1 Friday, 27 August 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone. Madam Registrar, would
6 you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning
8 everyone in and around the courtroom. This is the case IT-03-69-T. The
9 Prosecutor versus Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic.
10 [The witness takes the stand]
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar. The parties have
12 received our message yesterday evening, I take it, where one of the
13 messages said that you are instructed to finish this morning, you are
14 urged to do so, of course, we never can forecast what will happen. I
15 instructed VWS to have the next witness to see at approximately midday
16 whether the next witness should remain on standby or whether we'll start.
17 Let's try to be as efficient as possible.
18 Good morning, Mr. Donia.
19 THE WITNESS: Good morning, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Donia, I would like to remind you that you are
21 still bound by the solemn declaration you have given yesterday at the
22 beginning of your testimony that you would speak the truth, the whole
23 truth, and nothing but truth.
24 THE WITNESS: Yes.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash will now continue his cross-examination.
1 Mr. Jordash, please proceed.
2 MR. JORDASH: Thank you, Your Honour.
3 WITNESS: ROBERT DONIA [Resumed]
4 Cross-examination by Mr. Jordash: [Continued]
5 Q. Good morning, Mr. Donia.
6 A. Good morning.
7 Q. We were discussing yesterday the methodology of your approach,
8 and we'd, I think, reached the point where we were dealing with the
9 difference in approaches to the reports. If I can pick up where we left
10 off there, I was asking you about what it was that had led you to take
11 this different approach in the Milosevic case and in this case, and
12 perhaps I should remind you of where -- of your final answer. I don't
13 know if you you remember it. I think yesterday you said in response to
14 my question what was the approach made in the first instance in the
15 Milosevic case, and you said:
16 "Well that actually came out of some discussions that I had when
17 I was preparing the report for the Krajisnik case. I had requested
18 Assembly sessions going into the summer and fall of 1992 which I had not
19 previously seen. I requested those of the Prosecution and perceived that
20 this was an extraordinary source which illuminated more than just a few
21 months prior to the beginning of the conflict."
22 Do you recall that?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Would you like to elaborate further?
25 A. Only to say that in reviewing those transcripts and then
1 returning to the Krajisnik team who had commissioned the report I was
2 working on for them, that I -- those sessions were at that point not
3 translated. They were only in Serbian. And so I expressed to them an
4 interest in actually using those for extending the time-line of my
5 Krajisnik report into the summer, and they asked me not to do that, but
6 at the same time they became aware that I found the reports are of -- or
7 the transcripts to be an extraordinary source, and so when I was first
8 contacted by the Milosevic team, they then asked me to consider using the
9 Bosnian Serb Assembly sessions for a report much like the one that's in
10 front of us now.
11 Q. But a big shift from taking this approach which relied upon a
12 number of sources in your earlier report to then abandoning, it seems,
13 those sources and just relying upon the one source?
14 A. No, it's not. I don't see it as a major shift. I think, first
15 of all, you should recognise that the sources being cited in the Bosnian
16 Serb Assembly are in fact probably 50 or 60 different sources. They are
17 the various individuals who made speeches in the Bosnian Serb Assembly.
18 And those sources are extremely good quality sources by virtue of who
19 they were, what they knew, and the fact that they were speaking under
20 conditions that they assumed to be confidential.
21 So I see the -- this as simply another way of presenting a
22 narrative into the various categories which effectively each answers a
23 question that one would pose of the sources, their answers already being
24 of course on record. So I see the -- I view the excerpts report as a
25 series of narratives that I would certainly grant require the reader to
1 concentrate more and to in fact comprehend the connective tissue that
2 links them together in a narrative, but nevertheless, a very similar
3 approach to the other reports that I prepared.
4 MR. JORDASH: Could I please have on e-court 1D01205. This is
5 the report prepared by you, Mr. Donia, in the Krajisnik case. Now, if we
6 could go over the page to page -- it's the first page of the report
7 itself after the cover sheet.
8 Q. And if we look at the second paragraph there, and the approach
9 you took in the Krajisnik case --
10 A. I think his name is Krajisnik.
11 Q. Krajisnik, thank you.
12 "Source citations are provided so the reader can assess the
13 authenticity and credibility of the information provided. Studies based
14 in part upon the transcripts and minutes of the Bosnian Serb Assembly and
15 other documents in the possession of the Office of the Prosecutor of the
16 International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Other sources
17 include the contemporary periodical press, scholarly studies, published
18 document collections, published and broadcast memoirs of participants and
19 observers, and other materials in the public domain."
20 Is it your evidence that that approach is similar to the approach
21 you took in this case?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Fair enough, if that's what you assert.
24 Did you -- at what stage did you cross-reference the, let me call
25 it the Stanisic report with these types of materials, contemporaneous
1 periodical press, scholarly studies, and so on.
2 A. I did not in the report itself, no.
3 Q. Well, at what stage did you yourself do it?
4 A. I treated my knowledge derived from those sources as background,
5 but did not cite such sources in the Stanisic report.
6 Q. Well, let's forget about citing them in the Stanisic report, at
7 what stage did you sit down with the excerpts, the Stanisic report, and
8 go through it in your own time cross-referencing to these what must have
9 been hundreds of other sources? Did you do that?
10 A. Yes, I did. I use a master chronology file which is voluminous
11 and draws upon a whole host of sources which provides me with a kind of a
12 framework within which to view any new material that I look at or any
13 source material that may require being situated in context.
14 Q. So let me understand this. When you put together the excerpts,
15 were you then following this process by which you used your master
16 chronology file, or did you compile the excerpts and then later on sit
17 down and check it once you'd finished the report?
18 A. That's back and forth. I use the chronology file as a resource.
19 If I encounter a particular session of the Bosnian Serb Assembly, I go to
20 that file to see what else was going on. If there's a reference in that
21 session to a prior event, I always go to that file to see if it
22 corresponds to what's being reported in the Bosnian Serb Assembly. So
23 it's an interactive process.
24 Q. So in short, you did it while you were compiling the excerpts?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And yet didn't then include that checking into and put it into
3 A. No, no. I -- I, you know, had no intention of producing a
4 three-volume study which is what happens when you start to lard up a
5 fairly simple source report like this with extraneous citations.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, the Chamber wonder, the point you are
7 making is clear now, was clear yesterday already. I think we also told
8 you more or less that we understood that the lack of transparency in
9 other sources used is perfectly clear, and the Chamber wonders why we do
10 not go to the substance of -- unless there's any specific issue that you
11 wanted to raise, but we are going around source materials again and we've
12 done that for quite some time by now so that point is perfectly clear.
13 Whatever may explain the choice of doing it this way, but unless there's
14 one specific point, and then please address that as soon as possible,
15 otherwise go to the subject matter of the report.
16 MR. JORDASH: Well, I will, if I may, just continue on this
17 subject but take Your Honours to the point.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Please.
19 MR. JORDASH:
20 Q. Could I suggest that the reason that you didn't take this -- the
21 approach you've taken with other cases other than Milosevic was that in
22 fact you considered, along with the Prosecution, that this was the best
23 way of supporting the indictment?
24 A. No, that's not the case. I think the excerpts themselves will
25 tell you that the purpose of this particular report was to shed light on
1 a lot of different events, attitudes, some of which in fact go in
2 directions quite apart from what the Prosecution might argue in some
4 Q. The approach you took was to -- what was the question then you
5 were seeking to address? You were looking at what was relevant to the
6 indictment, is that what you said yesterday?
7 A. Yes. And of course, in this particular report to enlighten or
8 provide some answers to the questions that correspond to the eight
9 categories or topics.
10 Q. Who gave you the eight categories or topics?
11 A. I selected those.
12 Q. After being asked to find excerpts which were relevant to the
14 A. Yes, mm-hmm.
15 Q. So the first step was find excerpts relevant to the indictment.
16 Did you sit down with the indictment?
17 A. I read the indictment, yes.
18 Q. And as a response to that, you then said, well, the approach I'm
19 going to take is to categorise my task into these eight titles, this will
20 best achieve what I've been asked to do?
21 A. No, my approach I guess wasn't quite that lawyerly. It was
22 rather to look at the outcome of what I had done for the Milosevic report
23 and see in that report that I probably had not systematised the material,
24 to my satisfaction anyway, topically, so I reviewed that. I reviewed
25 actually the testimony and the cross-examination under Mr. Milosevic and
1 concluded that would be much more useful to the Court to have something
2 that was topically organised within the broad questions or issues that
3 arise in the indictment.
4 Q. You didn't think it would be beneficial to build on the report or
5 to do a similar report to the report on the screen?
6 A. Well, that report was available, could have been submitted by
7 anybody at any time in the case, so I didn't see any value in trying to
8 let's say create some sort of hybrid of the two.
9 MR. JORDASH: Can we go please to page 12 of this report on the
11 Q. I just want to ask you a bit about some of the views you put
12 forward in that case.
13 MR. JORDASH: 12 which is ERN 02910921, the English. I think it
14 is in English. That's 13, I think. Sorry, could we go to the next page,
15 that's 11. We've gone to 10 I think now. It's a bit confusing because
16 it's in reverse order.
17 Q. Just second paragraph there, just very quickly, the sentence:
18 "Babic, on the other hand, accepted Milosevic as an authentic
19 spokesman. 'Serbs in Croatia
20 true representative of the Serbian people, said Babic, and he will not
21 betray the interests of any part of the Serbian people in Yugoslavia.'"
22 Is that a view you still adhere to?
23 A. Well, it's a statement of Babic's view at the time, and my
24 understanding of Babic's view at that time remains the same, yes.
25 Q. Thank you.
1 MR. JORDASH: Can we go to the next page, page 13, please.
2 Q. And I am interested where -- the first paragraph, at its first
3 session, on 3rd of -- I am sorry to take this out of any sort of
4 structure, but I want to be as quick as I can in dealing with this
6 "At its first session on the 31st of July, 1990, the SNV Knin
7 authorised a plebiscite of the Serbian people on the question of autonomy
8 from Croatia
9 police attempted on 17th of August to secure control of police stations
10 in several Serb-majority towns. A staff for city defence in Knin headed
11 by Babic proclaimed a war situation and barricades were erected on roads
12 leading into several towns."
13 Do you adhere to that view, Mr. Donia?
14 A. Well, of course, that -- I'm citing Radulovic's Serbian Krajina
15 there, that's certainly what that book told me, and he was a reporter
16 from a Serbian newspaper, so I accepted that. I frankly don't know
17 whether any other information may have surfaced since then to nuance that
18 understanding of the situation or not. It certainly could be the case.
19 I haven't followed it, but I would hold to Radulovic's description as of
20 that time.
21 MR. JORDASH: Thank you. Can we go to page 14, please, and the
22 paragraph I'm interested in is the second full paragraph on the page.
23 Q. "Even as the Croatian state was acquiring arms from Hungary
24 other countries, Serbian separatists were acquiring the means to contest
25 Croatian authority in several areas of the republic. Beginning in spring
1 1991, JNA officers distributed thousands of weapons to SDS members and
2 others who supported Serbian separatism. Croatian Serbs received various
3 infantry weapons, anti-aircraft guns, mortars, and ammunition from the
4 JNA armouries. By the beginning of June, one JNA officer reported 15.000
5 weapons had been transferred."
6 Again, do you still adhere to that view?
7 A. Well, I know we are very concerned with methodology here, so I
8 would like to see the footnote, if I can, to that number 64.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Footnote 64 reads: "Colonel Dusan Smiljanic to
10 General Ratko Mladic, Knin, 15th of October, 1994," and then it gives the
11 ERN numbers.
12 THE WITNESS: Yes, I would hold that that was the statement made
13 in that document by Colonel Smiljanovic [sic].
14 MR. JORDASH:
15 Q. No, I meant the -- I go further than that. Did you put this into
16 the report because you accepted there was cogent evidence that this was
18 A. I put it into the report, the entire paragraph, because I
19 believed I had cogent evidence that that was the case, including the
20 Croatian state acquiring arms.
21 Q. Thank you.
22 MR. JORDASH: Can we go over the page, please, to page 15. The
23 paragraph I'm interested in is the last full paragraph on the page.
24 Q. "Not long after armed conflict ended in Slovenia, skirmishes in
1 connecting Knin and Split
2 In spring 1991, Croats from Kijevo erected barricades to prevent Serbian
3 intrusions into their village. In August 1991, Serbs from the nearby
4 villages appealed to the Knin Corps of the JNA to remove the barriers and
5 to give them weapons. The newly appointed deputy corps's commander,
6 Ratko Mladic, soon obliged them. In co-operation with Milan Martic, the
7 minister of the interior of SAO Knin, Mladic's JNA artillery bombed the
8 village on 28th of August, 1991."
9 I'll just stop there and ask do you still adhere to that view?
10 Was there cogent evidence of this?
11 A. I had cogent evidence at the time in the form of the source that
12 I've cited at that point, and I believe that that source was an excellent
13 one and on that basis put it in there. I -- as I say, there may be other
14 things that have taken place in the meantime that would nuance or
15 slightly change that account of events if I were aware of them, but I
16 have not followed that particular issue.
