1 Tuesday, 30 May 2006
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.12 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone.
6 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is the case
8 number IT-00-39-T, the Prosecutor versus Momcilo Krajisnik.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
10 There may have been some confusion as to whether we would start
11 at 10.00, but I do understand, Mr. Krajisnik, that your dentist fell ill.
12 I also was informed that you would now see the dentist on Thursday
13 morning, so we would have a late start on Thursday morning. Then I do
14 understand, Mr. Krajisnik, that you have provided the registrar with a
15 document in B/C/S. May I just have a look at it?
16 This is, it seems, a part of an --
17 MR. JOSSE: May we have one, please, Your Honour?
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It seems to be a copy of pages 216 up to 218 of
19 a book written by Mr. Sefer Halilovic.
20 MR. JOSSE: It's "Cunning Strategy," I think, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, Mr. Krajisnik, could you explain what this
22 document -- why you provided this -- I may have asked for it, but I don't
23 remember that. Could you please explain in one word why we receive it
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honour, there are two
1 documents, maybe you only have one before you. Actually, I was only
2 trying to assist the Chamber and the Office of the Prosecutor. Yesterday
3 we spoke about whether someone said they were advocating an Islamic state
4 and the moving in of people from Sandzak, and this is evidence to this
5 effect. So I think it's useful for you to have it, and I can tell you
6 exactly where this is.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, Mr. Krajisnik, I leave it to the
8 parties -- I leave it to the parties whether they want to present any
9 documentary evidence in support of your testimony. For example, I can
10 imagine that if a certain answer has been given to a certain question,
11 that perhaps in re-examination that Mr. Josse would say: Well, I want to
12 present this because it's -- it is the basis on which you -- but unless
13 the parties would take a different position - I'm looking to both
14 parties - I think that if you have any document, tell us that it exists
15 and we then leave it to the parties, whether they'll ask you to --
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes.
17 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber is a bit hesitant to create a huge
18 collection of whoever wrote about the events in the early 1990s because it
19 may not come as a surprise to you that it mainly adds to the different
20 views on what happened at that time, and the Chamber wants to concentrate
21 mainly on the evidence presented here. This is not, by all means,
22 excluded, but to have this spontaneously, not only brought to our
23 attention that it exists, but spontaneously introduced might be a step too
25 Would you agree?
1 MR. JOSSE: Whilst I, with respect, broadly speaking, agree with
2 what Your Honour said, I wouldn't want Mr. Krajisnik to be in any way
3 dissuaded from bringing to the Chamber documents, particularly original
4 documents, as opposed to book extracts the day after a particular piece of
5 cross-examination which he says demonstrates an assertion put to him is
6 wrong. I would not like him to -- not to do, so it's a double negative.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Josse, I mainly agree with you. Of course I
8 was mainly focussing now on the type of document that is in front of us.
9 As I said before, I think that -- what I said is we are hesitant to create
10 a huge collection of whoever wrote about the events. That, of course,
11 focussed very much on this type of documents. If there is any specific
12 document which would support your answer or would be relevant in the
13 context of an answer you have given on a question, of course you're
14 invited to come with it. Draw the -- first of all, the attention of the
15 parties to the existence of such a document, then the parties will be the
16 first to decide whether or not they want to look at that document and to
17 decide whether they want to introduce it. If the parties would finally
18 say: We're not going to introduce this, not to tender this document in
19 evidence, it's always up to the Chamber to say, we nevertheless would like
20 to have it, and then you might invited to give it to us. So for the time
21 being, I would be inclined to return this and -- but, of course, Mr. Josse
22 and Mr. Tieger, I take it you will --
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Excuse me, but you have my response.
24 You gave me a task. You have my response.
25 JUDGE ORIE: That's the next matter then.
1 Yes. What I see that you have, not always in three lines, but you
2 have given a short explanation of what the documents were that you gave in
3 the bundle. My counting to three sometimes is a bit different from yours,
4 but I also see that there are some which are even less than three lines,
5 Mr. Krajisnik. It corresponds to that extent, I would say, to 90 per cent
6 of what I asked you to do, and I take it that this has now been put in
7 priority order of importance? That is, most important document first --
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Then this will be the first document -- yes?
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I have highlighted
11 the important documents in yellow, the more important ones. The ones that
12 are not highlighted, as I was going in order, those are the less important
14 JUDGE ORIE: And there are more important than unimportant
15 documents. Mr. Krajisnik, as a matter of fact, I invited you to -- I
16 invited you to indicate the priority order. You still can do so by adding
17 handwritten -- perhaps you take the alphabet, A, B, C, D, et cetera, A
18 being the most important one among the important ones. Because we
19 really -- now you have left to us the choice 1, 2, 3 --
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. I can do that here. I can
21 prioritise the ones highlighted in yellow during the break.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Because we have now to make up our mind as to
23 the priority among the first 21.
24 So I suggest that we return -- or at least -- do you still have
25 one copy left for yourself, Mr. Krajisnik?
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. If you would please indicate clearly, among
3 the yellow ones, which is the most important ones, so just priority order,
4 and at the same time the parties could be provided already with the copies
5 of it. We should keep one for translation -- we asked for it, so I take
6 it that the Chamber has sent it to CLSS and asked it to be translated with
8 MR. TIEGER: Just one comment, Your Honour, if I may.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 MR. TIEGER: As urged by the Court, we will, of course, consider
11 the suggestions made by the Chamber this morning with respect to this
12 procedure. But one matter does come to mind, and that is that whatever
13 the outcome, we want to ensure that there continues to be a clear
14 distinction between the time -- any time consumed in that process and the
15 time allocated to the OTP for cross-examination.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do understand. Mr. Tieger, you may have seen
17 that in the decision we gave on the Defence, we had a kind of an estimate
18 of the average effective time for [indiscernible] witness. We, well, most
19 likely, of course, will apply a similar standard. And we were talking in
20 about in 15 days.
21 What has not been done yet is -- 15 days was for Prosecution and
22 Chamber. We have not made a division there yet. We will consider that
23 soon. And of course there, as well as always with the Defence, we'll take
24 into account also how cross-examination is conducted.
25 Please proceed in order not to lose any further time.
1 Yes, Mr. Josse, yes.
2 MR. JOSSE: Your Honour, I have one or two procedural matters;
3 they could wait until the end of the session. However, could I just again
4 mention the very last answer that Mr. Krajisnik gave yesterday and urge --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I've seen an e-mail on that.
6 As a matter of fact, to read the answer again to Mr. Krajisnik, I
7 suggested yesterday that we first -- what we first should do is to listen
8 to what Mr. Krajisnik said. Of course, I can't do it myself, but we
9 should not put a translation right or wrong and see. But let's first look
10 at what the actual spoken words in B/C/S were and start on the basis of
11 that rather than on a translation.
12 MR. JOSSE: I could explain why we didn't do that. That in itself
13 would take me some time. I simply invite the Chamber to proceed in a way
14 that it would had this not been at the end of the session - namely, sought
15 clarification - by asking the witness -- it's the second sentence of that
16 answer that's the problem, as far as the Defence are concerned.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but ...
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Josse, the Chamber is firm that we should start
20 with the words spoken. If you say that would have taken me too much time,
21 I'm offering to you in the first break to -- because it's for the Chamber,
22 of course, it's important as well to see whether I can have the assistance
23 of some native B/C/S speakers and to listen to the -- ask them to listen
24 to the tape and ask them to listen carefully what was said in B/C/S and
25 ask for a translation again of those words and to also ask them whether
1 there's any doubt as to whether these original words --
2 MR. JOSSE: Your Honour's more or less identified the problem. If
3 Your Honour does it that way, I have no objection whatsoever.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, of course. If there's any doubt as to what he
5 actually said in B/C/S, then of course the next step would be to invite
6 the witness to --
7 MR. JOSSE: Thank you.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's --
9 MR. JOSSE: Perhaps I could raise the other matters just before
10 the end of this session.
11 JUDGE ORIE: That's fine. You know when, more or less, to expect
12 the breaks. So -- yes.
13 May I then take it that -- has the tape been listened again by --
14 MR. JOSSE: It has not. It has not.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. That's the first step we'll do, whether
16 there's any ambiguity in what he said. If there's no ambiguity, we start
17 on the basis of the B/C/S; if there's ambiguity, we'll follow another
19 MR. JOSSE: Thank you.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger.
21 But Mr. Krajisnik, I would first like to remind you that you're
22 still bound by the solemn declaration you've given at the beginning of
23 your testimony.
24 Mr. Tieger, please proceed.
25 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour. If it hasn't been done
1 already, I'd like the anticipated materials for today distributed.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, thank you.
3 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
4 MR. JOSSE: Your Honour, I'm sorry to interrupt, but one of the
5 two procedural matters is precisely this, and it might be better,
6 actually, on reflection, for me to deal with it now.
7 I spoke to Mr. Harmon about this yesterday. I am anxious that
8 Mr. Krajisnik be in a position to take with him back to the UNDU any
9 document that has already been put to him in cross-examination. My
10 learned friends, I think, have no objection to that; however, they do
11 object to him being able to take any document with him back to the UNDU
12 which has not yet been put to him in cross-examination.
13 Now, frankly, I'm not in a position to argue with that. The
14 difficulty is a logistical one, because of course all the documents are
15 together in one or more binders. So we've basically reached a
16 compromise. However, we need to work out how to execute that --
17 JUDGE ORIE: [indiscernible].
18 MR. JOSSE: Yes, precisely, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: You'll take care that -- I mean, it's your interest
20 how to split up -- what we could, of course, ask is that whatever -- we
21 take one extra binder. Whatever document has been used should be removed
22 from the old binder and put into a new binder. The new binder can be
23 taken by Mr. Krajisnik to the UNDU. Is that a solution?
24 MR. TIEGER: Of course, Your Honour. It never struck me as a
25 particularly difficult logistical issue.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. So let's work on this basis.
2 MR. JOSSE: Thank you.
3 JUDGE ORIE: And I take it that the Chamber doesn't have to look
4 at the implementation of that.
5 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, and I --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
7 MR. TIEGER: Just one minor clarification, Mr. -- with respect to
8 the 1991/1992 Assembly sessions --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 MR. TIEGER: -- those -- and early 1993, those bindered materials,
11 Mr. Krajisnik has all those, we know, and so I don't think there's any
12 point in re-copying them and having him add to his archives in the DU,
13 with respect to those only is what I had in mind.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The only thing that matters at this moment is
15 whether he has them in front of himself when questions are put to him.
16 MR. TIEGER: Right. Thank you.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 WITNESS: MOMCILO KRAJISNIK [Resumed]
19 [Witness answered through interpreter]
20 Cross-examination by Mr. Tieger: [Continued]
21 Q. Mr. Krajisnik, I'd like to turn first to the remarks of
22 Mr. Milojevic at the 24th Session. That would be at page 49 of the
23 English, and in the B/C/S you'll find it at 02149912. Last four digits
24 again, 9912.
25 First of all, Mr. Krajisnik, Mr. Milojevic was also a minister of
1 the RS government. Isn't that right?
2 A. Excuse me, this is -- yes, yes. Yes, it was at this time.
3 Q. Okay. And he was a -- had also been a member of the SDS Executive
4 Board. And his ministerial post was, as I understand it, the minister of
5 development and spatial planning. Is that correct?
6 A. Yes, in another government. The name is similar to the one you
7 have used. He was not a minister on the first government; on the second
8 government he was.
9 Q. So after the -- so at the time of this session, therefore, he was
10 the minister of development and spatial planning; this session that took
11 place in January of 1993 after the shake-up of the government in late
13 A. I can only say that the old government was replaced by the end of
14 the year, and he was a minister designate. And I don't know whether he
15 participated in the first one as a minister or as a professor, but in the
16 second government he was a minister. I don't know in which role he was
17 saying this, but he eventually did become a minister, you're right.
18 Q. Okay. Well, what -- Mr. Milojevic who was or was to become the
19 minister of development and spatial planning said at the 24th Session was
20 the following: "One criterion seems unacceptable to me. Owen followed
21 the pre-war ethnical criterion. This criterion is unacceptable, and we
22 have to achieve that it is necessary negotiations to find the way to say
23 that this pre-war" --
24 A. Could you just point me to the exact paragraph, please, so I can
25 follow? I'm sorry to give you so much trouble.
1 Q. Best thing to do, if you look right in the middle of the page,
2 you'll see the numerals 50 to 100. And if you look up several lines --
3 A. Yes, I found it.
4 Q. If you look up several lines there, you'll see the beginning of
5 the passage to which I'm referring.
6 A. I have it now, thank you.
7 Q. Okay.
8 So Minister Milojevic is saying: "The post-war criterion is what
9 counts. If he does not believe it, let him find a way to check it, but
10 Serbs will not return to Tuzla the same way Muslims will not return to
11 Brcko. They will be in favour of the exchange."
12 Then he goes on to talk about the massive relocations that took
13 place, comparing them to the relocations of the previous 50 -- or during a
14 period of 50 years, noting that: "During these five months, for sure
15 nearly a million relocated. This is almost a period of a hundred years
16 while the direction is the same. Many migrations from the multi-ethnic to
17 the ethnically clean regions occurred. This principle was not abandoned.
18 We have to insist, I think, that we finish up the job soon, should it be
19 recognised and should we succeed in having it changed in the way that what
20 has happened. This ethnical change to be seen not as a war change but as
21 something which can be finished in peace, should the peace accept it as an
22 accomplished fact. If we could have that, we would practically have our
23 ethnical state."
24 Now, Mr. Krajisnik, Minister Milojevic is talking there about
25 cementing the effect of the ethnic changes, the changes in population and
1 demographics that occurred during the war, as opposed to restoring the
2 pre-war demographic situation. Correct?
3 A. He was a professor, and you're right, he is talking from a
4 scientific point of view, not as a member of the SDS. And he often said
5 things of this kind, totally uncontrolled and unexpected for us. He was a
6 university professor. You are right in saying that he did say this.
7 Q. And that's what he meant and when he said that: "Serbs will not
8 return to Tuzla the same way Muslims will not return to Brcko," and urged
9 that: "We finish up the job soon," your explanation is he was talking
10 scientifically, rather than urging and -- a policy that should be pursued
11 by the Bosnian -- by the RS?
