Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 4630

1 Tuesday, 27 July 2004

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 9.07 a.m.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.

6 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, case number IT-00-39-T, the

7 Prosecutor versus Momcilo Krajisnik.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

9 Before we continue, there were still a few matters relating to

10 the exhibits of yesterday that were in need for clarification. Can it be

11 given now or ...?

12 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, we'll need to do that after the first

13 break, after I consult with Mr. Gaynor and Mr. Tieger.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we'll wait. But perhaps you could add

15 one. My attention was drawn by the registrar to the fact that the CD-ROM

16 that was provided yesterday of the video clip, that it contains B/C/S

17 undertitling only, whereas - it's not clearly in my mind - but whereas

18 the registrar has drawn my attention to the fact that on what we saw

19 yesterday, we had English subtitles as well. So perhaps we could compare

20 that it's exactly the same on that CD-ROM as what we've seen in court.

21 We'll deal, then, with that at a later stage.

22 Anyhow, we had, but it's quite some time ago, decided that all

23 Sanski Most exhibits will be dealt with together, so even if no final

24 decision would be taken today, nevertheless the clarification is needed

25 to keep on track.

Page 4631

1 MR. HANNIS: We'll check on that as well, Your Honour.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And perhaps even we should wait with that

3 until Ms. Philpott is back, because the present registrar has not been

4 present during all the Sanski Most evidence presented.

5 Then I have another question for you, Mr. -- I don't know whether

6 to -- I see with you in court today is --

7 MR. HANNIS: Yes, Your Honour, Tom Hannis, on behalf of the

8 Office of the Prosecutor. Stephen Margetts is with me, Your Honour, and

9 he'll be leading today's witness.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then perhaps I'll put my next question to

11 Mr. Margetts rather than to you.

12 On the list of witnesses we would hear this week, we find the

13 next witness, who is an unprotected witness.

14 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We find him scheduled for eight hours. On the

16 65 ter summary, we find him for three hours. And therefore, of course,

17 you'll understand that I was most curious to see what was on the list

18 that was provided today, and there is no time schedule at all. Is it

19 three hours? Is it eight hours? Is it ...?

20 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, formally it's eight hours. We will

21 attempt to finish him earlier. So we expect six to eight hours.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And the three hours from the 65 ter were

23 moved?

24 MR. MARGETTS: Effectively the basis that we worked on was the

25 eight hours.

Page 4632


2 Mr. Hannis.

3 MR. HANNIS: Your, I think at the time we filed the 65 ter we had

4 additional viva voce witnesses from Kljuc. In the course of reshuffling,

5 we've tried to have him introduce some of that evidence that those

6 witnesses are now 92 bis for.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That explains the change in the position.

8 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I wonder if I might just inquire. It

9 seems a very simple point. We still are not 100 per cent clear whether

10 those time estimates are intended to include an allowance for

11 cross-examination in accordance with the guidelines or whether they're

12 simply talking about the Prosecution's --

13 JUDGE ORIE: It's always, as I understand, examination-in-chief

14 only.

15 MR. STEWART: That's what we understood, Your Honour. I wanted

16 to clarify. Thank you.

17 JUDGE ORIE: No. It's -- in my mind, the 60 per cent are always

18 added to get a reliable court scheduling.

19 If there's nothing else at this moment to be raised, then I'd

20 like Mr. Usher to bring the witness into the court.

21 [The witness entered court]

22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Egrlic, can you hear me in a language you

23 understand?

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't hear a thing.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Egrlic doesn't hear a thing. Could you

Page 4633

1 please check whether he's on the right channel, Mr. Usher.

2 THE USHER: He's on the right channel now.

3 JUDGE ORIE: He's on the right channel.

4 Can you now hear me?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Could you -- may I invite you to stand up. Before

7 giving evidence in this court, the Rules of Procedure and Evidence

8 require you to make a solemn declaration that you'll speak the truth, the

9 whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The text of this declaration

10 will be handed out to you by the usher. May I invite you to make that

11 solemn declaration.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will

13 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you very much. Please be seated.


16 [Witness answered through interpreter]

17 JUDGE ORIE: You'll first be examined by Mr. Margetts, counsel

18 for the Prosecution.

19 Mr. Margetts, please proceed.

20 Examined by Mr. Margetts:

21 Q. Mr. Egrlic, please state your full name.

22 A. My name is Asim Egrlic.

23 Q. Were you born on the 27th of July, 1952 in the municipality of

24 Kljuc in Bosnia and Herzegovina?

25 A. Yes.

Page 4634

1 Q. Have you lived in Kljuc all your life, apart from a short period

2 between 1992 and 1995?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Are you by ethnicity Bosniak?

5 A. I am.

6 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, I'd like to show the witness the

7 first map that is listed on the exhibit list.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.

9 And that map would have number P ...?

10 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the number will be P221.


12 Q. Mr. --

13 JUDGE ORIE: Before you put any questions -- Mr. Stewart, is

14 there any dispute about where Kljuc is, the municipality?

15 MR. STEWART: No, Your Honour.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Then please proceed, Mr. Margetts.

17 I take it that the parties agree that it's where the green spot

18 is on the map.

19 Yes, please proceed.

20 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, could the second map be presented to

21 the witness.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. They would then be P222.

23 And may I ask the parties whether the parties consider this map

24 to depict the villages in the municipality of Kljuc?

25 Mr. Stewart, is the Defence position that P222 depicts the

Page 4635

1 villages in the municipality of Kljuc?

2 MR. STEWART: Apparently so, Your Honour, yes.


4 Mr. Margetts, of course, if you have any additional details to

5 ask the witness, but this is not a matter that could keep us apart.

6 Please proceed.

7 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, we'll refer back to that map at a

8 later time in the examination.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's fine.


11 Q. Mr. Egrlic, I'm now going to run through a summary of your

12 qualifications and work history. Please listen carefully to what I say,

13 and when I'm finished, I'm going to ask you whether the summary that I've

14 run through is correct.

15 You graduated from Sarajevo university in 1977 with a Bachelor

16 of Science and Architectural Engineering degree. In December 1977, you

17 joined the company Sana in Kljuc, where you worked as an architectural

18 engineer. In the period April 1979 to March 1980, you performed your

19 compulsory military training with the JNA. You remained with the company

20 Sana until 1986, when you set up your own private building construction

21 engineering firm.

22 In 1991, following the multiparty elections, you took up the

23 position as president of the Executive Board of Kljuc Municipality.

24 After the war, you returned to Kljuc in September 1995, where you

25 obtained employment as president of the Municipal Chamber. After this,

Page 4636

1 you were appointed mayor of Kljuc. You then gained the appointment of

2 Minister for Energy and Industry in the cantonal government of the Una

3 Sana canton in Bosnia.

4 And finally, you were appointed president of the cantonal board

5 of the SDA.

6 In the year 2000, you opened a private enterprise specialising in

7 architectural design, and you continue to work in your private firm to

8 today.

9 Mr. Egrlic, is that an accurate summary of the various positions

10 and appointments that you have held?

11 A. Yes, it is.

12 Q. I'd now like to deal in more detail with the period leading up to

13 the war in Bosnia, starting with late 1990 through to early -- through

14 1991.

15 During the period 1991, were you resident in Egrlici?

16 And is Egrlici a small commune situated about two kilometres or

17 thereabouts from Kljuc city?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Just before the multiparty elections in Bosnia in late 1990, did

20 you join the SDA party?

21 A. That's correct.

22 Q. And what was your position in the party?

23 A. I was elected president of the municipal organisation of the

24 Kljuc SDA.

25 Q. Was there another Muslim party in Kljuc, namely the Muslim

Page 4637

1 Bosniak organisation, or the MBO?

2 A. Yes, there was.

3 Q. And was Omer Filipovic the leader of the MBO?

4 A. He was.

5 Q. Who was the president of the SDS party in the municipality of

6 Kljuc?

7 A. It was myself.

8 Q. Sorry, I meant to refer to the Serb party, that is, the Serbian

9 Democratic Party. Who was the leader of that party?

10 A. The leader of the SDS was Veljko Kondic.

11 Q. Now, prior to 1990, did you have any association with Veljko

12 Kondic?

13 A. We worked together in the same company called Sana Kljuc.

14 Q. And did the Serb party win more seats in the multiparty elections

15 in Kljuc than the Muslim parties?

16 A. Yes. The SDS had a majority in the Municipal Assembly.

17 Q. After the elections, was Jovo Banjac of the SDS party appointed

18 to the position of president of the municipality?

19 A. That's correct.

20 Q. Prior to 1990, did you have any association with Jovo Banjac?

21 A. Jovo Banjac also worked in the same company, so we had daily

22 contacts.

23 Q. For what period of time did you have these daily contacts with

24 Jovo Banjac?

25 A. Approximately those meetings would last between 15 and 20

Page 4638

1 minutes. We would meet in order to discuss the daily activities, since

2 Mr. Banjac was the technical manager of the company where I also worked.

3 Q. For how many years did you work with Mr. Banjac at this company?

4 A. About ten years.

5 Q. Was Omer Filipovic elected vice-president of the Kljuc Municipal

6 Assembly?

7 A. Omer Filipovic was the vice-president of the Municipal Assembly,

8 and he was deputy to Mr. Banjac.

9 Q. What position did you hold in the municipal government?

10 A. After the first multiparty election, I was elected the president

11 of the Executive Board of the Municipal Assembly of Kljuc.

12 Q. Following the multiparty elections at the end of 1990 and prior

13 to the start of the war in Croatia in the middle of 1991, what was the

14 relationship like between the ethnicities in Kljuc?

15 A. The relationship was good.

16 Q. When the war started in Croatia in 1991, were there mobilisation

17 calls to the young men of Kljuc and did the Muslims respond to those

18 calls?

19 A. There were mobilisation calls; however, young Muslims refused to

20 go to wage a war in Croatia.

21 Q. Why did they refuse to go to Croatia?

22 A. They refused because they believed that an unjust war is being

23 waged in Croatia against a people and against the dissolution of

24 Yugoslavia, and they did not want to take sides with anybody in that war.

25 Q. When you say "an unjust war," why do you say that?

Page 4639

1 A. Because from the territory of the Municipality of Kljuc and other

2 municipalities in Bosnia and Herzegovina, first volunteers went to those

3 front lines, and they waged this war against Croats in their own

4 homeland.

5 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, I'd like to show the witness the next

6 exhibit. It's the one that's actually listed fourth on the exhibit list,

7 dated 21 September 1991, and the translation ERN is L0023457.

8 Q. Mr. Egrlic, do you recognise this announcement?

9 MR. MARGETTS: Sorry, Your Honour, could that exhibit be given an

10 exhibit number.

11 JUDGE ORIE: It will be P223 and P223.1 for the translation into

12 English.

13 I see that the translation bears the script "draft translation."

14 I take it that it's a final translation now or ...?

15 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour. Would you like us to amend that

16 reference?

17 JUDGE ORIE: No. Let's be very practical. It's now on the

18 record that this draft translation is a final translation. You checked

19 that. And it's the translation.

20 Please proceed.


22 Q. Mr. Egrlic, do you recognise this announcement?

23 A. I do.

24 Q. Were you the joint author with Mr. Filipovic of this

25 announcement?

Page 4640

1 A. Yes, I was.

2 Q. You'll see in the middle of the page there is a heading which

3 states "Announcement," and under that there is a paragraph which

4 commences "The Muslim residents of Kljuc." And it proceeds to state

5 that the Muslims of Kljuc were under no obligation to serve in the JNA

6 units, and then refers to the issue of the constitutional order in

7 Yugoslavia.

8 Can you explain what the issue was that concerned you in respect

9 of the constitutional order as at September 1991.

10 A. Well, above all we were concerned by the fact that the Presidency

11 of Yugoslavia at that time was a collective body which was supposed to

12 have command over the JNA no longer had such control. And a war broke

13 out first of all in Slovenia and then in Croatia, and also there was a

14 risk that this war might spread to Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the

15 Bosniaks, the Muslims, in such circumstances found themselves in a very

16 unenviable position, which is why we reacted in this way; which is why

17 they didn't want to respond to the call-up from such an army, because it

18 was no longer a Yugoslav army in the sense of the term under the

19 Constitution of the former Yugoslavia.

20 Q. In the announcement, you refer to the conflict in Croatia as a

21 Serbian-Croatian conflict. If the SFRY Presidency was not functioning as

22 a Supreme Commander, who was controlling the Yugoslav army?

