1 Friday, 1 October 2004
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone.
6 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Case number IT-00-39-T, the Prosecutor versus
8 Momcilo Krajisnik.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
10 I'm informed that the Prosecution would like to address the
11 Chamber. But before giving an opportunity to do so, I'd like to respond
12 to a request made by the Defence about mornings and afternoon sessions.
13 During the coming month, we'll usually sit three weeks a month.
14 The Chamber will seek the opportunity to sit from these three weeks, one
15 week in the afternoon. So we have one week off, we have then three
16 remaining weeks of which we would sit two weeks in the morning and one
17 week in the afternoon. So in order to accommodate the Defence. Of
18 course, we have to find out about courtrooms, et cetera, but that's what
19 the Chamber is aiming at.
20 Ms. Karagiannakis.
21 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS: Thank you, Your Honour. I just -- last night
22 I reviewed the transcript of the witness's testimony, and I'd like to draw
23 Your Honours' attention and counsel's attention to page 48, beginning line
24 23 of yesterday's transcript.
25 JUDGE ORIE: I'm just trying to open it so that I can follow you
1 better. Please go ahead. I'll find it sooner or later.
2 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS: The question was: "How do you characterise
3 the SDA's policy in relation to Bosanska Krupa and the discussions about
4 the divisions of the municipality?"
5 And the answer was: "The SDA's policies in relation to the
6 division of the municipality was such that they didn't want to seek any
7 compromise, they didn't allow for any other possibilities, all they wanted
8 was the division of the municipality."
9 And then at the end of his answer he says: "Although SDA
10 representatives didn't want to consider the possibility of dividing the
12 JUDGE ORIE: Would the Defence agree that there's a mistake as far
13 as the SDA, SDS? That's the issue, I take it.
14 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS: Yes. The other alternative, Your Honour,
15 would be for me to clear it up or for Your Honours to ask a clarifying
16 question to the witness so that that issue could be clarified.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. From the point of view of logics, I would say
18 it should be SDS instead of SDA. But --
19 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed, Your Honour, but I think the best course is
20 probably to tidy that matter up through evidence from the witness as
21 opposed to --
22 JUDGE ORIE: We'll ask the witness again, Ms. Karagiannakis.
23 Anything else?
24 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS: No. So do I understand you correctly,
25 Your Honour --
1 JUDGE ORIE: You may do it. I mean, I take it that you will read
2 his answer and then see whether he responds that this should -- is a
3 mistake, yes or no.
4 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS: Yes.
5 JUDGE ORIE: So if you do that, it's fine.
6 Madam Usher, could you please pull the curtains down in order
7 to ...
8 [The witness entered court]
9 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Witness 48. Please be seated.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
11 JUDGE ORIE: I would like to remind you that you're still bound by
12 the solemn declaration you gave yesterday at the beginning of your
14 Ms. Loukas, is the Defence ready to cross-examine the witness?
15 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, I understood that --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, yes.
17 MS. LOUKAS: -- Ms. Karagiannakis was going to deal with that
18 remaining matter.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, there is one remaining issue from yesterday
20 Ms. Karagiannakis would like to address.
21 WITNESS: KRAJ 48 [Resumed]
22 [Witness answered through interpreter]
23 Examined by Ms. Karagiannakis: [Continued]
24 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Ms. Karagiannakis.
25 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS:
1 Q. Witness, we'd just like to clarify something, some evidence that
2 was given yesterday. And the question that I asked you yesterday was:
3 "How would you characterise the SDA's policy in relation to
4 Bosanska Krupa and the discussions about the division of the
5 municipality?" The answer that is shown here on the English transcript
6 states as follows: "The SDA's policies in relation to the division of the
7 municipality was such that they didn't want to seek any compromise, they
8 didn't allow for any other possibilities; all they wanted was the division
9 of the municipality. In all discussions, this was their main request and
10 there was no alternative for them. The only possibility was dividing the
11 municipality." And at the end of your answer, towards the end of your
12 answer, you say: "Although SDA representatives didn't want to consider
13 the possibility of dividing the municipality."
14 Now, was the division of the municipality the policy of both the
15 SDA and the SDS, or was it the policy of just one of those parties? And
16 if so, can you tell us which one.
17 A. The division of the municipality was not the policy of the SDA,
18 and I have concrete proof of that. (redacted)
23 (redacted) They have their political representatives in
24 parliament. They work in the police force. They work in the judiciary.
25 They live a normal life.
1 Q. Thank you.
2 A. Therefore, the SDS, as a political party, wanted, exclusively
3 wanted, to divide the country.
4 Q. Thank you.
5 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
6 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Karagiannakis, it seems that the matter has been
7 clarified. At the same time, a redaction will be made, in view of the
9 Ms. Loukas, are you ready to cross-examine the witness?
10 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, thank you, Your Honour.
11 Cross-examined by Ms. Loukas:
12 Q. Good morning, Witness 048.
13 A. Good morning.
14 Q. Now, Witness, in view of the fact that there are protective
15 measures in relation to your evidence, could you please let me know if
16 you're about to say something that might reveal your identity, so that we
17 can go into private session. Do you understand?
18 A. I understand.
19 Q. Now, Witness, just in relation to your statement taken in August
20 1999 and November 1999, I wonder if the witness might be supplied with a
21 copy of his statement.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Usher, could you please assist.
23 MS. LOUKAS: I think that's P303B.
24 Q. Now, Witness, I just want to confirm some matters with you there.
25 Firstly, of course, going to paragraph 15, you did not know how the SDS
1 functioned, of course; correct?
2 A. When I say that I do not know how it functioned, I meant the
3 organisation, the internal organisation of the party itself. I know that
4 the SDA had an assembly and Executive Board, as the executive body of that
5 assembly. Now, I don't know if the SDS had the same model. All I know is
6 that they had a president, and a president, and he was Miroslav Vjestica.
7 And I know that there was a narrow body of leaders, the members of which I
8 knew. Now, whether that was called the Executive Board or something else,
9 I really can't say. I don't know.
10 Q. Okay. Now, Witness, I'll be asking you a whole series of
11 questions of this nature, and when you can answer a question yes or no,
12 then please do so. If you need to elaborate, please elaborate. But you
13 may be aware that we are under quite some time constraints at this
14 Tribunal, so if we're going to get through the cross-examination today,
15 then it would be very useful if you could ensure that when you can answer
16 a question yes, please answer it yes; when you can answer a question,
17 please answer it no. If you need to elaborate, please elaborate, but
18 don't feel that you need to elaborate on every answer. Do you understand?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Now, going to paragraph 22 of your statement just in relation to
21 the Crisis Staff, of course, the situation is there that you did not
22 receive any informations about its workings and you do not know who its
23 members were; correct?
