Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 945

 1                           Tuesday, 4 November 2008

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           [The witness entered court]

 5                           --- Upon commencing at 2.29 p.m.

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Good afternoon to everybody in and around the

 7     courtroom.

 8             Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.

 9             THE REGISTRAR:  Good afternoon, Your Honours.  Good afternoon to

10     everyone in and around the courtroom.  This is case number IT-04-81-T,

11     The Prosecutor versus Momcilo Perisic.

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you, very much.

13             Could we have appearances starting with the Prosecution.

14             MR. SAXON:  Good afternoon Mr. President, good afternoon, Your

15     Honours.  Dan Saxon for the Prosecution together with my colleagues

16     Ann Sutherland and Ms. Carmela Javier.

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much and for the Defence.

18             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Good afternoon, Your Honours.  Appearing on

19     behalf of the Defence today are Daniela Tasic, Chad Mair, Milos Androvic,

20     Eaoadin O'Brien, Tina Drolec, Novak Lukic and I'm Gregor Guy-Smith.

21             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.

22             Madam Sutherland.

23             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Good afternoon, Your Honour.

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Good afternoon.

25             MS. SUTHERLAND:  The response in relation to the objection that

Page 946

 1     was raised by the Defence yesterday at page 937 of the transcript lines 9

 2     to 12, if I understand the objection it was that the translation is now

 3     going to interpreted by the witness.  And that's not the case, Your

 4     Honour.  Mr. Treanor said in his evidence at page 938 that he doesn't use

 5     the translations.  He uses the original documents.  And so there's no

 6     basis for the objection, in our view.

 7             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Guy-Smith.

 8             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Well, I think it the situation that we're in at

 9     the present moment presents a number of distinct issues, the first one

10     being that we all have been supplied an English translation either

11     official or unofficial of a document that is originally in B/C/S.  And to

12     the extent that we all are relying on that document with regard to the

13     examination that is occurring here, the fact that we have documents that

14     are not officially translated creates one distinct problem; and I was

15     fortunate enough after yesterday's session to receive from the registrar

16     what I would call a practice directive with regard to the issue of draft

17     translations, and I think that with regard to all documents that are

18     alluded to in Mr. Treanor's report that are not official translations at

19     this time we would suggest, that as to those documents, they be marked

20     for identification, pending a final official translation.

21             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Let me try to highlight what is a problem for the

22     Bench.

23             What is a problem for the Bench, Madam Sutherland, is that, first

24     of all, we have a translation that is not an official CLSS translation.

25     Secondly, we have the witness saying he is not relying on that

Page 947

 1     translation because he has got a very good working knowledge of B/C/S.

 2     He is looking at the original document.  And he doesn't rely on the

 3     translations because these translations at times have inaccuracies.

 4             The problem here is that the Defence is relying on the English

 5     version, which is he is not using, which the witness is not using and the

 6     Defence and the Bench doesn't know whether they are inaccuracies in this

 7     particular English translation or not.

 8             Now, to the extent that the witness comments on the B/C/S version

 9     and not on that English translation, to that extent, is -- you see, all

10     along with us who don't know B/C/S, and there is no way of checking

11     whether what he is telling is what we have before us in the English.

12     That is my problem.  And how do we finally -- because finally when we

13     write the judgement we're not going look at the B/C/S because we don't

14     know B/C/S.  We're going to look at this English translation, which he is

15     not using.

16             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Your Honour, you -- you say there is no way of

17     checking whether what he is telling is what we have before us in the

18     English translation.

19             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes.

20             MS. SUTHERLAND:  You can see from -- from reading the transcript

21     as to what Mr. Treanor says and what the English translation says.  And

22     there may or may not be differences between those two.

23             But the Prosecution has no problem in marking the documents,

24     as -- as the Defence have suggested that any documents that are referred

25     to in Mr. Treanor's report get marked for MFI until we have an official

Page 948

 1     translation.

 2             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You see, if the -- the fact that the Defence is

 3     saying they will be marked for MFI is one matter.  But the Bench has a

 4     fundamental problem here, whether or not, finally, that piece of evidence

 5     is going -- those documents are going to be admitted is what -- what

 6     worries us because we don't know whether that translation is correct or

 7     not correct, and we don't know whether the comments that the witness made

 8     are made on that English translation with its nuances and idiom or is it

 9     making them on the nuance and the idiom of the B/C/S, we really don't

10     know.

11             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Your Honour, Mr. Treanor has said he is

12     expressing facts and his opinions based on the B/C/S document.  Now, if

13     we mark all the documents that are cited in his report for identification

14     and get an official CLSS translation, then I don't -- I don't see -- I

15     don't see the issue.  If Mr. Treanor still testifies to the documents, as

16     he has read them, he doesn't rely on the translations, and so then what

17     you have in evidence at the end of the day is the official translation.

18     So he is not basing any of his opinions on a draft translation or a final

19     translation because he reads the language, and he has done for 35 years.

20             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Are you undertaking to go give us an official

21     translation at some stage.

22             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Yes, yes, Your Honour.  That's what -- what the

23     Defence proposed and we agreed with that he we would marked for

24     identification the documents that are referred to his report and get an

25     official translation.

Page 949

 1             JUDGE MOLOTO:  [Indiscernible] Mr. Guy-Smith, and to the extent

 2     that the cross-examination and the questions by the Judges may be

 3     misguided by the English translation is of no concern.

 4             MS. SUTHERLAND:  That is of concern, Your Honour.

 5             JUDGE MOLOTO:  And we working now here on this English version --

 6     the cross-examination and the questions by the Judges can only be based

 7     on the English version, which he is not going by.

 8             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Could Your Honour just give me a moment, please.

 9             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay, while you take the moment, Mr. Guy-Smith.

10             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Yes, after I made my introductory remarks with

11     regard to the first issue I was going to proceed to what my underlying

12     concern was, and I would say based upon the colloque that just occurred

13     between you and Madam Sutherland, that's correct, which is that both my

14     cross-examination of this witness; and any questions that the Chamber may

15     pose to this witness may be misguided by the English translation, and it

16     is of great concern to me at this time.

17             And I think that it is of some importance that we recognise that,

18     in fact, the witness has testified, and I refer the Chamber to -- and

19     counsel to page 913 and 914 of yesterday's session, page 913 starting at

20     line 25, when he was discussing the categories and the methodology that

21     he used, he says:

22             "When I'm asked to produce a report, I go into my collection of

23     summaries and notes on documents most of which are embodied in a CaseMap

24     format.  I put many documents in there myself and others put under my

25     direction, so I have all that available to me when dealing with a

Page 950

 1     specific request for a report."

 2             As I understand what this means and I may be wrong but what I

 3     understand that that means is the gentleman who reads the original

 4     language then makes summaries and notes, and I don't know if those

 5     summaries and notes are made in English or in the original language.

 6     That's information that we do not have.  That would be, I submit to the

 7     Chamber, information that would be the working notes of an expert by

 8     which we could all understand the methodology and the analysis and the

 9     interpretation the expert made, and that information is the information

10     upon which he relies and apparently the information upon which he relied

11     in drafting this report.

12             So we are in fact, unfortunately, even a further step removed

13     from having an understanding of the actual source information that was

14     used by this gentleman in making his report.  Not only do we have the

15     specific difficulty that the Chamber has raised but we have a secondary

16     difficulty, which is that the working notes that exist for the purposes

17     of creating this report upon request, are not within the possession of

18     either the Chamber or the Defence, which constitutes, I think, not only a

19     potential secondary translation problem but also constitutes a problem

20     with regard to access of appropriate information so that the proper

21     preparation that would go into the examination of an expert can be made

22     and considering that methodologies that is a question that has been

23     raised here already and is obviously a question that is of some concern,

24     we are, once again -- or not once again we are, in another fashion

25     foreclosed from really being in a position to appropriately cross-examine

Page 951

 1     or pose questions to this witness that are in fact not misguided but,

 2     rather, are questions that deal directly with the materials that he

 3     relied upon and which form the basis of his report.

 4             So I'm concerned -- I'm concerned about both the issue that --

 5     that you have raised specifically with regard to the fact that we're not,

 6     quite frankly, living on the same plain in terms of this particular

 7     witness.  We're relying on different information, in order to reach an

 8     understanding of a particular and focussed fact or interpretation of

 9     facts.

10                           [Trial Chamber confers]

11             MR. GUY-SMITH:  And as a ...

12                           [Trial Chamber confers]

13             MR. GUY-SMITH:  And if I might, if one were dealing with, for

14     example, examination of an expert with regard to ballistics and had in

15     one's possession the report of such an expert, it would be expected that

16     the underlying information upon which that expert relied, in order to

17     form the basis of his or her report, would be supplied to those parties

18     who are either in an adversarial position or in a fact-finding position,

19     as the Tribunal, for purposes of being able to objectively and

20     intelligently address the areas that are contained in the report.

21             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Guy-Smith, is that what is normally done or

22     that underlying information is it not footnoted but invariably it's in a

23     language that everyone can understand and you can go and read it there,

24     but it is not necessarily supplied to you.

25             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Well, I think both of those situations have

Page 952

 1     occurred when dealing with someone -- an expert's working notes, and here

 2     the working notes are the summaries -- are the summaries as he has

 3     discussed it his collection of summaries and notes.  It would be

 4     something that would be supplied.  Because he is -- he is -- he is

 5     potentially in a -- interpretive area based upon, if we can for the

 6     moment, value-neutral information.  And part of the reason that this

 7     becomes of some importance or of great importance for an examiner is so

 8     that we can make a determination as to whether or not the methodology

 9     that was -- that was used can produce the result in a similar fashion.

10     It's kind of a fundamental scientific concept.

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yeah.  But you're going too far to.

12             MR. GUY-SMITH:  [Overlapping speakers] ...

13             JUDGE MOLOTO:  My question is the underlying information on which

14     an expert relies to give his report is usually not in supplied, and it is

15     generally just footnoted and it gives references to his sources; and it's

16     up to the reader to then consult those sources to see whether the

17     methodology that is being used in the report is what other experts in the

18     field do use.

19             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Yes.

20             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Or are you saying that in this Tribunal here, even

21     those underlying documents are disclosed to the Defence.

22             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I'm saying specifically in response to your first

23     question, yes, those documents that are footnoted become available to me

24     for purposes of examination to do precisely what you said.  In

25     addition --

Page 953

 1             JUDGE MOLOTO:  But are they availed by the person who called the

 2     witness.

 3             MR. HARMON:

 4             MR. GUY-SMITH:  That's -- in addition, at this Tribunal, because

 5     that's the one question you've asked that I can be very specific about,

 6     and it's a matter that actually I had some discussion with the

 7     Prosecution today; in this Tribunal, I have not received the working

 8     notes of an expert because they were destroyed.  But, had they not been

 9     destroyed, those working notes would have been supplied to us with regard

10     to that particular expert's report.

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I was having a problem with --

12             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Sorry.

13             So the direct answer to your question is, no I have not received

14     that information.  The explanation for why I had not received that

15     information in a particular case in this Tribunal was because the

16     information we were seeking had been destroyed.

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You're talking about a particular case.  Is it

18     practice in this Tribunal that the underlying documents have been availed

19     to --

20             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I don't believe I can answer the question

21     intelligently .  I can answer the question anecdotally, and the anecdotal

22     information I can give you is that I have been informed by my opponents

23     and colleagues that they have not been in the practice of giving out this

24     information, but then again I don't know whether or not the information

25     was sought by the Defence or not.

Page 954

 1             Your Honour, so I can't answer the question in -- in that

 2     particular fashion or in a fashion that is satisfactory to the Chamber.

 3     I'm more than happy to go and do the research to find out whether or not

 4     Defence counsel has asked for the underlying information and has been

 5     accepted or denied.  That I can't answer.  I really can't.  I don't have

 6     the answer to that particular question.  And I if did, I would give it to

 7     you.

 8                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 9             JUDGE DAVID:  Mr. Treanor, I would like to request from you an

10     account of your own experiences with the previous report you had

11     submitted in this Tribunal in other instances, as to the way you

12     structured the report and the notes and whatever elements you want to

13     give to the Chamber.  We have been discussing here the sources, you know,

14     the availability of the sources, the notes, the availability of the

15     notes, by which you prepared a report and so on.

16             We would like to get from you reflections on the way you had the

17     structure of this report and so to help the Chamber to decide the issue.

18             THE WITNESS:  Yes, Your Honour.

19             The previous reports that I submitted were written before we had

20     CaseMap available to us in this institution.  Therefore, the procedure

21     that I adopted was to work directly from the documents in writing the

22     report, the quote/unquote report, whichever one it was, usual grew, took

23     shape over the course of years.  The information embodied in new

24     documents is -- new documents as they were looked at were gradually

25     integrated into an analytical product without intervening notes since we

Page 955

 1     had the documents available, and I would mark up, highlight, that sort of

 2     thing, in the documents, which is, if I may say a different procedure

 3     than the one I was familiar with going back to my days as a student 30,

 4     35 years ago where one took notes from documents.  There would be the

 5     document in an archive, and you would go to the archive take notes, or

 6     the library, take notes, return to your desk and write up your analytical

 7     product on the basis of your notes.  People have written books about how

 8     to take notes so that was an integral part of that methodology.

 9             There got to be a point in time where photocopies got to be cheap

10     enough that even students could afford photocopies, so sometimes you were

11     actually able to get a copy of the document, that particular important

12     document.  But that is not the methodology I used here.  As I said, I

13     worked directly from the documents, and the documents are available of

14     course on Zy.  And so that was the way those reports were written.  There

15     weren't any meaningful notes.  There was a -- a draft, I suppose you call

16     it that grew over the years, and when a report was requested, then that

17     draft would be finalised for the purposes of the given report.

18             Now, since we have CaseMap, which is a tool we -- within OTP at

19     least have been encouraged to use.  It is possible to return, if you

20     will, to making notes but much more sophisticated notes than was possible

21     within the old days because it a database you can use it to search and

22     sort and filter, and you can make links to the documents, so you can go

23     directly from your notes to the document and have hard copy.

24             So rather than continue putting things into an expanding draft of

25     a report that may never be asked for or who know what is the topic of the

Page 956

 1     report will be asked for is, I proceeded to put things into -- things

 2     being documents, in CaseMap; and that's where they reside.

 3             My general practice is to, or frequent practice, is to attempt to

 4     locate a translation of the document and if it's a short document, simply

 5     cut and paste the whole thing into the CaseMap.  If it is a longer

 6     portion, I will select certain portions and cut and paste those into the

 7     CaseMap and perhaps summarize them.  If they are translations, because

 8     some of the documents are in English, I go through those, read through

 9     them the first time around and spot any areas where I think there may be

10     problems with the translation and again look at the document because I

11     have it available to me in order to make my notes, if you will, and

12     CaseMap is accurate as possible.

13             JUDGE DAVID:  Thank you very much.

14             THE WITNESS:  When it comes to producing a report, Your Honour, I

15     would then, if necessary, go back to the original documents and if I'm

16     going to quote any particular portion go back to the original document

17     and look at what the original says and not rely on my notes in that

18     respect.

