1 Thursday, 6 July 2006
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 11.10 a.m.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone. Mr. Registrar, would you
7 please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case number
9 IT-00-39-T, the Prosecutor versus Momcilo Krajisnik.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
11 Good morning, Madam Plavsic. We were informed, although no
12 written report is yet there, that you were medically checked this morning
13 and that the result is that, although circumstances and some stress add to
14 your high blood pressure, that medical reasons are not an obstacle for
15 further testifying. This is just a summary. Also, in view of the fact
16 that yesterday you expressed as your preference to go through this as
17 quickly as possible, I suggest to you, but please correct me when I'm
18 wrong, that we are in a situation now where you'd prefer to continue. Is
19 that correctly understood?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You've said that the doctor has
21 performed an examination. I understand that term to mean something else.
22 He did come and measure my blood pressure, my contact with him lasted five
23 minutes, and the blood pressure was 190 over 100. And from this
24 conversation with him that lasted five minutes, I concluded, perhaps
25 wrongly, that he had not had a look at my medical file. The file that I
1 did not know would accompany me in the first place. It is in the Swedish
2 language, and I had occasion to see from a distance that it's a rather
3 thick file.
4 He told me today that it is quite normal that I should have a high
5 blood pressure under this kind of stress and then I asked him whether he
6 had read my medical file, which is in Swedish, and he said he had. And
7 from that file, one can conclude that this is my most serious medical
8 problem even in Hinseberg.
9 He continued to say that it is quite normal, that I am under
10 stress and that this fact would pose no difficulty, and then I told him
11 the following: "You are a doctor. I am not a free person. And you bear
12 the responsibility."
13 He asked me, "What would you do if you were free?"
14 And I answered, "I would go to a hospital and ask to be examined."
15 So that's the conversation that I had today with the doctor in the
16 presence of a nurse. That is all I can tell you. As to how I feel, that
17 does not matter much.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I specifically, when asking to further look
19 into the matter, I specifically have drawn the attention to the fact that
20 the medical file came with you from Sweden and I suggested that the doctor
21 would have a look at it. I do understand that you asked him whether he
22 looked at it and that he confirmed he did.
23 Now, are we -- are you in a position that you could testify in
24 your own view at this moment?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, you are putting this answer in
1 my mouth. I stand by what I said yesterday. I don't know why -- this is
2 a place where I have to say, maybe not for the sake of you who are present
3 here, but also because of my family, it is not natural to have those
4 waterfalls in your head, this clock ticking, that I have no concentration,
5 that I cannot, when I walk, stick to a single direction. I did that in
6 the hallway of the detention unit today to check, and finally I'm not an
7 anonymous person, and I am saying this so that it be known. That's it.
8 That's my answer to your question. And you can continue now.
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Plavsic, given the circumstances, the Chamber
11 thinks that we should calmly and slowly start, and whenever you feel
12 uncomfortable, or perhaps I should say less comfortable or less -- more
13 uncomfortable than you do now, please address me, if you find that there
14 is any change in your ability to answer questions.
15 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Your Honour?
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 MR. O'SULLIVAN: On behalf of Mrs. Plavsic, I must object.
18 Mrs. Plavsic has told you that she was seen by a physician for
19 five minutes this morning and the only objective fact that has come out of
20 that examination, the blood pressure test, is that her blood pressure is
21 190 over 100. Mrs. Plavsic is 76 years old. This is not her treating
22 physician. He has not contacted her treating physician in Sweden. This
23 is a man who saw her for five minutes, and yesterday another doctor or
24 nurse here saw her for five minutes.
25 You've heard her medical state and you can see her state as well,
1 how it manifests itself, and her inability to focus and concentrate. I
2 think I'm at liberty to say that my instructions from Mrs. Plavsic are
3 that she is very apprehensive, that this will put her health if not her
4 life in jeopardy. This is a very serious matter. High blood pressure at
5 her age and this situation is very serious. We object to this proceeding.
6 On another level, what could possibly be the value of evidence
7 from a witness who has told you and you know her state and her health. So
8 I think both from a medical point of view and from a legal point of view,
9 both of which are legal matters, I submit, this is highly inappropriate.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE ORIE: Before considering what you've just said, we would
12 like to hear from the parties, whether they would like to add anything or
13 would like to make any submissions in relation to what was just said on
14 behalf of Mrs. Plavsic.
16 MR. TIEGER: Not at this time, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Defence?
18 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, yes.
19 While the Defence has the profoundest concerns about where we are,
20 of course Mr. O'Sullivan is here to protect Mrs. Plavsic's interests, and
21 it is Your Honours who have the responsibility of ultimately protecting
22 Mrs. Plavsic in all the circumstances in relation to whether she should or
23 should not give evidence and in what way and according to what timetable.
24 And the Defence position, quite naturally, is that while we would make no
25 submission that amounted to what in our judgement imposed any oppressive
1 burden on a witness in this case, it's our function to protect
2 Mr. Krajisnik.
3 When one considers it from the position of Mr. Krajisnik, it is of
4 the utmost concern that a lady who did, on any footing, occupy a very
5 significant position in the events concerned, should be giving evidence in
6 circumstances of extreme pressure, extreme pressure in the preparation,
7 and I won't go into that in the presence of the witness but I do flag it
8 up, and I would, if necessary, ask for the opportunity of making
9 submissions on that in the absence of Mrs. Plavsic. The extraordinary
10 inadequacies, in our submission, in the run-up to her arrival here to give
11 evidence, now we have a situation where a medical report has been
12 obtained, there is a lack of clarity. Although there are all sorts of
13 figures in a medical report, we don't, for example, at the moment
14 understand whether the doctor who briefly examined Mrs. Plavsic yesterday
15 even reads Swedish and to what extent he or she is able to disentangle the
16 medical information in a file in another language if he or she doesn't, we
17 would submit that it would be normal in these circumstances that before
18 the major step of embarking on Mrs. Plavsic's evidence is taken that a
19 medical report following that examination should at the very least be
20 available to the parties and to Mrs. Plavsic's counsel to be considered.
21 The timetable that the Trial Chamber is contemplating for
22 tomorrow, and in fact, Mrs. Plavsic, Mr. O'Sullivan has jumped the gun by
23 one day, she will in fact be 76 tomorrow, the timetable adopted for
24 tomorrow is in our submission, prospectively --
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 77. [In English] Sorry, sir, you
1 know better than me.
2 MR. STEWART: I had understood from the record, from the note that
3 Mrs. Plavsic's date of birth was 7 of July, 1930. If I'm wrong about
4 that, I think my arithmetic is okay based on that information.
5 THE WITNESS: You are right, I am not right. Can you imagine in
6 what kind of situation that I don't know how old I am. Sorry.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mrs. Plavsic, let's not make it a dispute between
8 Defence counsel and a witness what exactly her age is.
9 Please continue.
10 MR. STEWART: Shall I continue, Your Honour?
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But before you do so, I don't think that a
12 timetable has been finally set for tomorrow, although some inquiries were
13 made as what would be possible and what would not be possible. I'm not
14 aware of any decision taken in that respect.
15 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, I'll return to that in one
16 moment, if I may.
17 The -- what I said a moment ago just demonstrates how dangerous it
18 always is to discuss a lady's age, and that's once more been demonstrated
20 The -- so the -- on the prospective timetable, Your Honour, it is
21 this: It is that we received express notification yesterday that the
22 Court had set aside at least for prospective availability from 9.00
23 tomorrow until 7.00 tomorrow, so effectively a double day.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, I said there is no decision on
25 tomorrow. And one thing is for certain: There will be no session
1 from 9.00 in the morning to 7.00 in the evening. Would you please refrain
2 from speculation where I clearly indicated that no decision has been made
3 for this tomorrow.
4 Please proceed.
5 MR. STEWART: Well, I'm delighted to hear that, Your Honour. And
6 I'm sure Your Honour can see the concerns that might have arisen.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Would you please proceed, Mr. Stewart.
8 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, what is important for Mr. Krajisnik is
9 that any significant witness in this case, and let us assume that any
10 witness now called is intended to be significant, should give evidence
11 relieved of any extraordinary pressures. And the timetable -- and Your
12 Honour, I'm afraid I do not resile from the comments I've made in relation
13 to the prospective scheduling tomorrow because that is clearly linked to a
14 wish to finish Mrs. Plavsic's evidence in accordance with travel
15 arrangements, in accordance with days set aside to deal with other
16 witnesses, and that is not right, Your Honour. It is not right that the
17 parties should, once again, as we have seen with other witnesses, should
18 be put under these inordinate pressures and the corner should be cut in
19 relation to such important matters. It is simply not fair to
20 Mr. Krajisnik. And in our submission, that requires the most careful
22 So far as Mrs. Plavsic giving evidence at all is concerned, there
23 was, and it was not necessary to pick it up at the time yesterday, but my
24 B/C/S speaker in court yesterday, Mr. Jonovic, advised me that at one
25 point when Mrs. Plavsic had said that she didn't know whether she could
1 take it, that's to say the giving of evidence, in fact the sense of what
2 she said was that she didn't know whether she could complete it. And
3 this, to some extent, highlights precisely the concerns.
