1 Monday, 9 May 2011
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.07 a.m.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning
6 everyone in and around the courtroom. This is case number IT-08-91-T.
7 The Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin.
8 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Madam Registrar. Good morning to
9 everyone. May we take the appearances, please.
10 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honour. Good morning. For the
11 Prosecution, I'm Tom Hannis with Belinda Pidwell and Crispian Smith.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Slobodan Zecevic,
13 Slobodan Cvijetic and Eugene O'Sullivan appearing for Stanisic Defence
14 this morning. Thank you.
15 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours,
16 Aleksandar Aleksic for the Zupljanin Defence.
17 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. And if there is no reason to delay us,
18 could the usher please escort the witness back to the stand.
19 [The witness takes the stand]
20 MR. HANNIS: Professor, I wanted to begin this morning by --
21 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Hannis, I just want to remind him.
22 MR. HANNIS: Of course.
23 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Bajagic, good morning to you. Before Mr. Hannis
24 resumes his cross-examination, I want to remind you are still on your
1 WITNESS: MLADEN BAJAGIC [Resumed]
2 [Witness answered through interpreter]
3 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. Hannis.
4 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honour.
5 Cross-examination by Mr. Hannis: [Continued]
6 Q. Professor, I wanted to begin this morning by looking at your
7 report. I see you have a copy of it in front of you; correct?
8 A. Yes, that is correct.
9 Q. Now, I'm going to be a little picky in part because you are an
10 expert, and I think the first exhibit I showed you, you -- which was a
11 document from the commander of the reserve police station in Blazuj, you
12 gratuitously pointed out some problems with his writing, his style, his
13 improper use of abbreviation, so I think it's only fair that we look at
14 some of those things in connection with your report. First of all, if
15 you would look at the page setting out the contents, I guess it's page 2
16 of your report. And we see you have five, I don't know what would you
17 call them, five chapters of your report? Or sections, I don't know how
18 you would call those?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And I see they are numbered --
21 JUDGE HALL: I am sorry to interrupt, Mr. Hannis --
22 MR. HANNIS: Yes.
23 JUDGE HALL: -- but the way you phrase your question, there's
24 just something I need to clarify in my own mind from the witness.
25 Mr. Bajagic, the report to which Mr. Hannis has just referred when -- I'm
1 relying on my own recollection of the testimony at whatever day it was
2 last week where you pointed out the style, the -- certain other
3 references of the report in question, did I correctly understand your
4 testimony to be that because of those things that you observed you had
5 doubts about the authenticity of that report? Was that the point you
6 were making?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, that wasn't my point. The
8 point was that the official name of the institution as mentioned in the
9 heading was wrong. As far as I remember, it read police station of
10 public security, whereas it should be public security station. There is
11 a -- a term was used that should not be there according to the rules and
12 regulations. That's what I was saying.
13 JUDGE HALL: Thank you for clarifying that for me.
14 Yes, Mr. Hannis.
15 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
16 Q. And, Professor, what would you call those five items, are they
17 chapters of your report or sections? I want to use the proper term.
18 A. We can call them chapters. The chapters of the report or the
19 sections of the report, there's not much of a difference.
20 Q. Okay. And you'll look at this page and we'll see the chapters
21 are numbered 1, 2, 2 again, 3, and 4. I take it that was just a mistake?
22 A. Yes, that's probably a mistake. If you use Microsoft Word to
23 draft a document, then you can make a mistake if you don't click on the
24 right icon, but you can see how many chapters there are merely by looking
25 at this page.
1 Q. And I note that within the body of the report chapter -- the
2 second chapter 2 here that's described as "The functioning of the
3 Ministry of the Interior of BH" is listed at page 51 in the English as
4 chapter 3 as it appears to be, but the next chapter, "Rules on internal
5 organisation," at page 130 of the English is also listed as chapter 3.
6 Is that another Microsoft problem?
7 A. It's just a problem of numbering. When you use Microsoft Word,
8 that can happen. There are five chapters but the numbering can get out
9 of hand and the result is as we see here.
10 Q. I understand. You make several references to Professor Nielsen's
11 report, and I note that you've misspelled his name a few times; for
12 example, at paragraph 95 in footnotes 119, 121, and 130. And at first I
13 thought perhaps that that is a function of the fact that Serbian is
14 primarily what I would call a phonetic language, but in other places in
15 your report you have his name spelled correctly. Was that a Microsoft
16 problem or an error on your part?
17 A. That's a problem when you type, sometimes you are bound to make a
18 technical error when typing. These things happen. I told you that the
19 report contains some technical errors, maybe some letters are missing,
20 maybe there are some superfluous matters --
21 THE INTERPRETER: Letters, interpreter's correction.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] But these mistakes are no more
23 serious than perhaps a letter, here or there, or a comma.
24 MR. HANNIS:
25 Q. Another thing I noted that I wanted to ask you about has to do
1 with the use of a terminology and consistency in the use of terminology.
2 In paragraphs 291 through 334 of your report, you are talking a lot about
3 the role of the MUP in connection with prison camps, and sometimes you
4 speak of prisoner of war camps and then sometimes that seems to just sort
5 of drift into prison camps. Can you tell the Court your understanding or
6 your definition of the difference between the following: A prisoner of
7 war camp, a prison camp, a collection centre, and an investigation
9 A. Many documents I cited in my footnotes also contain different
10 terminology depending on the situation, probably. So the documents that
11 I used are inconsistent, terminologically. When I say POW camp, it's
12 logical to assume that in those camps there were people who were taken
13 prisoner in combat. Some documents I use -- also use the term
14 investigation centres or reception centres, and I merely -- I merely use
15 the same terms. It wasn't my intention to confuse anybody with
16 inconsistent terminology. I merely adhered to the sources. And often I
17 put the terms in inverted commas because it was my wish to be as specific
18 as possible when analysing a document.
19 Q. Okay. Could you take a look at paragraph 299 in your report. I
20 think that's page 95 of the B/C/S and page 112 of the English. That
21 paragraph reads:
22 "The previous paragraph shows that the Army of the Serbian
23 Republic of BH was in charge of and responsible for all matters that
24 concerned the setting up of prison camps and the organisation of life in
25 these camps, from capturing people and bringing them to the camps and
1 centres to the release, prosecution, et cetera."
2 Now, it's been my understanding that the army was primarily
3 responsible for prisoner of war camps and other types of camps or
4 collection centres or detention facilities were places where
5 non-prisoners of war were being held, that is civilians, women and
6 children, non-combatants; is that not correct?
7 A. The army was responsible for the majority of these facilities,
8 whatever we choose to call them. POW camps and also some other
9 categories of facilities. From the analysis of the documents mentioned
10 in -- or dealt with in the previous paragraph, I drew a summary
11 conclusion which you can find in paragraph 299, and I analysed the
12 documents in the previous paragraphs depending on the availability of
13 documents. Of course there were also other situation, namely that the
14 municipal authorities, that is Crisis Staffs in some situations had
15 authority over such centres. But in most cases when we speak about
16 prisoners of war, everything that had to do with them was in the
17 responsible of the army.
18 Q. I agree with you about prisoners of war, but in your answer at
19 page 6, line 3, you said:
20 "POW camps and also some other categories of facilities."
21 You said:
22 "The army was responsible for the majority of these facilities."
23 Please, Professor, can you precisely tell me what other
24 categories of facilities other than prisoner of war camps are you talking
25 about? Can you give me the name describing them, tell me the type of
1 individuals held there, and the particular provision of law that made the
2 military responsible for such facilities other than prisoner of war
4 A. In my previous answer, I said that in some situations the
5 Crisis Staffs as the municipal authorities had authority over some camps
6 or centres or whatever they called them, collection centres where there
7 were civilians who were not taken prisoners, that they had jurisdiction
8 over these. I didn't specifically mention the army but I was speaking
9 about the municipal authorities and that's also what I mentioned in these
10 paragraphs of this chapter.
11 Q. Professor, I beg to differ with you. In your previous answer,
12 you said:
13 "The army was responsible for the majority of these facilities,
14 whatever we choose to call them."
15 But now let me ask you about Crisis Staffs. Can you tell me in
16 what provision of the law or the constitution was it established that the
17 Crisis Staffs had authority over these collection centres and other types
18 of detention facilities?
19 A. I only know with regard to Crisis Staffs the chronology of their
20 establishment and how their names changed to War Presidencies or war
21 commissions, and finally they were again called Executive Boards. But I
22 didn't deal with the functioning of the Crisis Staffs in the RS, I
23 analysed the MUP. I didn't deal with Crisis Staffs to the same level of
24 detail as with the MUP. Of course, it's important to mention the
25 Crisis Staffs and know how they changed until they got their old names
1 again and that is the Executive Board, but I didn't analyse the legal
2 foundations or, indeed, all matters that pertained to the Crisis Staffs.
3 And that wasn't my task either.
4 Q. No, but you just said in your answer at page 6, line 23, that,
5 "The Crisis Staffs as the municipal authorities had authority over some
6 camps and centres." And my question was: Where or upon what do you base
7 that? Where in the law or the constitution or anywhere else does it say
8 that Crisis Staffs have authority over those facilities? Can you point
9 me to a legal provision or is that just your conclusion?
10 A. I wasn't speaking about legal provisions. The constitution
11 doesn't mention that. I spoke about documents based on the analysis of
12 which I drew the conclusion that in some municipalities the Crisis Staffs
13 had authority or jurisdiction about such facilities. I didn't say I
14 found that in laws and regulation, but I arrived at that conclusion by
15 analysing documents that speak about the situation on the ground.
16 Q. Okay. Thank you. I'd like to turn to --
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: Hold on a minute.
18 MR. HANNIS: Yes, sorry.
19 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Bajagic, if we turn the questions around
20 which Mr. Hannis has just put to you, could I ask you then if the MUP, of
21 which you are an expert, if the MUP were responsible and had jurisdiction
22 for any centre or place where detainees were kept, be it civilian or
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The MUP under the laws and
25 regulations was not the institution that had jurisdiction over these
2 JUDGE HARHOFF: I understand that is the de jure answer to my
3 question. Was it also a de facto situation that in no instance did the
4 MUP or the police stations, either the centres or the stations, have any
5 responsibility or jurisdiction over any centre or place where detainees
6 were kept?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As one can see from the analysis in
8 my expert report, I deal with the problem of the link between the MUP and
9 such situations in some chapters of my report. The MUP was not fully
10 responsible for anything that can be called a prison camp or especially
11 the collection centres, but the situation on the ground was such that the
12 territorial units of the MUP had problems with this category of persons
13 precisely because of the orders that they received from the Crisis Staffs
14 or some unresolved issues with the VRS in relation to their general
15 activities regarding these categories of persons, be it the provision of
16 security or anything else that the organs of the MUP were tasked with
18 In spite of that, the MUP didn't often raise this issue and apply
19 for a resolution of the problem because they were reluctant to meddle
20 with such things, and I state as much in some of my paragraphs, but it
21 may be best to be more particular by analysing some paragraphs. In
22 paragraph 297, I mention Crisis Staffs, and in some other paragraphs,
23 too, I openly state that the MUP, in reality, had problems with these
24 things and that such a situation existed on the ground.
25 MR. ZECEVIC: Sorry, could the witness be reminded to speak a bit
1 slower pace, please.
2 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. Mr. Bajagic -- yes, thank you. Please
3 remember the interpreters.
