Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 14092

 1                           Thursday, 2 June 2011

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           [The witness takes the stand]

 5                           --- Upon commencing at 9.00 a.m.

 6             JUDGE MORRISON:  Yes, Dr. Karadzic, if you would like to

 7     continue, please.

 8             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Excellency.

 9             Good morning to everybody.

10                           WITNESS:  PATRICK TREANOR [Resumed]

11                           Cross-examination by Mr. Karadzic: [Continued]

12             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

13        Q.   Good morning, Mr. Treanor.

14        A.   Good morning, Dr. Karadzic.

15             THE ACCUSED:  I think the translators wanted you to put on the

16     microphone.

17             THE INTERPRETER:  The witness's microphone is not on.

18             It is on now.

19             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

20        Q.   I would like to draw your attention to paragraph 82 in your

21     report, 592, on pages 56 and 57, where you say this:

22             [In English] "Beginning at the latest in September 1991, the SDS

23     followed a two-track approach, publicly.  Its leaders advocated ethnic

24     tolerance, democratic dialogue and preservation of Serbian interest

25     within SRBiH and preservation of BH in Yugoslavia through peaceful

Page 14093

 1     negotiations with the other national parties, the HDZ and the SDA.  Yet

 2     secretly its representatives continued to plot, to undermine the joint

 3     republic from within -- and made preparations for conflict in collusion

 4     with Serbs in Croatia ...," and so on and so on.

 5             [Interpretation] I am not reading everything, obviously.

 6             This thesis of yours, was it adopted from the pre-trial

 7     proceedings or the other way around?  The pre-trial proceedings,

 8     paragraph 12, where it says:

 9             [In English] "Working closely with Milosevic and other Serb

10     leaders, Karadzic pursued a two-pronged approach to ensure that Serbs

11     would remain in a common state, engaging in negotiations to secure a

12     common state, while simultaneously preparing the organs, entities and

13     conditions for the possible ethnic separation and creation of a Serb

14     state carved out from BH, similar to a process that had started in

15     Croatia."

16             [Interpretation] Do you see a striking similarity between your

17     paragraph 82 and the pre-trial proceedings, and can you tell us what was

18     here first?  It is an old egg-and-chicken question, so what was the egg

19     and what was the chicken in this case?

20             I would like to correct.  It is not pre-trial proceedings, but

21     pre-trial brief.

22        A.   Yes, I think I see your concern.

23             Well, that portion of the pre-trial brief was, in fact, drafted

24     by my team.  And as I indicated yesterday, we were engaged in ongoing

25     analysis of all the documentation at our disposal, and I can only suppose

Page 14094

 1     at the request of the trial team, they wanted some material on these

 2     issues.  So we gave it to them for that purpose, and we also used it in

 3     the report.

 4        Q.   Thank you.  Also in the same report, on pages 57 through 64,

 5     under the title "The Serbian Republic of BH and Ethnic Separation," you

 6     dealt with this topic.  And now I would like to show you what

 7     paragraph 12 looks like, in the Defence's submission, and the indictment

 8     should look in the following way.

 9             Can I please call up 1D03503 in e-court.  1D03503.  There is no

10     Serbian version.

11             I'm going to read:

12             [In English] "Tudjman, in respect of Izetbegovic, engaged in

13     negotiations to secure a common state, while simultaneously preparing the

14     organs, entities and conditions for the forcible ethnic separation and

15     creation of a Croat ..."

16             Respectively:

17             "... Muslim state carved out from Yugoslavia, similar to a

18     process that had started in Slovenia."

19             [Interpretation] Here, Dr. Treanor, only the names of the players

20     have been changed, and geographical terms.  Is it really that they did

21     what it says here, according to what you knew?

22        A.   I'm afraid I don't understand where this comes from.

23        Q.   This is paragraph 12 of the pre-trial brief.  However, some

24     changes have been made.  It is no longer Karadzic and Milosevic, but

25     Tudjman and Izetbegovic.  Did they negotiate in order to preserve

Page 14095

 1     Yugoslavia?  Actually, they did everything that was in their power to

 2     carve out parts of the Yugoslav territory; right?

 3             JUDGE MORRISON:  Mr. Tieger.

 4             MR. TIEGER:  Yes.

 5             It's not difficult to understand the witness's confusion.  The

 6     accused can certainly confront the witness with any propositions he wants

 7     the witness to address.  But done in this guise, extracting portions from

 8     one document, then altering it, and not indicating where and how it's

 9     altered, and presenting it as an exhibit, is clearly giving rise to

10     confusion.  Why don't we just get to the proposition that the accused

11     wants to address and ask the witness to address it?

12             JUDGE MORRISON:  Dr. Karadzic, is that the position, that this is

13     a document that's simply been altered in order to make the point?

14             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is paragraph 12 of the

15     pre-trial brief.  There have been alterations made, and now that the

16     names have been changed, there is more foundation.  It is more plausible

17     that Izetbegovic and Tudjman did against Yugoslavia what is ascribed to

18     me in paragraph 12 of the pre-trial brief and paragraph 82 of

19     Dr. Treanor's report.

20             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

21        Q.   Dr. Treanor, was it your impression that Izetbegovic and Tudjman

22     did what it says here that they did, and did it have anything to do with

23     what we were supposedly doing?

24        A.   Well, the only negotiations that I know that Mr. Tudjman and

25     Mr. Izetbegovic were engaged in, regarding the creation of a common

Page 14096

 1     state, were in 1994, when the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the

 2     confederation between that federation and Croatia were agreed upon.

 3        Q.   Do you agree with me that from 1990 to 1992, there were permanent

 4     negotiations going on involving the six presidents of the republics and

 5     the Presidency of Yugoslavia about the preservation of Yugoslavia, and

 6     simultaneously Tudjman and Izetbegovic were setting up their own

 7     respective armies and laying down foundations for seceding from

 8     Yugoslavia?

 9        A.   Yes, there were those ongoing negotiations among the presidents

10     of all the republics in 1991.  I'm not familiar with the details of the

11     steps you're -- you have described that they were taking, but I think, in

12     broad terms, that that is correct.

13             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

14             JUDGE BAIRD:  Excuse me, Professor -- Dr. Treanor.

15             Right here, right here, right here.

16             THE WITNESS:  Sorry.

17             JUDGE BAIRD:  I am not quite following.  What exactly are you

18     agreeing with?

19             THE WITNESS:  The statement that simultaneously, Tudjman and

20     Izetbegovic were setting up their own respective armies and laying down

21     foundations for seceding from Yugoslavia, I mean, the trend of Croatian

22     policy at that time was, in fact, toward independence from Yugoslavia,

23     and Croatia was attempting to build up some sort of armed force for

24     itself.  And as we've -- I mentioned in my testimony, and in the -- and

25     in my reports, in 1991 the -- there were ongoing attempts by the SDA,

Page 14097

 1     that is, the Muslim party in Bosnia, in conjunction with the HDZ, which

 2     was the Croatian party in Bosnia, which was, in fact, the Bosnian branch

 3     of the ruling party in Croatia, toward independence for BH.  And I am --

 4     I understand, although, again, I don't know the details, that certain

 5     Muslim groups were attempting to gain arms at that time as well.

 6             JUDGE BAIRD:  Thank you.

 7             Dr. Karadzic.

 8             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 9             1D03505 is the next document I would like to call up.  Let's just

10     look what paragraph 13 of the pre-trial brief would look in our variant.

11     Everybody can read.

12             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

13        Q.   You can see that in the original pre-trial brief, it says

14     "Serbs."  We are now changing the title of the actors, and we say:

15             [In English] "Earmarked territories considered Croat or Muslim

16     created separate Croat or Muslim institutions to resist Yugoslav

17     authority, declared independence, and forcibly took control of a large

18     part of Yugoslav territory."

19             [Interpretation] Is this correct, what you see on the screen?

20     Did they do that?

21        A.   I don't believe you've read that into the record correctly, and

22     it doesn't make any sense to me.

23             Can I just clarify?  Which pre-trial brief does this come from?

24             MR. TIEGER:  I'm going to, again, underscore the problems with

25     this kind of approach, and I would like to object to the use of this kind

Page 14098

 1     of manipulation of the underlying -- of any underlying documents related

 2     to these proceedings.

 3             JUDGE MORRISON:  Well, if the documents were being, as it were,

 4     secretly changed, it would be different, Mr. Tieger.  But what

 5     Dr. Karadzic is doing is making a point through extrapolating one set of

 6     circumstances into another.

 7             Dr. Treanor, you understand the point that Dr. Karadzic is trying

 8     to make, I'm sure.

 9             THE WITNESS:  I think so, although he made reference in his

10     remarks that are in the record that the Yugoslav authority declared

11     independence forcibly and took control of a large part of Yugoslav

12     territory, which doesn't make sense.

13             JUDGE MORRISON:  Well, Dr. Karadzic, I think we can all see the

14     road down which you're going with this approach, but it might be much

15     more simple to just simply put it directly to Dr. Treanor, rather than do

16     it through this illustrative but somewhat confusing way.

17             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Excellency.

18             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation].

19        Q.   Dr. Treanor, it says in the pre-trial brief that the Serbs did

20     what it says here, that the Serbs did that to Bosnia-Herzegovina, and the

21     Defence says, no, it was the Muslims and the Croats who did that to

22     Yugoslavia.  Do you agree that Muslims and Croats earmarked territories

23     that they wanted to carve out from Yugoslavia, and that they did

24     everything in their power to carry out the unilateral secession?

25        A.   Well, yes, as I indicated, Croatia was working toward

Page 14099

 1     independence under the new government of the HDZ that came into power in

 2     1990 as a result of elections in Croatia in 1990, and they, in fact,

 3     declared independence on June, I believe, the 25th, 1991.  They desired

 4     to have their independent state consist of the entire territory of the

 5     Republic of Croatia, as it had been within the Yugoslav Federation in

 6     Bosnia.  Certainly, the SDA was in favour of -- was in favour --

 7     certainly after Croatia and Slovenia had seceded from Yugoslavia, was in

 8     favour of having an independent Bosnia within the boundaries that the

 9     Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina had within the Yugoslav Federation.

10        Q.   Thank you.  You're a historian and UN expert.  I would like to

11     shed light on the term of the constituency.  When it comes to peoples or

12     nationalities, constituency means statehood; in other words, it means

13     that a people constitutes a certain entity?  Do you agree with me?

14        A.   I think in Yugoslav legal and constitutional parlance, that is

15     generally correct, although again I'm not a lawyer or a constitutional

16     scholar, but that's my understanding of the use of those terms in

17     Yugoslav legal and constitutional documents.

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

19             1D03499 is the next document I would like to call up.  1D03499.

20             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

21        Q.   This is from Oxford Dictionaries.  Let's see what the Oxford

22     Dictionary definition is of the term "constituent."

23             It says here, amongst other things:

24             [In English] "Able to make or change a political constitution."

25             [Interpretation] Does this mean that a constituent people implies

Page 14100

 1     that such a people has the power to change the political constitution of

 2     the state?

 3        A.   [No verbal response]

 4        Q.   Let me help you.  Do you agree that this is an Oxford definition?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 7             Can this be admitted?  Can the definition be admitted?  Can the

 8     document be admitted?

 9             THE WITNESS:  Yes, I don't see any objection to that.

10             MR. TIEGER:  I object as irrelevant.

11             THE WITNESS:  It's not for me to object.

12             JUDGE MORRISON:  Of course, we can admit it, Dr. Karadzic.

13     Dr. Treanor may prefer Yale as opposed to an Oxford definition, but

14     that's another matter.

15             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit D1259, Your Honours.

16             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

17        Q.   Dr. Treanor, we will benefit from the fact that you are a

18     historian, and we will show you a number -- a limited number of

19     historical documents and discuss them with you, for the benefit of the

20     Chamber.  Those documents are of major significance for the creation and

21     disappearance of Yugoslavia, and the documents originate from a

22     collection compiled by Snjezana Trifunovska.  Is it true that you rely on

23     the work of this scientist and that you quoted her in your work?

24        A.   Well, I'm not sure -- I think there's a question there, and I'm

25     not sure who you're referring to.

Page 14101

 1        Q.   Snjezana Trifunovska.  We can look at your report, 12125,

 2     pages 26 and 27, footnotes 109, declaration on Yugoslavia, ICR Press.

 3     Let's not call up the document.  Everybody can remember.  So this is your

 4     report, 12125, and you're referring to the name Trifunovska.  Let's look

 5     at six documents without which nobody would be able to understand the

 6     essence of the Yugoslav crisis.

 7             Do you agree that on the eve of the First World War, the border

 8     between the Austro-Hungarian empire and the Kingdom of Yugoslavia [as

 9     interpreted] was on the Drina River?

10             [In English] Kingdom of Serbia.

11        A.   Before the First World War, if I'm not mistaken, the boundary

12     between the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Kingdom of Serbia was, well,

13     the Danube for quite some distance.  The boundary on the side toward

14     Bosnia, I'm under the impression that it was then pretty much as it is

15     today, which would include the Drina for some of its course in the area

16     just south of where it flows into the Sava.

17        Q.   Thank you.  Your knowledge is valuable, but I don't have as much

18     time as I requested.  So if you could just answer by yes or no whenever

19     possible.

20             Do you agree that Serbs and others lived in the Kingdom of

21     Serbia, whereas west of the Drina, in the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, the

22     residents were Croats, Slovenians, and so on and so forth?

23        A.   Yes, but especially so on and so forth.

24        Q.   Thank you.  Do you agree that the Austro-Hungarian Empire lost

25     the First World War, and that after the war, it fell into the state of

Page 14102

 1     dissolution, it broke up?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   Thank you.  Do you agree that at the moment when the

 4     Austro-Hungarian Empire broke up, the Slovenian and Croat peoples, who

 5     had lived under the Austro-Hungarian Empire, set up the National Council

 6     of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs?

 7        A.   Yes, I believe that's correct.

 8        Q.   Do you agree that on the 29th of October, 1918, in Zagreb, those

 9     three peoples set up and proclaimed the state of Slovenes, Croats and

10     Serbs?

11        A.   Well, representatives of those peoples did, yes.  I believe

12     that's the correct date.

13        Q.   Do you agree that the first session of this state, of the state

14     of the Slovenes, Croats and Serbs, decided that the government will be

15     based on the full equality of the Slovenes, Croats and Serbs in that

16     state, and that state was west of the Drina River?  We are still not

17     talking about the state of Serbia proper.

18        A.   I believe that's correct.

19        Q.   Thank you.  Do you agree that in that way, the Slovenes, Croats

20     and the Serbs who resided in the territory of the then Austro-Hungarian

21     Empire, again, after the medieval times, finally won the right to call

22     their state their own?  In other words, they became the constituent

23     people of that state?

24        A.   Well, they certainly claimed that right and became the

25     constituent peoples of that state.

Page 14103

 1        Q.   Do you agree that on the 8th November 1918, in Geneva, the

 2     Kingdom of Serbia recognised the National Council of Slovenes, Croats and

 3     Serbs as the legal government representing those three peoples?

 4        A.   I believe that is correct, although I'm not sure about Geneva.

 5     I'm willing to accept your word for that.

 6        Q.   Thank you.  Do you agree that on the 1st of December, 1918, in

 7     Belgrade, the National Council of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs asked for

 8     and informed King Aleksandar of the desire of this kingdom -- of the

 9     state of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs to be independent and to join Serbia,

10     to unite with it in a joint state?

11        A.   Well, the joint state was proclaimed on the 1st of December.  I'm

12     not sure about the sequence of events on that day as you've described

13     them.  But, again, I'm willing to accept your word for that.

14             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

15             Can we glance at 1D1407.  That's the proclamation of the Kingdom

16     of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs.  If we can call up this document in

17     e-court.

18             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

19        Q.   Do you agree that it's this Council of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs

20     that asked for and received, at their own request, unification with

21     Serbia?

22        A.   No, we haven't seen the document, but I'm willing to accept what

23     the document says as something that the document says.

24             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Page 85 in this document so that

25     Dr. Treanor can have a look, although he's already familiar with this

Page 14104

 1     book.

 2             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 3        Q.   The right page, it's underlined:

 4             "The Slovenes, Croats and Serbs, who have effected a revolution

 5     on the territory of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, have

 6     temporarily constituted themselves an independent national state."

