1 Tuesday, 11 November 2008
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good morning to everyone in and around the
8 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning,
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 for today, starting with the
14 Prosecution, please.
15 MR. SAXON: Good morning, Mr. President. Good morning, Your
16 Honours. Ann Sutherland for the Prosecution, together with Mr. Carmela
17 Javier, and my name is Dan Saxon.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Saxon.
19 And for the Defence?
20 MR. GUY-SMITH: Good morning, Your Honours. Daniela Tasic, Chad
21 Mair, Milos Androvic, Eadaoin O'Brien, Tina Drolec, all of whom are
22 assisting myself, my name is Gregor Guy-Smith, and Novak Lukic.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Guy-Smith.
24 I know you know it, Mr. Treanor, but it's a ritual: You are once
25 again reminded that you are still bound by the declaration you made at
1 the beginning of your testimony to tell the truth, whole truth, and
2 nothing else about the truth.
3 THE WITNESS: I understand, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
5 Madam Sutherland.
6 MS. SUTHERLAND: Thank you, Your Honour.
7 WITNESS: PATRICK TREANOR [Resumed]
8 Examination by Ms. Sutherland: [Continued]
9 Q. Mr. Treanor, was there anything from yesterday's proceedings that
10 you wish to draw the Trial Chamber's attention to?
11 A. There is one perhaps minor matter connected with the matter
12 discussed in the closed session yesterday.
13 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, may we go into closed session.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: May the Chamber please move into closed session.
15 [Closed session]
16 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're in closed session.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
18 Yes, Madam Sutherland.
19 MS. SUTHERLAND:
20 Q. Mr. Treanor, what was the issue you wish to bring to the Trial
21 Chamber's attention?
22 A. I believe there was a question about the capacity in which
23 Zoran Lilic signed the documents we were looking at, and I believe I
24 stated that he signed as President of the FRY. In fact, he signed as
25 President of the Supreme Defence Council.
1 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, may we be bring Exhibit P215 onto
2 the screen, please.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Exhibit P215.
4 MS. SUTHERLAND: And could we go to page 18 in the English
5 translation, and I don't know what page it will be in the B/C/S. It is
6 right at the end of the document before all the attachments. So if we go
7 to page 18 of the English translation. Sorry, yes, if we go back one,
8 back to page 17.
9 Q. Mr. Treanor, this was the exhibit we were looking at yesterday
10 but we -- the pages that you were taken to were only up until page 12.
11 But --
12 MS. SUTHERLAND: And then if we can go over to page 18 of the
13 English translation.
14 Q. You just stated a moment ago that Zoran Lilic signed it in his
15 capacity as President of the Supreme Defence Council as opposed to
16 President of the FRY.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And if that is what -- is that what you can see on the screen
20 A. That's what is reflected in the translation, yes.
21 MS. SUTHERLAND: Thank you, Your Honour. I would ask perhaps
22 that -- if we could have pages 1 to 18 of this document admitted into
23 evidence. We, yesterday, only admitted pages 1 to 12. But given that
24 this is to the end of the document before all of the annexes which can be
25 seen on the previous page as -- that are attached and that is what makes
1 up the additional 60-odd pages of this document, which I don't seek to
2 tender at this moment.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: And why can't we tender the first 12 pages and
4 this last page only and leave the ones in between?
5 MS. SUTHERLAND: We can do that, Your Honour. I was simply
6 trying to keep the document in some sort of context before -- without all
7 of its attachments.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Very well, then. Do we need to give this
9 now a new -- it doesn't have to get a new number. Okay, fine. Then
10 pages 1 to 18 will form Exhibit P215. Thank you. You may proceed.
11 MS. SUTHERLAND: And obviously those pages would also be under
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Indeed. Under seal.
14 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, at the moment this is a draft
15 translation, and it would be the Prosecution's intention to seek a final
16 translation of this document.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Was that issue not dealt with yesterday?
18 MS. SUTHERLAND: No, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. There will then -- do you want us to MFI
21 MS. SUTHERLAND: Thank you, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Registrar, can you mark it for
23 identification, please, this exhibit.
24 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour, this will be Exhibit P215,
25 marked for identification.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
2 MS. SUTHERLAND:
3 Q. Mr. Treanor, was there anything else in relation to the closed
4 session testimony?
5 A. No.
6 MS. SUTHERLAND: May we move into open session, Your Honour?
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: May the Chamber please move into open session.
8 [Open session]
9 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
11 Yes, Madam Sutherland.
12 MS. SUTHERLAND:
13 Q. Mr. Treanor, before we pick up from where we left off yesterday,
14 I wish to revisit a number of documents from Thursday's hearing last week
15 which we were unable to discuss because there was no English translation
16 attached in e-court.
17 First, at transcript page 1125, I took you to Rule 65 ter number
18 00441.01, which was the constitution of the FRY, 27th of April, 1992, and
19 at transcript page 1126, I directed you to Article 135 of the
20 constitution and I asked you who commanded the army of the FRY. However,
21 as I've just said, that Rule 65 ter exhibit number did not have an
22 English translation.
23 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honours, we do have an English translation
24 attached to a different Rule 65 ter number, but it's the same document.
25 It's the constitution of the FRY. And that is Exhibit number -- Rule 65
1 ter number 7621, and I would ask that that be put on the screen. If we
2 could go to page 06721. Could we go to page 44 of the English and page
3 46 of the B/C/S, please.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: What is the 65 ter number of this document?
5 MS. SUTHERLAND: 06721.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
7 MS. SUTHERLAND:
8 Q. Mr. Treanor, do the provisions of Article 135 provide for who
9 commands the army?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And who is that?
12 A. Well, as the article states:
13 "In war-time and peace-time the Army of Yugoslavia shall be under
14 the command of the Presidents of the Republic, pursuant to decisions by
15 the Supreme Defence Council."
16 Q. We can also see, while it's on the screen, Article 134, that a
17 law will be adopted which regulates the Army of Yugoslavia. And at
18 transcript pages 1152 and 1153, you discussed Exhibit P197, the law on
19 the army, which you said was legislated at the end of 1993; is that
21 A. Yes.
22 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, with respect to the constitution, I
23 don't know, since it's a 50 -- 50-page document, I would seek to tender
24 this page which has the relevant article on it.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: And that's page 44?
1 MS. SUTHERLAND: Page 44 of the English and page 46 of the B/C/S.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. That page is admitted into
3 evidence. May it please be given an exhibit number.
4 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit P229, Your Honours.
5 MS. SUTHERLAND:
6 Q. Mr. Treanor, also on Thursday you gave evidence about the SDS in
7 BiH forming its own assembly in October of 1991. At transcript page 1164
8 I asked you what the SDS
9 remaining in a joint Yugoslavia
10 their position pushing to remain in Yugoslavia and that the Assembly
11 passed a resolution to that effect. I called for a Rule 65 ter exhibit
12 which was then marked -- which was then admitted as P180, marked for
13 identification, because no translation was attached in e-court. This has
14 now been rectified.
15 MS. SUTHERLAND: And I would ask that Exhibit P180, MFI, is
16 placed on the screen.
17 Q. Mr. Treanor, is this the decision, the English translation, is
18 this the decision that you were referring to?
19 A. No. It is on that page, but that's not the one that's been blown
20 up. It's item number 2 on the page. That's it.
21 MS. SUTHERLAND: Can we go to the second page of the English
22 translation, please, and further down to the second decision. Can we go
23 to the next page.
24 I'm sorry, Your Honour, this is still an incomplete translation.
25 I do apologise.
1 Q. Mr. Treanor, also on Thursday, at transcript page 1070 you stated
2 that on the 21st of December, 1991, the SDS in BiH declared their
3 intention to proceed to the formation of their own republic by issuing a
4 decision to that effect. I called for a Rule 65 ter exhibit which was
5 then marked as Exhibit P181 and marked for identification because we
6 didn't have an English translation. This has now been uploaded.
7 MS. SUTHERLAND: And I would call for P181, MFI, to be put on the
8 screen, please.
9 Q. Is this the document that you were referring to?
10 A. The document I'm referring to is item number 21 on the Serbian
11 page, in the lower right.
12 MS. SUTHERLAND: Could we go to page 2 of the English
14 Your Honour, I've been advised that it's the document with ERN
15 0044-8163, which is attached to that e-court 65 ter number.
16 Q. Mr. Treanor, is that the document that you were referring to?
17 A. Yes --
18 Q. Mr. Treanor, is that the document that you were referring to?
19 A. Yes. Now we see the English translation of that document.
20 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, may that be admitted, Exhibit P181,
21 which is currently marked for identification.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now, if it is already Exhibit P181, MFI, isn't it
23 already admitted? Is this in addition to P181?
24 MS. SUTHERLAND: No, this was the actual document that I was
25 trying to take Mr. Treanor to but the translation hadn't been -- wasn't
1 in e-court. So we've subsequently uploaded it and that's the document,
2 Your Honour.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: And you still want it to stay as an MFI?
4 MS. SUTHERLAND: No, I wish for it to be admitted, but it's
5 currently P181, MFI
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: It is so admitted as Exhibit P181.
7 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, can we go back to P180. I've been
8 advised that it is there but we're unable to link the document. If the
9 registrar can go to the document which is 0040-0938, which is part of the
10 65 ter number 06655.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: The long and short of all those numbers is that we
12 are going to P180, MFI
13 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes, Your Honour.
14 Q. Mr. Treanor, is this the document that you referred to on
15 Thursday when -- that we had discussed a moment ago?
16 A. Yes, that's the English translation. In the Serbian it begins at
17 the lower right of the page, item number 2, and it continues on the next
18 page, as did the previous document we were looking at.
19 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, may that now, P180, MFI, be
20 admitted into evidence?
21 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm advised that, in fact, this number -- this
23 document is coming under a different 65 ter number from the one that
24 P180, MFI
25 65 ter number --
1 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: -- and discard the previous number?
3 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: And what is the 65 ter number now here?
5 THE REGISTRAR: It's 06655, Your Honour, but the Exhibit P180 and
6 all the details for it will now be given to this new document that we
7 have on the screen.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. Then shall we -- that
9 exhibit, 06655, shall it be admitted into evidence and given an exhibit
10 number as P180.
11 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
13 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, we have also received an official
14 translation for P178, MFI
15 page 1059. If that could be brought up onto the screen, please. Your
16 Honour, that was part of Rule 65 ter number 06688, and it is the document
17 attached to e-court as 0214-4020-ET2.
18 The document -- the English translation that's on the screen at
19 the moment is the old translation. It has to be the document marked
20 0214-4020-ET2, which is attached to that Rule 65 ter number.
21 The translation that's on the screen in the moment is in relation
22 to MFI
23 I was given the wrong ERN number. It is the ERN number SA04-1167-ET2.
24 My apologies to the registrar.
25 Your Honour, this is the official CLSS translation of Exhibit
1 P178, and I would ask that that be admitted into evidence.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Exhibit -- this translation is admitted into
3 evidence and Exhibit P178, marked for identification, is now admitted as
4 Exhibit 178.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, for clarification, would counsel
6 want the official CLSS translation to replace the draft translation?
7 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Okay.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
10 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, we also have a CLSS translation for
12 and it's the document that I spoke of a moment ago, 0214-4020-ET2.
13 Your Honour, this is the exhibit that the Defence had an
14 objection to, to the word "dictated by" as opposed to "decided upon," you
15 may recall. This was discussed at transcript page 982 of the transcript.
16 If we can turn to the second page, please -- sorry, no, it's on the first
17 page. It's the first full paragraph that you can see on the screen, Your
18 Honour, starting with "We must ensure unity in Serbia ..."
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: And now that "dictate" is supposed to be?
20 MS. SUTHERLAND: The difference in the translation is the second
21 sentence in that paragraph, starting "and as you know, borders are always
22 dictated by the strong common, never by the weak ..." That, in the
23 original translation said, "as you know, borders are always decided upon
24 by the strong, never the weak ..." and there was the issue of -- because
25 in Mr. Treanor's report, at paragraph, I think, 11 --
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: It doesn't matter, Madam Sutherland.
2 MS. SUTHERLAND: On page 11. The Defence has been provided with
3 a copy of this translation, and I presume that they don't maintain their
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Any longer.
6 MR. GUY-SMITH: This is now official?
7 MS. SUTHERLAND: This is the CLSS translation, yes.
8 MR. GUY-SMITH: Then we have no objection.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
10 Then this Exhibit P152, marked for identification, is admitted
11 into evidence as Exhibit P152.
12 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, there's two other exhibits marked
13 for identification which are still outstanding and that's P151, MFI, and
14 P161, MFI
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Madam Sutherland. May I
17 suggest that when you do find the translations, just do the necessary and
18 advise the registrar that we'll just mention it in court, rather than
19 take all this time trying to change them from "marked for identification"
20 to an exhibit.
21 MS. SUTHERLAND:
22 Q. Mr. Treanor, we finished yesterday afternoon with you telling the
23 Trial Chamber very briefly what had happened between December 1994 and
24 August 1995.
25 So in August 1995 did the -- did the FRY leadership discuss with
1 the Bosnian Serb leadership the settling of the conflict?
2 A. Yes, they did.
3 MS. SUTHERLAND: Could I have Rule 65 ter number 06606.
4 Q. Can you tell the Trial Chamber about the events that led to this
6 A. Very briefly, at the beginning of August, after the beginning of
7 the Croatian operation against the RSK, Slobodan Milosevic publicly
8 appealed to Ratko Mladic and Alija Izetbegovic for peace, and the United
9 States government started an initiative for peace with shuttle diplomacy
10 being conducted by Richard Holbrooke who visited the capitals in the
11 region and spoke to Mr. Milosevic, among others.
12 At this point at the time of this meeting, the FRY leaders were
13 meeting with the RSK leaders in order to develop a joint position in
14 regard to forthcoming peace negotiations.
15 Q. When did both leaderships get together to discuss this?
16 A. There were two meetings in August. The first meeting was on the
17 25th of August.
18 Q. Where was that meeting held?
19 A. It was held in Dobanovci, outside of Belgrade, which was an Army
20 of Yugoslavia
21 Q. Who was in attendance at this meeting?
22 A. Well, a large number of the top leaders of the FRY and the RSK
23 were present, including Zoran Lilic, Slobodan Milosevic, Momir Bulatovic,
24 Radoje Kontic, Pavle Bulatovic, on the FRY side. And on the RS side,
25 Radovan Karadzic, Momcilo Krajisnik, Nikola Koljevic --
1 Q. Who was --
2 A. Ratko Mladic, Zdravko Tolimir, Djordje Djukic, and Milan
3 all of whom were generals in the VRS.
