1 Wednesday, 12 November 2008
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.00 a.m.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good morning to everybody in and around the
8 Madam Registrar, will you please call the case.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning to
10 everybody 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 May we please have appearances, starting with the Prosecution.
14 Yes, Mr. Saxon.
15 MR. SAXON: Good morning, Mr. Perisic. Good morning, Your
16 Honours. Ann Sutherland for the Prosecution, together with
17 Carmela Javier, Mr. Barney Thomas, Mr. Rafael La Cruz, and I'm Dan Saxon.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: I am coming to you, sir. I'm just having a
19 technical problem here.
20 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Could we then have appearances for the
22 Defence, please.
23 Good morning, Mr. Guy-Smith.
24 MR. GUY-SMITH: Good morning, Your Honours. Milos Androvic,
25 Eadaoin O'Brien, Tina Drolec, Daniela Tasic, Chad Mair, who are assisting
1 myself, I'm Gregor Guy-Smith, with Mr. Novak Lukic for the Defence.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
3 I am advised, Madam Sutherland, that -- or shall I address myself
4 to you, Mr. Saxon, that the Prosecution has a preliminary issue they
5 would like to raise before we carry on with the witness.
6 MR. SAXON: I'm very sorry, Your Honour. It must be a confusion
7 that I created. I simply asked for a moment for a preliminary matter
8 before Witness Torkildsen comes into the courtroom today, not at this
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Thank you very much. That being the case,
11 then once again, Mr. Treanor, I say you do know this, but it's our duty
12 that you are bound by the declaration that you made at the beginning of
13 your testimony to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing else but
14 the truth.
15 THE WITNESS: I understand, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
17 Mr. Guy-Smith.
18 MR. GUY-SMITH: Thank you, Your Honour.
19 If the Registrar could call the document that we had up on the
20 screen yesterday that we were discussing that --
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Somehow I don't hear you at all. You're not
22 coming through. You're very far from the mic, I think.
23 MR. GUY-SMITH: Can you hear me now?
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Slightly better.
25 MR. GUY-SMITH: Let me try this and see if this improves the --
1 THE INTERPRETER: Actually, the interpreters cannot hear
2 Mr. Guy-Smith either so well. Can you speak into the microphone, please.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: I can hear the interpreter clearly but --
4 MR. GUY-SMITH: I can hear the interpreter crystal clear. If I'm
5 like this, can I be heard at this point?
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: No. I hear you not through the system. I hear
7 you --
8 MR. GUY-SMITH: Hello? I feel like I'm about to sing a song or
9 something. I don't think I can work like this necessarily. Let me try
10 something else.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just pull it up.
12 MR. GUY-SMITH: Let me try the other microphone. If I'm speaking
13 here, am I being heard now?
14 THE INTERPRETER: It's the same thing, Mr. Guy-Smith. When
15 you're close to the microphone we can hear you, whether it's the left one
16 or the right one.
17 MR. GUY-SMITH: Let me try something else really quickly.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: We will also try to increase our volume, although
19 that causes a lot of noise.
20 MR. GUY-SMITH: If I use this microphone here, am I heard from
21 this position? If you give me a moment, I'll shift positions, then.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: You have two.
23 MR. GUY-SMITH: Thank you.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm advised by Judge Picard that if we go to
25 channel 0, she hears you very well in English.
1 MR. GUY-SMITH: Oh, excellent. Good.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just try it before you move lots. Now you don't
3 know how to switch it on.
4 MR. GUY-SMITH: I'm, once again, trying to make it work so that
5 people can hear me.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can the interpreters hear?
7 THE INTERPRETER: Yes, we can, Your Honour. We can, Your Honour.
8 MR. GUY-SMITH: Stay here?
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: No, go back. They can't hear you.
10 MR. GUY-SMITH: Okay.
11 Just to make sure I'm speaking from this microphone, I trust that
12 I can be heard by the Chamber, the interpreters, Prosecution and, of
13 course, Mr. Treanor.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: The interpreters say -- did this.
15 MR. GUY-SMITH: Good. Great.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: And we're sorry about that inconvenience.
17 MR. GUY-SMITH: Not a problem.
18 Should I proceed at this point?
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may.
20 MR. GUY-SMITH: Thank you.
21 If we could have the document that we were discussing yesterday
22 back up on the screen, and if we could at this point go to the -- I
23 believe it's the third page, paragraph 9, is where we left off in
24 yesterday's proceedings.
25 WITNESS: PATRICK TREANOR [Resumed]
1 Cross-examination by Mr. Guy-Smith: [Continued]
2 Q. We were, to refresh your recollection, Mr. Treanor, discussing a
3 document which is the report of the Secretary-General that was issued on
4 the 30th of May, 1992, pursuant to paragraph 4 of the Security Council
5 Resolution 752. And going to paragraph 9, with regard to, once again,
6 the issue at hand being the goals, as they have been discussed, of the
7 Serbian leadership in the period of time that we've been discussing
8 throughout your testimony, I read you the following, which is:
9 "Given the doubts that now exist about the ability of the
10 authorities in Belgrade
11 efforts have been made by UNPROFOR to appeal to him directly as well as
12 through the political leadership of the 'Serbian Republic
15 "As a result of these efforts, General Mladic agreed on 30 May
16 1992 to stop the bombardment of Sarajevo
17 shelling of the city will not be resumed, it is also clear that the
18 emergence of General Mladic and the forces under his command as
19 independent actors, apparently beyond the control of JNA greatly
20 complicates the issues raised in paragraph 4 of Security Council
21 Resolution 752 (1992)."
22 Now, we were discussing earlier, and by that, when I say "we,"
23 I'm referring to the conversation that you were having with
24 Ms. Sutherland, if I'm not mistaken, about this particular resolution,
25 that 752, and with regard to the issue of the inclusion of information in
1 your report, it's my understanding that you were not aware of this
2 particular document. Am I correct in that regard?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Okay. The information that is contained in this particular
5 document certainly impacts upon your analysis, does it not?
6 A. No, it doesn't.
7 Q. Okay.
8 A. This information is not particularly relevant to the subject that
9 I was examining, which was the goals of the Serbian leadership. As I
10 indicated in the introduction to the report, it's primarily based on
11 their own statements and activities. This --
12 Q. Excuse me. I missed something you just said. This document is
13 primarily based on --
14 A. My report is primarily based on documents relating to the
15 activities and statements of the Serbian leadership themselves, that is,
16 documents generated by them. This is a report under the secretary -- the
17 Secretary-General's name. This document, in particular this paragraph,
18 might be very interesting in a report on the perception of the UN in
19 regards to the situation in the former Yugoslavia, but I don't regard it
20 as particularly interesting in regard to what the Serbian leaders were
21 doing, or thought they were doing.
22 Q. If I understand your testimony, then, the international concerns
23 and responses to what was occurring in the region were of no import to
24 you with regard to your preparation of the report that you've presented
25 to us here today?
1 A. Well, that's not true. I examined all the resolutions of the UN
2 Security Council. I felt they were important because, as resolutions of
3 the Security Council, they required action, and they formed part of the
4 international environment in which the Serbian leaders had to operate.
5 Q. You also examined letters that had been sent to the
6 Secretary-General concerning matters that were of moment at the time, did
7 you not? As a matter of fact, you discussed one of those exhibits --
8 letters with us, which I think was introduced as an exhibit, and I'll try
9 to get it pulled up in a minute.
10 MR. GUY-SMITH: I'd like to now turn to, if I could,
11 paragraph 13.
12 Q. And before we go to paragraph 13, through your testimony you have
13 discussed with us various agreements that were proposed, for example, the
14 Vance-Owen Plan, in an attempt to resolve the difficulties that were
15 occurring. And with that in mind, and especially in light of what you've
16 just said to us, I'd like to read you the following:
17 "The anomalous position of General Mladic and the forces under
18 his command, who are subject neither to the authority of Belgrade nor to
19 that of the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina, will also need to be
20 clarified in relation to any agreement."
21 Now, would I be accurate in saying that the international
22 community and specifically the United Nations Security Council was
23 interested in obtaining agreements from the parties that were involved at
24 that time in the conflict in the region?
25 A. Well, there was a negotiating process underway, yes.
1 Q. That would be -- we could call that an interest in obtaining an
2 agreement, could we not? A negotiation process has, as its intent, at
3 its conclusion, an agreement between the parties.
4 A. Interest on the part of the international community in general, I
5 think that would be fair to say, yes.
6 Q. Okay. So the interplay between the international community and
7 the parties would be of interest to you, would it not, in the compilation
8 of your report with regard to what the Bosnian Serbs and their leadership
9 were intending to do, wouldn't it?
10 A. I don't know what you mean by "intending to do." Again, this
11 document is something in the summer of 1992. I mean, if I was writing a
12 full-blown history of the negotiating process during the course of the
13 conflicts in the former Yugoslavia
14 actors of what was going on might figure into that, but that is not the
15 subject of my report.
16 Q. So I take it that it is the manner in which you define the
17 subject of your report that defines your lack of interest in this
18 document for purpose of its import and its inclusion in your report.
19 A. Well, again, I hadn't seen the document, and if I had, I would
20 not have included it for those reasons.
21 Q. Okay. And the considerations contained in the document would not
22 have impacted upon your analysis with regard to what the leadership in
23 any of the three political entities we've discussed were interested in --
24 actually, four. That would be the RS, right, the Republika Srpska?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. The RSK, the Republika Srpska Krajina; right?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. The SFRY and the FRY, since there were different evolutions of
4 the last two governments and political entities; right?
5 A. Right.
6 Q. With regard to your last response, continuing with paragraph 13,
7 I take it that we would obtain the same information from you, which is
8 that this is something you would not include in your report, which is:
9 "It is considered unrealistic that the 'Army of the Serbian
10 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina' would be willing to place itself under
11 the authority of the Government of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Agreement would
12 instead need to be sought on the disarming and disbandment of this
13 'Army,' though this is likely to be feasible only in the context of an
14 overall political agreement on constitutional arrangements for Bosnia
16 Do you have my question in mind, which is this is again
17 information that you would not consider to be germane, had you known of
18 it, to be included in your report?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. This information here indicates that there is now a fifth actor
21 to be discussed, and that's the army as an independent reality with
22 regard to a force to be reckoned with at that time, does it not?
23 A. That is the opinion of whoever is writing this report.
24 Q. Okay. And the person who's writing the report is the
25 Secretary-General, Boutros-Ghali; right?
1 A. No, he signed the report. I'm sure he didn't write it. He's
2 responsible for it.
3 Q. You're not denigrating his opinion by virtue of the fact that he
4 didn't write the report, are you?
5 A. Not at all. I'm just saying that he signed the report. I don't
6 think he wrote it. The information came from the field, obviously.
7 Q. You have no personal knowledge one way or the other as to how
8 this report was compiled, do you?
9 A. Not direct knowledge, no.
10 Q. The comment that you just made in that regard with regard to
11 whether or not he wrote the report or not, you're not suggesting in any
12 fashion, are you, that he was retreating from the information that's
13 contained in this report, are you?
14 A. Oh, no, no, no.
15 Q. You're not suggesting that the information upon which he relied
16 was given to him in good faith, are you?
17 A. No. In fact, I guess my point was that the information probably
18 came closer to the field than he was.
19 Q. Oh, okay.
20 Now, he goes on in paragraph 14 to discuss what the international
21 community could do in the event there were agreements in place, correct,
22 starting with the language on paragraph 14:
23 "Provided the necessary agreements were in place, international
24 assistance could take various forms --"
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And he discusses what those are. Now, I take it, again, that
2 once again this particular kind of information, the information that's
3 contained in paragraph 14 and the information that is contained in
4 paragraph 15, is information that, had you known about it, would not have
5 impacted your report or your analysis?
6 A. Yes --
7 Q. Go ahead.
8 A. Yes, again, it would seem to take me, at this point, especially
9 considering the events in December of 1992, rather far from the subject
10 matter, given the -- especially given the parameters that I was working
12 Q. And those parameters, as I recall, were time and space, or lack
13 of time --
14 A. Yes, well --
15 Q. -- the lack of time and not enough space.
16 A. There's a subject matter and constraints of time and space. So I
17 would not -- if I'd known about this report, I certainly would not have
18 used this particular report.
19 Q. Okay. Well, you've now expanded from what you told us before,
20 which is now you've indicated there was another issue which is the
21 subject matter itself, which is something you did not discuss with us
22 yesterday in terms of what your constraints were.
23 And since this report is dealing directly with not only a
24 resolution, that being 752, that you did -- that you did include in your
25 report, but also deals with, directly, observations that are being made
1 about how the international community and specifically the United Nations
2 is going to respond to issues concerning leadership, this would be
3 information that is contained within the subject matter that your report
4 addresses, would it not?
5 A. Well, if I can, again, quote from the introduction of the report:
6 "The focus is on the goals of the Serbian leaders and the extent to which
7 they achieve them." That's in paragraph 4.
8 I don't consider that in a 60-page or, whatever it is, 75-page
9 report on that particular subject that this material would warrant
10 consideration. I would be the first to admit that there are -- and I
11 would be the first to be able to direct the Court to dozens, indeed
12 hundreds of documents that would be use -- might be useful to consider in
13 any examination of the situation between 1991 and 1995 as it related to
14 the international negotiations, the international community's involvement
15 therein, and indeed the actions, activities, and goals of all the parties
16 to the conflicts.
17 Q. And when you say "the goals of all the parties to the conflicts,"
18 you, of course, include in that not only the international community but
19 the Bosnian Serb leadership, as you have collectively identified this
20 group; right?
21 A. The Bosnian Serb -- yes, but also the other parties.
22 Q. The other parties being?
23 A. The Bosnian Croats, the Bosnian Muslims, the Government of
25 Q. I see. And since you've now identified for us at least in one
1 respect that there are hundreds of other documents, your determination of
2 which documents should have been used, included in the report, and should
3 not have been used or were not used because you did not deem them to be
4 relevant is something, which you discussed with us yesterday, is based
5 upon a criteria that you have within your own thought processes; right?
