Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 4527

 1                           Thursday, 10 December 2009 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 2.25 p.m.

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  Good afternoon, Your Honours.  This is case

 6     IT-08-91-T, the Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin.

 7             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.  Good afternoon to all.

 8     May we begin in the usual manner by taking the day's appearances, please.

 9             MR. DOBBYN:  For the Office of the Prosecutor, Gerard Dobbyn with

10     Joanna Korner and our case manager Crispian Smith.  Good afternoon, Your

11     Honours.

12             MR. ZECEVIC:  Good afternoon, Your Honours.  Slobodan Zecevic,

13     Eugene O'Sullivan, our aides and assistants Mr. Ivan Todorovski and

14     Dominic Kennedy appearing for Stanisic Defence today.

15             MR. PANTELIC:  Good afternoon, Your Honour.  For Zupljanin

16     Defence, Igor Pantelic and Dragan Krgovic.  Thank you.

17             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

18             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours may recall that yesterday afternoon a

19     discussion arose about the extent to which the Defence were entitled to

20     introduce evidence relating to Crisis Staffs that had been formed by the

21     SDA, the Croats and other such bodies, and during the adjournment, as I

22     informed Your Honours, Mr. Zecevic and I had a discussion, and we hoped

23     that possibly we might be able to assist Mr. Zecevic as far as the

24     Prosecution is concerned if given a little time.

25             Your Honours, we've been given that time, and can I immediately

Page 4528

 1     say what the Prosecution is prepared to state in respect of the formation

 2     of Crisis Staffs, which is as this:  It is accepted by the Prosecution

 3     that all three nationalist parties in Bosnia and Herzegovina, that is to

 4     say the SDS, the HDZ, and the SDA, formed Crisis Staffs.  It is also

 5     accepted that Crisis Staffs could be formed for legitimate purposes.

 6             Whether in this case, Your Honours, the SDS Crisis Staffs were in

 7     fact intended to contribute to the joint criminal enterprise which is

 8     alleged in this indictment is a matter of evidence.  But, for example, it

 9     is our position that facts about the Croats in Herceg-Bosna forming

10     Crisis Staffs and using them in the commission of crimes is irrelevant to

11     the issues in this case.

12             So, Your Honours, I hope that makes for the purpose of the

13     Defence the position absolutely clear.  It is our position that

14     introducing documents to show that in Herceg-Bosnia Crisis Staffs were

15     formed is not and cannot be relevant in this case.  Apart from anything

16     else, Your Honours are in no position, and we're not trying the whole of

17     the conflict in Herceg-Bosnia, to assess either the relevance or the

18     weight that should be attached to these documents.

19                           [Trial Chamber confers]

20             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Zecevic, having regard to the concession, for

21     want of a better word, of the Prosecution of the existence of Crisis

22     Staffs in among other ethnic groups as a fact, what is the -- could you

23     assist us, before we definitively rule, as to where you are seeking --

24     what sort of foundation you're setting up having regard to your response

25     to Mr. Dobbyn yesterday that you're not in fact advancing a tu quoque

Page 4529

 1     defence.

 2             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, the position of the Defence is the

 3     following:  We -- we don't accept that the -- that the facts about the

 4     Crisis Staffs existing in other parts of Bosnia under the control are

 5     Muslim or Croat forces and parties is -- is not relevant to this case.

 6     We -- I'm speaking in light of the -- of the conclusions of this

 7     particular expert, because we understand the conclusions of this

 8     particular expert to be that the SDS invented these Crisis Staffs, which

 9     are illegitimate organs, that they were invented, that they were formed

10     by the SDS for the sole purpose of furthering the joint criminal

11     enterprise.

12             We say, and now the Prosecution agreed to that, that it was

13     formed everywhere, that there was nothing criminal in forming the Crisis

14     Staffs, because those are the structures that existed in the law of the

15     former Yugoslavia.  So when -- when the situation -- the extraordinary

16     situation developed in the former Yugoslavia in 1991, 1992, all parties

17     went for the concept that was there already, that was known to them, and

18     that is the concept of these committees for All People's Defence.  Of

19     course they didn't -- they didn't call it the committee, because they

20     wouldn't go for the Communist -- for the Communist reference.  They

21     called them the Crisis Staff.  Practically as the witness confirmed, they

22     were identical.

23             Now, this -- in our position, the -- this allegation from the

24     Prosecution is a stronghold, one of the strongholds of their position of

25     existence of the joint criminal enterprise, and we think that -- that it

Page 4530

 1     is very relevant that we show that none of that is -- is substantiated,

 2     that it's founded.

 3             Now, what we're trying to do is -- is actually put our case to

 4     the witness, which we are obliged at the very end -- in accordance with

 5     the Rule 90, and that is what -- what we are seeking to do in this -- in

 6     this case.

 7             I understand the concerns of the Trial Chamber, and the only

 8     alternative I was thinking about or compromise that we could, I don't

 9     know, propose to the Trial Chamber is that we take the very same approach

10     as we did with Mr. Djeric.  When Your Honours instructed the -- our

11     colleagues from the Prosecution to group the documents in certain groups

12     and then lead the evidence on only a couple of these documents and the

13     rest with the good explanation, with the explanation in motion why does

14     the party think is relevant can be admitted in the evidence.

15             We are ready to proceed in -- in that respect if it pleases Your

16     Honours, and that would save enormous amount of time and documents which

17     we will need to present to the witness.

18             I hope I was of assistance, Your Honours.  Thank you.

19             MS. KORNER:  Sorry, Your Honours.  Can I just respond to that?

20     Mr. Zecevic asked me this earlier and I said, no, I didn't object, but we

21     do object, if Mr. Zecevic in this way wants to put in documents which

22     relate to the Crisis Staffs run by -- no to, that we object, because we

23     say that's not relevant.

24             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Crisis Staffs run by?

25             MS. KORNER:  Croats or Muslims or whatever.  Your Honours, we say

Page 4531

 1     that is not relevant, cannot be relevant, for the simple reason that in

 2     any event, it is well known that the OTP alleges that the Croats in

 3     Herceg-Bosnia committed crimes through the vehicle.  It's not actually

 4     called Crisis Staffs but municipal authorities.  But how is that supposed

 5     to assist Your Honours in deciding whether the Serbs themselves used

 6     set-up and used the Crisis Staff as vehicles for the -- to carry out

 7     their joint criminal enterprise?

 8             So, Your Honour, we do object to evidence that relates to

 9     anything further than what we have already accepted.  The Croats did set

10     up Crisis Staffs, and so did the Muslims.  Whether we go any further than

11     that, Your Honours, we say is --

12             JUDGE HALL:  Ms. Korner, does your objection extend beyond -- in

13     terms of the documents, if -- if the documents on which he wishes to put

14     in establish only the fact that you have now conceded, do you still

15     maintain your objection to the route that he proposes?

16             MS. KORNER:  I would have thought it was Your Honours who would

17     be objecting.  You've spent many, many months telling us not to put in

18     documents that are irrelevant.

19             JUDGE HALL:  This may be true, but the impression I have is that

20     the -- Mr. Zecevic had no reason to believe that the Prosecution would

21     not take issue with the -- his case about the existence, and I keep

22     emphasising like the mere existence of the Crisis Staff, by whatever

23     named called, among these other groupings, leaving it to that and the

24     implications, what I said remain later.  But to the extent that

25     Mr. Zecevic is of the view that it is necessary for there to be some

Page 4532

 1     documentary foundation to support this fact which the Prosecution does

 2     not dispute, do you have any objection?

 3             MS. KORNER:  Well, only in this, Your Honour:  If -- if it's for

 4     that reason and no other reason apart from the fact that it is not a

 5     matter in issue in this case that the other nationalities also set up

 6     Crisis Staffs or forms thereof, whatever they call them, because as I

 7     understand it in the Croat case, the term "Crisis Staff" does not appear

 8     in the indictment against Prlic.

 9             No, Your Honours.  Although as I say it's a matter for you and

10     the Defence, but it is not a fact in dispute, but anything further --

11             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, we understand.

12             MS. KORNER:  All right.  And as to how that's relevant to the

13     issues Your Honours have to decide, I'm not at all clear at the moment,

14     but that's our position.

15             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

16             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Without in any way giving the impression that the

17     Chamber has formed at this point any view on the importance of these

18     matters, I would, however, be grateful to hear the parties' view on the

19     following possible interpretation of the relevance of the Crisis Staffs

20     formed by the three parties, because if I'm not mistaken, Mr. Zecevic

21     told us yesterday that to the extent in which Crisis Staffs turned out to

22     become tools in the commission of crimes, then the mere establishment of

23     these Crisis Staffs was in itself a factor that would contribute to the

24     commission of crimes.  In other words, there need not have been a joint

25     criminal plan from above, because when you give local powers to local

Page 4533

 1     authorities under the circumstances which prevailed at the time, it was

 2     almost inevitable that crimes would be committed.

 3             I may be wrong, but that was what I thought Mr. Zecevic was

 4     aiming at yesterday.  If I'm wrong, then please enlighten us.  But in

 5     respect of the fact that Crisis Staffs were established by all three

 6     parties, one would then also expect, if I am to pursue the thought that I

 7     think Mr. Zecevic was explaining to us yesterday, one would assume that

 8     the level of crimes committed by the Crisis Staffs on each side would be

 9     approximately the same.  At least comparable.

10             MS. KORNER:  Well, Your Honour --

11             JUDGE HARHOFF:  So if it were to -- if the evidence at the end of

12     the day will show that it was for some reason -- for some reason the

13     level of crimes committed by the Serbian Crisis Staffs was just so much

14     more extended than the crimes committed by the Crisis Staffs of the

15     Croats and the Muslims, then that would be relevant to the assessment of

16     whether or not there was a joint criminal enterprise.

17             I don't know.  I may be -- and this is just a question to the

18     parties, because I think it's important that we clarify these matters as

19     the evidence is built up.

20             MS. KORNER:  He will, Your Honour, I think it's Mr. Zecevic to

21     explain what he meant yesterday.  I doubt that he could have meant that.

22             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this is partially

23     true, what we've just heard from Judge Harhoff, but only partially, might

24     I say, and here's why:  The Defence takes the position that a joint

25     criminal enterprise does not exist in this case.  The Defence is also of

Page 4534

 1     the view that the establishment of Crisis Staffs, as I've said, is an

 2     absolutely legitimate step on the part of all three sides, which stems

 3     from the need that arose during that historical period in the former

 4     Yugoslavia and especially Bosnia-Herzegovina.

 5             The Defence maintains that that concept which was envisaged by

 6     the rules prescribed by the former Yugoslavia was a bad concept.  And

 7     this is the first time, Your Honours, in 1992, that this concept, which

 8     has existed since 1974, in a system of All Peoples Defence and in the

 9     legal system of the former Yugoslavia, it's the first time that that

10     concept was ever translated into practice and realised in practice, and

11     once that was done, we arrived at the fact that this concept, in essence,

12     was a self-denying process because it created absolute power in those

13     small segments, in the Crisis Staffs which were set up all over the

14     territory.  And then once this power for its own sake was created, power

15     for power's sake without any limit, then of course what happened was the

16     tragedy that we were all witness to.

17             Now, I don't know what more I can say and how I can explain this

18     better, our position better to the Trial Chamber.  I don't know if I've

19     been of any assistance.  I hope I have.  Thank you.

20             MR. PANTELIC:  On the same topic, if you allow me, Your Honours.

21             The position of Zupljanin Defence is the following:  First of

22     all, in very brief points, our understanding of the Prosecution case with

23     regard to the issue of Crisis Staff, which they try to support by the

24     testimony of Mrs. Hanson, is the following:  Bosnian Serbs at the top

25     level of leadership decided to secretly and contrary to the legislation

Page 4535

 1     at that time in Bosnia and Herzegovina create a mechanism to forward the

 2     policy of ethnic cleansing and all other crimes which are enlisted in the

 3     provisions of the statute of this Tribunal.

 4             Point number two of Prosecution theory is that this intention of

 5     the top political leadership of Republika Srpska was linked to the local

 6     level by way of functioning of Crisis Staffs.  At the end of the day, the

 7     position of Prosecution is that practically all institutions and all

 8     organs of Republika Srpska, including but not limited to like SDS party,

 9     army, police, top political leaders and other highly ranking

10     functionaries and also mid-ranking and low-level functionaries, committed

11     on the basis of catch all crime, which is the umbrella crime, which is

12     the concept of JCE.  So that is my understanding of this particular part

13     of Prosecution case.

14             Now, the position of the Defence is the following:  Point number

15     one:  In the general framework of the events in Bosnia-Herzegovina,

16     including the nonconstitutional voting against the vital interests of

17     Bosnian Serbs, in accordance with the relevant provisions, Bosnian Serb

18     leadership was actually forced to proceed with the process of disillusion

19     of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and at the end, in 1995, under the provisions

20     of the source of the law, which is the Dayton Peace Accord, this right

21     both for Serbian part and for Croatian and Bosnian Muslim part was

22     established.  So that was the end of the process of dissolution.

23             In this process and why we are here, in this process individuals

24     committed the crimes, not institutions, not organisations.  And

25     furthermore, it is absolutely undisputed fact that -- it is in report of

Page 4536

 1     Secretary-General of the UN and president -- many presidents of the

 2     Tribunal, and this is practically a logical point of the statute, that

 3     only individuals could be held criminally liable.

 4             So if Prosecution would like to forward this case under the image

 5     of Crisis Staff, this is wrong.  This is wrong, Your Honour.  Crisis

 6     Staff is an institution, is an organisation like SDS, like, I don't know,

 7     other governmental institutions.  They have to build up their case and to

 8     present a case on the basis of the individual criminal responsibility.

 9     And that's why, Your Honour, I think that with the testimony of

10     Mrs. Hanson, first of all, and that's why we're doing our job in our

11     cross-examination, we shall show that this OTP approach is not based on

12     the facts, and it's not based on the law.  And in my humble opinion, Your

13     Honours, I think wasting the time with political backgrounds, with

14     political interpretation, with -- I don't know, interpretation of certain

15     institutions, bodies and organs, is not the case that should be here.

16             We have two men here allegedly responsible for a very, very

17     serious crimes, and the whole process should be focused on the individual

18     responsibility and elsewhere in all these segments of the case, because

19     we are on the very thin edge to slide into the area of politics,

20     interpretation, et cetera.

21             Thank you very much for your attention, Your Honours.

22             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you, Mr. Pantelic, for your useful and

23     interesting commentary.  It seems to me that where we are -- that we may

24     have wandered too far afield from what is the issue at hand, namely

25     whether Mr. Zecevic, who happens to have the floor now, can put in as

Page 4537

 1     exhibits these documents that deal with the Crisis Staff formed by the

 2     Croats and Muslim groups.  And having regard to the acceptance of certain

 3     facts by the Prosecution, that narrow issue, which is the only thing on

 4     which we require to rule, is -- it is probably unnecessary for him to do

 5     so, on the other hand, were he to be permitted to do so having regard to

 6     what I would have said earlier as to the limited purpose for which it is

 7     done, I know no harm is probably done.

