Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 21265

1 Tuesday, 14 March 2006

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 2.24 p.m.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon to everyone.

6 Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.

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

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

9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

10 I think there are a few procedural issues on our list which we'd

11 like to deal with first. Yes. The first one, that's a question to you,

12 Mr. Stewart. We talked extensively on the Savkic exhibits. 1055 you gave

13 up your -- your objections against admission. It's now both parties want

14 that to have to be admitted. The situation as far as 1056 is concerned is

15 not entirely clear to the Chamber at this moment. It's clear for the

16 other -- the remaining Savkic exhibits, but 1055 and 1056 were, in the

17 past, dealt with very often jointly, so therefore, whether the position

18 taken by the Defence on 1055 is also the position in view of 1056 is not

19 entirely clear to us.

20 MR. STEWART: Is Your Honour asking or expecting an immediate

21 answer, because I don't think --

22 JUDGE ORIE: No, no --

23 MR. STEWART: I hope that --

24 JUDGE ORIE: If I do not put the question to you, you do not start

25 thinking about answers.

Page 21266

1 MR. STEWART: No, no, thank you, Your Honour.

2 JUDGE ORIE: I take it we get a response this week.

3 MR. STEWART: Of course, of course.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Tieger, there seems to be -- you would like

5 to speak about the Nielsen material. The Chamber inquired into the

6 availability of some of the footnote material from Nielsen, and this may

7 have been understood by you that we wanted to see it all right away, which

8 was not at that moment the request of the Chamber. Is there anything you

9 would like to raise in this respect or --

10 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour. The Court's correct, I did

11 interpret that as an implicit request for those materials, if available,

12 although I anticipated the Court might not want all of the available

13 materials, so I can indicate the following to the Court: First, there are

14 materials that fall within the purview of the Court's inquiry. Those have

15 been prepared in, roughly, the following way: With respect to the

16 communications to the Presidency and the government, that is the Prime

17 Minister, those materials have been collected and copied and are

18 available. With respect to the Daily Bulletins, they were more

19 voluminous, as I think the Court was aware, so simply attempted to copy

20 those that seemed most relevant to the Court's request, approximately 20,

21 I think, of the -- of what I understand to be about 80 -- or about a

22 hundred available. So -- and we leave it to the Court, of course, whether

23 it wishes to take those, to request that the additional -- any additional

24 documents that were not copied and made available, but it -- the documents

25 I just indicated are here and are available for the Court's perusal.

Page 21267

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The Chamber will further consider the matter,

2 but one solution might be that the parties are invited, for example, to --

3 to present five or ten of these reports which, in the eyes of the

4 Prosecution, would best support the findings of Mr. Nielsen, whereas the

5 Defence then might try to identify the ones that show that there's no

6 support whatsoever in these reports for what -- for the conclusions of

7 Mr. Nielsen. We're not necessarily -- what we're trying to do very often

8 is to see whether what is presented to us is objectively supported by

9 material that is either specifically relied upon or which, in the view of

10 the Chamber, would be suitable for such support or lack of support. We're

11 always trying to find objective grounds for what has presented to us as

12 opinion or uncorroborated -- corroborated personal observation.

13 MR. TIEGER: I completely agree, Your Honour. And as the Court is

14 aware, it was the Prosecution's intention and previous practice to provide

15 the Court with all of the supporting materials so precisely that

16 determination could be made.


18 MR. TIEGER: And it would be -- it would be our -- well, first of

19 all, we support the Court's approach, and it's -- we would be more than

20 happy to provide the Court with all materials necessary to make the most

21 objective finding, whether it is perceived to support the expert's opinion

22 or not.


24 MR. TIEGER: And when any issue comes up like that, we urge the

25 Court to take a look at the underlying materials.

Page 21268

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And we have to find a fair balance between

2 finding objective support and -- and sometimes it's just too much. I

3 mean, I take it there are at least 10.000 witnesses in the -- in Bosnia

4 and Herzegovina who could tell us something which might have some

5 relevance for the case, and nevertheless we can't hear 10.000 witnesses.

6 Then, Mr. Stewart, is there anything you would like to say in this

7 respect or --

8 MR. STEWART: Well, it's really a question, with respect, Your

9 Honour. Well, first of all, I'm just wondering what the time scale was

10 that the Court had in mind in relation to this -- this Nielsen exercise.

11 JUDGE ORIE: We'll consider -- we are now informed about what is

12 available and what is not available, and we have not yet considered any

13 time scale at this moment, so the Chamber would further now see whether it

14 will seek further access to these materials and in what way to seek that

15 access.

16 MR. STEWART: May I just make this remark for the Court's

17 consideration in looking at the time scale, that it's not difficult to see

18 the attractions from the Trial Chamber's point of view in narrowing down

19 the material for consideration; on the other hand, I hope it's not

20 difficult for the Trial Chamber to see the negative impact for the Defence

21 of finding the time and the resources to do what must necessarily be a

22 very time-consuming exercise - potentially, anyway -- to try to identify

23 such a limited amount of material to make these points. Those are simply

24 concerns to express now and to invite the Trial Chamber, please, to have

25 those in mind in considering the nature of the exercise and the timing.

Page 21269

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, I can imagine that if this would be a

2 problem, to say, let's make a random selection and see whether this type

3 of report are of any relevance at all. That's another way of dealing with

4 the matter.

5 MR. STEWART: Well, a random selection can be done by the Trial

6 Chamber, with respect, Your Honour. If it's going to be random, that can

7 be done by anybody.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Of course. I just said that -- I said: If this

9 would be a problem, that is the time-consumption, and I then presented an

10 alternative way of dealing with this material, that is to make a random

11 selection. So you only confirm what I had in mind.

12 MR. STEWART: Well, I'm delighted to be able to do so, Your

13 Honour.

14 JUDGE ORIE: And it was a response to your concerns about

15 consumption of time.

16 MR. STEWART: Thank you.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger.

18 MR. TIEGER: Just with respect to the consumption of time, I think

19 the most burdensome aspect of that, and most time-consuming aspect of that

20 is largely completed. It's not something we would ask the Defence to

21 duplicate on its on, so the materials we have assembled would obviously be

22 made available to them, and that should at least reduce one aspect of the

23 -- of any project involved.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Yes. Nevertheless, reading and selecting would

25 take considerable time as well.

Page 21270

1 MR. TIEGER: I understand. I wanted to make a --

2 MR. STEWART: We also note the Prosecution -- we have a large

3 measure of cooperation, friendly cooperation on all these things, and I

4 appreciate the help, but we must, with respect, always remember we are on

5 opposite sides of the case and, therefore, material we are presented with

6 by the Prosecution may necessarily require considerable investigation of

7 -- work by the Defence.


9 The Defence has asked in some respects guidance on the -- in

10 relation to the omnibus order. We are preparing to give a response to

11 that. There are a few matters. I do understand that the visa problem, as

12 far as Mr. Lakic is concerned, has been resolved. Then there is a fair

13 chance that despite the order the Chamber issued yesterday, there's a fair

14 chance that Mr. Bjelica could not be brought to The Hague by the 21st of

15 March. The Chamber would very much like the Defence to give quite some

16 thought on a back-up plan if Mr. Bjelica would not arrive in time. I

17 think he was announced in October or November as -- to be one of the

18 witnesses. In December he was detained, from what I understand, which

19 means that the problem of getting him here in time has been known for

20 quite some time. I think even the Chamber has drawn the attention to it

21 at a certain moment. So if we don't -- we don't get him here by the 21st

22 of March, at least the Defence is invited to make a back-up plan.

23 Then there's one --

24 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, may I respond to those two points on

25 information? First of all, Mr. Lakic, we understand, have no reason to

Page 21271

1 believe that he's not actually on his way here today. So the visa problem

2 has been solved. As far as we know, he's actually arriving this evening.

3 So far as Mr. Bjelica is concerned, yes, the back-up plan has been

4 noted and we are working on that. And, Your Honour, as soon as this

5 particular bit of today's case is concerned, I hope Your Honours will

6 forgive me if I walk out in front of Your Honours because I have a meeting

7 straight away on the subject of Mr. Bjelica with the Victims and Witnesses

8 Section to follow that up as best we can.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, once that happens, you're excused.

10 MR. STEWART: Thank you, Your Honour.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Then there's one problem with a -- well, at least

12 keep it short because there's no pseudonym granted yet, but with the

13 possibility that a protected witness would not be fit to travel to The

14 Hague, as far as we understood. The question is whether the Defence has

15 considered asking for videolink testimony in respect of this witness,

16 because preparing for videolink takes some time as well.

17 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I can answer that. Your Honour, the

18 Defence has considered and does consider the whole range of possibilities,

19 and specifically in relation to that witness; however, step number one is

20 -- well, we are pressing for a medical certificate and of course we wish

21 to assess whether, when that arrives, it provides any basis whatever for

22 exploring actively that possibility.


24 Would the Prosecution insist on the medical report? Would the

25 Prosecution otherwise oppose against a videolink testimony of this

Page 21272

1 protected witness?

2 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, may I pre-empt that? The Defence is

3 insisting on the medical report as step number one, Your Honour, because

4 we will make no such application unless there is sufficient basis in the

5 medical information to support such an application. So the Prosecution --

6 of course, the question -- perfectly fair to address to the Prosecution,

7 but Your Honour should understand, please, where the matter starts.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Sometimes one even accepts a medical condition

9 without a supporting report. If there's any dispute about the medical

10 condition, then usually in this dispute the medical reports are necessary.

11 So if there's any doubt on the Defence side whether there is a medical

12 condition which would prevent the witness to travel to The Hague, of

13 course I can imagine that you would like to know for sure whether the

14 witness really is unable to travel and perhaps otherwise ask for a

15 subpoena or something like that. But I was just trying to be practical.

16 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, absolutely. We accept that

17 entirely. The reason I had used the phrase "medical information," that

18 was carefully chosen because we're not sticklers for certificates if we

19 are satisfied. But, Your Honour, there is another matter, apart from

20 anything else involved in the videolink suggestion, which is the

21 disruption and difficulty for the Defence in calling this witness without

22 a -- without that witness coming to The Hague, Your Honour, is potentially

23 significant. The Defence has very little enthusiasm for that step, given

24 the practical consequences for us in preparing the witness. Perhaps I can

25 just leave it there, Your Honour, for the moment.

Page 21273

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Yes. Then there's another matter of Witness

2 Maricic. We'll deal with that at a later stage. We need a bit more time

3 to deal with that.

4 MR. STEWART: Sorry, may I, Your Honour? I apologise for jumping

5 up and down, Your Honour, but of course, like Your Honour, I'm trying as

6 well to cooperate in dealing with as many of these really quite

7 considerable practical matters as quickly as possible.

8 So far as Mr. Maricic is concerned, Your Honour, we are -- as we

9 get into this week, we are running quickly into the difficulty. He is due

10 to arrive on Saturday night; that I can tell Your Honour. He will arrive

11 on Saturday -- it was on Saturday; I'm not sure of the time.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it was on my mind, Mr. Stewart, to deal with it

13 still today but a little bit later.

14 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, that's perfectly -- I shall be -- well,

15 I shall be available. Mr. Josse is here, Your Honour, thank you for that.

16 If it is today, then I sit down straight away. Thank you.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Anything else?

18 If not, then --

19 MR. JOSSE: Yes, Your Honour. I had e-mailed Mr. Zahar with --


21 MR. JOSSE: -- the fact I needed to raise scheduling.


23 MR. JOSSE: It really runs into exactly what has just been

24 discussed, Your Honour.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please --

Page 21274

1 MR. JOSSE: Mr. Lakic is arriving, we hope, in the early part of

2 this evening. Realistically, I will not be in a position to call him

3 tomorrow afternoon. The only period of time between his arrival and

4 tomorrow afternoon that I have at my disposal to see him is, quite

5 obviously, tomorrow morning; and that, simply, is not enough time.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. How about Thursday?

7 MR. JOSSE: Thursday afternoon I will be in a position to call

8 him. I can't ask for more time than that, but a day and a half, with

9 respect, is reasonable and it will allow me to take him to see

10 Mr. Krajisnik, which we've done with every -- or virtually every witness.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll consider the matter, but ...

12 [Trial Chamber confers]

13 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber would like to consider that during one of

14 the next breaks and we'll inform you today.

15 MR. JOSSE: Thank you, Your Honour. I mean, apart from

16 consequential arrangements for the Chamber and its staff, there are

17 obviously consequential arrangements for us; for example, the relevant

18 prison appointment, that type of thing. The sooner --

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we're trying to do -- as you may have noticed,

20 your Rule 90 bis request, we invited the Prosecution to respond orally and

21 to deliver a decision right away and they are dealing with these matters

22 as all being urgent in a similar way, but at the same time we sometimes --

23 you would appreciate that we now and then want our own five minutes at

24 least for thinking --

25 MR. JOSSE: Of course I understand. Could I -- just for the

Page 21275

1 avoidance of any doubt, in effect I'm asking the Court not to sit

2 tomorrow.


4 MR. JOSSE: Yes, I'm sure that was clear.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, yes, yes. Half a word sometimes is enough for

6 this Chamber, Mr. Josse.

7 MR. JOSSE: Thank you. That's the only matter. We do need to

8 return to the subject of Mr. Maricic later today, as Mr. Stewart

9 indicated. That's almost as urgent, not quite as urgent.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll deal with that. It's at the top of our

11 priority list.

12 MR. JOSSE: Thank you very much.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Usher, could you please escort the witness into

14 the courtroom.

15 [The witness entered court]

16 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon, Mr. Radojko. Please be seated.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honour.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Radojko, I would like to remind you that you're

19 still bound by the solemn declaration you've given at the beginning of

20 your testimony. You'll now be cross-examined by Mr. Tieger, counsel for

21 the Prosecution.

22 Mr. Tieger, you may proceed.

23 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour.

24 And I believe the bundles have been distributed, but -- I'm sure

25 the witness has the bundle, yeah?

Page 21276

1 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Usher, could you please -- Mr. Radojko, the

2 Prosecution does -- at least, what often happens, he'll put some questions

3 to you in relation to documents. He'll indicate usually under what tab

4 you'll find the documents he'll ask questions about. Please consult only

5 those documents once requested to do so by Mr. Tieger.

6 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour.


8 [Witness answered through interpreter]

9 Cross-examination by Mr. Tieger:

10 Q. Good afternoon to you, Mr. Radojko.

11 A. Good afternoon.

12 Q. I'd like to move through this part of your testimony as quickly

13 and efficiently as possible. I think we will be aided considerably by the

14 fact that you have both given an interview before and, more importantly I

15 think, have testified before a Trial Chamber with regard to many of these

16 matters, and I will be referring as much as possible to your previous

17 comments so that we don't have to go through elaborations on those again,

18 and of course I will make it clear to you when I am doing so.

19 First matter I'd like to touch upon, Mr. Radojko, is the matter of

20 the SDS. You testified before the Brdjanin Court in June -- or July of

21 2003 that the general principle was that if the Main Board issued

22 instructions to the Municipal Board, the Municipal Board was obliged to

23 carry them out unless, for some reason, that was impossible. Correct?

24 And that can be found at page 20028 of the testimony. That's correct,

25 sir, isn't it?

