1 Thursday, 30 June 2005
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.08 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Usher, could you please escort the witness, Mr.
6 Tupajic, to the -- oh no, first I have to ask Mr. Registrar to call the
8 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, thank you, Your Honour. The Case Number
9 IT-00-39-T, the Prosecutor versus Momcilo Krajisnik.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, now I come to the next on my programme.
11 Mr. Usher, would you escort the witness into the courtroom.
12 Meanwhile I informed the parties about scheduling. We gave it
13 some thought. For this witness, the Prosecution has taken four hours and
14 26 minutes. The Judges have taken 40 minutes. On the basis of the 60
15 per cent guidance, there would be left approximately one hour and 20
17 Mr. Stewart, you may use that time. We will grant some
18 additional time to Mr. Krajisnik. We're thinking in terms of
19 approximately 15 minutes. At the same time, we can't go on having fights
20 over how to divide time in cross-examination.
21 [The witness entered court]
22 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber has allowed Mr. Krajisnik to put some
23 additional questions if the witness is cross-examined. That would not
24 under all circumstances exclude to present one or more exhibits to a
25 witness. At the same time, the developments goes in a direction where
1 it's kind of a second cross-examination; that's certainly not what the
2 Chamber had in mind. The Chamber is specifically concerned about the
3 introduction of exhibits that often are not of great assistance to the
4 Chamber and perhaps could be introduced in another way at another moment
5 and also are introduced sometimes in unorderly manner.
6 The Chamber is concerned about this and the Chamber might come up
7 with a kind of ruling on how we'll deal with that rather soon. But for
8 today, it may be clear one hour and 20 minutes left under the 60 per cent
9 guidance and approximately 15 minutes available for Mr. Krajisnik for
10 some additional questions.
11 Mr. Stewart.
12 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, may I give Your Honour some good
13 news immediately.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 MR. STEWART: It's -- I will come nowhere near using up that
16 allocation --
17 JUDGE ORIE: That's fine --
18 MR. STEWART: And Your Honours will see very soon how far I aim
19 to be away from using up that allocation.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Well, that's good news to the extent that the
21 Chamber wants this trial to be conducted in an orderly and fair way and
22 it's not -- so to that extent it's not specifically good news. It's not
23 the aim of the Chamber to reduce time.
24 MR. STEWART: No, I look at it this way, Your Honour, if it's my
25 assessment for the Defence that's all I need, that's got to be good news
1 that that's less than Your Honours had in mind.
2 JUDGE ORIE: But you understand using less time in
3 cross-examination is not, per se, good news for the Chamber.
4 MR. STEWART: We understand each other, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
6 Then Mr. Tupajic, good morning. When you came into the courtroom
7 you were caught --
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
9 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues]... in a procedural
10 matter. Again, good morning and I would like to remind you that you're
11 still bound by the solemn declaration that you have given at the
12 beginning of your testimony. Mr. Stewart will continue his
14 Mr. Stewart.
15 MR. STEWART: Thank you.
16 WITNESS: MILAN TUPAJIC [Resumed]
17 [Witness answered through interpreter]
18 Cross-examined by Mr. Stewart [Continued]
19 Q. Mr. Tupajic, good morning.
20 A. Good morning.
21 Q. In your evidence on Tuesday this week you talked about a meeting
22 in Sokolac on the 17th of May, 1992, and you described how it was at the
23 initiative of the association of Serbs from Belgrade who hailed from the
24 Romaninka region and you went on to -- you went on to describe that
25 meeting. You said -- I just want to ask you. There were no -- there
1 were representatives of several municipalities at that meeting. That's
2 correct, isn't it?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. There were no separate meetings held on that occasion between Mr.
5 Krajisnik and Dr. Karadzic on the one hand and representatives of
6 individual municipalities on the other hand, were there?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Thank you.
9 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I have no further questions.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Stewart.
11 Mr. Tupajic, Mr. Krajisnik will have an opportunity to put some
12 questions to you.
13 Mr. Krajisnik, you may proceed.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
15 Cross-examined by Mr. Krajisnik:
16 Q. First of all, good morning, Mr. Tupajic. I'm pleased to see
17 you again after a somewhat longer period of time. You had the
18 opportunity to see the document -- I do apologise.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could I give the document to the
20 registrar just in case we need to use it.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
23 Q. My questions, again to be very easy, and I would ask you to allow
24 for a break between what I say and your answer in order to give the
25 interpreters time to interpret.
1 The document number 1 that you saw, it is the set of instructions
2 from the SDS, or rather the A and B option. Did the Prosecution show you
3 the document that Milovan Bjelica sent to this Tribunal, and it has to do
4 with the origin of that document?
5 A. Before I answer to this question I wanted to say good morning to
6 Mr. Krajisnik as well. I believe that I was not shown that document. I
7 don't think I was shown any document that Mr. Bjelica sent or submitted
8 to this Court.
9 Q. Could we just keep everything brief. I only have 15 minutes, so
10 let's try and speed things up a bit. Are you aware that in those
11 instructions, if you could just show this set of instructions, I'm just
12 going to indicate one question there. You are option 1 there, of course?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Could you just refer to page 2 of that document --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Could the --
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could the registrar show the
17 document, please. Could you please show it to the witness.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could the 19th of December document that is --
19 well, as many copies must be around. It's the last document in this --
20 could I just have a look at it? That's the one, yes.
21 It may be shown to the witness. Please, page 2 has again been
22 distributed during Mr. Tupajic's testimony.
23 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Were you called commander of the Crisis Staff or how did people
25 address you?
1 A. The official title of the head of the Crisis Staff was not a
2 commander but the president of the Crisis Staff.
3 Q. Thank you. I would like you to refer to page 2 SAO 2598, number
4 4. To convene and proclaim the Assembly of the Serb people in the
5 municipality made up of representatives of the Serb people at the
6 Municipal Assembly.
7 A. That's item 4.
8 Q. Yes. Did you do that?
9 A. No.
10 Q. My question, Mr. Tupajic, is this: Would it be logical for a
11 municipality that -- where you have total majority, absolute majority, to
12 be claimed as a Serb municipality?
13 A. No, and I did mention that in my previous interviews.
14 Q. Thank you. Do you know that this document was published in the
15 month of January 1992 in the paper called Slobodna Bosna?
16 A. I'm not aware of that.
17 Q. Did the Prosecution submit this proof or piece of evidence to
19 A. No.
20 Q. Did you - and I'm referring to document number 2 here, you don't
21 need to read it now - but are you aware of the fact that there were
22 negotiations going on under this sponsorship, as it were, of Mr.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Do you know that each party submitted their own map?
1 A. I can't recall the details, but I know that there was some
2 activity in this respect.
3 Q. I would now like to ask you with reference to document 3,
4 policies as of the 19th of March, could you take a look at the maps
5 enclosed here. We've got three maps from three parties.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Before we continue, Mr. Krajisnik, I have one or two
7 questions to you. You asked the witness whether he was aware that the
8 document that's, I take it, the 19th of December document, was published
9 in the month of January 1992. Is this publication in evidence? I'm not
10 quite sure about it.
11 Mr. Tieger, Mr. Stewart?
12 MR. STEWART: We've certainly seen it before, Your Honour.
13 Whether it's formally in -- I'd be surprised if it's not in as an exhibit
14 somewhere because we have definitely seen it before.
15 JUDGE ORIE: The publication.
16 MR. STEWART: Yes, Your Honour.
17 MR. TIEGER: Correct, Your Honour. I know there has been at
18 least one previous reference, I believe a number of previous references,
19 to such a publication in March of 1992. I don't know whether --
20 JUDGE ORIE: March is not January, so I wonder --
21 MR. STEWART: Yes, Your Honour, could I say that accords with my
22 recollection that it was March --
23 JUDGE ORIE: March.
24 MR. STEWART: -- my recollection is faulty, but when matched by
25 Mr. Tieger's recollection, I have slightly more confidence now.
1 JUDGE ORIE: We'll see at a later stage whether January or March
2 is -- we'll have a look further upon closing of the evidence in this
4 Then, Mr. Krajisnik, the witness said he has no knowledge about
5 details about these maps. I'll allow you request one or two short
6 questions, but if the witness has no specific knowledge where we dealt
7 extensively with the Cutileiro Plans and where the Chamber has understood
8 what role it plays in the Defence, we'll be hesitant to ask the witness
9 about what he is not specifically aware of.
10 Please proceed.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would like to
12 enclose those three maps and use them as exhibits, and I'm going to ask
13 just one question in relation to the maps.
14 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation] My question is the following.
15 Q. Have you had an opportunity to take a look at the maps?
16 A. No.
17 Q. I mean now.
18 A. I don't have the maps in front of me.
19 Q. There must be maps in the document.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please, Witness Tupajic, have a look at
21 tab 3.
22 Mr. Krajisnik, there are not three maps, there are as a matter of
23 fact five maps. So would you please identify -- I take it you are
24 referring to the second page where three maps appear on one page. Is
25 that correct?
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour, you're
2 quite right.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I do the relevant document --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed, Mr. --
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes.
7 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Could you just tell us what these maps refer to. You can read it
9 at the bottom of the page.
10 A. It says that demarcation maps of BH submitted by SDS, SDA, and
12 Q. Thank you very much. And now I come to my actual question. As
13 to the first map, could you identify what party submitted that map?
14 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, I have to object --
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I suppose --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger.
17 MR. TIEGER: Excuse me. It's clear what's happening. The
18 witness has no particular information about the negotiations about these
19 documents and now he's being asked --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tupajic, do you have any idea what maps were
21 submitted by whom or by what party?
22 MR. TIEGER: I would ask independent of his current reading of
23 the document.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, of course. Yes.
25 Were you aware, apart from what you see at this moment, who
1 submitted what kind of maps during negotiations and whether -- have you
2 ever seen those maps before?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I do remember that
4 those talks were being held and that some maps existed and that all three
5 parties had their proposals. But I might have been aware of some of the
6 details at the time but I've quite frankly forgotten it. I would need
7 some more time to study the maps and then I might be able to tell you.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 One question to the parties: Who submitted what maps during the
10 Cutileiro negotiations seems to be a matter one might not be able to
11 agree on. I mean, if one party finds that of importance, is it so
12 difficult to -- if the -- Mr. Krajisnik would like the Chamber to look at
13 those maps to reach an agreement upon what maps are used at that time.
14 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, I quite agree it's an appropriate
15 matter for such discussion and it seems like a matter that can be
16 resolved in precisely the --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Even without asking questions to a witness who
18 doesn't seem to be -- know a lot about the matter.
19 Mr. Krajisnik, I do understand you would like to establish who
20 used what maps during the Cutileiro negotiations. There are perfect ways
21 to establish that. The Chamber does not oppose in any way. But it is
22 not of great use to ask that to a witness who was not involved and who
23 seems to have hardly any knowledge. You may proceed.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I hope that this will
25 not be a part of my 15 minutes because the Prosecution is trying to
1 interfere with the amount of time given to me. I'm going to put the
2 question to the witness and then you'll see why I was giving the
3 introduction I was giving.
4 JUDGE ORIE: You may proceed, Mr. Krajisnik.
5 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
6 Q. I'm simply trying to ask the question with regard to the first
7 map. Can you read what it says in item 4.
8 A. In item 4 it says under the jurisdiction of the Main Staff of the
9 UN, and at the same time the centre of the new state.
10 Q. Ask you reply by looking at the map what it refers to, could you
11 identify that.
12 MR. TIEGER: Sorry, Your Honour, it's the same objection under
13 the same circumstances.
14 JUDGE ORIE: It's unclear -- the witness is not here to interpret
15 maps, Mr. Krajisnik; the witness is here to tell us about what he knows.
16 So --
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I can stop my
18 questioning now, but I'm just trying to assist the Trial Chamber by
19 indicating those maps. I think we need to establish whether these are
20 the true maps, the authentic ones because the last time around the
21 Prosecution submitted the wrong ones and I simply want to establish that
22 Sarajevo was being suggested by the Serb side as a unified city. That's
23 my aim.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The proper way of doing that is calling your
25 own witnesses who could support that, Mr. Krajisnik, and not by asking a
1 witness who has hardly or no knowledge of this. You're not invited to
2 stop your cross-examination; you're invited to continue your
3 cross-examination in accordance with the Rules. Please proceed.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right.
5 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
6 Q. I would like to ask Mr. Tupajic whether he is aware of the fact
7 that the Serb side -- or rather, what was the attitude on the part of the
8 Serb side in the beginning with regard to Sarajevo and at the time of the
9 Cutileiro Plan?
10 A. On the basis of what you said before, Mr. Krajisnik, it would
11 follow that Sarajevo had been indicated as a city that should be under
12 the jurisdiction of the UN, and I suppose that I think that the proposals
13 from the Serb side went along those lines as far as I can remember.
14 Q. Okay. Thank you very much. Document number 4, six strategic
15 goals. I would like to ask a simple question.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, under 4 I have a heap of documents.
17 Or did you change the order -- we received a couple of days the red --
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, I did not change it. The
19 chapter is entitled "strategic goals" and I'm going to refer to that
20 document now, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: A chapter from what exactly? It seems to be a book.
22 What book is it, Mr. Krajisnik?
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Owen's book, Balkan Odyssey.
24 But my question is entirely different.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but I'd like to know -- if you present me with
1 a document I would like to know what it is. So it's the book from Dr.
2 Owen. And now please put your question.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Of course.
4 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Mr. Tupajic, you had deputies in the Assembly of Republika
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Were you informed that the strategic goals had been adopted at
9 that time?
10 A. No, I can't remember that at the moment.
11 Q. Could you please be more precise. Were you informed that they
12 had been adopted or not or were you not informed at all?
13 A. I repeat what I've said. I can't remember that.
14 Q. I would like to draw your attention to the minutes of the 16th
15 session dated 12 May 1992. Could you please find it. It is in the
16 bundle of documents.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Under what tab, Mr. Krajisnik?
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Under 4.
19 JUDGE ORIE: It seems to be --
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The minutes of the 12th -- under 4
21 one of the documents is the minutes of the 16th session of the Assembly
22 of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
23 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues]... pages 42 and 43?
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 00847711 in the Serbian and this is
25 the minutes and could you please look at item 1. You are looking at the
1 transcript which had been appended to that document but it is a separate
2 document. You're right in saying, Your Honour, what you said.
3 JUDGE ORIE: I found it. It seems to be the last portion -- no
4 the semi-last portion of the documents under tab 4. I've found it, Mr...
5 We'll check whether it's in evidence and whether we have a translation
6 already. 12 of May, 1992.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. This was in use during the
8 period when Mr. Treanor was there.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I have the minutes of the 16th
11 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Could you please read what it says here under item 1, the
13 conclusions. On page 2, 00847712.
14 A. I understand. An overview of the political situation of the
15 territory in the Serbian territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina was
16 submitted by Dr. Radovan Karadzic, president of the Council for National
17 Security. After the discussion on this overview the deputies adopted
18 information on the political and war situation. It was concluded that a
19 working group should be established that would draw up a map of the
20 Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina so as to find out what
21 territories had to be defended.
22 Q. And now can you go back, two pages back. This is a transcript of
23 the session that took place on the 12th of May. Could you go back,
24 please, back not forward but back in the minutes. 00487753.
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. At the very bottom of the page can you read the conclusion under
2 that item.
3 A. That's why I would like to ask you. Could we please adopt this
4 information. Your proposals and conclusions are welcome. Do we have to
5 do it one by one? No, we don't have to. All right then. Who is in
6 favour. Is there anybody against, anybody sustaining [as interpreted].
7 Q. All right then, you don't have to go on. I'm going to ask you to
8 look at this item of the agenda and within this item in the same minutes
9 the page number is --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, you asked the witness to read from
11 what seems to be page 38 of minutes, last four ERN digits 7753. It is
12 totally unclear whose words are reflected in these minutes. It seems
13 that someone is speaking.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have the transcript. This was
15 the proposal of the chairperson, Momcilo Krajisnik, about the first item
16 of the agenda. We can look at the transcript, but I wanted to speed up.
17 This is the item based on which the conclusion was passed after the
18 discussion on the strategic goals.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Whenever you draw our attention to minutes and
20 whenever you want to draw our attention to something somebody said, at
21 least it would be good to first identify on that transcript who is
22 speaking. I can't see it on that page.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. I thank you. You are right,
24 Your Honour. I wanted to have as little paper as possible and I wanted
25 to finish as soon as possible.
1 JUDGE ORIE: I take it when you asked the witness to read this
2 that you asked the witness to read what you considered to be your own
3 words reflected in these minutes?
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is what I want to ask the
6 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Do you see here a proposal and the conclusion or the result of
8 the voting after the information that I provided?
