1 Wednesday, 28 May 2008
2 [Open session]
3 [The witness entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.17 p.m.
5 [The accused entered court]
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Registrar, can you call the
7 case, please.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you and good afternoon, Your Honours. This
9 is case number IT-03-67-T, the Prosecutor versus Vojislav Seselj.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Registrar.
11 Today, we are Wednesday, the 28th of May. I would like to greet
12 the representatives of the OTP, I'd like to greet Mr. Seselj, as well as
13 all the people assisting us in the courtroom, and amongst other people
14 the interpreters, who are extremely valuable to us.
15 We need to resume cross-examination today, but before doing so,
16 I'd like to turn to Mr. Mundis, because the Trial Chamber realised that
17 in the slide show, there were two photographs which did not figure in the
18 expert report.
19 Mr. Mundis, could you explain this to us, please?
20 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President.
21 Good afternoon, Your Honours, to Dr. Seselj, Mr. Riedlmayer, and
22 everyone in and around the courtroom.
23 This issue, Your Honours, relates to the photographs in the slide
24 presentation, which was 65 ter number 00463 Alpha, the slides relating to
25 the mosque at Ahatovici. There are two photographs in the slide show
1 that are depicted with respect to this location, and I neglected to draw
2 this to the Trial Chamber's attention yesterday, so I'm grateful for the
3 opportunity now.
4 When Mr. Riedlmayer compiled his database, there was a single
5 black-and-white photograph associated with this destroyed mosque, which
6 appears in the annex relating to this mosque. At a later point in time,
7 the Prosecution was provided by Mr. Riedlmayer with five additional
8 colour photographs relating to this site. Those were then assigned
9 65 ter number 2188A, and those five photographs were disclosed to
10 Dr. Seselj on the 20th of May, 2008.
11 At the time the slide show was being put together, rather than
12 relying on the old or black-and-white photograph that was in the
13 database, the two colour photographs were, in effect, put into the slide
14 show, and so -- and the witness, of course, explained that and testified
15 about that destroyed mosque on Thursday of last week.
16 We would consequently ask that those two photographs, which form
17 part of 65 ter number 2188A be admitted into evidence so that there's no
18 confusion on the record. We again are asking for the admission of the
19 entire report, 65 ter number 463, with all of its annexes and
20 attachments, including the large map, as well as the slide show, 65 ter
21 number 463A, and the two photographs relating to the mosque at Ahatovici
22 which were part of 2188A.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, do you have any
24 comments to make concerning these two photographs?
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, everything I had to
1 say about the photographs, I've already said, and you do whatever you see
2 fit. I have absolutely no interest in whether these photographs would be
3 admitted into evidence or not.
4 I know that a large number of mosques were destroyed. So were
5 many of the Serb Orthodox churches. But this could not be brought to
6 attention in the appropriate manner. That's my problem.
7 Now, whether these two photographs would be admitted into
8 evidence or not, it's up to you to decide, but I have an administrative
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So there's a housekeeping
11 matter. What is it?
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I objected yesterday because I was
13 not given a transcript of Mr. Riedlmayer's testimony before the
14 US Congress. At first, the Prosecutor was unable to tell me whether this
15 was disclosed or not, but after the break Mr. Mundis told you that on the
16 2nd of April, I was given a certain number of documents, including the
17 transcripts of Mr. Riedlmayer's testimony before the US Congress.
18 Yesterday, I maintained that it was not contained in this bundle
19 of documents, and I still maintain that.
20 If you look at page 3 of the cover letter, the last document that
21 is listed here, is entitled as follows: "Genocide in Bosnia-Herzegovina:
22 Hearing before the Committee for Security and Cooperation in Europe,
23 relevant pages." And then this was in Serbian, the same thing in
24 English. And I was handed this document yesterday. I did receive that
25 earlier, but it doesn't say anywhere that this is Mr. Riedlmayer's
1 testimony before the US Congress.
2 In the list of documents, there is no mention of the US Congress,
3 either, so I know what I'm saying. I know what I said yesterday and why
4 I said it. I have no reason to mislead you into thinking that I received
5 something or that I didn't receive something when I actually did receive
7 When I saw, in transcripts of Mr. Riedlmayer's testimony in other
8 cases, that he had testified before the US Congress, I asked myself
9 immediately why was I not given that. If that had been listed
10 appropriately, then I would have known that I had indeed received it.
11 So if we wasted any time on that yesterday, that's the
12 Prosecution's fault, not mine.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj has just explained
14 that he seems to have had the documents, those that relate to the
15 Committee for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and not the documents
16 that relate to the testimony before the US Congress. Therefore, the
17 documents that relate to the hearing before the US Congress was not
18 disclosed to him.
19 Have you made a mistake, perhaps? I know that with all these
20 documents, one can make mistakes, but perhaps the Prosecution confused
21 the OSCE with the US Congress.
22 MR. MUNDIS: No, Your Honours.
23 I'm looking at the front page of the actual document coming from
24 the US Government Printing Office, which is an arm of the US Government,
25 and it was before what was called the Commission on Security and
1 Cooperation in Europe. That's actually part of the US Congress. It's a
2 Congressional Commission is my understanding. It's not the OSCE, the
3 international body by those initials, but it's rather a US Congressional
4 Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe.
5 But perhaps these questions could be asked of Mr. Riedlmayer,
6 since he's in a better position to tell us what body he testified before
7 and when. That would be the logical step for going forward at this
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Can you shed some light on
10 this? I'll give you the floor, but the witness might clarify some of
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This has nothing to do with the
13 witness. Everything is quite clear here. I'm afraid that the
14 interpretation of what I said was not correct, judging by your
16 I received the proper document, the right document. This is
17 Mr. Riedlmayer's testimony before the US Congress. But on this document,
18 it doesn't say anywhere that this was before the US Congress. And in the
19 list of documents that I received on the 2nd of April, it is indicated:
20 "Hearing before the Commission for Security and Cooperation in Europe,
21 relevant pages." There is no mention of the US Congress here, either, so
22 there was some confusion. I received this document. That's not the
23 problem. I received it on the 2nd of April, but when I received it, I
24 could not see, on the basis of the list, that this was a document from
25 the US Congress. I thought it was an OSCE document, based on what it
1 said on the list. It's the problem of the Prosecution and its
2 administration, because the document was not marked properly. And I knew
3 right away that I did not receive this document, because it was not
4 listed. Now it turned out that there was a mistake in the way in which
5 this document was listed, and this mistake was done by the Prosecution.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, you testified, from
7 what I understood, before the US Congress, but you did not testify before
8 the OSCE, or did you also testify before the OSCE?
