1 Thursday, 14 July 2005
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case number
7 IT-00-39-T, the Prosecutor versus Momcilo Krajisnik.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
9 Ms. Loukas, I take it we can ask the usher to bring the witness
10 in so that you can --
11 MS. LOUKAS: Sorry, Your Honour?
12 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that you're ready so that we could ask the
13 usher to bring the witness in.
14 MS. LOUKAS: There's just a matter I need to place on the record
15 before we commence, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. How much time would that take? Because it
17 usually takes a minute for the usher to get the witness.
18 MS. LOUKAS: Oh, it would probably take about three minutes, Your
20 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, then we'll wait for a second. Yes.
21 MS. LOUKAS: Thank you, Your Honour.
22 Firstly, in relation to Your Honour's comments at the end of the
23 last session in relation to the 60-per cent guideline and approximately
24 two hours remaining for the cross-examination. The first point I'd like
25 to make, Your Honour, is that in the circumstances where we are dealing
1 with a report that refers to something in the nature of 500 documents,
2 Your Honour, the -- the question of the 60-per cent guideline applying in
3 those circumstances, I would submit, is inappropriate. And -- and also,
4 subtracting the time taken for Trial Chamber's questions from the time in
5 question, I would submit, in those circumstances is also inappropriate.
6 Of course, when the Trial Chamber at the end asks questions, the -- both
7 parties are asked if they wish -- if any questions arise or what have you.
8 So nevertheless, if the Trial Chamber's questions arise during the
9 evidence in chief of the witness, then in those circumstances, I would
10 submit particularly in the context of the expert report, Your Honour, the
11 application -- the strict application of the 60-per cent guideline is not,
12 in my submission, in the interests of justice or, in my most respectful
13 submission, of a -- a fair trial.
14 In addition, Your Honours will note that on the first day this
15 witness commenced giving evidence not only were the -- were there question
16 of the documents associated with the report, there were also a list of
17 additional documents that the Prosecution took the witness through,
18 documents, of course, in the main that are already in the evidence but
19 nevertheless not part of necessarily the preparation in relation to this
20 witness, who was meant to be dealt with in accordance with his report.
21 And Your Honour did make some comments about the additional documents and
22 the late service in relation to the exhibits list on the Defence on that
24 The other aspect is this, Your Honour: This question of spending
25 time on the -- the 16th Session, as it were. Your Honour, Mr. Harmon
1 spent a significant amount of time taking the witness through selected and
2 selective quotes and building upon them in relation to the evidence of
3 this witness. And, Your Honour, in the circumstances, it's appropriate, I
4 would submit, that the Defence also be given the opportunity to go through
5 the 16th Session, particularly in the nature of the fact that it is a
6 public trial, so that not only do the public have the benefit of the
7 selected quotes that were dealt with by the Prosecution but also an
8 opportunity to see the other perspective.
9 The other question is this, Your Honour: Your Honour made some
10 comments yesterday afternoon about the question of the first 30 minutes or
11 so of my cross-examination. I reviewed that portion of the transcript
12 last night, and they were questions related to independence, bias, the
13 limitations of the expert's report, and the limitations of his expertise.
14 These are classically important areas to explore, Your Honour, with any
15 report of this nature. Unless Your Honour would be saying, "Ms. Loukas,
16 there's no need to proceed into those questions because we've already
17 found that the witness is not entirely impartial" or "that we already know
18 how limited his expertise is," only in those circumstances where Your
19 Honours had already made that finding could Your Honours say that any
20 exploration of issues of independence or limitations of expertise could in
21 any way be inappropriate for cross-examination.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, the main issue is that it all can be
23 done in approximately a third of the time you take for it. When the
24 Prosecution takes its time to draw our attention to certain portions,
25 then, of course, if they spend time on that, that would create time for
1 the Defence as well.
2 Let's -- let's proceed. It's -- it was also about the -- there
3 were a lot of -- of issues, perhaps even during the whole first hour of
4 the cross-examination, where the whole of the Chamber thought if it has to
5 be addressed - and it's of course entirely up to the Defence to do it or
6 not to do it - then let's do it as efficiently as possible and not spend
7 -- as I said yesterday, after ten minutes we were wondering what the
8 issue was. Please come to your point as quickly as possible. And if you
9 say for bias, could you please -- this and this and this. But we get an
10 introduction of five or ten questions which is all an access to the issue.
11 The Chamber would very much like the parties to come to the issue right
12 away. And I do know that it's -- advocacy is an art, as I do understand,
13 but sometimes a little bit less artistic would certainly save time.
14 Let's not spend too much time on it. If there's really something
15 which is so vital that you'd like to further elaborate on it, take the
16 next minute, and then let's proceed.
17 MS. LOUKAS: Yes. Your Honour, the only point I would make is
18 this: If you were to say that all this could be done more quickly and
19 more efficiently, then I think that that's something that could in the
20 most strenuous terms also be emphasised to the Prosecution, firstly. And
21 I understood that your comments did apply to both, firstly.
22 And secondly, my major concern is this, Your Honour: That the --
23 the question of scheduling and the completion strategy has placed such a
24 burden, in my respectful submission, in terms of ensuring that there is an
25 effective defence and fair trial for Mr. Krajisnik.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do understand your point. I'm not going to
2 say more about it. It never happened that the Chamber after ten minutes
3 did not have any idea on what the Prosecution was seeking to establish.
4 Let's -- I take it -- and, of course, the Chamber is aware that
5 you feel that there's an extreme strain that we are working within certain
6 time limits set by the Chamber; not by the completion strategy but by the
8 MS. LOUKAS: Well, Your Honour, I will make this comment.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 MS. LOUKAS: The evidence in chief of the witness extended over
11 two and a half days. His evidence began on Monday.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The -- if they take much time, then 60 per
13 cent is more -- is more time as well. But let's not -- let's just proceed
14 and see that we can use our time now, at least, to hear whatever the
15 witness can tell us.
16 Mr. Usher, could you please escort the witness into the
18 [The witness entered court]
19 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Brown. Please be seated.
20 THE WITNESS: [Microphone not activated] Thanks.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Brown, I again would like to draw your attention
22 to the binding character of the solemn declaration you've given at the
23 beginning of your testimony. It is still valid.
24 THE WITNESS: Thanks.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Proceed, Ms. Loukas.
1 WITNESS: EWAN BROWN [Resumed]
2 MS. LOUKAS: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.
3 Cross-examined by Ms. Loukas: [Continued]
4 Q. Good morning, Mr. Brown.
5 A. Good morning, Ms. Loukas. How are you?
6 Q. I have very limited time to deal with you this morning. So in
7 terms of the questioning, if you -- if there is a question that you can
8 answer "yes" or "no" to, or "I don't know" or what have you, the shorter
9 the better.
10 A. I'll do my best, Ms. Loukas.
11 Q. Now, Mr. Brown, I was just taking you through the 16th Session,
12 you'll recall, yesterday evening. And I, in fact, just want to take you
13 to, firstly, a certain portion of the 16th Session, and we'll do this very
14 quickly. And it's at page 41 in relation to the comments made by
15 Mr. Mladic. And you will recall that you were referred to a certain
16 portion of his speech, where he was dealing with -- "We cannot cleanse nor
17 can we have a sieve to sift so that only Serbs would stay or that Serbs
18 would fall through and the rest leave."
19 He also further went on to say -- he talked about, in fact, going
20 to his own village where he was born. And -- you recall that?
21 A. Yes. This -- is that the section after his -- his speech? Yes,
22 I do -- I do recall that.
23 Q. Yes. And -- and indeed he indicated that -- basically that "both
24 Serbs and Muslims all must take care of one another."
25 MR. HARMON: Your Honour, that's found on page 39 of the tabbed
2 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please proceed.
3 MS. LOUKAS: I'm much obliged to Mr. Harmon. That will make it a
4 lot faster, seeing we're working from two versions.
5 Q. Now, moving along in terms of the 16th Session, we go to the
6 contribution of Mr. Krajisnik, which is at page 51 of my version.
7 MR. HARMON: That could well be at page 49, Your Honours.
8 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed it is. Yes.
9 Q. And that is, in fact, that Mr. Krajisnik indicated that -- he was
10 basically summarising the discussion thus far, and he indicates "This was
11 a proposal about choosing between the option of war and the political
12 option. I think that we should choose the political option and the option
13 of war always comes what is imposed upon us. But in reality if we are
14 establishing an army, it means that we do expect the war option."
15 Now, just in relation to the comments of Mr. Krajisnik there,
16 it's quite clear that he's still in favour of settling things through the
17 political process, but then -- but nevertheless the war is there and they
18 have to be in a position to defend themselves; correct?
19 A. Well, I wouldn't necessarily agree with that assertion.
20 Mr. Krajisnik later on in that section discusses -- in fact, he says, "We
21 are at war." It's not that they're not at war. And also, he makes
22 reference to the fact that once they have their Serbian army, it will be
23 able to -- it will be easier to achieve the -- presumably the goals that
24 they have been discussing earlier on, now that they have their army and
25 that they could have done that earlier.
1 Q. Which particular portion are you referring to, Mr. Brown?
2 A. On my one, I've got page 51 at the top "We are at war. It will
3 be possible to solve these things with the Muslims and Croats only by war.
4 Politics will be the -- and the politics will be instrumental in bringing
5 it to an end and I don't know whether I've encompassed everything."
6 And then he says a little bit later: "Please, if we acquire the
7 territories which we agree on and have conceived of today plus the
8 Corridor we get up there, we will have done this generation -- we'll have
9 done so much for the Serbian people and this debt will be impossible to
11 Q. Yes, I understand. You've been through that. But Mr. Brown, you
12 understand that, of course, text such as this are possible -- it's
13 possible to have alternative -- an alternative analysis other than the one
14 you put forward. You understand that, don't you?
15 A. Yes, of course. You know, texts generally have --
16 Q. And, in fact, if you look at this statement, "We are at war" is a
17 statement of the obvious. A war was proceeding, was it not?
18 A. Conflict had broken out in Bosnia, yes, as -- as -- as I think I
19 indicated yesterday.
20 Q. And he also makes the -- the statement that "It's important for
21 Serbs to be rational."
22 A. Could you direct me to that section? I can't see that.
23 JUDGE ORIE: A couple of lines lower.
24 MS. LOUKAS:
25 Q. It's just a couple of lines below. "But it must be the rational
1 Serbs who are leading the Serbian people today."
2 A. Yes, he says that there.
3 Q. And there's actually nothing wrong with defending your own
4 territory if you're under attack, is there?
5 A. Are you saying that as a hypothetical question or are you talking
6 about this particular case here?
7 Q. I'm asking you as a hypothetical question.
8 A. No, as a hypothetical question, I'm sure there's nothing wrong
9 with defending your own territory if you're under attack.
10 Q. Okay. Now, moving on, there's also a section there, you'll
11 recall, that Mr. Krajisnik indicates that -- there must not be looting and
12 what have you. I think it's just before that portion I took you to.
13 MR. HARMON: Page 50, Your Honours, Counsel. Toward the bottom
14 of the page.
15 MS. LOUKAS:
16 Q. And if we go on to page 54 in my version - that's page 52 in your
17 version - Mr. Krajisnik is speaking again, and he indicates "This is the
18 final proposal. I swear I shall abide by the constitution and the laws of
19 the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. I shall protect its
20 constitutional system honourably and faithfully, respecting moral
21 standards and spiritual values in the struggle for the freedom of the
22 entire Serbian people and all other citizens of the Serbian Republic of
23 Bosnia and Herzegovina so help me God."
24 So in relation to that particular proposal being put forward
25 there by Mr. Krajisnik, it's quite clear that the "Serb" in Republic of
1 Bosnia and Herzegovina is to include people other than Serbs; correct?
2 A. Well, I'm not sure what he's reading out there, whether that's a
3 -- some kind of standard constitutional text or loyalty, I don't know.
4 JUDGE ORIE: I think they're formulating the text of an oath to
5 be taken by all organs, so ...
6 THE WITNESS: Well, I would only say if that's what he said, as a
7 -- as a formulation of an oath, then that's what he's saying. But I
8 would maybe balance that with what seemed to happen in the months
9 succeeding this Assembly and had already happened apparently in some
10 municipalities in the months -- or the weeks prior to it.
11 MS. LOUKAS:
12 Q. Of course, that's your analysis, Mr. Brown.
13 A. Well, it's -- it seems to me that the documentation indicated
14 that a large number of non-Serbs in the Serbian Republic were not there
15 and that this was not a republic that did indeed seem to protect all other
17 Q. Now, Mr. Brown, do you find it impossible to canvass a view that
18 doesn't accord with the view expressed in your report?
19 A. No. No, clearly I -- I don't find it impossible. I mean, as I
20 said, there are certain limitations to the report I set. It was based
21 very heavily on documentation, very heavily on documentation from the
22 Krajina Corps and other military-related documentations. I've highlighted
23 those limitations. So clearly if there's other documentation around that
24 would seem to go against that, I would be more than happy to -- to review
25 that material and, where necessary, make any adjustments, and I don't --
1 Q. I'm not just talking about other documentation, I'm talking about
2 the documentation you've seen. Is it possible for you -- for example, in
3 your report, you -- when you're examining a document, you will give it a
4 particular slant, one that favours the Prosecution more than it does the
5 Defence. Is it possible for you -- and, in fact, I'd be interested in
6 your response to this, why in your report you didn't posit an alternative
7 analysis on the various documents as an impartial expert rather than one
8 that just accorded with the Prosecution theory.
9 MR. HARMON: Well, I'm going to object to that, Your Honour. The
10 witness -- we went over that yesterday about the Prosecution theory. The
11 witness said he was not familiar with the Prosecution theory.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas.
13 MS. LOUKAS: I will leave that alone, Your Honour. If -- if the
14 witness, who's been working in the OTP office from 1998 to 2004, does not
15 know the Prosecution theory, then I will leave that where it is.
16 MR. HARMON: I'll object to that, Your Honour. That's
18 MS. LOUKAS: I withdraw that as well.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 MS. LOUKAS:
21 Q. Now, Mr. Brown, let's go to the combat readiness report, which is
22 tab 6. Now, in relation to the combat readiness report, when you analyse
23 a document like that, which is an ex post facto report of the previous
24 year, do you, in analysing that, take into account the fact that this is,
25 of course, a secondary source, as opposed to a primary source of the
1 information contained therein?
2 A. Well, it's actually a primary-source document, obviously, because
3 it's come from -- from the VRS Main Staff.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, could we agree on the following: It is
5 a primary report to the extent that it comes direct from the source that
6 drafted it and at the same time it includes a lot of information which may
7 have been -- may have been collected by other primary sources? It's -- I
8 mean, it seems totally clear to me.
9 MS. LOUKAS: Well, that's where I'm leading the witness.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
11 MS. LOUKAS:
12 Q. It's actually a combination of both, isn't it?
13 A. It's a primary-source document that's making comments on
14 activities that have happened prior to the writing of the document. Many
15 documents do that. You could say that some of the police documents that
16 were reporting on the camps are in the same position; they're summarising
17 what had happened in a municipality a week or two or a month before. So
18 it's a primary-source document, but its content is about -- well, its
19 context actually is somewhat multifaceted. It's both looking back at what
20 happened in 1992; it's highlighting some weaknesses; and it's making
21 recommendations about what they're going to do in the -- in the future.