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Bajagic, the reason I put these questions to
5 you is that your report is not completely clear or at least the reading
6 of it does not provide the answers with a great deal of accuracy. What
7 do you mean when you said to us just awhile ago that the MUP was not
8 fully responsible for anything that can be called a prison camp or
9 especially the collection centres? What do you mean when you say that
10 the MUP was not fully responsible? Your answer suggests that the MUP was
11 in part responsible for these centres. How is that?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was not speaking literally in
13 terms of responsible, but the MUP did not have authority over such camps
14 anywhere as the Army of Republika Srpska did. There are documents,
15 instructions showing that it is the military organs that are in charge of
16 such facilities carrying out tasks in a certain territory. A public
17 security station or its members or members of the crime prevention police
18 received tasks that were related to such categories of persons. That's
19 what I said, and that pertained to the uniform police and the crime
20 police that was not in uniform, but it's not that they were like the
21 military, the army, who were in charge of all aspects of life as far as
22 these centres are concerned. So I spoke from that point of view. They
23 carried out certain tasks and they carried out certain activities, but
24 it's not that the Ministry of the Interior as an institution was in
25 charge as the Army of Republika Srpska was, or rather, military organs in
2 JUDGE HARHOFF: And what were those tasks that the police
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, there were situations when
5 the members of the Ministry of the Interior were re-subordinated to
6 military organs and when they took part in securing such facilities.
7 There were situations when members of the Ministry of the Interior in
8 accordance with their powers according to the law and what indeed is the
9 jurisdiction of the ministry, they took part in collecting information.
10 There were such situations where members of the Ministry of the Interior,
11 together with military investigative organs, took part in collecting
12 information, or rather, interrogating such persons in the sense of
13 collecting information about war crimes or any other matters that may be
14 of relevance to security. Those are the situations where most frequently
15 members of the Ministry of the Interior carried out certain tasks in
16 relation to these categories of persons. Of course, there were other
17 situations as well; for example, providing security in terms of traffic.
18 So these are some of the basic activities that the members of the
19 Ministry of the Interior had in relation to these categories of persons.
20 JUDGE HARHOFF: Did the police also serve as guards to any of
21 these places?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that is precisely what I
23 meant. Providing that kind of security for facilities, I meant,
24 generally speaking, providing security, guards, yes.
25 JUDGE HARHOFF: And would that be not only for prisoners of war
1 camps but also for camps where civilians were held?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Precisely. There were situations
3 like that as well and I said so in my report.
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
5 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
6 Q. I want to follow up on something that Judge Harhoff was asking
7 you. At page 10, you made reference to the collection centres. And in
8 your answer, you said:
9 "The MUP did not have authority over such camps anywhere such as
10 the Army of Republika Srpska did. There are instructions showing that it
11 is the military organs that are in charge of such facilities carrying out
12 tasks in a certain territory."
13 Now, I want to talk about -- for now, I'm going to use the term
14 collection centre and when I use that I'm thinking of a place where
15 non-combatants are detained, so civilians, women, children, the elderly,
16 non-fighters, people who have either, in some cases, I think, voluntarily
17 shown up fleeing from areas of combat and others who have been removed
18 and brought there by the military and/or the police because they were
19 carrying out combat activities. Can you tell me what instructions you
20 are talking about that gave the military the responsibility or put them
21 in charge of such collection centres? Can you reference a document for
22 us? I don't know what instructions you refer to.
23 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Hannis, while the witness is checking his
24 documents, what is the page number you are referring to of Mr. Bajagic's
1 MR. HANNIS: No, of the transcript of his answer. Page 10,
2 line 6.
3 JUDGE DELVOIE: Oh, transcript, transcript. Okay. Thank you.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Indeed it is very difficult to give
5 answers without being directed to a specific portion of the text from the
6 report. However, I tried as fast as I could to come up with an effective
7 answer to that question. It is an order based on
8 International Humanitarian Law from the VRS in June 1992. Also, the 13th
9 of June, 1992, is another reference and, generally speaking, there are
10 many orders that came from the highest military organs and all of that is
11 referred to in my footnote 333 through 345. There are many documents
12 listed there and many legal regulations and bylaws that show in which way
13 efforts were being made to organise the matters involved pertaining to
14 these persons. If necessary, I can read out these footnotes, all of
15 these documents that are contained in these footnotes and they have to do
16 with paragraphs 291 onwards, practically until the end of this chapter.
17 There are many orders of the Main Staff of the Army of the
18 Republika Srpska and the command of the Krajina Corps that speak of these
19 matters on the basis of these general legal regulations that I mentioned
21 MR. HANNIS:
22 Q. Well, I'm looking at footnote 333 which is the order on the
23 application of the International Law of War in the army, but I don't see
24 anything in that. And I think it's Exhibit P1825, if Your Honours care
25 to check. I don't see anything in that document that says the army is in
1 charge of the collection centres. Would you like to see it?
2 A. Well, it's not that I liked anything, but if Mr. Bogdan Subotic,
3 defence minister, issues an instruction on the 13th of June as to how
4 detained persons should be treated, and that was in 1992 and that is in
5 paragraph 293, then it is my understanding that the minister is issuing
6 an instruction on the basis of which those are who -- those who are
7 within his system have to behave, and that is the Army of Republika
8 Srpska. It is clear enough to me, personally, that if the minister of
9 defence issues such an instruction, then it's the Army of
10 Republika Srpska that is in charge of such facilities. That is a logical
11 conclusion, to my mind, and that is the way it was.
12 Q. Okay. The instruction on the treatment of captured persons
13 issued by the minister of defence on the 13th of June, 1992, is Exhibit
14 P0189. Doesn't that document refer to prisoners of war because is the
15 army capturing civilians? I take capture is in the course of combat and
16 those persons would be prisoners of war; is that not correct?
17 A. Yes, that's right. However, already on the 6 the of June, 1992,
18 the Main Staff of the Army of Republika Srpska issued a directive
19 strictly prohibiting, et cetera, et cetera, mistreatment of civilians,
20 the unarmed population, and what is ordered is treating civilians on the
21 basis of the Geneva Conventions. So if the Main Staff of the Army of
22 Republika Srpska is issuing such a directive addressing military units on
23 the ground, corps and everybody else, and if even the civilian population
24 is mentioned in that directive, and the civilian population is not taking
25 part in combat, on the basis of all of that I conclude that on certain
1 situations on the ground the military was responsible for such categories
2 of persons as well. That is how I can analyse documents. I don't know
3 anything about the actual situation on the grounds, however on the basis
4 of documents alone I can reach certain conclusions and that's the
5 conclusion I reached.
6 Q. You'll agree that sometimes it's risky to reach conclusions based
7 on documents alone, wouldn't you?
8 A. Well, of course you can interpret it that way as well, but I only
9 did have documents, books, monographs, legal documents. On the basis of
10 what else could I draw conclusions if it weren't for that material?
11 Q. Well, then let's look at this document and see if your conclusion
12 was appropriate.
13 MR. HANNIS: Exhibit P189, please. This is the 13 June 1992
14 document from Minister Subotic, the minister of defence, and it's talking
15 about captured persons. If we could go to the last page. Okay. That's
16 the reverse side of the document. Could we go back one page, I want to
17 see the front page of this form.
18 Q. This is a form that is attached with Minister Subotic's order
19 about treatment of captured persons. And you see the card, it's a
20 capture card for prisoner of war. It's not capture card for civilians.
21 It's for a prisoner of war. Doesn't that suggest that this entire
22 instruction from the minister relates to prisoners of war rather than
24 A. Well, that's what I said. This document of the 13th of June has
25 to do with prisoners of war. That is what I've been speaking about
1 precisely, prisoners of war. And I relate it to this document. However,
2 if you could have a look at the first page of this document, different
3 terms are being used, not only POW camp but also collection centre, and
4 that is why these terms appear in my report as well, the terms that
5 appear in documents appear in my expert report too. This document has to
6 do with prisoners of war since there is a card attached as well, however,
7 the other document of the 6th of June has to do with civilian -- the
8 civilian population as well on the basis of the order of the Main Staff
9 of the Army of Republika Srpska.
10 Q. All right.
11 MR. HANNIS: Could we go to page 1 of the document.
12 Q. And, in particular, I want to direct your attention to item
13 number 2, which says:
14 "Captured persons shall be taken to mean the members of enemy
15 armed forces who have surrendered and laid down their arms or have been
16 overpowered in or out of combat."
17 Again that makes it clear this is about prisoners of war, not
18 about civilians; right?
19 A. Well, all right, but I have to tell you that I'm not an expert in
20 International Humanitarian Law of law of war within international law.
21 However, I am educated enough to know that this has to do with prisoners
22 of war, and I do know, basically, what prisoners of war are. I can give
23 you no other comment with regard to this article except for saying that I
24 take due note of what it says here and that I know that these are
25 prisoners of war.
1 Q. Thank you, Professor. Could you look at paragraph 332 of your
2 report. It's page 122 of the English and in the B/C/S it's page 104.
3 And you mention in the middle of the paragraph about the gradual
4 disbanding of prisoner of war camp, more specifically of Manjaca and
5 Trnopolje. Was it my understanding, Professor, that Trnopolje was not a
6 prisoner of war camp? Do you have information to the contrary that it
7 was for prisoners of war rather than some sort of collection centre for
8 civilians and non-combatants?
9 A. I have to tell you that when I read documents where these
10 facilities are mentioned in relation to all the categories of persons who
11 are in them, I did not deal in particular with the type and nature of the
12 facilities involved. Not in such detail. However, you actually referred
13 me to my paragraph 333, if I'm not mistaken, and you did not ask me to
14 comment upon that. Am I supposed to? Or perhaps I didn't hear you
15 right. What paragraph are you referring me to?
16 Q. Well, I meant to say 332 and that's what is in my English
18 A. Okay.
19 Q. But I think you've answered my question. Now I want to talk
20 about a different topic. Just in terms of style in your report, I note
21 some places there will be text, and it's not a quote from a document, it
22 appears to be just part of your conclusions or your statements of a
23 premise that are underlined or in bold, which I understand to be you want
24 to emphasise that. Is that standard practice in writing a report like
1 A. I don't know whether it's standard practice in writing reports
2 like this here, but very often when I want to emphasise something, I use
3 italics or I underline parts of the text or I use bold. That is done
4 otherwise in various texts and books.
5 Q. I understand. If you are quoting from a document and you
6 typically as I see have it in quotation marks to indicate it's coming
7 from somewhere else?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. If you have underlined or bolded something that's in quotation
10 marks, can we take it that is in the original, otherwise you would note
11 that it was emphasis added by you; correct?
12 A. There are situations when you quote something and that is
13 sufficient to indicate the source. If there's a relevant footnote number
14 and then if the document is referred to in the footnote, then you
15 emphasise something additionally, but if you were to put parentheses each
16 and every time after the text quoted, I think that technically that would
17 burden the text as it were. I think that it's clear enough this way.
18 Q. Don't you agree with me, as a general principle, if you've
19 indicated something as a quotation that you shouldn't underline or bold
20 with inside the quotation without making a note that emphasis has been
21 added by you? Wouldn't you agree that's the better professional practice
22 in writing a report or a monograph or a PhD thesis?
23 A. I have written many documents so far but there have been no such
24 objections. It's a matter of convention and agreement. It's important
25 to have a uniform practice. I don't see where the problem is when
1 something is in inverted commas and italics. I don't see if -- that
2 anything essential can change in that manner.
3 Q. No, but the problem is, for example, at paragraph 159, which is
4 page 66 of the English and I think it's page 56 of the B/C/S, you are
5 quoting from, I think it's the constitution. Articles 80 and 81. And
6 you have in quotation marks "activating the reserve police force in
7 emergency situations." Is it underlined in the original or did you put
8 that in because you wanted to emphasise the importance of this particular
10 A. Bearing in mind that here I speak about the MUP and in order to
11 avoid inserting an additional paragraph, but with the intention to point
12 out some facts, I underlined this personally.
13 Q. But wouldn't the better practice to have been then to put
14 immediately after the underlined quotation in parentheses the words
15 "emphasis added" so we would know that came from you and that was not in
16 the original? Just makes it easier for the reader, doesn't it?
