Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 4616

 1                           Friday, 11 December 2009

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.12 a.m.

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Good morning,

 6     everyone in and around the courtroom.  This is case IT-08-91-T, the

 7     Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin.

 8             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.  Good morning to

 9     everyone.  May we have the appearances, please.

10             MR. DOBBYN:  Good morning, Your Honours.  For the Office of the

11     Prosecutor, Gerard Dobbyn with Joanna Korner and our Case Manager,

12     Crispian Smith.

13             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.  For

14     the Defence, Slobodan Zecevic, Mr. Eugene O'Sullivan, and I think you

15     have met our expert Professor Dr. Mladen Bajagic.

16             MR. PANTELIC:  Good morning, Your Honours, for Zupljanin Defence

17     this morning, Igor Pantelic, Dragan Krgovic, Mr. Jason Antley, and our

18     charming assistant Ms. Anna Wallington.

19             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.  Would the usher please escort the

20     witness back to the stand.

21             MR. DOBBYN:  Just one second, Your Honours, I wonder if we could

22     get the Defence expert's name again, as it wasn't picked up in the

23     transcript.

24             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Professor Dr. Mladen Bajagic.

25             MR. DOBBYN:  Sorry, could you spell that, please.

Page 4617

 1             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] M-l-a-d-e-n  B-a-j-a-g-i-c.

 2             MR. PANTELIC:  Bravo, Alpha, Juliet, Alpha, Golf, India, Charlie.

 3     Thank you very much, Your Honour.

 4             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Pantelic.

 5             MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] You are welcome, Mr. Cvijetic.

 6             JUDGE HALL:  Good morning, Ms. Hanson.  I remind you that you are

 7     still under oath.

 8             THE WITNESS:  Good morning, Your Honours.

 9                           WITNESS:  DOROTHEA HANSON [Resumed]

10                           Cross-examination by Mr. Pantelic: [Continued]

11        Q.   Good morning, Mrs. Hanson.

12        A.   Good morning.

13        Q.   When we adjourned yesterday we were discussing some issues

14     regarding the formation and the work of region known as ARK, but now I

15     would like to have your opinion and to pose a certain couple of

16     questions, I would say, with regard to the other matter which is the --

17     to some extent the basis for the previous issue.

18             MR. PANTELIC:  So I would like to call, please, document, it's

19     document on the 65 ter list 2597.  It should be a document with the title

20     "Statement of Principles for the New Constitutional Arrangements for

21     Bosnia-Herzegovina."  Yes, that's it.

22        Q.   If you remember, Mrs. Hanson, yesterday we mentioned a number of

23     international documents with regard to the organisation of

24     Bosnia-Herzegovina.  One amongst all these documents was so-called

25     Cutileiro plan or Lisbon agreement.  And in this particular document, I

Page 4618

 1     would like to outline section B in this document which is related to the

 2     general principles of how constituent units would be governed and in

 3     accordance with which principles.

 4             Would you agree with me that these general principles mentioned

 5     in section B of this document actually speak about the -- and are founded

 6     on the general principles of human rights, modern constitutional law

 7     principles and international law principles, would you agree with me?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   And then could we move to section E of this particular document.

10             MR. PANTELIC:  It should be page 3 English version, with the

11     reference SA01-7150.  It's E.

12        Q.   Now, I would like to draw your attention to the section E, which,

13     from my point of view, speaks of the territory of the so-called units,

14     and also speaks of other particular aspect like potential process of

15     resolving the matter with regard to Sarajevo and also with regard to the

16     position of the particular nation --

17             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Pantelic, is this within the scope, this line

18     of question, is this within the scope of the witness's expertise?

19             MR. PANTELIC:  Yes, Your Honour.

20             JUDGE DELVOIE:  You are sure?

21             MR. PANTELIC:  It is in regard -- it is actually with regard to

22     the formation of Serbian municipalities and ultimately with Crisis Staff

23     and also it is in connection with the topic of ARK, that I mentioned

24     yesterday.  So if you allow me, Your Honour, can I proceed?  Thank you.

25        Q.   Mrs. Hanson, would you agree with me that the proposal in Lisbon

Page 4619

 1     agreement with regard to the territory division of Bosnia-Herzegovina,

 2     among other criteria, was based on the census, which means the ethnic

 3     composition of particular territory in Bosnia?

 4        A.   I see that in the English paragraph E.  The B/C/S paragraph E

 5     seems to be quite a different text.

 6        Q.   And yesterday we spoke about the development of the political

 7     system in Bosnia and Herzegovina which actually on the basis of

 8     Dayton Peace Accord divided country along the ethnic lines; is that

 9     right?

10        A.   You did ask about the Dayton Peace Agreement, yes.

11        Q.   Now I would like to discuss a few issues with you with regard to

12     the statute of the ARK that we practically left yesterday.

13             MR. PANTELIC:  It's 65 ter document 17.

14        Q.   Tell me, Mrs. Hanson, in your preparation of your report for this

15     case, were you able to inspect and to check and to review a number of

16     documents with regard to the ARK?  And if yes, in short words please

17     explain to Chamber which documents you reviewed.

18        A.   I looked at the documents of the ARK Crisis Staff, the decisions,

19     and issued an -- and orders issued by it.  I did -- don't recall that I

20     reviewed the statute of the autonomous region itself.

21        Q.   Did you, in your work, review maybe minutes or records or logs of

22     the work of Crisis Staff of ARK?

23        A.   As I said, I looked at the decisions.  Because -- I looked also

24     for records of other regional Crisis Staffs.  Because there's such an

25     imbalance, I felt I could not draw any conclusions about a pattern.  My

Page 4620

 1     original tasking was to focus on the municipal level so I felt that to

 2     focus on the -- to look in depth at the ARK Crisis Staff when I don't

 3     have equivalent records from other regional Crisis Staffs would not serve

 4     the purpose of my tasking, as I understood it.

 5        Q.   So I take from your answer that speaking of ARK in your report,

 6     aside of several decisions or conclusions, you did not review minutes,

 7     transcripts, or other documents related to the work of Crisis Staff of

 8     ARK; am I correct?

 9        A.   Yes, that is correct.

10        Q.   Could you tell the Chamber, please, who were the members of ARK

11     Crisis Staff, if you can?

12        A.   I can't remember them all, but I can name those who I do

13     remember.

14        Q.   Please go ahead.

15        A.   Radislav Brdjanin, Vojo Kupresanin, Momir Talic, Radisav Vukic,

16     Sajic, Nenad Stevandic.  I know I have the document in my -- one of my

17     exhibits.  I don't -- Stojan Zupljanin.  That's all I can recall right

18     now, but I can consult the document.

19             MR. DOBBYN:  Your Honours, perhaps I could assist here.  This was

20     a document that was exhibited during her direct and it lists exactly the

21     members that she's been asked about, so rather than having her memory

22     tested perhaps this document can be called up.  It was Exhibit P441.  If

23     this helps matters.

24             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

25             MR. PANTELIC:  I absolutely agree.

Page 4621

 1             MR. DOBBYN:  Sorry, that's in tab 11 of your binder, Ms. Hanson.

 2     Tab 10, sorry.

 3             MR. PANTELIC:

 4        Q.   So, Ms. Hanson, you were able to review or, let's say, to refresh

 5     your memory now, reading the list of members, yes?

 6        A.   Mm-hmm.

 7        Q.   This is page 2 of this document because what we see here, it's

 8     decision regarding the general public mobilisation, so it's the next

 9     page, yes.

10             Could you tell the Chamber, Mrs. Hanson, please, the party

11     membership of the people, persons on this list, if you know, of course,

12     because you are an expert of the Crisis Staff?  For example,

13     Mr. Brdjanin, he was a member of which party?

14        A.   The SDS.

15        Q.   And --

16             MR. PANTELIC:  Excuse me, could we have English version on the

17     screen of this document.  Because in B/C/S we have decision of the

18     formation and ...

19             That's correct, thank you.

20        Q.   And Lieutenant-Colonel Sajic, who was a vice-president, do you

21     know his party membership?

22        A.   If he was a lieutenant-colonel in the JNA, I would assume he was

23     a member of the League of Communists, although what that meant at this

24     moment in May 1992 is different from what meant, say, two years earlier

25     to be a member of the League of Communists.  So I can't say for sure his

Page 4622

 1     affiliation.  I would expect his earlier party affiliation to be League

 2     of Communists.

 3        Q.   I take it from your answer, actually, that with regard to the

 4     vice-president of Crisis Staff, you were not able to check or to

 5     establish his party membership; is that correct?

 6        A.   I didn't examine that question.

 7        Q.   And what about person under number 3, Mr. Kupresanin,

 8     Vojo Kupresanin --

 9        A.   He was a --

10        Q.   -- do you know his party membership?

11        A.   Yes, he was a member of the Main Board of the SDS.

12        Q.   Under number 4, Mr. Erceg, do you know his party affiliation?

13        A.   I believe he was SDS.

14        Q.   But you don't know for sure?

15        A.   I didn't check it.

16        Q.   What about Mr. Radic, under number 5?

17        A.   He was also a member of the Main Board of the SDS.

18        Q.   What about of Dr. Vukic?

19        A.   He was a member of the Main Board and the Executive Board of the

20     SDS.

21        Q.   And Dr. Milanovic?

22        A.   Below -- of the names following Vukic, I did not check the party

23     affiliation or position of anybody, although, Nenad Stevandic, I'm pretty

24     sure I've seen him as an SDS member, but I simply didn't look one way or

25     another at the rest of the names.

Page 4623

 1        Q.   Including my client Zupljanin, you don't know?

 2        A.   Correct.

 3        Q.   So, Mrs. Hanson, in this particular case, we could not say for

 4     certain that this Crisis Staff was run established and organised

 5     exclusively by SDS party; am I correct?

 6        A.   On the basis of this decision alone, no.  On a wider

 7     understanding of the creation of the ARK and the involvement of the

 8     leadership of the SDS in its establishment and operations, one could

 9     understand the role of the SDS and the ARK.  From this decision alone, we

10     don't see it.

11        Q.   All right.  Let's speak about the role of SDS.  First of all,

12     would you agree with me that on the basis of the official election

13     results in 1990, multi-party -- first multi-party election in

14     Bosnia-Herzegovina, SDS won -- among the Serbian, Bosnian Serb parties,

15     won a huge majority in terms of percentage; am I correct?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   And as we discussed yesterday, in Bosnian Serb Assembly a part of

18     duly elected SDS MPs, I think we mentioned MPs from Serbian movement of

19     resistance --

20        A.   Renewal.

21        Q.   Something like SPO --

22        A.   Renewal.

23        Q.   -- SPO, and couple of independent MPs; am I correct?

24        A.   That's my general understanding, yes.

25        Q.   So isn't it logical that the party who won, in terms of majority

Page 4624

 1     percentage, has a particular responsibility to act in extraordinary

 2     circumstances which, in fact, SDS did; am I correct?

 3        A.   The party won the majority of the Serbian vote.  It did not win

 4     the majority of the vote of Bosnia overall.

 5        Q.   Yes, but my question was focused specifically on Bosnian Serb

 6     institutions, so my question was directed to the role of SDS within the

 7     organs and the institution of Bosnian Serb municipalities.

 8             So, again, am I correct if I'm saying that the role of SDS was

 9     that, given the fact that they won majority of the votes, they were

10     obliged to act and to be ready for exceptional circumstances?  Am I

11     correct?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   Like HDZ from Croatian side and SDA from Muslim side, because we

14     agreed, in our previous cross-examination with Mr. Zecevic and me, that

15     the other two national parties in Bosnia formed on a various level their

16     Crisis Staff; am I correct?

17        A.   We saw the Presidency Crisis Staff and an HDZ Crisis Staff.  I

18     didn't see in the cross-examination an SDA Crisis Staff.  But, yes, I

19     agree that Crisis Staffs were formed on all sides.

20        Q.   I will -- in due course I will give you few documents with regard

21     to this Crisis Staff.  But so, okay.  Let's take a look on preamble of

22     this decision of formation of ARK Crisis Staff where it says that on the

23     basis or pursuant to Article 12 of the Law on National Defence of Bosnian

24     Serb Republic, this Crisis Staff was formed.  That's what we see in the

25     preamble, yes?

Page 4625

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   In your expertise did you or were you able to take a look or

 3     check the provisions of Republika Srpska national Law on National

 4     Defence?

 5        A.   I have looked at some of the articles.

 6        Q.   Article 12 particularly?

 7        A.   I can't recall without being shown it.

 8             MR. PANTELIC:  Just a second please.  Could you bear with me.  I

 9     have to check with my assistant.

10                           [Defence counsel confers]

11             MR. PANTELIC:  Your Honour, it's one of the articles of Murphy's

12     Law when you cannot find the documents, when you will not find him.  So

13     please bear with me a second.

14             I do apologise.  We discussed this particular article, but we

15     didn't actually download it in the e-court.  So I do apologise.

16        Q.   Anyhow, Mrs. Hanson, speaking of this particular basis of the

17     establishment of Crisis Staff, would you agree with me that actually --

18     and I think you mentioned it earlier in your submissions, that actually

19     the basis was -- for formation of Crisis Staff was actually in this

20     category of national defence, am I correct?  Like, you know, committees

21     for ONO and DSZ, something like that, along these lines?

