of
19 Mr. Krajisnik in which he took distance from such concerns?
20 A. I don't know.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Then my next question, this Chamber has received
22 evidence that on the 24th of May, 1992, the Presidency gave -- and now I
23 quote, "Instructions for organisation and work of presidencies in
24 municipalities in conditions of the imminent threat of war and a state of
25 war," in which it was clarified that the War Presidencies had, and I quote
1 again, "To organise, coordinate and synchronise activities for the Defence
2 of the Serbian people and to establish governmental power."
3 Did the government ever receive reports from Crisis Staffs or War
4 Presidencies or War Commissions on these instructions?
5 A. As far as I know, Crisis Staff reports about the situation on the
6 ground, about the functioning of the government or restoration of this
7 functioning, were not submitted to the government. We always tried to go
8 out into the field to gather information which was rather difficult.
9 JUDGE ORIE: So I do understand that you were seeking information
10 rather than receiving reports from these Crisis Staffs, War Presidencies
11 or War Commissions.
12 A. That's correct.
13 JUDGE ORIE: My last question would be the following: In the
14 November 1991 plebescite, were Serbs allowed to vote only or were other
15 ethnicities allowed to vote as well.
16 A. Others were allowed to vote as well. The colour of the ballots
17 were different but others were allowed to vote as well.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, thank you for those answers.
19 Mr. Stewart.
20 Further cross-examination by Mr. Stewart:
21 MR. STEWART:
22 Q. Mr. Trbojevic, did Mr. Krajisnik ever make any public statement in
23 which he confirmed his own position in the expanded Presidency, or I
24 should say in which he confirmed his position as a member of the expanded
1 A. I never heard him make any statement referring to that particular
3 MR. STEWART: No further questions.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Stewart.
5 Mr. Trbojevic, since there are no further questions for you, I'd
6 like to thank you not only for coming to The Hague but for coming even two
7 times to The Hague and for answering I now can say all the questions put
8 to you by the parties and by the Bench.
9 I'd like to wish you a safe trip home again.
10 Mr. Usher, could you please escort Mr. Trbojevic out of the
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
13 [The witness withdrew]
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, any news from Ms. Loukas?
15 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, yes, I did manage to speak to her at
16 the beginning of the last break. Your Honour, the position is that
17 Ms. Loukas had, in the light of yesterday, she had completely assumed that
18 this witness would not be called today. She had diverted her work and
19 energies elsewhere, Your Honour, and in the circumstances, it -- well, I
20 felt in the light of her response, Your Honour, it wasn't reasonable, with
21 respect, to expect her to come and deal with the witness today.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That means that Mr. Tieger that we would
23 adjourn but let's first see whether we can deal with any further exhibits
24 and let's also see whether there are any further procedural matters which
25 we should deal with.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 First of all, the exhibits. Madam Registrar.
2 THE REGISTRAR: There are three Prosecution Exhibits, P583, P583A,
3 and P583B.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. These are the statements and the audio.
5 Since there are no objections, they are admitted into evidence.
6 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
7 JUDGE ORIE: A few other procedural matters.
8 First of all, the schedule has been changed slightly in that we
9 moved from next Tuesday the 19th of April from the afternoon into the
10 morning hours. That has been announced to the parties, I take it, at
11 least the parties have been asked whether it would create any
12 insurmountable problems.
13 Next Tuesday, Mr. Stewart --
14 MR. STEWART: I don't think it's a problem, it is news, but I
15 don't think it is a problem.
16 JUDGE ORIE: I think Ms. Loukas has been informed about it but.
17 MR. STEWART: Yes, I think the problem is Your Honour because we
18 had this hitch with the transcript. I just haven't as I normally would
19 have done picked up these bits and pieces.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, it's not a problem. Can I just be
22 clear, the -- Your Honour says from next Tuesday so does that mean it's
23 mornings all week, is that the ...
24 JUDGE ORIE: No, no, no, then I was not -- I was unclear. I think
25 I started saying moved from the afternoon and then I suddenly realised
1 that the day was not clear and that therefore I switched to Tuesday and
2 then continued from the afternoon into the morning hours.
