1 Wednesday, 20 March 1997
2 (10.00 am)
3 DR MARIE-JANINE CALIC (continued)
4 Cross-examination by MS RESIDOVIC (continued)
5 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Will you kindly remind the witness she
6 is still under oath?
7 THE REGISTRAR: Ms Calic, you are still under oath.
8 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: I think we are still in
9 cross-examination. Ms Residovic, continue where you
11 MS RESIDOVIC (in interpretation): Thank you, your
12 Honours. During the cross-examination yesterday I had
13 reached the chapter on the region of Konjic and Mrs
14 Calic's testimony.
15 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Will you hold on because we are having
16 nothing on the screen, on the transcript. What is
17 happening? (Pause). You can continue now.
18 MS RESIDOVIC (in interpretation): Thank you, your
19 Honours. I will continue with questions referring to
20 the announced subject matter by the prosecution and the
21 expert witness, and that has to do with the historical,
22 political, civilian and military element of the
23 structure of the town of Konjic.
24 Good morning, Ms Calic. Before I resume my
25 questions I should like to apologise to you if some of
1 my questions yesterday were a bit strict. Not one of
2 those questions was designed against you personally, but
3 rather the subject-matter of interest to my client, and
4 I hope you will understand that after four years of
5 horror in Sarajevo, we may be a little more emotional
6 than otherwise. May I continue then?
7 Yesterday afternoon I asked you which were the
8 sources of your knowledge about Konjic, and you told me
9 that unfortunately you did not have many documents that
10 you received only a limited number of documents from the
11 prosecution, and that you are lacking documents about
12 Konjic. Do you recall that?
13 A. I said that I used different sources, official data
14 books published. I used also the reports by the
15 international experts' commission by the UN, which are
16 also included in this file, but I was also using some
17 documents provided by yourself and also by the Office of
18 the Prosecutor.
19 Q. So that means that you did not have at your disposal a
20 large number of documents of the official authorities of
21 the town of Konjic to be able to preside a full expert
22 opinion; is that correct?
23 A. I would have liked to have some more official data which
24 were requested, but for some mysterious reasons the
25 authorities or the respective officers in Sarajevo were
1 not able to provide me with these documents, but they
2 maybe will come out with them. We keep on trying to get
4 Q. I am sure you will agree with me that the mysterious
5 reasons include the four-year war, because for ten
6 months of the investigations I could not get hold of
7 many documents myself?
8 A. This may be, but there were also other official data,
9 like population censuses, and other quite official data
10 which could not be provided by the officers in
11 Sarajevo. I had to go through OAC and other institutes,
12 I am afraid. It was a very difficult research to get
13 even very basic documents.
14 Q. Therefore, we could agree that your knowledge of Konjic
15 on the basis of the documents you had is limited by the
16 quantity of documents you disposed of, and that the
17 conclusions you made in this report and which I have
18 commented on would not be up to the standard that a
19 doctor of history, historical sciences, would like to
21 A. You can always find more documents and more documents,
22 and I think I have seen quite a broad range, a wide
23 range of different documents on this area. Of course,
24 if I continue to do research, I will find ever more
25 documents, and I think I had quite a good overview on
1 what happened in Konjic. I am, of course, not a fact
2 witness. I have emphasised this yesterday many times,
3 and for this reason there are also other witnesses
4 coming here to give evidence on what they have seen in
5 the area. I, of course, was not there at this time.
6 Q. Yes. I will not ask you anything about any event that
7 would require your personal knowledge of an event as an
8 eye witness, but could you please show us document
9 number 50 from your binder? Can we see this document,
10 please, number 50? Would you agree with me that this
11 document, which you yourself said that you compiled, is
12 not well-founded or is poorly founded on official
13 documents, or did you have those documents in mind when
14 you made this drawing?
15 A. Yes, I had indeed documents in mind when I did this
16 drawing. I knew from the documents that there was a War
17 Presidency. I knew from the documents that there was an
18 HVO and a TO, Bosnian Army headquarters in Konjic. I
19 knew from the documents that they were interrelated and
20 they had a joint command and I also knew from the
21 documents that there was a coordination instance, and
22 all these informations were perfectly in line with what
23 I knew from strategy of all people's defence from
24 Jugoslavia and on the strategy of all people's defence
25 in Bosnia.
1 Q. Will you please answer my question, whether the
2 documents which refer to this drawing that you have
3 made, in addition to the official documents, such as
4 laws and others, were these documents given to you by
5 the prosecution?
6 A. They were given to me by the prosecution, and some of
7 them were given by the defence.
8 Q. As far as I know, the defence did not give you a single
9 document, nor did we have any contact with you. All
10 that we gave, we have given to the prosecution, and
11 therefore all the documents that you received must have
12 been from the prosecution?
13 A. Yes, but there were documents which I received from the
14 Office of the Prosecutor which were coming evidently
15 from the defence. This is what I understood, where
16 these documents were coming from, and I used several of
18 Q. From Zejnil Delalic's defence counsel you did not
19 receive anything in person?
20 A. Not in person, but I saw several documents which had
21 your name on the top of the paper, so I was convinced
22 that these documents were submitted by the defence.
23 Q. Can you please show us the document on the basis of
24 which you reached such a conclusion?
25 A. I can show you these documents if you give me the time
1 to pick them up in my office, and they are based on
2 several documents.
3 Q. Are they contained in the binder that you have submitted
4 to us?
5 A. They are not all contained. Some of them are contained
6 in the binder, as far as the War Presidency is
7 concerned. As far as the military structures are
8 concerned, they are contained in the binder.
9 Q. I should like to ask you to allow me to come back to
10 this question if you can bring those documents during
11 the break, and now I will proceed.
12 Did you have in mind the statute of the
13 municipality of Konjic?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Did you have in mind the rules of procedure of the War
16 Presidency of the Konjic municipality?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. As you already said that you bore in mind the laws of
19 the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, can you agree with
20 me that the structures in Konjic were formed in
21 accordance with the documents which the municipality of
22 Konjic had before the war, and the documents which the
23 competent authorities passed after that?
24 A. In principle yes, but from March onwards I got the
25 impression that the administrative bodies in the
1 municipality of Konjic did not function any more the way
2 they functioned the months before. This was, of course,
3 due to the difficult situation in this country, but I
4 would not agree that they were perfectly in line with
5 the laws passed before the war just because a part of
6 members of the Assembly had left the Assembly, and they
7 were not represented in the War Presidency according to
8 the law, because the Bosnian law from before the war
9 said that certain members should be represented, and
10 these members were not represented any more. So there
11 was a certain gap between what was on paper and what was
12 on reality, and there are, of course, reasons for this.
13 Q. The impression that you had on the method of work of the
14 local bodies is that your personal impression or a
15 scientific impression, based on documents?
16 A. This is based on documents.
17 Q. You have explained that a number of members of bodies
18 had left those bodies. Are you aware of the legal
19 regulations for filling in the vacancies after certain
20 people ceased to be members of the Assembly or other
21 municipal bodies?
22 A. I am aware, and this brings me somehow back to the
23 questions you put yesterday to me, I am aware of the
24 fact that in democratic countries, once the elected
25 bodies do not function any more, there should be new
1 elections to form new bodies, and this was not the case,
2 neither on the level of the Republic of
3 Bosnia-Herzegovina, nor in the municipalities, on the
4 local level.
5 Q. I did not ask you for any abstract country. I asked you
6 about our country, where there is a law on elections,
7 and which regulated the situation when the need arose to
8 substitute members of the government or the Presidency,
9 if for some reason they ceased to perform those duties.
10 Are you familiar with those regulations?
11 A. Yes, I am familiar with these regulations.
12 Q. Was your impression based on those regulations or on
13 some others?
14 A. My analysis was based on what appeared to have happened
15 on the ground, and I would like to emphasise again that
16 there is a big difference between what was written on
17 paper and what was written in these laws, and what was
18 happening on the ground.
19 Q. Yes, but you said that you were not there, and that you
20 had a lack of documents from the spot.
21 A. I was not personally there, but I saw many, many
22 documents giving evidence on exactly this fact.
23 Q. In your report you said that from April 1992 the TO of
24 Konjic formed a joint command with the HVO; is that
1 A. This is correct.
2 Q. Did you have a single document to confirm that in April
3 such a joint command was formed?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Can you show us that document?
6 A. I can, yes.
7 Q. Will you please do so? If I say that the joint command
8 was formed on 12th May, do you consider that incorrect?
9 A. Excuse me. Maybe I did not understand your question
10 very well. This document says clearly here May. I did
11 not speak about April. I know that there was a joint
12 command. I put on my diagram the date of May, not of
13 April. Maybe I did not get your question very well. So
14 let's stay with May. I can bring you the document.
15 Q. So if it says in my translation that as of April 1992 a
16 joint command was formed, then that is incorrect,
17 incorrectly stated?
18 A. Let me just bring the document and check, if you allow.
19 Q. Very well. Thank you. Can you please show us the
20 document number 23 from your file? It is a decree
21 abolishing the republican staff of Territorial Defence
22 and forming a territorial staff headquarters of
23 Bosnia-Herzegovina; is that correct?
24 A. This is a Decision on the proclamation of an immediate
25 threat of war.
1 Q. Yes, but before that on the same page there is a decree
2 abolishing the former republican headquarters of TO and
3 forming the TO headquarters of the Republic of
4 Bosnia-Herzegovina. Am I not right? That is the first
6 A. Yes, but we have not translated it, so it might be a
7 problem for the judges.
8 JUDGE JAN: That is what I was wondering. It is not
10 MS RESIDOVIC (in interpretation): That decree speaks of
11 the structure of the defence forces of
12 Bosnia-Herzegovina, does it not?
13 A. Yes, but, you see, there is a problem. I wanted to use
14 the document on the decision on the proclamation of an
15 immediate threat of war and this document is here in the
16 translation but not the other one which happened to be
17 on the same page in the original document. So we don't
18 have it in translation and it may be difficult just now
19 to argue on that.
20 Q. Ms Calic, this one has to do with the defence forces of
21 the republic, and I have been informed that you will be
22 discussing that too?
23 A. We can discuss this issue too, of course, but it makes
24 no sense to put this document now here on the ELMO.
25 Q. Will you please look at paragraph 2? Will you please
1 read that paragraph?
2 A. Yes, I am familiar with this Article 2.
3 Q. But the rest of us may not be familiar, so will you
4 please read it for us?
5 A. Maybe we can have an official translation. I would not
6 like to translate it here.
7 Q. I will read it nevertheless:
8 "The Ministry of National Defence of the Republic
9 of Bosnia-Herzegovina through the staff of Territorial
10 Defence of Bosnia-Herzegovina conducts and commands the
11 structures of Territorial Defence."
12 Do you consider this to be a significant decision
13 taken on 9th April 1992?
14 A. This is a significant decision taken.
15 Q. Do you know that the next day the Ministry of Defence
16 passed a decree regulating the method of proceeding in
17 Territorial Defence staffs?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Do you know whether the bodies in the Konjic
20 municipality acted in accordance with these decisions of
21 the competent bodies?
22 A. I don't actually know if they were able to do so,
23 because the communication lines between Sarajevo and
24 Konjic appeared to be interrupted at that time, so I
25 don't know to which extent, and I was trying to explain
1 this yesterday, I actually do not know to which extent
2 the laws and decrees and decisions taken in Sarajevo
3 came through to Konjic and to which extent they were
4 actually implemented. I do not know this.
5 Q. Yes, but even though you do not know that, which I
6 accept, you have nevertheless claimed that the
7 composition and competence of the newly-formed municipal
8 institutions was unclear and diverse?
9 A. Yes, it was for the very same reason unclear to me who
10 exactly participated in the work of these bodies.
11 Q. Very well. In your report on your expert opinion you
12 said this: in the course of April and May 1992 armed
13 conflicts occurred between the TO and the HVO, on the
14 one hand, and the JNA and the Serb side on the other in
15 the municipality of Konjic?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Ms Calic, do you know that in mid-April Konjic was
18 blocked entirely?
19 A. You mentioned this already yesterday, and I tried to
20 explain yesterday that I did not witness personally such
21 blocking of Konjic.
22 Q. Did you receive some documents from the prosecution
23 referring to this?
24 A. I saw some documents referring to blocking of towns and
25 also of armed conflict around this town. I actually got
1 also the final report of the commission of experts from
2 the UN telling us about some of the events happening,
3 and I did not introduce this document, but I might
4 introduce it today. It is document number 55. It tells
5 us about also different paramilitary forces coming in
6 and how these armed conflicts started. So this is in my
7 view a reliable source and this is why I included it in
8 this binder. I, of course, have no possibility to check
9 whether or not the witness statements are true or not.
10 I have no opportunity -- I had no opportunity so far to
11 see --
12 MR OSTBERG: Your Honour, I have a general objection to
13 this line of questioning. It goes, as far as I can
14 understand, to the factual things that happened in
15 Konjic on certain dates of blocking, etc. The purpose
16 of bringing Dr Calic here as an expert witness is to
17 give a general overview of the background to these
18 charges we are going to try in this trial, and I cannot
19 see -- I must object to the defence attempt to have Mrs
20 Calic to bring in every document on which she actually
21 relied. She is giving answers to every question put to
22 her, but when we go into certain factual things that
23 happened in Konjic, this is not her duty to answer it
24 and she cannot and should not and has not been asked.
25 It is not her task when we asked her to come here to
1 appear as an expert witness. I object to the factual
3 JUDGE JAN: You see, Delalic is being charged with the
4 command possibility. The witness has talked about the
5 composition of the forces there of both sides. She has
6 talked about what is happening there. So maybe the
7 question is relevant in the sense that she wants to say
8 there is complete confusion, and the commander could not
9 be held responsible for what had been done anywhere else
10 in that area. The witness has spoken about these
12 MR OSTBERG: But nevertheless, your Honour, these last
13 questions, many of these questions are really factual
14 questions, what happened on the ground. That is not
15 what Dr Calic is here to answer.
16 MS RESIDOVIC (in interpretation): Your Honours, I think
17 that I have the right to verify the knowledge and the
18 views of the expert witness, especially as in her report
19 the witness mentions dates and events. I have just
20 repeated what she has written in her report, April, May
21 1992. Please allow me to continue the questioning.
22 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: You can question the witness, but try
23 to avoid roving questions which might not be useful to
24 you. They sometimes may be counter-productive.
25 MS RESIDOVIC (in interpretation): Ms Calic, are you aware
1 that the town of Konjic at the time of the events and
2 before the events described in the indictment that you
3 have seen was attacked from Serbian positions?
4 A. I can see from the report which I put on the ELMO that
5 there were attacks from different sides at different
6 times. So as I am not a fact witness and I was not on
7 the ground at this time, I could not judge here or I
8 could not confirm, and not confirm which of these
9 contradictory reports are correct.
10 Q. Has the prosecution given you access to the
11 documentation on the arming of the Serbian population
12 which was submitted to us by the government of
14 A. Yes, and I also included one of these reports, which, by
15 the way, I found myself, and it was not given to me by
16 the Office of the Prosecutors in this file. I also
17 stressed this yesterday.
18 Q. Let us go back to another question. You stated that the
19 HVO and the TO operated under the command structures
20 that were separated from the civilian structures; is
21 that correct?
22 A. I stated that there was no direct subordination, but
23 they were parallel structures, but they were, of course,
24 interlinked and they were acting together and they were
25 having obviously meetings, and they were also taking
1 joint decisions.
2 Q. Do you know that the HVO structures throughout this
3 period were under the direct authority of the para-state
4 authorities of Herceg-Bosna?
5 A. Yes, I know this. They had a separate headquarters on
6 the territory of the Herceg-Bosna para-state.
7 Q. Have all documents relating to the HVO in possession of
8 the prosecutor been made available to you?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Based on a document on the establishment of Herceg-Bosna
11 from 1991, did you know that within that para-state
12 structure the municipality of Konjic was also included?
13 A. I showed this yesterday even here on the screen. I
14 submitted this document. I explained exactly this fact.
15 JUDGE JAN: She has already said that yesterday about the
16 Croatians' sort of plan. They wanted to include Konjic
17 was part of their territory.
18 MS RESIDOVIC (in interpretation): From those documents was
19 the Konjic municipality also included within the borders
20 of this community of Herceg-Bosna?
21 A. I submitted yesterday a document showing that the
22 authorities of Herceg-Bosna were laying claim to the
23 territory of Konjic.
