1 Friday, 3 June 2005
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 1.15 p.m.
6 JUDGE ORIE: It's not the Chamber but it's myself who apologises
7 for the late start today.
8 Good afternoon to everyone.
9 Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
10 THE REGISTRAR: Yes. I thank you, Your Honour. Case IT-00-39-T,
11 the Prosecutor versus Momcilo Krajisnik.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you very much, Mr. Registrar.
13 Mr. Tieger, you may proceed.
14 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
15 WITNESS: CHRISTIAN NIELSEN [Resumed]
16 Examined by Mr. Tieger: [Continued]
17 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Nielsen.
18 A. Good afternoon.
19 Q. Before the adjournment yesterday, you were discussing reports by
20 the MUP in the course of discussing the general system of reporting and
21 communications. Before we move on - and I'm going to try today to move as
22 quickly as we possibly can - perhaps we can focus on at least a couple of
23 other methods of communicating by the MUP. And in that connection,
24 perhaps we can turn to tab 46 of binder 2, which contains an article by
25 Glas of 14 May 1992 concerning the security services celebration on 13 May
1 in Banja Luka. Mr. Nielsen, can you tell us what that event was and
2 whether it provided an opportunity for communications by members of the
3 MUP to other parts of the Bosnian Serb political authorities.
4 A. Yes. This provides me with a very quick opportunity to provide
5 some brief historical background to the Chamber. In the Socialist Federal
6 Republic of Yugoslavia, the 13th of May was a holiday, so to speak,
7 officially known as Security Day. This went back to the 1940s because the
8 13th of May was the day on which the Yugoslav Communists had formed the
9 first communist police services. So this was in a way -- this particular
10 parade, which is photographed and dealt with in this article, was part of
11 an annual celebration of the security forces in Yugoslavia, the difference
12 here of course being that in 1992 the participants in the parade were all
13 members of the recently established RS Ministry of Internal Affairs.
14 This particular parade was also the debut for a special police
15 unit that had been formed constituting about 160 persons in the CSB
16 Banja Luka and commanded under the authority of Stojan Zupljanin, the
17 chief of CSB Banja Luka.
18 As we can see -- the Chamber will have to turn to the B/C/S
19 original to be able to see this. But the B/C/S original, which is a
20 one-page article, shows several photographs of the parade. It also shows
21 the Minister of Internal Affairs, Mico Stanisic, addressing the assembled
22 audience as well as several political dignitaries. And indeed the text of
23 the article reflects that many political leaders, including at the
24 national, which is to say, the RS level at this point in time, and also at
25 the ARK, Autonomous Region of Krajina level, were present at this -- at
1 this particular occasion.
2 The general message provided by everyone, both the police and the
3 politicians present, as they're quoted in the article, is that the
4 situation in the Banja Luka region is under control and that the police
5 are functioning as they should.
6 Q. And did Mr. Kupresanin say on that occasion, "With the creation
7 of the police and the Army of the Serbian Republic, the Serbs have become
8 masters of their own territory."
9 A. That is indeed correct. And in -- I might point out that in
10 making that statement, Mr. Kupresanin was reflecting a quite important
11 statement made at an earlier stage in the Bosnian Serb Assembly. I'm just
12 going to locate the paragraph in my report.
13 If one looks at paragraph 185 of my report, which is on page 52,
14 I cite Biljana Plavsic already on the 26th of January, 1992 stating that,
15 and I quote: "These are the times until the referendum when the Serbian
16 people must make a state out of its own areas. It is known what the
17 making of a state means. First, the Ministry of Internal Affairs will do
18 whatever necessary to have its own army."
19 As I pointed out yesterday, the Ministry of Internal Affairs in
20 its draft annual report for 1992 was quite proud or -- I can rephrase
21 that, put quite a lot of emphasis on the leading role of the Ministry of
22 Internal Affairs in the early stages of the existence of Republika Srpska.
23 So to go back to the article in tab 46, Mr. Kupresanin's comments
24 are in fact reflective that what was contemplated or anticipated earlier
25 in the year in the Assembly has now been realised in practice.
1 Q. Did the celebration reflected in the 14 May 1992 Glas article
2 take place the day after the 16th Session of the Bosnian Serb Assembly,
3 which was held in Banja Luka on the 12th of May and presided over by
4 Mr. Krajisnik?
5 A. Yes, indeed. The parade took place, as I noted, on the 13th of
6 May, Security Day, "Dan Belbjednosti" in B/C/S, and this particular
7 occasion it was the day after the 16th Session of the Bosnian Serb
8 Assembly, at which the military of the -- or the Army of Republika Srpska,
9 Vojska Republika Srpska was also established.
10 Q. And does the Glas article or the photographs indicate whether or
11 not Mr. Krajisnik was present at the parade?
12 A. If the Chamber will examine, again, the B/C/S copy, since it is
13 the only one that is -- has the photographs, it can be observed in the
14 photograph on the right-hand side of the page, the second from the top.
15 There is a photograph depicting Momcilo Krajisnik in addition to Radovan
16 Karadzic, Radoslav Brdjanin, I believe Nikola Koljevic, and several other
17 political leaders.
18 I would just also note, because this will be quite important in
19 understanding the functioning of the special unit, that the picture
20 immediately below the picture of Mico Stanisic at the microphone on the
21 left-hand side is a picture of armoured personnel carriers that are being
22 used by the police in the Banja Luka region. It is -- unfortunately, the
23 copy we have here is very poor. It may be useful to look at the original.
24 But I can tell from having looked at the original that on the front of
25 those armoured personnel carriers in Cyrillic capital letters is the word
1 "milicija," or police, as it was known at the time.
2 Q. And the helicopters shown in the photograph above Mr. Stanisic's
3 photograph, are those helicopters, belonging to the RS police or military
5 A. The helicopters --
6 MS. LOUKAS: Just in relation to that, I think it would be
7 helpful if -- and it's just a simple question: Do you have any
8 information in relation to those helicopters, rather than leading, I would
9 have thought, on Mr. Tieger's part.
10 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, I don't --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 MR. TIEGER: I don't want to get into the nuances of practice in
13 whatever jurisdiction we come from, but when working with an expert, at
14 least in the jurisdiction I come from, that's an entirely appropriate
15 question and -- and doesn't lead Mr. Nielsen in one direction or another.
16 And I think this is not the time to fall back on the formalities of a
17 system that is not in place here.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. At the same time, Mr. Tieger, it would not
19 have cost you any additional time to ask what the expert witness knows
20 about who owned the helicopters -- three. There are three. I'm not
21 asking you to ask how many helicopters there are, but you could have asked
22 him what he knows about where these helicopters come from.
23 MR. TIEGER:
24 Q. Mr. Nielsen, can you tell us anything about those helicopters?
25 A. Well, I would refer first to the caption that is in the newspaper
1 below the photograph, which states - and I will translate the B/C/S - it
2 states: "Helicopters of the security services." In the usage -- B/C/S
3 usage at the time, that is a clear reference that they are police
4 helicopters and not military helicopters.
5 I would also in further answering that question refer the Court
6 to the section of my report in which I discuss the establishment of
7 special police units in the RS MUP that starts on page 62, and there I
8 have cited documentation that shows that the JNA, the Yugoslav People's
9 Army at the time, agreed to fulfil a request for equipment by Stojan
10 Zupljanin so that that unit that we see on these photographs could be
11 equipped. And having seen the actual request from Zupljanin as well as
12 the JNA's response, it was the General Kukanjac who eventually granted the
13 request, that did indeed include a request for both armoured personnel
14 carriers and helicopters that we see in this particular article..
15 Q. Mr. Nielsen, let's turn next to another form of communication
16 between --
17 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] I have three, or at least two
18 questions to ask. Since I would have to backtrack and since things seem
19 to be moving rather fast, I would just like to ask the witness to specify
20 a couple of things.
21 With regard to those reports we discussed yesterday, the reports
22 that had to be submitted daily to the hierarchy and even go as far as the
23 ministry itself, in the course of your research, have you uncovered any
24 of -- any of those reports? Have you analysed them? Could you tell us
25 anything about the contents of those reports? Because we have seen the
1 model, as it were. You showed it to us yesterday. But have you been able
2 to analyse any of the actual reports that had been submitted to the
4 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour, I have been in a position or I
5 should say I was in a position while I was still employed in this office
6 to examine many - and when I use the word "many," I mean dozens and
7 dozens, more than 100 - of such reports that were filed in 1992. I've
8 examined both reports that were filed by the CSBs to the ministry and also
9 the next level, that is to say, the collated version, the reports that the
10 ministry then composed based on the reports it received every day at noon
11 from the CSBs.
12 I compiled in the course of my analysis a binder and a
13 spreadsheet containing, again, dozens of reference -- dozens of examples
14 of these reports, and I can inform the Court that generally speaking the
15 emphasis on those reports is on the police's extensive involvement in
16 combat activities during 1992 rather than on traditional police activities
17 per se, combatting crime, establishing order in various neighbourhoods,
18 et cetera.
19 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Thank you. And my second
20 question is this: We see these police units cropping up and they seem to
21 resemble military units rather more than police officers. Would it mean
22 that all regular activity carried out by regular police went by the
24 Let me explain this. We have got a ministry which is in charge
25 of internal affairs. This ministry organises and reorganises and
1 restructures the police force at the municipality level or at the regional
2 level. And on the basis of the examples that you've shown to us,
3 apparently this police force takes on an almost military aspect and role.
4 Would it mean that all the traditional tasks and roles of the police were
5 simply discarded and forgotten about because they were concentrated on
6 military aspects and goals only?
7 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour, that would be a very correct
8 observation. The draft annual report -- I will quote the paragraph 338 of
9 my report, where I quote directly from the draft annual report. "Since
10 the very beginning of the war, almost the entire available personnel of
11 the organs for internal affairs have been involved in war activities for
12 the liberation of occupied territories and the protection of liberated
13 Serbian territories. This in good measure also persists today."
14 That is a quote from a report that was produced in January 1993.
15 That situation obtained for the entire period from April 1992 until the
16 end of 1992 and is in fact, if I may refer back to the 14 April steering
17 council meeting that we had a chance to see yesterday, I believe it was
18 Cedomir Kljajic, the under-secretary for public security who already at
19 that very early stage expressed concern that the police would be too busy
20 with combat activities to actually do any policing.
21 This statement is a statement that appears again and again or a
22 concern that appears again and again in the documents, and in particular
23 it appears at a very important meeting of the entire leadership of the
24 Ministry of Internal Affairs that takes place on the 11th of July, 1992 in
25 Belgrade, at which point, among many other comments, the minister and his
1 subordinates state that they don't understand why, for example, the
2 police, to quote one participant, are in the trenches while the army is
3 directing traffic. And one of the main conclusions coming out of that
4 meeting was that the police needed to find a way to extract itself from
5 combat activities and spend more time on policing.
6 The draft annual report shows that they did not succeed in doing
7 so by the end of 1992.
8 And I'll finally note that -- I see we don't have the list of
9 tabs in front of me here. But there is a document from the minister on
10 the 15th of May, 1992, two days -- or actually one day after this article
11 in which he specifically orders that the entire ministry be reorganised
12 into "ratne jedinice," war units.
13 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Thank you.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, if you'd allow me just a brief question
15 in relation to one of Judge Hanoteau's questions.
16 When you say the bottom line of the reports to the ministry and
17 also the -- then the condensed reports compiled of this was about the role
18 of the MUP in the -- in combat activities, do you understand by "combat
19 activities" the real combat, that is, combatants against combatants, or
20 would you also include other phenomena, as we have seen in your report,
21 about expulsions and deportations, or is it just combat?
22 THE WITNESS: It includes combat in the strict military sense of
23 the word with other armed forces of an opposing side, and this was the
24 case of -- in particular for the special detachment that was led by
25 Milenko Karisik, and I might note had at its disposal weapons up to and
1 including 120-millimetre mortars. These are very substantial military
2 weapons, not usually employed by police forces. And the reports as a
3 whole for the ministry in 1992 show that the police participated
4 extensively on a daily basis, and the figures are included in the draft
5 annual report, on the battlefield with -- together with first the TO and
6 JNA forces in the period before 12 May 1992 and thereafter in coordination
7 with the VRS, the Army of Republika Srpska.
8 However, to answer Your Honour's question, they also participated
9 in what are referred to, I believe, usually in the English translation
10 as "mopping-up activities." These are operations of a low-intensity
11 conflict, post-combat operations that could include and did include
12 disarming the remaining "enemy population."
13 JUDGE ORIE: If you say "disarming the remaining enemy
14 population," that could -- could be understood as we take their arms but
15 we leave them where they are. Is that what you intended to say?
16 THE WITNESS: No. As a matter of fact, Your Honour, in the
17 report I detail and cite a large number of documents that indicate that in
18 the course of those mopping-up operations a very large number of people,
19 thousands of people, were rounded up by the police and the military,
20 sometimes both working jointly, sometimes the two working separately, but
21 with the goal -- or not with the goal but, rather, with the result that
22 the -- that a very large number of persons that the police in fact later
23 determined to be not -- non-combatants essentially were rounded up and
24 placed in detention facilities in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I've seen that. The role of the MUP in
1 detention facilities is clearly described very much focussing on, I would
2 say, Prijedor, and then first Omarska, Keraterm, Trnopolje, and then
3 later - what is it - Manjaca. But I'm -- my question is very much
4 focussing on -- on what exactly was in these reports because these sources
5 you use there, also the sources where you describe the role of the MUP in
6 the armed forces, the sources are not always, and very often not, the
7 reports to the ministry. They are very often reports at a lower level or
8 other sources. I'm specifically interested to know whether that part of
9 the activities, as you said "mopping-up," not real combat activities but,
10 as you described them, low-intensive post-combat activities, to what
11 extent do they appear in these reports? So it's not whether they took
12 place but to what extent are they described in the reports? Because I saw
13 where you are talking about reports. Sometimes it's -- it's language as
14 -- that people voluntarily wanted to leave because they felt closer to
15 the Muslim people and therefore wanted to -- not to stay where they were.
16 That's, of course, not mopping up, that's not driving people out of their
17 homes. So I wonder to what extent that explicitly appears in these
18 reports. It's also a very long question.
19 THE WITNESS: I do understand Your Honour's question. I would
20 just ask if Your Honour could instruct me with regard to these reports, is
21 Your Honour referring to the daily bulletins that Judge Hanoteau mentioned
23 JUDGE ORIE: I meant them all. I'm mainly interested in reports
24 that finally were sent to the higher levels. That is, you have told us
25 that reports were sent on a regular basis to the Ministry of Internal
1 Affairs, and you have also mentioned the daily bulletins that were sent to
2 the president of the Presidency, I think, and you also talked about
3 special reports; I think 90 to the Prime Minister and 80 to the Presidency
4 and its members. So I'm interested in how specific this information
5 reached these levels.
6 THE WITNESS: It is the case that by the 11th of July, 1992,
7 which is the meeting in Belgrade to which I referred, which was attended
8 by the minister and all of the other leading officials of the ministry,
9 the large-scale rounding-up of persons and their placement in detention
10 facilities was certainly discussed at that meeting. I mentioned that in
11 paragraph 261. And indeed it was noted that the ministry was involved in
12 the operation of those detention camps and that the conditions in these
13 camps were very bad. However, Stojan Zupljanin, who was the person
14 together with Andrija Bjelosevic, who was the chief of CSB Doboj, both of
15 them mentioned this phenomenon, tended to place the responsibility for
16 these large-scale round-ups on the VRS. Specifically Zupljanin said that,
17 as I state, "The VRS in the ARK area demanded the collection of large
18 numbers of Muslims in established undefined camps which had been placed
19 under MUP control."
20 That's one instance that -- in which certainly the top of the
21 ministry was aware of this. I discuss in that same section, in
22 paragraph 263, further communications from Zupljanin to Stanisic and in
23 particular a communication in which Zupljanin advises the minister that
24 they have established three categories of detainees. And he suggests what
25 might be done with those three categories.
1 I do want to note that already at an earlier stage, that is to
2 say, at the end of May, Simo Drljaca in Prijedor municipality had agreed
3 to a Crisis Staff request or order to establish a detention facility known
4 as Omarska, and he certainly reported on that phenomenon, the existence of
5 that facility and the police's control of it to Zupljanin. I cannot say
6 at this point whether Zupljanin in the period between the end of May and
7 early July reported on the involvement of Drljaca's police station in the
8 operation of Omarska. I do not have any specific document to that effect.
9 JUDGE ORIE: But if I may just -- if I look at paragraph 261, of
10 course it's clear that they're talking about the collection of large
11 numbers of Muslims, but that does not say whether these were large numbers
12 of Muslim combatants or Muslim civilians or what else.
13 And then in 263, you refer to the three categories. The first is
14 persons suspected of commission of criminal acts. Okay. Well, one could
15 imagine without committing a war crime or a crime against humanity that
16 you detain someone who is suspected of the commission of criminal acts.
17 The second would you say suspected of aiding and abetting, those from the
18 first category. And then the third category was compiled of adult males
19 concerning whom the service had not to date gathered any security relevant
21 But that's all persons, persons, adult males. It's not driving
22 civilians out of their houses, including wives and children. So I'm
23 interested to know in what detail, information about, as you said, and
24 including mopping-up, which I consider not -- consider not to be arresting
25 criminals - whether they were or not is another matter - but I'm trying to
1 find out where exactly do we see in the reports all women and children of
2 this village were brought to that camp or -- if -- if that ever happened,
3 of course.