9 WITNESS: ANDRAS RIEDLMAYER [Resumed]
10 THE WITNESS: I'm afraid there is an understandable confusion of
11 terminology. The OSCE is an international body composed of
12 representatives of different governments. The Commission on Security and
13 Cooperation in Europe is a US Government commission which includes
14 members of both Houses of Congress as well as representatives of the
15 State Department and some other government departments. It holds regular
16 hearings and it makes recommendations, but it is a US Government
17 organisation. It has no connection whatsoever with the OSCE. It is also
18 not directly an arm of the US Congress, although the US Congress supplies
19 most of its members.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I've understood you well. The
21 OSCE is a commission -- the US Commission is a -- according to what I
22 have heard, the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe is a
23 US Government commission. This commission of the US Government is made
24 up of members of Congress, as well as representatives of the
25 State Department and some other government departments of the
1 US Government; is that right, how it works?
2 THE WITNESS: That is correct, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, have you
4 understood? It's rather complex, but thanks to my question the witness
5 has lifted any ambiguity, which means that this document comes from this
6 commission which reports to the US Government.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That's what I realised last night,
8 as soon as I looked at the document and at the cover letter. I realised
9 that I had received that earlier, but the title was not correct, because
10 there was no mention of the US Congress anywhere. So I clarified this,
11 and I wanted to make this clear to you, too.
12 I don't know how the interpretation occurred, what happened with
13 the interpretation, that I was not able to actually explain this to you
14 and that we needed to take recourse to the witness, who speaks another
15 language, to understand each other, but I was -- I knew that yesterday.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Most importantly, you have the
17 document now.
18 The Registrar has just told me that you have 26 minutes left for
19 your cross-examination, so I shall give you the floor now.
20 Cross-examination by Mr. Seselj: [Continued]
21 Q. Mr. Riedlmayer, I read this document from the US Congress, and
22 there's another article of yours. The title is: "From the Ashes of the
23 Past and Future: The Cultural Heritage of Bosnia-Herzegovina," and a
24 detail caught my attention. You speak about converts in both these
25 documents, converts under the Turkish occupation who converted from the
1 Christian faith to the Islam, and you say that one of those converts,
2 Mehmed Pasa Sokolovic, who was the Grand Vizier in the 16th century,
3 played a key role in the Turkish empire, but I think that you failed to
4 mention, on purpose, that he was not a voluntary convert to the Islamic
5 faith. Is that not correct, Mr. Riedlmayer? Mehmed Pasa Sokolovic was a
6 Serb Orthodox, a Christian, and at one point he just decided to convert
7 to the Islam; is that so?
8 A. No, he was recruited into the Janissary --
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a minute, Mr. Seselj. The
10 Trial Chamber considers that the question which you are raising is not a
11 relevant question and has nothing to do with questions that were put
12 during the examination-in-chief. Can you tell us why you are launching
13 in this area?
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I told you yesterday
15 that it was my goal to crush the credibility of this witness, in
16 particular his moral credibility. I want to deal with this issue to show
17 that this witness falsely represents Bosnian history in the world.
18 Interreligious relations in Bosnia are depicted by him as
19 virtually idyllic with very religions coexisting in the same area
20 peacefully, which is far from any truth. Turks were brutal overlords of
21 Bosnia for over five centuries. Some of the population converted to the
22 Islam voluntarily, but large portions of the population were forced to
23 convert. There was an institution that was called the Blood Tithe. It's
24 the blood tax, so to speak, and it was enforced in the following manner:
25 Every third year, a group of Turkish -- or groups of Turkish officers
1 went from one Serb village to another in Bosnia, catching boys aged
2 between five and ten, taking them away from their parents to Istanbul,
3 put them in sultan schools and turned them into elite troops, the
4 so-called "Janissaries." Serbs were destroyed genetically because the
5 best and brightest boys, young children, were taken away and turned into
6 Turkish soldiers.
7 JUDGE HARHOFF: This is all very well, but it lies far beyond the
8 expertise of the witness and far beyond his expert report. I believe
9 that you should at this point limit your questions to matters that are
10 contained in his report and in his testimony.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judge, I have dealt with this
12 witness's testimony and report. I have managed to prove that it is
13 worthless, from the expert point of view. This witness did not testify
14 as an expert. He was just a photographer and a travel writer, so this
15 crushes the relevance and credibility of his testimony as an expert. And
16 because he was not an eyewitness of any of these events, he cannot
17 testify as a fact witness, either. And now I want to crush him morally,
18 his moral credibility, in public. I managed to do that, in part, when
19 I've shown that he misrepresents to the world public certain periods of
20 Bosnian history.
21 I have other evidence here. I have a text which shows that he
22 advocated the arming of the Bosnian Muslims that advocated the lifting of
23 the arms embargo, which shows that he cannot be considered an objective,
24 impartial witness, setting aside the fact that he's no expert at all.
25 And please allow me to continue as I intended, because each of my
1 questions has a purpose.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What you are telling us is that
3 you still are wanting to test the credibility of this witness and
4 demonstrate that this witness is not unbiased, since you have a document
5 in which he would have taken a stance against the embargo. This is
6 another issue. We shall see what your further questions will be. But so
7 that there is no misunderstanding, Mr. Seselj, on the expert's report,
8 what is important to the Bench is to determine whether or not churches
9 and mosques were destroyed. That is the key issue, as far as we are
10 concerned. To answer this question, we need evidence, and the evidence
11 we have are the photographs. This is the area in which the Bench will
12 work after the close of the hearing. We want to understand whether
13 mosques, minarets, Roman Catholic churches, cultural property, have been
14 destroyed, based on the photographs we have. This is what we focus on,
15 and my colleague has reminded you of this.