24 Q. In your report you stated that the HVO had no interest
25 in fighting in other areas, because there was not enough
1 Croatian population in those areas. Please can you tell
2 us: was this goal realised in Ivan Sedlo and Konjic
3 area, was this aim realised, that they wanted to --
4 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Will you please kindly -- the Trial
5 Chamber will rise for just a few minutes. Just about
6 ten minutes.
7 (10.35 am)
8 (Short break)
9 (10.50 am)
10 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Please continue from now. You will
11 not lose your ten or fifteen minutes. You will get it
13 MS RESIDOVIC (in interpretation): Thank you, your
14 Honours. Ms Calic, I apologise for a little confusion
15 on the document number 50. Would you please repeat this
16 document was made by you yourself; is that correct?
17 A. Number 50?
18 Q. Yes, number 50?
19 A. Number 50 was done by myself, yes.
20 Q. In other words, that is not an official document by
21 anybody? It is your own?
22 A. This is a document which I did on the basis of the
23 documents I have seen and of my expertise. It thus
24 became a document, if you wish.
25 Q. Thank you. You presented the tactical group in your
1 report; is that correct, and you quoted the Military
2 Encyclopedia, which is document number 36 in your
3 binder; is that correct?
4 A. Yes, I quoted two official documents, the Military
5 Encyclopaedia and the Military Lexicon.
6 Q. Did you also take into account the regulations of the
8 A. No, I did not, because I am not a military person, and
9 there will be another expert explaining all the details
10 of the military formations. I am here to give a general
11 background and a very general explanation on what
12 tactical groups were. How they were functioning in
13 detail and how they were functioning at this time is not
14 within my field of expertise.
15 Q. These documents, you do not have information on the date
16 of the establishment of the tactical groups?
17 A. No, I did not have these documents available.
18 Q. So if in your report there are precise dates of when the
19 tactical groups were established, then that information
20 is not based on this information?
21 A. I had various sources telling that there were tactical
22 groups established, one of them being tactical group
23 number one acting in the direction of Sarajevo, but I
24 have not seen any documents that referred concretely to
25 any date when these tactical groups were established and
1 how they were composed and who commanded them. This is
2 why I remained a bit vague in my report. I just wanted
3 to introduce the fact that there were tactical groups,
4 and I wanted to explain in a very general way what these
5 tactical groups were meant to be.
6 Q. Does that mean that you only saw the document on the
7 establishment of tactical group 1?
8 A. No, I saw various sources telling me that there were
9 several tactical groups established during this time
10 acting in different directions. I made not only studies
11 on the municipality of Konjic but also in other areas of
12 Bosnia, and I came across several times this phenomenon.
13 Q. Ms Calic, according to your documents these tactical
14 groups were temporary joined formations that were
15 operating in a particular direction; is that correct?
16 A. They were established to fulfil a very specific purpose,
17 as I explained, supported by the Military Lexicon in the
18 article I presented yesterday here.
19 Q. If in your report other tasks of a tactical group are
20 also mentioned, that means it is not based on what you
21 provided as the basic document defining the tactical
22 group; is that correct?
23 A. The basic document defining the tactical groups comes
24 from 1981 and the Military Encyclopaedia, I think from
25 1976, so, of course, these two documents that explain in
1 a very general way what a tactical group is could not
2 include any detailed information on tactical groups
3 which were established in 1992, but, as I was saying
4 before, I saw many documents referring to the fact that
5 there were tactical groups established and this had also
6 concrete composition, but as I am not a military person,
7 I cannot explain exactly who, how, why and who commanded
9 Q. My question was not about the command. It was about the
10 establishment; in other words, you do not know when the
11 tactical groups 1, 2, 3, operation group Igman and
12 others, were established which had a task of lifting of
13 the blockade of Sarajevo?
14 A. I did not use any document which referred to an exact
15 date of establishment of any tactical group, but this
16 was also not within my mandate to elaborate on these
17 very concrete military things. I am not an expert in
18 war, so I am giving here the general background, and as
19 for the specific questions, there may be documents. I
20 have not used them in my report.
21 Q. Ms Calic, I will only mention that my client is charged
22 as Commander of the tactical group 1. I thought that
23 you may have some more accurate data about when this
24 tactical group was established, because that was within
25 the task that the prosecutor said would be part of your
1 expertise, but if you do not know about that, I will not
2 insist on further questions in that area?
3 MR OSTBERG: Your Honour, for information for the court, as
4 I mentioned in our opening statement, in our witness
5 statement is General De Vogel, who has been a military
6 attache to Belgrade. If necessary, as I said, he will
7 be called to answer details on the tactical group, its
8 commands, etc. I ask Ms Residovic to reserve her
9 questions until he appears.
10 MS RESIDOVIC (in interpretation): Your Honours, maybe I
11 would not have asked these questions if the prosecution
12 opening did not contain comments that someone may be
13 called if necessary. If the Prosecutor deems it is not
14 necessary and given that the facts that this witness is
15 testifying to are of interest to us, I thought that I
16 needed to ask these questions. So I am not continuing
17 my questioning on the tactical group. You based your
18 expertise on the given data that you had, and so these
19 are the documents that formed the basis of your opinion
20 in that area. I will only ask for one minute so that I
21 can move on to another area, and I would like to locate
22 that document.
23 As everything is all right with the equipment, I
24 would ask that we hear the tape that we were unable to
25 hear yesterday.
1 MR OSTBERG: Your Honour, I object on the ground of
2 relevance. I cannot see the relevance of that tape.
3 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Actually I do not see the necessity of
4 introducing it now. As I pointed out yesterday, this
5 witness has no connection with that.
6 MS RESIDOVIC (in interpretation): I would like to ask you,
7 Mr President, to abide by yesterday's decision, because
8 the questions I am going to ask are directly linked to
9 this tape, and to the witness' testimony on the events.
10 The recording is only 15 seconds.
11 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Actually the witness has answered all
12 you asked her yesterday, and I thought that was
13 conclusive of the questions you wanted to know. Have
14 you other questions to ask?
15 MS RESIDOVIC (in interpretation): As it was not possible
16 to hear the sound, I could not ask all the questions,
17 and this is a historical fact and an event that had a
18 decisive impact on developments in various places,
19 including the municipality of Konjic. I, therefore, ask
20 you, your Honours, to allow us to hear and see the tape
21 so that I may ask some more questions.
22 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Actually I do not enjoy dialogues of
23 this nature. I have told you exactly what the position
24 is. Please go on and ask other questions, if you have
1 MS RESIDOVIC (in interpretation): Ms Calic, in your report
2 you said that you were aware of certain speculations
3 linked to the meeting between Tudjman and Milosevic and
4 Karadzic; is that correct, on the division of Bosnia?
5 A. I read several reports in the press about possible
6 meetings between the two and between possible alleged
7 agreements on the division of Bosnia between Croatian
8 and Serbia, but I have not seen any document confirming
9 such agreements.
10 Q. When you mentioned this, you had in mind Mr Fanjo
11 Tudjman, the then and still President of the Republic of
13 A. Among others.
14 Q. I mean Fanjo Tudjman is just one, among others?
15 A. Yes, but there was also speculation that other persons
16 made such agreements, whether or not they were in a
17 position to make such agreements, but there was
18 speculation widespread.
19 Q. For the benefit of all of us and since those names are
20 cited in your report, will you please identify them?
21 When you mentioned Tudjman, you had in mind Mr Fanjo
22 Tudjman, the President of Croatia. When you mentioned
23 Milosevic, you had in mind Slobodan Milosevic, the
24 President of Serbia. When you mentioned the meeting
25 with Boban, you were thinking of Mate Boban, President
1 of the so-called Herceg-Bosna, a para-state in
2 Bosnia-Herzegovina. When you mentioned Karadzic, you
3 had in mind Radovan Karadzic, President of the SDS and
4 President of the Republika Srpska, also a para-state
5 entity at that time; is that correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. On the tape you saw yesterday you recognised the same
8 Radovan Karadzic that you have just mentioned, that he
9 was President of the Serbian Democratic Party?
10 A. I recognised Karadzic on the screen, yes.
11 Q. You also recognised the place where he was speaking, the
12 Assembly of Bosnia-Herzegovina?
13 A. I was not able to recognise the place where he was
15 Q. When you spoke of your knowledge of those meetings which
16 would result in the division of Bosnia, your expert
17 opinion is or was formed on documents, was it?
18 A. I am not sure that I understand your question
19 correctly. When I was referring to these alleged
20 partition plans, these were, of course, not documents.
21 These were speculations and this is why I used in my
22 report the word "speculation". I have not seen any
23 document about that fact.
24 Q. Therefore, you did not have a single document with their
1 A. I have not seen a single document with the signature of
2 either President Tudjman and President Milosevic or the
3 two leaders, Boban and Karadzic saying: "We want to
4 partition Bosnia." I have not seen one document.
5 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Your Honour, all these questions have
6 been answered and asked yesterday, and I see no reason
7 to repeat this again.
8 MS RESIDOVIC (in interpretation): May I continue,
9 Mr President?
10 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Yes, perhaps you might finally push
11 the Trial Chamber to ask the witness not to answer if
12 you insist on repeating questions which have been asked
13 and answered before now. Please, I do not want to be in
14 that position at all. Try and frame your questions
15 properly and go to new issues.
16 MS RESIDOVIC (in interpretation): Thank you, your
17 Honours. Thank you, your Honours. I accept your
18 suggestion that I should not comment. I just wanted the
19 witness to testify -- to identify the persons she
20 mentioned in her report, and which she spoke of
22 You said that there were several newspaper
23 reports. Did you have any Tanjug report, dated
24 24th/25th February 1992, which reported on a meeting in
25 Graz between the leader of the Serbian Democratic Party,
1 Radovan Karadzic, with envoys of Fanjo Tudjman?
2 Did you also have access to a Tanjug report of 6th
3 May 1992, which carried the report on a meeting between
4 Karadzic and Boban, when they discussed a bilateral
5 agreement on the division of Bosnia and a ceasefire,
6 adding that only the region of Mostar was still under
8 Did you have in mind a Tanjug report of 11th May
9 1992 carrying a report by The Washington Post, which
10 comments on this meeting and recalls the Hitler and
11 Stalin pact prior to the Second World War over the
12 division of Poland, pointing out that the meeting was
13 attended by representatives of Tudjman and Milosevic and
14 describing the so-called Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
15 and Croatia as "rebel states"? -- "Rogue states" --
16 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: I do not think the witness should
17 answer that. It is merely a detail not for her to
19 MS RESIDOVIC (in interpretation): Thank you. Closing this
20 part of the cross-examination, could you please answer
21 the following questions: are you aware that at the
22 beginning of 1992 horrific crimes were committed over a
23 large part of the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina?
24 A. I am aware of this fact.
25 Q. Are you also aware that the regions of Eastern Bosnia
1 and Eastern Herzegovina where UNPROFOR was not present
2 at the time, that these regions were entirely ethnically
4 A. I am aware of this fact.
5 Q. Are you aware that in that period in the first months of
6 the aggression more than 1 million people fled
7 Bosnia-Herzegovina as refugees?
8 A. I am aware of these waves of mass migrations. I am also
9 aware of the fact that the refugees and displaced people
10 were coming from different nations and nationalities.
11 Q. Are you aware that at that time in Bosnia-Herzegovina
12 17,000 children were killed?
13 A. I am not aware of the exact numbers, and it appears to
14 be very difficult to give exact numbers even today, as
15 we know from various international organisations, so I
16 cannot confirm this exact number of 17,000 children at
17 that time.
18 Q. For the sake of clarification, I apologise having to
19 repeat what you said yesterday. You confirmed that
20 after April the Yugoslav people's army was a foreign
21 force in the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina. You also
22 confirmed that after its alleged formal withdrawal, the
23 entire logistics, apart of the officer staff remained,
24 and that army enjoyed logistic support all the time. As
25 you have already said that, I would just like to ask you
1 the following: are you aware that the legal armed
2 forces at the beginning of the aggression had an
3 enormous shortage of weapons and logistics essential for
5 A. To clarify, let me just add, as I was speaking on the
6 role of JNA and leaving behind weapons and personnel in
7 Bosnia and giving them to the Bosnian Serbs, that this
8 happened in certain areas in Bosnia but it did not
9 happen in Central Bosnia. It did not happen in the area
10 of Konjic. I should maybe have added this yesterday.
11 As for the question of under-equipment of the
12 Bosnian troops, I think I said this yesterday on several
13 occasions, and of course it was a fact that the Bosnian
14 Army was under-equipped. They had not enough weapons,
15 especially heavy weapons at this early time.
16 Q. Can you confirm that the population of
17 Bosnia-Herzegovina in the regions controlled by the army
18 of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the armed forces of
19 Bosnia-Herzegovina were highly dependent on freedom of
20 supply, of food and weaponry across territory controlled
21 by the HVO?
22 A. Yes. The Bosnian Army was dependent in a certain way on
23 the authorities of the para-state of Herceg-Bosna
24 especially. Then it became an issue and when they
25 started quarrelling in mid-1992 and became an even
1 bigger problem after the outbreak of the war between
2 Muslims and Croats in this area.
3 Q. Yesterday on a number of occasions you spoke of the
4 blocade of Sarajevo and the very poor communications
5 between the forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Can you
6 confirm that those communications were very poor also
7 due to lack of resources, logistics and because of
8 repeated attacks on the capital, and that such
9 communication was not only very poor but was completely
10 non-existent at times; is that correct?
11 A. I think it is not completely correct. As far as I could
12 see from the documents it was possible from time to time
13 to communicate not with every part -- with other parts
14 of Bosnia, but it really highly depended on the concrete
15 situation and it depended also on the areas. It was not
16 completely isolated.
17 Q. Yes. That was not my suggestion either. I just wish
18 you to confirm the fact that the blocade of Sarajevo and
19 constant attacks caused difficulties and sometimes
20 interruptions in communications with other parts of the
21 state, what you have just said?
22 A. Yes, yes. Maybe I did not understand your question
23 exactly. I wanted to say from time to time it was
24 blocked but not all the time and not with all the areas.
25 Q. Yes. Yesterday you showed us a map showing the military
1 importance of the position of Konjic. Would you please
2 show us again your document number 43?
3 A. 43? Are you sure?
4 Q. 43 I think.
5 A. These are the settlements with Serbs as a majority.
6 Q. I am sorry. Let me check, please, just for a minute. I
7 apologise. Maybe I gave the wrong number. I think it
8 is this map, so if you could please find it. Maybe you
9 know the number better than me?
10 MR OSTBERG: 44.
11 MS RESIDOVIC (in interpretation): It is 44. I am sorry.
12 I apologise. Can you please tell me where is Borci on
13 this map?
14 A. Maybe I should put the map where we can see. It is
15 about here, but I have an exact map where we can also
16 see the town of Borci.
17 Q. This map is interesting, because we can see the
18 direction of Sarajevo.
19 A. We can also see it from this map, but I cannot see it on
20 my screen. Okay. So Borci is here.
21 Q. We cannot see the region to Sarajevo?
22 A. Sarajevo is here.
23 Q. The road and the railway from Konjic to Sarajevo cannot
24 be seen, which can be seen on the previous map?
25 A. Can we put then maybe -- I don't know how to resolve
1 this problem. 43 ...
2 Q. The map that you have on the screen now. Yes, that is
3 the one. Can you please indicate Borci on the map? Can
4 you please tell me where this region was under the
5 control of Serb forces at the time?
6 A. What time, please?
7 Q. After Dayton it was not, but any time before then can
8 you confirm? What I am interested in is the period from
9 May to November 1992?
10 A. It is again a question of these facts which I cannot
11 answer, I am afraid.
12 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: I think, Mrs Residovic, the Trial
13 Chamber will now rise and reassemble at 11.45, so that
14 you will continue with your cross-examination.
15 (11.22 am)
16 (Short break)
17 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: The witness is still on oath. Now, we
18 will break for lunch at 1, so those doing
19 cross-examination will know how to organise themselves.
20 Yes, you can continue.
21 MS RESIDOVIC (in interpretation): Thank you, your
22 Honours. I will need only ten minutes on the outside.
23 Ms Calic, we are back looking at the map that I
24 asked you to show us. Can you please show us Borci.
25 Can you please tell us whether this region was under the
1 control of the Bosnian Serbs?
2 A. We have to ask then exactly when, and I would like to
3 repeat that as for the dates, I cannot confirm or not
4 confirm anything.