4 And, of course, we heard some evidence to the extent that it was
5 not just these fake three categories but there was more.
6 THE WITNESS: There are two brief observations that I would make
7 in response to Your Honour's question. The first one is that as of the --
8 it's either the 26th -- I believe it is the 26th of May that Drljaca
9 reports to Zupljanin that he is aware that in the course of mopping-up
10 operations a large number of what he calls "the innocent Muslim
11 population" of surrounding villages of Prijedor have been killed. That is
12 a document that I do not cite in the report but I am -- I am prepared to
13 produce that to the Trial Chamber.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, Zupljanin is at what level at that time?
15 The regional level?
16 THE WITNESS: Yes. He is the regional chief of the police.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Now, my question focuses on -- on a higher level. I
18 mean, Zupljanin was -- was -- the Banja Luka region, SAO Krajina, not --
19 not Pale, not government, not Presidency, not ...
20 THE WITNESS: Well, besides the discussions that took place on
21 the 11th of July to which I already referred, certainly in the period
22 between April and -- and 11 July you do not see in the reports to the
23 minister, or indeed in the reports that we referred to yesterday up to the
24 higher levels, references to women and children being rounded up in
25 mopping-up operations to -- on that specific point. That is not reflected
1 in those documents. It is reflected in a -- or a knowledge of that fact
2 is reflected in a number of intercepted phone conversations made by senior
3 police officials in the Sarajevo area with respect to events at Ilidza,
4 Dobrinja, and other Sarajevo suburbs. But there is, as far as I've been
5 able to determine, no documents and -- and very little trace in the daily
6 bulletins for 1992 as a whole of references to detention facilities and
7 mopping-up operations.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you for those answers.
9 Mr. Tieger, you may proceed.
10 MR. TIEGER:
11 Q. I just want to follow up on a couple of the questions by the
12 Court. Mr. Nielsen, you referred to the 11 July meeting and the comments
13 of Mr. Zupljanin anyone and Mr. Bjelosevic. Mr. Stanisic was present at
14 that 11 July meeting I believe you mentioned?
15 A. Yes, he was.
16 Q. Did Mr. Stanisic -- or was a report made following up from that
18 A. Yes, there was a -- a report sent out pursuant to the main
19 conclusions of that meeting. And that report was sent out by Stanisic
20 with orders for action to be taken with respect to the main -- main
21 conclusions of that meeting.
22 Q. And is that a report on -- entitled "Report on some aspects of
23 the work done to date and the tasks ahead," dated 17 July 1992?
24 A. That is correct.
25 Q. Does it state in part: "The army, Crisis Staffs, and War
1 Presidencies have requested that the army round up or capture as many
2 Muslim civilians as possible and they leave such undefined camps to
3 internal affairs organs. The conditions in some of these camps are poor.
4 There is no food. Individuals sometimes do not observe international
5 norms," et cetera?
6 A. Yes, that is correct.
7 Q. And to whom was that or to which bodies was that report sent?
8 A. Could I please have the document produced?
9 MR. TIEGER: And, Your Honour, this document has been previously
10 introduced into evidence as P447 and P447.1, with a translation;
11 also P529, tab 454, and it's also in the Treanor materials.
12 MS. LOUKAS: I'm just wondering if there are copies available
13 for -- from the Prosecution.
14 MR. TIEGER: It's on Sanction.
15 MS. LOUKAS: Oh, it's on Sanction, is it? Okay.
16 THE WITNESS: The particular copy -- the B/C/S copy that I have
17 in front of me, bearing ERN 03246855, I think it would be useful if I
18 could please display it on the ELMO.
19 I'd like to draw the Court's attention to the handwriting on the
20 upper right-hand side of the title page. It starts that this report was
21 given to the president of the Presidency and the president of the
22 government; that is to say, the Prime Minister.
23 MR. TIEGER:
24 Q. Now, with respect to the ciscenje or mopping-up or cleansing
25 operations, however they've been interpreted in the English, to which you
1 referred in response to one of the Court's questions, could I ask you to
2 turn to tab 23, the RS MUP draft annual report.
3 Can I direct your attention first, please, to page 5 of the
4 English translation, the second paragraph. And the English translation
5 reads: "Apart from taking part in armed conflict --"
6 MS. LOUKAS: Just -- sorry to interrupt, but could we also have
7 the B/C/S reference for Mr. Krajisnik.
8 MR. TIEGER: Yes, I can do that.
9 JUDGE ORIE: I think it's page 3 -- or the end of page 2,
10 Mr. Tieger. It's just above where it's underlined "Semberija Majevica."
11 And that appears right on top of page 3.
12 MS. LOUKAS: Much obliged. Thank you, Your Honour.
13 MR. TIEGER:
14 Q. Mr. Nielsen, the English translation reads: "Apart from taking
15 part in armed conflict at the front line, the police indirectly took part
16 in mopping up remaining enemy groups and individuals, secured the free
17 territory, provided security for transports of weapons and ammunition,"
18 et cetera.
19 Is there any aspect -- based on your reading of the B/C/S, is
20 that an entirely correct translation of that particular sentence?
21 A. Yes, that is a correct translation.
22 Q. It indicates: "The police indirectly took part in mopping up"?
23 A. Pardon me. I'm looking here in the -- if -- on the B/C/S copy,
24 which is -- the pages FI201281, there is a significant translation error
25 in the last line on that page. It's the third word from the left-hand
1 side, which -- I'll read it in B/C/S, is "neposredno." That should be
2 translated as "directly," not "indirectly."
3 JUDGE ORIE: I'm seeking confirmation from the booth.
4 THE INTERPRETER: Exact.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you very much for your confirmation.
6 MR. TIEGER:
7 Q. And if we could turn also to page 23 of the report. I'm sorry,
8 pardon me. It's page 18. And perhaps you'd be good enough as to -- when
9 you find that, to identify the corresponding B/C/S page.
10 A. It should be starting on -- depending on which paragraph it is,
11 it should be on page FI21299 or FI201300.
12 Q. Okay. And that paragraph indicates that: "In addition to other
13 tasks, it should be stressed that police activity was directed at
14 disarming paramilitary formations and individuals and at finding and
15 seizing illegally-held weapons and ammunition, explosive devices and the
16 like. Important tasks of the police in cooperation with the army were in
17 mopping up the terrain of inserted terrorist and sabotage groups and
18 neutralising armed rebellions organised by Muslim Croat extremists
19 (Prijedor, Kotor Varos, Novi Grad, Kljuc, Sanski Most, Jajce, Bihac,
20 Teslic, Gornji Vakuf, Kupres, Knezevo, Mrkonjic Grad, Han Pijesak, Pale,
21 and other SJBs)."
22 And is that another reflection of the police participation in
23 ciscenje operations in various municipalities across the territory of
24 Republika Srpska?
25 A. Yes, that is an accurate reflection. And as in other cases, the
1 paragraph that we have just seen in the draft annual report is an accurate
2 reflection of the numerous reports filed throughout the summer and --
3 well, particularly throughout the summer of 1992 with respect to police
4 involvement in such mopping-up operations.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. At the -- at the same time, Mr. Tieger, you
6 may have noticed I was mainly interested in what was known at the time.
7 Now you have drawn our attention to a report, which I take it could not --
8 well, the date is the 1st of January, 1993, although it describes the
9 events in 1992. I was not mainly interested in the events that happened
10 but on -- whether, how quickly, and how that was reported to the highest
11 levels. And if Mr. Nielsen now says, Well, this annual report, of which
12 we know that it could never have been there before the 1st of January,
13 1993, reflects what we find in the other reports, you'll understand that
14 that would need more exploration, then, to see what appears in these other
15 reports, because on an earlier question Mr. Nielsen told us that there was
16 not much of direct participation in -- in detention and mopping-up in
17 those reports.
18 MR. TIEGER: No, I understand, Your Honour. And --
19 JUDGE ORIE: So therefore I find myself a bit uncertain after the
20 events, to report it. Mr. Nielsen now says that report reflects what was
21 earlier reported. So we are very much interested in what was -- and
22 that's most of the questions of the last half an hour, is exactly what was
23 reported at those earlier stages up to the highest levels.
24 MR. TIEGER: That's quite true. Although I understood there
25 seemed to be a question about the nature of the ciscenje operations and --
1 and their link to disarming, and I thought it would be useful for the
2 Court to see the places in which they occurred, because the Court has
3 considerable information about what happened in those locations.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] If I may, Mr. Tieger, I'd like
6 to put a question to the witness.
7 Since we are talking about these operations led by the MUP, by
8 the police services, I would like you to provide us with some indication
9 as to the way in which this police force was involved in this sort of
10 mission. Who issued orders? At what level would the initiative be taken?
11 Has it transpired from your research?
12 I've read on page 55 of your report in para 192 you are saying:
13 [In English] "The ARK Crisis Staff declared that the Crisis Staffs are now
14 the highest organ of authority in the municipality." [Interpretation] And
15 somewhere else - I can't find the passage right now - but you did say that
16 within that Crisis Staff there were representatives of both the police
17 force and the armed forces. Now, if you have a combat operation or any
18 other sort of operation, for that matter, and it is led and carried out by
19 that police force, well, have you managed to establish in the course of
20 your work who was actually at the origin of this, who issued the original
22 THE WITNESS: In the example Your Honour just referred to, with
23 the ARK Crisis Staff, the ARK Crisis Staff gave general orders starting in
24 May 1992 to all subordinate Crisis Staffs to start disarming paramilitary
25 groups and the civilian population. These -- there were a series of
1 deadlines set for the compliance with those disarmament orders, and that
2 disarmament order as well as the subsequent deadlines and subsequent
3 orders were disseminated to the Municipal Crisis Staffs throughout ARK.
4 It bears mentioning that Stojan Zupljanin, as chief of CSB
5 Banja Luka, was a member of the ARK Crisis Staff and later what was called
6 the ARK War Staff.
7 At the municipal level in each municipality the chief of the
8 public security station was a member of the Municipal Crisis Staff. And
9 as Your Honour noted, there were also members or representatives of the
10 military on those Crisis Staffs.
11 What one sees regularly throughout the summer of 1992 is that the
12 Crisis Staffs, both at the regional and the municipal level, issue orders
13 that involve actions that have to be taken by the police. The police then
14 proceed through their own chain of command to act on such orders.
15 For example, if the ARK Crisis Staff gave an order to disarm the
16 civilian population in the ARK region, someone such as Simo Drljaca, as
17 chief of SJB Prijedor, actually received the order twice. He would be
18 part of carrying or transmitting that order in the Municipal Crisis Staff,
19 of which he was a member, but he would also receive the same order more or
20 less from his superior in the ministry, Stojan Zupljanin, who would be
21 passing it on directly because he had attended the meetings and was
22 implementing the decisions of the ARK Crisis Staff. And it is from those
23 orders that we then subsequently see in the documents, in the police
24 reports, that actions have been taken pursuant to those orders, and those
25 actions do include these mopping-up operations that we've been discussing.
1 Such actions are often carried out in coordination with the police.
2 I just want to clarify one point. In my previous answer, when I
3 referred to the cumulative nature of the draft annual report and saying
4 that it was reflective of documents kept and filed by the police in the
5 summer of 1992, I was referring to documents between Stojan Zupljanin and
6 Drljaca or between SJBs generally and CSBs and the minister and not
7 specifically to the communications in the summer of 1992 between the
8 ministry and the Presidency or the government.
9 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] I'd just like you to complete my
10 question in the following way: When you wrote that "On the 18th of May,
11 1992 the ARK -- the Crisis Staff declared," and so on and so on, could you
12 now clarify the actual structure, the organisation of that Crisis Staff.
13 Was there a kind of Chief of Staff or the Main Staff at the level of the
14 republic or a regional organisation or a municipal organisation? Do you
15 have any information about that? I'm not clear about that.
16 THE WITNESS: I am fully prepared to speak about the relationship
17 between the police and the Crisis Staffs and about the orders that the
18 police received and transmitted; however, I'm not an expert on the Crisis
19 Staff. I believe the -- the Chamber had a report from one of my
20 colleagues specifically on the Crisis Staffs, and it would be, I think,
21 superfluous and unnecessary on my part to comment further on -- on the
22 particular internal operations of the Crisis Staffs. Indeed, I would note
23 that most of my own views regarding the Crisis Staffs are formed based on
24 that report.
25 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Thank you. When you said that
1 the decision had been taken at the Crisis Staff level, and as far as the
2 objectives to be achieved and the operations to be carried out were
3 concerned, well, can we say it was included within the discussions within
4 the Crisis Staff? Did you see that in terms of references to that in any
5 documents, in terms of documenting that decision-making process?
6 THE WITNESS: What I have been able to see and I have read many
7 Crisis Staff minutes, both at the regional level and also at the municipal
8 level, is very frequent mentions to the police and activities that the
9 police are to carry out. And what one can also observe is that orders
10 that are formulated by the ARK Crisis Staff at the regional level are
11 transmitted, as I stated, not only through the police chain of command but
12 also through the Municipal Crisis Staffs.
13 Sometimes -- it is interesting to observe, sometimes, and on this
14 particular issue of disarming, the wording will differ slightly; that is
15 to say, the ARK Crisis Staff, I believe -- we have in one of the tabs the
16 order to disarm the population from the ARK Crisis Staff that I cite, in
17 which they warn the population of -- and again, I want to double-check
18 the -- the document, but I believe it's of the most strict consequences if
19 they do not comply with the order.
20 It's interesting to note that at -- in Kljuc municipality, the
21 same order, which involves handing over weapons to the police and to the
22 local public security station, actually warns the population of
23 catastrophic consequences if they do not comply with this same order, to
25 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Thank you.
1 MR. TIEGER:
2 Q. Just following up on one of your responses to the Court's
3 questions, you referred to the disarming order that was set in motion at
4 the ARK level. And perhaps I can ask you to look at tab 65.
5 Now, first of all, looking -- tab 65 is an order for general
6 mobilisation. At least that's the heading on the tab. Looking at item
7 number 5 in that order or decision, does that reflect the order for
8 disarming -- or one variation of that order for disarming to which you
9 referred to earlier?
10 A. Yes, it does. And it does use the term "strictest measures" in
11 describing the possible consequences of not handing over weapons before
12 the deadline.
13 Q. And did that order originate with -- first of all, I should note
14 that it's signed by the secretary of the Regional Secretariat for National
15 Defence. Did that order originate with the Autonomous Region of Krajina
16 or was it the product of a decision from a higher level?
17 A. This order that is being given at the level of the Autonomous
18 Region of Bosnian Krajina refers in the introductory paragraph to the
19 decision of the Ministry of National Defence of 16 April 1992, which is a
20 higher legal instance.
21 Q. And the Minister of National Defence was Mr. Subotic?
22 A. That is correct.
23 Q. And did he issue that order of 16 April 1992, which is referred
24 to at the top of the document at tab 65?
25 A. Yes, he did.
1 Q. Now, in connection with your response to a question about Crisis
2 Staffs, you indicated to Judge Hanoteau that one of your colleagues had
3 testified in -- had submitted a report that focussed in particular on that
4 issue. This Court has also heard testimony from Mr. Treanor, who dealt
5 with a variety of issues at the republic level. Nevertheless, I want to
6 ask you at least a couple of questions about some of the material that may
7 already have been covered in much more detail by Mr. Treanor.
8 First of all, are you familiar with the 28 February Law on
9 National Defence?
10 A. Yes, I am.
11 Q. And can you tell us in general terms what that provides and its
12 connection to any other legislative acts that bear on the -- the hierarchy
13 of the police, that is, who has authority to order the police at
14 particular times.
15 A. Yes, I do recall that in both the Law on National Defence and the
16 later Law on Defence, which comes once the VRS has been formed - I believe
17 it's Article 6 and 7 of both laws that refer to the cooperation between
18 the military and police units during that -- during combat operations and
19 specifically provide for the possibility of subordinating police units to
20 military units during combat operations. That is also something that is
21 reflected in an order issued on 15 May by Mico Stanisic, the minister, in
22 which he discusses the temporary subordination of command for police units
23 to VRS units in the course of immediate combat operations. He does make
24 it clear, however, that the ultimate responsibility of those police units
25 will remain with him, as the minister.
1 And it should be stated at this point that generally speaking the
2 police of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, together with the VRS, were
3 considered as the armed forces of the RS in the period following the
4 16th Assembly Session on the 12th of May, 1992.
5 Q. Now, do you know whether or not a state of war or imminent threat
6 of war was declared in -- by Republika Srpska authorities in 1992?
7 A. I believe that such a state of imminent threat of war was
8 declared by the National Security Council on the 15th [realtime transcript
9 read in error "5th"] of April, 1992 at a session of that body.
10 Q. Does the February 28th Law on National Defence provide that
11 during a state of war or imminent threat of war the president or, if
12 there's a collective body, the Presidency orders the use of the police?
13 A. Well, first, I see in the LiveNote that I said it's the 5th of
14 April. I did state the 15th of April.
15 Such a -- a provision with regards to the police and the
16 president's or the Presidency's command of the police is actually found in
17 Article 81 of the Constitution, which provides for the police to be
18 commanded by the Presidency or president during time of imminent threat of
19 war, and it's also found in the Law on National Defence.
