Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 5662

1 Tuesday, 12 February 2002

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The witness entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 2.18 p.m.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: Please call the case.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Case number

8 IT-95-9-T, the Prosecutor versus Blagoje Simic, Milan Simic, Miroslav

9 Tadic, and Simo Zaric.

10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. The --

11 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, just a second, please.

12 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic.

13 MR. PANTELIC: Literally we have received a certain correspondence

14 between the deputy Prosecutor, Mr. Blewitt, and relevant authorities of

15 Republika Srpska with regard to this particular document, Variant A and

16 B. But in fact, we don't have any B/S/C version of this correspondence,

17 and I kindly ask in the meantime if the Defence could be provided with

18 relevant copies so that we can proceed with the cross-examination, I mean,

19 in order to be efficient with it.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: Is that a totally new document? Not the one the

21 Prosecution was supposed to give to the Defence? I would like to hear.

22 It seems to be a new document.

23 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, it's a new document, actually. Five

24 minutes ago we -- ten minutes we found it on our tables. And no problem

25 with that. We can handle it. But still we have to compare this

Page 5663

1 translation and to see what is the original of this correspondence, which

2 is related to this issue this afternoon.

3 JUDGE MUMBA: The document you have is in English?

4 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. Only translation of Serbian document.

5 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. You -- what you are saying is the document you

6 have is in English. You want to have it translated into Serbian.

7 MR. PANTELIC: Madam President, we found a copy of certain very

8 important correspondence between the Office of the Prosecutor and

9 Republika Srpska authorities. All these correspondence was made from 30

10 of July, 2001, including 19 November 2001. The bottom line is that the --

11 our learned colleagues from the Prosecutor are in possession of these

12 documents related to Variant A and B, and virtually we were provided with

13 this correspondence five minutes ago. I call it acts by ambush. But we

14 can handle it no problem. But still we need a Serbian version of this

15 correspondence, because it is not fair to have this bundle of documents

16 without these original letters.

17 [Defence counsel confer]

18 MS. REIDY: Could I help the Trial Chamber?

19 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. Maybe our learned friends from the Prosecutor

20 can clarify this issue.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Ms. Reidy.

22 MS. REIDY: Your Honour, I can't say exactly what time, but

23 sometime after 1.00 this afternoon it was brought to our attention that we

24 had received a reply from the Ministry of Justice in the Republika Srpska,

25 Banja Luka as to information they had about the distribution list for the

Page 5664

1 Variant A/Variant B document. I got a copy of this, which is -- the

2 request is dated the 30th July 2001, and that request was provided to the

3 liaison officer in Banja Luka in both English and B/C/S.

4 The reply came in and although the reply is dated the 19th of

5 November, 2001, I don't believe it actually got back into the Prosecutor's

6 Office until an amount of weeks, I don't know exactly the day, but

7 certainly not before we rose at the last session.

8 What I was given was the English translation of the reply from the

9 Ministry of Justice in the Republika Srpska, and I'm now asking the case

10 manager if he can e-mail someone else in the Prosecution's office and ask

11 where -- if there was an original in the B/C/S, where it was filed. What

12 I provided to the Defence is just the document which I got into my hands,

13 as I said, sometime after 1.00 this afternoon and -- I wasn't asked for

14 the B/C/S version before. Maybe Mr. Pantelic didn't have time to say he

15 wanted the original, but it's now been requested, I hope, through e-mail

16 from someone who may know where the original version is.

17 JUDGE MUMBA: What about the statements we were discussing

18 yesterday?

19 MS. REIDY: Yes, Your Honour. Those were available, well, last

20 night and they were put in the Prosecution -- or the Defence box this

21 morning before 9.00. When about 12.30 I hadn't heard anything from

22 Defence as to whether or not they wanted to pursue any issues on them, I

23 made contact with the Defence counsel and -- well, we discussed whether or

24 not they were sufficient for their purposes. I believe it's more

25 appropriate for Ms. Baen to put her response on the record.

Page 5665

1 JUDGE MUMBA: All I wanted to know is whether they were made

2 available.

3 MS. REIDY: They were made available and -- before 11.00 this

4 morning, they were available to Defence counsel.

5 MR. PANTELIC: Well, my idea was --

6 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Pantelic.

7 MR. PANTELIC: Just to accelerate proceedings, I kindly asked our

8 colleagues to provide us with this B/C/S version of correspondence because

9 we have only English version, and since this is a very important document,

10 signed by the SDS Party of Republika Srpska, as I said, last year, it

11 might be of -- this document might have certain weight and certain impact

12 on these proceedings. So therefore, I was of opinion to ask, in the

13 meantime, during the cross-examination of my colleague Ms. Baen to have

14 these documents, and then I can proceed. Because otherwise we have to

15 postpone this session and to proceed with the other witness. That's a

16 problem.

17 JUDGE MUMBA: But Ms. Reidy has said she is trying to find out

18 where the B/C/S version is right now.

19 MR. PANTELIC: And then we shall be able to call again,

20 Mr. O'Donnell, I suppose, because otherwise we cannot properly

21 cross-examine him without this document.

22 MS. REIDY: Your Honour, with respect I don't know whether it may

23 assist the Chamber to inspect this document but I really -- well, it's up

24 to Mr. O'Donnell to testify what he can talk about this, but his name

25 doesn't appear on this, he's not involved in the correspondence, it has

Page 5666

1 nothing to do with his testimony today or what he can testify to. If

2 the -- if Mr. Pantelic wants to make further submissions based on this

3 document or call this person who signed the letter back to the Prosecutor,

4 that's for him and his Defence to make, or he can make submissions to

5 again challenge the evidence with respect to whether or not this document

6 should be admitted. It is not relevant, I would submit, for the

7 cross-examination of Mr. O'Donnell since he has nothing to do with this

8 document.

9 JUDGE MUMBA: You see the problem with this case [Microphone not

10 activated] and particularly with the document [Microphone not activated].

11 It is important for both parties to remember that the Defence counsel

12 cannot take decisions on their own. They have to get instructions from

13 the accused persons on whatever document is to be discussed, and then they

14 can take a decision as to what how to handle those documents. So that it

15 is a problem whenever documents are given to the Defence at very short

16 notice because obviously they have to get instructions on them, and they

17 can only do so if they understand the documents properly.

18 In the meantime, Mr. Pantelic, your problem has been noted. We

19 wait and see whether we can get the other -- the B/C/S version of the

20 correspondence and see how far we shall go.

21 So Ms. Baen, you can continue with your cross-examination.

22 MR. PANTELIC: If I may add, Your Honour, please, this document is

23 very closely related to the testimony of Mr. O'Donnell because the OTP and

24 Mr. O'Donnell provided Defence with a certain number of documents

25 including the minutes from the 50th Session of Republika Srpska Assembly

Page 5667

1 and this particular document is also closely related to that. So

2 inevitably we have to have these documents to proceed with the

3 cross-examination, in addition to the words of our learned colleagues.

4 JUDGE MUMBA: Of course, yes you have to take your Defence

5 according to instructions so we wait and see whether we can get the B/C/S

6 version.

7 Ms. Baen, please?


9 MS. BAEN: Thank you, Your Honour. For the purposes of the

10 record, all four Defence teams were given the statements that were

11 referred to in court yesterday. We all received them this morning and

12 have all read over those statements. And this was the first time we've

13 seen these four statements, so just for purposes of the record. But with

14 respect to Mr. O'Donnell, I'd like to now go through these four statements

15 with him very briefly. And again, I appreciate OTP giving us these

16 because this is greatly going to shorten what I have to ask. So I thank

17 them for that.

18 Cross-examination by Ms. Baen: [Continued]

19 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. O'Donnell.

20 A. Good afternoon.

21 Q. As I said, I want to go through those four documents. Do you have

22 them in front of you?

23 A. Yes, I do.

24 MS. BAEN: And Your Honour, I don't know how it would be best for

25 the Trial Chamber -- how you would like to keep track of these documents.

Page 5668

1 Do you want me to have them marked or how would you -- because yesterday

2 there was confusion on the documents. I myself was confused because I

3 didn't have a full set of what we were talking about. And so I was

4 wondering how the Trial Chamber would like us to mark these. For

5 identification purposes or --

6 JUDGE MUMBA: It's up to you. If you think that you need those

7 documents for your case, then they have to be put in.

8 MS. BAEN: Okay. Since we were doing an evidentiary hearing, I

9 didn't know if you wanted a different numbering.

10 JUDGE MUMBA: No, no. We will use the same sequence of numbering,

11 because otherwise there will be confusion.

12 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Before you begin, Ms. Baen, I'm a little

13 confused. You say you didn't have a set, a full set, of the documents in

14 front of you yesterday. Unless I'm wrong, I believe I heard Ms. Reidy say

15 that four sets had gone to the Defence.

16 MS. BAEN: I checked with my co-counsel yesterday. He had the set

17 in his hands. I wasn't saying they didn't deliver a copy. I just didn't

18 have it in front of me. I had an old set that wasn't tabbed and numbered

19 as the set that we got today. I had no problem -- they disclosed

20 everything to us. We had the documents I just didn't have it in front of

21 me. She is talking about yesterday.

22 JUDGE WILLIAMS: I'm referring to --

23 MS. BAEN: Yes.

24 JUDGE WILLIAMS: -- this and this. As I recall, we didn't have

25 tabulated either, but we certainly had them in front, and I presume you

Page 5669

1 could share with your co-counsel.

2 MS. BAEN: Your Honour, so the record is clear, our team and all

3 the other Defence teams did receive a set of documents that the Trial

4 Chamber had in front of them yesterday. I had -- we had previously

5 received these documents from the OTP. I had an older set that didn't

6 have -- there were some new documents they gave us that were included in

7 the set that was given to the Trial Chamber yesterday. I didn't -- I had

8 the wrong -- the old set in front of me and so to avoid confusion, I

9 didn't have the sequence or all the documents in front of me as they were

10 in front of you, and I was not aware that co-counsel had them in his

11 hands. I asked him today. He said he had them. So I have no complaint

12 with -- I wasn't pointing fingers at the OTP. They have been very

13 reasonable, and we worked fine together. That wasn't what I was

14 suggesting. I just want to make sure I got the numbering clear because I

15 myself -- I felt guilty of getting things confused yesterday because I

16 didn't have the proper numbering for the Trial Chamber. That's all. But

17 be that as it may, I guess we need to get a number from the Registry for

18 these new statements that we received.

19 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. So you can start with whichever one you want

20 to start with. Let's have the title of the document, and then we can have

21 a number.

22 MS. BAEN: Well, I guess we should go by ERN number because --

23 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Those are distinguishable, yes.

24 MS. BAEN: All right. The first document is a witness statement

25 for the OTP with ERN number 00562529.

Page 5670

1 JUDGE MUMBA: Could you just wait. The Registry hasn't got

2 copies. Can we have copies?

3 MS. REIDY: Certainly. We have copies with -- would you like

4 copies for the Registry and for the Bench?

5 JUDGE MUMBA: And the Bench, yes, please.

6 MS. REIDY: Sorry, is it easier for the Registry assistant if I

7 hand them up as Ms. Baen calls out the ERN number, or if I give you all

8 four statements and you --

9 JUDGE MUMBA: I think it's better to give the Registry and all of

10 us all the four statements, and then as she calls them out, we give them

11 the ID numbers.

12 MS. REIDY: If Ms. Baen is going to be referring, essentially, to

13 these documents, I do also have a few spare sets for the interpreters.

14 Maybe when the usher is finished he can distribute them to the

15 interpreter's booth.

16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. I think we can go ahead. So you call the

17 number first, and then we all know which document you are discussing.

18 MS. BAEN: Thank you, Your Honour. This is ERN number 00562529.

19 It's a witness statement taken by the OTP.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Can we have an ID number for it, please.

21 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours. It's P47 ID.

22 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, there should be a slash, because 1, 2, 3,

23 4. It should be "/2."

24 JUDGE MUMBA: I don't think I get what you're saying.

25 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, I don't have an objection to the

Page 5671

1 collective number. That's perfectly right. But until now we had all

2 these numbers with the slashes, and that is why --

3 JUDGE MUMBA: Oh, I see. Okay. For the accused numbering.


5 JUDGE MUMBA: And actually, these are for the Defence. So if we

6 can follow the correct numbering for the Defence.

7 THE REGISTRAR: I apologise, Your Honours. I was under the

8 impression this was a Prosecution document. It is D27/2. Thank you.


10 Q. Mr. O'Donnell, if you take a look at D27/2. And this appears to

11 be a witness statement taken by the OTP on November 25th of 1997; is that

12 correct?

13 A. That is correct.

14 Q. And the name of the person whose statement was taken has been

15 redacted for, I guess, security purposes; is that correct?

16 A. That's correct.

17 Q. The statement is taken -- the person whose statement was taken was

18 an employee of the AID; isn't that correct?

19 A. That is correct.

20 Q. And when you've -- you've read through this entire statement

21 recently?

22 A. Yes, I have.

23 Q. Okay. Is there anywhere in this statement where the witness gives

24 information with respect to the seizure of PID 3?

25 A. No, there is not.

Page 5672

1 MS. BAEN: Okay. Let's move on to a new document, which is also a

2 witness statement with ERN number 00562504.

3 JUDGE MUMBA: First of all, Ms. Baen, I know the Registry did say

4 D27/2 is for identification purposes, isn't it?

5 MS. BAEN: Well, yes, right now at this point. But I did discuss

6 with Ms. Reidy that I would like to offer these into evidence for the

7 Trial Chamber to read. We discussed that this afternoon.

8 JUDGE MUMBA: Okay. Is there any objection from the Prosecution?

9 MS. REIDY: Yes. Well, Your Honour, I think that the basic

10 general rule that was set out in the beginning was that all these

11 supporting documentation that would be marked in as -- for ID and that if

12 at a later stage it became necessary to have one of these fully entered

13 into evidence, that would be the purpose. Now, I know Ms. Baen correctly

14 did say to me she would like the Trial Chamber to read through them. I

15 have no objection to her asking the witness on cross more questions about

16 the contents of it. But we would prefer they be marked as ID, as indeed

17 our supporting documentation was.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: Oh, actually I was going to come back to that later

19 on. Do you have any objection to this one? In fact, to any of the

20 four -- these four statements, so that we decide this once and for all.

