1 Monday, 20 March 2006
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.14 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber apologises for the late start.
6 Mr. Josse, we understood Mr. Krajisnik would like to address us.
7 MR. JOSSE: No, Your Honour. Does Your Honour wants the case
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, yes, of course. It's good, Mr. Josse, that
10 you're there because otherwise things really go wrong.
11 Mr. Registrar.
12 MR. JOSSE: That puts a smile on my face. Thank you, Your Honour.
13 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours, this is case number
14 IT-00-39-T, the Prosecutor versus Momcilo Krajisnik. Thank you.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
16 I hope, Mr. Josse, that I'll be able to make you forget that it's
17 Monday morning.
18 MR. JOSSE: Thank you, Your Honour. The message was almost
19 correct. It's an instruction to me to put to the Court, Mr. Krajisnik
20 would ask -- like me to ask the witness another few questions. I can tell
21 the Court what the topic is. It's not in the 65 ter and it relates to
22 imprisonment and then the subsequent departure of -- or the detention,
23 perhaps I should say, and then the subsequent departure of Muslims from
24 Pale. I'd ask the witness his knowledge as far as that is concerned.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts?
3 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, again, whilst we have no objection to
4 Mr. Josse proceeding in regard to that topic, it may require us some time
5 to consider the evidence that's given in light of it not being in the 65
7 JUDGE ORIE: Under those circumstances, we'll allow you,
8 Mr. Josse, to put a few additional questions. At the same time, I really
9 hope that this would not cause us to keep the witness for another day.
10 That's -- but at the same time, let's see what happens.
11 Madam Usher, could you please escort Mr. Lakic into the courtroom?
12 [The witness entered court]
13 WITNESS: NEDELJKO LAKIC [Resumed]
14 [Witness answered through interpreter]
15 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Lakic. Please be seated. I'd like
16 to remind you that you are still bound by the solemn declaration that you
17 gave at the beginning of your testimony, and I want to inform you that
18 where you expected now to be cross-examined, there will be a few more
19 questions put to you by Mr. Josse, counsel for the Defence, and we'll then
20 continue with your cross-examination.
21 Mr. Josse please proceed.
22 Examination by Mr. Josse: [Continued]
23 MR. JOSSE:
24 Q. Mr. Lakic in April and May of 1992, are you aware what happened to
25 the Muslim population of Pale?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Tell the Chamber, please.
3 A. It was by sheer coincidence that as I was on my way to work, saw a
4 bus holding Muslims ready to leave. The situation was quite evident
5 because both those who were on the bus leaving and those who were seeing
6 them off were crying and those people who were seeing their lot off gave
7 them flowers.
8 Q. Do you know when this was?
9 A. I'm not really sure. Most probably it was the month of April,
10 perhaps the month of May.
11 Q. So it follows from your answer that those who were leaving were of
12 Muslim ethnicity. What about those who were seeing them off and giving
13 them flowers? What ethnicity were those people?
14 A. Probably Serbs.
15 Q. Prior to the departure of the Pale Muslims, have you any idea
16 where they were living?
17 A. I don't know.
18 Q. What was the hotel Koran used as or for?
19 A. For a period of time, it was used to put up refugees and for a
20 certain period of time it housed people who came to Pale to work there for
21 a fixed period of time.
22 Q. Do you have any knowledge of Muslims being detained anywhere in
24 A. No, I don't.
25 MR. JOSSE: That's all I want to ask. Thank you.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Josse.
2 Mr. Margetts, are you ready to cross-examine the witness?
3 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, thank you, Your Honour.
4 Cross-examination by Mr. Margetts:
5 Q. Good morning, Mr. Lakic.
6 A. Good morning.
7 Q. Mr. Lakic, on Friday, at page 43 of the transcript, lines 21 to
8 24, you were asked the following question and you gave the following
9 answer. And the question was, "What would have been the effect on the
10 government and administration of Republika Srpska had a state of war been
11 declared?" You answered, "By having declared a state of war, only the
12 expanded presidency would have remained. Everything else would not, could
13 not function." And earlier on the same page, page 43, that is, at lines
14 14 to 15, in the course of answering a question to why a state of war was
15 not declared, you stated, "Once a state of war is declared, the
16 functioning of all institutions in the RS are being put out of force,
17 starting with the assembly and the government, down to the
19 Mr. Lakic, I'd like to hand you a document, and that is Article 9
20 of the Defence Act.
21 MR. MARGETTS: And, Your Honour, the Defence Act has been
22 previously exhibited as P65 tab 145. Unfortunately I reconciled the ERNs,
23 identification numbers, this morning and found that the copy I have is a
24 different ERN number. Furthermore the document that I'm distributing at
25 the moment is an extract from the Defence Act, the first three pages, and
1 so if we could have a new exhibit number for this exhibit?
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar?
3 THE REGISTRAR: P1109, Your Honours.
4 MR. MARGETTS:
5 Q. Mr. Lakic, if I could refer you in a B/C/S copy, this is the
6 Official Gazette of Republika Srpska published on the 1st of June 1992,
7 and if I could refer to you the second page of the document that you have,
8 if you could open it and if you could look to the right-hand column you'll
9 see Article 9 set out there, and Article 9 states as follows: "In case of
10 a state of emergency, war or the imminent threat of war, ministries shall
11 within their scope of activity, implement laws and war regulations, carry
12 out the tasks set out in the defence plan of the republic, and be
13 responsible for ensuring that the fields for which they have been
14 established function properly."
15 Mr. Lakic, Article 9 correctly sets out the role and function of
16 the government in conditions of state of emergency, war or imminent threat
17 of war, correct?
18 A. I'm afraid I don't understand this latter question of yours. Can
19 you tell me again which Article that is?
20 Q. On the second page, you'll see -- the first full article which is
21 set out in the right-hand column is Article 9 and it consists of two
22 paragraphs and the paragraph I read into the record is the first
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And my question was this: That first paragraph of Article 9
1 correctly sets out the role and the function of government in conditions
2 of an imminent threat of war or a state of war, correct?
3 A. Mr. Prosecutor, I believe one ought to draw a distinction between
4 the war, imminent threat of war, and declaring a state of war. The
5 conditions underlying these are quite different from each other. When a
6 state of war is declared, military regulations come into force, whereas
7 all the civilian regulations become inapplicable.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Let me stop you, Mr. Lakic. Mr. Margetts is not
9 asking about the different consequences but he points at Article 9 and
10 there your earlier testimony was that by declaring a state of war, that
11 only the expanded Presidency would have remained and that once a state of
12 war is declared, the functioning of all institutions are being put out of
13 force, he says, " Article 9 I read that even in a state of war, that still
14 ministries would have their tasks even if adapted to the situation," but
15 they would still have tasks. That's the question. Where you said that
16 everything would be out of function, apart from the -- apart from the
17 expanded Presidency.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] One ought to distinguish the three
19 expressions. Imminent threat of war, war, and a declaration of a state of
20 war. The declaration of a state of war is something which makes all the
21 civilian regulations inapplicable, when military regulations come into
22 force, any relations with other countries are severed, and basically the
23 state becomes isolated.
24 MR. MARGETTS:
25 Q. Mr. Lakic, I have reviewed the constitution of Republika Srpska,
1 the law on government, and the Defence Act. All of those provisions, all
2 of the provisions in that legislation, state that the consequences of an
3 imminent threat of war and the state of war are the same. Have I missed a
4 provision? And if so, are you able to tell the Court what Article or what
5 provision that is?
6 A. The constitution is the highest piece of legislation in the
7 Republika Srpska, and all the secondary legislation is subordinated and
8 subject to the constitution.
9 Q. Mr. Lakic, are you able to tell the Court or inform the Court of a
10 provision that supports your view that there is a distinction between the
11 consequences of the declaration of imminent threat of war or a state of
13 A. On Friday, I stated that there is such thing as an imminent threat
14 of war, a state of war, and -- or, rather, a war, and lastly that there is
15 such thing as a declaration of a state of war. One ought to distinguish
16 among these three notions. As far as laws are concerned, they have to be
17 harmonised with the constitution.
18 Q. Mr. Lakic, I'd like to show you a further document and if I could
19 refer to tab 9 in the materials that have been distributed.
20 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, this is an operative programme. We've
21 seen this document before but not this specific copy of the document. So
22 we will need a new exhibit number.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar?
24 THE REGISTRAR: That will be P1110, Your Honours.
25 MR. MARGETTS:
1 Q. Mr. Lakic, if you could turn to the cover page of this document,
2 there is a letter that was written by you. It's written to the Ministry
3 of Justice. It's dated 17 July 1992. It states, "Attached please find
4 the operative programme of measures to prevent social disruption in
5 conditions of a state of war." Do you recall writing that letter?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And if you look at the document that is attached, that is the
8 operative programme referred to in the letter. Do you recognise that
9 operative programme? Mr. Lakic, there is no need for you to read through
10 the entire thing. I just want you to say whether or not you recognise
11 that document.
12 A. I didn't draft this document. It was probably the Ministry of
13 Defence who authored the document. I have to say that when a state of war
14 is declared one must necessarily continue living and working in a given
16 Q. And this document was drafted so that the government could
17 continue to function in a state of war, correct?
18 A. I don't think that's the purpose of this document, but rather to
19 create the basic conditions for the population to continue living in the
20 territory of the Republika Srpska in the event of a war being declared,
21 rather than to enable the authorities to function.
22 Q. The steps set out in this operative programme were implemented,
23 weren't they?
24 A. The state of war was declared - I can't remember really - perhaps
25 in mid-1995 or in late 1995, when the war was in its last stages.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lakic, Mr. Margetts asked you whether the steps
2 set out in this programme were implemented. He did not ask when the state
3 of war a was declared. He asked whether this programme was implemented
4 which dates the 17th of July 1992. Could you please answer that question?
5 MR. JOSSE: Your Honours, if these interruptions are unhelpful --
6 I don't know what Your Honour will say but my learned friend specifically
7 told the witness not to read the document. Realistically, can he answer
8 that question?
9 JUDGE ORIE: Well, we have now two problems. First of all, the
10 witness is not expected to answer a different question but if he can't
11 answer that question, of course, he should say give me time to read it.
12 But it makes some sense, Mr. Margetts. What you perhaps could do is just
13 to summarise and say or give a few examples of the matters in this rather
14 lengthy document.
15 Mr. Lakic, apart from -- are you aware from memory approximately
16 of what this document of the 17th of July contains?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't remember.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Margetts, then you'll have to take the
19 witness or summarise it in such a way that could -- would not be objected
20 to by Mr. Josse.
21 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour, I'll proceed to do that but first
22 if we could refer to a third document, which is tab 10, which is Exhibit
24 Q. Mr. Lakic, if you could have a look at the document which is P979
25 and which is at tab 10, and you will see that that document is a document
1 emanating from the Presidency of Republika Srpska, and it's
2 headed, "Guidelines on tasks, modes of action, and functioning of Defence
3 forces, state organs and subjects in the field of economy and social
4 activities in the Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina in the state of
6 Now, this is a document that the Presidency prepared and forwarded
7 to the government, and it refers to each of the ministries and sets out
8 the tasks that they are to perform in the state of war. Have you seen
9 that document before?
10 A. No, I haven't.
11 Q. If I could refer you back to tab 9, which is the operative
12 programme that you enclosed under cover of letter signed by you of 17 July
13 1992, and I could refer you to the first paragraph of the operative
14 programme that you enclosed with that letter, so if you turn over the
15 page, not the letter, if you look past the could have been page of the
16 operative programme and at the first paragraph of the operative programme,
17 that's correct, the paragraph at the top of that page, the page that's in
18 front of you, it reads as follows: "Pursuant to Article 8 of the law on
19 detention and with reference to the guidelines on the tasks and methods of
20 action and functioning of Defence forces, state authorities, and entities
21 in the economy and public services of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and
22 Herzegovina, in conditions of a state of war, the government adopts this
23 operative programme."