17 Q. Okay. Moving on:
18 "In co-operation with Milan Martic, the minister the interior of
19 SAO Knin, Mladic's JNA artillery bombed the village on 28th of August,
20 1991. Kijevo, characterised by Croats as the Croatian Alamo, was
21 conquered by Martic's police in short order. Local Serb forces killed
22 some Croats and drove others from the village. Martic later recalled, it
23 was a joint action between the army and in two days we liberated Kijevo.
24 The army provided the heavy weapons and I provided the infantry."
25 Same question, do you still adhere to that view?
1 A. I adhere to the quote that was provided in the Silber and Little
2 book and do not know of what may have come to light in the meantime to
3 slightly change or alter the answer.
4 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Your Honour, please.
5 JUDGE ORIE: The reason why I intervened is that when you start
6 reading, speed goes up immediately and the translators are not able to
7 follow. So when I stop you, it is because I'm checking whether the other
8 languages can still follow your speed of speech. Please proceed.
9 MR. JORDASH: Thank you, I'll slow down. Can we go to page 30,
11 Q. We move now to the title "The Transformation of the JNA in BH."
12 "The formation and conduct of military and paramilitary
13 organisations in BH took place in the long shadow of the war in Croatia
14 By early 1992, each of the three nationalist parties in BH had taken
15 measures to prepare militarily for war and were able to call upon
16 paramilitary organisations to support their aims. But the decisive role
17 in the militarisation of BH was played by two socialist era military
18 organisations: The local Territorial Defence forces and the JNA."
19 Is that a view you adhere to today?
20 A. Yes.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, if you would not mind, what exercise
22 are you in at this moment? Do you want to add to the evidence of the
23 witness by taking parts of his other reports in order to have them in
24 evidence or are you in ten minutes from now starting asking nasty
25 questions about what you consider perhaps not to be correct? What is the
1 exercise we are in at this moment?
2 MR. JORDASH: The exercise is one, to add to the witness's
3 evidence, and two, to demonstrate that there is a reason why this witness
4 didn't take the same approach.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. But now, as far as the first part of the
6 exercise is concerned, have you asked Mr. Groome whether he would be
7 willing to agree with page that and that, so and so, so that you would
8 agree with on that. I don't know whether this has been done, because we
9 now go through all of this where it's all on paper, the only question is
10 is this what your opinion still is. If that's the case, these opinions
11 represented in other cases by the Prosecution. So I wondered whether we
12 could not have found a more effective, more efficient way.
13 MR. JORDASH: I accept full responsibility for that. I should
14 have spoken to Mr. Groome.
15 MR. GROOME: The Prosecution wouldn't object to the entire report
16 being admitted into evidence in -- [overlapping speakers]
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but I can imagine that -- I don't know whether
18 you have any problems with other parts of the report?
19 MR. JORDASH: I don't want the whole report. It's only the --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. So that makes it clear that you should have
21 asked Mr. Groome and say, well, we have a report with limited sources, we
22 have broader reports from other cases, I'd like to introduce as agreed
23 upon or as in evidence those and those parts of the report, would you
24 have any problem with that, and then we would have saved half an hour,
25 perhaps. I don't know how long you will continue, but let's try to get
1 to the core. You want additional evidence, Mr. Groome apparently doesn't
2 oppose to any of it. You could even stop now and say during the next
3 break to Mr. Groome, those, those, those parts. That's what I want. And
4 at the same time, of course, it is clear that the evidence you are now
5 taking from the other reports is -- well, is at least to some extent
6 sourced, sometimes just a book or just a newspaper, how reliable that is,
7 apparently as Mr. Donia told us, he considers the sources excellent, or
8 at least I take it that you considered them reliable enough to -- not to
9 put any question marks to the findings.
10 It's also clear that whatever you add now was not clearly
11 included in the previous report and that you apparently take the view
12 that therefore the present report gives an incomplete picture of what is
13 relevant for this case. Is that --
14 MR. JORDASH: That's the -- yes.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome.
16 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, if it assists, I would just be
17 concerned about context and taking things out of context, but I would
18 give my prior agreement to accept any paragraph taken in its entirety
19 from this report, this way the Chamber at least has the benefit of the
20 entire thought.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, could you please proceed on the basis
22 of this --
23 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, I will.
24 JUDGE ORIE: -- mutual understanding of how we could use the
25 knowledge and the skills of Mr. Donia.
1 MR. JORDASH: Thank you.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
3 MR. JORDASH: Could we have please on the screen, D305. Yes, I
4 beg your pardon, I've given you the wrong citation. It's 1D01201.
5 Apologies. 1D01201. It was D305 in the Karadzic case, that's the error
6 I made.
7 Q. If you just read it and just familiarise yourself with it again
8 and just assist the Chamber with what this is?
9 A. Well, this is a open letter that a substantial number of people,
10 including myself, signed appealing to the ICTY to release all the
11 evidence in the minutes and transcripts of the Supreme Defence Council.
12 Q. I just want to shortcut this as much as possible, but if everyone
13 has had a chance to read the first page, can we go to the second page.
14 When was this letter sent approximately?
15 A. I can't recall. It was three or four years ago, something like
16 that. It says one year after the ICJ decision, and I can't even recall
17 exactly when that was, but.
18 Q. Do you recall whether this letter was sent before or, well, I
19 presume it was sent before you wrote the report in this case?
20 A. I don't -- I'm not sure. I'm not sure.
21 Q. Okay. Now, the second paragraph reads:
22 "However, the ICJ is not the only United Nations court that
23 failed to uphold the principles of international law. The ICTY judges
24 granted Serbia
25 be submitted in a censored version, allegedly because Serbia's national
1 security was at stake. This would be equivalent to the International
2 Military Tribunal at Nuremberg
3 the Nazi leaders out of respect for Germany's national security. The
4 ICTY's concession to Serbia
5 reached by the Tribunal with the Serbian government, and is therefore
6 evidence again that the international courts have allowed politics to
7 interfere with the legal process."
8 Presumably that was your view because you signed the letter?
9 A. Yes, it was.
10 Q. And it was your view then that the ICTY, the judges at least that
11 made this decision, were being politically influenced?
12 A. They were making a political decision, I would say. I don't know
13 that they were being politically influenced by any particular group, but
14 I think that the language there speaks for itself.
15 Q. Well, politically influenced by the Serbian government, that's
16 the way I would read the language?
17 A. Well, they cited -- they accepted the Serbian argument that
18 national security was at stake, and that was a political agreement, and
19 the letter goes on to state that this is evidence that the international
20 courts have allowed politics to interfere with the legal process.
21 Q. Yes. So this is a mindset which you had when you approached your
22 task of compiling the reports for testifying in -- at the ICTY, is that
23 not logical?
24 A. No. This was a pretty minor consideration that arose in the
25 context of the ICJ case, and I wouldn't say it was an important part of
1 my mind set as I approached the testimony before this -- before the
2 various Chambers of this Tribunal.
3 Q. Well, as you approached the selection of the excerpts in this
4 report, presumably that was somewhere in your mind as you sought to
5 demonstrate what was relevant to the indictment?
6 A. No, I think it was about the farthest thing from my mind. The
7 selection, its processes sufficiently challenging and complex to be
8 completely consuming without this kind of consideration going into it.
9 Q. Pretty strong comparison to compare the Serbs to the Nazis?
10 A. I would say the basic point is correct that indeed, at least from
11 what I have seen of SDC minutes, that this was not in fact a matter of
13 government that were being protected, so I would stand by the basic view
15 Q. Comparison. You would stand by the basic comparison?
16 A. I would stand by the basic view that I've expressed here.
17 Q. Okay. Then further down, the next paragraph:
18 "As representatives of the academic community human rights
19 activists and intellectuals from all over the word, we demand that the
20 international public be told the whole truth. We therefore request that
21 the full and uncensored minutes of the meetings of the Supreme Defence
22 Council be made public so that the role of the Serbian state in the
23 genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina can be assessed objectively."
24 That paragraph appears to assume a conclusion which is that there
25 was a genocide in the Serbian -- sorry in Bosnia and Herzegovina
1 that -- was that a view that you adhered to when approaching the
2 compilation of this report?
3 A. Again it really wasn't a -- it was a view that I adhered to at
4 the time that I was preparing this report. Certainly had been ruled a
5 genocide by this -- Chambers of this Tribunal and by the ICJ, so it was a
6 view I adhered to. It wasn't -- again it wasn't part of my mindset when
7 I went about compiling the excerpts for the report.
8 Q. Well, this letter was, and we can go, I think, up the page from
9 where we've just read, this letter was pointing out, wasn't it, or
10 expressing a view that the genocide which had been found at Srebrenica
11 was in fact too limited a view and in fact what you were urging was the
12 acceptance of genocide across the whole of Bosnia by the Bosnian Serbs?
13 A. Well, I'd like to look at the specific language because I don't
14 recall that portion of this.
15 Q. Okay. Fair enough.
16 MR. JORDASH: Can we go up the page, please, to the top of the
18 Q. There it is, the first paragraph is what I was referring to.
19 A. Well, I think you're -- it misrepresented what this actually says
20 because the letter does indeed call into question the notion that
21 genocide occurred nowhere except Srebrenica, but does not conclude or
22 allege that it occurred elsewhere. It merely cites the calling into
23 question in two of the cases.
24 Q. Well, I'm just reading that paragraph where it questioned whether
25 genocide -- let me start that again. I mean, I'm reading that paragraph
1 in conjunction with the paragraph below where there seems to be in the
2 writers' minds or the signatories' minds an approach to genocide at the
3 ICJ which is wrong, and then down the page the paragraph would appear to
4 suggest that what the international court should be doing is finding
5 genocide in other places. If that's not your intention and I'm putting
6 an erroneous interpretation, then feel free to say.
7 A. I don't -- again, I can't see this whole document one piece at a
8 time, and I can't really put together what you are citing, but that was
9 not my, let's say, intent at the time, and I don't believe that it is
10 what the letter actually states. You may have an interpretation of it
11 that is that way, but it wasn't -- that wasn't one that I shared at the
13 Q. Well, did you approach the putting together of these excerpts
14 with the mindset that the international courts had failed to recognise
15 the genocide elsewhere other than Srebrenica?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Do you hold that view?
18 A. Well, it's certainly true that the international courts have not
19 recognised genocide outside of Srebrenica. That's a fact.
20 Q. Yeah, that's not the question. The question is do you hold the
21 view that that's wrong?
22 A. I'm sorry, but that was your question.
23 Q. Okay. I'm asking you another question.
24 A. And the question as to whether it's wrong or not, I don't know.
25 I frankly go back and forth in my own mind about that issue and really
1 don't have a definitive opinion of it.
2 Q. Sometimes yes, you do think it and sometimes no, you don't think
4 A. Sometimes I think there's a very good case for it and other times
5 I, you know, and this is usually in the course of reviewing evidence, and
6 I look at the extent to which various panels at this Tribunal have
7 wrestled with that issue very -- obviously very conscientiously and can
8 see the reasons that they would conclude that there was not.
9 MR. JORDASH: Okay. Let's go to the report, now.
10 Q. Thank you for the --
11 MR. JORDASH: Oh, may I tender this as an exhibit, Your Honours?
12 MR. GROOME: No objection, Your Honour.
13 THE WITNESS: Could I have some more water, please.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I'll ask that some more water be provided to
16 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, the number would be?
18 THE REGISTRAR: This would be Exhibit D86, Your Honours.
19 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
20 MR. JORDASH: We go please to --
21 JUDGE ORIE: Could we ask you one question, Mr. Donia. Are you
22 familiar with the kind of decisions a court takes halfway in this
23 Tribunal? That is, a decision on a motion that there's no case to
25 THE WITNESS: Yes, I am, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Do you agree with me that there is at least in this
2 statement quite some speculation as to what would have been the outcome
3 of the case and that you compared the outcome of the ICJ decision with a
4 halfway decision, as we call it, 98 bis, and that there is quite some
5 speculation as to what would have been the case if the ICJ would have had
6 available these reports.
7 THE WITNESS: Absolutely, Your Honour. Yes, I agree. I think
8 it's a matter of mere speculation.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But nevertheless, there's no hesitation to
10 call it a miscarriage of justice?
11 THE WITNESS: I think the miscarriage of justice I'm referring to
12 is the failure to consult the SDC minutes.
13 JUDGE ORIE: That means that if there is a procedural flaw that
14 you do not hesitate to call it a miscarriage of justice because that's --
15 you are pointing at a procedural step in your view that should have been
16 taken and if it's not taken, you always understood the miscarriage of
17 justice that the whole of the judgement is a mistake, is incorrect, is so
18 basically affected that it's not just a matter of speculation whether the
19 outcome is right or wrong, but that is a strong suspicion that this
20 procedural flaw must have had as a consequences that the outcome is not
21 reliable anymore? That's my understanding. I'm just trying to
22 understand your language and for that purpose I give you my understanding
23 of what a miscarriage of justice might come down to.