Page 21277

1 A. In principle, yes. I don't think I need to read that now.

2 Q. And -- and let me point out that both the Chamber and Mr. Josse

3 from the Defence have copies of the documents, the testimony, and the

4 interview to the extent I'll be referring to them. And if I misquote

5 them, I trust the -- that will be brought to my attention, but I will

6 obviously endeavour to read them as accurately as possible.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, we are aware that they're not in

8 evidence, but you just use them for us because I -- after our discussions,

9 I took care that -- they are beyond my reach and -- although it might be

10 that there are still some copies around --

11 MR. JOSSE: I too want to clarify this matter.


13 MR. JOSSE: I did speak to Mr. Tieger prior to Your Honours coming

14 in and said I was going to raise the issue.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but I took it that Mr. Tieger will refer to it,

16 so just to have a basis that we would only, if the witness would say: No,

17 that's not what I testified, or My testimony is misunderstood, or anything

18 else, that we would then look at the specific portion if Mr. Tieger wanted

19 to raise the issue of inconsistency in earlier testimony and present

20 testimony or a statement in the usual way, but that this reference is just

21 I would say instrumental in getting quickly to the testimony of the

22 witness rather than anything else. Is that a correct understanding,

23 Mr. Tieger?

24 MR. TIEGER: That is correct, Your Honour.

25 MR. JOSSE: And that's exactly what my submission would have been.

Page 21278

1 JUDGE ORIE: Okay, then. Everyone agrees.

2 Let's continue.

3 MR. TIEGER: Thank you.

4 Q. Mr. Radojko, just moving on from the principle that the Municipal

5 Boards were obliged to carry out those instructions. You also explained

6 during the course of your interview with the OTP that instructions from

7 the Main Board to Municipal Boards were usually conveyed orally. Whoever

8 went to Pale would receive instructions. That was at page 26. Correct?

9 A. Yes, that's correct, in principle. That's the state of affairs,

10 yes.

11 Q. You explained further there were also written instructions, and

12 indeed it was one of your jobs to compile comments and proposals for the

13 Municipal Board or Regional Board of the SDS that resulted from meetings.

14 Correct?

15 A. Yes, that applied to this one specific case.

16 Q. I'd like to look at one of those written instructions, and if you

17 could turn, please, to tab 13.

18 MR. TIEGER: And, Your Honour, I believe that -- I don't think

19 that -- I think that's P90, tab 8; P529, tab 51 already in evidence.

20 That's the first meeting of the party secretariat of Bosanski Petrovac on

21 December 26th, 1991.

22 Q. And in the first paragraph of that document, sir, do we see the

23 members of the party secretariat listed, either present or absent?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. If I could ask you to turn your attention to item 2. Item 2

Page 21279

1 states: "The instruction on the organisation and activity of organs of

2 the Serbian people in Bosnia and Herzegovina in emergency circumstances

3 needs to be typed in seven copies and every member of the Secretariat is

4 to be given a copy."

5 Now, first of all, sir, that's a reference to the document that

6 you saw yesterday, the so-called Variant A and B document, the

7 instructions of December 19th. Correct?

8 A. I believe so, yes.

9 Q. And as the minutes indicate, every member was to be given a copy

10 of the document that was typed seven times for that purpose. You were

11 asked during the course of your testimony in Brdjanin whether you were

12 given a copy, and you said: "I don't remember that, but quite possibly.

13 I suppose I was."

14 Correct?

15 A. That's correct.

16 Q. Were you --

17 A. I wasn't involved in that, and that's why I don't remember.

18 Q. You were also asked if the instructions were discussed, and you

19 said: "According to the minutes, I believe so, but it was a long time

20 ago. But yes, that is how it should have been in the regular course of

21 business."

22 Correct?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And you also explained in the course of your interview on a couple

25 of occasions that the document appeared authentic to you from the --

Page 21280

1 that: "The content would correspond to the atmosphere and events at the

2 time, and from the content I believe this to be an authentic document for

3 the time."

4 Correct?

5 A. That's correct.

6 Q. Now, you were asked about implementation of the document

7 yesterday, and when you were asked about that in the Brdjanin case, you

8 said at page 20045 that item 1 with respect to regular standing duties was

9 implemented for a while and later ceased.

10 Is that right?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. That you didn't have daily meetings of the secretariat, which is

13 item 2, because it wasn't technically feasible, but that you did meet when

14 necessary. Correct?

15 A. That's correct.

16 Q. With respect to --

17 MR. JOSSE: Not a fair summary of the answer, in my submission, at

18 page 20045. My learned friend left out: "And there was no need for

19 that."

20 MR. TIEGER: That's fine. I appreciate that, and I'm -- apologise

21 for the inadvertent omission.

22 Q. With respect to item 3, forming a Crisis Staff --

23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Josse, would you like to have this specifically

24 put to the witness or is it now agreed upon that this was part of his

25 statement and he --

Page 21281

1 MR. JOSSE: I'm happy now.


3 Please proceed.


5 Q. With respect to forming a Crisis Staff, I believe you indicated

6 that that was not necessary because a Crisis Staff had been formed

7 earlier, on October 24th in 1991. And you indicated that that staff must

8 have been formed following the SDS instructions that we saw in that

9 earlier document. And to remind you, the earlier document -- the earlier

10 documents that were shown to you were the telex from Mr. Brdjanin

11 referring to a meeting in Sarajevo with Dr. Karadzic on October 26th,

12 1991, and the state of emergency imposed by Dr. Karadzic on October 18th,

13 1991.

14 A. It is possible that this was the case. I accept it, although I

15 cannot remember the details of it. This was taking place among them.

16 Q. You also indicated in your interview that with respect to item

17 number 9, cancellation of leave, that instruction was rigorously

18 implemented. Correct?

19 A. If you're referring to annual leave, that's correct. Annual leave

20 could not be used.

21 Q. And then I believe you indicated - and I'll try to sum it up; I

22 believe this is accurate, you can tell me otherwise - that with respect to

23 the other items listed in the instructions, that they were deemed either

24 unnecessary or not relevant to Petrovac, which was a Variant A

25 municipality. Correct?

Page 21282

1 A. That's correct.

2 Q. Now, as you know, the instructions of December 19th are broken

3 down in two ways. First, with respect to municipalities, the A and B

4 municipalities, the majority or minority Serbian municipalities; and

5 second, with respect to two levels or stages, a first and a second. Let

6 me -- before I ask you any questions about that, let me ask you about your

7 diary or notebook that you prepared in 1992. During the course of 1992,

8 you took notes by hand in a notebook that you have subsequently had a

9 chance to see and review. Correct?

10 A. Yes, I did take the notes.

11 Q. And that notebook stayed in your desk in the municipal building

12 when you left Petrovac in 1995. You had an opportunity to review that

13 before you testified in the Brdjanin case, and you confirmed its

14 authenticity and accuracy. Correct?

15 A. Correct.

16 Q. Now, you were asked about one -- among the questions asked about

17 your diary during the course of your testimony in the Brdjanin case, you

18 were asked about a diary entry on -- for February 14th, 1992, and that

19 portion of the diary was shown to you and was read out loud. That can be

20 found at page 20049. You were asked to read it out and did so, and you

21 said: "I will read it out aloud and I can also interpret it." And you

22 read it: "Activate the second degree, activate organs of authority so

23 that they practically carry out their duties."

24 That's correct, isn't it?

25 A. Everything what I said still stands. My statement went as far as

Page 21283

1 my memory served me, that's correct.

2 Q. And that was the quote that appeared in your diary on February

3 14th -- well, let me ask you first before I go on: You went on to explain

4 what that reference -- what that quote referred to, and you said: "With

5 -- by 'activating the second degree,' what they mean is according to what

6 I recollect from the instructions on the division of the municipalities

7 into the A and B categories, I think the second degree or level is a

8 higher level of alert and readiness, and 'to activate the organs of

9 authority to practically carry out their duties,' this probably refers to

10 the group of the B type where the Serbs did not have a majority so these

11 organs of theirs, which had separated, needed to actually function and

12 perform as an administration or an administrative service for the citizens

13 because up until that point they were just formally organised."

14 Correct?

15 A. That's correct.

16 Q. Now, you attended a meeting in Sarajevo in 1992 for Dr. Novakovic.

17 Isn't that right?

18 A. President Novakovic, yes, but that's right.

19 Q. And the activation of the second degree reflected in your diary on

20 14 February, that is the activation of the, in particular, B-type

21 municipalities where the Serbs did not have a majority, was a reference to

22 the speech by Dr. Karadzic on February 14th, increasing the level of the

23 19 December instructions. Correct?

24 A. Possibly, but I cannot really say at this time. I -- that's as

25 far as the group B municipalities are concerned. I am more familiar with

Page 21284

1 group A municipalities because that was where the situation more or less

2 remained as it was. I know that there was more discussion of the B-type

3 municipalities, as they are called in the instructions, where the

4 population is mixed and where the Serb population was separated from

5 others and formed their own municipality. That's at least my

6 understanding of it.

7 That was the case, for instance, with the neighbouring

8 municipalities of Bihac and Krupa.

9 Q. Well, Mr. --

10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, I -- we're now talking about what appears

11 at least on the list as a potential exhibit. Are you going to tender the

12 diary or portions of it? It's tab 4. It looks, at least -- that's what I

13 find on my list, diary of Jovo Radojko.

14 MR. TIEGER: Well, I will be tendering the diary, Your Honour, but

15 I -- my understanding was that it was in evidence. Probably more prudent

16 for me to check at the break whether or not my understanding was --

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, because it's not, as such, indicated on the --

18 MR. TIEGER: And I'll resolve that as soon as possible.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Okay.

20 MR. TIEGER: Thank you for that, Your Honour.

21 JUDGE ORIE: But you want us to look at it anyhow, yes?

22 MR. TIEGER: Yes.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. I'm not going to look at anything yet.


25 Q. Mr. Radojko, activating the second degree is the first reference

Page 21285

1 in your diary of that date, but there are other references to what was

2 said at the meeting you attended. The second one is a reference to the

3 referendum. "The Serbs must not take part in it in view of the fact that

4 they have already given their declaration on that matter."

5 And in that connection, let me turn your attention and the Court's

6 attention to a telephone conversation between Radovan Karadzic and

7 President Novakovic on February 7th, 1992. And that is P64A, and that's

8 tab 14, sir.

9 Let me just draw your attention to one quick reference found on

10 the -- toward the bottom of the first page. As you can see from the

11 beginning, president of the municipality, Novakovic, wishes to speak to

12 Dr. Karadzic. And then the bottom --

13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, I'm sorry to interrupt you again. I see

14 that on your list it's P64A at tab 25. Is there any confusion or is P64A

15 maybe a -- let me just look at P64 --

16 MR. TIEGER: I'm sorry, Your Honour --

17 JUDGE ORIE: -- because ... P64A is 28 binders. Perhaps both of

18 them are from P64A and --

19 MR. TIEGER: Yeah, I'm sorry that I don't have the available tab

20 number, however I also note that -- well, again, we can -- I can check

21 this -- we can give it a provisional number or we can address that when

22 this issue is more clearly resolved.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Perhaps if you would find the binder and the

24 tab number, then we could identify this whether it has got a number yet or

25 not. Please proceed.

Page 21286

1 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour.

2 Q. Mr. Radojko, I was just drawing your attention to that portion of

3 the telephone conversation where Mr. Novakovic says: "So, President

4 Karadzic, it's like this. There's a couple of things I need to consult

5 you about. First of all, regarding the Referendum."

6 And then they continue, as you can see, on page 2. Mr. Novakovic,

7 after some discussion about information he's received, says: "I'd like to

8 know, as a member of the Main Board ..."

9 And Dr. Karadzic says: "We'll have a meeting of the Main Board, I

10 can't tell you anything over the phone."

11 Mr. Novakovic says: "I know."

12 Dr. Karadzic says: "Nothing."

13 Mr. Novakovic says: "So, views will be taken on this."

14 Dr. Karadzic says: "Yes."

15 Mr. Novakovic says: "We shall not be taking any actions by then."

16 Dr. Karadzic says: "Don't take any, don't do anything before the

17 Main Board meeting."

18 Mr. Novakovic says: "Yes, yes."

19 And Dr. Karadzic says: "The Main Board and presidents of all

20 Municipal Boards will attend."

21 Now, as you can see from your own notes of February 14th,

22 Mr. Radojko, the issue of the referendum was indeed addressed on that

23 occasion, indicating: "The Serbs must not take part in it in view of the

24 fact that they have already given their declaration on this matter." The

25 Court has the speech by Dr. Karadzic in evidence and can identify the

Page 21287

1 passages more fully, but does that refresh your recollection that the

2 meeting which you attended for Mr. Novakovic was the meeting that

3 addressed both the referendum that was discussed in this telephone

4 conversation and the activation of level two of the instructions?

5 A. I do remember having gone to a meeting on behalf of the leading

6 persons who were absent in order to collect information. This is the

7 first time I see this conversation. I didn't know it was intercepted, and

8 I didn't know that Karadzic was still an active physician at the time. My

9 impression wasn't that this had to do with the referendum. I was

10 attending a meeting when the Republika Srpska was declared. That was when

11 the Serb MPs walked out of the Assembly. That might have taken place

12 after the referendum, although I'm not sure. This visit of mine did not

13 ask for any active participation; that's why I don't remember it that

14 much. This particular meeting was held on the 14th, and if you take a

15 look at the minutes, probably you'll see that I was keeping the minutes.

16 Q. Mr. --

17 A. If my notes say that I was somewhere on the 14th, then that must

18 be true.

19 Q. Yeah, I -- let me -- I want to move on from there, but let me,

20 just for the benefit of the Court in particular, note that the -- the

21 additional references in your diary taken on that occasion. We've already

22 noted the activation of level two, the reference to the referendum. You

23 also say: "None of our people in the commissions and the lists should be

24 drawn up on the basis of reciprocity."

25 MR. TIEGER: I note for the Court that in the speech by

Page 21288

1 Dr. Karadzic in evidence. You can find that reference in page 8.

2 Q. You also note: "Courtesy toward the monitors ...

3 "Do not instruct the referendum, it is the right of every people.

4 "The alienation of power on the part of the party impermissible.

5 "The strategic goal: To uphold Serbia and Montenegro, a

6 necessary support for our goals.

7 "We do not recognise any sort of control as far as the referendum

8 is concerned.

9 "Definition of the Serb people ...

10 "And problems of the functional connecting and putting authority

11 into operation."

12 MR. TIEGER: And those references, for the benefit of the Court,

13 Your Honour, may be found respectively at pages 9, 8, 11, 12 through 13,

14 21, 23, and 22 of the speech that is in evidence.

15 Q. Mr. Radojko, let me turn next to the Petrovac municipality and the

16 situation and events there in late 1991 and 1992. First of all, I'd like

17 to -- I'd like to indicate to you a decision by the ARK Crisis Staff, with

18 which I believe you're familiar, and that is the decision of May 4th,

19 1992, decision that general public mobilisation is ordered on the entire

20 territory of the Autonomous Region of Krajina.

21 MR. TIEGER: That is P64A, Your Honour, and that is contained in

22 the series of the ARK Gazette which was discussed both during the course

23 of the Treanor testimony and the during the course of the testimony by

24 Mr. Vasic, for example. There may have been other references to those

25 documents during the course of the case.

Page 21289

1 Q. That decision, Mr. --

2 JUDGE ORIE: What tab are we at this moment talking about, Mr. --

3 64A is, I think, 200 documents or something like that, if not 500.

4 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, that would be another matter that I'll

5 have to provide the -- give more specificity to the Court for. We'll try

6 to do so.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And where do we find it now, in which tab in

8 our present material?