23 A. Serbia was controlling it.

24 Q. What effect did the failure of the Muslims to respond to the

25 calls for mobilisation have on the relations between the ethnicities in

Page 4641

1 Kljuc?

2 A. The Serbian Democratic Party and the Serbs, who were supporters

3 of theirs, misunderstood this declaration, this announcement, and they

4 interpreted it as meaning that the Bosniaks in the Municipality of Kljuc

5 were taking sides with the Croats and did not want to participate in the

6 conflicts with them, and this led to a deterioration of relationships and

7 the work of the municipal -- of the Assembly organs was put into

8 question, as well as the security situation in the territory of the

9 municipality.

10 Q. Were the Muslims siding with the Croats?

11 A. No, they weren't.

12 Q. The Muslims didn't respond to the mobilisation calls. What

13 effect did this have on the ethnic mix of the soldiers that constituted

14 the JNA units?

15 A. Given that the Muslims failed to respond to the call-up, the

16 composition of the JNA became -- the JNA became composed of just one

17 ethnic group, because the Serbs would respond to the call-up, so that the

18 JNA on the whole became a Serbian army.

19 Q. When the volunteers returned from the Croatian front line to the

20 Kljuc municipality, what effect did that have on the security situation

21 in Kljuc?

22 A. When the volunteers left Kljuc and returned, when they went to

23 the battlefield in Croatia and returned, the security situation

24 deteriorated and got worse every day, because they would leave with

25 weapons and there were provocations and there was shooting in the town.

Page 4642

1 They would leave and return with weapons. So there was shooting in the

2 town and citizens became afraid of such behaviour, and there was a lot of

3 fear in the territory of the municipality and a lot of disturbances.

4 Q. When the volunteers returned with their weapons, did they retain

5 possession of those weapons or did they return those weapons to the JNA

6 stores?

7 A. They would go home with their weapons.

8 Q. And in that way did the young Serbian men obtain armaments?

9 A. Yes.

10 MR. MARGETTS: I've finished with that exhibit, Mr. Egrlic, so

11 you can put the document up.

12 Q. I'd now like to turn to the declaration of the Autonomous Region

13 of Krajina. When did you first hear of the Autonomous Region of Krajina?

14 A. I first heard about that region in mid-1991.

15 Q. How did you hear about the Autonomous Region of Krajina?

16 A. It was no secret, because Kljuc municipality had previously also

17 been part of the Chamber of Commerce of Banja Luka, and that included 17

18 municipalities from the Krajina region, and initially it was claimed that

19 the Chamber of Commerce was being formed again for commercial cooperation

20 between municipalities in the territory of Bosnian Krajina.

21 Q. That first body that was formed, was that known as the Community

22 of Municipalities?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. At the level of the Kljuc municipality, who proposed that Kljuc

25 should join the autonomous region?

Page 4643

1 A. This is a proposal that I heard Jovo Banjac, the president of the

2 Assembly, make.

3 Q. What was the view of your party, the SDA, to this proposal?

4 A. Initially the SDA thought they should accept such a proposal if

5 it was a matter of uniting municipalities on a commercial basis.

6 Q. When the proposal was put to transform from a Community of

7 Municipalities to a joinder of the Autonomous Region of Krajina, what was

8 your party's position?

9 A. We didn't accept such a proposal because we thought that this no

10 longer amounted to forming a sort of commercial cooperation. I wasn't

11 regionalisation in that sense. It in fact amounted to a state entity

12 within the territory of the State of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

13 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, I'd like to present the next exhibit

14 to the witness. This is the exhibit which is the fifth exhibit on the

15 list, with the translation -- the English ERN 01909474.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.

17 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, could that exhibit be given a number.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The registrar will give it a number.

19 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the number will be P224 and P224.1

20 for the English translation.


22 Q. Mr. Egrlic, I refer you to point 4, which appeared at the bottom

23 of the first page of this document. If you could look at that paragraph

24 where it states that "We resolutely reject the proclamation of the

25 Autonomous Region of Krajina," and proceeds stating, "The proclamation is

Page 4644

1 completely unconstitutional, unacceptable." Does that accurately set out

2 your views in respect of the Autonomous Region of Krajina?

3 A. It does.

4 Q. Mr. Egrlic, do you recognise this statement and were you the

5 author of this statement?

6 A. I do recognise it, and yes, I am.

7 Q. I refer you to the second page of the document and the second

8 full paragraph in the document, which commences just a little under

9 halfway down that page. In this paragraph, you state that "The adoption

10 of this proposal in respect of the autonomous region is a demonstration

11 of force by the majority, but violence brings no solution." Can you

12 comment on that passage?

13 A. This decision on linking up the Municipality of Kljuc with the

14 Autonomous Region of Banja Luka was made without the knowledge of the

15 official organs of the Municipal Assembly, and the Serbian Democratic

16 Party, given that they had the majority in the Municipal Assembly,

17 accepted this decision as a party and they linked up the Kljuc

18 Municipality to the Autonomous Region of Krajina. They acted as a

19 majority within the Municipal Assembly and they acted in a violent and an

20 undemocratic way when they took this decision on linking up the

21 Municipality of Kljuc to the Autonomous Region of Krajina. And we saw

22 that this involved taking such a decision by force.

23 Q. Further on in that paragraph in the final sentence, you appeal to

24 the citizens to abstain from using this as a reason to upset the peaceful

25 life in the area. Did you see this decision as a decision taken by one

Page 4645

1 ethnicity and did you see that it was unconstitutional and could have

2 grave effects on the peaceful life that you had previously enjoyed in

3 Kljuc?

4 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, the -- Mr. Hannis did indicate

5 at the very beginning of this morning that Mr. Margetts would be leading

6 this witness this morning, and Mr. Margetts has kept that promise. That

7 is a very leading question. It's in fact -- it's several leading

8 questions wrapped into one.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts, would you reformulate your questions.

10 Please do so.


12 Q. Mr. Egrlic, in this document you state that the decision to join

13 the autonomous region is unconstitutional, and you state that this could

14 lead -- you request the citizens to abstain from upsetting the peaceful

15 life in Kljuc. Can you comment on those two statements.

16 A. We thought that the decision was unconstitutional, since the

17 usual procedure hadn't been respected. The usual procedure in the

18 municipality wasn't followed. Secondly, it's unconstitutional because

19 the then-Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina didn't recognise the

20 unification of municipalities into a sort of state formation in Bosnia

21 and Herzegovina. We believed that this decision could cause restlessness

22 among the citizens, could cause disturbances, which is why we didn't want

23 this decision to affect the good relationships in the territory of the

24 Municipality of Kljuc.

25 Q. Mr. Egrlic, if I could refer you to the last sentence on the

Page 4646

1 second page of this document. It states: "We are against any

2 mobilisation which has not been approved by the Ministry of National

3 Defence of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina."

4 Why was that? Why were you opposed to a mobilisation that was

5 not sanctioned by the Bosnian state?

6 A. We were against such mobilisation because it wasn't in accordance

7 with the law and the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, because a

8 ministry at the level of the state had been bypassed and mobilisation was

9 being conducted by the local authorities in the Municipality of Kljuc.

10 And their objective was to mobilise people to be engaged in the

11 battlefields in Croatia, which is something that we did not support. As

12 a result, we made it quite public that we were against such mobilisation.

13 Q. Which party was promoting and implementing the mobilisation?

14 A. The SDS supported this mobilisation and believed that it was

15 necessary to support the Serbs in certain places in the territory of the

16 Republic of Croatia.

17 Q. Mr. Egrlic, I've finished with that document.

18 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, if Mr. Egrlic could be shown the next

19 exhibit, which is the document which is third on the exhibit list, dated

20 17 September 1991.

21 JUDGE ORIE: That, Mr. Registrar, if I'm not mistaken, gets

22 number P225.1 for the English and P225 for the original B/C/S.



25 Q. Mr. Egrlic, can you take a look at this document. Do you

Page 4647

1 recognise this information?

2 A. Yes, I do.

3 Q. I refer you to the last sentence of the first paragraph, the

4 first major paragraph under the heading "Information." And in respect of

5 the declaration of the Autonomous Region of Krajina, it's stated that

6 this policy, which is promoted by the SDS is supported by invoking the

7 historical principle or the ethnic principle, whichever is more

8 convenient." Can you comment on what was meant by the term "the ethnic

9 principle"?

10 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, should we not just make it clear with

11 the witness what this document is before getting into the content?

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Of course we know from the list what it's

13 supposed to be.

14 But Witness, could you -- Mr. Egrlic, could you tell us, if you

15 recognise it, what is it?

16 MR. STEWART: Perhaps I should make it clear. I don't mind in

17 the least the witness being led on such a simple point as what's in the

18 list. It's just that, as Your Honour points out, we know, because we got

19 the list, what it is, but nobody else listening to this case has the

20 faintest idea.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Do you know what it is?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is information for the public

23 from the Muslim Bosniak Organisation, from the Municipal Committee. They

24 were part of the Party of Democratic Action, and they were together in

25 the coalition in the Municipal Assembly of Kljuc. This is a document

Page 4648

1 which informs the public of the proclamation of the so-called Autonomous

2 Region of Krajina by the Serbian Democratic Party, or rather, it informs

3 them of the fact that the Municipality of Kljuc is joining the autonomous

4 region. And it also states our view of this event, and we inform the

5 public in this document about the situation.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

7 Please proceed, Mr. Margetts.


9 Q. Mr. Egrlic, the author of this document is Omer Filipovic, the

10 vice-president of the municipality; is that correct?

11 A. Yes, it is.

12 Q. Returning to the final sentence at the bottom of the first major

13 paragraph. Why did Mr. Filipovic refer to the ethnic principle being

14 invoked in the context of this declaration of the autonomous region?

15 A. Well, he said that because as far as the Municipality is Kljuc is

16 concerned and its link to the Autonomous Region of Krajina, this was done

17 without the agreement of the Bosniaks and their political representatives

18 from the municipality, and in fact the Bosniaks in that area were ignored

19 and their opinion on the matter was also ignored. So in fact this ethnic

20 principle was applied. This means that if one ethnic group supported the

21 idea that the Municipality of Kljuc should join the autonomous region,

22 this meant that the matter had then been settled.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts, it may be a detail. You said this

24 document was a document by Omer Filipovic. I see "Muhamed Filipovic."

25 Is that something to be ...?

Page 4649

1 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour. That was my error.

2 Q. Mr. Egrlic, can you refer to the signature on the bottom of this

3 page. Do you recognise that signature?

4 A. Yes, this is Mr. Muhamed Filipovic's signature. He was the

5 vice-president of the municipal organisation of the Muslim Bosniak

6 Organisation in Kljuc.

7 Q. Was his brother the president of that association, that is, was

8 his brother Omer Filipovic?

9 A. Yes, he was.

10 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, may I make a -- just a simple

11 practical suggestion. Again, we can see from the list which we have in

12 advance the method by which apparently this particular content was

13 disseminated to the public.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's -- I just had the same in my mind. It

15 gives information.

16 Could you please clarify that, whether -- because now we have a

17 piece of paper where the list says something in addition to it.

18 Q. Mr. Egrlic, was this document distributed in the Municipality of

19 Kljuc?

20 A. This document was information for the general public which was

21 read out on the radio.

22 Q. I'd like to refer you to the sentence that starts at the bottom

23 of the first page and proceeds over into the second page, and it states:

24 "Politics and democracy entail dialogue and tolerance. Politics and

25 democracy as interpreted by the SDS entails dictates, ultimatums and

Page 4650

1 intolerance."

2 Does that accord with your views as to how politics should have

3 been conducted in Kljuc and the failings of the SDS in Kljuc?

4 A. When it came to this association of Kljuc with the autonomous

5 region, we believed that the opinion of Bosniaks should be heard and

6 respected, given the fact that in the territory of Kljuc municipality

7 there was a great number of Bosniak residents and given the fact that

8 their rights were not respected when this decision was made unilaterally

9 by just one political party. That's why we believed that their -- that

10 tolerance and democracy had been bypassed and that this decision had been

11 made unilaterally respecting the will of only one ethnic group. We

12 believed that the other ethnic groups should have been consulted and that

13 their will should have also been respected.

