1 Wednesday, 13 July 2005

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The witness entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 2.37 p.m.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. This is case

8 number IT-00-39-T, the Prosecutor versus Momcilo Krajisnik. Thank you.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

10 Mr. Harmon, are you ready to continue the examination of Mr.

11 Brown?

12 MR. HARMON: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you very much.

13 JUDGE ORIE: And, Mr. Brown, before -- yes. Ms. Loukas, if

14 there's anything you'd like to raise before I remind Mr. Brown that he's

15 still bound by the solemn declaration given at the beginning of your

16 testimony.

17 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour.

18 MS. LOUKAS: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour. I'd just indicate

19 that in my discussions with Mr. Harmon, he's indicated that he feels that

20 the examination-in-chief will conclude around about the time of the first

21 break. In those circumstances, Your Honour, I -- depending on when Mr.

22 Harmon does finish, I would propose that we take the break when he does

23 finish so that I can be in a position to take the lectern and what have you

24 and organise my --

25 JUDGE ORIE: Equality of arms, yes.

1 MS. LOUKAS: -- things in such a way that --

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

3 MS. LOUKAS: So that I can be in a state of combat readiness,

4 Your Honour.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I -- if that would not cause us an extra

6 break, then we'd gladly agree.

7 MS. LOUKAS: Thank you, Your Honour.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Harmon.

9 MR. HARMON: Your Honours, the exhibits I will be referring to

10 will be in our binder 3, for your benefit.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

12 MR. HARMON: And I will also refer to binder1 but that won't be

13 until the end of our examination.

14 WITNESS: EWAN BROWN [Resumed]

15 Examined by Mr. Harmon: [Continued]

16 Q. Mr. Brown, do you have binder 3 in front of you?

17 A. Yes, I do, Mr. Harmon.

18 Q. I'm going to be very conscientious about pausing between

19 questions and answers.

20 Mr. Brown, I'd like to refer you to four exhibits that relate to

21 the massacre that took place on Mount Vlasic. Those are exhibits that are

22 found -- and we'll first of all refer to the exhibit in tab 84.

23 This exhibit, Mr. Brown, is a -- an extraordinary report dated

24 the 21st, and the month is illegible, 1992. It's an extraordinary report

25 that is directed from the command of the 22nd Light Infantry Brigade up to

1 its superior command, the 1st Krajina Corps command. And the author of

2 this is Bosko Peulic, whose name we have seen earlier in other documents;

3 is that correct?

4 A. Yes, that's correct. He's the officer we mentioned yesterday as

5 commanding that brigade and also Operations Group Vlasic.

6 Q. And while there is no translation of a stamp that appears on the

7 English version, the B/C/S version does bear a stamp with a time reference

8 of 0800 hours on it. Can you tell the Judges very briefly what this report

9 is.

10 A. I think the report speaks for itself. It's a report of a

11 killing, and it makes mention -- or killings. And it makes mention of

12 around 16 -- 1630 hours on the 21st there was a refugee convoy travelling

13 through -- it was actually through Colonel Peulic's zone and that the

14 police and the CSB were escorting the convoy. The convoy stopped at the

15 Koricanske Stijene, which is a feature on Mount Vlasic or near Mount

16 Vlasic, and there was a killing occurred, and people were thrown into the

17 canyon. And the report mentions that an illegible number of police

18 participated in these -- they call it liquidation. And in fact he uses the

19 phrase "genocide against civilians." He indicates that that his --

20 individuals from his brigade have nothing to do with it and requests that

21 some following measures to be taken: a commission be established and the

22 CSB be informed, and any other necessary measures be taken.

23 Q. Mr. Brown, if we could turn now to tab 85, and we will be

24 referring to tab 83. What is the document that is found in tab 85? Can

25 you describe that to the Judges, please.

1 A. This document is written on the following day, and it's a combat

2 report from the 1st Krajina Corps sent to the Main Staff. And it makes

3 mention in page 2 on paragraph 4 in the situation on the ground -- it makes

4 mention of this incident that was reported previously, that a column of

5 refugees escorting -- being escorted to Travnik, and that a group of

6 policemen from Prijedor and Sanski Most pulled out 100 Muslims and killed

7 them in various ways and threw them into the ravine. So this would

8 indicate that the corps had taken that information from Colonel Peulic and

9 sent a report in their daily combat report up the chain to the VRS Main

10 Staff.

11 Q. If we look at the translation -- the English translation on the

12 second page, it appears to have been received by the Main Staff at the 22nd

13 of August at 1400 hours; is that correct?

14 A. Yes, it seems to have been sent in that way.

15 Q. And you earlier in your testimony made mention of the corps

16 reporting to the Main Staff sometimes on one occasion a day, sometimes on

17 multiple occasions on the same day; is that correct?

18 A. Yes. As I said, there are -- these regular combat reports were

19 very frequent.

20 Q. Could you turn to the exhibit in paragraph -- in tab 83, please.

21 This is a document that appears to have been sent the same day by the 1st

22 Krajina Corps to the Main Staff of the army. Can you explain what this

23 report is.

24 A. Well, this is another combat report, and I think this one is sent

25 a little bit later in the day, so this would indicate that they -- they

1 were sending two combat reports. And on page 2 in paragraph 3, again, the

2 situation on the ground, it makes reference to that -- that killing, "A

3 massacre against civilians - Muslim men - was committed on the 21st of

4 August between 1830 and 1900," and again it makes reference that there was

5 a group of policemen escorting a convoy of refugees from Travnik, and it

6 indicates the massacre took place at the Koricanske Stijene in the canyon.

7 And it notes, "About 100 people were killed in various ways and left in the

8 canyon." So it would re-echo the earlier combat report and also the

9 initial report that Colonel Peulic sent the previous day.

10 Q. Finally in respect of this massacre, could you turn to tab 97.

11 Mr. Brown, this appears to be a combat report, a report on the state of

12 combat morale, I should say, prepared by General Talic, and it is to the

13 VRS Main Staff. And in it, there is a reference to this killing that

14 occurred -- that has been reported a few days earlier by General Talic.

15 Could you turn to page -- page 4. I'd refer to the top two

16 paragraphs. Cast your eye on that and explain to the Judges, if you will,

17 how you interpret this.

18 A. Well, the -- the paragraph 4 -- the page 4 in the top paragraph

19 indicates that -- again, it talks about the massacre in Skender Vakuf. It

20 seems to say that there were more than 100 -- over 150, and that Stevo -- I

21 think they've misspelled it here. It's probably referring to Simo Drljaca,

22 who is chief of the Prijedor police. Then it's also -- also makes

23 reference in the second paragraph that this action has caused indignation

24 amongst citizens and the Krajina soldiers. But it interestingly notes that

25 "this dark stain which was created did not have support, but it is very

1 fortunate the international community didn't find out about it in more

2 detail." So although they seem to be critical of the incident, they seem

3 to be highlighting the fact that at least there were some -- they were

4 quite fortunate that the international community hadn't found out about the

5 incident.

6 Q. Mr. Brown, in -- I'm going to refer to your report --

7 MR. HARMON: Which, Your Honours, is found in Volume 1.

8 Q. Do you have that in front of you, Mr. Brown?

9 A. Yes, I do.

10 MR. HARMON: And I'm referring, Your Honours, to -- it's the

11 section -- it's on page 88 and 89, referring to paragraph 2.80, that starts

12 at the bottom of 280 in your report.

13 Q. And, Mr. Brown, in your report, you say in paragraph 2.80 that --

14 "From April of 1992 onwards, there were regular reports of the killing of

15 civilians." These were reported in the army reports. And you reference a

16 number of locations in the footnotes in your report, starting at 400, and

17 running over to -- through 412, describe a number of incidents where the

18 army personnel are involved in the killing of civilians. And what I would

19 inquire to you about, Mr. Brown, is: In your review of these documents,

20 can you inform the Judges what your assessment was in respect of the army's

21 attitude toward the killing of civilians?

22 A. I do highlight these are references from predominantly, I think,

23 daily combat reports that identify individual villages or locations where

24 civilians or prisoners, in fact - I think it's not just solely civilians -

25 and these are the ones that I -- I was able to review and -- and saw.

1 There are other more general comments about killings of civilians, not

2 necessarily specifying individual locations. And there are a few of those

3 I think I've highlighted, as well.

4 I mentioned yesterday the incident in Kotor Varos where they

5 themselves reference it as a massacre and then apparently appear to put it

6 down to combat casualties. And as I said yesterday, I didn't see any

7 examples outside the one in Kljuc municipality, Vicici, whereby there seem

8 to be any prosecutorial proceedings, and even in that case, it seemed to

9 dwindle and achieve very little, and I don't believe anybody was -- was --

10 was prosecuted.

11 I don't believe the military, from the reading of the

12 documentation, followed up on the incidents that they themselves had

13 highlighted in their own documentation. And I can -- from the last comment

14 about -- it was fortunate the international community didn't find out about

15 it, I would come to the conclusion that they -- they -- although they noted

16 the killings and in some cases were critical of the killings, were not

17 interested in following up and conducting any action that would result in

18 the prosecution of anybody as a result of those killings.

19 Q. Mr. Brown, let me direct your attention to two footnotes:

20 Footnote 408, which refers to a 1 KK regular combat report that reported

21 that "A group of five members of the Sanski Most 6th Light Infantry Brigade

22 had killed seven non-Serbs, among them three women," and it describes

23 essentially the -- the prosecution history, if you will, in that particular

24 case. And could you comment on that case that's reported in your footnote

25 408.

1 A. Actually this was one case, again, that did -- when I say it was

2 the only case, I was thinking of it last night, if there were -- if there

3 was other cases, and -- and this has just highlighted that there was one.

4 But I believe this is another case that nothing happened. I think these

5 people -- there was a case file opened, if -- I believe, and -- I'd have to

6 go through the files, but I don't think anyone was prosecuted for this at

7 all. I believe they may have been held for a very brief period of time and

8 nothing happened.

9 Q. Your -- the footnote says that "The people who were involved in

10 these killings expressed the desire to return to their unit and the

11 prosecutor in the zone of the 1st Krajina Corps agreed to the request and

12 ordered the end of their detention, as there was no reason to hold them."

13 And there was later an indictment, but the perpetrators were never tried.

14 A. Yes. And that was what happened also at Vicici. I think they

15 were held for a short space of time, and they expressed the desire to go

16 back to their units or wrote letters to General Talic saying they wanted to

17 go back to their units, and they were released, and nothing happened.

18 Q. Could I direct your attention to the incident that's described in

19 footnote 412. This is from a report of the 6th Krajina Brigade military

20 police dated the 7th of December, 1992, describing a mass murder that had

21 been committed on Croatian villagers in a village in Sanski Most. Could

22 you review that note and just comment on it to the Judges, please.

23 A. Yes. This is another example of what happened. These

24 individuals were held for a short space of time and released -- released

25 back to their units. I believe they even went back to -- under the command

1 of Colonel Peulic and -- in Vlasic, if I -- I'd have to re-look at the

2 file, but -- but, again, nothing happened to these -- these individuals.

3 MS. LOUKAS: Just in relation to that, Your Honour, we do have a

4 military expert before us. There are specific documents. It seems to me

5 that questions -- and this has emerged in some of the most recent answers,

6 "I believe, but I'd have to relook at the file" -- I would submit that

7 there should be a little more precision in this is regard, rather than

8 belief from the witness, Your Honours.

9 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that when the witness says "I believe,"

10 that he expresses that he has found no further information in the

11 documents. Is that a correct understanding, Mr. Brown?

12 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour. Just refreshing these

13 footnotes, I think -- and it has been some time since I was reviewing the

14 documents, not having worked here for -- for a year or so. I -- I remember

15 reviewing some of the prosecutorial logs and the case files, and I saw no -

16 - no examples that I remember now of individuals who after even a

17 preliminary investigation and even being held for a short space of time, no

18 individuals that ended up in -- in those three incidents being -- being

19 sent to prison or -- or in -- in custody for -- for any period of time or

20 brought to trial as a result of these three incidents.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Perhaps I took a wrong example. You said, "I

22 believe that they even returned back to" -- and then you said, "Under the

23 command of Colonel Peulic." And then you said, "In Vlasic." I don't know

24 from -- from what I remember, it was a Mount Vlasic that the incident

25 happened. I do not know whether was anyone ...

1 THE WITNESS: That was a different incident, Your Honour.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

3 THE WITNESS: I think the one -- the reference to the --

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But let me, apart from going into further

5 details -- may I take it if you say "I believe" that you are not sure about

6 that, that at least you are -- your knowledge at this moment doesn't allow

7 you to come to any more firm statement in that respect?

8 THE WITNESS: Well, I would argue that, from what I remember of

9 -- and refreshing myself with the footnotes and from what I remember

10 analysing at the time, I did not see in these three incidents anybody being

11 tried for these events, even though they were well known.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do see that. But you said, "I believe that

13 they returned," and then you mentioned a commander, and you mentioned a

14 place. May I take it that your actual knowledge is not sufficient to --

15 THE WITNESS: In that -- those very narrow issues of them

16 returning to the Vlasic feature under Peulic.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

18 THE WITNESS: I would be less -- less confident.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

20 THE WITNESS: So you're right, Your Honour.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

22 THE WITNESS: But in relation to the substantive issue of --

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you explained that, that you do not recollect

24 any further action taken against suspects in that.

25 THE WITNESS: No, I don't.

1 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, of course, we could have done it in --

2 well, not we, but you could have done it in cross-examination, but this at

3 least further specifies the level of knowledge of the accused in respect of

4 what he said after he said "I believe."

5 MS. LOUKAS: Of course, Your Honour. But, of course, I have

6 very limited time for cross-examination.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

8 MS. LOUKAS: And I think it's important that -- that the

9 procedure of the evidence in chief --

10 JUDGE ORIE: Rather the Judges ask. Yes, no. No. It's well

11 understood.

12 Judge Hanoteau has a question.

13 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Microphone not activated]

14 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

15 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Witness, upon the analysis of

16 this page of your report, we can see that you are referring to a certain

17 number of massacres, of killings. You talk about killings of prisoners,

18 killings committed by various people, groups. And I would like to ask you

19 the following question after hearing your answers: I wonder if the

20 military authorities, were they working for themselves in a closed circuit

21 in a way? We're under the impression that those reports are only drafted

22 for the army, without really wondering where these reports will end up. In

23 fact, I wonder now why were those reports drafted, if they were meant to

24 stay within the army, within the headquarters of the army. So my question

25 would be the following: Did you see any traces of any forwarding of these

1 reports to civilian authorities? Because you say in your answer, "I did

2 not see reports," testifying to the effect that there were -- that these

3 people were tried, that they went to prison. But it is not up to the army

4 itself to try those people; it is not up to the army to condemn people,

5 such as police officers, who had perpetrated crimes over civilians. It is

6 up to the army to send to the civilian authorities by way of their

7 Ministries of Defence or so on and so forth -- it was up to them to forward

8 those reports to the civilian authorities so that those -- the perpetrators

9 of those crimes would be tried.

10 So my question is the same as yesterday: Who were those reports

11 disseminated? Were they drafted to the attention of the headquarters or

12 only for the army, without them being sent to the competent authorities?

13 THE WITNESS: I believe that most, if not all, of the references

14 to the individual incidents there were regular combat reports that were

15 sent to the VRS Main Staff, in the same way that the reference to the

16 killings on Mount Vlasic and the killings in Kotor Varos that I mentioned

17 yesterday. So those references are reports that are going to the Main

18 Staff.

19 Now, in relation to the issue of the military not trying or

20 dealing with civilians or policemen, I am not a judicial expert and -- but

21 I would agree that -- that there are other competent bodies, police

22 investigative bodies that undoubtedly would have done that.

23 However, General Talic and the military did have a -- a military

24 prosecutorial body, and they did have a court system. And I know that the

25 Office of the Prosecutor did obtain military court records and military

1 court proceedings. And within his own competency, for example, the killing

2 in Kotor Varos of the 200 men, even on the basis of the report that went to

3 the Main Staff itself, it is highlighted that the perpetrators were

4 military. I think they highlight it as the Kotor Varos Light Infantry

5 Brigade. I was not aware of having reviewed the military court records at

6 all that any military figure was brought into, investigated, or went

7 through the military prosecutorial process. I know that the brigade

8 commander from the Kotor Varos Light Infantry Brigade remained as the

9 commander at least into 1993. So -- so that is one aspect.

10 Now, in relation to where did the reports that went from the

11 corps go to, they clearly would have gone and did go to the VRS Main Staff.

12 And as I indicated yesterday or the day before, we are -- were hampered

13 because we were not given access, even though we requested on many

14 occasions -- given access to the VRS Main Staff documents in order to

15 critically look at those. But it would seem to me from the combat analysis

16 readiness report, from the fact that they themselves reference good

17 communications, from the fact that there was a functioning communication

18 chain, that there were examples of briefings, that there were alternative

19 methods by which reports could go up. The police chain being one; civilian

20 chain presumably being another; and there are references in the

21 international media about these incidents. That there were these multiple

22 ways in which this type of information could -- could reach other actors.

23 And I -- I believe in relation to -- as a -- as an aside possibly, in

24 relation to the Vlasic Mountain massacre that there is a reference in David

25 Owen's book, "Balkan Odyssey," that he visited Banja Luka, in fact, around

1 this time in part because, of course, there had been rumours of a killing

2 in that area. And so maybe this is another example whereby, despite what

3 the Krajina Corps say that, thank goodness it hasn't come to the

4 international press, there were these mechanisms by which these types of

5 incidents would have become known.

6 So those are both the limitations in answering your question but

7 also maybe highlighting or reinforcing some of those other communication

8 methods that existed.