24 Mr. Lakic, does that refresh your memory and do you see that this
25 operative programme that you circulated was implementing the guidelines
1 that I have just shown you?
2 A. In the earlier testimony, I stated that I was a professional civil
3 servant who did not go into the substance of the material. Each ministry
4 provided its own comments, if any, which were then examined at a
5 government meeting and integrated into the programme. My job was a
6 technical one. I did not read the programme. It wasn't within my duties
7 to do so.
8 Q. So is your answer to my question, Mr. Lakic, that having read that
9 first paragraph, it has refreshed your memory and you now do recall the
10 guidelines from the Presidency?
11 A. I don't remember.
12 Q. And following up on the previous answer that you gave, you do
13 remember that this operative programme was referred to on numerous
14 occasions in the government sessions, and you do recall that it was
15 implemented, correct?
16 A. I don't think this programme was frequently discussed at
17 government sessions. Every ministry was charged with implementing the
18 programme, if applicable, and, of course, within the remit of its
20 Q. Mr. Lakic, my reading of the government minutes suggests that the
21 programme was referred to on at least three occasions in the government
22 sessions, they are the sessions of 8 July 1992, 16 July 1992, and 29 July
23 1992. Do you have any reason to dispute that it was referred to on those
24 three occasions?
25 MR. JOSSE: It's not a reasonable question.
1 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, I don't concur with my learned friend
2 but I'm willing to move on in the circumstances.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, because otherwise, at least, you should point at
4 the sessions where it was referred to. You can refer to a programme as
5 being rejected or you can refer to -- there are many possibilities, and
6 put in this way it's better that you move on.
7 MR. MARGETTS: Thank you, Your Honour.
8 Q. If I could now refer to tab 48, and that's a letter from Mr. Lakic
9 dated the 16th of August 1992, and if that could have an exhibit number?
10 THE REGISTRAR: That will be P1111, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
12 MR. MARGETTS:
13 Q. Mr. Lakic, this is a letter from you dated the 16th of August
14 1992, and you'll see in the second paragraph that you are requesting that
15 the duties determined in the programme be performed, correct?
16 A. Yes. This is my letter. This programme was submitted as
17 background material indicating what everybody was supposed to do in the
18 event of proclamation of a state of war.
19 Q. Mr. Lakic, the guidelines we've seen and the operative programme
20 we've seen and your letter demonstrate that you were organising the
21 ministries so that they implemented the programme immediately, correct?
22 A. I did not organise the work of the ministries. It was something
23 done by the Prime Minister.
24 Q. Yes. That's accepted, Mr. Lakic. And the Prime Minister
25 organised the ministries so that they would immediately implement this
1 programme, correct?
2 A. I don't know what the Prime Minister did.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lakic, Mr. Margetts is looking at this letter and
4 wants to find out whether you would agree with him what this letter says.
5 Then it makes no sense to say "I don't know what the Prime Minister did"
6 because it is, of course, you may have thought totally different but do
7 you agree that this is what the letter says as Mr. Margetts said to you?
8 And if not, please tell us why you disagree with him, and if you do, and
9 if you would like to add anything why you do agree with him, please tell
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I agree that I sent this letter. It
12 is indeed my letter. But I don't remember what was done about it later
13 because I was not in charge of controlling the ministries and checking
14 what they had done to -- following instructions.
15 JUDGE ORIE: No one asked you, Mr. Lakic. Mr. Margetts suggested
16 to you that this letter demonstrates that, from the government, the
17 ministries were addressed so that they implement the programme
18 immediately. Would you agree with that interpretation of this letter or
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Margetts.
22 MR. MARGETTS:
23 Q. Mr. Lakic, I'd like to move on to a different topic. Last Friday,
24 Mr. Josse referred you to the minutes of a closed session of the
25 government that was held on 19 August 1992, and you stated that the
1 conclusions of that meeting were based on a report prepared by a
2 commission that visited the centres for detainees in the western part of
3 Republika Srpska. The report that you referred to was prepared by
4 Mr. Vojin Lale, the Deputy Minister of Justice, and Mr. Mirko Brkic
5 [phoen] on behalf of the Ministry of the Interior, correct?
6 A. The government did set up a commission of three members, including
7 representatives of the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Interior, plus
8 another man, and that report was indeed submitted to the government under
9 the title, "Strictly confidential." It described the situation in
10 collection centres. I think they were Keraterm, Omarska, Manjaca, and
11 some others, and that is why that closed government session was held.
12 However, I'm not sure that you have in your possession that text, and I
13 have it, and I submitted it at the request of this honourable Chamber.
14 Q. Yes, Mr. Lakic. That document was in fact tab 7 of the Defence
15 exhibits. You weren't referred to it in the course of your
16 examination-in-chief but the Trial Chamber has previously seen it as P583,
17 tab 89.
18 Now, the reason that the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of
19 the Interior were involved in preparing this report is that excluding
20 facilities that were operated by the army, the Ministry of Justice and
21 Ministry of Interior were responsible for the security and operation of
22 detention facilities, correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Now --
25 A. But later, the collection centres were handed over to the army of
1 Republika Srpska, for them to take charge of security.
2 Q. Thank you, Mr. Lakic. I'd now like to refer to another document,
3 and that is found at tab 54, and it's an extract from the 22nd session of
4 the assembly of the Serbian people of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and in
5 particular, it's a speech that was made by Branko Djeric on the 23rd of
7 Mr. Lakic, if you could refer to the Serbian copy of that
8 transcript, and you'll see on the first page that noted halfway down the
9 page is the name Mr. Djeric, and he commences to speak. If you could turn
10 the page over, you'll see the second page of his speech. And if you turn
11 the page over again, you'll get to page 12, and I'm going to refer you to
12 a portion of Mr. Djeric's speech which appears at the bottom of the first
13 paragraph which is recorded on page 12. And I'll just give the reference
14 to the Defence and Trial Chamber in regard to the location in English.
15 And that is the bottom of the first full paragraph on page 12 of the
16 English translation. And you'll see that Mr. Djeric says in this
17 speech, "When it comes to the Minister of Justice, the Minister of
18 Internal Affairs, they are not even in the government. They never come to
19 the government sessions. Only to the president of the republic or the
20 president of the assembly. Neither of them ever stood up in front of the
21 people or on the television and said, "We are responsible for their work,"
22 which would release the Prime Minister from the responsibility."
23 Mr. Lakic, where Mr. Djeric says that the Minister of Justice and
24 the Minister of Internal Affairs go only to the president of the republic
25 or the president of the assembly, do you have any reason to dispute this
1 statement from Mr. Djeric?
2 A. I have no reason to dispute the statement of Mr. Djeric because
3 the two ministers mentioned, especially at the beginning of the work of
4 the government, very rarely came to the sessions. Why they did not
5 attend, I don't know.
6 Q. Mr. Lakic, I'd like to refer you to another document, and this
7 appears at tab 56 of the materials. And these are handwritten notes of a
8 joint meeting of the government and the Presidency that was held on the
9 14th of September 1992, in Bijeljina?
10 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, if that could be assigned a number?
11 THE REGISTRAR: That will be P1112, Your Honours.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
13 MR. MARGETTS: In the English I'm referring to the first page of
14 the translation and the speech of Mr. Djeric and point 5 of that speech.
15 It's not numbered but the fifth marked point.
16 Q. Mr. Lakic, if I could refer you to the handwritten notes, and
17 there is the cover page and then on the first page, where you see the
18 reference to a government meeting at the top of 14 September 1992, and you
19 see the name B Djeric, and if you look down to the fifth point, Mr. Djeric
20 says this: He says, "In these conditions, the government does not possess
21 enforcement instruments. The Presidency controls the army, police, and
22 the party." Again, do you have any reason to dispute these comments of
23 Mr. Djeric?
24 Mr. Lakic, can you see the point that I'm referring to?
25 A. Yes, yes. I have seen point 5, but I did not attend that session
1 of the government. Just let me read it once again.
2 Q. Mr. Lakic, I'm just referring to the fifth point. Do you want me
3 to read it out again? The question is this, Mr. Lakic, just to simplify
4 it for you: Do you have any reason to dispute Mr. Djeric's remark that
5 the Presidency controls the army, police and the party?
6 A. No, I don't.
7 Q. Mr. Lakic, I'd like to move on to --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts, this -- you said these are handwritten
9 notes. It's presented in your summary as "excerpt from diary by Radovan
10 Karadzic." I'm not saying that one is connecting the other but these
11 handwritten notes are, in your submission, written by Radovan Karadzic.
12 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
14 MR. JOSSE: Yes, there has been some recent disclosure about this
15 but clearly the issue of provenance as far as this is concerned is going
16 to have to be fully dealt with by the Prosecution. I'm not asking them to
17 deal with it now.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 MR. JOSSE: But I --
20 JUDGE ORIE: We'll understand that. Just a -- I couldn't have
21 written it because I don't write any Cyrillic but the Chamber would be --
22 I take it Mr. Josse will be informed soon by you so that the Chamber is
23 aware of it as well.
24 MR. JOSSE: And on this occasion, perhaps chapter and verse,
25 please, I'd invite the Prosecution to disclose to the Defence.
1 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour, we'll just provide some brief
2 details now. We'll obviously develop the specifics in further
3 communication with the Defence and the Chamber. This is a diary that was
4 seized from the home of Radovan Karadzic in May of last year.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
6 MR. MARGETTS: The script is familiar to people that have read his
7 script before.
8 MR. JOSSE: No. I'm -- he's giving evidence.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Provenance is that it was seized in the house
10 of Radovan Karadzic and we'll then hear further from you but perhaps
11 Defence would not even dispute it. We don't know yet.
12 MR. JOSSE: That's right, Your Honour. I simply invite
13 Mr. Margetts to set this out in detail to us and then we can see if we can
14 come to an agreement. I should emphasise when disclosure was made of this
15 document some basic details were provided.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 Please proceed, Mr. Margetts.
18 MR. MARGETTS: Thank you, Your Honour.
19 Your Honour, if I could now refer to tab 46 and if this letter to
20 the municipal assembly of Ilidza could be shown to Mr. Lakic. And if we
21 could have an exhibit number, please.
22 THE REGISTRAR: That will be P1113, Your Honours.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
24 MR. MARGETTS:
25 Q. Mr. Lakic, this is a letter written by you on the 5th of June 1992
1 addressed to the municipal assembly of Ilidza and in the second paragraph
2 of this letter, you write, "The government finds that citizens whose
3 apartments or houses have been destroyed may obtain only tentative
4 solutions for occupancy of deserted houses or apartments. The government
5 will make a proposal for a special regulation based on objective criteria
6 to govern permanent solution to the issue of providing for citizens whose
7 houses or apartments have been destroyed."
8 Mr. Lakic, do you recall writing that letter?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And as stated in the letter, you were seeking to find a permanent
11 solution to the problem, including the transfer of occupancy rights to
12 those who were occupying abandoned property, correct?
13 A. In the first part of the letter, it says that people move in with
14 approval for a definite period only whereas the competent authorities,
15 that is the government, will further enact legislation to provide a
16 permanent solution for the accommodation of refugees. It doesn't say
17 anywhere that these vacant houses will be used to house refugees. In the
18 meantime, the government did indeed enact legislation and by-laws
19 concerning the accommodation of refugees.
