1 Thursday, 17 September 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours; good morning everyone
6 in and around the courtroom. This is case number IT-08-91-T, the
7 Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin.
8 [The witness takes the stand]
9 WITNESS: ROBERT DONIA [Resumed]
10 JUDGE HALL
11 THE WITNESS: Good morning, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE HALL
13 under your oath.
14 Is counsel ready to continue his cross-examination of Dr. Donia?
15 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. May I begin,
16 Your Honour? May I begin, Your Honour?
17 JUDGE HALL
18 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
19 Cross-examination by Mr. Cvijetic: [Continued]
20 Q. Mr. Donia, yesterday we broke off as we were discussing the
21 relevance of a piece of information that evolved during the course of the
22 work of the Tribunal and that is the number of the casualties in the war
23 in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Do you recall that we talked about that?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. I am not going to discuss the numbers back and forth with you.
1 Nobody would like to do that. However, I with like to point to the
2 importance of such a piece of information and how important it is for the
3 Tribunal, at the beginning of its work, to have such a fact and that all
4 historical facts are important, including this one, so that the Chamber
5 could reach adequate and proper decisions, and this is the reason why I
6 was dealing with the number of casualties. For example, the first piece
7 of information that was taken as some sort of basis, and you agreed that
8 you had heard about that, the figure of 20.000 Muslims killed and
9 40.000 Muslim women raped, points to the kind of war that was waged in
10 Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, the second piece of information towards
11 the end of the work of the Tribunal on which the demographers agree, and
12 I have received the exact figures, you know the approximate ones just as
13 I do but now we have the exact figures, 63.000 Bosniaks -- 63.000
14 Bosniaks, 24.000 Serbs, and 7.700 Croats, giving a total figure of
15 97.207 victims, when we break it down to the ethnic structure, they are
16 arranged in order according to the ethnic structure of Bosnia and
18 that order. All three peoples had civilian casualties of the war. The
19 Tribunal tried civilian Bosniaks, Croats, and Muslims, and in all
20 indictments and in all judgements all the accused were charged with
21 committing criminal acts against civilians. So this particular piece of
22 information changes the character and the nature of the war. This piece
23 of information, among other data, indicates that there was an ethnic
24 civil conflict in this area in which all three peoples suffered losses.
25 My question to you, Mr. Donia, can you confirm one fact for me?
1 In this I'm going to call this Bermuda
2 Croats and Muslims, when I say the black Bermuda triangle, I mean the
3 participation in the war. In that triangle all possible combinations of
4 mutual conflicts occurred. If you permit. Serbs waged war against
5 Muslims -- or, rather, Muslims and Serbs against each other, Muslims and
6 Croats waged war against each other. You know about that part of the
7 war. Croats and Serbs waged war against one another. Muslims,
8 supporters of Alija Izetbegovic waged war with the followers of
9 Fikret Abdic. Also, Muslims waged war together against the Serbs.
10 I tried to find some more combinations, and I established that
11 the only option is that the Serbs and Muslims did not wage war against
12 Croats and Serbs against Serbs. They did -- that did not happen. So are
13 you aware of --
14 MS. KORNER: I'm so sorry. Your Honour, I'm really am sorry but
15 I think I'd better say it now, once and once only. It's not a question,
16 it's long speech giving evidence. One of your guidelines, I've just been
17 reminded, was the parties are to avoid lengthy, complicated or combined
18 questions. Please so that I don't have to interrupt again, can I ask
19 Mr. Cvijetic to ask simple, one-fact questions, that's all.
20 JUDGE HARHOFF: We would agree, Mr. Cvijetic, and certainly it's
21 normally for the witnesses to bring evidence and not the counsel.
22 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Okay.
23 Q. Mr. Donia, do you agree with this combination of conflicts
24 between the parties, that question -- that part of the question at least
25 was short and clear.
1 A. It was not to me. I would have to go back piece and piece and
2 see which of that was -- I would agree with and which I would not. I'm
3 afraid I don't understand it as a direct question and can't really --
4 can't really answer it.
5 Q. I'm going to divide the question. Did Serbs and Muslims wage war
6 against one another?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Did Muslims and Croats wage war against one another at a certain
9 point during the war?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Did Croats and Serbs wage war against one another?
12 A. Yes, mm-hmm.
13 Q. Did Muslims and Croats wage war together against the Serbs?
14 A. At times, yes.
15 Q. Did Muslims and Muslims wage war against one another, the
16 followers of Alija Izetbegovic and the followers of Fikret Abdic, at one
17 point during the war?
18 A. At several points, yes.
19 Q. So we have reached the ultimate answer which could have been
20 given right away, but that doesn't matter.
21 Mr. Donia, yesterday we agreed that in history it's happened
22 frequently that a historical fact that was considered to be absolutely
23 accurate later is established to be inaccurate or twisted and so on and
24 so forth.
25 So my question to you is: Is it possible that after a certain
1 period of time has passed, the court or the judgement of history which
2 you are working on, theoretically the court can base its decision on a
3 fact that can later be proved as inaccurate or not quite true?
4 A. If you're speaking of one fact, I think yes, it is possible that
5 any body judging anything could mistake one fact at any point in time and
6 later be -- have that demonstrated not to be the case.
7 Q. Okay. I would like to move to a different topic now. Mr. Donia,
8 you don't need to be an expert historian for this but just somebody who
9 watches television and reads the press regularly for this introductory
10 part of my question.
11 Did you have the opportunity while reading the papers and
12 watching television to hear some well-known public figure, a politician
13 or a figure from show business, music, sports, and so on, an artist
14 denies their own statement that had been published in the press or on
15 television by asserting that the statement was misconstrued by taking
16 parts of the statement out of context and that such a distorted statement
17 was given a completely different meaning than the one intended? Have you
18 ever come across such things?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Then probably you know the old journalistic rule that a denial
21 never has the same range as the -- or impact as the initial piece of
23 A. Is your question --
24 Q. Have you heard of that old journalist rule? All right. I'm
25 going to put it simply, but a denial would equal the attempt to pick up
1 feathers that were thrown all around from the tenth floor. I'm just
2 using this as an illustration to show what a denial is considered to be.
3 I'm also going to say that a denial occurs after a certain period of time
4 has passed. It's not topical anymore, and journalists being rogues can
5 put that denying on the tenth page, for example, instead of on the front
7 So analogous to this journalistic theory, in your science one
8 major historical fact or an event, is it possible to take out specific
9 incidents or occurrences using a specific methodology and then put these
10 things together in order to form a particular picture or image?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Mr. Donia, you testified in several cases before this Tribunal.
13 You testified by being issued a specific assignment by the Prosecution,
14 which is quite normal, and then you would be provided with documents in
15 order to reach your conclusion. Then you would be given an indictment
16 with one or two accused, one or two municipalities, and then would you do
17 your work on that basis. You would get the same thing in the second
18 case, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, tenth case.
19 Mr. Donia, by dealing with history in this matter, treating it
20 bit by bit, would there be a danger of what we referred to earlier and
21 that is to get a distorted picture of the whole event rather than what
22 would be the result of looking at the event as a whole?
23 A. I wouldn't agree with your characterization of what I have been
24 asked to do nor what I have done in response to the commissions I've
25 received in the various cases. In a number of those cases I've been
1 asked to do exactly that process that you just described, which is to
2 place events alleged in the indictment in a much broader context as part
3 of more general trends or developments within the region. So I guess I'd
4 have to say I don't see that problem arising in at least some of the work
5 that I've done in -- in previous cases.
6 Q. Mr. Donia, you did not have the job in any cases before this to
7 give a general context or overview that was not strictly related to a
8 particular case. You were not tasked with providing a general overview
9 of the -- of the events or to deal with the situation in general without
10 this being related to some particular case. Is this correct or not?
11 A. Without it being related to some particular case, yes, that would
12 be the case.
13 Q. All right. Well, do you know what the principle et altera pars
14 means? It's a shortened version of that saying, but do you know what
15 that means?
16 A. No.
17 Q. It's the principle which says that one always needs to listen to
18 the other side first, and that is the principle on which the work of this
19 Tribunal is also based, including the methodology of allowing both sides
20 to put forward their views and theories.
21 The Defence has the right to state their counter-arguments to
22 your arguments according to that principle, that one needs to hear the
23 other side too.
24 A. Is that a question?
25 Q. What I would like to ask you is: Can it happen that a Defence,
1 because they are lacking resources, time, or do not believe this
2 historical context to be relevant, do not take that opportunity and that
3 you present your views on the basis of what you yourself have and what
4 the Prosecution has given to you in terms of material?
5 A. Could it happen that the Defence -- if I understand your question
6 correctly, you're asking could it happen that a Defence would not be able
7 to present a different history? Yes, it could happen.
8 Q. This is just what I wanted to ask. Very well. Mr. Donia, I'm
9 going to finish my introductory part that I indicated, and now I'm going
10 to focus now on specific work of yours.
11 Mr. Donia, it was not your task to make a concrete report for
12 this case; is that right?
13 A. That's correct.
14 Q. You did make a number of reports, and we have concluded that the
15 one that is the most general, which would be relevant for all the cases,
16 including this one, from a historical context and not from a perspective
17 of the guilt or innocence of our clients, this work is called
18 "The Origins of Republika Srpska in the Period From 1990 to 1992." Do
19 you have that work in front of you?
20 A. I don't believe I do, no.
21 MS. KORNER: Can I -- Mr. Donia -- Dr. Donia wasn't given any
22 copies of his own reports, just documents that he was going to refer to.
23 So the answer is no, he hasn't, unless the Defence have got a copy for
25 JUDGE HARHOFF: Is the Prosecution in possession of a copy that
1 we can lend to --
2 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated]
3 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: I think our legal assistant has a copy that can
5 be made available.
6 MS. KORNER: I think in future it would help if the --
7 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
8 MS. KORNER: I'm sorry. In future, if the Defence want a witness
9 to have a copy of a statement or report, could they notify us and we'll
10 have one in court.
11 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Mr. Donia -- ah, here it is. Perhaps they do have a copy. Okay.
13 Now you have a copy in front of you.
14 Mr. Donia, since your work is not divided into paragraphs and so
15 for the interpreters and the benefit of the Chamber, I'm going to refer
16 to the pages in English and in B/C/S.
17 So we are in the introductory part of the report, and that's on
18 page 1 of both the B/C/S and the English, although in the English version
19 it does go on to the next page. You are explaining the reasons for the
20 break-up of the Yugoslav Federation, which consisted of six republics, as
21 we all know, and the Republic of Serbia
22 The attempts by certain republics after the fall of Communism to secede
23 is something that you defined in the first passage of your report as
24 separatism. However, the attempts of the Serbian leadership, which, as
25 you say, is led by Slobodan Milosevic, you define as hegemony. So my
1 question is --
2 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I'm told by Mr. Smith that the report
3 is in e-court so that you can have a look at it if the Defence call it
4 up. It's 65 ter 10001.
5 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] May I continue, Your Honours?
6 Q. My question that relates to this relationship between separatism
7 and hegemony, you define the attempts to preserve Yugoslavia's hegemony.
8 Does that mean that Abraham Lincoln who attempted to preserve the
9 federation of the United States of America as hegemony when faced with
10 the idea of the -- attempt to secede by the 13 states of the
11 United States when they tried to preserve slavery in -- from 1861 to
13 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
14 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Can we see this document? I'm
15 talking about the introductory part of the report, practically the first
16 page. Can we please look at that on e-court, because I see that it has
17 not been shown on e-court.
18 This is on page 03082476. Yes. This is the cover page. Can we
19 look at the next page, please. Can we turn to the next page, please.
20 Very well. Yes. We can see it now, and we can follow both the Serbian
21 and the English version.
