1 Wednesday, 16 December 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.10 a.m.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning
6 everyone in and around the courtroom. This is case number IT-08-91-T,
7 the Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin. Thank you,
8 Your Honours.
9 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. Good morning to all. May I have the
10 appearances, please.
11 MR. HANNIS: Good morning, Your Honours. For the Prosecution
12 Thomas Hannis and Crispian Smith.
13 MR. ZECEVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Slobodan Zecevic,
14 Slobodan Cvijetic, Eugene O'Sullivan, and Tatjana Savic appearing for
15 Stanisic Defence. Our expert will be joining us after the first break.
16 Thank you very much.
17 MR. PANTELIC: Good morning, Your Honours for Zupljanin Defence
18 Igor Pantelic.
19 JUDGE HALL: Could the usher escort the witness to the stand,
21 [The witness takes the stand]
22 WITNESS: CHRISTIAN NIELSEN [Resumed]
23 JUDGE HALL: Good morning, Dr. Nielsen. I remind you that you're
24 still on your oath.
25 Mr. Zecevic, you may continue your cross-examination. Thank you.
1 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you very much, Your Honours.
2 Cross-examination by Mr. Zecevic: [Continued]
3 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Nielsen.
4 A. Good morning, Mr. Zecevic.
5 Q. Mr. Nielsen, you will recall yesterday we talked about the
6 situation in the Bosnia
7 the indictment and before the division of the MUP. In paragraphs 49 to
8 52, you refer to a document. This is a document of the Bosnia
10 is 65 ter document 31 from December 1991. Do you remember that you
11 referred to this document in these paragraphs?
12 A. Yes, I do.
13 Q. Mr. Nielsen, isn't it a fact that the document, this alleged
14 report by the state security service about the security situation in
15 December 1991 does not refer anywhere to the existence of the Patriotic
16 League or the Green Berets as an armed wing of the Party for Democratic
18 A. Well, I haven't reviewed the document recently. I note that it's
19 a document of several pages, so I cannot a priori agree with that. That
20 may well be the case. I would, however, not call the document -- or not
21 describe the document as an alleged report by the state security service.
22 It is a report by the state security service, and I can see by the ERN
23 number on the report that it's a report that I personally recovered in
24 the offices of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Republika Srpska in
25 2002, and I therefore have no doubt to -- no reason to doubt the
1 authenticity of the document.
2 Q. I don't have any reason to doubt the authenticity of the
3 document, and it's possibly a matter of the interpretation. I tried to
4 suggest to you that I am doubting the objectivity of that document and
5 the content but not its authenticity.
6 I don't really want to show you the document now. I don't want
7 to waste time, and I am just referring to it for the sake of the
8 reference. That's why I gave you the number. But tell me, are you aware
9 that the Patriotic League and the Green Berets existed already in 1991 as
10 the armed forces of the Party for Democratic Action?
11 A. I am aware of documents from 1991 that refer to groups called the
12 Patriotic League and the Green Berets.
13 Q. Mr. Nielsen, are you aware that as early as June 1991, the SDA
14 formed a council for national defence of the SDA? Did you ever see such
15 a document?
16 A. I'm not aware of that fact. I am not an expert on the internal
17 structure or workings of the Party for Democratic Action. Excuse me,
18 Party of Democratic Action is the correct term.
19 Q. Very well. If you're not an expert for the internal workings and
20 structure of the Party of Democratic Action, then I would like to draw
21 your attention to your footnote 33 in your report in relation to
22 paragraph 20 of your report. And there you say in footnote 33 that there
23 were rumours that Muslims were being trained in Croatia and that they
24 were taking part in actions against Serbs in Croatia, and then you say
25 that those -- it was proved that the rumours were false, untrue, and it
1 was established that the Muslim police officers were present in Croatia
2 as part of routine training, but nonetheless, the rumours served a
3 propagandistic, were a tool in the propaganda strategy of the SDS. Do
4 you see that?
5 A. Yes, I do.
6 Q. Isn't it correct, Mr. Nielsen, that the assertion that the Party
7 of Democratic Action was sending policemen of Muslim ethnicity for
8 training to Croatia
9 A. That is possible, and I do not exclude that possibility.
10 Q. Mr. Nielsen, this is the Ministry of the Interior. You are an
11 expert, as you say, for the Ministry of the Interior, and it would not be
12 unusual for you if one of the parties in the state was sending some
13 members of its forces for training to another state?
14 A. Well, to some degree it occurs to me that there is a question of
15 what constitutes another state as you put it at this time, but, yes, I'm
16 certainly aware that there were allegations that the Muslims or Bosnian
17 Muslim officials in the SRBiH MUP were sending personnel of Bosnian
18 Muslim ethnicity to Croatia
19 footnote 33. And I'm also aware that there were simultaneous allegations
20 that Croatian -- ethnic Croatian personnel were going to Croatia
21 receive training, and I'm also aware that there were allegations
22 simultaneously that Bosnian Serb personnel in SRBiH MUP were receiving
23 training in Serbia
24 Q. Sir, I asked you very clearly, I think, but you are giving me an
25 answer that does not correspond to my question. I asked you about the
1 party, not about the leadership in the Bosnia and Herzegovina MUP of
2 Muslim ethnicity.
3 Please look at the document 1D01-0410. This is in your binder
4 that we prepared for you. This is tab 6 in your binder, actually.
6 That is not the document, 1D01-0410. I apologise. It's an
7 error. Just one minute, Your Honours.
8 Not to waste any time, let us now look at 1D --
9 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please be asked to repeat the
11 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Zecevic.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes.
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: Would you be good enough to repeat the number,
14 because the interpreters didn't get it.
15 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise. 1D00-4681, but I
16 think that it is also P424.
17 Q. This is your tab number 7, Mr. Nielsen. Mr. Nielsen, this is an
18 SDA Sarajevo document, Marsala Tita 7-a/IV is the address. Now that
19 we're on this topic, are you aware that that was the SDA address? You
20 went through so many documents. Was this the address of the SDA in
22 A. That is possible. I don't know what their address was at the
24 Q. As you can see, the document is dated 8th of July, 1991. The
25 democratic -- Party of Democratic Action, the signature of the secretary,
1 the stamp, and it is titled "List of Candidates for Training as Special
2 Forces in the Republic of Croatia MUP," and then there is a stamp also at
3 the bottom with the date.
4 On the next page and the following pages, up to page 14, it's in
5 the e-court, we have a total of 463 members of the special forces who
6 went for training to the MUP in the Republic of Croatia
7 through the document, they -- the names of the people are of people who
8 come throughout the area of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Fojnica, Sarajevo
9 Vlasenica, Gorazde, Nevesinje.
10 The age of the people on the list is of people who are fit for
11 duty, able-bodied men.
12 And then on the last page, which he is page 14, it says:
13 "Inclusive with number 463, you will then get a continuation of
14 this list in seven days."
15 Do you see this document?
16 A. Yes, I do.
17 Q. Have you seen this document before?
18 A. I don't believe I have, no.
19 Q. Mr. Nielsen, you told us that you went to Bosnia and Herzegovina
20 on several occasions to obtain documents which in your opinion were
21 important in order to be able to write your report; is that correct?
22 A. It is.
23 Q. You were aware of the fact that there was an allegation and a
24 serious concern among the Serbs and the leadership of the MUP among the
25 Serbian population in 1991 that the Party of Democratic Action was
1 secretly sending some young men from the reserve police forces for
2 training to the Croatian MUP. You did know about that, didn't you, and
3 that's why it's there in your report, isn't it?
4 A. That's correct.
5 Q. And you concluded in your report that those rumours proved to be
6 untrue, and this is what is stated in your footnote 33. Now when I show
7 you this document, do you still stand by your assertion that these
8 rumours proved to be false?
9 A. Well, I would point out that the statement that I make in
10 paragraph 33 relates to the particular document written by
11 Vojislav Pecanac on the 25th of July, but certainly viewing the document
12 that you are showing me now, I don't have any problem concluding, seeing
13 this document for the first time, that there was certainly -- there were
14 several a number of ethnic Muslims from Bosnia and Herzegovina undergoing
15 training on the territory of the Republic of Croatia
16 Special Police training, as you state.
17 Q. Thank you, Mr. Nielsen. I am interested, if you -- to know if
18 you would agree with me that then this was not done by the Ministry of
19 the Interior at all but that this was done by the Party of Democratic
20 Action, which was making its own party army; isn't that right?
21 A. Well, it seems to me that we're conflating a couple of points
22 here. As I told you, I'm not an expert on the SDA or its doings during
23 the period from 1990 to 1992, and when I pointed that out, you informed
24 me that I should have been aware of such things based on my knowledge as
25 a MUP expert. You're now telling me that this, in fact, has nothing to
1 do with the Ministry of Internal Affairs about but, rather, has to do
2 with the Party of Democratic Action.
3 As I've stated earlier, I think it's very important that we all
4 realise that for the period from the multi-party elections, and we agreed
5 on this yesterday, from 1990, November 1990, until 1992, the lines
6 between parties, all three parties, the SDS, the SDA, the HDZ, and the
7 officials --
8 Q. [Overlapping speakers] Mr. Nielsen, I have to interrupt you.
9 A. -- [overlapping speakers] increasingly vague.
10 Q. Sir, I would kindly ask you to focus on my question and to give
11 me short answers. I'm going to do my best to put my questions in such a
12 way that you can reply with a yes or no.
13 I asked you about your assertion in your report in footnote 33
14 that there was -- there were rumours that in 1991 that the Party of
15 Democratic Action was sending members of the MUP for training to Bosnia
16 and Herzegovina
17 in your report that these rumours proved to be false, unfounded, and you
18 are telling me that you did not see this document. That means that you
19 did not even want to check these rumours, but you just wrote in your
20 report that the rumours were false. Isn't that right?
21 MR. HANNIS: Objection.
22 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] This is your assertion.
23 MR. HANNIS: That's argumentative and that misstates his earlier
24 question. His earlier question was, "I'm interested if you -- to know if
25 you would agree with me that then this was not done by the Ministry of
1 the Interior at all but that this was done by the Party of Democratic
2 Action which was making its own party army. Isn't that right?"
3 Well, it's a compound question for one thing. Was it done by the
4 Ministry of the Interior or the Party of Democratic Action and also was
5 the Party of Democratic Action making its own party army? Those are --
6 those are at least two separate questions.
7 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Zecevic, it would perhaps be helpful to the
8 witness and to the Chamber if you were to, as it were, step back and
9 eliminate the argument from your question and put the questions in a way
10 that the witness could intelligently answer, could helpfully answer.
11 Thank you.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
13 Q. Mr. Nielsen, I will show you document 1D00-4826. This is
14 document number 9 in your binder.
15 You see, Mr. Nielsen, this is from the same period, the 11th of
16 July, 1991. It's an entire book of documents, if I can put it that way,
17 of the SDA. It says here "Instructions for candidate," and then the name
18 of the candidate. There is a number, et cetera. It is addressed to the
19 Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Croatia
21 "In keeping with the joint agreement of authorised
22 representatives of the MUP of the Socialist Republic
23 Bosnia-Herzegovina and the MUP of the Republic of Croatia
24 instructions for employment of entry-level candidates at the education
25 centre of the Republic of Croatia MUP, the Party of Democratic
1 Action - Sarajevo
2 your centre.
3 "Yours faithfully.
4 "Handwritten for Hasan Cengic, SDA Secretary."
5 And then there's the signature and stamp. There are more than
6 100 basically identical documents here.
7 Now I'm putting a question to you, a very brief and simple
8 question. Do you stand by what you said in footnote 33 that these
9 rumours about the SDA sending candidates for training to the MUP of
11 the Serb Democratic Party? Yes or no?
12 A. I already revised that conclusion earlier in the answer to your
13 previous about the document, but I would point that I don't mention the
14 SDA in particular in that footnote.
15 Q. Well, that is precisely why we had this previous exchange of
16 views, and then Mr. Hannis objected, because you keep on trying to avoid
17 the SDA, and I am showing you documents that bear the letterhead of the
18 SDA, and the documents say that the SDA recommends the above-mentioned
19 candidate, et cetera. That is -- how should I put this? That is our
20 only point of contention at this point in time.