21 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours, please, I think we should object

22 to the admission of this material --


24 MR. DI FAZIO: -- on the simple ground that it is difficult to see

25 why it should be admitted if the primary document that it supports is not

Page 5673

1 admitted in the first place. Until PID 3 goes in, why should the

2 supporting document be admitted?


4 MR. DI FAZIO: Now, if you decide that yes, PID 3 should go into

5 evidence, then this document -- if this material would assist you for

6 providing evidence of the weight that you attach to the document, the

7 circumstances in which it was found, and so on, in that case, then of

8 course it might -- grounds for its full admission would exist. But until

9 that happens, with respect, it seems to me that it shouldn't go in. How

10 can the document be relevant other -- to anything other than your

11 assessment of how -- what weight to give to PID 3?


13 MR. DI FAZIO: For that reason, we say it should simply be marked

14 at this stage.

15 MS. BAEN: May I respond to the objection, Your Honour?

16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Ms. Baen.

17 MS. BAEN: That's exactly the reason it should go into evidence.

18 He's got the order backwards. You three Judges need to see the supporting

19 documents in order to determine the admissibility of PID 3, and until you

20 can read these supporting documents, you can't make that decision.

21 [Trial Chamber confers]

22 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. The Trial Chamber has decided that the

23 statement is to be admitted into evidence.

24 So Ms. Baen, you can continue. That is D27/2.

25 MS. BAEN: Okay. Now I'd like to move on to the next statement.

Page 5674

1 I guess I should repeat the ERN number. It's 00562504. It's a witness

2 statement taken by the OTP on November 26th, 1997.

3 JUDGE MUMBA: Can we have the number, please.

4 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours. It's D28/2.

5 JUDGE MUMBA: And I bet the Prosecution would still repeat the

6 same objection or --

7 MS. REIDY: Yes, Your Honour. But I assume the ruling is going to

8 be the same. So maybe for the record, we would like then to revisit the

9 issue of all the documents we used yesterday because it was on the basis

10 of the understanding that separate documentation would have given ID

11 status until --

12 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. We'll come to that. But for the time being,

13 we are dealing with D28/2.

14 MS. BAEN:

15 Q. Mr. O'Donnell, if you'll take a look at D28/2. And tell me, have

16 you had a chance to read this document recently?

17 A. Yes, I have, Your Honours.

18 Q. And you've read the entire document?

19 A. That's correct.

20 Q. And this is a witness statement taken by the OTP on November 26,

21 1997, is it not?

22 A. Yes, it is.

23 Q. And the witness who was interviewed is also an employee for the

24 AID; is that correct?

25 A. That is correct.

Page 5675

1 Q. In Sarajevo?

2 A. Correct.

3 Q. In looking through this entire statement, is there any evidence

4 this witness gave with respect to the seizure of P3 ID?

5 A. No, there is not.

6 Q. Okay. We'd like to move on to the next document. And just

7 formally we're offering that into evidence. I understand what the Court's

8 ruling is, but just formally we're offering that.


10 MS. BAEN: The next document is ERN number 00570537. It's also a

11 witness statement taken by the OTP.

12 JUDGE MUMBA: Can we have it numbered, please.

13 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours. It's Exhibit D29/2.

14 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you.

15 MS. BAEN:

16 Q. Mr. O'Donnell, in looking at D29/2, this is also a witness

17 statement taken by the OTP; is that correct?

18 A. That is correct.

19 Q. And this was another person working for AID in Sarajevo; is that

20 correct?

21 A. That is correct.

22 Q. And the dates of the interview were the 21st and 22nd of November,

23 and the 18th of December, 1997; is that correct?

24 A. Correct.

25 Q. I have a question with respect to this statement. Have you had a

Page 5676

1 chance to read over this whole statement recently?

2 A. Yes, I have.

3 Q. Is there any information in that statement with respect to the

4 seizure, the circumstances regarding the seizure of PID 3?

5 A. No, there is not.

6 MS. BAEN: For purposes of the record, we offer D29/2 into

7 evidence.


9 MS. BAEN: The next document which we request be marked is ERN

10 number 00562521. It's also a witness statement taken by the OTP.

11 JUDGE MUMBA: Can we have the number, please.

12 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours. It's D30/2.

13 MS. BAEN:

14 Q. Mr. O'Donnell, if you'll look at D30/2. The same question: Is

15 this a witness statement taken by the OTP of an AID employee?

16 A. Yes, it is.

17 Q. And these interviews -- or this interview was conducted on

18 November 25th and 26th of 1997; is that correct?

19 A. That is correct.

20 Q. And this witness who was interviewed apparently was not only an

21 employee of the AID, this person was involved in the leadership of the

22 operational section of the AID; is that correct?

23 A. That is correct.

24 Q. In Sarajevo?

25 A. Correct.

Page 5677

1 Q. And is it correct that this statement, the only mention of the

2 seizure of PID 3 in this witness statement is on page 5, if you would turn

3 to page 5, please; is that correct? It's -- the ERN number of the page is

4 00562525?

5 A. That's correct.

6 Q. Okay. In fact, there is only one sentence about the document, the

7 history of document PID 3, where he says in the statement, "The document

8 was found in the main office of Sarajevo SDS party in former," and I can't

9 read the name, "street during the spring of 1992." Actually, then the

10 next sentence applies. He remembers the document very well because it

11 contains a strategy of the party which was already in action. Well, does

12 the document say that -- the witness statement say those two sentences?

13 A. Yes, it does and the next sentence also refers to it.

14 Q. I was just about to get to that. Does it in fact the next

15 sentence say, "I cannot state who the document was found by"?

16 A. That's correct.

17 Q. The next sentence states, "However, I can state that it was found

18 by an operational officer of the service"?

19 A. That's correct.

20 Q. So nowhere in the statement do we have the information as to who

21 seized PID 3?

22 A. The name of the person, no.

23 Q. And in fact, this leader of operations says he doesn't even

24 remember who it was; isn't that correct?

25 A. Correct.

Page 5678

1 Q. There is no information in there as to the circumstances under

2 which the document was seized?

3 A. Apart from the general circumstances outlined at the beginning of

4 the section in relation to this particular document, no.

5 Q. There is no mention as to whether or not there was a search

6 warrant executed?

7 A. That's correct.

8 Q. There is no information as to when it was seized other than

9 spring -- sometime in the spring of 1992; is that correct?

10 A. Correct.

11 Q. There is no information as to where in the main office this

12 document was seized, is there?

13 A. No, there is not.

14 MS. BAEN: For the purposes of the record, Your Honour, we offer

15 this document D30/2 into evidence.

16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. And for the record, I'm sure the same

17 objection would be repeated by the Prosecution for D29 as well as D30.

18 MS. REIDY: That would be correct, Your Honour.

19 MS. BAEN:

20 Q. Mr. O'Donnell, the AID came into existence formally in 1996; is

21 that correct?

22 A. I believe so, Your Honours.

23 Q. And prior to 1996, the AID was formerly known as the Bosnian

24 secret police; isn't that correct?

25 A. I believe it was known as state security. I can't say whether it

Page 5679

1 was known as secret police.

2 Q. State security. It was known as the state security; isn't that

3 correct?

4 MS. REIDY: Well, Judge Mumba, I think it's perfectly within the

5 witness's competence to answer about the dealings with the AID and

6 dealings with this institution. Specific facts about the history and

7 exact name and exact title and that is not something that he was called

8 here to testify on, about the -- certainly about their dealings with it,

9 and the relationship in terms of documents, but historical accuracy is, I

10 don't believe, within the competence of this witness and it's not

11 appropriate to put that question to him.

12 JUDGE MUMBA: No, I don't think it's not appropriate. It is

13 appropriate, and the witness can only tell the Trial Chamber what he

14 knows. If he doesn't know, he will say so. Let the witness answer

15 according to what he knows.

16 Yes, Ms. Baen.

17 MS. BAEN: I'm reading the transcript to see where I am. Just let

18 me repeat the last question and we'll move on.

19 Q. Mr. O'Donnell, so the AID, prior to 1996, was known as the state

20 security; isn't that correct?

21 A. That is correct.

22 Q. Now, Mr. O'Donnell, I'd like to do sort of the same thing, very

23 quickly going through the different documents contained in P45 ID that you

24 went through with Ms. Reidy yesterday. If you could put that set of

25 documents in front of you, we will try to move through those in a similar

Page 5680

1 fashion. Just let me know when you have them. We'll roll on. Let me

2 know. Do you have them in front of you?

3 A. I do not have the collection of documents. I have, I believe, all

4 the documents in their original tabulation.

5 JUDGE MUMBA: I think he can be shown the copy with the

6 Registry --

7 MS. BAEN: Thank you, Your Honour. And also a copy of PID 3,

8 please.

9 THE WITNESS: My apologies, I thought you were referring to the

10 associated documents. I have the copies of the main Variant A/Variant B

11 document.

12 MS. BAEN:

13 Q. That's actually what I'm talking about. I'm sorry if I confused

14 you when I said supporting documents or whatever I said. It's P45 ID,

15 that set.

16 A. Okay.

17 Q. And then also a copy of PID 3. Okay. Mr. O'Donnell, I want to

18 work through this set of documents, and I would like for you to turn to

19 P45 ID/1 and /2, if you could turn to those? I'm going to ask you for

20 each document in this set of documents, not about the content or the

21 writing, but when you look at the document itself, does it look different

22 in any way from PID 3? Okay? In other words, if there are any stray

23 marks, if there is underlining or circles, there is a different number,

24 okay? So my question right now is, if you will turn to P45 ID/1 and /2,

25 which appear to be the same document, and tell me, on page 1, do you see

Page 5681

1 anything different on page 1 when you compare it to PID 3?

2 A. Apart from the number in the top right-hand corner, no.

3 Q. Now, what about the number in the very -- the top in the middle of

4 the page?

5 A. I'm sorry, those handwritten notations on the top of the page are

6 different.

7 Q. Yes. That's different also from PID 3?

8 A. Yes, they are.

9 Q. Okay. And would you turn to page -- the fifth page of both of

10 those documents? Look at those two pages and compare it with the fifth

11 page of PID 3 and tell me if there is any difference between those

12 documents.

13 A. The difference is the circling around some text in Cyrillic about

14 a third of the way down the page.

15 Q. So in other words, there is some handwriting on P45 ID/1 and /2

16 and there is none on PID 3; is that correct?

17 A. That's correct. One thing I'll just point out is PID 3 I have in

18 front of me is a translation.

19 MS. BAEN: Oh, well, Your Honours, we request, please, if we could

20 have the B/C/S version. PID 3, I'm sorry, Mr. Usher.

21 THE WITNESS: Thank you.

22 MS. BAEN:

23 Q. So now that you've had a chance to look at the B/C/S version, if

24 you could compare, tell me if your previous answers were all correct?

25 A. Yes, they were.

Page 5682

1 Q. All right. Let's move on to P45 ID/3 and /4. Have you found

2 that?

3 A. Yes, I have.

4 Q. Okay. Same thing, could you compare those two documents, which

5 look to be the same -- first of all, let me ask you, do /3 and /4 appear

6 to be copies of the same document?

7 A. Yes, they do.

8 Q. Okay. Now compare /3 and /4 with PID 3, the first page on those

9 documents and tell me what differences do you see, if any.

10 A. The differences are the number on the top, right-hand corner,

11 another number -- the number 55, and at the bottom of the page, the cross

12 and the circle around the date.

13 Q. Okay. Would you turn to the next page of that document, /3 and

14 /4, and tell me if you see anything different when you compare it to the

15 second page of PID 3?

16 JUDGE SINGH: Ms. Baen, when you say "anything different," are you

17 talking about the type script or are you talking about any notations made

18 by an individual, such as scratching, underlining and pen marks.

19 MS. BAEN: That's what I said at the beginning, Your Honour. I'm

20 not talking about the contents or the wording. I'm talking about stray

21 marks, circling, handwriting, anything that makes this -- these documents

22 appear different visually than PID 3.

23 JUDGE SINGH: Are we concerned about that or are we concerned

24 about what's in print? I mean, these documents you know the source from

25 where they came. They may have been handled by an individual who may have

Page 5683

1 put his own individual markings there. So how is that terribly relevant?

2 MS. BAEN: Because -- well, I'll tell you, the content seems to be

3 very, very relevant, and I understand why for the Prosecutors when they

4 are trying to authenticate it and show, I guess, the original source of

5 this document. They are trying to tie these documents together. Their

6 theory is obviously that there was one original and that there were many

7 copies distributed. It goes directly to the credibility of this evidence,

8 if all the copies that we have appear to be different than the evidence

9 that is sought to be put -- the document sought to be put in evidence

10 right now, PID 3.

11 JUDGE SINGH: But how does it add up to that? Because, you know,

12 the evidence is that these came from different municipalities, so they

13 were handled by different people apparently. So they have the

14 underlinings, just as you would have notes which you underline and the

15 other Defence counsel may not underline, having similar pages, because you

16 seem to be stressing on that a lot, but I don't see where that's leading

17 you to.

18 MS. BAEN: Well, Your Honour --

19 JUDGE SINGH: If there's some changes in the text itself, I think

20 perhaps that's what you should draw attention to. Concentrate on that.

21 MS. BAEN: I think it was established yesterday there's no

22 difference in the context. The analogy is one that you made, Your Honour,

23 about an artist -- say he makes a portrait. He makes -- he decides to

24 take his original and he wants to make 400 lithographs of that and sell

25 them separately. If you go to an art show and you see two different

Page 5684

1 lithographs that look very, very similar but have different marks on them,

2 the only way to determine what the original is is to compare them with the

3 original. Now, if the artist destroyed the original, there's no way to

4 compare it. You have to compare the copies and determine somehow by some

5 objective criteria what is authentic and what is original. So actually,

6 that's the exercise we're going through right now. It goes to the heart

7 of all this evidence of the OTP comparing PID 3 with all these other

8 "versions."

9 JUDGE SINGH: Well, I think in the example I gave, I was referring

10 to the numbers, firstly and, secondly, not what might happen to those

11 lithographs in long possession. I think they could be defaced or anything

12 else could happen to them. But I think the general idea was to show that

13 they came from one source.