22 Q. Mr. Donia, have you heard my question? Do you remember what I
24 A. Yes, I did.
25 Q. [No interpretation]
1 A. Your question was would I describe Abraham Lincoln's efforts as
2 hegemonic, and no, I would not. I would point out that I have taken
3 these two words or concepts from Raif Dizdarevic who was president of the
4 Yugoslav Presidency at the time, and he was describing two tendencies,
5 one to strengthen or firm up the federation and the other to weaken it,
6 and I wouldn't view Abraham Lincoln's efforts to strengthen the federal
7 state of the United States but, rather, to maintain it. So the dichotomy
8 that is positioned here by Mr. Dizdarevic, I wouldn't characterize --
9 extend that same characterization to Lincoln's efforts in the US
10 Q. Very well. Let's move on to page 2 in B/C/S, and that's still
11 page 2 English. In English it would be paragraph 2.
12 The sub-heading is "The mobilisation of Serbian nationalism."
13 Dr. Donia, I'll try to move through this section about the
14 Yugoslav crisis more quickly, and please answer me with a yes or no.
15 You quote here the words of Slobodan Milosevic, who says, "Nobody
16 shall beat you." And that's in the context of Serbian nationalism.
17 If you put this in the context of his entire speech, would it be
18 an attempt to calm down the passions, the condemnation of Albanian
19 nationalism and separatism and the condemnation of police violence
20 against the Serbian people? Would it be a proper qualification of his --
21 of the tenor of his entire speech?
22 A. I'm sorry, what -- I didn't understand your question.
23 Q. Can these words also mean an attempt to calm down the passions
24 and the condemnation of police brutality against Serbian people down
25 there in Kosovo?
1 A. In the context I don't see how that would be a possible
3 Q. All right. I am talking about the broader context, but obviously
4 we don't agree.
5 Do you know when the tensions in Kosovo started? In other words,
6 to the best of your knowledge, when did the first demonstrations of
7 ethnic Albanians in Kosovo begin with the demand for Kosovo to become a
9 A. Well, the quest for an independent Albanian state goes back to,
10 say, the 1870s, and those demonstrations occurred periodically over the
11 next hundred years.
12 Q. All right. On the same page you say further down:
13 "Six months later, Milosevic was elected president of the
14 League of Communists of Serbia, giving him undisputed control in Serbia
15 And this is a quotation from an author, Crnobrnja. Is that
16 correct that's the last line in this paragraph?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Mr. Donia, such a position in the League of Communists does not
19 exist. That post does not exist, and Slobodan Milosevic, thus, did not
20 hold it. Do you know that?
21 A. No.
22 Q. All right. We'll move to page 3 in B/C/S, and I think we're
23 already on page 3 English.
24 Here you discuss demonstrations in Vojvodina. Do you know who
25 led the protesters in Vojvodina?
1 A. No.
2 Q. If I say that it's Mihajl Kertes, an ethnic Hungarian, was
3 leading the protests, would it sound strange to you that it would be an
4 ethnic Hungarian?
5 A. Would it sound strange that Kertes would lead those
6 demonstrations? No, not at all. And his ethnicity would not be
8 Q. If you say so. I can only say I don't agree, but let's move on.
9 You mentioned that the authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina
10 learned of a plan that a grenade should be thrown into Cvijetin causing
11 or disturbing the demonstration and provoking a police reaction. Where
12 did you get this information?
13 A. This is -- this is in Raif Dizdarevic's book of memoirs,
14 "Od smrti Tita do smrti Jugoslavije."
15 Q. Concerning events in Montenegro
16 demonstrations you are describing, and we are now on page 4 in English,
17 you say that 40 buses and a large number of passenger cars moved towards
19 people set out?
20 A. No.
21 Q. If I say that they set out from Niksic, a town in Montenegro, not
23 A. No.
24 Q. All right. I'd like to move to page 5 of your report now,
25 paragraph 1. Towards the end you say:
1 "On the 28th of March, the Assembly of the Republic of Serbia
2 adopted constitutional amendments that eliminated most of Kosovo's
3 autonomy within the republic."
4 Mr. Donia, do you know exactly what it was that the Assembly
5 enacted that day?
6 A. No. I pretty much said here what I know of those amendments.
7 Q. Okay. I'll just present one fact and you tell me if I'm right.
8 According to the then-constitution of Serbia, amendments could not happen
9 without the consent of the two autonomous provinces, Vojvodina and
10 Kosovo. So these provincial assemblies practically had the right of veto
11 and could block the process of amending the constitution. Now, this
12 amendment only abolished their right of veto, not the autonomy of Kosovo
13 and Vojvodina which remained intact. You said you did not have detailed
14 knowledge about this and you were not a constitutional expert, but we
15 will invite one later and deal with the issue.
16 Mr. Donia we're still on page 5. Here you deal with the
17 nationalism of the Serbian and Montenegrin people, and you say:
18 "By the spring of 1989, Serbian nationalism prevailed in the
19 official government bodies of the republics of Serbia and Montenegro
20 the Serbs outside these two republics were constantly still receiving
21 messages of nationalist tenor."
22 THE INTERPRETER: Could counsel -- could counsel repeat the
23 question, please.
24 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Which people live in Montenegro
1 A. That's a question people argue about a lot. The ethnic
2 composition, which I take it is what you are asking about, in most recent
3 times is about evenly divided between those who identify themselves as
4 Montenegrins by nationality and those who identify themselves as Serbs.
5 There are also significant numbers of other peoples, principally
6 Albanians but also Bosniaks and Roma and a few other minority peoples.
7 Q. All right. Concerning protests in Bosnia and Herzegovina
8 say that the authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina prohibited the display
9 of nationalist symbols. We're on page 6, paragraph 2, now.
10 Would the display -- was the display of other ethnic symbols in
12 instance, at rallies and gatherings?
13 A. This ban I'm speaking of is -- was for the purpose of this
14 demonstration. It was not a general ban on display of symbols of any
15 nation or people. I don't think there were in Yugoslavia at that time
16 any -- any such general bans on the display of those symbols.
17 Q. Let us go back for a moment it page 5. You claim that
18 Mr. Milosevic invoked the rights of other ethnicities, and you say that
19 that would become the most common goods.
20 THE INTERPRETER: Could counsel give a reference, please.
21 JUDGE HARHOFF: Counsel, the interpretation is asking if you
22 could guide them to the reference in the document where you are, which
23 page and paragraph.
24 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Page 5, paragraph one, the last
25 line. Sorry, second paragraph, the last line.
1 Q. "And he urged toleration and respect for the rights for other
2 nationalities, rhetoric that would become a staple in the lexicon of
3 Serbian nationalism."
4 What kind of staple are you talking about, Mr. Donia?
5 A. What I mean is that it became a standard, routine part of Serbian
6 nationalist rhetoric.
7 Q. All right, Mr. Donia. We'll move back to page 6 in English.
8 Let's see which paragraph it is. It's the third full paragraph.
9 Here you talk about the Serbian Orthodox Church, which also
10 spread the Serbian nationalist message by moving the earthly remains of
11 Prince Lazar.
12 Do you know what such relics are, and do you know that in
13 Catholic temples the shroud that allegedly covered the body of
14 Jesus Christ is preserved, and the spear that was held -- that was
15 carried through the Crusades by Barbarossa, et cetera, do you consider
16 that a symbol of nationalism, and do you consider the display of symbols
17 of faith and traditional costumes, do you consider that to be the marking
18 of territory?
19 Let me give you a very blatant example. Here in the Netherlands
20 we see a variety of traditional costumes. Would all the people wearing
21 them marking their own territory?
22 A. No, not necessarily. I think you point out that the specific
23 circumstances and context it makes all the difference in the, let's say,
24 public -- the public theatre associated with the deployment of relics
25 and -- and symbols.
1 Q. All right. Let's turn to page 7 in English, paragraph one. Here
2 you claim that the exhumed remains did not belong exclusively to Serbs.
3 Would that mean that Catholic Croats and Muslims were also thrown into
4 those pits?
5 A. My statement in the report is it was unclear, and I would hold to
6 that. It wasn't clear to -- at the time that they were thrown in,
7 necessarily, who those folks were and probably not clear at the time that
8 they were exhumed.
9 Q. Yes, but then you contradict yourself in another paragraph where
10 you say:
11 "Local Serbs often knew of those corpses, and they remembered
12 that those were Serbs who were victims of the Croat slaughter in the
13 Second World War."
14 So the local Serbs knew who those dead people were.
15 A. Yes, I think that's the case.
16 Q. We're still on that page. You characterize those burials as
17 pompous reburials. Would you then consider the throwing of those bodies,
18 in the first place, a proper burial?
19 A. No. The word in English, by the way, is "ostentatious."
20 Q. Yes, we followed this passage in English. It's a matter of
22 Further down the page, page 7, there's another interesting
23 paragraph. You discuss the multi-party elections in various republics.
24 Do you know who prevent the holding of Yugoslav multi-party elections
25 into Yugoslav bodies? Not republic but Yugoslav bodies.
1 A. Yes. My understanding was it was a combination of the Slovenes
2 and Serbs who opposed that taking place.
3 Q. Where did this combination of Slovenes and Serbs take place?
4 A. Within the discussions in the federal bodies, but I -- more
5 specific I can't be than that. I just don't know the specific
7 Q. All right. Then you would not agree that it was the Croat and
8 Slovene separatists, although you deal in your report with the Croatian
9 and Slovene separatists.
10 A. To the extent of my knowledge, no. It was a combination of
11 Slovene leaders and Serb leaders who opposed that.
12 Q. All right. Obviously we can only agree to disagree and we'll
13 have to lead further evidence.
14 Well -- we're on page 7 in English, paragraph four. There you
15 say that the Assembly of Slovenia, in July 1990, made a key step towards
16 independence by adopting the resolution proclaiming the sovereignty of
18 Do you know that the Slovene Assembly actually adopted amendments
19 to the existing Slovenian constitution establishing its independence?
20 A. They did indeed adopt amendments to the constitution at that
21 time, yes.
22 Q. Mr. Donia, what do you know about the history of Slovene
23 statehood? And my question more specifically would be: Was Slovenia
24 ever a state?
25 A. Prior to 1991 it was not an independent state, no.
1 Q. Would it mean something to you if I said it has never been a
3 A. I would agree until 1991.
4 Q. All right. Can you then agree with me that its external borders
5 were the borders of Yugoslavia
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Whereas its internal borders dividing it from other parts of
9 A. I don't know what you mean by "administratively established." If
10 we characterize them as internal borders or boundaries, yes, they were
11 established after World War II by the Tito regime.
12 Q. Correct. Finally we agree on something. Mr. Donia, under the
13 prevailing constitution at the time, was any change in the external
14 borders by unilateral decisions of a republic or province prohibited, and
15 therefore was this act of the Slovene Assembly contrary to the federal
17 A. That leads me to an area that I'm not competent to answer in, as
18 I'm not a constitutional lawyer nor specialist on constitution law.
19 Q. All right. I asked you this because you deal quite a great deal
20 in your report with constitution issues, but, however, one thing may be
21 indisputable. Would you agree that the Yugoslav People's Army's job was
22 to protect the territorial integrity, the unity of Yugoslavia and its
23 external borders?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And you noted that in your report. I underlined that.
1 Are you aware that unconstitutional change of external borders of
4 A. That's a question of constitutional interpretation that I
5 can't -- I'm not qualified to answer.
6 Q. All right. We'll move on. Can you tell me what you know about
7 the history of Croatian statehood? Had Croatia ever been a state?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Tell us when?
10 A. From about 800 to -- it remained a state until 1102 at the very
11 earliest, and certain elements of its statehood, specifically the diet,
12 actually survived until 1918. It then became a state again in 1941 until
13 1945, or a state under the name of Croatia
14 Q. This statehood between 1941 and 1945 is something I'll deal with
15 later. Let me ask you this: Studying the history of Yugoslav peoples,
16 did you come to the conclusion that in both previous states of Yugoslavia
17 Serbs invested their statehood and suffered the greatest losses in order
18 to create that joint state?
19 A. No.
20 Q. You would not agree?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Very well. Do you know, Mr. Donia, that the Federal
23 Constitutional Court
24 and if you know that, why did you not write that in your report?