24 THE WITNESS: Yes, I certainly take your point, Your Honour. And
25 I think the term "miscarriage of justice" here was not intended or was
1 not used in the sense that you have just used it. I think it was used
2 perhaps loosely and without alleging that the -- intending to allege that
3 the entire judgement was a miscarriage. Now, I have to say that I didn't
4 draft this letter up. I did sign it.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But may I understand this to be that you might
6 not have been very cautious or very diligent in reviewing the language
7 used here and that it's more an overall impression which bothered you
8 which led to this signing this letter, is that --
9 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour. That's the case. I do have
10 strong feelings about the SDC minutes but for reasons that are somewhat
11 apart from some of the considerations here.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Would you agree with me that if you sign
13 specifically as an academic, that more diligence could have been
14 expected? I mean, if you are a politician, I don't expect you to do
15 anything else than to give the one-liners you find most suitable to your
16 cause, but here I think as a matter of fact, it's specifically -- I take
17 it at least that you signed it as an academic and not as an activist
18 or -- I mean, we have several categories here of people who signed this
19 document and activist, of course, I would say, are to some extent similar
20 to politicians in their approach of --
21 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour. The answer is yes. And I
22 have -- I think this is probably the last letter. I've been asked to
23 sign dozens of letters since.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
25 THE WITNESS: And I just -- I don't. I have not. I might sign
1 one --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Let me ask you --
3 THE WITNESS: -- but your point is something I think --
4 JUDGE ORIE: -- do you regret that you signed this as an
5 academic, although you may --
6 THE WITNESS: No, I don't.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
8 THE WITNESS: But I would concur that I think the terminology
9 here is a little bit loose and better caution should have been exercised.
10 I should have exercised more caution in reviewing it and the use of the
11 specific language.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. One final question. This is about the
13 decision of the ICJ, and it says in the first paragraph that it was a
14 betrayal of the principle that international criminal law should act to
15 prevent, is the ICJ exercising any criminal jurisdiction in your view or
16 how do I have to understand that line?
17 THE WITNESS: I -- I don't know. I don't believe it is, but I'm
18 not absolutely certain that it isn't exercising some criminal
19 jurisdiction with that decision on genocide.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Please proceed.
21 MR. JORDASH: Thank you.
22 Q. Just picking up on the issue of your view concerning genocide,
23 did you attend the 7th biannual meeting of the international association
24 of genocide scholars in 2007 in Sarajevo
25 A. No, I don't believe I did. I think I was invited to that meeting
1 and probably appeared on the programme, but I wasn't there.
2 Q. One second. You were invited and you were there invited to be
3 the chair in a discussion on the geography of genocide against Bosniaks?
4 A. I was invited. I recall being on the programme, seeing the
5 programme and being surprised to see that my name was there because I did
6 not accept the invitation. It was a, you know, fully paid trip to
8 from the programme organisers and didn't feel comfortable actually being
9 a part of the programme.
10 Q. Have you attended or been invited to attend any other such
11 programmes in the last two or three years?
12 A. Well, there's an annual programme there in Sarajevo, and I've
13 been I think invited to pretty much all of those.
14 Q. Have you been to any of them?
15 A. No. There was a conference here in The Hague at the Peace Palace
16 I think in December of 2008 that I did attend and gave a paper on the
17 issue of the disposition of the archives of the ICTY.
18 Q. Okay. Let's go then to the substance of your report.
19 MR. JORDASH: Please could we turn to page 3. Sorry, can we -- I
20 hope you've got a paper copy of your expert report in this case,
21 Mr. Donia. That's what I'm referring to. I apologise for being less
22 than clear.
23 Q. So this is the first title of the report, "Political Ideals of
24 Assembly Leaders and Delegates." And you make the point in the first
25 paragraph there that:
1 "Delegates often assign priority to Serb national interests over
2 other values and ideals as is evident in many of the following excerpts."
3 Just so I understand what it was that you were seeking to do,
4 were you seeking to demonstrate that fact, that Serbs in the Assembly
5 assign priority to their interests over other values and ideals? Is that
6 the substance of the section?
7 A. No. The introduction was subsequent to the selection -- I wrote
8 the introduction subsequent to the selection of the excerpts and was
9 trying to summarise the primary themes that one finds in the excerpts.
10 Q. Which were, how would you summarise the themes then that this
11 section is supposed to represent?
12 A. Well, I think I just wrote it here.
13 Q. Well, is it this then: Serb nationalism and Serb national
14 interests over other values and ideals. Is there anything else?
15 A. Well, yes, read the entire paragraph or much of it:
16 "Delegates articulated general political principles as well as
17 commenting on specific issues. They most commonly spoke of their
18 commitment to Serb populist nationalism, but they also embraced
19 fundamental precepts of liberal democratic thought: constitutionalism,
20 the rule of law, and parliamentary governance."
21 Q. And how was it in your mind that you related this to your task of
22 selecting excerpts relevant to the indictment?
23 A. I selected the excerpts under the category of political ideals of
24 Assembly leaders and delegates, and then attempted to summarise the major
25 topics which the delegates addressed in this introductory paragraph.
1 Q. But in your mind how was this relevant to the indictment?
2 A. Certain behaviour is alleged in the indictment, and I think that
3 this goes to explaining the motivations and the objectives, goals, I
4 would say the philosophical orientation which stood behind the acts
5 alleged in the indictment.
6 Q. Okay. Moving on to the next section. This is the strategic
7 goals, page 17. Now, what were you purporting to do in this section?
8 A. I searched for excerpts that reflected the ideas inherent in the
9 six strategic goals that were adopted on May 12th, 1992, and published in
10 November of 1993, with the belief that they did not just spring out of
11 the air in May of 1992, that the ideas were there in somewhat unrefined
12 form, perhaps, before they were actually written down and approved, and
13 that they were repeated, reiterated, and employed to govern the behaviour
14 of the Bosnian Serb government after they were approved and published.
15 Q. Okay.
16 MR. JORDASH: Can we go to page 19, please. And can we also have
17 on e-court Rule 65 ter 1286. And can we go, please, to page ERN
18 0084-0470. And can we please enlarge the bottom of the page.
19 Q. I'm just wondering, if you look at you -- at paragraph 41 of your
20 report have included the second to last paragraph:
21 "Speaking of which, I would like to single out the significance
22 of the area of Northern Bosnia ..."
23 And then the next paragraph, the first three lines are missed
25 "I appeal to you to propose in these negotiations such options as
1 would keep BH within the existing borders with possibly new borders in
3 Is there any reason why you selected the first paragraph before
4 the sentence I've just read out but missed out that sentence?
5 A. I want to take a minute to look at this and see if I can recall
6 why I drew the lines around the excerpts where I did. I have to say,
7 it's often a very difficult decision to know exactly how much to take and
8 the temptation is to take a great deal and to lengthen the report and
9 enrich the context and do that --
10 Q. Just take your time to have a look at it.
11 MR. JORDASH: May I just consult with my colleague while that's
12 happening, Your Honours.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please do so.
14 [Defence counsel confer]
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, any page reference for the B/C/S
16 version? That's what Madam Registrar is asking for.
17 MR. JORDASH: No, I am afraid. If I can be forgiven for this one
18 and then make sure that this doesn't happen after the break.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I don't know whether I'm the person to forgive
20 you but at least to show understanding. Please proceed.
21 MR. JORDASH: Thank you.
22 Q. Mr. Donia?
23 A. Yes. You know, I think looking at it, it could -- I could very
24 well have included it without -- without changing much. I think the
25 reason I did not include it was it goes off the topic slightly of the
1 actual -- the corridor, which is strategic goal number 2, and goes to the
2 subject of borders in Herzegovina
3 strategic goal with the exception of the Neretva river.
4 MR. JORDASH: Can we turn, please, to page 20 of the English
5 version. Paragraph -- please could we have on e-court, 587. Rule 65 ter
6 587, please.
7 JUDGE ORIE: What page, Mr. Jordash?
8 MR. JORDASH: Sorry. It's page 11 or page ERN -- sorry, if we go
9 on page 11, I think, on the bottom right-hand corner.
10 Q. I think we can see in paragraph 45 your inclusion of the
11 paragraph. I think that the most fundamental thing which we can find in
12 page 11, the third paragraph, and then the actual words of Krajisnik
13 include the following:
14 "Off the record, there you have agreed to the idea that the BH
15 should be partitioned according to the" -- sorry I've lost myself.
16 JUDGE ORIE: What page are we?
17 MR. JORDASH: Sorry, page 11.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Page 11. What paragraph?
19 MR. JORDASH: It's the second -- the second paragraph on the page
21 JUDGE ORIE: That's --
22 MR. JORDASH: "Let us first have" -- sorry, it's the third
23 paragraph on the page. "Let us" --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
25 MR. JORDASH:
1 Q. "Let us first have a look --
2 JUDGE ORIE: "I think that the most fundamental..." yes, okay.
3 MR. JORDASH: And then I'm just reading out the line that was
4 missed out from Mr. Donia's excerpts, which reads four lines into that
6 Please, could we go left to the beginning so that we can see
7 the --
8 "Off the record they have agreed to the idea that these be called
9 states or republics, I'm speaking about the European community which put
10 the SDA, Party of Democratic Action, under lots of pressure to accept
12 Is this correct that Krajisnik is referencing what the Bosnian
13 Serbs in the Assembly understood to be the political decision negotiated
14 with the European community acting as the arbiter, if you like?
15 A. I am sorry, what was the question again?
16 Q. Well, Krajisnik -- Krajisnik is discussing, as you would say the
17 six strategic goals but with reference to what's happening politically
18 with the European community, putting the SDA party under pressure to
19 accept certain Bosnian Serb goals?
20 A. This doesn't specifically address the six strategic goals, no.
21 It refers to the EC negotiations that have concluded earlier this day,
22 and he is in very succinct language describing the understanding that he
23 and Karadzic had that -- fundamentally an agreement had been reached for
24 partition according to ethnic principles.
25 Q. And Krajisnik was saying well this is good, this is consistent
1 with what we wanted?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Yes. And if we -- perhaps if you just take a moment to read that
4 page 11 in its totality.
5 A. I've just lost the text. I just can't -- having great difficulty
6 reading this.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then could we enlarge the English version at
8 this moment. Is this any better, otherwise --
9 THE WITNESS: Yes, it is, Your Honour. Can you go down the page,
10 please, just a bit. I still can't see the entire page. Okay, I've
11 reviewed this.
12 MR. JORDASH: Can we go to page 12, please. And page 13 also.
13 JUDGE ORIE: What about giving a hard copy to Mr. Donia and then
14 resume after the break?
15 MR. JORDASH: A hard copy of?
16 JUDGE ORIE: Of what he is reading now and ask him to read it
17 over the break because --
18 MR. JORDASH: Certainly, Your Honour. Yes, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: You're taking -- it's going at a very slow speed at
20 this moment for various reasons.
21 MR. JORDASH: I think I'm still on for finishing within two
22 hours, I think, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, which would mean that you would need 45 more
25 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, yes. Thank you.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome.
2 MR. GROOME: I just have something I want to bring to the court's
3 attention before we break, I'm not sure if you are about to rise.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 MR. GROOME: Since it seems that we are going to -- the witnesses
6 scheduled for this week will go into next week, I've just been advised
7 that the witness next week has some medical issues as well, and so the
8 Prosecution is requesting if the Chamber would consider whether it's
9 possible to sit additional sessions next week.
10 JUDGE ORIE: No.
11 MR. GROOME: I think it would be preferable if we finished.
12 JUDGE ORIE: There's no way. If you would look at the Gotovina
13 case scheduling, then you may be aware that it's --
14 MR. GROOME: I wasn't aware that it would --
15 JUDGE ORIE: I mean, ten hours a day, to add to ten hours a day
16 would not be a wise thing to do.
17 MR. GROOME: Okay. I accept that.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll first have a break, and could you through
19 the Registrar provide Mr. Donia with a copy of the pages you wanted him
20 to read and perhaps also pages still to come, and then we are going to
21 spoil your breaks, Mr. Donia, because Mr. -- I don't know how many other
22 pages you have for the witness to read because that takes less time in
23 court and would bring you down to 35 minutes, Mr. Jordash.
24 THE WITNESS: My favourite activity is reading these transcripts,
25 Your Honour.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, yes, I do understand. Mr. Jordash, would you
2 have a -- how many do you still have that you want to read major portions
3 by the witness?
4 MR. JORDASH: Actually, this is the largest portion. The rest
5 will be much, much smaller.
6 JUDGE ORIE: If you have them available, could you usually
7 copying takes, I take them that you have them in hard copy as well.
8 MR. JORDASH: No, no, I've been using them -- it may take some
9 time to --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Try to -- Mr. Donia, Mr. Jordash is doing his utmost
11 best to provide you to the extent possible, technically possible, with
12 anything he would invite you to read after the break. We'll have a break
13 and we'll resume at five minutes to 11.00.
14 --- Recess taken at 10.27 a.m.
15 --- On resuming at 11.04 a.m.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, you may proceed.
17 MR. JORDASH: Thank you, Your Honour.
18 Q. Could I just check on the situation with copies, Mr. Donia, were
19 you given and have you had a chance to read a number of pages from
20 different Assembly minutes? I know our time was short so.
21 A. I just got them a few minutes ago, and I was able to look at a
23 Q. Okay. I think it will speed things up that you've got paper
24 copies anyway. I was asking you to look at 65 ter 587, pages 11 to 13.