19             JUDGE DAVID:  Thank you very much.

20             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Madam Sutherland, given your concession that it is

21     of concern, if -- it is of concern if the cross-examination and the

22     questioned by the Bench would be misguided because we would be relying on

23     a version that it is not used by the witness what then do you then

24     suggest as a way forward.

25             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Your Honour, if I may just clarify.

Page 957

 1             I said a moment ago that the Prosecution agreed that the

 2     documents that were cited in Mr. Treanor's report could be MFI and then

 3     we would be producing an official translation.  I misunderstood the

 4     conversation, the agreement that was -- had before we entered court this

 5     afternoon and that is that we would have the documents MFI and only ask

 6     for an official translation if there were any problems raised by the

 7     Defence or any -- any other issues and not that we would be submitting an

 8     official translation of every single document that is cited in the

 9     report.  And I think that -- that the parties, both the Defence,

10     Prosecution and Bench, have to work on the translation that we have

11     because of the problems that have been discussed before and at the

12     pre-trial -- the trial management conference.

13             And subsequent to the trial management conversation there were

14     instructions actually from the Chamber in regard to the translation of

15     documents.  And if I can read that to you, Your Honour, it said that:

16             "If the tendering party provides a draft translation of a

17     document which has not been officially translated by CLSS, the Chamber

18     allows the use of such a translation in Court provided that is promised

19     that an official translation will be given at a later stage if all

20     parties are in agreement with the correctness of the draft translation,

21     the Chamber may consider the draft translation as the final."

22             And so unless any issues arise, the Prosecution submits that we

23     should be able to have admitted into evidence the draft translation.

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I understand that.  You haven't answered the

25     concern I raised with you.  The concern I raised with you is that

Page 958

 1     notwithstanding what is written there and that is something suggested

 2     that could be used, it was suggested by registry.  You will see it is not

 3     in the guidelines.  It is a separate document.  It's not in the

 4     guidelines generated by the Chamber, the lacuna in that is that here

 5     parties are not agreed about the translation, the witness says he is not

 6     relying on that translation, the Defence and the Bench are going to rely

 7     on that translation which the witness is not using because is he looking

 8     at the original document and coming in with his own translation and

 9     giving us his opinions based on that; and the underlying danger is that

10     most of the time we will be talking at cross-purposes, we will not be on

11     the same page as the witness.

12             My question is:  How is that time being put to good use if there

13     is the danger that, in fact, this witness might be recalled later when

14     once we've got the correct translation, and he maybe have to be

15     cross-examined again.

16             MS. SUTHERLAND:  But that's the point, Your Honour, until

17     something's identified as being incorrect, the -- the parties have to

18     assume that the draft translation is sufficient.  And we have -- we know

19     of nothing at the moment in relation to the -- the two documents that

20     have been used by Mr. Treanor yesterday, the Defence haven't identified

21     translation errors.

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes.  But you note, I said to you earlier we're

23     not working from the same page.  The witness is working from a B/C/S

24     version, which he interprets the way he does, which is not necessarily

25     the way it is interpreted on the translation; and the translation is

Page 959

 1     going to be the basis of the questions by the Defence and the Bench.

 2             This is my problem, that here and now, we are -- not going to be

 3     on the same page as we speak to the witness.

 4             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Well, the Defence -- the Defence can obviously

 5     cross-examine Dr. Treanor on why he may or may not agree with the

 6     translation.  But if there is an material problem, a problem with the

 7     translation going to a material issue, then it's at that point that we

 8     would seek to have a final translation, an official CLSS translation.

 9     And there would be no further examination on that document and the

10     witness can be recalled.  As you know, it's -- Mr. Treanor is within the

11     building.  It's not an inconvenience to have him recalled, if there

12     are -- if there are problems with translations.

13             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Let's not conflate two different issues.  An

14     official CLSS translation is going to be required that is for sure now.

15     Because even based on that guideline you read, that, this draft

16     translation will become final if the two parties were ad idem about it.

17     You are not, hence, this objection that we are having.

18             So where -- in a situation where the parties are not agreed, then

19     it's got, you have to get that CLSS -- let me find out from

20     Mr. Guy-Smith.  You heard what your colleague has said, if you can just

21     limit yourself to what she said now.

22             How do you want to resolve this issue?

23             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I'm not sure.  I have been thinking about it all

24     night, Your Honour, and trying to figure out a way of resolving the issue

25     and moving forward.

Page 960

 1             JUDGE MOLOTO:  As I see it we can either MFI and come back later

 2     with an official translation and then can you check whether you did

 3     things correctly or were you misled by the translation you were using; or

 4     if you feel that your cross-examination may not be as intelligent as it

 5     ought to be if you're not on the same page with the witness that is

 6     another option.  You can suggest what you think should be done in that

 7     situation.  Or you may agree with translation and then it's taken as

 8     final.

 9             Those are the three options as I see them.

10             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I think that takes care of one of the -- one of

11     the issues that has been presented to us.  But I -- I share the same

12     discomfort that's been voiced, that since he is operating -- and when I

13     say this I mean no disrespect to him whatsoever he is operating in his

14     own isolated universe with regard to how he is calling information and

15     translating information.  I have no way at the present time of knowing

16     whether or not I am on the same page irrespective of the accuracy of the

17     English translation that I have, which is why I had the one thought I had

18     come up with, was that we be supplied with the information that he

19     indicated that he used on page 913 and 914 of yesterday's transcript; and

20     perhaps armed with that information, I would be in a position to be on

21     the same page as the witness.  I would know what he's basing his report

22     on.  That's what I come up with as a potential solution, a solution to an

23     intelligent cross-examination, and intelligently dealing with the issue.

24             I don't know whether or not that is of assistance.

25             JUDGE MOLOTO:  It is not.

Page 961

 1             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Okay.

 2             JUDGE MOLOTO:  That's the problem you postulated.  At the moment,

 3     I'm asking you to make a submission as to how this impasse should be

 4     resolved.  Do you want -- what do you want?  Do you want to carry on with

 5     this witness and see how the situation can be remedied at a later stage;

 6     do you want this witness to be called when you are -- have you been given

 7     what you think you're entitled to?

 8             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I -- my general tendency would be the latter, to

 9     have a witness called when I have been given what I'm entitled to; but

10     could I take a moment to confer with counsel.

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Please do.

12             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Thank you.

13             THE WITNESS:  Perhaps I could say something in the interval, Your

14     Honour.  I may be able to suggest a way forward.

15             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Actually, we're in the way of resolving the

16     objection.  Usually during that time, the witness is asked to remain out

17     of it.  But yes you were asked to say something by the Judge earlier,

18     because he wanted to get something from you.  Really, at this stage, you

19     are supposed to be out of it, until a ruling is made.

20                           [Trial Chamber confers]

21                           [Defence counsel confer]

22                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

23             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I want to tread very carefully here, because I

24     think it is of relatively major importance to my client.

25             I'm looking at page 16 and specifically at lines 16 through 23,

Page 962

 1     which is where I think I -- you posed to me what my -- what you

 2     perceived -- I'm sorry.  I apologise, it's page 15.  Where the options

 3     lie.

 4             With regard to the second issue, which is at line 19, that if I

 5     feel my cross-examination may not be intelligent as it ought to be, if

 6     I'm not on the same page as the witness, that is what my concern is right

 7     now.  We could proceed with the witness's testimony, and at the

 8     conclusion of his testimony, if I could be afforded an opportunity to

 9     make a determination of whether or not it would be appropriate to proceed

10     at that point with cross-examination or not; and I would be in a position

11     to determine what areas there may be or what areas there will be that

12     we're on different pages, and resolve those areas before I proceed with

13     my cross-examination of this witness.

14             I hope I was clear.

15             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yeah.  As I understand you saying we should

16     proceed and later on you be given underlying source documents.  I'm not

17     sure whether they are available.

18             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Right.

19             JUDGE MOLOTO:  And I don't know if they're not available how then

20     are you going to cure the problem later.  I'm not quite sure.

21             Madam Sutherland, do you have those documents?

22             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Your Honour, the Defence has been given all of

23     the underlying documents to Mr. Treanor's report.

24             In relation to what's been referred to as the CaseMap, it's not

25     the practice of the ICTY, especially in -- well, not especially, in

Page 963

 1     relation to experts that -- that sort of information is disclosed.  I

 2     mean the Defence have the expert report, they have all the underlying

 3     documents that have been cited in that report.

 4             We would be opposed to that at this stage.

 5             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Except as the Chamber has rightfully pointed out.

 6     We normally are all on the same page, speaking the same language, dealing

 7     with the same information.  That is not the case here.  We have unique

 8     situation by virtue of the fact that the witness has a skill which he has

 9     used for purposes of preparing his report; and we don't have that

10     information, which normally we would.

11             And, you know, I understand that the Prosecution takes the

12     position that it's not the -- they put it in the terms of the practice, I

13     don't think that that's really the ultimate issue here, and I don't mean

14     to be radical in any fashion --

15             JUDGE MOLOTO:  It's not practice, maybe, because it has never

16     been requested.  If it was requested then they may have to supply it.

17             MR. GUY-SMITH:  That's right.

18             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Your Honour, if I may.

19             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes.

20             MS. SUTHERLAND:  It has been requested in the past, and it hasn't

21     been the practice that it has been disclosed.

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  And haven't been ordered in the past to disclose

23     it.

24             MS. SUTHERLAND:  No, Your Honour.

25             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You might be some time in the future.

Page 964

 1             Now, I think we have heard enough about the objection.  We need

 2     to rule on it, now at this stage, unless anybody else has anything to

 3     say.

 4             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Can I just add, Your Honour, in case I wasn't

 5     clear before; the Defence has made this blanket objection in relation to

 6     draft translations in relation to documents used by Mr. Treanor, given

 7     what I said before about the -- you know, the Bench has to make a

 8     balance, they have to strike a balance between the fairness to the

 9     accused and -- and considerations of judicial economy related to the

10     organisation of the ICTY and the translation services.

11             The additional work that would be borne by the translation

12     services would be considerable, if we were to get --

13             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You made that point yesterday.

14             MS. SUTHERLAND:  But unless --

15             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Let me correct you, there was not a blanket

16     objection.  There was an objection to a specific document that was on the

17     screen yesterday in both B/C/S and English; and this witness said he is

18     looking at the B/C/S, works straight from the B/C/S, this translation.

19     He doesn't look at, and it is a translation that is not by CLSS; and

20     these translations can have inaccuracies at some times.

21             So there was a specific objection to a specific document.

22             Now -- and I think have I heard what you said about judicial

23     economy and the resources of CLSS.  You made that point yesterday and the

24     Bench is mindful of what you said.  It has not forgotten.  So I ask you

25     to please not repeat yourself.

Page 965

 1             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Your Honour, if I may just take you to page 942

 2     the Defence said, when I specifically asked whether they were in fact

 3     making an objection whether they had an objection to the draft

 4     translations, and Mr. Guy-Smith said:

 5             "With regard to those documents that Mr. Treanor is using which

 6     are draft translations, in the absence of information at the present time

 7     concerning the accuracy of those translations, we object."

 8             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the speaker please be asked to slow down.

 9     It is impossible to follow at this pace, thank you.

10             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You're asked to slow down.  Can you repeat

11     yourself, please.

12             MS. SUTHERLAND:  At page 942, and this was in relation to a

13     specific question to the Defence as to whether they objected to all the

14     documents, and Mr. Guy-Smith said at line 13:

15             "With regard to those documents that Mr. Treanor is using which

16     are draft translations, in the absence of information at the present time

17     concerning the accuracy of those translations we object."

18             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mm-hm.

19             MR. GUY-SMITH:  If I might, Your Honour.

20             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes.

21             MR. GUY-SMITH:  You pointed out specifically why this whole issue

22     arose because of --

23             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Also don't repeat what has already been said to

24     us.

25             MR. GUY-SMITH:  No.  Because of the comments made on page 929.

Page 966

 1     But if we continue looking at what I said with regard to this specific

 2     issue, I was quite particularised, as a result of the experience that he

 3     had just had, in terms of the specific document that you yourself were

 4     discussing with Ms. Sutherland which I raised earlier on -- so it's --

 5     it's an inaccurate presentation presently made by the Prosecution, and

 6     the omission --

 7             JUDGE MOLOTO:  The Bench is aware of that.

 8             I think we've got to rule, and ...

 9                           [Trial Chamber confers]

10             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I'm afraid the ruling is going to be somewhat

11     extended, and it's going to go like this.

12             Your objection is upheld, Mr. Guy-Smith, and in resolving the

13     matter on the way forward, the Trial Chamber gives the following ruling:

14             Mr. Treanor, you will be allowed to carry on testifying.  You

15     shall use in your testifying the English version, English translations,

16     and not the B/C/S version.  And if, in your view the translation does

17     not, at any point, does not accord with the B/C/S version, you shall

18     point that out.

19             The Prosecution shall make sure that as soon as possible provides

20     official translations of all the quotations that need to be translated,

21     and at that stage the Defence will make up its mind whether, based on the

22     official translations and the mistakes that may have been pointed out by

23     Mr. Treanor, whether this is an need to recall him or to raise any issue

24     with the Bench.

25             I think, in the interests of time and fairness, that's a better

Page 967

 1     way to go forward.

 2             So Mr. Treanor, henceforth you will use the English translations.

 3     There were supplied I'm sure by the Prosecution, and the Prosecution must

 4     have accepted that they were as close to the B/C/S as can be.  Just so

 5     that we are all on the same page, all of us.

 6             THE WITNESS:  I do not have copies of those translations.

 7             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yesterday we had -- they put them on the e-court

 8     thing.  They had the English and the -- you will look at the English so

 9     that we all are looking at the same.

10             THE WITNESS:  I could perhaps suggest a slight variation of that --

11     no.

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  The order has been made.  Sorry, you can't.

13             Yes, Madam Sutherland.

14             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Your Honour, is it possible in the break that

15     the Prosecution can provide Mr. Treanor with a copy of the English

16     translations so that at least he has them in front of him as opposed --

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Whatever you please.  So long as whatever you give

18     him is the same as what you are going to mount on the screen.

19             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Yes, Your Honour.

20             JUDGE MOLOTO:  We've got five minutes to break.

21             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Could the registrar call up Rule 65 ter number

22     06739, please.

23                           WITNESS:  PATRICK TREANOR [Resumed]

24                           Examination by Ms. Sutherland: [Continued]

25             MS. SUTHERLAND:  And page 10 in the B/C/S and page 11 in the

Page 968

 1     e-court and the B/C/S is obviously for the benefit of the accused.