22        A.   As I said, I have found no explicit reference to Crisis Staffs in

23     the Law on Defence.  The relevant article that Municipal Crisis Staffs

24     sometimes cite refers simply to the organisation of defence on the

25     territory.  There's no reference that I know of, that I can recall, but I

Page 4626

 1     don't have a photographic memory, to committees for All People's Defence

 2     in the RS legislature, I'd be surprised to see a reference.  So I don't

 3     see references to Crisis Staffs or All People's Defence committees,

 4     simply an obligation to organise defence, and Crisis Staffs are formed on

 5     that basis.  I see no explicit legislative basis for Crisis Staffs and no

 6     explicit connection made in a normative document between Crisis Staffs

 7     and All People's Defence committees.  I have agreed that the concept is

 8     the same.

 9        Q.   Absolutely, I agree with you, and I can confirm that in

10     Article 12, there is no -- any reference to Crisis Staff in this term,

11     but rather, a broader basis which is a, let's say, development from

12     previous legislation from former Yugoslavia with regard to the committee

13     for ONO and DSZ, I agree with you.

14             But tell me, in this particular decision, the actually, I

15     understand it, the Executive Board of ARK Assembly, and we see the

16     president was Mr. Nikola Erceg, actually adopted this decision of

17     formation of Crisis Staff; am I correct?

18        A.   That's what it states in this decision, yes.

19        Q.   And would you agree with me that in ARK actually -- I mean, in

20     accordance with your previous work on this topic, actually we got two

21     bodies.  We've got Crisis Staff of ARK and we got War Staff of ARK; am I

22     correct?

23        A.   No, I see them as the same body here because the title reads

24     "Decision on the Formation of the Crisis Staff" and then it names the War

25     Staff, so I take those terms to be interchangeable here.

Page 4627

 1        Q.   Well, according to my knowledge, in fact, and I'm putting to you

 2     this fact, although you mentioned that you didn't check, I'm putting to

 3     you that Crisis Staff was actually organised and run by Mr. Brdjanin and

 4     his associates without any other official member.  Do you know this fact?

 5        A.   I know that Brdjanin was the president of the Crisis Staff.  I

 6     know that he was indicted and tried here.  I am aware of that case.  I'm

 7     not aware of the extent of his other -- of other people being excluded

 8     from the staff.  I know that Talic was originally indicted and tried with

 9     him, so I know that he was not alone.  I did not read into that case when

10     I prepared for my testimony here so I'm not going to comment on the

11     extent to which he operated alone.

12        Q.   And actually, the War Staff of ARK actually was a body for more,

13     I would say -- body for focused for more other aspects of the life in

14     terms of organisation, defence, et cetera, not actually politically, and

15     that's why the list of -- this list of members is quite long.  That is my

16     position.  Are you aware about this fact?

17        A.   I'm not aware that there were two bodies co-existing at the same

18     time, the Crisis Staff and War Staff of ARK.

19        Q.   Okay.

20             MR. PANTELIC:  Okay, let's now take a look on the next page of

21     this document, which is -- yes.

22        Q.   I see here that on the session or meeting of Crisis Staff, which

23     was held on 8th of May, 1992, ARK Crisis Staff adopted following

24     conclusions --

25        A.   The decision on the board is the 6th of May.  I think there's two

Page 4628

 1     different ones again.  The English and the B/C/S are not the same.

 2        Q.   Yes, you are right.  It's next -- yes, you are right.

 3             MR. PANTELIC:  It's under -- English version should be under 4.

 4     This is 3, so next decision.

 5        Q.   Thank you for correct me, Mrs. Hanson.  Yes, that's right.

 6             So here we see that the ARK Crisis Staff adopted the following

 7     conclusions, and the conclusion number 1 is that:

 8             "The presidents of the National Defence Councils are to supply

 9     detailed information to the War Staff of ARK..."

10             So this is completely new body, I mean, related to another issue.

11     It is not -- Crisis Staff directs, Crisis Staff of ARK directs the

12     presidents of National Defence Councils to report to War Staff; am I

13     correct?

14        A.   That's what it reads here in this decision.  I --

15        Q.   And then in paragraph 3 of the same conclusion, again ARK Crisis

16     Staff direct presidents of the National Defence Councils to inform

17     War Staff of ARK.  And then again, under 4, we have a part of this

18     conclusion that mass media are directed to promptly inform all citizens

19     of the orders of War Staff.  And then again, under 7 of the same

20     conclusions, we have decision that travel agencies should be put under

21     the control of War Staff of ARK.  And then under 9, we also have a

22     mention of War Staff.  And then under 13, instead of

23     Mr. Rajko Kuzmanovic, by the way, who is the president of

24     Bosnia-Herzegovina now and Republika Srpska, instead of him as a

25     War Staff, nomination was done for Dr. Mirjanic.  So we see how it's

Page 4629

 1     function -- how it's functioning, the Crisis Staff directs to various

 2     institutions and body to report with regard to certain issues to

 3     War Staff.  Is that what is said here in this decision?

 4        A.   That's what it says here.

 5        Q.   Thank you.  And then we have a meeting on 9th of May.  This is

 6     number 6 here in this document.

 7             MR. PANTELIC:  This is number 6, I believe.  It is ERN number

 8     0049-7843 of the same Official Gazette.  So if this is document

 9     number 4 -- you see on the top left number 4, so we have to go to the

10     document with number, please.  Yes.  Okay.  So we have 6 in B/C/S and we

11     have --

12        Q.   We are not going to comment into details all this documents, but

13     I'd just like it to draw your attention to the conclusions under 1 and 2

14     where, for example, under 1 we have decision that media centre should be

15     formed for needs of War Staff, and then the decision that all operative

16     orders of War Staff should be followed.  And then again, on the session

17     of 11th of May, ARK Crisis Staff adopted a number of conclusions, whereas

18     also there are some directions with regard to the -- to the ...

19             Now, this is actually -- correction.  Decisions -- now we have

20     another line of work of Crisis Staff.  Now we have in the -- on the

21     session of 11th of May, we have all decisions relevant to -- to Crisis

22     Staff.  So two days before we have -- and earlier we have certain

23     directions with regard to the War Staff, and now we have something which

24     is strictly related to Crisis Staff.

25             Were you able to check these two documents, please?

Page 4630

 1        A.   I see the difference in the term used, yes.  I see that the

 2     earlier documents within the text refer to War Staff, whereas this one

 3     within the text refers to Crisis Staff.

 4        Q.   Of course.  And, again, you were not able to check any minutes,

 5     records, log-books of the work of War Staff or ARK Crisis Staff; am I

 6     correct?

 7        A.   I did not check any minutes, records, or log-books of either

 8     War Staff or Crisis Staff.

 9        Q.   So your, I would say, assumption is expressed in your expert

10     report, rather than expert conclusions on the basis of more profound and

11     detailed documents; am I correct?

12        A.   I have explained why I did not look in depth at the ARK

13     documents.  So, yes, my conclusions as regard regional Crisis Staffs are

14     very different as compared to those regarding Municipal Crisis Staffs.  I

15     do recall, however, the Sanski Most Crisis Staff saying that the

16     Crisis Staff now functions as a War Staff, publicly the old name will be

17     used.  And on the basis of my reading, I would say that that is a

18     possible interpretation of these documents as well.  But I cannot draw

19     that conclusion as regarding ARK because I'm reluctant, as I said, to

20     draw many conclusions regarding regional Crisis Staffs.

21        Q.   That was my point actually with regard to the ARK Crisis Staff.

22     Thank you, Ms. Hanson, for your answer.

23             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Pantelic.

24             MR. PANTELIC:  Yes, Your Honour.

25             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Just for me to be sure --

Page 4631

 1             MR. PANTELIC:  Yes.

 2             JUDGE DELVOIE:  -- in what document are we right now?  In which

 3     document?

 4             MR. PANTELIC:  We are -- Your Honour, we are in the document

 5     which is provided to us by our friends from the Prosecution.  This is a

 6     document --

 7             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Is it 147?

 8             MR. PANTELIC:  Just a moment, Your Honour, please bear with me.

 9     This is 65 ter document 147.  That's correct.

10             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you very much.

11             MR. PANTELIC:  So in this document, actually this is Official

12     Gazette of ARK region where a number of decisions were adopted,

13     published, et cetera.  Thank you.

14        Q.   And now --

15             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Pantelic.

16             MR. PANTELIC:  Yes, Your Honour.

17             JUDGE HALL:  We inquired of the Registry about 15 minutes ago as

18     to how much time you had left and at that point it was 30 minutes, so you

19     will bear that in mind.

20             MR. PANTELIC:  Your Honour, time is really passing very fast

21     especially here in Courtroom I, but, please, I was extremely --

22     Your Honour, I beg you for your kindness, I will almost finish, but if

23     couple of minutes I will need, please allow me that because I just want

24     to finish this.

25             JUDGE HALL:  That's why we thought we should alert you at this

Page 4632

 1     point.

 2             MR. PANTELIC:  Much obliged, Your Lordship.

 3        Q.   Now, Mrs. Hanson, please, could we take a look on --

 4             MR. PANTELIC:  I call Exhibit P68, please.

 5        Q.   I believe, Ms. Hanson, that we agreed upon the fact that region

 6     of ARK was duly formed and established in accordance with the

 7     constitution of -- Bosnia-Herzegovina constitution in September 1991

 8     covering all this area, or maybe we are not agreed upon that fact.  What

 9     is your position?

10        A.   I agreed that it was constituted, but I do not agree that it was

11     necessarily established in accordance with the constitution.

12        Q.   I put to you a fact that on the basis and in accordance of the

13     constitution of Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, three constituent

14     nations through their respective MPs formed ARK region.  What is your

15     position with regard to that fact?  You agree or you disagree?

16        A.   I do not believe that the constitution --

17        Q.   Or you don't know?

18        A.   -- of Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina --

19        Q.   No, no, no, please stop, Ms. Hanson.  I put to you -- you are an

20     expert, you have to be expert.  I put to you a fact, you can say, Yes, I

21     agree, I disagree, or I don't know.  Please one of these three options,

22     and then you can clarify that in redirect.  Please my question was very

23     simply and straightforward.

24             MR. DOBBYN:  Your Honours, if I could just intervene here.  At

25     the start of this cross-examination, Mr. Pantelic put it to Ms. Hanson

Page 4633

 1     that she was not an expert in constitutional law and she agreed with

 2     that.  And now he is saying that as an expert, he demands that she answer

 3     this question about constitutional law, so it's outside the scope.

 4             MR. PANTELIC:  Absolutely -- well, no.  No, it's a very simple

 5     question.  Ms. Hanson is your expert for the work of Crisis Staff.

 6     Crisis Staff are actually derived from the municipalities from certain

 7     regions, which we are speaking here of ARK.  So my question is, what is

 8     the basis of Crisis Staff of ARK.  It should be in certain institutions,

 9     so this institution is ARK region.  And my question was very simple.  It

10     is not to do with the constitutional law issues, with the, I don't know,

11     international law issues, it's a simple fact, she is an expert.  She know

12     or she doesn't know.

13             JUDGE HALL:  Please, proceed, Mr. Pantelic.

14             MR. PANTELIC:  Thank you.

15        Q.   What is your answer?

16        A.   I disagree.

17        Q.   Thank you.  Please take a look on the list of deputies.  It's

18     Prosecution Exhibit, as I mentioned, 68.  And could you tell me from your

19     knowledge, because you spent a lot of time in analysing documents in

20     Bosnia, under 12, could we agree that Mr. Sabic, Mehmed, is a Bosnian

21     Muslim?

22        A.   The name would certainly suggest that.  I don't know the man

23     personally so I don't know how he identifies himself, but certainly it's

24     a Muslim name.

25        Q.   Absolutely, I'm limited to the formulation that you just used.

Page 4634

 1     Absolutely.  So under 27, could you agree that this gentleman Kozjan

 2     might be of Croat origin?

 3        A.   The first name certainly suggests Croat origin.

 4        Q.   And under 31, Mr. Biscevi, Edib, being a Bosnian Muslim?

 5        A.   Yes, that's what the name would suggest.

 6        Q.   And also under 32?

 7        A.   Yes, the name is Muslim.

 8        Q.   And then under 52, Mr. Karahodzic?

 9        A.   Yes, it's a Muslim name.

10        Q.   And, sorry, number 58?

11        A.   Yes, it's a Muslim name.

12        Q.   And then 86, Mrs. Sehovic?

13        A.   Yes, it's a Muslim name.

14        Q.   So, Mrs. Hanson, I put to you that in accordance with the

15     legislation of Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1991, a number of municipalities

16     being a part of ARK actually gave the authority or voted for their

17     representatives from municipality Assembly to ARK municipality.  Do you

18     agree with me or not?  Or you are not informed about this process?

19        A.   I do not believe that ARK is named in the legislation of

20     Bosnia-Herzegovina.  Therefore, I cannot agree with your statement.

21        Q.   All right.  That's your position.

22             MR. PANTELIC:  But let's go now to document 2D25.

23        Q.   This document speaks about the relation between CSB Banja Luka

24     and local police stations.  First of all, Mrs. Hanson, were you able to

25     see or to read or to check this document?

Page 4635

 1        A.   Yes, it's one of my exhibits.  Tab 34.

 2        Q.   I will not go into every detail of this document, but would you

 3     agree with me that in the part, the first part of document, introductory

 4     part, so let's establish that the author of this document is the CSB

 5     Banja Luka and its chief Mr. Zupljanin; am I correct?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   And it's dated on 30th of July, 1992?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   So in the first part of this document, namely from page 1

10     until 3, Mr. Zupljanin, of course, you don't have reason to -- not to

11     believe me, but Mr. Zupljanin with his associates, with his services

12     practically formulated this document, and in this first part of this

13     document, he is speaking about certain events and certain, I would say,

14     problems which was located in the work of local police stations; am I

15     correct?  I mean in general terms.