14 Q. As at September 1991, what did you believe the annexation of the

15 Municipality of Kljuc to this Serbian Autonomous Region would lead to?

16 A. It was clear by that time that the establishment of the

17 autonomous region - with all of the bodies that had been established

18 already, with the army that had already existed at the time - that it was

19 a paralegal state in the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina and that it

20 was against the interests of the Bosniak people and that ultimately this

21 could lead to the deterioration of political and security situation in

22 the Municipality of Kljuc and even in Bosnia and Herzegovina as a whole.

23 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, I'd like to show the witness the next

24 exhibit. Now, this one will be found as the exhibit four from the bottom

25 on the first page of the exhibit list, and the date that's ascribed to it

Page 4651

1 is 1 December 1991. The document itself is undated. And the translation

2 reference is L005-7782.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, this would have number ...?

4 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the number will be P226 and P226.1

5 for the English translation.


7 Q. Mr. Egrlic, can you have a look at that document. I refer to the

8 second paragraph on the first page -- sorry. In light of Mr. Stewart's

9 request that we identify the nature of the documents, I'll proceed to do

10 that.

11 This document purports to be a decision --

12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts, before we continue. On the first line

13 of the original, I clearly see a date, the 10th of April, 1991. In the

14 English translation, I do not see any date at all. Is this explained

15 by that it is a draft translation or ...?

16 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, that is clearly an error. We will

17 have that rectified. This is intended to be a final translation.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It's I think the third time in two days now

19 that by reading for ten seconds a document and comparing it with the

20 original that differences are easily identified. I would prefer if the

21 parties would do that themselves and correct it prior to presenting the

22 evidence and these translations in court.

23 Please proceed.

24 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour, we will attend to that.

25 Q. This is a decision signed by Jovo Banjac and appears to be the

Page 4652

1 proposal from the SDS party to put to the Municipal Assembly the issue of

2 the joinder to the autonomous region. Mr. Egrlic, have you seen this

3 document before?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. When did you first see this proposal?

6 A. I saw it in front of the municipality building. The Assembly

7 meeting was held with this being an item on the agenda, so this was

8 discussed by the Assembly in order to arrive at a final decision.

9 Q. Earlier you stated that the usual procedure was not followed by

10 the SDS in putting this decision to the Assembly, then voting for it.

11 What was the usual procedure that was followed and how was that procedure

12 avoided by the SDS in regard to this issue?

13 A. The bypassing of the procedure referred to the fact that a

14 decision was made to join the Municipality of Kljuc to the Autonomous

15 Region of Bosanska Krajina without a proper Assembly meeting. Once we

16 learnt about that and once the information was disseminated to the

17 general public, they decided to present this decision to the Municipal

18 Assembly for its confirmation, and this is the proposal of the decision

19 which was put on the agenda of the Assembly meeting. The Assembly heard

20 this decision and made a decision on whether to adopt it.

21 Q. When you said it wasn't a proper Assembly meeting, what do you

22 mean?

23 A. The procedure was not followed because a unilateral decision by

24 one party meant that the Municipality of Kljuc was annexed to the

25 autonomous region in mid-1991 without this issue having been discussed at

Page 4653

1 a meeting of the Municipal Assembly. It was only after we reacted and

2 after we informed the general public about that that this issue was

3 properly discussed as an item on the agenda of the Municipal Assembly

4 meeting.

5 Q. You stated that you worked with Jovo Banjac, the president of the

6 municipality, for some years. When this autonomous region was

7 proclaimed, did you discuss this with him? And if so, what did he say

8 about it?

9 A. We discussed this on several occasions. During the preparations

10 for the Municipal Assembly meeting, his position was that the

11 Municipality of Kljuc had to join the Autonomous Region of Bosanska

12 Krajina. They claimed at the time that this was actually an organisation

13 of municipalities that would promote economic growth and intermunicipal

14 cooperation.

15 Q. When you say that he said he had to implement this decision, did

16 you think he had any choice in the matter?

17 A. I don't think so. I don't think he had a choice, because other

18 municipalities bordering on the Kljuc municipality territory had already

19 arrived at such a decision. And I'm talking about the municipalities

20 with a large majority of SDS members in their respective municipal

21 assemblies.

22 Q. Are you saying that Mr. Banjac, as president of the municipality,

23 was bound to follow the policies of the SDS?

24 MR. STEWART: That's a pretty leading question, Your

25 Honour. It's apparent -- I won't go into it, because it's quite obvious

Page 4654

1 from what this entire case is about, it's apparent that there's quite a

2 big jump from the witness's answer to Mr. Margetts's question.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, there is a jump. Could you proceed by smaller

4 steps and less leading, because this is part of the core of the case.


6 Q. Mr. Egrlic, did you discuss this matter with Veljko Kondic, who

7 you also had worked with for a number of years?

8 A. Yes, I did. During the preparations for this meeting at the

9 interparty council, we all put forth or positions and opinions on this

10 matter. Mr. Kondic was adamant in his belief that they could reach that

11 decision with the votes of only one party member, because they had a

12 large majority. And he also believed that this had been implemented

13 already at the beginning of the year and this would be just a

14 confirmation of the decision that had already been adopted by the SDS

15 MPs.

16 Q. Mr. Egrlic, in your answer, you state that the decision had

17 already been implemented at the beginning of the year. Can you clarify

18 that. Are you referring to the decision to join the Community of

19 Municipalities, or are you referring to the decision to join the

20 Autonomous Region of Krajina that was presented outside the usual

21 procedures of the Assembly?

22 A. Actually, there's no major difference between the two decisions.

23 Initially, in the initial stages, the name was different; however, the

24 essence of the matter is the same. And the Kljuc municipality joined

25 first by the decision of the Municipal Board of the SDS and later on when

Page 4655

1 we reacted and said that the procedure was not followed in accordance

2 with the statute of the municipality, this decision was put forward at

3 the Assembly meeting and it was confirmed by the members of the Municipal

4 Assembly, who were members of the SDS party.

5 Q. Whilst it may have turned out that the decision to join the

6 Community of Municipalities and the decision to join the autonomous

7 region were effectively the same, was it not your perception that the

8 joinder of the Community of Municipalities was acceptable because that

9 was limited to economic associations?

10 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, what Mr. Margetts is doing now

11 is he's putting a very leading question for the simple reason that he

12 doesn't like the answer that he got to the previous question, so he's now

13 trying to get the answer that he wanted, which is not the answer that the

14 witness gave, by putting a leading question and effectively to reverse or

15 nullify the answer that he doesn't like. And that's not a proper way to

16 proceed in examination of a witness.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. In the earlier part of the testimony, the

18 witness, of course, said something about the difference between the two,

19 so to that extent there could be some confusion which Mr. Margetts is

20 entitled to clarify. Perhaps the way in which it is done could be more

21 -- and I'll just reread the question.

22 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, with respect, I'd suggest that

23 we need to be very clear that there is in fact confusion, there is in

24 fact a difference, because at the moment we don't see it. The witness

25 has made it quite clear that there were different names. I think the

Page 4656












12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and

13 French transcripts correspond













Page 4657

1 phrase used -- the name was -- "Initially, in the initial stages, the

2 name was different; however, the essence of the matter is the same."

3 That's what the witness has very clearly said.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But that's not what exactly was said in his

5 earlier testimony.

6 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, with respect then, I do suggest

7 that we need to be absolutely clear that there is genuine confusion to be

8 cleared up.

9 JUDGE ORIE: We'll deal with that in the last two minutes before

10 the break.

11 If you'd please now go to your next subject and I'll find the

12 source.

13 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, we oppose Mr. Stewart's application

14 on the basis that we have merely been repeating what was said in the

15 earlier testimony and what is set out clearly in the documentation that

16 the witness has confirmed represents his opinion. If Your Honour would

17 allow me, could I proceed just to clarify this matter in the next few

18 questions?

19 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour --

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, if you would give the source of where you said

21 that, the earlier testimony. If you could give page and line to

22 Mr. Stewart.

23 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, might -- --

24 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps we'll do the following: We're next to a

25 break anyhow. I'll ask the witness to leave the courtroom so that we can

Page 4658

1 discuss this procedural issue. We'll settle the matter, and then after

2 the break, Mr. Egrlic, your examination will continue. And the break

3 will be -- it depends a bit on how much time we'd need for the procedural

4 issue, but something close to half an hour.

5 Mr. Egrlic, you may follow the usher out of the courtroom.

6 [The witness stands down]

7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts, could you please at the point earlier

8 in the testimony where the witness made a distinction between

9 accepting -- well, let's say a kind of economic cooperation in the area

10 and that ...

11 [Prosecution counsel confer]

12 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, I have to apologise to the Court.

13 The difficulty is this, that the transcript I have before me does not

14 have the capacity to scroll back. I can refer to the previous exhibits

15 that have been shown to the witness.

16 JUDGE ORIE: If you'd find the exhibits, I'll try to find the ...

17 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, we're very distressed to find

18 that equality of arms, or inequality of arms, might mean that we have

19 this exhibit on the Defence side but the Prosecution don't. It could

20 be -- I'm not sure whether the computer to Mr. Hannis's right has that

21 facility. We have a laptop on the table that does have that facility.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I take it that under normal circumstances the

23 Prosecution would have an opportunity to do the same. If there's any

24 fundamental problem, then -- and if it could not be solved, then, of

25 course, the Chamber will look after the equality of arms, but ...

Page 4659

1 Mr. Margetts, if you'd refer to the documents.

2 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour. The document is P224.1, and the

3 paragraph that was specifically referred to was paragraph 4 of that

4 document, where Mr. Egrlic had stated that he and the SDA party

5 "resolutely reject the proclamation of the Autonomous District of Krajina

6 as a successor of the Community of Municipalities and judge this act to

7 be completely unconstitutional and unacceptable."

8 JUDGE ORIE: I'm looking at the transcript where -- I think it's

9 -- it starts at page 13, approximately in the middle, where it's

10 explained that it started as a Chamber of Commerce --

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, someone is calling.

12 Well, it seems not to be a mobile phone, because they would be

13 seized anyhow.

14 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, may I make this practical suggestion?


16 MR. MARGETTS: It is possible for me to elicit an explanation

17 from the witness in a form, I'm sure --

18 JUDGE ORIE: What do we get now? I get on my earphones

19 conversations of other people.

20 Oh, no, I see. Yes. Okay, that's settled now.

21 Please proceed.

22 MR. MARGETTS: -- in a form that I'm sure will be acceptable to

23 Mr. Stewart, it's not necessary for me to lead him on this issue. I

24 didn't expect Mr. Stewart's objection, given the previous evidence. But

25 since he has objected, I'm quite happy to deal with this issue without

Page 4660

1 leading him on it.


3 Mr. Stewart, page 14, line 6: "We didn't accept such a proposal

4 because we thought that this no longer amounted to forming a sort of

5 commercial cooperation. It wasn't regionalisation in that sense. It in

6 fact amounted to a state entity within the territory of the State of

7 Bosnia and Herzegovina."

8 That would clearly, I would say, explained where what was

9 presented as commercial cooperation turned out, at least in the view of

10 the witness, turned out to be a state within the state. And therefore,

11 if he later says that it was all the same -- well, of course, I'm now

12 summarising and perhaps not doing justice to the details of what he

13 said -- there's certainly a matter which is a matter that would need

14 further clarification.

15 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour --


17 MR. STEWART: -- I thought a moment ago Mr. Margetts said that he

18 wasn't pursuing the matter. It's --

19 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I'm just saying that you made an objection.

20 If Mr. Margetts does not want to pursue the matter, fine. If you can

21 settle it during the break, fine. But we'll not stop him from seeking

22 further clarification if he wishes to do so.

23 MR. STEWART: Well, could I also say, Your Honour that, we

24 wouldn't mind a few quiet minutes to sort this out, because we wondered

25 over the last few minutes whether we're operating in a courtroom or a

Page 4661

1 telephone exchange, and simply sorting out what's on the transcript where

2 and so on.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, I gave you some clues.

4 MR. STEWART: Well, thank you, Your Honour, yes.

5 JUDGE ORIE: I'll hear from the parties upon return.

6 We'll resume at five minutes to 11.00.

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

8 --- On resuming at 11.02 a.m.

9 [The witness entered court]

10 JUDGE ORIE: Before we resume with the examination of the

11 witness, is there any need to further expound on what we discussed before

12 the break?