25 A. Do I know it? Yes. There's actually a book that treats it by
1 Bob Hayden. I generally didn't include in the report the Constitutional
2 Court pronouncements on various acts, I think with perhaps one exception,
3 mainly because I didn't find them of much consequence in the actual
4 development or evolution of events.
5 Q. All right. We're still on the same passage. You deal with
6 multi-party elections, including in Croatia. That's page 8,
7 paragraph two. And you say:
8 "Out of the total of 356 seats, 206 were won by Croatian
9 nationalists, and out of the 24 Serb MPs, only 5 were from the national
10 ticket, meaning the SDS
11 Is this quotation correct?
12 A. I believe so, yes.
13 Q. And you would agree with the conclusion --
14 MS. KORNER: I think the problem is that the pages that
15 Mr. Cvijetic is referring to don't appear to be -- I've been having some
16 difficulty in following which paragraph he's quoting in English. I think
17 Dr. Donia's having the same. And I think Dr. Donia needs to be shown the
18 actual quote in English, even though he does speak the language, if he's
19 going to agree or disagree that's what he said.
20 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, Mr. Donia found this
21 piece of information very quickly that I referred to. I said it was in
22 passage two on page 8. I cannot define it any more specifically than
24 May I continue, Your Honours? And I'm going to try to be even
25 more precise when I'm citing the passages in English.
1 Q. You're talking about the elections in Serbia and Montenegro
2 page 8, one-but-last paragraph. And you speak about the address by
3 Mr. Slobodan Milosevic.
4 Does it not seem to you, Mr. Donia, that you ascribed the
5 election campaign address by another leader of a Serbian party, the
6 Serbian Renewal Movement, Vuk Draskovic, with that of Slobodan Milosevic?
7 I can remind you of what Vuk Draskovic said. He used extreme nationalist
8 rhetoric claiming that:
9 "The Serbian borders lay where the Serbian graves lie."
10 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please slow down.
11 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I apologise. I'm going too fast.
12 Q. "And his calm rhetoric has contributed to his victory in those
14 In other words, in December 1990, in Milosevic's public addresses
15 there was not any trace of nationalism. Do you agree with my assertion?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Very well. Mr. Donia, is the data correct that only in Serbia
18 and Montenegro
19 nationalist or ethnic tone?
20 A. There were some local areas in which non-nationalist parties
21 prevail even in Bosnia-Herzegovina and in -- in other republics as well,
22 and the victories of the nationalists were -- they were not uniform
23 across the other republics of Yugoslavia
24 Q. Mr. Donia, can we move on? Page 9, paragraph three, last line.
25 My question is: Did you have the Constitution of Serbia of the
1 28th of September, 1990, in your hands?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Then I cannot ask you about -- or perhaps I can ask you. How do
4 you draw the conclusion that you draw in this last line?
5 A. Well, as you've -- as you can see, I have footnoted and quoted
6 Robert Hayden who has studied that constitution and the whole question of
7 constitutional law. He's an attorney and an anthropologist of law. I've
8 relied on him for this information.
9 Q. So this is not your conclusion then.
10 A. It is my conclusion based on his study of the question.
11 Q. I am going to put the opposite assertion to you, that these
12 changes did not abolish the autonomy of Kosovo or Vojvodina, but they
13 actually kept the autonomy that they had under previous constitutions
14 from 1973 [as interpreted] and also 1969.
15 A. That's wrong. The autonomy that Kosovo and Vojvodina was firmly
16 established in the 1974 Constitution, and taken away, withdrawn in the
17 constitutional amendments and ultimately the changes that we're talking
18 about in 1990.
19 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] We would just like to ask for a
20 correction to the transcript. I had said 1963, not 1973.
21 Q. Let us continue, Mr. Donia. On page -- let me just find the
22 English version. Page 10, paragraph three, you deal with the addresses
23 of Mr. Jovan Raskovic. We all know this was a Serb who was leading the
24 Serbs in Croatia
25 insightful rhetoric, he limited his demands to cultural autonomy for the
1 Serbs of Croatia
2 So I need to ask you whether this conclusion is opposite to the
3 footnote on page 39 where Mr. Raskovic literally says:
4 "We are not going to be creating another Serbian state in the
5 territory of the Republic of Croatia
6 do not want to have a Serbia
7 sovereignty of a Serbian ethnic identity."
8 Mr. Donia, do you know what the word "sovereignty" means? That's
9 the specific question.
10 A. Let me answer one question at a time, if I may. Your question
11 was: Is there a contradiction? And my answer is no. There -- I don't
12 see a contradiction between what you just quoted from page 39 and the
13 statement that Raskovic favoured a cultural autonomy. That was a
14 consistent position of his, albeit stated with a great flourish and a
15 great deal of rhetoric. And I -- to my knowledge, it never changed.
16 As to the question of what "sovereignty" means, I think
17 "sovereignty" means different things to different people, and I couldn't
18 give you the dictionary definition the world, but it clearly assigns to a
19 polity a primary position in decision-making about at least some of its
20 own policy matters.
21 Q. Very well. Do you know that the word was first used by
22 Jean Bodin in his work six books about state, and this is where he gives
23 the first definition of that word?
24 All right. If you're not aware of that, may I continue?
25 A. Certainly.
1 Q. Okay. Okay. All right. We're now on page 11, paragraph four.
2 You assert here that Milosevic and Borisav Jovic agreed about the
3 proposal to expel Slovenia
4 also quote from Jovic's diary, but when you read the diary itself, you
5 can see that only the -- this has to do -- that only members of the
6 Presidency of Croatia
7 issue, not that Slovenia
8 difference between those two things?
9 A. I certainly see the difference. I would have to go back to the
10 diary to see if that is the exact point that -- that was being made
11 there. I'm sorry, I don't have the B/C/S in front of me, so I couldn't
12 do that.
13 Q. All right. All right. Let us move to page 14, paragraph two,
14 please. You deal with conflicts in Borovo Selo, that incident which you
15 claim was caused by the men of Mr. Vojislav Seselj.
16 Mr. Donia, the proceedings against Mr. Seselj are underway and
17 there is a war being waged in the courtroom in relation to whether this
18 is true or not. Don't you think that it is too early for you to be
19 drawing conclusions on a case that is still underway? And you are also
20 citing different sources. Are they reliable enough for you to be able to
21 reach the conclusion that you reach?
22 A. Well, that's two questions at least. I was -- when I wrote these
23 words, I don't believe Mr. Seselj was in the midst of a court proceeding.
24 In fact, I believe he was not in -- not in the custody of the ICTY. So I
25 would only say the disposition of that matter in the court would be of --
1 of value and interest in determining the full true story of -- or more
2 complete story of what happened in -- in Borovo Selo.
3 The account that I've given is based in part on the journalist's
4 viewing of Belgrade
5 avoid the very controversial allegations that have arisen surrounding
6 Borovo Selo and simply stick to the fundamental basic facts of what
7 happened as it was reported at the time.
8 Q. Mr. Donia, since you say that you're not an expert on
9 constitutional matters, then on page 14, this conclusion of yours that
10 Milosevic and Bulatovic were in favour of strengthening the current
11 constitutional order, I wanted to ask you, did you look at constitutional
12 projects from that period? You said you did not, so I'm going to abandon
13 that question and move to page 14, paragraph five now.
14 You interpret here the conversations between Mr. Tudjman and
15 Mr. Milosevic in Karadjordjevic, and you also quote Mr. Milic on this.
16 It says:
17 "Mr. Milic, do you know that those are minutes of those talks?"
18 A. No.
19 Q. In order to make a serious historical conclusion on this, would
20 it be a useful exercise to study those minutes, do you think?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. We're now on page 16, paragraph three. Page 16, paragraphs two
23 and three. You quote the words of Stipe Mesic here where he complains
24 that immediately after the elections for the president of the Presidency
25 and until the end, no one from the military leadership came to see him
1 when he was the president of the Presidency. Do you know why this was?
2 A. Well, I think I answered that question in the next sentence here
3 and quoting General Kadijevic who said, "We deliberately treated him that
5 Q. Why?
6 A. Mesic did not represent a direction that the JNA Supreme Command
7 or high command wanted to go.
8 Q. Mr. Donia, can this be linked with his statement that he was
9 going to be the last president of Yugoslavia
10 A. Certainly. Yes.
11 Q. And the Yugoslav People's Army was entrusted with preserving that
12 state, that Yugoslavia
13 A. It's one cause.
14 Q. Very well. Now that we're on the topic of Mr. Mesic, do you know
15 anything about his statements about transferring the war from Croatia
16 Bosnia and Herzegovina, that he openly announced that Croatia
17 transfer the war from Croatia
18 unburden or to lift the burden on the Croatian fronts?
19 A. No.
20 Q. You don't know about that statement of his. Do you know anything
21 about the involvement of Croatia
22 through the direct participation of the Croatian armed forces and
23 assistance in manpower and weapons to the Muslim forces?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Would we agree, and you wrote that in your report, that the first
1 major war crime against the civilian population took place in the village
2 of Sijekovac, and it was committed by Croatian forces who killed
3 civilians in that Serbian village?
4 A. That's not what I wrote. I did report on -- in my paper on the
5 attack on Sijekovac, but I also, at least if not this report, elsewhere
6 reported on the attack on the village of -- in Herzegovina in
7 October of 1991 by the JNA. I'm sorry, I'm forgetting the name of the
8 village. Ravno. Which I viewed as the first serious armed incursion
9 against civilians in Bosnia-Herzegovina from outside the republic.
10 Q. Very well. I'm just going to remind you that I took this from
11 your testimony in the Brdjanin case, and it was in response to a question
12 by my learned friend Mr. Ackerman. The Trial Chamber can confirm that.
13 In any case, it's about an awful -- an awful crime which was
14 widely reported on television, and there is a lot of footage about that.
15 So I guess we would agree on that.
16 MS. KORNER: If this was from the Brdjanin testimony, could we
17 have the reference, please, to the page number and the day of the
19 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I can provide that
20 later. Since I don't know English, I'm listening to the transcripts from
21 Mr. Donia's testimony, so I wrote the transcript references, and we can
22 confirm that later.
23 MS. KORNER: I appreciate in a Mr. Cvijetic doesn't read, speak
24 English, but others on his team do, and if assertions are going to be
25 made to a witness, it's important that we have the context in the sense
1 of where we can find it so that we can check it's an accurate
3 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we will easily
4 clarify this with Mr. Donia.
5 Q. Would you agree, Mr. Donia, that a major war crime was committed
6 in the village of Sijekovac
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. That is my final question there. Mr. Donia, I'm now going to
9 move to page 17 of your report, and you have a heading there, "The
10 Bosnian Context." Does that imply, Mr. Donia, that that is also the
11 Herzegovinian context?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Thank you. You cover the formation of the party established by
14 the then-prime minister Mr. Ante Markovic, and that he decided to form
15 the party at Kozara; is that correct? This is page 19, paragraph two.
16 And you place that in the context of major sacrifices that were made in
17 that area. So before that I would like to ask you when did Mr. Markovic
18 form that party in relation to the elections in Croatia? Was it before
19 the elections or after?
20 A. Well, it was founded after the elections in Croatia.
21 Q. Would you agree with my assertion that Mr. Ante Markovic wanted
22 to avoid or did not wish to interfere with Mr. Tudjman's victory in
24 assure a victory for them there?
25 A. I don't -- I don't know. I don't have the information to agree
1 or disagree with your assertion.
2 Q. Very well. Mr. Donia, I think --
3 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it's time for a
4 break now, is that correct?
5 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, just before we do break --
6 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
7 MS. KORNER: -- can I just remind again Mr. Cvijetic of
8 guideline 17:
9 "The parties are to avoid paraphrasing previous testimony or
10 statements of witnesses but shall quote the directly relevant passage and
11 indicate the exact page numbers and relevant lines."
12 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I withdrew that
13 question. I rephrased it, and you realised that the whole matter was
14 corrected; right?
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE HALL
17 remind counsel that Dr. Donia, because of his previous commitments, that
18 you would only have an hour with him when we return at quarter -- quarter
19 of 11.00.
