1 Friday, 16 June 2006
2 [Open session]
3 [The witness entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.08 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone. Mr. Registrar, would you
6 please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case number
8 IT-00-39-T, the Prosecutor versus Momcilo Krajisnik.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
10 Mr. Krajisnik, we received a small bundle again this morning that
11 has been given to the parties. I see that there are quite some -- quite
12 some newspaper articles in it. There are a few documents in it as well,
13 but before I perhaps ask you a question about it, I'd like to remind you
14 that you're still bound by the solemn declaration you've given at the
15 beginning of your testimony.
16 WITNESS: MOMCILO KRAJISNIK [Resumed]
17 [Witness answered through interpreter]
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, I see that there's one -- there seems
19 to be a decision of the 28th of December, 1991, appointing certain people
20 on a staff. Could you please tell us what that approximately is about.
21 It's got to do something with Omarska, it comes from the opstina of
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. It's a document that is
24 perhaps useful; namely that Omarska was first a collection centre for
25 refugees from Croatia in 1991. That is when it was established. So I
1 wanted to submit it as a useful document. It was the local commune that
2 established Omarska.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And then there is another document from August,
4 1992, from Prijedor and signed by Simo Drljaca. Could you tell us what
5 that document is approximately about.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Again, he describes Omarska and
7 Keraterm as prisons and Trnopolje as a collection centre. So I just
8 wanted to indicate what kind of information we were receiving.
9 JUDGE ORIE: And you did receive these documents at that time, is
10 that -- perhaps we'll put them on the ELMO for a second. Just the
11 numbers --
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't get it at the time. I just
13 found them, Your Honour. At that time, I heard somebody providing
14 information about Trnopolje, so I just wanted to --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but of course the relevance would be that that's
16 information that reached you at the time. Yes. Let's first look at this.
17 Could I invite -- I know that it's not the preferred way to do it,
18 but could I invite the first five lines to be slowly read by you,
19 Mr. Krajisnik, and then we'll hear the translation.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "Assembly Prijedor, Executive
21 Council of the local commune of Omarska, Omarska, 28 December, 1991.
23 "At a meeting of the Executive Council, a decision was reached on
24 the establishment of a staff for taking in refugees named Omarska in
25 cooperation with the Executive Councils of the local communities of
1 Omarska, Maricka, Gradina, Lamovita, Donji Petrov Gaj and Gornji Petrov
2 Gaj and in cooperation with the regional staff of Banja Luka."
3 Should I read on?
4 "A commander was elected --"
5 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that it's all names and -- yes.
6 Mr. Krajisnik, this says something that happened -- well, refugees in
7 Omarska, but when we're talking about Omarska camp, that's not the same as
8 just Omarska, is it?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no, no. No. I meant that
10 already then there was some kind of facility that was established for
11 refugees, and later on it was turned into a camp. That is what I
12 concluded, and I thought you'd find it useful.
13 JUDGE ORIE: What makes you believe that this is not Omarska
14 village and it is -- because there is no reference whatsoever to what
15 later became known as Omarska camp, which is at quite a distance from the
16 village, very much remote.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no. This is the Executive
18 Council of Omarska, that is to say the entire settlement of Omarska.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but again who tells us that this -- that what
20 has been set up here was located at this -- at this facility which is at
21 quite a distance from the village, and which is -- which was, from what I
22 understand, was just functioning as a -- as an economic facility, a mine,
23 an ore mine. Who tells us that this was the same? What it says, that it
24 is in Omarska, but it doesn't say anything about whether it's in the ore
25 mine, which is at - well, what is it? - two kilometres? Totally remote
1 from the village of Omarska.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I brought the
3 document, and I provided an interpretation that I cannot stand by. You
4 will decide whether it's relevant or not. I just wanted to be of
5 assistance, that's all. I first saw it here when I read the documents.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Now, the second document. This -- this would need a
7 number. I don't know whether the parties want to adopt it.
8 MR. JOSSE: I'm happy to invite the registrar through Your Honour
9 to give it a D number.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Registrar, that would be D --
11 THE REGISTRAR: 251, Your Honours.
12 JUDGE ORIE: 251. Now, the next document, Mr. Krajisnik, you say
13 in this -- in this document signed by Mr. Drljaca he makes a distinction
14 between -- and that's in August, 1992 -- he makes a distinction between --
15 between the reception centre at Trnopolje, whereas Omarska and Keraterm
16 are called prisons. Of course, I -- I take it at this moment you can read
17 it; you provided the document. And you said, "I gave it to you to tell
18 you what kind of information," and -- let me see your words literally. I
19 have to find it, please wait a second.
