Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 2079

1 Monday, 29 September 2003

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The witness entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 9.06 a.m.

6 JUDGE LIU: Call the case, please, Mr. Court deputy.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is Case Number

8 IT-02-60-T, The Prosecutor versus Vidoje Blagojevic and Dragan Jokic.

9 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.

10 Today, we are going to continue the cross-examination by

11 Mr. Karnavas. I hope that we could finish the cross-examination today.

12 Mr. Karnavas.

13 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Your Honour.


15 [Witness answered through interpreter]

16 Cross-examined by Mr. Karnavas: [Continued]

17 Q. Good morning, Mr. Nikolic.

18 A. Good morning, Mr. Karnavas.

19 Q. On Friday we left off when I had handed you what had been

20 previously marked as Defence Exhibit, for identification purpose, D21/1.

21 I take it you didn't have an opportunity to look it over during the

22 weekend.

23 A. No, I did not have an opportunity of looking it over.

24 Q. Very well. If you could be so kind as to give it a quick look,

25 and then I would like to go over it with you.

Page 2080

1 THE REGISTRAR: Mr. Karnavas, I would like to correct the record.

2 It's Exhibit D22/1 I think you're referring to.

3 MR. KARNAVAS: Right, D22.

4 THE REGISTRAR: And not 21.

5 MR. KARNAVAS: Okay. You're absolutely correct.

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have taken a look at it,

7 Mr. Karnavas.


9 Q. Thank you, Mr. Nikolic. This document which has an identification

10 number at the top of it as DA01-0961 was provided to us by the Office of

11 the Prosecution. Do you know whether your lawyers had an opportunity to

12 share this document with you which obviously they had received as part of

13 their disclosure material?

14 A. Mr. Karnavas, I did not have an opportunity of acquainting myself

15 with this document up until the present time. That means I didn't have it

16 among the documents given to me by my lawyers.

17 Q. Very well. If we could just go through parts of the document

18 initially to lay a little bit of a foundation, at the top of the page, it

19 indicates a date of October 24, 1994, does it not?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And it indicates that it comes from the headquarters of the

22 Republika Srpska Army, does it not?

23 A. Yes, one can see that from the heading.

24 Q. Right. And if we were -- and it's titled -- it's titled

25 "Instruction on Management and Command of Security Intelligence Agencies

Page 2081

1 of Republika Srpska (RSA)," or in Srpski, it would be VRS. Does it not

2 say that?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. If you would be so kind as to flip over to the last page - I

5 believe it's a three-page document - at the bottom of the page, it has a

6 signature, does it not?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. It also has -- the copy is rather poor, but it would seem to

9 indicate that there was a seal along with the signature, does it not?

10 A. It would look like it. I can see the contours, so I suppose that

11 was a stamp, yes.

12 Q. And it appears that the person who signed it was Ratko Mladic.

13 Does it not?

14 A. All I can say is that it says "Commander, Lieutenant-General

15 Ratko Mladic," but I really can't say whether the signature is actually

16 his because I don't know General Mladic's signature so I can't actually

17 confirm that.

18 Q. All right. But right above the signature, it has: "Commander,

19 Lieutenant-General Ratko Mladic," and that's typed in?

20 A. Yes, I can see that.

21 Q. All right. And would this not appear to be an official document?

22 A. Of course it looks like an official document, because we can see

23 where it comes from and who the signatory is, so that's quite obvious.

24 Q. Very well. Now, on the last page, the last sentence right above

25 the stamp with the signature and the designation, the last sentence reads,

Page 2082

1 and correct me if I read it wrong: "This order is to be delivered and

2 introduced to all commanders of units, institutions, up to and including

3 battalions." Does it not state that?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And a battalion is within a brigade?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. And so at least it would appear --

8 A. However, Mr. Karnavas, this could mean something else, another

9 thing. It could refer to the individual infantry battalions, so I'm not

10 quite sure that this refers to battalions within the brigade, but

11 independent infantry battalions. But it is possible, so I don't exclude

12 that possibility.

13 Q. Right.

14 A. I think rather it refers to independent infantry battalions rather

15 than otherwise.

16 Q. Right. But from reading this last sentence, would it not appear

17 to be a logical conclusion that this document would have gone to a brigade

18 such as the Bratunac Brigade?

19 A. Yes. That is logical.

20 Q. All right. Now, if we could go through this document step by

21 step, and I'm going to please focus your attention - we won't spend much

22 time on the first part, the first paragraph - but I would like you to

23 focus your attention on the parts where it says "instruction," and then

24 they are enumerated.

25 On number 2, it reads, and if you could follow along with me: "A

Page 2083

1 person in direct command of a security intelligence agency is the

2 commander of the unit institution within which the agency operates." Does

3 it not state that?

4 A. Yes, it does.

5 Q. And from that sentence, does it not -- would we not conclude that

6 the commander they're talking about, in your instance, would have been

7 your commander, Colonel Blagojevic? Just the first sentence.

8 A. From this instruction, we can see a general principle discussed,

9 "commanders." Now, if you ask me in this particular case who my brigade

10 commander was, then of course it was Colonel Blagojevic, yes.

11 Q. Exactly. And that's precisely what I asked you, whether your

12 commander was Colonel Blagojevic and whether this sentence applies to him.

13 Right?

14 A. It applies to all the unit commanders and commanders of

15 institutions, which includes him, too.

16 Q. With respect to Momir Nikolic, that's who we're talking about,

17 with respect to Momir Nikolic, this paragraph, this sentence refers to

18 your commander, Colonel Blagojevic?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Thank you. Now, let's read on. "But with regard to professional

21 activities, they are under the centralised management of the security

22 intelligent agencies of the superior command. This emphasises their full

23 independence in accomplishment of intelligence and counterintelligence

24 tasks as well as in operational combining on the grounds of the authority

25 vested in them by law and the authority given by the competent superior

Page 2084

1 branch agencies regarding the implementation of methods and means used in

2 operation, in accordance with law." Does it not state that, Mr. Nikolic?

3 A. Yes, it does state that, Mr. Karnavas.

4 Q. And would it not be a fair, accurate, and complete interpretation

5 of what I just read to you that when it comes to professional activities,

6 you would be fully independent, does it not state that, this part right

7 here that I just read?

8 A. Yes, Mr. Karnavas. However, only within the framework of what it

9 says here. That means that it indicates their full independence in

10 accomplishment of intelligence and counterintelligence tasks as well as in

11 operational combining on the grounds of the authority vested in them by

12 law and the authority given by the competent agencies regarding the

13 implementation of methods. Just in that respect and in that portion.

14 MR. KARNAVAS: I don't want the witness eating the clock. I just

15 read the section to him, he's reading it back on the record. There is no

16 need for the witness if he wishes to give a qualification as to what I

17 just read I have no objection. For the witness to be reading as he did on

18 Friday in order to eat up the time, I object to that. He is intelligent,

19 he's read it, he can give his interpretation. That's all I'm asking, Your

20 Honour. I'm not asking him to reread it to us. We are not stupid in the

21 courtroom. We have read it; we understand it.

22 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Karnavas, I think you have to be patient to let

23 the witness give an explanation.

24 MR. KARNAVAS: I agree with you, Your Honour. I will be eminently

25 patient for an explanation, but I dare say that I will lose my patience if

Page 2085

1 he's just going to be reading what I just already read. It doesn't get us

2 anywhere.

3 JUDGE LIU: I think you know this instruction is also explanation

4 there. Maybe the witness could offer us more.

5 MR. KARNAVAS: I would hope so, Your Honour.

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, at the outset, I

7 stated that this document was not one that I had an opportunity to read

8 through and have --

9 MR. KARNAVAS: I object, Your Honour, to the speech making.

10 JUDGE LIU: Well, I think this issue is relevant because at first,

11 you pointed out this document is distributed to all the commanders of the

12 units, institutions, up and including the battalions. Am I right?

13 MR. KARNAVAS: Yes, which means --

14 JUDGE LIU: But this witness told us that he has never seen this

15 document before. There must be a reason for that. I think the witness is

16 also a commander of a unit.

17 MR. KARNAVAS: Very well, Your Honour.

18 JUDGE LIU: There's a point in it. You have to be patient.

19 MR. KARNAVAS: Okay. I will be.

20 JUDGE LIU: Yes.

21 Yes, Mr. Nikolic, you may continue.

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, as I was saying, I wish to

23 repeat what I tried to say a moment ago. As I said, I did not see this

24 document before. I did not have it as part of the documents disclosed to

25 me by the OTP and my lawyers in the Detention Unit. That's the first

Page 2086

1 point.

2 Secondly, Mr. Karnavas, from this document, I -- and let me say I

3 received hundreds of documents, instructions, and orders, and so on. All

4 I can do here now is to testify to this Trial Chamber as to whether I had

5 it, whether I used it only if on this document it were to say who this

6 document was addressed to and sent to. From this, we cannot see,

7 Mr. Karnavas, that this particular document, this set of instructions,

8 went to the commander in person. I can't see that stated anywhere. And

9 my next point, I cannot see that this document was sent to the security

10 intelligence organ in person. I cannot see from this document either that

11 it states that the security intelligence organ was informed of it.

12 So after seven or eight years, all I can do is to analyse the

13 document if it says that it was addressed to the commander and then to the

14 Bratunac Brigade, the Zvornik Brigade, and so on, other brigades as well,

15 and it expressly states that this document was addressed to the security

16 intelligence organ of the Bratunac Brigade. It is only at that point that

17 I would be able to say whether I actually had the document and was given

18 it. But to the best of my recollections, I can just say whether I know

19 about a document, whether it's familiar to me or not. But I can't

20 actually confirm whether I had it in my possession, and I claim that in

21 the Detention Unit I never had this document in my possession and I did

22 not have an opportunity to read it. That is why, and you're asking me

23 some very specific and concrete details, I have to read through it. I

24 really do have to read every sentence carefully in order to be able to

25 respond to your questions.

Page 2087


2 Q. Very well, Mr. Nikolic. Let's read on, and then after we go

3 through the various paragraphs, I won't ask you to interpret; I will just

4 ask you at the end one question, and that is: Were you aware what the

5 policy that's contained in this document.

6 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.

7 MR. McCLOSKEY: The witness has not had a chance to answer the

8 original question he was interrupted in answering. He probably doesn't

9 remember it any more. I'm not sure I do. But he was reading back a

10 sentence and was going to offer an explanation to it. And he was

11 interrupted and has not been given a chance to answer that.

12 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Karnavas, will you repeat your first

13 question.

14 MR. KARNAVAS: All right.

15 Q. Paragraph 2, from the document that the OTP gave us, gave to your

16 counsel, it says here that with respect to professional activities, you

17 would have full independence, and that aspect of it is emphasised, is it

18 not, in this paragraph? Yes or no.

19 A. Yes, it is emphasised.

20 Q. Now, later on, the last paragraph, it states: "Besides all

21 members of such agencies and services have lawful authority to proceed on

22 tasks within their scope of work, and those correspond to the authorities

23 of members of the RS ministry of internal affairs, state security

24 department;" does it not state that?

25 A. Mr. Karnavas, you've confused me again. We were talking about

Page 2088

1 paragraph 2.

2 Q. Paragraph 2, at the end of the -- paragraph number 2, at the very

3 end, the last sentence.

4 A. Yes, I see it now. I've read it.

5 Q. Okay. Now, paragraph 3, the first part: "It is an obligation of

6 all RSA units and institution commands as well as the obligation of other

7 army members to render any assistance to these agencies required to

8 accomplish their tasks without jeopardising through a single act the

9 security and protection of planned intelligence and counterintelligence

10 tasks and actions undertaken locally as well as in an enemy territory."

11 Does it not state that?

12 A. Yes, Mr. Karnavas.

13 Q. Can we conclude from reading that that the intelligence organ and

14 the security organ institutions that this document is referring to should

15 get the full cooperation and assistance from their commanders? If you

16 don't understand the question, just tell me.

17 A. Mr. Karnavas, what it says here is that it is the obligation of

18 all commands and units. It doesn't say "all commanders"; it says "all

19 commands." And that is the distinction that I have to make, and it is not

20 quite identical to what you said. "As well as other members of the army,"

21 you did say that, so I can confirm that. So it is the obligation of all

22 commands and units, and I can explain what this specifically means, if

23 necessary.

24 Q. But it says -- it begins by saying "it is an obligation..." In

25 other words, can we assume or conclude that they don't have a choice, it's

Page 2089

1 not an option; it is an obligation? They must.

2 A. Mr. Karnavas, all these obligations are defined by the rules of

3 service in the armed forces. And there's nothing new here, absolutely

4 nothing new. What we are reading now is defined in the rules of service

5 regarding the work of the security organs and the rules of service

6 regarding security and intelligence. So there's nothing new that this

7 instruction defines that is not already covered by the rules of service.

8 I know --

9 Q. Excuse me, Mr. Nikolic, did I ask you whether there was anything

10 new --

11 MR. McCLOSKEY: Your Honour, that's the third time this morning.

12 I know he doesn't want to hear from this witness, but...

13 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, that's absolutely incorrect. The

14 question was quite clear.

15 MR. McCLOSKEY: It's a little early for this kind of

16 argumentativeness, please.

17 THE INTERPRETER: Would the counsels please not speak at the same

18 time.

19 JUDGE LIU: I'm not allowing that the counsels argue with each

20 other in front of a Judge. If there's any problem, just refer to us.

21 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, I asked a specific question. I was

22 directed on Friday by the Trial Bench to ask specific concrete questions.

23 I asked a specific concrete question. I'm getting a historical analysis

24 of what the rules are. That's not what I asked. I didn't ask whether

25 there was something new in this. I asked whether the word "obligations"

Page 2090

1 means that they are obliged. Now, either the gentleman understands the

2 question and he can answer it, or he cannot understand it and I wish to

3 remind the Trial Chamber that this Prosecutor here entered into an

4 agreement with him and his lawyers, and he agreed that he was going to

5 testify truthfully and honestly and completely and forthrightly. And that

6 means not trying to evade and dodge the questions, Your Honour. That's

7 all I'm saying.

8 JUDGE LIU: I think that the witness is going to help us as much

9 as possible. And when you ask a question, you should allow the witness to

10 give you a very concise explanation why he did that.

11 Mr. Nikolic, try to make your answer as concise as possible

12 because this is a question/answer proceeding, and you have to be directed

13 or led by the counsel.

14 Yes, Mr. Karnavas.

15 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Your Honour.

16 Q. Now, it goes on in the same paragraph: "Simultaneously, it is a

17 duty of the members of the security intelligent agency to directly inform

18 the superior commanders, to a necessary extent, on the data, assessments,

19 and observations, related to security of units institutions."

20 Mr. Nikolic, is that what the statement -- is that what is stated

21 in this document?

22 A. Yes, Mr. Karnavas, that is what it says.

23 Q. I would like to go to paragraph 4. Second part of the paragraph

24 reads: "All wires and mail of the security intelligence command members

25 are to be hand-delivered, these persons only and no other authority of

Page 2091

1 command, including the commander, has the right of inspection of the

2 contents. The method and the extent to which the content of these

3 telegrams or mail will be introduced to a command or another commanding

4 body will be regulated only, and no one but the competent security

5 intelligence agencies." Does it not state that, Mr. Nikolic?

6 A. Yes, that is what it says, Mr. Karnavas.

7 Q. Let's go to paragraph 5, now, this paragraph is sectioned off,

8 so --

9 MR. McCLOSKEY: I'm going to object.

10 JUDGE LIU: Yes.

11 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. Karnavas has a duty in the Rule to put his

12 point to the witness. If he has a point in regarding paragraph 5, he has

13 a duty under these rules to ask him about it, not just have him parrot

14 back what the rules say.

15 JUDGE LIU: There are two ways to do it. One is paragraph by

16 paragraph. The other -- maybe after all those confirmations of what is

17 written in this document, Mr. Karnavas will drive his nail.

18 MR. KARNAVAS: Absolutely, Your Honour.

19 JUDGE LIU: I hope so.

20 MR. KARNAVAS: That's exactly what I'm going to be doing.

21 JUDGE LIU: Okay. You may proceed.

22 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Your Honour.

23 Q. Number 5, it says: "Personal policies and in-service management

24 of members of these agencies is under the exclusive authority of the

25 commander of RSA or VRS command and assistant commander of RSA command for

Page 2092

1 security intelligence. In relation to this, security intelligence sector

2 of RSA command decides on the security intelligence agencies members'

3 transfers, assignments, and special tasks within their scope of

4 activities." Does it not state that?

5 A. Yes, that is what it states, Mr. Karnavas.

6 Q. Then the next part says: "Commander of units and institutions of

7 RSA whose subordinates include members of the aforementioned agency may be

8 consulted on these issues and give suggestions, but will make no decisions

9 on them." Does it not state that?

10 A. Yes, it does.

11 Q. The next point: "Commanders of units and institutions may impose

12 stimulating penalties and other measures against members of such agencies

13 upon compulsory consultation with the first in command in the service."

14 It states that, does it not?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Now, from this, would it appear that if your commander,

17 Colonel Blagojevic, wished to punish you, he would have to make the

18 request through Popovic or Beara? Does it not state that?

19 A. Yes, one could interpret that in that way.

20 Q. Okay. And on number 7, if we go to number 7, it says: "Control

21 of expertise, legality, and propriety of work of security intelligence

22 agencies shall only be performed by the first in command of the security

23 intelligence affairs agency, except in the part of their work that relates

24 to the command/headquarters affairs." Does it not state that?

25 A. Yes, it does, Mr. Karnavas.

Page 2093

1 Q. Now, the latter part of paragraph 7 where it says "except in the

2 part of their work that relates to command or headquarters affairs," does

3 that not relate in general, in essence, to office work, paperwork?

4 A. In principle, no.

5 Q. All right. Would it be fair to assume or conclude that the first

6 part of paragraph 7 in essence states that it is Popovic and Beara that

7 assess your expertise and performance in the event you are up for a

8 promotion? Assess your expertise and performance; not recommend, but make

9 the assessment.

10 A. The way that you have put it is not right. With regard to

11 promotions, that is not so. It says here clearly: "Control of

12 expertise." This has to do within the tasks and duties within the scope

13 of work of the security organ.

14 Q. Let me just digress here for a second. You were a captain, were

15 you not?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. You weren't even a first-class captain, you were just a captain.

18 Right?

19 A. That's right.

20 Q. You were not a major?

21 A. What do you mean, I was not a major? What do you mean? If I'm a

22 captain, then of course I'm not a major.

23 Q. But you would on various occasions represent yourself to be a

24 major. That was part of your repertoire, was it not, when you were a

25 liaison with the DutchBat?

Page 2094

1 A. I can explain that to Their Honours, if you're asking me why I

2 represented myself as a major.

3 Q. First I would like to know whether you did. That was the

4 question. Did you not, in fact, Momir Nikolic, chief of intelligence and

5 security, represent yourself as a major, sometimes even higher, like a

6 chief of staff, maybe even a general? Did you not do that, in fact, sir,

7 when you were -- back then in 1995 and before?

8 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.

9 MR. McCLOSKEY: Again, that is another three-or four part

10 question. Some of it assumes facts that are not in evidence. He has a

11 duty when he asks these questions that there be some basis in fact. I

12 don't recall anyone ever saying that Momir Nikolic represented himself as

13 a general.

14 MR. KARNAVAS: He can answer the question, Your Honour.

15 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Karnavas, first, break your question.

16 MR. KARNAVAS: Very well.

17 JUDGE LIU: Then using the simplest language to express your

18 view --

19 MR. KARNAVAS: Very well.

20 JUDGE LIU: -- Don't make all of us get confused.


22 Q. Did you not represent yourself to be a major? Yes or no.

23 A. Yes, Mr. Karnavas, in contacts with representatives of the Dutch

24 Battalion.

25 Q. Did you ever represent yourself or lead them to believe that you

Page 2095

1 were the chief of staff of the Bratunac Brigade?

