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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
9 are illegitimate organs, that they were invented, that they were formed
10 by the SDS
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
16 situation developed in the former Yugoslavia
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
5 The Defence maintains that that concept which was envisaged by
6 the rules prescribed by the former Yugoslavia
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
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
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
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
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
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
20 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes.
21 JUDGE HALL
22 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes.
23 JUDGE HALL
25 [The witness takes the stand]
1 WITNESS: DOROTHEA HANSON [Resumed]
2 JUDGE HALL
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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.
21 Two, whether outdoor cafes where live bands play can have these
22 bands playing until 11.00 p.m.
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?
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
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
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
20 JUDGE HALL
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 --
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
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
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
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
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
25 As far as the Article 31, I make no judgement about whether it's
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
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
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 --
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
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
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
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
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
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
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;
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
12 JUDGE HALL
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
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
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
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 --
1 just trying to correct the sentence as written as -- as you read the
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
24 toppled at all levels, the federal level, the republican level, and that
25 it no longer functioned. Would you agree with that?
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
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
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
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
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
25 MR. DOBBYN: I renew my objection. The first point I made during
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
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
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
5 JUDGE HALL
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
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
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
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?
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
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
20 one on --
21 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Your Honour, please.
22 JUDGE HALL
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.
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
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
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
24 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.
25 Cross-examination by Mr. Pantelic:
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
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
20 was a joinder of the cases, so doesn't that answer the question? This
21 report is dated 15 February 2008
22 correct me, that was before the joinder.
23 MS. KORNER: Or the arrest, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE HALL
25 really in issue, Mr. Pantelic?
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
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?
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
1 degree, and then I -- my East European degree was really Balkan history
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
13 A. Yes. What's your --
14 Q. Mostly where? In which region? I assume Bosnia, but apart of
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?
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
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
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
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
24 period of 1990 until 1992?
25 A. Warren Zimmermann that I remember. I don't remember if there
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
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
6 of time between 1990 and 1992?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Where? Where have you been?
9 A. Sarajevo
10 Q. Could you just briefly a few words explain what was the purpose
11 of your trip to Sarajevo
12 A. Sarajevo
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
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
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
25 stopped in Norway
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
25 Q. And during your work, it's undisputed fact that you were able to
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
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
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
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,
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
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
21 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE HALL
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
1 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, absolutely I will follow your
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
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
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,
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
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
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
14 issue then of the status of Bosnia
15 keep Bosnia
16 figuring out how best to protect their interests and whether to secure --
17 to see if Bosnia
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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?
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
1 people, Muslim community, was at the same time member of Samac Crisis
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
12 of ARK
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
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
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
1 and Herzegovina
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
6 association of municipalities does not provide for the kind of powers
7 that ARK
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
11 MR. PANTELIC: Yes.
12 JUDGE HALL
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
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
1 of ARK
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
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
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.
1 JUDGE HALL
2 testimony --
3 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
4 JUDGE HALL
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
25 MR. ZECEVIC: By all means you can, Your Honour. I was just
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
7 [Private session]
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.