4 In our, submission, the Court must not embark on any evidence of
5 Mrs. Plavsic unless it is confident, within reasonable bounds of course,
6 confident that that evidence will be completed and will be completed
7 properly with the fair opportunity for the parties to deal with it at a
8 fair pace, to ensure that the witness is not under undue pressure.
9 And those are our submissions, Your Honour. It is too hasty to
10 plough on into beginning Mrs. Plavsic's evidence without much more careful
11 consideration than the Trial Chamber is currently giving.
12 MR. TIEGER: Just excuse me, Your Honour, just a couple of quick
14 First, with respect to the -- well, first I think it bears noting
15 as must have been apparent, that Mr. Stewart was addressing himself to a
16 number of issues, not the sole issue which I understood was before the
17 Court with respect to Mrs. Plavsic's immediate fitness to proceed, and
18 with respect to those aggregated submissions, I would simply note that the
19 Prosecution understood, for example, that setting aside tomorrow for
20 whatever sessions the Court deemed appropriate was not a signal in any way
21 to anybody that the entire day or indeed any particular portion of the day
22 would be consumed.
23 I think the issue at the moment is one that was inferentially
24 framed by Mr. Stewart and that is that the Court needs to make a
25 determination within reasonable bounds, of timing, with reasonable bounds
1 of objectivity, and information available of the timing for proceeding.
2 And in that respect, therefore, the Court, I presume, will want to
3 consider the information it has received concerning her medical condition,
4 whether further information would be of assistance to the Court in
5 reaching an objective and appropriate determination in that respect.
6 I am confident -- first of all, I think we all realise that
7 similar situations arise in courts around the world all the time. This
8 matter can be dealt with in an appropriate way and I believe it will be.
9 Finally I would say I'm not -- in terms of the aggregated
10 submissions I referred to earlier, I'm not aware that there was any
11 unusual process in place with respect to the witness herself in the
12 projected schedule. The witness arrived, the Court began to move forward.
13 Whatever preceded that appeared to me to bear only on issues related to
14 the parties and the lawyers and not the witness.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Tieger.
16 MR. STEWART: May I, since --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 MR. STEWART: -- Mr. Tieger did go second and since --
19 JUDGE ORIE: But you get a short time. Please respond briefly.
20 MR. STEWART: I will deal with these important matters in as short
21 a time as I can, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please refrain from commenting on where I
23 give you some guidance as using less time.
24 Please proceed.
25 MR. STEWART: Yes. But, Your Honour, what happened before
1 Mrs. Plavsic arrived has clearly impinged upon the timing in this court.
2 The very short time given for her to peruse and consider her draft
3 statement, with her being, it appears, quite consciously deprived of the
4 information she requested by way of transcripts of her interviews, led us
5 to spend a considerable time in court yesterday doing work which should
6 have been done before she arrived.
7 The questions about tomorrow's schedule tie in with the important
8 questions as to where are we going now in relation to the timing? If
9 Mrs. Plavsic does give evidence, where are we going in relation to the
10 timing of her evidence? How much time is to be spent doing what? What
11 are to be the limits and what is contemplated? How are those limits
12 intended then to be worked into the projected time available, if it is
13 still intended that, come what may, Mrs. Plavsic is on her way back to
14 Sweden on Saturday?
15 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. This Chamber will have to make a
16 determination in which of course it will have to see what are medical
17 risks which should not be taken and what are medical consequences of a
18 situation of stress which is inherent to the present situation, taking
19 into account all circumstances, such as age, such as the subject of the
20 evidence to be given. We'll have to make a determination on that, and
21 we'll have to do that taking into account all interests involved, that is
22 the interest of the accused in this case, it is the interest of the
23 witness herself, and it's also the interest of justice, which, of course,
24 is not an interest other than Mr. Krajisnik's interest. It is an interest
25 that all relevant information should be available to this Court, and if I
1 say "all relevant information," we are all aware, of course, that we could
2 spend easily 500 hours, a thousand hours, 2.000 hours, 3.000 hours, on
3 finding all facts, all details, which are covered by this indictment. The
4 Chamber will have to strike a fair balance on these issues, and we'll take
5 a short break to do so.
6 The Chamber might, given the circumstances, and given what you
7 told us, Mrs. Plavsic, might also seek confirmation of information that
8 was received, such as the -- and I just mention two issues, the time the
9 examination took, but also, for example, whether the medical file which
10 seems to be in a foreign language has been consulted and/or whether there
11 has been any contact. If this brings us any new information, the Chamber
12 will inform the parties about it. The Chamber will consider whether we'll
13 then hear further submissions or whether we'll already give a decision and
14 just inform the parties on this -- these matters.
15 We'll have a short break, Mrs. Plavsic. We want to take some time
16 to consider the present situation.
17 We stand adjourned without a clear time for resuming, but the
18 parties should remain standby.
19 --- Break taken at 11.36 a.m.
20 --- On resuming at 12.05 p.m.
21 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber has received a copy of an e-mail that was
22 sent by Mr. McFadden to Mr. Petrov. I'll read it out to you. The Chamber
23 has decided on the basis of this information and is not inviting any
24 further submissions on the matter.
25 The e-mail reads as follows: "The medical officer has reviewed
1 her" which stands for yours, Mrs. Plavsic -- "which was sent here by her
2 treating physician in Sweden. As a result of this, he found it necessary
3 to monitor the blood pressure, her" which we read as your, Madam
4 Plavsic -- blood pressure readings from high on admission to the detention
5 unit and prior to her departure for court both days but the medical
6 officer stated that they are not critical. He observed that her blood
7 pressure was normal upon her return from court yesterday, leading him to
8 conclude that the raised blood pressure was as a result of the stress
9 experienced in the courtroom. He offered her medication to help alleviate
10 this stress, which she refused. She continues on the medication regime
11 she brought with her from Sweden. The Swedish medical report was
12 translated for the doctor, who is fully aware of its content."
13 That was the message sent to this Chamber. The Chamber has
14 thoroughly considered all circumstances, the wide range of circumstances,
15 involved in this case, from preparation, attitude of the witness, interest
16 of the parties involved, everything, and we have decided that we'll
17 cautiously continue with hearing your testimony, Madam Plavsic.
18 May I then remind you, Mrs. Plavsic, that you're still bound by
19 the solemn declaration you've given at the beginning of your testimony.
20 WITNESS: BILJANA PLAVSIC [Resumed]
21 [Witness answered through interpreter]
22 JUDGE ORIE: May I also invite you to very much focus on the
23 questions put to you and to focus your answers on what was said.
24 Questioned by the Court: [Continued]
25 JUDGE ORIE: First of all, Mrs. Plavsic, have you received the
1 corrected version of your statement?
2 A. Yes, I have received it. I received it yesterday afternoon. I
3 did not read it because I think we worked together here on those
4 corrections, and if something was left out, when we come to it we can deal
5 with it.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Have the parties received a copy of it? Mr. Stewart?
7 MR. STEWART: Yes, Your Honour, we received yesterday afternoon a
8 corrected version and then this morning a version which I -- just before
9 we came to court. I'm not sure whether and to what extent the version
10 received this morning differs at all from the one we received yesterday
12 JUDGE ORIE: I'm not aware of two versions being distributed.
13 What the Chamber has in front of it at this moment is a new version which
14 clearly indicates the, as we call it --
15 [Trial chamber and legal officer confer]
16 JUDGE ORIE: I'm informed that it is the same version and it has
17 been presented in a way which would facilitate to find what changes there
19 Is there any issue raised by the parties as to whether the -- what
20 Mrs. Plavsic yesterday raised as matters to be corrected is not correctly
21 reflected in a new version?
22 MR. STEWART: Yes, there is, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, which one?
24 MR. STEWART: Well, it may simply be an example, Your Honour,
25 because we had thought and expected -- and we make no criticism of
1 Mrs. Plavsic here, but we had thought and expected that in the quietness
2 of not being in court she would be specifically reviewing her statement to
3 ensure it was what she was willing to sign, and it would still be better
4 if she had that opportunity.
5 But, Your Honour, may I give an illustration of a specific concern
6 in relation to and it arises on yesterday's transcript, if Your Honours
7 have that. We have the continuous numbered version now, and this begins
8 at page 26787, if Your Honours have that.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I'm getting it on my screen.
10 MR. STEWART: Do all Your Honours have this, by the way, as we go
11 along? Because it's not going to be easy for Your Honour's brethren to
12 follow this without the transcript up in front of him. I hope they do.
13 JUDGE ORIE: It's at least in the middle, so they can join me in
14 looking at my screen at this moment.
15 Let's proceed, Mr. Stewart.
16 MR. STEWART: That doesn't look very easy from where I'm sitting,
17 Your Honour, but no doubt it can be managed.
18 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Microphone not activated].
19 MR. STEWART: I'm delighted to hear that, Your Honour, and for His
20 Honour Judge Canivell.
21 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Microphone not activated].
