1 Friday, 17 March 2006
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.22 p.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours, this is case number
7 IT-00-39-T, the Prosecutor versus Momcilo Krajisnik. Thank you.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
9 I asked the registrar to make a print-out of the updated list of
10 exhibits so that once we have received that, perhaps later today, we can
11 deal with the Poplasen, the Radojko, exhibits. Then --
12 MR. JOSSE: Sorry, Your Honour --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes --
14 MR. JOSSE: The Savkic and Radojko. Poplasen is not on the agenda
15 at the moment, I thought.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Oh.
17 Mr. Tieger, have we dealt with admission of all of the Poplasen?
18 MR. TIEGER: I didn't rise for that purpose. I'm not -- I don't
19 have that information at my finger-tips.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 MR. TIEGER: I just don't recall offhand, I'm sorry.
22 JUDGE ORIE: I wanted to make a Savkic observation after this.
23 MR. JOSSE: I'm in the position to deal with Savkic. I'm not in
24 the position to deal with Poplasen, as I indicated yesterday.
25 JUDGE ORIE: The only thing is that for Savkic it's a different
1 matter, we are still waiting for -- and I take it that you'll do that
2 then, give us clarity on which exhibits the Defence is still opposing.
3 MR. JOSSE: Absolutely.
4 JUDGE ORIE: And that would be, Mr. Josse?
5 MR. JOSSE: Would you like me to do that now, Your Honour?
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please do so. And to add whatever you'd like to
7 add as far as reasons are concerned.
8 MR. JOSSE: Yes. Having considered the matter, and again I'm
9 grateful to Your Honour's perseverance so far as this is concerned, I do
10 now withdraw our objection to P1056, bearing in mind what we have said
11 about P1055, that would seem sensible. I also no longer oppose the
12 admission of P1057. As I said on the last occasion this matter was aired,
13 I do not oppose the admission of P1059 or P1060; however, we do still
14 maintain our objection for P1065 and P1066. Your Honour, all I say in
15 relation to that is I'd invite the Chamber to look carefully, as I'm sure
16 it will, at the transcript so far as what the witness said about the
17 matters. And I'd invite the Chamber to look at what Mr. Margetts
18 submitted. I repeat what I said on the last occasion. He, we contend,
19 has got it the one way -- the wrong way around. He has in effect in his
20 submissions made a speech about the witness's credibility, and based on
21 that invited the Chamber to admit the documents. That, we contend, is the
22 wrong approach. The Chamber needs to look at what the witness said about
23 the document, whether he accepted, A, the genuineness; and B, the
24 assertions made in the document. He didn't, he refuted the matter
25 absolutely. And in those circumstances we submit they have no probative
1 value and they should not be admitted.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 Mr. Margetts.
4 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, the -- on the last occasion that
5 Mr. Josse made his submissions in response to the submissions that we'd
6 made, I did indicate to the Trial Chamber that I wish to make one point of
7 clarification. And in light of the fact that Mr. Josse has repeated that
8 submission today, I would like to make that clarification.
9 To the contrary of Mr. Josse's submission, it could be seen in the
10 submissions we made, we in fact referred to the witness's -- the witness
11 Savkic's affirmation of various documents, his authentication of various
12 documents, and evidence that he gave that corroborated those documents as
13 a basis for their admission. We also referred to other documents that
14 corroborated the substance of the documents as a basis for the Court's
15 determination and as to -- well, both their relevance and their
17 We did, in the course of our submissions, refer to the context in
18 which these documents were presented and the context in which the witness
19 made various denials. We consider that to be relevant for the purposes of
20 the Court's consideration as to the probative nature of the documents and
21 also as to the reliability of the witness's comments in relation to them
22 in some regards. But to the contrary of Mr. Josse's submissions, we in
23 fact relied upon the witness's evidence as a basis for the admission of
24 some of these documents. That's all I have to say, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then, Mr. Margetts, Mr. Josse, his first words
1 were that we should re-read the relevant transcript pages. We'll take
2 time to do that and then we'll come with a ruling. And it's now only
3 about 1065 and 1066.
4 MR. JOSSE: I can confirm that, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
6 Anything else procedural, procedurally? Yes, Mr. Tieger.
7 MR. TIEGER: By way of clarification of an earlier matter, I
8 understand, in fact, the Poplasen exhibits have not been dealt with yet
9 so --
10 JUDGE ORIE: No.
11 MR. TIEGER: -- I'm not proposing we do so however.
12 JUDGE ORIE: I asked the registrar to give the list -- last pages
13 of the list so that we can go through them more quickly than to have
14 everything being read out, and if the parties have that list then in front
15 of them that goes quicker.
16 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour. And finally, I want to
17 identify one small problem and also propose one solution to that. With
18 respect to the Radojko exhibits, tab 48 did not receive a number, but I
19 understand that the number-- the exhibit number, 1108, is available
20 because it was vacated for another exhibit.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 Then, Mr. Registrar, would tab --
23 THE REGISTRAR: Tab 48, Your Honours, was the excerpt of the
24 transcript of the 20th Assembly Session would be given Prosecution Exhibit
25 number P1108.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
2 I further observe that we have not fully resolved yet the
3 numbering of some of the complex 64A exhibits, and therefore -- although
4 it's a kind of an urgency, if we are dealing with any new exhibits at this
5 moment, even if they are already in evidence, they will be assigned new
6 numbers. It's not the way I would prefer to do it, but in the present
7 circumstances it's a safer way of dealing with it.
8 MR. JOSSE: That was very helpfully passed on to me this morning
9 and I'm grateful for that.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
11 Mr. Margetts.
12 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, one further matter, and that is
13 Mr. Josse and I have had discussions in relation to the 65 ter in respect
14 of the current witness. And whilst we, the Prosecution, does not know
15 what topics Mr. Josse intends to deal with today, we are aware from the
16 various documents that he's referred to us that it's highly likely that
17 this witness's evidence will deal with topics which were not the subject
18 of the 65 ter. Presently it's not our intention to intervene if we don't
19 need to, but what we would like to do is reserve our position in relation
20 to that at the conclusion of the evidence in chief assess what position we
21 are in with regard to whether or not we can proceed with the
22 cross-examination today.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's on the record, Mr. Margetts.
24 MR. MARGETTS: Thank you, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Josse.
1 MR. JOSSE: Well, Your Honour, shortly prior to the -- Your Honour
2 coming into court, Mr. Krajisnik indicated to me that at some point
3 today --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, yes, that at a later stage he would like to
5 address the Chamber.
6 MR. JOSSE: He would. Thank you.
7 JUDGE ORIE: If I forget it, which I hope I will not, then please
8 remind me of it.
9 MR. JOSSE: I'm sure Mr. Krajisnik will make sure I remind you.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
11 Then, Madam Usher, could you please escort the witness into the
13 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 [The witness entered court]
16 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon, Mr. Lakic. Please be seated.
17 Mr. Lakic, I would like to remind you that you're still bound by the
18 solemn declaration you have given yesterday at the beginning of your
19 testimony, and I would also -- would like to ask you to very carefully
20 listen to the question and to focus your answer on what Mr. Josse asks
21 you. So, for example, if he would ask you: Have you come by car? Then
22 he might not be interested in the colour of the car but just on whether
23 you came by car, by tram, or by train, or by bus. So try to focus your
24 answers on what is specifically asked you. If Mr. Josse would like to
25 know more, as the make of the car, the colour of the car, he'll certainly
1 ask you. Yes?
2 Please proceed, Mr. Josse.
3 WITNESS: NEDELJKO LAKIC [Resumed]
4 [Witness answered through interpreter]
5 Examination by Mr. Josse: [Continued]
6 Q. Mr. Lakic, I want to start this afternoon by asking you to have a
7 look at tab 2 in the binder, which is a document that you have brought to
8 The Hague. Is that correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And regrettably we don't have a translation for this document, but
11 I'd also like you to have a look at this document --
12 MR. JOSSE: And I have plenty of copies here.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
14 MR. JOSSE: And this document is translated and I'm grateful to my
15 learned friends' assistance in this regard.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I find two documents under tab 2. Is that
17 correct, Mr. --
18 MR. JOSSE: Well, that may be may be right for some --
19 Mr. Margetts and I had a little discussion about this, this morning.
20 Unfortunately, my bundle, for some reason, is defective and only has one
21 document in it. Could I have a look at the registrar's copy for a minute,
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 MR. JOSSE: Well, bearing in mind the bundle I have just seen, I
25 don't need to hand out this second document. Because in Your Honours'
1 copy we can see a document that says the director of the federal commodity
2 reserves. On the back of that is, what I assume, the B/C/S version of
3 that document. And then is the document on the opposite side that's
4 addressed to the Automoto organisation in Belgrade --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
6 MR. JOSSE: -- the witness has brought with him and doesn't have a
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's what I see at this moment. Let's
9 proceed, and it's not a very lengthy document so finally we might be able
10 to deal with it.
