1 Thursday, 17 December 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case number
6 IT-08-91-T. The Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin.
7 JUDGE DELVOIE: Good morning to you all. May I have the
8 appearances, please.
9 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honours. On behalf of the Office of
10 the Prosecutor, I'm Tom Hannis joined by our Case Manager, Crispian
11 Smith, and today we have two of our interns who have been working with
12 us; Mr. Guillermo Otalora Lozano and Ms. Ana Trstenjak.
13 Thank you.
14 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
15 MR. ZECEVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Slobodan Zecevic,
16 Slobodan Cvijetic, Mr. Eugene O'Sullivan, and Tatjana Savic our Case
17 Manager appearing for Stanisic Defence this morning. Expert has left The
18 Hague, thank you very much.
19 MR. PANTELIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Igor Pantelic for
20 Zupljanin Defence.
21 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you. Can we bring the witness in.
22 Mr. Zecevic, I think you have 582 documents still to go.
23 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes, on the list, Your Honour. That is not the
24 factual situation.
25 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. And what is the factual situation?
1 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, I'm not sure at this point, but I think less
2 than 150 documents we need to show to the witness.
3 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. And where --
4 MR. ZECEVIC: Probably less than that.
5 JUDGE DELVOIE: Where will that take us?
6 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, Your Honours, we believe that we will need
7 another day to deal with this witness in addition to our time, the time
8 that we have, plus another day, I'm sorry.
9 [The witness takes the stand]
10 MR. ZECEVIC: You see --
11 JUDGE DELVOIE: Yes, please.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, Mr. Nielsen's report is very dense
13 document, as you can see, and highly relevant. It touches the very
14 issues in this case, and I think we need to in order to assist the Trial
15 Chamber and definitely shorten our Defence case, we are trying to
16 establish some of the issues with Mr. Nielsen here, if that would be
17 possible, of course. And -- but in any case, we need to challenge his
18 report because it's the basis, as I say, to the pre-trial brief of the
19 Prosecution with which we take the issue. Therefore, I kindly ask you to
20 give us additional time, I think this would be of assistance to the Trial
22 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Hannis.
23 MR. HANNIS: In that regard may I, at the end the day, could we
24 recess two or three minutes early just to assess how much longer they
25 think they are going to need with him, because it's going to affect our
1 planning for scheduling next week and maybe we can confer with the
2 witness on the record about his availability dates as well, because it
3 sounds like he may have to come back for three days, one more day of
4 Mr. Zecevic, one day of Mr. Pantelic, and at least maybe one day of
6 JUDGE DELVOIE: Next week, Mr. Hannis?
7 MR. HANNIS: I'll be available, Your Honour. I'm not sure you
8 can get unanimity on that.
9 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Zecevic, I have two observations to put to
10 you in respect of your application for more time. Let me start off by
11 saying that I'm not in any way opposed to giving you the time you need,
12 but first of all is there a way in which you can think of having the many
13 documents admitted without having to go through so many of them? I'm
14 especially referring to the model that we applied with an earlier witness
15 to try to group them together which might reduce the time you need
16 actually in court to confront the witness with the many documents.
17 That's one question.
18 And the other question is that without in any way trying to
19 interfere with the way you conduct your examination -- your
20 cross-examination, sorry, I've noticed that many of the questions you put
21 could actually be saved. Like when you ask the witnesses, not
22 particularly this witness, this doesn't go for you, it goes for the
23 Prosecution and for Mr. Pantelic as well, ascertaining from the witness
24 whether you have read out a passage correctly is perhaps not always
25 necessary. So my quest is really are for all parties to focus their
1 examination-in-chief and their cross-examination more directly and
2 strongly to -- in order to reach the point that you wish to get to.
3 But let me turn to my first question, if you have any idea of how
4 you can get through the many documents in a quicker way?
5 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, Your Honours I'm thankful for your
6 suggestion. I think definitely the way how to proceed would be the
7 already established practice in this trial, that we group the documents,
8 and then I would ask the witness on one or two documents and then offer
9 the group of the documents for admittance.
10 Your Honours, I'm perfectly willing to follow your suggestion,
11 but what I'm trying to do is basically focus, trying to assist the Trial
12 Chamber by focusing the parts of the document that in our opinion are
13 relevant and -- and are going into the heart of the matter in this case.
14 Therefore, I believe I'm assisting Trial Chamber at the very end because
15 it doesn't -- the Trial Chamber would not need to go to -- some of the
16 documents are, Your Honours, 400, 500 pages, so we -- I was actually, I'm
17 trying actually follow your suggestion that we really focus on the parts
18 of documents that are relevant to our case. But I can follow your advice
19 which you suggested right now and just ask the witness more directly, so
20 to speak.
21 JUDGE HARHOFF: Let's try that, see how it works out.
22 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you very much.
23 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. And bench will think on and discuss your
24 application for one day more during the break when the three of us are
25 here. That reminds me for the record, we are sitting pursuant to Article
1 15 bis, Judge Hall being absent.
2 Mr. Hannis.
3 MR. HANNIS: I have nothing, Your Honour it's up to Mr. Zecevic.
4 JUDGE DELVOIE: I've' very sorry.
5 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you very much.
6 WITNESS: CHRISTIAN NIELSEN [Resumed]
7 Cross-examination by Mr. Zecevic: [Continued]
8 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Nielsen.
9 A. [Interpretation] I cordially wish you good morning.
10 JUDGE DELVOIE: Just one moment, Mr. Nielsen. I may remind you
11 that you are still under your oath. A formality, but I have to do that.
12 THE WITNESS: [In English] Thank you, Your Honour.
13 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Mr. Nielsen, yesterday before the end of the last session, I
15 showed you a document 1D78, a dispatch dated 1 April 1992, referring to
16 the collegium meeting of the MUP held on that day, and I've been informed
17 that the status of this document in e-court has now been clarified. So
18 it's 1D78. And on page 4915 you told me you had no occasion to see a
19 single document which would lead you to conclude that the division of the
20 MUP of Bosnia-Herzegovina was peaceful and with the consent and approval
21 of the -- of all parties.
22 Isn't it the case that this document, 1D78, shows precisely that,
23 that the division of the MUP was peaceful and conducted with the
24 considered approval of the leadership of the MUP?
25 A. As I noted yesterday, I cite a version of this document in my
1 report, and I agree with you that this particular document indicates
2 that - according to this document alone - that the division of the MUP
3 was peaceful and conducted with the approval of the leadership of the
4 MUP, again minus the minister, which I find very important. And I also
5 would point out that there are a host of documents which I cite in my
6 report including documents from Bosnian Serbs after 31 March 1992 which
7 conclusively demonstrate that the division of the MUP was not peaceful
8 and was not conducted with the approval of the leadership of the MUP.
9 Q. Mr. Nielsen, in this document on page 2 it is stated that
10 attention is also accorded to the co-ordination of some joint services.
11 Doesn't that mean joint services at the level of the central MUP in
13 have shown you related it to the so-called Cutileiro plan?
14 A. If viewed in isolation, yes, it is. However, I again point out
15 that having been able to review this, I note that at the various time
16 that this collegium was meeting, the minister, Alija Delimustafic was
17 meeting with the government of Bosnia and Herzegovina to discuss the
18 contradictory dispatches of Mr. Mandic and Mr. Delimustafic of the
19 previous day, 31 March 1992
20 book, Articles 118 to 124 which indicate quite clearly --
21 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. -- slow down, please.
22 THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir. Thank you, Your Honour.
23 And in Articles 118 to 124 of the SRBiH MUP rule book which deal
24 with the workings of this collegium of SRBiH MUP, it emerges that the
25 minister plays a critical role. Let's be honest, they are not discussing
1 how many office supplies they want to order for the rest of 1992. They
2 discussing the disintegration and division of the ministry, and I think
3 it is extraordinary that they would take this decision in the absence of
4 the minister when is he in fact meeting with the government to discuss
5 that very point.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Mr. Nielsen, I would appreciate it very much if you could
8 concentrate on the question I'm actually asking because you are going too
9 much ahead and I want you to answer step by step about all these
10 important things.
11 When I showed you this document on transcript page 4916, you said
12 exactly what you've repeated now. Could you give me a reference for that
13 document you are citing in your report because in the part that is
14 subtitled disintegration of the MUP of the Socialist Republic
15 Bosnia-Herzegovina, your paragraphs 78 through 94, I could not find that
16 reference when you say that it's a version of this document 1D78?
17 A. Certainly, sir. I cite a version of that document in footnote
18 196 on page 54 and I refer there to the document bearing the ERN
19 P004-4289, P004-4289A, which in large part reproduces the document that
20 you are talking about, and that we were looking at here on the screen. I
21 agree with you and I'm very thankful to my esteemed colleague Dr. Bajagic
22 for reminding me of this document's existence, and I agree with you that
23 I should also have cited this document, but I do cite a version of it in
24 footnote 196.
25 Q. Mr. Nielsen, you are citing that in paragraph 193, your footnote
1 196, but it does not explain the so-called solemn declaration which you
2 misinterpret and misrepresent as an oath of loyalty. You don't make any
3 reference in that paragraph to this document and its connection with the
4 disintegration of the MUP; isn't that right?
5 A. I do not make a reference to this document in specific connection
6 with the events of 31st March 1992
7 were to pull up that document, you will see that it is in large part a
8 reproduction of the document that you identify as 1D78.
9 Q. Well, to conclude, when you were writing your report, and you
10 said the same thing right now, I think you agreed with me now that it's a
11 shortcoming of your report that this document 1D78 is not cited, and we
12 don't have your position as an expert concerning that document, yes or
14 A. Yes, I would agree that it is a shortcoming.
15 Q. Thank you. Sir, let us study now your position concerning the
16 presence of Minister Delimustafic. You drew our attention yesterday to
17 the fact that Minister Delimustafic was not present at this collegium
18 meeting. I asked you, isn't it true that the minister represents the
19 ministry, and you answered, not only the ministry, but also the cabinet
20 to which he belongs. Do you remember that?
21 A. Yes, the government to which he belongs and the ministry,
23 Q. Yes, sorry. It was interpreted as cabinet, it's about the same
24 thing. Tell me, Mr. Nielsen, isn't it the case that the then government
25 of Bosnia-Herzegovina was a coalition government of the SDS, the SDA, and
1 the HDZ?
2 A. To the best of my knowledge, yes.
3 Q. Are you aware that the SDS had appointed eight ministers, SDA
4 eight ministers, and the HDZ four ministers?
5 A. I'm not aware of the exact composition of the government at that
6 time but that's quite possible.
7 Q. I will now show you a chart, a schematic prepared by the Office
8 of the Prosecutor.
9 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] That's document 10138.4 in e-court.
10 If the usher could give you a copy.
11 Q. This is an organisational chart of the Ministry of the Interior
12 of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina for the period January
13 1991 through March 1992. It was created at the Office of the Prosecutor,
14 our learned friends on the other side, and I would like to discuss it
15 with you.
16 Isn't it true that in the ministry along with the minister there
17 is one deputy minister and nine assistant ministers?
18 A. Yes, I believe that is true.
19 Q. Mr. Nielsen, you are certainly aware that under the law and in
20 accordance with the nature of things, the deputy minister stands in for
21 the minister when the minister is unable to attend?
22 A. Certainly that is the case. That's the point of a deputy
24 Q. This meeting, this collegium, in the political jargon collegium
25 meant the meeting of the most senior leaders in the ministry. Do you
2 A. That is what the SRBiH MUP rule book says; that is correct.
3 Q. When I asked you about political jargon, I meant to say that
4 applied to all the other ministries, not only of the interior, the
5 Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Justice, et cetera. You know
6 that, don't you?
7 A. Well, I don't have similar expertise on other ministries in
8 Bosnia and Herzegovina at the time, but it would not surprise me if other
9 ministries had similar bodies.
10 Q. Thank you. So at this collegium on the 1st of April, 1992
11 document 1D78, out of nine assistant ministers, seven attended. Do you
12 recall that?
13 A. Well, I won't second guess your math, but that's probably
15 Q. Sir, out of nine assistants, seven were present; namely, two from
16 the HDZ, Mr. Bruno Stojic and Mr. Branko Kvesic; three assistant
17 ministers appointed by the SDA, Mr. Avdo Hebib, Jusuf Pusina, and
18 Akif Sabic and two from the SDS, and the deputy minister, Mr. Zepinic.
19 Aren't you going to agree with me that it is a very respectable
20 attendance for the collegium?
21 A. I agree that it's a considerable attendance.
22 Q. You will also agree with me that collegium meetings were also
23 held without the minister, you see many collegium meetings that you cite
24 in your report of the MUP of Republika Srpska where Mico Stanisic did not
25 attend or attended part of the time and then his deputy took over?