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

 8        Q.   Further down below:

 9             [In English] "In order to realise this idea, the National

10     Council, at its sitting on November 29th, resolved to proclaim the union

11     of the state of the Slovenes, Croats and Serbs with Serbia and Montenegro

12     in one single state, and elected a delegation ...," and so on.

13             [Interpretation] So we can agree that this was, indeed, so;

14     correct?

15        A.   Yes.  This is an expression of the long-standing desire among

16     certain circles among the southern Slavs in the Austro-Hungarian Empire

17     to form a joint state among all the Slavs.

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

19             Can we see page 86, please.

20             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

21        Q.   The last paragraph on page 86:

22             [In English] "With complete confidence, we cherish the hope that

23     Your Royal Highness, together with our whole nation, will strive that, in

24     the end, the frontiers of our state be drawn in such a manner as to agree

25     with our ethnographic boundaries, in accordance with principles of

Page 14105

 1     national self-determination as proclaimed by President Wilson of the

 2     United States of America and by all the Entente powers."

 3             [Interpretation] Would you agree that this new nation, this

 4     Yugoslav state, requests and declares the right to preserve ethnic

 5     boundaries, invoking the 14 points from the proclamation of

 6     President Wilson?

 7        A.   Well, yeah, the document says what you have indicated.  I don't

 8     think this is the time or place to get into discussions of what exactly

 9     the 14 points said about the Austro-Hungarian Empire or what is exactly

10     meant by the Entente powers.  Certainly, Italy had certain claims that

11     clashed with those of the south Slavs.  But, certainly, in general terms,

12     the new Yugoslav state was looking for ethnic boundaries in the west,

13     certainly, that is, toward Austria, Hungary and Italy.

14        Q.   May I ask you to look at the right-hand page, the first third or

15     the first half of it, where it says:

16             [In English] "In the name of His Majesty King Peter I, I

17     therefore now proclaim the union of Serbia with the lands of the

18     independent state of the Slovenes, Croats and Serbs in the Kingdom of the

19     Serbs, Croats and Slovenes."

20             [Interpretation] Do you agree the Regent Aleksandar says "with

21     the lands of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes"?  Serbia is uniting with the

22     lands of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes?

23        A.   Well, yes, that's what it says.  I would point out that this

24     statement indicates -- is one indication of the different conception that

25     any leaders in the Kingdom of Serbia had about the nature of the state.

Page 14106

 1     They saw the state that was being proclaimed as simply an expansion of

 2     the Kingdom of Serbia, and conceived that new state to be a centralised

 3     state with its capital in Belgrade.

 4             And the reference to "lands," I guess, is correct.  I don't know

 5     what it says in the original, I can't recall.  It probably does say the

 6     same thing.  Of course, I think the "lands" under reference would most

 7     properly refer to various provinces which the southern Slavs have been

 8     divided among in the Austro-Hungarian Empire; that is, Bosnia, different

 9     parts of Croatia, Dalmatia, et cetera.

10        Q.   Thank you.  This says, "the lands making up the state of

11     Slovenes, Croats and Serbs," but, all right, we can agree about that.

12             1D1407, pages 84 through 86.  I'm now tendering it.  It's part of

13     the common D number.

14             MR. TIEGER:  I don't remember a reference to 84.  But if that was

15     encompassed by the questioning, I have no objection.

16             JUDGE MORRISON:  So be it.

17             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, these pages will be added to the

18     existing Exhibit D244.

19             JUDGE MORRISON:  Thank you.

20             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

21        Q.   Just one more brief point on this subject.

22             On page 88 of the same document, could we look at the Peace

23     Treaty of Saint Germain.

24             Do you agree that this peace treaty from St. Germain on the 10th

25     of September, 1919, the Great Powers recognised the fact that Serb, Croat

Page 14107

 1     and Slovene peoples of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy united of

 2     their own free will with Serbia, in a permanent union, under the title

 3     "Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes"?

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

 5             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 6             Could this be -- could this page be added to the same document as

 7     exhibited?

 8             JUDGE MORRISON:  Yes, that's logical.

 9             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

10             Could we now see page 91, Article 12.

11             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

12        Q.   Do you agree that this article stipulates that pending the

13     conclusion of new treaties or conventions, all treaties, conventions,

14     agreements, and obligations between Serbia, on the one hand, and any of

15     the principal allied and associated powers, on the other hand, which were

16     in force on the 1st of August, 1914, or which have since been entered

17     into, shall, ipso facto, be binding upon the Serb-Croat-Slovene state?

18     Article 12 says so?

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

20             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

21             Can this be added as well?

22                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

23             JUDGE MORRISON:  I'm advised that it's already been admitted

24     anyway, Dr. Karadzic.

25             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

Page 14108

 1        Q.   In conclusion, with this picture about the origins of Yugoslavia,

 2     could we agree that Yugoslavia came into being by virtue of the fact that

 3     the state of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs united with Serbia, and they were

 4     joined by Montenegro later, and that's how the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats

 5     and Slovenes came into being?

 6        A.   Yes, I would agree with that, in general terms.

 7        Q.   Thank you.  Would you agree that the Serbs never abandoned this

 8     constituent status?  I'm talking about Serbs west of the Drina.  They

 9     never gave up on their own constituent status in that joint state?

10        A.   I'm not aware that they ever did, and I'm not sure how they would

11     have done that if they had wanted to.

12        Q.   But do you agree that that is the basis why, in all the

13     constitutions of the Croatian Republic up to 1990, and in the

14     Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, it was said explicitly that the

15     Serb people, among others, was a constituent people in both these states?

16     That was only changed with the Christmas Constitution of

17     President Tudjman?

18        A.   Well, I don't know for certain that the reason why the Serbs were

19     mentioned as a constituent people in their Croatian constitutions, which

20     I believe was under discussion here, the postwar Croatian constitutions,

21     goes back to that.  I can well see that it might.  That gets into the

22     issue of what the nationality policy of the Yugoslav communists under

23     Tito was during World War II.  They recognised the rights of other

24     nationalities which had not been recognised in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia,

25     so there were more general reasons -- political reasons for them wanting

Page 14109

 1     to do that.  But it is certainly true that that continued to be the case

 2     until the new Croatian Constitution of 1990, which was something that

 3     greatly disturbed Serbs not only in Croatia.

 4        Q.   Thank you.  This is -- this was a historical aspect, rather than

 5     a legal look at all these issues about the creation of Yugoslavia.

 6             Speaking of the right of self-determination of peoples in the

 7     internal Yugoslav law, do you agree that the Constitution of the

 8     Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, in its introduction, in its

 9     preamble, named, as principle 1, the following --

10             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 1D03506, please.

11             I said "the historical aspect, rather than a legal aspect of

12     these constitutional changes."  It's missing from the transcript.

13             Page 3 in English; page 1 in Serbian.  Could we zoom in on the

14     English.

15             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

16        Q.   Principle 1:

17             "The peoples of Yugoslavia, proceeding from the right of every

18     people to self-determination, including up to secession, and based on

19     their freely-expressed will in the joint struggle of all nations and

20     nationalities in the National Liberation War and Socialist Revolution,

21     with their historic aspirations, aware of the need to strengthen their

22     brotherhood and unity ...," et cetera, et cetera, " ... united in a

23     federal state of free and equal peoples and nationalities and created a

24     socialist federal union of working people, the SFRY."

25             Do you agree that the Constitution stipulates explicitly that

Page 14110

 1     peoples united freely based on their right to self-determination?

 2        A.   Well, it says -- it says what it says.

 3             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 4             Can we see page 7 and English page 18.

 5             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 6        Q.   Article 3 describes the nature of a republic.  A socialist

 7     republic is a state based on the sovereignty of a people and the

 8     government and self-management of the working class and all working

 9     people, and the socialist self-management democratic community of the

10     working people and citizens and peoples and nationalities on an equal

11     footing.  Is that correct?

12        A.   That seems to be what it says, yes.

13        Q.   Thank you.  Would you please look at Article 5:

14             "The territory of the Socialist Federal Republic of

15     Yugoslavia --"

16             In Serbian, we need, perhaps, page 7.  No, it's here:

17             "The territory of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is

18     a single entity consisting of the territories of the socialist republic."

19             And a bit further down, next page in English:

20             "The frontiers of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

21     may not be altered without the consent of all republics and autonomous

22     provinces."

23             The translation of this document is not good.  No, it's fine.

24             Do you agree that for any alteration -- any change in the borders

25     of the SFRY, the agreement of all the socialist republics and autonomous

Page 14111

 1     provinces was required?

 2        A.   That's what it says here, yes.  But I agree with you, there's a

 3     problem at least with what you read:

 4             "... the territory, the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia,

 5     is a single entity consisting of the territories of the socialist

 6     republics," in the plural.

 7        Q.   And none of these republics or peoples had the right to

 8     unilateral secession without the consent of others.  That was stipulated

 9     in the Constitution, wasn't it?

10        A.   Well, I think that some people can infer that from that article.

11     That article, of course, could also refer to the fact that -- or the

12     situation where the federal government may deem it desirable to cede

13     certain territory from one republic to a neighbouring state, for

14     instance, cede some of the territory of the Republic of Serbia to

15     Bulgaria, and this article would give, basically, the Republic of Serbia

16     the right to veto that and that they would have to agree to that

17     themselves.  The majority of republics and the government and so forth

18     couldn't force that on them.  So there are different situations that this

19     could apply, and the people you're referring to, some people could

20     certainly interpret it that way.

21             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

22             May this be received?

23             MR. TIEGER:  No objection to the pages referenced, Your Honour.

24             JUDGE MORRISON:  Those can be admitted.

25             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit D1260, Your Honours.

Page 14112

 1             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Let's take a look at what goes on

 2     with the Republic of Croatia in this issue.

 3             THE INTERPRETER:  Could Mr. Karadzic please repeat the number.

 4             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 1D03507, page 2, the fundamental

 5     principles.

 6             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 7        Q.   We can all read for ourselves, "Basic Provisions."  Is it the

 8     case that Article 1 says that the Serb people -- the Croatian people, and

 9     the Serbian people, and other peoples established the state of Croatia,

10     the Socialist Republic of Croatia, and on the basis of a right to

11     self-determination, including the right to secede and unite with other

12     nations, through its freely-expressed will, et cetera, et cetera, and

13     based on that freedom to express their will, they all united into the

14     Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia?  Do

15     you agree that this basic provision of the Croatian Constitution

16     recognises the right of the Serbs to self-determination because they

17     formed, together with others, the state of Croatia, based on their own

18     free will?

19        A.   Well, yes, it says -- it says what it says.  As in the previous

20     document that we saw, the analogous article in the Constitution of the

21     SFRY, I would just have to comment that I think a few people would

22     contest how freely-expressed the wills of these various people was at

23     that time, but that's certainly what this article says.

24             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Could you please go to

25     page 8.

Page 14113

 1             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 2        Q.   These are general provisions, Article 1.  In the second

 3     paragraph, it says:

 4             "The Socialist Republic of Croatia is a national state of the

 5     Croatian people, a state of the Serbian people in Croatia, and a state of

 6     nationalities residing therein."

 7             Do you agree that this reflected on paragraph 27 in your report?

 8     I will read it.  I don't want to call it up.  The second sentence reads:

 9             [In English] "The constitution dropped the reference in Croatia's

10     1974 Constitution to the Serbs as one of the constituent people of the

11     republic, although it did guarantee national equality in Article 3."

12             [Interpretation] This is your document, 65 ter 12125,

13     paragraph 27, page 14.  And further on, you say:

14             "The Republic of Croatia stays in Yugoslavia" - you quote from

15     Article 140 - "until a new agreement is reached by the Yugoslav Republics

16     or until the moment the Croatian Parliament issues a decision to do

17     differently."

18             Do you agree that was what the situation was like in Croatia

19     until the moment the Croatian Constitution was changed in 1991, when the

20     crisis broke out?  The year is 1990, when the Constitution was changed.

21        A.   Yes.  If I understand you correctly, the situation is as I

22     described it in the report, in the leadership study.

23        Q.   Do you agree that in 1990, changes were made, contrary to the

24     wishes and desires of one of the two constituent peoples in Croatia at

25     that moment?

Page 14114

 1        A.   Well, I think in general terms, I agree with that.  It gets into

 2     issues of who the representatives were and that sort of thing.  Perhaps

 3     it would help the Court for me to comment that the political position of

 4     the Serbs and their political parties in Croatia was much different after

 5     the 1990 elections than it was in Bosnia.  In the elections in Croatia in

 6     1990, multi-party elections, only a very small number of Serbian deputies

 7     were elected, and I think only one or two from the SDS, whereas in

 8     Bosnia, as we've seen, they had a very, very strong position, having

 9     almost a third of the deputies in the Bosnian chambers.  So their

10     opportunities to make their desires known were not as good as the Serbs

11     in Bosnia.  But in general terms, I would certainly agree with that

12     comment that most Serbs in Croatia were probably dissatisfied with that.

13             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

14             Can this be admitted, and then we will move on to Bosnia, because

15     you're right, we should return to Bosnia from Croatia and Yugoslavia.

16             MR. TIEGER:  Those were the two pages referenced, I believe.

17             JUDGE MORRISON:  Yes.  The two pages referenced will be admitted.

18             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit D1261, Your Honours.

19             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 1D03508 is the next document I

20     would like to call up.  Let's keep page 1 in English, and can we look at

21     page 8 in the Serbian version of the document.

22             Before I put my question to you, I would like to draw your

23     attention to the three provisions of the Constitution of the Socialist

24     Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.  Here, we see number 1, where it says

25     that the Serbs, Muslims, Croats, and members of other peoples and

Page 14115

 1     nationalities, together with all the other peoples and nationalities of

 2     Yugoslavia, established a revolutionary peoples democratic power within

 3     the Federative Republic of Yugoslavia and that they created the

 4     National Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

 5             The following page in English.

 6             I would like to ask all participants to look at paragraph 1,

 7     where it says they created the People's Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

 8             And then can we look at page 9 in Serbian and page 2 in English.

 9     Or, rather, no, we can stay with this page in English.  The English page

10     is good.  The following page is Serbian.

11             Now, Article 2, where it says:

12             "The workers and citizens, the peoples of Bosnia and Herzegovina,

13     Croats, Serbs and Muslims, as well as the members of other nations and

14     national minorities, will realise in the Socialist Republic of Bosnia and

15     Herzegovina, as a state and a community organised on the principles of

16     self-management, their sovereign rights, and the interests of their class

17     and nation," "of their class and nation."

18             And now can we go to page 27 in Serbian and page 15 in English.

19             Article 1 in the first part, the end of the article reads:

20             "The nations of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Muslims, Serbs and

21     Croats, members of other nations and nationalities living in it, is

22     founded on the authority and self-management of the working class, all

23     working people, and the sovereignty and equality of all the nations of

24     Bosnia and Herzegovina, and members of other nations and nationalities

25     living in it."

Page 14116

 1             And then in Article 2, I would like to draw your attention to the

 2     following:

 3             "The working people and citizens, the nations of Bosnia and

 4     Herzegovina, Serbs, Croats and Muslims, and members of other nations and

 5     nationalities, shall realise their sovereign rights in the Socialist

 6     Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina ...," and so on and so forth.

 7             Article 3, where it says:

 8             "The equality of the nations and nationalities and their members

 9     is guaranteed in the Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

10             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

11        Q.   Can we agree that there is no doubt that the three peoples that

12     constitute Bosnia and Herzegovina, Muslims, Serbs and Croats, are,

13     indeed, constituent peoples with absolutely equal rights?

14        A.   Well, I agree that these articles say what they say.  But getting

15     directly to your question, I would have to say yes.  But the interesting

16     point is there's repeated reference to other nations and nationalities

17     having the same rights, and in all the controversies we've been

18     discussing in connection with my reports, the rights of those nations and

19     nationalities don't get a mention.

20        Q.   Well, Dr. Treanor, do you remember the seven members of the

21     Presidency was supposed to represent those other peoples and

22     nationalities in the Presidency; two Croats, two Muslims and two Serbs,

23     and one representing everybody else; do you agree?

24        A.   Yes, that's true, representing everybody else in that particular

25     institution.

Page 14117

 1             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 2             Can these pages be admitted?

 3             MR. TIEGER:  No objection, Your Honour.

 4             JUDGE MORRISON:  Those referenced articles, certainly.

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit D1262, Your Honours.