20 In addition, since I did mention Article 81, I believe it's
21 important to note that since we discussed yesterday the subordination of
22 the ministry, like other ministries, to the government, it's significant
23 to note here that the ministry during a period of imminent threat of war
24 is not subordinate to the Assembly but, rather, to the Presidency, which
25 is empowered during a time of imminent threat of war to take decisions
1 that are normally in the competency of the Assembly. So that is the legal
2 basis, as it were, for the -- the situation that I just discussed.
3 Q. All right. If we could -- there's been some discussion about the
4 disarming operations. And let me just turn to a couple of tabs that
5 address that issue. First quickly to tab 25, please.
6 First of all, is tab 25 an order from Stojan Zupljanin sent to
7 all the public security stations in the -- within the jurisdiction of the
8 CSB Banja Luka in response to the May 4th document we looked at earlier,
9 including -- there seems to be a verbatim reflection of that.
10 MS. LOUKAS: Just before we proceed with that -- sorry to
11 interrupt in relation to -- at that point. But in fact Mr. Krajisnik
12 tells me he does not have tab 25.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Then he should --
14 MR. TIEGER: He's probably looking at -- he's probably looking at
15 binder 1. It's the beginning of binder 2.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Binder 2 starts with 25. Binder 1 ends with 24.
17 MS. LOUKAS: I think Mr. Krajisnik has found it now.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
19 MR. TIEGER:
20 Q. Sorry, Mr. Nielsen, I just wanted to identify that document and
21 ask you if that was the response of chief of the CSB Banja Luka, Stojan
22 Zupljanin, to the ARK order disseminating it to the SJBs.
23 A. The document in tab 25 is essentially a verbatim transmission of
24 the document we viewed earlier, the 4 May document, by Stojan Zupljanin to
25 the chiefs of all subordinate public security stations.
1 Q. Okay. And if you can turn quickly to tab 31. I think that's a
2 reflection of something you mentioned earlier as well. And if you could
3 tell us what that is, please.
4 A. Tab 31 is a dispatch from Simo Drljaca, who has signed the -- the
5 B/C/S copy, dated the 31 of July, 1992, in which he has stated that he has
6 received a dispatch from CSB Banja Luka, and he then transmits a verbatim
7 copy of this dispatch that he has received. And that dispatch in turn
8 refers back to the -- the document that we had in tab 30 and asks the SJB
9 to provide information on weapons, munitions, and other explosive means
10 which have been confiscated from paramilitary formations and individuals
11 since the beginning of the disarming campaign and ending with the 31st of
12 July, 1992.
13 Q. And in that connection, can we turn next to tab 32, please.
14 A. Tab 32 is a report or dispatch dated 2nd of August, 1992 from
15 Drljaca's SJB in Prijedor to Banja Luka. This particular copy is not
16 signed by Drljaca. It's actually signed for him. And in it, referring
17 back to the 31 July dispatch, we now have a list here of, again, weapons,
18 munitions, and other explosive means that have been confiscated in the
19 course of the disarming campaign.
20 Q. And that list includes 17 automatic rifles, 7 M-48s, 185 hunting
21 rifles, and so on; correct?
22 A. That is correct.
23 Q. And turning quickly to tab 10 in binder 1. That is a nine-month
24 report of the Prijedor SJB for the year 1992. And if I could ask you to
25 turn to page 4 of the English translation.
1 A. That would be page 00633750 of the B/C/S.
2 Q. Now, in the paragraph that begins, after the
3 heading "Participation of the members of the station in combat
4 operations," does the report detail the activities of the police in
5 connection with what are called combat activities in various locations
6 throughout the Prijedor municipality, and does it further describe the
7 ciscenje activities or ciscenje operations that took place after these
8 operations and in which the police engaged?
9 A. This section, "Participation of the members of the station in" --
10 or actually there is again a discrepancy between the B/C/S and the
11 original. The actual B/C/S original says "Participation of members of the
12 service in combat activities," not "members of the station."
13 JUDGE ORIE: Before we take that from you, we usually rely on the
14 services of our interpreters.
15 Could you please read the B/C/S so that we can get confirmation
16 that your translation is the right one.
17 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour. [Interpretation] Participation
18 of the members of the service in combat activity."
19 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... of our
20 translators. Thank you.
21 Please proceed.
22 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour.
23 This paragraph illustrates precisely the two kinds of combat
24 involvement that I discussed earlier of the police. The very first
25 sentence refers to "borbena dejsiva" in the original, which is correctly
1 translated as "combat activities." And it then states that both active
2 and reserve components of the police participated in the most intensive
3 combat operations on the territory of a whole host of surrounding villages
4 in the Prijedor region and that 11 employees of the police lost their
5 lives and 25 of them were wounded in that.
6 It then goes on to say that: "After these combat activities,
7 employees of the police worked intensively on mopping-up operations,"
8 which the term here is "ciscenje terena" and this entailed the
9 apprehension and detaining and subsequently interrogation of certain
10 persons who had been identified as being connected with enemy activities
11 on this territory.
12 I would refer also to the following page, where there's a
13 statistical chart, that I believe provides ample illustration of the
14 extensive combat involvement of the police in the Prijedor municipality
15 throughout the year. The cumulative total there is 16.602 days of --
16 those are man days of combat operations in the municipality alone.
17 MR. TIEGER:
18 Q. And in any event, were these the operations that in addition to
19 whatever weapons were surrendered by the Muslim and Croat population
20 resulted in the list of confiscated weapons that is contained as tab 32?
21 A. These are the -- the types of operations that were carried out
22 during the -- the summer of 1992 and which resulted in confiscation of the
23 aforementioned weapons, and they also resulted in -- as the report
24 correctly notes, "the detention and interrogation of the aforementioned
25 persons in the three detention centres" listed in the paragraph
1 immediately following the statistical table to which I referred, that
2 would be Keraterm, Trnopolje, and Omarska.
3 I would also observe that this report reflects participation in
4 combat and mopping-up activities that, according to previous reports of
5 SJB Prijedor - and I referred earlier to some reports by Drljaca in May
6 1992 to Zupljanin - these were operations that resulted on at least one
7 occasion, according to SJB Prijedor, in hundreds of deaths among
8 the "innocent Muslim population." That was the term used by Drljaca in
9 May 1992.
10 MS. LOUKAS: Just in relation to that, Your Honours, Mr. Tieger
11 in his question indicated: "In any event, were these the operations that
12 in addition to whatever weapons were surrendered by the Muslims and the
13 Croat population resulted in the list of confiscated weapons that is
14 contained at tab 32?"
15 The question in and of itself contains an assumption of evidence
16 that is not, in my submission, borne out by the documents, and that
17 is "surrendered by the Muslim and Croat population."
18 If one looks at tab 31, precise information in relation to
19 devices confiscated by paramilitary formations, if one looks at -- and
20 there's no delineation there.
21 If one looks at tab 32, there's a list of weaponry. If one goes
22 to the report again, in and of itself, it does refer to mopping-up
23 activities; but then again at the same time there have been orders extant
24 in the time -- at the time of paramilitary formations being disarmed, be
25 they Muslim, Croat, or Serb. And in the circumstances, Your Honours,
1 Mr. Tieger's question contains an assumption in relation to the evidence
2 that should not be there.
3 MR. TIEGER: That's very helpful, Your Honour.
4 Q. Mr. Nielsen, were the ciscenje operations reflected in Mr. -- in
5 the Prijedor report directed against Muslim villages or Serb villages?
6 A. I am certainly no expert on the demographics of villages
7 surrounding Prijedor. I know that there were villages that were
8 predominantly Muslim there; I also know that there were a number of
9 villages that were of a predominantly Serbian population. What I can
10 state for certain is that the names of some of the villages that are
11 contained in the report that we just looked at - that is to say, the
12 report on the work of the Prijedor Public Security Station during the last
13 nine months of 1992 - include the names of the villages that Drljaca
14 referred to in May 1992 when he referred to "hundreds of deaths of the
15 innocent Muslim population."
16 Q. And the people who were rounded up and brought to Omarska,
17 Keraterm, and Trnopolje, do the documents reflect whether they were to an
18 overwhelming extent one ethnicity or another? And I'm referring to being
19 rounded up and brought to Omarska, Keraterm, and Trnopolje during those
21 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just ask, Ms. Loukas: I take it that your
22 objection was not aiming at -- or was not based on any doubt as to the
23 ethnicity of those detained in Omarska --
24 MS. LOUKAS: Precisely, Your Honour. I think that's --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, okay. That's clear --
1 MS. LOUKAS: Mr. Tieger has --
2 JUDGE ORIE: -- we have -- we have --
3 MS. LOUKAS: -- misunderstood the nature of my objection.
4 JUDGE ORIE: I think that Ms. Loukas thought the weaponry
5 mentioned in tab 32 might well have been from paramilitary units from
6 whatever -- whatever ethnicity.
7 At the same time, Ms. Loukas, there is quite a lot of evidence
8 which refers to hunting rifles, which were mainly the weapons that were in
9 the hands of the locals, to say it that way. Well, it's -- if I look at
10 that list, and if I compare what I would need to arm a paramilitary unit,
11 and if I compare it to what is described as usually in the hands of
12 ordinary citizens, then it comes closer to the letter than the first. The
13 matter is not sufficiently important to -- to spend a lot of time on it.
14 Let's proceed.
15 MS. LOUKAS: No, I agree, Your Honour. But nevertheless, I -- it
16 is a marker to ensure Mr. Tieger does not include matters that are not
17 established by the evidence
18 JUDGE ORIE: If I say "let's proceed," then it's because I think
19 we wasted some time. So let's then do it.
20 MS. LOUKAS: But this does include a hand-held rocket launcher,
21 Your Honour. It's not just about hunting rifles.
22 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
23 Q. Mr. Nielsen, do you know whether disarming operations by the
24 Bosnian Serb MUP were directed primarily against one ethnic group or the
25 villages of one ethnic group or formations of one ethnic group or
2 A. The police documents that I've been able to review, in particular
3 the police documents from the Autonomous Region of Krajina that we've been
4 focussing on here, overwhelmingly suggest that those disarming operations
5 focussed on Croats and -- and in particular Muslims in North-Western
6 Bosnia. That is not to say, however, that there are no documents in which
7 evidence is provided that weapons were confiscated from Serbs. Such
8 documents are indeed also available, but the number of those documents and
9 the number of weapons confiscated from Serbs in those documents is of a
10 much lower quantity than the numbers of weapons confiscated from Muslims.
11 It would also be important to observe in this connection that the
12 confiscation of weapons and the implementation of the aforementioned
13 disarming orders often, according to the police reports, involved
14 large-scale combat operations followed by mopping-up operations
15 coordinating with the VRS in which houses or on some occasions entire
16 villages were destroyed.
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, I'm assuming we're going until quarter
19 to 3.00, based on the time that we --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We are at -- almost at one hour and a half.
21 So if this would be a suitable moment for a break, we'd then --
22 MR. TIEGER: This is as good as any, I'd suppose, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: This is as good as any other.
24 Then we'll adjourn until ten minutes past 3.00.
25 --- Recess taken at 2.43 p.m.
1 --- On resuming at 3.18 p.m.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, there are a few procedural matters I'd
3 like to deal with, and I don't think that -- although it may be boring for
4 the witness, his presence, I think, would not be a major problem.
5 The first is that I created confusion by not reading out the
6 whole of the decision on the fifth batch of 92 bis witnesses, which makes
7 the -- the handout incomprehensible in respect of witness Nikola
9 I'll now read out that part of the decision which I inadvertently
10 left out. I wanted to say that: "I now turn to Witness Samardzic.
11 Having read the material proposed for admission, the Chamber has decided
12 not to admit the statement or the attachments. The Chamber will, however,
13 give an opportunity to the Prosecution to further explain the relevance of
14 this material, and the Chamber may thereafter reconsider its decision."
15 That also explains why in the handout items admitted says "none"
16 in respect of Mr. Samardzic. That's the first issue.
17 The second issue is the Chamber received a -- at least, the three
18 Judges of the Chamber received a letter, Mr. Krajisnik, which is dated the
19 3rd of June. That's today. And I take it that it is a response to our
20 invitation to write down a few subjects that could be discussed during the
21 meeting you suggested.
22 I am informed, although I have no formal translation of this
23 letter, that although it explains why you'd like to have a meeting, it
24 does not give the subjects you'd like to discuss. And in order for those
25 who will be present to know exactly -- who should be present, who is
1 involved in the matters or not, you are again invited to write down, even
2 if it was on a piece of paper - just point 1, this, point 2 that,
3 point 3, that - to write that down so that those who feel that they should
4 attend that meeting are at least aware of what it is about.
5 Of course, the letter will be translated, but I thought I would
6 tell it to you now.
7 Then the third procedural item is the following: And that,
8 Mr. Nielsen, does concern you in some respect. This afternoon we'll
9 continue with the examination of Mr. Nielsen, the cross-examination. I
10 don't know how much time you'd still need, Mr. Tieger, but certainly the
11 testimony will not finish today. Then the question is whether according
12 to the originally agreed schedule that we would have Monday and Tuesday
13 off and then restart at Wednesday or whether - Ms. Loukas, I'm especially
14 also looking at you - whether you'd prefer to finish with the witness and
15 then perhaps find some relief at the -- then later. The Chamber has no --
16 not a very specific point of view, apart from some commitments, I think
17 mainly on the 6th. But I'd like to know what the parties would like to
19 MS. LOUKAS: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour. Well, first, of
20 course, I don't know how much longer is in the examination-in-chief, but
21 regardless of that, there's -- there's no question that I would finish
22 today. So therefore there's a question of whether we continue on Monday,
23 which I'm happy to do, or --
24 THE INTERPRETER: Could Ms. Loukas speak into the microphone,
1 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, the microphone is looking in a different
2 way as from where you stand.
3 MS. LOUKAS: Yes. Often these machines have a mind of their own,
4 Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: That's the question. Yes, that's the question, yes.
6 MS. LOUKAS: Yes. Now, Your Honour, in those circumstances, of
7 course, there's a matter I raised with Your Honours in the absence of the
8 witness, of course. I guess there's a question of whether the
9 cross-examination is completed on Monday or at some other stage. And in
10 those circumstances, I'm perhaps a little circumscribed in relation to
11 what I might say in view of the presence of the witness.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Perhaps then we deal with it at the end of
13 this hearing, or what's --
14 MS. LOUKAS: Perhaps the --
15 JUDGE ORIE: We could ask the witness to --
16 MS. LOUKAS: Perhaps at the end of the evidence in chief, I
17 think, Your Honour, might be appropriate, or if the witness might leave.
18 The other question is, of course --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 MS. LOUKAS: I should raise that as well. Is this question of --
21 Your Honour indicated at the end of the proceedings yesterday in relation
22 to the question of the further argument on the question of Mr. Krajisnik's
23 self-representation and some time being set aside at the -- either the
24 beginning of today or at the end of today in relation to that question.
25 And I understand that Mr. Harmon and Mr. Stewart have been in
1 communication with each other on that question, and I -- I understand that
2 some 45 minutes have been --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, at the end of this -- today, yes.
4 MS. LOUKAS: At the end of today, yes.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just have a look. Let's -- let's proceed at
6 this moment. And at the end of this session we'll hear from you in the
7 absence of the witness what you'd like to say.
8 MS. LOUKAS: Thank you, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 Then, Mr. Tieger, please proceed.
11 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
12 Q. Mr. Nielsen, I wanted to return to some -- to at least one of the
13 questions that was posed earlier, I believe, by Judge Hanoteau concerning
14 your analysis of various reports. And I think you'd referred to dozens of
15 reports that you had an opportunity to review of internal MUP reports.
16 And I wanted to know whether that was a reference to the daily bulletins
17 that have been addressed or a reference to the 90 various individual
18 reports which were sent to the Prime Minister and the president and
19 members of the -- and the 80, excuse me, various reports on the security
20 issues which were sent to the president and members of the Presidency that
21 is -- that was discussed yesterday and is contained -- is reflected in the
22 annual report.
23 A. My earlier reference to dozens of reports that I had had an
24 opportunity to -- to review was a specific reference to the MUP daily
25 bulletins and the bulletins that were feeding into those daily bulletins,
1 coming from the CSBs. The total number of documents that I've had an
2 opportunity to review is, of course, much, much larger than that and
3 includes many other types of documents from the MUP.
4 With respect to the 90 reports and the 80 reports cited in the
5 draft annual report, I've never seen any list produced by the Ministry of
6 what exactly those reports are. I can only speculate, and I think with
7 good reason, given what we have seen in handwriting on the cover of the
8 17 July report earlier today, that that would be one of the reports that
9 is part of the 80 or 90 reports cited in the draft annual report.
10 However, I am unable to say how many of those reports cited in the draft
11 annual report I have been able to review.
12 Q. And I noted that during your -- during the last session you were
13 obliged to explain to the Court the area of concentration to which you
14 devoted your attention and the areas of focus for other members of LRT. I
15 apologise for that. That was, I think, my mistake and not more
16 painstakingly permitting you an opportunity to describe to the Court
17 precisely what you focussed on in drafting your report and in contrast to
18 other members of the LRT, and I should probably give you that opportunity
20 Was -- so was your focus on the Ministry of Internal Affairs? Was
21 your focus on the government? Was your focus on the Presidency? Can you
22 describe the area to which you specifically devoted your attention.