13 MR. MARGETTS: No, Your Honour. We've had discussions with

14 Defence counsel during the break, and we're content with the way we'll

15 proceed.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then please proceed, and the Chamber is happy

17 that you resolved the matter.

18 Please proceed.


20 Q. Mr. Egrlic, in early 1991, when the Community of Municipalities

21 was formed, did the SDA object to Kljuc being a part of the Community of

22 Municipalities?

23 A. At the beginning it did not object, since the explanation was

24 that it was an association of municipalities for commercial reasons, and

25 Kljuc had previously also been part of the Banja Luka region, and the

Page 4662

1 headquarters of the Chamber of Commerce were located in Banja Luka, so it

2 would be logical for those municipalities to remain within that Chamber

3 of Commerce.

4 Q. So insofar as the organisation was formed for commercial reasons,

5 you had no objection to it.

6 A. No.

7 Q. When the proposal was put to join the Autonomous Region of

8 Krajina, you did object. What was it you objected to about the joinder

9 to the Autonomous Region of Krajina?

10 A. We objected to joining the autonomous region because this no

11 longer seemed to be a matter of associating municipalities for the

12 purpose of commercial cooperation. It resembled a sort of state within

13 Bosnia and Herzegovina. It was beginning to resemble a sort of state

14 within Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Bosniaks did not support this,

15 which is why we stated and we made it known that we were not in favour of

16 such an organisation.

17 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, I'd like to show the witness the next

18 exhibit, and this is the exhibit that appears sixth on the exhibit list,

19 with the translation ERN L0023471.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, that would get the number --

21 THE REGISTRAR: The number will be P227 and P227.1 for the

22 English translation.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

24 Please proceed, Mr. Margetts.


Page 4663

1 Q. Mr. Egrlic, have you seen this document before?

2 A. Yes, I have.

3 Q. What is this document?

4 A. This is an official statement from the Muslim Bosniak

5 Organisation in which it is stated that they support the Party of

6 Democratic Action. It has to do with the political and security

7 situation in the territory of the Municipality of Kljuc.

8 Q. Mr. Egrlic, was this document distributed to the citizens of

9 Kljuc or was its content communicated to the citizens of Kljuc in or

10 around September 1991?

11 A. They were informed about it over Radio Kljuc.

12 Q. I'd like to refer you to the first sentence in the second

13 paragraph, which states that "The Muslim Bosniak association is opposed

14 to any arming of people which may fall outside the context of orders

15 issued for mobilisation of the Territorial Defence or reserve police."

16 In September 1991, what was your knowledge of the arming of the

17 people in Kljuc?

18 A. This was a reaction to individuals being armed, and that was

19 taking place at that time in the territory of the Municipality of Kljuc.

20 And this is why the Party of Democratic Action reacted in this way and

21 later the Muslim Bosniak Organisation reacted in this way too, because it

22 was noticed that the Serbian population was being armed in two ways:

23 Firstly, a mobilisation was being carried out and weapons were being

24 distributed which were then taken to people's homes; and secondly, in

25 certain areas it was noticed that weapons were being delivered by

Page 4664

1 military helicopters. This is why we stated that this was not the

2 appropriate way to preserve the peace in this area.

3 Q. I refer you to the third paragraph in this document, which states

4 as follows: "We use this opportunity to invite representatives of other

5 peoples and political organisations to join open interparty talks as we

6 strongly believe that this is the only way to reach desired effects.

7 Violence would bring nothing but chaos, and in the end people would still

8 have to talk to each other."

9 I also refer you to the first sentence of the last substantial

10 paragraph on page 2, which reads: "We want to talk around a table, not

11 over the barrel of a gun."

12 Can you comment on those statements.

13 A. In this way, we were attempting to organise a discussion about

14 this matter, given that the security and political situation had

15 deteriorated. We wanted to speak about this openly, and we wanted to

16 attempt to deal with the situation and resolve the difficulties and avoid

17 having the population armed, as we thought that this was to -- this was

18 not useful in the area. We thought that it would be normal to try and

19 preserve the peace in the area and to preserve the good relationships.

20 We attempted to do this through interparty discussions.

21 Q. What was the response of the representatives of the SDS to your

22 attempts to discuss the security issues in the context of interparty

23 discussions?

24 A. All political representatives responded to this proposal for

25 discussions apart from the SDS representatives.

Page 4665

1 Q. Thank you, Mr. Egrlic. I've finished with that document.

2 In 1991 and 1992, what positions did Radoslav Brdjanin hold?

3 A. Your Honours, could the question put to me be more specific?

4 JUDGE ORIE: Would you please reformulate your question,

5 Mr. Margetts.


7 Q. Mr. Egrlic, do you know of a man named Radoslav Brdjanin?

8 A. I do.

9 Q. In 1991, was he a deputy in the Serbian Assembly?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And when the Autonomous Region of Krajina was formed, what

12 position did Radoslav Brdjanin hold?

13 A. He was the President of the Crisis Staff of the Autonomous Region

14 of Krajina.

15 Q. When did you first hear of the Crisis Staff of the Autonomous

16 Region of Krajina?

17 A. It was around mid-1991.

18 Q. Did Brdjanin communicate with the SDS representatives in Kljuc?

19 A. He did.

20 Q. How did he communicate with them?

21 A. Well, he communicated with them, since people from the SDS went

22 to joint meetings in Banja Luka, and he communicated with them on the

23 phone by using the fax, et cetera.

24 Q. When you say he communicated by using the fax, did you ever see

25 any facsimile that he sent to the representatives in the SDS in Kljuc?

Page 4666

1 A. I saw one such fax.

2 Q. When you saw that fax, how did you come to see a copy of it?

3 A. It was probably received by -- because of a mistake made by the

4 secretary. She brought the fax to my office with the other mail,

5 probably by mistake.

6 Q. When you received it, what did you do with it?

7 A. As I saw that the fax wasn't for me, I made a copy and I returned

8 the original to Mr. Banjac through the secretary.

9 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, I'd like to show the witness the next

10 exhibit, which is the next one following -- under P227. It's dated 29

11 October 1991.

12 JUDGE ORIE: That will then be P228 for the original in B/C/S and

13 P228.1 for the English translation.

14 Q. Mr. Egrlic, have you seen this document before?

15 A. Yes, I have.

16 Q. Is this the facsimile that you received?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. You say you copied this document. Did you retain the copy you

19 made of it?

20 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, it seems an obvious correction.

21 Mr. Margetts refers to it as a fax. In fact, it's really -- we suggest

22 it's fairly obviously a telex, because it says so, apart from anything

23 else, and that is consistent with the format. We might as well have that

24 cleared up, in case we're wrong about that.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We might have almost forgotten about the

Page 4667

1 existence of telexes, but it very much has the appearance of a telex.


3 Q. Mr. Egrlic, we have referred to this document as a facsimile. Is

4 this document in fact a telex?

5 A. Yes.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. This is the document as you copied it?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is the document that I copied

8 and that I had with me.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Was there a stamp on it already when you copied it?

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Then it's not a telex. It's then a telefax copy of

12 a telex, I take it, because otherwise the stamp could not be there,

13 because stamps cannot be put on a telex. It seems that -- at least, it

14 has the appearance - but perhaps the parties could discuss it over the

15 next break - it seems to be a telex which then has further been

16 transmitted, perhaps through telefax. Although there's no ID of any

17 telefax -- no dates, no times. Unless the stamp -- well, the witness

18 said the stamp was on it already when he copied it.

19 Mr. Margetts.

20 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, in the next few questions, I'd just

21 like to clarify exactly what the status of this particular version of

22 that document is.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. I was too eager, perhaps.

24 Please proceed.


Page 4668

1 Q. Mr. Egrlic, the copy of this document that you had in 1991, what

2 happened to it?

3 A. Well, after a certain period of time, they started implementing

4 the items that have been listed in the document.

5 Q. Mr. Egrlic, at this stage I'm just referring to the physical

6 piece of paper that you held in your hand. Did you take that home with

7 you? And if so, what happened to the document and where is it today?

8 A. I took it home with me, but my house was set on fire and it burnt

9 down, as did other objects and items there.

10 Q. However, the document you have before you today is another copy

11 of that document that you saw in 1991.

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Did you speak to Mr. Banjac about this document?

14 A. Yes. I said that I had seen the document and that the contents

15 of the document seemed to amount to introducing a state of emergency,

16 which is only appropriate in a time of war.

17 Q. What did he say to you in response to your comments?

18 A. He said that this was an order from above, and he joked. When I

19 asked whether Mr. Brdjanin was really of this opinion, he said, "Forget

20 about Brdjo. Brdjo is mad." And that was the end of it.

21 Q. Whilst his response was nonchalant, did subsequent events appear

22 to indicate that this document was a document to be considered seriously?

23 A. Yes. On the basis of this document, a number of steps were taken

24 by the SDS, the Serbian Democratic Party, so that in the forthcoming

25 period these items were implemented.

Page 4669

1 Q. Were most of the items listed, numbered 1 to 14, implemented by

2 the Kljuc SDS?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. You'll note, Mr. Egrlic, in the first paragraph of the document

5 there's a reference to a meeting of all municipal presidents on

6 26 October 1991 in Banja Luka which was chaired by Dr. Karadzic. Did you

7 discuss with Mr. Banjac whether or not he attended this meeting?

8 A. No, I didn't, but I knew that he was in contact with him, since

9 he would travel to Banja Luka.

10 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, I'd like to show the witness the next

11 exhibit and that is the next one on the exhibit list, dated 31 October

12 1991.

13 Q. Mr. Egrlic, do you recognise this document?

14 A. Yes.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Registrar, I don't have the number.

16 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the number will be P229 and P229.1

17 for the English translation.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

19 Please proceed, Mr. Margetts.


21 Q. Mr. Egrlic, I'll repeat the question: Do you recognise this

22 document?

23 A. Yes, I do.

24 Q. Are you the joint author of this document?

25 A. I am.

Page 4670

1 Q. Was the content of this document communicated to the people of

2 Kljuc?

3 A. It -- the contents of the document were made known over the

4 radio.

5 Q. Can I refer you to the second paragraph, and in particular the

6 last sentence in the second paragraph. The document refers to the telex

7 which we have just seen and marked as Exhibit P228 and summarises the

8 contents of this telex as being a "direction to organise life in

9 conditions of war." Is that an accurate statement of what you considered

10 the telex from Brdjanin dated 29 October 1991 to be?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. In response to that telex, you drafted this document and made

13 this plea to the people of Kljuc.

14 A. That's correct.

15 Q. Can I refer you to the second page of the document and the last

16 two paragraphs that appear there, and I'll quote those paragraphs and

17 I'll ask for your comment in relation to them.

18 You stated: "We cry out in plain language: Let those who want

19 to wage war, let the war move into their homes but without us, the

20 Muslims of Kljuc. We are happy with the way things are. They have

21 learned to live honestly and modestly and even in this crisis are

22 managing without the war or the results of war.

23 "Therefore, let this address of ours be yet another appeal for

24 peace, even though we know that it will not echo far or see the light of

25 day because there are forces whom the information blockade suits fine.

Page 4671

1 That is why this is the last plea with which we ask those whose minds

2 have been clouded by Mars to come to their senses."

3 Mr. Egrlic, what did you intend to communicate by this plea, and

4 to whom was this plea directed?

5 A. It was directed to those forces from the Serbian Democratic Party

6 which entered ever deeper into the preparations for war in the territory

7 of Kljuc municipality and to all the citizens. The aim was to provide

8 them with information as to what was going on in the territory of Kljuc

9 and what activities were being undertaken.

10 Q. And by communicating with the citizens, what were you hoping that

11 the citizens' reaction to this communication would be?

12 A. We were hoping that the healthy forces that still existed in all

13 the ethnic groups would condemn these activities and that the system of

14 armament would be interrupted and that people would not be dragged into a

15 war situation.

16 Q. I refer you back to the last sentence of the second paragraph,

17 where you stated that the facsimile from Brdjanin was tantamount to

18 "organising life in conditions of war." When you wrote that, were you

19 referring to the items 1 to 14 [Realtime transcript read in error: "4"]

20 and in particularly, were you referring to the direction to set up a

21 command of the town and to set up round-the-clock duty?