20 Q. Mr. Lakic, if I refer you to the first paragraph, it says that the
21 government has reviewed the letter regarding occupancy of deserted houses
22 and apartments. So the subject was a permanent solution to the occupancy
23 of those deserted homes, correct?
24 A. I can't remember the government, as sent out by the Ilidza
25 municipality, but in the first sentence of the second paragraph it
1 says, "Such properties can only be given for temporary accommodation,
2 pending legislation regulating final solution for refugees." So they can
3 move in only temporarily into deserted houses.
4 Q. Mr. Lakic, at that time, which is early June 1992, and continuing
5 throughout the month of June through to July, there were large numbers of
6 people moving out of various areas in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and there
7 were large numbers of refugees who were settling into abandoned apartments
8 and homes, correct?
9 A. Yes. But we were only answering the letter from Ilidza
10 municipality and in the second paragraph, the first sentence, we said that
11 these solutions were only temporary and the government would later enact
12 legislation to permanently solve the question of accommodating refugees
13 and that was indeed done. That legislation was published in the Official
15 Q. Mr. Lakic, could I now refer you to the document that appears at
16 tab 16 of the materials?
17 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, that is Exhibit P529, tab 350.
18 Q. Mr. Lakic, you'll see that this is a decision of the Crisis Staff
19 of Sanski Most municipality made on the 2nd of July 1992, and it's
20 headed, "Decision on the criteria for the possibility of departure from
21 the municipality," and if I refer you to the first paragraph in Article 1,
22 it states that the voluntary departure from Sanski Most municipality shall
23 be --
24 THE WITNESS: Sorry, sorry. [Interpretation] No. There is one
25 page missing.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Could we have a look at it?
2 MR. MARGETTS:
3 Q. Mr. Lakic, are you referring to the blank page which is the second
4 page of the document?
5 A. Yes, yes.
6 Q. If I could explain, Mr. Lakic, you'll see the stamp that's affixed
7 and you'll see it's English. That was affixed to the back of this
8 document when it was seized so this page doesn't need to be there. The
9 operative pages of the document are the first and third page as you see
10 them, and I'm referring you to the first page of the document.
11 A. Yes. I'm looking.
12 Q. Yes. And I'm referring specifically to Article 1 and you'll see
13 the first paragraph that states that "the voluntary departure from Sanski
14 Most municipality shall be allowed to families and persons who give a
15 statement to the authorised municipal administration organ," that sets out
16 which organ, "that they are permanently leaving the municipality and that
17 they are leaving their real property to Sanski Most municipality."
18 And then if I refer you down to Article 4, you'll see that the
19 municipal Secretariat, the people's defence, shall give such persons the
20 necessary permit to leave Sanski Most municipality on the basis of a
21 statement or contract, if there are no legal obstacles.
22 Now, in the context of that decision, of the 2nd of July, I'd like
23 to now refer to you a document at tab 13, which is the minutes of the 4th
24 July government session.
25 Now, Mr. Lakic, you'll see that this was a session that you
1 attended and that these are minutes prepared by you, and if I could refer
2 you to the discussion in relation to agenda item 8 --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps, Mr. Margetts, for the completeness of the
4 transcript, could you tell us what tab 13 is?
5 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE ORIE: On your list it appears to be P65, binder 12, tab
7 173, minutes of the 36th session of the Serb Republic --
8 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: -- of Bosnia-Herzegovina government, 4th of July 1992.
10 Please proceed.
11 MR. MARGETTS: Thank you, Your Honour.
12 Q. Mr. Lakic, if I could refer you to the -- to paragraph 8, the
13 discussion in relation to agenda item 8 which appears on page 4 at the
14 bottom, and it reads as follows: "The question has been raised whether
15 there are agreed criteria regarding the moving out of the Muslim
16 population from the territory of the Serb Republic of BiH." And it goes
17 on and states that the Ministry of the Interior is entrusted with
18 preparing information on this issue.
19 The reference to the agreed criteria is a reference to criteria of
20 the nature of the criteria set out in the Sanski Most decision, that is a
21 decision on the criteria for the possibility of departure from the
22 municipality. Correct?
23 A. The government did not discuss these matters thoroughly. If you
24 remember, the instance concerning Ilidza municipality, it was stated there
25 that the government was to set out the criteria. The government set up a
1 Secretariat for refugees which tended to the accommodation of refugees of
2 any ethnicity. Which criteria they used, I cannot tell you, but at any
3 rate the government did set up an organ that was to deal with these
4 matters. That there were individual decisions passed, which were not
5 harmonised, that's quite possible. I believe that this part of the
6 republic just like the western one, was not linked up. Telephone or any
7 other communication lines were not established at that stage. That's why
8 at that point in time, there were still differing positions.
9 Q. Yes, Mr. Lakic. We will come to the issue of communications later
10 on, but you state there that the question was whether or not the decisions
11 were harmonised, and that's correct, isn't it? You see the decision of
12 the Sanski Most municipality on the 2nd of July 1992, and then the
13 government on the 4th of July 1992 asks the question as to whether the
14 criteria, such as the criteria set out in the Sanski Most decision, has
15 been agreed, and that was the subject of discussion referred to in agenda
16 item 8, correct?
17 A. Yes. But at the end of paragraph 2, it is stated that the
18 direction for refugees and other competent bodies would draft a piece of
19 information on which the government would subsequently decide or take a
21 Q. Mr. Lakic, I'd like to now move on to another topic, and that is
22 the issue of the War Presidency. In your testimony on Friday, at page 43,
23 you were asked about constitutional amendments that were referred to in
24 one of the government sessions, and you explained to Mr. Josse and the
25 Trial Chamber that the relevant entry in these government minutes dealt
1 with expanded Presidencies in municipalities, and you made the distinction
2 it wasn't the republic expanded Presidency or War Presidency. Do you
3 recall that testimony?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Now, it is the case that in government sessions, the government
6 did discuss the War Presidency, that is the republican War Presidency, and
7 you referred to the republican War Presidency in minutes of government
8 minutes that you drafted, correct?
9 A. I don't recall having written anywhere "the republican War
10 Presidency," and I'd like to see one such document, if you have one.
11 Q. Yes, Mr. Lakic, if I could refer you to tab 7, and that is the
12 minutes of the government session of the 13th of June 1992, and that is
13 Exhibit P583, tab 22.
14 Mr. Lakic, if I -- these are government minutes that you prepared,
15 and if I could refer to agenda item 4, and if I could refer you to the
16 last sentence in agenda item 4, and it's a record of a remark by the
17 Minister of Defence, Mr. Bogdan Subotic, and you have recorded this remark
18 as follows. This is at the top of page 3 of the copy before you, and you
19 have recorded this remark as follows: "The government --
20 MR. JOSSE: Would you read the sentence before as well, please?
21 MR. MARGETTS:
22 Q. Mr. Josse has asked if I could refer to the sentence before, so
23 I'm happy to do that. The two sentences that I'm referring to, it's the
24 sentence that commences at the bottom of page 2 and continues over on to
25 page 3. And then the full sentence at the top of page 3 of your version,
1 Mr. Lakic. And those two sentences read as follows: "The Minister of
2 Defence has been instructed to immediately inform the Presidency of the
3 Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina about this. The government
4 pointed out the need for the Minister of Defence to attend the War
5 Presidency meetings, especially when the issues from the area of defence
6 are being considered."
7 Mr. Lakic, do you now see that in government minutes prepared by
8 you, you referred to the republican War Presidency?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. In fact, Bogdan Subotic considered that he should also be a member
11 of the expanded or War Presidency, didn't he?
12 A. Yes, yes. When one reads this more carefully, one can see that it
13 says Presidency of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina and then
14 follows something that is contradictory which must be a typo, that Defence
15 Minister, Mr. Subotic, would attend -- is required to attend -- as
16 required. So it's a typo. There should be the Presidency of the Serbian
17 Republic. The wording itself does not imply that Bogdan Subotic is
18 automatically a member of the Presidency. An expanded session of the
19 Presidency must be distinguished from an expanded Presidency. The
20 expanded session of a Presidency -- of the Presidency can be attended by
21 all the ministers and any other officials if matters from their purview
22 are included in the agenda of the session.
23 Q. Mr. Lakic, I'd now like to refer you to comments of Bogdan Subotic
24 that he made at the 11 August 1992 session of the assembly of the Serbian
25 people, and I'll need to distribute that, a full copy of that speech has
1 not found its way into the binder. An extract of it is at tab 11?
2 JUDGE ORIE: Not exhibited yet? Or is it --
3 MR. MARGETTS: The transcript, Your Honour, is P583, tab 87.
4 Your Honour, I may have misspoken. It's the session of the 12 of August
5 1992 not the session of 11 August.
6 Q. Now, Mr. Lakic, if I could refer you to -- you'll see that this is
7 your version commences at page 54 where you'll see that Mr. Subotic
8 commences speaking, and if I can refer you over the page to page 55, and
9 if I can refer you to the last paragraph at the bottom of page 55, and in
10 this paragraph, Mr. Subotic remarks about his contact with the Main Staff.
11 And he states as follows: "With the army Main Staff I had little or no
12 contact at all. As Defence Minister I've never spoken to the commander of
13 the Main Staff. Very rarely did I have contact with other members of the
14 command and only when it was necessary from their side." Then if I can
15 refer you over to page 56, and the last sentence in that paragraph, there,
16 Mr. Subotic states --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts, in the English version that would be?
18 MR. MARGETTS: It's page 62 of the English version and it's the
19 last paragraph and the first three sentences that I've just quoted, and it
20 continues over on to page 63, and then it's the last sentence of the
21 continuing first paragraph.
22 Q. And Mr. Lakic, if you have followed, that is for you page 56 and
23 the last sentence of that paragraph, and ...
24 A. Yes, yes.
25 Q. And Bogdan Subotic says, "Any way, I am probably the only Defence
1 Minister in the world who is not a member of the War Presidency of the
2 republic." So you can see, Mr. Lakic, that the reference to the War
3 Presidency in the context of Mr. Subotic's membership of it is not a
4 typographical error. It is a specific reference to the War Presidency of
5 the republic. Correct?
6 A. Mr. Bogdan Subotic was never a member of the Presidency, never.
7 That's number 1. Number 2, at the start of my testimony, I said that this
8 was an error, that it should say Presidency, not War Presidency, and that
9 Bogdan Subotic should attend the session of the Presidency. It follows
10 clearly from this that he never was a member of the Presidency.
11 Q. Yes, Mr. Lakic, we are in full agreement about that and that's the
12 specific matter that he is complaining about, as you have acknowledged, he
13 considered that he should be a member of the republican War Presidency,
15 A. I don't know what his wishes were. I only know that one can
16 become a member of the Presidency only pursuant to the provisions of the
17 constitution. I claim with full certainty that he was never a member of
18 the Presidency.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Again, that's not what keeps you and Mr. Margetts
20 apart. Mr. Margetts reads in this line, these lines, that Mr. Subotic
21 thinks that because of his position as Minister of Defence, that he should
22 be a member of the War Presidency of the republic, as it's written down,
23 which he was not.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He was not a member, but he could
25 attend sessions of the Presidency, just as other ministers attended
1 Presidency sessions.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts?
3 MR. MARGETTS:
4 Q. The situation is, isn't it, Mr. Lakic, that Mr. Subotic wished to
5 join the president of the government on the republican War Presidency,
7 A. Yes, but the Presidency, not the government. He was on the
9 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, I note the time. I have one further
10 topic I'd like to deal with.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We had a late start. We started at quarter
12 past nine. If you could deal with it in the next ten minutes, then please
14 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour.