 6             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 7             65 ter 16278 is the next document I would like to call up.

 8     16278.

 9             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

10        Q.   You, yourself, stated that the amendments to the Constitution

11     which were adopted on the 31st of July, 1990, somewhat altered the

12     Constitution.  Let us now look at Amendment 60, which is on page 1 both

13     in the Serbian and English versions.  Amendment 60 also confirms and

14     guarantees the constituent quality of the three peoples.  It says here:

15             "The Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina is a

16     democratic, sovereign state of the equal citizens and peoples of Bosnia

17     and Herzegovina, Muslims, Serbs and Croats, and members of other nations

18     and nationalities that live there."

19             And now let's look at Amendment 49.

20             49, yes, we can see it.

21             Paragraph 2 says:

22             "Political organisation and activity directed at the following

23     shall be forbidden: forcibly changing the constitutionally-established

24     order; threatening the territorial integrity and independence of the

25     Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia or the sovereignty and

Page 14118

 1     territorial integrity of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia and

 2     Herzegovina."

 3             Do you agree that the constitutions of Yugoslavia, Croatia,

 4     Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as new constitutional amendments to the

 5     Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, guaranteed the rights of the

 6     peoples, including Serbs who were constituent peoples, both in Bosnia and

 7     Herzegovina and in Croatia?

 8        A.   Well, the articles you've read say what they say.

 9             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

10             Can this be admitted?

11             JUDGE MORRISON:  Yes.

12             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit D1263, Your Honours.

13             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

14        Q.   Do you agree that the provisions of the SFRY, as well as the

15     amendments to the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, ban political

16     organisation and activity directed at threatening the territorial

17     integrity and independence of the Socialist Federative Republic of

18     Yugoslavia?  Let me remind you that that amendment was adopted in 1990 on

19     the very eve of the elections.  Do you agree?

20        A.   Well, we've just see the amendment to the Constitution of Bosnia

21     and Herzegovina.  I am familiar with the fact that there were packages of

22     amendments made to the SFRY Constitution as well.  If there was an

23     analogous amendment there, I'm willing to take your word for it.

24             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

25             And can we now look at 65 ter -- first of all, can this be

Page 14119

 1     admitted?  Has it been admitted?  Yes.

 2             Okay.  65 ter 16278, pages 2 and 3; 2 and 3 in Serbian, and 3 in

 3     English.

 4             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 5        Q.   While we are waiting, let me ask you this:  Do you remember,

 6     since you said in your report that the Serbian Democratic Party, in July

 7     1990, immediately after it was set up and before the constitutional

 8     amendments were adopted, demanded for a two-tier parliament to be

 9     introduced, or, in other words, that there should be a house of the

10     peoples in the government; however, their efforts were in vain, the

11     proposal was never adopted?  Do you remember that?

12        A.   Yes, yes.  I believe I mentioned that in my testimony, yes.

13        Q.   Could you please look at bullet point 10, where it says:

14             "A council shall be formed within the SRBH Assembly for the

15     matter of ensuring the equality of the nations and nationalities of

16     Bosnia and Herzegovina."

17             On behalf of our peoples and nationalities, I apologise for this

18     awkward language.  Would this have been a replacement for the Council of

19     Peoples or National Council that we requested; in other words, that that

20     body would have had the same authorities that we asked for?

21        A.   It certainly seems to be conceived in that spirit, but this

22     council does not have the same status as a chamber of the Assembly.  A

23     chamber would have been immediately constituted with the other chambers.

24     Unfortunately, this council was never -- was never constituted.  That was

25     an action that had to be taken by the Assembly, itself.

Page 14120

 1        Q.   Thank you.  That was also an answer to the question I don't have

 2     to put.

 3             Can you look at the following:

 4             "The council shall examine matters that relate to the equality of

 5     languages and scripts; the organisation and activities of cultural

 6     institutions ...," and so on and so forth:

 7             "If at least 20 deputies consider that a proposed regulation or

 8     other act within the competence of the SRBH Assembly violates the

 9     equality of nations and nationalities, the draft to go before the SRBH

10     Assembly for identification shall be defined by the council.

11             "The SRBH Assembly shall render decisions on matters concerning

12     the fulfillment of the equality of the nations and nationalities of

13     Bosnia and Herzegovina, at the proposal of the council, through a special

14     procedure established by the SRBH Assembly Rules of Procedure ...," and

15     so on and so forth.

16             Do you agree, therefore, that when vital interests of a people

17     are at stake, it takes only 20 deputies to raise that issue, and that

18     that issue cannot be resolved before a recommendation is received from

19     the council with regard to that specific issue ?

20        A.   Yes, that's what it seems to say.  I think my testimony touched

21     on that a little bit.  It is also discussed in the report or mentioned in

22     the report in connection with the attempt in February 1991 to pass a

23     declaration on the sovereignty of Bosnia.

24        Q.   Thank you.  Do you remember that on two occasions, that council

25     helped Avdo Campara explain that decisions could not be reached before an

Page 14121

 1     opinion of the council was received, and that the same person, on the

 2     15th of October, 1991, decided that things could be done differently

 3     without that decision having been preceded by any new legal instruments?

 4        A.   You're referring to Mr. Campara, I believe.  Yes, he did say that

 5     in February.  I believe there's reference in the report.  What he exactly

 6     said in October at that session, I don't know, but that's certainly what

 7     they did.

 8             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 9             Can this be admitted?  Can these pages be admitted?

10             MR. TIEGER:  I think it was just page 2 was referenced.

11             JUDGE MORRISON:  Yes, that seems to be the case.  So page 2 can

12     be admitted.

13             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 2 and 3 in Serbian and 2 in

14     English.

15             JUDGE MORRISON:  All those referenced, yes.

16             THE REGISTRAR:  It will be added to the existing Exhibit D1263,

17     Your Honours.

18             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

19        Q.   Do you agree with me that the decision on organising a referendum

20     in Bosnia and Herzegovina was adopted, according to the procedure

21     prescribed in bullet point 5, line 9, of Amendment 71 to the Constitution

22     of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which envisages that the Assembly of the SRBH

23     can organise a referendum at a joint session of its two councils?

24             I'm afraid I was speeding along, so it hasn't been recorded that

25     the referendum in question is the referendum on the independence of

Page 14122

 1     Bosnia-Herzegovina.

 2             Can we see 65 ter 6228 to make things easier for you.  6228,

 3     page -- it's a decision, so there is just one page.  No need to reference

 4     the page.  Can we look at the left-hand-side page in the Serbian version.

 5             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 6        Q.   Do you agree that it says, in the preamble, that that referendum

 7     can be called pursuant to Amendment 71, paragraph 5, line 2, of the

 8     Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina?  I just want us to identify the

 9     amendment in question, and then we will actually look at the amendment,

10     itself.

11             Do we agree on the number of the amendment?

12        A.   That seems to be what it says, yes.

13             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

14             Can it be admitted?

15             MR. TIEGER:  Yes, Your Honour, that page can be admitted.

16             JUDGE MORRISON:  Yes.

17             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit D1264, Your Honours.

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 16278 is the next document I would

19     like to call up.  16278, page 4.

20             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

21        Q.   I have just called up Amendment 71, paragraph 5 thereof,

22     paragraph 5, where it says -- let's look at line 9, where it says they

23     call republican referenda.  Do you agree that it was up to the Assembly

24     of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina to call the referendum, and that

25     that right arose from the Constitution of Bosnia-Herzegovina,

Page 14123

 1     Article 152?  Do you agree or do you want me to call up the Constitution

 2     for your perusal, and maybe that will help you to agree if you can't

 3     agree with me now?  Do you agree that this is Amendment 70

 4     [as interpreted], paragraph 5, where it says that the Assembly has the

 5     right to call up the republican referenda?

 6        A.   Yes, it seems to say that.

 7             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can the page be admitted?

 8             JUDGE MORRISON:  Well, it can, Dr. Karadzic.  But I'm thinking

 9     that where the question encompasses the point you want to make, and the

10     witness agrees with it, it's already in the transcript, so quite often

11     we're admitting documents which do no more than reflect that which we

12     already have in the transcript.  So this can be admitted, but bear that

13     in mind for the future, please.

14             THE REGISTRAR:  Yes, Your Honour, it will be added to

15     Exhibit D1263.

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

17             I'll try not to burden the file.  However, sometimes it seems to

18     be necessary.

19             Can we now look at 1D3508.  Let's see what the nature was of that

20     republican referendum.  1D3508, page 89 in Serbian and 60 in English.  60

21     in English, Article 152.

22             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

23        Q.   It says here:

24             "The assembly of the socio-political unit may declare a

25     referendum for the prior declaration of working people on particular

Page 14124

 1     issues within the competence of the assembly, or for the confirmation of

 2     laws, ordinances, or other general regulations.  The decision reached by

 3     such a referendum is binding."

 4             Do we agree that it says here that this is a prior declaration of

 5     opinion, an opinion that precedes the decision that will finally be made

 6     by that socio-political unit?  Do we agree on that?

 7             It hasn't been recorded that this referendum may be declared only

 8     in relation to an issue within the competence of that socio-political

 9     unit, only within its own competence.

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

11             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can this page be added to 1262,

12     D1262?

13             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

14        Q.   Dr. Treanor, did you have all those documents?  Were they

15     accessible to you when you drafted your reports?  Were they provided to

16     you by the OTP?

17        A.   Well, they were certainly accessible to me, and they were

18     accessible to me because I had collected them myself or directed that

19     they be collected.

20             JUDGE MORRISON:  Dr. Karadzic, we'll break there until 11.00.

21     Thank you.

22                           --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.

23                           --- On resuming at 11.00 a.m.

24             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

25             I believe the last page has not yet been admitted.  If we could

Page 14125

 1     check.  I would like to tender it anyway.

 2             JUDGE MORRISON:  Well, we will admit it, but it actually falls

 3     directly into the category of those items which I suggested are just as

 4     valuable in the transcript.  But we will admit it on this occasion.

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  It will be added to Exhibit D1262, Your Honours.

 6             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 7             We'll deal for a while longer for the basis for the referendum.

 8             1D3519 is the next document I would like to call up.  It's the

 9     Law on Referendum, page 3, Article 3, to establish what the Law on

10     Referendum stipulates.  Article 26, Article 26.

11             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

12        Q.   Do you agree that it says that the Assembly of Bosnia-Herzegovina

13     may call a referendum on matters from its own purview, matters in its

14     jurisdiction?

15        A.   Yes, that's what it says here.

16        Q.   Thank you.  Do you agree that Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Assembly

17     of Bosnia-Herzegovina was not able to decide about the territorial

18     integrity of Yugoslavia, it was not within its competence?

19        A.   Well, I think the issue there would be the relationship of the

20     republic to the rest of the federation.  I'm not aware of what the

21     Constitution of the SRBH might say on that issue or be construed to say

22     on that issue.

23        Q.   Then I will read the third and fourth paragraph of Article 5 of

24     the Constitution of Yugoslavia, which we've looked at before:

25             "The borders of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia may

Page 14126

 1     not be altered without the consent of all the republics and autonomous

 2     provinces, whereas the borders between republics may be altered only on

 3     the basis of their mutual agreement."

 4             So the issue of territorial integrity of Yugoslavia falls under

 5     the purview of the Yugoslav Assembly and is stipulated in the Yugoslav

 6     Constitution?

 7        A.   Again, I think we discussed that earlier.  I said this could

 8     simply refer to the drawing of particular lines.  I think the issue of

 9     independences or changing the relationship between the republic and the

10     federation is a different one.  And as I say, I can't recall at this

11     point.  I would have to refresh my memory, looking at the Constitution in

12     its entirety as to what exactly is there on that issue or could be

13     construed to be on that issue, bearing in mind that I'm not a legal

14     expert or a constitutional scholar.

15             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Good, then we can move

16     on.

17             Can we see 1D3509.

18             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation].

19        Q.   Do you agree that changing borders that the Assembly of Bosnia

20     and Herzegovina could decide about would be the changing of the borders

21     of Bosnia and Herzegovina with other republics, the so-called

22     administrative borders between federal units?

23             Page 2 in Serbian; page 3 in English.

24             Amendment 62, paragraph 1, line 2, says:

25             "The borders of republics -- the borders of the republic may be

Page 14127

 1     changed by the Republic of BH, based on the freely-expressed will of the

 2     people and a public referendum, with the two-third majority vote of the

 3     entire electorate"?

 4        A.   Yes, that's what it says.  That's what it seems to say.

 5        Q.   Thank you.  So even a minimal change in the administrative

 6     borders of Bosnia and Herzegovina within Yugoslavia required a positive

 7     response of two-thirds of the entire electorate.  Do you agree that

 8     changing the status of a republic, in the context of Yugoslavia, is a

 9     much bigger issue than changing administrative borders?

10        A.   Well, by "changing the borders," I take it you mean in the sense

11     I was referring to before, simply changing the course of the line on the

12     map.  And I can certainly agree that this article, at a minimum, relates

13     to that, in that the other issue of the relationship with the federation

14     or the rest of Yugoslavia would -- is in a different -- is more important

15     than that, certainly.

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

17             May this page be added to the same exhibit number?

18             JUDGE MORRISON:  Yes.

19             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit D1265, Your Honours.

20             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now see again 65 ter 16278,

21     page 3, to see how the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina governs the

22     issue of exercising equality among peoples.  Page 3 in both Serbian and

23     English, Amendment 70, paragraph 10, the last paragraph of 10.  I will

24     read it out.

25             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreters need a reference in English.

Page 14128

 1             JUDGE MORRISON:  Dr. Karadzic, the interpreters need a reference

 2     to this matter in English, please.

 3             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Item 10:

 4             "A council shall ..."

 5             The last line of item 11 [as interpreted].  Item 10 is long, so

 6     it's the last part of 10:

 7             "The SRBH Assembly shall render ..."

 8             "The SRBH Assembly shall render decisions on matters concerning

 9     the fulfillment of the equality of the nations and nationalities of

10     Bosnia and Herzegovina, at the proposal of the council, through a special

11     procedure established by the SRBH Assembly Rules of Procedure, with a

12     two-thirds majority of the total number of deputies."

13             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

14        Q.   Do you agree that this is stipulated by this article?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   Do you agree that even if two-thirds of the electorate turned out

17     for the referendum and voted for independence, that decision also had to

18     get a two-third majority in the Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina,

19     two-thirds of the total number of MPs, because a referendum is just a

20     pre-condition to make that decision?

21             MR. TIEGER:  Yes, Mr. President.

22             I think it's clear the witness has said repeatedly that he

23     doesn't purport to be a legal or constitutional scholar.  I've been

24     cautious about intervening because of trying to see if eventually this

25     would come around to the real thrust of the witness's reports, but

Page 14129

 1     I think it becomes clear now the witness is being asked for

 2     constitutional/legal opinions, which he's repeatedly stated is not the

 3     focus of his expertise.

 4             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I respond?

 5             JUDGE MORRISON:  Yes, Dr. Karadzic.

 6             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 7        Q.   Dr. Treanor, is it true that in your reports, you commented on

 8     my --

 9             JUDGE MORRISON:  You're supposed to be responding to the

10     observation of Mr. Tieger, not asking another question.

11             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I thought to save time,

12     because the witness will ultimately have to confirm this.  I'm asking

13     these questions in the light of his comments and the fact that his report

14     deals with constitutional powers of various bodies in Bosnia and

15     Herzegovina, the deputies of the Serbian Democratic Party, later my

16     position in Bosnia and Herzegovina as president of the Republika Srpska.

17     These comments and his report refer to these matters all the time, and I

18     can't avoid putting these questions.

19             JUDGE MORRISON:  There's a substantive difference between making

20     an observation as to what's in the reports and asking Dr. Treanor to

21     provide what is essentially a legal interpretation or opinion.  It's the

22     same as when you read out an article or part of an article to the witness

23     and the best he can do is to say, Well, that's what it says.  That's

24     something that we can all see for ourselves.  You might be much better

25     placed, rather than seeking an interpretive comment upon something which

Page 14130

 1     is pretty obvious from the wording, itself, to moving on to anything in

 2     the nature of a challenge to the opinions that Dr. Treanor has set out in

 3     his reports.

