1 Tuesday, 1 November 2011
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.01 a.m.
5 JUDGE KWON: Good morning, everyone. Yes, Mr. Karadzic.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Excellencies.
7 Good morning to everybody. Thank you for allowing me to address you.
8 The cause for my request was my concern that perhaps here there
9 are three notions of the same indictment in view of the fact that the
10 Trial Chamber often objects to my line of questioning. The way I
11 understand the indictment and the way the Prosecution stated that I have
12 not done anything, I believe that the focus of the indictment is the fact
13 that I wanted to expel Muslims and Croats from the territory that the
14 Serbs thought that they had a right to. The right to territory is not a
15 crime. A crime is the allegation that I wanted those territories to be
16 ethnically clean and that's why I started a war, and in order to do that
17 I put conditions in place for the war to happen and for the war to serve
18 the purpose of that goal. If that, indeed, is the case, then I don't
19 have to dwell upon individual murders or killings because that would be
20 part of a civil war. I did not have any contacts with that part of the
21 state until September. So what remains is who wanted the war and who had
22 goals? I claim that it was the Muslims' goal to expel us from that same
24 JUDGE KWON: Just a second.
25 Yes, Mr. Tieger.
1 MR. TIEGER: Yes. Mr. Robinson foreshadowed this -- well, what
2 turns out to be a submission earlier and explained that Dr. Karadzic
3 wanted to address a relevance issue raised by the Court. Now what we're
4 seeing is submissions, commentary, testimony. It's -- this is not an
5 appropriate submission. If Dr. Karadzic wants to raise a response to a
6 relevance objection, in this case one -- I don't know if it's an
7 objection or a comment noted by the Court is what I understood is the
8 point of Dr. Karadzic's seeking some time to address the Court that's one
9 matter, but to start testifying about his actions, his intentions, and to
10 make an argument in general is neither an appropriate use of court time
11 nor -- and appropriate submission to make at this point in the case.
12 JUDGE KWON: Can he not explain his case, about his case, in
13 addressing the relevance, Mr. Tieger?
14 MR. TIEGER: No, I understand those two -- those two overlap,
15 clearly, and to make a point about relevance, he's going to touch on
16 those issues, but I noted he's making factual submissions about both the
17 evidence and also offering testimony about his own state of mind, and
18 those things need to be kept separate from and -- and only arise until
19 the appropriate context in the case. That's -- that's my point. If --
20 here's one: "I did not have any contacts with that part of the state
21 until September," is his claim. That's testimony or comment or something
22 else. That has no place in -- in what should be a pointed submission, a
23 succinct submission, about relevance.
24 JUDGE KWON: I take it that -- I take it to mean his way of
25 defence strategy, but I will consult my colleagues.
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 JUDGE MORRISON: Now, Mr. Tieger, one must remember that
3 Dr. Karadzic is acting not only as defendant but as advocate, but if he
4 were to say those things as an advocate in response to a question as to
5 the relevance of the advocate's line of cross-examination, it would be
6 put in pretty much the same way. He uses the word -- the personal
7 pronoun simply because he's occupying two positions rather than saying,
8 "my client -- my client's case is," he's saying, "My case is." I can
9 understand your objection if the defendant was making a legal submission,
10 but he's not. He is setting out his stall as to what his factual
11 position is that he sees he has to defend as a matter of mixed fact and
13 Am I right about that, Dr. Karadzic?
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Absolutely, Your Excellency,
16 JUDGE KWON: I think the Chamber is unanimous in this point.
17 Please continue, Mr. Karadzic.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. I want to avoid a
19 situation in which I would be on the wrong track, and I also want to
20 avoid any misunderstandings with the Trial Chamber and that may be due to
21 my amateurism, and if my strategic orientation in defence is also wrong,
22 then I am in great difficulty. So if my understanding is what it is,
23 then I have to prove who wanted the war in the first place and how the
24 war happened. These are the problems that I see from the place of head
25 of state and the head of army who handed over his tactical command to
1 somebody else. I can't be responsible or should I say my client cannot
2 be responsible for people killing each other. They have been killing
3 each other always, but I can be responsible -- respond to the allegations
4 that I needed the war in order to achieve my criminal goal. I have to
5 prove differently, and I can prove that that was not the case, if I
6 understood the indictment properly and if I understood the role of the
7 Defence in this case properly. Thank you very much.
8 Unfortunately, the interpretation is not good. I am saying that
9 people have been killing each other, especially in the Balkans,
10 especially in Bosnia, since the time when these two religions have
11 existed and this is the position of a civilian head of state and head of
12 army who is not in tactical command. And, thirdly, I am expressing the
13 views of my defendant of the goals and the means to achieve those goals
14 and these are different than are alleged in the statement, and I will not
15 be able to prove that if I don't clarify that with the Prosecution
16 witnesses. I will have my Defence case later, but now they are
17 presenting their case, and I have to challenge that.
18 First of all, I have to know whether I'm right in -- in
19 interpreting the indictment, whether I understand the indictment and the
20 charges against me properly.
21 JUDGE MORRISON: Dr. Karadzic, we're not going to explain what
22 the Prosecution indictment is. I think it's self-evident and you have
23 Mr. Robinson to assist you as to any legal difficulties you may have to
24 address as to that, and I don't think you have to take the rather
25 schizophrenic view of actually dividing yourself into defendant and
1 lawyer in the -- in your language. We understand both. I was simply
2 making a point.
3 Yes, of course, you have to set out your case, and it's entirely
4 a matter for you. What I would simply urge is what the Chamber has urged
5 upon before you before, that to try and deal with matters as a matter of
6 law where you can and remember that it's you that's the subject of the
7 indictment, not Serbia, nor the Serbian people. So you can perhaps focus
8 your case more acutely on the indictment rather than the broader
9 historical perspective.
10 I speak for myself, but I'm sure I speak for my colleagues.
11 We're not trying to restricting you. We're just trying to make it more
12 focused or everybody's benefit.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Excellency.
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 JUDGE KWON: Very well. Let's bring in the witness.
16 [The witness takes the stand]
17 JUDGE KWON: Good morning, Doctor. How are you, sir, today?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning. Thank you very much.
19 I'm very well.
20 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, you have half an hour.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Excellency, I hope that you
22 will appreciate my effort to narrow down my cross-examination.
23 WITNESS: MIRSAD MUJADZIC [Resumed]
24 [Witness answered through interpreter]
25 Cross-examination by Mr. Karadzic: [Continued]
1 Q. Good morning, Dr. Mujadzic.
2 A. Good morning, Dr. Karadzic.
3 Q. Yesterday you mentioned that the strategic orientation towards
4 the left bank of the Sana was not only yours but also the people from
5 Bihac and you mentioned that the strategic plans were devised by those
6 who were sitting in Sarajevo at the time; right?
7 A. Yes. That was an estimate of the Patriotic League.
8 Q. Thank you. Do you remember that the first Cutileiro's map
9 envisaged for this to be a canton without any contacts with
10 Cazin Krajina? Before the war nobody was worried for the continuity of
11 the territory. I accepted that. And let me continue the second
12 Cutileiro's map gave a lot of Prijedor and Sanski Most to the
13 Cazin Krajina and I also accepted that?
14 A. I remember that.
15 Q. Thank you. Do you remember that Vance-Owen's plan reached as far
16 as the left bank of the Sana? You will remember the triangle. And there
17 was a mine there, Ljubija, Sanski Most, and a lot of Sanski Most was
18 supposed to be given to the Cazin Krajina, and I remember that as well.
19 A. Yes, I -- and I accepted that as well.
20 Q. Yes. I remember. And then, surprise, how it occurred to you
21 that the Prijedor was strategically important for the Serbs. Something
22 to that effect can be found in the description of events. I would like
23 to know whether you are familiar with the description of events that is
24 enclosed with the indictment and with your testimony.
25 A. Mr. Karadzic, we're talking about two different processes. One
1 process entailed political negotiations aimed at reaching compromises,
2 and the second situation deals with the potential conflict. I spoke
3 about the strategic importance of Prijedor and why Prijedor experienced
4 what it did, why its fate was, in a way, bad. It had three -- 3.500
5 casualties. Only Srebrenica had more casualties than Prijedor. I have
6 some ideas why that happened, and one of the reasons why that happened in
7 my view is position of Prijedor, which is only about 55 kilometres or 30
8 miles from Banja Luka, and there were a lot of Bosniaks there residing in
9 the Sana valley.
10 The second reason is the fact that Prijedor was before that a
11 town with a Serb majority. According to the 1981 census, there were
12 43 per cent Serbs and 38 per cent Bosniak, and in 1991, that was
13 reversed, 44 per cent Bosniak and 45 per cent Serbs.
14 And the third thing that was the cause of Prijedor's fate was the
15 fact that although the SDA and all the other places where Serbs
16 constituted a minority of maybe 5 or 6 per cent, the SDS still managed to
17 win the elections save in Prijedor, and, Mr. Karadzic, you wanted to
18 reconcile two different streams within your own people. One stream was a
19 Partisan stream as it were and the other was Chetnik and the situation
20 was the same in Prijedor. The first president, Mr. Srdjo Srdic was an
21 urban Serb, was a member of the so-called Partisan stream. In the
22 pre-election campaign, Stojan Vracar together with Marko Pavic and
23 Sejmenovic were on the list and they split the number of votes for the
24 Council of Municipalities. And then when Marko Pavic and
25 Mevludin Sejmenovic together embarked on the campaign, it was almost
1 certain that Marko Pavic would win, but he didn't because he did not
2 manage to attract the votes of the Orthodox Serbs, i.e., the Chetnik
4 Those people actually vote for Mevludin Sejmenovic rather than
5 Marko Pavic who had belonged to the Communist stream?
6 Q. Thank you. It would be very nice to go and listen to you but I
7 don't have time. Very well, do you remember that even after the takeover
8 and even after the attack on Prijedor on the 30th of May the Serb side
9 wanted you to have your own municipality?
10 A. Yes. I spoke a lot about that in the Stakic trial. One stream
11 within the party, indeed, believed that something like that was realistic
12 and possible. I personally encouraged them to follow that line of
13 negotiations if they thought that was indeed realistic. I personally
14 believed that the entire process that was taking place in Prijedor was a
15 process that was well designed and that would have an identical ultimate
16 outcome irrespective of what moves we made.
17 Q. Thank you. If we agree that the Serbs accepted a Muslim canton
18 in the Sana valley, and if they accepted for a lot of the Cazin Krajina
19 to belong to the Muslims and to have a separate municipality within a
20 town like Sarajevo has ten municipalities, would you not agree that it
21 was not our interest for Muslims to disappear from Prijedor?
22 A. Mr. Karadzic, I thought long and hard about that, and I analysed
23 why Prijedor fared as it did. Sadikovic, Esad, I don't know if the name
24 means anything to you. He was a physician, his wife was Serb, and he
25 spent working with Medecins sans Frontieres working many countries. He
1 was a cosmopolitan. He was -- he was a friend with many Serbs, and he
2 was killed in Omarska. How come that Mr. Sikora who was very beloved by
3 the Serbs he was also killed. Allow me to finish. Two sentences,
4 Mr. Karadzic. The reason for that is the Prijedor's Partisans' past. It
5 had to be shown to people on the examples of Dr. Sadikovic and Mr. Sikora
6 who was a Czech, he was not the member of any party that they were
7 enemies of the Serbs and they should serve to create a gap between the
8 traditionally good relationships -- relations between the Serbs and the
10 Q. However, you said it yourself that I did everything in my power
11 for the Partisan Chetniks to reconcile. So how come that the Chetnik
12 stream was so strong there?