25 Did you have a chance to read them?
1 A. Is this the 11th session?
2 Q. This is the -- just give me a moment.
3 JUDGE ORIE: The one on our screen at this moment is the 11th
5 MR. JORDASH: Yes, that's the one that --
6 JUDGE ORIE: 18th of March, 1992.
7 THE WITNESS: Yes, I have indeed read pages 11 through 13.
8 MR. JORDASH:
9 Q. 11 to 13, I suggest, contextualises and provides valuable context
10 to what Krajisnik was in fact talking about, do you agree with that?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. In that it places within context his remarks, at paragraph 45 of
13 your report, into the context of European community or negotiations under
14 the auspices of the European community?
15 A. Yes, I agree with that. I think the prior comments of
16 Dr. Karadzic also provide substantial context to what Mr. Krajisnik says.
17 Q. Sorry, which remarks are these?
18 A. Well, in his summary, Karadzic actually addresses what he
19 understands to be the status of the negotiations, and he appears to have
20 the conclusions before him which were also published and very accurately
21 and cautiously goes through and outlines what has been agreed upon and
22 emphasises that it was a basis for further negotiation before turning
23 over the podium to Mr. Krajisnik.
24 Q. Let's leave that aside and then move on to the next point I want
25 to raise. Please would you turn to paragraph 48 of your report, and this
1 is where Karadzic outlines the --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, one very practical question, if you ask
3 the witness whether this contextualises and you give three pages, how is
4 the Chamber at a later stage to be able to evaluate that evidence? Do
5 you want to tender those three pages or the whole of it?
6 MR. JORDASH: Well, to a degree I'm in Your Honours's hands
7 because what we will do in due course will ourselves go through the
8 Assembly minutes and pull out the excerpts which we say, overall --
9 JUDGE ORIE: So you want to add to them, perhaps, and then make
10 that bar table submissions to -- in order to contextualise and to be
11 submitted by the parties with their comments. This contextualises
12 paragraph 45 of the expert's report?
13 MR. JORDASH: Yes or perhaps an expert report of our own.
14 JUDGE ORIE: So at this moment that will follow. You will
15 understand that if we hear this evidence that it's without any meaning if
16 we don't have those paragraphs in one way or another available to us.
17 MR. JORDASH: I mean, if Your Honour would prefer for example
18 when there is --
19 JUDGE ORIE: I do not prefer anything. I just draw your
20 attention to the fact that if the witness says pages 11, 12, and 13 give
21 further context to what I've put in my report, that to evaluate that
22 evidence for the Chamber is impossible if not in one way or another in a
23 summary format through another witness, by bar tabling it, whatever way
24 we have that available.
25 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, yes. I think to save time, I will go
1 down the bar table.
2 JUDGE ORIE: We'll hear from you.
3 MR. JORDASH: Yes. Thank you.
4 Q. Paragraph 48 of your report deals with Karadzic's outlining of
5 the strategic goals, and we've seen what you say about them in the
6 Karadzic trial, and I just want to take you -- if you just keep a finger
7 in the report at paragraph 48, and then turn to paragraph 242 which deals
8 with something that General Mladic said, if I'm correct, please correct
9 me if I'm not, was said in the same session in response to discussions
10 about the strategic goals?
11 A. Okay.
12 Q. People and peoples are not pawns, nor are the keys in ones
13 pockets that can be shifted from here to there, and so on?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. I'm just wondering why you didn't put that into the section
16 detailing the six strategic goals because it appears to me that Mladic's
17 comment about avoiding the shifting of people at the same session the
18 strategic goals were outlined is of some significance?
19 A. I would agree. As I indicated, I think, in the introduction to
20 the report, there are a number of excerpts that could go in two or even
21 three sections and this, you know, is certainly one of them that could
22 equally well fall into the strategic goal section, but he doesn't, I
23 guess I made the decision to put it here because he is really speaking
24 primarily about the conduct of war or the fact that he does not want to
25 have a war against the Muslims as a people or Croats against the people,
1 and it appears to, you know, caution everyone else about the fact that
2 this kind of -- these kinds of forced population movements would be in
3 his view genocide.
4 Q. Well, isn't he saying in reference to the first goal of the
5 separation of the national communities that it ought not to involve
6 transfer of populations, that the separation of states is something other
7 than that?
8 A. Well, he doesn't mention the first strategic goal here, he
9 doesn't specifically address it. And I think that's why I put it here
10 rather than under the strategic goal section but it could very well go in
11 the Serb strategic goal section as well.
12 Q. But the 12th of May, 1992 Assembly was really focused on the
13 strategic goals, and you would accept, wouldn't you, that Mladic was
14 responding to and interpreting his version of a strategic goal?
15 A. No, I wouldn't say that. I think there's a lot of things going
16 on at the 16th session including some disagreements between Karadzic
17 and -- or between Mladic and some of the delegates about just how much
18 the military effort should play a role in making these things happen. So
19 I don't think this is him directly, let's say contradicting or disputing
20 the first strategic goal. He is really talking here about -- more about
21 the manner in which it might be -- should not be pursued.
22 Q. This is the -- I don't think we are in disagreement. He is not
23 saying let's not pursue that strategic goal, strategic goal 1, or it's
24 not a goal we should aim for. He is saying it's a goal which I
25 understand not to involve the transfer of populations, it's something
1 other than that, a political ideal; isn't that correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And what was his position at the time Mladic was speaking at this
4 Assembly minute -- Assembly?
5 A. Well, he was either about to be made -- I believe he was about to
6 be made the commander of the VRS which itself was not actually created
7 yet. He was at that time, I believe, the commander of the 2nd military
8 district of the JNA.
9 Q. And I think is this right, this was one of the first, if not the
10 first, Assembly that he had attended?
11 A. I think that's probably right, yes.
12 Q. Could I ask you to turn -- I think you've got a paper copy of
13 Rule 65 ter 4721, pages 9 to 15, and I just want to look at paragraph 61
14 of your report in light of this wider context. I don't know -- did you
15 get the chance to -- I don't want to rush you. I know that you were
16 landed with this at the last minute, so, 4721, did you get a chance to
17 read the pages 9 to 15?
18 A. No, I did not.
19 Q. Do you want to just --
20 A. I'm broadly familiar with them, if you ...
21 Q. Well, perhaps I can do it this way then. I want to just have a
22 focus for a moment on the union of three republics peace plan, and if we
23 look at page 9 of 4721, I think we might find some reference and
24 explanation of it. If we look at the second -- the third paragraph on
25 page 9.
1 A. Second paragraph you said?
2 Q. The third paragraph.
3 A. Third paragraph.
4 Q. This is Karadzic speaking and addressing the 34th session.
5 A. Okay.
6 Q. And he notes at paragraph 3:
7 "One of the most important documents is the constitutional
8 agreement on the Alliance
9 republics, we can call it like that."
10 Could you just explain briefly what this is a reference to?
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, if you are referring to 65 ter numbers,
12 the Chamber would not immediately know what you are -- [overlapping
14 MR. JORDASH: Oh, I beg your pardon. Of course.
15 JUDGE ORIE: If you could give the number of the session and the
16 date so that we --
17 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, yes. It's the 34th session, 27th of
18 October to 1st of October 1993.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. And then page?
20 MR. JORDASH: And it's page 99.
21 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers]
22 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
23 THE WITNESS: The union of the three republics was the successor
24 peace plan to the Vance-Owen Plan which failed when it was rejected by
25 the Bosnian Serbs in May of 1993. At the time Karadzic is speaking here,
1 the --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Could we first have it on our screen because I don't
3 think that we have it at this moment. I think we are still on the 11th
4 session of the 18th of March.
5 MR. JORDASH: Yes. I should have asked --
6 JUDGE ORIE: So could we ask for -- I think it's 65 -- it was
7 4721. 65 ter 4721.
8 MR. JORDASH: 4721, Your Honour, yes.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Could we have that on our screen, page 9 in English.
10 MR. JORDASH: And so the --
11 JUDGE ORIE: One second.
12 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
13 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar informs me that 4721 is the 18th of
14 March, 11th session, so therefore -- could you please check, Mr. Jordash,
15 whether you have the right reference.
16 MR. JORDASH: I'm surprised at that because it's been --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 MR. JORDASH: Because I've got 4721 on my notes, and we've just
19 checked over the break that 4721 is this and we've got the B/C/S page
20 numbers too.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Okay, let's check that.
22 MR. JORDASH: I think we are right actually.
23 JUDGE ORIE: You say it with a soft voice. The problem is the
24 Chamber is unable to search on 65 ter numbers. That's -- this --
25 MR. JORDASH: I think we are right.
1 JUDGE ORIE: What we have on our screen, perhaps with ERN
2 numbers, we have starts with 0190-4669, that's what we have on our screen
3 as the first page of the document.
4 MR. JORDASH: What we need, Your Honour, is 0215-0508, of the
5 English, is the English ERN. And the B/C/S ERN --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, now we have the -- Madam Registrar, under what
7 65 ter number is the document which we have now on our screen entered
8 into e-court?
9 THE REGISTRAR: This is the page 1 of 65 ter 4721 and before that
10 was page 9 of the same 65 ter document.
11 JUDGE ORIE: That comes really as a surprise because when I click
12 through the cover page of the previous document was still the 18th of
13 March, 11th session. So we have to carefully check that there are no
14 mistakes. We are now in the right document. We move to page 9 of this
16 MR. JORDASH: Page 9 of the English and page 7 of the B/C/S,
18 JUDGE ORIE: There must have been made a mistake somewhere. Your
19 65 ter number was right, we are now on the relevant -- no, not yet.
20 MR. JORDASH: Perhaps we can, to shortcut things, go to --
21 straight to page 11 of the English and page 13 of the B/C/S.
22 JUDGE ORIE: It's Mr. Karadzic speaking.
23 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, yes.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
25 MR. JORDASH:
1 Q. I don't know if you've had during that time, Mr. Donia, a chance
2 to read through the pages?
3 JUDGE ORIE: No, but the right page is not yet -- page 13 is not
4 yet on the screen. There it is.
5 MR. JORDASH:
6 Q. At this stage, I mean, if we look through the 9 to 15, there's a
7 general agreement, is this right, being expressed by Karadzic concerning
8 the, if you like, congruence between the union of republics' plan and the
9 strategic goals and Karadzic is making the point, and this is most
10 clearly made at page 15, that apart from strategic aim 5, the union peace
11 plan provides pretty much everything else of the Serbian strategic goals?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And the union of three republics' peace plan involved not only
14 creating corridors and taking land from Muslims, but it also involved the
15 vice-versa, the same creating corridors for the Muslims and taking land
16 from the Serbs, and we see this in these pages?
17 A. That's the case. It actually had fewer enclaves and corridors
18 than did the predecessor plan, the Vance-Owen Peace Plan, but still
19 adhered to that same basic formula of trying to carve out an ethnic map
20 with consideration to these issues of contiguity and compactness.
21 Q. Right. And just finally, sir, would you agree that pages 9 to 15
22 contextualise the discussions concerning the Bosnian Serbs strategic
23 goals in light of the political agreement which are being sought to reach
24 through the union of three republics' peace plan?
25 A. They were under negotiation I think at that point and not yet
1 agreed upon, but I agree with the rest of your formulation.
2 Q. Thank you.
3 A. That does indeed contextualise it.
4 Q. Sorry? That --
5 A. It does indeed contextualise.
6 Q. Thank you.
7 A. Page 15.
8 MR. JORDASH: If we can turn now, please, in e-court and in the
9 paper copies to Rule 65 ter 1320.
10 JUDGE ORIE: And Mr. Jordash, that would be?
11 MR. JORDASH: 0215-0114.
12 JUDGE ORIE: If I have them in front of me, I see those numbers,
13 but we cannot -- what's the date [overlapping speakers]?
14 MR. JORDASH: I beg your pardon. Sorry. It's session 30th
15 session, 5th to 6th of May, 1993, and it's a conversation -- or it's a
16 speech by Milosevic. And it's page 113 that I'm ... This doesn't seem
17 to be the -- the right page. In fact I need -- sorry, we'll have to do
18 this on the screen, I'll need page 96, which is where we'll find the
19 speech by Milosevic, but then the speech goes on, and I want to make sure
20 that we understand that this is the continuation of the Milosevic speech
21 at 113. And the B/C/S is 80 to 81. Maybe we can shortcut this.
22 Q. In relation to paragraph 88 of your report, Mr. Donia, you deal
23 with the speech by Milosevic when he attended on the one occasion to
24 address the Assembly about the Vance-Owen Peace Plan?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And maybe you know the Assembly minutes well enough to agree with
2 me that Milosevic also says during this speech "everything needs to be
3 sacrificed for the people except for the people themselves" when urging
4 the Bosnian Serbs to accept the Vance-Owen Peace Plan. Do you recall
6 A. Yes, he did. He said that.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, you are really confusing me. On page
8 113 of this document, Milosevic is not speaking, so therefore could you
9 please be a bit more organised that we -- it's not just listening to
10 words but also try to understand what is said and to be able to follow
11 the excerpts. And on page 113, I see that Mr. Gavric starts speaking
12 halfway the page, and on the previous page we see Miroslav Vjestica
13 speaking. So if you want to be taken seriously, we want to take you
14 seriously by following what you are presenting to the Court, then please
15 be precise. It's not the first time today, so I apologise for the slight
17 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, sorry, I apologise. I think if we go
18 to page 96 to 97.