16 Now, you want to assess the level of expertise and the
17 credibility of this witness. You want to demonstrate that this witness
18 is not unbiased, so please proceed.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the fact that
20 mosques and churches were destroyed in this war, it's a notorious fact.
21 In law, notorious facts need not be proven. It is ridiculous to try and
22 prove that mosques were destroyed in the course of the war in
23 Bosnia-Herzegovina. It is ridiculous to try and show that for the most
24 part those mosques were destroyed by people of Serb ethnic background.
25 It is a notorious fact -- it is incredible that in his expert report, he
1 did not deal with the evidence showing that the Serb religious Orthodox
2 buildings were also destroyed and that this was a widespread thing in the
3 civil war.
4 I think it is not up to the Trial Chamber to determine that
5 mosques and Catholic churches were destroyed, when there is ample
6 evidence that this was indeed so. The Trial Chamber has to determine
7 whether I am to blame for that. And from his expert report, you cannot
8 find a single shred of evidence, not a single piece of circumstantial
9 evidence to indicate that I or my volunteers that we sent to the war had
10 anything to do with that.
11 Why should I deal with that? I'm now trying to crush his
12 credibility, and now how much time I'm willing to devote to that --
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: I apologise for interrupting you again, but if
14 your view is that Serb Orthodox churches were also destroyed, then you
15 are free to bring witnesses, when it becomes your turn, to show just
16 that. At this point, we're dealing with an expert witness who has
17 testified to the destruction of mosques and Catholic churches, and that's
18 what this testimony can bring to us, and nothing more. So let us just
19 stay within the fields of his expertise, and if you have nothing more to
20 ask him, then let's finish the cross-examination.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Does that mean that you do not
23 allow me to attack the credibility of this witness?
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, you can ask questions on
25 the credibility of the witness, yes, you can, but do not address topics
1 which are -- which go beyond the field of expertise. This is what my
2 colleague has just told you.
3 Now, you want to demonstrate that this person is not an expert
4 because he is biased and therefore lacks credibility. If that's what you
5 want to prove, go ahead.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The witness represented himself as
7 a historian. That was his basic education, and there is this notorious
8 historical fact. Everybody in the Balkans knows about that. I used it
9 to show that he is not -- he failed to inform the Western public
10 impartially about the events in Bosnia, and now I'm done with it.
11 Now I want to ask him whether it is true that he was actively
12 involved in lobbying and sending demands to the Clinton administration
13 for the arms embargo to be lifted so that arms could be exported to the
15 If you now disallow this question, then what am I to do? I think
16 that I am entitled to ask this question. Well, if you say that I am not
17 allowed, then, well, you deal with the witness.
18 Q. Is that true, Mr. Riedlmayer?
19 A. I assume you're referring to the document that was disclosed in
20 the Milosevic Bosniak case, a letter I wrote in July of 1995, urging the
21 Clinton administration to consider lifting the arms embargo, and my
22 rationale for that was Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, which
23 says that every state has the right to self-defense until the
24 Security Council takes such measures as to assure the establishment of
1 At that point, the war in Bosnia was more than three years old.
2 Srebrenica had just been overrun, and I think I was not alone in being a
3 concerned international citizen, in urging some sort of action. I don't
4 think it speaks to my report, which was done for different purposes and
5 at a different point in time.
6 Q. Now, whether something is related to your report or not is not up
7 to you to decide. I have this text in front of me. It was disclosed to
8 me by the Prosecution because the Prosecution was duty-bound to disclose
9 it. At the end of this text, Mr. Riedlmayer, to refresh your memory, you
11 "The only thing that Karadzic and his brigands are still afraid
12 of is that their victims might find a way to get the means to defend
14 Do you recall this sentence of yours, "... Karadzic and his
15 brigands ..."?
16 A. I don't recall the phrasing, but in the aftermath of the fall of
17 Srebrenica, that was not phrasing that I consider inappropriate.
18 Q. Did you ever -- in any of your public appearances, did you use
19 the term "Izetbegovic and his brigands"?
20 A. No.
21 Q. And you don't know that more than 6.000 Serbs were killed in
22 Sarajevo that was ruled by Izetbegovic?
23 A. I don't know that for a fact.
24 Q. I knew that you didn't know, but these were civilians whose names
25 are all recorded, as opposed to the Srebrenica falsifications where 1.000
1 to 1.200 prisoners were executed was a figure that was built up to 8.000.
2 Mr. Riedlmayer, we have another text of yours here, "Holocaust
3 and Books," [as interpreted] and at a particular point in that text you
4 say, as you describe what happened in Srebrenica, you say that Serbian
5 Radio Pale played a song, namely --
6 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters note, we do not have the text.
7 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
8 Q. ... the song ends with the words "greet the white Serbian race."
9 Is that what you wrote in your text?
10 A. If you look carefully at the document, that was a direct quote
11 from a news article. Those are not my words.
12 Q. This is not a direct quotation. It is under quotation marks, or
13 rather it is just this verse that is under quotation marks. The rest is
14 your text, so you are quoting -- you are quoting a song that was
15 allegedly played on Radio Pale. And in the footnote -- in footnote 37,
16 rather, you say that this Charlotte Iver [phoen] wrote a book
17 "From Heaven to Hell." It is not a book, it's an article from "The
18 Observer," from 1995; is that right? So you took this over from her;
20 A. From a news article in "The London Observer," yes.
21 Q. [Previous translation continues]... considering it to be true;
22 right? And you did nothing to check whether something like that was
23 possible at all, although you had contacts with the Balkans and although
24 you travelled there often; you just took it for granted, this fabrication
25 from a newspaper, without double-checking it, and you simply incorporated
1 it in your scientific, scholarly paper that was published by the
2 University of Massachusetts Press in Amherst; right? This shows what
3 kind of a scholar you are and what you resort to. It's as if I were to
4 take over the worst possible texts from tabloids in the US, UK,
5 et cetera, and quote them in my scholarly work. That's the kind of
6 scholar you are.