22 A. Yes. All of that mostly referred to the activities that were

23 being undertaken as if there was a war. The introduction of the town

24 command meant the interruption of work of all the legally and

25 democratically elected bodies of government. In practical terms, this

Page 4672

1 was the introduction of a military administration in this area.

2 Q. Who controlled that military administration?

3 A. It was the Crisis Staff of the SDS.

4 Q. You saw this order from Brdjanin. Did you consider that this

5 military administration was controlled by the Regional Crisis Staff?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. You saw in this telex that the order followed a meeting in Banja

8 Luka on the 26th of October with Dr. Karadzic. Who did you think

9 ultimately controlled this military administration?

10 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, before this question is pursued, we

11 need to be very clear that this witness is a witness of fact. He is not

12 here as an expert witness; he is not here to express opinions, unless

13 those opinions are based on facts within his knowledge. So the basis of

14 any such question where his opinion is being sought must concentrate on

15 whether in the first place he knows of any facts. And then he should

16 tell the Tribunal what facts he knows and not stray into opinion, which

17 we've had in the past sometimes in the case, matters of speculation or

18 views which are simply not based on fact. And it is important in these

19 critical areas that that's the way the matter is approached.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Margetts, would you lay a proper factual

21 foundation for any questions about who controlled who.

22 Please proceed.


24 Q. Mr. Egrlic, when you received the facsimile of 29 October 1991,

25 did you read it?

Page 4673

1 A. I did.

2 Q. Did you observe that the order from Brdjanin was made following a

3 meeting with Karadzic on 26 October 1991?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. On the basis of that fact, did you come to a conclusion as to

6 whether or not Karadzic knew of these 14 steps that were set out in this

7 document?

8 A. It says on the document that it was drafted in agreement with

9 Mr. Karadzic, so it is beyond any dispute that he knew.

10 Q. When you read that document, did you see --

11 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, could that document be returned to

12 the witness.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Usher, would you please assist.

14 MR. MARGETTS: That is Exhibit P228.

15 JUDGE ORIE: 228.


17 Q. When you read that document, Mr. Egrlic, did you see that it is

18 headed "Order of the SDS Sarajevo"?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. When you read "Order of the SDS Sarajevo," who did you think

21 constituted the leadership in Sarajevo?

22 A. I can see from the document that the leadership of the party

23 drafted this order and forwarded it to the lower levels, down to the

24 municipal committees or boards. And the leader of the SDS at the time

25 was Mr. Karadzic. And in his inner circle was Mrs. Plavsic,

Page 4674

1 Mr. Krajisnik, Mr. Koljevic, and so on and so forth.

2 Q. When you read the words "Order of the SDS Sarajevo," who did you

3 think in the leadership in Sarajevo was ordering that this take place?

4 A. I thought that it was the president [Realtime transcript read in

5 error: "Presidency"] of the SDS who had obviously discussed it with his

6 associates and agreed on it.

7 Q. Just to clarify that previous answer. It says: "I thought it

8 was the Presidency of the SDS." Did you say "Presidency" or did you say

9 "president"?

10 A. The Presidency, headed by Karadzic.

11 MR. STEWART: Question number one is what he said. Question

12 number two is what he chooses to give as his answer now. I don't know,

13 of course, but sitting to my left is somebody that does know. We believe

14 he did say "president." So first of all, we need to establish what he

15 did say in the first answer; and then if he wants to change it or expand

16 it and so on, then at least the Trial Chamber can see that that's what

17 he's doing.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Let me first ask you: When you first answered that

19 question for the first time, did you say "president" or did you upon the

20 additional question by Mr. Margetts expound your answer and say

21 "Presidency," headed by Mr. Karadzic? What was your first answer?

22 I'm not saying whether it's right or wrong. That's not the issue. I'd

23 just like to know. Otherwise, we have to replay the tapes.

24 What was your first answer, that it was obviously the president

25 or the Presidency?

Page 4675

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I first said that it was the

2 president with his associates, and his associates were members of the

3 Presidency of the party.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Of course, there's always an opportunity for

5 the parties to -- let me just scroll back for a second.

6 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters may confirm that it was "the

7 president" the first time.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you for the confirmation by the

9 interpreters.

10 I'll just reread the part. So the main distinction between the

11 first answer is that it was the president with his associates, and the

12 second answer was the Presidency, headed by the president. That has been

13 clarified.

14 Please proceed.

15 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, since we have had a break to clarify

16 the record, I'd just like to refer back to line 11.34.07, and there's a

17 reference there to the numbers 1 to 4. I think that's an interpretation

18 error. The transcript should read "1 to 14."

19 MR. STEWART: Yes, we agree with that, Your Honour. We remember

20 that was what was said and that's what it appeared on the transcript. So

21 we agree with that correction.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's then corrected.

23 Please proceed.


25 Q. Mr. Egrlic, you referred to the president and his associates.

Page 4676

1 Who were his associates?

2 A. Mr. Nikola Koljevic, Mrs. Plavsic, Mr. Karadzic. Those were the

3 people who were the top of the leadership of the SDS party in Sarajevo.

4 Q. Mr. Egrlic, I asked you about the president and his associates,

5 and we may have a misunderstanding here. When I was referring to the

6 president, I was referring to the president of the party, Dr. Karadzic,

7 not the president of the Assembly, Momcilo Krajisnik. Who were the

8 associates of the president of the party, Mr. Karadzic, that you were

9 referring to?

10 A. Members of the Presidency of the party, the individuals whose

11 names I have mentioned. In addition to their duties in the state bodies,

12 they were also members of the SDS leadership.

13 Q. Mr. Egrlic, I'm sorry to ask you this again, and I know you've

14 named various people as the associates of Mr. Karadzic, but I need to

15 just clarify this matter, because I think there may have been some

16 misunderstanding earlier. So I'll just ask you to state again who were

17 these associates of Mr. Karadzic that you were referring to. If you

18 could just name them again.

19 A. I meant Mrs. Plavsic, Mr. Nikola Koljevic, and Mr. Krajisnik.

20 MR. STEWART: Your Honour --

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Yes, I was about -- I don't know whether you

22 have the same in your mind or not. I'll let you first see and then we'll

23 see whether it's the same.

24 MR. STEWART: We'll see if same minds think alike, Your Honour.

25 Mr. Margetts has find finally got the answer that he had to keep

Page 4677

1 on casting his line into the water for. It is improper of Mr. Margetts,

2 we suggest, to have introduced the name "Mr. Krajisnik" into the question

3 that began: "Mr. Egrlic, I asked you about the president and his

4 associates. We may have a misunderstanding here. When I was referring

5 to the president, I was referring to the president of the party,

6 Dr. Karadzic, not the president of the Assembly, Momcilo Krajisnik."

7 We perceive that as a deliberate introduction of Mr. Krajisnik's

8 name into the question, and that was -- the harm had been done by the

9 time the question was asked, and I didn't object because it's been done

10 and it's apparent what has been happening, and then when we cross-examine

11 and/or when we make our submissions later in the case, this whole passage

12 will have to be looked at it.

13 But we will ask Mr. Margetts -- it was perhaps not consciously

14 deliberate to do it that way, but to be extremely cautious. Mr. Margetts

15 knew what he was looking for here as the answer, and it required the

16 utmost care to make sure that the question was not formulated in such a

17 way as to signal the answer, because these are the critical areas of the

18 case.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Although it was in the first time, as far

20 as I remember, that Mr. -- the name of Mr. Krajisnik was mentioned by the

21 witness a couple of times before that. So it's not a new introduction,

22 although it was in this question newly introduced.

23 But I have a totally different question for the witness, although

24 perhaps related, because that's the basis of the whole part of this

25 examination.

Page 4678

1 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, may I respond to Mr. Stewart's


3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If there's anything to be added --

4 MR. MARGETTS: I appreciate that in some circumstances

5 Mr. Stewart would be correct, but in the specific circumstances of this

6 question and this answer, Mr. Stewart's comments, I don't think, have any

7 weight at all, the reason being that there was clearly an error in the

8 answer. The question was: Who are the associates of Mr. Karadzic? And

9 there was clearly a simple error of inserting the name "Karadzic," who

10 cannot be an associate of himself.


12 MR. MARGETTS: Instead of the person that had been named earlier,

13 Mr. Krajisnik. And I attempted in the most fair way to correct what was

14 merely an error.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think I already related a bit the complaint

16 by Mr. Stewart. Nevertheless, the question could have been put again to

17 him and asked, listen well, and without mentioning that name, although

18 that name was not such a surprise in view of the previous testimony just

19 a couple of lines before. So I would say it's not -- the objection could

20 certainly be of guidance for you to -- if you want to repeat the

21 question, not then in the repetition to perhaps add something that was

22 not in the earlier question that was misunderstood by the witness. And

23 at the same time, it's not that of a surprise since the name was

24 mentioned before.

25 Mr. Egrlic, I would like to ask you the following: Before we had

Page 4679

1 this discussion on what your first answer and what your second answer

2 was, "president," "Presidency," in your first answer you said the

3 following: "You see, I can see from the document that the --" no, I have

4 got the wrong source now.

5 When you were asked: "When you read the words 'order of the SDS

6 Sarajevo', who did you think in the leadership of Sarajevo was ordering

7 that this take place?" And then your answer was: "I thought that it was

8 the - and we later clarified that - the president of the SDS, who had

9 obviously discussed it with his associates and agreed on it."

10 What made it obvious to you that he discussed this with his

11 associates, especially in view of who you later named as being his

12 associates? What made it obvious? Is it from the document, or was there

13 any other reason?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I draw this conclusion based on the

15 fact that in this document it says that under the leadership of

16 Dr. Karadzic this meeting had been held. And a meeting implies that his

17 close associates were present. And this also implies that members of the

18 Presidency of the party were there as well as the representatives of the

19 power from lower levels from the territories of municipalities in Bosnia

20 and Herzegovina. That is why I believe that all of them were somehow

21 abreast of this.

22 JUDGE ORIE: The document in its English translation says that an

23 order was made public "At the meeting of all the municipal presidents on

24 the 26th of October, 1991, chaired by Dr. Karadzic." In your answer, you

25 referred to the -- you say the document says under the - as it is

Page 4680

1 translated - the leadership of Dr. Karadzic. I take it that you refer to

2 the chair of Dr. Karadzic over this meeting, as this document says. And

3 you say: "A meeting implies that his close associates were present,"

4 whereas the document does not say any more than that this was a meeting

5 of the municipal presidents.

6 What makes you believe that a meeting of the municipal presidents

7 would necessarily be -- would have been held in the presence of the other

8 associates you mentioned, which I would say were of the central SDS

9 level?

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In practice, it was known that the

11 president of a party did not attend a meeting on his own, without his

12 associates, and the title itself, "The order of the SDS Sarajevo," speaks

13 for itself. It shows that the leadership of the SDS had agreed on this

14 order and handed it down to the lower levels.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But these are two different issues. The one

16 is who had previously agreed on the programme which was then made public

17 in a meeting; and the second issue is who were present at that meeting.

18 That's not the same.

19 Let's start with the second part. You say it was publicly known,

20 I think you said, that the president would not -- let me just try to find

21 your words: "The president of the party did not attend a meeting on his

22 own." Is that known for public meetings, for private meetings, for --

23 how was that known?

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I meant the system that was

25 followed in the organisation of meetings. It would be normal to expect

Page 4681

1 that the president, when it came to discussing such important issues,

2 that the president would not be alone, that he would rather come

3 accompanied by his closest associates, and that a meeting of this

4 importance, where such important issues were discussed would be held in

5 the presence of his associates.

6 JUDGE ORIE: That's the inference you make. That's clear to me.

7 Please proceed, Mr. Margetts.

8 I put these questions because there has been a long examination

9 on who exactly were the associates, where -- and of course I kept clearly

10 in my mind that we need a factual basis for putting questions to a

11 witness, especially if it comes to inferences, and it was, at least for

12 me, totally unclear from a factual point of view and what's the use of

13 further talking about things that have been repeatedly been presented to

14 this Chamber if there's not the link with the special event we have in

15 mind.

16 Please proceed.

17 MR. MARGETTS: Thank you, Your Honour.

18 Q. Mr. Egrlic, you stated earlier that you knew the president of the

19 Municipal Assembly, Mr. Banjac, very well from prior to 1991. During

20 1991, he was president of the Municipal Assembly and you were president

21 of the Executive Board. Can you tell me how frequently you would meet

22 with him.