2 A. No, never did I lead them to believe regarding any of my duties.

3 Simply, I never told them the real truth about what I was doing, and I

4 worked as an intelligence officer. And that is quite normal.

5 Q. Right. You lied?

6 A. I didn't lie. It is one of the ways of protecting myself, my

7 functional duties, et cetera. It is one of the measures, customary

8 measures.

9 Q. All right. We're going to get into that. But let's get back to

10 this, and we'll get into that area.

11 Now, on paragraph 8, the last paragraph, we're back to this

12 document here that has been marked for identification purposes as

13 D21/1 -- D22/1, sorry, Mr. Registrar. Paragraph number 8 says:

14 "Commanders and other superior officers at all levels who manage security

15 intelligence agencies shall strictly abide by this order." Does it not

16 state that?

17 A. Yes, Mr. Karnavas, that is what it states.

18 Q. All right. Now, having -- now that we have gone through this

19 document, one general question: Were you familiar with the policies that

20 are set in this document when you were operating as a security and

21 intelligence -- the chief of security and intelligence of the Bratunac

22 Brigade around July of 1995? Yes or no.

23 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection to the form of the question, Your

24 Honour.

25 JUDGE LIU: Yes.

Page 2096

1 MR. McCLOSKEY: This insistence on yes or no questions has been

2 dealt with by the Court. That is not a proper question.

3 JUDGE LIU: Well, it's not a yes or no question. Of course

4 Mr. Karnavas will allow the witness to give an explanation because it's a

5 complicated matter.

6 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, I have been giving the witness

7 opportunities to explain. First, if he could say yes or no. If he says

8 no, then I will ask him how is it possible? If he says, maybe we'll have

9 a discussion on that point. But first we need to get to whether he knows

10 the policies in here. We know he hasn't read it. We know he hasn't seen

11 it.

12 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Karnavas, I think there's maybe a cultural

13 difference. In some cultures, it's very difficult to answer a question

14 beginning with yes or no. But anyway, we will hear what the witness is

15 going to tell us.

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have already partly

17 tried to answer this question. As regards this document, I have already

18 said that I did not have occasion to have it at my disposal here and that

19 while I held this position in the command of the Bratunac Brigade, there

20 were many documents, orders, and instructions directed towards the organ

21 of which I was the chief.

22 On the basis of this -- these instructions that I now have in

23 front of me, I cannot assert that I received them. Regards all these

24 duties and obligations, I remember how they are defined in the rules of

25 service, which I used. So I can say that this regulation of matters is

Page 2097

1 nothing new for me. I was familiar with my obligations and duties and

2 other matters defined by these instructions even before these instructions

3 arrived. I would state that on the first page, it says that these

4 instructions were forwarded to the commander and for the information of

5 the intelligence and security organs. And if that was so, I should have

6 received it, and I would know of it. So that would briefly be my

7 explanation with regard to this document.


9 Q. One follow-up question, Mr. Nikolic, because I want to make sure

10 that I understand and everyone else here understands the answer that you

11 just gave. Though you did not see this document that was signed by

12 General Mladic and directed at least in part to your sector, it is your

13 position today that everything that's contained in this particular

14 document you already knew and was in compliance of or applied while you

15 were a member of the chief of intelligence and security of the Bratunac

16 Brigade back in July 1995?

17 A. Mr. Karnavas, again, you have stated something that I did not say,

18 that it was partially addressed to my service. I have already answered

19 that question, that it was addressed to the intelligence and security

20 organ. I would know that if it said so on this document, that it was sent

21 to the heads of intelligence and security organs of the brigade. In that

22 case, I would tell you with certainty it was sent to my brigade, to me in

23 person, and I received it.

24 As it is, neither you nor I can see to whom it was addressed, that

25 it was sent to the commander it doesn't say, nor does it say that it was

Page 2098

1 sent to the chief of intelligence and security. So I cannot claim that it

2 arrived and that I had it because I really don't remember. Hundreds of

3 wires and telegrams, demands and instructions reached the brigade.

4 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, that wasn't my question. My question

5 was whether he understood the policies that are contained in this

6 document. I just wanted that answer. He has already indicated to us that

7 he didn't receive it. I accept that answer, that he didn't see it. All I

8 want to know specifically what's contained in this document, the policy

9 matters, did he know them at the time and if so, did he apply them?

10 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Karnavas, I think the witness has already answered

11 your question. The transcript is very clear. He said I was familiar with

12 my obligations and duties and other matters defined by those instruments

13 even before those instructions arrived.

14 MR. KARNAVAS: Very well, Your Honour.

15 Q. Let's move on to another topic, Mr. Nikolic. From the -- I

16 understand it that before coming here today and before making your

17 agreement with the Prosecution, you spent considerable time, you, your

18 lawyers, and the Prosecutor, negotiating, did you not?

19 A. Yes, that's right.

20 Q. In fact, negotiations began sometime in November, did they not?

21 They began last year?

22 A. I really don't know the exact date. I don't know.

23 Q. I'm not asking for a specific date. I'm asking for a month. Did

24 they not start back early November, say, around November 5? Somewhere

25 around there, first week of November?

Page 2099

1 A. I repeat again, I don't remember whether it was November or

2 December the negotiations started. Several months ago, and I really

3 cannot tell you exactly when.

4 Q. And it took approximately six months or so for you, your lawyers,

5 and the Prosecutor to reach an agreement that you found acceptable. Is

6 that not a fact?

7 A. It took as long as it did. So we started the negotiations. I

8 didn't keep track of the number of months. We started, we negotiated, and

9 in the end we reached an agreement. And that's it.

10 Q. Before we reaching this agreement, at your disposal you had the

11 disclosure material, at least the part that your lawyers shared with you?

12 A. Yes, yes, Karnavas, I did.

13 Q. And you spent literally hundreds of hours with your lawyers

14 discussing parts of the document that were disclosed to you. Is that not

15 a fact?

16 A. With my lawyers, I spent as many hours as they, or rather I and my

17 lawyers thought we needed to prepare ourselves with respect to my defence.

18 Now, how many hours that took, I really didn't add up. Whether it was

19 hundreds, I really don't know. But in any event, we did meet very

20 frequently and regularly.

21 Q. And I take it if we were to go to the Detention Unit and get the

22 records as to when and how often and for how long your lawyers met with

23 you, we would have a better ballpark figure as to the exact amount of

24 hours that you spent with your lawyers discussing your defence, as they

25 should be doing because that's part of their job. Right? The Detention

Page 2100

1 Unit would have those records, would they not?

2 A. Yes, of course, they probably have those records.

3 Q. All right. And in the course of discussing the disclosure

4 material with your lawyers, it became fairly obvious what the

5 Prosecution's theory of the case was with respect to Momir Nikolic, did it

6 not?

7 MR. McCLOSKEY: Your Honour, I am going to object to the relevancy

8 of going into the client/counsel privilege in preparing for their defence.

9 I don't see how it ties into their plea agreement.

10 MR. KARNAVAS: It will tie in, Your Honour.

11 MR. McCLOSKEY: The client/counsel privilege still exists, and I

12 have no idea of the relevance of that last question. Or the propriety of

13 it.

14 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Karnavas, I think I have to remind you that the

15 witness gave up many of his rights. But he kept his right to have his

16 counsel represented. So you should respect the privileges between counsel

17 and his client.

18 MR. KARNAVAS: I do, Your Honour.

19 JUDGE LIU: If this question is not extremely crucial to your

20 case, I hope you could skip it.

21 MR. KARNAVAS: I'll go about it in another way, Your Honour.

22 Q. At some point, you began to meet with the Prosecutor, did you not?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. We don't have a tape-recorded statement of what exactly you and

25 the Prosecutor and your lawyers talked or negotiated or bargained over, do

Page 2101

1 we?

2 A. I don't know that. I don't know whether you have that or not.

3 Q. Okay. Whose choice -- so you don't know, when you were present in

4 the room speaking Mr. McCloskey and his folks, you were not aware that

5 there was not a tape recorder there?

6 A. I did know that, Mr. Karnavas, yes.

7 Q. Okay. Yes, you knew that there wasn't a tape recorder there

8 because you and your lawyers had insisted that whatever went on in that

9 particular room was between those who are in that particular room at that

10 particular time. Isn't that correct?

11 A. I did not reach an agreement with respect to that matter. I was

12 invited, that is to say, I was informed that the talks would begin with

13 the Prosecutor in the presence of my lawyers. As to the procedure around

14 all this, what obligations each party had, I really don't know. I can't

15 say. Quite simply, that was procedure that I followed and accepted, and I

16 didn't know whether anything was to be recorded or not at that point in

17 time. So I behaved as I was asked to do. I talked to them.

18 Q. So would it be fair to say that respect to those matters, those

19 matters were decided by your lawyers and Mr. McCloskey as to whether it

20 should be tape-recorded or not tape-recorded, whether we should have a

21 transparent process or a nontransparent process?

22 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.

23 MR. McCLOSKEY: Asking the witness to speculate on matters the

24 witness has already talked about not knowing anything about.

25 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Karnavas, I believe that you could not get

Page 2102

1 more.

2 MR. KARNAVAS: Very well.

3 Q. I'm going to skip ahead a little bit, and then we'll come back.

4 The Prosecutor asked you on the last day when he was questioning you about

5 certain -- a certain information report prepared by his investigator,

6 Mr. Bursik. Do you recall that?

7 A. Yes, I do recall that.

8 Q. Okay. And in fact, Mr. Bursik went over part of his information

9 report with you, did he not?

10 MR. McCLOSKEY: Excuse me, Your Honour, just to clarify the

11 record.

12 JUDGE LIU: Yes.

13 MR. McCLOSKEY: I know counsel meant to say when I was questioning

14 him at trial, and just so we know that because there was a lot of

15 questioning, and I'm not sure you were here at that point. So I just

16 wanted to clarify that.

17 JUDGE LIU: Yes, yes. Make some clarification for us.

18 MR. KARNAVAS: Yes, Your Honour.

19 Q. You met with the Prosecutor several days - I think it was four or

20 five days - proofing what you had said on previous occasions in

21 preparation for trial. Isn't that the case?

22 A. We talked about different subjects relating to the factual basis,

23 and we also discussed other matters, too.

24 Q. Right. And one of the matters that was discussed was an

25 information report prepared by Bruce Bursik of the OTP Office. Isn't that

Page 2103

1 a fact?

2 A. Yes, we did discuss that piece of information, too.

3 Q. Mr. Bursik had been in the room while you were discussing or

4 debriefing Mr. McCloskey prior to reaching a plea agreement with him.

5 Isn't that a fact?

6 A. Mr. Bursik was in the room when we started our conversation, as

7 far as I remember. And after that, for a time, he wasn't in the room.

8 There were others, other associates of Mr. McCloskey. And that is the

9 truth.

10 Q. But you know who Mr. Bursik is?

11 A. I do know because every time we would meet, those present would be

12 introduced to the people in the room we held our discussions in.

13 Q. Right. Now, as a result of these discussions and negotiations

14 that you've had with Mr. McCloskey, the end result was a preparation of a

15 statement of facts and acceptance of responsibility which was attached to

16 a motion filed with the Court. Is that correct?

17 A. I really don't know. Don't ask me about the order in which these

18 matters took place. I know that we talked. After that, I decided to

19 acknowledge my guilt. And after that, my lawyer saw to the administrative

20 and legal portion of it. Also, don't ask me about that, I can't actually

21 say. I don't know the legal procedure set in place for that kind of

22 thing. But we did discuss matters. I decided to enter a plea of guilty.

23 Afterwards, my lawyers went around going about the business that they were

24 supposed to do with respect to various agreements and additions, annexes,

25 or whatever they're called. I don't really know.

Page 2104

1 Q. Okay. Well, the order is important, Mr. Nikolic, so let's walk it

2 through. The Prosecution filed a motion May 6th, I believe, and then May

3 7th containing a statement of facts and acceptance of responsibility as

4 Annex A to that document. Do you recall that?

5 A. Yes, I do recall that.

6 Q. Sometime thereafter, sometime thereafter, Mr. McCloskey and

7 Mr. Bursik, and perhaps others, came over for a -- not taking a statement,

8 but sort of a question and answer session where they were trying to plug

9 in some holes to what you had already given them in the statement of

10 facts. Do you recall that? I believe I can give you the dates. May

11 28th, 29th, and 30. Do you recall that?

12 A. I think that those were the dates when we had our discussions, if

13 I remember correctly.

14 Q. All right. Well, your discussions were not tape-recorded. That

15 we know as a fact. What we do know also is that we have been provided by

16 the Office of the Prosecution with a transcript of a tape-recorded -- it

17 says: "Conversation between Bruce Bursik and Momir Nikolic." And in

18 this, it's actually Peter McCloskey asking you most of the questions. Do

19 you recall seeing that document with your lawyers?

20 A. If, Mr. Karnavas, you're talking about an information report, and

21 Mr. Bursik tendered that, then I have seen that piece of paper.

22 MR. KARNAVAS: Just a second, Your Honour. I seem to have

23 misplaced my exhibit list here. We'll do it another way.

24 If we could provide you with P82, what has been marked as P82, if

25 you could just look at that, please.

Page 2105

1 Q. Do you recognise that, Mr. Nikolic?

2 A. Yes, Mr. Karnavas, I do recognise this.

3 Q. And what is it, please, for the record?

4 A. This is a statement by Momir Nikolic, along with a joint proposal

5 for considering the agreement on a guilty plea between Momir Nikolic and

6 the OTP.

7 Q. All right. Now, is that the statement of facts that we're talking

8 about, the statement of facts and acceptance of responsibility? Tab A.

9 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Karnavas, I wonder whether we have the right

10 document just furnished to us because we got P81. That is annex B or Tab

11 B. We should come to annex A, right?

12 MR. KARNAVAS: Right, Your Honour.

13 JUDGE LIU: I wonder if the witness was provided with the right

14 document.

15 MR. KARNAVAS: The witness may have been, but I don't know if we

16 have provided you with that, Your Honour. If I may have a moment, Your

17 Honour.

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have a statement

19 which is indicated as being Tab B.

20 JUDGE LIU: Yes, there's no problem. My question is whether you

21 have annex A or Tab A.

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour, I don't have it

23 here.


25 Q. Do you see that, Mr. Nikolic?

Page 2106

1 A. Yes, I do.

2 Q. Do you recognise this?

3 A. I see it and I recognise this document.

4 Q. Okay. And this document is the statement of -- contains the

5 statement of facts and acceptance of responsibility we talked about?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Now, if I could -- if we could provide you with D33/1, D33/1, take

8 a look at it and let us know whether you recognise that.

9 MR. KARNAVAS: Excuse me, Your Honour.

10 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Karnavas, now it's time for a break. Would you

11 please furnish the witness with the document and ask him to go over it

12 during the break. Then we come back for your questions.

13 MR. KARNAVAS: If it would be convenient, I could furnish him with

14 all the documents for this chapter of my cross-examination, and we can

15 move along. And I apologise for the delays.

16 JUDGE LIU: Yes.

17 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Your Honour.

18 JUDGE LIU: So --

19 MR. KARNAVAS: You want me to do it on the record, furnish him

20 with all the documents now?

21 JUDGE LIU: You may go through the Registrar during the break.

22 MR. KARNAVAS: But not during the break or during the break?

23 JUDGE LIU: During the break.

24 MR. KARNAVAS: During the break.

25 JUDGE LIU: And then we will come back and you may ask your

Page 2107

1 questions.

2 MR. KARNAVAS: And I apologise for the Monday-morning delays.

3 JUDGE LIU: Yes, we'll resume at quarter to 11.00.

4 --- Recess taken at 10.16 a.m.

5 --- On resuming at 10.47 a.m.

6 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Blagojevic, please continue. I'm sorry, I'm

7 terribly sorry. Yes, Mr. Karnavas.

8 MR. KARNAVAS: That's okay. That's all right.

9 Q. Mr. Nikolic, during the break, did you have an opportunity to look

10 over some documents? Were any documents presented to you?

11 A. Yes, Mr. Karnavas. I was given the transcript of the conversation

12 dated the 15th of December, 1999.

13 Q. Okay. If it's okay with you, I would like to go through the

14 documents one by one. If you could -- and we'll get to that one dealing

15 with 1999 with Mr. Ruez. But for the record, and I'm referring now to

16 P82, do you see -- do you have with you what is titled, "Statement of

17 facts and acceptance of responsibility," which was part of the plea

18 agreement?

19 A. Yes, Mr. Karnavas, I do have that.

20 Q. And I believe that's dated May 6th. That's 2003. Is that

21 correct? It should be right --

22 A. Yes, Mr. Karnavas, yes.

23 Q. And then there is D33/1, conversations between Bruce Bursik and

24 Momir Nikolic. Do you have that in front of you? And for the record,

25 that's D33/1. Do you see that?

Page 2108

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And that has a date of 28 May, 2003, does it not?

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

4 Q. And I believe -- you've seen this document before, have you not?

5 A. Yes, I have seen it before.

6 Q. And I think if you would flip to it, flip through it, you need not

7 do it now, but at least on the English version, on 114, page 114, we see

8 the date of 30 May 2003 as part of tape 2, side B. Would it be fair to

9 say that these conversations between you and Mr. McCloskey, though it's

10 titled "Bruce Bursik and Momir Nikolic" took place during the period 28th

11 May, 29th, and 30th May 2003?

12 A. Mr. Karnavas, you said page 114, didn't you?

13 Q. Yes, in the English version. I apologise. If you would flip

14 through it, the last date of your conversations with Mr. McCloskey and

15 Bruce Bursik were --

16 MR. McCLOSKEY: Just to clarify.

17 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.

18 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. Karnavas, you should have a very brief section

19 of 12 June as well.

20 MR. KARNAVAS: I just noticed that.

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I've found it. I have.


23 Q. Okay. And then I believe if you flip a few pages further down, it

24 notes that you also met again, again with Mr. McCloskey and others, on 12

25 June 2003. Is that correct?

Page 2109

1 JUDGE LIU: In the B/C/S version, it's on page 132.

2 MR. KARNAVAS: I apologise, Your Honour, for not having that

3 handy.

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I've found that, too.


6 Q. Okay. And it's my understanding, at least from the receipts that

7 we have received from the Prosecution, it was delivered both in English

8 and B/C/S on June 20th, 2003. Would that be more or less your

9 understanding based on your memory of the events?

10 A. I don't know exactly when I received it, but I know that I

11 received this in the Detention Unit. But I really can't remember the

12 date.

13 Q. Very well. Now, if you could kindly look at what has been

14 previously marked as D29/1, it's titled "information report." Do you see

15 that?

16 A. "Information report," yes.

17 Q. All right.

18 A. A report from Mr. Bursik.

19 Q. That's correct. And does it not have the date on it of June 23,

20 2003?

21 A. Just let me have a look.

22 Q. It's on the very first page, 23/06/2003. Do you see that?

23 A. Yes, I do see that, Mr. Karnavas.

24 Q. Okay, thank you. Now, from our receipts, it appears that the

25 English version was delivered on June 24th, and the B/C/S version would

Page 2110

1 have been prepared and delivered on July 4. That is subsequent to your

2 conversations with Mr. McCloskey and Mr. Bursik back on May 28, 29, 30th,

3 and June 12th. Would it be correct, sir? Do you recall when exactly you

4 received it?

5 A. I don't remember exactly what the date was when I received this,

6 but I think that I saw this document, or rather, I received this document

7 for the first time from my lawyers. They were the ones that gave it to me

8 first.

9 Q. From the dates that we have, it would appear that this information

10 report would have been given to you after your conversations with

11 Mr. McCloskey and Bruce Bursik.

12 A. Well, that's what it says here, when it was submitted. According

13 to the dates, it was after the conversation, yes.