22 So it's actually a somewhat multifaceted document.
23 Q. Okay. Well, let's approach the document from another angle. It
24 is, of course, a document that any military analyst would also have to
25 analyse conditions on the ground and have evidence in relation to
1 conditions on the ground to compare with what is in the report.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And, of course, you were not there, so you can't be in a position
4 to comment on the accuracy or otherwise of what is in the report.
5 A. I would disagree there because there are references in the report
6 that clearly relate to documentation and activities that occurred at the
8 Q. But you can't vouch for each and every aspect of the report on
9 combat readiness, can you, as a military analyst.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, it goes without saying that if the
11 witness was not there, if it says there were 500 mortars here or 300
12 mortars there, what this expert can do is to see whether he finds any
13 support for such positions taken in this document in other documents, but
14 it's clear that he wasn't there, that he hasn't seen with his own eyes the
15 500 mortars or the 200 rifles or the one hand-grenade. That's really --
16 it goes, for the Bench, without saying.
17 MS. LOUKAS: Thank you, Your Honour.
18 Q. Now, Mr. Brown, okay, as a military analyst, in terms of
19 analysing a report of this nature, it's clear, is it not, that you would
20 have to be very careful to look at and ensure that there were other
21 corroborative sources in relation to a specific piece of information, as
22 opposed to perhaps some rhetoric or ex post facto boasting or attempting
23 to make the situation look better than it had been?
24 A. Yes, you would have to be wary that that was not going to come
25 into the document, but I would have to say that in looking at this
1 document -- well, first of all, the document is not a completely rosy
2 document. It does highlight some significant problems that they faced and
3 continued to face in the document. So that's one.
4 Q. Well, I'm referring --
5 A. Secondly --
6 Q. Oh, you haven't finished your answer. Yes.
7 A. -- there are a significant number of references in this document
8 that you can tie back to documentation from 1992 and when they comment
9 about issues, that you can link back to -- to successes, directives. They
10 talk, for example, about the two-stage development of the army. And that
11 would seem to have been borne out by the documentations more
12 contemporaneously in 1992. So having looked at the document, it seems
13 that, you know, it is -- it is not a, you know, a rose-tinted view of the
14 VRS. They do highlight some difficulties they have, difficulties they had
15 in 1992 as well as difficulties they still have in 1993. And --
16 Q. But --
17 A. -- I think there are a lot of references in there that you can
18 tie back to, issues from 1992 or documents from 1992, which for me seem to
19 corroborate the document.
20 Also, the document itself is a -- you know, highly confidential
21 document, a strictly secret document, which seems to have some
22 significance as well.
23 Q. Actually, going to that document, specifically going to
24 communications and what you've said there about -- what's been said there
25 about communications, clearly, to rely on the document, you would have to
1 have -- you would have to look at other evidence on the ground as to what
2 the state of communications was, would you not, during the relevant
4 A. Well, you would presumably have to look back in 1992 to see if --
5 if some of the issues that they discussed there were -- were put in place.
6 And having looked at the military documentation, it appears that they did
7 have a good communication system. They themselves in the 1992 -- sorry,
8 the 1993 document said the -- they admit they had problems. They admit
9 they had difficulties at the beginning of the war. They admit that the
10 military had to be relied on quite heavily for the use of communications,
11 but they appear to have overcome those communication problems. They
12 outline how they did that. They outline the uses that they made of the
13 existing systems that were there, and they come to the conclusion that the
14 communication system was very good. And when I look back at 1992 and see
15 that the 1st Krajina Corps was able to transmit messages, was able to pass
16 message documents down the chain, was made aware of meetings they had to
17 attend to, was able to conduct large-scale military operations in a very
18 short space of time, the Operation Corridor being a good example: A
19 two-corps operation involving units of the MUP from Knin, a large, large
20 amount of forces, it was able to mount that operation in an unbelievably
21 short space of time and it was able to be successful in that operation in
22 a space of a week to ten days, and I would argue that that indicates to me
23 that they did, in fact, have very good communications.
24 Q. Well, of course, developing a communications -- system for
25 communication within the army sphere itself is critical, is it not?
1 A. Yes, it is very important.
2 Q. Okay. Now, I just want to move on to your errata sheet, which I
3 think is tab 2 in folder 1. In fact, tab 3. Do you have that, Mr. Brown?
4 A. I do, yes.
5 Q. Now, if we go to your -- the first page of your errata sheet, you
6 have a number of errata there in relation to paragraphs 1.113 of your
7 report and paragraph 1.114 of your report.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Now, those matters that you've included in your errata sheet
10 were, of course, matters that arose when you were being cross-examined in
11 the Brdjanin trial; correct?
12 A. That is correct, yes, some of them.
13 Q. Sorry?
14 A. Some of them, yes.
15 Q. Some of them.
16 A. Yes, I believe so.
17 Q. Now, the very first one for paragraph 1.113, that arose during
18 your cross-examination in the trial against Mr. Brdjanin?
19 A. That's correct, yes.
20 Q. And the very next one, 1.113 arose in that context?
21 A. Yes, that's correct.
22 Q. The misspelling of "Radoslav" does not concern us.
23 On to paragraph 1.114, that also arose in your cross-examination
24 in the trial against Mr. Brdjanin.
25 A. That's correct, yes.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Q. Now, when we look at what's actually contained there, in that
2 passage of your report in relation to 113, you'd actually indicated there
3 that -- towards the bottom of the paragraph on page 49 of your report --
4 "Decisions --" "Decisions relating to the establishment of civilian
5 authorities and issues in relation to camps." That's the particular
6 portion of the report that we're dealing with.
7 Now, you were actually taken to that during your
8 cross-examination, and it was quite clear, was it not, in reference to
9 your footnote that it was not issues in relation to camps but, rather, a
10 discussion relating to the work of the Red Cross. Correct?
11 A. Well, I -- I'd like to possibly see the document. I -- I cannot
12 remember the discussion in the Brdjanin case itself. I can tell you what
13 the footnote was from the -- from my report, and I'm assuming the ICRC
14 were visiting the camps and it was relating to that.
15 Q. Sorry, Mr. Brown, are you saying that -- firstly, when did you
16 prepare this errata sheet?
17 A. I prepared those two -- or I think it was two or three sections.
18 I actually had noted in a copy of my report not long after the Brdjanin
19 case when I looked at it and reviewed it that I had -- there was a small
20 -- there were some small errors which may have been misinterpreted. And
21 in order to include those in the report, I wrote those on the side of --
22 of my report, not long after the Brdjanin testimony. So I'm not sure when
23 that was. 2003, I think.
24 The errata sheet here was prepared by me about two weeks ago, ten
25 -- not as much as that. Maybe about ten days ago.
1 Q. Okay. And --
2 A. And when I looked at the errata sheet, there had been one or two
3 ERN numbers, for example, I noted an ERN was wrong, I included that in and
4 I --
5 Q. I'm not cross-examining you about the ERN numbers. I'm
6 cross-examining you about paragraph 1.113 and the assertion that you had
7 in your report that "Decisions relating to establishment of civilian
8 authorities and issues in relation to camps" is in your text. You were
9 cross-examined about it in the Brdjanin trial and it was quite clear that
10 what was in your text was an overstatement in relation to your footnote,
11 was it not?
12 A. I don't know if it was overstatement. Maybe it was --
13 Q. Potentially misleading, perhaps?
14 A. No, I don't think it was misleading at all. What I wanted to do
15 in the errata was to tidy it up and make it slightly more clear. So maybe
16 it was less clear and Mr. Brdjanin had made a point, which I think he had
17 the right to do so, did, and when I reviewed the document, I decided to
18 make a change to that.
19 Q. So you don't concede that it was potentially misleading to state
20 in your report that there were "decisions relating to the establishment of
21 civilian authorities and issues in relation to camps" when it was a
22 discussion about the Red Cross.
23 A. Well, I'd like to see the document in its context, whether it is
24 a document saying the ICRC have visited camps and -- I know the ICRC did
25 visit camps from other documentation. I know the ICRC visited Manjaca
1 camp. And where it said "issues relating to camps," I wanted to tidy that
2 up. I don't think it was misleading, and the whole context of the
3 paragraph was to highlight that there were discussions with civilian
4 authorities on a range of topics. And -- but when I -- when I reviewed
5 that particular phrase "and issues in relation to camps," I agreed that it
6 may not have been quite accurate, and hence my reason to put in an errata.
7 I don't think it diminishes from the overall thrust of the paragraph,
8 which was that at the regional level there was military and civilian
9 cooperation and they discussed an array of topics. But as I say, my
10 report is a -- a long one; it has many footnotes. In this case,
11 Mr. Brdjanin raised that issue. When I reviewed it again, I realised that
12 I might not have been as neat with my wording, and when I reviewed it
13 after the testimony, I made some notes to that effect and then put that in
14 the errata sheet.
15 Q. Moving on to the next topic. Paragraph 113, another matter that
16 you included on your errata sheet as a result of your cross-examination by
17 Mr. Ackerman in Brdjanin, you'd left the potentially misleading impression
18 in your report in the text that -- and the phrase, I think, was -- what
19 you've corrected there is "It was members of the ARK Crisis Staff
20 accompanied the visit," and it should have read "representatives of the
21 government of the Autonomous Region of Krajina accompanied the visit."
22 Again, that was potentially misleading that you were including the Crisis
23 Staff; correct?
24 A. It was potentially erroneous to put it like that and I made the
25 errata, as again one of the -- when I looked at the notes, I reviewed
1 that, read the document again, and hence my putting in the errata sheet
2 that -- however I've expressed it in the errata sheet, "members of the --
3 representatives of the government of the Autonomous Region of Krajina
4 accompanied the visit," rather than as it's written there.
5 Q. Had you not been cross-examined on the comparison between your
6 text and your footnotes, this would never have made it into the errata
7 sheet, would it?
8 A. I can't tell you whether it would have made it in or not. If I
9 had highlighted it and reread the document and reread the footnotes and
10 realised there was a difficulty there, I would have put it into an errata
12 Q. Could you --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Could we conclude it as a fair chance that it would
14 not have been?
15 THE WITNESS: Yes, it's a fair chance, Your Honour. I am being
16 very honest, of course.
17 MS. LOUKAS:
18 Q. Well, we expect honesty.
19 Mr. Brown, prior to coming here to give evidence in the trial
20 against Mr. Krajisnik, did you check your text as against your footnotes
21 to ensure that you have been as accurate as possible in attempting to
22 assist the Trial Chamber?
23 A. No, I have not checked the text against every footnote prior to
24 coming to testify.
25 Q. Okay. Let's go to paragraph 114. There you say -- this was,
1 again, something you were cross-examined about in the Brdjanin trial --
2 that "ARK Crisis Staff members toured the areas of combat activity and
3 were briefed by military personnel." And as a result of being
4 cross-examined on this by Mr. Ackerman, it was quite clear that it was not
5 members, plural, of the ARK Crisis Staff; it was just Mr. Radoslav
6 Brdjanin touring the area of combat activity.
7 A. Well, that's not quite true because Stojan Zupljanin was also on
8 a video in Kotor Varos, I believe, with Mr. -- with Mr. Brdjanin, and
9 that -- so -- and there had also been visits. Mr. Radic, I know, who was
10 on the Crisis Staff, had done a visit to Prijedor and, I think, Omarska
11 camp. So there were indications that ARK Crisis Staff members did visit
12 and tour the zone of responsibility. But what I wanted to do in this one
13 in the errata sheet, was to tidy that up and put that it was Mr. Brdjanin
14 in this particular case. But--
15 Q. It's important, isn't it, to ensure that what's in your text and
16 what you refer to in a footnote actually coincide and there is accuracy
17 there. Is that not important?
18 A. Yes, it is. But it is also important if you highlight --
19 highlight that there are errors, that you can rectify those, which I've
20 done. And also, it doesn't get away from the main point that I was
21 making. The ARK Crisis Staff members did tour the zone of responsibility,
22 and there is video footage to that effect, documentary evidence to that
23 effect, and that was the thrust of the paragraph and also the preceding
24 paragraph about cooperation between military and regional figures.
25 Q. Nevertheless, to be accurate, you had to correct it, didn't you?
1 A. I -- I honestly corrected the -- the errors when I reviewed it.
2 Q. Okay.
3 JUDGE ORIE: It added to the accuracy.
4 THE WITNESS: I hope so, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.
6 MS. LOUKAS:
7 Q. Now, moving on. Let's go to a particular portion of your report.
8 Let's go to the paragraph -- where is it? Page 22. And we're looking at
9 footnote 41. We're looking at the paragraph, in fact, on page 21,
10 paragraph 1.31. You've got a quote there, and you put it down to footnote
12 MS. LOUKAS: Now, I've got some copies here of footnote 41, which
13 I'll distribute and so you can look at it.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, I take it that you want to tender that?
15 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, that would be number ...?
17 THE REGISTRAR: That will be D48, Your Honours.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
19 MS. LOUKAS:
20 Q. Do you have that document before you?
21 A. Yes, I do.
22 Q. Okay. Can you just tell the Trial Chamber where in that report,
23 the regular combat report that you have before you, that first part of the
24 quote comes from.
25 A. It doesn't seem to be in this document. I must have
1 misreferenced the document. I do know a document from a daily combat
2 report making reference to that does exist. I can attempt to get that and
3 rectify the ERN and the footnote reference.
4 Q. So that's an error.
5 A. Yes, it appears to be.
6 Q. Were you asked by the Prosecution to check your report after
7 you'd finished giving evidence in the Brdjanin trial and before it was put
8 forward in relation to this trial?
9 A. I don't remember being specifically asked that very direct
11 Q. Did you, as a responsible analyst wishing to ensure that the
12 information you were conveying to the Trial Chamber was as accurate as
13 possible, decide off your own bat to undertake that?
14 A. I'm not sure of your question. Decide to -- to do what? Check
15 the footnotes?
16 Q. Yeah. Make sure that your text is accurate and that your
17 footnotes support what you have in the text.
18 A. Yes. But this is a long report with a large number of footnotes.
19 I admit that I had -- in this error, there is a referencing error. I am
20 more than prepared to get the -- through the assistance of the Office of
21 the Prosecutor, to get the accurate reference, because I know this
22 document does exist with this quote and -- in order to rectify that error.
23 This is a footnote -- a document with some 900 footnotes and clearly there
24 are some small errors in there, and I don't think it detracts necessarily
25 from what has been written and the thrust of my argument here in -- in
1 that particular part of the text.
2 Q. Okay. Let's go to footnote 79, shall we?
3 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, the Chamber would very much appreciate
4 if the expert would retrieve from what document this quote comes.
5 Would you please do that.
6 And I take it, Mr. Harmon, that the material will be made
7 available to the expert once he has finished his examination in this
9 MR. HARMON: I'm undertaking right now, Your Honour --
10 JUDGE ORIE: You're doing that.
11 MR. HARMON: -- the retrieval of that right now because it may be
12 that probably we can locate that document while Mr. Brown is still on the
13 stand, and he can be examined about it.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Well, you know, Mr. Harmon, that the Defence very
15 much appreciates if experts find their own sources. But I think that if
16 it's a literal quote, you would not object against Mr. Harmon being --
17 MS. LOUKAS: Of course not, Your Honour. No, no, no.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.
19 MS. LOUKAS: And the question is not that the quote may not exist
20 in -- in some document but the question of the accuracy and --
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I --
22 MS. LOUKAS: -- research work of the witness.
23 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand. But the Chamber then wants to know
24 exactly from what document it is; time, source, et cetera.