21 A. Well, I certainly agree with you.
22 Q. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Nielsen.
23 JUDGE HALL: If -- if I may, Mr. Zecevic.
24 Dr. Nielsen, for my own perhaps very simple mind, and no doubt
25 this is something which Mr. Hannis can return to in re-examination, your
1 last-but-one answer when Mr. Zecevic asked you for a yes or no and your
2 answer was, I already revised that answer in the question to your
3 previous document, but I note that I don't mention the SDA in particular
4 in that footnote.
5 The -- may I ask, as Mr. Zecevic did, for a yes or no answer to
6 his question? As I said, the explanations could come later. Perhaps, as
7 I said, it's my own inability to understand complex matters. Do you need
8 to -- would you need to repeat -- me to read the question back to you?
9 THE WITNESS: No, Your Honour. Thank you. I'm perhaps a bit
10 loquacious, and yes, I agree with Mr. Zecevic, and the short answer to
11 his question was yes.
12 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
13 Yes, Mr. Zecevic.
14 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honour.
15 Q. Mr. Nielsen, you know that Mr. Alija Delimustafic, minister of
16 the interior of Bosnia-Herzegovina, mobilised the reserve police force in
17 June 1991. Are you aware of that?
18 A. As I state in paragraph 21 of my report, and there was a
19 discussion ongoing between Mr. Delimustafic and Mr. Zupljanin as -- in
20 July 1991 in which Mr. Zupljanin was urgently requesting mobilisation and
21 at that point Delimustafic refused to approve Mr. Zupljanin's repeated
22 requests to mobilise, if we're talking about July 1991. Oh, June you're
24 Q. Sir, I read your report. It is a fact that Mr. Zupljanin,
25 because of the situation that was in the border area that was the
1 Republic of Croatia
2 problems, and therefore, what was required was replenishment, more
3 personnel. However, I'm asking you about the general decision on the
4 mobilisation of the reserve police force in the entire territory of
5 Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1991 by Minister Alija Delimustafic. Perhaps that
6 was later in September 1991.
7 You are referring to a document of Mr. Radovan Karadzic. If I
8 remember correctly in your report, you refer to that.
9 A. My memory calls me to recollect that the Delimustafic ordered
10 mobilisation took place as you are suggesting probably sometime around
11 September after this discussion, because he was resisting mobilisation
12 during the summer of 1991.
13 Q. I'll show you the document, 1D01-0915.
14 JUDGE HARHOFF: Before we leave the document which is currently
15 on the screen something just caught my attention in the entry that is
16 shown on the monitor, because --
17 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Please go ahead.
18 JUDGE HARHOFF: -- it says:
19 "In keeping with the joint agreement of authorised
20 representatives of the MUP," which I understand to be the Croatian MUP on
21 the one hand and the BiH MUP on the other, the Party of Democratic Action
22 hereby recommends a certain person to attend a course.
23 I wonder if we could elicit from the witness the nature of that
24 joint agreement to which the document refers. I mean, was there a joint
25 agreement between the Croatians and the BiH at the time that would allow
1 political parties to submit candidates for training?
2 That sounds peculiar to me, but maybe if we can ask the witness
3 about it.
4 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. Thank you
5 for your suggestion. Of course I'm going to put that question.
6 Q. Mr. Nielsen, you heard the question of His Honour Judge Harhoff.
7 In your report I did not find any references to the existence of some
8 agreement between the representatives of the MUP of the Socialist
9 Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the MUP of the Republic of
11 A. I'm not aware that such agreement -- that such an agreement
12 existed, but it is correct that Mr. Hasan Cengic does seem to be
13 referring to such an agreement having existed or being in existence.
14 Q. Mr. Nielsen, if there was an agreement between the Ministry of
15 the Interior of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Ministry of the Interior of
16 the Republic of Croatia
17 Ministries of the Interior, wouldn't the only logical and normal thing --
18 MR. HANNIS: Objection. He's been proposed as an expert on the
19 Ministry of the Interior for the RS MUP, not for the Republic of Croatia
20 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. Hannis, I assume that
21 Mr. Nielsen has special knowledge that refers to internal affairs, what
22 Ministries of the Interior do in a general sense and that that makes it
23 possible for him to be an expert for the Ministry of the Interior of
24 Republika Srpska. I wanted to put a very general question which is fully
25 logical. That is something that he should be aware of.
1 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, I only note the Defence has been
2 challenging from the beginning Mr. Nielsen as an expert on the RS
3 ministry, but now he wants to qualify him as an expert on the Republic of
5 JUDGE HALL: It strikes me, Mr. Hannis, that the -- your -- your
6 objection is, with respect, technically correct having regard to the
7 basis on which this witness is proposed, but I see no difficulty with
8 Mr. Zecevic's question if what he is in fact asking the witness is based
9 on his admitted area of expertise, whether by analogy or -- or by
10 comparison. He could -- yes, Mr. Zecevic.
11 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
12 Q. Sir, if there's an agreement between two Ministries of the
13 Interior, in your view do the ministries then communicate between
14 themselves or through state organs, or do they do that through some
15 political parties and party secretaries?
16 A. To the best of my knowledge based on the 1990 Law on Internal
17 Affairs that was valid in Bosnia and Herzegovina at that time and not
18 being familiar with the relevant law that was in force at the time in
20 ministries to communicate through state organs, ministry to ministry.
21 However, again after November 1990, the line between party activity and
22 MUP activity is extremely blurry.
23 Q. Mr. Nielsen, I am putting it to you that there is no logic, and
24 it's not based on the law either, if there's a -- an agreement between
25 ministries that some political party should send candidates for training
1 to another ministry.
2 A. It's entirely possible, and I'm predisposed to agree with you
3 that that was the de jure situation. I'm indicating based on my expert
4 knowledge of the situation that unfortunately the de facto situation was
5 quite different.
6 Q. I know, but, Mr. Nielsen, yet again we go back to your report and
7 the conclusion you accepted and revised a few moments ago. If that was
8 the de facto situation, then how come you didn't know about it when you
9 wrote your report?
10 A. I think I made it very clear that I revised my conclusion based
11 on the document that you showed me today.
12 Q. But we've agreed on that. Now I'm asking you about the time when
13 you wrote the report.
14 As you said a moment ago, if that was the de facto situation,
15 then I'm interested in the following: How come you, as a person who read
16 so many documents and who did such a lot of research, in view of the
17 facts that are referred to in your report, how come you did not come
18 across the basic information that that was what the situation was, in
20 A. Well, if I had come across the document that you proffered this
21 morning at an earlier stage, I probably would not have -- or definitely
22 would not have put that conclusion in that footnote.
23 Q. Again, I'm going to tell you what I am putting to you. You did
24 not find it because this entire operation of sending people for training
25 to Bosnia-Herzegovina [as interpreted] by the SDA was kept secret?
1 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, I have to object to the question. I
2 think that mischaracterises what the document itself says. The SDA is
3 proposing candidates. Now, that's being sent to the Republic of Croatia
4 to the ministry of Croatia. He hasn't established yet, from what I've
5 heard, that the SDA sent the candidates. These are candidates nominated
6 by the SDA pursuant to an agreement that's referred to in this document
7 between the MUP of Croatia
8 MR. PANTELIC: And I do apologise to my colleague Mr. Zecevic and
9 to the Chamber. I think the -- it was a misspelling of Mr. Zecevic, I
10 think. It's page 15, line 22. Instead of Bosnia-Herzegovina it should
11 say Croatia
12 Thank you.
13 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Mr. Pantelic.
14 MR. HANNIS: I'm sorry. Your Honours, I realise it's a
15 procedural matter. I know Judge Harhoff left a short while ago. I don't
16 know. In my past experience, I think you may need to make a finding
17 pursuant to Rule 15 that it's in the interests of justice for the
18 remaining two Judges to continue to sit without Judge Harhoff. I just
19 bring that to your attention for the sake of the record.
20 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
21 MR. HANNIS: I don't want it to be a matter of appeal later on.
22 JUDGE HALL: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Hannis. The --
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE HALL: I thank Mr. Hannis for that intervention, and the --
25 I note for the record that the Chamber is continuing to sit under the
1 provisions of Rule 15 bis in the absence of Judge Harhoff. Thank you.
2 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Zecevic.
4 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes.
5 JUDGE HALL: I know it's been a couple of minutes, but could I
6 hear your response to Mr. Hannis's objection to your question.
7 MR. ZECEVIC: Just bear with me, Your Honour.
8 [Interpretation] Your Honour. Your Honour, I shall withdraw this
9 question. I accept Mr. Hannis's objection. In this way, I tried to cut
10 the time of the cross-examination, as it were, but obviously I will have
11 to show this witness all the documents involved so that we would have a
12 clear situation.
13 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
14 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
15 JUDGE HALL: And it is noted for the record that the Chamber is
16 again fully constituted. Thank you.
17 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, first of all, I would
18 like to suggest that 1D01-0915, the document I showed to the witness, be
19 marked for identification.
20 JUDGE HALL: So marked.
21 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Just a moment, please, Your Honour.
22 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour. Document 010915 shall be
23 marked as Exhibit 1D121 marked for identification. Thank you, Your
25 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown
2 Q. Sir, that is your document in tab 6. Sir, you see this document?
3 It is dated the 11th of July, 1991. This is what it says:
4 "To the Executive Board of the SDA, to the president."
5 And it says:
6 "Instruction for sending candidates to the training centre of the
7 Ministry of the Interior of Croatia
8 And then in the text says that they are enclosing a copy of the
9 instruction on the method of hiring candidates for police officers,
10 beginners in the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Croatia
11 your obligation to introduce the candidates to it. And also, they say
12 here that every candidate has to bring along a referral from the party.
13 That's the document we saw a few moments ago, 1D00-4826. That's the one
14 that you looked at a few moments ago. That is the referral provided by
15 the party. And then there is a reference here to the address of the
16 training centre of the MUP of the Republic of Croatia
17 deadline, the time by which the candidates are supposed to show up at
18 that locality. Do you see that?
19 A. Sir, I would point out that the document you provided to me in
20 tab 6 does not correspond to the document which you are discussing that I
21 do see on the screen, but, yes, I do see the document on the screen.
22 Q. I do apologise. It must be some kind of a mistake, but do you
23 see it on the screen? Do you see what I've read out to you? You do see
24 it, right, from the document?
25 A. Yes, I do, sir.
1 Q. So, this -- this is the instruction that is provided by the -- to
2 the Executive Board of the SDA, and it explains what the instructions
3 are -- or, rather, what documents are needed, what documents are needed
4 by each and every candidate, and the key document is a referral from the
5 party; right?
6 A. Yes, that is correct. That is what the document says.
7 Q. Thank you.
8 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I would like to tender this
9 document, please. Could it be admitted into evidence if there are no
11 MR. HANNIS: No objection.
12 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
13 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 1D01-1147 is admitted as
14 Exhibit 1D122. Thank you, Your Honours.
15 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. I'm going to show you the referral again. It is 1D00-4826. You
17 saw it a few moments ago, and I omitted to tender it. So we have this
18 document now on our monitors, and it pertains to the document I mentioned
19 just now, that is, 1D00-4826, the one that is going to appear on our
20 screens right now. That's your tab 9, I believe.
21 You see that this document is called "Referral for candidate,"
22 and it is in accordance with the document that we looked at a moment ago,
23 and every candidate has to bring such a document along when going to the
24 Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Croatia
25 A. I agree with your conclusion.
1 Q. Thank you.
2 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I would like to suggest -- or,
3 rather, I would like to tender 1D00-4826.
4 MR. HANNIS: No objection.
5 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, document 1D00-4826 shall be given
7 Exhibit 1D123. Thank you, Your Honours.
8 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. After that, I showed you document 1D00-4681. That's a list of
10 candidates, and I would like to ask that that document be admitted into
11 evidence as well. That is a list of candidates for specialised training.