4 Q. Were they --
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can I get clarity? I'm sorry, ma'am.
6 Let me just hold this so that -- at page 13, lines 3 to 5,
7 Mr. Treanor, you're saying at this point at the time of this meeting, the
8 FRY leaders were meeting with the RSK leaders in order to develop a joint
9 position in regard to forthcoming peace negotiations, and now I realise
10 you're mentioning RS leaders as being present, not RSK.
11 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, I'm sorry. I misspoke, Your Honour. It
12 is RS.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: So it should be "RS" at page 13?
14 THE WITNESS: Yes.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
16 You may proceed, ma'am.
17 MS. SUTHERLAND: Thank you, Your Honour.
18 Q. Mr. Treanor, was anyone in attendance from the army, from the
20 A. Yes. From the FRY side, from the army, Momcilo Perisic was
22 MS. SUTHERLAND: If I could go to pages -- page 2 of the English
23 translation and page 2 of the B/C/S.
24 Q. Mr. Treanor, what did -- what did Slobodan Milosevic have to say
25 at this session? Sorry, and the document that we have in front of us are
1 the minutes of the 42nd -- sorry, the notes of the meeting held in
2 Dobanovci on the 25th of August, 1995. What did Mr. Milosevic say at
3 this meeting?
4 A. Well, he had quite a bit to say, and he made several references
5 to the -- what he saw as the goals that the Serbs should be pursuing in
6 the negotiations.
7 Q. What did he see as the goals that they should be pursuing?
8 A. Well, he thought the most important thing was to obtain peace and
9 recognition for the existence of RS.
10 Q. What was Dr. Radovan Karadzic's response?
11 A. Well, Dr. Karadzic pointed out to Mr. Milosevic some areas that
12 he thought were important, geographical areas that he thought were
13 important, that should be objects of the negotiations and that should
14 be -- the possession of which for RS should be achieved in the course of
15 his negotiations.
16 Q. And is this discussed on page 7 of the English translation and
17 page 8 of the B/C/S?
18 A. Page 7 in the English contains part of that discussion.
19 Q. And is that in the middle of the page?
20 A. Yes, just above the middle of the page. If I could just read
21 those two -- three short paragraphs.
22 "When President Karadzic heard about this inability to assist
23 Republika Srpska, he asked President Milosevic: 'President, does this
24 mean, then, that I shouldn't go to the Neretva and into Eastern
1 The President of Serbia
2 was a war option.
3 "Does that mean we're giving up Republic of Serbian Krajina
4 territory and a wider access to the sea?" Karadzic asked.
5 Q. And, again, what's the significance of this?
6 A. Well, here Dr. Karadzic is mentioning one of the accesses to the
7 sea, which was one of the strategic goals that the RS leadership had
8 adopted, and he seems to be concerned that Mr. Milosevic would not be
9 pushing for this in negotiations.
10 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honours, can pages 1 and 7 of the English
11 translation be admitted into evidence, and page 1, 7, and 8 of the
12 English -- B/C/S -- sorry, 8 and 9 of the B/C/S be admitted into
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: They are. May they please be given an exhibit
16 THE REGISTRAR: Those pages will be Exhibit P230, Your Honours.
17 MS. SUTHERLAND:
18 Q. Mr. Treanor, did this -- you said that there were two meetings
19 between the FRY leadership and the Bosnian Serb leadership. You
20 mentioned one on the 25th of August. When was the next meeting with
21 the -- between the two leaderships?
22 A. The next meeting took place on the 29th of August, 1995.
23 Q. Between those two meetings, did the Bosnian Serbs hold an
24 Assembly session?
25 A. Yes, they did.
1 Q. On what date?
2 A. That was on the 28th of August.
3 MS. SUTHERLAND: Can we have Rule 65 ter number 02160.01.
4 Q. At this Assembly session, did Dr. Karadzic discuss what he hopes
5 the Republika Srpska would achieve from the negotiations?
6 A. Yes, he did.
7 MS. SUTHERLAND: If we could go to page 68 of the English
8 translation and page 86 of the B/C/S, please.
9 Q. What did Dr. Karadzic say in this regard?
10 A. Well, among other things, I would direct the Court's attention to
11 the bottom of the first paragraph in the English translation, the line
12 beginning with "... channels and something." The first full sentence in
13 that line reads:
14 "We've drawn some maps into which a part of the Neretva Valley
15 could be integrated, and, of course, access to the sea. The Drina
16 be clean. These are all priorities. The corridor must be wide."
17 And at the bottom of the page, he makes some further comments.
18 Q. What are those comments in relation to?
19 A. In relation to the territories that he would like to see
20 recognised as part of RS as a result of the negotiations. The fifth line
21 from the bottom, toward the end:
22 "I ask you another thing. So far we have been up to the task,
23 we were a nation. Trebinje must equally care about Drvar and Drvar about
24 Trebinje, otherwise, we are ruined. We absolutely cannot let ourselves
25 get any ideas about them taking our traditional territories from us.
1 To tell the truth, there are towns that we've grabbed for
2 ourselves, and there were only 30 per cent of us. I can name as many of
3 those as you want, but we cannot give up the towns where we made up 70
4 per cent. Don't let this get around, but remember how many of us there
5 were in Bratunac, how about in Srebrenica, how many in Visegrad, how many
6 in Rogatica, how many in Vlasenica and Zvornik, et cetera. Due to
7 strategic importance, they had to become ours and nobody is practically
8 questioning it anymore.
9 Between Grmec and Kozara, I think Milosevic must also know that,
10 foreign negotiators have also been told this, between Grmec and Kozara,
11 nothing can belong to anyone but us, because genocide was committed
12 there, Serbian people have been killed there, and the number of Muslims
13 grew 50 per cent because of the genocide and not because of some neutral
14 development. Genocide was also committed in the Neretva Valley
15 that's all I wanted to say."
16 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, can pages 1 and 68 and 69 of the
17 English translation and page 1 and 86 and 87 of the B/C/S be admitted
18 into evidence, please.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Those pages are admitted into evidence. May they
20 please be given an exhibit number.
21 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit P231, Your Honours.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
23 MS. SUTHERLAND: Could we have Rule 65 ter number 06653 on the
24 screen, please.
25 Q. Mr. Treanor, you mentioned a moment ago that this second meeting
1 between the FRY and the RS leadership was held at the end of August 1995.
2 What was -- what was the outcome of this meeting? If I could direct you
3 to pages 18 and 19 of the English translation and page 16 of the B/C/S.
4 Could you tell the Court the results of the discussion.
5 A. The outcome of this meeting was a decision, indeed an agreement,
6 witnessed by the patriarch of the Serbian Orthodox church, Pavle, who was
7 there, that a joint delegation would be formed for peace delegations
8 composed of representatives from the FRY and the RS, and that Slobodan
9 Milosevic would have a -- the deciding vote in case there was any -- in
10 case there was a disagreement within the delegation.
11 Q. And, again, was anyone present from the Army of the VJ?
12 A. Yes. Momcilo Perisic was present.
13 Q. And from the VRS army?
14 A. Ratko Mladic was present on this occasion as well as -- as well
15 as the other generals who were at the other meeting, Zdravko Tolimir,
17 Q. So basically what did Slobodan Milosevic -- what was his position
18 at that meeting?
19 A. Well, as far as the goals, the objectives, of the negotiations
20 were concerned, we can see at the bottom of page 18 in the translation,
21 in the final paragraph there:
22 "Leadership of Republika Srpska requested from
23 President Milosevic to set forth priorities that he would represent at
24 the Conference with representatives of the Contact Group concerning the
25 former BiH, which was done. President Milosevic wrote on a separate
1 piece of paper that they were: "1) north corridor as broad as possible
2 (especially in Brcko); 2) compactness of territory; 3) as many towns as
3 possible; and 4) an access to the sea."
4 At this point President Karadzic had something to say, and
5 according to the record:
6 "At President Karadzic's insistence, a list of priorities was
7 amended with three more items: 5) area between Grmec and Kozara; 6) the
8 Neretva basin; and 7) Serb Sarajevo."
9 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honours, may pages 1, 18, and 19 of the
10 English and page 1 and page 16 of the B/C/S be admitted into evidence,
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Those pages are admitted into evidence. May they
13 please be given an exhibit number.
14 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit P232, Your Honours.
15 MS. SUTHERLAND:
16 Q. Mr. Treanor, what position did the Bosnian Serb leadership adopt
17 on the eve of the Dayton
18 A. Well, the Bosnian Serb Assembly adopted its own resolution on
19 territorial priorities at a session on the 22nd and 23rd of October,
20 1995, which was just a week or so before the beginning -- the scheduled
21 beginning of the negotiations in Dayton.
22 MS. SUTHERLAND: Can we have Rule 65 ter number 02162 on the
23 screen, please. If we could go to page 3 of the English translation and
24 page 3 and then 4 of the B/C/S.
25 Q. Mr. Treanor, does this document set out - on page 3 of the
1 English translation and page 3 and over onto page 4 of the B/C/S - what
2 the territorial priorities were?
3 A. Yes, it sets out the territorial priorities as defined by the
4 Bosnian Serb Assembly at this time.
5 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, may pages 1 and 3 of the English
6 translation and pages 1, 3, and 4 of the B/C/S be admitted into evidence?
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Those pages are admitted into evidence. May they
8 please be given an exhibit number.
9 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit P233, Your Honours.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
11 Yes, Madam Sutherland.
12 MS. SUTHERLAND: I'm sorry, we've lost the document.
13 Q. Just looking at the territorial priorities on page 3 of the
14 English translation, are these priorities the same or similar to the
15 strategic goals which were set out by the Bosnian Serb leadership on
16 the -- at the 16th session of the Assembly session at the 12th of May?
17 And if not, how do they differ?
18 A. Well, several of the points mentioned here are virtually the same
19 as the strategic goals that had been laid out at the 16th session. I
20 would draw the Court's attention to point 2, which says:
21 "The northern border of the Sava River and the breadth of the
22 territory linking the western and eastern part of the Republika Srpska,
23 20 kilometres wide in its narrowest section between Brcko and Samac."
24 Under point 3, the last paragraph speaks of: "Podgrmec and
25 Potkozarje, from the Una River
1 areas that are on the eastern side of the Una river and the southern side
2 of the Sava
3 And then number 5, there is no number 4: "The territorial
4 connection between Serbian Sarajevo and the territory of Republika
5 Srpska; and 6) exit to the sea; and 7) border at the Neretva river."
6 Q. Thank you, Mr. Treanor.
7 Was the Belgrade
8 A. Yes. Slobodan Milosevic certainly was.
9 Q. And what do you base this on?
10 A. Well, he gave a speech to the military leadership, the FRY, on
11 the -- at the 47th session of the Supreme Defence Council.
12 MS. SUTHERLAND: If we could have Rule 65 ter number 06678 on the
13 screen, please.
14 THE WITNESS: This meeting took place on the 6th of December,
15 1995, after the conclusion of the Dayton
16 MS. SUTHERLAND: If we could go to page 6 of the English
17 translation and page 6 of the B/C/S.
18 Q. What did Milosevic say at this meeting, at this session?
19 A. Well, on page 6 I would call the Court's attention to the
20 paragraph under Arabic 4, beginning:
21 "Two years ago, the plan of the Contact Group ... at the time
22 when they were keeping 72 per cent of the territory and when they thought
23 that they won the war," they being the Bosnian Serb leadership, "the
24 International Community admitted it and said: 'You can have half the
25 territory of the Bosnia and Herzegovina.' They said that it was unfair
1 on Serbian people," "they" in this case being the Bosnian Serbs, Bosnian
2 Serb leadership, "although they are 31 per cent of the Serbian people in
4 70 per cent of others get the other half of the territory, and it is
5 unfair on those 31 per cent who got a half of the territory.
6 There were some others who had arguments such as: 'Well, Serbs
7 owned 62 per cent of the territory' as if someone would believe it. We
8 know that it was all socially-owned property. The meadows, grazing
9 lands, and mountains were nobody's property. For God sake, what kind of
10 owners are they talking about?"
11 Q. Further down on that page, does Mr. Milosevic make reference to
12 the percentage of the square kilometres of land that's been -- that's
13 been achieved?
14 A. Yes. He talks about how much land the Bosnian Serbs had, in
15 fact, obtained. I could draw the Court's attention to the third
16 paragraph under Roman IV, beginning with "However they destroyed ..."
17 Q. Without reading that paragraph, is it possible to summarize for
18 the Chamber what was gained?
19 A. Well, he refers to them obtaining 49 per cent of the territory on
20 25.000 square kilometres in an area where there had never been a Serbian
21 state before.
22 Q. If I take you to page 7 of the English translation and page 7 of
23 the B/C/S, does Mr. Milosevic discuss there very briefly the procedures
24 and negotiations?
25 A. Yes, he does. He compares it to previous negotiations as well.
1 Q. And what is the outcome that he says the Bosnian Serbs achieved?
2 A. Well, he says that the outcome of these negotiations were better
3 than any of the previous maps that had been offered to the Serbs. Toward
4 the bottom of the second paragraph, under Arabic number 5, he said:
5 "This map is the best map for Serbs. They got each town on the
6 Sava River
7 Drina River
8 kilometres, a half of Bosnia
9 Q. Thank you. I'm finished with that document.
10 Mr. Treanor --
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, ma'am, you don't want to tender it?
12 MS. SUTHERLAND: Sorry, I do, Your Honour. Pages 1 and -- page 1
13 is actually the agenda, in the English translation at least. Page 1, 2,
14 6, and 7 of the English translation, and 1, 2, 6 and 7 of the B/C/S,
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Those pages are admitted into evidence. May they
17 please be given an exhibit number.
18 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit P234, Your Honours.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
20 MS. SUTHERLAND:
21 Q. Mr. Treanor, in giving your evidence, you've taken the Trial
22 Chamber to a number of documents in relation to the formation of Serbian
23 entities - the Republic of Serbian Krajina in Croatia, the Republika
24 Srpska in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
25 You've also taken the Trial Chamber to a number of statements made by the
1 Bosnian Serb leadership and the leadership of the FRY. What, in your
2 opinion, were they attempting --
3 MS. SUTHERLAND: I'm sorry, Your Honour?
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: No, I'm sorry, we are having trouble with our
5 screens here. The transcript has disappeared, and it says it's
6 attempting to connect with the server.