12 A. I shall be very clear. As for movements of population, he spoke
13 as a scientist. And as for whether the job was finished, the point that
14 you're making concerning an incriminating affair, he would often make
15 proposals of this kind that never met with approval. So this second part
16 of his contribution was not met with approval, was not welcomed by the
17 attendees, although there was some people who thought exactly like he did,
18 but not many.
19 Q. Well, we'll look at who thought exactly like he did in a moment,
20 but first I'd like to turn to similar remarks by Mr. Milojevic at the very
21 next session located at tab 9. That's found at page 54 of the English and
22 at 02 -- 02149992 of the B/C/S, Mr. Krajisnik.
23 A. I found it. Just give me a line that I should follow.
24 Q. If you can look almost exactly halfway down the page, and you'll
25 see a reference to Vance-Owen.
1 A. Yes, I see it. "What is it in the Vance-Owen Project," is that
2 the line?
3 Q. And Mr. Milojevic is complaining that: "The Vance-Owen Project
4 does not accept resettlement until a situation is resolved as one of the
5 final solution. It proceeds from the pre-war situation as if nothing had
6 happened in the war and massive settlement actually took place."
7 He goes on for a bit, and then if you'll -- as we move on to
8 page 55 of the English, at the second sentence before the end of that long
9 paragraph, Mr. Milojevic concludes: "The peace plan must provide, and
10 that is not contained in it, must check the extent to which this war
11 settlement contains a civilian message and a civilian solution. We have
12 to ensure that in our future diplomatic struggle and prove and show on
13 civilian principles that the war settlement which has taken place is
15 And again, Mr. Krajisnik, Mr. Milojevic is referring to the
16 massive changes of population that took place in the previous months, the
17 creation of new ethnic space, and the need to ensure that it remains
18 permanent. Is that correct?
19 A. Yes, but your interpretation is wrong. He proposes to adopt the
20 Vance-Owen Plan while saying it is a project that may not work out. And
21 it is true that movements of population happened, regardless of whether
22 they were justified or not. But he is saying that the plan needed to be
23 adopted, and it was the general sentiment.
24 Q. Mr. Krajisnik --
25 A. You can find here --
1 Q. Excuse me. That's a deflection of what I was talking about.
2 Whether or not he wants the Vance-Owen Plan adopted under some
3 circumstances, Mr. Milojevic is clearly talking here at the 25th Session
4 and was talking in the 24th Session about the need to ensure that the
5 changes in demographics, that the relocations of population that occurred
6 in the previous months remained permanent. Isn't that right?
7 A. No. I said the interpretation is different. I can confirm what
8 you said without reading, but look at the following sentence and you will
9 see what I mean. If you just take this out of context, then it looks
10 exactly the way you put it. He was just saying that those movements of
11 population happened, whether they -- it was right or not. But he was
12 advocating the adoption of the plan, although everybody else was against
13 it, and you take this sentence in isolation, whereas if you look at the
14 rest it means something different.
15 Q. Mr. Krajisnik, Mr. Milojevic --
16 MR. TIEGER: Yes, Your Honour.
17 Q. Mr. Milojevic was reflecting an attitude and, indeed, a policy
18 that was discussed and pursued by the RS following the massive relocations
19 to which Mr. Milojevic referred. Isn't that right? That is, insofar as
20 possible, ensure that the relocations of population remain permanent.
21 A. I've just told you that this interpretation is not correct, and I
22 can explain why I'm saying that.
23 It is written here, but what you say is right only if you look at
24 it in isolation. He spoke about relocations from both sides, in both
25 directions. He spoke of it as a reality and said that the Vance-Owen Plan
1 should take them into account. He wasn't talking only about the Serbs; he
2 was saying that mutual movements of population need to be taken into
3 account because people would not come back, that things would remain that
5 Q. In fact, Mr. Milojevic was referring to the objective that Serbian
6 ethnical space remain as Serbian as possible and that, to the extent
7 possible, Muslims not be permitted to return, that homogenisation be -- to
8 the extent it existed be maintained and, if possible, increased. Isn't
9 that right?
10 A. I'm just telling you that it's very dangerous to look at this in
11 isolation without looking at the context. He said the Vance-Owen Plan
12 needed to be adopted. It's different when you talk about implementing
13 policy. It's January 1993. What he said was the reality; that people
14 would not come back. He spoke as a scientist. He mentioned the United
15 Nations and other institutions. That's why he said the Vance-Owen Plan
16 needed to be adopted, contrary to the policy of the Serbian Assembly and
17 the Serbian people. That's the context in which he said it. He didn't
18 say that we should cement the situation in which Muslims had left. That's
19 not what he said. He said it happened and the Vance-Owen Plan should be
21 JUDGE ORIE: May I then intervene for one second.
22 Mr. Krajisnik, you're drawing our attention to the context. The
23 next lines read: "When we prove that, if they do not recognise that,
24 recognition of the acceptance as permanent of the relocation, we will
25 probably make new friends in the world and then it will be easier for us,
1 even if we go to war again," which I understand to be: We have to accept
2 the Vance-Owen Plan. The Vance-Owen Plan is not very satisfactory, since
3 it does not contain any of the -- not contain the acceptance of the
4 permanent character of the relocation. So, therefore, that's what we have
5 to work at by diplomatic means. We'll make new friends, and even if we're
6 not satisfied we even could go to war again for this.
7 That's one observation which I'd like you to comment on, because
8 you're asking us to look at it in the context.
9 The second one is there seems to be some misunderstanding between
10 you and Mr. Tieger. If Mr. Tieger says: Isn't Mr. Milojevic advocating
11 the permanence of the situation as far as relocation is concerned, you
12 said you should not look at it one-sided. It's not only that the Muslims
13 should not return to Serb territory, but it's also the other way around.
14 I did not understand Mr. Tieger's question to exclude the other side of
15 that mirror, that where it's advocated, that the Muslims should not
16 return, that Mr. Milojevic does not say at the same time that the Serbs
17 should not return to the place where they come from. At least,
18 Mr. Tieger, I don't know whether I misunderstood you, that it -- the one
19 might even be the corollary of the other.
20 MR. TIEGER: No, your understanding is correct, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 So Mr. Tieger doesn't say it's only the Serbs -- it's only the
23 Muslims that should not return, but he draws the attention of this element
24 of the totality of the plan of Mr. Milojevic, which says neither Muslims
25 nor Serbs should return to the place. And I read in the context that if
1 this is not, which is not in the Vance-Owen Plan yet, if it is not
2 achieved later on in further negotiations, that with new allies, even a
3 war would be a possibility.
4 Would you please comment on that?
5 THE INTERPRETER: Could Mr. Krajisnik's microphone be brought
6 closer to him, please.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I keep it the way it's set
8 for me.
9 I'm saying that Milojevic said that these things had happened,
10 movements of population on both sides. I'm not saying that he isn't
11 noting this as something in favour of our acceptance of the Vance-Owen
12 Plan, which would not be feasible. I'm just saying that he said it as a
13 scientist, because he mentions here a seminar and the United Nations. He
14 was given a raspberry because nobody wanted the Vance-Owen Plan accepted.
15 He wasn't presenting a policy. The policy was different. He was
16 presenting his opinion as a scientist, although he was a minister, if he
17 was a minister. I'm just saying in which role he said this, and it's
18 important to look at the entirety of his contribution instead of
19 staying -- instead of reducing it to an attempt to cement the situation as
20 it was for the sake of the Serbs.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, the Chamber will not be assisted by any
22 further interpretation of this text at this moment.
23 MR. TIEGER:
24 Q. Mr. Krajisnik, you mentioned January 1993 and the context. Did
25 Bosnian Serb leaders, including you, discuss the issue of homogenisation
1 and the need to stimulate migration of Muslims in one direction and Serbs
2 in another in order to improve further on the migrations that actual --
3 that had already occurred and the homogenisation that had already existed
4 in January 1993 or before or after?
5 A. After your discovery of yesterday that I said "Turks," something I
6 was never aware of, I don't rule out that I could have said this, too, on
7 another occasion, but that was not my position.
8 But to answer your question, yes, there were certain people who
9 publicly said those things. But the official position was that everybody
10 had the right to return to their home, and it was accepted in every plan.
11 It was not my policy that people should move out, but if you found this
12 passage somewhere, then I must have said it.
13 Q. We'll talk -- we'll talk about the official position in a bit.
14 But let me ask you quickly about who some of those certain people, who
15 publicly advocated homogenisation, and the maintenance and improvement of
16 the situation caused by the relocations of the previous months. Who were
17 those people?
18 A. I cannot remember individual people, but I know that at Assembly
19 sessions President Tudjman was frequently quoted speaking on humane
20 relocation. However, it was not our official policy, because our
21 position, as stated under every plan, was that everybody had the right to
22 return to their homes.
23 If you give me a specific example, I will tell you whether it's
24 correct or not. I cannot even -- I cannot remember anyone really. Maybe
25 it was said by some very highly ranked people. I can't remember.
1 Q. That could very well be the case. Let's turn to tab 19, please.
2 Tab 19 contains the stenographic notes from a meeting of the council for
3 harmonising view-points on state policy held on 21 January 1993, attended
4 by, among others, you, Mr. Krajisnik; Dr. Karadzic; Dr. Koljevic; General
5 Mladic; Slobodan Milosevic; Mr. Jovanovic, the foreign minister for
6 Serbia; and others. And let's turn first to the remarks of Mr. Jovanovic
7 at page 17 of the English and page 19 of the B/C/S.
8 Mr. Jovanovic says, beginning at that second
9 paragraph: "Territorial link with Serbia and Montenegro, that is
10 Yugoslavia, must be secured in a way that is indisputable and not
11 transitional, but it is more important that the territory we get become,
12 as soon as possible, nationally homogenised, but not by ethnic cleansings,
13 ethnic cleansings are frame-ups, thus by peacetime process of population
14 exchange, that is migration and immigration. It is important that
15 everyone realises that life in that future Bosnia is impossible and that
16 everyone starts moving to his parent province. That is the strategic goal
17 we should pursue and which is to be achieved."
18 And he continues ending with the remarks: "If, on the contrary,
19 freedom of movement would result in freedom of residence and mixing of
20 population to our disadvantage, then the things we have achieved would
21 gradually disappear and we would eventually lose everything. Accordingly,
22 that should be our goal, not to direct the topic of discussion to the fact
23 that large number of Serbs have remained in other nation's provinces, to
24 take territories that are suitable for living and then to stimulate
25 migration of our people to our parent provinces and of their people to
1 their provinces. One should be wise to identify how the above can be
2 achieved, but I think that should be our guiding principle."
3 Now, in discussing those things we have achieved, the objective of
4 ethnic homogenisation and the need to stimulate migration to achieve it,
5 Mr. Jovanovic is raising essentially the same issue that Mr. Milojevic
6 was; that is, saying that while a great deal has been achieved over the
7 past months through the relocations of population, that situation needs to
8 be maintained and even improved. Isn't that right? Isn't that the
9 position he was urging at that meeting?
10 A. His position was a bit broader. He included Yugoslavia and Serbia
11 as well. I can explain what this is all about, because the context of
12 this meeting is important.
13 Q. All right. So first of all, we agree that that was the position
14 he was taking, but you're explaining that he was referring, in addition,
15 to aspects of what could happen or should happen in Serbia and Montenegro?
16 A. His position, as read out here, is what it is, but the context is
17 different from that of Milojevic, and I can explain if you allow me.
18 Q. Well, whether or not the context was different, Mr. Jovanovic is
19 talking about the need to maintain, and even improve, national or ethnic
20 homogenisation by stimulating migrations in the territories held by the
21 Bosnian Serbs, in the territory of RS. Correct?
22 A. No. By homogenisation of Serbs he meant the entire Serb ethnic
23 area, Serbs, not only territories. That's important -- that's why it's
24 important to explain what Mr. Milojevic had explained. Then maybe you
25 would draw the right conclusion.
1 Q. The entire Serb ethnic area, including RS. Correct?
2 A. Please let me explain first. You're extracting things out of
3 context without listening to my explanation. It will certainly be useful
4 to you because the more we go on, the greater the misunderstanding. I
5 have to say yes or no. Yes, all this is correct, but I have to explain
7 Q. Okay. Now, please explain.
8 A. This is a meeting held at the initiative of the late Slobodan
9 Milosevic, where we discussed the Vance-Owen Plan. Mr. Jovanovic is
10 speaking against the Vance-Owen Plan here, whereas four months later he
11 brought a letter in which he was in favour of the Vance-Owen Plan. So he
12 was saying one thing here, but five months later he was saying something
14 In this discussion, he says the Vance-Owen Plan is not a good one
15 because it does not make homogenisation possible. Mr. Milojevic says the
16 Vance-Owen Plan is a good one because we've already created the
17 homogenisation of the Serbs in Republika Srpska.
18 This same Jovanovic brought us a letter saying we had to accept
19 the Vance-Owen Plan in Bijeljina, because if we didn't they would impose
20 sanctions on us and they did. Here he himself admits that he is an
21 amateur, layperson, even though he was a minister of the interior and a
22 wonderful man.
23 Q. Well, let's look at the reaction of the Bosnian Serb leaders to
24 the remarks of Mr. Jovanovic. At page 19 of the English and page 21 of
25 the B/C/S, Dr. Karadzic points -- I'll wait till you find that, sir.
1 A. Yes, yes, I have found it. Thank you.
2 Q. Dr. Karadzic points out that: "The thing Jovanovic is talking
3 about, I think that has already happened to a great extent. There were
4 50/50 of us in Zvornik, now Zvornik has the same number of inhabitants,
5 around 50.000, and they're all Serbs. Over 24.000 Serbs from Zenica and
6 Central Bosnia arrived and settled in Zvornik."
7 And then he goes on to talk about: "... Serbia assisting by not
8 receiving refugees, that would be a great solution. And that would be a
9 matter of fact, he notes, which nobody could change."
10 So there Dr. Karadzic is acknowledging Minister Jovanovic's
11 endorsement of homogenisation and pointing out to -- in various places, to
12 a large extent, it's already happened?
13 A. Yes. Mr. Karadzic was against the Vance-Owen Plan here, and he
14 supported Mr. Jovanovic; that's the point. And what you said is correct.