 4             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Then I would only like to ask

 5     Dr. Treanor this:

 6             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 7        Q.   Do you agree that 83 deputies, who walked out of the Assembly of

 8     Bosnia and Herzegovina and joined the Assembly of the Serbian People,

 9     make up more than one-third of 240 deputies in total?

10        A.   Well, yes.

11             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

12             May this page be admitted, added to the same exhibit number?

13             JUDGE MORRISON:  Yes, it can be added.

14             THE WITNESS:  Although I'm not sure, in fact, whether there were

15     only 230 [Realtime transcript read in error "240"] deputies in the

16     Assembly, but, in any case, it's more than a third.

17             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

18        Q.   Now that we have the constitutional and historical and legal

19     framework of these events, I'll move to factual issues.  And in the

20     context of the events in Bosnia and Herzegovina, I'll try to establish

21     all the things that your reports deal with.  We need to see whether the

22     criterion of the broader context, which you named as your objective, is

23     met.

24             In 65 ter -- sorry, in document 12125, you said you tried to

25     enumerate all the important events in their chronology?

Page 14131

 1        A.   Yes.  If I can go back to my previous answer, I said or I meant

 2     to say only 230 deputies in the Assembly.  The transcript says "240."

 3        Q.   If I may be of assistance, there were 240 deputies in the

 4     Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina.  There were 86 Serbs.  Out of these

 5     86, 84 were against secession, and 83 joined the Assembly of the Serbian

 6     People.

 7             On the premise that all the Serbs and Muslims and Croats and

 8     Yugoslavs and Jews, et cetera, were in favour of secession, do you agree,

 9     Dr. Treanor, that the remaining deputies in the Assembly could not, even

10     then, vote for -- they could not have a majority over those 83?

11        A.   Well, yes, 83, irrespective of whether the total is 240 or 230,

12     is more than a third.  Therefore, the remaining deputies were less than

13     two-thirds.  I'm not sure what voting procedure we're talking about here.

14     There doesn't seem to be any special majority required, from what we've

15     seen of the Constitution, for passing a decision to hold a referendum, if

16     that's what's being referred to here.

17        Q.   Well, we've just read that provision in the previous document,

18     saying that a two-third majority is required in all matters regarding

19     equality among peoples, and in all the constitutional matters everywhere

20     in the world, a two-third majority is required.  But let's go back to the

21     chronology of events as presented in your reports.

22             It is the position of the Defence that although you've invested

23     great efforts to present the chronology of events, you left out the

24     second boxer in the ring, by which I mean to say that events were not

25     presented in a broader context.  And to come back to the sports metaphor,

Page 14132

 1     one reads your report as if watching just one boxer in a match flailing

 2     his arms and not understanding why he's doing that.

 3             JUDGE MORRISON:  Mr. Tieger.

 4             MR. TIEGER:  First of all, if comments were permissible, then I'd

 5     say it's commented on before by Dr. Karadzic and redundant.  But comments

 6     are not.  The accused should move on to questions that are focused on the

 7     reports.

 8             JUDGE MORRISON:  Yes.  Dr. Karadzic, you cannot really complain

 9     about the passing of time if you waste it.

10             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Excellency.

11             I was trying to use vivid language and to save time, but it seems

12     I'm wasting it.

13             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

14        Q.   I'm trying to say, Dr. Treanor, it is the position of the Defence

15     that your reports do not provide a full picture, do not provide context,

16     and the picture of events is distorted to our detriment.  That's what I'm

17     putting to you.

18             JUDGE MORRISON:  Dr. Karadzic, that's a comment.  If you want to

19     give a concrete example of what you say and put it to the witness, that's

20     another thing, but a broad comment like that really doesn't help.

21             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The problem is in the transcript,

22     because I said, What do you say to that?  Do you accept the position of

23     the Defence?  And if Dr. Treanor does not accept it, then we'll do what

24     you suggest.  If Dr. Treanor does not accept this proposition, we will

25     provide many examples of what I just said; namely, that Dr. Treanor's

Page 14133

 1     reports do not provide context or a full picture of events.

 2             JUDGE MORRISON:  Dr. Treanor.

 3             THE WITNESS:  Well, I accept that your position is whatever you

 4     say it is.

 5             If I could go back to a question of context.  I've been looking

 6     at this issue of the number of deputies in my report, and you mentioned

 7     the number of 83 deputies.  As far as I can remember and as far as I can

 8     tell from my report, which does have a list of the deputies that were in

 9     the Assembly of the Serbian People, at this time there were only 78 of

10     them.  Later, in later years, there got to be 83 or 84.

11             I think on this particular issue, it might be useful simply to

12     look at the transcript of the session of the SRBH Assembly on the 25th or

13     26th of January, 1992, when they adopted the resolution on the

14     referendum, to see what the vote was.

15        Q.   Thank you.  Perhaps I forgot to say that we have left that

16     subject.  Although not all deputies are present at all times, 83

17     expressed their wish to join the Assembly of the Serbian People.  But we

18     are now dealing with your report, and my objection -- my position was

19     that you did not provide context, and now we are trying to establish

20     this.  Since we don't have much time, we won't be offering many

21     documents, unless we have to because you disagree.

22             Do you agree that changes to the Constitution of Croatia were

23     made before the elections in 1990, in February, through Amendments 64 to

24     75 and 54 to 63?  54 to 63 and 64 to 75, those were the first changes to

25     the Constitution, even before the elections, during socialist times?

Page 14134

 1        A.   You'd have to refresh my memory as to what those amendments were,

 2     but I'll accept your word for the fact that there were amendments at that

 3     time.

 4        Q.   Thank you.  Did you know and do you agree that at the

 5     General Assembly of the Croatian Democratic Union, held in February 1990

 6     in Zagreb, in the Lisinski hall, the president of that party, the future

 7     president of Croatia, Franjo Tudjman, said, among other things, the

 8     independent state of Croatia was not just a quisling creation and a

 9     fascist crime, but it was also an expression of the historic aspirations

10     of the Croatian people?

11        A.   I'm familiar with this meeting, and I have seen the documents

12     published in that connection.  I can't recall this specific comment, but

13     I'll take your word for it.

14        Q.   Thank you.  I would like to draw your attention to 25 July 1990,

15     and in your report, 12125, paragraph 16, you state:

16             "A mass rally of Serbs from all parts of Croatia ..."

17             Please look at that paragraph.

18             You say the Serb National Council was established by the Serbs at

19     that time, and then at the end you say:

20             "Serbian Assembly proclaimed to be invalid for the Serbs ..."

21             [In English] "The Serbian Assembly proclaimed to be invalid for

22     the Serbs all Croatian constitutional and legal changes which might

23     negate their - that means Serb - sovereignty as a people and reduce their

24     autonomous rights."

25             [Interpretation] Is that right, that was the declaration of the

Page 14135

 1     independence and autonomy of the Serbian people in Croatia?

 2        A.   I think that's what the paragraph says.

 3        Q.   Paragraph 16, yes.  Do you agree that on that same day, the 25th

 4     of July, 1990, the Parliament of Croatia adopted, for the second time in

 5     that year, amendments to the Constitution of Croatia and that the

 6     attribute "socialist" was eliminated from it, and the previous flag of

 7     Croatia was replaced by a chequer-board design?

 8        A.   Well, again, I'm aware that there were amendments made to the

 9     Croatian Constitution.  With the best will in the world, I can't remember

10     the exact date or the purpose, although I thought that the flag of the

11     Socialist Republic of Croatia also had a chequer-board design on it.  But

12     they may have changed the details of that design, yeah.

13        Q.   Thank you.  Let me remind you that Lord Owen, in his book,

14     said -- on page 100 of the book, "The Balkan Odyssey," and I quote:

15             "For the Serbs in Croatia, it was a provocation.  Even if we take

16     into account their historical ties, the fact that the government adopted

17     the same symbol for its flag that Pavelic used, and that was the

18     red-and-white chequer-board ..."

19             Do we agree that Pavelic was the president of the quisling

20     independent state of Croatia during the Second World War and that that

21     state proclaimed racist laws based upon which different peoples,

22     including Serbs, Jews and Roma, were killed?

23        A.   Well, that's certainly generally correct, but I think what's in

24     question here is the exact layout of the chequer-board on the flag.

25     I think the Ustasha chequer-board is different than the Socialist

Page 14136

 1     chequer-board, and that certainly would have been regarded -- I can well

 2     say that the Serbs everywhere would have regarded that as being

 3     provocative.

 4        Q.   Thank you.  Do you believe that simultaneity of actions by the

 5     Serbs in Knin and by the parliament in Croatia should be emphasised, that

 6     the actions of the Serbs in Knin should not be regarded in isolation,

 7     but, rather, that they should be put in the context of the developments

 8     that were taking place in Zagreb at the same time?  Do you agree that

 9     that would be necessary and, indeed, opportune?

10        A.   Well, I think there are many other facts than those adduced in

11     this report which would certainly be useful to consider in connection

12     with many of the issues raised.  I tried to select the ones that I

13     thought were most important and relevant to the report, with a view to

14     keeping the length of the report within some reasonable bounds, but I

15     certainly think that that is a useful fact or set of facts to consider.

16        Q.   Thank you.  Yesterday, you confirmed for us that you knew that

17     Croatia had been establishing its own secret army under various names;

18     the Croatian National Guard, the Falcons Guards, the Volunteer Youth

19     Units of the Civilian Protection of Croatia, and finally the National

20     Corps Guard, the so-called ZNG, together with the MUP they constituted

21     the nucleus of the Croatian military, and all that during the time when

22     Croatia was still a republic of Yugoslavia?

23             JUDGE MORRISON:  Yes, Mr. Tieger.

24             MR. TIEGER:  We'll need a reference to the transcript.  It's

25     certainly my recollection is that while there was reference to arming

Page 14137

 1     made generally yesterday, this level of detail was not in any remote way

 2     adduced.

 3             JUDGE MORRISON:  Yes.  Do you have a reference for that,

 4     Dr. Karadzic?

 5             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I am afraid that the

 6     misunderstanding stems from the transcript.  I said that Dr. Treanor

 7     confirmed that both Izetbegovic and Tudjman were in the process of

 8     creating their own armies.  He may have confirmed it even today.  I

 9     wanted to ask Dr. Treanor whether he's familiar with these particular

10     names, do these names ring any bells in addition to what already knows,

11     all the names that I've given you.  And the last name was the National

12     Corps Guard, abbreviation being ZNG.  They were established in May, and

13     that together with the MUP or the police, those forces constituted the

14     nucleus of the Croatian Army during the period when Croatia was still an

15     integral part of Yugoslavia.  If Dr. Treanor is familiar with these names

16     and developments, then I don't need to call up any documents.

17             THE WITNESS:  I'm generally familiar with those names and those

18     general developments.

19             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

20        Q.   Do you know that on the 17th of August, 1990, the Croatian

21     Special Police carried out an attack on the police station in Benkovac.

22     Benkovac is a Serbian municipality in Croatia.  Do you know that they

23     arrived, they attacked, they seized their weapons, that they disarmed the

24     local Serbian police in Benkovac?

25        A.   I'm familiar with that particular action.  I wouldn't be able to

Page 14138

 1     recall the exact date off the top of my head, and I couldn't confirm the

 2     details as you have set them out, but generally there was an action of

 3     that description around that time.

 4        Q.   Thank you.  Do you remember that on the 27th of September of that

 5     same year, the special units of the Croatian police stormed Petrinja in

 6     Banja, also a Serbian region, and that they arrested over 300 Serbs and

 7     that they confiscated weapons from the depots of the Territorial Defence

 8     and the Reserve Police?

 9        A.   Well, the same answer generally holds true for -- or does hold

10     true for the -- for this question as for the previous question.

11        Q.   Thank you.  In your report, 12125, paragraph 18, you say that on

12     the 30th September 1990, the results of the referendum were published and

13     that they showed that of 567.317 votes, 567.127 or 99.97 per cent voted

14     in favour of staying within Yugoslavia, and only 144 were against.  Do

15     you remember that paragraph?  You're talking about the referendum of the

16     Serbian people in Croatia, and that referendum dealt with Serbian

17     autonomy.

18        A.   Yes, I see that paragraph.

19        Q.   Do you agree that the electoral body was almost 600.000 people

20     and that on top of that we have to add 25 persons [as interpreted] under

21     the age of 18, which means that there were far more than only 600.000

22     Serbs residing in Croatia at the time?

23             Let's leave that.  Maybe you don't know that.  But the fact is

24     that only persons who were of age could vote in that referendum, and not

25     the 25 per cent of the people who were minors; right?

Page 14139

 1        A.   Yes, only people who were of age can vote.

 2        Q.   Further on in your paragraphs 28 and 29 of the same document, you

 3     say that on the 21st of December, 1990, the Croatian leadership passed a

 4     resolution on the dissolution of Yugoslavia, and the Serbian leadership

 5     in Knin adopted a statute of the SAO Krajina.  Paragraph 29 says:

 6             [In English] "The Croatian resolution foresaw the dissolution of

 7     the SFRY into several sovereign independent states within the existing

 8     republican boundaries."

 9             [Interpretation] Whereas paragraph 28 says that a discussion on

10     the new constitution, the so-called Christmas Constitution, warned the

11     Serbian leaders:

12             [In English] "The public discussion on the Croatian Constitution

13     has already alerted Serbian leader to what were for them the document's

14     problematic features cited about.  On 21st December 1990, the day before

15     its proclamation, the Provisional Presidency of the Community of

16     Municipalities of Northern Dalmatia and Lika declared a Serbian

17     Autonomous District (SAO) of Krajina and adopted a statute."

18             [Interpretation] Right?

19        A.   Yes, I see those paragraphs.

20        Q.   I'm grateful for you for having established a wider context in

21     this paragraph.  So we can see that that was a synchronised course of

22     events.  And in the same paragraph, you say that the Serbs demanded

23     territorial autonomy, and you say:

24             [In English] "In other words, at this point, the Serbian leaders

25     in Croatia were not claiming anything that the Belgrade leadership was

Page 14140

 1     not willing to concede in Serbia."

 2             [Interpretation] So you thought that what the Serbs were

 3     requesting in Croatia was not something that Serbia proper did not allow

 4     in its state?

 5        A.   Where does it say that?

 6        Q.   Paragraph 28, the end of paragraph 28, where you say that the

 7     Serbs in Croatia called for territorial autonomy.  In Article 6 of the

 8     1990 Constitution, in the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia, it says

 9     that Vojvodina and Kosovo are also forms of territorial autonomy, and

10     that what Serbs are demanding in Croatia is nothing out of the ordinary,

11     and that it is nothing the Republic of Serbia proper would not have

12     allowed to happen in its own territory; right?

13             JUDGE MORRISON:  Yes, Mr. Tieger.

14             THE WITNESS:  Yes, the report points that out, yes.  It was in

15     the footnote, footnote 39.

16             MR. TIEGER:  Well, just to expedite things in future - I'm

17     grateful to the witness for pointing that out - in posing questions and

18     pointing to paragraphs in the report if, in fact, there's a reference to

19     a footnote, then that would assist.

20             JUDGE MORRISON:  Yes, thank you.

21             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  I'll do my best.

22             Let's look at 1D3523, and let us see how the Constitutional Court

23     of Yugoslavia evaluated the constitutionality of the Croatian Parliament

24     act on the dissolution of Yugoslavia.

25             This is a decision issued by the Constitutional Court of

Page 14141

 1     Yugoslavia.  This was issued at the initiative of the Federal

 2     Executive Council, i.e., the Government of Yugoslavia and the Presidency

 3     of Yugoslavia.  They instituted proceedings before the Constitutional

 4     Court on the assessment of the constitutionality of the resolution on

 5     accepting proceedings for the disassociation of the SFRY and the possible

 6     association of internal lands of sovereign republics, and so on and so

 7     forth.

 8             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation].

 9        Q.   This is a document that you highlighted as something that

10     provoked Knin to react?  Isn't that the document?

11        A.   I'm sorry, which document are you suggesting that was that

12     prompted Knin to react to the decision or the -- or the resolution?  The

13     resolution, yes, the resolution, precisely, yes, prompted them to react.