9 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Let's take footnote 412, page

10 89. Here we see that you refer -- page 90. It's the follow-up of footnote

11 412. You refer to the report from the military prosecutor's office related

12 to a crime committed, I believe, against civilians. So that was my

13 question: If you reported this, if you were able to find this for that

14 particular case, does that mean that you did not find any evidence of this

15 report transmitted to other military prosecutors for the other incidents

16 you mention? I don't know if I'm clear enough. Why in that specific case

17 have you found or do you refer to the report from the military prosecutor's

18 office, and why in the other incidents, in the other cases, don't you give

19 these reports? Is it because they don't exist, or is it because you did

20 not have access to the relevant documents?

21 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, when I reviewed the military

22 prosecutor -- prosecutor's documents, I did not -- I did not see in

23 reviewing those documents evidence on the other cases whereby people were

24 brought through the military prosecutorial process.

25 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] So you had access to the

1 archives of the military prosecutors, didn't you?

2 THE WITNESS: Yes, I had -- I had access to the records of the

3 military prosecutor's office in the 1st Krajina Corps, and there were some

4 follow-up work that members of the Office of the Prosecutor did in relation

5 to the Main Staff or the army-wide prosecutor's office. And I certainly

6 looked at the records of the 1st Krajina Corps military prosecutor's

7 office. And, in fact, the reason -- if I take it back slightly. The

8 reason we went to look for those documents was very much because out of the

9 1st Krajina Corps archive we had one report which seemed to indicate that

10 there had been some investigative effort in the Velagici school massacre in

11 Kljuc, and it seemed to me that the VRS 1st Krajina Corps had initiated an

12 investigation against a killing of civilians in the school in their

13 documents. And I felt that this needed to be explored further: if they had

14 one reference, were there more? So we made a request to go and obtain a

15 review -- and review the records from the military court. And in that

16 particular case, the individuals were initially -- or one individual, I

17 think, was initially charged with war crimes. That's why it raised my

18 attention. And I felt if there was one, there might have been an awful lot

19 more. So that's why we went to look for the archive or military records

20 from the military prosecutor's office in Banja Luka.

21 When we obtained those documents, that was the only case in

22 reviewing those documents that I remember that was -- that the war crimes

23 were -- war crimes were charged, or at least initiated. And when you

24 followed the trail of that case, it just petered out in 1993, I believe,

25 and then nothing ever happened -- I think the case might have been

1 reactivated at the very end of the war or after the war had finished. That

2 was the only case.

3 And in these other examples, I couldn't find any whereby the

4 incidents that were related in the 1st Krajina Corps were -- were being

5 investigated at all, except for possibly the other two that -- that are

6 here; the one in Skrljevita [phoen] and the other one in -- that Mr. Harmon

7 mentioned earlier on, I think Carakovo. The rest -- and actually what I

8 tended to find in the -- in the military court records -- and I'm, by the

9 way, not an expert on the military court process, necessarily, or the whole

10 records -- was that there were a number of examples whereby non-Serbs were

11 being pushed through the military court process and charged and prosecuted,

12 and there were incidents where Serbs were being pushed through for attacks

13 on other Serbs. But there was nothing that would link any of these other

14 incidents in the court records at all.

15 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.

16 Maybe one last question. You might not even be able to answer

17 it. These military courts, what was the situation within the judicial

18 system? Did they depend only on the military system? Were they only

19 placed under the military authorities or also under the civilian

20 authorities?

21 THE WITNESS: I would prefer someone who has more of an

22 experience in judicial matters to -- to explain that. I don't think it's

23 really within my competency to answer. I'm sorry, Your Honour.

24 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, sir.

25 MR. HARMON:

1 Q. Mr. Brown, how do you reconcile the lack of prosecutions and the

2 lack of punishment that you see revealed in these -- for these crimes that

3 you see revealed in the military reports with the frequent or relatively

4 frequent admonition contained in some of these documents to abide by the

5 Geneva Conventions?

6 A. It -- it strikes me as the references to abiding by the Geneva

7 Conventions were not -- were certainly not obeyed and that they seemed

8 somewhat hollow in relation to their genuine nature of abiding by those

9 regulations. And it -- I don't necessarily see that exclusively in

10 relation to killings. There are references to people in detention camps

11 who don't deserve to be there. There are -- there clearly are references

12 to people being moved out and expelled. And it strikes me that there is

13 this very stark -- stark view, on the one hand, where some of the documents

14 do make references to abiding by the Geneva Conventions but, on the other

15 hand, that this activity was going on. And it went on for a period of

16 time. And I can only come to the conclusion that these -- not only were

17 they not -- were they not abided by but they were hollow statements in

18 their own documentation.

19 Q. Mr. Brown, in the limited time that is remaining, I want to cover

20 two more topics with you. And I first of all would like to cover the topic

21 of the resettlement and the expulsion of people in the area of the 1 KK.

22 Did -- when you assessed the documentation that you had at your disposal,

23 could you assess the attitude of the army toward expulsions and

24 resettlements, and could you also assess their participation in those

25 events?

1 MR. HARMON: Your Honours, for your benefit, Mr. Brown covers

2 this in part in his report starting at page 110 through page 122.

3 Q. We're going to look at a series of documents in a few minutes,

4 Mr. Brown, so there's no reason necessarily to reference documents at this

5 point in time. I'd just like your general view about what the

6 documentation showed insofar as it revealed the part -- the army's

7 participation in an attitude towards expulsions and resettlement.

8 A. I think the army, from the documentation, were first and foremost

9 very aware of it, that it was occurring. And I think there are references

10 that would indicate that they were engaged in assisting that process and

11 that they operated with the police and in coordination with civilian bodies

12 in order to assist in that process. And off the top of my head, I remember

13 at least one document where they actively supported it and encouraged that

14 there should be -- civilian authorities should work harder at it.

15 Q. Mr. Brown, can you define in your own terms what "resettlement"

16 means in the context of the army documents that you read.

17 MS. LOUKAS: Well, Your Honour, before we go on to the next

18 question, we have this indication of "off the top of my head, I remember at

19 least one document." Perhaps it might be appropriate to ask and --

20 MR. HARMON: Your Honour, I'm going to cover that document in

21 just a few minutes. So rather than have a protracted debate on that, I'm

22 prepared to show Mr. Brown that document in just a few minutes, and I am

23 quite conscious of the clock.

24 MS. LOUKAS: Well, I'm happy with that.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Then please proceed.

1 MR. HARMON:

2 Q. Mr. Brown, my question was, In the context of the documentation

3 you've reviewed there's frequent references, to resettlement. Can you give

4 us the context of what that meant.

5 A. I think "resettlement" meant either the forcible removal of

6 individuals from -- from areas that they wanted to control or an awareness

7 that individuals, through fear or other reasons, were leaving and would not

8 be coming back.

9 Q. Mr. Brown, I'm going to refer you to a series of documents now,

10 and I'm going to invite your comments on each. The first is found in tab

11 88. This is a -- I'll give everybody time to secure their binders. Tab

12 88, you'll see, Mr. Brown, is a document that is dated the 1st of June.

13 This is approximately three weeks after the strategic objectives were

14 announced, and this is a document that is from the 1st Krajina Corps, and

15 it is signed by Colonel Vukelic. It's a report on the current political

16 and security situation.

17 And I refer you to the third paragraph in that document. Could

18 you -- and this is a document -- I'll read the paragraph very quickly. It

19 refers to "Groups being disarmed every day, particularly in the city." And

20 then it says, and I quote, "A portion of the Muslim and Croatian population

21 is moving out, and the region of Bosnian Krajina has issued a decision to

22 facilitate such departures, providing the Serbs from Central Bosnia in

23 places with predominantly Muslim and Croatian populations were also allowed

24 to move out. Those departing will not be allowed to return."

25 Can you just briefly comment on that. We have a number of

1 documents to go through.

2 A. Well, it clearly shows - excuse me - it clearly shows an

3 awareness that people are leaving. It clearly shows an awareness that they

4 are aware that the region of Krajina has issued decisions. So there's a

5 issue of cooperation at least there or knowledge of what they're doing.

6 And they are obviously aware of the issue of Muslims and Croats moving and

7 Serbs moving into, presumably, RS territory, and the reference that those

8 departing will not be allowed to return would indicate some permanency in

9 the fact that these people will not be coming back.

10 Q. Mr. Brown, let me direct your attention to tab 87.

11 A. Is it possible for me just to comment on another section of this

12 document?

13 Q. Yes.

14 A. If we'd go to page 2 on the top. This document was written only

15 a few days after the attacks in Prijedor, and they're highlighting what's

16 going on more generally in the whole corps, but they highlight the issue of

17 Prijedor. And at the top paragraph, they make reference of -- actually

18 it's at the very bottom of page 1: "The heaviest fighting has taken place

19 in the area of Hambarine, Prijedor, and Kozarac. Troops under the command

20 of the Prijedor area cleared Hambarine and Kozarac completely and

21 completely destroyed one ZNG unit, black shirts, foreign mercenaries, and

22 legionaires. The troops have arrested more than 2.000 Green Berets who are

23 now in Omarska. 135 of them are in Stara Gradiska prison -" Stara Gradiska

24 prison was a prison that the JNA had used; it's in Croatia, just over the

25 border, and the 1 Krajina corps ran that prison - "and about 5.000 in the

1 village of Trnopolje. Among the arrested is a large number of officers and

2 organisers of paramilitary formations."

3 They then go on to talk about "All SRBH troops in the areas have

4 demonstrated a high degree of combat readiness, with the troops from the

5 seasoned 343rd Brigade excelling. The troops and officers received a

6 written commendation from the corps commanders for their determined skill

7 and courage they have demonstrated. They are an example of how one should

8 act while defending the SRBH," and then they mention that some members of

9 the army had been killed during that fighting and some wounded.

10 And this, again, indicates to me that the corps was very aware

11 that people were -- well, the areas were being attacked. They're

12 commending the very unit that took part in it, and --

13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Brown, I don't know whether you can have a look

14 at your screen. It says, "Kindly slow down for the purposes of the

15 record."

16 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry.

17 JUDGE ORIE: It's not only translation but also the transcript.

18 THE WITNESS: I do apologise, Your Honour.

19 And they note that -- well, some 7.000 here, anyway. They call

20 them "Green Berets" -- "are in Omarska and Trnopolje."

21 MS. LOUKAS: Sorry, Your Honour, perhaps it's a misreading of

22 the document. I think the document says 2.000, rather than 7.000.

23 THE WITNESS: I think I meant 7.000 in total because it's --

24 MS. LOUKAS: Oh, 7.000 in total.

25 THE WITNESS: Yeah.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 MR. HARMON:

2 Q. Mr. Brown, let's turn to the next document because I will soon

3 run out of time and I need to address about 15 documents.

4 A. Okay.

5 Q. If we'd turn to the next document. This is a document written

6 the day after this document that was just referred to. This is found in

7 tab 87, a document from the 1st Krajina Corps dated the 2nd of June from

8 General Talic himself, and it's a regular combat report.

9 And at the end of paragraph 2, he says, and I quote, "In the

10 area of Derventa, there continues to be occasional artillery fire while the

11 Muslim extremists have failed to hand in their weapons. The Muslim

12 population of the area of Lisnja village has been expelled."

13 Can you comment on that document?

14 A. I think it's self-evident that he's referring to Lisnja village,

15 which was a Muslim village in Prnjavor municipality.

16 Q. If we could turn to the document that's found at tab 72. Now,

17 this -- this document is only a couple days after the document that General

18 Talic sent up to the Main Staff, and this is a document dated the 4th of

19 June from the Sanski Most Crisis Staff, and it's their conclusions. And

20 I'd like to direct your attention to the first paragraph, which is the

21 first conclusion, and it says that "Mirko Vrucinic, Nedeljko Rasula, and

22 Colonel Nedjo Anicic shall be in charge of resolving the issue of prisoners

23 and their categorisation and deportation to Manjaca." And the categories

24 that are listed are, first category, politicians; second category,

25 nationalist extremist; third category, people unwelcome in Sanski Most

1 municipality. And then it ends with "In view of this, have a talk with

2 Colonel Stevilovic from the 1st Krajina Corps."

3 Now, Mr. Brown, this is a document that talks about deportation.

4 My first question is, Manjaca, that is referred to, what -- what is

5 "Manjaca," for the record?

6 A. Manjaca was a military-run detention camp in Banja Luka

7 municipality.

8 Q. And this is talking about the deportation of people who from the

9 categories are civilians in part; isn't that correct?

10 A. Yes, it would seem so. Yes.

11 Q. Can you comment further on this document and its relationship to

12 the army?

13 A. I'm aware from other documentation that people were transferred

14 from Sanski Most to -- to Manjaca camp. And for the record, Colonel

15 Stevilovic is the chief of security of the corps, a subordinate to General

16 Talic.

17 Q. And were those people who were transferred from Sanski Most to

18 Manjaca transported with the assistance of the military?

19 A. I believe they were transported with the assistance of the

20 police; I think the police escorted them to the camp. And for the record,

21 some individuals died during that transfer. That's referenced in

22 documentation, by the way.

23 Q. If we could turn, Mr. Brown, to tab 90. This document was issued

24 by General Talic about a month after the strategic objectives were

25 announced. It is dated the 14th of June. It is to the Main Staff, "A

1 state of combat and morale of the units of the 1st Krajina Corps."

2 Before directing your attention to the part dealing with

3 expulsions, let me direct your attention to a -- paragraph 1. Five lines

4 from the -- from the bottom of -- above the bottom of that paragraph,

5 General Talic in this -- reports, and I quote, "The entire zone of

6 responsibility is fully under control." He's talking -- the entire zone of

7 responsibility being his area of responsibility, is he not?

8 A. Yes, he is.

9 Q. Okay. So if we could now turn to page 3, the paragraph directly

10 above the number 3 that is in bold, and I will read it. "The most

11 difficult situation concerns the Muslim and Croat refugees in the area of

12 AR Krajina, their security, and the provision of food. The attempt to

13 expel them to Central Bosnia failed because of transportation difficulties

14 and their resistance to leaving their places of residence."

15 Again, I invite your comments on this, Mr. Brown.

16 A. Well, it would seem to indicate a knowledge that people are being

17 expelled that and that -- that he's more worried about logistic

18 difficulties involved in that process than -- than -- than necessary -- and

19 also the problems that -- because some of them were having to stay, that

20 it's giving rise to vindictiveness and revenge, and the enemy are closing

21 their ranks as a result of that. So he -- he seems to be not -- aware of

22 the expulsions, and the only reasons that they seem not to be being

23 expelled is because of logistic problems.

24 Q. Let's turn to the item in -- in tab 94. Mr. Brown, this is a 1st

25 Krajina Corps report dated the 28th of July, and it is directed to the army

1 Main Staff. And I'd like to refer you to two parts of this document. The

2 first is in paragraph 3, which I will quote: "In the city of Banja Luka

3 and other large towns, there is an increased demand for the organisation of

4 the departure of Croatian and Muslim population. We considered that the

5 municipal and regional authorities should work much harder at this."

6 When he refers to "we," I -- do you conclude he's referring to

7 the 1 Krajina Corps?

8 A. Yes, it would seem so.

9 Q. Again, can I have your comments on this.

10 A. Well, at face value, what he seems to be saying is that he's

11 aware of this increased demand for the -- for the organisation and

12 departure of non-Serbs, and he agrees that the regional authority should

13 work harder at facilitating that. He isn't exactly saying that that should

14 not occur. He's not going, on the face of this, disagreeing with the --

15 what's happening, and he seems to be trying to encourage that these

16 departures should -- should continue.

17 Q. Now, during this period of time, General Talic, who was the head

18 of the Krajina Corps, was a part of the staff of the -- of the ARK, wasn't

19 he? We saw that in an earlier document, didn't we?

20 A. Yes. I'm not quite sure if the ARK Crisis Staff was still

21 functioning at this date when this document was written, and I would have

22 to defer to somebody who would know more than that. But he certainly was a

23 significant commander, one of -- at this case, five corps commanders. He

24 headed the biggest single corps in the VRS, and he clearly was an important

25 military figure.

1 Q. Let's turn -- I want to just touch on this very, very, very

2 briefly, Mr. Brown. If you'd turn to page 2 of this document. There's a

3 reference to somebody you've discussed earlier. It is on page 2, under

4 paragraph 5, the second paragraph. It identifies and it says, "Among

5 those, there are officers such as Lieutenant Veljko Milankovic, an

6 excellent combat soldier but inclined to shady dealings." Do you see that

7 reference?

8 A. Yes, I do.

9 Q. Do you -- in respect of being an excellent combat soldier, you

10 indicated that -- Veljko Milankovic continued to remain in the VRS despite

11 his -- his shady dealings in this reference, despite his criminal record

12 that you referenced earlier. What's the relationship, do you think,

13 between being a good soldier and -- and being someone of his quality able

14 to remain in the VRS?

15 A. Well, in his case, I can only assume that it was more important

16 for him to -- to be an excellent combat soldier and to assist the corps and

17 that -- you know that -- that his shady dealings were of less importance

18 than his ability to -- to command forces and fight within the corps. And

19 as I said, beforehand he remained in the corps, was ordered to Knin, was

20 wounded and -- I believe -- in fact, I know from a document was also

21 recommended for a commendation by General Talic, so ...

22 Q. Did you see, Mr. Brown, in the reports that you analysed the

23 corps reporting on the -- on the departures of people from the various

24 municipalities? And I can refer you to tab number 93.