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   And then on, it's page 3 of B/C/S, Mr. Zupljanin -- it's page 3

18     but it's bottom of the page 3 where he states, yes.

19             And then Mr. Zupljanin -- let's wait for the English version.

20             Mr. Zupljanin orders very specifically under 1, he directs that

21     all activities of local police stations must be within the provisions of

22     the Law of Interior of Republika Srpska; am I correct?

23        A.   Yes, that's what it says.

24        Q.   And then under 2 of this document, Mr. Zupljanin states that

25     local police stations cannot take any orders or other decisions from

Page 4636

 1     various Crisis Staff and other organisations, which are not in accordance

 2     with the legal framework; am I correct?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   And then on, at the same item, he actually outlined that the

 5     various political decisions without any legal form cannot be followed by

 6     the members of the police service; am I correct?

 7        A.   That's what it says, yes.

 8        Q.   And then under item 3, he directs local police chiefs and the

 9     stations that in any delicate or complicated matter they are obliged to

10     contact CSB; is that what is the gist of item 3?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   And then in number 4, he is instructing local police authorities

13     that the professional approach with regard to the detention or arrest, in

14     accordance with the law, without any ethnic discriminatory approach must

15     be followed; am I correct?

16        A.   That's the gist of it, yes.  I don't think he says exactly

17     professional approach, but certainly the gist is to start acting in

18     accordance with the law.

19        Q.   And then under 5, local police stations are obliged to, on the

20     basis of the law, of course, perform activities with regard to the

21     collection of information or proceedings against the persons allegedly

22     committed certain crimes; is that correct?

23        A.   That is what it states, yes.

24        Q.   And then under 6, it's a directive to local police stations that

25     without previous accordance or approval of CSB cannot be in the escort or

Page 4637

 1     give any assistance to the detained people?

 2        A.   To people detained by unauthorised persons, it says.

 3        Q.   Yes.  And then under 7, we have a directive regarding the issue

 4     of paramilitary formations and then also we have the issue that local

 5     police stations must perform investigative activities against the alleged

 6     criminal activities of paramilitary formations, and the other armed

 7     groups and individuals.  Is that the gist of item number 7 in this

 8     document?

 9        A.   Yes, that's what the document seems to be saying.

10        Q.   And then item 8 speaks about the more technical issues like

11     traffic issues; yes?

12        A.   It refers to checkpoints, but earlier in the text they describe

13     some problems with checkpoints set up by people other than the police, so

14     I don't think it's just a question of traffic issues.

15        Q.   Checkpoints, sorry.  My mistake.  Yes, we agree about

16     checkpoints.

17             Under item number 9, it's a direction to take immediate,

18     decisive, and uncompromising action to throw light on all alleged

19     criminal activities within the police stations, to take necessary

20     disciplinary -- to launch necessary disciplinary procedures as well as

21     criminal procedures, suspension of police officers, if any, in the

22     accordance with the provision of the law of criminal procedure; is that

23     the gist of item 9, Mrs. Hanson?

24        A.   Yes, that's what it says.

25        Q.   And then under 10, it is necessary when these preliminary

Page 4638

 1     procedures will finish that all cases against members of local police

 2     stations must be forwarded to the public prosecutor; am I correct?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   And under 11, that it is forbidden for the local police chiefs

 5     to, without prior approval of CSB, to make any changes in employee list;

 6     am I correct?

 7        A.   That's what it says.

 8        Q.   And then on the next page, which is the end of this document,

 9     it's page 6 of B/C/S, and the English should be -- yes.  He speaks and he

10     directs that direct responsibility for all these orders are local chiefs

11     of police; am I correct?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   And that on the basis of previous collected informations, that

14     this organ, being CSB, will take a very precise and concrete steps

15     against the particular -- particular individuals; am I correct?

16        A.   Yes, that's what it says.

17        Q.   And in conclusion of this document, a dead-line was imposed,

18     which is the 10th of August, 1992, where by this date a detailed report

19     should be submitted to CSB; am I correct?

20        A.   That's what it says.

21        Q.   And in your report, in your report, it's footnote 140, page of 39

22     of your report, your conclusion, I am not going into details because my

23     learned friend Mr. Zecevic covered all these matters and we know that you

24     are not police expert and that your conclusions with regard to the

25     provisions of law of interior are not related to this case, but what you

Page 4639

 1     said here, you said in footnote 140, you said:

 2             "Order from CSB Banja Luka indicates," so now you are making a

 3     conclusion, "indicates that the local police station had been accepting

 4     and carrying out orders issued by municipal and regional Crisis Staff."

 5             It is not the point.  The main point of this document is that

 6     Mr. Zupljanin, as the head of CSB, actually directed all local police

 7     officers and chiefs to follow the law, to follow the order, and the

 8     principles of work, that is the spirit of this document, and you didn't

 9     mention that spirit, why?  You are one-sided, you are -- or you are

10     biased?  Why?  Why you didn't mention this spirit of this very important

11     document?

12        A.   I agree that that is the spirit of this document which is

13     directed from the head of the centre to the local police stations, but I

14     was looking at it from the point of view of the relations between the

15     municipal authorities and the local police stations.  And I believe that

16     Mr. Zupljanin would not have written that item, that they have to follow

17     procedure and not take orders from municipal and regional Crisis Staffs

18     that don't follow proper procedure, he would not have written that had

19     they -- the local police stations not been receiving such orders that are

20     beyond their domain, that are not following procedure.

21             I agree that's the thrust of the document, but I, as an analyst,

22     I have to ask why is this document being written?  Why would he write

23     something like that?  He would not write it if the police stations had

24     not been receiving -- not been accepting irregular orders from their

25     Crisis Staffs.  I think reading this document, anyone who looks at it

Page 4640

 1     would certainly agree that the thrust of it is an attempt, in the end of

 2     July, to assert the -- the correct procedure and the rule of law.

 3             As I indicate in my report, you have to look at the time-period,

 4     and it's quite consistent with my conclusions that by the end of the

 5     July, the police officials are taking this stand and that he is

 6     describing problems that -- and events that have occurred up until this

 7     point.

 8        Q.   I agree with you, you are the author of report and this is your,

 9     I would say, approach and liberty, but my point was more directed to the

10     issue and to the aspect of objectivity as a component of independent view

11     in the report, that was my idea.  But, okay, Mrs. Hanson, let's go to

12     our --

13             JUDGE HALL:  It's 10.25, Mr. Pantelic.

14             MR. PANTELIC:  Thank you very much, Your Honour.  Just for

15     information, I have just a couple of questions, so in five or ten

16     minutes, I can finish, even less.  Thank you so much.

17                           [The witness stands down]

18                           --- Recess taken at 10.25 a.m.

19                           --- On resuming at 10.52 a.m.

20                           [The witness takes the stand]

21             MR. PANTELIC:

22        Q.   Welcome back, Ms. Hanson.  Now I would like to just cover -- it's

23     more or less housekeeping matters to cover some issues with regard to

24     your testimony before the Sarajevo court.

25             MR. PANTELIC:  So could we have please, it's an e-court document,

Page 4641

 1     1D01-0412.  Actually, this is a transcript of Mrs. Hanson testimony

 2     before the Bosnian state court in Sarajevo in case of Mr. Klickovic, who

 3     was, I believe, president of Crisis Staff of municipality of

 4     Bosanska Krupa in 1992.

 5        Q.   Do you remember that testimony, Ms. Hanson?

 6        A.   Yes, I do.

 7        Q.   And it was on 27th of January, 2009, and 28th of January, 2009,

 8     this year, yes?

 9        A.   Yes.

10             MR. PANTELIC:  In transcript, you -- it is page 66 of B/C/S

11     version -- oh, sorry, 49.  And English version is 66.  49, yes.  And then

12     around last third of the page, just a moment.  Okay.

13        Q.   The accused, I don't know who asked you, maybe, Mr. Klickovic,

14     but it's not important for this moment, asked you that you filed the

15     updated version of your report of July 2008.  Could you please be so kind

16     to explain us, first of all, in this particular case, you filed your

17     report which was specifically designed for the municipality of

18     Bosanska Krupa, in that case in Sarajevo, or it was a kind of expanded

19     version, could you explain that, please?

20        A.   The report which I gave to the Bosnian state court was

21     essentially the same as this report here.  I don't recall if there were a

22     few paragraphs that might have differed, but it was -- certainly formed

23     the basis of this -- very similar to this report.  It was not at all

24     specific to Bosanska Krupa.

25        Q.   In any case, a report that you filed before the Sarajevo court in

Page 4642

 1     July 2008 is practically a later version of your report from

 2     February 2008; am I correct?

 3        A.   There are --

 4        Q.   Or these are completely two different reports?

 5        A.   No, no, no, they are very similar reports.  As I say, there were

 6     a few paragraphs where I may have re-worded things.  I don't recall the

 7     essence of the differences, but it is very much the same report.  With

 8     the same conclusions.  The paragraphs I may have rewritten were not --

 9     were better phrasing, not change of conclusions.

10        Q.   Any case, I don't believe that we --

11             MR. PANTELIC:  Did we, can I ask my friends from the Prosecution,

12     did we get this report, this updated from July 2008?  No.

13             MR. DOBBYN:  I am sorry, I can't say off the top of my head.  I

14     will check that and we can get back to you, if that's what you'd like.

15             MR. PANTELIC:  Thank you.

16        Q.   Anyhow, Mrs. Hanson, please, the question here at this trial in

17     Sarajevo was related to the Crisis Staff formed in Croatia in 1991, and

18     then on the Muslim and Croatian side during the war in Bosnia, and you

19     said yes, and I believe you stand with your answer today also on regard

20     to this issue?

21        A.   Well, I've been shown here documents showing that they were

22     formed before the war, so I would change that in my statement.

23        Q.   Yes, of course, but also -- and during the war?

24        A.   Yes, and during the war.  I do not stand that it was only during

25     the war now.

Page 4643

 1        Q.   Okay.  Thank you for that.  Just a moment.

 2             MR. PANTELIC:  Now, can we go to page -- it's page 97.  Actually,

 3     this is the second day of your testimony.  It was on 28th of January.

 4     Let me check with my colleague.  Yeah, this is page 97 of the transcript

 5     English version.  And this is page 4 of B/C/S of that particular day that

 6     we have here.

 7        Q.   And, yes, okay, just a moment.  The accused posed you a question

 8     which starts:

 9             "Are you aware that from 15 to 16 October, the Muslim Croat

10     coalition adopted a declaration," and so on and so and so forth and then

11     the line of this questions actually was finished with your answer which

12     was the following.  The --

13             MR. PANTELIC:  Can we please go this -- can we have this page up.

14     Yes.

15        Q.   Okay.  This is what I'm interested in your answer.  In your

16     answer with regard to the developments and issues in Bosnian Assembly,

17     Bosnia-Herzegovina Assembly in October 1991, you stated before the court

18     in Sarajevo that:

19             "These events were not pointed out; the instructions made --

20     instructions," I believe it's Variant A and B, "the instructions make no

21     explicit connection, but they were, however, events which contributed to

22     the crisis in former Yugoslavia.  It is in these terms that I see the

23     setting up of Crisis Staff of the Bosnian Serbs as part of the overall

24     process."

25             Do you stand by your statement that you gave before Sarajevo

Page 4644

 1     court today here?

 2        A.   Yes, I even have words from Klickovic himself that would support

 3     that.

 4             MR. PANTELIC:  Thank you.  I finish with this couple issues.

 5        Q.   And now, it's time, Mrs. Hanson, to --

 6             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Sorry, I was just reading the document and it

 7     seems that there was a difference in the document and the

 8     interpretation -- or the transcript.  Sorry, not the interpretation, but

 9     the transcript.  We now have the document back on the screen and what I

10     see Mrs. Hanson replying at the court in Sarajevo was the following:

11             "These events were not pointed out; the instructions make no

12     explicit connection.  But they were, however, events which contributed to

13     the crisis in the former Yugoslavia.  It is in these terms that I see

14     this setting up of Crisis Staffs of the Bosnian Serbs as part of the

15     overall process."

16             Thank you.

17             MR. PANTELIC:

18        Q.   So to make conclusion, in light of the overall process of the

19     events in Bosnia and really serious situation, we could agree that the

20     creation of Crisis Staff was sort of answer to the amount of

21     extraordinary circumstances around all three nations in Bosnia, I would

22     say?

23        A.   It was both an answer and a catalyst itself for further events.

24        Q.   Thank you.  So, Mrs. Hanson, it is time for us to reach certain

25     conclusions with regard to your testimony.  First of all, would you agree

Page 4645

 1     with me that on the basis of what we heard here from you that, in fact,

 2     you were not able in fully capacity to assess, review, and make

 3     conclusions with regard to the functioning of ARK Crisis Staff due to the

 4     lack of possibility to have a review in relevant documents such as

 5     minutes, records, et cetera; is that a correct conclusion?

 6        A.   The phrase "was not able" is where I cannot agree.  I could

 7     have -- I don't know the extent of our holdings on ARK.  Did we -- if we

 8     had minutes, records beyond the decisions and conclusions, I simply don't

 9     know if I was able or not to look at them.  It was the dearth of

10     documents from the other regional Crisis Staffs that led me to say, I'm

11     not going to look at ARK in-depth because it won't let me -- I will not

12     be able to draw any conclusions about the overall pattern of regional

13     Crisis Staffs.

14             So I'm unaware of the extent of our holdings beyond the kind of

15     decisions we've seen.  Had I been tasked to look at ARK in-depth, I may

16     have been able to look at more.  I did not.  The ability is what I cannot

17     answer.