 8             Mr. Zecevic, how many documents are we talking about?

 9             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well, I believe, Your Honours, it's ten documents

10     concerning the Crisis Staffs, the Crisis Staffs of the HDZ, SDA, and

11     others.  And I have a number of documents for the Serbian Crisis Staffs,

12     which is a different matter, but if I would be given that opportunity, I

13     wouldn't use the court time for that because I assume that the witness

14     has -- has seen all these documents because those are the documents which

15     we received from the Prosecution, and I will ask her just to comment on

16     maybe one or two and then -- and that is another ten documents at the --

17     at the maximum.  So what we're talking about --

18             JUDGE HALL:  So a compressed list would suffice for your

19     purposes.

20             MR. ZECEVIC:  Yes.

21             JUDGE HALL:  So shall we move on in the interests of time?

22             MR. ZECEVIC:  Yes.

23             JUDGE HALL:  Yes.  Would the usher escort the witness back to the

24     stand.

25                           [The witness takes the stand]

Page 4538

 1                           WITNESS:  DOROTHEA HANSON [Resumed]

 2             JUDGE HALL:  Good afternoon, Ms. Hanson.  You would not be

 3     surprised to learn that your entry into the courtroom was delayed by

 4     having to do with some preliminary matters.  I remind you you're still on

 5     your oath, and I invite Mr. Zecevic to continue his cross-examination.

 6             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you very much, Your Honours.

 7                           Cross-examination by Mr. Zecevic: [Continued]

 8        Q.   [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Ms. Hanson.

 9        A.   Good afternoon.

10        Q.   Yesterday we left off discussing document P438, which was, I'm

11     sure you'll remember, in tab 5 of your binder, and it's the Assembly

12     meeting of Republika Srpska.

13             I read page 285 out to you yesterday of the Serbian text, and in

14     English the page was 315 and 316.

15             Now, Mrs. Hanson, while they're putting up the relevant pages on

16     e-court, I read this document out to you yesterday, or, rather, the

17     excerpt spoken by Mr. Karadzic where he quotes the US news report, and I

18     don't know if you remember -- well, do we need to read it out again today

19     here in the courtroom, or do you remember it?

20             In the Serbian version it was the last paragraph on that page.

21        A.   I recall it.

22        Q.   Very well.  I asked you whether you'd read that portion of

23     Mr. Karadzic's presentation, and you said that you couldn't remember

24     having read it but that -- well, then we went on to discuss -- in fact, I

25     claim that in -- that 90 per cent of this meeting of Republika Srpska or

Page 4539

 1     the Assembly of Republika Srpska was devoted to a discussion about the

 2     conflict between President Karadzic and the commander of the Main Staff,

 3     General Mladic.  Do you remember that?

 4        A.   Yes, I do.

 5        Q.   As you say you remember that, I'd like to read out another

 6     portion.  So -- and then I'll ask you a question.

 7             On page 314 of the Serbian version, and that is 345 of the

 8     English.

 9             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] And could we have that put up on

10     e-court, please.  May we have it on the monitor, 314 in Serbian and 345

11     for the English, please.

12        Q.   So before the comment made by Mr. Ninkovic, the last paragraph

13     which begins with "Gentlemen Deputies," and it is General Mladic

14     speaking, and he says:

15             " ... I'm at your disposal, and I propose that you speak your

16     minds as to whether you have confidence in me and in the Main Staff.  And

17     please do it by raising your hands.  Mr. President, I'm asking for a vote

18     on it," et cetera, et cetera.

19             And then the next sentence reads:

20             "If this Assembly has no confidence in it, please go ahead and

21     say it.  You vote on the proposal and I'll support your proposal to ...

22     replace Ratko Mladic.  Vote on that too, please.  Thank you."

23             Now, Mrs. Hanson, have you read this part of the document before?

24     Do you remember having read it?

25        A.   Yes, I've seen it before.

Page 4540

 1        Q.   Isn't it true that here, in actual fact General Mladic is

 2     proposing to the Assembly that it should decide whether they're for him

 3     or for President Karadzic.  That's the bottom line; right?

 4        A.   Yes.  That's the thrust of Mladic's comments.

 5        Q.   Now, on the next page it's just a brief comment.  We don't have

 6     to show it, but anyway, Radovan Karadzic says:

 7             "People, it's much -- it's serious.  It's much more serious than

 8     it seems."

 9             So I've read this out more for purposes of illustrating my own

10     position and thesis according to which all documents that we are relying

11     on must be interpreted in their historical contents.  Do you agree with

12     me there?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   And I'm sure you'll agree with me, too, when I say that it is to

15     be expected that given a situation of this kind, because we're dealing

16     with political survival here, at the very least everybody is trying for

17     its actions and steps to present them in the best light possible, to show

18     that they are important; right?

19        A.   That would be to be expected, yes.

20        Q.   Thank you.  Now let's move on to another area, and we're going to

21     discuss part of your report under the heading of "The relationship

22     between police forces."

23             Now, Mrs. Hanson, yesterday, on pages 4455 and 4456 of this

24     transcript you confirmed that for the requirements of this case and these

25     proceedings and at the request of your employer, the OTP, you added to

Page 4541

 1     your report a part under the title of the relationship between the Crisis

 2     Staffs and the police forces, and that's this particular section.  Am I

 3     right?

 4        A.   There was a very brief section or part of the previous report

 5     dealt with the police, but I expanded that into an entire section.  I

 6     think I just had two paragraphs or so in the previous version.

 7        Q.   Yes, but that you expanded this.  It relates to this portion of

 8     your report; right?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   Now you will remember that yesterday when we discussed the matter

11     I suggested -- I put it to you that in my opinion that part that was

12     supplemented in an unobjective way or rather in such a way as to

13     incorporate it into your already existing conclusions, but you didn't

14     agree with me on that point and you responded, and if I'm paraphrasing

15     you properly, I think you said that you studied the documents and that

16     you found nothing in those documents which would be contrary to the

17     conclusions you had made already and that that is why you stayed with the

18     same conclusions.  Is that right?  Is that what you said?

19        A.   Yes, I believe that's what I said.

20        Q.   Thank you.  Now, let's analyse this and I'll show you how your

21     positions and your conclusions are completely wrong.

22             I'm sure you know that the police is part of the state

23     administration; right?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   Have you ever read the law governing state administration of

Page 4542

 1     Republika Srpska that is?

 2        A.   No, I don't believe so.

 3        Q.   Do you know what the law on general administrative procedure is

 4     about?

 5        A.   No, I don't.  Well, I can tell from the title, but I'm not

 6     familiar with the law if that's what you mean.

 7        Q.   Do you know that the law on general administrative proceedings

 8     regulates the principles of work of the Ministry of the Interior as a

 9     basic law?

10        A.   No.  I'm not surprised to learn it, but I don't know that.

11        Q.   The day before yesterday, that is to say two days ago, on page

12     4386 of the transcript, you were shown Exhibit P439, and I'm just telling

13     you that for purposes of reference.  I'm not going to display it, not to

14     lose time.  Anyway, you commented on this with my colleague, and you told

15     us about what Karadzic said in a text when you said that the police has

16     to be responsible to the civilian authorities.  Do you remember saying

17     that?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   From the context of your report, I gain the impression that you

20     see something bad in what he said when he said that the police has to be

21     responsible to the civilian authorities.  Am I wrong or not?

22        A.   Not bad.  That's a value judgement.  I don't -- judgements about

23     what's good or bad, I just see what -- trying to interpret the situation.

24        Q.   Tell me, please, Mrs. Hanson, now, this sentence saying that the

25     police must be responsible to the civilian authorities, you interpreted

Page 4543

 1     that within the context of responsibility on the part of the police to

 2     the Crisis Staff; right?

 3        A.   To the new structures the Serbian state, which include the Crisis

 4     Staffs.

 5        Q.   Well, tell me, please, Mrs. Hanson, to the best of your knowledge

 6     and in your opinion, to whom in principle is the police responsible in

 7     other states, for example, here in the Netherlands or in England?  Isn't

 8     it true that the police is also responsible to the civil authorities

 9     because the police is in fact in all civilised countries part of the

10     state administration?  Isn't that right?

11        A.   Yes.  That's certainly my understanding.

12        Q.   I'm sure you know that this fact was additionally pointed out and

13     was particularly pertinent in Yugoslavia at that time because in the

14     Communist days the police was abused to settle accounts with dissidents,

15     people who didn't -- were not of the same view as the powers that be

16     were.  Do you know about that?

17        A.   I certainly know about the security forces, yes.  I don't want --

18     I can't make the connection here to -- that this is a pertinent issue

19     right here, but I will agree that the police were, yes, they are involved

20     in the repression of dissidents.

21        Q.   Well, I assume that you know that in the former Yugoslavia the

22     police existed, that it dealt with people who had different thoughts.

23     There was the Stazi in Germany, for example, and in Romania the

24     Securitatea service, let alone the KGB in the Soviet Union and so on and

25     so forth.  So I'm sure you're aware of all this; right?

Page 4544

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   Tell me, please, madam, then I'm sure you know that the

 3     democratic parties such as the parties that we're discussing here, the

 4     Serbian Democratic Party, the Croatian Democratic Party, and the Party of

 5     Democratic Action, by definition were adversaries to a one-party

 6     Communist system, and by the same token all their members were arrested,

 7     persecuted, and so on and so forth.  I'm sure you know that; right?

 8        A.   No.  I'm not aware that the leaders of the Serbian -- Serbian

 9     Democratic Party, for example, were arrested and persecuted as leaders of

10     national parties, because by the time they were founded, they were

11     founded at the time of multi-party elections, so I don't see them as

12     persecuted in the former system.

13        Q.   Well, it's not that relevant, but certainly they were persecuted

14     before there were substantive changes made and the opening up of

15     Yugoslavia and its democratization and so on and so forth.  And when in

16     the 1990's the multi-party system was introduced, they were persecuted

17     before that and I wasn't referring to the leaders, I was referring to the

18     members of these parties but it's not that important, let's move on.

19     Let's move on to something you discussed here in your report.

20             In paragraph 83 of your report - I've already asked you this, I

21     believe - you looked at the law governing interm affairs of Republika

22     Srpska, and you analysed certain articles or, rather, three articles of

23     that particular law; right?

24        A.   Correct.

25        Q.   Tell me, please, Mrs. Hanson, do you know that the Ministry of

Page 4545

 1     the Interior of Republika Srpska was established in the following way:  A

 2     division was made of the previous MUP of the Republic of

 3     Bosnia-Herzegovina, and all this in keeping with the principles

 4     established in the plan by -- of the European Union, better known in

 5     public as the Cutileiro Plan.  Do you know that?

 6        A.   No, that's not my understanding how it occurred.

 7        Q.   You will certainly agree with me that the MUP of Republika Srpska

 8     was established on the basis of the existing public security stations and

 9     some of the existing security services centre -- I see that my colleague

10     is on his feet.

11             MR. DOBBYN:  Yes, Your Honours.  Sorry to interrupt, but at the

12     start of Ms. Hanson's testimony, she was asked whether she was an expert

13     on the structure and functioning of the RS MUP, and she said that was

14     outside of her area of expertise.  So I don't see how these questions are

15     relevant to her, how she's able to answer them.

16             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I asked Mrs. Hanson

17     at the very beginning about her area of expertise, and we established

18     that she was not an expert for this.  That's not what I'm asking her.

19     I'm asking her about paragraph 83 of her report as well as paragraphs 80

20     through 89 of her report.  They are under the heading relations with

21     police stations.  That's the only section of the report I'm focusing on.

22             JUDGE HALL:  Yes.  Well, inasmuch as you're asking her questions

23     about her report, you may proceed, Mr. Zecevic.

24             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

25        Q.   So I asked you, madam, do you know that the MUP of Republika

Page 4546

 1     Srpska was formed from already existing police stations and some security

 2     services centres with the proviso that the regional organisation was

 3     arranged in keeping with the law on the interior, the Law on Internal

 4     Affairs?  You've read that law.  I suppose you can answer the question.

 5        A.   As I said, I read those parts of the law which pertain to

 6     relations with municipal authorities.  On the formation of the MUP, I

 7     haven't read extensively on that.  I noticed that both in Variant A and B

 8     and in later documents they did not always take over existing police

 9     stations, because in some municipalities those were not in the

10     Serb-populated areas, so they made their own new police stations.

11        Q.   It seems I did not understand you correctly then.  You mean to

12     say that Variants A and B, you mean to say that the MUP of Republika

13     Srpska was created through Crisis Staffs in Variants A and B, and that

14     the police stations of the Serbian MUP were established in some

15     municipalities where Serbs did not live?  Is that what you're trying to

16     say?

17        A.   No.  You said that did I know that the MUP of Republika Srpska

18     was formed from already existing police stations, and my understanding

19     both from the documents from March, April 1992 and from the Variant A-B

20     instructions is that in some places it was formed from already existing

21     police stations.  In other places they made new police stations.  They

22     didn't take over the already existing ones.  And that would be in places

23     where the existing police stations which they did not take over were not

24     in Serb-dominant areas.

25        Q.   Now I understand.  I'm sorry.  However, these police stations

Page 4547

 1     that were established were established pursuant to the law, not pursuant

 2     to any instructions or Variants A and B.  Do you know that?

 3        A.   I see Crisis Staffs in some places helping set up new police

 4     stations.  I do not see them citing the laws under which they were

 5     formed.  I was looking at Crisis Staff documents, not at the documents of

 6     each individual police station.  So I don't know their own internal

 7     procedures and on what basis they were -- on what laws they were citing

 8     or what -- what procedures they were following.

 9             I have seen, as I showed in the speech by Karadzic in March, at

10     the March Assembly session, it was seen as one of the steps in the

11     takeovers, and the Crisis Staffs were leading those steps, were taking

12     those steps on the ground.  So although once the -- perhaps the

13     territorial division was set out by the law, I see the Crisis Staffs

14     helping the creation of these forces on the ground.

15        Q.   Mrs. Hanson, let us make this simpler.  Would you agree with me

16     that the Law on Internal Affairs, which also stipulated the territorial

17     organisations of various organs of the interior, was adopted in March

18     1993 by the Assembly of the Serbian People?  Yes or no?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   We agreed yesterday that at that time, starting with January

21     1992, the Republika Srpska was in existence, and since February the same

22     year it had its own constitution; correct?

23        A.   Yes, I agree.

24        Q.   Now when you are quoting Mr. Karadzic, when he says in March --

25     when he speaks about the establishment of these police bodies, aren't

Page 4548

 1     these steps in the establishment of state organs?  How did you imagine an

 2     established state that does not proceed to form its state agencies,

 3     including police stations and security centres?  Would that be imaginable

 4     for a state to fail to do that?

 5        A.   It's completely logical that a state would form its agencies,

 6     including police stations.

 7        Q.   Very well.  That's precisely what I'm trying to say.

 8             Madam, let us now analyse your principal conclusion here in

 9     section 83 where you say that the municipal police station received in

10     parallel tasks from the Ministry of the Interior and from Municipal

11     Assemblies, and it was answerable to them.

12             Is that written there?

13        A.   I said yes, "report to," is how I put it, but, yes, it's there.

14        Q.   And then in support of that you quoted these three articles, 27,

15     31, and 32.  That document was shown to you.  It's tab 32, I believe, the

16     Law on Internal Affairs.  In e-court it's 65 ter 53, but since we have an

17     understanding that these documents should be introduced as stipulated by

18     the parties, it has no P or D designation.

19             Articles 27, 31 and 32 are all on the same page.

20             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] It's page 4 in e-court, in Serbian.