20 --- Recess taken at 10.26 a.m.
21 --- On resuming at 10.47 a.m.
22 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, before we begin, I
23 would kindly ask the Registrar could check how much time I've already
24 spent out of my total allocated time.
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: You have spent one hour and 30 minutes.
2 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Yesterday and today together,
3 which means that for this cross-examination I have how much time left?
4 Two hours and 30 minutes; correct?
5 JUDGE HARHOFF: I don't think that a final ruling has been made
6 on the extent of time for this, because we knew that we wouldn't complete
7 today anyway, but we said yesterday that it would be somewhere between
8 three and four hours.
9 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I would be very grateful if you
10 would give me an indication, because today I cannot finish at any rate,
11 and when Mr. Donia is recalled, I would like to know how much time I
12 would have.
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: You will be given our ruling as soon as possible,
14 but I suggest that we spend the time now in getting as far as we can with
15 Dr. Donia, and then when Dr. Donia has left this morning, we still have
16 some time for procedural matters, and we'll get back to it by then.
17 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Okay.
18 JUDGE HARHOFF: So hurry up and get on with the ...
19 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Mr. Donia, I would like to move to page 20 -- 21, 21 in English.
21 Last paragraph.
22 This is about the decision of the Constitutional Court which
23 judged that the Serbian National Council is an illegal body usurping the
24 constitutional authority of the constitutional government.
25 Mr. Donia, you dealt with this issue, and from the Constitution
1 of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the council of peoples was abolished. That
2 exists in many multi-ethnic communities. There is a council in which all
3 the various ethnicities are equally represented, and the mechanism of
4 voting prevents out-voting in matters of vital national interest. You
5 deal with this and you say that this body after that date did, in fact,
6 no longer exist. Is that correct?
7 A. I believe you misinterpreted what I wrote here. I wrote that the
8 Constitutional Court
9 body that was proclaimed by Karadzic on October 13, 1990, as a purely
10 Serbian body to be unconstitutional, and then that it referred the issue
11 to the -- or to the Bosnian Assembly for further action, and this
12 self-proclaimed or Karadzic-proclaimed body really never really
13 functioned in Bosnia
14 I wasn't speaking here about the actual Chamber of Peoples of the
15 Assembly of Bosnia-Herzegovina but, rather, this body that was proclaimed
16 by Karadzic and never really -- there was never any life breathed into
18 Q. Correct. And I asked you only in that context, because you did
19 deal with the issue of the absence of the Chamber of Peoples from the
20 Bosnian Assembly in your report.
21 A. What's the question? What is your specific question?
22 Q. My question was the existence of such a chamber in multi-ethnic
23 communities, in parliaments, is something quite usual, especially when
24 vital national interests and issues of vital national interests are voted
25 on. Is that correct?
1 A. Frequent but I don't know that it's the norm for multi-ethnic
2 societies. I just really don't know how many societies that you would
3 call multi-ethnic actually have such a Chamber of Peoples.
4 Q. Very well. But you will admit that the existence of such a
5 chamber ensures a solid mechanism for protecting the vital national
6 interest of each people?
7 A. It can function that way.
8 Q. I'll deal briefly with page 22, paragraph two. This is the time
9 of elections in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
10 At multi-party elections in Bosnia and Herzegovina, mainly
11 nationalist parties took part; right?
12 A. Are you reading a passage? I'm not finding --
13 Q. No, no. I'm -- this is just an introductory remark, an
14 introduction to a question that will have to do with paragraph two on
15 page 22.
16 Three nationalist parties appeared.
17 A. More than that. There were total of, I think, 62 parties, of
18 which many were nationalist in orientation and a good number were either
19 non-nationalist or anti-nationalist.
20 Q. But nationalist parties were predominant.
21 A. In the outcome of the election that would be the case.
22 Q. At those multi-party elections people also voted for the
23 Presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina; correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. The Presidency consisted of two representatives of each people,
1 and there was a possibility for electing one member of the category
2 called "Others"; correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And now let's go back to paragraph two on page 22. You mention
5 Ejup Ganic, who entered the Presidency as a representative of this
6 category "Others." My question is how did he declare himself in terms of
7 ethnicity at those elections?
8 A. He didn't declare himself by ethnicity for the election. He
9 entered as a candidate in the category of "Other" on the grounds that he
10 had declared himself a Yugoslav in 1981.
11 Q. And that's the point of my question. He declared himself as a
12 Yugoslav. Do you know how Ejup Ganic declared himself during the war?
13 A. I assume he declared himself as a Bosniak.
14 Q. Bosniak Muslim. At that time, in fact, it was Muslim, because
15 the category of Bosniak had not yet been introduced.
16 A. Well, the category of "Bosniak" was formally adopted by the
17 Bosnian Muslims in September of 1993, so when I say "Bosniak," I'm really
18 saying the same thing as Bosnian Muslim prior to September 1993. That's
20 Q. Well, how, then, do you interpret the fact that somebody who
21 declared himself as a Yugoslav and comes into the category of "Other"
22 goes back into the category of "Muslim" during the war? Does that mean
23 that he originally lied about his identity?
24 A. No. He declared himself, as many people did, in the census of
25 1990 -- 1981 as a Yugoslav, and from 1981 to 1991, if you look at those
1 census results, the number of people who declared themselves as Yugoslavs
2 declined considerably. People, in other words, shifted their sense of
3 identity, their national identity, and there is no reason to believe that
4 he was lying in 1981 anymore than those other people were who underwent a
5 shift of identity in their own feelings. I tried to make that point in
6 the paper that I had written for the Karadzic case that this is a --
7 national identity is, in fact, a contingent element.
8 So my answer to your question is, no, I don't believe he lied.
9 Q. Mr. Donia, I suppose you wouldn't agree, then, with my theory
10 that it was an election swindle. Mr. Ganic changed this identity very
11 quickly. He enters the Presidency as a representative of "Others" and
12 then soon thereafter declares himself as a Muslim and enters the SDA
13 party. You wouldn't agree, would you, that he deceived the electorate?
14 A. You're correct, I do not agree.
15 Q. The law on political parties of 1990 allowed multi-party
16 organisation in Bosnia and Herzegovina after a long period of one-party
17 rule; correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. That law prohibited the establishment of parties with nationalist
20 platforms and symbols that would rally only members of one people;
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Do you know who was -- sorry. Do you know that the
24 Constitutional Court
25 Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina declared that law unconstitutional?
1 A. I don't believe that's quite a correct characterization of the
2 court's decision, but the effect of their ruling was to give a green
3 light to the organisation of parties based on religious and national
5 Q. Who was the -- the president of the Constitutional Court?
6 A. Kasim Trnka.
7 Q. A Muslim.
8 A. Yes, he was.
9 Q. Did Mr. Kasim Trnka later become a prominent member of the SDA
10 party, Izetbegovic's party?
11 A. Yes, he did.
12 Q. Mr. Donia, at presidential elections where members of the
13 Presidency were to be elected, Mr. Alija Izetbegovic did not win the
14 greatest number of votes, did he?
15 A. No.
16 Q. What about Fikret Abdic?
17 A. Yes, he did. He won -- he won the most votes in -- overall, and
18 in the category, obviously, of "Muslims."
19 Q. How did it come about that Alija Izetbegovic became president of
20 the Presidency rather than Fikret Abdic?
21 A. As I testified yesterday, formally Izetbegovic was selected by a
22 vote of all members of the Presidency. Prior to that vote, the three
23 national parties reached an agreement which resulted in him being elected
24 president, and the SDA itself elected -- or selected Izetbegovic to be
25 the SDA's candidate for the president of the Presidency.
1 Q. Would you agree with my idea that Fikret Abdic conceded this
2 position under serious threats by other members of the SDA party?
3 A. No.
4 Q. All right. Would you agree with the theory that the course of
5 historical events in Bosnia and Herzegovina would have been entirely
6 different had Fikret Abdic been member -- been president of the
8 A. I don't know.
9 Q. Did you answer in the affirmative to the same question when
10 testifying previously in a different case?
11 A. It's possible. I don't -- I don't recall having answered that
12 question previously, but it -- I'd have to know.
13 Q. I will not insist any further until I'm able to provide a
14 reference for your testimony in the Brdjanin case, and then I will come
15 back to it.
16 Mr. Donia, you continue to discuss regionalisation. That's
17 page 21, paragraph two. The first full paragraph, in fact. Can you see
18 this? It's 23 in English, actually, and the sub-heading is
19 "Regionalisation." Twenty-three.
20 Can you see it now? May I continue?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Are you aware that inter-municipal co-operation and association
23 was something that was allowed by the Constitution of Bosnia and
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Is it true that both Croats and Muslims had their own versions of
3 A. Well, there were -- there were regional associations established
4 and in existence in 1990, but they were not ethnic or national in
6 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, for the sake of
7 expediency, I will go through Mr. Donia's report and tender certain
8 things into evidence later, or perhaps I should tender 1D003801 -- 3810.
10 JUDGE HARHOFF: And what is that exactly?
11 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] That's one document of the SDA
12 party on the establishment of a separate municipality within Banja Luka
13 populated mainly by Muslims.
14 I don't know if you -- if this document has been called up. It's
15 in e-court. Yes, that's it.
16 MS. KORNER: Sorry, just a moment. I -- we were given yesterday
17 a bundle of documents from the Defence, but I don't see one that's
19 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] We know it's in e-court because it
20 was on the screen a moment ago.
21 MS. KORNER: I'm sorry, Your Honour. I've spotted it.
22 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] May I continue? That is the
23 document. It's on the screen now.
24 Q. Mr. Donia, can you see the document?
25 A. Yes. My affection for e-court grows by the moment.
1 Q. There are other electronic dinosaurs. You're not the only one.
2 So you see the document.
3 A. Yes, I do see the document, mm-hmm.
4 Q. Does it confirm what you said a moment ago, that there were
5 instances of regional organisation on all sides?
6 A. That's not what I said a moment ago. I said there were regional
7 associations in existence that had been created in the 1970s and before
8 that were in existence in 1990 but were not national or ethnic in
10 The document that you're showing me validates what I've known
11 about for some time and is referred to in many other documents, which was
12 this rather fleeting attempt of the SDA to form a separate municipality
13 within Banja Luka. I believe there was also an effort to establish one
14 in the Sarajevo
15 separate municipalities by -- by Muslims. But this was not
16 regionalisation. This was a different phenomenon than you asked about.
17 Q. Okay. Okay. I will lead evidence on that.
18 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] May I tender this now as a Defence
19 exhibit? Our number is D13.
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 JUDGE HALL
22 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 1D1, Your Honours.
23 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Mr. Donia, I'll show you another document for -- 1D002854. It's
25 on the screen now.
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. We see that this is about Herzegovina Regional Community and the
3 Travnik Regional Community under the Croatian Democratic Union. Do you
4 know about the existence of this regional community? Are you aware of
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. What is of interest to me here are the dates. The previous
8 document was September 1991, and this one is dated 12 December --
9 12 November 1991
10 are some new regional communities.
11 A. Yes. This was part of several associations of municipalities
12 that were proclaimed -- I thought it was the 9th of November, 1991
13 Mate Boban and the separatist wing of the HDZ of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and
14 clearly under the influence of Franjo Tudjman and the Zagreb leadership
15 of the HDZ. I've written about this in previous reports for other cases.
16 Q. Very well, Mr. Donia. You've just answered -- you've just
17 anticipated my next question. There were communities established based
18 on the national criterion; correct?
19 A. Yes. There were communities established by Serbs and Croats on
20 the national basis.
21 Q. Aren't you mistaken? I showed you two documents, one about a
22 Muslim regional community and another about a Croat regional community.
23 A. I may have missed it, but I saw nothing in the document that you
24 showed me suggesting a Muslim regional community of municipalities, which
25 is -- but then what you -- you've been asking me about. The document
1 referred only to the -- as I -- as I recall -- or what I saw, referred to
2 the proclamation of a separate municipality, Banja Luka-Stari Grad, and
3 not an association of municipalities as a regional phenomenon.