9 A. In the text that I read, I see that the deputies voiced their
10 opinion on the information that they had heard.
11 Q. Thank you very much. Could you please conclude --
12 JUDGE ORIE: It's really of no use to ask someone to read minutes
13 of a meeting, the Chamber could do it itself, unless the witness has any
14 specific background information or if the witness is in a position to add
15 something to that. But you just ask him to read and then you ask him:
16 Does it say this and that. Of course the Chamber can do that as well.
17 There are other ways of introducing such documents and there are other
18 ways to draw the attention of the Chamber to these kind of exhibits.
19 MR. TIEGER: And as I understand it, Your Honour, Mr. Krajisnik
20 acknowledged that this document is already in evidence.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Well, of course I do not know for sure. I can't
22 search ERN numbers, but at least some of these documents are already in
23 evidence, yes.
24 MR. TIEGER: [Microphone not activated]
25 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
1 MR. TIEGER: I didn't have a specific recollection myself, but
2 Mr. Krajisnik prefaced his remarks by admitting precisely that.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Krajisnik, and keep in mind that
4 most important is that you can add questions that might not come up in
5 the mind of Defence counsel because they were not there at relevant times
6 and you were.
7 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
8 Q. My question is as follows. Are you now why you were not informed
9 that the strategic goals had been adopted or do you not remember?
10 A. I don't remember and I can't see it from the text that I have
11 read out. I cannot conclude what the contents of the information were,
12 the one that the deputies voted on, whether this information referred to
13 the strategic goals or to something else. It is very difficult to see
14 that clearly from such a short passage.
15 Q. Very well. If I now put it to you that during the submission of
16 that information there was a discussion on the strategic objective, would
17 your conclusion be different? Would you be able to pass any conclusions?
18 A. Then my conclusion would be that the information was adopted and
19 that this information contained the strategic objectives that we are
20 talking about in one form or another. That would be my conclusion after
22 Q. Very well then. In 1992, did you receive the strategic goals?
23 A. I can't remember that, Mr. Krajisnik.
24 Q. Very well then. Were you informed that at the 16th session the
25 Republika Srpska sent a request to the European Community to continue
1 negotiations about the organisation of Bosnia and Herzegovina?
2 A. I don't remember such a request from that session, but I know
3 that there were several initiatives on the part of the Serbian side at
4 that time. However, I really don't know that anything was sent from that
5 session to that effect. I only know that there were such initiatives.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Will the Chamber allow me to ask
7 the witness to read a passage from the page 43 where Mr. Kuljevic [phoen]
8 is speaking? I would like to remind the witness's memory and remind him
9 of the request that was sent from that session.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Are you going to invite the witness to read the
11 whole two-thirds, first part of page 43, Mr. Krajisnik?
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think that the whole request
13 should be read out because it contains the positions that were put forth
14 at that session and I believe it will be of great assistance to the
16 JUDGE ORIE: And what would then your question be once you have
17 invited the witness to read it?
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The question will be as follows:
19 Although Republika Srpska had declared its independence, did it ask for
20 negotiations in order to seek a political solution, that it did not opt
21 for the strategic goals?
22 JUDGE ORIE: You perhaps ask this question and let's see whether
23 he has an answer to it.
24 Mr. Krajisnik would like to know from you, Mr. Tupajic, whether,
25 although Republika Srpska had declared its independence, whether it did
1 ask for negotiations in order to seek a political solution and it did not
2 opt for the strategic goals.
3 MR. TIEGER: Sorry, Your Honour, but I think that's two
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
6 Well, the first is whether it asked for negotiations in order to
7 seek a political solution. Are you aware of that?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Were you also aware that it did not at that moment
10 opt for the strategic goals?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, because -- let me repeat.
12 Officially I was not informed about the existence of the strategic goals.
13 As far as I can remember, nobody ever openly renounced those strategic
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 Mr. Krajisnik, any additional question in this respect? I think
17 that there's -- unless there is a specific line in which you find such
18 renouncement to the strategic goals, I think it makes not much sense to
19 ask the witness to read page 43.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I agree, Your Honour. Thank you
21 very much.
22 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Let me ask you this: You have mentioned my visit and an
24 objection that I put to you ever so mildly [Realtime transcript read in
25 error: ever so"] about the Cyrillic script. Could you please tell the
1 Chamber first what is the Cyrillic script. Who uses it?
2 MR. TIEGER: Excuse me, Your Honour, I have an objection. And I
3 think it's a reasonably significant one for -- if Mr. Krajisnik is going
4 to continue asking questions and that is he should not build into his
5 questions testimony. I don't remember any language earlier about "ever
6 so mildly" and Mr. Krajisnik is now attempting to testify about what was
7 said on that occasion. I have no objection to the question in
8 principle but I will object to any efforts by Mr. Krajisnik --
9 JUDGE ORIE: I'm looking at the last question. The question was
10 as follows: "You have mentioned my visit and an objection that I put to
11 you ever so about the Cyrillic script." I remember that the witness
12 testified that Mr. Krajisnik insisted on the use of Cyrillic script and
13 that the witness answered that they had better things to do, to say it
15 MR. TIEGER: Right. And it's -- I don't want to --
16 JUDGE ORIE: And now the question is: Could you please tell the
17 Chamber: What is the Cyrillic script and who uses it.
18 MR. TIEGER: Correct. And I have no objection to the question
19 and as you can see there is a word that doesn't appear on this transcript
20 and that was you have mentioned -- contained in the sentence you have
21 mentioned my visit and an objection I put to you ever so mildly about he
22 Cyrillic script.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I missed that.
24 Mr. Krajisnik, whether you were mild at that moment is not in
25 evidence and you add that in your question. So you add information which
1 is -- of course you could have asked the witness whether you were asking
2 it with great insistence or mildly or not mildly. That's -- you can ask
3 the witness but you cannot introduce that in a question. I missed that
4 word, Mr. Tieger.
5 Please proceed, Mr. --
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, there is an
7 additional material that I was provided by the Prosecution. There is a
8 statement by Mr. Tupajic there where he said that the objection was mild
9 and he testified here that the objection was rather serious and I used
10 the words from the statement.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, you may confront the witness with his
12 statement if you want to do so and ask him questions about it. You
13 cannot just let slip in the -- your own opinion on what happened in
14 questioning the witness. Please put your question to the witness.
15 Mr. Tupajic, Mr. Krajisnik would like to know what the Cyrillic
16 script is. I think as a matter of fact the Chamber is aware of what the
17 Cyrillic script is, unless any specific detail of it you would like to
19 Mr. Krajisnik, we have seen now for one and a half years the
20 Cyrillic script and it is not my first case in this Tribunal. So
21 therefore the Chamber is aware of what the Cyrillic script is unless you
22 would like to ask something very specific about it.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. I -- thank you, Your
25 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
1 Q. According to the constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina --
2 JUDGE ORIE: The next question you put is: Who uses it? Do you
3 want an answer of the witness? The Chamber is aware that it's often used
4 by the Serbian -- Okay. I do understand that you want to move to your
5 next subject. Please do so.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, no, I don't want to talk about
7 the Cyrillic script, I just wanted to lay the background, but I'm going
8 to move on to another question that will explain my intention.
9 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
10 Q. According to the constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina before
11 the war, was the Cyrillic equal with the Latinic script?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Were there any machines using the Cyrillic before the war?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. The machines, the typewriters with the Cyrillic letters?
16 A. I don't think so. My first question -- my first answer was
17 wrong. I apologise. I was not aware. When I joined the municipality of
18 Sokolac, as far as I can remember, here we have the meetings of the
19 sessions of the Crisis Staff, and I believe these minutes are in the
20 Latinic script.
21 Q. I'm talking about the years leading up to the war, in the years
22 1990 and 1991. Before the war were there in Bosnia and Herzegovina a
23 single newspaper in Cyrillic?
24 A. I can't say that for a fact, but I don't think so.
25 Q. Was there a company with an inscription or a logo in Cyrillic?
1 Your company, for example?
2 A. I remember it very well, its name was in Latinic and I believe
3 the majority companies were in Latinic. There may have been some in the
4 Cyrillic script, but very few.
5 Q. Now, Mr. Tupajic, you were the president of the municipality of
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Was my objection mild or was it not, that is not important.
9 However, was I authorised to remove the president of the municipality of
11 A. No.
12 Q. Who was it who appointed the president of the municipality of
14 A. The deputies of the municipality of Sokolac, according to the
15 proposal of the Municipal Board.
16 Q. And who removed them?
17 A. Also the deputies of the Municipal Assembly.
18 Q. As the president of the Assembly of Republika Srpska, could that
19 person either appoint or remove somebody, he personally?
20 A. As far as I'm familiarised with the authorities of the
21 institutions in the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, he
22 couldn't do it directly. He could do it through the National Assembly
23 that he presided over, yes.
24 Q. Let me now clarify. As a person, as a figure, could Momcilo
25 Krajisnik either appoint or remove somebody? Would you be able to tell
1 us that?
2 A. No, he couldn't.
3 Q. About the oil chapter, if you remember the conversation between
4 Mr. Karadzic and Mr. Bjelica where Krajisnik's name is mentioned, do you
5 know in 1991 what position Momcilo Krajisnik occupied, in 1991 and 1992?
6 A. After the first general election, multi-party election in Bosnia
7 and Herzegovina you were appointed the president of the National Assembly
8 of Bosnia and Herzegovina --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik -- Mr. Krajisnik, you did --
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well then.
11 JUDGE ORIE: The witness understands it to be what positions you
12 held in the BiH and in Republika Srpska in 1991 and 1992. It's not in
13 dispute. If I remember well, it's even among the agreed facts. I'm not
14 quite sure about that, but if not then at least we have abundant evidence
15 on the positions you are now asking for, unless you have any specific
16 position in mind which is not clear in your question.
17 Please proceed. I'll give you another five minutes. I'll be
18 more flexible because -- yes.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honour, please, could you bear
20 with me. I have just one more area to cover and I'll speed up.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, you have five minutes. Please
23 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Mr. Tupajic, could the president of the Assembly have a company
25 that he could use to trade in oil? First let's talk about Momcilo
1 Krajisnik and then about Mirko Krajisnik.
2 A. I don't know, I never --
3 Q. Momcilo Krajisnik, could he have a company?
4 A. I don't know. I don't know whether the law was in place on the
5 incompatibility of the two positions. Was there a law on the conflict of
6 interests? I can't say that. As far as I know there was a company in
7 the name of your brother, Mirko Krajisnik. He was in charge of that
8 company as far as I know. However, I was not involved in that and it's
9 very difficult for me to say this for a fact. I can only say that I
10 believe that that was the case.
11 Q. If I were to put it to you that there was a document that the
12 Prosecution was supposed to give you -- but first let me ask you this.
13 The document -- I apologise --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, would you refrain from comments on
15 what the Prosecution should have done in respect of its own witness.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I apologise. I apologise. I
17 apologise to the Prosecutor and the Trial Chamber. If I do so something
18 wrongly, it is probably down to my lack of experience and I hope that you
19 will have patience with me.
20 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
21 Q. The Prosecutor presented a document to the Trial Chamber that was
22 published by Slobodna Bosna this is an agreement between the SDS and
23 Rijeka Domisen Bosna [phoen]. The date is 21st of November, 1991 and the
24 number is 02088340. You have it amongst your documents at the very
1 THE INTERPRETER: Could I ask Mr. Krajisnik to repeat the ERN
2 number, please.
3 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Have you ever seen this document before?
5 A. No.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, under what tab are we seeking this
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honour. I
9 believe that it would be easy to locate the document. I apologise. I
10 have two copies. Could the Judges be provided with the document. This
11 is Prosecutor's number --
12 JUDGE ORIE: I do not insist on you tendering that document if
13 it's not in evidence; it might be. But the witness seems to know what
14 document you are talking about.
15 Could you tell us what document your answer referred to?
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The witness is not aware of this
17 document but the Prosecutor has --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, you asked the witness: Have you ever
19 seen this document before? The witness said: No, which means that he
20 should have an idea on what document your question is about.
21 Could you tell us, Mr. Tupajic, what document you had in mind
22 when your answer was no.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have a document entitled "3
24 dinars, Comrade Dukic." I have never seen this document before.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Where did you find that? Under tab number --
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At the beginning of the binder that
2 I have before me.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That is part of the documents that
4 were provided by the Prosecutor yesterday.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I now see what you have there. "3 dinars."
6 You said you've never seen that document before.
7 Next question, please, Mr. Krajisnik.
8 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
9 Q. I would just like to ask you whether the Prosecution has shown
10 you this document in order to shed light on things.
11 A. No.
12 Q. If I were to tell you that my brother did not own a company at
13 that particular point in time, and I've got the official document to
14 prove that as well, could you maybe explain or interpret that
15 conversation differently then?
16 A. Mr. Krajisnik, on the basis of that conversation it follows quite
17 clearly that someone in the Krajisnik family did own an oil company;
18 there's no argument about that. As to what exactly it was, I did not
19 know at the time and I don't know now. So I would not really venture
20 into any clarification of relations and relationships that I knew nothing
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, the witness is drawing conclusions
23 from something he heard, conclusions if to be drawn would be for the
24 Chamber to draw. And it seems that he has hardly any additional
1 Mr. Tieger.
2 MR. TIEGER: I don't know this will ever be significant, but the
3 document to which Mr. Krajisnik is referring entitled "3 dinars for," is
4 -- was not part of the materials to my knowledge that were part of
5 yesterday's packet or part of the original presentation packet. I seem
6 to recall that that was a document that was presented earlier in the
7 case, but it --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Not at this moment.
9 MR. TIEGER: Correct.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
11 Mr. Krajisnik, it's of no use to ask the witness, as he does draw
12 inferences from conversations. Is there anything else you would like to
13 ask the witness? I give you an opportunity to put a last question to the
14 witness, please.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No -- could I just ask two more
16 questions, one in relation to this --
17 JUDGE ORIE: One. Mr. Krajisnik, I said one.
18 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
19 Q. You set up the autonomous Serb region Romanija and Birac. Do you
20 remember that? You did say that in your statement.
21 A. I believe the two areas were set up separately, Romanija and
22 Birac separately.
23 Q. In that case we'll refer to Romanija only. What was the task
24 with regard to the SAO Romanija, the independent, or rather the
25 autonomous region of Romanija? Was it a part of your plan to chase away
1 all the Muslims and have an ethnically cleansed territory?
2 A. Absolutely not at the time. It was an initiative which had been
3 embraced in order to indicate and submit to the public opinion in
4 Bosnia-Herzegovina at the areas in which objectively speaking Serbs were
5 in the majority and in terms of the future of Bosnia and Herzegovina it
6 would be taken into consideration. I believe that was the whole idea of
7 setting up this autonomous area of Romanija that I'm familiar with and
8 there were no special competencies with regard to the municipalities
9 making up this region of Romanija.
10 Q. Did you function as such --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, I said you had one question. You
12 claim two -- you had two, and you now ask for a third one. Your time for
13 cross-examination is finished.
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 Since the Bench has no questions to the witness, Mr. Tieger, is
18 there any need to -- for re-direct?
19 MR. TIEGER: No, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, any -- well, the questions by the Bench
21 could not have triggered any need for further cross-examination.
22 MR. STEWART: No questions, Your Honour, no. I have nothing
23 further that I wish to ask.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you very much.
25 Mr. Tupajic, this concludes your testimony. I'd like to thank
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, may I say something?
3 JUDGE ORIE: No -- before I give you an opportunity to do so I
4 promised you at an earlier stage that if you'd like to add anything and
5 you had something on your mind which had to do with you being removed
6 from your function by Mr. Ashdown, you have an opportunity now to add
7 what you would like to add.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I'm
9 going to try and keep it as brief and concise as possible.
10 I was a bit hurt by Mr. Stewart's performance yesterday when he
11 tried to discredit me, not as a witness but first and foremost as a
12 person. I would like to ask Mr. Stewart to submit to the Trial Chamber
13 the document referring to my removal as a member of the Main Board and an
14 MP in its entirety. It follows from the text of the document that I
15 don't bear any personal, individual responsibility because there is not a
16 shred of evidence to support that. And I'm aware of what role I played
17 within the party. And as a president of the Deputies' Club of the SDS
18 party in the Republic of Serbia before the last congress of the party -
19 because the last one took place this year - we had a significant change
20 of course, as it were, and we made a major contribution to the reforms in
21 Bosnia and Herzegovina. And let me simply refer to the reforms of the
22 customs system, the tax system, the defence, the judiciary, the security
23 services, and the intelligence services.
24 And secondly, as the head of that club, I actively participated
25 in all that work appeared I assisted Mrs. Biljana Maric in drawing up the
1 law on the cooperation with the Hague Tribunal and the MPs of the Serb
2 Democratic Party that I tried to influence as much as possible. They
3 passed it together with their colleagues of Muslim ethnicity. And the
4 fact that --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tupajic --
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Just one sentence and I'm finished.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Just a single sentence, Mr.