19 JUDGE ORIE: 96 to 97 of this document, which is -- let me just
20 see what we have there. Yes, we have that now on our screen.
21 THE REGISTRAR: Can we get the page in B/C/S, please.
22 MR. JORDASH: Page in B/C -- I think I can leave this point
23 because the witness has already confirmed. I don't think we need to turn
24 to this page, I've got the wrong page number in my notes.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
1 MR. JORDASH: So rather than wasting any more time, the witness
2 has agreed that Milosevic said that during the speech and that was the
3 only point I wish to make.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
5 MR. JORDASH:
6 Q. Please could we turn to paragraph 197 of your report, Mr. Donia.
7 And it's the 32nd session, 19 to 20 of May, 1993.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Could the counsel please refer to a 65 ter
10 MR. JORDASH: 1324.
11 Q. And for context we are now dealing with the section of your
12 report which deals with the police MUP and state security services. Do
13 you have the paper copies there, Mr. Donia, 1324? The pages I'm
14 interested in are pages 55 to -- I think I'm going to shortcut things by
15 just asking you to read 55 to 65 of the English, which is 37 to 40 of the
16 B/C/S and just ask you the same question, whether this contextualises
17 what was happening with the security services within Bosnia, the Bosnian
18 Serb --
19 A. If you'll permit me to go rapidly through it, I believe I can
20 answer the question.
21 Q. Yes, please.
22 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, while Dr. Donia is doing that, I just
23 want to state the Prosecution's position would be that there are a number
24 of experts coming in the future that the Prosecution would have no
25 objection to -- once the witness begins to testify, if counsel wants to
1 submit through the Court Officer some documents for the witness to read
2 overnight, the Prosecution would have no objection to that so perhaps
3 with future experts it might go quicker.
4 JUDGE ORIE: That's on the record.
5 THE WITNESS: Based on what I've read, I would concur that it
6 provides context to the excerpt in the report.
7 MR. JORDASH:
8 Q. Thank you. And Jovo Mijatovic, which is speaking from page 56
9 onwards about the security services, who was Mijatovic?
10 A. He was a delegate. I don't -- can't go beyond that. I don't
11 know what position he made up.
12 Q. And the discussion concerning the police and the security
13 services was, if I can label it generically, was a discussion about the
14 fragmentation of the security services and the need to bring it under
15 unified command? I know that's a broad generalisation?
16 A. But it's a valid generalisation. There are other issues
17 discussed as well of the, let's say, ineffectiveness of the police and
18 security forces, but your statement is correct.
19 Q. And the discussions that took place within the Assembly
20 concerning the police and the security services were -- and the need to
21 bring them under a unified command, were focused on the Bosnian Serbs,
22 they were not focused on other intelligence or security services, would
23 you agree with that?
24 A. They were primarily focused on the Bosnian Serbs, but reading
25 through, I see some of the issues that they discussed here in fact
1 related to Serbian MUP and perhaps not identified as such but also kind
2 of reached over the border, so primarily focused on the Bosnian Serbs,
4 Q. And when the Serbian services are discussed, it's largely in
5 relation to the exchange of certain information, intelligence information
6 relating to military operations; would you agree with that as a general
8 A. Among other things, it is focused on that. It's also focused on
9 these instances of corruption and free movement of goods without being
10 taxed and the theft of the automobiles, things like that. So certainly
11 one of the topics that receives primary attention here is the security
12 service, yes.
13 Q. Thank you.
14 MR. JORDASH: I think I'm coming to a close, if I can just have a
15 minute just to check something. Two more things if I may. Could we turn
16 to paragraph 226 of your report. And it's the reference to the 19th
17 session, 12th of August, 1992. And it's 2372, 65 ter 2372.
18 Q. And I just wanted to ask you about the reference there to the
19 paramilitaries. I don't know if you know this again from your
20 recollection, but do you recall General Gvero being present during some
21 of the Assembly meetings?
22 A. I recall him being present at a number of Assembly meetings. I
23 can't specifically attest to whether he was present at this one.
24 Q. Do you recall him speaking about paramilitaries and the need for
25 the Main
1 A. No, I don't specifically recall that discussion or assertion.
2 Q. What was Gvero's position at that time, do you know, around this
3 point in time, mid-1992?
4 A. He was a senior commander. I believe he was Chief of Staff of
5 the VRS, but if not that a senior commander and perhaps deputy commander
6 too to Mladic.
7 Q. Could I ask one of the final topics, could we turn please to 233
8 of your report. And a discussion about the Red Berets.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Did the discussion about the Red Berets, as far as you recall,
11 from the Assembly minutes focus on it being a problem from the RS Army
12 and they whoever they were being subordinated to that army?
13 A. I would not want to go too far without refreshing my memory by
14 actually looking at the passage. But as I recall, the concern was in
15 this particular instance, the killing of this policeman and the threat
16 that Red Berets pose to civilians and domestic tranquility in Brcko.
17 Q. It was accepted amongst those present during the Assembly session
18 that they were a -- effectively a unit of the RS Army?
19 A. I don't recall that conclusion.
20 Q. Well, you can see from 233, the excerpt that you placed within
21 the report, appears to suggest that?
22 A. Vojinovic certainly concluded that, yes.
23 Q. Presumably if you'd seen something else in the Assembly minutes
24 you would have put that in given you were putting in issues relevant to
25 the indictment, is that fair?
1 A. I had to make a number of cuts along the line and I -- I can't
2 absolutely guarantee that there isn't something there pertaining to the
3 Red Berets that I have not included in the report.
4 Q. You were aware from reading the indictment that the Red Berets
5 was figured largely -- large in this case, as an organisation that
6 allegedly run organised commanded by the accused?
7 A. Yes, I was.
8 MR. JORDASH: Thank you, I've got nothing further. Thank you,
9 Your Honours.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you Mr. Jordash.
11 MR. JORDASH: Apologies for the disorganised nature of things.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Well, let's say it was the first session after the
13 recess, but as time proceeds, the level of organisation may improve as
15 Mr. Petrovic, are you ready to cross-examine the witness?
16 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Donia, you are cross-examined by Mr. Petrovic.
18 Mr. Petrovic is counsel for Mr. Simatovic.
19 Please proceed.
20 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
21 Cross-examination by Mr. Petrovic.
22 Q. Good morning, Mr. Donia. First of all I would like to put
23 several questions to you relating to a topic that was partly addressed by
24 my learned friend Mr. Jordash. Could you please, in as much detail as
25 possible, explain to us and describe for us what the Office of the
1 Prosecutor this particular team asked of you and how they defined your
2 task in preparation for your expert report, what it is that this specific
3 team asked of you?
4 A. The team asked me to survey the Bosnian Serb Assembly sessions
5 through its minutes and transcripts, from the beginning until the August
6 session of 1996 with a view toward making a -- excerpting limited
7 passages which shed light on events and developments referenced in the
9 Q. Mr. Donia, were you asked to focus on specific events and to
10 focus on specific individuals, were there such requests?
11 A. Only insofar as I was asked to review the indictment and pay
12 attention to individuals that were named in the indictment insofar as
13 there was substantive information about them in the transcripts.
14 Q. Were you only shown the indictment and were you only told to look
15 for the relevant matters yourself or were you directed to specific
16 passages of the indictment where you were told that you were supposed to
17 bring in information to corroborate and uphold certain elements of the
19 A. No, no such instructions were given to me. I believe I looked at
20 the indictment online in San Diego
21 member of the Prosecutor team about it.
22 Q. Is there any sort of written communication between you and the
23 Office of the Prosecutor defining your tasks or were you merely given
24 verbal instructions and the indictment, and were you only told to produce
25 an expert report based on the indictment itself?
1 A. I was given verbal instructions and a contract to do the
2 background search of the sessions and produce the report.
3 Q. Did you produce several versions of the report for this case or
4 is there only one version; namely, the one we are discussing today?
5 A. Of course I had drafts in my computer as I was bringing this
6 together, but there is only one final version and that's the one before
8 JUDGE ORIE: May I take it, Mr. Petrovic is interested to know
9 whether any of the drafts were discussed between you and the Office of
10 the Prosecution?
11 THE WITNESS: Yes, I did not discuss the drafts with anyone on
12 the Prosecution team. I did have a -- a contact, basically a research
13 person in the OTP who assisted in making sure I got all the sessions of
14 the -- of both the minutes and the transcripts.
15 JUDGE ORIE: But that seems to be a matter a bit different. When
16 you provided -- did you provide a draft to the Office of the Prosecution,
17 well, let's say the first draft?
18 THE WITNESS: No.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Did you provide any draft prior to this final
20 version to the Office of the Prosecution?
21 THE WITNESS: No, but let me qualify that I did provide drafts to
22 that research person.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but the research person was employed by the
25 THE WITNESS: Yes, yes.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So I --
2 THE WITNESS: Employed by the OTP.
3 JUDGE ORIE: So I understand that to be a direct communication
4 with someone employed in the OTP.
5 THE WITNESS: Yes. But there was no -- we didn't discuss the
6 substantive content of the report. It was all directed toward technical
7 issues of making sure that I had the sessions and had the correct
8 corresponding English and B/C/S. There were some sessions that had not
9 yet been translated.
10 JUDGE ORIE: So nothing else was discussed as the completeness of
11 your source material as far as the sessions are concerned?
12 THE WITNESS: That's correct, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Was there ever any suggestion to add something to
14 what was in the draft that by the research assistant or to take out any
15 portion of what you had included in the draft that you communicated to
16 that research person?
17 THE WITNESS: No, there was not.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic, please proceed.
19 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
20 Q. Can we clarify one matter. You provided one of the draft
21 versions of your report to that researcher from the OTP who, in my
22 understanding, was merely required to provide you with technical
23 assistance. My question for you is why did you have to provide him with
24 a draft of your report at all if what you required was merely technical
1 A. It was her, not him. The problems surfaced mainly around
2 translations. There were a number of passages that I selected that had
3 not yet been translated. I submitted those passages to the
4 representative of the OTP to be sure that they were translated. I
5 submitted passages or excerpts that had been translated poorly or weren't
6 up to my satisfaction. And so there was plenty of give and take and
7 feedback on those issues, but the content of the -- the selection of the
8 excerpts never came into question.
9 Q. To what extent does the version, the draft that you provided to
10 the researcher of the OTP differ from the one that we have before us now?
11 A. I don't think I said that I provided a draft. I provided
12 portions of or selected excerpts to this person. There is one final
13 document in its entirety that came together, that I brought together, at
14 the end of this process after all the translations were in order and all
15 the numbering was straightened out.
16 Q. Therefore, the first and only time that you provided a draft was
17 the full version that we have before us today, is that your position?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Can you tell us the minutes that you reviewed, how voluminous
20 were they? How many pages did they number?
21 A. That's a good question. I have not counted them. I believe them
22 to be in the area of 6.000 pages.
23 Q. You didn't number the -- count the pages and you probably didn't
24 attempt to gauge how many hours of discussions were recorded in these
25 minutes. Do you have an estimate of hours, days, or perhaps even weeks
1 of uninterrupted debates that were reviewed and were the subject of your
3 A. I've never tried to estimate the amount of time that this talking
4 actually consumed, but it would be in the certainly hundreds of hours.
5 Q. Did you lack any of the minutes? Did you have all the material
6 that you needed among the papers that were placed at your disposal?
7 A. I did lack some of the minutes and in fact some of the
8 transcripts as well. So yes, I actually found it a major task to
9 inventory everything that I had, identify things that were missing, and
10 then requesting those things from the OTP representative.
11 Q. And finally you did receive all the material, if I've understood
12 this correctly?
13 A. I believe I'm still missing some minutes, and that is probably --
14 that could be because minutes were not taken or preserved or turned over
15 to the OTP, and it could be simply that the OTP couldn't locate them.
16 Q. Can you tell us what the minutes were, or at least the
17 time-period they referred to?
18 A. No.
19 Q. In percentages, what the volume of the material would be? We
20 have the sessions from the 1st to the 63rd, and how many in your
21 estimation are missing?
22 A. I don't think there's any full session that's missing. The
23 minutes are typically very abbreviated and distinctly uninformative. If
24 there are 10, 15 sessions for which there are not minutes, that would be
25 about my guess of how many of the minutes are missing. But I don't
1 believe there's any transcript missing. There were also four
2 extraordinary sessions, one celebratory session, in the course of this
3 time-frame, so the total number gets to I think about 70, and the one
4 session that does not exist, I've never found the transcript or the
5 minutes of the session is the 15th session which was held on April 6th,
7 Q. Mr. Donia, earlier today you told us that the material that was
8 pinpointed in your report was contrary to the case put forward by the
9 OTP. Can you tell us and refer us specifically to the material that you
10 indicated in your report and which goes against the Prosecution case?
11 You told us this and its recorded in the transcript today at page 7.
12 A. I think you've misrepresented what I said.
13 JUDGE ORIE: If there's anything which you say could be a
14 misrepresentation, let's look at the literal text of what you said.
15 Mr. Petrovic, you say page 7 of today's transcript?
16 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] It's at the end of page 6 and at
17 the beginning of page 7, Your Honours. I may have simplified it a bit.