25 A. Yes. There were -- there were documents which made specific

1 reference to numbers, and there were other documents, not necessarily

2 exclusively military documents, which talked about numbers, as well. I'm

3 not sure if this is one -- tab 93 is one that talks about --

4 Q. Tab 93, take a look at the first paragraph, Mr. Brown.

5 A. Yes, this is one example. "Croats from Kotor Varos" -- it

6 announces which -- the three villages -- "are announcing mass departures",

7 and basically from the period of the 15th of to the 25th of July 1.000

8 people have moved out of the municipality.

9 Q. Mr. Brown, let -- let me show you a document that you -- it was

10 not in the possession of the Office of the Prosecutor at the time you

11 prepared your report. It's found in tab 86, and I would like to invite

12 your comments on it. This is a report that was from the Serbian Republic

13 of Bosnia and Herzegovina Ministry of the Interior in Sarajevo, and it was

14 written to -- it was addressed to the president of the Presidency and to

15 the Prime Minister. So it's addressed to the political leadership. It's a

16 report on the work of the Ministry of the Interior, and it's dated the 17th

17 of July, and it essentially reports results of a meeting that was held in

18 Belgrade on the 11th of July as part of an ongoing analysis of the

19 situation in Bosnia.

20 And if you'd turn to page 3 of the document, at the top it

21 reads, "The army, Crisis Staffs, and War Presidencies have requested that

22 the army round up or capture as many civilians as possible and they leave

23 such undefined camps to Internal Affairs organs. The conditions in some of

24 these camps are poor. There is no food. Individuals sometimes do not

25 observe international norms, et cetera."

1 Can I invite your comments as to this, particularly in relation

2 to the military documentation that you saw in respect of the army's conduct

3 toward resettlement and expulsions.

4 A. Well, in some of the documentation I have seen that, is very much

5 a picture of what happened, that the army conducted operations, people were

6 rounded up, taken to detention camps in some cases, processed through

7 detention camps, occasionally moved to other detention camps, and there are

8 also additional references that people are being expelled or are leaving or

9 are -- in an organised fashion or being -- are being -- are leaving the

10 territory. So it would seem that this is a reflection of some of the

11 documentation -- of the other documentation I've seen.

12 Q. And that is -- that documentation you saw, you've earlier --

13 we've already looked at, indicates the rounding-up of thousands of

14 civilians, does it not? I'm referring to the -- the report that we saw

15 that was a result of the commission report with -- from the three

16 municipalities. It identified numbers of civilians that had been rounded

17 up and --

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. -- processed through camps, et cetera.

20 A. Yes. And also that other example I've just highlighted, where

21 7.000 -- they called them Green Berets - they were moved into Omarska,

22 Trnopolje.

23 Q. I'm -- we're going to be moving to the topic of camps in just a

24 minute, but I'd like to turn your attention to two documents, please, Mr.

25 Brown. They are at tabs 91 and 92, and if we could start at tab 91. And

1 these documents deal with Kotor Varos, the municipality of Kotor Varos.

2 MR. HARMON: And for Your Honours' reference, we have looked at

3 a document in relation to Kotor Varos. It was at tab 68. Those are the

4 Crisis Staff minutes of Kotor Varos from the 7th of July in which Colonel

5 Peulic was to participate in the work of the War Presidency. So these two

6 documents also relate to that municipality. One of these documents, tab

7 91, predates the document in tab 68, but the other one postdates it.

8 Q. You see in this document, in tab 91, Mr. Brown, these are the

9 extracts from minutes of the 47th Session of the Crisis Staff held on the

10 29th of June. And there are two references, the first in item 2, the first

11 subpoint: "All those willing to move out of Kotor Varos are to make a

12 statement at the lower court, leaving their immovable property to the

13 social and political community."

14 And then we get to the bottom of the second bullet point -- the

15 second-from-the-bottom subpart: "Ljuboje Gavric is to make" -- "to take

16 part in the Crisis KS and take responsibility for organising population

17 resettlement."

18 Now, Mr. Brown, what had happened by the 29th of June in Kotor

19 Varos?

20 A. If I take you back to that document that General Talic sent out

21 on the 10th -- 9th/10th of June, which was based on a directive in which he

22 in part started off operations in the Corridor and then also to the

23 remaining units, told them to secure their territory. In Kotor Varos,

24 military operation were conducted from around the 11th of June, and they

25 seized control of Kotor Varos. There was some areas where they didn't get

1 complete control, and I mentioned Vicici being one of them. But this comes

2 19 days after that. And there's the reference -- I've seen other

3 documentation about registering or deregistering the movable and immovable

4 property; I think I referenced that in my report, as well. And clearly Mr.

5 Gavric has been given a responsibility for organising population

6 resettlement.

7 And then if we move a little bit further ahead, there was the

8 document which we've just seen, that 1.000 people had moved out between

9 15th of July and 25th of July, I think it was.

10 Q. Mr. Brown, let me take you to the next document, which is in tab

11 92. You will see once again Mr. Gavric mentioned. This is from the 25th

12 of July. These are conclusions of the War Presidency. And I refer you to

13 subpart 2, which I will read: "Ljuboje Gavric is to draw up and submit to

14 the Presidency" --

15 MR. HARMON: I will say, Your Honour, this appears to refer to

16 the War Presidency of the Municipality of Kotor Varos. Q. I'll

17 continue: "A detailed report on the resettlement of the population

18 containing the following: A number of convoys which have been moved out to

19 date; number of persons moved out; composition of the people moved out; who

20 carried out the transportation and under what conditions, and a financial

21 report including proper documentation on expenses and other important

22 details." Mr. Brown, again, could I have your comments on these two

23 documents quickly because we're going to move in the remaining 15 minutes

24 to the issue of camps.

25 A. I think it's self-evident and reflects the other documents that

1 we've just seen, that there was this resettlement and that the Crisis Staff

2 are asking Mr. Gavric to provide them with some significant details about

3 this process.

4 Q. Now I'd like to turn to the issue of camps, Mr. Brown. This is

5 found in your report starting at page 97 through 110. And I'd like to

6 start with reading part of your report or referring to part of your report,

7 which is paragraph 2.106. And in 2.106 you assert the following: "It is

8 apparent that there was significant cooperation and coordination between

9 the military, police, and civilian bodies in relation to the establishment

10 of camps and the movement of detainees to and from camps and detention

11 centres. It is also evident that the military were heavily involved in

12 many aspects of the camps in Bosanska Krajina, even though they did not

13 specifically run them."

14 Now, Mr. Brown, I'd like you to identify the various forms of

15 cooperation between the military and the police in respect of running these

16 camps, preparing detention camps where non-civilians were detained. Can

17 you identify the various forms of co-operation between those two bodies.

18 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, I might indicate that I think it's

19 also appropriate that Mr. Brown identify the documents he's referring to.

20 MR. HARMON: Again, Your Honour -- again, Your Honour, I am

21 going to be referring to some of those documents in addition to which Mr.

22 Brown has prepared his report, and the documents are identified extensively

23 in these reports. So this is a general question, a survey question. In

24 the 15 minutes I have remaining to comply with that request would consume

25 whatever time I have left. If -- if it will be of assistance to counsel, I

1 can refer to the specific portions when Mr. Brown identifies the various

2 forms of cooperation; I can refer counsel to the specific parts of the

3 report that he prepared. That will --

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it's not --

5 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, I have no question about the report.

6 That's not what my --

7 JUDGE ORIE: No, but you wanted Mr. Harmon not to take the

8 expert to the various documents. Is that what I -- and ask him to identify

9 these documents himself?

10 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, Your Honour. I mean, there's been rather a

11 lot of, you know, Mr. Harmon directing the witness, and it's -- it's most

12 unfortunate.

13 JUDGE ORIE: What, as a matter of fact -- Ms. Loukas, that would

14 not be a very practical way to proceed. It's clear from the report of the

15 witness that he has documents he relies upon, and the Chamber does not mind

16 if Mr. Harmon would take him to documents and ask him whether these are the

17 documents which would support his findings in the report.

18 Mr. Harmon, you may proceed.

19 MS. LOUKAS: Whilst that is the case, Your Honour, there is, of

20 course, the situation that on the day this witness began giving his

21 evidence a exhibit list was produced of documents that were not referenced

22 in his report at all, and I just think it's important to ensure that the

23 lines here are kept clear in relation to what exactly is being referred to.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Harmon.

25 MR. HARMON:

1 Q. Mr. Brown, what I'd like you to do first of all is just to

2 identify the various ways in which the police and the military cooperated

3 in terms of the detention of non-Serb civilians in the 1st -- in the area

4 of the 1st Krajina Corps.

5 A. Some of the areas that are highlighted in the report are

6 obviously there in those pages that you -- you mention: Transportation to

7 and from camps; securing external perimeters, I know in Omarska, was a

8 military issue, internally was -- from documentation was police, mixed

9 security, police investigative teams; transportation to camps, between

10 camps; the document we've seen about Sanski Most; categorisation,

11 coordination there. So those are some of the areas. Providing -- when

12 people were being transported from camps, making sure that there was -- the

13 military had been informed that convoys were travelling through -- through

14 zones; those are some areas.

15 Q. Now, in these -- and you've cited to countless paragraphs, the

16 documents supporting those various forms of cooperation in this report,

17 have you not, Mr. Brown?

18 A. Yes, I've -- I've cited some documentation in the pages you --

19 you highlighted.

20 MR. HARMON: Now, Your Honour, I don't intend to ask Mr. Brown

21 to go through extensively, in the remaining ten minutes I have, each of

22 those documents. I can refer Your Honours and counsel to the paragraphs

23 specifically that Mr. Brown, when he has identified the various forms,

24 where he has identified those forms and the documents that are found --

25 JUDGE ORIE: Do you want to produce them as contextual documents

1 in this respect?

2 MR. HARMON: Well, I -- yes, I will do that. But I just -- I

3 refer Your Honours to his report. I mean, he -- he reports -- and he's

4 reported -- we've had some of these documents already. The -- the army was

5 involved in the capture of these prisoners. We've -- we've introduced some

6 of those documents already, and Mr. Brown refers to that in paragraph 2.107

7 of his report. We have introduced documents showing security coordination.

8 He's identified those documents in paragraph 2.109 of his report. He has -

9 - we have already identified documents in terms to the processing of

10 prisoners with the police and with the army; those documents are referenced

11 in paragraph 2.110. Cooperation in terms of transferring prisoners,

12 referenced in 2.111 of his report. We've already introduced some of those

13 documents here. Security at camps; again, we've referenced -- we've

14 identified -- introduced some of those documents, and Mr. Brown references

15 it in 2.116 of his report. And the removal of prisoners from the camps

16 we're going to get to in just a minute; I will introduce some documents.

17 But that's referenced in paragraph 2.131 of his report.

18 But it -- I will continue, Your Honour, because I --

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

20 MR. HARMON: -- intend to introduce some additional documents to

21 support what Mr. Brown has said.

22 JUDGE ORIE: You're allowed to do so. Please proceed.

23 MR. HARMON:

24 Q. Now, Mr. Brown, did the documentation that you reviewed indicate

25 that the military was aware that they had civilians, non-combatants, in

1 their custody?

2 A. Yes, there are references to that effect.

3 Q. I would like to show you actually a document in tab 97, if I can.

4 This is late -- this is a document, Mr. Brown, that is from General Talic

5 and it's dated the 3rd of September, 1992. It's to the Main Staff of the

6 army, once again, and it -- the topic is the state of combat morale in the

7 1st Krajina Corps in 1992.

8 If we turn to page 3, under "The effect of the political and

9 security situation on the territory on combat morale," this is a document

10 we referenced earlier. It says in the final paragraph, "Certain tensions

11 are still present in the Kotor Varos, Kljuc, Sanski Most, and Prijedor

12 areas because of a large number of arrested citizens for whom there is no

13 evidence or criminal reports that they participated in the armed

14 rebellion."

15 Mr. Brown, can you comment on that paragraph, please.

16 A. I would -- it would seem to indicate that General Talic at least

17 by this date is acutely aware that there are a large number of citizens in

18 those areas from which there's no evidence or criminal reports that they

19 had -- they were doing anything in relation to armed rebellion.

20 I would also just for the record like to add that the next

21 sentence reads, "The CSB, especially from Prijedor, is not contributing to

22 this approach."

23 So whether he feels that the CSB are not -- not engaging

24 themselves in this issue, is -- is an area of interest, too, but it's clear

25 that General Talic is aware here that there's a large number of people from

1 the areas that his forces had been conducting operations only weeks before,

2 had been arrested, and that there's a significant number of them -- there's

3 no evidence that they participated in the armed rebellion.

4 Q. Mr. Brown, again, referring to your report, page 109, at

5 paragraph 2.133. Let me read part of this report to you, and then I'm

6 going to ask you to comment on it. "The involvement of the 1st Krajina

7 Corps in the eventual removal of those who found themselves in the

8 detention centres is important to understanding one of the purposes of

9 these facilities. The fact that the military were involved in moving out

10 people -- people out of the SRBiH territory, some of whom they knew had

11 committed no crimes, is an indication that these centres were not simply

12 locations in which people were processed in order to find out if they had

13 any criminal culpability or, as was stated -- was the stated purpose of the

14 Trnopolje camp, for example, to protect those who were in a combat zone."

15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Harmon, please slow down.

16 MR. HARMON:

17 Q. "The overlapping involvement of the military, police, and

18 civilian authorities in relation to the establishment and running of many

19 of these facilities and the fact that a significant number of detainees

20 were transferred between multiple camps highlights a degree of planning and

21 cooperation."

22 Then you discuss that many of those who entered the camps were

23 not released home but were taken to third countries.

24 And you conclude that paragraph on page 110 by saying, "These

25 camps were, in essence, a component in the policy of separation in which

1 the military participated."

2 Can you develop that thesis for the Judges, please, Mr. Brown.

3 A. Well, I -- I stand by the statement that I think these camps were

4 a component in the policy of separation. There was cooperation,

5 coordination, it seems to me, between those who ran the camps and

6 established the camps. Many of those people who ended up in the camps were

7 not processed, checked to see if they had an involvement in any armed

8 rebellion, and then released back to their homes. There was understanding

9 that many were not -- were civilians, that there was no evidence to that

10 effect, and yet they were also escorted out. I know in Manjaca, when it

11 closed in December 1992, despite an instruction in August 1992 indicating

12 that a large number of those in Manjaca, there was no evidence and they

13 were civilians, they were simply moved out in December 1992 in buses to the

14 Croatian border according to documents of the 1st Krajina Corps and

15 undoubtedly would have become refugees in Croatia. And I -- I believe that

16 I can only come to that conclusion that the camps were a component of a --

17 of a policy of separation.

18 I would just like to add, as well, in this regard: At times it's

19 not what's in the report or the documents, to me, that's important, but

20 it's what's not in the documents. And often what is lacking is any -- any

21 conciliatory words or any -- any words that indicate that these people

22 should go back to their homes or should be taken out of detention camps, if

23 they didn't deserve to be there, immediately and returned to their homes,

24 given support, given -- and often it's not what's in the report that seems

25 to be the most glaring. And from the reports that I've seen of the Krajina

1 Corps, those were lacking completely. And -- and what I did see, in fact,

2 was quite the opposite; that -- that individuals when Manjaca closed,

3 everyone was taken away, moved on buses, transported by the military, sent

4 to the border, and became refugees.

5 Q. Could we look at two documents in respect of the army's

6 participation in transportation to the borders of different countries. If

7 you'd take a look at tab 98. Mr. Brown, this is a document dated the 18th

8 of July from the Prijedor Public Security Station. It's addressed to the

9 Banja Luka Security Services Centre. Can you please inform the Judges the

10 salient features of this particular document and how it supports your

11 thesis.

12 A. Yes. This would seem to be an example whereby the Prijedor

13 police are informing -- or there has been an arrangement, anyway, at least

14 with Colonel Arsic, who's the garrison commander of Prijedor and the

15 commander that actually had been engaged in the attacks in Hambarine and

16 Kozarac in May, and Colonel Peulic, who covered the Vlasic-Travnik border

17 area. And it's -- there's been an arrangement that five buses with women

18 and children from Prijedor, from the reception centre in Trnopolje, are

19 going to depart and travel through that area and that there's going to be a

20 police patrol. So it would seem to me to indicate that there had been a

21 coordination that -- and a knowledge that people were travelling through

22 military zones.

23 Q. And the reference to -- the destination of the convoy is Skender

24 Vakuf. Where is Skender Vakuf, Mr. Brown?

25 A. Skender Vakuf is -- is -- is near the Vlasic feature, which was a

1 -- which was the border between Central Bosnia and the RS territory. It's

2 actually near the area where the Koricanske Stijene massacre happened, as

3 well. Although, I think that's actually in a different municipality, but

4 it's in the same area.

5 Q. This is a group of people who are going from the Prijedor region

6 to be essentially transferred out of the Republika Srpska territory.

7 A. Yes, it's women, children from -- from Trnopolje camp.

8 Q. If you'd take a -- if we could take a look at tab 99, which is a

9 document approximately five months later. It's in December 1992, a regular

10 combat report from the 1st Krajina Corps, and if we could reference

11 paragraph 3 of that document, Mr. Brown. Can you comment on that, please.

12 A. Yes. This is a document, as I said, about Manjaca when it

13 closed. "1.001 prisoners were released today, and they were escorted out

14 of RS territory. 413 still remained, and they were due to be released a

15 couple of days later."

16 Q. Could you take a look at the final document in the binder; it's

17 tab 100. Mr. Brown, this is a -- a report that was prepared in May of 1993

18 from the Ministry of the Interior Security Services Centre in Banja Luka.