9 President. And the fact that I'm in the same group -- put into the same
10 bunch, as it were, as those who are banned from any further political
11 activity was simply because I was president of that association of MPs
12 and there was this link between the Presidency and the National Assembly.
13 And basically nobody else, apart from another person, was in the National
14 Assembly and we tried to make sure that we had better coordination. That
15 was all. Thank you.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Tupajic. It is not uncommon when a
17 witness's credibility and reliability is tested in cross-examination that
18 he experiences this as unpleasant. That's what happens, and thank you
19 for your further explanation of the circumstances and -- under which you
20 are banned from further political activity. I'd like to thank you from
21 having come to The Hague -- yes, Mr. --
22 MR. STEWART: Excuse me, Your Honour, I was just going to say the
23 -- in response to the witness's request that the whole of that decision
24 should go in, I would positively now wish to put the whole of that
25 decision in.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Then I take it that you'll tender that as a Defence
2 exhibit now. You have got it.
3 MR. STEWART: I've got one marked copy, but we'll run off some
4 copies as soon as we can, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tupajic, you may have heard that Mr. Stewart
6 follows your invitation and that he'll make available to the Trial
7 Chamber the whole of the document he gave some quotes of.
8 Again, thank you for the third time. I wish you a safe trip home
10 Mr. Usher, you may escort Mr. Tupajic out of the courtroom.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
12 [The witness withdrew]
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, if you'd like to tender into evidence
14 any of the documents you used, we'd like to know within one week which
15 ones exactly and we expect a translation to be provided. Translation of
16 the maps not needed. But I wonder if it makes any sense to tender these
17 maps with which you confronted the witness.
18 Then, Mr. Tieger, is the Prosecution ready to call its next
20 MR. TIEGER: We are ready with one exception, Your Honour, and
21 that is I would ask for an early break for two reasons. Number one, I
22 think we would need some opportunity to set things up for the next
23 witness. And number two, we're operating shorthanded because of a family
24 emergency on the part of a critical member of our trial support team.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 MR. TIEGER: If we could have an early break of approximately 30
2 minutes, that would be most helpful.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll take those 30 minutes also to -- no.
4 We'll give you an early break.
5 There's one issue -- let's deal already with the Prosecution
6 exhibits; it's a long list.
7 Mr. Registrar, could you give us the starting number and the last
8 number of Prosecution exhibits in relation to this witness. If you
9 have --
10 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
11 JUDGE ORIE: Since we changed registrars, we'll do it at a later
13 We'll have a break until 20 minutes to 11.00.
14 --- Recess taken at 10.12 a.m.
15 --- On resuming at 10.45 a.m.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, is it you or Mr. Gaynor you takes the
17 next witness?
18 MR. GAYNOR: It's me, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 MR. GAYNOR: The next witness is Mark Thompson.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 And could the witness be escorted into the courtroom, Mr. Usher.
23 For Mr. Thompson we are in a 92 bis/94 bis hybrid situation?
24 MR. GAYNOR: That's right, Your Honour. We have submitted his
25 expert report a couple of years ago and we have submitted an addendum to
1 that expert report more recently. We will be asking for those to be
2 tendered -- we will be tendering those in evidence and we have selected
3 from the report one document itself and from the addendum to the report a
4 further seven documents which we will be tendering in order to fully --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Perhaps for logistic reasons they might
6 already have been distributed and they will be assigned numbers when it
7 comes to that.
8 [The witness entered court]
9 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Witness. I take it you are Mr.
11 THE WITNESS: Thompson, yes.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Before you give evidence, the Rules of Procedure and
13 Evidence require that you make a solemn declaration that you speak the
14 truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The text is now
15 handed out by the usher. I now invite you to make that solemn
17 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
18 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please be seated, Mr. Thompson. I take
20 it that Mr. Gaynor has explained the procedure, which is that a summary
21 will be read from your written report and annexed to it and that you will
22 then be cross-examined.
23 I don't know whether you have any additional questions to the
24 witness, Mr. Gaynor.
25 MR. GAYNOR: Yes, I have a few additional questions, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Of course the choice for 92 bis assumes that
2 it should be really limited.
3 MR. GAYNOR: Certainly.
4 JUDGE ORIE: It should be under 94 bis as well if you introduce
5 the expert report.
6 So then a few questions will be put to you by Mr. Gaynor. You'll
7 then be cross-examined by the Defence.
8 Mr. Gaynor, proceed.
9 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you, Your Honour.
10 WITNESS: MARK THOMPSON
11 Examined by Mr. Gaynor:
12 Q. Could you state your name, please.
13 A. Mark Thompson.
14 Q. You are of British nationality?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Can you explain any degrees which you hold?
17 A. I have a BA in English literature from the University of
18 Cambridge and a PhD in social sciences from the University of Cambridge.
19 Q. Please tell us subject of your PhD.
20 A. It was on media and politics, with the focus on what I had
21 written and published about the use and misuse of media in the former
22 Yugoslavia in the 1990s, really.
23 Q. Did you first visit Yugoslavia in 1987?
24 A. I did.
25 Q. Did you travel in the former Yugoslavia in the late 1980s and
1 early 1990s?
2 A. I did.
3 Q. Did you write a book based on those experiences entitled "A Paper
4 House: The Ending of Yugoslavia?
5 A. Yes, I did.
6 Q. Did you move to Zagreb in Croatia in the summer of 1992?
7 A. Yes, I did.
8 Q. Do you speak and understand the Serbo-Croat language?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. How long were you based in Zagreb?
11 A. I lived there from the summer of until the end of 1995, and then
12 again from the autumn of 1996 until the -- April of 1999. There were
13 some absences amounting to periods of months during those years.
14 Q. While you were in Zagreb did you work for a period as a
15 journalist, including a period working for the Guardian and the
17 A. Not the Spectator. It was the New Statesman. Yes, I did.
18 Q. Thank you for the correction. Are you an author of the book
19 entitled "Forging War: The Media in Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia and
21 A. Yes, I am.
22 Q. What briefly is that book about?
23 A. The book is about the pattern of political control of influential
24 media outlets in those three countries and it is about the content of
25 those influential media outlets and it is about the connection between
1 the political control of outlets and the content of outlets.
2 Q. Can you describe how your book was received?
3 A. When the book was published in the summer of 1994, it was very
4 well received and reviewed in the United Kingdom and I remember also in
5 the USA and Scandinavia. There were some criticisms -- the -- I don't
6 remember any strong criticism -- or even any criticisms of the book,
7 except those published in Croatia and Serbia by media outlets close to
8 the governments in those countries.
9 Q. Where were you primarily located for the period during which you
10 researched that book?
11 A. In Zagreb.
12 Q. Did you travel elsewhere in order to research the book?
13 A. Absolutely. I went to Belgrade and to Sarajevo. That was in
14 October 1993.
15 Q. And during what period approximately did you research the book?
16 A. Approximately the last four or five months of 1993 and I
17 continued to gather information in the first four months of 1994 when I
18 was mainly writing up the book.
19 Q. Now, the book itself is not before the Court. Could you explain
20 for the Judges the sources which you consulted in the course of carrying
21 out your research for that book.
22 A. I used as many sources as I could, including interviews with
23 journalists who were involved in the media outlets that I wanted to
24 investigate, involving analysts in those countries and also elsewhere in
25 western Europe who were well informed about the media and the role of the
1 media in the war. I used as many printed sources as I could. I used
2 newspaper archives in Zagreb and in Belgrade for that purpose. And I
3 employed journalists who were bilingual in Zagreb and Belgrade to help me
4 do that research because it was an enormous amount of material to be
6 In Sarajevo the situation was of course much more difficult for
7 research; the situation was chaotic. I tried to find archives of
8 recordings of news programmes put out on the main television networks. I
9 managed to do that partly in Zagreb, where I got limited access to the
10 Croatian state television archive. I couldn't manage anything of the
11 kind in Belgrade, though I tried and I did speak to people at the state
12 broadcaster. In Bosnia it was, as I said, an extremely chaotic
13 situation. I couldn't find any recorded archives at all. I did manage
14 to find archives of newspapers, newsprint, which I used. And I should
15 add that I interviewed journalists in all three places, Zagreb, Belgrade,
16 and Sarajevo, but I've said that actually, haven't I.
17 Q. In preparing your expert report for this Tribunal, did you rely
18 to an extent on the research which you carried out in your preparation
19 for the book entitled Forging War?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Did you also rely on documents which was provided to you by the
22 Office of the Prosecutor?
23 A. Yes.
24 MR. GAYNOR: Your Honour, I propose now to read a summary of the
25 witness's evidence.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so, Mr. Gaynor.
2 MR. GAYNOR: Dr. Mark Thompson is the author of an expert report
3 on the use of Bosnian Serb and Serbian media to disseminate messages to
4 the Bosnian Serb people, the people of Serbia, and the international
5 community in 1991 and 1992. He has previously authored a number of
6 books, including Forging War, a study of the manipulation of public
7 opinion by government-controlled media in Serbia, Croatia, and Bosnia and
9 In his report, Dr. Thompson concludes that the SDS in Bosnia
10 successfully brought media outlets under its control and, using those
11 media as megaphones, sought to convince Serbs that their very existence
12 was threatened by Muslim and Croat genocidal tendencies, fuelled by
13 ambitions for independence. He states that, far from performing the
14 usual "watchdog" role of media in a democracy, the media outlets under
15 actual or effective SDS control were used to block, express, and
16 marginalise information and opinion that dissented from the SDS
17 orthodoxy. There was wholesale support in this effort from influential
18 media outlets in Serbia, in particular RTS, the Serbian state broadcast
20 Dr. Thompson identifies the following eight areas which in his
21 opinion demonstrate the SDS leadership's determination to control media
23 1, Attacks on, and efforts to divide Radio-Television Sarajevo
24 RTVSA; 2, establishing control over RTVSA transmitters; 3, attacks on the
25 premises and staff of Oslobodjenje newspaper; 4, establishing control of
1 Glas newspaper, based in Banja Luka; 5, establishing control of the TVSA
2 studio in Banja Luka; 6, establishing control over Radio Banja Luka; 7,
3 establishment of SRNA (the news agency of the Bosnian Serb Republic), SRT
4 (the radio and television corporation of the Bosnian Serb Republic), and
5 printed media in Serb-controlled areas; 8, the issuance of instructions
6 from SDS and Republika Srpska bodies to secure control of media entities.
7 Dr. Thompson sets out the contents of the messages broadcast by
8 media outlets under SDS control, which include warnings to the effect
10 1, the Serbs faced a threat to their very existence from Muslims
11 and Croats; 2, the Serbs had to recall and learn from their previous
12 experience of genocide in 1941-1945; 3, the Serbs' history of
13 victimisation laid an obligation on the Serbs to mobilise in defence of
14 the people; 4, the Serbs in Bosnia and Herzegovina had to defend their
15 right to live in a joint state with Serbs from Serbia and Croatia, and
16 had to prevent the creation of a Muslim state in Europe, and the SDS was
17 best equipped to help the Serbs succeed in achieving these objectives; 5,
18 at this critical juncture, the Serbs were alone, betrayed by other
19 peoples in the former Yugoslavia, and misunderstood and underestimated by
20 the West; 6, the gravity of the threat facing the Serbs justified any
21 measures that they might take an advance against their putative enemies.
22 In an addendum to his report, Dr. Thompson refers to a number of
23 statements by the accused which in Dr. Thompson's opinion conform to the
24 patterns of media content described in his report.
25 That ends the summary. Your Honours, I don't know how you wish
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 to handle this, but I would like to tender the selection of the documents
2 without putting them to the witness. Or that could be done at the end of
3 his evidence.
4 JUDGE ORIE: I think it's better to do it now so they can be used
5 in cross-examination if need be.
6 Mr. Registrar, could you please, then, following the list
7 provided by Mr. Gaynor, assign exhibit numbers to these documents, the
8 first one being the report by Dr. Mark Thompson.
9 THE REGISTRAR: I will certainly do so, Your Honour. The first
10 document will receive the provisional exhibit number P847. The second
11 document, addendum to the report will receive P848. The third document,
12 video of interviews of Krajisnik and Karadzic, will receive the reference
13 P849. The fourth document, copy of interview with Momcilo Krajisnik,
14 will receive the reference P850. The fifth document entitled video of
15 interview with Krajisnik will receive the reference P851. The sixth
16 document, a photocopy of Glas Srpski newspaper will receive the reference
17 P852. The seventh document, the video of interviews with Krajisnik for
18 death of Yugoslavia will receive the reference P853. The eighth document
19 entitled video of interviews of Krajisnik on TV Banja Luka will receive
20 the reference P854. The ninth document entitled Krajisnik addressing a
21 crowd in Foca would receive the reference P855. And finally, the last
22 document entitled the information system of Republika Srpska, article by
23 Velibor Ostojic will receive the reference P856.
24 Thank you, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
1 Mr. Stewart, are you ready to cross-examine the witness?
2 MR. STEWART: Thank you, Your Honour.
3 Cross-examined by Mr. Stewart:
4 Q. Mr. Thompson, did you do all the work and the examination of the
5 materials for your report on your own, unaided by any assistant or team?
6 A. No. As I mentioned, I had the help of two -- as far as I
7 remember, two people, one in Belgrade and the other in Zagreb and
9 Q. And they were -- what were they? Qualified researchers or what?
10 A. No. I told them what I was looking for. I was looking for
11 articles from particular dates in particular newspapers, and they made
12 notes. It was just to save time. I mean they -- to save my time. It
13 wasn't a matter of them designing, as it were, the material that they
14 were providing to me. I told them what I needed and went in the case of
15 Zagreb and Belgrade to the newspaper archives with them and got them
17 Q. Yes, so --
18 A. And they provided notes to me.
19 Q. So they were -- without any disrespect to them, they were
20 basically gophers for the material and it was your work on the report?
21 A. Well, I mean, they were -- in terms of their input to this
22 report, that's correct.
23 Q. In your report you say that your report has a limited scope, and
24 this is on page 2, and does not purport to review the use of the media by
25 all parties. Is it correct that in fact you didn't accept in so far as
1 it might be incidental to your work, you didn't consider the use of the
2 media by the other parties to the conflict?
3 A. Yes, that's consistent with the brief I was given.
4 Q. The brief from the Office of the Prosecutor?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. You say that before and during their armed conflict the principal
7 political parties in Bosnia and Herzegovina took the media very
8 seriously. What are the dates that you put on the armed conflict for
9 these purposes? You talked about before and during, so what's the
10 period, the reference period there?
11 A. You mean with regard to Bosnia-Herzegovina?
12 Q. Yes, I do.
13 A. Well, the conflict started at the end of March 1992 and I suppose
14 that you could date the beginning of the -- what people have called the
15 media war in Bosnia to the seizure of transmitters, which is a matter
16 that I've presented in the report.
17 Q. Well, perhaps -- actually you said -- you asked me a question,
18 which on that occasion I answered, did I mean with regard to
19 Bosnia-Herzegovina. Perhaps I should put it a different way because it
20 is your report, after all. So when you referred to "before and during
21 their armed conflict the principal political parties took the media very
22 seriously," I think I should ask you first, are you talking just about
23 the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina or are you talking about the wider
24 armed conflicts in former Yugoslavia?
25 A. Oh, the regimes in all parts of the former Yugoslavia caught up
1 in the war took media messages and media control extremely seriously.
2 Q. So what would you give -- adapting that question. You say
3 "before and during their armed conflict." So that wider armed conflict,
4 you would date it from when to when?
5 A. Oh, openly it would be from the summer of 1991.
6 Q. Until when?
7 A. Until the autumn of 1995.
8 Q. You go on in your report: "During the period in question," and
9 then you define it as 1991 to 1992. Do we take it that the reason for
10 your narrowing down the period in question to 1991 and 1992 is because
11 you had been given the -- what I call the indictment period for Mr.
12 Krajisnik's case as the relevant period?
13 A. I'd been asked to focus on that period.
14 Q. Do you know what the period of Mr. Krajisnik's alleged crimes is
15 in the indictment?
16 A. No. I didn't discuss the indictment with the Office of the
18 Q. Does the period 1st of July, 1991, to 31st December, 1992, does
19 that closely match the period that you were asked to focus on for your
21 A. Not that I remember, no. There was reference to 1991 and 1992.
22 Q. But that was what you were specifically asked to look at, 1991
23 and 1992, were you?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. You say that the leadership of the Serb Democratic Party proved
1 to be more resolute, more capable, and more successful than its rivals,
2 and you identify them as the SDA and the HDZ, at bringing media outlets
3 under its control. So it being relative, is the position that from what
4 you've seen, all three parties did what they could to bring the media
5 outlets under its control, it's just that in your view the SDS were more
7 A. I don't think it would be true to say that all three parties did
8 as much as they could, no. I think that there was an uncertainty, for
9 example, in the SDA party as how to handle the question of media. I
10 didn't -- I'm not aware of -- I haven't encountered any signs of such
11 uncertainty in the SDS.