25 MS. LOUKAS: Thank you, Your Honour.
1 Q. Now, let's go to footnote 79, shall we? That's on page 29 of
2 your report. And I have a copy of that --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar --
4 MS. LOUKAS: -- for the witness.
5 JUDGE ORIE: -- that document would be what number?
6 THE REGISTRAR: D49, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
8 MS. LOUKAS:
9 Q. Okay. Footnote 79. The quote that you've included on page 29 is
10 -- ends with "They do not want anything that is somebody else's, anything
11 that has not been theirs for centuries, but they will not give an inch of
12 their own territory."
13 Do you see that portion of the document that you've quoted there?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. In the actual document, there's a little bit further on, to place
16 it in context, that it indicates there that "The peace-loving Serbian
17 people care above all for peace and a peaceful and just settlement of all
18 disputes in these areas. That is why their political leadership, organs,
19 and institutions are persistently initiating negotiations on peaceful
21 Do you see that portion?
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
23 MR. HARMON: Could I be provided with a copy of the document,
24 Your Honour?
25 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I take it that it's just by mistake that you
1 didn't receive it.
2 MS. LOUKAS: Well, Your Honour, I unfortunately ended up with --
3 I asked for six copies of every document and on this one I ended up with
4 three for some reason.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, I take it that the Chamber's copy would
6 be available at this moment. We have --
7 MR. HARMON: Thank you, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, could you guide us to the page where --
9 MS. LOUKAS: Oh, yes. It's on page 2 of the document itself.
10 That's in relation to footnote 79.
11 Q. "They will not give an inch of their own territory." You've gone
12 up to there in your report, and you've excluded the quote I just read out
13 to you, which includes "That is why their political leadership, organs,
14 and institutions are persistently initiating negotiations on peaceful
16 Now, you left that out of the quote, Mr. Brown. Is that because
17 it doesn't fit in with your overall thesis?
18 A. No, I -- I didn't leave it out because it didn't fit with my
19 overall thesis. I used the section relating to the constituent parts, the
20 subject of the -- the paragraph is about the strategic goals being
21 disseminated down into the military. And I think the negotiation issue is
22 a separate issue to that. The section I've quoted indicates to me that
23 the 1st Krajina Corps are making their soldiers aware that complete
24 separation from the Muslim and Croat peoples is -- is their objective and
25 their -- their goal, and that's -- that's what -- that's what I used the
1 quote for.
2 Q. But it's also important to include the fact that within this
3 document the political leadership is persisting with initiating
4 discussions -- or persistently initiating negotiations on peaceful
5 demarcation. That's significant, isn't it?
6 A. I can say -- and this wasn't what I was writing this particular
7 part of the paragraph about.
8 Q. Sorry?
9 A. All I can say is that was not what I was writing that section and
10 paragraph about.
11 Q. Okay. Let's go to --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, then for the complete picture, would
13 then the lines that follow there, where the -- it's explained that "these
14 peaceful efforts are not effective, blaming others for not accepting them,
15 not appreciating them, the enemies of the Serbian people and of all the
16 citizens are resolved to dictate conditions" -- I mean --
17 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: -- if we need the whole of the context, then I would
19 say that not only the -- the peaceful efforts but also the reasons why
20 they are not successful in -- would then become relevant. Would you
22 MS. LOUKAS: Oh, indeed. The statement where it says "The
23 enemies of the Serbian people and of all of the citizens of the Serbian
24 Republic --"
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 MS. LOUKAS: "-- resolve to dictate conditions to the Serbian
2 people with aggression, force, and weapons." I'm wondering if that's a
3 mistranslation there. That doesn't ...
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, well, might be. I haven't got the original
5 here. You know that I like to compare the --
6 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed you do, Your Honour. And indeed --
7 JUDGE ORIE: If you provide it to us, we could check it. If
8 not --
9 MR. HARMON: Your Honour, the original has been provided. It's
10 in tab 58.
11 JUDGE ORIE: 58.
12 MR. HARMON: And I can return Your Honour's document to you.
13 Thank you very much, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ORIE: So there was no need to ask for it, Mr. Harmon.
15 MS. LOUKAS: I appreciate that, Mr. Harmon. Thank you.
16 Q. Now, let's go to footnote 151.
17 A. Shall I keep these documents or ...? Thank you.
18 MS. LOUKAS: Again, Your Honours, I'm in a position that we only
19 have four copies of footnote 151, where we should have six.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, as you know, we'll manage. Just
21 distribute. We have four tables. Let's make sure that on every table
22 there is a copy.
23 MS. LOUKAS:
24 Q. Okay. Footnote 151, that's, in fact, in the text on page 45.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Before we continue, Mr. Registrar, that would be
1 number ...?
2 THE REGISTRAR: That will be D50, Your Honours.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
4 Please proceed, Ms. Loukas.
5 MS. LOUKAS: Thank you, Your Honour.
6 Q. Okay. Now, we go to footnote 151. That's on page 45. You
7 indicate there that "In April 1992, Branko Djeric, president of the SRBiH
8 government published instructions for the operations of crisis
9 headquarters of Serb people in the municipalities, outlining some of the
10 responsibilities of the Crisis Staffs, which included ..."
11 Now, when you go down there to the one that you've included as
12 the third one, "The command of the TO and the police force is under the
13 exclusive authority of the professional staff," that basically means, does
14 it not, "civilians stay out"?
15 A. Yes, it would seem to indicate that, at paragraph 4, that there
16 are professional staffs, that there's a military and TO staff, and to
17 prevent interference, that the TO -- that that should happen.
18 Q. And --
19 A. And often that did seem to happen from the documentation that
20 I've seen in -- in reviewing; although, there are examples where the
21 Crisis Staff also did give some direct orders, I have to say.
22 Q. But the instruction from on high there was that the civilians
23 should basically butt out of what the TO and the police forces were doing,
24 that it was a different area, that there was a division of function.
25 A. Yes, I'm not quite sure I'd use the phrase "butt out." That
1 seems to -- would imply that there's a certain unwelcome -- unwelcome
2 relationship there. But it would seem --
3 Q. What they actually say there is "The command of the TO and the
4 police forces is under the exclusive authority of the professional staff
5 and therefore any interference regarding the command of the TO and/or the
6 use of the police forces must be prevented."
7 So they're saying "Stay away."
8 A. They seem to be indicating this division of responsibility, that
9 there is presumably a police and a military and a -- and a political
10 function --
11 Q. And --
12 A. -- in relation to commanding TO and police.
13 Q. And, of course, as -- as a military analyst writing a report, it
14 may, in fact, have been useful to elucidate for the Trial Chamber that
15 that's what that section there about professional staff meant.
16 A. Well, I referenced that in the -- in the quote. It's -- it's
17 there in the quote. I don't shy from that quote. And I think in -- if I
18 can just read the next couple of pages very quickly.
19 Q. "Professional staff" doesn't mean the same to everybody, does it?
20 It's quite clear that this has a specific meaning that needs to be
21 elucidated, doesn't it? Which you've just done.
22 A. Yes. But I don't -- I don't think -- I think it speaks for
23 itself, and I think in -- I think in -- in the -- the text of the report,
24 which I produced that I say it wasn't envisaged that the Crisis Staffs
25 were directly to command or order military units into combat action. But
1 there are examples where that did seem to happen, Sanski Most being one
2 that I remember.
3 Q. Now, just going to what you've left out of your quote, you
4 actually left out that "The non-fighting population and the wounded must
5 be treated in the most humane fashion and in accordance with the ICRC, the
6 International Committee of the Red Cross. Prisoners of war also must be
7 treated humanely and in accordance with the laws of the Serbian Republic
8 of Bosnia and Herzegovina." You've left that out of your quote.
9 JUDGE ORIE: That's which part exactly, Ms. Loukas?
10 MS. LOUKAS: That's paragraph 10, Your Honour, on page 2.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 THE WITNESS: Yes. It's not in this section, no.
13 MS. LOUKAS:
14 Q. Okay. And you've also left out paragraph 13: "War profiteers,
15 gangs of looters, and similar shall be arrested and delivered to the
16 investigating judicial organs of the Serbian Republic."
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And you've also left out 12: "It's imperative not to disturb
19 commercial and other economic activities as long as their documentation is
20 in order," et cetera, et cetera. You can read it for yourself there.
21 That's an indication of the fact that a very important part of the Crisis
22 Staff's function was to ensure that there was -- for example, there it
23 refers to food rationing and what have you.
24 A. Yes. It's -- is there a question or are you just highlighting
25 that issue?
1 Q. I'm just highlighting what you've left out. You agree with me
2 you've also left that out?
3 A. Yes, I have. As I say in this report, I'm not an expert in
4 Crisis Staffs and there are others who know far more than I do in that
5 area. The issue was to outline some of the responsibilities in relation
6 to command, not relation to every single issue of the Crisis Staff.
7 Q. Okay.
8 A. I have mentioned issues of Geneva Convention, war profiteers, and
9 looting in other parts of the report, but I'm not sure if it's -- the -- I
10 haven't, as you say, included every single section of this document in
11 that quote in paragraph 1.05.
12 Q. And it's not because you're only including what suits your
14 A. Well, no. The section is about outlining some of the
15 responsibilities of the Crisis Staffs which relate to defence issues, and
16 in particular command and control of the military and the relationship
17 between the military. That seemed to be the salient points from this
18 report. I've highlighted in the report that what it says is what it says.
19 Q. Well, the -- the treatment of prisoners of war, that's -- and an
20 instruction from on high in relation to in accordance with the Geneva
21 Conventions, that's important, isn't it?
22 A. Yes, it's important. I'm sure all the sections are important.
23 JUDGE ORIE: But, Mr. Brown, I think Ms. Loukas -- you said that
24 you looked at the document from a military point of view and not on all
25 aspects of the tasks of the Crisis Staff. Ms. Loukas asks you
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 specifically now where you quoted the not interference with the commander
2 of the TO, which apparently is a military matter, whether treatment of
3 wounded and noncombatants and prisoners of war, whether that would not be
4 also a specific military matter, that --
5 THE WITNESS: Yes, it could do. But I think the section I was
6 dealing with here was mainly about the relationship between the Crisis
7 Staffs and the military. It wasn't necessarily about all the functions
8 and roles of the Crisis Staff.
9 JUDGE ORIE: No. But this is a military matter, isn't it?
10 THE WITNESS: Yes, it is, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So if you're talking about the relationship
12 between Crisis Staff and the military, then this would be a subject that
13 could be relevant.
14 THE WITNESS: It could be relevant, yes.
15 MS. LOUKAS:
16 Q. Now, Mr. Brown, I just want to go on to footnote 180.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Ms. Loukas, I take it that Mr. Harmon, since I
18 didn't hear anything, does not object against using a different document
19 on the footnote than ERN numbers, that is to say. You used a different
20 translation. Let's just assume for practical purposes that it is the --
21 as if it was the same document.
22 MS. LOUKAS: Well, Your Honour --
23 JUDGE ORIE: No, no, about accuracy.
24 MS. LOUKAS: Oh, indeed, Your Honours.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
1 MS. LOUKAS: Of course, what I've done with the DVD is I've just
2 printed out the footnotes.
3 JUDGE ORIE: No.
4 MS. LOUKAS: In relation -- I've asked for the footnotes to be
5 printed out. Not enough copies, obviously, but nevertheless ... But it
6 seems that in that errata sheet there were a number of changes of ERNs
8 Q. Now, moving on to footnote 180. That's "Decisions and
9 discussions on mobilisation." And I'll just distribute some copies of
10 footnote 180.
11 JUDGE ORIE: That would be number D51, Mr. Registrar?
12 THE REGISTRAR: D51, Your Honours.
13 MS. LOUKAS:
14 Q. Now, just in relation to that particular document, it refers
15 there to, at point 3, "Especially strict measures will be implemented
16 against any person misusing the uniform and insignia of the police, the
17 TO, Territorial Defence, or the army and without authorisation stopping or
18 checking people's identity or vehicles, searching flats or other
20 So this was obviously, Mr. Brown, quite a problem, that people
21 were running around wearing uniforms that were not entitled to and doing
22 the sort of activities that are indicated there.
23 A. Well, I'm not sure in relation to this document whether you can
24 draw that it was quite a problem. In relation to uniforms, I know at the
25 16th Assembly Session there was some emphasis placed on that "We all must
1 have the same VRS insignia," I think was used, in order to -- you know,
2 establishment of the army. So whether the issue of uniform is relating to
3 the decision to establish the army a few days prior to this meeting or
4 whether it's to do with, as you say, people wearing whatever they wanted,
5 I can't tell, but clearly they want to ensure that everyone wears
6 presumably the uniform of the VRS and wears the insignia of the VRS.
7 Q. That's what you read from the document?
8 A. Yes. I think they're saying that strict measures should be taken
9 to people misusing uniforms. So there either was a problem or they
10 foresaw a problem, or they wanted to ensure that the decision of the 12th
11 of May which established the VRS, and they talked about a common -- a
12 common insignia and a common uniform, was employed.
13 Q. I'm sorry, you're reading into that statement there that the
14 complaint is -- let me see your answer again. "Clearly they wanted to
15 ensure that everyone wears presumably the uniform of the VRS and wears the
16 insignia of the VRS," and then you bring that back to the 12th of May,
17 establishing the VRS. Mr. Brown, there's an alternative rational reading,
18 is there not, of the document in question? Can you see that?
19 A. There's three ways you could look at it in relation to uniforms.
20 The first one is that people had been misusing uniforms and that they
21 wanted to stop it. The second one, that they foresaw that there might be
22 a problem and they wanted to make sure that they were putting down some
23 marker to say that it wasn't going to be tolerated. Or thirdly, they're
24 wanting to echo or re-echo what had been stated on the establishment of
25 the VRS that everyone should wear the insignia of the VRS.
1 Q. Okay. But your answer is that "I can't tell but clearly they
2 want to ensure that everyone wears presumably the uniform of the VRS and
3 wears the insignia of the VRS." That's your interpretation of that
4 document; correct?
5 A. Well, yes, I think so. I think they want to make sure that
6 people are not misusing the uniform.
7 Q. Okay. We'll move on to another footnote.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Just for my proper understanding, Ms. Loukas, and
9 you, Mr. Brown, I do understand that in 1.113 you describe how the
10 military was seeking contact with civilian authorities, and also the other
11 way round, that the civilian authorities were -- were involved in one way
12 or the other, and the same was true for regional-level bodies, impacted on
13 or were related to military activity. Did you specifically have paragraph
14 3 in mind here, or -- because I see a few other matters. "Urgent meetings
15 should be called at all municipal secretaries of the Secretariat of
16 National Defence. Talks should be held with General Talic about calling
17 up and assigning military conscripts," which seems to be, at least,
18 related to military activities.
19 So I'm -- I'm just trying to understand what role this source
20 plays in your report in the context of paragraph 1.113. We are now
21 focussing especially on the interpretation of number 3 on this list;
22 whereas, I - but please correct me if I'm wrong - reading this document,
23 reading your report, it seems that you say this document shows that the
24 Autonomous Region of Krajina Crisis Staff had -- took decisions and had
25 discussions that impacted on and were related to military activity.
1 That's what your report says. And I do understand that you use this in
2 support of that statement. Is that a correct understanding?
3 THE WITNESS: Yes, it is, Your Honour. This is one of a number
4 of footnotes which I, I think, make that general point, that the 1st
5 Krajina Corps was not completely divorced from the regional government,
6 and when the regional authorities discussed and met and had conclusions,
7 that some of those related and impacted on military issues. And this one
8 is an example -- for example, point 5: "Talks should be held with General
9 Talic about calling up and assigning a military conscript on 21st of
10 May --"
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that gives a broader context to the
12 interpretation of this document, then.