13 A. Mr. Karadzic, what you could do on your part was to have one line
14 advocated by Srdic and Kupresanin and you could strike some deals because
15 they were in favour of peaceful political options and they could have
16 stayed in power. However, after the elections, the whole thing was
17 radicalised when Stakic surged to power and he was a radical. Brdjanin
18 was also another radical person. He replaced Kupresanin who was a much
19 more moderate person. All those were signals to us that in that area the
20 room for political solutions were -- was being decreased.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would like to look at 1D187. I
22 will go through some documents as fast as I can, and I will take them
23 according to a chronology. This document was issued on the 13th of
24 April, 1992.
25 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. You will see here that the federal administration for moral
2 guidance describes the events in Prijedor -- or, rather, in that area,
3 not only in Prijedor.
4 Could you please look at the part where it says:
5 [As read] "There are no signs of the situation in
6 Bosnia-Herzegovina calming down with armed conflicts, chaos, anarchy,
7 terror, and reprisals continuing. The deterioration of the situation is
8 particularly marked in the valleys of the Neretva and Drina Rivers and
9 tensions are also marked in Prijedor, Sanski Most, Stolac, and some other
11 And then the document also says:
12 [As read] "Muslim and Croatian extremists continue to pursue a
13 policy of terror and reprisal against Serbian citizens, maltreating,
14 harassing, and provoking the members of the JNA and their families thus
15 putting pressure on them to leave all with the blessing of the rump BH
16 government and Presidency ...," and so on and so forth.
17 It says here:
18 [As read] "Alija Izetbegovic is undoubtedly making a grave
19 mistake by constantly stressing that external aggression has been carried
20 out and mentioning only Serbia as the external factor in the SDS as the
21 internal one. Objectively speaking, this does not help stem the rise of
22 the Muslim and Croatian hatred against the Serbs and the army ..."
23 Can we go to the following page please?
24 JUDGE KWON: It's insufferable for the interpreters. We all can
25 read. Even the witness can read it. Why don't you just put your
1 question, Mr. Karadzic.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Thank you.
3 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Do you know who Mesud Hasotic was, and is it true he was a
5 Muslim, a Muslim who spent in the ranks of the Serb army a long time?
6 A. Yes, I do know who Colonel Mesud Hasotic is and I know by his
7 name is that he is a Bosniak.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, I would like to tender
9 this document, please.
10 JUDGE KWON: All you did was read out this document and ask about
11 the author. What's the question to the witness -- for the witness with
12 respect to this document?
13 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Do you know, Dr. Mujadzic, that the army had this type of
15 assessment of the event as early as the 13th of April for the entire
16 Bosnia and it's said that it was even worse in the Neretva and Drina
17 valleys whereas for Prijedor it says that the tensions were rising.
18 A. I don't know how this report was drafted by Mr. Hasotic and on
19 what basis, but I do know that usually this type of report is compiled
20 based on the information that comes from the ground. Now, the question
21 is what the source of this information for this report of Mr. Hasotic's
22 was. Obviously the source was one-sided and it was an exclusively army
23 source, and obviously he did not take into account any information from
24 the other side that would not quite be in sync with what he put in this
1 Q. Now, but would you agree with me and can we have the first page
2 please that Izetbegovic, as it says here, similarly like Tudjman -- could
3 we have the first page, please, but a slightly in a more -- in a weaker
4 variant is accusing them and that's why -- okay, so adhering to a
5 slightly mild letter variant of the principle Tudjman used, accuses the
6 JNA of acting strangely because it fails to take the side of those in
7 Bosnia who are allegedly defending themselves. Now, do you know,
8 Mr. Witness, that at this time in April Mr. Izetbegovic was accusing the
9 JNA of this?
10 A. Well, the reason for criticising the JNA was something that many
11 other people outside of the SDA also found valid. One of those thesis
12 was also publicly voiced in parliament, and I do believe that you recall
13 those discussions. From the very first day of the elections of the 1990
14 you remember the tax that was extended, the tax of 3 per cent that was to
15 go -- to be allocated to the army, and already at that time the Bosniak
16 members of parliament were not prepared to extend this tax because the
17 army was already taking sides, and it was becoming clear what their
18 position was, that it was becoming increasingly less Yugoslav and
19 increasingly more Serb.
20 Q. Thank you. But I'm not asking you about the reasons. What I'm
21 asking you was whether you knew that Mr. Izetbegovic took this position.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Thank you.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could I tender this, please.
25 JUDGE KWON: It will be admitted.
1 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D1836, Your Honours.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Can we now have 1D4499.
3 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. You know Mr. Zeljaja. Here we have a document that he drafted.
5 The document is dated the 15th of April, 1992, and he speaks about
6 developments in the garrison and perhaps we can read portions of it. I
7 hope that we have a translation. No. I've just been told there is no
9 A. Could we please zoom in on the document. My apologies. I can't
10 really see.
11 Q. Yes. Could we have it blown up, please. Thank you. Can we now
12 scroll the page up a bit.
13 I think that yesterday we agreed, but if not, we can do that
14 today, that this garrison in Prijedor was the base garrison for two
15 brigades, the 5th Kozara Brigade and the 343rd Motorised Brigade; is that
17 A. That is correct, Mr. Karadzic.
18 Q. Thank you. Now, you see here that he talks about the threats of
19 nationalist and chauvinist behaviour, and then under paragraph 3 he says
20 that care should be taken to keep the JNA members outside of the
21 inter-party strifes, and then it says that there is a threat that there
22 may be some attacks on various military installations in Prijedor and
23 Kozarac and so on -- on Kozara and so on.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we have the next page,
1 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. And here under 6 and on it says that without specific orders, no
3 one is to issue any weapons of the TO and that members of the JNA have to
4 protect the citizens of all ethnicities from any threats against
5 paramilitary units and so on and so forth.
6 Now, when after the 30th of April there was a takeover of power
7 in the area, do you remember that the JNA at that time was the main
8 negotiator and that they were very angry and that they addressed in the
9 same breath, as it were, both the SDA and the SDS?
10 A. I do recall that, Mr. Karadzic, yes.
11 Q. And do you know that the SDS Municipal Board on the 23rd of April
12 adopted one of these conclusions, and I will quote it. It says that they
13 want Zeljaja to declare himself, whether he was prepared to defend Serbs
14 or to invite his soldiers to leave the JNA and to surrender their arms.
15 A. I don't know anything of that document, but we never issued such
16 ultimatums to Mr. Zeljaja or to the Bosniak side.
17 Q. Thank you.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would like to tender this
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do have a remark about
21 Mr. Zeljaja. Mr. Karadzic is talking about the 15th of April, 1992, when
22 Major Zeljaja provided this assessment. Now, a mere month later, on the
23 16th of May exactly, Mr. Zeljaja stated that he was a commander of the
24 Serb army. In other words, just a month later, he suddenly transformed
25 and became a commander of the Republika Srpska Army, and this is
1 really -- he finally came out, as it were, and showed his real face, and
2 we had considered that to be the case already earlier. We had the sense
3 that that's what would happen.
4 Now, he -- in the situation.
5 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness repeat his last words,
7 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. [No interpretation]
9 JUDGE KWON: No. Just a second. The interpreters didn't hear
10 your last word, Mr. Mujadzic.
11 A. I will say that Mr. Zeljaja, after the so-called liberation of
12 Kozarac, renamed Kozarac to Radmilovo. Although this area had a 95 per
13 cent Bosniak population and yet, he chose to give it a new place name
14 that was purely Serb.
15 JUDGE KWON: We'll mark for identification this document pending
16 English translation.
17 THE REGISTRAR: As MFI D1837, Your Honours.
18 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Karadzic. Your last words were not
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.
21 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation].
22 Q. I can't exactly recall what I said, but, yes, I see. Do you
23 agree that on the 15th of April the agreement on the withdrawal of the
24 JNA had not been reached whereas on the 16th of May, that was the case,
25 and the JNA did withdraw. On the 12th of May we took this decision that
1 we would have our own army.
2 A. Yes, that's clear, Mr. Karadzic. I -- I can agree with that, but
3 we are talking here about the essence, the substantive matters, not the
4 formal aspects. The fact that the JNA de facto was a Serb army, although
5 de jure it was still officially the Yugoslav People's Army, but in fact
6 it was the Serb army already, and soon after that that became very clear.
7 Q. Could we now see 65 ter 00485. This is a document dated the 1st
8 of May from the command of the 5th Corps. This is still the JNA. The
9 1st of May, 1992.
10 Would you please take a look at the very first sentence:
11 [As read] "The enemy has indulged in provocative fire from the
12 area of Lipik," in other words from Croatia. And then in the next
13 sentence it says, "In the general area of Bosnian Krajina several
14 developments are making the situation more complex. After the SDA's
15 takeover in Prijedor the situation in general is calm. During the night
16 a killing occurred at a check-point in Prijedor and the Muslim
17 organisation sealed off the village of Kozarac, preventing access to it.
18 In the past few days, HOS members have been fortifying positions on the
19 right bank of the Vrbas River and so on in Donji Vakuf."
20 Now, do you recall that on the 1st of May a Serb policeman,
21 reserve policeman, was killed he was shot in the back and on the 2nd of
22 May his relative, to avenge him, killed four Muslims?
23 A. I don't remember that event very clearly, Mr. Karadzic, I'm
25 Q. Thank you. Very well, but you can see what the JNA's assessment
1 of the situation at this time was still. Is it correct that there was a
2 check-point at -- on the approaches to Kozarac at the time?
3 A. Well, yes, that's correct. There were check-points all over the
4 place, but there is no mention made here that four Bosniaks were killed
5 in the village of Brezicani after this putsch.
6 Q. Well, I'm afraid these were the same four people who were killed
7 to avenge the relative and that was the reason to introduce a curfew;
9 A. Well, yes, Mr. Karadzic, but at the time and if we've talking
10 about the same event, there had not been any killing of a Serb. Rather,
11 members of the Territorial Defence who had Chetnik insignia killed the
12 president of the SDA of the local board in Brezicani and three other
13 citizens of Muslim or Bosniak ethnicity for no reason at all.
14 Q. Well, we do have some newspaper reports on that. Thank you.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Now I would like to tender this
16 document, please.
17 JUDGE KWON: Yes. That will be admitted.
18 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D1838.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you can we now have
20 65 ter 5455, please. 5455.
21 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. This is addressed to the command of the 2nd Military District
23 dated the 17th of May. In other words we see that this is still the JNA,
24 but it is already well known that we were going to establish our own
25 army, and we don't have to look at the whole thing but it mentions
1 Croatia, Pakrac, Travnik, Dobratic, the HOS has some 400 or 500 armed men
2 but not active and then it goes on to say in the third paragraph in the
3 general area of Prijedor, there were three detachments established of --
4 of Green Berets, and this would actually be consistent with what you
5 mentioned earlier; correct?
6 A. Well, these were not Green Berets, they were members of the
7 Patriotic League.
8 Q. Thank you.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'd like to tender this, please.
10 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
11 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit D1839, Your Honours.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Could we now have
13 65 ter 17879, please.
14 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation].
15 Q. This document is dated the 16th of May, also addressed to the
16 5th Corps command, where it is reported to them that the enemy's
17 attempting to capture some facility in Vlasic. Now, this is in
18 Central Bosnia, isn't it? Between Kotor Varos and Travnik?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And you see here that an order is issued to the effect that all
21 measures are to be taken to defend all nodal communication centres and
22 other isolated communication features in the zone of responsibility, and
23 this is addressed to the command of the Prijedor region and to the
24 command of the 122nd Light Infantry Brigade. In other words, the JNA is
25 still considering these facilities their own and they use them for
1 communications; correct?
2 A. Yes. That is what we can infer from this document.
3 Q. Thank you. I'd like to tender this, please.
4 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit D1840, Your Honours.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, and now can we look at
7 65 ter 17761.