14 Q. All right. Then there was one last -- we'll go through all of

15 these. There's another document.

16 MR. KARNAVAS: For the record, we're talking about D30/1. It's

17 proofing notes. This is a letter dated September 16.

18 Q. And do you have that, sir? Do you recall seeing that, sir?

19 A. Mr. Karnavas, I have here the English version, I think, and

20 another document attached to it. But I don't think it has anything to do

21 with this particular document.

22 Q. Okay. Well, if that is the case, I apologise, and we'll make one

23 available to you right now. Do you have that, sir?

24 A. Yes, I do have that. It says: "Report compiled during the

25 proofing session on the 10th, 11th, 12th, 15th, and 16th September 2003."

Page 2111

1 Q. Right. And if my memory serves me correct, you might have met

2 with the Prosecution after this, but I might be wrong. You know, after

3 receipt of this?

4 A. As far as I remember, after this I don't think we met again,

5 although I don't exclude the possibility. But as far as I remember it, I

6 don't think there were any more meetings after this in the Detention Unit.

7 Q. Okay. Now, let's stick with this document, if you will. On page

8 2 of the English version, and it should be page 2 or page 3 of yours, it

9 indicates that "during the proofing sessions," and I'm referring to, for

10 Madam Usher, on page 2, it says "Re: Information report by investigator

11 Bruce Bursik." So if you could focus your attention on that portion.

12 Do you see that section, sir?

13 A. Yes, I do.

14 Q. The first sentence says: "The witness points out that the report

15 contains a number of mistakes," does it not, sir?

16 A. Yes. I said something to that effect, but not quite that

17 literally.

18 Q. Right. And the information report that we are referring to is the

19 information report that you have in front of you which has been marked for

20 identification purposes D29/1. Are we not talking about that information

21 report?

22 A. It is Mr. Bursik's report.

23 Q. Right. Those were, for everybody here in the courtroom, those

24 were notes taken by Mr. Bursik during the interviewing sessions that you

25 held with him, the Prosecutor, and your lawyers at the Detention Unit.

Page 2112

1 Those are the ones that were not tape-recorded. Is that not a fact?

2 A. Yes, that's right, Mr. Karnavas.

3 Q. And it states further down in that same section: "The witness

4 says that there were more mistakes like this," pointing to a mistake

5 referenced earlier. "They were not discussed in the course of this

6 proofing session." Do you see that, sir?

7 A. Yes, I see that sentence.

8 Q. Okay. And it would appear from reading that sentence that during

9 the proofing session between you and your lawyers, you had some objections

10 as to what the Prosecutor's investigator had written down during your

11 conversations when you all were in the Detention Unit with no tape

12 recorder, and it was just you, the Prosecutor, and your lawyers, and an

13 interpreter, of course. Right?

14 A. Mr. Karnavas, I can tell you exactly what my objections were.

15 After having read these notes by Mr. Bursik in their entirety, and I said

16 during that conversation that there were quite a number of errors in the

17 translation and in the phrasing of sentences that I uttered during the

18 course of the conversations we had over several days. I said that, and I

19 also said that I really am unable to comment on the way in which

20 Mr. Bursik took those notes. They are his notes. I also told

21 Mr. McCloskey that with regard to the notes and the accuracy of those

22 notes, I'm unable to comment, and that I stand by what I said in my

23 statement when my statement was recorded.

24 So that is what we discussed at the time, what I said, and the

25 objections I made. And I wish to say once again to Their Honours that

Page 2113

1 anything that is not clear regarding Mr. Bursik's notes, they are his

2 notes. I don't know how he understood everything that I said because we

3 spoke about countless issues, and this was not in any chronological order.

4 He took notes in writing. And I didn't have occasion to discuss those

5 notes or to have insight into them as this was in English, and what I did

6 read in detail was the report, or rather the information that I received

7 in the Detention Unit. And I really cannot and do not wish to comment on

8 Bursik's notes, nor on the way he wrote them down, how he understood

9 things, what the translation was like, et cetera. These are all things

10 that I cannot comment on.

11 Q. Okay. And in fact, in fact, you said as much here under oath when

12 you were being directed by the Prosecutor on Tuesday, 23 September 2003.

13 Isn't that a fact?

14 Let me put it another way. I have a transcript here that was

15 provided to us by the Tribunal. On page 1835, and this was dated -- this

16 was the afternoon session when, Mr. President, you were unavailable. It

17 states here: "I have no further comment to add. I did go through the

18 notes, and I would prefer not to comment on the way that gentleman

19 compiled those notes." And I'm reading from lines 2 to 5.

20 Then you go on. You say: "However, I can confirm here now that

21 my words were accurately recorded and reflected in the transcript." And

22 then later on, you say: "I think there are a number of mistakes there in

23 that transcript because we spoke countless times of certain issues. We

24 went back to the same issues countless times. And I'm really not in a

25 position to comment on everything that's written there. These are the

Page 2114

1 gentleman's notes. That's my opinion. The notes are his, not mine. I

2 said whatever I said exactly in the way in which it is reflected in my

3 statement." And I have just read all the way down to line 13 on page 835.

4 Do you recall making that statement at the conclusion of your

5 direct examination by the Prosecutor?

6 A. I do remember, Mr. Karnavas, that I said what is stated in the

7 transcript, and I didn't say anything other than that now. Nothing

8 different from what I said in that transcript. So I'm unable to quote

9 exactly what I said five days ago, but I said more or less the same thing

10 just now, and I underline once again, Mr. Karnavas, that I cannot comment

11 on Mr. Bursik's notes because they are his notes.

12 Q. All right. Well, just so I have it straight, the only other

13 people that may be able to comment on Bursik's notes would be, for

14 instance, your lawyers that were there as witnesses. Right?

15 A. I don't know, Mr. Karnavas. I do not know exactly when my lawyers

16 were present. There were moments and days when they were not present, so

17 I can't say when exactly they were present and when they were not present.

18 Q. All right. So just so I have it right, am I to understand, are we

19 to understand that there were times when you were with Mr. Bursik and the

20 Prosecutor when your lawyers were not present?

21 A. No. My lawyers were there during a part of the preparations. And

22 certain meetings, they were not present.

23 Q. Okay. On May 28th, 29th, 30th, and I believe June 12th, we have

24 you giving a tape-recorded statement. Were your lawyers present then?

25 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.

Page 2115

1 MR. McCLOSKEY: Excuse me, just to clarify the record, there were

2 some mistakes on the dates of that tape-recorded statement, and Mr. Bursik

3 fixed those in an addendum that was provided to counsel. And you should

4 have that, or I've got a copy here if you'd like it.

5 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.

6 MR. KARNAVAS: Well, actually, and I appreciate the assistance.

7 God knows I could use all I can up here. But I was referring to actually

8 the May 28th statement, and not the one that was corrected by Mr. Bursik

9 which just coincidentally happened to have the same dates. But I

10 appreciate and I thank the Prosecutor.

11 Q. So, getting back to my question, the conversation that you had

12 with Mr. Bursik and Mr. McCloskey subsequent to you changing your plea was

13 tape-recorded, was it not?

14 A. Yes, the part that is in the transcript.

15 Q. Right. But when you were meeting with the Prosecution and your

16 team who were there to assist you during the negotiations on the statement

17 of facts, that part was never tape-recorded?

18 A. As far as I can remember, no, it was not.

19 Q. So at least while you disagree with Mr. Bursik in his information

20 report, would it not be fair to say that at least we have your own lawyers

21 as witnesses as to what you might have said when they were present in the

22 room when you were being -- when you were debriefing or briefing

23 Mr. McCloskey and his team?

24 A. Before the recording of that conversation, my lawyers, as far as I

25 can remember, were always present during the conversations and during the

Page 2116

1 recording of this transcript.

2 Q. Precisely. And because they were present and because there's no

3 tape-recording, and because now you dispute what Bruce Bursik has written

4 down as far as what you said, it would stand to reason that your lawyers

5 are indeed witnesses to those conversations, are they not?

6 A. Of course, while they were present at those meetings, yes.

7 Q. Okay. Now, one of your lawyers obviously speaks Srpski, your

8 language, B/C/S as it's known over here?

9 A. Yes, Mr. Karnavas.

10 Q. The other lawyer is an English speaker?

11 A. Yes, German and English.

12 Q. Okay. And Mr. McCloskey obviously, and Mr. Bursik, were

13 questioning you in English through a translator. Right?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And of course, your Defence team had their own translator to

16 assist both you and Mr. Londrovic while you were briefing the Prosecutor.

17 Is that correct?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. I take it since they were in the room and they heard everything

20 and they were witnesses, that they must have, upon receiving the

21 information report rushed to you, as your Defence lawyer, to point out the

22 numerous errors contained in Bruce Bursik's information report. Did they

23 do that, sir?

24 A. Yes, my lawyers and I discussed the mistakes which appeared in the

25 interpretation of what I had said.

Page 2117

1 Q. Okay. Was it them -- assuming that we are correct that the

2 English version was given to them on June 24th, and the B/C/S version was

3 given to you on July 4th, do you recall whether Mr. Londrovic or

4 Mr. Kirsch came to you to point out the errors that Mr. Bursik had made in

5 his information report? Did they come to you and say, "We have this

6 information report, we don't have it in B/C/S yet, but it contains

7 significant errors or numerous errors," however you want to put it? Did

8 they say that? Did that happen?

9 A. My lawyers, after we received this information report, discussed

10 with me, and together we agreed that in this information report there were

11 erroneous translations and interpretations. And the three of us discussed

12 this together.

13 Q. Of course, we're a little handicapped today because we don't have

14 any tape-recording that would verify or that would help us out in

15 determining whether you and/or your lawyers are incorrect, or whether it

16 is Mr. Bursik who is incorrect in what exactly was said by you, how it was

17 translated, and then how it was written down on paper?

18 A. Mr. Karnavas, I really don't see that I can be responsible for

19 something not being recorded. I simply acted in accordance with the

20 lawyers' instructions and as I was told I should do.

21 Q. And just for the record, I'm not accusing you of doing anything

22 wrong. But I'm merely making a statement or with an inflection, is that

23 we don't have a tape-recording to at least compare and contrast to see who

24 might be correct, who might be incorrect. We don't have that, do we?

25 A. Mr. Karnavas, I am describing here what happened, and I am doing

Page 2118

1 so when I have a chance to do that; that is to say, what is true and what

2 is not true. But I must tell you once again that all that I am saying now

3 is something that I discussed with my lawyer, and I have nothing more to

4 add. I did indicate that there were errors. I said that the

5 interpretation of what I said was not correct. My lawyers agreed with me.

6 And here, in this courtroom, I'm presenting this as errors that we

7 identified, that we discussed, and I also told Mr. McCloskey the things

8 that I disagreed with. And I also said that I didn't wish to comment on

9 Mr. Bursik's notes. He probably heard it like that, wrote it down like

10 that, and there's nothing I can do about that.

11 Q. Okay. And of course Mr. McCloskey heard what Mr. Bursik must have

12 heard and what your lawyers must have heard as well?

13 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.

14 MR. McCLOSKEY: I object, Your Honour. He's speculating on

15 material that is obvious and irrelevant. I don't know where we're going

16 from this. We were -- I think it's clear what was going on here.

17 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Karnavas.

18 MR. KARNAVAS: I'll ask another question, Your Honour.

19 JUDGE LIU: Yes.


21 Q. Now, you held your proofing sessions on -- at least according to

22 this document, there were several days here. The 10th, the 11th, the

23 12th, the 15th, and the 16th, was that the first time during those

24 proofing sessions that you brought it to Mr. McCloskey's attention that

25 you strongly or had some feelings, disagreements with Mr. Bursik's

Page 2119

1 recitation of what exactly you had said during those many sessions that

2 you held with him, the Prosecutor, and your lawyers?

3 A. Mr. Karnavas, I think that that was the first occasion I had to

4 tell Mr. McCloskey because I had no other occasion in view of the date

5 when I received the transcript and when I had the time to read it through

6 and to review it in detail. As far as I can remember, those were the

7 first days that we met after that; that is, Mr. McCloskey, his associates,

8 and myself.

9 Q. Okay. But of course it was provided to you on July 4th, so you

10 would have had July, August, and half of September to itemise in great

11 detail everything that you took exception with with respect to what

12 Mr. Bursik had written down, for your lawyers to present that to

13 Mr. McCloskey, right? Surely they had access to Mr. McCloskey, and they

14 certainly were meeting with you during that period.

15 A. I don't know whether my lawyers had any contacts with

16 Mr. McCloskey during that period. Possibly they did. I do know that they

17 had contacts with me. I don't think we had any throughout the month of

18 August. And I think that this was the first opportunity when we could

19 seriously discuss these things, that is, in September. I was the only one

20 who had all that time at my disposal, that is, from the moment I received

21 the document up until the time we had occasion to discuss it.

22 Q. Okay. Just to pick an example, if we could, and I'm going to

23 refer to page 8. It's in the English version. I don't know exactly what

24 page it would be in the B/C/S, but I'll read the statement that Mr. Bursik

25 attributes to you as having said to him, to your lawyers, to

Page 2120

1 Mr. McCloskey, during those sessions that you were having. It states,

2 page 8, and I'm referring to, for identification purposes, this is D29/1,

3 it says: "Nikolic states that on 12 July" --

4 A. Could you please --

5 Q. I truly apologise.

6 A. Among all these documents, it's a bit difficult to find my way.

7 What document are you talking about, Mr. Karnavas?

8 Q. I'm talking about the information report from Bruce Bursik. Now,

9 I apologise. I'm getting ahead of myself.

10 A. Page 8. I've found it.

11 Q. I don't know if it's going to be exactly on page 8. But if I

12 could read it, and then maybe you could look for that section, and then we

13 can see whether I've read it correctly. But it states, it starts with:

14 "Nikolic states that on the 12th July, he believes that Mladic, Krstic,

15 and Blagojevic met, as was their norm early each morning during this

16 period. He believes that the three officers discussed the execution

17 making it a pointless exercise for him (Nikolic) to return to Blagojevic

18 that morning to inform him of the execution plan."

19 Have you been able to locate that section, sir?

20 A. Yes, I've found it, Mr. Karnavas.

21 Q. Thank you. Now, this is a statement that claims that you stated

22 that every morning, you would have Mladic, Krstic, and Blagojevic sitting

23 around together having meetings throughout this period.

24 A. No, Mr. Karnavas. That was not my meaning. I said that in my

25 testimony, too, in connection with the meeting on the 12th because during

Page 2121

1 my testimony, I said that there was some dilemma in my mind as to whether

2 that meeting was held on the 12th or the 13th, was it the 12th and the

3 13th? And on the basis of insight into a document which I was shown by

4 the Prosecutor, I confirmed that the meeting as stated in that document

5 was indeed held on the 12th in the Bratunac Brigade. And I wish to add

6 the following: After such a long period of time, I really am unable to

7 mention all the meetings and everything I saw in the Bratunac Brigade

8 because from the moment the main staff officers arrived, there were so

9 many of them that it is very difficult to put them in chronological order.

10 As for this meeting every day early in the morning, I said the

11 following, and I explained that. I said that it was customary. If there

12 was a meeting on the 12th, then it was customary for the meetings of

13 commanders to be held early in the morning. And that is what I said.

14 Q. Okay. Could I get a question in now?

15 A. Yes, you can.

16 MR. McCLOSKEY: Your Honour, that is unnecessary commenting by the

17 counsel.

18 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Karnavas, just put your question.

19 MR. KARNAVAS: Very well, Your Honour.

20 Q. I'm referring to this section, this paragraph. I am not asking

21 you what you testified to or what you believe. I'm asking you to look at

22 what Bruce Bursik said that you said to all those folks in that

23 clandestine atmosphere that all of you were in where nothing was

24 tape-recorded and we have no way of verifying what exactly was said by you

25 or the others.

Page 2122

1 MR. McCLOSKEY: Object to the form of the question. He's pointing

2 his finger at the person, he's talking about clandestine, and he's asking

3 the witness a question he has already answered. This is not helpful.

4 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Karnavas, remember my instruction. I asked you to

5 put a specific question to this witness. But you make a comment there

6 that's not proper.

7 MR. KARNAVAS: Very well, Your Honour. I apologise.

8 Q. Mr. Nikolic, it states here categorically that on the 12th,

9 Mladic, Krstic and Blagojevic met as was their norm. As was their norm.

10 Those three people meeting together. That's what it says here, does it

11 not?

12 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.

13 MR. McCLOSKEY: Excuse me, Your Honour, he started it with another

14 statement, "It states categorically." That's a statement, not a question,

15 and it's also an incorrect statement, so again, objection to the form of

16 the question.

17 MR. KARNAVAS: I'll read it again.

18 JUDGE LIU: Yes.


20 Q. Does it not state here that you stated to Mr. Bursik, to the

21 Prosecutor, to your lawyers that on July 12th or 12th July, "he believes

22 that Mladic, Krstic, and Blagojevic met as was their norm early each

23 morning during this period"? Does it not state this in this document?

24 A. Mr. Karnavas, what I said exactly I repeated in my statement, the

25 one I gave with respect to this meeting. And when I was questioned by the

Page 2123

1 Prosecutor, I repeated that and stated it once again. And I should like

2 to emphasise once again that I cannot comment on the contents of

3 Mr. Bursik's report or notes. Call him into the courtroom for him to

4 explain what he wrote, why he wrote it, the way he wrote it and how he

5 understood it. Because I really can't comment on other people's notes.

6 And it's very difficult to comment on them, and I don't think anybody will

7 be able to comment on my own notes, what I thought at the time and what I

8 understood and so on.

9 Q. Can we call your lawyers as well, since they were witnesses so

10 they can testify under oath as to what you might have said and how the

11 negotiations went on during that six-month period between them and the

12 Prosecution? Can we call them?

13 A. I don't know whether you have the right to call them and what

14 rights you refer to. As far as I'm concerned, I am prepared to testify to

15 all these matters further, and it is up to Their Honours if there is any

16 need to call them in or not. I really can't say.

17 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Karnavas, we don't think it's necessary.

18 MR. KARNAVAS: Very well, Your Honour.

19 JUDGE LIU: I think -- could I come to this conclusion: There's

20 no difference or dispute concerning whether there's a meeting or not on

21 the 12th of July. But there's a difference whether it's a normal, routine

22 meeting or not. Am I right?

23 MR. KARNAVAS: Partly, Your Honour. Because it says the three of

24 them, "as was their norm," giving the impression that the three of them

25 every day were meeting. And that to me --

Page 2124

1 JUDGE LIU: I quite understand you. I quite understand you. I

2 think you made your point.

3 MR. KARNAVAS: I agree, Your Honour. And I apologise for

4 belabouring the point.

5 Q. Now, at some point when it became necessary to speak with the

6 Prosecution, you were advised by your lawyers that you needed to be

7 truthful.

8 A. Yes, that's right, Mr. Karnavas.

9 Q. And they certainly did not advise you to lie.

10 A. No, they did not.

11 Q. Or to, perhaps, equivocate, not tell the whole truth?

12 A. No, Mr. Karnavas. My lawyers advised me to tell the truth. They

13 acquainted me with all my rights and duties. They advised me on all legal

14 aspects in the matter. Everything, in fact, that comes under their

15 competence.

16 Q. Right. And they also went over the documents so at least you knew

17 at that point what the Prosecution had in store for you if you went to

18 trial.

19 A. Yes, my lawyers did send me that material in, all those documents,

20 or most of the ones that the OTP disclosed to my lawyers.

21 Q. Right. And you went over those documents with them?

22 A. Well, of course I did go through them.

23 Q. And you met with an expert in your particular field?

24 A. Yes, I did have a meeting with an expert.

25 Q. And at some point, you began making statements to the Prosecutor.

Page 2125

1 Right?

2 A. Yes, yes. And after that, we, or rather I began making the

3 statement.