19 And have you had a chance to review this document in the municipalities

20 that are located within the area of responsibility of the 1st Krajina

21 Corps?

22 A. Yes, very briefly.

23 Q. Can I have your observations and comments on this document, Mr.

24 Brown. I note, Mr. Brown, for example, in page 2, the municipality of

25 Kljuc is noted; Prijedor, Sanski Most on the next page; on page 4, Mrkonjic

1 Grad, Srbac, Jajce, Sipovo; page 5, Laktasi, Prnjavor, Krupa Na Uni, Novi

2 Grad, as well -- I'm sorry, I missed that on page 2.

3 A. Well, the -- this would seem to indicate that a large number -- a

4 significantly large number of non-Serbs had moved out of those

5 municipalities and ...

6 Q. When you said known Serbs had moved out of the municipalities ...

7 A. Muslims and Croats.

8 Q. I didn't understand your answer, Mr. Brown.

9 A. It would seem at face value to list the number of non-Serbs that

10 had moved out of those municipalities, and there seems to be a

11 significantly large number of them. And -- and this would seem to be a

12 document that would highlight what separation meant.

13 MR. HARMON: I have no additional questions, Your Honour.

14 Thank you, Mr. Brown.

15 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Mr. Harmon.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

17 Thank you, Mr. Harmon. As far as document 98 is concerned, you

18 just have drawn our attention to -- we see that there are two originals,

19 one translation. I take it that the English translation refers to the

20 first of the originals presented; they look very much the same, but they

21 are not the same. And I draw your attention to the fact that in the

22 translation there appears to be a reference to "no electricity" in

23 handwriting, which does not appear on the original. So neither of the two

24 fully corresponds with the translation. If you'd please have a look at it

25 and see what can be done about it.

1 MR. HARMON: I will, Your Honour. And may I just also inform

2 the Court that yesterday there was a problem with the translation in tab

3 32, which was the minutes of the 21st Session of the Presidency. Mr.

4 Krajisnik's name was omitted as one of the attendees. We now have a

5 corrected translation which we will --

6 JUDGE ORIE: I think, as a matter of fact, that -- I think it is

7 in the transcript that I invited everyone to correct it, and I made a

8 handwritten correction on the original that was given to Madam Registrar.

9 So there's no need to distribute corrected copies any further.

10 We will have a break and we'll resume at 25 minutes to 5.00.

11 --- Recess taken at 4.09 p.m.

12 --- On resuming at 4.44 p.m.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, I see you have two lecterns, so there'll

14 be no reason not to start your cross-examination. Please proceed.

15 MS. LOUKAS: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour. I noticed that Mr.

16 Harmon had two lecterns, and I thought it was an excellent idea in view of

17 the volume of the material. Of course, that necessitated two microphones.

18 Cross-examined by Ms. Loukas:

19 Q. Now, good afternoon.

20 A. [Microphone not activated] Good afternoon.

21 Q. Now, Mr. Brown, firstly I think you indicated on the first day

22 that you gave evidence that you selected the documents that you examined

23 for the purposes of the preparation of your report; correct?

24 A. Yes, that's correct.

25 Q. Now, who selected the documents that were given in the exhibit

1 list on Monday that were the additional documents you were taken through?

2 A. I don't know who exactly selected them, but Mr. Harmon presented

3 them to me about a week ago or maybe not even as long as that, when -- when

4 I met with him before coming here.

5 Q. So as far as you're aware, the Prosecution made the selection of

6 those documents.

7 A. Yes, I think so.

8 Q. And you had no part in the selection of those documents.

9 A. No. They were presented to me.

10 Q. Now, Mr. Brown, in terms of the indictment in this case, I take

11 it you're familiar with the indictment against Mr. Krajisnik?

12 A. I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the indictment against Mr.

13 Krajisnik. I may well have read it when I was working some -- some years

14 ago, but I -- I have not read it for -- if any, I must have read it once,

15 probably, when I was working for the OTP, but I haven't read it, and I'm

16 not familiar with it.

17 Q. Preparing your report, of course, you became familiar with the

18 indictment in relation to Mr. Brdjanin and Mr. Talic; correct?

19 A. Yes, I became aware of those indictments.

20 Q. Now, in relation to the drafting of the indictments, that is, in

21 relation to the indictment against Mr. Brdjanin and Mr. Talic, you were

22 asked for comments at certain stages during the indictment-drafting

23 process; correct?

24 A. Yes, I was.

25 Q. And I take it you were asked similar questions in relation to the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 drafting of the indictment against Mr. Krajisnik.

2 A. I -- my recollection is that I may well have been asked questions

3 by that team over the period of -- of their work. And whether that was

4 used in relation to the drafting of their indictment, I'm unclear. But --

5 but I wasn't at that time directly working for -- for the Prosecution that

6 was dealing with that case, and I was working on a separate team anyway, so

7 I --

8 Q. In any event, you've been working with the OTP from -- I think it

9 was 1998 to 2004; correct?

10 A. Yes, that's correct.

11 Q. And during that time, you produced the report that's been placed

12 before the Trial Chamber.

13 A. That's correct, yes.

14 Q. How long did it take you to prepare that report?

15 A. The document, I think, may have taken around 24 months, but I

16 wasn't working on it full time. I think -- I think I was asked around

17 about 2000 by Ms. Korner, and the report was finalised in July 2002, but it

18 wasn't the only thing I was working on at the time.

19 Q. During your proofing with Mr. Harmon in preparation for giving

20 evidence before the Trial Chamber, can you give the Trial Chamber an

21 indication of how long that proofing took.

22 A. Yes. It took place, I suppose, off and on. It -- over a period

23 of about a week. But -- but when I say "took place," I was popping in

24 after work for an hour, coming back the following day after work for an

25 hour, and -- so it wasn't a week's process. I was trying to fit it in with

1 my work.

2 Q. So how many hours overall would you say?

3 A. Could I -- could I think about that? I would have to count it

4 up. But -- do you want me to think about it now or go away and come back

5 and think about it? I mean, it was -- I think there was one weekend where

6 I must have worked about, say, six hours, seven hours one weekend. And

7 then there were periods in one week where I was doing an hour over maybe

8 four or five days, an hour or two.

9 Q. And during this process, you were shown the documents that the

10 Prosecution had selected; correct?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Okay. Now, in terms of your examination of documents, clearly a

13 proportion of the documents that you've examined are open to more than one

14 interpretation. Do you feel that you have presented a perspective that is

15 not merely in line with the Prosecution theory of the case?

16 MR. HARMON: I'll object to that question, Your Honour. I think

17 it's inappropriate to ask the witness. He said he had very little

18 consultations or dealings at all.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, the first thing that would need to be

20 established, whether the witness is aware of the Prosecution theory in the

21 case. That, at least I understand, is more than just what is in the

22 indictment. And apart from that -- no, I think we should first establish

23 that.

24 The question -- I take it that the point you want to raise is to

25 what extent the witness felt free in reporting and in giving testimony to

1 take a view different from that of the Prosecution and how he dealt with

2 that; is that correct?

3 MS. LOUKAS: Yes. I'm interested in his own assessment.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, perhaps you --

5 MS. LOUKAS: Of his objectivity.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could we ask -- would it be a good idea to

7 ask the witness to give his view on what seems to be an issue which is now

8 in different ways - with objections, without objection - is defined, which

9 is, What's your assessment on how free you are from any views of the

10 Prosecution on this case, if you know -- at least to the extent you are

11 aware of the views of the Prosecution. Because that's not necessarily

12 included, Ms. Loukas.

13 THE WITNESS: Maybe if I can split it into two -- two parts to

14 answer the question. I am not aware of the Prosecution theory of -- of

15 this case. I -- apart from the fact I've been away from the court for some

16 time or the OTP for some time now, and I didn't work directly on this

17 particular case.

18 In relation to objectivity more widely, yes, I clearly worked

19 for the Office of the Prosecutor; yes, I worked, for example, in the -- the

20 Brdjanin and Talic case closely with -- with the legal staff there. All I

21 can say is that -- that my training is as a military intelligence officer.

22 My training is as an analyst; I've been an analyst all my life. I tried to

23 do the best to my ability in relation to looking at material and -- and

24 viewing it objectively and trying to put documentation in some context. I

25 worked in an analytical team that wasn't part of the Prosecution team per

1 se; it sat aside from -- from the investigation teams and the Prosecution

2 teams in part for that reason. And all I can say is that to the best of my

3 ability I've tried to be as objective as I can with the documentation. I

4 think in my report, as well, I cover areas that may not necessarily be of

5 direct interest or necessarily directly help the Prosecution; issues of

6 arms that the Muslims had, for example, could be one. The area in the

7 Posavina Corridor where the Croats had conducted military operations to

8 take control of that area, which did sever that -- that link, as another

9 area possibly. You know, I've tried to, within the limits of my own

10 abilities, to be as objective as I can.

11 MS. LOUKAS:

12 Q. Now, of course --

13 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, I'd like to return, a little bit more

14 to explore this matter.

15 Just because if we are talking about objectivity, of course,

16 everyone always tries to be as objective as possible in a position where he

17 is required to be objective. Let me just try to give you an example of

18 what I could imagine that would have happened.

19 Quite a number of times your attention was drawn to a line in a

20 text in which the word "objective" appears. It was included in the

21 question often, especially if it was briefly after the strategic objectives

22 had been formulated, that you were asked about a link. Did it ever happen

23 to you that you would think, Well, I see the word "objective," but why

24 apart from the moment in time, why have I not earlier thought of the

25 "objective" here to mean a reference to the strategic objectives? Where,

1 of course, you couldn't read the word "objective" very often, also in a

2 limited sense or in a different sense, a direct military objective. So did

3 it ever happen to you that you were wondering for yourself why you'd read

4 the word "objective" here in this specific way? This is just an example in

5 order to try to find out moments Ms. Loukas might have had in her mind.

6 THE WITNESS: Yes, it did clearly cross my mind that that could

7 have had far more of a limited reason. But in that particular case, when I

8 looked at not just that document but other references in -- in the

9 directives, for example, when I looked at other references that came out of

10 military documentation, it seemed to me that objectives were not just a

11 very narrow-focussed and small issue that General Talic was talking about.

12 Plus, General Talic is a corps commander. General Talic is of very

13 significant rank, one of the most senior commanders in the VRS. And when

14 senior commanders talk about objectives, they're talking about objectives

15 generally at their level. They're not talking about objectives down to

16 platoon. And so -- so that context, plus the other documentation, seemed

17 to me that there was a bigger meaning to that particular word.

18 And if, for example, in that document of the 21st of May where

19 General Talic says, Explain the objectives of our -- or our goals -- the

20 goals of our objectives, the phrase, whatever, to -- and that was the only

21 reference, that might have shifted my -- my view in what that meant and

22 maybe it did mean a far more narrow meaning. But -- but no, I did think

23 about those issues.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

25 THE WITNESS: The issue --

1 JUDGE ORIE: My question was not whether you thought about it

2 but whether these were moments where you might have had some doubt of where

3 you might have asked yourself: How solid is it to interpret these

4 objectives as the strategic objectives -- as a reference to strategic

5 objectives rather than to, I would say, strictly military objectives with

6 no specific strategic connotation?

7 THE WITNESS: I would have more doubt if that was the only

8 reference, Your Honour.

9 And maybe as another example, which -- just away from the

10 objective, talking about, you know, did you have doubts. I had doubts when

11 I reviewed the document that seemed to indicate that someone was being

12 prosecuted for war crimes in Vicici. At face value, had a document that

13 said there seems to have been some prosecutorial process against a killing

14 of non-Serbs. That would seem to mitigate that, well, you know, there was

15 no prosecutorial -- a theory could be that there was no prosecutorial

16 process. And when I found that document, it raised alarm bells with me

17 that there -- that this was maybe not quite as clear cut.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

19 THE WITNESS: And so when they conducted more investigations to

20 see if this -- to get to the back of that. And I don't know if that is a -

21 - is a relevant example or not.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. At least, it answers, to some extent, my

23 question. I can imagine that in interpreting words, Ms. Loukas, that

24 "alarm bells" might have a specific significance for you, which is perhaps

25 also not the only way of interpreting that word.

1 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed, Your Honour.

2 JUDGE ORIE: "Alarm bells" could be alarming for the

3 Prosecution, but it could also be alarming that, I have not yet a full

4 insight in what happened, I have not a full knowledge yet.

5 Please proceed.

6 MS. LOUKAS: Thank you, Your Honour.

7 Q. Now, you indicated earlier that you were in a separate section;

8 correct?

9 A. That's correct, yes.

10 Q. Yes. But the fact is that you did sit in on interviews with

11 potential witnesses.

12 A. That is correct.

13 Q. As part of a team that was interviewing a witness.

14 A. In a number of cases, yes.

15 Q. On how many occasions?

16 A. Maybe a dozen, I think.

17 Q. And what rules did you set in process for your own work in your

18 own mind about how to ensure, on the one hand, that on occasions you were

19 working as part of a Prosecution team and, on the other hand, you were

20 attempting to produce an impartial expert report? What rules did you set

21 in your mind for ensuring that you were undertaking impartial research?

22 A. Well, I felt that it was important to try and read as much as I

23 could, for one; to read the documents in their entirety; to try and put

24 documents that talked to the same issue and see what came out of those; to

25 have a process internally within my team of some peer review, and to try

1 and rely on -- on my training as an analyst and a military analyst over a

2 period of time, which was to -- to -- to be objective and to do the best

3 you could in terms of -- of reviewing that material honestly and

4 objectively.

5 Q. Mm-hm. And, of course, it's a standard axium, is it not, of

6 proper research that you have to remain open to documents and parts of

7 documents that are showing information that are not necessarily consistent

8 with the hypothesis you're formulating?

9 A. Yes, it is. I would say yes.

10 I would also add one issue in relation to -- you know, to

11 stating where your limitations are. You know, I state some limitations in

12 the report and, you know, I -- I'm honest that there are limitations there.

13 I'm not --

14 Q. Precisely.

15 A. I'm not --

16 Q. And we're just going to go to those limitations now, Mr. Brown.

17 Firstly, as you've stated at the beginning of the report, it's

18 not an exhaustive analysis, firstly. This appears on page 4 of your

19 report. And that it's an analysis of selected military, police, political,

20 and other related documentary material, firstly. And that it's not an

21 exhaustive analysis of all aspects of events in the Bosanska Krajina area

22 between 1991 and 1992. Correct?

23 A. That's correct.

24 Q. Okay. In addition --

25 A. I'd actually add another one which I hadn't put there, which is I

1 don't speak the language, and so --

2 Q. And that, of course, is very important in terms of analysing

3 documentation.

4 A. Yes, it is.

5 Q. And, of course, I think there are other people in your department

6 who, of course, do speak the language.

7 A. Yes, there are.

8 Q. For example, Mr. Treanor.

9 A. Yes, Mr. Treanor speaks the language.

10 Q. Now, of course, you don't put yourself forward as an expert in

11 relation to the political sphere. That's Mr. Treanor's area, is it not?

12 A. Yes, it is Mr. Treanor's experience, is in that area.

13 Q. And you don't put yourself forward as a political expert.

14 A. No, I do not put myself forward as a political expert.

15 Q. And you certainly don't put yourself forward as an expert on the

16 internal workings of the SDS. Correct?

17 A. No, I don't put myself forward as a -- an expert on the internal

18 workings of the SDS.

19 Q. Nor do you put yourself forward as an expert on Crisis Staffs.

20 That is to say Ms. Hanson's area, is it not?

21 A. Yes, that is her area of expertise. I have had some dealings in

22 the issue of Crisis Staffs from Prijedor municipality, and I have looked at

23 certain documentation in the Krajina whereby Crisis Staffs appear to have

24 defence-related issues, and there is an overlap there. But in terms of my

25 detailed expertise on all aspects of the Crisis Staffs and their

1 establishment, I do not put myself forward as an expert there.

2 Q. And, in fact, at paragraph 1.104 of your report, you've quite

3 clearly indicated that "it's not within the remit of this report to analyse

4 the detailed functioning of the Serb Crisis Staffs, although some general

5 comments should be noted." And, of course, you stand by that. You're not

6 an expert on Crisis Staffs; correct?

7 A. No, I'm not an expert on Crisis Staffs.

8 Q. And you don't put yourself forward as an expert on the military

9 judicial system either, do you?

10 A. I have reviewed some material in relation to the military

11 judicial system and -- but it's not something that I've spent a lot of

12 time, and I wouldn't necessarily say I'm an expert in that field, either.

13 Q. In fact, I think at page 15 of the transcript today you indicate

14 as much. You said, "I'm not a judicial expert."

15 A. I'm certainly not a judicial expert. I know that.

16 Q. Now -- and in relation to military court records, you have not

17 conducted an exhaustive analysis of those documents either, have you?

18 A. I have conducted an analysis of court records in 1992 from the

19 Krajina Corps, but in terms of an exhaustive analysis of all documents, no,

20 I have not.

21 Q. And you haven't gone beyond 1992. That's the point, isn't it?

22 A. In this report, that's correct.

23 Q. So in relation to military court records, number one, it's not

24 exhaustive; correct?

25 A. The court records are not exhaustive or my knowledge is not

1 exhaustive?

2 Q. Your knowledge.

3 A. I looked into 1993 in the court records.

4 Q. Sorry, I think you indicated you haven't gone beyond 1992. Are

5 you saying you also looked into 1993?

6 A. I did look into 1993 court records and -- in the registers that

7 we had.

8 Q. Okay. But the material available is not exhaustive; correct?

9 You haven't been through everything you could possibly go through in terms

10 of military court records, have you?

11 A. That's correct. No, I haven't.

12 Q. And you certainly haven't gone beyond 1993.

13 A. That's correct, yes.

14 Q. Okay.

15 A. I do know, however, in the Velagici School file, which we did

16 obtain the records for, that went further up until maybe 1995 or 1996. So

17 there were selected records which did go further than that. But in the

18 terms of the registers and -- and an exhaustive analysis of the whole

19 military court system, no, I didn't.