5 Q. You are confusing me a little. You have asked me to say
6 when and then you say that you cannot confirm or not
7 confirm the dates. I am just asking you about the
8 historical facts. Bearing in mind that you are a doctor
9 of history, you may say that you know or do not know
10 those facts. I will not comment on what you say.
11 Therefore, at the time from the end of April 1992 until
12 the end of 1992, because that is the period that we are
13 interested in in this trial, can you tell us whether
14 Borci was under the control of the Bosnian Serbs?
15 A. I cannot tell you any concrete dates.
16 Q. Battles are certainly historical events so will you
17 please tell me whether you know that in the region of
18 Borci from June 27th 1992 until the beginning of August
19 1992 there were significant battles to liberate this
21 A. I cannot confirm or not confirm any of these battles. I
22 am not a fact witness and I am sure there will be fact
23 witnesses who can testify on these events.
24 Q. Your Honours, I just wish to underline that these are
25 historical facts, and I understood that the witness is
1 not aware of those historical facts in this region. Can
2 you please indicate Igman?
3 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Actually I am not sure when the
4 history could be recorded as a historical fact. It is
5 some years before it settles down. It is too recent to
6 be so sure about it. In most countries I think there is
7 at least 30 years for records to be accepted. She might
8 be a historian, but a historian of a different type, not
9 one about recent battles.
10 JUDGE JAN: Apart from that, so many battles were going on
11 at the same time. She cannot probably pinpoint what
12 particular area was in whose occupation and what fights
13 were going on. So it is a bit difficult for the witness
14 to be more precise in this matter.
15 MS RESIDOVIC (in interpretation): I understand, your
16 Honours, and also understand when you give me some
17 indications as to my questioning, but these were
18 political and historical events. The witness has said
19 that she is not just a historian but also a political
20 expert, and she provided more or less a daily political
21 report for her authorities so that they might be guided
22 in taking political decisions, but anyway it is not my
23 place to comment on that, so I will continue with my
25 Can you show us on the map you have offered as a
1 document Mount Igman?
2 A. Yes, but I have got a map of Mount Igman too. I show
3 this map. Yes, Mount Igman. No, not Mount Igman.
4 Mount Igman is about here. Where is Sarajevo? Yes,
5 about here.
6 Q. Can you please indicate the town of Sarajevo?
7 A. It is here.
8 Q. Can you confirm that from the industry of Sarajevo in
9 the direction of Konjic there are many mountains: the
10 mountains of Igman, Bjelasnica and Treskavica?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Would you agree that throughout this period Sarajevo was
13 besieged and continually exposed to attack by Serbian
14 forces who besieged it, in this period from May until
15 the end of 1992?
16 A. Sarajevo was under siege.
17 Q. And under constant military attack?
18 A. Yes. More or less, yes.
19 Q. Would you agree that as of June, as early as June 1992,
20 and especially as of the end of July, heavy fighting
21 erupted and attempts were made by Bosnian defensive
22 forces to lift the blockade of Sarajevo?
23 A. Yes, these attempts were made. I mentioned them
25 Q. Would you agree that in that period a major operation
1 known as "South 92" was organised in August 1992 and
2 that that battle went on for several months?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Thank you. I only have two or three more questions
5 linked to your knowledge regarding the large number of
6 refugees that arrived in Konjic. You said that there
7 were 8,000 of them, but you allowed the possibility that
8 other documents may speak of a larger number too?
9 A. I rely on the figures given by the UNHCR, which I
10 believe is a reliable source. I have not seen any other
11 figures, and I cannot confirm that there was a bigger
12 numbers, but I rely here on the UNHCR report.
13 Q. For a town with 13,000 inhabitants, would you agree that
14 8,000 is a very large number of refugees arriving to it?
15 A. Yes, but I must maybe also add that 80,000, the figure
16 given by the UNHCR, meant all the refugees coming in
17 until now, so I do not know exactly which months in
18 1992, how many refugees arrived from other areas. These
19 persons might also have come later on during the war, as
20 many people often left Konjic, as you know. 10,000
21 Croats also left the municipality of Konjic, 6,000 Serbs
22 and 10 thousand Croats left and 8,000 displaced persons
23 were coming in during the war so I do not know exactly
24 now in which months how many left and came in.
25 Q. Yes. A large number of members of all nationalities
1 left Konjic during the war operations, including
2 Bosnians and refugees came in, but I am asking: given
3 the constant hostilities and the large number of
4 refugees coming in after atrocious personal experiences,
5 can you confirm that the responsible authorities of
6 Konjic municipality, which were insufficiently prepared
7 for the war, had vast difficulties in dealing with the
8 basic questions of the survival of the population?
9 A. Yes. I agree on this, but I would also like to add that
10 this was not only the case in Konjic. This was the case
11 in many, many municipalities in Bosnia. It was also the
12 case in municipalities where the Serbs had the
13 majority. There were also Serb displaced persons coming
14 there. Also these municipalities had, of course, big
15 problems. I just would like to emphasis this was an
16 overall phenomenon. It did not happen openly in Konjic,
17 but, in fact, it created big problems.
18 Q. I am asking you about the municipality of Konjic, and
19 probably you will have occasion to express your expert
20 opinion regarding other matters. Can you agree with me
21 that this problem was much greater in the towns under
22 siege and which were exposed to constant hostile
24 A. Towns which were under siege, I do not know if to towns
25 under siege displaced persons could come in in big
1 numbers. Maybe I did not get your question correctly.
2 Can you please repeat it?
3 Q. The difficulties confronting the local authorities in
4 towns that were exposed to constant attacks were far
5 greater than those in which there were no such attacks
6 on a daily basis. You mentioned others, for instance,
7 Prijedor -- there were no hostile activities in town --
8 or maybe Bihac, Gorazde. These were towns where the war
9 was on constantly. Were difficulties in towns exposed
10 to constant attack much greater than those in other
12 A. Of course, in areas where there was heavy fighting the
13 problems were bigger than in areas where there was no
14 heavy fighting.
15 Q. My last question for you, Ms Calic, is: were the
16 difficulties in terms of survival in the territory of
17 the municipality of Konjic multi-fold and did they
18 require enormous effort on the part of each individual?
19 A. I am convinced that in each municipality, in each
20 village, in each town where there was heavy fighting,
21 people of whatever nationality did suffer very hardly,
22 and I believe it was really a big problem for all people
23 exposed to fighting and destruction, expulsion, war
24 crimes. It was a big problem.
25 Q. Thank you. Your Honours, I asked the witness to show me
1 this morning the documents on the basis of which she
2 compiled her own document number 50. If the witness can
3 provide access to that source material, I will ask you,
4 if necessary, to allow me to ask more questions on the
5 basis of that document. Will I be permitted to do that,
7 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Actually it depends on what earlier
8 questions you have asked. If there are new questions
9 not connected with whatever has been asked, it might be
10 relevant, but aside from that, it might not be
12 MS RESIDOVIC (in interpretation): Yes. Thank you. I have
13 completed my cross-examination.
14 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Thank you very much.
15 JUDGE JAN: Exhibit.
16 MR OSTBERG: Sorry?
17 JUDGE JAN: Exhibit this document.
18 MR OSTBERG: Are we awaiting other cross-examinations?
19 JUDGE JAN: I am sorry. I thought it was over.
20 MR OSTBERG: Then I will wait, your Honour. As to these
21 documents, your Honour, I just want to inform you they
22 are being copied and --
23 JUDGE JAN: I am not able to find an index. Is there an
25 MR OSTBERG: There is an index.
1 JUDGE JAN: I was just wondering where it is. Point out
2 the page where the index is.
3 MR OSTBERG: Do you not have it in your hand now?
4 JUDGE JAN: I have been trying to find out the index. I
5 have not been able to do that.
6 MR OSTBERG: In the beginning of the file.
7 JUDGE JAN: Not this one.
8 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Mr Karabdic.
9 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Please, please let us go on with the
11 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: You have any cross-examination?
12 MR KARABDIC (in interpretation): Thank you.
13 Cross-examination by MR KARABDIC
14 MR KARABDIC (in interpretation): I would like to
15 cross-examine the witness and I would like the Chamber
16 to allow me to move to the lectern, so that I could be
17 better heard, and I would be closer to the witness.
18 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Yes. You can do so. You can move to
19 the centre.
20 MR KARABDIC (in interpretation): Ms Calic, my name is Salih
21 Karabdic, counsel from Sarajevo, and defence counsel for
22 Hazim Delic. I will ask you several questions relating
23 to your expert report and your testimony given today. I
24 will not repeat the questions asked by my learned
25 colleague, Ms Residovic, but I will need to ask
1 questions from similar areas but from a different
3 Ms Calic, is Bosnia-Herzegovina in the present day
4 borders and the borders from 1942 until the outbreak of
5 the war -- was Bosnia occupied by Austro-Hungary in the
6 period between 1878 until 1918?
7 A. Yes, Bosnia was under Austro-Hungarian administration
8 until 1908 and it came under Austro-Hungarian
9 occupation, and then after the end of the First World
10 War it became part of the first Yugoslav state, the
11 so-called state of the Serbs, the Croats and the
12 Slovenes, which in 1929 became the name Yugoslavia.
13 Q. Throughout this period of the Austro-Hungarian rule did
14 it have its own bodies, its own Governor and government
15 and all institutions as a separate entity within
17 A. Yes, it was a separate administrative unit. It was, of
18 course, not a state in the modern sense but it was a
19 unit of administration administered by Austrian and
20 Hungarian administration.
21 Q. Was this area defined as a corpus separatum, that is a
22 separate body, and in my view that is a separate body?
23 A. You mean Bosnia and Herzegovina?
24 Q. Yes.
25 A. It was kind of separate from the rest of Austro-Hungary,
1 but still it was under administration and later on
2 occupation. It was occupied.
3 Q. Were elections held in this area, in the area of
4 Bosnia-Herzegovina? Was any representative body ever
5 established throughout that period?
6 A. Not in the modern sense of the word. There were
7 elections, of course, at this time. The first
8 multi-party elections were held in the Yugoslavia time
9 and in the first Yugoslav state Bosnia did not exist in
10 administrative borders or republican borders. It was
11 just a part of a common Yugoslav state.
12 Q. My question was: during the Austro-Hungarian period was
13 a representative body ever formed, established, during
14 that period?
15 A. Yes. It was a separate unit. It was a separate
16 territory, but still under the rule of Austro-Hungary.
17 Many decisions were taken actually by the
18 Austro-Hungarian emperors, yes, but it was separate,
20 Q. The laws that were adopted by Austro-Hungary for some
21 areas were not automatically extended to
23 A. No, no. There were laws for different parts of the big
24 empire of Austro-Hungary. They were laws differently in
25 different parts of this empire.
1 Q. When the Yugoslavia was established, is it correct that
2 within Yugoslavia up until 1927 or 1929, maybe 1926 -- I
3 may not have the year correctly -- was Bosnia a separate
4 territorial entity within Yugoslavia?
5 A. I would not say so, because at that time Yugoslavia was
6 divided up in administrative units and later on in the
7 so-called banovina, and you cannot compare. Yugoslavia
8 was more or less a centralised state, in first
9 Yugoslavia in the inter-war period.
10 It was only after the Second World War that Bosnia
11 became one of six republics within a federal state, the
12 Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. May I maybe
13 also say that it may not be so relevant for our case,
14 and we should recognise, acknowledge, that Bosnia as a
15 state was recognised internationally in 1992, and maybe
16 it helps us to understand the history and the legal
17 status of this republic, and going back to history may
18 not help us too much in this case. I emphasised many
19 times Bosnia in 1992 became an independent, sovereign
21 Q. I agree with you on that point, but in the circumstances
22 of today or at least since 1992 we cannot fully
23 understand unless we also look at the whole process and
24 history, but I will limit myself as much as I can and
25 ask as few questions from that area as I can.
1 In your report you rely on historical facts, and I
2 need to ask you for some clarifications of these
3 historical facts. In 1878, after the Congress of
4 Berlin, when Turkey ceded its control and administration
5 of Bosnia-Herzegovina to Austro-Hungary, was
6 Bosnia-Herzegovina at that time, when it was turned over
7 to Austro-Hungary -- was that Bosnia-Herzegovina within
8 the Turkish empire also a separate administrative unit,
9 as you call it?
10 A. Uh-huh.
11 Q. And was it turned over to Austro-Hungary with the
12 exception of the Sandzak area?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Thank you. Were the borders of this separate
15 administrative unit of Bosnia-Herzegovina towards
16 Austro-Hungary already established through the Peace of
17 Karlovci, which had taken place more than a century
18 before that?
19 A. More or less, yes. I think I answered this question
20 already yesterday but of course I can answer it again.
21 Q. Thank you. I have another question here. Is the area
22 that is defined as Herzegovina today -- was this area
23 part of Bosnia-Herzegovina during the period of
24 Austro-Hungarian rule and the Turkish period; in other
25 words was it part of this administrative unit, that unit
1 that was administrated by those two states?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Was this area of Herzegovina part of the medieval state
4 of Bosnia?
5 A. It was the very centre of the creation of the Bosnian
6 state, the medieval Bosnian state.
7 Q. Would you then please clarify for me what historical
8 causes you quote in your report when you say that Croats
9 are basing their territorial claims on historical
10 reasons when they ask to include this part of
11 Herzegovina to the Croatian state?
12 A. Yes. Unfortunately history has been used on many
13 occasions to justify territorial aspirations and to
14 justify political aims, and this is also why, being a
15 historian, I do not like to use history too much in
16 these contexts.
17 It depends which century you go back to. If we
18 start and say, well, in the Middle Ages this territory
19 was maybe Bosnian but 200 years ago, 500 years ago,
20 there might have been another people ruling, another
21 empire ruling in this area, so the population structure
22 changed throughout the centuries, and this gave occasion
23 to the Croats to lay claim on this territory. Many
24 parts of Herzegovina are settled dominantly by Croats,
25 and we can, of course -- I do not argue whether or not
1 historically it is justified. I just wanted to point
2 out that the Croats -- and the Croatians -- and the
3 Croats, they do so. They do lay claim on this
4 territory, even though it was historically part of the
5 Bosnian state, of a medieval state, but history may
6 change many things and there are so many centuries
7 between -- 5, 6, 7 centuries between these events and
8 even more. 1,000 years of history, let me say.
9 Q. Then I am not sure if I had not misunderstood your
10 explanation. That means that in the historical facts
11 and in the historical development there is no basis for
12 such tendency and such claims?
13 A. Being a historian, I think I am competent enough to say
14 that we should not argue with history. It will bring us
15 in big difficulties. You see the Serbian medieval
16 kingdom was very big. If we argue there is a continuity
17 of the Serb medieval state until now, then it would even
18 include Bulgaria. Where would we go if I say: look,
19 Germany in the middle ages how big it is? Of course we
20 cannot argue like this. Being a historian myself, I am
21 of the opinion here we are dealing with political
22 questions. We are in the middle of the 20th century and
23 we are exactly now here in the 1990s. So I do not argue
24 on the basis of these arguments.
25 MR OSTBERG: Your Honour, on the basis of relevance I want
1 to object to this line of questioning going on for such
2 a long time. As Dr Calic herself has pointed out, it is
3 not relevant for this case what happened far back in the
4 centuries, and I think it is not relevant at all for
5 trying these four accused persons for their crimes in
6 Celebici camp to have this per se very interesting
7 history lesson. So I would ask the court to remind
8 Mr Karabdic to confine himself to things relevant to
9 this case and do not take the time of this trial to give
10 us this long history lesson. Thank you very much.
11 MR KARABDIC (in interpretation): Your Honours, I was only
12 looking for clarification of the report submitted by
13 this expert witness and these historical reasons are
14 quoted there. They are connected with the explanation
15 of the events in that area that are linked to this
16 case. So it is my view that I can ask for
17 clarifications, and I do not agree with this kind of
18 objection on the part of the prosecution.
19 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Ask whatever clarifications you want,
20 if the witness is able to give them.
21 MR KARABDIC (in interpretation): I do not insist that the
22 witness provide clarifications. If she can, that is
23 fine. If I just try to elucidate a point. If the
24 witness is unable to do that, that is fine with me.