23 A. For the entire period of my employment with the leadership
24 research team, I was specifically tasked to focus on the RS Ministry of
25 Internal Affairs. During the second year of my presence in the leadership
1 research team, that ambit was expanded to include the Serbian Ministry of
2 Internal Affairs, that is to say, the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the
3 Republic of Serbia, and the Federal Secretariat for Internal Affairs, also
4 located in Belgrade. However, I was not tasked specifically to review the
5 documents concerning the functioning of the RS government or Presidency
6 or, for that matter, the Crisis Staffs. As has been the practice
7 throughout the existence of a leadership research team, I was, of course,
8 aware of the areas of competence of my fellow colleagues. I consulted
9 with them regularly on matters on which they were experts. And they
10 regularly made me aware, as I did for them, of documents from their areas
11 of competency that might be relevant to my area of competency. This, for
12 example, would be the case with the Presidency and government sessions
13 where the person or persons responsible for working on that issue would as
14 a matter of course let me know whenever the Ministry of Internal Affairs
15 was discussed in sessions of those bodies.
16 Q. So -- sorry.
17 A. In terms of the report here, as the title suggests, it is
18 restricted to the establishment and performance of the Bosnian Serb
19 Ministry of Internal Affairs in the period from approximately November
20 1990 until the end of 1992.
21 Q. So you conducted an analysis of the internal documentation of the
22 RS MUP primarily or -- in contrast to the documentation relating to the
23 Presidency, Assembly, government, and so on.
24 A. That is correct. I would like to remind the Court of paragraph 6
25 on page 9 of my report in which I specifically lay out the focus and
1 source base for this report. I would just note that in addition to
2 examining the copious amount of documentation possessed by OTP with
3 respect to the RS Ministry of Internal Affairs, I was also relying for the
4 pre-April 1992 period on documents produced by the SRBiH MUP.
5 Q. Now, I had indicated earlier that I hoped to move quickly through
6 the material, and I still intend to do so, so I have relatively few
7 questions left.
8 I wanted to ask you first about that portion of your report that
9 deals with what happened to the Muslim and Croat members of the joint MUP
10 in the municipalities where Serbian authorities took power. And your
11 report deals with terminations and loyalty oaths. I think yesterday you
12 mentioned a commendation to Mr. Kovac for reducing the numbers of Muslim
13 members of the police so that by the time of the outbreak of the war there
14 were none. Were there other areas where the -- and other SJBs where the
15 members of the -- Muslim or Croat members of the MUP were disarmed or
17 A. Yes, there were. The ethnic composition of RS MUP changed quite
18 dramatically during the first months and was certainly radically different
19 from the ethnic composition of the joint MUP in the period previous to
20 April 1992. It is difficult to describe that process in a simple manner
21 because the documents produced by RS MUP suggest that what transpired in
22 the SJBs and in the CSBs varied considerably from municipality to
23 municipality. That is to say, in some cases - Ilidza is one example - it
24 appears, based on RS MUP's own documentation, that already at the outset
25 of April 1992 there were only Serbs and a handful of Croats employed in
1 that public security station. In other municipalities, such as Pale and
2 Sokolac in the Romanija region, there had also been moves to reduce the
3 number of Muslims working in the public security stations there prior to
4 April 1992.
5 However, in still other municipalities - for example, Kljuc or
6 Prijedor - numerous Muslims remained working in the police throughout the
7 month of April 1992, and it was only at the end of April or in some cases
8 even later in May that the Muslims in those municipalities ceased to work
9 in the police. The manner in which they ceased to work and whether or not
10 they were given an opportunity to take an oath of loyalty to the new MUP,
11 again, varies municipality by municipality and in some cases even within
12 the municipality from police station to police station.
13 What is perhaps the most important statement that can be made on
14 this topic, however, is that the outcome of the personnel movements, which
15 I have tried to describe very briefly, is clear by the end of June 1992.
16 I would refer to paragraph 199 on page 59 of my report in which I
17 quote: "A quarterly report of RS MUP which stated that by the end of June
18 1992 for the entire Ministry of Internal Affairs of the RS there were only
19 six Muslim employees and all the others were Serbs." That is to say, no
20 Croats and only six Muslims in the entire ministry.
21 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] I would like to ask you a
22 question on that topic, which runs as follows: We can see that there's
23 been a reorganisation of the police. We also see that those people of
24 Muslim faith will no longer be part of these police forces. So this new
25 police system, is it a police system which has the same head count as
1 before or are people being newly hired to offset those people who are
2 going to be leaving, and how are these people going to be hired? I'd like
3 to know whether all of this was well prepared. Were there any
4 instructions given? And if that was the case, how was this actually
6 THE WITNESS: I'll answer the question on the numerical
7 composition of the RS MUP first. And the answer, to the best of my
8 knowledge, based on the documents, is that the overall number of persons
9 employed by the ministry - more information can be found in the report to
10 which I just referred as well as the draft annual report - is that the
11 police actually increased in size, in number of employees, despite the
12 fact that large numbers of police officers of Muslim and Croat ethnicity
13 left the ministry for various reasons that are laid out in my report.
14 To the question as to whether all of this was well prepared and
15 how these people were being -- where the new people came from, the
16 documents that I've been able to review again suggest a great deal of
17 improvisation at the local level. The Chamber will no doubt recall my
18 reference yesterday to Bosanska Krupa municipality in which the Belgrade
19 secret police service had already received information of an informal
20 Serbian militia or Serbian police of Bosanska Krupa.
21 In many municipalities for which we have documentation the
22 recruitment process seems to have been taking place first covertly, as the
23 report yesterday in Zvornik suggested, and then later more overtly, where
24 military-aged Serbs were -- who were not already in military units were
25 being gathered into formations that would later become part of regular
1 police units.
2 Indeed, it is in this particular instance particularly, I think,
3 useful to refer back to the Security Day parade that we discussed earlier
4 in the special police unit of CSB Banja Luka. That -- the composition of
5 that unit came largely from a previous paramilitary force known as the
6 Serb defence forces, the SOS, that had been quite active in the Krajina
8 We also see an admission, which I quote, from the Minister of
9 Internal Affairs at, I believe, it's the 22nd Assembly Session in
10 November, on the 23rd and 24th of November, 1992. I may have to search a
11 little bit to find the correct passage. The gist, however -- I can
12 paraphrase before I find the immediate quote.
13 MR. TIEGER: If I can be of assistance, I think that's at
14 paragraph 203, reference to the 22nd Session.
15 THE WITNESS: Yes, that is correct.
16 At the 22nd Assembly Session, Mico Stanisic, the Minister of
17 Internal Affairs, looking back at the beginning of the war,
18 says: "Because there was a reserve element at the beginning" - this is a
19 quote - "we wanted the country to be defended. They took thieves and
20 criminals, because I ask you, no doctor of science emerged with a rifle in
21 his hands to defend this country nor any intellectual. That was our
22 priority task. We had good intentions. Perhaps we erred in this respect.
23 I allow for that."
24 And this is, in fact, an acknowledgment made by Stanisic which is
25 reflected in other police documents that the persons recruited into the
1 police force, and in particular special police units, such as the police
2 unit in Banja Luka to which I referred, came from backgrounds that were by
3 the police themselves and their own documents known to be of a criminal
4 nature. Indeed, again, in the case of Banja Luka, Stojan Zupljanin as
5 early as September 1991, half a year -- well over half a year before the
6 formation of RS MUP, himself referred to the proliferation of paramilitary
7 groups formed by Serbs in the SAO Krajina region. And the documents that
8 I've been able to review suggest that some of the same people to which he
9 referred in his communication were later recruited into the police force
10 or cooperated in joint operations with the police as a -- paramilitary
12 I should note that the communication of Zupljanin to which I
13 refer was a letter that he sent, I believe, on the 23rd of September, 1991
14 and the letter was addressed to Biljana Plavsic, Miodrag Simovic, Momcilo
15 Krajisnik, and, I believe, one member of the military at the time. And
16 Vitomir Zepinic as well.
17 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] I am sorry, I don't think I
18 understood your last part of the answer correctly. When you mentioned
19 this letter, which was sent to so on and so forth, what -- what was this
20 letter about? I didn't quite understand.
21 THE WITNESS: This particular document is -- is a letter that I
22 do not cite in my report but I am happy to produce it for the Trial
23 Chamber. I have the -- the ERN handy, but it is in my binders and I
24 reviewed it in the context of preparing for this testimony.
25 The document is a report in which Zupljanin, who was also at that
1 time the chief of CSB Banja Luka for SRBiH MUP, explains quite pressing
2 concerns that he has about the deteriorating security situation in
3 North-Western Bosnia. In particular, he refers to a proliferation of
4 armed paramilitary groups and he states that these groups are openly
5 affiliating themselves with political parties. Indeed, in the case of the
6 SDS, he notes that some of these paramilitary groups have begun to provide
7 security for SDS rallies that are taking place in North-Western Bosnia.
8 And what he essentially asks the addressees is what can be done at the
9 Bosnian level about this deteriorating security situation and, in
10 particular, about these groups.
11 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] In this letter, does he express
12 concerns about the unreliable way in which these people are being hired or
13 the way in which these policemen are being hired? Is he worried about the
14 fact that the security situation is due to the fact that some people have
15 been hired without paying particular attention to who these people are?
16 THE WITNESS: At that point in time in September 1991, events
17 have not yet reached the stage that these persons are being hired by the
18 police. So that is not a specific point of Zupljanin's concern. His
19 concern is that these persons - and I recall one in particular from the
20 document, Veljko Milankovic, who would later lead a group called the
21 Wolves of Vucjak - had formed a group of armed men who were quite
22 well-armed, indeed in some cases better armed than the local police in the
23 Bosnian Krajina, and that Zupljanin had been able to verify that Veljko
24 Milankovic and others in this group and other group had significant
25 criminal dossiers; that is to say, they had been previously prosecuted on
1 numerous occasions. And things were at that juncture - that is to say,
2 September 1991 - reaching a stage that Zupljanin felt that the police
3 would not be able to act if events escalated further because they were, in
4 fact, outarmed by these political -- by these paramilitary groups which
5 had explicit political affiliation.
6 And I wanted to link that, as I do in the report on page 64, to
7 the later integration of the paramilitary Serbian defence forces into the
8 special police unit of CSB Banja Luka. In effect, it's a contrast between
9 the position taken apparently by Zupljanin in September 1991, where he was
10 very concerned about this, and in April 1992, where he is now willing to
11 integrate some of these units into his own police force.
12 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] I'm sorry to take all the time
13 dedicated to the Prosecution, but I'd like to understand the following:
14 When on a local level people who did not meet the usual standards were
15 called upon, was it the result of local initiatives without referring to
16 higher levels, or was all this -- was all this procedure the outcome of
17 instructions that had been given previously? Were these initiatives
18 reported to higher levels? Because this was quite an unusual development.
19 Well, at least I suppose so.
20 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, I can only comment on the police
21 recruitment as it's reflected in the documents of both SRBiH MUP and
22 RS MUP. In the pre-war period, it needs noting that all three ethnicities
23 in SRBiH MUP, the Croats, the Serbs, and the Muslims, mutually accused
24 each other on regular occasions of trying to integrate paramilitary units
25 or paramilitary components into the MUP. For example, the Muslims were
1 alleged to have taken a large number of Muslim males from Sandzak and to
2 be equipping them as police officers using irregular procedures; that is
3 to say, circumventing the proper hiring procedure that's laid out in the
4 laws and regulations affecting the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
5 Once the war starts, the procedure, as I -- or the -- the actual
6 events, as I've been able to see them in the documents of RS MUP, suggest
7 that a significant amount of pre-war recruitment had gone on on a covert
8 basis, and once the war started, much of this was at a local level. I do
9 not see any specific instructions on how these persons should or should
10 not be hired or what the criteria for that should be, given to the
11 ministry or for that matter the municipal SJBs from higher authorities.
12 What can be observed, if we refer back to the 11 July meeting in Belgrade,
13 is that by the time that we get to midsummer of 1992, the minister and
14 several of the heads of CSBs are quite concerned about the intervention of
15 local authorities in, and in particular Crisis Staffs, in the day-to-day
16 running of the police and in certain appointments, who will be the
17 commander, who will be the chief of police in a given municipality. And
18 one of the main conclusions coming out of that meeting is to try to ensure
19 that the police will operate properly, including in hiring procedures.
20 With respect to the persons who are already in the ministry and
21 who may have committed acts that are disciplinary or criminal violations,
22 Mico Stanisic issues an order in the course of the summer of 1992 in which
23 he specifically says that those people will be removed from the Ministry
24 of Internal Affairs and placed at the disposal of the VRS. That is, they
25 will go and participate in VRS operations. And I believe we have that
1 document in the binders.
2 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
3 MR. TIEGER:
4 Q. And just one last question about the loyalty oaths. And in that
5 connection, if I could ask you to turn to tab 28 of binder 2. Tab 28
6 contains the conclusions of the -- of a meeting of the Crisis Staff of the
7 Autonomous Region of Krajina from May 18th, 1992. If I could ask you to
8 turn your attention to conclusion number 8.
9 It states in the English: "Loyalty of other nationalities to the
10 Serb Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina should not be only verbal."
11 First of all, based on your reading of the original, is there any
12 translation issue that needs to be addressed before identifying that
13 particular topic or discussing that particular conclusion?
14 A. Having examined both the original in B/C/S and the English
15 version, I believe we have a discrepancy, an important discrepancy between
16 the translation and the original. I believe -- my reading of -- of
17 point 8 is that -- the following: "The loyalty of other nations of the
18 Serb -- to the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina cannot be of an
19 only declarative character."
20 Q. And in line with the Court's instructions, perhaps you could read
21 the original and that will provide the courtroom interpreters an
22 opportunity to interpret it for us.
23 JUDGE ORIE: The last few words of that line would do.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "Must not be of declarative
25 character only."
1 MR. TIEGER: Thank you.
2 Q. And the significance of that conclusion, then, Mr. Nielsen?
3 A. This particular point relates to the loyalty oaths that are being
4 administered in -- to police officers throughout the Serbian Republic at
5 this point in time. And it is essentially stating that merely declaring
6 loyalty orally or in a writing, on a certificate or an oath, is not
7 sufficient by itself or in and of itself to demonstrate loyalty to the
8 Serbian Republic.
9 Q. Yesterday you spoke about a request for reporting on certain
10 crimes related, if I recall correctly, to vehicles or oil. With respect
11 to the reporting of crimes required by the -- that was required by the
12 Ministry of the Interior, the Serbian Ministry of the Interior of its
13 members, was there any emphasis in the documents that you were able to
14 review on crimes against one ethnicity or another?
15 A. In this particular case, I would like to refer to paragraph 238
16 of my report, on page 71, in which I discuss Minister Stanisic's response
17 to the government's request dated 24 May, and that was the request that we
18 examined and discussed yesterday.
19 I already noted that the document we saw in which Stanisic asks
20 for specific information from the CSBs specifically mentions the theft of
21 vehicles from the TAS complex at Vogosca and also the theft of oil from
22 Ilidza. In addition, however, Stanisic also requested that information be
23 provided on serious -- serious crimes committed against Serbs in
24 territories controlled by the MUP of the former Bosnia and Herzegovina;
25 that is to say, crimes against Serbs who were currently on territory not
1 controlled by the Serbs.
2 Q. And during the course of your review of the documents, did you
3 encounter other -- any other references to reporting of crimes
4 specifically committed against Serbs?
5 A. I have mentioned earlier in my testimony the National Security
6 Service of the RS. One of the main tasks of the National Security Service
7 was to report on crimes committed against Serbs, again, on the territory
8 of Bosnia and Herzegovina controlled by Muslim or Croat forces. That was
9 something that was reported by them regularly to -- to the minister and to
10 the under-secretary for National Security.
11 MR. TIEGER: I think I have one last question, Your Honour, but I
12 need to look at a document first.
13 [Microphone not activated] No, it's fine, Your Honour. And that
14 concludes my questions. Thank you.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Tieger.
16 Ms. Loukas, you suggested that we would hear you at the end of
17 the examination-in-chief on the matter, which should be dealt with in the
18 absence of the witness, I understand.
19 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed, Your Honour, yes.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Usher -- Mr. Nielsen, may I ask you just to
21 leave the courtroom for a second so that we can hear the submission by
22 Ms. Loukas.
23 [The witness stands down]
24 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, you may proceed.
25 MS. LOUKAS: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.
1 Two points in essence, Your Honour: Firstly, of course, I did
2 place on the record at the commencement of this witness's evidence the
3 situation of the Defence. That's the first point. And I thought it
4 appropriate in -- in answering Your Honour's question that I make
5 reference to that. And, of course, the witness should not be present in
6 court at that stage.
7 Now, Your Honour, the -- the situation we find ourselves in, of
8 course, is that whether I do or do not commence the cross-examination
9 today is -- is a matter for Your Honour to decide, in essence, but I would
10 make the point that it seems to me, in calculating the amount of time
11 left, that we'd be looking at something in the order of half an hour, it
12 seems to me, taking into account the next break, the 45 minutes for
13 Mr. Harmon and Mr. Stewart and what have you. Of that approximate nature,
14 it seems to me. Nevertheless, if Your Honour decides that despite the
15 matters that I have indicated to Your Honours previously that I should
16 commence, I can commence. That's the first point.