15 The Serbs had left -- had gone to one place, the Muslims to another, from
16 Zvornik. And all this is correct. Karadzic later signed the Vance-Owen
18 Q. Shortly afterward you comment on the remarks of both Minister
19 Jovanovic and Dr. Karadzic. That's at page 20 of the English and page 22
20 of the B/C/S. And you say at that meeting in January of 1993,
21 Mr. Krajisnik: "I'll start with what Mr. Jovanovic stated, as Radovan
22 spoke in the same way. The problem is not 45 per cent of the territory,
23 maybe it's going to 55. What they have taken from ethnically clean
24 Serbian territories and given to them, that is the countless treasure of
25 the territories we used to have. For example, why do they take a part of
1 Bosnian Krajina and annex it to Cazin Krajina because of the Ljubija mine
2 and the bauxite mine in Bosanska Krupa. Those two mines now belong to
3 Cazin Krajina. Another thing, why did they take Posavina, two oil
4 refineries are there, Bosanski Brod and Modrica, Odzaci commerce
5 facilities, Doboj complex."
6 Now, you say that -- there you're talking about what the proposed
7 plan gives to one side or another. That's the general context of what
8 you're talking about there, as you've mentioned before. Right?
9 A. Not general, but very important and specific. And this is my
10 opinion. It's true I said this and I still think the same way today. I
11 will explain what I wanted to say here, and that's a fact.
12 Q. Well, before you do I need to ask you a few specific questions
13 about what you said.
14 A. Yes, please go ahead.
15 Q. You referred to the Ljubija mine, that's a mine in a Prijedor.
17 A. Yes, near Prijedor, yes.
18 Q. And the bauxite mine in Bosanska Krupa?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And those were among the countless treasures taken from the Serbs
21 from the territories, as you put it, "we used to have." Correct? Or at
22 least that would be taken under the plan?
23 A. Yes, if that's the way you look at it, you're right. But I will
24 explain what you can't see in what I said. You're right, however.
25 Ljubija is in the Croatian part, and the Krupa was Muslim majority. I
1 don't know whether Krupa is in Serb ethnical territory, but I would like
2 to explain what I actually meant here.
3 Q. What did you actually mean there?
4 A. The Vance-Owen Plan provided maps. Everybody, including
5 Mr. Karadzic and Mr. Jovanovic, were discussing the size of the territory.
6 What I'm saying, it doesn't matter whether it's 45 per cent or 55
7 per cent. What matters is the resources. I was speaking as an economist.
8 In Central Bosnia, wherever there was an ethnic space in which there were
9 resources, they gave to the Muslims. So if something, in terms of
10 territory, should belong, it's ethnically Muslim, they gave that to the
11 Muslims, too. And what we got were woods and meadows. So what I'm saying
12 as an economist is that we should not focus on the size of the territory
13 but the quality of the territory we get. But you are right, Krupa is a
14 Muslim majority and Ljubija is a Croat, and that is stated in the
15 Cutileiro Plan, but Modrica is not 100 per cent, neither is Brod where the
16 refinery is. But I was referring to the quality of the territory as
17 opposed to its size. That's why we got 49 per cent.
18 Q. We can see on its face that you're referring to the quality; that
19 is, the things you get in the territories you receive rather than the
20 precise size. You say that there, making specific percentages. But in
21 registering your complaint, part of it is that those things about which
22 you were complaining were not being allocated to the Serbs but to the
23 Muslims, is that they were taken from ethnically clean Serbian territories
24 and given to them. Those ethnically clean Serbian territories are, among
25 others, Prijedor and Bosanska Krupa because you refer to them
1 specifically. Correct?
2 A. Mr. Prosecutor, Bosanska Krajina is an ethnic area. There are two
3 small Muslim enclaves there. In the other areas, in Sarajevo, which is
4 richer than half of Bosnia-Herzegovina where the Serbs invested, and there
5 are Serbs there, that, too, was given to the Muslims.
6 You have to look at the overall economic context. Krajina, as
7 such, is Serb majority area. I wasn't referring to these two small
8 enclaves, but all of Krajina. Una, the river Una was the border, so it
9 should have belonged to the Serbs.
10 You cannot avoid the fact that Krupa was a Muslim majority
11 municipality. It wasn't a territory that was Muslim majority, but the
12 population. I don't know whether the mine is on the right- or left-hand
13 bank of the river Una. It might be on Serb territory or Muslim territory,
14 I don't know, and Ljubija is actually Croatian.
15 Q. Before the conflict began in April of 1991, there were
16 approximately 50.000 Muslims in Prijedor alone. That wasn't an ethnically
17 clean area, was it?
18 A. No. It's not about Prijedor, it's about the territory. The
19 territory of Prijedor is much more Serb than Muslim. There were more
20 Muslims in the town itself, whereas Ljubija is a separate little town
21 where the Croats are in the majority, not the Muslims.
22 Q. Let's move on to the remarks of Mr. Koljevic found at page 22 of
23 the English and page 25 through 26 of the B/C/S.
24 A. Yes, I found it. Thank you.
25 Q. Now, Mr. Koljevic merges the two discussions, noting that, as he
1 begins: "I think that along with dissimilarities one common thing emerges
2 from Momo's speech and from Mr. Jovanovic's speech earlier on. When maps
3 are in question it's better to insist on the economic principle than on
4 the national."
5 And then he continues: "In short, I think that this, using an
6 economic principle in order to cover up the other one, is very good and it
7 should be combined with something else, if possible."
8 And then he explains how to do that and finally continues at
9 pages 23 -- pages 22 through 23, after he mentions that he travels a great
10 deal around Republika Srpska: "I don't need to tell you what that means.
11 We have" --
12 A. Could you just tell me where this is, please. Excuse me, is it on
13 page 26?
14 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
15 "I don't need to tell you what that means. We will have to
16 develop a great political activity" --
17 A. All right.
18 Q. -- "in order to win the people for this and to develop the
19 activity of homogeneous settlement while there is still time."
20 Now, there Mr. Koljevic is doing two things. Number one, he's
21 acknowledging that using an economic argument rather than an ethnic
22 argument is likely to be more persuasive to international negotiators; and
23 two, he's confirming and endorsing the objective of homogenous settlement
24 while there's still time to do it?
25 MR. JOSSE: I think the paragraph immediately above needs to be
1 read to put it into context. That's my submission.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, are you going to follow that suggestion?
3 MR. TIEGER: That can be put in -- I don't think it changes the
4 focus of my -- of the question, and if Mr. Krajisnik wants to read it, he
5 can. I see no point in reading it aloud. It's there for him, but that
6 doesn't change the --
7 MR. JOSSE: I'm happy with that, as long as Mr. Krajisnik can read
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 Mr. Krajisnik --
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, Mr. President, the
12 Prosecutor has confused me more than you have. I can't find it here. I
13 wish to comment on it and I wish to speak correctly. I cannot find the
14 context. I know exactly what happened at that meeting, but the question
15 is a specific one. So could I be pointed to the right place, please, so I
16 can be as specific as possible.
17 I found what you were reading out, yes, but when you skipped over
18 some things, then I got lost. If it's the last passage, yes, then I've
19 found it. Please let me read it. Just a moment, please.
20 I abide by everything Mr. Koljevic said, but I can clarify if
21 there is anything unclear here.
22 MR. TIEGER:
23 Q. No, I have no additional questions about that and don't require
24 any clarification, unless the Court does.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Not at this moment. Please proceed.
1 MR. TIEGER:
2 Q. Mr. Krajisnik, in fact the Bosnian Serb leadership would continue
3 to insist on the effect of the factual situation that had been created
4 during the war and to insist, to the extent possible, that it be
5 maintained. Isn't that right?
6 A. No, that's not right. That's why I was trying to explain just a
7 while ago. What is correct is that we continued to insist on returning to
8 the original positions of the Cutileiro Plan, where homogenisation of Serb
9 ethnic areas was there precisely in a single unit, not cleansing, not what
10 happened during the war. There were such statements, but that was not the
12 The Vance-Owen Plan abolished the Republika Srpska, and that was
13 the main reason why we opposed it. That's why Mr. Koljevic opposed
14 provinces, and he explained all this. But one needs to understand it.
15 Perhaps I understand this better because I knew him.
16 Q. Mr. Krajisnik, the insistence was, and I don't want to be -- make
17 sure that we're talking about the same thing, that the demographic
18 situation that had been created during the war be maintained, that now
19 that Zvornik, for example, was a Serbian municipality, as Mr. -- as
20 Dr. Karadzic explained to Minister Jovanovic at the coordination council,
21 it should stay that way, to the extent the Bosnian Serb leadership could
22 control that. Isn't that right?
23 A. Mr. Prosecutor, Mr. Karadzic and Mr. Jovanovic said what the
24 actual situation was that had been created in the war. They said that's
25 the war. After that, they proposed negotiations, and this is contrary to
1 what you've just said, in which there were no wartime gains. And in fact
2 this happened. There are no Serbs in Zvornik or Zenica now. They were
3 not enthusiastic about what had happened. They keep asking for
4 negotiations. They weren't happy that there were no Muslims left in
6 Q. Can we turn next to the 26th Session and some remarks by
7 Dr. Karadzic.
8 MR. TIEGER: That may have to be distributed, Your Honour.
9 Q. Mr. Krajisnik, a portion of Dr. Karadzic's remarks to which I'm
10 directing your attention is found at 02150079 in almost the precise middle
11 of that paragraph.
12 MR. TIEGER: And, Your Honours, it's at the second page of English
13 portion provided.
14 Q. It's just after the reference to Lebanon, Cyprus --
15 A. Yes, yes.
16 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... about India, et cetera.
17 "Had the Muslim leadership," said Dr. Karadzic, "had their
18 composure, they would have got what they got without a drop of blood. Had
19 it been before the war we would have sacrificed more territories than we
20 are prepared to sacrifice now. If we had reached an agreement without a
21 war, we'd made some kind of demarcation between us. Now this is what we
22 have, and the international community will have to recognise the new
23 factual situation. This war has created a new factual situation. Nobody
24 is going to return 50.000 Serbs to Zenica from Zvornik or to Central
25 Bosnia. No way. Cutileiro's map gave us more than half of Zvornik."
1 Now, there, Mr. Krajisnik, Dr. Karadzic is not talking about just
2 about territory, he's talking about people, isn't he? And he's saying
3 that the Serbs aren't leaving Zvornik, and he's also indicating to the
4 Assembly that the Muslims aren't coming back. Correct?
5 A. If you take it out of context, then you're right. He did say
6 this, but he also said something before that, that you have not read out.
7 He's referring to the Vance-Owen Plan here.
8 Q. And how does that change the fact that Dr. Karadzic is talking
9 about people and where they're going to be and whether they're going to
10 come back and where they're going to go, whether it's in the context of
11 Vance-Owen or not?
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, we have some difficulties in finding --
13 MR. JOSSE: Mine is incomplete as well, Your Honour. I don't have
14 the second page in English.
15 JUDGE ORIE: I've got one of two pages, and I've got only one
17 MR. JOSSE: Same.
18 JUDGE ORIE: And since you did not indicate on which page to --
19 MR. JOSSE: My learned friend said it was the second page, in
20 fact, which we don't have. Perhaps it can be put on the ELMO, Your
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could that be put on the ELMO? And could we
23 give a second, again -- yes, to read it. Yes. Please zoom in a tiny
24 little bit. That's fine. Yes.
25 Perhaps, Mr. Tieger, if you will repeat your last question, then
1 we could move on.
2 MR. TIEGER: Yes, Your Honour.
3 Q. Mr. Krajisnik, I understand that many of these discussions take
4 place while international negotiations are ongoing. My question was: How
5 does that change the fact that Dr. Karadzic is talking about people and
6 where they're going to go and where they're not going to go?
7 A. Mr. Karadzic was explaining the Cutileiro Plan. He made an
8 introduction -- no, excuse me, not the Cutileiro Plan, the Vance-Owen
9 Plan. And he had before him people who are asking him what will happen to
10 us now? Zvornik belongs to the Muslims and we have fled from Zenica. It
11 was for this reason Mr. Karadzic was saying: Nobody's going to drive you
12 out. He says: We need to go on working, and so on.
13 It's a question of politics. If you're saying to people that they
14 have to leave the area to which they have moved, because according to the
15 plan this area is going to be Muslim, at the time the Vance-Owen Plan was
16 being discussed. In May it was signed in Athens. He's saying this for
17 the sake of the deputies, who are saying: What's going to happen to us,
18 because we belong to this province?
19 Q. And the politics was insofar as possible to rely on the factual
20 situation that had been created during the war in addition to the previous
21 ethnical territory and historical arguments that had been made to ensure
22 that Serbs could stay in the territories that RS now controlled and that
23 Muslims couldn't come back. Isn't that right?
24 A. To show that this is not so, I will show you a map showing that
25 the Serbs agreed to withdraw from 23 per cent of the territory, and this
1 is in Lord Owen's book. I will show you the map where we agreed to this.
2 He was saying this for the sake of politics. He said: We can't accept
3 the plan or they will flee from here. I will bring you the map to show
4 you what our policy was. This was for political purposes. The people
5 would leave the area because it belonged to somebody else's province and
6 they had to flee from Zenica.
7 This was not our policy. The plans show what our policy was, and
8 this was purely for political purposes. I know exactly what they were
9 saying. I'm not saying that some soldiers did not want that; this is a
10 military way of speaking. But I'm telling you that our policy was to go
11 back to negotiations and we were willing to withdraw. There is a map
12 showing from what territories we were willing to withdraw, and this was an
13 enormous concession, in view of the territories we held. I ask that the
14 map be brought tomorrow so I can show this.
15 Q. Well, we would be happy to see the map at an appropriate time, and
16 when we return from the break I want to show you some additional comments
17 relating to the effort to cement the factual situation.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but before we have a break, Mr. Josse, you --
19 MR. JOSSE: Well, I would like to go and see Mr. Krajisnik for two
20 reasons, both of which I have mentioned to my learned friends.
21 MR. TIEGER: That's correct, Your Honour. We've had that
22 discussion and we have no objection.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then I take it it's all within what the Chamber
24 would expect parties to agree upon and that you're allowed, even without
25 further information, to see Mr. Krajisnik on these matters.
1 We'll adjourned until five minutes to 11.00.
2 --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.
3 --- On resuming at 11.01 a.m.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Josse, CLSS is working on the matter you raised
5 at the beginning of this hearing. We hope to, perhaps already during the
6 next break, to have an answer.