18        Q.   Would you agree with me with the conclusion that all three

19     national leading parties in Bosnia-Herzegovina, SDS, HDZ, and SDA, formed

20     in 1991 and 1992 their respective Crisis Staffs with the ultimate aim to

21     function in extraordinary circumstances as a period until the time when

22     the relevant municipality Assemblies could convene; would you agree with

23     me?

24        A.   I don't know enough about the SDA Crisis Staffs to be able to

25     answer that.  But from what I've seen of just what you've shown me or

Page 4646

 1     your colleagues showed me of the HDZ Crisis Staff and what I've seen of

 2     the SDS, I will agree to that extent.

 3        Q.   Thank you.  And would you agree with me that it is a fact of

 4     common knowledge that Bosnian Serb institutions like Assembly,

 5     government, Municipal Assemblies, are recognised as the legitimate and

 6     lawful organs of today's entity known as Republika Srpska within the

 7     sovereign state Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina; would you agree with

 8     that fact?

 9        A.   Yes, to the best of my knowledge.

10        Q.   And, finally, would you agree with me that in light of the

11     position of the SDS being a leading party with majority MPs in Bosnian

12     Serb Assembly which was formed in 1991 and being a leading party in

13     accordance with the official election result in Bosnia-Herzegovina from

14     1990, that SDS tried to form Municipal Crisis Staff not exclusively with

15     SDS member but also with the other members of other Serbian political

16     parties?  Would you agree with me?

17        A.   No.  I could expand on why I don't agree, but I don't know if you

18     want me to.

19        Q.   Well, the facts are speaking differently.  But thank you very

20     much, Mrs. Hanson, for your time being with us.  I wish you, well, not

21     safe trip but safe way to your Office of the Prosecution.

22             MR. PANTELIC:  And thank you so much, Your Honour, I finish my

23     cross-examination.

24             MR. DOBBYN:  Sorry, before Mr. Pantelic finishes, I just wonder

25     if there may be something which has been omitted inadvertently.  In the

Page 4647

 1     course of his cross-examination earlier on, he showed a document to

 2     Ms. Hanson which he said appeared to suggest that in the ARK there were

 3     two separate bodies; there was a Crisis Staff and a War Staff.  And if

 4     that is his position, then it's our submission that according to

 5     Rule 90(H), he needs to actually put that to this witness as it is

 6     different to what her conclusions are, and she should be given the

 7     opportunity to respond to that.  And he should put to her who he says

 8     these two separate bodies were and who were in them and if she has seen

 9     any evidence about that.

10             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Pantelic, would you like to clarify this with

11     the witness, and would you wish to tender the document into evidence?

12             MR. PANTELIC:  Yes, Your Honour.  In fact, I will reserve my

13     right during the Defence case because we are just, you know, following

14     the development of Prosecution case and then we shall through witnesses

15     and some other ways to present our position.

16             JUDGE HARHOFF:  No, I mean, the issue of the difference between

17     the war commission and the Crisis Staff.

18             MR. PANTELIC:  You mean War Staff and Crisis Staff.

19             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Yes, sorry, that you raised, I think you should

20     actually finalise that matter with the witness while she's here.

21             MR. PANTELIC:  Well, I will put that question to her, too.

22        Q.   Would you agree with me that in ARK region practically two bodies

23     were formed, one unofficial Crisis Staff of ARK led by Mr. Brdjanin and

24     also the other War Staff with the completely different functions and

25     organisation?  Would you agree with this position?

Page 4648

 1        A.   No.

 2             MR. PANTELIC:  So, I think at this stage, Your Honour ...

 3             MS. KORNER:  I am sorry, Your Honour.  Can I interrupt [Realtime

 4     transcript read in error "get back to"] you?  Obviously, as Your Honours

 5     know, Brdjanin was the case I dealt with.  I think what needs to be made

 6     clear at this stage --

 7             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

 8             MS. KORNER:  -- is the suggestion by the Defence -- is the

 9     suggestion by the Defence that there was a totally separate body called

10     the War Staff from the ARK Crisis Staff which was simply Mr. Brdjanin

11     alone without any participation by Mr. Zupljanin.  Is that the

12     suggestion?

13             MR. PANTELIC:  That is my suggestion, yes.

14             MS. KORNER:  Right.  Well, that's very clear.  Thank you very

15     much.

16             JUDGE HARHOFF:  And just to clarify, Mrs. Hanson, you do not

17     support that contention?

18             THE WITNESS:  I don't know enough of the case to support that.

19     My -- my impression without having followed the case too closely is that

20     the term that was the same body.  I don't know enough to assert

21     completely, but I've seen -- I can draw a parallel from the Sanski Most

22     documents which said, Privately we operate as a War Staff, publicly the

23     word "Crisis Staff" will still be used.  And I think that the documents

24     I've been shown could be interpreted parallel to that.  I'm not asserting

25     that I know definitely that they were one and the same body but I don't

Page 4649

 1     know enough to agree with the statement.

 2             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Try again, Mr. Pantelic.

 3             THE WITNESS:  Sorry.

 4             MR. PANTELIC:

 5        Q.   Okay.  Would you -- I mean, I completely accept your position

 6     that you expressed earlier that you were not able to review, assess, or

 7     other way analyse relevant documents to ARK Crisis Staff, and were you

 8     able maybe through a review of certain witness statements to come to the

 9     conclusion that ARK Crisis Staff is the same like body of war Crisis

10     Staff of ARK?  As you just mentioned.

11        A.   Well, war Crisis Staff, you mean War Staff, I did not rely on

12     witness statements.  I relied on documents from the contemporary

13     documents, documents of the bodies concerned.  I do not look at witness

14     statements for my report.

15             MR. PANTELIC:  Your Honours, I finish my cross-examination.

16             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Pantelic, just for the record, on page 32,

17     line 6 in LiveNote, you asked:  Would you agree with me that in ARK

18     region practically two bodies were formed, one unofficial Crisis Staff,"

19     was it "unofficial" you said?

20             MR. PANTELIC:  Well, yeah, unofficial, yes.  Unofficial.

21             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Okay.  Thank you.

22             MS. KORNER:  [Microphone not activated].

23             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

24             MS. KORNER:  I'm recorded as saying, "I'm sorry, Your Honour, can

25     I get back to you."  I don't think I said, "Can I get back to you."  I

Page 4650

 1     rather think I said, "May I -- can I interrupt."  I don't know why I

 2     would be saying, "Can I get back to you."

 3             JUDGE HALL:  Re-examination.

 4             MR. DOBBYN:  Thank you, Your Honours.

 5                           Re-examination by Mr. Dobbyn:

 6        Q.   Good morning again, Ms. Hanson.

 7        A.   Good morning.

 8        Q.   In the course of the cross-examination you've faced over the last

 9     couple of days, you've had a lot of questions about the scope of your

10     report, your expertise, what was and was not in your report.  You were

11     asked by Mr. Pantelic whether you were seen as an expert outside this

12     particular institution and you recall saying that no, you weren't?

13        A.   He put it in terms of universities or conferences and I said no,

14     it's true that I did testify as an expert for the Bosnian state court.

15        Q.   Thank you, that's what I was going to ask.  Now, what exactly was

16     the terms of reference of the report you were asked to prepare for the

17     Krajisnik case?

18        A.   I did not receive explicit written terms of reference for that,

19     but my tasking was to look at the Municipal Crisis Staffs.  I then -- I

20     said, as I wrote it I realised I had to include War Presidencies and war

21     commissions as well.  So I understood my instructions to be, Look at the

22     municipal bodies.

23             I was asked at one point, What about the regional bodies, and I

24     did as much as I could to look into them, and finding so little material

25     on the regional bodies aside from ARK, I was reluctant to claim that I

Page 4651

 1     was also covering the regional level.  So although the title of the

 2     report simply says "Crisis Staffs," the thrust is very much the municipal

 3     level.

 4        Q.   When you say you were asked to write a report on Municipal Crisis

 5     Staffs, was that explicitly in relation to the Municipal Crisis Staffs of

 6     one political party or one ethnic group or?

 7        A.   Yes, the Bosnian Serbs.  It was in terms of the case against

 8     Momcilo Krajisnik and Biljana Plavsic, so it was very much Bosnian Serb

 9     Crisis Staffs.

10        Q.   Were you ever asked to include in the report or to look at Muslim

11     or Croat ethnic Crisis Staffs?

12        A.   No.

13        Q.   Can you recall what Momcilo Krajisnik's position was during 1992?

14        A.   He was Speaker of the Assembly, the Bosnian Serb National

15     Assembly, and he was a member of the expanded Wartime Presidency of the

16     Republika Srpska as of, I believe, late May or early June 1992.

17        Q.   So that wasn't a case involving a defendant who had been a member

18     of the Ministry of the Interior?

19        A.   Correct.

20        Q.   It did -- however, in your first report, I believe you said you

21     did briefly touch on the relationship between the Crisis Staffs and the

22     police, didn't you?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   And you were later asked to provide an updated version of the

25     Krajisnik report for this case; right?

Page 4652

 1        A.   Correct.

 2        Q.   So your report was used in two different cases with two separate

 3     sets of facts.  Did you alter any of your conclusions from the first

 4     report to the report for this case?

 5        A.   No.

 6        Q.   Did you alter any of the assertions that you made in the first

 7     report?

 8        A.   I may have refined some of my arguments, but the assertions

 9     stayed the same.

10        Q.   Now, when you expanded the section touching on the relationship

11     between the Crisis Staffs and the police, specifically in relation to

12     that section, did you change any of your assertions or conclusions from

13     the Krajisnik report to this report?

14        A.   No.

15             MR. DOBBYN:  Your Honours, at this time I'd like to show -- call

16     up Ms. Hanson's Krajisnik report.  It has 65 ter number 10085.

17             MR. ZECEVIC:  I am sorry, Your Honours, I don't believe that

18     during the cross-examination the Krajisnik report was ever brought up.  I

19     don't know how it derives from the cross-examination that my learned

20     friend can use it in redirect.

21             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Dobbyn, the same thing occurred to me.  What --

22     how are you permitted to show this at this stage?

23             MR. DOBBYN:  Your Honours, I'm just looking for a specific

24     reference, but it's my recollection that it was actually -- the genesis

25     of the present report was referred to on several occasions, and if I'm

Page 4653

 1     given a moment, I'll try to find a specific reference for Your Honours.

 2     Yes, Your Honours if we look at transcript page 4453, from questions from

 3     Mr. Zecevic, and this is line 10:

 4             "In the light of the Judge's questions, let me ask you one more

 5     thing.  You said your first report was created on the basis of a

 6     memorandum written by you as part the Prosecution team in Krajisnik, and

 7     then the Prosecutors leading that case asked you to write it in the form

 8     of a report."

 9             Now he then goes on, Your Honour, I don't want to quote it

10     verbatim, but saying that this basic report was amended and was adjusted

11     and was updated for this case, so I believe it has been raised.

12             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, I'm not disputing this, but the point

13     of the matter is the witness's testimony is that she only added to the

14     report, to the existing report of Krajisnik.  She only added the part

15     referring to the minister of interior and therefore we never used the

16     Krajisnik report in our cross-examination.  We only used the report in

17     Stanisic-Zupljanin case.  And --

18             JUDGE HALL:  But, with respect, Mr. Zecevic, aren't we spending

19     unnecessary time on what is a really technical objection having regard to

20     the common basis, the common nature of these reports?

21             MR. ZECEVIC:  I agree with Your Honour.  I'm just trying to

22     establish sort of rules in the redirect for the future.  Thank you very

23     much.  That is very correct from Your Honours that it's --

24             JUDGE HALL:  We have all walked that path before, but in this

25     case --

Page 4654

 1             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you very much, Your Honour.  I understand.

 2             MR. DOBBYN:  And Your Honours, I would be happy to make it clear

 3     where I'm going with these questions but I just don't think it's suitable

 4     when the witness is present, so if I can just carry on.

 5             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, proceed, Mr. Dobbyn.

 6             MR. DOBBYN:  Sure.  So, again, if we could call up that document.

 7     That's 10085.  And I'd like to look at paragraph 57.  It's on page 29 of

 8     the English and page 31 of the B/C/S.

 9             MR. ZECEVIC:  I am sorry, Your Honour, just one more technical

10     question.  Is this document on the 65 ter list?

11             MR. DOBBYN:  Your Honours, it's not on the 65 ter list.  On the

12     basis that it has been opened by the -- sorry, this issue has been opened

13     up by the Defence in cross-examination, I believe it's only proper for us

14     to be able to address it.  Again, I could go further with the

15     explanation, I just don't think it's proper in the witness's presence.

16             JUDGE HALL:  Again, I'm thinking of time and the significance of

17     this.  If this wasn't on your 65 ter list, need we really spend time on

18     trying to do this?

19             MR. DOBBYN:  I take your point, Your Honours, and perhaps I'll

20     just go back to the question I had before.

21        Q.   Ms. Hanson, the section on police.  Am I correct in understanding

22     that you expanded that section?

23        A.   Correct.

24        Q.   Did you change any other section that had been included in the

25     Krajisnik report and the report that you have written in this case?

Page 4655

 1        A.   I did not change my basic conclusions.  It became a longer

 2     section.  Those are the changes.

 3             MR. DOBBYN:  Your Honours, I'm happy to move on without getting

 4     into the prior report at this point.

 5        Q.   Now referring to transcript page 4456 onwards, you were asked a

 6     number of questions about historical and political events that were

 7     leading up to the formation of the Crisis Staffs.  As some examples, you

 8     were asked about the October proclamation of sovereignty, the

 9     Lord Carrington-led negotiations, the conference in The Hague and so on.

10     Do you recall that?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   It was put to you that these events should perhaps have been

13     included in your report; do you recall that?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   Now, from your knowledge, do Prosecution teams in the OTP usually

16     rely on just one expert to cover all relevant areas of their case?