17 JUDGE HALL: Of course your question presumes the universality of
18 that practice which may not necessarily be so.
19 MR. HANNIS: That's why I'm trying to inquire.
20 Q. Would you agree with me?
21 A. Well, all right, but there are no universal criteria, that's what
22 I can put to you. It's up to the author how he or she want to do it. If
23 something is not in inverted commas when I put something in italics and I
24 underlined it, then it was clear I was the one who did it, and this is
25 all it means. Inverted commas mean this is a quotation, but you can also
1 emphasise something by inverted commas, when you put something in italics
2 without inverted commas or if you underline, it that means that the
3 author signals the reader that a part of the text is more specific, but I
4 don't see a problem with that. If there is a problem then I can
5 apologise for underlining things. But the essence remains the same.
6 Q. I'm not necessarily suggesting a problem, I'm just trying to know
7 what your practice is so when I read your report I know whether I need to
8 go look at the original or if I can presume that something that's
9 underlined in quotations is that way in the original. Now I know.
10 Just have a look at footnote number 9. I have a question
11 concerning how you cite sources, and it's page 7 in the English and I
12 think it's page 6 in the B/C/S. One of the documents you referred to in
13 this footnote is Goran Cular and Ivan Greguric, "How Cleavage Politics
14 Survives Despite Everything: The case of Croatia," and you mention
15 that's in a particular paper prepared for a workshop in Helsinki in 2007
16 taken from the Internet. I think this is document 65 ter 863D1.
17 When I looked at that document, the first page --
18 MR. HANNIS: I guess could we have that up, that might be the
19 best way to deal with it. 863D1 is the 65 ter number.
20 Q. Now, I don't know if we have a B/C/S version or not, but for the
21 Professor I know you read English. At the bottom of the cover page, it
22 says, "First draft, please do not cite without author's permission." Did
23 you get the author's permission for your use of this document in your
25 A. All sources I find and that are on the Internet and that
1 originate from some scientific or scholarly conferences are sources that
2 I use. I don't think that's anything bad. I didn't take this text and
3 translate it into Serbian, nor did I do anything else with it that goes
4 contrary to some standards of conduct. If it can be found on a global
5 information network, I see no reason why not to cite such a document. I
6 see no problem with that.
7 Q. Well, you don't know who -- you don't know how or who posted it
8 on the Internet. That may have been someone who did so without getting
9 the author's permission. But because it's on the Internet, you think
10 it's okay, even though the document itself on the first page says,
11 "Please do not cite without author's permission"? That's okay?
12 A. Well, let me tell you, this is a first draft that you've shown,
13 but on the Internet there is probably -- the proceedings can probably be
14 found in which this -- of which this is also a part. I, again, don't
15 think this is a problem.
16 Q. All right. Isn't the very fact that it's a first draft a
17 possible reason that the author didn't want it cited without permission
18 because it was still, in effect, a work in progress? That they didn't
19 want it to be circulated without being checked with first?
20 A. All right, but I cite two sources for the remarks in my footnote.
21 One of them is this one. I wanted to corroborate a statement with these
22 two sources, a statement that was given long ago. On the Internet there
23 are 5.000 different sources that refer to this sentence. I mentioned
24 these two sources by the way in passing by, as it were, however, the
25 contents of my paragraph on these sources are no secret at all. The
1 proceedings in which this paper will be published certainly cannot change
2 these facts. I can only repeat that I see no problem with this document.
3 Q. All right, Professor. If we could look at paragraph 127 of your
4 report. It's at page 44 and then 45 in B/C/S and English starts on page
5 51 but I want to talk about page 52. And here in paragraph 127, you are
6 listing documents that are of "vital importance" for an overview and
7 analysis of the establishment and development of the Serbian -- of the
8 MUP of the Serbian Republic of BH, its remit, responsibilities, and
9 organisation. And you list a number of documents. At the middle of page
10 52 in English and just above the middle in page 45 of the B/C/S, there
11 are a series of, I think, 11 laws that you've listed which are from
12 December 1993 and after. Did you think those were relevant to your
13 report about the RS MUP in 1992?
14 A. For the purposes of my report about the MUP of the Serb Republic
15 of Bosnia-Herzegovina the laws and regulations that were created until
16 the end of that calendar year are relevant, that is until the end of
17 1992. The same applies to the laws and regulations from the time of the
18 Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina that were in force, that had
19 legal force and were applied to the work and functioning of the MUP of
20 the Serb Republic, and the other documents are listed just to show the
21 chronology that there was constant work on the improvement of the legal
22 framework in another period as well. But it's only those documents that
23 are important for this report and the analyses therein that were
24 adopted -- or rather, that were created in 1992.
25 Q. All right. Thank you. Now, I want to talk a little bit about
1 citations. There are a number of paragraphs in your report where there's
2 no source footnoted. Now, I know in some of those paragraphs that's
3 simply you stating your conclusions from an analysis of certain documents
4 or perhaps setting out some background information to lay the framework
5 for your next discussion, but would you agree it's generally best
6 practice in a paper like this or report like this to have sources
7 footnoted for all of your factual recitations?
8 A. Well, I would like you to direct me to a particular paragraph so
9 I can comment on it. This kind of question, whether I would agree or
10 not, well, it would be much better to be directed to a particular
11 paragraph and then I'll try to give you a precise answer.
12 Q. Fair enough. Let's start out with paragraphs 81 through 84 where
13 you are talking about the activities of the SDS. No footnotes for those
14 four paragraphs. You feel it was not necessary?
15 A. Yes, that's what I thought.
16 Q. Just a moment, Professor. I thought I had one more I wanted to
17 ask you about for the moment. Paragraph 257, which is at page 97 of the
18 English and in the B/C/S page 82. And here you are talking about the
19 Autonomous Region of Krajina and the last sentence in that paragraph
21 "At the same time it is well known that the process of complete
22 unification of the ARK and the SAO ...," which I take it to mean Serb
23 autonomous regions or districts?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. "... into the state system of the Serbian Republic of BH was only
1 completed at the beginning of 1993."
2 No footnote for that?
3 A. There is no footnote. That is what I state based on some 30 odd
4 other paragraphs and some 30 or 40 documents with which I corroborated
5 the statements in those paragraphs. It is very clear here in the entire
6 paragraph 257, this is a conclusion of mine and I drew that conclusion
7 from an analysis that I already made and I don't think that every
8 paragraph must be footnoted.
9 I tried to illustrate the chronology I speak about and all other
10 problems with as many footnotes as possible, but in some paragraphs you
11 simply don't feel the need to footnote it or otherwise you would repeat
12 citing documents. But for what is stated in this paragraph, I felt it
13 wasn't necessary to cite other sources. I have done so before.
14 Q. One more on this topic. If we could look at paragraph 255, which
15 is on page 96 of the English, and for you, Professor, it starts on page
16 81 and goes over to page 82 of the B/C/S. And here you are talking about
17 re-subordination and you do have a footnote 279 for the first part of
18 that paragraph, but if you could go to the last sentence, in my English
19 translation it says:
20 "Furthermore, a combat assignment may involve both direct combat
21 and activities aimed at protecting communications and vital facilities
22 and securing military facilities including camps and the like."
23 But there's no citation for that. Is there a definition
24 somewhere in the regulations or the laws that defines what a combat
25 assignment is?
1 A. Both in the laws and regulations that were in force at the time
2 of the SFRY we could find a lot of that, but this sentence states what I
3 have -- what I had already put forward based on a number of documents,
4 and again, I don't see why I must footnote every sentence of my report.
5 If I had known this to be a preference of yours then you would have
6 dozens of footnotes to every sentence but I didn't want to burden my
7 report in that manner. I would certainly have something to cite with
8 regard to this, but this is merely a remark based on my analysis, and
9 certainly a combat assignment can be any of these things mentioned. And
10 the members of the MUP of the Serbian Republic of BH were re-subordinated
11 to military structures.
12 Q. Well, in that regard in this paragraph you have been talking
13 about the Law on Internal Affairs which is Exhibit P530, the Law on
14 Internal Affairs from 23 March 1992, as well as the order issued by
15 Minister Stanisic on the 1st of May -- sorry, on the 15th of May, 1992,
16 where he created war units within the MUP. And in those two documents it
17 talks about the MUP being re-subordinated for combat operations or combat
18 activities. Now, combat assignment is a term that's not exactly the same
19 as a combat operation or a combat activity; is it?
20 A. Well, it depends on the context in my own language, how you place
21 it within a sentence. Sometimes combat activity or combat operation
22 means direct participation in armed combat and sometimes it does not
23 necessarily involve direct participation in armed combat. It depends on
24 the context, it depends on how the commanders use it, how others use the
25 term, and also what legal regulations say. So I always have to look at
1 the context when a particular term is used.
2 Q. Professor, that's why I suggest it would be good to have a
3 footnote here at the end of this paragraph to direct us to a regulation
4 defining what kinds of things are combat activities, combat operations
5 and combat assignments. But let me move on. Sorry, you wanted to say
7 A. Well, if I had commented in this report what tasks were and what
8 activities were, and so on and so forth, then the report should have been
9 entitled differently. I focused on the Ministry of the Interior, not on
10 military matters in this report. I only dealt with the military as much
11 as it was necessary in order to shed more light on the position of the
12 ministry in that period, not to deal with military terms.
13 Q. In the first chapter of your report on the constituting the
14 Serbian Republic Bosnia and Herzegovina and the establishment of organs
15 of state authority, you have a lot of footnotes citing various media
16 articles, books, Internet pages, and I wanted to ask you about a term
17 that is used in a few places.
18 A. [No interpretation]
19 Q. Sorry, I didn't hear your answer.
20 A. I do apologise, what is the page of my report in B/C/S? Could
21 you please give me a reference?
22 Q. Well, I'm just talking about, general, about chapter 1 which runs
23 from page 3 to 39 in English. This is a section where you talk about the
24 activities of the three nationalist parties, and I was making a point
25 that you have a lot of references to media, Internet sources as well as
1 books. And just at footnote 33, which is on page 16 of the English and
2 page 14 of the B/C/S, at the end of that footnote, you make reference to
3 Domagoj Margetic, an article or book entitled, "Islamic Terrorism in the
4 South of Europe: Zagreb S.N. 2006." S.N., is that a Latin term? Does
5 that stand for "sin nombre," or something like that, meaning there's no
6 publishers? Because I notice in your other citations at this general
7 locations that would be the name of a publisher. What does S.N. stand
8 for here?
9 A. The author of this book published the book himself. It wasn't
10 that some company published it for him. He is one of the most prominent
11 Croatian journalists and researchers as concerns the periods of time that
12 we are dealing with in this report too. He authored not only this book
13 but also many others. However, this one is the most relevant one in this
14 context, and that is why I include it in this report. It is most
15 relevant for explaining the matters that we are dealing with. However,
16 as I refer to that source, what I'm saying in this report is that other
17 sources speak of the same facts from footnote 33 onwards. As I
18 cross-reference these sources, they actually deal with the same subject
19 matter. And I have no doubts as to the quality of this source. I
20 personally do not.
21 Q. This book by Mr. Margetic, Islamic terrorism, were you aware that
22 it is dedicated to, among other persons, Dario Kordic, who was convicted
23 in this Tribunal and sentenced to 25 years of imprisonment for war
24 crimes? Did you know that?
25 A. That doesn't matter to me at all, what does matter is that
1 Domagoj Margetic has a reputation as a journalist and as an author. Who
2 the book is dedicated to, that, for me, is not of such importance. As I
3 cross-reference the facts from Mr. Margetic's book with some others from
4 Europe and America, I come to the conclusion that he is highly relevant
5 for the things that he is writing about. Look at Sindler's book
6 "Unfortunate Terror," look at "Terror in the Net of Evil," that is
7 Ali Hamad and you will see that at least 90 per cent corresponds to the
8 facts that are referred to in this paragraph. And many others, many
9 foreign authors, foreign in relation to the country that I come from,
10 speak of these things as well.