24 A. I did not receive information about its workings, but I did know
25 its members, the members of the staff.
1 Q. So when you say in your statement you did not know who its members
2 were, that's incorrect, is it?
3 A. When giving thought to this statement of mine, in actual fact, I
4 did have -- in communicating with Gojko Klickovic, I learnt of the
5 members, but I don't think that's a very relevant matter. So if you were
6 to ask me now or if you are asking me now whether I knew them, I could
7 enumerate at least three members of that staff.
8 Q. Okay. So you're saying that that portion of your statement is
10 A. Well, when I was giving the statement, I couldn't remember the
11 members. Now I can remember them.
12 Q. I see. So when you signed the statement and were asked if it was
13 true and accurate, the situation is now that that portion you say is not
14 true and accurate; correct?
15 A. You say it's not true. At this point in time, it is different.
16 So I now say that I can remember part of the staff members, and I can tell
17 you the people that I can remember. But at that point in time, when I was
18 giving the statement, I didn't pay special attention to that and I
19 couldn't remember who the people were who made up the staff. So what I'm
20 saying is that now I do remember who they were.
21 Q. Okay. So you're telling the Trial Chamber that when you gave the
22 statement in 1999, you could not remember, but now, in 2004, you can
23 remember; correct?
24 A. Yes. I do remember now. In 1999, I didn't attach any special
25 attention to the matter, to that point, and I didn't make the effort to
1 remember the members of the staff.
2 Q. So when Ms. Karagiannakis asked you yesterday whether your
3 statements were true and correct on oath, and you said they were, that is
4 in fact -- that now needs to be clarified by the fact that you say that
5 this aspect is not correct?
6 A. Madam, I can withdraw the statement now if you like, that portion
7 of it, and say that paragraph 22 is entirely correct because it's not that
8 important. I was just honest and telling you that now, when I think about
9 it, I do know some of the members that made up the Crisis Staff, because I
10 remembered it subsequently.
13 So 048, what are you saying is not important? Being correct and
14 accurate in your statement, or that this particular portion is not correct
15 and accurate?
16 A. This part of my statement, I didn't attach great importance to it.
17 So if you insist, I can stand by what I said and say that paragraph 22 is
18 completely correct, from the 1999 statement, and we can move on.
19 Q. Now, going to paragraph 23, Witness 048, you've indicated there
20 that Mr. Klickovic indicated to you that he had 5.000 armed men under SDS
21 control. Do you see that portion in paragraph 23?
22 A. Yes. I've found that.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You gave Madam Registrar some exercise this
3 morning. Please try to concentrate.
4 MS. LOUKAS: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.
14 [Private session]
11 Pages 6473-6483 redacted. Private session.
4 [Open session]
5 MS. LOUKAS:
6 Q. Now I think we're in open session again. Yes.
7 Now, in relation to paragraph 9, you've indicated there on the
8 question of the election campaign in 1990, this extensive use of
9 iconography and nationalist symbols. Now, just going to that particular
10 aspect, you'd agree with me, Witness, that that does not, of course,
11 present the full picture in relation to all the ethnically based parties
12 that were participating in the election?
13 A. In Bosanska Krupa, just two nationalist parties took part, the SDA
14 and the SDS. There were no other nationalist parties taking part.
15 Q. Now, Bosanska Krupa is next to Velika Kladusa; correct?
16 A. No.
17 Q. It's nearby?
18 A. Between Velika Kladusa and Bosanska Krupa there's another
19 municipality with 60.000 inhabitants.
20 Q. Now, Velika Kladusa is nearby, is it not? It's one of the
21 neighbouring municipalities; correct?
22 A. No, it isn't. It's at the border with Croatia, and we're in depth
23 towards Prijedor, that way.
24 MS. LOUKAS: If the witness might be shown map P305, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 MS. LOUKAS:
2 Q. Do you have that map before you, Witness?
3 A. I owe you an apology. I was thinking of the present-day borders
4 of Bosanska Krupa, which are not identical with the borders and boundaries
5 that you're showing me on the map. In the pre-war Bosanska Krupa area,
6 there were three municipalities. So there was the Bosanska Krupa
7 municipality and the Krupa Na Uni and Buzim municipalities. So the
8 present area does not border on Kladusa, but the previous one did. So I
9 apologise for that.
10 Q. Yes. Thank you, Witness. Now, just going on to Velika Kladusa.
11 You were aware, of course, that there was an election rally in
12 Velika Kladusa in September 1990; correct?
13 A. Yes, I did know about that pre-election campaign.
14 Q. And that, of course, was the SDA rally?
15 A. Yes, that's right.
16 Q. Did you attend?
17 A. Yes, I did.
18 Q. And I think something like 200.000 people attended; correct?
19 A. I can't give you an estimate of the number of people that
20 attended, but there were a large number of people, yes.
21 Q. And you're aware, of course, that there were people there with
22 hundreds of green flags; correct?
23 A. Yes, I do know about that.
24 Q. And that there were people in Arabic dress?
25 A. No, there weren't any people like that. The Muslims in Bosnia
1 have their traditional clothing, which includes the red fez, and that's
2 what people wear to this day in Krajina.
3 Q. Okay. So people were wearing red fezzes, you say.
4 A. Some people, yes. But they were in the minority.
5 Q. And were there some people there with portraits of Saddam Hussein?
6 A. No, there weren't any people with portraits of Saddam Hussein, and
7 Saddam Hussein was no symbol at all for the Bosniaks, no kind of symbol.
8 Q. So if I were to tell you that this information in relation to
9 people in Arabic dress and portraits of Saddam Hussein came from the
10 Netherlands Institute for War Documentation, would that in any way change
11 your answer?
12 A. You're asking me what I saw, and I'm telling you what I personally
14 Q. Okay. Now, going back again to what you say in paragraph 9 about
15 the SDS election campaign. You are aware, of course, that Mr. Izetbegovic
16 was a guest of honour at the SDS inaugural event; correct?