6 A. No. I said if one was given full consideration to all the
7 action -- all those actions and activities that I described between 1991
8 and 1995, there would be a very vast material. This report is confined
9 to the subject matter that I just specified. Within the constraints that
10 I was operating within, I produced what I hoped was a report, including
11 the -- and I believe includes the most relevant documents to the
12 consideration of that subject.
13 MR. GUY-SMITH: First of all, could I have the document admitted?
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Document ID001-449 is admitted into evidence. May
15 it please be given an exhibit number.
16 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit D6, Your Honours.
17 MR. GUY-SMITH:
18 Q. And finally, just so we're clear with regard to the general issue
19 of your report and the extent to which you commented or relied on any
20 statements made by the United Nations Security Council President, I
21 believe, if I'm not mistaken, you made comments and specifically referred
22 to them in paragraphs 180, 183, 184, 206, 223, 225, 227, 232, and 233.
23 Do you take my word for that?
24 A. I'm sorry, there's mention of the Security Council?
25 Q. The President or the Secretary-General, you make mention in those
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. I'm sorry?
4 A. I'll accept that.
5 Q. Okay, thank you. I'd like to turn our attention, if we could,
6 to -- I believe it's the meeting that was held on the 9th of January,
7 1993, which is P205.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Are you calling P205?
9 MR. GUY-SMITH: I'm calling P205 up at this time, although I need
10 to double-check something, which is P205 as it presently exists, I
11 believe, may only be a couple of pages as opposed to the entire document.
12 So could I call up 65 ter 6620.
13 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, for the record, 6620 is Exhibit
15 MR. GUY-SMITH: In its entirety?
16 THE REGISTRAR: No. Pages 71 and 92 of the English and page 70,
17 95, and 96 of the B/C/S.
18 MR. GUY-SMITH: Okay. I would like to call up, as I understand
19 it, the entire document, and perhaps I'm calling up the wrong document.
20 But when I had the 65 ter list -- and perhaps we can get some initial
21 help from the Prosecution, if they would be.
22 MS. SUTHERLAND: That's the correct Rule 65 ter number.
23 MR. GUY-SMITH: Okay. Do I get the entire document when I pull
24 up that particular -- when I ask you to pull up that particular 65 ter
1 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, you do.
2 MR. GUY-SMITH: Great. Thank you so much.
3 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters kindly ask for extra
4 microphones to be switched off, please. Audibility is reduced.
5 MR. GUY-SMITH:
6 Q. In a minute we'll have the English page up on the screen, but
7 while we're waiting, this particular meeting was, as you've discussed
8 with us, "The Enlarged Session of the Council for Reconciliation of the
9 Stands on State Politics"; correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And in this meeting there were quite a large number of
12 participants, were there not?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And there were participants from not only FRY representatives,
15 but there were representatives from the Republika Srpska and the
16 Republika Srpska Krajina; true?
17 A. I can't recall if people from Krajina were there.
18 Q. Okay. If you turn to the -- page 2 in the English, and, I
19 believe, it's also page 2 in the B/C/S.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: And if you could enlarge it, please.
21 MR. GUY-SMITH:
22 Q. Does a review of that page refresh your recollection as to
23 whether or not there were representatives from Republika Srpska Krajina
25 A. Yes, indeed.
1 Q. Now, the general purpose of this meeting was to discuss what was
2 occurring at the time in Geneva
3 A. That was one of the purposes of the meeting, yes.
4 Q. Okay. Well, turning to page 3 in the English and page 3 also in
5 the B/C/S, looking at the very beginning paragraph where Mr. Cosic
6 indicates what the topics are to be discussed; right?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And the topic to be discussed -- the purpose of the meeting was
9 to agree on our stance on the negotiations in Geneva; true?
10 A. That's number 1. Yes.
11 Q. Okay. Now, at this meeting, what was occurring, at least
12 initially, was that a report was being made with regard to the possible
13 scenarios of course work or the possible manners in which some form of
14 agreement could be reached; right? And if the --
15 A. Generally they were discussing the situation, the status of
16 negotiations in Geneva
17 proceed with the next meeting, which was due to take place at this point.
18 They were stranded in Belgrade
19 something, so they had a meeting while they were waiting to go there.
20 Q. Well, they were talking about very specific proposals and very
21 specific issues with regard to what was occurring in Geneva; right?
22 A. Right.
23 Q. I mean, it wasn't a general about, What should we do next, but
24 rather, it was a very specific discussion with regard to the context in
25 which the Geneva Conference was being guided by Lord Owen; right?
1 A. Right. And they discussed their strategy in those negotiations.
2 Q. And they discussed before their strategy or the goals that they
3 had for this particular conference, they discussed what the international
4 community and specifically what Lord Owen believed could occur and could
5 not occur; right?
6 A. There may have been discussion of that.
7 Q. Well, turning to page 3, let's see whether or not that's of any
8 assistance in terms of whether or not there may have been any such
9 discussion. This is a continuation from page 2 where Mr. Cosic is saying
10 that there are three separate scenarios that might be played out, and I'm
11 sure that's what you were talking about when you're dealing with the
12 strategies that they were discussing in their meeting.
13 A. Right.
14 Q. "All sides might accept the key elements --" well, I'm not going
15 to read them. The three of them are there. We can all see them;
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Okay, and then he specifically discusses what will happen -- I'm
19 sorry. He specifically discusses that the Serbian side has been given
20 diplomatic warnings by Lord Owen in the event that certain things don't
21 happen; right?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. For example, if there is -- "firstly, the international community
24 will not accept the status of 'a state within a state.'" So there was
25 clearly a discussion about what the nature of those negotiations were and
1 how the leadership should not only respond to them, but what the problems
2 were that they were going to faced in this agreement process; right?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And that was the purpose of this meeting; right?
5 A. Of this portion of the meeting, yes.
6 Q. And during this meeting, and by the "meeting," I'm referring to
7 the meeting on the 6th of January -- I'm sorry, the 9th of January, one
8 of the things --
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Madam Sutherland.
10 MS. SUTHERLAND: I'm sorry, the speaker that you were referring
11 to, I think, is Zivota Panic, not Cosic.
12 MR. GUY-SMITH: You know what? I think you may well be right. I
13 think they may have moved on to Mr. Panic. Thank you so much.
14 Q. And during the course of -- during the course of this discussion,
15 various of the individuals who were present stood up and discussed
16 various aspects of how they should respond to the international
17 community's demands and perception of how the agreement should go; right?
18 A. How they would like to see things go, perhaps, yes.
19 Q. Fine, how they would like to see things go. And in that they
20 also discussed issues concerning constitution; right?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And as a matter of fact, Mr. Jovanovic, and referring --
23 MR. GUY-SMITH: If we could have page - hopefully I'll do this
24 properly - page 27 of the English and 25 of the Serbian up. Going to the
25 very top of the page, the paragraph that starts with the words "First of
1 all ..."
2 Q. He says: "First of all, based on the existing Constitution --"
3 Now, what constitution would that be?
4 A. I'm not sure. I would have to examine the whole passage.
5 Q. Okay. Well, let's do that.
6 "... we should persistently fight for reaffirmation of the
7 principle of constitutionality. As far as we could understand, it is not
8 possible to insert it into the text. There are logical consequences that
9 are coming out of it. Constitutionality means nation-building qualities;
10 to have them means to have inalienable right to self-determination."
11 Here it says:
12 "The unalienable right to self-determination means also the right
13 to state organisation without right to secession. Therefore, 'a state
14 within the state' is not impossible, and there is not small numbers of
15 such examples in the world. Still, the state, peace and stability, as
16 well as interests of other countries has not been brought into question."
17 Now, here Mr. Jovanovic is discussing a fundamental aspect of
18 what one of the important considerations is at the Geneva Conference and
19 specifically one of the matters that Lord Owen has suggested is not
20 possible, and he's making a statement, is he not, and one might say a
21 well-reasoned statement, in terms of his analysis that there is a
22 possibility to have this particular kind of a political entity and that
23 perhaps Mr. Owen's analysis is not accurate.
24 A. Well, I think that the -- well, in simplest terms, yes, I think
25 we discussed some of those -- that issue yesterday, about the idea of
1 there being three entities within Bosnia
2 Q. And -- thank you for that answer.
3 A. By the way, I would check the translation of this. It could be
4 correct, but when he says "the right to self-determination means also the
5 right to state organisation without right to secession," I would check
6 that. That might be correct, but usually --
7 Q. Well, excuse me, Mr. Treanor, as you're reading the document, you
8 can also see it in B/C/S, and looking at it in B/C/S, are you indicating
9 that as far as you're concerned, based upon your understanding of the
10 language, that there's a discrepancy --
11 A. That --
12 Q. -- or are you conjecturing with regard to the manner in which the
13 individuals have done their job? I'm just asking the question because
14 I'm not sure what you're saying.
15 A. I'm suggesting that that be checked.
16 Q. Okay, thank you.
17 A. I cannot see that page. I'm seeing page 24. This is apparently
18 on page 25 of the original.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Guy-Smith, is this a final CLSS translation?
20 MR. GUY-SMITH: It seems not to be. It says "OTP DVU," so we
21 take your suggestion in hand.
22 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, perhaps if page 25 could be put on
23 the screen, which would correlate with the English page.
24 MR. GUY-SMITH: Oh, I thought we had that up. I'm sorry.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Could we do that, please.
1 THE WITNESS: That's what it says. It says "without." Sorry for
2 the confusion.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, I can't hear you, Mr. Treanor.
4 THE WITNESS: Sorry, Your Honour?
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Could you repeat yourself.
6 THE WITNESS: It says "without." I'm sorry if I caused any
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: So the translation is correct.
9 THE WITNESS: Yes.
10 MR. GUY-SMITH: Now I would like to turn to page 34 of the B/C/S
11 and -- I'm sorry, I believe it's 36 of the English. And on the previous
12 page, so we can identify the speaker, the speaker now is Milosevic, and
13 I'd like to go to the top of the page, the very first paragraph.
14 Q. And we've had a fair amount of discussion about strategic goals,
15 and with that in mind --
16 MR. GUY-SMITH: Do we have the proper page up? I think it's 34
17 in the B/C/S.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Madam Sutherland.
19 MS. SUTHERLAND: I'm noting that the B/C/S needs to go on one
20 more page to be -- correlate with the English translation.
21 MR. GUY-SMITH:
22 Q. I just want to wait until we have the B/C/S page up, in case you
23 have any concerns about the language being used. Mr. Milosevic says,
24 with in mind with the discussion that we've had about strategic goals:
25 "I think that we should not swear now on strategic goals. They
1 are clear. There is no person sitting at this desk that does not share
2 that opinion. Our strategic goal is that the Serbian people in Balkan
3 should be free and have equal rights. Freedom and equal rights of the
4 Serbian people in Balkan then can include all possibilities for them to
5 be fully recognised and to accomplish their interests. We can draw a
6 line there at the goals. Since all the speeches were about that; it is
7 clear, and we agree with it. If we wonder how - it is less important to
8 me through how many institutional decisions and phases the goal is to be
9 achieved, but it is more important to know how many people have to die
10 for that goal and whether it is necessary."
11 And then he goes on to say:
12 "I am sure that we absolutely have not used the space that we
13 have available for negotiations."
14 Now, I see that you're looking back and forth between the two, so
15 I want to make sure that, first of all --
16 A. I'm not, actually.
17 Q. I thought you were, and I don't mean to be presumptuous about
18 what you were doing.
19 Now, that particular statement, with regard to the information
20 that you have presented to us here, do you believe that that particular
21 statement as it specifically uses the terminology "strategic goals" is
22 something that is of relevance and importance to have been included in
23 your report, number 1? Is that of importance?
24 A. I'm sorry, do you mean the mention here of strategic goals?
25 Q. The statement that he makes with regard to a definition of what
1 he, Milosevic, deems the strategic goals to be - the equal rights and
2 freedom of the people.
3 A. Well, that particular idea is something that he had expressed
4 earlier and already figured in the report. I think what I did include in
5 the report was something else --
6 Q. Well, this is --
7 A. -- because I thought that was the important thing from the
9 Q. Well, this is a slightly different definition of strategic goals
10 than which you have presented to us, is it not?
11 A. Well, this is Mr. Milosevic speaking.
12 Q. Excuse me, sir. I'm asking you a question. Please give me an
13 answer yes or no, and then you can explain it. This is a slightly
14 different definition of strategic goals from that which you have given
15 us, is it not?
16 A. These are different strategic goals.
17 Q. Oh, I see. Thank you.
18 MR. GUY-SMITH: If we could turn to page 38 of the English and
19 of --
20 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, these could well be different goals.
21 It's not entirely clear. I think he's speaking on -- from his point of
22 view, he's certainly not referring to the strategic goals of the Bosnian
24 MR. GUY-SMITH:
25 Q. When you say --
1 A. I don't think it's clear that he's referring to the strategic
2 goals of the Bosnian Serbs at all.
3 Q. Just so we're clear, with regard to who this speaker is, this is
4 one of the individuals who was, in your estimation, part of the
5 leadership which your report concerned between 1990 and 1995; correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Okay. And that's Mr. Milosevic; right?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Okay. And during --
10 MR. GUY-SMITH: I'm sorry, I don't know if I gave you the
11 appropriate page in B/C/S. If I did not, I apologise. I believe it's
13 Q. This is Milosevic continuing and talking about an issue that you
14 mentioned earlier on, which is another point that was of some importance
15 to everyone's determination, specifically to a determination of how you
16 would define the state. And Mr. Milosevic indicates -- I'm sorry, I'm
17 going to read from -- starting on page 37 of the English. I do
19 He says:
20 "All right. Let us make it be so that the first principle would
21 say that 'Bosnia and Herzegovina is' - and then going to the language we
22 have right now - is decentralized state made of three constitutive
23 peoples in organized provinces with high level of exercise of power, so
24 that is something what they do accept."
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Guy-Smith, are you reading anything from what
1 we see on the screen?
2 MR. GUY-SMITH: I see what's happened here. Could we please have
3 for but a moment page 37 of the English. Going to the very bottom of the
4 page, last paragraph, the very last -- the very last sentence, referring
5 to the conversation that he had with Cyrus Vance, quote, referring to
6 Cyrus Vance:
7 "All right, let us make it be so that the first principle would
8 say that 'Bosnia and Herzegovina is ...'" and then if we could, Madam
9 Registrar, go to the next page in English and remain on the same page in
10 B/C/S, and then go to the very top of the page. "'... decentralised
11 state made of three constitutive peoples and organised provinces with
12 high level of exercise of power.' So that is something what they do
14 And he is referring to Cyrus Vance accepting an idea, which he
15 then continues to explain.