12 Remember that I showed you that document when I asked you about the
13 address of the SDA?
14 A. Yes, I do.
15 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I would like to tender this
16 document as well.
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: And you mentioned yourself, Mr. Zecevic, that
18 this was P424, already admitted?
19 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Oh, I do beg your pardon, Your
20 Honour. I'm sorry. We have a bit of a problem with our list of
21 documents indeed. That is right.
22 Q. Sir, I would like to show you document 1D00-4697. Rather,
23 1D00-4739. I'm sorry. That is your document in tab 10 according to my
24 list. Ministry of the Interior, the 31st of July, 1991. It says:
25 "Personnel Department of the MUP.
1 "Subject: List of attendees of the 6th course for policemen in
2 training who abandon the course or left the course."
3 And then we have a list of 62 persons, obviously of Muslim
5 Do you see the document?
6 A. Yes, I see that document.
7 Q. From this document we can see that some of the attendees left
8 this course and the MUP of the Republic of Croatia
9 some of them had given back their equipment and provides the exact date
10 when they left or signed out. The signature is by the head of the
11 school -- actually, it's signed for the chief inspector, Josip Strmotic.
12 A. Yes, I see. That is what the document says.
13 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to
14 tender this document if there are no objections.
15 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
16 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, document number 1D00-4739 shall be
17 given Exhibit 1D124. Thank you, Your Honours.
18 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation].
19 Q. I would now like to show you 1D00-4704. This is in your tab 11.
20 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we also see the English
21 version, please?
22 Q. This is a large document. It's dated the 8th of August, and the
23 heading states:
24 "MUP of the Republic of Croatia
25 course for rookie policemen."
1 And then there is an alphabetic list of the attendees by the
2 battalions. The total number is 285. Perhaps there could be more. And
3 it seems that for the most part the attendees are of Muslim ethnicity.
4 We can see that from the document. For example, from page -- actually,
5 the last ten pages of the document lists mostly persons of Muslim
7 A. I'm waiting for your question.
8 Q. Well, I was saying -- I was saying the last ten pages are mostly
9 Muslims, aren't they, on the list, Muslim by ethnicity for the most part?
10 A. That appears to be the case. I would note that most of the last
11 pages are actually lists of people who left the course.
12 Q. Who did not leave the course you mean. It says:
13 "The list of attendees of the 6th course for rookie policemen who
14 did not leave the course on the 16th of August, 1991."
15 A. Yes, you're correct. That was, sorry, my mistake, and I would
16 point out that the entire document, I would agree with you, is
17 predominantly Muslims, and the rest are no Croats and there is no Serbs
18 on the list.
19 Q. Thank you very much.
20 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] If there is no objection, I would
21 like to tender this document.
22 MR. HANNIS: Well, I -- I do have -- I'm sorry.
23 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Zecevic, is it your understanding or -- that
24 all these people, the 285 people, are coming from Bosnia-Herzegovina?
25 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I did not manage to
1 do that analysis to compare that with the lists that we have from the
2 SDA, but I absolutely do intend to conduct this analysis and to prepare
3 that for our defence case and also for our closing statement. It is our
4 position that most of those who were Muslims came from the territory of
5 Bosnia and Herzegovina and not from Croatia
6 possibility that there are some Croats who also came from Bosnia and
8 there via the Party of Democratic Action, which is a Muslim party, but
9 they would be getting there by means of the Croatian Democratic Union
10 community. So in any case, we are going to make this analysis and
11 compare the names of these persons so that we would then be able to
12 provide you with a more detailed overview of who was actually sent by the
13 SDA for training to the MUP of Croatia.
14 JUDGE DELVOIE: So it's correct to say that you can't tell just
15 from this document who comes from where. This document does not give
16 that information.
17 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] The document only states their
18 ethnicity. It does not say where they are actually from. It only states
19 their ethnicity. But if we analyse that together with the other tendered
20 documents, then we can establish where they came from and if they were
21 sent there by the SDA or upon instructions of the SDA, and this is why I
22 he would like to have this document admitted.
23 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, I would initially request that this
24 only be marked for identification at this point. I don't think there's
25 been an adequate nexus to show that it's probative to some point in
1 issue. And if I may, I go back. This all relates to footnote 33 in
2 Mr. Nielsen's report on page 14 of the English where he made reference
4 "In June 1991, rumours circulated that Muslims were training in
7 Muslim police officers were present in Croatia as part of routine
9 Now, Mr. Nielsen has made a concession that he was partly
10 mistaken about that in light of the document he was shown, but I didn't
11 raise this when 1D122 was admitted, but 1D22 is the document that's dated
12 11 July 1991
13 training centre of the Ministry of Interior of Croatia, and the first
14 paragraph says:
15 "Herewith enclosed we are sending you a copy of the instruction
16 on the method for hiring of candidates for police officers, beginners in
17 the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Croatia
18 Now, if that's a correct translation, then this seems to be
19 talking about some Muslim officers who are going to Croatia to be trained
20 as beginners in the Ministry of Interior for Croatia. If that's the
21 case, I don't see how that's relevant to the argument about Muslims from
23 force in Bosnia
24 JUDGE HALL: What I thought was happening, and Counsel will
25 correct me if I've got it wrong, is that the -- having regard to and
1 bearing in mind the status of the witness as an expert, is that
2 Mr. Zecevic was laying -- seeking to lay the foundation for such of his
3 case as would challenge the conclusions at which the expert had arrived,
4 and I share Mr. Hannis's reservation about adding paper, because of
5 course at the end of the day it's the Chamber which is going to have to
6 wade through this. But I thought that Mr. Zecevic should be permitted of
7 set of this foundation.
8 Is that what you're about, Mr. Zecevic?
9 MR. ZECEVIC: That is correct, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE HARHOFF: Can I then put the direct question? Is it for
11 the purpose of testing the credibility and the expertise of the witness,
12 or is it for the purpose of showing that the Bosnian Muslims were siding
13 up with the Croats and tendering their common police officers for
14 training in Croatia
16 I mean, where are you going with this?
17 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honour, one of the aims was to test the
18 credibility of the witness. The witness changed his conclusion in his
19 report already, so that part is over.
20 Now, we tried to establish the situation which led to the
21 partition of the MUP in March 1992, and we say that by -- by this
22 involvement of the SDA into sending their members to MUP of Republic
24 creating their own police force and their own army behind the back of the
25 Serbs in the Ministry of -- of Interior of Bosnia and Herzegovina
1 we -- I believe we have already established that the Serbian -- that the
2 Serbian officials in the ministry of Bosnia-Herzegovina and other Serbian
3 party leaders were protesting on a number of occasions because of -- of
4 these wrong-doings as they saw it in the -- at the time, and that is
5 basically what Mr. Nielsen confirms in his -- his report.
6 I don't know if I have satisfied Your Honours with the -- with my
8 JUDGE HARHOFF: Well, partly and partly not, because I think
9 you're reading something into the testimony of this witness that I have
10 not picked up, namely that this was a clandestine operation that was
11 going on behind the back of the Serbs. You may recall a while ago I
12 raised the issue of this agreement that apparently had been concluded
13 between the Croatian MUP and the Bosnian MUP, which surprisingly would
14 allow the political parties to send candidates rather than the competent
15 police authorities in both countries or both parts of what was then
16 Yugoslavia. So that is one thing that -- that to me contradicts your
17 assertion that the witness has testified that this was all going on
18 behind the backs of the Serbs.
19 And secondly, I think the witness, but you may take it up with
20 him again, I think the witness at one point said that also the Serbian
21 political party was sending Serb police officers from Bosnia to training
22 in Serbia
23 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, I believe it would be more
24 appropriate if the witness was excused while we are making these
25 explanations, at least from the point of view of Defence, but be it as
1 may be, it -- Your Honours, the problem we see here is that allegedly
2 there is an agreement between the Ministry of Interior of Bosnia and
3 Herzegovina and Ministry of Interior of Republic of Croatia, whereby the
4 witness who went to 200 or so thousand pages could not find this
5 agreement. So therefore whether this was an oral agreement or any other
6 kind of agreement, there is no record of that.
7 The witness confirms that there were allegations, and in his
8 report he says these allegations were false. Now, we have established
9 that these allegation were is obviously not false, and I think --
10 MR. HANNIS: Not all of them. About Muslims engaging in combat
11 in Croatia
12 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, I will come to that also.
13 What we are saying is that the witness, based on these document,
14 confirmed that had he had these documents in his view he would confirm
15 that the SDA was sending candidates for the training in MUP of Republic
16 of Croatia
17 Now, what -- what we are saying is that it is obviously something
18 very wrong with the situation where there is -- there is allegedly an
19 agreement which nobody has saw or which doesn't exist in any -- in any
20 documents between two ministries, and then none of the ministries is
21 communicating with each other, but the Party of Democratic Action is
22 sending candidates to the Ministry of Interior of Republic of Croatia,
23 and that is how we -- we claim with a certainty that this was done in
24 secrecy and behind the back of the Serbian members of --
25 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Zecevic, in the interests of time, and we're
1 about -- it's time for the break, let's not lose sight of the issue as to
2 whether this document should be exhibited. Do I understand the -- from
3 what you said earlier, that you and -- we'll have to hear what Mr. Hannis
4 has to say on the other side, that this something that really needs to --
5 that we really need to devote time to when we return and, as you say,
6 possibly in the absence of the witness, or is it a much -- assuming, of
7 course, that Mr. Hannis stands by his objection.
8 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, Your Honours, what we can do is as the time
9 for the break is now, we can -- probably Mr. Hannis and I can discuss
10 this issue and then report to you before the witness is brought to court.
11 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: If we need to exchange some arguments, then the
13 witness can be --
14 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
15 MR. ZECEVIC: -- called. Thank you very much.
16 [The witness stood down]
17 --- Recess taken at 10.26 a.m.
18 --- On resuming at 10.53 a.m.
19 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, if I may report the result of our
20 communication, Mr. Hannis and mine. There are three more documents which
21 are the lists of the -- of the participants of this training in Croatia,
22 and these are 1D00-4745, 1D01-0893, and 1D01-0929, and we have agreed,
23 because these documents are really just the lists of the -- of the names
24 and with the indication to which battalion they were attending the
25 course, that all these three documents be MFI'd, and we will then deal
1 with it in the course of this trial later on.
2 JUDGE HARHOFF: Can I just ask the parties, is it a contested
3 fact, and I'm looking to the Prosecution, do you contest or disagree
4 about the fact that the SDA was sending Muslim police candidates for
5 training in Croatia
6 MR. HANNIS: I don't disagree with that, but these particular
7 documents, I don't know if we can tie these documents to that fact. This
8 may refer to some other group of Muslims that are training in the
9 Republic of Croatia. I haven't been able to satisfy myself looking at
10 these documents that they refer to the group that we have some evidence
11 of being named as candidates by the SDA to attend some training in the
12 Republic of Croatia with the Croatian MUP, but I don't know that these
13 are those guys. That's why I've continued to have an objection up to
14 this point, and it seemed to me the best resolution was to have them
15 MFI'd for now, subsequently to be linked up perhaps later in our case or
16 in the Defence case.
17 JUDGE HALL: So we'll mark them.
18 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
19 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, for the record, 1D00-4745 shall be
20 marked as Exhibit 1D125 marked for identification. 1D01-0893 shall be
21 marked as Exhibit 1D126 marked for identification. And finally,
22 1D01-0929 shall be marked as Exhibit 1D127 marked for identification.
23 Thank you, Your Honours.
24 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you very much. May the witness be brought
1 [The witness takes the stand]
2 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Mr. Nielsen, just a few more questions on this topic.