 2             JUDGE MOLOTO:  It is not, ma'am.  Except for picking up any

 3     discrepancies on the English.

 4             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Yes, Your Honour, I'm sorry.

 5        Q.   Mr. Treanor my question to you yesterday was did the idea of

 6     assisting Serbs outside of Serbia find any additional expression at that

 7     time, and you started to testify about this document.

 8             If you can begin where we left or in fact summarise what you said

 9     yesterday and then move on.

10        A.   Yes, just to recall, this is the programme of the socialist party

11     of Serbia adopted at its founding congress on 16th of July 1990.  I

12     wanted to call the Trial Chamber's attention to the first paragraph under

13     the heading which, in the English says, "Serbian diaspora."  I was going

14     to provide my own translation of that from Serbian.

15             I… and now we can all look at the English and we are all working

16     from the English, I will have to have a look at that and just note the

17     fact that it speaks about providing assistance to portions of the Serbian

18     people living in other republics and recall in this connection that the

19     new socialist party of Serbia was in fact the ruling party in Serbia at

20     that time, they were in a position to give effect to their programme

21     since they were in power.

22             I would also call the Trial Chamber's attention to the fifth

23     paragraph under the heading, "National equality, federalism," where they

24     make reference to a new Yugoslav constitution and the formation of

25     autonomous provinces in Yugoslavia.  The Yugoslav constitution would

Page 969

 1     have been the constitution that might have been produced out of the

 2     discussions that were going on about the reform of the Yugoslav system,

 3     and the programme is advocating the formation of autonomous provinces.

 4     As part of that constitution, under the old constitutions there were only

 5     autonomous provinces within Serbia.  There were no autonomous provinces

 6     in the other republics.

 7             So what is in effect being suggested here is that perhaps

 8     autonomous provinces could be formed in other republics as well.

 9        Q.   And did that idea remain the same in 1991?

10        A.   Well, as we will see in further documents, Serbian autonomous

11     provinces were in fact formed within Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina,

12     which I will refer to as BH.  They were formed by the local Serbian

13     authorities in those republics.

14             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Your Honour, just as a matter in relation to

15     MFIing these documents, I omitted yesterday in relation to the two that

16     were shown to the witness, to ask for them to be MFIed at that point.

17     Should we do this now, before the break?

18             JUDGE MOLOTO:  [Microphone not activated] ... which were shown to

19     the witness yesterday?

20             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Rule 65 number 06812, and this document we're

21     talking about is now which is 06739.

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  06812 was not even admitted just yet.

23             MS. SUTHERLAND:  No.  That's what I'm saying, Your Honour.  I

24     wish to mark it for identification.

25             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Indeed.

Page 970

 1             MS. SUTHERLAND:  And I will actually give you the page of the

 2     transcript that it was referred to so that we're not ...

 3             JUDGE MOLOTO:  65 ter 06812 from yesterday is admitted into

 4     evidence.  May it please be given an exhibit number and marked for

 5     identification.

 6             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Your Honour, if I may that document was first

 7     called up at page 925 of the transcript yesterday.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  06812 will be Exhibit P150, marked for

 9     identification Your Honours.

10             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.  The next one is 06739.

11             MS. SUTHERLAND:  And if I may, Your Honour, that was called up at

12     page 931.

13             THE REGISTRAR:  That will be Exhibit P151, marked for

14     identification, Your Honours.

15             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.  Would then be this -- would

16     this then be a convenient time, Madam Sutherland?

17             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Yes, Your Honour.

18             JUDGE MOLOTO:  We'll take a break and come back at 4.00.

19             Court adjourned.

20                           --- Recess taken at 3.33 p.m.

21                           --- On resuming at 4.00 p.m.

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Before you proceed, Madam Sutherland, let me just

23     clarify the ruling that the Chamber gave.  I just didn't sort of --

24     didn't occur to me when you asked that -- that 65 ter 06812 be MFIed.  I

25     don't think there's a need to MFI it because it was not objected against.

Page 971

 1     We MFI 06739, that is the only one that, at this point, the Chamber is

 2     ordering the Prosecution to give official translation.  However, as

 3     regards the witness, right through his testimony, he must read the

 4     English.  Okay?

 5             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Yes, Your Honour.

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  So anything else will have to be objected to

 7     before an order can be given and what should be done with it, everything

 8     else.

 9             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Just so I make sure I'm clear on the rulings of

10     the road.  With regard to any further exhibits that are used by the

11     witness in the event there is an objection, I should make it at that time

12     so that the record is clear if that regard.

13             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes.

14             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Okay, very good.  I have a quick question based

15     upon the Chamber's previous ruling, which is, I don't know whether or not

16     the witness is in possession of any notes independent of his report for

17     purposes of assisting him in his testimony; and I would just like to be

18     clear about the fact is what is the document or the binder that he have

19     in front of him at this point so, once again, we're all working on the

20     same page.

21             I don't have if very any special notes that exist independent of

22     the document itself.

23             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I'm sure can you find that out during your

24     cross-examination.

25             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Very well.

Page 972

 1             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You may proceed.

 2             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Thank you, Your Honour.  Would the registrar

 3     call up Rule 65 ter number 06628.

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Sorry.  Madam Registrar, will you please delete MFI

 5     to yesterday's -- 65 ter 6812.  It will be an exhibit.

 6             THE REGISTRAR:  That will now be Exhibit P150, Your Honour.

 7             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.

 8             You were calling?

 9             MS. SUTHERLAND:  06628.

10        Q.   Mr. Treanor, this is a speech to the presidents of the

11     municipalities of the Republic of Serbia by Slobodan Milosevic.  Can you

12     tell the Court the significance of Mr. Milosevic's speech on the 16th of

13     March, 1991, if can you confirm that date.

14        A.   Yes, that's the date of the speech.  I'd just like to provide a

15     little bit of context first for the speech which takes place several

16     months later than the last document we saw.

17             In the intervening period, the new constitution of Serbia had

18     been adopted on the 28th of September 1990; on the same date it was

19     announced that multi-party elections would take place in December.  They

20     took place in December.  They were elections for the new national

21     assembly of Serbia and for the new office of president of Serbia,

22     previously there had been only been a Presidency with a president of the

23     Presidency.

24             Slobodan Milosevic was elected president of Serbia by a

25     substantial majority, I think about 65 per cent.  His party the SPS the

Page 973

 1     Socialist Party of Serbia did not win a majority of the votes in the

 2     election.  However, they did win a large majority of the seats in the

 3     assembly so they were still the ruling party.

 4             In March, the time -- the month that the speech was given, there

 5     were demonstrations in Belgrade, beginning on the 9th of March in --

 6     protesting against the control of the press.  There were

 7     counter-demonstrations.  The army appeared in the streets for a while.

 8     This speech was delivered in the midst of that series of demonstrations,

 9     and in the portions that we're going to be looking at here,

10     Slobodan Milosevic refers to some of the points that we have seen already

11     in relation to the future of Yugoslavia rather than the internal

12     situation in Serbia.

13             MS. SUTHERLAND:  If the registrar can highlight the text starting

14     with the sentences:  "We told them ... gentlemen" on page 1 of the

15     English translation.

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Highlight ...

17             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Blow up, Your Honour.  I have been told it's

18     already at its maximum.

19        Q.   So, Dr. Treanor, please take the Trial Chamber to the portions

20     that you deem important.

21        A.   Yes.  Well, in the sentence beginning on the fifth line from the

22     top, we told them, gentleman, I'd like to call the Court' attention to

23     that passage.  The gentlemen being referred to are Croatian leaders or at

24     least Croatian officials.  He is referring to discussions that they have

25     been having, the Serbian leader have been having with Croatian leaders

Page 974

 1     about the future of Yugoslavia during this period beginning in

 2     February 1991.  It continued for several months.  There were periodic

 3     meetings among the presidents of all the republics to Yugoslavia to

 4     resolve the issue of the future of the country and the two main options

 5     that were -- figured in those discussions were confederation versus

 6     federation.  Two concepts we have already seen.

 7             Here Milosevic is expressing his -- the basis for his -- part of

 8     the basis for his objection to the idea of a confederation; namely, that

 9     it would make Serbs living outside of Serbia national minorities in

10     independent states.

11        Q.   If we could go to page two.

12        A.   I'd now like to call the Court's attention to the -- I think it's

13     the third full paragraph on that page, beginning with:

14             "We must ensure unity in Serbia."

15             And here Mr. Milosevic again refers to the idea of borders which

16     he describes as an essential state issue and expresses the thought that

17     borders are always decided by the strong.

18        Q.   If we can go to page 3.  Page 3 of the English translation.

19        A.   As we saw before, he had indicated in one of the -- I think the

20     first speech we saw, that if it was -- if a confederation was to come

21     about that the question of the borders would be reopened.

22             Now, on page 3 right at the very top, I'd just like to point out

23     that in the first two lines, he indicates that he has been in touch with

24     Serbian leaders in Croatia and Bosnia, Knin being the centre of the

25     Croatian Serbs.  And the paragraph goes on to describe the situation as

Page 975

 1     Milan Babic, the leader of the Croatian Serbs, has related to him.

 2             Then toward the bottom of that paragraph, I would call the

 3     Court's attention to the second-to-last sentence, beginning with:

 4             "I hope that we shall not have these problems."

 5             Here he refers to one of the solutions that he favours for

 6     solving the impasse over the future of the country; namely the idea of a

 7     referendum of nations.  He made a distinction, a sharp distinction

 8     between a referendum within a given republic, as opposed to a referendum

 9     among members a particular nation; for instance, the Serbian nation.  He

10     was not willing to accept, for instance, that a referendum would be held

11     in Croatia and the majority of people in Croatia would vote for the

12     independence of Croatia for instance by outvoting the Serbs in Croatia.

13     He was perfectly happy to see the Croats leave Yugoslavia, if they so

14     desired, but that nations that wanted to stay within Yugoslavia - for

15     instance the Serbs - should be permitted to do so, and the method he

16     proposed to accomplish that by was by referendum -- a referendum among

17     individual nations in Yugoslavia.

18        Q.   What was Mr. Milosevic's position --

19             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Excuse me, if I might, I'm sorry, and I

20     understand that the witness has been asked to point out areas that he

21     believed are important but there -- no question has been directed with

22     regard to what the importance is of these areas.  He then has recited a

23     particular passage and then from then has included information that may

24     well be within the context of this particular speech or passage, or may

25     not be.

Page 976

 1             But right now, the question and answer procedures is relatively

 2     free flowing.  What is of importance to the witness, among other things

 3     is most probably irrelevant unless this is a question directed as to why

 4     he is giving these particular response, which we don't have any guidance

 5     for right now.  And I suggest that we have a question devoted to the

 6     witness other than what is the next thing you believe to be of

 7     importance, because that is irrelevant, what he believes to be important,

 8     in the context of the manner of the questioning thus far.

 9             It is not connected to a subject.  It's connected to an internal

10     thinking process which we have not been exposed to.

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Madam Sutherland.

12             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Your Honour, Mr. Treanor gave evidence about the

13     formation of the autonomous provinces of Yugoslavia, and then I asked him

14     about this next document to -- did that idea remain the same and brought

15     this document up.  He was explaining how Milosevic addressed a number of

16     persons and told them basically we will ensure unity in Serbia.  He is

17     answering my questions and doing it through a document and directing to

18     Your Honours to what he deems is to be the most important paragraphs in

19     those documents.

20             He can simply direct Your Honours to those paragraphs but give

21     you his evidence in relation to that.

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  The nub of the objection is that you -- excuse me,

23     I'm sorry.  You as the person asking questions should put a question to

24     him that demonstrates why that portion that he is dealing with should be

25     regarded as important, not just say and then page 3 of English and then

Page 977

 1     he looks at the paragraph, talks and then page 4.  That's the point of

 2     the objection.  Not that you are not asking question but that are you not

 3     asking a question that should illustrate why that particular passage is

 4     being chosen.

 5             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I'm going to object to another problem.  I notice

 6     that the witness is reading his binder in Serbian as opposed to confining

 7     himself to dealing with the English translations.  So he is apparently

 8     preparing himself for something, I don't know the exact nature of which,

 9     which is outside of the purview which the questioning process was to

10     occur.

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Is it correct, Mr. Treanor, that you're looking at

12     your Serbian documents there.

13             THE WITNESS:  Yes, indeed I'm under the impression that have I

14     been invited to call the Court's attention to any discrepancies that I

15     see between Serbian and English.

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Sure.  Indeed you have been.  You have looked at

17     the Serbian documents; you know what the Serbian documents say.

18             THE WITNESS:  Yes, Your Honour.  I don't have them memorized

19     though and I have just been given the English.

20             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Then it -- okay.  To that extent, you are allowed

21     to look at them.

22             If can you sort of demonstrate the significance of the passages

23     that you are -- he is being directed to.

24             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Your Honour, the significance -- I mean, I don't

25     want to give evidence from the bar table.

Page 978

 1             JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated]

 2             MS. SUTHERLAND.

 3        Q.   So, Mr. Treanor, what was the significance of ensuring unity in

 4     Serbia and the issue of the borders?

 5        A.   Well, Mr. Milosevic indicates that Serbia had to be strong in

 6     order to obtain the borders that it might desire.

 7             JUDGE MOLOTO:  That is not an answer to the question,

 8     Mr. Treanor.  You're repeating what Milosevic is saying.  The question is

 9     what is the significance of what -- of wanting to be strong, to obtain

10     their desires.

11             THE WITNESS:  Well, it -- I could indicate, as is indicated in

12     the next passage that I'd like to direct the Court's attention to, in the

13     same document, which is on page 4 of the English.  Toward the bottom of

14     the page, just above where it says, "Cvetkovic," out in the left hand --

15     Mr. Milosevic indicates that if anyone wanted to secede from Yugoslavia

16     by attacking Serbian settlements that the -- that the army might

17     intervene.

18             In other words, the use of force and a show of strength might be

19     necessary to prevent attacks on Serbian settlements and the purpose of

20     which will be presumably to take them out of Yugoslavia.

21             MS. SUTHERLAND:

22        Q.   What was Mr. Milosevic's position, after Slovenia and Croatia

23     declared independence at the end of June 1991?

24        A.   I think that the next document that we're going to look at will

25     indicate that.

Page 979

 1             MS. SUTHERLAND:  If 65 ter number 06667 could be shown, please.

 2     Sorry, can I -- can I tender that document into evidence, please, Your

 3     Honour.

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes, Mr. Guy-Smith.

 5             MR. GUY-SMITH:  We would object to the admission of this document

 6     at this time.

 7             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mm-hm.  Basis?