4 Q. Exactly. And prior to making that statement, is it not a fact

5 that you had been provided with a list of facts by the Prosecution as to

6 what he believed you should admit to? Is that not a fact?

7 A. No, it's not true that I was given any list of facts before I

8 entered into acceptance of responsibility or my guilty plea. We defined

9 the facts about my acceptance of responsibility after lengthy discussions,

10 and that's how we arrived at those facts.

11 Q. All right. So at no time did the Prosecution through your lawyers

12 tell them to impart to you the various facts that you needed to agree to

13 and accept?

14 A. We discussed many facts, the entirety of the case itself and all

15 the different aspects of it. And we arrived at the conclusion that - that

16 is to say, my lawyers and I, myself - came to the conclusion that these

17 roughly were the facts as they stood, and that they should be then

18 translated on to paper and written out in the form of a document.

19 Q. Is it not true that your lawyers, from their conversations and

20 negotiations with the Prosecution, had a laundry list of facts that the

21 Prosecution expected you to agree to or to accept in part or in whole as

22 part of the negotiating process? Isn't that a fact?

23 A. It is not, Mr. Karnavas. No list at all was compiled.

24 Q. Okay. And they didn't tell you verbally what the Prosecution

25 wanted to hear? They didn't say: "Say something about Blagojevic or

Page 2126

1 there's no deal"? That never happened?

2 A. No, no.

3 Q. Okay. All right. Now, after --

4 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Karnavas, pounding the table is not a proper

5 manner, you know, especially in this courtroom. You have to show some

6 respect to this witness.

7 MR. KARNAVAS: Very well, Your Honour.

8 Q. Mr. Nikolic, when you began speaking to the Prosecutor, you told

9 them that you had participated in a massacre, did you not?

10 A. No, that's not how it was, Mr. Karnavas.

11 Q. Did you not take responsibility for ordering the executions at

12 Sandici and at the Kravica warehouse on July 13th, 1995? Did you not

13 tell the Prosecutor that you had ordered those executions?

14 A. Yes, Mr. Karnavas. At one point I did state that, and I wish,

15 before this Honourable Trial Chamber, to explain why I said what I said.

16 MR. KARNAVAS: If I may, Your Honour.

17 A. I said it. I didn't tell the truth when I said that. I myself

18 without any influence from anybody made a mistake.

19 Q. All right.

20 A. Our agreement in a period of time, in my assessment, could have

21 fallen through. That was how I saw it. It might have fallen through,

22 this agreement. And so I wanted at all costs to have this agreement

23 between myself and the OTP stand. So I wanted to plead guilty, I wanted

24 to accept my responsibility for the crime in Srebrenica and to recognise

25 before this Trial Chamber that I took part in that particular crime. I

Page 2127

1 wanted to take my part of the responsibility for that. So at that point

2 in time, quite simply, I took on more than was my share and what I

3 actually had done.

4 After that, I apologised both to the Prosecutor and to my own

5 lawyers and said that I had, indeed, made a mistake, that I had lied, that

6 that was not the truth. I said -- I told the Prosecutor and my lawyers

7 that I would in continuation of our conversation tell the truth in future.

8 And that's what I did. So I take advantage of this opportunity here and

9 now in this courtroom to apologise to Their Honours and the Honourable

10 Trial Chamber for having done that, and to apologise to the Defence

11 counsel for having done what I did with respect to Kravica and Sandici.

12 And that is the whole truth as far as that matter is concerned, and that

13 is the only falsehood that I told, that I uttered in the conversation that

14 I had, that is to say, in the presence of my own Defence counsel and the

15 Prosecutor.

16 We continued our conversations, and I stand by everything I said

17 after that. And I stand by it. That is the truth, and that is how it

18 happened. And I want to say another thing. I want to tell Their Honours

19 one more thing, and that is I wanted before this Honourable Trial Chamber

20 to come and testify as a man who had recognised his guilt. I recognised

21 and acknowledged that a crime had been committed, and I wanted to move the

22 case of Srebrenica from the dead end it had come to. I wanted the truth

23 to be heard, that you hear these words uttered from a man who was there

24 and took part in it. That was my intention. I apologise once again to

25 the Trial Chamber, to my Defence counsel, and to the Prosecutor for having

Page 2128

1 uttered that falsehood.

2 Q. Okay. Let's stick with Tab B. Let's stick with your mistake

3 which, in fact, was a lie, shall we? Now, at the time that you made this

4 mistake, you knew you were lying, did you not? Yes or no.

5 A. Yes, Mr. Karnavas. I confess that I wasn't telling the truth at

6 the time.

7 Q. It wasn't some irresistible impulse that you could just not resist

8 telling a lie; it was a calculated risk that you took --

9 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Karnavas, we do not use "lie," the word. We

10 use "false statement" or something neutral.

11 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, I understand I'm in an International

12 Tribunal. We're dealing with an execution. We're dealing with somebody

13 who wanted a deal, was willing by his own testimony to say anything. He

14 used the word "lie." I'm merely repeating what he has indicated. And I

15 don't think in my humble opinion using diplomatic niceties to call it a

16 falsehood when in fact it is a bald-faced lie, I don't think we do a

17 service to the international community. We should call it for what it is.

18 But if the Court wishes me to call it a falsehood, I will do so.

19 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Karnavas, the witness has already admitted

20 he made a mistake. No matter if you call it a lie or false statement,

21 there is no difference. But this is an International Tribunal, and you

22 are a professional. So can you accept our suggestion that you use the

23 word "false statement."

24 MR. KARNAVAS: Yes, Your Honour.

25 JUDGE LIU: Yes, you may proceed.

Page 2129


2 Q. Now, when you made this false statement, you had decided that you

3 were going to take a risk, had you not?

4 A. Could you just tell me which document you're looking at?

5 Q. I'm looking at --

6 A. I have the statement before me.

7 Q. Your declaration. We're going to stay with this.

8 A. Yes, I have the declaration in front of me.

9 Q. All right. When you made -- but I'm not interested in what you

10 declared after the falsehood; what I'm interested in is the mental process

11 that went through in conceiving and executing the falsehood. So if I

12 recall, earlier, you stated that part of your profession required you to

13 use deceptive measures, or take deceptive measures as an intelligence

14 officer. Right?

15 A. No, that's not right, Mr. Karnavas. And I didn't say at all what

16 you're now claiming I did. What I said was this: That one of the ways,

17 one of the methods employed, one of the methods of work was, amongst

18 others, to represent yourself to members of foreign armed forces, as far

19 as that was possible, rather, to conceal your role, function, and post.

20 That is a component part of intelligence work, or rather security staff.

21 And that is something that is allowed. I never uttered the sentence you

22 have just said. So I explained exactly how this is done, why this is

23 done, what the purpose of it is.

24 Q. So when you represented yourself to be a major when, in fact, you

25 were not even a captain first-class, that was a falsehood, was it not?

Page 2130

1 A. I should like to ask Their Honours to allow me to explain how this

2 came about in the first place.

3 MR. KARNAVAS: I object, Your Honour.

4 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Nikolic, we Judges are also interested in the

5 mental process when you tell the Prosecution something that is not true.

6 Can you explain that. Because Mr. Karnavas asked this question, then he

7 changed to another subject. I think we should concentrate on that issue.

8 MR. KARNAVAS: I was getting around to it, but I agree with you,

9 Your Honour.

10 Q. Could you please explain to us the mental process that went

11 through, how you sit down and you conceive, plan, and then execute a

12 convincing falsehood, based on your experiences.

13 A. Your Honours, all I can do is to confess and say that the

14 conversation about the crime, the discussion about the crime, and

15 acceptance of the crime, confessing to it is a very difficult situation to

16 be in. And anybody who finds himself in a situation of that kind, of

17 having to talk about it does not feel at all, if I say comfortable, that's

18 a mild word. But what you feel is quite simply -- you feel yourself to be

19 somebody who confesses to carrying out something and taking part in

20 something which was, in fact, a crime. So this is not a pleasant task.

21 It is not a situation in which one feels comfortable or normal in. And it

22 is not pleasant. I can't seem to find a different term to express my

23 sentiments on that score.

24 I also wish to say that my feelings and sentiments at that point

25 in time --

Page 2131

1 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour --

2 A. -- Were quite simply, as I was saying, quite simply at that point

3 in time, or rather up until that point, I had confessed to my faults. I

4 talked about many difficult matters. And all this took me back and

5 reminded me of the period of time when this actually happened, when it

6 took place. So I felt very uncomfortable, and I could not, in full,

7 control the chronology of events, the chronology of what I was saying.

8 Quite simply, there were no preparations beforehand in the sense of my

9 preparing myself. It just came about during the conversation. The

10 Prosecutor asked me what happened in Sandici. I said what I said. He

11 said: "Did you take part in what happened in Kravica?" I said: "Yes, I

12 did." And then what happened came about. I said what I said. So that

13 was during this questioning. After several hours of work, several hours

14 of questioning, quite simply, I stated what I did, and we had a break

15 after that. I then met with my lawyers, and I realised what I had done.

16 I think that this was more out of despair, desperation, rather than having

17 given much thought to it. And quite simply, that's what I went through.

18 That is the process I went through when we come to discussing this issue.

19 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.

20 Mr. Karnavas, you may proceed.

21 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Your Honour.

22 Q. All right. Now there was a particular photograph that you

23 believed depicted you in it. And you're shaking your head, so I take it

24 you understand English.

25 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Karnavas, it's a statement, not a question.

Page 2132

1 MR. KARNAVAS: Very well, Your Honour.

2 JUDGE LIU: Where is your question?


4 Q. The question is that initially, you stated that you were in a

5 photograph in the area of Sandici. Is that correct?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. At the time, you believed that was you, did you not?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. You truly believed that that was Momir Nikolic in looking at that

10 particular picture?

11 A. Yes, I did believe that.

12 Q. And that -- I take it, then, that you must have been at Sandici at

13 the time when you are purportedly being depicted in this particular

14 photograph?

15 A. No, Mr. Karnavas. I confessed that I was on that route twice on

16 the 13th. And regardless of remembering the details that took place when

17 I passed along that way, I quite simply was not able to exclude the

18 possibility of getting out of the vehicle at that point in time, that I

19 was photographed, and that I was actually there. So I was there on the

20 13th the first time, and a second time, and quite possibly I did step out

21 of the car and happen to find myself in that part of Sandici when somebody

22 took a photograph of me. So that's what I told the Prosecutor, and my

23 lawyers, too.

24 Now, afterwards, later on, my lawyers conducted an investigation

25 because they doubted whether it was actually me on the photograph. So an

Page 2133

1 investigation was conducted, and my lawyers at one point investigated this

2 matter of the photograph and uncovered the person who was actually on the

3 photograph. The photograph and person was taken in profile. We can take

4 a look at it together. He does resemble me in profile, because I had a

5 moustache during the war so we can take a look at the photograph all

6 together, because the person really does resemble me, so that's why I

7 thought and said that it was, in fact, me. And when we conducted this

8 investigation, we established, rather my lawyers established, that it was

9 somebody quite different, another man who was there. We have disclosed

10 and discovered his identity. He confessed that it was him. He said yes,

11 indeed it was, so this dispersed all doubts as to whether it was me on the

12 photograph or not.

13 Q. And it was your lawyers, according to you, who had the doubts, not

14 Momir Nikolic, and that is why they went and did the investigation. Is

15 that your testimony today?

16 A. No, I said that I had doubts, together with them. But that I did

17 not at any point in time exclude the possibility of it -- of I myself

18 having been in the area at that time.

19 Q. Okay. Now, let's get back to the Kravica warehouse. I'm still a

20 little confused. How is it that you thought that by admitting to

21 the -- to one of the most horrendous executions that had ever taken place

22 in this area, that that would help you with the Prosecution and with the

23 Trial Chamber in getting the kind of sentence that you're hoping and

24 praying for?

25 A. No, Mr. Karnavas. At the time, I did not -- my thinking process

Page 2134

1 wasn't the kind you've just described. I did mind, and I wanted the

2 agreement to be successful, to come about. I did not want to go to trial.

3 And in my assessment, it was my assessment that everything that took place

4 in Srebrenica, the crime that took place there, that nobody, including

5 myself, could avoid responsibility and their guilt. And that the

6 Prosecution has at its disposal documents which absolutely do indicate the

7 participation of my unit, the unit in which I was the chief of the

8 security intelligence organ. And on the basis of this overall weighing up

9 of the matter, I came to realise that the best solution for me personally

10 would be to enter into an agreement of this kind, to come before the Trial

11 Chamber, to confess my guilt, to testify about the crime. And in that

12 way, quite simply, to save myself, that is to say, not to have to go

13 through something that I already went through during the war. That on the

14 one side, and on the other, to help the Court to arrive at the truth as

15 far as that is possible. So those were the reasons that guided me. I

16 have no others.

17 Q. All right. Well, you were trying also to assist the Prosecution

18 in solving a piece of the puzzle. Who ordered the massacre? And if

19 Momir Nikolic could step up to the plate and take responsibility, in the

20 Prosecution's eyes, he would have solved at least one piece of the puzzle

21 that was still missing, and then you could get the sort of benefit that

22 you're hoping and praying for from this Trial Chamber.

23 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Karnavas, it's not a question. Ask your

24 question instead of statement.

25 Mr. McCloskey.

Page 2135

1 MR. McCLOSKEY: I was just going to suggest that baseball is a

2 great game, but I'm not sure it's going to help this guy in answering the

3 questions.

4 JUDGE LIU: I think the previous question was very good, was very

5 good.

6 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Your Honour.

7 Q. Mr. Nikolic, did you think that by admitting, falsely admitting,

8 to having ordered this execution, that you were solving a question mark in

9 the Prosecution's case as to who, in fact, had ordered that massacre? Is

10 that what you were trying to do when you made the admission?

11 A. All I can say, Mr. Karnavas, is that at that point in time I

12 really didn't think along those lines, as to whether I would solve

13 anything by that statement. I made that statement. I said that. And I

14 cannot now speculate with it as to what I had in mind, whether I would

15 solve anything or not. I really didn't think about that at all most

16 probably.

17 Q. But you picked that particular crime, not, say, Branjevo farm

18 where there was another execution. You picked that one. You selected

19 that particular atrocious incident in the history of mankind to accept

20 responsibility.

21 A. Mr. Karnavas, I didn't select that crime, nor did I select it. We

22 started discussing it simply. And that is the only crime as far as I know

23 of that kind in view of the way in which it was committed. That is, in

24 Kravica. So my answer is I didn't select that crime. We discussed it.

25 And I said what I said.

Page 2136

1 Q. And in discussing it, was not the Prosecutor implying through his

2 questions - I wasn't there, I don't have a tape recorder; wish I

3 did - but was he not implying that perhaps Momir Nikolic, chief of

4 intelligence and security of the Bratunac Brigade, was involved,

5 instrumental in that particular massacre as well as in Sandici?

6 A. No, Mr. Karnavas. The Prosecutor did not in any way suggest or

7 require me to say that. Through a very correct conversation, we reached

8 that issue. And as I have already explained to you, why and for what

9 reasons I said what I said.

10 MR. KARNAVAS: I know, Your Honour, we're ready for a break, but I

11 would like to go for a few more moments.

12 Q. I'm not insinuating that he tried to get you to say anything wrong

13 but I am ...

14 JUDGE LIU: Mr. McCloskey.

15 MR. McCLOSKEY: That's another statement, and of course, it was

16 exactly what he was doing.

17 JUDGE LIU: But, Mr. McCloskey, you have to understand that

18 Defence counsel has the right to ask any questions that are in the

19 interests of his client. I think this is a particular case.


21 Q. In the questioning by Mr. McCloskey, did it appear to you that

22 Mr. McCloskey and Mr. Bursik thought, suspected that Momir Nikolic was

23 involved in Kravica?

24 A. I really cannot claim anything with that respect, that is, whether

25 Mr. McCloskey or Mr. Bursik thought that, what their assessment was. I

Page 2137

1 really don't know what Mr. McCloskey thought about it, and I don't know

2 what Mr. Bursik thought about it.

3 Q. But the conversation was about Kravica, was it not?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Did you raise it? Did you say: "Now, Mr. McCloskey, let's get

6 into Kravica," or was it Mr. McCloskey directing the line of questioning,

7 telling you that he wished to discuss this particular massacre with you?

8 Who was leading whom?

9 A. Of course, Mr. Karnavas, it was the Prosecutor who was leading the

10 conversation, and I was answering questions. And the question of Kravica

11 came up as a normal question in the chronology of events on the 13th, that

12 is, when I returned from Konjevic Polje. So it was nothing outside the

13 chronology of the questions put by Mr. McCloskey.

14 Q. And you knew at the time that the questions were being posed, that

15 he, Mr. McCloskey, was interested in solving that mystery; that is, who

16 ordered, who specifically ordered, the massacre in Kravica.

17 A. I can only assume so, that the Prosecutor was interested in all

18 the details and all the facts and everything. That could be said with

19 reference to all the crimes, including the crime in Kravica.

20 Q. Well, one last -- if we could go back to the information report,

21 the one that we discussed earlier.

22 MR. KARNAVAS: And for the record, we're discussing D29/1 for

23 identification purposes.

24 Q. It's on page 8 on the English version. And it's the seventh

25 paragraph from the top down. So it would have been four paragraphs down

Page 2138

1 from the one where we earlier discussed. And if I could just help you out

2 here, it begins with saying: "Nikolic states that he was at the Kravica

3 warehouse on the 13th July (later retracted this) and ordered the

4 execution there." If you could find that paragraph.

5 A. Yes, I've found it. I've found it.

6 Q. All right. And then you go on -- at least, according to

7 Mr. Bursik. He says that you said: "He said that Borovcanin arrived

8 whilst the execution was underway, and they spoke about what they should

9 do about the bodies of those executed." Right? That's what it says?

10 A. That's what it says.

11 Q. Okay, now --

12 A. That is what it says. But that is not what I said with regard to

13 Borovcanin. I said --

14 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, if I may interrupt --

15 A. -- Certain things about Borovcanin, but --

16 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Karnavas, this is a very important piece of the

17 evidence. We would like to know the details. So you have to allow the

18 witness to give some explanations.

19 MR. KARNAVAS: I totally agree, Your Honour. And I would be more

20 than happy to have him give an explanation, but after at least he answers

21 my question. But I agree. I will -- we'll go this route. We'll go this

22 way.

23 JUDGE LIU: Yes.

24 Yes, Mr. Nikolic, you may proceed.

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. At the time I was

Page 2139

1 speaking about the -- Kravica in general, I said that I had information.

2 I didn't put it the way it is stated here, that Mr. Borovcanin was there

3 during the execution, that he knew about everything that was going on. I

4 spoke about the reasons for the execution, why it took place, and the

5 other details that I learned about after everything that had happened. So

6 the way it is written here is not correct.


8 Q. Okay.

9 A. And it goes on to say that actually with regard to the incident,

10 the guard that had been killed and so on. I did speak about that. Now,

11 what Mr. Bursik put down, I really don't know. I don't know how he

12 understood what I was saying.

13 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Nikolic, if the Defence counsel needs more

14 information, he will ask questions to you.

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Very well.


17 Q. Okay, so Mr. Nikolic, what you're saying here today right now is

18 that this paragraph, as it is written, is incorrect at best, false at

19 worst?

20 A. No, I didn't say that. I just said that it is not written in the

21 way I said it in its entirety.

22 Q. Okay. Well, let me read the second sentence here. It says: "He

23 said that Borovcanin arrived whilst the execution was underway, and they

24 spoke about what they should do about the bodies of those executed." Now,

25 you claim today, and we have no reason to know, but you claim today that

Page 2140

1 that is not what you said in the presence of Mr. McCloskey and your

2 lawyers. Is that correct? You didn't say this?