8 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. On the 18th of May, this is a report by Drljaca who writes to his
10 boss in Banja Luka. In Ljubija and Donje Ljubija; a platoon armed with
11 infantry weapons in Rizvanovici, Hambarine and Biscani; a company armed
12 with infantry weapons in Carakovo; a platoon with infantry weapons in
13 Kozarac and Kozarusa; a company armed with infantry weapons. Do you see
14 that on the 18th of May there was information about the -- these forces
15 in the suburbs of Prijedor; right?
16 A. Mr. Karadzic, there was never any dispute about that. Those were
17 members of the Territorial Defence.
18 Q. Thank you. You also stated that on the 13th of April, the Serbs
19 took the central part of the city with all the institutions such as
20 radio, the Ministry of the Interior, and so on and so forth, and you also
21 stated that the Serb suburbs were freed. They were not taken; is that
23 A. Yes, that's correct. If you are referring to the putsch, i.e.,
24 the illegal takeover of power in Prijedor by the Serbs?
25 Q. Thank you.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can this be admitted.
2 JUDGE KWON: This will be admitted as Exhibit D1841.
3 Mr. Karadzic, your time is up, and I would allow you to put your last
4 question. Just a second. We will mark.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could I have at least another 15
6 minutes, please.
7 JUDGE KWON: We will mark it for identification pending
8 translation. I will consult my colleagues.
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 JUDGE KWON: Very well. You have 15 minutes more, Mr. Karadzic,
11 in the circumstances.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
13 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Dr. Mujadzic, you said a great many things that seem to be
15 discrepant in your statements. Who's this lady in parliament who told
16 you in parliament that I had said that we have the JNA, you have nothing?
17 A. It wasn't a lady, it was Mr. Kerovic [phoen] who was from Lopari,
18 MP from Lopari. There was this discussion and you know that very often
19 during breaks MPs chat in the hallway and Mr. Kerovic, you probably
20 remember him, he's from Lopari, he said that to me. He said, "What do
21 you Bosniaks want? We have the JNA, and what have you got? Nothing, you
23 Q. Thank you. But in the 92 ter document this number plus 84 you
24 say she said. She said.
25 A. That must have been a mistake in translation. What I meant was
1 Mr. Kerovic, a member of parliament.
2 Q. Thank you. Tell me, is it correct that you had a war Crisis
3 Staff already in 1991?
4 A. I'm not aware of us ever having a war Crisis Staff.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 1D4672. Could we have that,
6 please. It seems it's not -- we'll wait. We'll wait until it's upload
7 order we'll show it on the ELMO.
8 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation].
9 Q. Tell me, please, do you know that both the Muslim and the Serb
10 sides accused you, accused you as the main extremist, as the person who
11 was guilty as far as everything that happened in Prijedor was concerned?
12 Both the Muslim side and the Serb side.
13 A. As far as I can remember, Mr. Karadzic, the Bosniak side accused
14 me of having co-operated with the Serbs and that I had not armed the
15 people sufficiently and that I was not sufficiently aggressive and
16 belligerent whereas the Serb accusations were the exact opposite. So I
17 had accusations levelled at me from both sides that were completely
18 opposite. What I tried to do throughout was to avoid a conflict
19 altogether, and that is how I ended up being accused by both sides, the
20 Bosniak side for having co-operated with the Serbs and not having done
21 enough to have the Bosniaks defended from the Serb side and then the
22 other way round from the Serb side.
23 Q. Yes. That is true. You were accused of having collaborated with
24 the Chetniks. However, Fikret Kadiric said that you were the chief
25 warmonger in Prijedor. You know that, don't you?
1 A. No, I was not aware of any such statement.
2 Q. Thank you. Can we have a look at 1D0251. Were court proceedings
3 instituted against you?
4 A. I'm not aware of any such thing.
5 Q. Well, now we're going to see this. This is an entire case file
6 from the Military Court in Banja Luka. You are aware the fact that
7 indictment was withdrawn at some point after the war in 1990-something.
8 A. I wasn't aware of that, Mr. Karadzic.
9 Q. Please take a look at this. No, this is not it. This is a
10 different document. No, no. This is some agreement. 1D02951. I'm
11 going to read this out to you. Criminal report against Mirsad Mujadzic
12 and your brother.
13 THE INTERPRETER: We cannot keep up with all the names being read
15 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation].
16 Q. Teofik, Esref, your uncle; right? It's 16 persons accused that
17 we have here. Just a moment, please. Let's see which page is this. 627
18 is the ERN number. Those are the last three digits, rather.
19 Armed rebellion, in October, 627 and then 629. Let us see why.
20 A. Was this a question addressed to me?
21 Q. No, no. Let us see what they accused you of: That in October
22 1991, you established a Crisis Staff of the municipality of Prijedor
23 consisting of Muslims only and then you were preparing for war, you were
24 arming, and so on and so forth. At any rate, they point out that it is
25 you. Then, in order to have an ethnic balance of the employed in the
1 SJB --
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have this page, the one
3 that I asked for?
4 JUDGE KWON: Is it page 3 and 4 in B/C/S?
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't see. P0056627 is the ERN
6 number. 5667. Those are the last digits. This is on -- this is a
7 decision on staying the proceedings.
8 Q. Do you know about this?
9 A. Sir, I don't know. I'm not aware of proceedings being instituted
10 or being stayed.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we see 627. So we have to go
12 back. 627.
13 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, I've got a copy of the B/C/S that
14 perhaps it might assist the witness if the registrar's having trouble
15 with the document.
16 JUDGE KWON: You have that document.
17 MS. SUTHERLAND: 1D02951.
18 JUDGE KWON: Is what we have before us not that document?
19 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes, but Mr. Karadzic was asking for specific
20 pages, and I just thought it might quicken proceedings if the witness had
21 a copy of the document.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I just make a brief comment
23 with regard to this comment -- this document and similar documents,
24 Mr. Karadzic?
25 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. You can give us your comments while we're looking for this, but
2 this is a very voluminous case file against you, against you. Sixteen of
3 you from Prijedor. It has to do with a great many things that were done
4 against peace and against the citizens of Prijedor and against the army.
5 It seems that not all of it has been uploaded. Quite simply, this seems
6 to be one blow after the other. Nothing. Then I have to give up on this
7 document altogether. I'll show it some other time.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, may I -- may I just
9 give a brief comment with regard to this document and similar documents?
10 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Accusations like this coming from
12 the SDS and these documents are entitled "Monster doctor," it has to do
13 with Dr. Sikora, who was a Catholic, a Czech by origin. He was accused
14 of prepared measures of making Serb children sterile, carrying out
15 abortions and so on. This man was a great friend of the Serb people and
16 he was very well liked among the Serb people. This is just an example of
17 this kind of thing. Two messages are being sent out, one to the Serbs,
18 the Serbs in the city of Prijedor, saying see what the Muslims and Croats
19 are preparing, which is aimed against you, although this was not
20 supported by any kind of facts.
21 Secondly, the idea was to create a rift between Serbs and Muslims
22 and Bosniaks. These good relations were traditionally maintained in the
23 area. It is a well-known thing that the Prijedor Bosniaks protected the
24 Serbs in Prijedor many times and that is what they wanted to get rid of.
25 That is what your party in Prijedor did very well, Mr. Karadzic, and I
1 think that that's what you were aiming for when you appointed Mr. Stakic.
2 Q. Doctor, I did not engage in elections at local level, and Stakic
3 comes from a Partisan family. That is what was pointed out to you in the
4 cross-examination in Brdjanin and Stakic. However, this has to do with a
5 Military Court and the SDS had no influence over the Military Court
6 whatsoever. I have to call up yet another document.
7 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters could not catch the number.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I need three more documents of
9 Muslim provenance and then I'll be done. 1D4672.
10 JUDGE KWON: Is that now uploaded?
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It should be uploaded. Yes, I
12 think. Yes.
13 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Please take a look at this. This is information of the state
15 security where it says here the war Crisis Staff. The date is the 6th of
16 July, and it says Muslim extremists Mujadzic, Mirsad, Camil Pezo and so
17 on on the 23rd of September, 1991, they said that the situation in
18 Prijedor was extraordinary and that they would be working under war
19 conditions, and they formed a war Crisis Staff consisting of three
20 members, Mujadzic, Pezo and Krkic; is that right?
21 A. Mr. Karadzic, whose information is this? I see the date is 1995.
22 Is that the date when this was written up?
23 Q. This is the date, and it has to do with what happened in 1991.
24 This is security information about the activities of Dr. Mirsad Mujadzic
25 and other Muslim extremists in Prijedor. This is the secret service, the
1 secret police. You can see that this is strictly confidential.
2 A. Mr. Karadzic, we never had a war Crisis Staff. We had a Crisis
3 Staff but not a war Crisis Staff. Obviously, this information is
4 inadequate and it was written post festum, four years later.
5 Q. Thank you.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can this be admitted?
7 JUDGE KWON: Ms. Sutherland?
8 MS. SUTHERLAND: If Your Honour would just give me a moment.
9 [Prosecution counsel confer]
10 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
11 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, under the rules this would be
12 admitted and it's a matter of weight. The witness has disputed the
13 contents of the document.
14 JUDGE KWON: In light of the position taken by the Prosecution,
15 we'll admit it.
16 MS. SUTHERLAND: Sorry.
17 MR. TIEGER: Mr. President, we're trying abide by the Court's
18 guidance. I mean we're not trying to override it in this case. The
19 point was we don't dispute the -- we have no basis for disputing the
20 authenticity. We understand that this falls into a slightly different
21 category particularly in light of the fact that the witness has disputed
22 it. We're trying to avoid unnecessary wrangles, but our point was not
23 to -- we're trying to find the right balance between the Court's previous
24 determinations about what's admissible and we're only citing the factors
25 that bear on that consideration. If the Court has concerns about the
1 utility of this document or the weight to be given this -- such a
2 document in light of the length of time that transpired between the
3 events at issue and when this was put together, the nature of the agency
4 which put it together and -- and the purposes for which it was
5 assembled --
6 JUDGE KWON: Just put it simply. You're objecting, is it? I
7 asked Ms. Sutherland her position, and I understood her to say that with
8 the caveat given by the witness, she's not objecting to the admission,
9 but -- excuse me. Do you object?
10 MR. TIEGER: Our position is that this has such little weight to
11 lend the Chamber that we don't think it is of value in these
12 circumstances; correct. But we're -- because -- we also want to make it
13 clear we're not disputing the authenticity and we understand that the
14 Defence position is that it may have sufficient weight to be used for
15 impeachment purposes, and that's then -- and that -- that's about the
16 best we can say about the document at the moment. I don't know if
17 Mr. Robinson wants to add something, but I -- I don't want to create -- I
18 don't want to be misunderstood, as has occurred once in the past, that
19 the Prosecution is disputing the position that either party is entitled
20 to attempt to impeach a witness with a document that purports to do so,
21 and there's no question about the authenticity of this document in that
22 sense. However, there are a variety of other circumstances, some of
23 which were identified by the witness, and some of which appear on the
24 face of document that lend this document such little weight that we don't
25 think its admission is of any assistance to the Court.
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 JUDGE KWON: As I indicated, the Chamber received the document.
3 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D1842, Your Honours.
4 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Karadzic. Two more documents.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Three, Your Excellency, very
6 important documents, very brief, but very important.
7 JUDGE KWON: Then, Mr. Karadzic, you should have put that
8 question for your first available moment in your cross-examination. Do
9 not leave that important questions at the last moment. That will not be
10 admitted later on.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is my notion of dramaturgical
13 Q. You said that you didn't dabble in the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina
14 that it was taken against you because it was said how come you were in
15 the JNA but not in the BiH Army; is that correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Can we now look at 06490 -- 1D04629.