1 A. That is correct.
2 Q. Thank you. And to conclude on this document, although this very
3 respectable attendance, as you accepted and the discussion of the
4 collegium you did not take this document into account and you accepted
5 it's a shortcoming, but you will agree with me that the role of the
6 expert in trial proceedings is to assist the Trial Chamber with his
7 specific knowledge and information in an objective and unbiased way; is
8 that correct?
9 A. That conforms to my understanding of the role of the expert, yes.
10 Q. And you will agree with me that omitting this document from an
11 expert report could not really be considered as an expression of
13 MR. HANNIS: Objection, it's argumentative.
14 MR. ZECEVIC: I'll withdraw.
15 Q. [Interpretation] When you said yesterday on page 4921 and
16 confirmed the same thing this morning, that if this document would have
17 to be looked in isolation, you would understand how I reached a
18 conclusion that I presented to you yesterday, namely that the division of
19 the MUP was carried out with the consent of all the relevant bodies and
20 individuals in the ministry, but then you said looking from the point of
21 view of all the documents that you had an occasion to see, you cannot
22 agree with my conclusion. Do you primarily mean all the letters written
23 by minister Delimustafic when you say that?
24 A. No, sir, not at all. I primarily mean that this document is
25 fully and richly contradicted by the RS MUP's officials themselves who
1 subsequently refer to the, and I stress once again this is their own
2 word, the illegal organisation of Serbian personnel in the seat of SRBiH
3 MUP, the illegal arming of Serbs in Bosnia-Herzegovina by employees of
4 SRBiH MUP, and they state very clearly in their own 1992 draft annual
5 report that this culminated -- this illegal - and again for the umpteenth
6 time, I stress that this is their word - in the illegal -- it's just that
7 this culminated in the -- this illegal action culminated in the sending
8 of Mr. Mandic's 31 March dispatch.
9 I also would note that in a television programme in January 1993,
10 Tomislav Kovac who was intimately involved in this business, referred to
11 the fact that the Bosnian Serbs had, and I quote, destroyed SRBiH MUP.
12 And I also would finally refer at this stage to Mr. Mandic himself who on
13 5th May 1992, told his former colleague Brana Kvesic, and I will here for
14 the sake of accuracy please quote it directly in B/C/S, he said to
15 Mr. Kvesic, and I'm now shifting to B/C/S [Interpretation] "When I sent
16 that dispatch, I fucked up the whole MUP." [In English] End of quote.
17 Q. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Nielsen. Tell me, isn't it true
18 that all your sources are actually secondary sources, as it were? Let me
19 just explain. Did you ever come across a single statement by
20 Mr. Mico Stanisic or one of his assistant, a statement about the division
21 of the MUP in 1992 having been an illegal act? When you quoted a
22 conversation between Kvesic and Mandic, it doesn't tell us anything about
23 legality or illegality of this occurrence. Did you hear directly from
24 any of the players word to the effect of such a qualification when it
25 comes to the division of the MUP in April 1992?
1 A. I will state very clearly that I have not come across such a
2 statement by Mr. Mico Stanisic.
3 Q. Thank you.
4 A. However, I have come across a large number of such statements
5 from key participants other than Mr. Stanisic and as a historian, I
6 clearly consider the RS MUP report produced by the RS MUP itself a
7 primary source, not a secondary source.
8 Q. Mr. Nielsen, you spent a certain time in the territory of the
9 former Yugoslavia
10 you, that among the population of the former Yugoslavia there is a trend
11 of blowing things out of proportion after a certain lapse of time and
12 that they tend to give things a different connotation than the one that
13 is actually attached to them and actually exists?
14 A. I don't think that I would like to engage in such stereotyping.
15 Q. Very well. Thank you.
16 Mr. Nielsen, isn't it true that the agreement was reached at the
17 level of all the three ethnically based parties within the MUP about the
18 MUP division, and that the division was in keeping with that agreement
19 and that it was also done in -- bearing in mind the Cutileiro agreement
20 and that only after that Mr. Alija Delimustafic and the SDA because of
21 their own reasons, reasons known to them, gave up on that agreement, will
22 you agree with that?
23 MR. HANNIS: I have to object, Your Honour. That's a compound
24 question, there's at least three parts to it.
25 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I'll try to break the question
2 Q. Do you agree that the division of the Bosnia and Herzegovina MUP
3 was based on the document that I showed to you and the facts that you are
4 aware of, will you agree that that division received the consent of all
5 the three parties, yes or no?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Will you agree with me that the agreement existed with the SDA
8 but that subsequently because of some other reasons, this SDA withdrew
9 from that agreement and gave up on it?
10 A. Could we please be specific about which agreement we are
11 referring to, because we are talking about several different agreements
13 Q. We are talking about the agreement on the division of the MUP.
14 A. To my mind, if you are referring to the -- such an agreement as
15 it was previewed in the Cutileiro framework of principles or statement of
16 principles, then my answer is that, yes, I am aware that the SDA signed
17 it. I'm also aware that the SDA representatives subsequently withdrew
18 from that agreement, and, therefore, it was no longer valid from their
19 point of view.
20 Q. We have already clarified that, we did it yesterday. But now I'm
21 asking you this: Do you agree that the SDA first gave its consent to the
22 division of the MUP as can be seen in 1D78, or rather, as we can conclude
23 based on that document, and that subsequently the SDA gave up on that
24 agreement, yes or no?
25 MR. HANNIS: I have to object. I think that assumes facts that
1 aren't in evidence yet. We have this document listing some MUP employees
2 who were candidates that were proposed by the SDA, but we haven't
3 established that when they are meeting in the collegium that they are
4 representing the SDA. I think we need to establish something further
5 before that question can be asked.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I believe that we
7 have already established that and that there's no need for us to waste
8 anymore time on that. I've shown the organisational scheme of the
9 ministry and within that scheme you can see who among the assistants
10 belonged to what party, and I believe that that fact is not in dispute at
11 that moment between the party to these proceedings. The three ethnically
12 based parties are made up of all the relevant bodies in Bosnia and
14 MR. HANNIS: I'm sorry. It's my understanding of the chart that
15 where it lists an individual, for example, Mr. Hebib, and it says SDA
16 under his name, that means that he was a candidate that was proposed for
17 that position by the SDA. It does not necessarily means he is a member
18 of the SDA. I see your client is named on this chart as SDS, and I think
19 he's taken the position he was not a member of the SDS so that's the
20 point I want to raise.
21 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I never said that they belonged to
22 the SDA. I just -- I'm just stating that they pursued the SDA policies.
23 MR. HANNIS: Well, I am sorry, I understood your earlier question
24 to suggest that the SDA had agreed to this split based on the presence of
25 Mr. Hebib and the others who were candidates of the SDA for those
1 positions. And I don't think we've heard any evidence to establish that
2 they were representing the SDA in these discussions.
3 MR. ZECEVIC: Okay. [Interpretation] In order to avoid wasting
4 time, I believe that the matter is clear enough and there's no need for
5 us to go over the same grounds again and again.
6 Q. Sir, Mr. Nielsen, in paragraph 93, your footnote 139, you state
7 that Mr. Ganic, a Presidency member, stated at the beginning of April
8 1992 that all MUP employees who joined the MUP of Republika Srpska would
9 be summarily dismissed; is that correct?
10 A. Yes, I say that he said that they should consider themselves
11 permanently fired.
12 Q. I'd like to show you 65 ter 77, but before that, let me show you
13 65 ter 67. This is a document which you offer as the only reference with
14 regard to the collegium. This is your footnote 196, I believe we have
15 just spoken about that.
16 A. That is correct, sir.
17 Q. This document was issued by the Banja Luka Security Services
18 Centre on the 3rd of April, 1992. And the collegium is quoted in the
19 document and it is also stated that the Banja Luka Security Services
20 Centre undertook measures in order to divide the MUP in keeping with the
21 letter sent by the MUP of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina dated the
22 1st of April, and in keeping with the laws and constitution of Republika
23 Srpska. Am I correct?
24 A. That is what the document says. The laws -- in keeping with the
25 laws and constitution of Republika Srpska and not of interpretation.
1 Q. Also it is stated in here that the employees will voluntarily opt
2 for either staying in the Republika Srpska MUP or not, and in that the
3 new Law on the Establishment the Ministry of the Interior Republika
4 Srpska, they were left with an option to stay performing the same duties
5 as they did at the moment when that division became topical; is that
7 A. That is what the document says and that is why I cite it in
8 footnote 196.
9 Q. Thank you. At the very end of that document, a reference is made
10 to the fact that all employees, I underline all employees, will be
11 duty-bound to take solemn declaration and in this document, Chief
12 Zupljanin remind everybody that the solemn declaration is identical to
13 the one that was taken under the former Law on Internal Affairs?
14 A. That is again an accurate rereading of the document, yes.
15 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I would like to tender this
16 document for admission, if there are no objections to that on the part
17 of --
18 MR. HANNIS: No objection.
19 JUDGE DELVOIE: Admitted and marked.
20 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D137, Your Honours.
21 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Let's look at 65 ter 77. This is your footnote 161. I believe
23 that it is document 52 under tab 52 in your binder. This is a letter
24 sent by Minister Alija Delimustafic on the 10th of April, 1992
25 this letter, he informs all the addressees in the MUP of the Republic of
1 Bosnia-Herzegovina about the organisation of the Serbian MUP units, and
2 he says that there has been pressure and blackmail on non-Serbs to sign
3 some declaration of loyalty otherwise their posts will be terminated. It
4 is true that that's what the document says and that is why you are
5 quoting this document in your footnote 161, am I right?
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. Sir, in your report you mostly use the term "loyalty pledge"
8 rather than "solemn declaration," and the latter has been referred to in
9 the law and that's how Mr. Zupljanin calls that statement in his letter;
10 am I right?
11 A. The term I use certainly, I believe, most in the report is the
12 English word "oath" which I believe is translated into B/C/S in the
13 version you have as "zakletva."
14 Q. Sir, you have also introduced a new, a third term, "zakletvo" or
15 oath. Under the law that you have analysed in great detail and from all
16 the documents, we can see that the document is actually a solemn
17 declaration, what you call "zakletva" is a solemn declaration, so there
18 is no way we can talk about a pledge or an oath and that's why I'm asking
19 you why do you insist on using the term which does not have any
20 foundation either in the law or in any other document, save for the
21 document -- the contents of which are dubious and provide false
22 characterisation of some indisputable facts?
23 A. I don't have a thesaurus handy, but I believe that a pledge,
24 oath, and solemn declaration - at least in English, which is the language
25 I wrote my report in - are all synonyms.
1 Q. I know, however you speak the Serbian language and it should be
2 absolutely clear to you that there is a major difference in the Serbian
3 language between what the Serbs call "zakletva" or "pledge" and
4 "svecana izjava" or solemn declaration, am I right?
5 A. I certainly agree.
6 Q. Thank you. I would like to tender this document for admission,
7 65 ter 77?
8 MR. DELVOIE: Mr. Zecevic --
9 MR. HANNIS: No objection.
10 JUDGE DELVOIE: -- could we know what the difference is then
11 in ... because you -- obviously you know what the difference is in your
12 language and the expert knows, but do we know?
13 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, 18, 21, does not
14 reflect the witness's answer, so I'm going to use this moment and clarify
15 the situation.
16 Q. Mr. Nielsen, I know that you speak the Serbian language, that's
17 what I referred to, and I suggested that you were aware of the terms
18 "svecana izjava" and "zakletva" in the Serbian language and you answered
19 the question, and now the Judge has kindly asked you to clarify the
20 difference. Could you please first answer the question again, I believe
21 that your answer was yes, and then could you please provide an
22 explanation as to what the difference between the two terms is in the
23 Serbian language in your opinion.
24 A. Yes. Sorry for overlapping with you. I would agree that there
25 is a difference, I don't know that I would call it a major difference,
1 but the term that you refer to as solemn oath is the term, the very
2 specific term that is consistently used in the laws on internal affairs
3 of both SRBiH MUP and RS MUP.
4 Q. [In English] Just -- I would just like to, because so far in this
5 case we use the proper -- as the proper translation "solemn declaration,"
6 not the "solemn oath." So in order to distinct them to keep it in line
7 with what we have, I ask you, please, to refer to solemn declaration as
8 translation for "svecana izjava."
9 A. And I take note of that and I agree that that is the most precise
10 translation of the Serbian term.
11 Q. His Honour Judge Delvoie kindly asked you to try to explain the
12 difference between the term "svecana izjava" and the term "oath," or
13 "zakletva" in the Serbian language?
14 A. Well, I would certainly defer to a native speaker on this point,
15 but my understanding is that the term "svecana izjava," solemn
16 declaration is consistently used in the law where law enforcement and,
17 for example, military officials swear duty allegiance to the organisation
18 in which they will be employed. Whereas "zakletva" is used much more
19 loosely and often outside official context. But I would, again, defer to
20 a native speaker on the fine points of those two which often end up
21 becoming pseudonyms in English.