17 A. Not only him -- you mean the SDS? Did you say SDS?
18 Q. Yes. The SDS inaugural event.
19 A. In Bosanska Krupa, you mean?
20 Q. No. The SDS inaugural event generally in Bosnia.
21 A. I'm speaking about the campaign in Bosanska Krupa.
22 Q. Okay. So you're not aware of the actual SDS inaugural event;
23 correct, more generally in Bosnia?
24 A. Partially. But I didn't go, and I wasn't a witness of those
25 events. All I saw was what was happening in Bosanska Krupa.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and
13 French transcripts correspond
1 Q. Okay. In any event, just dealing with your paragraph 9, where you
2 talk about the election campaign being fought aggressively by the SDS,
3 it's true to say, is it not, that all three ethnically based parties, of
4 course, fought their election campaigns aggressively, is it not?
5 A. We have to be objective here.
6 Q. That's what I'm asking you to be, Witness.
7 A. I also have the right to ask you to be objective and to say -- I'm
8 saying that the SDS -- the SDA party had no national symbols. It did not
9 have symbols under which, in the previous period, people suffered and fell
10 victim who were non-Bosniak. And it could not have given rise to fear and
11 disquiet amongst other ethnicities with the symbols it displayed, because
12 they were, if I can put it this way, newly composed, newly devised
13 symbols, the green flag where it says the SDA on it it wasn't all green.
14 There was a white background, a white area, and it was a symbol that
15 appeared for the first time in the history of the Bosniak people. It was
16 displayed for the first time. And the songs that were being sung were
17 patriotic songs linked to Bosnia-Herzegovina.
18 Q. What was the symbol of the SDS?
19 A. The symbol of the SDS was a double-headed eagle with the
20 sign -- four S-letter signs, in Cyrillic, and under that symbol, the
21 Bosniak people, in earlier times, had experienced suffering and fallen
22 victim. So they were afraid of that kind of symbol. Hymns were being
23 sung, "Boze Pravde," that hymn, and other songs, which we feel
24 uncomfortable when we hear.
25 Q. Wouldn't it be fair to say, Witness, that in terms of an
1 ethnically based election campaign, with three ethnically based parties,
2 that all three groups in Bosnia had issues arising from previous history
3 in relation to the other groups? That's a fair statement, is it not?
4 A. If you're referring back to history, then you must know that the
5 Muslim people, because the term "Bosniak" is of -- is a latter-day term,
6 but it's also an illustration where we stand as an ethnicity, and the very
7 troubled road that we traversed in arriving at the knowledge and present
8 situation. I'm a relatively young man, but there was a period in my life
9 of -- 18 years, in fact, when I was undetermined in my ethnic stance. I
10 was not allowed -- actually, I was not allowed to express my national
11 identity. So this question is a very important one, and it's important
12 for the Court to know about it. The process that the Bosniak people went
13 through in recognition of its own identity and in recognition of the state
14 of Bosnia-Herzegovina itself. So through history, we had ten genocides,
15 although, realistically speaking, we were never a danger to anyone, never
16 presented a danger to anyone. I was the head in 1998, and I -- as the
17 chief, I was able to talk to international representatives, and some
18 people -- some of them were prone to equate the blame and share the blame
19 amongst all the three ethnicities. I can accept that, but realistically
20 speaking, the Bosnian side was the only side that, realistically speaking,
21 had absolutely no chance in this war. And anybody with an honest attitude
22 to this issue and question will agree with that fact.
23 Q. Okay. Do you think that perhaps it's just possible, Witness, that
24 it's a little difficult for you to be objective in your answers,
25 considering the opinion you hold?
1 A. No, I don't think it is difficult for me to be objective, because
2 in our country we have an expression which says you have to put on a
3 lambskin -- you're putting on a lambskin to make the wolf afraid. So
4 regardless of the campaign, realistically speaking, it didn't carry much
5 weight. We were a lamb in sheep's clothing. And Karadzic said that the
6 danger existed of the Muslim people disappearing altogether, and that
7 danger was realistic.
8 Q. Just getting back to this issue of the election campaign: Are you
9 aware that the actual symbol of the SDS was "SDS" written in Cyrillic?
10 A. Well, both the Cyrillic and Latin script are scripts used in
11 Bosnia-Herzegovina. So I saw both variations of the SDS, both written up
12 in Cyrillic and in the Latin script, and that's quite acceptable for us.
13 And the name the Serbian Democratic Party is an acceptable name, because
14 it is a party of the Serbian people. What cannot be accepted is symbols
15 under which the Bosniaks suffered and fell casualty. So this two-headed
16 eagle with the sign of the four Ss and the songs that were being sung were
17 unacceptable to us.
18 Q. Okay. But that actually wasn't the official symbol of the SDS,
19 was it?
20 A. Well, carrying a flag with that emblem was then an official
21 symbol, if that's what you displayed.
22 Q. Well, on that basis, people carrying green flags with Arabic
23 letters would be the same. But surely you would concede that there were
24 extremists in all ethnic groups who attended rallies; correct?
25 A. This is how it was: We had the SDA flag and the SDS had its own
1 flag with the SDS. So anything else is less important, if anybody brought
2 anything else, that was lest important. These were the official flags.
3 The SDA had a green and white on its flag, the Party of Democratic Action.
4 Whereas the SDS had a flag which was a tricolour flag with the coat of
5 arms of a double-headed eagle, and that was their official flag.
6 Q. I think we'll leave this topic of the flags alone now, Witness.
7 Now, just in relation to -- in fact, I note the time, Your Honour.
8 I'm --
9 JUDGE ORIE: If your next subject would take more than three
11 MS. LOUKAS: It certainly would, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: We'd rather have a break now. We'll adjourn until 5
13 minutes to 11.00.
14 --- Recess taken at 10.27 a.m.
15 --- On resuming at 11.00 a.m.
16 JUDGE ORIE: The witness may be escorted into the courtroom again,
17 and then you may proceed, once the curtains are up again. Perhaps I could
18 use the time. I invited the parties yesterday to see what remaining
19 issues they had and to make a small list so that we could compare it with
20 our lists. If these lists would be available in the next break, we could
21 make our agenda for next Monday.