25 Do you know that in Bosnia-Herzegovina there
1 exists a number of Jews and that been there for over 500
2 years, the Jews that came there and were received there
3 in Bosnia after they were expelled from the Catholic
4 Spain. Do you know that throughout that time they lived
5 freely, and they worked freely, and they had freedom of
6 religion. They even kept their language, Spanish, and a
7 very important document from their history while they
8 lived in Spain was preserved. It is called Hagada. Are
9 you familiar with all that?
10 A. I am familiar with that. I have seen many documents. I
11 have seen also the fabulous exhibition in Sarajevo
12 before the war exactly on the Jews. I have read numbers
13 of books on this but again I cannot see exactly how this
14 very interesting historical fact fits into this context.
15 Q. I would just like to add to what you have already given
16 as a response to my colleague just as another proof that
17 in Bosnia the principle of tolerance, the ethnic and
18 religious tolerance, has always been a long -- that it
19 is of long-term tradition in Bosnia-Herzegovina?
20 A. Yes, there is indeed a long-term tradition of tolerance
21 in this country.
22 Q. Do you agree that in Bosnia the rule that was around
23 "cuius regio eius religio" ruled in Bosnia?
24 A. Yes, this is correct.
25 Q. In that light the population, the ethnic group that is
1 called Bosnians or Muslims, did they voluntarily accept
2 Islam during the Ottoman rule?
3 A. It appears that part of the population did voluntarily
4 and parts of the population were also forced, because
5 the Turks or the Ottomans did also recruit. Among
6 non-Turks, among the Slavic people, and these often
7 young men were recruited by force. Of course, they were
8 also too young to decide, and then became Muslims. They
9 were often taken away from their homes, but a part of
10 the populations did it voluntarily, of course.
11 Q. Those who accepted Islam as their religion, did these
12 people preserve -- did the people who accepted Islam as
13 their own religion preserve their ethnic origins, their
14 ethnic character? Did they stay the same nation or did
15 they keep their culture, their traditions by adopting
16 the Muslim religion?
17 A. Yes, they kept parts of their culture, but they adapted
18 also new elements of culture, of Islamic culture. Maybe
19 I cannot understand your question very well but of
20 course they remained in the tradition of what they were
22 Q. Thank you. Did they preserve their separate alphabet, a
23 cyrillic form called Bosancica, and did they use it
24 throughout the Ottoman rule and even later?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Thank you. That people, did it have its own literature?
2 A. Uh-huh.
3 Q. Did it have a developed oral literature?
4 A. Uh-huh.
5 Q. Were the products of that literature well-known to the
6 world, Hasanaginica and Merima, and so on?
7 A. Yes, this people has a rich tradition of literature.
8 Q. Will you please tell me whether it is correct that the
9 language spoken in Bosnia specifically in Eastern
10 Herzegovina served as a basis for the literary language
11 that Serbs took over through Vuk Karadzic as well as the
12 Croats through Ljudevit Gai?
13 A. This is correct.
14 Q. Thank you. I will have to now move a little -- I will
15 not take long -- away from the region of Bosnia. Are
16 you aware that throughout this region of, let me call it
17 former Yugoslavia, or rather Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia
18 and Macedonia, that during the Turkish administration,
19 churches, monasteries were preserved, even though that
20 administration lasted for more than 500 years?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Is that evidence of religious tolerance that ruled in
23 that region?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Are you aware too that in Serbia, in Belgrade and in
1 other places there were large communities of people of
2 Islamic faith, of Slavic origin, and do you know that
3 all of them were expelled or forced to convert to
4 Christianity when the Serbian state was established?
5 A. Yes, a big part of them were expelled, and yes.
6 Q. What happened to the rest, those who were not expelled?
7 Were they Christianed or not? Did they convert or not
8 by force?
9 A. Yes, most had to convert by force, but this is again
11 Q. I just wish to explain that this is a programme, this is
12 the consequence of a programme. This is the same
13 principle that I mentioned a moment ago. Serbia
14 implemented this principle in relation to the Slavs,
15 even Serbs, just because they were of a different
16 faith. Please, do you know that throughout this region
17 of Serbia there was a large number of mosques, medresas,
18 cemeteries and that with the exception of one or two,
19 that all this has been destroyed and ruined to the
21 A. Many of these buildings have been destroyed.
22 Q. They do not exist today?
23 MR OSTBERG: Your Honour, I would like again to object, if
24 you please. We have now been having this historical
25 background for something like half an hour, and as far
1 as I can understand, Mr Karabdic has not so far reached
2 the point of cross-examination. There is nothing in
3 this questioning -- anything of what Dr Calic has said
4 pertaining to the background. So I cannot see that this
5 is a cross-examination. We are going through a new
6 historical area not even touched upon by the witness now
7 cross-examined, and I think you have to guide the
8 defence lawyer to keep within the parameters of the
9 cross-examination, your Honour.
10 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: I have never understood it to be so
11 limited to what you want to hear. Cross-examination can
12 be wide. As long as he wants his targets, he might even
13 lead her into areas she might show her ignorance. I do
14 not think there is anything wrong with it. It depends
15 on what he is looking for. It is his case. Let him
16 make it.
17 MR OSTBERG: So far, your Honour, I do not know what he is
18 looking for.
19 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: You may not know. Finally you will
20 see what he is looking for.
21 MR KARABDIC (in interpretation): Thank you, your Honours,
22 for allowing me to continue. I will end soon. I just
23 wish to show that in this area too the same policy was
24 implemented which was implemented before.
25 I have just one more question in this area. You
1 said that you took your doctoral thesis on Serbia and
2 its development during the last century and the
3 beginning of the 20th century. Are you aware that after
4 the Balkan Wars terrible crimes were committed and a
5 large number of civilians were killed, to such an extent
6 by the Serbian army and the Serbs that the international
7 community was concerned about it and that it set up a
8 Commission, which was to investigate this, and that that
9 Commission did not complete its work merely because of
10 the outbreak of the First World War?
11 A. Yes, I am familiar with the findings of the Carnegie
13 Q. Thank you. I would now like to ask some questions about
14 Konjic. You mentioned that the road M17 passes through
15 Konjic, which is the main link, not just the main one
16 but the only one between Sarajevo and the sea, and the
17 coast; is that correct?
18 A. The road linking Sarajevo running through Konjic to the
19 coast is indeed a very important communication line.
20 Q. Is that the only link with the coast, especially now
21 during the war?
22 A. May I show this other map, my document number 44? Of
23 course Bosnia had also other roads running from Sarajevo
24 down here and you could, of course, reach also by other
25 ways the coast, but during this time this area was under
1 Serb control. Sarajevo was mainly linked through this
2 road with the coast.
3 Q. In your report in connection with this road and the
4 region of Konjic you mentioned
5 Stolac-Nevesinja-Kalinovik-Sarajevo and
6 Dubrovnik-Gacko-Foca. Do those roads cross the region
7 of Konjic?
8 A. I did explain, I think, very clearly yesterday that
9 these roads are not running through the municipality of
10 Konjic, but they belong to the territory of Herzegovina
11 and in this broader context these communication lines
12 became also very important, even if they do not run
13 exactly through the municipality of Konjic, but I have
14 also prepared a map to show this. They were near to
15 Konjic and they were of a big also importance for
16 reaching the eastern part of this country. I think I
17 did explain this yesterday. I showed also this map.
18 Q. Those other roads were under the control of the Serbs
19 and the JNA; is that correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Thank you. In your testimony in this court you
22 mentioned that Serb settlements were along this main
23 road, M17. Are you aware that even before the war and
24 at the beginning of the war they put up barricades on
25 that road preventing free passage?
1 A. I read about this in several witness's reports, but I
2 cannot personally confirm these reports. I read about
4 Q. Thank you. If what you read is true, does every
5 authority, including the state of Bosnia-Herzegovina,
6 have the right to prevent such blockage of passage and
7 disturbance of traffic, particularly when an important
8 road is involved, one that is essential for supply along
9 which food supplies and other supplies come in?
10 A. There was a clear interest of controlling these areas.
11 I am not in a position to say whether it was right or
12 legal. I can state objectively it was a fact; it was
13 important. It was an interest to control these areas,
14 especially in the conditions of a war.
15 Q. Thank you. I am not insisting too much on this, but
16 could you perhaps on the basis of the reports that you
17 mentioned tell us when or whether you can see from those
18 reports when the shelling of Konjic started from the
19 air, air raids and shelling of Konjic? Can you see that
20 from the reports that you have at your disposal?
21 A. Again I read reports on it. I read witness's statements,
22 but I cannot confirm whether or not it is true. It is
23 up to this court to bring the facts together and to
24 decide whether or not the witnesses are credible. I
25 cannot testify on this.
1 Q. I asked about the reports, but very well. Please, did
2 the municipality of Konjic in 1990, when the elections
3 were held -- did it elect its municipal Assembly?
4 A. Yes, it did.
5 Q. Did that Assembly elect its Executive Council?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Did the Assembly have a President?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Therefore, did that body, that is the municipal
10 authorities, were they functioning? Were they legally
11 elected, and did they function up to the war and after,
12 and during the war -- up to the war? I will ask
13 separately for the period of the war.
14 A. Apparently it ceased to function because the Serb
15 representatives who were also elected withdrew from
16 these bodies, and so apparently they did not function
17 any more from March onwards. According to the elections
18 of 1990 the Serbs were not represented any more.
19 Q. I apologise, but, please, were the elections carried out
20 in the municipality and deputies elected, and did the
21 majority of those deputies require a quorum, and for the
22 functioning of the Assembly were they always there in
23 the municipality of Konjic?
24 A. You see, I read contradictory reports. I read reports
25 from the Serb side saying there were reprisals and they
1 were not allowed to participate any more, and I read
2 reports from other witnesses saying that the Serbs were
3 withdrawing voluntarily, and they did simply not want to
4 participate any more in these bodies. So I really
5 cannot say whether or not they withdraw voluntarily or
6 whether they were forced to. I just say that apparently
7 these bodies from March onwards did not function any
8 more in the way they were functioning before the war.
9 Q. Please, you gave the composition of that Assembly and
10 after the withdrawal of those deputies, those Serbs, was
11 there a sufficient number of deputies for the Assembly
12 to function according to the law, to pass decisions?
13 A. It brings me back to the same answer. The Serbs
14 contested this fact. They contested the legitimacy of
15 this Assembly, as they did contest the legitimacy of the
16 republican Assembly. It is not up to me to decide
17 whether they were right or not. I just wanted to
18 explain this was the view of the Serbs, and, of course,
19 the remaining members of this Assembly had a different
20 view on this. They continued to believe that this was a
21 legitimate body, even though the elected representative
22 of the Serbs did not participate any more in these.
23 JUDGE JAN: I want to ask a question. Were they elected by
24 nationality for spaces or from a joint elected group?
25 A. They were elected jointly but most parties were defined
1 ethnically or they had a clear basis towards one
2 nationality, although, in fact, all Serbs or most Serbs
3 voted the Serb SDS and most Muslims voted then the SDA
4 and so on. There were very few parties who were
5 constituted on a multi-national level. Nobody did say
6 so openly, but, in fact, this was the case, and the name
7 of the SDS is also Serb Democratic Party. It says "Serb
8 Democratic Party".
9 But there was the idea also coming from the
10 tradition of Bosnia before the war that all people
11 should be represented in these bodies, and after the
12 first multi-party elections in 1990 the main officials
13 of Bosnia stick to this principle. They were convinced
14 that they should go on working together and having
15 represented all three constitutive people of Bosnia in
16 the highest body, beyond the republican level, beyond
17 the municipal level, but then as the conflicts erupted
18 and tensions were growing and the Serbs were just
19 contesting the Muslims and the Croats were acting
20 legally, this kind of compromise or this kind of power
21 sharing did not function any more. It did not function
22 on the republican level and it did not function on the
23 municipal level. Again I just tried to explain the
24 different views.
25 Q. I apologise, but I did not ask you for views. I asked
1 you regarding the fact. What was the necessary quorum?
2 Do you know what quorum is necessary for a meeting to be
3 held and for the Municipal Assembly to function, and
4 whether such a quorum existed even after the withdrawal
5 of the Serbs? That was my question.
6 A. I do not know what exact number the quorum was. I know
7 that the Serbs contested the legitimacy of acting
8 without them. They have been elected to participate in
9 the work of these bodies, and after their withdrawal
10 they were not represented any more, and it was not the
11 idea of power-sharing from before the war and from also
12 1990 and onwards to exclude one of the nations from
13 important decisions. Again I cannot say whether they
14 withdrew voluntarily or whether they were forced to do
15 so, but they did, and after that they contested the
16 legitimacy of making decisions on the basis that they
17 were not present any more.
18 Q. We know all the reasons that they gave, but did the
19 constitution, the statute of the municipality, -- was
20 there any stipulation except a stipulation that there
21 must be a certain quorum for a body to function? The
22 regulations that existed during the time of Yugoslavia
23 -- was there any such provision in the law? If the
24 majority of deputies are present, the Assembly was a
25 quorum and it can function. They all represent the
1 people and thereby they represent that particular
2 territory, or what was known then as a socio-political
4 A. Well, I don't know. I tried to explain earlier this
5 morning that usually if democratically elected bodies
6 ceased to function because maybe one party withdraws,
7 then you should have new elections, and you have to
8 elect a new body that functions, but this was, of
9 course, impossible under these circumstances. I think
10 we cannot argue with the legalistic way the Serbs were
11 contesting this, claiming that they were forced to
12 expel, and there was repression and reprisals. I cannot
13 say whether it is true. It is what they were saying.
14 Q. Very well. I just wanted you to explain to me whether
15 there were any regulations in the rules of procedure, in
16 the statute or the constitution which required some
17 other kind of qualified majority except for a simple
18 majority. Did any such regulations envisage a
19 particular structure of that majority? Were there any
20 such regulations or not?
21 A. I do not know what you are referring. Maybe I cannot --
22 I'm not capable of understanding you, but I will try.
23 Maybe you can explain it again to me. I was saying
24 before that the Serbs claimed they were forced to
25 withdraw from these bodies, and therefore they said
1 there is no legal, legitimate basis any more for these
2 bodies making decisions, and I myself cannot tell you
3 whether or not they were right or they were not right.
4 Maybe they were not right, but maybe -- I can't tell
5 you. I am just trying to explain that there were
6 different views. One saying: "Even if you withdraw, we
7 can make legitimate decisions". This is one view.
8 The other view is: "If you withdraw, you cannot
9 make any decisions; you cannot make decisions on our
10 behalf." This is my understanding of the situation.
11 Usually if you reach such a blocade of views, you should
12 try to find a way out and you should try to find a
13 compromise. In democratic countries you then have new
14 elections. This was not possible under these
15 circumstances and in this time.
16 Q. I apologise, but I asked you, as you are an expert
17 witness on the political and historical conditions and
18 relationships in Bosnia-Herzegovina and in the Konjic
19 region -- I just asked whether there was any
20 constitutional or legal provision according to which, if
21 a certain majority, a certain number, a quorum of
22 deputies come to a session, preventing it from meeting,
23 if a certain number of deputies are absent and have not
24 come. As far as I know, every representative body has
25 regulations and provisions governing its work, and
1 enabling it to pass decisions if a certain number of
2 deputies are present, regardless of the fact that the
3 others are not there?
4 A. I believe you should take into consideration the whole
5 range of legal provisions and the idea of this, as I was
6 pointing out before, to have represented all constituent
7 nations, and, from the understanding of the Bosnian, as
8 you were saying, also in view of this long tradition of
9 tolerance -- and there was also a tradition of
10 power-sharing -- it was regulated like this that all
11 constituent nations should be represented in an
12 appropriate way in the decision-making bodies.
13 We heard yesterday your colleague told us
14 correctly that after the Bosnian State Presidency broke
15 up and the SDS representatives walked out, they were
16 replaced by other Serbs. So we should see the whole
17 range of the original idea, of what was behind the idea
18 of sharing power in an ethnically mixed surrounding. We
19 should bear this in mind. It was also for historical
20 reasons very important to stick to this principle of
21 power-sharing, especially in very critical moments, when
22 power was contested and when nearly everything over this
23 country was contested. I really think there were
24 different views on this.
25 Q. I asked you whether regulations, laws, the constitution
1 -- it is another matter if individual parties came to
2 an agreement to share power or to act together. There
3 are always coalitions. So in Bosnia too such coalitions
4 could have existed but it does not mean if one coalition
5 partner is absent, if he withdraws, that then the whole
6 system collapses, and that decisions of such an assembly
7 are invalid, and that such an assembly cannot function?