3 A. With regard to the execution and the discussion about the bodies

4 of those executed, I think that we didn't talk along those lines. But

5 rather, I said that I had knowledge as to what had happened with the

6 bodies of the people who were executed, and that Ljubisa Borovcanin was

7 included and that he knew what was happening in that respect.

8 Q. All right. So you had knowledge, you had obtained knowledge

9 either beforehand or through the documents provided to you that Borovcanin

10 was there. Is that correct?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And then you put that knowledge that you had into your little fact

13 pattern when you -- into the facts that you were outlining as far as how

14 you were there in Kravica ordering the executions. Would that be correct?

15 A. Yes. I said that I, too, though I wasn't involved there, that I

16 was involved in that part of the events in Kravica.

17 Q. Okay. And of course, that was false.

18 A. I said that I wasn't in Kravica. After having admitted the error,

19 I said that I was never in Kravica, and that is true.

20 Q. But you included Borovcanin into your story, into your falsehood,

21 in order to make your falsehood or your story convincing enough to the

22 Prosecution so that he could buy it. Right?

23 A. I did not include Borovcanin in the story in the way it is written

24 here. I knew how Borovcanin was involved in this.

25 Q. But you were never present in Kravica, according to your

Page 2141

1 testimony.

2 A. According to my testimony, I was not in Kravica during the

3 execution of this crime.

4 Q. Okay. And then you state that Borovcanin did nothing to prevent

5 the shooting that you had ordered. Right?

6 A. Yes, I said that. The question was whether I did anything, having

7 admitted that I had ordered it, I said -- then the question was with

8 regard to Borovcanin, and I said that I did nothing.

9 Q. Okay. Well, but you're saying that he did nothing. "Borovcanin

10 did nothing to stop the shooting while he was there." You've included him

11 into your story through this line, that he was there with you, and he did

12 nothing to stop the execution. Right?

13 A. Mr. Karnavas, I knew that Borovcanin was not there, so I knew

14 that. And apart from my involvement, the rest is true. He was there, and

15 he did nothing. And I know that on the basis of information I collected

16 later, after the execution. So I know that he did nothing to stop it.

17 Q. Okay. So you collected information, and you read information.

18 And based on that information, you came up with a story that you could

19 sell to the Prosecution. Isn't that correct?

20 A. I've already told you that I included myself, or rather I admitted

21 to participating over there, but that most of what is there is correct,

22 and it did take place according to my information. So my error and what

23 is not correct is my participation in all that.

24 Q. All right. Now, you said you collected information. You did an

25 investigation on Kravica?

Page 2142

1 A. No. I am not an authorised person for any kind of investigation.

2 I just collected information about what was happening -- what happened in

3 Kravica.

4 Q. Okay. Now, it goes on to say that "During the time, women and

5 children were passing by in buses." Does it not say that, the last

6 sentence?

7 A. Yes, that, too--

8 Q. That's a fact?

9 A. Is something that is correct, and it is true that according to my

10 knowledge, when this crime was committed, buses were passing along that

11 road.

12 Q. So in concocting, in creating, in formulating, in designing a

13 falsehood, you, Momir Nikolic, took some information which you knew to be

14 true or factual, believable, provable, and incorporated that information

15 into your -- into the falsehood in order to give your story more

16 believability?

17 A. No, Mr. Karnavas. I included myself in all this for the reasons

18 that I have already explained. And everything else that is written here,

19 among other things, are things that happened about which I had information

20 that they had happened. I had confirmation that they had happened on that

21 day or those days.

22 Q. And the falsehood, the false information that was contained in the

23 story was about yourself. Right?

24 A. The false part of the statement relates to my participation in

25 that operation.

Page 2143

1 Q. Right.

2 A. The rest, regarding the participation of Borovcanin and the other

3 details linked to the -- how the murder came about, the information about

4 the incident, I knew about that, and that information is quite correct.

5 Q. Okay. But getting back to what I said, the false information in

6 this story relates to Nikolic, and Nikolic stood to gain the most from the

7 story that Nikolic himself had created and served to the Prosecutor.

8 A. I did not, Mr. Karnavas, at that point in time think along those

9 lines, as to what I would gain and what I would lose. Just then I had

10 decided, since the Prosecution and I were in an advanced stage, and since

11 I had conveyed to the Prosecution everything that I had done and I had

12 been involved in, I simply felt that the agreement should be signed with

13 the Prosecution, and that that agreement should be reached, that I should

14 confess my guilt and plead guilty. And within that framework, I made this

15 error, and that is all I can say now.

16 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, first I want to thank everyone here

17 for going beyond the normal breaking period. And I think this would be a

18 good time to break.

19 JUDGE LIU: Yes, we will resume at 10 minutes to 1.00.

20 --- Recess taken at 12.22 p.m.

21 --- On resuming at 12.52 p.m.

22 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Karnavas.

23 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Your Honour.

24 Q. Before we leave Tab B, I'd like to recall your attention,

25 Mr. Nikolic, to what you stated back on Friday, 19 September 2003,

Page 2144

1 transcript page 1595. You stated, and I'm quoting from lines 9 through to

2 11: "Once the agreement with the Prosecution had already advanced, I came

3 to the decision that there would be no agreement, and I really wanted to

4 obtain an agreement."

5 Do you recall making that statement on Friday in this courtroom?

6 That was Friday, the 19th, September 19th.

7 A. I remember, Mr. Karnavas, what I said on Friday. And what I said

8 was that when conversations between me and the Prosecution were in an

9 advanced stage, I simply made an assessment. My personal assessment was

10 that the agreement could be called in question. And I feared that that

11 might happen because I had already told the Prosecutor and those present

12 most of what -- I had arguments to offer, and I believed that an agreement

13 should be reached and that at that point in time, that was the best

14 solution for me, and that is why I made that decision.

15 Q. So you acknowledge today stating back on Friday, the 19th

16 September 2003, as it states here on page 1595, on line 10: "I came to

17 the decision that there would be no agreement, and I really wanted to

18 obtain an agreement." You recall saying that?

19 A. I'm not quite sure. Really, I can't remember exactly each and

20 every sentence. But if that is what it says in the transcript, then that

21 is what I said.

22 Q. All right. And just for the record, I also believe a line of

23 answers in this respect were noted today, and I'm told as on page 48.12,

24 and it was approximately 11:40:19.

25 Now, may I ask, Mr. Nikolic, what was it that led you into

Page 2145

1 believing, into having these feelings, that perhaps an agreement would not

2 be reached?

3 A. Just then, I really didn't make any analyses or calculations as to

4 why the agreement may not be reached. That was just the impression I had

5 just then at that point in time. Those were the feelings I had. And this

6 was a terrible period for me. I don't even wish to remember it, never

7 mind talk about it. And I was admitting to something that really is hard.

8 It was the crime that happened in Srebrenica. It is not easy to talk

9 about it, nor was it easy to confess to one's involvement in such a crime.

10 And all these circumstances created the impression in my mind that there

11 could be some misunderstanding. And to be quite frank, I was convinced

12 that most of what I had been saying to the Prosecution, that the

13 Prosecution already has the facts and circumstances about all that. And

14 all these were factors that prompted me to come to the conclusion that all

15 this may not be sufficient for an agreement. It was along those lines

16 that my thoughts went at the time.

17 Q. All right. You thought the Prosecutor had all the facts that you

18 could give him, and you needed to give him something that he did not have,

19 something that you could come up with to satisfy his needs and, of course,

20 your needs as well. Right?

21 A. Not quite, Mr. Karnavas. I simply at the time made such a

22 decision. And all this -- these circumstances and the set of

23 circumstances surrounding the crime, the confession, my role, and

24 everything that happened in Srebrenica and around Srebrenica were always

25 present in my mind, and I simply did not wish to have to go through that

Page 2146

1 process again, not to have to go on trial. I wanted to admit my guilt,

2 and I simply wanted to cooperate with the Prosecution. That was my

3 decision.

4 And I wish to tell Their Honours and to admit here that it is

5 quite normal that I expected because I would come out and confess to all

6 that, that I would make it easier for myself, the Prosecution, and the

7 Court.

8 Q. Well, it wasn't that you just wanted to get it over with, you also

9 expected to benefit. You wanted to limit your time, imprisonment, to 20

10 years. Right? That was part of the arrangement? Quid pro quo.

11 A. Mr. Karnavas, my lawyers set before me all the ways and means and

12 all the rights that I enjoy before this Tribunal. They told me everything

13 that I could expect, in all the different variations, all the different

14 possibilities, and what would happen if I went to trial, what would happen

15 if I pleaded guilty, and so on. So they explained all the different ways

16 in which I could get through this process. And it was I who decided.

17 They didn't wield any influence on my final decision. I was the one who

18 made the final decision, and I decided to enter into this agreement and to

19 act in the way I have acted. So nobody else wielded any essential

20 influence on me except for the fact that my lawyers did explain to me all

21 the different legal options before this Tribunal.

22 Q. Right.

23 A. And vis-a-vis this Tribunal.

24 Q. And one of the things that you wanted to enjoy was the right or I

25 guess we would call it privilege to walk the earth a free person, spend

Page 2147

1 time with your family, and not to have somebody tell you when you will

2 wake up, what you will eat, when you will have your one-hour walk in a

3 confined, caged -- in a prison setting. Right? Am I not correct?

4 A. Mr. Karnavas, you are quite right in saying that everybody, all

5 people, including myself, would like all this to last as short as time as

6 possible. But what I also want to tell you is that regardless of the fact

7 that I do wish to get out of here as soon as possible, to be reunited with

8 my family, in this process, in this trial, I have conjured up the strength

9 to -- and plucked up the courage to acknowledge and admit why I'm here,

10 which means that I decided to take the hard road. I have decided to

11 acknowledge and confess to my mistake, to confess to the crime. And that

12 I think that I am the first officer from the Army of Republika Srpska who

13 was a participant and yet admits to everything, confesses to all the

14 things that he took part in. And quite simply, in admitting to my guilt

15 and in admitting my participation, in confessing to that, I am fully

16 conscious of the fact that I will pay and be punished for my mistake. And

17 I don't see anything inhuman in that, the fact that I have accepted to

18 talk about this, to testify about it.

19 And let me just also tell you, Mr. Karnavas, this: In this

20 process, in this trial, I am not testifying against anybody. I am

21 testifying about the events that took place in Srebrenica. I am

22 testifying about my participation in them. And I am not sparing anybody

23 here, and not myself either. So that was the final decision, and that was

24 what made me make it and decide to testify here.

25 Q. And when you thought there would be no deal, because the

Page 2148

1 Prosecution had all the facts that you could give him, you needed to give

2 him some more facts to sweeten the deal so that he would go ahead and make

3 the arrangements that have been made here today. And that's why you

4 provided this story, this falsehood, about Kravica. Right?

5 A. Mr. Karnavas, I've already said several times that it was not the

6 Prosecution who insisted upon this. The Prosecution did not ask that of

7 me. The Prosecution did not exert any influence on me so that I should

8 say that. My lawyers, likewise, did nothing along those lines to make me

9 make the decision I made. So what I did is my own mistake. I have

10 admitted it here, confessed to it. And there's nothing more I can say.

11 Q. In an earlier question, I asked you whether you conducted an

12 investigation with respect to Kravica. And I believe you indicated that

13 you were not an authorised person to conduct such an investigation. Did I

14 hear that answer correctly?

15 A. You heard it correctly. You heard my answer correctly, that the

16 intelligence and security organ in the Light Infantry Brigade was not the

17 officially authorised person or body to conduct any kind of investigation

18 because investigations of that kind can only be carried out by officially

19 authorised persons, which I was not. All I could do was gather

20 information about it all, and that's what I did. I gathered information

21 about that particular case, and all other cases which occurred during the

22 war and were of interest or which came under the realm of my field of

23 work. So I was not the officially authorised person.

24 And let me make this clearer: Officially authorised persons were

25 the chiefs of security, for example, in infantry brigades and higher

Page 2149

1 units. I, myself, in the intelligence field conducted command and staff

2 security which you could see from the guidelines and instructions we had

3 here. So that I didn't conduct an investigation, I didn't have the power

4 to do so, the authority to do so.

5 Q. If we could just for one last time hopefully go to what has been

6 marked as P84 for identification purposes. I'm referring to the rules of

7 service of security organs. And sir, if you could look at paragraph or

8 article, I guess it would be, 43, and then also read 51 and 52.

9 A. Just a moment, Mr. Karnavas. You said paragraph 43. And which

10 others?

11 Q. And then paragraph numbered 51 and 52.

12 A. Very well. I have had a look at it.

13 Q. And on 43, you went through Article number 43 or paragraph number

14 43, it states: "In the case of crimes that are within the competence of

15 military courts and are prosecuted ex officio under the conditions

16 prescribed by the law that regulates criminal procedure authorised

17 officers of security organs may arrest a person and deliver him without

18 delay to an investigative judge or military court or the nearest military

19 unit or military institution." Is that what paragraph or Article 43

20 states?

21 A. Yes, that's what it states.

22 Q. Did you have the authority to arrest someone and deliver him -- as

23 it stated in here, to the investigative judge of a military court?

24 A. No, Mr. Karnavas. I've already explained that in my response a

25 moment ago. The right to take into custody or to arrest anybody is a

Page 2150

1 right that authorised organs of security have, and the first level where

2 this authorised organ of security exists is the security organ in the

3 infantry brigade. And it is these organs as opposed to security

4 intelligence organs that have official ID cards and badges. And this

5 distinguishes them from the security intelligence organises in the light

6 infantry brigades. I was not an official, authorised person bearing these

7 ID cards.

8 Q. Okay.

9 A. Or badges. But I was an individual who was able to gather

10 information about crimes perpetrated that come under the jurisdiction of

11 the military courts and which are being prosecuted ex officio and which

12 relate to the theft of weapons, the destruction of ammunition, the

13 destruction of mines and explosives. So that is the realm and area in

14 which it was my task to gather information and intelligence and to send

15 them to the prosecution organs.

16 Q. Mr. Nikolic, are you suggesting here that you could not use the

17 military police to arrest someone, for instance, for not reporting to

18 duty, leaving his post? Is that what you're suggesting here today? You

19 did not have that authority? Yes or no.

20 A. No, that's not what I'm saying. But I have to say -- actually I

21 have to give you an explanation because what I've said is not sufficient.

22 I don't say that I did not have the authority to monitor the work of the

23 military police and its services when arrests were being made of recruits

24 or conscripts that had fled from the units. Had I had the duty to monitor

25 the execution of those tasks, and those tasks are defined and orders

Page 2151

1 issued by the brigade commander, whereas the leader, the commander of the

2 military police following instructions and the rules of the military

3 police is the authorised individual who does have the right to file a

4 criminal report.

5 So there are two cases -- there are two cases in which the

6 commander of the military police can file a criminal report. The first

7 case is having received permission from the commanding officer of the

8 unit. And the other instance is when this is required, when it's an

9 urgent case, and when criminal reports are required. But after a report

10 of that kind is filed, he must inform the commander of his unit, the unit

11 of which he is a member.

12 Q. Very well. Go to Article 51, and then 52. Just read them.

13 A. I have read it, Mr. Karnavas.

14 Q. And I take it it's your testimony after having read those that you

15 still had no authority to investigate the crime such as the Kravica

16 massacre to which you have falsely, at least at one point, admitted to

17 ordering?

18 A. Mr. Karnavas, I told you quite specifically what my duties were

19 because you asked me about the article defining crimes which came under

20 the jurisdiction of military courts and which are prosecuted ex officio.

21 That's what you asked me a moment ago. And this particular article, or

22 rather paragraph 51, I can comment on it, but it would boil down to the

23 answer I gave to your previous question.

24 Q. That you had no authority to initiate an investigation of a

25 massacre such as Kravica.

Page 2152

1 A. I did not have the authority to initiate an investigation, but I

2 was duty-bound and did have the authority to gather information and data

3 about what had happened in Kravica. And once I had done that, I was to

4 inform the corresponding organ in the Bratunac Brigade who would then

5 process this information and file a criminal report. And if Their Honours

6 would allow me, may I say that I have here the reports filed, dated 1992

7 to 1995. And from those documents, you can see who files a criminal

8 report, who signs these criminal reports and so on. So I do have the

9 criminal reports with me, not all of them, of course, but a sufficient

10 number for you to be able to see this chain and how the links in the chain

11 go down to the actual filing of a report and so on, up to 1995.

12 Q. Needless to say, can we conclude that you did not exercise your

13 authority to gather the information and then pass it on to the higher

14 authorities in order for something to be done with respect to Kravica?

15 A. What I want to say is this: I had information as to what had

16 happened at Kravica. That same information was something that the organs

17 dealing with investigations also had, and the organs who filed criminal

18 reports. So this same information was something that the higher organs

19 had, the superior authority also dealing in affairs of this kind. And

20 they are officially authorised persons, which I was not. That's what I

21 want to say.

22 Q. So the answer to my question is no.

23 A. No, it's not, Mr. Karnavas.

24 Q. Very well.

25 A. The answer to your question is that I used and did what I was

Page 2153

1 authorised to do. What you said, I was not authorised to do and therefore

2 didn't do those things.

3 Q. Very well. We'll move on.

4 I would like to now show you what will be marked as D36/1 for

5 identification purposes. I have the copies for the Chamber myself. The

6 front page is in English, the second page is in Srpski or B/C/S.

7 MR. KARNAVAS: For the record it has a number on top. 0308284 --

8 03082452, a document we received from the Office of the Prosecution.

9 Q. If you could look at the second page, and please read it.

10 A. I've read it, Mr. Karnavas.

11 Q. This was provided --

12 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.


14 Q. This was provided to us by the Office of the Prosecution. I can

15 only assume that your lawyers also received it. Do you know whether they

16 shared this information with you, this information?

17 A. Yes, yes, I had this information among the documents that my

18 lawyers gave me.

19 Q. And did you go over this document with your lawyers, if you

20 recall, prior to, during, or after your numerous negotiating sessions that

21 you were holding with the Prosecution?

22 A. I don't know when we actually went over this document. All I can

23 say is that I and my lawyers did take a look at this document together,

24 that subsequently I also had a look at it in the Detention Unit, in my

25 room there. I can't say, I can't give you an exact answer as to when I

Page 2154

1 actually received this document. And whether it was before, I really

2 don't know.

3 Q. Okay. And from this document, do you recognise the name, at

4 least, at the bottom of the page?

5 A. Yes, if you mean what's written down in handwriting, D. Vasic is

6 the signature.

7 Q. And who is Mr. Vasic?

8 A. Dragomir Vasic is the head of the centre of the services of

9 Zvornik.

10 Q. Centre of which services? Maybe there was something lost in the

11 translation.

12 A. I think it was the centre of the services of public security or

13 the security services. I don't know what the actual heading was. But I

14 know it was a centre of MUP in Zvornik.

15 Q. All right. And at the top of the page, on the first line, it

16 refers to a Tomo Kovac. Have you ever come across that name before?

17 A. Yes, I have heard of this name, Tomo Kovac.

18 Q. And who is Mr. Tomo Kovac?

19 A. Tomo Kovac was one of the senior officers in MUP. Now, whether at

20 that point in time he was the acting minister or the minister, I really

21 can't say. But I do know that he was from the MUP, Ministry of the

22 Interior.

23 Q. All right. Now, having read this document prior to coming here

24 today, and then reading it again today, does this document not refer to

25 the incident in Kravica?

Page 2155

1 A. Well, this document refers to a series of incidents from the

2 arrest of individuals, and then others, too. So there are a series of

3 incidents which the document describes. Among others, it does refer to

4 Kravica.

5 Q. Right. Okay. Well, let's focus on Kravica, shall we? Now, would

6 it be fair to say that what is being described in this document is rather

7 different than what you have described to us during your direct

8 examination? Is that not a fact?