13 Please proceed, Ms. Loukas.
14 MS. LOUKAS: Thank you, Your Honour.
15 Q. Now, 181 -- now, footnote 181.
16 MS. LOUKAS: Okay. Now, I'll just distribute footnote 181.
17 Q. Now, we're on the same page, footnote 181. The point I --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, that would be D52?
19 THE REGISTRAR: D52, Your Honours.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
21 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, thank you, Your Honour.
22 Q. Now, you deal there with deadlines concerning the surrender of
23 weapons. It's quite clear, isn't it, that we're dealing about the
24 question of "The deadline that expired today has been extended at the
25 request of the citizens of all nationalities because of the wish to return
1 the weapons in a peaceful way and without the intervention of police."
2 Now, just looking at that, of course, the -- it appears that the
3 deadline applied to citizens of all nationalities; correct?
4 A. Yes. On this document, it would seem to say so.
5 Q. Okay.
6 A. But in some context, in reviewing the documentation, I didn't see
7 any examples in the Krajina whereby the deadline to hand over legally held
8 weapons was given to areas other than non-Serb areas. Deadlines were
9 given in -- this deadline was extended, I believe, until -- or it was
10 extended, at least. I think maybe even until the 18th. But it was
11 extended and there are documentary references in Prijedor, in Sanski Most,
12 in Novi, in Kljuc, in documents, and Crisis Staff documents and a
13 knowledge of the military about those deadlines. And when those deadlines
14 expired, invariably these areas were subject to military action. And I
15 didn't see any examples whereby weapons were being handed in or military
16 action was -- was being conducted in Serb areas, in the Krajina.
17 Q. Okay. But nevertheless, for the sake of accuracy, in relation to
18 this question deadlines concerning the surrender of weapons, you've only
19 quoted that particular document, and that's a document that applies to all
20 nationalities; correct?
21 A. Well, at the -- on -- on the reading of the document, it says
22 that, but I would not say that that was what -- what seemed to happen
23 after the expiration of these deadlines.
24 Q. Let's move on to another footnote.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, may I just ask, and may I also ask you,
1 Mr. Brown: Where does it say that it applies to all nationalities?
2 THE WITNESS: It actually says -- this is somewhat ambiguous:
3 The deadline which was about to lapse was extended at the request of all
4 citizens from ethnic groups. So in reality it's not -- it appears that
5 the deadline is directed to all nationalities. It appears that the
6 request to extend the deadline, if anything, has come from all national --
7 JUDGE ORIE: So a deadline has been set, of which we do not know
8 to whom it was addressed, and now we see -- it may well be to all citizens
9 or -- but, Ms. Loukas, I can't read this document that the deadline was
10 set for all citizens. It doesn't say so, is it?
11 MS. LOUKAS: Well, Your Honour, in any event, it -- I think it
12 can -- it's quite clear that the document is a document capable of more
13 than one interpretation, is it not? And I think that's quite clear from
14 the witness's answers.
15 JUDGE ORIE: It -- yes, it needs more. But in -- let me just --
16 I also see, by the way, on my screen that we are invited again to slow
18 Ms. Loukas, you are talking later on about accuracy. But you
19 said, "Now, just looking at that, of course it appears that the deadline
20 applies to citizens of all nationalities; correct?" It doesn't appear at
22 MS. LOUKAS: Well, I do say --
23 JUDGE ORIE: I do -- I do agree with you that the document would
24 need some additional information. We'd need to know more about the
25 deadline that was set. But it doesn't appear such. It appears that it
1 was all ethnic groups that expressed the wish, but it doesn't say anything
2 about to whom the deadline was addressed, from what I read at this moment.
3 MS. LOUKAS: Well, Your Honour, just in relation to that, it's --
4 it's how I first read it, I must say, and interestingly enough, it's how
5 the witness read it too. He said, "Yes, on this document it would seem to
6 say so."
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Therefore it's good that the Chamber also
9 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
11 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, maybe as a means of clarification, you
12 know, re-reading the document, I agree, it doesn't state here who the
13 weapon deadline or the handing of weapons deadline is targeted to. I
14 believe that the initial deadline -- because this is saying that it's
15 getting extended to the 14th. I believe the initial deadline was for the
16 11th, and that was as a result of an ARK -- or an -- actually a -- not an
17 ARK but a regional National Defence instruction that went out on the 4th
18 of May, which stated that: "All paramilitary formations and individuals
19 in possession of illegal weapons and ammunition are tasked -- are asked to
20 surrender these weapons and ammunition immediately, no later than 1500
21 hours on the 11th of May."
22 But I do re-emphasise that in looking at the documentation and
23 the expiration of this deadline, that the only areas that they were
24 conducting military operations, often with the -- the description of
25 seizing illegally-held weapons, were in non-Serb areas.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you for that answer.
2 Ms. Loukas, certainly the text, reading "the surrender of
3 illegally-procured weapons," might need some further attention as well.
4 What was considered to be -- what were considered to be illegally-procured
5 weapons? Because we know how the different parties obtained weapons, how
6 civilians obtained weapons. At least, we have heard quite some evidence
7 on that. And I do understand that you consider that the deadline was also
8 -- that at least -- well, let's assume if Serb civilians would have to
9 hand in their weapons, that they would have been considered as illegally
10 procured. Well, that raises a lot of questions. I just want to inform
11 you that it's not as clear cut as it looks from your questions and even
12 looks from the answers of the witness.
13 Please proceed.
14 MS. LOUKAS: Yes. I think the -- the answer of the witness, Your
15 Honour, was that the initial document indicated "all paramilitaries." I
16 think that was the indication that he gave. But this is not an area that
17 I want to spend a lot of time on, Your Honour. I'm actually looking at
18 the question of the footnotes in quite some detail, because it's important
19 in terms of the accuracy of the report, and I note the time.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Ms. Loukas.
21 We will adjourn until five minutes to 11.00.
22 --- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.
23 --- On resuming at 10.59 a.m.
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
1 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, please proceed.
2 MS. LOUKAS: Thank you, Your Honour.
3 Q. Now, Mr. Brown, we're just going to go to page 61 of your report
4 and to footnote 239. Now, I've distributed copies of that document. Do
5 you have that before you?
6 JUDGE ORIE: And had it been assigned a number already? I --
7 MS. LOUKAS: I think it's about to be.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 THE REGISTRAR: That will be D53, Your Honours.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
11 MS. LOUKAS: Has Mr. Brown got a copy of that document?
12 THE WITNESS: Yes, I do.
13 MS. LOUKAS:
14 Q. Now, you'll note that in the text of your report you indicate:
15 "Some units were specifically ordered to take control of the territory
16 and key facilities and to establish close links with the authorities."
17 And the document you cite in that regard is footnote 239, and you
18 have a copy of that document before you.
19 If you could just point out for the Trial Chamber where it
20 indicates "establish close links with the authorities."
21 A. I'm not sure it does in this document, but there are many other
22 documents I've reviewed. I think I'm using this footnote to reference
23 securing key facilities, or the section on key facilities. I use other
24 documents in the report which I discuss more widely in relation to close
25 links with the authorities. In particular, the 21st of May Talic
1 instruction after mobilisation, and there are a number of other documents
2 in relation to ensuring close links with the authorities. But in this
3 footnote, I am referring to securing facilities, and in particular I think
4 I reference in paragraph 2 "The 30th Division, 6th Infantry Brigade and
5 parts of the 343rd Motorised Brigade are redeployed in the area of direct
6 use and are securing vital facilities within their units. "
7 Q. Well, Mr. Brown, there's no doubt that this question of securing
8 vital facilities is there, but in your text you indicate "close links with
9 the authorities." We go to footnote 239, and in the document that you
10 have cited that is actually not in the document, is it?
11 A. Ms. Loukas, I deal in this report with a fairly substantial
12 section in relation to cooperation with the military and the -- and the --
13 the civilian authorities. It's referenced in a number of areas, and there
14 are a lot of footnotes, I think, in the report. If I was to single out
15 every single phrase and every single comment in this report and footnote
16 it, I think the Judges would be spending a lot of time reading the report.
17 It would be exceptionally unwieldy, exceptionally large. So it doesn't
18 make reference directly to the issue of establishing close links. It does
19 make reference to the issue of securing facilities, which is what I've
20 used the footnotes for, and there are other areas in the report that deal
21 with the issue of establishing close links.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Brown, usually if one of your sources only
23 relates to a portion of a sentence and not of the whole of the sentence,
24 you do not hesitate to put the footnote somewhere half in the -- that
25 sentence. Would you agree with me that if it's -- footnote 239 is not
1 meant to support the establishment of close link with the authorities,
2 then perhaps it should have been at a different place in that sentence?
3 THE WITNESS: Yes, it could have been, Your Honour. Maybe it
4 should have been moved to that section about securing units. I -- I think
5 the report should be read in entirety and not necessarily with every
6 single small issue footnoted or referenced. I could have possibly moved
7 that to -- that footnote 239 to the area after "take control of
8 territories," and put it there.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Ms. Loukas.
10 THE WITNESS: In -- maybe if I can assist the Court. I looked at
11 my report during the break and -- in relation to footnote 41, which was an
12 issue that Ms. Loukas raised earlier on.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
14 THE WITNESS: Not having access to the documents, it is possible
15 that footnote 41 is the same as footnote 71.
16 MS. LOUKAS:
17 Q. If I can stop you right there, Mr. Brown. During the break,
18 Mr. Harmon gave me a document.
19 A. Okay.
20 Q. Let's go back to this issue of 239 for a second, shall we?
21 JUDGE ORIE: I take it, then, that the Chamber sooner or later
22 also gets it, because we asked specifically for it.
23 MR. HARMON: Your Honour, I have the document. I can distribute
24 it, if Your Honours wish.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 MR. HARMON: And I can also inform Your Honours that the document
2 that is referenced and where the footnote was omitted by Mr. Brown, this
3 document is also referenced in three other footnotes in his report;
4 footnotes 109, 111, and 700.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for that information.
6 Please proceed, Ms. Loukas.
7 MS. LOUKAS:
8 Q. Now, Mr. Brown, you understand, of course, how important it is
9 that what you state in your text is accurate. You do realise that that's
10 important, don't you?
11 JUDGE ORIE: Whether the witness says yes or no, Ms. Loukas, the
12 Chamber is aware that it is important that accuracy is at the highest
14 MS. LOUKAS:
15 Q. And you yourself do realise the importance of ensuring that your
16 footnotes connect with the text precisely.
17 A. Well, the footnotes are there to --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Let's not further discuss the function of the
19 footnote. It's clear.
20 MS. LOUKAS: Yes.
21 JUDGE ORIE: If you use footnotes, they should be in the right
22 place, they should support what is in the text, they should be as accurate
23 as possible, and that's something that the Chamber knows already since
24 they studied law themselves and had to use footnotes.
25 MS. LOUKAS: I won't deal with it any further, Your Honour, and I
1 will leave the footnotes alone for the time being and move on to another
3 Q. Now, I just want to go to your phraseology in the report, in the
4 text. Let's go to page 13 of your report, shall we? And let's go to
5 paragraph 1.6, for example. You indicate there: "The threat posed by the
6 Croats, however, was not only a perceived one but in some instances became
7 very real."
8 You could also have said, could you not, "The threat posed by the
9 Croats was not only a perceived one but a real one," could you not?
10 A. I -- I could have, but -- but I'm saying that in some instances
11 it was very real, and in particular I'm highlighting Western Slavonia and
12 I also, I believe, talk here about Bosanski Brod and Derventa. I'm sure
13 there were other areas where the Croats were living where the threat may
14 not necessarily have been real. So I'm highlighting a couple of instances
15 where it was real. And I don't doubt that. I don't doubt that in Western
16 Slavonia Croatian -- Croatian forces were -- were operating, and I don't
17 doubt in Posavina that the area had been -- or the control of the
18 territory had been taken over by Croat forces and that was a real threat.
19 Q. Do you agree with me, Mr. Brown, that the phraseology you use
20 somewhat diminishes the impact there?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Okay. Let's move on. Let's go to paragraph 1.12, where you
23 indicate, about four lines down: "The JNA were in a position of
24 exclusively assisting the Bosnian Serbs and the SDS and any attempt at
25 balance, if it had genuinely existed, had gone."
1 Now, why do you speculate there?
2 A. My point is here that I argue that by April there had been this
3 convergence, as indicated by the documentation. And when I say "genuinely
4 --" "if it genuinely existed," I'm not sure that in the documents from
5 late 1991 there would have been references to protecting the Serbs from
6 genocide, but what I do say is that certainly by April this -- this
7 convergence had occurred.
8 Q. Yes. But this phrase "attempt at balance, if it had genuinely
9 existed..." I mean, you're not in a position to say that it had not
10 genuinely existed, are you?
11 A. Well, I believe I am in a position to say it may not have existed
12 because the --
13 Q. That it never existed.
14 A. If it genuinely existed -- I'm talking about some of the
15 documentation in late 1991 and the Croatian war relating to that, which
16 indicated that the objective of the JNA there was to protect the Serbs
17 against genocide, not to necessarily -- well, you know, clearly weighing
18 on -- on one ethnic group. But what I am here saying in this paragraph is
19 that by April the Bosnian Serbs -- or sorry, the -- the JNA was assisting
20 the Bosnian Serbs, and I highlight that that might actually have been --
21 that balance may not have been genuine, from the documentation I've seen
22 in 1991.
23 Q. That's not what you say there. You say: "If it had genuinely
25 A. Yes, well, I didn't see it existing in 1991 either.
1 JUDGE ORIE: But I also, then, take it that you do not exclude
2 for the possibility that it might have been existed, but from what you
3 observed, you can make no final conclusions as to whether it existed or
5 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, from the documentation I see in late
6 1991, I do not believe the JNA was operating in a completely balanced way.
7 In the documentation that I've seen in 1991, I see references to
8 protecting the Serbs against genocide. I see the arming of Serb
9 volunteers, the use of Serb volunteers in Western Slavonia and Croatia.
10 And I am arguing here that I am not sure, when you look at April 1992,
11 that that necessarily was a balance at all.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And that supports your doubts whether it ever
14 THE WITNESS: Certainly from late 1991 and the war in Croatia --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, of course, I'm not talking about the whole of
16 the history, but ... Please proceed, Ms. Loukas.
17 MS. LOUKAS: Thank you, Your Honour.
18 Q. Now, in a -- a federal system from a military analyst's point of
19 view, Mr. Brown, is it perhaps predictable that the federal institution
20 might support a group that wanted to maintain that federal state?
21 A. I -- I don't think I can answer that adequately, whether it's
22 predictable or whether it's not, in terms of a hypothetical.
23 Q. Well, we have many examples through history, but we won't go
24 through that at this point, in view of the limited time that I have.
25 Now, let's look at -- further on in your report, where you deal
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 with the 16th Session in your report and you come to Mladic's
2 contribution. You quote there in 1.45: "Some of the most striking
3 comments made during the session indicating a clear understanding," et
4 cetera, et cetera. You know the portion of the report I'm referring to
5 and I won't read it through.
6 You quote Mladic there. Then in the next paragraph, you say:
7 "Even these comments, however, should be placed in some context. As one
8 of those expected to implement the goals, he may well simply have not been
9 more aware -- have been more aware of the practical limitations of what
10 the Assembly were proposing."