7 MR. JOSSE: I would be very grateful.
8 Your Honour, Mr. Krajisnik was working on the task Your Honour had
9 set him. He's going to complete it at the next break and have it ready
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
12 Well, thank you, Mr. Krajisnik.
13 Mr. Tieger, please proceed.
14 MR. TIEGER:
15 Q. A couple more questions about the maintenance of the factual
16 situation, as I indicated before the recess. If we could turn first to
17 tab 40 -- excuse me, to the 42nd Session of the Bosnian Serb Assembly.
18 JUDGE ORIE: And where to find that now? Is that in --
19 MR. TIEGER: I think that's being distributed, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 MR. TIEGER:
22 Q. Mr. Krajisnik, the parts to which I want to direct your attention
23 are found on pages 02152880 and 02152881?
24 MR. TIEGER: And, Your Honours, found at the first and the second
25 pages of the handout in English.
1 Q. Now, again talking in the context of international negotiations,
2 Dr. Karadzic acknowledges: "We know for a fact we have to relinquish
3 something, that's beyond doubt. In case we want to achieve our first
4 strategic goal, which is to get rid of the enemy in our house" --
5 MR. TIEGER: Sorry, Your Honours, that's found at the --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. -- we have no cover page, so we cannot place it
7 in time. That would be the -- 42nd Session was when?
8 MR. TIEGER: 42nd Session, and I thought I had the precise date
9 written down, and I do not. I can have that for the Court in just a
11 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Whoever knows that first is invited to tell
12 the Chamber.
13 MR. TIEGER: And if I could have just a moment.
14 [Prosecution counsel confer]
15 JUDGE ORIE: This would be far in 1993 or even later.
16 MR. TIEGER:
17 Q. The -- again, the portion to which I wish to direct your
18 attention, Mr. Krajisnik, and the Court's attention, begins in the English
19 about halfway down right after the numbers about the municipalities that
21 "We know for a fact that we have to relinquish something; that's
22 beyond doubt. In case we want to achieve our first strategic goal, which
23 is to get rid of the enemy in our house," meaning the Croats and Muslims,
24 "and not to be together in one state anymore. All divorces are costly,
25 and we have to relinquish some things, but we are winners and we not only
1 control a large territory, but we own it."
2 And then Dr. Karadzic continues after references to those towns
3 and places of worship and traditional hills that are important to the
4 Bosnian Serbs. He says: "What he think and what I think is that the
5 factual situation can be recognised. A war ended with a draw like this
6 only very rarely and such territory was returned only very rarely.
7 Montenegro did not return Skadar, but it returned 30 per cent of the
8 territory under its control."
9 And he continues talking about things to return and
10 concludes: "We have to dance along the edge of the abyss. We know that
11 we must relinquish something. We know we have to cut a finger off and we
12 know it will be painful, but we cannot allow ourselves to have both hands
13 cut off let alone have our throat cut. Even without hands a man is still
14 a man, but he cannot take care of himself, nor can he feed himself or
15 defend himself. Our desire is to move further from the factual situation,
16 and this means a defeat of one side. This means that we have to move
17 towards the factual situation and to give something up in the factual
18 situation so we can be the ones to decide what it is that we'll relinquish
19 and not have them take whatever they want."
20 Now, first, Mr. Krajisnik, in the reference to both moving further
21 from the factual situation and then moving toward the situation -- towards
22 the factual situation, Dr. Karadzic is referring to efforts after the
23 massive displacement and relocations of people in 1992, efforts to further
24 concentrate Muslims or pack Muslims into small areas of Bosnia and
25 Herzegovina. Isn't that right?
1 A. You're not right, Mr. Prosecutor, and I can explain. The meaning
2 of the words of Mr. Karadzic is clearly stated here.
3 Q. First of all, the factual situation he's talking about is the
4 factual situation on the ground. Correct? That is, the situation that
5 exists with respect to where -- which territories are controlled and to
6 where the members of the ethnic groups now reside. Right?
7 A. You're right. The factual state is what the armies of the three
8 parties were holding under their control; that's the war and that much is
9 true. That's the factual situation at the time.
10 Q. And Dr. Karadzic is acknowledging that Bosnian Serbs may be
11 obliged to relinquish some portion of what they hold, but they want to
12 relinquish as little as possible. That's the reference to the finger
13 versus the hand or the throat. Right?
14 A. No, he didn't mean that. He meant that we can't make our map in
15 advance. We don't have our own proposal. That's what's written here.
16 Why would we cut off one finger before knowing the outcome of the
17 negotiations? That's the meaning of his words, because it's very
18 dangerous to draw a map - that's what Karadzic was saying - in which you
19 have a large territory reduced to 49 per cent, because the people from
20 that territory will pack their bags, and you don't know yet whether the
21 negotiations will ultimately grant you that territory. So the issue is
22 how to reduce 65 per cent to 49 per cent, and you can see that he's ready
23 to relinquish part of the territory, but he doesn't know which part of the
24 territory. That's the meaning of Mr. Karadzic's words here.
25 Q. Mr. Krajisnik, the -- Dr. Karadzic was aware of the situation on
1 the ground, aware that the Bosnian Serbs had created realities that didn't
2 exist before the conflict, and was claiming territories based on what he
3 saw as the right that comes out of that new reality. Wasn't that a
4 position he maintained to -- he and the other members of the Bosnian Serb
5 leadership, including you, maintained during the course of the
7 A. That's not the way you put it, although it was being said. It was
8 a matter of tactics in negotiations, but there was readiness to create a
9 map as the factual situation on the ground was. And that's what we did.
10 But when negotiations are ongoing, then you put forward various tactical
11 elements and you even use tactics with relation to your own MPs to get
12 them to support your position. There was a plan, and it was only a matter
13 of tactics how to achieve that plan, which was not always palatable, even
14 to the MPs.
15 Q. Well, let's look at the exact words of Dr. Karadzic in that
16 respect. And if we could turn to the 46th Session, please, at tab 12.
17 MR. TIEGER: And, Your Honour, the previous session was -- and
18 that is the 42nd Session was held on 18 and 19 July, 1994.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Do we have the 42nd Session --
20 MR. TIEGER: The 46th was held on November 9th through 11th and
21 the 23rd of November, 1994.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Do we have the -- I apologise.
23 MR. TIEGER:
24 Q. Mr. Krajisnik, the portion of that session to which I want to draw
25 your attention begins at 02153381 in the B/C/S and continues on to
1 02153382. And there Dr. Karadzic states -- oh, I'm sorry. And it's
2 page 157, not obviously of the tabbed portioned, but labelled below 157,
3 which is about the fourth page in the extract in English.
4 A. Is it on the page you just told me the number of, 3381?
5 Q. It starts at the bottom of the page and it begins: "Our goal is
6 to create a state. How big it will be, we do not know, but it has to be
7 in one piece, and in order" --
8 A. Just give me a moment to find it.
9 Q. Sure. That's the fourth sentence from the bottom.
10 A. Yes, I've found it.
11 Q. "... and in order for the state to exist, it has to be in one
12 piece. We have to maintain this reality as long as the world accepts this
13 idea. We have created new realities. Speaking in narrow terms, Zvornik
14 used to be 60/40 to the advantage of Muslims, but the Serbs from Zenica
15 came, they occupied Kozluk. The Muslims left for Europe and I don't know
16 where else. And then those gentlemen told us: Who gives you a right to
17 ask for Zvornik? We said that the whole Bosnia was Serbian land, that's
18 the history, but it is not what we are interested in. Who gives you a
19 right to request Zvornik now? We requested Zvornik based on the right
20 which comes out of a new reality. This war had created the new reality.
21 It has never happened in history that the war did not create a new
22 reality. This war has created the new reality. There are now the Serbs
23 from Zenica here. If you want to give Zvornik to the Muslims, then you
24 have to wage a new war in order to expel these Serbs back to Zenica. We
25 request Zvornik according to this right."
1 Mr. Krajisnik, this is an explicit acknowledgment, isn't it, by
2 Dr. Karadzic of the insistence that the consequences of the military
3 campaign in 1992, in 1993 created a new reality that the Bosnian Serb
4 leadership was going to insist be maintained insofar as possible.
5 A. Well, Mr. Prosecutor, I'm telling you that that's not the way it
6 is and I want to explain. To some extent I've already explained it.
7 This is just rhetoric. I know this conversation that took place
8 with Mr. Owen and Mr. Stoltenberg about Zvornik on the terrace overlooking
9 the Zvornik lake, but he needed to pacify the people because Zvornik was
10 supposed to belong -- to be given to another ethnic community, in which
11 case the Serbs would have packed their bags. So he was trying to appease
12 the people, because everybody would withdraw, including the army. And
13 just at that time there were maps, current maps, on which we had withdrawn
14 from large territories.
15 So he's saying: I don't know what we're going to give back, but
16 we'll have to give back something. But at the same time he had to appease
17 the people and the army, because the army would also leave the territories
18 that they thought would ultimately not be ours. It's not that we were
19 pushing for maintaining the factual situation; we were pushing for
20 negotiations. We didn't know what we were going to do. We had a large
21 territory and we had to give back something. We gave back Serb
22 territories and got, in return, ultimately some Muslim territories.
23 In every discussion, the factual situation was advocated to
24 prevent the army from withdrawing from that area, because people were
25 telling us: Tell us what's going to be ours so we know where to go, and
1 we didn't know what to answer. It would have been a catastrophe if
2 Karadzic said: The things we are holding now are not ultimately going to
3 be ours, people would have withdrawn, the army would have pulled out. No
4 politician would have done that. I know exactly what I'm talking about as
5 far as Zvornik is concerned.
6 Q. And to the extent that the Bosnian Serbs were obliged to
7 relinquish any territory to the Muslims, then there would be efforts made
8 to prevent Muslims from moving out of the territories they had into Serb
9 territory. Isn't that right?
10 A. No. No. Let me give you an example. We lost Glamoc, Grahovo,
11 Drvar, all of them Serb ethnic areas in the western region on the map.
12 However, factually speaking, Muslims had captured it. We lost the Serb
13 Sarajevo that we used to hold. Factual situation was different from the
14 map. And the factual situation represented nothing, counted for nothing
15 in negotiations, and it wasn't our policy.
16 These things and things of that kind were said in order to keep
17 the army in place. Even I had to say things like that, otherwise the army
18 would have pulled out. And even so, some people deserted from the front
19 line. Policy is one thing, and the rhetoric required to implement a
20 policy is something completely different.
21 Q. Well --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Could I just ask you -- let me try to understand you,
23 Mr. Krajisnik. Do you say, for example, language which is used here:
24 "This war has created new a reality. They are now the Serbs from Zenica
25 here. If you want to give Zvornik to the Muslims, then you have to wage a
1 new war in order to expel the Serbs back to Zenica."
2 Is this what you call rhetoric?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. I remember exactly that
4 sentence. When Mr. Karadzic told Mr. Owen in Zvornik: Serbs had been
5 expelled into Zvornik and Muslims left Zvornik, he said: I don't see any
6 way of returning both ethnic communities, and they are both refugees, and
7 he sounded here as a warmongerer, just to get the point across to our
8 people that they should stay on in Zvornik until we know exactly whether
9 we would have to return it or not. That kind of language was
10 inappropriate, maybe, in -- by our standards of today, but at that time it
11 had to be put that way.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Tieger.
13 MR. TIEGER:
14 Q. So Dr. Karadzic told the Bosnian Serb Assembly on repeated
15 occasions that the factual situation and the new reality had to be
16 maintained, and he told the same thing to Mr. Owen, in a slightly more
17 diplomatic way?
18 A. At every meeting Mr. Karadzic said and repeated that the lines and
19 the factual situation had to be preserved. At every meeting he said:
20 Lines and factual situation have to be preserved. And at every meeting he
21 had to face questions like: What are our territories? What is our plan
22 so we know to defend only these things and let go of the other things? He
23 said -- he answered: I don't know what the plan is. We'll find out
24 through negotiations. Negotiations will eventually result in a map.
25 And Milan Trbojevic, a witness here, said that on hundreds of
1 occasions he asked Karadzic: What is the plan? What are we supposed to
2 defend? And Karadzic never knew what to say.
3 You have a large territory and you are faced with the problem of
4 deciding what territories to give back. And in order not to erode the
5 lines, you have to use this kind of language when talking to the people so
6 that they stay on. And of course he had to pepper his speech with
7 historical references in order to support his argument. It was not a
8 question of factual situation. Nobody managed to maintain the factual
10 Q. Now, I asked you earlier what would be the case if the Bosnian
11 Serbs were obliged to relinquish some territory and whether or not Muslims
12 would be discouraged, prevented, delimited from moving into Serb
13 territory, and you told me that was not the case. Correct?
14 A. I'm sorry. I didn't quite understand. If Serbs were to
15 relinquish certain territories, would we be against the Muslims settling
16 or resettling there? Is that what you are asking?
17 Q. No. Not in the territories that were allocated to the Muslims,
18 but in moving from the territories allocated to the Muslims to Serbian
19 territory, to RS?
20 A. No. In every agreement we accepted and signed that everybody had
21 the right to return to their original home. It's possible that somebody
22 stated otherwise somewhere here, but such a clause exists in every
23 agreement, accepted by all the three parties. And it was of our own
24 free -- sorry. It was up to people to decide. It was their choice
25 whether they wanted to return or not.
1 Q. Well, you and Dr. Karadzic and Mr. Koljevic and Minister Jovanovic
2 talked about strategies for maintaining and even improving homogenisation.
3 And in respect to your remark just now that it's possible that somebody
4 might have stated otherwise, well, why don't we look to Dr. Karadzic at
5 the 39th Session of the National Assembly on the 24th and 25th of March,
7 MR. TIEGER: And that's found at tab 16, Your Honours, at page 88
8 of the English, and page 71 or 02152322 of the B/C/S.
9 Q. And, Mr. Krajisnik, that's found in approximately the middle of
10 the page.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Where Dr. Karadzic says, again talking about negotiations: "It
13 can happen that either they will try to dump all the Muslims on us or they
14 will try to divide Bosnia at Sandzak, one half to Serbs, one half to
15 Croats. In that case they will try to dump Tuzla on us. We may be in a
16 position to have to accept that, but we will delimit them in some kind of
17 autonomous province theirs, from which they will not be able to move
18 freely and settle in our areas."
19 Now, there Dr. Karadzic is assuring the Bosnian Serb deputies, the
20 Bosnian Serb people that to the extent possible all efforts will be made
21 to ensure that Muslims don't settle into the areas that have been claimed
22 by and taken by the Bosnian Serbs. Isn't that right?