18 JUDGE ORIE: The question was, I'll read it to you:
19 "Could I suggest," that was Mr. Jordash's question, "that the
20 reason that you didn't take the approach you've taken with other cases,
21 other than Milosevic, was that in fact you considered along with the
22 Prosecution that this was the best way of supporting the indictment?"
23 And your answer was:
24 "No, that's not the case. I think the excerpts themselves will
25 tell you that the purpose of this particular report was to shed light on
1 a lot of different events, attitudes, some of which in fact go in
2 directions quite apart from what the Prosecution might argue in some
4 And what Mr. Petrovic is asking you, whether you could give
5 examples of excerpts which, as you said, go in directions quite apart
6 from what the Prosecution might argue. Could you give examples of that?
7 THE WITNESS: Yes, I could probably go through and find something
8 in about a third of the -- maybe even half of the entries, but I would
9 start with number one with Krajisnik's very precise description of the
10 issue of the Bosnian Assembly and the Council for National Equality,
11 which is -- doesn't figure at all, as far as I can see, in the
12 Prosecution thinking or the actual case.
13 I think we spoke of one yesterday when we were looking at the
14 great Dusan's empire. The point that Karadzic made in that statement and
15 makes repeatedly in the Assembly is that he wanted it to give up land in
16 the negotiation process in order to achieve peace. That is, to me,
17 just -- I can look through these and see that's pretty much an
18 irrefutable conclusion that goes, I think, in quite a different direction
19 than the Prosecution argues it.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic, please proceed.
21 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
22 Q. Mr. Donia, you have your report before you. You said that you
23 would start from item 1, and if you say that there's many of them, I
24 suppose you wouldn't find it difficult to find the next example of such
25 an instance contained in your report?
1 A. Well, number -- I point out here number -- it's -- excuse me just
2 a second, Your Honour. It's Mr. Buha in the 4th session giving this very
3 succinct statement about the relationship between civil society and
4 national identity. I don't hear anything about that from the
5 Prosecution. I think it's a strong affirmation of that principle on his
6 part. It's -- certainly I put it there because I find it to be the most,
7 let's say, compelling statement of that difference that I found in all
8 the Bosnian Serb Assembly minutes.
9 JUDGE ORIE: You are referring to paragraph 9 of your report, is
10 that --
11 THE WITNESS: That's correct.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 Please proceed.
14 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. You say "contrary to the Prosecution case," what is the case of
16 the Prosecution on this particular score and what is your finding which
17 is contrary to their case, and I'm asking about the issue of national and
18 civic identity?
19 JUDGE ORIE: What the Prosecution's case is, Mr. Petrovic, is not
20 for the witness to testify about. What he can tell us is to what extent
21 the matters he addresses in his report, in his opinion, are supportive or
22 undermining for what he reads in the indictment.
23 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I may have not been
24 as precise as I would have wished. I'm asking him not to explain for us
25 what the Prosecution case is, but his understanding of the Prosecution
1 case where he sees a discrepancy between that case and the findings he
2 draws in the report we have before us.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Well, now we are moving a bit from what the witness
4 testified on page 6 or 7, that is that he said moves away from more or
5 less, not to say that it contradicts or -- but I take it that Mr. Donia
6 has meanwhile understood more or less what Mr. Petrovic would like to
7 know, and if you please in that understanding could answer the question.
8 THE WITNESS: I don't -- really don't know what the Prosecution's
9 argument is vis-a-vis nationalism or what I call Serb populist
10 nationalism. I'm sure they don't use that term, or I have not seen that
11 term used, but I don't see the -- I don't see that issue entering into
12 the Prosecution discussion at all; that is, the difference between a
13 civic understanding and the Bosnian Serb populist nationalism. The
14 Prosecution in general seems to completely neglect the role of civic
15 option political forces in the conflict, and that would certainly be one
16 of the things that I hope I've illuminated here in part --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Do I understand your answer well that you say that
18 you took a broader approach to what is found in the indictment but in
19 a -- where the indictment gives a rather incomplete picture of what
20 really happened in society in all its elements that is military,
21 political, civic society?
22 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour. I think that it's -- my frame of
23 mind when I was going about this was to say I want to hear how these
24 people expressed this in their own words, in their own vocabulary, and
25 insofar as they explain their motivations, explain their values,
1 orientations, I want to capture that.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 THE WITNESS: And so I'd -- it is -- I'd have to say it's a
4 somewhat difficult question to separate what I have here, which is very,
5 very diffused, I mean, it's a very comprehensive, but not a wholly
6 consistent story with what the Prosecution would present it. I could
7 illustrate with, say, great Serbia
8 about great Serbia
9 it very much in the actual expressions of Bosnian Serbs. It's there
10 occasionally, but very little.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic, may I invite you to phrase your
12 questions as precisely as possible. Please proceed.
13 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I will do
14 my best.
15 Q. Mr. Donia, I would like us to look at paragraph 25 of your
16 report, which is the 20th session. There the Assembly deputies discuss
17 the amendments to the constitution of the republic of Republika Srpska
18 and among them the amendment which provides for the borders of Republika
19 Srpska to be changed only by plebiscite and with a qualified majority.
20 My question is to your knowledge, was this amendment ever applied in
21 practice? Was this constitutional amendment ever effectively
23 A. I believe the Bosnian Serbs themselves saw the referendum or the
24 plebiscite after the Assembly session on the 5th and 6th of May as an
25 implementation of this amendment, the Article 2, in which they asked for
1 a vote on the peace plan which would have, of course, changed and/or
2 established borders. So in that plebiscite, yes, they were implementing
3 this provision.
4 JUDGE ORIE: 5th and 6th of May of what year, Mr. --
5 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, Your Honour, 1993.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
7 THE WITNESS: That is -- they later --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
9 THE WITNESS: -- voted -- okay.
10 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Mr. Donia, are you sure that the referendum you referred to was
12 called pursuant to this constitutional amendment and the specific
13 provision envisaging a two-thirds majority of votes and envisaging this
14 possibility to change borders?
15 A. Three-quarter vote. No, I'm not.
16 Q. In other words, you are not sure what the constitutional basis of
17 the referendum was, the one that you referred to a moment ago?
18 A. No. I'd have to go to the specific Assembly session to see what
19 constitutional provision they cited in authorising the holding of the
21 Q. Thank you.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic, I take it that you did not put a
23 question to the witness without at least some knowledge. Could you
24 inform the Chamber or could you help the Chamber to find whether or
25 not --
1 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, Your Honour. Save for
2 my interpretation of the constitutional text and the knowledge of the
3 events, no, I don't have any additional information. I can't offer
4 anything else.
5 Your Honour, I should like to continue. I'm interested in
6 paragraph 26. It's a session which took place in January 1993 and where
7 Krajisnik said that it was the position of the Assembly that the Muslims
8 were a communist creation and that they were a religious group of Turkish
9 orientation. They are unbelievers, a nation that is not a nation, that
10 is to say a nation that would like to be a nation.
11 Q. My question for you, Mr. Donia, is as follows: In the
12 transcripts of the Assembly sessions, did you ever come across a piece of
13 information or a fact that the state policy of Serbia or those who
14 represented the state policy of Serbia
15 the view put forth by Momcilo Krajisnik about the inception and existence
16 of Bosniak or Muslim nation?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Thank you. Now paragraph 27, Karadzic speaking, the 25th
19 session, and his words Karadzic says that for a civic type of state, it
20 is the Muslim side -- the Muslim side advocated a civic state counting on
21 its birth-rate and their large numbers. Had we accepted the Muslim
22 proposal, the statehood constitutiveness of the Serbian people would have
23 been lost forever and we would have become a national minority in a
24 Islamic society. Now, in these minutes, did you come across any
25 representative of the state organ of Serbia or Yugoslavia shares this
1 position about the Muslim mentality in Bosnia-Herzegovina as expressed by
2 Karadzic? Muslim natality.
3 A. I came across a speech by a representative from Serbia
4 recall and I probably couldn't come quickly to it whether he held any
5 official position or not. I believe he was an academic in academy or
6 something like that which expressed similar views, but I can't point you
7 to any place that a representative of the government of Serbia indicated
8 that they shared these views.
9 Q. Thank you, Mr. Donia. I think I was precise in my question and I
10 meant the representative of the authorities. I'm not interested in
11 academics, writers, or anybody else, but just state authority and state
12 policy and the representatives thereof.
13 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Now, Your Honour, may I have your
14 instructions with respect to time, shall we take a break? When is it
15 time for a break?
16 JUDGE ORIE: We are about to have a break. Could you give us an
17 indication as to how much time you'd still need?
18 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Well, Your Honour, I'm not quite
19 sure but let's say 45 minutes at least.
20 JUDGE ORIE: One second, please. I read from yesterday's
21 transcript, up to one hour. You've taken now 35 minutes. You are asking
22 for 45 more minutes. That is not up to one hour. That is well over your
23 estimate, Mr. Petrovic. Could I get a more realistic estimate which fits
24 within your time estimate you've given yesterday.
25 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, 20 minutes. It's a
1 matter of 20 minutes. Now, it's difficult for me to assess how much more
2 time I will need, but with your permission those extra 20 minutes I don't
3 think will change anything of substance. I'll try and get through it as
4 quickly as possible but it will be difficult, so I do feel that I need
5 these extra 20 minutes, and I hope they won't change anything. But I'll
6 try and --
7 JUDGE ORIE: They change the start of the testimony of the next
8 witness, Mr. Petrovic. That's what is changing. Let me see, you said
9 yesterday up to one hour.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber extends your estimate and allows you 1
12 hour and 10 minutes, you've taken 35 minutes if I'm well because
13 Mr. Jordash stopped at a quarter to 1.00, you've taken 35 minutes,
14 therefore you get another 35 minutes after the break. We resume at a
15 quarter to 1.00 and then you have until 20 minutes past 1.00.
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, as matters stand now, how much time
18 would you need for re-examination?
19 MR. GROOME: Five minutes, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Five minutes. Then it doesn't make much sense to
21 start with the next witness perhaps for five or ten minutes at the very
22 end because if Mr. Petrovic would go on until 20 minutes past 1.00 then
23 perhaps some questions from the Bench, you would have five minutes then
24 we would have 10 minutes for the next witness, 10 to 15 minutes, that
25 might not be a good thing to do. If at least the parties would be able
1 to -- the next witness would take how much for cross-examination,
2 Mr. Jordash?
3 MR. JORDASH: I said three yesterday, but I think probably more
4 like 2 and a half, but --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Two and a half.
6 Mr. Petrovic, how much time would you need for the next witness
7 in cross-examination -- or Mr. Bakrac?
8 MR. BAKRAC: Your Honour, two to two and a half hours. I'll do
9 my best to make it two hours, but I want to leave that margin. And I'll
10 try and see if Mr. Jordash and I can share some topics, so to speak, and
11 then I'll be able to complete my examination within the two hours.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Under those circumstances and having consulted my
13 colleagues and knowing how many questions there will be from the Bench,
14 it does make sense to start with the next witness. We'll have a break,
15 we'll resume at quarter to 1.00. Mr. Petrovic, you'll have until 20
16 minutes past 1.00 and we would have 15 minutes to start the
17 cross-examination of the next witness. We resume at a quarter to 1.00.
18 --- Recess taken at 12.22 p.m.
19 --- On resuming at 12.49 p.m.
20 JUDGE ORIE: You are extended to 25 minutes past 1.00,
21 Mr. Petrovic.
22 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: That's not your mistake.
24 [The witness takes the stand]
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic, you may proceed.
1 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
2 Q. Mr. Donia, shall we continue? Would you take a look at paragraph
3 82 of your statement, which is the speech delivered by Biljana Plavsic at
4 the 22nd session where she refers to letters she sent and she goes on to
6 "I wanted to find people who fought for the Serbian cause who
7 want to fight in the territory of Republika Srpska. These letters were
8 also sent to the Soviet Union, they were also sent to Seselj and Arkan
9 and Jovic, whatever suits you, and now you can accuse me of that. With
10 respect I want to clear this up because this is the second time,
11 Mr. Minister," et cetera. And then there was a round of applause from
12 the deputies after that.
13 Now, Mr. Donia, can you tell us whether in the continuation of
14 this session or during the material period of time that we are referring
15 to whether you came across condemnation of any kind by the deputies from
16 the appeal made by Plavsic to Arkan, Jovic, Seselj, and so on.
17 A. No.
18 Q. May we then conclude that the deputies supported the appeal
19 launched by Plavsic to these people?
20 A. Well, I don't think we can conclude that all of them did.
21 Clearly some of them did because they applauded, but I can't conclude
22 that all the deputies did.
23 Q. My question was not of course that all of them did. My question
24 was whether you agree that not only if we look at this within this
25 context, but in general terms, broader terms, that the appeal was an
1 expression of the majority political will in Republika Srpska at the
3 A. No, I can't conclude that.
4 Q. Thank you. Now, moving on to paragraph 87. Velimir Lukic, the
5 newly designated prime minister of Republika Srpska is saying that
6 between the Republika Srpska and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia a
7 credit system will be set up with a unified monetary and credit
8 systematised and so on. Now, my question to you is whether any of these
9 systems were actually set up, so customs, taxes, et cetera? Were any of
10 those regimes put into effect?