22 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, in relation to the Defence list, in
23 fact, Ms. Cmeric and I will be compiling that when we finish from court
24 today. We haven't since yesterday had an opportunity to compile that
25 list, but as soon as it's compiled, we will be emailing it or forwarding
1 it to --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hannis -- yes, the witness may be escorted in.
3 Mr. Hannis looks as if he has a list already. If perhaps during the next
4 break you could have a brief look at it and so to see. Because if there
5 would be any additional matters to be discussed today about the agenda of
6 next Monday, then of course if we receive it in the afternoon, then
7 there's hardly any chance, apart from Monday morning, to change the
9 MS. LOUKAS: I'm sure that the list compiled by Mr. Hannis will be
10 the list that the Defence in all probability will agree with.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps during the next break you would have a look
12 at it.
13 Ms. Loukas, you may resume your cross-examination as soon as the
14 noise has stopped.
15 MS. LOUKAS: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.
16 Q. Now, Witness, before I move on to my next topic, which is in
17 relation to this monument to Branko Copic, I just wanted to clarify some
18 matters that were being dealt with just prior to the break. Now, you
19 mentioned an anthem, "Boze Pravde," right? That's of course the current
20 Serbian national anthem; correct?
21 A. We were discussing the campaign before the war.
22 Q. Indeed.
23 A. I wasn't familiar with that hymn. It was an anthem I did not
24 know, and its contents were unfamiliar to me. It wasn't from the
25 territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and it did not fit in with the
1 viewpoints that we had during that period of time.
2 Q. Okay. Now, just going back to --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, may I ask you one thing. You put it to
4 the witness whether it was the Serbian national -- is that Serbia and
5 Montenegro national hymn or is it Republika Srpska, which is also a
6 Serbian -- I --
7 MS. LOUKAS: No, Your Honour. It's actually both.
8 JUDGE ORIE: It's both. We have -- they share the national hymn,
9 do I understand?
10 MS. LOUKAS: That's correct, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I didn't know that.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The anthem that one hears in
13 Belgrade is not the Boze Pravde anthem.
14 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat his answer.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please repeat your answer, because the
16 interpreters were not able to grab it.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That anthem is not played in
18 Belgrade. It can't be heard in Belgrade. It is played in Banja Luka.
19 JUDGE ORIE: So do I understand your answer that where I inquired
20 about Serbian national hymn meant, that you say that you're aware of it
21 being used as a national hymn in Republika Srpska but not in Belgrade?
22 Yes. Well, I think it's not really a matter which should be explored any
23 further. I take it, Ms. Loukas, that you wanted to establish that this
24 hymn which was qualified in a certain way is used as a national hymn
1 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, indeed, Your Honour. I'm informed by Ms. Cmeric
2 it was made the official hymn a couple of months ago by the Assembly in
3 Belgrade. It's not an issue I need to spend or time on.
4 JUDGE ORIE: I just wanted to understand your question and answer.
5 MS. LOUKAS:
6 Q. In relation to the election campaign at the time, in 1990, you're
7 not saying there was anything wrong with the use of a double-headed eagle,
8 are you?
9 A. I have already mentioned the Bosniak attitude to that symbol,
10 because it was under that symbol that the Bosniak people suffered the most
11 in the course of its history.
12 Q. I don't want to spend a lot of time on this, Witness, but of
13 course it is the current symbol of Albania; you'd agree with me about
14 that, wouldn't you?
15 A. I don't know what the symbol of Albania is, but I do know that
16 this is a symbol used in Republika Srpska. And its currently in dispute
17 in the Assembly of Republika Srpska because representatives of other
18 peoples who are now members of Republika Srpska, who are now in
19 Republika Srpska, are not recognised by this symbol.
20 JUDGE ORIE: May I seek a further clarification. Earlier in your
21 testimony, you spoke about the double-headed eagle, together with the four
22 S's. This part of your answer, is this about the double-headed eagle
23 alone or is it in combination with the four S's?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The symbol wasn't changed. The
25 earlier one and the current one is the same. It's the double-headed eagle
1 with a cross and four S's.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Four S's being part of that double-headed eagle
3 coat of arms.
4 Ms. Loukas, please proceed.
5 MS. LOUKAS: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.
6 Q. Now, just going back to this rally in September 1990 in
7 Velika Kladusa. Of course, Mr. Izetbegovic spoke at that rally; correct?
8 A. There were a lot of speakers, and he was one of them.
9 Q. And of course you were there at that rally?
10 A. As I have already said, I was.
11 Q. And of course you would have heard him indicating that, if need
12 be, Muslims will defend Bosnia with arms?
13 A. I'm not sure that I can remember what he said in his speech, and
14 especially not such details. This is something that happened a long time
15 ago, after all, and at the time, I was just an observer of that rally.
16 Q. Now, moving along to this topic of the Branko Copic statue. You
17 indicated in your evidence yesterday that Branko Copic was a poet, a
18 partisan poet; correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And that he had a broad following amongst all the nations and
21 nationalities or ethnic groups in Bosnia; correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And you indicated that the SDS wanted to erect a monument to him,
24 as he was born in Bosanska Krupa; correct?
25 A. Well, one could say so, because he was born in the village of
1 Haselj [phoen], near Bosanska Krupa, that is to say, in the municipality
2 of Bosanska Krupa.
3 Q. And I think that you indicated that you opposed the monument being
4 erected because it was illegal; correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Why did you consider it to be illegal?
7 A. Because in order to erect the monument, it was necessary to follow
8 a certain procedure and have certain documents. Those who were erecting
9 the monument didn't have these items.
10 Q. Were Muslims in your local area opposed to the erection of the
12 A. Well, look. Copic was an iconic figure, poet, and streets bore
13 his name, as well as schools. There was a Branko Copic club, a poets'
14 club. And there was a project to build a Copic village, which was
15 supposed to be the cherry on the cake when it came to celebrating this
16 poet. So the Muslims had an already well defined altitude towards the
17 matter, and what the SDS was requesting was something that was specific to
18 the SDS. It was an intention that they had which was not necessary to see
19 through, because Copic was already celebrated. The Muslims were not
20 opposed to the erection of a monument and to the construction of
21 commemorative buildings, but in this case, it was really an illegal act
22 that was in question.
23 Q. Well, hadn't Mr. Lazar got the approval to build it?
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let me reread it.
8 Yes. The last eight lines. Please proceed.
9 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, I do propose to ask some more questions
10 on this topic, to it's probably preferable that we go into private
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Perhaps then we'll go into private session.