17 The second point is, of course, there's therefore a question of
18 the continuation of the cross-examination. And, Your Honour, obviously
19 I'm not going to conclude in half an hour so -- and, of course, the Monday
20 and Tuesday have been designated as compulsory days in relation to the two
21 additional witnesses that the Prosecution have asked for. I think that's
22 681 and 682. So, again, Your Honours, I'm in Your Honour hands as to how
23 the Court wishes to use Monday and Tuesday.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Well, it -- that was the question to the parties. I
25 mean, you get two days off. That's clear. But if you say, I would rather
1 do that after we've finished with this witness, or whether we take the two
2 as scheduled, the Court is -- of course, we -- we kept a bit in the back
3 of our minds that we might not be sitting on Monday and Tuesday, so
4 therefore our agendas are perhaps not entirely free anymore, but we'd like
5 to know what you'd prefer, and the extent to which we could meet your
6 wishes is another matter, and we'd also like to hear from Mr. Tieger.
7 MS. LOUKAS: Well, Your Honour, I can proceed on Monday.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Tieger, would there be any problem?
9 MR. TIEGER: Well, Your Honour, I haven't had a chance to check
10 with Mr. Hannis in this case with respect to the next --
11 JUDGE ORIE: The next witness.
12 MR. TIEGER: -- scheduled witness, and that seems to me to be a
13 significant issue.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, of course there is the issue - certainly there
15 is - that this witness doesn't have to travel very long to return, and it
16 would be less traumatic, I take it, if he's -- if he would have to wait
17 for two or three days.
18 MR. TIEGER: But, Your Honour, if I may, we -- it may be best,
19 and we're going to take a break relatively soon?
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that you discuss the matter with --
21 MR. TIEGER: I think that makes more sense.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes Then we'd like hear from you after the next
23 break -- if there is a next break, because the question was whether you
24 start with --
25 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed, Your Honour.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 JUDGE ORIE: -- your cross-examination.
2 MR. TIEGER: If you're interested in hearing the Prosecution on
3 that, Your Honour, I think it's completely appropriate to begin. This --
4 as I understand it from Ms. Loukas, she had essentially a full week to
5 prepare for --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think Ms. Loukas -- Ms. Loukas doesn't make
7 the point that she could not start and she -- of course she --
8 MR. TIEGER: That's fine.
9 JUDGE ORIE: -- In general terms she has referred to it, but at
10 the same time she wonders whether the time remaining is such that it makes
11 any sense at all to start.
12 MR. TIEGER: And, Your Honour, if I may, we have been as zealous
13 as possible and under tremendous pressure to use our time as efficiently
14 as possible. A half hour is not negligible.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do understand.
16 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Every minute counts, isn't it?
18 MS. LOUKAS: Absolutely every minute counts. But I really --
19 Your Honour, that's just silly on the part of Mr. Tieger, quite frankly.
20 Because I've already indicated that I am happy to proceed for half an
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's what I said already.
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, the Chamber is convinced that it will be
25 more than half an hour, so you may proceed.
1 Madam Usher, could you please escort the witness into the
3 So we'd like you to start with the cross-examination, which I
4 think would take until approximately five minutes to 5.00. We would then
5 have a 20-minute break, and the parties should limit themselves strictly
6 to the time then remaining for the discussions on representation. We
7 would then start approximately quarter past 5.00 with that.
8 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger and Ms. Loukas, it's important for the
10 organisation to know before 5.00 whether we'll sit on Monday or not. Of
11 course, it asks for quite a lot of preparation. So even if you'd need two
12 or three minutes to see whether it would be on Monday or whether on
13 Wednesday that you would -- or take the necessary action to be prepared
14 for making a final submission two minutes before 5.00 or preferably five
15 minutes before 5.00.
16 [The witness entered court]
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Nielsen, welcome back in court again. You'll be
18 confined by Ms. Loukas, counsel for the Defence.
19 Ms. Loukas, you may proceed.
20 MS. LOUKAS: Thank you, Your Honour.
21 Cross-examined by Ms. Loukas:
22 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Nielsen.
23 A. Good afternoon.
24 Q. Do you prefer Mister or Doctor Nielsen?
25 A. Mister is fine.
1 Q. All right. Now, just going to your report. First of all, when
2 was it first indicated to you that you would be writing this report?
3 A. I arrived at ICTY -- my first day here was June 16th, 2002. And
4 on that particular day, already on the very first day it was explained to
5 me that I would be working on the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the RS.
6 I believe the Chamber might recall that was during the phase when certain
7 other reports that -- in particular the Bosnian Serb leadership report of
8 Mr. Treanor, around the time that that was filed, and there was a
9 perceived need in the Office of the Prosecutor for an additional report on
10 the Ministry of Internal Affairs. I was therefore asked to work on this
11 particular topic that forms the body of this report, and I believe that
12 the actual notion of filing a report, as opposed to merely conducting
13 research on it, and filing a report for this case was, to the best of my
14 knowledge, taken in a decision that was taken in September or October
15 of -- of 2002.
16 Q. Now, Mr. Nielsen, were you given terms of reference in relation
17 to what was required --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, before you proceed, I noticed already
19 from the first answer, which was an answer to a very short question, when
20 was it first indicated to you that -- you didn't stop the witness, which
21 is fine if you think that all the details are of the relevance -- of such
22 relevance that you would not stop the witness.
23 On the other hand, Mr. Nielsen, Ms. Loukas just asked when. She
24 has the habit of asking further details if she needs them.
25 THE WITNESS: I understand, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please start focussing your answer on the
3 THE WITNESS: Yes.
4 JUDGE ORIE: And then if further details are needed, you'll
5 certainly be asked to give them.
6 MS. LOUKAS:
7 Q. Now, getting back to my second question. Were you given terms of
8 reference in relation to what was required of you in relation to this
10 A. Yes, I was.
11 Q. And were they written or oral?
12 A. They were oral.
13 Q. And what were those terms of reference?
14 A. The terms of reference were to produce a report on the Bosnian
15 Serb Ministry of Internal Affairs that would fill, again, the perceived
16 gap left by other analytical reports produced by the leadership research
17 team and by the military analysis team.
18 Q. And what precisely was that perceived gap, Mr. Nielsen?
19 A. The perceived gap was the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the
20 Serb Republic. Although the other reports prepared by other experts in
21 the Office of the Prosecutor certainly touched upon the Ministry of
22 Internal Affairs in passing, there was no expert report that focussed
23 in-depth on the functioning and the establishment of the ministry.
24 Q. And you're now, of course, at the ICC, the International Criminal
25 Court, and I think you left here in August of 2004. That period from your
1 commencement in June 2002 until August 2004 with the Office of the
2 Prosecutor and the legal research section, did you spend the entire two
3 years on -- on this report for research and research around this area?
4 A. I never worked for a legal research section. It was the
5 leadership research team of the Office of the Prosecutor.
6 Q. Sorry, that's -- I misspoke there. The leadership research
7 section. It's -- "legal" does come rather quickly to the mouth of a
8 lawyer, unfortunately.
9 A. I understand.
10 I filed the original version of this report, as the version in
11 front of us indicates, in December 2003. I then continued to update it
12 based on new documents that were still arriving at OTP. And I filed the
13 final version on my last day at work, which was the 13th of August, 2004.
14 Q. Now, during this -- this time, Mr. Nielsen, did you have
15 consultations with the Prosecutors in this case?
16 A. Yes, I did.
17 Q. How often?
18 A. I had contact with the Prosecutors in this case on a very
19 frequent basis. Sometimes on a daily basis, sometimes on a less frequent
21 Q. And what did these contacts involve?
22 A. These contacts most frequently involved requests by the
23 Prosecutors for specific information pertaining to the MUP, to the RS MUP,
24 or to SRBiH MUP.
25 Q. You've said "most frequently involved." What other sort of
1 consultations did you have with the Prosecutors in this case?
2 A. I also had contact with the Prosecutors in this case with respect
3 to participation in missions to the former Yugoslavia.
4 Q. What sort of missions?
5 A. I undertook a series of missions as a research officer to obtain
6 additional collections of documents pertaining to RS MUP from various
7 archives in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and in that connection I had contact
8 with the Prosecutors.
9 Q. Now, you've quite fairly indicated, Mr. Nielsen, that your
10 expertise is in the area of the Ministry of the Interior, as opposed to
11 the government, the Presidency, the Crisis Staffs. Your area of expertise
12 was quite specialised in that regard; correct?
13 A. Yes, that is correct.
14 Q. Now, in paragraph 6 of your report, you indicate that -- it's not
15 an exhaustive analysis of all the aspects of the events in
16 Bosnia-Herzegovina between November 1990 and the end of 1992. You've
17 indicated there that you've -- you've incorporated relevant articles from
18 the contemporary press. What was your process of selection in that
20 A. With respect to the press articles specifically or in general?
21 Q. Well, I'll come to the others, but specifically in relation to
22 your press articles.
23 A. In the Office of the Prosecutor, there are a large number of
24 press articles that have been registered with ERNs, and I had access to
25 those press articles. And when I did encounter articles that dealt
1 specifically with SRBiH MUP or RS MUP, I read them and included them if I
2 believed that they added significantly to the information that was
3 contained in -- in the RS MUP and SRBiH MUP documents.
4 Q. Now, in relation to what you've indicated right at the beginning
5 of paragraph 6 there, that -- that you've made an analysis of documentary
6 material, how was the review and selection made of these documents that
7 you're referring to there in paragraph 6? Was it done by you? Was it
8 done by others in the section? Or can you just describe for us how this
9 process of selection in relation to the documentation was made.
10 A. Certainly. The primary way in which documents were selected for
11 this report was through my reading and analysis of a much larger group of
12 documents, and from that larger group of documents the selection was made.
13 I was in the majority -- in fact, the vast majority of cases the person
14 who identified the article and decided to include it.
15 In other cases, to which I've alluded earlier, my colleagues, who
16 worked on other aspects of the Bosnian Serb Republic or indeed other
17 aspects of events in the time of Bosnia and Herzegovina, made me aware of
18 articles that seemed to them to be relevant to RS MUP or SRBiH MUP and
19 then presented these articles to me. In all cases, however, I was the
20 sole arbiter of which documents would be cited in this report.
21 Q. And in -- in making that decision, as the -- the sole arbiter,
22 were you keen to -- I take it you were keen to ensure that you included
23 documents that didn't just go toward establishing a Prosecution theory
24 but, rather, being an impartial expert.
25 A. Yes, that is the case.
1 Q. Now, you mention only briefly in your report this question of
2 Variant A and B. I think you make mention of it at paragraph 44 and again
3 at paragraph 59 of your report. You -- you know the paragraphs that I am
4 dealing with there, Mr. Nielsen?
5 A. Yes, I do.
6 Q. Now, of course, you can't offer the Court any more than what
7 you've examined from the -- the documents in that regard; correct?
8 A. That is correct.
9 Q. Now, just in relation to that particular aspect. Were you aware
10 of correspondence between Mr. Blewitt, the Deputy Prosecutor at the time,
11 writing to the Republika Srpska Serb Democratic Party on or about July
13 A. No, I was not aware of that. I was not employed by ICTY at that
14 particular time.
15 Q. So in your --
16 MS. LOUKAS: I'm referring now, Your Honours, to Defence
17 Exhibit D9, and I have copies. I might present it to the witness to see
18 if it ...
19 JUDGE ORIE: Rings a bell.
20 MS. LOUKAS: Rings a bell. Indeed.
21 Q. I'll give you a moment to have a look at the -- the letter from
22 Mr. Blewitt and the response from the -- the response in relation to that
24 I take it, Mr. Nielsen, you've now acquainted yourself with that
25 particular exhibit?
1 A. Yes, I have.
2 Q. Yes. Now, I think you've indicated in your evidence that, of
3 course, within your unit there would be discussions, for example, with
4 Mr. Treanor and Ms. Hanson in relation to your respective areas of
5 research; correct?
6 A. Yes, that is correct.
7 Q. And you would bring documents to each other's attention; correct?
8 A. Yes, that is correct.
9 Q. Now, in view of the fact that you were in your report at some
10 point dealing with Variant A and Variant B, did Mr. Treanor ever bring
11 this document to your attention?
12 A. This is the first time that I have seen this set of
14 Q. So therefore I take it you were not aware that Mr. Treanor was
15 referred to this letter, in fact, during his cross-examination in April of
16 2004, prior to your leaving this establishment?
17 A. I did follow part of Mr. Treanor's cross-examination, but I did
18 not follow the part in which this particular exhibit was discussed.
19 Q. Now, going on to specific mentions that have been made of
20 Mr. Krajisnik in your report. And, of course, you'll recall that Judge
21 Hanoteau also asked you some questions in this regard. And I am referring
22 specifically to paragraphs 74, 75 of your report. You recall the
23 paragraphs that I'm referring you to, Mr. Nielsen?
24 A. Yes. I have them in front of me.
25 Q. And that's in relation, of course, to the 11th Session of the
1 Bosnian Serb Assembly held on the 18th of March, 1992.
2 Now, you refer there to the fact that Mr. Krajisnik referred
3 specifically to the need for "ethnic separation on the ground." And then
4 you follow that sentence immediately with: "Miroslav Vjestica, an SDS
5 delegate from Bosanska Krupa referred to the need for the
6 establishment" -- and I might slow down, I think, for the interpreters
7 because I'm tending to read a little fast there.
8 "... establishment of a Serbian police force and a Serbian MUP so
9 that Serbian -- so that Serbs could seize control of their territories."
10 Now, just to go to the actual Assembly session on the 18th of
11 March, 1992.
12 MS. LOUKAS: And, Your Honours, I sent an e-mail this morning
13 indicating that I would be using this particular document.
14 JUDGE ORIE: And we are prepared for it.
15 MS. LOUKAS: Sorry, Your Honour?
16 JUDGE ORIE: We're prepared for it.
17 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed.
18 Q. You have the Assembly session in front of you now, Mr. Nielsen?
19 A. Yes, I do.
20 Q. Now -- as I think was agreed the other day, what was on the
21 agenda there, of course, was dealing with the latest session of the
22 conference on solutions for the crisis in Bosnia-Herzegovina and the
23 political situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Yugoslavia. And in essence,
24 of course, what was under discussion there was the most recent bout of
25 international negotiations involving the Cutilheiro Plan; correct?
1 A. That is correct.
2 Q. Now, when one looks through the session - and I'm now referring
3 to page 6 of the English version - reference is made to the fact that --
4 the question of the three constituent units which is part of the agreement
5 for further negotiations, of course. And when one looks at page 8 - and I
6 think this is in the -- the midst of Mr. Karadzic's introduction on this
7 topic - again, in the context of what's proposed for all three constituent
8 units, towards the bottom of page 8: "We will be in charge of the police,
9 trade, and other aspects of economic policy."
10 Again, that's a reference to what would be the case for each
11 constituent unit, that being the Bosnian Serb unit, the Bosnian Croat
12 unit, and the Bosniak or Muslim unit; correct?
13 MR. TIEGER: Well, sorry, Your Honour, but if there's a
14 suggestion that this is part of the agreement itself, it -- it covers a
15 lot of ground and certainly encompasses a portion of -- of Mr. Karadzic's
16 remarks when he starts -- when he leaves the text and starts explaining
17 what the future intentions are. So either the witness has to know if it's
18 a reference to the specific -- to any specific document or a reference to
19 Mr. -- to Dr. Karadzic's remarks.
20 MS. LOUKAS: Well, Your Honour, as Mr. Tieger has said, the
21 witness is an expert. The witness is more than aware of the Assembly
22 session. And the witness has spent something like two years examining
23 these documents. If he can't answer a question like that with Mr. --
24 without Mr. Tieger seeking to protect him, I'm a little concerned.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Let's avoid words as "protection." I mean, it
1 doesn't add anything to -- I quite understand, Ms. Loukas, that you're
2 unhappy if Mr. Tieger interferes in this way and you think the witness
3 could answer the question. Let's try to intervene as -- if -- if not
4 really necessary, and I don't think it was really necessary and there
5 would have been an opportunity to ask further questions in re-examination,
6 if needed.
7 Ms. Loukas, you may proceed.
8 MS. LOUKAS: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.
9 Q. Now, Mr. Nielsen, do you remember my question?
10 A. Yes, I do.
11 Q. I don't need to repeat it, so -- and if you need time to review
12 the -- the document, take your time.
13 A. Well, I'm certainly not an expert on the Cutilheiro Plan or the
14 history of the Cutilheiro Plan or the international negotiations going on
15 at this point in time. But with respect to the specific portion of the
16 minutes - and I believe that I stated something quite similar yesterday -
17 at this particular juncture there was contemplation that there would be an
18 ethnic separation in Bosnia-Herzegovina and that the three main
19 ethnicities in Bosnia and Herzegovina would each have their own police
20 force with respect to that specific question.
21 Q. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Nielsen.
22 Now, further along, again, this is at page 10, just before
23 Professor Koljevic speaks, again in reference to the negotiations that
24 have been carried on under the auspices of the -- of the European
25 Community, a statement is made that "Bosnia-Herzegovina is divisible along
1 ethnic lines and it can be divided in three units."