9 MR. TIEGER: I believe that's found in 25, Your Honour.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Okay. I referred to 25 before, yes, that's

11 true. That's an Official Gazette, Banja Luka, 5th of June, 1992.

12 Yes.

13 MR. TIEGER: That decision was taken pursuant to the decision of

14 the Ministry of National Defence of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and

15 Herzegovina.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Let's just see. Did you find it, Mr. Radojko, tab

17 25?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

19 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... Mr. Tieger.


21 Q. Keeping that in mind, I'd like you to turn to tab 52, please,

22 which is a report dated May 10th, 1992, by Dr. Novakovic in his capacity

23 as president of the National Security Council for Petrovac. And that's

24 the report on the conduct of mobilisation in Bosanski Petrovac

25 municipality. And Mr. Novakovic indicates that: "Further to your letter

Page 21290

1 of May 8th, we hereby inform you that the general mobilisation of men

2 liable for military service and of listed material and technical resources

3 was conducted in the territory of Bosanski Petrovac Municipality as soon

4 as it was declared."

5 It goes on to talk about -- it mentions that: "Most of the

6 conscripts were mobilised before the declaration of general mobilisation

7 under a special plan by unit commanders so that the rest of the

8 military-age men were mobilised without major problems.

9 "Muslim men of military age did not respond to the general

10 mobilisation except in individual cases."

11 And I believe you were asked some questions --

12 MR. TIEGER: Sorry, Your Honour, this document needs a number. I

13 apologise for that.


15 THE REGISTRAR: Tab 52 [Realtime transcript read in error "32"]

16 Your Honours, would be P1098.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.


19 Q. And I believe you were asked about this matter during the course

20 of your testimony in the Brdjanin case, and you indicated that

21 mobilisation had taken place in large measure before the order and that,

22 in addition, Muslims, for the most part, did not respond. Correct?

23 A. Yes, that's correct. The mobilisation had basically been fully

24 completed before this. The authorities which existed at the time carried

25 it out, and it was still the JNA which was in charge in the former

Page 21291

1 Yugoslavia. And this was only sent as an expression of the formal

2 acceptance of those orders and requests.

3 Q. Okay. And similarly, turning to tab 19, which reflect the minutes

4 of the 17th meeting of the Bosanski Petrovac Crisis Staff held on 24 May,

5 1992 --

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Tieger, I see tab 32 would need a number,

7 but on your list, tab 32 has P748, tab 4 -- oh, 52. Then it appears not

8 correctly in the transcript. 52 would be 1098. Yes.

9 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour.

10 Q. As I was saying, Mr. Radojko, similarly the minutes of that

11 meeting in item 1 reflect President Novakovic reading out the order

12 concerning the general mobilisation in the Serb Republic of Bosnia and

13 Herzegovina and making introductory remarks in that respect, again with

14 Mr. Miljevic indicating that the mobilisation was essentially completed

15 before the order and that Bosanski Petrovac was a bit ahead.

16 Correct? Just looking at the item, item 1, and then the quick

17 remarks by Mr. Miljevic.

18 A. There's no need. There's no need for me to look at it because it

19 is fully in line with my memory of the facts. I can see that. I can see

20 that it tallies fully. So the mobilisation had been finished. What it is

21 about here is that those who had received the call for mobilisation must

22 be made to respond to that call in some way.

23 Q. And you, as I indicated before, also were asked questions about

24 this during the course of your testimony in Brdjanin, and you testified at

25 page 20040 that by December 1991, in fact, there was a huge increase in

Page 21292

1 the number of men mobilised, although they were mobilised and then those

2 ranks were filled as the weeks progressed. Is that right? Perhaps it

3 would -- do you recall that?

4 A. I apologise, I haven't quite understood.

5 Q. I understand.

6 A. There seems to have been a problem with my headset.

7 Q. Well, let me ask you to look quickly at tab 10.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Tab 10 would need a number, Mr. Tieger.

9 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, let me just double-check that, if I may.

10 Sorry, Your Honour, that would be tab 9.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Tab 9. Would that need a number? No number appears

12 on the list.

13 MR. TIEGER: It does, Your Honour, yes.

14 THE REGISTRAR: Tab 9 would be P1099, Your Honour.

15 JUDGE ORIE: That's tab 9, and you said tab 19 --

16 MR. TIEGER: I'm sorry, Your Honour, tab 9 --

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but tab 19 has not received a number yet. It's

18 the 17th meeting

19 MR. TIEGER: Thank you.

20 THE REGISTRAR: Tab 19, Your Honour, would be P1100.

21 MR. TIEGER: Okay.

22 Q. And looking quickly at tab 9, you see the reference at the bottom

23 of the long paragraph before the list of material supplies that: "The

24 reorganisation of the Bosanski Petrovac Territorial Defence has increased

25 the numerical strength of the TO forces from 540 conscripts to 1.700

Page 21293

1 conscripts." And then it lists the material supplies sought and you -- as

2 I believe you indicated in your testimony in the Brdjanin case, indeed, in

3 December 1991, there was a huge increase in the number of men mobilised.

4 Correct?

5 A. I believe that there must have been a misunderstanding here. I do

6 understand. I believe that there was an increase, not a decrease, of

7 conscripts. It says that instead of 240, it was 1.700. So there was the

8 overall population of between 11 and 12.000 people, and there should have

9 been a battalion. That was the general assessment, that a battalion could

10 be formed on the basis of that number of inhabits. Now, due to war, they

11 changed their plans and brought this figure up to 1.700. And so if we

12 think in terms of 5.400 people who could join the army, it would be

13 slightly more than half the population, so it wouldn't have been possible.

14 It is simply that the number of possible conscripts was increased by

15 authorising the mobilisation of people that could not normally be

16 mobilised. So people were mobilised not on the basis of the actual

17 possibilities, but on the basis of their needs, of what would seem to be

18 the need.

19 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Yes, a question. Could we ask

20 the witness if he could tell us in a few words what the situation was like

21 in December 1991 in Bosanski Petrovac, why there was such a situation that

22 there was a need in the increase in conscripts. What happened at the

23 moment? Because this is what I'm reading in this request: [In English]

24 "In view of the political and security situation in Yugoslavia and the

25 military conflict provoked by fascistoid forces on the territory of

Page 21294

1 Bosanski Petrovac municipality ..."

2 [Interpretation] Could you please tell us what happened exactly at

3 that moment, please.

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I do remember, Your Honour. It

5 is the period in which the former Yugoslavia still existed, the state of

6 former Yugoslavia still existed. And since in Slovenia and in Croatia at

7 that time, as far as I can remember, the secession had already been

8 proclaimed and those countries were recognised as separate states, the

9 units were withdrawing to the part of the territory still under the

10 control of the JNA, and they took the equipment as well.

11 Since JNA didn't have enough conscripts from the rest of the

12 country, they changed their organisation plans. And so I remember that

13 the Knin command - and I think this was first a division and then it was

14 turned into a corps - it gained new significance, as it were, and their

15 plan of recruitment encompassed our territory as well, reached very far

16 into our territory, because their borders of the military zones or regions

17 in the past did not tally with the geographical or political borders of

18 the republics and regions in a civilian sense. And so that's why their

19 units were filled from the ranks of our population. It is for this reason

20 that this commander here, Vrzina, who was a kind of TO commander, so units

21 which would be stationed and recruited from our local territory and who

22 would not be, so to say, the first class, the top class, of military

23 units.

24 So, yes, that's how these numbers increased. They were on the

25 increase. They were not decreasing by any means. That's what I wanted to

Page 21295

1 emphasise.

2 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Thank you.


4 Q. And just touching quickly on one other subject, you also testified

5 in the Brdjanin case at pages 20061 and 20062 that by and large the

6 Muslims did not respond. The number of Muslims who responded was

7 insignificant and it was a bone of contention that Muslims refused

8 mobilisation calls. Correct?

9 A. It is correct that some small numbers of Muslims responded, but I

10 don't really know what the reason was. Actually, they did not respond in

11 large numbers.

12 Q. And I'm not asking you for the reason, but thanks. I'm trying to

13 move through as quickly as I can. I appreciate that, but we'll try to

14 move forward from question to question.

15 Now, you spoke about the situation in Petrovac further in your

16 testimony in Brdjanin, and you indicated that there were no armed

17 conflicts between Muslims and Serbs in Petrovac. "There was no such thing

18 in our area," at pages 20099, 20, through 20100. That Muslims in

19 Petrovac, in your view, did not pose a serious threat, at page 20069.

20 That: "Because of the actual numbers involved and the actual relations

21 involved, we never thought that we were jeopardised in any way by Muslims,

22 at least not those from the area of our municipality," at 20125. Correct?

23 A. Yes, it is correct. Some -- well, there was some minor reasons,

24 but they're not of any significance. Only at one point things were

25 different, but for the most part it's correct.

Page 21296

1 Q. Now, you were -- you also discussed the issue of disarming and

2 weapons seizures or collections in your testimony in Brdjanin. At pages

3 20077 through 78, you were shown during the course of that testimony the

4 same 4th of May document that you had a chance to look at here in court

5 with respect to the mobilisation and which also indicated that: "All

6 paramilitary formations and individuals who had illegally possessed

7 weapons and ammunition are to immediately, and by 1500 hours on the 11th

8 of May, at the latest, surrender them to the municipal authorities."

9 You were shown the document from the same Gazette of 11 May 1992,

10 another order by the ARK Crisis Staff, extending the deadline for

11 surrender of illegally acquired weapons to the 14th of May. And you

12 testified in the Brdjanin case that you were aware that there were orders

13 for disarming and deadlines. "Yes," you said, "there were orders of that

14 type and also I heard it raised in discussions. So there were deadlines

15 for disarmament and I know that they were extended."

16 That's correct, isn't it? You were aware of those ARK orders and

17 the extension of the deadlines?

18 A. I don't know whether I've talked about the ARK orders, but I know

19 that those calls had been repeated on a number of occasions. About the

20 weapons, I mean. And if I made a note of the ARK order, then I must have

21 known about it. I can't recall whether it was a strict procedure, fully

22 in line with that order, or whether there was a local reason to act like

23 that. Both are possible, in fact.

24 Q. Well, the Petrovac Crisis Staff undertook actions to disarm

25 so-called paramilitary formations and citizens, and I would ask you to

Page 21297

1 look at tab 20, and in particular, decision number 4 on page 2 of the

2 English and page 3 of the B/C/S, which provides that: "In the area of the

3 Petrovac municipality, the disarmament of paramilitary formations and

4 citizens who illegally possess weapons will start on the 24th of May,

5 1992."

6 MR. TIEGER: And, Your Honour, for the record, tab 20 is P90, tab

7 15.

8 Q. Now, your diary on May 9th, Mr. Radojko, addresses the issue of

9 weapons and indicates the type of weapons that were at issue. And you

10 also testified about that during the course of your testimony in Brdjanin.

11 So you were asked what kind of weapons were sought -- what kind of weapons

12 did the Muslims have and what kind of weapons were sought by the disarming

13 efforts in the Petrovac municipality. And at 20062 you said, indicating

14 it could mean two things. "One, and perhaps more likely one, is that it

15 deals with the legal weapons owned by Muslims, because there were hunters,

16 sportsmen and the like, mostly as hunters. Or to protect their property.

17 So those would be mostly pistols or revolvers, so I guess it is that kind

18 of weapon that is meant here. And possibly, also, the Muslims had managed

19 to come by some of the formation, some of the proper army weapons, and

20 perhaps any weapons owned by Muslims are meant here."

21 And you also spoke about that at 20083 of the Brdjanin testimony.

22 And you were asked again about the disarming of Muslims in the Petrovac

23 municipality. And you were asked at the end of a long question referring

24 to a report which you'll have a chance to see during the course of your

25 testimony today, a report by the SJB on its activities, you were asked:

Page 21298

1 "In reality, were the people being disarmed the non-Serb population?"

2 And you said: "Well, I think judging by the circumstances, I do

3 think that it was the non-Serbs who were disarmed by and large. Possibly

4 that some of this weaponry, especially the army weaponry, were also seized

5 from Serbs who were involved in excesses, but the hunting weapons, at

6 least as far as I know about that time, they were mostly -- such weaponry

7 was mostly seized from Muslims, and as a rule, their hunting weapons were

8 licensed. They all had their licences for such weapons."

9 And you indicated further on page 2084 [sic] that among the

10 reasons you were aware of this is because daily -- almost daily reports

11 were submitted by the police regarding their operations relative to what

12 went on on the ground.

13 That's all correct, isn't it?

14 A. That's correct, with the proviso that I think I'd explained about

15 those other weapons that'd been taken away. You see, I found about those

16 details at meetings, and the police would submit reports on those

17 occasions, that's correct. But the other bit that's missing is that other

18 weapons had been found there that were combat weapons that had been

19 supplied illegally and hidden. And the police found it at that formation

20 and probably when that decision needed to be made, they already had some

21 indication and they needed some -- something to corroborate their action.

22 I suppose if we were to compare their reports about the actual army

23 weapons taken from Muslims, we would see clearly whether this preceded

24 this action or not. In case it did, it would probably be one way of

25 justifying their action, from their point of view.

Page 21299

1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger - but I'm also addressing the witness -

2 are there any such reports? I mean comparing reports, if we haven't seen

3 them, is a bit difficult for us.

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I don't know what the

5 Prosecution has, but since I was in charge of all the archives in that

6 municipality back then, I know for a fact that police officers would

7 submit reports almost on a daily basis following requests from the Crisis

8 Staff, reports about robberies, et cetera, and they asked for these

9 reports because they felt that that could go some way to answer

10 dissipating dissatisfaction with the work of the police, and people who

11 had been robbed would submit lists to the Prosecutor's office. The

12 Prosecutor's office never did anything about it, but they put everything

13 on file for future reference.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Radojko, you were talking about report -- reports

15 about the actual army weapons taken from Muslims. Are there any reports

16 which would support your evidence in this respect?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, there are such reports because

18 the weapons that were taken from them were either the weapons from the

19 army that had been hidden and also the ones that they had licenses for.

20 And for the most part they themselves brought those weapons to the police

21 station and all that was documented.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Why did they have to give the weapons they had

23 licenses for?

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I really don't know that. As far as

25 I know, the police invited them to surrender the weapons for safety

Page 21300

1 reasons, as they put it. There was the pressure exerted by the Serb

2 population because of the Muslims refused to respond to call-ups. The

3 Serb men were concerned about the Muslims still around the town, and they

4 were afraid that the Muslims would break into the arms depots that was

5 scattered around the town that contained great quantities of weapons

6 belonging to the former army and that they might use them against the

7 Serbs.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now you say -- I don't know whether we are

9 talking about approximately the same time, but you said: The police could

10 not protect the Muslims against gangs that were around. And at the same

11 time you say: Weapons were taken from them because it's -- it was too

12 dangerous for the Serbs. I'm trying to reconcile the two considerations.

13 At the one hand take even licensed arms from them and then say: You

14 better -- it's -- we can't protect you.

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I understand, Your Honour; however,

16 at the time when the people still had their weapons, they did not dare use

17 them. There were cases where the Muslims received official weapons from

18 the police to use for their own safety but they did not dare to use them.