21     I suppose it's page 4 or 5 in English.

22        Q.   So, Mrs. Hanson, it is your position that the municipal police

23     station, under the law received assignments both from the Ministry of the

24     Interior and the Municipal Assembly and that it reported to the Municipal

25     Assembly and was answerable to the Municipal Assembly; correct?

Page 4549

 1        A.   Was answerable to the Municipal Assembly and to the ministry.

 2        Q.   All right.  And to support that you quote Article 27.  Let us

 3     analyse it.

 4             Article 27 relates municipal regulations, it says, In addition to

 5     the activities and tasks set out in the rules on the internal

 6     organisation of the ministry a public security station shall implement

 7     also regulations passed by the Municipal Assembly and relating to law and

 8     order and road safety, as well as other regulations in the domain of

 9     internal affairs that have been passed by the Municipal Assembly.

10             First, the regulations passed by Municipal Assemblies, as you can

11     see in the last sentence, are enacted under the authority envisaged in

12     the Law on Internal Affairs.  Can you see that?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   So when it says, Regulations relating to law and order, do you

15     know what is meant?  Can you give us an example or shall I give an

16     example and then you can confirm or not?

17        A.   Give me an example.

18        Q.   I'll do that.  These municipal regulations are, for instance,

19     this:  Whether catering establishments and shops may be open until

20     10.30 p.m. or until midnight.  That's one.

21             Two, whether outdoor cafes where live bands play can have these

22     bands playing until 11.00 p.m., until midnight, or 3.00 in the morning.

23     Whether alcohol is served in cafes before 10.00 a.m. or not.

24             That's the kind of regulation a Municipal Assembly can adopt.  Do

25     you agree?

Page 4550

 1        A.   That's one of the kind of regulations, but I see Crisis Staffs

 2     acting in the name of Municipal Assemblies taking much more sweeping

 3     actions or -- more significant decisions than that.

 4        Q.   Mrs. Hanson, please.  We're now talking about your position, your

 5     conclusion where you say that the police station received assignments and

 6     tasks both from the Assembly and the MUP and that it was written in the

 7     law.  Now I want, together with you, to analyse these articles of the law

 8     which you invoke to show you that you are absolutely mistaken.

 9             I'm not talking about the de facto situation.  I'm talking about

10     the legal situation, because you found in your report that there is a

11     legal ground for your claim that police stations are answerable to

12     Municipal Assemblies and implement the Assemblies' decisions.

13             Furthermore, this article says, Another kind of regulation passed

14     by the Municipal Assembly relates to road safety.  I'll give you another

15     example.  That is a situation, for instance, when although it was

16     prescribed at the state level that the minimum speed is 50 kilometres, in

17     a certain town where you have a spa or a school or a kindergarten,

18     something, another speed, 30 kilometres, is stipulated, or perhaps speed

19     bumps are installed.  That is the kind of regulation a Municipal Assembly

20     can pass, and then the public security station, exercising its authority

21     in that area is duty-bound to enforce them.  Those are the only

22     regulations that public security stations had to enforce that had been

23     passed about by a Municipal Assembly.  Everything else enforced by public

24     security stations was written in the law.  Do you agree with me?

25        A.   I note that the law says "along with other regulations."  So I

Page 4551

 1     can't agree that those are the only kind which the Municipal Assembly

 2     could pass.  The law stipulates that other regulations --

 3             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Zecevic, aren't we going down a -- a troublesome

 4     part inasmuch as the witness was proffered as an expert on Crisis Staffs.

 5     She has stated the obvious on several occasions that she is not a lawyer,

 6     and these detailed questions which, as I understand it, involve the

 7     interpretation and application of laws, and they -- aren't they off the

 8     track, so to speak, in terms of the competence of this witness and the

 9     purpose for which she was proffered?

10             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with all due respect,

11     the conclusion of this witness as written in her report is that the

12     police, that is the police station, is answerable to and enforces the

13     tasks given them by the Assembly, and in support of that claim she quotes

14     these three articles.  It is quite obvious that she does not understand

15     to what these three articles apply.  That's her claim.

16             If Mrs. Hanson withdraws that conclusion here now I will desist,

17     but I have to question Mrs. Hanson and educate her to show her that the

18     basis she -- she used and the conclusion she made, all that is based on a

19     misinterpretation.

20             JUDGE HALL:  I apologise to the interpreters for overlapping with

21     Mr. Zecevic.

22             I would have thought, though, with respect, Mr. Zecevic, that as

23     with any other witness, as with any other bit of evidence, the -- not

24     everything that is contained in the report, which is what the

25     Prosecution's relying on here, is accepted, every letter, and that the --

Page 4552

 1     a person reading the report, to be specific here, the Chamber, would, as

 2     they go through it, mentally discard or disregard things which are

 3     clearly outside the competence of the -- in this case the person writing

 4     the report.  She isn't a lawyer, so as a lawyer she would get certain

 5     things wrong.  She -- there's the context in which she said certain

 6     things, but not being a lawyer, it's obviously wrong.  That may be a --

 7     the logical and fair conclusion which the Chamber may reach.  So I come

 8     back to asking why -- whether it is necessary to go down the road of

 9     challenging her on all of these details which, as I said, at the end of

10     the day probably wouldn't make a deference.

11             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I understand, Your Honour.  I see

12     that perhaps it's time for the break now.  Maybe it's a good moment.

13             JUDGE HALL:  Well, we have three minutes.  Can you make use of

14     those three minutes?

15             MR. DOBBYN:  Sorry, Your Honours.  I wonder if I could just add a

16     comment to what's been said perhaps to help matters.  That is, I think

17     that what is contained in the report on this point is pretty clear, and

18     what Mr. Zecevic is saying has been said in this report goes well beyond

19     what she does actually say in her report.

20             If you look at paragraph 83, she says:  "The RS Law on Internal

21     Affairs stipulated the police's obligations to the municipal civilian

22     authority," and she cites three articles.  That's it.  She doesn't go

23     into -- the report doesn't go into the sort of detail which Mr. Zecevic

24     seems to be saying that it does go into, the sort of minute detail which

25     he's been putting to her.  That is clearly is beyond what she has said

Page 4553

 1     here.

 2             MR. ZECEVIC:  But with all due respect, Your Honours, the last --

 3     I was referring to the last comment of Ms. Hanson's report where she

 4     confirmed right now that she stated that in the report, which says -- I

 5     don't have the English copy with me here.  I have the Serbian, so I will

 6     read in Serbian.

 7             [Interpretation] "Thus the police station received tasks both

 8     from the Ministry of the Interior and the Municipal Assembly and reported

 9     to them or was answerable to them."

10             Mrs. Hanson confirmed this, and I am just trying to ask

11     Mrs. Hanson on what basis she concluded that.  She said on the basis of

12     Articles 27, 31, and 32.

13             MS. KORNER:  It's bad translation, then.  It's not what the

14     English says.

15             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, I believe it's better that we take

16     the break now so we can clarify tis matter in order not to lose time.

17     Thank you very much.

18             JUDGE HALL:  Yes.

19                           [The witness stood down]

20                           --- Recess taken at 3.39 p.m.

21                           --- On resuming at 4.01 p.m.

22                           [The witness takes the stand]

23             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

24        Q.   Mrs. Hanson, I put it to you and claim that Article 31, which you

25     are interpreting here, are interpreting erroneously, because the article

Page 4554

 1     prescribes that it is the duty of the public security station to provide

 2     information to the local organs about the security situation and that

 3     that is a rational and normal situation, because the local organs have an

 4     interest, of course, in seeing the state of crime on the territory, and

 5     juvenile delinquency, and so on and so forth, or drug-related problems.

 6             I also claim that Article 32, which once again you are

 7     interpreting wrongly, is -- provides the possibility of local organs

 8     going to the MUP seat, MUP headquarters, with their own proposals and

 9     suggestions, but that ultimately comes under the auspices of the MUP.

10     That is to say, it is up to the MUP at its headquarters whether it's

11     going to adopt those proposals or not and this relates to the suggestions

12     of the type by which they say that this is because of juvenile

13     delinquency that they're having the problems of that, or drugs.  They

14     need more inspectors dealing in that kind of thing at the public security

15     station or police station.  And that is why I am saying, Mrs. Hanson,

16     that your conclusions in paragraph 83 are absolutely unfounded.

17             Do you have any comments to make to that?

18        A.   Article 32, I agree, does not have -- I would say, rather -- not

19     that I have misinterpreted, but it really doesn't have bearing on the

20     issue.  In fact, it is -- I would say that Article 32 shows indeed that

21     the ministry has the ultimate say on those matters, that it's merely a

22     consultative relationship between the Municipal Assembly and the ministry

23     headquarters on those matters.  So I think we can put Article 32 to the

24     side.

25             As far as the Article 31, I make no judgement about whether it's

Page 4555

 1     rational and normal or not, but I simply state that if the security

 2     stations submit reports and information, that to me is not -- it is not

 3     wrong then to say that the station shall report to the Assembly.

 4        Q.   Mrs. Hanson, I think that at the very beginning, and I think my

 5     colleague objected rightly so, and so did the Presiding Judge,

 6     Judge Hall, but anyway, I think at the beginning that we clarified the

 7     matter and established that you do not have the necessary qualifications

 8     for interpreting legal provisions in the laws.  Is that right?

 9        A.   We agreed that I'm not a lawyer.

10        Q.   I asked you whether you have the necessary expertise for

11     interpreting legal provisions.  Yes or no?  In your opinion, in your own

12     opinion.

13        A.   No.

14        Q.   That means that all the conclusions that you make and present

15     here in paragraphs 80, 81, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 89, which do not

16     relate to the factual situation but to legal provisions we can leave

17     aside and forget because you don't have the necessary qualifications for

18     making those assessments.  You don't have the expertise to make those

19     evaluations.  Is that right?

20        A.   I would say that only paragraph 83 relates to legal provisions.

21        Q.   I don't agree with you.  Mrs. Hanson, I'm trying to make a

22     distinction here.

23             Let's start this way:  I agree with you that in practice the

24     Crisis Staffs took, over to a significant extent, powers and authority

25     that did not belong to them, that they commanded the police, that they

Page 4556

 1     issued orders to the police, that they appointed chiefs of police and

 2     other police employees, but this was only the de facto situation.  I'm

 3     not questioning the de facto situation here.  What I am questioning and

 4     challenging is your assertion that that situation was the result of legal

 5     provisions or laws or any other provisions which have anything to do with

 6     the Ministry of the Interior.  That is what I'm putting to you.

 7        A.   I certainly agree with you that the Crisis Staffs commanded

 8     police, issued orders to the police, appointed chiefs of police and other

 9     police employees.  You say that this is powers and authority that did not

10     belong to them.  I -- as I've indicated from the start, I find no laws

11     specifying the powers and authority of the Crisis Staffs.  I have the

12     instructions for 26 April, for example, which would not appear to limit

13     the power of the Crisis Staffs in those areas, as you say.  So I can't

14     agree that -- I have no basis for saying that the powers and authorities

15     did or did not belong to them, but de facto they did that.

16             I do not say that all of what they did was based on that one

17     article, but I think that article gives a starting point, a way -- an

18     indication of the relationship between the municipal authorities and the

19     police, that -- that the police were not completely separate from the

20     Municipal Assembly, that they only had the chain of command through the

21     ministry.  I want to show that there are points at the municipal level

22     where the police received taskings from and reported to the Assembly.

23     Then the Assembly is represented by the Crisis Staff.

24        Q.   Madam, there are a number of elements and points here.  First of

25     all, your assertions which you want to seriously state here, that is --

Page 4557

 1     that they are instructions Variants A and B above the law governing the

 2     Ministry of Internal Affairs as a legal act.  Yes or no?  Are they over

 3     and above the law?

 4        A.   They're outside it.  They were issued as party instructions long

 5     before the Bosnian Serbs wrote their Law on Internal Affairs.  So by the

 6     time the law was written, I would say A and B was superseded by events.

 7     So I don't see that they're in relationship.  I think that as far as the

 8     law of the land of Bosnia at the time, I would say they were -- again I'm

 9     not a lawyer, but I would say that forming parallel municipal organs and

10     secretly arming and secretly removing things from commodity reserves was

11     outside the law of the land and the Law on Internal Affairs at the time

12     they were written.

13        Q.   Madam, all these facts --

14             THE INTERPRETER:  Counsel is kindly asked to wait for the

15     interpretation to finish before he begins putting his question.

16             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

17        Q.   -- I accept --

18             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Zecevic, did you hear the reminder from the

19     interpreters to avoid overlapping?

20             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Yes.  I apologise.  I forgot to put

21     my headset on, and I'm listening to the English, but, yes, I do

22     apologise.  And I also apologise to the interpreters.

23        Q.   Madam, all these facts which I have confirmed, among other

24     things, that is to say that the Crisis Staffs were outside their powers

25     of authority.  They superseded and went beyond their powers and

Page 4558

 1     authorisations and so on.  They did issue orders to the police.  They did

 2     appoint chiefs.  They appointed chiefs who had never set foot in the

 3     police force ever.  They were appointed chiefs of security stations.

 4     They issued orders to them.  They issued provisions and regulations.  I

 5     don't question any of that.  So those facts, the facts you're talking

 6     about, all that is going on after the law was passed on internal affairs

 7     and after it came into force.

 8             So look at your report, madam.  In your report, you quote

 9     examples from April, May, June, possibly July.  That means that at that

10     time, the law was in existence.  It was in force.  How then are you able

11     to say that the instructions and Variant A and B was applicable despite

12     the fact that the Law on Internal Affairs existed, was in force?  And if

13     I've understood your assertions correctly, it was even stronger as a

14     legal act, a legal document, than the Law on Internal Affairs according

15     to you.  So how can you explain that?

16        A.   First, when I said "instructions," I think I was referring -- I

17     can't see the text now, but I think I was referring to Djeric's

18     instructions of 26 April, 1992 which would be after that law, but I'm not

19     a lawyer and I am not here to judge the legality of the facts on the

20     ground and to say which law was applicable.  I cannot find, as I said,

21     anything that sets out in legal terms the limits of the authority of the

22     Crisis Staffs.  I only can -- am describing what I have seen in the

23     evidence, and I'm not trying to judge whether -- how closely they

24     followed the Law on Internal Affairs.

25        Q.   Mrs. Hanson, I claim that you didn't have in mind the

Page 4559

 1     instructions of the 26th of April, although we'll come to those

 2     instructions in due course, very shortly, in fact.  I claim that you were

 3     referring to Variant A and B because you said that those instructions or

 4     that instruction existed before the law was enforced.  You did say that,

 5     didn't you?

 6        A.   Yes.  When you were asking about its relationship, was it outside

 7     the law or something.  Yes, that's what I was talking about then, but I

 8     thought you were referring to an earlier reference.  But yes, when you

 9     asked me about Variant A being outside the law, I said it was apples and

10     oranges, irrelevant to the Law on Internal Affairs because it's from a

11     different period.  It's from December and -- December 1991, and obviously

12     the law wasn't passed then.

13        Q.   Madam, do you remember us commenting on that yesterday?  We

14     commented on the instructions and Variant A and B, and on the very last

15     page in point 2 we read out together the responsibility provided for for

16     all the organs, that in their work and activities they should respect

17     in -- absolutely all the federal and republican laws that are not in

18     contravention with the federal law.  Do you remember that or not?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   And when I asked you whether you thought that this was a dead

21     letter on paper, you said no, it was expected of those organs, to respect

22     the law in other words; right?