11 That, Mr. Brown, is pure speculation on your part, is it not?
12 That is you trying to fit it in with your overall hypothesis.
13 A. No, he himself says let's not set ourselves goals that we cannot
14 achieve. I believe that's a phrase he uses somewhere in the Assembly --
15 or is it -- yes, page 34 of the translation I have, "Please let us not --"
16 excuse me. "Please, let not us set before ourselves goals that will bring
17 us down. Let us set before ourselves goals we can achieve."
18 Q. Now, Mr. Brown --
19 A. And he also goes on to say that he has reiterated that to the top
20 leadership of the Serbian people at a meeting in Nevesinje he had sometime
21 prior to this Assembly session.
22 Q. Now, Mr. Brown, the Trial Chamber will be able to read the 16th
23 Session in its entirety and form their own views, and I don't have a great
24 deal of time left for cross-examination. I'm not going to spend a lot of
25 time on this, but where you put forward a view "he may well simply,"
1 there's an alternative view, isn't there? You must concede that.
2 A. Well, there's alternative views in -- in many issues, Ms. Loukas,
3 but when I read his speech in entirety, when I see that he seems to be the
4 only one uttering words of caution --
5 Q. That's your analysis?
6 A. It is my analysis, yes.
7 Q. And it's capable of more than one analysis. You would concede
8 that, would you not?
9 A. Well, many things in life are open to different analysis.
10 Q. I'm not talking about many things in life, I'm talking about
12 A. Well, not when I read it. I feel that he's one of the few, if
13 any, that utters words of caution at the Assembly session.
14 Q. Okay. That's your reading. Let's move on to another section of
15 your report, where you indicate, in paragraph 1.60: "In summary, the
16 goals articulated at the 16th Assembly Session shaped the events in Bosnia
17 and Herzegovina from May 1992."
18 Now, Mr. Brown, when you look at a statement like that, is it
19 possible that you, as an expert employed by the Prosecution, are adopting
20 a -- an approach that is based on attempting -- looking at the events that
21 occurred and attempting to place them in your perspective in a way that
22 does link the 16th Assembly Session to everything that happened? Are you
23 prepared to concede that there's an alternative view, Mr. Brown?
24 A. I stand by the comment in section 1.60. I think there are clear
25 indications from military documentation that tie in activities on the
1 ground that the military conducted operations clearly in line with these
2 strategic objectives. The documentations note that; the military
3 operations themselves note that; and I would argue that you can tie these
4 objectives to military operations.
5 Q. Okay.
6 A. And were shaping military -- certainly shaping military
7 operations post this Assembly session.
8 Q. Okay, and -- sorry. You haven't finished.
9 A. The documentation indicates that. It's not -- it's not -- you
10 know, it's my view of this documentation, reading of the documentation
11 leads to that conclusion. And I think if you looked at the material in
12 its entirety, you'd come to that conclusion too.
13 Q. Okay. Now, Mr. Brown, just in relation to that, part of the
14 reason that you tie in the goals of the 16th Assembly Session with what
15 occurred on the ground is that whenever you see the term "goal" in a
16 military document, you automatically tie that in with the goals of the
17 16th Assembly Session; correct?
18 A. That's not necessarily true. I look at all the material
19 together. When a corps commander says "goals," he's a senior-level
20 figure. He's talking at his level, which is a very high level. When I
21 see references in directives that clearly link in operations in the
22 Corridor, operations in Sarajevo, operations in the Drina Valley,
23 Operational Directive 4, that seems to me very, very clear indications
24 that these goals were not rarefied political statements made at the
25 Assembly sessions that had no meaning.
1 Q. Now, just in relation to the question of removal of Muslims from
2 the army, I just want to deal with that question at -- at a certain point
3 before I run out of cross-examination time. It's quite clear, is it not,
4 that the issue of loyalty in what was perceived as a civil war was a very
5 important issue, the loyalty of the soldiers. You'd agree with that,
6 would you not?
7 A. Well, loyalty, presumably, in a military organisation is
8 important, yes.
9 Q. So -- and there were, of course, examples of Muslims who were in
10 the VRS playing the double game, as it were.
11 A. I'm not aware of those and I'm not quite sure what you mean by
13 Q. Really? As a military analyst you're not aware of people being
14 ostensibly on one side but assisting the other?
15 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, you -- in your question, you
16 specifically dealt with such a situation in the VRS. The witness said he
17 was not aware, and then you asked more or less the same question but then
18 not specifically to the VRS. Could you please clarify, where you said
19 "Really? As a military analyst are you not aware of..." and now I
20 translate it: Muslims being in the army but assisting not the army?
21 MS. LOUKAS: Thank you, Your Honour. I'm just looking for a
23 Q. Let's deal with it another way. Combat readiness report, at page
24 -- where is it?
25 [Defence counsel confer]
1 MS. LOUKAS:
2 Q. The combat readiness report at page 80. Do you have that page?
3 A. Yes, I do.
4 Q. It indicates about halfway down the page that "The national
5 structure of active officers serving in the Army of Republika Srpska is 37
6 Montenegrins, 204 Yugoslavs, 62 Croats, 26 Macedonians, 33 Muslims, 13
7 Slovenes, 2.165 Serbs, three Albanians, one Bulgarian, two Czechs, four
8 Hungarians, three Ruthenians, one Turk, one Jew, one Pole, one Roma, one
9 Ukrainian, and 21 of undeclared nationality."
10 So this report that's based on the activities of 1992 certainly
11 shows that there were a significant proportion of non-Serbs in the Army of
12 Republika Srpska.
13 MR. HARMON: I'll object to that, Your Honour. This doesn't talk
14 about the number of non-Serbs in the army; it talks about active officers
15 serving within the army. That's the ...
16 MS. LOUKAS: Sorry, I'm not sure I understand the objection.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Neither do I.
18 MR. HARMON: Your Honour, this talks -- this data that is
19 presented to you is presented in respect of active officers.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 MR. HARMON: The question that is put is a significant proportion
22 of non-Serbs in the army in total. We know how many people there were in
23 the army, which was a reference yesterday in terms of the size. That's on
24 pages 70 and 71. This data doesn't relate to that. This data --
25 MS. LOUKAS: Oh, I see your point, Mr. Harmon. Well, it's -- a
1 fortiori, it's even better; we're talking about the officers.
2 JUDGE ORIE: That's -- yes.
3 MS. LOUKAS:
4 Q. So a significant proportion of the officers in the VRS were
5 non-Serbs; correct?
6 A. Well, first of all, it's not all officers; it's active officers.
7 And there were reserved and mobilised officers. And I think if you go to
8 page 76 there --
9 Q. Well, active officers are probably the most important, aren't
11 A. Well, not necessarily.
12 Q. They're not important?
13 A. I'm not saying they're not important. I'm not saying that
14 they're not always the most important. I'm sure --
15 JUDGE ORIE: So would that mean that if you would add that the
16 inactive officers, that there were even more non-Serbs in the VRS?
17 THE WITNESS: I couldn't tell you, sir.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I'm afraid it's a logical consequence, isn't
19 it? If I have, well, let's say, 300 active officers of non-Serb origin,
20 if you say, "Well, this is not just all the officers, it is just the
21 active officers," if you would add the non-active officers, that either it
22 would be the same or more. If there would be zero non-active officers,
23 then it would be the same; if it would be more than zero, it would be
25 THE WITNESS: I would imagine it would be more than this.
1 However, it tended to be that non-active officers who were reservists who
2 were mobilised from municipalities and from areas. People who had served
3 in the JNA who had retired or people who -- so I can't say whether it
4 would be an equal number or I couldn't even tell you how many there was.
5 But yes, I would imagine there -- there probably are some reserve,
6 non-Serb officers or non-active mobilised officers in that figure.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 THE WITNESS: But I couldn't tell you the number and I couldn't
9 necessarily agree that it would directly equate to the percentage here.
10 JUDGE ORIE: It could not be in these numbers because these
11 numbers only deal with active officers.
12 THE WITNESS: That's true.
13 JUDGE ORIE: So whatever non-active officers there were should be
14 added to get the total number of officers, active and non-active, in the
16 THE WITNESS: That's correct, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed, Ms. Loukas.
18 MS. LOUKAS: Thank you.
19 THE WITNESS: And I'd also maybe just add that you said "a
20 significant number." I don't think, you know, there --
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Brown, Ms. Loukas was about to put a question to
22 you about loyalty. Then we got to the numbers, then we got a bit lost in
23 the numbers. Let's get back to where we were. That's the loyalty.
24 MS. LOUKAS:
25 Q. And let's not get into a semantic debate, Mr. Brown, about what
1 the meaning of "significant" is.
2 Now, let's go to paragraph 1.132 of your report: "Although the
3 reason for General Lieutenant Colonel Mladic's change of mind in relation
4 to Muslim and Croat personnel serving in the military is open to some
5 speculation, the overall activities of the Serb authorities and the SDS at
6 the time may provide the link."
7 Now, Mr. Brown, it also may not; correct?
8 A. Yes, it may not. That's why I flag it up as, you know, it's
9 unclear. But I do offer a link there.
10 Q. Okay. Moving on to a -- another section of your report. Yes,
11 paragraph 2.103, 2.104, and 2.105. And that's at page 99 of your report.
12 Now, you indicate there that -- in paragraph 2.105, that "This
13 categorisation is similar to that reported in a Banja Luka CSB document
14 reporting on Omarska camp."
15 Now, the two categories we're talking about there are -- in the
16 first instance, the first category is politicians; the second category is
17 nationalist extremists; and the third category is people unwelcome in
18 Sanski Most municipality. Now, when you look at the next category -- set
19 of categories you're comparing there, you've got -- category one consisted
20 of persons suspected of the gravest times, people who had directly
21 organised and taken part in the armed rebellion; category two was composed
22 of persons suspected of organising, abetting, financing and illegally
23 supplying arms; category three consisted of persons who were captured in
24 and brought in from areas where there had been fighting but had happened
25 to be there because extremists had prevented them from withdrawing to a
1 secure place. During the investigation, no material evidence was found
2 that they had in any way taken part in the armed rebellion.
3 Now, you state there that that categorisation is similar. In
4 fact, Mr. Brown, it's distinctly dissimilar, is it not, or are you merely
5 referring to the fact that there are three different categories?
6 A. Yes, the three categorisations seem to be very -- or the fact
7 that there are three categories is similar. And that's what I'm making
8 that reference to.
9 Q. Well, the first category is politicians. Where are you fitting
10 in politicians in category one, two, or three?
11 A. I'm saying the similarity is the fact that they've categorised
12 them in three categories.
13 Q. Oh, so it's just the fact that there's three categories.
14 A. That's correct.
15 Q. So when you state -- when you're trying to draw that link between
16 the conclusions of the Sanski Most Crisis Staff and the report of the --
17 of the Banja Luka CSB document reporting on Omarska camp, where you're
18 trying to draw that similarity -- similarity out, it's not actually in
19 substance, it's merely the -- the number.
20 A. It's the fact that two different municipalities that have clearly
21 taken people into custody of a similar categorisation process and that
22 they're both categorising in three different -- different ways. That's a
24 Q. Okay. So it's the number.
25 A. It's the number, yes.
1 Q. We'll move on to another topic. Or before we leave that, you
2 don't concede that it's possible that you're perhaps drawing a rather
3 tenuous link there?
4 A. No, I don't think so at all. You've got two municipalities, as I
5 say, involved in -- with categorising people. There are three categories
6 there. So I don't think that's tenuous at all.
7 Q. Now, let's go to paragraph 2.209 of your report. You indicate
8 there: "Although it appears evident that a defensive structure was being
9 established in some non-Serb areas and that certain limited weaponry was
10 available, some general comments on the comparison between the non-Serbs
11 and the VRS should be noted."
12 Now, I take it that portion of your report is specifically
13 directed to the Krajina region we're dealing with; correct?
14 A. Yes, it is.
15 Q. Okay. Now, if we -- if we look more broadly at Bosnia. I'm
16 wondering if you've ever had the opportunity to read the book by Mr. Sefer
18 A. No, I haven't.
19 Q. You know who Mr. Sefer Halilovic is, do you not?
20 A. Yes, I believe he was the ABiH commander.
21 Q. Okay. Now, just in relation to paragraph 2.233, there's a
22 portion there about "Immediately on establishment of the VRS there were
23 unambiguous references that the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina was being
24 fought in order to protect the Serbs from genocide, that the international
25 community was responsible for the situation in Yugoslavia, and that the
1 Muslims and Croats generally posed an extreme threat to Serbs."
2 Now, just in relation to that, of course, there's -- there's a
3 real question there, isn't there, about -- that has been commented on many
4 people, and I'm sure you would have come across the writings, that it
5 seemed to be in the break-up of Yugoslavia that the -- internationally the
6 right of the Slovenians and the Croats to secede was recognised but that
7 the situation of the Bosnian Serbs was not respected. You're aware of
8 those writings. You're aware of that position.
9 MR. HARMON: Your Honour, I will object to relevance.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas.
11 MS. LOUKAS: Well, Your Honour, I'm just looking at paragraph
12 2.233, and that it states there that -- it notes the language and tone of
13 the reporting, and part of that includes that the international community
14 was responsible for the situation in Yugoslavia. And I'm interested in
15 finding out the analyst's view on that, in view of the fact that he's
16 included it in his report.
17 JUDGE ORIE: The objection is denied. Please proceed.
18 MS. LOUKAS: As Your Honour pleases.
19 Q. Now, let's go on to paragraph 2.238.
20 JUDGE ORIE: I said the objection by Mr. Harmon was denied. He
21 objected because of lack of relevance. I denied that objection. So, of
22 course, you are free to proceed.
23 MS. LOUKAS: Oh, thank you, Your Honour. Perhaps I misheard it.
24 I think that's the problem with not putting my headphones on.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I will try to speak more clearly.
1 MS. LOUKAS: No, it will probably help if I have my headphones
2 on, I must say, Your Honour.
3 Q. Okay. The international community bearing responsibility for the
4 situation in Yugoslavia, I want to know your view. Is there anything in
6 A. My view or what the documents say?
7 Q. No, your view.
8 A. Well, I'm not sure I have a view necessarily. I -- I can't say
9 I've -- I've followed all the negotiations in the international community
10 nor read all the materials relating to the break-up of the former
11 Yugoslavia and whether the international community had a responsibility in
12 -- in its -- in its break-up. I know that it is -- it is an issue that's
13 historically debated, it's debated currently, and it's in many, many, many
14 books, but I'm not sure I necessarily have a view. I can tell you that
15 the documentation indicated that they did have a role in -- in -- they
16 perceived that the international community did have a role in contributing
17 to the break-up of Yugoslavia, and the documentation notes that in a
18 number of ways. It has some general references, but it also has some very
19 specific ones, pointing fingers at Germany and at their desire to
20 basically take control of territories in Yugoslavia, and some very
21 hostile comments about individual countries and the international
22 community more generally.
23 Q. Okay. Mr. Brown, let's go on to paragraph 2.238 of your report.
24 We get to the third sentence there: "It was evident that in certain areas
25 a threat undoubtedly existed to some Serbs and in some instances this was
1 not insignificant."
2 Now, Mr. Brown, that's somewhat diminishing the significance of
3 the situation, is it not?
4 A. I'm talking about the Krajina here in particular, of course. But
5 I don't think it diminishes it at all. You know, I wanted to put it in
6 the report, to make note that there was this issue. You know, I've talked
7 about the area in the Posavina, where there clearly were attacks on Serbs.