 8             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I have noted that there are some differences

 9     between information that is contained in Mr. Treanor's report, in terms

10     of translation and the document itself.  And in the absence of being able

11     to go through this document completely, and specifically with regard to

12     those portions just testified to by Mr. Treanor, in terms of the accuracy

13     of the information contained therein, we would object.  Because I

14     can't -- my concern is that if Mr. Treanor is indicating at this point

15     that he does not have any distinction as between his -- his

16     interpretation/translation of the document, that was in English and this

17     is not an official translated document, we're in a position where we

18     can't agree at the moment to this document.

19             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Sorry, Mr. Guy-Smith.  What is the discrepancy?

20     We're in the dark.  You picked up the discrepancy between the information

21     in the report and the translations.  What is that discrepancy?

22             MR. GUY-SMITH:  It is on -- in his report -- I'm sorry.  Just a

23     minute, please.

24             In his report, which is 65 ter number 06646-01, with regard to

25     the specific issue of strength, as he is characterizes it, he indicates

Page 980

 1     in his report at page 11 that, at the very bottom of the page, with

 2     regard to what he has quoted, the last two sentences:

 3             "These are issues of the borders; therefore, essential state

 4     issues and borders, as you know, are always dictated by the strong, never

 5     by the weak."

 6             And the term "dictated" as opposed to the term "decided" have a

 7     context just difference.

 8             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Where is decided mentioned?  Here it says dictated

 9     where you referred us to and where is decided mentioned not with the

10     previous page on this document, on the screen.

11             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Yes, I believe it would be.

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Can we go back to the previous page, please.

13             In the English, Madam Registrar.

14             MS. SUTHERLAND:  If I can assist, Your Honour, it's on page 2, at

15     the middle of the page.

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mm-hm.  It hasn't been tendered yet.

17             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Yes, at page 2 in the middle of the page, it

18     says:

19             "The border should, therefore, is an essential state issue and as

20     you know borders are always decided upon by the strong, never the weak."

21             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I'm just waiting for the page to be turned.

22             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Oh, I'm sorry.

23             JUDGE MOLOTO:  While we're waiting, your learned friend conceded

24     that it says decided there, I guess you are, Madam Sutherland.  Does the

25     document on the screen talk of decided, do you agree with that?

Page 981

 1             MS. SUTHERLAND:  The document says decided, yes; and the report

 2     says dictated.

 3             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Very well.  I withdraw my objection, and then I

 4     guess I withdraw my objection at this time and aware that it is a matter

 5     of the accuracy of the report.

 6             THE WITNESS:  Well I think I get to say something.

 7             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Excuse me, Mr. Treanor there is it no pending

 8     question.

 9             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Sorry, Mr. Treanor.

10             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I apologise, Your Honour.

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Sure.  Sorry, sorry.

12             Mr. Treanor, as I indicated to you earlier, when this is an

13     objection you're out of it.

14             THE WITNESS:  Sorry, Your Honour.

15             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.

16             So you withdraw your objection.

17             You may proceed, Madam Sutherland.

18             MS. SUTHERLAND:  So, Your Honours, that is admitted into

19     evidence, that document?

20             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes.  It will have to be MFIed because your

21     learned friend has now raised an objection, at least there is a

22     difference that you agree that the one document says "decided" the other

23     one says "dictated."

24             This is it, 06628, isn't it?  Is that it?

25             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Yes, Your Honour.

Page 982

 1             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay, fine.

 2             THE REGISTRAR:  That will be Exhibit P152, marked for

 3     identification, Your Honours.

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.

 5             You may proceed.

 6             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Could the registrar please call up Rule 65 ter

 7     06667.

 8        Q.   Mr. Treanor, you asked for this document to be called up in

 9     relation to the question that I put to you.

10        A.   May I be allowed to comment on discrepancy between the

11     translation -- that you have been provided and my rendering of the

12     previous document, an issue which has been broached?

13             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You can offer the discrepancies, explanation.

14             THE WITNESS:  I'm sorry I didn't earlier, Your Honour.  I have

15     just been presented with these documents in English which I have never

16     seen them before, and I'm new to this particular process.

17             In the Serbian, the word that apparently rendered as decided or

18     decide in the translation is "dikteriu," [phoen] which is a much stronger

19     term which I rendered as dictated or dictate.

20             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.  We will wait for official

21     translation.

22             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Your Honour.  I do note in the English

23     translation that the sentence starts:

24             "We must ensure unity in Serbia if we want to dictate the course

25     of the events."

Page 983

 1             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Sure.  But that is it not the sentence that was

 2     being referred to by Mr. Guy-Smith.  It's a different sentence.

 3             THE WITNESS:  It's the same verb used later on in that passage.

 4     So the same verb has been translated in different ways.

 5             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I think that's why we have the benefit of CLSS so

 6     they can make an independent determination of what is accurate or

 7     appropriate unless at this time Mr. Treanor is offering himself also as

 8     an expert, as a translator, which I don't think he was proffered as.

 9             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Your Honour, can I note for the record that is a

10     final CLSS translation that we're looking at on the screen.

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  That's fine.  We've got to resolve the problems.

12     The point of the matter it may very well, Mr. Treanor, that we still need

13     the official translation from CLSS.  We note your pointing the difference

14     and talking about it, and giving your view about it; but, still, we must

15     await the official translation.

16             THE WITNESS:  Thank you, Your Honour.

17             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Thank you, Your Honour.

18             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

19             MS. SUTHERLAND:

20        Q.   Mr. Treanor, if you can proceed to answer the question that was

21     put to you?

22        A.   I'm sorry, could you repeat the question.

23        Q.   It was, what was Mr. Milosevic's position after Slovenia and

24     Croatia declared their independence at the end of June 1991.

25        A.   In that connection, I would direct the Court's attention to the

Page 984

 1     last paragraph on this page.  The sentence beginning with:

 2             "Serbia's standpoint is that all disputes can be solved

 3     peacefully."

 4             And he advocates that the solution be based on respect or the

 5     right to self-determination of peoples.

 6             And if we can move to the next page.  And then he concludes that

 7     the passage by saying:

 8             "The Yugoslav People's Army should provide the aforementioned

 9     peoples with support and with the support of all the political

10     institutions and peace forces."

11             So he is suggesting that the Yugoslav People's Army can be -- can

12     play a role in that process.

13        Q.   What was happening on the ground at this time?

14        A.   Pardon me, I think we lost track of the course of the

15     developments.  I think you mentioned that Croatia and Slovenia had

16     declared independence on the 25th of June, 1991.  The speech was

17     delivered a week or so later.  Fighting had broken out in Slovenia and by

18     this time had stopped, but the situation in Croatia was becoming very

19     tense.

20             MS. SUTHERLAND:  I would ask for that document to be admitted,

21     Your Honour.

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  65 ter 06667 is admitted into evidence.  May it

23     please be given an exhibit number.

24             THE REGISTRAR:  That will be Exhibit P153, Your Honours.

25             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

Page 985

 1             MS. SUTHERLAND:

 2        Q.   Mr. Treanor, if we can start with the Serbs in the Republic of

 3     Croatia.  What were their basic principles and goals?

 4        A.   I think we're moving on to the next document now?

 5             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Could I have Rule 65 ter number --

 6        A.   Or we haven't quite finished with this one.  I think there may

 7     be ...

 8             I wanted to call the Court's attention to the second sentence in

 9     the next paragraph.

10             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Sorry which document are we dealing with?

11             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Sorry we're back on 06667, Your Honour.

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Sure.  They have been --

13             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Sorry P153, I'm sorry, Your Honour.

14             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Make sure you are conducting the proceedings,

15     ma'am.  Okay, what page is that?  Same page?

16             THE WITNESS:  Yes, the page that is on the screen, Your Honour,

17     in the next paragraph, he makes reference to the -- his belief that the

18     Yugoslav People's Army should be present in the territories inhabited by

19     the peoples that have chosen to live in Yugoslavia.  He gets more

20     specific about what he thinks the role of the army should be in this

21     situation, among the peoples, of course, that ones that remained in

22     Yugoslavia was the Serbian people.

23        Q.   Now, can we, looking at document, Rule 65 ter number 06702, what

24     were the basic principle and goals for the Serbian people in Croatia?

25        A.   Right.  Now we're moving back a little bit in time to follow

Page 986

 1     developments on a little bit closer to the ground in Croatia,

 2     specifically among the Serbs in Croatia.  I mentioned before that in 1990

 3     the process had begun of the formation of non-Communist political parties

 4     in the various republics in Yugoslavia.  The particular document in front

 5     of us now is a founding document of what was known as the Serbian

 6     Democratic Party in Croatia and among other things this document sets out

 7     its programmatic goals; and I just want to draw the Court's attention to

 8     one point in that programme.

 9             MS. SUTHERLAND:  I think if the registrar can bring up page

10     number 15 of the English translation and it's page number 9 of the B/C/S.

11        A.   Here we see the newly formed party advocating the idea of the

12     formation of what refers to as territorial autonomies within Yugoslavia.

13     Again, reference is made to federalism; that is, territorial autonomies

14     within a federal Yugoslavia.  The term, "territorial autonomies" was one

15     that was later used in the new constitution of the Republic of Serbia

16     referred to earlier.  It used that phrase to describe type of autonomy

17     that that constitution provided for the provinces of Vojvodina and

18     Kosovo.

19             So, here, the Serbian Democratic Party in Croatia is advocating

20     that type of solution as well and would like to see that happen in

21     Croatia on the basis of a referendum.

22             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Your Honour, I would ask that that document be

23     admitted.

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  The document is admitted into evidence.  May it

25     please be given an exhibit number.

Page 987

 1             THE REGISTRAR:  That would be Exhibit P154, Your Honours.

 2             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

 3             MS. SUTHERLAND:

 4        Q.   Mr. Treanor was this territorial autonomy realized in Croatia?

 5        A.   Not at this time.  The document we just saw, February 1990, was

 6     issued before the elections in Croatia, the multi-party elections which

 7     took place in April, which resulted in the victory of the Croatian

 8     democratic community, the HDZ, which was a non-Communist party led by

 9     Franjo Tudjman.  That party formed the government, the new government of

10     the Croatia; and Franjo Tudjman was elected president of the Presidency

11     of Croatia.

12        Q.   Were any --

13        A.   That government was not disposed to -- to grant territorial

14     autonomy to -- at that time to the Serbs in Croatia, and in fact

15     proceeded with the process of drafting a new constitution for Croatia.

16        Q.   Just briefly, were there any community of municipalities

17     constituted in Croatia?

18        A.   Yes.  On their own initiative, certain municipalities in Croatia,

19     which -- which had Serbian majorities, formed after the elections in

20     Croatia, what they called a community of municipalities.  That was at the

21     end of June 1990.

22             The -- within the Yugoslav system, communities of municipalities

23     were a recognised substitution they were ordinarily formed by

24     municipalities in a republic that had similar interests; for instance

25     developing the tourist trade and they would band together for the purpose

Page 988

 1     of promoting the joint interests in that area.  They were voluntary

 2     associations.  They didn't have any power to make laws.  They -- they

 3     could, however, agree among themselves as to certain courses of action

 4     which the municipal assemblies would have to adopt.

 5             The one that was formed in Croatia that we're referring to by the

 6     Serbian municipalities did not in fact really assign itself any

 7     particular function.

 8             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Your Honour, may that -- no, that is already

 9     admitted, I'm sorry.

10        Q.   Mr. Treanor, what further steps did the Serbs in Croatia take in

11     pursuit of the goals?  Was any declaration made by them?

12        A.   Yes.  I think the next document we'll see --

13             MS. SUTHERLAND:  If 65 ter 06709 could be brought up.

14        A.   This document provides a little more concrete expression as to

15     what certain Serbian leaders in Croatia striving for at this time.  This

16     document is dated the 25th of July, 1990, about a month after the

17     community of municipalities was formed.

18             This is a declaration that was adopted at a meeting of what was

19     called a Serbian Assembly in the village of Srb in Croatia on that date,

20     and this declaration asserts that the Serbian people in Croatia are a

21     sovereign people.  That's in the -- item number 1.  And then in the next

22     paragraph, it -- the next paragraph on the page we were looking at.

23             It asserts that the Serbian nation in Croatia is entitled to opt

24     either for a federal or a confederal system, a state, either jointly with

25     the Croatian nation or independently.  So it is raising the idea here

Page 989

 1     that the Serbian nation in Croatia could become independent of Croatia.

 2        Q.   Did they take steps to do that?

 3        A.   Well, as part of this particular document, if we can go to item

 4     number 3 on the next page.  Must be the next page in the English.  This

 5     declaration establishes a -- what is called as a -- the Serbian Assembly as

 6     the political representative of the Serbian people.  So they began to

 7     establish their own hierarchical structure.  And as an executive organ

 8     for that assembly, it established a -- which is here referred to as a

 9     Sabor, it established as a executive organ a Serbian National Council

10     in -- which is further described in paragraph number 4 on that page,

11     referring to a referendum of the Serbian people.

12             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Your Honour, may that document be admitted into

13     evidence.

14             JUDGE MOLOTO:  The document is admitted into evidence.  May it

15     please be given an exhibit number.

16             THE REGISTRAR:  That will be Exhibit P155, Your Honours.

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

18             MS. SUTHERLAND:

19        Q.   Mr. Treanor, was the referendum, in fact, held?

20        A.   Yes.  The -- I think the next document will tell us something

21     about that.

22             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Rule 65 ter number 06704, please.  Page 2 of the

23     English translation and page 1 of the B/C/S.

24        Q.   What document is this, Dr. Treanor -- Mr. Treanor.

25        A.   We see here a report on the results of the referendum.  The

Page 990

 1     report states that the Serbian National Council, in fact, decided to hold

 2     a referendum of the Serbian people in Croatia, a decision that was taken

 3     on the 16th of August, 1990.

 4             And the report indicates that voting was, in fact, carried out;

 5     and the results are given in paragraph 3.  Or it gives the number of

 6     people who voted in favour of Serbian autonomy, which is the overwhelming

 7     majority of people that, according to the report, participated in this

 8     referendum.

 9             So here we have the -- a declaration, an assertion, a

10     confirmation of the desire of the Serbian people in Croatia for autonomy.

11             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Your Honour, can that document be admitted into

12     evidence.

13             JUDGE MOLOTO:  The document is admitted into evidence.  May it

14     please be given an exhibit number.

15             THE REGISTRAR:  That will be Exhibit P156, Your Honours.

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.

17             MS. SUTHERLAND:

18        Q.   After the referendum, did the Serbs in Croatia further develop

19     the use of Serbian autonomy and, in fact, institute it?

20        A.   Yes.  They --

21             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Can we have Rule 65 ter number 06436.

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  0 ...

23             MS. SUTHERLAND:  6436.

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

25        Q.   Mr. Treanor, you said, Yes.  When did this occur?

Page 991

 1        A.   Well, this document is dated the 19th of December, 1990.  This

 2     was just a few days before the proclamation of the new constitution of

 3     Croatian, an event which took place on the 22nd of December, 1990.  Many

 4     Serbs in Croatia were dissatisfied with that new constitution.  It did

 5     not provide for a type of autonomous region that they might have wanted,

 6     and it failed to mention the Serbian people in the constitution as one of

 7     the constituent nations of Croatia.