17        A.   No.

18        Q.   As far as these historical and political events leading up to the

19     war in Bosnia-Herzegovina are concerned, would you expect these to be

20     covered by someone else other than yourself?

21        A.   Yes, I would.

22        Q.   Having had all these questions about these events put to you, do

23     you believe now that a discussion of these events was necessary to be

24     included in your report to an understanding of how the Bosnian Serb

25     Crisis Staffs were formed and how they functioned?

Page 4656

 1        A.   No, I did not.

 2        Q.   On Tuesday - I'm referring to transcript page 4441 at line 12 -

 3     it was put to you that in reviewing documents for your report, you only

 4     selected those documents that fit the Prosecution's case of -- theory of

 5     the case.  Do you recall that?

 6        A.   Yes, I recall.

 7        Q.   You said at that time that when you found documents that went

 8     against the Prosecution, you would bring them to the Prosecutor's

 9     attention.  Do you recall that answer?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   Now, I'd like to just ask you to explain this a little further.

12     Are you referring to documents specifically that undermined your report,

13     or are you talking more generally about Rule 68 in general?

14        A.   I mean Rule 68 in general.  It's one of my taskings to bring such

15     material to the Prosecution's attention.

16        Q.   Could you just perhaps expand on that little bit, exactly what

17     this tasking is, what it involves?

18        A.   Well, it's one of our ongoing jobs.  Whatever we see, material

19     that we consider potentially Rule 68, we identify it, sometimes we

20     participate in some system-wide searches on certain topics, but just in

21     the course of reviewing documents, if I see something that strikes me as

22     supporting my understanding of the Defence case or something that

23     contradicts my understanding of the Prosecution's general theory, it's my

24     duty to pass it on to the team lawyers.

25        Q.   Thank you.  Just to move on, on Wednesday - and I refer to

Page 4657

 1     transcript page 4449 - you were asked to identify documents in your

 2     report which perhaps do not support the Prosecution's case.  Do you

 3     recall being asked that?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   And do you recall that at that time being asked there and then

 6     you couldn't point to any.  Do you recall that?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   First can I ask, was the Prosecution's theory of the case ever

 9     explained to you in any detail?

10        A.   No.

11        Q.   And at the time of preparing this report, did you know what the

12     Defence theory of the case would be?

13        A.   No, I did not.

14        Q.   So do you think you are in any position to say for certain

15     whether any of your documents, aside from your report, are contrary to

16     the Prosecution's case or support the Defence case?

17        A.   No.

18             MR. DOBBYN:  Your Honours, at this time if we could show

19     Exhibit P186.

20        Q.   Now, do you remember being shown this document yesterday,

21     Ms. Hanson?

22        A.   Yes, I do.

23        Q.   And I think it was put to you, and wouldn't you agree, that on

24     its face this document appears to undermine your assertions regarding

25     Djeric's 26 April instructions?

Page 4658

 1        A.   It indicates that the text of the instructions were withdrawn,

 2     but as I've indicated, I have other reasons to believe that the

 3     instructions were, in fact, issued and implemented.

 4        Q.   You included this document in your report and a footnote,

 5     footnote 47, with an explanatory note.  Why did you specifically bring

 6     this document to attention in your report?

 7        A.   Because it's relevant.  It obviously has some bearing on

 8     understanding the instructions.  In fact, I think I had a much longer

 9     section explaining why -- that I am aware of this document but how I

10     interpret it in the light of other copies of the instructions that we

11     found.  But since my basic conclusion is that the instructions were in

12     fact issued, received and implemented, I kept it in a footnote, but I

13     certainly want to call the attention to -- of the reader to the fact of

14     the existence of this document.

15        Q.   Thank you.  Now apart from this document or any other document --

16     actually if I just go back for one second.

17             Were you ever asked to remove any document from your report

18     because it was damaging to the Prosecution's theory of the case.

19        A.   Never.

20        Q.   Did you do that on your own accord?

21        A.   No.

22        Q.   And to move on, at transcript page 4463, do you remember being

23     asked whether you had only looked at documentary evidence for those

24     municipalities contained in the indictment?  Do you remember that being

25     put to you?

Page 4659

 1        A.   I don't recall that question per se but I've been asked a lot of

 2     questions.

 3        Q.   Okay.

 4             MR. DOBBYN:  If we could call up Ms. Hanson's report.  That's

 5     P434, marked for identification.  I'd like to go to page 25 in the

 6     English, page 26 in the B/C/S.  And sorry, if we could scroll down, it's

 7     the footnotes that I'm interested in.

 8        Q.   Ms. Hanson, the municipalities that are in bold, what does that

 9     indicate?

10        A.   I bold the -- just for ease of reading I bold the name of the

11     municipality and many of these ones here on this page are not -- as far

12     as I know, not part of the indictment.

13        Q.   Could you just quickly perhaps read the names in bold, the

14     municipalities in bold?

15        A.   Bosanski Novi, Bratunac, Kotor Varos, Novo Sarajevo, Rogatica,

16     Sanski Most, Sipovo, Bosanska Krupa, Kljuc, Bihac, Bosanski Samac.

17        Q.   Thank you.  On Wednesday, transcript page 4463, you were asked if

18     all SDS Municipal Boards set up Crisis Staffs in 1992, and you responded

19     that you couldn't claim that because they're municipalities for which the

20     OTP has no documentary evidence.  Do you recall that exchange?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   Now, from the documentation that you were able to review, was --

23     would you say that the formation of SDS Crisis Staffs was an isolated

24     phenomenon?

25        A.   Isolated in what --

Page 4660

 1        Q.   That it only happened in a few municipalities or was it

 2     widespread?

 3        A.   It was widespread.

 4        Q.   On Wednesday, again, you were asked about the secrecy or

 5     otherwise of the Variant A and B instructions, and you were shown one

 6     example, document from Zvornik, this is Exhibit P437, where it appeared

 7     that the instructions may not have been kept secret; do you recall that?

 8        A.   Yes, I do.

 9             MR. DOBBYN:  Could we show Exhibit P438.

10        Q.   Ms. Hanson, this is in tab 5 of your binder.

11             MR. DOBBYN:  And if we can go to page 306 in the English and

12     page 278 in the B/C/S.

13        Q.   Ms. Hanson, we have looked at this already, but could you perhaps

14     direct us -- sorry, I'll just wait for the correct page to come up.

15     Could you tell us how Radovan Karadzic himself characterised these

16     instructions, if at all, on this page?

17        A.   Yes, he says:

18             "In the municipalities where we were a minority, we formed a

19     secret government Municipal Board, Municipal Assembly, president of the

20     Executive Board.  You remember A and B variants."

21        Q.   Thank you.  Now, you've been asked questions by both of my

22     learned colleagues about the Bosanski Samac Crisis Staff and particularly

23     in relation to the apparent membership of a Muslim and I believe possibly

24     a Serb from a party other than the SDS.  Do you recall those questions?

25        A.   Yes, I do.

Page 4661

 1        Q.   Are you aware of any other cases from the municipalities you

 2     looked at where there were non-Serbs on SDS Crisis Staffs?

 3        A.   No, I'm not.

 4        Q.   Was membership of non-SDS party Serbs common on the Crisis Staffs

 5     that you've seen?

 6        A.   Where they become the Municipal Crisis Staffs, they do -- usually

 7     in April or May, they do sometimes add members who were heads of fairly

 8     practical municipal institutions, I think of -- in the case of Bratunac

 9     the head of the bus company was added.  And I think at that point it was

10     noted that he was not SDS.  So I can't say for certain about the party

11     affiliation of these added later people, but the Crisis Staff themselves

12     saw themselves as continuous with the SDS Crisis Staffs.

13        Q.   Now, in a series of questions - and this starts from transcript

14     page 4478 - it was put to you by my learned colleague that there were

15     great similarities between the committees for All People's Defence and

16     Self-Protection, the Crisis Staff that was established by the BiH

17     Presidency in September 1991, and the SDS Crisis Staffs.  Do you remember

18     those questions?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   And in particular it was put it to you that their composition and

21     their powers are very similar and that these were sort of precedent for

22     the SDS Crisis Staffs.  Do you recall that?

23        A.   Yes, I do.

24        Q.   Now, regarding these earlier precedents for Crisis Staffs, to

25     your knowledge, was the membership drawn from just one ethnic group?

Page 4662

 1        A.   No.

 2        Q.   Particularly in the case of the presidential Crisis Staff, was it

 3     drawn from a single political party?

 4        A.   No, it was not.

 5        Q.   So apart from the possible exception of Bosanski Samac you were

 6     aware of, how does this compare to what you've seen of the SDS Crisis

 7     Staffs?

 8        A.   The SDS Crisis Staffs were drawn from one particular ethnic group

 9     to defend the interests of that one particular ethnic group.

10        Q.   I'll just move on to another area now.  Some questions were put

11     to you --

12             MR. DOBBYN:  Direct Your Honours to transcript page 4510 and

13     onwards.

14        Q.   -- that SDS Crisis Staffs and Municipal Crisis Staffs were two

15     totally separate organs and that the SDS had no influence over the

16     Municipal Crisis Staffs.  Do you recall that?

17        A.   Yes, I do.

18             MR. DOBBYN:  Your Honours, at this time I would seek your leave

19     to call up a document.  This is 65 ter number 1850.  I did send notice of

20     this document, but it's -- although it was originally on our 65 ter list,

21     it was withdrawn, the reason being that this question of two separate

22     bodies, a Crisis Staff and a War Staff, and SDS authority over them was

23     not seen as an issue.  It was brought up in cross-examination, so we

24     would seek leave to be able to use this now and perhaps have it MFI'd,

25     and seek your leave in writing to have it added and admitted later on.

Page 4663

 1             MR. ZECEVIC:  We strongly object, Your Honours.  This is not

 2     appropriate at all.  This document, first, is not on the 65 ter list.

 3     Now they are seeking to readmit it at the redirect, during the redirect.

 4     Of course we should have had that document before and we would have used

 5     it if it was on the 65 ter list, for example, because I don't know what

 6     is the document.  We might have used it in our cross-examination.

 7             MR. DOBBYN:  Your Honours, if I could just add, it's been

 8     disclosed.  It was originally on the --

 9             MR. ZECEVIC:  But I am sorry, that is not the point.

10             MR. DOBBYN:  Well, if I could just finish what I'm saying perhaps

11     and then I'll be happy to listen to your response.  It's footnoted in

12     Ms. Hanson's report.  It goes directly to the point which my learned

13     colleague cross-examined her on.  It's in her report.  She was asked

14     about this very topic, so I can only assume that they must have looked at

15     this document themselves at some point before opening up this line of

16     questioning with Ms. Hanson.

17             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, the ruling of this Trial Chamber is

18     that only the documents which are on the 65 ter list which are the part

19     of the -- of the expert report are admitted, therefore, we are put on

20     notice that only the 65 ter documents which are noted in the expert

21     report are to admitted in this case.  Therefore, if it's not on the

22     65 ter list, it doesn't exist for us.  It's not -- it is not -- it is

23     not -- it is not a potential exhibit.  If we use it, that's a different

24     story.  It is disclosed to us.  I assume it's disclosed to us.  But I

25     think it's completely inappropriate that in the redirect the Prosecution

Page 4664

 1     seeks to amend the 65 ter list and admit another document.  Then we will

 2     be -- we would need to be given time to assess that document and

 3     cross-examine the witness on the basis of that document.  That's my

 4     position.

 5                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 6             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour, can I, as it were, take over again,

 7     with respect.  If the logic of this was followed through -- Your Honours,

 8     can I just say something?

 9             MR. ZECEVIC:  I need to object now.  Your Honours, it is

10     Ms. Korner who insisted that there should be only one counsel speaking on

11     behalf of the party during a certain witness's presentation.

12             MS. KORNER:  Yes, Your Honours, but this is outside.  This is a

13     matter of principle relating to documents which, of course, is an issue

14     that concerns both sides and the whole case.

15             Your Honours, the logic of what Mr. Zecevic is as follows:  The

16     Defence having seen that there is a document in a footnote not on our

17     65 ter list because we haven't seen the relevance because an issue has

18     not been made clear, and the Defence knowing that that document is not in

19     favour of the argument that they are going to advance to the witness,

20     would be able, in the sure and certain knowledge if Mr. Zecevic's

21     argument is right, that because it wasn't on our 65 ter list because the

22     issue had not been made plain, to cross-examine knowing that if the, as I

23     say, the logic is followed, we would never be able to put in that

24     document in re-examination.  And that cannot be right.  And what the

25     suggestion here is that the witness should be shown the document,

Page 4665

 1     Your Honours should see the document, and then MFI it because it's not on

 2     our 65 ter list, although I would hope the relevance is then obvious, we

 3     would obviously add it to the list of documents that we would formally

 4     apply to put in.

 5                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 6             JUDGE HALL:  The Chamber is of the view that the -- without

 7     gainsaying [Realtime transcript read in error "again saying"] the

 8     principle which has been previously enunciated and repeated that this

 9     particular report may be exhibited by the Prosecution at this stage

10     subject to the right of the Defence if they wish to further cross-examine

11     on it now that it is an exhibit, an event which was not anticipated by

12     them having regard to where the -- where they were at the time the

13     cross-examination began.