22 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, I don't think it would be proper for
23 me to give evidence on that, so we will provide the explanation with some
24 other witnesses, but I will make sure that this is clarified to the point
25 where Your Honours will be able to understand the distinction.
1 JUDGE DELVOIE: Can I perhaps assist with the Oxford English
2 dictionary on pledge, which is a solemn commitment to do or refrain from
3 doing something, a promise. So I don't really see what your problem is
4 when -- if in the report Mr. Nielsen uses the term "pledge" because I do
5 think what your problem is with oath.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes.
7 JUDGE DELVOIE: But pledge does not have that --
8 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, Your Honours, I referred to the distinction
9 between loyalty, statement of loyalty or loyalty oath that the witness
10 uses in his report, which I say is not correct. The second thing I take
11 issue with the oath, declaration of oath, which I think is not right
12 also. And that is the -- we say it's a solemn declaration like it says
13 in the law and in all statements of the officials of RS MUP.
14 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, I think when I looked at my Oxford
15 dictionary, I look for oath and one of the definitions was solemn
16 declaration, so it seems like we go in a circle whichever point we start
18 JUDGE DELVOIE: Isn't in the word "oath" also the fact that one
19 invokes God with it, would that be the ...
20 MR. HANNIS: I think that may have been one of the alternative
21 definitions was that sometimes there was a reference to God.
22 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, in any case, the referential language here is
23 Serbian or Serbo-Croat language and --
24 JUDGE DELVOIE: That's why I asked what it meant --
25 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes, yes. I understand fully, Your Honours. And
1 we will make sure that this is explained to Your Honours properly at a
2 certain point in time.
3 Can we have this document exhibited, please. 65 ter 77.
4 JUDGE DELVOIE: Admitted and marked.
5 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D138, Your Honours.
6 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
7 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. After that document on the same date Mr. Zupljanin, the chief of
9 the Banja Luka security services, responded to Minister Delimustafic in
10 65 ter 76, I believe that the document number is P34, and he repeats or
11 that the allegations from the dispatch of the minister are not correct.
12 Again, you will find that in your footnote 161. He says that the
13 allegations are incorrect and that it was not about a loyalty pledge but
14 just a solemn declaration, but let's not go over that again. This is
15 just for everybody's reference. P34 is the document number.
16 Sir, Mr. Nielsen, in your report you say that after that dispatch
17 was sent and received and your position is that there was never an
18 agreement between the political factors which composed the bodies of
19 power at the time in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and in --
20 and the MUP on the other hand, about the division of MUP. And you state
21 in one of the paragraphs of your expert report that because of the
22 dispatch, amongst other things, on the 5th of April, Mr. Mandic was fired
23 from the MUP of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Do you
24 remember that?
25 A. I think that my position on that issue is slightly misquoted, but
1 I'm happy to agree with you that Mr. Mandic was indeed fired from the MUP
2 of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina on the 5th of April.
3 Q. Sir, you know that Mr. Mico Stanisic was appointed and assigned
4 to perform tasks and duties as an advisor in the office of Minister
5 Delimustafic as of February 1992? Do you know that?
6 A. I don't remember the exact date of that appointment, but that's
7 entirely possible, yes.
8 Q. I'm going to show you 1D00-2733. Just a moment. It's 47 in your
10 A. Thank you.
11 Q. It's a decision on appointment, assignment should I say, of
12 Mr. Mico Stanisic as advisor in the minister's cabinet in the Ministry of
13 the Interior signed by Minister Alija Delimustafic. It's dated 14
14 February, but it relates to the period as of 10 February 1992; correct?
15 A. That's correct, yes.
16 Q. After that, Mico Stanisic was appointed minister in the Ministry
17 of the Interior of Republika Srpska; correct?
18 A. That is correct.
19 Q. Are you aware that Mr. Stanisic was never dismissed from the
20 Ministry of the Interior of Bosnia-Herzegovina?
21 A. I'm not aware of that, but then I also hope that he is getting
22 his pension.
23 Q. Mr. Nielsen, if we were to consider that Mr. Stanisic has done
24 something that is contrary to the law and the regulations of the Ministry
25 of the Interior of Bosnia-Herzegovina, I'm sure that some measures would
1 have been taken under the law to discipline him?
2 A. I think that there was an attempt at the beginning of April 1992
3 to, as you put it, discipline those officers or officials of Serbian
4 nationality who had left the ministry and formed RS MUP. However, I
5 think in light of the difficult situation and the reality that such
6 disciplinary measures could not be carried out, the Bosnian Muslim
7 officials and Bosnian Croat officials who remained in MUP quickly stopped
8 pursuing such matters. So it's entirely possible that Mr. Stanisic and
9 others who went to RS MUP were never the formal subjects of disciplinary
11 Q. Well, Mr. Nielsen, how do you then explain that they found the
12 time to write a decision to dismiss Mr. Mandic and not the others,
13 especially Mr. Stanisic?
14 A. I think it's quite clear that they probably prioritised the
15 dismissal of Mr. Mandic because he is the one who sent that dispatch.
16 Q. Thank you.
17 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] May I tender this document as
18 well, if there is no objection.
19 MR. HANNIS: No objection.
20 JUDGE DELVOIE: Admitted and marked.
21 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D139.
22 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Mr. Nielsen, to support your claims about the non-existence of
24 agreement to divide the MUP, you cite in footnote 135 and paragraph 92
25 some reaction on the ground, specifically the dispatch from the public
1 security station of Zvornik.
2 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] That's 65 ter 326. I believe it
3 has also a number in e-court, but I'm told there is a problem with
4 uploading. It's document P179.18. The title was not put in correctly or
6 Q. You cite this document in support of your theory; do you recall
8 A. I cite the document as a relevant document and I recall that we
9 dealt with this on direct examination, yes.
10 Q. Sir, since you worked in the research section of the Office of
11 the Prosecutor you are aware that the division of the public security
12 station of Zvornik happened on the 6th of April?
13 A. I don't recall the precise date but I think that's quite correct,
15 Q. Are you aware that on the 28th and 29th March there occurred a
16 problem in the public security station of Zvornik when the assistant
17 commander invited members of the public security station of Tuzla to come
18 and provide security in the public security station of Zvornik. His name
19 was Adnan Karovic; do you know that?
20 A. I think I know that, and I know that there were a tremendous
21 amount of problems at SJB Zvornik during this period.
22 Q. This document, the second signatory is one Dragan Spasojevic.
23 You will see his name under Osman Mustafic and that was the chief of SJB?
24 A. If the document could be scrolled down just a little bit. Yes,
25 that is correct.
1 Q. Do you know that already on the 6th of April, the Crisis Staff of
2 Zvornik or the provisional government, as it was called, he was --
3 appointed him the commander of the Serbian MUP?
4 A. Yes, that is correct.
5 Q. Thank you. How do you then explain his signature on this
7 A. I should think that's a question that's more appropriate for
8 Mr. Spasojevic than for me.
9 Q. I agree. Mr. Nielsen, would you cast your mind back to the
10 document 1D78. Isn't it the case that you were present and even actively
11 involved in taking the statement from Mr. Cedo Kljajic, assistant
12 minister of the interior of Republika Srpska in 1992 for public security?
13 A. It is correct that I participated in taking a statement from
14 Mr. Cedo Kljajic.
15 Q. And that interview, I suppose, since it was held in The Hague
16 indicated on the document, must have been conducted in this building, I
17 suppose, and it took three days?
18 A. I think that's correct.
19 Q. Tell me, sir, you put a certain number of questions to
20 Mr. Cedo Kljajic. Isn't it the case that more than 50 per cent of that
21 document is devoted to the issue of the division of the MUP of Bosnia and
23 A. I know that we discussed that topic. I don't know that that
24 constitutes more than 50 per cent of that document.
25 Q. Isn't it the case, Mr. Nielsen, that in the course of that
1 interview, Mr. Cedo Kljajic more than once not only confirmed that it was
2 done with the agreement of all the relevant organs and individuals in the
3 MUP of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, but pointed
4 specifically to this document from the MUP collegium of the 1st of April
6 A. A number of years has passed since I spoke with Mr. Kljajic, but
7 I believe that that is probably quite accurate, yes.
8 Q. In that case, I have to ask you again, why --
9 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Zecevic, just one moment. Is it correct that
10 in your question you said that in the course of that interview,
11 Mr. Kljajic, more than once not only confirmed that it was done with
12 agreement of all the relevant organs and individuals in the MUP of the
13 Serbian republic?
14 MR. ZECEVIC: No, no, no. Thank you, Your Honour. What I said
15 is [Interpretation] MUP of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
16 That was the real name at the time.
17 Q. I was saying, Mr. Nielsen, bearing all that in mind including
18 these facts, don't you find, or rather, wouldn't you agree with me that
19 in the light of all that has been said a moment ago, and in the light of
20 this document, your failure to include that document in your report, or
21 comment upon it in any way, or refer to it in any way, constitutes a
22 rather serious omission in your report?
23 MR. HANNIS: Objection, that's argumentative. He has already
24 said he should have included it in his report. It's up to you judges to
25 decide at the end of the case how much weight to give that.
1 MR. ZECEVIC: Okay. Fair enough. Thank you very much.
2 [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have completed this part of my
3 cross-examination of Mr. Nielsen. I thank you, Mr. Nielsen, I will
4 continue later, and now my colleague Mr. Cvijetic will pick up the next
5 topic. Thank you.
6 Perhaps, Your Honour, we could take the break now.
7 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. 20 minutes.
8 [The witness stands down]
9 --- Recess taken at 10.17 a.m.
10 --- On resuming at 10.45 a.m.
11 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, just one administrative matter before
12 the witness is ushered into the courtroom. There was two days ago a
13 document which was marked for identification, 1D116. If you remember,
14 Your Honours, the point of the matter was that the third page of the
15 document did not correspond to the previous two pages. Now, we have --
16 what we did is we filed a third page as 1D01-1052 document, and we would
17 like that this document be connected with 1D116 as a number of exhibit
18 and the document be admitted now if there's no objection, fully admitted.
19 MR. HANNIS: No objection.
20 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you very much.
21 JUDGE DELVOIE: So admitted and marked.
22 [The witness takes the stand]
23 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Cvijetic. Thank you, Your Honour.
24 Cross-examination by Mr. Cvijetic:
25 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Nielsen, my name is
1 Slobodan Cvijetic. I'm a co-counsel on the Defence team of Mr. Stanisic.
2 In this cross-examination I will deal with one particular topic from your
3 report, the one you called the Law on the Interior of Republika Srpska.
4 Within that topic, willy-nilly, we'll have to run through a couple of
5 systemic regulations in order to be able to understand the character, the
6 place, the role, and the jurisdiction of such an important organ of state
7 administration, and of course we'll devote the bulk of our time to the
8 Law on Internal Affairs. And finally, to internal regulatory documents
9 of the Ministry of the Interior, that the minister of the interior was
10 duty-bound under the law to enact in order to regulate everything that
11 the law objectively is not able to. So let us take things in order.
12 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Cvijetic, just one moment. Could I state for
13 the record that I'm not Judge Hall. Go ahead.
14 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] We can all see that.
15 Q. Like you did, I'll start with the constitution of the Republic of
16 Bosnia-Herzegovina, your footnote 148, 150, 151, that's where you
17 mentioned these so-called systemic regulations, and I will start
18 immediately with the constitution to see how the constitution defines the
19 role in the place of the Ministry of the Interior within the system of
20 state administration.
21 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Can we call up 65 ter 49,
22 exhibited as P181.
23 Q. While we are waiting to see it on the screen, it's the
24 constitution of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina
25 suppose you know, the Assembly of Republika Srpska adopted on the 28th of
1 February 1992. The relevant article we need is 69, and for the Registry,
2 in B/C/S it's page 6, in English it's page 11.
3 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, Your Honour, I had
4 forgotten the binder, can I ask the usher to give it to the witness? I
5 put for him all the documents in order.
6 Q. Number 5. Article 69. As you can see, the constitution defines
7 this well known division of power. You know that in parliamentary
8 systems, there is a division into the judiciary, legislative, and
9 executive power. We see that executive power is given to the government,
10 therefore we'll not waste time on that and we'll look instead at
11 Article 90 to see what the constitution says about the government.
12 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] That's page 7 in B/C/S and 15 in
14 Q. I suppose, Mr. Nielsen, you have already found it. And you can
15 look also at 92 if they can fit on the screen at the same time. 90 and
16 even better 92, and 92 in English. You will agree with me that the
17 constitution deals with the government very tersely and practically
18 enumerates only in this article who constitutes the government, the prime
19 minister, deputy prime ministers, and ministers. We are not going to
20 deal with it much, just to invoke the law as you did.
21 Let's move to Article 97 for my first question.
22 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Page 8 in B/C/S and 16 in English.