23        A.   I don't recall that question.  I didn't understand it in those

24     terms.  Which organs are you referring to?

25        Q.   Well, the organs to whom the instructions were sent through

Page 4560

 1     Variant A and B, that is to say the Crisis Staffs and other organs which

 2     were set up subsequently, the various assemblies, Municipal Assemblies,

 3     executive boards or whatever.  That was what we were discussing

 4     yesterday, remember?

 5        A.   I'm sorry, as I say, I simply do not recall that particular

 6     question, but would I say, as I said before, although there is that

 7     stipulation that they should observe all federal laws, I would say that

 8     some of the tasks in the 19 December instructions are in fact in

 9     contradiction to the federal or republican laws.

10        Q.   Well, all right then.  Then tell me on the basis of which

11     expertise of yours and knowledge of yours can you tell me that some of

12     the tasks which were given in the instructions of the 19th of December

13     are in contravention of federal or republican laws?  What -- on what

14     grounds do you say that?  Your knowledge of those laws, your expertise to

15     provide opinions about whether or not certain organs acted in conformity

16     with the law or not, or some third reason, some third grounds?

17        A.   I would base my answer on my -- that of the general knowledge of

18     an informed person that to form -- to secretly remove items from

19     commodity reserves sounds to a layperson, a non-lawyer, like it's against

20     the law.  Perhaps it is not, but it's just simply on the common sense of

21     an educated person, I would say.

22        Q.   Well, I don't agree with you there.  It's only if you have a

23     stand taken before, if you've already made your decision.

24             You're putting me in an impossible situation here, madam.  On the

25     one hand you're saying that you don't have enough knowledge and expertise

Page 4561

 1     to comment on that, and whereas on the other hand you make certain claims

 2     and assertions and state that something was not in conformity with the

 3     law, and now I can't even show you some of the legal provisions by which

 4     I would confirm that you are not right, that you're wrong.  That's the

 5     predicament I'm in.  And I claim that -- well, when you claim that you

 6     can understand on the basis of intelligence and reasoning is not

 7     sufficient to interpret certain legal provisions and questions as to

 8     whether certain organs are working in keeping with the law and provisions

 9     or not.

10             Madam, let's focus on something else that you said, and I'd like

11     to hear your explanations.

12             In paragraph 89, you actually say -- the substance of that

13     paragraph is that you say that all the organs associated themselves on a

14     state level.  I think you said that somewhere, paraphrasing paragraph 89.

15     Anyway, you say that they all joined together at a state level because

16     the Ministry of the Interior was a member of the government.

17             Do you remember having said that at some point?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   Now, if I understand you correctly, it is then your assertion

20     that -- I assume also on the basis of something you keep mentioning, the

21     26th of April instructions signed by Prime Minister Djeric, your

22     assertions that the government did have control over the Crisis Staffs;

23     right?

24        A.   I don't believe that I assert they had control.  They issued

25     instructions to, they gave some orders to, they assisted, they received

Page 4562

 1     reports from.  On control, I think you'd have to define a little more

 2     carefully in terms of what you mean.  They issued orders to, yes, and

 3     received reports from.

 4        Q.   Well, I would call that control.  If you give somebody orders and

 5     receive reports from that person and perhaps can take steps against

 6     someone if they do not act in accordance to your orders, I would term

 7     that control.  Wouldn't you?

 8        A.   I -- abstractly, yes, I would term that control.  On the question

 9     of taking steps against those, I haven't seen evidence of the government

10     taking those steps at the time, so if that's -- but I -- I think we're

11     pretty much agreed on what constitutes control.

12        Q.   Isn't it true, Mrs. Hanson, that apart from a single -- one

13     single report which is mentioned at one of the government meetings and

14     that the first neighbouring municipality from the place where the

15     government was situated at that point, and I'm referring to Novo

16     Sarajevo, not a single other report ever of the Crisis Staff was

17     presented -- of any of the Crisis Staffs was presented at a government

18     meeting, nor did you ever see some sort of report of that kind in written

19     form.

20        A.   There is the report to the National Security Council which I

21     believe was a joint meeting with the government at which they received a

22     report on the work of Crisis Staffs.  We have no more specific

23     information on that.  We have requested from the RS authorities if it's

24     possible to identify that report.  We've never received anything.  And,

25     yes, there's a report of the Crisis Staff of Novo Sarajevo, that of the

Page 4563

 1     Crisis Staff in Foca, said he made a report to the council of ministers

 2     which since there was no Council of Ministers at the time, I take to be

 3     the ministers' National Security Council sitting together with the

 4     government, but that is not specified by him.  So the only report I have

 5     seen is Novo Sarajevo, but I have evidence of other kinds of reporting.

 6     Also, we see the government in their minutes have received requests for

 7     funds from Crisis Staffs.  I have not seen those written requests, but I

 8     would believe the government would expect something in writing.

 9             Also, Rajlovac.  I've seen them writing to the Rajlovac War

10     Commission writing to the government.  So that's another written item.

11     Unfortunately, it was before -- that came to my attention after this

12     report was written, so I don't know if I can include it or not, refer you

13     to it or not.

14        Q.   Mrs. Hanson, I'll go back to a comment I made yesterday.  I put a

15     very specific question to you.  Now, from your answer that has taken up

16     half a page we come back to the same thing.  Your answer to my question

17     is in fact yes.  Have you ever seen any single written report to a

18     government meeting in Novo Sarajevo?  Your answer was no.  So the only

19     report, written report, you've ever seen is that one.  Now, the one that

20     went to the National Security Council and some other organs you expect to

21     be able to understand that, but the only report you saw was the Novo

22     Sarajevo report.  Yes or no?

23        A.   No.  As I said --

24        Q.   Very well.  Fine.  Let's place things back in context.  Is it

25     true, and please give me a brief answer, preferably yes or no, is it true

Page 4564

 1     that the National Security Council issued recommendations to the

 2     government to adopt some sort of instructions on the work of War

 3     Presidency and War Executive Councils on 22 April 1992?  That's paragraph

 4     31 of your report.  Yes or no?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   Is it true that the government really issued such instructions on

 7     the 26th of April?  It's P70, and the title is "Instructions for the Work

 8     of Crisis Staffs."  Yes or no?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   Isn't it true that tomorrow, on the 27th -- sorry, the next day,

11     27 April, at the joint session of the National Security Council and the

12     government, it was noted that the 26 April instructions were not detailed

13     enough for local authorities?  And you talk about that in paragraph 35 of

14     your report.  Yes or no?

15        A.   The assumption is it's the 26 April instructions.  They say that

16     more detailed instructions need to be issued.  I can't say for sure that

17     they're referring to Djeric's.  That's the logical inference.

18        Q.   All right.  And isn't it true that three days from the

19     instructions, 26 April, which is Exhibit P70, as I said, titled

20     "Instructions for the Work of Crisis Staffs," the government, the same

21     organ that issued the instructions, withdraws the instructions and says

22     "Consider it null and void," in capital letters.  It's P86.  If we can

23     call it up, please.

24             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] No, that's not it.  It should be

25     65 ter 105.  That is the document I asked for.  Maybe my reference is

Page 4565

 1     wrong.

 2             MR. DOBBYN:  It's P186.

 3             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] That's what I said.

 4             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreter may have misheard.

 5             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

 6        Q.   Do you see this document?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   When you were doing your research for the report, did you find

 9     this document in your set of documents?

10        A.   Yes.  I discuss it in footnote 47.

11        Q.   Wait a minute.  You're talking about the document rescinding the

12     instructions of the 26th of April, three days after they were adopted.

13     You mention it in a footnote but nowhere in the text; is that right?

14        A.   Correct, because I had reason to believe that the document as

15     issued on the 26th of April was in fact received and implemented.  I'd be

16     happy to explain it in greater detail if you wish me to.

17        Q.   No need, madam.  Just tell me, are you seriously trying to tell

18     us and the Trial Chamber that the Crisis Staffs, as you say in your

19     report, received the instructions of the 26th April but did not receive

20     this letter withdrawing the instructions?  Are you seriously trying to

21     say that?

22        A.   I have no basis on which to say whether they did or did not

23     receive the instructions withdrawing it.  I can, as I said, explain

24     further my --

25        Q.   No need, madam.  Documents speak for themselves.  If there is no

Page 4566

 1     basis for you to confirm that they received this document rescinding the

 2     instructions, then there's no need to discuss it anymore.  Other

 3     witnesses will come who will confirm the facts.

 4             Among other things, we heard another witness here who was

 5     chairman of one of the Crisis Staffs and who explicitly said --

 6             MR. DOBBYN:  Yes, Your Honours.  Objecting here, having my

 7     colleague putting transcripts of what other witnesses have said to this

 8     witness.

 9             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if I remember your

10     guidelines correctly, it is allowed to put to a witness what another

11     witness has said without naming the other witness or giving any of his

12     identifying information.

13             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, but you can't just simply put the previous

14     testimonies of a witness to a witness on the stand and invite him or her

15     to contradict it.

16             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I only wanted to elicit a comment

17     from this witness on the claim of a prior witness that he had never

18     received the instructions or acted upon them.  I wanted to hear this

19     witness's comment, but if you think I should not be allowed to do that,

20     of course I won't.

21             JUDGE HALL:  Perhaps it's possible -- Mr. Dobbyn, you had an

22     intervention, a further intervention?

23             MR. DOBBYN:  Just one second, Your Honour.

24             Yes, Your Honour.  That's what the witness has said, and what is

25     this witness supposed to say about that?  It's just the words of two

Page 4567

 1     different witnesses.  Where can that take us really?

 2             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if I may have your

 3     indulgence.  The guidelines for leading and introducing evidence,

 4     September 2009, para 22:

 5             "The party conducting cross-examination may put evidence given by

 6     a prior witness on the condition that the witness's identity is not

 7     revealed.  Parties are reminded not to comment on the credibility of

 8     other witnesses."

 9             My understanding is that I may put to this witness some prior

10     evidence or testimony and elicit a comment without identifying the other

11     witness.

12             JUDGE HALL:  So long as the question is phrased to elicit a

13     comment.

14             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] That's precisely what I said I

15     wanted to do, but the objection came before I even stated my intention.

16        Q.   Madam, one of the presidents of one of the Crisis Staffs from a

17     territory you mentioned many times in your report testified here before,

18     and he said explicitly he had never seen any instructions, received any

19     instructions, or needed any, in fact, in order to establish the Crisis

20     Staff because the law was abundantly clear, and that he never reported to

21     anyone in any way.

22             Do you have a comment?

23        A.   Nowhere in my report do I say that every Crisis Staff received

24     these instructions, nor that every Crisis Staff reported.

25             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, Mr. Dobbyn.

Page 4568

 1             MR. DOBBYN:  Yes, Your Honour.  This is an issue which I believe

 2     has been raised in the past, and that is that if a transcript --

 3     testimony is going to be put to the witness then we need to have the

 4     reference for that.  Otherwise, we can't follow.  We don't know exactly

 5     what was said.

 6             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I had not anticipated

 7     that this would become reason for an objection so I don't have a

 8     reference ready.  Of course I can find it.  As far as I'm concerned, I

 9     can even withdraw the question.  Perhaps that is the simplest thing to

10     do.

11        Q.   Madam, in paragraph 38, you not only claim that the government

12     allegedly exerted control or some sort of control over the Crisis Staff,

13     you claim that the leadership took steps to make Crisis Staffs legal and

14     official and to reinforce their links with the centre.  Is that correct?

15     That's your paragraph 38.

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   Then in paragraph 39, you state that the government, already on

18     23rd May 1992, proposed to abolish Crisis Staffs.  That's P217.  Correct?

19        A.   And establish War Presidencies, yes.

20        Q.   Are you sure that's written in document P217?  That's the

21     government's meeting of 23rd May 1992.  It only says, I believe, to

22     abolish Crisis Staffs.  Shall we call it up in e-court?

23        A.   I was asserting that that's what I write there.  If we call it

24     up, if you -- I haven't read that reference in many years.  If you say it

25     says only -- abolish Crisis Staffs, yes.  I was not -- I was asserting --

Page 4569

 1     just trying to correct the sentence as written as -- as you read the

 2     sentence.

 3        Q.   Thank you.  So this was the situation with the Crisis Staffs,

 4     roughly:  On 26 April, the government issues instructions, on the 30th,

 5     it withdraws the instructions, and just three weeks later the government

 6     advocates that Crisis Staffs be abolished; correct?  That's the

 7     chronology?

 8        A.   As I say, I would have a lot more to say on the subject of the

 9     withdrawal of the instructions, but I agree with the first and last items

10     of your chronology.

11        Q.   To continue the chronology:  The Presidency of Republika Srpska,

12     on 24 May 1992, issues instructions on the work of presidencies in

13     municipalities; correct?

14        A.   Correct.

15        Q.   And then seven days later, on 31 May 1992, that instruction was

16     replaced by the presidential decision of Radovan Karadzic, and the

17     reference I have for that is 65 ter 145.  Correct?  That's the decision

18     by President Radovan Karadzic of 31st May 1992.

19        A.   Correct.

20        Q.   Let us come back to your paragraph 38 again.  If the government

21     asks for the Crisis Staffs to be abolished and the Presidency right the

22     next day issues instructions on the work of presidencies and seven days

23     later the president confirms that instruction by his own decision, isn't

24     it then true that the central authorities wanted to abolish Crisis Staffs

25     and establish other organs in their place rather than to reinforce them

Page 4570

 1     or, as you put it, make them official or legal?

 2        A.   Perhaps some of the confusion arises in my first -- the first

 3     sentence of paragraph 38 where Crisis Staffs there I'm using more, as I

 4     indicate I do, as a general umbrella term for these extraordinary

 5     collective municipal bodies, because I see a continuity among all these

 6     organs.  I see Crisis Staffs becoming War Presidencies simply by changing

 7     their name.  I don't see a significant difference between Crisis Staffs

 8     and War Presidency in operation.  Therefore, I see these all as moves to

 9     get a formal status for these already existing collective municipal

10     authorities.

11        Q.   Mrs. Hanson, the authorities such as the Assembly or the

12     Executive Board envisaged by the constitution are unable to operate

13     because of the war.  That's why Crisis Staffs are established.  We see

14     then that Crisis Staffs were abolished and the organs of Presidency take

15     their place.  Again, we're not talking about continuity.  We're only

16     talking about different bodies.

17             You seem to agree with me that the intention was to abolish

18     Crisis Staffs.  I mean, the intention of central authorities was to

19     abolish Crisis Staffs and to form Presidency.  Again, I'm not talking

20     about continuity or discontinuity.

21        A.   Yes, I agree that they are changing -- abolishing Crisis Staffs

22     and forming Presidencies.

23        Q.   Thank you.  So that happened in end May.  Less than ten days

24     later, on 10th of June, the same president, Karadzic, changes that

25     decision to form Presidencies and issues the decision to form War

Page 4571

 1     Commissions that are completely different bodies in terms of composition

 2     and membership.  That's 65 ter 151.  Is it true?