14             JUDGE HARHOFF:  The implications of this is that we think that

15     the subject which apparently the document deals with, which, I don't know

16     what the document is, I haven't seen it, but this subject apparently is

17     this dual relation between a Crisis Staff and a War Staff.  And if I'm

18     right in assuming that the document actually helps clarify this issue,

19     then I must say that the Chamber is inclined to -- then I must say that

20     the Chamber is inclined to allow the document to be shown because --

21     simply because this issue is really an important issue that comes out of

22     this witness's testimony.  So we need to have the issue clarified and,

23     for that purpose, we would like to see the document.  But then in

24     allowing the Prosecution to show it even though it was not on the 65 ter

25     list, then in order to make sure that the Defence is not prejudiced by

Page 4666

 1     this, we would allow the Defence to take up that issue subsequently.

 2             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, if I may just --

 3             JUDGE HALL:  Before I lose it, Mr. Zecevic, I just want to

 4     indicate that at pages 22 and 23 of page 47 -- 48, lines 22 and 23, the

 5     transcript records me as saying "without again saying."  What I did say

 6     was "gainsaying," one word, g-a-i-n-s-a-y-i-n-g.  Without gainsaying the

 7     principle.

 8             Yes, Mr. Zecevic.

 9             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, I just want to put on the record, it

10     is the principle, as I understand, according to the rules and the

11     procedure and the jurisdiction of this court, that the Prosecution must

12     know its case before it starts.  That's number 1.  Now, if -- I, there is

13     nothing else what I can do since Your Honours have decided as you have

14     decided, but what I would suggest is that my learned friend moves on into

15     another area and then returns to this particular document by first giving

16     me an exact reference in my cross-examination where did I mention

17     anything remotely to this particular document, and giving me the

18     opportunity during the break to review the document.  That is what I

19     would suggest as a practical matter.  Thank you very much.

20             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, Mr. Zecevic, but there's a point that perhaps

21     needs to be made, is that we have tried to be deliberately careful and

22     economical in our use of language in admitting this document because we

23     don't want to appear to compromise the principle to which you have

24     referred.

25             MR. ZECEVIC:  I understand, Your Honours.

Page 4667

 1             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour, I don't want to go on arguing this, but

 2     the point is this:  We have always made our position clear.  We have

 3     said it doesn't matter.  It's in our pre-trial brief and it was my

 4     opening.  It doesn't matter what this body calls itself, whether

 5     War Staff or Crisis Staff, it's one and the same thing.  The first

 6     indication we've had that this is not accepted is through the

 7     cross-examination of Mr. Zecevic.  Had the pre-trial briefs by the

 8     Defence set up chapter and verse as did Your Honour Judge Harhoff invite

 9     them to do, this is a real issue, then we would have known.  And we

10     cannot be penalised in the way that Mr. Zecevic would like us to be

11     penalised because we have no indication that this an issue.  And that is

12     the point that I wish to make.  I have no objection to what Mr. Zecevic

13     wants more time, but that is, I think, the issue of principle in this

14     case.

15             JUDGE HARHOFF:  We have ruled and let's take a break now.

16             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Let's perhaps first see what the exhibit number.

17     Anna?

18                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

19             MR. DOBBYN:  Your Honours, I just --

20             JUDGE HARHOFF: [Microphone not activated].

21             MR. DOBBYN:  No, it's not -- 65 ter 1850.  I just want to make it

22     clear there has been one point which perhaps has been misunderstood a

23     little.  This document is not about the relationship between Crisis

24     Staffs and War Staffs.  What this document relates to is the authority or

25     the influence of the SDS party over Municipal Crisis Staffs after the

Page 4668

 1     transformation from SDS Crisis Staffs to Municipal Crisis Staff, which

 2     was an issue that was raised in cross-examination.  So it's a little

 3     different from perhaps what you may have got the understanding to be from

 4     something I'd said earlier.

 5             MR. ZECEVIC:  Well, I'm speechless, Your Honours.

 6             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Let's have a look at it during the break and see

 7     what comes out of it.

 8                           [The witness stands down]

 9                           --- Recess taken at 11.59 a.m.

10                           --- On resuming at 12.27 p.m.

11             JUDGE HALL:  Before we resume I just wanted to alert counsel that

12     wherever we are, in terms of whichever witness is on the stand, at 1.30

13     we intend to excuse the witness at that point so that a number of

14     administrative matters with which we have to deal we can deal with in the

15     remaining 15 minutes and take the adjournment at the prescribed time of

16     1.45.

17             MR. DOBBYN:  Your Honours, while we are waiting for the witness,

18     I just thought I should take this opportunity to apologise for a slip of

19     the tongue which obviously caused some confusion.  I went back over the

20     transcript and directed the witness to the fact that we'd be moving on to

21     an issue concerning the separation between SDS Crisis Staffs and

22     Municipal Crisis Staffs.  Then the very next stage when I asked Your

23     Honours for permission to use this document, in the slip of the tongue I

24     referred to the two separate organs as being Crisis Staffs and War

25     Staffs.  So I can understand now where the confusion came from and I do

Page 4669

 1     apologise for that.

 2             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you, Mr. Dobbyn, because if we thought we had

 3     heard you correctly, we were prepared to recall the ruling that we had

 4     made allowing you to proceed as you had asked.  So we are back on track.

 5     Thanks.

 6                           [The witness takes the stand]

 7             MR. DOBBYN:  Thank you, Your Honours.  And could we call up

 8     65 ter 1850, please.

 9        Q.   Ms. Hanson, while we are waiting for the document to come up you

10     recall that I had turned to a series of questions that you had been asked

11     about the apparent difference between SDS Crisis Staffs and

12     Municipal Crisis Staffs, and whether the SDS had any influence over

13     Municipal Crisis Staffs.  Do you recall that?

14        A.   Yes, I do.

15        Q.   Now, if you look at the document in front of you, you'll see that

16     it's from the SDS executive committee.  It's dated 31 May 1992, and

17     appears to have been sent to various regional Crisis Staffs.  Now in the

18     light of the issues that we've just been discussing, can you review this

19     document.  First of all, have you seen this document before?

20        A.   Yes, I've seen it and I refer to it more than once in my report,

21     I believe.

22        Q.   And in relation to the issues we've just been discussing, can you

23     tell us how, if at all, this relates to authority of SDS, the SDS party

24     over Municipal Crisis Staffs?

25        A.   Well, we see that it's the SDS instructing the presidents of

Page 4670

 1     regional Crisis Staffs to implement the Presidency decision of 31 May on

 2     abolishing Crisis Staffs and setting up War Presidencies.  Interestingly

 3     enough, in the first paragraph, he -- the author confuses War

 4     Presidencies and war commissions, even, but he is clearly, by the date,

 5     referring to the decision on War Presidencies.  I also note in the first

 6     sentence that he refers explicitly to Djeric's instructions of

 7     26 April 1992 which would certainly suggest that they were not withdrawn

 8     but were regarded, by the SDS at least, as having been setting the

 9     framework for the structure and method of work of Crisis Staffs.

10             So it's not purely a municipal matter; it's not purely a state

11     matter; it's the SDS party making sure that the regional Crisis Staffs

12     are helping the implementation of a Presidency decision.

13        Q.   Thank you.

14             MR. DOBBYN:  Your Honours, and could this document be marked for

15     identification at this time.

16             JUDGE HALL:  We had said it could be exhibited, so it's --

17             MR. DOBBYN:  Oh, thank you, Your Honours.

18             JUDGE HALL:  -- tendered, admitted and marked.

19             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit P452, Your Honours.

20             MR. DOBBYN:  Next I'd like to call up document 65 ter 637.

21        Q.   Ms. Hanson, still discussing the same issue, you'll see that this

22     document is from the Sanski Most Crisis Staff, dated 19 June 1992.  Can

23     you tell us if this has any relevance to the issue of SDS authority over

24     Municipal Crisis Staffs?

25        A.   To my mind, it indicates the close relationship between the SDS

Page 4671

 1     and Municipal Crisis Staffs.  This document is from the Crisis Staff of

 2     the Serb municipality of Sanski Most but it says that the subcommittees

 3     of the SDS shall exercise power over the territory of Sanski Most.

 4             MR. DOBBYN:  Your Honours, I'd seek to tender this document at

 5     this time.

 6             JUDGE HALL:  Admitted and marked.

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit P453, Your Honours.

 8             MR. DOBBYN:  I'd like to go back to a document actually that we

 9     looked at earlier today, if we could call up Exhibit P186.

10        Q.   Now, Ms. Hanson, you were shown this exhibit during

11     cross-examination, and on a couple of occasions yesterday, you tried to

12     explain the context of this document and whether it shows that the

13     26 April instructions were ever withdrawn but you weren't able to do so.

14     So I'd invite you now, if you could explain the context behind this

15     document and how you assert that it was not withdrawn?

16        A.   One of the versions found in the government archives is in the

17     Latin script with a few typographical errors, and I note that this

18     document withdrawing the instruction says:

19             "An unfinished text had been delivered to you by mistake."

20             The version that we've seen both in government archives and found

21     in the field is a Cyrillic document, so one possible interpretation of

22     this, given the documents found, is that the Latin text with the

23     typographical errors was withdrawn and a different text sent out.

24             Moreover, there is so much evidence that the text as we know it

25     was received and implemented that I cannot regard this as outweighing the

Page 4672

 1     variety of evidence I found showing -- including the document we just saw

 2     previous to this, indicating that those instructions were considered to

 3     be still binding.

 4             MR. DOBBYN:  And I would refer Your Honours and counsel to

 5     footnote 47 of Ms. Hanson's report in that respect.

 6        Q.   Yesterday you were also asked about the formation of war

 7     commissions, and referring to paragraph 44 of your report, you were asked

 8     by Mr. Pantelic if you agreed that the only logical explanation for the

 9     formation of war commissions was that no one had been able to establish

10     any control over Crisis Staffs at the local level.  You said you did not

11     agree with this assertion.  Could you expand on that, please?

12        A.   I do not see the issue as Crisis Staffs were running wild and the

13     government was -- or the republican level was trying to get control over

14     them.  I see Crisis Staffs as having been formed on the initiative with

15     the instructions of the republican level and receiving instructions,

16     orders from, communicating with the republican level.

17             So I see these steps that I -- the various decisions in May 1992

18     not as an establishment of control, but more as part of the process of

19     formalising the organs that had previously been SDS organs into state

20     organs of the Republika Srpska.

21        Q.   Thank you.

22             MR. PANTELIC:  I do apologise.  I don't have objection to this

23     particular question, but in terms of clarity, frankly, I didn't -- I

24     believe I didn't pose this question to witness.  Maybe I'm wrong.  Sorry.

25             MR. DOBBYN:  It may be my mistake, Mr. Pantelic, and if so, I do

Page 4673

 1     apologise.  It may have been, yes, Mr. Zecevic.  Sorry about that.

 2        Q.   Finally, it was -- not finally, but it was put to you yesterday

 3     that, in 1991, before the Variant A and B instructions were sent out,

 4     there were over 900 Crisis Staffs in Bosnia-Herzegovina.  And you said

 5     that these Crisis Staffs are not the same as the Crisis Staffs which are

 6     the subject of your report.  Do you recall that?

 7        A.   Yes, I do.

 8        Q.   Can you explain what these 900 or so Crisis Staffs were?  Do you

 9     know anything about them?

10        A.   I don't know, as I say, the 900.  I've been shown a few documents

11     of a Presidency Crisis Staff, HDZ Crisis Staff mentioned, there was

12     mention of a police -- a MUP Crisis Staff.  What I have heard from

13     witnesses but not seen in any documents is that "Crisis Staff" was a

14     known term that could be used even [indiscernible] by government organs

15     within an enterprise, within a company or something even to deal with a

16     crisis situation.  So my focus is on the municipal organs of the Bosnian

17     Serb state and how they arose from the Crisis Staffs formed within the

18     SDS.  So I have really nothing to say about those 900-whatever

19     Crisis Staffs.

20        Q.   Thank you.  Today you were asked about Article 12 of the Law on

21     National Defence and basically whether this was the basis for the

22     formation of Crisis Staffs.  You responded that your understanding was

23     that it doesn't mention Crisis Staffs.  Do you recall that?

24        A.   Yes, I do.

25             MR. DOBBYN:  Your Honours, I wonder at this time if we can call

Page 4674

 1     this document up; it's 65 ter 8000.  Simply it wasn't actually shown at

 2     the time and so I would like to see exactly what is said in that article.

 3             MR. ZECEVIC:  Is this one on 65 ter list?

 4             MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated].

 5             MR. ZECEVIC:  Okay.  Thank you.

 6             MR. PANTELIC:  To be frank with you, I got this particular

 7     article but we didn't find it during cross-examination, so I agree

 8     absolutely to show to the witness specifically the last portion of this

 9     article.  Thank you.

10             MR. DOBBYN:  Sorry, what we are looking for is Article 12 of that

11     document.  And I just want to make it clear this is the February 1992

12     law, because I believe there's a later one.

13        Q.   Ms. Hanson, looking at Article 12, is there any mention of

14     Crisis Staffs in there?

15        A.   No.

16             MR. PANTELIC:  Again, I do apologise.  Could we have also the

17     rest of the article, the other part of Article 12 in B/C/S, because

18     it's --

19             MR. DOBBYN:  Certainly.

20             MR. PANTELIC:  Yeah, thank you.

21             MR. DOBBYN:

22        Q.   And do you see any mention of Crisis Staffs in that portion of

23     Article 12, Ms. Hanson?

24        A.   No, I do not.

25        Q.   Thank you.  Now, I'm on to my last few questions.  Earlier on

Page 4675

 1     this morning you were asked -- well, it was actually put to you that

 2     there were two bodies existing at one time in the ARK; a Crisis Staff and

 3     a War Staff.  Ms. Hanson, in the course of your research, have you seen

 4     any document showing that there were these two separate bodies existing

 5     at one time?