2 Again, Mr. Karadzic is talking about the basis for the
3 negotiations that had been successful thus far; correct?
4 A. Mr. Karadzic is talking about a set of negotiations or a process
5 of negotiations that is ongoing, and as he states at the outset, and as --
6 as is later stated by Mr. Krajisnik in the same session, "The Bosnian
7 Serbs believe at this juncture that immediately following this round of
8 negotiations they have made significant advances."
9 Q. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Nielsen.
10 Now -- and again, if you move on to page 12 of the session in
11 question, where Mr. Krajisnik speaks. He's obviously positive about the
12 negotiations; correct?
13 A. Are you referring to a particular paragraph or in -- in general?
14 Q. In general.
15 A. Yes. There -- there is a -- a bit of -- of, I think, one could
16 call it, optimism in this session among the participants.
17 Q. And he also, I think, indicates at the top of page 13 that "Since
18 municipality borders may be adjusted, we have already made some
19 adjustments and we plan to include all parts that will be Serbian
20 territory in our municipalities and what remains to be discussed, the
21 discussion will be about where it's going to be and where we are going to
22 put our lines."
23 And, again, that's a reference to the ongoing negotiations about
24 how the -- the SDA, the SDS, and the HDZ are going to draw their lines on
25 these three constituent units; correct?
1 A. On this particular case, it's a specific reference for -- to the
2 fact that the Bosnian Serbs have already at this point been starting to
3 contemplate what lines they wish to draw with the expectation that that
4 map, as is later stated in the session, that map or maps in general on
5 national division have to be discussed at a future negotiation.
6 Q. Indeed. Now, Mr. Nielsen, and when you go to the bottom of
7 page 13, and we're there dealing with the specific quote that you've taken
8 from the session, and that is "ethnic division on the ground," where he
9 says after that sentence that "We start determining the territory, and
10 once the territory is determined, it remains to be established in
11 additional negotiations whose authorities are to function and in what
13 It's quite clear, isn't it, that when he talks about "ethnic
14 division on the ground" and the use of the term in the next
15 sentence "additional negotiations" that the ethnic division on the ground
16 is contemplated in terms of a negotiated settlement in contemplation of
17 the Cutilheiro Plan; correct?
18 A. I'm a bit lost because I believe --
19 JUDGE ORIE: I think there's a mistake. The quote was on the
20 bottom of page 12.
21 THE WITNESS: At any rate, I'll deal with it in the English --
22 MS. LOUKAS: Oh, I see. My copy has page 13 for some reason. So
23 I'm one page ahead.
24 A. Well, at this stage, yes, he says that there will be additional
25 negotiations surrounding the determination of territory.
1 Q. Okay. Now -- and again, a few paragraphs down, he basically is
2 giving the Assembly his impressions and saying that he was very pleased
3 after the -- these talks and much more pleased than he was after Brussels;
5 A. Yes. There is a particular pleasure expressed, as I noted
6 yesterday, that the Bosnian Serbs believe that the European Union or
7 European Community at that particular time has now agreed to accept some
8 kind of ethnic separation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
9 Q. And in relation to that, there's just -- again, there's a further
10 comment from Mr. Krajisnik after Dragan Djokanovic [phoen] finishes
11 speaking, and Mr. Krajisnik refers to the fact that it's in this -- this
12 latest agreement for the basis of negotiations on the Cutilheiro Plan,
13 that part of the agreement is in relation to the various constituent units
14 having special relationships with whatever that -- republic they want to.
15 You know, the Bosnian Croats having a special relationship with Croatia;
16 the Bosnian Serbs having a special relationship with Serbia. Correct?
17 A. He does not aggress -- address the Bosnian Croats. He only says
18 that --
19 Q. No, indeed. I'm just --
20 A. -- the Bosnian Serbs are entitled to have free links of any type
21 with Serbia and Montenegro and anyone that they may wish.
22 Q. Indeed. And, of course, what was contemplated in the Cutilheiro
23 Plan, that was the same for all ethnicities, for all three constituent
24 units; correct?
25 A. Again, I'm forced to state that I'm not familiar with the terms
1 of the Cutilheiro Plan, other than as they are discussed in the Bosnian
2 Serb Assembly session. So I can certainly state what it is that the
3 various speakers said about the plan, but whether that is actually in the
4 plan is not something I'm in a position to comment on.
5 Q. And -- and subsequently you have Dr. Karadzic speaking just
6 before Ljubo Bosulja [phoen] - and I'm sure your pronunciation is much
7 better than mine - but he's making the point there that "We have to
8 establish a full structure of government on the ground because this is our
9 duty to the people who live there, Serbs, Muslims, or Croats, so that we
10 can have peace." Do you see that portion I'm talking about?
11 A. Yes, I do.
12 Q. And interestingly enough in the discussion by Mr. Perisic in the
13 third final paragraph of the discussion of Mr. Perisic, his contribution,
14 just above the contribution of Rabija Subic.
15 A. May I ask for a page reference, please.
16 Q. On mine it's page 28, but I think on yours it might be page 27.
17 A. Yes, I've found it.
18 Q. He makes a comment there about the fact that -- do you see the
19 sentence I'm talking about? "Why do you not ask Mr. Krajisnik and
20 Mr. Ursic [phoen] about their ability to have some influence when support
21 or cooperation of the organs with executive authority municipalities, it
22 is almost non-existent"?
23 A. Yes, I do see that sentence.
24 THE INTERPRETER: Could Ms. Loukas slow down a little bit for the
25 interpreters, please.
1 MS. LOUKAS: [Previous translation continues] ...
2 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, if you would have had your headphones
3 on, then you would have heard the request by the interpreters to slow
5 MS. LOUKAS: The request by the interpreters, Your Honour ...?
6 Oh, to slow down a little bit, yes. I'm just trying to get as much done
7 in the limited time I have available, Your Honours. But I do take the
8 point. It's just that I find with the headphones that after a while they
9 start hurting my ears. I don't know. It's -- so I try to ... but I'll
10 keep them on for the rest of the period, I think, and try to slow down.
11 Q. Now, moving on, Mr. Nielsen. There's a -- a Mr. Karovic, which
12 appears on my page 31, which is probably your page 30.
13 A. Yes. I've found it.
14 Q. Now, Mr. Karovic doesn't seem to be very happy. He's indicating
15 that he's basically not happy with the negotiations. He's saying, "We
16 have not done anything." And -- and then thereafter Mr. Krajisnik appears
17 to be trying to calm him down.
18 [Defence counsel confer]
19 Q. Mr. Nielsen?
20 A. Yes. I'm waiting for a question.
21 Q. Oh, the question is: You'd agree with me he's trying to calm him
22 down in that regard. That's a fair reading of the -- the Assembly
24 A. Yes. He -- he does state that Mr. Karovic's comments, he seems
25 to think they're -- that he needs calming down.
1 Q. And it's -- and it's quite clear from this discussion thus far
2 that Mr. Krajisnik comes across as somebody who's -- who believes in the
3 negotiating process and the international negotiations that are preceding.
5 A. As I've stated previously, Mr. Krajisnik at this particular
6 session believes that the latest round of negotiations have brought a
7 positive development for the Serbian people and that is in concurrence
8 with what the Assembly wants, and he believes that these negotiations will
10 Q. And, again, just after Mr. Krajisnik speaks, at that point we
11 have got a Mr. Goran Zekic, who again is expressing dissatisfaction with
12 the negotiating approach, and he's basically saying, "All negotiations
13 will continue and Bosnia-Herzegovina will exist as an internationally
14 recognised entity that will keep postponing to deal with internal
15 arrangements for a decade."
16 Do you see the -- the portion where Mr. --
17 A. Yes, I do.
18 Q. -- Zekic speaks on the bottom of my page 33, and I think that's
19 probably your page 32.
20 A. Yes. I've found it.
21 Q. Yes. And again Mr. Krajisnik, he -- he responds to this
22 negativity in relation to negotiating by saying, "What can I hear -- what
23 can I say after hearing Zekic. It's as if we had not discussed anything,
24 as if he had just entered the room."
25 A. Yes. I see that passage. And I note that Mr. Krajisnik also
1 said that nothing was agreed as yet, that this was all working material.
2 Q. Indeed. And he also says towards the -- the end of what he has
3 to say in response to Mr. Zekic's negative contribution that -- "Can we
4 hear only the concrete proposals, please." And again, it seems, does it
5 not, that Mr. Krajisnik is still emphasising the importance of the
6 negotiating sphere; correct?
7 A. Well, he certainly wants to solicit concrete proposals with
8 respect to the negotiations rather than negative emotions regarding the
9 most recent evolution.
10 Q. Now, we go to Mr. Vjestica's contribution, which is at the bottom
11 of my page 36, which I think would be the bottom of your page 35; correct?
12 A. Correct.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, I'm looking at the clock. We are going
14 to stop at five minutes to 5.00. We still have the outstanding issue to
15 be resolved before 5.00, whether we'll proceed on Monday or not. I
16 therefore suggest that we leave Mr. Vjestica for next session, whenever
17 that may be.
18 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 MS. LOUKAS: Perhaps it might be also appropriate to find out
21 from the witness his availability as well.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Nielsen, we'll discuss at this moment when
23 we'll proceed. I think there are --
24 Ms. Loukas, there are a few options. And Mr. Tieger, I take it
25 that you'll find out also about the next witness to arrive.
1 What we could do is to continue Monday and see how far we come,
2 and then restart anyhow on Wednesday with Witness 679, and then have
3 another day -- a free day or another day off where you could prepare
4 for -- for the witnesses for which these additional days have been given.
5 That's an option.
6 Another option is just to take the two days off and to restart on
7 witness -- on Wednesday. Whether that would be with Mr. Nielsen or with
8 someone else would then still have to be decided.
9 These are, I think, the -- the most -- the most likely options
10 to --
11 Mr. Tieger, you have tried to find out about ...
12 MR. TIEGER: Yes, Your Honour. Our recommendation is to resume
13 on Monday, then take Tuesday and Wednesday off, and on Thursday we can
14 begin with the next scheduled witness.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Would that be -- yes.
16 You're half dressed, Mr. Stewart.
17 MR. STEWART: I'm so sorry, Your Honours.
18 JUDGE ORIE: No problem. No problem.
19 MR. STEWART: I actually came in at the last minute because I was
20 watching the screen and realised there was discussion about scheduling,
21 and I came down specifically with something to offer on the topic. So I
22 came straight in.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 MR. STEWART: But, Your Honour, I shall adjust myself as best I
25 can to be respectable.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The suggestion has been made by Mr. Tieger
2 that we would resume on Monday with Mr. Nielsen. We would then take
3 Tuesday and Wednesday off. And then on Thursday to start with the next
5 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, it seems -- my immediate
6 reaction is it seems that not for the very first time - although it's not
7 absolutely universal - Mr. Tieger and I may be in a high measure of
8 agreement about this, Your Honour.
9 The -- I was actually looking ahead. I'd considered this. And I
10 could see it coming, and in fact had reckoned that that probably was quite
11 sensible. It's also a question of what knock-on effect it has.
12 So the -- the suggestion would be that we would carry on on
13 Monday, that the recess days would be Tuesday and Wednesday, and then we
14 would start the next witness on Thursday instead of Wednesday. Is that
15 where we are so far? Correct?
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's what is suggested by Mr. Tieger.
17 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, would it -- is the idea, then, that
18 witness is down for three days, so one would suppose that that witness
19 would then potentially spill in -- on that timetable would go on into
20 Monday the following week, the 13th.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger.
22 MR. TIEGER: Well, if -- first of all, I think that estimate --
23 we can re-evaluate the time it will take, but that's -- the mathematics
24 are completely correct. If the witness, in fact, is going to take three
25 days, then we will be spilling over into Monday of the following week.
1 MR. STEWART: Yes. I was just -- I was just wondering, Your
2 Honour, then whether in practice, because I don't know precisely what
3 arrangements have been made with 636 for Monday, the 13th of June, but
4 according to this timetable the sensible course might be to move away 636
5 to some other time and bring him or her - I think it's a him - well, who
6 knows whether it's a him or a her -
7 JUDGE ORIE: The person, yes.
8 MR. STEWART: -- for present purposes -- back and then we would
9 have Monday and then no doubt we could start the next -- if we do finish--
10 I think -- this is not a protected witness next week, is it? I can say
11 the name, can't I? Anyway, 679. And then if 679 goes over into Monday,
12 then no doubt we could go to 677.
13 JUDGE ORIE: If we have a late start with 679, then of course we
14 might -- it might take a bit longer.
15 Do we have to resolve that now? Because we have to resolve
16 whether we are sitting on Monday, yes or no. And it has to be done before
17 5.00 because otherwise --
18 MR. STEWART: But Your Honour, I don't think -- there's no
19 problem on that.
20 Your Honour, there's no problem from the Defence side with that
21 immediate suggestion. I came in to put down those markers, Your Honour,
22 because the question -- as it is on the Prosecution side, no doubt. But
23 the planning at this stage, Your Honour, is absolutely on a knife edge the
24 whole time. So the more that we know and the earlier we know it --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. As I said, it has to be decided before that as
2 MR. STEWART: -- Mr. Tieger knows that as well.
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE ORIE: We'll, then, sit on Monday and take Tuesday and
5 Wednesday off.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE ORIE: And Monday, that would be in the morning hours.
8 That's -- so later this day we'll adjourn, not at this moment, for next
9 Monday at 9.00 in the morning, presumably the same courtroom.
10 Mr. Nielsen, I'd like to instruct you not to speak with anyone
11 about the testimony you have given until now and you're still about to
12 give. Next Monday, at least if you're available next Monday.
13 THE WITNESS: Yes, I am, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll resume your cross-examination, then,
15 next Monday, 9.00 in the morning.
16 We now -- yes, Mr. Tieger.
17 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, it -- just if it's helpful to the Court
18 scheduling at all, Fridays is the day we would be presenting the weekly
19 dossiers, so ...
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let me do that, I would say, in -- in the way
21 that you announce that you now present the next, I think it was five,
22 municipalities and then we all say that's done and then you distribute it
23 at a -- give the final version to the -- to the registrar, and it will
24 then find its way throughout this building and on all the desks where it
25 needs to end.
2 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, can I say I'm only -- I'm not standing
3 to intrude on Mr. Tieger's space. I'm standing because I've got nothing
4 mind me to sit on. It's as simple as that, so ...
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I would say start negotiations with the
6 Prosecution to see whether that problem can be solved, Mr. Stewart.
7 We'll adjourn until 18 minutes past 5.00. Then, Mr. Stewart,
8 you'll have to start with 20 minutes for your submissions. You asked
9 for 30. The Prosecution will have 10 minutes. They asked for 15. And
10 then the remainder of the time is 10 and 5 minutes. We'll see whether
11 there's any need for further submissions after the first round.
12 We'll adjourn.
13 --- Recess taken at 4.58 p.m.
14 --- On resuming at 5.21 p.m.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Let's use our time as efficiently as possible.
16 First of all, I want to inquire whether the parties have received
17 the submission by the Registry about resources that can be made available
18 if an accused - in this case, Mr. Krajisnik - would represent himself.
19 If -- if this, of course -- this is new information. I asked for it. If
20 that changes anything, of course I would -- I would hear that as soon as
22 Mr. Stewart, please proceed.
23 MR. STEWART: Yes, Your Honour, the position on that is that I
24 have received it so recently, basically been able to read it once through
25 on arrival here this afternoon. I -- I do see the basic point there, but
1 I haven't had time to do any more than that.
2 Your Honour, I'm proposing to use this -- this session now to see
3 whether -- well, I can assist on -- just where we've got to and what the
4 issues are and also help myself to understand what the issues are so that
5 we can then fill in any gaps.
6 Your Honours, so far as the case law is concerned, I'm going to
7 say straight away that although we on the Defence side have been
8 conducting and have conducted a pretty full review of a number of the
9 cases, rather than go through case by case, which would certainly exhaust
10 the 20 minutes without my saying anything particularly intelligent, the --
11 I would suggest the sensible course there, Your Honour, would be it won't
12 be this afternoon, but might we early next week, Your Honour - and I'm
13 open, of course, to Your Honour's directions as to precisely what that
14 means - submit perhaps brief comments on the various cases in the form of
15 a few lines or so on which say what we say the cases say or don't say.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I take it that one or two pages next Monday or
17 Tuesday morning or ...
18 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, Tuesday morning is --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Tuesday morning is fine.
20 MR. STEWART: That would be most acceptable. And --
21 JUDGE ORIE: I see no objections from the Prosecution, so case
22 law Tuesday morning, short written submission.
23 MR. STEWART: Yes.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
25 MR. STEWART: I'm obliged, Your Honour. We'll do that.
1 So I can be fairly short this afternoon, then, because what we
2 say, first of all, just to try and clear the battle lines, are that under
3 the Statute, Rules and the Assignment Directive, where an accused has
4 decided to discontinue services of assigned counsel and to conduct his own
5 defence, that no decision or approval of the Registrar is required.
6 And, Your Honour, those arguments were presented to the Trial
7 Chamber by me on Tuesday and need no further expansion.
8 Again, by Article 20 of the assignment Directive, where the very
9 same letter -- and we can concentrate on the later letter because it
10 doesn't really matter now what the effect of the earlier letter was.