 8             We see in this document -- the proclamation -- or the statute of

 9     a so-called Serbian Autonomous District or region.  I'm not sure which

10     translation is being given here.  Because I don't see the first page.

11     But I would just like to call the Court's attention to Article 1 which is

12     being displayed.  Yes, it says here the Serbian Autonomous District of

13     Krajina will be a form of territorial autonomy within Croatia.  Again,

14     the use of the expression, "territorial autonomy."  If I could just check

15     that in the original, which I think I can read on the screen.

16             Yes.

17             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Your Honour, may that --

18             THE WITNESS:  The Article further states the purpose for the

19     establishment of the Serbian Autonomous District, which is namely to

20     safeguard the -- among other things the national equality of the Serbian

21     people in Croatia.

22             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Your Honour, may that document be tendered into

23     evidence.

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.  The document is admitted

25     into evidence.  May it please be given an exhibit number.

Page 992

 1             THE REGISTRAR:  That will be Exhibit P157, Your Honours.

 2             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.

 3             MS. SUTHERLAND:

 4        Q.   Mr. Treanor, did the SAO Krajina disassociate itself from the

 5     Republic of Croatia?

 6        A.   Yes.  I think we're going to see a document on that.

 7             MS. SUTHERLAND:  May I have Rule 65 ter number 06699.  Page 2 of

 8     the English translation and page 1 of the B/C/S.

 9        A.   This document is a resolution adopted by the Serbian National

10     Council on the 28th of February, 1991.

11             This resolution was adopted, I believe, two days after the

12     Assembly of the Republic of Croatia adopted a resolution which, foresaw a

13     negotiating process or participating in a negotiating process for the

14     breakup of the former Yugoslavia and foresaw the establishments of the

15     republics as independent states and expressed a willingness to enter into

16     various types of association with the other republics on the basis of the

17     independence of each of them.

18             This was precisely what many of the Serbs in Croatia did not want

19     to see happen.  So we see in this resolution, in the first paragraph, its

20     rejection -- the Serbian National Council of the idea of separating from

21     Yugoslavia; and in the paragraph 4, which I would call the Court's

22     attention, the resolution states that federal laws and the laws of the

23     Serbian Autonomous District would be applied in the territory of the

24     Serbian Autonomous District and the laws of Croatia would only be applied

25     if they were not in opposition to those laws.  So this represents a major

Page 993

 1     step towards separating from Croatia.

 2             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Your Honour, may that document be tendered into

 3     evidence.

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  The document is admitted into evidence.  May it

 5     please be given an exhibit number.

 6             THE REGISTRAR:  That will be Exhibit P158, Your Honours.

 7             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.

 8             MS. SUTHERLAND:

 9        Q.   You mentioned that it represented a major step towards separating

10     from Croatia.  Was a decision ever made to join the Republic of Serbia?

11        A.   Yes.  We'll see -- the next document relating to that.

12             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Rule 65 number 06740, please.

13        Q.   When was this?

14        A.   This document represents a decision passed by the Executive

15     Council of the Serbian Autonomous District of Krajina on the 1st of

16     April, 1991.  This was, I think, six days after the Croatian Assembly

17     passed a resolution calling for a referendum in Croatia on the issue of

18     independence and federation.

19             The referendum question had -- two referendum questions: one

20     related to whether people wanted Croatia to be a sovereign and

21     independent state, and the other question was whether they wished to

22     remain within the Yugoslav federation.  Those were to be the questions in

23     a referendum scheduled for May.  So we see this decision, passed on the

24     1st of April, which as we can see in Article 1 to which I draw the

25     Court's attention, the Serbian Autonomous District is now said to join

Page 994

 1     itself to the Republic of Serbia.

 2             And Article 2 goes on to describe that, stating that the laws of

 3     Serbia will now be valid in the Serbian Autonomous Districts.

 4        Q.   And the legal regulations that are in force within the

 5     SAO Krajina?

 6        A.   Again those are said to be the laws of the Republic of Serbia and

 7     of the SFRY.  That is, the Federation.  Again, in Article 2.

 8        Q.   Does this decision make reference to whether the SAO Krajina is

 9     going to become part of a unitary state?

10        A.   Well, it makes reference to Serbia as being a unitary state.

11     That is, Serbia itself not being a federation or a confederation.

12             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Your Honour, may that document be admitted.

13             JUDGE MOLOTO:  The document is admitted into evidence.  May it

14     please be given an exhibit number.

15             THE REGISTRAR:  That will be Exhibit P159, Your Honours.

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.

17             MS. SUTHERLAND:

18        Q.   What decisions were taken at the 1st Assembly of the SAO Krajina?

19        A.   I think the next document we're going to see is a decision.

20             MS. SUTHERLAND:  If I could Rule 65 ter number 06666.

21        A.   A decision adopted at that session on the 30th of April, 1991,

22     which elects Milan Babic as the president of the Executive Council of the

23     Serbian Autonomous District of Krajina.

24             The translation uses the word "region" here which is the

25     translation of the same word that was translated as "district" in the

Page 995

 1     previous documents.

 2        Q.   And in that document it is decided to hold a referendum.  Is that

 3     the case?  What is the question for the referendum?

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  [Overlapping speakers] ...

 5             THE WITNESS:  This document does not mention referendum.  May I

 6     skipped one?  Have I skipped one.  I'm sorry, yes.  It's the previous

 7     document.  Which is a decision made on the same day.  The previous

 8     document in my binder.  Perhaps it's the next one in your series.  They

 9     were two decisions adopted by the Executive Council of the Serbian

10     Autonomous Region on the 1st of April.

11             MS. SUTHERLAND:  First of all, if document number 06666 can be

12     admitted into evidence.

13             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Document 06666 the document is admitted into

14     evidence.  May it please be given an exhibit number.

15             THE REGISTRAR:  That will be Exhibit P160, Your Honours.

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

17             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Can we have Rule 65 ter number 06717.

18        Q.   Mr. Treanor, was a referendum, in fact, held?  And what were

19     the -- what was decided as to that referendum?

20        A.   Yes.  Now, I mentioned that a referendum had been scheduled by

21     the Republic of Croatia to take place on the -- it was the 19th of May.

22     The Serbs in Croatia, pursuant to a decision by the Serbian National --

23     the Serbian Autonomous District held their own referendum on the 12th of

24     May, and I would direct the Court's attention to Article 1 of this

25     decision.  Which says that on the basis of the results of that referendum

Page 996

 1     the SAO Krajina, the Serbian Autonomous District of Krajina, is to remain

 2     in a joint state in Yugoslavia with Serbia, Montenegro, and others who

 3     wish to preserve Yugoslavia.

 4             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I'm sorry -- I apologise, Your Honour.

 5             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Go ahead.

 6             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Perhaps I'm reading a different document than

 7     that which the witness is discussing.  Article 1, as I see it, doesn't

 8     discuss any basis of any referendum.  It just discusses a fact in terms

 9     of what occurred.

10             THE WITNESS:  I'm sorry.

11             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Perhaps I'm looking at the wrong document.

12             THE WITNESS:  [Overlapping speakers] ...

13             JUDGE MOLOTO:  The Bench is looking at a document which says:

14             "Decision on-calling a referendum on the accession of SAO Krajina

15     to the Republic of Serbia and on remaining Yugoslavia with Serbia,

16     Montenegro and others who want to preserve Yugoslavia."

17             And Article 1 then says:

18             "Referendum on the accession of SAO Krajina to the Republic of

19     Serbia and on remaining in Yugoslavia with Serbia Montenegro and others

20     who want to preserve Yugoslavia is hereby being called."

21             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Right.  As I understood it Article 1 dealt with

22     the fact of a referendum being called and nothing more.

23             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.  That's what I'm looking at.

24             Are we on the same page, Madam Sutherland.

25             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Yes, Your Honour.  Yes, Your Honour that is what

Page 997

 1     Mr. Treanor just said.

 2             THE WITNESS:  I don't appear to have that document in my binder.

 3     That's why I was confused.  I'm sorry for the confusion I caused.  This

 4     is this another decision passed at that session on the 30th of April that

 5     we saw the other two decisions from.

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  [Overlapping speakers] ...

 7             MS. SUTHERLAND:  17th May, 1991.

 8             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Say that again?

 9             MS. SUTHERLAND:  The document that we're looking at which is

10     06717, is dated the 17th of May, 1991.

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Well, then, I've got a problem, because Article 2

12     of this document says the referendum will be carried out in the territory

13     of Serbian Autonomous Region, Krajina on the 12th of April, 1991, a date

14     that has already passed.

15             MS. SUTHERLAND:  I'm sorry, Your Honour.  I'm sorry.  It's my

16     fault for the confusion.

17             This, I assume.

18        Q.   And, Mr. Treanor, can you shed any light on it.  Is this the date

19     of the publication of the Official Gazette?

20        A.   This is does not look like something from the Official Gazette.

21     What I'm looking at on the screen.

22        Q.   If you can -- the page -- the English translation be the top of

23     the page.

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Are you referring to 17th of May, 1991?

25                           [Trial Chamber confers]

Page 998

 1             MS. SUTHERLAND:

 2        Q.   Is the date when the Official Gazette was published, the 17th of

 3     May?

 4        A.   Yes.  If I can see the previous page in the Serbian.  If we could

 5     blow that up.  I'm sorry, I don't have this document in my binder.

 6             This is a decision that was passed on the 30th of April at the

 7     session I referred to before.

 8        Q.   And that's in the first paragraph of the English translation, is

 9     it not?

10        A.   Yes, in the preamble.  Pursuant to the people's right.  At the

11     last line it says that a session held on 30th of April, 1991.  And

12     Article 2 does in fact say that it will be held on 12/04/91 that is the

13     12th of April, 1991, which is --

14             JUDGE MOLOTO:  If you say the decision was on the 30th of

15     April then the date has passed already.

16             THE WITNESS:  This is obviously a misprint.

17             MS. SUTHERLAND:  A typographical error in the --

18             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Excuse me, I don't think anyone at this point is

19     qualified to discuss what that is.  Whether it's obviously a misprint or

20     anything else questions.  Obviously some questions about the -- this

21     particular document, potentially the authenticity of this document, and

22     whether or not this document is an official document; and I don't think

23     any conjecture should be made in the absence to further qualifications

24     with regard to such matters.

25             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Your Honour, can we mark this document for

Page 999

 1     identification, please?

 2             JUDGE MOLOTO:  It may be so marked and be given exhibit number.

 3             THE REGISTRAR:  That will Exhibit P161, marked for

 4     identification, Your Honours.

 5             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

 6             MS. SUTHERLAND:

 7        Q.   Mr. Treanor, can I just take to you Article 3?

 8             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Article 3 of what, ma'am?

 9             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Of the document we were just looking at, P161.

10        Q.   What does Article 3 state?

11        A.   Article 3 --

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Can we push up the English, please.

13        A.    -- relates to the question that will be used at the referendum;

14     namely do you support the accession of --

15             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Article -- oh.

16        A.   On the next page in the English it has the question.

17             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Page 2 of the English translation.

18        A.   And as the Court can see, the question is:  Do you support the

19     accession of the SAO, that is Serbian Autonomous District of Krajina to

20     the Republic of Serbia, et cetera.

21        Q.   Were any constitutional laws proclaimed by the SAO Krajina?

22        A.   Yes.  After the referendum, which we have been discussing.

23             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Could I have 65 ter number 06441 on the screen.

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  06441.

25             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Yes, Your Honour.

Page 1000

 1        Q.   What were the constitutional laws that were proclaimed?

 2        A.   On the 29th of May, 1991, it would have within ten days after the

 3     Croatian referendum on the 19th of May a referendum which produced very

 4     large majorities in favour of a sovereign and independent Croatia and

 5     against remaining in the Yugoslavia federation.

 6             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I do apologise, sir.  That is non-responsive to

 7     the question that was asked.  The specific question was asked, which was,

 8     What were the constitutional laws that were proclaimed.  If he wishes to

 9     explain something thereafter, that's a different matter, but he should be

10     directed to answer the question posited.

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Madam Sutherland.

12             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Your Honour, I think in answering my question

13     Dr. Treanor is giving the background to the -- to the law that was

14     proclaimed.

15        Q.   But, Mr. Treanor, can you answer in -- in one sentence what were

16     the constitutional laws which were proclaimed?

17        A.   On the -- again on the 29th of May, the Assembly of the Serbian

18     Autonomous District of Krajina, adopted a constitutional law which we see

19     before us, in which I would call the Court's attention to Article 1 in

20     which reference is now made to the Serbian Autonomous District of Krajina

21     as a form of political and territorial autonomy within federative

22     Yugoslavia.  As the Court will recall the phrase territorial autonomy had

23     been used now that that is being expanded to describe this district as

24     having political territorial autonomy.

25             Further on in the document.

Page 1001

 1             MS. SUTHERLAND:  That's on page 3 of the English translation.

 2        A.   I would call the Court's attention to Article 6 of this

 3     constitutional law, which establishes the -- various organs of government

 4     for the autonomous district.

 5             MS. SUTHERLAND:  May that be admitted into evidence -- sorry.

 6        A.   Sorry, the particular Article goes on to -- states that the

 7     Autonomous District will pass laws as opposed to the earlier community of

 8     municipalities in the earlier forms of autonomy they were claiming.  They

 9     will now actually pass laws within the autonomous district.

10             JUDGE MOLOTO:  The document is admitted into evidence.  May it

11     please be given an exhibit number.

12             THE REGISTRAR:  That will be Exhibit P162, Your Honours.

13             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.

14             THE WITNESS:  I was going to call the Court's attention to

15     Article 9 of that decision as well.

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Wait for questions from counsel.

17             MS. SUTHERLAND:

18        Q.   Were the -- was any decision taken as to the implementation of

19     the decisions?

20             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I'm not quite sure I understand the question.

21             Maybe if you understand, you can answer it.

22             THE WITNESS:  Well, the organs referred to in the -- in the

23     decision were in fact -- did in fact begin to function.

24             MS. SUTHERLAND:

25        Q.   Does this constitutional law that was passed make any reference

Page 1002

 1     to the implementation of decisions and general acts.  And if I could take

 2     to you Article 9.

 3             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Would it be convenient, now that the document is

 4     taking time to come on the screen, that you follow up after the break.

 5     We're way past time for break.

 6             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Yes, Your Honour.

 7             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

 8             Let take a break.  We'll come back at quarter to.

 9             Court adjourned.

10                           --- Recess taken at 5.19 p.m.

11                           --- On resuming at 5.45 p.m.

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes, Madam Sutherland.