23 Can we perhaps zoom in on Article 97.
24 Q. This is what we need. Here we see that the constitution placed
25 the ministries of the government within republic organs of
1 administration. Ministries, including Ministry of the Interior are state
2 agencies and they are executive power. The state administration.
3 A. Yes, I agree with you, and good morning to you, sir.
4 Q. You are right, I didn't give you a chance to say that before.
5 This is all we need about the definition from the constitution. Let us
6 now look at the next regulation, which you refer to in footnote 150,
7 that's the Law on the Government.
8 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I need now 1D01-1017.
9 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Cvijetic, you are on the border-line of the
10 expertise of this witness by invoking the constitution and the laws, and
11 when I suggested this morning that counsels should endeavour to get
12 straight to the point, it was -- it was incidents just such as this that
13 I had in mind. I do not believe that it will be beneficial to the
14 Chamber to have this witness explain much about the law to us, so my
15 question to you here and now is if you would be so kind as to tell us
16 where do you want to go with this in relation to Mr. Nielsen.
17 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I apologise for
18 failing to say this in my introduction to the witness. I am aware that
19 this witness is not a lawyer, but in his 30 or 40 pages of his report, he
20 deals with legal issues. I forgot to stress to him that I will deal with
21 legal issues only up to the level up to which he dealt with them in his
22 report. I'm not going to ask for expert opinion from the field of
23 constitutional law and law in general. The purpose of this line of
24 questioning is only to establish the proper place of the Ministry of the
25 Interior among organs of state administration under the laws and
1 regulations. The witness himself dealt with these regulations in his
2 report. We will only go into detail about the Law on Internal Affairs,
3 which the witness did himself.
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you. But my question would be is this a
5 contested matter between the parties? Is that something that we need to
6 address at all?
7 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] There is one regulation that
8 Mr. Nielsen did not refer to, whereas it is the regulation which best
9 defines the scope and especially the jurisdiction of the Ministry of
10 Interior. I think he omitted one regulation and that's the one I want to
11 put to him.
12 JUDGE HARHOFF: Yes, I understand, but I'm curious as to what you
13 want to show by drawing the witness's attention to the fact that he may
14 have omitted one particular regulation. What is the significance of
16 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, immediately after
17 that I will put to him a question asking him to agree with my conclusion
18 about the definition of organs, their role, and the form of leadership.
19 In order to put that question, I have to go through this a bit.
20 JUDGE HARHOFF: Let's get on with it.
21 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Mr. Nielsen, we will develop on the Law on Government for no more
23 than 15 seconds, just enough to look at Article 6, and you will agree
24 with me that there's nothing there but the fact that that article lists
25 the ministries within the government starting with the Ministry of the
1 Interior, as you will certainly agree with me. Am I right in saying all
3 A. Yes, I agree with you, and I would add that I think it is very
4 interesting that Internal Affairs is listed first on the list of
6 Q. Well, very well.
7 JUDGE DELVOIE: We'll have to break for two minutes just to
8 permit Judge Hall to come in.
9 --- Break taken at 11.00 a.m.
10 --- On resuming at 11.02 a.m.
11 JUDGE HALL: Good morning, I apologise for the interruption but
12 let the record show that we are now fully constituted. Thank you.
13 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] May I proceed, Your Honours?
14 JUDGE HALL: Yes, please, continue Mr. Cvijetic.
15 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Mr. Nielsen, could you please be shown Exhibit 1D01-1024.
17 Mr. Nielsen, it will be number 7 in your binder.
18 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Could we please see page number 1
19 in B/C/S. There's no English version. This is one of the documents
20 which entered the library of legal documents that has to be agreed upon
21 with the OTP. It has been long in the offing. Since the witness speaks
22 our language we are going to using article just one article from this
23 law, we should be done with this law very quickly. This is the law on
24 ministers. Mr. Nielsen, you will agree with me that you omitted to take
25 a look at that regulation, but it's neither here nor there.
1 Could you please look at Roman II dealing with republican
2 administration bodies, and you will see a list of all the different
3 ministries, and then in Article 8 which starts on this page and goes
4 on -- continues on the following page, you will assist us as well as the
5 Trial Chamber -- you will agree with me when I say that this is the first
6 law that describes in detail the authorities, tasks, and duties of these
7 particular ministries and what it is supposed to do within its purview.
8 Could you please look at that article, I believe that it's quite
9 elaborate, and will you agree with me in all that I've just said?
10 A. I agree with you that it is relevant for Internal Affairs. I
11 agree with you that I should have cited it because it is relevant for
12 Internal Affairs. I agree with that you Article 8 deals with the remit
13 and ambit of the Ministry of the Interior, and I would point out -- now
14 whether it's the first or second matter issued, it's certainly issued on
15 the same day that the Law on Internal Affairs is issued, so ...
16 Q. Thank you, Mr. Nielsen. Can I just summarise all the
17 regulations. I'm not going to deal with the Law on State Administration
18 that you studied. Can we then agree that the Ministry of the Interior
19 was one of the administration bodies headed by the minister in charge of
20 that body. Would that be the shortest possible definition of this
21 particular body?
22 A. I agree. And I believe it's the Law on State Administration that
23 says that minister is in charge of the ministry, which is a logical
25 Q. And that it manages that body as one of the administrative
2 A. I agree with you, sir.
3 Q. As I have already promised the Trial Chamber, I will move on to
4 your report now without any further ado. I will move on to paragraphs
5 95, 96, 97, and 98 of your report. And I will also move on to --
6 JUDGE HARHOFF: With all due respect, I apologise for
7 interrupting you again, but may I ask if the whole point of this exercise
8 was just to show that the ministry is a part of the administration and it
9 is headed by a minister?
10 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Not only that. I also wanted to
11 demonstrate the way that body was managed, how it was administered. That
12 part is also relevant to us. And later on we will elaborate that issue
13 further, Your Honours.
14 JUDGE HARHOFF: I'm not sure if we have learned much about how it
15 was administered other than the fact at that it was administered
16 according to the law, and I suppose that the law will not provide any
17 different provisions from what is normally applicable to a ministry in a
18 modern state.
19 So, so far I have seen no surprise. And, again, my question is
20 if this is not a contested matter between the parties, then I really
21 think that we should not have used and spent any time on this. So my
22 advice again to parties on both sides is to focus on the point that are
23 contested, that are at issue here otherwise we'll never get to the end.
24 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I just wanted to indicate with regard
25 to whether it's a contested issue or not, the constitution and the Law on
1 Internal Affairs and the Law on Ministries and State Administration are
2 all part of the law library that we put together that have stipulation,
3 but we don't contest the contents of these laws, so I don't think it's
4 necessary to ask the witness about what it says. It says what it says.
5 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the parties do not
6 agree on the way that body was administered and managed. This will be
7 the point of my cross-examination when I come to that part, and you will
8 understand why it was very important for me to clarify that matter with
9 the witness and how things were positioned at the time. May I proceed
10 with the Law on Internal Affairs, Your Honours?
11 JUDGE HARHOFF: Please proceed.
12 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Mr. Nielsen, I have already referred to the relevant paragraphs
14 in your report. I would like to focus on paragraph 97 first of all. In
15 this paragraph you claim, as we can all read, or you provide a comment on
16 the Law on Internal Affairs of Republika Srpska, rather, and you say that
17 it's provisions are in keeping with the remarks of Goran Zugic, the
18 Bosnian Serb who worked at the security services in Tuzla, and you quote
19 things from his letter.
20 Mr. Nielsen, when it comes to this letter by Mr. Zugic do you
21 consider it a serious source for the wording and the provisions of the
22 Law on Internal Affairs?
23 A. I would specify so that we are clear that I don't cite a letter
24 of Mr. Zugic, rather I cite his comment at the meeting of Bosnian Serb
25 police officials at a meeting that we previously discussed on the 11 of
1 February 1992, which is, of course, prior to the promulgation of the RS
2 Law on Internal Affairs.
3 Q. No, no, no, I apologise. Well, yes, yes, but look at your own
4 text, it says that the provisions of the Law on Internal Affairs are in
5 accordance or in keeping with Mr. Zugic's remark. This is the part that
6 I was referring to in my question, and if you want me to be more
7 specific, let me ask you this: Did Goran Zugic's words have an impact on
8 the wording and the text of certain provisions in this law, that's my
9 specific question to you?
10 MR. HANNIS: That calls for speculation on the part of this
11 witness to know what the drafters of the law knew about what Mr. Zugic
12 said. I think that's beyond his knowledge.
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: The witness can express this by himself.
14 THE WITNESS: Your Honours, Mr. Cvijetic, when I write that
15 comment what I mean is that there are indications that certain elements
16 in the Law on Internal Affairs, by no means all of the Law on Internal
17 Affairs of the Republika Srpska but certain elements in it, bear traces
18 from an analytical point of view of having stemmed from previously
19 expressed concerns and dissatisfactions of Bosnian Serbs in SRBiH MUP as
20 regards the previous Law on Internal Affairs that stem from 1990, and I
21 can give a very specific example of that: The Bosnian Serbs, as I state
22 in my report, were actively seeking the establishment of a new Security
23 Services Centre in Trebinje, in Eastern Herzegovina. Such a Security
24 Services Centre was not provided for in the 1990 law, but was provided
25 for in the 1992 law which the Bosnian Serb Assembly drafted and passed.
1 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Mr. Nielsen, Mr. Nielsen, I apologise. My question was very
3 specific and could you provide a specific answer to it. Did it and to
4 what extent did Mr. Zugic's words have any impact on the drafting of this
5 law and the text of this law, yes or no?
6 A. Whether his words personally had any effect, I do not know. I do
7 know that the thoughts that he expressed are evident in the new law.
8 Q. Well, I cannot but ask you that, would you say that the complete
9 procedure proceeding the passing of this law and what you told us
10 yesterday and the day before yesterday on examination-in-chief and on
11 cross-examination when you are talking about the transformation of the
12 MUP, the [indiscernible] that was under the influence of the positions of
13 the aforementioned gentleman?
14 A. My answer to your question is I believe that the drafting -- the
15 transformation of the MUP and the drafting of the new Law on Internal
16 Affairs of the RS was under the influence of the persons who participated
17 at the 11 February 1992
18 participants at that meeting.
19 Q. Very well, we have to go back to paragraphs 96 and 98 in your
20 report. One before and one after 97 where you say openly that a new Law
21 on Internal Affairs is mostly based on the extricated text of the Law on
22 Internal Affairs of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, this is
23 what you say in 1998. My very specific question to you - and I'm calling
24 for a yes or no answer: When you look at paragraphs 96 and 98, would you
25 say that your paragraph 97 contradicts what you say in paragraphs 96 and
2 A. I do not at this point see a contradiction, no.
3 Q. Very well. Well, I will take that as a valid answer. We can't
4 agree on everything, can we. I will now move on to paragraph 99 in your
5 report. We'll stay with it very briefly. You state in this paragraph,
6 Mr. Nielsen, that one of the main and most obvious differences between
7 the two laws concerns terminology. Will you agree with me when I say
8 that it is the least important of all differences?
9 A. I don't agree. I think it's significant and that they change
10 these terms given that they were so closely leaning up against the 1990
11 law, I don't see anything specifically related to the RS in doing this.
12 They are actually doing the same thing that lawyers all across eastern
14 example, working peoples' and replacing them with citizens which reflects
15 a transition from a socialist political system, a party state system, to
16 a multi-party system in which the old socialist provisions are no longer
18 Q. Well, that was the essence of my suggestion when I said that only
19 that terminological difference had its basis in the title of the former
20 republican secretariat which resounds with socialist connotations in the
21 law. And would you go to that issue, could you please tell me, I'm sure
22 you know because you peruse so many documents, on all the documents
23 issued by the Ministry of the Interior of the Socialist Republic
24 Bosnia-Herzegovina Mr. Delimustafic signs his name and precedes it with
25 the title of minister; isn't that correct?
1 A. Yes, that's correct, and that reflects a de facto change because
2 he should have signed as secretary according to the 1990 law.
3 Q. The essence of my remark is that that terminology should not be
4 given that much importance and significance; am I right in saying that?
5 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] He can say yes or no.
6 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, it's argumentative. He's the expert,
7 he wrote the report, he decides how much weight to give it.
8 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Well, you have made the minister
9 title next to Mr. Delimustafic's name a very relative term, although the
10 law is explicit.
11 THE WITNESS: Well, I think it's a -- it's certainly a
12 difference. Let us agree that it is a difference between the 1990 and
13 1992 laws, and then you and I may disagree about whether it's a
14 significant difference or a less significant difference, but I think we
15 both agree that it's a difference in the letter of the law.