3 MR. STEWART: So is the position this, it's mornings Monday and
4 Tuesday, afternoon Wednesday and Thursday, and then morning on Friday; is
5 that the position, Your Honour?
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's the position.
7 MR. STEWART: Well Your Honour, that's absolutely no problem at
8 all for the Defence, may I say straight away.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Prosecution, Mr. Tieger.
10 MR. TIEGER: I'm certainly not aware of any difficulty,
11 Your Honour, but I will know as soon as we leave Court and if there is any
12 significant problem ...
13 JUDGE ORIE: I instructed one of the members of the staff of
14 Chambers to inform the parties -- to inquire with the parties as soon as
15 possible whether there would be any problem. I didn't hear anything else
16 so therefore it's now a formal announcement that we'll sit next Tuesday in
17 the morning.
18 Then Mr. Stewart, yesterday, in relation to -- in relation to
19 protective measures for witnesses to come, some of them testifying about
20 sexual abuse, the Defence was invited to see whether they would agree with
21 the request made by the Prosecution and ...
22 MR. STEWART: Yes, Your Honour, in fact, I was invited yesterday
23 specifically in relation to just one of those witnesses in a sense that of
24 course I -- I think I was being invited at some point of course to
25 consider them all, but yesterday, the discussion was specifically related
1 just to one where I understood there was a degree of urgency and I did
2 deal with that.
3 JUDGE ORIE: No, I think it was different.
4 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I can only report the communications
5 that I received from the Prosecution, Your Honour, and ...
6 JUDGE ORIE: No, no, but yesterday I addressed the matter in
8 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I was telephoned at home by the
9 Prosecution towards the end of the morning and I dealt with specifically
10 the request that I was asked to deal with yesterday as it was reported to
11 me. That's all I can say I did.
12 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
13 JUDGE ORIE: I think a few matters might have been mixed up.
14 Yesterday I made an observation to more witnesses which I addressed mainly
15 the matter that, under the case law of this Tribunal, victims of sexual
16 abuse usually would be granted private session for at least those parts
17 relating to that sexual abuse. The Prosecution ever asked for -- in more
18 respects for private session and I inquired whether the Defence would
19 consider to agree to that. At the same time, and during that part of
20 yesterday's session, we were informed that for one of these witnesses,
21 that in addition to the protective measures sought in the motion, that the
22 witness had expressed a wish to testify in closed session, I think. So
23 therefore, there might be some confusion as to the addition to the
24 original motion which was not primarily addressed by me but which then
25 came up during the session and as a reaction to the observations I've made
1 at that time but I think it was Mr. Hannis who added this information.
2 MR. STEWART: Your Honour then if I can tell Your Honour exactly
3 what happened. I was contacted, I think it was around half past 12.00 or
4 something like that, I was contacted by the Prosecution. They raised
5 specifically that last point in relation to that one witness and invited
6 me to respond as a matter of urgency. I spoke to Mr. Gaynor who sent me
7 an e-mail and I did respond as a matter of urgency. I think, Your Honour,
8 I'm not a hundred per cent sure, I think at some point then I said to
9 Ms. Loukas something like, later on after she came out of court, something
10 like, "I'm dealing with a protective witness's issue but you needn't worry
11 about that today because I'm dealing with it." That's as far as it went.
12 I didn't understand that there was any more urgent issue yesterday than
13 the one raised in relation to that single witness.
14 JUDGE ORIE: I said yesterday if the Defence would consider, that
15 might save some further efforts if there would be an agreement on
16 especially these three witnesses, I think it was, that we'd like to know
17 as soon as possible.