15 Q. Mr. Lakic, earlier in today's evidence, you've referred to the
16 issue of communications. On Friday, you stated, "Communication was very
17 difficult at the time. There were no links established." And this is at
18 page 44 of the transcript. "There were no links established, the
19 territory was split in different parts, and it was difficult to reach
20 certain municipalities and people went the roundabout way quite often."
21 Mr. Lakic, it's the case that there were a number of means of
22 communication open to you in early May of 1992, including the following:
23 Telephone lines, teleprinting lines, telefax, radio, radio relay, courier,
24 and also the police and army communication lines; that's correct, isn't
1 A. It was quite difficult to communicate over these means of
2 communication. I do recall that we had a teleprinter in the government.
3 I don't remember about the rest.
4 Q. Further, there was a communications centre in Pale, and this was
5 connected with regional communications centres in the territory, correct?
6 A. The communications centre was not used by the government; for the
7 most part it wasn't.
8 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, I would like to refer to a further
9 document. It's dated the 14th of June 1992, and I'll need to distribute
10 it and I'll need to obtain an exhibit number, if I may.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar? That will be number --
12 THE REGISTRAR: P1114, Your Honours.
13 MR. MARGETTS:
14 Q. Mr. Lakic, you have before you a communication prepared by Milorad
15 Kotlica, who was in charge of the Republican Information Centre, and
16 you'll see that at the top of the document there is a reference to the
17 republican information centre, and if I could refer you to the last
18 sentence in the first paragraph, Mr. Kotlica writes, "Tens of telegrams
19 are sent out and received daily that need to be submitted to various
20 commands and institutions on an urgent basis. The telegrams are most
21 often addressed to the Presidency, the Serbian government, units and
22 institutions in Pale, and units in Sokolac."
23 That's correct, isn't it? The republican information centre
24 handled tens of telegrams each day, some of which were directed to the
1 A. I know that there was a teleprinting centre at Pale. To what
2 extent it operated and who it sent information to or received it from, I
3 don't know. I never went over there. Whether the teleprinters were used
4 to send information to the Ministry of Defence or the Ministry of Interior
5 or the Prime Minister, I don't know. As far as I'm concerned, the -- I
6 never received an information from these teleprinters. I've never seen a
7 single one.
8 Q. Mr. Lakic, I'd like to present to you a letter you wrote on the
9 9th of May 1992. It appears at tab 17, and if I could have an exhibit
11 THE REGISTRAR: That will be P1115, Your Honours.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
13 MR. MARGETTS:
14 Q. Mr. Lakic, you'll see that this is a letter that you forwarded to
15 the regional information centres, and you request that they relay all the
16 information you've provided to them to the municipalities, and you note in
17 the second paragraph that there has been difficulty with the TT
18 communications, however there is an alternative method of communication
19 available to you. Can you --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts, it doesn't say that there were
21 difficulties but very difficult which is not the same. Please proceed.
22 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour, apologise for that. It says that
23 the TT communication has been rendered very difficult.
24 Q. Could you tell the Court and explain to the Court the reference TT
25 and what it refers to?
1 A. Telephones.
2 Q. And you say that in circumstances where the telephone
3 communication is very difficult, alternative communication methods are
4 available to you. That's correct, isn't it?
5 A. That's correct. I think this is consistent with my earlier
6 statement that the communication with the government, Presidency,
7 assembly, and municipalities was quite difficult, and it was possible that
8 communication with the municipalities could be conducted through these
9 means when it concerned information that was not confidential.
10 Q. Mr. Lakic, I'd like to refer you to an article published in the
11 Glas newspaper on the 9th of May 1992 which is the same day that you
12 forwarded that communication to regional centres and that can be found at
13 tab 41 and if -- Your Honour, if that could be have an exhibit number?
14 THE REGISTRAR: That will be P1116, Your Honours.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
16 MR. MARGETTS:
17 Q. Mr. Lakic, if I could invite you to read the first paragraph of
18 that article, which appears on the left side of the document before you,
19 and if you could read until the top of the second column of the article,
20 concluding with the words, "Said Zeljko Katic" which is on the second line
21 and in the English that's on the first page effectively, minus two lines.
22 Mr. Lakic, you can see from this article published in the Glas
23 newspaper in Banja Luka, that, again, when there was an interruption to
24 the telephone connections, there were other means of communication
25 available, correct?
1 A. This concerns the teleprinting centre. All of these has to do
2 with this centre. From what I was able to hear from the people who worked
3 over there, the working capacities of the centre were quite small. It was
4 able to operate, but it had to prioritise the information they would
5 dispatch. In the period when the lines are down, which is the period this
6 article refers to, they were able to transmit pieces of news of up to one
7 to two sentences. They were unable to send information as extended as,
8 let's say, to five sentences. Therefore, the scope of their activity was
10 Q. Mr. Lakic, you can confirm, can you not, the paragraph that is the
11 second paragraph in the article, and that is that the regional information
12 centre is operating 24 hours non-stop and there are five employees engaged
13 at the centre; is that correct?
14 A. I know there was a centre but to what extent it was active and how
15 many people it employed, I really don't know. I think the number varied
16 and the composition varied. The circulation of stuff was considerable in
17 terms of numbers and in terms of quality.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Judge Hanoteau was a question.
19 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] I would like to know -- I would
20 like to know exactly what exactly this regional information centre is.
21 What exactly is? Is it an administration, is it a private company, who
22 does it belong to, what state department does it operate with? We know
23 nothing of this sort. And same thing, Mr. Margetts has alluded to the --
24 to document P1114, republican information centre again. So what exactly
25 does this correspond to? What is it? So, first I would like to get
1 information on the regional information centre. What exactly is it?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That was a state agency.
3 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] What was its role? What was its
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I couldn't give you a precise answer
6 concerning their mandate. It was probably to send information on in case
7 of a breakdown of communications.
8 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] So, but was there many of these
9 regional agencies or just one?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I know only about this one, the
11 regional centre.
12 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] But is it the same thing as the
13 Republic Information Centre that we have in document P1114?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I really would like to check whether
15 there were two centres or one. I know only about one regional centre in
16 Pale. I'm not sure whether there was another one.
17 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, I may be able to assist in this regard
18 to refresh the witness's memory in regard to these issues.
19 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] That would be nice.
20 Q. Mr. Lakic, the regional communications centre was in the fire
21 brigade headquarters in Pale, wasn't it?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. It was run by Milorad Kotlica, who was a colonel from the former
24 JNA, and he had eight employees, didn't he?
25 A. Yes. Milorad Kotlica ran it and in the document you can see his
1 signature. As to the number of employees, I really don't know.
2 Q. And the regional centres that were connected with the Pale
3 communications centre included the following: Banja Luka, Sekovici,
4 Trebinje, Sokolac, Bijeljina, and Petrovo, correct?
5 A. I don't know how they worked, how they were connected, and I don't
6 know that the centres existed in the places you named. I am a total
7 layman in this matter. I am a lawyer by training and I don't have any
8 talent for technology.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts, I asked whether you could finish in
10 approximately ten minutes.
11 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Thank you.
12 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour, it is the case that I had
13 forgotten that I needed to address the issues that Mr. Josse raised this
14 morning and I would be grateful if I could take a break to do that and see
15 if I have any further questions. I also do have one other document
16 relating to communications. I would like to present to the witness.
17 JUDGE ORIE: So one document and perhaps some questions on the
18 matter raised by Mr. Josse?
19 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour. And obviously whether it's one
20 document or more may depend on the answers provided, but it certainly is
21 one discrete topic.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll adjourn until 20 minutes past 11.
23 --- Recess taken at 10.53 a.m.
24 --- On resuming at 11.23 a.m.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Please be seated, Mr. Lakic.
1 Mr. Margetts.
2 MR. MARGETTS: Thank you, Your Honour.
3 Q. Mr. Lakic, I'd like to show you another document, and this is the
4 document that you'll find at tab 22 of the binder.
5 Apologies to the interpreters; I didn't have my microphone on.
6 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, this is already an exhibit. It's
7 P529, tab 189.
8 Q. Mr. Lakic, this is a facsimile from the Crisis Staff of the
9 northern municipality of Bosanski Samac and it's dated the 15th of May
10 1992 and it's marked as received, Serbian Republic in Sarajevo, and it's
11 marked to the attention of the government. And also you'll see in the
12 handwriting at the top it says, "Very urgent, personal attention, Karadzic
13 and Krajisnik." Mr. Lakic, do you recall the government receiving this
15 A. No. I don't remember.
16 Q. Mr. Lakic, do you accept that this is a typical example of the
17 types of facsimiles that were sent to the republican authorities in 1992?
18 A. I did not have occasion to see such facsimiles. It's probably the
19 competent authorities, the competent ministries who received them.
20 Q. Now, Mr. Lakic, if I could refer you to tab 43, that is the
21 minutes of the national Security Council of 15 May 1992 --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Before we continue with that, could you please invite
23 the witness -- Mr. -- the previous document, that's tab 22, could you read
24 what's written at the very bottom, in handwriting, of that document?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Right.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please read it?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "Forwarded to the government at 2300
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you. Please proceed.
5 MR. MARGETTS: We need to distribute the document unfortunately.
6 That's the wrong document. I apologise for that. These are the minutes
7 of the tab that I am referring to.
8 JUDGE ORIE: And this document is an exhibit already?
9 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour, and we are just finding the
10 exhibit number.
11 Q. Mr. Lakic, you'll see that these are -- I'll just wait on the
12 exhibit number. It may take some time. We will proceed in the interim.
13 Mr. Lakic, you'll see that these are minutes of the National
14 Security Council held on the 15th of May 1992, and I'd like to refer you
15 to the fourth paragraph under the discussion relating to agenda item 1.
16 And you'll see that on the first page of the document, and it is
17 about two-thirds of the way down. And it reads, "The problems at the war
18 fronts at Bosanski Brod and Bosanski Samac have been comprehended." And
19 it goes on.
20 Having had the advantage of seeing those minutes, does that jog
21 your memory about the events in Bosanski Brod and Bosanski Samac and the
22 fact that both you and other members of the government, or not a member of
23 the government, other persons present at the government session, had
24 received information about Bosanski Brod and Bosanski Samac?
25 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, the exhibit number for these minutes
1 is P583, tab 7.
2 Q. Mr. Lakic?
3 A. [No interpretation]
4 Q. I'll just ask the question again. Having seen these minutes, does
5 that jog your memory that in fact members of the government and yourself
6 had received information about events in Bosanski Brod and Bosanski Samac?
7 A. I cannot remember that we received such a document, the kind that
8 you mentioned before, and it was not always customary at the government
9 sessions for all documents to be distributed to all members of the
10 government, especially if they were strictly confidential. Usually one
11 member of the government, who was familiar with the situation, would have
12 the document and then tell it in his own words to the rest of the
13 attendees and based on that, the government would take a decision. If
14 it's true, however, that this first document was distributed, then it must
15 be part of the documentation of the government of the Republika Srpska.
16 Q. Mr. Lakic, I'll just --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts, you let the witness go on with
18 documents, documents. Your question was about information. Why not,
19 then, say, I'm not talking about documents, I'm talking about information
20 in general terms, unless you would be interested specifically in whether
21 there were any documents. But that was not your question.
22 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour, although that was -- that was
23 a -- not my question, but I certainly will proceed in that direction.
24 Your Honour, if I may refer to tab 42 --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, before you do so, could you please check the
1 following part, perhaps ask the witness to read the paragraph you are
2 referring to, in the end says "which would be good to discuss at the
3 coming talks of regarding the distribution of BH."