16 "They have not used terms 'composite' or 'unitary;' they just
17 said decentralised state of three constitutive peoples.' If that term -
18 three constitutive peoples - would be established as the first principle,
19 then it automatically comes to the right to self-determination. If it is
20 about constitutive people, then what else it could be but that the people
21 that have right to self-determination, which is contained in the
22 definition itself."
23 Q. It seems from this, at least in terms of his analysis in the
24 discussion that he is having with the leadership at the time, and by
25 "leadership," I mean the leadership of RS, RSK, FRY, that there is here
1 the ability to obtain the goal, the strategic goal, that we were just
2 referring to a moment ago. Would you agree with that, sir?
3 A. Well, no, I don't know that that's -- the two passages are
4 directly related. I mean, what he's discussing here, they are discussing
5 a draft of constitutional principles, I believe it was called, which had
6 eight or nine points which had been drawn up in Geneva, and they were
7 going to be the subject of further discussion in Geneva, and so they're
8 going over the current draft and talking about changes in the draft. And
9 he's emphasising that the idea of the three constituent or constituted
10 peoples has been accepted, which, I think, is something we've discussed
11 here, and that they would therefore have the right to self-determination.
12 Q. So would you agree with me --
13 A. This is -- I'm sorry. This is in Bosnia, of course. This is
14 restricted to Bosnia
15 Q. Would you agree with me that the suggestion made but a few
16 moments earlier with regard to the strategic goal of freedom and
17 equality, or equal rights, in his estimation, is being met through the
18 agreement process that is going on at that time? Be it a draft or be it
19 a final document, this is a positive, a positive step towards peace.
20 A. Yes. He sees this -- he would see what he's describing here as a
21 positive step toward that particular goal.
22 Q. Thank you.
23 Then there's further discussion, still again with regard to
25 MR. GUY-SMITH: And if we could have page 58 of the English and
1 56 of the B/C/S. The speaker has changed, and for purposes of
2 identification, the speaker can be found at page 57. This is
3 Mr. Stojanovic speaking.
4 Q. Incidentally, who was Mr. Stojanovic?
5 A. Oh, I think he was one of the advisors.
6 Q. Okay.
7 A. He'd be identified on the first page.
8 Q. On the first page when it says, "he was the Special Advisor to
9 the President;" is that correct?
10 A. If that's what it says, yes.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Which president?
12 MR. GUY-SMITH: That would have been Cosic, Your Honour. I'm
13 sorry, Cosic.
14 Q. And looking at the second paragraph in English, in talking about,
15 once again, a way of discussing at the conference how to formulate this
16 agreement, he says:
17 "I am returning to a formula that I have been representing for a
18 long time because it would be impossible for an American to refuse
19 calling it: 'The United States of Bosnia and Herzegovina.' It would
20 mean that three states exist. Let us start from that term. Starting
21 from that term, let us create and make stronger all the confederal
22 elements, which means not only three constitutive principles but also
23 three states. It means that we should combine the principle of
24 territorial unification with the principle of consensus, whereby it would
25 not only be the question of territory but also of the function."
1 Now, here it seems that he's suggesting something that we were
2 talking about yesterday, which is a return to a federalised system with
3 three, shall we say, states, similar to what we discussed when we were
4 talking about the United States of America and the 50 states, as compared
5 to the former Yugoslavia
6 A. No.
7 Q. Okay.
8 A. He's discussing here the idea of making the confederal elements
9 stronger. We've seen in some of the documents that were presented during
10 my testimony that Mr. Milosevic and the Serbian leaders in general made a
11 strong distinction between a confederation and a federation. He said
12 that a confederation was not a state, and here he's referring to
13 strengthening the confederal elements in the Bosnian constitution so that
14 there would be three states.
15 Q. Indeed so. And then he goes on to define, does he not, what the
16 relationship of those three states would be to each other?
17 A. Yes. The constitutional principles that were under discussion
18 did that, which were eventually accepted by all parties.
19 Q. So the leadership at this time internally was discussing a
20 methodology and a conceptual understanding of how to define the political
21 inter-relationship between the parties that was ultimately accepted. And
22 when you say "ultimately accepted," do I understand you to mean at the
23 time of the signing of Dayton
24 A. No. As mentioned in my report, there were two packages of
25 documents signed, one at the end of January 1993 and then another package
1 in the end of March 1993, which consisted of, I believe, the
2 constitutional principles, a transitional agreement, and a map.
3 Eventually, meaning by the end of March, all parties had signed off on
4 all those documents, except the Bosnian Serb leadership had not signed
5 the map, and that got to be the central issue.
6 Q. Okay. Now, with your last explanation in mind, turning to page
7 104 of the English and 102 of the B/C/S, if we could, please. Once
8 again, Stojanovic is speaking.
9 MR. GUY-SMITH: And if we could go to the second full
10 paragraph -- I'm sorry, if we could go under to where Stojanovic is
12 Q. Going to his second point, he now is discussing his -- what he
13 believes could be the appropriate tactics to be used during the
14 negotiation and compromising process, and he says:
15 "Second, if we are going for negotiations and compromising, even
16 in this maximal variant where things will be sharpened to a razor edge,
17 then we would have to discuss tactics. The best tactics would be to take
18 some western example to support each proposal for improvement.
19 For an example, we can take the internal organisation of the USA
20 as an example for the United States of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In that
21 case they cannot say that there cannot be such a state if the USA is such
22 a state. In some other case, where it suits us, we can refer to
23 West-German Constitution. We can use Canada as an appropriate example
24 due to the ethnical problems that they have. We can even involve Russia
25 since Russia
1 Provinces, et cetera."
2 Now, in that statement, he is embodying a series of concepts with
3 regard to what would be matters to discuss on the table how best to reach
4 an agreement; correct?
5 A. In regard to the constitutional principles, apparently, yes.
6 Q. Thank you.
7 MR. GUY-SMITH: If we could have all of those pages admitted, and
8 at the conclusion, at the break, we'll meet with the registrar, if that's
9 appropriate, and make sure that we have the right pages both in B/C/S and
10 English so that they are, whatever the word it is they used, in terms
11 of -- "linked" is what they say. Since sometimes I may have called it
12 the wrong page, unless it's been taken care of.
13 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: All those pages that were referred to in P205,
15 Exhibit P205, are admitted into evidence as Defence exhibits. May they
16 please be given an exhibit number.
17 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit D7, Your Honours.
18 MR. GUY-SMITH:
19 Q. I want to move to another area if I could, please, which is --
20 which is you mentioned earlier that Celeketic was at one point, I
21 believe, the head of the army for the SVK.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And when did that occur?
24 A. I believe I saw a document on that dated February 1994.
25 Q. And who appointed him? Was that done through the Assembly
1 process, as we discussed, as occurred with Mr. Mladic, or did that occur
2 in a different fashion with a direct appointment by the president?
3 A. I think he was appointed by the -- well, my recollection -- from
4 recollection, he was appointed by Milan Martic, who was the new
6 Q. And before Martic, who was the President of the SVK?
7 A. Goran Hadzic.
8 Q. Okay. And under Goran Hadzic, the head of the army was somewhat
9 different than Celeketic; correct?
10 A. Yes. I'm not sure who Celeketic replaced.
11 Q. And you've told us that the constitution of the SVK and the
12 constitution of the RS were relatively similar in nature.
13 MS. SUTHERLAND: May I have a transcript page reference, please?
14 MR. GUY-SMITH: Sure. That will take me a second.
15 Q. Well, let me ask you the question, instead of saying "you told
16 us," let me ask you the question: Is that an accurate statement?
17 A. Well, I believe so. In it regards what it says about the command
18 of the army, I think they are fairly similar.
19 Q. Okay.
20 MR. GUY-SMITH: If we could go, and I think we still need to do
21 this in closed session, and it will take but a moment, but if can we go
22 into closed session, please.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: May the Chamber move into closed session.
24 [Closed session]
25 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're in closed session.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
2 Yes, Mr. Guy-Smith.
3 MR. GUY-SMITH: There is one document that we have under seal,
4 which is P215, which is entitled "The Directive for the use of the
5 Yugoslav Army, Republika Srpska, and Army of Serbian Krajina, dated 14th
6 of November, 1993." And I have a couple of questions with regard to this
8 Q. Is it -- you've had a chance to go through this document, have
9 you not?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. This document is a plan of what the response could be in the
12 event that certain conditions take place; correct?
13 A. Yes. That's my understanding of it.
14 Q. Okay. This is not -- this is not a -- this is not what we call a
15 proactive plan, but rather a defensive plan; correct?
16 A. A contingency plan.
17 Q. And by "contingency," the contingency plan involves what would
18 occur if various aggressors, as it's put in terms of the plan itself,
19 effected attacks; right?
20 A. I think that's the basic idea, yes.
21 Q. Okay. And did this plan, to your knowledge, require legislation
22 of any sort?
23 A. Not to my knowledge.
24 Q. Do you know whether this plan ever took effect?
25 A. I would assume it came into effect immediately.
1 Q. And by that you mean that the idea came into effect immediately?
2 A. Well, by that I mean that should that contingency develop
3 immediately, the directive would be carried out.
4 Q. Okay. So it's your understanding from your review of this that
5 this was a -- this was a turnkey plan. And by that I mean -- you
6 understand what I mean by "a turnkey plan"?
7 A. I think so.
8 Q. It was ready to go?
9 A. Yeah. That was my understanding.
10 Q. Okay. Thank you.
11 MR. GUY-SMITH: I'm done with this particular document, and if we
12 could -- this would be an appropriate time.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Then you'll --
14 MR. GUY-SMITH: We can go back into open session.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Before we do that, you don't have any specific
16 page from this document that you want to tender into evidence?
17 MR. GUY-SMITH: No, not based upon what the gentleman has said,
18 Your Honour.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. The document is removed from
20 the screen.
21 May the Chamber please move into open session.
22 [Open session]
23 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. We'll now take a break and
25 come back at a quarter to 11.00. Court adjourned.
1 --- Recess taken at 10.15 a.m.
2 --- On resuming at 10.48 a.m.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Guy-Smith.
4 MR. GUY-SMITH: Thank you, Your Honours. Quite briefly, right
5 before we start, I've been informed that I need to make two corrections
6 to the transcript where I misspoke myself on page 30, at lines 14 and 19,
7 apparently I said "VSK," and I should have said "RSK," and I apologise
8 for doing that. At page 30, line 14, it should be "RSK" and at page 30,
9 line 19, it should be "RSK."
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: What lines?
11 MR. GUY-SMITH: 14 and 19. 15, I'm sorry. I said "VSK ,"and it
12 should be "RSK" at line 15.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: And then at line 20?
14 MR. GUY-SMITH: Line 20. Maybe my synchronisation skills will
15 get better as time goes on.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may proceed, Mr. Guy-Smith.
17 MR. GUY-SMITH: Thank you so much.
18 I would now like to call up, if we could, P217, which is the 20th
19 session of the Supreme Defence Council held on the 15th of April, 1994
20 I'm sorry, once again, this is going to be partial because of the
21 situation which we're in, so I need to have 65 ter number 6639.01.
22 Before we go any further, I have been requested by our client to
23 have this entire document admitted. It is 46 pages long, and I am aware
24 of the guidelines that we have. I'm going to be referring to a number of
25 pages within the document, and what I would propose is that I do that
1 which we have done in the rules that we are following and at the
2 conclusion the Chamber can make a determination as to whether or not it
3 would be appropriate to have the entire document in or proceed along the
4 lines that we have been proceeding. But it would be our request to have
5 at the conclusion this entire document in.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Are there any special reasons that can be advanced
7 at this stage for the entire document to be admitted?
8 MR. GUY-SMITH: Apart from -- apart from specific requests made
9 by Mr. Perisic and the generalised concern about notions of completeness,
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Did Mr. Perisic give you any reason why he
12 wanted --
13 MR. GUY-SMITH: Well, he believes that this document should be --
14 should be admitted in its entirety so that the Chamber has the full
15 context and the "give and take" of the information that's contained
16 within the document.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Very well, then. We'll consider that at the end.
18 MR. GUY-SMITH: Thank you so much.
19 Q. Mr. Treanor, I'd like to direct your attention to the third page
20 of the document in English, which I believe to be the second page of the
21 document in B/C/S, but I could be incorrect. But that's what I believe
22 it to be. I don't know if we have the B/C/S up yet, but I'll begin --
23 yes, it is up. I will begin the discussion.
24 Now, this is a meeting which concerns itself with the Republic of
25 FRY, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia; correct?
1 A. This is a FRY document, yes.
2 Q. Okay. And FRY, as you've told us before, is one of the, shall we
3 say, republics that was created after the -- or during the dissolution of
4 the breakup of Yugoslavia
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And in regards to the issue of FRY, at that time in 1994 the
7 President of FRY was a Mr. Lilic; correct?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And he was also the President of the Supreme Defence Council;
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And Perisic had been appointed by Lilic sometime in 1993, I
13 believe in August of 1993; correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And when Perisic was appointed, he was appointed under the laws
16 of the constitution and the laws of the army; correct? And that's of the
17 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
18 A. Well, he would have been appointed under whatever legislative was
19 operative at the time. I think the new law on the Army of Yugoslavia
20 only came into effect later in 1993.
21 Q. And Perisic was subordinate to -- under the law, he was
22 subordinate to Lilic; correct? He was the president.
23 A. Yes, that's my understanding.
24 Q. In the 20th session, and now I'm directing your attention to the
25 page which is up on the screen, Mr. Perisic essentially begins this
1 session to discuss what the situation is with regard to FRY; correct?
2 And he says:
3 "This is more than our soldiers' view of the political solution
4 of the crisis in this region. Later I would like to tell you about our
5 concrete measures undertaken and the danger for the SR/Federal
6 Republic/of Yugoslavia/FRY."
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And in this session which you have analysed and you have
9 reviewed, Mr. Perisic discusses in this session measures that need to be
10 taken or should be taken in order to protect the security of FRY; right?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And as a matter of fact, he focuses quite specifically in that
13 regard, and directing your attention to page 9, which is, if I'm correct,
14 the middle -- starts in the middle of page 6 of the B/C/S.