14 MS. BAEN: Exactly, Your Honour. There's no way -- that's exactly

15 the issue. There's no way to show that all of these documents came from

16 the same source as PID 3. That's exactly my point. And maybe I'm going

17 about it mechanically the wrong way, Your Honour. I mean, maybe we should

18 just offer all these into evidence. I have to talk to my colleagues

19 before I do that, because I haven't consulted with them about that. But

20 if that will speed things up and help the Trial Chamber, then -- I

21 actually believe that you and I, Your Honour, are on the same page about

22 this. Maybe I'm just mechanically going about it in a way which is not as

23 appropriate as far -- to the Chamber. So maybe I should consult with my

24 colleagues and see if they want to go this other way that might save

25 time. I'm all for saving time on this.

Page 5685


2 MS. BAEN: Just one moment, please.

3 [Defence counsel confer]

4 MS. BAEN: Judge Singh and the rest of the members of the Trial

5 Chamber, I've consulted with my colleagues, and they told me to take my

6 own advice that I gave the witness yesterday, that we focus on PID 3 with

7 the "100" on it. So apparently they're all in agreement with the Trial

8 Chamber, and I'm just -- I need to move on with something else.

9 Q. Mr. O'Donnell, you can put those documents aside. And I want to

10 ask you -- yesterday, while we were discussing how these different

11 transcripts and minutes referred to some version of the A/B variant

12 document, we were -- actually, Ms. Reidy was discussing P46 ID/7 with

13 you. And you said -- actually --

14 MS. REIDY: Sorry, Your Honour. Just Ms. Baen, I think this is

15 the set of documents that I think Mr. O'Donnell has said that he mightn't

16 have had in front of him, the binder that indexed 1 through 11 that the

17 Bench had. But before we go on any further and confuse ourselves, I think

18 that should be clear he's got it in front of him.

19 MS. BAEN: Thanks, Ms. Reidy.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: Maybe the usher can give him. Are they already with

21 the witness? That is P46 ID?

22 THE WITNESS: The collection of documents are not there, sorry, in

23 front of me. I do, I believe, have all the documents separately that you

24 are referring to. So if you give me the ERN number and some details of

25 the document, I can find it.

Page 5686


2 Q. Okay. Thank you. That will help. It's P46 ID/7. If you can

3 turn to that. Yesterday, Ms. Reidy was discussing this document with

4 you. And she asked you if you could assist the Chamber in the relevance

5 of this document with respect to Variant A and Variant B. And I believe

6 your answer was that -- well, your answer was "This document is dated 27th

7 December 1992. On page 2 of the translation which is L0027212, it states

8 about halfway down the page, last line" --

9 A. Sorry. Could I have a minute to find the document. I've just got

10 the index showing which one is number 7. So if you give me a minute, I'll

11 find the document.

12 Q. Sure. Thanks. Just whenever you get it, let me know.

13 A. I have the document now in front of me. My apologies, Your

14 Honours.

15 Q. Could you just identify so there's no confusion --

16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. That's what I was about to ask.

17 MS. BAEN:

18 Q. So there's no confusion on the numbering, Mr. O'Donnell, could you

19 tell us what the title of the document is.

20 A. The document, "Minutes from the SDS Trnovo Municipal Board," dated

21 27 December 1991. The first page starts with L0027211.

22 MS. BAEN: Your Honour, just one second. Our numbers don't match

23 here. I'm going to ask him one question about this. So if you'll just

24 bear with me one second and make sure we have the right number.

25 JUDGE MUMBA: Maybe the problem is that the translation one shows

Page 5687

1 a different year. Not 1991, I think.

2 MS. BAEN: I think we've figured it out. I hope we finish this

3 hearing sometime. I'm sorry there's confusion.

4 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Have you got it, Ms. Baen?

5 MS. BAEN: Yes, Your Honour. I think we solved it here. It's

6 actually -- it should be 46 ID/2, and the ERN number at the top of the

7 page is 01901474.

8 JUDGE MUMBA: That's the one you want to discuss with the

9 witness?

10 MS. BAEN: Yes, Your Honour.


12 MS. BAEN:

13 Q. Mr. O'Donnell, when you've found this document, would you please

14 let me know. I have a couple of questions. We'll move on.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: That's the one showing the date in the left -- top

16 right-hand -- left top corner, 27th of December, 1991.

17 MS. BAEN: Yes, Your Honour.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: At 18 hours.

19 MS. BAEN: Yes.

20 A. I have that document in front of me.

21 Q. You remember discussing this document with Ms. Reidy yesterday?

22 A. Yes, I do.

23 Q. And this is entitled "An extract from the Minutes of the 3rd

24 Session of the executive committee of the Bosanska Krupa," et cetera, et

25 cetera; correct?

Page 5688

1 A. That's correct.

2 Q. Yesterday Ms. Reidy asked you what relevance this document had to

3 the -- all the Variant A/B documents; correct?

4 A. That's correct.

5 Q. And you stated to her yesterday that under the agenda of this

6 document at point 3(A), it's mentioned implementing the instruction on

7 establishing a crisis staff. Further down under 3(A), it states: "The

8 chairman briefed those present on the instruction on establishing SDS

9 crisis staffs in BH and in accordance with the set instructions proposed

10 the establishment of a crisis staff." Is that what your answer was?

11 A. I believe so, Your Honours.

12 Q. I'd like to show you a document now --

13 MS. BAEN: Yes. We're just asking that that be marked for

14 identification, please.

15 MS. REIDY: Perhaps we could have a copy of the document so we

16 could see whether we agree to --

17 MS. BAEN: It's a document you gave us.

18 MS. REIDY: Yes, it's a document I gave. I would like to know

19 whether the Defence have -- with the exception of Mr. Blagoje Simic, it's

20 the only document under the exhibit which the Defence have indicated they

21 intend to object to.

22 JUDGE MUMBA: I don't understand. You are saying this document

23 which the Defence are now about to discuss with the witness was given to

24 them by the Prosecution?

25 MS. REIDY: That's correct, Your Honours. I believe if you see in

Page 5689

1 the corner, there's a "C27" in handwriting. That corresponds to the

2 Prosecution exhibit list. And in correspondence with the Defence counsel

3 afterwards -- after the start of this trial, they indicated that this

4 document they would be objecting to -- to use or to introduction of.

5 JUDGE MUMBA: Well, I guess they have changed their mind.

6 MS. BAEN: We're not offering it into evidence.

7 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. So can we have the number, please.

8 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours. It's D31 ID/ter.

9 JUDGE MUMBA: And the Serbo-Croat version?

10 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours. It's D31 ID/ter -- ter/2.

11 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. It's going to be D32/2 ter ID.

12 THE REGISTRAR: That's correct, Your Honour.

13 JUDGE MUMBA: You can go ahead.

14 THE REGISTRAR: Just for the record, I'm sorry, Your Honours.

15 It's D31 ID and D31 ter ID/2. Not D32, but D31. Thank you.

16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, D31. Thank you.

17 MS. BAEN:

18 Q. Mr. O'Donnell, do you have a copy of D31 ID/ter in front of

19 you -- /2?

20 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. The English version is the one which doesn't

21 have a ter.

22 MS. BAEN: Right.

23 JUDGE MUMBA: Ter is for the Serbo-Croat version.

24 MS. BAEN: I understand.

25 Q. Could you read the copy, excuse me, the title of this document?

Page 5690

1 A. The document is titled, "Extract from the instructions for work of

2 Crisis Staffs of the Serbian people in municipalities."

3 Q. So you mentioned that the document that Ms. Reidy discussed with

4 you yesterday was relevant to support the existence of the Variant A/B, or

5 legitimacy of the A/B document, because it mentioned the instructions on

6 establishing a Crisis Staff and the instruction on establishing SDS Crisis

7 Staffs in BH, and so you're telling us that that mention in that -- that

8 the mention of that document in this transcript is the Variant A/B

9 document and not the one that you have in front of you; is that correct?

10 A. I believe so, Your Honours.

11 Q. So is it possible that they could have been referring to this

12 document you have in front of you instead of a Variant A/B document?

13 A. Your Honours, I think that's unlikely because the document I've

14 been given is sent out five months after the extract from the minutes of

15 the third session of the executive committee of Bosanska Krupa, which was

16 the 27th of December, some eight days after the Variant A and Variant B

17 document was --

18 Q. Right. My question to you is: Is it possible that there is a

19 document like this?

20 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Ms. Reidy?

21 MS. REIDY: Your Honour, I think the witness has answered the

22 question to the best of his knowledge. "Is it possible?" I think now

23 calls for speculation which he can't possibly answer, and that is a

24 submission that Ms. Baen is free to make in the final submissions as to

25 whether -- in her whole argument about the admissibility of PID 3. I

Page 5691

1 think the witness has given his answer once and now she's asking him to

2 speculate further.

3 MS. BAEN: I'm not asking him to speculate. He's here for

4 cross-examination and yesterday, in support of this Variant A and B

5 documents --

6 JUDGE MUMBA: Ms. Baen, the point is he had already answered your

7 question which you're now saying, "Is it possible?" That's all that

8 Ms. Baen is referring to -- I mean Ms. Reidy is referring to.

9 MS. BAEN: That's all I want him to answer.

10 Q. Is it possible they could have been talking about another

11 document, yes or no. Is it possible?

12 A. It is possible.

13 MS. BAEN: Thank you.

14 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Actually, Ms. Baen, I just have one question I'd

15 just like to direct to Mr. O'Donnell. The document D31 ID, has a

16 different title to the one in document P46 ID/2. Do you think that makes

17 a difference? 31 ID says "Instructions for work of Crisis Staffs of the

18 Serbian people in municipalities," and the other document, 46 ID/2, uses

19 the words "instruction on establishing." So one says "establishing" and

20 one says "instructions for work." Do you think you could be of some

21 assistance in giving your opinion based on your knowledge on that,

22 please?

23 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, I would have to look through the

24 document in detail to be able to give a proper answer, but it would appear

25 that the extract from the meetings of the third session from Bosanska

Page 5692

1 Krupa are establishing a Crisis Staff some eight days after the Variant A

2 and Variant B document is calling for the establishment of the Crisis

3 Staff. So it would appear to me to be more connected with that document

4 than this other document. But of course, the other factor is that this

5 document is 26 of April, 1992, whereas the establishment of the Crisis

6 Staff is five months beforehand. So I don't see how it could possibly be

7 connected to this -- I don't know how they could have established the

8 Crisis Staff in line with this document which came out five months later.


10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, the one you're saying is dated 26th of April,

11 1992, is D31/2, yes.

12 MS. BAEN:

13 Q. Mr. O'Donnell, I want to talk to you now about the quote original

14 unquote of PID 3 that we -- or the OTP had brought to court here

15 yesterday.

16 JUDGE MUMBA: Before you forget about it, D31, you want it

17 admitted into evidence?

18 MS. BAEN: I was just using it for cross-examination purposes,

19 Your Honour. I'm not offering it into evidence at this time, thank you.


21 MS. BAEN: Okay.

22 Q. Moving on to the quote original unquote of PID 3 that was brought

23 to court here yesterday, sometime back in October of last year, I met with

24 you, and there were a couple of other Defence lawyers there, to view this

25 document; is that correct?

Page 5693












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 5694

1 A. That is correct.

2 Q. At that time, you basically went through the same procedure of

3 putting on the gloves, the protective gloves; isn't that correct?

4 A. I believe so.

5 Q. And up until that time that you broke the seal on the document,

6 back in October, you had -- you've had this -- you have had this document

7 back since 1997, the seal had never been broken, had it?

8 A. That is correct.

9 Q. Okay. And the reason you had this quote original unquote, which

10 as you testified is a Xeroxed copy with a handwritten "100" on it, the

11 reason why this was under seal is because you and/or the OTP planned on

12 doing additional testing on it, possibly such as fingerprints or DNA, et

13 cetera; isn't that correct?

14 A. Not exactly, Your Honours. It was to have the possibility of

15 doing that, and therefore maintaining the document in good condition

16 should we choose to do that.

17 Q. You might want to do some tests on this document to determine who

18 has touched it, who has knowledge of it, maybe even who actually received

19 it, from whatever source; isn't that correct?

20 JUDGE SINGH: Ms. Baen, do forgive me, but how do you do that?

21 MS. BAEN: You'll have to ask the investigator. I was a

22 Prosecutor for a long time but I'm not an expert --

23 JUDGE SINGH: But you must have some idea how that is to be done,

24 if it can be done, before you ask this witness that question, because I

25 can't see that would be possible, knowing the circumstances in which the

Page 5695

1 document was taken, knowing the circumstances in which the document was

2 made, and purportedly the circumstances through which it's issued, I think

3 that's an unnecessary question. Would you like to move on to the next

4 question?

5 MS. BAEN: I'm just about done, but I'm actually on the same page

6 with you again, Judge Singh. I was a Prosecutor for quite sometime and I

7 was surprised when, in our meeting, I was told that it was under seal.

8 When I asked why this document had been under seal, he said because we

9 might want to do some fingerprint testing or DNA. That was the first time

10 I had heard of it. So I was kind of on the same page with you. I think

11 that's impossible. So that's --

12 JUDGE SINGH: Maybe it was just a thought.

13 THE WITNESS: For the record, DNA was certainly never mentioned in

14 our discussion. I also did not say that we planned to do tests on the

15 document.

16 MS. BAEN:

17 Q. Okay. My question for you at our meeting, was it not why are

18 you -- why are you keeping this document under seal all these years and

19 handling it with gloves? And what I was told, was I not, it's because you

20 might want to do some testing on it and fingerprints was mentioned; is

21 that not correct?

22 A. I think it was in the past tense that we may have wanted to, and

23 the conversation, although I can't recall the actual words, was about us

24 having the possibility of doing testing.

25 Q. Let me ask you this: Why has this document remained under seal --

Page 5696

1 if the fingerprint tests were past tense, why is it still remaining under

2 seal?

3 JUDGE MUMBA: Is that relevant, Ms. Baen? Is that relevant?

4 MS. BAEN: Yes, Your Honour, because this goes straight to

5 authentication.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: What? Because of?