4 Which is -- perhaps it's a lack of my knowledge of the English
5 language but doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Could we perhaps check
6 with the interpreters what it really says?
7 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, I'm not certain, Your Honours, that the
8 interpreters have a copy of the original.
9 JUDGE ORIE: If we could perhaps slowly read.
10 Mr. Lakic, could you slowly read from the paragraph Mr. Margetts
11 just has drawn your attention to but then starting at the second sentence,
12 which is something like [B/C/S spoken] or something like that? Could you
13 please slowly read that? You see what I mean?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.
15 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness start again, please?
16 JUDGE ORIE: Please read very slowly and where do you now start?
17 Could you please read the first words so that we know that we start at the
18 same point.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "Problems have been noted in
20 theatres of war in Bosanski Brod and Bosanski Samac. There is a threat of
21 a large exodus of the Serb population, which would be unfavourable for the
22 upcoming talks on the division of Bosnia-Herzegovina because it is the
23 factual situation that is taken into account there. The conclusion was
24 adopted to take all steps in order to redress the situation in this area."
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I had some difficulties in understanding the
1 translation as it was. What the interpreters now tell us is a bit
2 different from what it says on paper. Could you please take care that
3 we -- that the translation is reviewed before we admit this into evidence?
4 MR. MARGETTS: Thank you, Your Honour. I will do so. In fact, it
5 already is an exhibit and we'll correct the translation.
6 Q. Mr. Lakic, in the paragraph that you have just read out at the
7 direction of His Honour, it states that the change in demographics could
8 have an effect on the coming talks. It's the case, isn't it, that in the
9 talks about the division of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the factual situation
10 on the ground, namely how many Muslims or how many Serbs were on a
11 particular part of the territory, was an important consideration as to
12 which side would be in a good bargaining position in regard to obtaining
13 that territory within their state?
14 A. That could be accepted as correct.
15 Q. And accordingly, if an area was claimed by a particular side, if
16 there was an exodus of population of the other nationality, that would be
17 an advantage to the side that claimed that territory, wouldn't it?
18 A. Yes. And for that reason, it was suggested to take steps to stop
19 the migration of the population.
20 Q. And for the same reason, steps would not be taken to stop the
21 migration of the population of the other ethnicity, in other words, if the
22 Muslims were leaving a territory, it was in the interests of the Serbs
23 that that occurred for the -- it would improve their chances at the
24 negotiation table, correct?
25 A. It could be understood that way. It means to preserve the status
1 quo, to freeze it and not to allow any further migrations of any ethnicity
2 from that area.
3 Q. But as we have seen in the example that you gave Mr. Josse, buses
4 were provided to the Muslim population in Pale so that they could depart
5 and the Serb side was willing to assist the Muslims to leave territory
6 that they claimed.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And in fact, the Serb side encouraged --
9 A. But, no. Your Honour, may I say something?
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, although you may say something but perhaps first
11 let's ask Mr. Margetts to complete his question and then in your answer
12 you can add whatever you'd like relevant to the issue we are now dealing
14 Mr. Margetts. You said, "and in fact the Serb side --
15 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour.
16 Q. Mr. Lakic, we were referring to the provision of buses by the
17 Serbs so that Muslims could depart territory, and it was the case that the
18 Serb side encouraged the departure of Muslims from the territory that they
19 claimed and sought to be successful in obtaining in international
20 negotiations, correct?
21 A. No.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Then please explain, Mr. Lakic.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We have a very peculiar case here.
24 Just before this event that I described, over 50 people ran away from Pale
25 to the environs of Zepa. They were ambushed. The entire Pale was in
1 mourning because many of their family members were killed, and in my
2 opinion, if nobody had instigated -- in my opinion, nobody instigated
3 Muslims to leave. They took this step of their own accord fearing
4 retaliation against Muslims. So it was not an organised deportation of
5 Muslims from Pale. It was more their own fear that inspired them to
7 JUDGE ORIE: May I ask one question in relation to this? We
8 earlier discussed this convoy that had to pass through municipalities and
9 where -- you remember that document that should be destroyed? Were they
10 leaving --
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
12 JUDGE ORIE: -- then?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, yes. I don't know why they
14 came to Pale. I heard that these were mostly men from and around
15 Bratunac, that they had been put up at the community centre, that the
16 Prime Minister ordered that their transfer to the federation of Bosnia and
17 Herzegovina, that's to say to Visoko, be arranged.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It's still not clear from your answer how this
19 could be understood as voluntarily leaving the territory of Republika
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't say what their motives or
22 reasons were for getting to Pale on that evening, but as far as I know,
23 they were transferred to the territory of the Federation of
24 Bosnia-Herzegovina of their own accord. Had it not been of their free
25 will or rather had they not stated that they wished to be transferred
1 there, they would most certainly have remained at Pale.
2 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber heard some evidence on that, but I do
3 understand that you're not fully informed on their motives and that it's
4 conclusions rather than factual knowledge.
5 Mr. Margetts?
6 MR. JOSSE: I'm not sure the Defence accept that. Your Honours, I
7 assume when Your Honour says "conclusions" Your Honour means assumptions.
8 JUDGE ORIE: If you say "had it not been of their own will then
9 they would have stayed," that's a conclusion.
10 MR. JOSSE: Yes. I mean I'm happy with conclusions. Conclusions
11 the Defence are happy with. If Your Honour is saying it's assumptions,
12 that's a different matter altogether.
13 JUDGE ORIE: The transcript says --
14 MR. JOSSE: The transcript says "conclusions." That was the word
15 Your Honour used.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, then I do agree with you -- no. The transcript
17 says, "the Chamber heard some evidence on that, but I do understand that
18 you're not fully informed on their motives and that it's conclusions
19 rather than factual knowledge." That's what -- not assumptions.
20 MR. JOSSE: That's right. If Your Honour --
21 JUDGE ORIE: That's I think what I said. You'd like me to say --
22 and then --
23 MR. JOSSE: Well --
24 JUDGE ORIE: No, well, it's a semantic issue, it seems that -- I
25 think we would agree that the witness said that in some respects he had no
1 knowledge and on the other matter that -- of course, you could say, "upon
2 a certain assumption I would conclude." That's, of course, then -- if I
3 say upon the assumption that it always rains in the Netherlands, I take it
4 that I'm not in the Netherlands because the sun is shining. That's an
5 assumption and a conclusion together, isn't it?
6 MR. JOSSE: It is.
7 JUDGE ORIE: And I don't think there is a real problem in
9 Mr. Margetts.
10 MR. MARGETTS: Thank you, Your Honour.
11 Q. Mr. Lakic, you referred to the fact that the persons that departed
12 in the convoy that was the subject of the letter you wrote on the 15th of
13 May 1992, were at the community centre. Are you referring to the building
14 next to the MUP building, which is also known as the sports hall?
15 A. I apologise. Which convoy are you referring to? I'm sorry, I
16 don't understand.
17 Q. Yes. There are two convoys. There is one that you mentioned in
18 your evidence this morning responding to Mr. Josse's questions and that
19 was the one that left on buses. I'm actually referring to the convoy that
20 went through Ilijas to Visoko and the question is: When you said
21 community centre, were you referring to the building next to the MUP
22 building which is also known as the sports hall?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Now, Mr. Lakic --
25 A. Yes, yes.
1 Q. Just returning to the issue of the efforts made to ensure the
2 Serbs did not leave the territory of Bosanski Brod, I want to refer you to
3 tab 42.
4 MR. MARGETTS: And if that can have an exhibit number, please.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Tab 42, Your Honours, will be P1117.
6 MR. MARGETTS:
7 Q. Mr. Lakic, this is an article that was published in Tanjug on the
8 13th of May 1992 and it reads as followings: "Nedjo Lakic, secretary of
9 the government of the Serb Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina today rejected
10 the insinuations that the Serb government and the Serb republic have
11 betrayed the Serbs of the territory of Bosanski Brod and qualified them as
12 deliberate enemy propaganda. He stressed that the Serb Republic of
13 Bosnia-Herzegovina would not expose a single inhabitant of Serb
14 nationality at any price to an exodus and suffering." Do you recall
15 making these remarks on the 13th of May 1992?
16 A. Yes, yes. I do. But this was in response to various propaganda
17 campaigns directed against the Serb population and the Republika Srpska.
18 Q. And does that now refresh your memory in relation to these minutes
19 of 15 May 1992, and are you now able to recall the issue of the departure
20 of the Serbs from Bosanski Brod and Bosanski Samac?
21 A. This -- these two were probably closely knit together in the enemy
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts, you said one document and, of course,
24 you said might be one or two more but I didn't count them but they seem to
25 become many more.
1 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour. That's accepted and I will now
2 refer to my final document.
3 MR. JOSSE: A pedantic matter, Your Honour. In the last main
4 question, my learned friend asked, he said that this was an article
5 published in a newspaper? Is that correct? If so, where is the article?
6 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour, I'll need to look into that and
7 I'll respond to my learned friend in due course.
8 JUDGE ORIE: It looks very much as if it would be a Tanjug press
9 release rather than an article.
10 MR. JOSSE: Yes. I said that it was pedantic because the witness
11 accepted that he had made that statement and therefore it doesn't matter
12 very much. I fully accept. Thank you, Your Honour.
13 MR. MARGETTS:
14 Q. If I could refer to tab 57, which is a map? Mr. Lakic, this is a
15 map of Pale, and if I could refer you first to the circled building on the
16 bottom right of the map, and could you tell the Court which building that
18 A. Kikinda.
19 Q. And if we could move -- I think it's north on the map but it's
20 certainly higher on the map before you, there is a building that's
21 directly above Kikinda and could you tell the Court what that building is?
22 A. MUP, Ministry of Interior.
23 Q. And if you could now move across to the left of the map and there
24 is another set of buildings circled, and could you tell -- yes, you're
25 indicating that that circle encompasses the Panorama hotel?
1 A. Panorama hotel.
2 Q. And can you confirm that the distance between the Panorama hotel
3 and the MUP building is approximately 1.5 kilometres?
4 A. Perhaps a bit more.
5 Q. You say a bit more, a matter of a few hundred metres more or?
6 A. I'd say two kilometres.
7 Q. And then if you now look at the depiction of the MUP building and
8 the Kikinda hotel can you confirm that the distance between those two
9 buildings is approximately 600 metres?
10 A. Approximately, yes.
11 MR. MARGETTS: Thank you, Your Honour. I have no further
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Next time, if you choose a map, Mr. Margetts,
14 wouldn't it be advisable to take a map which is to scale? This one
15 says, "Not to scale." And if you would put the 0.6 kilometres between
16 Kikinda and MUP and you would use that to measure the distance to the
17 panorama hotel, if the map would be to scale, it would be 1.2 instead of
18 1.5. Of course, it's not dramatic but at the same time maps are usually
19 there to give proper information about distances, situations, et cetera.
20 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, fortunately I am in the position to
21 provide a better map to the Court and I have that map here.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Would that perhaps be for the later -- I mean, would
23 it make much difference for the testimony of this witness, Mr. Josse?
24 MR. JOSSE: Well, I was going to re-examine upon it so it's a
25 matter for Your Honours.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Fine, well, then, if there is re-examination,
2 if we are talking about distances.
3 MR. JOSSE: I wasn't going to re-examine on the distances.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, I do not know exactly what the importance is of
5 1.5 or 1.2 or 2 kilometres but I always prefer to have a map which is not
6 for tourists but for whose who seriously want to study the --
7 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour. I'm in a position to produce a
8 map of that nature which depicts the same information, and this is in fact
9 the map from which the distances were derived. The distances were not
10 derived from this schematic map which is not to scale, so we are confident
11 of the distance but we would be pleased if we could introduce this map
12 into evidence possibly as --
13 JUDGE ORIE: The witness has now testified about this map so
14 therefore we have to have that in evidence as well.