15 MR. GUY-SMITH: I'm not seeing it yet; 9 in the English, 6 in the
16 B/C/S. Yes. And going to the third paragraph down.
17 Q. Before this, he has discussed what is, in his view as the Chief
18 of Staff of FRY, occurring in the region militarily, which he's reporting
19 to the Supreme Defence Council about, and then he says:
20 "In order to prevent surprise and not provoke them by anything,
21 we have undertaken the following measures: we've stepped up security at
22 the borders to Albania
23 engaged a larger number of men along the axes and sent units for in-depth
24 security of the border."
25 And there, the security of the border that he's referring to is
1 the border of FRY; correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. His concern here, then, his stated concern here, as a military
4 man, is to protect the sanctity of that particular region, and by "that
5 particular region," I mean the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
6 A. Yes, he's concerned with the security of the FRY.
7 Q. Okay. And he goes on in the next paragraph to say that again, he
8 is -- "he" meaning the army, has put "air force and anti-aircraft units
9 into the state of combat alert. In case of escalation of danger, we have
10 planned that," and then he names them, "PVO/anti-aircraft defence units
11 would come out to the eastern Republic of Serbian Krajina border with
13 there's a document that I have in English, there's a question mark with
14 regard to the next word which says "possible, violation of our
16 So the balance of that sentence would either read "prevent
17 violation of our territory" or "prevent the possible violation of our
18 territory." And this may be a point where you might like to take at it
19 in the original and see whether you discern a difference between the two.
20 Do you see a difference there?
21 A. With the territory?
22 Q. "... in order to protect the bridges and prevent possible
23 violation of our territory."
24 A. Yes, that's -- well, eventual violation. But it's "violation of
25 our territory."
1 Q. Okay, all right. In any event, the underlying -- the
2 underlying --
3 A. It's a funny word that's being used there.
4 Q. Okay.
5 A. I think the translator does think so, too, apparently.
6 Q. In any event, the idea here is that he is doing that which is
7 what a person in his position, commander of the army, should be doing,
8 which is considering how best to protect his borders.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And he's reporting that to those that he answers to, those that
11 are in authority over him; correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. He goes on to discuss further -- further ideas of how best to
14 deploy or not deploy various troops and individuals on the next pages,
15 which I will not go into, and ultimately he concludes his discussion, if
16 we could have page 15, please, which I believe -- page 15 in the
17 English -- which is B/C/S, the last paragraph on page 10, and then I
18 think we'll have to go over to page 11, but I'm not absolutely positive.
19 I'm just dealing with the one point which is the Perisic -- yes.
20 MS. SUTHERLAND: I think page 15 is under seal, so you will have
21 to go to the under-seal exhibit and go into --
22 MR. GUY-SMITH: I do apologise, and thank you so much for the --
23 MS. SUTHERLAND: This is the redacted version of the exhibit.
24 MR. GUY-SMITH: I thank you for the -- my concern is with the top
25 of the page, so we may be in a position to proceed. I'm only going for
1 the last comment made by Mr. Perisic which has not been redacted.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: So you want to continue with this page?
3 MR. GUY-SMITH: Yes, with this page.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: By all means, carry on, sir.
5 MR. GUY-SMITH: I think we're okay.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: And you don't need private session?
7 MR. GUY-SMITH: I don't think we do.
8 Q. And finally he concludes here by saying:
9 "I presented our line of reasoning in the worst possible case. I
10 think we should prepare for it hoping that it won't happen. We would be
11 very happy if it didn't. But these are our calculations of what could
12 befall us in the worst case of escalation of the conflict in this region,
13 while we are doing everything to prevent it."
14 And there what he was referring to is the security of the borders
15 of the FRY; correct?
16 A. Well, even more generally, involvement of -- yes, having the
17 conflict brought in -- to the territory of FRY
18 Q. Okay. And that, as a matter of fact, is something that had not
19 occurred. The conflict had not been brought into the territory of FRY
21 A. No.
22 Q. Okay.
23 MR. GUY-SMITH: Thank you. I am finished with that particular
24 document, and depending on the Chamber's view, would either rule for the
25 admission of the entire document or for admission of the pages, whatever
1 the Chamber deems appropriate.
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: The entire document is admitted into evidence.
4 May it please be given an exhibit number.
5 MR. GUY-SMITH: And I believe that document should be admitted
6 under seal.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Under seal.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D8, under
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
11 MR. GUY-SMITH: Does that work?
12 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, the Prosecution submits that the
13 unredacted version should be admitted in its entirety.
14 MR. GUY-SMITH: Yes, we're in total agreement here.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Well, yes, that's fine. I was admitting the
16 document that was on display.
17 MR. GUY-SMITH: Fine.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: In its entirety.
19 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes, Your Honour, but what was on the screen was
20 the redacted version, so we would seek to have the -- if the Defence want
21 the total of the 20th session of the SDC into evidence, we would -- it's
22 our submission that the entire unredacted version should be put into
23 evidence under seal.
24 MR. GUY-SMITH: I think that we have no disagreement here, and I
25 believe that because one was redacted and one was unredacted, and the
1 unredacted one, I believe, is 65 ter number 6639 -- Carmela, is that .01?
2 Thank you. .01, 6639.01 --
3 MS. SUTHERLAND: Is the redacted version.
4 MR. GUY-SMITH: Okay.
5 MS. SUTHERLAND: So 06639 is the unredacted version.
6 MR. GUY-SMITH: Perfect. If we could have 06639, which is the
7 unredacted version, admitted under seal.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Registrar -- yes, madam.
9 MR. GUY-SMITH: I hope I'm saying the right thing at this point.
10 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
11 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, I'm sorry, may I just clarify our
12 position. The only -- the pages that are protected pursuant to a court
13 order are from page 11, paragraph 3 on page 11, onwards, so they're the
14 only ones that we would seek to be under seal. The other -- the first
15 eleven pages can be a public exhibit.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam, how is that practical? Is that practically
17 possible? This is one document. Some pages are under seal; others are
18 not under seal.
19 MS. SUTHERLAND: I have a solution, Your Honour. The redacted
20 exhibit, which is P217, certain pages of that were admitted through my
21 examination of Mr. Treanor. If the whole lot of the unredacted version
22 is in evidence and then we have the unredacted version, which is 06639,
23 under seal, we achieve the same -- we achieve the same balance, because
24 we have an exhibit that has the unredacted pages, and that's a public
25 exhibit, and then we have the other exhibit which is under seal and
1 that's the entirety of the session.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's what I'm saying. You have referred to the
3 pages that you wanted to refer to and you have tendered them into
4 evidence as P217, so the whole document that is now being tendered by the
5 Defence can go entirely in, under seal, and anybody who wants to
6 cross-check can cross-check. I just don't think we should now at this
7 stage admit publicly the pages that were referred to by the Defence and
8 then admit under seal the entire document and still have P217. This is
9 just burdening the --
10 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes. Your Honour, what I'm saying is that under
11 P217, only the pages I took Mr. Treanor to, according to Your Honours'
12 ruling that we don't put in the entire documents.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Fine.
14 MS. SUTHERLAND: So now that the situation's changed in relation
15 to this particular document, we would seek to have the entire exhibit --
16 the Rule 65 ter number 06639.01, which at the moment only has specific
17 pages, but if that whole exhibit which is the unredacted version of
18 those -- that session of the 20th session of the SDC, if that's a public
19 exhibit, and then we have this other unredacted version under seal.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's what I'm saying the Chamber is not inclined
21 to do. It is not inclined to admit one document three times over. I
22 don't see why, if we already have P217, we can't just have the rest of
23 the document or the entire document as per the request of the Defence
24 admitted under seal.
25 MS. SUTHERLAND: But the public don't get to see the information,
1 Your Honour. The Defence have asked for the whole exhibit to be put in,
2 and we've agreed with that on the proviso that the public are entitled to
3 see what is not redacted from that session.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam --
5 MS. SUTHERLAND: If --
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: -- you know what --
7 MS. SUTHERLAND: Sorry, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: If we admit P217, which is just some pages of the
9 document, then the public doesn't see the rest of the document. You
10 didn't intend to do that. The Prosecution wants to -- wanted to admit
11 the entire redacted document. You said no, you don't want the entire
12 redacted document, you want the entire document unredacted. Now, are you
13 saying simply because now the Defence wanted to have admitted the
14 redacted part in its entirety, now you want that whole redacted part made
16 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, it's my understanding -- if I
17 understood you well just then, you said that the Defence wanted the whole
18 of the redacted version admitted, but it's not my understanding of what
19 they want. They want the whole session admitted into evidence.
20 MR. GUY-SMITH: If I might, Your Honour. Rather than pedaling
21 through yoghurt if the Prosecution and the Defence can get together at
22 the break, we'll take a look at the status of these exhibits, and we'll
23 come back to the Chamber with an appropriate solution, if a solution
24 there need be, and I believe there's some confusion here. So if we could
25 just move on at this point in time, I promise you we'll get the matter
1 resolved, and I'm sure it'll be resolved to the satisfaction of all
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. Then the admission of this
4 document is deferred pending the negotiations between the parties. You
5 may proceed, sir.
6 MR. GUY-SMITH: Thank you so much.
7 If we could have 65 ter 6606 brought forth, some of those pages
8 have been previously admitted as P230.
9 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, I'm sorry to interrupt again. It
10 was my understanding that the Defence were to provide a list of all the
11 exhibits that they were going to use with each witness at the end of the
12 examination-in-chief. We were --
13 MR. GUY-SMITH: This is --
14 MS. SUTHERLAND: -- we were provided -- we were advised in the
15 middle of Mr. Treanor's cross-examination yesterday of the documents that
16 had been released into e-court, and my colleague said that that was an
17 oversight on his behalf for not telling the Prosecution that they had
18 released the documents earlier. But we still have not been provided with
19 a list of all of these documents, and even though they're Rule 65 ter
20 numbers and we have access to the documents, we should still have a list
21 of the exhibits that they intend to use through Mr. Treanor and with each
22 witness, and I would ask that you direct the Defence to do that from this
23 point on.
24 MR. GUY-SMITH: We'll take that -- we'll take that point.
25 MS. SUTHERLAND: And if I could know now the exhibits that you
1 intend -- any other additional exhibits --
2 MR. GUY-SMITH: 65 ter 6606, which was previously -- pages of
3 which were previously admitted as Exhibit P230 which would --
4 MS. SUTHERLAND: Are there additional exhibits?
5 MR. GUY-SMITH: -- which would not be the case had the entire
6 document been admitted. After this discussion there will be no further
7 documents --
8 MS. SUTHERLAND: Thank you.
9 MR. GUY-SMITH: -- of which the Prosecution is not aware.
10 MS. SUTHERLAND: I'm sorry, Your Honour, but the Defence missed
11 the point.
12 MR. GUY-SMITH: No, the Defence has not missed the point at all.
13 MS. SUTHERLAND: We have all the documents because they are Rule
14 65 ter documents, but we're supposed to be provided with a list of the
15 exhibits they're going to use with this witness, whether they're 65 ter
16 exhibits or they're new exhibits they're uploading and releasing to us in
18 MR. GUY-SMITH: That is simply not a problem. The point was
19 taken. The point was understood, specifically understood.
20 And I promise you, Your Honour, if I can get to the next question
21 and the question after that, you will see precisely why I've said what
22 I've said. There's no mystery going on here.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Unfortunately, I cannot wait for your next
24 question before the Court makes a ruling. There's a request for a ruling
25 to be made --
1 MR. GUY-SMITH: Okay.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: -- you have taken the point, I understand, and can
3 I just make the ruling?
4 MR. GUY-SMITH: I'm sorry, I'm saying I'm taking it even further
5 than I've taken the point. I'm more than happy to agree with what the
6 Prosecution has said, and I welcome a ruling that precisely indicates
7 what the Prosecution has asked for. So the Chamber is fully aware of
8 what my position is and what Mr. Lukic's position is, we have no
9 difficulty at all with the proposal, and we are more than happy to abide
10 by such an order if you choose to impose such an order.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: It is so imposed.
12 MR. GUY-SMITH: Thank you.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. You may proceed.
14 MR. GUY-SMITH: Sure. If we could have, I believe it's page 7 of
15 the --
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, for my own clarification, you've called for
17 65 ter 06606 --
18 MR. GUY-SMITH: 65 ter?
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: 06606?
20 MR. GUY-SMITH: Yes.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Do you want the entire document or do you want
23 MR. GUY-SMITH: No, I want the entire document at this time. I
24 actually want only one page of this document because the Prosecution
25 chose not to introduce the whole --
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Which is which, Mr. Guy-Smith? Do you want the
2 entire document, or do you want one page?
3 MR. GUY-SMITH: I want one page. I want page 6 --
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
5 MR. GUY-SMITH: -- of the English, which is, I believe, page 7 of
6 the B/C/S.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: May we have page 6 of 65 ter 06606, please.
8 MR. GUY-SMITH: And if we could go down to the bottom of the
9 page. Excellent. And I'm going to start with, really, the very last --
10 the last paragraph which is a notation of what Milosevic said.
11 Q. Now, this particular information is not -- is not a verbatim of
12 what was said, but rather notes of a meeting that was had; correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Okay. And you had discussed with us, I believe, certain aspects
15 of this particular document, P230. This document, of which certain pages
16 were introduced which were P230, and I'm going now to the page before
17 that which you found to be relevant. This is page 6 of the English, and
18 we had been discussing page 7 before. And at the bottom, Milosevic says
19 that: "We did not have time for such tactics and that we should not be
20 out-manoeuvre one another."
21 And that "out-manoeuvring" he's talking about, there is an
22 out-manoeuvring as between Karadzic's position and Milosevic's position;
24 A. Well, I'd have to examine that, but I'll accept your
1 Q. Now, he says -- the note says that Milosevic went on to say:
2 "Now we must gain as much as possible. To illustrate that
3 negotiations with international mediators have not been easy,
4 President Milosevic mentioned the fact that, in order to secure the
5 Republika Srpska international legitimacy and rights equal to those of
6 the Croatian-Muslim federation, he fought for six months for the
7 acceptance of just one word: 'equal'"; correct?