4 Mr. Nielsen, isn't it true that the Ministry of the Interior of
5 Bosnia-Herzegovina had its school for training? It was called the
6 secondary school of the Ministry of the Interior, and it was at Vraca in
8 A. Yes, that's correct.
9 Q. And it was customary that members of the police and course
10 attendees from the MUP of Bosnia and Herzegovina went there for training;
12 A. Yes, that is correct.
13 Q. Thank you. Now, I would like to show you document 1D01-0932. It
14 is your tab 15, and you will refer to it in your footnote 33. That is a
15 document of the CSB Banja Luka, Official Note, signed by Mr. Pecanac,
16 Vojislav Pecanac. It's dated the 25th of July, 1991, and it says here in
17 paragraph 2 that on the 25th of July, 1991, a certain Suad Music, born
18 on -- born in 1962, came to the Banja Luka CSB premises of his own
19 initiative, and he informed them that a certain Kunic Isak, known as Iso,
20 a member of the SDA is organising the taking of Muslims to training in
21 the Croatian MUP that was taking place in Zagreb, and he's saying that he
22 found out that the training was two months and that a salary was paid out
23 to attendees there, that it was financed by Arab Emirates, and if they
24 have any problems they should report to a certain Omer Basic in a mosque
25 in Zagreb
1 A. Yes, I did, and I cite it, as you note, in footnote 33.
2 Q. Inter alia, it says in paragraph 4 that this same Music who came
3 to provide information to the CSB claims that in the heading of the
4 questionnaire that has to be filled out when they go to the Zagreb MUP it
5 says SDA and that it is signed by Hasan Cengic.
6 Do you see that?
7 A. Yes, I do see that.
8 Q. That, of course, corresponds to the documents that you saw a few
9 moments ago like the referral from -- for candidates. They're all signed
10 by Hasan Cengic and it all says SDA in the heading; right?
11 A. Yes. It refers to the referrals for cadet training for police in
12 Croatia. That's s correct, it does correspond.
13 Q. Thank you.
14 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] If there are no objections I would
15 like to have this document admitted into evidence, please.
16 MR. HANNIS: No objection.
17 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
18 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 1D01-0932 shall be marked as
19 Exhibit 1D128. Thank you, Your Honours.
20 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. And let me show you one more document, 1D01-0935. That is
22 document number 16 in your binder. It is tab 16 in your set of
24 This is a document of the CSB Bratunac of the 16th of March,
25 1992. It is Senad Hodzic, the chief of the public security station, who
1 is writing this, that is to say that he is an ethnic Muslim. He is
2 writing to the chief of the CSB Tuzla in March. The number is 362/92.
3 And then he is talking about the order to step up the reserve police
4 force, and then in paragraph 3 it says:
5 "After we started conducting the required checks, we came to
6 learn that there is a certain number of military conscripts of Muslim
7 ethnicity who had stayed in Croatia
8 MUP. We do not know on whose order or recommendation, but it is believed
9 that Serb citizens do not have enough trust in such future members of the
10 reserve police force. We would therefore like to know," et cetera, et
12 He's actually asking for information for instructions as to what
13 to do with such military conscripts, and he says:
14 "In relation to this problem, we telephoned CSB Tuzla and the
15 MUP, and we have nevertheless decided to request in writing your opinion
16 with respect to taking on such military conscripts for war assignment."
17 Do you see this?
18 A. I agree that you are reading accurately from the document, yes.
19 Q. Yes. Sir, you will agree with me that this document evidently
20 shows that the chief of the public security station from Bratunac, an
21 ethnic Muslim, his name is Senad Hodzic, in March 1992 he does not know
22 that what was organised was some kind of course for military conscripts
23 of Muslim ethnicity in the MUP of the Republic of Croatia
24 obvious from this document?
25 A. As you state, he's an ethnic Muslim, and, yes, he is claiming
1 that he did not have any knowledge about this matter. That is correct.
2 Q. He even says specifically, "We do not know on whose orders or
3 recommendation." That is what it says in this document; right?
4 A. Yes, I agree that is what it says in this document.
5 Q. Thank you.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I would like to tender this
7 document as well.
8 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Zecevic.
9 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes.
10 JUDGE HARHOFF: I don't mind admitting the documents and I see
11 the relevance to the point that you are trying to make, but it also seems
12 to me that the witness doesn't know the document, and the only thing he
13 can do is to confirm that you have read out correctly from it. Should we
14 MFI it?
15 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I asked the witness
16 for a conclusion regarding the document. It was you, Your Honour, who
17 asked me to explain why it is that we claim that this was an operation
18 that was being carried out by the Party of Democratic Action, that was
19 being done behind the backs of Serb personnel in the MUP of
20 Bosnia-Herzegovina and in full secrecy, at that.
21 From this document we see that even the chiefs of public security
22 stations of Muslim ethnicity did not know about it.
23 So I read the document to the witness because I assumed that he
24 hadn't seen it before because he did not mention it in his report, and
25 the witness did agree with me that this document proves that the chief of
1 the public security station, Senad Hodzic, in March 1992, is unaware of
2 the existence of this kind of course for members of the police who are of
3 Muslim ethnicity, and I absolutely believe that this corroborates, like
4 the previous document, our position that this was not done on the basis
5 of co-operation with the ministry but, rather, it was done secretly in
6 co-operation with the SDA. That is why I'm referring to this, and that
7 is why I think it's relevant, of course.
8 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Zecevic, I didn't say it was not relevant.
9 On the contrary, I think I expressed my agreement with you that it is
10 clearly something that goes to proof of the point that you are trying to
11 make. The only hesitation I had is whether we could admit this document
12 through this witness, because apparently he doesn't know anything about
13 it. He has never seen it before, and the only thing that he could
14 confirm was that you were reading out correctly from the document, which
15 is why I then said that we perhaps should MFI it. I'm not against
16 admitting it and it's clearly relevant to your point, but there is a
17 system which we're trying to apply that directs us to admission
18 [overlapping speakers] witnesses.
19 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I absolutely agree with you, Your
20 Honour, but this is an expert witness is bringing -- a witness who the
21 Prosecution is bringing in as an expert. So from that point of view,
22 since he is an expert in police matters or the Ministry of the Interior
23 of Republika Srpska, and of course in part of his report he speaks of the
24 MUP of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the division of that MUP. Then I thought
25 that since it was the OTP that disclosed this document to us, I thought
1 that this was a good opportunity to introduce the document through this
2 witness, although he hadn't seen it before. He now has an opportunity to
3 comment on it.
4 The document has identical status to all the other documents that
5 the witness refers to in his report.
6 I thought that Mr. Hannis was on his feet in order to object if I
7 managed to understand what he was doing. However, I did not hear what
8 the objection was, if any.
9 Thank you.
10 MR. HANNIS: I was going to object to its admission. I agree
11 with you. I think the appropriate treatment of this document at this
12 time is to MFI it. All Mr. Nielsen said was, "You've read it correctly.
13 That is what it says."
14 Mr. Zecevic in his argument said, "From this document we see that
15 even the chiefs of public security stations ..." We see one chief. We
16 don't know when this guy became chief. He said that he obtained
17 information that a certain number of Muslim military conscripts who have
18 spent time in Croatia
19 Well, apparently the information was available somewhere so to make the
20 argument that this shows that it was done in secrecy can't depend alone
21 on this document.
22 For that and other reasons, I think at this time the best course
23 would be to MFI this.
24 JUDGE HALL: It will be marked for identification.
25 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
1 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, document 1D01-0935 shall be given
2 Exhibit 1D129 marked for identification. Thank you, Your Honours.
3 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Mr. Nielsen, we discussed something a while ago, and I moved on
5 to the question of mobilising the reserve force in September 1991, and
6 then because of the questions put by the Trial Chamber, we returned to
7 the question of sending SDA candidates to these courses.
8 I shall remind you of what this was. It was your footnotes,
9 number 50 and 51, in your report, that is.
10 Since we've -- since we've already introduced document 01-010915,
11 an instruction provided by Mr. Alija Delimustafic, I'm interested in
13 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have it in e-court.
14 Q. That is your tab 20 and your footnote 50. 1D01-0921. That's the
16 Do you see this document dated the 26th of September, 1991
17 document was signed by assistant minister of the interior of Bosnia
19 the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the government, the MUP,
20 and so on.
21 Do you see the document? You commented upon it in footnote 50.
22 A. Yes, I see the document.
23 Q. Is it not true that Mr. Momcilo Mandic is providing his view and
24 comment on the decision of the Presidency about allowing the Ministry of
25 the Interior, on minister's orders, to engage additional police
1 reservists from the contingent of undeployed military conscripts? And he
2 says on page 2 in the Serbian text, he says that the conclusion of the
3 Presidency is such that in fact it makes it impossible to increase the
4 reserve police force without any limits imposed.
5 Do you remember this document? Do you remember the comment?
6 A. Yes, I remember that comment.
7 Q. And that that is in contravention of regulations, because the
8 Presidency can, by its own order, increase the number of reserve
9 policemen only in accordance with the decision taken by the government of
10 Bosnia and Herzegovina. Do you remember that?
11 A. Yes, I remember that.
12 Q. And since the last government decision that is there dates back
13 to 1987, and that's on the last page, therefore, Mr. Mandic proposes that
14 in keeping with this government decision of 1987, this decision -- or,
15 rather, this conclusion of the Presidency be adjusted to the letter of
16 the law and government decisions; right?
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. In that document Mr. Mandic also says that there are cases when
19 the police is being manned by volunteers without any preliminary checks.
20 Do you remember that from that document too?
21 A. Yes, I remember that.
22 Q. And that there is the possibility and well-founded fear that such
23 personnel would be impossible to control; right? That is also on page 3
24 of this document.
25 A. Yes, that is correct.
1 Q. Thank you.
2 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I would like to tender this
3 document into evidence, please.
4 MR. HANNIS: No objection.
5 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Document number 1D01-0921 shall be given
7 Exhibit 1D130. Thank you, Your Honours.
8 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. In footnote 51 you commented document 1D09 --
10 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could the number please be
12 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. This is your tab number 18, I believe.
14 JUDGE HARHOFF: Could you please --
15 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I beg your pardon. 1D01-0913.
16 Q. This is a letter written by President Karadzic in which he
17 instructs Municipal Boards of the political party to instruct persons of
18 Serb ethnicity to respond to the call-up for the reserve police force.
19 Do you remember having commented upon this document?
20 A. Yes, I do comment upon that document in paragraph 29.
21 Q. Mr. Karadzic expresses his anxiety here that if Serbs do not
22 respond to the mobilisation and call-up that there could be a Muslim
23 police and that that would be some kind of a basis for a civil war;
25 A. I absolutely agree with you.
1 Q. Thank you.
2 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please tender this
3 document as well into evidence, please. [In English] Pardon. I'm sorry.
4 JUDGE HALL: Yes. Admitted and marked for what it's worth.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Document number 01-0913 shall be marked as
6 Exhibit 1D131. Thank you, Your Honours.
7 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
8 Q. Mr. Nielsen, if we analyse the situation where we have the Muslim
9 ethnic cadres being sent for training to the MUP of the Republic of
11 says, to an unclassified, unrestricted level, in your opinion, the
12 concern that the police or its reserved force would be turned to some
13 sort of armed force, to a military force, is really well grounded. Is it
14 well grounded?
15 A. I think that Mr. Karadzic cites some very relevant circumstances
16 for why there should be concern about mobilisation. In that context I
17 would point out that it's interesting and relevant that he is, and the
18 SDS by extension, are now opposing the same kind of mobilisation that
19 they themselves were calling for, albeit on a different numerical basis,
20 in the summer of 1991, and I would also point out that as I stated
21 earlier today and yesterday this is an all-around deplorable situation in
22 which Muslims are being trained in Croatia, as you have shown me and
23 which I agree with you and in which as I, in fact, cite in footnote 33 in
24 the subsequent documents, Serbs are being trained with the knowledge of
25 Mr. Karadzic in Sremska Kamenica, in Serbia.
1 Q. Sir, I thought that we had agreed that the request by Serbs for
2 the mobilisation of the reserve forces referred to specific parts of
3 north-western Bosnia and Herzegovina due to security problems facing them
4 because of the war in Croatia
5 with that point?