9 A. No, it's not. I did not describe the incident as it took place.

10 That means that I mentioned as far as I remember saying -- I mentioned

11 saying that I knew the incident had taken place and that there was a

12 soldier or officer involved with the seizing of a rifle and the killing of

13 a member of the MUP. And I also said that as far as I knew, that was the

14 main reason for which the mass killing in Oka [phoen] took place. That's

15 roughly what I said.

16 Q. Does it not also state -- does it not state in this particular

17 document that it was General Mladic who, after receiving a message from

18 the field concerning an incident in Kravica, ordered that all POWs be

19 liquidated? Is that not what this document states?

20 A. That is what it says, Mr. Karnavas. But before I read this

21 document, never before did I ever hear of anything like this. So that

22 means I don't know what was going on in Vlasenica, what orders were

23 issued, who they were issued to, who received the information. I really

24 know nothing about that, any of that, because that was going on 50

25 kilometres away from Bratunac, and I didn't know about what was going on

Page 2156

1 there.

2 Q. So I take it you can neither nor deny the accuracy of what is

3 contained in this particular document which we received from the

4 Prosecution that was addressed to them from Mr. Vasic.

5 A. I cannot confirm anything from this document. I can't confirm it

6 or deny it. It's a document. I have nothing here. I don't know who

7 wrote it, where it came from, who it was addressed to, who was informed.

8 I have nothing, no grounds for me to be able to comment along those lines.

9 So I don't know. I don't know who sent it. Actually, I don't know

10 anything about it. It's a piece of paper without a heading, without

11 anything else. It is signed by hand at the bottom. But other than that,

12 I can't really say anything about it. I'm don't know the details. I'm

13 not quite clear on the specifics.

14 Q. Very well. We'll move on.

15 Now, going back to Friday, 19th September 2003, back again to page

16 1595, you were asked a question, and this is on line 22: "Do you

17 understand today and throughout the rest of your testimony how critically

18 important it is for you to tell the whole truth?" Do you recall being

19 asked that question?

20 A. Which question, Mr. Karnavas?

21 Q. The question that was posed to you by the Prosecutor. "Do you

22 understand today and throughout the rest of your testimony how critically

23 important it is for you to tell the whole truth?"

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And in fact, that had been part of the agreement that you had

Page 2157

1 been -- that you had reached with the Prosecutor earlier, that you would

2 testify truthfully and tell the whole truth; not just some of it, but the

3 whole truth.

4 A. Mr. Karnavas, I said I told the truth to the best of my

5 recollection. And I did so regarding the points I was asked about by the

6 Prosecutor and also in response to questions put by you over the past

7 three days.

8 Q. Right. Now, on page 1598, that would be about three pages later,

9 you're being asked about your background, and you indicated on page

10 10 -- I mean, on line 10: "And then after a year at the assembly, I was

11 again appointed as director of the Kartonaza Bratunac company. I remained

12 there until privatisation occurred. And after the privatisation had been

13 carried out, I was unemployed again, and that was the period during which

14 I was arrested."

15 I've just read from lines 10 to line 14 of the transcript from

16 September 19, 2003. Mr. Nikolic, do you recall making that statement?

17 A. Yes. I spoke about my CV. And among other things, I mentioned

18 that as well. And maybe I forgot to mention something, and that is that I

19 was the old director of Kartonaza, and that after privatisation, I

20 remained, I really don't know for how long, but I remained there and was

21 elected by the owner to be the new director of Kartonaza. And holding

22 that position of director of the new company which was no longer called

23 Kartonaza, I stayed in that position for three or four months. I don't

24 know exactly. If you have the figures, please remind me.

25 Q. So now you supplemented your answer. Do you wish to supplement

Page 2158

1 anything more regarding that?

2 A. Regarding Kartonaza? There are many things that I could say, but

3 will you please ask me what you're interested in.

4 Q. Well, what I'm interested to know is why you have failed to inform

5 us that you were fired, you were fired, not that after privatisation, you

6 became unemployed. But you were fired from your position. Is that not a

7 fact?

8 A. No, that is absolutely not true. Not a single word of what you

9 said is right. And if Their Honours allow it, I will give you a complete

10 answer to this question as to why I left Kartonaza.

11 MR. KARNAVAS: If I may conduct a correct examination, Your

12 Honour, I do have some documents that I wish to put forward to the

13 witness. And in doing so, he can give his explanation.

14 JUDGE LIU: Yes.

15 MR. KARNAVAS: If I can show you what has been marked for

16 identification purposes as D26/1.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Could I please get a better

18 photocopy because I really can't see anything on this one. I can't read

19 it.

20 MR. KARNAVAS: If I may confer with my colleague for one second,

21 Your Honour.

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can now. I'm sorry, I can

23 read everything I have now.


25 Q. Now, if you could please look at it, at the top of the page, it

Page 2159

1 designates "SM-PRO." And I do have the documents. We'll go through them.

2 But since we're focussing on this particular document, is it fair to say

3 that that was the new name of Kartonaza when it went from state ownership

4 to private ownership?

5 A. Yes. One could say that.

6 Q. Okay. And it's Bratunac, December 29, 2000. Do you see that?

7 That was the date.

8 A. Yes, I see it.

9 Q. Okay. And then it states that this is a decision, does it not?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. At the bottom of the page, there seems to be a signature. We

12 can't read the signature, but I believe it is signed by an Alempic, J.,

13 with the SM-PRO seal affixed to it. Do you see that?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. I just want to focus you on the part which says "explanation."

16 "Starting with November 25, 2000, the employee from the pronouncement of

17 this decision assigned to the position of the manager of the enterprise

18 stopped appearing at his place of employment. As it is obvious that the

19 aforementioned person no longer wishes to be employed with the employer,

20 and as the requirements have been met to apply provisions of Article 91,

21 item 8, the employer decided as in the pronouncement of the decision."

22 Do you read that explanation?

23 A. Yes, Mr. Karnavas.

24 Q. And at the top of the decision, it denotes that you cease to be an

25 employee with this enterprise, does it not?

Page 2160

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Now, I want to show you some other documents with respect to

3 Kartonaza when it was still called that.

4 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Karnavas, would you please tell us the source of

5 this document.

6 MR. KARNAVAS: The source. We went -- I had my investigator, Your

7 Honour, collect all of these documents in the process of investigation.

8 Everything was done by -- in accordance with the appropriate manner, and I

9 have a letter here dated to me. I made a request, formal request in

10 writing. And based on that request, these documents were provided to us.

11 And if the Court wishes something more formal from -- a more formal

12 source, we can provide that as well.

13 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.


15 Q. Okay. Now, if I could show you what has been marked D27/1 for

16 identification purposes. And along with that, why don't you look

17 at -- can we give Mr. Nikolic also D23, D24, and D25.

18 So 27, 23, 24, 25, and I truly apologise for not having the

19 numbering in a better system. I take full responsibility for that.

20 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Karnavas, it seems to me that you could not finish

21 the cross-examination before the time. So could we continue in the

22 afternoon.

23 MR. KARNAVAS: Absolutely, Your Honour.

24 JUDGE LIU: Because, you know, we have just been furnished with so

25 many documents at this moment.

Page 2161

1 MR. KARNAVAS: I just lost track of time, Your Honour. But

2 absolutely.

3 JUDGE LIU: We have to stop on time during this period because of

4 the lunch break.

5 MR. KARNAVAS: Okay, all right. I was under the wrong assumption,

6 Your Honour, that we would keep going. But very well, this would be a

7 very good time.

8 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.

9 MR. McCLOSKEY: Perhaps if the witness could be provided with

10 these documents, he could look at them so we could save some time in the

11 afternoon because it looks like there's a lot of them.

12 MR. KARNAVAS: Yes, absolutely. We'll provide him with all the

13 documents. Thank you, Your Honour.

14 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.

15 Well, so we'll resume at 3.00 this afternoon.

16 --- Luncheon recess taken at 1.43 p.m.

17 --- On resuming at 3.05 p.m.

18 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Karnavas, you have something to address to the

19 Bench?

20 MR. KARNAVAS: I do, Your Honour. While we were on our lunch

21 break, I received a fax, two faxes, in fact, from my investigator Risto

22 Lugonic. Last night, yesterday afternoon, I asked him to go down to

23 Bratunac and try to locate and meet with one particular witness, or an

24 individual that has been named by Mr. Nikolic. The individual's name is

25 Mile Petrovic. This is a gentleman that Mr. Nikolic asserts has -- was

Page 2162

1 the one that picked up six Muslims and then executed them, and then came

2 back and said: "Boss, I took revenge for my brother." I think the Court

3 may recall that testimony.

4 I had met the gentleman on a prior occasion with my investigator

5 and with Ms. Tomanovic, so he had flatly denied that. So last night, I

6 thought in light of the testimony, that we would contact him and ask if he

7 would provide us with a -- that he would be interviewed by my

8 investigator, be posed certain questions, and to see whether he would be

9 willing to come to The Hague and testify. Through my investigator, we had

10 learned -- we learned that on 25th of August, 2003, which would have been

11 subsequent to the change of plea hearing when it was live and covered

12 throughout Bosnia, especially on the television station in the Federation,

13 the statement of facts became known. And as a result of that, this

14 particular gentleman was taken to the police station of Bratunac, and he

15 provided a statement. And with me, I have the minutes from the statements

16 of -- of the questioning process that took place on the 25th of August,

17 2003.

18 So I have two documents: One, I have a letter from my

19 investigator dated today, faxed today. And it indicates that it was

20 received at 12.26 p.m. It indicates that, one, that the individual flatly

21 denies the allegations. Secondly, that the gentleman was approached by

22 the Defence team of Mr. Nikolic and was requested to provide a statement

23 that might be helpful to Mr. Nikolic. This particular witness declined,

24 unable to providing anything concretely that would be of assistance to

25 Mr. Nikolic. And there is a paragraph on page 3 where the witness

Page 2163

1 believes that because of his refusal to provide this statement, that

2 perhaps that may be one of the reasons, the motives, for Mr. Nikolic now

3 claiming that six individuals were picked up of which he killed, and then

4 later on he came back and said: "Boss, I took revenge."

5 He does acknowledge being in the APC, although slight -- there's a

6 difference in the way he describes it. And also indicates that two

7 Muslims were picked up, one of which was physically abused by none other

8 than Momir Nikolic. So in light of this, I should also note that

9 recently, within the last day or so, the individual that has been

10 assisting us in translating abruptly tendered her resignation, probably

11 because of the amount of work that we have been -- and the deadlines

12 imposed on her. So we don't have the capabilities of translating this. I

13 do believe this is vital, that I need to confront this particular witness

14 because I would recall to the Court's attention the joint motion for

15 consideration of the amended plea agreement in which on paragraph 11,

16 which -- and this was agreed upon by all the parties, it indicates, and I

17 read: "It is understood and agreed by Momir Nikolic and the Prosecution

18 that all information and testimony provided by Mr. Nikolic must be

19 absolutely truthful. This means that Momir Nikolic must neither minimise

20 his own actions, nor fabricate," nor fabricate, and I underscore that,

21 "someone else's involvement."

22 It would appear to us from this at this stage that we have some

23 conflicting testimony. The individual is prepared to come to the Hague.

24 It states it quite clearly here. He is in Bratunac at this time. In

25 other words, he has been available to the Prosecution, had the Prosecution

Page 2164

1 wished to check out this information. I don't know, maybe they have,

2 maybe they haven't. In any event, I think in light of this, I would be

3 requesting the following: One, assistance from the Trial Chamber to see

4 whether either through the OTP or through the registry we could get these

5 documents translated on an expedited basis. I cannot do proper

6 cross-examination if I cannot, first of all, read it, and also I may need

7 to go back and forth with respect to the documents. I think it's vital

8 that I confront this witness and give him an opportunity to explain to the

9 Tribunal, to the Trial Chamber his version of the events, again, if

10 necessary, and perhaps to agree, deny, or whatever.

11 But I think it's very important that I lock this person into his

12 testimony, now that I have this information. And I think I'm duty-bound,

13 I'm duty-bound to ensure that Mr. Blagojevic gets a fair trial which would

14 include full rights under the Statute with respect to, I believe it's

15 Article 21 or 20 which talks about the right to confrontation. And I can

16 think of no, no greater importance at this stage in these proceedings than

17 to allow us the opportunity to confront this particular witness who has

18 had, might I add, and I'm sure I've said this in the past, plenty of

19 opportunities, days and days and days of proofing sessions, negotiations,

20 meetings with the Prosecution, and so on and so forth. So I think it is a

21 reasonable request. So I would ask that while we proceed this afternoon,

22 that whatever you could do, Mr. President and Your Honours, to assist us

23 in getting these documents translated so I can go into this.

24 While I'm at it, I can say with a great deal of certainty, and I'm

25 sad to say this, but I will say it anyway, but there's no way humanly

Page 2165

1 possible that I can finish my cross-examination today. It is humanly

2 impossible. I know it's a disappointment to the Trial Chamber. I know

3 there may be some contention as to whether I'm efficient or nonefficient.

4 God knows I'm trying every possible style of cross-examination I can think

5 of. But I would venture to say a full day tomorrow, a full day tomorrow,

6 will absolutely be necessary. And I don't want to guarantee that I will

7 be finished. But that's the matter I wish to bring to the Court's

8 attention. Thank you.

9 JUDGE LIU: Let me turn to the Prosecution to see whether there's

10 any reactions from their side.

11 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, I at this point object to the use

12 of a document that has not been translated. In addition, a document from

13 a witness statement is -- information in it is fair game. And I think

14 counsel should be able to ask whatever questions he thinks are relevant

15 from the information in a document. However, the Republika Srpska

16 government has denied Srebrenica happened, has said in an official

17 document that the Muslims killed themselves. Almost to a man every

18 Republika Srpska soldier we have talked to has denied taking part in this

19 or that it occurred, so if there's one statement where a person denies

20 being involved in it, I think we need to be careful in making much of

21 these actual statements before they are translated.

22 But the information inside the statement, anything that

23 Mr. Karnavas has learned that is relevant, I think yes, he has a right to

24 ask and cross-examine the witness on that, and I don't have any problem on

25 that. I would like to see it come to an end. He has had lots of time to

Page 2166

1 cross-examine him. He is well over the time the Prosecution took, or

2 certainly will be by the end of the day. And -- but we remain flexible to

3 what the Court feels is the best way to go forward.

4 JUDGE LIU: Any response, Mr. Karnavas?

5 MR. KARNAVAS: Well, I guess I do need to respond a little bit.

6 And I'm trying to exercise my breathing at this point because I think

7 remarks such as attacks on the Republika Srpska are unhelpful. And

8 Mr. McCloskey knows that there has been a change of government in the

9 Republika Srpska. And this year, in particular, during the anniversary,

10 they went over there. So I think it's unhelpful, and he's on record

11 making comments such as the people in that part of the world do not act in

12 a civilised manner. I don't think --

13 MR. McCLOSKEY: I object to that. I'm sorry to engage in this,

14 but that's just such malarky.

15 MR. KARNAVAS: It's on the record, Your Honour. And I've stated

16 many times in my motions.

17 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Karnavas, Mr. Karnavas.

18 MR. KARNAVAS: Very well.

19 JUDGE LIU: I'm asking your comments about whether you could

20 introduce this document or not, only this issue, but not an overall

21 assessment of what the Prosecution said. I think we could make our own

22 judgement.

23 MR. KARNAVAS: First of all, Your Honour, as far as I can

24 understand it, I can confront a witness with anything just about. Now,

25 whether I can actually have it admitted into evidence may be a different

Page 2167

1 matter. There, I need to lay a foundation. Now, I am prepared to have

2 the registry fly my investigator here. I am prepared to fly the gentleman

3 over here to lay a foundation if necessary. The gentleman has indicated

4 that he's prepared to testify in Court. Now, the Prosecutor has indicated

5 that we've gone well over our period of time. I think that's unhelpful as

6 well because I would say I'm being allotted half the time that he was

7 allotted to prepare this witness. So numbers don't get us anywhere.

8 But as far as me having the ability to show this to the witness

9 and to say: "What do you say now, now that you're being confronted with

10 this, do you agree or do you deny?" And remember, we are dealing with

11 someone who by profession, being in the intelligence, you know has certain

12 tools of the trade that are used in common day. And I think during our

13 cross-examination today, we learned a little bit about how one goes about

14 making up a story based on part fact and part fiction. So I think we need

15 to tie him down. And also, might I add -- I know he's the Prosecution's

16 witness, but we're dealing with a situation where 7.000, 6.000, 8.000

17 people were killed. This is the largest massacre, according to the

18 experts, in western Europe since World War II. I believe that this case

19 deserves some time. Also, I would like to point out that Mr. Blagojevic

20 is looking at a life sentence, and this gentleman wishes to enjoy a 20 --

21 15- to 20-year sentence. And Your Honours at the end of the day will need

22 to make an assessment as to how truthful this person was because the

23 option is for a life sentence. And just recently, in Indonesia, where a

24 cooperative witness in the Bali incident, with the Prosecutor arguing for

25 20, the Court stated no, life sentence. And there were 220 victims in

Page 2168

1 that case and here we're talking about, so...

2 And I'm not suggesting what sentence you give him. But what I am

3 saying is you're going to need to make an assessment as to how cooperative

4 he was, and I'm using the language that was prepared by none other

5 Mr. McCloskey, that he cannot fabricate anyone else's involvement.

6 And I think to make a statement that somebody actually killed six

7 people and to bring that into his story in order to benefit because he

8 thinks the Prosecutor needs more information than he already has, and that

9 we have that on the record, I think this is significant. And I'm

10 confident that this individual will come to The Hague, and we can make the

11 necessary arrangements with the Registrar. He can make the necessary

12 arrangements to take a deposition of the gentleman. I can work it either

13 way. But the gentleman is in Bratunac, he's ready, willing, and able, and

14 he has already spoken with the police. And I see no reason why these

15 documents cannot be used to confront Mr. Nikolic. And then subject to

16 connection, the Trial Chamber can make a decision whether this should come

17 in or whether this should be left out.

18 [Trial Chamber confers]

19 JUDGE LIU: Well, after consultations with my colleagues, this

20 Bench arrived at the conclusion that we believe the Defence has the right

21 to confront the witness with any documents at their disposal. And since

22 this document arrived before he finished his cross-examination, it is

23 allowed to confront this witness with that document. We hereby order the

24 Registrar to translate those documents in an expeditious manner. And I

25 hope we could get it by tomorrow morning at 9.00. At the same time, we

Page 2169

1 ask Mr. Karnavas, the Defence team of Mr. Blagojevic, to furnish the B/C/S

2 version to the Prosecution and to other parties in these proceedings.

3 MR. KARNAVAS: We have, Your Honour, already.

4 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.

5 The next matter is about the scheduling. Did I hear you that

6 you'll spend the whole day for tomorrow for your cross-examination?

7 Mr. Karnavas.

8 MR. KARNAVAS: I believe you heard me right, Your Honour.

9 JUDGE LIU: Well, I'm very disappointed about that because in our

10 scheduling ruling the other day, we said that we will give you about 12 to

11 15 hours for your cross-examination, which is more than that of the

12 Prosecution. And in the last three days, we made an extra effort to sit

13 in the afternoon, which you got 90 minutes more than usual sittings. We

14 hope that you could wind up your cross-examination as soon as possible,

15 maybe in the first session of tomorrow.