20 Q. All right. So you've told the court you have one example of

21 something that went beyond 1993, but, of course, that's the only example

22 you can come up with, correct, in terms of what we're talking about here,

23 an analysis of all relevant documents?

24 A. I've already highlighted, I think, in the report this is not an

25 exhaustive analysis of every single record or document. I think I'd be

1 still doing that job if I was there.

2 Q. Were you asked by the Prosecution if you could highlight for them

3 any documents that you thought might be relevant to Rule 68?

4 A. We had an ongoing obligation to highlight those documents.

5 Q. And did you select documents of that nature and show them to the

6 Prosecutor?

7 A. Yes, I did.

8 Q. And --

9 A. For -- for -- I remember certainly for the Talic and Brdjanin

10 case.

11 Q. How about for this case?

12 A. I know that the collection from the 1st Krajina Corps, for

13 example, was -- was tendered in -- in entirety, and many of the documents

14 that I believe were highlighted in the Brdjanin case as Rule 68 were also

15 passed to -- to other cases. But I think it might be -- I'm not sure if

16 that was -- you know, if I'm the person to -- to answer that.

17 Q. I'm asking you if -- and the question was, For this case? Were

18 you asked by the Prosecution to look for documents that might be relevant

19 to Rule 68 for this case, for the case against Mr. Krajisnik?

20 A. We had a standing obligation from all cases. It wasn't -- it

21 wasn't necessarily one from an individual case or a Prosecution. We were -

22 - we were -- we were at a -- we were very well briefed, and we knew all the

23 time that we had a standing obligation in relation to Rule 68.

24 Q. But I'm asking about whether or not you were asked that in

25 preparation for coming to give evidence here.

1 A. No, I was not. Not for this particular -- not during my

2 conversations more recently.

3 Q. Okay. Now, in relation to your assessment of your work as an

4 objective and impartial expert, I mean, I take it that you kept very keenly

5 in your mind in the preparation of this report that -- that it's, of

6 course, of no use to a Trial Chamber to have an expert who is merely trying

7 to squeeze every document into a particular overall hypothesis. You

8 understand that, don't you?

9 A. You're asking me to comment on whether it's of -- of use to the

10 Trial Chamber or whether --

11 Q. Whether you understand that it's of no use to the Trial Chamber

12 to have an expert merely trying to squeeze every possible document into a

13 particular hypothesis.

14 MR. HARMON: Objection to the question, Your Honour. I don't

15 think that's an appropriate question to ask this witness. That's

16 appropriate for a Trial Chamber.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

18 MS. LOUKAS: I'm prepared to withdraw it.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Then please proceed.

20 MS. LOUKAS:

21 Q. Now, just in relation to your work on the text and your

22 footnotes, what do you think a footnote -- what relationship do you think a

23 footnote should have to what's asserted in the text?

24 A. It should relate to what -- what has been stated in the text

25 clearly, or it should be an exemplar of what is being stated.

1 Q. So it's critical, of course, that it's an accurate reflection of

2 what's contained in the footnote; correct?

3 A. Yes, it should be -- it should be accurate. It should emphasise

4 what -- what issue that's being discussed in the body of the text.

5 Q. And that's really basic research scholarship, is it not?

6 A. Yes, it's -- it's a feature of a research scholarship, yes.

7 Q. And, of course, a feature of report-writing is ensuring that

8 you're not selective about quotations; correct?

9 A. Could you explain what you mean by that. Taking an individual

10 reference and -- and making a -- a comment on that or -- or ...?

11 Q. Yes, without reference to other aspects of the document.

12 A. Well, you should try to be as objective as you can, and clearly

13 footnotes are there to reference an issue, and sometimes footnotes can

14 become unwieldy if you put everything in a footnote. So you should try to

15 be as objective as you can in the use of footnotes.

16 Q. So, it's really important, is it not, that what you've got in

17 your text -- because often as not people don't necessarily go to the

18 footnote. They'll read the text. So your text has to be accurate, does it

19 not?

20 A. Yes, you try to make your text as accurate as you can. Clearly

21 in this report you can't put every single footnote in because you would

22 have a very unwieldy document, but yes, you want to try to be as accurate

23 as you can.

24 Q. Okay. Now, let's go to some of the footnotes, shall we? Let's

25 go, first of all, to footnote 1.

1 MS. LOUKAS: That's unfortunate, Your Honours. I had a little

2 pile of footnote 1s to distribute.

3 But I can proceed without it. They were meant to be in a little

4 assembled pile over there.

5 Q. But let's go to footnote 1. Okay. Now, what you've got there at

6 -- on page 12 of your report, and you indicate there that "On the basis of

7 available information, it can be concluded that the three leading national

8 parties in Bosnia and Herzegovina, HDZ, SDA, and SDS, have for all

9 practical purposes created the necessary political and economic and

10 military prerequisites to embark on armed conflict among themselves."

11 And you cite there paragraph -- footnote 1. Now, going to

12 footnote 1, there is, in fact, other information -- in fact, the -- the

13 footnote refers very specifically to the war conflict being transferred

14 from Croatia, "The setting-up of Herceg-Bosna and armed formations in the

15 territory of Western Herzegovina: the Posavina, Odzak, Bosanski Brod, and

16 Doboj, Kupres, and the Lasva River Valley, Travnik, Busovaca, Vitez."

17 Now, why did you leave that out of your quote?

18 A. I would actually like to see the document, if I can, before I

19 answer the question.

20 Q. Well, I'm more than happy to provide you with my copy. For some

21 reason, my additional copies disappeared.

22 A. Thank you.

23 MR. HARMON: Ms. Loukas, when you referred to that document and

24 you quote that document, could you give us a page reference?

25 MS. LOUKAS: Oh, absolutely. I've managed to locate footnote 1,

1 and I can distribute page 6 of that.

2 THE WITNESS: Would you like your copy back?

3 MS. LOUKAS: Thank you.

4 A. Could you repeat the question?

5 Q. Yes. My question was this: On page 12 of your report, you

6 indicate - and I read out the quote that you've included in your report -

7 you cite footnote 1. There is information -- other information. In fact,

8 the footnote refers very specifically to the war conflict being transferred

9 from Croatia, "The setting-up of Herceg-Bosna and armed formations in the

10 territory of Western Herzegovina: the Posavina, Odzak, Bosanski Brod,

11 Doboj, Kupres, and the Lasva River Valley, Travnik, Busovaca, Vitez." Why

12 did you leave that out of your report -- out of your quote there? Right at

13 the beginning.

14 A. I think the -- the point I'm trying to make with this document

15 and using the first section of the -- the reference is that simply by the

16 early part of 1992 the JNA were aware that in Bosnia the three leading

17 national parties had, as they themselves say, created necessary political,

18 economic, and military prerequisites to embark on armed conflict. And if I

19 -- I believe this document -- I've only got a section of it. But I think

20 they then go into detail about each three grouping. So they have the HDZ,

21 then talk about the SDA, and I would imagine on page 6 or 7 or 8 they may

22 make some references to the SDS. So it's only taking out this issue that

23 the JNA in one of their own documents are not unaware of the ethnic problem

24 that is developing in Bosnia.

25 And if I put in that section, I presumably would have had to put

1 in the section on the SDA, and I presumably would have had to put in the

2 section on the SDS, which may come on page 7 or subsequently in the

3 document.

4 Q. But truly it's important to ensure that right at the beginning

5 you're making it clear that the developments in Croatia have a very real

6 and very important impact on the subsequent events in Bosnia.

7 A. I believe I mentioned that in the report that what happened in

8 Croatia did have an impact.

9 Q. Well, we'll leave that footnote. We'll go on to footnote 5.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Nevertheless, Ms. Loukas, I do not fully

11 understand. You asked the witness why didn't he pay attention in his

12 report to the -- what now appears on page 6 to be the, well, HDZ -- well,

13 let's say military preparations or what they had already; whereas, from

14 what I read in the part quoted from footnote 1 that the expert says all

15 three parties did it. So I -- would you -- is it your point that you would

16 have expected the expert - where he refers to "all three parties doing the

17 same," because that's what it says - to that, "And each of the parties has

18 in keeping with its political concept inter alia proceeded with military

19 organising, establishment plans, objectives and tactics for carrying out

20 armed combat"? Would you expect him to just highlight the HDZ, or would

21 you have expected him to highlight all three parties? Would you accept

22 that, at least in this respect, he left it with the, I would say, more

23 global assessment, each of the three did the same? I do not understand

24 exactly the point you are making. But perhaps I missed some of it.

25 MS. LOUKAS: Well, perhaps it will become more clear when I go to

1 the next footnote, Your Honour.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then I'll --

3 MS. LOUKAS: It's part of a cumulative process.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.

5 MR. HARMON: And, Your Honour, the question that was asked about

6 Mr. Brown's report and why he didn't put in the portion about the potential

7 impact in Croatia is found in the very next -- two paragraphs down in his

8 report. It's discussed explicitly.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Harmon, the witness said already that he did

10 mention that, and I think that it's not appropriate that you add to the

11 testimony in this respect and answer the questions put by Ms. Loukas.

12 Please proceed, Ms. Loukas.

13 MS. LOUKAS:

14 Q. Now, let's go on to footnote 5, shall we? Now, in relation to

15 footnote 5, you've indicated there that you're dealing with arming. We go

16 to footnote 5, and you say, "As examples, the report on the current

17 situation in the area of responsibility of the JNA 2nd Military District

18 dated 20th of March, 1992, notes that 51.900 weapons had been distributed

19 to volunteer units, i.e., not part of the JNA."

20 Now, if one goes to footnote 5 --

21 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, if you want to tender that page 6, we

22 should assign an exhibit number.

23 MS. LOUKAS: Certainly, Your Honour.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you want to tender that.

25 Mr. Registrar, that would be number D ...?

1 THE REGISTRAR: D46, Your Honours.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

3 MS. LOUKAS:

4 Q. Now, if we go to footnote 5, and I'll give you a copy of that,

5 and I've got other copies for distribution.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, that would be Exhibit number ...?

7 THE REGISTRAR: D47.

8 JUDGE ORIE: D47, I take it?

9 THE REGISTRAR: D47, Your Honour.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

11 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you.

12 MS. LOUKAS:

13 Q. Now, if we go to footnote 5, you've indicated there that these

14 weapons have been distributed. But if you turn to page 3, it deals with

15 paramilitary organising in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and it indicates that

16 "Reliable information as well as the recently televised statements of the

17 Bosnia-Herzegovina MUP leadership indicate that the ethnic groups of this

18 republic are well-armed along the party lines. Muslims, around 60.000 men;

19 Croats, around 35.000, and Serbs, 25.000."

20 Now, you've mentioned in your footnote 51.900 weapons being

21 distributed to volunteer units, and yet you haven't mentioned very

22 specifically what's also contained at page 3 in relation to the arming of

23 Muslims and Croats and Serbs and the very specific numbers there.

24 A. That's correct. That's not necessarily the point I was making in

25 this -- in this section. There are -- I think there is other parts of the

1 -- the report that do talk that I don't doubt that the -- that the Croats

2 and the Muslims had armed themselves, and the JNA indicate that, as well.

3 But that wasn't necessarily the issue that I was drawing in the document

4 here. This document I was drawing attention to, that these volunteers had

5 been armed in part by the JNA and in part by the SDS.

6 Q. But in terms of the proper context, if you are talking about the

7 arming of Serb volunteers, if in the same document the numbers are quoted

8 of the arming of Muslims and of Croats, surely it would be appropriate to

9 include those specific numbers while you're including the specific numbers

10 that you have in footnote 5.

11 A. Well, I disagree. I'm talking about Serb volunteers in this

12 paragraph, in 1.7, and this is where this section is related in this

13 document.

14 Q. Well, you don't think that it's appropriate to include the full

15 context of arming of Muslims and Croatians when you're talking about the

16 arming of Serbs?

17 A. I've mentioned in the document that there was arming in Muslim --

18 in Muslim areas, and I have mentioned, as well, in the paragraphs earlier

19 on that the Croatian forces had taken control of municipalities in -- in

20 the -- the Drina -- the Posavina Corridor, and that that caused

21 difficulties for -- for the JNA. So I don't -- I don't believe I shy from

22 that issue. And I wouldn't -- I wouldn't -- I wouldn't necessarily

23 disagree with it, either. But issue I'm drawing attention to in paragraph

24 1.7 relates to the arming of Serb volunteers, which is what paragraph 5 is

25 discussing.

1 Q. But if you're going to discuss the arming of Serb volunteers,

2 it's proper to put it in its context when you are quoting numbers that from

3 the same document you have numbers in relation to Muslims and Croats, is it

4 not?

5 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, could you draw my attention to the

6 numbers on page 3. Because that's what you said, that numbers appear.

7 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, paramilitary -- page 3, paragraph 4,

8 "Paramilitary organising in the BH."

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, what I see there, there are numbers,

10 but these are numbers of persons, not of weapons. What I -- if I would

11 look at it unfavourably, I would say Muslims -- no, just numbers of men and

12 not weapons, is it?

13 MS. LOUKAS: Well, Your Honour, in the full context of the

14 sentence, it is "Reliable information as well as the recently televised

15 statements of the Bosnia Herzegovina MUP leadership indicate that the

16 ethnic groups of this republic are well-armed along the party lines." So

17 it is talking about arming, and it's talking about Muslims --

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do understand. But then we have 20.000

19 Serbs, isn't it? On the other information -- I mean, if you try to combine

20 the information, that would mean that if the JNA has distributed weapons,

21 was that to Serb volunteers? Do I have to understand that, Mr. Brown?

22 THE WITNESS: I would argue that if you read from the issue of

23 some experiences down, that these volunteers are predominantly -- well,

24 Serb volunteers. I think that's what it's referring to.

25 JUDGE ORIE: That would mean three weapons for each Serb.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 Ms. Loukas, that's something I have some difficulty to accept.

2 So, therefore, I am not fully aware if you are talking about numbers that

3 it's not the same as weapons, and it seems to be a bit apples and pears.

4 I'll try to put into context the numbers. I see no numbers of weapons

5 distributed, and I see numbers of -- I would say of troops or military men,

6 which I cannot link that easily to the others. But if the witness would

7 have any -- or if you would have any further ...

8 MS. LOUKAS: Is Your Honour saying that that sentence "Ethnic

9 groups of this republic are well-armed along the party lines" is not a

10 reference to well-armed men?

11 JUDGE ORIE: It would not necessarily mean -- of course well-

12 armed men. But I could not compare the number of weapons distributed. I

13 mean, one mortar would do for ten people; whereas, if you're talking about

14 rifles, then it might be different. So therefore, it's very difficult to -

15 - at least in my thoughts - but please convince me if I'm wrong - to

16 combine these figures and to say, Well, if you are talking about 51.900 in

17 weapons, then you should have mentioned also 60.000 Muslims.

18 I'm just trying to understand your point. It's ...

19 MS. LOUKAS: Okay. Well, Your Honour, the situation is that --

20 and I'll ask Mr. Brown if he has some knowledge of this.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

22 MS. LOUKAS:

23 Q. The JNA was also distributing arms to other ethnic groups, was it

24 not?

25 A. I have not seen evidence to that effect. If you've got some

1 documentation that you might want to show me, then I can certainly comment

2 on it. But I'm not aware of that. I have seen this reference, and I've

3 seen other references that the JNA were issuing weapons to -- to Bosnian

4 Serbs and the SDS. I've seen it in the 17th Corps. I've seen it in the

5 1st Corps, in documentation, and I have not seen it -- that the JNA were

6 issuing weapons to other ethnic groups. That's not to say other ethnic

7 groups did not get weapons, I have to say, but I have not seen documentary

8 evidence indicating that the JNA were distributing weapons to other ethnic

9 groups.

10 Q. Okay. So you haven't seen documentary evidence to -- to that

11 effect, that there was at this time that we're dealing with here

12 distribution of weapons more widely than the Serbs.

13 JUDGE ORIE: By the JNA, I take it, Ms. Loukas?

14 MS. LOUKAS: By the JNA, yes.

15 A. No, I've not seen that. I am aware -- maybe I'm straying a

16 little bit from my expertise, but I am aware of incidents where individuals

17 broke into armouries and seized weapons. Non-Serbs, that is; Muslims and

18 Croats in Central Bosnia. But I am not aware of -- of documentation that

19 would indicate that the JNA were distributing weapons to the HDZ or to the

20 SDA or anyone else, but I have seen documentation that indicates they were

21 distributing weapons to the SDS.

22 Q. Okay. Let's leave the footnotes alone for a second. Let's move

23 on to another area. We can come back to the footnotes later. Let's go to

24 All People's Defence. This was mentioned very briefly in your evidence on

25 Monday. What significance do you as a military analyst attach to the

1 concept of All People's Defence?

2 A. What do you mean? In terms of what significance do I attach to

3 it?

4 Q. In terms of examining, analysing the military situation in Bosnia

5 in the period covered by your report in the Krajina area.

6 A. I think, as I said, I'm aware that All People's Defence was, in

7 essence, a doctrine that Yugoslavia had adopted in which the JNA, the TO,

8 and the -- the state mobilised in a time of tension in order to defend the

9 state, and "All People's Defence" meant that, to all intents and purposes,

10 all individuals in the state had a function to play in the defence of that

11 state. The JNA predominantly to defend the borders of Yugoslavia; the

12 Territorial Defence, when it was mobilised, to defend -- well, to assist

13 the JNA, to provide additional manpower, but also to defend key

14 installations or municipalities or other areas, and a process of

15 mobilisation through -- through -- to bolster the JNA and -- and then also

16 presumably civilian bodies in order to assist the defence of the state.