19 They did not dare to use them even earlier on. There were cases when they

20 called on their friends, Serbs, to come and help them defend themselves

21 from these gangs appearing at their doorstep, trying to rob them. It

22 would place them in a highly unfavourable position to use weapons in their

23 defence against such criminals because this would have negative

24 reverberations in the public eye, and they were very much aware of that.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I still have some difficulties in seeing the

Page 21301

1 logic of it all. You say: We had to take their weapons because otherwise

2 they would have used these weapons to get more weapons, whereas at the

3 same time you say: They did not even dare to use the weapons they had,

4 and even if they were provided with other weapons, they would ask the

5 Serbs to come and help them. So they couldn't use those weapons. And if

6 you say that it -- it would have negative reverberations in the public eye

7 if they would have used weapons against such criminals, then I'm asking

8 myself whether being in an unprotected situation and having to leave, for

9 that reason, the municipality, whether that would be the smaller or the

10 larger disadvantage in such a situation.

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can only make assessments of that

12 situation here, Your Honour. I was not charged with dealing with these

13 situations at the time. I believe that the members of the Crisis Staff

14 and the police administration made choices as to what the best course of

15 action was. It is true that some of the Muslims got hold of army weapons.

16 Whether this had been done with the support of the police or not, I don't

17 know, but I know that in the subsequent disarmament campaign, the weapons

18 were found. I know that there is a lack of logic that is inherent in

19 these events.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Radojko -- while the last part of your

21 answer was related to my question, some of the other parts were not. And

22 then could you please explain why you'd be looked at in a negative way if

23 you would protect yourself against criminal gangs. It would place them,

24 as you said, in a highly unfavourable position to use weapons in their

25 defence against such criminals because this would have negative

Page 21302

1 reverberations in the public eye. So the public eye, if someone would

2 defend himself against criminals, would be -- say that is to be negative?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Generally speaking, no, but under

4 those specific circumstances, yes. And I believe that every single of

5 those Muslims would confirm what I'm saying. Nobody would admit to the

6 fact that they had appeared at someone's doorstep in order to rob them.

7 Let's say a person thus defending his own property ends up shooting

8 someone. The one's who's been shot will not say: Well, I was there in

9 order to rob the person. We simply stopped by to get a glass of water and

10 he started shooting at us Serbs. And you know, by the time you actually

11 manage to explain what had happened under the general chaos that was

12 prevailing, it would be too late. I was there; I know what the general

13 feeling was. Only those who had good friends and were better off were in

14 a better position.

15 I know, for instance, Mr. Latinovic. His brother went to protect

16 a good friend of his, a Muslim, because this Muslim was accosted by a

17 group of people who asked for money from him. The Muslim said that he did

18 not have cash ready-made, and these people returned, the gang returned,

19 asking for money. When the door was opened by this Serb, they said: Oh,

20 we've made a mistake. We've appeared at the wrong doorstep. And had this

21 person gone about this whole affair in a different way, seeking justice,

22 God knows what the outcome would be, and that was the difficult

23 situation. The atmosphere that prevailed at the time was such that the

24 people simply were divided.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Your example tells me that it was relatively

Page 21303

1 easy to stop the criminals.

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In this specific case, they gave up

3 the whole idea because they realised that the Muslim had a friend who was

4 a Serb and who was holding a good position. That's why they gave it up.

5 And they knew that if they killed the man, then they would have been

6 prosecuted. For instance, Mr. Sepak, who was a TO commander for a period

7 of time, appeared desperate one morning. This was at the time when the

8 people were actually forced to leave. He told us that when people were

9 passing around the town, there were others hiding in shadows of the

10 corners, addressing threats to them. And that's why the people were

11 afraid to use weapons.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And for that reason you thought they were

13 better off without?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not have any particular

15 opinion about that. I knew that the weapons were collected from reports.

16 That was at the time when the police came to submit a report to the

17 president. That was when I found out about it.

18 JUDGE ORIE: When I used the word "you," I did not specifically

19 mention you as a person but those who were responsible for that course of

20 action.

21 Please proceed, Mr. Tieger -- oh, I'm looking at the clock and I

22 think you should not proceed.

23 MR. JOSSE: Your Honour.


25 MR. JOSSE: Your Honour's observation there needs to be put to the

Page 21304

1 witness, with respect.

2 JUDGE ORIE: What observation do you mean?

3 MR. JOSSE: The very last one. If Your Honour is going to make,

4 with respect, an observation like that about what Your Honour meant, the

5 witness needs to be entitled to deal with it; that "you" didn't refer to

6 him, "you" referred to the authorities in general.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, when I said, "And for that reason you

8 thought ..." I had in mind -- but if the witness wants to respond to that,

9 those he -- he's told us ordered or thought it better to take the -- even

10 the licensed weapons from Muslims that possessed them. But if the witness

11 would like to further comment on that, I will give him an opportunity to

12 do so.

13 MR. JOSSE: Thank you.

14 JUDGE ORIE: I said at a certain moment, but by "you" I was rather

15 referring to those responsible for -- for taking that course of action.

16 Would you like to comment on that?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That was my understanding of it. In

18 fact, as far as the taking of the weapons is concerned, that was merely my

19 opinion, what -- whether that was positive or not. I did not have this

20 information at the time. I'm merely thinking about what the reason for

21 taking these weapons away might have been. I was trying to make a logical

22 inference and perhaps I made a mistake there.


24 We'll have a break and we'll continue at 25 minutes past 4.00.

25 --- Recess taken at 3.57 p.m.

Page 21305

1 --- On resuming at 4.26 p.m.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Josse, I could give you information on the two

3 matters that were urgent. If I do it now, I do it in the presence of the

4 witness. There's no need -- I mean, it's not dramatic but I prefer to do

5 it in the absence of the witness. But if you would say: No, having it

6 now instead of one hour later will be --

7 MR. JOSSE: It will make a difference, Your Honour, for logistical

8 arrangements.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. What -- I think whether or not we will sit

10 tomorrow, we - and that's not exactly the same question - we'll allow you

11 to start the examination-in-chief of your next witness on Thursday.

12 MR. JOSSE: Thank you.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Which is not the same as not sitting tomorrow.

14 MR. JOSSE: I understand.

15 JUDGE ORIE: We'll try to finish --

16 MR. JOSSE: I understand. Thank you.

17 JUDGE ORIE: And then the other matter about witness -- I think

18 he's not protected, Mr. Maricic, that's a matter -- would that make any

19 difference whether I tell you now or --

20 MR. JOSSE: No, that would make no difference.

21 JUDGE ORIE: So we'll leave that for later today.

22 MR. JOSSE: Thank you.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger.

24 Mr. Tieger.

25 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour.

Page 21306

1 Q. Mr. Radojko, the Court inquired about reports with respect to

2 disarming of Muslims. Perhaps I could ask you to turn to page 39. That's

3 a report to the Assembly of the Bosnia -- of Bosanski Petrovac. You had

4 an opportunity to see that during the course of your testimony in the

5 Brdjanin case. The report indicates in part, in paragraph 2, that the

6 public security station has borne the brunt of the task of disarming

7 paramilitary formations, and describes how it completely broke up the SDA,

8 took a series of plans and organised operational measures to cover the

9 areas where paramilitary formations were based, searching their apartments

10 and surroundings, detaining persons who possessed illegal types of

11 long-barrelled fire-arms, isolating persons who had demonstrated extremist

12 views with respect to the policies of the Serbian people, et cetera. And

13 then it contains a list of items seized, including -- and breaking them

14 down into legal and illegal.

15 MR. TIEGER: And, Your Honour, I believe that needs a number.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.

17 THE REGISTRAR: That would be P1101, Your Honours.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Before we continue on the arming, Mr. Tieger, I'd

19 like to ask one additional question to the witness --

20 MR. JOSSE: Your Honour, sorry to interrupt.


22 MR. JOSSE: I understand why Mr. Tieger's done that, but if that's

23 going to be done in the course of a cross-examination, then in my

24 submission, the witness should be entitled to deal with the assertion made

25 by counsel.

Page 21307

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but I thought, as a matter of fact, that

2 Mr. Tieger asked for a number and that I then intervened before he could

3 put a question to the witness. That's --

4 MR. JOSSE: In which case I'm happy.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Well, good to hear that, Mr. Josse.

6 But I'd like to ask one question. Mr. Radojko, at an earlier

7 stage we looked at a list of weapons which would be needed for the 1.700

8 men rather than the 450. That was a request, I think for TO, and it was

9 about a broader mobilisation of TO. Was there -- were there, among these

10 1.700, was this a TO composed of Serbs or was it a mixed composition at

11 that time?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm trying to locate

13 this. Let me just look at the date. All the way through to the departure

14 -- through to the point when the Muslim population left, in the TO and

15 the army there were Muslims. Some of the Muslims even left the area

16 together with the Serb population as late as in 1995.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Out of these 1.700, how many, approximately,

18 would be non-Serbs?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't say. But judging from what

20 I know, there weren't many at all.

21 JUDGE ORIE: There were not many.

22 Yes. Then, Mr. Tieger.

23 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour.

24 Q. Mr. Radojko, as I indicated, you had an opportunity when you were

25 presented with this document during the course of your testimony in the

Page 21308

1 Brdjanin case, at pages 20082 to 83, you indicated that because you were

2 the secretary of the Executive Board, this was not a document that would

3 have been directed to you in terms of the regular procedure. But what you

4 can say is that "I know --" well, I'll quote you: "What I can say is that

5 I know from other sources that weapons of similar type were being seized.

6 Those were mostly hunting weapons and some of the army weapons were also

7 found."

8 Correct?

9 A. Yes, that's what I said. However, according to this report of the

10 Assembly - I have a very poor copy - but I believe most of the weapons

11 there were hunting weapons and army weapons constituted only a small

12 percentage.

13 Q. Now, earlier, Mr. Radojko, we looked at some of the ARK Crisis

14 Staff directives --

15 THE INTERPRETER: Mr. Tieger, could you kindly speak closer to the

16 microphone, please.


18 Q. -- including, I believe, the one from May 11th which extended the

19 deadline for surrender of illegally acquired weapons. That same session

20 of the Crisis Staff, the Autonomous Region of Krajina, also reached a

21 conclusion that management posts in Krajina enterprises must be filled by

22 persons who are absolutely loyal to the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and

23 Herzegovina.

24 This Court has also seen other conclusions by the ARK Crisis Staff

25 in that connection, and I believe you were also given an opportunity

Page 21309

1 during the course in the Brdjanin case to look at some of those

2 conclusions. On page 20132 there was a discussion about the conclusions

3 of 11 May, which I just indicated; 13 May 1992, which provides that the

4 "management posts in enterprises must be filled absolutely by persons

5 loyal to the Serbian Republic" of Bosnia and Herzegovina; 26th May,

6 "leading posts in social and public organisations may be occupied only by

7 the most professional cadres who are absolutely loyal to the Serbian

8 people in the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina."

9 And you indicated on page 20133 that you were familiar with the

10 contents of that decision. It said: "... that there was such a decision

11 and I suppose that the army command is requesting it in this relation."

12 Then you were asked -- then you referred specifically to a

13 dismissal of somebody whom you had met who was very upset about the whole

14 thing. And the question was asked: "In fact, dismissals of non-Serbs

15 were taking place, weren't they, in Petrovac? Whatever you personally

16 felt about it."

17 And you responded: "Yes, they were taking place."

18 MR. JOSSE: I think my learned friend should add they resisted it

19 for a long time.


21 Q. That's correct. The entire passage: "Yes, I was familiar with

22 the contents of that decision, that there was such a decision and I

23 suppose that the army command is requesting it in this relation. We

24 resisted [Realtime transcript read in error "requested"] it for a very

25 long time but eventually this man was dismissed and I met him after that

Page 21310

1 and he was very cut up about the whole thing."

2 Is that correct, Mr. Radojko?

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Josse, let me just see. Now I do not find

4 the part, but Mr. Tieger quotes the whole of it. The portion you read

5 does not appear, at least not on the transcript.

6 Mr. Tieger, would you please read the entire passage, including

7 the portion Mr. Josse referred to.

8 MR. JOSSE: To be --

9 JUDGE ORIE: Could Mr. Tieger do that.

10 MR. TIEGER: I think I just did, Your Honour.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but the words spoken by Mr. Josse do not appear.

12 MR. JOSSE: The reason is because I slightly misquoted them, in

13 fairness. The words were: "We resisted it for a very long time." I'm

14 afraid even when Mr. Tieger re-read it, it is incorrect in the transcript,

15 I notice, again. So I think Mr. Tieger should do it again.


17 Could you read it again so we know exactly what the --

18 MR. TIEGER: Yes, Your Honour. "But yes, I was familiar with

19 the contents of that decision, that there was such a decision and I

20 suppose that the army command is requesting it in this relation. We

21 resisted it for a very long time but eventually this man was dismissed and

22 I met him after that and he was very cut up about the whole thing."

23 And then I went on: "In fact, dismissals --"

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, now it's clear to everyone. And then you put a

25 question to the witness, I take it.

Page 21311

1 MR. TIEGER: Sorry, Your Honour, I need just a moment.

2 MR. JOSSE: The question was, Your Honour: "Is that correct,

3 Mr. Radojko?" I assume Mr. Tieger is going to ask Mr. Radojko about the

4 passage again in those terms.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I take it that Mr. Tieger is reorganising

6 himself.


8 Q. Well, we've finished that passage. Please, Mr. Radojko, if you

9 will respond to that one question.

10 A. If I understand correctly, I was asked whether I met the man who

11 was dismissed because of his ethnicity, who was removed from a managerial

12 post. If that's the question, then yes, indeed, I met the man and I said

13 that he was very much taken aback by that decision. He was the manager of

14 the local post office.

15 Q. And that, in fact, dismissals of non-Serbs in addition to that man

16 were taking place in Petrovac, whatever you personally felt about it. And

17 you answered: "Yes, they were taking place," and that's correct also?

18 A. That's correct. This happened, for the most part, in companies

19 that were not within the remit of the municipal authorities. I believe

20 that only one or two persons -- I believe it was our head of the

21 accountancy department and somebody else was -- they were, I think, not

22 dismissed but simply put on hold, which meant that their employment

23 contract was still valid and their years of pension would still be

24 accrued.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Judge Hanoteau has a question for you.

Page 21312

1 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] This seems to be a strange

2 puzzle. Mr. Tieger and I would like to try to understand how the witness

3 could have said that: "We resisted." I think this is what was said. And

4 how did they resist? What happened in point of fact?

5 I'm asking you the question, Witness.

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I said specifically how

7 this took place, and I used one illustration, and this was a company which

8 had more than 1.000 employees. Prompted by the instructions that were in

9 circulation, and they had to do with the dismissal of the persons who were

10 allegedly disloyal to the establishment of the Republika Srpska, they

11 asked from the municipal authorities to issue them with a decision on the

12 basis of which they would then proceed to dismiss their people.

13 When the president of the Executive Board consulted me on the

14 matter and asked for my opinion, I said that this was unlawful and

15 unacceptable, that we did not have the necessary authority to do that or

16 to issue them with such a decision. And we produced a document to that

17 effect, which I believe is still filed in the municipality of Petrovac.

18 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Who took the decision to

19 terminate the work contract of those employees?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know who specifically made

21 the decision, but the decision came from this body which was called the

22 Autonomous Region of Krajina. It was signed and we received it from them.

23 Now, whether it was made by a body or by an individual, we -- I don't

24 know, but we tried to evade the implementation of the document because we

25 felt that its implementation would be very much detrimental for the

Page 21313

1 municipality, because all these people, if they were later on to lodge a

2 complaint, would win the cases and we would have to pay large indemnities.