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: Can I just ask a clarifying question, because I
5 think you mentioned that this was attempted in Banja Luka and also in
7 actually succeed? Were any Muslim municipalities ever created in either
8 Banja Luka or Sarajevo
9 THE WITNESS: Neither of those ever came to life in any
10 significant way. The one that did ultimately was formed and had actually
11 a significant role was the Western Bosnia association around Bihac, which
12 was headed by Fikret Abdic. That was created some months later than
13 the -- after the war was -- was already underway.
14 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
15 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, may I tender the
16 previous document as a Defence exhibit. Sorry, this document we are
17 discussing now. I'm already holding the next one, and I misspoke.
18 JUDGE HALL
19 THE REGISTRAR: Could I please have the document ID or the 65 ter
21 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] 1D002854.
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: It has, actually, a different number on the
23 bottom. It says 2856.
24 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] 54 is what I have.
25 JUDGE HARHOFF: I apologise.
1 THE REGISTRAR: It will become Exhibit 1D2, Your Honours.
2 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Mr. Donia, since you've touched upon the issue of Sarajevo
4 like to tender -- to introduce another document, 1D002778. I think we
5 have it on the screen now.
6 What's interesting about this document and why I'd like to tender
7 it later is the final part, the paragraph 4 on page 2. Could we turn to
8 page 2. Paragraph 4. It's the SDA party, the Democratic Action Party,
9 invoking the constitutional provision about regionalisation. You have
10 already spoken about Sarajevo
11 Defence exhibit. 1D002778.
12 JUDGE HALL
13 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D3, Your Honours.
14 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. 1D003828 is another document in support of this. Mr. Donia, can
16 you see the document now?
17 A. Not well, but yes.
18 Q. It's the statutory decision on the organisation of a
19 Stari Grad-Banja Luka Municipal Assembly in the process of establishment.
20 This is a follow-up on the previous decision. Now we have a statutory
22 Since you've already commented, I would like to tender this
23 document as well.
24 JUDGE HALL
25 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 1D4, Your Honours.
1 THE WITNESS: What is the date on this document?
2 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. 17 November 1991
4 implementation, a step toward implementing the previous decision?
5 A. Yes. If I could just note, it says "Illegible" on the English.
6 I don't see anything illegible about the date on the B/C/S. It's clearly
7 11th of November.
8 Q. 17 November; correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Okay.
11 A. And yes, I agree it is a -- implementing.
12 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, may I tender this
13 document as well or has it been admitted already?
14 JUDGE HALL
15 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Okay.
16 Q. I'll now show you a very interesting document, 1D003749.
17 Mr. Donia, do you see the document?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. It's quite a curious document in which all the participating
20 parties in Banja Luka municipality issue a proclamation regionalising
21 that area. Serbs, Croats, and Muslims alike regionalise the area and
22 write this whole study. Correct?
23 A. I can't accept your characterization of it until I've read it and
24 seen specific --
25 Q. Okay.
1 A. And if you're asking me to agree, I need to be able to read it.
2 Q. Of course.
3 A. Okay. I'm done with the first page.
4 Q. All right. Can we tender this document, 1D00 -- sorry.
5 A. I would -- I don't accept your characterization of the document.
6 This is not regionalisation as it was defined and applied by the SDS.
7 This is simply the division of one municipality into several. It's a
8 different process than what you are referring to as regionalisation.
9 Q. We don't have to agree, Mr. Donia. I can call this document
10 joint Variants A and B agreed upon by Serbs and Croats.
11 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Can I tender this document,
12 Your Honours?
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: Hold on, Mr. Cvijetic. I'm not sure about what
14 this document is supposed to show. What is it that you want to bring to
15 the Court's attention with this document? I don't have page 1 on the
16 screen anymore so I can't see it.
17 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] This offsets the assertion of the
18 Prosecution that the SDS
19 municipalities based on the majority population. Now we see a similar
20 decision agreed upon by all the parties in that region, and this is what
21 the document confirms, nothing more.
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: But is it an invitation to sign up between the
23 different parties for purposes of an election or ...
24 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] This applies only to the
25 territories of the municipalities listed here.
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: Okay. I see on the bottom of page 1 that:
2 "The inhabitants of all local communes, settlements and villages
3 are called upon at meetings to vote for the foundation of each their
4 municipalities because by," and then it turns over to page 2, "voting in
5 favour they will be voting for the prosperity of their neighbourhood and
6 a harmonious social and economic development overall."
7 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, if it assists -- if it assists, we're
8 not objecting to it. We don't think it's got anything to do Variant --
9 any type of Variant A and B. It seems to be a community of
10 municipalities, rather likely, but we're quite happy to have it admitted
11 if the Defence want it.
12 JUDGE HARHOFF: The Chamber has no objections to admitting it,
13 it's just that we want to be sure that we understand what the document is
14 purporting to bring.
15 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] To put it briefly, Your Honour,
16 this is an agreement between parties that preceded the later -- the
17 subsequent statutory decision already admitted concerning
18 Stari Grad-Banja Luka. This decision was made based on an agreement
19 among parties. That's 1D003749.
20 JUDGE HALL
21 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 1D5, Your Honours.
22 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, can I just say it doesn't seem to
23 appear on transcript that I said we don't think it's got anything to do
24 with Variant A or B, on line 18.
25 THE WITNESS: Your Honours, may I respond to the question that I
1 was asked earlier about this document?
2 JUDGE HARHOFF: Yes.
3 THE WITNESS: I believe, sir, you've mischaracterized the
4 document. It is a draft of an agreement. It is not signed. And it was
5 very common practice in these Assembly meetings to -- for someone to
6 arrive at a meeting with a draft just like this and ask that it be
7 approved by everyone present. Common practice pretty much in any city
8 council or so. But there are no signatures or stamps on the document
9 that indicate that it's been approved by these parties. I would assess
10 it as highly unlikely that the SDS
11 with this document, and in fact the SDS's name isn't even listed there.
12 And I think the other parties would be unlike to -- unlikely to approve
13 it as well. And I just -- in the absence of signatures, very much doubt
14 that it represents an agreement that was actually reached.
15 JUDGE HARHOFF: Counsel, can you clarify? Was this document ever
17 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this is an inference
18 we are draw based on the fact that this was followed by the statutory
19 decision proclaiming municipalities. That's how we draw the inference,
20 and we found this document among the disclosed material.
21 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, Counsel. My question was whether this
22 document had been adopted or not.
23 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] We suppose that it was, because it
24 says the analysis is adopted in full, and then this was followed by that
25 statutory decision. So we infer, we conclude, that it must have been.
1 This was also followed by an identical decision of the SDA.
2 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, just for the first [indiscernible], can
3 I say we'd ask for those documents to -- counsel's just giving evidence
4 at the moment.
5 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I was answering your
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE HALL
9 Ms. Korner has made I should indicate the Chamber's view as to this
10 document, Counsel, that it is -- bearing in mind that you are not
11 entitled to give evidence, it is the witness who is giving the evidence,
12 that the document, although we have admitted it, that having regard to
13 the arguments that -- that in effect you're advancing, that is something
14 that we would have to revisit at the appropriate stage.
15 MS. KORNER: I'm sorry, can I just ask. I'm not clear from that.
16 Is Your Honour ruling that they must provide the documents that
17 Mr. Cvijetic has referred to? Because that's what we're asking for,
18 because Mr. Cvijetic has just made certain assertions. I'm simply
19 inquiring whether Your Honour has made the ruling that the Defence must
20 provide us with the documents that Mr. Cvijetic says surround these.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE HALL
23 had posed to the Chamber, please?
24 MS. KORNER: I'm so sorry, Your Honour. Your Honour, my -- you
25 referred to my objection, and I simply objected that Mr. Cvijetic was
1 giving evidence and that we would like to see the documents that he
2 referred to, namely, the decisions that followed he asserted, before this
3 went any further, and I was asking whether Your Honour was ruling that
4 the Defence must provide us with those documents rather than Mr. Cvijetic
5 telling the Chamber that they exist, that that was -- I was merely asking
6 will Your Honour rule that the Defence, if they wish this document to be
7 taken any further, should provide us with copies of the other documents.
8 That -- that's all.
9 JUDGE HALL
10 at that stage. You made an objection which -- and I characterize it as
11 an observation but obviously it was an objection, and that is where
12 matters stand. If counsel seeks to take the Chamber where he has
13 indicated he expects that he could be having regard to how he has
14 characterized that document, then obviously he would have to lead the
15 relevant evidence, but I don't think it is necessary for the Chamber to
16 rule at this stage that he must provide the supporting evidence. It
17 would be up to him if he intends to rely on it to that extent, I would
18 have thought.
19 MS. KORNER: Thank you, Your Honour.
20 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this must be a
21 misunderstanding. Before this document, both the documents I'm referring
22 to were admitted, 1D0038 -- in fact, they were called 1D1 and 1D4, and
23 the document I'm tendering now precedes them. I suppose I don't have to
24 provide a rationale for something that's already been admitted into
25 evidence. The admitted documents are a result of the one I'm holding in
1 my hand.
2 JUDGE HALL
3 explain our view sufficiently clearly. What we are saying is that, as
4 you have just correctly indicated, that having regard to the connection
5 between this document and the previously tendered documents,
6 notwithstanding any technical objection that could have been taken that
7 it should only have been marked for identification, we have allowed it as
8 an exhibit, and that is as far as we are going at this stage. The rest
9 of it are matters for argument at the appropriate stage.
10 Does that clarify? Does that address your concern?
11 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, and I think that
12 is in keeping with paragraph 4 of your guidelines. But I would like to
13 move on. That's document 1D003691.
14 Q. Mr. Donia, do you see the document?
15 A. Yes, I do.
16 Q. Are you able to read it?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Can we agree - I'm going to paraphrase the text - that a group of
19 citizens of the Neum inhabited place is asking for instructions from the
20 democratic party -- Democratic Action Party from Sarajevo, that they are
21 under pressure from Croats, that Muslim children have to obtain textbooks
22 from Croatia
23 as proof of the functioning of another large community, the Croatian
24 Community of Herceg-Bosna?
25 A. Since the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna was founded in
1 November of 1991 and this document is dated September of 1991, that is a
2 highly unlikely relationship.
3 Q. Mr. Donia, we are going to come back to the formation of
4 Herceg-Bosna, but I think Their Honours are looking at the clock.
5 Perhaps I can just ask --
6 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Can I continue? Do I have time to
7 continue? The Croatian community of Herceg-Bosna is a separate topic
8 that I will be dealing with. So obviously I'm running out of time.
9 Perhaps it would be better for me not to even begin. I don't know if you
10 agree request that?
11 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, Dr. Donia can be here to 12.00 if it
12 assists. That will enable him to get his flight.
13 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Then, Your Honour --
14 JUDGE HARHOFF: Can you finish this up in 15 minutes?
15 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] No, definitely not.
16 JUDGE HARHOFF: Well, then it's basically up to you whether you
17 wish to begin. You may decide that you would rather stop now and then
18 resume with the next item that you wish when Dr. Donia comes back, or you
19 may wish to --
20 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I apologise for
21 interrupting, but I would just like to ask for this document to be
22 admitted. We have just enough time for that. 1D00369, perhaps we could
23 ask for this document to be admitted.
24 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, I'm sorry, but admitted on what basis?
25 Dr. Donia doesn't say he's seen the document, doesn't agree with the
1 proposition that's been put about it, so on what basis is it being
2 admitted? That's all I'm asking.
3 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if I heard Dr. Donia
4 properly, he did state his position on that document.
5 JUDGE HARHOFF: I must admit, Mr. Cvijetic, that I, too, have a
6 bit of difficulty in fully understanding what it is that this document is
7 supposed to show. There's a mother complaining that her kids have been
8 forced to buy Croatian schoolbooks and that they were Muslim and that she
9 had already bought those books, and the only comment that Dr. Donia
10 provided was that this event occurred before the creation of
11 Herceg-Bosna, the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna. So with this
12 information, then what do you want the Chamber to understand from this
14 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, that is precisely why
15 I asked to stop here and to deal with Herceg-Bosnia separately, because
16 the day and the time that Herceg-Bosnia was formed I'm going to provide a
17 lot of documents indicating that it existed and that it was formed much
18 earlier. That is the point.