23 A. We would meet almost every morning. The reason for that was the

24 fact that we discussed our daily activities and we had our first cup of

25 coffee together. And having this cup of coffee, we would discuss the

Page 4682

1 activities that lay ahead of us on that day.

2 Q. During the course of these morning-coffee sessions which you had

3 on a daily basis throughout 1991, would you discuss with him the policies

4 of your party and the policies of his party?

5 A. Yes. There were different topics that we discussed. We had

6 quite open discussions on all of the issues.

7 Q. Mr. Egrlic, I've finished with the document that we were looking

8 at, so that can be returned.

9 You stated that you had quite open discussions with him and that

10 you discussed the policies of your respective parties. In the course of

11 those discussions, did you gain an impression as to the extent of

12 authority that Mr. Banjac had over the policy decisions made in Kljuc

13 within the context of the policies that were set within his party?

14 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I don't know why Mr. Margetts adds on

15 the last bit of the question, because it's completely unnecessary. The

16 question could and should have simply stopped at "authority that

17 Mr. Banjac had over the policy decisions made in Kljuc." We do invite

18 Mr. Margetts to keep the questions at a minimum and not add anything

19 which might be regarded as a pointer to where the question is going.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts, would you like to respond.

21 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour. It doesn't seem possible to me

22 when you're talking about a leader of the SDS in a municipality to be

23 discussing anything else when you're talking about the level of his

24 independent authority than his authority within the context of the party.

25 So whilst I accept Mr. Stewart's comment that the question could have

Page 4683












12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and

13 French transcripts correspond













Page 4684

1 stood without that addition, it doesn't appear to me to either add or

2 take away anything. And I'm quite happy for the question to proceed on

3 the basis of what was his authority in respect of the policies set in

4 Kljuc.

5 MR. STEWART: Yes, Your Honour, that --

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. There are two aspects: First of all, if we're

7 talking about policies, I think it would be fair to narrow them down so

8 as to exclude at what time the garbage bins should be put out of the

9 houses -- well, all kind of other matters, so to narrow that down. That

10 is not necessarily done by referring to the party. You could name the

11 issues or -- so therefore, I think to one extent I agree with

12 Mr. Margetts that narrowing down the field of what could be covered by a

13 question - I mean, policies could be a lot of other things as well -

14 where we are focussing on certain matters of policy, I would say; on the

15 other hand, not necessarily done by relating it to party issues.

16 But please proceed.

17 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, may I comment, Your Honour?


19 MR. STEWART: Mr. Margetts's response actually reinforces my

20 point and makes it: That precisely because the context was clear, which

21 I agree with - I agree with that comment of Mr. Margetts's; it didn't

22 need saying - the difficulty is that if you then -- the damage has been

23 done now, so I'm really making the objection because I want to signal it

24 for the future --


Page 4685

1 MR. STEWART: -- that by the time I object to the question, the

2 damage has been done. The objectionable part of the question is there.

3 To introduce something which is admittedly part of the clear context as a

4 specific part of the question is capable of giving a pointer as to where

5 the question is going and it should be avoided.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The -- yes, I think I said that, that if you

7 want to narrow down the issue in order to exclude all of the irrelevant

8 things, that you should not do so, or as I said, not necessarily do that

9 by referring to the party, because that's, of course, another issue. So

10 to that extent, I think I partially agreed with your comments, and

11 Mr. Margetts may proceed.


13 Q. Mr. Egrlic, during the course of 1991 when you had these daily

14 meetings with Mr. Banjac, did you gain an impression as to what extent

15 Mr. Banjac was able to make independent decisions?

16 A. He could take decisions that fell within the scope of the

17 president of the Municipal Assembly and decisions for which he had

18 authority at the municipal level.

19 Q. Can you describe to the Court what those matters that he had

20 independent authority in regard to were.

21 A. Well, preparations for the Assembly for certain decisions that

22 were to be discussed at the Assembly. This mostly had to do with tasks

23 relating to the municipal administrative organ and to tasks relating to

24 public utilities in the territory of the municipality. It also had to do

25 with decisions relating to the economy, to the extent that the Assembly

Page 4686

1 had influence on such matters. So these are the tasks dealt with at the

2 municipal level.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Let's try not to -- on the basis of the objection,

4 I'm afraid that we are getting nowhere, because we're trying to

5 circumvent that.

6 Mr. Egrlic, you told us that you had -- you frequently had

7 conversations with Mr. Banjac on a daily basis. We discussed a couple of

8 minutes earlier the telefax or telex you had seen with instructions, that

9 he -- were apparently sent by the SDS Sarajevo through the intermediary

10 of Mr. Brdjanin. During your conversations, did you ever gain any

11 awareness of Mr. Banjac being exposed to such instructions or guidance on

12 other occasions than this specific occasion where you saw the telex?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I noticed towards the end of 1991

14 and at the beginning of 1992 that there were some very important issues

15 in the territory of the municipality and that he wasn't able to deal with

16 them on his own until he had consulted with the higher authorities. That

17 is quite natural, since he personally had authority as president of the

18 Assembly to deal with certain issues on an independent basis.

19 JUDGE ORIE: When you say "higher authorities," what kind of

20 authorities you would have in mind?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, when I say "higher

22 authorities," I am referring to the higher authorities in Banja Luka. I

23 have an example I can provide you with: When they decided to change the

24 insignia on uniforms, given our different points of view, given that we

25 were of the opinion that they shouldn't be changed until the Constitution

Page 4687

1 of Bosnia and Herzegovina as a state was changed, they nevertheless

2 proceeded to change these insignia. And finally --

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'm interested to know what authority was

4 consulted, but perhaps you were just about to tell me.

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He confirmed with the leadership of

6 the party and with the organs that had already been established in the

7 Autonomous Region of Banja Luka.

8 JUDGE ORIE: When you say "leadership of the party," did you mean

9 at the regional level --

10 MR. STEWART: Your Honour.


12 MR. STEWART: May I say, Your Honour, with the utmost respect,

13 although the Trial Chamber naturally has considerably more freedom, I

14 suggest there should be limits to the extent to which questions from the

15 Trial Chamber should lead. If that question had come from the

16 Prosecution --

17 JUDGE ORIE: You would have objected.

18 MR. STEWART: I would undoubtedly have objected.


20 MR. STEWART: And Your Honour, with respect, I do present the

21 same objection.


23 [Trial Chamber confers]

24 JUDGE ORIE: I found it appropriate to consult my colleagues

25 first before I would continue.

Page 4688

1 You interrupted me, Mr. Stewart, when I said "leadership of the

2 party." Did you mean at the regional level, the municipal level, the

3 republican level? I wanted to open all levels. You then interrupted me

4 and you objected.

5 Could you tell us: When you said "the leadership of the party,"

6 what level you had in mind?

7 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I beg your pardon, Your Honour. I,

8 with respect, Your Honour --

9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, you may later --

10 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, it will be too late. With respect,

11 Your Honour, the reason I interrupted was precisely because the damage is

12 done if I don't step in when I see the objectionable part of the question

13 coming. And Your Honour, the same applies; and Your Honour, must, with

14 respect, give me the latitude, please, as Defence counsel, to do that. I

15 don't wish any discourtesy whatever in interrupting, Your Honour, and I

16 hope that I would never do so unnecessarily. When I see that --

17 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask the witness to take his headphones off.

18 Could you please take his headphones. Do you read and understand

19 English? Perhaps before -- do you read and understand English? Perhaps

20 -- I'm sorry.

21 Do you read and understand English? No? Then perhaps the

22 witness could take his headphones off.

23 Mr. Stewart, you're invited to say where you think I unacceptably

24 leaded the witness.

25 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, the reference -- Your Honour

Page 4689

1 was -- it was clear. I was in fact right. Your Honour --

2 JUDGE ORIE: No, whether you were right or not, I want to ask you

3 where you think I leaded unacceptably the witness.

4 MR. STEWART: Yes, Your Honour, my comment that I was right was a

5 lead-in to the point I was saying.

6 JUDGE ORIE: It was an unnecessary lead-in. Please proceed.

7 MR. STEWART: Well, I don't accept that, Your Honour. But with

8 respect, I accept that ruling. I've said it now.

9 When I interrupted Your Honour's question, Your Honour had

10 referred -- I better be careful to make sure I've got it absolutely

11 right.


13 MR. STEWART: And I'm not simply operating on fallible human

14 memory. Excuse me, Your Honour. I have to lean over to the laptop here.

15 Yes. Your Honour said, "When you said leadership of the party,

16 did you mean at the regional level?"

17 Now, Your Honour, I supposed at that point because of the tone of

18 Your Honour's question and the way of which it was phrased, the question

19 was inevitably going to go on into other possibilities.


21 MR. STEWART: And because it was clearly going to go on into

22 other possibilities, I felt it was necessary for me to register my

23 objection before Your Honour went into those possibilities, because those

24 were the substance of my objection. So that is why --

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But, Mr. Stewart, if we're talking about the

Page 4690

1 leadership of a party, it should be further identified - also in favour

2 of the accused - what level that was. And I have carefully chosen not to

3 start with the highest level and to say "the regional level," because on

4 the basis of the information the Trial Chamber received until now,

5 Mr. Krajisnik was not on the regional -- I would say the Banja Luka level

6 but on a -- a higher level active in the party, and I carefully chose not

7 to mention that first in order to avoid leading. I want you to know

8 this.

9 If you say "at what level," that would be -- would have been

10 another way of dealing with that. By the knowledge the Chamber gained

11 until now, we know that the SDS was mainly organised on the local

12 municipal level, on the regional level, and on the highest, the state

13 level.

14 I wanted to make sure that -- to the witness what my question was

15 about, including all possible levels, certainly not mentioning the level

16 that many have said your client was at, to mention that first.

17 Is there any need to respond? Otherwise, I'll continue.

18 MR. STEWART: Yes, indeed there is, Your Honour. Because -- may

19 I refresh my memory on the transcript after that objection.


21 [Defence counsel confer]

22 MR. STEWART: Yes. Your Honour, then Your Honour said, "I found

23 it appropriate to consult my colleagues first before I continue. You

24 interrupted me, Mr. Stewart, when I said 'leadership of the party.' Did

25 you mean at the regional level, the municipal level, or republican level.

Page 4691

1 I wanted to open all levels. You then interrupted me and you objected.

2 Would you tell us..."

3 And then you ask the question, Your Honour: "When you said the

4 leadership of the party, what level did you have in mind?"

5 So in the preamble or the introduction to that question, Your

6 Honour then did expound exactly that range of possibilities which was

7 precisely the substance of my objection, and the --

8 JUDGE ORIE: What other levels would there be, as a possibility?

9 MR. STEWART: It was unnecessary to state them, Your Honour,

10 because whether they're presented in ascending order or descending order

11 makes no difference. The presentation -- I would have objected if the

12 Prosecution had put the question in that form, because it is precisely

13 presenting the witness with, if you like, a menu of choices. The witness

14 is a graduate engineer. The question "what level" is quite sufficiently

15 comprehensible to this witness without having all the levels spelt out

16 for him so that he can see which of the boxes he is required to tick in

17 the course of his evidence.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, what is a leading question? A leading

19 question is a question which either suggests the answer to be given to

20 that question or a question which includes a suggestion of something that

21 exists which has not yet been established. If you say that this question

22 was leading to the extent that it suggests that it should be the

23 highest-step level, the medium level, or the low level, then you're right

24 that it suggests one of these three answers. If you would say that the

25 question suggests something that has not yet been established, which

Page 4692

1 would be that there are these three kinds of -- three levels of -- three

2 levels of leadership, I would say that the Chamber takes the position

3 that these three levels as such have been established and are not without

4 proper foundation.

5 Let me -- give me one second to consult with my colleagues.

6 [Trial Chamber confers]

7 JUDGE ORIE: The decision of the Chamber is that the objection is

8 rejected. To the extent that there was any leading element in this

9 question, it was not unacceptable, in the view of the Chamber.

10 Could the witness please have his headphones on again.

11 The Chamber at the same time conveys that even if mentioning a

12 certain part in a question is not necessary, it's not therefore

13 unacceptable to do it.