11 MR. JOSSE:
12 Q. In fact, I think, Mr. Lakic, you brought both of these documents
13 with you. It transpires that one of them is in evidence in this case and
14 one is not. But you brought them both with you; that's all I want to
15 ascertain from you, sir?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And as I've explained --
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. -- and I'll explain again --
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. -- the one to the federal commodity organisation has been
22 translated, but the other one, to the automobile association in Belgrade,
23 has not been. It's similar, but perhaps you could read out at least the
24 first paragraph and we can get an idea of what that's about. The
25 automobile document, please read out the first paragraph slowly.
1 A. "The Serbian people in Bosnia-Herzegovina find themselves in a
2 very difficult material position, as they have been drawn into a war. The
3 whirlwind of war has engulfed most of the places where Serbs live. This
4 misfortune is even greater because of the very adverse weather conditions,
5 the cold, rain, and snow."
6 Q. I should have asked you. Could you read out to whom this document
7 is addressed.
8 A. The Automobile Association of Bosnia-Herzegovina -- sorry,
10 Q. And we can see that both documents were sent by Mr. Djeric. So
11 the one that you have just read from is an appeal for motor cars. Is that
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Why -- I appreciate these were sent before you joined the
15 government, but do you know why they were sent?
16 A. Yes, before I came, but the situation was such that there weren't
17 any vehicles so we're asking the automobile association to give the
18 government within the scope of their possibilities a certain number of
20 Q. And why, as you understand it, did the government feel it
21 necessary to make the appeal for automobiles to the automobile association
22 and for goods from the federal commodity reserve?
23 A. I don't know the motive.
24 Q. When you became involved in the government, was the government
25 short of motor cars?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And so why did you bring these documents to The Hague?
3 A. I collected all documents that I could use as a witness; among
4 them, I found this document, too.
5 Q. And what were you hoping to demonstrate by producing these?
6 A. What I was hoping to demonstrate was that the government did not
7 have automobiles, did not have any vehicles.
8 Q. So --
9 MR. JOSSE: Your Honour, the position is that the federal
10 commodity reserve document is P64A, binder 25, footnote 718. And I'm
11 grateful to Mr. Margetts for helping me so far as that's concerned. The
12 other document, as far as I'm aware, has not previously been exhibited.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Then it should be assigned provisionally an exhibit
15 THE REGISTRAR: D147, Your Honours.
16 JUDGE ORIE: D147, awaiting ...
17 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. In view of the difficulties we are facing with
19 P64A, Mr. Josse, even if it would be a double number, the federal
20 commodity reserves document would then get -- Mr. Registrar, I take it
22 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours, D148.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. D148.
24 MR. JOSSE: I see how the system's going to work now. Thank you.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we may have doubles now, but at least it avoids
1 any further confusion. By the way, Mr. Josse, it was nice that you asked
2 the witness to read the first lines there. They are literally the same as
3 the other document, so we had the translation already, including this
5 MR. JOSSE: Yes --
6 JUDGE ORIE: You asked him to read it --
7 MR. JOSSE: All those documents are not identical --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Document is not identical, but the part you asked him
9 to read is exactly identical to the first four lines [sic] up to this now
10 of the other document. Yes, please proceed. I must correct myself, it's
11 not literally, although the translation is the same -- has the same few
12 words different. Please proceed.
13 MR. JOSSE:
14 Q. I'd next like you to have a look at tab 4, please. This is
15 another document that you brought with you. Is that correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Could you -- we can see it's a government document dated the 7th
18 of May, 1992. It's signed by yourself as secretary of the government.
19 Could you read out the body of the document slowly.
20 A. "On the basis of the government of the Serb Republic of
21 Bosnia-Herzegovina, Mrs. Rabija Subic has been appointed coordinator in
22 the Ministry of Health, Labour, and Social Welfare, and -- for Families,
23 and she is authorised to coordinate activities for collecting humanitarian
24 and other forms of aid for the needs of the Serb Republic of
25 Bosnia-Herzegovina. We kindly ask that all necessary assistance be given
1 to the mentioned person in view of the duties entrusted to her by the
2 government of the Serb Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina."
3 Q. Now, a few questions on this. First of all, did you sign many
4 documents of this type when you became secretary of the government?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Why did you sign this particular document then?
7 A. Because I was ordered to do so by the president of the government.
8 Q. And why didn't the president or the Prime Minister of the
9 government do that himself?
10 A. I don't know.
11 Q. And to whom was this document sent?
12 A. As far as I can remember, the document was sent to all those
13 willing to provide some humanitarian assistance to the government or to
14 the Serb Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina that is.
15 Q. And the person appointed to this job, Ms. Subic, who was she?
16 A. I don't know who she is.
17 Q. Have you ever met her?
18 A. That same evening when I drafted this document, the Prime Minister
19 was present there as well as some other people.
20 Q. I'll repeat my question. Did you at any stage meet Ms. Subic?
21 A. No. That was the only time.
22 Q. So you met her that day?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Do you know what her ethnicity was?
25 A. I don't know what her ethnicity was, but judging by her name I
1 could venture a guess that she was a Muslim.
2 Q. And have you any idea as to how she got on coordinating these
3 humanitarian supplies on behalf of the government?
4 A. I don't.
5 MR. JOSSE: Could the document have a number, please.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
7 THE REGISTRAR: That will be D150, Your Honours -- D149. Thank
9 MR. JOSSE:
10 Q. We saw yesterday, Mr. Lakic, that in -- that on the 27th of April
11 of 1992 you were appointed secretary to the government. How soon
12 thereafter did you commence attending sessions of the government?
13 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 MR. MARGETTS: This question presumes a fact which is not in
16 evidence. The fact of a formal appointment does not shed light to the
17 extent Mr. Josse suggests in relation to that subject --
18 JUDGE ORIE: And what would happen -- is it your concern that --
19 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, to be brief, it's a leading
20 question --
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yeah, it's a leading question.
22 MR. MARGETTS: Yes.
23 JUDGE ORIE: But what harm could be done on this inquest?
24 And let's first ask the witness: Did you attend any sessions of
25 the government once you were appointed?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you.
3 Mr. Margetts, usually secretaries of bodies attend meetings of
4 those bodies.
5 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, I could develop my submissions if the
6 witness removed his earphones.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I don't think at this moment -- the matter has
8 been resolved, I take it, now, for the time being.
9 MR. MARGETTS: No, the matter has not been resolved.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Lakic, could you take off your earphones
11 for a second.
12 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, maybe we could ask him first whether
13 or not he understands English.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 Do you understand English, Mr. Lakic? No, no, he seems not to
16 understand me.
17 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, I'm satisfied that that's the case.
18 JUDGE ORIE: You don't understand English. Yes. He proved it
19 right away.
20 Yes, Mr. Margetts.
21 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, the 65 ter that was provided to us
22 suggested that prior to the formal appointment, certain duties had been
23 undertaken; furthermore, certain materials that we're looking at suggest
24 that possibly prior to the formal appointment certain duties had been
25 undertaken. So we would like that to be established in a non-leading
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I now understand. Your concern is not whether
3 he attended but whether he started only to attend once he was appointed.
4 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Josse, that seems to be -- I -- I take it that
6 you --
7 MR. JOSSE: Well, my learned friend can ask that question. I
8 mean, the question I asked was a leading question. It was a leading
9 question because it's all over the documents, the attending countless
10 sessions. My learned friend wants to inquire what went on earlier, then
11 he can do that; I don't intend to.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but he objected against leading at this point
13 because it would put him in a situation that he might understand you to
14 suggest to him that he only started attending once he was appointed and
15 that he did not before; and therefore, he objects against leading. But
16 let's -- let's keep matters as simple as we can.
17 MR. JOSSE: If Your Honour would like to ask a question, then I
18 have no difficulty.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's what I -- Mr. Margetts, that's what I had
20 in mind.
21 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour, if I could refer my learned
22 friend to the 65 ter that he provided to the Prosecution, wherein a date
23 of commencement was set out, that being 16 or 17 April, 1992, and possibly
24 if my learned friend referred to that information, he could base his
25 questions on that information he has.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 Mr. Josse, I suggest your question was leading, that you explore
3 the matter in a non-leading way to find out if the witness at any early
4 stage attended those meetings.
5 MR. JOSSE: The 65 ter was wrong. He told me that. It's not for
6 me to give evidence, but that's why I dealt with it like that.
7 JUDGE ORIE: The 65 ter was wrong?
8 MR. JOSSE: Yes, the 65 ter was wrong.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Have you informed Mr. Margetts of this fact?
10 MR. JOSSE: No, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Of course, if the 65 ter is wrong and Mr. Margetts
12 relies on it, then I think it's a better idea to correct any mistake in
13 the 65 ter.