13 [Private session]
11 Page 6498 redacted. Private session.
11 Page 6499 redacted. Private session.
11 Page 6500 redacted. Private session.
11 Page 6501 redacted. Private session.
11 Page 6502 redacted. Private session.
17 [Open session]
18 MS. LOUKAS: Yes. I think we're back in open session now.
19 Q. Now, just in relation to the question of the distribution of power
20 after the elections: Of course, the Muslims were in the majority in your
21 municipality; correct?
22 A. Statistics are very precise on that point. The Muslims had the
24 Q. And it was the situation, was it not, that in terms of the
25 distribution of power, that Serbs were in your local municipality
1 dismissed from key positions; correct?
2 A. No, they were not dismissed from the political posts. They
3 obtained the posts that they wanted to and that were very influential and
4 important, such as Secretary of the Assembly, the leader for town
5 planning, the chief of police.
6 Q. I understand that, but what I'm asking you about is the changes
7 that occurred in terms of improving ratios or changing ratios. For
8 example, I think that the number of Serbs in the police force -- and I'm
9 not trying to trick you, Witness. This is material that's contained from
10 a previous time you gave evidence. I think that you indicated that the
11 number of Serbs in the police force was over 60 per cent and that for the
12 sake of - and I'm referring, for the Prosecution, to page 17328 - "that
13 for the sake of political authenticities, the SDA party, we had to attempt
14 to improve this ratio, which was in favour of the Serbs." Correct?
15 A. Yes, I did say that, and I stand by that statement now too,
16 although you are now trying to prove that the Serbs were the majority and
17 that the Bosniaks were the marginal factors, regardless of their numbers.
18 But that too didn't matter, nor was it a problem. It wasn't a hindrance.
19 We discussed this with the SDS and decided to improve the balance, the
20 ratio. And they were fully conscious of the fact that things couldn't
21 stay the way they were. But they asked that this be done gradually and
22 that solutions be found for any possible surpluses that would result in
23 changing the balance of forces. So it was because of that need and
24 requirement that nobody was left without employment and sent out onto the
1 Q. Yes, of course. But the fact remains, does it not, that whilst a
2 person in this situation could remain in employment, they were, in fact,
3 dismissed from their particular position; correct?
4 A. The police composition at the lowest level, the police force at
5 the lowest level, wasn't replaced. The changes that took place were at
6 the top, the top post, because the chief of police up until then had been
7 a Serb. And only number 4 down the hierarchy was a Muslim.
8 Q. Now, Witness --
9 A. And that was a drastic disproportion, and the Serbs were fully
10 conscious of the fact that something had to change. Let me just tell you
11 that, for example, in Bosanska Dubica, where there were as many Bosniaks
12 as there were Serbs in Bosanska Krupa, which is to say 23, 24 per cent,
13 the problem didn't exist over there, because in the police force there
14 were no Bosniaks. And if there happened to be one, he would be an
15 ordinary policeman, low-ranking policeman. But quite certainly in 1991
16 and 1992, in the police force, there were no more Bosniaks in the
17 municipalities in which they numbered 20 to 30 per cent.
18 Q. Now, Witness, of course the question I asked you was in relation
19 to your particular area, and it would be useful if you could confine your
20 answers to what my questions actually are, because we're going to run out
21 of time, I fear, to ensure that your evidence can finish today and we can
22 have some time left for re-examination from the Prosecution and questions
23 from the Judges, if need be. I understand that you have many things you
24 want to say, but the process here is actually answering the specific
25 question that I ask. Do you understand?
1 A. Yes, we understand each other.
4 MS. LOUKAS: Now, Your Honour, this may be an area that may
5 involve having to go back into private session.
6 JUDGE ORIE: We'll return into private session.
7 [Private session]
24 [Open session]
25 JUDGE ORIE: It's confirmed on our screen. Please proceed,
1 Ms. Loukas.
2 MS. LOUKAS: Thank you, Your Honour.
3 Q. Were you aware, prior to the war, of a paramilitary formation of
4 the Patriotic League being formed in your area, Bosanska Krupa?
5 A. Tell me, please, what you mean by "paramilitary formation".
6 Q. Let me put it another way. Are you aware of a formation of armed
7 men under the banner of the Patriotic League whose commander was, in your
8 local area, Bosanska Krupa, Sead Sehic?
9 A. I am not aware of any armed formation which was called the
10 Patriotic League in Bosanska Krupa.
11 Q. Were you aware of index cards being stolen from municipalities and
12 military installations by Muslims?
13 A. There was one particular incident, one instance, but those
14 archives were returned.
15 Q. And are you aware of the reasoning behind that being so that the
16 men of appropriate age could be taken into paramilitary formations of the
17 Patriotic League?
18 A. I think that that was something to do with doing their military
19 service. Can we just briefly go back into private session? Because I
20 would like to explain one particular case.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we can go into private session. I'll tell you
22 when we are.
23 [Private session]
11 Pages 6509-6523 redacted. Private session.
2 [Open session]
3 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS:
4 Q. The question put to you whether there were weapons during the war
5 all three parties the answer was: "They had hunting weapons, tactical
6 weapons." Now, who had hunting weapons?
7 A. Not tactical weapons, but weapons for competitions.
8 Q. Who -- which people of which ethnicity had those weapons, the
9 weapons for competitions?
10 A. All three ethnic groups did. We had a hunting club, and this club
11 had members from all ethnic communities. This was a legal manner of
12 owning weapons. Police had records on these weapons. And under the
13 Territorial Defence and the police, or rather, the reserve force of the
14 police, could have other weapons.
15 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... Weapons?
16 A. What do you mean by "tactical weapons"?
17 Q. I'm just -- what do you -- well, you answered to Defence counsel:
18 "They had hunting weapons." And then "tactical weapons." What do you
20 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Karagiannakis, when I look at the transcript, the
21 witness said, when you put to him the question who had hunting weapons, he
22 more or less corrected the previous part of your question, where you are
23 talked about tactical weapons. He said: "Not tactical weapons, but
24 weapons for competitions."
25 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS: Yes, Your Honour. I take that on board.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The first time I saw the weapons,
2 weapons that weren't hunting weapons or weapons for competitions, was in
3 Arapusa. (redacted)
5 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS:
6 Q. You just said that the first time you saw weapons that weren't
7 hunting weapons or weren't weapons for competitions were at the village of
8 Arapusa. In whose hands were those weapons?
9 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Karagiannakis, is this not clearly in the
10 statement of the witness?