14             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

15             Now, since this document will be admitted, let's first look at

16     its third page, and let's see what the decision of the

17     Constitutional Court was.  That's the last page of the document.

18             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

19        Q.   The Constitutional Court of Yugoslavia annuls the part of item 1

20     of the resolution on accepting proceedings for the disassociation of

21     Yugoslavia, and so on and so forth.  Are you familiar with this document

22     and this decision of the Constitutional Court of Yugoslavia?  Was it

23     available to you at the time when you drafted your report?

24        A.   [Previous translation continues]... Yes, I think I've seen this.

25     I certainly can't remember the details.

Page 14142

 1        Q.   Please look at the composition of the Constitutional Court of

 2     Yugoslavia.  The president of the Constitutional Court of Yugoslavia,

 3     Milovan Buzadzic, who is a Montenegrin; Judges Hrvoje Bacic, Croat;

 4     Slobodan Blagojevic, Serb; Krste Calovski, Macedonian; Omer Ibrahimagic,

 5     Muslim from Bosnia, and so on and so forth.  Pjeter Kolja is Albanian;

 6     Dimce Kozarov, probably Macedonian; Ivan Kristan, Slovenian, and so on

 7     and so forth.

 8             Do you agree that was a representative composition of the

 9     Constitutional Court?

10        A.   Well, you seem to mean, by "representative," representative of

11     the national structure of Yugoslavia.  If the membership is as you

12     described, it would certainly seem to be, and I think they strove for

13     that, in fact.  I don't know the backgrounds to the -- the political

14     backgrounds of all these individuals or when they were appointed.  I

15     would comment that the many members of the Yugoslav League of Communists

16     of whatever nationality were dedicated to the preservation of the

17     Yugoslav Federation, as well as simply Serbs.

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

19             Can the document be admitted?

20             MR. TIEGER:  If "the document" refers to those two or three

21     pages, no objection.

22             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit D1266, Your Honours.

23             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The entire document is only three

24     pages' long.  I think it should be admitted as a whole.

25             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

Page 14143

 1        Q.   Furthermore, in late December 1990, the counter-intelligence of

 2     the JNA took a photo of Martin Spegelj, the minister of defence of the

 3     Republic of Croatia, when he was involved in the action of illegal arming

 4     of Croatian illegal troops, and he even gave them instructions to shoot

 5     JNA officers in the stomach in order to kill them.

 6             Do you remember that?  Were you aware of that?

 7        A.   I'm aware of this incident.  I believe it was in the press and so

 8     forth.  But the details, I don't recall, and the exact circumstances of

 9     all this, I think it was a little bit contentious at the time.

10        Q.   However, you remember that there is no doubt that we can hear in

11     the clip that members of the JNA had to be killed, as well as their wives

12     and children, in their apartments by throwing bombs into apartments, by

13     killing them in the street.  I don't think that there is any doubt about

14     that.  Do you have any reason to doubt the authenticity of the video-clip

15     that even aired on television?

16        A.   Well, I certainly can't remember all the words that were spoken

17     or even remember all the images.  I have a vague recollection of all

18     that, and I also seem to recollect that there was some controversy about

19     whether the tape was authentic, or staged, or what, all that sort of

20     thing.  It's not something that I looked into.

21        Q.   Thank you.  Spegelj, and later on Josip Boljkovac were secretly

22     recorded saying that the Serbian issue in Croatia would be forcibly

23     resolved.  Spegelj even used the term that the Serbs in Croatia will be

24     butchered, and Boljkovac used the word "forcibly."  Do you know that that

25     was happening and that all those developments created fear and terror

Page 14144

 1     among the Serb population?

 2        A.   Well, I really can't recall these particular statements by

 3     Spegelj and Boljkovac.  But as far as I am aware, there was a great deal

 4     of apprehension among Serbs in Croatia.

 5        Q.   Thank you.  Do you agree -- and we are going back to Bosnia.  Do

 6     you agree that the Party of Democratic Action, up to mid-January 1991, up

 7     to a time after the election, was in favour of preserving the Yugoslav

 8     Federation, that that was their position?

 9        A.   Yes, as I recollect - I have a better recollection of that

10     document - their programme in 1990 favoured preservation of the

11     Yugoslav Federation in its present composition; that is, with all the

12     republics remaining within the Federation.

13        Q.   Thank you.  Do you agree that the Presidency of Yugoslavia, on

14     the 9th of January, 1991, reacted when they obtained evidence about the

15     legal import of arms into Croatia and Slovenia, and that they issued a

16     decision on the dissolution of all illegal armed forces?

17        A.   Yes, I recollect something like that.  Again, the date is

18     something that I couldn't confirm off-hand, but I'm sure that the

19     transcript of that Presidency session and the text of any decisions they

20     issued would be available.

21        Q.   Thank you.  In your report 12125, paragraph 31, you conclude

22     correctly that the separatist attempts had put the SDS of BiH on its

23     guard.  That is in paragraph 31; is that correct?

24        A.   Yes, I can see that.

25        Q.   Thank you.  On the 30th of January, 1991, and you will find it in

Page 14145

 1     paragraph 30 of your document, there was a first attempt to adopt the

 2     declaration on the sovereignty of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and you

 3     conclude that that proposal was hindered by the 20 SDS deputies, and

 4     instead of adopting it, they sent that proposal -- they referred it for

 5     consideration to the National Council?

 6        A.   Yes, paragraph 30 deals with those issues.

 7        Q.   Thank you.  On the 21st of February -- I'm reading from

 8     paragraph 29, which refers to that same thing.  You again correctly

 9     conclude that:

10             [In English] "Croatia took a further step toward loosening its

11     ties with the federation on 21 February 1991 when the Sabor adopted a

12     constitutional law on supplementing the constitutional law for the

13     implementation of the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia ..."

14             [Interpretation] And so on and so forth.  I don't want to go on

15     reading the entire paragraph.

16             Is that, indeed, what happened, what you recorded in your report?

17     Did the Serbs in Croatia suffer an additional blow from this and as a

18     result of this?

19        A.   Well, yes, I would say there was a further blow to the Serbian

20     position in Croatia, the position of the Serbian people.

21             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

22             To avoid wasting time, we would offer 29 decisions in a Bar Table

23     motion.

24             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

25        Q.   Do you know that all these decisions of the Croatian Assembly

Page 14146

 1     were abolished by the Constitutional Court of Yugoslavia as unlawful and

 2     unconstitutional?

 3        A.   Well, I can't recall each specific decision.  But along the lines

 4     of the decision you just showed, I can well imagine that they took

 5     decisions in regard to these actions as well.  I think there's a whole

 6     book or collection of these things; that is, the decisions.

 7             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 8             I would like to draw everyone's attention to your paragraph 35 in

 9     this same document, where you say that the decisions of the Assembly on

10     the dissolution of the SFRY, you say that the Executive Board of SAO

11     Krajina reversed them and declared that laws of Croatia which were in

12     conflict with federal provisions and the provisions of the SAO would

13     henceforth not apply in SAO Krajina.

14             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

15        Q.   Is that what your paragraph 35 says?

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

17        Q.   At this same time on the 27th of February, 1991, in

18     Bosnia-Herzegovina, Avdo Campara, and that's paragraph 34 -- it says that

19     Avdo Campara, invoking Amendment 70 to the Constitution of

20     Bosnia-Herzegovina, once again prevented the enactment of the Declaration

21     of Independence and sent it back before the Assembly.  That was the

22     second time the Serbian community, the Serbian side, tried to prevent the

23     enactment of this resolution; correct?

24        A.   Well, I can see what the paragraph says, and that's what it says.

25             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now see D256 briefly to see

Page 14147

 1     what was said at the same Assembly session by Mr. Izetbegovic.

 2             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 3        Q.   Do you recall Mr. Izetbegovic said at the same session that he

 4     would sacrifice peace for a sovereign Bosnia, and he would not sacrifice

 5     sovereign Bosnia for anything?

 6        A.   Yes, I certainly recall that, that remark by Mr. Izetbegovic.

 7        Q.   Page 101 in Serbian, and in English, page 4, but since you

 8     remember that, we don't have to call up the document.

 9             Do you agree that this statement by Izetbegovic should have found

10     a place in your reports?

11        A.   Well, it certainly could have.  I think I did mention the later

12     remark that he made in March along the same lines.

13        Q.   Thank you.  It's not just you, but everyone who worked for the

14     Prosecution included every joke I made, and this remark by Izetbegovic

15     was not a joke; it was a very dangerous statement to make.  But never

16     mind.

17             Do you remember that in Split, on the 30th of March,

18     Izetbegovic --

19             JUDGE MORRISON:  Mr. Tieger.

20             MR. TIEGER:  Making comments -- and I'm sorry to rise, but if I

21     don't, then it's an invitation for Dr. Karadzic to acknowledge the

22     impropriety of making comments by saying, Never mind, and moving on,

23     while, nevertheless, interjecting them.  So I object to that practice.

24             JUDGE MORRISON:  Well, Dr. Karadzic, you will know the difference

25     between a question and a comment.  Confine yourself to pertinent

Page 14148

 1     questions, please.

 2             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 3        Q.   Do you recall that on the 30th of March, 1991, at the same time,

 4     therefore, at a very well-known meeting of the presidents of the six

 5     republics in Split, said very publicly that the declaration on the

 6     independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina would be adopted with or without

 7     the consent of Serbian deputies, although at that time the declaration

 8     was still before the council of national or international equality for

 9     their consideration?

10        A.   Yes, this is the remark I was referring to earlier.  I thought

11     this was very important and indicative, since it ran directly counter to

12     what seems to have been agreed at the Assembly session in February.  I'm

13     not aware that there ever was a council for national equality, in any

14     case, but Izetbegovic's remark seems to ignore that procedure entirely.

15        Q.   Thank you.  Were you aware of the fact that on the 31st of March,

16     1991, a decision was adopted to establish a military wing of the Party of

17     Democratic Action, SDA, to be known as the Patriotic League?

18        A.   Well, I have not -- I can't recall having seen any documents to

19     that effect.  It may well be true.

20        Q.   Thank you.  Did you know that on the 5th of May, 1991, during a

21     visit to the town of Trogir, Tudjman said to the representatives of the

22     Croatian Democratic Union that the people should be mobilised and at the

23     ready?

24        A.   I would have the same answer to that question, which would be

25     that I can't recall having seen a document to that effect.

Page 14149

 1        Q.   Thank you.  Do you recall that on the very next day, on the 6th

 2     of May, 1991, in Split, there occurred forcible protests against the JNA,

 3     and on that occasion one JNA soldier, Sasa Gersovski was killed, and

 4     several others were wounded, and there's a very well-known video footage

 5     of somebody strangling the young soldier in the turret of a tank?  It's

 6     been shown many times.

 7        A.   Well, yes, I've heard of that.  But, again, the date I couldn't

 8     testify to, I won't testify to.

 9             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

10             Can we then briefly see 65 ter 939.  And for the parties, I can

11     say it's mentioned in the pre-trial brief as well, paragraph 159.  I

12     mean, the document is mentioned in the pre-trial brief.

13             Unfortunately, the Prosecution translated only the portion that

14     was of interest to them, which I can understand, but in that case it

15     says -- the title is "Vasil too shot at Sasa."  Sasa is the

16     Sasa Gersovski I just mentioned, a young soldier doing his compulsory

17     service in the JNA.  And the subheading says:

18             "Through Spegelj's mouth, Croatia had long ago declared war to

19     the JNA.  The Kalashnikov that killed the soldier in Split was maybe held

20     by a member of the MUP of Croatia, but at that moment Stipe Mesic,

21     Janez Drnovsek and Bogic Bogicevic also had their hands on that rifle."

22             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreter did not hear Mr. Karadzic's

23     question because we were still doing the translation.

24             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

25        Q.   The question is:  Were you given this document about this

Page 14150

 1     important and dramatic event by the OTP?

 2        A.   Well, if it's in our collection, it would have been available to

 3     me.  I can't recall having seen it.

 4        Q.   I would like to show you, Dr. Treanor, that it matters much more

 5     to the Prosecution that a political organisation establishes some

 6     autonomous region than a dramatic event of this kind, such as the one in

 7     Split.  Do you agree that it's a very dramatic event?

 8        A.   It seems to be a dramatic event, yes.

 9             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would like the entire document to

10     be MFI'd, because only a portion has been admitted.

11             MR. TIEGER:  No objection, Your Honour.

12             JUDGE MORRISON:  So be it.  That can be marked for

13     identification.

14             THE REGISTRAR:  As MFI D1267, Your Honours.

15             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

16        Q.   On 12th May 1990, after these harrowing scenes in Split, a

17     referendum was held in SAO Krajina about remaining within Yugoslavia, and

18     you deal with it in your paragraph 43 of this same document; right?

19        A.   Yes, that's mentioned in paragraph 43.

20        Q.   Do you have evidence that it was Milosevic who advised and

21     recommended this referendum or is it the case that the referendum was

22     organised without the knowledge or even contrary to the wishes of

23     Milosevic?

24        A.   Well, I don't have any document that would indicate that

25     Milosevic specifically recommended this particular referendum.  The

Page 14151

 1     comment in the paragraph says "of the type advocated by Milosevic."  He

 2     had, I think in at least one of the speeches that was quoted earlier,

 3     said that referendums should be held of the peoples to see their desires

 4     about remaining or leaving Yugoslavia, so this is the type of referendum

 5     that he was talking about.

 6        Q.   Thank you.  On 19 May 1991, and that's in paragraph 44, a

 7     referendum was held in all of Croatia, and the proposition was that the

 8     Republic of Croatia be a sovereign and independent state that guarantees

 9     cultural autonomy and civil rights to Serbs and members of other

10     nationalities in Croatia.  Is that written in your paragraph 44?

11             JUDGE MORRISON:  Yes, Mr. Tieger.

12             MR. TIEGER:  Just to the interests of time, questions asking a

13     witness to confirm what's in front of us, there have been repeated

14     admonitions about that, and it's certainly unnecessary when presented to

15     the person who wrote it.

16             JUDGE MORRISON:  Yes.  Dr. Karadzic, stating the obvious is not

17     using your time efficiently.

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  But I would really like

19     to make an introduction for the next document, 1D3538, where the

20     Constitutional Court of Yugoslavia overturns this decision that turns the

21     Serbian people in Croatia from a constituent people into a national

22     minority.

23             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

24        Q.   Here, on page 1, it says that:

25             "The Federal Executive Council instigated before the

Page 14152

 1     Constitutional Court ..."

 2             Do you agree that at that time, the president of the Federal

 3     Executive Council, that is, the federal prime minister, was

 4     Ante Markovic, a Croat?

 5        A.   Yes, I believe that's correct.

 6             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we then see the next page,

 7     where the decision is.

 8             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 9        Q.   The whole decision says that the peoples made a union, and that

10     one republic cannot decide on their rights and relationships, and the

11     decision says:

12             "This decision of Croatia is hereby abolished."

13             This is to be published in the Official Gazette, et cetera.

14             You can see who was on this council -- sorry, the

15     Constitutional Court.  It's the same composition, and those judges were

16     delegated by the republics, nobody elected them contrary to the will of

17     the republics.

18             Now, the question is:  Dr. Treanor, did you have insight into

19     this decision of the Constitutional Court abolishing the decision to

20     which you referred in paragraph 44?

21        A.   Yes.  As I think I indicated earlier, we have all these decisions

22     available.

23             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May this document be admitted, this

24     decision of the Constitutional Court?

25             MR. TIEGER:  No objection to the decision, Your Honour.

Page 14153

 1             JUDGE MORRISON:  Insofar as the referenced parts are concerned,

 2     yes.

 3             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit D1268, Your Honours.

 4             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I am tendering the whole document.

 5     It's just three pages, and that includes the statement of reasons for

 6     this decision of the Constitutional Court with all the arguments.

 7             JUDGE MORRISON:  Dr. Karadzic, there has to be a limit, and the

 8     limitation is basically that part of the document which has been put to

 9     the witness and to which the witness can speak.

10             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, then we'll have to offer more

11     documents through a Bar Table motion.

12             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

13        Q.   Now, please, Dr. Treanor, in paragraph 45 of your report, you

14     confirm that SAO Krajina's status was proclaimed, and the independent

15     autonomous region proclaimed it was staying in the federal state of

16     Yugoslavia?

17        A.   Yes, that is correct.  And I would observe, in this connection,

18     that the description as an autonomous political territorial region within

19     the FRY goes beyond the status that they had been claiming, as we

20     discussed earlier in connection with paragraph 28 and footnote 39.