12 Q. So what uncertainty and what way did the --
13 A. Well, for example, after -- during 1991 and early 1992, there was
14 political pressure on the main republican media outlets based in Sarajevo
15 to segregate their coverage ethnically and -- and even to
16 institutionalise that kind of ethnic segregation. From what I was able
17 to find out, the SDA was induced to desist from pursuing that path more
18 easily than the SDS.
19 Q. And induced by whom?
20 A. Well, by resistance for -- on the part of the media -- the
21 journalists at those outlets, supported to some extent by Sarajevo civil
22 society. There were -- there was at least one street demonstration in
23 support of undivided -- ethnically undivided media in Sarajevo during
24 this period.
25 Q. So was this -- was this the SDA succumbing to pressure or was it
1 the SDA coming to the conclusion that it was in their interests not to
2 keep pressing to hard?
3 A. I don't know if it's possible to answer that question, but the
4 result is clear that the SDA did not pursue the matter.
5 Q. You don't know of anything to suggest that the SDA would have
6 desisted from attempts to control and use the media if they considered it
7 was in their interest to do so, do you?
8 A. Could you repeat that.
9 Q. Sorry. Would you agree that the SDA would only have desisted
10 from attempts to control or exploit the media if that's what they
11 considered in their interests?
12 A. I can't say. I -- I'm not aware of any records or statements on
13 that. I suspect that there was confusion at high levels in the SDA on
14 this matter as on other matters; that there were different strands of
15 opinion regarding media control. Certainly during the remainder of --
16 during the war they were -- and even after the war there were different
17 strands of opinion, as it were, more or less hard line in the SDA on
19 Q. And the softer-line view in the SDA was what, that it was
20 counterproductive for them to bring heavy pressure on the media?
21 A. The softer line within the SDA would be that it was not
22 appropriate for the politicians to subject the republican media outlets
23 to total political control.
24 Q. As a matter of principle, you mean?
25 A. As I said before, I don't know the reasoning which would have led
1 the SDA to desist.
2 Q. You talk about using these media as megaphones. What -- isn't
3 the media always going to be used as megaphones by political parties as
4 much as they reasonably can?
5 A. Well, it's sensible to expect politicians to want influential
6 media to convey their messages without counter-argument, but of course
7 it's the job of media to provide arenas of discussion and debate and to
8 provide information which will allow the public to reach informed
9 decisions about matters of great importance to them.
10 Q. I'm just wondering whether you're implying anything pejorative by
11 your use of the word "megaphones" there.
12 A. I am implying something pejorative in that it is a abuse of media
13 both by politicians when they happen to control media outlets and by
14 journalists who submit to such control, when they allow media to, as I
15 say, turned into loud-hailers for projecting, broadcasting political
16 messages without debating those messages, without subjecting those
17 messages to due examination and without putting them in the context of
18 information about those messages.
19 Q. You say that the SDS sought to convince Serbs that -- and then
20 you say "their very," and then you put in brackets "('biological')
21 existence in Bosnia and Herzegovina was threatened by Muslim and Croat
22 genocidal tendencies." Where do you get that the "biological" that you
23 put in there very specifically in inverted commas? Where do you get that
25 A. It's a word that was used at the time and I would believe that
1 it's somewhere in the material that I was given by the Tribunal -- sorry,
2 in the material I was given to review when preparing this report. Those
3 are the existential terms that were bandied around at the time.
4 Q. We see an example of that, don't we. It's the text of footnote
5 39, it's on the foot of page 11 of your report. It starts at the foot of
6 page 11. So last sentence: "While defining both outlets as 'non-party
7 and independently orientated,' this statement," which is from a local
8 newspaper, "said, they 'must affirm the truth about the position of the
9 Serb people, inform Bosnia and Herzegovina about its relationship with
10 other peoples and the permanent genocide against the Serb people in the
11 20th century as also about the war that was imposed on the Serb people at
12 the moment it rose up in defence of its biological and national survival
13 in its own land." So it's that type of source from which you draw the
14 word "biological"?
15 A. That's one, but as I say, this was a word which was in the ether
16 a great deal at that time in these kind of contexts.
17 Q. And in a nutshell it all harks back to an undoubted genocide
18 against the Serbs in Croatia in the Second World War, doesn't it?
19 A. Can you repeat that, please.
20 Q. Yes. It -- in a nutshell it harks back to an undoubted genocide
21 against the Serbs in Croatia during the Second World War, doesn't it?
22 A. These messages did, yes, constantly go back to the fate of the
23 Serbs in Croatia and also -- well, and at that time also Croatia during
24 the Second World War included Bosnia and Herzegovina.
25 Q. The -- and you say the SDS sought to convince Serbs that their
1 biological existence was threatened and so on by the Muslim and Croat
2 genocidal tendencies fuelled by ambitions for independence. It was very
3 clear, at least by early 1992, that the Muslim nation in Bosnia and
4 Herzegovina or many of its leaders harboured ambitions for independence,
5 wasn't it?
6 A. Oh, yes. That's beyond question. But the big lie of the SDS
7 propaganda was the alleged genocidal tendencies. The claim, in other
8 words, that for the Muslims and the Croats, the road to independence was
9 one which would lead the Serbs to perdition, extermination indeed.
10 Q. There were at least, whether or not in your view, Mr. Thompson,
11 justified, there were genuine fears among the Serbs in Bosnia and
12 Herzegovina, weren't there, about perspective [sic] independence of
14 A. Yes, indeed there were. And the fears were genuine. The issue,
15 though, is what was the source of those fears. Why were those fears.
16 That is the issue which I have addressed in my report. I wouldn't at all
17 contest that they were genuine fears, widespread among the Serbs of
18 Bosnia, as they were of the Serbs of Croatia.
19 Q. Well, you're not saying those fears were entirely stirred up by
20 the SDS, are you?
21 A. I would say that I don't believe, and nothing I've read has led
22 me to believe, that there was an existential threat to the Serbs of
23 Croatia or Bosnia and Herzegovina.
24 Q. That's not what I asked you, Mr. Thompson. Put on one side for
25 the moment that, in your view, extreme position. The fears among Serbs
1 about perspective independence of Bosnia, those were there and genuine
2 without any stirring up by the SDS, weren't they?
3 A. No. I couldn't agree that they -- I would say that it would be
4 impossible to determine whether -- that those fears existed independently
5 of the SDS. But I certainly would agree that the SDS did not solely
6 invent those fears. Those fears were also being encouraged by the
7 political leadership and opinion makers and cultural authorities in
8 Serbia proper. And those messages from Serbia were of course relayed to
9 the Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, may I just ask one question in between.
11 We are talking about fears, we are talking about existential
12 fears. This Chamber has heard quite some evidence on fear that would
13 exist, fear being -- fear being that these Serbs when Bosnia and
14 Herzegovina would become independent, that the Serb would a minority in
15 such an independent state, whereas when Bosnia and Herzegovina would
16 remain in a larger Yugoslavian context that they would feel that they are
17 not just on their own as Bosnia and Herzegovina Serbs, Bosnian Serbs.
18 But I'd like you when you answer any of these questions about
19 fears to clearly distinguish between these kind of fears, the fear to
20 become a minority, a national minority, ethnical minority, political
21 minority, and existential fears, that is fear, as you said, to be
22 exterminated. May I invite you to make that distinction whenever it's
23 relevant to do so in answering the questions.
24 THE WITNESS: May I respond to that?
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 THE WITNESS: Or don't you want me to.
2 JUDGE ORIE: It's an invitation but if you think that it needs
3 some clarification, please do so.
4 THE WITNESS: I can try to make the distinction you request, but
5 I also want to point out that the blurring of that distinction was one of
6 the main intentions and achievements of SDS propaganda.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 THE WITNESS: During the period in question.
9 JUDGE ORIE: But if Mr. Stewart asks you -- let me just find it.
10 MR. STEWART: Is Your Honour thinking of page 48, line 13?
11 JUDGE ORIE: Well, as a matter of fact, my first concern was to
12 get a clear -- to get my mouse in the right spot. Yes. It was in that
13 context when Mr. Stewart asked you: "Well, you're not saying that those
14 fears were entirely stirred up by the SDS, are you?"
15 Then I'd like to -- what he's -- where you said: "They were
16 certainly not inventing it." If it would be possible for you to see what
17 was perhaps invented and what was not invented or whether -- well, I'd
18 like to have answers as precise as possible also in respect of the matter
19 I just raised.
20 THE WITNESS: I shall do that.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Stewart.
22 MR. STEWART:
23 Q. In your footnote 2 to your report, you say -- well, the text of
24 that footnote was that: "Far from performing normal watchdog role of
25 media in a democracy, the media outlets under actual or effective SDS
1 control were used to block, express, and marginalise information and
2 opinion that dissented from the SDS orthodoxy."
3 The first point is this, Mr. Thompson, would you agree to
4 describe former Yugoslavia as a fully functioning democracy would not
5 have been accurate throughout the 1980s right up towards the end of that
7 A. I agree, it wouldn't be accurate.
8 Q. And that by 1991 it was Serbia particularly and the Yugoslavia of
9 which it was a part was in a transitional change where it has not
10 achieved full democracy, whatever that exactly might be.
11 A. Well, I don't think I'm saying here that the former Yugoslavia
12 was a full democracy. I was making an explanatory point to -- in order
13 to try to clarify the nature of what was happening with the media outlets
14 under SDS control. And as far as the watchdog role goes, there was, for
15 example, a degree of pluralism in the Croatian media during the 1991 war
16 and in the Sarajevo media during the Bosnian war that was considerably
17 greater than that achieved by media outlets in areas under SDS control.
18 So there was a kind of -- not perfectly performed, but there was a kind
19 of watchdog role attempted by the media elsewhere during that time. So
20 -- and this indicates that it should be been possible also in the areas
21 controlled by the SDS, but it wasn't exercised.
22 Q. Well, Croatia was a country, for want of a better word, Croatia
23 was a country dominated by Croats at the beginning of 1991 forming part
24 of a state whose capital was in Serbia.
25 A. I don't see the relevance of this.
1 Q. Well, let's agree that, Mr. Thompson, the -- so that pluralism of
2 the media of the media in Croatia was more likely to be achieved, wasn't
3 it, during 1991 in Croatia than in some other parts of former Yugoslavia?
4 A. I don't understand your argument.
5 Q. Well, if you don't agree with the proposition, then you don't
6 agree with it.
7 A. Well, I don't see that there is an argument there, actually.
8 There was a republican media space in Croatia. There was a republican
9 space in Bosnia and Herzegovina which was carved up even before the start
10 of open war in Bosnia. What I -- the point I was making is that even
11 during the war within the republican territory of Croatia there was a
12 degree of media pluralism which contrasts with that in the SDS-controlled
13 -- Bosnian Serb-controlled portions of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It's a
14 comparative point.
15 Q. You say in the -- I read the passage to which footnote 2 is the
16 footnote and you say, for example: "These outlets," though you're
17 talking about the ones under actual or effective SDS control, "permitted
18 no serious examination of the contradiction within the statements of SDS
19 leaders in 1991 and early 1992," and the contradiction that you highlight
20 is that on the one hand the Muslims were known to be the weakness of
21 Bosnia's peoples and shouldn't dare to confront the Serbs, and on the
22 other hand that it was the Serbs that faced the biological threat to
23 their existence.
24 Mr. Thompson, that contradiction in time of conflict where on the
25 one hand at times you present yourselves as stronger in order to
1 intimidate the enemy but on the other hand you might warn your own people
2 that they were threatened is not a -- is not a unique or unexpected
3 contradiction, is it?
4 A. Well, for most of this period, 1991 and 1990 -- well, you see
5 that I refer to 1991 and early 1992. There was no open conflict at that
6 time. The -- what I had in mind when I wrote that specifically was the
7 warning that Karadzic gave in the Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina I
8 think in mid-October 1991 about the Muslims inviting their own
9 destruction. I think the context was the debate on adopting a statute of
11 Q. Well, it wouldn't be --
12 A. If I can just finish. So that was a clear threat against one of
13 the three peoples of the republic and yet at the same time the SDS
14 leaders and the media under their control or influence were saying that
15 it was the Serbs who faced the very real and sort of present danger of
16 being wiped out, and that -- that allegation, which is the gravest
17 conceivable allegation, was not subjected to journalistic investigation.
18 Q. Well, first of all, in a time of prospective conflict to
19 threaten, well, I use the word the enemy, to threaten the enemy in such a
20 way in such a way as to deter them from conflict while at the same time
21 giving perhaps exaggerated warnings to your own people is not a unique or
22 unusual or illogical thing it to do, is it?
23 A. I don't accept your characterisation of the context there. And
24 these were not exaggerated warnings. These were invented threats of the
25 gravest possible kind. The warning was going out constantly to the
1 Bosnian Serbs that they faced extinction, that there -- that there was a
2 genocide hanging over their heads and that therefore, of course, if that
3 -- if -- in that situation any means of self-defense become justified.
4 Now, it's the job -- of course it's the job of politicians not to make
5 such incendiary, misleading statements, but it's the job of professional
6 media outlets to subject such grave political statements to examination.
7 It's the elementary task of the fourth estate, and the point I was making
8 there is that this was not attempted.
9 Q. Who's the culprit then? Your journalistic colleagues for not
10 doing their job?
11 A. The culprits are both the politicians and of course the staff at
12 the media outlets concerned. They are -- I say the politicians because
13 the politicians controlled the outlets. These are not media outlets in
14 the western European sense. They were, as I said, they were megaphones.
15 These were political tools which were being used politically to
16 disseminate certain messages.
17 Q. In Serbia at this time everyone was starting from a base of heavy
18 control of the media anyway, wasn't one? Weren't they?
19 A. Yes, that was the situation in Serbia at that time.
20 Q. The -- Mr. Thompson, I think it's implicit in your report, but
21 you would agree, would you, that of all the media the one with
22 overwhelming disproportionate impact dwarfing all other forms of media is
24 A. Broadcasting, certainly; I believe television, but some local
25 analysts that I spoke to at the time believed that radio was extremely
1 important. However, the impact of radio was impossible to judge because
2 there weren't conditions where surveys could be carried out on
3 listenership rates and so forth. So I believe that you're right but I
4 would prefer to say broadcasting.
5 Q. Let's clear that then. If we lump broadcasting, television and
6 radio together, then the proposition is great, it absolutely dwarfs all
7 printed material in terms of its impact on the population, doesn't it?
8 A. I believe so.
9 Q. To the point where not totally insignificant, but the
10 significance of printed publications is really quite tiny in relation to
11 the impact of radio and television combined.
12 A. It's certainly much less. Whether it's tiny, I don't know.
13 Q. The -- where you say "the outlets permitted no serious
14 examination of that contradiction," do you suggest that television in the
15 first place was likely at any point to engage in a serious examination of
16 that contradiction?
17 A. It's certainly possible for television as a medium to conduct
18 debates on political matters; it's -- it happens all the time.
19 Q. Well, how likely was it that television in this region at that
20 time would have engaged in a serious examination of such a contradiction?
21 A. Well, the current affairs formats were used in -- by television
22 networks at that time. Studio interviews and so forth were used.
23 Journalists knew how to do that. And the -- there were phone-in
24 programmes as well. So I don't see any reason to think that the
25 television would be incapable of addressing that question.
1 Q. Well, would you agree with this broad division of the target for
2 media or the people who were reached by media, four categories: The
3 public in Serbia, I'm talking about 1991 and 1992. First, the public in
4 Serbia; secondly, the Bosnian Serb public; thirdly, Bosnian Muslims and
5 Croats, I'll put them together for these purposes; and fourthly, the
6 international media and international community. Is that a sensible
8 A. I'm -- I think the answer may depend on which media outlets you
9 have in mind.
10 Q. Let's talk about television, then, in the first place.
11 A. Television, the -- well, Serbian state television was of course
12 primarily addressed to the citizens of the Republic of Serbia, but as I
13 describe in my report, it was enabled to reach a very large and larger
14 and larger proportion of Bosnia and Herzegovina through the seizure of
15 transmitter infrastructure that longed to the Bosnia-Herzegovina state
17 Now, as for the Bosnia-Herzegovina state broadcaster RTSA, that
18 did not in its coverage during -- until, until spring of 1992, it did not
19 attempt to address ethnic publics. Quite the opposite. It tried very
20 hard to address a public that -- beyond ethnic segregation, beyond ethnic
21 definition. So of course it found this very hard to do during -- for
22 example, when it was covering the war in Croatia. But it did its best.