15 MR. JOSSE: I suggest we admit both. I would invite the Chamber
16 to admit both.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Yes.
18 Then, Mr. Margetts, you're invited to tender the other map as
20 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour. If this could possibly be
21 admitted as exhibit A?
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Josse I take it then that we could use that
23 even --
24 MR. JOSSE: If I could literally glance at it for a second?
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 MR. JOSSE: Yes. Absolutely.
2 MR. MARGETTS: Thank you, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Then it gets a number itself. Mr. Registrar?
4 THE REGISTRAR: The one under tab 57, Your Honours, would be
6 JUDGE ORIE: And the other map would be?
7 THE REGISTRAR: P1119, Your Honours.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 MR. JOSSE: Your Honour, Mr. Krajisnik, of course -- well,
10 Mr. Krajisnik is unhappy with P1118.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, as a matter of fact --
12 MR. JOSSE: Perhaps if I could ask him for some details and then
13 I'll cross-examine the witness about it.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Would Mr. Krajisnik prefer P1119?
15 MR. JOSSE: He hasn't seen it.
16 JUDGE ORIE: He hasn't seen it. It's -- the witness said that MUP
17 to panorama was two kilometres and if you look at this scale on the map,
18 the witness is right. I don't know who put on that it's approximately 1.5
19 but it's -- but let's not just --
20 MR. JOSSE: Are there any other copies of P1119?
21 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, there are copies of the map that does
22 not have the distances marked on it.
23 JUDGE ORIE: It's so confusing that if something on the basis of
24 the scale is, well, let's say, 1.8, 1.9, and then to read on it that it's
25 approximately 1.5.
1 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, I apologise for only having one copy
2 of the 1119 but I cannot usefully respond unless -- without the map before
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now we have a touristic map, Mr. Krajisnik. I
5 take it then that we will find objections against the admission of that
6 map, Mr. Josse. Reasons unknown?
7 MR. JOSSE: I just thought subject to Your Honour's view the
8 proper course would be for me to take some instructions. I'll do it in
9 the court, with the map, and then cross-examine the witness as to the
10 difficulties, because clearly --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 MR. JOSSE: Sorry, cross-examine is the wrong word, re-examine the
14 JUDGE ORIE: Re-examine the witness on the matter.
15 Mr. Margetts has finished his examination. Mr. Margetts?
16 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour, subject to submissions in regard
17 to the map and if there is any necessity for --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we'll hear from Mr. Josse in due course.
19 Mr. Josse therefore doesn't need to re-examine the witness.
20 MR. JOSSE: I've got quite a number of matters. I will need to
21 speak to Mr. Krajisnik about the map. Shall I do that?
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I don't know how complex that is but --
23 MR. JOSSE: Perhaps I could do that now.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
25 [Defence counsel and Accused confer]
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Josse?
2 MR. JOSSE: Thank you, Your Honour.
3 Re-examination by Mr. Josse:
4 Q. Mr. Lakic, have a look at the map that is at tab 57, please. Can
5 you see where it says "Hotel Koran"? Very much towards the bottom of the
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Is that where the Hotel Koran actually was in 1992?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Where it says, "Kikinda" --
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. -- what --
13 A. Yes, yes.
14 Q. -- does it actually say in Cyrillic beneath the red square that
15 represents the Kikinda?
16 A. It says, "CSB, Sarajevo."
17 Q. What does CSB stand for?
18 A. Well, it's very difficult to answer that one. It could possibly
19 mean Security Services Centre Sarajevo.
20 Q. Was the CSB building next to the Kikinda hotel?
21 A. I don't remember that there was any building next to Hotel Kikinda
22 before, because I had never visited Kikinda Hotel before the war.
23 Q. Well, you went there in 1992, presumably.
24 A. Yes.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Before we continue, Mr. Josse, was this map tendered
1 also in order to establish where a CSB was or was it tendered for any
2 other reason than to give the distances between Kikinda, MUP, and
4 MR. JOSSE: That was the only purpose, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: That was the only purpose. Mr. Josse, is there any
6 problem with P1119 which gives the wrongly, but controllably wrong, those
8 MR. JOSSE: Mr. Krajisnik hasn't seen that map.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Because if that map is not correct, of course, we
10 could try to locate whatever is incorrect on that map but we also could
11 use the other map where similar matters could not appear. Could
12 Mr. Krajisnik be provided with the other map? Let's be very practical.
13 Is there another copy? My copy is -- we have only one copy. But if
14 Mr. Krajisnik looks at it -- I mean, let's try to remain practical.
15 MR. JOSSE: Yes. I don't want to spend very long on this.
16 JUDGE ORIE: No. If Mr. Krajisnik is happy with the other one,
17 apart from the distances indicated which are not in according with the
18 scale. But apart from that.
19 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, I believe this is a copy of P1119
20 without the markings on it, just the location of the premises.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 MR. MARGETTS: If that would aid the Bench while Mr. Krajisnik
23 has --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Not only distances are missing but also the
25 names of the locations.
1 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour. I daren't proffer a further
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 [Defence counsel and Accused confer]
5 MR. JOSSE: Apparently there is no real argument, Your Honour,
6 about the distances. One of the difficulties is, of course, I can't
7 cross-examine the witness, or I can't put to him what Mr. Krajisnik says
8 is the position.
9 JUDGE ORIE: I mean, of course, according to.
10 MR. JOSSE: It's an artificial situation.
11 JUDGE ORIE: According to the, of course, the common law tradition
12 you could not, but let's just try to find out. We want to know what the
13 relevance is. Mr. Margetts has told us that it's the distance between
14 these locations, and if you think you could clarify by putting it to the
15 witness, then I would not and the Chamber would not oppose against
16 questions which are questions you would usually put in cross-examination
17 rather than Mr. Margetts.
18 I take it you take the same position.
19 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, at this moment we do not think the
20 questions will be objectionable but we will reserve our position.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Of course you will reserve your position.
22 JUDGE ORIE: What we want to know is how it was.
23 MR. JOSSE:
24 Q. Two matters, Mr. Lakic. First of all, Mr. Krajisnik suggests that
25 the Koran hotel was in fact in the opposite side of the Kikinda building.
1 So if we look at the map it's on the right, not the left, as we look at
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Yes do you think what Mr. Krajisnik is saying is right?
5 A. Yes. I think what Mr. Krajisnik said is right. I didn't see any
6 other Koran. Koran was on the right-hand side not on the left. However,
7 the map is drawn in such a way that there are several features with the
8 same name but whether you go for instance from mount Jahorina, then the
9 Koran hotel would be on your right-hand side relative to Kikinda.
10 Q. Mr. Lakic, I hope Mr. Krajisnik will forgive me for saying this,
11 but in one sense you have a distinct advantage over him, you live in Pale
12 yea. He by reason of his detention hasn't been there for six years. Is
13 the Koran Hotel still in existence?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. So I repeat the question I asked you earlier. Is it where -- is
16 it presently where it now appears on the map? Has it moved? Two
18 A. The Koran hotel is in the same place where it used to be. It's
19 just not a hotel any more. Nowadays, it's a students' hostel.
20 Q. All right. Does the map accurately portray where the hostel is
22 A. No.
23 Q. The other matter of substance is Mr. Krajisnik asserts that the
24 Kikinda building is further down the road or in fact the railway track,
25 nearer the bottom of the map, than is in fact portrayed.
1 A. I don't think this map is good at all. The distances are wrong
2 and the juxtaposition of features is also wrong, in my opinion.
3 Q. One last matter for completeness, we look at the middle of the
4 map. There is a yellow square or oblong building next to a green track.
5 Could you read what it says there in the Cyrillic?
6 MR. JOSSE: Perhaps if I show the usher, she can then demonstrate
7 the building to the witness.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It says it's a sports hall.
9 However, there is no sports hall there. The sports hall has just begun to
10 be built.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts, at least one of the things that strikes
12 me is that on the map without any reference, nor to the origin but being
13 close to the -- I've got it in front of me now -- that in the area where
14 Kikinda is located on P1118, nothing is there. You see there is a kind of
15 a triangle in the circle. I'm now talking about the circle on the -- this
16 map similar to 1119, because I gave mine away so I don't have it any more.
17 Perhaps, Mr. Registrar, could you give me the original? Yes. Where it
18 says, "Kikinda," where -- it seems that most of the buildings are
19 indicated on this map, it's completely empty. So someone did put a red
20 square in P1118, says that's Kikinda. That's different, for example, in
21 the Panorama circumstance to say it that way. We find that there is some
22 buildings. In the MUP circle, we find that there is some buildings. But
23 in the Kikinda circle, if you compare 1118 with 1119, you see that
24 triangle in 1119 is empty. So that surprises at least a bit. Why not put
25 the -- could the parties agree on a map? I mean there must be
1 geographical maps. I can't imagine that this case would be either won or
2 lost by the parties not agreeing on where Kikinda would have been.
3 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour. Obviously we've done our best to
4 go through the maps that are currently in our possession and present the
5 best maps that we have to the Court. As the Court can see, that we've --
6 it seems we've exhausted the possibilities of obtaining a better map
7 unless we undertake some further investigations and we are happy to do
8 that, and liaise with the Defence in so doing and obtain -- ask our
9 investigators to obtain photos of the various buildings and to depict them
10 on a map if that would be a suitable, practical way forward.
11 JUDGE ORIE: At the same time, I understood from you that it's
12 mainly to have the approximate distances between important locations.
13 Mr. Josse, even if Kikinda would be 100 or 200 metres more south
14 that would not really change very much as far as what Mr. Margetts for
15 unknown reasons yet to the Chamber, apart from that it was not 30 or 40
16 kilometres but just relatively short distances, would not change a lot.
17 MR. JOSSE: That's accepted by Mr. Krajisnik. To be fair to him,
18 he immediately said to me he, broadly speaking, accepted the distances.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Let's then get rid of the bad maps and if you want to
20 produce another one, fine. Otherwise, distances are anything between half
21 a kilometre and two kilometres or perhaps two and a half or 400 metres.
22 Please proceed.
23 MR. JOSSE:
24 Q. Mr. Lakic --
25 JUDGE ORIE: For the time being, the numbers are freed, both 11 --
1 THE REGISTRAR: P1118 and P1119, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Especially because Kikinda is located in a
3 place where, from what I understand, Mr. Krajisnik would not agree that
4 it's there. Please try to agree or let's forget about the maps as a
6 MR. JOSSE:
7 Q. Could you turn to tab 48, please, Mr. Lakic? Now, so far as this
8 is concerned, it's been read into the record already. It uses the
9 words, "Be looked into." What do you understand by your use of the words,
10 as far as the operational programme is concerned, I quote, "Be looked
12 A. In my opinion, this operative plan or rather programme had been
13 discussed before. It had been submitted to all the ministries. And what
14 is being asked here of them is to have a look and see if their particular
15 obligations had been formulated properly, their obligations to implement
16 the programme.
17 Q. And what about the words at the end, "Submitted to the government
18 for review"? What did you understand the words "for review" to mean?
19 A. The word "to review" means to consider what all the ministries had
20 done and whether they had fulfilled their obligations. The government
21 does not adopt this programme. It only reviews it or considers it.
22 Q. Turn to page -- to tab 9 now, please. We see that the operative
23 programme is dated the 17th of June of 1992. That's correct, isn't it?