20 You said, "So I just wanted to indicate what kind of information
21 we were receiving," and then you said you didn't receive this at this
22 moment. What it says, therefore, is that although Trnopolje is, as you
23 said - and let's just assume that that's what the translation would bring
24 us - was called a reception centre, at the same time Omarska and Keraterm,
25 as you said, were called prisons. So is -- do you say, "That's the
1 information we got," Trnopolje being reception centre and the others to be
2 called prisons?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know when it was that I
4 first heard of Trnopolje, but whenever I received information, a
5 distinction was always made between Omarska and Trnopolje. Trnopolje was
6 called a reception centre. That's what I wanted to say, that there is a
7 document, but then there are other documents referring to it the same way.
8 JUDGE ORIE: And Omarska you received always information that it
9 was called a prison?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, Mr. President, I mean -- well,
11 you will see this other document here. When journalists visited,
12 Keraterm, Omarska and Manjaca were prisons and Trnopolje was a reception
13 centre. I mean, that's how they reported. So that was the information I
14 was receiving at the time.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So you say at the time Manjaca, Keraterm and
16 Omarska, you were aware that these were named prisons, whereas Trnopolje
17 was named a reception centre.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I knew it. I received
19 information when this was revealed, when journalists toured this, when
20 this commission provided a report, when they made a distinction among the
21 three. That's when I received information that there was a reception
22 centre and that there are prisons in Prijedor.
23 Later on -- well, really, I can give you several documents stating
24 that Trnopolje was a reception centre. I cannot claim that. I just read
25 it here, and I heard about it from people who were saying that it was an
1 open centre.
2 What I wanted to say was that I wanted you to know what kind of
3 impression you got when you would receive information. I was not there.
4 I don't know what it looked like.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, it's -- Mr. Josse, you offer for this
6 document --
7 MR. JOSSE: This document, I noticed, Your Honour, has a Tribunal
8 number on it, and I've just checked and that number refers,
9 unsurprisingly, to the very case that has the subname Omarska, Keraterm,
10 and Trnopolje camps. So it's almost certainly been translated, in other
11 words. But again --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Could we then invite to see whether ... Then we have
13 some newspaper articles. I leave it to the parties to see if there is any
14 use, because there seem to be some contemporaneous and there seem to be
15 some publications later. I see one is October, 1995. So what that would
16 have meant is not entirely clear to me.
17 MR. JOSSE: It's got the same number, I noticed, Your Honour;
18 IT-98-30 on the top of it. Both of them have, so the material could have
19 been disclosed somewhere.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I don't see these numbers at this moment, but
21 that's not a major problem. And then we also have at least one
22 publication which seems to be Kozarski Vjesnik, dated --
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 14th of August. That's it. And it
24 refers to seven days before that, to the visit paid by the journalists.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I see -- I see, as a matter of fact, but
1 perhaps I'm wrong, I also see the 21st of August mentioned as a date.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. There is another one dated the
3 21st of August. That has to do with Mr. Kouchner, who visited these
5 JUDGE ORIE: I leave that to the parties whether or not to enter
6 -- to see --
7 MR. JOSSE: Could the document that's dated 9th of August, 1992,
8 be assigned a number? We've spent a little bit of time on it now.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Registrar.
10 THE REGISTRAR: That will be D252, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you, and let's try to find out whether
12 there's a translation already in existence.
13 Mr. Tieger, are you ready to continue?
14 MR. TIEGER: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you.
15 Cross-examination by Mr. Tieger: [Continued]
16 Q. Good morning, Mr. Krajisnik.
17 A. Good morning.
18 Q. Before we conclude the questions that we were engaged in yesterday
19 concerning camps and exchanges and so on, I wanted to ask you one quick
20 question about your testimony on the 25th of May when you stated that for
21 personal reasons you were not present in Pale on August 23rd and for
22 several days before and after that. In fact, Mr. Krajisnik, I'd like you
23 to take a look at the next document, which will need a number.