 3        A.   He issues another decision.  To the best of my recollection,

 4     although I would have to see the decision itself, he makes no reference

 5     to the 31 May decision.  So I couldn't exactly say that he changes that

 6     decision.  He issues another that appears to be contradictory or to be a

 7     change of the first one.  And, yes, I agree that the composition as laid

 8     out in the decision is quite different from a war Presidency.

 9        Q.   Mrs. Hanson, you claim in paragraph 44, I believe, of your report

10     that the reason for that was to ensure better central control over the

11     work of bodies on the ground.  Isn't it in fact the only logical and the

12     only accurate explanation that all these changes occurred because neither

13     Mr. Karadzic nor anyone else was able to establish any control over

14     Crisis Staffs or any other bodies at the local level?

15        A.   No.

16        Q.   Very well.  Let's analyse that a little.  In April and May, in

17     that territory there are Serbian municipalities.  Authorities slowly take

18     shape, and in the meantime the conflicts begin.  In some of the

19     municipalities where conflict has already broken out, the Crisis Staffs

20     already exist.  In others, they will be formed later in May and June when

21     the armed insurgency of Muslim and Croat forces begin.

22             Is this indeed the context where all this is happening?

23        A.   I have trouble with the last two -- two items in the last part of

24     your statement.  I don't -- I'm not aware of Crisis Staffs being formed

25     in May and June.  By then I would usually see a war Presidency formed.

Page 4572

 1     And I would also not describe the events as the armed insurgency of

 2     Muslims and Croats.

 3        Q.   Let me remind you, madam, of paragraph 30, namely the footnote

 4     where you state:

 5              "The establishment of Crisis Staff of Bihac, 22nd May 1992; the

 6     establishment of Bosanska Dubica Crisis Staff, 17 June 1992; Bosanska

 7     Gradiska, 30th September --"

 8        A.   Sorry to interrupt.

 9        Q.   That's the footnote linked to your paragraph 36, footnote 50.

10        A.   Yes, indeed, you're right.  So those are Crisis Staffs formed in

11     May.

12        Q.   Thank you.  So, Mrs. Hanson, I put it to you that the government

13     gave instructions to the Crisis Staffs and then withdrew them because

14     these instructions had absolutely no effect because the government did

15     not have the authority.  That's why all this is raised to a higher level,

16     the level of the Presidency.  And then Mrs. Biljana Plavsic, as member of

17     the Presidency, issues instructions on the 24th of May, and then Karadzic

18     confirms that in the form of a presidential decision on the 31st of May.

19     And since not even this presidential decision yields any significant

20     effect, on the 10th of June he issues the decision on the establishment

21     of War Commissions.  That's the third instruction.

22             The whole concept is then changed.  The name is changed.  Not in

23     order to strengthen these bodies but to achieve some degree of control

24     over these bodies at local level.  That is the real intent.

25        A.   I certainly don't think that's the intent for the letter

Page 4573

 1     withdrawing the instructions, because it names that it's an incomplete

 2     text.  And judging on where and how we see War Commissions formed, I

 3     don't see that this is his intent to supersede the 31st May decision

 4     simply because we see the two bodies co-existing in the RS.

 5        Q.   Well, you don't think, do you, that the central authorities form

 6     one body and then another body with the intention of having them

 7     co-exist.  Isn't this in fact proof of the impotence of the central

 8     authorities?  Isn't it proof that those who assumed power within one body

 9     don't want to let go of that power?  You have Crisis Staffs in places

10     where Municipal Assemblies had already been formed in autumn 1992, and

11     the Assembly of Republika Srpska had to pass a decree in December 1992 to

12     abolish Crisis Staffs.  Isn't that the truth?

13        A.   No.  I don't see anything from the Assembly in December 1992

14     abolishing Crisis Staffs.  There is a decision of abolishing War

15     Commissions, but I see nothing on the abolishing of Crisis Staffs then.

16     And I think that had Karadzic intended to have War Commissions replaced,

17     Crisis Staffs and War Presidencies everywhere, we could see more

18     decisions on forming War Commissions.  We have decisions signed by

19     Karadzic on forming War Commissions in a few municipalities.  So I think

20     if there were an intent to form them everywhere, we would see those

21     documents as well.

22        Q.   Madam, do you seriously think that it's the job of the President

23     of Republika Srpska, the president of the Presidency, to determine who

24     will be at the head of the Crisis Staff of Sekovic municipality?  It's

25     1D01-0688.

Page 4574

 1             MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we have a look at that

 2     document, please.

 3        Q.   I suppose, madam, when you said what you just said a moment ago

 4     in your previous answer that you meant documents like this where

 5     President Karadzic confirms the appointments of members of the War

 6     Commission; correct?

 7        A.   Correct.

 8        Q.   I'm asking you again.  Don't you think it is a bit absurd that

 9     the president of the Presidency would have to confirm the appointments of

10     the War Commission in Sekovici municipality?  Doesn't this show, in fact,

11     that he has no control and he's trying to assert his authority in this

12     way by signing, himself, a completely insignificant paper?  Perhaps not

13     insignificant but certainly a document that does not really deserve the

14     signature of a president.

15        A.   All the numerous, numerous appointments of War Presidency in

16     1995, late 1994 and 1995, are also signed by Karadzic.  So I take it more

17     to be an artefact of the way the state administration operated that this

18     kind of a document from the Presidency requires his signature.

19             I don't believe from this document that he himself chose those

20     members.  Quite the contrary.  That's what his commissioner was for.

21        Q.   Would you agree with the assertions that the reason for which --

22     well, things that have been said in court here, that the reason for which

23     the decision on the founding of War Commissions is the fact that

24     Mr. Karadzic was complaining that he didn't have control over the

25     territorial organs, or, rather, that nobody has any control over the

Page 4575

 1     territorial organs?  Would you agree with that or not?

 2        A.   No.

 3        Q.   Madam -- Mrs. Hanson, let's summarise this situation concerning

 4     the Crisis Staffs and the other organs which are the subject of your

 5     report.  I put it to you that the Crisis Staffs came into being on the

 6     basis of a concept, the committee of a total national defence and social

 7     self-protection, and that because of that, on all sides at the same time,

 8     in 1991 and 1992, they were set up.  In 1991, that is to say before

 9     variant -- Variants A and B, and according to certain information on the

10     territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina, there are over 950 Crisis Staffs on

11     all sides and throughout the republic.  Do you agree with that?

12        A.   The Crisis Staffs which are the subject of my report are not the

13     same as those 900 and however many Crisis Staffs.  We're talking

14     about two -- they're simply not the same thing.

15        Q.   It's interesting that the Prosecution accepted a moment ago, at

16     the beginning of our -- these proceedings today, that that was one and

17     the same thing, but never mind.  I'm not going to belabour the point and

18     comment.

19             Tell us, please, I put it to you that those Crisis Staffs, those

20     organs, were no specific feature invented by the Serb side.  They weren't

21     any secret organs of a shadow government or any such mystifications which

22     you claim in your report, but that they were the result of needs in view

23     of the fact that in the former Yugoslavia central power and authority had

24     toppled at all levels, the federal level, the republican level, and that

25     it no longer functioned.  Would you agree with that?

Page 4576

 1        A.   No.

 2        Q.   I put it to you further, madam, that as the situation was what it

 3     was, that the power and authority at federal republican level was not

 4     functioning properly and that all sides turned to a concept that existed

 5     in legislation and practice, that is to say the concept of total national

 6     defence and social self-protection, and that is where their uniformity

 7     comes from on all sides, the Muslim, the Croat, and the Serb side, that

 8     is, holding certain territory at a given period in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

 9             Do you agree with that?

10        A.   I agree that all sides turned to the concept of these committees.

11     I agree with that part of your proposition.

12        Q.   Would you then agree that in substance there was nothing criminal

13     in the setting up of the Crisis Staffs, because the concept itself and

14     the remit, authorisation, composition and role was stipulated by law?  It

15     was only that all their or organs, beginning with the Presidency of

16     Bosnia-Herzegovina, of the different parties, the different organs gave

17     different names to them.  Instead of calling them committees, they called

18     them Crisis Staffs.  Do you agree with that?

19             MR. DOBBYN:  Your Honours, at this point I'd like to interject.

20     I believe what's been put to the witness now is a matter for Your Honours

21     and not for her to comment on.

22             In addition, I haven't wanted to interrupt until this point but

23     beyond this particular question as well I believe quite properly my

24     colleague is putting his case or the differences to the witness.

25     However, these have been wrapped up in several questions in one, and if

Page 4577

 1     he is putting his case to her, I would ask also that it be single

 2     questions rather than combinations of questions and statements.

 3             JUDGE HALL:  You do of course appreciate that in inviting the

 4     witness on the stand to comment on the relevant aspects of your case it

 5     isn't helpful if you, as Mr. Dobbyn says, ask multiple -- compound

 6     questions.

 7             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, I'm -- [Interpretation] In keeping

 8     with Rule 90(H), I believe it is, I am putting to the witness what I am

 9     duty-bound to do following the rules.

10             JUDGE HALL:  There's no question about that.  It's just that if

11     the perception is from somebody else, in this case Mr. Dobbyn, that the

12     way it is put is in a way that it is unhelpful to the witness to

13     understand it because the witness is not going to be -- if she's asked

14     several questions and when any answer is meaningless because you don't

15     know what part she's accepting and what part she's not.  And that's why I

16     prefaced my comment to you by saying you agree.  So it's something that

17     you -- a rule that you well know.  It's simply a matter of your applying

18     it and phrasing your question appropriately.

19             MR. ZECEVIC:  I understand.  I understand, Your Honour, and I

20     will follow on that.

21        Q.   [Interpretation] Madam, my last question a moment ago was the

22     following:  Do you agree with me that there is nothing criminal in the

23     creation of the Crisis Staffs in view of the concept --

24             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, Mr. Dobbyn.

25             MR. DOBBYN:  I renew my objection.  The first point I made during

Page 4578

 1     my objection that this is a matter for Your Honours to decide.  This is

 2     not for this witness.

 3             MR. ZECEVIC:  I would -- I would appreciate if at least my

 4     learned colleague will wait until I pose the question.  Then probably the

 5     reason why he's objecting might not be there.

 6             MS. KORNER:  No.  Your Honour, may I intervene, because I dealt

 7     with this matter.  I said, in the absence of the witness, but I have made

 8     the Prosecution's positions clear about whether or not the establishment

 9     of the Crisis Staffs was criminal is a matter of evidence for Your

10     Honours.  It's not appropriate for the witness to give her view on

11     whether the establishment was criminal.  She's interpreting the evidence

12     as an expert and saying, these are the conclusions I come to as to what

13     happened.  The criminality or otherwise of that is not a matter for her.

14             JUDGE HALL:  In any event, I would have thought that the 40

15     minutes that we spent at the beginning of today's sitting would have

16     made -- would have taken this off the table.

17             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honour, I have to -- well, it is my duty to

18     question the Prosecution's case and assertion that he is developing

19     through his witnesses, because I have to have the basis for my closing

20     arguments.  If I have not challenged and questioned the positions and

21     conclusions of a Prosecution witness, then tomorrow when the time comes

22     at the end of the day when I come to make my closing arguments I won't

23     have sufficient arguments to present before the Trial Chamber for you to

24     be able to deliberate.  So that is why I'm forced to question this

25     witness just as I would any other, in keeping with the rules of this

Page 4579

 1     Tribunal and at all times and in each case to challenge the correctness

 2     of those positions.  So I can't give up on that role, nor does my

 3     conscious allow me to or my professional integrity allow me to give up on

 4     that.

 5             JUDGE HALL:  I don't think Mr. Dobbyn is expecting you to do

 6     that.  It just occurs to me, and unless I misunderstand Mr. Dobbyn's

 7     objection, this is the basis of his objection, that the conclusions which

 8     you -- well, the comments that you're seeking to elicit from the witness

 9     in the way you phrase your questions are bound up with the -- what, as I

10     said at the -- where we left off yesterday and then we resumed today, was

11     this whole matter of the Crisis Staffs of the Serbs in the context of

12     Crisis Staffs generally, and that is why, as I said earlier, I would have

13     thought that having regard to the common understanding at which we had

14     arrived earlier, that this is not a matter with which you need tax the

15     witness.

16             MR. ZECEVIC:  But, Your Honour, with all due respect, this

17     witness is, as -- as OTP introduced it, an expert witness on Crisis

18     Staffs.  Her theory is that Crisis Staffs of the Bosnian Serbs are the

19     invention of the criminal mind of the Bosnian leadership to create an

20     instrument by which the joint criminal enterprise will be furthered in

21     the territory.  That is her assertion.  She says, "I couldn't find a

22     single -- a single reference to Crisis Staffs in the -- in the

23     literature," and for this fact she's actually saying that the Crisis

24     Staffs were illegal.

25             I am putting my case to her that she's wrong and that her

Page 4580

 1     perception is wrong and that the Crisis Staffs were truly illegal

 2     according to the -- to the legal system of -- of the SFRY at the time.

 3     And there is nothing criminal about the establishment of these Crisis

 4     Staffs if they are established indeed as -- as the committees of -- in

 5     accordance with the law.

 6             And that is the question --

 7             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Zecevic, in the interests of time, if in your

 8     view this is absolutely necessary, and for myself I'm unpersuaded, please

 9     do so quickly.

10             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you, Your Honours.

11        Q.   [Interpretation] Mrs. Hanson, I hope I won't be interrupted for a

12     third time by the Prosecution.

13             Would you agree with me that if the Crisis Staffs were conceived

14     on the basis of the law governing total national defence and social

15     self-protection, they were neither illegal nor where they criminal

16     organs.  Yes or no?  Do you agree with me is what I'm asking you?

17        A.   If you could explain what you mean by "conceived on the basis"?

18     I see them parallel with these committees, but I do not see a reference

19     to the law itself in the formation of the Bosnian Serb Crisis Staffs.

20     And it's not for me to judge whether they're criminal or not.  As far as

21     I understand, that's not my job.

22        Q.   Very well, madam.  It is my case that they were absolutely based

23     on the law, fully based on the law, and that all those who established

24     them -- well, instead of committees, they would call them Crisis Staffs.

25     Do you agree with that or not?

Page 4581

 1        A.   No.  I have no basis to say they were based on the law.

 2        Q.   Very well.  Mrs. Hanson, since you're an historian, I am claiming

 3     that this concept of the formation of committees for total national

 4     defence and social self-protection only recognises -- is recognised by

 5     the legislation of Switzerland, for example, and no other legislation in

 6     the world.

 7        A.   Is that your question?

 8        Q.   Are you aware of the fact that only Swiss legislation has some

 9     similar concept, similar to the concept of total -- total national

10     defence and social self-protection?

11        A.   I'm not familiar with the legislation of Switzerland.

12        Q.   Do you agree with my assertion that the concept stemming from the

13     law on national defence or All People's Defence and social

14     self-protection with respect to the formation of committees under that

15     law never before 1991 on the territory of the former Yugoslavia was used

16     in practice, enforced in practice?

17        A.   I have no basis to agree or disagree.

18             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, I see the time.  Is it --

19             JUDGE HALL:  Yes.  I follow the clock in LiveNote rather than the

20     one on --

21             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, Your Honour, please.

22             JUDGE HALL:  Sorry, I follow the clock on LiveNote rather than

23     the one on the wall.  It seems that the one on the wall is out by about

24     two minutes so we are just a few seconds short, so if this a convenient

25     point, we'll take the break.