22 MR. STEWART: I'm delighted you're pleased and delighted, Your
24 The -- Your Honours, it's page 26787 where we are dealing with
25 paragraph 9 of the statement. Mrs. Plavsic said -- Your Honour, if at any
1 point Your Honours felt that this should not appropriately be considered
2 in the presence of the witness, then I wouldn't probably make strong
3 submissions but I'm not suggesting anything different.
4 JUDGE ORIE: If we -- no, at this moment I think -- unless the
5 Prosecution would object.
6 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I would submit, in principle, it's
7 correct that she should be here because it is, after all, her evidence.
8 She said: I have an objection or remark to make in relation to
9 the first sentence. It says: I believe that Mr. Krajisnik had a very
10 important role in the Assembly of Bosnian Serbs, and so on. And then she
11 made it clear that - I'm summarising - it wasn't surprising because he was
12 after all the president.
13 But then she continued over the page, top of 26788, the second
14 part: And the Supreme Defence Council, because without him it would have
15 been impossible to do anything, his influence in the Supreme Defence
16 Council was quite different than in the Assembly.
17 And, Your Honour, I won't read every word. But then she goes on,
18 at the bottom -- Your Honours see the gist of it. And then towards the
19 bottom of that page, she says, well, and Your Honour, line 20 saying Madam
20 Plavsic --
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, I'm going to cut you short. I do see
22 that on paragraph 9 you have some concerns. We are going to ask the
23 witness to look at paragraph 9 in the new version whether that
24 reflects --
25 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, that's acceptable, of course.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 Mrs. Plavsic, could I draw your attention to paragraph 9 of your
4 A. I can say straight away I got the point, I think. I said
5 yesterday -- I said what I thought, that it was quite natural that the
6 president of the Assembly had an important role in the Assembly.
7 That's --
8 JUDGE ORIE: I invite you to read paragraph 9, to tell us whether
9 the correction you suggested is reflected in the new text such that not
10 whether there is any additional information to be given but whether the
11 correction you wanted to make yesterday, whether you find this reflected
12 in the new paragraph 9. You see there are two matters.
13 A. I think that here in paragraph 9, you put on the same footing of
14 importance the influence of Mr. Krajisnik in the Assembly and in the
15 Supreme Defence Council, which is not correct. Mr. Krajisnik is very
16 important in the Assembly, whereas in the Supreme Defence Council he was
17 the same as all the other members.
18 So here in the corrected text it's still reads that his influence
19 is equally important both in the Assembly and in the Supreme Defence
20 Council, which is not correct, and I think I did say that yesterday.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. While whether it reads, as you said, is still
22 to be seen. But if it would help you out, if it would read, "I consider
23 Mr. Krajisnik's participation in the Assembly of the Serbian People of
24 Bosnia and Herzegovina, and although to a lesser extent in the Supreme
25 Defence Council very important," if that would sufficiently express the
1 distinction you'd like to make --
2 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I'm going to object to this. Your
3 Honour is --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart.
5 MR. STEWART: I'm entitled to, Your Honour. I act for
6 Mr. Krajisnik. I'm entitled to register an objection.
7 JUDGE ORIE: You get one minute. I'm trying to get this statement
8 such that it reflects the -- what the witness told us.
9 MR. STEWART: Your Honour --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Of course there always could be said more words about
11 it, and therefore I'm seeking to see whether there is a text which
12 sufficiently reflects what the witness just told us. I'm listening very
13 carefully to her.
14 MR. STEWART: Your Honour --
15 JUDGE ORIE: You can make a submission of one minute, please.
16 MR. STEWART: One minute, Your Honour. Your Honour should leave
17 it to the witness to make her amendments, Your Honour. This trouble --
18 this problem has been caused by doing it in consultation, as it were,
19 between Your Honour and the witness yesterday, where the Defence
20 registered its concerns that the witness was being steered.
21 This is the whole problem about doing this statement in this way
22 and having done it in court. Mrs. Plavsic should be invited quietly to go
23 away and go through her statement and have the opportunity of making it
24 her statement.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The problem is we've seen what happens if we
1 leave it to Mrs. Plavsic. We have nine hours of interview which are, I
2 would say, a good basis for an exercise we are doing at this moment which
3 are not suitable for direct processing.
4 Mrs. Plavsic, would it assist you if we would include here that
5 the importance of Mr. Krajisnik although important was less important in
6 the Supreme Defence Council? Because you wanted to make that distinction,
7 from what I understand.
8 A. What was visible, what could be seen and heard, is that his
9 influence in the Supreme Defence Council was no different than from that
10 of the other members. I really don't know how it came about that his
11 importance in the Assembly and his importance in the Supreme Defence
12 Council were placed on an equal footing.
13 I know that fine points are very important, although this is not a
14 finer point anymore. It's the essence, the substance.
15 I really -- I'm not able to give you a wording. Maybe if you
16 provide a wording, I can say yes or no. How would you phrase it?
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mrs. Plavsic, perhaps since this seems to be the
18 problem, if we would strike the reference to the Supreme Defence Council
19 as a whole and what you told us about it, what you saw as a difference, is
20 then not related anymore to the text but is just what you told us in
21 court, which basically is that Mr. Krajisnik's influence in the Supreme
22 Defence Council was as other members from the Supreme Defence Council. I
23 suggest that we leave that out so -- "and the Supreme Defence Council,"
24 and then the words in B/C/S, take that out as a whole. Yes?
25 A. Yes, yes.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Any further submissions in this respect? That is,
2 correctness of the corrections made. Mr. Stewart?
3 MR. STEWART: No further comment on this point, Your Honour. It's
4 just we had --
5 JUDGE ORIE: On any other point?
6 MR. STEWART: A general point, Your Honour. It would probably be
7 a good idea, we suggest, if Mrs. Plavsic were to take the opportunity this
8 afternoon and this evening just to ensure that she is content with her
9 statement but no doubt that will appear, we hope, as we go along.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Any observation by the Prosecution?
11 [Prosecution counsel confer]
12 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, we haven't had an opportunity -- well,
13 we haven't taken the opportunity, if one existed, to go through a
14 painstaking comparison, but it appears to us, based on the review we have
15 conducted, that the version before the Court now conforms to -- in
16 essence, to what was discussed in court yesterday.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mrs. Plavsic, we would like to give you an
18 opportunity, of course we have read the transcript of your interview, we
19 have seen how it was processed in such a way that it was put on paper as
20 your statement, we heard yesterday the corrections you made. We tried to
21 work them in as carefully as possible. We provided you with a copy now
22 which clearly also reflects what was changed. Perhaps during the next
23 break or perhaps this afternoon or this evening, you could just look at it
24 and see whether it now reflects what you told us was wrong in the earlier
25 statement and whether it now is corrected in a way you agree upon.
1 May I invite you to do so and then we'll continue at this moment
2 with further questions.
3 Then I again would like to ask you to very much focus your answers
4 on questions we put to you. Yes, Mrs. Plavsic.
5 A. Excuse me, let me just tell you one thing. I think that the
6 entire transcript of the interview should have been sent to me as
7 Mr. Nilsson had said he would when he was in Hinseberg. When I told
8 him, "What next," he told me, "I'll send you the transcript. On every
9 page you should put your initials, if you agree, and amend if necessary."
10 And I talked to him, and he told me, "I'm sending you a summary."
11 JUDGE ORIE: There must be some misunderstanding, but I can assure
12 you, Mrs. Plavsic, that the parties have available to them the full
13 transcript, which is in English, and if they would find any point where
14 the summary would --
15 A. Is in contradiction with --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I -- although I -- where there is not proper
17 basis for this statement, in the transcript of that interview, of which
18 they have received an audio recording as well so they can check whether
19 the transcript is correct, they will, without any doubt, draw the
20 attention of the Chamber to any such matter. So to that extent, the
21 parties will actively, from their own positions, check whether this
22 summary finds its basis in -- and if we would have such submissions, and
23 if we would need any further clarification from your side, we might even
24 consider to ask further clarifications.
25 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I hope Your Honours will bear in mind
1 that of course the audio recording and the transcript are both equally
2 useless to Mr. Krajisnik himself because unhappily really the interview
3 was conducted entirely in English, thus depriving him of that opportunity.
4 I hope Your Honours will simply bear that in mind as we go along.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll keep that in mind, Mr. Stewart.
6 Mrs. Plavsic, I'd like to put a few questions to you and later on
7 an opportunity will be given to both Defence and Prosecution to ask
8 questions about it.
9 The -- but before doing so and since some reference will be made
10 perhaps to the statement as it stands now, I would like to have
11 provisionally assigned a number to the witness statement in its corrected
12 version with the track changes as it is given to the parties.
13 Mr. Registrar.
14 THE REGISTRAR: That will be assigned C7, Your Honours.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
16 Mrs. Plavsic, in your witness statement, you indicated that
17 Mr. Krajisnik was perceived by you and by others as a powerful man. You
18 also said that -- and that's, I checked that in the transcript, in the
19 original recording, that it was impossible to do anything, and the Chamber
20 understands that this is expressed in the book you've written as well.