16 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Very well. In my view, it is not very significant, particularly
18 in terms of terminology --
19 MR. HANNIS: Objection.
20 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] But we can agree to disagree can't
22 MR. HANNIS: That's something for submission at the end of the
23 case. It's not appropriate for him to make those kind of comments when
24 he's addressing the witness. His opinion he keeps to himself until it's
25 time to make presentations to you.
1 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. Cvijetic, let's go on. Move on, next
3 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I accept Your Honours and I will
4 move on indeed.
5 Q. Let's move on to paragraph 101. In this paragraph you deal with
6 the links that the Law on Internal Affairs of Republika Srpska
7 establishes. Have you found it? Oh, you are looking for the law. And
8 you deal with the same matter in Articles 2, 22, 23, you deal with the
9 same matter in all those articles, and the matter at hand are the way you
10 define or the, rather, the way the law defines links between the Ministry
11 of the Interior and federal bodies in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
12 Let me remind you that at the moment when this law was passed,
14 A. Yes, sir, I agree with you. I would just like to ask if you
15 could tell me which tab the law is at?
16 Q. Just briefly, please. Just briefly. Are you looking for the Law
17 on Internal Affairs? I apologise, I thought that you already had it
18 before you. It's number 1. That's what you should be looking for.
19 Look at Article 2 and this is where you mention that link. Look
20 also at Article 22.
21 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, I'm rushing, I have
22 neglected to inform the Trial Chamber of the document number. It is
23 1D01-1112. No, that's not the document. It is the former 65 ter 1D01---
24 yes, yes, it's coming. Yes, very well. Excellent.
25 Now we are where we should be. And for the time being in both
1 versions, we will need the same page, page number 1. And we are looking
2 at Article number 1, paragraph number 1 in that article. That's it.
3 Thank you. I apologise, I only need to look at Article 2 which is
4 already on the screen. In Article 2 you are dealing with the link, there
5 is just one question in respect of all the three articles.
6 Can we now look at Articles 22 and 23, which are both on page 3
7 in both the English and the B/C/S versions of the text. That's it.
8 Thank you.
9 Q. These are the relevant provisions. And you are pointing to the
10 fact that there is a link between the ministry and federal bodies. My
11 question to you was whether at that moment Yugoslavia still existed and
12 you will agree with me that Bosnia and Herzegovina were still not an
13 internationally recognised state, that it was still an integral part of
15 constitute something that would point to something that is not in keeping
16 with the regulations, as it were?
17 A. I agree with you, and I do not say that these provisions are in
18 violation with other regulations. I point out in paragraph 101 that this
19 was a logical provision given the public claims of the RS leadership that
20 they wished to maintain relations with the Yugoslav state and federal
21 officials based in Belgrade
22 Q. You also agree with me that we could also look at the
23 constitution and conclude that this is within the remit of the
24 constitution. I don't know whether it is necessary for us to look at
25 Article 3 in the constitution, Your Honours, where it says that the
1 republic is an integral part of the federal state of Yugoslavia. Is that
2 correct? You have the constitution before you. Maybe we should actually
3 open the constitution and look at Article 3, that will confirm that the
4 link between the republican ministry and the federal institution is not
5 against the constitution. The document number is P181, and in your
6 binder it's tab 5, I believe, Mr. Nielsen.
7 A. I agree with you that that is what Article 3 of the constitution
9 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] And also can we look at Article
10 143 in the constitution which is on page 10 in the B/C/S version and in
11 English it is on page 23. We are looking at transitional or final
12 provisions in paragraph 143. Yes.
13 Q. You will agree with me -- let's just see whether that page is on
14 the screen, you will agree with me that the constitution and so on and so
15 forth -- you will agree with me that the provisions of the constitution
16 are reflected on the Law on the Interior allowing for all sorts of
17 options in the political resolution to the crisis in the territory of the
18 former Yugoslavia
19 was, for Bosnia
20 those options and those options, possible options, are reflected on the
21 Law on Internal Affairs, will you agree with me?
22 A. Yes, sir, I agree with you that that is what Article 143 of the
23 constitution says.
24 Q. Very well. Would you then agree with me that all these
25 provisions concerning links with federal organs of the Socialist Federal
1 Republic of Yugoslavia
2 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina
3 territory that was not under the control of Serbia?
4 A. I would agree with you that the officials of the RS regarded the
5 federal organs of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and its
6 laws to continue to exist on the territory under their control.
7 Q. No, Mr. Nielsen, my question had do with the provisions of the
8 Law on Internal Affairs of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
9 They also kept these provisions on links with federal organs; they have
10 been copied. Do you agree with me?
11 A. Yes, sir, and I believe that's what I state in my report.
12 Q. Very well. Let us now move to your report. Paragraph 151. Have
13 you found it?
14 A. Yes, sir.
15 Q. You deal with Articles 37 and 38. Have you located of paragraph
16 121 of your report?
17 A. 121, not 151?
18 Q. That's what I said, 121. It may have been misinterpreted. 121.
19 A. I'm at 121.
20 Q. Okay. So we'll focus on Article 37 of the law from 1990, and
21 that's also Article 38 of the Law on Internal Affairs. You'll have to
22 look at them in parallel. It's your number 1 and in tab 2 you have the
23 other law. We want to focus on Article 38. The Law on Internal Affairs
24 of Republika Srpska --
25 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Let's see if we have it on the
1 screen. It's 1D01-1112. And in B/C/S we need page 5. And in English
2 page 6. The Law on Internal Affairs. Very good. Thirty-eight, and in
3 B/C/S it's on page 5. Could we just see 38 in B/C/S. That's it.
4 Q. Mr. Nielsen, since the Trial Chamber cannot follow both the laws
5 at the same time, we'll have to see this provision in the Law on
6 Republika Srpska and then go back to the law on the -- of the socialist
7 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina and detect the differences. It concerns
8 certain restrictions envisaged by this article with the onset of
9 extraordinary circumstances endangering the law and order. It says that
10 minister may ban the assembly of people and movements of people in public
11 places, or in a public place?
12 A. Yes, sir, I agree with you that that is what Article 38 says.
13 Q. And in your comment on this provision you say that the difference
14 between these two provisions is that the Law of Republika Srpska does not
15 envisage the possibility of appeal by citizens whose movement and
16 assembly is limited in this way, whereas appeal is possible in the law,
17 in the 1990 law of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina. This
18 comment is towards the end of paragraph 121 in your report. So the
19 difference is that the Republika Srpska law does not provide for any
20 possibility of appeal.
21 A. I believe that I state that that is a difference in the two
22 versions of Article 38, that those portions to which you referred,
23 Article 38 in the 1990 law, are excised from the 1992 law Article 38.
24 Q. Mr. Nielsen, that's precisely the purpose of my
25 cross-examination. If one reads only your comment, one gets one
1 impression, and when we compare with the 1990 law, a completely different
2 impression is created about this right to appeal. To this particular
3 section, neither law envisages the right to appeal, but there was a right
4 to appeal a certain part that was deleted from the Republika Srpska law;
5 therefore, we have to look at the law 1D01-1054, that's the law of the
6 Socialist Republic
7 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] We'll need page 5 in B/C/S and 11
8 in English. Should I repeat? We need the same article, 38. No, this is
9 not the right place. 1D01-1054. I think we are still on the
10 Republika Srpska law. We need the Law of the socialist republic.
11 Article 38, page 5. Yes, that's where it begins. We are actually more
12 interested in the second part. That's right.
13 Q. In this first part, both laws deal with the restrictions on
14 assembly of an unidentified number of people. However, the law of the
15 Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina contains a certain type of
16 restriction that was later deleted, and that's the right of organs of the
17 interior, that certain persons by name and surname may be detained or
18 restrict their movement by keeping them at the police station. They may
19 be prohibited interest leaving a certain place and having to report
20 regularly, so-called house arrest, in order to bar them from public
21 places. The Republika Srpska law does not contain this provision. You
22 have noticed that and you just said so a moment ago, didn't you?
23 A. Yes, and I'm happy to agree with you again.
24 Q. Those persons, because they are identified, had to be given under
25 the old law a formal decision and because of that they had to be given
1 the right to appeal; correct?
2 A. I'm failing to see the passage - perhaps you could assist me -
3 that refers to certain persons by name. I see at certain public places,
4 but I'm looking for the passage with certain persons by name to which you
6 Q. I'll try to be of assistance. In the first paragraph where it
8 "To impose the decision on persons who are already known to the
9 organs as a risk, and these persons can have their movement limited by
10 being issued a decision and given the right to appeal."
11 A. Yes, agree with you. I was looking for the term
12 "odraca lanica" [phoen] but as you pointed out, I see how you reach your
14 Q. And quite simply because you are a historian specialising in the
15 history of eastern countries, I wonder if you will agree with me, or,
16 rather, do you know that in practice it was mostly applied against
17 political dissidence in the former regime. During public events they had
18 to be either on house arrest or kept at the police station, or they had
19 to report regularly, do you know about that fact?
20 A. Yes, and that certainly conforms to my knowledge about the way
21 socialist Yugoslavia
22 Q. Then you will agree with me that by deleting that clause in the
23 Law on Internal Affairs of Republika Srpska, certain democratic changes
24 took effect after multi-party elections because there were no longer any
25 dissidence, so this provision wasn't needed anymore and it was omitted
2 MR. HANNIS: Could we have some clarification on what counsel is
3 referring to when he says deleting clause, is he referring to deleting a
4 section on the right to an appeal or something else?
5 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] No, the entire passage regarding
6 restrictions of movement, the obligation to report to the station, and
7 all the other restrictions, all that was omitted from the Republika
8 Srpska law. So there is no issuing of decisions and no right to appeal
9 because it's no longer needed. I think Mr. Nielsen already agreed with
11 THE WITNESS: Well, I agree with you that on that particular
12 point it is one of the aspects of the 1992 law that reflects a transition
13 from socialism to a multi-party system.
14 Q. Thank you, Mr. Nielsen.
15 That's all about this paragraph in your report. We can move to
16 the next one, 122. Again in this paragraph, you deal with a similar
17 provision in both laws and this leads us to a topic that's very relevant
18 us and other proceedings before this Tribunal. A very sensitive issue.
19 The right of organs of Internal Affairs to violate the privacy and
20 inviolability of letters and other forms of communications between
21 citizens, telephone and other types of communication, that is what you
22 deal with here; right? And you identify certain differences.
23 The Law on Internal Affairs, we have the old Bosnia-Herzegovina
25 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] We could look at Article 39 while
1 we have it on the screen.
2 Q. It's number 2 in your binder. We'll have to look at both laws at
3 the same time for awhile. Article 39 of the Law of the Socialist
4 Republic Bosnia-Herzegovina says that the republic secretary is the one
5 who decides that Internal Affairs organs can have a look at somebody's
6 letters, wire-tap their conversations, et cetera. And it also specifies
7 in which way and under what circumstances. We'll have to compare it to
8 Article 39 of the Republika Srpska law to see how wire-tapping is
9 regulated there.
10 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Can we now have that law back, the
11 one that ends with 1112. 1D01-1112. Page 5 in B/C/S, page 6 in English.
12 Q. You identified the differences. Here the decision to go against
13 the privacy is made by the supreme court and only then can the republic
14 organ of Internal Affairs act, that's the difference you identified;
16 A. Yes, sir, I agree that's an accurate summary of Article 39 and
17 it's an accurate summary of my report's paragraph 122 to which you refer.
18 Q. Very well. Now, we cannot but go into both constitutions
19 regarding the application of this article to see whether the provisions
20 of both laws are consistent with the constitution of the Socialist
21 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina or the constitution of Republika Srpska.
22 Therefore, let us go back to the constitution.
23 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] First, of the Serbian Republic
24 Bosnia-Herzegovina, P181. We need page 2 in B/C/S and 4 in English to
25 look at Article 22. We need to -- okay, we see both versions.
1 Q. So if you compare the constitutional provision regulating the
2 privacy and the protection of privacy of correspondence and telephone
3 communication, you see that this right to restrict the freedoms concerned
4 are transferred to the supreme court and the corresponding provision in
5 the Law on Internal Affairs is consistent with the provisions of
6 Article 22 of the constitution. Do you agree?
7 A. I agree with that, yes, sir.
8 Q. Then it remains for us to see how it's regulated in the
9 constitution of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
10 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] 1D01-0942.
11 Q. In your binder it's number 8.
12 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Cvijetic, if your point is to prove that the
13 intercepts were made illegally, then I believe that this witness is not
14 the right source to confirm your point.
15 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm dealing with
16 differences in provisions that the witness himself dealt with only to the
17 extent that he dealt with them. And that's what I have been doing all
18 this time, comparing the two laws as he did.
19 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, but as to this particular provision,
20 we don't have any dispute, I don't think there's any disagreement. It
21 says what it says, and we pointed to no -- nothing in the changes that we
22 say is reflective of something that relates to the crimes charged in this
23 event, in this indictment. I don't know, I feel like I'm saying the
24 emperor has no clothes, but I don't understand what is this is relevant
25 to. It's not something we are arguing about, not on this provision.