Page 4582

 1             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you very much.

 2                           [The witness stood down]

 3                           --- Recess taken at 5.19 p.m.

 4                           --- On resuming at 5.43 p.m.

 5             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, I would just need two minutes at the

 6     end of the day if I can raise two issues which would need your attention.

 7     Very small, and I think in two minutes we can do it, yes.

 8             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.  Do I recall that Ms. Korner had asked

 9     for time at the end of the day as well?  No.  Okay.

10             Well, we need one minute, so that would be three or four.

11             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you very much, Your Honours.  Actually, this

12     is the first -- one of the very -- few days that Ms. Korner wasn't asking

13     for the time at the end.

14                           [The witness takes the stand]

15             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, the Defence doesn't have any further

16     questions for this witness.

17             Thank you, Ms. Hanson, very much for your --

18             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you very much, Mr. Zecevic.

19             MR. ZECEVIC:  -- testimony.

20             THE WITNESS:  You're welcome.

21             MR. ZECEVIC:  And I say for letting me in the courtroom today.

22     Thank you very much.

23             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Pantelic.

24             MR. PANTELIC:  Yes.  Thank you, Your Honour.

25                           Cross-examination by Mr. Pantelic:

Page 4583

 1        Q.   Good evening.

 2        A.   Good evening.

 3        Q.   I'm Igor Pantelic, Defence counsel for Mr. Stojan Zupljanin.

 4             Mrs. Hanson, would you take a look on the Exhibit P434, which was

 5     marked for identification.  Actually, I believe that's your report.

 6        A.   I have it here.

 7             MR. PANTELIC:  Test, test, test.  Ten, four, ten, four.  Is it

 8     okay now?  I mean, the interpreters will --

 9        Q.   Yeah.  Before I pose you certain line of questions and number of

10     questions, please, for the sake of clarity I would very much appreciate

11     your help on -- it's a follow-up issue from -- which was just mentioned

12     by my learned friend Mr. Zecevic with regard to the interpretation in

13     English or the notion of committee for people self-defence and -- the

14     abbreviation which we'll use during this cross-examination will be ONO

15     and DSZ, actually.  I will spell, it's Oskar November Oskar, Delta Zulu

16     Sierra [sic].

17             You maybe can help me because you're an expert in history and

18     these particular categories.  Would it be more appropriate, I would say

19     English translation of this abbreviation like ONO means like people --

20     people's self-protection, All People's Self-Protection, and DSZ is --

21     well, it's always difficult to translate a certain rough Communist

22     explanations like -- because social, seems to me it's more related to

23     some social welfare or maybe the best way to translate would be a

24     national protection or something like that, DSZ.  National

25     self-protection, something to that.  What is your opinion about this

Page 4584

 1     particular abbreviation?

 2        A.   Opstinado [phoen] Odbrana General -- or All People's Defence, and

 3     social self-protection is how I've usually heard it translated.  I can't

 4     think of a better way to put it.

 5        Q.   I appreciate it, thank you so much.  Mrs. Hanson, so we have on

 6     the screen first page of your report, and - sorry - and we could agree,

 7     could we not, that this particular -- your report is not related to my

 8     client, Mr. Zupljanin, judging from the first page.

 9        A.   He was a member of a Crisis Staff.

10        Q.   We don't know yet, but I'm speaking about the form.  Would you

11     agree with me, would you not, that the first page of your report has

12     nothing to do with my client, Mr. Zupljanin, because this is a report

13     prepared for the case of Mico Stanisic, who is present here, but there is

14     no mention of Zupljanin name, and in addition, our case is IT-08-91-T.

15             MR. PANTELIC:  So for the sake of accuracy and for the record, I

16     would kindly ask guidance from the Trial Chamber how we should proceed

17     with this, because potentially this document might become at a certain

18     stage an exhibit?

19             JUDGE HALL:  But, Mr. Pantelic, if I recall at some point there

20     was a joinder of the cases, so doesn't that answer the question?  This

21     report is dated 15 February 2008, which -- and Judge Harhoff would

22     correct me, that was before the joinder.

23             MS. KORNER:  Or the arrest, Your Honour.

24             JUDGE HALL:  Or the arrest warrant Ms. Korner's at.  So is this

25     really in issue, Mr. Pantelic?

Page 4585

 1             MR. PANTELIC:  Not for me, Your Honour, but I don't want to split

 2     hair into two, but just for the clarity and if the Trial Chamber or, I

 3     don't know, the registry, not to mention our friends from the Prosecution

 4     side would like to clarify that or if it's a need for that.  Otherwise,

 5     I'm very relaxed.  No problem with me.

 6             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours, we'll accept full responsibility for

 7     the fact that we omitted to ask Ms. Hanson to amend her report to put on

 8     the title page "In the case of Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin."

 9             MR. PANTELIC:  Thank you, Mrs. Korner.

10        Q.   Mrs. Hanson, it is non-disputed fact that you are an employee of

11     the Office of the Prosecution at ICTY.  Is that correct?

12        A.   Correct.

13        Q.   And how long you are employed by the Office of the Prosecution?

14        A.   Since June 1999.

15        Q.   Up to the present time, I assume.

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   And in your work with the Office of the Prosecution, my

18     understanding that you were mostly focused on certain process of

19     research, analysis, preparing certain memos, drafts for the other members

20     of your team and your office.  Isn't that right?

21        A.   Yes.  I'm a researcher/analyst.  That's what I do.

22        Q.   And at certain stage it's my understanding that actually someone

23     from your office offered you or suggested to you that instead of working

24     on drafting memos, you may be able to produce a report.  Is that right?

25        A.   I have certainly continued to draft -- to write memos on various

Page 4586

 1     subjects ever -- even since my Crisis Staff memo was first identified as

 2     a potential expert report.  So it wasn't that I stopped writing memos,

 3     it's just that one of my research topics became an expert report.

 4        Q.   It is my understanding -- please, I apologise.  It is my

 5     understanding that actually you became a sort of by-chance expert within

 6     the Office of the Prosecutor, because it was not your original function.

 7     It was -- you didn't came here as a -- as an expert from academic

 8     circles, but actually it was on the basis of certain needs of your

 9     employer.  Isn't that right?

10        A.   That's not quite my understanding.  I came as an expert on the

11     conflict in general.  My -- the team I work for, the leadership research

12     team, is people who have some academic background.  Obviously I did not

13     arrive as a fully-fledged expert, but it was my own educational

14     background and knowledge that brought me to that team.

15             I worked on a number of topics, one of which, as I said, became

16     identified as a potential expert report.  Once the report was named an

17     expert report, I became an expert on that.  I had been assigned the topic

18     of Crisis Staffs, but I also work on other topics.

19        Q.   To summarise, Mrs. Hanson, in fact you are in-house expert,

20     aren't you?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   But you're not expert in the, I would say, other circles,

23     academics, science or some other circles of -- of activity like -- like

24     university or schools.  Not that sort of expert.  You are in-house expert

25     for Office of the Prosecution.  Am I correct?

Page 4587

 1        A.   I am an analyst for the Office of the Prosecution.  In my work I

 2     have become an expert on this particular topic.  As I say, yes, I'm not

 3     an expert in science or academics.  I'm not sure what you mean by that,

 4     but I'm not just an in-house expert is what I'm trying to say.  I do

 5     other work for the Prosecution besides being the in-house expert on

 6     Crisis Staffs.

 7        Q.   I -- my point is -- [Microphone not activated] Sorry.  My point

 8     is, Mrs. Hanson, in fact you are recognised by your office as an expert,

 9     but you are not recognised by the other institutions like academic

10     institutions or, let's say, conferences, various conferences or

11     organisations [indiscernible] for that.

12        A.   Yes, that's correct.

13        Q.   And to -- to go back, to go to the final question of this line,

14     so you would agree with me, would you not, that actually you wrote a

15     report, and then by this act you became an expert for the Prosecution; is

16     that right?

17        A.   My report, as I said, has been continually updated and I've been

18     working on it, so my expertise does not end with the writing of that

19     first report by a long shot, but, yes, I wrote the report and that made

20     me identified as a potential expert witness.

21        Q.   Thank you so much.  And in your professional background, which

22     personally I must admit it's interesting that you are -- actually, you

23     have a profound knowledge, I would say, about the Russian history and

24     East European history.  Am I right?

25        A.   No.  My Russian knowledge is only -- it's an undergraduate

Page 4588

 1     degree, and then I -- my East European degree was really Balkan history

 2     essentially.

 3        Q.   I see.  Yeah.  I mean, when you -- I mean, personally I'm

 4     interested because being a semi-Russian, you know, I'd just like to find

 5     some connections.  But Kennan Institute for advanced Russian studies, it

 6     was in DC you say.

 7        A.   Mm-hmm.

 8        Q.   And you say you were -- after your college you were performing

 9     certain researches.  Am I right?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   And tell me, probably you were travel around.  I mean, Central

12     Europe or Russia or Balkans, I believe?

13        A.   Yes.  What's your --

14        Q.   Mostly where?  In which region?  I assume Bosnia, but apart of

15     Bosnia -- aside of Bosnia?

16        A.   Relevant to my work here, the entire former Yugoslavia.

17        Q.   And you were in -- I mean, correct me.  It's my impression with

18     your -- also you were -- you are winner of Fulbright scholarship.

19        A.   Correct.

20        Q.   You might be an excellent person with an exquisite profile for

21     American intelligence services especially in this period when you are

22     travelling around Balkans.  Am I right with my impression?  I mean,

23     because you have certain experience from Ivy League.  You know, it's a

24     very -- very high-ranked universities.  I mean, would you say that you

25     might be interested for intelligence services?

Page 4589

 1        A.   That I would be interested?

 2        Q.   No, no, they for you.

 3        A.   I've had no contact with them so reason to think they are

 4     interested.

 5        Q.   So you are now telling us for the record that you were never

 6     approached by any member of American or other foreign intelligence

 7     services from the period of 1984 up to now, just for the record?

 8        A.   I was certainly never to my knowledge approached by anyone from

 9     American services.  I lived in Belgrade, worked at the General Staff of

10     the Yugoslav People's Army.  I had a few peculiar, you know, encounters

11     one has.  I can't say.  I was not aware that I was approached by any

12     foreign intelligence service, but I imagine I was of interest to them

13     because I was, as you say, an interesting-looking person working in the

14     JNA General Staff.  So I cannot say that no one that I talked to was not

15     from the Serbian or Yugoslav intelligence services, but I certainly had

16     never any reason to think -- to say that they were.

17        Q.   During -- because, you know, Mrs. Hanson, this is a very

18     interesting period when you were in Belgrade.  It was from -- I take it

19     from your CV it's from 1990 until 1992.  It's the break-up of Yugoslavia,

20     lots of -- I mean, it's very -- it's a coincidence you were there --

21        A.   I had nothing to do with the break-up of Yugoslavia.

22        Q.   Absolutely.  I take it that absolutely you don't have, but tell

23     me, at that time do you remember who was ambassador for US in Belgrade in

24     period of 1990 until 1992?

25        A.   Warren Zimmermann that I remember.  I don't remember if there

Page 4590

 1     were others, some changeover at the time.

 2        Q.   Were you in situation to meet personally Mr. Zimmermann in this

 3     period of time?

 4        A.   As a Fulbright scholar, yes.  There was some Fulbright party that

 5     he was at, and I think I went to the US Embassy 4th of July party, but

 6     that was the extent of my contact with him.

 7        Q.   Once, twice, dozens?

 8        A.   Twice.  Twice.

 9        Q.   Aside of Ambassador Zimmermann with some other employees or

10     functionaries from American Embassy, did you -- because finally I mean

11     you were living there for two years, I mean in this very, I would say,

12     tension period.  You know, the old guy Milosevic in power with all his

13     stuff that he's doing.  So for one American, it will be a little bit

14     uncomfortable to be there.  So you were in contact on a regular basis, I

15     believe, with your society from the embassy or some other Americans at

16     that time?

17        A.   Well, as a Fulbright scholar, yes, I had contact in the embassy

18     because the scholarship programme was overseen by the embassy or -- I

19     can't remember the exact form of the contact, but, yes, and I would go to

20     the American club which is located on the embassy premises, not once a

21     week but maybe once a month, would buy things at the shop there, but it

22     was purely social.  I never -- there was one woman who was in charge

23     of -- I forget the name of the programme but the part of Department of

24     State concerning cultural affairs.  She was my contact.  I took her once

25     to the General Staff to meet some of the people at the institute, but

Page 4591

 1     that was just a formal diplomatic sort of meet and greet, but I never had

 2     any -- any work-related contact with them.  It was just social.

 3        Q.   Yeah.  I remember good barbecue and beers in American club in

 4     embassy.  I share your opinion.  But tell me, Mrs. Hanson, did you travel

 5     at that time from Serbia to Bosnia?  Did you visit Bosnia at this period

 6     of time between 1990 and 1992?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   Where?  Where have you been?

 9        A.   Sarajevo and Zvornik area.

10        Q.   Could you just briefly a few words explain what was the purpose

11     of your trip to Sarajevo and Zvornik area at that time?

12        A.   Sarajevo I was -- a friend of mine was visiting.  He's a

13     Norwegian diplomat, and he wanted to -- he was just meeting various

14     people, sort of -- so I introduced him to a couple of people in Belgrade

15     and then he wanted to see Sarajevo.  So we went there.

16             The Zvornik area is -- it was personal.

17        Q.   And tell me, at this period of time what was your area of

18     research in -- in -- correct me if I'm wrong, in -- I can give you a name

19     of the institution.  Military Historical Institute of the JNA.

20        A.   Yes.  I was researching my dissertation topic for my Ph.D., which

21     was on the army of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, the inter-war period.

22        Q.   And after this period being in Serbia, you left to the States, I

23     believe, or after 1992.

24        A.   Yes.  May of 1992 I left Belgrade and returned to the States.  I

25     stopped in Norway to see those friends, but --

Page 4592

 1        Q.   I take it that during your visit to Bosnia it was the outbreak of

 2     hostilities there or it was still calm, because --

 3        A.   It was the 1st of April, 1992, so --

 4        Q.   1st of April, 1992, and you were in Sarajevo?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   Apart of being in-house expert, maybe somebody will call you for

 7     a witness, you know, viva voce because you're a fact witness too.  But

 8     tell me, how long you were there in Sarajevo at that time?

 9        A.   At that time I believe it was just two or three days.

10        Q.   Yeah.  And between 1992 and 1999, have you often visited region

11     of Bosnia-Herzegovina?  For of course your research and --

12        A.   Only one time, between -- yeah, between 1992 and starting here in

13     1999 only one time.

14        Q.   And then --

15        A.   It wasn't for research.  It was for something else.

16        Q.   So when you came here, you start your work as a political

17     analyst, among other fields of activity in -- yeah.

18        A.   Yeah.

19        Q.   And the main topic, I would say, or -- or area, and I believe it

20     still is now, research on top political leadership of Republika Srpska.

21     Am I right?

22        A.   The team as a whole deals with the political leadership.  At

23     first -- the first two years I was not on Republika Srpska.  I was on

24     FRY, Federal Yugoslavia -- Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

25        Q.   And during your work, it's undisputed fact that you were able to

Page 4593

 1     read and analyse tons, I would say, materials, pages, thousands pages.