21 Could you explain to us, perhaps by giving one or two clear
22 examples, why you considered him and how you could see that he was a
23 powerful man, as you said, without whom it was impossible to do anything?
24 Could you give us -- perhaps without giving the whole story but perhaps
25 one or two examples, focusing on how this power became noticeable to you?
1 A. Yes. He was a very powerful man. Thanks to his ability to be
2 very practical and realistic, I think in certain matters he even dominated
3 over the president of the Republic, Karadzic.
4 How does a man become powerful? I think you must have given some
5 thought to that yourself. Just let me finish, please.
6 During the war, as regards foreign policy - and when I say
7 "foreign policy," I mean the numerous meetings abroad related to various
8 peace agreements - he was necessary and he was present everywhere. What
9 talks were conducted there, I have no idea, because I never heard anything
10 from them when they came back, apart from what they would say at Assembly
11 sessions. So as far as that aspect of life is concerned, he was always
13 As for our internal matters, internal territory, he was the
14 president of the Assembly. He was in constant contact with the MPs, and
15 not only MPs but also with municipal authorities. So how can somebody
16 conclude what I concluded even without making the rational analysis that I
17 made? His office was always full.
18 After the signing of the Dayton Accords, during peacetime, more
19 than half of the population of Sarajevo was withdrawing, but even during
20 the war, everybody went to ask Mr. Krajisnik but also ask Mr. Karadzic.
21 However, people probably thought that he was more practical, so they went
22 to see Mr. Krajisnik rather. So that even an ordinary person could see
23 that there were people waiting outside his office, and there were many
24 people in his office, people from the local level.
25 When there were talks with Mr. Milosevic, I was never there. I
1 never saw Mr. Milosevic, except when he came to Mount Jahorina with the
2 Vance-Owen Plan, but even then I sort of allowed myself to turn my back on
3 him and not even greet him. So --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Can I stop you for a second and ask some clarifying
6 I specifically asked for examples. Until now, the examples were
7 not yet very precise. But one of the things you said as that he was
8 always there at international meetings, and he never informed you about
9 what happened apart from the information he gave to the Assembly.
10 Do we have to understand that, that you say he did not consult, he
11 did not discuss with us, they just went on on their own, and that is a
12 demonstration of the de facto power? Is that a correct understanding of
13 your answer?
14 A. Yes. And you also used the plural because as far as I know --
15 actually, we are talking about the period until the end of 1992. Only in
16 that period was I present. And that was until mid-October, that I was at
17 Pale. We were physically separated when we were at Pale, also. I did not
18 socialise earlier with Mr. Krajisnik so that I would be able to sort of
19 say, in passing, "Momo, can you please explain to me what was going on in
20 Geneva" or anything like that.
21 JUDGE ORIE: You said you were physically separated. Just
22 factual. Where were you? Where was Mr. Krajisnik? You were where?
23 A. I think that these were some five rooms which were used as the
24 Presidency, the Assembly, and I don't know, the only thing was that the
25 actual government was at Jahorina. When the shelling of Pale began, I
1 went to Jahorina and some others left too, while Mr. Krajisnik stayed.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Stayed where?
3 A. Yes.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Stayed where?
5 A. He stayed at Pale.
6 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand when you say "we were physically
7 separated," you say he was, after the shelling at least, he was in Pale, I
8 was in Jahorina. You may notice that I'm trying to find very factual
10 Another question. You said we never saw Mr. Milosevic when he met
11 with Mr. Milosevic; only once you made an exception. Were you aware of
12 other meetings Mr. Krajisnik had with Mr. Milosevic? So where you were
13 not seeing Mr. Milosevic?
14 A. I was never present. The first time I met Mr. Milosevic was after
15 the signing of the Dayton Accords. Perhaps you will ask the question of
16 how this was possible. I was very open, and I objected very much against
17 the policy of Mr. Milosevic. I think that I was the only one that was
18 openly in opposition, and I know that Mr. Milosevic even told
19 Mr. Krajisnik -- actually, no, Mr. Karadzic, once that they would need to
20 remove me from the Presidency.
21 JUDGE ORIE: I'm going to take you back to what you said before.
22 You said, "When there were talks with Mr. Milosevic, I was never
23 there. I never saw Mr. Milosevic except when he came to Mount Jahorina
24 with the Vance-Owen Plan, but even then I sort of allowed myself to turn
25 my back on him and not even greet him."
1 Which makes it clear you once were present when he was there, but
2 you did not communicate with him apart perhaps in negative body language.
3 Is that correct understanding?
4 A. Yes. I would just like it to be known that this was a period
5 until the end of 1992, from the start of the war until the end of 1992.
6 As a member of the Presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina, I had the opportunity
7 to see Mr. Milosevic, but this was before the war.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 A. He communicated with Mr. Izetbegovic, but I wasn't present so I
10 don't know what the substance of the talks was.
11 JUDGE ORIE: I'll put a very precise question to you in this
12 respect, which is the following: You said, "When there were talks with
13 Mr. Milosevic, I was never there." This answer, does that relate to
15 A. Yes.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 A. After the signing of the Dayton Accords. Because Mr. Milosevic
18 signed the Dayton Accords, and in the meantime, I became the
19 vice-president, and then after that, after the elections, president. I
20 had to communicate -- well, it doesn't matter if I had to or wanted to. I
21 don't think that that's so important. But, anyway, we are talking about
23 JUDGE ORIE: We are talking about 1992. So your answer implies or
24 suggests that in 1992 there were meetings with Mr. Milosevic where you
25 were not present but where Mr. Krajisnik was present.
1 Is that a correct understanding of the implication of your answer?
2 A. If you were to ask me could you be 100 per cent sure, I would say
3 that I would not be. I mean, I didn't accompany them, I didn't go to
4 Belgrade, I didn't go into the building where Mr. Milosevic was, and I
5 didn't sit there. So I really couldn't say. Maybe they went to Belgrade
6 and sat with Milosevic and had coffee. I don't know.
7 I'm trying in a way to draw a picture for you. This is not my
8 personal knowledge, but it's that kind of knowledge. For example, I
9 needed Mr. Krajisnik, and his secretary would say, "No, no, he's not
10 there. He went to Belgrade. They are having a meeting with Mr.
11 Milosevic," for example. I needed to see Mr. Karadzic, for example, "Oh,
12 he's in Belgrade since two days ago."
13 So in this way, is how it was, if you can understand me. When
14 they returned, no one -- I had my own principle. If someone didn't want
15 to tell me anything, I would ask once. The second time I would be very
16 reluctant and uncomfortable asking, so I didn't do that. Especially
17 because it was not necessary in what -- in my work. At the beginning of
18 July, in the Presidency, I was entrusted with the humanitarian sphere,
19 with contacts with the religions --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Plavsic, I invited you to focus. I have some
21 follow-up questions on just a few lines you gave.
22 You said, "There were always people in his office, Members of
23 Parliament." May I take it that you knew the assemblymen so that for that
24 reason you told us that they were there? Is that correctly understood,
25 that you knew them as persons and therefore you knew that assemblymen were
1 in or around his office?
2 A. As far as Members of Parliament are concerned, I would perhaps
3 divide them into several groups. With some, I don't know for which
4 reasons, I did communicate with some, I would just be on greeting terms,
5 how are you and so on, and there were others that I did not communicate
6 with. I knew them all by sight. There are some whose names I don't even
7 remember. But this was 14 years ago.
8 JUDGE ORIE: May I stop you there again? You said you knew them
9 all by sight. Is that to say that that allowed you to observe that it
10 were assemblymen that visited him in his office, were in or around his
11 office? Is that correctly understood?
12 A. If they were waiting there, near the secretary's desk, they were
13 probably waiting for their turn to enter Mr. Krajisnik's office. But I
14 think that it was not just assemblymen. Many people wanted to speak to
15 Mr. Krajisnik. You could put the question why this was so.
16 JUDGE ORIE: I did not put that question. But I first would like
17 to put the question -- I am trying to find out what is exactly the basis
18 of your knowledge.
19 You said apart from assemblymen, also people from the
20 municipalities. How did you know, how did you identify those persons as
21 people from the municipalities? Did you know them? Did you know them by
22 sight? Did you speak to them? Could you please answer the questions.
23 Did you know them by sight, the ones you considered to be people from the
25 A. I knew very few people from the municipalities, because I wasn't
1 in any of the SDS forums. I did have an SDS membership card. I was a
2 member of the SDS, but I wasn't in any of the bodies. And I think that
3 the local authorities favoured and perhaps exclusively requested that
4 members of the SDS be in the local authorities. I couldn't maybe say that
5 this applied to everyone. Maybe there were members of the local
6 authorities who were not members of the SDS.