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: That would have been my next question,
2 Mr. Cvijetic. If it is not contested, then leave it and move on to
3 something else.
4 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I only want to
5 establish the time when the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina
6 changed the way in which this right can be restricted. So far evidence
7 has not been led before this court about that. Amendments from a certain
8 year have not been put.
9 MR. HANNIS: But we don't need this witness to do that, Your
10 Honour. That will appear in the documents.
11 JUDGE HARHOFF: That's point one. And point two would be, why is
12 that relevant?
13 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] To explain the differences in
14 arrangements made in the Law on Internal Affairs of Republika Srpska as
15 compared with the same provisions in the law of the Socialist Republic
16 Bosnia-Herzegovina and to see where the source of the difference is.
17 That's my purpose. The witness deals with differences all the time, and,
18 therefore, we should study them and leave nothing unclear.
19 JUDGE HARHOFF: Unless you can persuade me as just being one of
20 the Judges on the Bench, that this is material to your case, then my
21 suggestion would be that you round this up very quickly and move on to
22 something else.
23 JUDGE HALL: And I concur fully with Judge Harhoff.
24 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I agree completely. I don't need
25 more than five minutes.
1 Please, we need Article 195. That's page 35.
2 Q. Mr. Nielsen, would you agree with me that this provision, the way
3 it is, in the Law of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina
4 consistent with the Article 195 of the constitution of Bosnia-Herzegovina
5 where it says that the right to privacy can be restricted by the republic
6 organ, the republic secretary, not the court? The constitution does not
7 say the court.
8 A. Yes, sir, I agree with you.
9 Q. And let us just open the amendment, Your Honours, to see when
10 this was changed. We need 1D01 --
11 JUDGE HALL: Why, Mr. Cvijetic?
12 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] To establish the time when the
13 change occurred.
14 JUDGE HALL: Does it matter? What turns on that?
15 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] It is important to pin-point the
16 moment from which differences existed and whether this provision is in
17 keeping with the constitutional amendments. This is all I want to
18 clarify. And I don't understand why you are preventing me from dealing
19 with the constitutional amendment which would need no more than a minute
20 to deal with.
21 JUDGE HALL: One minute.
22 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Unless the technical services
23 extend that time, can you please open document on page 2. This is in
24 B/C/S only. The amendments have never been translated. I am going to
25 ask the witness to confirm all that.
1 Q. It's in your binder 9. You've got it. Yes, this will bring me
2 right to the break. Yes.
3 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] And then now can you scroll down,
4 please. Let's see if we've got the right document. 1D01-1006. Page 2.
5 I believe that we don't have the right document at all. Please, can you
6 take that time off my time. 1D01 -- yes, that's the document, thank you.
7 Page 2, please. We need page 2 on the left-hand side at the bottom of
8 the page, those of you who understand Roman figures, it's 69.
9 Q. Mr. Nielsen, bullet point 4, it says here that in the Socialist
10 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the constitutional provisions were
11 changed in the sense as stated herein, and a consent is sought from the
12 constitutional court, is that correct, or rather, it is not the
13 constitutional court but rather the relevant court based on the court's
14 solution. Do you agree with me? My question to you is this: Since you
15 are familiar with the Law on Internal Affairs of the Socialist Republic
16 of Bosnia-Herzegovina, do you know if that law in this part was ever
17 aligned with the constitutional amendments?
18 A. I'm not in possession of knowledge to be able to answer that
19 question, sir.
20 Q. Very well.
21 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I believe
22 that we should already have been in the break time and I'm ready to
23 continue after the break, and I have also finished with this particular
24 question. There is nothing else I wish to elicit from the witness in
25 that respect.
1 JUDGE HALL: Yes. Well, this is a convenient point. So 20
3 --- Recess taken at 12.02 p.m.
4 --- On resuming at 12.30 p.m.
5 JUDGE HALL: While the witness is being escorted back to the
6 stand, we understand that Mr. Hannis has asked for a few minutes at the
7 end of today's session to deal with certain matters, so the witness would
8 be -- although he said 5 minutes, experience has indicated that perhaps
9 we should stand the witness down at 1.30, so, Mr. Cvijetic, you would
10 keep an eye on the time in LiveNote. As I say, I prefer the LiveNote
11 clock rather than the clock on the wall.
12 MR. HANNIS: And one of those matters we'll deal with the return
13 date for Mr. Nielsen, and it may be good to have him in the courtroom
14 that we can inquire of him of availability dates. Thank you.
15 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Cvijetic, the Trial Chamber is very upset
16 about the way you are conducting until now the cross-examination and the
17 way you deal with the time management problem. And this seriously
18 affects the Chamber's willingness to grant the Defence's application for
19 one more day of cross-examination.
20 So I would strongly suggest to you to adapt your way of
21 cross-examination, to stop asking the witness whether he agrees with
22 paragraphs of the law, et cetera, and to go straight to the point and, as
23 I said, we will take into consideration the application for an extra day
24 after having seen where we are going with this cross-examination. Thank
1 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I'll bear
2 that in mind.
3 [The witness takes the stand]
4 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] May I proceed, Your Honours?
5 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
6 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Mr. Nielsen, we have arrived at paragraph 124 in your expert
8 report. Have you found it? You provide a comment in this paragraph, a
9 comment on the provision 49 of both the laws in question. The issue was
10 already discussed by you and Mr. Zecevic, and the issue at hand is the
11 text of the solemn declaration. Have you got it?
12 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter is not sure whether it is
13 paragraph 49 or 41.
14 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Have you got the law?
16 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Cvijetic --
17 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. 41.
19 JUDGE HARHOFF: Very well. There was a question about whether it
20 was number 41 or 49. But it's been clarified.
21 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] That has been clarified. Very
23 Q. Have you got it? Yes. You have already discussed that with
24 Mr. Zecevic. I don't want to go over the same grounds again. I believe
25 that everybody is [indiscernible] when we start talking about this, but I
1 wouldn't agree that this should be left for some later time.
2 Judge Harhoff asked Mr. Zecevic and yourself to talk about the
3 differences and to be aware of them, and I believe that Judge Delvoie
4 also contributed to the discussion, and you who speak the local language
5 will agree with me that this should be clarified once for all in just one
7 Mr. Nielsen, you don't have to read any regulations, just listen
8 to me. The solemn declaration has an official nature when it comes to
9 the appearance of individuals before official bodies such as courts, the
10 military, and the police. As an expert, you also provided a solemn
11 declaration. You have pointed to the Official Note of the solemn
12 declaration. Does this arise from our language and from the text of the
14 A. I am sorry, sir, I'm not sure that I understand what you mean
15 when you say: "Does this arise from our language ..."?
16 Q. The text of the solemn declaration or, rather, the title solemn
17 declaration points to the official tone or note of that statement, would
18 you agree with me?
19 A. Yes, sir, I agree with you.
20 Q. And you said that already. Judge Delvoie provided a certain
21 character to the declaration [as interpreted] and let me say that it has
22 wider significance. It is often used in private situations and even more
23 so it has a religious component which means that is it is also used in
24 unofficial situations?
25 A. Yes, I agree with you, sir.
1 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] My attention has just been drawn
2 to the fact that the word in the transcript is "declaration" whereas it
3 has to be the word "oath."
4 Q. Okay. Now we have arrived at the shortest possible definition of
5 the word "oath," and now we have to deal with another term which is the
6 term "loyalty." Please listen carefully, I'll try to do it in one
7 sentence. In our language, loyalty implies allegiance to a certain idea,
8 political or any other type of idea or a group of people; can you agree
9 with that?
10 A. I would certainly agree with you. You are the native speaker.
11 Q. Thank you.
12 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] And I promise to the honourable
13 judges that neither I nor Mr. Zecevic will raise this issue again unless
14 absolutely necessary.
15 Q. I would like to go back to your paragraph 124, and I would like
16 to establish and see whether you know when this obligation entered the
17 law. I will explain and I will provide the Trial Chamber with the
18 relevant reference. Can you please find Law on Internal Affairs of the
19 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina in your binder 2. We will be looking at
20 the Law on Amendments to that law which is document 1D01-0746. I believe
21 that that is in binder 3. It does not have a translation.
22 Have you got it? It is The Law on Amendments to the
23 aforementioned law. Very well. Thank you. And could you please go to
24 the following page. We should be looking at Article 14, which is on the
25 following page. Article 14 is on the following page. There we have it.
1 Article 14, have you got it, Mr. Nielsen? Could you please look at the
2 heading on the first page to see when that Law on the Amendments to Law
3 on Internal Affairs came into effect?
4 A. I see that this is, I believe, from 1985, yes.
5 Q. Excellent. That was what I wanted to hear from you. So these
6 amendments to the law and the solemn declaration entered the provisions
7 of the law in the year 1985, do you agree?
8 A. I agree with you, yes, that's what Article 14 of the amendments
10 Q. Thank you.
11 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I will explain why
12 this is important. My colleague Zecevic and I still owe an explanation
13 to the Trial Chamber. The Trial Chamber noticed in the testimonies of
14 experienced policemen who acquired the status of officials before 1985,
15 when they are asked whether they ever signed a solemn declaration, their
16 answer was always negative and they claim that at their time that was not
17 an obligation on their a part.
18 I shall refer to protected witness ST-121. On page 3755 in this
19 case he provided his testimony on the 24th November 2009, and his -- the
20 relevant part starts with line 10 when my learned friend Mr. Zecevic
21 asked him whether he signed a solemn declaration and he said he didn't,
22 suffice for them to give me my badge and pistol and from then onwards I
23 was considered an official. After that, Mr. Zecevic asked that person
24 when did you become an official, and he answered in 1976, as long back.
25 So, Your Honours, I just wanted you to understand the differences
1 between the statements of older and younger policemen, between those who
2 became officials before 1985 and those who became officials after 1985,
3 that's the explanation that we owed to you with regard to the solemn
4 declaration and I will leave it at that. I will not come back to the
5 issue again.
6 MR. HANNIS: But before we leave, Your Honour, I have a problem.
7 We only have apparently a B/C/S version of this. I can't read what's in
8 paragraph 14 or Article 14. Is that the oath as it read in 1985? And we
9 waited two months to put Mr. Nielsen on because we were supposed to be
10 getting English translations of the documents that are to be used in
11 cross-examination, and here we still don't have them. It makes it
12 difficult for me to follow and be able to make informed objections.
13 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we cannot deal with
14 the problem but since we just wanted to look at one provision in this
15 particular article and since Mr. Nielsen speaks the language, Mr. Nielsen
16 can tell us whether Article 14 contains the same wording of the solemn
17 declaration as appears in the extricated text of the same law dating back
18 to the year 1990.
19 JUDGE HALL: Very well. But you appreciate Mr. Hannis's point
20 that that is a second best solution to the problem.
21 THE WITNESS: I confirm that the language in Article 14 of the
22 1985 amendments conforms to that in the 1990 Law on Internal Affairs.
23 JUDGE HARHOFF: So there's no difference?
24 THE WITNESS: No, Your Honour. The texts appear to be identical.
25 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. We move on to paragraph 125 in your expert report, Mr. Nielsen.
2 I apologise and I would like to come back to the previous point, in your
3 footnote 239, which is Exhibit 1D01-1005.
4 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please repeat the number.
5 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] This is in your binder 10,
6 Mr. Nielsen, or rather this is tab 10 in your binder. Let me read the
7 exhibit number. Okay. I don't have to.
8 Q. Have you got it, Mr. Nielsen? Have you got the document? Yes.
9 You dealt with this document in your footnote and my question is really
10 very simple, the text of the declaration which was obviously signed by a
11 Muslim, does it correspond to the text as we find it in the Law on
12 Internal Affairs of Republika Srpska as you see in the brackets? Could
13 you please compare the two texts, you speak the language, I'm sure you
14 will be able to assist us with this.
15 A. I don't think I need to go and compare it, I'm quite content to
16 recognise that this is the language that is present in the RS Law on
17 the -- on Internal Affairs. I would note that it of course refers to --
18 when it refers to republic it is referring to the RS and not to the
19 Socialist Republic
20 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. This document might
21 be marked for identification or perhaps it could also be admitted into
22 evidence because the witness has used this document in writing his
23 report, so I would like to tender this document into evidence, please.
24 MR. HANNIS: No objection.
25 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
1 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. We now arrive at paragraph 1 to 5, Mr. Nielsen --
3 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I apologise.
4 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 1D140, Your Honours.
5 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Mr. Nielsen, in this paragraph you are dealing with the issue of
7 an order issued by the minister of the interior and its fate or, rather,
8 its execution; isn't that correct?
9 A. Yes, that is correct.
10 Q. My question again is very simple. What would have been the
11 punishment for a failure to comply with an order of this nature? And if
12 there was a punishment, how would it have been executed and where?