11 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honours. I note the time.
12 JUDGE HALL: So we resume in 20 minutes.
13 [The witness stands down]
14 --- Recess taken at 10.26 a.m.
15 --- On resuming at 10.49 a.m.
16 [The witness takes the stand]
17 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honours.
18 Q. Professor, the Domagoj Margetic that we were just talking about
19 before the break, that's the same Domagoj Margetic who was convicted of
20 contempt of this Tribunal on the 7th of February, 2007, for publishing on
21 his website the complete confidential list of witnesses in the Blaskic
22 case and sentenced to three months in prison and a fine of 10.000 euros;
24 A. [Microphone not activated]
25 MR. ZECEVIC: The witness's microphones are not on, I note.
1 MR. HANNIS:
2 Q. I see you turned them on now, Professor, your answer wasn't
3 recorded. Could you repeat it?
4 A. I'm not aware of all those facts concerning Mr. Margetic. I did
5 not really deal with his CV.
6 Q. Well, it's not just a matter the of his CV, it was a matter of
7 public record in this court. But you tell us you didn't know about that?
8 A. I didn't know about that at all, that didn't really matter to me.
9 Q. And are you telling me now knowing about it you still wouldn't
10 perhaps have not used him as a footnoted source, just as a matter of
11 judgement? You say there are plenty of sources for many of the things
12 that you've cited him for, but given what arguably is reflected by the
13 fact of his conviction and the underlying nature of that, don't you think
14 that reflects something about his attitude, his bias, in regard to this
15 Tribunal that might make him not the best source for you to use in your
16 expert report in this Tribunal?
17 A. I don't know whether what you said about his offence is related
18 to the content of the book that I cited. However, I would have quoted
19 the book anyway. It's an open source. It was published publicly and
20 many others have quoted it too. In that regard, I think that it is not a
21 problem that I used this book as one of my sources.
22 Q. So is that your standard, if it's an open source and it's quoted
23 by many others then it's good enough to go into your report?
24 A. Well, if many people quote this book or, generally speaking, the
25 number of quotations establishes its value in the scientific or
1 professional market. If something is not quoted at all, then it is
2 valueless in terms of content, the content of such a work. The index of
3 quotation citation is one of the basic criteria in science, criteria for
4 the quality of such a work.
5 Q. Let's talk about the use of media articles. In paragraph 25 of
6 your report, that's page 11 of the English, page 10 in the B/C/S. Just
7 past halfway down in that paragraph, you say:
8 "Although newspaper comments are, generally and, in this case,
9 specifically, an unfortunate choice of material for a detailed and
10 objective analysis of the situation then in BH and the conduct of some
11 political leaders, bearing in mind that Alija Izetbegovic in this
12 statement illustratively indicated the direction of the work of his
13 political party SDA and its activities on the formation of the Patriotic
14 League paramilitary organisation, and it has been commented on in this
15 report because it represents the only available material on Izetbegovic's
16 statements on the topic from the period in question."
17 I take that to mean that you think, generally, newspaper comments
18 aren't a good source to use in a report like this; is that a fair
20 A. As for all possibly used facts from newspaper articles such as
21 statements, interviews, mono-views or other types of newspaper articles,
22 I include all of that in that third category of material. My comment in
23 this paragraph only has to do with the fact that Mr. Alija Izetbegovic's
24 -- that Mr. Alija Izetbegovic said something like this only once in the
25 newspapers. I didn't find anything else about that but it's all in the
1 context of the Patriotic League. However, you have this in this
2 paragraph, these facts coming from direct participants in the
3 establishment of the Patriotic League. You have sources speaking of its
4 military obligation in this paragraph; however, it only has to do with
5 the statement made by Alija Izetbegovic to the newspapers on that day.
6 Q. Okay. Am I correct in understanding that you think, generally
7 speaking, that news articles are an unfortunate choice, but if it's the
8 only source for a point you want to make, you are willing to use it; is
9 that right?
10 A. I still think that, at least for purposes of illustration, this
11 too can be used, but not only this for drawing final conclusions about
12 some processes or events. I think that the previous paragraph, that is
13 paragraph 24, with its sources that are footnoted are directly linked to
14 Alija Izetbegovic's statement and they correspond with each other fully.
15 It was in this sense that my statement should be understood that
16 newspaper articles can be used as a tertiary source for the purpose of
17 illustration to complete the picture of some events.
18 Q. Okay. And tertiary source, meaning the least reliable from
19 primary to secondary to tertiary; correct?
20 A. Well, we cannot speak of the lowest level of reliability. If
21 Mr. Izetbegovic, in June 1991, spoke about the activities from that
22 period, that is June 1991, if he spoke about it in 1994 to the "Ljiljian"
23 magazine, which was published in Sarajevo which was under the
24 jurisdiction of the central authorities of Mr. Izetbegovic, I don't
25 believe that he lied to this magazine. As a matter of fact, I think that
1 he boasted about these facts rather than spoke or told lies.
2 But I use this only as an illustration when I dealt with the
3 Patriotic League.
4 Q. Maybe one or two more sources. If you could look at footnote 33
5 in your report. It's page 16 of the English and page 12 going on to 13
6 of the B/C/S. I am sorry, I've got the -- page 16 of the English and
7 it's on page 14 of the B/C/S. Here you are talking about -- in
8 paragraph 36, you are talking about various Muslim organisations and
9 connections to the SDA and secret arming of Muslims. Near the bottom, in
10 what is footnoted as number 33, is an organisation that I can't
11 pronounce. It's spelled M-u-w-a-f-a-q, Muwafaq foundation.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And in your footnote you say that it was registered as a
14 humanitarian organisation in Zagreb during 1992 as a branch office of the
15 headquarters which operated out of London. The Tunisian Safiq Ayadi was
16 at its helm, who was also known at INTERPOL for laundering Kuwaiti dinars
17 which Iraq had seized during the attack on Kuwait. The main job of the
18 organisation was to give logistic support to the TWRA humanitarian
19 organisation and transfer terrorist from the RH to the BH. Now, what is
20 the source in the footnote? What is the source for that information?
21 Because the only thing that follows is compare Mr. Margetic's book and
22 we've already talked about him. Does this text about this organisation
23 and Mr. Ayadi come from that book or does it come from somewhere else?
24 A. If there's footnote, then it comes from that book. But, as I
25 said, I could have cited another 50 sources for the same facts. As you
1 see, you have read out the name of that alleged humanitarian
2 organisation, but their connections with extremists are also mentioned,
3 and that's the al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya. As far as I know, this is one of
4 the 10 most dangerous terrorist organisations in the world.
5 Q. That wasn't my question. You have a footnote then you have this
6 text, following the text it says "compare," then you cite Mr. Margetic's
7 book. To me, what I'm used to in reading a document, when there's
8 footnote, then in the footnote there is a source for the item footnoted.
9 But you have some text and you say "compare," that leads me to believe
10 that what is written here is different somehow to something I might find
11 in Mr. Margetic's book, it's confusing to me. How do you use the term
12 "compare" in a footnote? Compare to what?
13 A. The footnote first contains a text. I speak about the
14 organisation briefly and then I refer the reader to the source to show
15 that I haven't made up what I say but that it can be found in that
16 source. This is exactly as it should be in a scholarly work.
17 Q. Well, I would expect to see the text in the body of your document
18 and then in the footnote just Mr. Margetic's work. Isn't that normally
19 how you do it in the rest of your report?
20 A. No, that's wrong. The footnotes sometimes only mention the
21 source. Sometimes they can contain a comment about something without a
22 source and other times it can contain both a comment and a text, the
23 position of the author and then link that to another source and then it
24 reads compare so and so, and that source then speaks about the same
25 process, institution, or whatever. That's the structure of a footnote.
1 Q. Let's leave sources for now and talk about another issue with
2 citations. Could you look at footnote 67, page 25 of the English, and in
3 the B/C/S footnote 67 is at page 22. At the end of paragraph 51 you say:
4 "How else but illegal and unconstitutional to call the fact that
5 one Dzevad Tinjic from Zagreb, as far back as 10 April 1991, took over
6 from the Crisis Staff of the Islamic community of the RH and Slovenia a
7 considerable quantity of fire-arms and ammunition which was sent to BH
8 for the secret arming of Muslims under the SDA's supervision."
9 And then a footnote, you have a certification from Hasan Cengic
10 to Mr. Tinjic for the purchase of weapons dated 3 October 1992.
11 MR. HANNIS: If we could have up in e-court 65 ter number 739D1.
12 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Hannis, do we have a tab number for this
13 document, please.
14 MR. HANNIS: This is a Defence document, Your Honour. I don't
15 recall what the tab number was on their list.
16 JUDGE DELVOIE: It's on the Stanisic Defence list.
17 MR. HANNIS: Well, it's in the report. It's a footnote in his
18 report and that's the 65 ter number of that document.
19 MR. ZECEVIC: I don't believe we announced this document to be
20 used during our direct examination.
21 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I announced I was going to use any
22 document referred to in the expert's report. I don't have it on a
23 separate list.
24 JUDGE DELVOIE: My question was only for easy referencing.
25 MR. HANNIS: Sorry.
1 Q. Okay. The original of this document is in German, but it appears
2 it's from the 3rd of October, 1992, and I don't understand how this
3 document supports that as far back as 10 April 1991 Mr. Tinjic took over
4 fire-arms and ammunition. How does a statement from 7 December 1994
5 referring to some confirmation in October of 1992 take you back to
6 April 1991?
7 A. Could you please repeat which footnote it is where I mention this
8 source, the number of the footnote?
9 Q. Footnote 67.
10 A. Thank you. Well, the date that we can see at the top is the
11 3rd of October, 1992, but it isn't the dates that matter to me here but
12 rather pointing out the fact, namely what Mr. Tinjic was doing. And this
13 is just a confirmation of how those funds were transferred. His
14 activities points at something. That mattered more to me than the date.
15 Q. Well, you seem to emphasise the date in your report and I note on
16 the 3rd of October, 1992, the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina was at war
17 actively with the VRS. What is inappropriate about Mr. Cengic paying for
18 certain weapon in 1992 in October? And how did you link this to what you
19 say is illegal activity in April 1991? There's no connection?
20 A. It's really inappropriate because a weapons embargo was in place
21 imposed by the United Nations for all of former Yugoslavia. As far as I
22 remember, I didn't deal with this matter personally here but it was the
23 United Nations that imposed the embargo; that is, they banned any import
24 of military equipment for the entire former SFRY. To me, this
25 illustrates the fact that they acted in contravention of the decision of
1 the United Nations organisation.
2 Q. That's not how you describe it in your report, and also, there's
3 nothing in this document to indicate that these weapons were imported.
4 You don't know whether or not they were manufactured within Bosnia, do
6 A. I believe that I was clear enough in my answer.
7 Q. Okay.
8 A. And this fact -- and of course not every matter can be
9 extensively dealt with in this report, so this is another opportunity to
10 discuss that. It is obvious that this is not in Bosnia-Herzegovina but
11 rather that some funds are transferred in different ways, and the
12 United Nations imposed an embargo for the entire territory of the former
14 Q. Okay, Professor, let's move on to something else.
15 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Hannis.
16 MR. HANNIS: Yes.
17 JUDGE DELVOIE: If I can add one follow-up question to that.
18 Mr. Bajagic, you write here, "As far back as 10 April 1991." Why did you
19 emphasise this? Why did you say, "As far back as April 1991"?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot give you a precise answer
21 now. If I stressed that, if I stressed the 10th of April, I could have
22 cited another source which I probably had, but I can also make a mistake.
23 But what mattered to me is what I already said. I may have omitted to
24 cite another source.