7 MS. SUTHERLAND: May I continue?
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may. If we may get the technician to come and
9 help, please. Yes, you may continue.
10 MS. SUTHERLAND:
11 Q. Mr. Treanor, what, in your opinion, were the Bosnian Serb and the
12 leadership of the FRY attempting to achieve?
13 A. Well, during the period that we've been discussing here, in --
14 very concisely and briefly, what the Serbian leaders were attempting to
15 achieve was that all Serbs be in one state. They were all in one state
16 in the SFRY and the Bosnian Serb leaders, the Croatian Serb leaders, and
17 the leaders in power in Belgrade
18 of the Republic of Serbia
19 course of dissolution.
20 It became clear to the leaders in Belgrade, at least at a certain
21 point in time, toward the end of 1991 or beginning of 1992, that given
22 the fact that international recognition was proceeding of the individual
23 republics of Yugoslavia
24 the Serbs in Croatia
25 going to be possible. They therefore proceeded to the formation of a new
1 state, the FRY, that only included Serbia and Montenegro
2 supported the efforts of the Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia
3 of territories in those republics that they regarded as Serbian
4 territory, with the ultimate aim of uniting all those territories, that
5 is, the territories in Croatia
6 into one state.
7 Q. You said that towards the end of 1991 and the beginning of 1992,
8 but did this -- did this aim continue right the way through until the end
9 of the war?
10 A. Yes. I said at that particular point in time, the idea of simply
11 keeping those territories within the SFRY became not viable in the
12 opinion of the Belgrade
13 change tack and, as I said, form the FRY and support of the efforts of
15 republics and keep control of those territories over the course of the
16 next few years, with the ultimate goal of uniting all those territories
17 into one state. The -- when that goal would be achieved was never
18 specified precisely. There was talk of five years, ten years, 20 years,
19 at various times, but it was a -- it remained the long-term goal.
20 MS. SUTHERLAND: Thank you, Your Honour.
21 Thank you, Mr. Treanor. I have no further questions.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Madam Sutherland.
23 Mr. Guy-Smith, you've got four minutes to go to break.
24 MR. GUY-SMITH: Shall we go to break?
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: We're in your hands.
1 MR. GUY-SMITH: Why don't we go to break.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much for giving us an extra four
3 minutes. We'll break now and come back at a quarter to 11.00.
4 --- Recess taken at 10.12 a.m.
5 --- On resuming at 10.45 a.m.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Guy-Smith.
7 MR. GUY-SMITH: Thank you, Your Honour.
8 Cross-examination by Mr. Guy-Smith:
9 Q. Mr. Treanor, I'd like to start by talking with you for a moment
10 about your general experience, essentially your CV, if we could.
11 A. Sure.
12 Q. And in that regard I'll be dealing with a document which you
13 supplied, which was your CV. I'm less concerned with each and every
14 part, but I would just like to get a rough understanding, if we could,
15 about some of what could be the salient points with regard to your
16 qualifications as they relate to your testimony here.
17 As I understand it, you were involved in the study of Balkan
18 foreign policy and history; is that correct? And I'm talking about in
19 1971 and 1972, when you were a special student researching Bulgarian
20 foreign policy.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Now, during the course of your studies in the 1970s, did you have
23 occasion to study the political system, the historical area, with regard
24 to Yugoslavia
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Okay. And specifically during that period of time, did you have
2 occasion to study at all the governmental institutions that existed under
3 Mr. Tito?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Okay. Now, there came a point in time when you worked as a
6 historian at the United States Department of Justice.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And that was a number of years after you completed your studies;
10 A. I'm not sure what you mean by "completed your studies."
11 Q. I'm sorry. In 1980 you began to work for the United States
12 Department of Justice; correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And when you were doing that work, when you were working for the
15 Department of Justice, as I understand it, your work was involved in
16 investigations of litigations of alleged Nazi war criminals that were
17 living in the United States.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Now, was your work at that time involved in the prosecution of
20 such individuals as a matter of -- a criminal matter, or was it a matter
21 of the United States Department of Justice's position with regard to
22 whether they should remain within the United States, residents of the
23 United States?
24 A. Yes, the latter. The cases were denaturalisation and/or
25 deportation cases.
1 Q. And those were cases that went through the immigration
3 A. Yes, which were under civil procedure.
4 Q. During that period of time, when you were involved in that
5 particular work, were you ever involved in a case where you made a
6 determination that an individual should remain in the country?
7 A. That was not my determination to make.
8 Q. I understand that. But based on the research and investigation
9 you did, did you make a determination that an individual should remain in
10 the country?
11 A. Well, I made determinations that cases should be closed, that no
12 further action should be taken.
13 Q. And within the 14-year period of time that you were working at
14 the Department of Justice, could you tell me -- could you tell us about
15 how many of those cases you determined should be closed out of the entire
16 number of cases that you were working on, if you could? And I'm not
17 trying to stretch you for figures. If you remember, that's great,
18 but ...
19 A. A couple of dozen.
20 Q. Okay. And that's out of how many cases?
21 A. Well, at any given time I would have, say, a hundred cases
22 assigned to me.
23 Q. Now --
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Would this be a couple of dozen out of a hundred
25 or a couple of dozen out of your entire period of employment?
1 THE WITNESS: Yes, a good question, Your Honour.
2 Roughly a couple dozen total. You know, the total of number
3 cases ever assigned to me might have risen to 150 or 200.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: I don't understand that.
5 What is the 150 or 200?
6 THE WITNESS: The total of number that were ever assigned to me
7 over that 13-year period.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Thank you so much.
9 MR. GUY-SMITH: Thank you for the clarification, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
11 MR. GUY-SMITH:
12 Q. Now, before you were involved in that work, you were an
13 intelligence analyst working for the Library of Congress, correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And when you were doing that job, that was not a job that was a
16 part of the Department of Justice, right?
17 A. No. The Library of Congress is part of the legislative branch of
18 the United States.
19 Q. My understanding, okay.
20 Now, during the time that you were engaged as an intelligence
21 analyst, did you produce any papers with regard to your analytic work
22 that were published and reviewed by any of your peers?
23 A. Is that one question?
24 Q. Well, if you'd like it, I can make it one question.
25 A. It seems to be multi-part --
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let's make it two. Let's make it two. Did you
2 publish papers?
3 THE WITNESS: No.
4 MR. GUY-SMITH:
5 Q. Okay. Well, the answer to the first question obviously takes
6 care of --
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: The second one.
8 MR. GUY-SMITH:
9 Q. -- the second one.
10 And as I understand your language proficiency, you understand
11 Bulgarian, Serbo-Croatian, and Russian in terms of writing and reading --
12 I'm sorry, in terms of reading -- let me do that again. You understand
13 Bulgarian, Serbo-Croatian, and Russian in terms of reading those
14 languages easily.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Okay. And with regard to speaking, you speak Bulgarian easily,
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. You consider yourself fluent in Bulgarian.
20 A. I don't think I was ever quite fluent. I'm a bit rusty perhaps
21 at this point, but I can still speak it easily.
22 Q. And when you say you can speak it easily, you can speak it to the
23 point of being able to operate as the people who work for us, I take it?
24 And by that I mean interpreters who would be able to engage in
25 simultaneous interpretation.
1 A. I've never done simultaneous interpretation in Bulgarian. I've
2 done consecutive translation, but I wouldn't say I was at that level, no.
3 Q. Okay. And with regard to Russian, would you claim that your
4 proficiency in Russian with regard to speaking the language is distinct
5 -- is the same as it is in Bulgarian, or would there be a distinction
6 between the two?
7 A. Well, my Russian is probably a little more rusty. I did pass the
8 UN proficiency test in Russian a number of years ago.
9 Q. That not the case, however, with Serbo-Croatian. Serbo-Croatian
10 is a language, by your own estimation, you don't speak easily. As a
11 matter of fact, you indicated with regard to your proficiency, it's not
12 easily that you speak the language. I'm using the words that you've
13 chosen in your CV; correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Could you tell us for a moment, since we've been dealing a fair
16 amount here with issues concerning the meaning of words, whether or not
17 you believe that a spoken word and a written word obtain the same
18 definition in meaning in the absence of the context in which the word
20 A. Well, I think any word, whether written or spoken, has a range of
21 meanings, an area of meaning. I think when a word is spoken, the
22 particular meaning that the speaker wishes to impart can be clearer than
23 when it is written.
24 Q. And with regard to your efforts, and specifically your efforts in
25 terms of the work that you have done here, you have been working, as I
1 understand it, from documents in large measure with regard to the report
2 that you compiled for our purposes; correct? Documents.
3 A. I've been involved with documents --
4 Q. Yes.
5 A. -- broadly speaking.
6 Q. In terms of the report that you compiled for us here, did you
7 have occasion to listen to any audiotapes from which you then made notes
8 or wrote parts of your report?
9 A. Well, I listened to a couple of the audios that we had, for
10 instance, the meeting I think in Banja Luka in the autumn of 1991. We
11 have a transcript of that, and I listened to the audio --
12 Q. And when you --
13 A. -- to check the transcripts. I can't remember if there were --
14 there might have been a couple other videos, videos that I might have
15 looked at.
16 Q. But in large measure, it would be fair to say that the
17 information upon which you relied was written information.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Okay. I take it that you have a copy of your report with you, do
20 you not?
21 A. Yes, I do.
22 Q. Okay, great. And just so we're clear, that report is in English.
23 It's not in B/C/S, is it?
24 A. It's in English.
25 Q. Okay. Now, you told us earlier that the manner in which you
1 prepared your report is you reviewed selected items that you deemed
2 relevant with regard to the specific request that you received; correct?
3 A. I'm not sure what you mean by I reviewed selected items. I
4 reviewed items that had been chosen by category for me to review, the
5 category being documents which related to the statements or activities,
6 discussions, of the highest level state and party leaders in the former
8 would be relevant to the purpose of this report.
9 Q. Did you receive a specific request from the Office of the
10 Prosecutor, from a particular individual, asking you to prepare a report
11 along the lines that you've just referred to?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And was that by e-mail or was that orally? How did you get that
15 A. I think there was a meeting.
16 Q. Okay. And could you tell us who was present at that meeting?
17 A. It would have been Susan Somers; I think Fred Ossogo might have
18 been present at that meeting from the trial team at that time.
19 Q. So as you recall, it was at a minimum yourself, Susan Somers, and
20 potentially Mr. Ossogo.
21 A. Yes, at a minimum.
22 Q. Okay, that's fine. And at that meeting the idea of you preparing
23 a report was discussed, I take it?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And before we go any further, was that meeting memorialised in
1 any fashion in terms of a memorandum between the parties as to what the
2 general goals or objectives of your report might be?
3 A. No.
4 Q. I see. During that meeting, could you tell us, if you recall,
5 about how long it was?
6 A. Fifteen, 20 minutes. Half an hour, maybe.
7 Q. And during that period of time, from 15 minutes to half an hour,
8 whatever it may be, I take it it was a dialogue as between the parties as
9 to what would be important with regard to the report that you were to
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Okay.
13 A. Generally speaking.
14 Q. And when was this meeting?
15 A. It must have been August 2006.
16 Q. I see. After the meeting that you had with Ms. Somers and at
17 least Mr. Ossogo as well, you went about preparing the report; correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And at that point you were aware of the fact that you were
20 preparing a report for a particular case, were you not?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And that case was a case that involved the gentleman who sits
23 with us here today, Momcilo Perisic; right?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. During the time that you were having this meeting with the
1 Prosecutor and Mr. Ossogo at a minimum, were you discussing what would be
2 the best manner of putting that information together for this report, or
3 was that left in your discretion entirely?
4 A. The best manner of putting together -- no, I don't think that was
5 a subject of the conversation.
6 Q. All right. Did you discuss -- did you discuss in that meeting
7 whether or not in the report you would articulate the extent to which
8 factors such as the breaking of truces by all the parties who were
9 involved would be important for purposes of understanding the contextual
10 and chronological history of, as you've termed it, the leadership during
11 that period?
12 A. That subject wasn't mentioned at all.
13 Q. Okay. What subjects were mentioned in that meeting?
14 A. I was asked to write a report about the goals of the Serbian
15 leadership and the extent to which they might have achieved those goals.
16 Q. Okay. Now, with regard to the first request, which is the goals
17 of the Serbian leadership, was that defined for you any more specifically
18 than what you've just told us here?
19 A. The goals?
20 Q. Yes.
21 A. Well, mention was made of the setting up of the various entities
22 and the background to those entities.
23 Q. And when you say "various entities," could you be a bit more
24 specific, please.
25 A. The RSK, the RS, and the FRY.
1 Q. I see. Was that -- was the suggestion made to you that that be
2 done in a vacuum? And once again, by "a vacuum," what I mean by that is
3 that you would not include or you would include what was happening with
4 other parties, since this was a multi-partied conflict, and to the extent
5 that you were dealing with the issue of what the goals were of the
6 Serbian leadership, one would think you would take into account what
7 other parties, apart from the three that you've just mentioned, were
9 A. I don't think that figured in the conversation.
10 Q. Did not figure.
11 A. No.
12 Q. Okay. What else did figure in the conversation, as you sit here
13 today, apart from the two things that you've just mentioned?
14 A. Well, I sought clarification of what kind of sources generally I
15 should use, that is, documents as opposed to witness testimony in other
16 cases, witness statements, that kind of thing, which I generally do not
17 use, and the response was, yes, you don't need to use that type of thing.
18 Q. Well, when you asked the question of seeking clarification of
19 sources, generally and specifically, the issue of witness testimony that
20 you just raised us, I take it that you were aware of, at least through
21 that discussion, that there could well be witness testimony that would
22 impact upon the report you were to write; correct?
23 A. That there could be, certainly.
24 Q. And that's because there have been a number of trials here in
25 which some of the same issues that you've discussed with us today have
1 come up; correct?
2 A. I think that's correct, yes.
3 Q. And as a matter of fact, you've testified in some of those cases;
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Did you, during the discussion that you were having with the
7 Prosecutor, discuss any of the witness testimony that might be germane to
8 your report, whether or not you chose to use it?