7 MS. BAEN: The reliability of the document, it goes to possible

8 authentication of the document and relevance in connection to any of these

9 men in this room, if there is any kind of test possible, which in the past

10 apparently the OTP thought there was, then I need to ask the questions

11 about that to see if there is any possible link to my client. Could

12 possibly be exculpatory information, it actually could be inculpatory, if

13 it links this defendant to the document in any way. I would sure like to

14 know why this important document has been under seal and all the other

15 documents haven't. That's -- and I find it's really, really relevant, and

16 I only have about three more questions and I'm done. I'm hopefully going

17 to be able to sit down. And I think this witness can answer it. I think

18 he has the knowledge to answer these questions.

19 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. I suppose he can go ahead and answer them. I

20 just wanted to find out your explanation.

21 THE WITNESS: Your Honours, at the time that this document was

22 obtained by myself in 1997, the document had obviously been handled by

23 different people. At that stage, we did not know whether it would be

24 possible, firstly, to do any tests on the document, such as fibre

25 comparison, fingerprinting, or other document examination. But so that we

Page 5697

1 would have the opportunity of doing that at a later date, should we choose

2 to, the document was put under seal and it was placed in evidence.

3 Because we wanted to maintain the document in good condition, the document

4 has remained under seal. Through subsequent inquiries, with the

5 corroboration of the document, in the evidence I've outlined, there have

6 been no tests performed on the document.


8 Q. Okay. So my last question is: You're saying from this point

9 forward, the OTP has no plans of doing any tests on PID 3; is that

10 correct?

11 MS. REIDY: Your Honour, again, I'm sorry, Mr. O'Donnell is here

12 to testify as an investigator. I don't think he can testify whether ever

13 in the future the OTP -- someone else on the trial team can do that. Is

14 she asking him what does he personally intend? Again, depending on

15 investigations, it's just speculation and irrelevant, frankly.

16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Ms. Baen, the objection is sustained.

17 MS. BAEN: Okay. I have no further questions.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: Any other counsel?

19 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour, but I have just a couple of

20 questions. It will not take too long.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: You can go ahead.

22 MR. PANTELIC: If I may, I have a suggestion. I would follow the

23 spirit of this hearing -- well, I have a Variant A suggestion and a

24 Variant B suggestion, which means that I don't have these originals of

25 documents that we were provided only in English version. Therefore I'm

Page 5698

1 not able to have my cross-examination -- my part of cross-examination in

2 total. If my learned friends can help us, I suggest -- I respectfully

3 suggest that we have a break now. If during that break we could possibly

4 obtain the B/S/C version of these documents, then I will shortly consult

5 my client and we will be ready for this part of cross-examination.

6 And Variant B would be, if it's not possible to find these

7 documents, to have another witness here - we have a list of witnesses - to

8 have him examined in-chief and then later on, maybe Mr. O'Donnell, who is

9 practically here within this building, can come and finish this part of

10 examination. That would be my suggestion. So I ask for your

11 instructions, please.

12 JUDGE MUMBA: Ms. Reidy, is the document available?

13 MS. REIDY: Your Honour, it's not available -- it's not that it's

14 never going to be available. It's not available right at this moment. I

15 just got a message back saying that the person who believe -- that can

16 find it in archives in the original is currently -- has currently received

17 a message and is looking for it. I don't have it here. But may I just

18 suggest -- I take it and it seems to me an implication from what

19 Mr. Pantelic is saying that in the absence of this B/C/S translation, he

20 has no other examinations on the cross-examination -- no examination -- no

21 questions on cross-examination relating to Variant A/Variant B. It may

22 assist the Trial Chamber if Mr. Pantelic simply inquire of the

23 investigator what -- to what extent he can help either the Chamber or

24 Mr. Pantelic about this letter, this correspondence, and if it does appear

25 it would be useful and it's worth cross-examining him on it, we would then

Page 5699

1 suspend it until obviously Mr. Pantelic has time to read the original

2 B/C/S and take appropriate instruction from his client. Failing that, as

3 I said, we can break, and I'll notify the Senior Legal Officer the minute

4 we have an original B/C/S version. But again, I'm not clear it's

5 essential for the conduct of this trial.

6 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honours, Your Honours, if I may just add, no,

7 I'm afraid, no, I'm afraid, I cannot proceed with cross-examination

8 without this particular document, so that's my point. And I'm also agreed

9 to have another witness in chief and then in the meantime, the Prosecution

10 can collect all these necessary documents, because I don't want to follow

11 the practice of my learned colleague Ms. Baen to have various areas of

12 cross-examination and then waiting for the other documents. Thank you so

13 much.

14 [Trial Chamber confers]

15 JUDGE MUMBA: The Trial Chamber is of the view that we stand down

16 this witness, Mr. O'Donnell, until such time that the document sought by

17 Mr. Pantelic is found. Then we can go ahead with the next witness.

18 MS. REIDY: Your Honour, may I just ask would the Chamber be

19 assisted in having a copy of this correspondence, the one that

20 Mr. Pantelic is demanding is important to his cross-examination so that

21 you're fully advised of the nature of this document, and given that he

22 said it's very important to him. We will, of course, immediately inform

23 you the minute the B/C/S version is in our hands. But it may be of

24 assistance so you know exactly the nature of this document.

25 [Trial Chamber confers]

Page 5700

1 JUDGE MUMBA: The Trial Chamber would rather stand down the

2 witness, wait for the document to be found, and then Mr. Pantelic will

3 decide how best to conduct his cross-examination. It may be that if he

4 gets instructions after the Serbo-Croat document have been seen, he may

5 not even cross-examine. So we cannot see the document at this stage. And

6 for what purpose? To be able to say this is not relevant, that's not

7 possible.

8 We'll go ahead with the next witness, please.

9 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours, please, if I may just assist you,

10 I just want to remind you that you have given us permission to interpose

11 that other witness tomorrow.


13 MR. DI FAZIO: So it's now twenty to 4.00. Do you envisage us

14 attending to this task now and then continuing on this afternoon with this

15 particular witness? Because -- perhaps that's what we can do, and we'll

16 do everything we can.

17 JUDGE MUMBA: Maybe we'll have our break, and then we -- when we

18 come back, we'll start with the new witness, unless in the meantime the

19 document is found.

20 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. But if Your Honour pleases, naturally we will

21 do that if that's what the Trial Chamber wishes, but that might lead to

22 even more complications, with respect, because the one -- the witness for

23 tomorrow is not yet here. Okay?

24 Now, Mr. Weiner is going to be leading the next witness in the

25 case. If we start at him this afternoon, it would mean we go with him

Page 5701

1 this afternoon, stop him for tomorrow, while the other one comes in and

2 does his cross-examination, and then continue. And it might be disruptive

3 and -- I don't know. If the Chamber wishes to proceed that way, then

4 naturally. But with respect, might I suggest it might be smoother if we

5 try and finish this -- Mr. O'Donnell today, if possible, do the

6 cross-examination of the other chap tomorrow, and then start Mr. Weiner's

7 witness on -- God willing, on the Thursday. It might be smoother and less

8 choppy.

9 JUDGE MUMBA: Less cumbersome. All right.

10 Yes, Mr. Zecevic.

11 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, if I -- with all due respect, we

12 understood that that was the initial idea of the Prosecutor, to start the

13 witness, then pause the witness for Wednesday when the witness for the

14 cross-examination comes over, and then continue the examination-in-chief.

15 And that is what we have agreed on. I mean, we would like to proceed as

16 agreed. Thank you.

17 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. That was the original plan and agreement,

18 actually, that the witness for Wednesday -- if another witness is still on

19 the stand, we may have to interpose. I think we agreed on that.

20 So we will take our break and --

21 MS. REIDY: Your Honour, I'm very sorry --

22 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Ms. Reidy.

23 MS. REIDY: I think you will want to hear this. To explain, since

24 you don't have the document in front of you, there are three pages of

25 English translation which were given to the Defence before this

Page 5702

1 afternoon. The three pages are two documents. The first page is a very

2 short document dated the 15th of November, 2001. The second document is

3 one dated the 5th of November, 2001. And I have just received the B/C/S

4 version of that longer document. I said it's a -- in B/C/S, it's two

5 pages; it's a page and a bit in the English language. Perhaps I could

6 provide this now to Mr. Pantelic. He can have a look over it. We're

7 still trying to locate the first short document in B/C/S. But he may be

8 able to indicate to us after reading the original B/C/S whether or not we

9 can simply proceed with Mr. O'Donnell this afternoon, rather than break

10 his testimony.

11 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. We will -- you'll be able to discuss

12 that, and then you'll indicate to the Chamber whether Mr. O'Donnell will

13 continue or not when we resume at 16.15 hours.

14 --- Recess taken at 3.43 p.m.

15 --- On resuming at 4.20 p.m.

16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic.

17 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. Thank you, Your Honours.

18 Cross-examined by Mr. Pantelic:

19 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. O'Donnell.

20 A. Good afternoon.

21 Q. Could you tell us, Mr. O'Donnell, what is your current position

22 in -- within the OTP?

23 A. Currently I am an investigations team leader, Your Honours.

24 Q. And prior to this post, you were also in OTP -- working as OTP

25 members in the other positions?

Page 5703

1 A. Prior to that, I was an investigator with the OTP.

2 Q. Since?

3 A. Since 1996.

4 Q. And I assume that you travel very often to Bosnia and

5 Herzegovina.

6 A. Currently, no, Your Honours. I have in the past travelled

7 frequently to Bosnia and Herzegovina.

8 Q. How frequently, Mr. O'Donnell? Speaking about the period of 1996,

9 1997, 1998.

10 A. Your Honours, I couldn't say exactly, because it depends on the

11 work at the time. But during the period 1996 and 1997, I made frequent

12 trips to Bosnia.

13 Q. You're a lawyer by education?

14 A. No. I am an investigator.

15 Q. Yes. But my question was: What is your education, actually?

16 What is your background, profession background?

17 A. My professional background is as an investigator with the

18 Australian federal police, having joined about 20 years ago. Before

19 coming to the Tribunal, I was with the federal police. Since joining the

20 Tribunal, I've since resigned.

21 Q. And during your professional life in Australia in federal police,

22 could you very briefly explain us what was the area of your activities,

23 professional activities?

24 JUDGE MUMBA: What's the relevance of that? According to the

25 issue, what is the relevance of that?

Page 5704

1 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honours, simply I want to know whether this

2 witness is professionally educated to give us some other answers with

3 regard to the, I would say, counterparts of OTP in Bosnia, which is agency

4 AID. So --

5 JUDGE MUMBA: You just ask him the questions which are relevant,

6 that's all. I don't think that what he used to do before he joined the

7 OTP, having given us his professional background, is relevant.

8 MR. PANTELIC: I agree.

9 Q. Sir, during your frequent trips to Bosnia, we could agree that you

10 have very frequent and often relations, professional relations, with the

11 members of the AID?

12 A. That is correct.

13 Q. What is exactly means this abbreviation, AID, could you tell the

14 Chamber, please?

15 A. I think I answered that yesterday. I believe the acronym is the

16 Agency for Research and Documentation in Bosnia. And Your Honours, I

17 cannot be completely sure of that.

18 Q. Do you know when this agency was established, founded?

19 A. I believe it was around 1996, but again, my knowledge in that area

20 is very limited.

21 Q. And are you familiar with the organisation which was the basis,

22 prior to establishment of AID in Bosnia?

23 A. When you say "familiar with it," I've been told what the

24 organisation was, as I stated before, state security, but I'm not familiar

25 with the organisation.

Page 5705

1 Q. But you know that the basis for AID agency was state security of

2 Bosnia?

3 A. That is my understanding, yes.

4 Q. Are you familiar with the fact that after the collapse of all

5 mutual institutions in Bosnia, the MOS organisation, which means the

6 Muslim Intelligence Service, was formed?

7 A. I do not believe I've ever heard of the acronym MOS.

8 Q. And are you familiar with the fact that currently, and also during

9 the war, of course, in Bosnia, at least two state police operated, on the

10 Bosnian Serb side and on the side of Muslim-Croat federation?

11 A. I believe so, yes.

12 Q. And sir, we could agree upon the fact that I would say not all but

13 majority of intelligence agencies are also in the course of their duties

14 and activities sometimes through the agents making forgeries?

15 MS. REIDY: Your Honour, this is purely now speculation. Again, I

16 think if we look at the transcript closely and see "majority of

17 intelligence agencies in the course of their duties sometimes make

18 forgeries," it's a completely speculative, abstract question, which I

19 don't think is relevant.


21 MR. PANTELIC: I withdraw this question, Your Honours.

22 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.


24 Q. Sir, are you familiar with the acronym KOS?

25 A. I have heard the acronym before. I have no expertise in that area

Page 5706

1 and cannot tell you about the organisation that that refers to.

2 Q. So you don't know the name of this organisation?

3 A. No, I do not.

4 Q. Did you hear about the former JNA -- or could we agree upon the

5 fact that the acronym KOS is actually the former JNA intelligence service,

6 army intelligence service?

7 A. That is my understanding, but again, I really do not have

8 knowledge in that area.

9 Q. Thank you. And again, we could agree upon the fact that the

10 Bosnian state police was actually Muslim secret police; is that correct?

11 A. As I stated earlier in my testimony, I don't know whether it was

12 also known as the secret police. My understanding was that the

13 predecessor to the AID was the state security.

14 Q. Okay. But sir, you are a well-experienced police officer. You

15 are the well-trained investigator of the OTP. Could we agree upon the

16 fact that the state police normally not wearing uniforms, they are

17 operating under cover, yes or no?

18 MS. REIDY: Again, Your Honour, I can't see -- maybe Mr. Pantelic

19 could address the uniform of the -- the relevance of the uniform in

20 general of state security officers to the admissibility of Variant

21 A/Variant B.

22 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic? I think sometimes we are beating

23 about the bush.

24 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Mr. Pantelic, I wonder whether, just on the note

25 of this service for state security, the witness quite clearly got

Page 5707

1 information on AID and its predecessor in two of the witness statements of

2 the witnesses he interviewed. So he might well have knowledge through his

3 conversations and questions with the witnesses rather than a broader

4 general personal knowledge.

5 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour. I follow your instructions.