23 And the same would be true of the republican flagship newspaper
24 Oslobodjenje, but I'll stick to television for now.
25 Q. Well, I'll bring in print. Let's look at those four categories.
1 The international media and community, would it be more receptive, do you
2 agree, to the printed word as well as television?
3 A. Yes. I mean, during 1991 and early 1992, there wasn't that much
4 international coverage from Bosnia. All eyes were on Croatia until the
5 Vance plan was signed. So that's my -- that's my recollection. So I
6 don't think there was much in international coverage.
7 And later on when there was -- when Bosnia was inundated with
8 international journalists, they were mostly print because it -- and
9 that's partly for technical reasons. At that time the technology to
10 provide real time images by an isolated journalist or a small team in the
11 field wasn't developed.
12 Q. So that -- working back up that list then, that's the
13 international community. So far as -- I'll put Muslims and Croats
14 together for these purposes. But, Mr. Thompson, we know that
15 overwhelming as a proportion we're talking about Muslims in Bosnia rather
16 than Croats for these purposes. We agree about that?
17 A. I don't know what you're going to say, so I don't agree with that
19 Q. In contradistinction to Serbs. If we're talking about Serb
20 exploitation of the media, I want to avoid having to ask too lots of
21 questions, one in particular to Croats, one in particular to Muslims.
22 A. It depends what outlets we're talking about. As I said, the
23 Bosnia Herzegovina state government tried -- bent over backwards not to
24 try and address one national public, one ethnic public rather than
25 another. I have analysed this in my book. I don't think it enters much
1 into the report at all.
2 But that is what RTSA tried to do and indeed in the spring and
3 summer of 1992 it caused frustration to some citizens in Sarajevo because
4 it remained so ethnically vague in its -- in its language, in its
5 coverage of what was happening in the country.
6 Q. This --
7 A. That's why I -- and I keep saying this because I don't accept the
8 -- I don't want the implication to be accepted that somehow the
9 Bosnia-Herzegovina state network was addressing an ethnic public. It
10 wasn't. It was trying to address the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
11 Q. SDS-controlled media would have had fairly little impact and cut
12 no ice with the Muslim and Croat nations in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Do
13 you agree?
14 A. SDS outlets?
15 Q. The SDS-controlled outlets, as you described them in your report,
16 they'd have had little impact on Muslims and Croats in Bosnia during the
17 conflict. Do you agree?
18 A. Well, as sources of information, I would think so. But they were
19 certainly -- for example, in Sarajevo there was a certain horrified
20 fascination with the news bulletins of Bosnian Serb broadcasters, and
21 these could be picked up in parts of Sarajevo and they were watched. So
22 it wouldn't be true to say, in my experience, that there was a boycott by
23 non-Serbs of Serb-controlled outlets, but it would be true to say that
24 those outlets didn't enjoy credibility.
25 Q. Yes. Well, you've really answered the follow-up question. You
1 talk in your report, and this is page 4, how the victorious -- after the
2 1990 elections "the victorious SDS-SDA-HDZ coalition drafted a new
3 broadcasting law that would have led to the network splitting" up "into
4 three national services."
5 So it's clear that at that time all three of those parties wanted
6 something which they were prevented from getting because that proposal
7 was rejected by the federal constitutional court.
8 A. Yes. Yes.
9 Q. The SDA then, as you describe it, abandoned its support for
10 splitting up the network and then you say: "The SDS, by contrast, called
11 out right in November 1991 for TVSA to be split into national channels."
12 So the SDS were -- well, they were pressing for something which all three
13 parties had previously wanted. That's right, isn't it?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. The SDA had by that time abandoned that policy, presumably
16 because they considered it was pointless or not in their interests.
17 A. I think we've been over this ground before. I've got nothing new
18 to add. I don't know. The SDA was confused on many strategic questions
19 and this well -- the question of the key republican media outlets may
20 well have been one of those questions, too.
21 Q. You talk in general as your introduction to section B of the SDS
22 leadership's determination to control media outlets and then you set out
23 various actions in 1991 and 1992. It's not -- leave aside from the
24 moment what you said about the actual message that was conveyed, a
25 determination in circumstances of at least serious prospect of conflict
1 to control media outlets is not inherently a surprising policy to adopt,
2 is it?
3 A. The way you put that rather blurs over that the threat of
4 conflict was emanating from the party that was taking over the media
6 Q. Mr. Thompson, that -- is that an assumption or a conclusion?
7 A. Well, it follows from the history of what happened.
8 Q. The --
9 A. The -- for example, the capture of RTVSA transmitters between
10 August 1991 and March 1992 and continuing after March 1992, which I
11 explain in pages 5 and 6 of my report, was carried out in order that the
12 Serbian broadcaster -- basically so that Serbian broadcasting would be
13 received as many Bosnian Serbs as possible and as many Bosnian Serbs as
14 possible would not be able to see the output of TV Sarajevo.
15 Q. We'll come to that specific matter. But Mr. Thompson, you said
16 that my question had blurred over the fact that the threat of conflict
17 was emanating from the party that was taking over the media outlets.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. So we can leave aside media outlets for the moment. The threat
20 of conflict was emanating from the SDS or Bosnian Serbs. That's what
21 you're saying?
22 A. Absolutely. Karadzic in the Assembly in October 1991, for
24 Q. And you say, do you, that there was no implicit threat of
25 conflict in any of the actions or pronouncements of the Bosnian Muslims?
1 A. Well, I don't remember the threat of conflict being wielded by
2 Bosnian Muslim political figures at that time. There was an awareness of
3 the risk of conflict, absolutely, and that was reflected in statements
4 given. But I don't recall that there was the threat made, namely, we can
5 start a war against you if we want, and if we do you don't -- and if we
6 do, you face extermination.
7 Q. The war in Croatia was precipitated, wasn't it, by Croats'
8 declaration of independence?
9 A. I don't see the relevance of that.
10 Q. Well, the answer is yes, is it, Mr. Thompson? Don't worry too
11 much about the relevance for the moment.
12 A. Well, I do, because I'm not here to discuss the outbreak of war
13 in Croatia and the way in which -- the way in which political events led
14 to the outbreak of conflict in Croatia is a complicated one and I don't
15 want to digress into that.
16 Q. Well, Mr. Thompson, ultimately we're all under the direction of
17 the Trial Chamber. But please -- actually, it is, with respect, your
18 function to answer the questions and not to explore their relevance.
19 The -- Mr. Thompson, the declaration of independence by the
20 Croats was either the or a major precipitating cause of the conflict in
21 -- of the war in Croatia, wasn't it?
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, the witness did not only say that he
23 didn't see the relevance of your question; he also said that he is not
24 here to discuss the outbreak of the war in Croatia and the way in which
25 -- the way in which political events led to the outbreak of war in
1 Croatia. He says "it's a complicated one and I don't want to digress
2 into that."
3 Is it that you do not want that because you feel that your
4 expertise would not allow you to give answers to those questions or is
5 there any other reason such as since it's complex it would take too much
6 time or since it's complex you would further need to consult your
7 sources? I just want to know why you didn't want to enter into that
9 THE WITNESS: Thank you for the question. It's a long time since
10 I thought about that. I used to know -- I used to follow these events
11 very closely, but I haven't thought about the outbreak of war in Croatia
12 for years and if instructed to do so, I shall now do my best. I am not
13 particularly comfortable doing so, but I will do so if required to do so.
14 I still, by the way, don't see the relevance of the matter to the
15 discussion in hand.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Thompson, you should clearly draw yourself the
17 lines where you are able and where you are confident that you can answer
18 questions and where you're not. And please address me if you feel
20 Mr. Stewart, there's not a clear no from the witness. He
21 explains why he has difficulties in answering your questions. It's not
22 only a matter whether he sees the relevance of it, because that, I would
23 agree with you, would be rather in the hands of Chamber. So you may put
24 questions to him.
25 But you, Mr. Thompson, you are instructed to immediately address
1 if you are not confident that you can answer the question.
2 THE WITNESS: Thanks.
3 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, with respect I entirely accept
4 the distinction you draw for the purposes of my question.
5 Q. Mr. Thompson, that -- as far as Bosnia was concerned it was -- it
6 was clear, wasn't it, that a persistence by the Bosnian Muslims in
7 pushing towards independence was very likely to precipitate conflict?
8 I'm talking about violent conflict in that country.
9 A. It's clear that it was -- that it had the potential to do that.
10 I'm not sure whether using the words "very likely" isn't being wise after
11 the event. But of course it wasn't clear at the time that it could lead
12 to conflict and the leaders on all sides acknowledged that, they referred
13 to that, in their different ways.
14 Q. Going on to what you just mentioned about the capture of those
15 transmitters referred to at page 5 of your report, you talk about five
16 transmitters belonging to RTVSA being captured by Serb or Yugoslav army
17 forces. Can I ask, you draw a distinction to Serb or Yugoslav army
18 forces. So when you talk about Serb forces as opposed to JNA forces, do
19 you mean the paramilitary forces that you mentioned a few lines further
20 down? This is page 5, middle of page 5.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. So the Kozara transmitter captured you say by -- on the 1st of
23 August, 1991, was that captured by Serb forces, as you just defined them,
24 or by Yugoslavia or Yugoslav army?
25 A. The Kozara transmitter, according to Javnost, a Bosnian -- an SDS
1 course was captured by a paramilitary unit linked to the SDS.
2 Q. Captured from whom?
3 A. From the owners and the owners were the RTVSA. The
4 infrastructure -- the broadcasting infrastructure I believe belonged to
6 Q. And the links to the SDS, does your source, as you've just
7 described it, say any more about those links?
8 A. Well, I assume not. But it's an SDS source saying there were SDS
9 links and there were, according to -- that's in 1993, that source.
10 According to Oslobodjenje in March 1992, so trying to report it at the
11 time, they were territorials and militia and also mentions the local SDS
12 branch in Doboj being involved in a different theatre.
13 Q. Where is Javnost based or where was it based in 1993?
14 A. I don't know. Pale probably. Banja Luka, Pale.
15 Q. But you don't know?
16 A. No.
17 Q. The -- and the Pljesevica transmitter, who was that captured
19 A. The same answer. The transmitter network belonged to the
20 republican broadcaster, belonged to RTVSA, but RTVSA had no forces on the
21 ground to defend its infrastructure. So it seems extremely unlikely that
22 there was shots exchanged at the transmitter sites.
23 Q. And you -- you referred to that transmitter the -- as being
24 seized by Serb militia. Do you know more about who that --
25 A. No.
1 Q. I'll complete the question -- about who those Serb militia were.
2 So your answer is no.
3 A. No.
4 Q. Then the Ciganiste in Doboj. You say the local SDS branch in
5 Doboj organised the seizure of Ciganiste. Is that as much as you know
6 about that?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And so far as Majevica is concerned, what can you say about --
9 what do you know about who seized that from whom?
10 A. Well, that transmitter, like the others, ended up in SDS control,
11 Bosnian Serb control, meaning SDS control, being used to -- for the same
12 purposes as the others.
13 Q. Is that as much as you know?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And so far as how you pronounce Trovrh?
16 A. Trovrh.
17 Q. I beg your pardon?
18 A. Trovrh.
19 Q. Trovrh and Gorazde. You say at the foot of page 5: "The Serbs
20 had occupied the transmitter in that place the previous day in response
21 to the (alleged occupation by Muslim forces of a factory in Gorazde."
22 By use of alleged are you saying you don't know there was such an
23 occupation by Muslim forces?
24 A. Correct. I'm not aware what organised Muslim forces there were
25 in Gorazde in March 1992 or what the occupation of a factory would mean.
1 And I was -- I was implying that the shape of this story has a propaganda
2 shape, namely: We were carrying out this action in response to. The
3 intention here is to justify the action taken.
4 Q. Your footnote 17 you refer to the text to that is you're talking
5 about attacks on Oslobodjenje.
6 In the second paragraph there you say: "The main threat was
7 presented by the SDS, which considered the newspaper to be - like RTVSA -
8 anti-Serb." Then you say: "In the months before open conflict started,
9 kiosks owned by Oslobodjenje were vandalised. After open conflict
10 started, the Serb-JNA forces were quick to target the newspaper. The
11 Sarajevo offices were shelled systemically, regional correspondents were
13 Then in 17 footnote: "The Zvornik correspondent... Mr.
14 Smailovic was murdered on the 8th the April on the doorstep of his office
15 by Serb forces. He had observed these forces approaching as he filed his
16 last piece."
17 You get that from a newspaper report, do you?
18 A. I'm afraid I don't remember any longer. It's more than ten years
19 since I did that research. But of course it's a matter of record; this
20 detail can be checked.
21 Q. Well, it's a matter of record that it's reported in that way.
22 A. Indeed. But the deaths would also be a matter of record. Those
23 correspondents either died or they didn't, and -- I believe that the
24 information there is correct.
25 Q. So you have absolutely no knowledge now of -- when it says: "On
1 the doorstep of his office by Serb forces," what those forces were?
2 A. No, I don't. I don't remember where that information comes from,
3 but I clearly regarded it at the time as reliable and fit to be used, I
4 mean in the first edition of my book.
5 Q. You talk about control of Glas newspaper on page 7 and you say,
6 third line: "After the 1990 elections the paper passed into the
7 ownership of the municipality," so that was a legal process, was it, by
8 which that happened?
9 A. I would assume so, yes.
10 Q. And you point out there that a municipality was controlled by the
11 SDS, don't you?
12 A. Mm-hmm.
13 Q. The -- under section 6 on page 8 "control of Radio Banja Luka,"
14 second sentence or second line you say: "Late September 1991 with war
15 waging in neighbouring Croatia, General Nikola Uzelac, commander the
16 local JNA garrison, was given the hospitality of Radio Banja Luka to
17 issue a general mobilisation to fight in Croatia."
18 Now, first of all, Mr. Thompson, you know, do you, or would
19 accept that the general mobilisation was an entirely legal matter?
20 Lawful is what I'm meaning to say, that was a mobilisation issued in
21 accordance with the law to which people were legally obliged to respond.
22 A. No, I don't express a view on the legality or illegality of the
23 garrison commander's action.
24 Q. So you don't know whether the mobilisation and to what extent the
25 mobilisation was simply in accordance with the law of Yugoslavia, as it
1 was at the time?
2 A. My point here was to draw attention to the way in which the radio
3 station was used.
4 Q. And is it objectionable for a radio station to allow a senior
5 officer to issue a mobilisation call if it is entirely in accordance with
6 the law?
7 A. I would call it an abuse, yes, of a local radio station to -- for
8 it to be used to issue a mobilisation.
9 Q. If a mobilisation call is entirely lawful, is it not entirely
10 legitimate then for the authorities to use whatever media resources are
11 at their disposal to disseminate that call among the population?
12 A. Information about a mobilisation may of course be given over a
13 media outlet. But for mobilisation to be issued over the airwaves is a
14 different matter.
15 Q. What's the distinction between information about a mobilisation
16 and mobilisation to be issued?
17 A. Well, it's a rather important distinction. On the one hand, a
18 media outlet is doing the professional job of a media outlet and
19 reporting on significant current events; and on the other hand, the media
20 outlet is being used as a megaphone of local military, in this case, or
21 political, I would think both in this instance, authorities.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you, where you use the word "megaphone"
23 here, do you just want to say that it's used as a means of communication
24 for those who issue the -- who issue the mobilisation?
25 THE WITNESS: Indeed. It's being used as a public -- as a -- as
1 a system of -- it's being used as a possession of the military, and it's
2 not a possession of the military. And the radio station should not lend
3 itself to being perceived by the public as a possession of the military.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 Mr. Stewart, I had some difficulties in understanding why the
6 distinction the witness made, that is the distinction between information
7 about the mobilisation and mobilisation to be issued over the airwaves,
8 that that distinction was not clear. It was perfectly clear to me, but
9 of course you're fully entitled to seek clarification if you do not
10 understand it.
11 Please proceed.
12 MR. STEWART: Well, I will proceed, with respect, Your Honour.
13 Q. So information about a mobilisation which you regard as
14 legitimate is when a media outlet says: One of today's stories is that a
15 mobilisation call has been issued from such-and-such headquarters?
16 A. Yes, followed by maybe quotation of the mobilisation notice,
17 followed by perhaps an interview comment with the military or with
18 political leaders from different -- different places on the political
20 Q. So that's legitimate?
21 A. Mm-hmm. It's more than --
22 Q. Clearly in your view?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. That's normal reporting?
25 A. Mm-hmm.
1 Q. Mobilisation issues, when as happened here, according to your
2 report, the actual call is made by the military through the media.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. It's military, Mr. Thompson, but do you accept that if it is a
5 legal mobilisation call, it is actually a significant and lawful act by
6 the lawful authorities of that state?