9 A. No.
10 Q. It was more of a generalised question that you asked in terms of,
11 Should I be looking at witness testimony?
12 A. Well, I think I probably said, I generally don't look at that
13 kind of thing; I hope that's your expectation as well.
14 Q. And you were -- you were at that point reiterating something
15 that's well-known about you, right, Mr. Treanor? I mean, you've been
16 here for a long time.
17 A. I don't know if it's well-known about me, but I was reiterating a
18 common point of mine, yes.
19 Q. Okay. And they agreed with that?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And did you -- did you, at the time that you were talking about
22 writing the report, draw any other requirements or boundaries, and I
23 don't mean that in a restrictive way but rather a positive way, as to how
24 you intended to proceed?
25 A. Well, I probably went a little bit beyond what they had -- what
1 the -- what the fulfilment of the task would have required, but beyond
2 that I don't think so. What I set out to do is set forth in the
3 introduction to the report.
4 Q. Well, let me ask you this: When you said you probably went a
5 little bit beyond what they had, I guess you didn't finish that, "they
6 had" being --
7 A. What they had in mind by the goals of the Serbian leadership.
8 Q. And when you did that, what did you suggest to them were things
9 that should be thought about in terms of that particular issue, that
10 being the goals of the "Serbian leadership," as we put it? I'm putting
11 that in quotations because there are quite a different number of people
12 who are involved in that particular statement, "Serbian leadership." As
13 you've told us here, we have three distinct governments, whether or not
14 they're formally recognised or not, as well as a myriad of other people.
15 So when you made that suggestion to them, what did you say to them in
16 that regard, in terms of what they hadn't thought about and perhaps they
17 should think about?
18 A. I don't believe I said anything in that regard.
19 Q. Okay. Well, what did you -- where did you go a little bit beyond
20 what they had thought about?
21 A. Well, I think there's a section in here on the JNA or the
22 military, the Yugoslav Army and the Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia
23 thought that would be useful. I probably went through the negotiating
24 process further than might have been imagined.
25 Q. And those are things that you suggested to them would be points
1 that would potentially be germane to the discussion of the Bosnian
2 leadership, as you've termed it in your report, before you wrote the
3 report, that is.
4 A. No.
5 Q. So what you did, then, if I understand it, is you independently
6 made a determination that these are areas that should be included in the
7 report above and beyond that which you discussed in this meeting in
8 August of 2006.
9 A. I think that would be fair to say, yes.
10 Q. Okay, fine. I wasn't there. You did what you did, and I'm just
11 trying to get an understanding so the Chamber has an understanding of how
12 you went about preparing the report.
13 Now, you told us that when you prepare the report, what you do --
14 MR. GUY-SMITH: Sorry, Your Honours. My apologies to all.
15 Q. When you prepare the report, is that you do so with a body of, as
16 I understand it, some 31.000, give or take, source documents that you
17 have in your library --
18 MS. SUTHERLAND: Excuse me, Your Honour. I'm sorry for
19 interrupting. Can I have a page number for the transcript.
20 MR. GUY-SMITH: I've just misplaced one of my binders, and I will
21 get you the page. We'll get back to it.
22 Q. And that when you're compiling the report, the report, as it's
23 compiled, is done as best you can, and the most important constraint --
24 the most important problem that you have, if I'm putting it properly, is
25 that the report of this nature takes place within the context of certain
1 constraints, the most important being time and space. And that's at page
2 914; correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Okay. And with regard to this report, you were operating under
5 that particular dilemma of time and space; correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And specifically, I'd like to spend a moment on the issue of
8 time, which is you were under a time constraint; correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Okay. And you had to get the report done in a couple of months;
12 A. I think it was less than two months. It was a month and a half,
14 Q. So --
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Are you able to tell us exactly when you started
16 writing the report?
17 THE WITNESS: Not off the top of my head, Your Honour. I think I
18 started the end of August, and the date on the original report was 11
19 October, 2006.
20 MR. GUY-SMITH:
21 Q. So that was the constraint that you had in terms of time --
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. -- is you had to get the report done by the 11th of October,
24 2006; right?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Now, between --
2 MR. GUY-SMITH: I'm sorry, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: I do have a concern about this date of October
4 11th, 2006. When you say "original report," was there a subsequent
6 THE WITNESS: Well, the report before us now is a corrected
7 version of the original report.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Thank you very much. Let me not interfere
9 with your examination, sir.
10 MR. GUY-SMITH:
11 Q. Now, in terms of -- in terms of the time constraints - and I want
12 to spend a moment there - since the report was filed on the 11th of
13 October, 2006, did you have occasion at that time -- let me put it to you
14 in other terms. When you finished the report, were you satisfied that
15 the report was as accurate and complete as possible, given your time
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. You felt that this report was obviously ready for prime time;
19 otherwise, you wouldn't have delivered it to the Prosecutor for purposes
20 of it being published as a document upon which they would rely and a
21 document upon which the Defence would review; right?
22 A. Right. Getting back to the length constraint, I mean, as I think
23 I indicated earlier, the -- part of the request was that it be kept
25 Q. Okay.
1 MR. GUY-SMITH: With regard to the question that my colleague
2 asked, it's at page 908. "We now have a collection of 31.000 separate
3 issues of newspapers and magazines," is what I was referring to in terms
4 of the figure, and that's at page 908, line 23.
5 Q. Since we're on that just for the moment, I take it that the
6 31.000 separate issues of newspapers and magazines does not include some
7 of the documents we've been discussing here today and during your
9 A. That is only a portion of the collection of material that was
10 available to me.
11 Q. So, in fact, it was over 31.000 documents that you had at your
13 A. Oh, yes.
14 Q. Okay. Now, with regard to the issue of putting your report
15 together, did you make a determination as you were putting the report
16 together that certain things should be omitted from the report? There
17 was certain information that was not necessarily relevant to the task at
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And how did you go about doing that?
21 A. Well, given the constraints of space at that point, one tries to
22 convey the substance of the document as briefly as possible. The
23 paragraphs of the report are basically summaries of relevant portions of
24 documents, so a summary is a summary. Backing up a step, of course,
25 there's the issue of selection of which documents to use, and it's
1 impossible to use them all so I chose the ones which, in my estimation,
2 were the most relevant of the ones available to me.
3 Q. When you say you chose the ones that, in your view -- I'm sorry,
4 in your estimation, were the most relevant of the ones available to you,
5 do you take into account, in terms of a methodology of putting your
6 report together, any hypothetical presumptions or objective structures?
7 Let me give you, for example, what I'm referring to because it
8 might be of some assistance, which is did you take into account any of
9 the notions behind such a hypothetical theory as game theory, which is
10 the study of strategic interactions among rationale players which produce
11 outcomes with respect to preferences of those players, which is something
12 that I think has been used in the area of international conflicts.
13 A. I did not take conscious account of that theory.
14 Q. Well, you are aware of the fact that there has been literature,
15 and a fair amount of literature, produced and published concerning the
16 application of game theory to international conflicts, are you not?
17 A. I'm aware of that.
18 Q. Okay. You do not find that to be necessarily a theory that you
19 would want to apply in a situation where you were dealing with an
20 international conflict and you were dealing with multiple parties, and
21 you were asked a question concerning goals over a period of some years?
22 That seemed to you not to be something worth consideration.
23 A. It didn't even occur to me.
24 Q. Okay. Have you heard about or have any awareness of theories
25 concerning, once again, in the area of inter-state crises what are called
1 audience costs?
2 A. I'm not familiar with that.
3 Q. Are you familiar with the notion, once again, in terms of the
4 methodology to be applied to a conflict situation, that in an
5 audience-cost theory, there's an analysis of inter-state bargaining, and
6 one of the things they take into account, of course, is the relatively --
7 relative military might of participants and the willingness of each side
8 to use force in order to demonstrate a higher degree of commitment to the
9 issue at stake than the opponent? Did you take that into account?
10 A. No.
11 Q. That, as a matter of fact, is one of the things that was
12 occurring in the conflict that you were looking at; correct? Apart from
13 saber-rattling, there was also, in fact, actual use of military force.
14 A. Yes, there was use of military force.
15 Q. Have you heard of the term, once again in terms of that
16 particular scientific methodology of approaching a problem, the notion of
17 what is called "competitions in risk-taking"?
18 A. I might have heard such a thing, but I'm not familiar with the
20 Q. Okay. Well, if you're not familiar with the theory, then obviously
21 it’s not something you applied for purposes of the report that you
22 wrote. And obviously from what we've seen, you did not apply any
23 statistical models whatsoever to a determination of the goals that
24 existed for this period of time; correct?
25 A. Correct.
1 Q. Now, what you did do is you picked documents that you, as I
2 understand it, determined were relevant to the issue at hand; right?
3 A. Right.
4 Q. Okay. Now, you've told us already, and that was in the
5 discussions that you had your first day, and I'm referring to page 917,
6 that there's an element of subjectivity or an ideological approach that
7 exists and that existed in the creation of this particular report; right?
8 A. I think I said there's always such elements present, yes.
9 Q. And, as a matter of fact, such elements were present when you
10 wrote this particular report; right?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Fair enough. I mean -- and, in a certain sense, the report is
13 not value-free or neutral, and by "neutral" I mean neutral from the
14 standpoint as we don't have objective information upon which we can gauge
15 if the conclusion that you've reached, and I'm referring to the
16 conclusion that you reached at the very end of your testimony here today
17 most importantly, is an accurate conclusion, number 1, or is the only
18 conclusion, number 2, that could be reached based upon the documents that
19 you reviewed; right?
20 A. I don't think I reached that conclusion in the report. I don't
21 think there is any conclusion in the report.
22 Q. I see.
23 A. There's a selection of documents that would bear on that issue.
24 People -- you're entirely correct. Different people, different readers,
25 could draw different conclusions.
1 Q. Well, that would -- that defeats, the ability to draw different
2 conclusions defeats one of the purposes, at least from the standpoint of
3 a methodology, does it not? And by that I mean, generally speaking, when
4 creating a report, the idea, among others, is that somebody entirely
5 different, a new person, could take that same information that you used
6 and come up with the same conclusions; right?
7 A. Well, no. I'm a historian, and one of the highest form of praise
8 for a work of history is that, Well, I don't agree with his conclusions,
9 but he's presented enough material to enable the reader to form alternate
11 Q. I see. And would it be fair to say that when you wrote this
12 report that you were, maybe at least subconsciously, interested in that
13 highest form of praise. And I don't mean that on a personal level, but
14 in terms of an effort, when you wrote the report, you wrote the report so
15 that one could obtain a different conclusion from the conclusion that you
16 you've reached here today based upon the body of the information that you
17 have presented to us?
18 A. Well, I presented the material that I thought were relevant --
19 was relevant to the consideration of that issue and leave it up to the
20 reader to draw whatever conclusion or types of conclusions the reader
21 wishes to draw on -- on the matters discussed.
22 Q. Okay. And that's based upon your perception of what your role
23 is, I take it, in writing the report; correct?
24 A. Fair enough.
25 Q. Which is that the report is to be objective; right?
1 A. Right.
2 Q. Complete; right?
3 A. That is complete as the various constraints permit.
4 Q. Understood. Right.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Balanced; right?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And fair, fair in its assessment to all of the considerations
9 that would revolve around that report; right?
10 A. Well, that could hardly be the case, all the considerations that
11 revolve around the report, as I state in the introduction to the report,
12 this is not a history of the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, so all
13 the considerations that revolve around the report are not included in --
14 could hardly have been included, certainly not within the constraints of
15 60 pages or something that was initially given.
16 Q. Okay. As a matter of fact, do you believe that with regard to
17 this report, that you applied a universal set of rules concerning minimal
18 standards of a scientifically objective piece?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. All right. Now, you've mentioned on a couple of occasions that
21 if you'd been given more time and space, it would have been much more
22 complete or longer; right?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Okay. Now, you finished this report on the 11th of October,
25 2006, approximately two years and a month ago, give or take -- maybe
1 today, maybe it's two years and a month exactly, give or take a day;
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. In that two years that have transpired since you wrote the
5 report, considering your concern about the constraints that you had with
6 regard to time, did you make any efforts to modify, amend, edit, or add
7 to the report that you felt may have suffered as a result of the time
8 constraints that you were placed under?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Okay. And when did you do that?
11 A. Well, I started on that right away, but the -- my objective was
12 not to rewrite the report; it was simply to correct some of the
13 deficiencies that -- editorial deficiencies, of the report; namely,
14 supplying ERN numbers of documents that did not have ERNs at the time the
15 report was written, correcting typographical errors. I eliminated a
16 couple of things that were based on documents that I decided were not
17 reliable for the purpose I was using them. So it's a corrected --
18 editorially corrected version of the report that I was working on. I was
19 not working on rewriting the report.
20 Q. Okay. You were satisfied, then, that -- let me rephrase that.
21 When you engaged in the corrections - and I'm using that term in a
22 generic sense - that you just discussed with us, you, as a matter of
23 fact, reduced the report in this number of paragraphs by two, did you
25 A. That's probably correct.
1 Q. So it wasn't any longer, as you've told us, than it would be had
2 you been given more time. It wasn't any longer.
3 A. Right.
4 Q. As a matter of fact, the amendments that you made to the report
5 are, quite frankly - and I mean this in a positive, not a negative with
6 regard to the report - are, quite frankly, de minimus.
7 A. Yes. That was my hope.
8 Q. Okay. When did you do that?
9 A. I think I indicated I started doing that fairly soon after the
10 original report was filed, and I completed that on the 1st of September,
12 Q. So the deletion of two paragraphs, as you've told us, putting in
13 some appropriate ERN numbers, and, as I understand it, you have actually
14 moved some of the paragraphs around --
15 A. Yes, I think that's correct. Yes.
16 Q. Right. I think actually there are six paragraphs that you
17 changed in the report.
18 A. Quite possibly. Quite possibly, yes.
19 Q. I have a letter from the Prosecutor that indicates that. And I'm
20 not asking you to say that's absolutely accurate or inaccurate. But I
21 received an indication that you made some very slight amendments.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. As a matter of fact, a very slightly amended version.
24 Now, I take it you started working on that immediately after the
25 final was filed in October of 2006, and the efforts that you put into
1 that, that's what took some two years for purposes of, as you've told us
2 here, had you had the time, you would have given us a more complete and
3 longer report; correct?