21        Q.   Thank you.  But can you see that in the meantime, there happened

22     something that was reversed by the Constitutional Court, and that this

23     was a reaction to the developments?

24        A.   Well, yes, I hope we can all see that from what's in the report,

25     although the Constitutional Court's decision is not mentioned, which --

Page 14154

 1     what -- I didn't catch the date of that decision, but presumably it would

 2     have taken some time for that to happen, and this reaction took place

 3     rather quickly.

 4        Q.   Thank you.  On 25 June 1991, paragraph 54, you state that

 5     Slovenia and Croatia proclaimed their independence.  Would you agree that

 6     these decisions were contrary to the Constitution of Yugoslavia?  In

 7     fact, if you don't want to deal with legal issues:  Do you know that the

 8     Constitutional Court reversed this decision as well?

 9        A.   Yes, I can well imagine that would be the case.

10             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

11             We will offer that decision of the Constitutional Court,

12     reversing the decision on the independence of Slovenia and Croatia,

13     through a Bar Table motion.

14             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

15        Q.   You also state in paragraph 54 that the JNA took steps to protect

16     the borders of the SFRY.  Do you agree that this action on the part of

17     the JNA was their constitutional duty?

18        A.   Well, I've referenced particular documents there as a basis for

19     my knowledge of those particular events.  I -- again, whether it was

20     their constitutional duty to do that, I couldn't comment on that beyond

21     what may be stated in the document, itself, which I can't recall at this

22     time by way of any sort of preamble or whatnot to what -- to those

23     particular documents.  These types of decisions normally included at the

24     beginning references to the -- to their legal basis.

25        Q.   Thank you.  You were aware of the course of events and the

Page 14155

 1     attempts of the Muslim and Serb communities to avoid this adverse course

 2     of events, and that they were in the process of making a so-called

 3     historic Serbian-Muslim agreement; correct?

 4        A.   Well, yes, there were negotiations going on, as indicated in the

 5     report, between SDS leaders and various Muslim political leaders; in

 6     particular, the leaders of the MBO, the Muslim Bosniak Organisation, as

 7     well as the SDA, headed by Izetbegovic.

 8        Q.   Thank you.  Along with that historic Serbian-Muslim agreement,

 9     you were aware, as I can see, that Serbs also came up with a document

10     listing their proposals.  Do you recall that in July, the same time when

11     this agreement was on the table, the Serbs presented their proposals?

12        A.   Well, first let me say I don't think there ever was an agreement.

13     There was a discussion about having an agreement, about coming to an

14     agreement, and I think I did reference the -- both the Serbian, that is,

15     the SDS proposals and the MBO proposals, as they were made at that time,

16     as they were later published.

17             JUDGE MORRISON:  Dr. Karadzic, we'll take a break now until 1.00.

18                           --- Recess taken at 12.29 p.m.

19                           --- On resuming at 1.00 p.m.

20             JUDGE MORRISON:  Just before you recommence, Dr. Karadzic, I've

21     been reminded that I did not state in open court what is, in fact, I

22     suspect, blindingly obvious, that we are still sitting under Rule 15 bis,

23     in the absence of Judge Kwon.  We did so yesterday, and we will do so

24     tomorrow.

25             Yes.

Page 14156

 1             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 2             I would like to call up 1D0897 in e-court.  This is a document

 3     known under the title:  "What is it that the Serbs propose?"

 4             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 5        Q.   Do you remember that in July, when this proposal appeared, and

 6     throughout August, an agreement was -- between Serbs and Muslims had been

 7     tabled?  It was not accepted, but there were negotiations about that

 8     agreement until the very end of August, when Izetbegovic finally decided

 9     to opt out of it.  Do you remember?

10        A.   I remember this document.  I believe it's mentioned in the

11     report -- in the -- perhaps in the report, but certainly in the

12     leadership study.

13        Q.   In paragraph 48, you, indeed, mention this document.  If I may

14     draw your attention, as well as the attention of all the others, you

15     mention, in the footnote, that this refers to what the Serbs propose, and

16     in paragraph 48 you say:

17             [In English] "There is no way, except brutal force, that the

18     Serbian people in BH might be separated from Yugoslavia."

19             [Interpretation] Do you agree that this quote suggests that the

20     Serbs -- or, rather, that the Serbian leadership were in favour of the

21     war option?

22        A.   No, I wouldn't say that necessarily suggests that.  It may

23     suggest that they were just in favour of remaining in Yugoslavia, and

24     that it would be better to do so peacefully.

25             MR. TIEGER:  Sorry.  Just so the record is clear, Your Honour,

Page 14157

 1     with reference to paragraph 48, it's not the case that Mr. -- that

 2     Dr. Treanor said there is no way, but he quotes the SDS thesis on that

 3     point.

 4             JUDGE MORRISON:  Yes.  I think that's plain, but it needs to be

 5     on the record.  Thank you, Mr. Tieger.

 6             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, thank you.  I did say that

 7     that was a quote, but that I did not agree with the selectivity that was

 8     applied, because the sentence out of the context may suggest that the

 9     Serbs were in favour of the war.

10             And now can we look at page 6 in the Serbian and page 4 in the

11     English version of the same document, paragraph 11.

12             I will not read.  I would kindly ask everybody to look at

13     paragraph 11, where the Serbs declare their political position with

14     regard to Yugoslavia and Bosnia and Herzegovina.

15             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

16        Q.   It arises from this paragraph that the Serbian people were in

17     favour of a democratic resolution to the crisis, without any use of force

18     and without any solutions being imposed on them.  Do you agree that that

19     was the position that was unambiguously highlighted in this paragraph?

20        A.   Well, the paragraph says what it says.

21             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

22             Can we now go to pages 3 and 4 in Serbian and pages 1 and 2 in

23     the English version of the same document.

24             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

25        Q.   Towards the end of the Serbian page is that the main idea, as the

Page 14158

 1     starting point of the Serbian Democratic Party for Bosnia and

 2     Herzegovina, is that:

 3             "Primarily nobody has the right to impose any solutions on

 4     anybody.  Every attempt to cancel the right of those people who want to

 5     live in a" - the following page in the Serbian, please, and in English as

 6     well - "common state of Yugoslavia is unjust and absurd.  On the other

 7     hand, no one must be prevented from leaving Yugoslavia when such

 8     agreements as do not jeopardise the rights of other nations living on the

 9     same territory have been negotiated.  If this is technically possible,

10     the Serbian side accepts the right of every people either to stay," which

11     was technically possible because that would have meant the status quo,

12     "or to leave Yugoslavia."

13             Now, Dr. Donia [as interpreted], may I ask you:  Did those who

14     were in favour of the status quo need to use force, or is it the fact

15     that the force was needed by those who wanted to secede from Yugoslavia,

16     in other words, they were not in favour of a status quo?

17        A.   Well, it was the position of the SDS at this time, as we

18     discussed a little bit yesterday in my testimony, that since Bosnia was

19     in Yugoslavia, and the Serbs in Bosnia were in Yugoslavia, then all they

20     had to do was just remain in Yugoslavia, maintain the status quo.  And

21     they thought that that would be very easy and that would certainly -- if

22     that's what happened, that would maintain the peace, which I'm sure

23     everyone wanted to do, unless they wanted to leave.  Then they had to

24     change the status quo.  Then it becomes a question of how that gets done.

25             You referred to force.  What do you mean by "force"?  I mean, the

Page 14159

 1     procedure that the SDA and the HDZ adopted at the session of the Assembly

 2     on the 14th and 15th of October, passing the resolutions they did, the

 3     so-called memorandum and letter, that that could broadly be described as

 4     using force.

 5        Q.   Thank you.  Do you remember that before the years of physical

 6     force, we called that constitutional violence?  All the decisions that

 7     were taken in the Parliament imposing decisions on the other people, we

 8     called it the constitutional violence; right?

 9        A.   I don't remember that particular term.  I certainly remember

10     things being said about the Constitution having been violated, the

11     constitutional order having been destroyed, so it would seem that the SDS

12     leaders did regard that as a form of violence.

13        Q.   Thank you.  Let's go back to the 12th of July, 1991, and the

14     Assembly of the Serbian Democratic Party.  And now I would like to draw

15     your attention to paragraph 59, in which you write about the so-called

16     Belgrade Initiative.

17             We will go back to the 12th of July and the Assembly later on.

18     This is what I said, and it was mis-recorded.

19             And now I want to draw your attention to paragraph 59, in which

20     you write about the so-called Belgrade initiative.  The document number

21     is 65 ter 6586.

22             While we are waiting, let me ask you this:  Do you remember that

23     we, the Serbs, and the Serbian Democratic Party and the other Serbian

24     party, gave up on regionalisation in favour of the Serb-Muslim agreement,

25     and that was publicised?  We gave up on SAOs and autonomous if we were

Page 14160

 1     able to reach an agreement between Muslims and Serbs which would result

 2     in the preservation of Yugoslavia?

 3        A.   No, I'm not precisely aware of that, no.  I know that

 4     regionalisation continued to -- or seemed to continue to figure in

 5     negotiations with Mr. Zulfikarpasic and Mr. Izetbegovic, and that

 6     Mr. Zulfikarpasic in August, as I think it may be referenced in the

 7     report, had a series of articles in the Sarajevo daily "Oslobodjenje,"

 8     among other things, rejecting the idea of regionalisation.

 9        Q.   Thank you.  We'll talk about regionalisation specifically.

10     However, since I've mentioned the Belgrade Initiative, I wanted to ask

11     you this:  You mention it in paragraph 59.  Let me ask you, do you agree

12     that that meeting took place in August, and that there was a debate based

13     on the historical Muslim and Serb agreement, that the initiative for this

14     was the historical Serb-Muslim agreement that was being negotiated at the

15     time?

16        A.   Yes, according to the paragraph, the -- and my information, the

17     meeting took place on the 12th of August in Belgrade, and it was

18     connected with the so-called historic agreement.

19             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

20             Can the previous document be admitted, the title "What do the

21     Serbs propose?", as well as the document entitled "The Belgrade

22     Initiative"?

23             MR. TIEGER:  No objection, Your Honour.

24             JUDGE MORRISON:  Yes.  The first document, I gather, is already

25     in evidence.  The second one can be admitted.

Page 14161

 1             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that was Exhibit D288 under

 2     65 ter 942.

 3             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And has "The Belgrade Initiative"

 4     been given a number?

 5             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 6        Q.   Is the document that we see on the screen the document that you

 7     referred to in your paragraph 59, sir?

 8        A.   Yes, it seems to be.  I can't see the ERN, but it looks familiar.

 9             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Has the initiative been admitted,

10     the one on the screen?

11             JUDGE MORRISON:  Yeah, I think it has been.

12             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, "The Belgrade Initiative" document

13     will be Exhibit D1269.

14             JUDGE MORRISON:  Yes.

15             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

16        Q.   We don't have much time to talk about the developments in Croatia

17     in August.  However, I would like to draw your attention to paragraph 61,

18     in which you write about a meeting of the Presidency of Yugoslavia and

19     other Yugoslav leaders.  The meeting took place on the 21st and the 22nd

20     August.  I'm asking all the participants in the proceedings to look at

21     paragraph 61.

22             What I would like to know is this:  Do you agree that you noted

23     and highlighted here that the Serbian leaderships from Serbia and

24     Montenegro proposed that the right of all the people to

25     self-determination should be respected, that procedures by the

Page 14162

 1     Federal Assembly should be adopted for the separation of those republics

 2     who wished to do so, and that they shouldn't be imposing solutions on any

 3     of the peoples?

 4        A.   Yes, that's what the paragraph says.

 5        Q.   Do you agree that the adoption of the laws on legal secession, a

 6     process that had been underway, was largely ignored by Croatia and

 7     Slovenia?

 8        A.   Well, I don't know the details of that process, but they

 9     certainly seemed to me to have adopted their resolutions without

10     reference to any such process.

11        Q.   Thank you.  In paragraph 65, you say that Borisav Jovic defined

12     the role of the Yugoslav People's Army, and you say, amongst other

13     things:

14             [In English] "Our goal is using the institution of the JNA, as a

15     legitimate military force of Yugoslavia, to force the Republic of Croatia

16     to not realise its interests by force and to force the Republic of

17     Croatia that it must accept the political search for a solution that will

18     secure the right of the Serbian people to self-determination."

19             [No interpretation]

20        A.   Well, the paragraph says --

21             MR. TIEGER:  Excuse me.  I didn't think -- I didn't hear a

22     translation.  I think that was the problem that the --

23             JUDGE MORRISON:  Yes, nor did I, so that wasn't translated,

24     Dr. Karadzic.  You may have to repeat yourself.

25             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Allow me to go on reading from the

Page 14163

 1     second paragraph:

 2             [In English] "It is not the aim of the JNA to topple Croatian

 3     authority and to impose some authority on the Croatian people, rather to

 4     make it impossible for Croatia to impose solutions by force on the

 5     Serbian people in Croatia.  This means the goal is very clear.  The JNA

 6     is for the purpose of the right of every people to self-determination,

 7     and in practice for the purpose of the right to protection of the Serbian

 8     people in Croatia."

 9             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

10        Q.   My question is this:  Is this an obviously well-defined role of

11     the JNA, to protect rights, and not to impose solutions on Croats?

12        A.   Well, the paragraph says what it says.  I notice there is -- in

13     the first line there, first and second line of the quote, we're having

14     the JNA forcing people not to use force.  It sort of gets into the

15     chicken-and-egg argument you were referring to before.  But the paragraph

16     does say what you've indicated.

17        Q.   Well, if the JNA had to or could prevent Croatia from using

18     force, then everything would have fallen in its own place; right?

19        A.   Well, I don't know.  That's kind of a counter-factual question.

20     I don't know what would have happened.

21        Q.   Thank you.  On the 7th September 1991, you say, in paragraph 72,

22     efforts were launched by the European Union, headed by Lord Carrington,

23     to find a solution; right?  Do you agree that that agreement also applied

24     to the outer borders of the federal state of the SFRY?  To be more

25     precise, let me quote:

Page 14164

 1             [In English] "We are determined never to recognise changes of any

 2     borders which have not been brought about by peaceful means and

 3     agreement."

 4             [Interpretation] That is a part of the declaration which was read

 5     at the ceremonial opening of the Conference on Yugoslavia.  You mentioned

 6     that in your paragraph 72.  Does this also apply to honouring the

 7     existing external or outer borders of the federal state of Yugoslavia?

 8        A.   Well, that's a very good question, and I don't know the answer to

 9     that off-hand.  I'd have to go back and look at those documents.

10        Q.   Did you perhaps notice that in the indictment, even the borders

11     of the municipalities are codified even more than the external borders of

12     Yugoslavia, as an internationally-recognised state?  It seems that a lot

13     more attention was paid to any changes made in the boundaries of the

14     municipalities than to the borders of the former state of Yugoslavia?

15        A.   You make reference to the indictment.  I don't really know what's

16     in the indictment.

17        Q.   Thank you.  On the 11th of September, do you agree that the

18     Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina, at the proposal of Mr. Izetbegovic,

19     passed a conclusion on not imposition of solutions for Bosnia and

20     Herzegovina?

21        A.   On the 11th of September?  I don't recall that resolution.  If

22     you say so, I'll accept your word for it.  I've read all the relevant

23     documents, but I don't happen to recall that.  But I think that that idea

24     is expressed in the SDS Deputies Club meeting of the 30th of September

25     that we saw yesterday.  I think I may have mentioned that in my

Page 14165

 1     testimony, pointed it out.  I think it's also mentioned in the report,

 2     that -- where Dr. Karadzic is quoted as saying in that meeting that

 3     Izetbegovic had agreed that force would -- that the will of one nation

 4     would not be imposed on another, and had agreed to discuss

 5     regionalisation.

 6             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 7             Let's look at D265 very briefly.

 8             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation].

 9        Q.   Until then, Dr. Donia [as interpreted], let me remind you of the

10     sequence of events.  July and August, the Serbian-Muslim agreement is on

11     the table.  It was cancelled towards the end of August by Izetbegovic.

12     In September, the Autonomous Region of Krajina was proclaimed.  And then

13     in the end of September, Izetbegovic accepted that no solutions would be

14     imposed on Bosnia-Herzegovina.