 6        A.   No, I have not.

 7        Q.   Thank you for your time, Ms. Hanson.

 8             MR. DOBBYN:  I have no further question, Your Honours.

 9             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Zecevic, do you wish to exercise your right to

10     cross-examine on -- re-cross-examine in respect of the -- those companion

11     documents which were exceptionally exhibited during re-examination?

12             MR. ZECEVIC:  No, Your Honour.  Thank you very much.

13             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Pantelic?

14             MR. PANTELIC:  Yes, Your Honour, with your permission, if this

15     particular article is applied to this document, if I understand?

16     Article 12 that we just seen?  No.

17             JUDGE HARHOFF:  It was document 1850.

18                           Questioned by the Court:

19             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mrs. Hanson, if I could just take you back to

20     your testimony just a little while ago where you said that, in your view,

21     and let me quote you, you did not see the issue as Crisis Staffs were

22     "running wild and that the government was trying to get control over

23     them."  So my question would be:  If it wasn't a matter of getting

24     control over the Crisis Staffs, then why were they abolished?

25        A.   The Bosnian Serb state was in the process of formalising its

Page 4676

 1     structures and passing -- we see passing provisions such as for a

 2     municipal War Presidency that didn't exist before.  And because, as I

 3     see -- I see no legislative basis for Crisis Staffs, so they create --

 4     using the previous model of a collective municipal Presidency, they

 5     introduce that into the constitution which was not part of the RS

 6     constitution until the 2nd of June, 1992.  So I see it more of a process

 7     of regularising institutions that have been set up by the party,

 8     generally secretly, separating from the existing constitutional framework

 9     of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, creating their own parallel state

10     and then creating the normative documents to match the situation on the

11     ground.

12             JUDGE HARHOFF:  So, in your view, it was merely a cosmetic change

13     that was established in order to give them another name but otherwise to

14     allow them as to perform as business as usual with the Crisis Staffs?

15        A.   No, I would not say merely cosmetic.  I think there was an

16     element of getting the house in order.  Similar as we see the creation of

17     the VRS and the establishment of a command structure there and the

18     police, we see asserting more authority of the ministry at this time, say

19     June/July 1992.

20             I think that Crisis Staffs were set up on the initiative of the

21     party, given a broad mandate to take power.  In the take-over of power,

22     they were allowed to use considerable initiative on their own, and once

23     they had established power on the ground, then the Serbian state could be

24     effectively created.  And certainly we do see that there's some instances

25     where the state structures felt individual Crisis Staff presidents had

Page 4677

 1     gone -- too far gone beyond their mandate and the rule of law should be

 2     asserted over them, but I see that as a factor of a product of them

 3     having been given their head early on.  Given a task, take your

 4     initiative, go out and get this done, was what we see in the March

 5     Assembly sections.  Wait for our instructions, you'll get instructions

 6     and then you guys on the ground do it.  Once it's been done and the

 7     territory is being held and made part of the Bosnian Serb state, then we

 8     see the formal structures being regularised.

 9             So it's not merely cosmetic but it's not that the Crisis Staffs

10     were spontaneously formed on the ground and had no relation to the higher

11     structures which were the structures that were themselves in the process

12     of changing from party organs to state organs.

13             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Can you explain why apparently it was so

14     important for the Bosnian Serb leadership to ensure that the

15     Crisis Staffs were actually abolished and replaced by War Staffs or war

16     commissions?  I don't know which term to use now.

17        A.   The term "War Staff" I haven't seen enough that I don't use it in

18     my report.  Occasionally it's crept in but it could also be refer to more

19     strictly military things, such as the staff of the TO at the time could

20     be called a War Staff.  So I'm reluctant to use that term much.  I don't

21     think it was all that important because we see some organs calling

22     themselves Crisis Staffs until July.  I think that it was not seen as a

23     practical difference.  I see the -- Rajlovac saying, Well, we had a

24     War Presidency, then a war commission, and in the War Presidency the

25     tasks were the same.  We see the confusion even in that document from

Page 4678

 1     Trifko Komad, that within two -- between two paragraphs he confuses

 2     commissions and presidencies.

 3             I think it was generally understood that they were the same

 4     organs and I think that there was an attempt that Crisis Staffs didn't --

 5     the sound of the word "Crisis Staff" didn't coincide or didn't agree with

 6     their desire to have a functioning state.  If we have established power,

 7     we've moved beyond a crisis and now we just need a collective Presidency.

 8     But the fact that we see the terms used practically interchangeably and I

 9     don't see a very strong dissatisfaction in the top levels that they are

10     still calling them Crisis Staffs -- calling themselves Crisis Staffs, I

11     don't know how much it mattered.  I do see I think in July in the

12     government minutes somebody reporting that people on the ground are

13     confused about these terms, but I don't see a government response of, By

14     God, they've got to stop calling them Crisis Staffs.  It's more, For ease

15     of understanding, let's all settle on one term.

16             Why the Presidency decision on war commissions of 10 June

17     abolishes both Crisis Staffs and overturns the earlier decision on War

18     Presidencies, I don't understand because I see so few war commissions

19     functioning subsequent to those instructions.  And where I do see them

20     functioning, they look exactly like the War Presidencies.  And in the

21     Ilidza document, for example, that I mentioned, from January 1993, they

22     use the term apparently interchangeably or inconsistently.  So I can't

23     explain that one terribly well, I am afraid.

24             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thanks.  Now, let's go back to the more

25     substantive powers that were held by the Crisis Staffs.  You told us that

Page 4679

 1     the Crisis Staffs began to pop up throughout the municipalities sometime

 2     very early in 1992 or perhaps even late 1991, and that certainly by

 3     April 1992, they were fully functioning almost everywhere.  And you also

 4     told us that there were duplicates which was -- which the Defence

 5     reminded us of, duplicate in the sense that also the Muslim and the Croat

 6     communities set up their own Crisis Staffs.

 7             My question to you or the line of questions that I wish to put to

 8     you has to do with the functions of the Serbian Crisis Staffs in relation

 9     to the armed forces in the area.  So I want you to describe to us just

10     how did the Crisis Staffs perform their leadership or control over the

11     various armed forces that were present in each municipality.  We are

12     speaking about, first of all, of course, the army, the JNA, and then

13     there might be special units associated with the army, then you have the

14     paramilitary formations, and then, of course, you have the police.  How,

15     if you can -- how, if you can describe this to us, how did the Crisis

16     Staffs actually coordinate this?  How did they exercise their functions?

17        A.   As I say, this question is the one that has -- that lacks a

18     consistent pattern, the question of the extent of the Crisis Staff

19     control over the various armed forces.  One factor was if there was a JNA

20     unit in the municipality, and if so, what its relation to the SDS and the

21     plans of the Bosnian Serbs.  We see in the Prijedor example that Colonel

22     Zeljaja is later even boasting about how he was advising the SDS and

23     encouraging them and telling them how best to take over.  We see that in

24     the radio broadcast as well.  In other places, as Karadzic indicates in

25     his speech from April 1995, in some places the SDS had to hide their

Page 4680

 1     plans from the JNA, if the commander, he said, was Uso or Huso, Muslim

 2     names.

 3             THE INTERPRETER:  Kindly slow down for the sake of the record and

 4     the interpreters, please.  Thank you.

 5             THE WITNESS:  My apologies.  In Karadzic's speech he said that:

 6             "Sometimes we had to form our armies in secret where the JNA

 7     commander was a Huso or a Uso," meaning a Muslim name.

 8             Where there was a standing JNA unit station in the municipality,

 9     I see much less control by the Crisis Staff.  Although we see, for

10     example, in Zvornik that the commander of the JNA staff is supposed to be

11     a member of the Crisis Staff.  Where in some places the SDS set up its

12     own armed units calling them a Serbian TO, again the relation with the TO

13     would depend on who was in charge of the municipal TO.  If it was a

14     non-Serb majority municipality, the head of the TO might well be a Muslim

15     or a Croat, in which case the SDS would form its own independent armed

16     units.  Another source was the reserve police force, we see A and B

17     instructing the Crisis Staffs to act -- mobilise the reserve police

18     forces from the ranks of Serbs.

19             These, the leaders of these various armed forces were part of the

20     Crisis Staff.  They were included within the Crisis Staff.  We see the

21     commander of the TO.  The head of the police, the commander of the

22     largest army unit or the principal army unit being part of the

23     Crisis Staff.  The Crisis Staff brought these various forces together

24     with the common goal of establishing Serbian power in the territory.

25     What I've seen is how they work is they receive reports on the

Page 4681

 1     battle-field and general conditions, security conditions from the police

 2     commander, the TO commander, the army commander, if there is one, or a

 3     representative.  By June or July we see rather than the army commander, a

 4     representative, which I take to mean -- be an assertion of the VRS as

 5     having its own effective command structure now and they will consult with

 6     the Crisis Staff but have their own structure.  Then decisions are taken

 7     collectively on how best to proceed, to defend the territory, to take

 8     more territory, to establish Serbian power.  And from the discussions, it

 9     can vary the extent of the, say, the president's ability of the Crisis

10     Staff to actually order in some places.  I know, for example, in

11     Bratunac, the head of the Crisis Staff called himself commander of the TO

12     and said he ordered an attack.  In other cases, it would be more

13     collectively, Well, we ought to take this area, or we ought to defend and

14     therefore, okay, the TO will have that tasking.  And then the commander

15     of the TO will go back to his unit and implement that decision.

16             But I see it as collective decision-making with a common purpose,

17     and who is issuing specific orders and how they will be implemented

18     differs so much from municipality to municipality that I'd have to look

19     at each one on a basis.  In some places we see very clear orders from the

20     Crisis Staff to specific units.  In other cases we see simply

21     consultation.  In Bosanska Krupa, we can see the change quite clearly

22     because in April we have an order from the Crisis Staff.  In May it's a

23     recommendation to the army, and I think that indicates the evolution, the

24     change from direct command to simply a recommendation and a collective

25     effort.

Page 4682

 1             The army itself in its review of the history of the VRS notes

 2     that some -- that Crisis Staffs form their own infantry brigades and

 3     commanded them in the early days.

 4             Paramilitaries can be more difficult, simply that they are

 5     difficult to define exactly what one person might term a paramilitary,

 6     another might say, Well, it's our reserve police force or our Serbian TO,

 7     or it's something calling itself a TO group come from another

 8     municipality.  We see that in Zvornik, for example.  So I'd really have

 9     to say that has go on a case-by-case basis.  I note the -- in the report

10     from Bosanska Krupa, that they say, We had to -- we worked on integrating

11     our TO into the JNA so that we would not be regarded as paramilitaries.

12     It's clear from that report they secretly armed the Serbs, formed their

13     own secret Serbian TO, then sought to integrate it in consultation with

14     the JNA unit in the next municipality so that we would not -- so that

15     they would not appear to be paramilitaries.

16             JUDGE HARHOFF:  And the police?

17        A.   Similarly, the police commander was part of the TO.  We see many,

18     many examples of orders from the Crisis Staff to the police to carry out

19     various tasks.  So I think again it was agreed that the commander of the

20     police usually would brief, report to the Crisis Staff at every session,

21     tasks would be decided collectively and then either the commander would

22     simply take those tasks back or there would be a written order to the

23     police.

24             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Does that include reserve forces as well?  Police

25     reserve?

Page 4683

 1        A.   I do not at the moment recall seeing anything explicit making a

 2     distinction between police active -- a Crisis Staff order to reserve

 3     forces as opposed to active forces.  I see the mobilisation.  I'm sorry,

 4     I'd have to look at my documents.  It doesn't strike me as a distinction

 5     that I've seen.

 6             MR. DOBBYN:  Excuse me, Your Honour, sorry to interrupt.  I just

 7     wonder, looking at line 22, Ms. Hanson, according to the transcript,

 8     said:  "Similarly the police commander was part of the TO."  I just

 9     wondering if that was what was said or what was meant.

10             THE WITNESS:  It certainly wasn't what I meant.  I meant Crisis

11     Staff.  I don't know if what I said ...

12             JUDGE HARHOFF:  I understood as much.  Would the Crisis Staff be

13     the appropriate body locally to resubordinate, say, police units to the

14     armed forces or the purpose of a concrete military action or operation?

15        A.   It could be.  I could see it happening that because you'd have

16     both the commander of the police and the commander of the armed forces at

17     the Crisis Staff meeting that the issue would be raised.  We need more

18     forces for this action, okay, let's subordinate the police.  I can't

19     speak to the exact procedure that would be required.  From what I see, as

20     they were in the process of setting up their own state and their own

21     municipality, they didn't always follow or didn't even have a letter of a

22     law to follow.

23             We see, for example, in Kotor Varos they take a more distant --

24     the Crisis Staff takes a more distant approach, saying, We are not going

25     interfere with how you do it, but you, both the armed forces and the

Page 4684

 1     police, are responsible for security in the municipality.  So it could

 2     well happen through the Crisis Staff, but it could be that in a place

 3     like Kotor Varos, which seemed to be take keeping a distance, it might

 4     not, but they certainly received reports from both the TO and police in

 5     Kotor Varos.

 6             JUDGE HARHOFF:  We will move to the regional level in just a

 7     little instant, but before we leave the local level, my last question in

 8     relation to this is whether the Crisis Staff would also exercise some

 9     control over the judiciary that was existing in the municipality.  Do you

10     know?