25 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is possible too. That other
2 source may have been more of a corroboration of this.
3 MR. HANNIS:
4 Q. Okay. Professor, I think I have maybe two more footnotes I want
5 to ask you about and the next one is footnote 64, which we find on
6 page 24 of the English, page 21 of the B/C/S. This is the last footnote
7 to your paragraph 47 which begins a couple of pages earlier. And
8 paragraph 47 is about the activities of the Mujahedin, and you say:
9 "We will mention the names of some of the most well known
10 terrorists who were active members of the El Mujahid unit."
11 Then you've got a list of, I think, by my count 27 named
12 individuals whose names are in bold, I note, I guess because you want to
13 bring special attention to them. Footnote 64 says:
14 "This is just a shortlist of the names of terrorists who took an
15 active part in the war in BH on the side of the BH Army and under the
16 direct patronage of Alija Izetbegovic and his political party, the SDA,
17 and who were woven into the fabric of terrorist groups under Bin Laden's
18 leadership out of which today's well known al-Qaeda was created."
19 Then you say four more, see Galijasevic's book. Now again that's
20 four more. But for this part, where you say this is just a shortlist,
21 are those your words or does that come from some other source or does
22 that come from Galijasevic's book?
23 A. The text in the footnote up until the mention of the source is my
24 comment. And this is but a shortlist of names and I refer the reader to
25 the source where he or she can read hundreds or more of these names on
1 over 20 pages, the names of these same persons and others who were
2 members of the El Mujahedin or El Mujahid detachment. Mr. Galijasevic
3 mentions that in his book on pages 114 through 137, and we can find the
4 complete list of names of the members of various terrorist organisations
5 who were active in Bosnia-Herzegovina at the time and were members of the
6 El Mujahid unit.
7 Q. Now, I note that this is in your chapter 1 of your report which
8 is about the constituting of the Serbian Republic. You think it was
9 necessary to include the names of those who apparently their only
10 activity was in 1994 or 1995? Because this seems to be a section talking
11 about 1991 and early 1992.
12 A. The activities of many who are listed here started in 1992, not
13 from 1994 or 1995. I could have quoted the source Ali Hamad "In the Net
14 of Evil" and you could have seen that that and many other sources show
15 that these persons and their comrades in arms operated already in 1992 in
16 the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina. What I had in mind was a general
17 political context, and that for that purpose it was necessary to devote a
18 few paragraphs to this question as well.
19 Q. A few paragraphs, I note that this section listing the 47 names
20 is as long as your entire section on the SDS and its activities. Don't
21 you think that reflects a bias on your part that this single paragraph is
22 as long as your entire section about the SDS?
23 A. This paragraph is long but only from a technical point of view
24 because there is a list of names and the terrorist organisations that
25 these people come from. It may be considered over-extensive but the
1 names from this list are not unimportant. I have already said that in
2 addition to -- apart from this paragraph throughout this report I deal
3 with the activities of the Ministry of the Interior of Republika Srpska.
4 It's not only one particular part of the first chapter. So except for
5 this, the entire report is dedicated to the activities of the Serb side
6 and in that relation I see no problem.
7 Q. Okay. Of the 27 names cited in paragraph 47, I see there are
8 footnotes for 10 of them, I guess, to support the information that is
9 supplied after their names, but for 17 of them there are no footnotes and
10 I know you just said a little bit ago suggesting that most of these guys
11 were active in 1992. I'd like you to look at a few names in particular
12 and tell me if you can give us any additional information. At the bottom
13 of page 20 in your B/C/S, and this is on page 23 about four names up from
14 the bottom in English, the name Abdulah Essindar, it says, from the state
15 of Yemen, a warrant for his arrest has been issued for a car bomb in
16 Rijeka in 1995. He is a member of the Mujahedin community in Bocinja.
17 What does that have to do with -- about any alleged activity by him in
18 the war in Bosnia in 1992?
19 A. Well, every one of these names mentioned here took active part in
20 the war in Bosnia. This is just additional information. Just as I put
21 an abbreviation after a particular name, in parenthesis indicating that
22 person's membership in a terrorist organisation. So this is just
23 additional information. This goes in general terms for all the persons I
24 refer to here from the first paragraph onwards. They were all members of
25 the El Mujahedin unit and this is some more specific information about
1 each and every one of them that I came across as I was looking into that.
2 Q. Can you tell us any information about when and where he was
3 supposedly active in the Mujahedin unit? You don't know, do you?
4 A. Well, the sources I used directed me to that, namely to put his
5 name on the list of active participants. I know that on the basis of the
6 sources I read and that indicate his name as well.
7 Q. But does it indicate when and where precisely he was active?
8 A. Well, as for all the activities of that unit and other units,
9 it's not only one, there is an entire book that describes that.
10 Ali Hamad, "In the Net of Evil," that's the book, and John Sindler in his
11 book on terror speaks about this as well, as do a few other books that I
12 use as a source and that are listed in the footnotes to this report.
13 Q. And the next two names on the list, Imad Ai Husin, Karray Kamel
14 Ben Ali, also known as Abu Hamza. There's nothing here in your report
15 about when and where they would have been active in Bosnia, is there?
16 A. That's not correct. The beginning of paragraph 47, I say that
17 I'm mentioning some of the most important terrorists who are members of
18 the El Mujahedin unit and then I provide their names, and it is all based
19 on the sources referred to in the following footnotes. For a particular
20 person, I could not research his entire CV but everyone says that this
21 specific person was a member of that unit.
22 Q. Everyone says, that's little far reaching, isn't it?
23 A. Well, okay, far reaching. He is mentioned in sources, as stated
24 in the footnotes. Even one source is sufficient for me to be able to use
25 that source.
1 Q. Yes, I realise you've told us that before. Paragraph 80 of your
2 report, which page 32 of the B/C/S and starts on page 36 and goes on to
3 37 of the English. I want to quote part of that for you. You mention:
4 "The unjustifiably accepted views that only the Serbian side in
5 BH in the 1991/1992 period aspired to the break-up of BH and that the
6 chief force in these endeavours were Serbian personnel in the SRBH MUP.
7 And later also the newly formed MUP of the Serbian Republic."
8 I want to be clear I understand, is your complaint a bit -- I
9 guess it goes basically to two things. You are complaining that some
10 people have the unjustified view that only the Serbian side aspire to
11 break up BH; is that right so far?
12 A. I'm not complaining. I'm presenting a statement, a final
13 statement on the basis of the preceding analysis of the past 10 or 15
14 paragraphs, that is my statement.
15 Q. Well, it's your opinion, right, that those who accept the view
16 that only the Serbian side aspire to break up is unjustified; right?
17 A. Yes, that's right.
18 Q. But you and I will probably agree about this, that there were
19 others who also aspired to the break up of BH, SDA, certain members of
20 the SDA, certain members of the HDZ; agreed?
21 A. Well, I've already said in my report that I believe that all
22 three sides were active in that direction and that would be it.
23 Q. Are you willing to agree with me that certain members, certain
24 Serb personnel in the MUP were a force in those endeavours, not
25 necessarily the chief force but a force in such endeavours?
1 A. From the official documentation of the Ministry of the Interior
2 of the Serb Republic of BH and the positions that I analysed, or rather,
3 the remarks made by the top personnel of the MUP at different collegium
4 meetings, I did not see that that could be said, that they were the main
5 force or chief force. Perhaps some individuals on the ground may be
6 referred to in that context, but in the official documentation that I
7 used, or rather the sources, I did not see that.
8 Q. But we talked about before the draft MUP annual report for April
9 through December of 1992 which Dr. Nielsen referred to extensively in his
10 report, and you are aware that in sections of that report, MUP's own
11 report, it talks about the illegal activities of some of their members in
12 preparing for the break-up of the original joint MUP; right? You are
13 aware of that? You'll have to answer out loud.
14 A. I know that there were such comments, but in my entire report I
15 do not speak about the break up of the Ministry of the Interior of the
16 Socialist Republic of BH. I speak about a completely different process.
17 Q. Let me move now to your annexes. You told us before about how
18 these came to be attached to your report, and the first one I want to
19 talk about is Annex 12, which you told us was the late edition based on a
20 request by the Defence team, talking about subordination of the police to
21 the army. Now, I note that annex has 19 paragraphs in total, and I see
22 that there are only six footnotes which relate to paragraphs 3, 5, and 6.
23 Can I take it then that the rest of the content in those other 16
24 paragraphs is basically your bare, unsupported opinion about how things
25 worked because you don't cite any documents for those other paragraphs?
1 A. Nowhere do I refer to bare opinions, this report included.
2 Everything I state is based on my scientific experience. I repeat once
3 again, I wrote Annex 12 as an integral text, a very brief text, because
4 this could be expanded on further. These are points rather than
5 classical paragraphs that will probably provide a better overview of what
6 I was trying to say. If there is no numeric reference, all that does not
7 mean that this is just a question of me presenting my arbitrary
8 assessments. These are, rather, comments on Official Gazettes, laws on
9 defence, and something that I, of course, as a man who is involved in
10 science, can present here as his general sublimated knowledge without
11 mentioning many and many sources, a multitude of sources.
12 Q. Okay. I just want to confirm that you didn't read the
13 Prosecution's expert Mr. Ewan Brown's report about the army, did you?
14 A. No.
15 Q. And I don't know if I asked you this before, but did you read the
16 VRS, Bosnian Serb army's own report on combat readiness, summarising
17 their activities from their creation in May 1992 through the rest of the
18 year 1992? Did you read that document?
19 A. No, I've already said that I haven't read Mr. Brown's report or
20 any other expert report and I haven't read this document of the Army of
21 Republika Srpska either.
22 Q. Okay. And other than your mandatory military service you did, I
23 think, in 1980 and 1981 for about a year, you have no other military
24 service; correct?
25 A. Correct.
1 Q. And during your time that you were an active member of the MUP
2 from April 1992 through the end of 1995, were you personally ever
3 re-subordinated to the army?
4 A. I wasn't in such situations.
5 Q. Thank you, Professor. I think I have a couple of other annexes I
6 want to ask you about. Annex number 3 is a -- is at 159 of the English,
7 I'm not sure which page in the B/C/S. It's a decision on the
8 establishment of the Croatian community of Herceg-Bosna of 18 November
9 1991, and your footnote for this document makes reference to the
10 Official Gazette, I think it's Exhibit 1D141.
11 MR. HANNIS: I wonder if we could have 1D141 up on the screen.
12 Q. And while that's coming up, let me refresh my memory. I think
13 you told us that these annexes, you did not attach a copy of the original
14 document but instead you typed it up yourself, is that how these were
16 A. Yes, I typed the text.
17 MR. HANNIS: May I inquire, is this the only pages of this
18 exhibit or if we could go to the next page. It makes reference to an
19 enclosure. I don't know if that is attached or not. Oh, okay.
20 Q. Now, here on the screen we see the document and we have on this
21 page nine articles, I think it actually goes on one more page to ten
22 articles. Your Annex number 3 only has eight articles. Can you explain
23 that difference?
24 A. I don't know how this happened. It's a technical mistake. But
25 you have the original document here so that doesn't change anything
1 essential with regard to this annex. What was shown to me was not the
2 Official Gazette of the HZ HB from September 1992 but a different
3 document from e-court, but if my -- but if in my text Articles 9 and 10
4 are missing, that doesn't change anything essential because we have the
5 original here.
6 Q. Well, the point is you told us you created these annexes and you
7 selected the documents for the annexes because you thought they were the
8 most important and that you wanted the Judges to be able to see those
9 documents in their entirety. So how can you now say it's not important
10 that you don't have the full document in your annex because that's the
11 one you wanted to draw the Judges' attention to? That's negligent at
12 best, would you agree?