7 But let me answer your question, how did I know. When the
8 secretary told me, "You cannot go inside," because, for example, the
9 president of the municipality of, I don't know, let's say the president of
10 the municipality of Pale, or the president of the municipality of
11 Vlasenica - I can't remember at this moment - "is inside," so that's how I
12 knew. Sometimes the secretary would say, the president, that's how they
13 addressed him, the president, "The president is busy." In that case, I
14 didn't know who was with him in the office. Perhaps -- Mr. Krajisnik is a
15 very open person, a communicative person, and people sensed that perhaps,
16 and perhaps he was able to ask -- to carry out what they asked him to do,
17 so perhaps this was something that became known, and people then would
18 say, "Well, go and see Momo and he will arrange that for you."
19 So I -- I hope that I have managed to perhaps illustrate how it
20 was actually, how things were in practice.
21 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... the Chamber is
22 seeking to know what actually happened so that what you give as a more
23 general statement that we know better what made you state those things.
24 You were talking about -- you said he was a powerful man and you
25 gave an example of his attendance of international meetings. When you are
1 talking about his powers, should we understand this as powers that would
2 stay within the formal powers he had, or would that go beyond the formal
3 powers of his position as president of the Assembly or any of the other
4 formal positions he held? Did it stay within these formal powers or did
5 you consider it to go beyond the formal powers?
6 A. I don't feel so comfortable because I have to give you the first
7 example that has to do with me. I would gladly actually just bypass that.
8 When the Assembly of the Serbian People of Bosnia and Herzegovina was
9 formed before the war, and this was on the 25th of October, 1991, the
10 Assembly concluded that contacts -- and already at the time people were
11 coming from different international organisations to the Presidency, to
12 Republika Srpska.
13 I have to say here that it was always strange why they were in
14 contact only with the party chairman or presidents, whereas
15 Bosnia-Herzegovina also had an assembly, a Presidency, a government. For
16 example, Mr. Carrington, I think that he was the first one to visit, he
17 had contacts -- all right. He had contacts with Mr. Izetbegovic.
18 Mr. Izetbegovic was the president of the Presidency of Bosnia and
19 Herzegovina. He was the party president of the SDA party, the Muslim
20 party, and he was also the president of the Presidency. Mr. Kljujic also
21 was a member of the Presidency and a president of the HDZ. Mr. Karadzic
22 was the only person who was the president of the SDS but did not have a
23 state post or function. But still it was a bit strange to me why a man
24 who would be coming from a traditionally democratic country, with strong
25 institutions, would be talking to presidents of parties and not to
2 But let me answer your question. When the Assembly was formed,
3 of -- the Assembly of the Serbian People of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and I
4 said that was on the 25th of October, 1991, and I think at the first
5 session, the Assembly concluded to entrust myself and Mr. Koljevic the
6 task of contacting international representatives. I cannot remember who
7 came but I remember Mr. Carrington well, when he came. So that was my
8 assignment that I was given.
9 Then, at that time, meetings intensified amongst the three leading
10 parties, the HDZ, SDA and the SDS, although there was considerable
11 conflict amongst them also at the same time. So the presence of the
12 international factors led to them having meetings. And then at this
13 Assembly session, I was assigned -- not just me, but I can't remember
14 whether it was also Mr. Koljevic or someone else. It was probably also
15 someone else. But anyway, that I would be in the group that would be
16 establishing and maintaining contacts with the HDZ representatives and the
17 SDA representatives.
18 However, no one ever informed me that a meeting or meetings were
19 being held. Sometimes they were even being held in the Presidency
20 building. And sometimes Mr. Karadzic, Mr. Krajisnik, would come to my
21 office, and I had the impression that they would just come as if they were
22 waiting -- they were coming to a waiting-room, to await the beginning of a
23 meeting. And since this happened two or three times, I would ask, "Why
24 are you in the Presidency building?" Because I could see they didn't come
25 to see me or for any other reason. And then they would say, "Well, we are
1 having a meeting here with the representatives of the HDZ and the SDA."
2 And I was surprised, in view of the assignments that I had been given.
3 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand your testimony to be that he, as a
4 matter of fact, participated in the talks for which you were assigned to
5 participate and not together with you but you not being invited and he
6 would be there to participate in those talks. Is that a correct
8 A. Yes. You understood me correctly. I was looking for an
9 opportunity. It was all risky, it was a very responsible job, so all I
10 was trying to do was to be clear and that perhaps someone else was better
11 at performing the jobs that the Assembly had entrusted to me, but all I
12 tried to do was to keep the Assembly informed, and I tried to have the
13 Assembly make a request that reports be submitted on who did what, so that
14 in an indirect way I would be able to inform them, please don't think that
15 I am the one who is actually implementing the tasks that you have
16 entrusted me with. And that's when the war broke out. I stayed in
17 Sarajevo, and I was looking for an opportunity to go to Pale, actually to
18 flee to Pale. Yesterday we discussed this term, to walk there or flee
19 there. And I was given the opportunity --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mrs. Plavsic, you answered my question.
21 A. [In English] Yes.
22 JUDGE ORIE: So therefore I would like to take you to your next --
23 to another matter.
24 In your statement, you said, and this is related to the
25 Presidency, what became the Republika Srpska Presidency, that Mr. Karadzic
1 mentioned that it was important that this Presidency existed even if you
2 would do nothing, and you said that this in your opinion was typical of
3 how he saw the Presidency and how it worked, in your view.
4 Could I first ask you, Presidency meetings, and try to focus
5 exactly on what I'm asking you, how were the meetings called? Was it
6 standard, well, let's say, every Monday, Wednesday, Friday, or were they
7 called occasionally and how they were called?
8 Try to focus on my specific question: How would you know that a
9 Presidency meeting would take place?
10 A. [Interpretation] The Presidency was formed on the 12th of May in
11 Banja Luka.
12 JUDGE ORIE: I'm stopping you. I did not ask you how the
13 Presidency was formed. I asked you how would you know that a Presidency
14 meeting would take place? Did you get a letter? Was it on the basis of a
15 schedule which was prepared well in advance? Did you receive a telephone
16 call? How were you aware that the Presidency would meet?
17 A. There was no way of receiving a written summons to meetings. When
18 I fled to Pale on the 22nd of May, I was told that Presidency meetings
19 were being held every day. I think at 11.00 or something like that. No,
20 no, no. Earlier. So I consider that to be appropriate because it was a
21 serious situation, it was war. So it was understandable that they were
22 being held every day.
23 As far as a summons was concerned, this is how it was. Either the
24 secretary would inform us or actually the statement that it was held every
25 day at such and such a time, the Presidency meeting, I would simply turn
1 up at the hour, at the Presidency.
2 JUDGE ORIE: And were Presidency meetings held with approximately,
3 so not perhaps with exceptions but approximately with that frequency?
4 That means five, six, seven times a week?
5 A. Well, I was told that this would be every day. But then, in
6 practice, it turned out that this was not actually every day, but
7 sometimes the president of the Presidency would be chairing the meeting,
8 sometimes he was not present, and Mr. Krajisnik was not there either, so
9 there would be no Presidency meeting.
10 JUDGE ORIE: As an average, in a month, how many Presidency
11 meetings would, approximately, would that be 10, 15, 8? Approximately.
12 A. It would be more frequent. Only if there was an interval when
13 they were away abroad for, let's say, 10 days.
14 JUDGE ORIE: I gave you -- I gave you different numbers, so if you
15 say it was more frequent, I have to know was it more frequent than 15
16 times a month?
17 A. In a month?
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 A. Sometimes it was, and sometimes it wasn't. I'm sorry, but I will
20 say that you have this idea of an organised structure; for example, one in
21 which I as a university professor worked in. But you receive a summons
22 for a meeting, and traditionally you would know when, which day and what
23 time this would be held. I was the dean of the faculty, so I know, and
24 this is -- this is how I entered politics. And I was constantly
25 surprised. And it's not only this Presidency; I was also in the
1 Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Sometimes you would have the
2 impression that it was like the Bosnians say, a sit-down, a get together.
3 You meet, then the coffee comes, and then finally you can just leave
4 without actually knowing why the meeting had been convened in the first
5 place. So sometimes I would remark to that effect at the Presidency of
6 Bosnia and Herzegovina, that it's a very small department of a minor
7 university would be better able to organise a meeting. So that is why I'm
8 unable to give you a direct answer to the question you put, but I have to
9 give you a descriptive one.
10 JUDGE ORIE: What you just told us about these meetings, would
11 that apply to the Presidency in 1992? Because you made reference to the
12 Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina. My question was focusing on the
13 Presidency of what became Republika Srpska. Would this reflect -- did
14 your answer reflect what happened in --
15 A. Let me be clear about what I said. It applies to the Presidency
16 during the war in 1992, but I'm telling you there was nothing binding even
17 in the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Maybe there was a conference
18 room that was official, et cetera, whereas this was wartime.
19 JUDGE ORIE: I'm focusing on the Presidency meetings during the
20 wartime in 1992.
21 Now, where you said, at the end, you would ask yourself why that
22 meeting was called, does that mean that there was no agenda distributed
23 prior to the meeting to start? Is that correct, or is that not correct?
24 A. Correct, correct. You put it correctly. No invitations, nothing.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Now, as far as decision making is concerned, if any
1 decisions were taken during such Presidency meetings, could you give us an
2 impression on how that worked, but then in factual terms, so as to would
3 someone say, "We have to decide on this and I suggest so-and-so" or how
4 was a matter to be decided? How was it introduced? Did you, for example,
5 introduce matters on which you considered it necessary that a decision
6 would be taken?