18 Commander Enver Hadzihasanovic writes in this document about -- I
19 don't know if there is a translation. There should be a translation. He
21 [As read] "It may be stated that Dr. Mirza Mujadzic harms our
22 army and the entire people with its destructive behaviour and that he
23 could not perform any of command functions either in the government or
24 the -- in the BiH Army. We will continue gathering evidence on the
25 activities of Dr. Mirza Mujadzic."
1 In other words, you made some requests on the army and then
2 Commander Enver Hadzihasanovic wrote the army staff asking not to approve
3 that. Did you know about that?
4 A. No. Can you be more specific?
5 Q. Well, the Supreme Command issued a document, 0 --
6 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter could not hear the number.
7 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. The -- the document was dated 24th December 1992, and they
9 requested information about your conduct and behaviour. The response was
10 that your conduct was of such nature that you shouldn't be counted
11 with -- either within the army or the government.
12 Can we now look --
13 A. What conduct do you have in mind? Could you please be more
14 specific? Is there a more specific document or is this just purely a
15 political statement on the part of Mr. Enver Hadzihasanovic? This is
16 more of a political statement than a statement of fact.
17 Enver Hadzihasanovic was a member of the BiH Army just for a brief time
18 and then he fled abroad. His credibility is really very questionable.
19 There's information that, actually, he worked against the BH Army, and it
20 is really a question, what is it that you're trying to present as a fact?
21 Q. I'm not trying to present anything. I'm just putting to you what
22 he sent to the Supreme Staff of -- of -- of the BH Army. At that time he
23 was the commander of the 3rd Corps when he wrote that.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And now can we look at
25 65 ter 20594. Let's see what Sefer Halilovic, the then Chief of Staff of
1 the Supreme Command had to say.
2 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation].
3 Q. And this is the document to which Hadzihasanovic responded. It
4 says here Mirza Mujadzic is currently somewhere in the area of Travnik
5 and has also been visiting Zenica. He has been proposed for the position
6 of the president of Banja Luka district based in Travnik or Zenica. We
7 were informed by the military security service that he collaborated with
8 the Chetniks and handed over to them the weapons bought by the people who
9 organised themselves with the Patriotic League and so on and so forth.
10 And now he is requesting a reply and the reply did come. Did you know
11 about that?
12 A. I saw this document, and this is precisely the proof that within
13 the structures of Bosnia and Herzegovina on the Bosniak side there were
14 still a lot of those who co-operated with the counter-intelligence
15 service of the JNA. We had a lot of people, in other words, who worked
16 against us and collaborated with the army and who presented information
17 which was not credible. The fact is, Mr. Karadzic, that after this, I
18 was vetted and that these allegations were proven as inaccurate, that I
19 did become the president of the district and that I remained working as
20 an MP until the end of my office and that after that I held very
21 important positions on the international level, that I was a member of a
22 number of international delegations and all of that speaks volumes about
23 my credibility. I was a member of the delegation that was invited by the
24 CDU party on Malta on 1994 and this speaks volumes about my credibility,
25 Mr. Karadzic.
1 Q. Thank you. I'm only dealing with the documents that BiH generals
2 drafted and exchanged with your regard.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can this be admitted and then I
4 will call up my last document.
5 JUDGE KWON: Are you tendering the previous document from ABiH?
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, both the letter and the
7 answer, i.e., the question and the answer or, rather, the initial letter
8 and the response to it.
9 JUDGE KWON: We'll mark the previous document for identification
10 and we'll admit this document.
11 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour. 1D4629 will be MFI D1843 and
12 65 ter 20594 will be Exhibit D1844.
13 JUDGE KWON: And your last question, Mr. Karadzic.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Excellency.
15 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Did you propose to the BiH Army the final showdown with Serbs and
17 the expulsion of the Serbs from Krajina?
18 A. No, Mr. Karadzic. It never even occurred to me to do something
19 of that sort.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now look at 1D4669.
21 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Look at your document. These are my of the condition in the
23 BiH Army and proposals of concrete measures. There should be a
24 translation. You present yourself here as member of the Executive Board
25 of the SDA of Bosnia-Herzegovina and not as the chief of a regional body.
1 And now look at -- this is not the right document. 1D4469. No.
2 Actually, this is the right document, but we need the translation.
3 And it says that in September on the 13th of September after
4 Operation Storm was over in Croatia you proposed what needed to be done
5 and in conclusion you say:
6 [As read] "I believe that in this way in a relatively short
7 period of time and in view of the fact that the situation in -- among the
8 enemy ranks is deteriorating by the day, we could embark on a Bosnian
10 You were already familiar with Operation Storm because that had
11 taken place in early August; right?
12 A. Yes, sir, but I don't know where you find the element where I
13 proposed the expulsion and ethnical cleansing of the Serbian people.
14 Q. Well, when you mention a Bosnian storm, you will agree that
15 Storm, it was an operation in which a lot of Serbs disappeared and were
17 A. Sir, this is a Bosnian storm. It doesn't imply the expulsion of
18 Serbs. And this was, indeed, done. Mr. Dudakovic and Mr. Alagic did do
19 the storm in a very correct way, with full respect of the
20 Geneva Conventions. Mr. Karadzic, we defended our state. If we had not
21 defended it, we would not have saved it. We did prepare for defence if
22 we hadn't we would not have saved Bosnia. What is questionable here is
23 how the two sides conducted each other and whether Geneva Conventions
24 were respected. We did that and this is why you're here, Mr. Karadzic,
25 because in your case you did not respect the Geneva Conventions.
1 Q. Thank you. Dr. Mujadzic, do you agree you could have achieved
2 all of that, if not more, without a war. Everything was better than the
3 Dayton Accords. Everything could have been done without the war.
4 A. Mr. Karadzic, I couldn't agree more. None of us wanted a war.
5 We all tried to avoid a war, because we knew that we would have -- we
6 would suffer the most if there was a war. That's why we tried to avoid
7 it at all cost. Everything we did, all of our activities, both political
8 and others, were in order to avoid a war, and we did prepare ourselves,
9 but for possible defence, because we knew that the course of events in
10 Slovenia and Croatia could take us and lead us to a similar situation,
11 and this is the long and the short of it, Mr. Karadzic, and I agree with
12 you that all of us wanted to avoid the war -- the war. We should have
13 only been so lucky to have avoided it and if we had, we would have both
14 fared better. You would have probably remained in a high position in
15 Bosnia and Herzegovina if we could have avoided the war and if we could
16 have reached a political agreement.
17 Q. I would like to correct the transcript. It was not recorded that
18 a storm was a military operation in Croatia that resulted in the
19 expulsion of Serbs from the Serbian Krajina.
20 Dr. Mujadzic, what I am concerned with here is this metaphor
21 Bosnian storm which prompted me to put a question to you.
22 A. Maybe I could provide just one more comment. Mr. Karadzic, in
23 this document when I referred to a Bosnian storm, what I had in mind was
24 an efficient operation, an efficient offensive. I did not have in mind
25 the effects of the Croatian Storm as a result of which Serbs had left the
1 area where Storm had taken place. Please do not confuse the two terms
2 and do not confuse the implications that had arisen from the Croatian
3 Storm and think that they would have arisen from the Bosnian storm. This
4 was proven by practice because the Bosnian storm did happen. You know
5 that the area from Kupres down to Grahovo, Mrkonjic Grad, Kljuc, and
6 Sanski Most and Bosanski Petrovac was indeed liberated through that
7 operation but the Geneva Conventions were observed and that the Bosnian
8 storm took into account all the aspects of the Geneva Conventions and
9 that it did not result in the same effects as the Croatian Storm. So you
10 cannot put the two terms together and talk about them in -- in the same
12 Q. Dr. Mujadzic, but the fact is that --
13 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic. Mr. Karadzic. Your time is up.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Excellency, we're talking
15 about credibility and discordant statements. We have not touched upon
16 anything. There is so much that we should still discuss.
17 JUDGE KWON: Unacceptable. You asked for 15 minutes more,
18 although there was some mess with respect to e-court, we ended up
19 allowing you almost 40 minutes. Your excuse that there still remains --
20 there still remains an important question at the last moment will not be
21 accepted in the future. As emphasised many times you have to prioritise
22 your questions and focus on important questions first.
23 MR. ROBINSON: Excuse me, Mr. President. Before we move to the
24 redirect, I would like to make a move for motion for reconsideration by
25 the Trial Chamber of the time that it allotted for cross-examination and
1 for certification to appeal the Trial Chamber's decision on the amount of
2 time that Dr. Karadzic had to cross-examine this witness. I know that
3 reconsideration requires some new information and I'm hoping that -- but
4 now that you've seen the cross-examination, you see that Dr. Karadzic was
5 focused, there was very little intervention by the Prosecution or the
6 Chamber concerning the relevance of what he was asking and he still has
7 many more topics to cover. It's hard to ask for reconsideration when we
8 don't really understand the reason for the decision in the first place.
9 And I have to tell you that as Dr. Karadzic's legal advisor I tried to
10 advise him and explain to him why the Chamber makes the decisions, and
11 sometimes how I think the Chamber will rule, and I simply don't
12 understand how a witness who testified for eight hours on direct
13 examination, in a case that's now been admitted as the equivalent of
14 direct examination in this case, can be cross-examined for let's say
15 three hours, unless, and I'm only speculating perhaps you count the
16 cross-examination as -- in the Stakic case against Dr. Karadzic's time,
17 in which case, again, we would ask that that be thrown out of the 92 ter
18 and it's useless to us. That cross-examination resulted in a
19 Trial Chamber sentencing Dr. Stakic for life, so it obviously wasn't very
20 effective and it's not in Dr. Karadzic's interest, or I don't think the
21 Trial Chamber's to simply do a rerun of the Stakic case here.
22 So we simply don't understand why the Trial Chamber would think
23 that this proportion of eight and a half hours of direct examination and
24 three hours of cross-examination is in any way commensurate with a fair
25 trial and I cite the Chamber to the Oric decision by the Appeal Chamber
1 on the 20th of July, 2005, entitled Interlocutory decision on the length
2 of the defence case. And in that case the Defence was restricted in the
3 length of the case that they were allowed to put on and the Trial Chamber
4 decided that the Defence would be restricted in the amount of time it
5 would have for its case. And the Appeals Chamber reversed that and they
6 said that although the time doesn't have to be equal that there has to be
7 some rational proportionality to it. And you if apply that principle to
8 this situation, we don't believe that you've demonstrated any rational
9 proportionality, nor have you in fact given any reasoned decision. We
10 know the factors that you use to determine the time for cross-examination
11 but you've never explained to us how those factors apply in this case and
12 how you arrived at such a disproportionate amount of cross-examination.
13 So we think that this issue is one that affects the fairness of
14 the trial, the expeditiousness of the trial, and one which has recurred
15 in the past and is likely to recur in the future. And as a result, an
16 immediate intervention by the Appeals Chamber would materially advance
17 the procedure, because if it turns out you're wrong, then it would be
18 very difficult after -- for the Appeals Chamber to have to rehear
19 witnesses or somehow figure out what was missed by the error in not
20 allowing Dr. Karadzic enough time for his cross-examination.
21 I think for most of the trial we've had an exemplary procedure in
22 which you've tried to give Dr. Karadzic a fair trial, and I think that
23 it's now in -- with the previous witness, KDZ-490, and again with this
24 particular witness, that it's broken down and the rulings of the
25 Trial Chamber have, in fact, denied him a fair trial. So I'd ask you to
1 reconsider your ruling, and if not, to allow to us appeal to the trial --
2 to the Appeals Chamber so that we can get a definitive ruling from them.