11        A.   Yes, very much so.  It dismissed a lot of members due to

12     officials of the local Prosecutor's Office or courts and named -- almost

13     invariably these were non-Serbs, and named new officers, almost

14     invariably Serbs.  I know in Krupa, for example, the Crisis Staff set up

15     a wartime court.  We also saw that in Sanski Most.  In many places they

16     are setting up specific war time courts.  They are dismissing the

17     existing judicial officials and appointing their own.

18             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Are you aware of any determination made by one or

19     more Crisis Staffs about the direction of investigations against war

20     crimes committed within the area -- within the local area?  Do you

21     understand my questions?

22        A.   I do.  Only war crimes committed against Serbs.  I have not seen

23     a Crisis Staff ordering an investigation of the treatment of non-Serbs.

24     I do see them receiving Plavsic's instructions about documenting war

25     crimes committed against Serbs and mention of that, although, that's -- I

Page 4685

 1     don't recall it being a -- seeing much about that and it may be that it

 2     wasn't -- it was not something that I was looking at in particular.  But

 3     I certainly did not see the Crisis Staffs ordering investigations into

 4     crimes against non-Serbs.

 5             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Are you saying -- I wish to understand your

 6     answer correctly.  Are you saying that you have not come across any

 7     example of a Crisis Staff ordering investigations and prosecutions

 8     against crimes committed by Serbs, war crimes?  Is that what you are

 9     saying?

10        A.   Yes.

11             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you.  Now let's move to the regional level

12     because you have given us now your picture of how it worked on the

13     ground, and my question would then be, well, how did all of this relate

14     to the vertical co-ordination with the regional Crisis Staffs above the

15     level of the local Crisis Staff?

16        A.   As I say, the picture, the documentary evidence is so unbalanced

17     that I'm reluctant to draw any conclusions.  We can see what was going on

18     in ARK.  We can see the close connections to -- between the Municipal

19     Crisis Staffs and the ARK Crisis Staff and the ARK's then connection to

20     the republican level.  I think it was a Sanski Most document where we see

21     that for certain problems they say, We'll consult with the ARK and, if

22     necessary, the republican level.  But clearly ARK is their first stop.

23     We see ARK, for example, passing on the 31 May Presidency decision and

24     telling the municipalities to carry it out.

25             I don't have anything like that kind of documentary evidence from

Page 4686

 1     the other regions, and from the general -- my general understanding of

 2     the events of the war, the other regions were simply not -- the other

 3     regional organs were simply not as robust, didn't meet as often, didn't

 4     have as much to say, and the documentary evidence is so poor that I can't

 5     say how they operated.  We see that they are there, we certainly see them

 6     seeing themselves part of the state, part of the state system, following

 7     the line of the SDS, but I don't see enough of those kinds of documents

 8     that we see from the ARK for me to say how they operated.

 9             JUDGE HARHOFF:  You have made yourself very clear about this in

10     your earlier testimony.  Can I just clarify whether this -- these

11     observations also apply to the period after, say, July/August 1992, when

12     the war commissions were taking over?

13        A.   By the late summer of 1992, I believe, the regions were in the

14     process of being abolished, although I'm not quite sure of the exact

15     dates, and again, I don't see war commissions taking over.  War

16     commissions, according to the decision of 10 June, were intended to get

17     the municipal organs, particularly the Municipal Assembly running.  So if

18     a Municipal Assembly could meet, it would take over.

19             Although in many places, it couldn't meet or didn't meet until

20     August or sometime even in the fall.  They preferred to have a small

21     collective body running the municipality instead.  Where I do see war

22     commissions operating, they look exactly like a War Presidency.  And as

23     we see in Ilidza changed -- or Rajlovac changed their names without

24     changing their structure or function.  So although the document

25     indicates -- the 10 June decision would indicate that war commissions

Page 4687

 1     should take over everywhere, we don't see commissioners appointed or war

 2     commissions appointed everywhere.  And as I said, it's -- I can't explain

 3     the difference between the stipulations of the 10 June decision that the

 4     decision on War Presidencies is superseded because we see them all three

 5     bodies existing in June and July.

 6             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you.  My last question is if you are aware

 7     of any example either on the local level or on the region level of

 8     co-operation between the Serbian Crisis Staffs and the Muslim and the

 9     Croat Crisis Staffs?  Did you ever come across any degree, any examples

10     of --

11        A.   No, co-operation --

12             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Incidents where they were able -- where they were

13     able to actually meet up and regulate local matters or any attempt to

14     have such co-ordination?

15        A.   No, I saw no attempt at co-ordination or co-operation like that.

16             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you, Madam Hanson.

17             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you, Ms. Hanson, for -- Mr. Pantelic.

18             MR. PANTELIC:  I do apologise, Your Honour.  I think during

19     the -- this part of examination on the question of Honourable Judge

20     Harhoff, certain issues arise so we could have a right for clarification

21     for additional cross-examination.

22             JUDGE HALL: [Microphone not activated].

23             MR. PANTELIC:  Which honestly, Your Honours, having in mind the

24     topics and the, I would say, one huge flow of information that we just

25     seen from Mrs. Hanson in the end of her testimony, I kindly ask you

Page 4688

 1     because I need to review and to classify -- to make certain systemisation

 2     of parts of her answer, so I kindly ask you for a time that I can proceed

 3     with this re-cross on Monday session, because this is a really huge area

 4     that she actually now covered.

 5             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Zecevic.

 6             MR. ZECEVIC:  I do not wish to re-cross Ms. Hanson.

 7                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 8             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Pantelic.

 9             MR. PANTELIC:  Yes, Your Honour.

10             JUDGE HALL:  We are only thinking that the more efficient way of

11     proceeding may be - especially having regard to the fact that Ms. Hanson

12     is resident within the Tribunal - to coordinate some point at which it

13     would be convenient to -- for you to exercise your right for further

14     cross-examination, rather than fixing it for Monday, because that might

15     throw a spanner in the works of the Prosecution's plans.

16             MR. PANTELIC:  Absolutely, thank you, Your Honour.  I do

17     appreciate your position.  Thank you.

18             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Maybe we should ask if Mr. Dobbyn has any

19     questions that he wishes to put to the witness in light of the questions

20     by the Chamber.

21             MR. DOBBYN:  I don't have any questions, Your Honour.  The only

22     issue is that if Ms. Hanson was to be called later, we would ask that in

23     the meantime she be allowed to communicate with the Prosecution

24     particularly with the Karadzic team for who she is also an expert.

25             MR. PANTELIC:  The Defence has no objections at all.  Thank you.

Page 4689

 1             JUDGE HARHOFF:  That would actually allow us to benefit from

 2     Ms. Hanson's testimony if we have sort of an empty spot at some point

 3     that we could fill out.

 4             JUDGE HALL:  Sorry, Mr. Pantelic, is there a possibility of your

 5     being ready first thing on Monday morning so that if -- even if it

 6     involves interrupting the witness then on the stand, then we can get her

 7     out of the way?

 8             MR. PANTELIC:  By all means, Your Honour, I'm absolutely ready

 9     for Monday morning.  To be honest with you, Your Honour, I do apologise,

10     I would be ready even today but I lost my reading glasses so I cannot

11     follow.  Thank you so much.

12             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Pantelic, how much time do you think you

13     would need?

14             MR. PANTELIC:  Not more than 10 minutes.

15             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you.

16             MR. PANTELIC:  Well, 15 maximum, but 10 minutes, Your Honour.

17             JUDGE HALL:  So, Mrs. Hanson, you are not released.  You are

18     excused but we ask you to return to this courtroom for 9.00 Monday

19     morning.

20             THE WITNESS:  And I'm still under oath, therefore not --

21             JUDGE HALL:  And you are still under oath and the usual warnings

22     apply.

23             THE WITNESS:  All right.  Thank you.

24             JUDGE HALL:  She may now be escorted from the courtroom.

25                           [The witness stands down]

Page 4690

 1             JUDGE HALL:  [Microphone not activated].

 2             MR. HANNIS:  Yes, Your Honours, the next witness is

 3     Christian Nielsen.  However, given your indication that you wanted to

 4     deal some procedural matters at 1.30, I would ask that we delay starting

 5     him until Monday.  A couple of reasons.  One is because of in light of an

 6     answer Ms. Hanson gave to a question from Judge Harhoff about the Crisis

 7     Staff perhaps subordinating police to the army is something that I would

 8     like to discuss before he comes on.  It's not something that has occurred

 9     to me before until I've heard that, and I don't know what else may have

10     arisen with her that it would be beneficial for me to raise them.

11             THE INTERPRETER:  Would the counsel please slow down.

12             MR. HANNIS:  In addition -- I'm sorry.  In addition, yesterday, I

13     know at the end of the day, Judge Harhoff suggested or asked that the

14     parties get together to give the Chambers a heads-up on the content of

15     his record, and I assume that you meant something by what you had

16     requested from Mr. Dobbyn and Mr. Zecevic at the beginning of

17     Ms. Hanson's testimony.  We've had some conversations.  I think it would

18     be easier to talk about one or two things we agree on than what we

19     disagree on, if that's fair, Mr. Zecevic.

20             JUDGE HARHOFF:  The purpose of the requests made by the Chamber

21     is limited to the expert witnesses because the Chamber believes that when

22     we have to do with expert witnesses, then there is a report, and that it

23     is a huge advantage not only to the Chamber but also to the parties if

24     the parties would indicate their position on the main aspects of the

25     report, what in your view, Mr. Hannis, is the essential conclusions that

Page 4691

 1     are made in Mr. Nielsen's report.  And where -- and we put the similar

 2     question to the Defence, and we would then ask the parties also to

 3     indicate where do you disagree on the substance of the report because we

 4     think that this will facilitate the examination-in-chief and the

 5     cross-examination of these witnesses.  So that's the task.

 6             MR. HANNIS:  Okay.  Well, I would defer to Mr. Zecevic on where

 7     we disagree.

 8             JUDGE HARHOFF:  But you will have plenty of time in the weekend

 9     to --

10             MR. ZECEVIC:  Yes, we would certainly appreciate more time to

11     discuss over the weekend.

12             JUDGE HARHOFF:  I'm sure you have nothing better to do.

13             MR. ZECEVIC:  That's right.

14             MR. HANNIS:  And for fear of being impertinent, Your Honours, it

15     will be useful to me, instructive, it will give me good guidance if I

16     know if the Trial Bench has had an opportunity to read the report.

17     Because if you've already read the report, then there's certain things I

18     won't bother to try and bring to your attention.

19             JUDGE HARHOFF:  No, no, we have read the report.

20             MR. HANNIS:  Thank you, that's very helpful.

21                           [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]

22             JUDGE HALL:  There are a number of items, the last of which we

23     would go into private session to deal with, but the first one is the --

24     and this relates to the -- this is relevant to the Prosecution's timing

25     as regards the witnesses who are expected to testify by videolink.  The

Page 4692

 1     Chamber has determined that although the court resumes on the

 2     11th of January, that that week will be devoted, because counsel would

 3     recall that there was an application in respect of the 14th of January to

 4     accommodate the Christmas according to the Julian calendar, that the --

 5     that week will not be used for sittings, but the Chamber will use that

 6     time in order to dispose of certain outstanding matters, especially

 7     adjudicated facts, so that the resumption of hearing would be on the

 8     18th.  And the -- my recollection is that the Prosecution had intended

 9     that the videolink witnesses would follow in the second week of hearings.

10     So the question for the Prosecution to decide is whether they would

11     retain that second week, which would be the 18th, or whether they would

12     remain with that, and the Registry would require a -- to be -- a firm

13     decision on that before the winter recess begins next week.

14             MR. HANNIS:  We can certainly do that, Your Honour.  I think

15     we'll consult and notify witnesses and advise you early next week.

16             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.  Specifically we would be grateful if we

17     could have by 4.00 p.m. on the 17th, which is yesterday week, the names

18     of -- notice of all the witnesses who the Prosecution intends to call

19     during the week of the 18th and 25th.

20             MR. HANNIS:  We can certainly do that.

21             JUDGE HALL:  The second item is that to -- clarify a ruling --

22     yes, all the witnesses for the week of the 18th and 25th.

23             The second item is that yesterday the Trial Chamber issued a

24     ruling concerning a missing English translation of a 2003 statement of

25     ST-48.  However, the transcript is unclear as to the manner in which the

Page 4693

 1     translation is to be provided and it would be insufficient for the

 2     Prosecution to put the translation in e-court.  So to ensure a complete

 3     record, the Prosecution is requested to file the translation by the

 4     14th of December.  Is there anything else before we move into private

 5     session?

 6             JUDGE DELVOIE:  I would kindly ask the parties to give us before

 7     the start of the recess the -- not only the planning for the first week's

 8     witnesses, but also the estimates of the time needed for the, let's say,

 9     the next witnesses for two months or something like that.  Thank you.

10             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.  And now could we move into -- yes,

11     Mr. Zecevic.

12             MR. ZECEVIC:  Your Honours, Mr. Bajagic, who is our expert, would

13     need to be excused [Realtime transcript read in error "executioned"] if

14     we are going into the private session because --

15             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, thank you for reminding me.  Thank you.

16             MR. ZECEVIC:  Thank you, Your Honours.  I saw that the transcript

17     was saying "executioned."  I said "excused."

18             JUDGE HARHOFF:  It is Friday afternoon, isn't it.

19                           [Private session]

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 4694

 1     (redacted)

 2                           [Open session]

 3             THE REGISTRAR:  We are in open session, Your Honours.

 4             JUDGE HALL:  So we take the adjournment, Monday morning, 14th, in

 5     this courtroom at 9.00.  I trust everyone has a safe weekend.

 6                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.30 p.m.,

 7                           to be reconvened on Monday, the 14th day of

 8                           December, 2009, at 9.00 a.m.