14 MR. JOSSE: Yes.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 Let's proceed, and nevertheless I think it's fair, since you have
17 not informed Mr. Margetts that in a non-leading -- I'll do it myself.
18 Could the witness please put his earphones. That's not --
19 otherwise procedural issues become more important than the substance.
20 Mr. Lakic, before you were appointed secretary of the government,
21 did you attend meetings of governmental bodies or even the government
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I did not. I wasn't present
24 during the meetings of the government or of the counsel because on certain
25 occasions it was a joint session by the government and the counsel. Prior
1 to my taking up these duties, I was working with the municipal
2 misdemeanour court.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 Mr. Josse, please proceed.
5 MR. JOSSE: Could I have a moment?
6 [Defence counsel confer]
7 MR. JOSSE: Well, could the witness have a look, please, at this
8 document. I will try my very best not to lead on matters which I might
9 otherwise have been more contentious.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We do not know yet what is presented to the
11 witness at this moment.
12 MR. JOSSE: This is for the ELMO.
13 JUDGE ORIE: That's for the ELMO, yes. This is for the witness
14 and that's for the ELMO. Yes.
15 MR. JOSSE: It's the second page of the document.
16 Q. A name appears there at the bottom. Whose name is it, please?
17 I've been told not to lead you, you see, Mr. Lakic, so I'm going to ask
18 you non-leading questions?
19 JUDGE ORIE: Well, Mr. Josse, let's --
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
21 MR. JOSSE:
22 Q. It's your name, isn't it, as well as Mr. Djeric's?
23 A. Yes, yes.
24 Q. Now, the -- presumably the only way you could ascertain whether
25 that was the first set of minutes that you in fact signed is by looking at
1 all the previous minutes --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Josse, what's the document in front of the
3 witness. I see now on the ELMO, I see six lines of a document --
4 MR. JOSSE: The 13th Session of the government.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
6 MR. JOSSE: I'm sorry. Dated the 23rd of May.
7 Q. That's right, isn't it, sir? Mr. Lakic?
8 A. Yes. This is the name of Velibor Ostojic. I didn't used to know
9 him personally, but I heard of him.
10 Q. No, I'm going to stop you. In the English translation we have
11 got, on page 2 there are two names at the bottom, secretary to the
12 government, Nedeljko Lakic; government President, Professor Dr. Branko
13 Djeric. Do those two names appear in the original?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Do you know whether that was a first set of minutes that you
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Was that the first meeting that you attended or can't you
20 A. I don't think I can remember.
21 Q. Have you any idea why those were the first set of minutes that you
23 A. In all likelihood, that was at the moment when the Council for
24 National Security had been split or separated and also one of the first
25 instances of the official sessions of the newly appointed government of
1 the Serb Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
2 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, for the Court's reference I can
3 indicate that the government minutes of 23 May, 1992, have Exhibit Number
4 P529 --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Tab 107 --
6 MR. MARGETTS: Tab 107. Thank you, Your Honour.
7 MR. JOSSE: Does Your Honour want those to have a new number?
8 That's the only reference I intend to make to them.
9 JUDGE ORIE: This is team-work, Mr. Josse.
10 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
11 JUDGE ORIE: I think this one doesn't need a number. It's well
12 accessible for the Chamber.
13 MR. JOSSE: Yes. I'll have those documents back. Thank you.
14 Q. At the point that you became -- well, at the point that you began
15 to sign these minutes, how were the minutes taken at the relevant
17 A. At the time I started signing these minutes, those were one of the
18 first steps made by the new government, and it was the first time that the
19 government appeared as an independent, executive body, having the Prime
20 Minister and the ministers present at this session. I wanted to mention,
21 though, that I was not a member of the government.
22 Q. What I was trying to ask you about, Mr. Lakic, was minute-taking.
23 I don't think we need to spend very long on this, but the physical act of
24 minute-taking, how was that performed at the meetings? Did you do it
25 yourself? Did someone help you? Were the sessions recorded?
1 A. At the time there were no recordings made of the sessions. I
2 worked on the basis of the minutes kept by myself to a large extent. The
3 lady I mentioned yesterday was the only one with a university degree, and
4 in the initial phases she still wasn't with the government.
5 Q. I'm going to show you the minutes of the 5th of June.
6 JUDGE ORIE: May I take it that that's P583, tab 16?
7 MR. JOSSE: And again, I hope I'll be permitted to lead.
8 Q. These were the first minutes in which the names of the attendees
9 was recorded. Whose idea was it to record the names of those attending
10 the meetings?
11 A. The idea was mine and that of the Prime Minister so that, first of
12 all, we would know who the members of the government were and who was
14 Q. And thereafter that was done for most, if not every meeting. Is
15 that correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 MR. JOSSE: Could I have that back, please.
18 Q. I want to now concentrate, please, on discussions at various
19 meetings of prisoners and the such-like. It might be best, first of all,
20 that ask you to look at tab 5.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. There are two separate documents in tab 5, both dated the 15th of
23 May, both from Mr. Djeric. Can you confirm that these two --
24 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, if I may stop Mr. Josse there. He may
25 have misspoken as to the authorship of the documents.
1 MR. JOSSE: I did. Thank you very much. I'm very grateful.
2 Q. The first document we see that is an order that the Sokolac Crisis
3 Staff is from Dr. Djeric. The second document, which is a note to the
4 Crisis Staff of Ilijas, is signed by you. Are these two documents related
5 in any way?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Could you explain in what way they are related.
8 A. The Prime Minister issued an order that a number of detainees who,
9 if I remember correctly were from Bratunac, were to be transported in a
10 safe manner to the territory of the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina, that
11 is, to the territory that was not under the control of the RS. In
12 carrying out of that order - and I can't recall precisely what the exact
13 number of the detainees concerned was - I tried to secure transportation
14 from two municipalities, those of Sokolac and Ilijas, in order to be able
15 to implement the order of the Prime Minister and for those people to be
16 transported to the territory of the Federation of B & H.
17 Q. Why did these people need to be transported at all?
18 A. Those people were detainees mainly and they had to be transported
19 for safety reasons and in such a way that their safety was -- would not --
20 was not jeopardised in any way in their process of being transported
21 through the territory of the RS.
22 Q. Do you know why they were being detained?
23 A. I don't know.
24 Q. Why did this operation involve you?
25 A. Because the Prime Minister ordered that I carry out this task, and
1 I was the then-secretary to the government.
2 Q. The document that you signed was designed, presumably, for the
3 Crisis Staff at Ilijas. How was it going to get to the Crisis Staff at
4 Ilijas, as far as you were concerned?
5 A. It reached the Crisis Staff of Ilijas because it was arranged for
6 those people to be transported to the territory of Visoko, and the
7 municipality of Ilijas is adjacent to the municipality of Visoko.
8 Q. That doesn't explain how the document was going to get to the
9 Crisis Staff. I could ask you a leading question, but I suspect that I'd
10 be stopped from doing that. How, physically, was the document meant to
11 get to the Crisis Staff at Ilijas?
12 A. In my view and in my knowledge, the telephone lines were cut off
13 and I wasn't sure whether that would eventually reach the Crisis Staff.
14 So we entrusted the document to a person who carried it there.
15 Q. And was the person who carried it there with the detainees or did
16 he go to Ilijas on his own?
17 A. He was one of the policemen. I can't recall his name, but he was
18 within the security detail of the convoy and he was carrying that letter
19 to the Crisis Staff of Ilijas.
20 Q. We see that you have said: "Please destroy that approval the
21 moment when the prisoners leave Ilijas municipality."
22 Why did you write that?
23 A. I wrote that because we were in the state of war and for security
24 reasons, to make it safer for the security detail as well as for those who
25 were being transported to the territory of Visoko municipality. The war
1 was ongoing and the concern was that of security.
2 Q. Have you any idea how it is in those circumstances that the
3 document still exists?
4 A. I don't believe that this document is in dispute. It doesn't --
5 it simply confirms certain things, and this was with the interest of
6 guaranteeing the safety of the detainees.
7 MR. JOSSE: Both documents, Your Honour, have numbers. I don't
8 know if Your Honour wishes them to have new numbers.
9 JUDGE ORIE: No, I don't think we need new numbers for these
11 But could I ask the witness: In -- how could the -- how could the
12 existence of this document affect the security of anyone?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It concerned the safety of all those
14 on the convoy, the detainees and the security detail.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but once they left the municipality, how could
16 that harm the safety of the -- of the detainees?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In all likelihood, that concerned
18 the people who were securing the transport.
19 JUDGE ORIE: I still do not understand. Does it -- how could they
20 be affected by the existence of this document?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This was an order for the organs of
22 the Ministry of the Interior, that is to say the police. At that moment,
23 at that time, about 50 people from Pale got killed in fighting with the
24 members of the units of the Territorial Defence of Zepa.