19 JUDGE HARHOFF: Then, Mr. Cvijetic, I would suggest that you
20 tender the document when we have completed that exercise, and then we
21 will take a position on whether or not to admit it.
22 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I agree. Then I can complete that
23 and admit this document with other documents. Of course I accept your
24 suggestion. Thank you.
25 Your Honours, we were just talking about the possibility of
1 ending the cross-examination as I am just about to deal with two key
2 topics of my cross-examination for which I will be needing the time
3 remaining to me, and none of those topics that I wish to deal with can be
4 dealt with properly in ten minutes. So if you would permit me, I would
5 like to continue next time to cover two what I consider crucial topics
6 for which I will be needing the time that is left.
7 JUDGE HARHOFF: I'm not sure if the interpretation came through
8 to us. Are you able to do this in ten minutes or would you rather wait?
9 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I would like to put it off,
10 because I cannot even begin properly in ten minutes.
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 JUDGE HALL
13 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] If I can just help perhaps to make
14 your decision easier. My colleague is suggesting that the document must
15 be marked for identification at least, and the Registry probably agrees
16 with that. Is that correct?
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE HALL
19 with at a later stage. At this point, in the Chamber's view it's
20 premature to even mark it for identification.
21 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I agree with your decision,
22 Your Honours. I can just give you a promise. You said that Mr. Donia,
23 next time, will be cross-examined on the three chapters of his most
24 recent report, and we were permitted an hour and a half, if I am not
25 mistaken. We are going to cut short our cross-examination time on those
1 three chapters and then this part of mine that I still have to complete
2 will fit in with that total hour and a half, perhaps requiring an
3 additional half an hour or so. So we're not going to take up more than
4 two hours in all for all of those matters for cross-examination. So I
5 promise we will not need more than two hours to finish, and I think that
6 is about how much time I have left anyway when we deduct the time that
7 was spent.
8 JUDGE HALL
9 will have to return for the completion of your cross-examination. We
10 thank you for your attendance today, and you may now withdraw.
11 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honours.
12 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, may I just mention one matter, and
13 that's this: Transport for Dr. Donia. I understand we have had an
14 e-mail from VWS. Perhaps, Dr. Donia, just wait a moment. That they
15 don't arrange transport to and from the airport for expert witnesses.
16 They will do it for non-experts but not for experts. We are perfectly
17 prepared to have an investigator from our team drive Dr. Donia to -- no.
18 Well, he says no. All right. I couldn't speak to Dr. Donia, obviously.
19 That's fine.
20 JUDGE HARHOFF: Exactly. Because we should remind you that you
21 are not allowed to have any contact with this Prosecution team during
22 your absence from the Tribunal.
23 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour.
24 [The witness stands down]
25 JUDGE HALL
1 of the matters which must be addressed with the assistance for counsel,
2 so it is proposed that we take a 20-minute break at this point, returning
3 at 12.15.
4 MS. KORNER: Do I understand Your Honours are going to raise some
5 matters? If so, perhaps we could know before the adjournment so that if
6 we need any paperwork we can bring it.
7 JUDGE HARHOFF: There are a couple of rulings we need to make
8 still, one of which is when should Donia come back, how much time does
9 the Defence have -- the Stanisic Defence have left. That has not been
10 decided. How much time does Zupljanin's Defence team wish to use? And
11 then I think there are still a couple of issues relating to some of the
12 motions that were filed recently that still haven't been ruled upon. So
13 I think there are five or six small matters that need to be dealt with.
14 MS. KORNER: Yes. Because, Your Honours, we are certain, as we
15 said yesterday, going to deal orally with our response to the application
16 to appeal in respect of Dr. Nielsen, and then we've got a couple of
17 matters, really administrative matters, including the question of
18 Dr. Donia's ability to talk to other members of this office, because he's
19 coming back to testify, I believe it's the end of October, and obviously
20 those members of our office need to be able to speak to him about that
21 testimony, so we need a ruling.
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: Yes. We have actually discussed that, and we
23 will hand down our ruling, but you will see that in my instructions to
24 Dr. Donia I told him that he was not allowed to talk to any members of
25 this team.
1 MS. KORNER: We did.
2 --- Recess taken at 11.56 a.m.
3 --- On resuming at 12.56 p.m.
4 JUDGE HALL
5 waiting. The -- I would now invite Judge Harhoff to deal with the
6 several matters.
7 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you. We have considered a number of
8 procedural matters which we will now address.
9 The first issue is the time that the Defence teams have left for
10 the cross-examination of Dr. Donia, and the Chamber originally indicated
11 that -- and that was upon the suggestions made by the Stanisic team, that
12 it would be somewhere between three and four hours of cross-examination.
13 The Chamber has therefore decided that it will grant all together three
14 and a half hours for the cross-examination of Stanisic, and that includes
15 the cross-examination on the Sarajevo
16 The Stanisic Defence team, as we understand, has so far taken
17 2 hours and 17 minutes this leaves 1 hour and 13 minutes to add up to the
18 total time of three and a half hours.
19 So Mr. Cvijetic, when Dr. Donia comes back you have 1 hour and
20 13 minutes to complete your cross-examination.
21 As for the Zupljanin Defence team, we have been guided by
22 Mr. Pantelic's own admission that in large part the Sarajevo report would
23 not be of any particular relevance and that Mr. Pantelic would need
24 either one hour or one and a half hours. The Chamber has granted you one
1 This means altogether that when Dr. Donia comes back, the
2 Stanisic Defence team will continue and have 1 hour and 13 minutes, after
3 which the Zupljanin Defence team will have one hour, and then there will
4 be questions perhaps in redirect from the Prosecution and possibly by the
5 Chamber, and that will then conclude the testimony of Dr. Donia.
6 That's the first decision or order that we have rendered.
7 The next ruling was concerned with the time for Dr. Donia's
8 return to testify. The Chamber suggests that he be called to reappear
9 before this Chamber at the time when he is coming back to The Hague
10 anyway, and we understood that to be by the end of October. So --
11 MS. KORNER: I -- sorry.
12 JUDGE HARHOFF: -- the order that we have issued is that
13 Dr. Donia is to reappear upon his next visit to The Hague in, we
14 understood, late October. So you can have him call and reappear either
15 here before or after his testimony in those other cases in which he is
17 MS. KORNER: Yes. Can I just mention I checked with the lawyer
18 involved. He will either be testifying in the last week of October or
19 the first week of November.
20 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, but whatever then we -- that is the
21 time when we wish to see him so as to minimise the travel costs and the
22 trouble for the witness himself.
23 The third order we wish to render is a formalisation of what I
24 think has already been indicated, but the Chamber's ruling is that
25 Dr. Donia is not allowed to have any contact with your team and vice
1 versa. Nobody from your team is allowed to have any contact with
2 Dr. Donia. And it goes without saying that other members of the
3 Prosecution with whom Dr. Donia will be having contact in relation to his
4 testimony in other cases are not allowed, of course, to address any issue
5 relevant to this case.
6 The fourth motion -- the fourth issue, sorry, that we wish to
7 address is the question of Dr. Nielsen's expert status, and we will
8 reserve our ruling on this matter in view of the submissions made by
9 Mr. Zecevic.
10 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, concerning that issue, I was prepared
11 to make an oral submission in term of the Prosecution's response if you
12 were willing to hear that today rather than filing something in writing.
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: We certainly always prefer the most expedient and
14 adequate ways. As I said, we have -- we will defer our decision on the
15 matter and hand down a written decision, and we would be happy to hear
16 your submissions when I have completed my order of rulings.
17 May I, in relation to Nielsen, also add that in light of the
18 difficulties that have occurred in relation to translation of the
19 documents which the Defence wishes to confront Mr. Nielsen with, the
20 Chamber strongly advises that Dr. Nielsen or -- be called at a time when
21 the translation issue has been settled, because we think that it is
22 inconvenient to first have him examined-in-chief and then wait for a long
23 time until the translation issues have been solved in November, only then
24 to have him reappear for cross-examination. So we have discussed whether
25 we should hand down a straightforward order to defer the testimony of
1 Dr. Nielsen until such time as the translation has been issued, or
2 whether we should recommend this in very, very strong terms, and a
3 majority in the Chamber found that it would perhaps be crossing over the
4 lines that must exist between the Prosecution and the Chamber and the
5 division between judicial powers and prosecutorial powers. So we thought
6 it might be perhaps somewhat inappropriate to hand down a straightforward
7 order. But if you can read what I'm saying between the lines, what the
8 Chamber really wants to say is that we shouldn't hear Dr. Nielsen until
9 such time as we have all the documents ready so that we can have him come
10 and testify in chief and cross at the same time.
11 The fifth --
12 MR. HANNIS: May I -- may I, Judge Harhoff, come in on that?
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: Can we just wait until --
14 MR. HANNIS: Sure.
15 JUDGE HARHOFF: -- we have -- because you understand we're coming
16 back to --
17 MR. HANNIS: Okay.
18 JUDGE HARHOFF: -- Dr. Nielsen, so let's just keep it all
20 The fifth matter that we discussed was the suggestion that was
21 made at the Pre-Trial Conference of postponing witnesses to whom the late
22 filings related for a period of two months running from the Pre-Trial
23 Conference. I think it was on the 3rd of September.
24 This proposal was made and was intended to have a punitive
25 character because we were disturbed by the late disclosure of the
1 Prosecution. So in light of the fact that the intention and the purpose
2 of the two months' delay was not only practical purposes but also had a
3 touch of indicating to the Prosecution this time that we are serious
4 about the time limits that are set out and we're not prepared to accept
5 or tolerate nonobservance of these time limits.
6 In light of this, the order that we now render is the following:
7 That the late-filed documents cannot be used before expiration of a
8 two-month period running from the Pre-Trial Conference on
9 3rd of September, and that the witnesses to whom these documents relate
10 equally and therefore cannot be called.
11 Now, the Prosecution has filed a motion asking for exemptions to
12 be made in relation to two of these witnesses, goes for ST 019 and
13 ST 171. The Chamber has considered the situation in relation to these
14 two witnesses and we understand that the Defence teams do not have any
15 objections to raise about calling 019 at an earlier time but that they do
16 have objections in relation to 171. The Chamber has therefore ruled that
17 we will accept that we can -- that the Prosecution can call 019 prior to
18 the expiration of the two-month period that runs from September 3rd until
19 November 3rd, whereas the other witness, 171, shall have to wait until
20 that time.
21 These were the rulings that this Chamber wishes to make at this
23 Now I would invite Mr. Hannis --
24 JUDGE HARHOFF: Sorry.
25 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: Before I give the floor to Mr. Hannis, I would
2 like to add, and excuse me for forgetting this additional part of the
3 last order, namely, that for the other witnesses that fall into the
4 category of having to wait ask, if the Prosecution can bring it up with
5 the Defence teams and if the Defence teams will have no objections to
6 calling any of those witnesses prior to the expiration of the two-month
7 period, then that's fine with the Chamber, but if any of the Defence
8 teams have any objections, then the order stands.
9 Now, Mr. Hannis.
10 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honours. Regarding Dr. Nielsen, the
11 first thing I had wanted to address was the Defence motion for
12 certification for leave to appeal your decision regarding his expert
13 status, and in order to save time because we tentatively had him to be
14 scheduled to be our first witness on the 29th of September, but I will
15 address that in light of your remarks just now when I conclude this
16 issue. We want to make an oral response to that request for
18 It's our position, Your Honours, that that request should be
19 denied. As you know, under Rule 73(B), it's a two-prong test, first that
20 the decision should involve an issue that significantly affects the fair
21 and expeditious conduct of the proceedings or the outcome of the trial;
22 and secondly, that an immediate resolution of the issue may, in the
23 opinion of the Trial Chamber, materially advance the proceedings.