6 Q. So Mr. O'Donnell, after analysing a statement that we were

7 provided this morning, you could agree with me that the --

8 MS. REIDY: I'm sorry. Before Mr. Pantelic goes any further,

9 could he make clear what the statement that he received this morning is,

10 so that we all -- so that we as well as the witness could understand what

11 he is being asked to agree with. He just says "a statement we received

12 this morning." It could be one statement or indeed the last document.

13 JUDGE MUMBA: Okay. He should specify.

14 MR. PANTELIC: Absolutely. Yes. My apologies. I'm speaking

15 about the document D27/2 and then D28/2, D29/2, and D30/2. These are the

16 statements of the agents of the current secret police of Bosnia and

17 Herzegovina given to the -- Mr. O'Donnell. And in these statements --

18 JUDGE MUMBA: No. Mr. -- According to the description, these are

19 the statements made by the employees of AID.

20 MR. PANTELIC: AID, yes. My mistake. Sorry, Your Honour.

21 Q. In fact, Mr. O'Donnell, I'm speaking about the first statement

22 given to you on 25 -- 25th November 1997. The ERN number is 00562530.

23 THE INTERPRETER: Could you please slow down for the translation.

24 Thank you.

25 JUDGE MUMBA: And can you also give us the identification number.

Page 5708

1 MR. PANTELIC: It's D27/2.


3 MR. PANTELIC: And the ERN number, the page of this statement,

4 it's 00562530.

5 Q. So Mr. O'Donnell, did you find? Sorry.

6 A. Yes, I have that in front of me.

7 Q. On this page, actually, you were in contact with the agents --

8 police agents of AID organisation. And you are in fact familiar that they

9 prior to the work in AID were engaged in state security police of Bosnia.

10 You are familiar with that fact?

11 A. That is correct.

12 Q. Thank you. And then, Mr. O'Donnell, we are speaking about the

13 document D30/2, which is a statement of 25th and 26th November 1997. The

14 page in question is 00 -- ERN number is 00562522. And this is the

15 paragraph -- it's paragraph 7 and 8. And it seems to me that the agent in

16 question who gave you this statement was the member of -- of military

17 intelligence service. And he stated in paragraph 7 and 8 that the sources

18 for all documents related to SDS and JNA were also other parties and also

19 the former Territorial Defence which is later B and H army, in your work.

20 MS. REIDY: Your Honour, I'd like object to Mr. Pantelic reading

21 into the record inaccurate references from the document. If he'd prefer

22 the witness to address, he can. But as a question, he's putting

23 inaccurate statements on the record, purporting that they are from the

24 document. And I would object to that.

25 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic. Exactly which paragraph --

Page 5709

1 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, the documents is into evidence. We

2 have these documents, so I don't see any particular problem.

3 JUDGE MUMBA: No. It's your interpretation of the contents of the

4 document which the Prosecution is objecting to as inaccurate.

5 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. In order to resolve this situation, I think

6 Mr. O'Donnell can read these two short paragraphs, these few sentences.


8 MR. PANTELIC: And then we shall resolve this matter. Because I

9 choose, I would say, one bypass, shortcut to speed up proceedings.

10 Q. Okay. Mr. O'Donnell, would you be so kind as to read us six --

11 actually seven and eight paragraph, the -- in the statement.

12 A. Certainly.

13 Q. Please.

14 A. Paragraph 7 is as follows: "The documents in the possession of

15 the service were mostly seized in the Sarajevo area during 1992 and 1993.

16 The documents held mainly consisted of former JNA documents and SDS

17 documentation located in official buildings, residences of SDS members,

18 and buildings used by the SDS."

19 Paragraph 8 is as follows: "Documentation was also handed into

20 the service by other parties because we had the legal duty to collect such

21 documentation. The Territorial Defence, which later became the BiH army,

22 submitted a large quantity of documentation, and citizens who found

23 important documents also handed them in."

24 Q. Thank you.

25 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honours, could you just bear with me for a

Page 5710

1 second. I have to check these documents. Please.

2 Q. Yes. Now, Mr. O'Donnell, I'm speaking about the document D29/2,

3 which is also a statement given on 21st and 22nd November and 18th

4 December, 1997. Unfortunately, I don't see the ERN number here but it is

5 page 2 of this statement. And you can confirm that the agent in question

6 actually was a member of the BH army and also agent of the AID agency; is

7 that correct?

8 A. It is correct that he speaks about having been those two things

9 but not at the same time.

10 Q. Please. Could you explain, yeah, of course?

11 A. In paragraph 1, he states that he is an operational worker with

12 the department, within the Sarajevo sector of the AID, that he has held

13 that position since starting with the AID, which is from May, 1994, but

14 then it says, "From the start of the war until May, 1994, I was a member

15 of the BiH army."

16 Q. Yes. Thank you, Mr. O'Donnell. Now, I'm turning to your list of

17 supporting documents for your testimony. It's actually list of --

18 consisted of 11 documents, speaking about the various minutes and

19 decisions related to Crisis Staff, various Crisis Staffs in Bosnia. My

20 first question is: Have you ever visited Samac, town Samac, during your

21 activities, professional activities?

22 A. I do not believe that I have.

23 Q. You know that Samac is in -- on the northern part of Bosnia, on

24 the Sava River?

25 A. Yes, I do.

Page 5711

1 Q. We could agree roughly that the distance between Samac and

2 Sarajevo is around 250 kilometres, more or less?

3 A. I could not say in terms of kilometres.

4 Q. Do you know what is the distance between Banja Luka and Sarajevo,

5 please?

6 MS. REIDY: Your Honours, I'm sure that if Mr. Pantelic wants this

7 evidence on the record, he could provide a map of which you could take

8 judicial notice of the fact that according to a map there is so many

9 kilometres distance between Banja Luka and Sarajevo. It's a waste of time

10 to continue to ask this witness that question.

11 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic. You have understood what Ms.

12 Reidy is saying.

13 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. May I have the assistance of the usher? I

14 have one copy of the map. I don't want to tender it into evidence but I

15 just want to --

16 JUDGE MUMBA: You can state what the kilometres are.

17 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honours, I want to locate all these places

18 where the alleged document in question was mentioned or found, so just to

19 have an impression of the area, of the area where, in relation to Samac,

20 is, for example, the town of Prijedor or Kljuc or Bosanska Krupa because

21 this is the line of questioning which is important for our case.

22 JUDGE MUMBA: Well, you can simply mention the places and say, you

23 know, and say -- ask the witness --

24 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, I agree.

25 JUDGE MUMBA: Not the distances because that is a -- on the map.

Page 5712

1 We can take judicial notice of that.


3 Q. Mr. O'Donnell, we could agree on the fact that the towns Prijedor,

4 Bosanska Krupa, Bosanski Petrovac and Kljuc are actually on the

5 northwestern side of Bosnia; is that correct?

6 A. That's correct.

7 Q. And also we could agree that the town Donji Vakuf is actually

8 north-west of -- well, yeah, north-west of Sarajevo?

9 A. Yes, that is correct.

10 Q. And also, we could agree that a place named Trnovo is south of

11 Sarajevo?

12 A. That is correct.

13 Q. And then the town Tuzla is north-east of Sarajevo -- or rather

14 north; is that correct?

15 A. That is correct.

16 Q. Thank you. By the way, Mr. O'Donnell, have you visited all these

17 places during your missions?

18 A. No, I have not. I have visited some of those places.

19 Q. So basically, your contact is in Sarajevo in this area of Sarajevo

20 with your colleagues from AID agency; is that correct?

21 A. Your Honours, I've had contact with people from different parts of

22 Bosnia. Some of the contact in relation to this document has been with

23 officials in Sarajevo, some has been with officials in parts of the west

24 of Bosnia and also with officials from the Republika Srpska in Pale.

25 Q. Thank you, Mr. O'Donnell.

Page 5713

1 MR. PANTELIC: Now, Your Honours, I would like to tender into

2 evidence - of course with ID numbers if, according to our practice - the

3 correspondence between the Office of the Prosecutor and the relevant

4 authorities of Republika Srpska, because now I have -- and I would like to

5 thank our learned colleagues. I have also B/C/S versions of this

6 correspondence and also English version, and also enough copies for Trial

7 Chamber.

8 JUDGE MUMBA: What is the correspondence dealing with?

9 MR. PANTELIC: Correspondence is actually related with the

10 document, alleged document, Variant A and B.

11 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. You can go ahead.


13 Q. Mr. O'Donnell, you -- did you made any contact --

14 JUDGE MUMBA: Can you wait so that we can follow with the

15 numbering?

16 MR. PANTELIC: Sorry, Your Honours.

17 JUDGE MUMBA: Although they are stapled together, they seem to

18 have been written at different dates.

19 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour, I can give --

20 JUDGE MUMBA: Which one can we begin with.

21 MR. PANTELIC: In fact, if you want, I could make a reference, but

22 now I'm speaking about a document dated 5th of November, 2001. The --

23 sent by the Serb Democratic Party main office of Pale to Ministry of

24 Justice of Republika Srpska. I believe it is the fourth page in this

25 bundle of documents.

Page 5714

1 JUDGE MUMBA: It has the Serbo-Croat equivalent -- does it have

2 the Serbo-Croat version?

3 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, yes, Your Honour. It is also in this, I would

4 say, bundle of documents.

5 JUDGE MUMBA: Is it the one numbered on the top, right-hand corner

6 02162024?

7 MR. PANTELIC: That's correct, Your Honour.

8 JUDGE MUMBA: Okay. Can we have the number? You did say you

9 wanted to tender into evidence.

10 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. My suggestion would be, Your Honour, because

11 all this correspondence is related to this particular issue, maybe to have

12 one number, and then, if a party would like to make any reference, there

13 is an ERN number and also there are the dates.

14 JUDGE MUMBA: No. I think it is better because we are going to

15 have a slash for the number of the accused.

16 Any objection from the Prosecution?

17 MS. REIDY: I don't think we have any objection to this specific

18 document. But just consistent with our former objection, we thought that

19 everything would be ID until the former resolution. But specifically to

20 this document, anything different from our former objection, we don't

21 have.

22 JUDGE MUMBA: Okay. Can we have it numbered as an exhibit.

23 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours. The B/C/S version of this

24 document is -- will be Exhibit D23/1 ter, and the English version D23/1.

25 MR. PANTELIC: All right. So this is the D23/1. This is the

Page 5715

1 letter from the Republika Srpska Serb Democratic Party main office.

2 And then, Your Honours, I would kindly ask a number for the --

3 another document, which is the letter signed by Deputy Prosecutor

4 Mr. Blewitt, dated 30 of July, 2001, English and as well B/C/S version,

5 sent to a liaison officer of Republika Srpska.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: Can we have the number, please.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours. The B/C/S version is D24/1

8 ter, and the English version is D24/1.

9 MR. PANTELIC: And finally, Your Honours, speaking about the

10 letter dated 15th of November, 2001. It's a letter of SDS presidency,

11 sent to Ministry of Justice of Republika Srpska, English and B/S/C

12 version.

13 JUDGE MUMBA: Can I have the number, please.

14 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours. The B/C/S version will be

15 D25/1 ter, and the English version will be Exhibit D25/1.

16 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you. Thank you very much.

17 Q. Now, Mr. O'Donnell, speaking about the document D23/1, did you

18 have any official contact during your missions in Bosnia with Ms. Rajka

19 Stanisic?

20 A. Yes, I did.

21 Q. On which occasion you were in professional conduct was Ms. Rajka

22 Stanisic. Could you tell the Chamber, please.

23 A. Your Honours, at the end of 1997 and the beginning of 1998, I

24 spoke with Ms. Stanisic in Pale.

25 Q. What was the reason to speak with Ms. Rajka Stanisic?

Page 5716

1 A. Myself and other members of the Office of the Prosecutor were in

2 Pale on an official mission to the Republika Srpska government and met

3 with various government officials at the invitation of the government of

4 Republika Srpska.

5 Q. All right. Tell me, Mr. O'Donnell, do you know Mr. Milovan

6 Bjelica, the person Mr. Milovan Bjelica?

7 A. I do not believe that I've ever met that person.

8 Q. Would you be so kind as to read the last paragraph of this letter,

9 signed by Mr. Milovan Bjelica. The ERN number is 02162023. Just a couple

10 of words. The second page that you just have in front of you.

11 A. Your Honours, the paragraph reads: "The Main Board as well as any

12 other SDS body never considered or instructed the organisation and

13 activation of Serb people in BiH at its sessions. We were informed that

14 such instructions were given by a certain number of retired officers of

15 the former Yugoslav People's Army."

16 Q. Thank you. So it is possible, Mr. O'Donnell, that for example, a

17 number of military intelligence officers could be the author of this

18 document in question, Variant A and B.

19 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Ms. Reidy.

20 MS. REIDY: I'm going to again object to this. Mr. O'Donnell has

21 read out the paragraph that's in the record. This is clearly the

22 assertion by the person -- the author who signed this letter. Again, to

23 ask Mr. O'Donnell whether this is possible or not is again not within his

24 knowledge to say. He's already given his evidence about his corroboration

25 of Variant A and Variant B, and he's now asking him to comment on the

Page 5717

1 opinion of a SDS person he's never met.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic.

3 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour. Given the fact of the -- I mean,

4 the professional background of Mr. O'Donnell and his experience, maybe we

5 he can give us from this angle his opinion. I mean, without any final

6 conclusions.

7 JUDGE MUMBA: In that case, are you asking for his opinion not on

8 the basis of the statement in this particular document?

9 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, in general. In general, given a fact that

10 he's very familiar and experienced in the last five years of the events in

11 Bosnia. So maybe he can give the -- his professional opinion.

12 Q. Is it possible, simply? Yes or no?

13 A. I would say it is not possible.

14 Q. Thank you. Now, Mr. O'Donnell, it should be my last question. I

15 would like to pose a question about the alleged document of Variant A and

16 B with number 100 that you are speaking about. This is the document P3

17 ID. Would you be so kind to find this document in your binder, English

18 version, of course, which is certificate translation?

19 A. I have that document in front of me.

20 Q. Thank you. Would you be so kind, Mr. O'Donnell, to read the

21 heading, actually, the title on the right upper side of this document --

22 left, sorry. My mistake. Left side of this document.

23 A. On the top left-hand side of the document is written "Serbian

24 Democratic Party of Bosnia and Herzegovina Main Board."

25 Q. Thank you. I assume that the author of this alleged document is

Page 5718

1 the SDS of B and H Main Board. Yes or no?