15             Now we are looking at the Official Gazette of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

16     Can the conclusions be blown up also in English for the benefit of all

17     the participants in the proceedings.

18             It says here that there is a danger that war might spill over

19     from Croatia to Bosnia, and so on and so forth.  The Assembly is

20     committed to finding a political solution.  What is highlighted here is

21     that all proposals should have an equal treatment, regionalisation,

22     division into three republics, that all of them are equal, and that no

23     solutions would be imposed on any of the peoples.

24             Do you agree that that was a fact, and did you have access to

25     these conclusions?

Page 14166

 1        A.   Yes, that seems to be what it says.  I believe we have these

 2     documents.  I would only point out that Mr. Izetbegovic was not a member

 3     of the Assembly.  He was a member of the Presidency and was the head of

 4     the SDA, so his position -- the fact that he took the same position

 5     independently of this is also important, and which is what I discussed

 6     earlier.  This is certainly a very interesting document.

 7        Q.   Thank you.  Do you agree that already at that time, the Party of

 8     Democratic Action had a large number of regional military staffs of the

 9     Patriotic League, that in Sarajevo there was a staff of the

10     Patriotic League, and there were also municipal staffs of the

11     Patriotic League?  By September, they existed in all of 90

12     municipalities, and later in 103 municipalities?

13        A.   No, I'm not really familiar with the details of their

14     organisational structure or the extent of that structure.

15             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we then see D298.  It's already

16     in evidence.  I want to just remind Dr. Treanor.  D298, page 2 in English

17     and Serbian.

18             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

19        Q.   While we're waiting, let me ask you:  In your view, was it

20     natural for the Serbian side to feel uneasy in a situation where the

21     other side is setting up an illegal army?

22        A.   Well, again, that's sort of a chicken-and-egg question, and

23     I think it was not surprising that many people in -- not only in

24     Bosnia-Herzegovina, but throughout Yugoslavia, felt uneasy at the

25     development of events.

Page 14167

 1        Q.   May I ask you to look at paragraph 3:

 2             [In English] "Immediately after involving myself ..."

 3             [Interpretation] Well, let us note first this is a document from

 4     Sefer Halilovic, who later became commander of the Main Staff of the Army

 5     of Bosnia-Herzegovina.  But before he was appointed to that position, he

 6     secretly worked to establish the Patriotic League.  As we can see, in

 7     September -- that's paragraph 1.  In September 1991, he put all of his

 8     efforts into forming the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina, but then another

 9     paragraph says:

10             "Immediately after involving myself in preparations ..."

11             Please read that paragraph.

12        A.   I'm sorry, I'm not quite clear what paragraph you're referring

13     to.  Maybe it would be better if you just read it.  I don't think I've

14     ever seen this document before.

15        Q.   [In English] "Immediately after involving myself in preparations

16     for the defence of RBH, in September 1991, together with the late

17     Safet Hadzic, who was appointed president of the Crisis Staff of the

18     Sarajevo region, and with the help of Mirsad Causevic, now in the

19     MIP/Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Senad Masovic, now at the Command of

20     the 3rd Corps, I drew up a proposal for organising the Patriotic League

21     for the Sarajevo region and reorganised the regional staff of the

22     Patriotic and the plan for the defence of the Sarajevo area."

23        A.   That appears to be what it says.  It does say "MIP," which is the

24     Ministry of Foreign Affairs, rather than Internal Affairs.

25        Q.   That's correct.  But now I'd like to remind you of paragraph 12,

Page 14168

 1     where the Serbs were accused, in the pre-trial brief, of negotiating, on

 2     the one hand, and preparing for conflict at the same time.

 3             Dr. Donia [as interpreted] -- no, Dr. Treanor, do you know of a

 4     single military organisation of the Serbs in September 1991?

 5        A.   I'm not familiar with the military structure and organisation

 6     among Serbs at that time, either.

 7        Q.   Thank you.  In paragraph 68, you state that Karadzic lost his

 8     faith in Izetbegovic on the 15th October:

 9             [In English] "Karadzic's faith in Izetbegovic was destroyed on

10     the 15th of October, 1991.  The 8th Joint Session of the SRBH Assembly,

11     which was adopted on the 10th of October, and which convened for the

12     second time ..."

13             [Interpretation] The 14th of October.

14             Please, everyone, look at this paragraph.  That's the critical

15     session of the Assembly where the Serbian deputies walked out.  And after

16     two abortive attempts in the spring of 1991, the resolution on the

17     sovereignty of Bosnia-Herzegovina was finally adopted; correct?

18        A.   That's what the paragraph says, yes.

19             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now see 65 ter 11311.

20             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

21        Q.   At that Assembly session, as you know, I made a speech that is

22     often quoted, usually against me.  Do you remember that speech?

23        A.   Yes.

24             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we see the next page.  The

25     English page is 106.  The Serbian page is 111.  Because it's the whole

Page 14169

 1     transcript of that session, the numbering is different.  Serbian, 111;

 2     5English, 106.

 3             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 4        Q.   Do you recall that I said here:

 5             "I'm saying for the hundredth time, the Serbian Democratic Party

 6     is not creating the will of the Serbian people; it interprets it.  We

 7     would be lying if we told you that you are able to vote for this and do

 8     something with it in Europe."

 9             Do you remember that the Serbian Democratic Party held the

10     position that it was not pushing that programme; it was the Serbian

11     people who wished it?

12             Or let's move on with critical paragraphs.  English page 108;

13     Serbian page 111 -- sorry, 12.  Bottom of the page in Serbian.  It says:

14             "We will thwart you, in the international and local public, in

15     committing constitutional violence which is followed by all other types

16     of violence.  We don't control this situation anymore.  It was said a

17     hundred times from this -- from this pulpit this is the road to which you

18     want to lead Bosnia and Herzegovina, the same path of suffering and hell

19     that Slovenia and Croatia had already walked."

20             Next page, please.

21             The same speech before, explaining the proposal - whether I will

22     explain it myself or leave it to someone else, I don't know - I have to

23     clear up one thing that comes from the interpretation of what we say at

24     this -- from this platform.  That thing is related to the issue of war or

25     peace.  "For the 100th time, I have to repeat that Serbs do not threaten

Page 14170

 1     anyone with war.  Serbs are only announcing that they will not be able to

 2     reach any decision reached by out-voting and to the detriment of others,

 3     and that Serbs could not be forced to live in the state in which they do

 4     not wish to live.  Serbs and Muslims understand each other at least on

 5     that point, because Muslims are afraid that they would become a minority

 6     in the inferior, shrunk Yugoslavia, even though they enjoy the protection

 7     of their republic which will never become a constituent part of Serbia,

 8     but which will be completely equal with Serbia."

 9             So Serbs are afraid, by the same token, that in Bosnia and

10     Herzegovina they could be out-voted on this occasion or after several

11     years, it's completely the same.

12             Would it not have been important for you to include the positions

13     presented in this speech in your report?

14        A.   Well, as I said earlier, there were any number of things I could

15     have included.  The positions being taken here are perfectly consistent

16     with the positions that have been taken for the previous year, some of

17     which we discussed in testimony yesterday.  I notice there seems to be an

18     implication here, going back to our previous discussion, an implication

19     that the Serbs would use force to prevent people from using force.

20        Q.   Mr. Donia [as interpreted] -- sorry, Mr. Treanor, that's not

21     stated anywhere here.  It says only that Serbs will not allow themselves

22     to be forced to live in a state in which they do not wish to live.  Serbs

23     do not need to use force.  We have every right, including constitutional

24     rights, to live in the state in which we were living.

25             Look at what it says further below.  First of all, do you agree

Page 14171

 1     that force was not needed to stay in Yugoslavia; force was needed by

 2     those who wanted to secede?

 3        A.   Well, yes, I think we discussed this point before, that their

 4     position was that they were in Yugoslavia and they just wanted to stay in

 5     Yugoslavia.  If the only way for that to change would be by force, I just

 6     meant referring to the previous document, where we saw the JNA forcing

 7     people not to use force.  So if people are using force to make you do

 8     something, that was obviously one of the options that the JNA was

 9     pursuing, to prevent the use of force; that is, using force to prevent

10     force.

11        Q.   Thank you.  Let us continue on the same page 116 in English.

12     Karadzic says:

13             "Please, gentlemen, Muslim leaders have clearly stated that if a

14     catastrophe occurs, it would be, above all, a catastrophe for the Muslim

15     people.  It would also be a catastrophe for Serbian and Croatian people,

16     especially the Serbian and Muslim people, since we are very mixed, while

17     Serbs and Croats in Serbia are rather distanced, from a geographical

18     point of view, except in the big cities, naturally.  Dedijer presented

19     information on the suffering of all the peoples in Bosnia and

20     Herzegovina, especially Muslims, who could not be blamed for a mistake of

21     one leader, or a small number of Ustashas among Chetniks or in Partisans,

22     as Muslims were in all three parties.  Decisions made by out-voting,

23     decisions reached by majority nations, the chaos that could occur, the

24     chaos that nobody will start, but has its own logic.  The order is in

25     somebody's hands, but chaos is not in anybody's hands.  The basic feature

Page 14172

 1     of chaos is that nobody generates it, but it has its own logic and

 2     generates itself.  Chaos could be caused by wrong intentions; above all,

 3     the intentions of the Muslim leadership to make something -- to do

 4     something for the Muslims that could be good for Muslims only, but it

 5     could not be good for Serbs at the same time.  This could get us into

 6     chaos, which nobody could manage anymore.  Let us understand each other

 7     well.  The Serbian Democratic Party is not for chaos and, therefore, we

 8     are trying so persistently to make sure that no decision is made by

 9     out-voting others."

10             On page 123 in Serbian, which is 117 in English, it says:

11             "We can, therefore, send out a message that there will be no

12     war."

13             And above if, it says:

14             "If we find a solution, if we manage to transform Bosnia by

15     compromise ..."

16             And the conclusion says:

17             "We can send out a message that way, that there will be no war,

18     no chaos, because order is in our hands, unlike chaos, which is in

19     nobody's hands."

20             Were you aware, Doctor, of this persistent advocacy and even

21     begging and imploring of other sides to avoid descent into chaos?

22        A.   Well, I'm certainly aware that there were persistent agreements

23     by the SDS leaders to -- at this time to negotiate to achieve their goal,

24     which was to remain within Yugoslavia, which would have precluded --

25     hopefully, would have precluded chaos and so forth.

Page 14173

 1             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Page 130 in English and 137 in

 2     Serbian.

 3             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 4        Q.   Here, again, on behalf of the Serbian Democratic Party, I am

 5     enumerating what the Serbian Democratic Party had submitted to the

 6     Assembly:

 7             "In Bosnia-Herzegovina, there is no consensus among the three

 8     constituent peoples, Serbs, Muslims and Croats.  There is no consensus on

 9     remaining in Yugoslavia or seceding from it.  We may talk about the

10     survival of the federal state of Yugoslavia, or about transforming it.

11     However, there is no joint position on the issue.  Serbs are in favour of

12     the federal state, Croats were in favour of a confederation, and I don't

13     know what they are advocating at this point.  The Croatian Democratic

14     Union was in favour of Bosnia-Herzegovina as an independent state, and

15     probably the Party of Democratic Action will not express its wish for the

16     independence of Bosnia at this moment.  It is expressing its wish for

17     change in the position of Bosnia related to the independence of Croatia,

18     and that would make us also an independent republic against our will.

19             "Position 2.  However, there is the agreement in Parliament that

20     the decision on the position of Bosnia and Herzegovina in Yugoslavia will

21     be made democratically, with no use of force and without imposing the

22     will of one group of people onto another.

23             "Let me make the same comments.  This is also the position of the

24     Parliament" --

25             THE INTERPRETER:  The speaker is kindly asked to read slowly.

Page 14174

 1             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 2        Q.   -- "that there is no way that we impose --"

 3             JUDGE MORRISON:  Slow down a bit for the translators, please.

 4             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I hope the interpreters have this

 5     before them:

 6             "It's also the position of the Parliament that there is no way

 7     that we impose our will onto each other, because we have already made the

 8     Parliament conclusions that something like that will not be taking place.

 9     It means that we cannot achieve that by any kind of voting, I mean,

10     imposing the will of one group of people onto another.  Gentlemen, if we

11     try to do that, then we will prove that we are not in favour of equality,

12     that we do not comply with the decisions of the Parliament, that we do

13     not comply with the Constitution of Bosnia and other documents."

14             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

15        Q.   Do you agree, Doctor, that this is advocacy for peace, not war?

16        A.   Well, this is advocating reaching a decision by negotiation.

17        Q.   Thank you.  On the 17th of October, two days after this Assembly

18     session, the Serbian side, if you remember, sent an invitation to Muslims

19     and Croats to reverse their decision on the sovereignty of Bosnia and

20     Herzegovina; otherwise, the Serbian side would proclaim the Assembly of

21     the Serbian People in Bosnia and Herzegovina to include Serbian deputies

22     to the Bosnian Parliament?

23        A.   I don't recall that particular document.  I know there was a

24     public proclamation made by the SDS at that time, which I think is

25     referenced in my report.

Page 14175

 1             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Let me ask you about the previous

 2     document, which is part of the transcript of an Assembly session -- Joint

 3     Assembly session.  65 ter 11311.

 4             Can this -- has this transcript, as such, been admitted, or

 5     should we tender just this speech?  The Defence is not against admission

 6     of the entire transcript.

 7             JUDGE MORRISON:  Mr. Tieger.

 8             MR. TIEGER:  No, we have no objection either way, Your Honour.

 9             JUDGE MORRISON:  Very well.  We'll admit the entire transcript.

10             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit D1270, Your Honours.

11             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we see D295.

12             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

13        Q.   While we're waiting:  Do you agree, Dr. Treanor, that

14     international conventions on human rights guarantee to us, as a

15     constituent people, rights to self-determination, self-organisation, the

16     use of our natural resources, et cetera?

17        A.   Well, I'm not familiar in detail with various international

18     covenants.  I know they exist.

19        Q.   Please look at this demand to reverse unlawful decisions, and it

20     says here that if this violation of our constitutional rights continues,

21     we would form our own assembly.  Do you recall this, or if you are seeing

22     it for the first time, can you see that it was a public appeal made on

23     the 17th of October?

24        A.   It appears to be from a newspaper.  I can't see all the headings.

25     The translation date is the 25th of October.

Page 14176

 1        Q.   Yes, right, on the 25th, after the establishment of the Assembly.

 2     But this is a reference to a news -- to a press conference that took

 3     place earlier.  Do you agree that after the SDA and HDZ refused to

 4     reverse their unlawful decisions, on the 24th of October the Assembly of

 5     the Serbian People in Bosnia and Herzegovina was established, stating the

 6     following reasons?

 7             May this be received?  Oh, it's been exhibited already.

 8             Can we see briefly P1343; page 7 in Serbian, page 9 in English.

 9     This is a statement of reasons for the establishment of the Serbian

10     Assembly.

11             The second paragraph in Krajisnik's contribution, it says:

12             "In addition to all this, the present structure of the Parliament

13     of Bosnia and Herzegovina does not include a constitutional and legal

14     institution which would protect each of the three constituent peoples

15     from being out-voted.  True, in the essential rights of the national

16     groups, an amendment to the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina of

17     1990 introduced the Council for National Equality, which was to decide on

18     such issues by a consensus.  However, this council has not been

19     established to this day."

20             So the president of the Constitutional Commission did not succeed

21     in establishing this Council for National Equality, due to all sorts of

22     obstruction.  Do you recall that?

23        A.   I recall the speech, yes.  I think we referred to that council

24     before and the fact that it had not been established.

25             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Page 8 in Serbian, page 10 in

Page 14177

 1     English.

 2             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 3        Q.   Where Krajisnik says that not only the deputies to the

 4     Parliament, but also members of the Presidency from the Serbian Community

 5     were side-lined, marginalised.  They are not informed about all sorts of

 6     activities that their president is taking.  From the beginning, Serbian

 7     deputies were marginalised.  That was done in order to keep them in the

 8     dark about all sorts of actions taken by the president of the Presidency.

 9     That continues on the next page in English.

10             It says here on the same pages:

11             "I believe that in this brief contribution, I pointed to the real

12     reasons driving the Serbian Deputies Club when they decided to form the

13     Assembly of the Serbian People in Bosnia-Herzegovina."

14             These reasons, the stripping of legitimate Serbian

15     representatives of their rights, did you include that in your report as

16     the reasons why the Serbian Assembly was established in the first place?