24 It's our position, Your Honour, that the Defence meet neither of
25 the two prongs; and even if they did, we suggest that you should exercise
1 your discretion to deny the motion. And we don't think it would have an
2 impact on the evidence in the case. Any concerns regarding Mr. Nielsen
3 we think can be addressed in deciding what weight to give his evidence at
4 the end of the case, and we think that's the best way to address it and
5 we would ask you therefore to deny the motion.
6 With that -- and then I want to move on to the point you raised
7 with the suggestion or recommendation --
8 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Hannis, I don't know, could I ask you to --
9 MR. HANNIS: Yes.
10 JUDGE HARHOFF: -- address the objection that is raised in
11 Mr. Zecevic's objection.
12 MR. HANNIS: Concerning his expertise or his closeness with the
14 JUDGE HARHOFF: Yes, yes, yes.
15 MR. HANNIS: Well, Your Honour, we would indicate that we think
16 his expertise is set forth in his CV, which is part of the package. In
17 addition, he has been allowed to testify as an expert in this Tribunal in
18 other cases. He was an expert witness in the Krajisnik case, and he has
19 also been admitted as an expert witness and his report received as an
20 expert report in the pending case of Stanisic and Simatovic.
21 In the Krajisnik case, Mr. Nielsen's testimony and report were
22 referenced several times in the judgement, and we think it shows that
23 that Trial Chamber found his evidence to be reliable and probative. So
24 those are factors we think you can take into account.
25 JUDGE HARHOFF: As I understand Mr. Zecevic's objection, it
1 rather goes to the fact that Mr. Nielsen is an analyst. He doesn't -- he
2 doesn't purport to possess any expertise as such, and that for that
3 reason we should not have him come as an expert but only as a normal
4 viva voce witness, and would I like to hear you out on that issue.
5 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, we don't have a definition of expert in
6 our rules in this Tribunal. In my domestic jurisdiction, an expert is
7 someone whom by virtue of education, training, experience, has some sort
8 of specialised knowledge that can be useful in helping the jury or the
9 Judges, the trier of fact, in resolving a pertinent issue in the case.
10 In my jurisdiction as well, we have another category of a
11 witness, somewhere between the percipient fact witness, the eyewitness to
12 the bank robbery and an expert witness at the top, we have another
13 category of witness that sometimes referred to as a summary witness which
14 oftentimes may be someone like an analyst who reviews large collections
15 of documents and then is able to provide some kind of summary and report
16 about those large collections of documents. And they're treated somewhat
17 in between how an expert is treated and a fact witness.
18 In many ways some of the experts witnesses that we've had in the
19 Tribunal here who worked in LRT
20 Military Analysis Team, are what I was familiar with in my jurisdictions
21 as summary witnesses, but would I argue that they do have some expertise
22 because of the amount of time they've spent going over thousands of
23 documents, and they just don't read the documents. Oftentimes they're
24 familiar with the events from having read newspaper accounts, sometimes
25 from their own personal experiences during the times of the conflict,
1 from reviewing witness statements in some cases, and they do have
2 information that's helpful to you.
3 I think the objection raised by the Defence really is a matter
4 that can be dealt with by you all at the end of the case when you've
5 heard all the evidence, deciding how much weight to give it, and it
6 should not bar him being called as an expert.
7 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you for this clarification. I mean, for
8 the Chamber the main issue is that if ultimately Mr. Nielsen ends up
9 being called as an expert, there's a difference in the manner in which he
10 can be examined both by you as the calling party and by the Defence. We
11 have raised a couple of times here that one of those differences exactly
12 is the ability of the expert to provide opinions, which an ordinary fact
13 witness would not be allowed to. So -- so this is why I'm fishing a bit
14 to hear your arguments why we should allow Nielsen to come as an expert
15 with, among other things, the possibility of providing an opinion about
16 the matters that are put to him and of the Trial Chamber's reliance upon
17 his opinion.
18 MR. HANNIS: I think I understand your point, Your Honour. I
19 think I've heard it expressed by at least one Judge in talking about some
20 of these experts, that's like, well, what makes him an expert other than
21 the fact that he sat there and read 10.000 documents over the past two
22 years. I could do the same. And I say, yes, that's right, Judge, you
23 could, and in my view, then you would be an expert. If I wanted some
24 information about that issue and you had read 10.000 documents for two
25 years, I would give your opinion more weight than I would somebody who
1 hasn't seen it.
2 In my domestic jurisdiction as well, we have certain kinds of
3 issues that lay opinion is permissible on, things that fall within the
4 common everyday experience of the average citizen. So in a drunk driving
5 case in America
6 like the police officer who may have -- the highway patrolman who has
7 training in gauging drunk driving by giving people field sobriety tests
8 and other things that the average person doesn't, but an average person
9 has enough experience from everyday life to express an opinion about
10 whether or not a person appeared to be under the influence of alcohol on
11 that occasion.
12 So I think again it's a matter that should to the weight you give
13 his opinion, but I think he can be an expert. I guess it depends partly
14 on how you define the area of expertise.
15 And his area of expertise is about the MUP because he's examined
16 these thousands of documents about the MUP and has read evidence of
17 statements by people from the MUP and evidence about how the MUP worked
18 during the time-frame.
19 JUDGE HARHOFF: Well, that's exactly the kind of information I
20 was expecting from you. You had another issue.
21 MR. HANNIS: Yes, concerning the timing of calling Dr. Nielsen.
22 I fully understand the point raised by Mr. Zecevic, and as the lawyer who
23 is scheduled to lead Dr. Nielsen's direct exam, I would prefer,
24 personally, to have his testimony all in one block. I know in my last
25 trial I had the experience sometimes where we had witnesses testify,
1 called by the Defence, and I had to cross-examine where we didn't have
2 English translations of some of the documents that were used with the
3 witness. And it's a very difficult, almost impossible job to do and feel
4 like I'm doing my job professionally because the witness may read out the
5 paragraph 5 in the document, and the Defence says, "So that's the part --
6 that's the part we want." Well, I can't read the rest of the document.
7 I can't put paragraph 5 in context, and it's not very satisfying to say
8 well, when you get the English translation if you find something you
9 would have wanted, well, maybe we'll call them back later. That's not
10 very efficient or effective, and I don't think you want to work that way.
11 But I'm on the horns of a dilemma and the Prosecution is on the
12 horns of a dilemma here because in this case where we're prosecuting the
13 minister of the interior and a chief of one of the regional security
14 centres, high-ranking police individuals, we thought it important in our
15 case to try to get you Judges as much information as possible early on in
16 the case about what the MUP was and how it works. And so I'm torn
17 between those two things: One, our desire to get you expert evidence and
18 as much evidence as possible about the MUP early in the case, and that
19 ability to be able to have his examination go straight through and be
20 able to do my redirect examination with English translations of the
21 documents that are used by the Defence.
22 What I'd like to do is consult with the rest of my team and take
23 to heart your suggestions about calling him later rather than earlier,
24 but it may cause us problems with scheduling because we've tentatively
25 planned him to be the first witness on the 29th.
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: Before you consult with Mrs. Korner, I would like
2 to add that it might actually be beneficial to the Chamber to hear him
3 later on, because through the next witnesses whom you will then call, we
4 might, you know, pick up some more information about the MUP. At this
5 early stage of the trial, we are very open to the scenery and to the
6 scope of the indictment, and as we go along with the witnesses, you know,
7 we learn more about the case, and so postponing Nielsen might not
8 actually be such a bad idea, because that will make us better prepared to
9 understand fully and appreciate his testimony when we get it.
10 MR. HANNIS: I take that point, Your Honour. I think that was
11 something that came up in our internal discussions, too, and I think
12 that's a valid point. We will consult and we will let you know as soon
13 as possible what we propose to do.
14 [Prosecution counsel confer]
15 MR. HANNIS: The other difficulty has to do with his personal
16 schedule and his teaching schedule, but I will have to speak to him about
17 that. That's another factor for us. It's difficult to find a time when
18 he's available, but we'll take that all into account and get back to you.
19 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, Mr. Hannis.
20 Anyone from the Defence teams wishes to raise any point.
21 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I'm so sorry. Mr. Hannis was going to
22 deal with that but there are perhaps a couple of small points that
23 perhaps I ought to deal with now.
24 JUDGE HARHOFF: I apologise, Mrs. Korner.
25 MS. KORNER: It's my fault.
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: We'll finish with you first.
2 MS. KORNER: Thank you very much. First is this: I omitted to
3 ask for Dr. Donia's reports to become exhibits at the end of my
4 examination-in-chief. So can I formally ask that that be made, the three
5 reports, and that part of the Sarajevo
6 The second matter was this: And that was the question of the --
7 the motion that we filed asking for the admission of further documents on
8 to the 65 ter list, and we then had a hearing in which we dealt with the
10 and I've forgotten what the date -- yes, 15th of September, Tuesday, the
11 15th of September, golly, only two days ago, that the certain parts of
12 the report would be out, and in relation to the documents, the
13 29 documents included in your motion, it follows from the first of those
14 29 those will go.
15 Now, we read that as meaning that the other documents were in,
16 the ones that you've marked for identification which were part of our
17 application to add these documents to the 65 ter list, and this is where
18 I think the confusion arose.
19 It's right to say that I didn't stand up and Your Honour didn't
20 specifically either say in terms, "And those are the only ones we're
21 excluding," but that's where the confusion arose. Obviously my
22 application is that those documents which came from his earlier report
23 footnotes should be admitted as exhibits.
24 Now, can I say I'm not asking Your Honour to give a ruling about
25 that straightaway but just to make the position clear, and I think that's
1 where the confusion arose. Which leads me on to really a general point,
2 if I may, Judge -- Your Honours.
3 Unfortunately, particularly in the last week or so, there's been
4 a lot of confusion because there's been a huge number of motions coming
5 in, particularly from the Defence, and as Your Honours know and I needn't
6 remind you, there are still a large number of outstanding matters to be
7 ruled upon, but we -- at the moment we've been getting sort of rulings
8 via e-mail as opposed to an order or a ruling, and it's not always easy
9 to work out from that what it is that's being ruled upon or what we're
10 being told to do. And one of the examples was we applied for the motion
11 for -- we applied for Your Honours to reconsider your decision that we
12 should reduce the witness list. We simply got an e-mail from the legal
13 officer saying all deadlines stood without saying the motion for
14 reconsideration therefore was not being granted.
15 The Defence then say, because when we filed our reduced witness
16 list, and we made it clear that we were doing so effectively, I must say,
17 under protest but we were doing it because that was the order, and with
18 the caveats that if we couldn't reach agreement, for example, on
19 exhumations, that we would be reapplying to put these witnesses back in.
20 The Defence then filed a motion saying it's moot, but they object
21 to it anyhow, and we haven't actually had, as it were, a ruling. And
22 Your Honours, I appreciate it's all because it's been rather chaotic over
23 the last few weeks, but could we make a plea that we get proper orders,
24 however short, but proper orders and proper filed decisions from
25 Your Honours rather than decisions through e-mail from the legal officers
1 obviously forwarding on Your Honours.
2 JUDGE HARHOFF: Certainly. It goes without saying. May I just
3 add that for the mail that you received from the legal officer, I don't
4 think that was an order in any way. It was an indication of what is
5 obvious, namely, that the time-limits stand as they were ordered. Your
6 motion for reconsideration is still on the table and we'll get to it.
7 Now, as of today we have ten days of a break, and we will use,
8 certainly, that time to clear up as many of the outstanding motions as we
9 possibly can, and the Defence will use the time to prepare for its
10 further re-examination of your witnesses.
11 We expect to hear from you very soon whether you will accommodate
12 our suggestion to postpone Nielsen, and if you do so, then who will then
13 be your next witness, and the Defence will need to start preparing for
14 that and so will we. So ...
15 MS. KORNER: Which leads actually on to the next issue and that's
16 the question of timing.