3 That's why the municipal body did not want to act upon such a document.

4 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Thank you.


6 Q. Well, in -- Mr. Radojko, you were asked precisely about that

7 during the course of your Brdjanin testimony. You talked about, on page

8 20139, how you attempted to get around the order in that -- in the way you

9 described, and then you were asked flatly: "All right. So you didn't

10 approve of the decision, you thought in your view that it was illegal, and

11 you tried to get round it but did you actually implement it?"

12 And you said: "Well, I told you, it was implemented."

13 Correct?

14 A. I don't know to what extent it was implemented. As far as the

15 municipality is concerned, it was implemented in a round-about way. Not

16 in the way which was requested, but rather the persons were put on hold,

17 as it were, which meant that they were not required to come to their

18 work-place, but their work contract was still valid and they would still

19 receive years of pensionable service, which meant that they could not

20 appeal against such a decision; their employment was not terminated. And

21 our approach was to, on the one hand, try and partially implement the

22 decision, but on the other hand to not withhold workers' rights and their

23 salaries and thus pre-empt any action on their part. I believe there were

24 one or two Muslims only who were among the employees, but in this way not

25 only Muslims were dismissed but also Serbs who, for instance, failed to

Page 21314

1 respond to call-ups. So this was not a practice that was aimed solely at

2 the Muslims. The decision was not put in those terms. It also had to do

3 with others. I remember a -- a lady who worked for the land registry

4 office who also was sent back home in this way, if I remember well.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Judge Hanoteau has a question for you.

6 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Yes. What would have happened if

7 you hadn't implemented the decision? If you had refused? If you had

8 called on, you know, abiding by the law. If you said you have to abide by

9 the law, you have to respect the law, what would have happened? You don't

10 always do what you're ordered to do; sometimes you can resist. So what

11 would have happened if you had said: No, this is illegal, we won't do it?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, in fact there was resistance.

13 Most of the persons working in these companies --

14 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] No, but you answered Mr. Tieger.

15 You said: We did apply the order in some manner or another. We applied

16 it. So my question is the following: What would have happened if you had

17 not applied those orders, if you hadn't enforced the orders?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can only speculate. I don't know

19 what the balance of powers was; I didn't know that at the time either. It

20 is quite possible that the leadership, that's to say members of

21 Crisis Staff, would have experienced some consequences due to that. I

22 could only answer the question as to whether it was legal or illegal. I

23 wasn't thinking about it at the time as to what sort of subordination they

24 were in, if they were at all. But generally speaking, due to the fact

25 that people were mobilised, nobody was in fact working.

Page 21315

1 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Did you fear consequences if you

2 had resisted, personal consequences?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was not my duty either to

4 implement it or not to implement it. I simply did not think about it.

5 Whether the people who had decision-making powers were afraid to implement

6 them, I don't know, because they did not speak their minds in that sense.

7 It is possible that they would have been criticised or punished for

8 failing to implement them. At any rate, they tried to act in such a way

9 that it seems that they implemented, in fact, these documents, although

10 they did not fully agree with them.


12 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [No interpretation]

13 JUDGE ORIE: May I ask you one or two questions in this respect as

14 well. You -- in your answers, you emphasised the aspect that they were

15 not fired, their contracts would still be valid, they even would --

16 accrued a -- pension rights. That's an interpretation of what happened.

17 Another interpretation could be: We did it in such a way that no legal

18 action could be taken against it because they were not fired, so therefore

19 they were empty-handed as far as legal action is concerned. You gave one

20 interpretation. What made you emphasise this aspect and not -- while

21 considering the other possibility, that it was a very safe way by only

22 partly implementing the decision?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would like to note --

24 to point out the following: That municipal offices staff had no reason

25 for instituting legal action. Had they been fired, they would have

Page 21316

1 instituted a legal action and won the case before a court. The solution

2 chosen was the one that would be most favourable also for the staff

3 because, let's say, a lady who was taken -- who was told to go home, she

4 nevertheless had her entitlements. She was still employed but simply did

5 not come to work.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You're repeating your interpretation; you're

7 not answering my question. My question was why - as you do now again

8 emphasise - what could be considered positive for those who were put on

9 hold and why you consider this to be more important than the other side,

10 that is, that they could not take any legal action which would, to some

11 extent, also paralyze them in the situation at that moment.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They had the possibility, the legal

13 remedy, of appealing such a decision, because at the time, as is still the

14 case today, legal action could also be taken pursuant to such a decision.

15 I believe there was even more possibility of such legal action at the time

16 than is today. When I think back about that, had they lodged a complaint

17 or appealed such a decision, the situation was such that no decision would

18 probably be rendered to their benefit or detriment.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You say they could have taken action against

20 it, even against this decision. I was trying to find another part of your

21 testimony but I'll do it at a later stage. Could you tell us: Did those

22 who were entitled to pension, did they receive their pensions?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this must have been an

24 error in interpretation. Nobody had their pension entitlements pursuant

25 to this because we're talking about persons who were my juniors.

Page 21317

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But later on. I mean, you say it was nice for

2 them because they were put on hold, they would accrue their pension

3 rights. Was none of the persons dismissed or put on hold entitled, to

4 this very moment, to pension rights?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Since the Serb population was fully

6 chased away from the area in 1995, I lost touch with these persons. Now

7 the pension funds were separated and I don't know what the situation

8 currently is. I suppose that a person from that municipality has had his

9 or her rights to pension recognised. That would only be logical. I

10 believe that the matter is resolved.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you don't know whether --

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't --

13 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... pension rights

14 are paid at this moment.

15 The portion of your testimony I wanted to confront you with in

16 relation to my last question was where you said: "Their employment was

17 not terminated and our approach was to, on the one hand, try and partially

18 implement the decision, but on the other hand to not withhold workers'

19 rights and their salaries and thus pre-empt any action on their part,"

20 which I understood to be that no action could be taken by this halfway

21 implementation. But now you tell us otherwise. You say that they could

22 have taken action. Could you reconcile these two answers and explain that

23 to me.

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can, Your Honour. They were

25 entitled to appeal this decision, but under the circumstances, they felt

Page 21318

1 the decision was favourable. That's why they did not decide to appeal the

2 decision. There was this lady, for instance, who was of Serb nationality.

3 Later on she went to Belgrade and she was replaced by another person who

4 ran the accountancy department. I suppose, for instance, this particular

5 person was first sent home but was then asked to return and resume her

6 post.

7 JUDGE ORIE: But if you say and thus pre-empt any action on their

8 part -- well, that's not -- no, I withdraw that question.

9 Please proceed, Mr. Tieger.


11 Q. Mr. Radojko, in connection with the Court's question, let's try to

12 clarify that through the use of a particular example. You were asked

13 about all of this during the course of your Brdjanin testimony, and you

14 testified at pages 23 -- 20316 through 20317 about, for example, your

15 recollection of how your boss on one occasion, when asked by a large

16 company about it, instructed you how to put the official answer to their

17 query, "and I did that."

18 Now, although I don't have it in the tabs because I just called it

19 up electronically, it can be broadcast here on -- electronically, I

20 believe, but if not, I will read this to you.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Is it in evidence already?

22 MR. TIEGER: P748, tab 7.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you.


25 Q. And this is an inquiry of August 21st from the timber processing

Page 21319

1 company about the status of persons of Muslim nationality. And it says:

2 "In connection with your request to resolve the issue of the status of the

3 persons of Muslim nationality employed in your company, we send you the

4 answer again which consists of the following: Compared to the previous

5 response, there are no changes with regards to the status of persons of

6 Muslim nationality. In that regard, we would like to refer you to the

7 provisions of the decision on stipulating the status of employees number

8 -" and the number is provided - "dated June 22nd, 1992, which was reached

9 at the session of the Crisis Staff of the Autonomous Region of Krajina."

10 And as you explained in your testimony in the Brdjanin case, and

11 here I refer to pages 20 -- to page 20345, you knew it was against the

12 law, you didn't want to assume the legal responsibility for it, so you

13 wrote the company and told them: You have to comply with the ARK order.

14 Correct?

15 A. Well, no, no, no. It was something totally different. We said

16 that the Crisis Staff did not have it within its remit to make decisions

17 pertaining to employees. That's the reference to that decision, because

18 what was in that decision - and I know when it was being debated - the

19 conclusion was that the Crisis Staff would not have the remit to do that

20 on their behalf. And that's why the decision was made in this way. I was

21 taking the minutes, and I know that they were grappling with it for a long

22 time and looking for an appropriate solution.

23 Q. Mr. Radojko, the fact is that you told the company to follow the

24 order that you knew was illegal, correct? And you said that in your

25 Brdjanin testimony at the page I noted. Do you want me to read that

Page 21320

1 transcript to you, sir?

2 A. Within this context I said that they were asked to do what they

3 deemed fit, because had the Crisis Staff wanted to lend their support to

4 this ARK Krajina decision, they would have done so or said so. They were

5 simply referring to the contents of that decision. And I do remember the

6 discussion within the Crisis Staff because a great deal of time was pinned

7 on trying to find a way to get out of that and for the Crisis Staff not to

8 get involved in any of that. And so those were my instructions.

9 I was trying to draft the appropriate text, and then finally they

10 said: Okay, that's fine. But the main point was that the company in

11 question had to solve their own problems. Apart from that, the

12 relationship between the company in question and the administration were

13 rather bad, to put it mildly.

14 Q. So the company had to solve its own problems. The legal

15 responsibility, as far as you saw it, was on its shoulders. And in

16 response to its inquiry to you, to the Crisis Staff, about the status of

17 Muslim employees, you helpfully sent them the ARK order. Correct?

18 A. We instructed them to make their own decisions. The municipality

19 was a separate legal person and issuing such instructions would have been

20 very risky. Even a budget of many years wouldn't have been able to pay

21 for all those complaints.

22 Q. Let's take a look at the ARK decision that was referred to in

23 P748.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Tab number, Mr. Tieger?

25 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, I don't believe we have this document.

Page 21321

1 I guess I can put it on the ELMO or read it slowly.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Which one would it be so I can find it?

3 MR. TIEGER: It's the Crisis Staff decision of June 20 --

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but in P748. I've got nine --

5 MR. TIEGER: No, I'm sorry, Your Honour, when I referred to P748,

6 that was the letter that was --

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that was --

8 MR. TIEGER: -- that makes reference to this decision.

9 JUDGE ORIE: And now the source of the ARK decision is? If you

10 give me the number, I can find it.

11 MR. TIEGER: I'm trying to locate that, Your Honour. Your Honour,

12 I know that this document is in evidence because I recall its use with

13 other witnesses.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, yes, I'm not saying it's not in evidence, I'm

15 just trying to find it in my computer, and therefore I need a number,

16 Mr. Tieger. You can't give it at this moment?

17 MR. JOSSE: I'm as anxious as I can be for the witness to have it

18 in front of him. It's not satisfactory, in my submission.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger can read from it. I take it you can put

20 it on the ELMO.

21 MR. TIEGER: If you can put it on the ELMO.

22 MR. JOSSE: The original?

23 MR. TIEGER: The original.

24 MR. JOSSE: That's splendid. Thank you.


Page 21322

1 Q. Mr. Radojko, so you know, this document is going to be -- you can

2 see it next to you, but you'll also be able to see it on your screen, and

3 the usher will assist you in finding the right button. Again, sir, this

4 is the ARK Crisis Staff decision to which you referred the company that

5 inquired about the status of its Muslim employees, and it states the

6 following:

7 "At its meeting of 22 June, 1992, the Crisis Staff of the

8 Autonomous Region of Krajina adopted the following decision. All

9 executive posts, posts involving a likely flow of information; posts

10 involving the protection of public property, that is, all posts important

11 for the functioning of economy, may only be held by the personnel of

12 Serbian nationality."

13 MR. TIEGER: And, Your Honour, I can now tell the Court that's

14 P358. I'm sorry we weren't able to do so earlier.

15 Q. And, Mr. Radojko, if I can ask you in that connection to turn to

16 tab 55, perhaps we can see the reaction and response of the Petrovac

17 Crisis Staff to that order.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Already a number, Mr. Tieger, or --

19 MR. TIEGER: Sorry, Your Honour, just a moment.

20 That is P359.

21 JUDGE ORIE: 359.


23 Q. P359, found at tab 55, Mr. Radojko, is a report or letter by

24 Mr. Novakovic of June 25th, 1992, on behalf of the Crisis Staff of the

25 Petrovac municipality, sent to the Crisis Staff of the Autonomous Region

Page 21323

1 of Krajina regarding the implementation of steps and decisions set in the

2 Crisis Staff session of 22 June 1992. And it makes reference to that

3 decision and informs the ARK Crisis Staff that: "The following steps from

4 item 1 of the decision have been implemented in the territory of our

5 municipality. The steps envisioned in item 1, paragraph 1, of the

6 decision have been implemented in all public enterprises and institutions

7 of public interest and other labour associations as well as public

8 places."

9 And then it goes on: "According to available information, the

10 same steps have been -- have also been implemented in socially owned

11 enterprises. Whereby we lack the most recent information, taking into

12 account that not a single one of our socially owned enterprises or joint

13 stock enterprises has operated for two and a half months due to war

14 circumstances. All members of Muslim nationality, both active and

15 reserved, have been sacked from their jobs at the public security station.

16 Employees of Muslim nationality defined in item 1 of this decision were

17 sacked earlier on from their jobs in the Municipal Assembly administration

18 organs. Remaining employees have been sacked now, with the exception of

19 one employee who was due to complete his tasks but will be sacked after

20 that."

21 Mr. Radojko, that represents the response of the Petrovac Crisis

22 Staff to the ARK order of June 22nd, 1992. Isn't that correct?

23 A. Correct.

24 Q. And --

25 A. With the proviso that certain things here have not been covered.

Page 21324

1 By way of an example, there was an exemption of one employee who was kept

2 on. That one employee, a woman, in fact -- that's fine. Or else it says

3 that these measures are in the process of being implemented, or in the

4 process of being finalised. So that's what I meant to say when I said

5 that they were continually trying to prove that they were implementing

6 those decisions, but those decisions were never fully implemented. For

7 example, the only thing that sticks in my mind is this local post office

8 manager. And at the veterinary station, I think there was somebody else

9 and I think he was replaced by another colleague. And as to other

10 companies, all the leading positions, all the managerial posts were

11 already in the hands of Serbs, at least in as far as the big companies

12 were concerned.

13 Q. You were also asked about -- well, you -- during the -- in the

14 course of discussions about -- just prior to the discussion about

15 dismissals in the Brdjanin case you testified that: "Mr. Novakovic

16 personally urged everybody to respect the decisions whether -- that were

17 made, whether they were the military or the Krajina or the Serb Republic."

18 Correct? That's found at page 20137. You won't find that in the

19 tabs, sir, I'm just quoting from your testimony. That's correct, isn't

20 it? Mr. Novakovic, as you testified in the Brdjanin case, personally

21 urged people to respect the decisions?

22 A. If I said that in relation to certain decisions, that must be the

23 case. I don't know what decisions you're referring to. I can't say

24 because I do not know with reference to what decisions support was given

25 and for which it wasn't. But if I said it back then, then it must have

Page 21325

1 been true because, as far as I can remember, I was shown the decisions and

2 I always replied on the basis of what I saw in front of me.

3 MR. JOSSE: Well, Mr. Tieger's summary is unfair yet again. I

4 invite him to read out the whole of the question at 20137, beginning with

5 "Right ..." and the whole answer, please.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, especially since the Chamber -- since the

7 transcript is not in evidence, I think we should avoid that Mr. Josse has

8 to ask you to give complete quotes if they are of a difference --

9 different nature. If --

10 MR. TIEGER: I am more than happy, Your Honour --

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please do so --

12 MR. TIEGER: -- to quote as extensively from the transcript as

13 necessary.