17 That's -- that's my understanding of what "All People's Defence" meant.

18 Q. Now, it's clear, isn't it, to understand the events of the war in

19 the period covered by your report that an understanding of that military

20 doctrine is important; correct?

21 A. Well, it's useful to set some context, of course. It's not --

22 it's not -- you know, it's not the -- the meat of my -- of my report. By

23 1992, the situation certainly changed significantly from one way, and All

24 People's Defence was -- was -- as a doctrine was -- was being implemented

25 because of the war in Croatia. But it's of note to have an understanding

1 in terms of the JNA and -- and its -- its function.

2 Q. Okay. Now, this concept of the All People's Defence, it was a --

3 a concept that was assumed and taken into account by all three parties to

4 the conflict, was it not?

5 A. I think All People's Defence was a doctrine that was wedded with

6 Yugoslavia, so I'm not sure that I agree with your point that it was

7 assumed and taken into account by all three parties necessarily. All

8 People's Defence was a doctrine that had served Yugoslavia for some

9 significant time. Clearly, when the conflict in Croatia broke out and then

10 that subsequent conflict in Bosnia, I don't think All People's Defence

11 necessarily applied. And I'm not quite sure what -- what do you mean by it

12 was taken into account by all three parties of the conflict?

13 Q. Okay. Then let's approach it from another angle. Yes, the

14 concept of All People's Defence was a concept whereby all people in

15 Yugoslavia would be prepared to defend from external attack, firstly.

16 We're agreed on that?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Okay. And, in fact, in terms of this system, there was a

19 relationship between the regular army, military production, the storage of

20 weapons, uniforms, reserves of food, were actually distributed all over the

21 country in accordance with this doctrine; correct?

22 A. Yes, I believe so. There were these armouries and -- and

23 production clearly was important, and I think the means of military

24 production was split between republics and different locations, so ...

25 Q. Okay. And each municipality was obliged to have units of the

1 Territorial Defence; correct?

2 A. Yes, I believe that was the case.

3 Q. And every municipality had an operational plan for use or

4 deployment of units during wartime.

5 A. I would assume so, yes. I am not necessarily an expert on the

6 details of All People's Defence down at the low level, but I do know that

7 the TO was a feature of All People's Defence, so I would assume that there

8 were plans.

9 Q. Now, as far as leadership at a municipality level, part of this

10 All People's Defence doctrine was that there ought to be coordination in

11 terms of war; correct?

12 A. Yes. Again, you know, I'm -- I haven't read documents about

13 mobilisation of TOs at low level in relation to All People's Defence, but I

14 would assume that -- that in order to have a mobilisation, you'd have to

15 have some coordination.

16 Q. And, in fact, each municipality had a National Defence Council,

17 did it not?

18 A. I believe it did, yes.

19 Q. So when the disintegration of the former Yugoslavia began, you're

20 looking at a situation whereby, for example, the operational unit in

21 Croatia, the 5th Corps, withdrew to Bosnia from Croatia; correct?

22 A. It's my understanding from the documents that the 5th Corps were

23 mobilised in September 1991 as part of a wider JNA operation in Croatia.

24 They then deployed forces from Bosnia because the Corps was based in

25 Bosnia. It conducted operations in Western Slavonia between September 1991

1 and the negotiated peace or cease-fire in Bosnia at the end of 1991.

2 It remained, or a section of the corps remained in Bosnia --

3 sorry, in Croatia and Western Slavonia between that period,

4 December/January 1991 -- January 1992, and it withdrew finally its forces

5 from Croatia, I believe, in June 1992.

6 So the 5th Corps deployed to Croatia in September, had combat

7 operations there until December. There was a negotiated settlement in

8 which the UN appeared. The JNA 5th Corps remained in Western Slavonia on

9 the territory that it had taken and occupied, and remained there and

10 finally withdrew in June 1992.

11 Q. And, in fact, part of the 5th Corps' zone of responsibility under

12 the -- in the Yugoslavian set-up incorporated part of Croatia and part of

13 Bosnia; correct?

14 A. The issue of the zone of responsibility of the 5th Corps is a

15 slightly confusing -- well, not confusing but complicated issue because the

16 5th Corps became part of the 2nd Military District. The 2nd Military

17 District was only formed as a result of the withdrawal of significant

18 forces, JNA forces, from Croatia. So when you say the 5th Corps' zone of

19 responsibility in the Yugoslav set-up incorporated part of Croatia, that's

20 not exactly the case.

21 It happened to be deployed to Croatia as a result of the JNA

22 deployment in September 1991. But the peacetime, according to the

23 documentation anyway, the peacetime zone of responsibility of the JNA 5th

24 Corps was exclusively in Bosnia. So it's not exactly correct to say that

25 the 5th Corps' zone of responsibility in the Yugoslavian set-up - if you

1 mean the peacetime set-up of the JNA - that's not quite true. It happened

2 to be in Croatia in 1991 because it was ordered to go and conduct combat

3 operations in 1991 by the Federal Secretariat for National Defence in

4 Belgrade.

5 Q. But we're talking about the wartime set-up here.

6 Now, in relation to the All People's Defence concept, in fact,

7 all --

8 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas.

9 MS. LOUKAS: Sorry?

10 JUDGE ORIE: It's ten minutes of 6.00. I'm looking at the

11 clock. Another 20 minutes' break would bring us to -- or would you like to

12 take the additional half hour today, since we continue tomorrow? I'm just

13 asking for scheduling purposes.

14 MS. LOUKAS: Oh, I see, Your Honour. And the suggestion is ...?

15 JUDGE ORIE: We could continue today until 7.30.

16 MS. LOUKAS: Yes.

17 JUDGE ORIE: And you know that we reserve time for tomorrow as

18 well.

19 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed.

20 JUDGE ORIE: If you say time tomorrow morning will be plenty,

21 then, of course, we could stop at 7.00. If you'd say, Well, perhaps it's

22 better to use our time today, then I would take that into account when I

23 choose a time for a break.

24 MS. LOUKAS: I think, Your Honours it would be best if we did

25 have till 7.30. I mean, this witness was in the witness box for the

1 Prosecution for a long time.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

3 MS. LOUKAS: If I'm even to keep to 60 per cent, that would mean

4 a cyst significant period of time for cross-examination.

5 JUDGE ORIE: No, I'm just asking you.

6 At the same time, I consulted with my colleagues, Ms. Loukas.

7 We're now approximately ten minutes in the All People's Defence. I just

8 checked. We have no idea what, at this moment, the point is you are trying

9 to -- I take it that somewhere that it comes to a point where we understand

10 what the relevance for the case is.

11 MS. LOUKAS: Well, I think --

12 JUDGE ORIE: And, of course, we have discussed before closing

13 Doors. I don't know how much there's closing doors at this moment,

14 sometimes if you close all doors and if there's no electric light, you

15 don't see anything any more. We do not understand how this could assist

16 us. If there's a point to make, we are thrilled to know what that point

17 would be.

18 MS. LOUKAS: Well, Your Honour --

19 JUDGE ORIE: You don't have to explain, but I think the message

20 might be clear.

21 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed, the message is clear.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

23 MS. LOUKAS: And I'm not going to spend much longer on All

24 People's Defence, Your Honour, but I also think it's important for the

25 Trial Chamber to be aware of the background to All People's Defence because

1 it was dealt with so briefly on the part of the evidence-in-chief of this

2 witness and it's a critical part of the military doctrine of the former

3 Yugoslavia, of which all three communities had an awareness of, and all

4 three communities were able to call upon in terms of the way that they

5 dealt with the conflict in the former Yugoslavia. So if one looks, for

6 example, at questions of would-be coordination and what have you, or

7 cooperation, as it were, they're part of a system that was put in place,

8 and it's not part of a system, Your Honours, that just sprang from nothing.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It's perfectly clear, Ms. Loukas, that if you

10 lived for quite some time together in the former Yugoslavia, Serbs,

11 Muslims, Croats, and if you were quite familiar with the All People's

12 Defence concept, that that was common to all the three nations or people I

13 just mentioned. That doesn't need -- perhaps for a jury it might take them

14 a bit longer to find out that if you're all raised in the same school that

15 you know, more or less, the lessons that were taught in that school.

16 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed.

17 JUDGE ORIE: But this Chamber is --

18 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour --

19 JUDGE ORIE: -- is not -- I'm not going -- I mean, we don't have

20 to discuss or to debate your line of defence. I just wanted to convey a

21 message to you. And in view of your response, I thought I would spend a

22 few more words on it. Now, I leave it to you further to continue your

23 cross-examination.

24 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, I won't be spending much longer on All

25 People's Defence, and I take on-board what Your Honour has said. But I

1 thought it was a very important part of the background understanding what

2 occurred militarily.

3 Q. Now, just finishing up on All People's Defence, in fact, it was -

4 - it was something that was taught in high school, wasn't it?

5 A. I am not aware of that. I couldn't tell you if it was or not.

6 Q. In fact, there was weapons training. You're not aware of that

7 either?

8 A. In -- you mean in high school? Weapons training? Or are you

9 talking about weapons training more generally?

10 Q. Weapons training in terms of the All People's Defence. That was

11 part of the concept.

12 A. Well, I'm aware that there was a conscript army, that people had

13 to serve some time in this services, and undoubtedly would have received

14 weapons training then.

15 Q. And that, in fact, in terms of the military situation in the

16 former Yugoslavia, all reservists, that is, Serb, Muslim, and Croat, all

17 had access to uniforms.

18 A. I am unaware of that.

19 Q. And potential access to weapons.

20 A. I wonder if you could be more specific, what you mean by

21 "potential access to weapons." Are you ...?

22 Q. Well, the whole concept of All People's Defence was predicated on

23 the basis of being able to mobilise quickly, was it not?

24 A. Yes, but "potential access to weapons" doesn't necessarily mean -

25 - or can mean a variety of things. You know, you can have -- I'm a

1 reservist in my military, I do not have access to weapons. But when I'm

2 mobilised, I assume that I'm going to be given one. So when you say

3 "people have access to weapons," I know that the JNA weapons were held in

4 armouries, in secure locations. So people as a whole, I believe, did not

5 keep their weapons in their bedroom.

6 Q. I take it you're not really in a position to tell us what was

7 occurring in areas where there were significant Muslim majority, other

8 areas than what you've included in your report.

9 A. No, that was not within the remit of the report and that was not

10 within the tasking. I have not looked at that area.

11 MS. LOUKAS: I note the time, Your Honour. This might be an

12 appropriate time.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Well, if we continue until 7.30, it might be now.

14 But if you would like to continue for ten minutes, that would be fine as

15 well.

16 MS. LOUKAS: I just wanted to check my documents --

17 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.

18 MS. LOUKAS: -- during the next break before I proceed onto the

19 next topic.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll have a break until 20 minutes past 6.00.

21 --- Recess taken at 5.58 p.m.

22 --- On resuming at 6.27 p.m.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, please proceed.

24 MS. LOUKAS: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.

25 Q. Now, Mr. Brown, I just want to take you to a section of your

1 report that deals with the 16th Session of the Assembly of the Serbian

2 People in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and that commences at page 24 of your

3 report. Now, in relation to your examination of that particular Assembly

4 session, you've taken various quotes from it and also made some comments in

5 your text of the report and also yesterday, when you were being taken

6 through various matters by Mr. Harmon.

7 Now, if we go first of all to, I believe it's tab 44. Do you

8 have that in front of you?

9 A. Yes, I do. Is that the minutes of this session?

10 Q. That's right. That's the minutes of the 16th Session of the

11 Assembly of the Serbian People held on the 12th of May in Banja Luka.

12 A. Yes, I do have those in front of me.

13 Q. Now, in relation to this Assembly session, I'm going to take you

14 through it in some detail. First of all, in relation to page 7, there's a

15 contribution there from Dr. Nikola Koljevic towards the top of the page.

16 A. Oh, yes. Yes.

17 Q. Where it's indicated that the Lisbon Conference was suspended the

18 day before.

19 A. Yes, I see that on page 6.

20 Q. Now, Mr. Brown, just in relation to the background to the

21 political negotiations that were going on, you were, of course, aware of

22 the negotiations surrounding what has come to be known as the Cutileiro

23 Plan?

24 A. I am aware that these negotiations were taking place and that

25 Jose Cutileiro was presiding over those negotiations, but I'm not an expert

1 on the detail of those -- of the plan -- or the political processes that

2 were going on there. But I am aware, in general, that these negotiations

3 were -- were there involving the EU and -- and others. But as I say, I'm

4 not an expert on this area at all, and I'd defer to somebody who is.

5 Q. Okay. So you tell the Trial Chamber you're not an expert on the

6 Cutileiro Plan but you're aware in general of the fact that there were

7 political negotiations going on surrounding this idea of the Cutileiro

8 Plan; correct?

9 A. Well, I'm aware that the negotiations were ongoing, but the

10 detailed minutia of the plan, I'm not au fait with, and as I said, I'd

11 really defer to somebody who knows far more in that area than I do.

12 Q. Okay. Were you aware that as of the 30th, 31st of March, 1992

13 stage of the political negotiations that the parties -- the three national

14 parties - that being the Muslims, the Croats, and the Serbs - had adopted a

15 statement of principles, a decision of principles of the new constitutional

16 order for Bosnia-Herzegovina?

17 A. I'm not. I'm not aware of that detail, no.

18 Q. So you're not aware of the process between the 17th of March and

19 the 31st of March specifically in relation to what was occurring on the

20 Cutileiro Plan.

21 A. No, I'm aware -- I'm not aware of the details, but I am aware

22 that there had been some tentative agreement, and I believe that that was

23 then later -- the Muslim side had initially given the impression they were

24 going to agree and then did. But apart from the detail, I really defer to

25 somebody else.

1 Q. In fact, there had been agreement on the principles and then Mr.

2 Izetbegovic changed his mind; correct?

3 MR. HARMON: Objection, Your Honour. The witness has said he

4 didn't know about the Plan and the details of it.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It's not clear to me, Ms. Loukas. Is there

6 any specific interest to know whether this witness was aware of that or

7 that it happened?

8 MS. LOUKAS: I'm interested to know if this witness is aware.

9 JUDGE ORIE: We've gone over that ground. Then he answered that

10 question, that from what he remembers is that -- so he gives you two

11 fingers, I would say, but you'd refer to have the whole hand. Yes. Yes.

12 Please proceed.

13 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed, Your Honour.

14 Q. Were you aware that there was an agreement to set up a -- a

15 working group to define the territories of the three communities within

16 Bosnia-Herzegovina?

17 A. I knew that that was part to have plan, that there had been this

18 -- this attempt to set up a working group in this way, but I'm not au fait

19 with the details.

20 Q. Were you aware that part of the agreement was that the maps of

21 the constituent units should be based on national, economic, and

22 geographical principles but also on historic, religious, cultural,

23 educational, and transport and communication criteria?

24 A. No, I'm not.

25 Q. So I take it, then, that you're not in a position to agree or

1 disagree with the proposition that the six strategic goals are not

2 inconsistent with the Cutileiro Plan.

3 A. I am not in a position because I haven't read the Cutileiro Plan

4 or looked at it in detail to make a comparison of those, so I don't think

5 I'm in a position to say one way or the other.

6 Q. Okay. Well, in any event, there at page 7 Mr. Koljevic is

7 dealing with the fact that the Lisbon Conference has been suspended, just

8 the day before this particular Assembly session.

9 A. Yes, he would seem to state that in the text on page 6.

10 Q. And the Lisbon reference is a reference to the Cutileiro Plan,

11 negotiations.

12 A. I would defer to somebody else. Whether it was directly the

13 Cutileiro, whether it was another agreement, I don't know, but clearly it's

14 part of a negotiation process, so ...

15 Q. Okay. Now, let's go to Mr. Karadzic's speech, which begins at

16 page 8.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, for your information, the English

18 text is numbered in a bit different way from the B/C/S version, because the

19 B/C/S version starts to number again at the -- where the real meeting

20 starts. So since you would like to follow it, please be aware that that

21 might be on page 3, I take it. Yes, it starts on page 3 in the B/C/S.

22 Please proceed, Ms. Loukas.

23 MS. LOUKAS: Thank you, Your Honour.

24 Q. Now, with the beginning of Mr. Karadzic's speech there, he's

25 talking about the background to what had been occurring with the HDZ and

1 the SDA. He then goes on to talk about what had occurred in the parliament

2 with the outvoting. Have you studied any of the Assembly sessions in

3 relation to what was occurring politically?

4 A. No. As I say, that really wasn't within the remit of my report,

5 and I know that there are others who have looked at that in more detail. I

6 -- I haven't looked in that area. I have -- I have made myself aware of

7 some of the Assembly sessions, but it's not an area that I have gone into

8 significant detail, and I'd defer to someone like Mr. Treanor, who I know

9 has worked on that in some detailed depth.

10 Q. So your analysis of the 16th Assembly Session is not based on any

11 detailed analysis of the surrounding Assembly sessions; correct?

12 A. No, that is not true. I have reviewed a number of the Assembly

13 sessions when I was compiling the report. But as I -- I said a few days

14 ago, the reason that I focussed on the 16th Assembly Session in part was

15 the army was established then, and that clearly is a defence-related issue.

16 And when I was looking at this, and I had seen some references in military

17 documentation to objectives and -- and goals and operations that the 1st

18 Krajina Corps was launching, I wanted to see if those were in any way

19 related to -- to some political objectives which I read when I was

20 reviewing this document, knowing that the army had been established on that

21 day.