11 A. I don't know.
12 Q. Very well. Let's move on to paragraph 117 now, please.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic, monetary system is not the same as a
14 tax or custom system, that -- I just wanted to draw your attention to
15 that. And since in your previous question you also sought to rely on
16 unsourced knowledge of the witness, which is very much against what
17 Mr. Jordash thinks is appropriate, I just want to invite you again to be
18 very precise in your phrasing of the questions and of the sources you ask
19 the witness to rely on. Please proceed.
20 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I apologise for that.
21 I did indicate the paragraphs and so I thought that was sufficient, but I
22 was actually asking only what is mentioned in the paragraph, nothing more
23 than that.
24 Q. I'd like us to look at paragraph 117 now, please. And in
25 paragraph 117, a proposal for the declaration on the unification of the
1 Republic of Serbia
2 and the Republic of Serbian Krajina is being discussed. Now, Mr. Donia,
3 my question is this: To the best of your knowledge, was this declaration
4 ever discussed in the Assembly of Serbia or the Federal Republic
6 A. I don't know.
7 Q. Mr. Donia, the contents of this declaration, was any of that ever
8 put into practice? Was it ever realised?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Thank you. And can you tell us if we look at the time when this
11 declaration was being proposed whether this was happening precisely at
12 the time when because the plan of the Contact Group had not been
13 accepted, a blockade was underway along the Drina and other border
14 crossings from the SRJ into Republika Srpska? I'm just asking you about
15 the time-frame here.
16 A. This statement was indeed made in the time-frame where a blockade
17 had been announced along the Drina
18 Q. Thank you. Mr. Donia, I'd like us next to look at paragraph 132
19 where Karadzic is quoted, and it refers to the events after the fall of
20 Western Slavonija, and he is recounting the meeting he had with President
21 Milosevic, and then he says what they discussed, and then he goes on to
23 "We asked to go to Orasje, and for the 11th Corps to go to Spacva
24 forest, and for us to meet and tear off a chunk of Croatia and charge for
25 it, and then link up Eastern Slavonia with the Republika Srpska.
1 President Milosevic was against that."
2 Do we conclude from this that Karadzic's request for an
3 escalation of the war on the territory of Croatia
6 A. By President Milosevic, yes.
7 Q. Thank you. Now, paragraph 141. The quotation is from October
8 1995 and what Vojo Kupresanin said. Can you tell us who Vojo Kupresanin
9 was, if you know?
10 A. Mr. Kupresanin was a delegate in the Bosnian Serb Assembly. He
11 was the first president of the community of municipalities of the Bosnian
12 Krajina, and later became the director of Serbian radio TV in the RS. He
13 was relieved from that position, so I believe at this point in time he
14 was just a delegate.
15 Q. Thank you. May we now take a look at paragraph 150. Karadzic
16 speaking, and he says:
17 "In 1991 we said in the Presidency of Yugoslavia it was all
18 recorded and stayed there. We said now we have a chance to come out on
19 our borders and form a state. They will criticise us, they will attack
20 us, and then they will recognise us. There was no masculine strength or
21 a statements' vision to do it at the time."
22 Now, studying the thousands of pages of these minutes, who does
23 Karadzic have in mind when he says there was no masculine strength or a
24 statements' vision to carry out the unification that he was referring to?
25 A. He is referring here to members of the Presidency of Yugoslavia.
1 Q. We are talking about a Presidency member at the time that all the
2 representatives stepped down from the Presidency of Slovenia and Croatia
3 and Bosnia and Herzegovina and Macedonia
4 context that this was discussed; isn't that right?
5 A. Yes, the so-called Rump Presidency from which those other
6 delegates had withdrawn. I don't think they had resigned but they had
7 withdrawn from the meetings.
8 Q. Can you tell us under whose dominant influence did this Rump
9 Presidency exist? Which political personage was it under?
10 A. Slobodan Milosevic.
11 Q. Thank you. Now, paragraph 154. Krajisnik speaking, he a talking
12 about regionalisation, and he says:
13 "It is our goal to -- and we are talking about November 1991.
14 "It is our goal to decentralise all republican funds, to keep most of the
15 income of citizens legal entities in their municipalities, regions, and
16 autonomous districts so that only limited contributions are paid to the
17 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina."
18 Does this request for regionalisation as defined here -- or
19 rather is it a frequent demand in complex states where decentralisation
20 is called for, first of all, for in the fiscal field? Is this something
21 that is unusual or not?
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome.
23 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] And specific only to this
25 MR. GROOME: It would seem that it's outside the expertise of
1 this particular expert. It seems to be [overlapping speakers] --
2 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I withdraw the
4 JUDGE ORIE: Then please proceed.
5 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Next I'd like us to look at
6 paragraph 173.
7 Q. Karadzic speaking. On the 24th of March, 1992, on the take-over
8 of Zvornik municipality. Among other things, he says:
9 "All -- at that moment, all Serbian municipalities, both the old
10 ones and the newly established ones, would literally assume control of
11 the entire territory and municipality concerned. The Zvornik
12 municipality takes control over everything that constitutes the Serbian
13 municipality of Zvornik."
14 And my question to you, Mr. Donia, is this: In the transcript,
15 apart from this piece of information, did you come across any other
16 information whereby the taking over of Zvornik was planned or carried out
17 by somebody from the Republic of Serbia
18 A. I don't recall that I have seen anything like that.
19 Q. Thank you. Now, moving on to paragraph 175. The deputy there is
20 Miroslav Vjestica, and he says:
21 "I did not write any conclusion, however, from the discussions we
22 held it follows that this Assembly should adopt a conclusion which
23 instructs the prime minister of the Serbian republic of Bosnia
25 for assuming power; that is, for establishing power in the Serbian
1 Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina."
2 Mr. Donia, my question is this, in the transcripts that we have
3 before us, did you find a piece of information or a note stating that
4 some organ of the Republic of Serbia
5 assuming power in Republika Srpska?
6 A. I don't recall seeing anything of that nature.
7 Q. Thank you. Paragraph 235 next, please. Karadzic speaking in
8 April 1995.
9 "A distribution of weapons was carried out thanks to the JNA.
10 What could be withdrawn was withdrawn and distributed to the Serbian --
11 to the people in the Serbian areas, but it was the SDS which organised
12 the people and created the army. That was an army."
13 Mr. Donia, my question is this: In the transcripts did you come
14 across any piece of information or note or uttered word that the MUP of
15 the Republic of Serbia
16 Bosnia and Herzegovina in the initial stages of the war?
17 A. No, not that I can recall.
18 Q. Thank you. Paragraph 199 next, please. We discussed this
19 yesterday. Ratko Adzic speaking and he talks about the presence of
20 certain services and says that one of the intelligence services was
21 Tajfun, and it, truth be told, worked for a number of sides. In the
22 transcripts, did you ever come across any information about what other
23 sides this intelligence centre Tajfun worked for that Adzic mentions
25 A. No.
1 Q. Thank you. Yesterday in connection with paragraph 233, it refers
2 to the killing of a policeman in Brcko, it would seem, and my question is
3 this: Do you know anything about the circumstances of that killing, who
4 was killed, how, when, a part from what it says in this paragraph, the
5 one that we are looking at?
6 A. Well, as I indicated, I believe yesterday, the several delegates
7 were aware of and concerned with this murder and directed inquiries to
8 Dr. Vojinovic because they wanted to know more about it.
9 Q. My question was whether you know anything more about that?
10 A. I only know what the delegates raised and what's answered here.
11 Q. Thank you. Would you agree with me -- no, I'll withdraw that
13 After this session, and we are talking about the 36th session,
14 did you anywhere in these minutes come across any mention of Red Berets
15 in any way and in any context.
16 A. I can't recall. There were -- I recall there were a number of
17 references to Red Berets in the minutes. I can't recall whether they
18 were before this or after this, and I do recall that they provided very
19 little information about the Red Berets.
20 Q. If there was information, any information, didn't you consider
21 that since you were aware of the indictment and what it contains, if you
22 went through all those pages, wouldn't it have been logical for you to
23 extract those portions and to have presented them to the Trial Chamber?
24 A. No. When there is a mere mention of something with no
25 accompanying information or explanation, I don't deem that -- I didn't
1 deem that to be -- to merit inclusion in this report.
2 Q. Mr. Donia, in your work, do you use electronic search modes for
3 looking through the material?
4 A. I do, yes.
5 Q. And how many hits when you typed in Red Berets did you find in
6 those 6.000 pages of the minutes that we are referring to?
7 A. Well, they are largely not searchable and certainly they -- at
8 the time I prepared this report, the search capabilities of Word 2010
9 were not yet available. So I don't know how many hits there would have
10 been. I never searched for Red Berets. I could only search for them in
11 a single session in any case, and as I say, my best recollection is the
12 words appear a couple of times without substantive information attached
13 to them.
14 Q. Mr. Donia, I agree that the 1992 copies can't be searched, but
15 you compiled your report using English translations, and that was
16 certainly possible such research and searches could have been conducted,
17 so why didn't you do that?
18 A. Well, you weren't there, you don't know whether it was possible
19 or not, and I will tell you it was not possible to search them
20 universally for the terms.
21 Q. Thank you. And what you searched for while you were going
22 through the document page by page, you didn't record that and can't now
23 tell us so that we can see where mention is made of those Red Berets, is
24 that what you're saying?
25 A. If I had recourse to my computer and an hour to check the various
1 sources that I took these notes in, I might be able to, but sitting here,
2 I can't.
3 Q. Whilst you were preparing for this trial, it never occurred you
4 to that this might be relevant for the Trial Chamber?
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic, if we want to look at it, it's an easy
6 job to do. The point is clear, you say Mr. Donia should have done it.
7 He hasn't done it. If it's of interest to know, let's do the job then.
8 I could do it in two hours. Cut and paste all the, make it a one
9 6.000-page document, I take it all of them are available in English by
10 now and in a kind of word format, search for it, and you'll know whether
11 it's 20 or 100. Let's not -- your point is clear, if it's useful or
12 relevant information, let's try to get it. If it's not, let's leave it
13 to the criticism. Please proceed.
14 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
15 Q. Since I have very little time left, Mr. Donia, can you in the
16 briefest of terms tell us something about the Vance-Owen Plan. First
17 off, does the plan imply the cantonal arrangement of Bosnia-Herzegovina?
18 A. Your Honour, there's someone typing in my earphones.
19 JUDGE ORIE: I can even tell you, who it is. It's Mr. Bakrac who
20 is sitting next to Mr. Petrovic. You see an analytical mind helps us
21 out, but he will stop for awhile.
22 Please proceed, Mr. Petrovic.
23 Could you please respond to the question.
24 THE WITNESS: Yes, the Vance-Owen Peace Plan, some people
25 referred to it as a cantonal plan, but in reality, the ten units that
1 were created were called provinces, and the provinces 3, 8, and 10 were
2 to fall under Croat governance, provinces 2, 4, and 6 under Serb
3 governance. The three others under Muslim governance, and the Sarajevo
4 area was to be demilitarised and shared.
5 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. I highly appreciate your answer, but I urge you to give me brief
7 answers in view of the shortage of time. Second question, does the
8 Vance-Owen Plan provide for the existence of the Republic of
9 Bosnia-Herzegovina as an international legal entity in the full sense of
10 the word?
11 A. It provides for it as an international legal entity. I'm not
12 sure I would say in the full sense of the word because it's
13 international -- it's actual legal jurisdiction was extremely limited.
14 Q. Would it therefore remain as one state or as two states or as ten
15 states, that's my question? What was envisaged, does it rise up to the
16 attribution of a state or to the attributes of a state, yes or not?
17 A. I really can't answer the question because it's -- it would -- I
18 think cause me to draw a conclusion about what constitutes a
19 international legal entity, and I don't think I could do that, certainly
20 not without some research anyway.
21 Q. Very well. Does the implementation of the Vance-Owen Plan imply
22 a mass scale international military presence?
23 A. I wouldn't call it mass scale, no.
24 Q. Does it imply an international military presence in
25 Bosnia-Herzegovina in the implementation of the Vance-Owen Plan?
1 A. Just to be clear that we're talking about past tense here, it
2 would have entailed an international military presence, yes.
3 Q. Thank you. The Contact Group Plan, I have the same questions in
4 respect of it. Does it have the attributes of a state or does it provide
5 for an international presence -- or, rather, can you first answer this
6 question so I do not put compound questions to you?
7 A. The Contact Group Plan certainly provides Bosnia-Herzegovina with
8 more attributes of a state than the Vance-Owen Plan did. And it also
9 presupposed the -- an international military presence to implement the
11 Q. Thank you. To your knowledge, the Vance-Owen Plan, the Contact
12 Group Plan, both these plans were agreed to by the Federal Republic
14 Republika Srpska in terms of accepting these plans or modifying them.
15 Can you please answer with a yes or no?
16 A. The second part of your question, the answer is certainly no --
17 certainly yes, I'm sorry, the answer is certainly yes. The Federal
18 Republic of Yugoslavia
19 accept the plan. I don't know whether the FRY actually agreed to the
20 plan in the final analysis. They certainly promoted it and supported it
21 and initialled it and encouraged its adoption at the meeting in Athens
22 but I just don't know whether they ultimately approved it once the
23 Bosnian Serbs had declined to do so.
24 Q. Very well. Based on the acceptance of the Contact Group Plan in
25 1994, was the regime of sanctions imposed on the FRY eased and were
1 observers, international observers deployed to border crossings between
2 Republika Srpska and the FRY as a result? If we can have your short
3 answer, please.