8 A. That's what it says, although it says negotiate -- "to illustrate
9 that negotiations with international mediators have not been easy." I
10 think you might have said "internal."
11 Q. Excellent. So he is expressing there the view that what he had been
12 striving for, one of the members of, as you call it, a Serbian
13 leadership, what he'd been striving for for some period of time is a
14 matter that we've discussed, as a matter of fact, earlier today, that
15 being freedom and equality, is something that took, just for the one
16 particular idea, that of equality, took six months to get through with
17 the international negotiators; right?
18 A. Within the context of the negotiations about Bosnia, yes.
19 Q. When was Dayton
20 A. Well, it was kind of a two-stage process. I think there was
21 something signed preliminarily at the end of November 1995 and then a
22 more formal signing in Paris
23 Q. And upon the signing of Dayton
24 the region; correct?
25 A. In -- yes, it had already been terminated.
1 Q. It had already been terminated.
2 A. Yes. Broadly speaking, yes.
3 Q. Thank you, sir.
4 MR. GUY-SMITH: I have no further questions at this time.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
6 Any re-examination?
7 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, just a point on that page that came
8 up. The Defence said that the Prosecution chose not to tender that page
9 into evidence. It's part of Exhibit P230, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Guy-Smith, did you deliberately not tender
11 that page, or is it just an oversight?
12 MR. GUY-SMITH: Oh, no, I meant to tender the page. I was
13 certainly not an oversight.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Then page 6 of P230 is admitted into evidence.
15 May it please be given an exhibit number.
16 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit D8, Your Honours.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
18 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, I'm sorry --
19 MR. GUY-SMITH: And I'm informed -- excuse me, I'm sorry. I'm
20 informed that at page 36, line 2, the answer by Mr. Treanor was put as a
21 question, so it should be an A and not a Q.
22 THE COURT REPORTER: We'll check that.
23 MR. GUY-SMITH: Thank you so much.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay, thank you.
25 Yes, Madam Sutherland.
1 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, the document that you've just made
2 D7 is already part of Exhibit P230. That was my point, that --
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document I've just made D7 or D8?
4 MS. SUTHERLAND: D8. The Defence misstated the record when they
5 said that the Prosecution chose not to admit this page. It was admitted
6 already as Exhibit D -- P230.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Do you confirm, Mr. Guy-Smith?
8 MR. GUY-SMITH: No, I can't confirm that because the document
9 that I have that was supplied to me indicates that the passage that I
10 read is on page 6 of the English translation and not on page 7, so I
11 cannot confirm that. I can confirm that page 6, which is where -- the
12 page that I brought up on the English translation that I'm reading, as
13 I'm looking at it right now, that's page 6 on the bottom of the page, and
14 that information was not given. And that Ms. Sutherland, at --
15 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour --
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just hold on, Madam Registrar.
17 MR. GUY-SMITH: Ms. Sutherland at page 1255, line 10, asked for
18 pages 1 and 7 of the English translation be admitted, and that's at line
20 MS. SUTHERLAND: I stand corrected, Your Honour. I was advised
21 that it was part of the exhibit.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.
23 MS. SUTHERLAND: And I take responsibility for that.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Sutherland, do you have any re-examination?
25 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes, Your Honour.
1 Re-examination by Ms. Sutherland:
2 Q. Mr. Treanor, you were asked by the Defence, and this is to
3 paraphrase the Defence question, whether from 1990 -- and this is at
4 transcript page 1319, whether from 1992 to 1995 the driving goal of the
5 Serbian leadership was to obtain equality and protection for the Serbs
6 through the formation of a single state or a number of states.
7 Given the documentation that you have reviewed, was the goal of
8 the formation of a single Serb state conceived or formulated in 1992 or
10 A. Earlier.
11 Q. At what point?
12 A. Well, the SFRY was a single state in which all the Serbs lived.
13 That was formed in 1945 or even 1943.
14 Q. But the goals of the formation of a single Serb state --
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm sorry, I don't understand. You're talking
16 about the SFRY, not the FRY.
17 THE WITNESS: The SFRY, yes. That was a state in which all Serbs
18 lived. Now, the issue -- that issue of a state in which all Serbs live
19 came up again when the SFRY dissolved.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: But we're talking about the goal of the
21 leadership -- of the Serb leadership during this period of 1990 to 1995,
22 when this breakup of the former Yugoslavia
23 talking about the formation of the SFRY in the beginning.
24 THE WITNESS: Yes. Within the context of the breakup of the
25 SFRY, we saw that formulated in 1990.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, but then -- thank you.
2 You may proceed.
3 MS. SUTHERLAND:
4 Q. Therefore, the goal of creating a single Serb state out of the
5 territories of the former Yugoslavia
6 were rightfully theirs, a reaction to the policies of Alija Izetbegovic,
7 as the Defence seem to suggest at transcript page 1304, lines 14 to --
8 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please slow down. Thank you
9 very much.
10 MS. SUTHERLAND:
11 Q. -- and 20 to 23.
12 A. Well, the idea of -- that all Serbs -- the desire that all Serbs
13 should live within the state -- within one state had little to do with
14 anything that Alija Izetbegovic may or may not have said.
15 Q. In your report at paragraph 25, and that's Rule 65 ter exhibit
16 06646.01, you discuss a platform on the future of the Yugoslav community
17 by Izetbegovic and the Macedonian president Gregorov dating from the
18 beginning of June 1991. Do you recall what position Izetbegovic took in
19 that proposal?
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: If I may just get certainty before the answer is
21 given. Is 65 ter 06601 an exhibit? Has it been admitted into evidence
22 as an exhibit?
23 MS. SUTHERLAND: The number that you just read out, Your Honour,
24 isn't the correct number.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: What is the correct number?
1 MS. SUTHERLAND: 06646.01. And it's not an exhibit as yet.
2 MR. GUY-SMITH: This is --
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: How does that arise from the cross-examination,
5 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, it's his report, and it arises from
6 cross-examination because the Defence -- I read out the page numbers in
7 relation to the reference --
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Maybe before you make reference to that 65 ter
9 document, give us the background of how it becomes relevant by putting
10 questions to the witness. Let's see how they relate to
12 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, I said, as the Defence suggested at
13 transcript page 1304, lines 14 to 18 and 20 to 23, the Defence was
14 suggesting to Mr. Treanor that the goal of creating a single Serb state
15 out of the territories of the former Yugoslavia --
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Was as a result of Izetbegovic's --
17 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: -- and he answered that question comprehensively
19 by saying no, it had nothing to do with anything Izetbegovic had said or
20 done, something to that effect. I thought he had answered you.
21 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes, he did.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Do you still want to pursue it?
23 MS. SUTHERLAND: No, Your Honour, I'll move on.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Please do.
25 MS. SUTHERLAND:
1 Q. Mr. Treanor, at transcript page 1307, line 16, counsel asked you
2 about the internal borders in the SFRY. Based on your research and on
3 your report, who opened up the question of internal borders in the SFRY?
4 A. Well, it depends on what you mean by "opening up the question."
5 The republics that wanted to secede wanted to keep the borders that they
6 had within the SFRY. The Serbs regarded those and said that they
7 regarded those as internal administrative borders and that they could
8 be -- could be subject to revision.
9 Q. And that's referred to in your report at paragraph 15 -- no,
10 Exhibit P150. What you just referred to then, is that part of the
11 Milosevic speech, which is Exhibit P150, or not?
12 A. Yeah. He referred to that in one of the speeches we saw, yes.
13 Q. And you just said in relation to the position of all the other
14 Yugoslav republics, that they wanted to keep the borders that they had
15 within the SFRY.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. What was the position of the international community, if you
19 A. I believe their position was that --
20 MR. GUY-SMITH: Excuse me, if we could have a time period of the
21 position of the international community now.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Sutherland.
23 MS. SUTHERLAND:
24 Q. Yesterday, you referred to the Badinter opinion. If I can take
25 you to page 149 of your report --
1 A. Paragraph 149, perhaps.
2 Q. At the beginning of 1992, what was the position of the
3 international community?
4 A. Well, generally, the position taken was that the borders could be
5 changed but only by agreement and not by force. At this particular time
6 in -- starting in January, member states of the EC started recognising
7 the independence of some of the republics, notably Slovenia and Croatia
8 within the borders that they had had within the SFRY.
9 Q. I want to move to another topic. At page -- transcript page
10 1297, it was suggested to you that Slobodan Milosevic's speeches were,
11 and I quote, "that he was constantly from, I believe as you said, from
12 the end of 1991 forward pressing for some kind of peace settlement."
13 Besides the Milosevic speech in July 1991, which is P153, and
14 then the reference in April 1993 of the 29th session of the Bosnian Serb
15 Assembly where peace again was raised, do you recall anywhere in your
16 report or anywhere in your testimony of Milosevic advocating for peace in
18 A. In 1992, I can't recall anything.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: I would have thought that if there is any part --
20 any place in his report where he refers to Milosevic advocating peace,
21 you can direct his attention to that part of it.
22 MS. SUTHERLAND: Thank you, Your Honour. And I have reviewed the
23 report, and I do not find any cite to that.
24 Q. And is it the case that Milosevic was advocating peace in April
25 1993 because the Serbs had occupied at that stage, the Bosnian Serbs,
1 over 70 per cent of the territory?
2 MR. GUY-SMITH: I don't know whether or not he's in a position to
3 answer that question. I think it's outside the purview of his expertise,
4 the reason why he's advocating peace, in terms of the way the question's
5 being phrased. I think that's a conclusion, if it's to be drawn at all,
6 to be drawn by the Chamber.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam.
8 MS. SUTHERLAND: Can I rephrase the question, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Go ahead.
10 MS. SUTHERLAND:
11 Q. By the end of 1992, how much territory was occupied by the
12 Bosnian Serbs in BH?
13 A. About 70 per cent, I believe.
14 Q. And I think you've given evidence earlier that -- and taken the
15 Trial Chamber to different sessions of -- the Bosnian Serb Assembly
16 sessions and the SDC
17 those sessions that they wanted the Bosnian Serbs to accept the peace
18 agreement or the peace plan because they'd got what they wanted. Is that
20 A. Yes. Let me clarify. You said "they got what they wanted." I
21 think this is an important point that has come up tangentially. Who is
22 "they," and what did they want?
23 We've seen reference -- numerous references to the Bosnian Serb
24 strategic goals. Those were goals adopted by the Bosnian Serb Assembly
25 within the framework of the war, if you will, that was going on within
2 and may not have entirely agreed with them. They had their own goals,
3 one of which was -- or among which were not necessarily the achievement
4 of all the Bosnian Serbs' strategic goals to the extent that the Bosnian
5 Serbs might have liked.
6 There came a point in time, certainly by the beginning of 1993,
7 that Mr. Milosevic felt that enough had been achieved in the war to
8 warrant ending the war and get confirmation of what had been achieved by
9 way of recognition of the territory and the recognition of a Bosnian Serb
10 entity in Bosnia
11 year before, in early 1992, when he felt that enough had been achieved
12 and it was time to get it recognised. Of course the Croatian Serbian
13 leadership objected to that, and he ran into difficulties with the
14 Bosnian Serb leadership later.
15 He was very anxious to achieve the goal of getting that entity in
17 suffering under sanctions and was also making large outlays in connection
18 with the conflict in Bosnia
19 those burdens, as well as he stated on a number of occasions, to save
21 Q. And from a review of the documents, even though it was -- it may
22 have been the position that the FRY leadership wasn't always in agreement
23 or wanted the Bosnian Serbs to accept the -- what was being put on the
24 negotiating table, that the Bosnian Serbs didn't want to do that. While
25 there may have been some disagreements, did they continue to support
1 financially and materially until the end of the war the Bosnian Serbs?
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Guy-Smith.
3 MR. GUY-SMITH: That certainly is outside of the
4 cross-examination and also is, as a matter of fact, outside of the
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Sutherland.
7 MS. SUTHERLAND: I withdraw the question, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
9 MS. SUTHERLAND: I have no further questions.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
11 Any questions? Any questions?
12 Thank you very much, Mr. Treanor. This brings us to the end of
13 your testimony. You may now be -- you are now excused, and you may stand
14 down. Thank you once again for coming to testify.
15 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour. I hope I've been able to
16 assist the Court.
17 [The witness withdrew]
18 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, I seek to tender into evidence
19 Mr. Treanor's CV and his report.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can we deal with that once he has left?
21 Mr. Guy-Smith, the Prosecution seeks to tender the CV and report
22 of Mr. Treanor into evidence.
23 MR. GUY-SMITH: We would object to the admission of Mr. Treanor's
24 report. We have no objection to the admission of Mr. Treanor's CV. I
25 don't know if you wish for me to go any further at this time. At this
1 time we would object.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm not quite sure whether it's you or her who
3 should start, but certainly the Trial Chamber would like to know your
4 reasons for objecting.
5 MR. GUY-SMITH: Well, they are many. Initially, to the extent
6 the report renders any opinions, as has been previously argued in our
7 submissions concerning our initial objections to Mr. Treanor's reports,
8 what we essentially have at this time is an individual who has read a
9 great deal of information, but his opinions, I believe through the
10 examination specifically as they related to his report, reveal that they
11 are, one, not well-founded, and by that I mean that his methodology for
12 purposes of this report is pretty much non-existent.
13 The criteria that he used for making a determination of what
14 information he would present to the Chamber as being relevant is hidden.
15 He testified at least twice that it was contained within the recesses of
16 his own mind. And I may be paraphrasing his exact language, but there is
17 no objective information upon which the Chamber can rely concerning what
18 he believed to be important or not important. He is rendering an opinion
19 in much the same way that I could render an opinion.
20 I could tell you precisely what I think of what the situation
21 would be. And I may well be right, I may well be wrong, but in the
22 absence of some objective basis upon which the Chamber could rely, it
23 would be imprudent in our submission to place any emphasis on such
25 To the extent that he has given you factual information, it's
1 clear that once again he engaged in a process of distinguishing and
2 delineating, based upon a series of criteria which we have no information
3 about. We don't know why he gave us certain information and not other
4 information. It's clear that he has contradicted himself with regard to
5 the importance that he attributed to the involvement of international
6 organisations and international personages with regard to how it impacted
7 upon his determination of what would be included in the report or not.