11 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS: Yes.
12 JUDGE ORIE: I think you started clarifying an issue of which I
13 could understand that it needed to be clarified, and once it has been
14 clarified, we now move to other issues that are clearly in the statement.
15 That's point one. Secondly, were dealt with, not specifically the
16 weapons, but -- cross-examination, but there's no real issue remaining and
17 we restart it now. So if you could move to your next subject.
18 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters note: The word for tactical is
19 "takticarsko" [phoen] whereas for competition is "takmicarsko" [phoen].
20 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS:
21 Q. [Previous translation continues]... Referred to?
22 JUDGE ORIE: You heard the explanation by the interpreters, where
23 it seems to be that the word for tactical and the word for competition is
24 almost similar as in hearing. Is that correct?
25 THE INTERPRETER: That's correct, Your Honour.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and
13 French transcripts correspond
1 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. So that explains the confusion.
2 Please proceed, Ms. Karagiannakis.
3 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS:
4 Q. Now, please answer this question without going into the -- to too
5 many details so we don't have to go into private session and don't have to
6 repeat what you've already said. But Ms. Loukas asked you, in relation to
7 your 1999 statement, at paragraph 33, whether that was correct and that
8 contained what the person referred to in that statement had said. Now,
9 can I refer you, please, to paragraph 14 of your 1998 statement. If you
10 could be shown paragraph 14 of your 1998 statement.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Without going into the details, does this paragraph reflect what
13 you stated -- what you said in your statement in 1998 in relation to these
14 matters, and does it correspond with the additional information that you
15 provided to the Court today?
16 A. Yes. That's what I stated, and it does correspond to the
17 information that I have provided to the Trial Chamber today.
18 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS: No further questions, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. Karagiannakis.
20 Any need for further questions, Ms. Loukas?
21 MS. LOUKAS: No, Your Honour.
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 JUDGE ORIE: Judge El Mahdi has one or more questions for you,
25 JUDGE EL MAHDI: Thank you, Mr. President, but may I ask you,
1 please, to go to private session.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Madam Registrar. We are in private session,
3 Judge El Mahdi.
4 JUDGE EL MAHDI: Thank you, Mr. President.
5 [Private session]
11 Page 6529-6534 redacted. Private session.
9 [Open session]
10 JUDGE ORIE: We are now in open session. As a matter of fact, we
11 should have thanked the previous witness, Witness 048, in open session,
12 because there was no need to do that in private session as well. But we
13 could have that final part of the session before this break, we could make
14 that public again, so that it's clear that the examination of the witness
15 was concluded and that he is now excused.
16 I have now a short list of housekeeping matters, but before we go
17 into the housekeeping matters, Ms. Loukas, I first would like to say to
18 you that at a certain moment during the examination of the Witness 048, I
19 said that a matter needed further clarification because I had the
20 impression that the witness had misunderstood your question. Having
21 reviewed that matter, the only conclusion can be that I misunderstood your
22 question and I misunderstood the answer. So I should not have intervened
23 at that moment.
24 MS. LOUKAS: Thank you, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I was not waiting for that. I was just looking
1 at my list, Ms. Loukas. But I'm trying to compare the list I have. Is
2 there -- is this the complete -- short list by the Prosecution,
3 Ms. Loukas?
4 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, Your Honour. Mr. Hannis and I had the
5 opportunity to have a short chat during the break, and of course there are
6 quite a number of matters that come in under the heading of exhibits list,
7 of course, including material outstanding in relation to
8 Mr. Adil Draganovic and what have you, but they're matters that we can go
9 through in detail. But I think we have broad agreement on the kind of
10 matters that are included within the exhibit list matters.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 MS. LOUKAS: I think the 92 bis summaries is fairly
13 self-explanatory. And there, of course, those scheduling matters that are
14 mentioned there. But of course that fourth matter is a matter I think
15 that will require quite some discussion, as that's not a matter that would
16 be accepted by the Defence, this question of dossiers.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, I have not -- it's still a mystery for
18 me. The only thing I know the dossiers are very much the civil law-type
19 of material. But we'll hear then perhaps a little bit more in detail what
20 it is about so that we can give it already a bit of a thought over the
22 But let's start with the practical matters. On all our lists is
23 the admission of pending exhibits.
24 Madam Registrar, do we have the updated list of pending exhibits?
25 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
1 JUDGE ORIE: I am informed that the parties have been provided
2 with an updated list, and of course it's mainly a matter of the backlog,
3 especially some older exhibits on which we still have to take decisions.
4 So everyone's prepared to do that.
5 Then the 92 bis summaries seem to be also an issue. Let's hope
6 it's not problematic.
7 Mr. Hannis, I think that the Prosecution well understood the
8 concern of the Chamber that the 92 bis summaries which are to inform the
9 public, would go into too much detail. I think recently I saw a summary
10 which I thought could be approximately one third of what it was then.
11 MR. HANNIS: I think we took on board Your Honour's suggestion
12 last time that you thought that 40 per cent of what we had presented would
13 be more than enough, so we'll shoot for that range.
14 JUDGE ORIE: So that's then clear. Then we'll hear the 92 bis
16 Then scheduling matters. Well, that seems to overlap a bit with
17 one of the pending motions. That's the videolink motion, isn't it? Let
18 me just be careful that there are no protective measures in effect. There
19 are not. In respect of Mr. Biscevic. I had on my desk this morning the
20 response of the Defence on the motion for videolink. I only read the last
21 line, and that was that the Chamber is invited to deny the motion. We'll
22 have an opportunity -- if there's anything else to be said about it, but
23 of course the Chamber first has to read the further submissions by the
24 Defence. And the same, of course, Mr. Kljuic.
25 Weeks off in November and last day in December. We can deal with
1 that all. I'll make a full list so that everyone is aware. I also can
2 inform the Defence already that two weeks have now been identified in
3 October and November where we will sit in the afternoon. So I'll give you
4 the information then as well.