4 A. Well, I didn't work on it every day, all day, for two years.
5 Q. Oh, no, I'm sure you didn't.
6 A. So it took two years.
7 Q. Okay. Turning to the introduction of your report, Mr. Treanor,
8 paragraph 5, as I read it, you indicated that "the primary purpose of
9 such a description," and the description you're referring to is the one
10 that's contained in paragraph 4, "is to facilitate a realistic and
11 accurate understanding of the larger context in which it is alleged that
12 the Serbian leadership was involved in massive violations of
13 international humanitarian law in BH and Croatia, and to identify the
14 individuals who fill the highest level military and civilian positions
15 within the Serbian entities." Right?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And I don't recall hearing in the description that you gave us
18 that what the purpose of your report was what is written in paragraph 5,
19 and perhaps you could help us. Going back to that meeting that you had
20 in August of 2006, during that meeting, was one of the things that you
21 discussed as a primary purpose of the report that you wrote what I just
22 read to you? Because that certainly would be distinct from that which
23 you have told us thus far.
24 A. Well, as I said, I may have expanded a bit on what was -- what I
25 was asked to do, and I sat down and, when I was done, wrote this
1 introduction and thought about, What is it I'm doing here, and set -- set
2 out that paragraph, which I think is one I've used in other reports.
3 Q. Whether you've used it in other reports or not is irrelevant,
5 Is it your testimony here that with regard to that particular
6 paragraph -- and apparently, since you've used it in other reports, I
7 take it, that it must have been something that you did discuss at the
8 meeting that you had with the Prosecutor with regard to what the purpose
9 of your endeavours were to be.
10 A. Well, certainly not point A. I think something around point B
11 might have come up, the idea of -- again, laying out the development of
12 the entities and with that, who the office-holders were.
13 Q. Why do you reject point -- why do you reject point A and say to
14 us certainly not, when you've indicated that this is a paragraph that
15 you've used in previous reports? And I take it that it would be fair to
16 say that in the conversation that you had with the Prosecution in August,
17 one of the things that you discussed was whether there was an awareness
18 of those previous reports that you had written.
19 A. Well, I don't think that that came up in the conversation.
20 Q. Well, in the same fashion that you've alluded to what you
21 considered to be the awareness of others who may not have been present,
22 could you tell us whether or not the individuals who were involved in
23 that initial meeting, and by that I mean Ms. Somers and Mr. Ossogo at a
24 minimum, were aware of your reports, had read your reports?
25 A. I don't know whether they had read all my reports. They all
1 hadn't been written perhaps at that point.
2 Q. Mr. Treanor, let's be -- let's be honest here now. You are an
3 in-house, as you put it, historian for the Office of the Prosecutor;
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. You have been here for many years; true?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And you are, as I understand it, a team leader of a highly
9 sophisticated group of people that are involved in investigating and
10 culling information which is used by the Office of the Prosecutor to
11 prosecute those people who appear at this Tribunal; right?
12 A. I'm a team leader, yes.
13 Q. Okay. Are you rejecting the fact that you have a sophisticated
14 team? Because if you are, then I'll delete that from my question.
15 A. Well, I thank you for the description.
16 Q. Thank you. Now, once again I'm going to ask you the same
17 question, which is: You're involved in investigating and culling
18 information. You've told us you engage in a selection process when you
19 write those reports, so you cull information; right?
20 A. Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "cull." Perhaps you could
21 define that.
22 Q. Fine. Select information which is used by the Office of the
23 Prosecutor to prosecute people who appear at this Tribunal.
24 A. Well, we select information. Whether it all gets used in a
25 prosecution is another matter.
1 Q. How many reports have you written, sir?
2 A. This -- I think four altogether.
3 Q. Do you know what the fate of those four reports is with regard to
4 whether or not they've been used or not?
5 A. Well, two of them have been used in trials. There's another one
6 that was submitted for a trial -- in connection with a trial that hasn't
7 begun yet, and then there would be this one.
8 Q. Which is pending.
9 A. Right.
10 Q. So in your experience of those reports that you have authored or
11 that you have been responsible for a team authoring, they have been used
12 for purposes of prosecuting individuals who appear before this Tribunal;
14 A. Yes, but they do not encompass all the information that --
15 Q. I did not ask you that question, did I?
16 A. I understood that to be the question.
17 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, the Defence actually asked
18 Mr. Treanor whether -- whether Ms. Somers and Mr. Ossogo had read the
19 reports. That's where we were going about a page ago. And Mr. Treanor
20 said that he wasn't aware. And then Mr. Guy-Smith said, Well, let's be
21 honest here, and I should have stood up at that point, but the fact of
22 the matter is simply because they are used in other cases doesn't mean
23 that other trial teams have read those reports.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is that an objection, or what is it, ma'am? Is it
25 an argument?
1 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, I'm just objecting to the tone of
2 Mr. Guy-Smith's examination.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: The tone? What tone, ma'am?
4 MS. SUTHERLAND: He's just conflating. He starts off by saying,
5 Have these people read these reports, and then, let's be honest, you're
6 an in-house expert, and then goes into what the fate of the reports are.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: How would you like him to do it, ma'am? I
8 understand you would like to prescribe to Mr. Guy-Smith how he should
9 conduct his cross-examination. How would you like him to do it?
10 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, it was the tone that he was using
11 in relation to the questions that there was no basis for the tone in the
12 way that the question had been answered. It didn't relate to -- the
13 earlier question was simply had Ms. Somers and Mr. Ossogo read the
14 report, and then he completely changes around --
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Ma'am, your objection is overruled. I can't even
16 ask for a response from the opposite side because I don't understand what
17 you're talking about.
18 Carry on, Mr. Guy-Smith.
19 MR. GUY-SMITH: Thank you, Your Honour.
20 Q. Could you tell us how many people were on your team? And I have
21 two separate questions here, so let me tell you what I'm interested in
22 understanding here because it may be easier to do it in one or not, which
23 is how many people are on your team, and how many people who are on your
24 team were involved in the writing of this report, or the supplying of
25 information to you about this particular report?
1 A. Well, currently there are, I believe, 20 people on the team,
2 including myself and interns. The number of people that may have
3 contributed to this report is, I think, impossible for me to say, since,
4 as I indicated, much of the material that I -- on the basis of which I
5 made my selection was found in our CaseMap, and any number of people, a
6 large number of people, put things into the CaseMap. So I can't say how
7 many people contributed to that. As I indicated at one point, I believe,
8 I have -- or under my direction people have gone methodically through
9 various categories of high level state and party documents and entered
10 them into the CaseMap so that it would be a very large number.
11 Q. When you say that you have a number of people who methodically
12 enter the documents into CaseMap --
13 A. Well, methodically review and then the material is entered into
14 CaseMap, yes.
15 Q. And do you have an internal quality control system for that entry
16 into CaseMap that you use?
17 A. Yes, I do.
18 Q. Okay. And do you personally review the source material for all
19 of the entries of the 31.000 newspapers and articles, plus all the oodles
20 of other information that you have, to make a determination as to whether
21 or not the information that is contained in your CaseMap is, using a term
22 I used before, "spot-on" accurate?
23 A. Well, not all of the 31.000 items are entered into the CaseMap,
24 but I certainly do personally review what has been put in there and
25 review the documents, especially when it comes to a re-review when it
1 comes to producing a report of this nature.
2 Q. And this report, this specific report, is a report that, I use
3 the word "penned," because I actually began a life before there were
5 A. So did I.
6 Q. So this is a report that was penned by you.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. In its entirety. This is your report. There are no other
9 authors to this report but you?
10 A. No, except insofar as something in CaseMap might have been
11 entered by someone else and found its way into this report. But I
12 reviewed everything, and I'm responsible for everything that's in the
14 Q. When you were asked to prepare this report, did you have CaseMap
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. When you told us beforehand about the distinction between writing
18 the drafts and the CaseMap, this is a report that was written with the
19 utilisation of CaseMap; right?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Okay. Can you give us some assistance, and I know that some
22 questions were asked of you initially both by Judge Moloto and
23 Judge David concerning the objective criteria that you used in selecting
24 not only the documents but the portions of the documents that you've
25 submitted to us here. What were your criteria? Do you have a list of
1 those criteria? Do you have a spreadsheet of those criteria?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Are those criteria that are to be found somewhere in the recesses
4 of your own thinking?
5 A. Yes. That's where they're to be found.
6 Q. Do those -- are those criteria in a constant? Do they change?
7 A. You mean over the course of the six or seven weeks I was writing
8 the report?
9 Q. Yeah.
10 A. Well, as I indicated, I sort of expanded on -- in certain
11 respects to a strict interpretation of elucidating the goals of the
12 Serbian leadership and the establishment of their structures, so to that
13 extent -- but on the primary issue which was the goals of the Serbian
14 leadership, I would say that remained constant and, as I've said before,
15 I selected items and portions of items which I thought were relevant or
16 most relevant to that issue.
17 Q. I know you've said "relevant" and "most relevant," so obviously
18 you're going through some kind of shading process here or --
19 A. Well, yes, for instance, we have speeches by Slobodan Milosevic.
20 I picked out those portions of the speeches that I thought most
21 succinctly captured the main idea of the speech insofar as it was
22 relevant to this report.
23 Q. And do I understand it that with regard, and I'm generalising
24 here for the moment, and I'm sure we'll talk about this more fully, that
25 what you found relevant in terms of Slobodan Milosevic's speeches were,
1 one, that he was constantly from, I believe as you said, the end of 1991
2 forward pressing for some kind of peace settlement. That was one of the
3 things that you found to be relevant; right? Because you've talked to us
4 about this a fair amount?
5 A. Well, if it's in there, yes, obviously.
6 Q. Well, you chose the speeches, sir, so I'm asking you a direct
7 question. You found those to be relevant?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Now, with regard to -- and that's one of a number of things.
10 Obviously, there are other things that you found to be relevant, too.
11 That's one of the things you found to be relevant.
12 With regard to the sources that you used, as I understand it,
13 your source material came from records of a variety of different
14 governmental bodies, and I'm putting it in a generic term, first of all;
16 A. It includes those types of records.
17 Q. I understand that. That's one of a series. And the governmental
18 bodies that you looked at included the RS; right?
19 A. Oh, if that's what you mean by "government body," yes. Entity,
21 Q. Entity. Well, and it also included the RSK; right?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And the RS is the Republika Srpska?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. The RSK is the Republika Srpska Krajina?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. It included FRY; right?
3 A. That's another entity.
4 Q. Right. And FRY is the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And those are three -- for purposes of your presentation to us
7 here, those are three separate, as you've put it, entities, separate
8 political entities, whether or not, once again, they were recognised
9 being a different matter, that had fully formed, over the period of your
10 report, had fully formed governments; right?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And they all had constitutions; correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. They all had in their constitutions provisions for armies;
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. They all had armies; correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Okay. Now, you also, apart from those particular documents and
20 entities, you also have information for particular political parties;
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And as a matter of fact, you've discussed with us a bit about
24 that, mainly in terms of the political party that Mr. Karadzic was
25 involved in before he became part of the Presidency, and I want to make
1 sure I'm using the proper term, the Presidency of the republic; right?
2 A. Yes. He continued to be involved with that party after he became
4 Q. Okay. And in addition, you analysed for purposes of the report
5 speeches and platforms and positions that were taken by Mr. - and I
6 always pronounce his name poorly, so you can help me, I'm sure -
8 A. Izetbegovic.
9 Q. Thank you so much. Izetbegovic. You analysed his positions, did
10 you not, and his party's positions?
11 A. I don't believe so.
12 Q. Okay. Well, with regard to the issue of understanding in some
13 kind of context, a goal, would you agree with me that it's important to
14 see how the various participants who may be involved in what I'm going to
15 call here in the broadest sense "a conflict" act and respond?
16 A. Well, that would get more toward writing a history of the
17 conflicts, rather than examining the goals of the Serbian leaders and how
18 they sought to achieve them. I, as a general matter, take your point,
19 but I think that would go beyond the scope of what I was asked to do and
20 certainly result in a product of much greater length.
21 Q. Which, had you had the time, you could have done because you told
22 us that before.
23 A. Well, no, because I was asked to produce a report of about 60
24 pages, I believe, and I think this is 75 pages.
25 Q. I see. So being an individual in the position that you are, do I
1 understand it that you were not in a position, if you felt that you
2 needed more space to create a fuller picture, that you were disallowed
4 A. Well, I was given certain parameters.
5 Q. Okay. What were the parameters that you were given?
6 A. Sixty pages; October the 20th. Those were the parameters.
7 Q. And --
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: October the 20th of what year, sir?
9 THE WITNESS: 2006. I think that was the deadline for the
10 submission of expert reports in this case. At that time, that is, in
11 August 2006, when this request was made of me, I was already scheduled to
12 go on home leave in October so I --
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's fine. You've answered my question. That's
14 fine. October 2006. Thank you very much.
15 MR. GUY-SMITH:
16 Q. You're not suggesting, are you, here that for the years 1990 to
17 1995, during the breakup of the former Yugoslavia, that the goals were
18 static? Are you?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Okay. This was a very, very, very dynamic situation; right?
21 A. It was a dynamic situation, yes. How many "verys" it requires, I
22 don't know.
23 Q. Okay. Perhaps I have one "very" too many. But this was at the
24 time of conflict that engaged the entire whole world at some level,
25 diplomatically, economically, politically; correct?
1 A. Well, it certainly occupied the international community. Whether
2 it was the entire world --
3 Q. I'm sorry, that's what I meant by -- that's what I meant by "the
4 entire world."
5 MR. GUY-SMITH: I'm looking at the clock.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is that a convenient time for you, sir?
7 MR. GUY-SMITH: It is, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: We'll then take a break and come back at half past
9 12.00. Court adjourned.
10 --- Recess taken at 12.00 p.m.
11 --- On resuming at 12.30 p.m.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Guy-Smith.
13 MR. GUY-SMITH: Thank you, Your Honours.
14 Q. During your tenure here, sir, you have learned, among other
15 things, about the participant -- participation of various groups and
16 individuals in the conflict, obviously.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And I'd like to direct your attention just for a moment, if I
19 could, once again with always in mind the notion of how does one gauge
20 what a goal is and how does one gauge what is appropriate in making a
21 determination of what somebody's goal is, an individual whose name is
22 Mr. Izetbegovic. Now, could you tell us who he was?
23 A. Mr. Izetbegovic, I believe you're referring to.
24 Q. Yes, Izetbegovic. Izetbegovic, yes.
25 A. Alija Izetbegovic was the head of the Party of Democratic Action
1 in Bosnia-Herzegovina, which was a Muslim party. He was elected to the
2 Presidency of the SR BiH in December 1990 as a Muslim member of that
3 Presidency. The seats on the Presidency were allotted by ethnicity, and
4 he was elected President of the Presidency by other members of the
5 Presidency toward the end of December 1990. He continued in that
6 position throughout the course of the war.