8 It is clear that also his report, as he candidly stated - as a
9 matter of fact, he brought it up - is directed towards something that
10 apparently he was not even, from what we've been told, asked to do, which
11 is to facilitate, as he put it - I'm referring to paragraph 5 of his
12 introduction - "a realistic and accurate understanding of a larger
13 context in which it is alleged that the Serbian leadership was involved
14 in massive violations of humanitarian law in BH and Croatia," which
15 apparently was something he told us was not discussed at the meeting that
16 he had with Ms. Somers and I believe Mr. Ossogo. He took it upon himself
17 to slant, colour, or put the report in a particular light. So he
18 definitely was not giving us from the outset an objective, balanced
19 information upon which you can make a determination, and by that I
20 mean -- and I'm not suggesting you can't distinguish and delineate
21 yourselves, but rather the manner in which he is suggesting you should
22 engage in this analysis of value-neutral facts.
23 He really is, when all is said and done, a summary witness. What
24 he's done is he's compiled a fair number of facts. He's done it in an
25 arbitrary fashion, as I've just mentioned, and he's put them together so
1 that you have a summary of the events that occurred during the period of
3 But to the extent this report is to concern itself with the
4 Bosnian leadership for the period of time identified, 1990 to 1995, even
5 to the extent he is a summary witness, it is spotty, it is incomplete, it
6 is clearly slanted, and I would go so far as to say biased. And I'm not
7 attributing any reason for that bias to exist because I, quite frankly,
8 don't know why it does exist. I'm not suggesting that his employment and
9 his employment alone would have any impact. However, I think he quite
10 candidly has established the failures of his own analysis in his
11 testimony as it relates to his report. I would submit that at this time.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
13 Yes, Madam Sutherland.
14 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, just on the question of bias, those
15 questions should have been put to Mr. Treanor in cross-examination, in my
16 submission. Further, the report is not --
17 MR. GUY-SMITH: If you --
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Guy-Smith.
19 MR. GUY-SMITH: I thought she was looking at me meaningfully. I
20 am more than happy to respond at an appropriate time. I'm not going to
21 jump up. I had a feeling she wanted an answer from me.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: No, no, no. You will stand up when you have to
23 reply, sir.
24 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, the report is not spotty; it's not
25 incomplete. Your Honour will see that from the report Mr. Treanor has
1 diligently taken all of the facts and not simply about the -- in order to
2 show the goals of the Serb leadership, he also in his report makes
3 reference to what the other parties were doing during the whole of the
4 time of the conflict.
5 An expert's task, Your Honour, is to identify issues, analyse
6 them, and associate them, and they can tell consistency and
7 contradictions between other documents and recognise connections where
8 other people may miss them. And it's through his 14 years of analysing
9 the documentary collections that are within the OTP that have given him
10 this in-depth knowledge of the conflict. And he has told you on numerous
11 occasions in questions put by the Bench and by the Defence that he has
12 picked the most important documents. He's also distinguished between,
13 for example, the weight that he gives a Security Council resolution as
14 opposed to a letter from the Secretary-General; that was this morning.
15 But he's condensed hundreds and hundreds of documents into a
16 75-page report and into a form that can communicate, you know, the
17 concepts that the report is about succinctly for the trier of fact. And
18 it's my submission, Your Honour, that this report will assist Your
19 Honours because if Your Honours were to review the underlying
20 documentation which is footnoted to the report and, in my view, there's
21 no doubt that for an expert opinion to have any value, that the facts on
22 which it's based must be before the Court so that you can judge for
23 yourself whether -- whether, in fact, Mr. Treanor has done a complete
24 analysis and a complete job.
25 Mr. Treanor said to you at - sorry, Your Honour - page 1281 of
1 the transcript that he chose the ones that were, in his estimation, the
2 most relevant, and he does that from a period of 14 years of analysis of
3 these document collections. Also, in answer to a question in
4 cross-examination, he was satisfied that the report was as accurate and
5 as complete as possible.
6 Your Honour, we submit that the report should be admitted.
7 Mr. Treanor does have the expertise to render this report. And those are
8 my submissions, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Sutherland, you say that the job of an
10 expert is to identify issues, analyse them and associate them and
11 establish the consistency between documents and recognise connections
12 where others may miss them. Is that what is said to be the job of an
13 expert in the jurisprudence of this Tribunal, or is it that the expert
14 must be able, through application of his expert knowledge, to analyse
15 issues that are in dispute between the parties to enable the Bench to
16 make a determination on those issues, something to that effect? I'm
17 paraphrasing here. I'm not quite -- I can try and say it a little more
19 An expert is a person who, by virtue of some specialised
20 knowledge, skill or training, can assist the trier of fact to understand
21 or determine an issue in dispute.
22 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: My -- I have a problem, a number of problems,
24 actually. First of all, you'll recall that on the very first day of
25 Mr. Treanor's testimony, while you were qualifying him as an expert, he
1 clearly said to you that he had no methodology that he applied in
2 collecting his evidence; that he used his personal opinion, not expert
3 opinion and that he was virtually expressing his own personal opinions,
4 and that question of expressing --
5 THE REGISTRAR: Excuse me, Your Honour.
6 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm told that the accused and everyone else
8 listening through the B/C/S channel is not receiving interpretation. Is
9 that a fact?
10 Yes, Mr. Lukic.
11 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We just received the sound again on
12 this channel, but I'm sorry, we --
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm sorry, I'm not receiving the interpretation of
14 what you're saying.
15 THE INTERPRETER: You have to be tuned in to channel 4 to receive
16 English interpretation.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: I am now on channel 4, ma'am. You will remember
18 we went to channel 0 when we had problems earlier in the day.
19 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Now we can hear the Serbian
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
22 Yes. I was still saying that he clearly, in his own words, said
23 he was expressing his own personal opinions, he had no methodology, and
24 he had no criteria that he employed in choosing the information that he
25 put before us.
1 Now, I would expect that an expert witness should have certain
2 professional criteria that he uses which we laypeople -- that's why he's
3 called to come here, because he's come to unravel things that in which we
4 are lay, saying them in simple terms and using his professional expertise
5 and, at the end of it all, to give us his professional opinion on all
6 those facts that he has unravelled. And I am not aware of you, Madam
7 Sutherland, asking the witness at the end of his testimony in chief, or
8 at any stage, to provide us with any professional opinion based upon the
9 facts that he testified on. I'm not aware of that opinion being given
10 through cross-examination.
11 So I have these problems when it comes to qualification of
12 Mr. Treanor as an expert.
13 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, he may not have articulated it as
14 well as he could, but he did say that of all the documents that he
15 reviewed, he took the most important ones. And if I can take Your Honour
16 to --
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: My problem is the most important ones and the most
18 relevant ones that you mentioned a little earlier. How does he determine
19 that? That importance and that relevance can only come out and be
20 demonstrated to the Chamber against the criteria that he uses.
21 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, if I can take you to paragraph 6 of
22 the introduction of the report, and it says that "the report is based
23 primarily on available records of the Serbian entities concerned and
24 international organisations, especially important sources are Official
25 Gazettes and the minutes or transcripts of sessions of the Serbian
1 official bodies."
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: How does he determine importance, ma'am? That's
3 my question. His professional expertise must help -- he must give us his
4 criteria from his professional perspective and tell us how he determines
5 that this is important, that is not important. Again, he told us here
6 that for those kind of decisions, he used his personal opinion.
7 MS. SUTHERLAND: But his personal opinion based on 14 years of
8 experience of reviewing massive document collections, and he says that
9 the sources have been supplemented by a few press reports and other media
10 items that directly report on them, and sparing use has been made of
11 memoirs and similar literature. So he has told you the importance of
12 what -- what he places as the most important documents, and they are the
14 saying to you that, I picked the most important documents, i.e., the ones
15 that are Official Gazettes and minutes of the transcript of sessions of
16 the Serbian official bodies. So this report isn't footnoted by -- I
17 mean, there are some newspaper articles referenced in -- cited in this
18 report, but you will see from the underlying documentation, that the
19 underlying documentation is what is stated in paragraph 6.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Ma'am --
21 MS. SUTHERLAND: He says:
22 "In other words, this report draws almost exclusively on the
23 contemporaneous documentary record, most of it created by the Serb
24 leaders themselves."
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sure. And these documents could have been
1 collected by anybody. You could have done it; I could have done it,
2 without being a historian, because no criteria are required except to say
3 what is important and what I, as a person, think is important.
4 MS. SUTHERLAND: What he's done is analysed all of these
5 documents and then succinctly put it into the 75-page report for Your
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Precisely what the Defence is saying: He's a
8 summary witness.
9 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, I think that conclusions can be
10 gleaned from every paragraph of the report. I mean, he's saying that
11 there's no conclusion in the report, but the whole -- the whole issue for
12 him is that an ordinary person can't do what he's done. I mean, he's --
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: What is it that he did that an ordinary person
14 can't do?
15 MS. SUTHERLAND: He's taken a large number of documents and
16 reviewed them and analysed them and then put them into context --
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: And you can't do that? You? When you studied at
18 university on a particular subject, you read various textbooks related to
19 the topic, and when you sat in the exam, you condensed all that
20 information and put it down into pages that you can write in three hours.
21 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: So does that make you an expert?
23 MS. SUTHERLAND: No, it doesn't, because I've been -- you know, I
24 mean, the example you use, Your Honour, is you're doing a subject for
25 either six months or 12 months of a year. Mr. Treanor has been looking
1 at these documents for 14 years.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes. He had two years to look at -- to do this
3 specific job.
4 MS. SUTHERLAND: No, he -- Your Honour, he had six weeks, from
5 August 2000
6 10th of October, 2006. It was then filed with the Court over the ensuing
7 two years.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sure.
9 MS. SUTHERLAND: He then went back to the report --
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Refined it again in September, yes.
11 MS. SUTHERLAND: -- and then modified it slightly, fixing up all
12 the ERN numbers, and he was asked, Was this an accurate --
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm not contesting the accuracy, ma'am. I'm just
14 contesting his qualifications. I'm not even contesting. I would like
15 you to address the Chamber, and I'm saying this because the questions I'm
16 raising with you came from his own mouth. He told us here that he's
17 doing this from his personal opinions. He has no criteria; he has no
18 methodology; he has nothing. And I'm not convinced that anybody can't do
19 that, anybody can't summarize a hundred pages into two pages, 31.000
20 pages into 75 pages, if you want to do that.
21 Anyway, we're five minutes beyond the break. I see you've got a
22 note. Look at the note. Let's carry on after the break. Come back at
23 half past 12.00.
24 MS. SUTHERLAND: Thank you, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Court adjourned.
1 --- Recess taken at 12.06 p.m.
2 --- On resuming at 12.32 p.m.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Judge David has some questions to raise.
4 JUDGE DAVID: Mrs. Sutherland, as I understand from the
5 introduction, the expert, in paragraph 5, said, "the primary purpose of
6 such a description ..." What gives me to understand that this is a
7 descriptive study, and you know as studies could be divided in various
8 categories; for instance, a study requiring verification, which are
9 studies that involve a hypothesis of some kind that has to verify through
10 explanation and verification. This is not a study to verify a
11 hypothesis. It is a descriptive study.
12 First point, do you agree that this is a descriptive study in
14 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes, Your Honour. In paragraph 4 he says: "The
15 aim of the report is to describe and document some of the events of
16 particular importance."
17 JUDGE DAVID: Very well. It's a descriptive study.
18 Second, what are the main parameters that in paragraph (a) of 5
19 he says. "Facilitate a realistic ..." What is "real"? I will not go
20 into the discussion of the word, but "real" it is something that
21 describes the reality of events.
22 And second, he said accurate. So this study intends to portray
23 in a most reliable way what understanding? What is the word
24 "understanding"? I am not going to go into philology here, but the
25 origin of the word is a word, in German, "philosophie verstand." In
1 "verstand," understanding, implies all the capture of the meaning of a
2 given situation. Do you agree with me?
3 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes, I do.
4 JUDGE DAVID: Fine. Third point. He says that larger context in
5 which it is alleged that the "Serbian leadership was involved in massive
6 violations of international humanitarian law in BH in Croatia."
7 So here, in this paragraph, it seems that the expert report tries
8 to link the understanding with legal elements of humanitarian law,
9 because he said "Serbian leadership involving massive violations of
10 international humanitarian in BH and Croatia." Are you in agreement with
11 me, that this paragraph links factual situations to the purpose of a
12 legal dimension?
13 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes, Your Honour, as it's written.
14 JUDGE DAVID: Third, (b), "to identify the individuals who fill
15 the highest level military and civilian positions within the Serbian
16 entities." Are you in agreement that the expert has done efforts in
17 order to identify the individuals?
18 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes. Yes, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE DAVID: Give me examples.
20 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, the report is replete with the
21 names of the highest level civilian and military leaders in the three
23 JUDGE DAVID: In paragraph 6, the report says it's "based
24 primarily on available records of Serbian entities concerned and
25 international organisations primarily the UN. Especially important
1 sources are Official Gazettes and the minutes or transcripts of sessions
2 of Serbian official bodies."
3 Could you give me examples in the report in which available
4 records and Official Gazettes and minutes are expressed in the report?
5 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE DAVID: Give me some.
7 MS. SUTHERLAND: Paragraphs, for example, 66: "The Bosnian Serb
8 Assembly held a 4th session." 69: "The 5th session of the Bosnian Serb
9 Assembly." 68: "The 9th session of the Bosnian Serb Assembly."
10 71: "The 16th session of the Bosnian Serb Assembly."
11 JUDGE DAVID: Okay. Thank you very much.
12 MS. SUTHERLAND: But I can --
13 JUDGE DAVID: I am just trying to test the purpose of the report,
14 asking you some questions, because I didn't want to examine the witness
15 because I didn't want to give to him so heavy a burden at this moment
16 because in many instances, even though he has reaffirmed the objective
17 line of his analysis and descriptive studies, in some moments, due to the
18 confusion of the questions, he came with selections of the inner
19 recessions of the mind, which is absolutely contrary to what he has done
20 in quoting the answer, and we could not take this small phrase as
21 directing the whole heavy weight of the report.