13 A. I accept that. It is negligent. And I do not know how this
14 could happen. Article 9 reads that this decision enters into force
15 immediately and then there's Article 10 that follows, but the mistake is
16 obviously due -- is of a technical nature and not the result of some
18 MR. ZECEVIC: I didn't want to object until this moment because I
19 wanted the witness to finish his response. However, I note that 482 is
20 the decision printed in the Official Gazette of Herceg-Bosna. What
21 Mr. Hannis is showing to the witness is a document I had shown to the
22 witness which is FN footnote 71/1 of this -- of his report. Now, if
23 Mr. Hannis wants to cross-examine the witness, he must show in the proper
24 document referred to in the footnote. Thank you.
25 MR. HANNIS: Well, then, can we have is look at -- it was my
1 understanding that the document in footnote 71 is 1D41. Is that not
2 correct? I'd be happy to look at the Official Gazette if we have it
3 available. Can my learned friend help me, is it something else other
4 than 1D41?
5 MR. ZECEVIC: I am sorry, the document which you have shown to
6 the witness is 1D141, and that is a footnote 71 in the expert report and
7 it's at tab 27 of the announced documents for the Defence. Now, I didn't
8 announce the document referred to in footnote 482 but I can try to
9 provide that over the break for your reference.
10 MR. HANNIS: Well, my question is -- do we have 1D141 on the
11 screen? And I understand my learned friend to be saying that is the
12 document listed in footnote 71 as Official Gazette HZ, Herceg-Bosna. If
13 it's not, then either the Defence has identified the document incorrectly
14 in e-court or the witness has the wrong reference in his footnote.
15 I am sorry, Your Honours, in order to save time, let me move on.
16 Q. Professor, I want to talk about the Cutileiro Plan a little bit
17 and Annex 9 of your report. Now, just to be clear because this term
18 Cutileiro Plan has been thrown around a lot. And when you say
19 Cutileiro Plan, can you indicate for us a specific document that you
20 would be referring to when you say Cutileiro Plan?
21 A. You probably got all sources that I mentioned in the footnotes in
22 electronic form. When we speak about the Cutileiro Plan, that's a
23 process. Five or six meetings of the highest representatives of the
24 three sides in Bosnia-Herzegovina under the auspices of the international
25 community. That was a generally known fact in the world at the time.
1 And any conclusions reached or agreements at those meetings are the ones
2 I mention in those parts of my report where the context requires it. In
3 Annex 11, there's just one of these documents that was made after a
4 series of these meetings that mark the development of the political
5 crisis in Bosnia-Herzegovina in the winter and spring of 1992.
6 Q. So you are telling me when you use the term you are not referring
7 to any one specific document; is that right? You are referring to a
8 series of discussions and a series of documents related to those
10 A. It's a series of documents as important as this one but I didn't
11 want to include them all. The others are mentioned in footnotes.
12 Q. Well, in your report at page 6 of the English, paragraph 10, you
13 have a list of a whole series of documents and I would suggest to you
14 that some people who testified here in referring to the Cutileiro Plan
15 seem to place special emphasis on the document you have listed as from
16 the 18th of March, 1992, the text of the statement on principles for the
17 new constitutional order of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Are you familiar
18 with that document?
19 A. Yes. That is the most important document from that process from
20 the talks and there is also the joint statement of the foreign ministers
21 that I also cite here as a document of the international community, and
22 one of the footnotes in my report certainly refers to that document. And
23 specifically with regard to Bosnia-Herzegovina, the meetings held in
24 March of 1992 are the most important.
25 Q. Okay. And the 18th March, 1992, document was really a statement
1 about principles for further discussions about Bosnia, is that one that
2 you say was signed by Mr. Izetbegovic?
3 A. Well, my request is not to require me to give general answers. I
4 cannot know by heart everything I wrote in this report and
5 cross-reference everything to as sources, so if you could direct me to a
6 specific portion of my report, that would be very helpful.
7 Q. Well, I don't recall a specific portion of your report where you
8 make mention of what document it was that people were upset about
9 Mr. Izetbegovic basically withdrawing his signature from, in effect. You
10 know what I'm talking about?
11 A. I don't know what you are talking about when you say that people
12 were upset, but in footnote 145 of my expert report that is -- that
13 refers to paragraph 121 is the one where I speak about the document from
14 18 March, and a dozen or so paragraphs before that speak about these
15 efforts of the international community. But it's specifically footnote
16 145 which is a footnote to paragraph 121.
17 Q. Be that as it may, if we assume that Mr. Izetbegovic had
18 initially agreed to that document on the 18th of March, isn't it true by
19 at least as early as the 27th of March, it was public knowledge that
20 Mr. Izetbegovic and the SDA had withdrawn from that and publicly
21 indicated that they were not going to be implementing the so-called
22 Sarajevo agreement in connection with that statement of principles in
23 relation to the Cutileiro Plan? That was well known by the 27th of
24 March, wasn't it?
25 A. They did it unilaterally. The process actually continued. The
1 fact that they withdrew cannot serve as an excuse for -- with regard to
2 the fact that they signed.
3 Q. Right. And some individuals in the MUP, some Serb personnel felt
4 that the proposed split should go ahead anyway in spite of the fact that
5 Mr. Izetbegovic and the SDA had withdrawn; isn't that true?
6 A. No, it is not.
7 Q. Okay. When do you say that what we call the RS MUP first came
8 into being? What was the date of its creation, the first day it came
9 into being?
10 A. De jure the Law on Internal Affairs, as we know, was adopted in
11 March and entered into force on the 31st of March, 1992. If we were to
12 view it from a factual perspective, the collegium of the MUP issued an
13 instruction about reporting and information. It was from April 1992 and
14 it goes to all three sides because the collegium was composed of all
15 three sides. It speaks about the Cutileiro Plan and the centralisation
16 of the MUP, the story about the funding of the future ministry and so on
17 stems from that time. That collegium meeting was attending by the
18 closest co-workers of Alija Delimustafic and the other SDA personnel who
19 were privy to everything and that, to my mind, would be the cut-off date.
20 Q. Have you seen a video that was shown during the Defence's opening
21 statement in this case of Mr. Mico Stanisic in Sokolac, according to the
22 video, on the 30th of March, 1992?
23 A. No, I did not watch the opening statement or whatever it is
24 called. I didn't follow it directly. I don't have time to watch that
25 every day. I have commitments of my own.
1 Q. So I take it you are not aware that in that video dated the 30th
2 of March, Mr. Stanisic said from today, 30th of March, they had their own
3 MUP, meaning what would turn out later to be the RS MUP? You haven't
4 seen that, you didn't know about it, you weren't provided that by the
5 Defence; is that correct?
6 A. Would it be a problem to watch the video now so that I could give
7 my comment?
8 Q. Well, my question is just whether you've seen it or not before?
9 A. I've already answered that.
10 MR. HANNIS: Okay. I don't mind you seeing it, but actually it's
11 close to time for the break and I ask if we could recess a couple of
12 minutes early.
13 JUDGE HALL: Very well.
14 [The witness stands down]
15 --- Recess taken at 12.02 p.m.
16 --- On resuming at 12.29 p.m.
17 [The witness takes the stand]
18 MR. HANNIS:
19 Q. Professor, before I resume talking about Cutileiro and 31st of
20 March, 1st of April time-period, there are two other topics I wanted to
21 mention. I can't remember if it was Judge Harhoff had asked you a
22 question about what was the importance of Sokolac, and in relation to
23 that and I wanted to ask you, do you know what the acronym SDK stands for
24 in the former Bosnia-Herzegovina?
25 A. I've forgotten.
1 Q. It is public accounting service?
2 A. Yes, yes, yes, that's right. Sorry about that, yes. But I'm not
3 an economist. I'm not very knowledgeable, well, yes, that is what it
5 Q. Is it the fact that the SDK was located in Sokolac in 1992?
6 A. For me that was irrelevant. I cannot remember that at all.
7 Q. Do you know what the SDK did? Is that not the agency or the
8 organ that was in control of paying out public monies including salaries
9 for police and the army in 1992?
10 A. It may be that, but I really do not know about these economic
11 processes that were developing, especially not financial ones.
12 Q. Okay. Thank you.
13 MR. ZECEVIC: I am terribly sorry, there is -- I'm experiencing a
14 problem with my LiveNote because so far pages had 25 lines, now I'm at
15 line 46 of this particular page, so I don't know if that will create a
16 problem in the future.
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: That may be the latest attempt to cut down the
18 number of pages.
19 MR. ZECEVIC: Perhaps, Your Honours.
20 MR. HANNIS: I was having the same problem but I see now that we
21 are on a new page. We'll see how many lines we have on this one, I
23 Q. Sorry, Professor, the other topic I wanted to ask before
24 returning to the 31st of March was to ask you a couple of questions about
25 the Law on All People's Defence. First of all, the SRBiH Law on All
1 People's Defence, this in the law library is L26 and it's Article 107.
2 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, I'm not sure we have an English
3 translation in e-court for that portion of the law but maybe I can just
4 ask the witness to read out from the Serbian and if we can go to page B16
5 in the B/C/S.
6 Q. I want to ask you in particular about Article 107.
7 JUDGE HALL: Why did I assume that everything in the law library
8 had been translated, that it was a condition of inclusion that it had
9 been already translated.
10 MR. HANNIS: That was the same assumption I was under,
11 Your Honour, until I went to look for this particular thing and I guess
12 that requires further inspection to see if it's only this one or if there
13 are others. I thought that was the agreed plan that we were all trying
14 to work from. We do have a translation which we can provide and get in
15 e-court but I want to make sure we have the whole document translated.
16 However, with your leave, Your Honours, may I proceed with this one?
17 JUDGE HALL: Yes.
18 MR. HANNIS: Thank you. If we could have page 16 of the B/C/S on
19 the screen.
20 Q. Professor, Article 107. You see that? Could you read it out for
21 us to make sure we get a proper English.
22 A. Article 107 reads as follows:
23 "The Presidency of the SRBiH, in accordance with the decision of
24 the Presidency of the SFRY from Article 105 of the federal law, hereby
25 orders the use of units of the Territorial Defence for carrying out tasks
1 related to public law and order and carrying out other tasks related to
2 social self-protection. While carrying out the tasks referred to in
3 Article 105, paragraph 1 of the federal law, units of the
4 Territorial Defence shall be subordinated to the appropriate organ of the
6 Q. Do you know whether or not this provision was ever in effect in
7 Bosnia in 1992?
8 A. In Bosnia? That is too broad for me. I haven't found a specific
9 document about that and I'm not commenting upon this Article 107 in that
10 context if I did provide a comment on this article. I would like to see
11 the paragraph in which I provide a comment on this article and in which
13 Q. I'm sorry, I don't know if you do. Perhaps Mr. Zecevic on
14 redirect may point you to it if there is one. But we see reference here
15 to the federal law and if we can look at that, I'd ask you to speak to
16 that as well.
17 MR. HANNIS: And from e-court that's L001 from the law library at
18 page 18 of the B/C/S and page 67 of the English. I believe we'll find
19 Article 105 of the federal law of the SFRY law.
20 Q. And do you have that in front of you now, Professor?
21 A. Yes, I do.
22 Q. It talks about:
23 "In the event of an immediate threat of war and other
24 emergencies, the task of maintaining public law and order and other tasks
25 pertaining to social self-protection may be carried out by
1 Territorial Defence units."
2 Were you familiar with this provision of the federal law?
3 A. Yes, I don't see what the problem is.
4 Q. I see no problem. Would you agree with me that this seems to
5 provide for the possibility that the TO could be used to carry out
6 certain tasks that were traditionally in the remit of the police of the
8 A. Yes, in accordance with the decision of the Presidency of the
9 SFRY as stated in the law.
10 Q. Thank you. One last question before returning to 31 March, it's
11 related -- you've talked about in Annex 9 Exhibit 1D78 which purports to
12 refer to a MUP collegium meeting on the 1st of April, 1992, and in
13 connection with that in your report at footnote 148 you make reference to
14 the testimony of Mr. Delimustafic and Mr. Mandic's state court
15 proceedings. Apparently to support the proposition that this so-called
16 instruction on reporting, as you call it, was all part of the
17 Cutileiro Plan to peacefully split the MUP and that apparently this is
18 confirmed. Are you saying it's confirmed by Mr. Delimustafic in his
19 state court testimony? Is that why you put it in the footnote?
