Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 12154

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

14 courtroom.

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

Page 12155

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

3 matter.

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.


25 [Witness answered through interpreter]

Page 12156

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,

11 please?

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

25 Prosveta.

Page 12157

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

Page 12158

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.

Page 12159

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.


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.

Page 12160

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

23 well."

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

Page 12161

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

14 testimony."

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

Page 12162

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

Page 12163

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

Page 12164












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 12165

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

Page 12166

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

22 that.

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?

Page 12167

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

18 not?

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

Page 12168

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

Page 12169

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

25 is.

Page 12170

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.


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.

Page 12171

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."


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

Page 12172

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

Page 12173

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

4 debates.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Was Mr. Karadzic present during those discussions as

6 well?

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.


25 Q. A noticeable difference between Dr. Karadzic and Mr. Krajisnik was

Page 12174

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

3 agree?

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

Page 12175












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 12176

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

8 Sarajevo?

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

Page 12177

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

Page 12178

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

24 view?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Outside the deliberations that were

Page 12179

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

Page 12180

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.

Page 12181

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

Page 12182

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

Page 12183

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."

Page 12184

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

8 camps?

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:


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

Page 12185

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.

Page 12186












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 12187

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

12 session?

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,

Page 12188

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

4 session.

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.

Page 12189

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 ...

Page 12190

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.


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.


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

Page 12191

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

12 reflected.

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

Page 12192

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

6 recollection.

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.


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

Page 12193

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

16 things.

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

Page 12194

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

16 1992?

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

Page 12195

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

Page 12196

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?

Page 12197












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 12198

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

3 answered.

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

6 questions.

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

15 Presidency.

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.

Page 12199

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

8 opportunity.

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

Page 12200

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

4 Presidency.

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

11 distinction.

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

Page 12201

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

10 statement?

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

Page 12202

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.

Page 12203

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

16 understood.

17 A. Yes.

18 JUDGE ORIE: This was published as well, the new expanded

19 Presidency?

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,

Page 12204

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

22 suspicions.

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

Page 12205

1 separate?

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

Page 12206

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:


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

25 Presidency?

Page 12207

1 A. I never heard him make any statement referring to that particular

2 function.

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

11 courtroom.

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.

Page 12208












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 12209

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.


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

Page 12210

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

Page 12211

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

7 Court.

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

Page 12212

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 --

Page 12213

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

8 normally.

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.


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.

Page 12214


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

24 witness.

25 Mr. Stewart, could you let us know -- could you tell me when you

Page 12215

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.


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

Page 12216

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 ...


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.

Page 12217

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

8 May.

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

Page 12218

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.

Page 12219

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.