6 A. I certainly agree with you, and that's what I meant, but perhaps
7 unclearly, when I said that they meant to do so on a different numerical
9 Q. Thank you. Sir, can you please tell me if you know that the
10 Muslim side, other than this, was also acquiring weapons from the depots
11 of the MUP and from the HDZ? Did you see documents indicating this?
12 A. Could you be specific if -- by what you mean by the "Muslim
13 side"? Are you referring to the Muslims in the SRBiH MUP?
14 Q. I am thinking of the Party of Democratic Action as a party and
15 its members.
16 A. It would certainly not surprise me given that Croats, Muslims,
17 and Serbs at this point in their respective political parties were
18 receiving weapons from sympathetic members of the MUP.
19 Q. Have you seen documents where the Ministry of the Interior is
20 issuing any of the national parties weapons from its depots, weapons or
21 equipment for their use?
22 A. I have certainly seen such documents from 1991 and retrospective
23 documents from 1992 and 1993 which refer to the issuing by the Ministry
24 of Internal Affairs to members of the Serbian Democratic Party, and it
25 would not at all surprise me if the same were the case for the Croat
1 Democratic Union and the Party of Democratic Action.
2 Q. Very well. Sir, can you please tell me, Mr. Nielsen, when you
3 mentioned the members of the Serb peoples who allegedly went for training
4 to Sremska Kamenica, did you have any particular document in mind when
5 you said that?
6 A. Certainly, sir.
7 Q. Could you please tell me what that was?
8 A. Well, I based that observation on several documents. The easiest
9 one to refer to since we've been dealing for quite some time with was
10 footnote 33, are the -- I believe it's the second conversation between
11 Radovan Karadzic and unknown male in which he's informed by the unknown
12 male that Serbian cadres are being trained in Sremska Kamenica.
13 Q. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. When I say document, I am
14 thinking of a written document. I'm not thinking of any intercepts. I'm
15 not thinking of articles from the newspaper, television reports, or
16 anything like that.
17 Did you ever see a document like the ones that I showed you about
18 the Party of Democratic Action which would confirm what you are claiming?
19 A. Yes, I have seen other documents outside of the categories that
20 you have mentioned that show that members of the SDS-supported Serbian
21 defence forces, called the SOS, in the Banja Luka area underwent training
22 in Pancevo and also in Sremska Kamenica. Both in Serbia.
23 Q. All right. But these are not MUP members, if I understood it
24 correctly, but members of the SDS. Did I understand you correctly?
25 A. These are persons who were paramilitary members and who later
1 constituted a large portion of the CSB Banja Luka Special Police Unit.
2 So in that sense I find it to be analogous to the allegations which I
3 believe to be accurate that some Muslim or Croat paramilitaries later
4 became Muslim or Croat police officers with SDS or HDZ report -- support.
5 Q. Mr. Nielsen, can you please tell me, Mr. Bruno Kvesic --
6 Mr. Branko Kvesic and Mr. Bruno Stojic were members of the then
7 leadership of the Ministry of the Interior of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
8 That is correct, isn't it?
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. Are you aware of the fact that from September 1991 they were
11 members of the Crisis Staff of the HDZ, the Bosnia and Herzegovina Crisis
12 Staff of the HDZ?
13 A. I'm not aware of that fact, but it would not surprise me at all.
14 Q. I'm going to show you a document. This is document 1D110. You
15 will see from the document that Jerko Doko was the defence minister of
16 Bosnia and Herzegovina and that he also was a member of that Crisis
18 Do you have the document in your set of documents?
19 A. Yes, sir. I found it at tab 23.
20 Q. Twenty-three. Very well. Can you please look -- I mean, you've
21 seen that Mr. Stojic, Kvesic, Jerko Doko are here. Do you recognise
22 anybody else here from the Bosnia-Herzegovina MUP? This is in the first
23 paragraph, just underneath the conclusions.
24 A. I agree that Branko Kvesic and Bruno Stojic were both very
25 high-ranking members supported by the HDZ and who were full time
1 employees of the MUP at the time.
2 Q. You will see on page 2 that the position of the Croatian
3 Democratic Union from September 1991, in paragraph 2, is that it is just
4 a question of time when war will break out in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and
5 they are calling attention to the seriousness of the situation, and
6 they're asking the Crisis Staff to direct their attention to the defence
7 of the Croatian people.
8 You haven't looked at this document before, have you?
9 A. No, I have not. I'm quite certain it's been dealt with by my
10 colleague who dealt with the establishment of Bosnian Croat MUP.
11 Q. To flesh out the situation even further before we come to the key
12 question of the division of the MUP, you are aware that a certain number
13 of Serbian policemen from the Sarajevo centre were first mistreated and
14 then they were finally forced to resign and place themselves at the
15 disposal of the Bosnia
16 A. I'm aware of that incident and similarly ethnically motivated
17 incidents at police stations throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina during
18 that period, yes.
19 Q. This is your footnote 95 and document 1D00-2736. This is the
20 document to which you referred in your footnote 95, isn't it?
21 A. Yes, sir.
22 Q. On the last page of the document, this is page 5 in the e-court,
23 in the last paragraph it states that -- it's just above the signature. I
24 apologise. The last section of the text where there are the signatures
25 then of these employees of Serbian ethnicity.
1 In the last paragraph it is stated that they are being placed at
2 the disposal of the Sarajevo SUP until the definite resolution of their
3 status. As of that day, they are no longer performing their duties in
4 the Stari Grad Security Centre. Isn't that correct?
5 A. Yes, that is correct.
6 Q. Thank you.
7 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I have would like to tender this
8 document, please.
9 MR. HANNIS: No objection.
10 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
11 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit 1D132. Thank
12 you, Your Honours.
13 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Mr. Nielsen, isn't it true, and I think that you also refer to
15 this in a couple of places in your report, that it was specifically the
16 Serbian personnel in the Bosnia and Herzegovina MUP who insisted on
17 professionalism and legality in the operation of the Bosnia and
18 Herzegovina MUP?
19 A. I would agree that Serb personnel also, in addition to certain
20 members of Muslim and Croat ethnicity, issued calls for professionalism
21 and respect of legality during this period.
22 Q. Isn't it true, and I think that you even mention that somewhere
23 in your report, that Mr. Karadzic criticised the members of the Ministry
24 of the Interior of Serb ethnicity precisely because they were overly
25 insisting on the respect for legality and professionalism?
1 A. That is correct, and as I state in paragraph 15, he also said
2 that even if 90 per cent of the employees of SRBiH MUP were of Serb
3 ethnicity, it wouldn't make much of a difference. And he says that they
4 followed the law and the regulations of MUP too much for their own good.
5 Q. Sir, isn't it true that at the Assembly session of the 24th of
6 March when Mr. Stanisic was appointed minister - this was in 1992 - he
7 also advocated professionalism in the work of the MUP? This is also
8 referred to in your report. This is P198, page 7, paragraph 1 of the
9 Serbian text and page 8, last paragraph of the English text, but I do not
10 wish to spend time, so I don't think it there's any need to show that to
11 the Trial Chamber.
12 Do you remember that?
13 A. I remember that, but, sir, it occurs to me that in my response to
14 the previous question, I made an answer that is based solely -- on a
15 conclusion in my report that is supported solely by intercepts, so
16 perhaps I have to withdraw that conclusion if I can.
17 Q. I absolutely agree that you can withdraw that conclusion if it
18 does refer to an intercept. I'm not going to base anything on that
19 myself either. I did ask you, though, to answer this question. This
20 question does not refer to the intercept but refers to the minutes of the
21 Assembly session of the 24th of March, 1992.
22 A. Yes, and I remember that, as I said.
23 Q. Mr. Nielsen, in view of the fact that you are an historian by
24 training, I am surprised that these historical events which are of key
25 interest to us in this case - I'm thinking about the division of the
2 context and the events that were going on in that period.
3 A. Is that a question?
4 Q. Yes.
5 A. Well, in that case my response would be to remind the Court that
6 the -- this report was prepared for the Krajisnik case, and it was my
7 understanding for the Krajisnik case, and indeed also until very recently
8 for this case, that the Court and all parties would have the ability to
9 get that context to which you refer from the report of Patrick Treanor.
10 Q. I'm not asking you about the context. We know what the context
11 is, and as to whether Mr. Treanor will come or not, that is up to the
12 Prosecution, but I'm asking you, when you were working on your report,
13 why did you not place the events that you deal with in your report in a
14 historical context?
15 MR. HANNIS: Objection, Your Honour. I think he's answered the
16 question about why he didn't put that in his report. It was because he
17 understood that that was going to be addressed by Mr. Treanor and
18 Mr. Treanor's related report.
19 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, from what I know, the
20 report by Mr. Treanor refers to the historical context and some other
21 facts. Since the Prosecution will not be bringing Mr. Treanor to testify
22 and will not be exhibiting his expert report, they obviously consider
23 that context to be beyond dispute and that the -- that it is well known
24 to the Chamber. So I'm interested in why does Nielsen not place in a
25 historical context the events he deals with in his report. It's not a
1 matter of whether he knows or does not know the historical context, but
2 it's a question of the influence of the events that we're familiar with
3 on his conclusions in his report.
4 MR. HANNIS: Mr. Nielsen has answered the question about why he
5 didn't include it in his report, and Mr. Nielsen has no control over
6 about what decisions the Prosecution made about whether or not
7 Mr. Treanor will be called because of the limitations on the
8 Prosecution's number of hours, number of witnesses, et cetera.
9 JUDGE HALL: Let's move on, Mr. Zecevic.
10 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
11 Q. Mr. Nielsen, the day before you talked with Mr. Hannis about the
12 Cutileiro Plan, you do not mention the Cutileiro Plan in your report. I
13 assume that the reason for it is the same one that you have just given us
14 for other contextual facts to which I was pointing.
15 A. That is correct, although you may be familiar with the fact that
16 I was cross-examined about the Cutileiro Plan in Krajisnik.
17 Q. All right. If you were examined about the Cutileiro Plan in the
18 Krajisnik case, why then in the revision or addition that you did for the
19 Stanisic/Zupljanin case, i.e., this case, did you not include the facts
20 relating to the Cutileiro Plan in this report?
21 A. For precisely the reason that I gave previously, namely my
22 understanding that other witnesses, in particular Mr. Treanor and perhaps
23 also Dr. Donia, would deal with that issue.
24 Q. Your expert knowledge, then, you are placing in the context of
25 some kind of collective effort in order to affirm the Prosecutor's theory
1 of the case. Is that correct?
2 A. No, that is not correct. The collective effort is indeed
3 present. That's the T in team, leadership research team, and that means
4 that we collectively seek to break up very complex issues into
5 analytically manageable chunks so that we have one person who is doing
6 the Bosnian Serb leadership, one person doing the Crisis Staffs. I'm the
7 one who does the MUP, et cetera.
8 Q. Don't you think that in this way when you split it up into
9 segments you are losing a key connection with the actual real events on
10 the ground and the reasons why some things actually happened?
11 A. I do not agree, because I make it part of my job -- I should say,
12 I made it a part of my job to read, on a regular basis, the analytical
13 products produced by my colleague experts and in that way try to the
14 keep, to the best of my ability, the actual real events on the ground, as
15 you refer to them, in my mind as I performed my own analysis of MUP
16 documentation. The alternative would be to have one absolutely massive
17 report dealing with everything from A to Z, and I don't think that's
18 feasible for any one person to undertake.
19 Q. Mr. Nielsen, isn't it true, and I think you said that the day
20 before yesterday, that you looked at the Cutileiro Plan and the
21 documents, last week when you came to prepare for this testimony? Yes or
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. How is it possible that in your report you deal with the division
25 of the Bosnia
1 report the Cutileiro Plan, which from September 1991 was based on the
2 tripartite principle and the division of Bosnia and Herzegovina into
3 three entities?
4 MR. HANNIS: Can we have a clarification about what Mr. Zecevic
5 is referring to when he says the Cutileiro Plan? Is there a particular
6 document that he can hand to the witness and show him as being the
7 Cutileiro Plan that he's referring to?
8 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I do intend to show
9 it to the witness. I am just trying to lay the basis for further
10 questions and all the documents that I'm planning to show him in relation
11 to the Cutileiro Plan. The only assertion here is that the Cutileiro
12 Plan existed from September 1991, and that is information that can be
13 found on Wikipedia on the internet.