16 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, with the utmost respect, and I know

17 you're disappointed, and I would like to please everybody in the

18 courtroom, but I have a particular mandate, if it will. There's a great

19 deal of areas -- there are many areas that I have yet to go into. Some of

20 them are very quick. May I recall to everyone's attention that the

21 Prosecution did not go over the rules. Obviously, they're entitled to do

22 their direct however they wish. However, I believe that was necessary

23 groundwork in order to lay the foundation for what came thereafter. Now,

24 had the Prosecution decided, and again, it's optional on their part to do

25 that, I might not have spent as much time. And I'm trying to be as

Page 2170

1 efficient as the Court would like.

2 We also have a witness who at times gives lengthy explanations,

3 sometimes unnecessarily. And I'm put in a position where I either have to

4 appear argumentative with the witness and abusive, or sit there like a

5 potted plant, as I have been on many occasions, exercising my breathing

6 technique.

7 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Karnavas, when we made that ruling the other day,

8 everything goes according to that schedule. We said that we are going to

9 start the next witness on Wednesday and spend two days on that witness.

10 And on Friday, we believed that the Jokic's team also need one day for the

11 preparation for their cross-examination. So everything should go

12 according to the schedule. And Mr. Stojanovic already indicated that they

13 need one sitting, that is, more or less 75 minutes, for their

14 cross-examination to this witness. I believe there's some redirect from

15 the Prosecution.

16 Mr. McCloskey, could you please indicate to me how much time do

17 you need for your redirect?

18 MR. McCLOSKEY: I don't really -- I can't think of anything right

19 now, Your Honour. If you have any suggestions, I can help out the Court.

20 But I don't have anything right now.

21 JUDGE LIU: Well, you mean that you are not going to redirect this

22 witness?

23 MR. McCLOSKEY: Not yet, Your Honour. I don't see any point I

24 need to make, though if you need any help on that, I can go into it. But

25 we tried to make it as clear as we could.

Page 2171

1 JUDGE LIU: Thank you. Well, I'm sure that there's some questions

2 from the Bench because we have some questions concerning certain areas

3 which is not quite clear. We need some clarification from this witness.

4 And that will take some time. And we also have to admit bundles of the

5 documents. And by the way, I believe that the document list you prepared

6 is very good. It's easier to find those particular documents.

7 But anyway, you don't have the whole day tomorrow for your

8 cross-examination, Mr. Karnavas.

9 MR. KARNAVAS: Well, if I could use the Prosecutor's time, Your

10 Honour, since they are willing to give it up. Then we should be able to

11 finish tomorrow. I will try, Your Honour. I will try. I'm really

12 working as hard as I can. I really am. But there are certain areas such

13 as this, getting the documents in, that are time-consuming. But let's see

14 how it goes.

15 JUDGE LIU: Well, how about that you finish your cross-examination

16 by 1.45 tomorrow afternoon.

17 MR. KARNAVAS: Very well, Your Honour.

18 JUDGE LIU: And we leave some time for the cross-examination by

19 Mr. Jokic's team tomorrow afternoon, 3 to 4.30.

20 MR. KARNAVAS: That's fine, Your Honour. Well, it's not fine, but

21 I'll have to live with it.

22 JUDGE LIU: You have to say that's fine.

23 MR. KARNAVAS: Very well, Your Honour.

24 JUDGE LIU: We gave you, you know, an extra three sittings.

25 MR. KARNAVAS: It's fine.

Page 2172

1 JUDGE LIU: It's so decided.

2 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Your Honour.

3 JUDGE LIU: Could we have the witness now. Madam Usher.

4 Good afternoon, Witness.

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon.

6 JUDGE LIU: I'm sorry for the late start, because we had some

7 procedural matters to discuss. Now, are you ready to proceed?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I am ready, Your Honour.

9 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.

10 Mr. Karnavas.

11 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Your Honour.

12 Q. Mr. Nikolic, during the break, did you have an opportunity to look

13 at the documents that were provided to you?

14 A. Yes, Mr. Karnavas, I did.

15 Q. Now, if I could turn your attention to what has been marked as

16 D27/1 for identification purposes, could you please look at it. If I may

17 help, it's the decision. It's a decision by the court, basic court. Do

18 you see it?

19 A. I have found it, yes.

20 Q. And in this decision, it notes that the enterprise formally known

21 as Kartonaza has been changed to SM-PRO Ltd. Is that correct?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Thank you. If you look at what has been previously marked for

24 identification purposes as D23/1, and it says: "the Basic Court in

25 Bijeljina" at the top. And this talks about the change of ownership.

Page 2173

1 A. Yes, yes.

2 Q. And there's a list -- okay. And this basically demonstrates that

3 it went from a state ownership to a private ownership, does it not?

4 A. Yes, Mr. Karnavas.

5 Q. Thank you. If we could look at what has been previously marked as

6 D24/1 for identification purposes, that is the document in your language

7 which would designate you as the company manager.

8 A. Yes, I see that.

9 Q. And again, this is dated 18 October 2000. And at the bottom, it

10 designates that it is a form, attachment 4 to the decision. Does it not

11 say that, sir?

12 A. Attachment number 4 of the decision.

13 Q. And the decision that we're talking about is the decision that I

14 first showed you which for identification purposes was D27/1, that

15 decision? You can see it's the same date?

16 A. Yes, we could say that. Yes.

17 Q. Okay. Then if we go to D25, what has been previously marked for

18 identification purposes as D25/1, that is the form that has both your

19 signature and your thumbprint or your fingerprint on it. Do you see that,

20 sir?

21 A. Yes, I see that.

22 Q. Okay. And is this not, sir, also part of the same package -- the

23 same attachment package to the decision of 18 October 2000?

24 A. Yes, it is.

25 Q. Thank you.

Page 2174

1 Now, I would like to draw your attention to what has been

2 previously marked as D20/1 for identification purposes. Could you please

3 look at it, sir. It's a package of documents, but I'm really interested

4 for the time being on the first one, two -- well, let's look at them all

5 first, and then we'll decide how we'll proceed. Just please look at them.

6 A. I took a look at it earlier on in the group of documents that you

7 gave me.

8 Q. Okay. And the first page of D20/1 is a letter addressed to me,

9 and it's from SM-PRO Bratunac. And in fact, it has a date on it of 15

10 September 2003, does it not?

11 A. Yes, there is a letter here, some kind of letter, with the

12 contents as they're put.

13 Q. And just for the record, let me read it, and then we'll discuss it

14 at some point.

15 MR. McCLOSKEY: Excuse me, Mr. President.

16 JUDGE LIU: Yes.

17 MR. McCLOSKEY: We don't have these documents that you're

18 referring to.

19 MR. KARNAVAS: I'm shocked.

20 JUDGE LIU: D20. Do we have it to be put on the ELMO?

21 MR. KARNAVAS: Yes, we could put it on the ELMO, and there must

22 have been a -- I know we're into Monday afternoon now, but... I apologise

23 to the Prosecution. I assumed they had a copy of it.

24 Q. Okay. Now this letter dated September 15th, 2003, states - it's

25 addressed to me - "we are informing you that we have inspected the

Page 2175

1 archives of ODP Kartonaza, currently called SM-PRO, as you requested, and

2 found invoice number 117/2000 issued by d.o.o. 'Amstel' Valjevo, on the

3 basis of which 7,520 KM," that's convertible marks, "were paid out in

4 ready money (cashier's order number 82, dated June 29, 2000), and invoice

5 number 84/2000 dated May 10, 2000, d.o.o. `Meteor' from Valjevo on the

6 basis of which 9,380 KM," convertible marks, "were paid out in ready money

7 (cashier's order number 81, dated June 30, 2000)." And then it has the

8 enclosure. Is that how your copy reads, sir?

9 A. Yes, Mr. Karnavas, that's how it reads.

10 Q. Now, if we could go to the next document that is contained within

11 what has been previously marked as D20/1 for identification purposes, and

12 if you could please look at it, sir. And at the top of it, it says

13 "Enterprise Amstel" on the left side and "ODP Kartonaza" on the right

14 side. Do you see that, sir?

15 A. Yes, Mr. Karnavas, I do.

16 Q. And it notes that there's a date, 12 June 2000, does it not?

17 A. That's right.

18 Q. And the invoice number is 117/2000. Is that correct?

19 A. Correct, Mr. Karnavas.

20 Q. And there is a signature, is there not, on this document, or

21 signatures, are there not?

22 A. There are several signatures, one, two, three, four, in fact.

23 Four signatures.

24 Q. Okay. Any of them yours, Mr. Nikolic?

25 A. That's right, Mr. Karnavas.

Page 2176

1 Q. Now, this document, as I understand it, it's a delivery of goods

2 from Amstel to Kartonaza. Is that correct?

3 A. Yes, you're right.

4 Q. Now, if we could look at the next document which is contained in

5 D20/1 for identification purposes, top side of it says "cashier's order."

6 And do you see that?

7 A. Yes, that is the cashier's order. Right.

8 Q. Dated June 29, 2000. Correct?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And it's invoice number 82. Is that correct?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And it's for the amount of 7.500, is it not?

13 A. 7.520 KM, convertible marks.

14 Q. And a convertible mark at that time was approximately the same

15 value as a Deutschemark. Would that be correct?

16 A. Yes. In Republika Srpska and Bosnia-Herzegovina, that was roughly

17 the exchange rate.

18 Q. Now, this is a payment from Kartonaza to Amstel, is it not?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And it has your signature, does it not?

21 A. Yes, I approved this order for payment.

22 Q. Okay. And the payment, in fact, is for cash, right?

23 A. That's right, Mr. Karnavas.

24 Q. If we could now -- if you could look at what has been previously

25 marked for identification purposes as D21/1. I don't know if the

Page 2177

1 Prosecution was given a copy of that. We have an extra copy. And we

2 apologise.

3 Do you see that, sir?

4 A. I do see that, Mr. Karnavas, yes.

5 Q. Now, if I could read this into the record, this is a letter

6 dated -- well, I believe I don't see the date on it. Or does it have a

7 date? 7 July. Is that it?

8 A. It says here, Mr. Karnavas, the 7th of July, number 1.

9 Q. Right. Okay. But at the bottom, it says -- it's signed September

10 15, 2003, Amstel Valjevo, and it has director Milena Mitrovic.

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Now, does it not state in this document, sir, that -- well, let me

13 just read it. "In response to your request, we hereby inform you that

14 company Amstel d.o.o. Valjevo did not maintain business relations with ODP

15 Kartonaza Bratunac in year 2000." Does it not state that?

16 A. That's what it states, Mr. Karnavas.

17 Q. And then it states: "Company Amstel d.o.o. Valjevo had 36

18 invoices in its documentation pursuant to the annual account and for the

19 year 2000 in the period between 01/01/2000 and 12/31/2000. Mention

20 invoice number 117/2000 from June 12, 2000, does not exist in our files,

21 and we know nothing of it." Does it not say that, sir?

22 A. That's what it says, Mr. Karnavas.

23 Q. And so it would appear that the invoice 117 to which you paid to

24 Amstel which bears your signature is a false receipt, isn't it? It's a

25 false payment receipt.

Page 2178

1 A. No, Mr. Karnavas.

2 Q. Very well.

3 A. That is absolutely not correct. Everything here -- you can see

4 everything from this invoice, and I should like to ask you, or rather the

5 Trial Chamber for you to complete what you have to say, and then I should

6 like to ask Their Honours to allow me to explain the details of it.

7 Q. Okay. All right. Let me ask a few more questions before we get

8 into that. And perhaps before you give your explanation, we can go into

9 the next segment which has to do with Meteor. But while we're still with

10 respect to Amstel, you do not dispute the fact that the receipt itself

11 carries your signature. You recognise that signature? You recognise it

12 to be yours, do you not, sir?

13 A. No, sir, I am not questioning the fact that I approved this

14 invoice. That means -- and you'll understand this once you hear my

15 explanations and when I explain the situation as it was when I arrived and

16 why I had this kind of relationship. So none of the invoices which

17 came -- fell due for payment in the accounts department of the company

18 where I was director could not have been paid out or anything else done

19 pursuant to it until it was brought to my table for approval. As you can

20 see in both these invoices, or rather on these invoices, you have my

21 approval, my signature stating that I approved the payment pursuant to the

22 invoice. So you have the Amstel invoice, and you have the invoice

23 dated - just a moment, please - the invoice from Valjevo, from Meteor from

24 Valjevo, where I approved in similar fashion the payment pursuant to the

25 invoice that reached our enterprise. And that, Mr. Karnavas, is the -- my

Page 2179

1 discretionary right, how I'm going to act in matters of payment. That is

2 to say, from the account of the company I was director of. Nobody else

3 has the right to make that decision and to approve payments.

4 And you are able to see what my authorisations were, that is to

5 say, they were authorisations without restrictions and limitations, giving

6 me the right to control everything with respect to financial transactions

7 in the company, to approve or not to approve the various payments. Of

8 course, everything must be in keeping with positive legal rules and

9 regulations and the law governing financial undertakings.

10 Now, if I may, I should like to explain to the Trial Chamber

11 before we go on to the next company and the next invoice the following:

12 That the overall situation, what I found when I came to join Kartonaza,

13 and I should like to ask Their Honours to give me the time to answer and

14 explain that. And afterwards, I think things will be much clearer, and my

15 relationship and why I acted in this particular manner and all the rest of

16 it.

17 Q. If I may ask a few questions before you launch into your

18 explanation --

19 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.

20 MR. McCLOSKEY: Your Honour, I would object on foundation. If

21 counsel could perhaps -- and relevancy, where this is all going. I think

22 that a business litigation in the former Yugoslavia is probably one of the

23 areas that is more complex than anything to do with what we could think up

24 militarily. And I would object on the grounds that this is more

25 time-consuming than it is probative.

Page 2180

1 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Karnavas, I think there's some sense.

2 MR. KARNAVAS: Well, Your Honour, Mr. McCloskey here has brought

3 this gentleman in here saying that he's an honest and truthful individual.

4 And here we're showing through these records, he can give whatever

5 explanation he wishes, but the records are fairly clear. And we maintain

6 that this individual has a past where he is less than honest. This is a

7 crime of dishonesty. And it goes to his character. Obviously, it's

8 something that the Trial Chamber will need to consider in evaluating what

9 weight, if any, to give to his testimony. And I think that is why we

10 brought.

11 Now, I can spend two or three days on other material. I have not.

12 I'm limiting it. But I think this is a prime example of where a phony

13 receipt is paid out bearing the gentleman's signature to a company that

14 acknowledges it had no business. And it's interesting to hear his

15 explanation, and then perhaps the Prosecutor can argue that nonetheless

16 the gentleman has a clean past, he's truthful, he's honest, he doesn't

17 have any crimes of dishonesty. And might I also add if you look at the

18 presentencing brief that was prepared by his own lawyers, there's a

19 segment there, there's a segment there that talks about his lack of

20 criminality. So this is important.

21 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.

22 MR. McCLOSKEY: I understand now where counsel is going. But I

23 would renew my objection in that we have a few documents, many of which

24 are letters to counsel, to try to get to the bottom of this, do we need to

25 get in expert witnesses from the company and how these things work. It

Page 2181

1 goes on endlessly, so I say this is much less probative than it is helpful

2 in getting to the truth of the matter. I just -- in most countries, you

3 must have a criminal conviction of some sort to impeach a witness of

4 something like this. Unless there's something clear and precise we can

5 get to, this is just endless.

6 JUDGE LIU: Well, I believe that, you know, this set of

7 cross-examination goes to the credibility of this witness. So that's why

8 this Bench allowed the continuation of the cross-examination. But,

9 Mr. Karnavas, could we go through all those as soon as possible since we

10 have -- we have the documents at your hands. We know your point in that

11 cross-examination. You may raise some questions direct to this witness

12 and ask for some explanation.

13 MR. KARNAVAS: Very well, Your Honour.

14 Q. Sir, if we could go back to what has been previously marked as

15 D20/1 for identification purposes, if you could look at that. And now I

16 want to focus your attention on another couple of documents that refer to

17 another company called Meteor, Valjevo. Do you see them, sir?

18 A. Yes, I see that, Mr. Karnavas.

19 Q. And in essence again, these two documents demonstrate that a

20 cashier order, cash, was signed over by you to Meteor based on an invoice,

21 number 81. Is that correct?

22 A. The invoice number is 80 -- there's a mistake here. It is 84 as

23 far as I can see.

24 Q. Okay. All right. There's one 84, and what is that for, the

25 84/2000? What are we looking at?

Page 2182

1 A. We are looking at an invoice, and the contents of that include

2 general repair of Sloter and two Krajsers, repair of a Pivano cutting

3 device, and purchase of new cutting devices for the machines that were

4 repaired. So we have an invoice for items linked to the repair of one of

5 the Kartonaza plants. And the machine is actually called Kartonaza in

6 this enterprise.

7 Q. Okay. And then we have a cashier's order with -- bearing again

8 your signature, does it not, for I believe it's 9.380 KM, does it not?

9 A. Yes, Mr. Karnavas, that's right.

10 Q. Now, would it be surprising to you if I were to tell you that

11 Meteor is a company for trade; it is not licensed or capable of repairing

12 printing machinery? Would that surprise you?

13 A. It would not surprise me because the Meteor company is a company,

14 to the best of my knowledge, undertakes supplies for tools and everything

15 else necessary for the repair of heavy machinery. And pursuant to a

16 demand from us, this company procured everything we required in order to

17 perform a general repair of Kartonaza. That is to say, Sloters, Krajsers,

18 and all the other devices that were the subject, the Pivano cutting device

19 which is an Italian-produced knife.

20 Q. Now, if the Court were to issue a subpoena to get the records, the

21 payment records, would it surprise you that there's no such payment to

22 Meteor in their giro account for these services that they allegedly

23 provided for which you paid for and signed? Would that surprise you?

24 A. Mr. Karnavas, as far as payment and the payment records, that's

25 where you have the problem. As regards the recording and payment

Page 2183

1 recording, everything was possible in the former Yugoslavia. So it was

2 possible for you to come to a company which you have been doing business

3 with for ten years, and not to find a single invoice. Or on the other

4 hand, they might issue a certificate saying that they never recorded any

5 payments in their company. And I wish to say before this Tribunal this

6 was the only method in which money could be paid out because it was

7 business transactions with Serbia at the time, and there were no payment

8 transactions with Serbia at that time. So there was no other way in which

9 payment could be made except in cash, ready money, which means that in

10 accounting department, Mr. Karnavas - and quite obviously you haven't been

11 informed about these issues - they're not able to record convertible marks

12 there because there's not allowed to do so. It would be an offence.

13 So they couldn't do that. So I wouldn't be at all surprised if

14 they were to come here and tell us that they have nothing in our accounts

15 department if they said that.

16 Q. That's precisely --

17 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Karnavas, we are not litigating on commercial

18 transactions. You have to understand, if you have some verdict made by a

19 court or judgement rendered by a tribunal, you may show it to us. I think

20 that's the easiest way to prove your point.

21 MR. KARNAVAS: Very well, Your Honour.

22 If I may ask one last question.

23 JUDGE LIU: Yes, if you think it's proper.


25 Q. So you acknowledge to creating invoices that don't properly

Page 2184

1 reflect what they claim to reflect. Yes or no.

2 A. Well, you can't put it that way, Mr. Karnavas, and ask for a yes

3 or no answer. First of all, you're claiming something that does not

4 stand, that is not correct. I don't create the invoices. It is services

5 that are being invoiced, so I didn't create the invoices. The invoices

6 came from companies who sent me the goods or performed services. So it's

7 not me that draws up the invoices. It is them. And as the person in

8 authority, as the director, I approve the money, payments in the sole way

9 possible at the time, the only method that was used between Republic of

10 Serbia and the Republika Srpska. That was the only way in which payments

11 could be made, that is by cash. Because there were no payment

12 transactions, you could pay nothing through a bank or bank account.