22 Q. Now, my question was, Your analysis of the 16th Assembly Session

23 is not based on any detailed analysis to have surrounding Assembly

24 sessions. And your answer was, "I have reviewed a number of the Assembly

25 sessions when I was compiling the report." It's nevertheless true to say

1 that you have not gone into a detailed analysis of the Assembly sessions

2 surrounding the -- and leading up to the Assembly session of the 12th of

3 May.

4 A. Yes, I would say that's correct. Not an exhaustive and detailed

5 analysis of these Assembly sessions. That wasn't within the remit of the

6 report.

7 Q. Now, just going on to page 9 of the Assembly session, Mr.

8 Karadzic is still speaking, and he's talking about the further ongoing

9 negotiations there at the beginning, where it's stated: "They,

10 nevertheless, accepted our proposal for a conference on Bosnia and

11 Herzegovina, recognising that the Serbian people would not accept the

12 unitrous [phoen] Bosnia of Alija Izetbegovic so easily, and that is how we

13 arrived at the conference on Bosnia and Herzegovina under European

14 auspices. At that conference, we booked great political success, gaining

15 the approval of the international community, in the case the European

16 Community, for a three-part Bosnia and Herzegovina, as opposed to a

17 unitrous Bosnia and Herzegovina, a complex Bosnia and Herzegovina

18 consisting of three nation states or three constitutive states whose

19 relations and connections would be stronger or weaker."

20 Do you see that portion there?

21 A. Yes, I do.

22 Q. So there Karadzic is still discussing the negotiations that had

23 been occurring; correct?

24 A. Yes, he seems to be giving his view on those negotiations.

25 Q. And he states there further down: "We have opted for a

1 political, peaceful solution and have accepted the arbitration of European

2 community politics, which does not favour the Serbs at this moment, but we

3 accepted that we might lose a thing or two in order to avoid war."

4 Do you see that portion of his speech there?

5 A. Yes, I do.

6 Q. Mm-hm. Now, he also refers to the fact that there was a -- a

7 mobilisation call, further down the page. Do you see that just towards the

8 end of page 9, that Mr. Izetbegovic had issued a mobilisation call?

9 A. Can you direct me to which line that could be? I ...

10 Q. It's towards the bottom of page 9. "For Izetbegovic" -- this is

11 -- I'm quoting from it -- "For Izetbegovic, even this alliance, this

12 support, this turning of a blind eye was not enough, and on the very day of

13 Ramadan-Bajram he resorted to a mobilisation call.

14 A. Yes, I'm sorry. I was looking in the wrong place, but no. Yes,

15 I do see that. Yes.

16 Q. And do you know the date of that mobilisation call?

17 A. I would have to check, but I think it was around about 6th or 7th

18 or 8th of April. Is that -- would that be correct? Round about then?

19 Q. I'm trying to see what your knowledge is, Mr. Brown.

20 A. But I know that the justification for that mobilization were the

21 activities that occurred -- one of the justifications were the activities

22 that occurred in Bijeljina and Zvornik earlier. But I think it was after

23 Bijeljina -- the incidents in Bijeljina and Zvornik.

24 Q. Now, further on in terms of Mr. Karadzic's speech there, he

25 indicates that "We have nothing against the Croatian national community in

1 Bosnia and Herzegovina setting up its state or staying in the same state

2 with the Muslims. We do have objections to the cruel war waged by Croatian

3 paramilitary, regular forces of the Croatian state, in Posavina, the Sava

4 River Valley, which have raided Posavina and invaded the Serbs of Bosnia

5 and Herzegovina, committing genocide and expelling them from their homes in

6 an attempt to gain the best possible negotiating position; that is to say,

7 to limit the borders of its state unit in Bosnia and Herzegovina."

8 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, are you reading from --

9 MS. LOUKAS: Yes.

10 JUDGE ORIE: -- a different version, a different English

11 translation of the 16th Session? I noticed that the bottom of page 9, I

12 had some difficulties to find it. And when you read it, I now and then

13 observed that you are using different words.

14 MS. LOUKAS: That's interesting, Your Honour.

15 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that you're reading?

16 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, I did, I am, Your Honour. And, in fact, what

17 I did was --

18 JUDGE ORIE: Not great differences, but I just wanted to check.

19 MS. LOUKAS: Oh, in fact, what I did, Your Honour, was print out

20 the version that was connected with Mr. Brown's footnote in this respect.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Let's proceed, but at least that you are aware that

22 --

23 MS. LOUKAS: Thank you, Your Honour.

24 Q. Now, if we move on there. He also indicates at the bottom of

25 page 12 - and I'm not sure if we're on the same page 12, but I'll see how

1 it compares with tab 44 -

2 JUDGE ORIE: May I just draw your attention to one difference.

3 You read, "that is to say, to limit the borders of the state unit in Bosnia

4 and Herzegovina," where in mine it says -- and it's not quite the same --

5 "To establish the borders of their state unit in Bosnia and Herzegovina."

6 So we are working from different versions, but until now without any

7 dramatic results, I take it.

8 MS. LOUKAS: Yes. I tend to think not, Your Honour. Of course,

9 I received the tab 44 version on the morning of the -- afternoon of the

10 commencement of Mr. Brown's evidence. And I was, of course, working from

11 the copy that I got from the footnote of his report.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

13 MS. LOUKAS: So ...

14 JUDGE ORIE: Just that we are aware that there might be slight

15 differences.

16 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed, Your Honour.

17 Q. Now, if we move along through the session, we go to page 13 in my

18 version, which appears to be on page -- the bottom of page 12 of the tab 44

19 version. It's a paragraph that begins: "We did everything to avoid war and

20 when it did break out, for it to stop and for peace to be established,

21 which would make a political solution possible." Do you see that portion

22 there?

23 A. Yes, I do.

24 Q. And he indicates that "The cease-fire or truce has each time been

25 violated first and foremost by Muslim forces in Sarajevo and Croatian

1 forces in Posavina, where the war has never stopped, as well as in the

2 Neretva Valley, where we believe that the Croatian goal is the conquest of

3 territory and establishment of the situation on the ground and the borders,

4 which will, in their opinion, sooner or later be recognised, while the

5 Muslim actually violate the truce in order to suspend or sabotage the

6 conference on Bosnia and Herzegovina."

7 Now, just in relation to that portion of the speech, it is true,

8 is it not, that the Croatian forces were in Posavina?

9 A. Croatian forces being -- Croatian -- what do you mean by

10 "Croatian forces"? If I can have that clarified: Croatian state forces or

11 forces in -- Croatian forces from -- from Bosnia-Herzegovina? I'm aware

12 that the municipalities in the Posavina were controlled by Croats and that

13 they had taken control of those areas, yes, and I referenced that in the

14 report.

15 Q. Okay. Now, going on towards the end of that paragraph, there's a

16 statement being made there that "It would be much better to solve this

17 situation by political means. It would be best if a truce could be

18 established right away and the border set up. Even if we lose something,

19 in a manner, the European Community proposes and finds in conjunction with

20 the three national communities." Do you see that portion there?

21 A. Yes, I do.

22 Q. So Mr. Karadzic there is still talking about a negotiated

23 settlement, is he not?

24 A. He would -- he would appear at face value on this to -- to say

25 that; however, when he says issues like -- one of the quotes you used

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 earlier on, "a peaceful solution," "you've opted for a political and

2 peaceful solution," this Assembly session came on the 12th of May, and

3 there had already been takeovers and some combat operations that occurred

4 in April, and there are a number of references throughout this document

5 that -- in fact, Mr. Krajisnik says it, that "We are at war."

6 Q. But that was a statement of the blindingly obvious, wasn't it?

7 What is the accepted date that the war began, Mr. Brown?

8 A. I'm not sure what the accepted date that the war began is.

9 Q. Really?

10 A. No.

11 Q. How can you analyse military documents without knowing what the

12 accepted date of the onset of the war is?

13 A. I'm not sure there is an accepted date on the onset of the war.

14 There was activity in March. There was activity in April. There was

15 activity in May.

16 Q. Okay. So in all your readings, you say that there is not a day

17 which is seen to be -- or a period which is seen to be the onset of the

18 war.

19 A. There's a difference between a period and a day, of course, but

20 ...

21 Q. Well, I'm happy to hear a period or a date from you.

22 A. I would argue that late March and April were -- were when combat

23 operations were -- were initiated.

24 Q. Okay. Now, let's move on to page 15 of the Assembly session, and

25 that is after the strategic goals have been set out. And in the tab

1 version that's at page 14, Karadzic actually -- Mr. Karadzic actually

2 states, "We must also put an end to the Serbian megalomania, trying to

3 include as many of our enemies in our areas as possible, especially as much

4 territory as possible. As many hills and brooks, regardless of whether

5 they are fertile or not, this must be brought to a reasonable measure in

6 order for us to be solid and compact. This can be compared to a balloon

7 which is blown up to be as big as possible, but the bigger it is, the

8 thinner its membrane and the more prone to bursting."

9 Now, do you consider it a possible interpretation of that phrase

10 there that Mr. Karadzic, who's been speaking about the negotiations and

11 continuing negotiations, is trying to keep what is occurring within the

12 negotiations?

13 A. It is a possible interpretation but one that I would not agree

14 with.

15 Q. Okay. Let's move on to page 16 in your footnote version, which

16 in the tab version is at -- also, fortunately, at page 16. And we come to

17 this portion where he indicates "We do not want to get a state with a huge

18 number of people who are against that state, but that is a possibility

19 they're afraid of. Secondly, we have shown that borders can be drawn

20 bilaterally, and we wanted to move the delineation line as deep and as far

21 as possible so there can be no more going back."

22 Now, where he speaks there about borders being drawn

23 bilaterally, that's obviously in the context of agreement of both sides;

24 correct?

25 A. It's not clear in this example what he's talking about and where

1 he's referencing. It could be that he's referencing what they had been

2 discussing in -- in the Cutileiro Plan. It could well be that he's

3 discussing something that's happening slightly more localised. For

4 example, I think he's referencing - excuse me - referencing earlier on

5 Kupres, which I think was a demarcation line, but it's not clear what he

6 means here.

7 Q. Well, what does "bilateral" mean to you?

8 A. Agreements between two parties.

9 [Defence counsel confer]

10 MS. LOUKAS:

11 Q. Well, is it possible that it was part of the negotiating process

12 with the Croats in that regard?

13 A. It's possible. It isn't quite clear from the -- from the phrase.

14 Q. So you're saying that the word "bilateral," as far as you're

15 concerned, doesn't make it clear.

16 A. No, not the word "bilateral." It's whether he's talking about

17 agreements that they had reached bilaterally with the Croats in the wider

18 negotiations or whether he's talking about, as he mentions earlier on,

19 "Take, for example, Kupres. When we told them we would take their

20 interests into account since Kupres was more important to them than to us,

21 we might agree for the border to run along a road or that something could

22 be arranged. First, by the local armies on the ground, and then by us at

23 the level of the republic."

24 So whether he's making reference to some agreements that he's

25 trying to organise outside of the Cutileiro discussions or other

1 discussions or whether he's talking about those discussions is not exactly

2 clear to me.

3 Q. Isn't he saying that we have shown that borders can be drawn

4 bilaterally?

5 A. Well, I can only re-echo what I've said. He's -- he's saying

6 that -- that that is -- it is -- it's possible to do that, but it's not

7 exactly clear in what framework he's -- he's saying that. One could read

8 the preceding statement that they're happy to agree, at the local level,

9 where it suits them or suits both parties down a road in Kupres, that

10 they'll have a border there. Or it could well be that he's talking about

11 bilateral agreements in another forum. But he is clearly talking or

12 referencing bilateral agreements, and I'm assuming, because the context is

13 Croats, it's with the Croats.

14 Q. Okay. In any event, he's not talking about the unilateral

15 drawing of borders, is he? He's talking about bilateral agreement on

16 borders in that context.

17 A. He makes a statement that -- that "We have shown that borders can

18 be drawn bilaterally," but it's not clear what he means by that.

19 Q. Well, it's not clear to you.

20 A. It's not clear to me, no.

21 Q. Okay. We can move on, further on to the session. Now, just in

22 relation to page 17 in your footnote version.

23 A. Mm-hm.

24 Q. And that is in the tab version at page 16. There's this

25 delegate, it's indicated there, Mr. Beli. And at one portion there, he --

1 he talks about communications, and he talks about -- it's about ten lines

2 down: "Until now, we were unable to communicate with anybody, with the

3 exception of our region of Semberija and Majevica."

4 Now, it's quite clear, is it not, that communications on the

5 ground during the period when the -- the war broke out were difficult, were

6 they not?

7 A. Can you be more specific about who you mean the communication on

8 the ground between? Are you talking about the military, or are you talking

9 about the SDS, or are you talking about the police, or ...?

10 Q. Okay. Well, you told us a little bit the other day based on the

11 combat readiness report, about this question of communication. Do you

12 recall that?

13 A. Yes, I do.

14 Q. And to a large extent, you've based your assumptions about

15 communication on the basis of the combat readiness report that was prepared

16 in 1993; correct?

17 A. No, I wouldn't say to a large extent, but it is a component, yes.

18 Q. Okay. What else do you base it on?

19 A. The functioning or apparent functioning of communications in the

20 1st Krajina Corps to the Main Staff, references to Presidency sessions,

21 indications in military documents of meetings, references in Assembly

22 sessions, the Assembly sessions themselves being a communication vehicle,

23 some indication about notification of the international press. Those are

24 some of the areas that I think I also included in relation to

25 communications.

1 Q. What was the state on the ground in relation to telephones? What

2 light can you throw on that?

3 A. In which particular period are you talking about?

4 Q. In the period that you're dealing with in your report.

5 A. I believe that the combat readiness report indicates that there

6 were problems initially, that they had to rely heavily on the PTT system;

7 the military had to patch into the PTT system, and that they utilised the

8 PTT system. Undoubtedly there were problems. Some exchanges weren't

9 working, I think. The military had to utilise some of its own equipment.

10 But no, there were undoubtedly some difficulties. They are highlighted in

11 the combat analysis readiness report, but they do come to the conclusion

12 that communications in 1992 were assessed as very good and they utilised

13 the PTT system as a means of communication.

14 Q. Just in terms --

15 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, may I ask one thing. And I'm

16 addressing both you and Mr. Harmon and perhaps the witness, as well. If

17 were talking about "communicate," you know I'm not a native English

18 speaker. I speak some English; I speak some French. What I know is that

19 "communique" in French, which is exactly the same word, could also be

20 "linked". For example, if you would order in a hotel the chambres

21 communiquantes, that means rooms connected with a door to two rooms. So,

22 therefore, looking at this in the context, I would exclude for certain that

23 "communication" would not mean such kind of a communication as we find that

24 -- and it's -- of course, we're interpreting texts. But if anyone could

25 help me out here because you start and the witness follows you in that

1 respect, that, When we are talking about communications, we are talking

2 about telephones and telexes, et cetera. It's not self-evident for me that

3 if you would use the word "communique" in French, that it would have only

4 that meaning. But I am just asking you, perhaps also on the basis of the

5 original B/C/S text, whether that is how it should be understood.

6 Perhaps we could ask the attention from the interpreters and ask

7 them whether they could exclude such a meaning, taking it from the original

8 text, and then I'd like to hear from you whether "to communicate" in this

9 context would necessarily focus on telephones, telexes, et cetera.

10 [Defence counsel confer]

11 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, I take it that the interpreters have

12 followed my observations and, of course, it's -- you're entirely free to

13 consult with someone of your team who speaks the language. But perhaps we

14 could also assist you to draw the attention of the interpreters to the

15 relevant line where you're talking about communication and see whether it's

16 without any ambiguity that the translation is "communications," in the

17 sense of telephones, telexes, et cetera.

18 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed, Your Honour.

19 I would indicate that I've given the B/C/S version to my case

20 manager, and I can return to this topic at a later point. It's just in

21 relation to the statement made by Beli on page 17. Or if it might be more

22 useful, if my case manager can find the relevant reference and read it out

23 in B/C/S, and it can be translated by the interpreters on the spot.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I think on B/C/S it's on page 10, the last

25 portion of -- and then it should then be approximately a couple of lines

1 from the bottom, I would say.

2 MS. LOUKAS: Yes. Perhaps the ERN number, Your Honour.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I could give you the ERN number. Its last

4 three digits are 725.

5 MS. LOUKAS: It's about --

6 JUDGE ORIE: And as a matter of fact, from what I see -- no. It

7 seems that in the original it also says something about -- well, a word

8 that starts with similar, in Cyrillic, similar letters as "communication"

9 in English and "communication" in French.

10 MS. LOUKAS: Yes.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask perhaps your case manager to slowly

12 read the line in Cyrillic, the seventh line from the bottom. That starts a

13 new sentence. I think that's the one we would need in -- approximately in

14 the middle. Would you please be so kind as to read that slowly.

15 MR. KARGANOVIC: [Interpretation] "Up until now, we were unable"

16 -- "Up till now, we were unable to communicate with anyone except for our

17 Semberija and Majevica region. Up till now, this cooperation has been

18 quite good."

19 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. That would do.

20 Could I ask the interpreters whether the word "to communicate"

21 here should be understood in the technical sense of telephones, telexes, et

22 cetera, or whether it could have a broader meaning. I'm listening to the

23 English Channel at this moment.

24 THE INTERPRETER: Your Honour, the word could have broader

25 meaning, especially if it's used as a noun; the word "komunikacija" could

1 also mean a road if used as a noun.