 2        A.   Correct.

 3        Q.   And what is your personal opinion after reading all these pages?

 4     What is your personal opinion about the SDS party?  Do you like SDS

 5     party?  What is your opinion?  Simple question.

 6        A.   My personal opinion --

 7        Q.   [Overlapping speakers] -- simple --

 8        A.   -- is different from my professional.  I don't --

 9        Q.   Do you like or dislike SDS?  Simple question.  Simple answer.

10        A.   I don't care.  I don't have feelings of like or dislike for it.

11     It's a topic I studied.

12        Q.   So you are neutral to SDS, SDS policy, SDS programme, statute.

13     That's simple question.  Give me a simple --

14        A.   I'm certainly neutral to the statute of the party, and I consider

15     it my job to be as neutral as possible in everything I look at.

16        Q.   But what about Dr. Radovan Karadzic?  What -- do you like him or

17     dislike him?  What is your personal position?  No, no, no.

18             MR. DOBBYN:  Your Honours, it has gone on for a while but I think

19     it's about time I stood up now and noted my objection to his questions

20     about her personal opinion on these different matters.

21             JUDGE HALL:  And I declined to intervene waiting on the cue from

22     the Prosecution.

23             Yes, Mr. Pantelic.  Where are we going?

24             MR. PANTELIC:  We are going, Your Honour, to establish the

25     personal approach of this witness with regard to certain institutions,

Page 4594

 1     certain personalities.  We are going, Your Honour, to the road of

 2     objectivity or to the road of bias.  So I want to establish Mrs. Hanson

 3     personal approach to this very matters.  That's my point.

 4             JUDGE HALL:  I anticipated that reply, Mr. Pantelic, but it seems

 5     that it's possible for you to lay this foundation for your challenge of

 6     bias much more succinctly than you've been doing.

 7             MR. PANTELIC:  I'll do that, Your Honour.

 8        Q.   So, Mrs. Hanson, being an employee of the Office of the

 9     Prosecution, you are actually an important part of the team to assist and

10     to prove Prosecution theory of the case.  I'm speaking about this

11     particular case, Stanisic and Zupljanin.  Am I right?

12        A.   It's not my job to prove their theory.  It's my job to give them

13     the facts that I have found, the evidence I have found.  And I do not

14     serve them if I present a biased view.  I do not serve them if I do not

15     give them the whole truth.  I understand that to be my job.

16        Q.   You'd agree with me, would you not, that this is a rather unique

17     and, I would say, almost impossible position.  How you can be neutral and

18     stand on the objective level but at the same time working for the Office

19     of the Prosecution, being paid by the Office of the Prosecution --

20             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Pantelic --

21             MR. PANTELIC:  Yes, Your Honour.

22             JUDGE HALL:  -- I must shut down from that line because she

23     having been -- this matter has been dealt with in the Appeals Chamber and

24     she's been deemed an expert in this trial.  So that line is

25     impermissible.

Page 4595

 1             MR. PANTELIC:  Your Honour, absolutely I will follow your

 2     direction.

 3        Q.   Okay.  So, Mrs. Hanson, maybe I will be back on certain aspects

 4     of this issue, but of course under the instruction of the Trial Chamber

 5     and following the direction.

 6             Tell me, Mrs. Hanson, you are not an expert in constitutional

 7     law.

 8        A.   Correct.

 9        Q.   You are not an expert in public international law.

10        A.   Correct.

11        Q.   You are not an expert in police matters.

12        A.   Correct.

13        Q.   But you assume yourself as an expert for political issues.  Am I

14     correct?  Speaking of -- sorry.  Before you answer, speaking about the

15     political aspects, events in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1991, 1992, and

16     this period.  How -- how you will describe your credentials regarding

17     that issue?

18        A.   My credentials, as I have said before, my educational background

19     as an historian, my experience as an analyst, my knowledge from the

20     documents I've read.  Yes, I have a knowledge about the events in the

21     former Yugoslavia that certainly far exceeds the average person's.  I've

22     been identified as an expert on this topic of crisis staffs --

23        Q.   Sorry to interrupt you, Ms. Hanson.  It's a very simple question.

24     Are you considering yourself as a political expert -- expert, sorry, for

25     the events in Bosnia-Herzegovina?  More directly and more specifically,

Page 4596

 1     I'm asking you are you familiar with the events before the proclamation

 2     of independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina?  Are you familiar with the

 3     political life, political players in that region and the, let's say,

 4     period after the beginning of 1992 in terms of political development?

 5     Simply as that.  Are you consider yourself familiar to be an expert?

 6        A.   Well, I think there's a large --

 7        Q.   Yes or no [overlapping speakers]

 8        A.   -- between -- familiar, yes.

 9        Q.   But not as -- you're not an expert in political life in Bosnia?

10        A.   I'm too modest to call myself an expert but I'll say I'm

11     familiar.

12        Q.   Fair enough.  My learned friend Mr. Zecevic covered practically

13     almost all areas and aspects, so I would like to summarise for the sake

14     of the transcript and for the sake of this case.

15             First of all, would you agree with me, would you not,

16     Mrs. Hanson, that Bosnia-Herzegovina was comparing to the other former

17     Yugoslav republic specific in terms of the existence of three constituent

18     nations at that time?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   And that certain safeguards or let me say some constitutional or

21     political mechanism were imposed to protect the sort of vital interest of

22     all three constituent nations in Bosnia-Herzegovina.  Am I right?

23        A.   What time period are you talking about, the --

24        Q.   Before 1992.

25        A.   All three nations were recognised in the constitution, but I

Page 4597

 1     can't speak with certainty of the constitutional mechanisms imposed, as

 2     you say, so ...

 3        Q.   So if I tell you that the certain principles of protection of

 4     vital interest of each nation existed at that time, do you have any

 5     reason to doubt my proposition?

 6        A.   As I say, I'm familiar with the principle.  I'm not familiar with

 7     the mechanism that you've mentioned.

 8        Q.   And how would you described being person familiar with the

 9     political issues?  With respect I would say, how would you describe the

10     development in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the mid of October 1991, which

11     eventually resulted in -- in organisation of Serbian plebiscite?  How

12     would you describe this events in short words?

13        A.   As Slovenia and Croatia were leaving the former Yugoslavia, the

14     issue then of the status of Bosnia arose.  The Serb side was eager to

15     keep Bosnia within a reduced Yugoslavia.  The other national parties were

16     figuring out how best to protect their interests and whether to secure --

17     to see if Bosnia should go the route of independence.  The future was

18     uncertain.  Things were tense.

19             I'm sorry, I'm not very good at a history lecture off the top of

20     my head.  I don't know what more --

21        Q.   Okay.  Okay.  I agree.  I agree.  I will try to help you and to

22     refresh your memory and to try to go together through this line of

23     questioning.  I agree.

24             Let me remind you that on the -- in the mid of October, Serbian

25     deputies were over-voted in Assembly of Bosnia-Herzegovina and they left

Page 4598

 1     this.  Are you familiar with this fact?

 2        A.   Yes, of course.

 3             MR. DOBBYN:  Your Honours, I just wonder how this ties into

 4     Ms. Hanson's testimony.  The scope of her expertise is very clear,

 5     Bosnian Serb Crisis Staffs.  I'm just not sure how this fits in and how

 6     she is an expert to be answering these questions at the moment.

 7             MR. PANTELIC:  Well, my dear friend, Mrs. Hanson -- my

 8     understanding is that -- and, Your Honour, she is the -- among all other

 9     areas, I try to find and I think I found that she's more familiar with

10     the political issues than all other issues that -- including the other

11     issues that she's speaking.  So I try to -- with her to go to the

12     conclusion and the origins of the formation of Crisis Staff and the

13     function of the Crisis Staff, but starting from certain point, because

14     it's fact of common knowledge here that Crisis Staff didn't land from the

15     Mars in Bosnia.  So let's see the background of certain events which led

16     to the ultimate issue, which is the case here, and that's why Mrs. Hanson

17     is testifying.  So I think it's perfectly legitimate question, especially

18     because she's political analyst, Your Honour.  But she is not police

19     expert.  She is not lawyer.  She is not public international lawyer.  So

20     what shall I ask her apart of this?  That's my point, Your Honour.

21             JUDGE HALL:  I think we understand that, Mr. Pantelic, and of

22     course we know that everything has a prior cause, but we needn't go all

23     the way back to the garden of Eden.  So if you could bring it nearer home

24     to the expertise which this witness -- on the basis of which this witness

25     was proffered by the Prosecution it would be in everybody's interests.

Page 4599

 1             MR. PANTELIC:  Absolutely, Your Honour, that's my intention.

 2        Q.   So when the Serbian deputies were over-voted and by the way,

 3     being a political analyst you can agree with me that many authors, very

 4     serious authors, wrote about, like Susan Woodward, you are familiar with

 5     her, like I think Robert Biden or even Ambassador Zimmermann wrote about

 6     all these events, so you would agree with me that the turning point, the

 7     milestone for the later events in Bosnia were the moment of over-voting

 8     of Serbian deputies in Assembly of Bosnia-Herzegovina.  Am I right?  Just

 9     speaking about this moment.

10        A.   Nothing is inevitable.  Decisions were made throughout, so I

11     wouldn't say there's one turning point.  People always had choices on how

12     to act.  So I wouldn't say that one event meant that all the later events

13     were absolutely inevitable.

14        Q.   But finally, I mean, this particular event happened.  Am I right?

15     Where the Serbs were over-voted in Bosnia Assembly and left the Assembly.

16     Am I right or not?

17        A.   They were --

18        Q.   No, no.  I don't like -- sorry.  I don't want to hear, sorry,

19     Mrs. Hanson, because you want to go faster.  It's not a matter of your

20     opinion.  You will have opportunity to express your opinion when my

21     learned friend will ask you in re-examination.  It's a simple fact.

22     You're political analyst.  You're drafting and submitting your report.

23     My simple question is:  Are you aware that in the mid of October, between

24     14 and 15 of October, Serbian deputies left Bosnian Assembly due to the

25     over-voting by Muslim and Croat deputies?  Yes or no?  Are you familiar

Page 4600

 1     or are you not familiar?  Simple question.

 2        A.   Yes, I am familiar.

 3        Q.   Thank you so much.  Let's go to another point.

 4             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Pantelic, I must say --

 5             MR. PANTELIC:  Yes, Your Honour.

 6             JUDGE HARHOFF:  -- this witness may be an expert in the history

 7     of the former Republic of Yugoslavia and in many other issues, but she is

 8     called here as an expert in relation to the Serbian Crisis Staffs, and I

 9     think you have to stick to that particular area and to stay there,

10     actually.  So this may all be very interesting, but this witness is not

11     here to testify about that.

12             MR. PANTELIC:  Your Honour, I completely agree with you.  What I

13     needed it's only one simple yes and then I can move on.

14             JUDGE HARHOFF:  No, because you keep pursuing the benefit of this

15     witness's particular knowledge about the history of the affairs, but as

16     interesting as that might be, it is beyond the scope of her expertise for

17     these purposes as a witness in this trial.  You have to stay very close

18     to the area of Crisis Staffs.

19             MR. PANTELIC:  I agree.

20        Q.   And then I'm sure you are familiar with the fact that these

21     Serbian MPs or deputies, they formed a Serbian Assembly, actually

22     Assembly of Serbian nation in Bosnia and Herzegovina after they left

23     Bosnian-Herzegovinian Assembly.  Am I right?

24        A.   Yes, I'm familiar with that.  Correct.

25        Q.   And tell me, are you aware, because you read a lot of documents,

Page 4601

 1     from which parties were Serbian MPs in this particular Assembly, Serbian

 2     Assembly?  Can you give us a list if you know?

 3        A.   The majority were from the SDS.  There were some from the SPO,

 4     maybe one of the reform -- the Union of Reformist Forces.  I can't be

 5     sure, but certainly the great majority was SDS.

 6        Q.   And how many deputies were Serbian Assembly consist of?

 7        A.   I don't know.

 8        Q.   Would you agree with me that in the -- many cases -- no, no.  I

 9     will come to that later.  Sorry.

10             After the formation of Assembly of Serbian People of

11     Bosnia-Herzegovina, did they in January, I believe, proclaimed Serbian

12     Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, but let's call it Republika Srpska.  Am I

13     right?

14             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Pantelic.

15             MR. PANTELIC:  Yes, Your Honour.

16             JUDGE DELVOIE:  What's the use of agreeing with Judge Harhoff,

17     Judge Harhoff's remark, and then continue as if nothing were?  I mean,

18     what -- what's the relation to the topic of Crisis Staffs?

19             MR. PANTELIC:  Absolutely, Your Honour.  I agree with you.

20             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you.

21             MR. PANTELIC:  Please bear with me.  I will just come to that

22     point immediately.

23        Q.   So, Mrs. Hanson, tell me, are you familiar with the fact that

24     after the formation of Republika Srpska a process of -- of formation of

25     Serbian municipality actually took place in the beginning of 1992?  Are

Page 4602

 1     you familiar with that fact?

 2        A.   Some of them took place before that.  Already in November the

 3     Assembly is calling for Serbian Municipal Assemblies and Serbian

 4     municipalities.  The formation started, we see, late December in some

 5     places.  So from late -- from December on, I would say, yeah.

 6        Q.   And could you tell us, please, these Serbian municipalities were

 7     consist of which parties, deputies?  Can you tell us?  To be honest with

 8     you, would you agree with me that actually the structure of -- of Serbian

 9     MPs in -- in Assembly of Serbia -- Serbian Republic actually mirrored on

10     a municipal level more or less?

11        A.   Most municipalities, yes.  Most Serbs voted for the SDS.  Not

12     every municipality, but most of them.  So when the Serb deputies left

13     Municipal Assemblies and formed Serbian Municipal Assemblies, they were

14     largely SDS.

15        Q.   And it was perfectly legitimate, I would say in political terms,

16     fact that if SDS won elections in Bosnia, practically they were on the

17     basis of this result in majority also in Municipal Assemblies.  Am I

18     right?  I mean, the point is, they are not came there like invaders.  I

19     mean, they were elected.

20        A.   They were elected in municipal elections to the Municipal

21     Assemblies, yes.

22        Q.   Sure.  And tell me, are you aware of the fact that -- for

23     example, how familiar are you with the Crisis Staff issue and the

24     development in -- in Samac municipality?  Did you -- were you able to --

25     to perform certain research on that municipality?

Page 4603

 1        A.   I've read documents of the Samac Crisis Staff.  I didn't prepare

 2     it per se.  I have read many documents, and therefore although I'm

 3     familiar in general terms, without consulting the documents again I

 4     wouldn't want to speak with any authority, but I've certainly read the

 5     documents of the Samac Crisis Staff, yes.

 6        Q.   And fortunately I was -- I was a Defence counsel for a mayor of

 7     Samac and the chief of Crisis Staffs so I'm a little bit more familiar,

 8     of course we have a final judgement in that case.

 9             Are you aware of the fact that in Samac Crisis Staff other

10     political parties were -- I mean, the members of other political parties

11     were a member of that Crisis Staff?  Are you aware of the fact?

12        A.   Yes.  I -- Mr. Zecevic also earlier asked me about that one.

13        Q.   Are you familiar that, for example, a former Communist Party SDP

14     member was -- was at the same time member of Samac municipality?  Just

15     tell me.  If you don't remember, I take it.  No problem.