8 A. I am not sure if this is again a legal question which I
9 am not capable of understanding or of answering in an
10 appropriate way, but usually let us say in democratic
11 countries if the elected members of an Assembly or of a
12 body are not able to come in agreement on important
13 things and one side decides not to participate any more,
14 then you should elect new and with new persons you then
15 may come to an agreement. This is the idea of then
16 having new elections and newly- elected bodies, and I
17 cannot see why this is not a good way of solving such
18 blockades of political organs.
19 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Thank you very much. I think we have
20 reached the end of the road for this session. We are
21 still not out of the woods.
22 MR KARABDIC (in interpretation): Your Honours, if I may, I
23 will continue.
24 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: At 2.30.
25 (1.00 pm)
1 (Luncheon adjournment)
2 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Okay. The witness is still on her
4 THE REGISTRAR: Miss Calic, may I remind you that you are
5 still under oath.
6 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: You are still cross-examining or have
7 you concluded? You are still continuing your
9 MR KARABDIC (in interpretation): With your permission, I
10 would like to continue.
11 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Yes.
12 MR KARABDIC (in interpretation): I apologise to the judge.
13 Apologies to your Honours. This is an awkward,
14 cumbersome binder. So indulge me, please.
15 Ms Calic, in your report you state that in March
16 1992 the administrative bodies and the authorities of
17 the Konjic municipality ceased to function. That should
18 be a fact. Since you stated that you were not witness
19 to these events, that you were not an eye witness there,
20 would you please tell me on what basis did you state
21 that in your report?
22 A. I drew this conclusion on the basis of different
23 documents, on the basis of the fact that there were
24 established crisis staffs and on the basis of witness
25 statements telling that -- telling me about the
1 withdrawal of the Serbs from these bodies.
2 JUDGE JAN: Just a minute, please. Did the members of the
3 SDS resign their memberships or just stay away?
4 A. They stayed away. Of course, I don't know exactly
5 because there are contradictory reports on this. I read
6 reports saying there was also force. They were not
7 allowed any more to participate. So I do not personally
8 know how exactly this happened.
9 MR KARABDIC (in interpretation): Do you know that after the
10 withdrawal of Serbs from the Assembly of the Konjic
11 municipality, that is the members of the SDS, that there
12 were Serbs who were in this assembly, who were properly
13 elected from this territory, who remained in this body?
14 A. No, I do not know what the exact ethnic composition of
15 the remaining body was. I have no documents about that,
16 no documentation. I have not seen one single document
17 on this.
18 Q. In your report it is stated that the Konjic municipality
19 had 60 representatives; is that correct and that out of
20 this 60 -- out of this 40 -- no, out of this 60 there
21 were only 9 were from the SDS party; is that correct?
22 A. Yes, it is.
23 Q. And if I understood you properly, you would like to make
24 us believe that if out of 60 representatives 9
25 representatives leave, the Assembly becomes non-legal or
1 illegitimate, and that it cannot go on functioning?
2 A. I do actually not have an opinion whether or not this
3 was lawful or unlawful. I instead have an opinion on
4 the fact that it was a tradition and also a legal
5 tradition in Bosnia that power should be shared
6 according to the national composition, and to support
7 this view I brought a document. This is the report of
8 the Election Commission from 1991. It is more precisely
9 the report on the election results of 1990, and there is
10 an interesting last part in which the election results
11 and the members elected are compared with the ethnic
12 composition of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
13 We are still translating this and then we will
14 hand it over. This Election Commission refers to
15 several constitution Articles and laws, and it evidently
16 was the case that the nationalities should not be over
17 or under-represented more or less than 15 per cent of
18 their share of population. So this is just to show you
19 that it was obviously a common view and a shared view,
20 also from a legal point of view that people should be
21 represented in the elected bodies according to their
22 ethnic representation, according to their population
23 share. I have not to decide whether or not this is
24 lawful or unlawful. It is published in the Official
25 Gazette, 19th December 1990.
1 Q. You are answering a question that I did not ask, but
2 that is a completely separate issue of the elections,
3 but that would depart from what we are trying to clarify
4 here, but in the election law there was a provision
5 where it is stated that the election results should not
6 deviate from the ethnic position of the population of
7 plus/minus 15 percentage points. That is a general
8 provision which only referred to the elections, whereas
9 I asked you -- my question is about the functioning of
10 the Assembly and its legality. Any Assembly is legal
11 and legitimate if it has a quorum, is that not so, if
12 the quorum exists? Was there any regulation that these
13 nine members of the SDS had to be present at sessions,
14 that without them no decisions should be taken?
15 A. You see, I am not a lawyer. I cannot say whether or not
16 this was lawful or unlawful. I am just explaining that
17 the Serbs, after their withdrawal, were considering that
18 it was unlawful. I am just explaining this was one
19 view. There might be another view saying that it was
20 lawful, but it is not up to me to decide about this
21 question. It is a legal question. I am not a lawyer.
22 I cannot answer you this question.
23 Q. In other words, you are saying that in your report you
24 stated the Serbian position, because it was their view
25 that by their departure the Assembly ceased to function,
1 the Assembly of the municipality of Konjic. You did not
2 mention the other opinion?
3 A. I will submit this document by the Election Commission
4 of Bosnia, which states that the elected members of the
5 Assembly should also reflect the ethnic composition of
6 the population and deviation should not be bigger than
7 plus/minus 15 per cent. This is not my personal view.
8 This is what the Election Commission stated referring to
9 Serbian laws. This will be translated and then
11 Q. I do not want to repeat myself. That is as a result of
12 the elections, but for the functioning of the Assembly
13 itself, that has not been stipulated. However, I want
14 to continue. Is the Municipal Assembly of Konjic -- did
15 it also have an Executive Council?
16 A. Yes, it had an Executive Council.
17 Q. Was this Executive Council -- was that still existing,
18 and in your opinion it seemed to have also ceased to
20 A. I understood from the documents which I have seen that
21 according to what was the use in Bosnia before the war,
22 after the elections of 1990 the Executive Council of
23 Konjic included members of different nations, parties,
24 nationalities. I also understood from the documents
25 then in March 1992 the Serb representatives left also
1 this council. So this council maybe existed but the
2 Serbs were not represented any more. Again it comes
3 back to the same question, which I cannot answer,
4 whether or not this was legal or illegal.
5 Q. Do you know that the Executive Council is a body that
6 implements the decisions of the Municipal Assembly; in
7 other words it is an executive body, it is a working
8 body, and it can continue to work based on the
9 directions on the part of the Assembly. So it is not a
10 representational body. It should be unaffected by
11 whether all the population segments were represented in
12 it or not?
13 A. What I wanted to show is that the political and
14 administrative structures started to disintegrate from
15 March 1992 onwards at the latest, maybe even earlier.
16 They started to disintegrate in ethnic components. This
17 is what I wanted to show. I did, of course, not intend
18 to make any legal comments on this fact.
19 Q. Still I can agree with you that certain steps and
20 individual steps or maybe the steps that one large party
21 had done could have led towards this disintegration.
22 However, Bosnia did not disintegrate. It survived. Is
23 that not so?
24 A. Bosnia as a state did survive, but unfortunately it is
25 partitioned in two among a common roof of state. Ethnic
1 separation is a fact in today's Bosnia.
2 Q. My question was not what is the situation today but
3 Bosnia has survived and it has been recognised. It is a
4 different matter of its internal organisation and
5 structure right now. In the same way the Konjic
6 municipality also survived?
7 A. But in a completely different ethnic shape.
8 Q. I am speaking about the Konjic municipality as authority
9 and as a territory. As authority, it survived?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. I would like to ask another question. In your report
12 you mentioned a provision from the HB constitution,
13 Article 272, on the War Presidency of the municipality.
14 Pursuant to this Article was the main task of the
15 Presidency of the municipality in the time of war or
16 threat of war to carry out the functions of the
17 Municipal Assembly, if it is unable to meet?
18 A. Yes, which supports in a way my view the Assembly did
19 not work any more, otherwise the formation of a War
20 Presidency would have been illegal, is it not.
21 Q. Is it correct that the immediate danger or threat was
22 proclaimed and that the conditions in the Konjic
23 municipality were such that the Municipal Assembly could
24 not meet?
25 A. Exactly, yes.
1 Q. Is it then correct to say that certain functions of the
2 Municipal Assembly were taken over by the War Presidency
3 pursuant to the law and the constitution?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Thank you. If you wish, I can show you something. We
6 had addressed the issue of the law of the all people's
7 defence, and from it it was -- it came in force on the
8 day when it was published in the Official Gazette, which
9 was 20th May 1992. This is in reference to Article 42,
10 which speaks to the -- addresses the issue of the War
11 Presidency; is that correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Thank you. You stated here regarding Territorial
14 Defence -- you said that it is established in the local
15 communes, in companies, that units are formed and they
16 have their own weapons, which they use and which they
17 acquire because -- it comes from the budgets of the
18 companies and the municipalities and such; is that
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Do you know that the Yugoslav Army took away all these
22 weapons from the Territorial Defence, even though the
23 republic, the local communes, municipalities and
24 different companies had provided it through their own
1 A. I know that JNA took away a bigger part of these weapons
2 from the territory of Bosnia, certain municipalities.
3 Q. Do you know what municipalities those were where the
4 weapons were taken away, and were the weapons taken away
5 in municipalities where Croats and Muslims were in the
6 majority and were they left where the Serbs were in the
8 A. Of course the attempt was made to transfer all the
9 weapons from Muslim and Croat majority areas to areas
10 settled predominantly by Serbs.
11 Q. Thank you. Another question in reference to Konjic. In
12 your report you said that the JNA and that the Serbian
13 side -- but mostly the JNA -- that they were weakened in
14 this region by the decision of the rump Presidency of
15 the then Yugoslavia regarding the pull-out of the army
16 from Bosnia-Herzegovina; is that correctly stated in
17 your report? Is that how it was stated in your report?
18 A. I understood from the document which I also included in
19 this binder that the local JNA commanders were aware of
20 the fact that they were in a difficult position keeping
21 the JNA in areas where Muslims and Croats had already
22 built up their armed forces, and they felt surrounded.
23 This was, of course, different in areas where the Serbs
24 were in the majority but in the specific Central Bosnian
25 area my impression was that they were trying to pull
2 Q. Do you think and do the facts show that in that period
3 the JNA was occupied by deploying in Eastern Bosnia and
4 could not spare the necessary forces for Konjic?
5 A. My impression was that Central Bosnia was at this moment
6 of minor importance for the JNA and they had
7 concentrated their forces in other areas of Bosnia.
8 Q. Thank you. I will now move to another area of
9 questioning. This would conclude my questioning on
10 Konjic, but I would like to continue with questions of
11 more general nature.
12 In your report you state that not any of the
13 republics within Yugoslavia was inhabited by a single
14 nation. Is that what you said?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And by saying this you obviously consider it to be
17 something extraordinary or strange?
18 A. No, no, I don't. I consider it natural for this area,
19 for the whole area of -- south-eastern area -- it is a
20 very common fact that republics comprise several nations
21 and nationalities.
22 Q. Does this apply only to the area of Eastern Europe or
23 worldwide? Let us take, for instance, the former USSR.
24 There are Russians in all the republics?
25 A. Uh-huh.
1 Q. And in some up to 40 per cent, but when the USSR was
2 disintegrating, they became the citizens of these new
3 republics, new republics and states which withdrew from
4 the union?
5 A. Yes, in some republics they were fighting wars or in
6 some areas about this question. It was indeed similar
7 to the disintegration of Yugoslavia.
8 Q. I apologise if I say that this cannot compare -- rather,
9 do you consider that this can be compared with what
10 happened in the area of the former Yugoslavia? The
11 largest conflict occurred over something else. That is
12 in the Tzecens, where an autonomous republic within the
13 Russian confederation sought independence. Conflict did
14 not erupt between Russians and the local population.
15 A. I did not introduce this example myself. I think what
16 we can compare is there were also problems concerning
17 the question of succession, and succession was a big
18 problem in Yugoslavia and it still remains a big
19 problem. Not all questions concerning succession could
20 be settled as yet.
21 Q. The questions of succession and other disputed issues
22 among civilised peoples are resolved in appropriate ways
23 and within appropriate institutions, but in Yugoslavia
24 there was a general blood-bath; is that correct?
25 A. In Yugoslavia there was at this time, at the time when
1 Yugoslavia fell apart, no agreement on how the question
2 of succession should be settled, and it appears to me
3 until now not all these questions could be settled, even
4 after the war.
5 Q. Was the decision of the Badinter Commission a step or
6 position that was important for succession? Did that
7 decision confirm the right of each republic to decide
8 whether it will become independent or will join with
9 another republic, and this right was recognised after it
10 was established that Yugoslavia was disintegrating; is
11 that correct?
12 A. This is correct.
13 Q. Thank you. I ask for indulgence, your Honour, until I
14 put some order in my papers.
15 You mentioned three national parties in
16 Bosnia-Herzegovina; is that correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. The Serbian Democratic Party wanted something for the
19 Serbian people, and that is why it called itself the
20 Serbian Democratic Party. The Croatian Democratic
21 Alliance wanted something for the Croatian people, and
22 it called itself for that reason the Croatian Democratic
23 Alliance, and its membership is limited to Croats and
24 Serbs; is that correct?
25 A. I believe this is not correct, because, if I remember
1 correctly, there was a Bosnian law saying that the
2 parties are not allowed to exclude according to
4 Q. As far as that is concerned, I agree that such a
5 regulation existed, but it is a fact that in their
6 programmes and their activities they sought things only
7 for the Serbian or the Croatian people; is that correct?
8 A. They would see it, of course, differently, but they were
10 Q. Please, as far as the Party of Democratic Action is
11 concerned, is it correct that in its programme it laid
12 down that all that it is asking for the Muslims, that it
13 recognises the same to other citizens of
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Thank you. Can then the SDA be treated as a party with
17 an exclusive national programme, or is it a party with a
18 programme for a Bosnia of equal citizens of all ethnic
19 groups and religions?
20 A. It claimed to be a party that -- it claims to be a party
21 for all citizens and for all nations of Bosnia, at least
22 at the beginning of the multi-party system in Bosnia,
23 but one should also see that many Croats and many Serbs
24 simply did not trust in this programme. They did not
25 trust what was on paper and they therefore did not take
1 into consideration to vote for this party. Also a minor
2 part of Croats and Serbs maybe voted for the SDA. This
3 explains maybe also why they did not get more votes or
4 significantly more votes than the share of the Muslim
5 population was in Bosnia.
6 Q. Is it true that a considerable number of Muslims did not
7 vote for the SDA?
8 A. Yes, there were probably Muslims who did not vote for
9 the SDA, as there were Croats and Serbs who did not vote
10 for HDZ and for SDS.
11 Q. Thank you. When the Assembly was formed and began to
12 function, the Assembly of Bosnia-Herzegovina, after the
13 elections of 1990 -- no, I apologise. Let me start
14 again. At the 1990 elections was the Assembly of
15 Bosnia-Herzegovina elected, and how many chambers did it
16 have? You said it was bicameral. Thank you. Did all
17 the citizens of Bosnia-Herzegovina vote for that
18 Assembly? There were no separate polling stations or
19 separate lists based on ethnicity?
20 A. I am not sure if I understood the question. The lists
21 were not according to nationality. No, I think I
22 understood. There were no lists according to
24 Q. Was voting on the basis of nationality?
25 A. No.
1 Q. At those elections was the Presidency of
2 Bosnia-Herzegovina elected by direct ballot?
3 A. No.
4 Q. I apologise, but I have witnesses here present that at
5 those elections in 1990 the Presidency was elected at
6 direct elections, the Presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
7 If you deny that fact, then that is something else, if
8 you claim that was not so?
9 A. I maybe did not get your question correctly. Can you
10 please repeat it.
11 Q. At the 1990 elections directly by the voters, by direct
12 ballot, was the Presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Did all the citizens vote for that Presidency; I mean
16 all the citizens who voted?
17 A. Who had the right to vote or who voted?
18 Q. No, no. I am asking -- very well. Let me make myself
19 clearer. The composition of the Presidency, what was
20 the composition of the Presidency? Do you know the
21 composition of the Presidency by ethnic origin that was
22 elected in 1990?