2 JUDGE ORIE: And now in --

3 THE INTERPRETER: In this case, it's used as a verb, so it's

4 hard to say.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. So at least there could be some confusion as

6 whether we are -- now in the English translation -- I don't know whether

7 "to communicate" would have a broader meaning than - and I am now looking

8 to you, Ms. Loukas, perhaps to the witness, as well, and to Mr. Harmon -

9 whether "to communicate" could have a broader meaning than just technical

10 communication, electronic communication.

11 MS. LOUKAS: But it would of course --

12 JUDGE ORIE: We've Australian English and American now. So you

13 should be able to help me out.

14 MS. LOUKAS: Well, Your Honour, obviously it would include those

15 other forms of communication, the technical forms of communication.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Yes. I have no doubt that that would

17 certainly, but the question is whether we should understand it as

18 specifically having that technical meaning.

19 MS. LOUKAS: Well, Your Honour, I think it's -- it's really

20 ambiguous in that regard.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

22 MS. LOUKAS: And I'm happy to move on. I'd like to hear from

23 Mr. Harmon, but ...

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. He's nodding slowly yes from what I see, Mr.

25 Harmon.

1 MR. HARMON: Yes, that's correct. I agree with the Defence

2 interpretation.

3 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that, Mr. Brown, you do not disagree as

4 far as the linguistic version. I know that you're not a linguistic expert,

5 but --

6 THE WITNESS: Only that I am Scottish.

7 MS. LOUKAS: Yes. Now the issue becomes more confused.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Ms. Loukas, that means that the basis for --

9 well, the assumptions on which your questions are based are not

10 unambiguously established, or the answers of the witness. Let's ...

11 MS. LOUKAS: Never -- well, I can explore that a little, I

12 suppose. Obviously --

13 JUDGE ORIE: If you want to do that, that's fine. But I think

14 it's just fair for you to know that it came into my mind that the whole

15 paragraph might have a totally different meaning.

16 MS. LOUKAS: Well, as with many of these things, Your Honour,

17 it's quite clear when one analyses the document that there are ambiguities.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But I think it's fair for you to know that

19 where you seem to focus very much on the technical meaning, that at least

20 one of the Judges - and I consulted with another Judge - might have a

21 totally different understanding of the part. And I think you should be

22 aware of that because otherwise you might be taken by surprise if that

23 would have any consequences, of course. It's just one line in a document,

24 but nevertheless. It's not an unimportant one. I take it that that's the

25 reason why you're asking questions on it.

1 MS. LOUKAS: Precisely, Your Honour.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

3 MS. LOUKAS: And of course the question of interpreting the word

4 "communication" as between English, French, American English, Australian

5 English, Scottish, communicating those differences in the word

6 "communication" can become difficult, as well.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed, Ms. Loukas.

8 MS. LOUKAS: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.

9 Q. Now, going on to a further aspect of the Assembly session. We go

10 to the contribution of a Mr. Dragan Kalinic, which is at page 22 of your

11 footnote version. And in the tab version ...?

12 JUDGE ORIE: We'll find it, Ms. Loukas.

13 MR. HARMON: It's on page 21.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I see that -- Mr. Kalinic.

15 MS. LOUKAS: Yes -- oh, good.

16 Q. Okay. Now, going to Mr. Kalinic's contribution, we get to this

17 point in his speech -- it's in the second paragraph, about four or five

18 lines down.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, for you it's page 14.

20 MS. LOUKAS: Thank you for that, Your Honour.

21 Q. It starts off with this: "I would like to address some of the

22 things I have heard here and some of the information and ideas that have

23 been in circulation lately which could create a certain confusion among

24 other people, and maybe this would be the right place to clear such issues

25 up while there is still time. Among all the issues this Assembly should

1 decide on, the most important one is this: Have we chosen the option of

2 war or the option of negotiation?"

3 Now, when you read Kalinic's contribution there -- Mr. Kalinic's

4 contribution, it's quite clear, is it not, or it's possible interpretation

5 of what's being said there that on what he's heard so far in the Assembly

6 session, he's not sure if they're talking about the option of war or the

7 option of negotiation?

8 A. Yes, he would seem to -- if you -- if you take that -- that line,

9 seem to stress that -- you know, he's asking the question himself, so he

10 may himself have some indecision, not quite sure, and he's stressing his

11 view, which clearly is to have the war option.

12 Q. And it's quite clear, as you might expect in any parliamentary

13 session anywhere in the world where there appears to be an ongoing war,

14 that in a debate there will be hawks and there will be doves? I.e., some

15 people that are for negotiations and some people that are for war.

16 A. Well, that's a theoretical and slightly hypothetical issue. Yes,

17 that may well be the case. I'm not sure if you can say in every case, but

18 yes, that could -- that -- that is a feature in some -- some parliamentary

19 states and ...

20 Q. Okay. So in this session, in this Assembly session, there has

21 been amongst the contributors people talking about a negotiated peace and

22 other people talking about war; correct?

23 A. Well, I think if there's any possible ambiguity, you might --

24 might have that with Mr. Karadzic, but I don't think anybody else seems to

25 be, in your phrase, a dove, and Mr. Karadzic himself talks about war. "We

1 are at war," I think he -- he himself -- it's a phrase he himself uses. So

2 I'm not sure that there is necessarily any disagreement that they are at

3 war.

4 Q. No, but the point is that he's still talking about negotiations,

5 isn't he? And the drawing of bilateral borders, is he not?

6 A. Well, he mention it is issue of bilateral borders, but I think

7 I've covered that, and it's a little ambiguous to what he means. He

8 references in the introduction to his speech the issue of negotiations. He

9 does make some references in that. But he -- he also makes references that

10 they are at war, that they've already taken control of territory, that

11 they've got significant territory and hold Sarajevo in encirclement. So

12 I'm not quite sure that -- that he is a dove.

13 Q. I didn't say he was a dove, Mr. Brown. In fact, the context in

14 which I used the term "dove" was in the context of -- well, I might go back

15 to that portion.

16 [Defence counsel confer]

17 MS. LOUKAS:

18 Q. Yes. I think the question was: "And it's clear, as you might

19 expect in any parliamentary session anywhere in the world where there

20 appears to be an ongoing war, that in a debate there will be hawks and

21 there be doves? I.e., some people that are for negotiations and some people

22 that are for war."

23 That was my question. You agree with that, yes?

24 A. Yes. As I said, that in a theoretical question there may well be

25 in parliamentary sessions people who are pro and against conflict.

1 Q. Okay. Let's move on now to Mr. -- I think further on in Mr.

2 Kalinic's speech. He talks about -- and that's at page 22 of the tab

3 version. He talks about there being mercenaries on their way from Libya

4 and Sudan and Iran and so forth. Did mercenaries become involved in the

5 Bosnian conflict from areas such as those nominated there?

6 A. This did not fall within the -- the remit of my report to study

7 this issue. However, I have heard that later in the war that there were

8 indeed individuals coming from other states. Whether they were those

9 states, I have no idea. But it was not really in the area of my expertise,

10 nor was it within the remit of this report.

11 Q. Are you aware of whether or not Osama bin Laden made it there?

12 A. I'm afraid I can't answer that question. I don't know.

13 Q. Okay. Now, moving on to the contribution of Mr. Vjestica, where

14 he indicates at one point -- and this is at page 26 of the footnote version

15 and --

16 MR. HARMON: Page 24.

17 MS. LOUKAS: I'm much obliged to Mr. Harmon.

18 Q. In fact, the portion I'd like to go to is on page 25 of the tab

19 version. And he indicates there that -- in the middle of the paragraph, he

20 says, "80 per cent of Serbs have left Bihac. A large number of Muslims

21 have also left Bihac, and we have a pre-conflict situation there."

22 Now, Mr. Brown, to your knowledge, do you have anything to

23 contradict that statement?

24 A. I do not know what was happening in Bihac at that time. I am

25 aware in some areas that there were indeed Serb refugees coming from --

1 from other areas, and a number of them did come into the Krajina area. But

2 in relation to figures and numbers in Bihac, I'm afraid I can't -- I can't

3 assist you here.

4 Q. But it's -- it's clear, isn't it, that in the -- the lead-up to

5 the war that people of all three communities, there was some movement

6 there, was there not? Or can't you answer that question?

7 A. I'm not sure I can answer the question in detail, to be truthful.

8 The -- the Serbs that I do know that did come into the Krajina, a number

9 came from Western Slavonia and Croatia. But as to others and when they

10 arrived or indeed what was happening pre, say, March or April, I really --

11 I really don't think I can assist you.

12 Q. Mm-hm. Were you aware of -- or do any of the documents you

13 looked at make it clear to you that Serbs were in fear as a result of what

14 had occurred in Croatia?

15 A. I'm not sure necessarily that the JNA reports, which would have

16 been the ones at that time, were as quite specific as that in that they

17 would list, for example, I don't know, interviews or whatever. I would

18 imagine - again this, is only just to some extent my opinion - that if

19 people are fleeing from Western Slavonia and become refugees, Serb

20 refugees, that they probably were in fear. But I don't think the documents

21 necessarily touch on that. What they do touch on and discuss are the

22 objectives often, especially come April, March and April, of what it was

23 that the JNA felt they had done in Western Slavonia, which was to protect

24 the Serbs, occasionally using the phrase "to protect the Serbs against

25 genocide."

1 But in relation to documented examples of whether I've seen, you

2 know, interviews or whatever of -- of individual Serbs who were in fear,

3 no, I haven't.

4 Q. Mm-hm.

5 A. I wouldn't discount that that, of course, was -- was happening.

6 Q. Well, of course, Croatia's unilateral declaration of independence

7 in June 1991, are you in a position to agree or disagree to the proposition

8 that there was some restoration of the old Ustasha symbols of World War II?

9 A. I'm not. The war in Croatia is one that I have not examined in

10 detail.

11 Q. But there was dismissal of Serbs from their jobs.

12 A. Again, I would have to defer to someone who's studied that area

13 in detail. I did not look at the war in Croatia. That was dealt with

14 either by -- by others and --

15 Q. That Serb residents who remained had to sign loyalty oaths.

16 A. Again, I can only repeat my answer. I don't know.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, to ask for further details when the

18 witness has clearly said that he is not aware -- of course, you might be

19 lucky that the fifth or the sixth that he happens to know something about,

20 but he appears as an expert here.

21 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, I'm happy to move on, Your Honour.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, it is two minutes to.

23 MS. LOUKAS: Well, I can move on tomorrow, as opposed to this

24 afternoon.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

1 MS. LOUKAS: Or this evening.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll adjourn until tomorrow.

3 THE WITNESS: Your Honour.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

5 THE WITNESS: I wonder if I could be so bold. I would like to

6 finish tomorrow because I am due to leave the country on Friday for two

7 weeks.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, we expect Ms. Loukas to conclude her

9 cross-examination certainly by tomorrow.

10 MS. LOUKAS: Do we have a full session tomorrow, Your Honour?

11 JUDGE ORIE: Well, we have reserved -- I'll give you the exact

12 numbers tomorrow when we start. I can tell you that until the last break

13 the OTP had taken six hours and 45 minutes, which would mean --

14 MS. LOUKAS: That does not include Your Honours' questions?

15 JUDGE ORIE: I beg your pardon?

16 MS. LOUKAS: Does that include Your Honours' questions?

17 JUDGE ORIE: No. No. No. Our questions are such that they

18 should not be -- and they are neutral questions, as well; they are not

19 either in favour of the Prosecution or the Defence.

20 That means on the basis of the six hours' guidance, you would

21 have a little bit over four hours, of which you took until the last break

22 45 minutes, so you are now at approximately 1 hour and 45 minutes, a little

23 bit over that because we started a little bit earlier than 6.30, which

24 would mean that under this guidance there would be another -- a little bit

25 over two hours -- well, let's say two hours and 15 to 20 minutes to go.

1 MS. LOUKAS: Does that exclude the questions Your Honours asked?

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I --

3 MS. LOUKAS: I'm buying for time here.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I -- I have not calculated exactly now the

5 questions we'd put to the witness in the last hour, and I am aware that I

6 dealt with the issue of communication. But -- well, let's say somewhere

7 close to the -- in the middle of the second session.

8 MS. LOUKAS: Well, Your Honour, if I might make suggestion.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

10 MS. LOUKAS: Because if I am going to be confined to two more

11 hours.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

13 MS. LOUKAS: There is just no way I'm going to get through the

14 amount of material I have.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. At the same time, Ms. Loukas - and I'm not

16 speaking on behalf of myself but on behalf of the Chamber - that the way in

17 which, especially the first portion of your cross-examination was

18 conducted, is not very much encouraging the Chamber to grant you more than

19 the usual 60 per cent.

20 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour is referring to which portion?

21 JUDGE ORIE: At the beginning. Well, let's say the first 35

22 minutes.

23 MS. LOUKAS: In terms of asking questions about the independence

24 of the witness?

25 JUDGE ORIE: Well, in many respects. But we'll consider the

1 matter. But I just do not want to take you by surprise tomorrow morning if

2 the Chamber would, after having evaluated, which we usually do, also the

3 second portion -- that you'd not be taken by surprise if we'd be relatively

4 strict on the 60-per cent guideline.

5 MS. LOUKAS: Well, Your Honour, I would indicate that an

6 examination and a detailed examination, for example, of the 16th Assembly

7 Session is critical in relation to cross-examining this witness, firstly.

8 And secondly --

9 JUDGE ORIE: It mainly comes down - and to that extent, cross-

10 examination very much resembles examination-in-chief - that you'd draw our

11 attention to certain portions you, Mr. Harmon for the Prosecution, and you,

12 Ms. Loukas for the Defence, consider to be of significant importance -- of

13 significance and then to say that very often, apart from reading the text -

14 - if you'd say to the Bench, I'd like to draw your attention to all those

15 portions where people are still speaking about negotiating peace rather

16 than going to war, and if the Prosecution finds it important, would like to

17 say, I would like to draw your attention to the strategic goals or to --

18 where people are talking in terms of war, then the Chamber could digest

19 that information and see what it thinks about it. But -- and it's not to

20 diminish your role, Mr. Brown, but very often it's mainly reading the

21 portion and saying, Is that what it says?

22 Well, this Chamber is able to read. Perhaps this could also

23 serve as a guidance for you. If you'd say at the beginning, I'd like to

24 draw your attention, Witness, to page so-and-so, so-and-so, so-and-so, so-

25 and-so, where they're all talking about peace negotiations, and we'd

1 quickly try to follow that, and if the witness would say, Yes, that's what

2 I read there, as well -- because very often it does not go in any further

3 depth than this.

4 MS. LOUKAS: Well, Your Honour, I must say when one looks at the

5 way the Prosecution dealt with this, that's exactly what occurred. There

6 was reading out of particular portions --

7 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I'm saying -- I said that it very much

8 resembles; although, it can be done five times as quick as you do it. And

9 even if there would be specific portions, if you would make a list and say,

10 I would like to draw the attention of that and that and that parts, be sure

11 that there'll be yellow highlighted areas, just as good as we do it for the

12 portions of the --

13 MS. LOUKAS: Well, Your Honour, part of the reason I've adopted

14 this approach is because Mr. Harmon's approach has been to take the witness

15 through selected portions, and I'm doing the same thing, taking the witness

16 through selected portions that don't match up --

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

18 MS. LOUKAS: -- with those particular portions. Now, if Your

19 Honour would say that there is a more shorthand way of doing that, I think

20 that's an excellent idea that should be adopted by both the Prosecution and

21 the Defence and that I'm happy to -- if need be, I can hand up the -- the

22 16th Assembly Session with the particular portions highlighted. But it's

23 also of use, I think, for the Trial Chamber to hear the witness's reaction

24 to that, in terms of his credibility - and I probably shouldn't be having

25 this discussion in front of the witness - his credibility as an impartial

1 expert.

2 JUDGE ORIE: No, but -- yes, but at the same time an expert not

3 mainly in political developments during Assembly sessions. And that

4 becomes clear, as well -- he's not to be blamed for it. But that's, of

5 course, very often what it ends in. You say, Well, this is what it reads;

6 it seems to say this and this, where the expertise is not absent but went

7 to the background. MS. LOUKAS: Well, your Honour, in that regard,

8 I do have a suggestion that will help shorten proceedings --

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

10 MS. LOUKAS: -- and I notice we're stealing too much time from

11 the interpreters --

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Because we are instructed that if we go on to

13 7.30, it should really not be later.

14 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, I understand that, Your Honour. I will make

15 one suggestion.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

17 MS. LOUKAS: Which I think if Your Honour is allowing me two

18 hours because I did want to spend a certain portion of time dealing with

19 the cross-examination of Mr. Brown in Brdjanin by Mr. Akerman. If we could

20 just tender that portion, that will significantly assist in curtailing the

21 examination.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Any objection, Mr. Harmon?

23 MR. HARMON: No, Your Honour. But I'd like to receive copes of

24 those transcripts before they're tendered so they're not tendered without

25 my having had an opportunity to review them. I will need to see what

1 portions are tendered so I can see what context they're in and review the

2 transcripts to see if it's a fair submission.

3 MS. LOUKAS: Oh, I'm not -- I'm not suggesting -- I'm suggesting

4 the entire cross-examination.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I leave it to the parties to see whether they

6 can reach agreement not only on the principle but also on the technical

7 aspects in the ten minutes to come.

8 I'd like to thank you very much, Mr. Brown, for being here

9 today. But we'd like to see you back, as you may have noticed, tomorrow.

10 We carefully noted that you'd like to finish tomorrow; you will finish

11 tomorrow, and you're instructed not to speak with anyone about the

12 testimony already given and still to be given.

13 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour.

14 JUDGE ORIE: We adjourn until tomorrow morning, 9.00, same

15 courtroom.

16 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.38 p.m.,

17 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 13th day of

18 July, 2005, at 9.00 a.m.

19

20

21

22

23

24

25