24 JUDGE ORIE: We find it at tab -- it's still to be distributed.
25 MR. TIEGER: Yes, Your Honour. And, Your Honour, I'm referring to
1 May 25th, at page 24789.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could you give one or two words very specific
3 from those lines, because I've got no --
4 MR. TIEGER: "And several days before and after ..."
5 I'm sorry, I didn't hear the number it was provided.
6 THE REGISTRAR: That will be P 1249, Your Honours.
7 MR. TIEGER: Thank you.
8 Q. Mr. Krajisnik, P 1249 is an article from Javnost dated 29 August,
9 1992, it's page 3, and if you will look at the article in the upper
10 right-hand portion of the page headed "Momcilo Krajisnik congratulated
11 SRNA on their Jubilee." The title of the article is "Battle for the
12 Truth." And it indicates that: "On Saturday, 22 August, president of the
13 Assembly of Republika Srpska Momcilo Krajisnik received in Pale the deputy
14 editor-in-chief of the Serbian news agency SRNA Dragan Gardovic. On that
15 occasion he congratulated the SRNA staff on the broadcast of their 5.000th
16 news item."
17 It would appear therefore, Mr. Krajisnik, that in fact you were
18 present in Pale at least on August 22nd.
19 A. Well, I wasn't there on the 22nd of August for sure, because then
20 I took my wife to the Military Medical Academy in Belgrade. I have no
21 idea how come this appeared on the 22nd when she died early on the morning
22 of the 23rd. I was in Belgrade. I have no idea where this comes from.
23 If you want, I can give you proof and documentation stating when I was in
24 Belgrade. I know for sure that I was not there. I don't know how come it
25 says the 22nd here. Maybe they got their dates confused. I have no idea.
1 Q. Okay. Thank you. Now, I indicated that we were going to continue
2 focusing on the area --
3 A. Is it necessary for me to bring documentation to you as to when I
4 was in Belgrade and everything, when she died, all of that? If you have
5 your suspicions regarding this.
6 MR. JOSSE: Could I stop Mr. Krajisnik. I, frankly, was very
7 tempted in effect on his behalf to ask my learned friend the same
8 question. I don't expect an answer now, but perhaps we could have one
9 after the break, because clearly if it is in dispute, then it's something
10 Mr. Krajisnik will need to attend to.
11 MR. TIEGER: Well, first of all, Your Honour, I am not going to
12 respond to questions from Mr. Krajisnik. I appreciate Mr. Josse's
13 intervention. And secondly, the information before the Court is apparent,
14 and if the Defence is inclined to produce additional documentation,
15 obviously it's welcome.
16 MR. JOSSE: I would submit that's remarkably unhelpful, with
17 respect, and the Prosecution need to pin their colours to the mast on this
19 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber will consider whether it will give
20 guidance to the parties in respect of a matter which, although now --
21 although not without importance might not be of such importance that what
22 certainly will be a rather painful exercise would be needed to correct
23 this. We'll consider the matter, and please proceed, Mr. Tieger.
24 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
25 Q. Mr. Krajisnik, as I indicated, we're returning to the issue we
1 were discussing yesterday. As I recall, towards the end of the session
2 you had been presented with and looked at the commission report regarding
3 Omarska, Keraterm, Trnopolje camps in Sanski Most and other places in
4 Western Bosnia, and we addressed that report to some extent at the end.
5 Now, you also indicated that there were two additional reports
6 that reflected the strict and resolute action by the Presidency in
7 response to the outcry by the international community and the disclosure
8 that -- worldwide, of the existence of Bosnian Serb camps in which Muslims
9 and Croats were held.
10 The next document I'd like you to look at, then, is an additional
11 document. It's a report in August of 1992 to which you've earlier
12 referred, report by Slobodan Avlijas.
13 That would need to be distributed, Your Honour, and it is P583,
14 tab 92.
15 JUDGE ORIE: While it is distributed:
16 Mr. Krajisnik, do you know Javnost, whether it was a daily
17 newspaper or a weekly.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was a weekly, yes, a weekly.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Mr. Registrar, this needs a number.
20 MR. TIEGER: No, Your Honour; P583, tab 92.
21 Q. So, Mr. Krajisnik, this document to the government of the Serb
22 republic by the Republika Srpska Ministry of Justice for Mr. Avlijas and
23 Mr. Saric, that was one of the three documents, the three reports
24 concerning camps to which you've been referring during the course of your
25 testimony about the camps and the action taken by the Presidency in
1 response; correct?