13 And if something doesn't work, if the system isn't in existence,

14 then you couldn't do it. So that's the only reason why we did it this

15 way. And I'd like to ask you, Mr. Karnavas, if you have a single piece of

16 evidence that after this any lawsuits were brought against me or criminal

17 files made because of this, and that I was prosecuted for anything of this

18 kind, please tell me. I have no knowledge of it, and I know that nobody

19 ever raised any questions with respect to the methods of -- the payments

20 functioned in my company. And I also wish to say before this Trial

21 Chamber that you were well able to see -- you could go to the control

22 organ of Republika Srpska, the financial police, and see what the state of

23 affairs was after two controls in a state enterprise such as Kartonaza and

24 the day I left Kartonaza, so before and after, you can look at that.

25 I invited the financial police before I left Kartonaza to look

Page 2185

1 through all the books, of all the financial transactions and to report to

2 the shareholders' meeting, because there were five owners in the end

3 instead of one. We heard a man named Mirko from Zvornik of the financial

4 police, I don't know what his surname was. But you can contact the

5 financial police. They can show you their report. And you will see that

6 on the day I left the Kartonaza company, we had not overstepped our

7 authority anywhere with respect to payments and financial transactions.

8 Everything was in order.

9 And I wish to state one more thing. What you said does absolutely

10 not stand. I was not thrown out of Kartonaza. They offered me the post

11 of technical managing director which I turned down because there was a

12 student that they brought in to sell out the state-owned enterprise

13 Kartonaza, to let the workers go, and then to dispose of everything. So I

14 didn't accept this concept and them bringing in this kind of man. So

15 that's where the conflict lay. When they suggested they let go half the

16 workers, 50 per cent of the workers, I told the workers before I left

17 Kartonaza that if they were sacked, I would be the first to leave if they

18 were sacked. And once I left, I would no longer be able to decide on

19 their fate.

20 Now once I left, after my departure, 95 per cent of the businesses

21 that worked with Kartonaza ceased to do so. All the machinery was sold.

22 All the repair work of the machinery that I had conducted and all the

23 workers were let go. They were all sacked except for two workers. And

24 the situation in the Kartonaza factory was this: There were no more

25 workers and no more machinery to work with. And you can also go to the

Page 2186

1 accounts department, the department that gave you these documents -- just

2 let me finish, please.

3 Q. Mr. Nikolic, we're talking about whether you embezzled money or

4 not, that's what this is all about. Not whether they sacked other

5 workers.

6 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Karnavas, I think the witness is finishing his

7 testimony. Be a little more patient.

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm just about finished,

9 Mr. President, Your Honours. So after I left that company virtually no

10 longer exists. There are only one or two people still employed. All the

11 others have been fired. The entire plant that I overhauled has been sold

12 for next to nothing, for peanuts. Some space is being rented out for a

13 monthly rate. And the plant is a completely new plant.

14 I would like Your Honours to know this, too: When I arrived,

15 nothing was working there. The printing press was at a level of 45 years

16 ago. And I can explain each and every detail. So I claim that this is no

17 forgery of any invoices, no embezzlement, I claim that legally and within

18 my legal competencies, I carried out and approved payments, and I also

19 claim that I approved the payment of money and I didn't take it myself

20 personally. And in the corner, you have the cashier, the signature of the

21 person who received the money on one of these invoices. So I just

22 approved it. You have the person who received the money.

23 One person was the manager of the printing press, and the other

24 person who received the other sum of money was the manager of Kartonaza.

25 So I didn't take the money. I didn't receive it. They pick it up from

Page 2187

1 the cashier. And they gave it to the people who were working in those two

2 companies. That is the whole truth.

3 As for this letter from Serbia, Mr. Karnavas, it doesn't mean

4 anything.

5 Q. Very well.

6 MR. KARNAVAS: I'll move on, Your Honour. I could go into this

7 area, but I think we better move on.

8 Q. I want to talk to you, Mr. Nikolic, about your role as a

9 coordinator. As I understand it from your testimony, your statements, you

10 were tasked on the morning of the 12th by Popovic, Kosoric to locate

11 certain areas where they could store and detain prisoners. Is that

12 correct?

13 A. Yes, I said that we discussed this issue, and that I proposed to

14 Popovic and Kosoric facilities where the separated men from Potocari could

15 be temporarily detained.

16 Q. And then slightly thereafter, you're given an order by

17 Colonel Jankovic. Is that correct?

18 A. Correct.

19 Q. You're outside the Fontana, Hotel Fontana?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. The conversation doesn't last more than a few minutes?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. And he tells you, Captain Nikolic, to go to Potocari to coordinate

24 the various units. Is that right?

25 A. Yes. Roughly so.

Page 2188

1 Q. Okay. You were a reserve -- in the reserves. You weren't an

2 officer from the military academy; your rank was as a reserve officer. Is

3 that correct?

4 A. Yes, Mr. Karnavas.

5 Q. Okay. Now, how long had you been a captain?

6 A. I really don't know. It says in my booklet for how long, but I

7 really don't know.

8 Q. Did you start out as a captain when you joined the Territorial

9 Defence back in 1986?

10 A. I think I had the rank of captain then, but I'm not sure. I'm

11 really not sure. I think that I already had the rank of captain then.

12 Q. All right. Now, is that a rank that you had earned or was it

13 bestowed upon you when you got the job? All right, let me back up.

14 Before going to the Territorial Defence in 1986, you were a

15 schoolteacher or professor, as you would put it in Bosnia. Is that

16 correct?

17 A. Yes, I was a teacher of defence and protection in school.

18 Q. All right. You had attended the military, but you weren't

19 selected or chosen to attend the school for reserve officers. Is that

20 correct?

21 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.

22 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection, Your Honour. We have been over this.

23 If there's some foundation counsel makes why we need to go over this

24 again, but time is valuable and I know we have gone over this. And these

25 questions have been asked. And unless we can point to some relevance, I

Page 2189

1 wish we could go on.

2 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Karnavas, I think we are discussing the

3 coordination rule by this witness during that period.

4 MR. KARNAVAS: Well, if I ask a compound question, Your Honour,

5 I've got the Prosecutor there jumping up and down saying I'm trying to

6 confuse the witness. If I break it down, I've got the Prosecutor jumping

7 up and down saying we're going over old territory. So the question I want

8 to ask basically is: Here's a guy from 1986, he's a captain. Now it's

9 1995. He was a member of the war presidency. He was acting commander of

10 the Territorial Defence. He's not even -- he never attended any

11 academies. He's a reservist. He's not even a first captain, let alone a

12 major. How is it that given his background, his pedigree, how is it that

13 he was still a captain? That's the basis of my question.

14 Now, if I ask it in that form, which is my normal trait, I'm going

15 to get objected.

16 JUDGE LIU: Well, I think you have already asked this question,

17 and I think the witness answered: "I think I had the rank of captain

18 then, in 1986."

19 MR. KARNAVAS: But my question is how is it nine years later, he's

20 still a captain? And I can't ask all of that unless I kind of lead up to

21 it.

22 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.

23 MR. McCLOSKEY: Why are you still captain in July of 1995 is a

24 perfectly fine question. I wish you would ask it. Or maybe just refer to

25 Boering's questions.

Page 2190


2 Q. You were still a captain back in 1995 in July. Right?

3 A. Yes, Mr. Karnavas.

4 Q. Even though at one point you had been the acting commander of the

5 Territorial Defence?

6 A. Yes, which failed, and that system no longer existed. It wasn't

7 functioning any longer.

8 Q. Now, when you had this two -- this short conversation, I don't

9 know how many minutes it took, but maybe you could tell us, this short

10 conversation with Mr. Jankovic, how long did it take?

11 A. I said that it was very brief, some 10 minutes or so. I'm really

12 unable to tell you more precisely than that. It was very brief, the

13 amount of time it took for him to convey to me the order as to what I

14 should do.

15 Q. And you were alone when this conversation took place? Nobody was

16 there? Nobody was close enough to hear what Jankovic had tasked you,

17 right?

18 A. Yes. He called me. I approached him. And then we spoke alone.

19 Q. Okay. Now, you've indicated that when you got to Potocari, you

20 found the various units that had been there.

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And in fact, at one point, you list them.

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Okay. Now, one of them was the 65th Protection Regiment?

25 A. I think I said in my testimony that it was a part of the 65th

Page 2191

1 Protection Regiment. I think that I was referring to the military police

2 because a part of the 65th Protection Regiment were people I knew

3 personally, both officers and soldiers. But I knew most of the officers

4 at least by sight, not by name or positions. But I knew them.

5 Q. Okay. Now, before we go on, do you recall giving a statement to

6 Mr. Ruez back in 15 December 1999?

7 A. Yes, I remember talking to Mr. Ruez.

8 Q. Do you remember him asking you if the 65th Protection Regiment

9 rings a bell? In fact, I believe it was Peter McCloskey asking you that

10 question. Do you recall Peter McCloskey asking you that question, if the

11 65th Protection Regiment rings a bell?

12 A. Yes, possibly he asked me that. But really I don't remember many

13 details of the questions put to me then in 1999.

14 Q. Would you like to have your memory refreshed, or should I just

15 give your answer and see whether that rings a bell?

16 A. Yes, you can do that. It's up to you. You choose which you want

17 to do.

18 Q. Question: "Does 65th Protection Regiment ring a bell?" That's

19 McCloskey.

20 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.

21 MR. McCLOSKEY: May we have reference to the page --

22 MR. KARNAVAS: Very well, I stand corrected.

23 JUDGE LIU: Yes.

24 MR. KARNAVAS: It's page 27, line 23. And in the B/C/S version,

25 it's page 24, line 19. Page 24 in B/C/S, and I believe it's around line

Page 2192

1 19, somewhere in that neighbourhood.

2 Q. Do you recall being asked the question: "Does 65th Protection

3 Regiment ring a bell?" And you answered: "No, I really don't know.

4 Protection Regiment of the main staff, yes. But the numbering, I didn't

5 read anywhere, I think."

6 Do you recall giving that answer?

7 A. Possibly, Mr. Karnavas, if that is what it says, then that was my

8 answer. No, really, I don't know. The Protection Regiment, yes, the

9 Protection Regiment of the main staff. But as for numbers, since the end

10 of the war up until the time of this interview, I absolutely had no

11 contacts with the army. It simply didn't interest me. And I forgot

12 whether it was called the 65th or the 95th. It didn't mean anything to me

13 then. So I didn't concern myself with numbers. I said I knew which unit

14 it was then, too. As for the numbers, they really didn't mean anything.

15 Q. Just so I'm clear, four years -- you leave the army in 1996. Is

16 that correct? 1996?

17 A. Yes, in April. I think it was the 20th of April, 1996.

18 Q. Here we are December 15th, 1999, according to the statement on the

19 first page. Am I correct?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And your testimony today is that in three years' time, you simply

22 could not remember the number of the Protection Regiment. That is your

23 testimony today. Am I correct?

24 A. I am saying that at the time when I was giving this interview,

25 prior to that, I had no contact, nor did I have any document or anything

Page 2193

1 which would remind me of the units and the numbers of any units. So at

2 the time I was not prepared to talk about numbers because I simply from

3 the day I was demobilised until I was called for the interview, I did not

4 concern myself with these things. And that's what I said.

5 Q. Okay. All right.

6 Who was the -- who was in charge of the 65th Protection Regiment

7 on July 12th, 1995, when you went to Potocari?

8 A. I told you that I knew the senior officers by sight, and that I

9 know the commander in person. It was first Colonel Savcic, and then

10 Zoran Malinic. He was either a major or a lieutenant-colonel. I'm not

11 quite sure of his rank now. But I did know members of the 65th regiment

12 from the police who were present for a time in Bratunac. I knew them by

13 sight, and I knew which unit they belonged to.

14 Q. Let me ask the question again, and I'll read it from the screen:

15 "Who was in charge of the 65th Protection Regiment on July 12th, 1995,

16 when you went to Potocari?" Now, that is in Potocari, who was in charge

17 that you dealt with? Do you remember?

18 A. Mr. Karnavas, I don't know who was the commander of the Protection

19 Regiment in 1995. I don't know. It was a unit of the main staff. I

20 don't know who was appointed to that position. And in my statement --

21 MR. KARNAVAS: Nonresponsive, Your Honour. Nonresponsive. I

22 asked the question for the second time. I asked him -- this is critical

23 to my defence. He indicated that as a captain he went there to

24 coordinate. He's coordinating people a lot higher than him from different

25 units. Now, if he doesn't know, he should say I don't know. But to go on

Page 2194

1 and give a nonresponsive response gets us nowhere, and it's eating the

2 time.

3 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Karnavas, the first sentence of his answer

4 to your question, he said, "I don't know who was commander of the

5 Protection Regiment in 1995."

6 MR. KARNAVAS: No, Your Honour. My question was very narrow.

7 Who was in charge in Potocari on July 12th, because he indicated that the

8 whole regiment wasn't there, a unit was there. So somebody had to be in

9 charge.

10 JUDGE LIU: So you are asking about who is the commander of part

11 of the regiment on that particular day?

12 MR. KARNAVAS: That was in Potocari that he had to deal with and

13 coordinate.

14 JUDGE LIU: Yes, yes.


16 Q. Do you know who it was?

17 A. I don't know who it was. Who was the commander of that part of

18 the Protection Regiment that was in Potocari, I don't know his first and

19 last name.

20 Q. Do you know his rank?

21 A. I don't know. I don't know his rank. I know him by sight.

22 Q. Was he -- did you know him personally or did you just know him by

23 sight?

24 A. I just told you that I knew those men from those units by sight.

25 I don't know them personally. I would see them.

Page 2195

1 Q. So the person that you were supposed to coordinate from the 65th

2 regiment, unit that was there, you did not know that person, and he -- I

3 guess, axiomatically, that he did not know you at least in a personal

4 sense.

5 A. In my statement, I didn't say that I went there specifically to

6 coordinate the work in the way in which you are putting it. I was in the

7 role of coordinator, and I said with whom I had direct and personal

8 contact among the officers in charge. I said who I had contact with, and

9 I never mentioned the name of any officer from the Protection Regiment.

10 Q. Mr. Nikolic, you've testified that you were given a mandate by a

11 colonel from the main staff. Right?

12 A. That's right.

13 Q. And that mandate required you to coordinate all of the various

14 units, you, a captain, all the various units in Potocari on that morning

15 of 12 July 1995. Isn't that a fact?

16 A. My assignment, Mr. Karnavas, was to coordinate the work of units

17 who had been tasked, who knew what they were supposed to do in Potocari.

18 And my task was to supervise them, to solve problems should they arise in

19 this overall operation. So the units that were in Potocari had already

20 received assignments from their commanders, from their superiors. I had

21 no need to know all the commanding officers. My task was to supervise

22 things, to tour the places of engagement. If there are any problems, to

23 suggest and propose solutions to those problems. Those were my tasks as

24 coordinator.

25 Q. Okay. The 65th regiment belongs to the main staff, does it not?

Page 2196

1 A. That is a unit of the main staff of the Army of Republika Srpska.

2 Q. That's under Mladic, is it not?

3 A. One could say that, though it is within the framework of the

4 security administration in the professional sense. But it is directly

5 subordinated probably to General Mladic.

6 Q. Okay. Now, if you were there to coordinate and give instructions,

7 obviously you would need to have some physical contact and speak with the

8 various units that were there. Am I correct?

9 A. Yes, Mr. Karnavas, that what I said. I spoke to the commander

10 because I saw that there were problems. So I spoke to that commander. I

11 mentioned Jevic that I spoke to because there was a problem with respect

12 to the buses, the movement, the transportation. I also spoke to other

13 officers who encountered problems during the operation. For instance, in

14 the town of Bratunac, those buses were stoned at one stage. I got in my

15 car, I went to Bratunac, I found the military police of the Bratunac

16 Brigade, one or two patrols, as many as it was possible to find. I

17 engaged those men, so I then directly ordered the police of the Bratunac

18 Brigade to secure passage through the town because at a certain point in

19 time, that was the main problem.

20 Had a problem arisen somewhere else, I would have gone there, too,

21 to see what the problem was, try and find a way to deal with it. However,

22 in other segments, there were no problems that the officers on the spot

23 were not able to deal with. So that was my role in the simplest terms.

24 Q. Okay. Focus with me, we're back in Potocari. It's sometime

25 around noon or 1.00 or 2.00, whenever you get there, on June -- July 12th,

Page 2197

1 1995.

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Before going there, you had this 10-minute conversation with

4 Jankovic. Did he explain to you exactly how each and every unit was

5 tasked? Did he give you specific instructions and tell you the 10th

6 Sabotage from the main staff has been given this task, 85th this task, MUP

7 this task? Did he do that?

8 JUDGE LIU: Yes, yes, Mr. McCloskey.

9 MR. McCLOSKEY: I know it's getting late, but there's no such

10 thing as the 85th, so if we could try to keep the facts straight.

11 MR. KARNAVAS: 65th. 65th.

12 JUDGE LIU: Yes.


14 Q. Did he tell you exactly what each unit was supposed to do? And

15 I'm not asking for an explanation that he told you that they know what

16 they're supposed to do. I'm asking you did he tell you what each unit was

17 tasked to do? Yes or no.

18 A. No, he didn't tell me.

19 Q. Now --

20 A. In the sense that you have put it.

21 Q. Well -- so in other words, he didn't tell you what the 65th

22 Regiment was tasked to do, and if so, who tasked them, right?

23 A. That's right, he didn't tell me.

24 Q. He didn't you who was in charge of the 65th Protection Regiment at

25 that time so you could make contact with that person, did he?

Page 2198

1 A. No, he didn't tell me who was in charge of the 65th Protection

2 Regiment.

3 Q. Incidentally, did he give you like a letter of recommendation or a

4 letter of introduction so you could introduce yourself as Captain Nikolic

5 when you would be going up to these lieutenant-colonels or colonels or

6 majors, whoever you were coordinating with, to let them know that you had

7 a mandate from none other than the main staff, Colonel Jankovic? Did he

8 give you a letter of introduction?

9 A. No, Mr. Karnavas. All I can tell you is that most of those

10 officers knew Captain Nikolic, even before they came to Potocari, both

11 from within police ranks and the ranks of these units. I think that many

12 people knew me personally or by sight. They knew who Captain Nikolic was.

13 And I didn't receive any letter.

14 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Karnavas, it's time.

15 MR. KARNAVAS: I thought we were going until 5.00, Your Honour.

16 JUDGE LIU: No, we never did that. Usually we go from 3.00 to

17 4.30, because the tape will not run two hours. We have to break here.

18 It's very late.

19 MR. KARNAVAS: Very well, Your Honour. I do wish to point out,

20 though, that we have a little bit of what we call back home filibustering,

21 it's a technique used in the senate, when they don't want to pass the

22 bill, they read the phone book in order to run out the time. And I'm

23 concerned a little bit. So with all due respect, I will need some

24 permission to cut the witness off, or I would request the President to cut

25 the witness off when he's not responsive to direct questions. Because I

Page 2199

1 think we wasted 15 minutes on one question to which finally I got the

2 answer which was no. With that, Your Honour, I mean, it's a little

3 frustrating up here. Maybe that's the game plan, frustrate and evade.

4 JUDGE LIU: No, no, no, I think as always you have to think the

5 other side as bona fide. And Mr. Karnavas, also on your part, I think

6 there's still room for improvement. You ask the same question once again.

7 And sometimes you are not so direct and to the point. I believe that you

8 have a point to make in those questions, but you could directly come to

9 that question. Because in the cross-examination, you are allowed somehow

10 to ask leading questions.

11 MR. KARNAVAS: There's always room for improvement, Your Honour.

12 And I agree, and I will -- I certainly will make greater efforts.

13 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much for your cooperation. And we'll

14 resume at 9.00 tomorrow morning in the same courtroom.

15 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 4.35 p.m.,

16 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 30th day of

17 September, 2003, at 9.00 a.m.