7 Q. Now, before 2003, if I understand your state of knowledge with
8 regard to this particular individual, you knew that he had been
9 imprisoned in Yugoslavia
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Under the Tito regime in 2003?
11 MR. GUY-SMITH: Sorry. Yes, in 2003, Mr. Treanor was aware of
12 the fact that Mr. Izetbegovic had been imprisoned under the Tito regime.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
14 MR. GUY-SMITH:
15 Q. Correct?
16 A. Yes, I was.
17 Q. Okay. You were not aware, at least before October 15th, that he
18 had been imprisoned for circulation of a document called "The Islamic
19 declaration," which he wrote in 1970. If I could refresh your
20 recollection, you were asked some questions by Mr. Ackerman in this
21 regard, and you indicated that you were not aware of the fact that he had
22 been imprisoned for that particular writing.
23 A. Right. I may not have been aware of that.
24 Q. Okay.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Madam Sutherland.
1 MS. SUTHERLAND: What year are we talking about? October the
3 MR. GUY-SMITH: 2003.
4 MS. SUTHERLAND: Thank you.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Madam Sutherland.
6 MR. GUY-SMITH:
7 Q. Okay. After the cross-examination that you were involved in with
8 Mr. Ackerman in which this issue came up, did you educate yourself with
9 regard to his particular views, and I don't mean Mr. Ackerman's, I mean
10 Mr. Izetbegovic's views, as they related to being a fundamentalist
12 A. Well, I already read "The Islamic Declaration" at that point. I
13 don't think I read anything else about that matter after that date.
14 Q. Did you factor into your analysis of how the various parties were
15 responding to each other, the position that he had, the political
16 position that he had, and the doctrine that he espoused, as it related to
17 the goals, as you've termed them, of the Bosnian Serb leadership, since
18 he was a principal player, was he not?
19 A. Mr. Izetbegovic was, indeed.
20 Q. And his attitudes and the views he espoused clearly impacted upon
21 the reactions of and the goals, as you've put them, that the Serbian
22 leadership would have, would they not? There would be an inter-play as
23 between those two.
24 A. There might be.
25 Q. Well, with regard to your examination of the historical record,
1 once again, we're not dealing with any one of these parties in a vacuum,
2 are we?
3 A. I don't know what you mean by "dealing." No. Generally, no.
4 Q. When --
5 A. My report focuses on the Serbian leadership.
6 Q. No, I understand that. But with regard -- with regard to what
7 your report focuses on, there is an underlying component part, I'm
8 suggesting to you, that one would think would be taken into account, and
9 that is how those goals came about, and by that I mean what was the
10 inter-play between the various parties and now, for just a moment, I'm
11 speaking with regard to Mr. Izetbegovic, because he espoused a particular
12 political reality, did he not?
13 A. I don't know what political reality -- reality he espoused at any
14 particular time.
15 Q. Okay.
16 A. I'm not sure what you mean by a "political reality."
17 Q. Okay. In 1990, when he was -- when he was coming into power, he
18 made it very clear what his views were with regard to what should happen
19 in that particular area, did he not?
20 A. Well, I'm familiar with the programme of his party --
21 Q. Okay.
22 A. -- from that period.
23 Q. And what was the programme of his party in that period?
24 A. Well, as far as I can recollect the relevant portion, they spoke
25 about Bosnia
1 within the SFRY.
2 Q. Okay. Now, that would be at that point in time, at least
3 initially, that would be a position which was consistent with, for
4 example, Belgrade
5 A. At that time, yes. Yes.
6 Q. Okay. Because at that point in time there was a -- there was
7 a -- in 1990, there was, in fact, actually -- I'm trying to think of a
8 term that encompasses it without attributing any blame or fault to
9 anyone. There was the beginnings of a true crisis in the making as to
10 what was going to happen to a region that had enjoyed a form of unity for
11 some number of years; right?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Okay. There came a point in time when his position shifted, and
14 by that I mean remaining in the SFRY if everyone else decided to remain
15 in the SFRY; correct?
16 A. No, I don't believe that did change. What did change was that
17 other people decided they didn't want to remain in the SFRY.
18 Q. With regard to his particular -- and just for the minute, I know
19 we're deviating from what the specific report that you wrote says, but
20 just for the moment, with regard to his particular goal at that time in
21 1990, which was to remain in the SFRY, it shifted because of something
22 that occurred: Other areas decided not to remain within the SFRY,
23 specifically, if I'm not mistaken, Slovenia and Croatia
24 A. Yes. But his goal -- the SDA goal stated originally, I believe,
25 included that contingency, because, as you said, this process was
1 underway, and it was more or less recognised that certain republics may
2 choose to leave the SFRY.
3 Q. Now, at the point in time that that was occurring, that there was
4 a recognition that certain republics may choose to leave the SFRY, there
5 was a fair amount of concern of what the effect of such a breakup would
6 be; right?
7 A. Generally speaking, yes.
8 Q. I'm just talking generally here for the moment. And at that
9 point -- and at that point in time in 1990, one of the -- one of the
10 concerns was that, for the moment what I'm going to call a nation state,
11 and I don't know whether you agree with me that's an appropriate term, so
12 I want to make sure that we have our terms -- we're agreed on terms, a
13 nation state, that being Yugoslavia
14 a series of independent units, political units.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And there was a great deal of concern over the issue of how
17 internal boundaries were going to be drawn, if they could be drawn.
18 A. Within Yugoslavia
19 Q. At that point in time, within Yugoslavia
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. I mean, that had not yet reached the point of becoming an
22 international question, had it, in 1990?
23 A. Not really, no.
24 Q. No. When did it become an international question?
25 A. Well, I think by the middle of 1991, the international community
1 was pretty well occupied with that issue.
2 Q. Okay. And "that issue" being the issue of the propriety of there
3 being internal boundaries drawn in the former nation -- well, let me take
4 that back. The propriety of internal boundaries being drawn in the
5 nation state of Yugoslavia
6 purposes, politically recognised as the Socialist Federal Republic
8 A. Right.
9 Q. Okay. So --
10 A. Well, generally, they became occupied with the issue of the
11 dissolution of the former Yugoslavia
12 important issues.
13 Q. Okay. And you've discussed with us issues concerning a variety
14 of different terms that were being used as to whether or not there would
15 be independent nations, whether there would be a co-federation, whether
16 there would be federated states, a variety of different terms.
17 A. Right.
18 Q. A lot of what was occurring, at least at the early time, was a
19 struggle to figure out what was going to occur in terms of what had been
20 a single-nation state; correct?
21 A. A single state. I would object to the term "nation state," I
23 Q. Then I'll use that. I'll use "single state." I want to make
24 sure that here we're definitely speaking the same language. I don't want
25 to be off your thinking because you've read most of the documents.
1 Now, what area was the first area to proclaim that it was going
2 to remove itself from the state?
3 A. Well, there are matters of definition, but I think generally
5 Q. And how did they go about doing that?
6 A. Well, over a period of months, they adopted a number of
7 amendments to their constitution, referendums, and then eventually on the
8 25th of June, 1991, they declared independence and sought to assert
9 control over the borders -- the external borders of Slovenia.
10 Q. And when you say they sought to exert control over the external
11 borders of Slovenia
12 that had been here to for recognised as part of the Slovenian republic.
13 A. Right, but they were also the external borders of the SFRY.
14 Q. Okay. And what you had up until that point in time is, as I
15 recall, was you had -- is you had six constituent republics and two
16 autonomous or three autonomous provinces that made up the SFRY.
17 A. Two autonomous provinces.
18 Q. Two autonomous provinces?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. So that would not be dissimilar, if we were just to use a
21 parallel notion, that would not be dissimilar to the United States, would
22 it, where we have 50 states, and then we have, what I will call for the
23 moment, a couple of autonomous provinces, or at least one, that being
24 Puerto Rico.
25 A. No. That wouldn't be a very good analysis.
1 Q. You don't like that analysis.
2 A. No.
3 Q. Okay. Forgetting about Puerto Rico, what do you think about it
4 with regard to just the notion of the 50 states and the six constituent
5 republics making up a single state.
6 A. That's a fairly good analogy. I realise there are technicalities
7 of constitutional law which I couldn't possibly comment on, but, yes, we
8 have two federations.
9 Q. And the reason you couldn't possibly comment on them is because
10 that would require some legal interpretation and constitutional
12 A. Right.
13 Q. Okay. Which is outside of your specific area of expertise.
14 A. Right. Certainly comparing the constitutions of two states --
15 Q. Well, no, I mean, it's hard enough to do it within the
16 United States, let alone something like we're talking about here.
17 Now, when Slovenia
18 they did, their independence, the way that they did that is they went
19 through a referendum process. They voted.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And there were a series of votes that occurred; right?
22 A. I'm not sure how many occurred in Slovenia.
23 Q. Okay.
24 A. But yes, there was referendum -- there was at least one
1 Q. And so the conclusion of the referendum process was that the
2 newly formed government of Slovenia
3 voted, and based upon their voting, we declare our independence. Right?
4 A. That was the basic idea, yes.
5 Q. Okay. Which is the same thing that happened with regard to
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Okay. And when did they do that?
9 A. I think I mentioned that, I might have confused the date, I think
10 it was in May 1991 --
11 Q. Okay.
12 A. -- in Croatia
13 Q. And the Croatian declaration of independence and the Slovenian
14 declaration of independence occurred relatively within a short time of
15 each other?
16 A. Yes, virtually on the same day, within a few hours.
17 Q. Okay. There then became a concern, did there not, that
18 Bosnia-Herzegovina was planning on going the same route. It was going to
19 be the next area that found itself independent, or was going to attempt
20 to gain independence.
21 A. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "concern," but there was
22 certainly that idea.
23 Q. Okay. Now, at the time that there was that idea, one of the
24 things that occurred, did it not, is that the SFRY, which still existed,
25 requested international intervention and assistance with regard to the
1 issue of the propriety of internal boundaries being drawn in this
2 particular manner, whether or not Slovenia
3 whether or not Croatia
4 A. They -- I'm aware that they -- someone in Belgrade, the
5 Government of Serbia
6 actually, requested an opinion from the Badinter Commission about the
7 self-determination of the Serbs. The international community had, I
8 believe, already adopted the position that no borders were to be changed
9 by force, certainly. But I think the specific issue that the Serbian
10 government -- that the Government of Serbia requested guidance on was
11 self-determination for the Serbs in Bosnia and Croatia
12 to the same issue.
13 Q. Okay. Now, you mentioned the Badinter Commission. Now, is the
14 Badinter Commission is a commission that was created before or after or
15 during the Vance-Owen Plan?
16 A. It had no -- way before the Vance-Owen Plan.
17 Q. Way before the Vance-Owen Plan; right?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Okay. And as a matter of fact, the Badinter Commission, at the
20 time that it was engaged in its works, there was some discussion about
21 whether or not the European Commission was going to recognise any of
22 these, I'm going to call them countries for the moment or states, whether
23 they were going to be recognised because there were some concerns about
24 the whole notion of secession from the SFRY.
25 A. Well, there was discussion within the EC about the conditions
1 under which the independence of individual republics, might be a good
2 word --
3 Q. Perfect word.
4 A. -- could be recognised by member states of the EC.
5 Q. And there was some concern at that point in time, was there not,
6 and please correct me if I'm wrong, about the premature recognition of a
7 republic by Germany
8 into creating further problems.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Which republic, Mr. Guy-Smith?
10 MR. GUY-SMITH: That would have been the Republic
11 of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Slovenia
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry. Then it should be "republics."
13 MR. GUY-SMITH: Thank you. My apologies.
14 THE WITNESS: Yes, I understand the question. There was concern
15 about what impact of the recognition of the independence of those
16 republics might have, yes.
17 MR. GUY-SMITH:
18 Q. That's right. And specifically there was concern with regard to
19 Bosnia-Herzegovina being recognised as a republic before there had been
20 an appropriate referendum process. The premature recognition of
21 Bosnia-Herzegovina would be something that could occur -- something that
22 would result in conflict; correct? And there was an argument back and
23 forth, as a matter of fact, between Mr. Genscher and Mr. de Cuellar at
24 the United Nations.
25 A. Well, I don't know who was having which arguments, but there
1 certainly was concern about that, as there had been about Croatia as
3 Q. Okay. Now, in terms of your report, did you factor in these
4 particular concerns and events when making a determination of the
5 relevant documents as they related to the Bosnian Serb leadership between
6 1990 and 1995?
7 A. Well, I think I included in the report the resolutions of the SR
8 BH Assembly in October that, in effect -- in effect, in my view, declared
9 independence, and I think in the Serbs' view as well, the Bosnian Serbs'
10 view, and I think I mentioned the Badinter Commission decisions in --
11 certainly in January and the mention of the -- raising the idea of a
12 referendum in BH.
13 Q. And as a matter of fact, the whole idea of the referendum in BH
14 became central to a determination of how that particular area was going
15 to be able to signal its independence, because there had been a vote, and
16 there had been some questions about that vote; right? The first
18 A. I'm not sure what you mean by "the first referendum."
19 Q. I'm sorry. The Badinter Commission made a determination that the
20 initial referendum was not sufficient for purposes of recognition of BH
21 as an independent republic.
22 A. I don't know what referendum they might have been referring to.
23 Q. Okay.
24 A. I think they said that whatever had been presented to them was
25 not a sufficient basis for recognition.
1 Q. Okay. Now, that particular determination, the determination that
2 whatever was presented to them was not a sufficient basis for
3 recognition, did you take that particular event, that particular factual
4 event, as something that was a causative factor with regard to the
5 Bosnian Serb goals between the period of time that you've discussed in
6 your report? And obviously this would be after 1990 because the Badinter
7 Commission pronounced after 1990.
8 A. I'm not quite sure what you mean. I lay out in the report,
9 again, documents and portions of documents which I think were relevant to
10 a consideration of that issue. I have documents about the referendum in
11 there and the -- I believe, the Serbs' position in regard to that
12 referendum, as well as about their own plebiscite earlier. I didn't get
13 into issues of causality.