25 JUDGE ORIE: I still don't understand. I mean, people are
1 escorting a large group of detainees, so it seems not to be a great secret
2 that they are --
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
4 JUDGE ORIE: -- accompanying detainees. Once they have them --
5 delivered them somewhere, then what does this document say? Nothing,
6 apart from that there had been a transport and they had been escorted and
7 that the Crisis Staff of Ilijas was to cooperate. How could that affect
8 security of -- again, of whom?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Well, there was a war going
10 on, and this was done just in case so that it would be known that they --
11 these people were not transported through the territory of the
12 municipality of Pale and Ilijas.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Did -- they were or they were not transported? Your
14 answer is not --
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, they were transported and
16 safely so to the territory of the municipality of Visoko. And there were
17 no excesses on the way.
18 JUDGE ORIE: No, but during the transport the document still
19 existed, isn't it, because it was to be destroyed once the prisoners leave
20 Ilijas municipality, not when they were still there?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Probably somebody didn't do that,
22 although it was their duty to do it.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but that's not an answer to my question.
24 Please proceed, Mr. Josse.
25 MR. JOSSE: Can I have a moment?
1 [Defence counsel and accused confer]
2 MR. JOSSE: Thank you.
3 Q. Have a look, please, at tab 6.
4 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour.
5 MR. JOSSE: Yes --
6 MR. MARGETTS: And if I could address this question, obviously, to
7 the Trial Chamber and ultimately to Mr. Josse. In the materials we were
8 presented with yesterday, a particular translation of this document was
9 presented and I've alerted Mr. Josse to the fact that that's an erroneous
10 translation, that's the one headed "draft translation" on the first page,
11 L0101953, and I've supplied to Mr. Josse the corrected translation --
12 MR. JOSSE: And I've got plenty of copies here and I'm grateful to
13 Mr. Margetts. Thank you.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, before we continue, the two documents were said
17 would not need a new number, the two 15th of May documents are tab 123 and
18 tab 124. I take it from P exhibit 583. Is that correct?
19 MR. JOSSE: That's what I understood.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then please proceed.
21 MR. JOSSE:
22 Q. Have you seen this report before?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. In what circumstances have you seen this report?
25 A. Because the government discussed the issue of refugees and
1 detained persons and set up a central commission to ascertain what the
2 situation was in the camps, in the collection camps, and then information
3 was supposed to be presented to the government. On the basis of that
4 information, the president of the central commission passed this order
5 related to the treatment of refugees and displaced persons in these
7 Q. Have a look, please, at the 20 --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Josse, do we have already a number for tab 6?
9 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
11 MR. MARGETTS: Tab 6, the order dated 6th June, 1992, was first
12 presented as Exhibit P435; subsequently it also gained an additional
13 number, P583, Trbojevic, tab 75.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, thank you.
15 And was that with the better, new translation?
16 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, this is a -- well, I'll put it --
17 quite frankly, this is an embarrassing situation. The P435 was presented
18 with the correct translation, and in dealing with the document on the
19 second occasion when it gained the second number, the wrong translation
20 was dealt with in Court I believe. There is a discernible difference
21 between the two translations, if Your Honour would wish to compare them,
22 and the difference is the fourth paragraph on the correct translation is
23 missing from the defective translation.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then, Mr. Margetts, you're invited to present
25 to the registrar a replacement with the right correction of P583, tab 75.
1 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour, we'll do so.
2 JUDGE ORIE: And then we'll work --
3 MR. JOSSE: Your Honour, I can do that now, I've got one here.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 MR. JOSSE: We've all got one.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
7 MR. JOSSE: And I've got it because Mr. Margetts was good enough
8 to send it to me.
9 MR. MARGETTS: Thank my learned friend.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Then let's proceed. Yes.
11 MR. JOSSE: I'd like the witness to have a look, please, at the
12 minutes of the 24th government session, 9th of June, 1992, and it's first
13 page in English that needs to go on the ELMO, please.
14 Q. We see item number 1 on the agenda of this particular meeting is
15 the fact that the government has supported the order of the Central
16 Committee for the Exchange of Prisoners and acknowledged the letter of
17 correspondence in the presence of the Central Committee for the Exchange
18 of the Prisoners.
19 Is this a reference to the document?
20 A. [No interpretation]
21 MR. JOSSE: The witness said something I didn't get a translation
23 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear the witness at all.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please repeat your answer, Mr. Lakic,
25 because the interpreters could not hear you.
1 MR. JOSSE:
2 Q. Mr. Lakic, you said something a moment ago, one or two words, what
3 was it you just said, please?
4 A. I'm sorry, I misspoke.
5 MR. JOSSE: I'll move on, if I may?
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you may.
7 MR. JOSSE:
8 Q. What I want to ask you is: Is this a reference to item number 1
9 in the report I've just asked you to look at?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And if we turn to page 2 in the English, you've got it there and
12 the -- well, I think the second page in the original, Mr. Lakic. We see
13 what the government stance is in relation to the treatment of exchange of
14 prisoners. What was your role in the matters described in that document?
15 The minutes I'm talking about.
16 A. My role was to formulate the positions of the government.
17 Q. And we can see the role -- the stance the government was taking in
18 relation to this matter. Were these -- was the government stance put into
20 A. The government regularly monitored the situation in these
21 collection centres and camps, and the position was to carry out an
22 exchange -- or rather, to first release all those civilians who had not
23 participated in war operations, to provide proper sanitary conditions for
24 them, to observe the provisions of humanitarian law. Then persons in
25 camps were supposed to be given food regularly or -- actually, they were
1 allowed to have their families bring food in. Women were given special
2 treatment by way of appropriate sanitary technical conditions, apart from
3 those provided for the men. Further on, to have exchanges carried out as
4 soon as possible, exchanges of detainees who had not committed any crimes.
5 And I think that it says so here, that the exchange should be carried out
6 on the basis of the principle all-for-all, and also that it was prohibited
7 to take any kind of financial remuneration for the exchanges. That would
8 be it, as briefly as possible.
9 Q. As far as you were concerned, were these efforts genuine?
10 A. As for the government, yes. I think that this order was carried
11 out to a considerable degree.
12 Q. I'd next like you to have a look --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Have you dealt with the matter, Mr. Josse?
14 MR. JOSSE: Yes.
15 JUDGE ORIE: One question you said: "And the position was to
16 carry out an exchange -- or rather, to first release all those civilians
17 who had not participated in war operations ..."
18 Where do I find that -- do I find that in this document
19 specifically or ...
20 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
21 JUDGE ORIE: Could you answer my question? I was asking whether
22 we find anywhere in the documents that you were presented with this
23 specific point you mentioned, that is: "To first release all those
24 civilians who had not participated in war operations."
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the information provided by the
1 commission that toward Krajina this provision is contained and there are
2 three categories. The first one are the civilians who have to be released
3 immediately; the second category are people who collected weapons for war
4 operations; and the third category were people who were engaged in war
5 operations. So this is an integral part of this decree, and I think that
6 it's contained in the materials. That provision, that is.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Josse, I did not find it in the materials you
8 presented to the witness at this moment, but of course reading through it
9 very quickly, I might have missed something. I take it you will draw your
10 attention to it if it's found somewhere. General instruction: Release
11 all civilians that had not been involved in war operations.
12 Mr. Josse, for reasons unknown to you, I'd like to have an earlier
13 break. Could you find a moment within the next two or three minutes to --
14 MR. JOSSE: Now would be as good as any. Thank you.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you.
16 Then we will have an early break today at this moment.
17 Mr. Lakic, we'll have a break for -- until five minutes past 4.00,
18 and I hope to be able to re-start at that time. I could be a couple of
19 minutes late.
20 MR. JOSSE: What's -- I'll --
21 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, yes, it's the matter of Mr. Krajisnik.
22 MR. JOSSE: Yes.
23 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand. I suggest that we do that first
24 after the break, if that is suitable.
25 MR. JOSSE: Yes. I hope Mr. Stewart is going to be here. I'd
1 invite -- he's -- he's on his way, I understand.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Has that -- because there's an urgent matter
3 I'd like to deal with at this very moment --
4 MR. JOSSE: Of course. Perhaps Your Honour should rise and we'll
5 start that out --
6 JUDGE ORIE: We'll re-start most likely at five minutes past 4.00,
7 and we'll then first give an opportunity to Mr. Krajisnik, so the witness
8 could then wait outside the courtroom until he's called in again. Yes.
9 --- Recess taken at 3.37 p.m.
10 [The witness stands down]
11 --- On resuming at 4.31 p.m.
12 JUDGE ORIE: I apologise for the late start, but it was not
13 totally unexpected.
14 Mr. Krajisnik, you asked whether you could address the Court.
15 Could that be done in open session or would you rather do that in private
16 or closed session?
17 THE ACCUSED: [No verbal response]
18 JUDGE ORIE: I see you nodding, I take it then that you agree then
19 with open session?