18 MR. STEWART: Well Your Honours can know as soon as possible in
19 relation to the other two, now it's been indicated to me that the answer
20 is needed very soon because I had understood yesterday that the only
21 matter -- after all, I did have one or two other things to do,
22 Your Honour, I had understood yesterday that the only matter requiring my
23 immediate attention, which I gave it, was in relation to that one witness.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, as a matter of fact, I invited the Defence
25 yesterday to express itself on the three witnesses but let's --
1 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, I'm sure you that invitation
2 didn't get through to me.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, I'm not insisting on anything. We
4 identified where the confusion might have -- might find its source. If
5 the Chamber could hear about this -- whether the Defence, having
6 considered what we yesterday raised would lead to agree with the proposal,
7 we'd like to know. If not, then of course we expect a response as
9 MR. STEWART: I'm sorry, Your Honour, I was being too impatient
10 with my response. Your Honour, I was simply going to say on that one
11 witness, after all, I don't -- naturally we can say this openly because
12 we're only saying "that witness" on that witness there, there is a
13 supplemental information, I did indicate that the Defence would have no
14 opposition to the relief sought in the original motion but did not agree
15 with the additional protection sought in that supplement.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 MR. STEWART: So Your Honour, I didn't specifically consider the
18 other two witnesses but I'm sure Your Honour can see that that's unlikely
19 to take me long to do in the course of the --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Let's not do it at this moment.
21 MR. STEWART: In the course of this afternoon.
22 JUDGE ORIE: So what is in dispute in relation to that third
23 witness is whether the additional protective measures sought should be
24 granted, yes or no.
25 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, may I just add this, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 MR. STEWART: I did expressly say in my e-mail response which was
3 done very urgently in the middle of a very heavy day on other matters, I
4 did say that that did not constitute the Defence response. I was -- the
5 Prosecution did particularly wanted me to give an indication immediately
6 as to my position, so I did say I agree to the motion as originally
7 sought, I did just indicate -- I did not agree to the supplemental, but I
8 did expressly say that was not a formal Defence response.
9 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand. The Chamber would like to know as
10 soon as possible to what extent the Defence agrees with the protective
11 measures sought and to the extent you do not agree, we'll hear from you in
12 the way as usual.
13 MR. STEWART: Thank you, Your Honour, that's now very clear.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Is there anything else?
15 MR. TIEGER: Yes, Your Honour. In light of the circumstances at
16 least as I them, "as soon as possible" takes on perhaps a slightly more
17 constricted and urgent meaning and I think ...
18 JUDGE ORIE: I must say I'm not fully aware at this moment -- one
19 of these witnesses was scheduled for relatively early next week. I think
20 that's right.
21 MR. TIEGER: I think that's right, Your Honour well, one thing is
22 clear, a further decision cannot be any further delayed than when the
23 witness arrives, of course, unless you also delay the arrival of the
25 Mr. Stewart, could you let us know -- could you tell me when you
1 expect to be able to give the position of the Defence.
2 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I'll do it this afternoon.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Well, yes, that's -- well, I take it that Mr. Tieger
4 is quite happy with -- that as soon as possible would be this afternoon.
5 MR. TIEGER: Yeah, and again, my objective is, if possible, to
6 reach a resolution of this issue today.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 MR. TIEGER: In light of the -- our early recess today, I would
9 hope we could all work together to make that happen.
10 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber cannot do anything else than to see
11 whether there's any agreement between the parties. If there's no
12 agreement, what the arguments of the parties are and then to take a
13 decision. The Chamber is, to the extent that we are all there, because we
14 have not, of course not only this case, the only thing we can do is the
15 sooner you come with your information, the sooner even informally
16 sometimes, of course, if the Chamber reaches a decision, the parties can
17 be informed about what the decision is even without knowing already all
18 the reasons of it which will then be pronounced at a later stage.
19 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, if it's at all helpful, I said this
20 afternoon. I would do it by 4.00.
21 MR. TIEGER: I appreciate that.
22 JUDGE ORIE: I'm still available after 4.00.
23 MR. STEWART: But I will do it by 4.00, Your Honour, that's my --
24 I don't say it's my final offer, Your Honour, it's my offer.
25 MR. TIEGER: And if it could possibly be done earlier, we would
1 appreciate that as well.