23 A. I didn't understand your question. I really cannot make a
24 connection here and answer this. It says something completely different
25 here, so I cannot confirm this. Can you put your question a little more
1 clearly, please.
2 He is not laying claim to Muslim areas here; he is speaking about
3 the possibilities, in his view, of solving the Bosnian crisis. And this
4 actually happened later on. The Muslim-Croatian federation has been
5 established and the rest is Republika Srpska, so Bosnia has been divided.
6 And he's talking about what he learned, he's talking about the plans. And
7 he's putting forward here the different versions of what the outcome might
9 Could you please put your question again a little more clearly?
10 Q. I had asked you about the Bosnian Serb position with respect to
11 free movement of Muslims back into the areas that were now controlled by
12 and -- by the Bosnian Serbs. And we were talking about whether or not
13 Muslims were going to be permitted to come back to the areas held by
14 Bosnian Serbs. That was clearly the subject we were talking about before,
15 and so I directed your attention to remarks by Dr. Karadzic where he
16 said: "We will delimit them in some kind of autonomous province of
17 theirs, from which they will not be able to move freely and settle in our
19 A. That's one segment. In the very same plan, Mr. Karadzic signed
20 that everyone can go back to their homes, and that was the policy, not
21 this. If you read everything he says, he says: I don't know what will
22 happen. And he presents the different versions. And he says: What are
23 we going to do with Tuzla? Tuzla isn't ours; it's something invented.
24 And he's talking about something that will not happen that actually didn't
25 happen, that Tuzla will be given autonomy.
1 But please, find the plan and you will see that all three sides
2 signed firmly that everyone can go back to their own homes. This is not
3 the plan. These are his fantasies about what might happen and what Europe
4 and America might think about this.
5 Q. This --
6 JUDGE ORIE: May I intervene for one moment.
7 It happens again and again and again, Mr. Krajisnik, that
8 Mr. Tieger is putting to you some text, and then you explain that it
9 finally was not done the way as said at this moment. Let's clearly
10 distinguish between what was said at that moment. So, for example, in
11 this case you would say this is what you say is right, that's what
12 Mr. Karadzic said at the time. It was not our policy, and you can learn
13 that from the final agreement that was concluded at a later stage he
14 signed, where you'll not find this in this anymore. Let's clearly
16 And it struck me several times that Mr. Tieger is putting a
17 question to you and that you are responding in a way which is not directly
18 related to the question. There's nothing wrong with saying: It's true,
19 that's what Dr. Karadzic said, it suggests that Muslims should not be
20 returned to Tuzla, but finally in the negotiations a different position
21 was taken and you can see that from the result of the negotiations. Then
22 it's perfectly clear what was said at the time and what then, after that,
23 happened. And it happened a couple of times that you more or less say:
24 You are interpreting this wrong, not because on the basis of what was said
25 at that time, but on the basis of the events that happened later. Let's
1 clearly distinguish the two.
2 Please proceed.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I understood the
4 question at the end: Was what Mr. Karadzic said here your policy? I
5 don't remember Karadzic saying this. I can read it, and of course when I
6 read this I can say: Yes, that's what it says here. But with respect to
7 the policy, I'm explaining what the policy was. This was rhetoric, and
8 that's my response to all the questions. What I am arguing here is that
9 there was no actual plan here; it was only an imaginary plan. I am
10 answering the questions as I understand them, precisely.
11 JUDGE ORIE: I think whether Mr. Karadzic at that moment expressed
12 policy or just his own views is not part of the question, at least I
13 didn't understand it, and I just re-read the questions.
14 But, Mr. Tieger, you may have heard that Mr. Krajisnik understood
15 the question in a different way as I take it from what I understood you
16 wanted to put it. Let's try to keep this as clear as possible under all
17 circumstances. So if there's any difference between what was said and
18 what was the policy, let's also distinguish between the two and say: Do
19 you understand this, Mr. Karadzic -- is the meaning of what Mr. Karadzic
20 said so and so and so, and then it's a different question on whether that
21 was generally accepted SDS policy, might be his own policy, it might be --
22 but let's avoid that question and answers are mainly based on
23 misunderstanding each other.
24 Please proceed.
25 MR. TIEGER:
1 Q. First, Mr. Krajisnik, there's a difference, we agree, between what
2 one hopes to achieve and wants to achieve and what one is able to achieve.
3 Correct? That's a simple matter of general understanding.
4 A. You're completely right. Very many people had certain wishes,
5 whereas the reality was different, and also people in official positions
6 who wanted one thing while the reality was another thing.
7 Q. Number 2, it is correct, isn't it, that Dr. Karadzic is saying
8 here that at least the desire - and he says "we" throughout, so I take it
9 he's meaning the desire of the Bosnian Serbs - is to deter or discourage
10 the free movement of Muslims from whatever territory they're allocated
11 into whatever territory Serbs retain --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, this is two questions in one, which
13 creates, again, a similar situation --
14 MR. TIEGER: Sorry, Your Honour, you're right.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Could we first ask whether what Mr. Karadzic is
16 saying here is an expression of a desire; and then the next question is
17 whether it was just Dr. Karadzic, his desire, or whether the use of the
18 word "we" would reflect that he was not talking in the pluralis majestatis
19 but whether he was talking as a representative of the Bosnian Serbs. This
20 is exactly an example of what I meant.
21 Please proceed.
22 MR. TIEGER:
23 Q. First, Mr. Krajisnik, it is correct, isn't it, that Dr. Karadzic
24 is expressing there the desire to deter or discourage the free movement of
25 Muslims from whatever territory they are allocated into Bosnian Serb
2 A. That's probably what is written here, but I guarantee that that
3 was not his wish when he said that because he was pursuing a realistic
5 Q. And when he said that --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Now you're -- Mr. Krajisnik, now you're doing the
7 same. You're mixing up what was in the mind of Dr. Karadzic and what his
8 words say. So the first step is if I say: The sun is shining, that has
9 the actual meaning of no clouds being before the sun. Yes, that's -- so
10 the first thing is how we should understand it from the language itself,
11 and of course the next step is whether what was said, whether these words
12 in this particular situation would have had a different meaning for the
13 person who uttered this. So we have to clearly define this.
14 Just to give an example, if we say: The sun is shining, it means
15 there are no clouds before the sun, there are no clouds covering that
16 territory. And if you would then say: But in the specific circumstances
17 it should be understood differently because the words were uttered by a
18 pilot, who was above the clouds, then it becomes clear that the normal
19 meaning of these words would not apply in the specific circumstances.
20 So here, if someone says -- whether these words should be
21 understood in its normal meaning, that free movement should be
22 discouraged, whether that's the normal meaning of the words. And then of
23 course the second question is whether you have any specific knowledge why
24 Mr. Karadzic, using these words, would nevertheless have had something
25 different in his mind. We should clearly make a distinction to that, what
1 was said, what is the normal meaning of these words, and could we apply
2 the normal meaning of these words under those circumstances. That's -- I
3 would like to have matters as clear as possible and do it step by step and
4 not confuse everything, as happened this morning, both in your answers and
5 in the questions.
6 I would rather now invite Mr. Tieger to --
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I don't remember
8 these words. I don't know --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. -- we are working on the basis of this
10 tape-recording. You don't have to remember -- the first question is:
11 What is the normal meaning of these words? Mr. Tieger is seeking
12 confirmation of whether there's any misunderstanding about these words.
13 If you say: It goes without saying, then I would say -- then just say,
14 yes, that's what he said. And then you add whatever you know -- whatever
15 you know, which would cause us to -- not to accept that the one who
16 uttered those words was meaning something which is the normal
17 understanding of these words, but whether he had something different in
18 his mind.
19 Let's proceed. And Mr. Tieger is asking on the basis of the text
20 he reads to you, which is the text of the tape-recording, the transcribed
21 tape-recording of the 39th Session.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't doubt this. I'm not casting
23 doubt on this text --
24 JUDGE ORIE: No, no, that's not the issue, but you said: I don't
25 remember these words. We're working on the basis of what we see here.
1 Please proceed.
2 MR. TIEGER:
3 Q. And is it correct that Dr. Karadzic was communicating to the
4 deputies of the Bosnian Serb Assembly at that time that it was the
5 position of the Bosnian Serb leadership that, to the extent possible,
6 Muslims would be prevented or deterred from moving from whatever
7 territories they were allocated under an agreement into Bosnian Serb
9 A. That's not correct. That's what I want to explain. That's not
10 what Karadzic said when he uttered these words, although that's what is
11 written down here. He was saying: Were something to happen that never
12 happened, that's what he was saying. He wasn't saying: If this happens,
13 because he was not referring to a concrete plan. He was only trying to
14 calm their fears so that they wouldn't leave this territory.
15 Q. Well, whatever motivation you attribute to his comments, it is
16 correct, isn't it, that he wanted the deputies to understand -- he was
17 communicating to the deputies that this was the position of the Bosnian
18 Serb leadership. That's right, isn't it?
19 A. He was communicating to them as if the position of the Serb
20 leadership had another goal. It was as if this was the position of the
21 leadership and as if this was his position, while it really wasn't his
23 Q. A few moments ago we looked at Dr. Karadzic saying that it would
24 be necessary to wage a new war if one wanted to give Zvornik to the
25 Muslims. Was that the position you took as well, Mr. Krajisnik, that a
1 new war would be necessary to undo the reality and -- that had separated
2 the Serbs from the Muslims?
3 A. With respect to Zvornik, this was tactical in order to calm down
4 the people who had moved there. Yes, he said that, but it was not his
5 standpoint or mine or anyone's. He was just saying that to persuade the
6 people to stay there. I agree he said that, yes.
7 Q. And did --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, I think the question was whether that
9 was your position as well. That was the question. Could you please
10 answer the question.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There were two questions. Yes, I
12 will tell you whether it was my position.
13 It was not my position. And if ever I said this, if I did, I
14 would have said it for political purposes, but it was never ever my
15 position that someone could not return to their home. It was always my
16 position that everyone should be able to return to their homes, and that
17 was what I always advocated at negotiations. If ever I said that
18 anywhere, and I don't think I did, it was only for political purposes to
19 calm people down and to assuage their fears.
20 MR. TIEGER:
21 Q. Well, let's look at where you said it and what you said. If we
22 could turn next to --
23 A. Yes, all right.
24 Q. -- tab 5. Tab 5 is a transcript of a TV broadcast of the meeting
25 of Serbian unity in Banja Luka. We -- the Court has had an opportunity to
1 see a portion of that on screen. That was held on 21 August 1994.
2 Your comments, Mr. Krajisnik - if I can just have a moment - will
3 be reflected at page -- approximately beginning around page 7 of the
4 B/C/S. And in English --
5 JUDGE ORIE: It's page 9, I think.
6 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
7 Q. And you begin by saying: "Dear brothers and sisters, my dear
8 people of the Krajina on both sides of the union, having heard these
9 wonderful words by my predecessors, I feel great satisfaction at being at
10 this gathering here today."
11 And just so you know, the wonderful words which are being referred
12 to earlier, those include the remarks of Mr. Kupresanin at pages 4
13 through 5 of the English, who says, among other things: "There can be no
14 Muslim state on land that has been forever Serbian. There is no Muslim
15 people, and the entire world knows this. There are only Serbian people in
16 these parts."
17 And the words of Mr. Brdjanin at page 5 of the B/C/S and page 6 of
18 the English, who says, among other things: "Those leftist forces who are
19 offering us co-existence again must know it is the obligation of Serbs
20 over the next hundred years to wipe their feet from the foul
21 non-Christians who have befouled this soil of ours."
22 And your remarks continue, Mr. Krajisnik, until the point where
23 you say: "We simply want to separate because we cannot live together. I
24 must add something to the discussion and to the address delivered by
25 Mr. Kupresanin. If the Muslims do not wish to be Serbs, if they don't
1 recognise it, I believe them because I can only feel" --
2 A. Can you just tell me where this is. You're skipping over and I
3 can't follow.
4 Q. All right.
5 A. You started from the beginning, and now I can't find this
6 concerning Kupresanin.
7 Q. That can be found at page 9 --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, while Kupresanin is --
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes. I can't find Kupresanin,
11 JUDGE ORIE: Kupresanin is --
12 MR. TIEGER: At the bottom of the --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Kupresanin is -- is page 4.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I found Kupresanin, but I can't
15 find --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Page 8 and following, it starts -- you start on
17 page 7, Mr. Krajisnik, and then it continues on page 8.
18 MR. TIEGER: It's page 12 of the English, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: 12.
20 MR. TIEGER: And page 9 of the B/C/S. And now I'll -- is --
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, thank you.
22 MR. TIEGER:
23 Q. I'll continue: "If the Muslims do not wish to be Serbs, if they
24 do not -- if they don't recognise it, I believe them because I can only
25 feel sorry for anyone who does not know and who does not want to be a Serb
1 because he does not know how beautiful and glorious it is. That's why we
2 need to separate. It would take a great war to force us to live together
3 again. We don't need war to separate us; we are already separate. The
4 war would be necessary for someone to assemble us together in the same
5 state. Our goal is that we are fighting for today becomes a united state.
6 May God grant us this. All the territory now called Republika Srpska or
7 Serbian Krajina will be Serbia."
8 Now, that's an example of the same position taken by Dr. Karadzic
9 at the 46th Session; that is, to undo the reality that had been created,
10 to undo the massive relocations and redistribution of people it would take
11 another war because, to the extent possible, you and Dr. Karadzic were not
12 going to permit that to be undone.
13 A. This is so wrong, Mr. Prosecutor. I cannot understand how you can
14 interpret it like this. You have to read the whole text, and then you'll
15 see what I said, and my response to Mr. Kupresanin.
16 That is not correct, for someone to return us to a unitary Bosnia,
17 that's what I meant to say, not to assemble us together. We have accepted
18 Bosnia here.
19 Let me comment on each thing that you said, about Kupresanin,
20 about the Muslims, about everything.
21 Q. I mentioned two things, and then we'll move on from there. I
22 mentioned Brdjanin saying: We have to wipe our feet from the foul
23 non-Christians, and Kupresanin -- so let me ask you about -- what was it
24 you wanted to comment about Brdjanin's comment?