8 I also referenced, I believe, and noted some references in the -- in the
9 Jajce area, which was overwhelmingly a Croat -- overwhelmingly a Croat and
10 Muslim area, in which, I think in April and May, there were some -- some
11 examples and some notes in the documentation that Serbs were -- were being
12 attacked. So, you know, I -- of course, I -- I know from the
13 documentation that that happened.
14 Q. Okay. Why is it that it's not insignificant, as opposed to
16 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, at one of your earlier questions, you
17 said let's not enter into a debate of what is significant and what is not
19 MS. LOUKAS: Well, that's true, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ORIE: What I do hear you now is to enter into a debate of
21 what is significant and what is not significant. Please proceed.
22 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed, Your Honour. I'm happy to leave that aside.
23 I'll move on to a new topic. I'll just need a moment to get my next
24 folder, Your Honour.
25 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
1 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, my bookkeeping tells me that you would
2 have another 35 minutes, approximately, just to give you some guidance.
3 MS. LOUKAS: I have 35 minutes?
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 MS. LOUKAS: Oh, I thought I was in my last five minutes, Your
7 JUDGE ORIE: No, as a matter of fact you indicated yesterday you
8 would do it in two hours. You had a bit more. If we would apply the
9 60-per cent guidelines and if we would ignore your offer that it was --
10 that you could finish within two hours, then -- then you would have
11 another 30 minutes. It's -- it's a bit more than you offered yesterday,
12 but since you said it was already unfair to keep you to the 60-per cent
13 guideline, we've considered. So if you would need a bit more than five
14 minutes, then you can highlight a couple of more topics if you want to do
16 MS. LOUKAS: Thank you, Your Honour.
17 Q. Now, let's go back to the transcript of yesterday, page 28, I
18 think, for the benefit of the Court and the Prosecution. We were dealing
19 there with -- it, in fact, begins at page 27 of the transcript. And we're
20 dealing with a document found at tab 86.
21 Do you have that document, Mr. Brown?
22 A. Tab 86. I do have it, yes.
23 Q. Excellent. Okay. Now, at page 27, Mr. Harmon took you to that
24 document at page -- at tab 86, and invited your comments on it, and then
25 he asked you to turn to page 3 of the document and specifically took you
1 to a paragraph there: "The army, Crisis Staffs, and War Presidencies have
2 requested that the army round up or capture as many civilians as possible
3 and they leave such undefined camps to Internal Affairs organs. The
4 conditions in some of these camps are poor. There is no food.
5 Individuals sometimes do not observe international norms," et cetera. And
6 Mr. Harmon --
7 MR. HARMON: Your Honour, the quotation said "as many Muslim
8 civilians," not "as many civilians." I just note that for the record.
9 MS. LOUKAS: Oh, it's interesting. The transcript says "as many
11 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just -- could you again -- I didn't follow it
12 -- tell me what page, what --
13 MS. LOUKAS: Oh, it's page 27, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Page 27.
15 MR. HARMON: I was referring to the document when I said "Muslim
16 civilians," Your Honour, not the transcript.
17 MS. LOUKAS: I'll just indicate there's a difference between the
18 transcript and the document itself. But it's -- it's not of any great
19 moment. I was actually quoting what Mr. Harmon said.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 MS. LOUKAS: But the document, of course, quite clearly
22 indicates, as we can all see, "Muslim civilians."
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 MS. LOUKAS:
25 Q. Now, in relation to that, Mr. Brown, you gave an answer about the
1 document. You actually said, "Well, in some of the documentation, I have
2 seen that," and you proceeded through your answer. And it referred
3 basically to that particular portion of the document. And then Mr. Harmon
4 moved on to a -- another document.
5 I just want to highlight some of the other matters that are
6 contained within that document with you, Mr. Brown. If you read the
7 document in its entirety, it's quite clear that there -- this report is
8 critical of what has occurred; correct?
9 A. I would have to read the document in entirety and -- it's not a
10 document that was used in my report, so ...
11 MS. LOUKAS: Well, Your Honour, perhaps if we might take the
12 break now. That would give Mr. Brown the opportunity to go through the
13 document and I can see if I can streamline my remaining topics into the
14 remainder of the time allowed.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, you would like to have the break now.
17 MS. LOUKAS: Yes. If the break went to 12.15 and we finished at
18 -- and we finished at 1.45, that's exactly one and a half hours for the
19 next session.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Harmon, could you give us any indication how
21 much time you would need, approximately, in re-examination?
22 MR. HARMON: If I have any re-examination, Your Honour, it
23 shouldn't take more than ten minutes.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, would you have any additional
3 questions to this witness as it stands now?
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have prepared questions. But
5 depending on how long Ms. Loukas proceeds for, I will adapt my questions
6 to that.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do understand. But from what to expect at
8 this moment, of course, Mr. Harmon cannot be sure about his time either,
9 but ...
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think that I will have some five
11 to six questions that have not been covered so far. However, if she and I
12 were to consult during the break and if she were to put those questions,
13 then I will not do so.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, consultation during the break, is that a
15 suggestion you would support?
16 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed, Your Honour. I'm more than happy to do
18 JUDGE ORIE: Then we would have a break but a little bit longer
19 than you suggested. But let me again consult with my colleagues.
20 MS. LOUKAS: Well, I must say, Your Honour, I'm happy to have
21 that, seeing that I have to have a consultation as well. It might be
22 useful to have a slightly longer break.
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
25 JUDGE ORIE: Scheduling is not always easy. We will have a
1 little bit longer break. That is, that we'll resume at 20 minutes to
2 1.00. At the same time, we'll have another short break from just before
3 1.00 to just after 2.00 [sic] because the Chamber considers that it is for
4 everyone himself whether or not to join in a moment of silence - it's not
5 for the Chamber to decide that - but by having a short break, we give
6 everyone an opportunity who wish to have a two minutes' silence to have
7 that. As I said, the Chamber is neutral in that respect, but at the same
8 time the Chamber does not want to force anyone who would consider it
9 appropriate to be two minutes silent at Dutch time 1.00, English time
10 12.00, not to be forced to continue business as usual for those two
12 Therefore, we'll resume at 20 minutes to 1.00 and have another
13 couple of minutes' break at approximately 1.00.
14 MS. LOUKAS: As Your Honour pleases.
15 --- Recess taken at 11.54 a.m.
16 --- On resuming at 12.42 p.m.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, before I ask you to continue, I'd like
18 to draw -- ask your attention for the following matter: It has to do with
19 the testimony of Mr. Davidovic.
20 The Chamber is confronted with an issue of appropriateness of
21 questions to the witness Davidovic. These questions went exclusively to
22 the credibility of the witness and included serious allegations of
23 misconduct. While a party may be fully justified to put such questions to
24 a witness, it should not be done in the absence of reasonable grounds to
25 believe that the witness did misbehave in the way that was put to him.
1 The Defence has put to the witness in its questioning that: He
2 was a criminal; that Mr. Davidovic gained money from transporting Muslims;
3 that his unit stole money, beating and evicting civilians; that he stole
4 material from the dental office of a Muslim; that he is subject to three
5 criminal proceedings in Bijeljina; and that he profited from activities of
6 seizing vehicles in Zvornik and Brcko.
7 MS. LOUKAS: If Your Honour has --
8 JUDGE ORIE: No, I'm just pausing for the translation.
9 MS. LOUKAS: Okay.
10 JUDGE ORIE: The Defence submitted that there were reasonable
11 grounds for the mentioned allegations and mentioned in this respect that
12 it had been provided with certain information by their investigators,
13 including the existence of a film of a woman alleging criminal conduct by
14 the witness and other documentary evidence from before the beginning of
15 the witness's testimony. The film had not arrived in time for the hearing
16 and the Defence did not specify any further basis for the questioning.
17 The Prosecution contested that such reasonable grounds existed.
18 And in particular, after a few days, it provided the Chamber with the
19 affidavits of one person mentioned as an alleged victim of the witness's
20 criminal behaviour and of another person -- and of other persons
21 apparently aware of the facts. It also highlighted the use by the Defence
22 of the expression "criminal proceedings" when, in its submissions, no such
23 proceedings had or were being underway.
24 The questions to the witness had no direct bearing on questions
25 of guilt or innocence of the accused. However, the Chamber is responsible
1 for the integrity of the proceedings. As part of this responsibility, the
2 Chamber needs to ensure that no witness, especially if he or she has given
3 the testimony publicly, has reasons to feel he or she is unfairly treated
4 by any party.
5 The Chamber deems that the responsibility -- this responsibility
6 requires it to make further inquiries if one party argues the absence of
7 reasonable grounds for the allegations made by the other party against a
8 witness, and it is only after such inquiries that the Chamber will be in a
9 position either to dismiss the argument or to consider whether the matter
10 needs to be pursued further.
11 The Defence is therefore instructed to inform the Chamber by the
12 21st of July, 2005 of all information it had available that could shed
13 light on the allegations of misbehaviour. The Chamber stresses that it
14 wants to be informed of all information the Defence had available, whether
15 this information supported the allegations or suggested that they were
16 unsubstantiated. If the Defence does not wish to share this information
17 with the Prosecution, it may either apply for being heard ex parte or
18 provide this information in writing without disclosing it to the
20 [Defence counsel confer]
21 MS. LOUKAS: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour. I've -- I've heard
22 what Your Honour has indicated, and I can indicate obviously there's some
23 matters I do need to clear up immediately, and that is -- I think I
24 indicated that --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I'm a bit concerned about the time for today.
1 If there are certain matters, let's, then, do it at the end of the
2 hearing. I have a few other procedural matters as well. We just wanted
3 to -- not to wait and ask for further information.
4 And again, as I said, you don't have to share it with the
5 Prosecution. It's a matter of the treatment of witnesses. It's a matter
6 of integrity of the proceedings, rather than, I would say, an inherent
7 part of this case because, as I said before, it does not go to the guilt
8 or innocence of the accused.
9 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed, Your Honour. The only point I would make,
10 and I take on board --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 MS. LOUKAS: -- the very limited time we have, is that clearly the
13 Defence had available to it other information other than the -- the
14 documents that were given to the Prosecution, firstly. And --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Well, Ms. Loukas, to make it quite simple, the
16 Chamber is aware that it may not have -- not even have a small portion of
17 the evidence you have, but there has been made a complaint and it is our
18 duty in respect of the witnesses to see -- see whether there's any
19 substance, is it, yes or no, and therefore we are asking for information
20 not necessarily to be shared with the Prosecution.
21 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed, Your Honour. And I take that on board and I
22 will make one point, and that is that if it is shown that I received the
23 wrong information from the investigators, I would immediately and
24 unreservedly withdraw an allegation, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, that's -- of course, if there's any
1 mistake, whatever the cause may have been, which is of course another
2 matter, then that perhaps we should consider. But let's not go any
3 quicker, then. Let's first see what happens.
4 Then are you ready to continue cross-examination? And we would
5 ask the witness to enter the courtroom.
6 MS. LOUKAS: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Usher.
8 [The witness entered court]
9 JUDGE ORIE: You may proceed, Ms. Loukas.
10 MS. LOUKAS: Thank you, Your Honour.
11 Q. Now, Mr. Brown, I think you've had the opportunity over the break
12 to look at the document behind tab 86.
13 A. Yes, I have.
14 Q. And in that regard, of course, it's important to note for the
15 Trial Chamber that the document emphasises, for example, at page 3 that
16 "In some communities neither the military nor the civilian judiciary is
17 functioning. Judges have not been elected, and in Bosanska Krajina, for
18 instance, several thousand court cases have not yet been resolved."
19 You'll note that portion in the document.
20 A. That's what the document says, yes, on that page.
21 Q. And it's quite clear, is it not, that there was a situation of
22 chaos certainly in the first few months of the war in that regard.
23 A. In regard to the judiciary? Is that ...? Or more widely?
24 Q. Well, both in regard to the judiciary and more widely, but
25 particularly in regard to the military judicial system.
1 A. Well, I'm not so sure that was necessarily the case for the
2 military judicial process. I do know that in -- I think it was in July
3 there was instructions about the establishment of military courts. I saw
4 some --
5 Q. That's in July?
6 A. I believe in July 1992, yes. And then there were other documents
7 in 1992 appointing juror judges, and I know that the -- from looking at
8 the court records, that the military court did begin to function from
9 around August 1992. So I'm not sure that it was necessarily chaos in the
10 military court system, whether he's referring to the civilian processes, I
11 can't really comment. It's not really my area --
12 Q. Well, it states there "Neither the military nor the civilian
13 judiciary is functioning." And that's in July, you'll note. And in my
14 question, it was that -- "It's quite clear, is it not, that there was a
15 situation of chaos certainly in the first few months in that regard?" And
16 your response basically confirmed that because you indicated July and
17 August, July in relation to a document at -- the military system beginning
18 to function in August. Correct?
19 A. Yes. I'd add that it does say "in some communities." It doesn't
20 say "in entirety," but in some communities. But I would accede that in
21 May and June there was some -- "chaos" is their word -- I'm not so sure if
22 I would say that was the case. They did begin to function pretty quickly
23 after that, which would seem to indicate that they had some degree of --
24 or some ability to resurrect the military judicial process relatively
1 Q. In fact, it talks about "Judges receiving threats and being in
3 A. Yes, it does.
4 Q. And in fact it talks about that "In some municipalities, Bosanska
5 Krupa, Donji Vakuf, Kupres, Derventa, the courts do not function and
6 hardened criminals are released from prison, which affects the
7 establishment of the rule of law and the work of law enforcement organs."
8 A. That's what it says here.
9 Q. So it was obviously a problem, wasn't it?
10 A. It seems to have been a problem highlighted in this document by
11 the Ministry of the Interior.
12 Q. Yes, because he thought it was a problem.
13 A. Yes, it would seem so from this document.
14 Q. Okay. And it was also indicated in that document that "It is a
15 priority for both the national service and the crime investigation service
16 to detect war crimes, provide documentation, on-site investigations,
17 photos, expert testimonies, medical findings, and file criminal reports.
18 Documents are also provided for war crimes committed by Serbs."
19 A. That's what the document says, yes.
20 Q. And so on your reading of the document, it's quite clear that
21 this report on some aspects of the work done to date and the tasks ahead,
22 that this issue, as far as you can see from the document, was being taken
24 A. Well, it would seem to be an issue that was raised at the
25 meeting. I'm not sure who all was present there, but it seems to be an
1 issue that was being raised and discussed and is some significance
2 undoubtedly for the Ministry of the Interior to be writing a report on it.
3 So it is an issue that they're discussing about, yes.
4 Q. And it's an important issue and they want to do something about
5 it, from your reading of the document, isn't it?
6 A. Well, they appear to be highlighting that it's a problem that
7 they want to address.
8 Q. Okay. In addition, if you look at page 4, the last paragraph:
9 "The minister particularly pointed out the determination to take action to
10 ensure full constitutionality and legality by preventing crimes from being
11 committed, not only by citizens but also by army soldiers and officers,
12 active-duty and reserve police, and members of Internal Affairs organs and
13 their superior officers who have committed crimes of any kind." Do you
14 see that portion of the document?
15 A. I do, yes.
16 Q. So it's quite clear that the issue is being taken very seriously
17 from -- from any reading of the document, clearly, is it not?
18 A. Well, clearly it's an issue that they're discussing and it is of
19 some importance for them to be talking about it in that way, and replete
20 with references there, of course. One would have to not necessarily take
21 this document in isolation, but presumably -- I'm not an expert on the
22 Ministry of the Interior and the police but presumably look at what
23 actions, at all, if any, fell from this and -- and what happened in the --
24 in the weeks and months afterwards. So -- but to answer your question is
25 it -- they seem to be taking it seriously here, yes, but they -- they
1 could make comments here but you would have to presumably look and see
2 what follow-up happened.