7 A. I've already said what I think about the use of media in this way
8 and --
9 Q. That doesn't answer my question, Mr. Thompson.
10 A. Well, the legality or the illegality of this was, of course,
12 Q. Yes, but Mr. Thompson --
13 MR. GAYNOR: Your Honour.
14 THE WITNESS: By the collective Presidency of the republic and
15 then defended by the -- by an SDS member.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Gaynor.
17 MR. GAYNOR: Our objection, Your Honour is this: that the
18 witness has been asked about this issue and he's answered it and there's
19 no new questions being asked by Mr. Stewart.
20 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, with respect, he hasn't quite
21 and I am entitled to press this a little further.
22 JUDGE ORIE: One or two questions.
23 MR. STEWART: Yes, indeed, Your Honour, it depends on the
24 answers, Your Honour. If I get one or two answers to my questions, then
25 it probably would be one or two.
1 Q. Mr. Thompson, I put a -- I put a question to you on a premise,
2 which you then argued with. The premise was that it was a legal
3 mobilisation call, a significant and lawful act by lawful authorities.
4 That was the premise.
5 A. Well, no, I don't accept the premise. If you look at footnote 23
6 it will be clear that the question of the legality of this action was
7 clearly a very -- a very significant question at the highest levels of
8 political authority in the country. And therefore, for the radio station
9 to have allowed this use to be made of it in such a delicate and
10 significant way is indicative.
11 Q. Do you understand what the -- what the difference was in relation
12 to the legality or illegality of this mobilisation call?
13 A. I've said that clearly the question of the legality or illegality
14 was a very pertinent and debatable matter, otherwise you would not have
15 had the JNA garrison commander in the north of the country doing one
16 thing and his action then being denounced as illegal by a collective --
17 by a body no less than the collective Presidency in the capital of the
18 country. I've also said that even if the -- I've even -- I've also said
19 that the question of legality and illegality does not entirely dispose of
20 the question as to whether a radio station should allow itself to be used
21 in this way.
22 Q. Mr. Thompson, do you understand the distinction is that the
23 collective Presidency in Sarajevo were denouncing the mobilisation call
24 as illegal in a way which implicitly rejected the view that the
25 mobilisation call was based on the continuing integrity of the state of
1 Yugoslavia, including Bosnia and Herzegovina?
2 A. I've got nothing to add.
3 Q. Do you understand that was the question? Do you understand that
5 A. I would suppose that the grounds for deciding on the legality or
6 illegality of the garrison commander's action would themselves be
8 Q. You --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. May I just try to -- we are moving away from
10 where we started.
11 Mr. Thompson, questions were put to you whether it was
12 objectionable for the radio station to allow -- to issue a mobilisation
13 call. You said you would call it an abuse. And slowly from
14 objectionable and abuse we entered into the realm of legality or not. If
15 you said it was an abuse, did you consider it to be an abuse in strictly
16 legal terms or did you consider it an abuse in terms of what you expect
17 the media to perform as a function?
18 THE WITNESS: With regard to the latter, clearly; with regard to
19 the former, I didn't express a view. This, of course, is in the context
20 of presenting, of explaining, how it was that the different ways that the
21 SDS used media outlets under its control.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
23 THE WITNESS: This radio -- if I may add one sentence.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
25 THE WITNESS: This radio outlet would certainly have known that
1 the question of issuing a mobilisation was -- that its legality would be
2 open to question at the highest levels in the country. They would know
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 THE WITNESS: And therefore -- well, that has to be factored in
6 when considering how to assess their behaviour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But you did not give any specific opinion on
8 whether in strictly legal terms a government or any military commander
9 would be entitled under the existing law to use the media for this
10 purpose, apart from whether you'd like it or not.
11 THE WITNESS: No, I didn't give an opinion on that.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 Please proceed, Mr. Stewart.
14 MR. STEWART:
15 Q. So if a media outlet is faced with a question as to the legality
16 of something --
17 MR. GAYNOR: Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. --
19 MR. GAYNOR: I'd like just to clarify the position. This witness
20 is being presented by the Prosecution as an expert on propaganda. Now,
21 the legality at the republic and federal level of the mobilisation call
22 is not an issue, in our submission, on which he can offer expert
23 assistance to the Court.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Well, let's -- I think I addressed that matter
25 clearly. And of course if the witness would have said, no, I take a very
1 clear position on the legality of that, we might have further explored
2 what his expertise could be that he could make such a statement. But Mr.
3 Stewart only said: "So if a media outlet is faced with the question as
4 to the legality of something," he might want to ask the witness who pays
5 for the advice or whatever. We do not know yet what the question of Mr.
6 Stewart would be, and we'll first give him the opportunity to put the
7 question to the witness.
8 MR. STEWART: Thank you, Your Honour.
9 Q. If the media outlet is faced with a question as to the legality
10 of some step, action, then its first responsibility is to try to form a
11 view as to the legality or not, isn't it?
12 A. Yes, it would have to do that. I mean, it should do that.
13 Whether it would is another matter.
14 Q. Well, it should, all right. So if there is a contested view that
15 the media outlet reaches a decision as to which of those contested views
16 is correct, that's an entirely legitimate step for media outlet to take,
17 isn't it?
18 A. Well, so much of this is context-dependent. The media outlet
19 should -- the decisions it makes in its internal deliberations is one
20 thing. The way it reports a move which in itself is contested or
21 inevitably going to be contested as soon as it is taken is another
22 matter. And in order to shed more light on this we would need to have
23 more information about the events of those days.
24 Q. Mr. Thompson, your whole complaint was that this wasn't a report.
25 So where your answer says "the way it reports is in itself contested" and
1 so on.
2 The question is this, Mr. Thompson: First of all -- and you
3 didn't quite answer the question. If a media outlet is faced with a
4 decision as to what action to take and that decision depends upon a view
5 of the law, then its first responsible step is to try to reach a decision
6 as to the legal position, isn't it?
7 A. By all means internally and as a media outlet its duty is to
8 report the issue to the public, to report that there is a debate, to
9 report that there are different points of view on the matter in hand.
10 Q. That's the reporting side, Mr. Thompson.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. But if it's in this case the media outlet was clearly being asked
13 to take an action, that is to allow its facilities to be used to announce
14 publicly the mobilisation. Right?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And step number one would be for them to form a judgement as to
17 whether that mobilisation call was in accordance with or would be in
18 accordance with the law.
19 A. That should be, yes. And also for whether it's appropriate for
20 the station to lend itself to that use.
21 Q. Well, that's a second -- that's the next question I want to come
22 to there, Mr. Thompson. If -- and please accept this for the purposes of
23 this question as the premise. If the media outlet has come to the
24 judgement that the mobilisation call is in accordance with the law --
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Right. In those circumstances, do you still say that it is
2 objectionable for that media outlet to be used simply for the
3 announcement of that legal mobilisation?
4 A. You want a crystalline answer and I cannot give you one. This
5 would depend upon the way the media outlet decided to report around the
6 issue in question, in this case the mobilisation. It would depend on
7 editorial decisions about how -- about which kinds of opinions they would
8 give on the matter of the mobilisation. It would -- so that needs all to
9 be taken into account.
10 Now, should media outlets be used -- should public media outlets
11 be used simply for the announcement of that legal mobilisation?
12 Q. Well, what's your answer to that, yes or no?
13 A. You mean should the garrison commander be allowed to sit in the
14 studio and announce to the people that there is a mobilisation on the
15 assumption, on the assumption then that the staff of the radio station
16 are fully convinced of the full legality of that mobilisation?
17 Q. Yes. Let's take that as the assumption. What's the answer?
18 A. Then they could. However, in this case, as I've said already, it
19 would be clear to all concerned that the legality would be contested at
20 very high and serious levels. So --
21 Q. Mr. Thompson --
22 A. So the staff at Radio Banja Luka were not in that position --
23 Q. Mr. --
24 A. Because the legality was open to -- was contested.
25 Q. Mr. Thompson, I've deliberately refrained from asking you any
1 opinion as to the law, and I'm going to continue to do that. But do you
2 agree that it is perfectly possible for a -- the staff of any media
3 outlet, A, to recognise that there is a contested view as to the legal
4 position but, B, to come to a firm conclusion as to which is the correct
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And if they have come to a firm conclusion as to which is the
8 correct view, then it is their responsibility as journalists to follow
9 that view, regardless of the fact that somebody else holds another view?
10 A. It's their responsibility to act as professional journalists.
11 Q. Well, why should they act son somebody else's view, Mr. Thompson,
12 if they have formed a clear view themselves as to the legal position?
13 JUDGE ORIE: May I just intervene. There seems to be huge
14 confusion, and I come back to what I said earlier, that is what I asked
15 earlier about journalistic professionalism and legal matters. Having
16 listened to both questions and answers for quite some time, I got the
17 impression - but please correct me when I'm wrong, Mr. Thompson - that
18 you would say that if it would be uncontested that there was a legal
19 obligation to broadcast a mobilisation call - uncontested in legal
20 terms - then you would say that law or that legal context in which you
21 had to do that may have existed, but the duty of a journalist goes beyond
22 that if they were in a position where they had, in order not to break the
23 law, to broadcast such a call. Then, even if they did it and they had to
24 do it, it was nevertheless the journalist's professional duty to report
25 on circumstances of the mobilisation call, they should start a debate on
1 whether such a law was right or not. So more or less they would, even if
2 not in strict terms, they would be in a position of civilian inobedience
3 even if they would acknowledge that they were under a duty under the
4 existing law to publish this mobilisation call. Is that a correct
5 understanding? Because we are again and again, I think, thinking on
6 different levels. Is this more or less what you had in mind and which I
7 tried to distil from I wouldn't say conversation but answers -- questions
8 and answers?
9 THE WITNESS: I believe that it is. I can quite imagine that
10 under, for example, state of emergency legislation it would be obligatory
11 upon media outlets to carry certain types of information, of course.
12 Now, that doesn't absolve even in such a situation where the state of
13 emergency would be undisputed and its legality undisputed, journalists
14 still have a journalistic job to do, reporting to the public the
15 discussion around the information which it is obliged to carry. This
16 happens in -- this is not unusual.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 THE WITNESS: However, it's -- I don't know if -- I mean, I feel
19 I should repeat that the response of the republican -- of the collective
20 Presidency clearly indicates that there was no -- was no crystalline
21 consensus on the legality of the mobilisation.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, of course. That's a very specific matter for
23 this mobilisation call.
24 THE WITNESS: Yes.
25 JUDGE ORIE: But I hope that my question added to avoid further
2 Mr. Stewart, you may proceed.
3 MR. STEWART:
4 Q. Do you say that a media outlet can only act on a view of the law
5 as to which there's a crystalline consensus?
6 A. No, I don't say that and I'm not aware of having said that.
7 Q. Mr. Thompson, do you agree that there are two distinct issues
8 here? This is one whether the media outlet should have been used to
9 announce the mobilisation -- for the mobilisation call itself, and there
10 is, secondly, the question of whether or not as a responsible media
11 outlet it should have reported the fact that there was a dispute about
12 the legal position.
13 A. I don't feel I've anything to add to our discussion of two
14 sentences in my 20-page report. I don't think I can enlighten the Court
15 any further on this matter.
16 Q. Mr. Thompson, do you, in fact, have a view as to the legality of
17 that mobilisation call?
18 A. My view is that it was clearly contested.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, I'm looking at the clock. I'd first
20 ask the usher to escort the witness out of the courtroom. We'd like to
21 see you back in 20 minutes, Mr. Thompson.
22 [The witness stands down]
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, the Chamber considers the matter to be
24 sufficiently dealt with at this moment of the legality and duties and
25 professionalism -- professional duties of journalists on this subject.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 My next question would be how much time you would more need. It's not a
2 trick, for cross-examination.
3 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, I would expect to finish with a
4 reasonable margin within the time left today.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, do you think, as matters stand now,
6 that you would have any additional questions to this witness?
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I will only have a couple of
8 questions, three or four at most.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Three or four. Would then, looking at how the
10 witness answers questions, would -- well, let's say anything between five
11 and ten minutes be enough?
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Ten minutes at most.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
14 Mr. Stewart, you're invited to see whether it would be possible
15 for you to finish, well, approximately half past 1.00.
16 We'll adjourn. We'll resume at 13 minutes before 1.00.
17 --- Recess taken at 12.27 p.m.
18 --- On resuming at 12.49 p.m.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Stewart.
20 MR. STEWART: Thank you, Your Honour.
21 Q. Mr. Thompson, on page 9 of your report you've got a section 8,
22 "Instructions regarding media and information," you say: "As early as
23 October 1991, when open conflict was still half a year away, the SDS
24 leadership instructed Serb mayors," and so on.
25 Mr. Thompson, how is anybody to know in October of 1991 that open
1 conflict was still half a year away?
2 A. They weren't to know.
3 Q. Do you know what had happened in mid-October 1991 to increase the
4 prospect of open conflict? Well, do you know about a walk-out from the
5 Bosnia and Herzegovina Assembly in mid-October 1991?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And do you agree that that clearly increased the prospect of open
9 A. Can I inquire as to the relevance of this line of inquiry or not?
10 Q. No, Mr. Thompson.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Thompson, please. I think you refer to it even
12 in a more indirect way --
13 THE WITNESS: Yes, I think we -- this episode came up earlier.
14 Well, yes.
15 MR. STEWART:
16 Q. The next paragraph of your report you talk about SDS -- what you
17 describe as SDS main committees instructions for the organisation of
18 activities and so on. May we take it you don't know any more about the
19 provenance and dissemination of that document except what you believe you
20 can glean from the document itself?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. We can go, Mr. Thompson, to the -- really, the very end of your
23 report, page 19, the penultimate page. The last paragraph beginning on
24 that page you begin: "As noted by Serbian analyst Branko Milinkovic
25 quotes the great majority of the Serbian media deal with the war in
1 Bosnia and Herzegovina generally within a rather stable matrix based on
2 the following tenets: 1, Bosnia and Herzegovina is mentioned only with
3 the prefix 'the former' or the 'so-called.' "
4 Mr. Thompson, from your study of this material, do you -- in your
5 opinion, was that objectionable?
6 A. It was prejudicial and -- Bosnia and Herzegovina at that time was
7 internationally recognised as the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. So
8 to refer to it as the former or the so-called was intended to be
9 prejudicial usage in order to confirm to the audience -- to the people --
10 to the consumers of those media outlets that it was former or only --
11 only former, not actual and only so-called, not real.
12 Q. It was a -- do you agree, it was an obvious corollary of the
13 Bosnian Serb position in this continuing conflict, that they should label
14 Bosnia and Herzegovina in that way?
15 A. We're talking about the Serbian media here, not the Bosnian Serb
16 leadership's discourse. Would you like me to clarify the distinction?
17 The distinction is that it's not incumbent -- well, it's incumbent upon
18 the Serbian media not simply to adopt the political discourse and labels
19 used by one side in the conflict.
20 Q. That's a separate question, Mr. Thompson.
21 A. I think it's an answer to your question, isn't it?
22 Q. Mr. Thompson, do you agree it was an obvious corollary of the
23 Bosnian Serb position in this continuing conflict that they should label
24 Bosnia and Herzegovina in that way?
25 A. It's a choice which was obvious from their point of view, yes.
1 Q. And secondly, the conflict is a civil and ethnic war and not one
2 of aggression. Now, first of all, Mr. Thompson, you would agree, would
3 you, that the Bosnian Serb leadership, their position was a -- very
4 plainly, that it was a civil war and not a war of aggression by them?
5 A. That was their public position, yes.
6 Q. And do you say that it was a war of aggression by the Bosnian
8 A. Do I say that it was?
9 Q. Yes.
10 A. Yes. I mean, if you're asking me now, can I say that, the answer
11 is: Yes, I can. I don't think it features in the report.
12 Q. Is that -- when did that first become your opinion?
13 A. I don't remember.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, before we enter into the area of what
15 is a war of aggression, I may remind you that since 1945 it took the
16 United Nations until 1974 to define what aggression was. And when
17 finally the Rome statute had to be established, then there was one
18 portion of the rules and jurisdiction not operational, that was the
19 jurisdiction over aggression.
20 This Chamber and many Chambers in this Tribunal have heard many
21 times the word "aggression" used or "aggressors" where reference was made
22 to opponents. I would think that it's good, as you try to elicit from
23 the witness to know what his position is as to who's to be blamed for
24 starting this war or starting hostilities, I would rather not do that on
25 the basis of the term war of aggression for the reasons I just mentioned.
1 And I'm -- fully agree that we should try to find out about the position
2 that the witness takes in this respect but rather than in other terms
3 than the one you used. Please proceed.