14 MR. HANNIS: If there's a document from September 1991 that is
15 called the Cutileiro Plan, I would like it to be shown to the witness so
16 he can understand and answer the question in context.
17 JUDGE HALL: Perhaps, Mr. Zecevic, the witness should first be
18 asked about his familiarity with this. I'm not sure that the -- any
19 purpose is served as to why -- I keep coming back to the fact that he is
20 proffered as an expert witness, that why the report which is before us --
21 we're dealing with what is in the report, not what is not in the report,
22 if you follow me. That's the difficulty I have with the question, I
23 suppose, is Mr. Hannis's objection.
24 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, there are two or
25 three things here. First, the witness claims that he knew about it, but
1 he did not wish to comment on it because this is something that other
2 experts from the Prosecution were commenting on since they were
3 co-operating within the Prosecutor's office and it was known which expert
4 was covering which part of the testimony during a trial. This is the
5 first thing.
6 Second, we really must ask the witness this and on the basis of
7 his positions we are telling him why we believe the division of the MUP
8 occurred. His position is that this was the desire or the will of the
9 Serbian cadres from the Serbian Democratic Party, and we are asserting
10 the opposite. So we have to put this to the witness, with all due
12 JUDGE HALL: Except that the witness is not compelled to take on
13 board in terms of the opinions which he has formed, and which is what his
14 report is all about, the views of anybody else, including the views now
15 being articulated by counsel. But I haven't lost sight of your
16 continuing to put your case, to lay the foundation for the eventual
17 Defence case. It's only in the interests of time, Mr. Zecevic, that
18 the -- inviting the witness presently on the stand, to engage him in
19 these detailed exchanges about, in this case, the Cutileiro report is --
20 is it helpful?
21 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we believe that that
22 part of the report of the witness is wrong, and we are putting questions
23 to him with that premise, and we are putting to him why we believe that
24 his report here is incorrect, but I see that Mr. Hannis is on his feet.
25 MR. HANNIS: The essence of my objection, I guess, Your Honours,
1 is a procedural one, in effect. There's been a lot of talk in this case
2 about the Cutileiro Plan or the Cutileiro agreement. Those terms have
3 been used in loose fashion, and frankly, I have to confess it's not clear
4 to me, I've heard several -- I've heard witnesses say there was no
5 agreement. There was a conference. There were principles for
6 negotiations, but if there is an agreement, if there is a document called
7 the Cutileiro Plan or the Cutileiro agreement and he wants to ask him a
8 question about that, then he should show him that document. So in
9 fairness to the witness he sees what he's being asked about. But if he's
10 just using his generic Cutileiro Plan or Cutileiro agreement term, the
11 witness may not understand what that is. That's the essence of my
13 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
14 MR. PANTELIC: Just for the record, Your Honour, the position -
15 while we're on the same topic, to help the Trial Chamber, to help to some
16 extent the witness - the position of Zupljanin Defence with regard to the
17 Cutileiro Plan is as follows: Our case is based on the competence of the
18 entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina regarding certain -- certain aspect
19 of -- of government, including police.
20 Three parties in Bosnia-Herzegovina, before the, let's say,
21 adoption of draft of Cutileiro Plan, agreed that entities will form, have
22 control, and conduct their own police forces. This is the beginning.
23 This is the gist of this problem. And I'm almost hundred per cent, maybe
24 hundred ten per cent sure that distinguish Dr. Nielsen is aware about
25 that, that fact.
1 So it's very narrow, Your Honours, use of principles and general
2 framework for the future constitution of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
3 At the end of the day, as I mentioned on many occasions, these
4 principles were enshrined in Dayton
5 have a sort of divided police controlled by the entities in Bosnia
6 this is the sole and very limited issue with regard to the Cutileiro
7 Plan. This is position of Zupljanin Defence, and I will announce this
8 line, these several questions, now, I will announce for Dr. Nielsen
9 during my cross. Thank you very much.
10 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Mr. Pantelic.
11 MR. ZECEVIC: May I proceed, Your Honours?
12 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. Zecevic.
13 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you very much.
14 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Nielsen --
15 MR. HANNIS: I'm sorry, Your Honours. Have you ruled then that
16 he's not going to be required to show the document to the witness?
17 JUDGE HALL: I thought the last thing he said is that he's going
18 to move on.
19 MR. HANNIS: I think he's planning to move on and ask him about
20 the Cutileiro Plan without showing him a document.
21 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, I said that I'm going to show the
22 document to the witness. That is exactly what I intend to do.
23 JUDGE HALL: You have the document.
24 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes, I do. [Interpretation] Could we please have
1 Q. That is your tab 27. Mr. Nielsen, the day before yesterday
2 Mr. Hannis asked you about the Cutileiro Plan. I thought that in that
3 sense he and I agree that that is the popular name for the document of
4 the European Union that is called "Principles of New Constitutional
5 Arrangements for Bosnia-Herzegovina." It is popularly known as the
6 Cutileiro Plan because this plan -- or, rather, this attempt of making
7 arrangements in Bosnia and Herzegovina on behalf of the European Union
8 was spearheaded by Lord Carrington and the Foreign Minister of Portugal,
9 Mr. Cutileiro. However, since Lord Carrington had worked out some other
10 plans before that, in order to make a distinction between and among these
11 plans this document is known as the Cutileiro Plan.
12 I think that when Mr. Hannis put questions to you the day before
13 yesterday, he was actually asking you about the Cutileiro Plan.
14 Therefore, I do not understand the objection made by Mr. Hannis now.
15 However --
16 MR. HANNIS: My objection is Mr. Zecevic started out by talking
17 about the Cutileiro Plan beginning in September 1991. This document is
18 dated February 22nd, 1992
19 Mr. Zecevic has been trying to testify for you by saying this is
20 popularly known as the Cutileiro Plan, et cetera. He's not a witness.
21 He needs to ask a question. And if this is the Cutileiro Plan that he's
22 referring to, I'm satisfied and Mr. Nielsen can talk about it, but I want
23 to be sure that it wasn't some other document from September 1991 that
24 was entitled "Cutileiro Plan."
25 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Mr. Nielsen, let me ask you something. Do you know that this
2 plan of the European Union about the new constitutional arrangements for
3 Bosnia-Herzegovina started in September 1991 under Lord Carrington and
4 Mr. Cutileiro? Yes or no?
5 A. No, I'm not exactly familiar with when it started.
6 Q. Okay. This document that you see now is a document that is
7 called "Statement on Principles for New Constitutional Arrangements for
8 Bosnia and Herzegovina." It is dated the 22nd of February, 1992
9 Have you seen this document before?
10 A. Yes, sir, and I comment on it in direct examination, I believe.
11 Q. I don't think it was this document. I'll show you the document
12 that you commented on somewhat later. This document is dated the 22nd of
13 February. I think that your comments had to do with the document dated
14 the 18th of March, if I remember correctly.
15 A. Yes, I think you're correct.
16 Q. The document dated the 22nd of February, just like the document
17 that you commented upon dated the 18th of March, envisaged as basic
18 postulates the independence of Bosnia-Herzegovina that will consist of
19 three entities, three constituent units; right?
20 A. That is precisely what point 1 under heading (A) states, yes.
21 Q. Then in this document under (D), and I think the situation is the
22 same in the document that you commented upon dated the 18th of March, the
23 rights and responsibilities of each entity are listed; inter alia, it
24 says that laws will be passed and that different questions will be
25 regulated, police included; right? Do you see that? (D)2. The
1 one-but-last line?
2 A. Yes, this statement of principles does indeed contemplate that
3 the entities, three of them, would run the police within an independent
4 but unitary Bosnia-Herzegovina.
5 Q. What do you mean unitary Bosnia-Herzegovina?
6 A. Well, what I mean is that there continues to be a central state
7 and a central assembly and government as is set out in the points under
8 point (C). That's what I mean.
9 Q. Let us just clarify this. This draft statement of principles for
10 a new Bosnia
11 Bosnia and Herzegovina consisting of three entities in the form of some
12 federal state with the central government in Sarajevo and central
13 ministries in Sarajevo
14 understanding of this document?
15 A. I think that is a quite correct understanding and is reflected in
16 the document before us, yes.
17 Q. Thank you. I would like to have this document admitted into
18 evidence, please, if there are no objections.
19 MR. HANNIS: No objection.
20 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
21 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, document 1D00-2708 shall be
22 admitted as Exhibit 1D00133. Thank you, Your Honours.
23 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. I would like to show you document 1D01-0936 shall, please. Tab
25 28. I'm being told that it is the right time for the break?
1 JUDGE HALL: Yes, I was about to bring to your attention
2 [overlapping speakers] at that point.
3 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
4 [The witness stood down]
5 --- Recess taken at 12.05 p.m.
6 --- On resuming at 12.42 p.m.
7 JUDGE HALL: While the witness is being escorted back in, we
8 regret any inconvenience caused to counsel and the accused by our delay
9 in taking the bench, but we were engaged in an urgent administrative
10 matter relative to this trial. And while I'm interrupting the
11 proceedings by way of explanation, when we resume tomorrow morning, we
12 will be sitting under the provisions of Rule 15 bis for the first session
13 and possibly the second. There is a commitment which I made before --
14 when the time was set for the afternoon, but I fully expect to be here
15 for the third session. It remains to be seen whether I'm here for the
16 second session. Thank you.
17 [The witness takes the stand]
18 MR. ZECEVIC: May I continue, Your Honour?
19 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. Zecevic.
20 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you very much.
21 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Nielsen, just one question in relation to
22 the previous document that we introduced as 1D133. That is the statement
23 on principles for new constitutional arrangements for Bosnia-Herzegovina.
24 It may be assumed, right, that this document was created on the
25 basis of some previously agreed views among the parties concerned; right?
1 A. I believe that it is accurate to state, although I'm not an
2 expert on international negotiations on the status of Bosnia-Herzegovina,
3 that this document came to exist in the context of ongoing negotiations
4 among the parties concerned.
5 Q. Thank you. Yesterday, Mr. Hannis showed you 65 ter number 26 --
7 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have that document
8 called up.
9 Q. Tab 30 in your set. It is more or less identical to the number
10 that we looked at just now; however, this one is dated the 18th of March.
11 As opposed to the previous document, on the last page, and that is page 3
12 in e-court, confirms that agreement was reached among the leaders of the
13 following parties: SDA, SDS, and HDZ, in the fifth round of negotiations
14 on future agreements for Bosnia-Herzegovina under the auspices of the
15 peace conference of the European Community.
16 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I do apologise. Is there a problem
17 with the document? We need the last page in the English version, please.
18 The third page. I said that. Page 3. Yes, that's it.
19 Q. Mr. Nielsen, do you see this? The day before yesterday, you
20 commented upon this with Mr. Hannis, and on page 4721, you established
21 that in your view this was not an agreement but a set of principles as a
22 basis for further talks. Do you remember having said that?
23 A. Yes, and it clearly says in capital letters: "This paper is the
24 basis of further negotiations."
25 Q. At any rate, Mr. Nielsen, on page 4732, you confirm that this
1 document is an agreed framework for the future arrangements in
2 Bosnia-Herzegovina; right?
3 A. Yes, and I recall stating that -- that notwithstanding the
4 representatives of the SDA, in particular Mr. Izetbegovic, later revoked
5 his signature and agreement.
6 Q. Sir, if I understood you correctly, you will agree with me that
7 the signature on this document proves that the parties are prepared to
8 observe the provisions of that document.
9 A. Well, the document in front of us does not have anyone's
10 signature on it, but, that -- yes, that is what would be the case if it
11 were signed or ...