3 Thank you.
4 JUDGE KWON: Can I hear from the Prosecution. Ms. Sutherland.
5 MS. SUTHERLAND: Just give me a moment, Your Honour.
6 [Prosecution counsel confer]
7 JUDGE KWON: In the meantime, could you explain again to us how
8 the two prongs of the Rules are met for the purpose of the certification.
9 MR. ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. President. With respect to the first
10 prong, this substantially affects the fairness of the trial because
11 Dr. Karadzic is not being allowed to elicit information that the
12 Trial Chamber needs to evaluate both the credibility of the witness and
13 the substance of his testimony, to test the substance of the direct
14 examination as well as to put to him matters which can be helpful to his
16 JUDGE KWON: Why don't you move to the second prong.
17 MR. ROBINSON: To the second prong, it's an issue that has
18 happened in the past and is likely to recur. We still have, maybe, over
19 50 witnesses and the Trial Chamber appears to be --
20 JUDGE KWON: But your appeal is with respect to this specific
22 MR. ROBINSON: It is with respect to this specific witness but it
23 would also have an impact on how the Trial Chamber is allowed to make
24 decisions on future witnesses because we're saying that you have not
25 properly applied the proportionality principle so that Dr. Karadzic is
1 given a sufficient amount of time. So if we're found to be correct and
2 the Appeals Chamber sets out the fact that there has to be greater
3 proportionality between the direct examination and the cross-examination,
4 then I would hope that you would give him more time in the future.
5 JUDGE KWON: What you are not happy with is the amount of time,
6 not the -- the factors for consideration.
7 MR. ROBINSON: Well, it's difficult, because you've never told us
8 how you arrive at the two and a half or now three hours. So it's
9 difficult to make an argument against the particular way in which you've
10 applied the factors, but the fact -- the factors that you've given us we
11 don't have any dispute with those factors, it's how they've been applied
12 in this case and we think that, somehow, whatever you did to arrive at
13 the figure of two and a half hours versus eight hours of direct is --
14 that an error has been made.
15 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Ms. Sutherland.
16 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, Mr. Tieger will respond.
17 MR. TIEGER: Well, first, Mr. President, although I'm pleased to
18 respond, I just want to request, again, that when the Defence anticipates
19 that it will be making submissions, we consider it a matter of both
20 collegiality and efficiency that it alert the Prosecution to the fact
21 that such submissions will be made so that our response can be as
22 considered and informed as possible.
23 Let me just quickly address a couple of factors that can't
24 possibly considered comprehensive.
25 I think the Court alluded to the fact that -- or Mr. Robinson
1 alluded to the fact that reconsideration is generally made in light of
2 new facts. I don't believe there has been a showing that such new facts
3 exist here.
4 With respect to certification, I think the Court has focused
5 quite clearly on one of the flaws in that submission, and that is the
6 fact that the -- the issue here is a dispute by the Defence about the
7 time allotted for this particular witness rather than some broader
8 principle. Indeed, the Defence noted that in virtually all of the
9 previous cases, the allocation of time and therefore the underlying
10 principles worked fine and there was no dispute about the principles
11 involved or their application. This is a one-off focus that doesn't
12 implicate the rules for a certification, and I think the Court made that
14 Finally, I'd -- I'd simply note some of the underlying factual
15 flaws in the argument. Let me, as an example, use the notion that to the
16 extent the Court wishes to consider the cross-examination contained
17 within the amalgamated statement as -- in its allocation of time and the
18 Defence's rejection of that because of the verdict in Stakic, there's
19 clearly an apples and oranges analysis being undertaken there. The
20 cross-examination may have been as effective as possible under the
21 circumstances. The Court can certainly make that determination based on
22 its experience and professional assessment. That would not have gained,
23 say, the vast amount of evidence against Dr. Stakic or indeed the -- the
24 accuracy of this witness's testimony and the extent to which it could be
25 undercut with the best of cross-examination efforts. So that's an
1 extremely unfair and inaccurate guideline for the use of the
2 cross-examination, and on a variety of bases I think the Defence motion
4 JUDGE KWON: We'll take a break now and give our ruling after the
5 break. We'll break half an hour, for half an hour, and resume at 11.00,
6 but if there's to be a delay, the parties will be informed.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'd like to tender this, please.
8 Could I propose this for admittance, please.
9 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
10 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Karadzic.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would like to tender this
12 document into evidence, please.
13 JUDGE KWON: That will be marked for identification.
14 THE REGISTRAR: As MFI D1845, Your Honours.
15 JUDGE KWON: We will resume at 5 past 11.00.
16 --- Recess taken at 10.34 a.m.
17 --- On resuming at 11.37 a.m.
18 JUDGE KWON: I apologise for the delay. There was some
19 additional matters for the Chamber in addition to this matter.
20 The Chamber refers to the accused's request for reconsideration
21 and in the alternative for certification to appeal the Chamber's decision
22 on the time allocated to the accused for cross-examination of
23 Witness Mujadzic.
24 First, the Chamber notes that the time was allocated in
25 accordance with the careful consideration of the factors which have been
1 enumerated on numerous occasions. The Chamber then granted the accused's
2 request for a 15-minute extension and later extended that time by a
3 further 25 minutes.
4 Under those circumstances, the Chamber does not consider it in
5 the interest of justice to further reconsider its decision with respect
6 to this witness. Furthermore, the Chamber notes that Mr. Karadzic spent
7 substantive time on issues the Chamber considered to be of peripheral
9 In addition, considering the submissions the parties with respect
10 to certification of the decision on the time granted for Mujadzic, the
11 Chamber is not satisfied that an immediate resolution of this issue by
12 the Appeals Chamber would materially advance the proceedings at this
13 stage in light of the approach taken by the Chamber in assessing time
14 allocated for cross-examination and the flexibility adopted when the
15 accused shows good cause for an extension of time.
16 That's the ruling, and I wonder whether the Prosecution has
18 Ms. Sutherland.
19 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes, Your Honour, very briefly.
20 JUDGE KWON: Yes, proceed.
21 Re-examination by Ms. Sutherland:
22 Q. Dr. Mujadzic, earlier today at transcript page 7 you were giving
23 the percentages of the population in Prijedor, and you said that
24 according to the 1981 census, there were 43 per cent Serbs and 38 per
25 cent Bosniak, and in 1991, that was reversed, 44 per cent Bosniak and
1 what is written in the transcript is 45 per cent Serbs. Is that what you
2 said in relation to the percentage of Serbs?
3 A. No. I said 42.5 per cent.
4 Q. Thank you. And secondly, if I could call up Defence Exhibit
5 D1842. That was document that was put to you today by Mr. Karadzic at
6 transcript pages 24 and 25. You disputed matters that were put to you by
7 Mr. Karadzic, but I want to -- you to look at another portion of this
9 And for Mr. Registrar, it's at the bottom of page 2 in B/C/S and
10 the middle of page 3 in English.
11 Dr. Mujadzic, can you just read the text in -- that's there in
12 relation to the incident at the Hambarine check-point on the 22nd of May,
13 1992, and then I have a question for you.
14 A. My apologies, but I cannot find in the portion that I have before
15 me any description of the incident at Hambarine. Perhaps that is in
16 another part of the document.
17 Q. It's at the bottom of page 2 in the B/C/S, the last two lines on
18 that page, and then the top of page 3 of the B/C/S. And in English it's
19 page 3, going over a little way onto page 4 of this six-page document.
20 A. Well, here in the last two lines it says on top of everything --
21 Q. Yes. If you can just review that paragraph, and then I have a
22 question for you.
23 A. Are you referring to the portion where it says:
24 [As read] "As well as all this, on 22nd May, 1992,
25 Mirsad Mujadzic, his brother Emir and his uncles Husein and Esef Crnkic
1 plotted in Crnkic's house the set-up of a check-point in
2 Hambarinsko Polje. They killed two Serb soldiers who had responded to
3 the call-up and seriously wounded three other, one of whom succumbed to
4 his injuries. On that occasion, Milojica --"
5 Q. I meant read the paragraph to yourself. Does this -- doings this
6 accurately refer --
7 A. [In English] Oh, I'm sorry.
8 Q. No, it's my mistake. Does this accurately reflect what happened
9 at the Hambarine check-point on the 22nd of May, 1992?
10 A. [Interpretation] No. This does not correspond to the facts at
11 all. I personally never made any decision, any personal decision, that
12 any check-point should be set up, that check-point, nor it did
13 Mr. Crnkic, Esef, or Mr. Husein Crnkic take part in that, nor did my
14 brother, as a matter of fact. And post festum, after the incident
15 itself, when I heard the shooting, I arrived at the check-point and I
16 found there the situation as I described it in detail in the Stakic
17 evidence, but if you want me to, I can repeat my evidence from that case.
18 Q. And that is that you applied medical assistance to the wounded
19 and called an ambulance; is that right?
20 A. Yes, that's correct. I administered medical assistance as best
21 as I could, and I asked that an ambulance be sent, that they urgently be
22 called from the only phone that was available at the time at the local
23 commune there so that the injured could be assisted.
24 Q. And what happened to your two uncles, Husein Crnkic and
25 Esef Crnkic in 1992?
1 A. Both of them died after they were tortured and beaten up in
2 Omarska camp.
3 Q. Thank you, Dr. Mujadzic.
4 MS. SUTHERLAND: I have no further questions.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Excellency, just one thing
6 that I want to point out. I never even touched upon this incident of
7 Hambarine, the incident that in fact triggered the war.
8 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour.
9 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
10 MS. SUTHERLAND: The accused wanted this document in. He sought
11 its admission. He got it admitted, and I have a right to re-examine on
13 JUDGE KWON: By all means. Yes, Ms. Sutherland.
14 That concludes your evidence, Dr. Mujadzic. On behalf of my
15 colleagues and the Tribunal as a whole, would I like to thank you for
16 your coming to The Hague to give it. Now you are free to go. Please
17 have a safe journey back home.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours, for
19 everything, and I'm happy that I had the honour to come here and testify
20 about these events.
21 [The witness withdrew]
22 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Ms. Sutherland.
23 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, I have a matter in relation to
24 yesterday. I want to correct the time-codes that I provided to you in
25 relation to the 65 ter exhibit 40478A, which is now Exhibit P03707. The
1 correct time-code is 00:09:00 to 00:09:12.
2 I also omitted yesterday to advise Your Honour that there was a
3 65 ter document that was missed in the Rule 92 ter notification, and that
4 is 65 ter number 17373. It's a decision on the annexation to the
5 autonomous region of Krajina dated the 17th of January, 1992. It's an
6 associated exhibit which was discussed at transcript page 3640 to 3641,
7 and belatedly I would ask that this also be admitted.
8 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. That will be -- yes, Mr. Robinson.
9 MR. ROBINSON: I don't have any objection but would I like to
10 look at the transcript and the exhibit, but in principle I don't think
11 there would be a problem.
12 MS. SUTHERLAND: And finally, Your Honour, I forgot to mention
13 yesterday that the name was spelt incorrectly in the 65 ter number 20584
14 which is now Exhibit P03705. It should be Srdjo Srdic.
15 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
16 MS. SUTHERLAND: Thank you, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE KWON: Will you come back to us with respect to 17373,
18 Mr. Robinson?
19 MR. ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. President. I can do that after the next
21 JUDGE KWON: Then we'll wait then.
22 Before we bring in -- yes, Ms. Sutherland? Do you have other
24 MS. SUTHERLAND: No, Your Honour. I was going to call the next
1 MR. ROBINSON: Mr. President, I just wanted to bring you
2 up-to-date on one other matter. You asked me to look into the order in
3 which the pages are assembled in Exhibit D1831 and you were correct that
4 there were some disorder to that submission and we're in the process of
5 rectifying that and submitting the document for translation because the
6 translation didn't match the B/C/S, so we're working on that.