13             MS. SUTHERLAND:

14        Q.   Mr. Treanor we were looking at Exhibit P162, and I was talking

15     you -- I misspoke and said I wanted you to look at Article 9.  If you

16     could look at Article 6, subparagraph 9.  Article 6, then

17     paragraph numbered 9.

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   And of course my question was:  Was that law that was adopted

20     make reference to the implementation of the decisions?  If could you

21     look --

22        A.   Yes.  As point 9 makes mention of the -- ensuring the

23     implementation of decisions?

24        Q.   And is that what you were referring to earlier?

25        A.   As far as the implementation is concerned, yes.

Page 1003

 1             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Can document Rule 65 ter number 066790 be

 2     brought on the screen, please.

 3             Can we go to page 50 of the English translation and page 83 of

 4     the B/C/S.

 5        Q.   Mr. Treanor, in relation to the announcement by Milosevic that

 6     you talked about earlier in your testimony, did the JNA enforce the

 7     borders?

 8        A.   Yes.  This document is a little more specific than the Milosevic

 9     speech that we saw published on the 7th of July in which he refers to the

10     JNA --

11        Q.   And what is it --

12        A.   -- preserving Yugoslavia within new frameworks as he said on the

13     basis of the right of the peoples to self-determination.  I would direct

14     the Court's attention to --

15        Q.   And first of all, what is this document?

16        A.   Yes.  This document is the verbatim record of a session of the

17     Serbian National Assembly held, I believe, on the 26th of September,

18     1991.  At this time the fighting in Croatia had greatly intensified

19     compared to the situation in early July.

20             The bottom paragraph of the page we're looking at, which is page

21     50 of the translation, indicates what the Speaker sees as the aim of the

22     JNA in Croatia.  The Speaker, by the way, is Borisav Jovic, who was the

23     -- who was a member of the Presidency of the SFRY.  He was the member

24     from Serbia.  So he was a important member of the Serbian leadership.

25             He notes in the paragraph that the aim of the army in Croatia is

Page 1004

 1     not to topple the Croatian government but to promote the right of every

 2     nation to self-determination and particularly promoting the right of --

 3     to protect the Serbian people in Croatia.

 4        Q.   Does this document set out what the goals of what the army are?

 5        A.   Yes.  Even more specific is a passage further on, on page 91 of

 6     the English translation.

 7        Q.   And that's on page 149 of the B/C/S --

 8             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Excuse me.

 9             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Sorry, sorry, Madam Sutherland.  Your learned

10     friend is on his feet.

11             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Excuse me, I don't know whether or not the

12     witness misspoke himself, at line seven, the document says -- he used the

13     word particularly promoting and dealing with particularly, and the word

14     that is actually in the document itself is "practically" promoting.  I

15     don't know whether he misspoke himself.  I just wanted to deal with that

16     as a potential correction to the statement now.  So we didn't lose sight

17     of it.

18             JUDGE MOLOTO:  What was the correct point you wanted to make.

19             MR. GUY-SMITH:  On line 7 it says particularly and the word is

20     practically.

21             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.  Mr. Treanor, did you mean to say

22     particularly or did you mean it say practically.

23             THE WITNESS:  Actually, Your Honour, I meant to say particularly.

24     I wasn't reading from the English.  I was trying to briefly summarize

25     some of the words that are in the translation that we can all see.

Page 1005

 1             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.

 2             MS. SUTHERLAND:  On page 91 --

 3             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Excuse me, then.  If he is summarizing a part of

 4     a document, a specific phrase of a document where he uses 99.9 per cent

 5     of the words that are contained in the phrase and one would think he

 6     should remain consistent if he now wishes to render -- assuming it is of

 7     any use to the Chamber based on what his summary may be, if he wishes to

 8     render some opinion, that is a different matter; and whether or not his

 9     summary admits to an opinion as a historical matter is an entirely

10     different question.  But right now for purposes of discussion the

11     document -- I mean -- if I'm not mistaken that the only distinction is

12     between "practical" and "particularly," and since words can be used

13     either as swords or shield and specifically here where the interpretation

14     of is of some moment, if he is going to be dealing with a particular

15     passage and highlighting it for the Chamber's attention; and I think it

16     would be appropriate to be spot-on accurate.

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Any response, Madam Sutherland?

18             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Mr. Treanor, in relation to the Defence

19     objection, Your Honour, I think that Mr. Treanor can -- can give his

20     opinion as to whether he thinks that the word is better particularly used

21     or practically in that sentence.  The --

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  But did you hear the gravamen of the objection.

23     The gravamen of the objection is that --

24             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Sorry.  Yes, Your Honour.

25             JUDGE MOLOTO:  -- every other word he is paraphrasing is exactly

Page 1006

 1     as it is in the document, and it is only one word that differs; and we

 2     don't know why he chooses to depart what is on the document to what he is

 3     now saying.

 4             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Yes, Your Honour.  If Mr. Treanor is going to

 5     summarize a portion of the transcript -- the document, then he needs to,

 6     if he is going to use a different word in that summarisation, then needs

 7     to justify why he is changing the word, yes.

 8             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Now he hasn't done so.

 9             MS. SUTHERLAND:  No.  I'm just about to ask him whether he wants

10     to justify why he used the words particularly as opposed to practically.

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Go ahead.

12             MS. SUTHERLAND:

13        Q.   Mr. Treanor.

14        A.   Is that a question?  I would be happy to withdraw the word

15     particularly and replace it with practically.  In the interest of being

16     spot-on accurate, I will simply read out the entirety of all the passages

17     that have been selected in the future.

18             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.  It would actually be helpful if you do

19     that, Mr. Treanor, because if you are telling us of what is written, it

20     is important to read it exactly as it is without embellishment.

21             THE WITNESS:  Very good, Your Honour.

22             MS. SUTHERLAND:

23        Q.   Mr. Treanor, if we could go to the passage on page 91 of the

24     translation and page 149 of the B/C/S.

25        A.   Just below the centre of the passage now at the bottom of the

Page 1007

 1     page on the screen there's a paragraph that I'd like to call the Court's

 2     attention to which is more specific in connection with the goal of the

 3     army.  Namely it says:

 4             "The army has a strategic goal.  I can tell you," I, still being

 5     Borisav Jovic.  "I can tell you that clearly and surely the strategic

 6     goal of the army is to hold the Serbian territories in Croatia until the

 7     crisis is politically solved.  It will withdraw its forces to these

 8     territories as much as it can, even before the crisis is solved."

 9             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Your Honour, can that document be admitted into

10     evidence, please.

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  The document is admitted into evidence.  May it

12     please be given an exhibit number.

13             THE REGISTRAR:  That will be Exhibit P163, Your Honour.

14             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.

15             MS. SUTHERLAND:  By the end of 1991, were the hostilities still

16     prevailing in Croatia?

17        A.   By the end of the year, meaning December, a cease-fire was in

18     place as of the 24th of November, which seemed to be holding; so

19     hostilities had wound down to a great extent.  There was still some

20     fighting going on, I think, notably perhaps in the Dubrovnik area.  And

21     progress was being made toward the adoption of what was known as the

22     Vance Plan for Croatia, which involved the deployment of US -- sorry, UN

23     peacekeeping forces in Croatia, in particular, in those parts of Croatia

24     that were under the control of Serbian forces at that time.

25             This document, therefore, speaks to the tasks of the army in the

Page 1008

 1     new situation.  It was issued on the 10th of December.

 2             MS. SUTHERLAND:  If I could Rule 65 ter number 06625, please.

 3     Page 3 of both the B/C/S and the English.

 4             The paragraph that I'm interested in it under the Roman numeral

 5     II.

 6        Q.   Mr. Treanor, is this the document that you were just referring

 7     to?

 8        A.   Yes.  This is a directive signed by Veljko Kadijevic, general of

 9     the army.  Veljko Kadijevic, who was the federal secretary for national

10     defence.  And we can see in that paragraph under Roman numeral II, he

11     specifies that:

12             "Our armed forces are entering a new period of exceptional

13     significance for accomplishing the ultimate aim of the war:  The

14     protection of the Serbian population.  A peaceful resolution of

15     Yugoslavia crisis and the creation of conditions in which Yugoslavia may

16     be preserved for those people that wish to live in it.  Therefore, the

17     preservation of the combat readiness of the JNA and the armed forces as a

18     whole is still the central task of command and control and its members at

19     all levels.  Until such time as --"

20             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes, Mr. --

21             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Excuse me, I'm sorry.  I have been following

22     along quite well.  We have just been double-checking our 65 ter lists,

23     with regard to documents that were submitted and gone through the -- a

24     number of them and don't seem to find this particular document as being

25     one of the documents that was --

Page 1009

 1             JUDGE MOLOTO:  If I may just add if it might be of help.  I don't

 2     see any Roman numeral II on this document and listening to what

 3     Mr. Treanor has been reading, it doesn't seem to tally with what I see on

 4     paragraph 2 of this document, under tasks.

 5             THE WITNESS:  On page 3 of the English translation, Your Honour.

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I don't know what page I'm on.  I'm looking at the

 7     page on the screen.

 8             MS. SUTHERLAND:  On the top of the page on the English

 9     translation there is a Roman numeral II.

10             JUDGE MOLOTO:  It was not visible at the time.  Thank you very

11     much.

12             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Sorry.

13        Q.   Mr. Treanor was in the middle of reading out that paragraph.  The

14     Defence had an objection.

15             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes.

16             Mr. Guy-Smith.

17             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I'm sorry, Your Honours, I have that as a removed

18     document from the list, according to our records.  We'll double-check it.

19     Let's just proceed.  We'll just double-check it.

20             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.

21             MR. GUY-SMITH:  The reason I'm raising is that I have a binder

22     full of all -- I believe all of those are 65 ter exhibits that would be

23     presented through this witness.  I'm not finding that in my binder.  We

24     may have made a mistake.  I'm looking through the list right now.  It

25     seems to have been a dropped document.  I may well be wrong.  Let's just

Page 1010

 1     proceed at this point, and if there is a problem, we'll pick it up at a

 2     later time.

 3             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Carry on, Madam Sutherland.

 4             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Thank you, Your Honour.  This is certainly

 5     not one that would have –- I’ll withdraw that.

 6        Q.   Mr. Treanor, you were talking about -- I don't think you finished

 7     the paragraph that you were reading, the sentence that you were reading.

 8     I think you got halfway through the last sentence of that paragraph?

 9        A.   I'll read the --

10        Q.   I think you got up to, "... the central task of command and

11     control."

12        A.   I'll read that sentence again:

13             "Therefore, the preservation of the combat readiness of the JNA

14     and the armed forces as a whole is still the central task of command and

15     control and its members at all levels until such time as a political

16     solution to the Yugoslav crisis is found."

17             The reference to a political solution is based on the fact that

18     the Vance Plan that I mentioned was a -- a transitional measure to bring

19     peace to the areas of -- to Croatia and have UN peacekeeping forces there

20     to maintain that peace, pending the outcome of negotiations.

21             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Your Honour, may that document be admitted into

22     evidence.

23             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Madam Sutherland, if I may just ask, how many

24     pages is this document?

25             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Five.

Page 1011

 1             JUDGE MOLOTO:  The document is admitted into evidence.  May it

 2     please be given an exhibit number.

 3             THE REGISTRAR:  That will be Exhibit P164, Your Honours.

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

 5             MS. SUTHERLAND:

 6        Q.   Mr. Treanor what was the position of the Presidency of the SFRY

 7     in relation to the position taken by the Federal Secretariat for the

 8     National Defence.

 9             MS. SUTHERLAND:  If I could 65 ter number 06791 on the screen,

10     please.  Pages 25 to 27 of the English translation and page 34 of the

11     B/C/S.

12        A.   Yes, I think we can find the answer to that question in the

13     document we're looking at.

14             This is the verbatim record of a meeting that was held in

15     Belgrade on the 12th of December at the Presidency of the SFRY.  Present

16     at this meeting were the four remaining members of the Presidency of the

17     SFRY who were the members from Serbia and Montenegro, as well as some

18     other high officials of the federation and numerous Serbian leaders from

19     Croatia and Bosnia, including Radovan Karadzic and Milan Martic.

20     Milan Babic was not at this meeting.

21             The object of the meeting was to inform the -- what was for the

22     federal officials to inform the Serbian leaders in Croatia and Bosnia

23     about the Vance Plan and basically urge that they accept it.

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Treanor, the question put to you was:  What

25     was the position of the Presidency of the SFRY in relation to the

Page 1012

 1     position taken by the Federal Secretariat of National Defence?

 2             THE WITNESS:  I think we're --

 3             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Can you zoom in on that question and give the

 4     answer.

 5             THE WITNESS:  I think we're on page 145 of the translation.

 6                           [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

 7             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I'm advised, sir, that the document that is on the

 8     screen has only 96 pages, not 145.

 9             But in any case the question was not related to a page.  The

10     question was:  What was the relation, the position of the Presidency of

11     the SFRY in relation to the position taken by the Federal Secretariat of

12     National Defence.

13             MS. SUTHERLAND:

14        Q.   Did Mr. Milosevic have a position, does he take a position in

15     this -- sorry.

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Sorry, Sorry.  You were asked a question earlier,

17     we need an answer to that question.  I'm trying to get an answer to that

18     question.

19             MS. SUTHERLAND:  I'm sorry, Your Honour.

20             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Will you please answer the question that was put

21     by counsel.

22             Do you want me it repeat the question?

23             THE WITNESS:  Yes, please, Your Honour.

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  The question is:  What was the position of the

25     Presidency of the SFRY in relation to the position taken by the Federal

Page 1013

 1     Secretariat of National Defence?

 2             THE WITNESS:  Well, if reference is being made to the previous

 3     order, the SFRY Presidency was the Commander-in-Chief of the armed

 4     forces.  So the order would have been issued under its authority.

 5             MS. SUTHERLAND:

 6        Q.   Did they --

 7             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Sorry.  So you're talking in relation to a

 8     previous order?

 9             Can you talk about the Presidency of the SFRY and the Federal

10     Secretariat of National Defence and tell us what the position of these

11     two were in relation to each other.  That's the question put to you,

12     whatever the purpose of the question.

13             THE WITNESS:  The relationship between the Presidency and the

14     Federal Secretariat.

15             JUDGE MOLOTO:  What was the position of each in relation to each

16     other.

17             THE WITNESS:  The Presidency of the SFRY was the

18     Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces.  The Federal Secretary of defence

19     who signed the order that we were just looking at is the next in the

20     chain of command in the SFRY system.  So he reports as the chief military

21     officer to the Presidency of the SFRY.

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  The question is not Secretary of Federal

23     Secretary.  It is Federal Secretariat of National Defence.

24             THE WITNESS:  The Federal Secretariat was the bureaucratic

25     institution that the federal secretary headed.  It included the civilian

Page 1014

 1     components of -- included civilian components as well as the JNA.