14 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, can I make it clear. I wouldn't go

15 that far. I don't suggest that because a part of a question it is

16 therefore leading. That would be an absurd proposition, and I don't put

17 it forward.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Egrlic, we're back with you. Mr. Egrlic, well,

19 you've heard my question before. When you referred to the leadership --

20 but let me just try to find it again -- what did you have in mind? What

21 level of leadership, as far as the party is concerned?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I had the regional and central

23 level in mind.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

25 Mr. Margetts, you may proceed.

Page 4693


2 Q. Mr. Egrlic, when you say "the central level," what do you mean by

3 "the central level"?

4 A. Well, I mean the Presidency of the Serbian Democratic Party.

5 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, I note the time. Would this be an

6 appropriate time for a break?

7 JUDGE ORIE: This would be an appropriate time for a break.

8 We'll have a break of 20 minutes. We'll resume at a quarter to 1.00.

9 --- Recess taken at 12.24 p.m.

10 --- On resuming at 12.52 p.m.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Before we resume the examination of the

12 witness, I have to correct one thing. Just before the break, I said that

13 the Chamber rejected the objection, but there was no objection. There

14 was just an indication of what the objection would have been if the

15 question would have been put by the Prosecutor.

16 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, that's -- sorry, that's -- perhaps I

17 should make it clear. That's actually not my position, Your Honour. I

18 would have -- I would have -- well, I want to make it clear, Your Honour.

19 I would -- I started off by saying I would certainly have made the

20 objection if the Prosecution asked the question. It was an objection,

21 and I would wish it to be recorded and noted as an objection, Your

22 Honour.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then the objection -- then the objection is

24 denied.

25 The Chamber considered during the break another matter, and that

Page 4694

1 is what are the limits of questions to be put by the Chamber. The

2 Chamber certainly doesn't take the position that leading questions are

3 excluded by all means if they are put by the Chamber, and it's also a

4 matter of fairness of the examination which is at the top.

5 Thirdly, the Chamber wanted to draw the attention of the parties

6 to the fact that only in exceptional circumstances the parties should

7 interfere when the Chamber examines a witness. And the Chamber is also

8 of the opinion that the situation which had happened was not of such an

9 exceptional character.

10 Then, Mr. Margetts, please proceed.

11 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, I would like to show the witness the

12 next exhibit, which is the exhibit dated 7 November 1991, translation ERN

13 is 00568691.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Registrar, that would have number ...?

15 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the exhibit number will be P230 and

16 P230.1 for the English translation.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

18 Please proceed, Mr. Margetts.


20 Q. Mr. Egrlic, do you recognise this announcement?

21 A. I do.

22 Q. Are you the joint author of this announcement?

23 A. I am.

24 Q. Was this announcement communicated to the citizens of Kljuc?

25 A. It was.

Page 4695

1 Q. Mr. Egrlic, can I -- I will refer to each of the paragraphs in

2 this announcement in turn and I'll invite your comment in relation to

3 them.

4 The first paragraph I'll refer to is the second substantial

5 paragraph on the first page under the heading "Joint official

6 announcement." And I'll read that paragraph into the record and invite

7 your comment.

8 "In Bosnia and Herzegovina, the homeland of Muslims, Serbs, and

9 Croats, one people - this time the Serb people - have decided to express

10 their desire to break up Bosnia and Herzegovina in an unconstitutional

11 plebiscite, contrary to the common will and interests of the others.

12 Contrary to the will of the Parliament and based on the decision of the

13 self-declared Assembly of the Serb People, established illegally, the

14 Serbs and the SDS are, by this fact, expressing their will to break up

15 Bosnia and Herzegovina, close themselves into strictly nationalist

16 boundaries, and close the door to other peoples for the continued life

17 together in a single Bosnia and Herzegovina."

18 Mr. Egrlic, can you comment on that paragraph?

19 A. This announcement was issued with regard to the plebiscite of the

20 Serbian people at which the Serbian people opted to remain within the

21 former Yugoslavia, and our view of the matter has been expressed here.

22 It was tantamount to breaking up the common State of Bosnia and

23 Herzegovina. It was an illegal act, given that according to the

24 Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, proceeding in such a manner,

25 which leads to breaking up the territory of the state, is

Page 4696

1 unconstitutional.

2 Q. Specifically you say that the Serbs wished to close themselves

3 into strictly nationalist boundaries. What did you mean by that?

4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts, may I just interfere for one second.

5 The Chamber has heard quite some evidence on these plebiscites, and

6 what -- and to what extent would it assist the Chamber to hear the -- I

7 would say the personal appreciation of certain persons or even of a party

8 on the local level? Would that really add something to what is at the

9 core of this case?

10 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, this particular witness occupied a

11 high-level position in the Kljuc municipality.


13 MR. MARGETTS: And had a very close association with the SDS

14 leaders in that municipality.

15 In this particular document in regard to the plebiscite, there is

16 a clear expression by this witness of his contemporaneous opinion of the

17 practical consequences that would follow --

18 JUDGE ORIE: Why don't you then ask him about that. Practical

19 consequences, fine. But your question was: Could you comment on the

20 paragraph? And then we get a comment which is something totally in

21 accordance with what a lot of other witnesses have told us before. So

22 -- if you have specific issues, fine, but then focus on those.

23 Please proceed.

24 MR. MARGETTS: Thank you, Your Honour.

25 Q. Mr. Egrlic, I will proceed by directing your attention to

Page 4697

1 specific parts of this document that are of interest to the Trial

2 Chamber, and I will ask for your comment in relation to the practical

3 consequences of these particular matters.

4 In this first paragraph, you indicate that the direction that the

5 SDS is taking by holding this plebiscite is intended to result in the

6 Serbs closing themselves into strictly nationalist boundaries.

7 Practically, how did it result in Kljuc, in terms of boundaries between

8 the parties -- sorry, boundaries between nationalities?

9 A. This plebiscite resulted in the situation in which only Serbs

10 were asked to give their opinion on this issue. It was a mono-national

11 plebiscite. We believed that would lead to the deprivation of other

12 ethnic groups that resided in the area and the denial of their rights.

13 That's why we didn't agree to this type of public expression on the

14 status of ethnic groups in the former Yugoslavia, because Bosniaks

15 expressed their wish to remain in the former Yugoslavia, however on

16 somewhat different foundations, with a prior agreement with those who

17 wanted to make up this new state.

18 The organisation of a mono-ethnic state was perceived by us as a

19 problem for other ethnic groups which might continue to reside in the

20 area. We thought that their rights would be taken away from them and

21 that that would mean the end of a possibility for them to continue

22 residing in that area.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts, I'd really like you -- we again got a

24 general observation on the situation which is almost too well-known and

25 has got nothing specifically with Kljuc. Please would you guide the

Page 4698

1 witness in a more strict way to get additional information from Kljuc

2 that you are seeking.


4 Q. Thank you, Mr. Egrlic.

5 MR. MARGETTS: I've finished with that document.

6 Your Honour, I'd like to present the next document to the

7 witness, that is, a document dated 24 December 1991, and the ERN

8 for the translation is 00594891.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, that would then be number 231 for the

10 original and 231.1 for the English translation?

11 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours.

12 MR. STEWART: Your Honour -- I'm sorry. I beg your pardon, Your

13 Honours. I certainly didn't wish to interrupt. Before we finally leave

14 the previous exhibit, there's a rather strange but small point. But the

15 previous exhibit, P230, at the very foot of the first page Your Honour

16 will see the phrase "there would be no plebiscite" with an exclamation

17 mark. Does Your Honour see that? It's the exhibit that we were just

18 looking at a moment ago, 230. The joint official announcement.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Could you show it to me? Because I can't find it.

20 MR. STEWART: It's in the -- I'm sorry, it's 230.1, I think, the

21 English version.


23 MR. STEWART: Yes, I'm so sorry.

24 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that says, "There would be no plebiscite."

Page 4699

1 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, it's just that that exclamation mark

2 is just not there in the original. It's crept in. Sometimes punctuation

3 does have a force. After all, that's why exclamation marks exist.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So we'll get clarification for the exclamation

5 mark.

6 MR. STEWART: Yes. And then Ms. Cmeric also points out to me

7 that the italicisation of "Yugoslavia" has also been added somewhere.

8 This is -- we don't know how all this happens, but -- it's unfortunate

9 this that happenings, actually, but the same applies there. It's not

10 italicised in the original. Somebody is tinkering a bit somewhere. I

11 don't suggest it's the Prosecution; I'm not suggesting that, anything

12 dastardly, but somebody is tinkering with these translation.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I am even trying to ...

14 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, I note these differences, but -- I

15 don't know whether Mr. Stewart is linguistic expert in both English and

16 B/C/S, but the person who has translated this is. And insofar as the

17 italicisation and exclamation mark had been intended to be a clear

18 translation of the intent expressed in B/C/S, I'm unable to comment one

19 way or the other, other than to observe what Mr. Stewart has observed;

20 that literally the printing is not the same in the English as in the

21 B/C/S.

22 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour --

23 JUDGE ORIE: Let's not discuss this further. I think Mr. Stewart

24 has drawn the attention again to a similar issue which I raised several

25 times before. That means that the Prosecution is invited to look at

Page 4700

1 whether it was proper or not and explain to the Defence, and if it's not

2 proper, to present a new copy, a new English translation of the same

3 document.

4 Please proceed.

5 MR. MARGETTS: [Microphone not activated]

6 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the counsel, please.


8 Q. Mr. Egrlic, do you have before you a joint official announcement

9 dated 24 December 1991?

10 A. I do.

11 Q. Do you recognise this announcement?

12 A. I do.

13 Q. Are you the joint author of this announcement and was this

14 announcement communicated to the citizens of Kljuc?

15 A. Yes, and it was.

16 Q. In this announcement, you refer to a pro-war policy and the

17 failure of the SDS to attend the interparty council. Can you comment on

18 these matters.

19 A. This information was a reaction to the security and political

20 situation in the municipality during the time when this information was

21 drafted. More specifically, it refers to the event or the incident that

22 took place when the Serbian army units were departing for Croatia. They

23 were lined up in front of the municipal building in Kljuc. They fired

24 shots from various weapons and thus disturbed the citizens of the

25 Municipality of Kljuc.

Page 4701

1 It was also a reaction to the authorities turning the blind eye

2 to such a situation and particularly to the fact that the SDS

3 representatives did not participate in the multiparty council where this

4 issue was discussed and where a solution was being sought for such a

5 situation.

6 Q. Was it your impression that if the SDS had attended interparty

7 meetings at that stage, the security situation in Kljuc would have

8 improved?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. At that time, were the interparty discussions faltering?

11 A. There were difficulties, and the work of the Municipal Assembly

12 and its bodies also was faltering due to the deterioration of the

13 security situation.

14 Q. From the end of 1991 up until May 1992, how many Municipal

15 Assembly meetings were there?

16 A. I don't know exactly. After the multiparty election and the

17 establishment of the Municipality Assembly up to May 2000, there were a

18 total of 14 sessions.

19 Q. In your previous answer, you referred to May 2000. Did you in

20 fact mean May 1992?

21 A. You're right. Between the 1st of January, 1991 until May 1992.

22 Q. Was there a Council for National Defence established in Kljuc?

23 A. It was established. According to the statute, this is a

24 municipal body which is established and functions as a municipal body,

25 and it consists of the people who occupy positions -- the positions of

Page 4702

1 the president of the Assembly, the Executive Board, the Chief of Police,

2 the Secretariat for National Defence, and a certain number of people who

3 serve in the Assembly as representatives.

4 Q. In early 1992, how many meetings of this Council for National

5 Defence took place in Kljuc?

6 A. From the beginning of 1992 until May 1992, there were two such

7 meetings.

8 Q. Did anything productive come from those meetings?

9 A. It was already the time when the political views were very

10 different and the proposals advocated by the SDA, together with the MPs

11 from the Municipal Assembly, did not take off the ground. The ones that

12 did take off the ground were proposals of the SDS, who had a majority in

13 that council.

14 Q. Whilst the joint bodies of the municipality were not meeting

15 frequently in early 1992, did you, as president of the Executive Board of

16 the Municipal Assembly, continue to occupy an office in the same building

17 as both Mr. Jovo Banjac and Mr. Veljko Kondic?

18 A. I had my office there up to the 7th of May, 1992. It was in the

19 municipality building.

20 Q. Did you continue to discuss matters relevant to the security

21 situation and the government of Kljuc with them up until the 7th of May,

22 1992?

23 A. Yes. But not as often as before that.

24 Q. So instead of discussions on a daily basis, how frequently would

25 you meet with Mr. Banjac in particular and discuss issues with him?