7 A. I think you can imagine how many problems existed at the time and
8 how many people came to raise problems, such as to the office of
9 Mr. Krajisnik.
10 Since I was in charge of the area that you know about, so I'm not
11 going to repeat myself, I had problems with supplying electricity and
12 water to Sarajevo, because they thought it belonged with the humanitarian
13 affairs, so I said in the Presidency we have to repair transmission lines,
14 because electricity comes from the Croatian territory, crosses over our
15 territory. The switchboard is in Sarajevo, and we need to repair
16 transmission lines. Today, it's very difficult to grasp this.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Let me stop you there. You said something has to be
18 done about electricity supply. What -- how would a decision be taken on
19 that? Would you suggest a decision and then what was done? Was it by
20 voting? Was it by consensus? Was it -- could you please tell us what
21 then actually happened in such a meeting, but again in factual terms,
23 A. Winter was coming, there was no electricity in Pale, none in
24 Sarajevo. That was a sine qua non. I knew that we would be unable to do
25 anything without the presence of the UNPROFOR; they had to help.
1 JUDGE ORIE: I'm going to stop you again, because you are
2 explaining --
3 A. I cannot explain it to you any differently. Otherwise I'm afraid
4 I'm not going to be able to explain.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Because --
6 A. It won't be a long explanation.
7 JUDGE ORIE: But nevertheless, you are explaining what the problem
8 was about the electricity. Let's just assume there was a problem which
9 needed to be resolved. Then what happened in the meeting? Yes.
10 A. I was not authorised to start talks with the UNPROFOR on my own.
11 It couldn't be a decision of Biljana Plavsic. It had to be a decision of
12 the Presidency, so I raised it at the meeting of the Presidency, and
13 everybody accepted it very gladly and said, "Go on, Biljana, work on it."
14 So henceforth, I worked on it, and the greatest problem was to find a
15 repairman who would actually accept to climb up there with a sniper
16 shooting all the time. So the solution we found, as I told you before,
17 was that a crew of Croat, one Croat, one Muslim, and one Serb would go up
18 together, because one Serb had already been shot at by a sniper.
19 So from my line of work, I informed the Presidency --
20 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand. You informed the Presidency, you
21 were not authorised to do it yourself, and the Presidency agreed that a
22 certain course of action would be taken, including measures as you
23 explained to us.
24 Now, when the Presidency agreed, was there ever a vote where there
25 were different opinions and that you would say, "We have to put this to a
1 vote," or was there never any voting?
2 A. No, there wasn't. Let me tell you I'm just talking about my line
3 of work which was humanitarian affairs. I never encountered any
4 resistance of the Presidency -- because it was not only electricity, there
5 was the problem of water, the passage for convoys. Convoys had to pass
6 through our territory to reach --
7 JUDGE ORIE: I'm --
8 A. -- And the army had to be involved.
9 JUDGE ORIE: I'm going to stop you there again.
10 So you said, on your issues, you actually never found -- you never
11 encountered any resistance.
12 Were there other subjects, and I just want you to name the
13 subjects without at this time expounding on it. Were there other subjects
14 where there was disagreement, or whether there was by whomever introduced,
15 whether there was dispute, argument about how to proceed, how to resolve
16 that matter?
17 So could you tell us whether there were any such subjects and to
18 give one or two examples of such subjects?
19 A. It was a long time ago. The general impression that I have is
20 that there were differing opinions but no disagreements. There were
21 different opinions. I understood that to be good; that based on those
22 differing opinions, we would be able ultimately to find an optimum
23 conclusion. Whether it was really optimum only time could show.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, the answers you're giving now clearly
25 suggest a kind of a collegial reaching, common shared views on which you
1 would proceed. At the same time, we see in your statement, where you say
2 what was the need of a Presidency at all, Karadzic and Krajisnik had made
3 up their minds already, and that -- the answers you're giving now seem to
4 contradict what you said in your statement and in your interview.
5 Could you tell me whether I correctly perceived this contradiction
6 and how I have to understand it?
7 A. I agree that it can look the way you just put it. I gave you one
8 example where it would be difficult to find a person who would say, "Ban
9 that convoy, let them starve, or let them do without electricity.
10 However, at that time, there were talks going on about very
11 important issues. The Cutileiro Plan, I can't remember when it was
12 rejected, but we were aware of some solutions built into the
13 Cutileiro Plan, and you know that I never heard at a Presidency session
14 what it was supposed to be.
15 When the Cutileiro Plan fell through, the Vance-Owen Plan was
16 already gaining some momentum, and in every plan there was the
17 constitutional aspect of the solution for the Bosnia and Herzegovina and
18 the territorial aspect of the solution. That was discussed by those who
19 went over there, and you will agree that this is the main -- this was the
20 main issue for that time. It was an acute issue. I don't want to
21 underestimate the importance of electricity and water because they are
22 indispensable to everyday living, but this was about the fundamental
23 solution for the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
24 And there were some other things. Let me tell you, I find it very
25 difficult to reach some conclusions because I take my time checking and
1 cross-checking. Maybe it's what I take from my profession. But the
2 general impression that I have, and it's not only my impression, that only
3 two persons were deciding everything. I had that objection and I voiced
4 it publicly before the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Why not say
5 it now? Maybe I wanted too many confirmations of that. So it was not
6 before October that I said it at the Assembly session in Prijedor. And at
7 the National Assembly, the language used by Mr. Koljevic was, I believe,
8 very true when he said, "Let's stop playing this game of collective
10 JUDGE ORIE: You referred to the constitutional issues and the
11 territorial issues, that on these matters, Mr. Karadzic and Mr. Krajisnik
12 were the ones who, as I understood you, proceeded in their own way without
13 discussing the matters with you and the Presidency. Is that correctly
14 understood? And I'll put another question to you.
15 A. Yes, yes. But I wouldn't say that it was a 100 per cent personal
16 issue. It was not the issue of the Presidency but it was not 100 per cent
17 an issue of personality.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Let me ask you the following: When you're referring
19 to territorial aspects, do I understand you well -- would that mean what
20 territory should be claimed in negotiations, or how do I have to
21 understand the territorial aspects? Is that -- could you explain that?
22 A. If you analyse -- I don't know how many of those agreements
23 existed. One of them, let's say, was accepted and that's the way Bosnia
24 and Herzegovina is designed today. But each of those proposals had a
25 constitutional solution and a territorial solution included. Proposals
1 varied, but they had one thing in common and that was separation.
2 It began with the Cutileiro Plan. According to the
3 Cutileiro Plan, Bosnia and Herzegovina was cantonised, and out of those
4 cantons, in the following plans, there were fewer and fewer separated
5 parts until finally, in the Dayton Accord, Bosnia and Herzegovina was
6 divided into two entities.
7 As for the constitutional solution, the main problem was always to
8 what extent the centralised authority would be strong.
9 JUDGE ORIE: I'd like to focus on the territorial.
10 What you are describing, I understand, is more or less on how maps
11 were developed, what would be territory of what unit, and where you said
12 earlier that on these both aspects, and they more or less proceeded in
13 their own way, do I have to understand that that -- the maps and the
14 development of those maps were not collegially discussed in the Presidency
15 and that they would just take part in the negotiations or were they
16 discussed? Did -- and you put them together, Mr. Krajisnik and
17 Mr. Karadzic. Did they consult with the others before going to such
18 conferences, for further negotiations?
19 A. With Mr. Milosevic.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Not within the Presidency? That means with
21 Mr. Koljevic and with you and --
22 A. I cannot say anything about Mr. Koljevic because Mr. Koljevic did
23 go occasionally. Mr. Buha, I believe, always went, as a matter of course.
24 I cannot really say because I didn't even know when they were
25 leaving and when they would come back. Of course, I'm only speaking about
1 myself, about my knowledge. I'm trying --
2 JUDGE ORIE: And you were not consulted on these territorial
4 A. No, no. I was trying -- I was not a member of the Assembly. I
5 had the right to attend Assembly sessions, ex officio, without the right
6 of voting, but with the right of speaking. Those were my rights in the
8 And even after 1992, when I was in Belgrade, I went to Assembly
9 sessions to get some information, because of course I was interested in
10 what was going to become of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and that was the only
11 place where I could get what I hoped to be good information, to the extent
12 that it was available to the assemblymen.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Would you allow me one second?
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mrs. Plavsic, we have some practical problems as
16 well. I suggest we had a relatively late start, that we have a short
17 break now and then continue but only for a very short period of time; that
18 would mean for not more than some 20 minutes after the break. We would
19 then conclude at approximately 2.00, so that's 40 minutes from now, and
20 part of that taken by break of anything between 15 and 20 minutes, and
21 would that be too much for you or you would say, after break of little bit
22 over quarter of an hour, another 20 minutes would do, and then we finish
23 for the day?