20 THE ACCUSED: [No verbal response]
21 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] First of all, I would like to thank
23 the Trial Chamber for allowing me to address them. I will try to be as
24 brief as possible, not to take up your time. There are two reasons. One
25 is my health condition, which is closely linked to this trial. In actual
1 fact, I would first of all like to say to you, Your Honours, I am a man
2 who respects people; I respect you, too. If I say something, please do
3 not understand that as lack of respect for the Court, least of all lack of
4 respect for you as individuals. But I would like to say something in
5 relation to these two problems.
6 You know that my lawyer familiarised you with the situation, and
7 the doctors have provided their report as well. In the meantime, my
8 condition has been -- improved and I was happy. But now, in fact, my
9 condition is the same -- or rather, it's come back. I've started sweating
10 during the night again, changing my clothes, that's an enormous problem.
11 And I'm going to say why I think I feel that way.
12 I am worried about the way this trial is progressing. You
13 decided - probably rightly so - that I should not defend myself. I am
14 just asking for a fair trial. I don't think I would be affected in any
15 way if that were so. Now, why am I affected this badly? What's the
16 problem? You know that the main problem of the Defence is time. Every
17 moment should be used for preparing the Defence, especially my own
18 testimony. Yesterday there was a culmination. Please don't mind my
19 saying so, but Mr. Radojko's testimony was a culmination. I saw that it's
20 the Prosecutor who gets our free time. I'll explain what I mean.
21 For the first time, my counsel and I saw Radojko here when he came
22 here and we had a meeting with him for one hour, whereas the gentlemen of
23 the Prosecution had preparations with him for a few days -- or rather, an
24 interview. And they prepared him for testifying here, then they had
25 Brdjanin here. Now when my counsel finished, having made a maximum effort
1 to examine Mr. Radojko, then the esteemed Mr. Tieger practically got
2 unlimited time to examine the witness on a countless number of documents.
3 Every time I get this many documents, as I've shown you.
4 I continue to live in archives, among archives, and instead of
5 using this free time for preparing my testimony -- well, also, we're
6 waiting to see here now whether the witness will make a mistake and
7 establish some link with Pale. I never saw him and I never saw his
8 president. I'm very worried. This is one of the questions that worries
9 me. It's not only now. All our witnesses got heaps of documents from the
10 Prosecutors and only a few documents from our lawyers because they cannot
11 prepare properly. I do not want to have any deferral of trial; I want
12 this trial to be over as soon as possible. But I don't think it's right
13 to be placed in an unfair position. The Prosecutor should have the same
14 amount of time that we did. Remember how many times you interrupted us
15 when we were questioning our witnesses. So that's the first question.
16 The second question that worries me is our number of witnesses.
17 500 witnesses were interviewed. Mr. Stewart and our team -- well, maybe
18 I'll exaggerate, but for a month we only made lists rather than prepare,
19 how to reduce this to 20 witnesses. Your Honours, the truth here cannot
20 be established only through the testimony of Momcilo Krajisnik, but
21 through a number of witnesses. Somebody can say that Momcilo Krajisnik is
22 partial. What particularly surprised me was that Mr. Stewart said that he
23 would give up on the expert witness. I talked to him after that, asking
24 him why he did that. Quite simply, he didn't have time and he also told
25 me there is no money for that. So these witnesses would not be all that
1 useful, then I just put a logical question. Why were they useful for the
2 Prosecution? Why did they call six expert witnesses? Did they just waste
3 their money or are expert witnesses useless? I'm sure that Mr. Stewart
4 made a maximum effort, but I think it's a question of money and time.
5 I'm saying all of this, Your Honours, for the benefit of the
6 transcript, for history. I was a yardstick for a man who had good, solid
7 nerves and was of sound health. Nowadays, I work until 2.00 or 3.00 in
8 the morning so that we'd have enough time to agree on everything. And,
9 quite simply, I see that we have to - well, please don't mind my saying
10 so - but we have to find any kind of witnesses in order to get somebody in
11 here because many of our witnesses were simply frightened. For those who
12 have already testified, rumour has it now that they will be punished in
13 some way, and some of them have already had their houses searched over
15 So please don't mind what I'm saying, but I want to say that I'm
16 glad you protect witnesses. Witnesses should be protected and nothing bad
17 should be said about witnesses, but this witness who said that I fought
18 with a man and took money away, well, you know, you'd have to say: Well,
19 this person is a person, too. Let's check this out. Not only whether
20 somebody took the money. All of this has an affect on a person. That's
21 why I'm asking you and I'm addressing you, Mr. President of the Trial
22 Chamber, and also Judge Canivell, please just give me a fair trial. In
23 the depth of my heart I feel that it is not fair for the Prosecution to
24 call 150 or so witnesses, whereas we barely have 20. And these people
25 have such a lot of trouble bringing them in. So my health only gets worse
1 on account of that, too.
2 So, please, put us on a footing of equality, the Defence counsel
3 and the Prosecution. Help us call two or three expert witnesses at least
4 so that they would reply to the witnesses called by the Prosecution, so
5 that I do not sweat at night during these countless nights in those
6 archives. Please, for the sake of your own ethics, let me have a fair
7 trial. I am happy that all of you will be examining me. Question me for
8 ten years if you want, about anything, but Momcilo Krajisnik cannot
9 replace witnesses who are here and who should be here. You've seen this
10 man. He's afraid, and you don't know what happens to these people. I'm
11 not going to talk about these cases from the court, generally speaking,
12 and also the things that happened in prison. I'm now asking you only in
13 my own name. Please, give me a fair trial. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear
14 enough. If something was not clear, I'm prepared to explain, and I really
15 appreciate the fact that you didn't interrupt me. Thank you.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Krajisnik. I'll not be able to deal
17 with all the matters you've raised before I have consulted with my
18 colleagues. One thing is two -- you may remain seated. There's no reason
19 to stand, but you certainly raised clearly the health issue. You said
20 where it improved it's now become worse again. We'll consider how to
21 respond to that.
22 Second, you have clearly expressed your concerns about time and
23 facilities for the Defence. Of course that is an issue that has been
24 discussed many, many times here, but that's not reason not to again
25 discuss it thoroughly among ourselves after having given an opportunity to
1 the Prosecution to also give their view on the matter.
2 Finally, where you said you are insisting on receiving a fair
3 trial, you brought that with - may I say - an almost desperate matter,
4 calling upon us not to deprive you from a fair trial. We'll certainly
5 consider that again. It's not the first time we'll consider it. It's
6 often on our mind and it's often a subject in our discussions.
7 Finally, you said that you are not raising certain matters also
8 that happened in the Detention Unit recently. Without going into it, of
9 course this Chamber is aware that it has an impact on everyone who is
10 detained in the United Nations Detention Unit. Even without discussing
11 it, even where you do not raise it, please be convinced that it's not
12 something that we would not -- we would not be aware of. I mean, every
13 human being would be aware of that.
14 We'll take some more time to read again what you said, after
15 having carefully listened to it, and then we'll come back on the matter.
16 I can't say you -- tell you exactly when.
17 Mr. Tieger, is there, at this moment, a need to give a response or
18 would you rather first think it over, whether you would respond to
19 Mr. Krajisnik's observations? Or would you say: Let the Chamber consider
20 it as it deems fit?
21 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour. I would be more than happy,
22 and perhaps it's more prudent to reserve a response and consider whether
23 any particular matters, or the matter more generally, will be assisted by
24 any additional contributions from the Prosecution. So --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes --
1 MR. TIEGER: -- rather than take up time at this point, I'd like to
2 consider it and get back to you --
3 JUDGE ORIE: We'll hear, then, from you, I take it, somewhere in
4 the beginning of next week whether there's any specific point on which
5 you'd like to respond, and we'll further then consider the matter.
6 Then if there's -- I was about to say if there's no other
7 procedural issue --
8 MR. STEWART: Only this, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 MR. STEWART: My position is exactly the same as Mr. Tieger's,
11 Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 MR. STEWART: It's a matter meriting consideration before we
14 return to it. But just, with respect, to remind Your Honour that when
15 Mr. Krajisnik says something and the Prosecution are invited to respond,
16 Mr. Krajisnik is represented by counsel so that when the matter comes to
17 be fully considered, Mr. Krajisnik's counsel have every bit then as much a
18 role in the matter, certainly as prosecuting counsel.
19 JUDGE ORIE: I should have given you an opportunity. At the same
20 time, I'm not seeking at any moment a situation where you would have to
21 express not to fully or entirely support what Mr. Krajisnik said. I did
22 understand that Mr. Krajisnik has consulted with you before making this
23 statement. That's at least the impression I gained.
24 MR. STEWART: We met, Your Honour, during the break. But,
25 Your Honour, my position would have been this, exactly the same, in this
1 respect, as Mr. Tieger's. It requires thinking about before anything
2 further is being said. I don't wish to say anything this afternoon.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Let's give it at least the weekend for further
4 consideration and reflection. Yes.