2 A. It appears to be.

3 Q. Now, Mr. O'Donnell, would you be so kind to take a short look on

4 the last page of this document. Be so kind to read to the Chamber and to

5 us what is the title of the -- on the -- in the middle of this page on the

6 right -- left-hand side, please.

7 A. At the bottom of the typing on the right-hand side is "SDS Crisis

8 Staff."

9 Q. And we could agree that in this particular moment we are speaking

10 about two different institutions, yes or no, Mr. O'Donnell?

11 A. I cannot comment on that, Your Honours.

12 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you. That was the end of my

13 cross-examination. Thank you for your attentions, Your Honours.

14 JUDGE MUMBA: Any other counsel wishing to cross-examine? No?

15 Re-examination?

16 MS. REIDY: Yes, thank you, Your Honour.

17 Re-examined by Ms. Reidy:

18 Q. Mr. O'Donnell, I am going to start my re-examination in the order

19 of Defence counsel who cross-examined you, so my first questions will

20 relate to the questions posed by Ms. Baen on behalf of Milan Simic.

21 Ms. Baen inquired of you during her cross whether or not in the

22 documents you had reviewed in your investigation, documents from

23 Bosnia-Herzegovina usually have a stamp or a seal or a signature, and

24 asked you whether that proposition was correct and you said, "Yes, that is

25 correct." Can I ask you, whilst you agree that official documents usually

Page 5719

1 have a stamp or a seal, in your knowledge, from examination of documents,

2 is it the case that they always have a signature or a seal?

3 A. No. That is not the case. I am aware of other documents from the

4 Main Board issued in Bosnia, which do not have a signature or seal.

5 Q. Thank you. Could you -- is it possible to tell the Chamber any

6 examples of these documents, the title of any of these documents?

7 A. One of the documents was the instructions for voting. One of the

8 documents --

9 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, with all due respect, we have to

10 object to this. We have never been presented this document which is the

11 voting whatever document. We got two binders of the documents, which my

12 colleagues were presenting us in -- during this hearing about the A and B

13 document. We were never given the document which my learned colleague is

14 now referring to to the witness.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Ms. Reidy, which documents are these?

16 MS. REIDY: Sorry, Your Honour, with all due respect, that's not,

17 in this particular case, my responsibility. We produced to the Defence

18 all the documents which we intended to use. Ms. Baen in cross opened the

19 whole subject of whether or not documents usually came with a stamp or

20 seal. I am now asking Mr. O'Donnell of his knowledge of other documents.

21 That document if -- I don't know whether Mr. O'Donnell has it in front of

22 him or whether he just has a note to himself of the title, if it's

23 available, it can be available for inspection by the Defence. It's only

24 in my intention to be used in re-examination. It's completely appropriate

25 that when a subject is opened by cross, that I'm entitled to re-examine on

Page 5720

1 that, particularly where the evidence on the record is misleading to the

2 full information available to the witness for consideration by the Bench.

3 MR. ZECEVIC: If I may shortly reply, Your Honours, actually, the

4 same question was posed by Ms. Reidy just now: Does the witness say that

5 all documents have -- which he knows are stamped and signed? He said no.

6 Why go any further? That is the same global question that my colleague

7 has asked the witness. If we go into a specific document, then these

8 documents should have been -- we should have been provided with the

9 document. Otherwise, how can we really go -- and this is a never-ending

10 story. There might be 1.000 or 5.000 documents like that, or we can then

11 bring some documents which are with a stamp and a signature. Thank you,

12 Your Honour.

13 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Ms. Reidy. I think you can't introduce any

14 other documents. You can deal with the question generally.

15 MS. REIDY: Okay, Your Honour. I'm not seeking to introduce the

16 document. I said -- because I didn't lead evidence on it, my

17 understanding of the Rules was that it's not a document that necessarily

18 had to be disclosed beforehand.

19 Q. But anyhow, Mr. O'Donnell, just to confirm, you do know of other

20 documents which purport to come from the Main Board and do not bear a

21 signature or a seal?

22 A. That is correct.

23 Q. Is that, do you know of one document or would you say there are

24 more than one document to your knowledge which is in the possession of the

25 OTP?

Page 5721

1 A. I am aware of several documents, numerous documents in the

2 possession of the OTP which purport to come from the Main Board but which

3 do not have a signature or seal.

4 Q. Thank you. The next point I'd like to address you on is, again

5 questions that Ms. Baen asked you with relation to whether or not portions

6 of the Variant A/Variant B document were read out into the record, and I

7 think so it's clear for the record, you referred to the fact that a member

8 of the SDS Crisis Staff, Mr. Miskovic, I believe President Miskovic, read

9 out the instructions and referred to the document. That was a document

10 from the Prijedor municipality dated the 27th of September -- 27th of

11 December, was it not?

12 A. That is correct.

13 Q. Thank you. Now, Ms. Baen then later, when apparently talking

14 about transcripts, suggested she was referring to -- within P46 ID, to the

15 transcript of the speech given by Mr. Karadzic which is not the document

16 from Prijedor. So if I could just clarify it on the record, could I ask

17 to you look at the transcript of the speech from Mr. Karadzic?

18 A. Yes, I have that in front of me.

19 Q. For the record that is P46 ID/11. And since there was a document

20 Ms. Baen said she was referring to, could I ask you again to point to the

21 reference that Mr. Karadzic makes to the Variant A/Variant B document?

22 A. Your Honours, there are several references to the contents of the

23 document. Firstly on page 00969865, on the fifth line down, the second

24 part of the sentence is, "We set up secret governments," which is

25 contained in point 4 of the Variant B version of the Variant A/B

Page 5722

1 document. Secondly municipal boards, which is --

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Zecevic?

3 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, Your Honours, if I correctly remember,

4 yesterday it was exactly read into the transcript the whole contents

5 referring to A and B document from this -- Mr. Karadzic's speech. I don't

6 see the point that we are putting it again on the record. The same,

7 completely the same thing.

8 MS. REIDY: Your Honour, that's fine. I don't necessarily need it

9 read into the record, but if you look back at the transcript there is a

10 significant confusion in the examination by Ms. Baen because while she

11 asks about one document and we discuss document 5, she then says, "Oh,

12 no. The document I was referring to was the transcripts," without then

13 permitting the witness to discuss the transcripts. And when we go back to

14 look at the record and make our submissions on the admissibility, I think

15 it must be clear that, if she was talking about the transcripts that she

16 purported to be, that then the witness get the chance to clarify the

17 reference in that document to the Variant A/Variant B. That wasn't done

18 in cross. And I would like to now put on the record in re-examination.

19 JUDGE SINGH: I think the counsel's objection is that you're

20 merely repeating because you're asking this witness, "Could I ask you

21 again to point out." I mean, he has already read it. So what is your

22 question if you have a further question, please, but that --


24 Q. Mr. O'Donnell, then I won't ask you, as my learned friend and Your

25 Honour Judge Singh pointed out, we do have on the record these particular

Page 5723

1 words, but while I think Ms. Baen had said the whole document was not read

2 out into the record, is it your impression, from having examined these

3 documents, that portions and references to the two, the instructions and

4 the organisation of the Serbian people, were included in the transcript of

5 Mr. Karadzic's speech?

6 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, Your Honours, I have to object again

7 because it calls for actual speculation again. I mean Ms. Reidy was

8 really making this objection just five minutes ago, the same thing,

9 impression. And document speaks for itself. Thank you, Your Honour.

10 JUDGE MUMBA: What are you objecting to? You're saying she is

11 asking the witness to --

12 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm saying that this question calls for speculation

13 because the document says for him -- for itself, because Ms. Reidy was

14 asking for the impression of the witness, Your Honour.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: Oh, I see. Okay. Yes. Perhaps you can rephrase

16 your question, Ms. Reidy. I can see the point you're trying to make but

17 do rephrase it.


19 Q. Mr. O'Donnell, I think you've testified that you rely on this

20 document for corroboration as to the reliability of the Variant A/Variant

21 B document. Could you please make it clear to the Chamber and the Bench

22 why you so rely on the document?

23 A. Firstly, because it specifically refers to Variant A and Variant B

24 and in total, there are five points which tie this transcript in with the

25 Variant A and Variant B document. And I am able to point those out,

Page 5724

1 should you wish.

2 Q. Thank you. I think you've pointed it out before.

3 Can I ask you to -- Mr. Karadzic at the time, do you know what

4 position he held?

5 A. Mr. Karadzic was president of the SDS in Bosnia and chairman of

6 the Main Board of the SDS.

7 Q. So when Ms. Baen asked you whether any of the documents referred

8 to provide the Chamber with any guidance as to authorship or ownership of

9 this document, do you -- does this document give you any assistance on

10 Ms. Baen's question?

11 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Zecevic.

12 MR. ZECEVIC: This calls for speculation again, Your Honour. I

13 object to this line of questioning. It is really -- it is really

14 focussing and -- I mean, I don't know really how to call this. This is

15 really outrageous.

16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Ms. Reidy. And I thought that the previous

17 answer after rephrasing your question was sufficient.

18 MS. REIDY: Your Honour, I'll move on then to the chain of custody

19 documents which were given to the Defence this morning.

20 JUDGE SINGH: [Microphone not activated] -- ask any possible

21 question on the -- on this point, the possible context would be to ask the

22 witness to look at that paragraph which he read into the script, A and B

23 variant, and ask him for his comment in respect of the question which

24 Mr. Pantelic asked in D24/2 ID, the last page. That is the reply by the

25 head of the SDS main office, Milovan Bjelica. "The Main Board as well as

Page 5725

1 any other SDS body never considered or instructed the organisation and

2 activation of Serb people in BiH at its sessions. We were informed that

3 such instructions were given by a certain number of retired officers of

4 the former Yugoslav People's Army."

5 MS. REIDY: Thank you, Your Honour. I think that is very helpful

6 to the proceedings.

7 JUDGE SINGH: Do you understand me?

8 MS. REIDY: I do understand your question. Would it be helpful to

9 clear up this matter by posing that sort of question now or to deal with

10 it in the context of addressing Mr. Pantelic's cross, because that's where

11 it arose, as you're suggesting?

12 JUDGE SINGH: I'll leave it to you.

13 MS. REIDY: Okay. I will then -- I will address it then in

14 the context of Mr. Pantelic's -- my re-examination of Mr. Pantelic's

15 cross-examination.

16 Q. Mr. O'Donnell, can I ask you just to have in front of you the four

17 statements relating to chain of custody of a number of documents,

18 including the Variant A/Variant B number 100. And they are D27/2 through

19 to D30/2.

20 A. Yes. I have those documents in front of me.

21 Q. Thank you. I'll go in chronological order that Ms. Baen went

22 through them in, and I'll ask you about -- I think it's actually D --

23 D29/2. Have you got D29/2?

24 A. Yes, I do.

25 Q. I believe Ms. Baen asked you whether or not there was any

Page 5726

1 reference in this to the seizure of the document, and you said that there

2 wasn't.

3 However, can I ask you to turn to the third page of that statement

4 with the ERN number 00570538. Do you have that? And can I ask you the

5 visible script of the bottom of that page, is that the document P3 ID

6 which we were discussing?

7 A. Yes, it is.

8 Q. Thank you. Can I ask you just to go back to page 2. And there --

9 the penultimate -- or the final paragraph before the redactions which

10 starts with "I received the following documentation." Could I ask you

11 just to read that into the record. And perhaps you could leave out the

12 name which I omitted to redact on the statement.

13 A. The paragraph is as follows: "I received the following original

14 documents from" - and then there is a name - "the custodian for documents

15 held by the AID in November 1997 after being notified of the expected

16 visit of investigator Bernard O'Donnell from the International Criminal

17 Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia."

18 MS. REIDY: Thank you.

19 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Ms. Reidy, you also didn't redact the witness's

20 signature on page 7.

21 MS. REIDY: Thank you. Your Honour, I -- thank you very much. I

22 know I didn't redact the witness's signature, because the name of this

23 particular witness -- the person given this statement was actually on the

24 record from yesterday. So although originally I thought it wasn't

25 necessary, the other name, however, is -- was redacted from one of the

Page 5727












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 5728

1 other statements. But thank you for pointing that out to me.

2 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Okay. I got confused there, in the sense that

3 the name was redacted on the first page, so ...

4 MS. REIDY: Absolutely, Your Honour. The redaction was somewhat

5 inconsistent.



8 Q. Mr. O'Donnell, can I now ask you to turn to page 4 of that same

9 document and look at 00570539. And the first paragraph under the redacted

10 portion of the statement, could you please read that out to the Chamber.

11 A. The paragraph is as follows: "At all times the documents listed

12 above have remained under the custody and control of the AID Sarajevo. I

13 retained those documents in my secure possession until handing them to

14 Mr. Bernard O'Donnell at the offices of the AID Sarajevo."

15 Q. Thank you. I think I could speed up the proceedings by saying, is

16 it -- is it the case that the next paragraph says that on Friday the 21st

17 of November, the author of the statement met with yourself, produced a

18 number of original documents, including 2(E), which is PID 3, and gave you

19 custody of those -- of those documents?

20 A. That is correct.

21 Q. That, I think, covers the chain of custody with respect to the

22 last person at AID handing them to you. And Ms. Baen went to some pains

23 yesterday saying that she wanted to know everything about chain of

24 custody.

25 Again Ms. Baen asked you -- I'll take you now to document P28/2.

Page 5729

1 A. Yes, I have that document.

2 Q. Thank you. Can I ask you to turn to page 2 of that document. The

3 ERN number is 00562505. And could I ask you to read out the paragraph

4 just above the redacted portion.

5 A. "In November 1997, I gave custody of the following original

6 documents to Sejad Alimanovic after receiving an order for their handover

7 from the Chief of Staff of the sector."

8 Q. Thank you. Could you read the next sentence, as well.

9 A. Sorry. I was just waiting for the --

10 Q. Sorry.

11 A. "The documents were until that time in my custody. I gave custody

12 of the documents to Mr. Alimanovic for the purpose of providing them to

13 the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia."

14 Q. Thank you. Could I ask you to turn to page 3 of that document and

15 again ask you whether the visible text is a reference to PID 3.