4 A. I don't know.
5 Q. You explained for us the content of the Vance-Owen Plan and the
6 Contact Group Plan. Will you agree that none of the six strategic
7 objectives contained in paragraph 48 of your report were implemented or
8 materialised by -- through the acceptance of either of these plans, yes
9 or no?
10 A. No, I don't agree. I think you could say that objective number 1
11 was realised or realised in large measure by both plans. Would have been
12 realised in large measure had they been --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic, I'm looking at the clock, last
15 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I only have five or
16 six questions left and I really appeal to you to allow.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic, you've asked for the last ten minutes
18 questions about the content of the Vance-Owen Plan and of all that I take
19 it that what's the content of it, military presence or not, is not in
20 dispute at all. You could have easily agreed whether or not in the
21 Vance-Owen Plan you find provision for military presence, for example.
22 That's just looking at the text and...
23 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. The Prosecution won't object to
24 the admission of the Vance-Owen Plan if that's what Mr. Petrovic --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Therefore, you've wasted most of your time by asking
1 questions which were easily to agree upon. The content of plans, if you
2 want to use your time in that way, you are free to do it, but I think the
3 time-limits were clearly set. Your last question, please.
4 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I cannot put my last
5 question because I can't choose between the ones I have. Thank you, Your
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Mr. Groome.
8 MR. GROOME: Thank you, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Five minutes.
10 Re-examination by Dr. Groome:
11 Q. Dr. Donia, at page 69, line 18 of today's transcript,
12 Mr. Petrovic said to you that you compiled your report using the English
13 translations of the minutes. My question to you is did you work
14 primarily with the original stenographic notes in the language in which
15 the speakers were speaking, or did you wait and work from the English
17 A. Largely from the original Serbian text.
18 Q. Now, with respect to paragraph 173 of your report, Mr. Petrovic
19 at transcript page 66 drew your attention to the 12th session held on the
20 24th of March 1992 where in which was discussed the take-over of Zvornik.
21 How long before the actual take-over of Zvornik was this discussion, if
22 you are able to tell us that?
23 A. It's about nine days.
24 Q. Given the context of the entire discussion, does this passage
25 refer to Zvornik alone?
1 A. No. This passage refers to all the municipalities in which the
2 Bosnian Serbs were planning to assume control.
3 Q. Now, at page 41 of today's transcript, line 6 to 10, Mr. Jordash
4 gave you or asked you to comment on a quote made by Mr. Milosevic in the
5 30th session. And to recall that quote for you, it was quote:
6 "Everything needs to be sacrificed for the people, except for the
7 people themselves."
8 Do you recall that quote?
9 A. Yes, I do.
10 Q. It was taken a bit out of context. Can I ask you, looking at the
11 entire speech that Milosevic made at that time, when he refers to
12 "people," who is he referring to?
13 A. He is referring to the Serb people.
14 Q. And can you contextualise that statement, when he is saying that
15 we cannot sacrifice the Serb people?
16 A. Yes, he was referring both to the people of the Republic of
18 regime, and the Serbs of Bosnia.
19 Q. And then the final question that I have for you is at -- relates
20 to paragraph 150 of your report, and Mr. Petrovic at transcript page 65,
21 lines 1 to 5, asked you to comment on a particular passage of
22 Mr. Karadzic. And I'll read the passage that I want you to give further
23 explanation of:
24 "They will criticise us, they will attack us, and then they will
25 recognise us."
1 Can you please place that in context and explain what
2 Mr. Karadzic is referring to with those words?
3 A. In this context he is expressing the idea which he expressed also
4 on a number of other occasions, that it was best to make a move, take
5 territory, and then essentially present the European community and US
6 with a fait accompli, and then they would recognise Republika Srpska.
7 MR. GROOME: Your Honours, I have no further questions of
8 Dr. Donia.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Groome.
10 Mr. Donia, I have one question for you.
11 Questioned by the Court:
12 JUDGE ORIE: May I take you to paragraph 137 of your report. You
13 use that paragraph to explain the changing relationship between Karadzic
14 and Milosevic. And you said, while you see here, he is not equal
15 anymore. I'm now summarising what you said.
16 A. Yes.
17 JUDGE ORIE: If I read the whole of paragraph 137, it's -- it
18 gives me the impression that he makes a distinction between his personal
19 relationship between Karadzic and Milosevic where there's still no
20 inequality, that he is free to say that he is a fully equal partner in
21 the communications, but if it comes to joint delegations, that there
22 they -- there is a division of labour, that one of them, in this case
23 more or less naturally, Milosevic would be the leader. Therefore seeing
24 those two elements, I have some difficulties in explaining where the
25 earlier reference you gave was also part of a personal relationship, that
1 it really reflects a change. I'm talking about this source which you
2 invoked --
3 A. Yes.
4 JUDGE ORIE: -- in order to explain that. Could you please
6 A. Yes. I must reach out a little bit beyond the specific quote
7 here to explain that starting with the terms of address, they really were
8 not equal. And that was true in their -- all of their conversations that
9 we have records of. And --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Let me cut you short here. You say my conclusion is
11 based primarily on other knowledge I have and is not that clearly
12 reflected here; although, with that other knowledge you would interpret
13 this as a reflection of that changing relationship?
14 A. Yes, and I could happily present the evidence of that, if Your
15 Honour wished.
16 JUDGE ORIE: But I'm not seeking that. I'm just asking myself
17 whether you would you agree with me that there's a distinction made here
18 between personal relationship in which, whether true or not, Mr. Karadzic
19 still takes the position that he is at an equal footing with
20 Mr. Milosevic, although that that's not in a joint delegation, although
21 you consider this, not for the personal relationship, certainly not to be
22 the accurate situation at the time?
23 A. Precisely, Your Honour. That's -- yes.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, I have no further questions. Any
25 questions triggered by the re-examination or by the --
1 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Donia, I would like to thank you very much for
3 coming a long way to The Hague
4 answered all the questions by the parties and from the Bench, and I wish
5 you a safe return home again.
6 THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Usher, could you please escort Mr. Donia out of
8 the courtroom and escort the next witness into the courtroom.
9 Before we start the cross-examination of the next witness, I
10 would just like to remind the parties that P53 was marked for
11 identification because the Prosecution -- the Defence had not had
12 sufficient time to review this additional information. Any views now on
13 the admissibility of P53, additional information in relation witness
14 B-215? If not, then we'll hear from you.
15 MR. JORDASH: Would I be able to address you on that next week?
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 MR. JORDASH: First thing I'll be in a position to answer that,
18 if I may.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Yes, although there has been sufficient time
20 to prepare for it, but any view already from the Simatovic Defence? P53
22 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. We have seen the
23 proofing note dated the 25th of August, 2009, we have gone through it,
24 and we will cross-examine the witness on the evidence he gave at the time
25 but not the proofing note but the new statement.
1 JUDGE ORIE: And what date did you mention, Mr. Bakrac?
2 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if I'm right, it's the
3 24th and the 25th of August, 2009. P53.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Okay. That's fine.
5 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] With all due respect, Your Honours,
6 I see that we have some six or five minutes left and the witness still
7 has to come into the courtroom. I have a certain idea of how I'm
8 approaching this examination, and I have trouble deciding how I'm going
9 to start now and have to stop without in fact damaging the way I intend
10 to examine. Perhaps we can let the witness in and we can have
11 preliminary questions, but there are some substantial and essential
12 issues that I will not be able to finish in several minutes.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Find suitable subjects for the next 8 minutes and --
14 I do not understand why the witness is not yet.
15 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
16 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber together with the Registry will work on
17 a more efficient use of time.
18 [The witness takes the stand]
19 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon. Witness, you appear again before
20 this court. I would like to ask you to again make the solemn declaration
21 you made when you came to The Hague
22 please repeat my words: I solemnly declare.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not receiving interpretation.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Then is the witness on the right channel? Yes.
25 Could you please make again the solemn declaration you've made at the
1 beginning of your testimony when you first appeared before this court.
2 Mr. Usher, would you please hand out the text of the solemn
3 declaration to the witness in his own language. Could you make that
4 solemn declaration.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
6 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Please be seated. We left off last time you were
8 here with the examination-in-chief. There are no further questions for
9 you by the Prosecution. That means that you now appeared in order to be
10 cross-examined. May I repeat to you that if you are hesitant to mention
11 any names which you would rather not state in public, you can ask for
12 private session.
13 Mr. Bakrac, will you be the first one to cross-examine the
15 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE ORIE: You will now be cross-examined by Mr. Bakrac,
17 Mr. Bakrac is counsel for Mr. Simatovic. I already hereby inform you
18 that it will be only very brief, that means not more than five to eight
19 minutes that you will be in this courtroom today and that we'll continue
20 on Wednesday afternoon.
21 Mr. Bakrac, please proceed.
22 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
23 THE WITNESS: MILOMIR KOVACEVIC [Resumed]
24 [The witness answered through interpretation]
25 Cross-examination by Mr. Bakrac:
1 Q. [Interpretation] Witness, before --
2 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Or, rather, before I put my
3 question, can we call up P51. This is his witness statement. Witness,
4 do you recall that in March and April of 2003 you gave a statement in the
5 Office of the Prosecutor.
6 A. Yes, I do.
7 Q. Please look at pages 2 and 3 of the B/C/S version; namely,
8 paragraph 6 entitled "Service in the MUP of Serbia." In this paragraph
9 you said that in April of 1990, you were assigned to the reserve force of
10 the MUP of Serbia
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. The police brigade fell within the purview of public security,
14 did it not?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Next you said that in 1991 you were assigned to the special units
17 of the police. When exactly were these units set up?
18 A. I can't recall at this time when this was exactly. I believe it
19 was in the month of July 1991, but I'm not sure.
20 Q. As soon as the Special Police Units were set up, you became a
21 member of one of them, did you not?
22 A. I was assigned to the 1st Company of the 3rd Battalion, composed
23 of predominantly members of Serb ethnicity who had come and joined the
24 units in Belgrade
25 Q. This Special Police Unit, and the term I'm using in the B/C/S is
1 "milicija" deliberately because you will be aware that at a certain point
2 thereafter it became a special unit of "policija," and please make sure
3 that you make a pause before answering my question.
4 A. Very well.
5 Q. The Special Police Unit, as soon as it was formed, you became its
6 member, did you not?
7 A. Well, some 15 to 30 days after it was set up, as soon as
8 decisions were taken as to who would be assigned where, so it wasn't
9 right away.
10 Q. This special unit of "milicija," was it formed so as to include a
11 combat element?
12 A. There was a unit in my formation which had mortars, then for the
13 most part we had light machine-guns, rifles, and we had four anti-tank
14 vehicles as well.
15 Q. Let's be clear, this unit was envisaged as a unit which would
16 take part in combat?
17 A. Yes, since most of the men were policemen who had come over from
18 the MUP in Croatia
19 combat unit.
20 Q. Please be precise. From the moment it was set up and throughout
21 its existence, this special unit of "milicija" initially and later on of
22 "policija" was always within the purview of the public security branch of
23 the MUP of Serbia, was it not?
24 A. Yes, it was part of the police, but when we went out in the
25 field, at least to the extent I was informed from the commander of my
1 unit, we received orders and the rest from the state security sector.
2 Now, what the prevailing practice was is not something I was privy to.
3 Q. We will come to the issue of who you received orders from. I am
4 interested in what the case was formally and legally?
5 A. Well, formally and legally it was part of public security.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac, I'm looking at the clock and I see that
7 we are past quarter to 2.00, could you wind up or is this a suitable
8 moment to?
9 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Just one more question, Your
11 JUDGE ORIE: Please do.
12 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation].
13 Q. The commander of this unit, the Special Police Unit or PJP, from
14 the very beginning and then onwards as well, was it Obrad Stevanovic?
15 Was Obrad Stevanovic the commander who was otherwise an employee in the
16 public security sector?
17 A. The police brigade commander at the time was Mr. Stojan Petkovic,
18 and the police brigade was composed of, well, a number of battalions. I
19 don't want to stipulate the commanders of the battalions and units, but
20 direct orders on the battle-field we received from the late
21 Radovan Stojic, Badza.
22 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this opens up scope
23 for further questions which I don't have time for, so I'd like to end
24 there for today with your permission continuing on Wednesday. Thank you.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Bakrac.
1 Witness, before we adjourn I'd like to instruct you that you
2 should not speak with anyone about your testimony, whether that is
3 testimony already given or still to be given. We are unable to sit in
4 the early days of next week, that means that we'll only continue
5 Wednesday quarter past 2.00 in the afternoon. That may be inconvenient
6 for you, we apologise for that, but there's no alternative.
7 We will adjourn and we resume on Wednesday, the 1st of September,
8 quarter past 2.00 in Courtroom II.
9 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.50 p.m.
10 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 1st day of
11 September, 2010, at 2.15 p.m.