5 Then, Madam Usher, could you please escort Mr. Lakic into the
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 [The witness entered court]
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lakic, you had to wait for quite some time. We
10 would have wished to have you back earlier, but other matters asked our
11 attention meanwhile. Mr. Josse will now continue his examination.
12 WITNESS: NEDELJKO LAKIC [Resumed]
13 [Witness answered through interpreter]
14 Examination by Mr. Josse: [Continued]
15 MR. JOSSE:
16 Q. I'd next like you to have a look at the minutes of a closed
17 session of the government held on the 19th of August of 1992.
18 MR. JOSSE: There is the B/C/S version, and the English version to
19 go on the ELMO.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Is that P583, tab 38, I take it? 47th Session of
21 government, 19th of August, 1992. And a -- well, we have to compare that
22 also with P583, tab 91, because there seem to be two numbers.
23 MR. JOSSE: Well, there were two sessions that day I think.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
25 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour, I can confirm that's the correct
1 exhibit number.
2 MR. JOSSE:
3 Q. I want to ask you about number 1 which deals with captives,
4 collective centres, investigation centres; and number 2 deals with
5 accommodation, the military camp in Manjaca, prisoners of war. What was
6 the government trying to achieve at this point?
7 MR. JOSSE: Could I -- I'm going to give another version of this
8 to the witness. The one he's got is -- if Madam Usher could give him
9 that, please. The one he was given had something printed on the reverse
10 side which could only confuse.
11 Thank you.
12 Q. What can you tell us about this, Mr. Lakic, if anything? If you
13 don't remember, say so.
14 A. Yes. This report was put together based on a report by the
15 commission which visited the centres for detainees in the western part of
16 Republika Srpska. The essence of the conclusion made by the government
17 here is that conditions related to accommodation should be improved
18 concerning the detainees in the aforementioned centres; then, to create
19 better conditions; to provide food; to provide security of the
20 aforementioned facilities by the Ministry of Defence and of the Interior;
21 and that the security of the facilities be transferred within the
22 competency of the armed forces.
23 Q. Have a look, please, now at -- sorry, Mr. Lakic, had you finished?
24 A. One can clearly see in the document as to how far you got with the
25 question, that is, I wanted to say that the issue of Trnopolje should be
1 dealt with as soon as possible and that the Ministry of Defence and of the
2 Interior put into force regulation on the condition -- conditions
3 prevailing in such detention centres.
4 Q. What was the state of knowledge at the time in relation to
6 A. The report was not a very optimistic one; it was realistic in its
7 essence, stating that the conditions should be improved because the
8 detainees had to sleep on the ground in large rooms where they were all
9 placed together. And I believe the only thing they had at their disposal
10 were mattresses, if that's what they're called.
11 Q. Have a look, please, at tab 8.
12 MR. JOSSE: This, I understand, is P583, tab 92, Your Honour?
13 Q. How does this --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and for the previous document I gave two
15 numbers. I think the first one I gave was the minutes of the 47th Session
16 which was not a closed session, and we dealt, as a matter of fact, with
17 5 -- 583, tab 91, which is the minutes of a closed session of the
18 government on the 19th of August, 1992.
19 MR. JOSSE:
20 Q. The report that you now have in front of you, Mr. Lakic, that's
21 dated the 22nd of August -- it was received the 22nd of August. The
22 report itself is undated. How does that fit in to the minutes we have
23 just looked at?
24 A. The same person made the minutes in the eastern part of
1 Q. I'm sorry, when you say "the same person made the minutes in the
2 eastern part of Herzegovina," what do you mean by --
3 A. A member of the commission.
4 Q. What do you mean by "minutes"?
5 A. Sorry, the report.
6 Q. This is a separate report, is it?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Why was the session on the 19th of August a closed session?
9 A. I couldn't say.
10 Q. Whose decision was it to hold that session privately?
11 A. The Prime Minister was the one who always decided whether a
12 session would be an open or a closed one.
13 Q. We've looked, both before and after the break, at a couple of
14 reports, some government minutes. Beyond what's contained in those
15 reports, did you have any personal knowledge of what was happening at
16 these various places of detention and in relation to people who were being
18 A. I had no knowledge of it.
19 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, if I might assist with the exhibit
20 number for tab 8. It's P583, tab 92.
21 MR. JOSSE: I think I'd -- I think I'd mentioned that already.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's what my recollection is as well.
23 Please proceed.
24 MR. JOSSE:
25 Q. I want to move on to a different topic, please, Mr. Lakic. What
1 did you understand in 1992 by the expression "expanded Presidency"?
2 A. There was the Presidency, the members of which were
3 Mrs. Biljana Plavsic and Mr. Nikola Koljevic. When they held sessions,
4 during such sessions the Prime Minister, the president of the Assembly, as
5 well as the ministers who had to report on their respective issues were
6 allowed to attend.
7 Q. Was there a -- an expanded Presidency, as far as you were aware?
8 A. No, there wasn't.
9 Q. How do you know that?
10 A. I know that because there were only two members to the Presidency
11 according to the constitution. Later on a constitutional law was put into
12 force appointing a third member of the Presidency, that being
13 Mr. Radovan Karadzic.
14 Q. Did Mr. Djeric ever suggest to you that he was a member of an
15 expanded Presidency?
16 A. No, never.
17 Q. Please have a look at the minutes of the 23rd of May government
18 session. It's item number 3 that I would like you to look at.
19 A. Yes. I looked at it.
20 Q. What did you understand that entry in the minutes to mean?
21 A. There was war going on, but that is to be distinguished from the
22 state of war.
23 Q. Was a state of war ever declared?
24 A. By the end of 1995.
25 Q. By the end of 1995? Is what --
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Was it declared before that date?
3 A. I may have made a mistake, but it was certainly somewhere during
5 Q. I'd also like you to have a look at the minutes of the 31st of
6 May, item number 1. Do these constitutional amendments help you on the
7 issue of the expanded Presidency?
8 A. No. It does not concern itself with the expanded Presidency of
9 the RS but, rather, with the expanded Presidencies of municipalities.
10 Q. Put the document down for a moment. There was a war going on in
11 Bosnia, wasn't there?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Why wasn't a state of war declared by the government of the
14 Republika Srpska?
15 A. The government had analysed the general situation and the
16 developments during the war and was of the position that there was no need
17 to declare a state of war. As the basis, they used the fact that once a
18 state of war is declared, the functioning of all institutions in the RS
19 are being put out of force, starting with the Assembly and the government,
20 down to the municipalities. And the government was already in the process
21 of undertaking the measures needed to organise the rule of law and the
22 functioning of institutions, in particular the judiciary, the misdemeanour
23 courts, and the criminal courts, that is. They functioned properly, hence
24 the decision not to declare a state of war.
25 Q. What would have been the effect on the government and
1 administration of the Republika Srpska had a state of war been declared?
2 A. By having declared a state of war, only the expanded Presidency
3 would have remained; everything else would not -- could not function.
4 Q. In terms of functions, what was communications like between the
5 government and municipalities? I know that's a very general question. If
6 you can answer it in a general sense, do so; if you can't, say so.
7 A. The government tasked individual ministers to visit Assemblies in
8 the territories where they could go and the territories that they could
9 reach those Assemblies and to keep them informed. But ...
10 Q. Yes, go on, Mr. Lakic.
11 A. Communication was very difficult at the time. There were no links
12 established. The territory was split in different parts and it was
13 difficult to reach certain municipalities and people went the round-about
14 way quite often.
15 Q. Was Mr. Krajisnik a member of an expanded Presidency?
16 A. No, he wasn't.
17 Q. Was Mr. Krajisnik a member of the government?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Did Mr. Krajisnik play any part in the government?
20 A. Mr. Krajisnik did not play any part in the government. He
21 exclusively worked with the functioning of the Assembly of the RS.
22 Q. And beyond the functioning of the Assembly of the RS, where did
23 his power lie?
24 A. I don't know. Perhaps within the Serb Democratic Party, although
25 it was separate from state functions, perhaps.
1 Q. What --
2 A. And he would also receive people coming in from the field.
3 Q. Why do you use the word "perhaps"?
4 A. Because I was at Jahorina, and Mr. Krajisnik was in Kikinda. And
5 the distance between the two is about 30 kilometres.
6 Q. Was Mr. Krajisnik, as far as you were aware, a popular figure in
7 the Republika Srpska?
8 A. Yes, he was. But his popularity was due to the fact that he was a
9 good professional, a persistent person, and that he did good work as the
10 Assembly president, prior to the war and during the war.
11 Q. Did Mr. Krajisnik have the power to punish individuals?
12 A. No, he didn't.
13 Q. How do you know that?
14 A. Because all the decisions were made by the Assembly.
15 Mr. Krajisnik was the speaker of the Assembly, without any competences in
16 particular. And I never heard and I never learned of him anyone --
17 punishing anyone ever.