25 And first of all, let me clarify, the non-Christians means the
1 Muslims. Right?
2 A. Yes, it refers to the Muslims, but I did not comment on
3 Mr. Brdjanin. That was a completely wrong discussion. I was commenting
4 only on Kupresanin's statement. And rhetorically I said these wonderful
5 statements simply in order to gloss over a statement I did not agree with.
6 I will comment on Kupresanin's statement.
7 Mr. Kupresanin denied the existence of the Muslims. He said they
8 were former Serbs, and everybody applauded. They applauded all kinds of
9 nonsense. And ineptly I said if the Muslims didn't want to be Serbs we
10 had to believe them. What I meant to say by this was that they had the
11 right to be Muslims; that's what I still think today. And then I wanted
12 to tell all these people who were listening that it's nice to be a Serb
13 and that it's sad that they don't want to be Serbs. But you can't tell
14 someone that he has to be a Serb if he wants to be a Muslim; you can see
15 that from here. But I had to put it this way because there were so many
16 people there and I couldn't say: Kupresanin, you're a criminal. What
17 politician would say that? I just said nicely: Well, we should believe
18 them when they say they're Muslims. You have no right to force someone to
19 be a Serb if he's not.
20 That's what I meant to say by these words. I wasn't denying the
21 Muslims their right to be a nation.
22 Q. I want to turn your attention quickly to two matters, first of
23 all, to the -- to at least one of the proposed tactics employed by the
24 Bosnian Serbs in efforts to prevent the return of Muslims to places where
25 they resided before, and I need to, in that respect, direct your attention
1 to two sessions. The first is the 37th Session.
2 MR. TIEGER: I think that needs to be distributed.
3 And I'm going to direct Mr. Krajisnik's attention to two remarks
4 there. The first is by Mr. Maksimovic beginning at page 126 of the
5 English and page 93 of the B/C/S.
6 Q. And Mr. Maksimovic's remarks begin in almost exactly the middle of
7 the page at what is the third full paragraph on that page, Mr. Krajisnik.
8 Mr. Maksimovic says: "What I'd really like to see here is a firm
9 attitude that the Muslims and the Croats will not be allowed to return to
10 the areas under our rule. Accordingly, we should not return to the areas
11 that will be under the Croatian rule. I think we should be decisive about
12 this, otherwise I'm afraid that those people from Sandzak will occupy
13 Srbinje," that was once Foca, "and surrounding areas because there are too
14 many of them in that area. So we should take a firm position and ban any
15 of their returns to the territories we have gained through these
16 international combinations, just so that we prevent that the international
17 community cheat on us after we sign this. I must say this is very
18 difficult for you, and I understand that, however, our people believe when
19 we are making the compromises, we are more concerned about their destiny
20 than the destiny of our own people. I do not care if the Muslims who live
21 at all where they will live, whether they will have a country or not, I'm
22 not interested in that. The only thing I am interested in is my people
23 and the territory where my people live. Therefore, any thought about
24 having 500 or more Muslims within our future country is out of the
1 And then if I could turn your attention -- the Court's attention
2 to page 132 of the English and page 97 of the B/C/S. These are remarks by
3 Dr. Karadzic, and it's the second paragraph of his remarks shown on that
4 page, Mr. Krajisnik.
5 "As to the return of the refugees, I owe an answer to Vojo's
6 question. According to the international law, we have no right to ban the
7 return of the refugees. In principle, all refugees can return, but I
8 would suggest -- I would just add one sentence. This also has to be a
9 two-way process. The Muslims and the Croats accepted a two-way process.
10 Later on Owen asked me: Why do you insist on the two-way process? But
11 when the Serbs from Zvornik return [realtime transcript read in error
12 "returned"] to Zenica, then the Muslims from Prijedor will return to
13 Prijedor; therefore, it must be a two-way process. In accordance with
14 international law, we cannot declare a ban of the return on refugees."
15 Now, in responding to Mr. Maksimovic's comments in that manner,
16 wasn't Dr. Karadzic explaining a strategy, indeed a cunning strategy, to
17 forestall and prevent the return of Muslims to territories held by the
18 Serbs, notwithstanding the spirit of the international agreements?
19 A. You see, this started a polemic. Mr. Karadzic said according to
20 international conventions, the return of refugees has to be allowed. And
21 when responding to warmongering statements, he said things that would be
22 pleasing to their ears. He was far from having the meaning that you
23 suggest; he was trying to counter those warmongering statements. I hope
24 that answers your question.
25 Q. Again, let's distinguish motivation from meaning. Is it correct
1 that Dr. Karadzic was communicating to Mr. Maksimovic and the other
2 representatives of the Serbian people assembled there, that he had devised
3 a stratagem to prevent Muslims from returning to Serb areas? Isn't that
4 what he was communicating?
5 A. No. Instead he devised a stratagem for them to accept the plan
6 because he had already signed it. He had signed that they would be
8 Q. One more time and then I will abandon that. Isn't it correct that
9 what Dr. Karadzic was saying there, what he was communicating in the
10 passage I just read to you, is that by the inclusion of this two-way
11 process provision there was a way to satisfy Dr. -- the concerns of
12 Dr. Maksimovic and others about the risk of Muslims returning to Serb
13 territory? And I don't want to hear again about why he said it; I just
14 want you to confirm whether or not the plain meaning of those words
15 communicated to the deputies was that.
16 A. Yes, it's true that he said this to Mr. Maksimovic, but he also
17 said there were international conventions. He said those two things to
18 the gathering; whereas Mr. Maksimovic is an intelligent man and he knows
19 that international conventions have priority, are superior to, the clause
20 that Mr. Karadzic may have included. It's true he said what you just
21 quoted, but he also said there were international roles that have primacy
22 over whatever Mr. Karadzic included or didn't.
23 Q. And there are ways --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, would you allow me to, if it would help
25 to -- if I were to tell you what I, as a non-native speaking person
1 understand this to be, and let's also check on the basis of the original
2 whether the ambiguity I found does exist, yes or no.
3 It is clear, to start with, that Mr. -- Dr. Karadzic is referring
4 to obligations under international law. It's clear. And then he adds to
5 it: It has to be a two-way process. The Muslims and the Croats accepted
6 that. And he said -- Mr. Owen asked me: Why did you insist on a two-way
7 process. And he says: "But when the Serbs from Zvornik returned to
8 Zenica, then the Muslims from Prijedor will return to Prijedor; therefore,
9 it must be a two-way process."
10 When I read this as a non-native English-speaking person, first of
11 all, I'd like to correct on the transcript when you earlier read this part
12 it said when the Serbs from Zvornik returned to Zenica, whereas the text
13 reads when they return to Zenica. I -- just on the basis of plain
14 language I see the following ambiguity. You could understood it to be but
15 only when Serbs from Zvornik return to Zenica, then the Muslims from
16 Prijedor will return to Prijedor, then it's understood as a kind of a
17 condition and not -- unless the Serbs return, which could implicate that
18 if the Serbs do not return to Zenica that there would be no way of
19 allowing the Muslims to go to Prijedor. The second way of reading it --
20 and please correct me if linguistically I'm wrong, and I'm also looking to
21 Mr. Josse who is also very much a native English-speaking person. The
22 other way I -- and I have of course to deal with the English. The other
23 way I could understood it is that if you insist on the right of Muslims to
24 return to Prijedor, then of course the Serbs would also have the right to
25 return to Zenica. That's -- both would be two ways, and I see this
1 ambiguity from a point of view of language. If you disagree with me, I'd
2 like you, perhaps, to discuss it with Mr. Josse.
3 So therefore, the plain language here, as I read it, does not --
4 at least whatever Mr. Krajisnik would say, and of course he doesn't read
5 the English. He receives the translation in B/C/S. So I see a problem
6 here just for you to know and for you to comment on as far as the English
7 language is concerned, if I misunderstood it, and I'm of course to take
8 that into account if further questions are put to Mr. Krajisnik.
9 MR. TIEGER: Well, let me ask Mr. Krajisnik one question, if I
10 may, Your Honour, before moving on to a very closely related matter.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 MR. TIEGER:
13 Q. Mr. Krajisnik, is it the case that Dr. Karadzic is there saying
14 that this is a -- that he's explaining to the deputies a method by which
15 the agreement about the right of refugees and displaced persons to return
16 can effectively be frustrated and is saying, in effect, that's a way of
17 being -- of signing an agreement of being a bit cunning and getting what
18 the Serbs want. Is that it or not?
19 A. He is not saying that. In practice, Serbs did not return to
20 Zenica, whereas Muslims did return to Prijedor. He was aware of the fact
21 that intervention -- I understand your question. I'm going to explain.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, I interrupt again. You are again
23 mixing up what happened later and what was said at the time of this
24 meeting, and I invited you not to do so because it confuses very much.
25 Please proceed.
1 MR. TIEGER:
2 Q. All right. Now I'd like to turn to the 53rd Session, please,
3 found at tab 13.
4 A. I have to say that I don't have any of these transcripts with me,
5 and I had no opportunity to revise them before. I have only one
6 transcript of one session. That's why I need to read the text in order to
8 JUDGE ORIE: Whenever you need time to read the context, please
9 ask and we'll give you an opportunity to read a few of the lines before
10 and after that as well.
11 Please proceed.
12 MR. TIEGER:
13 Q. The portion of the --
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
15 MR. TIEGER:
16 Q. Mr. Krajisnik, the portion of Dr. Karadzic's remarks to which I
17 want to draw your attention is found at 02154335, beginning at the last
19 MR. TIEGER: And, Your Honours, at page 29 of the English
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Just tell me which session this was
22 and on which date.
23 MR. TIEGER:
24 Q. 53rd Session, held on 28 August 1995. There Dr. Karadzic begins
25 by reciting the following -- explaining the full catalogue of human rights
1 and fundamental freedoms and --
2 A. Excuse me. Is it page 35? I don't have page 36.
3 MR. TIEGER: Here's an extra copy of that particular page if it's
4 difficult to find or missing.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's on page 36, right?
6 MR. TIEGER:
7 Q. Page 4335, beginning at the last paragraph of that page.
8 A. Thank you.
9 JUDGE ORIE: That page --
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I found it.
11 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... copy. I jump
12 from 35 to 37, and therefore from 334 to 336. Thank you. We now received
14 Please proceed.
15 MR. TIEGER:
16 Q. Dr. Karadzic says: "The full catalogue of human rights," and then
17 inserted by hand, "fundamental freedoms as listed in international
18 instruments will be observed, including the right of refugees and
19 displaced persons to be able to return to their homes."
20 He's reciting the provisions contained. And continues: "We have
21 now added which must be an overall process. They don't know what that is,
22 so they keep shifting the first part of the sentence. That's our
23 intention to say: All right. Everyone has the right to return to his
24 home after the war, if that is an overall process. Now, what does that
25 mean, an overall process? That means that the Muslims from Kozluk can
1 return to Kozluk if the Serbs from Kozluk return to Zenica. If they don't
2 want to return, then we need -- and if they cannot return, then we need a
3 new war to exchange that, and that's why I think we should always insist
4 on this. So an overall process, either overall or not at all. We can act
5 the Serbian Cyrillic way and tell it all to their face, or we can be a bit
6 cunning. We do have to be a bit cunning."
7 Now, there isn't Mr. Karadzic or Dr. Karadzic explaining to the
8 deputies the purpose and intended effect of the inclusion of the overall
9 process provision?
10 A. No, he does not explain the intention. It says: "If they can't
11 return," if they can't. If you take that into account, then -- then it's
12 correct. Not if they don't want to return, but if they can't return, in
13 that case the assumption would be correct.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Is there any translation problem? Because,
15 Mr. Krajisnik, I read the following: "If they don't want to return, then
16 we need -- and if they cannot return, then we need a war to exchange
17 that." It says both, at least in English.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes? Okay, that's clear.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. If that is the motivation, if
21 they cannot return, then the answer is yes. And indeed they were
22 prevented from returning; you know that.
23 MR. TIEGER:
24 Q. Mr. Krajisnik, that's a disingenuous interpretation of that
25 passage. For what other reason could Dr. Karadzic have to describe it as
1 cunning than that it has the effect of undercutting and undermining the
2 provisions otherwise in the agreement?
3 A. I will explain. The only reason why Mr. Karadzic accepted that
4 everybody could return to their home is because during the war it was
5 impossible for people to return. So he was trying to explain. It was
6 cunning to explain why he signed this first part. He was aware that
7 international conventions come first, and his decision comes second. But
8 in practice it didn't work out. It was impossible to implement, and he
9 knew that it would be impossible to implement.
10 He was saying this to get people to accept the plan as a whole
11 because everybody had some objections. Some people were saying they would
12 be allowed to return to our parts and we would not be allowed to return to
13 theirs. I am explaining what it was all about, and it's true that what is
14 written here is written here. And I can tell you about what happened in
16 Q. Well, I think you've answered the question, Mr. Krajisnik. Before
17 the break, let me turn to the -- another part of the 53rd Session.
18 MR. TIEGER: I think this part has to be distributed, Your
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Again, which session is that?
21 MR. TIEGER:
22 Q. This is again the 53rd, the same session we looked at a --
23 A. Thank you very much.
24 Q. And I want to turn to two portions of that, the first at page 64
25 of the English, and page 02154381 of the B/C/S at the very bottom,
1 Mr. Krajisnik, and continuing on to the next page. And ask you -- and
2 I'll turn you to two portions of this, and then I'll ask you whether or
3 not Dr. Karadzic wasn't describing exactly how the de facto situation had
4 been created.
5 First at page 64: "Large operations that our army had planned and
6 carried out, the sword, the sly dog, et cetera, a few of those operations
7 that expanded our territory in relation to what we had done in 1992 as
8 territorials were real operations, true operations, well-planned and
9 carried out in circumstances where we were inferior in terms of man-power
10 and superior in terms of men and weapons. But after that, packing Muslims
11 into smaller areas, thus achieving their concentration, we couldn't do
12 much more."
13 And if you could turn also, please, to page 02154387, about
14 two-thirds of the way down that page, Mr. Krajisnik.
15 MR. TIEGER: And, Your Honours, to page 68 of the English.
16 Q. Where Dr. Karadzic says: "So far we have been up to the task. We
17 were a nation. Trebinja" --
18 A. Excuse me. Just let me find this passage.
19 Q. Sure.
20 A. What is the paragraph? I found page 88.
21 Q. Okay. You can go down past the first paragraph and it's about 12
22 lines down, again beginning: "So far we have been up to the task ..."