14 JUDGE ORIE: It's just not to get a wrong impression of the

15 testimony of the witness at that time by limiting the quote to a small

16 portion, where nearby more nuance is found.


18 Q. You were asked, Mr. Radojko: "Right. Now you say that he wasn't

19 -- Mr. Novakovic wasn't personally subordinated to him in any way or

20 anyone else in Banja Luka. But as we have been going through all these

21 decisions by the Crisis Staff in Petrovac, the decisions made by the

22 regional Crisis Staff, what sort of impact were they having? I mean you

23 refer to them quite a lot."

24 Answer: "I just mentioned what kind of personal relations there

25 were. But I did not -- they did not affect decisively the functioning of

Page 21326

1 the administration and Mr. Novakovic personally urged everybody to respect

2 the decisions regardless of the persons behind them, whether it has to do

3 with the military or the Krajina, that is AR Krajina or the Serb Republic

4 of Bosnia and Herzegovina. That is if one thought the decisions were

5 purposeful they were put through. Only the decisions which made no sense,

6 which served no purpose, and did not have anything to do with our area,

7 they were not implemented or could not be, especially those which were

8 quite illegal and could therefore entail very grave consequences at a

9 later stage."

10 That's what you testified to, Mr. Radojko, and that was correct,

11 isn't it?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Now, you were also asked about, as I indicated earlier --

14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, just for our understanding, again it's --

15 we don't have the transcript. Did -- was Mr. Radojko at that time asked

16 to give an example of such a decision that was not implemented because it

17 was quite illegal?

18 MR. JOSSE: Could I assist, Your Honour?


20 MR. JOSSE: I am happy that at some later stage -- the answer to

21 Your Honour's question is: Yes, very much so. It is followed up in that

22 way.


24 MR. JOSSE: I am happy for the following passage to come into

25 evidence here. I'll have to work out the logistics with Mr. Tieger later

Page 21327

1 on. If he's happy. If not --

2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger --

3 MR. JOSSE: -- it should be put to the witness now.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, would that be agreeable to you?

5 MR. TIEGER: Yes, Your Honour, that's fine. And do I understand

6 that the Court doesn't have the transcripts in --

7 JUDGE ORIE: In Brdjanin?

8 MR. TIEGER: Okay. I didn't understand that that was the way we

9 were proceeding, and I can deal with that at a later stage. I find this

10 to be an enormously cumbersome and indeed counter-productive --

11 JUDGE ORIE: That's the consequence of you have presented under 92

12 bis but then later withdrawn this witness.

13 MR. TIEGER: I understand, Your Honour, and I never suggested that

14 that should be in evidence, but the idea that a document to which I'm

15 referring cannot be in front of the Court at the point at which I'm

16 referring to it --

17 JUDGE ORIE: I'm not saying that it could not be, but when a

18 document is not in evidence anymore, the Chamber will not keep it under

19 its arms for the rest of the proceedings.

20 MR. TIEGER: Of course not. I'm merely asking if the Court has it

21 now.

22 JUDGE ORIE: No, we have no Brdjanin transcripts in front of us at

23 this moment.

24 MR. TIEGER: I did not understand that to be the case, and I

25 respectfully suggest that --

Page 21328

1 JUDGE ORIE: If that would help, then we would read subsequent

2 portions of it. May I take it -- let's proceed. And if during the next

3 break you and Mr. Josse -- we could have that break now, for example --

4 could agree upon how to proceed and we at least could read matters

5 together with you, then fine. Perhaps I leave it to the parties at this

6 moment and have a break anyhow.

7 MR. JOSSE: Yes. We've no objection to --

8 JUDGE ORIE: Us reading --

9 MR. JOSSE: -- Your Honour having the passages that are quoted. I

10 do have some concerns about reading on.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You would have to look carefully whether we

12 turn the page, Mr. Josse.

13 MR. JOSSE: Well, I --

14 JUDGE ORIE: No, no, I do understand. But of course I do

15 understand your concern.

16 MR. TIEGER: I merely want to point out that that is a reversal of

17 an approach that was adopted and used in this courtroom before with, I

18 think, the full support of the Defence and full knowledge of the Defence.

19 Now, suddenly, these documents are being withdrawn from the Court as if

20 we're engaged in a -- in --

21 JUDGE ORIE: Withdrawn, withdrawn --

22 MR. TIEGER: Not withdrawn --

23 JUDGE ORIE: We put them aside since they were not in evidence

24 anymore, but we have read them at the time.

25 MR. TIEGER: I didn't mean that to sound more dramatic than it

Page 21329

1 was. What I simply meant was in the past the Court has had such

2 interviews, statements, available to it for the purpose of assisting it in

3 asking any questions that might be relevant. Everyone knows that, and I

4 -- I didn't understand that we had embarked on a retreat from that

5 approach. And I don't think there's any basis for that.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Could I invite you to see whether any solution

7 could be found during the next break, where we will resume at a quarter to

8 6.00.

9 --- Recess taken at 5.24 p.m.

10 --- On resuming at 5.51 p.m.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, any resolution of the problem on the

12 transcript?

13 MR. TIEGER: Yes, Your Honour.


15 MR. TIEGER: Yes, I invite the -- based on our discussions, I

16 invite the registrar to distribute the transcripts to the Bench.

17 Mr. Josse may have some comments in connection with that, but I'm pleased

18 that we were able to resolve them.

19 MR. JOSSE: Yes. Your Honour, this is the Defence position: Of

20 course we've got no objection to the Chamber following the

21 cross-examination, the passages that are put. To object to that would, we

22 concede, be nonsensical. We would invite the Court not to look beyond the

23 passages that are put.

24 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand. On the basis of the procedural

25 history, you would say this was a -- and I understand a 92 bis witness,

Page 21330

1 has been withdrawn, now not the whole of the evidence should be --

2 MR. JOSSE: And thereafter, when the witness is finished his

3 evidence, effectively, with respect, we would invite the Court to hand

4 back the volumes. Because the matter -- those passages that have been put

5 to the witness will then be in evidence, depending on his response.


7 MR. JOSSE: Finally, so far as the issue that Your Honour has

8 raised, which is whether or not there are any follow-up questions in

9 relation to the last matter my learned friend was examining upon, I have

10 agreed to deal with those in my re-examination. They are quite lengthy

11 passages, let me say.

12 [Trial Chamber confers]

13 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber accepts the proposed procedure. I add to

14 that that one could wonder where the evidence was not admitted because it

15 seems that the Prosecution was not in a position to call the witness for

16 cross-examination, that we find ourselves in a bit of an odd position.

17 But the Chamber has accepted the -- the suggested procedure.

18 MR. JOSSE: I needn't mention, because I'm sure this is at the

19 forefront of Your Honour's mind, we've called the witness, we've not been

20 able to cross-examine him, that's why the Defence on this occasion are

21 being so particular about the procedure adopted.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. One could ask oneself the strict rules on the

23 difference between examination-in-chief and cross-examination, to what

24 extent they should be maintained in this court, but let's not start that

25 discussion now.

Page 21331

1 Please proceed.

2 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour.

3 Q. Mr. Radojko, if I could ask you to turn to tab 56, please, and

4 it's P90, tab 27. The minutes of the Petrovac Crisis Staff from June

5 13th, 1992, and if I could ask you, sir, to turn to the decision which is

6 reflected on page 4 of the English, and it's the fifth decision, in fact.

7 JUDGE ORIE: That's page 3 in the B/C/S, I take it, under the

8 first "Odluku," Mr. Tieger?

9 MR. TIEGER: I believe that's right, Your Honour.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Starting with VP 4452.


12 Q. Mr. Radojko, that's the decision that begins with a reference to

13 the postal service being completely disconnected from Bihac and

14 continues: "The Petrovac post office body in charge will cut a number of

15 telephone users and disconnect 800 numbers from the Petrovac telephone

16 service. When disconnecting, it has to ensure that the proper functioning

17 of economical, administrative and military bodies and organisations is not

18 jeopardised."

19 Mr. Radojko, that's a decision which is also reflected in your

20 diary for the date of 13 June. I believe it's found at pages 83 through

21 84. And your diary reflects the following:

22 "Disconnection of telephones of all Muslims, removing them from

23 all key positions, particularly in the communications system."

24 And your diary also contains a reference to the same decision

25 about the post office as well. So the Crisis Staff order to disconnect

Page 21332

1 800 telephone users was a decision to disconnect the telephones of Muslim

2 telephone users. Correct?

3 A. For the most part, yes. Most of the users, telephone service

4 users mentioned here are in fact Muslims. There was general mistrust

5 about phones being tapped. For instance, there was one physician and --

6 or rather, President Karadzic himself had suspicion that, in fact, his

7 consulting rooms had been tapped. There were efforts at solving the

8 conflict peacefully that went on for quite a long time.

9 JUDGE ORIE: May I ask you one question in that respect. Is

10 cutting off Muslims from the telephone connections, is that a measure

11 which would assist in preventing tapping of non-Muslim telephone lines?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know the technical details

13 involved. At any rate, outside of what is being -- was written in the

14 minutes and in my notes, I can tell you that they acted this way for

15 safety reasons because they were afraid that the Muslims were relaying

16 some important information. In this way, they wanted to hinder, in a way,

17 the conveyance of such information, if not to prevent any such conveyance

18 altogether.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please proceed.


21 Q. Mr. Radojko, can we turn next to tab 29, which reflect the minutes

22 of the 34th session of the Petrovac Crisis Staff of June 14th, 1992.

23 MR. TIEGER: I believe that needs a number, Your Honour.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.

25 THE REGISTRAR: That will be P1102, Your Honours.

Page 21333


2 Q. Now, Mr. Radojko, this is another document that you were -- that

3 you testified about during the course of your appearance in the Brdjanin

4 case. That can be found at pages 20134 and 20135. And you were asked the

5 following:

6 "All right. Just to look at -- I don't think this time you did

7 attend the meeting. Yes, I'm sorry, the meeting in Korcanica. Okay.

8 Now, then, we see that Mr. Vrzina reported on the situation in the

9 municipality and conveyed the brigade command's request that Muslims be

10 excluded from the work of the Municipal Assembly administrative organs and

11 that arrested persons suspected on reasonable grounds of participating in

12 undermining the Serbian Republic defence or preparing an attack on its

13 institutions and citizens should not be released from detention before

14 trial." And that's reflected in item 1 of the minutes. Is that correct,

15 sir?

16 A. Yes, yes. 14th of June, 1992.

17 Q. The question goes on: "And then requested that Muslim inhabitants

18 who had pledged loyalty to the Serbian Republic be included in defence

19 preparations.

20 "So again, the military was reinforcing what it had said the

21 previous day, about Muslims effectively being excluded and, indeed --

22 well, excluded. Is that right?"

23 And your answer was: "Yes. It is right. The army never stopped

24 putting pressure. They had learned that there was an intention to form a

25 unit made of Muslims and incorporate it in the defence, and they opposed

Page 21334

1 it. And also when he talks about these detainees, Mr. Gacesa, who was the

2 chief of police, said -- and I don't think you can find it in the minutes

3 -- told the president that the police practically had no evidence against

4 the majority of those detainees and that they would have to release them,

5 and of course, the members of the military command learned about that and

6 they spread this information around the units on the front and therefore

7 the pressure not to release them, so this conclusion is not based on law,

8 but it is a factual conclusion."

9 All that information is correct, sir, isn't it?

10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Radojko, could you please answer whether it's

11 correct or not.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is correct. The pressure was

13 exerted, and that can be seen.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Radojko, do you understand English or ...

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Only a little bit, but when one

16 speaks fast, I cannot really follow at all.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'll not speak fast. Could you please take

18 your earphones off for a second.

19 Some -- when we're talking about pressure, some pressure is put

20 upon me to decide on whether we are sitting tomorrow, yes or no.

21 Mr. Tieger, could you tell me approximately --

22 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, it's difficult to gauge. We -- I'm -- I

23 would ask the Court to keep that possibility open.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but at the same time other Presiding Judges are

25 fighting for -- I just want to know how much time you think you would

Page 21335

1 need.

2 MR. TIEGER: I'll certainly need the remainder of this session and

3 I -- based on the pace, I think I'm going to need another session after

4 that.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Josse, I take it -- I take it from what you said

6 earlier that you would need some time for re-examination as well.

7 MR. JOSSE: Well, some time, yes, Your Honour.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Would one session tomorrow be sufficient, because

9 then I could give a message to other Trial Chambers that some time would

10 remain tomorrow.

11 MR. TIEGER: Clearly, Your Honour, I would be in a better position

12 to gauge that at the end of this session --

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but the problem is --

14 MR. TIEGER: You can't delay. I don't know how much time

15 Mr. Josse would need, but if the Court could give a little longer than one

16 session, that would be safest.

17 MR. JOSSE: I would agree with that.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So then most likely there what would not be two

19 sessions left tomorrow for any other Trial Chamber. Less than that.

20 Let's see how far we can come.

21 Mr. Radojko, please put your earphones on again.

22 To the extent you were able to follow, you may conclude that we'll

23 not finish your testimony today, unfortunately, perhaps for you.

24 Mr. Tieger, please proceed.

25 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour.

Page 21336

1 Q. Mr. Radojko, can I ask you to turn next to tab 30 --

2 MR. TIEGER: Which also needs a number, Your Honour.

3 THE REGISTRAR: Tab 30, Your Honours, would be P1103.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

5 MR. TIEGER: Sorry, Your Honour, if you could just give me a

6 moment.

7 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]


9 Q. Mr. Radojko, tab 30, P1103, contains the minutes of the 35 session

10 of the -- 35th session of the Petrovac municipality Crisis Staff, held on

11 June 16th, 1992, and it reflects in item 1 the president indicating that:

12 "The Crisis Staff was expected to formulate a clear position on the

13 Muslims and that the military demanded that such measures be taken against

14 them as would make it impossible for them to undertake actions and

15 organise in our forces' rear."

16 It continues --

17 MR. TIEGER: And for the benefit of counsel and the Court, he

18 testified about this on pages 20142 and 20143 --

19 Q. -- with Mr. Gacesa stressing: "... that there was a list of some

20 40 people or so considered to be organised as a separate group or to have

21 acted from extreme fundamentalist Islamic positions. Of these, 13 are

22 already out of the reach of law enforcement organs. The operation to

23 disarm Muslims paramilitary units and citizens is continuing. Most of the

24 persons included in the above-mentioned list have been found to possess

25 illegal weapons. There are two possible options, one, that a certain

Page 21337

1 number of persons, who could be a potential threat, be isolated but not on

2 the premises of the SJB, and the other, that extremists be located -- be

3 isolated outside of Petrovac."

4 "Mr. Vrzina considered that the second option was more

5 acceptable.

6 "As the discussion continued, the view prevailed that the

7 isolation of extremists outside Petrovac would be dangerous to themselves,

8 and that it was best to isolate them in a well-guarded facility on the

9 outskirts of town."

10 And then it concludes with a decision: "All individuals who

11 possess illegal weapons or have been registered as Muslim extremists, thus

12 posing a potential threat, shall be detained and held in custody."