14 Q. Okay.
15 A. By January, before the Badinter Commission report in question,
16 the Bosnian Serbs had already proclaimed their own republic and were
17 proceeding in January to devise a constitution for that republic, as well
18 as work out other issues connected with its establishment.
19 Q. And in that regard, the Bosnian Serbs took the same course of
20 conduct that had been taken by -- and by that, I'm talking about the
21 referendum and attempting to establish the government, took the same
22 source of conduct that had been undergone by Slovenia and Croatia
23 Different conditions but same source of conduct; voting and establishing
24 government. Correct?
25 A. No, that's not entirely correct. The referendums in Slovenia
2 were not of the type that Mr. Milosevic had been advocating; namely,
3 referendums of peoples, the issue being which peoples wanted to stay in
5 they called a plebiscite in November. It was a Serbian plebiscite.
6 Other people could vote, but it was basically a Serbian plebiscite; I
7 think it was even called that. And the idea was to determine whether the
8 Serbs in Bosnia-Herzegovina wanted to remain within Yugoslavia, which
9 they did overwhelmingly.
10 Q. Now, you raised there, I think, somewhat of an interesting
11 distinction between the two forms of voting. One is, as you put it, a
12 republic-wide referendum, and if I'm understanding you correctly, the
13 republic-wide referendum would be in conformity with, and I'm sure you
14 know better than I do, a Westfalian notion of state, which is that a
15 state is a unit that has specific boundaries which are, as you defined,
16 the republic-wide boundaries within Slovenia
17 A. Yes. There's a conflict here between two different concepts of
18 the state and --
19 Q. And one concept is as I've said the Westfalian concept of state,
20 which has the recognised boundaries, and the other concept is a concept
21 of a state as it relates to peoples.
22 A. Right. I think the notion opposed to that, as it was stated at
23 that time, was a civic state, as opposed to a state of peoples. In other
24 words, a civic state in which each citizen is equal and would have an
25 equal vote, as opposed to each of the recognised constituent peoples in
1 the republic, let's get back to that term, in BH would have collective
3 Q. Okay. The term that you've -- I don't want to say the term. The
4 notion that you've just put forth about collective rights, that was a
5 notion which resonated in the SFRY, and by that I mean the SFRY in
6 reality was a multi-ethnic, multi-religious, multi-peopled society, in
7 which there were some form of checks and balances under what I understand
8 in -- once again, I'm sure you understand it better than I, the key
9 system, although the key system did not necessarily have the checks and
10 balances that you or I would understand from the United States. But
11 there was a form of equality of protection and representation.
12 A. In general terms, yes.
13 Q. As a matter of fact, the referendums that occurred in both
15 within that particular region, within the SFRY, for some 40 or so years;
17 A. Well, the Serbs certainly saw it that way.
18 Q. Okay. And therein lies, really, in many senses, kind of the nub
19 of the problem. Am I correct in that regard? In terms of the view of
20 how best to have a political entity, a state, in which the people are
21 both -- both have obligations as well as protections and representation,
22 that's really what the fight came to. Right?
23 A. Yes. For instance, in the report I mentioned the new Croatian
24 constitution which had left the Serbs out as one of the constituent
25 nations and their reaction to that situation. So that's precisely the
2 Q. Okay. Now, with regard -- with regard to that particular issue,
3 that is in -- and I'm not trying to simplify obviously something, which
4 is extremely complex, but that particular issue, the issue of how best to
5 define those protections and that representation, is an issue that
6 resonated throughout the period of 1991 through 1995, if not even
7 further, but certainly during the period of time that your report was
9 A. Well, I think that after the establishment of the RSK and the RS
10 and the FRY, that particular issue receded a bit into the background. Of
11 course, a lot of the focus of the negotiations centred around BH, or the
12 international negotiations centred on the nature of BH and how it would
13 be formed. But it was fairly generally accepted by all the parties in
14 those negotiations that there would, in fact, be separate entities within
15 BH for each of the constituent nations of BH, so that precisely --
16 Q. So --
17 A. -- precisely so resolve that issue. But, as I say, it seemed to
18 be accepted that that would be the structure --
19 Q. Okay.
20 A. -- rather than a unitary structure which is something that the
21 Serbs didn't want, and Alija Izetbegovic, in his heart of hearts, I
22 think, wanted.
23 Q. Which was a unitary structure.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Now, with regard to the goal of the Serbian leadership based upon
1 the discussion that we've just had, would it be fair to say, based upon
2 the documents that you certainly have gone through, that there was a
3 continued attempt to achieve some form of protection for an equality of,
4 whether it was appropriate -- whether it was appropriate or not, the
5 Serbian people who were living in that area?
6 A. I don't entirely understand the question. I think the answer is
7 going to be yes, but could you define the area and the time period more.
8 Q. Sure. Well, I'm now -- I'm moving into 1992, obviously. And
9 from 1992 onward until 1995, during that period of time, the efforts were
10 for the Serbian leadership, as you've -- and you framed it as a
11 collective, and we'll talk about that a little bit later, but was to
12 obtain for those people equality and protection, are the terms that I
13 used. Whether it would be through the formation of a single state, a
14 number of states, whatever the political entities were, that was what the
15 driving goal was during that entire period of time, ultimately achieved
16 perhaps in a different -- in a different permutation from that which had
17 been international envisioned, based on the concept of people that we
18 talked about earlier, constituent people.
19 A. Yes. I think equality and protection within the framework of the
20 Serbs having their own entities.
21 Q. Okay. And that in and of itself, the Serbs having their own
22 entities, was a constant sticking point, obviously, because the nature of
23 the entity, the size of the entity, the structure of the entity, is
24 something that, obviously from the documents that we've gone through, has
25 been -- was long and hard fought, argued over, throughout the period of
1 time; right?
2 A. Yes, those issues were. As I say, I think the idea that they
3 were going to have their own entities of whatever description was, by
4 that time, generally accepted, and in Bosnia that would mean that the
5 other two constituent nations would have their own entity with whatever
6 relations they chose to have. These entities would -- well, for
7 instance, Republika Srpska defined itself as a state of the Serbian
8 people, so there was only one constituent people in that entity, and that
9 was the framework that had been accepted, fairly generally accepted, for
10 dealing with the situation in Bosnia
11 are these other issues that provoked a lot of discussion as to how to
12 implement that.
13 MR. GUY-SMITH: Excuse me for a moment.
14 Q. I want to turn for a moment, if I could, to your report. And
15 just in terms of dealing with the issue of completeness, accuracy, and
16 choices made - and I refer you and counsel to paragraph 225. Do you have
17 that before you, Mr. Treanor?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Okay. In paragraph 225 you indicate that:
20 "The UNSC condemned the bombardment of Zagreb and other centres
21 of civilian population by the forces of local Serb authorities and
22 demanded their immediate cessation." Correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And you have a footnote for that with regard to where that
25 information came from.
1 MR. GUY-SMITH: Could we please have 65 ter 6830, page number 1.
2 My understanding is that there has been no B/C/S translation of this
3 document which is in e-court.
4 Q. Do you, by -- is it up for you?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Now, if we could go to -- is that the document -- first of all,
7 is that the document from which you gleaned the information that is
8 contained in paragraph 225?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And specifically, the information that you gleaned as being
11 important for purposes of this report is the information which is
12 contained on, I believe it's page 2 of the document. And looking at the
13 second -- I'm sorry.
14 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, the B/C/S translation is actually
15 coming up on the screen.
16 MR. GUY-SMITH: Oh, excellent.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. We have seen it. Thanks.
18 MR. GUY-SMITH: Okay. My apologies.
19 Q. I note that out of the report or not contained in the report is
20 the language that it "calls upon the parties, in particular the
21 Government Of Croatia, to cease all military action in and around Sector
23 A. That's correct. That language from that document is not in
24 paragraph 225.
25 Q. And it was your determination, based upon --
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry. What you have just read, where is it on
2 this document?
3 MR. GUY-SMITH: It's on page 1 -- excuse me. There always seems
4 to be a problem between paper and e-court. It's paragraph 4 of the
5 document --
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Starting --
7 MR. GUY-SMITH: -- on page 1. One, two, three, right there.
8 Going from the top, one, two, three, four:
9 "The Security Council condemns the incursions into the zone of
10 separation by the force of the Government of the Republic of Croatia
11 Sectors North and South, and by both sides in Sector East. It demands
12 that the forces in question withdraw immediately."
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: And you say what about that paragraph in the
15 MR. GUY-SMITH: That particular paragraph is not contained in his
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.
18 MR. GUY-SMITH: With regard to the information that he does
19 adduce in paragraph 225 of his report, the information that he gives us
20 is the next paragraph, which is:
21 "The Security Council also condemns the bombardment of Zagreb
22 other centres of civilian population ..."
23 Q. Now, with regard to the drafting of this particular report, I
24 take it, based upon the information you've given us previously, that you
25 made a determination that that particular pronouncement by the Security
1 Council, the condemnation of a group that was directly involved and
2 impacts upon, generally speaking, the Bosnian Serb leadership's policies
3 was not relevant.
4 A. I don't entirely understand the question. But when it --
5 Q. Let me put it to you more simply, then: You made a determination
6 that that particular information, the information that the Security
7 Council condemned the incursions by the Government of the Republic of
9 relevant for your report.
10 A. Well, that information is pretty much contained in paragraph 223.
11 Q. I see. Could you tell us why you didn't include it with regard
12 to this particular paragraph, since you are citing us to a footnote that
13 has within it this particular information?
14 A. Well, this statement was issued only three days later, and the
15 new element here, I felt, was the position that the Security Council was
16 taking in connection with the bombardment of Zagreb.
17 Q. Well, interestingly enough, in paragraph 223, there's no issue
18 with regard to the United Nations Security Council's condemnation of the
19 Republic of Croatia
20 A. That's correct.
21 Q. And there's a distinction, is there not, in those documents that
22 you have reviewed, sir, between a demand and a condemnation.
23 A. Yes, there is. I think a demand is stronger.
24 Q. I see. Now, I'd like to spend a moment on some chronology and
25 see if you could be of some help to us, if you could.
1 I believe that you have told us that on May 12th, 1992, a couple
2 of relatively important events occurred, one of them being the
3 constitution of the Republika Srpska, specifically with a recognition of
4 the Presidency. Is that correct?
5 A. No. It's the constitutional law of what became known as
6 Republika Srpska, at that time was known as the Serbian Republic
7 Bosnia-Herzegovina. It was the constitutional law that was in question.
8 Q. Okay.
9 A. I'm sorry, it was both. There were also amendments to the
10 constitution as well.
11 Q. On the 12th of May.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. On that day the Presidency was elected; correct?
14 A. Right, pursuant to the amendment of the constitutional law.
15 Q. And the Presidency that was elected was at that point in time a
16 tripartite presidency with an expansion of two?
17 A. It was expanded, but it was set up of three people.
18 Q. Okay, three people. And those three people included
19 Mr. Karadzic; correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. At the same time and on the same date, Ratko Mladic was appointed
22 the general of the army, the head of the army; right?
23 A. Well, the commander of the Main Staff, I think was the technical
25 Q. And was that done by the Presidency, or was that done by the
2 A. That was an Assembly decision, I believe.
3 Q. Was that decision then ratified by the Presidency, or was the
4 fact that the Assembly itself had made the determination that he would be
5 the commander in chief of the army sufficient for him to take
7 A. I think that was sufficient.
8 Q. Okay. And he was, as I understand it from the information that
9 you've given to us, he was subordinated to the Presidency. The
10 Presidency was in a position to, and by law did, command him.
11 A. He was subordinate to the -- technically under the constitution,
12 I think, to the president of the republic. The Presidency was exercising
13 the powers of the president of the republic, pursuant to the
14 constitutional law.
15 Q. Perfect. Thank you so much. I appreciate that distinction
16 because I think it is an important one. At some point in time, the
17 Presidency became -- from three, became a single person, a single
18 president; correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And when was that?
21 A. That was on the 17th of December, 1992.
22 Q. And that individual was?
23 A. Radovan Karadzic.
24 Q. Okay. So from May 12th, 1992
25 Mladic was responsible to the Presidency embodied in three individuals -
1 Karadzic, Plavsic, and who was the third? Biljana Plavsic, was it not?
2 A. Yes. Biljana Plavsic, and Nikola Koljevic.
3 Q. And then on December 17th, he was, at that point, subordinated to
4 Mr. Karadzic.
5 A. Well, no, that's not entirely correct. At the beginning of June
6 the Presidency was expanded to five members --
7 Q. Okay.
8 A. -- and that situation ended on the 17th of December, 1992
9 Q. Thank you very much for that. That's when I was referring
10 earlier to the tripartite Presidency, expanded by two. Thank you for
11 that. What happened is Mladic was under the control of three, then five,
12 and ultimately one; right?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Okay. Now, with regard to the Republika Srpska Krajina, in 1992
15 who was the president, at the beginning?
16 A. At the beginning of 1992, Milan Babic was the president.
17 Q. And during the time that he was president initially, who was the
18 commander-in-chief of his army?
19 A. Well, it would have been him. I'm not quite sure what the
20 constitutional -- the state of the army per se was at that time. He
21 remained president only until the middle of February --
22 Q. Okay.
23 A. -- 1992.
24 Q. And after he left office, did there come about a shift in terms
25 of a division between the Presidency and the military? And by that I
1 mean was there an individual -- was the president, the individual, was
2 the head of the military?
3 A. Well, yes, it was similar to the situation that we've just been
4 discussing in the RS. There was the president, and then there was a
5 military commander who was also known, I believe, as the commander of the
6 Main Staff.
7 Q. And the president after Milan Babic left was?
8 A. Goran Hadzic.
9 Q. And the head of the Main Staff was?
10 A. In 1992, I can't recall offhand. There were several changes
11 during the course of time.
12 Q. But those individuals were then, if I'm understanding you
13 correctly - and again, if I'm wrong, tell me I'm wrong - those
14 individuals who were the head of the Main Staff were subordinate to the
15 president under their constitution and their laws.
16 A. That's correct.
17 Q. That's who they were responsible to, and that's who directed them
18 to do what they did.
19 A. Well, that's what the constitution says.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Treanor, can you repeat your last sentence,
22 THE WITNESS: The constitution says the president is the
24 MR. GUY-SMITH:
25 Q. Now, with regard to the SFRY, the SFRY went through an evolution
1 in early 1992.