23 The next two sentences have the words Drvar and Trebinje in them.
24 Do you see that?
25 A. Yes, I got it.
1 Q. And in the English it's located four sentences up from the bottom
2 on page 68.
3 "So far we have been up to the task. We were a nation. Trebinje
4 must equally care about Drvar and Drvar about Trebinje, otherwise we are
5 ruined. We absolutely cannot let ourselves get any ideas about them
6 taking our traditional territories from us. To tell the truth, there are
7 towns that we grabbed for ourselves, and there were only 30 per cent of
8 us. I can name as many of those as you want, but we cannot give up the
9 towns where we made up 70 per cent. Don't let this get around, but
10 remember how many of us there were of us in Bratunac, how many in
11 Srebrenica, how many in Visegrad, how many in Rogatica, how many in
12 Vlasenica, in Zvornik, et cetera. Due to strategic importance, they had
13 to become ours, and no one is practically questioning it anymore."
14 Now, both of those passages, Mr. Krajisnik, are an reflection of
15 how the de facto situation, the new reality on the ground to which we have
16 been referring this morning was created. Correct?
17 MR. JOSSE: I think the rest of that paragraph should be read out,
18 or at least Mr. Krajisnik should examine it.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger --
20 MR. TIEGER: I would be happy to, Your Honour, that's fine.
21 "Between Grmec and Kozara, I think Milosevic must also know that.
22 Foreign negotiators have also been told this. Between Grmec and Kozara,
23 nothing can belong to anyone but us because genocide has committed there.
24 Serbian people have been killed there and the number of Muslims grew 50
25 per cent because of the genocide and not because of some natural
1 development. Genocide was also committed in the Neretva valley. There.
2 That is all I wanted to say."
3 First of all, Mr. Krajisnik, the genocide that is referred to here
4 is the genocide committed in World War II. Isn't that right?
5 A. Correct.
6 Q. And back to my earlier question, both of the passages that were
7 just read out from this session are an expression of the -- of how the
8 de facto situation, the new reality on the ground, was created. Correct?
9 And are -- excuse me, and are a reflection of that new reality?
10 A. Karadzic said here that he had taken parts of the territory that
11 didn't belong to the Serbs, and he enumerated these towns. And he said we
12 have to preserve these areas as Serb because we were 70 per cent in
13 Krajina. And he said in those areas where genocide had been committed and
14 Muslims got it in the end, he meant Mount Kozara and Jasenovac, and he
15 said we had to take care of each other. And he said about those places
16 that weren't ours and that we had taken, Bratunac and Srebrenica and
17 others, nobody was raising that question anymore. That was clear, but you
18 cannot have your cake and eat it. It's clear that people from those areas
19 that did not ethnically belong to Serbs but were Serb at the moment were
20 protesting. They wanted to stay there, and this was Karadzic's response
21 to them.
22 What you have put to me is correct. I've just given you a broader
24 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, I note the time.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll have a break and we'll resume at 10
1 minutes to 1.00.
2 --- Recess taken at 12.31 p.m.
3 --- On resuming at 1.00 p.m.
4 JUDGE ORIE: I'd first like to go into private session for only a
5 very short moment.
6 [Private session]
18 [Open session]
19 JUDGE ORIE: We are in open session again.
20 Mr. Tieger, would you -- you may proceed.
21 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
22 Q. Mr. Krajisnik, earlier today we looked at the rally in I think it
23 was August of 1994 in Banja Luka where, among others, Mr. Brdjanin spoke,
24 Mr. Kupresanin spoke, and you spoke. And you commented upon
25 Mr. Kupresanin's remarks after those had been reviewed, and at 11.59.31 of
1 the transcript you said the following.
2 "Yes, it refers to the Muslims, but I did not comment on
3 Mr. Brdjanin. That was a completely wrong discussion. I was commenting
4 only on Kupresanin's statement, and rhetorically I said these wonderful
5 statements simply to gloss over a statement I did not agree with. I will
6 comment on Mr. Kupresanin 's statement. Mr. Kupresanin denied the
7 existence of the Muslims. He said they were former Serbs and everybody
8 applauded. They applauded all kinds of nonsense, and ineptly I said if
9 the Muslims didn't want to be Serbs we had to believe them. What I meant
10 to say by this was that they had the right to be Muslims; that's what I
11 still think today. And then I wanted to tell all these people who were
12 listening that it's nice to be a Serb and that it's sad that they don't
13 want to be Serbs. But you can't tell someone that he has to be a Serb if
14 he wants to be a Muslim. You can see that from here. But I had to put it
15 this way because there were so many people there and I couldn't say:
16 Kupresanin, you're a criminal. What politician would say that? I just
17 said nicely: Well, we should believe them when they say they're Muslims.
18 You have no right," I think, "to force someone to be a Serb if he's not.
19 That's what I meant to say by these words. I wasn't denying the Muslims
20 their right to be a nation."
21 Now, Mr. Krajisnik, that's not the only time, and that wasn't the
22 first time, that you responded to Kupresanin's comments about Muslims as a
23 nation, was it?
24 A. I don't remember. I may have commented on this at other times.
25 This, I know, was at a rally in Banja Luka.
1 But please excuse me, is the interpretation correct that I said
2 that Kupresanin was a criminal? This may have been misinterpreted. I
3 didn't use the word "criminal." I don't think I said it -- or at least I
4 didn't mean to say it. I said something that he had something bad --
5 well, it would be bad for me to say he's a criminal. He's not a criminal.
6 He's simply radical and he says the wrong things.
7 Q. Well, let's turn to page -- let's turn to the 24th Session of the
8 Bosnian Serb Assembly held on 8th of January, 1993. That's -- and --
9 MR. TIEGER: Your Honours, I want to turn first to page 78 of the
10 English and page 02149934 of the B/C/S.
11 Q. In the English Mr. Kupresanin's comments begin at the bottom of
12 the page and in the B/C/S in the middle of the page.
13 And there Mr. Kupresanin, again, turns to the question of whether
14 Muslims are a nation, saying: "We stumbled over some ideas several times
15 in the past. Gentlemen, is the Muslim nation a nation at all? The nation
16 that was created in Tito's conception in 1974 receives a position like the
17 Greeks, to say the least."
18 And then he continues talking about that, as you can see, claiming
19 it's a deception, talking -- saying: "It is true that the Turks were here
20 for some time, for 500 years. We threw out the Turks, we threw out the
21 Austrians, and we threw out the Germans, and yet Bosnia isn't Serb Muslim,
22 of a non-existent nation. Are these not Serb stupidities again? Well, if
23 we make this mistake now, we mistake an elementary mistake like in primary
24 school. I propose that we deny the Muslims as a nation on the next
25 session of the Assembly."
1 And he describes that as not a maximalist view but a realistic
3 And then, Mr. Krajisnik, you respond: "I think that
4 Mr. Kupresanin is right, and I was wrong when I once said don't put them
5 together with us because if you push them together with us we do not know
6 what to do with them. I think this should be corrected a little. We
7 should really take a stand concerning whether the Muslims are a nation.
8 Here we had one suggestion that we say that they are a Muslim sect of
9 Turkish orientation because it would then create a discord in the Muslim
10 world, namely Saudi Arabia and some other Muslim countries believe that
11 the Turks are fake Muslims, who eat and drink like the others. It is
12 known that they are not so religious. We can take a stand at this
13 position. It is obvious that we stumble over this question all the time.
14 We can develop a discussion about this question. We can reach conclusions
15 and include them in the conclusions as well. Here, Vojo, you were right
16 and I wasn't. Let us say a religious group of Turkish orientation, that
17 would be very important to say because they are not from any Muslim world
18 but the Muslims of Turkish orientation which is different from the real
19 Muslims. Does anyone have anything against that the Muslims are not a
20 nation? How about a definition as follows?"
21 Then there's an intervention by Mr. Corda. You speak again.
22 Mr. Knezevic speaks, and then you say: "Shall we then now take the
23 Muslims out of Serbism forever? All right, gentlemen, can we now make up
24 our mind and take a position that the Muslims as a nation are the
25 communistic creation. We do not accept this artificial nation. We
1 believe that the Muslims are a sect, a group, or a party of Turkish
2 provenance. Does anyone have anything else to add? No. I put these
3 conclusions to a vote. Gentlemen, who is for? Is there anyone against?
4 Abstaining? Gentlemen, thank you. We adopted the conclusions
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. -- let me just -- you read a line -- I can't find
7 the line about the Serbism, taken forever from Serbism --
8 MR. TIEGER: That's on page 80, Your Honour, and it's the third
9 paragraph that appears there, under "president."
10 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, you moved to the next page.
11 MR. TIEGER: I'm sorry.
12 JUDGE ORIE: I wasn't aware of that. Please proceed.
13 MR. TIEGER: Sorry, Your Honour, and -- as -- since we're on that
14 page let me read. I indicated there was an intervention from Mr. Corda
15 and then I should -- Mr. Krajisnik spoke. That's at the bottom of page 79
16 and continues to the top of page 80.
17 Q. Mr. Krajisnik, that's the second time you're listed as speaking
18 after Mr. Kupresanin speaks. And that should be found on page 02149935.
19 A. Yes, yes, I found it.
20 Q. Where you say: "Let me just explain why it isn't good. They want
21 us to say that we're all the same. They really want to create one nation,
22 that we're all the same only of different religion. We must say that we
23 are different. They are a group of Turkish orientation. Well, all right,
24 people, if we accept that they are some kind of a group, Turkish or I
25 don't know whose, then we simply give them aces to their hands to be an
1 independent nation. They will be more than happy to claim that they are
2 of Turkish origin, the same as the Siptars developed theories that they
3 are of Iloric origin. Why, we should tell them what they really are.
4 They are unbelievers, a nation that is not a nation. That is to say a
5 nation that would like to be a nation but has no arguments for a nation."
6 Now, Mr. Krajisnik, when you responded to the review of Mr. --
7 When you talked about your comments in response to Mr. Kupresanin's
8 comments in 1994 by saying that you disagreed with him and you didn't deny
9 the Muslims their right to be a nation, that was just wrong, wasn't it?
10 A. That's correct. This here is nonsense, what Momcilo Krajisnik was
11 saying. It's detrimental. I have to say I never thought like this. If I
12 could distance myself from this Momcilo Krajisnik, I would. I would have
13 to read all of this because I probably had a reason for saying this;
14 however, the reason does not justify speaking like this.
15 Q. Mr. Krajisnik, irrespective of your -- of whatever position you
16 take now about those comments, that was the position you took in January
17 of 1993. And on the basis of that position, you formulated and had
18 adopted the conclusion that we just read. Correct?
19 A. No. We should find this. There was somebody else's intervention,
20 somebody else who repeated all this. I think Savo Knezevic repeated all
21 this. There was a discussion about the Vance-Owen Plan and all this
22 contribution of mine is immoderate, it's all wrong, and it's absolutely
23 unfair because I never denied to the Muslims the existence of their
24 nation. However, this speech is absolutely authentic, and I'm very sorry
25 that this Momcilo Krajisnik said what he said.
1 But I would really like to find the background, the reason why I
2 said this. It must have been somebody else who started this. I know what
3 Kupresanin said, but I spoke in a very indecent way because there's no
4 reason why anybody should not be allowed to be a Muslim, a Croat, a Serb,
5 whatever they please. And I have to say I remember this contribution that
6 I made, vaguely but I remember it. I remember saying this. But if you
7 allow me to review this session in prison, I'll find the person who
8 brought this up in the first place, after which I formulated the
9 conclusions. But I absolutely shouldn't have said this. It was
10 absolutely inappropriate, and I accept your criticism and, of course, I
11 accept that it's correct.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, I take it that Mr. Krajisnik will have an
13 opportunity -- because I do understand he's -- he'll take these minutes
14 with him in the Detention Unit so that he can comment on it, what
15 triggered him to use these words?
16 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, the understanding was that Mr. Krajisnik
17 would be able to take with him any documents that had been presented to
18 him -- I should -- and I mentioned before the further understanding was
19 that we wouldn't copy again the sessions he already had, but if the
20 24th Session needs to be provided, that's not a problem.
21 JUDGE ORIE: So, Mr. Krajisnik, you have an opportunity to do what
22 you should intend --
23 MR. TIEGER: In fact, the record should reflect that we're doing
24 so right now.
25 MR. JOSSE: It's worth remembering that the binders, as I
1 understand it, go from 1 to 23. From 24 onwards --
2 JUDGE ORIE: [Microphone not activated].
3 MR. JOSSE: Precisely, they're not in the sequential order.
4 MR. TIEGER: I think we included 24 after we began, but in any
5 event now Mr. Krajisnik has it.
6 MR. JOSSE: Thank you.
7 MR. TIEGER:
8 Q. Mr. Krajisnik, I'd like to turn back in time now to 1991, and in
9 particular to your testimony about Dr. Karadzic's speech at the Bosnian
10 Assembly session in -- on the 14th and 15th of October, I guess the late
11 evening of the 14th or the early morning hours of the 15th , in which he
12 said: "This is the road that you want Bosnia and Herzegovina to take, the
13 same highway of hell and suffering that Slovenia and Croatia went through.
14 Don't think you won't take Bosnia and Herzegovina to hell and Muslim
15 people in possible extinction because Muslim people will not be able to
16 defend itself if it comes to war here."
17 Now, Mr. Stewart read that out to you during the course of your
18 examination, and you explained Dr. Karadzic's comments as simply being a
19 repetition of what Mr. Filipovic had said earlier, and as I understood it
20 that was your explanation of the benign aspect of Dr. Karadzic's comments.
21 Is that right?
22 A. I explained to Mr. Stewart what Mr. Karadzic had stated and what
23 the papers wrote about that, why he gave that statement that upset the
24 public, and I provided it on that DVD to the Trial Chamber. As for this
25 statement, if you want to know, I can comment upon it further.
1 Q. Well, if I understood you correctly - and please correct me if I'm
2 wrong - you wanted the Court to understand that Dr. Karadzic's remarks
3 should not be misinterpreted as a threat because he claimed that he was
4 simply repeating what Dr. Filipovic had said. Is that basically it?