7 Now let's see what you did as you testified before the ICJ in
8 The Hague.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, let the witness
10 answer, because you're moving on to something else. Give him the
11 opportunity of answering you. You say he's not an expert because of
12 this, and then you quote the article, so let the witness answer.
13 Please answer, Mr. Witness.
14 THE WITNESS: Well, I'm not sure what the question in that
15 statement was.
16 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
17 Q. The question was there, and you answered the question.
18 Now, Mr. Riedlmayer, as you testified before the
19 International Court of Justice, in paragraph 8 of your statement, you
20 said that Islam came to Bosnia-Herzegovina almost six centuries ago?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Is that right? When the army of the Ottoman sultans breezed
23 through the Balkans all the way to Hungary, does that mean that the army
24 of the Ottoman sultans breezed through Bosnia on their way to Hungary?
25 A. "Breezed" was not the word I used, but in fact that was the
1 sequence of events between the end of the 14th century and the middle of
2 the 15th century. The Ottoman armies pretty much conquered what is now
3 the Balkans, and at that point they were on the border of Hungary, which
4 at that time was the Sava River.
5 Q. Paragraphs 30 and 31 of your statement, you falsely claimed that
6 the Old Bridge on the Neretva was seriously damaged by the JNA soldiers
7 and that the Croats only finished this off. Also, you say that all the
8 mosques in Mostar were destroyed, that most of the damage was sustained
9 during the JNA siege, and what the Croatian forces could do to the
10 buildings in the old city, most of them were in ruins anyway, was just to
11 create more dust. That's what you stated; right?
12 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters note, we do not have the original.
13 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
14 Q. So that was a lie, wasn't it, because all the mosques on the
15 west bank of the Neretva were destroyed with the Croats, whereas the old
16 city is on the eastern bank, and the Croats from the western bank were
17 firing at it while the JNA was still there. You lied about this on
18 purpose before the International Court of Justice, and regrettably Serbia
19 was not properly represented there. (redacted)
3 Witness, please answer the question put to you by Mr. Seselj
4 regarding the destruction of mosques in Mostar. And notably as
5 Mr. Seselj is alleging that these mosques would have been destroyed by
6 the Croats and not by the Serbs, and that you would have testified to the
7 opposite in front of the ICJ.
8 THE WITNESS: Well, first of all, both before the ICJ and before
9 this Court, I'm testifying under oath, so I am taking great care to tell
10 the truth to the best of my knowledge.
11 With regard to the Old Bridge, I spoke about it in some detail
12 during the direct examination, the kind of damage that was sustained by
13 it, and indeed it is true it was damaged in the JNA siege and it was the
14 main casualty of the 1993-1994 Croat siege of the old city of Mostar.
15 Secondly, I know of no credible evidence that the mosques in
16 Mostar were bombarded by Croats during the JNA siege, and I would also
17 point out that the mosque which we discussed in great detail, the
18 Mosque of Sevri Hadji Hasan, is indeed on the west bank of the Neretva,
19 and the damage you saw on that -- on those photos dates from 1992. It is
20 in the Donja Mahala district of Mostar, on the right bank of the river,
21 right underneath Home Hill, just like the Franciscan monastery, and both
22 the monastery and that mosque were, in fact, damaged in the spring of
23 1992, during the JNA siege of Mostar. So it is, in fact, true, what I
25 Furthermore, I'm not the only one who has asserted this. The
1 reports from the Council of Europe rapporteur, Dr. Colin Kaiser, go into
2 some detail, and I quote him in my report, about the destruction in
3 Mostar. He states that all but one of the mosques in the old city were
4 severely damaged, and he describes the damage in considerable detail. So
5 it is not merely my opinion, but of the -- the opinion of another expert
6 who was there in 1992 and had a chance to observe it within -- firsthand
7 and before the Croat siege. So any damage he observed cannot have been
8 sustained by the Croat siege.
9 Does that answer your question?
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is an answer to your question,
12 Mr. President, and I hope that this is not being taken from my time. You
13 put the question. Don't count this into my time.
14 Q. Mr. Riedlmayer, tell me briefly, what about the mosques in
15 Bijeljina; when were they destroyed?
16 A. They were destroyed in the spring of 1993.
17 Q. What you stated in this report, is it correct; namely, that they
18 were destroyed in March 1993? That's what it says in your report, they
19 were destroyed in March 1993.
20 A. March is the beginning of spring, yes, in March of 1993.
21 Q. I know that they were destroyed in March 1993, too, but why did
22 you say, in paragraph 45 of your statement before the ICJ, why did you
23 lie, saying that they were destroyed on the 13th of May, 1993, and that
24 immediately after that, while bulldozers were clearing the rubble, the
25 Assembly of Republika Srpska was in session in Bijeljina? You lied on
1 page 22 of your statement. It says that they were destroyed on the
2 13th of May.
3 MR. MUNDIS: Objection with respect to the characterization that
4 the witness has lied.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, you're going a bit
6 too fast, saying it's a lie. Ask the question first and wait for the
7 answer before drawing any conclusions. Before he, the witness, answers,
8 you state things. I mean, if you go at that pace, there's no need in
9 pursuing this effort. For you, this person is a false witness. Well,
10 ask the question, wait for the answer, and if you don't like the answer
11 or if the answer seems wrong, ask other questions. But from the very
12 beginning, from the very onset, you say, "You lied." We don't even know
13 which question was put to him by the ICJ, we don't know what his answer
14 was, but you immediately draw a conclusion.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, what I have before
16 me is this transcript. He makes a statement there, a very lengthy
17 statement, and it's marked by paragraphs. He confirmed here what he
18 stated in his expert report, and that is an undeniable fact, that the
19 Bijeljina mosques were destroyed in March 1993. When he testified before
20 the International Court of Justice in The Hague, he misstated that it was
21 in May 1993, so that he would artificially link this up to the session of
22 the National Assembly. And we know who it was that destroyed the
23 Bijeljina mosques. However, I haven't got very much time, so I cannot
24 wait for his lengthy answers before we move on to the core of the matter.