4 MR. STEWART: Well, in common with at least one of the members of
5 the Bench, I was in Rome myself in July of 1998, so I do remember that
6 point, Your Honour. May I say, Your Honour, that the phrase "one of
7 aggression," in other words war of aggression, is one that appears in
8 terms in the witness's report, which is what triggered off my question.
9 But, Your Honour, the question and answer have been given.
10 JUDGE ORIE: I find that -- yes, please proceed.
11 MR. STEWART:
12 Q. And point 4 -- oh, I beg your pardon. The -- over the page, page
13 20 of your report, the sentence: "Croatian and Muslim forces are
14 repeating all the atrocities they committed against the Serbian people
15 during the Second World War."
16 Mr. Thompson, you do know this much don't you, that there were
17 atrocities on all sides during the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina?
18 A. Yes, I do know that.
19 Q. Then point 4: "All bodies and institutions within the
20 international community, which are seen as a malevolent dragon with a
21 hundred heads, from the European Union, the OSCE, and NATO right up to
22 the UN itself have demonstrated that they have a biased attitude and are
24 Mr. Thompson, it's correct, isn't it, the Bosnian Serbs, whether
25 or not they were alone in that, the Bosnian Serbs deeply resented the
1 German -- Germany's push for recognition of an independent Croatia,
2 followed quickly thereafter by European Union support?
3 A. Yes, I believe that's correct.
4 Q. And that they saw that as a biased pro-Croat/anti--Serb position,
5 didn't they?
6 A. Yes, many of them did.
7 Q. And it's, for example, Lord Carrington, former foreign minister
8 of the United Kingdom, was himself very strongly opposed and indeed
9 dismayed by Germany's and then the consequent European Union position,
10 wasn't he?
11 A. Can I point out that I'm quoting here from a Serbian analyst of
12 probity and reputation and I'm quoting him because this passage provides
13 a useful summary of the way in which Serbian media dealt with and framed
14 their coverage of the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. So therefore I'm
15 happy -- I regard that as a good summary. I'm happy to agree with it,
16 but I would just like to point out that it's not my language.
17 Now, yes, indeed, Lord Carrington was dismayed by the EU policy
18 at that time.
19 Q. Mr. Thompson, are you then saying that in this whole passage and
20 whole quote from the Serbian analyst -- it's my own language, isn't it --
21 in this whole quote from the Serbian analyst Branko Milenkovic, you are
22 merely reporting what he says and you are not in any sense endorsing --
23 A. I do agree with it, but I'm just -- I'm -- the questioning's not
24 very clear to me, but I can keep -- I just wanted to remind the Court
25 that this is not -- these are not my words. That's all.
1 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber understands this line of questioning,
2 Mr. Thompson, to be the following: That where you've chosen to quote and
3 to join the opinion of this analyst -- yes, of Mr. Milenkovic, that Mr.
4 Stewart is now testing on the basis of other circumstances whether it was
5 a right thing to do so. Isn't it -- did I understand you, Mr. Stewart?
6 THE WITNESS: Right.
7 MR. STEWART: Yes, thank you very much, Your Honour.
8 Q. So, Mr. Thompson, the question is this: Did you, in your
9 opinion, point 4, that the Bosnian Serbs through the -- or the Serbian
10 media in presenting the view that those international -- or the
11 international community had a biased attitude of anti-Serb, you find that
12 point of view objectionable?
13 A. Well, I find it partly understandable. You've pointed out one --
14 one reason why it would be partly understandable because of the policy
15 decisions taken by the EU in the second half of December 1991 and so
16 forth. But these -- it's a matter of degree, isn't it. Of course all
17 bodies and institutions in the international community were not
18 anti-Serbian. And the actions -- for example, the decisions and
19 deployments of the United Nations would make no sense from that point of
20 view. So partly understandable, but incorrect and tragically incorrect,
21 in fact.
22 Q. Mr. Thompson, is it understandable that at a time of conflict the
23 Serbian media should present point 4 in the terms there summarised?
24 A. No, because it's throwing sand in the public's face. They are
25 misleading the public as to the stands taken by international
1 organisations and powerful states.
2 Q. Mr. Thompson, don't -- for practical purposes, all governments
3 and politicians who are involved in the operation and -- in some way
4 operation and running of an armed conflict engage in manipulation and
5 exaggeration of the strictly factual truth?
6 A. Well, temptation is bound to be there for any government engaged
7 in such a high-risk policy, but the decision -- the actions taken by
8 governments are not all alike and the behaviour of media in different
9 countries are not all alike. And the Serbian government of course
10 claimed not to be involved in the Bosnian war, either.
11 Q. Mr. Thompson, given what you, at least the degree of
12 acknowledgment in the answer you've just given, starting from a base of a
13 -- well, in Serbia, starting from a base of a rather more captive media
14 that is met in many western democracies, do you agree that it's hardly
15 surprising that the politicians did succumb to that temptation?
16 A. Well, no. I wouldn't -- I wouldn't consent to that
17 characterisation of the situation. The condition of the media in Serbia
18 was very different, not only somewhat different, from the situation of
19 media in western Europe at that time. And it's important to remember
20 that the Serbian media were subjected to political control at this time
21 to ensure that they were all -- all the key media outlets were
22 disseminating the same message. So the level of pluralism and
23 professionalism in the Serbian media was actually attacked and reduced by
24 the political authorities in order to make sure that this single focussed
25 set of messages went out to their own people and the Bosnian Serbs
1 regarding their situation. I don't think that's normal at all.
2 Q. The level of pluralism and professionalism in the Serbian media
3 was below the normal situation in western Europe before the SDS even came
4 into existence, wasn't it?
5 A. Yes, that's true. But there were -- at the end -- in the late
6 1980s and the turn of decade into the 1990s, there were attempts by
7 liberal-minded journalists and -- to push back the boundaries of what was
8 permissible to be said and to liberalise as far as they could. And those
9 efforts were -- were stamped on by the Serbian regime. Not totally, but
10 they were where they presented the real threat to the regime, namely
11 where they were occurring in the most popular and broadly influential
13 Q. Page 17 of your report, just going back to that, talking about
14 RTS you say, second line under heading 2, contents, you say: "Two
15 analysts who examined coverage of Bosnia and Herzegovina during the
16 six-week pre-election campaign in late 1992 concluded that "the horrors
17 of war which could be seen in the reports on foreign TV stations were
18 conspicuously absent."
19 Now, Mr. Thompson, isn't that broadly similar, for example, to
20 the United States' government wish for coffins for coffins returning from
21 Iraq not to be seen on television by the American public?
22 A. That's an interesting idea. I don't think there's a substantial
23 analogy there at all. These were not -- this wasn't a matter of
24 guidelines on taste and decency which become particularly political
25 during times of war. This, in my view and the view of the analyst in
1 question, was an attempt to mislead the public as to the nature of what
2 was happening in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
3 Q. Mr. Thompson --
4 A. To play down the terrible things that were happening and being
6 Q. Mr. Thompson, the example I've given has nothing to do with taste
7 and decency, has it? It's that the US government simply was unable in
8 the end to prevent the American media from showing such things, and they
9 would have done if they could. Do you agree?
10 A. They weren't able to do it because there's media pluralism and
11 because the entire political context is different.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, if you ask whether matters are similar,
13 then of course the witness can say in what respect he sees differences.
14 I think as a matter of fact that by saying these weren't guidelines on
15 taste and decency, he would consider that in the other situation they
16 were. But let's just proceed --
17 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, the witness is entirely entitled to --
18 as he answers the questions to answer them any way he likes and Your
19 Honours can judge. Your Honour raises taste and decency --
20 Q. So since you raise that, Mr. Thompson, taste and decency by the
21 United States government --
22 JUDGE ORIE: When you said --
23 MR. STEWART: -- by some of the photographs of Saddam Hussein.
24 JUDGE ORIE: When you said "the example I have given has nothing
25 to do with taste and decency," the witness made taste and decency part of
1 his comparison and you invited him to compare the situations by asking
2 whether they were similar or not. So therefore it's up to the witness to
3 the witness to create a context of what he considers to be similar or
4 not. Please proceed.
5 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I challenged his answer at page 88,
6 line 1, that's what I did, which is legitimate, in my submission.
7 Q. You've received -- we've have an addendum to your report, Mr.
8 Thompson, and it says: "Having examined the further material supplied to
9 me on the 1st of June, 2005, I would like to draw attention to the
10 following statements by Mr. Krajisnik as quoted in this material," and
11 then you cite quite a lot of them. I'm not going to ask you questions
12 about those specifically, Mr. Thompson. You say: "These statements and
13 allegations conform to the patterns of media content described in my
15 Can we just be clear that that further material was supplied to
16 you on the 1st of June, 19 -- 2005 by the Office of the Prosecution. Is
17 that correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And it was their selection of material supplied to you rather
20 than yours?
21 A. Well, self-evidently.
22 Q. Thank you. Did you do any further research around that material
23 to find other or similar or related material?
24 A. No.
25 Q. So effectively, the addendum to your report is a summary of what
1 can be read in that material.
2 A. Well, it's what it is. It's what it states it is in the first
3 sentence. It's an analysis of that further material in the sort of light
4 of what I've -- of what is already written in the report, in the light of
5 the priorities and the areas of concern and interest which are
6 highlighted in the report. There's clearly more in that material, which
7 is about 80 or 90 pages long, more than I've drawn attention to here.
8 But this seemed the most salient content.
9 Q. Thank you?
10 MR. STEWART: Would Your Honour just give me one moment, please.
11 [Defence counsel confer]
12 MR. STEWART:
13 Q. Yes, Mr. Thompson, you -- you've written, among other things, and
14 I'm -- I -- I'm citing from something that was published in the Guardian
15 Weekly, and I'm afraid I don't know whether it's the 5th of September or
16 the 9th of May, because I don't know whether it's American or English
17 dating, but it was in 2002. And you've advocated that international law
18 needs changing in relation to the use of the media in the course of armed
19 conflict. Is that correct?
20 A. I don't remember the exact language I used, but yes, I -- yeah.
21 Q. You wrote: "The systematic breach of journalistic ethics in
22 service of belligerent policy risking human rights abuse should also
23 warrant intervention."
24 Is that -- do you recall that or does that reflect your view?
25 A. Yes, I think so. Yes.
1 Q. So you -- that remains your view?
2 A. Well, the word "intervention" means many things, but yes.
3 Q. So you are involved in some sort of promotion campaign for
4 changing in international law to regulate what you regard as the abuse of
5 the media?
6 A. I'm not aware of any campaign of that kind. I've written on
7 this. As you see, I've written elsewhere about it as well. Yes.
8 Q. And in a nutshell, it may be it's not possible to do it in a
9 nutshell, but is your suggestion that it should be made some sort of,
10 broadly, war crime to abuse or misuse the media?
11 A. No, I don't -- I mean -- no, I don't think I have a nutshell
12 answer on that. My concern has been that the international community has
13 in the conflicts of the 1990s been insufficiently sensitive to the role
14 that media can play in an area of tension or an area of conflict and also
15 insufficiently attentive to the constructive role that media can play in
16 a post-conflict normalisation process. And that's what I've written
18 Q. Thank you, Mr. Thompson.
19 MR. STEWART: I have no further questions, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Stewart.
21 Mr. Krajisnik, you'd indicated that you'd have a --
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, you said you would have a few
24 questions for Mr. Thompson. Please proceed.
25 Cross-examined by Mr. Krajisnik:
1 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, sir.
2 A. Good afternoon.
3 Q. I have had not an opportunity to read your report, however I see
4 now that you dealt with a Serbian newspaper called Glas. Is that
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. My question to you is as follows: In the Serbian Glas did you
8 ever come across my statements on ethnic cleansing? And let me remind
9 you, on the 17th of October, 1992, and 21 December, 1992, there was a
10 statement and an interview with Momcilo Krajisnik.
11 A. I would need to check through the material to know if that was
12 included here. So I don't -- I can't answer without doing that.
13 Q. I have the newspaper here. I can provide it to you, if I'm
14 allowed to do so by the Chamber. However, even if you don't remember
15 maybe you can answer whether you have ever come across a statement of
16 that kind anywhere. This is what I would like to hear from you.
17 A. Can you just clarify what you -- what -- just what kind of
18 statement you mean?
19 Q. On the 17th of October, 1992, and 21 December 1992 I said clearly
20 that I was deeply opposed to any form of ethnic cleansing and forceful
21 movement of population.
22 A. Mm-hmm. The only -- I would refer you to footnote --
23 Q. Could you please answer whether you read this or not. Have you
24 read those statements of mine or not?
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, the witness was about to answer your
1 question and he wanted to refer you to a footnote, a footnote you will
2 not have seen. So therefore we'll invite the witness to explain what
3 this footnote tells us. And then if he has done so, we can then see
4 whether he has answered your question yes or no.
5 THE WITNESS: The only -- thank you. The only material that I
6 think of immediately as corresponding to that kind of statement is the
7 sentence quoted in my addendum; it's footnoted with footnote number 10.
8 And I don't know immediately if footnote 10 refers to that source. I
9 can --
10 JUDGE ORIE: What I do know, Mr. Krajisnik, is that 21st of
11 December, 1992, interview in Glas Srpski is among the materials that has
12 additionally been provided to the Chamber and is -- I don't know whether
13 you received a copy or not --
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That's correct.
15 JUDGE ORIE: So that -- there's no need to ask the witness
16 whether he has seen that because it's part of the material. It's now
17 presented in the context of his testimony. And I saw that there are some
18 statements there, just if I would correct then you would have said:
19 "Personally, I'm against any kind of coercion and I strongly condemn
20 every attempt to coerce people into moving out of their homes. That is
21 why this term ethnic cleansing should be taken with a pinch of salt. It
22 was used only in the report by Tadeusz Mazowiecki, Polish prime minister,
23 in which he blamed everything on Serbs in former BiH in such a biased and
24 hypocrite manner, giving the impression that it was commissioned."
25 That's what it says. Is that what you wanted to draw the
1 attention of the witness to?
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, this is one of the reports.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, the witness has seen it and it has been
4 read to him. And the other one I'm not quite sure.
5 MR. GAYNOR: Your Honour, the 17th October 1992 report is not in
6 the materials that we submitted.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 MR. GAYNOR: I --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. If you'd like to read one or two lines or
10 relevant lines to the witness, you may do so. Please read slowly, Mr.
12 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
13 Q. The interview was taken on 17th October.
14 "Ethnic prisoners. 'I'm opposed to any form of ethnic
15 cleansing.' This is what Mr. Momcilo Krajisnik said categorically.
16 Every person who has to leave their home is a poor soul. We would oppose
17 with all of our strength to every, even be it the smallest attempt to
18 carry out ethnic cleansing. We will also oppose to the creation of
19 ethnic prisoners and those were the Serbs in the former Bosnia and
20 Herzegovina, namely, in many towns, in many cities, in many settlements,
21 especially in those where the SDA is in power. Serbs are imprisoned in
22 various places and they are not allowed to move on -- move out. The
23 story in Central Bosnia is somewhat different. The Croatian authorities
24 allow every Serb to leave if they want to do so. Those who have decided
25 to remain, nobody touches them. That is why we do not think that there
1 has been any form of ethnic cleansing in Central Bosnia or, in other
2 words, that the Serbs have been persecuted there. We will never forbid
3 anybody to leave. Both Muslims and Croats can go if they wish to do so
4 openly. And those national minorities in Republika Srpska who reside
5 there, this is what I would like to tell them and emphasise: All the
6 national minorities will be guaranteed all their human rights according
7 to all the international conventions."
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could you please put your question to the --
9 or was it just whether he had read this?
10 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Again, my question is as follows: Did the witness ever come
12 across these two statements of mine?
13 A. The OTP has said that this material was not presented -- was not
14 given to me. Am I correct?
15 MR. GAYNOR: Sorry, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 MR. GAYNOR: The -- Mr. Krajisnik's question was: "Did the
18 witness ever come across these two statements of mine," and it's already
19 clear that the first article is in the materials submitted to the Chamber
20 and has been reviewed by the witness. The second article, I believe, was
21 not provided to the witness.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Well, while -- let's make -- try to make things a
23 bit more simple. Mr. Krajisnik says: "That's what I said in an
25 Perhaps we could even invite the witness to see whether he could
1 or could invite Mr. Krajisnik to present that interview. But being
2 confronted now with this material, the first question is: Did you see it
3 before? I take it the 21st of December is clear already. The other one?
4 THE WITNESS: I can't -- I don't know if at some point it was
5 published since I have seen it. But I can say that to read such an
6 opinion coming from Mr. Krajisnik is not a surprise to me. It's not
7 news, if that helps.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Would it change any of your opinions as you
9 expressed in your report?