5 A. There are two things to be said here. I presented a new fact
6 about how Mr. Karadzic explained his statement before the Assembly, and I
7 provided a document to support that. And as for the "quality" of that
8 statement, I have to say I read through that statement ten times in its
9 entirety. And it has never been read in its entirety before the Trial
10 Chamber. He repeated ten times: I am not threatening, I am not
11 threatening, I am not threatening. And we should take a look at that. I
12 heard him speak on that occasion, and I was embarrassed but I didn't
13 understand his tone to be threatening. You will see there are three or
14 four entire pages dedicated to his pleas for an agreement. He said: I am
15 not threatening. I am begging you, meaning the other two sides.
16 However, the passage most often quoted before the public is the
17 ugliest passage that sounds threatening. However, I know exactly what he
18 said, all of it, and there is even video footage of it.
19 Q. Well, when you say it's not a threat, but that mean that
20 Dr. Karadzic was saying something to the effect of: Please, don't make us
21 do this?
22 A. Mr. Karadzic said: I'm not threatening. I'm not threatening.
23 I'm not threatening. And then he said exactly what you now suggested in a
24 different context, but he said: I'm not threatening, please. He said
25 that several times, and that's why I understood it was not a threat, it
1 was a warning. And if the Muslims had been scared by his words, they
2 would not have voted for the platform and the memorandum, as they did,
3 which means they weren't frightened.
4 Q. Did I understand you correctly that you cited Mr. Filipovic's
5 remarks to explain further to the Trial Chamber that this was not a
6 threat? Because Dr. Filipovic had said it also?
7 A. No. I presented a new fact to the Trial Chamber, a fact that
8 wasn't known. And I know it because I asked Mr. Karadzic about it, and he
9 explained to me the same thing he explained to the press. I presented it
10 to the Trial Chamber so that the Trial Chamber should know Mr. Karadzic's
11 own explanation of why he said what he said.
12 Q. Well, first of all, perhaps it's useful to look at what
13 Mr. Filipovic actually said, and in that respect if we could turn to
14 tab 26, please.
15 A. I don't know what Mr. Filipovic said; I only know what the press
16 wrote about it. I don't remember the statement of Mr. Filipovic.
17 MR. TIEGER: Excuse me, Your Honour, just one moment, if I may
18 have a moment.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 [Prosecution counsel confer]
21 MR. TIEGER: Sorry, Your Honour, we've moved through that first
22 bundle of materials and we're just retrieving the next bundle.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
25 MR. JOSSE: Sorry, could I ask my learned friend is there an index
1 with this?
2 MR. TIEGER: If there's not one available at the moment, I'm sure
3 one is -- can be produced or can be made available.
4 MR. JOSSE: That's fine. I just wanted to know whether there was
5 one at the moment.
6 MR. TIEGER:
7 Q. Mr. Krajisnik, I'm going to be directing your attention to
8 page 03531269 at the top of the page.
9 MR. TIEGER: And it's page 4, Your Honours, of the English,
10 beginning at approximately the middle of the page.
11 Q. And for ease of reference, the portion to which I am referring
12 occurs shortly after a number of statistics, including 90 per cent, 92.1,
13 and 55, et cetera. So you'll see a lot of numbers and then the portion
14 below --
15 A. Which session is this?
16 Q. This is the -- you mean which date of the session?
17 A. I mean which document and which date, if you know. I don't want
18 to --
19 Q. This is Dr. -- this is Mr. Filipovic speaking at the session of
20 the Bosnian Assembly at which Dr. Karadzic also made his address. That's
21 the session from October --
22 A. Is that the same session?
23 MR. JOSSE: Could we just have the date, please?
24 JUDGE ORIE: We have looked at several sessions in which
25 Mr. Karadzic spoke, one of them being the 42nd Session.
1 MR. TIEGER: I believe this is from the first date of the session,
2 Your Honours.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Of 14th/15th --
4 MR. TIEGER: No, of the 10th, I think, but I'll double-check on
6 JUDGE ORIE: The 10th of what?
7 MR. TIEGER: Of October, I believe. But again I can double-check.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please tell us whenever you find out.
9 MR. TIEGER:
10 Q. And Mr. Filipovic states: "What does this mean? This means that
11 the separation of the SAO Krajinas is nothing but the establishment of
12 ethnically clean territories because the consequence of regionalisation is
13 the transport of people. That transport already exists. Refugees from
14 Herzegovina are already coming to Bosnia. Refugees are leaving
15 Sipovo-Kljuc. Territory will be ethnically cleansed, but considering
16 quantitative relations, this ethnic cleansing of the territory will not
17 lead to the creation of an ethnically clean Bosnian Krajina or a Bosnian
18 Krajina or Bosnia-Herzegovina or remaining Bosnia where the Muslims are
19 out-voted. It will again be Bosnia-Herzegovina or its remainder in which
20 the Serbs, Croats, and Muslims will co-exist and where there will be a
21 50 per cent Muslim population, so they won't be a majority, and hence
22 history will repeat itself. This means that the permanent process of the
23 dissolution of Bosnia-Herzegovina, its disintegration, and I'm interested
24 in this above all because I'm convinced that the disintegration of
25 Bosnia-Herzegovina, its regionalisation, it being reduced to something
1 that will later also be regionalised and will dissolve is the beginning of
2 the end of my people. This is why I want to say that we have to face the
3 cause of this process."
4 Now, this, Mr. Krajisnik, is a clear expression of Mr. Filipovic's
5 concerns about and objections to actions being taken by the SDS in respect
6 to the regionalisation of Bosnia and to any form of ethnic division of
7 Bosnia. Isn't that right?
8 A. Mr. Filipovic was saying that we had to reach agreement, otherwise
9 Bosnia and Herzegovina would break up. He was saying this on occasion of
10 the historic agreement, and the rest of his -- of his contribution
11 provides an explanation. He says: Unless we manage to reach an
12 agreement, my people will disappear. He did say that, although not in the
13 same language as Karadzic.
14 Q. And Mr. Filipovic was expressing his fear about what would happen
15 to Muslims at the hands of the Bosnian Serbs or the SDS, right, if
16 agreement wasn't reached?
17 A. No. Let me read to you the sentence.
18 "The cause is that the Serbs feel that Bosnia and Herzegovina
19 doesn't guarantee them the rights they want. We have to open discussions
20 and seek agreements, which is the only political logic and the only way.
21 There are no other means except war. In today's conditions, we cannot
22 ensure permanent order, security, and the territorial integrity and
23 sovereignty of Bosnia and Herzegovina."
24 Q. And he was expressing his concerns in the passage I read out, that
25 the impact on the Bosnian Muslims of SDS policies and actions. That's
1 what he was concerned about. Right?
2 A. You asked me about regionalisation. Correct. He was against
3 regionalisation, thinking that it was a division of Bosnia. He advocated
4 instead a historic agreement whereby Bosnia would remain in Yugoslavia.
5 That was the position of Mr. Filipovic and he was presenting it here.
6 Q. And beyond that, the idea that Dr. Karadzic was merely quoting
7 Mr. Filipovic and that somehow justified or explained his remarks is
8 something that Mr. Filipovic has, himself, not only denied but explained
9 as completely untrue. Isn't that right? Dr. Filipovic, like many, many
10 others in attendance understood that Dr. Karadzic was making a threat
11 against Muslims.
12 A. This preceded the contribution by Mr. Karadzic. The meaning of
13 these words is clear. Mr. Filipovic says: Unless we agree, the resulting
14 threat to my people would be disappearance. What Mr. Karadzic later said
15 to the press was his justification of what he said before the Assembly.
16 It's not I who had made that statement, it was Mr. Karadzic.
17 But just compare these two things. Mr. Filipovic is speaking
18 here, advocating an integral Bosnia within Yugoslavia. And he says: My
19 people will disappear if we accept regionalisation, if we don't manage to
20 reach an agreement. And Mr. Karadzic said basically the same thing. He
21 said we had to agree, we had to seek an agreement. But maybe the Muslims
22 understood it differently. If you look at the entire statement, you'll
23 see that what I'm saying is correct.
24 Q. Well, Mr. Krajisnik, I'm suggesting to you that Mr. Filipovic
25 understood it as a threat, Dr. Karadzic meant it as a threat, and that you
1 understood that that was meant as a threat or a warning about the
2 extinction or physical destruction of the Muslims.
3 A. Mr. Prosecutor, find the date of this session. This must be
4 before the statement by Mr. Karadzic. Mr. Filipovic could not have
5 understood something as a threat if he hadn't heard it at all. He was
6 afraid of regionalisation, he was against it, he was advocating reaching
7 an agreement. He was against the dissolution of Bosnia, and he was right
8 there. He wanted a Bosnia within Yugoslavia. Look at the date, whereas
9 what Karadzic said was said on the 14th or 15th of October. Take a look
10 at the date of this session.
11 Q. Rather than discussing the logic of that, let's turn to the three
12 prongs of that issue, first to tab 27, if we can.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Nevertheless, the date of this Bosnian Assembly
14 session, which you guessed would be the 10th of October, becomes more
15 relevant in view of the answer of Mr. Krajisnik.
16 MR. TIEGER: Well --
17 JUDGE ORIE: You said Mr. Filipovic --
18 MR. TIEGER: I just note -- I don't think there's any question
19 that if --
20 JUDGE ORIE: When you said Mr. Filipovic --
21 MR. TIEGER: No, I don't think there's any question that it
22 preceded the remarks of Dr. Karadzic. I mean, that's not --
23 JUDGE ORIE: So the understanding of Mr. Filipovic that this was a
24 threat does not find its basis in --
25 MR. TIEGER: No.
1 JUDGE ORIE: -- what he said on the 10th of October?
2 MR. TIEGER: No.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
4 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
5 MR. TIEGER:
6 Q. Now, Mr. Krajisnik, if we could turn to tab 27 --
7 A. Just let me understand this. Is it beyond dispute that this
8 statement was made before Karadzic's statement? That's all I want to
9 know. Yes. All right. Please proceed.
10 Q. Mr. Krajisnik.
11 MR. TIEGER: Your Honours.
12 Q. Tab 27 contains an article from March 1994 by Mr. Filipovic. I
13 want to direct your attention, Mr. Krajisnik's attention to a couple of
14 portions. The first is found in the English at page 2 and on the first
15 page, I believe, of the printed article where Mr. Filipovic says: "In his
16 well-known address at a session of the Assembly of Bosnia-Herzegovina,
17 Karadzic did nothing else but roughly embody and illustrate this strategy
18 aimed at creating and sustaining a third Yugoslavia by means of a
19 genocidal threat towards Bosnia and Herzegovina. His programme was based
20 on the position: Either you accept Yugoslavia or you disappear as a state
21 and as a people."
22 So I think we can agree that there Mr. Filipovic makes clear his
23 understanding that Dr. Karadzic's remarks were a threat directed at the
24 Muslim people, a threat that they would be physically destroyed as a
25 people. Is that right?
1 A. Yes, in 1994 he made this comment. In 1991, just like Karadzic,
2 he advocated Bosnia remaining within Yugoslavia, in July 1991. Those are
3 facts. He did make these comments in 1994 referring to the statements
4 made by Mr. Karadzic in 1991. A month before that he had advocated Bosnia
5 within Yugoslavia. He and Mr. Zulfikarpasic suggested a historical
6 agreement and people still say today that this could have saved Bosnia.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, I'm going to interrupt you. Here
8 again a similar thing seems to happen, that is how Mr. Filipovic
9 understood the language by Mr. Krajisnik [sic] as threatening or not --
10 MR. JOSSE: Karadzic, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: I'm sorry, Mr. Karadzic, yes. As he -- well, the
12 transcript says "Karadzic." I don't know what I said.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's all the same.
14 JUDGE ORIE: It's not all the same, Mr. Krajisnik, and you know
15 the Chamber doesn't take that view. The -- we are mixing up again. Even
16 if Mr. Filipovic at the time would be in favour of Yugoslavia, that does
17 not exclude him from telling us in 1994 that he considered this language
18 to the threatening. You're mixing up argument and facts at this moment,
19 and I invite you to first look at what he said -- what he writes here,
20 whether you could agree with Mr. Tieger that he, at least in 1994, says
21 that at the time when he heard it or on the basis of thoughts developed
22 later on, he considered this to be threatening. And a totally different
23 question is whether, apart from the threat, he would be in favour of
24 staying within Yugoslavia or not, either in 1991 or 1994. We are mixing
25 up at this moment several matters, and I would like to avoid that as much
1 as possible, because questions and answers do not match anymore.
2 I'm also looking at the clock, Mr. Tieger. I am aware that I'm
4 But before we adjourn for the day, Mr. Krajisnik, and before I
5 instruct where do you not to speak with anyone about the testimony you
6 have given or are still about to give, we have the correction -- well,
7 correction. The review of the B/C/S and English given by the CLSS.
8 Mr. Josse, you are perfectly right. There was a need to review because
9 where -- and I think that's the most relevant line. The remainder will be
10 filed. But where the transcript -- the uncorrected transcript read: "I
11 thought that when there is a map being drawn, that there should be as many
12 Serb territories as possible, as in accordance with the -- where the Serbs
13 did not have a majority."
14 The review brings us, and the report includes the B/C/S, but the
15 review brings us to the following text: "I thought that when the map was
16 being drawn, there should be as many Serb territories as possible,
17 according to the principle envisaged by the Lisbon agreement, not to be
18 megalomaniacs and demand areas where the Serbs did not have a majority."
19 So the portion did not appear in the English transcript, as you
20 read it at first, which I would say changes the meaning of this portion of
21 the testimony by a full 180 degrees.
22 MR. JOSSE: We're grateful to the Chamber for organising that.
23 Thank you.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And it will be filed so that -- and of course
25 the transcript will be corrected. That means that the definitive
1 transcript will reflect the testimony as given by Mr. Krajisnik.
2 Then we will adjourn for the day. We will continue tomorrow
3 morning at 9.00 in this same courtroom. And I remind the parties that we
4 will have an early finish tomorrow; that would be approximately 20 minutes
5 earlier than usual.
6 MR. TIEGER: And, Your Honour, before we recess, can we have the
7 bundle returned so we can extract the relevant portions and then return
8 them to Mr. Krajisnik.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I take it that can be done before Mr. Krajisnik
10 leaves this building?
11 MR. TIEGER: Yes.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then, Madam Usher, you are required -- no, no,
13 not at this moment, but could you please assist Mr. Tieger in having this
14 material returned.
15 And then you will receive whatever has been dealt with already,
16 Mr. Krajisnik.
17 We stand adjourned.
18 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.50 p.m.,
19 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 31st day of
20 May, 2006, at 9.00 a.m.