17 Your Honour said in the Pre-Trial Conference -- I had that up
18 some -- yes. The Prosecution would have 212 hours. The Defence will
19 altogether be given the same amount of time, 212 hours. So we're taking
20 it that's the same. And I'm taking it that, therefore, they get the
21 equal amount of time to cross-examine as we get to call in chief. It
22 wasn't perhaps altogether clear. But we do need to know how long each --
23 the Defence are going to get to cross-examine the witnesses before they
24 come, because we get -- we get a lot of problems with VWS about trying to
25 organise the witnesses.
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: Of course.
2 MS. KORNER: And we --
3 JUDGE HARHOFF: As soon as we have had a look according to your
4 motion for reconsideration -- had a second look at the order to reduce
5 the number of witnesses to 131, then we will also set time for the
7 We would like to have indications from the Defence teams as to
8 how long they wish to have in relation to the 131 witnesses that have now
9 been tabled.
10 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, Your Honours, if I -- if I may be briefly
11 heard on the subject.
12 Now, the situation with the 92 ter witnesses is such that it --
13 that it's going to be and it is in practice on a case-to-case basis.
14 What I mean to say is the following: The Prosecution, the amount of time
15 that the Prosecution uses in court actually to introduce the witness
16 might be -- might be very short, because the Prosecutor used enormous
17 amount of time talking to the witness, preparing his statement. Now
18 if -- so the correlation between the time that the Prosecution uses in
19 court actually to bring the witness and to offer his 92 ter statement
20 cannot be compared to the need of the -- of the Defence to cross-examine
21 the witness, because in fact they have been able to talk to the witness
22 for many days and prepare the statement, and there are some -- there
23 might be some really important, relevant issues in his statement that we
24 need to address. Plus the proofing notes, which usually are coming,
25 plus, of course, some other issues.
1 So I don't think that we will be able to give you a general
2 number or any estimation on any of the witnesses or generally for all
3 witnesses, because it is, as I say, on a case-to-case basis,
4 Your Honours.
5 JUDGE HARHOFF: The whole idea behind allowing witnesses to come
6 under 92 ter is to save time by not having to go through the
7 examination-in-chief in which or during which the witness would say
8 everything that is already included in his statement. So as to avoid
9 repetition of that kind.
10 The statements have been provided, submitted to the Defence
11 teams. So they, each of the two Defence teams, are fully aware of what
12 this witness will say.
13 It's possible that proofing notes may come in at a very late
14 stage, but the Prosecution is under an obligation to provide those as
15 soon as possible, and in any case I wouldn't expect proofing notes to
16 depart radically from what is already included in the statements.
17 So my point is this: The Defence teams know -- the Defence teams
18 know that -- what's coming up from -- from each witness. We have also
19 told in the procedural guidelines that we will not, in general, allow the
20 Prosecution to spend very much time in introducing the 92 ter witnesses,
21 somewhere between - I can't remember - 15 or 30 minutes is what the
22 Prosecution will have, unless there are particular other grounds for
23 deviating from that, but very short time to introduce the witness and
24 then the witness is transferred to you.
25 I don't see why you cannot, by going through the statements, make
1 an estimation of how much time you wish to have to cross-examine this
2 witness on the basis of what is in his testimony. And it is on a
3 case-by-case basis. Sometimes you may wish to have only 30 minutes.
4 Sometimes you may wish to have five hours. That's fine, but please
5 indicate to us so that we have something from you when we determine how
6 much time ultimately will be given.
7 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, I understood -- I understood -- I'm sorry. I
8 understood, Your Honours, that you wish us to indicate now --
9 JUDGE HARHOFF: No, no, no. I'm inviting you to, as soon as you
10 can, within hopefully the end of this week, if possible, or maybe early
11 next week, but as soon as you can, to give us an indication of how much
12 time you would wish to have with each of the 131 witnesses that are on
13 the table.
14 MS. KORNER: May I say --
15 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry -- I'm sorry.
16 MS. KORNER: Sorry. All we're asking for at this stage is for
17 the witness we have to notify two weeks in advance to VWS, so we would
18 like an order, please, actually, by Friday or Monday at the latest,
19 depending on whether we have to reschedule because of your indication
20 about Dr. Nielsen, how much time the Defence require for each of the
21 scheduled witnesses who are due to come. And we'd like that -- we're not
22 asking for the whole lot at the moment, just the next batch.
23 JUDGE HARHOFF: Well -- thank you very much, Mrs. Korner. That
24 makes it actually easier. So if you can have the -- if you can give us
25 the indication of the time you and Mr. Zupljanin wishes to have for the
1 witnesses that will be scheduled to come in the near future.
2 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, as soon as we receive the schedule of
3 witnesses, we might be able to provide, but, Your Honours, again I --
4 this is going to be in a very general terms. We don't want to be bound
5 by -- by our promise, because with can happen is that one of the
6 witnesses who comes first raises an issue which we have to explore with
7 the second and the third witness because they might be coming from the
8 very same municipality. So it is -- the case is one living thing. I
9 mean, it is developing during the case, so the testimony's in the other
10 court -- I know you know that.
11 JUDGE HARHOFF: Exactly.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm just trying to give my argument some sense.
13 I'm sorry if I --
14 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, Mr. Zecevic. I'm -- we are fully
15 aware of the practical problems, but by the end of the day a decision has
16 to be made, because there is a planning issue that needs to be -- to be
17 issued. VWS needs to know how many days or -- the witness is going to be
18 here. So I know it's difficult, but sooner or later a decision will have
19 to be made.
20 What we will do is that we will assess the witnesses as well, and
21 we will have our own opinion as to how much time we think the Defence
22 might need. In addition to that, we invite the Defence teams to also
23 come forward with their indication. And when we have that, we'll make a
25 MR. ZECEVIC: I understand, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: Once the decision is made, then the VWS can start
2 planning for the travels of those witnesses.
3 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, we will endeavour in providing the --
4 and accommodating the Trial Chamber and everybody else in that. I just
5 want to say this for the record: I don't think that -- that there is --
6 there is a correlation between the fairness of the trial and any kind of
7 timing needs of VWS or whoever in -- in that respect.
8 One other matter, Your Honour. We wanted to be heard on -- on
9 what -- if we may reply to what Mr. Hannis just raised about Mr. Nielsen,
10 Nielsen's testimony. Briefly.
11 JUDGE HARHOFF: If you have some important things to add, then we
12 would invite you to come forward with them right away, but please be
13 short because we're running out of time. As you can see we have six
14 minutes left --
15 MR. ZECEVIC: I understand --
16 JUDGE HARHOFF: -- and we still have one decision to render.
17 MR. ZECEVIC: Mr. O'Sullivan will do the submission, very
18 shortly, briefly. Thank you.
19 JUDGE HARHOFF: Before you take the floor, Mr. O'Sullivan, can I
20 raise another issue which the Chamber discussed previously, namely, about
21 the standing of counsels before the Chamber. I think that the ordinary
22 rule is -- or the ordinary practice, at least, is that it is only counsel
23 and co-counsel that can address the Court, and that the reason for this
24 is really that we have the power of attorney from the defendants to those
1 Now, if the counsels wish to have other members of their team
2 appear before the Court that's perfectly fine with us, but as a matter of
3 order, I would suggest that whenever you wish Mr. O'Sullivan or anyone
4 else from your team to address the Court that you ask for permission to
5 do so.
6 I am also aware of the fact that Mr. O'Sullivan's position is
7 special because he's really a reserve counsel, so we will address that,
8 but -- but as a general rule, I think it is appropriate to just clear it
9 up with the Chamber before anyone else but yourself and your co-counsel
10 takes the floor and addresses the Court.
11 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, due to the specific situation, which
12 you are aware of and I would not like to come into, I specifically asked
13 OLAD on the appointment of Mr. O'Sullivan that he be appointed as a
14 co-counsel. There is no limit how many counsels can one of the
15 defendants have in the rules, I think, because the Prosecution is
16 represented by five or six counsels, so, so can -- so can the Defence as
17 well, I believe. And I requested that specifically due to the specificum
18 of the situation, as you're aware, and that is why I didn't thought that
19 it -- it needed an additional request -- needed an additional permission
20 from the Trial Chamber to -- but we will act accordingly, yes. Thank you
21 very much.
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: Rest assured that we will always be interested in
23 hearing what Mr. O'Sullivan has to say.
24 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you very much.
25 JUDGE HARHOFF: And we give him the floor.
1 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Your Honour, it's late in the day and I'll be
2 very brief. I just wanted to respond to a couple of your questions that
3 you put to Mr. Hannis regarding the expert. We share his definition of
4 what an expert is; it's someone who by virtue of his or her knowledge,
5 skill or background can assist you in deciding issues, live issues,
6 between the parties. But this implies someone who does have this
7 objective or scientific background which Mr. Nielsen does not have.
8 That's the first point.
9 Second point is in relation to his former employment by the
10 Office of the Prosecutor. There is precedent that says that if current
11 or former employee of the Office of the Prosecutor can testify. I wish,
12 however, to point out that there is precedent going the other way, in
13 particular in the Milutinovic case, in the case of Mr. Coo.
14 And the third and final point I wish to make is that I must take
15 issue with what Mr. Hannis says, that because someone has read
16 10.000 pages or documents that makes them an expert. Your Honour, I'm
17 not a civil engineer and I could read 10.000 documents on bridge
18 construction, but I don't think you'd want to drive across the bridge
19 that I told you was safe. So it's more than just the fact that someone
20 is intelligent and that they can read. It's by virtue of special
21 knowledge, training, or experience that they can be -- they can be an
22 expert and they should be objective and detached from one of the parties
23 and certainly not an employee who is active in the conduct and
24 prosecution of a case. Thank you.
25 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, Mr. O'Sullivan. We'll take note of
1 your input to this question.
2 I have one last ruling to make, and that is the ruling to admit
3 the three -- or the two and a half expert reports by Dr. Donia. We
4 hereby agree that they should be admitted, and we ask the Registrar to
5 provide an exhibit number to them.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Those will be Exhibits P30, P31, and P32,
7 Your Honours.
8 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you very much, and unless any of the
9 parties have any other issues to raise -- hold on a minute.
10 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
11 JUDGE HARHOFF: Our legal officer reminds us that -- and you may
12 sit. I know of your conditions with your foot, Madam Korner. You had
13 asked for clarification of the oral ruling that was made the other day
14 regarding what is admitted and what is not admitted from the Sarajevo
16 MS. KORNER: Sorry, from -- from the marked for identification --
17 from the exhibits which came from the footnotes of the others reports.
18 That's what I'm trying to get sorted.
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE HARHOFF: The admission of those three documents was -- was
22 included in the ruling. The ruling was that the documents that were
23 mentioned in the footnotes of the three chapters of the Sarajevo report
24 which we did admit were also admissible, whereas documents in other parts
25 of the Sarajevo
1 pieces because we weren't sure of whether or not they were inside or
2 outside the three chapters, and when we find out whether they were or
3 not, the MFI
4 MS. KORNER: Sorry, Your Honour. It -- and that's -- that's one
5 of the difficulties I've been referring to about not having written
6 [indiscernible]. We put in a motion asking for a lot of the documents
7 that -- in fact, that all the documents that Dr. Donia specifically
8 covered should be admitted. You then gave a ruling excluding from that
9 long list any documents that came within the chapters of the report that
10 you weren't allowing in. We therefore assumed that that was a ruling on
11 the whole motion and therefore you were allowing us to add the other
12 documents, nothing to do with the Sarajevo report, but to do with the
13 earlier two reports which were footnoted but hadn't been added to the 65
14 ter list before, and that's what I -- and, as I say, we're quite happy
15 for you to consider it because I see the time, but that's what I'm trying
16 to deal with.
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: I suggest we rule on it in writing.
18 It's already over the time, and I suggest we adjourn now, and we
19 will reconvene here on Tuesday, the 29th of September, and that is in the
21 Thank you very much.
22 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.49 p.m.
23 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 29th day
24 of September, 2009, at 2.15 p.m.