18 Q. Did you ever hear of Mr. Krajisnik encouraging or endorsing war
20 A. No, never.
21 Q. What about the government that you were the chief civil servant
22 of, did that have a plan to ethnically cleanse Muslims from large parts of
23 the Republika Srpska?
24 A. I don't know of any such plan.
25 Q. Was that anything that was discussed, either at meetings, behind
1 closed doors, or in any sense at all by the government or its members?
2 A. As far as I know, it wasn't discussed during any of the meetings
3 or either during, be it the open or the closed, sessions of the
4 government. The ethnic cleansing of territory was never discussed, at
5 least not the territories that were under the governmental control.
6 Q. Same question in relation to the Presidency. Did you ever get the
7 impression that it was a policy of the Presidency to ethnically cleanse
8 large parts of the Republika Srpska?
9 A. I didn't communicate with the Presidency at all, meaning I wasn't
10 present during their sessions. As regards their position, the -- that was
11 never discussed with the government.
12 Q. Thank you.
13 MR. JOSSE: I have no further questions.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Josse.
15 Mr. Tieger, could you start with the cross-examination of
16 Mr. Lakic? I take it that we'll have a break at approximately -- in
17 approximately 15 minutes -- oh, Mr. Margetts, I'm addressing Mr. Tieger
18 and I should have addressed you, I take it.
19 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour. You say that we'll have a
20 break --
21 JUDGE ORIE: After approximately 15 minutes from now.
22 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, there are a number of matters that
23 were raised in that examination that were not part of the 65 ter, and it's
24 our submission that we'll need time to consider those matters and we'd ask
25 for a break of --
1 JUDGE ORIE: At this very moment?
2 MR. MARGETTS: At this moment and continuing for 25 minutes.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, so we then re-start at quarter to 6.00? Is
4 that -- ten minutes to 6.00?
5 MR. MARGETTS: Ten minutes to 6.00, yes, Your Honour.
6 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, excuse me, I'm sorry.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Tieger.
8 MR. TIEGER: I'm going to raise a more general matter in
9 connection with this, too, as -- I don't mean to double-up in any way.
10 But it's a matter that has concerned us for some time and it's certainly
11 reflected in this particular instance. It's quite an understatement to
12 say that there are a number of matters that were raised that weren't part
13 of the 65 ter. The 65 ter is entirely topical to the extent it exists
14 utterly bereft of facts from which the Prosecution could begin to prepare.
15 Apart from that, virtually every topic covered here was not even addressed
16 topically in the 65 ter. So we will adjourn for the purpose of
17 determining whether it is even possible to go forward today. But a 65 ter
18 summary like this places the Prosecution in a nearly impossible position,
19 and moving forward, in my judgement, based on the number of topics that
20 were not mentioned, all of which are more significant than those to the
21 case than those that were, is an extremely problematic matter.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Josse.
23 MR. JOSSE: Your Honour, perhaps the witness could --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Could already be excused for the moment?
25 MR. JOSSE: Yes, exactly.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lakic, we'll -- it's not entirely certain yet
2 whether we'll continue today, but at least we'll have a break and you'll
3 be informed about it. So if you would please follow Madam Usher.
4 [The witness stands down]
5 MR. JOSSE: I can be very brief, Your Honour, and I'm not going to
6 refute anything that my learned friends have said. Mr. Krajisnik is well
7 able to speak for himself; he's done that. But in my submission, two
8 sides of the same coin. What my lay client has just said, what my learned
9 friends have just said, amounts to exactly the same.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, I think in French then one would say
11 "bien etonnes de se trouver ensemble."
12 MR. TIEGER: Sorry, and finally, Your Honour, I wanted to say that
13 having said that and having identified the problem, that doesn't mean the
14 Prosecution will not address this matter as with a -- with an effort to
15 assist the Court and move forward, as -- if we possibly can.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 MR. TIEGER: Of course, we're not presuming anything at the
19 JUDGE ORIE: Some moments come back in my memory where during
20 Prosecution proofing of witnesses some new elements arose and where the
21 Defence at that time had difficulties either to start or to accomplish the
22 whole of the cross-examination. Let's not spend too much time on that
23 now. We'll hear from the Prosecution. They'll do their utmost best to
24 see whether they can use the time available today as efficiently as
25 possible, and if they think -- if the Prosecution thinks it could not
1 start the cross-examination, then of course I take it that there will be
2 an application for adjournment until Monday. And the Chamber will then
3 decide whether it will decide whether it will grant such a request.
4 Yes, Mr. Josse.
5 MR. JOSSE: Simply, of course, in that context there is also the
6 unresolved question as to whether my client is going to get to see
7 Mr. Maricic. That is the -- I needn't say anymore.
8 JUDGE ORIE: It's entirely clear, Mr. Josse, it also depends on
9 what we hear in half an hour from now on. It also depends on the further
10 assessment and estimates of time needed.
11 We'll adjourn until ten minutes to 6.00, did I say or did I say
12 five minutes to 6.00?
13 MR. JOSSE: Your Honour did promise me that if the Court was going
14 to refuse the application of Mr. Krajisnik to see Mr. Maricic I could make
15 a further submission.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, let's first see where we end up. Did I see five
17 minutes to 6.00 or ten minutes to 6.00?
18 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour did say ten minutes to 6.00, but five
19 minutes to 6.00 would be appreciated.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Then five minutes to 6.00 is granted.
21 --- Recess taken at 5.26 p.m.
22 --- On resuming at 6.01 p.m.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Before I'll address you, Mr. Tieger, I first would
24 like to say a few words to Mr. Krajisnik.
25 You have expressed your concerns, Mr. Krajisnik, about your
1 present health situation. The Chamber has not heard any specific
2 suggestion as to a specific examination or treatment you would need, in
3 your view, immediately; if that would be otherwise, then we'd like to
4 hear. But apart from that, the Chamber, when it denied your motion
5 related to health on the 27th of February, said that: "Monitoring of the
6 health condition of the accused by Drs. Falke and Petrovic is set to
7 condition. And then the Chamber relies on the accused, the accused
8 counsel, and the officer, at the end you, to report on any significant
9 change in the accused's health which might require any action or inquiry
10 by the Chamber."
11 What you told us at least causes us to address still today
12 Mr. McFadden, the governor of the United Nations Detention Unit to
13 specifically draw the attention of Dr. Falke and Dr. Petrovic on the -- on
14 your expression that you're -- today in court that there is a significant
15 change in your health condition. So the Chamber will do that today so
16 that at least Mr. McFadden is aware and that special attention -- of
17 course, whether the doctors would report to us is still dependent on
18 whether you would consent the doctors to give us any further information.
19 We, even without your consent, could draw the attention of what you told
20 us today to MR. McFadden. Mr. McFadden then expected to draw the
21 attention of the doctors to it and, of course, reporting to us would
22 depend on whether you would give your consent to provide medical
23 information to the Bench. I don't know whether you want to express
24 yourself on that last matter immediately or whether you'd like to think
25 that over.
1 Mr. Krajisnik, do you want to say something about it at this
2 moment or would you rather wait? Then you'll have an opportunity to say
3 what's on your mind.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I told you about the
5 causes of my condition. Everything I tried to explain today, those are
6 the causes. It is not Mr. McFadden's fault; he is a wonderful man and he
7 is doing his utmost. The room at the prison is the problem, and the other
8 reasons I've mentioned are making my health condition worse. We shouldn't
9 try to blame it on anyone, and the principal physician in the prison is
10 doing her best as well. She is visiting us in our rooms individually,
11 doing whatever she can, but I wanted to address my health condition in
12 general and, in particular, as to what you could do to improve -- to help
13 it improve.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do understand that you have asked our
15 attention also for the link between these proceedings and your well-being.
16 And that's certainly something we'll also continue, but the other matter
17 we consider is to be done, not because Mr. McFadden is to be blamed for
18 anything, but just in order to be sure that what you told to us today is
19 known to Mr. McFadden and then, I take it, be brought to the attention of
20 the general practitioner, in the end you and Ms. Petrovic.
21 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, may I say?
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
23 MR. STEWART: Because, of course, quite naturally and properly
24 Mr. Krajisnik's counsel are among the people of who reliance is to be
25 placed in this situation. Your Honour, we've taken steps as well. In the
1 first place, we consider it, as we have done for quite some time, be the
2 proper course for us to draw to the attention of OLAD any particular
3 matters that concern us or which we've noticed. We have done that. I
4 have also written and await a reply from a couple of days ago from a
5 letter I have written in relation -- raise just questions, in the first
6 place, about certain matters at the UNDU, and I await a reply. There's
7 obviously going to be some considerable overlap between the sort of
8 matters that's the Trial Chamber's been pursuing and the sort of questions
9 that we've been raising. Your Honour, we'll continue to monitor that and
10 draw to the attention of OLAD as appropriate and, of course, the Trial
11 Chamber as appropriate any such matters.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you for this information, Mr. Stewart.