13 Now, at page 20143, Mr. Radojko, you were asked: "Now, what was

14 this register of Muslim extremists?"

15 And you answered: "Officially, such a register could not be

16 established. To the best of my knowledge this was done on the basis of

17 initial operative knowledge obtained by the police themselves. Some

18 people did indeed have weapons that were found, as far as I know, and

19 other people were put on this list according to their own arbitrary

20 assessments. You see, when they say here that -- that the 13 are

21 inaccessible, these are people who had already left the territory of the

22 municipality."

23 So these minutes of June 16th, Mr. Radojko, according to your

24 testimony in the Brdjanin case, reflect the detention of Muslims who were

25 either found to have illegal weapons or were detained according to what

Page 21338

1 you referred to as arbitrary assessments. Is that right?

2 A. I assume that that's correct. Nobody was able to keep accurate

3 records of those who allegedly were extremists. Only those who were found

4 to have illegal weapons could have been established as such. Other than

5 that, the only way to approach the matter was through assessments.

6 Q. And you were asked thereafter about a couple of people who you

7 knew had been detained, including Fuad Ferizovic, and you indicated that

8 you and Mr. Ferizovic did not agree about certain legal positions and

9 things like that, but you thought that he was considered to be an

10 extremist because he presented some kind of radical claims perhaps in a

11 political sense. This did not correspond to what people really liked to

12 hear, but you personally had discussions with him without any problems

13 whatsoever. That's correct, isn't it?

14 A. Absolutely, yes.

15 Q. And did I also understand you to be criticising these arbitrary

16 assessments when you made the comment in connection with Mr. Ferizovic on

17 page 20145: "If somebody just says something a bit sharply, I don't think

18 that he should be called an extremist."

19 A. I was presenting my viewpoint, which is, I believe, logical. You

20 cannot call someone an extremist on the sole basis of what he says. At

21 the time, this notion of extremism wasn't as well-known to everyone as it

22 is today. I don't know what the criteria were for defining what these

23 people were. I knew that there was reason to distrust persons who were

24 found to have illegal weapons. There was another case that was conducted

25 at the time which involved a lady member of staff who worked with me. Her

Page 21339

1 father was kept in custody for a short while, and she intervened with the

2 president of the Executive Board who inquired into the matter and asked

3 that the man be released. You have to know that I wasn't -- I did not

4 originate from this place and I didn't know the people. I wasn't familiar

5 with their viewpoints.

6 Q. Let me ask you to turn next to tab 31.

7 MR. TIEGER: That's P748, tab 5, Your Honours.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. At the same time, in order not to forget that,

9 you asked for a number of the 35th meeting of the -- oh, no, no, no. Yes,

10 let me just have a look. No, please proceed, I'm greatly mistaken,

11 Mr. Tieger.


13 Q. Tab 31, Mr. Radojko, contains the minutes of the Crisis Staff --

14 JUDGE ORIE: No -- no, I -- I'm too critical for myself,

15 Mr. Tieger. The 35th meeting of the Crisis Staff of Petrovac

16 municipality, 16th of June, K5792, you asked for a number, but P90HH, and

17 perhaps even P90BB as well - but let me just check on the latter one -

18 seem to be the same documents, and from what I understand there are even

19 different versions of that document. So would you please find that out.

20 Not at this very moment but soon.

21 MR. TIEGER: I will double-check that, but preliminary checking

22 seems to indicate the Court is quite correct.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And I can tell you that the version we find

24 under 90BB seems to cover the same -- I only have the English translation

25 -- well, there seem to be different versions of that document as well, so

Page 21340

1 would you please keep that in mind as well; with numbers, without numbers,

2 with different signatures, et cetera. So would you please pay attention

3 to that and at this moment proceed, please.

4 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour, and we will attend to that.

5 Q. Mr. Radojko, I had directed your attention to the Petrovac Crisis

6 Staff minutes for the session held on June 17th, 1992. As previous

7 documents we looked at indicated, there was a discussion about whether to

8 retain the prisoners, the Muslim prisoners, in the SJB or send them

9 outside Petrovac. If I could ask you to turn to the third decision of the

10 Crisis Staff, found at page 4 of the English, which indicates the

11 following -- and I think you'll have no trouble finding that. I believe

12 that's the second page of your version.

13 "On the level on the 2nd Krajina Corps, the prisoners from the

14 Petrovac public security station are to be transferred to Prekaja or to

15 Manjaca.

16 "The Crisis Staff discussed at this session the question of

17 security situation and the supplies in the territory of the municipality

18 and the question of status --" and it goes on to -- "... the question of

19 status of the Territorial Defence conscripts, and accordingly adopted the

20 following ..." and then we see a subject related -- or a decision related

21 to a subject we covered before, Muslim owners of bars, restaurants, and

22 shops are to temporarily close.

23 But turning back to the decision I referred to earlier, it's

24 correct then that the decision was made on June 17th, 1992, that the

25 prisoners from the Petrovac public security station were to be transferred

Page 21341

1 to one of those two detention facilities. Is that right?

2 A. The content is right, but this was not, in fact, done.

3 Q. Okay. Well, let's follow through and look at some of the other

4 subsequent decisions that were made, or decisions being made around that

5 time to see what happened to those prisoners. If you'll turn to tab 33.

6 MR. TIEGER: And I believe this needs a number, Your Honour.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.

8 THE REGISTRAR: Tab 33, Your Honours, would be P1104.


10 Q. P1104, found at tab 33, Mr. Radojko, is a strictly confidential

11 2nd Krajina Corps command order on forming prisoner of war camps. And it

12 states that: "Pursuant to the document of the Main Staff of the Army of

13 Serbian Republic Bosnia-Herzegovina, strictly confidential -" provides the

14 number - "from 12 June 1992 and based on indicated needs, I order -" and

15 then it indicates a number of facilities - that: "A prisoner of war camp

16 is to be formed in the area of the railway settlement Srnetica. In the

17 first phase, until the required facilities in Srnetica are fully arranged,

18 prisoners of war are to be accommodated in the facilities of the forestry

19 workers' settlement Kozila and the school in Kamenica."

20 Now, first of all, before I ask you about that, it may be helpful

21 to note that this Court has -- this document makes reference to an order

22 of 12 June 1992 and this Court has received in evidence a 12 June 1992

23 order, number 18/28-6, by General Mladic regarding the establishments --

24 establishment of camps, prisoners of war detention facilities.

25 MR. TIEGER: That's found at P64A, Your Honour. Sorry, I thought

Page 21342

1 I had the tab number, and if not, I will provide that for the Court as

2 soon as possible.

3 Sorry, Your Honour, we'll have to get the tab number for that.

4 Q. Mr. Radojko --

5 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, it's P64A, binder is 27, footnote 783 is

6 where the Mladic order can be found.

7 Q. Mr. Radojko, were you aware of the arrangement to have prisoners

8 taken to the -- to a facility in Kozila until other facilities might be

9 established?

10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, I have under binder 7, I have another

11 numbering not related to footnote, but sequence within tab 7 goes from 1

12 to 27. If you could help me out which one. I think that's also the way

13 it was -- I see your case manager can't help me at this moment. Let's

14 proceed.


16 Q. Mr. Radojko, were you familiar with the use of Kozila as a

17 detention facility for prisoners?

18 A. I didn't know that such an order existed. I know that there was a

19 detention centre in Kozila, which was provisional, and I don't think it

20 had to do anything with this order. This was, I believe, pursuant to a

21 police order that they decided to organise detention there. But these

22 were private homes and this was in Petrovac because Petrovac did not have

23 a detention unit of its own, it had only these private homes, and they

24 gave up the idea of detaining people there and decided to put the people

25 up at Kozila because this was a workers' housing development. I believe

Page 21343

1 that they wanted to put there those people who were found to possess

2 illegal weapons or were otherwise characterised as extremists. They were

3 not prisoners of war of any sort. They were kept there for a while and

4 were then released. After that, they had to, I believe, report to the

5 police that they were still around.

6 I know this because of another issue: When representatives of the

7 International Red Cross came over from Knin, they asked to be allowed to

8 see those people. The president of the Executive Board told me to talk to

9 them. As they arrived quite late in the day, we were unable to go over to

10 see the facility. They were afraid of travelling by night, so they had to

11 leave for Knin quite early and they were to return the day -- the next

12 day. However, the next day there was an order issued for the people to be

13 released. So there was nobody to visit there anymore. But I know for a

14 fact that these persons were not prisoners of war, they were people from

15 the town. To the best of my knowledge, but I'm not sure, I believe it was

16 the police that took them into custody and not the army, certainly not

17 pursuant to this order. Although I don't know in what way the police and

18 the army operated, what their relations were, I only know what sort of

19 people were there because I was supposed to lead a delegation to see the

20 facility on the morning during which in fact the people were released. I

21 also know this because this -- the father of this colleague of mine,

22 Ferizovic, complained about the fact that he had been beaten by some of

23 the guards there, and he was not a prisoner of war; I know that for a

24 fact.

25 Q. Thank you, sir. Let's turn next, if we can, to tab 36.

Page 21344

1 MR. TIEGER: That's, I hope, P90, tab 33; P529, tab 302.

2 Q. And are the minutes of the 41st Session of the Petrovac Crisis

3 Staff, Mr. Radojko, held on 29 June, 1992. Begins in item 1 with

4 Mr. Novakovic, who in the second paragraph relayed requests from soldiers

5 he had talked to for a more radical attitude towards the Muslims at

6 Petrovac. Continues that: "The Muslims of Petrovac are behaving as if

7 they are wounded and are showing great fear. More of them should be

8 arrested and isolated as a precaution, after which they should be given

9 work obligations because there will be a lot of harvesting to do."

10 And then if we turn to the conclusions, conclusion number 1 is the

11 following:

12 "Until the prison in Kozila is made operational, a plan should be

13 made to arrest and bring in under custody all Muslims fit for military

14 service who are thought to be capable of causing any harm to the Serbs.

15 "And the persons responsible: Obrad Vrzina and Drago Gacesa."

16 Now, Obrad Vrzina is the military representative and Drago Gacesa

17 is the police representative; is that right?

18 A. Correct.

19 Q. And together they were responsible for taking these -- for

20 ensuring that all Muslims fit for military service who were thought to be

21 capable of causing any harm to the Muslims were taken into custody.

22 Correct?

23 A. May I make a correction? My understanding is to the detriment of

24 Serbs on the basis of these minutes. And here we are talking about these

25 people who were found in possession of weapons and who were considered and

Page 21345

1 proclaimed to be fundamentalists, not all able-bodied Muslims but only

2 those amongst their fundamentalists, and so that's what it's all about and

3 that part was implemented.

4 I was present, but since Mr. Sikman -- or basically, I was invited

5 to attend the meeting but I didn't -- I wasn't in charge of the minutes.

6 I mean, I was normally in charge of the minutes because I was always at

7 hand; I lived in the vicinity. But on this occasion, he was there so I

8 had nothing to do with the minutes.

9 Q. That's a correct -- previously --

10 JUDGE ORIE: May I again interrupt for the practical matter I

11 raised earlier.

12 Mr. Josse, I'm also looking at you. If we would have a late start

13 tomorrow in the afternoon, if we would have a late start --

14 MR. JOSSE: Sorry.

15 JUDGE ORIE: If we would have a late start tomorrow in the

16 afternoon, that means starting at a quarter to 5.00, and then have two

17 one-hour sessions with a 15-minute break, from what you said before, it

18 looks as if that would -- a little bit over one session would be

19 sufficient, or would it not, Mr. Tieger?

20 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, I think it would be -- I hope I'm not --

21 it's difficult to tell. We make considerable progress sometimes and then

22 there's always the chance of a significant issue that is --

23 JUDGE ORIE: Takes more time --

24 MR. TIEGER: Yeah, is worth the time we invest in it.

25 MR. JOSSE: Your Honour, could I make this observation: I was

Page 21346

1 thinking about this at the very moment Your Honour raised the subject. I

2 -- perhaps the witness should take his earphones off.


4 Mr. Radojko, would you please take your earphones off for a

5 moment.

6 MR. JOSSE: I curtailed my examination-in-chief. I also had my

7 preparation with the witness curtailed necessarily. I'm not complaining

8 about that. The result is that Mr. Tieger is spending a great deal of

9 time with the witness.


11 MR. JOSSE: I am inclined to have -- to re-examine for a lengthy

12 period of time. That's a present thought going through my head.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I can imagine that.

14 [Trial Chamber confers]

15 [Defence counsel confer]

16 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber will, with some apologies, deny any

17 request from other Trial Chambers and just claim the time tomorrow, as is

18 available to us, and not try to fit matters in. What you just said,

19 Mr. Josse, of course raises another issue about the 60 per cent guideline.

20 And I'd like to make one observation. Much of this material is in

21 evidence. Of course you never know how a witness would respond to those

22 documents, but if they would remain in evidence without giving any

23 opportunity, it might not be favourable for the accused to have them in

24 evidence and not to have given any opportunity for further explanations,

25 et cetera. That is why the Chamber is granting a bit more time -- of

Page 21347

1 course it is your choice on whether or not to deal with these documents,

2 especially those who are in evidence already; sometimes they are related

3 one to another, but therefore the Chamber is a bit hesitant to either

4 curtail the Prosecution, but also to curtail the Defence in re-examination

5 and therefore does not accept the two hours of tomorrow, but at least make

6 sure that all the time that was reserved for this Trial Chamber is

7 available for it tomorrow.

8 I see Mr. Registrar is phoning already, to the disappointment,

9 perhaps, of some other Trial Chambers.

10 Mr. Josse --

11 MR. JOSSE: I've got no observation in relation to that at this

12 stage. Matter of proceeding in this particular manner, we will

13 contemplate it, if we may.


15 Mr. Tieger, please proceed.

16 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour.

17 Q. Now, Mr. Radojko, this document was presented to you during the

18 Brdjanin case as well, and you testified about that in particular at page

19 20158 and 20159. And you were asked under -- referring to the document:

20 "Under conclusions until the prison in Kozila is made operational a plan

21 should be made to arrest and bring in under custody all Muslims fit for

22 military service who are thought to be capable of causing any harm to the

23 Serbs and then the persons responsible. So this conclusion was anybody

24 fit for -- any military-age Muslim should be brought in. Is that what

25 happened?

Page 21348

1 "Why, no, but able-bodied, those who could perhaps end up doing

2 something wrong, that is some people perhaps for those -- who places

3 weapons on -- whose places weapons were found and another group perhaps

4 just arbitrarily pin-pointed by the police or those army people. I do not

5 know how they did that, but I think it was done on the basis of whatever

6 condition -- convictions that they may have been upholding at the time

7 rather than on the basis of some reliable facts."

8 And that accurately reflected your understanding at the time of

9 these events. Is that correct, Mr. Radojko?

10 A. It does.

11 Q. And can we turn to tab 22, please.

12 MR. TIEGER: Tab 22, Your Honour, is P90, tab 36. And that is a

13 list of persons for whom Bosanski Petrovac public security station has

14 ordered isolation and indicates at the bottom that a total of 29 persons

15 who were taken to do labour at the Kozila camp on July 1st, 1992. And on

16 the following page is a list of July 2nd, 1992, with a list of persons to

17 be handed over to the Kozila civil protection.

18 Q. And can you confirm, Mr. Radojko, that both lists contain the

19 names of Muslims?