5 Then before we come to the dossiers, which is still a bit of a
6 mystery for us until this moment, I have a few other matters on my list as
7 well. First pending decisions of course, that's not your concern mainly,
8 but if anything in addition -- for example, if there would be an oral
9 response to the Defence response this morning to the videolink motion,
10 then we'll have an opportunity to hear that next Monday. There is still a
11 decision to be taken that we might deliver that decision next Monday,
12 certification of appeal on the protective measures of Witness 623. So
13 that's in respect of decisions.
14 There's one issue where I would like to pay a bit more attention
15 to at this moment, and that's -- these are two pending motions on
16 adjudicated facts. Yes. We would like to address that briefly next
17 Monday, and I will give you already an impression of what the Chamber has
18 in mind.
19 The Chamber has been seized all together of four motions on
20 adjudicated facts by the Prosecution. Two of these motions were decided
21 already a long time ago, and on the two remaining motions, the Chamber has
22 received the responses by the Defence. So far, we have not given a
23 decision on those motions because consultations between the parties were,
24 on possible agreement of facts, were still ongoing. But now it is time to
25 issue a decision.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and
13 French transcripts correspond
1 The Chamber makes a preliminary observation. The Chamber has
2 noted that the high number of the proposed adjudicated facts were far over
3 a thousand from the four motions taken together and taken as a whole may
4 cause a serious risk of oppression. And this burden is not only placed on
5 the Defence that might feel the need to rebut the admitted adjudicated
6 facts, but also on the proceedings as a whole. This is more true if we
7 take into account the potential for future submissions of the same kind
8 when the Tribunal delivers other judgements relevant to the time frame in
9 the territorial scope of the indictment in this case.
10 Moreover, the Chamber has the impression that some descriptions,
11 especially when they are going in much detail of incidents, seen in the
12 totality of the case as minor - I'm not saying that they are not
13 important - that these descriptions sometimes add very specific details to
14 general findings on such general things like mistreatment in camps. If
15 you, for example, would look at the list, as it stands now, the
16 consolidated list, although not everything has been either admitted or
17 not, but on some of the camps, if you would look at 755 until 788, you
18 would find there such a series of details and just trying to remember
19 other such instances. For example, if detainees have lost, in one of the
20 adjudicated facts, 25 to 30 kilos, and in another one, 30 to 35, and if we
21 then come to details on whether they had to rush for their food or whether
22 it took them two minutes to -- they're allowed two minutes, I think that
23 really goes into a level of detail which is certainly not assisting. Of
24 course, the food situation in a camp like Omarska is of importance, but
25 whether we should deal with that in so much detail, that's really
1 something to be further considered.
2 And sometimes, of course, also the language used in some of the
3 items proposed for admission and many of them of course were taken out of
4 the context, just isolated lines now, are sometimes misleading or
6 But the Chamber has some hesitations to start making the
7 interpretations of what the adjudicated facts are without the parties
8 being involved. Several options are open, but of course a decision has to
9 be delivered. I mean, we can't continue to discuss options. Finally a
10 decision has to be taken. But we could, for example, deliver a decision
11 on these two motions, addressing these concerns. But we could also choose
12 to invite the Prosecution to re-file a substantially reduced list of
13 proposed adjudicated facts, in accordance with the principles I just set
15 This is an issue the Chamber would like to hear the vision of the
16 parties on next Monday, well, let's say not more than 10 to 15 minutes,
17 because it might involve quite a lot of work for everyone. But on the
18 other hand, we also have to keep in mind that adjudicated facts still
19 should be manageable and of sufficient relevance to deal with them.
20 So that is a bit -- it's a long explanation on what the Chamber
21 has in mind if the adjudicated facts, the pending motions, are on the
22 agenda for next Monday.
23 Then before I invite the Prosecution to explain in a couple of
24 lines what the dossier exactly is about, I'd first like to go into private
25 session for one second.
1 [Private session]
21 [Open session]
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hannis, dossiers, in the plural. Could you
24 MR. HANNIS: Yes, Your Honour. I put this on the list because
25 when I inquired from my fellow colleagues about matters that we should
1 bring up for Monday's housekeeping day, Mr. Harmon reminded me that this
2 was a, according to his notes, this was a matter that was discussed at a
3 formal meeting with Your Honour and the parties on the 12th of March, in
4 one of our meetings in room 177. And Mr. Harmon recalled to me that he
5 says that was discussed at the meeting with the Court and Defence, that
6 the idea was accepted, that we talked about dossiers going into evidence
7 containing mostly documentary evidence, and that it would contain an
8 index, it would have a B/C/S and English copy of each document, and there
9 would be a source where the documents came from. And we were talking
10 about primarily, I think, at that meeting, we were talking about primarily
11 municipality-related documents, although I don't think we foreclosed the
12 possibility that we would have documents relating perhaps to entities such
13 as the Ministry of the Interior, the army, et cetera.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I now better understand what you mean. It is
15 what is called in other cases sometimes documentary evidence tendered from
16 the bar table or, well, whatever. It's documentary evidence, not
17 introduced by a witness. Is that --
18 MR. HANNIS: Correct.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We could at least discuss that next Monday. Of
20 course, it might be -- it might make quite a difference on what type of
21 material we are talking about. I can imagine that taking a position in
22 general terms might not be easy for either party. But now at least it's
23 clear what "dossiers" means.
24 Any further issue? Ms. Loukas.
25 MS. LOUKAS: Just in relation to that particular issue. Of
1 course, I agree with Your Honour's observations in relation to it being
2 difficult for either party to take a position in general terms of issues
3 of that nature. But of course, we can go into that in something of more
4 detail on Monday. But I can indicate at this point that I'm not entirely
5 comfortable with it, Your Honour, and it is a matter that we will require
6 further elaboration on Monday.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think it will certainly assist the Chamber if
8 you could develop some criteria, or at least some types of documents you
9 would say are objections against admitting them in this way, would be even
10 fiercer than others. So try to identify perhaps categories of documents
11 which would be easier or more difficult to accept. I'm not saying to
12 accept or not to accept, but I'm -- I listened carefully to your words.
13 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, Your Honour. Your Honour is referring, of
14 course, to gradations of difficulty. I can indicate it might be useful if
15 Mr. Hannis or a member of the Prosecution produce a list of what
16 kind -- the categories of documents that they're proposing and then I can
17 meet each category with my particular submissions.
18 JUDGE ORIE: So the Prosecution is invited to avoid that the
19 discussion will be on too much -- will too much be on an abstract level
20 and rather that we know what we are talking about. Yes. Any further
21 issue at this -- yes, Ms. Karagiannakis.