13 Of course the Chamber cannot take over the responsibilities of
14 OLAD and it's not -- but, at the same time, as you may have noticed, the
15 Chamber has a keen interest in looking after health condition and other
16 conditions of Mr. Krajisnik. And to the extent that you consider it
17 necessary that the Chamber is informed about your communications with
18 OLAD, even if the Chamber will not take over OLAD's responsibilities but
19 where information you -- where you would consider information to the
20 Chamber to be important, then I take it that you'll send copies of this
21 correspondence, not in the expectation that we'll intervene, but just in
22 the expectation that we are informed and to the extent relevant for our
23 decisions here that we -- that we know of what's going on.
24 MR. STEWART: Well, indeed, that's most helpful, Your Honour. And
25 we're well aware that OLAD's responsibilities mean that in many cases we
1 should go to them first. At the point where I was to a considerable
2 extent raising questions of OLAD, I just felt I wouldn't trouble the Trial
3 Chamber with the questions until such point as they've been answered, or
4 not, as the case may be, we'll see. But that's most helpful, Your Honour.
5 Thank you for that.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you very much.
7 Mr. Tieger, is the Prosecution in a position to start to
8 cross-examine Mr. Lakic?
9 MR. TIEGER: No, Your Honour, it is not. And I would like to make
10 an application for adjournment until Monday.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 MR. TIEGER: I won't repeat the submissions I made before. In
13 fact, I'm grateful my learned friends for acknowledging the accuracy of
14 the points I made earlier, except to say that we have departed entirely
15 from the letter and purpose of the 65 ter summary and the consequences are
16 predictable. In the limited time we had available during the break, as
17 hard as we tried, we barely had the opportunity to identify the large
18 number of new topics addressed, much less the facts discussed, in
19 connection with those. And certainly not whether or not any -- or a
20 number of them would require -- what form of response they might require.
21 So -- and I -- the one additional point I would make is that to
22 the extent there was a factual portion of the 65 ter summary, it
23 unfortunately was erroneous and misdirected our attention and, therefore,
24 our efforts during the course of preparation. I accept that that was an
25 innocent error in the press of time, but it had those consequences as
1 well. So for the reasons previously expressed, which I hope are apparent
2 to the Court, I'm -- I regret that we are not in a position to proceed and
3 would request that we adjourn until Monday for that purpose. I don't
4 anticipate a particularly long cross-examination, but at least it will be
5 one that has a prospect of being meaningful since we finally know that the
6 areas this witness is going -- or has addressed.
7 JUDGE ORIE: So you've formed an opinion already to some extent on
8 the time you would need. Could you be a bit more specific?
9 MR. TIEGER: I'd -- well, I have formed a tentative opinion --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Of course, always under the condition that the
11 Chamber doesn't take all of your time. That's understood. But apart from
12 that --
13 MR. TIEGER: If you would give me a moment just to ensure that --
14 since it is Mr. Margetts who will be conducting the examination, that I am
15 not in error.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 [Prosecution counsel confer]
18 MR. TIEGER: Well, accepting - and I'm sure the Court is aware of
19 this - the limitations of the predictability, we were hoping for around a
20 session. And we would hope that would be adequate, a session or a little
22 JUDGE ORIE: You mean by "a session" an hour and a half?
23 MR. TIEGER: An hour and a half to two is what we estimate, and we
24 would do our best to make it as limited as we can.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber allows you to start cross-examination
3 next Monday, Mr. Margetts.
4 Then of course there's another issue. The Trial Chamber did
5 everything it could to move to -- to the afternoon of Monday, but we were
6 unsuccessful. Mr. Josse, what would be needed in view of all the
7 information we have now that -- I don't know whether of course -- you
8 can't tell us now how much time you would need for re-examination. I
9 don't know how much time you would need, whether a late start, for
10 example, on Monday could resolve, to some extent, the matter, or whether
11 you'd apply for starting only on Tuesday. I don't know what the
12 possibilities are to visit Mr. Krajisnik Monday in the afternoon. Could
13 you give us your views on the matter.
14 MR. JOSSE: Yes. We would definitely apply to start the next
15 witness on Tuesday. We had, some time ago, booked appointments for both
16 the morning and afternoon on Monday to cover both eventualities, that is
17 relevant people, including Mr. Maricic. Mr. Maricic, Your Honour, is
18 arriving in The Hague late on Saturday. We, therefore, will have Sunday
19 with him. It would be highly desirable to have a bit more time in any
20 event. It would be even more desirable for some of that extra time to be
21 spent in the presence of Mr. Krajisnik, and all I can say is that if the
22 Chamber says: We have to start Mr. Maricic on Monday, that is what we'll
23 try to do, but it keeps on the pressure and it compounds the problems that
24 have been addressed in this courtroom today, both by my client and by my
25 learned friend.
1 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
2 MR. JOSSE: Could I add one other thing.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so, Mr. Josse.
4 MR. JOSSE: So that the Court is aware. There is a statement in
5 existence from Mr. Maricic taken some time ago, and primarily it's from
6 that statement that the 65 ter was completed. It is fair to say that I
7 have previously seen Mr. Maricic in the Republika Srpska. I saw him for
8 no more than an hour in the presence of a number of other people, frankly,
9 and that is the only proofing that has taken place of him. The Chamber
10 needs to be aware of how difficult our practical circumstances are. Now
11 is not the time to go into the whys and wherefores of that. And frankly
12 it's not really my remit, it's my learned leader, Mr. Stewart's remit,
13 frankly. But I am simply telling the Court the facts and the position
14 that I find myself in, frankly, with witness after witness. And in this
15 case, so far as Mr. Maricic is concerned, it is clearly of importance to
16 Mr. Krajisnik that he gets to see these people and is of some benefit for
17 me personally when I take them to the prison and we can get together and
18 discuss things.
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Josse, the Chamber will allow the Prosecution to
21 call Mr. Maricic on Tuesday. At the same time, the parties should review
22 the --
23 MR. JOSSE: Your Honour meant the Defence.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I'm sorry, that's -- yes. Yes. At the same
25 time, the parties should prepare and look at the list of pending
1 procedural issues; the Chamber will do the same, exhibits lists now
2 prepared for several witnesses. We can go through that and use on Monday
3 our time as good as we can to get our table empty again on matters not
4 directly dealing with testimony to be heard. So under that condition that
5 we'll finish Mr. Lakic by next Monday, I take it, then we'll deal with, as
6 much as possible, procedural issues on Monday.
7 MR. JOSSE: Your Honour, I'll certainly be in a position on that
8 basis to deal with Mr. Poplasen's exhibits.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And could you please prepare in such a way that
10 we can really get as much off the table as possible, because otherwise it
11 -- Mr. Tieger.
12 MR. TIEGER: One final matter in connection with next week,
13 Your Honour. I see that pursuant to the schedule that Mr. Stewart
14 recently provided, the witness on Thursday -- I don't believe there are
15 any protections for him, Mr. Krsman is -- we'll have another problem
16 without a 65 ter summary concerning him that is factually based. In other
17 words, would we need a better 65 ter summary from -- because the current
18 one is simply a -- topical and inadequate.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, is there any way to improve the 65 ter?
20 MR. STEWART: Mr. Tieger's point is entirely fair, Your Honour.
21 Such ways as there are to improve the 65 ter summary will be adopted and
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. This is at least a showing of good-will.
24 MR. STEWART: Well, and of doing whatever we can, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Showing of good-will to do whatever you can,
1 and then the result, Mr. Tieger, is -- well, we'll have to wait and see
2 what the result will be. Of course, I could say it should be improved by
3 50 per cent or 75, but that kind of ruling doesn't work. But you have
4 asked our attention for the problem. Mr. Stewart accepts that it is a
5 problem and promised that he would do everything. And I'm afraid we can't
6 go any further at this moment.
7 MR. TIEGER: I understand, Your Honour. Thank you.
8 JUDGE ORIE: I would like, Madam Usher, that you escort Mr. Lakic
9 into the courtroom so that we can explain to him.
10 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
11 [The witness entered court]
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lakic, we had to discuss how to proceed, and
13 finally, after having heard the parties, the Chamber has decided that we
14 would continue on Monday and not anymore today. We would not have had any
15 more than 45 minutes left anyhow, but this means that next Monday -- but
16 then next Monday morning, 9.00, we'll continue. You'll then be
17 cross-examined by counsel for the Prosecution.
18 I again instruct you not to speak with anyone about your testimony
19 already given or still to be given. Yes?
20 Then we'll adjourn until -- since there are no other procedural
21 matters --
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
23 JUDGE ORIE: -- we'll adjourn until next Monday morning, 9.00, same
25 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.23 p.m.,
1 to be reconvened on Monday, the 20th day of
2 March, 2006, at 9.00 a.m.