10 THE WITNESS: I'm afraid it wouldn't. While parts of that
11 statement - only parts of it - are commendable, I don't believe that they
12 went very far in reassuring the non-Serb population under Bosnian Serb
13 control that they had any kind of future at all. On the contrary, I
14 would have thought that the contrast between such commendable statements
15 on the one hand and the events on the ground would have appeared
16 grotesque to that population.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, please proceed.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
19 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
20 Q. The question was whether you came across these statements during
21 your research, not whether you received them from the OTP. Because these
22 statements were given in 1992, not in 1995. And my second question --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, you're commenting on the answer of
24 the witness. The witness has answered the question. Please put your
25 next question to him.
1 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
2 Q. In order for me to put the second question to you, I would like
3 to lay the background to that question. Have you read the book the
4 "Balkans Odyssey" by Mr. Owen? Does it say in the book that the parties
5 to the conflict have engaged --
6 JUDGE ORIE: You have put the question whether the witness has
7 read the book. I haven't heard an answer.
8 THE WITNESS: Yes, I have read it.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Krajisnik.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The witness nodded his head and I
11 took it as his answer. My mistake. I apologise.
12 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Did you read in this book which of the sides engage certain media
14 to promote their war goals to serve as a propaganda machine for the
15 promotion of their goals?
16 A. I read the book in early 1996 and I don't remember all of it.
17 It's a long book. I do remember coming to the view that Lord Owen's
18 opinions on the role of media in the war were problematic and not -- and
19 simplistic, actually.
20 Q. My question was clear, sir. I am going to rephrase it and put it
21 to you again. If I put it to you that Mr. Owen claims that the Muslim
22 and the Croat sides engaged the media, that they allocated funds for
23 propaganda, would you agree with me or not? Would your opinion be
25 A. I simply don't remember that in Owen's book. I do remember a
1 couple of brief statements about the role of media which -- which seemed
2 -- I mean, I am trying to remember back nearly a decade, which said that
3 -- basically a plague on all their houses, that the media everywhere were
4 equally reprehensible. That I took to be Owen's view and it's a view
5 which I don't have myself.
6 MR. GAYNOR: Your Honour, before any further questions on this
7 issue, we would request that the accused provide us with a page reference
8 so we can check which page of the book he's referring to.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 Do you know what page -- I take it that you are quoting from the
11 B/C/S version, Mr. Krajisnik.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Could you --
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I asked --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Could you give us a clue as to, perhaps, chapter and
16 it might be -- and the page number so the OTP would be in a position to
17 verify the source.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'll bring a copy of that page with
19 me tomorrow. My question to the witness was whether he read that book.
20 If he did, he should be able to remember. The page is not important in
21 that, but tomorrow I will provide you with a copy of that in B/C/S.
22 JUDGE ORIE: But the importance of pages is for the Chamber to
23 decide on the request of the OTP, nothing more, nothing less, and that
24 you bring the page number tomorrow and the page might not help out if the
25 witness is --
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes.
2 JUDGE ORIE: -- today. Please put your next questions to the
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I can provide the OTP with the page
5 number reference, but it does not have to be admitted into evidence. I
6 am not insisting on that.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, I said you can put your next question
8 to the witness.
9 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
10 Q. My third question to you, sir. You were talking about threats
11 and you mentioned threats to Mr. Karadzic. Do you remember the threats
12 issued by Mr. Izetbegovic at the Assembly and in Kladusa and the Assembly
13 of Bosnia and Herzegovina and in Bosanska or rather Cazinska Kladusa. I
14 can repeat the threat for you don't remember, to refresh your memory if
15 you want me to do so.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Let's first see whether the witness can answer the
18 THE WITNESS: No, I don't remember them.
19 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Do you remember that Mr. Izetbegovic in February 1991 at the
21 parliament said that he would sacrifice peace for a sovereign Bosnia and
22 Herzegovina --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, this line is in evidence already many
24 times. The Chamber is fully aware of what witnesses who do remember or
25 who have any knowledge of it told us about it. There is no use in asking
1 this witness who says that he doesn't remember them to read it to him
2 unless the witness says: I -- it might well be, but I've forgotten
3 exactly what it was. Under those circumstances, we could refresh his
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we have heard Mr.
6 Karadzic's statement. What I am trying to do is to refresh the witness's
7 memory. He said that he never heard a single statement by the Muslim
8 leaders. That's what I'm asking him whether he heard this particular
10 JUDGE ORIE: In general terms, Mr. Krajisnik, it makes sense to
11 refresh the memory of a witness if there are good grounds to believe that
12 he has any personal knowledge but he might have forgotten specificities
13 -- specific aspects of those events.
14 Witness, did you ever concentrate on these kind -- since your
15 report is very much focussing only on what side said, did you ever study,
16 well, say fierce expressions by leaders of the other nationalities?
17 THE WITNESS: When I did my research, I was looking -- trying to
18 look at what was happening to all the three peoples within Bosnia and
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And although not allowed, Mr. Krajisnik has
21 expressed the line he would like you very much to remember. Does it ring
22 any bell?
23 THE WITNESS: This simple truth is that during my years of
24 following very closely the events in Bosnia-Herzegovina, I would think
25 it's extremely unlikely that I didn't come across that line --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 THE WITNESS: -- reported somewhere or other. But do I now
3 remember -- has he jogged my memory? No.
4 JUDGE ORIE: No. Then, Mr. Krajisnik, this is a line which is in
5 evidence many times. If there would be any specific question you would
6 like -- on which you think the witness could add something to it by his
7 own knowledge, please do so.
8 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
9 Q. You lived in Zagreb. Did you hear the statement that Mr.
10 Izetbegovic issued in Kladusa, which is actually close to Zagreb, that he
11 would use arms to defend Bosnia --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, I did not allow you to start with the
13 next quote; I said: If you have any specific question on a quote. I did
14 not allow you to read to the witness, but if you have any specific
15 question, you could put that to the witness. Please be careful.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well then.
17 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Did you hear Mr. Izetbegovic's statement, the one he gave in
20 A. As with the other statement that you mentioned, I don't have it
21 in my memory now. Did I come across it during ten years of daily
22 involvement with these issue? I expect I did. But ...
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, I take it that there will be ample
24 opportunity, if it ever comes to that, that you present this evidence
25 during the presentation of the Defence case. This witness seems to not
1 have any active knowledge on the matter. Please proceed to the next
2 subject. That will be your last question. You said you had a couple
3 questions, certainly not more than ten minutes.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That is correct.
5 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
6 Q. You were talking about the request to split Radio-Television
7 Sarajevo in several parts, this was in 1991. Do you remember that? Do
8 you know that at this moment in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina
9 and at the level of the Presidency there is a request to split the
10 radio-television, and the request was put in by the Croatian side?
11 A. Yes, I do know that.
12 Q. And are you aware of the reasons put forth by the Croats?
13 A. I think I know what they are.
14 Q. Could you please tell us what you know?
15 A. Well, if I would be allowed just to point out that I don't see
16 any connection now with the events of the early 1990s, but yes now the
17 HDZ leadership now in Bosnia and Herzegovina today claims that it would
18 be in line with its constitutional national rights to have a separate
19 representation in federation broadcasting in the federation entity, yes.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Now it confuses me a bit. In the question there was
21 a split of Radio-Television Sarajevo mentioned in several parts. This
22 was in 1991. And now you say: "I don't see any connection now with the
23 events of the early 1990s," which is not fully understandable --
24 MR. GAYNOR: Your Honour, perhaps if I can assist. The second
25 part of the question from the accused was: "Did you know at this moment
1 the" --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Well, then I missed that.
3 And please answer the question.
4 THE WITNESS: I was answering the question.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
6 THE WITNESS: I'm talking about 2005 and I pointed out that I
7 don't see any connection with 1991. But as far as 2005 is concerned,
8 that is -- that is the situation. I hope very much that the HDZ
9 leadership will not get its way because it would be very unfortunate for
10 the future of public-service broadcasting in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
11 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Just one more clarification with regard to this last question,
13 and that will be my last question to you. Between 1990 and 2005, have
14 there been -- has there been a constant request by the Croats to separate
15 the broadcasting system and for them to have their own broadcasting
16 channel? Has there been a -- has that been a constant request on their
18 A. I don't know if it's been continuous. It's recurred, clearly.
19 But this is in the -- the HDZ political pressure now for a separate
20 channel is in the context of the Federation public service broadcaster,
21 operating in the Federation entity. So it's post-Dayton. And this
22 pressure has become stronger in proportion as the prospect of a
23 functioning public-service broadcaster for the federation being realised,
24 and the pressure is now all the stronger because from that leadership's
25 point of view the danger -- the danger of a genuine Federation-entity
1 broadcaster is greater.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, you said this was your last question.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to thank
4 you and I would also like to thank the witness.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
6 Mr. Gaynor.
7 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you, Your Honours. I just have one issue
8 which is a slight lack of clarity on page 5 of the report.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 MR. GAYNOR: And it's under the heading of "control of RTVSA
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 Re-examined by Mr. Gaynor:
14 Q. Now, Witness, in your report at that part you said "between
15 August 1991 and March of 1992 five of the 11 main transmitters belonging
16 to the RTVSA were captured by Serb or Yugoslav army forces."
17 You then list those five. Now, if you skip the next paragraph
18 the first words of the following paragraph you say: "A few days after
19 the capture of the Vlasic transmitter."
20 Now, could you clarify the Vlasic transmitter was a sixth or was
21 it one of the five --
22 A. Thank you. You've drawn attention to a bit of poor structure in
23 my report. That was not one of the five, that was one of the further
24 three which is mentioned on the tenth line down on the following page 6:
25 "By the end of June 1992 three further transmitters had been seized by
1 several Yugoslav forces."
2 Q. Thank you.
3 MR. GAYNOR: I have no further questions, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE ORIE: I would have a relatively simple question for you.
7 Questioned by the Court:
8 JUDGE ORIE: One of the documents that is presented to the
9 Chamber is under number 5 on the list is a video of interview with
10 Krajisnik. It bears as the date 1992/1993. It might be interesting for
11 the Chamber to know when in 1992 or 1993 this was broadcasted.
12 A. I'm sorry. I'm not with you.
13 JUDGE ORIE: It's under number 5.
14 A. Yes.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Transcript of the interview with Krajisnik is --
16 A. Uh-uh, yes.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Production Serbian television channel S and then it
18 says date 1992/1993. Whereas we have similar headings, for example, for
19 the video interview of Krajisnik and Karadzic under 3 where it says, I
20 think, January/March 1993, in the list it comes up with a rather specific
21 date, which is the 15th of March, whereas in respect of this document --
22 A. Yes.
23 JUDGE ORIE: We only find 1992/1993.
24 A. An answer to your question would not be difficult to obtain, but
25 I'm afraid I don't have -- I don't have that historical detail in my
1 head. It's -- it would be easy to obtain by finding out when the --
2 exactly when the events mentioned took place, the events mentioned in the
3 first few paragraphs.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 A. I'm sorry that I can't answer it now.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Gaynor --
7 MR. GAYNOR: Certainly, Your Honour. You'll volunteer to check.
8 In so far as our records have verifiable information, I will do that.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Could we do the following, I'm also looking at you,
10 Mr. Stewart, it seems that the television programme gives quite some
11 clues which could not leave such doubt. For example, on the second page
12 I read: "Bosnian Serb Assembly ended last night in Zvornik," which means
13 we have several events on the new Presidency to be formed I think and who
14 that would be. Therefore, if the parties could agree on when that must
15 have approximately been, that would be fine. If the parties are not in
16 the position to do so, I'd like to ask the Prosecution to ask the witness
17 then - if you could not agree - to see whether he has sources which would
18 allow him to give further details. I'm also asking this specifically
19 because in view of earlier questions on strategic goals, whether there
20 were further supports or no, in this interview where Mr. Krajisnik says
21 something about strategic goals and -- being realised or are realising as
22 he says, in the interview at least.
23 Then, Mr. Gaynor, could you give us a clue on why you make number
24 3 the 15th of March and whether there's any dispute? Because the
25 document itself doesn't give a clue on that specific date. It says
1 January /March 1993.
2 MR. GAYNOR: Your Honour, I can't enlighten you at this moment as
3 to why that specific date appears there.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please get that information at the
5 earliest possibility.
6 Then we have P855 where Mr. Krajisnik addresses a crowd in Foca
7 or Srbinje. There's no date on that, neither on the original or on your
8 list. Could you --
9 MR. GAYNOR: Certainly, Your Honour. Again, as Your Honour has
10 probably noticed, there seem to be somewhat clues as to when it might be,
11 but I will endeavour to find the best information as to the date of that.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Would you inform Mr. Stewart what you find and see
13 if there's any dispute about it.
14 MR. GAYNOR: I will indeed.
15 JUDGE ORIE: I am not suggesting that we ask the witness to wait
16 and see what the parties can find, but just leave it for the time being.
17 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I understand the procedure is that on
18 all these date matters the Prosecution are going to just give us a
19 quick --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Try to --
21 MR. STEWART: -- note on where they say they come from and see if
22 we agree and --
23 JUDGE ORIE: And then inform the Chamber and if not, we might ask
24 for a five-lines written report by this witness or by anyone else.
25 MR. STEWART: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour. Sooner the better
1 before we all forget what it was what we were talking about.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We keep a nice list of pending issues.
3 Did -- yes, Mr. Krajisnik.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would just like to be of
5 assistance. If the Prosecution could give me a CD of all that and maybe
6 I can help Mr. Stewart out and we can spot certain things because I don't
7 really have the electronic form of either these talks or any other
8 document. If you could give it to me today, it might be useful.
9 MR. GAYNOR: We've provided CDs with these videos to the Defence
10 team. If the Defence team wishes to provide it --
11 JUDGE ORIE: And here of course immediately security issues
12 arise, et cetera, et cetera. If -- your assistance is greatly
13 appreciated, Mr. Krajisnik. If counsel could resolve the matter, then I
14 think they're at least grateful for you having offered to assist them.
15 Is there any issue triggered by the -- well, I wouldn't say questions by
16 the Bench, but at least by the issues raised by the Bench?
17 MR. STEWART: Not on our side, Your Honour. No.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Nodding no for the Defence.
19 Nodding no for the Prosecution as well, Mr. Gaynor.
20 Then I'd like to thank you, Mr. Thompson, for coming to The Hague
21 to answer the questions mainly of the parties, not many of the Bench, but
22 -- and I'd like to wish you a safe trip home again.
23 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Usher, could you please escort Mr. Thompson out
25 of the courtroom.
1 [The witness withdrew]
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Gaynor.
3 MR. GAYNOR: Your Honour, I don't know if this is a correct time
4 to raise this. I want to correct very quickly a point made by Mr. Hannis
5 on Monday on the record in relation to some information which Your
6 Honours requested. The information provided by Mr. Hannis was incorrect.
7 I'd like to correct the record on that.
8 JUDGE ORIE: What was the information?
9 MR. GAYNOR: The first one was KRAJ 606. Your Honours requested
10 clarification as to whether the parties were referring to two statements
11 dated 13 October 2001 or if not two, which one. And I can clarify that
12 the Prosecution has agreed to withdraw both statements dated the 13th of
13 October, 2001.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Has agreed with itself or with the Defence?
15 MR. GAYNOR: No, we inform the Chamber that we withdraw it.
16 JUDGE ORIE: So it's withdrawn. So at least you apply for
17 withdrawal of these statements which you presented to the Chamber?
18 MR. GAYNOR: Yes. The second point, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 MR. GAYNOR: Is in relation to witness Samardzic, who is KRAJ
21 515. Your Honours gave us the opportunity to explain further the
22 relevance of that material.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 MR. GAYNOR: We appreciate the opportunity to explain further the
25 relevance and we shall not be providing any further explanation --
1 JUDGE ORIE: You are aware -- first of all, I think this
2 information reached the Chamber already. And you may be aware if the
3 Chamber asks for the relevance and you say you have got nothing further
4 to say for the relevance that you take the risk that the Chamber
5 considers it to be irrelevant.
6 MR. GAYNOR: Yes. And if I can just provide one further
7 clarification. In Mr. Hannis's submission the issue with relation to
8 KRAJ 606 was mixed up with relation to the other witness.
9 JUDGE ORIE: It's always good to know the backgrounds of errors,
10 but we accept that they are made now and then.
11 I would first of all like to thank the interpreters and
12 technicians for again allowing us to continue, even if not specifically
13 asked for to continue for ten minutes. We'll adjourn until tomorrow
14 morning, 9.00.
15 Mr. Registrar, that would be Courtroom III again -- yes, it's
16 Courtroom III.
17 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.55 p.m.,
18 to be reconvened on Friday, the 1st day of
19 July, 2005, at 9.00 a.m.