2 MR. STEWART: Of course.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Any further issue?
4 MR. STEWART: Yes, Your Honour, may I simply raise this.
5 Mr. Krajisnik has asked me and it's entirely reasonable request,
6 Your Honour. Mr. Krajisnik would like to know if there are any days in
7 the reasonably near future, apart from the 29th of April, which we know
8 about as the Dutch Queen's Day when the Trial Chamber would not or might
9 not be sitting because he is trying to arrange some visits by his family.
10 JUDGE ORIE: I am aware of one day of court schedule but I do not
11 know ...
12 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
13 JUDGE ORIE: Is there any confusion that we are not only not
14 sitting on the 29th but not the whole week after that as well? I think
15 that was communicated to the parties.
16 MR. STEWART: Sorry, Your Honour is indicating that we are not
17 sitting that following week; is that ...
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 MR. STEWART: Actually, if that, again, it's not totally
20 impossible that communications don't always end up with me, but I
21 wasn't ...
22 JUDGE ORIE: It seems to me we're not only not sitting that
23 Friday, the 29th, but also not sitting the week following that Friday.
24 MR. STEWART: Yes, I see. Your Honour, that's most helpful to
25 know. If -- well, it doesn't matter, Your Honour, whether I knew before.
1 I did know that I was going to ask because I did know that a week not
2 sitting in May was contemplated but my brain hadn't absorbed at some point
3 what week it was. That's most helpful.
4 JUDGE ORIE: I think there is another day of court maintenance
5 where we are not sitting ...
6 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
7 JUDGE ORIE: And I'm now informed that that would be the 13th of
9 MR. STEWART: Your Honour this is all extremely helpful for
10 planning, of course, so thank you very much for that and I'm sure it would
11 be helpful to Mr. Krajisnik as well, particularly, the week.
12 JUDGE ORIE: No further issues? Then I've got one tiny little
13 thing to say about something that happened in the beginning of this --
14 today's session.
15 Mr. Stewart, you introduced a question to Mr. Trbojevic in which
16 you perfectly in accordance with the statement of the witness, you said
17 something about why Mr. Margetts did not hear any further information
18 about because he knew everything, et cetera, et cetera. That of course
19 triggered a kind of a defence action for Mr. Margetts. I think Defence
20 action was not necessary just as the detailed information on why
21 Mr. Margetts, during that interview, stopped Mr. Trbojevic did not add
22 anything to the question put to Mr. Trbojevic and was quite suitable for
23 triggering -- you understand what I mean. If you would have asked
24 Mr. Trbojevic, you started answering that question during -- you were
25 stopped by Mr. Margetts, could you please now give us the information you
1 at that moment could not give. That would have been totally sufficient,
2 that would triggered any defence action here and it certainly would have
3 contributed to make the relationship between the parties even more
4 excellent as it is already.
5 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, may I just say on that, Your Honour, I
6 hear exactly what Your Honour says and register that. I hope it's
7 appreciated that every word I said about Mr. Margetts's reasons came from
8 the transcript.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, yes I have no doubt about that.
10 MR. STEWART: It's just that I didn't add any gratuitous --
11 JUDGE ORIE: What I said, it didn't add anything to the issue you
12 wanted to raise with the witness.
13 MR. STEWART: I understand. I understand Your Honour's point.
14 No, I just got the feeling that perhaps it might be -- might have been
15 heard by others from what Your Honour said that I had gratuitously added
16 some comments, which I didn't.
17 JUDGE ORIE: No, I follow.
18 MR. STEWART: But I understand what Your Honour says.
19 JUDGE ORIE: I literally followed it and it was quite suitable to
20 trigger what happened then which, as I said, did not contribute to even
21 improving the already excellent relationship between it's parties.
22 MR. STEWART: Well Your Honour I've spoken to Mr. Margetts since,
23 so I think we're still on speaking terms.
24 JUDGE ORIE: We adjourn until next Monday, 9.00 in the morning,
25 same courtroom.
1 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 12.12 p.m.
2 To be reconvened on Monday, the 18th day of April,
3 2005, at 9.00 a.m.