 2             JUDGE MOLOTO:  And what was its function?

 3             THE WITNESS:  It was the main defence organisation -- one of the

 4     defence organisations within the SFRY.  The SFRY also had a system of

 5     Territorial Defence.

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Did it go by any other name?

 7             THE WITNESS:  The Federal Secretariat?

 8             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mm-hm.

 9             THE WITNESS:  At this time it was still known as the Federal

10     Secretariat for national defence.  Later on under the FRY, the name would

11     have changed to being a ministry.  And each, if I can clarify, what we

12     would, perhaps, ministries in the SFRY were called Secretariats, and the

13     heads of those organisations were called Secretaries.

14             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

15             MS. SUTHERLAND:

16        Q.   Mr. Treanor, the directive that Kadijevic gave on 10th of

17     December, 1991, said that the ultimate aim was for the protection of the

18     Serbian population and the peaceful resolution of the Yugoslav crisis and

19     the creation of the conditions in which Yugoslavia may be preserved.  Did

20     the Presidency of the SFRY agree with that position that was taken by the

21     Federal Secretary of National Defence or not?

22        A.   Again, the Presidency was the commander of the Federal Secretary,

23     if I can put it that way and the Presidency strongly supported the

24     self-determination certainly of the peoples including the Serbian people

25     in Croatia and Bosnia.

Page 1015

 1        Q.   And so what did they have to say about it?

 2        A.   About this order?

 3        Q.   What did they discuss at the meeting on the 9th of December,

 4     1991, if you can briefly tell the Court about that.

 5        A.   As I think I said before, this meeting was held to inform the

 6     Serbian leaders from Croatia and Bosnia who were present about the Vance

 7     Plan, which was designed to bring peace to Croatia and to urge those

 8     leaders to support it.

 9        Q.   Was there any further developments in the Croatia Krajina in --

10     at the end of 1991?

11        A.   Later in the month, the -- Serbian Autonomous District of Krajina

12     proclaimed itself as the Republic of Serbian Krajina, in unity with two

13     other Serbian Autonomous Districts that had been established in Croatia.

14     That is the three Autonomous Districts joined together to form the

15     Republic of Serbian Krajina.

16             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Could I have Rule 65 ter number 06657 on the

17     screen, please.

18             JUDGE MOLOTO:  What do we do with 06791?

19             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Could we admit that into evidence, Your

20     Honour.

21             JUDGE MOLOTO:  It's so admitted.  May it please be given an

22     exhibit number.

23             THE REGISTRAR:  That will be Exhibit P165, Your Honours.

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.

25             MS. SUTHERLAND:  If we could, first of all go to pages 2 and 3 of

Page 1016

 1     the English translation and page 1 of the B/C/S.  That's 65 ter number

 2     06657.

 3        Q.   Mr. Treanor, you mentioned that the SAO Krajina became the

 4     Republic of Serbian Krajina.

 5        A.   That's correct.

 6        Q.   Is the document that we're looking at the moment the

 7     constitution -- yes.  What's the important provisions in this

 8     constitution that you would like to draw the Court's attention to?

 9        A.   I would draw the Court's attention to the first two Articles,

10     which are very brief.

11             Article 1 stating that the Republic of Serbian Krajina shall be a

12     national state of the Serbian people and a state of all people who live

13     there.

14             Article 2 goes on to state that the sovereignty shall belong to

15     the Serbia people of the Republic of Serbian Krajina and all the citizens

16     who live there.  Serbian people and citizens of the Republic of Serbian

17     Krajina shall realize their sovereignty through referendums national

18     initiate and through their freely appointed representatives.

19             I would point out that Article 1 we have the Autonomous Region

20     under this new constitutional describing itself as -- now as a state.

21     And it -- Article 2, I'm sorry I missed that over in the next page in the

22     English, describes the territory of this new state which is the territory

23     of the three Autonomous Districts as I mentioned, of the Autonomous

24     District of Krajina.  The other two Autonomous District, subsequently and

25     indeed, one of them on the same day adopted the same constitution to

Page 1017

 1     effectively unite three of them in one republic.

 2             JUDGE MOLOTO:  And you say that is in Article 2.

 3             THE WITNESS:  I'm sorry, Article 3, Your Honour.  The territory

 4     of the Serbian Krajina shall be the territory of the Serbian Autonomous

 5     Districts of Krajina.  The other two autonomous districts, Serbian

 6     Autonomous Districts in Croatia adopted the same constitution, one of

 7     them on the same day and one a few days later; and they effectively

 8     united into one republic in February of the following -- of 1992, they

 9     amended the constitution to reflect that fact.

10             MS. SUTHERLAND:

11        Q.   And did the constitution -- sorry.  Did the Republic of Serbian

12     Krajina have its own army?

13        A.   Well, I think we want to look at Article 9.

14             MS. SUTHERLAND:  If we could go to page 23 of the English

15     translation.

16             THE WITNESS:  No we don't.  It's Article 78.  I'm sorry, we're

17     much further along in the document, yes.

18             MS. SUTHERLAND:  And page 11 of the B/C/S.

19        Q.   And in particular, subparagraph 5 of Article 78.

20        A.   Yes.  This Article specifies the powers of the president of the

21     republic, and we can see in point 5 that one of them, one of his

22     responsibilities to is a lead the armed forces in peacetime and war time

23     and the people's resistance in wartime, orders general and partial

24     mobilisation and organises preparations for defence in accordance with

25     the law.

Page 1018

 1             Under point 6 when the assembly is not able to meet, he detects

 2     the existence of an immediate threat of war or announces the state of war

 3     according to the Prime Minister's opinion.

 4             And under point 7 under his initiative or under the government's

 5     proposal during a state of war, or imminent threat of war adopts acts

 6     about issues from the assembly's jurisdiction and is required to submit

 7     them before the assembly as soon as the assembly is able to meet.

 8             These are some of the powers of the president under the

 9     constitution, and it's reference to the armed forces indicates that this

10     Republic was to have its own armed forces.

11        Q.   Did the Republic of Serbian Krajina seek recognition -- I'm

12     sorry, Your Honour.  If that document can be admitted into evidence?

13             JUDGE MOLOTO:  The document is admitted into evidence.  May it

14     please be given an exhibit number.

15             THE REGISTRAR:  That will be Exhibit P166, Your Honours.

16             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Could I have Rule 65 ter number 06617, please.

17        Q.   Mr. Treanor, my question was did the Republic of Serbian Krajina

18     seek recognition?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   When was that?

21        A.   On the same day, I believe, that the constitution which we just

22     looked at was adopted.  Milan Babic, who was the president -- he was now

23     the president of the Republic sent a letter to the European Community as

24     we can see.  It is a request for the recognition of the Republic of

25     Serbian Krajina in the last paragraph of the letter he indicates that

Page 1019

 1     your conditions, meaning the European Community's conditions for the

 2     recognition are completely fulfilled by the Republic of Serbian Krajina.

 3             The reference there is to a document that the European Community

 4     had adopted, I believe, on the 16th of December which laid out certain

 5     conditions under which the European Community would recognise the

 6     independence of the republics, the individual republics of Yugoslavia

 7     should they so desire and should they so request.  He here is saying that

 8     he believes we fulfil those conditions and asking for recognition as a

 9     state that is certainly independent of Croatia and apparently independent

10     of Yugoslavia.

11             One of the points that had to be dealt with in getting the Vance

12     Plan accepted by the Serbian leaders in Croatia related to the fact that

13     many of them, including Milan Babic, were very dissatisfied that that

14     plan described their territories as being part of Croatia, whereas, as

15     we've seen, they considered themselves to be part of Serbia and part of

16     Yugoslavia; and they wanted to so remain.  This was their response, if I

17     can put it in that fashion, to that situation.  They're declaring to

18     the world that they're an independent state.

19             JUDGE MOLOTO:  If I may just be clear, are you saying this

20     document also requests recognition for the independence of Yugoslavia.

21             THE WITNESS:  No, they had hitherto consider themselves to be

22     part of Yugoslavia and Serbia in the documents that we have seen.

23             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Can we just look at lines 12 to 14 on page 72.  On

24     the screen and just tell -- are you mistranscribed there?  You can read,

25     independent at both places as independence.

Page 1020

 1             THE WITNESS:  Lines 14 through --

 2             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Lines 12 through 14.  He here is saying that --

 3             THE WITNESS:  Yes, Yes, he is saying in effect having declared

 4     independence or having defined themselves in their constitution as a

 5     state and now asking for international recognition, they are saying that

 6     they are independent of both Croatia and Yugoslavia.

 7             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.  Certainly independent of Croatia and

 8     apparently -- okay.  Sorry.  Thank you very much.

 9             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Your Honour, may this document be admitted into

10     evidence.

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  It is so admitted.  May it please be given an

12     exhibit number.

13             THE REGISTRAR:  That will be Exhibit P167, Your Honours.

14             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

15             MS. SUTHERLAND:

16        Q.   Mr. Treanor, was a convention held in Belgrade in early 1992, in

17     relation to territories whose population had expressed a wish to remain

18     in Yugoslavia?

19        A.   Yes, there was.  I think we've seen numerous references in the

20     documents we have been looked at, to that expression, people who wished

21     to live in Yugoslavia.

22             MS. SUTHERLAND:  If could I have Rule 65 ter number 06681

23     [Realtime transcript read in error, "06682"].

24             THE WITNESS:  At the beginning of January 1992, a big meeting

25     described as the convention for Yugoslavia was held in Belgrade was

Page 1021

 1     attended by representatives from various republics mostly from Serbia and

 2     Montenegro and Serbian representatives from Bosnia and Croatia as well as

 3     a few non-Serbs who wished to continue living in Yugoslavia.  They

 4     devised a plan, if you will, for the formation of a new Yugoslavia, a

 5     third Yugoslavia, which would precisely include those areas inhabited by

 6     peoples, by peoples that wished to remain living in Yugoslavia.

 7             MS. SUTHERLAND:

 8        Q.   Who organised this conference or convention?

 9             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Sorry.  Madam Sutherland did I hear you well that

10     you asked for 65 ter 06681.

11             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Yes, Your Honour.

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  We've got 82 on the screen.  Okay, it's 81.  Now

13     we know.

14             Thanks.

15             MS. SUTHERLAND:  If I could just ask for pages 4 to 5 of the

16     English translation and 4 to 5 and then later page 7 of the B/C/S.

17        Q.   Mr. Treanor, who organised this conference, convention?

18        A.   Well, the convention was organised under the auspices of the

19     federal officials in Belgrade -- for instance a meeting was held in

20     Belgrade at the Presidency at the end of December 1991, attended by many

21     of the same people that attended the previous meeting we were looking at,

22     Serbian -- in addition there were also some other leaders there from --

23     from Bosnia, and they discussed holding this meeting.

24        Q.   Where was the convention held?

25        A.   It was held at Belgrade.  I can't remember which -- which

Page 1022

 1     building it was held in offhand.  I believe it was the Sava Centre in

 2     Belgrade.

 3        Q.   If I can direct you to page 10 -- sorry, page 4.

 4             Did they discuss at this conference who -- who was going to --

 5     what territory was going to form this new Yugoslavia or the new federal

 6     state?

 7        A.   Yes.  As I indicated it was to include areas inhabited by those

 8     peoples that wished to remain living in Yugoslavia.  In this

 9     paragraph which comes from an article about that meeting, we see those

10     territories specified.

11             The magazine that this article appeared in is called the Polka

12     [phoen], and it was connected with the socialist party of Serbia, that is

13     Slobodan Milosevic's party.  And in this paragraph we can see that it

14     says:

15             "The process of building new Yugoslavia will definitely depend on

16     the will of nations, citizens, and republics that want to join it.  So

17     far, Serbia and Montenegro, Republic of Serbian Krajina and Serbian

18     Republic of BH ... that includes Autonomous Regions of Krajina, SAO North

19     Bosnia, SAO Semberija, SAO Romanija, and SAO Eastern Bosnia-Herzegovina,

20     declared one way or another that they want to stay in this new federal

21     state.  All together 12 million citizens."

22             As you can see, reference is made also to Serbian Autonomous

23     District in Bosnia.  I believe we will be seeing some documents later

24     that relate to the development of those districts.

25             The article is accompanied by a map, which I'm not sure how well

Page 1023

 1     it comes out in the black and white copies you have; but it depicts on

 2     the map the -- some territorial limits of those various Serbian

 3     Autonomous Districts.

 4        Q.   Can I direct your attention to page 5.

 5        A.   We're seeing the map now on the left-hand side.

 6        Q.   And page -- was there a debate about whether the territory should

 7     be put under the protectorate of the UN?

 8        A.   Well, the reference in the article here is to the issue I

 9     referred to before.  That is, the dissatisfaction in some circles with

10     the Vance Plan.  Here they -- the idea is emphasised that this is only

11     going to be a transitional arrangement.  Namely, it says:

12             "All debatable territories should be put under the protectorate

13     of the OUN and UN blue helmets.  In this way, better protection may be

14     provided for Serbian people in Croatia against the aggression of the

15     Croatian army, and at the same time create the possibility for the

16     population to declare about their new state in five or more years.  In 90

17     per cent of the cases, the territories that had been under UN protection

18     sooner or later got the right for independence."

19             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Your Honour, can that document be admitted into

20     evidence.

21             JUDGE MOLOTO:  The document is admitted into evidence.  May it

22     please be given an exhibit number.

23             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit P168, Your Honour.

24             MS. SUTHERLAND:

25        Q.   Mr. Treanor, you mentioned that Mr. Babic, Milan Babic was the

Page 1024

 1     first president of the Republic of Serbian Krajina.  Who was the second?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   And, sorry, if can we could have Rule 65 ter number 06718 on the

 4     screen.

 5        A.   Milan Babic was replaced as president in February 1992.  He had

 6     been very public in his opposition to the Vance Plan.  Another big

 7     meeting was held in Belgrade beginning, I believe, on the 31st of

 8     January attended by many of the same leaders that attended the meeting in

 9     December that we were looking at.  I do not have a record of that

10     meeting.

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Treanor, may I sound a caution here.  We don't

12     have much time.  There are certain questions which really don't need any

13     background information, like the question that was asked you of you,

14     which in fact you have not answered.  You have answered it in one, two,

15     three, four, five, six lines and two words mentioning the first name and

16     second name of the successor will have sufficed.

17             THE WITNESS:  Yes, I was just trying to explain the reasons for

18     his removal.

19             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You were not asked about the reasons.  Listen to

20     the question, answer the question directed.  If the lawyer wants

21     reasons, she will ask you for reasons.  We really don't have much time.

22             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Could we go to page 4 of the English

23     translation.

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Have you got the answer to your question, ma'am?

25             MS. SUTHERLAND:  No, Your Honour.  I just want to direct the

Page 1025

 1     registry so they can bring the document up while I ask the question

 2     again.