11 The -- where Mr. Krajisnik has in the same letter expressed his decision
12 to represent himself -- to discontinue the services of counsel and his
13 intention to conduct his own defence, counsel may withdraw from acting
14 immediately, and in our submission should do so because we are no longer
15 Mr. Krajisnik's counsel.
16 And those arguments have been presented, and again that element
17 of the -- the matter doesn't really require any further elaboration.
18 Your Honour, in our submission, what is very important is there
19 are two separate questions which must be kept distinct here. The first
20 question is whether that decision and intention, as expressed by
21 Mr. Krajisnik, whether that decision is in fact and law Mr. Krajisnik's
22 genuine decision and intention.
23 The second question, which is distinct, is whether in all the
24 circumstances, either full effect should be given to that decision, no
25 effect be given to that decision, or some qualified effect be given to
1 that decision. But the second question being all on the basis that it is
2 his decision.
3 The -- largely, Your Honour, those arguments representing that
4 distinction were also reflected certainly in what we submitted to the
5 Trial Chamber on -- earlier this week, but it is important on that
7 As to the first question, Your Honour, whether it's his decision,
8 we say simply this -- and again, this is a slight expansion of what we
9 said earlier this week -- that where Mr. Krajisnik's decision, and I'm
10 including both the decision to discontinue our services and the
11 declaration of his intention to represent himself. I'm including that
12 compendiously in decision for shorthand. Where his decision has been
13 expressed in clear terms, as it was by his letter to the Registrar dated
14 30th of May, if not by his earlier letter, it is legitimate for the Trial
15 Chamber to conduct such inquiry and to ask such questions of Mr. Krajisnik
16 as are necessary to establish that it is truly his decision and intention.
17 We don't suggest that can't be done. But given that Mr. Krajisnik is an
18 intelligent educated adult of obviously full mental capacity, and we don't
19 see any conceivable dispute as to -- to that proposition, then unless
20 there remains some genuine possibility that his decision is vitiated by
21 some matter capable in law of negativing the decision of an adult person
22 of full capacity, then Mr. Krajisnik's decision must be accepted as his
23 decision. And that answers question one.
24 Your Honour, for example, if Mr. Krajisnik's decision were shown
25 to be based on a significant mistake or misunderstanding, then there would
1 be room for argument about it. That could in some circumstances vitiate
2 his decision. But it can't be vitiated by being in the Trial Chamber's -
3 or anybody else's for that matter - opinion an unwise decision, a
4 misjudgement, even a foolish decision, because it's implicit in nearly all
5 the cases that we see and in nearly all jurisdictions that nearly all
6 courts take the view that nearly all defendants are being foolish in
7 taking such a decision. But that's not the point, clearly.
8 He is also, Mr. Krajisnik, he's entitled to have made his
9 decision without seeking further information, which others might have
10 regarded as necessary or sensible to obtain. He -- he has distinctly said
11 that he has asked for information, for example, from the Registry as a
12 consequence of his decision not in order to make it. So he chooses what
13 to inquire about and what not to inquire about, and he's made the
15 So, Your Honour, our submission here is that on the facts we have
16 in this case, the answer to the question one, that first question, is it
17 his decision, is quite simply yes, and no further inquiry is necessary,
18 and certainly no -- there's no justification for exploring that aspect and
19 taking any time on it. This submission, Your Honour, on this aspect is
20 entirely consistent with and indeed supported by the decisions and
21 approach of the Appeals Chamber of this Tribunal in Milosevic, not being
22 directly on exactly that point but entirely consistent with and implicitly
23 supported by it, and also the United States Supreme Court approach,
24 particularly as exemplified in Faretta.
25 And, Your Honour, our submission is it's not contradicted by any
1 case from anywhere which has been put before the Trial Chamber by the
2 Prosecution and neither, we can tell Your Honour, is it contradicted by
3 any case from anywhere which is known to the Defence.
4 Now, there are millions of cases not known to the Defence around
5 the world, but, Your Honour, we can only put it in those terms, that we --
6 we know of no case which would contradict the approach to question one.
7 Your Honour, the clearly distinguishable question and distinct
8 question, I should say, of what effect should be given to the decision and
9 whether there is effectively, then, some -- some controlling limit, some
10 ability for the Trial Chamber to say, Well, yes, it's your decision,
11 Mr. Krajisnik, we see that, but it cannot and should not in the particular
12 circumstances be given full effect or qualified effect, Your Honour, that
13 involves an inquiry of a different nature.
14 The -- that there'll be overlaps, of course, as to some of the
15 factual investigations that might have been made on inquiry number one and
16 inquiry number two, but it is distinct. It's an inquiry of a different
17 nature. And the starting point on that question, we submit, is a strong
18 presumptive right to self-representation. And that comes from the
19 Milosevic decision. And we particularly note, without going to it now -
20 Your Honours are very familiar with it and it's there for everybody to
21 read without us all standing in court while it happens - without
22 suggesting there aren't lots of things in the Milosevic decision which
23 bear on this -- we note, for example, the reference in paragraph 19 of the
24 Appeals Chamber decision in Milosevic to the default presumption; in other
25 words, in that particular case, slightly different -- well, more than
1 slightly different circumstances in the Milosevic case, the default
2 presumption means that really it all goes back to Mr. Milosevic to conduct
3 his -- his case. That that's the presumption, that when there's a
4 question, well, should counsel deal with it or should Mr. Milosevic deal
5 with it, the presumption is that it goes to Mr. Milosevic to deal with it
6 in the first place.
7 And so when an inquiry -- and, Your Honour, we don't in the least
8 resist in principle the notion of an inquiry to get to some of the facts
9 and try to -- and so the Trial Chamber can form -- can reach some informed
10 opinion as to how this trial would proceed if Mr. Krajisnik were to
11 represent himself. That should operate from that starting point.
12 And, Your Honour, our -- so far as the -- I won't say anything
13 about the English cases because what we would say about the English cases
14 will be covered in the note that we submit to Your Honours. And the same
15 will apply to the United States cases. Except we say this, Your Honour:
16 That on the question which Your Honour put to Mr. Harmon the other day as
17 to the effect of a difference of timing in relation to the choice or
18 request by a defendant to represent himself - and I'm going -- again, here
19 we have to distinguish Mr. Harmon's answer number one and Mr. Harmon's
20 answer number two, but we'll go with answer number two --
21 JUDGE ORIE: He said he misspoke, I think.
22 MR. STEWART: Well, of course, I'm just teasing here, Your
23 Honour, but of course we'll go with answer number two on that, and we
24 understand the position.
25 The -- Your Honour, of course we -- we acknowledge and recognise
1 that in the cases - and there's a whole string of cases that we will
2 comment on which come from essentially one level down in the United States
3 Federal system from the -- the Appeals Courts for -- we think -- I think
4 it's 14 districts. That's what I believe. The -- when an accused is
5 seeking to, well, get rid of counsel in effect and represent himself -
6 it's usually a him - represent himself once a trial is well underway,
7 there are a number of cases straight away -- and I'm going to put it in
8 fairly general terms this afternoon, Your Honour, but then we will wrap
9 that up in -- in our detailed submissions. It will give rise often to a
10 greater presumption or inference that there's some disruptive element
11 involved. And that's -- so one has to take out of the equation the cases
12 where that is an important factor because that can be a factor at the
13 beginning of the -- of the trial.
14 The -- and so I won't go into all those cases, Your Honour, but
15 just make this as a last comment today - unless invited, of course, in a
16 few minutes' time - but just say this: That so far as there are elements
17 at this stage of the case -- for example, the -- the difference in ability
18 between a defendant representing himself and counsel, whatever --
19 whichever direction the differences go, at the very least, of course, we
20 do have greater experience of dealing with the courtroom and dealing with
21 witnesses, those elements which would have been there anyway at the
22 beginning of the trial should be, at the very least, largely disregarded
23 because the -- the elements that can -- that is really relevant - and it
24 can be relevant; we acknowledge that - is what has changed as a result of
25 the accused bringing up this matter much later, what are the particular
1 circumstances which make it right to displace the presumption that -- of
2 right to self-representation? That's the key element. And the inquiry,
3 which we suggest should in practice be directed because otherwise the
4 Court is rather flying blind, should have very much in mind that element
5 of the matter.
6 And, Your Honour, so far as -- submissions as to exactly where
7 the balance should lie and how far there should be a -- a qualification,
8 if indeed there should be any qualification of Mr. Krajisnik's full right,
9 really lie after the inquiry when the Trial Chamber has had the
10 opportunity -- it may even be that the parties would have an opportunity
11 to ask questions in this area, but the Trial Chamber clearly would at the
12 very least take the lead on this matter, that when there is a clearer
13 picture of how it might actually work out in practice, given that one
14 principle that is accepted, Your Honour, is that a defendant choosing to
15 represent himself cannot expect some major adaptation to suit his conduct
16 of the case. Mr. Milosevic does, in fact, get very considerable
17 adaptation, as it happens, but we -- we would accept the principle that
18 the -- as -- there is a question as to what is major. We don't
19 necessarily accept that there should be no adaptation because if you go
20 back to the beginning and test it by the defendant's right to
21 self-representation, as at the beginning of the trial, it's clear that
22 that will give rise to some sort of adjustment and some sort of
23 acceptance. Because if it doesn't, then it isn't a real right.
24 So perhaps that -- well, what I've just said, I perhaps should
25 treat that myself with some caution, Your Honour. It's a wholesale
1 disruption of the proceedings to accommodate a defendant choosing to
2 change tack in the middle, is something that couldn't realistically be
3 submitted, but it doesn't follow that he has to operate just exactly
4 according to what counsel would have to operate according to because that
5 wouldn't have been the position at the beginning of the trial, and that
6 would undermine the notion of there being a real effective right at all.
7 Your Honour, the -- I said it would be last point but just as a
8 reminder. Your Honour, there is one important element here, and we do not
9 see this, as far as the Defence has been able to research it in any of the
10 cases, which is that we do reiterate that point, that where Mr. Krajisnik
11 is under an obligation to make a contribution, and a substantial
12 contribution towards the payment of assigned counsel, that involves a
13 significant and fundamentally different element from what we see in cases
14 where the accused, the defendant, is not actually having to pay. And so a
15 compulsory - and that's in effect what it is - a compulsory continuation
16 of funding by the defendant is an element which on its own, we would
17 submit, leaving aside everything else, on its own prevents this particular
18 jurisdiction from being exercised. If there's another way of dealing with
19 the problem - there may be another way - but to tell Mr. Krajisnik, No,
20 you must retain these counsel and you must continue with this obligation
21 to contribute towards your defence financially, that we say quite simply
22 cannot be done.
23 Your Honour, those are my submissions today.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Stewart.
25 Just for my information, you said a whole bunch of US decisions
1 were of the lower level, the Court of Appeals level, whatever circuit. I
2 therefore wondered whether you have at least available the Martinez case,
3 which is a US Supreme Court case.
4 MR. STEWART: Yes.
5 JUDGE ORIE: It's not a lower level. And especially since you
6 know the Supreme Court might be -- and by reading it, that might even
7 become a bit true -- is a bit more -- feels to be more free to verify what
8 the validity of the reasons given by that same court or perhaps a Court of
9 Appeal might be a bit more hesitant to criticise at least some parts of
10 the reasoning of -- of the Supreme Court.
11 MR. STEWART: Yes. Your Honour, if I said or was understood to
12 say that all the other cases were from a level below the Supreme Court,
13 then I misspoke myself, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ORIE: No. No. But --
15 MR. STEWART: But most --
16 JUDGE ORIE: To avoid whatever misunderstandings.
17 MR. STEWART: But most of the cases --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Most of the cases.
19 MR. STEWART: -- we've looked at were from a lower level. But
20 Your Honour, I'm not saying there's no other Supreme Court case in there.
21 If I did say that then I apologise, because I didn't mean to say that.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
23 Mr. Harmon.
24 MR. HARMON: Good afternoon, Your Honour.
25 My submissions will be brief. We have submitted to Your Honours
1 an extensive set of authorities. I don't care to reiterate all of those
2 authorities and discuss the law in great detail.
3 I want to make the point, however, that from the Prosecutor's
4 point of view it's clear that Mr. Krajisnik has asserted that he wants to
5 represent himself. He's done that in letters and unequivocally, I think,
6 in his expressions to the Trial Chamber.
7 It's our submission that once an accused makes such a request,
8 that it is the preferred practice, from our point of view, for the Court
9 to follow the procedure that is in Faretta, specifically that there be a
10 comprehensive inquiry into whether or not his waiver is knowing and
11 intelligent, and that inquiry should include the -- a host of -- a host of
12 considerations: His knowledge of the charges, the types of sentences that
13 can be imposed, the defences that are available to him. I look at the
14 inquiry in the Faretta case. It was quite detailed. I think the inquiry
15 should also advise him in clear and unequivocal terms of the pitfalls of
16 self-representation. We have alluded to it in our discussions in the
17 courtroom, but I think the Court should set forth those and make sure that
18 Mr. Krajisnik understands fully the consequences of self-representation
19 and should discuss with him the disadvantages of the self-representation.
20 Again, that set of inquiries are outlined on page 17 of our
22 The reason I say I think that it is important is because later it
23 insulates the parties and the Court from a claim that he didn't fully
24 understand what he was getting into. And I think that inquiry is not one
25 that will take a lot of time, but I think it's one that is very, very
1 important to ensure that Mr. Krajisnik fully understands the nature of
2 what he's getting into should he -- should the Court grant such a request.
3 Now, coming to the point where I misspoke, I would like to
4 correct the submission that I did make. I have submitted to the Trial
5 Chamber the cases on point, but the Court had asked me about some -- some
6 questions that were raised at the end of the dissent in the Faretta case,
7 at what point in time -- it doesn't make a difference -- at what point in
8 time an accused asserts his right to self-representation. And you asked
9 me, Your Honour, whether or not such a question would be irrelevant. And
10 I said it would be. Well, it's not irrelevant. It's very relevant.
11 In the case law that I've submitted to Your Honours, including
12 the Martinez case from the Supreme Court, a number appellate cases and one
13 Supreme Court case from a state, the state of Delaware, indicate that that
14 consideration of what the Court must do in weighing and assessing whether
15 the right should be granted does have -- there is an effect on whether the
16 accused makes -- an assertion of the right before trial or during trial.
17 And once the -- once the assertion is made during trial - and in this
18 case, we are virtually at the end of our case in chief - then the Court
19 has to balance the rights of the accused and his legitimate right to
20 self-representation versus the potential disruptive effects that such a
21 right and the granting of that right could mean in terms of the continued
22 conduct of this case.
23 Now, the factors that the Court can consider at this point in
24 time -- and the Court has considerable discretion at this moment,
25 Mr. Krajisnik having asserted that right for the first time at this stage
1 in the proceeding. The Court has considerable discretion. It can look at
2 the potential disruption that and delays that can be caused by the right
3 to self-representation.
4 I think the Court should also take into account the ability of Mr.
5 Krajisnik to represent himself. The Court has had an opportunity through
6 various documents to see Mr. Krajisnik's familiarity with the Rules of
7 Procedure and Evidence, has had an opportunity to observe him during the
8 conduct of the -- of his examinations. We have had, for example, in a
9 very brief period of time a demonstration that shows the following: There
10 has been -- there have been two disclosures of -- breaches of
11 confidentiality. There has been a misciting of the Rules in his initial
12 request, saying that he's entitled to represent himself. There has been
13 clearly grappling with the proper way to frame a question. There has been
14 Mr. Krajisnik's own statements that being a lawyer is difficult. So I
15 think the Court has to take into consideration when it weighs the effects
16 of whether it should grant the motion, it should take into account.
17 In our view, given that we are on a very tight schedule, it's our
18 submission that permitting Mr. Krajisnik the right to represent himself at
19 this point in time would be very disruptive of the schedule, the duty of
20 the Prosecutor to finish by the 22nd of July.
21 Furthermore, it's our submission that the hybrid solution that
22 we're currently engaged in is also disruptive. It takes more time to have
23 Mr. Stewart or Ms. Loukas ask questions and then have Mr. Krajisnik
24 follow. We simply, in our assessment, will not finish with our case by
25 the 22nd of July under either -- under either formulation.
1 I say that, you know, during the course of -- let me focus on
2 Mr. Krajisnik's attempts to examine witnesses. I think one of the things
3 the Court when considering the potential for delay is the Prosecutor will
4 be objecting to questions that are improper. We have permitted -- we have
5 let objectionable questions come in. We have framed -- we have let him
6 attempt the best way to frame those questions. But a significant number
7 of those questions were objectionable the way they were framed. The Court
8 will be engaged in ruling on our objections and perhaps even instructing
9 Mr. Krajisnik the proper way to proceed in these -- in the conduct of the
10 case. And that is one of the factors that could occasion considerable
11 delay and make it impossible for us to finish by the 22nd of July.
12 Now, the Court does have options. It can -- those are described
13 in our submission: Stand-by counsel, amicus. I'm not going to comment
14 further on those submissions. But it is our request, Your Honour, that
15 this matter be resolved as quickly as possible so as to permit clarity on
16 the issue and permit us to conclude with our case by the 22nd of July.
17 Those are my submissions, Your Honour. Thank you very much.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Harmon.
19 There seems to be at least some difference of opinion on the
20 matter on what would be needed to accept the decision, whether you give
21 effect to it or not, but to accept that it's the decision.