3 Q. Indeed. But, of course, the -- the fact that the issue is taken
4 seriously is a significant matter from the reading of the document, is it
6 A. Well, it appears at face value to be -- to be that but ...
7 JUDGE ORIE: We've now four or five times heard you say,
8 Ms. Loukas, what is obvious from reading the document. And we have also
9 four or five times heard that the witness agrees with that but at the same
10 time has some difficulties to accept that as the whole of -- of -- of what
11 he has studied. But if forced to limit himself just to the reading of
12 this document that he would agree with you.
13 Is that a correct understanding?
14 THE WITNESS: I think that's accurate, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ORIE: That's, then, clear for the Chamber and it was
16 already clear for the Chamber three or four times --
17 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, I'm happy to leave that topic. I was
18 just interested in the witness's reaction --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, well --
20 MS. LOUKAS: -- and the way he reads the document.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, we'll have a break for four minutes.
22 MS. LOUKAS: Oh, yes. I understand, Your Honour. Yes.
23 --- Break taken at 12.59 p.m.
24 --- On resuming at 1.04 p.m.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Ms. Loukas.
1 MS. LOUKAS: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.
2 Q. Now, Mr. Brown, in the preparation of your report, did you
3 consult any military analysts from the former Yugoslavia?
4 A. No, I did not.
5 Q. And do you know anything about the different definitions in the
6 Yugoslav context of the term "order, directive, and instruction"?
7 A. No, but I have an understanding in military terms what "order,
8 directive, and instruction" is.
9 Q. I understand that. Have you ever consulted a -- a book by
10 Colonel Branislav Jovanovic, "Introduction to Military Command Theory,"
11 specifically in the Yugoslavian context?
12 A. No, I have not.
13 MS. LOUKAS: No further questions, Your Honours.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. Loukas.
15 Mr. Harmon -- no, I will first ask whether Mr. Krajisnik has any
16 further questions to the witness.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would have only a
18 few questions.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed, Mr. Krajisnik.
20 Cross-examined by Mr. Krajisnik:
21 Q. [Interpretation] Witness, have you seen the statement given by
22 the defence minister in 1997 to the Office of the Prosecutor on the 9th,
23 11th, and 12th of December, Mr. Subotic?
24 A. I do remember reading that statement, and it was a long time ago,
25 so I cannot remember the contents of it now, so I -- I -- I remember
1 reading it, I know, but I can't remember the contents.
2 Q. Would you find it useful if I gave you a copy of the statement
3 now? Would you like to give some comments, or would you like to say in
4 general terms whether you referred to it at all while making your own
6 A. I didn't make reference to that particular witness statement in
7 my analysis, and my analysis was based on documentary material, written
8 documentary material, not witness testimony. And I state that at the
9 beginning of the -- the report.
10 Q. Do you think that it is not important to know how what was
11 conceived of was actually carried out? Are you not interested in what the
12 minister in charge at the time had to say about that?
13 A. Of course I'm interested what the minister had to say about that,
14 but the remit I was given in relation to the report was to review
15 documentary material, predominantly material taken from the 1st Krajina
16 Corps archive, although other materials as well, and it was not within the
17 remit of this report to include witness testimony in it, so it is not
18 included there.
19 Q. Thank you. You spoke about the system of information that was
20 impeccably organised, and you said that you had insight into transcripts
21 from the meetings of the Presidency of Republika Srpska. Did you also
22 have a look at specifically the transcript of the session of the
23 Presidency held on the 17th of June, 1992?
24 A. I didn't, I believe, use the word "impeccably organised." I
25 said, I believe, that the communications were very good. And I did look
1 at the minutes of the Presidency session on the 17th of June.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could a copy of the transcript
3 please be placed in front of the witness now. That is 007679935. I asked
4 the Registry for that yesterday. I have just one copy. It is paragraph
5 6, so if you wish, you can place it on the overhead projector. I gave
6 copies yesterday. So it's just paragraph or item 6.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Perhaps we could put it on the ELMO and if
8 it's zoomed in such a way that the witness can read it on the screen, then
9 -- could the legal officer please try to verify whether this is already
10 in evidence.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I will help the witness by reading
12 paragraph 6. Could I just have it placed on the ELMO, please.
13 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I've already asked the Registry for
15 this, so perhaps I could read paragraph 6 from the first page.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It's on the ELMO. Please read it slowly,
17 Mr. Krajisnik, so that the interpreters ...
18 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
19 Q. "Provide as urgently as possible equipment for establishing radio
20 communications with all command centres in order to ensure synchronised
21 and unified command."
22 Could the witness please comment on this. This is the 17th of
23 June, so it is almost three months into the war.
24 A. Well, it would seem at face value to be a requirement to provide
25 radio communications. Radio communications were not the only form of
1 communications that were available, of course. And I think the combat
2 analysis readiness report indicates that there were difficulties with
3 radio communications in particular; i.e., that's not communications that
4 involve a telephone, a telex, a courier, meetings, or any other form of
5 communication but it's a radio communication. And I know there were some
6 difficulties in trying to have communication -- radio communications in
7 particular, in part because some of the communication hubs were either
8 damaged or had been -- were in Central Bosnia. So I can only assume here
9 what they're trying to do is to better facilitate the communications by
10 this particular means, which is radio.
11 MR. HARMON: Your Honour, for Your Honours' benefit, this
12 document in English is found at tab 27.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Harmon.
14 Mr. Krajisnik, could you put your next question to the witness.
15 At least, if I take it that you've finished your answer.
16 THE WITNESS: I have, Your Honour, yes.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.
18 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
19 Q. You have used two documents having to do with communications.
20 One is 009498887, sent by Mr. Milutin Vukelic to the Main Staff and the
21 Presidency, and the reply of Mr. Mladic, 00820950, dated the 20th of June.
22 As far as I could understand, you stated that this serves as an evidence
23 that these documents were also sent to the Presidency of Republika Srpska.
24 Am I right in concluding this? Was that your -- or rather, was your
25 interpretation correct?
1 A. Colonel Vukelic -- or the document that Colonel Vukelic signed is
2 -- does have an addressee the Presidency and the Main Staff, and that
3 would indicate to me that there -- there was a communication link, that he
4 was able to send that document to the Presidency. The response clearly
5 comes from the Main Staff, and I think the response is actually the 9th of
6 June, it's not the 20th, but the response is from the Main Staff.
7 Q. But did you verify whether this document had indeed arrived from
8 the Presidency to Mr. Vukelic? Have you received confirmation of this?
9 A. I think the document is the other way round; it's from the --
10 it's from the military to the Presidency. But I haven't got access to
11 documentation from the Presidency that would verify that it was actually
13 Q. Let me remind you, Witness: You had at your disposal the minutes
14 of the Presidency sessions. If I were to tell you that I went through all
15 of the minutes of the Presidency during the relevant period of time and
16 was unable to find any confirmation that this document had ever reached
17 the Presidency, would you be able to contradict this?
18 A. I wouldn't expect the minutes of the Presidency session
19 necessarily to show or indicate whether this document arrived at the
20 Presidency. I would presumably expect some ledger in the communications
21 centre in Pale or some other location to find whether this document was --
22 was transmitted and received. I don't think it's the minutes of the
23 Presidency particularly that you would -- you would necessarily find this.
24 So if it's not in the Presidency minutes, I'm not surprised.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Judge Hanoteau would like to ...
1 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Witness, yesterday you said
2 something and I forgot to ask the question, but you said that you did not
3 have access to the documentation of the Presidency. What do you mean
4 exactly by that? Did you try to conduct some research at the Presidency
5 and you were not authorised to do so? Is that the way we should
6 understand what you said yesterday?
7 THE WITNESS: No, I was not involved in analysing the work of the
8 Presidency for this report, and so I was not focussing on whatever
9 documentation the Office of the Prosecutor may have had in that respect.
10 It didn't fall within the remit of the report necessarily at all, and --
11 and I didn't -- I didn't inquire.
12 JUDGE ORIE: You may proceed, Mr. Krajisnik.
13 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
14 Q. This morning you stated that you read the book by Mr. Owen, "The
15 Balkan Odyssey"; is that right?
16 A. I have read the book by Mr. Owen. I have to say it was a number
17 of years ago, I would imagine probably in 1998 or 1999, so it's been some
18 time since I've read it.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could this document be placed on
20 the overhead projector. There is a short sentence that I would like to be
21 read out. I have also previously provided a copy of this.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We are -- we received a copy of the page.
23 Yes, you may put it on the ELMO. It's a B/C/S version. We are aware that
24 it's already on the record that the copies might not be exactly the same
25 in every respect -- I mean the English and the B/C/S copy -- but which
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 portion you'd like to draw the attention of the witness to, Mr. Krajisnik?
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] To the right, please. Could you
3 move it to the right. All right. That's good.
4 I have marked my copy of the document and I would like to read
5 out the passage and then I would like the witness to comment this, with
6 the Chamber's leave.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
8 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters note that we do not have the
10 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
11 Q. I think is page 72. Mr. Owen says: "The recognition of Bosnia
12 and Herzegovina represented, as was predicted by many, a pressure on the
13 trigger for the official eruption of the war, which was boiling in the
14 background before the recognition. The European Community and the United
15 States committed a critical error because they continued on the path
16 towards the recognition of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the spring of 1992
17 when all individual signs indicated that that would represent adding fuel
18 to the fire that was already burning."
19 My question is: Do you share the opinion of Mr. Owen after
20 analysing the situation while conducting your research?
21 MR. HARMON: Your Honour, I would object. I think that calls for
22 a political judgement.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, this seems to be very much to
24 represent a political opinion of the author of this book. It's -- but
25 let's ask the witness: Are you in a position on the basis of the
1 documentary study you made to comment on this political opinion, whether
2 in support of it, whether in -- not in support of it?
3 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, this strikes me as being a very
4 difficult question to -- to -- to answer, and I'm not sure I'm currently
5 in a position to -- really to do so. It would require, I think, a lot of
6 thought and there's a lot of overlapping issues even just contained in the
7 phrase that he's used. So I don't -- I'm not really sure that I can -- I
8 can answer the question.
9 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Very well. Thank you. I would like to put another brief
11 question to the witness. I apologise.
12 I would like to ask you something regarding the 16th Session. I
13 think that the 16th Session of the Assembly of Republika Srpska was
14 explained in detail. I don't think it is necessary to refer to the
15 document, but if you wish, I can do so. You have read the minutes of the
16 16th Session of the Assembly of Republika Srpska held on the 12th of May,
17 1992, haven't you?
18 A. Yes, I have.
19 Q. Did you read the appeal that was sent to the European Commission
20 at the conclusion of the session? And this was something that was read by
21 Mr. Nikola Koljevic. And in that appeal, it was stated that: "We accept
22 the end of the war" and that they were all in favour of a political
23 solution. I can refer to the political page, if you wish. 12049482, in
24 the very beginning, where Mr. Koljevic addresses the Assembly. I only
25 have, unfortunately, the version in Serbian. I could not give you the
1 number of the English version.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Would you tell us, Mr. Krajisnik, approximately on
3 what page it is in the B/C/S so that we could find our way through the
4 English translation.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 43, Your Honour. There are several
6 versions here. This is on page 43.
7 JUDGE ORIE: So that should, in the English, be one or two pages
8 from the end.
10 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, Your Honour. I think it's page 55 and 56.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
12 MS. LOUKAS: Where Mr. Nikola Koljevic speaks.
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 THE WITNESS: Yes, I do see it.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honours, may I continue with
16 my question?
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please do so.
18 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
19 Q. This appeal or, rather, a letter sent to the European Community,
20 does it indicate to you that the discussion was held as to give preference
21 to the war option or the political option and that they wanted
22 negotiations to continue until a political solution was found? And this
23 is in the time period before the Corridor was severed, before any of the
24 strategic objectives were implemented.
25 A. Well, it would seem to me that Mr. Koljevic is laying out the
1 Serbian position and submitting that position. I'm not sure I'd agree
2 with necessarily some of the issues he talks about in there as being an
3 absolute accurate reflection of what I saw from the documentation, but
4 this seems to be the position that he is suggesting.
5 Q. I don't know whether the Trial Chamber understood your reply, so
6 would you allow me to repeat. Was that an appeal sent to the European
7 Community showing that the Serb side was resolved to halt any combat and
8 to continue negotiations until a political solution is achieved? Is that
9 what it states?
10 A. That's what it would state. But I'm not sure some of the
11 underlying comments here are accurate.
12 Q. Thank you. All I asked you, whether it is stated in the letter.
13 Let me ask you something else now. You said that in early April
14 -- the Yugoslav People's Army, in early April of 1992, stopped treating
15 all three sides equally and that it sided with the Serb side, as you have
16 put it. Is that your conclusion?
17 A. My conclusion was that there was a convergence between the JNA
18 and the SDS certainly by April 1992 and that some manifestations of that
19 convergence were the provision of weapons to Serbian volunteers, and in
20 April 1992 as well the assistance in some areas in active combat
21 operations on the sides of the Serb -- Serbs. So I would say that there
22 was a convergence that certainly had manifested itself very openly in
23 April 1992.
24 Q. Now, in relation to that question, please tell me this: Are you
25 aware of the activity and of the order of the Muslim TO commander to block
1 barracks, to block roads used by the JNA which in fact was a declaration
2 of war on the JNA? Are you aware of this document, of this order issued
3 in early April which exists among the OTP documentation?
4 A. I am aware of that instruction, and I believe it came sometime
5 after the -- the activities in Bijeljina and Zvornik, and it would seem --
6 although that's not a feature of my report, that those issues were linked
7 and -- and related. But I am aware of it but it's not a feature of -- of
8 my report.
9 Q. I will put just one more question in order to leave some time for
10 others, although I do have more questions on my list.
11 When you were tasked with writing this analysis in relation to
12 Momcilo Krajisnik, did you receive information that in the course of the
13 trial Defence presented a thesis that the six strategic goals were
14 actually derived from the Cutileiro Plan?
15 MR. HARMON: Your Honour, I'm going to object to the question.
16 The question --
17 JUDGE ORIE: It's irrelevant whether the --
18 MR. HARMON: Yes.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, it's -- if the witness would know it,
20 you can ask whatever question on the subject and then he would, I take it,
21 not rely on what was put as a thesis by the Defence, because that's a
22 party position taken. But -- so therefore that's not a question you can
23 put to the witness, which does not mean that you could not put any
24 question to the witness in relation to the subject on whether there was
25 any similarity or whether the one plan covered the other or whether it was
1 the other way around. So this question is not to be put to the witness.
2 MR. HARMON: The form of the question also, Your Honour. Just --
3 I note Mr. Krajisnik is under a misapprehension. He in his question says:
4 "When you were tasked with writing this analysis in relationship to
5 Momcilo Krajisnik --"
6 JUDGE ORIE: I noted that too.
7 MR. HARMON: And that's not the case. This report was written in
8 2002 and it was at the request of Jo Korner, as Mr. Brown has testified.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So if you have any question in this context,
10 Mr. Krajisnik, you may put it to the witness.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
12 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Did anyone suggest to you in the course of your work to compare
14 the six strategic goals to the Cutileiro Plan?
15 A. No, they did not.
16 Q. And to follow up on that: As for the split that you mentioned,
17 would it be possible to draw up a map of three ethnic communities without
18 dividing the territory?