25 The core of the matter is that before the ICJ, he claimed that
1 this happened on the 13th of May, and that's when he lied. However, this
2 is not my question to him. I've dealt with that already, I've finished
3 with that.
4 Mr. Riedlmayer --
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Would you please answer?
6 THE WITNESS: Yes, I would like to answer your question.
7 When I testified before the ICJ, I was provided the preliminary
8 transcripts, the rough, uncorrected transcripts, to which I made
9 corrections. This was one of them. There were a number of transcription
10 errors. The mosques in Bijeljina were destroyed on the 13th of March,
11 and the transcript said "the 13th of May." I didn't say that. There
12 were a number of other things that were wrong.
13 I handed in my corrections, but unfortunately it is the practice
14 of the ICJ to immediately post the uncorrected transcripts on their web
15 site for the benefit of the press, and they never posted the corrections.
16 So it is up there with the original mis-transcriptions and mis-spellings,
17 in its uncorrected form.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj.
19 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Mr. Riedlmayer, why --
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, you see, you've got
22 to be extremely careful when you accuse someone of lying. The witness
23 has given us an explanation, saying there was an error on the transcript,
24 that he requested a correction to be made and this was not done. That's
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, if that were
2 actually true, he would not refer to the session of the Assembly of
3 Republika Srpska, which took place either in late May or the beginning of
4 June 1993, so after the well known Pale session when the Vance-Owen Plan
5 was rejected. That was two or two and a half months after the
6 destruction of the mosque.
7 If you believe him, that this is a mistake in the transcript,
8 that is your own affair. However, I caution you. Not a single one of
9 the witnesses here admitted that they lied, except for that one who the
10 Prosecutor caught out during the proofing. Do I really expect him to
11 admit now that he lied on purpose? What I want to show to you and the
12 public is what the transcript says.
13 This is an official transcript. I got it from the Prosecutor. I
14 didn't write this transcript. What do I care, why this transcript wasn't
15 corrected? I only have this transcript, which is the official one. Of
16 course, nobody is going to admit that they are that much of a liar that
17 they'd be willing to come and say that before you here. I don't really
18 expect a Prosecution witness to do that.
19 Q. Mr. Riedlmayer, why did you lie, that the Serb forces, after the
20 taking of Srebrenica, killed about 8.000 men and boys, when reliable
21 information shows that it was only about two and a half thousand exhumed
22 corpses and only 1.000 out of those two and a half thousand were
23 executed, the rest were killed under different circumstances, in
24 fighting, too; why did you lie that it was 8.000?
25 MR. MUNDIS: Objection with respect to the characterization that
1 the witness is lying.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, why are you stating
3 that the witness lied because he talked about 8.000 people killed? Maybe
4 he made a mistake, maybe he was wrong. It's not because he's giving a
5 figure that he is lying. In lying, there is the intent also. You could
6 say something by mistake, without having the intention of lying. I can
7 say that you have a red tie when it's blue. Maybe I just didn't see
8 correctly. It doesn't mean I'm lying when I state that you have a red
10 There are a lot of people who say things and who say things and
11 make errors, but in good faith.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, probably it is not
13 Mr. Riedlmayer, himself, who is to be blamed for this lie. This is a lie
14 that has been spread all around. Some Trial Chambers in this Tribunal
15 and some Prosecutors have been spreading this lie. This lie was taken
16 over by all the Western media. This lie was used as a basis for this
17 incredible judgement of the ICJ, stating that genocide was committed in
18 Srebrenica, and serious lawyers all over the world are shocked by that.
19 But it's not Mr. Riedlmayer who is to be blamed for this lie. People who
20 are way above the social ladder are to be blamed for that, but it is a
21 fact that 8.000 people were not executed, and everybody knows now that
22 that's a lie. However, the ICJ accepted that and some Trial Chambers of
23 this Tribunal, and many others. They all accept this lie, and this was a
24 lie to say that genocide occurred in Srebrenica.
25 You know that on the basis of the Convention on Genocide, what
1 happened in Srebrenica cannot be termed "genocide," even if 8.000 people
2 had been executed, and that was not the case. One thousand were
3 executed, and many of those who were on the list of victims later on
4 appeared in elections to vote.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Mundis, you wanted to raise
6 an objection?
7 MR. MUNDIS: Your Honours, these might be possible grounds for
8 argumentation later. It's clear from the jurisprudence of this Tribunal
9 with respect to genocide in Srebrenica, and it's improper for Dr. Seselj
10 to accuse the witness of lying with respect to events in Srebrenica when
11 this institution has dealt with that crime base and has made definitive
12 findings with respect to what happened in Srebrenica. This, with all due
13 respect to Mr. Seselj, this is not a platform for him to be espousing
14 denials concerning genocide in Srebrenica. It is not related to this
15 case, and this is an improper forum for him to be making such political
16 speeches and to be accusing Mr. Riedlmayer of lying with respect to
17 events in Srebrenica.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, Mr. Seselj put forth a
19 number of things. As far as you're concerned, do you want to answer;
20 "yes" or "no"? It's up to you.
21 THE WITNESS: I would simply remind him of what he said about
22 notorious facts. I think that when the UN Criminal Tribunal for the
23 former Yugoslavia and the International Court of Justice had made certain
24 findings and they have become public knowledge, merely to repeat
25 something that repeats these findings is merely to state what has become
1 a well-known fact, and any rulings that the ICJ made with regard to
2 Srebrenica, they certainly did not make on the basis of my statement.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj.
4 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Mr. Riedlmayer, on page 39 of this transcript, I see that you
6 made yet another lie. You say that it is a fact that from 1992 onwards,
7 "As far as I know, Mostar was shelled only by the Yugoslav Army from 1992
8 onwards." You lied about that, too, because the JNA withdrew from Mostar
9 before the 19th of May, 1992, and the fighting between Muslims and Croats
10 in Mostar went on almost until 1995; isn't that right? It's on page 39,
11 in the first paragraph.