22 Mr. Stewart, you used the words "a genuine decision and
23 intention." You did not say anything about how informed that decision
24 should be. Could that be - and that's my question to you - and at the
25 same time I give you an opportunity to briefly respond. But if -- if I
1 would -- it could be my genuine decision to marry a woman but it could not
2 be not fully informed if I would not know that she went bankrupt three
3 times before that. The decision, I would say, could be genuine and at the
4 same time might not be fully informed. Is that a matter which you
5 consider to be part of -- it could at least be part of the inquiry or ...
6 MR. STEWART: That's a pretty good analogy, Your Honour. If it
7 turns out that there's mistaken identity -- I'll depersonalise it, of
8 course, Your Honour. But if it turns out that it's mistaken identity and
9 you've married the wrong woman -- I mean, the wrong woman -- many people
10 marry the wrong woman, or the wrong man. But the -- in the sense that you
11 thought it was somebody else, then of course the -- the marriage is
13 If you find out later that she's been bankrupt three times,
14 that's tough luck.
15 JUDGE ORIE: You say --
16 MR. STEWART: Usually it's the bankruptcy of the husband that's
17 the problem --
18 JUDGE ORIE: You say, for example, the question, knowledge of
19 what funds would be available to you to your Defence prior to taking a
20 decision - which certainly would make the decision more informed - is not
21 something that would -- could be part of that inquiry.
22 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, yes, because Mr. Krajisnik --
23 one can form the reasonable assumption that Mr. Krajisnik is well aware
24 that there is such information out there. But if he chooses not to ask
25 for it -- it's the same way when a party enters into a contract, for
1 example. There's not a million miles here. The -- the sort of factors
2 which vitiate an adult person entering into a contract are going to be
3 pretty similar. If you don't get the information, that's your look-out.
4 You enter into the contract. The fact that somebody else might think that
5 that information was useful to get before you made a fully informed
6 decision, that's -- that's another matter altogether.
7 And -- and Your Honour, it -- it actually sounds -- although we
8 express it slightly differently, in substance there is, as I understand
9 it, there's complete agreement between what the Prosecution are saying now
10 on that question and what we're saying. Certainly the result and effect,
11 we're saying, is the same.
12 JUDGE ORIE: I understood that it would be part, Mr. Harmon, it
13 would be part of the inquiry to be made on whether the decision, as a
14 decision should be accepted, and that the consequences of the decision
15 for -- for example, for the trial would be at a later stage.
16 MR. HARMON: That's correct, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So there seems to be, at least in this
18 respect, some disagreement.
19 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, may I say a misunderstanding -- I
20 understood Mr. Harmon -- of course I have to interpret Mr. Harmon's
21 submissions as he interprets mine. But when Mr. Harmon said -- I thought
22 he said something like as far as the Prosecution were concerned, that
23 decision had been taken. That's why I'm finding it difficult to see what
24 inquiry there is in relation to that element. That's my distinct question
25 number one as opposed to my distinct question number two.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I took it that Mr. Harmon was referring to --
2 well, in Faretta I think it says something like the decision should be
3 made intelligently and informed and there was another one. But at least
4 that that would be part of the decision rather than part of the discussion
5 on the effects of a decision.
6 MR. HARMON: Correct.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It's always good to identify where there seems
8 to be a difference of view between the parties.
9 Mr. Krajisnik, this is very much a legal matter; although, you
10 are certainly in the middle of it. If you'd like to add something -- you
11 may have noticed that Mr. Stewart will file some further comments by next
12 Tuesday morning. It's not said that this is the end of submissions,
13 because both parties consider it appropriate to further make inquiries
14 into, well, your understanding of the situation, perhaps also on the
15 effects of self-representation, not only for you but also for the trial.
16 So there might be a stage to come where we further discuss these matters.
17 But would you like to add anything at this moment, where we are
18 very much focussing at this moment on the legal issue involved, the basics
19 of the right to self-representation, the case law in which it was
20 affirmed, the case law where limits were set to the exercise of that
21 right, also the -- the practice in various countries, as in the submission
22 by the Prosecution. But you have not seen that yet, so once that has been
23 translated, you'll have another opportunity to -- to make submissions on
25 But is there anything at this moment you'd like to add?
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just very briefly, so as not to
2 waste anyone's time, since I am looking at the clock.
3 First of all, I'd like to provide an explanation on two counts:
4 Invoking a wrong Rule or a wrong number. I have a CD that I got, and it
5 is an old version --
6 JUDGE ORIE: I can be very short on that. If lawyers would be
7 considered to be incompetent if they do not correctly quote legal
8 provisions, there are not many lawyers left in many courthouses. So
9 that's not something that really asks for attention.
10 I don't think that, Mr. Harmon, that you took that as one of
11 the -- of the major problems.
12 So that's clear. The Chamber will not -- we'll go back in our
13 memory to see where and when we for the last time made that mistake.
14 Please proceed.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I know that Mr. Harmon probably did
16 not take it to be a major error, but that's what I feel to be an error.
17 And as to my performance here, I would really like for somebody
18 from the Prosecution to try and type up these documents all day and then
19 in a couple of minutes have to give an introduction to what they have to
20 say and ask questions. Probably their performance would also not be quite
21 up to scratch, as opposed to when they have enough time to prepare.
22 But there is something else I would like to say: I'm not
23 somebody who wants to make trouble. Throughout my life I've always looked
24 for compromises, and that's why in my own decision I indicated that
25 reluctantly or unwillingly I made that decision.
1 It is my job to analyse certain events, and I have seen that the
2 path taken by the Defence team is certainly leading to no good. And
3 that's why I've made my decision, not because I want to play at being a
4 lawyer. And I suppose you will be able to judge this.
5 In as far as the Rules and regulations are concerned, there are
6 no conditions there. People drafting those Rules did not say that only
7 lawyers would be allowed to be granted the right to conduct their own
8 defence. But what about ordinary men and women? How are they going to
9 make sure that their rights are respected?
10 Let me just conclude on this note: I would like to say that any
11 compromise would be a good solution, but it is not only about me. I was
12 forced to make this decision. I didn't make it because I wanted to
13 disrupt proceedings halfway through the trial.
14 And something else: It is not my aim to prolong this trial. I
15 would like for this trial to be over as soon as possible because it is all
16 quite exhausting and tiring and it's a hassle for all of us, especially
17 for me, and I have a deep-seated belief in truth. And let me assure you
18 that it was not my aim when making this decision to try and prolong
19 proceedings and all that. It has been an imposed decision, so to say, and
20 I believe you've seen this.
21 And thank you for having given me the opportunity to speak out
22 once again.
23 And before I conclude, just one more point: In whatever
24 combination or structure -- I mean, certain points I've already made on a
25 number of occasion, but whatever the situation, I believe that it would be
1 useful if I'm going to be asking questions. Even if the Prosecution
2 doesn't like it -- I mean, when I ask questions, it is about establishing
3 the truth. I mean, you know how I asked these questions, so whatever I
4 had to say at the moment does not really need to be said.
5 Thank you for your attention.
6 JUDGE ORIE: One question to you, Mr. Krajisnik: You said, "I
7 would like to say that any compromise would be a good solution." And then
8 you say, "But it's not only about me." That sounds and the whole of the
9 context sounds a bit as, I would be willing to compromise but it takes two
10 to tango or perhaps even three to tango. That means that there would be
11 not a way to find such a compromise, which sounds more in the direction of
12 thinking about the composition of your Defence team, rather than a clear
13 wish that you really prefer to do it on your own rather than to be
14 assisted by counsel. I'm not talking about this counsel at this moment,
15 about your present counsel.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Any repetition when it comes to
17 comments regarding my Defence team would be redundant. I've said many
18 things about my Defence team. But the end result for the moment is
20 And what I'd like to explain - it might be rather difficult - is
21 this: The Prosecution has an interest, and my Defence team has an
22 interest. We all have an interest of some sort. I can tell you what I
23 would like to happen, and I would like for all of these interests to
24 converge and for things to move forward as fast as possible and not to
25 concentrate on money and money only. So my point was that I'm not only
1 making a request on my own behalf but we have different interests which
2 are at play here in order for things to move forward. If it were all up
3 to me, we would find an easy solution, but I'm the one who has least
4 rights here.
5 But if my Defence says we can't prepare, there is a deadline, we
6 can't extend or postpone that deadline, well, my proposal was even before
7 for them to sit down with the Registry and decide what can be done in
8 order to speed things up and complete the entire process as soon as
10 So that's about the Defence team.
11 I did get the letter from the Registry. Believe me, had I not
12 been in the courtroom -- I mean, they've made me so mad. They said, "Oh,
13 Krajisnik has some resources," et cetera. I'm not an emotional person. I
14 don't need their money. I only need the truth and I want to get the
15 possibility to defend myself.
16 And there's something else that I would like to say which might
17 be inappropriate, but allow me to say that: The Registry will never be
18 able to impose it upon myself to be defended in a way that they feel I
19 should be defended or anyone else. I mean, do please allow us to listen
20 to everybody's problems and for those problems to maybe be voiced and
21 solved outside this courtroom and, if possible, for us to finish the first
22 part of the trial by the 22nd and the second part next year. That's my
23 goal. It is not my goal to sit here and create problems.
24 And when I said that lawyers are better at going a lawyer's job,
25 I mean, it is only natural for me to say so. It would be ridiculous for
1 me to say that I am better than any lawyer.
2 I do hope I've made myself clear. And I'm just trying to show you
3 that there are more interests at play here.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do understand. At the same time, you -- you
5 say, "I mean, do please allow us to listen to everybody's problems and for
6 those problems to maybe be voiced and solved outside this courtroom and if
7 possible for us to finish the first part of the trial by..." and then
8 you -- if you say "to solve these problems out of the courtroom," what do
9 you have in mind? It's not entirely clear to me.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Perhaps I was going too fast.
11 THE INTERPRETER: Yes, the speaker was going too fast.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And maybe the interpreters can't
13 quite keep up with me.
14 I believe that there are certain technical difficulties, quite a
15 few of them in fact, which must be solved so as not to talk at
16 cross-purposes. And for the Registry, rather, and my team to sit down
17 together and see how these difficulties, technical difficulties, can be
18 solved in order for them to listen to my problems as well.
19 And we're not talking about money only. Everything can be solved
20 on the basis of a compromise in order for us to reach the goal as soon as
21 possible. That was my explanation.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, you are aware that this Chamber at the
23 moment is not in a position to resolve the problems because it's mainly
24 focussing on what is at our desk at this moment, and that is your -- the
25 wish you expressed to defend yourself.
1 It's not quite clear to me whether in this compromise
2 representation would be a part or whether you just are talking about
3 technical matters. We are not competent to deal with that. And, of
4 course, you may have noticed whether we are talking about laptops or
5 anything else, that whenever the Chamber can assist in -- even if it's not
6 its primary competence -- can assist in resolving matters, that the
7 Chamber is only too much willing to contribute to solutions.
8 But my question is: If you are talking about compromises, is --
9 is still the matter of being represented a matter which is to be discussed
10 at all, or do you say, No, that's -- that's a station that's behind the --
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm afraid that my
12 good intentions are being misunderstood. I've reached my decision because
13 I couldn't help it. I made that decision because I realised that the way
14 things were going so far were just not satisfactory. It would be great if
15 it could be improved and if things could go the way I imagine they could
16 go to begin with.
17 But as to my decision, it is quite clear and it is based on the
18 fact that I saw how things were going, and I realised that in the last
19 analysis I will be declared guilty. And I know I am not guilty.
20 And when I mentioned compromises, I saw and I've encountered
21 hundreds and hundreds of problems in my career in the past, and things
22 seem to be impossible to solve, but then when people sat down together and
23 analysed things and then they went to the decision-makers - in this case
24 you are the decision-maker - and then they ended up with two or three
25 problems that are easy to solve. So that's the whole gist of my problem.
1 And do believe me, when he had problems and negotiations and
2 problems were really, really difficult. And that's the way in which we
3 tried to solve them. I can't really just get up and say I accept for my
4 Defence team to continue to conduct my defence, and they themselves are
5 saying, We can't continue to do a proper job. I mean, they can continue
6 with what they're doing but it is good quality work.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, the transcript says "Kindly slow down
8 for the purposes of the record."
9 May I put the question quite clear to you, and we really do not
10 need a long answer. If you're thinking about talking to people, meeting
11 to people, seeking compromises, is it feasible at all that in that
12 compromise you would finally say, "I accept to be represented by
13 counsel" -- I'm not talking about this counsel at this moment -- but is
14 that feasible that you would say representation by counsel under those and
15 those and those conditions, while these ones or other ones, after we have
16 agreed on certain matters, is that something which is still feasible, or
17 will you say, That's not part of any conversation anymore that I
18 will conduct"?
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I must be honest with you. I fail
20 to understand your question.
21 JUDGE ORIE: I think it's a quite clear question. If you meet
22 with people, if you seek solutions for whatever problem, could the outcome
23 of such meetings and such conversations be that you say, well, under these
24 and these and these conditions, with these people, et cetera, I am -- I
25 would agree to be represented by counsel, whatever role you would play
1 yourself in your defence? Is that possible as -- at all in your view as
2 the outcome of such meetings? I hesitate to call it negotiations, but
3 talks, conversations to see whether you can resolve the problems?
4 Is that a possible outcome; yes or no?
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I thought I perhaps did understand.
6 But let me say something: It is not up to me to negotiate that. It is up
7 to Mr. Stewart. And I can give my opinion on certain points. But yeah,
8 that would be my proposal.
9 And as to what the outcome could be and whether it could be along
10 the lines of what you have just said, I believe that it might be. And
11 that's why I said that perhaps we could come up with a compromise in order
12 to, in the end, get a positive result. It would only make me happy.
13 JUDGE ORIE: I disagree with you that it would just be a matter
14 for Mr. Stewart. Of course you will understand that asking for counsel to
15 be replaced, which is, of course, one of the options you have, just as
16 counsel have the option to ask to be replaced or at least to -- that's, of
17 course -- if you have difficulties you consider too great to overcome,
18 such a request will not be easily granted. I would like to make no secret
19 of that, especially not if you're halfway. It's not the competence of
20 this Chamber. It's the competence of the Registry.
21 So that to say that it's just a matter of Mr. Stewart is, in my
22 view, not correct to the extent that if you would ask for a replacement of
23 counsel, certainly the Registry would come to you and ask what that's good
24 for, et cetera, et cetera, and then, of course, you could explain under
25 what conditions you consider it possible to be represented or not.
1 That's -- I'm not -- it's not for me -- it's not for this Chamber to -- to
2 make any decisions in this respect. But especially since you've asked
3 whether there could be meetings, the Chamber is just inquiring into what
4 those meetings could lead to, and that's also the reason why this Chamber
5 suggested to you that you make a short agenda. And -- and I'm not
6 suggesting in any way that if you or Mr. Stewart would take such an
7 initiative that it would be granted by the Registry. I'm not saying that
8 at all. But we are in a situations -- situation where we have to find out
9 what your sincere wishes are, and the Chamber accepts that you're not
10 trying to make trouble. That's not how you behaved over the long period
11 of time we have been with you in this courtroom. But we have to inquire
12 deeply into what actually in your view makes you hesitant, reluctant,
13 unwilling, nevertheless you present us with a clear wish. That's the
14 reason why I asked you a few questions in this respect.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE ORIE: Judge Hanoteau suggests that I even put the question
17 more direct to you. Your decision that you want to represent yourself and
18 not be represented -- and not be represented by counsel, is that, in view
19 of the talks you suggested should take place, is that a irrevocable
20 decision, or would it still depend on the outcome of such talks,
21 compromises to be reached, whether you -- whether you would consider to
22 come back to that position?
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I really do feel uncomfortable if
24 you keep failing to understand what I mean. I believe that after such
25 negotiations we might find a solution whereby I could be happy to say, My
1 decision is revoked. I believe that Judge Hanoteau has judged the
2 situation properly.
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, that gives at this moment sufficient
5 information. As I said before, there might be -- there might be other --
6 there might be another moment where we further have to inquire into it.
7 But at the same time we are also confronted with at least a wish to start
9 We will adjourn until --
10 Mr. Harmon, yes.
11 MR. HARMON: I understood, Your Honour, that the Court wanted the
12 in my submission of dossiers today. We're prepared to do that.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Yes. I just want someone to say, I now
14 present the dossiers.
15 MR. HARMON: Yes.
16 JUDGE ORIE: And then they are from now on in the hands of the
17 registrar and they will be presented to the other party. If they are
18 there --
19 MR. HARMON: We have distributed them already and we now inform
20 the Court of that.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Then a provisional number should now be assigned to
23 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Registrar.
25 THE REGISTRAR: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour. The five
1 municipality dossiers will then receive the following exhibit number
2 provisionally given. The municipality of Donji Vakuf will get P758. The
3 municipality of Kljuc will get P759. The municipality of Kotor Varos will
4 get P760. The municipality of Sipovo will get P761, while the
5 municipality of Vogosca will get P762.
6 I thank you, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Any other procedural issue to be raised?
8 I hope not.
9 We'll adjourn until next Monday, 9.00 in the morning.
10 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.18 p.m.,
11 to be reconvened on Monday, the 6th day of
12 June, 2005, at 9.00 a.m.