16 A. Yes, it is.

17 Q. Thank you. And again, page 4. I know this is a bit time

18 consuming, but could I ask you to read out the paragraph immediately after

19 the redacted text.

20 A. "At all times during my employment with the service for state

21 security and the AID, the documents listed above have remained under the

22 custody and control of those organisations. All documents held by the AID

23 are kept in secure storage. Access to the documents is strictly

24 controlled, and no alterations to the original documents is permitted."

25 Q. Thank you very much. If I could go back in time again, and I'd

Page 5730

1 ask you to look at D27/2 ID -- or not ID, sorry. D27/2.

2 A. Yes. I have that document.

3 Q. Thank you. On page 3 of that is the reference at 2(E), a

4 reference to P3 ID.

5 A. Yes. On page 3 of the document.

6 Q. Thank you. Can I ask you to turn to page 5 of the document. And

7 to read out the final paragraph of -- on that page.

8 A. "I can positively state that at all times whilst involved with the

9 listing of documents, the custody of those documents was preserved by the

10 service and access to the documents strictly controlled. I can also state

11 that the AID has maintained a system for safeguarding the possession of

12 documents held."

13 Q. Mr. O'Donnell, you said that all three statements we have just

14 gone through, you have read in full recently, and although Ms. Baen asked

15 you whether or not those three involve particulars as to the exact

16 seizure, you said no. Do they in fact contain a lot of information about

17 the chain of custody of those documents, the conditions in which those

18 documents were kept while they were under custody, and evidence as to

19 possibility of interference with those documents following the seizure?

20 A. Yes, they do.

21 Q. Thank you. Can I now turn to the final document, which I believe

22 is D30/2, and it was the one which does make a reference to the

23 circumstances in which the document was seized?

24 A. That is correct.

25 Q. Thank you. Can I ask you to turn to page 6 of that statement?

Page 5731

1 And can I ask you to again, I'm sorry, read on to the record that

2 paragraph which is visible on the -- below the redacted text?

3 A. "I can positively state that at all times whilst I held the

4 position of Deputy Chief of Staff, State Security Sarajevo, a system was

5 in place to ensure that all documents were maintained in secure custody of

6 the service. I can also state that since that time, the AID has

7 maintained a system for safeguarding the possession of documents held. I

8 can therefore state that at all times the documents listed above have

9 remained under the custody and control of state security and the AID

10 Sarajevo."

11 Q. Thank you. And could I just -- rather than, as I said, based on

12 the fact that you have read all these statements, and rather than waste

13 time itemising the reference in every single one, could you tell us

14 whether you have information, having read these statements, as to some of

15 the conditions under which documents were then held in the -- by the AID

16 from the time of seizure in 1992 through to the handing over of that

17 document to you in November, 1997?

18 A. Yes, I can.

19 Q. Could I ask you if you could briefly just indicate what those --

20 the information that document contains that would go to showing chain

21 of -- conditions of chain of custody which was at issue -- raised as an

22 issue in cross?

23 A. The documents from the time of coming into the possession of state

24 security and later the AID, were kept secure by that service. Documents

25 were kept in secure storage. Access to the documents was strictly

Page 5732

1 limited. And custody over the documents was maintained throughout the

2 entire period. The first -- sorry, the last statement, D30-2, although

3 not being able to state the person's name who was responsible for seizing

4 the document, he was able to state positively that it was seized by

5 someone under his command, and he was familiar with that document coming

6 into the service.

7 MS. BAEN: Objection. The document speaks for itself.

8 MS. REIDY: Your Honour, the document does speak for itself but

9 the whole issue of chain of custody and every detail relating to it and

10 all those issues were not -- were put into question by the Defence, and

11 now we are simply asking Mr. O'Donnell to comment on those aspects of

12 security, of access, of those things which he can comment on, having

13 reread the statements he took from the AID staff.

14 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, yes, that's okay.

15 MS. BAEN: Document 32 is in evidence, we have three professional

16 Judges here who can read and decide, make their own opinion as to what the

17 statement means. This gentleman here just gave opinion testimony on what

18 a statement is already in evidence means. That's a comment on the

19 evidence which is what the Judges' function is, is to make their own

20 decision, determination.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: He's not making any conclusions at all. Ms. Reidy,

22 you can go ahead.

23 MS. REIDY: Thank you.

24 Q. Mr. O'Donnell, if you'd -- you have provided some information

25 that's contained. If there were further details on what steps were taken

Page 5733

1 to secure the chain of custody that you -- or information that you would

2 like to put on the record, can I ask to you finish the evidence you were

3 giving?

4 A. The document was signed over to me on the 21st of November. There

5 was an official receipt prepared. That receipt was placed in the envelope

6 which was still in the envelope yesterday when I unsealed the document for

7 the Court. The document was transferred by myself from Sarajevo to The

8 Hague and lodged into evidence by myself, where it has remained since that

9 time.

10 Q. Thank you very much. I think I've finished dealing with the

11 question of the chain of custody documents and the evidence they provide

12 as to security of the document.

13 Again, although this was a course of questioning that eventually

14 Ms. Baen desisted from, I would like to ask you one question on

15 re-examination as to a number of handwritten annotations on various copies

16 of the Variant A/Variant B in our possession, which Ms. Baen asked you to

17 direct your attention to. Having given -- having been asked about

18 handwritten annotations, can I ask you whether or not there were any of

19 those handwritten annotations which, in your examination, provide again

20 information that could be considered to be taken into account as to the

21 reliability of the document?

22 A. Of the copies that we have in the OTP, and that have been

23 mentioned, 47, 55 --

24 MS. BAEN: I really don't want to keep objecting because I know,

25 as I said, I want to finish this, but it calls for a legal conclusion.

Page 5734

1 The purpose of this hearing is for the Judges to decide the reliability of

2 the document, and it invades the province of the Trial Chamber when the

3 witness is giving that opinion testimony.

4 MS. REIDY: Your Honours, Ms. Baen wanted the witness to comment

5 and draw the Chamber's attention to certain handwritten annotations until

6 she desisted from that line of questioning. I think in redirect, as it's

7 opened, I'm allowed to direct the witness to one of those handwritten

8 annotations, in terms of reliability, which is -- Ms. Baen's argument was

9 that this is somehow unreliable. On re-examination, I simply want to

10 again draw attention to one of them with respect to the reliability of the

11 document, and I think that should be a permissible question.

12 [Trial Chamber confers]

13 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. The objection is overruled, Ms. Baen.

14 Ms. Reidy, you can go ahead.

15 MS. REIDY: Thank you very much, Your Honour.

16 Q. Mr. O'Donnell, to speed this up, could I ask you to turn to what I

17 hope is number 6 of P45 ID?

18 A. Yes, I have that document.

19 Q. Thank you.

20 MS. REIDY: Does the Chamber have in front of them P45 ID? If I'm

21 dealing with the right bundle, that should be a document with the ERN

22 number in the corner on the page SA 032072. I hope that's the same

23 document.

24 Q. Mr. O'Donnell, is that the --

25 A. That's correct.

Page 5735

1 Q. Could I ask you to turn to the final page of that document, which

2 is SA 032082?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Does that page contain some form of handwritten annotation?

5 A. Yes, it does.

6 Q. To the best of your knowledge, is that handwritten annotation in

7 existence on any of the other copies, 47, 55, 93, 96, 100, 101/3 or 104?

8 A. No, it is not.

9 Q. Thank you. I would ask -- attached to that page, I believe, is

10 the translation of those annotation notes?

11 A. That's correct.

12 Q. And have you made any investigation into what those handwritten

13 notes may be?

14 A. The handwritten notes at the first part appears to be a

15 subdistribution of copy 93, 93A, 93B, 93C and so forth.

16 Q. Could I ask, out of your examination of 47, 55, 93, 96, 100,

17 101/3, and 104, do many of the different versions have unique handwritten

18 annotations on them?

19 A. Yes, they do. Your Honours, all of those copies, apart from one

20 photocopy of 93, have handwritten notations.

21 Q. Thank you. And the handwritten notations on each of those are

22 distinct? They're different? They're not the same annotations on 47 as

23 on 101/3, for example?

24 A. That is correct. The notations on 47 are different from all of

25 the others; the notations on 55 are different from all the others; 93 are

Page 5736

1 different from all the others; 96 are different from the others; and 104

2 is different from all others.

3 Q. Thank you very much.

4 MS. REIDY: Your Honour, Judge Singh did pose a question at the

5 end of yesterday's hearing which he asked the witness to address. It just

6 strikes me with this last question that -- I don't know whether this is an

7 appropriate time for the witness to -- to answer it. I could repose the

8 question of Mr. -- of Your Honour Judge Singh and have that answered.

9 Q. Specifically, with relation to copy 100 ID -- P3 ID, you were

10 asked yesterday to compare the copies that bear the number "100" in the

11 corner with the original which you had kept sealed in the envelope. And

12 Mr. -- Your Honour Judge Singh asked you to provide your impression for

13 what it was worth as to whether or not those were reproductions in

14 photocopy form or other form of the document in the sealed envelope. And

15 I was wondering if having examined the document and handwritten

16 annotations on it you could answer Your Honour's inquiry.

17 A. Certainly. Your Honour, I compared the document which was in the

18 sealed envelope opened yesterday with other copies that we have of that

19 document numbered 100. The copies that I compared with it were the ones

20 starting firstly with 00184274; and secondly, 00270657; and thirdly,

21 SA 006218. Each of those three appeared to be photocopies of the first

22 document.

23 Q. Thank you.

24 MS. REIDY: I've finished my cross on --

25 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Zecevic.

Page 5737

1 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honour, I have to objected to this, because as

2 far as I know, our witness is not an expert witness --


4 MR. ZECEVIC: -- who can say or claim that these are the exact

5 photocopies. So I object to this, please.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Zecevic.

7 MS. REIDY: Your Honour, I'm repeating Your Honour Judge Singh's

8 questions, and Your Honour Judge Singh did specifically say "for what it's

9 worth." And again, I said to the witness "for what it's worth." We

10 appreciate that the opinion is offered not as an expert witness but as

11 someone who has studied the documents simply in response to a request from

12 the Bench.

13 MS. BAEN: As long as there is an instruction that goes along with

14 his answer in the record that he's not an expert and this is a layperson's

15 opinion, then that's fine; otherwise, we object and ask a motion to strike

16 that answer until he is shown the proper predicate for giving an expert

17 opinion on that. And this is really, really important. And if we're

18 going to go into that, we need to open this back up and --

19 JUDGE MUMBA: No, no. Ms. Baen, the point was made by your

20 colleague, and it's taken. We don't need to repeat that.

21 MS. BAEN: Well, it's just real important, Your Honour, that the

22 record speaks, because if these men are convicted, and this document comes

23 into evidence and is used against them -- this is a huge issue, Your

24 Honour, and we're just doing our jobs protecting the record.

25 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, I didn't say that. The point was taken by your

Page 5738

1 colleague when he made the objection.

2 MS. BAEN: But we need a ruling on the objection in order to

3 prepare it for appeal.

4 JUDGE MUMBA: If I say the point is taken, that means the

5 objection is sustained.

6 MS. BAEN: Thank you.

7 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Ms. Reidy.

8 MS. REIDY: Your Honour, may I -- may I just seek the consequences

9 of the -- the objection being sustained means that it is inappropriate for

10 the witness to respond to the question posed yesterday. Is that it?

11 JUDGE MUMBA: No. What he says is -- what the Defence are saying,

12 this witness is not an expert.

13 MS. REIDY: Absolutely. But --

14 JUDGE MUMBA: And you did say that the question was -- Judge Singh

15 did say for whatever it's worth. Let's end there. All right?

16 MS. REIDY: All right, Your Honour.

17 JUDGE MUMBA: Please proceed with other questions.

18 MS. REIDY: All right. And I think the record reflects the nature

19 of the answer.

20 I am now finished with cross-examination conducted by Ms. Baen,

21 and I'd now just like to ask a few question relating to the cross

22 conducted by Mr. Pantelic on behalf of Blagoje Simic. And my redirect

23 will focus exclusively on the document which he was anxious to have in

24 B/C/S, that is, D23/1. And I say -- I myself, and I think for the Bench,

25 will be using the English version of that document. I will start with the

Page 5739

1 point raised by Your Honour Judge Singh.

2 Q. You were asked by Mr. Pantelic to comment on the final paragraph

3 of that letter which says: "We were informed that such instructions were

4 given by a certain number of retired officers of the former Yugoslav

5 People's Army."

6 Can I ask whether possession in your information -- information in

7 your possession or information about which you've testified here -- let

8 me -- I apologise. I'd just like to rephrase the question. When

9 Mr. Pantelic asked you the question, he also then -- he asked you to

10 comment on whether or not it was possible that military intelligence

11 officers had constructed, I think, the document. And you had said it's

12 not possible. And I'd like you to, please, explain why you say you don't

13 think it's possible. And if there's any information that you have which

14 would contradict the fact that it's not from the SDS but from a certain

15 number of retired officers from the former Yugoslav People's Army.

16 A. The question that I was asked, as I recall, was whether it was

17 possible that the document -- the instructions --

18 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Zecevic.

19 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm so sorry, Your Honour, but this goes for the --

20 "and you had said you don't think it's possible." It's again calling for

21 a conclusion by this witness. I'm sorry, Your Honour.

22 MS. REIDY: Your Honour, I believe --

23 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes. This is the interpretation of the document

24 which was disclosed to us by the OTP. We offered -- my colleague Pantelic

25 offered the document to the evidence. I don't really -- you know, with

Page 5740

1 all due respect, I really see no point that we go again into interpreting

2 the document by the witness who wasn't writing this document. So if we

3 want to have somebody to interpret that document, why don't we bring the

4 person who wrote the document so that he can tell us what did he mean with

5 this sentence. That is my objection. Thank you.

6 MS. REIDY: Your Honour --

7 JUDGE MUMBA: Let me ask Ms. Reidy, what is the point of your

8 question?

9 MS. REIDY: Well, the point is twofold, Your Honour. One, it was

10 Mr. Pantelic who asked about the possibility of the document having been -

11 I believe the word was "drafted" - by military intelligence officers.

12 That was objected to as speculation. It was -- the objection was

13 overruled. The question was put to the witness, and the witness said, "It

14 is not possible." I'm only seeking in redirect to know the basis of the

15 answer, as Mr. Pantelic did not pursue it. That would be the firstfold.