7 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Before we bring in the next witness, the
8 Chamber is going to issue two oral rulings.
9 The Chamber refers to the objection raised by the Prosecution on
10 5th of October, 2011, to the admission of 1D4439 on transcript pages
11 19975 to 19976, which was marked for identification as D1748 on
12 transcript page 19979 on the grounds, inter alia, that it appeared to be
13 a compilation of third-party statements. The Chamber required an English
14 translation to be able to make -- make a final determination of
15 whether that document should be admitted.
16 The English translation of the document has now been uploaded,
17 and having reviewed the document, it is clear to the Chamber that it
18 purports to be a report drafted by personnel in the Kljuc SJB discussing
19 their findings after interrogating several prisoners and is not a
20 "compilation of statements," as was suggested by the Prosecution when the
21 issue of its admission was discussed. Under those circumstances, the
22 Chamber is of the view that the Prosecution's objection to its admission
23 has no basis, and MFI D1748 will be admitted in full.
24 The Chamber also refers to the accused's objection to the
25 admission of three documents sought to be tendered through
1 Witness Atif Dzafic on 30th of September, 2011, given the questions
2 raised about their authenticity. The documents objected to were
3 65 ter 848, which was marked for identification as Exhibit P3514;
4 65 ter 849, which was marked for identification as Exhibit P3490; and
5 65 ter 849A, which was marked for identification as P3511.
6 The Chamber has reviewed the documents in question. With respect
7 to MFI Exhibit P3514, the Chamber notes that the authenticity of
8 65 ter number 23482, already admitted as Exhibit P3572, was not
9 challenged. Exhibit P3572 refers to the decision of the War Presidency
10 of Kljuc, which is found in MFI Exhibit P3514. Under these
11 circumstances, the Chamber is of the view that there are sufficient
12 indicators of authenticity when read in light of P3572 for MFI P3514 to
13 be fully admitted. The Chamber is also satisfied that MFI P3511 has
14 sufficient indicia of authenticity to be admitted in full. In contrast,
15 MFI P3490 does not appear to have a protocol number nor does it appear to
16 have a signature. Given that MFI 3490 appears to be a copy of MFI P3511,
17 save the protocol number, the Chamber is of the view that MFI 3490 need
18 not be admitted.
19 Bear with me a minute.
20 We'll break for five minutes for technical reasons for the
21 purpose of bringing in the next witness.
22 Yes, Mr. Robinson.
23 MR. ROBINSON: The witness after the next witness -- actually,
24 the two witnesses after the next witness are the subject of our motions
25 concerning --
1 JUDGE KWON: We are going to give the ruling after that five
3 MR. ROBINSON: Great. Thank you.
4 --- Break taken at 11.57 a.m.
5 --- On resuming at 12.05 a.m.
6 [The witness entered court]
7 JUDGE KWON: Before the witness takes solemn declaration, the
8 Chamber will issue an oral ruling.
9 Please be seated, Mr. Witness.
10 In relation to the accused's motion for interviews of two
11 Prosecution witnesses of 31st October 2011, the Chamber has decided that
12 it is competent to rule on the motion in the interests of justice given
13 the urgency of the matter.
14 Turning to the merits of the motion, the Chamber has reviewed the
15 motion and the submissions of the Registry, as well as the protocol for
16 contact -- sorry, for contact between a self-represented accused and
17 witnesses. The Chamber has assessed the Registry's decision not to allow
18 in-person interviews for two witnesses in light of the standard for
19 judicial review of administrative decisions. Given that the validity of
20 the protocol was not challenged by the accused, the Chamber confined its
21 assessment to whether the Registry's decision was not unreasonable in
22 applying the protocol.
23 Given the absence of material which would require visual contact
24 between the two witnesses in question and the accused, the Chamber is of
25 the view that the Registry was not unreasonable in deciding that the
1 accused had not adequately shown good cause for meeting these witnesses
2 in person. As a matter of fact, the Chamber observes that witnesses may
3 be interviewed prior to their testimonies by one of the accused's legal
4 associates or by the accused himself over telephone.
5 In relation to the accused's alternative request that the
6 Prosecution proofs its witnesses over the telephone in order to ensure
7 equality of arms, the Chamber recalls that equality of arms does not
8 equate to equality of means and resources. Accordingly, the Chamber sees
9 no merit in this request.
10 For all of the above reasons the motion is denied.
11 Thank you for your indulgence and patience, Mr. Witness. Could
12 you please stand and take the solemn declaration, please.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
14 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
15 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Please be seated.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
17 WITNESS: KDZ-163
18 [Witness answered through interpreter]
19 JUDGE KWON: Sir, you will be testifying today with the benefit
20 of pseudonym and image distortion. This means that there will be no
21 reference to your real name or information which might reveal your
22 identity to the public media -- public or media. The audio-visual record
23 of your testimony which is to be broadcast to the public will have a
24 distorted image like this to ensure that your identity is protected and
25 the transcript, while available to the public, will always refer to your
2 Do you understand that, sir?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I understand what you said. Thank
5 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
6 Yes, Ms. Sutherland.
7 MS. SUTHERLAND: Could 65 ter 9020 be displayed for the witness
8 but not broadcast, please. This is the pseudonym sheet.
9 Examination by Ms. Sutherland:
10 Q. Sir, do you see on the screen in front of you your name and
11 pseudonym number in this case?
12 A. I see that.
13 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, I tender that for admission under
15 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
16 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P3715 under seal, Your Honours.
17 MS. SUTHERLAND:
18 Q. Sir, as we discussed, part of your evidence in this case is --
19 will be submitted in writing, and we first need to deal with the
20 formalities with that submission. You provided a statement to
21 representatives of the Prosecutor of ICTY and testified as a protected
22 witness in the Stanisic and Zupljanin trial on the 21st and 22nd of
23 January, 2010. You've subsequently had an opportunity to review the
24 audio recordings of that testimony; is that right?
25 A. That's right.
1 Q. And can you confirm that accurately recorded the statements that
2 you made at that time?
3 A. I confirm that that is identical to what I said in the
4 Stanisic Zupljanin trial.
5 Q. If you were asked about the matters you testified to in the
6 Stanisic Zupljanin case would you provide the same information to the
7 Trial Chamber and that is even if you couldn't formulate everything in
8 the same words, the essence of your answers would be the same?
9 A. That's right. Basically they would be the same because I cannot
10 think in any other way or give answers in any other way.
11 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, I tender 65 ter number 2 -- 22164,
12 which is the witness's evidence.
13 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
14 MS. SUTHERLAND: And there will also need to be a redacted
15 version because there were certain things said in open session which were
16 then subsequently redacted and so we will -- which will -- would go to
17 revealing his identity. So we will ensure that there's a redacted public
18 version available.
19 JUDGE KWON: We'll admit both versions.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Confidential version will be Exhibit P3516, under
21 seal, and public redacted version will be Exhibit P3517, Your Honours.
22 MS. SUTHERLAND: And with Your Honours' leave I now read a
23 summary of the witness's written evidence.
24 The witness testified to the personnel and structure of the
25 Manjaca camp, and this is scheduled detention facility C 1.2. He
1 testified that Bozidar Popovic was appointed camp commander around 15
2 June, 1992, and that the Manjaca camp was guarded by military and
3 civilian police. He testified to the conditions and treatment of
4 detainees at the Manjaca camp and described procedures followed from the
5 arrival of new detainees to their release to the camp, including the
6 processing of the detainees which included detainees older than 60 years
7 of age and younger than 18 years of age.
8 The witness testified that 95 per cent of the detainees were
10 In addition, he provided evidence that non-Serb detainees were
11 brought to the Manjaca camp by the RS MUP although they had no weapons
12 and had taken no part in armed rebellion. The witness testified about
13 the transport of the detainees to the Manjaca camp by personnel from the
14 RS MUP and, in particular, he testified that on the 7th of July, 1992, 24
15 detainees from Sanski Most municipality died on their way to Manjaca
16 because of extremely inhumane and unprofessional conduct of the civilian
17 authorities, especially the Sanski Most police.
18 The witness testified that he was personally astounded because
19 people were packed like sardines in a truck covered with tarpaulin and
20 some people were already old or had health problems that contributed to
21 their death. The witness testified that only living were admitted to the
22 Manjaca camp while the bodies of the deceased were returned on the same
23 truck, probably to Sanski Most. And this is scheduled incident B 1.2.
24 In addition, the witness testified to the killing of a number of
25 men in front of the Manjaca camp upon their arrival from the Omarska camp
1 on the 6th of August, 1992, and this is scheduled incident B 1.3. He
2 testified that detainees from Omarska were brought to Manjaca camp by
3 members of the Prijedor police. The witness also gave evidence in
4 relation to the killing of Esad Bender and Omer Filipovic at the Manjaca
5 camp. This is scheduled incident B 1.4. The witness testified that the
6 perpetrators were immediately identified and an investigating magistrate
7 asked for an investigation to be launched. The witness testified that
8 the perpetrators were tried in 2007.
9 That completes the summary of the witness's written evidence,
10 Your Honour.
11 Q. Sir, as we discussed, I wish to show you a limited number of
13 MS. SUTHERLAND: If we could have 65 ter number 05557 on the
14 screen, please.
15 Q. This is the 1 -- 1st Krajina Corps' commander approval dated the
16 3rd of August, 1992, for a visit by the international committee and a
17 team of reporters to the detention camps in Manjaca, Trnopolje, Omarska,
18 and Prijedor. It states that all measures are to be taken to make
19 conditions in these camps satisfactory. This implies order, cleanliness,
20 functional, medical care for the detainees, et cetera. Is this
21 consistent with what happened at that time?
22 A. Yes. Actually, I cannot see this properly, and maybe it could be
23 enlarged if necessary. I remember that this was the document that was
24 sent to all camps, and it is Manjaca that is of relevance to me. What
25 was supposed to be done was what is spelled out in this order. So, yes,
1 it is this order.
2 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, I tender at that document.
3 JUDGE KWON: Yes. This will be admitted.
4 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit -- as Exhibit P3718 and just to
5 correct the record, Your Honours the two statements will be 3716 under
6 seal and 3717 as a public redacted version.
7 MS. SUTHERLAND:
8 Q. Sir, you testified at transcript page 5307 in the
9 Stanisic Zupljanin case that detainees were transferred from Omarska to
10 Manjaca around the 6th of August, 1992, that 1.460 prisoners of war were
11 brought from Omarska to Manjaca.
12 And you were shown a report of the 1st Krajina Corps report and
13 that is our 65 ter number 04208, dated the 7th of August, which mentions
14 that 1.460 were brought from Omarska to Manjaca, and you were asked if
15 the Omarska camp was -- this was after the Omarska camp was closed and
16 you said yes.
17 My question is: Did further detainees come from Omarska to
18 Manjaca after the 7th of August?
19 A. As far as I know and as far as I can remember, no, not exactly
20 from Omarska.
21 Q. The document states that deaths occurred during the transport.
22 If we could go into private session for a moment, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
24 MS. SUTHERLAND:
25 Q. You testified at --
1 [Private session]
11 Pages 20738-20739 redacted. Private session.
17 [Open session]
18 JUDGE KWON: Yes. We are now in open session.
19 MS. SUTHERLAND:
20 Q. Sir, at transcript page 5310, you testified about
21 Vojo Kupresanin's visit to the Manjaca camp. What was the result of --
22 of that visit?