16        A.   I'm not aware of that, but I don't contest it.

17        Q.   Are you aware that a member of social democratic party was -- was

18     actually a member of Samac municipality Crisis Staff?

19        A.   Isn't that the SDP?

20        Q.   Yes.

21        A.   Yes.  I just answered that.

22        Q.   No, no, it was -- actually -- sorry, it was Ante Markovic

23     reformist, Reformist Party.  Sorry, my mistake.

24        A.   I'm not specifically aware of that, of the membership, but ...

25        Q.   And also you're aware and you confirm that member of Muslim

Page 4604

 1     people, Muslim community, was at the same time member of Samac Crisis

 2     Staff?

 3        A.   I was aware of the name.  The name, of course, suggests Muslim.

 4     I'm not aware of his party affiliation.

 5        Q.   Okay.  Are you aware of the fact that for example in a certain

 6     number of -- of municipalities like -- like Samac, like Sanski Most, like

 7     Doboj, among all three parties, meaning Serb, Croat, and Muslim, through

 8     their Crisis Staff in the beginning of 1992, more precisely in March and

 9     April, there were ongoing discussions and negotiations with regard to

10     the -- to the formation of -- of various municipalities along the lines

11     of -- of national parties?  Are you aware of the fact that members of

12     SDA, HDZ, and SDS negotiated in terms of splitting municipality territory

13     in this couple of examples?  Are you aware about the fact?

14        A.   I'm aware of in Samac, not Doboj and Sanski Most, but I have seen

15     it also in other municipalities this topic raised.

16        Q.   Thank you.  That was the -- my point, actually.

17             So you -- I don't think you have a reason to -- to disagree with

18     me, but you take it as a normal political process of negotiation among

19     the parties in light of the local and municipal interest.  I mean,

20     nothing -- nothing illegitimate in this process.  How do you find this?

21        A.   I do not find it a normal political process both from the

22     documents I've seen and what witnesses I know have said, but the process

23     of dividing the municipalities was not accepted on all sides, was not

24     seen as legitimate on all sides, and was not -- it was not a free and

25     relaxed negotiation by -- by any means.

Page 4605

 1        Q.   By being -- by being political analyst and researcher, you are

 2     aware that number of international efforts and mediations were put on the

 3     scene at the beginning of 1992 in order to find a solution to resolve the

 4     crisis in Bosnia.  Are you aware about that, about international efforts?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   And are you aware that, for example, on the basis of Lisbon

 7     conference, we call it Cutileiro Plan, the general framework for the

 8     constitutional, I would say basis for Bosnia-Herzegovina future were

 9     adopted.  Are you aware of the Cutileiro Plan?

10        A.   I am aware of the Cutileiro Plan.

11        Q.   Whereas three constituent nation in Bosnia practically were, I

12     would say, advised to form three entities within Bosnia.  Are you aware

13     about it?

14        A.   Yes, yes.

15        Q.   And on the basis of that same plan, certain territory of a number

16     of municipalities simply were divided.  Are you aware about that aspect

17     of the Cutileiro Plan?

18        A.   The Cutileiro --

19        Q.   Just yes or no.  Don't -- because let's go to other topic.  Are

20     you aware or not?

21        A.   Okay.  No.

22        Q.   Are you aware of the situation based on Dayton Peace Accord where

23     a certain number of municipalities actually were split on the basis of

24     that agreement?  Are you aware about that fact?

25        A.   Yes, I am.

Page 4606

 1        Q.   And in conclusion, are you ready to reconsider your previous

 2     answer with regard to the process of formation of new municipalities

 3     based on what you just gave me answers?

 4        A.   No.

 5        Q.   It is your right, by all means.  And tell me, what do you know

 6     about the region called Autonomous Region of Krajina?  Abbreviation is

 7     ARK.  What is your personal knowledge of that entity?

 8        A.   I am aware of the general steps in its formation.  I am aware --

 9     I've seen many documents from it.  There's been a whole case --

10        Q.   [Overlapping speakers]

11        A.   -- about it.  If you could be more specific.

12        Q.   Sorry, yes, I can be.  Let's start from the beginning.  Tell me

13     when this ARK region was formed.  According to your knowledge, of course.

14        A.   I believe it was -- that term was given to the earlier community

15     of municipalities of Bosanska Krajina in, I would say, August 1991, but

16     I'm not quite sure.  That's not what I prepared for.

17        Q.   It's no problem.  I will help you.

18             MR. PANTELIC:  Can I call, please -- it's 65 ter document number

19     17.  Actually, this is the statute of ARK.  So we could take a look and

20     make some -- some questions here.  Yes.

21        Q.   So could you -- okay.  Good.  What we have on the -- on the

22     bottom left side is "September 1991."  Is that correct?

23        A.   Yes.

24             MR. PANTELIC:  Could we have the second page, please, of this

25     document.

Page 4607

 1        Q.   And in the preamble of this document we have an exact date.  This

 2     is the 16 of September, 1991.  You -- you see that.  Also, we see the

 3     legal basis for the formation of that region.  Is that correct?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   To be precise, the basis was the certain provisions of

 6     constitution of Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.  So now,

 7     actually, we are speaking of the certain constitutional form of the

 8     region.  Am I correct?

 9        A.   That's what they cite, yes.

10        Q.   And then in your work analysing the decisions and activities

11     of -- of ARK, could you tell us, please, who were the members of Assembly

12     of ARK at that time?  I mean, in terms of party or ...

13        A.   My understanding is the Assembly would be made up majority of SDS

14     representatives, but I have not looked at that part of ARK in any depth,

15     and I'm reluctant to talk much about it.

16        Q.   I can help you maybe.  SDA also members were there, I believe.

17             MR. DOBBYN:  Your Honours, perhaps if we could see the document

18     that this information is coming from rather than perhaps testing the --

19     Ms. Hanson's memory.  It may help us move through this quicker.

20             MR. PANTELIC:  It will be almost impossible, Your Honour, because

21     informations are coming from my head.  So it will be very painful for me

22     to cut the -- to cut the -- this part of my mind.

23        Q.   Okay.  But could we agree that on the basis of multi-party

24     elections in 1990 all practically parties, including SDS, SDA, HDZ and

25     Reformist were actually members of Assembly of ARK?  Say yes, if you

Page 4608

 1     know.  Say no if you don't know.  Simply as that.

 2        A.   No, I would not agree with that statement, because the -- there

 3     were no elections to the Assembly of ARK in 1990.

 4        Q.   Yes, to that extent you're right, but what was the basis of

 5     formation of ARK?

 6        A.   Based on an earlier form of association of municipalities which

 7     did exist on, as far as I understood, of economic interest, the

 8     association of municipality of Bosanska Krajina was the basis for the

 9     formation of ARK, but it was a big step from association of

10     municipalities to autonomous region, and although the various

11     municipalities might have sent deputies from different parties to the

12     association of municipalities, by the time it became this autonomous

13     region it became a largely Serbian and SDS endeavour.

14        Q.   Yes, but can you tell me, you would agree with me that in ARK the

15     Assembly was formed actually, at that time.

16        A.   The Assembly of ARK --

17        Q.   Yes.

18        A.   -- was formed.  I don't know enough about the mechanisms of the

19     association of municipalities to know if there was an Assembly of that.

20     Again, it's not a topic that I claim to be an expert on.

21        Q.   No, no.  My question was simply because you mentioned that you

22     personally went through all this documents, all the mechanism.  That's

23     why I'm asking you this several questions, because in fact my point is

24     that before the formation of -- of Republika Srpska, on the basis of

25     constitutional principles and provisions of socialist Republic of Bosnia

Page 4609

 1     and Herzegovina actually ARK was formed.  And in the Assembly of ARK were

 2     on the basis of certain results of election all three nations.  That's my

 3     point.  Am I right or not?

 4        A.   My understanding is there were no elections to the Assembly of

 5     ARK, so I can't answer that.  And the constitutional provisions for the

 6     association of municipalities does not provide for the kind of powers

 7     that ARK gave itself.

 8        Q.   I agree with your -- with your information, but let's go to page

 9     8 of B/C/S version, actually --

10             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Pantelic.

11             MR. PANTELIC:  Yes.

12             JUDGE HALL:  If I may interrupt just to allow for the possibility

13     of Mr. Zecevic's two minutes and the Chamber's one minute exceeding 180

14     seconds, perhaps you could wind down now to allow us time to deal with

15     those matters.

16             MR. PANTELIC:  Yes.  Yes, Your Honour.  By all means.  Don't

17     worry.

18        Q.   Let's go to -- to Article 28 of -- of the statute of ARK where we

19     see that we have -- yes, sorry.  28, yes.  Where we see the organs of the

20     Assembly, which is of course chairman or speaker, vice-president, second

21     vice-president, and the provisions that the method of the election shall

22     be -- shall be determined by the Assembly, and they were all member --

23     they were all member of the Assembly.  And actually, this was based and

24     formed on the basis of elections from 1991.

25             In fact, Mrs. Hanson, are you aware of the fact that the Assembly

Page 4610

 1     of ARK was formed and where all political parties and representatives of

 2     all three nations were work on the basis of the provisions of this

 3     statute?  Yes or no?

 4        A.   No, I am not aware.

 5        Q.   Okay.  And then can you take a look on the Article 41 of the

 6     statute where -- 41, yes.  This is page 11 of -- yeah.  Could you --

 7     could you just scroll up, please, this page.  Okay.

 8             So we see in article 41 that this statute actually is the --

 9     replacing a previous statute of self-governing regional community of

10     Banja Luka municipality with regard to the provisions of Official Gazette

11     number 11 from 77, which means that actually this region was even

12     established almost 20 years ago.  Are you aware of this fact?

13        A.   Yes, I already talked about the association of municipalities.

14     That's what I'm referring to.

15        Q.   And that ARK was actually successor of this previous body.  Am I

16     right?

17        A.   It declared itself to be the successor, yes, but it --

18        Q.   But on the basis -- Mrs. Hanson, please, not on the basis of

19     Serbian constitution but on the basis of Bosnian and Herzegovinian

20     constitution.  Don't forget we passed this issue in the preamble.  Am I

21     right?

22        A.   I agree.  They cited the constitution.  I don't know that

23     specific provision that they cited.

24             MR. PANTELIC:  Thank you.  Your Honour, I think it's now time for

25     this couple of hundreds of seconds.  Thank you.

Page 4611

 1             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.  Mrs. Hanson, you'll appreciate that your

 2     testimony --

 3             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

 4             JUDGE HALL:  You will appreciate your testimony is not yet at an

 5     end.  We will resume tomorrow morning in Courtroom I at 9.00, and I will

 6     now ask the usher to escort you from the courtroom.  Thank you.

 7                           [The witness stands down]

 8             JUDGE HALL:  In its assessment of the Rule 92 bis evidence, the

 9     Trial Chamber noticed that in relation to Witness ST-48, the Prosecution

10     seeks to tender one statement given by the witness on 10 March 2003 to

11     the Prosecution's investigators.  However, while this statement is

12     provided in B/C/S, no English translation can be found in the Rule 92 bis

13     package provided.  Moreover, the electronic file for Witness ST-48

14     contains the following two additional statements that are not listed

15     either in Annex A or Annex B to the motion:  One, one statement given by

16     the witness to Prosecution's investigators on 8 December 1989, which is

17     provided in B/C/S and English and two, one statement given by the witness

18     to the Bavarian Criminal Investigations Department in Munich on 17

19     November 1998, which is provided in B/C/S, English, and German.

20             For these reasons the Trial Chamber orders the Prosecution to

21     submit the English translation of the 10th of March 2003 statement as

22     soon as possible before the recess and to clarify if it seeks to tender

23     into evidence the above-mentioned two documents.

24             MS. KORNER:  I haven't the faintest idea who Witness ST-48 is,

25     but do you want a motion filed again or simply could we just hand over

Page 4612

 1     the translation if we haven't already done it and whatever else it is you

 2     are requiring?  All you want to do is put it in e-court.  You don't want

 3     us to file a motion.  Absolutely.

 4             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.  Yes, Mr. Zecevic.

 5             MR. ZECEVIC:  Much obliged, Your Honours.  Your Honours, there

 6     are two or three issues very shortly.  We have here in The Hague our

 7     joint expert and police professor Bajagic, and with the leave of the

 8     Trial Chamber, we would like to have him during the examination of the

 9     next witness, Mr. Nielsen, to have him at -- at our hand, so to speak,

10     inside the courtroom to follow the testimony of the expert witness which

11     he will be confronting in his testimony during the Defence case.

12             Now, this is -- Mr. Bajagic is our joint expert for Zupljanin and

13     Stanisic team.  He will -- he is nominated.  He is appointed as our

14     expert, and he will appear in our Defence team -- in our Defence case.

15     I'm sorry.  I'm a bit tired.  So we will want the Trial Chamber is a

16     leave that he is present here in the courtroom during the testimony of

17     expert Mr. Nielsen, that he can advise us and give us --

18             JUDGE HALL:  Let's see if the Prosecution has a view on this.

19             MS. KORNER:  No objection, Your Honour.

20             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you very much, Your Honours.  The second

21     thing, Your Honours, I would kindly ...

22                           [Trial Chamber confers]

23             JUDGE HALL:  Sorry, Mr. Zecevic.  Mr. Zecevic, did I hear you

24     correctly that this person who you would wish to have -- whose assistance

25     you would wish to have immediately would later be called as a witness by

Page 4613

 1     you?

 2             MR. ZECEVIC:  That is correct, Your Honours.

 3             MS. KORNER:  If he is an expert, there is no objection to it

 4     indeed.  I mean, in many jurisdictions now there would be a full exchange

 5     of experts reports.  If he is being called as an expert and only as an

 6     expert and not as a witness as to fact, then --

 7             MR. ZECEVIC:  Only as an expert.

 8             JUDGE HALL:  The Chamber agrees.  The second matter.

 9             MR. ZECEVIC:  The second matter, Your Honours, is we will ask

10     kindly the leave of the Trial Chamber for the cross-examination of

11     Mr. Nielsen that both counsels can deal with the cross-examination,

12     because, Your Honours, Mr. Nielsen initially was my witness but due to

13     the schedule I couldn't prepare Mr. -- Ms. Hanson and Mr. Nielsen

14     parallelly.  So therefore Mr. Cvijetic will conduct the first part of the

15     cross-examination and then I will, with your leave, continue

16     cross-examining the witness Nielsen.

17             JUDGE HALL:  There's no difficulty with your sharing the work if

18     that's how --

19             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you very much.  And the third thing, Your

20     Honours, we discussed the -- our filing for the documents with -- with

21     Ms. Hanson, and I would just like an indication when does the Trial

22     Chamber expects us to file that motion with the documents, for admission

23     of the documents in two groups?

24             JUDGE HALL:  Could we answer that tomorrow?

25             MR. ZECEVIC:  By all means you can, Your Honour.  I was just

Page 4614

 1     hoping that I -- that my time doesn't run out tomorrow.  That's why I'm

 2     bringing it up.  Thank you.

 3             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour, needless to say I am reminded of

 4     something I do want to raise.  It will take 30 seconds.  Can we go into

 5     private session.

 6             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, private session.

 7                           [Private session]

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 4615

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.03 p.m.,

 6                           to be reconvened on Friday, the 11th day

 7                           of December, 2009, at 9.00 a.m.