20 A. I refer to it as one of the confirmations provided by one of the
21 participants in the event. It is the instruction of the 1st of April
22 that is true confirmation of it.
23 Q. But can you direct me to a page and a line number in
24 Mr. Delimustafic's transcript where he says that there was such a
25 collegium meeting on the 1st of April and that he knew about it and that
1 he was in agreement with the so-called peaceful split?
2 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, if my memory serves me well,
3 Mr. Hannis objected when I tried to use the document with the witness and
4 I was actually prohibited for using the document with the witness during
5 my direct examination based on the objection which Mr. Hannis is doing.
6 Now, I was -- based on his objection. And I'm perfectly fine with
7 Mr. Hannis using this document because I want to rely on that document,
8 as I stated during my direct, but I think only proper way would be that
9 the document is shown to the witness so he can comment on it. I can give
10 you the reference if you bear with me for just one second. It's a tab
11 number in our announced documents.
12 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, what I'm trying to avoid is letting
13 Mr. Zecevic get into the back door what I'm trying to keep out
14 completely. However, what I'm doing here is I'm trying to go to another
15 example, the witness's reliance on something to support a point when the
16 source document, I say, does not prove that point. Now, this is a bit of
17 a dilemma for me because in order to do that somebody has to look at the
18 document and say there's no reference in here by Mr. Delimustafic saying
19 that he was aware of that or he agreed to it or anything to that effect.
20 Now, if Trial Chamber is going to take the position that if I want to
21 pursue that then the whole document comes in then I withdraw the question
22 because I think there is no proper way for that testimony by
23 Mr. Delimustafic in state court to come into evidence in this court
24 without Mr. Delimustafic coming here and testifying.
25 MR. ZECEVIC: A couple of matters, Your Honours. First, it's tab
1 33 for the reference of Mr. Hannis if he wants to use it at the end of
2 the day. The second thing, I don't think it's -- maybe the witness
3 should be excused while we are discussing these matters. And the third
4 thing, according to the jurisprudence of this Tribunal, the hearsay
5 evidence is permitted. Thank you.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Hannis, it appears to us that the problems
8 created by the course which you have explained you seek to follow are --
9 I don't want to use the word insurmountable but present their own
10 difficulties and the preferable course would be to withdraw the question.
11 MR. HANNIS: I'll do that, Your Honour. Withdrawn.
12 Q. Okay. Professor, I want to go now back to what we started to
13 talk about before the break and that was the events around the 31st of
14 March and the 1st of April concerning the -- what I call the joint MUP
15 that was still in existence at that time. I think you are familiar with
16 a dispatch that was sent out by Momo Mandic on the 31st of March;
18 A. I know that there were several dispatches on those days, but,
19 again, I you would like a reference to a paragraph and a footnote where I
20 cite the document. It will be easier for me to answer the question that
21 may follow.
22 Q. I'm checking, Professor, to see if you actually cite it in your
23 report. I believe it's in footnote 205?
24 MR. HANNIS: And for the record, this is Exhibit P353. If we
25 could have that up in e-court, please. I see it's page 69 of the
2 Q. And, Professor, I'm sorry, for you it appears to be on page 59 of
3 the B/C/S.
4 A. Yes, I have found it.
5 Q. Now, it's on your screen. Having taken a look at that does that
6 refresh your memory about what that dispatch was about?
7 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Hannis, for easy reference is that tab number
8 14 in your list?
9 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I don't know. I don't have my list in
10 front of me at the moment.
11 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Smith should know, shouldn't he?
12 MR. HANNIS: It is.
13 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
14 MR. HANNIS:
15 Q. Isn't that Mr. Mandic telling everyone that we are forming our
16 Serbian MUP?
17 A. Yes, among other things he also speaks about that in this
19 Q. Okay. And you will see at the top that has a dispatch number
20 02-2482 and there's a fax header line which it looks like this was sent
21 on the 31st of March at 1358 hours, 1.58 in the afternoon, by fax. Do
22 you see that?
23 A. Yes, it's very small. Yes, now I see it.
24 Q. Yes. And it looks like it went from the MUP to Radio SA, I think
25 that's Radio Sarajevo, would you agree?
1 A. I don't know, I can see it says MUP BiH Sarajevo, that's enough
2 for me, which means that it was sent from the MUP headquarters.
3 Q. Okay. Now are you aware that one minute later on that same date
4 there was a dispatch sent by Delimustafic basically disagree with what
5 Mr. Mandic sends in this one? Have you seen that document?
6 A. Both were high-ranking officials of the MUP of the Socialist
7 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina. What is there for me to assess there?
8 Q. Well, no, I'm asking you if you saw a different dispatch sent by
9 the minister, Mr. Delimustafic, who was Mr. Mandic's boss at the time
10 still sent one minute later according to the fax header by
11 Mr. Delimustafic basically disavowing what Mr. Mandic is calling for
12 here? Have you seen that document? Did you know about that?
13 A. Well, that other document is my footnote number 206, isn't it?
14 That follows from the context of paragraph 169.
15 Q. No, Professor, I'm sorry. Your footnote 206 is a dispatch by
16 Delimustafic, but on the 10th of April -- and that is not the same one
17 that I'm talking about.
18 MR. HANNIS: Unfortunately, Your Honour, the one I'm talking
19 about is 1D136 which is not on my list of documents to be used with this
21 Q. But, Professor, absent leave of the Court or agreement from my
22 learned friends across the way, I can't show it to you, but I'm asking
23 you if you refer -- if you recall seeing a document sent the same day,
24 31st of March, by Delimustafic following up Mr. Mandic's dispatch and
25 disagreeing with it basically? Did you see that?
1 A. Well, I cannot speak from memory. I would like to see the
2 document and it would be no problem for me to comment then.
3 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, I'm in your hands. I did not have it
4 on the list but given the witness's request and it is a document in
5 evidence, I would ask that he be shown 1D136.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: No objection, Your Honour.
7 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Mr. Zecevic.
8 JUDGE HALL: Yes, please proceed.
9 MR. HANNIS:
10 Q. Okay, Professor, we'll bring that up on the screen for you. And
11 take your time to read it and let me know when you've finished.
12 A. I have read it.
13 Q. Had you seen it before today before reading it just now? Had you
14 seen it before?
15 A. Yes, of course I have. Now I remember.
16 Q. But you didn't cite this one in your report, did you?
17 A. Well, I can comment this document if necessary but then I would
18 need a couple of minutes to do so.
19 Q. No, but my question for the moment is: You did not cite this one
20 in your report, did you?
21 A. Not in this paragraph. Maybe elsewhere, but even if I haven't, I
22 have a position or an opinion about this document.
23 Q. Well, what is that opinion, other than your apparent opinion that
24 it wasn't worthy of including in your report?
25 A. Let me say right away, I said that on those days several very
1 interesting dispatches were sent out from the MUP. On the following day,
2 the collegium meeting took place with all the highest-ranking officials
3 of which only Alija Delimustafic was missing, only he was absent. And
4 all the MUP officials that were delegated by the three ruling parties
5 agree with the contents of the dispatch of the 1st of April. This to my
6 mind speaks about the very bad relations between these two gentlemen,
7 although one is minister and the other assistant minister. And some
8 allegations here concerning the MUP of the Socialist Republic of BH are
9 false because a year earlier Mr. Alija Delimustafic acted very
10 differently toward the MUP of the Socialist Republic of BH, very
11 different from what he says here. He accepted the fact that only SDA
12 personnel went or attended training in Croatia for months, although there
13 is a training centre at Vraca just outside Sarajevo where MUP members had
14 been trained for decades. Half of this dispatch to me looks like mere
15 sermon ising.
16 Q. Well, under your understanding of the Law on Internal Affairs and
17 the rules, what is the appropriateness of Mr. Mandic as assistant
18 minister sending out the dispatch he sent out a minute earlier than this
19 one? Any provision in the then existing rules or Law on Internal Affairs
20 to do that? Seems like Mr. Delimustafic would be appropriate to be upset
21 and sermonising about that.
22 A. I cannot go into the relations between the minister and his
23 assistant and who sent what kind of dispatch at what minute exactly, but
24 I could ask myself how the assistant can send out something and a minute
25 later the minister disavows it. This really wasn't something that I
1 analysed deeply.
2 Q. No, but in your direct examination by Mr. Zecevic when you were
3 talking about the 1 April dispatch that you referred to as the
4 instruction on reporting, which you say shows the collegium, apart from
5 Mr. Delimustafic, had agreed to this split, you said one of the reasons
6 that you found that document to be reliable was the fact that
7 Mr. Delimustafic apparently didn't make any complaint about it until the
8 10th of April, which is that other document you told me about in your
9 footnote 206, I think. 1D138. But you didn't mention this document that
10 sent the very same day where he is complaining about it. Don't you think
11 that's a significant omission on your part when you are reaching the
12 conclusion that Delimustafic didn't have a problem with what was
13 happening on the 1st of April?
14 A. I didn't call this document instruction on reporting. That's his
15 official name.
16 Q. No, I'm not saying you called this document that. I'm saying you
17 called 1D78, the 1 April collegium document, which you put in as your
18 Annex 9, is the one that you call instruction on reporting; correct?
19 A. Yes. Can I continue with my answer?
20 Q. Please.
21 A. In this analysis, I didn't deal with Alija Delimustafic as
22 minister of the interior and each and every one of his dispatches, but
23 considering the whole I wrote my report and the specific things that are
24 linked to this document. I said that I saw a great many documents but
25 only cited part of them in my footnotes. If I did not comment on this
1 document in my report, well, then you have my opinion that I stated
2 orally a minute ago.
3 Q. All right. Then let me show you another document that appears to
4 be related to all this. It's 65 ter number 20060.
5 MR. HANNIS: And, Your Honours, this was on my list at tab 16.
6 If we could have that up in e-court.
7 Q. Professor, while it's coming up, I will tell you that this
8 actually appears to be within this document three separate dispatches.
9 The first one you'll see is dated the 1st of April, 1992, and it's to all
10 the CSBs and the SJBs, police administrations and all the administrations
11 at headquarters. It says:
12 "Due to the occurrence of a certain number of employees being
13 absent from work for various reasons, this in some organisational units
14 and in particular after UZSK, the crime prevention administration
15 dispatch number 02-2482 of 31/03/1992," and you may recall that's the
16 number of Mr. Momcilo Mandic's dispatch on the 31st that we looked at a
17 few minutes ago, "in the view of the overall security situation in the
18 republic, the professional collegium requires heads of all organisational
19 units and renders them responsible for the creation of normal working
20 conditions ..."
21 And you'll see 1, 2, 3 -- 13 names, I believe, and 12 signatures.
22 Would you agree those persons named are the high-ranking members of the
23 MUP who would be part of the professional collegium of the MUP at that
25 A. Yes, they were high-ranking officials in the collegium.
1 Q. And it appears that we have signatures by all the names except
2 the name of Mico Stanisic? You see that?
3 A. I see that as well.
4 Q. It seems to me that this is sort of the appropriate format for a
5 dispatch purported to be coming from the collegium to go out? By that, I
6 mean it has the names of everyone and it has the signatures. Wouldn't
7 that lead you to conclude that this is an authentic document?