23 A. I don't know Vojo Kupresanin at all. I've never met him. I've
24 never seen him. However, through my superiors -- actually, I was not in
25 camp on that day for some good reason, I assume. I was not present
1 during that visit. However, on the basis of my superior's report after
2 the visit and also on the basis of what he said to me, I realized that
3 Kupresanin had held a brief meeting in camp with all the inmates, as far
4 as this could be heard, and that he promised them that over 70 per cent
5 of them would soon be released. So in a way he brought anxiety among the
6 inmates, and he made things more difficult to us, if I can put it that
7 way, because the inmates were anxious, and they were waiting for these
8 expectations to be met. However, these were false promises, as it were.
9 So that is what happened during that visit.
10 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, can we go into private session for
11 a moment.
12 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
13 [Private session]
15 [Open session]
16 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
17 MS. SUTHERLAND: If I could have 65 ter number 05634 on the
18 screen, please.
19 Q. Sir, do you recognise this document?
20 A. I've never seen this document. Actually, I never saw it over
21 there in Manjaca.
22 Q. Did -- did you review this document the other day since your
23 arrival in The Hague?
24 A. Yes, that's right. I got to see it here, but as I've said, I did
25 not see it in Manjaca.
1 Q. Mm-hmm. And this is a document dated the 1st of October, 1992,
2 from Vojo Kupresanin, signing himself as president of the Assembly of the
3 Autonomous Region of Krajina, and it's to the Presidency of
4 Republika Srpska, requesting the abolition or pardon for Muslim prisoners
5 kept at Manjaca.
6 Do you --
7 A. Sorry, what is the question?
8 Q. Do you have any comment to make on -- on -- on this document, on
9 the date of the document and the request for pardon of certain Muslim
11 A. Well, what can I say? The 1st of October. In a way this is a
12 request that was late. I cannot make a comparison here if I look at
13 these persons listed here, whether they were included in that list of
14 persons who were sent to Geneva for medical treatment. I simply cannot
15 say. I cannot say how come those people are on this list.
16 President Kupresanin is sending this and I don't know why. This is sent
17 to the President of Republika Srpska. So there are very few comments
18 that I can make except for the following: Even if this was the case, it
19 is already the 1st of October, so that is quite late for any kind of
20 pardon or release and why was there a release in the first place or a
22 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, I tender this document.
23 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
24 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P3722, Your Honours.
25 MS. SUTHERLAND: May we go into private session for a moment?
1 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
2 [Private session]
15 [Open session]
16 MS. SUTHERLAND: If I could have --
17 THE REGISTRAR: We're back in open session, Your Honours.
18 MS. SUTHERLAND: If I could have 65 ter number 05775.
19 Q. This is a report written from the Manjaca camp, a daily report
20 dated the 8th of August, 1992, and if we could go to the signature page,
21 please. The second page.
22 We can see that this is a report written by Radomir Radinkovic.
23 On page 2 of the document it mentions -- I asked you a moment ago about
24 the visit of Mr. Kupresanin to the Omarska camp -- sorry, to the Manjaca
25 camp, and it states in this document that the Manjaca camp was also
1 visited by Mr. Kupresanin and his place took visit -- his visit took
2 place on this day. The visit was carried out as per the order of
3 Radovan Karadzic, the president of the Serb Republic of BiH in order to
4 inform the president himself as well as the Assembly.
5 Does this reflect the visit by Kupresanin?
6 A. Yes, that's correct. This is a detailed report on that
7 particular visit.
8 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, I tender that document.
9 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
10 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P3724, Your Honours.
11 MS. SUTHERLAND: If I could have 65 ter number 11033 on the
12 screen, please.
13 Q. Sir, you testified at transcript page 5316 about the first group
14 of prisoners being released to third countries on the 14th of November,
15 1992. We can see in front of us this ICRC communication to the press,
16 number 92 of 32. And it states there:
17 [As read] "About 3.600 detained in Manjaca camp have been
18 regularly visited, registered, protected and assisted by the ICRC since
19 mid-July. And after today's operation, some 2.900 of them still remain
20 in Manjaca where the conditions of detention are getting worse, mainly
21 because of increasingly harsh climatic conditions. And today's operation
22 involves 755 detainees being released to Karlovac."
23 Does this -- is this consistent with what you know to be the
25 A. Yes. This is their report. The numbers don't tell you. I know
1 that 700 detainees were taken from Manjaca, but I'm not excluding the
2 possibility that some had been in hospital in Banja Luka and were joined
3 to the group and that's why the number is 750, or maybe they were simply
4 wrong, but in any case, that's that.
5 On the 14th of November, the first group of detainees were
6 released, i.e., they were sent to Karlovac from where they were to
7 proceed to third countries.
8 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, I tender that document.
9 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
10 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P3725, Your Honours.
11 MS. SUTHERLAND: If I could have 65 ter number 23101 on the
12 screen, please.
13 Q. Sir, this is a 47-page list of names. Do you -- do you recognise
14 this document as a document that I showed you in the last few days since
15 your arrival in The Hague?
16 A. Yes. This is the document that you have shown me, but I also saw
17 it at Manjaca, because the International Committee of the Red Cross after
18 the registration of all the detainees in the camp compiled those lists
19 and gave us a copy of those lists to avoid double registration. For the
20 most part -- part, those lists tallied. This is a collective list
21 compiled with the International Committee of the Red Cross. I recognise
22 it for the BAZ number under which they listed each and every detainee.
23 Q. When you say the BAZ number under which they listed each and
24 every detainee, what -- can you clarify that? What -- what do you mean?
25 The BAZ number, the ID reference. Yes.
1 A. Yes. BAZ, BAZ. Or YUB. I see that most of the numbers are B --
2 BAZ numbers, and those numbers were assigned to every detainee in every
3 camp in the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina. We were particularly --
4 particularly interested in Manjaca. Those were their numbers. Some --
5 some of them kept those numbers as a souvenir of their days in the camp.
6 Q. And this is the ICRC ID reference number you're referring to.
7 A. Yes, that's correct. That's the ICRC ID reference number under
8 which detainees were listed.
9 Q. And this list dated 23 -- 23rd of November, 1992, has -- has a
10 number, 2.939 names listed; is that correct?
11 MS. SUTHERLAND: If we could go to the last page, please.
12 A. I don't have any reason to doubt this because it more or less
13 reflects the situation as it was in Manjaca plus those who were released
14 on the 14th of November. If this was compiled on the 24th of November,
15 as you said, that would be that. The total number of detainees that were
16 ever kept in the camp was 4.403.
17 MS. SUTHERLAND: I tender that document, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
19 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P3726, Your Honours.
20 MS. SUTHERLAND:
21 Q. When you say more or less reflects the situation as it was in
22 Manjaca you mean as of that date the 23rd of -- 23rd of November.
23 A. Precisely. On the 23rd of November, this could have been the
24 number of people as we see it in here.
25 MS. SUTHERLAND: If I could have 65 ter number 05660 on the
1 screen, please. This is a report -- a daily report written in Manjaca
2 camp and if we could go to the signature page on page 2. And then if we
3 could also show the witness page 3 in B/C/S and in English. Which is an
4 official note compiled at the Batkovic collection centre on the 13th of
5 December, 1992
6 Q. Is this -- does this official note on page 3 where it states that
7 532 prisoners -- persons were transferred from Manjaca camp to the
8 Batkovic camp --
9 A. Yes. That's how it was. That was one day before the 14
10 December, before the second group of detainees was released and sent to
11 Karlovac. There was an exchange, i.e., 532 detainees were transferred
12 from Manjaca to Batkovici camp.
13 Q. And at the bottom of the document it says that the said persons
14 were handed over and then there's a signature and then the -- this is
15 also a signature for the commander of the Batkovic camp confirming that
16 the prisoners were received -- the persons were received.
17 A. This official note was compiled in Batkovic in the camp there. I
18 can see that it was compiled by a certain Djoko Vasiljevic whom I don't
19 know but judging from all of this he compiled the official note to report
20 back to Manjaca and also to -- to his superior that those persons, the
21 532 detainees had been transferred from Manjaca to Batkovic. This is his
22 report and it was signed by him as well as Pantelija Davidovic [phoen],
23 the person who was in charge for handing the persons over to him.
24 MS. SUTHERLAND: I tender that that document.
25 JUDGE KWON: Yes, it will be admitted.
1 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P3727, Your Honours.
2 MS. SUTHERLAND: Sir, I have no further questions for you.
3 Thank you, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE KWON: Ms. Sutherland, with respect to the associated
5 exhibits, I just note one thing. This exhibit 65 ter number 5601, which
6 is --
7 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes, Your Honour. I don't seek to tender this
9 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
10 MS. SUTHERLAND: And I do seek leave to add 65 ter number 23486,
11 which is an associated exhibit which -- associated to the Stanisic
12 Zupljanin transcript but was not on our 65 ter number -- list, exhibit
14 JUDGE KWON: There's no position from the Defence.
15 MR. ROBINSON: We don't object, Mr. President, nor do we object
16 to any of the associated exhibits.
17 JUDGE KWON: Very well. Except for 65 ter 5601 and for those
18 already admitted they will be admitted into evidence and given numbers.
19 Thank you, Ms. Sutherland.
20 Could you identify those that should be put under seal.
21 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes, Your Honour. Yes, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
23 MS. SUTHERLAND: In the comments column of the Rule 92 ter
24 notification we state whether a document needs to be under seal or not,
25 but we will double-check that that's correct.
1 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Can we see 65 ter number 5757, which was
2 admitted Exhibit P3724 briefly.
3 Was it -- was the thing that you misspoke about the date,
4 Ms. Sutherland?
5 MS. SUTHERLAND: I'm sorry, that's not the right document.
6 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please. Microphone.
7 JUDGE KWON: It's --
8 MS. SUTHERLAND: I'm sorry. The document that's on the screen is
9 not --
10 JUDGE KWON: It seems that the wrong document has been uploaded.
11 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes. That's certainly not the one that is
12 referred to. Your Honour, I didn't mention 5757.
13 JUDGE KWON: Oh, you did, but probably it's a mis -- what
14 number --
15 MS. SUTHERLAND: The one that I mentioned, the very first one I
16 mentioned was 05557 and that's a 1st Krajina Corps command document.
17 JUDGE KWON: The 5757 was referring to Kupresanin's visit under
18 Mr. Karadzic's order.
19 MS. SUTHERLAND: That is 05775, and my apologies if I misspoke
20 with the 65 ter number.
21 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Yes, Mr. Robinson.
22 MR. ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. President. While we're dealing with
23 exhibits I can advise the Chamber that with respect to the exhibits
24 sought to be added with the last witness 65 ter number 17373, we don't
25 object to that.
1 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Robinson. That will be admitted.
2 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P3728, Your Honours.
3 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
4 I have a query for the interpreters. It's time to take a break
5 for 15 minutes, but instead of taking a break now, how about going till
6 the end, until 1.30 instead of 1.45.
7 THE INTERPRETER. (Microphone not activated) Keep going until
8 1.30 without a break?
9 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
10 Then we'll take a break.
11 THE INTERPRETER: It is agreeable for us to go until 1.30 without
12 a break.
13 JUDGE KWON: Then we'll do so, thank you.
14 Yes, Mr. Karadzic.
15 Cross-examination by Mr. Karadzic:
16 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Witness.
17 A. Good afternoon, Mr. Karadzic.
18 Q. Thank you for the videolink interview. I hope this will help us
19 to bring the cross-examination to an end within the given time. I would
20 like to briefly go through today's transcript and then we will move on to
22 On page 51, Ms. Sutherland quoted and said that they were all
23 civilians and that they didn't wear uniforms and so on and so forth.
24 Do you remember where the -- a single detainee at Manjaca had
25 admitted that they had participated in fighting?