13 A. I first wish to clarify that in my response when I say "yes, that
14 is correct," I mean this is an article that pertains to orders issued by
15 the minister of Internal Affairs, not a particular order that he had or
16 could issue.
17 And I believe that the answer to your question is that the
18 penalties set out -- potential penalty set out for disobeying ministerial
19 orders are set out in a separate documents of the ministry; namely, the
20 ministry's own internal regulations on disciplinary punishment and
22 Q. In other words, you agree that disobedience implies a
23 disciplinary measure, there was a range of disciplinary measures that
24 could have been applied, the strictest of them being the termination of
25 employment. Do you agree?
1 A. With the caveat that I don't actually have the regulations on
2 disciplinary proceedings on front of me to confirm that, I would agree
3 with your characterisation of it.
4 Q. I can open it and I can provide it to you. This is one of the
5 topics that I would like to deal with. I believe that in your binder you
6 will find the regulation on disciplinary responsibility. Could you take
7 a moment to find it and open it. Very well. We will refer to it when we
8 talk about bylaws and other regulations that the minister was supposed to
9 pass. But you are right, this is regulated by the Law on Disciplinary
10 Responsibility of Civil Servants and other bylaws.
11 Let's go to your paragraph 130. Have you got it? In this
12 paragraph you are dealing with the issue of keeping individuals in
13 custody for reasons regulated by Article 49 in both laws. And here you
14 find a major difference and you say that the 1990 law -- anybody could be
15 kept for up to three days if their identity was not known until the
16 moment their identity was established. The 1992 law, however, that
17 custody can last for an undetermined period of time, do you see that in
18 your report?
19 A. Yes, sir, and I would note that in November 1992, that the
20 steering council of the RS MUP, there were discussions about extending
21 the periods envisaged for detention in the RS MUP law.
22 Q. Mr. Nielsen, however the problem rises from the fact that we are
23 not talking about custody but merely holding individuals whose identity
24 cannot be determined. This is what we are talking about. Could you
25 please go to Article 49 of the Law on Internal Affairs of Republika
2 And could you please read that article very carefully, read the
3 whole lot. 1D01-1112 is the document that we are looking at. Have you
4 got it?
5 A. Yes, sir.
6 Q. You will certainly notice that in this law, in it's preamble, let
7 me see if we are on the following page, 49, you'll see an explanation.
8 49. Where it says in paragraph 1:
9 "In the Security Services Centre or in a public security
10 station," -- and I apologise, a person can be kept for up to three days.
11 And then further down it says a person whose identity is being
13 You will agree that you have made a mistake and that a person
14 could not be kept for any longer than three days? This is in favour of
15 the person being held. If the identity of such a person is established
16 within the -- within five hours, that person has to be released after
17 that time, after the five hours? Am I right, Mr. Nielsen? The
18 time-period is identical as in the 1990 law.
19 A. Well, I'm happy to agree with you on that point.
20 Q. Then you will also agree that the conclusion you arrived at in
21 130 is not sustainable and that the comment to that effect should be
22 deleted from that paragraph, from paragraph 130?
23 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, can we see in the English where he is
24 referring to. I don't see any five hours on the English page that I'm
25 looking at.
1 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] No, no, five hours. Where did you
2 find five hours? You have to look at Article 49. I don't know if this
3 has been interpreted properly. Number 7 in the English version.
4 MR. HANNIS: I'm looking at page 62 of the transcript, line 11,
5 where you said:
6 "If the identity of such a person is established within the --
7 within five hours, that person has to be released after that time, after
8 the five hours. Am I right, Mr. Nielsen?"
9 So perhaps that was a mistranslation but that's what's in the
10 transcript and that's what I am looking for in the document.
11 JUDGE HARHOFF: I believe that was mentioned as an example.
12 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Correct, correct, Your Honour.
13 Q. Mr. Nielsen, I think we have agreed, there's no need to waste
14 more time on this. I think we can agree that your specific conclusion
15 here is inaccurate?
16 A. Well, I agree with you again.
17 Q. Thank you.
18 JUDGE HARHOFF: But Mr. Cvijetic, let's get this right. I mean,
19 I suppose the idea is that a person whose identity was unknown could be
20 detained or held in custody until his identity was established.
21 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] But not longer than three days.
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: Understood. Thanks.
23 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Mr. Nielsen, we can now move to the next passage in your report,
25 stating with paragraph 150. That's one line of your interpretation of
1 the provisions of both laws with which you end and finalise your comments
2 on the differences between the two laws of Republika Srpska and the
3 Socialist Republic
4 looking at both laws, I'll first go through your report, through all the
5 of paragraphs where you deal with this issue, and that's in several
6 places. Let's start with paragraph 150, where you quote Article 102 of
7 the 1990 law, the law of the socialist republic, where it says that
8 workers, employees of the republic secretariat may not engage in
9 activities that are incompatible with their service. And these duties
10 and activities are defined by the republic secretary. That is to say,
11 workers, it says here, but in fact it applies to all the employees of the
12 republic secretariat, may not engage in activities incompatible with
13 their service, that's the passage you quote from the law here; right?
14 A. Yes, that is point 12 in Article 120 of the -- excuse me, you are
15 referring to 102 because I also refer to that. Yes, you're correct.
16 Yes, I agree with you.
17 Q. That's how you started. In the same paragraph 150, you comment
18 on the Law of Republika Srpska and you say that by deleting this -- the
19 deletion of this article as well as the corresponding clause in
20 Article 120 of the 1990 law, and - to assist the Trial Chamber - we'll
21 say that in this Article 120, point 12 envisages that engaging in
22 activities incompatible with service is a serious violation. You say
23 that this point 12 and Article 120 both have been deleted, and could you
24 now compare this with the English version of your report. I don't think
25 you meant it exactly that way, please. Let's look at your English
1 version. Because it seems to me that this is much too harsh.
2 You say the deletion of this article as well as the corresponding
3 clause, et cetera, removed any sanctions against actions that would have
4 been considered incompatible with policing in the SRBH MUP. Just
5 linguistically, is this correct? Because it implies that by deleting
6 this article, policemen have been amnestied from sanction against
7 anything they do because what we are dealing here are with actions
8 incompatible with service. Do you agree that that this not quite right,
9 linguistically speaking?
10 A. Well, I agree that "actions" is a broader word than the term
11 "poslovi," affairs, and what I was referring to, specifically, is of
12 course the absence of point 12 in the 1992 law which refers to the word
13 "poslovi" which I would have translated as affairs that are incompatible
14 with official duty.
15 Q. Very well. So affairs incompatible with police service, we've
16 clarified that.
17 You have a footnote below where you explain that this
18 Article 102, that prohibited engaging in affairs incompatible with police
19 service was subject to amendments, amendments, I always mean when I say
20 amendments the old law from 1990, and in these draft amendments it is
21 itemised what such affairs may be. Mainly, involvement in politics, but
22 you remark upon the fact that in this draft amendment to the law of the
23 Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, this point 12 was deleted;
24 namely, the point 12 that says it's a serious violation of discipline.
25 A. Well, I think that the point of my footnote 163 and a point that
1 I think that we can quickly agree on is that this change is to be seen in
2 the context again of what we referred to earlier; namely, the transition
3 of the country, whatever that country's name may have been at that time,
4 from a socialist party state system to a multi-party state system and we
5 see an ongoing discussion. As I note, there's no indication that the
6 draft law was ever adopted. Given the fact that it was, as we have
7 discussed in previous days in the interest -- may I finish my answer?
8 Q. Yes, if you are going to be brief.
9 A. Yes, I will try to be very brief. And my point was that in the
10 atmosphere from November 1990 to April 1992 an atmosphere of increasing
11 politicisation of Internal Affairs, I think they -- it was in the
12 interest of all parties to allow a backdoor for political involvement of
13 police personnel.
14 Q. Mr. Nielsen, I'm dealing with a specific issue that you deal with
15 extensively, the point of the serious violation, so we have gone too far.
16 I'm dealing with point 12. In paragraph 158 you quote the provisions of
17 an article of the law, 120 and 114, where serious violations of
18 discipline are enumerated and specified. Could you please read that
19 paragraph. Conduct that shall be considered as violation of official
20 duty, and then it says, in addition to gross misconduct or serious
21 violation of official duty, do you think there's anything missing here?
22 You can open the provision of the law concerned, we'll do that later. It
23 says specified in the law on state administration, which you did not put
25 A. Well, if it had been my intention to reproduce the law verbatim,
1 then I would have just cut and pasted the law into my report. My
2 assumption is that whoever reads this would do so with a copy of the law
3 beside him or her so that I don't need to reproduce every single word
4 that's reproduced in the report, but I -- I -- certainly, it says it does
5 refer to the Law on State Administration. Correct.
6 Q. Yes, but that is precisely what created confusion. Now, when we
7 open the law we'll see where your omission lies. In the Law on Internal
8 Affairs, you enumerate these 11 instances of serious violations and you
9 say that this item 12 is missing. And in the end, in a passage called
10 "Conclusions on the Law on Internal Affairs of Republika Srpska,"
11 paragraph 174, you quote as the most important difference precisely this
12 one, your last sentence. I quote:
13 "However, the 1992 RS law systematically removed all references
14 from the 1990 law that characterised engagement in inappropriate
15 activities as misconduct."
16 That is your final sentence on the law. I suggest now that we
17 open the provisions of both laws to see whether you have omitted anything
18 and whether even in the law of Republika Srpska, engagement in activities
19 incompatible with service is also considered as misconduct. Therefore we
20 need the Law on Internal Affairs, first of the Socialist Republic
21 Bosnia-Herzegovina. Sorry, my colleague tells me that it's better to
22 move immediately to the law of Republika Srpska.
23 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] 1D01-1112. Let's see which page
24 this is. Article 114. Now, I don't have the page reference. We need
25 Article 114 to which Mr. Nielsen refers. There it is. Do we have 114 in
1 English. It's page 16 in English.
2 Q. Mr. Nielsen, shall we focus now on the preamble that says:
3 "In addition to acts of gross misconduct determined by the law
4 and state administration, the following shall be considered misconduct:"
5 You will agree, obviously, that this law and the 1992 law as well
6 copies these instances of misconduct from the Law on State Administration
7 and then adds more acts of misconduct that are specific to the field of
8 Internal Affairs, and indeed there is no item 12, as you remarked
10 We should now open the Law on State Administration and see
11 whether among its provisions of misconduct this one is included.
12 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Could we briefly look at 1D01 -
13 it's your number 12 - 0692. And we need paragraph 296. It's almost at
14 the end of this law. Could we turn to the page where 296 is.
15 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Cvijetic, I'm not sure I follow you on this
16 one. Do you -- are you not confirming what the witness wrote in
17 paragraph 174 of his report, namely, that the 92 RS law systematically
18 removed all references that characterised engagement in inappropriate
20 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] No, I'm trying to prove the
21 opposite, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: But in the paragraph that we just saw, was there
23 such a provision? Because I was just trying to read through it and I
24 didn't come across it. Paragraph 12 to which you referred was indeed
25 missing from the text and that would seem to confirm the witness's point.
1 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I see Mr. Hannis is on his feet.
2 MR. HANNIS: I defer to having your question answered first, but
3 I have a question about whether or not there's an English version of this
4 and whether or not this is the 1990 Law on State Administration or a 1992
5 Law on State Administration.
6 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Article 114 of the law of
7 Republika Srpska in its introduction as well as the Article 120 on the
8 Law on Internal Affairs say that in addition to instances of serious
9 misconduct established by the Law on State Administration; that is to
10 say, both laws take over examples of misconduct from the Law on State
11 Administration and then adds some more that are specific to the MUP. So
12 now we opened the Law on State Administration, that is a point of
13 reference for both other laws. This is a revised text, and we'll see
14 what the examples of misconduct are.
15 To answer Mr. Hannis, we don't have the English version
16 unfortunately. Can we just scroll up to see the rest, the top of the
17 page. That's it.
18 MR. HANNIS: And can we clarify that this is the 1990 Law on
19 State Administration, not a 1992 law?
20 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] It is written at the top of the
21 page that it's 1990.
22 Q. Right, Mr. Nielsen? It says at the top of the page that it's
24 A. I don't think you have to speak B/C/S to see that.
25 Q. Okay. On that page in point 2 can you find this particular point
1 engaging in activity or work that is contrary to the interests of the
2 administration organs service?
3 A. I see that what you just read accurately in Article 296 of the
4 law. I don't see it as point 2, but it is in Article 296.
5 MR. HANNIS: Since we don't have an English translation, could we
6 indicate specifically where in paragraph 296.
7 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] The right column, the second
8 bullet point. That's it.
9 Q. You can translate what I'm saying: Engagement in activity or
10 work that is contrary to the interests of serving with organs of
11 administration. Do you agree with me?