22 MS. SUTHERLAND: I fully agree with you, Your Honour. If we
23 could go to page 100 -- page 85 of the report, and it lists all of the
24 sources. And you can see by going down the page what the sources are:
25 UN resolutions, UN resolutions, report -- Badinter reports, laws on the
1 army, constitutions, statements by the -- by the parties, proclamations,
2 decisions, the Assembly, the Serbian Defence Council minutes, the SFRY
3 Presidency transcripts, so --
4 JUDGE DAVID: Madam Sutherland, thank you very much.
5 Another question. Are you in agreement with me that the purpose
6 of the study as it's presented is not the whole story of the situation?
7 And he said: "The focus is rather on the goal is much less a history
8 said of the whole or any part of the former Yugoslavia."
9 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes, Your Honour, I agree, but within the --
10 within the report that he has given, he does make note of what is
11 happening at the time in relation to the other actors, the other parties,
12 the Muslims and the Croats, and the international community. That is
13 replete all the way through the report, as well as identifying on the
14 main aim of the report and that is the Serb -- the goals of the Serbian
16 JUDGE DAVID: In one of the early questions I put to him, two
17 days ago I believe, I asked him who gave him the goals of the study and
18 he answered, It was the Prosecution. Are you in agreement with the
19 answer? I asked him, Who gave you the goals of the Prosecution? And he
20 said, I was given by the Prosecution.
21 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes, Your Honour, and he said that again in
23 JUDGE DAVID: How do the goals of the Prosecution in this study,
24 I would like you to elaborate, have impacted on the objective selection
25 of the elements that he presented? Could you elaborate on that?
1 MS. SUTHERLAND: Well, I think he said in cross-examination that
2 he actually went broader than his remit. His remit was, by the
3 Prosecution, to submit a report on the goals of the Serbian leadership.
4 And I think this goes to show how unbiased he is, because he's, in fact,
5 said, This is what I've been asked to do, but I think I need to also
6 include this and this and this in my report because I think it's relevant
7 to the question that I've been asked and the brief that I've been given.
8 JUDGE DAVID: So in many ways you are telling us that the initial
9 commitment has been, in many ways, overcome in the sense of limitations
10 for a given purpose.
11 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE DAVID: Okay. I have no more questions to ask.
13 MS. SUTHERLAND: Thank you.
14 JUDGE DAVID: Thank you.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
16 Mr. Guy-Smith, I guess you're entitled to a reply, if any.
17 MR. GUY-SMITH: The only reason that I'm hesitating here for a
18 moment is I'm reflecting upon the questions that have been presented by
19 the Bench, by both of Your Honours, and seeing whether or not based on
20 those questions I think there's any further explanation that needs to be
21 made or any further submissions that need to be made.
22 And I think, really quite briefly and just quickly, with regard
23 to the issue of bias, bias is not necessarily something which is
24 explained through cross-examination. Bias is oftentimes self-evident and
25 needs no further inquiry. With regard to that particular issue, I don't
1 believe there's any further necessity for an imposition upon any party,
2 be it the Prosecution or the Defence, to further examine the issue of
3 bias if one is manifest or if a party believes it's manifest, one can
4 argue off the facts that have been presented. It's obviously up to the
5 trier of fact to make a determination of whether or not that's an
6 accurate perception or an inaccurate perception, and I leave it at that.
7 One of the things that's been said here, and it's been said
8 repeatedly, actually, it's a form of -- criticised as a form of logical
9 argument and the Prosecution's argument, quite simply put, is circular in
10 its reasoning, which is because he said it was important, it is
11 important; because he has spent a long period of time analysing or
12 reviewing a particular area, therefore it must be important because he
13 says it is important. Well, that's a logical fallacy. It's a recognised
14 logical fallacy, and I believe that the -- that the Chamber has
15 rightfully and rightly identified one of the major problems that exists
16 here, which is that, in fact, his information is that of a summary
17 witness. And whether it be called descriptive or it has an objective
18 hypothesis, his report remains the same. And to the extent that that can
19 be of assistance to you, I question -- it's our submission, I question
20 whether or not it's of any assistance to you because, in fact, any one of
21 us could have done the exact same thing, which is review a body of
22 documents, make a determination based on that body of documents that we
23 believe to be important, educated ourselves in the field, and submitted a
24 body of documents which then would be presented to you for purposes of
1 Now, I can do that. If you give me -- if you give me 60 days or
2 even more so, two years, I promise you I will write a report within 60
3 pages that contains a great deal of information, that is predicated on
4 the precise documents that you have in front of you. It would include
5 documents that you do not have in front of you, documents which
6 apparently were not taken into account, I am sure. But ultimately, had I
7 been -- had I done such a thing and was I in such a position, I would be
8 rightfully criticised for doing the precise thing which we suggest is
9 occurring here, which is rendering my personal opinion about the state of
10 affairs and summarizing a series of documents in a different formation.
11 That's not what an expert's for. That's not why an expert should be
12 presented to you, nor should their report be presented to you.
13 There's another problem here which is that Mr. Treanor, who has
14 acknowledged that he is not a lawyer, according to his introduction, has
15 apparently, at least internally and maybe externally, clearly overstepped
16 the bounds with regard to what his internal determination would be of
17 violations of international humanitarian law. And that certainly is an
18 area in which he would be violating the boundaries of the function of the
19 fact-finding process and substituting his own personal opinion for that
20 of the fact-finder, which, in our respectful submission, is you, the
22 Once again, we don't deviate from the position that was initially
23 made, which is that we object to the admission of this report.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Guy-Smith. The Chamber will sleep
25 over it and come up with a decision later. Thank you very much.
1 Madam Sutherland.
2 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, the next witness will be led by
3 Mr. Rafael La Cruz, and I would ask that I may be excused, with Your
4 Honours' leave.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: You are excused, ma'am.
6 Mr. La Cruz.
7 MS. SUTHERLAND: Mr. La Cruz will take a moment to rearrange the
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
10 MR. LA CRUZ: The Prosecution would call witness Branko Bubenik,
11 Your Honours.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Branko Bubenik. Thank you very much.
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 MR. GUY-SMITH: Excuse me, Your Honour, I believe your microphone
15 is on.
16 [The witness entered court]
17 MR. LA CRUZ: Your Honours, we advised the Trial Chamber and the
18 Defence the week before last that Dr. Branko Bubenik will be called viva
19 voce. He was originally listed as 92 ter witness, but the Prosecution
20 will conduct its examination-in-chief within the same estimated time of
21 30 minutes.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
23 Good afternoon, sir. May the witness please make the
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
1 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. You may be seated, sir.
3 Yes, Mr. La Cruz.
4 MR. LA CRUZ: Thank you.
5 WITNESS: BRANKO BUBENIK
6 [Witness answered through interpreter]
7 Examination by Mr. La Cruz:
8 Q. Good afternoon. Are you sitting comfortable, witness?
9 A. Okay.
10 Q. Could you please tell the Court your name and date of birth.
11 A. My name is Branko Bubenik, and I was born on the 18th of April,
13 Q. What is your current occupation?
14 A. I'm currently retired, and I'm still involved in the affairs that
15 I used to be involved in in the past, but this time as a freelancer, as a
16 consultant for document management in their analogue and digital forms,
17 and also as a consultant for the Croatian parliament, and digitalised TV
18 system. And I feel quite fit.
19 Q. What was your occupation back in 1995?
20 A. At that time I was the Director of the Information and
21 Documentation Centre, or, rather, that department, including the archives
22 of the Croatian Television, which was part of the Croatian Radio and
23 Television Company.
24 Q. What is the acronym for that company?
25 A. The Croatian Radio and Television. In other words, it includes
1 both the radio broadcasting company, and the television. So the acronym
2 is HRT
3 Q. What was your position in HRT?
4 A. As I've already mentioned, I was the head of a work unit which
5 included -- I supervised about 80 employees. This was a multi-media
6 logistical service for the television journalists, but we also served the
7 radio journalists in preparing documentation for them. And I was among
8 the five highest managers. My official post was the Director of the
9 Production Department of the TV, and I was on the board of the television
11 Q. How long did you remain in that position?
12 A. I remained in that position until 2005, when I retired, and I was
13 appointed as the head of this centre, the documentation centre, in 1974.
14 In other words, I spent many years, over 30 years, in this field. And
15 before that I worked as a journalist and a reporter, a film reporter,
16 beginning in 1963. In other words, I spent 41 years working for the
18 Q. And besides your work in HRT
19 department and archives, have you completed studies in that field, in the
20 field of archiving and audiovisual material?
21 A. Well, I did various jobs. I began my studies as a chemical
22 technician and then I started working in the film industry as an amateur.
23 And it's paradoxical then that I started my study and I actually
24 completed the school for camera broadcasting, and I was appointed as the
25 head of these archives, although I was a very young man. And to
1 everyone's surprise, and everybody kept asking me, Are you mad? Why did
2 you accept this post? And I said, Well, I want to look after my kids.
3 So I took care of both my own films and also the films of my colleagues.
4 As for the question that you asked, I was not really fully
5 qualified for this job, but I had a lot of knowledge about film. And
6 then I enrolled in graduate studies in the field of information studies,
7 and in 1974 I received my master's degree in this field, and ten years
8 ago I received a Ph.D. at the School of Philosophy
9 entitled -- dealt with the digitalisation of audiovisual media.
10 Q. And throughout this career, have you been member -- are you
11 member of various professional associations that relates to this area?
12 A. Yes. As early as 1974 I realised that we were very ignorant in
13 this field, and I immediately set up, together with my colleagues, an
14 organisation of -- which united eight Yugoslav radio and television
15 archives under one umbrella. This was a unique organisation of its type
16 in Europe
17 breakup of Yugoslavia
18 representative of the Yugoslav Radio Television. And all the Yugoslav
19 media centres and documentation centres, through my office, became
20 members of an international organisation, the International Federation of
21 TV Archives, which numbers about 220 members.
22 At first I was coordinator for Balkan states. Then I became
23 coordinator for central Europe
24 executive board of that organisation and its vice-president. I was also
25 a candidate for its president, but I was elected vice-president, and for
1 eight years I was a president of the Professional Trade Commission. And
2 I still am very active in this area. I organise seminars and workshops
3 throughout the world.
4 Q. Dr. Bubenik, back in 1995, did you meet with the ICTY
5 representatives in around June that year, more specifically a
6 representative from the Office of the Prosecutor, or OTP?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. At the time did you provide these representatives with any
9 material, any sort of material?
10 A. We provided about 200 video documents to this Tribunal. The
11 documentation was relayed through the documentation service in Zagreb
12 I was given the assignment by my director. Our office received support
13 from the government and the government ordered the Supreme Court to
14 create an office for cooperation with the Tribunal, and Mr. Vukovic, who
15 at this time was the Chief Justice, received from my director,
16 Mr. Vrdoljak, or, rather, my director appointed me to be the point man
17 and the responsible person for bringing this programme into reality.
18 Most of these documents were oral documents. We frequently had
19 occasion to deal with investigators of this Office of the Prosecutor. We
20 provided them access to our database by creating a broad selection of
21 documents, allowing them to search through this database and review the
22 video documentation. And once they made their selection, we provided --
23 we made copies and lists of these documents and the representatives of
24 the Office of the Prosecutor took over these documents, together with the
25 lists, while my responsibility was to provide this list of documents that
1 had been handed over to the Tribunal to my director. And this worked
2 pretty well.
3 Q. And amongst this material that you provided to the OTP
4 representatives, did you also provide a copy of a videotape related to
5 the events of the shelling of the city of Zagreb of 2nd and 3rd of May,
7 A. Yes, I did.
8 Q. With respect to this copy of a videotape or footage, who was the
9 provider of this videotape? More clearly, how did HRT receive or got
10 that videotape?
11 A. We could not answer that question immediately. In our database
12 we do not have all the details that should be there, and upon the
13 insistence of the investigators, we conducted an investigation. I have
14 to say that we were lucky. We found in another service, not the archives
15 department but in the Service for International Exchanges, we found a fax
16 that we had received from Brussels
17 from Brussels
18 information was contained therein.
19 I suppose that this fax is in the possession of this Court. It
20 can be seen there that this document had been sent from Brussels.
21 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat the last
22 portion of his answer.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: The witness is asked to repeat the last part of
24 his sentence, please.
25 MR. LA CRUZ:
1 Q. I would like to ask you again: From who did HRT receive or got
2 that videotape? More specifically, who was the provider of this
3 videotape to HRT
4 A. As I already mentioned, we received this through a system of
6 First of all, I'll tell you how we received it in the archives.
7 The procedure is the following: Every programme, once it was broadcast,
8 would have to be handed over to the archives, and this was a major feat
9 during the war, but we managed to work in this way. Now, this videotape
10 was recorded on two videotapes, Betacam. One of them was shown on the
11 main news programme of that day at 7.30 p.m., and the other Betacam
12 cassette was archived because this had been shown at the end of a
13 programme called "Picture Against Picture." The originals of these --
14 the originals of these recorded programmes are in the archives, but we
15 made copies.
16 Now, we received -- although that's not my job, we received this
17 from Brussels
18 Q. You answered your question. Thank you very much.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. La Cruz, I'll ask you to control your witness.
20 We haven't got much time. And if you can get him to be precise and to
21 the point. You asked him who provided, and he tells you how he provided.
22 You should have stopped him at that point.
23 MR. LA CRUZ: Yes, thank you very much, Your Honour.
24 Q. When is it that you received a copy of this video footage that
25 we're talking about, on what date?
1 A. I can't tell you off the cuff, but it can be established. There
2 are documents to that effect. This was 13 years ago. It was on the same
3 day when this event took place, or, rather, when this was broadcast. I
4 think it was on the 2nd of May, on the same day of the actual event.