24 A. I can do that.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
1 Then we'll have a break until most likely 20 minutes to 2.00 and
2 then continue only for another 20 minutes.
3 --- Recess taken at 1.24 p.m.
4 --- On resuming at 1.45 p.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. O'Sullivan.
6 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Very briefly, Your Honour.
7 In your e-mail this morning, or this afternoon that you read out,
8 you mentioned that the -- Mrs. Plavsic's medical report had been
9 translated. Can we request that you ensure that Mrs. Plavsic and I
10 receive the translation of that medical report?
11 JUDGE ORIE: Translation, has been translated, might be an oral
12 translation. I'll inquire into whether there is a written translation,
13 and if there is a written translation, I think that nothing would oppose
14 you receiving a copy of it. Yes.
15 Mrs. Plavsic, first of all, did you already look at the statement,
16 the redacted statement, or did you not yet find time to look at it?
17 A. No, I haven't.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You have received a copy?
19 A. Yes.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then I'll leave that until perhaps later so
21 that you have an opportunity to look at it first.
22 Mrs. Plavsic, I'd like to take you to another subject. In your
23 statement, you said that Mr. Karadzic and Mr. Krajisnik decided
24 everything, and therefore there was no need for a Bosnian Serb Presidency
25 or any other state institution. We've heard some answers from you in that
1 respect. In your book, "I Testify," you further explain that Mr. Karadzic
2 and Mr. Krajisnik made sure that only their supporters would remain in the
3 leading positions. First of all, I'd like to ask you, the book you've
4 written, and you have drawn our attention to certain pages of that book,
5 what we find in that book is -- does that reflect truthfully what your
6 recollection is on what happened at the time?
7 A. I don't know. The first page of the book is not part of the
8 actual contents of the book. It's the forward, and there -- excuse me
9 just for a minute, please. I have the book here.
10 I wrote there that the name of the book is very binding, as far as
11 I'm concerned. That's why I called the book, "I Testify." And I said it
12 is as if I had given an oath that I would speak the truth, only the truth,
13 so help me God. And that's what also kept like a thread appearing
14 throughout this book and also the second book. I'm talking about the
15 events known to me in 1992, and then the second book covers the period
16 from 1993 until 1998.
17 JUDGE ORIE: We are under some time restraints. I understand your
18 answer to be that this -- that you confirm that what you've written in
19 that book reflects what is the truth, and as you said, even under oath you
20 would have written the same. Is that correctly understood?
21 Then I on page 264, you said: "Everybody who was not Radovan's or
22 Momo's man had to leave very soon."
23 Could you give me one or two examples of persons --
24 A. I can give you an example right away. For example, the example of
25 the Prime Minister, Branko Djeric.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 A. Mr. Branko Djeric, a prominent professor of the faculty for
3 economics in Sarajevo, and is a person whom I believe to be a good
4 patriot, who in such critical times sacrificed himself by taking on
5 himself that post. So from my point of view, he was an exceptionally
6 skilful person, an expert in his field, a man who knew the times were hard
7 and even harder times were coming and it would be impossible to predict
8 how hard the times would be, and in such a situation, he took this task
9 upon himself.
10 That man did as he believed a Prime Minister should work. He had
11 a ministerial cabinet, and it's quite normal that the ministers were
12 responsible first of all to him and then the entire government and
14 JUDGE ORIE: I'm going to interrupt you, and I'd like to -- you to
15 focus rather than on describing what you would expect a Prime Minister to
16 do, what made you believe that Djeric had to leave because he was not
17 Karadzic -- Radovan's or Momo's man. So you suggest that it was under
18 their influence that he could not continue. Could you explain that
20 A. It was probably their criteria; we have to have our own man. But
21 in that sense, Mr. Djeric was a person of the Serbian people, a person who
22 represented the interests of Republika Srpska in his own domain, in the
23 same way that I was a member of the Presidency. I was not Krajisnik's or
24 Karadzic's person, and I was not a member of the Presidency because of
25 Krajisnik or Karadzic. And in the same way I assume that Mr. Djeric was
1 not somebody who took upon that difficult post because of Karadzic for the
2 reasons that I stated previously.
3 So how did this manifest itself? For example, two ministers who
4 at the time -- well, all right. They were important in peacetime as well,
5 but you will understand that at that time the Minister of Justice and the
6 Minister of Internal Affairs did have things to do. Let me put it that
8 They said publicly to Branko Djeric in a quite rude way, in my
9 opinion, "You are not our boss. We report to Karadzic." I was present
10 when this was said. Mr. Mandic, in particular, had a manner like that. I
11 was irritated by this disrespect towards a respectable, prominent figure.
12 So instead of being happy to be even near him and to work together on the
13 same job, they were disrespectful to him in that way. And I think that
14 all of these signals were something that Mr. Djeric could not really take.
15 He didn't have the protection of Mr. Karadzic. Now, this is my personal
16 opinion. Quite to the contrary, there were suggestions addressed to
17 Mandic that he should make such statements, and the threshold of dignity
18 was crossed so that Mr. Djeric could take it no longer and he gave his
19 resignation at the Assembly in Zvornik.
20 I often heard the term "our man." When I analysed that it was not
21 of a man of the Serbian people or of Republika Srpska but personally, a
22 man of another man who wanted to implement his own policies through this
24 JUDGE ORIE: May I stop you there for a second? You describe more
25 or less, although perhaps suggested by others, that it was the rude way
1 Mr. Djeric was treated by the Minister of the Interior and by the Minister
2 of Justice that that caused him to leave.
3 In view of my question, and in view of the answer you gave, should
4 I understand this to be that Mr. -- the Minister of Justice, Mr. Mandic,
5 as you said, and the Minister of the Interior, that those were Radovan's
6 and Momo's men opposed to Mr. Djeric not qualified as such?
7 A. Of course.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you for that answer, Mrs. Plavsic.
9 I'd like to touch upon another issue. In your witness statement
10 you said, and I'm moving to a totally different subject, that all tactical
11 decisions were taken by General Mladic. Could you tell us who took the
12 strategic decisions? And, of course, we are talking about the army,
13 the VRS.
14 A. I was never present during conversations, and I didn't see any
15 orders that Mr. Karadzic as Supreme Commander, because the civilian
16 authority should be above military authority. I don't know if I'm
17 expressing myself well. But I never had the opportunity to see an order.
18 Now I'm talking about the period of 1992. I've seen many orders after I
19 was brought to Scheveningen, a pile of orders, which could be analysed in
20 the same way that I analysed yesterday page 1 of this text.
21 But what I can say is that I did not have the opportunity to see
22 that, just like when you read -- well, I'm not going to go back to
23 Napoleon. But, for example, there were many wars on our territory.
24 Memoirs were written about World War I. And I know, for example, General
25 Misic, when he received an order from Prince Aleksandar you could see the
1 line or the chain of command very clearly. I think that's -- you would --
2 that's how you would describe it.
3 But as for the personality of General Mladic, I think that I am
4 somebody who is familiar with that. I've written about him, not
5 chronologically, but I did write about some events, so I perhaps noted
6 down some of my remarks. A book has now come out about General Mladic by
7 a man whom I don't know, but who has known him since even from before the
8 war. Allow me to finish, please. And all I can say is that he also is of
9 the view that this is a man of such a character or nature that it was very
10 hard to order him to do anything.
11 If I were to tell you that at that time someone who did not
12 respect orders in peacetime in the Yugoslav People's Army, which was a
13 party army, I think that's how it was, I guess in all of those communist
14 countries, if he was punished and you know the kind of punishments they
15 had, he would be transferred somewhere, to Bitolj or somewhere to the
16 border, and he was walked all over the territory, I was surprised, I
17 didn't ask anyone but I knew how the system functioned, and I assumed that
18 this was a stubborn man. When I got to know him and in the relationship
19 that you are now interested in that we are talking about, I knew that a
20 man really couldn't change. He's a very strong personality. And --
21 JUDGE ORIE: Nevertheless, I'm going to interrupt you because it's
22 not a real answer to my question, but perhaps I should rephrase it. But I
23 do understand that your testimony is that the character of General Mladic
24 was such that it would not be easy to keep him under control.
25 But I was specifically, since your statement deals with tactical
1 decisions, I was specifically drawing your attention to strategic
2 decisions. First of all, are you familiar with strategic objectives
3 adopted by the Bosnian Serb Assembly? These are six strategic objectives
4 that even were officially published at a later time. Are you familiar
5 with what I call six strategic objectives?
6 A. I know what a strategy is, but believe me, I don't know about
7 these objectives. But it's been 14 years since those events. I don't
8 know. I know what my objective was and what the objective was of the
9 Serbian people. First, that we don't get killed, that 1941 doesn't happen
10 all over again; that was a main objective. And so that we become a
11 constitutive people in a country in which we have been living for hundreds
12 of years.
13 I don't know about those six. Maybe some I did know about at the
14 time but really, I don't know.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mrs. Plavsic, a last question for today will be
17 put to you by Judge Hanoteau who is sitting to my right.
18 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Mrs. Plavsic, in your interview,
19 you mentioned the role played by the personnel committee of the SDS. Do
20 you recollect having spoken about this?