 3             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Get the answer to the question because you want to

 4     make a note of it.

 5             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 6        Q.   Can you tell the Court who became president after Babic?

 7        A.   Yes.  On the 26th of February 1992 --

 8             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Who.

 9             THE WITNESS:  Goran Hadzic was elected the president of the

10     Republic of Serbian Krajina.

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

12             MS. SUTHERLAND:

13        Q.   When did this occur?

14        A.   On the 26th of February, 1992.

15        Q.   And the document you see on the screen is the decision taken by

16     the Republic of Serbian Krajina assembly?

17        A.   Yes that's the decision electing him president.

18             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Your Honour, may that be admitted into evidence.

19             JUDGE MOLOTO:  06718 is admitted into evidence.  May it please be

20     given an exhibit number.

21             THE REGISTRAR:  That will be Exhibit P169, Your Honours.

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

23             MS. SUTHERLAND:

24        Q.   Mr. Treanor, who took over the Presidency from Goran Hadzic?

25        A.   Milan Martic was the next president of the Republic of Serbian

Page 1026

 1     Krajina.

 2             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Can we have Rule 65 ter number 06788 on the

 3     screen, please.

 4        Q.   When did this occur?

 5        A.   This occurred in January 1994.

 6        Q.   And what was the reason why Martic took over from Hadzic, if you

 7     know?

 8        A.   They actually held elections at this time.  We've seen the

 9     previous decision Goran Hadzic was elected by the assembly, but they

10     actually held popular elections in 1994.  And this document gives the

11     results of the elections.

12             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Your Honour, may that be admitted into evidence.

13             JUDGE MOLOTO:  It's so admitted.  May it please be given an

14     exhibit number.

15             THE REGISTRAR:  That will be Exhibit P170, Your Honour.

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

17             MS. SUTHERLAND:

18        Q.   You mentioned that the Republic of Serbian Krajina had an armed

19     force.  What was the name of that army?

20        A.   It was known as -- or at least a certain point in time became

21     known as the Serbian army of Krajina.

22        Q.   And the acronym for that?

23        A.   It's SVK in B/C/S.

24        Q.   After Martic became president on the 25th of January, or in

25     January 1994 who was appointed as military commander of the SVK?

Page 1027

 1        A.   Milan Celeketic was appointed commander of the SVK by

 2     Milan Martic on the 22nd of February, 1994.

 3             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Rule 65 ter number 06123 , please.

 4        Q.   The document that is on the screen, is that the degree appointing

 5     Milan Celeketic?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Your Honour, can that be admitted into evidence,

 8     please.

 9             JUDGE MOLOTO:  So admitted.  May it please be given an exhibit

10     number.

11             THE REGISTRAR:  That will be Exhibit P171, Your Honours.

12             MS. SUTHERLAND:

13        Q.   After Celeketic, do you know who took over?

14        A.   A new commander was pointed in 1995, toward the middle of 1995,

15     General Mrksic.

16        Q.   Mr. Treanor, I now want to turn your attention to dealing with

17     the Bosnian Serbs in Bosnia-Herzegovina.  And I want to take you back to

18     1990.  What was the position of the Bosnian Serbs at the founding

19     assembly of the political party, the Serbian political party in Bosnia

20     and Herzegovina?

21             And if I could have on the screen Rule 65 ter number 06696,

22     please.

23        A.   I take it you're referring to the position they adopted on some

24     of the current issues of the day.

25        Q.   Yes.

Page 1028

 1        A.   Yes.  If we can see that --

 2        Q.   That's on page 3.

 3        A.   -- in this document.

 4             This document is a speech given by Radovan Karadzic at the

 5     founding assembly of the Serbian Democratic Party of Bosnia and

 6     Herzegovina, which is a different party than the Serbian Democratic Party

 7     in Croatia.

 8             In this speech he indicates some of the objectives of that party

 9     and the same assembly on the same day elected him president of the party

10     and adopted the party programme and statutes which reflect what he says

11     here.

12             If I can draw the Court's attention to the bottom half of page 3,

13     in the paragraph beginning with:

14             "The basic objective of the party is full and unconditional

15     civil, national, cultural, religious, and economic equality for the Serbs

16     in Bosnia-Herzegovina.  Here we cannot have peoples who lead or follow,

17     first or second-rate citizens, nation-building and non-nation-building

18     elements.

19             "The objective of the party is to improve multi-national

20     relations, establish stability and reciprocity, enhance civilian

21     tranquility.

22             "The objective of the party is Federative Yugoslavia consisting

23     of an equal federal Bosnia-Herzegovina.  Should this objective not be

24     attainable, the party will strive to facility democratic methods

25     including those which will enable the Serbian people to respond to a new

Page 1029

 1     situation."

 2             So the Serbian Democratic Party of Bosnia and Herzegovina also

 3     wished for the Serbs in their republic to remain within Yugoslavia.

 4             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Your Honour, can that document be admitted.

 5             JUDGE MOLOTO:  It is so admitted.  May it please be given an

 6     exhibit number.

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  That will be Exhibit P172, Your Honours.

 8             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.

 9             MS. SUTHERLAND:

10        Q.   And what was the Bosnian Serb's position by the end of 1990?  Did

11     it change in any way?

12             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Could we have Rule 65 ter number 06675 on the

13     screen, please, page 4.

14        A.   Yes, they maintained that position.

15        Q.   What is this document, Mr. Treanor?

16        A.   Yes.  This is -- this document is the transcript of an audio and

17     sound recording that was made of a meeting held in Banja Luka on the 13th

18     of October, 1990, at a time when elections, the multi-party elections had

19     already been scheduled in Bosnia-Herzegovina.  Elections that the SDS in

20     BH were going to take part and at this meeting, a Serbian National

21     Council for BH was founded.

22        Q.   Who was on that council?

23        A.   The council included leaders of the Serbian Democratic Party, and

24     Radovan Karadzic was the president of the council.

25        Q.   And what -- what position were they taking in October 1990, in

Page 1030

 1     relation to boundaries, state boundaries?

 2        A.   As I think -- to answer that question, I think I can direct you

 3     to -- I'm sorry, I'm still looking at the original here.

 4        Q.   If we could perhaps go to the middle of the page?

 5        A.   I think it's page 4 of the translation.

 6             Here Radovan Karadzic addresses the issue of borders.  He says:

 7             "They have changed the concept of borders.  Change of quality and

 8     nature of our internal borders.  So the administrative lines that

 9     supposedly connect us have been transformed or will soon be transformed

10     into hard state borders which divide us.  These gentlemen care about the

11     shape of the borders if it runs along this or that bank of a river or

12     side of the meadow.  They don't care to preserve the nature of these

13     borders which are internal administrative lines between brotherly

14     nations.  One should know that most of these future hard borders are

15     supposed to cut through the living tissue of Serbian people.  They would

16     like to cut and divide Serbian people against Serbian people's will.

17     Hatred against Serbs and Serbia has not been developed by accident.  This

18     was a well-designed and carefully executed plan."

19             The reference to the borders is to the existing borders of the

20     republics of the former Yugoslavia which were of course not international

21     borders; they were internal borders, and Radovan Karadzic is here

22     objecting to their being changed into international borders by the

23     recognition of the independence of individual republics, which as we've

24     discussed, was something that for instance Croatia was moving toward and

25     this was something that as we've seen that Slobodan Milosevic was

Page 1031

 1     objecting to.

 2        Q.   Mr. Treanor, can I direct your attention to the bottom of page 5

 3     of the English translation.

 4             What was the point that -- that Radovan Karadzic was making

 5     there?

 6        A.   Well, here he is reemphasizing the idea that the Serbs in Serbia

 7     want to remain in one state with Serbia.  At the very bottom of the page

 8     he says:

 9             "But this did not help us in achieving constitutional guarantees

10     for federation and founding an assembly of nations.  Serbian people in BH

11     will not give up their demands to live in one same state with our parent

12     country, Serbia."

13             And just below that, on top of the next page, where that passage

14     ends, at the top of the page, after an interruption.

15             Dr. Karadzic says:

16             "Nobody can confederalise us against our will.  Here today with

17     your consent we will form the Serbian National Council of BiH."

18             Here we see him objecting to the idea of confederalisation, which

19     is something we have seen that Slobodan Milosevic was also objecting to.

20        Q.   We can see the decision was then taken on forming the national --

21     the Serbian National Council.  I can direct you to the bottom of the… that

22     page 6.  What was the outcome of the decision of the Serbian National

23     Council?

24        A.   Yes.  They took a decision along the lines that he had been

25     referred to remaining in one country, stating that the decision was

Page 1032

 1     adopted pursuant to this decision by the Serbian National Council of BiH:

 2             "Serbian people in BiH will not accept any decisions altering the

 3     character of the BiH state except for a decision which would be reached

 4     on a referendum of Serbian people."

 5             So here we see a reference to the idea of a referendum of the

 6     Serbian people.  Again, something that Slobodan Milosevic had advocated.

 7     We had seen a referendum of people by republics, and the reference to not

 8     accepting decisions is a reference to any decision that the assembly of

 9     BiH may pass, regarding the independence of Bosnia, which would separate

10     the Serbs from Serbia.  The Serbian people would not accept that without

11     having their own referendum.

12             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Your Honour, may that document be admitted into

13     evidence.

14             JUDGE MOLOTO:  It is so admitted.  May it please be given an

15     exhibit number.

16             THE REGISTRAR:  That would be Exhibit P173, Your Honours.

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.  P173.

18             MS. SUTHERLAND:

19        Q.   Leading up to the November 1990 elections what if anything was

20     intimated to happen if decisions altering the character of

21     Bosnia-Herzegovina were adopted.

22             MS. SUTHERLAND:  And if we could have Exhibit number, Rule 65 ter

23     06716 on the screen, please.  On page 3 of the English translation and

24     page 2 of the B/C/S.

25        Q.   What was the position of the Bosnian Serbs, if -- if there were

Page 1033

 1     any decisions altering the character of Bosnia-Herzegovina?

 2        A.   Yes, in this interview Radovan Karadzic makes reference to the

 3     situation that could develop as he puts it in the passage at the bottom

 4     of page 3, the paragraph beginning:

 5             "Without the Chamber of peoples."

 6        Q.   Sorry may I interrupt you.  What is this document?

 7        A.   Yes, I'm sorry.  This document is an interview with

 8     Radovan Karadzic that was published in November 1991, on the 9th of

 9     November, 1991, in the Belgrade news magazine, Nin.  And this

10     paragraph in discussing that issue, he makes references to a Chambers of

11     peoples.  At the beginning of the paragraph what the discussion here

12     refers to is the idea that the Serbs or the Serbian representatives in

13     the assembly which was about to be elected.  This is just before the

14     elections, could be outvoted by the representatives, the deputies who

15     were members of other nations in a simple majority vote.  This was

16     something that they did not -- the Serbian leaders, the Bosnian Serb

17     leaders did not want to see happen, and they had suggested that a new

18     chamber in the assembly be created called the Chamber of peoples in which

19     the representatives of any particular people would be able to block any

20     measure in the assembly that they felt threatened the vital interests of

21     their people.

22             That the SDS had suggested that to the existing assembly, the

23     outgoing assembly, in November in a letter, it doesn't draw any -- it

24     didn't happen at that time, let me put it that way, and that's what the

25     reference is to here, his fear of being outvoted on the question of

Page 1034

 1     independence in the assembly.

 2             He says:

 3             "The BH assembly could become a place of dramatic events because

 4     the Serbs could be outvoted by a two-thirds majority regarding for

 5     instance the change of the state character of BH.  Should that happen all

 6     conditions for a civil war would be in place because the Serbs in BH are

 7     no longer helpless but very powerful and united."

 8             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Your Honour, can that document be admitted into

 9     evidence.

10             JUDGE MOLOTO:  It is so admitted.  May it please be given an

11     exhibit number.

12             THE REGISTRAR:  That will be Exhibit P174, Your Honours.

13             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.

14             MS. SUTHERLAND:

15        Q.   Mr. Treanor, briefly, what happened as a result of the

16     November 1990 elections?

17             MS. SUTHERLAND:  And if I could Rule 65 ter number 02232 on the

18     screen, please, at page 2 of the English translation and page 4 of the

19     B/C/S.

20        A.   Yes, the elections were held later in November at various levels

21     in the republic.  That is there were elections for republic level posts

22     as well as for municipal level posts.  On the federal level, the

23     elections were for the two Chambers, two existing Chambers of the

24     assembly of BH and for the Presidency of BH.

25             As a result of those elections, the SDS won 72 seats in the

Page 1035

 1     combined in the two houses, the two houses of the BH assembly, which

 2     was -- the total number is important because the assembly sometimes met

 3     in joint session to consider particularly important issues.

 4             The party for democratic action, which was basically a Muslim

 5     party won 80-some odd seats, and the HDZ in Croatia won a smaller number

 6     of seats, each of those parties won a number of seats in the assembly

 7     roughly proportionate to the representation of their respective

 8     nationalities in the population of BH.

 9             The Croats representing about 20 per cent, the Serbs 30 per cent,

10     and the Muslims 43 per cent.  They were all anti-Communist parties, and

11     they had been afraid that the Communists were going to rig the elections

12     somehow and so they cooperated to a certain extent before the elections

13     and they in fact formed a coalition government after the elections; and

14     they also came to an agreement on the division of power in the

15     municipalities as well.

16             So as a result of the elections the SDS entered a coalition

17     government at the republic level and won a majority in a -- an outright

18     majority in a sizeable number of municipalities in Bosnia and

19     participated in government in many other municipalities where it was

20     cooperating with the other parties.  So it came out of the elections with

21     a very strong political position within the republic.  As a result of the

22     agreement among the parties, the position of president of the assembly

23     was allotted to the SDS; and Momcilo Krajisnik became the president of

24     the assembly, and the Presidency, two Serbs backed by the SDS were

25     elected, so two of the seven members of the Presidency were SDS people.

Page 1036

 1     Not necessarily members of the party but had been supported by them in

 2     the government the SDS received a number of ministries but not the

 3     position of prime minister, which went to the HDZ.

 4        Q.   Mr. Treanor I think we have to stop there.  We'll come back to

 5     that document tomorrow.

 6             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Your Honour, I note the time.

 7             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes.  Thank you very much.  Because of the latest

 8     of the hour, we have to adjourn.

 9             Tomorrow we are not sitting.

10             MS. SUTHERLAND:  Sorry, Thursday.

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  So we will adjourn to Thursday, at quarter past

12     2.00 in the afternoon, same courtroom.  Am I right?

13             Yes, Courtroom II, quarter past 2.00 in the afternoon, Thursday,

14     the 6th.

15                            --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.02 p.m.,

16                           to be reconvened on Thursday, the 6th day of

17                           November, 2008, at 2.15 p.m.