12 A. I'm sorry, I do not have that transcript in front of me, and --
13 Q. The Prosecutor does.
14 A. And if I were provided, I could see where you took that quote
15 from. I assume it's taken out of context. I'm well aware that the --
16 there were two distinct sieges of Mostar. I spoke about them both in
17 this courtroom and in the ICJ testimony. The siege of Mostar by the JNA
18 and Serb forces lasted from April to the beginning of June. This siege
19 by Croat forces took place in 1993-1994. They were too distinctive and
20 separated in time, and I do not think that this is a matter that I could
21 have confused or tried to mislead anyone about.
22 Q. What it says here is from 1992 onwards, that Mostar was shelled
23 only by the Yugoslav Army. The Prosecution has that, so you discuss it
24 with them later. And now you're taking it back. Okay, fine, better late
25 than never.
1 Further on, Mr. Riedlmayer, do you know that a US agency that is
2 called "Rather and Finn," have you heard of this agency? That is an
3 agency for public relations.
4 A. I've heard it mentioned. I believe the name is "Ruder and Finn,"
5 but I've no more than heard it referred to.
6 Q. Do you know that the Muslim government throughout the war engaged
7 this agency in pursuing a propaganda war in their interests, particularly
8 in relation to the thesis on the destruction of cultural monuments; do
9 you know about that?
10 A. No, I do not.
11 Q. Oh, you do not. All right. If you do not, then:
12 Mr. Riedlmayer, do you know that many mosques in the territory of
13 Bosnia-Herzegovina were built on the foundations of former
14 Serbian Orthodox churches?
15 A. I do not know that for a fact.
16 Q. As for Atic mosque in Bijeljina, and you talked about its
17 destruction, when the renewal of this mosque began, the foundations of an
18 old Serbian Orthodox church were found and also some tombstones, and that
19 is why the reconstruction stopped. Do you know about that?
20 A. I know there was considerable uproar about that in the press. I
21 followed it to the best of my ability. As far as I recall, the only
22 non-controversial part of that was that indeed some medieval tombstones
23 were found in the vicinity of the mosque.
24 The Commission on National Monuments was engaged. They sent out
25 an expert, and as far as I know, there was never any confirmation that
1 there was a pre-existing building on the site. But it was reported as
2 such in the press.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, please, Mr. Seselj has
4 just asked you questions that I'm just discovering. None of this had
5 crossed my mind. According to what he is saying -- I don't know what
6 study, what research, what paper he is using to back what he's saying --
7 it seems that mosques in Bosnia-Herzegovina were built exactly where old
8 Orthodox churches had been built, if I understand him correctly.
9 Obviously, centuries ago there were Orthodox churches that were razed and
10 mosques were built exactly on the same site. This is an important
11 architectural and historic event. Did you know of this, yes or no? And
12 if you did know of this, why didn't you say so in your report?
13 THE WITNESS: Well, Your Honour, first of all, my report was not
14 concerned with the history of medieval architecture in Bosnia, but with
15 events of the late 20th century, so it would have been understandable if
16 I hadn't mentioned it.
17 However, I am well aware of the history of architecture in the
18 Balkans. It has been the subject of my study for some time. Over the
19 course of time, it is entirely possible - it's been attested from many
20 parts of Europe - that, for example, Christian churches and sanctuaries
21 were built on top of pagan sites, like Isis sanctuaries, and that
22 subsequently other structures may have been built on top of earlier
23 structures. This happens all the time.
24 Another thing that happens is appropriation, where a structure is
25 transformed from a mosque to a church or a church to a mosque. Consider,
1 for example, in Spain the cathedral in Cordoba used to be the
2 Great Mosque of Cordoba. So these things happen in history.
3 In the case of Bosnia-Herzegovina, I believe that despite
4 allegations usually by non-scientific sources, the vast majority of
5 mosques in Bosnia were built on new sites. The Orthodox Church in
6 Sarajevo is very close to the major mosque in Sarajevo, but it's a
7 separate building. The two structures, as they currently stand, were
8 erected both in the 16th century, but it is conjecture that there was an
9 Orthodox Church at the same site as the current Orthodox Church in
10 earlier times.
11 So the main mosque in Sarajevo, just to give you the most
12 trenchant example of Bosnia's major city, was certainly not built atop a
13 former Orthodox church. I know of no evidence that such a thing was the
14 case in any other major city in Bosnia, either. So I believe that the
15 assertion made by the accused is simply not correct. It doesn't exclude
16 the possibility that somewhere in Bosnia there may have been a mosque
17 that was built on top of the ruins of an earlier church. I don't exclude
18 that, but I don't know of any specific cases from Bosnia.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Judges, I have to turn to you.
20 On page 43 of the transcript of the testimony of Mr. Riedlmayer
21 before the International Court of Justice, he says this:
22 "I am a scholar, a scientist, and I deal with Ottoman history,
23 and I am conscious of the fact that when the Ottomans took control of
24 towns, they would generally take the main church in the place they came
25 to and turn it into a mosque, and leaving the lesser churches to the
1 Christian community, the ones that were left."
2 That's what he said before the International Court of Justice.
3 And here, in response to your question, he's giving quite a different
5 Now, I'm not asking you to state publicly that this witness is
6 lying, but I can very well assume what's in your minds.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, in my previous
8 question I was totally unaware of what you had said before the ICJ. I
9 put to you this, whether in Bosnia-Herzegovina churches or mosques had
10 been built on top of former mosques or Serbian Orthodox churches or
11 Roman Catholic churches. You didn't really answer my question, you were
12 quite elusive. But now Mr. Seselj has read out, in its entirety, what
13 you said before the ICJ, where you explained that during the Ottoman era,
14 the Turks took control of a town, and when they took control of a town,
15 the main church was then replaced by a mosque, and the lesser churches
16 were then to be used by the Christian community.
17 I find it hard to understand your position. Could you explain
18 this to us again, please? Perhaps I didn't quite understand.