8 A. This is a singular dispatch. This is the first time I see
9 something like this in my life. This is the first time I see everyone
10 who participated signing it. This is a singular example of everyone who
11 attended a meeting signing the document that ensued and my association
12 leads me elsewhere.
13 Q. Well, given the particular circumstances of the situation in
14 Bosnia and Herzegovina and in particular in the MUP of Bosnia and
15 Herzegovina at that time, does it seem inappropriate to you that this
16 might be an event where it was deemed that this was indeed a moment to
17 have all the names and signatures attached because it was a critical
18 moment in time for that MUP, wasn't it?
19 A. Yes, these were very important moments for the ministry, but, as
20 I'm saying, this is a singular dispatch. I'm now expressing my doubt and
21 saying that never did another dispatch leave the ministry with
22 everybody's signatures on it. That is a singular case that all the
23 participants in a collegium meeting signed this. Usually it's the
24 minister who signs it or his deputy or one of the assistants or somebody
25 who the minister authorises, but for everyone to sign it, this is a
1 singular document as far as I'm concerned.
2 Q. Well, now you are an expert on communications, are you telling
3 us -- you started to work for the MUP in April of 1992 so before this
4 date you hadn't even worked at MUP, do you know how the dispatches went
5 out from the BiH MUP prior to 1992? How many collegium documents have
6 you looked at from that MUP before 1 April 1992? 10, 100, 1.000? What
7 do you base your opinion on?
8 A. As you know, this is the second time I am appearing before this
9 Honourable Court. What I saw from the period of the functioning of the
10 Ministry of the Interior of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina,
11 I never saw any document of any kind that was signed by all the
12 participants, usually it is the person chairing the collegium meeting
13 that signs such a document. I'm not going to guess now whether I saw 3,
14 5, 7 or 57 documents of that kind, however, everything I saw, all the
15 documents leaving the ministry, I never saw any document that was signed
16 by all the participants involved, say all the participants in a
17 particular meeting.
18 Q. Okay. Let's go to annex number 9 to your report.
19 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Hannis.
20 MR. HANNIS: Yes, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE DELVOIE: Just one moment, please.
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 JUDGE DELVOIE: Yes, Mr. Hannis.
24 MR. HANNIS: Thank you. Before I do that, Your Honours, I'd like
25 to tender 20060.
1 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, Your Honours, I was just -- you see that this
2 document has a 65 ter number 20.000 something, so it's not on the
3 original list of the 65 ter documents for the Office of the Prosecutor.
4 This document we received it when it was announced by Mr. Hannis. Now,
5 Mr. Hannis was criticising me at the very beginning for not showing the
6 documents to some of the witnesses and I explained that we didn't have
7 the document. This document did not appear before in this trial and we
8 had Vitomir Zepinic, we had Momcilo Mandic and we had even the OTP expert
9 here, Professor Nielsen, and this document never surfaced before.
10 Now, this is the document that we received after this witness has
11 been -- has started his testimony. We haven't been disclosed this
12 document before. The Office of the Prosecutor has not put it on its
13 original 65 ter list. It bears the name of Mr. Mico Stanisic and if this
14 document was -- was as it appears to be, it should have been disclosed to
15 the Defence much earlier, therefore, I do object admitting this document.
16 MR. HANNIS: First of all, it does bear the name of Mr. Stanisic
17 but not the signature. We weren't required to provide the Defence every
18 document that had Mr. Stanisic's name on it. That could be any newspaper
19 article since 1990. Your Honour, I don't know why we didn't find it
20 sooner but it does appear to be authentic on its face, and the other
21 arguments, I say, should go to weight.
22 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, the witness have not seen this
23 document of course because we never had it in our possession before.
24 Now, I don't see any basis for introducing this document through this
25 witness because the witness haven't seen this document nor does he
1 comment on that at all.
2 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Hannis, do I understand you to say that you
3 just recently discovered this document?
4 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I'm sure we've had it in our possession
5 for a long time. I only recently discovered it. I don't know how long
6 it's been in the collection.
7 JUDGE DELVOIE: Do you agree that --
8 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, it appears that it's been in the
9 collection for ten years or more.
10 JUDGE DELVOIE: Do you agree that on the face of it, it should
11 have been disclosed during your case?
12 MR. HANNIS: Yes, I would have wanted to use it with
13 Christian Nielsen when he testified.
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 MR. HANNIS: I am sorry to interrupt, Your Honours, but my
16 Case Manager has brought to my attention that apparently we did disclose
17 it to the Defence in October of 2009. I can't jump up and down too much
18 about that because I didn't discover it myself but it has been disclosed.
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE HALL: In the interests of time, because of the issues that
21 this raises, we would mark it for identification at this stage. Pending
22 the outcome of -- there's a live issue before us about Rule 66 which we
23 expect to deliver in the course of this week.
24 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honour.
25 THE REGISTRAR: This would be Exhibit P2320 MFI'd, Your Honours.
1 MR. HANNIS:
2 Q. Now, Professor, I did want to talk about your Annex 9 which is
3 footnoted as Exhibit -- well, it's 1D78 is the exhibit. It's the 1 April
4 1992 dispatch which you have captioned as "Instructions on reporting."
5 Do you have your copy in your report in front of you, Professor? Do you
6 have the hard copy of yours?
7 A. I have annex number 9 in hard copy.
8 Q. Thank you. Now, we have on the screen 1D78, the copy of that
9 dispatch and I want to ask you some questions. On this original, I don't
10 see anywhere where it says "instructions on reporting," so that term, as
11 appears twice in your Annex 9, is something that you've added; is that
13 A. Well, that's what that document is called.
14 Q. Where is it called? Not in the document itself? Where do you
15 say --
16 A. Well, instructions on reporting, dispatch, it doesn't matter. I
17 typed out the original of the text here and that's what matters.
18 Q. Yes, but the problem -- go ahead. You had something more?
19 A. No, that was it. That's it.
20 Q. But, Professor, I disagree. I think it does matter. You've said
21 you picked out these documents for your annexes because they were the
22 most important and you've included in your annex something that is not in
23 the original document. Don't you see a problem with that?
24 A. That's what I entitled it because some other documents also refer
25 to this document and they say instructions on reporting, but the
1 important thing is that I conveyed or retyped this dispatch as is stated
2 in the original which we see in e-court on our screens.
3 Q. But, Professor, you did not type it as in accordance with the
4 original because you have several differences. You've added things,
5 you've changed things, and you've left things out, haven't you?
6 A. Well, from the MUP of the SRBiH up until the end where the
7 inverted commas are, I think that I typed it all out correctly and what I
8 wanted to point out I did, right, and that is why I put it in the annex.
9 I highlighted what it was that I wanted to highlight in that annex in
10 capital letters.
11 Q. Yes, that's another thing. In your Annex 9, it appears that you
12 have underlined and put in bold parts of the original that are not
13 underlined and in bold in the original; correct?
14 A. That's right. I did that so that every reader could be guided to
15 the key sentence of this document.
16 Q. And you see the original of 1D78 on the page in front of you.
17 Immediately under line 1 that says MUP SRBiH, there's a dispatch number.
18 What does it say after the dispatch number in the original? It's a word
19 that looks like "sluzbeno"?
20 A. DD, that's the mark of the dispatch, that is how it's sent
21 through this information system, probably.
22 Q. Professor, look at line 2. Dispatch number. What is the word
23 after dispatch number in line 2 of the original on the screen? It's
24 not --
25 A. Yes, that's the number, then one I see here P0044293, so I refer
1 to that number too. I mean, if it's on the document why do you have a
2 problem with me putting it there?
3 Q. Professor, what is the word immediately following the word "broj"
4 and the colon in line 2? Isn't that the Serbian word that means
6 A. Yes, "sluzbeno" means official.
7 Q. And you don't have the official in your Annex 9. Instead you've
8 put in a seven digit number, 0044293; right?
9 A. Yes, you see that is the number that I conveyed from the original
10 document. I didn't want to create any confusion there. You see that it
11 says P and then the numbers follows; isn't that right?
12 Q. Yes, Professor, and having looked at a lot of the documents from
13 the OTP, are you not aware that that number is an ERN, an evidence record
14 number, an interior number used by the OTP to stamp their documents? You
15 didn't know that?
16 A. Yes, but that's what I often wrote in my footnotes, and you will
17 see in many footnotes these numbers are in brackets simply to make things
18 easier for those who are going to prepare the report for further
19 publication. I always use these numbers. In many footnotes you have
20 these numbers that I found this way on documents. You can have a look
21 and we can have a look, we'll see many such cases. In footnotes such
22 numbers are placed in brackets. It was my attempt to help someone from
23 the Defence team who will be dealing with these reports to find those
24 documents more easily. There's no other reason for those numbers to be
25 there. For those reasons I placed those documents there, and I just need
1 a bit of time and I can find it in many other sources. I mean, in many
2 other footnotes. For example, footnote 218, the same thing, again this
3 number is in parentheses and in bold.
4 Q. That's fine to cite it in a footnote as a source, but you put
5 that number in the place where one would expect to see a number because
6 dispatches typically have numbers; isn't that correct?
7 A. Well, yes, but I have done my utmost to understand you as well as
8 I can while you were asking your last few questions. I copied the number
9 from the original document, even if it is a technical error, I don't see
10 whether that changes anything essential in this document.
11 Q. Well, it has to do with your level of professionalism, I would
12 say, and you've omitted the word "official," that's disappeared, and now
13 you've stuck the last seven digits of the that ERN into the place where
14 "official" appeared.
15 But let's go on to something that's maybe more substantive. In
16 the first paragraph in the original on the screen, can you go down in the
17 first paragraph, the seventh line that in B/C/S appears to have the words
18 "Republika Srpskog," you see that? You find that, Professor?
19 A. Yes, yes, I see it.
20 Q. And following on from that, after the word BiH, there's a comma
21 and a new phrase that starts with the word "stupio," s-t-u-p-i-o, and it
22 appears to me with the help from my language assistant that beginning
23 from that word to the next comma, that phrase has been omitted from what
24 you typed up and put in Annex 9; is that correct?
25 A. My Annex 9 is the processed version of this document. There's
1 the original and there's this. But the essence of the original document
2 is not disrupted.
3 Q. Professor, at best, at best it's very negligent and possibly more
4 than that, but at least misleading, the way you've described what you did
5 with your annexes you told us you pick out those documents because they
6 were important, you put this one in your annex, it has a quotation mark
7 around it leading one to believe that that is a correct, accurate quote
8 from the original. Don't you see that as a problem?
9 A. No, I don't see it as a problem if I have the original document.
10 I haven't made up anything in the annex, anything that's essential in
11 this document. That's why there is a footnote that shows how exactly it
12 is put here, and apart from that, Annex 12 isn't part of my footnotes
13 either. It's a separate annex. There's the original document and we can
14 discuss it without any problems.
15 Q. Professor, you are a teacher, what kind of grade would you give
16 one of your students who submitted a report like this with all the
17 various kinds of mistakes and errors we pointed out?
18 A. These are technical mistakes.
19 MR. HANNIS: Thank you. No further questions.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, here you go.
21 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Zecevic.
22 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, Your Honours, I was caught by surprise that
23 Mr. Hannis would finish so early because the last break he informed me
24 that he might be finishing today. If with the leave of the
25 Trial Chamber, I would like to have redirect examination tomorrow morning
1 if I may, perhaps 20 minutes, not more than that.
2 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. And your next witness is to follow
3 immediately after, isn't it? I haven't read your most recent e-mail
4 since our discussion on Thursday.
5 MR. ZECEVIC: That's correct, Your Honours, Professor Pasalic is
6 our next expert witness and he is ready to start probably tomorrow.
7 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. So we take the adjournment to tomorrow
8 morning at 9.00. Thank you.
9 [The witness stands down]
10 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.37 p.m.
11 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 10th day of May,
12 2011, at 9.00 a.m.