5 Q. With respect to this copy of the video, I would like to ask you:
6 From who is the Eurovision got the copy of the video? From which
7 broadcaster, as you have explained, Eurovision received --
8 A. As I've already mentioned, from the fax it can be concluded that
9 Eurovision had received that through their exchange from the Yugoslav
10 Radio and Television.
11 Q. What is the acronym for this company, the Yugoslav Radio and
12 Television, that you just mentioned?
13 A. I couldn't tell you for certain, but you can find it in the fax
14 that I mentioned earlier. I think YURTS, or URTS. Yugoslav Radio and
16 Q. Okay. Where this YURTS was based physically?
17 A. Belgrade
18 MR. LA CRUZ: Now, Your Honours, I would like to move, and I'd
19 like to play a video-clip that has been taken from the exhibit 65 ter
20 number 01387.
21 This tape or clip has been synchronised with the transcript in
22 English and copies of the transcript in English have been provided to the
23 interpreters. So I would like the English transcript be read into the
24 record while the video-clip is played. It has a duration of around two
25 minutes and 40 seconds.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Would you like to place on the record that the
2 video is going to start at 00:00:48:7?
3 MR. LA CRUZ: Yes, Your Honour.
4 [Videotape played]
5 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover]
7 to address a few words to you and tell you about the situation that has
8 befallen us and about what we plan to do next to get out of all this.
9 First of all, I want to tell you that I sincerely sympathise with
10 all the suffering that you've endured. I would have preferred the
11 situation to be good and that I'd come to attend a wedding in Western
13 hour to explain how to get out of this and how to find a way out of all
14 this so that you don't wander around and so that we keep our land.
15 We've had a meeting here with the civilian authorities, the
16 military leadership, and our archpriests. What Croatia has done to us is
17 undoubtedly a crime which was supported by foreign powers: America
19 had the upper hand at the moment and managed to take control of the
20 motorway and of this part, as you know.
21 But I'm telling you this: One lost battle doesn't mean that the
22 war has been lost. As a countermeasure to what Tudjman did to you here,
23 we have shelled all their cities: Sisak several times, Karlovac, Zagreb,
24 both yesterday and today. This was done for you. But let me tell you
25 that the attack by Tudjman's forces did not focus only on Western
2 defend itself, and in Dalmatia
3 Mount Dinara
4 our besieged forces, we would continue to pound Zagreb and destroy their
5 cities. They then begged us to stop shelling Zagreb and said that they'd
6 let our people out of the encirclement, which is what interests you the
8 MR. LA CRUZ: Thank you.
9 Q. Dr. Bubenik --
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Before you ask the next question, what do you want
11 to do with that videotape?
12 MR. LA CRUZ: In the end I would like to be -- introduce it
13 into --
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Into evidence.
15 MR. LA CRUZ: Yes, thank you.
16 Q. Is this clip that we have played a copy of the footage that HRT
17 received on the 3rd of May, 1995?
18 A. Yes, it is a copy from the programme -- from the news programme.
19 Q. And would it be accurate to say that this is a copy which is the
20 same that was given to the OTP representatives in June 1995?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Could you briefly refer to us who appears talking on the tape?
23 A. Well, you all know it very well. That man is Milan Martic.
24 Q. Dr. Bubenik, after HRT
1 A. I do not understand your question. Was it broadcast? Yes, of
2 course, it was broadcast on the same day.
3 Q. What day it was? If you say that it was broadcast on the same
4 day, if you could tell us.
5 A. I couldn't tell you for certain because I don't have in front of
6 me the paper that I gave you, but I was on the same day when Zagreb
7 shelled and on the same day when he made the statement. I'm not a
8 historian, and dates are not my strong suit.
9 Q. Thank you. Could you please tell us, where was this video
11 A. I mentioned that as well. It was broadcast for the first time in
12 a major news programme which is called "The Television Dnevnik" at 7:30
13 p.m., and then it was re-broadcast in a programme called "Slika na
14 Sliku," and subsequently every year on the date on the anniversary, it is
16 Q. Would it be fair to say, then, that it was broadcast in Croatia
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And do you know where else, apart from Croatia, was this video
20 A. No. At the time there were no rival television channels yet.
21 I'm not sure if OTV, another channel, broadcast it. Probably, but I
22 can't be sure.
23 MR. LA CRUZ: Your Honour, I would like to have a word with my
24 colleague for a minute, if possible.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may.
1 [Prosecution counsel confer].
2 MR. LA CRUZ:
3 Q. Dr. Bubenik, with respect to the broadcast, was this video
4 broadcast outside Croatia
5 A. I can't claim that with any certainty, but it was a very
6 important event. It must have been rebroadcast. And the Eurovision
7 centre in Brussels
8 countries took over the footage when it was offered. I'm pretty sure, by
9 the way, that Slovenia
10 it. I can't be sure, but it would have been logical.
11 MR. LA CRUZ: Your Honours, I would like this video-clip to be
12 admitted as an exhibit.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: The video-clip is admitted into evidence. May it
14 please be given an exhibit number. Could you give us the 65 ter number
15 of this video, please.
16 MR. LA CRUZ: 01387, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
18 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit P235, Your Honours.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
20 MR. LA CRUZ: I want to make clear, as I said before, that this
21 is a portion of 01387. The original version is longer. This is just the
22 minutes that we talked about before. It's just the beginning.
23 I have no further questions, Your Honours.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
25 Any cross-examination? I see, Mr. Lukic, you standing forward.
1 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I hope this microphone is working now
2 and you can hear me, as well as the interpreters.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, I can.
4 Cross-examination by Mr. Lukic:
5 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Bubenik, good afternoon. My name is Novak
6 Lukic, and on behalf of the Defence team of Mr. Perisic, I'll be
7 questioning you briefly.
8 From what I heard today in direct examination, some things were
9 new to me and that's why I'd like to ask you a few questions. You said
10 you were a member of the board of the Croatian Television.
11 A. No. It's called the board of management. We didn't have any
12 authority. The actual power was at the level of the RTV. We were just
13 managing the day-to-day business of the television.
14 Q. Did you ever attend collegium meetings of editorial boards?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Do you remember, or do you know from what time was the
17 broadcasting of television of Serbia
19 A. No. We had a problem, and you know why.
20 Q. But you don't remember?
21 A. No. I was surprised. For instance, concerning Vukovar, we had a
22 lot of material of Serbian origin because we didn't have contact then,
23 but the archive is full of material. The broadcasting reached them,
24 obviously. I'm surprised, and it could really be analysed, but we have
25 materials from Republika Srpska in the archives. That material and the
1 investigation --
2 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat the question.
3 We had a technical problem.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Do you want the witness to repeat the question or
5 the answer? Madam Interpreter.
6 THE INTERPRETER: Yes, sir.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes what?
8 THE INTERPRETER: We can hear now.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may proceed.
10 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Please take a moment before you start answering. Concerning this
12 answer, would you just clear up, in response to the question from the
13 Prosecution, you said a moment ago that the source of that footage was
14 Radio Television Serbia
15 forwarded to you from Brussels
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And in your 1995 statement, you went a bit further and said in
18 the documentation you saw the name of the real author and the real source
19 of that footage. So based on the documents that you personally have
20 seen, how did you identify the author of the original footage and the
21 channel by which it reached you?
22 A. You are now referring me to documents you have in your hand and I
23 don't. Let me see it. I came here empty-handed. I don't know. I don't
24 remember. But it's not only my interpretation. The document is in
25 English. The investigators have seen this. It says -- there is a name
1 of the source.
2 Q. I'll read from your statement. I didn't mean to tender this
3 document or put it to you, but you said in your statement, and I'm
4 reading the B/C/S version:
5 "We received this footage from the Eurovision Exchange Department
6 and a European association of broadcasters, and they received it from
7 Broadcasting Station Yugoslavia radio and Television Serbia
8 parenthesis, "(YURTS) who, in turn, received it from a London News
9 Company called GBWTN, who had the footage first."
10 That's what you said. Does this refresh your memory?
11 A. You see, I said clearly that WTN should be asked. They still
12 exist, and I believe the Prosecution investigators paid them a visit.
13 They produced the document. They were on the spot. Whether they had
14 been to Banja Luka or Belgrade
15 To me it doesn't matter. But Belgrade
16 sure, or perhaps the records in Brussels
17 Q. I'll appreciate short answers, please.
18 As a man who spent many years working in the television business,
19 would you agree that in the broader period, let's say 1990 onwards
20 through end of 1995, the authorities had a very strong influence on the
22 A. Yes, like everywhere, unfortunately.
23 Q. Do you remember whether in the period we're discussing - and I'm
24 interested particularly in 1995 - you had an official exchange of
25 programmes with the Television of Serbia?
1 A. It was not within my purview, but I can tell you that I had a
2 very good relationship before the war, and I still have it today, with my
3 colleagues Mr. Kecina, and it's in the archives. You should ask him. He
4 should have it. And the name is Kecina. I want to correct the
5 interpreters. Kecina.
6 Q. Do you remember -- strike that. A moment ago, in responding to
7 the Prosecutor, you said you had a very good cooperation with the Office
8 of the Prosecutor of the ICTY, and you gave them over 200 documents, if I
9 understood correctly.
10 A. 236 or something. 186.
11 Q. Did they address you with requests for material concerning
12 Ante Gotovina?
13 A. No. I was out of the business by then.
14 Q. Thank you very much.
15 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I have no further questions.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Lukic.
17 Any re-examination, Mr. La Cruz?
18 MR. LA CRUZ: No, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Bubenik, thank you very much for coming to the
20 Tribunal to give your testimony. This brings us to the end of your
21 testimony, and you are now excused. You may stand down, and please
22 travel well back home.
23 [The witness withdrew]
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Saxon, I saw your colleague Mr. La Cruz
25 also stood up simultaneously with you, but he deferred to you.
1 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, if Mr. La Cruz could be excused at this
2 point so he can say goodbye to the witness.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Does he want to?
4 MR. LA CRUZ: If I may, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: You are. Thank you very much.
6 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, in the time we have left today, prior to
7 the start of the testimony of Mr. Torkildsen, there are a few points that
8 I would simply like to put on the record and explain to the Trial
10 As the Chamber knows, Mr. Torkildsen first wrote his report --
11 well, he wrote his report in November 2002 and the present report that is
12 being studied in this case contains no substantive changes in the text.
13 Simply, the Prosecution has simply replaced the 65 ter numbers that
14 related to the Slobodan Milosevic proceedings in 2002 with the 65 ter
15 numbers that relate to these proceedings.
16 Having said that, yesterday I realised that while I was switching
17 65 ter numbers in this process, I made two mistakes which I would like to
18 bring to your attention.
19 The first is the bottom of page 22, paragraph 62, the 65 ter
20 number should say "6530" and not "B3501," as it presently says.
21 Secondly, Your Honour, at paragraph 118, the bottom of page 43,
22 the 65 ter number should be 532, not 523.
23 Your Honours, the Prosecution has decided that it will not rely
24 on the following paragraphs in Mr. Torkildsen's report: 23 and 79
25 through 83. In addition, Your Honours, the Prosecution will not rely on
1 the third sentence of paragraph 19.
2 And then I have two issues to explain to the Trial Chamber
3 related to the subject of translations.
4 I had sent late last week 65 ter number 6530 to CLSS to be
5 revised, to make sure that we'd have the best possible translation, and
6 this is a document that Mr. Torkildsen quotes in paragraph 62 of his
7 report. However, when I received the new translation yesterday, I noted
8 that in a couple of lines -- well, in the first line of Article 1 of this
9 exhibit and the last sentence -- or the last part of Article 2 of this
10 exhibit, the newer translation slightly changes the word order, and so
11 the effect of that is that the quotations at paragraph 62 of
12 Mr. Torkildsen's report are now, in a sense, slightly inaccurate because
13 they do not reflect the most recent translation. With your leave, when
14 Mr. Torkildsen is testifying, I will take him to that paragraph, to that
15 quotation, show him the recent translation, and ask him if that would
16 change his opinions in any way.
17 Second translation issue, Your Honour, relates to paragraph 118
18 of Mr. Torkildsen's report. At that paragraph Mr. Torkildsen quotes from
19 65 ter 532, which was a speech given by General Mladic at the 50th
20 session of the National Assembly of the Republika Srpska on the 15th and
21 16th of April, 1995. And, indeed, Your Honour, I believe a portion of
22 this exhibit was admitted through witness Mr. Baron van Lynden.
23 Your Honour, the Prosecution realised last evening that the text
24 that Mr. Torkildsen quotes at paragraph 118 does not come from a verbatim
25 transcript -- excuse me, does not come from a verbatim translation of the
1 B/C/S transcript of General Mladic's speech. Instead, it comes from a
2 partial translation which Mr. Torkildsen believed at the time to be
3 reflecting verbatim portions of Mr. -- General Mladic's speech. And,
4 again, if you look at the verbatim English translation now for that
5 entire speech, you will see that there are some differences between the
6 verbatim translation and the quotation that Mr. Torkildsen provided in
7 his report. So, again, with your leave, when Mr. Torkildsen is
8 testifying, I will take him to that paragraph and show him the verbatim
9 transcript, the verbatim translation, and ask if that would change his
10 views at all.
11 That is what I wanted to explain to the Chamber, Your Honours,
12 before Mr. Torkildsen begins his testimony.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
14 Is there any comment?
15 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I should also like to say something
16 for the record. I have been notified of this by Mr. Saxon, and for the
17 time being I have no objection. He should go through all that with the
19 But I wish to correct the transcript a bit. He did tell me that
20 there are differences in quotations during the break, and if it's only
21 the differences in quotations, I do not mind that the matter be treated
22 as Mr. Saxon suggests.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
24 MR. SAXON: If I understand Mr. Lukic, yes, I was only referring
25 to these small quoted portions at paragraph 118 of Mr. Torkildsen's
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. So you are not changing the
3 report, you are changing the quotations by Mr. Torkildsen.
4 MR. SAXON: Effectively, yes, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
6 MR. SAXON: Effectively, yes.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. Yes -- thank you very much.
8 Yes, Mr. Saxon.
9 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, Mr. Torkildsen is the next witness;
10 however, I note it is 13:41
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Do you want us to postpone until tomorrow?
12 MR. SAXON: I think with only four minutes left, Your Honour, it
13 makes the most sense.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: We will do so. We stand adjourned until tomorrow
15 at 9.00 in the morning, Courtroom II. Court adjourned.
16 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.41 p.m.
17 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 13th day of
18 November, 2008, at 9.00 a.m.