2 A. It started an evolution way before that.
3 Q. I understand. What I'm really referring to here is Belgrade
4 the shift from the SFRY to FRY.
5 A. Yes. That was in early 1992.
6 Q. Okay. And when was that, sir?
7 A. Well, the constitution of the FRY was adopted on the 27th of
8 April, 1992.
9 Q. Okay. Now, before the constitution was adopted, there were
10 military troops that comprised the JNA throughout the region and
11 specifically within the various republics we've just talked about;
13 A. I'd have to ask you to define that a little more closely.
14 Q. Sure.
15 A. In April 1992?
16 Q. Yes. In April 1992 were there JNA, for example, in BH?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Okay. And there came a time when those troops withdrew, but
19 before that occurred there were a series of events that occurred that I'd
20 like to go through with you, just to make sure that we have them
21 chronologically accurate, which is that, I believe, you told us that on
22 May 4th there was a decision by the leadership in Belgrade to remove the
23 troops within 15 days.
24 A. Right.
25 Q. Okay. And that was at a point in time when there was a decision
1 made that there would be no, and I've forgotten the exact language, but
2 there would be no involvement or interest in these other areas by FRY.
3 A. Well, I can't remember now whether that was on May 4th -- May 4th
4 or later, but in May. I believe that was the 197th session of the
6 Q. I think that's correct. Now, with regard to date-wise, what
7 would occur, what that would mean that if all things went smoothly, the
8 JNA would have been out of there by the 19th of May; correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Fifteen days later.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Between those two dates, however, the Security Council passed a
13 resolution. That was --
14 A. Right.
15 Q. -- on the 15th; right?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And on the 15th of May, the Security Council -- that was 752, was
18 it not?
19 A. I believe so, yes.
20 Q. And on that -- the Security Council, on the 15th of May,
21 indicated that as far as they were concerned, those troops should depart
22 within nine days.
23 A. That could be the term of the resolution, yes.
24 Q. Okay.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Nine days from which date?
1 MR. GUY-SMITH: From the 15th of May.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: So they were given an extension.
3 MR. GUY-SMITH: It would seem that they were either -- either
4 they were both operating on the same line without knowing or they were
5 given an extension, and let's assume -- I assume they were given an
6 extension but I don't know that to be the case directly.
7 Q. But if we were to follow the Security Council's resolution with
8 regard to when the troops should have left, that would have taken us to
9 May 24th; correct?
10 A. Correct.
11 Q. Now, the next time there was a pronouncement by the Security
12 Council, that was on the 30th of May; correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And that was 752, the passage of 752?
15 A. No, I think the previous one was 752.
16 Q. I'm sorry, I do apologise. It was 757?
17 A. 757, yes.
18 Q. And that was the 30th of May.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. So now essentially what happens is that if all things were
21 working perfectly, we're late in terms of getting those troops out of
23 A. Right.
24 Q. We're six days late.
25 A. Right.
1 Q. Now, what was the date that the troops actually left?
2 A. I don't know. A lot of them never left.
3 Q. Okay. Would the date of June 9th be of help to you?
4 A. No.
5 Q. It would not. Okay.
6 Are you aware of the evacuation -- we've had evidence here and
7 heard evidence here of the evacuation by the JNA from barracks in
9 terms of a time when the JNA was pulling out of the area?
10 A. In June?
11 Q. Yeah.
12 A. I'm -- I can't recall those particular events. I know there was
13 an attempted evacuation in early May.
14 Q. And with regard to -- I'm sorry?
15 A. There had been an attempted withdrawal from barracks in Sarajevo
16 in early May, I know.
17 Q. Now, between the time that the first indication was made to
18 withdraw the troops in early May up to the 30th, as you sit here today,
19 can you tell us whether or not there were any attacks on the JNA forces
20 that were in, for example, Sarajevo
21 A. Well, I mentioned the attack early in -- early in May.
22 Q. Okay.
23 A. Do you mean after that?
24 Q. Yeah.
25 A. I don't know the details of any military activity after that
2 Q. Okay. Now, with regard to the international -- the international
3 response, are you aware of the report of the Secretary-General of the
4 30th of May, 1992, in which he discusses the issue of the withdrawal of
5 the units of the JNA? Is that a document that you're familiar with, sir?
6 A. I may -- I can't place it.
7 Q. Okay.
8 MR. GUY-SMITH: Could we have 1D00 --
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Before we do that, what would you like to do with
10 65 ter 6830?
11 MR. GUY-SMITH: I would like to have that admitted as a Defence
12 exhibit or -- yes, as a Defence exhibit, if I could, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. It's so admitted. May it
14 please be given an exhibit number.
15 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this document will be Exhibit D5.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
17 MR. GUY-SMITH: And I thank you, Your Honour, for reminding me.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: You are most welcome. Now, what do you want on
19 the screen?
20 MR. GUY-SMITH: 1D00-1449.
21 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Madam Sutherland?
23 MS. SUTHERLAND: The Prosecution has no objection to that
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Which one, madam, 6830 or 1D00-1449.
1 MS. SUTHERLAND: 6830, Your Honour.
2 MR. GUY-SMITH:
3 Q. First of all, you indicated in your report when you were
4 discussing the documents that you relied upon that you relied upon
5 records of international organisations, primarily UN, and my first
6 question: Is this one of the documents that you relied upon with regard
7 to, or that you reviewed with regard to the drafting of this particular
9 A. Could I see the heading at the top of the page? I don't
10 recognise the number. I don't think so.
11 Q. Could you -- if we could have -- if we could go through this
12 document together. This document discusses the background of the
13 situation concerning the withdrawal of the JNA.
14 In paragraph 2 it discusses a letter that the secretary general
15 received on the 17th of May, from the Chief of General Staff of the JNA
16 requesting assistance and the safe withdrawal of JNA troops from
17 Bosnia-Herzegovina and particularly from Sarajevo, Pozaric, and Zenica.
18 MS. SUTHERLAND: Excuse me, Your Honour. Can Defence provide a
19 Rule 65 ter number or a copy of that document, please?
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Guy-Smith.
21 MR. GUY-SMITH: Yes. It's 1D00-1443.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: But is that a 65 ter number?
23 MR. GUY-SMITH: No, that's --
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Your colleague is asking for a 65 ter number.
25 MS. SUTHERLAND: Has it been released?
1 MR. GUY-SMITH: It's not a 65 ter document. It's a Defence
2 document, and it has been released.
3 MS. SUTHERLAND: Thank you.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: What is meant by "released"?
5 MR. GUY-SMITH: That means it goes -- the way that I understand
6 e-court to work - and I'm a dinosaur, so I could be saying this wrong -
7 but they have documents on a list which they upload into the system and
8 then they release those documents so they're available so they can come
9 to all of us. When we have documents that are not on their 65 ter list
10 that we would like to use, then we upload them into the system. That's
11 what Daniela does. She uploads them into the system, and then she
12 releases them so they're available for all the parties to have the
13 benefit of.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's a concept completely distinct from
16 MR. GUY-SMITH: Yes. It's the way you work -- it's the way I
17 understand you work with e-court. I'm pretty much a paper man myself,
18 Your Honour, but that's what I understand is happening.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. Thank you.
20 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, just while we're on this, the
21 Defence is supposed to provide the Prosecution with a list of exhibits
22 that they're going to use at the end of the examination-in-chief, I
24 MR. GUY-SMITH: Those documents were released, my understanding
25 was, before the examination-in-chief was finished today. I mean, that
1 was my direction, and my understanding was those documents were released.
2 MS. SUTHERLAND: Thank you. We were not aware of that.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is that what you understand? I didn't understand
4 the question by the Prosecutor to refer to "release" here. I thought it
5 referred to disclosure when she said, "Your Honour, the Defence is
6 supposed to provide the Prosecution with a list of exhibits." I don't
7 know what that means.
8 MR. GUY-SMITH: I think I might know -- I think I might know --
9 what occurred, is the documents were released, but you might not have
10 gotten a notification of it, is I think what happened. And I do
11 apologise for that, and I will take care of that on my side. This is our
12 very first, you know, release of documents. I do apologise.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: This is the fifth exhibit of the Defence. You
14 have released four before, at least.
15 MR. GUY-SMITH: Thank you. It's a first Defence exhibit. I
16 thought that --
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: The fifth.
18 MR. GUY-SMITH: I thought you did have it. I knew it had been
19 released to you, and I thought you were aware of it, and I'll have the
20 mechanism taken care of.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: You accept that, madam?
22 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes, Your Honour. We weren't advised that the
23 documents had been released.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
25 MR. GUY-SMITH:
1 Q. Moving on to paragraph 4, the Secretary-General through UNPROFOR
2 has obtained certain information about the status of the units, although
3 he indicates not completely authenticated.
4 I'm going to go down to paragraph 6(a), which is discussing the
5 issue of the evacuation of soldiers who were in the Marsal Tito barracks
6 in Sarajevo
7 "Some 600 to 1,000 soldiers are blocked in the Marsal Tito
8 barracks at Sarajevo
9 evacuation of these barracks continued until 27 May 1992, when they broke
10 down following a mortar attack which killed some 16 civilians in central
12 rocket-propelled grenades and flame-throwers fired by the Territorial
13 Defence of Bosnia and Herzegovina."
14 There's further information concerning what's occurring in
15 another barracks, and those are the Jusuf Dzonlic Barracks, when, while
16 the JNA forces were in the process of withdrawing during the night, a
17 convoy which was accompanied by UNPROFOR, they were attacked by Serb
18 irregulars opposed to the terms of their withdrawal and by units of the
19 Territorial Defence of Bosnia
20 Turning to -- skipping paragraph sub (c) and going to paragraph
21 7, the Secretary-General opines that:
22 "It will be apparent from the foregoing that the issue of the
23 deblocking and safe withdrawal of the remaining JNA troops from their
24 barracks at Bosnia and Herzegovina has become linked to other problems
25 which have caused continuing conflict in that Republic ..." and then he
1 goes on to discuss another matter of some concern.
2 We learn from here that UNPROFOR has received indications that
3 the JNA is willing to leave the bulk of its weapons behind upon
4 withdrawal, but there is an argument about that.
5 With regard to paragraph 8 --
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, Mr. Guy-Smith, I don't want to interfere
7 with your cross-examination, but you're reading quite a number of
8 paragraphs to the witness without soliciting any response from the
10 MR. GUY-SMITH: Very well. Let me stop. Point taken, Your
11 Honour. Let me stop.
12 Q. The information that's contained -- that we have discussed thus
13 far or that I have pointed out thus far, is that information which you
14 deemed to be relevant with regard to an understanding of the historical
15 context in which the Bosnian Serb leadership was operating, as it relates
16 to the report you have submitted to us and the testimony that you have
17 given to us?
18 A. I think some of the things that are mentioned in this report
19 could be useful in considering that context. I'm not sure how accurate
20 some of this is.
21 Q. Well, independent --
22 A. I --
23 Q. Go ahead, sir.
24 A. I note on the previous page, paragraph 6, there was some
25 information that is related to something that is in the report, but I
1 don't think it adds much, and I wasn't particularly occupied with the
2 issue of detailing events at this particular time. But I note that it
3 does say that:
4 "Those who were not citizens of Bosnia-Herzegovina are said by
6 believed to have withdrawn already in Serbia and Montenegro
7 them have been subjected to attack during their withdrawal. Others,
8 however, remained in various garrisons in Bosnia-Herzegovina, especially
9 in Serbian-controlled areas."
10 Q. I take it for purposes of our discussion that you find that
11 particular piece of information to be relevant because it's information
12 that you find was found in your report in another fashion; correct? But
13 the balance of information that I discussed with you is not relevant.
14 A. I don't think that information was in the report. I think what's
15 in the report is the discussion in the Presidency in early May. I think
16 in my testimony we used a document, a speech by General Gvero, I believe
17 it was, at which he dealt with this particular issue. As I said, I did
18 not look at this document at that time. If I had, I -- or the other
19 document. If I had, I might have included them.
20 Q. Well, turning our attention to paragraph 8 --
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Do you -- okay, carry on.
22 MR. GUY-SMITH: I'm sorry?
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Carry on.
24 MR. GUY-SMITH:
25 Q. Turning our attention to paragraph 8, it indicates that there's
1 uncertainty about who exercises political control over the Serb forces in
2 Bosnia and Herzegovina has further complicated the situation. Going down
3 a bit, it says:
4 "A senior JNA representative from Belgrade, General Nedjeljko
5 Boskovic ..." is he an individual you're familiar with?
6 A. Yes, generally.
7 Q. Okay. "Has conducted discussions with the Bosnian-Herzegovina
8 Presidency." Now, the Presidency at that time would be, as you've
9 indicated to us, would be the three people; correct? That would have
10 been --
11 A. No. This is, I believe, a reference to the Presidency of the
12 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
13 Q. I see, okay.
14 A. "But it has become clear that his word is not binding on the
15 commander of the army of the Serbian republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina,
16 General Mladic."
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. Okay. Going to paragraph --
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Guy-Smith.
20 MR. GUY-SMITH: Yes.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: You are mindful of the time.
22 MR. GUY-SMITH: Oh, my. My apologies, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Unless you want to wind up the point. It's just
24 that I heard you now going to --
25 MR. GUY-SMITH: I could finish the document -- you know what,
1 it's going to take a few more minutes. Rather than put pressure on any
2 of the people who are working in many senses probably much harder than I
3 in terms of making this work, this would be an appropriate time. I do
4 apologise for taking longer.
5 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, one matter, a point of
6 clarification on transcript page 92, the document -- Rule 65 ter number
7 06830 was admitted and given Defence Exhibit number 5. What are Defence
8 Exhibits number 1 to 4?
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: They were given on previous days, ma'am, I
10 wouldn't remember them at this point in time.
11 MS. SUTHERLAND: Oh, I'm sorry, Your Honour. No, I withdraw it.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: That being the case, Mr. Guy-Smith, you're still
13 going to use this document?
14 MR. GUY-SMITH: Yes, I am, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. So there's no hurry in admitting it at this
17 We'll then stand adjourned to tomorrow, 9.00 in the morning.
18 Court adjourned. Same courtroom.
19 MR. GUY-SMITH: Thank you.
20 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.49 p.m.
21 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 12th day of
22 November, 2008, at 9.00 a.m.