23 A. There were seven members, 3:2:2.
24 Q. Yes, but there were two Muslims, two Croats, two Serbs
25 and one Yugoslav. Please, did all the citizens of
1 Bosnia-Herzegovina vote for the Serbs, for the Croats,
2 or, rather, did they have the right to vote for a
3 Muslim, a Croat, a Serb and others, or did only -- did
4 the Muslims elect the Muslim, the Serbs the Serb and the
5 Croats the Croat?
6 A. There were no lists according to nationality. The votes
7 were also secret. They were secret elections.
8 Q. I want an explanation, please. The candidates were
9 elected an a national basis during the elections. Of
10 the candidates for the Presidency, did all the citizens
11 vote on that? Did I as a citizen of Bosnia-Herzegovina
12 vote or somebody else both for the Serbian candidate and
13 the Croatian candidate, or did I have the right only to
14 vote for the Muslim candidate? That is my question?
15 A. Well, there were equal votes. You have had, of course,
16 not more than your own vote. I think also this can be
17 clarified by the document which is being translated,
18 because exactly these problems are in here, and the
19 composition ... maybe we should wait until we get this
21 Q. I did not understand you. I am sorry. Do you claim
22 that I, as a Muslim, could vote only for --
23 A. No. No. I do not claim this. I claim that elections
24 were secret and each person who had the right to vote of
25 course could vote for the person of whatever nationality
1 he or she wanted. A Serb could vote for a Muslim
2 candidate and a Muslim could vote for a Serb candidate
3 or Yugoslav.
4 Q. Very well. Thank you. This means that the whole of
5 Bosnia participated in the election of that Presidency
6 regardless of the ethnic background of the voters; is
7 that so?
8 A. Uh-huh.
9 Q. Thank you. Please, when the Assembly elected at those
10 elections and the Presidency started to function, a
11 government was formed. You said that two disputed
12 issues arose, the question of the independence of Bosnia
13 and the question of its constitutional set-up; is that
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Thank you. I should like to ask, please, the leadership
17 at the time, the state leadership of Bosnia-Herzegovina,
18 was it in favour of Bosnia being proclaimed an
19 independent country? Did it immediately want the
20 independence of Bosnia-Herzegovina? Was that its aim
21 and programme?
22 A. No, it was not at the beginning. It was at the
23 beginning to find a compromise between the two opposing
24 views of the Slovenes and Croats, on the one side, who
25 were in favour of independence, and of the Serbs, on the
1 other side, who wanted to preserve Yugoslavia. They had
2 an intermediate position at the beginning. The Bosnian
3 government had an intermediate position at the
5 Q. Please, did the Presidency and government of Bosnia try
6 to preserve Yugoslavia? Did it seek to preserve
7 Yugoslavia within its borders and to avoid
9 A. Yes, but they made a proposal which made also changes
10 with regard to the constitution, so it was not exactly
11 the same Yugoslavia that had existed before.
12 Q. The initiator of that proposal, who was the initiator?
13 Was it the state leadership of Bosnia-Herzegovina or did
14 it -- was it forced to make such proposals because of
15 the events in Slovenia and Croatia and Serbia so as to
16 find a compromise solution which everyone could accept?
17 A. I am again not sure if I understand your question but as
18 far as I understand it, it was a reaction to what was
19 happening and the dissolution of Yugoslavia was already
20 on its way. So it has to be understood in the context
21 of the dissolution of Yugoslavia. It was a proposal
22 made after Croatia and Slovenia had made their proposals
23 and after Serbia had made its proposal.
24 Q. You are familiar with the proposal of Gligorov
25 Izetbegovic on the preservation of Yugoslavia?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Do you know that it was rejected by the Serbian side?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Thank you. Just a moment please. Can I conclude from
5 this or can it be concluded from your statement that the
6 question of independence of Bosnia-Herzegovina arose
7 only after the events in Serbia, Slovenia and Croatia
8 and after the inability to find -- to reach a
9 compromise; in other words, that the question of
10 independence for Bosnia-Herzegovina was set in motion by
11 events outside it?
12 A. Yes. It happened in the context of the disintegration
13 of Yugoslavia as a state and it came maybe too late for
14 being an acceptable compromise for all the sides because
15 the Slovene and Croat governments had already decided to
16 leave the country, so maybe it was too late for success
17 for this proposal.
18 Q. In any event, I agree with you that perhaps it was too
19 late, but in any event it was a step, an attempt to
20 preserve Yugoslavia?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Thank you. Please, the question of the Resolution on
23 the sovereignty of Bosnia-Herzegovina passed on 14th
24 November 1991. I don't quite understand. You used
25 different terms. Maybe it is due to the interpretation
1 or my own misunderstanding. Do you consider by that act
2 did Bosnia proclaim itself to be independent, or did it
3 just confirm its sovereign right to decide its future
4 destiny itself?
5 A. It was not precisely a declaration on sovereignty, but
6 it stated as well that Yugoslavia -- Bosnia did not
7 intend to stay in a Yugoslavia in which Croatia and
8 Slovenia did not participate at the same time. So we
9 can also understand this declaration of sovereignty as a
10 first step forwards independence regarding the fact that
11 Slovenia and Croatia had already declared their
12 independence from Yugoslavia and this declaration of
13 sovereignty was made months later in October 1991, but
14 formally it was a declaration on sovereignty.
15 JUDGE JAN: Just a minute. I want to ask a question. It
16 is not really related to what counsel is asking from
17 you. The referendum in Bosnia was held on 29th February
18 and 1st March?
19 A. Yes.
20 JUDGE JAN: When was the formal declaration of independence
22 A. The first was --
23 JUDGE JAN: And by whom was it issued, now being an
24 independent state?
25 A. We have several steps. We have the first step towards
1 independence, which was this declaration of sovereignty
2 in October 1991. Then we have on 20th December 1992 --
3 1991 we have the letter requesting independence, and
4 this letter was sent by the President Izetbegovic to the
5 European Community. Then the European Community had
6 made conditional to have this referendum, which was held
7 on 29th February and 1st March. A few days later the
8 President declared, after the results came out --
9 declared Bosnia's independence and it was then
10 recognised a few weeks later.
11 JUDGE JAN: Thank you.
12 MR KARABDIC (in interpretation): Thank you for your
13 comments, your Honour. Please, you said and indicated
14 in your report that the ethnic composition of Bosnia was
15 43 per cent Muslims, 30 or 31 per cent Serbs and 17 per
16 cent Croats, and the rest were others. You also said
17 that the result of the referendum was that 66 per cent
18 of the voters voted at the referendum, and out of that
19 99 per cent of those voted in favour of independence.
20 In your view, on the assumption that all Muslims
21 voted for independence, and it is not possible for all
22 of them to vote, and that all the Croats actually voted,
23 and that too is not possible, nevertheless a large
24 number of Serbs at the referendum voted for
1 A. I don't know, because I cannot say according to
2 nationality, but 100 per cent minus 31 per cent is 69
3 per cent, and 66 per cent participated. So I cannot
4 exactly say how many Muslims and Croats exactly
5 participated -- how many Yugoslavs, members of other
7 Q. But in any event a good number of Serbs voted for
8 independence, maybe more than half, but in any event if
9 we exclude all the Croats and all the Muslims,
10 nevertheless it emerges that a large number of Serbs
11 voted for independence; is that correct?
12 A. I do not know how many Serbs voted in favour of
13 independence. You can also turn the argument the other
14 way round and say if we assume that all the Serbs did
15 not participate, then we reach a 69 per cent, then there
16 are 3 more per cent besides 31 per cent of Serbs who did
17 not vote. I think it cannot help us in understanding
18 these facts.
19 Q. Very well. Thank you. I will not insist. Please, from
20 your testimony in response to my questions and the
21 questions by my learned colleague, it emerges that the
22 first question that arose was the question of
23 independence or not independence for Bosnia; is that
24 correct, even before this other question of
25 cantonisation; is that correct?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Does it follow from what you have said that a
3 distinction must be made, a clear distinction? Bosnia
4 as a state and as a people did not aspire to
5 independence, but it did not want to remain in some sort
6 of Yugoslavia from which its most important and most
7 powerful members, strongest members would withdraw; is
8 that correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. So Bosnia decided in favour of independence because it
11 did not want -- or rather it took advantage of the right
12 recognised it by the Badinter Commission to remain
13 independent, and it did not want to join forces with
14 anyone else; is that correct?
15 A. Can you please repeat?
16 Q. In the course of the disintegration of Yugoslavia, when
17 the Badinter Commission said that every republic had the
18 right to decide what it would do, Bosnia decided to opt
19 for independence and it did not want to join with
20 anybody else; right?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Thank you. I only have some questions on the
23 constitution. You stated that in early April 1992 there
24 was a constitutional confusion that ensued. I think you
25 called it "constitutional confusion". Okay. I will
1 quote you.
2 A. May I clarify before you quote maybe? I did not intend
3 to say that the constitution was confused. I wanted to
4 say -- I wanted to explain that the way the constitution
5 was implemented was confusing. Some provisions were
6 implemented. Others were obviously not implemented.
7 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Have you read the quotation? You have
8 read the quotation which you commented upon, because it
9 appears you understand each other without knowing what
10 the other one was saying.
11 JUDGE JAN: You speak the same language!
12 MR KARABDIC (in interpretation): We did understand each
13 other regarding this quote. What I would like to do is
14 actually if you could explain to me, you said that the
15 state of Bosnia-Herzegovina was a state within
16 Yugoslavia. That was before, and it had its own
17 constitution. Therefore, when it proclaimed its own
18 independence, it had its own basic document, and this
19 document, the constitution, provided that certain rights
20 were given over to the Socialist Federal Republic of
21 Yugoslavia. Is it not true that by the proclamation of
22 independence these rights were taken back by this
23 republic, in other words there was no reason for any
24 kind of confusion?
25 A. There was confusion as to which Articles were
1 implemented and as to which laws were implemented. I
2 will give you only one example. This is the example of
3 the unified armed forces. Of course, the laws continue
4 to state that the Bosnian Army was the army of all three
5 people, but, in fact, it appeared not to be the army of
6 all three people, because there appeared two other
7 armies at least. There appeared the Croat army, the
8 HVO, and there appeared the Bosnian Serb army. So I can
9 say from a legal point of view there was no confusion
10 but on the ground with implementation there was. Many
11 Articles were simply not followed and they were simply
12 not implemented. This is all that I wanted to explain.
13 Q. Are you trying to say that within the armed forces of
14 Bosnia-Herzegovina no Serbs or Croats participated?
15 A. No, I did not want to say this. There participated
16 Serbs or Croats, but the Serbs as well as the Croats
17 established very powerful own military structures and
18 armed forces' headquarters and they took also their own
20 Q. I am talking of the bodies within the state of
21 Bosnia-Herzegovina and the events that were controlled
22 by the regular authority and the legal authority of
23 Bosnia-Herzegovina. You mentioned that one way of
24 disintegration of Bosnia-Hercegovina was the
25 establishment of the so-called communities and
1 autonomous regions on the part of the Serbs, that is
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Is that correct? Is it correct that Bosnia-Herzegovina
5 during the time of peace had a centralised government in
6 Sarajevo and 109 municipalities?
7 A. Uh-huh.
8 Q. Is it correct that the contacts and communication
9 between such a number of municipalities and the central
10 government posed some difficulties? Is that correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Is it correct that the constitution of
13 Bosnia-Herzegovina did provide the possibility of
14 creation of communities, that is communities of
16 A. Yes, cooperation municipalities, yes.
17 Q. Is it correct that in both cases both Serbs and Croats
18 by establishment of the Serb autonomous regions and the
19 Croatian community were referring to these Articles?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Is it correct that the Constitutional Court ruled that
22 there is no constitutional basis for establishment of
23 such communes or communities as were created, and that
24 such decisions on establishment of these communities
25 were made null and void? Is it correct that the
1 establishment of such communities was illegal?
2 A. Uh-huh.
3 Q. Thank you. Was a referendum provided for in the
4 constitution of Bosnia-Herzegovina, in other words that
5 a referendum on certain issues could be called?
6 A. I think yes, but I have to check on which conditions.
7 Q. Is it correct that in all cases the results of the
8 referendum were binding?
9 A. I cannot remember exactly how it was. I would have to
10 check this exactly, but the referendum was anyway -- if
11 you mean the referendum on the independence -- it was a
12 condition by the European Community, and so it was
13 considered to be binding. The outcome of this
14 referendum was considered to be binding. So accordingly
15 the ministers of the European Commission then took their
16 decision to recognise Bosnia.
17 Q. In other words, the decision taken from the referendum,
18 according to you, was binding for all citizens of
20 A. Again this is a legal question. The Badinter Commission
21 was aware of the problem that one third of the
22 population was evidently not in favour of independence,
23 and this was a problem, and I am not in a position to
24 say whether or not it was legal or illegal to hold this
25 referendum to --
1 JUDGE JAN: Just a minute. Were there any negative votes
2 will go in the referendum?
3 A. There were something like 99 per cent in favour but only
4 66 per cent of the voters had actually --
5 JUDGE JAN: Were there any negative votes also cast? In a
6 referendum the usual question is "yes "or "no"?
7 A. If there were 99 "yes", then maybe 1 per cent "no" or
8 one per cent unclear or not valid, or so.
9 JUDGE JAN: Maybe some people were not clear and so they
10 abstained from voting?
11 A. Some people were not sure.
12 JUDGE JAN: So they abstained from voting?
13 A. I think they were against and so they did not
14 participate in voting. This was their expression of
15 being against. They did not recognise they have had to
16 have a referendum on independence. So only two thirds
17 of the population took actually part in this referendum.
18 JUDGE JAN: That is what I asked you. Were there any
19 negative votes on that?
20 A. No. There were 99 per cent "yes" from 66 per cent
21 participants. In other words, there was a boycott of
22 this referendum by one-third of the population.
23 MR KARABDIC (in interpretation): I do not want to repeat
24 questions by my colleague which you answered, but is it
25 correct that Bosnia-Herzegovina by proclaiming its
1 independence had its own constitution and created its
2 own legal system?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Thank you. One moment, your Honours. The issue of the
5 cantonisation of Bosnia. Earlier you said that it was
6 not raised at the same time as the independence issue.
7 I mean, that is my understanding of what you said. When
8 was this issue raised?
9 A. The issue was being discussed throughout the year 1991,
10 but the first written proposals and the first maps were
11 submitted by the end of 1991.
12 Q. Where were those discussions held? Were those
13 discussions held in an elected representative body
14 within the Assembly of Bosnia-Herzegovina and were these
15 issues discussed there?
16 A. No, they were mostly discussed outside of the Assembly.
17 They were discussed exactly in the framework of the
18 peace conferences set up by the European Community, and
19 the parties or those who perceived themselves being
20 parties to this discussion submitted their own
22 Q. In other words, the representatives elected in the 1990
23 elections did not raise that issue and did not discuss
24 that issue in the Assembly of Bosnia-Herzegovina?
25 A. It appeared to the outside, to the members of the
1 international community that these issues could not be
2 settled within the elected bodies of Bosnia-Herzegovina
3 and that the parties could not find a compromise, and
4 this is why they offered their services and they set up
5 this conference and they set up the Badinter Arbitration
6 Commission, and they started other activities as a third
7 force or in this case maybe a fourth neutral force just
8 to help mediate between these different streamings and
9 views and opinions.
10 Q. Thank you. I would like to thank your Honours, and this
11 concludes my cross-examination. Thank you. Thank you.
12 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Thank you. I think we will have to
13 have a break now and come back at 4.15 to continue with
14 the next line of cross-examination.
15 (3.45 pm)
16 (Short break)
17 (4.15 pm)
18 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: The witness is still on oath:
19 MS RESIDOVIC (in interpretation): One question, your
20 Honour; just a question, please. I would like to remind
21 you that this morning the witness said, when asked on
22 several questions, that she would supply the documents
23 on the basis of which she composed the document number
24 50, and should I need, I would be allowed to ask
25 additional questions, if necessary. Since several
1 breaks later, I still have not been provided with these
2 documents, I would just like to ask a question of the
3 witness whether these documents are available for my
4 review now.
5 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Actually, we have observed the witness
6 has been on the witness seat apart from the lunch
7 period. I do not know if she can still provide it for
9 MR OSTBERG: Your Honour, I can enlighten you on this one.
10 We have this document here, even in copies. We can hand
11 them over to Mrs Residovic at any moment.