22 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS: The matter of the exhibits for the last
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We could do that today, because I said we would
25 deal with the backlog of exhibits next Monday. So, Madam Registrar, could
1 you please assist us in preparing our decisions on the admission of
2 exhibits in relation to Witness 048.
3 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS: Your Honour, I have a list of the proposed
4 exhibits here.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I take it that any exhibit that left your table
6 is carefully registered by Madam Registrar. But if you're following your
7 list, Madam Registrar, as the same on her list, then, Madam Registrar,
9 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS: I just have one comment to make. I could
10 indicate already now which ones should be under seal, so that that might
11 assist Madam Registrar.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, let's do it the following way: Madam
13 Registrar names the exhibits and adds whether they should be under seal or
14 not, and if she forgets one to be under seal, you'll immediately
15 interfere. Yes. Madam Registrar.
16 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit number P302, the pseudonym sheet, under
17 seal; Exhibit P303A, BiH agency for research and documentation statement
18 dated 31 March 1998, under seal; P303A.1, English translation, under
19 seal; P303B, ICTY witness statement dated 26th August 1999 and 3rd
20 November 1999, signed on 3rd November 1999, under seal; P303B.1, B/C/S
21 translation, under seal; P303C, UN-ICTY memorandum of conversation dated
22 29/06/2000 under seal; P303C.1, B/C/S translation under seal; P304, map of
23 BiH indicating Bosanska Krupa in green; P305, map showing Bosanska Krupa
24 with Una River in blue, marked by witness; And P305A, map showing Bosanska
25 Krupa with Una River in blue, marked by witness; P306, declaration of
1 witness dated 29/09/04, identifying voices of participants of intercepted
2 telephone conversations, under seal; P306A, intercept transcript dated
3 24/06/1991 of conversation between Momcilo Krajisnik and Miroslav from
4 Bosanska Krupa; P306B, intercept transcript dated 05/06 - just a
5 moment - 1991, between Radovan Karadzic and Miroslav Vjestica; P306C, CD
6 of intercepts; P307, draft report on the work of the Municipal Assembly
7 and War Presidency from the 1st of January, 1992, to 20 April, 1993;
8 P307.1, the English translation; and P308, photocopy of currency issued by
9 the National Bank of the Serbian Republic of BiH, issued at Banja Luka in
10 1992, and currency issued by the National Bank of Republika Srpska in
11 Banja Luka in 1993, two pages.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Ms. Loukas.
13 MS. LOUKAS: Yes. Just in relation to the various exhibits. Your
14 Honour will recall that I objected, of course, to the previous Bosnian
15 statement in terms of 89(F).
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, in relation to the intercepted
18 conversations, Your Honour will recall I objected in relation to questions
19 relating to those named individual there, and I won't go into the names.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 MS. LOUKAS: It's inappropriate, in view of the protective
22 measures. And I also indicate in relation to the Exhibit P307 that I do
23 register an objection in relation to that particular report on the basis
24 that it is a draft and it is unsigned.
25 JUDGE ORIE: And does this last objection go against admissibility
1 or ...
2 MS. LOUKAS: Well, Your Honour, I would object on that basis to
3 the admissibility. I place that on the record. And I'd also indicate
4 that in relation to the -- this question of the intercepted conversations,
5 that the evidence was sought to be admitted purely on the basis of
6 authenticating the voices as opposed to the subject of the conversations,
7 as I understood it at the time.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Karagiannakis, may I have your response to that.
9 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS: Yes, Your Honour. In relation to the
10 objection regarding the B/C/S statement, I understand Your Honours ruled
11 yesterday that it was admissible. In relation to the intercepted
12 communications, my learned friend is right; the declaration in respect of
13 those intercepted, conversations relates to the identification of the
14 voices and simply that, so I don't see why there should be any objection
15 to that being put on the record.
16 In relation to the report on the activities of the Municipal
17 Assembly, the witness testified about who he said the author of the
18 document was, and he told the Court why. So there is a basis. And my
19 final point in relation to the objections for the report on the activities
20 is the objection goes to the weight of the evidence as opposed to its
21 actual admissibility before you.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll -- I'll give a decision on the -- as far
23 as the Bosnian statement is concerned, under Rule 89(F), the Chamber
24 preliminarily ruled that we would proceed on the basis of the document as
25 well. We'll further consider the objections.
1 About the intercepts and about the draft report being a draft and
2 not being signed, we'll decide on them later. That means that -- and I
3 always include the A, B, and C versions and the translations, 302, 303,
4 including -- apart from the Bosnian statement are admitted. That the maps
5 304 and 305 are admitted, including the one marked by the witness, that
6 the declaration on the intercepts, are you objecting against that as well?
7 Let me just try to ... So that would be 306, without any addition, just
8 recognising the ...
9 MS. LOUKAS: Yes. Your Honour will recall that I raise this
10 question in relation to personal knowledge in relation to identification,
11 and I have nothing further to add on that point, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Well, let's give it more time. We'll give a final
13 decision on Monday on 306, and of course also includes 306A, 306B, with
14 all the translations, 306C, which is the CD-ROM. 307, a decision will be
15 taken next Monday. And the bank notes, two pages are admitted.
16 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS: Your Honour.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 MS. KARAGIANNAKIS: I apologise, but I omitted to point something
19 out. Intercept 306B is actually an exhibit in the case. It's Exhibit
20 P64A and it was proffered through Mr. Treanor.
21 JUDGE ORIE: So that is a recall of that -- so that is then
22 already in evidence and no need to admit it again. Nevertheless, I'll
23 discuss with Madam Registrar whether -- the problem is that the
24 declaration, recognising the voices, does not refer to another exhibit.
25 So it might even be wise to have then this intercept twice. Because
1 otherwise we have a lot of confusion because the witness did not recognise
2 the voices on any intercept which we find in -- what is it, P64, P65,
3 Mr. Treanor. So therefore, it might be a good idea to have that, if we
4 would admit that, to have it double in our -- I hardly dare to say,
6 Any other issue? If not, then we'll sit next Monday in Courtroom
7 III, not in this one. We'll start at 9.00 in the morning. And I wish you
8 all a good weekend.
9 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.51 p.m.,
10 to be reconvened on Monday, the 4th day of
11 October 2004, at 9.00 a.m.