19 THE WITNESS: I believe there was a misunderstanding here. I'm
20 not sure on whose part. But I perceived your previous question to be:
21 Were mosques built on the ruins of churches? The second statement, also
22 taken out of context, refers to the appropriation of a building which is
23 left intact and converted to a different use. That occurred in a
24 relatively limited number of instances; in Kosovo, for example, where the
25 main Orthodox Church, the Ljeviska Church was converted into the
1 Friday Mosque. That followed a medieval pattern throughout Europe where
2 the main house of worship in a big town was seen as the ruler's church or
3 the ruler's house of worship.
4 In Bosnia, to the best of my knowledge, this happened quite
5 rarely. I know of two instances. One is a Catholic Church in Jajce
6 which was converted into a mosque and has since fallen into ruin. And
7 today there's a controversy about whether if it's restored it's to be
8 used as a Catholic Church or a mosque.
9 The other one is in the far northwest of Bosnia, in Bihac, where
10 again a medieval church was converted into a mosque. It still has the
11 gothic windows and the steeple, but it has been a mosque now for hundreds
12 of years. That is a relatively rare phenomenon.
13 When new mosques were built, they were usually built in new
15 And in part, it's also attributable to the fact that medieval
16 Bosnia was not an urbanized place. Most of the cities in Bosnia
17 developed during the Ottoman period.
18 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
19 Q. When you were in Bijeljina, and I see that you spent quite some
20 time there, you were served information about who destroyed the Bijeljina
21 mosques. Now, when you were there, Mr. Riedlmayer, did you hear that the
22 Serbian Radical Party, who had its branch in Bijeljina and had it in very
23 few places in Bosnia-Herzegovina but it did have it first in Bijeljina,
24 sharply protested because of the destruction of Bijeljina mosques already
25 in 1993; did you hear about that, did you have that information?
1 A. If you look at my entries from Bijeljina, where I did spend the
2 greater part of one day, you can see that the only references in detail
3 to who was responsible, other than generically it was done by Serb
4 soldiers or that the ruins were bulldozed by the municipal authorities,
5 comes from quoted media accounts, so I did not discuss personally with
6 anyone in Bijeljina the activities of any party. My focus was entirely
7 on documenting what had happened to these buildings and, to the extent
8 possible, determining when it had happened.
9 Q. Do you know that today, the Serbian Radical Party is the ruling
10 party in Bijeljina?
11 A. I'm not aware of that.
12 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation] Would you please place the last
13 document I sent up for photocopying yesterday on the overhead projector.
14 I have the statement here of Izet Salihbegovic, born in 1943, from a
15 respected Bey family, that is to say a Muslim nobleman, who was the
16 founder of the Serbian Radical Party, and let's see what he says about
17 the destruction of the Bijeljina mosques. I have his statement. It has
18 been certified, authenticated, in the Bijeljina Municipality and the
19 relevant services there, and Mr. Salihbegovic says as follows --
20 Izetbegovic slipped out. How did that come about?
21 "I'm a member of the Serbian Radical Party, since it was formed,
22 I've been a member, and when Mr. Mirko Blagojevic from Bijeljina -- I'm
23 one of the founders of the Serbian Radical Party in Bijeljina.
24 Throughout that time, I was in the leadership of the Municipal Board of
25 Bijeljina and held important party functions, and today I occupy the post
1 of vice-president of the Municipal Board of the Serbian Radical Party,
2 Dr. Vojislav Seselj in Bijeljina.
3 "I also wish to stress that my political party, one of the ruling
4 parties in Bijeljina Municipality, and I'm proud to state that it
5 appointed me to the post of deputy mayor of Bijeljina Municipality, which
6 is the second-most-important post in the Bijeljina hierarchy.
7 "I wish to stress that I belong to an old Bosnian-Herzegovinian
8 family called Salihbegovic, and that in Bijeljina we had our family
9 mosque, the Salihbegovic Mosque, which was located in the Bijeljina
10 district of Selimovici, and it was destroyed in March 1993. It is one of
11 the oldest mosques in these parts.
12 "My political party and I then condemned that act, as we do
13 today, of the destruction of religious sites.
14 "As a long-term member of the Serbian Radical Party, it is -- I
15 cannot allow somebody in The Hague to endeavour to bring my president,
16 Dr. Vojislav Seselj, and my political party in connection with the
17 destruction of religious sites, because I know that we were always
18 categorically opposed to demeaning acts of that kind. Today the
19 Salihbegovic mosque in Bijeljina is being reconstructed and renewed based
20 on voluntary donations by the citizens of Bijeljina, and I'm particularly
21 pleased to see that members of my party are taking part in that by giving
22 their donations, Mirko Blagojevic, the party president, and
23 Radislav Kanjeric, the deputy president, as well as Bijeljina
24 Municipality itself."
25 And then he goes on to say that he is ready to come in and
1 testify in The Hague, but that's not important.
2 So let's hear your comments, Mr. Riedlmayer, to that statement.
3 A. Well, I'm very glad to hear that the mosque is being
4 reconstructed. Other than that, I'm not sure what I can say about it.
5 Q. I didn't hear the last part of what you said -- of what
6 Mr. Riedlmayer said because my headsets were faulty, so I had to change
7 my earphones, and now I can't hear anything.
8 THE WITNESS: I'm happy to repeat it. I said I was glad to hear
9 that the mosque is being reconstructed. And other than that, there are
10 no real observations I can make about it. This is not a gentleman I had
11 contact with while I was in Bijeljina.
12 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation]
13 Q. But this is Izet Salihbegovic. He comes from a family of Beys.
14 He doesn't meet worldwide travellers in the streets. You go to him to
15 pay your respects, Mr. Riedlmayer.
16 One of your financiers is the Aga Kahn; is that right? He's
17 financing some of your projects where you work at the university; right?