17        A.   No, this document is not quoted.

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

19             Page 11 in Serbian, page 14 in English.

20             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

21        Q.   But you did state that the Serbian deputies and representatives

22     in the government and the Presidency continued working in the joint

23     bodies; right?

24        A.   I believe so, yes.  I believe I stated that, and I believe that's

25     true.

Page 14178

 1        Q.   Thank you.  Now let's see how Professor Najdanovic,

 2     Milutin Najdanovic, a well-known surgeon and an SDS party member,

 3     explained our position.  This is in the third paragraph, where it says --

 4     no, it is in the second paragraph in the Serbian language and also in the

 5     English language:

 6             "The Assembly of the Serbian People in Bosnia and Herzegovina

 7     will consider and take decisions on issues related to the achieving of

 8     the equality of the Serbian people in relation to the other peoples and

 9     ethnic groups that reside in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and protecting the

10     interests of the Serbian people, should those interests be compromised by

11     the decision of the Parliament of Bosnia and Herzegovina.  The Serbian

12     representatives will continue to work in the councils and working bodies

13     of the Parliament of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina for

14     which they were elected, until the ultimate solution to the crisis in

15     Bosnia and Yugoslavia is reached.  In the cases when we estimate that the

16     acts of the parliamentary councils under consideration and adoption are

17     compromising the equality of the national interest of the Serbian people

18     in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Assembly of the Serbian People in Bosnia

19     and Herzegovina shall work independently and take its own decisions."

20             Do you agree that the Assembly of the Serbian People was actually

21     a correction measure and a compensation for the non-functioning of the

22     council of the peoples that we wanted to have, but that we never got?

23        A.   Well, I think the -- this assembly was similar to -- in that

24     respect to the Serbian National Council that had been formed the year

25     before; that is, as a body to express the will of the Serbian people and

Page 14179

 1     to seek to prevent any decisions being made against their will.

 2             By the way, I would point out that the institution of the

 3     Assembly is dealt with extensively in the original report, and not only

 4     in these paragraphs.

 5        Q.   Thank you.  In paragraph 77 in your report, you list proposals by

 6     the Serbian representative in the Presidency of the SFRY,

 7     Mr. Boris Jovic.  During the 154th session, he said that the key moment

 8     for them, as you say:

 9             [In English] "Whether they would continue to participate in

10     the dirty business of the dissolution of the state ..."

11             [Interpretation] And so on and so forth.  And they said that they

12     will continue to participate in the negotiations only if the concept was

13     changed on the following basis:

14             [In English] "For peoples who, by a referendum with international

15     monitoring, wish to leave Yugoslavia.  A constitutional/legal procedure

16     of the Yugoslav Assembly should be secured to realise this with

17     international monitoring."

18             [Interpretation] And so on and so forth.  I shall not go on

19     reading the entire paragraph you wrote.

20             Do you agree that the constituent people had the right to

21     self-determination, according to all international laws that were in

22     force?

23        A.   Well, I don't know about the international laws in force, but

24     that, in general terms, peoples have a certain right to

25     self-determination.

Page 14180

 1        Q.   Thank you.  In your paragraph 76, you say that Jovic criticised

 2     Carrington's draft because he recognised the right to unilateral

 3     secession:

 4             [In English] "... which undermine the existing and

 5     internationally-recognised constitutional order of SFRY."

 6             [Interpretation] Do you agree that documents of unilateral

 7     secession were anti-constitutional and that they were also in violation

 8     of the international laws that were in force at that time?

 9        A.   Well, again, I couldn't offer an opinion on those legal and

10     constitutional matters.

11        Q.   Thank you.  Were you aware of the Honourable Judge of this

12     Tribunal Antonio Cassese's position on this matter?

13             Can we now look at 1D1613.

14        A.   No, I'm not aware of that.

15        Q.   You worked here until you were retired, until you were pensioned

16     off, and he was the President of this Tribunal; right?

17             Can we now look at --

18             MR. TIEGER:  This is -- sorry, Your Honour.  I rose to object to

19     that.  I thought Dr. Karadzic had moved on.  The witness interjected an

20     answer.  I don't think we should be returned to it, and if we do, my

21     objection stands.

22             JUDGE MORRISON:  The objection is a good one.

23             Dr. Karadzic, this witness's views of the views of someone else,

24     even someone as eminent as Professor Antonio Cassese, are not relevant to

25     the workings of this trial.

Page 14181

 1             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Excellency.

 2             However, I'm afraid that Dr. Treanor often proffers comments

 3     which imply that he accepts that unilateral secession is possible.

 4             Will you allow me to quote just one of Judge Cassese's sentences.

 5             JUDGE MORRISON:  Dr. Karadzic, if you want, in due course, to

 6     make legal submissions and back it up with authorities, that's another

 7     matter.  But for the moment, please simply cross-examine.

 8             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.  Then we will stick to

 9     the historic overview that this witness is familiar with.

10             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

11        Q.   On the 9th of November, 1991 -- or, rather, on the 9th and 10th

12     of November that year, a plebiscite of the Serbian people in Bosnia and

13     Herzegovina was organised, and you write about that in your paragraph 81.

14     Do you agree -- you noted that.  I suppose you do.  Do you agree that

15     nearly 100 per cent of the voters were in favour of staying in

16     Yugoslavia?

17        A.   Well, I know what the report on the results of the plebiscite

18     said, and it -- that report stated the results as given in that

19     paragraph 81.

20        Q.   Thank you.  Do you also agree that on the 11 December 1991, the

21     Assembly of the Serbian People adopted the proposal of the recommendation

22     on establishing the Serbian assemblies in the municipalities where

23     decisions were being imposed on the Serbs through the process of

24     over-voting, and that was only after that plebiscite was organised in

25     Bosnia and Herzegovina?

Page 14182

 1        A.   Yes, that's correct, I'm aware of that.  Again, I think that

 2     event is mentioned in the original report.

 3        Q.   Thank you.  Do you agree that there was also a need for the

 4     establishment of the Serbian assemblies in the municipalities, even where

 5     Serbs were minorities, but that there was no obligation to do so?

 6        A.   Well, I know that's the view that was taken by the Bosnian Serb

 7     Assembly.

 8        Q.   Thank you.  On the 19th December 1991, in your document

 9     65 ter 952, paragraph 63, you talk about that 19 December, which was a

10     very important day, and that was when the Main Board of the

11     Serbian Democratic Party, in quotations "the Crisis Staff" -- the

12     document number is 592, 65 ter 592.  It is the first document, your first

13     report.  I thought I gave the correct number.  Yes, that's the one.  I'm

14     talking about paragraph 63.  Let me not read the entire paragraph.  I

15     invite everybody to look at it.  And this refers to the document known as

16     Variant A and B.

17             It says here:

18             [In English] "Alternatively, the party (SDS) rank in Serb

19     minority areas would constitute new Serbian municipal institutions on

20     parts of the municipal territories referred to as Variant B, thus

21     dividing the existing municipalities and invariably setting the stage for

22     conflict."

23             [Interpretation] Thus, in your view, that was a plan for breaking

24     up Bosnia and Herzegovina along ethnic lines and an instruction for

25     illegal actions and taking territories.  I will not go into establishing

Page 14183

 1     the fact whether the Crisis Staff, indeed, existed, and who drafted the

 2     document.  I would rather ask you whether, in your analysis, you

 3     highlighted the other parts of those documents.

 4             For example, page 2 -- I apologise.  I believe the document

 5     number is P5.  P5; Serbian 2, English 1.  P5; Serbian 2, English 1.

 6             English page 1, where it says:

 7             "Because there is reasonable ground for suspicion that certain

 8     forces are working persistently, thoroughly, and in an organised way to

 9     take Bosnia-Herzegovina, and hence also the Serbian people out of

10     Yugoslavia by force, we hereby issue ..."

11             And so on and so forth.

12             Do you agree that taking Bosnia-Herzegovina out of Yugoslavia,

13     which is referenced in this paragraph, is contrary to the will of the

14     Serbian people, which also makes it a violation of the Constitution?

15        A.   Well, I think the paragraph you pointed to here sets out the

16     reasons for the formulation of these instructions very well.  I don't

17     think, as we've discussed earlier, the Serbian people in Bosnia and

18     Herzegovina, through the SDS - and there were SDS representatives in the

19     Assembly, and I'll just remind the Court that almost all the Serbian

20     deputies in the SRBH Assembly were part of the SDS party - wanted to stay

21     in Yugoslavia.  And you have referred earlier to constitutional violence

22     in relation to attempts to take Bosnia out of Yugoslavia, against the

23     will of those -- against the will of the Serbian people in Bosnia and

24     Herzegovina, so I think I can say that.  Again, giving any legal or

25     constitutional qualification to the action is something I would want to

Page 14184

 1     refrain from.

 2        Q.   Thank you.  The Serbian page can stay.  Can we go to English 2.

 3             In paragraph 2, it says this was all done in order to enhance

 4     mobility and readiness to protect the interests of the Serbian people.

 5     Do you agree that the Serbian community was being motivated to prepare

 6     for defence?

 7        A.   Well, I think in general terms, yes, this document is --

 8             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 9             MR. TIEGER:  It appeared to me the witness was in the middle of

10     getting an answer out and was overridden, so I think he just needs an

11     opportunity to complete it, if that's, indeed, what was happening.

12             JUDGE MORRISON:  Yes.  Let the witness complete his answers,

13     please, Dr. Karadzic.

14             THE WITNESS:  Yes.  I believe this is document is an effort to

15     get the SDS ready to defend what they regarded as their territories.

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

17             I apologise.  I thought that the witness had finished.  That's

18     why I interrupted.  I apologise.  I am pressed by the time.

19             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

20        Q.   Do you agree that Variant A speaks about the activities in the

21     municipalities where Serbs constituted a majority, where Serbs were in

22     power, and in that part a reference is made to taking power, but not

23     taking over power from somebody?

24        A.   Well, yes, Variant A municipalities are the ones in which the

25     Serbs constituted a majority.  Almost invariably in that case, the SDS

Page 14185

 1     was in power in those municipalities.  However, that does not mean that

 2     the SDS and its people even in those Variant A municipalities necessarily

 3     controlled all the important institutions in those municipalities.

 4             Dr. Karadzic, in his speech in connection with the upcoming

 5     plebiscite speech, which he gave on the 31st of October/the 1st of

 6     November, had enjoined SDS officials on the municipal level to

 7     consolidate their power and get hold of all the institutions that they

 8     were entitled to have control of in those municipalities.  For instance,

 9     getting rid of directors of this, that, or the other enterprise who was

10     not acting totally in conformity with their desires.  In other words,

11     just having gained the majority and gaining control of the Assembly and

12     the high offices in the municipalities was not sufficient.  It was

13     necessary to actually make sure that reliable people were in every

14     position, something which apparently had not happened by the end of

15     October 1991.  And I see this as a continuation of that effort in the

16     Variant A municipalities.

17        Q.   Thank you.  A brief question now.  Do you agree with me that the

18     elections in 1990 led not only to changes in power, but also to changes

19     in the system from the previous socialism to multi-party democracy, and

20     that the Serbian Democratic Party kept a lot of, as it were, older

21     politicians in their places because things just were not implemented as

22     they should have been, as you say?

23        A.   Well, I'm not -- yes, there certainly was a change of power that

24     took place.  Officials of the former League -- the League of Communists

25     and its allies would have been in most of the positions in the -- on the

Page 14186

 1     municipal level.  The extent to which they may all -- may not all have

 2     been replaced, I don't know.  But what you are referring to here,

 3     I think, is the type of problem that I was referring to, that even though

 4     the SDS had won the elections in various places, they didn't necessarily

 5     control all the levers of power.  And there was an effort, at the end of

 6     1991, to make sure that this happened.

 7        Q.   Thank you for introducing a new term, and that was to consolidate

 8     power, because in the indictment and the pre-trial brief, the term used

 9     is "taking over," whereas our term in Parliament is closer to your term

10     "consolidation of power."  Do you agree that this was not the case of

11     take-over because there was nobody to take power over from, because we

12     were already in power in those places?  Do you agree?

13             JUDGE MORRISON:  Mr. Tieger.

14             MR. TIEGER:  Again, I'm sorry to rise.

15             There's a question posed now which, of course, the witness can

16     answer, but I object to comments and will continue to do so, and the

17     accused should be admonished to refrain from doing that.

18             JUDGE MORRISON:  Well, Dr. Karadzic, it's becoming a persistent

19     habit.  Apart from the fact that it's improper, you're acting as counsel

20     and you must behave like counsel.  A comment is not for counsel to make,

21     but it also wastes your time.

22             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  I apologise.  I just

23     wanted to be efficient.  I didn't want to go there, but it seems that we

24     will have to deal with that tomorrow.

25             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

Page 14187

 1        Q.   In your paragraph 63, Dr. Treanor, you say that in that way, by

 2     the division of the existing municipalities into several

 3     municipalities [In English] "... is invariably setting the stage for

 4     conflict."

 5             [Interpretation] Do you believe that the division of Yugoslavia

 6     and unilateral secessions were not the case of setting stage for a

 7     conflict, and that the preservation of municipalities' boundaries was

 8     more important and more decisive than the preservation of the borders of

 9     an internationally-recognised state, the former Yugoslavia?

10        A.   Okay.  If I understand your question correctly, I think I would

11     agree that the division of Yugoslavia in that the secession and attempted

12     secession of various republics did set the stage for conflict.

13             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

14             Can we look at page 6 in Serbian and English, paragraph 8 in the

15     A/B variant document.

16             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

17        Q.   It says here:

18             "Bear in mind that national and all the other rights of members

19     of all the peoples are respected, as well as their subsequent engagement

20     in the authorities that will be set up by the Serbian people in the

21     municipality."

22             Did you notice in your report that non-Serbs who lived in those

23     municipalities were to be treated as equals and that they were to be

24     given positions in the bodies of power?

25        A.   I don't think that's mentioned in the report, no.

Page 14188

 1             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 2             Can we now look at page 9, both in Serbian and in English.  And

 3     the paragraph I'm looking at is 6.  I believe that we're now talking

 4     about Variant B.  That is about the settlements in the municipalities

 5     where Serbs are a minority.

 6             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 7        Q.   Where it says:

 8             "Organise secret observation posts and a system of communication

 9     to alert the Serbian population about any possible danger.  In this

10     regard, plan protection measures and resettlement of a population, moving

11     personal effects to more secure and safer areas."

12             Would you not agree that this is a very clearly-defined defence

13     measure?

14        A.   Well, as -- in this passage here, that certainly seems to be

15     what's being referenced, to defend Serbian areas.  Talking about

16     protection measures and resettlement of population, that's a bit

17     ambiguous, I think.

18        Q.   It says here:

19             "Organise covert observation and a system of reporting all

20     threats to the Serbian population."

21             We have to bear in mind that this applies to the municipalities

22     where Serbs are a minority.  Does this not refer to protective measures

23     that have been put in place in case of attack from other sides?

24        A.   Well, as I said, it seems to be in that context, yes.

25             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

Page 14189

 1             And can we now look at page 10 in English, and page 9 can stay.

 2     Chapter III, paragraph 1.  Roman III, paragraph 1, page 10 in English.

 3     Very well.

 4             "In order to carry out as effectively as possible its tasks,

 5     measures, and other activities defined herein, and also other tasks,

 6     measures and activities judged to be useful for the organisation of the

 7     Serbian people for its best possible defence and protection, the

 8     Crisis Staff must first undertake a comprehensive assessment ...," and so

 9     on and so forth.

10             Is it clear and equally unambiguous that the reference which is

11     made here is a reference to defence measures?

12        A.   Well, that seems to be being discussed, as we said at the

13     beginning of this argument -- this discussion, sorry.  I described this

14     document as being one to get people organised and prepared to -- and

15     defend the territories that they regarded as belonging to them.

16             JUDGE MORRISON:  Dr. Karadzic, we're going to finish for today,

17     and we will reassemble at 9.00 a.m. tomorrow morning.  Thank you.

18                           [The witness stands down]

19                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.30 p.m.,

20                           to be reconvened on Friday, the 3rd day of June,

21                           2011, at 9.00 a.m.