1 A. Of course I cannot generalise, but the truth is that there were
2 also detainees who had been brought in wearing uniforms from the front
3 lines in small groups, especially in August and September. They had been
4 brought from Derventa, Brod. In other words, there were such men. Don't
5 ask me about any detail, but, yes, I can confirm that there were such
7 Q. I may have not put my question precisely enough. Were there
8 people from the Sana valley, Kljuc, Prijedor, Bosanski Novi? Did any of
9 them admit that they had participated in fighting over there?
10 A. I -- or, rather, my service at Manjaca could not either
11 practically or theoretically interview all the detainees given their
12 number. However, what we could learn from our direct contacts was that
13 some people had said that they had rifles or pistols for which they had a
14 valid licence. There were people like that.
15 Q. Thank you. However, you know, don't you, that from the end of
16 May for a week or so there had been fierce fighting going on in Kljuc,
17 Sanski Most, and in Prijedor; right?
18 A. I arrived on the 15th of June. Before that I was far away from
19 there. I was in Han Pijesak, Pale, Sarajevo, Sokolac, and so on and so
20 forth. Before the 15th of June -- or, rather, before the 5th or 6th of
21 June, I was not there although I was born there. However, my war path
22 meandered from Zagreb to Sarajevo, Pale, Sokolac, Han Pijesak,
23 Crna Rijeka and then from Crna Rijeka I was re-assigned to go to
24 Banja Luka where I arrived in Manjaca and that general area. So I can't
25 answer your question based on anything else but media report.
1 Q. However, through your communication with your colleagues, did you
2 learn about the fighting that had lasted for approximately a week, for
3 example in Kozarac, Hambarine or perhaps that lasted for two, two and a
4 half weeks? Did you ever learn that there had been fierce fighting going
5 on there in late May and early June?
6 A. Yes. I heard that from my colleagues. I heard that there had
7 been fierce fighting going on there in Prijedor and around Prijedor, in
8 Kozarac, Kljuc, Hambarine. I don't know who those villages belonged
9 to -- or, rather, to which municipalities, whether they belonged to
10 Sanski Most or to some other municipality. There was fighting there,
11 yes, I know that.
12 Q. On page 52, you were shown an order by the commander of the
13 1st Krajina Corps or somebody from that command according to which you
14 should be prepared for a visit, that you should improve things, because
15 the International Red Cross was about to visit you. Was that something
16 new, or is it the case that it had always been the position of the
17 command to improve things as much as possible?
18 A. From the moment I arrived in Manjaca, which was around the 15th
19 of June, on several occasions I received documents from my superiors
20 regarding the detainees, regarding the compliance with the Geneva
21 Conventions. So that was nothing new. Such documents arrived at my
22 address personally while I was in (redacted) and Sarajevo, and especially at
23 Manjaca. Those were customary reminders, documents that were commonly
24 sent to us.
25 Q. So those documents did not need any excuse; right?
1 A. Yes, you're right.
2 Q. And then on page 54, you were shown a request sent to the public
3 security stations to provide some accompanying documents, and you said
4 that the documentation was not updated, that it was not complete, and my
5 conclusion was that perhaps the documents were not professionally done.
6 Do you agree that the documents arrived eventually, sooner or later,
7 updated or not at your request?
8 JUDGE KWON: Before you answer, Mr. Witness.
9 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, can we go into private session very
11 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Ms. Sutherland, please.
12 MS. SUTHERLAND: Could we go into private session very briefly,
13 Your Honour.
14 JUDGE KWON: Could the Chamber move into private session.
15 [Private session]
5 [Open session]
6 THE REGISTRAR: We're back in open session, Your Honours.
7 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Do you remember the question, Witness?
9 A. Yes, I do, and I thank Madam Prosecutor, who is so careful to
10 protect my identity.
11 Mr. Karadzic, my reply is this: The official correspondence and
12 information from the public security station sometimes arrived with the
13 prisoners themselves, but we intervened because we did not always receive
14 accompanying documents for each and every one of the detainees, and we
15 felt that it was necessary to provide the status of prisoner of war for
16 these people. So we generally requested and our superiors at the corps
17 command then forwarded our request to the security stations, and then
18 they would send people to interview the prisoners of war again in order
19 to compile their statements, or they would bring the statements from the
20 interviews that they had already conducted at the public security station
21 with them when they came. So that's -- it went on and on like that
22 without cease.
23 Q. I'm waiting for the transcript to be completed, but would you
24 please also be mindful of it.
25 A. I am.
1 Q. So could it be said, then, that when a smaller group of prisoners
2 was sent or arrived, it was easier to provide accompanying documents for
3 them than when a larger group arrived. Did you notice that there was a
4 pattern there?
5 A. Well, yes. One could say that was the case.
6 Q. All right. Thank you. Now on page 55, (redacted)
10 (redacted) So does this also
11 prove that there was no cover-up of these cases either, and do you -- can
12 you tell us if you know of any case where there was a cover-up of an
14 A. Yes. This was standard procedure, and we never covered anything
15 up, and as far as I'm concerned especially, my duties within the service
16 in Manjaca, we informed every evening at the end of the day. We reported
17 the security squad of the 1st -- or department of the 1st Corps, and then
18 they would forward on up the chain of command that information to the
19 corps command. So there was no cover-up of any kind, and I didn't do it,
20 and as far as I'm concerned, it never happened.
21 JUDGE KWON: Just a second.
22 Yes, Ms. Sutherland.
23 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, I ask that --
24 JUDGE KWON: Microphone, please.
3 JUDGE KWON: Shall we go into private session.
4 [Private session]
10 [Open session]
11 THE REGISTRAR: We're now in open session.
12 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Karadzic.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
14 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Mr. Witness, as far as you know, and we've seen the information
16 going from the bottom up, but was there anything coming from the top
17 down, any kind of inappropriate order or permission to act in an illegal
18 or unlawful way?
19 A. I have already said this during my testimony in the Zupljanin and
20 Stanisic case. I've never read any document that would deliberately
21 order the suffering or abuse of people or any kind of inhumane treatment
22 of people. So I've never received any oral or written order or
23 instruction to that effect. I've already said this. Perhaps you --
24 someone might not like my answer, but I cannot tailor my truth to
25 somebody else's tastes.
1 Q. Thank you. On page 56, it was suggested that you very carefully
2 through a sieve, as it were, monitored who was captured, who had been
3 taken prisoner of war, and that perhaps there was -- unless there was
4 someone there who shouldn't be there, and then you would ask for that
5 particular case to be reviewed. Is that the case?
13 Q. Thank you.
14 JUDGE KWON: We'll take care of it, Ms. Sutherland.
15 Let's continue.
16 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Thank you. But am I correct that other than the tragic incident
18 in front of the camp, that over these 150 days there were only five
19 fatalities, two of which were of unnatural causes, whereas three were of
20 natural causes?
21 A. It is true, Mr. Karadzic. All those -- in all those days and of
22 all -- and of the total number of the people who were registered, there
23 were only ten fatalities, two of which were violent deaths, and three
24 were of natural causes.
25 The two violent deaths, which really shocked me, in those cases
1 we did what any other service in the world would do. We discovered the
2 perpetrators. We conducted our investigation, discovered the
3 perpetrators, carried out post-mortems, and provided all documents to the
4 relevant Prosecutor.
5 Q. Thank you. So based on those documents that you provided, the
6 perpetrators were later tried and prosecuted; correct?
7 A. Yes. Based on this paperwork these four men were prosecuted and
8 tried, and three of them were sentenced to long sentences. This did
9 happen much later, that is true, but they were prosecuted.
10 Q. Thank you. Now, your constant requests for information in order
11 to understand why somebody was taken prisoner and detained, was this
12 something that was a natural result of the existence of these several
13 layers of authority, because in that case, there would be instances that
14 can actually check on and control other people's work, so did you feel
15 that the reason was that there should be higher-ups who could then check
16 and control what their subordinates were doing and, if necessary, correct
17 their actions?
18 A. Well, could you please put that question more specifically and
19 tell me what it is you expect me to answer. What is it that you want me
20 to answer to?
21 Q. Well, you were very strict, and as I've already said, you used a
22 sieve to carefully consider each and every single case to make sure
23 no-one remained detained without justification. Now, would you agree
24 with me that that is the purpose of having several levels of government
25 so that the higher-ups or the superiors can check the work of their
1 subordinates and make sure that they can correct their mistakes and
2 ensure that everyone is treated in a humane way?
3 A. Yes. I was never a freelancer, as it were. I wasn't free to do
4 whatever I pleased. I was just a person who carried out the orders --
5 the concepts and the orders that came from the higher commanders. At
6 times, I was perhaps more zealous in my work, perhaps more than another
7 person would be, but I never did anything wilfully. The orders came from
8 my superiors, and at times I was even upset that there was no response of
9 any kind to my reports, whereas you would want to have such a response
10 immediately, in a day or two. Ten days would have been too late for me
11 or was too late for me to wait for a response whether we should and could
12 release the elderly or the infirm, the young, and so on. So there was a
13 certain gap there between what I would have wanted and the reality as it
14 was, but at times there were reactions that I never even learned of at
15 the time. (redacted)
18 duty-bound to inform me as to what steps he had taken, and perhaps I, a
19 little hurriedly, interpreted that as lack of response of any kind, but,
20 well, here now I can correct that.
21 Q. Well, am I correct to say that you never received any criticism
22 from the higher commands because you were hard working and zealous, that
23 you were not under any pressure because you were strict and hard working,
24 applied yourself so seriously to the job?
25 A. Well, I never received any criticism nor any objection to my
1 overzealousness, but as I've already said, no one from my superior
2 command ever considered that those people should be killed or anything of
3 that sort.
4 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Ms. Sutherland.
5 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour -- Your Honour, redaction on page --
6 what's on my LiveNote at page 77, lines 18.
7 JUDGE KWON: I think that's being taken care of.
8 MS. SUTHERLAND: Thank you, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
10 Yes, Mr. Karadzic, your last question for today.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
12 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Now, on page 58, my -- Madam Sutherland said that she had shown
14 you a decision on pardon that arrived from the 1st Krajina Corps. Would
15 you agree with me that a pardon comes from the Presidency and the
16 1st Krajina Corps would just forward it? And would you agree with me
17 that a pardon would come and came as a result of a proposal from the
18 1st Krajina Corps which had within its competence the prison?
19 A. Yes. That was evident from that document, except that we did not
20 really look at the heading. It was an order from the 1st Krajina Corps,
21 but it said, "Pursuant to an order from the Presidency of the
22 Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina." I believe that's what it
23 was called at the time, and so on and so forth.
24 In other words, the 1st Krajina Corps only conveyed the
25 information that was taken by the Presidency to us at Manjaca in order to
1 to implement it. So that is the chain of command. The Supreme Command,
2 the commanders, the corps, and then lower-level units.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. If this was my last
4 question then I'm done for today.
5 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Yes, Ms. Sutherland.
6 MS. SUTHERLAND: Can I just make a note: At LiveNote page 69,
7 Mr. Karadzic said that I said that people were brought to the camp in
8 civilian clothes and he generalised it, and he was quoting to what I had
9 said at page 51, and if Your Honours read what I said at page 51, I said
10 the witness testified that persons that were brought from the RS MUP were
11 wearing civilian clothes. So it was limited and not in the general sense
12 of everyone that was brought was in civilian clothes.
13 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Ms. Sutherland.
14 Mr. Witness, sir, we'll adjourn for today and continue tomorrow
15 morning at 9.00. So in the meantime, while you are giving your
16 testimony, you are not supposed to discuss with anybody else about your
17 testimony. Do you understand that, sir?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, and I will do as I was -- and
19 I've been advised.
20 JUDGE KWON: The hearing is now adjourned.
21 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.29 p.m.,
22 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 2nd day
23 of November, 2011, at 9.00 a.m.