19 A. I'm really not in a position to answer that, I don't think. I'm
20 not sure quite what you mean in the question, and I'm not a political
21 negotiator or have studied political issues, but I'm really not sure I
22 could answer the question, to be honest.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I apologise to the Trial Chamber. I
24 will conclude, but I just need to explain this.
25 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
1 Q. In order to create a map, is it necessary to make an internal
2 demarcation or a division of territory in order to have three ethnic
3 communities? You are a military expert and you know how -- you know the
4 process of drawing up maps.
5 A. Well, I'm a military expert and I've served in the military and I
6 know how to draw maps, but it's not got any relation to dividing countries
7 into ethnic communities, so I'm not really sure that I've got an expertise
8 in that area at all and I don't think any comment I would have would be
9 anything more than -- than speculation.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Krajisnik.
12 Mr. Harmon.
13 Re-examined by Mr. Harmon:
14 Q. Mr. Brown, I have one question. That relates to the document
15 that's found in tab 86. Do you have that document in front of you?
16 A. Yes, I have, Mr. Harmon.
17 Q. I'd like to direct your attention to page 6, the last paragraph.
18 This paragraph -- in this paragraph there is reference to "prisons and
19 round-up centres and investigation centres," and then at the last sentence
20 in that paragraph, it says: "Special emphasis should be placed on the
21 issue of relocating certain citizens, villages, et cetera, because this
22 does not fall within the competence of the MUP, although efforts are being
23 made to link it to the MUP."
24 Do you have any observations or comments on that particular
25 sentence, Mr. Brown?
1 A. Well, they don't seem to be too critical about the issue of
2 relocating people and they're trying to resolve that problem. And I would
3 only argue that it seems to cut to a number of other documents that there
4 are references to relocating. This one would just seem to say that, you
5 know, "It's not really our job but we need to sort the problem out."
6 Q. And on page 3, a portion of this report went to the president of
7 the Presidency and the Prime Minister. There is a reference to
8 "documents." I'm referring to page 3, four paragraphs from the bottom.
9 "Documents are also provided for war crimes committed by Serbs." Do you
10 have any comments on that particular sentence?
11 A. Well, they seem to be aware that there either are documents or
12 they're to be provided, but -- about war crimes being committed by Serbs.
13 I can't really say much more than the sentence itself.
14 MR. HARMON: All right. I have no additional questions, Your
16 Thank you very much, Your Honours.
17 Thank you, Mr. Brown.
18 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
20 Judge Hanoteau would have some questions for you.
21 Questioned by the Court:
22 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Witness, do you have your report
23 in front of you?
24 A. Yes, I do.
25 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] I'd like to direct your
1 attention to page 27 of your report. At the top of the page - and you
2 reminded us of that fact yesterday - at the top of that page, you mention
3 the remarks of General Mladic, who called for some caution regarding the
4 attitude taken towards the non-Serbian population. And I think I remember
5 - I'm not quite sure - but I seem to remember that these words were spoken
6 before the Assembly.
7 A. That's right, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Later, further down on the same
9 page, paragraph 1.48, you say: "Interestingly, General Mladic indicated
10 that all this should remain as an internal secret and that the goals --" I
11 suppose these are political goals -- "should be presented in an acceptable
13 And then you quote your source in that respect. When you give
14 that quote, I would like to know which document this quote comes from and
15 at what -- what was the date when these words were spoken, if we compare
16 that to the first declarations, to the declarations made before the
17 Assembly. Because I couldn't -- I was not able to find the date when I
18 looked at the footnote.
19 A. Your Honours, it's contained within the same speech that Mladic
20 gives at the Assembly session. It's a reference of the same speech.
21 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] So it's the same speech.
22 A. On the 12th of May, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] So once you read the entire
24 speech, can you perceive that there's some sort of contradiction within
25 the text, within the speech, or not?
1 A. Yes. I've read General Mladic's speech many, many times. I have
2 to say it's not the easiest one to follow at times. It's -- he drifts off
3 in parts. And, on the one hand, you have that reference where he's in
4 essence appearing to say, "We must guard this as our secret and we must
5 present them in an acceptable way," which would indicate -- and also he
6 appears to be acutely aware of what is being proposed here. He, from my
7 reading of the minutes, seems to be the only one that is uttering these
8 words of -- of caution. And yet, on the other hand, he indicates that,
9 "We must protect what we're talking about." To all intents and purposes,
10 that's his -- the gist of what he says. He also talks about -- he uses
11 somewhat inflammatory language, fundamentalism and the likes. And he also
12 takes his position as commander of the army and accepts it willingly and
13 outlines his view of what the army should be doing. So there does seem to
14 be this somewhat contradictory message which he puts out, which I can only
15 present as such, but he speaks at the Assembly session, he seems to know
16 what the Assembly session is about, he accepts his position as commander
17 of the army. He remains in that position through the whole war. And so
18 even though he may have these initial words of caution, he clearly fulfils
19 his position and stays in that position through the whole war.
20 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Thank you, Witness.
21 I would like you to turn back to page 52, please. And in
22 paragraph 1-120, you mention "criticisms levelled by the military, given
23 some of the weaknesses of the civilian authorities." And among these
24 weaknesses, you mention on the fifth line "[In English] The slow pace of
25 paramilitary formations." [Interpretation] Can you follow me?
1 A. Yes, I can.
2 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Have you read anything about
3 these criticisms; i.e., the very slow manner in which the civilian
4 authorities were dealing with the issue of the disarming of the
6 In document 199, is anything mentioned about this, anything about
7 the way in which this is evolving and is the real desire of the civilian
8 authorities questioned here in any way, real desire to see this
9 disarmament actually take place?
10 A. I believe the reference simply makes it noted that it's passed up
11 to the Main Staff, as it's -- as it's quoted, that there is a slow
12 response to the disarming of paramilitaries. It's something that had been
13 discussed in -- in maybe other forums prior to this. Maybe it's of some
14 note that this comes a few weeks before that larger document on
15 paramilitaries is issued in July, in which they list the paramilitaries
16 that are operating, their features and characteristics, and they state
17 that paramilitaries should be integrated or put under control of the army
18 if not disbanded and legal measures taken.
19 So whether this comment and others may have been a facilitation
20 in that document being produced, I can't say. In terms of this reference,
21 I think it was just a remark in a daily combat report that General Talic
22 was passing up to his superior command, and there were other references.
23 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] In other words, so there is no
24 clear illustration of this unwillingness on the part of the civilian
25 authorities to see this task through. In other words, in your report,
1 there is no instance of this anywhere.
2 A. Not in that reference, but I think I used the word
3 "paramilitaries are a complex issue." I think that's a phrase I use in my
4 own report. My overall feeling with paramilitaries is that there was a
5 recognition that they were there. There was a clear understanding what
6 they were doing. Some paramilitaries were linked to party affiliations.
7 And the issue of paramilitaries was one about control and bringing them
8 into the military, not about specifically, as I've discussed earlier,
9 about their -- their actions in a way. It was -- it was about bringing
10 them into -- not having competing militaries, not breaking the unity of
11 the Serbs, not breaking the unity of the -- the military, not having
12 competing factions that were clearly going to reflect badly on the SDS.
13 That, for me, seemed to be of far more importance to them than actually
14 prosecuting them, not putting them in the military, not giving them access
15 to weapons, not allowing them to continue their -- their -- their
17 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] One last question, if I may: On
18 page 133, in paragraph 2.198 [as interpreted], if I've understood you
19 correctly, you concluded that "The non-Serbs were armed in a totally
20 different way to the way in which the Serbs were armed"; paragraph 2.193.
21 A. In the Krajina, I would certainly agree with that. General Talic
22 had the best-equipped corps.
23 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Fine. On the following pages,
24 you explain all of this and you say why you can assert this and you also
25 noted that during specific combat operations such-and-such a weapon was
1 seized, which indicated clearly that there was no heavy weaponry. Is this
2 a very comprehensive view of the battlefields in the territory which you
3 were conducting your research in, or were there instances where you were
4 able to demonstrate that the non-Serbs were much better equipped? In
5 other words, was your survey a comprehensive one?
6 A. It was as comprehensive as I could make it from the documentation
7 I see. Even if you were to take the two areas where I believed the Croats
8 and Muslim defences were -- well, A, had the longest time to prepare, and
9 in some areas - for example, in Jajce - had particularly important
10 territory which made defence very -- relatively easy; it's very hilly
11 there, even if you look at the Corridor, which the Croats had taken in
12 March and had been able to presumably prepare their defences for some
13 period of time, that Corridor was retaken within ten days.
14 Now, the only area where I really saw -- well, there was two
15 areas but there was area in -- around Jajce which it took the VRS a longer
16 time to capture. It took them from, I believe, April into October, but it
17 is exceptionally hilly territory. There are only one or two routes in
18 there. It's territory that favours the defender. It also had a
19 significant Muslim and Croat population there. But that even fell in
20 October. That's the only area that I -- I would argue that the defenders,
21 the non-Serbs, had significant -- well, had an achievement in which they
22 held off the attack for some time.
23 There's only one very small other area, which would be that small
24 pocket in Kotor Varos, but I know what happened to those individuals in
25 the end, which was in November. They were -- when they tried to break
1 out, they were captured and killed.
2 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Thank you, Witness.
3 JUDGE ORIE: No questions triggered by the questions of the
5 MS. LOUKAS: No, Your Honour.
6 MR. HARMON: No, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you very much.
8 Then, Mr. Brown, this concludes your testimony. I'd like to
9 thank you very much for coming -- usually I say "coming to The Hague," but
10 you're not very far away, but for having answered the questions of the
11 parties, of the Bench. And you're excused.
12 THE WITNESS: Thank you for your time and patience, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Usher, could you please escort Mr. Brown out of
14 the courtroom.
15 [The witness withdrew]
16 JUDGE ORIE: Although I would wish now immediately for the
17 technicians and the interpreters to stop, since we're not sitting
18 tomorrow, I have to briefly deal with a few matters. I'll do it as
19 quickly as I can.
20 Nielsen exhibits which were not used in examination, the parties
21 would consult on the relevance of the documents and inform the Trial
22 Chamber as soon as possible. I just remind the parties that they should
23 do so.
24 MS. LOUKAS: Yes. Mr. Tieger and I discussed that recently, and
25 we'll deal with that ASAP next week.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. That's a new term, "ASAP next week," yes.
2 MS. LOUKAS: As soon as possible.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I know as soon as possible, but to put that
4 already in the next week is new for me.
5 D45. There was an exhibit which gave in the footnote an
6 interpretation of part of the evidence contained in it. We've asked
7 whether the OTP had any problem. They had no problem. If there are no
8 further comments from the Defence, we will admit that exhibit as it is,
9 with -- including this footnote in which it explains how certain matters
10 are understood if witness is told certain matters.
11 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then the last thing -- that's -- as a matter
13 of fact, the Chamber is already informed about what the Prosecution
14 intended with Witness Kaiser because we are provided with two transcripts,
15 one of 1998 and one of 1996. It was explained to us that the Prosecution
16 intended to -- sought -- seeks admission of the transcript of 1998 in its
17 entirety; therefore, we find no highlights because they want everything
18 in. And for 1996, the highlighted parts, unfortunately, we received at
19 that time a copy without highlights, but meanwhile the OTP has provided
20 the Chamber with a CD with the highlights on it. Is this -- I think this
21 was not yet said in Court. That's where we have to deal with evidence.
22 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, Your Honour, that's a witness that Mr. Stewart
23 was dealing with --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
25 MS. LOUKAS: -- so I think it's best that --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. If you'd pass this information to him --
2 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE ORIE: -- that the Chamber now received the -- on the 13th
4 of July the highlighted transcript of the 1996 transcripts. And if there
5 would be any further comment on that, we'd like to hear that; otherwise,
6 we'll take a decision on admission. As you may be aware, we could not
7 take any decision if it was not clear what exactly was sought to be
9 These were the procedural issues I would have.
10 MS. LOUKAS: Well, Your Honour, there's just one further issue I
11 need to deal with, just in terms of this witness, and that is that, as I
12 indicated yesterday, Your Honour - and I just want to foreshadow to Your
13 Honours - Mr. Harmon and I have agreed on the tender of the transcript in
14 relation to the evidence of this witness in the trial against
15 Mr. Brdjanin.
16 I can also indicate that one matter -- there were some matters
17 raised in cross-examination that the witness was asked to go away and get
18 further information in relation to, and there's also a document in
19 relation to that, so that sometime during next week I can hand up to Your
20 Honours the transcript from the Brdjanin trial in addition that this
21 document that Mr. Harmon and I have discussed.
22 And the only remaining matter is this -- I think that your
23 assistant Mr. Acquaviva might be interested in this -- and that is just
24 the material in relation to 280. Would you like that now?
25 JUDGE ORIE: I'll ask Mr. Acquaviva whether we'd like it now or
1 as soon as possible next week.
2 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
3 JUDGE ORIE: We could receive it now.
4 MS. LOUKAS: Thank you. I know that your assistant was somewhat
5 anxious for it.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
7 We would then -- have we provided already provisional exhibit
8 numbers or not? Otherwise, we will ask -- we have not done that yet.
9 We'll ask the registrar to prepare the -- to give exhibit numbers, to
10 prepare that and deal with it next week.
11 MS. LOUKAS: I can indicate, Your Honour, that Mr. Gaynor and I
12 have discussed this issue. There is, in fact, four documents: Two
13 e-mails that Mr. Gaynor sent me --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 MS. LOUKAS: -- in relation to Rule 68 material, a further
16 translation from the Prosecution, and a memo prepared by my case manager
17 in relation to the material.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 MS. LOUKAS: That's the four documents.
20 JUDGE ORIE: That will then be sorted out. And then they'll get
21 their description, they will get their numbers, and as soon as that's
22 completely prepared, we'll come back to it in Court.
23 MS. LOUKAS: Thank you, Your Honour. I just wanted to tidy up
24 that remaining loose end.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you very much.
1 MR. HARMON: Your Honour, I know we're in a hurry. There is the
2 issue of the exhibits that have been tendered. We can deal with those
3 next week, the three binders and --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I would rather do that next week and not ask
5 further -- anything further from the patience of the technicians and the
7 MR. HARMON: No problem. The most important issue is an issue
8 that Mr. Gaynor will address, and that is an issue regarding protective
9 measures regarding KRAJ 682. There has been apparently an agreement
10 between the parties, but Mr. Gaynor is in a position to briefly - quite
11 briefly - inform the Court.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we can do that.
13 If the parties have agreed on any issue, you also could send an
14 e-mail to the legal officers, explain what the agreement is, send a copy
15 to either Ms. Loukas or Mr. Stewart, and we usually consult our e-mails,
16 so -- we'll then be aware of it, and then it can be dealt with in open
18 MR. HARMON: And finally, Your Honour, when we regulate these
19 issues of exhibits, I will be filing also -- or tendering a contextual
20 document that relates to Mr. Brown's testimony. I'm going to serve it on
21 the Defence today and I will move it into admission next week. Thank you.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Ms. Loukas, you'll receive it and we'll hear
23 from you if there are any objections.
24 MS. LOUKAS: Yes. I'm happy to look at yet another contextual
25 document, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. This concludes today's hearing. We will
2 adjourn and -- until next Monday, 9.00 in the morning, Courtroom II.
3 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.02 p.m.,
4 to be reconvened on Monday, the 18th day of
5 July, 2005, at 9.00 a.m.