12 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Thank you very much. You can now do
14 MS RESIDOVIC (in interpretation): Thank you very much.
15 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Can we now hear you, Mr Brackovic, in
17 Cross-examination by MR BRACKOVIC.
18 MR BRACKOVIC (in interpretation): Good afternoon, your
19 Honours. Good afternoon, Ms Calic. My name is Mustafa
20 Brackovic. I am the defence attorney for Esad Landzo,
21 and my co-counsel is Ms Cynthia McMurrey from the United
23 Listening to your presentation yesterday and today
24 I came to understand that you visited Yugoslavia on
25 several occasions; is that correct?
1 A. That is correct.
2 Q. On several occasions; is that correct?
3 A. I went there many times. I spent a lot of time there in
4 different parts of Yugoslavia.
5 Q. Were you also in Bosnia-Herzegovina?
6 A. Yes, I was several times in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
7 Q. Thank you. When was the last time that you were in
9 A. The lost time was 1995, in the middle of the war.
10 Q. If I notice correctly, you understand the languages of
11 the populations of the former Yugoslavian territory, the
12 Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian; is that correct?
13 A. That is correct.
14 Q. Do you also speak these languages?
15 A. Yes, I speak.
16 Q. Thank you. Do you know both alphabets, both the Latin
17 and the Cyrillic alphabets?
18 A. Yes, I know both.
19 Q. Thank you. In your report you stated that your report
20 was based on your personal research on works of other
21 scholars and specialists in this field, on the documents
22 from the former Yugoslavia, on the reports by
23 international organisations, documents, witness
24 statements made available to you from the Office of the
25 Prosecutor; is that correct?
1 A. This is correct.
2 Q. In other words, your report was made also based on
3 witness statements provided by the Prosecution?
4 A. I used them as a background information. I tried not to
5 use them as for the primary documentation, because I was
6 not sure enough whether or not these witness statements
7 are reliable. So I was trying to use as much as I could
8 other documents, written documents, laws and reports,
9 and statistics, such kinds, but I have of course in mind
10 as a background knowledge what the witnesses were
12 Q. How many statements did you have available that you used
13 during the time when you were preparing this report?
14 A. I have no exact number, but it was a lot. It was quite
15 a lot, many files, maybe hundreds of pages I went
16 through, but I have not counted them.
17 Q. Could you give an approximate number? I do not insist
18 on it, though.
19 A. No, I need to count them. I don't know, but it was
20 quite a lot. It took me quite a long time to go through
21 all these documents and statements.
22 Q. Thank you. Were these only the prosecution witness
24 A. No, I don't think so. I actually don't know who exactly
25 was a witness of the prosecution and who was exactly a
1 witness of the defence. I used them as witness
2 statements. I tried to explain I tried to use them the
3 less possible.
4 Q. Did these statements influence your report in any way?
5 A. They gave me a background to what happened, especially
6 what happened after the outbreak of the war, and it
7 supported my already existing view that there was quite
8 a difference between what I could find in the official
9 gazettes and what I would find in the laws and in the
10 constitution, and what was hatching on the ground. In
11 that way it supported an already existing opinion about
12 this gap between paper and reality.
13 Q. To what extent did they confirm or support?
14 A. I knew from my research early on that many laws existed,
15 and there existed a legal system and a constitution, but
16 I knew already from my research and also from my
17 personal experience of going to Yugoslavia in the middle
18 of the war that the conditions on the ground were often
19 very different from the legal framework.
20 Q. What were your conclusions from it?
21 A. I cannot understand.
22 Q. You said that certain issues -- constitutional issues
23 and surrounding issues you found from that; is that
25 A. Yes. My conclusion was and continues to be that we have
1 to be very careful when we assess and when we analyse
2 concrete events and that there was a big difference from
3 between different areas, and we cannot conclude from
4 what happened in one area, and we cannot assume that
5 exactly the different things were happening in another
6 surrounding. So there were big, big differences between
7 certain areas. This confirmed what I knew before, and I
8 think it was confirmed also by what went on in Konjic.
9 Q. One of the things you said in your report was based on
10 writings and other scholars and specialists in this
11 field; so is that so?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Was your report based, among other things, on the
14 written statement of Dr Andrew James William Gow, also
15 given before this Tribunal in the case Prosecutor v
17 A. I know this statement by James Gow and I knew him before
18 and I knew quite a lot of his writings. I used his
19 writing as for the role of the JNA in this conflict, but
20 he is one of several scholars which I quoted in my
21 report, but I am familiar with the report of James Gow
22 in the Tadic case.
23 Q. Are you familiar with the contents of his testimony
24 before this Tribunal?
25 A. Yes, I saw the written report.
1 Q. Taking into account his testimony, it also formed the
2 basis of your report that is here before us?
3 A. In certain areas. His testimony was on a
4 different area. It was Prijedor, and this is on
5 Northern Herzegovina. As for the role of the JNA I used
6 his writings, as I was saying.
7 Q. In the part that is applicable to this case, do you
8 agree with everything that Dr Gow testified to and
9 stated before this Tribunal?
10 A. I cannot answer in this general way. You should propose
11 me concrete facts or events or what he said, opinions.
12 Q. Okay. I will try to rephrase this question: there are
13 no major discrepancies between your report and the
14 report of Mr Gow; is that correct?
15 A. I would not say that he is completely wrong, and I
16 cannot see in a very general way that he is always
17 right. We have to verify this in concrete detail.
18 Q. In other words, there are different views propounded by
19 you and by Professor Gow?
20 A. I don't know. We have to verify it. We cannot say it
21 in such a general way. If you tell me which assumption
22 or opinion or part of his expertise you are referring
23 to, then I can tell you.
24 Q. We will have occasion to refer to that in the course of
25 this cross-examination, to verify the positions of Dr
1 Gow and your own, but before starting the
2 cross-examination I wanted to hear your general view on
3 whether there are certain differences or not, and if
4 there are, whether they have to do with certain minor
5 differences or different views on certain events and
6 situations of importance.
7 A. The case on which Dr Gow was testifying was different
8 from this one. It was a different geographic area.
9 Therefore I do not know what his opinion would be on
10 that case and on that area, so there might be differing
11 views but there might also be complete agreement on what
12 was going on. I simply don't know. I would have also
13 to ask him himself what his opinion is on this specific
14 event -- on the specific events in this area. He
15 testified on another area.
16 Q. It is correct that Dr Gow did not testify about this
17 area. I know that very well. He testified on the macro
18 situation in the territory of the municipalities of
19 Prijedor. However, most of his testimony and his
20 findings are based on the general conditions, the
21 circumstances, that is the background of the conflict,
22 the war and aggression against Bosnia-Herzegovina; is
23 that correct? I would be so bold as to say that at
24 least 80 per cent of his report has to do with the
25 background. That is the same theme that you studied
1 here yourself. If you wish, you have here the statement
2 of Dr Gow, and I can put it at your disposal?
3 A. I am familiar with the statement of Dr Gow. However, I
4 believe that the case is very different and his
5 statement was written to support or to help to
6 understand a certain case. It was not written to
7 support or to help to understand another case, and maybe
8 we should ask Dr Gow himself. I cannot answer for him
9 if he would write exactly the same report, if he had to
10 testify about this on-going case. So I cannot say if I
11 can challenge or support everything what he said and
12 what he wrote.
13 Q. Yes, but when talking about the background, what is
14 common to all cases, would the findings of all expert
15 witnesses who will be appearing before this Tribunal --
16 should they be concordant?
17 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Actually I thought you were
18 cross-examining this witness. Are you making your own
19 propositions? If it is cross-examination, ask her
20 questions relating to what her own expertise is. If you
21 want to compare her own expertise with that of Gow, you
22 can do so. Do not go about asking her to adopt him,
23 what she wants to do, whether she did not adopt him.
24 Why should she? She is an expert with respect to her
25 own field. You have spent so many minutes getting
2 JUDGE JAN: And she is quite right. You have must refer to
3 a particular passage on which you want her to either
4 agree to or disagree with Dr Gow.
5 MR BRACKOVIC (in interpretation): Your Honours, I am not
6 asking the witness to say whether she accepts or not the
7 report of Dr Gow. That is the free choice of the
8 witness, but through the cross-examination that I will
9 be embarking upon now I will check certain facts and
10 events which appear in both testimonies, but before I
11 embark upon that, I wanted first to check on the
12 position and views of this expert witness. Thank you.
13 Allow me to continue. I will not dwell any longer on
14 these matters.
15 May I just ask a question regarding what I have
16 already asked you about? When you used the statements
17 from the prosecution, the statements of witnesses, that
18 you do not know whether they are witnesses of the
19 prosecution or the defence, I understand that you need
20 not know that. I would like you to tell me whether you
21 knew whether the witnesses were Serbs or non-Serbs?
22 A. I knew whether they were Serbs or non-Serbs. It was
23 indicated on the front page.
24 Q. Were there witnesses who were Bosnians or Muslims in the
25 statements that you had at your disposal?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Can you remember how many there were?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Thank you. Ms Calic, you prepared two expert reports.
5 I will not say that you did two expert reports, but I
6 will say that two expert reports exist. The defence
7 received the first expert report, dated March 3rd, 1997,
8 and the second is dated March 7th, 1997; is that
10 A. I do not know. I did not send them out personally.
11 There are some official procedures -- I am not familiar
12 with how exactly these reports were exchanged.
13 Q. You are not aware that there are two reports --
14 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Let me help you. All counsel wants to
15 know is whether you sent out two reports in respect of
16 your expertise?
17 A. No, I sent -- I prepared one report, but I think I made
18 some minor corrections. I made some minor corrections.
19 They were not two different reports. This was one
20 report, but there had to be corrected a few passages or
21 few sentences or words.
22 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: I think this meets your question.
23 MR BRACKOVIC (in interpretation): Yes. Yes. I simply
24 wanted to check, because I have two reports, one dated
25 3rd March and the other 7th March. I wanted to see why
1 I also noticed that there were minor corrections. So I
2 simply wished to check with the witness which report
3 should serve as a basis for my cross-examination of this
5 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: That is a perfectly proper question.
6 We should rely on one of the reports.
7 MR BRACKOVIC (in interpretation): You stated, Ms Calic, on
8 page 4, the one but last paragraph of your expert
9 report, that after the outbreak of the first armed
10 conflicts in the summer of 1991 in the former
11 Yugoslavia, the JNA became a Serb-dominated force; is
12 that correct?
13 A. Yes, that is correct.
14 Q. Were you thinking primarily of the officer personnel?
15 A. Not only, but also the officer personnel, because -- I
16 know what you want to ask me -- because already before
17 the Serbs were already present in the officer corps.
18 This is maybe what you want me to refer to, but after
19 the outbreak of the war in the former Yugoslavia also
20 many non-officers, non-Serbs, left the JNA. So it
21 became more and more a Serb-dominated army.
22 Q. I would like to ask was such a situation not present
23 even before 1991, that is that the officer corps in the
24 former JNA was dominated by the Serbs to a high degree?
25 A. Before 1991 Serbs were over-represented in the officer
1 corps of the JNA.
2 Q. When you say "over-represented", does that mean that
3 they were dominant in relation to their share in the
4 total population of former Yugoslavia?
5 A. They were over represented. They maybe dominated. This
6 is a question of -- can be discussed. For sure they
7 were over-represented.
8 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Why are you avoiding the word
9 "dominant"? What you are saying amounts to the same
10 thing: if they are over-represented, they necessarily
11 must be dominant.
12 MR BRACKOVIC (in interpretation): As far as the
13 intermediary and lower levels of the officer corps, were
14 the Serbs represented with about 60 per cent?
15 A. I have to check the numbers. I do not know them by
16 heart exactly, all the ranks and all the levels of this
18 Q. Was the share of Croats 12.6 per cent before 1991?
19 A. I have to check these figures.
20 Q. And the Muslims' share was 2.4 per cent?
21 A. Again I have to check these figures.
22 Q. Thank you. If what I have said is correct, would that
23 mean that the Serbs participated in the officer corps in
24 a far higher percentage than was their share in the
25 total population structure of Yugoslavia as it was then?
1 A. The Serbs were over-represented in the officer corps,
2 the JNA, which was -- yes.
3 Q. So the answer to my question is "yes"?
4 A. The answer is yes.
5 Q. Thank you. I would now like to pass on to a different
6 area. You stated here in this report that Serbian
7 deputies withdrew from the joint Assembly of
8 Bosnia-Herzegovina in October 1991; is that correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. After that did they form their own Assembly?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. In addition to forming their own Assembly, did they all
13 over Bosnia-Herzegovina form in municipalities, at the
14 local level, parallel organs of authority, their own
15 municipal assemblies, administration, the police and the
16 like; is that correct?
17 A. Yes, this is correct.
18 Q. Do you think that they did that because they were not
19 allowed to participate in the work of Parliamentary
20 assemblies of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the
21 municipalities, or was it done for other reasons?
22 A. The Serbs claim that they did this because they could
23 not accept that the Muslim and the Croat
24 parliamentarians took the decision that Bosnia should
25 become a sovereign and maybe also an independent state.
1 So they were challenging the legitimacy of these
2 decisions, and that is why -- at least this is what they
3 claim -- this is why they left the assembly and why they
4 created their own bodies.
5 Q. Do you know that Serbs in the territory of the
6 municipality of Konjic formed the Assembly of the
7 Serbian People of the Municipality of Konjic and other
8 bodies of authority and the administration, including an
9 Executive Council?
10 A. I read this in some of the witness statements.
11 Q. This circumstance, this event concerning the formation
12 of the municipality of Konjic, is that what you had in
14 A. I think I did not understand you well. I read in some
15 of the witness statements that the Serbs were forming
16 their own crisis staffs and other institutions, but I
17 again cannot say whether this is true or not.
18 Q. Very well. I will limit myself. Your only source of
19 knowledge is the statements of witnesses that you read?
20 A. As for the Serb municipalities, yes.
21 Q. Are those witnesses of Serbian nationality whose
22 statements you read?
23 A. I cannot remember which nationalities told about that in
24 his statement. I cannot remember. I would have to
25 check, but I cannot also say whether these persons were
1 right or not, and they may even appear here in court. I
2 have no idea.
3 Q. Thank you. I do not expect you to say whether they were
4 right or wrong. I just wish to know whether you are
5 aware of this fact. I would like to go on to ask
6 whether it is true that the Serbs took a decision on the
7 verification of the proclaimed Serbian autonomous
8 regions in Bosnia-Herzegovina on January 15th, 1992?
9 A. Yes, I showed the document yesterday confirming this
11 Q. Is it correct that the Serbian autonomous region of
12 Herzegovina consisted of the following municipalities:
13 Bileca, Cajnice, Gacko, Kalinovik, Loubinje, Nevesinje,
14 Rudo, Trebinje and Foca?
15 A. Yes. You read it very quickly. Yes, I think so, yes.
16 Q. Do you think that the Serbian autonomous region of
17 Herzegovina was limited to or consisted only of the
18 territories of these municipalities that I have named?
19 A. I know that they were making claim to a part of Konjic,
20 and they also -- this territory was then afterwards also
21 controlled by Serb troops, but I cannot say exactly when
22 this was, but I saw maps from 1993, where parts of the
23 eastern parts -- the eastern part was, in fact, under
24 Serb -- was supposed to be a part of this Herzegovinian
25 region which at this time was already Serb Republic or
1 proclaimed Serb Republic. I cannot say exactly when and
2 under which circumstances this happened.
3 Q. That means that you are aware that certain parts of the
4 municipality of Konjic were included in the Serbian
5 autonomous region of Herzegovina?
6 A. I am not aware of when this was. I showed the document
7 in which this fact was not mentioned. So I cannot
8 exactly say. I have no document which shows me when and
9 why, in which part of the Konjic municipality might have
10 become a part of this Herzegovinian region.
11 Q. Are you familiar with the decision on Serbian
12 territories of the Assembly of the Serbian people of the
13 municipality of Konjic of 22nd March 1992?
14 A. No, I am not.
15 Q. You never heard about it, that it existed?
16 A. I never saw any document.
17 Q. It is the document that I have here, and I would like to
18 show it to you, and I would like to have it translated
19 so that the expert witness can comment on it later.
20 JUDGE JAN: Are you exhibiting it? Are you exhibiting this
22 MR BRACKOVIC (in interpretation): Later the defence will
23 tender it as evidence. We now just wish to show it to
24 the expert witness.