12 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Zecevic, is the 18th March version just a
13 draft of the previous one we had? No, sorry, the previous one was 22nd
14 February. That was a draft and this is the final version, is that it?
16 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Exactly, Judge Harhoff. This
17 document of the 18th of March was signed by the representatives of all
18 three parties in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
19 Q. Mr. Nielsen, when it is stated in a document that these are
20 agreed facts and that the document is a basis for further negotiations,
21 you will agree with me that these further negotiations pertain to some
22 new additional questions that need to be clarified through further
23 negotiations, not these that have already been signed. That is why this
24 is called a statement on principles; right?
25 A. My interpretation of the words "basis of further negotiations" is
1 that theoretically it is possible that such further negotiations could
2 include both making more precise the points in this statement of
3 principles, but also suggesting that some of them might be changed, and I
4 would again point to the fact that Mr. Izetbegovic revoked his signature
5 from this document.
6 Q. Mr. Nielsen, you have a very special characteristic. Namely, you
7 draw conclusions on certain legal matters, and you give explanations with
8 regard to matters that do not belong to your field of expertise, and in
9 other situations when questions are put to you by counsel, you say that
10 you're not a lawyer and that you cannot give your own comments; isn't
11 that right?
12 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, that's argumentative.
13 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I do apologise. I do apologise. I
14 will withdraw that question.
15 Q. Tell me, Mr. Nielsen, do you have an education in the field of
17 A. I have taken courses at Columbia University
18 but I do not hold a law degree, no.
19 Q. Was that public international law or private, or was it criminal
20 law? What field was it?
21 A. I took courses in what you would call public international law
22 and specifically in the field of international criminal law and
23 international humanitarian law.
24 Q. And on that basis you think that you have sufficient expertise to
25 be able to comment upon such agreements? Yes or no?
1 MR. HANNIS: Objection. That's argumentative as well.
2 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Do you think, Mr. Nielsen, that on the basis of that course of
4 yours at the University of Columbia
5 comment upon such agreements like the statement --
6 JUDGE HALL: I thought, Mr. Zecevic, that you had taken
7 Mr. Hannis's hint.
8 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Obviously I hadn't. I thought that
9 this question was perfectly proper, Your Honour. I was asking the
10 witness on which basis or, rather, whether he believes that on the basis
11 of that course in international public law and international humanitarian
12 law he is in a position to comment on these agreements.
13 JUDGE HALL: Well, is that a question that the witness can
14 seriously be expected to answer? He has been tendered as an expert
15 witness by the Prosecution. The Chamber has accepted him as an expert
16 witness. Now, in terms of his professional training and experience, you
17 can test him on that, but a question that begins with "Do you think,"
18 strikes me as one that is bound to fail.
19 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I understand, Your Honour.
20 Q. Tell me, sir, do you know what the Brussels agreement pertains to
21 in the context of this statement on principles of the future arrangements
22 for Bosnia-Herzegovina?
23 A. I'm aware that a further round of talks, I believe it was called
24 the sixth round of talks, took place in Brussels at the end of March
25 1992, as far as I recall, and I can only speculate that it -- that the
2 Q. Are you familiar with the term "the Sarajevo agreement" in that
4 A. Yes, I am familiar with that term, and I believe that, if I'm not
5 mistaken that, might well have been a local, that is to say Bosnian, term
6 that referred to the same sixth round of negotiations, but that's again
7 based on my general knowledge of the situation at that time.
8 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would like to tender
9 this document. The day before yesterday it was used by Mr. Hannis,
10 65 ter 2767. I don't know. I don't know. I mean, I think that
11 Mr. Hannis did not tender it. I don't know whether he intended to tender
12 it along with this expert report, so I'm just seeking clarification
13 before I tender it myself.
14 MR. HANNIS: No, it's not a document listed in his expert report,
15 and I didn't tender it yesterday. I have no objection to it being
17 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
18 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter 02767 shall be admitted as
19 Exhibit 1D134. Thank you, Your Honours.
20 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Mr. Nielsen, in response to Mr. Hannis's question, you spoke
22 about 65 ter document 38. Those are minutes from the meeting held in
23 Banja Luka on the 11th of February, 1992. In your binder it is document
24 38. Sorry, 45. The page is 4725.
25 If I may say so, you said in rather picturesque terms that this
1 meeting is actually a birth certificate for the Serbian MUP. Do you
2 remember saying that?
3 A. I believe you are incorrect in saying that, because the document
4 that I referred to as the birth certificate for the Serbian MUP was the
5 dispatch sent by Momcilo Mandic on 31st of March, 1992, and not the 11
6 February meeting.
7 Q. Thank you for that clarification. Mr. Nielsen, this document
8 dated the 11th of February, 1992, from Banja Luka
9 certain Serbian staff members of the MUP of Bosnia-Herzegovina held a
10 meeting; right? Just Serb personnel.
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. I'm sure that you have looked at this document more than once.
13 At least that's how I understood you. And you would agree with me that
14 it mostly consists from remarks and the views of those present from the
16 you and I here during the session today in the courtroom; isn't that
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. These same problems that we dealt with in detail this morning
20 were also troubling the persons attending this meeting. What I'm
21 particularly interested in, and you did go through the document with
22 Mr. Hannis and you commented on certain parts of it, what I'm interested
23 in is page 2. I think it's the same page in the Serbian and the English.
24 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] In the e-court it's page 2, second
25 paragraph from the top.
1 I'm sorry. I apologise. It seems to me that it's actually on
2 page 1 in the English version, this comment from Mico Stanisic's speech.
3 Q. While we're waiting for the document to appear - it's one
4 paragraph but last - in -- what Mico Stanisic is noted to have said, and
5 it begins:
6 "A list of minimal outstanding demands should be assembled at
7 this meeting and submitted to Minister Alija Delimustafic, with a
8 reasonable deadline for their resolution."
9 Mr. Nielsen do you considering that this meeting in Banja Luka
10 the 11th of February, between these members of the Bosnia-Herzegovina MUP
11 was held in secret or not?
12 A. I do not know.
13 Q. In view of what Mr. Mico Stanisic says here that a list of
14 outstanding demands should be assembled at this meeting and submitted to
15 Minister Alija Delimustafic, that would indicate that there is no
16 intention to keep this meeting secret; is that right?
17 A. Not necessarily. You and I could meet secretly and agree to
18 provide information to a third party. So I don't think the fact that
19 they agreed -- that they agreed to provide information to Delimustafic
20 from the point of pure logic tells us whether it was a confidential or
21 covert meeting or not. I have no view on whether it was.
22 Q. In the documents that you looked through while you were preparing
23 your report, did you establish that the Bosnia and Herzegovina MUP, or at
24 least the leadership of the Bosnia-Herzegovina MUP, were familiar or
25 informed about the formation of the MUP of Republika Srpska?
1 A. I think there are some indications in the documentation that I
2 have reviewed that they were aware that Serbian personnel in SRBiH MUP
3 were organising themselves. I note that many of those documents that
4 refer to such activity refer to such activity as troubling and possibly
5 illegal, but I do think that there was an awareness within SRBiH MUP that
6 such activity was ongoing.
7 Q. Sir, I think that at several points in your report you mention
8 the media, which referred to the establishment of the MUP of Republika
9 Srpska; isn't that right?
10 A. There were reports in the media. I don't know which point in
11 time you're precisely referring to, but there were certainly rumours in
12 the media prior to April 1992 that indicated that the Serbs in SRBiH MUP
13 were involved in possibly establishing their own Ministry of Internal
15 Q. Isn't it a fact, Mr. Nielsen, that Republika Srpska was formed on
16 the 9th of January, 1992?
17 A. That is a fact.
18 Q. Wouldn't it be logical to expect that a republic that is
19 established would establish its own organs?
20 A. Well, it depends what kind of republic we're talking about and
21 what the general political context is.
22 Q. Mr. Nielsen, I mean, please, if a republic is formed regardless
23 of the context or regardless of the kind of republic that is involved, it
24 still has to have its organs, does it not?
25 A. If -- if the people who are doing that are to achieve their
1 ambitions, yes, it does.
2 Q. I mean if the representatives of a people decide to create a
3 state and adopt such a decision at the Assembly, then it can be assumed,
4 surely, that such a state would need to function, too, would it not?
5 A. Yes, within the context of their own plans it indeed does.
6 Q. I think that -- I think -- I think that there is no need to put
7 the question to you anymore. This is so evident. Just one more question
8 about this document.
9 On page 8 of the Serbian version, and I think it's on page 7 of
10 the English version, last item numbered 19. 65 -- I apologise.
11 Item 19 which states:
12 "Ensure maximum media coverage of our work and the decisions made
13 about the Serbian MUP."
14 Do you see that? This is one of the conclusions.
15 A. Yes, I agree with you.
16 Q. You would agree with me, then, that the people who attended this
17 meeting wanted to inform the public information media about the formation
18 of this republic for the purposes of having this state that was created
19 on the 9th of January, 1992, to function.
20 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please repeat his last
21 sentence. Thank you.
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Zecevic, the -- the interpreters didn't catch
23 your last sentence, so if you would be good enough to repeat it.
24 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I would like to tender this
25 document. It's document 65 ter 38. Thank you.
1 MR. HANNIS: No objection.
2 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
3 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, document 65 ter 38 shall be given
4 Exhibit 1D135. Thank you.
5 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] On page 64, line 22, I did not see
6 the witness's answer in the transcript.
7 Q. Mr. Nielsen, I asked you if you would agree with me that the
8 people who attended this meeting wanted to inform the public via the
9 media about the forming of this ministry in the republic precisely
10 because they wanted to show that the state that was created on the 9th of
11 January, 1992, was functioning, and your answer that you gave was not
12 recorded in the transcript. Could you please repeat it now?
13 A. I agree with you.
14 Q. Thank you very much. Mr. Nielsen, now we're coming to that
15 document. This is a dispatch signed by assistant minister of the
16 interior Mr. Momcilo Mandic on the 31st of March, 1992, and it's number
17 022482. And it was sent to practically all the addresses of the Bosnia
18 and Herzegovina MUP; isn't that right? Do you recall this document?
19 This is P353, and in your tab it is document -- just a moment,
20 please. Forty-eight. P353, 65 ter 62.
21 You commented on this document with Mr. Hannis the day before;
22 isn't that correct?
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. I wanted to ask you to look at the upper left-hand corner where
25 you can see the date. It's a telefax marking where the date is the 31st
1 of March, 1992. And the time is 13.58 hours. There is the number -- the
2 telephone number 071 276865. It says MUP, Sarajevo, Bosnia
5 A. Yes, and I agree with your reading of the document on that point.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could you please now show the
7 witness document 65 ter 1301.
8 Q. Sir, that is -- this is a dispatch signed by the minister of the
9 interior, Alija Delimustafic, in reaction to the previous document, P353,
10 which was signed by his assistant, Mr. Momcilo Mandic. Do you see this
11 document, Mr. Nielsen?
12 A. I don't appear to have that reaction dispatch. I'm familiar with
13 it, but I don't appear to have it in the binder here in front of me. At
14 least if it's if chronological order.
15 Q. I'm not able to find it in the text, but in any case, you have it
16 just like everybody else, on your monitor. I'm sure that you have looked
17 at this document before.
18 A. The dispatch on the monitor is still the one of Momcilo Mandic
19 and not the one of Alija Delimustafic. Oh, now I see it. Yes, sir. I
20 agree, yes. Yeah.
21 Q. Sir, this is a document in which Alija Delimustafic speaks about
22 the destructive effect of the dispatch on the unity of the MUP, the
23 dispatch written by Momcilo Mandic, and then he says that he is not in a
24 position to reflect on the regulations that it refers to because they are
25 not known to the professional services or by the leading staff whose name
1 is being mentioned in the dispatch, and then he asks that it should not
2 be permitted that anybody splinters off from the rest of their MUP
3 colleagues and so on and so forth. This is on page 2 in the English.
4 A. Yes, sir, I see that.
5 Q. This part that I drew your attention to begins with -- begins,
6 actually, in the second paragraph of this document for the purposes of
7 the English translation.