20 A. I can confirm that both lists contain the names of Muslims, but I

21 believe that CZ doesn't mean civil protection but central prison.

22 Q. I appreciate -- thank you for that correction, sir. Can we turn

23 back now to tab 29. We've looked at that previously. That's the minutes

24 of the Crisis Staff -- of Petrovac Crisis Staff from 14th June 1992. And

25 Mr. Novakovic opened the session, and this was a portion of the document

Page 21349

1 that was not referred to earlier. "Mr. Novakovic opened the discussion

2 and pointed out that it was necessary to adopt positions at the level of

3 the Autonomous Region of Krajina on how to deal with inhabitants who were

4 not loyal to the Serbian Republic of BH."

5 And the conclusion, on the next page, was that: "The president of

6 the Petrovac Crisis Staff will request at a session of the Crisis Staff of

7 Krajina Autonomous Region that positions be adopted regarding

8 re-settlement of the population, the inclusion of loyal Muslims in the

9 system of defence, the work of Muslims in administrative organs and

10 companies, and the treatment of persons who have not pledged their loyalty

11 or who have taken hostile positions."

12 So by mid-June 1992, Mr. Radojko, the Petrovac Crisis Staff was

13 considering and seeking guidance about the re-settlement of the

14 population. Correct?

15 A. It is correct. Obviously they asked for guidance in relation to

16 all that, and I believe that they acted in line with this conclusion.

17 Q. Now, we had earlier looked at the minutes of the 30 June Crisis

18 Staff in which it was related that the army wanted a more radical attitude

19 toward Muslims. If I could ask you to turn to tab 38, please.

20 MR. TIEGER: Sorry, Your Honour, if you can give me a moment. My

21 version of tab 38 is incomplete. I think I have another version

22 available.

23 MR. JOSSE: So is mine.

24 JUDGE ORIE: 38 seems to be P90, tab 37. Could we try to have

25 that P90, tab 37 --

Page 21350

1 MR. TIEGER: I do have a version that we could put on the ELMO,

2 Your Honour, including the -- and I have a B/C/S version I could present

3 to the witness. I don't know if his version is complete or not.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Is that the minute of the 42nd Session?

5 MR. TIEGER: Yes, it is, Your Honour.

6 JUDGE ORIE: A copy could be printed out from the electronic

7 version, if need be. Could it be put on the ELMO so that I can just

8 verify that we have the right document in front of us.

9 MR. JOSSE: The B/C/S version, Your Honour, is in the bundle; it's

10 the English that's not.

11 JUDGE ORIE: It's the English one, yes --

12 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour --

13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, could you please -- there's one page

14 missing, I take it, or two pages missing. Could you please print out the

15 first two pages.

16 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

17 JUDGE ORIE: The witness could be given the B/C/S version if he --

18 oh, it's in the bundle as well.

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I do have a copy.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please proceed, Mr. ...

21 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour.

22 Q. Mr. Radojko, turning to item 1 of the session of the Crisis Staff

23 held on July 1st, again we see Obrad Vrzina is the military

24 representative, and he's reporting on the security situation on the

25 territory of the municipality and assessed it as "delicate with a popular

Page 21351

1 feeling of discontent, especially directed toward Muslims after the recent

2 events on the front line and stressed that the best and the sure solution

3 for the protection of the Muslims would be to move the population."

4 So this, by -- or on July 1st, this is the military now urging the

5 moving out of the Muslim population as a means of dealing with the

6 situation. Is that right?

7 A. The army asked that not on the 1st of July, at least a

8 representative relayed it in that way. They were exerting a great deal of

9 pressure constantly, as you can see on the basis of all these documents.

10 There is a new element that you might have missed here. You can see that

11 there is a certain number of people listed here as having been detained at

12 Kozila and are from Kljuc. And now this has just occurred to me for the

13 first time because the first time around maybe I missed that. Here we're

14 talking about real POWs because at that time back then, as I remember,

15 there were -- there was fighting in Kljuc and Sanski Most municipalities,

16 and the Serb units managed to scatter the enemy units. And many people

17 were going through the Grmec area in the direction of Bihac in order to

18 set up their brigades again. Maybe that made the attitude a little bit

19 more radical, but you can see on a permanent basis, and we can't argue

20 with that and I don't need to repeat this once again, that the command

21 representative constantly came up with very strict requests and in no

22 uncertain terms, and the language used was much more powerful than what

23 you can see in the minutes, because I never used rude words in the minutes

24 for the sake of appearances. But I believe that the president was even

25 trying to use his own channels in order to gauge the actual mood amongst

Page 21352

1 the soldiers and the morale because these requests are very persistent and

2 very sharp and strict. They simply had no understanding for any

3 reasonable explanation, according to which this was just not the way to do

4 things. The president at a certain point even turned to me and asked to

5 come up with a legal solution on the basis of which people could be

6 isolated in some kind of village or whatever. This place that is referred

7 to here is an abandoned housing district, and they were looking for a

8 legal solution in order for people to be legally moved to this place

9 called Srnetica but I had a talk with people about the Americans dealing

10 with the Japanese, et cetera, but of course I said to them that they had

11 to have guards, et cetera, and then it came up that he could not provide

12 reliable guards guarding these people so that they don't come to any harm,

13 and so they desisted from that idea. Not everybody was disloyal amongst

14 the Muslim population. Most people probably didn't care, you know, and

15 many people said openly that they didn't care who was in power, that they

16 were just normal citizens, and they acted that way. So people were

17 different and they opted for different types of behaviour and different

18 allegiances.

19 Q. And just look quickly at tab 37. Tab 37, Mr. Radojko, which is

20 P90, tab --

21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Radojko --

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do apologise, I didn't realise my

23 phone was on.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's why, Mr. Radojko --

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I simply forgot, I'm sorry.

Page 21353

1 JUDGE ORIE: I know Presiding Judges who would immediately seize

2 them, but I --

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have been warned, Your Honour, but

4 I simply forgot. It slipped my mind. It's off now.

5 JUDGE ORIE: I take it so it will not be in the collection of

6 seized mobile phones.

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Tieger.

9 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour.

10 Q. Now, Mr. Radojko, this is a document that you had an opportunity

11 -- well, first of all, I should indicate what the document is. It is a

12 report on the events in Bosanski Petrovac from June 1992 until the

13 departure from Petrovac, prepared by the Bosanski Petrovac Expatriots

14 Club. And it's a document that you have had a chance to see before. In

15 fact, you were asked about it during the course of your Brdjanin

16 testimony, and specifically asked at page 20193, whether you had an

17 opportunity to read through it when it was shown to you, and you answered:

18 "I had the opportunity and I read it carefully."

19 And then you were asked: "In your view, is this an accurate

20 account of events as it affected the Muslims in Bosanski Petrovac?"

21 And you answered: "This is a -- an accurate account of events.

22 It is possible that certain details are not quite accurate, but not

23 deliberately, but simply because they didn't know the facts. But yes, it

24 is correct."

25 And that's accurate, sir, isn't that right?

Page 21354

1 A. Yes, precisely. I don't know about all of these events, but the

2 ones I know about are recorded appropriately. I heard of some events from

3 other sources and I suppose that in line with that interpretation they can

4 be considered in the same light, and as to the most recent ones that I'm

5 not familiar with and I saw them for the first time on that occasion, I

6 suppose they're recorded in the proper way. There might be some nuances,

7 but generally speaking this is correct.

8 Q. Thank you, sir.

9 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour --

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Considering that I do accept their

11 impression that they were victimised by the authorities, this is

12 incorrect. But of course they will have that impression in case the

13 authorities did not provide proper protection. Of course they would

14 mistrust the intentions of such authorities.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, I'm looking at the clock.

16 MR. JOSSE: Your Honour, sorry.


18 MR. JOSSE: Could that last answer be clarified, because I don't

19 think it makes any sense.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please clarify -- I'll not put to you how I

21 understood it, but, Mr. Radojko, could you please clarify your last answer

22 which says that you do "accept their impression that they were victimised

23 by the authorities. This is incorrect, but of course they will have that

24 impression in case the authorities did not provide proper protection. Of

25 course they will mistrust the intention of such authorities."

Page 21355

1 That's not entirely clear to, at least, Mr. Josse. Could you

2 please clarify it.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, first of all, what I consider

4 as appropriately recorded are facts with regard to individual murders,

5 detention, the departure of those delegations in order to seek

6 authorisation to pass through. All that, in my view, is correct. The

7 only thing is that this bit that in September there was an increasing

8 tension and different methods employed by the Serb authorities in order to

9 encourage Muslims to emigrate, well, that was not my impression, because I

10 was taking the minutes at the Crisis Staff meetings and the documents

11 indicate that the trend was not moving in that direction. It was not our

12 wish to encourage collective emigration, and it caused all sorts of

13 economic difficulties and difficulties in terms of keeping their property

14 safe and millions of other negative consequences. They -- in case such

15 huge numbers of people were to leave. We knew that, even back then.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, may I take it that you'll take the

17 witness to further such documents? He says: Looking at the -- taking the

18 minutes of the Crisis Staff meetings, et cetera. We -- of course we have

19 seen already quite some, but --

20 MR. TIEGER: Well, I'm -- certainly, if I understood that to be --

21 I will be more -- no, I hadn't intended to. I understood that to be a

22 reference to the -- well, it doesn't matter what I understood it to be --

23 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Let's leave it --

24 MR. TIEGER: -- that statement to be in this instance, but I had

25 not intended to take him to Crisis Staff minutes that corresponded to that

Page 21356

1 moment in September.


3 Mr. Josse, sufficient clarification, as far as you are concerned?

4 MR. JOSSE: Thank you.


6 Then we'll finish for the day. Perhaps some -- I think, as a

7 matter of fact, that I found the first page of tab 38 as the last page of

8 tab 37, Mr. Josse, which might assist you.

9 MR. JOSSE: Yes, I've discovered that. I've also been assisted by

10 the registrar in that regard and I'm grateful.


12 MR. JOSSE: Your Honour, Monday, is the Chamber in a position to

13 inform the parties about Monday?

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, about -- perhaps if we first ask the witness to

15 leave.

16 MR. JOSSE: Thank you.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Usher.

18 May I instruct you, Mr. Radojko -- may I instruct you, the same as

19 I did yesterday, not to speak with anyone about the testimony you have

20 given or you're still about to give. We'd like to see you back tomorrow

21 in the afternoon and then we will finish your examination as a witness.

22 Would you please follow Madam Usher.

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I understand.

24 [The witness stands down]

25 JUDGE ORIE: Next Monday, we are talking about Witness Maricic,

Page 21357

1 isn't it?

2 MR. JOSSE: We are, Your Honour.

3 JUDGE ORIE: We have considered your request, Mr. Josse, and the

4 Chamber does not oppose to hear the evidence of Mr. Maricic, as you

5 suggested. At the same time, looking at the 65 ter summary, it causes

6 some concern with the Chamber. If, for example, the 65 ter summary reads:

7 "The conduct of Brcko Serbs was not the result of any instructions from

8 above ..." then of course the Chamber would expect in the 65 ter summary

9 also to find what was his position at the relevant time. Now, the 65 ter

10 summary tells us what his position was in 1994, not in 1992. Therefore,

11 whether this witness would be in a position to tell us that the conduct of

12 Brcko Serbs, whatever that is, I take it that you had in mind the conduct

13 of Brcko Serbs in a more or less organised or disorganised way, but at

14 least not every individual Serb in Brcko, then of course we are wondering

15 what would be the basis for this witness to be able to testify -- at least

16 in the 65 ter summary we find no specific reasons why this witness would

17 be the one who could tell all of this.

18 Similarly, if the 65 ter summary says Mr. Krajisnik never had any

19 command functions over the army and the witness never saw any order issued

20 by Mr. Krajisnik in relation to it, et cetera, et cetera, of course one

21 would not expect an average citizen to have such information about 1992.

22 So not knowing what his position was at that time, was he an ordinary

23 citizen of Brcko, was he not? I mean, if we would call all ordinary

24 citizens of Brcko to tell us whether they'd ever seen any order written by

25 Mr. Krajisnik, then it might take a lot of time. It might not bring that

Page 21358

1 much.

2 So if this -- although I do understand that this witness was

3 listed on the between 10 and 20. If on the basis of this 65 ter summary

4 the Chamber has great difficulties in fully comprehending that this is in

5 the -- but just based on the 65 ter summary, that this is the most

6 important evidence, as the Chamber said before, the Chamber would like to

7 hear as much of as possible.

8 MR. JOSSE: So, Your Honour --

9 JUDGE ORIE: That's our concern. But nevertheless, the Chamber,

10 of course, is limited to the 65 ter summary and if there would have been

11 more information on which you made this selection for this witness, then

12 of course the Chamber would expect that to appear in any updated 65 ter

13 summary.

14 MR. JOSSE: So Your Honour is asking us not to call him or

15 ordering us not to call him?

16 JUDGE ORIE: No, this is not an order. First of all, the Chamber

17 is aware that we are limited to the 65 ter summary. The Chamber expresses

18 some concern about the importance of the witness, as we can see it from

19 the 65 ter summary. Since the Chamber wants to hear as much evidence as

20 important as possible for the Defence case in the limited time that

21 remains.

22 MR. JOSSE: I know it's late now. I think Mr. Stewart has the

23 information that Your Honour requires.

24 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, I have one piece of information

25 which I feel is likely to be helpful. Just as Your Honour has been

Page 21359

1 speaking I have been bringing up material that I have about Mr. Maricic.

2 Your Honour, I can't say now why it wasn't in the 65 ter, but he joined

3 the SDS in July 1990 and became a member of its Main Board.

4 JUDGE ORIE: That already makes quite some difference.

5 MR. STEWART: Indeed, Your Honour. I thought I would tell Your

6 Honours that straight away.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but of course you are asking us -- you are

8 seeking our guidance and we have to give the guidance on the basis of what

9 we see. Therefore you expressed concerns not to say that everyone who was

10 on the Main Board would qualify to be on the top ranking of most important

11 and most relevant evidence, but we'll hear then -- it's clear, at least,

12 that you understood what the Chamber wants.

13 MR. STEWART: We very much understood Your Honour's point. We

14 just thought that might be a helpful piece of single information.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, finally, it's your responsibility, of

16 course, first of all, to bring the most important evidence, but at the

17 same time the Chamber is eager to hear what could objectively be

18 understood as vital -- vital evidence and vital information for the

19 Defence case.

20 Then we will adjourn --

21 MR. JOSSE: Your Honour, the issue --

22 JUDGE ORIE: I always speak slowly so that you can say something,

23 Mr. Josse.

24 MR. JOSSE: The issue we were concerned about was whether the

25 Court's going to sit on Monday morning. That was what I was alluding to

Page 21360

1 when I rose.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let me just -- I --

3 [Trial Chamber confers]

4 JUDGE ORIE: I couldn't give you an answer right away, but I'll --

5 the first thing I'll do when I've left this courtroom to find out what

6 progress has been made on the inquiry into whether we could sit next

7 Monday in the afternoon.

8 MR. JOSSE: We'll be in the building for at least half an hour, so

9 if one of Your Honour's staff could communicate with us, we would be

10 grateful.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I hope they're still there, the ones who know.

12 MR. JOSSE: Thank you.

13 JUDGE ORIE: We'll adjourn until tomorrow, quarter past 2.00, same

14 courtroom.

15 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.11 p.m.,

16 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 15th day of

17 March, 2006, at 2.15 p.m.