18 A. He's not financing any of my projects, as you put it.
19 Karim Aga Khan was a graduate of Harvard College, graduated in the late
20 1950s, and like many Harvard graduates, he was persuaded to establish a
21 chair, an endowed chair, for the study of architecture. And that
22 endowment was given to Harvard University back in the 1970s. I've been
23 working there since 1985, and the income from that endowment supports
24 both the professorship and the documentation centre which I direct. It
25 doesn't finance my projects. It is simply -- pays for my salary when I
1 work there.
2 What I do here for the Tribunal is on my own time and with my own
3 resources, or with expenses covered by the Tribunal at its standard
5 Q. Mr. Riedlmayer, when you set out to investigate the destruction
6 of religious buildings in Kosovo and Metohija, you contacted the OTP of
7 The Hague Tribunal and asked whether they were interested. Their answer
8 was, yes, but that they did not wish to finance your investigations, is
9 that right, your research; that's what you said when you testified in the
10 Milosevic trial?
11 A. That was correct.
12 Q. So you had to find your own resources to do your research.
13 However, when you came up with results, they were so pleased that on the
14 basis of that, they expanded the Milosevic indictment; isn't that right,
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Therefore, when you undertook your own research into the
18 situation in Kosovo and Metohija, you did research into the destruction
19 of both the Muslim and Orthodox religious buildings; right?
20 A. That's right.
21 Q. After that, the OTP issued you assignments connected to the
22 Milosevic indictment for Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Krajisnik indictment,
23 all that and some more municipalities, and so on and so forth, and at
24 that time it was the Prosecution, the OTP, that financed you; right?
25 A. That is correct.
1 Q. That means when you worked of your own free will, you tried to be
2 objective, and then you did research into the destruction of both Muslim
3 and Orthodox religious buildings in Kosovo. But when the Prosecution
4 started financing you, there was none of that objectivity anymore; what
5 you did then was research into what the Serbs destroyed during this war,
6 leaving aside what damage was done to Serb sites, so your role changed
7 and your science changed straight away. Your methodological approach was
8 immediately different; isn't that right?
9 A. Simply, the categories included in my report changed. I remained
10 interested in all cultural heritage, as I've stated before, but due to
11 limitations of time and the large area to be covered, I focused my
12 attention on the categories that were part of my assignment.
13 I don't think it's a question of my objectivity. It simply is a
14 question of coverage, what do I cover.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Seselj, you have one minute
16 left, so put your last question.
17 MR. SESELJ: [Interpretation] I have two short questions during
18 that one minute.
19 Q. Mr. Riedlmayer, you know that I waited five years here for the
20 start of trial, so you had sufficient time, both you and the OTP, to
21 investigate everything in great detail. I was in no hurry, and you
22 tabled the report more than two years ago with respect to this trial.
23 Isn't that right? Just briefly, please.
24 And the second question is this: Do you know that in
25 World War II, it was only the Serb Orthodox religious sites on the
1 territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina that were destroyed, and just as an
2 extreme exception, you could find a Muslim one or a Roman Catholic one;
3 do you know that as a historian? You don't. So that aspect is something
4 you had to take into account and deal with so that you could feel why
5 there was a certain revengism or revenge in this war. But the question
6 arises: Who was the first to begin destroying religious sites in this
7 latest war? Do you know the answer to that question? It was the Croats.
8 They started the destruction first in the area of Srpska Krajina,
9 Serbian Krajina, and Bosnia-Herzegovina. And when somebody starts doing
10 something like that and then the other side retaliates, there's no end to
12 Now, do you know that our country, for almost 50 years, was under
13 the communist regime?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And do you also know that that drama of atheization of the --
16 incorporated the broad masses of the population?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Can that be perhaps one of the reasons for this kind of madness
19 in treating religious sites; that is to say, people whose minds have been
20 purged by the communist ideology were led to do things like that? Could
21 that be a possible reason?
22 A. First of all, you've made a statement earlier about World War II
23 which I don't believe is correct. I think the heritage of all the
24 communities in Bosnia suffered during World War II. I came across
25 numbers of mosques and Catholic churches that were destroyed in World War
1 II by the various contending forces. It was a foreign occupation
2 combined with a civil war, and there were mosques destroyed, there were
3 many Orthodox churches destroyed, as well as some Catholic churches.
4 With regard to your question about atheism, yes, that is
5 something I have speculated on myself, in the sense that during the
6 pre-communist era, people knew something about each other's religion
7 because religion was part of public life. During the communist era,
8 religion was excluded from public life. The religion -- religious
9 education of children was limited or prohibited during part of the
10 communist period, and people grew up thinking of religion as something
11 dark, dangerous and superstitious, and, yes, that may have inclined them
12 to engage in this destruction more readily.
13 On the other hand, I would disagree with your statement about who
14 started things in Bosnia. I'll give you an example. The most serious
15 destruction of Serb Orthodox cultural property in a city in Bosnia was in
16 Mostar, where the Saborna Crkva, the Great Serbian Orthodox Cathedral, as
17 well as the old Orthodox church and the Bishop's Palace were all blown
18 up, but they were blown up after the JNA siege had destroyed the Catholic
19 churches in town. And, yes, that was indeed a reaction by Croat
20 extremists, so I don't think it was something that was preordained.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Your time is up.
22 Does the Prosecution have any redirect?
23 MR. MUNDIS: The Prosecution has no further questions. We want
24 to thank Mr. Riedlmayer for the lengthy period of time that he was here
25 in The Hague to testify.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Sir, on behalf of my
2 colleagues, I apologise for the absence of my colleague Judge Lattanzi
3 today, I'd like to thank you for coming. You have spent approximately
4 two weeks here. I wish you a safe journey home.
5 We shall now have a 20-minute break. I would like the Registrar,
6 after the break, to drop the blinds, please, so that we can bring the
7 witness into the courtroom.
8 We shall now have a 20-minute break.
9 [The witness withdrew]
10 --- Recess taken at 3.35 p.m.
11 --- On resuming at 4.05 p.m.
12 [Closed session]
11 Pages 7515-7573 redacted. Closed session.
22 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.15 p.m.,
23 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 29th day
24 of May, 2008, at 2.15 p.m.