8 Sir, on the first page of the document, and we see that in the
9 B/C/S version, but if -- can we look at it in the English as well, you
10 can see that the date when the document was sent is also the 31st of
11 March. The document was sent at 13.59 hours. It also has the telefax
12 number at the top, also the mark that it was sent by the Bosnia and
13 Herzegovina Sarajevo MUP, and it can be seen that again it was sent to
14 Radio Sarajevo
15 This means that between Momcilo Mandic's dispatch, which is
16 P353 - and he is the assistant minister of the interior - and the
17 reaction of the minister of the interior, Mr. Alija Delimustafic, there
18 is only a one-minute difference in the -- between the time that the first
19 and the second one was sent. Can we agree on that on the basis of
20 looking at these two documents?
21 A. I agree that there was a one-minute difference between the time
22 when the first and second was sent to Radio Sarajevo, but I do not
23 necessarily agree that there was a one-minute difference between the time
24 when Mandic wrote his dispatch and Delimustafic wrote his dispatch.
25 Q. I agree with you. This is a fair conclusion. Keeping in mind
1 what we said a little bit earlier about the conclusions of the 11th of
2 February and the obvious need, I would say, for this dispatch by
3 Momcilo Mandic to be published as early as possible, you could assume
4 that Momcilo Mandic's intention was, first of all, to inform the public
5 and the media about his dispatch, wouldn't you say?
6 A. I suggest in my report that there are some very good reasons why
7 Mr. Mandic was in a hurry to issue this dispatch on that given day. I
8 deal with that at length. I agree that, certainly, he is trying to
9 inform the public about it, and certainly Delimustafic is trying to do
10 the same about his contrary opinion.
11 Q. Thank you.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we have this 65 ter document
13 1301 tendered if there are no objections from Mr. Hannis.
14 MR. HANNIS: No objections.
15 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
16 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter 01301, shall be admitted as
17 1D136. Thank you, Your Honours.
18 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] For the transcript, this is
19 document 65 ter 1301.
20 Q. Mr. Nielsen, from the document that we have just looked at, one
21 could conclude that Mr. Alija Delimustafic was opposed and disagreed with
22 the division of the MUP from the dispatch of Mr. Momcilo Mandic.
23 A. I agree with you.
24 Q. One would expect from the minister to represent the position of
25 the ministry, wouldn't one?
1 A. Yes, and of the government of which he was a member.
2 Q. While you were preparing for the report and reviewing the
3 documents, did you perhaps have a chance to look at any document on the
4 basis of which you could conclude that the division of the MUP and the
5 dispatch by Momcilo Mandic of March 31st, 1991, was completely in keeping
6 with the position of the ministry of Bosnia and Herzegovina?
7 A. No, I have not a chance -- had a chance to look at any such
8 document on the basis of which I could reach that conclusion.
9 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please show the witness
10 1D78 [as interpreted].
11 THE REGISTRAR: Excuse me, Counsel. I do not have this document
12 in e-court. Can I have the 65 ter number, please? Thank you.
13 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I am being warned that there is a
14 mistake of some sort in the e-court, and so now we are going to call the
15 document by its 65 ter number, 2768. And even though it does say in the
16 transcript that it was admitted as one document, 1D178, we will not waste
17 time on that now.
18 Q. Sir --
19 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, I have this document in e-court as
21 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] In any case, if I understand
22 correctly, the document is in e-court and we will clarify this later.
23 Q. Mr. Nielsen, the document's letterhead says "The Ministry of the
24 Interior of the Socialist Republic
25 is the 1st of April, 1992
1 interior, Mico Stanisic and Alija Delimustafic, the MUP administrations
2 at the headquarters, and then it is also sent to all the other addresses
3 at the -- of the Ministry of the Interior of Bosnia and Herzegovina
4 copy was also sent to the federal SUP in Belgrade. Do you see that?
5 A. Yes, and I would point out that I cite a version of this document
6 in my report.
7 Q. You mean the document that was sent to all the public security
8 stations by one of the CSBs. Is that what you're thinking of?
9 A. Yes. If memory serves, this dispatch was forwarded to other
10 subordinate units within MUP.
11 Q. I will show you that. This is a document which states in a:
12 "The reorganisation of the organs for internal affairs and their
13 respective security services already taken place further to the Sarajevo
14 agreement on possible future organisation of Bosnia-Herzegovina, which
15 was endorsed in general terms at the Brussels talks yesterday. In that
16 respect, as you have already been advised, and in accordance with the
17 constitution of the republic," and so on.
18 And then it says -- we're talking about paragraph 2 now on the
19 same page:
20 "The following members of the current advisory board of the MUP
21 discuss this matter on the 1st of April, 1992: Vitomir Zepinic, deputy
22 minister; Branko Kvesic, under-secretary for the state security service."
23 We saw that he was an HDZ candidate. "Jusuf Pusina, assistant minister
24 for police." I hope that you would agree with me that he's a cadre of
25 the SDA. Bruno Stojic. We saw that he was assistant minister for
1 financial matters but was in the HDZ. Momcilo Mandic, assistant minister
2 for crime prevention; Akif Sabic, assistant minister also; and Avdo
3 Hebib, who is ministerial advisor for internal affairs; and Mico
4 Stanisic, who is the minister the interior of the republic of the Serbian
5 nation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
6 As you can see, the dispatch by Momcilo Mandic, followed by the
7 dispatch by Alija Delimustafic, were sent one after the other at an
8 interval of a minute to all of these addresses.
9 On the 1st of April, the MUP collegium had a meeting in which it
10 discussed this matter. Would you agree with me?
11 A. Do I agree with you that they had a meeting in which they
12 discussed this matter? Is that the question?
13 Q. Yes.
14 A. I agree that on the basis of this document it appears that they
15 had a meeting concerning the issues that are discussed in this dispatch.
16 I think it's important to note that Mr. Delimustafic is notable by his
17 absence at this meeting.
18 Q. I agree that Minister Delimustafic did not attend the meeting,
19 but all his assistant ministers were there; right? Or at least a vast
20 majority of them.
21 A. Certainly a lot of them were present, yes.
22 Q. On page 2 it says, on page 2 of the English text, and it's all
23 one page in the Serbian text, it says that Mico Stanisic familiarised the
24 collegium with some aspects of the functioning of the security
25 [indiscernible] specifying the reasons why the existing MUP did not
1 function properly and so on and so forth. Then he says the professional
2 collegium, realistically reviewing the situation and wanting to avoid
3 conditions for possible further deterioration of the otherwise complex
4 situation, took the view that without any excesses the MUP should be
5 transformed peacefully and without any excesses - both in headquarters
6 and the field - the facilities and equipment in the SJB and SDB in the
7 territory of the republic must not be ceased by any single nation
8 unilaterally, that the employees must not unilaterally be dismissed only
9 because their national and political affiliations, and that employees are
10 not to be coerced, et cetera.
11 Also, due attention has been paid to the functioning of the
12 financing of the newly established Ministry of the Interior of the
13 republic of the Serb Nation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which shall not be
14 below the existing level. Some personnel matters have been considered as
16 Mr. Nielsen, this document shows that the professional collegium
17 of the minister knew and realised that the MUP of the Bosnia and
19 that I referred to they were even looking at the possibilities for
20 financing the MUP of the Republika Srpska. And it also says here that it
21 will not be below the existing level. That's the position of the
22 collegium; right? Do you agree with me?
23 A. I agree with you that that is to a large extent what this
24 document says. I think it's again worth noting that this steering
25 council or collegium of the ministry is meeting in the absence of the
1 minister himself, and I think it's also significant to note that per the
2 ongoing negotiations that we were discussing earlier today, the very
3 first sentence refers to the possible future state organisation of Bosnia
4 and Herzegovina
6 Q. Mr. Nielsen, we discussed these negotiations, so we're not going
7 to go back to that. I asked you specifically whether you agree with me
8 that this is what is being stated in this document. Yes or no?
9 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, the document speaks for itself.
10 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Well, I do agree, but that is why I
11 intend to put a question to the witness once he gives me an answer to
12 this question.
13 JUDGE HALL: Well, can't you just proceed to put your question
14 as -- I mean, we can all read what the document says. Put the question.
15 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Sir, did you have this document in your possession when you were
17 writing this report?
18 A. Yes, and as I note, I cite a version of it in my report, the one
19 that was forwarded, which is a verbatim forwarding of this dispatch.
20 Q. Wait a minute. You are trying to tell me that you had the
21 original in mind but you did not cite it in your report, if I understand
22 you correctly? You refer to a copy of that decision that one of the CSBs
23 forwarded further in the field. Is that what you're trying to say?
24 A. What I am trying to say is that I cited another original document
25 which quotes, in full, this particular document because reflecting, as
1 you yourself put it, the final sentence of this document, the point was
2 to acquaint all members of MUP, both in the field and in the ministry
3 itself, with the document.
4 Q. What document do you mean, Mr. Nielsen? Could you give me a
5 reference? The one that you're citing in your report, that is.
6 A. Well, I have to say that it's going to be very difficult for me
7 to find it immediately, but I can certainly -- I'm happy to inform you
8 first thing in the morning.
9 Q. Yes, precisely. That's what I wanted to suggest since we have
10 two or three minutes left before we conclude.
11 Let me ask you one more thing. So we'll continue discussing this
12 document. This document was exhibited as a Defence document, but the
13 65 ter -- but the OTP brought it up at the 65 ter meeting as well. You
14 said you got documentation concerning the Cutileiro Plan from the OTP.
15 What about this document? It was not -- it was not made available to
16 you? You did not discuss it during your preparations? Yes or no?
17 A. I became aware of this document because it's cited in my esteemed
18 colleague Bajagic's report, and I noted that I was citing a different
19 version of the same document or a very, very similar document with the
20 same content in my own report.
21 Q. I'm not sure I understand what you mean. What report of
22 Mr. Bajagic you're referring to?
23 A. I'm referring to his expert report in the Borovcanin case with
24 which I'm familiar. He cites it in there.
25 Q. Tell me, this document, in essence, does it not confirm my
1 thesis, the one that I've been putting to you here; namely, that the
2 division of the MUP of Bosnia-Herzegovina is the result of a trilateral
3 agreement reached among the representatives of the SDA, the SDS, and the
4 HDZ -- or, rather, the Muslim, Croat, and Serb peoples in
6 A. If one only reads this document in isolation, then I can see how
7 you would reach that conclusion. However, taking all the documents which
8 I have been able to review in toto, I do not concur with your conclusion.
9 Q. Very well.
10 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I believe that this
11 would be a good moment to break off, and then we can continue with
12 Mr. Nielsen tomorrow.
13 Thank you, Mr. Nielsen.
14 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Mr. Zecevic, and -- and Dr. Nielsen, of
15 course I remind you that you're still on your oath, and the usual --
16 sorry, the usually cautions apply, of course.
17 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE HALL: So you're now released -- you're now excused, sorry.
19 [The witness stands down]
20 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Zecevic, Registrar informs us that you've
21 used three hours and five minutes of your time, so ...
22 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. We are
23 trying to do our best in order to finish as early as possible. However,
24 we haven't been doing brilliantly regrettably. Thank you.
25 JUDGE HARHOFF: Just for the Registrar, the Registrar now informs
1 us that there was a mistake in the information that I just gave you. In
2 fact, you have used five hours and ten minutes, I understand. So you've
3 got about four hours left.
4 MR. ZECEVIC: Again, Your Honours, as I said, we are trying our
5 best, but we might be required to ask for some, with the -- with the --
6 to some more time to deal with this witness. As you can see, it's
7 fairly -- fairly important to -- with the matters that we deal with him.
8 We would appreciate that from the Trial Chamber.
9 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thanks. I just wanted to give you a head's up as
10 to how far along --
11 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you very much. I appreciate that very much,
12 Your Honours.
13 MR. HANNIS: I understand, and I'll try to limit my objections
14 and keep them short in hopes that we can finish at least the
15 cross-examination by the Stanisic Defence team before the winter recess.
16 Thank you.
17 JUDGE HALL: Tomorrow, 9.00, in this Chamber.
18 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.45 p.m.
19 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 17th day
20 of December, 2009, at 9.00 a.m.