21 A. In my book?
22 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] No, in your interview.
23 A. Probably, but I know that I also mentioned that in the book, too.
24 Everything that happens on this planet of ours that interests us
25 depends on the people. It depends on the people. If you have capable,
1 and let's say honest, people in the relevant posts, it's still not a
2 guarantee that things will proceed in the optimal way. It all depends on
3 that. The communists understood that best, the importance of a cadre or a
4 personnel commission. If you have your own man at a certain position,
5 unfortunately for them it was important to be loyal to the Communist Party
6 and not whether somebody was capable or not.
7 In my work I experienced some quite terrible things from the
8 personnel commission. They were not interested in whether I was an able
9 professor and an educator but whether I was politically active or not. So
10 since this is something that affected me, I have a dislike for personnel
11 commissions. I think this is something that was copied from those times.
12 We emerged from communism and then immediately the things we are talking
13 about now came upon us, and I do have a dislike, and I must say that when
14 they implement the personnel policy, they raise up the unfit, they destroy
15 the honest people, because honest people you cannot manipulate and you
16 cannot implement such a policy using them. So I probably mentioned the
17 personnel commission in those terms, the cadre or the personnel commission
18 decides who will be placed in which post. I don't know --
19 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Mrs. Plavsic, please, can you
20 confirm that Mr. Karadzic and Mr. Krajisnik were members of this SDS
21 personnel committee?
22 A. I don't know who members of the Main Board were or the Executive
23 Board, and I wasn't even interested in the party at all. I didn't have
24 any party experience because you can seldom find a person who was at the
25 university but was not a member of the Communist Party, not because they
1 believed in communism but simply because that helped them to get ahead.
2 So I can say as a direct answer to your question nothing could
3 have happened without them, whether this person will be in this post,
4 whether he will get this function or that function. I did not attend, nor
5 do I know who the members of the personnel commission were, what they
6 decided on. But from my experience I know that this is something that
7 would not have been done without them. Who was in that post, who was in
8 that post? They said, we have to appoint our own people. Very often,
9 these people, our people, quote/unquote, are not exactly people that I
10 would consider to be our people.
11 I didn't have any posts in the SDS. I had a piece of paper which
12 said that I was a member of the SDS. Therefore, I did not attend those
13 meetings. All I can do is conclude.
14 For example, I remember Branko Ostojic. Nobody knew him, a man
15 who was supposed to be the Deputy Prime Minister. He was not there.
16 Nobody knew him. And I asked Karadzic, "Who is this man?" Previously,
17 our people came from Sweden. They came to me and said to me, "This Branko
18 Ostojic," whom we know very well, "is supposed to be the Prime Minister."
19 So I, as a Presidency member, had no idea about that. And I went -- they
20 expressed themselves very negatively. I think the law in Sweden had some
21 problems with him. I think that I good-naturedly warned Karadzic. I
22 said, "Why are we dealing with such people?" I said, "Who is that
23 person?" And he said, "Well, it's that guy there in the corner."
24 Perhaps that can give you an illustration.
25 JUDGE ORIE: This is to say that you said, Mr. Karadzic knew the
1 man well and supported his candidacy to become Deputy Prime Minister.
2 You -- the question was about Mr. Karadzic and Mr. Krajisnik.
3 A. He put him there.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you, Madam Plavsic. We'll finish for the
5 day. Perhaps -- we would like to see you back tomorrow --
6 A. I'm still alive. I'm still alive.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mrs. Plavsic, we would like to see you back
8 tomorrow morning, and may I instruct you that you should not speak with
9 anyone about the testimony you have given until now and neither about
10 testimony still to be given in the future.
11 Could we ask the security to escort Mrs. Plavsic out of the
12 courtroom? I asked security to escort you out of the courtroom and we
13 would like to see you back tomorrow.
14 [The witness stands down]
15 JUDGE ORIE: Looking at all circumstances relevant for these kind
16 of decisions, the Chamber -- one second, please.
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE ORIE: Has decided that tomorrow the parties will be in a
19 position to put questions to the witness, and this has been scheduled in
20 the following way: The sequence is as we established earlier for Chamber
21 witnesses, that is Prosecution first and then Defence. Tomorrow one-third
22 of the time available during tomorrow's session, that is one hour and 20
23 minutes, will be available for the Prosecution; and two-thirds of the time
24 will be available for the Defence tomorrow, that's two hours and 40
25 minutes. That's the way in which we'll proceed tomorrow.
1 We adjourn until tomorrow morning --
2 Yes, Mr. Tieger, it seems that if you --
3 MR. TIEGER: I understand that the Court's decision reflect the
4 particular circumstances. I just want to observe consistent with that,
5 that the Prosecution may clearly have some questions in response to issues
6 raised by the Defence. We'll obviously try to keep all of our -- any
7 questions we have within the allotted time, but in terms of the order,
8 clearly some issues may arise in response to questions posed by the
9 Defence and so we wanted to bring that to the Court's attention.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. This is -- I do understand that you'd like to
11 have an opportunity to raise any further issues. We'll see what happens
12 tomorrow. I don't know whether you would use all your time, I don't know
13 whether the Defence will use all its time. We will proceed on the basis
14 of this, and then see where it ends.
15 And as I said before, there is no question about starting at 9.00
16 in the morning and going on until 7.00 in the evening.
17 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, well, the Defence has a brief
18 submission as well, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 MR. STEWART: We are very pleased to hear that last remark, thank
22 The -- it is objectionable, in principle, we say, for the
23 Prosecution now in the light of that ruling to indicate that they would
24 want and for them to be given then an opportunity to respond and ask
25 further questions after the Defence. So we put down that marker straight
1 away, Your Honour.
2 May I only add this, Your Honour. That there is the usual issue,
3 if I might call it that, about an opportunity for Mr. Krajisnik himself to
4 ask questions, as the Trial Chamber wishes us to do. We are going to see
5 Mr. Krajisnik this afternoon. We will discuss that as an item on our
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Stewart, you are aware what the principles
8 are that are applied; that is, that Mr. Krajisnik should first address
9 counsel and see whether in the usual way, through representation, whether
10 questions could be put to witnesses, and if there is any issue remaining
11 which for -- after having consulted with counsel are not questions that
12 could be easily put by counsel, then we always allowed Mr. Krajisnik
13 certain questions.
14 At the same time, you will be aware that in view of what both this
15 witness has said about her relationship with Mr. Krajisnik and in view of
16 what Mr. Krajisnik, although quite a long time ago, said about this
17 witness, that this is a very sensitive issue and that if such questions
18 would be put, that the Chamber would be very strict in applying what I
19 would say, professional rules that are applicable, that means the way of
20 behaviour of a party, if a defendant -- if an accused is representing
21 himself, which is not here the case, then you know that he's under a
22 strict obligation to apply rules of legal practice applicable to counsel
23 as well.
24 We do not disallow questions to be put by Mr. Krajisnik, but we'll
25 be very, very strict on this aspect, in view of this witness, which is --
1 MR. STEWART: May I say that's most helpful to that -- in advance
2 of our meeting with Mr. Krajisnik this afternoon.
3 JUDGE ORIE: If it would go any other way, if we would not follow
4 acceptable legal practice in a courtroom, we would stop immediately any
5 further questions.
6 MR. STEWART: Yes. Well, we well understand the principles.
7 Thank you for that, Your Honour. And, as I say, it is very useful to have
8 that guidance. Thank you so much.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger.
10 MR. TIEGER: One last issue, Your Honour, that may assist both
11 parties in examination. That is the following: It appears to the
12 Prosecution that the excerpts from the book have --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I had forgotten that, as a matter of fact.
14 I have to make two observations. First of all, a provisional
15 number has been assigned to the witness statement. The witness statement
16 still reads that it's confidential. That should be different, since we
17 have discussed the matter completely in open court. So that should be
18 redacted for other reasons and independent from what Mrs. Plavsic thinks
19 about it.
20 We have referred to the book at this moment. Madam Plavsic has
21 referred to passages of the book as well. For that reason, the registrar
22 is now invited to provisionally assign a number to the portions of the
23 book referred to, the pages of the book referred to, by Mrs. Plavsic, but
24 as it stands now, only the pages that she referred to in her initial
25 statement because the latter pages having been translated only very
2 I add to that immediately that Mrs. Plavsic testified about
3 truthfulness of the book and that I could not understand the difference
4 from covering the whole of the book, but we'll later see whether under
5 this provisionally assigned number we would include the other pages as
6 well. That has perhaps also got something to do with relevance, and the
7 parties are invited to -- of course we will later discuss, I take it,
8 admission of this evidence when it comes to a decision in that respect.
9 Mr. Registrar.
10 THE REGISTRAR: That will be C8, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE ORIE: C8, pages of the book, "I Testify" from Madam
12 Plavsic; and C8.1 the translation of the pages.
13 We stand adjourned until tomorrow morning, 9.00.
14 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.21 p.m.,
15 to be reconvened on Friday, the 7th day of July,
16 2006, at 9.00 a.m.