24 A. Probably, but I can't find it.
25 Q. Well, it's on the front page.
1 A. Right.
2 Q. I'd like you to have a look at the government minutes for the 14th
3 of July of 1992. Let me firstly hand you the copy of the original.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Could you assist us, Mr. Josse, where to find it?
5 MR. JOSSE: I don't know whether it's in the Prosecution bundle.
6 I don't know what the exhibit number is either.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, is it government 14th of -- let me just find it
8 because I have a list somewhere. Could you assist, Mr. Margetts?
9 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour, in the bundle that we tendered
10 today at, reference 57, line 1, and this was given exhibit number -- oh,
11 I'm sorry, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: And it said P65, tab 179, would that be 39th session
13 of the government 14th of July 1992? That comes closest.
14 MR. JOSSE: It's the 39th session that I'm --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes that would be P65, tab 179. At least according
16 to my information.
17 MR. JOSSE: Yes, Your Honour, that's correct.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 MR. JOSSE: This is not going to be terribly easy to do
20 Your Honour but I'll try my best. Could we first of all put the page 1 on
21 the ELMO in English?
22 Just bear with me, Mr. Lakic. We'll take this slowly if we may.
23 The witness doesn't need to worry about the English, Madam Usher.
24 He just needs the original. Could you move it up a bit, please? Thank
1 Q. We see that item number 1 says guidelines regarding the tasks, the
2 modus operandi, and the functioning of both the Defence forces of state
3 organs and the factors in the main of economic and social services in the
4 Srpska Republika of Bosnia-Herzegovina in the state of war.
5 I would then like you to turn, Mr. Lakic, to re: 1 in the
6 minutes, and it's page 4 in the English which we are going to put on the
7 ELMO, please. And we see --
8 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, if I may, we do have copies of this
9 that we could distribute if that would be helpful.
10 MR. JOSSE: That would be very helpful.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 MR. JOSSE: I suggest the witness is given one of those because
13 the version I've given him is double-sided and I think he'll find that
14 much easier. And if I could have one as well, please.
15 Q. I hope you've had a chance, Mr. Lakic, to read where it says, re:
16 Number 1. And my question is firstly, is this a reference to the
17 guidelines and the operative programme that we find in tab 9?
18 A. I think all these guidelines relate to the general preparations
19 for the contingency of proclaiming a state of war, and the main purpose of
20 these guidelines, that all public-owned enterprises should bear the brunt
21 of the war effort. That means everybody. And it says at the end that
22 every ministry has to develop their operative plan and a very brief and
23 concise one at that.
24 It is certain that this operative programme was not read out at
25 the session of the government. Instead every ministry took care of its
1 own tasks and obligations. It was simply an instruction to develop
2 effective guidelines for every ministry.
3 Q. I'm not clear. Is this a reference, in part or in whole, to the
4 operative programme? Or don't you know?
5 A. At that time, I had just started working on the cabinet, in the
6 government, and I couldn't tell you. The operative plan had been
7 developed before I came there. I don't know who made it but it did pass
8 through the government, which is logical, because the government was in
9 charge of logistics, including in the state of war, and they had to
10 prepare for all the contingencies and plan for the accommodation of the
11 populace, et cetera.
12 Q. Is there any significance in the second paragraph, where it
13 says, "It should be provided that all solutions are adapted to the war
14 situation regardless of the fact that the state of war was not declared"?
15 A. Yes, yes.
16 Q. Why is that significant, please?
17 A. Well, that was a kind of introduction, that contingency plans
18 should be made in case a state of war is proclaimed. Those were in fact
19 preparations for proclaiming a state of war.
20 Q. I want to move on to a different issue, please. You've been asked
21 about the absence of two ministers from government sessions. They weren't
22 named but there is no secret that this is Mr. Mandic and Mr. Stanisic.
23 How did Mr. Mandic and Mr. Stanisic get on with Mr. Djeric?
24 A. They didn't get on very well.
25 Q. Why was that, Mr. Lakic?
1 A. I think the problem occurred during the census and the protection
2 of the property that found itself on the territory of Republika Srpska at
3 the beginning of the war. Several times the government endorsed the
4 conclusion that such property should be inventoried, especially in
5 Lukavica, and later in Tas, that is the factory Tas in Vogosca where they
6 had VW Golf vehicles and for that purpose a commission was established
7 headed by Milan Trbojevic. That commission, as far as I remember, did not
8 submit a single report on the inventory of that property. The government
9 demanded several times that this property be inventoried, and then they
10 established a new commission headed again by Vice-Premier Milan Trbojevic.
11 Leafing through the transcripts of government sessions, we see
12 that the government insisted in 1992 that these reports be prepared.
13 However, they were never discussed at a government session. Whether that
14 was the reason or not, I really couldn't tell. But it is a fact that
15 these two gentlemen did not attend government sessions, and I hastily drew
16 up lists of those who attended and made charts, and those two attended the
17 least frequently.
18 Q. How severe was the dispute between Mr. Mandic and Stanisic on the
19 one hand and Trbojevic on the other?
20 A. First of all, there was a very heated exchange at one session
21 between Prime Minister, Mr. Djeric, and ministers Stanisic and Mandic.
22 Since the first commission did not inventory the property, a new one was
23 set up, headed, as I said, by Mr. Trbojevic, and then at the next
24 government session, objections were voiced. Why was Milan Trbojevic
25 chosen for that? Because even he moved into an apartment on Grbavica. A
1 particular problem occurred concerning the export of iron that was stored
2 in Lukavica. Prime Minister -- sorry, minister Mandic claimed that by
3 exporting this iron, in a barter deal, would help buy provisions for
4 Republika Srpska, and another minister answered that this barter deal
5 cannot be done independently on the side, that it had to be done through
6 the budget and that only then could it be used to finance the police,
7 which was his intention.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Josse?
9 MR. JOSSE: Yes, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: I don't know exactly what I'm listening to at this
11 moment but it sounds as if there was a problem with personal profit, which
12 needed to be -- I mean, that's the issue, it seems the question. Do we
13 then need to know exactly whether it was steel or whether to finance the
15 MR. JOSSE: The problem is exactly the same. I can't lead the
16 witness. If I could put our case to him then clearly it would make
17 matters much easier but I can't.
18 JUDGE ORIE: But it's clear that you understood that the
19 disagreements between Djeric and, in so far as I understand, Trbojevic on
20 the one hand side, and Mandic and Stanisic on the other hand side was
21 about personal profit. Is that a correct understanding of your answer?
22 MR. JOSSE:
23 Q. You're nodding your head, Mr. Lakic.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Lakic did I understand you well when you
25 gave us some details.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's a leading question. Yes.
2 Well --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, I'm blamed for it before, Mr. Lakic, so I
4 take it -- but did I understand your testimony well?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I wanted to tell you this story so
6 that an inference could be drawn about what this was about.
7 JUDGE ORIE: And my inference as I've drawn it was more or less
8 correct? It was about disagreement about personal profit gained by
9 Mr. Mandic and Mr. Stanisic?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm telling you about the
11 disagreements and misunderstandings at government sessions and elsewhere.
12 I don't know what happened in other contexts.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do understand but the disagreement was about
14 trying to get the best out of it by Mr. Mandic and Mr. Stanisic,
15 Mr. Djeric and Mr. Trbojevic not very happy with that?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Trbojevic was the president of
17 both commissions which were supposed to inventory the property and protect
18 it. However, I never saw the report and in my opinion it was never
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Still not an answer to my question. The
21 problem was that due to the lack of an inventory, that there were
22 suspicions of gaining personal profit from that situation? Is that what
23 the problem was?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That was the impression I gained at
25 the meeting. Whether there was any hostility between them before, I don't
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Josse.
3 MR. JOSSE: Just this:
4 Q. Mr. Lakic, are you aware either from having seen it yourself or
5 from something someone has told you as to how bad that hostility was
6 between these parties? What did they do to one another physically?
7 A. There were no physical contacts, not at the government meeting.
8 Q. I didn't mean at the government meeting. I meant outside of the
9 government. The government had to do something in order to make sure that
10 nothing reoccurred at the government meetings.
11 A. The government set up a different commission to list the property,
12 but this commission failed to do that again and that was Mr. Trbojevic.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lakic, Mr. Josse is clearly hinting at, that's
14 leading as well but I take it over -- at any event that happened like a
15 fight or whatever physical confrontation between the two gentlemen outside
16 the government meeting. Do you remember any of such thing happened?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no, I don't remember.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Josse.
19 MR. JOSSE: Could Your Honour give me one moment?
20 [Defence counsel and Accused confer]
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Josse?
22 MR. JOSSE: Well, my client, with good cause, would like me to ask
23 a leading question.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Well, then we should -- I'll allow you to put the
25 next question and then Mr. Margetts gets an opportunity to -- I don't know
1 what it is, Mr. Margetts. I've got no idea what it is about.
2 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, it would help us if possibly the
3 witness removed his earphones, Mr. Josse put the question, and then if
4 it's -- if there's no objection, then --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Lakic, would you take off your headphones?
6 What question did you have in mind.
7 MR. JOSSE: Does the witness have any knowledge of firearms being
9 MR. MARGETTS: We have no objection to that question.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Lakic --
11 MR. JOSSE:
12 Q. Mr. Lakic, do you have any knowledge of firearms being involved?
13 A. No arms were involved, but Mr. Mandic and Mr. Stanisic had a
14 pistol at one government meeting, but they didn't use it. Mr. Trbojevic's
15 reaction to that was along the lines of, well, then all of us should start
16 bringing along pistols to these meetings. But this was more in a jocular
17 way rather than a row but it was quite customary for people to carry
18 weapons. There was a war on.
19 Q. And what happened after that in relation to the carrying of
20 pistols to government meetings?
21 A. It was forbidden to bring weapons to government meetings.
22 Q. Could you have a look at tab 23, please?
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Josse at the same time I'm asking you how much
24 time you would still need approximately because --
25 MR. JOSSE: 10 to 15 minutes.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Ten to 15 minutes. Yes. Let me look at the
2 interpreters. There would not much time then remain for procedural issues
3 because we would then need another 20 to 25 minutes. We don't have to
4 delay the procedural issues, but perhaps this is the best way to proceed.
5 Is this for the interpreters still bearable? And Mr. Registrar, as far as
6 the tapes are concerned? Let's try to finish it and forget about the
7 procedural issues. Mr. Josse.
8 MR. JOSSE: It's my fault.
9 Q. Tab 22, please.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Tab 22.
11 MR. JOSSE: Can't read my own handwriting.
12 Q. That's exactly what I want to ask you about, handwriting,
13 Mr. Lakic. The handwriting at the top of this document that mentioned
14 Karadzic and Krajisnik's name, do you recognise that handwriting?
15 A. No.
16 Q. The telephone number that we see in manuscript that begins 071, do
17 you recognise that telephone number?
18 A. No, no.
19 Q. And the handwriting at the bottom of the page that the learned
20 Presiding Judge asked you to read out earlier, do you recognise that
22 A. No.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Josse, am I correct in understanding that there
24 is a bit of a problem since the phone number you refer to is not the
25 translated phone number but is the handwritten phone number which does not
1 appear in the translation. It seems to be 071 and then 783-442.
2 MR. JOSSE: Yes.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Doesn't appear in the translation.
4 MR. JOSSE: I was only looking at the original but Your Honour's
5 observation is absolutely right.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If ever the Appeals Chamber would have to look
7 at it they might have difficulties in finding it but that's now on the
8 record. Everyone, Mr. Registrar, if you add it, it's just numbers. On
9 the English translation, I'll then authorise the change made in the
11 MR. JOSSE: Can I go on?
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please.