25 JUDGE JAN: Have it marked at this stage. Have it marked.
1 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Let the witness have a look at it
3 MR BRACKOVIC (in interpretation): The document is written
4 in Cyrillic. That is why I asked the witness whether
5 she speaks and understands the languages of the piece of
6 former Yugoslavia and whether she knows both alphabets,
7 including the Cyrillic.
8 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: That will be a private thing between
9 the two of you. It is not within the Trial Chamber
10 which should have its own language. We do not limit the
11 communication between just two of you. There should be
12 one for the consumption of others.
13 MR BRACKOVIC (in interpretation): If you wish, I could
14 suggest that this document be interpreted by the
15 interpreters in the booth and then the Trial Chamber
16 will be familiarised with its contents.
17 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Well, they can as well interpret, but
18 when you have any document you intend to put in
19 evidence, you must make sure that you produce its
20 counterpart in the language of the Tribunal. That is a
21 better way. You just do not bring it so that it can be
22 translated in here.
23 MR BRACKOVIC (in interpretation): Thank you for your
24 advice, your Honours. In future we will proceed as you
25 have suggested.
1 MR OSTBERG: Your Honour, could we please have it read out
2 and translated? We cannot follow your internal debate.
3 We have to know what this is all about.
4 MR BRACKOVIC (in interpretation): I do not mind. I can
5 easily read it and have it simultaneously interpreted.
6 If the Trial Chamber allows, I shall be glad to do so.
7 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: You are putting it now as both witness
8 and counsel.
9 MR BRACKOVIC (in interpretation): Your Honours, please
10 will you decide which is the correct way to deal with
11 this problem?
12 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: The document is not in the language of
13 the Trial Chamber and it is difficult to admit as it
15 MR BRACKOVIC (in interpretation): Thank you. As my
16 cross-examination will certainly take some time and we
17 will not be able to complete it today, we will have
18 occasion to come back to this document on Monday, when
19 we continue the cross-examination. If I may be allowed,
20 I will go on to other matters in my cross-examination.
21 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: For the time being, you had better
22 withdraw your document until you are prepared to
23 introduce it. You are not familiar with that
25 MR BRACKOVIC (in interpretation): Thank you, your
2 Ms Calic, do you know about the position of the
3 Bosnian Serbs who claimed that they said that 65-70 per
4 cent of the territory belonged to them?
5 A. I may have heard about that. I cannot identify any
6 person that said this or any date or concrete event.
7 Q. But you are familiar with it?
8 A. With what? I cannot follow you.
9 Q. The position -- you said that you were familiar but you
10 did not know the source from which you found out this
11 information. If I reminded you that Radovan Karadzic
12 said that any number of times on television, would I
13 have refreshed your memory?
14 JUDGE JAN: Just a minute before you answer. You filed a
15 document showing the areas to which the Serbs were
16 laying a claim and the area to which the Croats were
17 laying a claim. Would the area claimed by the Serbs
18 amount to about 70 per cent?
19 A. It is difficult to say, because I was --
20 JUDGE JAN: You filed a document?
21 A. Yes, I actually cannot state it very clearly where the
22 exact borders of this territory were. I was wondering
23 whether or not to prepare a map where these claimed
24 territories are marked, and then I refrained from doing
25 so because there might have been also other territories
1 and then we would have, as in this case, just discussed
2 parts of maybe Konjic or municipalities, and then we
3 would have started a discussion on the exact borders of
4 these territories. So I prepared just to leave it like
5 it is and it was a bigger part. It was a bigger part of
7 This is sure, but I would also -- maybe I did not
8 understand the question very well. I thought you were
9 referring to Serbs coming from Konjic, and I am not
10 aware that any Serb of Konjic did make such a
11 declaration, and, of course, views among the Serbs are
12 very different. This was not only a unified view but
13 there were, of course, radicals and then there were
14 moderates, Yugoslav-oriented and so on. It is very
15 difficult to treat these people just as one unified
16 homogeneous group which would accept that.
17 MR BRACKOVIC: Ms Calic, I was not thinking about the Konjic
18 area. I thought that was pretty clear when I posed the
19 question. I was referring to the territory of the state
20 of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
21 A. Excuse me. I simply did not understand you very well
22 because I am here all day. It is my concentration ...
23 it is not I did not want to understand you. I really
24 did try to understand you.
25 Q. I will re-state the question. When you asked whether
1 the Serbs held the position that some 65-70 per cent of
2 the territory of the state of Bosnia-Herzegovina
3 belonged to them -- after you responded to this
4 question, you expressed a certain confusion saying that
5 you were not sure whether I referred to Konjic, to the
6 Konjic municipality, but what I had in mind was the
7 entire state of Bosnia-Herzegovina, not the Konjic
9 A. Uh-huh yes. Is this a question?
10 Q. That is a clarification, because you said that it was
11 not clear to you. So I am expecting an answer if you
12 had --
13 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: What is the question?
14 MR BRACKOVIC (in interpretation): The question is whether
15 the Bosnian Serbs had aspirations on the territory of
16 Bosnia-Herzegovina at the level of 65-70 per cent of the
17 territory, in other words whether that ratio or that
18 proportion of the state of Bosnia-Herzegovina belonged
19 to them.
20 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Is that clear?
21 A. This is very clear. There were certain Serbs who had
22 claims on 60 per cent, maybe even more, maybe even 70 or
23 maybe even 80 per cent, but we cannot say that all the
24 Serbs had this claim. There were different views and
25 different propositions as for the future of Bosnia and
1 as for the future of Yugoslavia. There was not one
2 unified view among the Serbs.
3 Q. I will clarify a little bit. Did the leadership of the
4 Bosnian Serbs, starting with Radovan Karadzic, express
5 such views in public that 65-70 per cent of the
6 territory of the state of Bosnia-Herzegovina belonged to
7 the Serbs?
8 A. Yes, yes.
9 Q. Thank you. Thank you very much. That is what I wanted
10 you to express your views on. Do you know that the
11 Serbs proclaimed certain territories as exclusively
12 Serbian based on an ethnic principle where they formed
13 the majority, that is where their share of the total
14 population was over 51 per cent?
15 A. I presented yesterday documents supporting this.
16 Q. And do you know that the Bosnian Serbs also proclaimed
17 as Serbian territories where they were in a minority at
18 a percentage level below 50 in what they used to call
19 the ownership principle?
20 A. Yes, I know this.
21 Q. Thank you. I will move on to another block of
22 questions, a different topic. Is it true that the armed
23 forces in the former SFRY consisted of the regular JNA
24 troops and the TO units?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Did each republic have its own staff of the Territorial
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Were there also municipal staffs of the Territorial
5 Defence, Ms Calic?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. All commanders of the municipal staffs and the republic
8 staffs of the Territorial Defence were the JNA officers;
9 is that not true?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Further, does that mean that the municipal staffs of the
12 TO had their own arms?
13 A. Yes, they had their own arms.
14 Q. Naturally that included the territorial staffs as well,
15 didn't it?
16 A. I cannot understand the question.
17 Q. I will withdraw the question. Are you familiar what
18 arms were involved? Was it light arms or heavy arms,
19 including the launchers, etc?
20 A. There were different kind of arms, but I would prefer to
21 pass these questions to the military expert.
22 Q. Thank you. Is it true that in supplying of arms to the
23 Territorial Defence municipalities took part; that is
24 they participated in financing it?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. In other words those arms were the arms belonging to all
2 the population living in different municipalities and
3 the republics and the Socialist Federal Republic of
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. In other words, those arms were not exclusively the
7 possession of one ethnic group?
8 A. No, of course not.
9 Q. Including the Serbian people; correct?
10 A. Correct.
11 Q. Ms Calic, are you familiar with the fact that I believe
12 that there was a decision made in 1990 or some time
13 before the aggression on Croatia that all arms were to
14 be put under the control of the JNA and stored in the
15 barracks of the JNA?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Ms Calic, are you familiar with the fact that all
18 republics followed this direction with the exception of
20 A. Uh-huh. Yes.
21 Q. And that the same was done by the municipal staff of the
22 Territorial Defence of the Konjic municipality; correct?
23 A. I cannot say, but I assume that it was true in many
24 parts. It was done in Bosnia. I personally cannot
25 confirm or not confirm, but I assume that this happened.
1 Q. You did not answer my question, Ms Calic. I did not ask
2 about other parts of Bosnia-Herzegovina. I asked
3 directly about the Konjic municipality, about the arms
4 belonging to the municipal staff of the Territorial
5 Defence of the Konjic municipality?
6 JUDGE JAN: I presume this must have been done. She has
7 answered the question already.
8 MR BRACKOVIC (in interpretation): She said she did not
10 JUDGE JAN: I do not know about this municipality. She
11 says generally this was done but she assumes this must
12 also have been done in Konjic. She has answered your
14 MR BRACKOVIC (in interpretation): Were these arms stored
15 in the barracks of the former JNA in Ljuta?
16 A. I assume that. I could not verify many witnesses.
17 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Frankly, you do not go about answering
18 questions you cannot authenticate. You cannot answer
19 such questions. You do not know what has happened. You
20 do not know what the position is. That is not your
22 MR BRACKOVIC (in interpretation): Ms Calic, in your expert
23 report do you mention assumptions as your own views on
24 things and your own conclusions?
25 A. Assumptions as my own conclusions? I cannot understand
1 this. Can you clarify? Can you tell me the passage.
2 Q. I will clarify. You said that you assumed that it was
3 done in the Konjic municipality as well. My next
4 question was: do you introduce assumptions into your
5 expert opinion as conclusions?
6 A. No, I don't. I do not and in this case I can also not
7 answer these kind of questions.
8 Q. But, Ms Calic, I will remind you that in your expert
9 report you stated the following -- this is your report
10 of 3rd March, page 8, last three lines. Let me refresh
11 your memory:
12 "For example, the weapons for the TO for the
13 municipalities of Konjic, Jablanica and Prozor were
14 stored in the Ljuta barracks".
15 A moment ago you said this was your assumption and
16 this is contained in your report?
17 A. Yes, I can clarify this. I saw many documents saying
18 exactly this, that the weapons of the TO were stored
19 there but I have no evidence. I have not seen any
20 documents saying when it exactly happened, and according
21 to which order or to which law. So I cannot say the
22 month or the day or the order. The exact circumstances
23 I cannot confirm.
24 Q. But do you have the information that these arms were
25 stored in that Ljuta barracks?
1 A. I saw several documents that weapons were stored there.
2 Q. I found what you just offered and that is contained in
3 documents that you provided to us, and there is an exact
4 data that there were 5,930 light arms with 2 combat
5 packages that used to be in the possession of the JNA;
6 is that correct?
7 A. Are you referring to the report by the JNA from 20th
8 March 1992? You are referring to this document?
9 Q. Yes, that is the document which was offered by you to
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. With -- this is not a document that the defence has
13 presented to you, but you presented to the defence?
14 A. Yes, I presented it myself. The same report says that
15 the JNA was trying go to transfer these weapons to other
16 areas. I do not know to which extent they were
17 successful in doing so, and I cannot say how many
18 weapons exactly were at a certain moment in Konjic. I
19 included this as a document showing that there were
20 weapons and that the JNA was also concerned and trying
21 to transfer them.
22 Q. Ms Calic, can I infer that you forgot about your own
23 evidence when a moment ago you could not remember that
24 the arms were stored in the Ljuta barracks, as stated in
25 your report?
1 A. No, I did not forget. I just understood the question in
2 a different way. I understood it in relation with the
3 mentioned orders by the JNA to store these or to
4 transfer certain weapons to the JNA facilities, and as
5 for Konjic, I have not seen any of such orders by the
6 JNA telling the TO to transfer -- to bring these weapons
7 exactly on a certain day. So maybe I misunderstood
8 you. I did not forget my own documents.
9 Q. Yes, Ms Calic, but initially you said that you assumed
10 that there were weapons belonging to the Territorial
11 Defence in the Ljuta barracks, and after I refreshed
12 your memory, and then I cited -- quoted the document
13 number 52?
14 A. I obviously misunderstood your question. I apologise
15 for this.
16 Q. I will move on. There is transcript. I think it is
17 useless to continue with this polemic.
18 Given that you stated before that before the start
19 of hostilities in Croatia, the JNA was almost entirely
20 purged of non-Serbs, that is that only the Serbs formed
21 the officer corps, does that mean that the JNA in this
22 way had full control over the entire armaments of the
23 former JNA and the TO?
24 A. I understand from the same report which you introduced
25 that there were also other weapons around in Bosnia, and
1 I understand from what international observers were
2 saying that there were quite a lot of weapons which were
3 not under the control of JNA but were under control of
4 militia, paramilitaries and private persons.
5 Q. My question was not about those weapons. It was about
6 the weapons belonging to the TO and the JNA, not about
7 the arms that were acquired illegally, regardless of
8 where it was acquired from. In other words, can you say
9 whether JNA in this way had control and supervision over
10 the arms belonging to the former JNA and the Territorial
11 Defence. That is the question.
12 A. They had control of maybe a bigger part of these
14 Q. Thank you. Did JNA arm the Muslim population, Ms Calic?
15 A. No, they armed primarily the Serb population. I
16 introduced a document to support this view.
17 Q. Did the JNA arm the Croatian population?
18 A. They armed volunteers. They might have been Croats,
19 they might have been Muslims, but primarily there was
20 arming of the Serb population. The reporting tells us
22 Q. I did not understand your answer. Were they arming
23 Croats to fight Croats?
24 A. I did not say that they were arming Croats to fight
25 Croats. I did say this report is about arming
1 volunteers, and we know from this, as well as from other
2 reports, that the JNA was arming primarily Serb
3 volunteers. I cannot say whether or not they might have
4 been also volunteers coming from other nationalities,
5 Yugoslavs maybe also, Yugoslav-oriented Croats,
6 Yugoslav-oriented Muslims. I cannot tell this.
7 Q. Very well. Thank you. Ms Calic, in your written report
8 of March 3rd, 1997 you said that during March and April
9 of 1992 there were armed conflicts between the HVO and
10 the TO, on the one hand, and the JNA and the Serb forces
11 on the other hand. This is referring to the
12 municipality of Konjic; is that correct?
13 A. I would ask you to use the last report, not the one
14 which I corrected afterwards. Can you please use the
15 one of 7th March?
16 Q. Okay. I will check. I was working -- I was checking
17 the reports of 3rd and 7th March where I spotted some
18 contradictions, and where I did not think of doing so in
19 such crucial things, but -- let me refresh your memory
20 -- you stated this yesterday during
21 examination-in-chief by the prosecutor, and I have that
22 on page 61, and I can quote it in English, the way you
23 said it yesterday: "should there be any conflicts
24 between the reports of March 3rd and March 7th".
25 A. No, I have just in front of me the report of 7th March
1 and maybe I can find it easier if you just repeat the
2 passage. I am sure I can find it.
3 MR OSTBERG: I would like, your Honour, to clarify these
4 things. There are not two reports. There is one final
5 report of 7th March filed with the Trial Chamber and
6 with the defence lawyers. To make it possible for them
7 to prepare we served them with the first copy that
8 arrived, but then Dr Calic sat down and made some minor
9 correction, and the report introduced in this hearing to
10 the Trial Chamber is the report of 7th March filed with
11 all of you. So I would also ask Dr Calic -- ask the
12 defence lawyer to stick to the final report, which one
13 he knows it is.
14 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Actually I did not see any need for
15 this, because the witness has already said in evidence
16 that there is just one, one report. She admitted there
17 was one in which she made corrections and the
18 corrections is the last one, which was made for 7th
19 March. I do not see why you are bothering yourself
20 going over it again. It was in answer to counsel's
21 question where she said there is only one report. It is
22 fairly difficult to understand how you proceed with
24 MR BRACKOVIC (in interpretation): Your Honours, I am not
25 trying to introduce both reports into this. I agree
1 that there is only one report, dated March 7, but I will
2 add that I used as a work copy the report of March 3rd,
3 when I started preparing for this cross-examination. So
4 my question refers to -- is based on the report of March
5 7th, the only one that is treated here as the report
6 before this Chamber.
7 Ms Calic, if you are tired, I have nothing as far
8 as I am concerned --
9 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: She should be tired now and it is
10 5.30. The Trial Chamber will now rise.
11 MR BRACKOVIC (in interpretation): I just wanted to propose
12 and say that I have nothing against that we conclude for
14 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: There will be no sitting tomorrow. We
15 will sit again on Monday at 10 o'clock. The Trial
16 Chamber will now rise.
17 (Hearing adjourned until Monday morning at 10 o'clock)