12 A. As always, I agree that you are reading accurately from the
14 Q. Well, Mr. Nielsen, you will agree with me then that if both laws
15 copied this itemised list of various forms of misconduct, they are
16 incorporated in both laws, and both these laws add to this list new ones.
17 If the RS law included point 12, it would just be a repetition of
18 something that is already envisaged as misconduct. Do you agree with
20 A. I agree with you that based on this observation point 12 has been
21 excised because it is repetitive. However, I would withhold any final
22 conclusion on that point until I saw and could ascertain that the 1992
23 Law on State Administration was identical with the 1990 law.
24 Q. Very well. Would you agree with me that listing forms of
25 misconduct one by one, carries with it the danger that something is
1 omitted and a policeman can go scot-free on a technicality, if engaging
2 in conduct which is actually a violation of discipline? Do you agree?
3 If you can't give me a brief answer then ...
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. You mention in report the decision of the constitutional court of
6 Bosnia-Herzegovina, right, which considered this issue and envisaged a
7 revision of these provisions of the law; correct? Try to find a
9 You stated this in paragraph 163.
10 A. Correct.
11 Q. Did you have occasion to see that decision of the constitutional
13 A. No, I have not seen the decision of the constitutional court.
14 Q. I'm afraid I won't have time to show it to you. The
15 constitutional court decided, and we can call up the decision if it's not
16 too much trouble, we need 1D00-6688.
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Cvijetic, I thought you said just less than a
18 minute ago that you would not have time to show it, and I think you have
19 made your point in relation to the issue of whether or not the new law
20 included punishment for engagement in inappropriate activities. Again, I
21 don't think it's a fact that is contested by the Prosecution and I still
22 fail to see just how it's relevant.
23 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Well, if the expert can agree that
24 engaging in affairs inappropriate to employees in Internal Affairs or
25 state administration is included in the law of Republika Srpska, I can
1 finish here.
2 JUDGE HARHOFF: I believe he has done so. Maybe the witness can
4 THE WITNESS: I think I have agreed several times, yes.
5 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, as far as the Law on
6 Internal Affairs is concerned, I have completed my cross-examination and
7 I believe this is the time when you said we should stop for today to
8 leave time for administrative issues.
9 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Mr. Cvijetic. Yes, Mr. Hannis.
10 MR. ZECEVIC: Just one -- I'm sorry, Your Honours, and I'm sorry
11 for interrupting Mr. Hannis, just one issue which I would like to raise
12 with Your Honours. It's page 59. It refers to document 1D140, and I was
13 notified by the Registrar that that in the transcript the -- our 1D
14 number was not read correctly, so I will reread it again for the purposes
15 of clarifications in the transcript. So the Exhibit 1D140 should be
16 1D01-1015. Thank you very much. I am sorry, Your Honours.
17 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Mr. Zecevic.
18 Yes, Mr. Hannis.
19 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honours. The two matters I had.
20 One relates to witness ST-187. He is scheduled currently to testify the
21 last week in January. He is a witness who has -- is apparently on a list
22 of those banned from travel within the EU. So the Prosecution will be
23 filing a motion requesting that the court order that he be allowed safe
24 conduct to come here and testify and then return to the point from which
25 he departed. We've spoken with both Defence counsel to ask them if they
1 intend to oppose that request, and I just wanted to confirm on the record
2 that they've indicate that they will not so that once we file the motion,
3 you won't need to wait for a response from the Defence; is that correct,
5 MR. ZECEVIC: That is correct, Your Honours.
6 MR. PANTELIC: After careful consideration, that is correct.
7 MR. HANNIS: Thank you. Thank you. And then the second matter,
8 Your Honour, concerns this witness, Mr. Nielsen. He will have to come
9 back in the new year, depending on your decision about whether or not you
10 are going to grant another full day for cross-examination to the Stanisic
11 team, I anticipate he will have to be here either two or three days.
12 We've tentatively slotted him either for February 8, 9, and 10 or
13 February 22, 23, and 24 if either of those dates are convenient for him.
14 JUDGE HARHOFF: January or?
15 MR. HANNIS: No, February, Your Honours. We have Dr. Donja, I
16 think, as our first witness.
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: We have an e-mail correspondence from your camp
18 to suggest that Mr. Nielsen comes on 18, 19th, and 20th of January.
19 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, that's not -- that doesn't correspond
20 to my most recent e-mail and Excel spreadsheet from Ms. Pidwell.
21 JUDGE HARHOFF: Sorry.
22 MR. HANNIS: It partly related to the uncertainty about the
23 videolink. We understand we may not be able to get confirmation until
24 January about whether or not we can have the videolink witnesses the
25 first week in February. But one thing I wanted to try and do is confirm
1 with Mr. Nielsen what dates might be available for him and we'll try and
2 work around that.
3 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Dr. Nielsen, could you assist us in at that
5 THE WITNESS: I think that the dates of 8, 9, and 10 February are
6 a possibility. However, I will and have already planned travel to the
7 United States in February 2010 anticipating that I thought I would finish
8 by January. So -- but I don't have -- obviously, I didn't bring my
9 calendar to court, Your Honours, so I would have to defer until I could
10 consult my calendar in detail.
11 MR. HANNIS: Well, then, if we can communicate through Victim
12 Witness and Mr. Nielsen about that, we'll try and work that out. And
13 switch him with somebody in January if need be.
14 JUDGE DELVOIE: Could we perhaps see what is effectively needed.
15 Defence 1, until now seven hours and 30 minutes, so that leaves one
16 session. And what are you applying for extra? A whole hearing?
17 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, Your Honours, we applied for one whole day
18 because, Your Honours, the contents of the -- of Mr. Nielsen's report are
19 divided into four specific parts, and we have been able, I am sorry to
20 say, inefficiently to only comment the first two parts of the report of
21 Mr. Nielsen. What I can promise to the Trial Chamber is that we will do
22 our utmost to stream-line our cross-examination in order to use as little
23 time as possible in order to shorten that, but I'm almost positive that
24 we cannot finish within one session.
25 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Hannis, redirect, any idea?
1 MR. HANNIS: Well, I have no idea about Mr. Pantelic so far,
2 but -- but I --
3 JUDGE DELVOIE: I forgot about Mr. Pantelic. I am very sorry,
4 Mr. Pantelic.
5 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, don't be sorry. I'm working quietly,
6 you know, and consistently so that's why you sometimes cannot see me in
7 the courtroom, because I focus on the case.
8 To be honest, we asked for four hours and I believe that I'll do
9 my best to cut this time, but to be honest, it's very hard now to
10 predict. I have to see at least first hour or first session in
11 cross-examination to see whether it fits with my dynamic and predictions,
12 but I believe that if I would be in a situation to more control witness,
13 that will be fine. Thank you.
14 JUDGE DELVOIE: So, Mr. Hannis.
15 MR. HANNIS: I'm hoping that I wouldn't require more than four
16 hours total in any event for -- to deal with both based on what I've
17 heard so far.
18 JUDGE DELVOIE: If we could -- if we could make the time allotted
19 to Defence 1, there will be less time. And say the day -- the day we'll
20 have one more hearing instead of one hearing and one session. Then you
21 can more or less hope that we can finish in three hearings, in three
23 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, definitely, yes, Your Honour. Yes.
24 JUDGE DELVOIE: So you'll restrict yourself to one hearing.
25 MR. ZECEVIC: One full day, thank you very much. Appreciate it.
1 JUDGE DELVOIE: And one day for Mr. Pantelic and one day for the
2 redirect. If the Chamber agrees with that.
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. So Mr. Nielsen, Dr. Nielsen, that would be
5 three days then.
6 THE WITNESS: I understand, Your Honours. I do need to know
7 whether I'm permitted to communicate with the Stanisic Simatovic trial
8 team since they intend to see me in January.
9 MR. HANNIS: That was an additional request I had to make in
10 connection with him, whether or not he could be permitted to speak with
11 that team that anticipates calling him sometime early next year.
12 Hopefully not before he's finished in this case, but they did want to
13 communicate with him. And the Karadzic team also has him listed as a
14 Prosecution witness and may wish to speak with him before he finishes his
15 testimony here.
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE HALL: I think we have previously referred to what I
18 describe as a presumption of integrity, so all the persons who are
19 involved would know what they can and cannot properly do. So do I
20 understand that the order that is being made now is that the witness is
21 stood down to a date to be confirmed to him through VWS?
22 MR. HANNIS: That's what I'm proposing, Your Honour.
23 MR. ZECEVIC: I just have one maybe even better suggestion
24 because I see Ms. Pidwell is here. Maybe we can -- I think the most --
25 the most appropriate would be -- the most appropriate. I wanted to say
1 the best solution would be that the witness comes as the first witness on
2 the 18th, 19th and 20th of January, and it is my understanding that the
3 witness has the January free, that he is having a trip to the States
4 somewhere in February and he doesn't know the date, so I think maybe if
5 Ms. Pidwell can help us with that, maybe we can resolve this situation
6 now, which I hope would be in the interest of all the parties.
7 JUDGE HALL: Yes, thank you, Mr. Zecevic. I think I may have
8 misunderstood the last thing that the witness said when he was talking
9 about February. Do I understand that in fact those earlier dates that we
10 got, that you are available on the 18th, 19th, and -- of January? Could
11 you -- is that the position?
12 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, I'm available on those three dates. I
13 have to return to Denmark
14 JUDGE HALL: Yes, we got that.
15 Ms. Pidwell, are you able to tell us at shortness notice whether
16 that works.
17 MS. PIDWELL: Well, if I just throw my spreadsheet away, sir, and
18 start again it would work. We have been directed to file today the
19 list -- or before the recess, anyway, the list of witnesses for
20 January/February in accordance with your direction last week. We have
21 already organised the witnesses for January and we have organised for Dr.
22 Donja to come back on the 18th of January, so that he can basically be
23 the first witness up and come in and out again very quickly in between
24 his commitments because that date is a fixed date and there won't be any
25 delays or anything at that point. He is confirmed. We also have three
1 witnesses from the region who are confirmed to come on that week. They
2 were subsequently --(redacted)
11 If we slot Mr. Nielsen in before them all, that will all have to
12 be rearranged, including the subpoena date.
13 JUDGE HALL: Well, without taxing our imagination anymore than is
14 absolutely necessary, wouldn't the simpler course to be - as Mr. Zecevic
15 has proposed - that the witness be excused to return on the 18th of
16 January and that, of course, is subject to, for instance, when he would
17 have reconsulted his diary, if there is a problem then the Chamber would
18 be notified and counsel will be notified through VWS.
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, if I may be of --
21 JUDGE HALL: Just a moment, Mr. Zecevic.
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 JUDGE HALL: Ms. Pidwell, is there a possibility of Mr. -- of
24 Donja and Dr. Nielsen swapping places?
25 MS. PIDWELL: Yes, there is. I'm sure we could rearrange
1 Dr. Donja. It's the subsequent witness whose arrangements have been
2 changed that I would be reluctant to move, but -- and Donja is only
3 really scheduled to come back for another, I think, just over two hours
4 of cross-examination and re-examination; whereas, Mr. Nielsen --
5 Dr. Nielsen has three more days. So the time slots aren't going to match
6 up, but we can -- I can understand that it would be preferable for
7 Dr. Nielsen to come back at that time, and we can possibly move another
8 witness so that shuffle them along a little bit.
9 JUDGE HALL: We have to wrap this up in 90 seconds.
10 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes, Your Honours I just wanted to say that I just
11 wanted to propose the very same thing, because it is my understanding
12 that it is important for Mr. Donja that he comes on a day specific date
13 when he will be conducted the cross-examination, redirect, so he can fly
14 back. So as we know this witness has to be in Denmark on the 21st,
15 Robert Donja can be heard on the 21st of January and then that is how we
16 can deal with the problem. And I believe Ms. Pidwell has exactly stated
17 that. Thank you very much.
18 JUDGE HALL: I believe everybody knows where we are, persons
19 reading the transcript might not have it, but I believe we all understand
20 where the position is. So it only leaves for me to -- I assume there are
21 no other matters Mr. Hannis?
22 MR. HANNIS: Only regarding English translations. I am hoping
23 that these documents that haven't been translated and there is a pending
24 request from CLSS, so I'll have English translations to work with on
1 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes. Yes, I can confirm that.
2 JUDGE HALL: So we take the adjournment now so resume this
3 hearing on the 18th of January and I wish everyone, counsel, the usher,
4 the interpreters, the accused, anyone I missed, the court transcribers,
5 and everyone a safe and happy Christmas holidays.
6 MR. PANTELIC: And also, Your Honours, on behalf of all Defence
7 team, same to you and everybody here. Thank you.
8 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.45 p.m.
9 to be reconvened on Monday, the 18th day of
10 January, 2010, at 9.00 a.m.