13 MR. JOSSE:
14 Q. Different topic again, Mr. Lakic. You gave evidence today about
15 the departure of Muslims from Pale. The learned presiding Judge said to
16 you that the Chamber --
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. -- had heard some evidence on that. He went on to say that he
19 understood that you were not fully informed of the motives of the Muslims
20 in departing. As far as you are concerned, are you fully informed as to
21 the motives of the Muslims in departing?
22 A. I don't know which ones you're referring to, the ones that were at
23 the community centre, Dom Kultura, or the ones that I saw departing on a
25 Q. Well, if there is a distinction, you tell the Chamber, please.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just cut this short. It is true that the
2 witness testified about those who came from Bratunac which had to pass
3 through municipalities with this letter that should be destroyed, and the
4 other one was Muslims from Pale leaving on buses. I think there is no
5 further need for an explanation. And your question, Mr. Josse, was about
6 Bratunac Muslims, isn't it? Or the others?
7 MR. JOSSE: Well, perhaps it's my misunderstanding.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 MR. JOSSE: It relates to those on the buses.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But my questions and I thought the witness
11 understood that, was about the Bratunac Muslims when you said I'm not
12 fully informed about why they came from Bratunac so therefore there seems
13 to be some misunderstanding.
14 MR. JOSSE: My fault. If Your Honour's observation only related
15 to the Bratunac --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it was --
17 MR. JOSSE: Individuals.
18 JUDGE ORIE: It was in direct relation to that.
19 MR. JOSSE: Then I needn't waste any more time on that. Thank
21 Q. Tab 17, please.
22 THE REGISTRAR: That's P1115, Your Honours.
23 MR. JOSSE: Thank you.
24 Q. We see that you make a reference to "reaching us via facsimile
25 sometimes." Why did you use the word "sometimes"?
1 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, we consider that the entire paragraph
2 should be read to the witness, to assist him with this response.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Josse is asking you questions about the following
4 paragraph which reads, "Considering the fact that our TT communication has
5 been rendered very difficult, we kindly ask you that you also try reaching
6 us via facsimile sometimes in order to finish some business in that way
7 also." Mr. Josse?
8 MR. JOSSE:
9 Q. It's the use of the word "sometimes" that I'm asking you about,
10 Mr. Lakic, why did you use that word?
11 A. First of all, that wasn't a fax, that machine, that was a
12 teleprinter. Occasionally, the regional information centre sent some
13 letters to the government. Some government officials complained that they
14 had not received the communication that had been sent to them via the
15 teleprinter. After my inquiries, I realised -- or they told me that they
16 worked under very poor conditions, with outdated technology. That's what
17 they told me.
18 Q. Right. Is the reference to "via facsimile sometimes" a reference
19 to a facsimile machine or some sort of teleprinter?
20 A. A teleprinter. They did not have a fax machine as far as I know.
21 I don't believe that we had any at the time.
22 JUDGE ORIE: I may be illiterate in technical matters but what
23 exactly is the difference between a teleprinter and a facsimile?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know. A facsimile is modern
25 technology that is widely used nowadays. Whereas a teleprinter is
1 something different, although I'm a complete layman in those areas.
2 JUDGE ORIE: My understanding was that relaying a picture or
3 something handwritten exactly as it was sent was formerly called facsimile
4 and in recent days, when it was -- became very popular and widespread,
5 that is what we now call a fax. But please, if my understanding is wrong,
6 I'd like to hear from the parties, later on see written submissions on the
7 difference between the two, but let's not spend too much time on it in
8 court where the witness seems not to know the difference. Please proceed.
9 MR. JOSSE: Your Honour, I simply going to ask him about the use
10 of the word, because it's in Latin I think I can do this "faksom," in the
11 original, f-a-k-s-o-m.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I see that's in the original. I looked at that
13 as well. But -- well, let's ask then what the witness understands. But
14 if the witness doesn't know, if he's correcting again and again that it
15 should be teleprinting and not facsimile and, then asked, he says I don't
16 know what the difference is, then, of course, it doesn't make that much
18 MR. JOSSE: Save for the fact that it's his documents. This isn't
19 a case where he's being asked about a document that someone else has
20 signed. This is his document. Therefore what he says about it, in our
21 submission, is of some importance.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Please put a question to him, Mr. Josse.
23 MR. JOSSE:
24 Q. So we see in the B/C/S version, Mr. Lakic, the word faksom,
25 f-a-k-s-o-m. What do you understand by that word?
1 A. I'm looking at the date, 9 May 1992. In the premises where the
2 government was housed, there wasn't a single facsimile, at least I didn't
3 see one. What I meant under this was a teleprinter.
4 MR. JOSSE: I have nothing else, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Again, Mr. Josse, it shows -- he says, "I've
6 never seen a facsimile. I thought it was a teleprinter," and his previous
7 answer was that he doesn't know the difference. It doesn't really make
8 much sense.
9 Mr. Margetts any further questions to the --
10 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour, just one question.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Just one.
12 Further cross-examination by Mr. Margetts:
13 MR. MARGETTS:
14 Q. Mr. Lakic, I'd like you to again have the 39th session of the
15 government presented to you. That is Exhibit P65, tab 179. And if you
16 could refer again to the portion that Mr. Josse referred you to, that's
17 the first two paragraphs relating to agenda item 1, and in particular, if
18 you could refer to the second sentence in the second paragraph, which
19 reads, "It should be provided that all solutions are adapted to the war
20 situation regardless of the fact that the state of war was not declared."
21 That sentence clearly states that despite the failure to declare
22 formally a state of war, the government was to operate as if one had been
23 declared, correct?
24 A. This is an assumption of how things ought to be. No where does it
25 state expressly that this is the way things ought to be done. I said in
1 answer to some of the earlier questions that preparations need to be made
2 in the event of the declaration of a state of war, which meant that all
3 the ministries and agencies had to be prepared for a state of war, for a
4 war situation.
5 MR. MARGETTS: No further questions, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE ORIE: Judge Hanoteau has one or more questions to you.
9 Questioned by the Court:
10 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] It's a question about your
11 appointment with Mr. Djeric. You said that when you came first you
12 worked at the Kikinda building, is that it?
13 A. I worked for a very brief period of time at Kikinda. I was
14 appointed on the 24th of April and I believe it was sometime in June that
15 the government moved over to Bistrica.
16 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Now, this Kikinda building, how
17 many people were working there with Mr. Djeric?
18 A. First off, the Kikinda building is quite small. It could not
19 receive many people. I don't know how many people there were at all
20 times. It was a building that one would work in briefly and then go else
21 where. As for Mr. Djeric, I know that there were two or at most three
22 ministers with him and, of course, there was me working there, with a
23 secretary, an administrator who was there as well.
24 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] And then you said that the
25 government went to Jahorina later on. Is that it?
1 A. Yes.
2 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] And they said that they had
3 settled in a hotel.
4 A. [No interpretation]
5 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] A hotel that could usually
6 accommodate 300 to 400 tourists, right.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Okay. So I wanted to know how many people were working for the
9 government at that time in that building, for the government.
10 A. According to the lists I made, that was a time when the government
11 worked on a regular basis. There were 12 ministers and each minister had
12 one, two, or at most three associates. I had one such associate working
13 with me, and there were three secretaries.
14 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] So out of this list of people,
15 how many people were really working for the government? I would like a
16 figure, an approximate figure but a figure.
17 A. There were 12 ministers and, let's say, four of us, 16 times,
18 well, about 40.
19 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] 40 all together?
20 A. Yes.
21 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] With a secretaries, the
22 ministers, the deputies, 40 people altogether?
23 A. The case at the beginning. Later on, the numbers steadily
25 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Up to how much? Up to how much?
1 A. Numbers varied. But up to 200 people.
2 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] You said that Mr. Krajisnik was
3 working in Kikinda whilst the government was in Jahorina.
4 A. Yes.
5 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Where was Krajisnik,
6 Mr. Krajisnik's assembly?
7 A. I don't understand the question.
8 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Where was -- where did
9 Mr. Krajisnik work? Where was his place of work?
10 A. At Kikinda. Yes, yes. As far as I know, there were four to five
11 professional officers who worked for him.
12 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Another question, if I may.
13 Could you refer back to Mr. Bogdan Subotic's statement, please? It was
14 P583, tab 47, if we could show this document to the witness again, please.
15 MR. MARGETTS: Which, Your Honour, is tab 7 in the materials.
16 Apologies, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Just before the passage which was
18 read out by Mr. Margetts.
19 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, I'm sorry. I'm having difficulties
20 locating which tab it is in the binder. Is it the assembly session or
21 government minutes that you wish to refer to?
22 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] This is a statement by Bogdan
23 Subotic on the 12th of August 1992.
24 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour, that's tab 11. And it's at P583,
25 tab 87, according to the information I have before me.
1 JUDGE ORIE: It's not tab 11. You have distributed it separately,
2 Mr. Margetts.
3 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour on a portion is at tab 11 so it's
4 actually another document, an extra document, that was distributed being
5 the speech of Bogdan Subotic.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Let's proceed. We are running out of time.
7 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] I'd like to read out this passage
8 to the witness, please. Mr. Subotic declares, [In English] "Let me tell
9 you that I toured all the front lines of the Serbian Republic and I have
10 been in a situation where I had to wait outside the gate to enter the
11 barracks just like any recruit or soldier. Well, gentlemen, as Defence
12 Minister, I am unable to answer" --
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, I'm not hearing -- I
14 can't find it. Which line, which page? Could you give me a reference?
15 MR. MARGETTS: Yes. The reference is to the paragraph that you
16 were previously referred to and this is a portion that appears on page 56
17 of the Serbian and you will see the reference commences --
18 MR. JOSSE: Four or five lines down on page 56, I'm helpfully told
19 by Mr. Karganovic.
20 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Let me resume. [In English] "Let
21 me tell you I toured all the front lines of the Serbian Republic on my own
22 initiative announced without escort, without reception. And I have been in
23 a situation where I had to wait outside the gate to enter the barracks
24 just like any recruit or soldier. Well, gentlemen, as Defence Minister, I
25 unable to answer the questions regarding military issues. I have to lie
1 to them. I mean, I am not up to speed. [Interpretation] I would just
2 like to know how you react on reading this. What did you know of this
3 situation? Did you know what position Mr. Subotic was in? Why was Mr.
4 Subotic reduced to waiting in front of the gates of the barracks when he
5 wanted to go and visit the military barracks which were under his
7 A. First of all, I don't know if he really waited as a simple soldier
8 outside barracks. Second, I think it's all about his desire to become a
9 member of the Presidency, which he never became.
10 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] In other words, what he was
11 saying here was just that he was very unhappy about this?
12 A. Yes, probably.
13 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Thank you, Witness.
14 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that the questions by the Bench have not
15 raised any further questions by the parties?
16 MR. MARGETTS: No, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Then we are running to the end of the tape at this
18 very moment.
19 And, Mr. Lakic, we would not like to keep you for another day.
20 Therefore, this concludes your testimony. We would like to thank you very
21 much for having come to The Hague and for having answered questions put to
22 you both by the Defence, by the Prosecution, and by the Bench, and we wish
23 you a safe trip home again.
24 Then --
25 [Trial chamber and legal officer confer]
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We will adjourn until tomorrow morning,
3 Mr. Registrar, same courtroom, 9.00?
4 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Where, Mr. Josse, you'll be ready to start the
6 examination of your next witness?
7 MR. JOSSE: Yes, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we stand adjourned.
9 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.23 p.m.,
10 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 21st day of
11 February 2006, at 9.00 a.m.