Page 4703

1 A. During 1991, we had meetings on a daily basis almost. However,

2 at the beginning of 1992, our contacts may have been once or maybe twice

3 in a week. During the months of April and May, we only had one or two

4 contacts altogether.

5 Q. Thank you, Mr. Egrlic. I've finished with that document.

6 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, I'd like to show the witness the next

7 document, which is a document dated 16 January 1992.

8 JUDGE ORIE: And the number would be, Mr. Registrar ...?

9 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the numbers will be P232 and P232.1

10 for the English translation.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.


13 Q. Mr. Egrlic, have you seen this report before?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. The report refers to a joint meeting of the MBO and the SDA held

16 on the 14th of January, 1992. And I'd like to refer you to the paragraph

17 that appears at the bottom of the first page of this report - that's in

18 the B/C/S version - and it says: "The issue of our municipality topped

19 the agenda at the meeting. Four speakers urged the Muslims to pay back

20 the SDS in the same coin and form their own Muslim municipality in

21 Kljuc."

22 What steps did you take to form a Muslim municipality in Kljuc?

23 A. We presented this idea at a meeting of the Municipal Assembly of

24 Kljuc, and this happened once the Municipality of Kljuc was joined with

25 the Autonomous Region of Bosanska Krajina. The Bosniak people did not

Page 4704

1 find their place in that decision. That is why we thought that the

2 possible establishment of that municipality would result in the Bosniak

3 people being given an area where they will be able to exercise their

4 rights within the entire situation. However, this was just an idea which

5 was never followed through, because there were no conditions in place for

6 a referendum to take place and there were no conditions to hear the

7 people's opinion on that.

8 Q. I refer you to the last paragraph of this document, and it

9 specifically refers to a proposed referendum that was scheduled to take

10 place on the 16th and 17th of February. That referendum did not take

11 place; is that correct?

12 A. It is correct. The conditions for such a referendum were simply

13 not in place.

14 Q. When you say "the conditions for such a referendum," are you

15 referring to the security situation?

16 A. I'm referring to the security and political situation in the

17 municipality. We thought that this might cause dissatisfaction amongst

18 citizens of other ethnic groups and that ultimately this could lead to

19 the disruption of the security and political situation, which would get

20 out of hand.

21 Q. Thank you, Mr. Egrlic. I've finished with that document.

22 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, I'd like to show the witness the next

23 exhibit, which is a handwritten diary.

24 JUDGE ORIE: That would get, Mr. Registrar, number ...?

25 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the number will be P233 and P233.1

Page 4705

1 for the English translation.


3 Q. Mr. Egrlic, can you open this diary and refer to the first entry,

4 which is headed "Doboj, 5 February 1992." Mr. Egrlic, have you seen this

5 entry for 5 February 1992 and had an opportunity to read it before today?

6 A. The first time I saw this document was when I came here, to The

7 Hague.

8 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, wouldn't it be a good idea to

9 establish what the document is first, before we go into entries?

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I took it that you would quickly do that,

11 Mr. Margetts.


13 Q. Mr. Egrlic, you have before you a handwritten diary which refers

14 to various meetings of the SDS and other matters during the period 5

15 February 1992 through to 29 July 1992; is that correct?

16 A. Yes.

17 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, there are matters related to this

18 diary that it would be better to deal with in private session, and if,

19 Your Honour -- if we could go into private session.

20 JUDGE ORIE: You'd like to go into private session.

21 MR. MARGETTS: To explain those matters.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We will go into private session. Closed

23 session will not be necessary.


25 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll turn into private session.

Page 4706

1 [Private session]

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

Page 4707












12 Page 4707 redacted, private session














Page 4708












12 Page 4708 redacted, private session














Page 4709












12 Page 4709 redacted, private session














Page 4710

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 [Open session]

9 JUDGE ORIE: And it's confirmed on our screen.

10 Please proceed. You can put your headphones on again,

11 Mr. Egrlic.


13 Q. Mr. Egrlic, could you refer to the first entry that is set out

14 under the heading "Doboj: 5 February 1992." As you stated earlier,

15 you've been given the opportunity to read this entry since you arrived in

16 The Hague, and I'd like to ask you a couple of questions about it.

17 Set out under this heading are four agenda items that were

18 discussed at a meeting held in Doboj on 5 February 1992. The first item

19 is a report from the expanded session of the SFRY Presidency. And if you

20 look at the entry for item 1, it states that "Serbia's objective is to

21 ensure that Serbs live in a single state, regardless of what it is

22 called."

23 Were you aware of this policy?

24 A. [Microphone not activated]

25 Q. In Kljuc, what did you observe in respect of the implementation

Page 4711

1 of this policy?

2 A. [Microphone not activated]

3 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the witness, please.

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All the political steps taken, all

5 the political activities that were conducted - and to be more specific,

6 activities that concerned the army and weapons - all these activities

7 were in accordance with these ideas; that is to say, separation from the

8 territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina and annexation to the territory of

9 Serbia.


11 Q. Turning over the page, there's an entry under the heading "Item

12 2," which is headed "What stand has the SDS taken on Bosnia-Herzegovina?"

13 Underneath the heading that says "The stand Karadzic and Krajisnik

14 have taken," there is an entry, and it states: "Establish good

15 coordination and firm organisation of the party, the police, the

16 Territorial Defence, and the army." Can you comment on this particular

17 objective.

18 Mr. Egrlic, have you been able to find that entry? If not, I can

19 give you some assistance.

20 A. I haven't found it yet.

21 Q. It appears on the page marked "3 January."

22 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, excuse me.


24 MR. STEWART: Mr. Margetts said in referring to this document,

25 "Underneath the heading that says the stand Karadzic and Krajisnik have

Page 4712

1 taken," the entry. Now, we've just quickly double-checked against the

2 B/C/S version, which is obviously the original.

3 Now, we stand to be corrected, but we don't read that as the

4 following material being under the heading "The stand Karadzic and

5 Krajisnik have taken." That doesn't seem to be the way it is set out at

6 all.

7 JUDGE ORIE: That seems to be the next item.

8 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour, that's quite possible.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps you could have read the relevant line and

10 then would have said that it's under item 2, the fourth or the fifth --

11 the fifth dot or the fifth line. Mr. Stewart is very much insisting, and

12 I would support that, on as neutral as introduction as possible. It

13 makes -- it doesn't serve any purpose here to mention the names.

14 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour.

15 Q. Mr. Egrlic, can you see the page which has the heading "3

16 January" and is marked with the identification marking 01399453? And can

17 you see the item which is the second-last item on the page and appears at

18 the lines which are marked "14, 15, and 16"?

19 Can you read --

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... and can you comment on

22 whether or not this particular objective was implemented in Kljuc.

23 A. It says: "Establish real authority, especially in the Public

24 Security Station, in the SDK, and the radio." It says: "Establish good

25 coordination." This is a little unclear. And then it says: "The

Page 4713

1 organisation of the parties, the police, the Territorial Defence, and the

2 army." As far as these items are concerned, this had already been

3 completed in Kljuc; this had already been done.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Looking at the clock, Mr. Margetts, since

5 Mr. Hannis also needs five minutes.

6 Mr. Egrlic, we'll conclude for today. We'd like to see you back

7 tomorrow at 9.00, I take it in the same courtroom, Mr. Registrar. Yes.

8 May I instruct you not to speak with anyone about the testimony

9 you have been giving today and the testimony still to be given, so speak

10 to no one about your testimony.

11 Mr. Usher, could you please escort Mr. Egrlic out of the

12 courtroom. We'd like to see you back tomorrow.

13 [The witness stands down]

14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hannis, there were two issues. I do understand

15 that the CD-ROMs have been resolved by now and it was due to old hardware

16 which could not take everything that was on the CD-ROM. So that matter

17 has been resolved.

18 The two remaining issues?

19 MR. HANNIS: [Microphone not activated]

20 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

21 MR. HANNIS: There was one other matter as I understood with

22 regard to the CD, and that there was some difference between the

23 translation -- or the transcript.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That was one of the issues we raised

25 yesterday, yes.

Page 4714

1 MR. HANNIS: And the subtitles.

2 And I understand that apparently what has happened was that the

3 B/C/S transcript was prepared from viewing the subtitles. The English

4 transcript was prepared from listening to the audio. And so there's some

5 slight differences.

6 What we propose to do is prepare revised transcripts, match those

7 up, and present them to the Court.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Wouldn't it be the best, since these subtitles

9 could be read, if they're taken over in the B/C/S version, that we get a

10 translation from that? Because there might be differences. It's not a

11 very long text. So -- and then the same from what you hear that we get a

12 B/C/S translation. So that --

13 MR. HANNIS: I understand that we can do both versions then, Your

14 Honour, and then we'll have both.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Because to make a merger might even cause more

16 problems than we have already.

17 Then the other issue was about --

18 MR. HANNIS: We will do that.

19 JUDGE ORIE: -- translations of documents.

20 MR. HANNIS: Yes. One other matter before we leave the CDs. I

21 also understand there was another issue about the time notations. That

22 was difference on one transcript than the other.


24 MR. HANNIS: And I believe that -- again, that's a product of the

25 translation being done from a different copy. We will get that

Page 4715

1 synchronised so that there's one --

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, or no times at all.

3 MR. HANNIS: Or no times at all.

4 With regard to the translation of documents, I understand one of

5 those related to Exhibit 220, which was a diary of the witness, and at

6 one point - I think on page 0200-5359, the English translation at

7 0301-4339 - There were quotations around a statement of -- taken from the

8 diary which -- those quotation marks were not in the B/C/S. I can tell

9 Your Honour that this was a CLSS translation. We will inquire with them

10 about whether there is some sort of a translation protocol or something

11 about written B/C/S from which that could be made, but we think that

12 probably those translation -- those quotation marks should not be in

13 there. But we have to follow up on that.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Finally check and provide us new translation if

15 they -- if they have to be taken out.

16 MR. HANNIS: We will do that, Your Honour.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And then there was another issue or was that

18 -- no, that was this morning about the date in the -- no, there was a

19 date in a draft translation.

20 MR. HANNIS: And I don't have the answer to that one, Your

21 Honour.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So this resolves the matters of yesterday. Of

23 course, a final decision has to be taken still on the admission of these

24 documents. And it is in my mind that we decided once that we would take

25 all the Sanski Most documents together.

Page 4716

1 Ms. Loukas.

2 MS. LOUKAS: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour. Just in relation to

3 the question of the exhibits from yesterday. Of course, there's my

4 outstanding objection in general to the transcripts of that particular

5 video. There's the issue in relation to the translations that of course

6 have been the subject of the discourse between Mr. Hannis and Your

7 Honour. And, of course, just in relation to that -- the question of the

8 diary, I think it would be more appropriate just to have the relevant

9 page that the Prosecution relies on, rather than the entirety of

10 Chapter 1.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Hannis, you could give that perhaps some

12 consideration, whether we could [inaudible] a little bit less diary

13 than --

14 MR. HANNIS: I'll consult and inform the Court.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Perhaps you could see what's relevant.

16 Sometimes it's good to see the next date and the day before.

17 MS. LOUKAS: Precisely, Your Honour.

18 JUDGE ORIE: A bit of context, but perhaps not too much context.

19 MS. LOUKAS: Precisely, Your Honour.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then finally, I would like to make one

21 observation. Yesterday the Chamber received a motion in relation to

22 translations. This was, as I saw, a response to an invitation three

23 months ago, and I also noticed that the Defence invited the Prosecution

24 to respond within two days and to have a decision taken in two days as

25 well. I don't know whether that time schedule after three months would

Page 4717

1 be the one to be followed.

2 Mr. Hannis, we'd like to hear from you tomorrow about when you

3 would think that you could respond to that motion, which is a motion

4 which, as is repeatedly said in the motion itself, does not always follow

5 the -- well, let's say the mainstream of the ICTY case law. But still,

6 especially if the Chamber has invited to follow under the specific

7 circumstances of this case a different path, the Chamber would like to be

8 thoroughly prepared for that.

9 MR. HANNIS: We can do that.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we'll adjourn with again thanks to the

11 interpreters, we'll adjourn until tomorrow morning, 9.00, same court.

12 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.50 p.m.,

13 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 28th day of

14 July, 2004, at 9.00 a.m.