16 The secondfold would be to try to place in the appropriate context

17 the evidence which the witness has already testified as to Mr. Karadzic's

18 words and the statement here, which is on the record, as I believe that

19 Judge Singh was suggesting might be an appropriate way for me to proceed.

20 MR. PANTELIC: If I may, Your Honours.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Pantelic.

22 MR. PANTELIC: Very briefly. If we are going step by step with

23 the standards possible or not possible, what is -- if not possible, I

24 mean, we are going in the really hypothetical area. That's --

25 JUDGE MUMBA: No, no, no, no. Mr. Pantelic, I think Ms. Reidy has

Page 5741

1 explained the point of her question, and I'll allow her to proceed.

2 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you.

3 MS. REIDY: Thank you.

4 Q. Mr. O'Donnell, just let me go back. You answered to Mr. Pantelic

5 that it was not -- that in your opinion, it was not possible. And all I

6 want to know is the basis for your answer. Thank you.

7 MR. PANTELIC: And Your Honours, sorry. I withdraw this question,

8 so I don't see any basis for redirect. It wasn't my question. I said I

9 withdraw my question. So it's -- it's in the record.

10 MS. REIDY: Sorry, Your Honours. I don't know if you could -- if

11 you're interested in scrolling back, but it's page 54 of today's

12 evidence.

13 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Perhaps you can --

14 MS. REIDY: And it is line -- it goes on -- the line is page 4,

15 Mr. Pantelic's question. There's a lot of preceding stuff. It says --

16 okay. "In general, given the fact that he's very familiar, experienced in

17 the last five years of the events in Bosnia, so maybe he can give the --

18 his professional opinion. Is it possible, simply? Yes or no?"

19 Mr. O'Donnell: "I would say it is not possible."

20 Mr. Pantelic: "Thank you. Now, Mr. O'Donnell, it should be my

21 last question."

22 The question is not withdrawn. It's clearly on the record. And I

23 should be allowed to re-examine.

24 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. It is another question that was withdrawn, not

25 this particular one.

Page 5742

1 MS. REIDY: Thank you very much.

2 Q. Mr. O'Donnell, if you could now answer -- give reason for the

3 basis to that answer that's been re-read on the transcript.

4 A. I'd say that it is not possible that the document be -- was

5 drafted by a number of retired officers of the former Yugoslav People's

6 Army, because the document is referred to in other documents which have

7 been located right across Bosnia, in a spread across Bosnia.

8 Another copy of the document has been found by the International

9 Stabilisation Force. Some of the documents which refer to it we got from

10 the Bosnian Serbs - we obtained them officially - some through the

11 execution of search warrants that were conducted by the Office of the

12 Prosecutor, another from the Autonomous Region of Krajina, officially, to

13 members of the Office of the Prosecutor, and others during missions that I

14 was involved in to the Republika Srpska government in Pale. The other

15 factor is that although it is stated in that document that the Main Board

16 was not involved - I'll read it: "The Main Board, as well as any other

17 SDS body, never considered or instructed the organisation and activity of

18 Serb people at its sessions" - Mr. Karadzic himself makes clear reference

19 to the Variant A and Variant B at the time that he was president of the

20 SDS. At the time that these instructions came out, as I understand it, he

21 was chairman of the Main Board, who purportedly issued the instructions.

22 Q. Thank you.

23 MS. BAEN: I was hoping that he would not testify to this, trying

24 to interpret a document because now I have to make a request. And I know

25 it was not the fault of any of these prosecutors because I like and trust

Page 5743

1 every one of them -- it was no fault of their own that we just got this

2 document today that we are talking about. But first of all, under rules

3 of reciprocal discovery, those of us with reciprocal discovery should have

4 received these documents. Also under rules --

5 JUDGE MUMBA: Which documents?

6 MS. BAEN: The document which says -- the letter that says from

7 the SDS, D23/1, that calls into question the authenticity of any Variant

8 A/B document. This is going to violate Rule 67, mandatory disclosures,

9 Rule 68, reciprocal disclosures, and arguably this is exculpatory

10 information since the number one document the OTP is trying to use against

11 our clients, this Variant A/B document, has been called -- the

12 authenticity the has been called into question through correspondence with

13 the OTP. Therefore -- I want to be reasonable. We didn't object to this

14 witness testifying even though he wasn't on their witness list. We didn't

15 object to going forward based on these four statements that were given to

16 us yesterday in the middle of the hearing that was about these

17 statements. All we are going to have to ask for now is the opportunity to

18 get this witness who prepared this letter from the SDS, who says the SDS

19 didn't write these -- didn't author these A/B documents, we have to get

20 him here to complete all the information with respect to these documents

21 before the Trial Chamber can make a determination on admissibility.

22 And -- because the alleged author, as Judge Singh pointed out yesterday,

23 it says "SDS" at the top, the document purports to say that the SDS, they

24 were the people who authored this document. Now we get a document today

25 from the OTP that says, from the SDS, "We never did this. Some retired

Page 5744

1 personnel from the JNA did it." That's pretty important for us to know

2 for purposes of this hearing. That's the whole question.

3 [Trial Chamber confers]

4 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Ms. Baen, you finished your submission?

5 MS. BAEN: On the request to have the witnesses and the violations

6 under the rules, yes.

7 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. Ms. Reidy, can you continue?

8 MS. REIDY: Yes, Your Honour, I don't want to address this now.

9 May we have an opportunity to respond to any request by Ms. Baen in

10 writing, in terms of our submissions on the whole -- on this issue?

11 JUDGE MUMBA: No. I think you can respond orally.

12 MS. REIDY: Right now? Would you like me to do that now or would

13 you like me to finish the re-examination?

14 JUDGE MUMBA: You finish the re-examination first.

15 MS. REIDY: Okay. Thank you, Your Honour.

16 Q. Mr. O'Donnell, again this document which the Defence asked to be

17 put into evidence and which has been entered into evidence on the request

18 of the Defence, could I ask you to turn to the first page of it? This is

19 document 23/1, and it bears the ERN number in the corner 02162022, it is

20 the first page of the controversial paragraph we just discussed. Could I

21 ask you to read out the second -- the second, third and fourth sentences

22 of that first paragraph?

23 A. "SDS archives do not contain documents you asked for because they

24 remained in the SDS main office in Djuro Djakovic Street in Sarajevo.

25 Minutes of meetings of the SDS Main Board and the executive board dated

Page 5745

1 from 12 July, 1990, through April, 1992, were stored in the

2 above-mentioned premises. We think that all documents are with the BiH

3 Federation Ministry of Interior because they were the first to enter the

4 SDS premises when the staff had to leave the office and the town of

5 Sarajevo."

6 Q. Thank you. Is that information consistent with the information

7 you have as to the seizure of document PI -- P -- ID -- P3 ID?

8 A. Yes, it is.

9 Q. And can I ask you, then, to turn to the second paragraph of that

10 same page, and the penultimate or the second-last sentence of that, which

11 starts with, "As far as we know"?

12 A. "As far as we know, access to this documentation was provided by

13 Ms. Rajka Stanisic, then the employee of the national -- sorry, of the

14 Republika Srpska National Assembly."

15 Q. Thank you. Does this reflect your evidence of the mission that

16 you have testified to undertaking to Pale and having spoken with

17 Mrs. Stanisic as to her cooperation with you on talking about documents

18 and giving the -- well, you and your colleagues on the mission access?

19 A. Yes, it does, Your Honours.

20 Q. Thank you very much. That's the final question on --

21 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Zecevic?

22 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, Your Honours, if I correctly remembered,

23 the witness testified to the fact that Ms. Rajka Stanisic gave him the

24 minutes of the 50th session of Republika Srpska -- of the Assembly of

25 Republika Srpska, and he never ever stated that he received any copy of

Page 5746

1 any document, whether 100, 055, 47, or whichever of the copies that they

2 have in his possession on the -- concerning the document P3 ID. He never

3 testified that he received that document from Ms. Rajka Stanisic. And now

4 it appears from the transcript that he actually received these documents

5 from Ms. Rajka Stanisic. So whether my learned colleague can clarify that

6 or whether the witness was not telling us the truth yesterday when he was

7 stating -- when he was giving his testimony in the -- in direct, thank

8 you.

9 MS. REIDY: Would the Chamber be -- would it be assisted if I --

10 JUDGE MUMBA: Can you respond?

11 MS. REIDY: -- finished my question or explored that?

12 JUDGE MUMBA: Can you respond?

13 MS. REIDY: I can respond, yes. The question was not meant, nor

14 was that sentence, referring to a copy of Variant A/Variant B. It was

15 access to documentation. The witness here testified that he had gone to

16 Pale on mission, that there had been cooperation from the Republika Srpska

17 authorities, and he himself had spoken with Rajka Stanisic. Mr. Pantelic

18 specifically asked him about whether or not he had gone to Pale, whether

19 or not he had met with Rajka Stanisic, et cetera, and I'm simply asking

20 him whether or not this letter goes to corroborating his letter that they

21 were shown cooperation with access to documentation in general while they

22 were in Pale.

23 JUDGE MUMBA: Then you may rephrase your question.


25 Q. Mr. O'Donnell, could I ask to you clarify the cooperation which

Page 5747

1 you've testified to -- well, the cooperation coming from Mrs. Stanisic and

2 other RS officials with relation to access to documentation, does that

3 refer to documents such as the transcripts of the assembly documentation

4 or does it refer to copies of Variant A/Variant B?

5 A. It refers to the transcript of the 50th assembly session of the

6 Republika Srpska along with a large quantity of other documentation.

7 Q. So just so it's clear, you did -- did you at that -- during that

8 mission, in, I believe it was 1998, were you presented with a copy of

9 Variant A/Variant B by Mrs. Stanisic?

10 A. No, we were not.

11 Q. But you were given access to other documentation, including the

12 transcripts of the 50th assembly?

13 A. That is correct. We obtained copies of that documentation.

14 JUDGE MUMBA: You are through?

15 MS. REIDY: Sorry, Your Honour, yes. That's the end of the

16 re-examination.

17 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, because I was thinking about these documents,

18 P46 and P45, yes, because I thought that they should be admitted into

19 evidence.

20 MS. REIDY: Yes, Your Honour. Given the fact that the Defence

21 exhibits are in evidence, we would seek to have P45 and P46 now entered

22 into evidence after they've been discussed on the record, and they be

23 fully admitted into evidence, subject, if the Bench wishes, to P46, 7 and

24 8 remaining with the ID status until the final translation comes through,

25 because they were the two documents out of the 11 subdocuments which only

Page 5748

1 had draft translations.

2 MS. BAEN: I think I speak on behalf of all the Defence counsel

3 when we say we object to the admission of these documents for this

4 reason: It was settled on several occasions last fall that the one

5 document that we were having the admissibility and the authentication

6 hearing on was PID 3. They have tried to focus on the history, the chain

7 of custody, for whatever it's worth, of PID 3. On all these other

8 documents in these collections, they have not even attempted to prove up

9 chain of custody. We have not cross-examined on it because the agreement

10 from day one was that we were focusing on the one document that was

11 obtained in the SDS headquarters supposedly in Sarajevo in 1992. That has

12 been so crystal clear from the very beginning, we vehemently object to any

13 of these documents just being put into evidence.

14 JUDGE MUMBA: The objection is overruled. The Trial Chamber has

15 decided that these two, P46, excluding the P3 ID, will be admitted into

16 evidence, and P45 as well, and also the document that was used for

17 cross-examination by the Defence, that is D31/2, the English as well as

18 the Serbo-Croat, D31/2 ter, because the Trial Chamber believes it has

19 probative value.

20 We will adjourn until tomorrow at 1415.

21 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, may I just raise one very

22 brief issue? I think this pretty well completes the evidence relating to

23 the introduction of this particular document, the contentious document,

24 I'll say. Do you want to have submissions from us on its final

25 admissibility? And if so, may I propose that we do that on Thursday, and

Page 5749

1 as my colleague states, possibly in writing as well?

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, there is a motion by the Defence to call a

3 witness, as they put it on record, so the Trial Chamber has to decide that

4 first before we can decide on whether or not you can make oral

5 submissions, but definitely whatever continuation material we have on this

6 issue will have to be after the witness tomorrow.

7 MR. DI FAZIO: But one way or the other, you want to hear

8 submissions on this.

9 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. We will have submissions, of course, orally.

10 MS. REIDY: Your Honour, I'm sorry just on that, you did indicate

11 earlier I would be able to respond to the oral motion raised -- respond

12 orally to the motion raised by Ms. Baen, and I would just like to know

13 what would be the most appropriate time to do that.

14 JUDGE MUMBA: After the witness tomorrow.

15 MS. REIDY: After the witness tomorrow. Thank you very much.

16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. The Trial Chamber is very concerned about the

17 request on this witness.

18 MS. REIDY: Thank you very much.

19 JUDGE MUMBA: So we can deliberate on this matter further after

20 the witness tomorrow is completed.

21 MS. REIDY: Very clear. Thank you, Your Honour.

22 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honour, completely different matter. My client

23 is not feeling well and he would like to waive his presence for tomorrow.

24 I have to inform the Trial Chamber that I have done everything

25 that was up to me concerning the videolink, but as I understood, it is not

Page 5750

1 as yet clear whether this videolink or the communication between me and my

2 client will be via the laptop, which was suggested by the Registry, or the

3 mobile phone and the phone over here, which was suggested by you.

4 JUDGE MUMBA: Firstly, it will be by mobile phone to yourself from

5 your client until the laptop connections are completed.

6 MR. ZECEVIC: Okay. Thank you, Your Honours. In any case, my

7 client is waiving his right of presence for tomorrow.

8 JUDGE MUMBA: For tomorrow, all right, thank you. So we will

9 continue our proceedings tomorrow at 1415 hours.

10 [Trial Chamber confers]

11 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. I was just reminded that Mr. O'Donnell is

12 through. You are free to leave.

13 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honours.

14 JUDGE MUMBA: Because the cross-examination and the re-examination

15 has been completed.

16 [The witness withdrew]

17 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at

18 6.08 p.m., to be reconvened on Wednesday,

19 the 13th day of February, 2002, at 2.15 p.m.