2 A. This is a report issued by a government commission. They are from
3 the Ministry of Justice, and they were directly tasked by the government.
4 Q. And to my knowledge, this is --
5 JUDGE ORIE: But the question was whether this is one of the
6 documents you referred to, not to disquiet the document.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes, it is.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
9 MR. TIEGER:
10 Q. And what we saw yesterday was the commission investigation into
11 camps in Western Bosnia in August, and this is the investigation by the
12 authorities into camps in Eastern Bosnia, I take it, in August. I know
13 there is a subsequent report in late October, but this would be the
14 Eastern Bosnia version of the effort made in the wake of the disclosures
15 in early August; is that right?
16 A. No, no. This is a report from Herzegovina. That's the southern
17 part, Herzegovina. Bileca, that's Eastern Herzegovina.
18 Q. Okay. So Posusje camp, for example, in Vlasenica would not have
19 been included in the efforts made by the Bosnian Serb authorities in
20 August to find out what was happening in camps run by the Bosnian Serb
22 A. This is a commission for Eastern Herzegovina. Whether it was
23 also, therefore, Birac and Eastern Bosnia, I don't know, but probably,
24 yes. However, it says here that it's for Herzegovina. I read this report
25 when I arrived here, so I know about it.
1 Q. Right. And like the report concerning Manjaca, Omarska, Keraterm,
2 et cetera, this report, according to you, is a reflection of the
3 determination by the Bosnian Serb authorities to find out what was
4 happening in camps and who was responsible. So what was happening,
5 whether misconduct had occurred, how prisoners had been treated and who
6 was responsible and accountable if wrongful detentions and abuse had
7 occurred; is that right?
8 A. I said that it was the decisive standpoint of the Presidency where
9 I was present, and an order was issued to the government to complete this,
10 and a commission was established to tour the terrain. So I can only
11 assume, but I presume yes.
12 When I was present at the Presidency, there was a decisive
13 standpoint that this should be investigated, and an order was given to the
14 government to do this.
15 Q. And after taking this decisive standpoint, Mr. Krajisnik, what did
16 the Presidency or other authorities in Bosnian -- in Republika Srpska do
17 when they got this report about camps, this one-page, one-paragraph report
18 that said essentially, Here there's no camp; here there are two camps;
19 here there are no prisoners now. There were no prisoners in the barracks,
20 it says, in Bileca since all the prisoners had been exchanged in the
21 all-for-all principle the day before. Where in this - and you can read it
22 very quickly - where in this report is there any indication of an interest
23 in determining what happened to the people who were there, why they were,
24 and who was responsible?
25 A. Well, I'm telling you that I did not receive this report. I read
1 it here, just as you did. I can tell you what action was taken. You will
2 recall that the government had a closed session about all these reports,
3 and after that the remaining prisons were disbanded. I know that.
4 Mr. Karadzic issued an order disbanding them, and this was sometime in
5 August. You have it there, the 46th government session in Banja Luka,
6 where all these reports were discussed. This report was discussed by the
7 cabinet. It wasn't disseminated. It was received on the 22nd of August,
8 I see. After that, the prisons were disbanded. The cabinet had a
9 discussion, and then the president of the republic disbanded the prisons.
10 I don't know whether he -- all of them were abolished, but he released a
11 large number of people and so on. You can find all this in the Presidency
13 Q. We'll be looking at the Presidency minutes, Mr. Krajisnik. All
14 right. But my question was, what steps, if any, are you aware of that
15 were taken to find out why the prisoners were there, what happened to them
16 while they were there, and who was responsible, and I take it you can't
17 tell me about any.
18 A. I can tell you now what I read here. Then the government formed
19 commissions to make a tour --
20 Q. Let me make it clear: I want to know what steps you were aware of
21 at the time that were being taken to address that issue first.
22 A. What I know is that the government was tasked with carrying out
23 this task, and the order was that the truth should be established.
24 Q. And do you know of any steps other than the three reports you've
25 told us about, because I'm about to turn to the third report.
1 A. I don't know. Maybe I knew something at the time, but that was
2 unofficial. Officially, I knew nothing. Officially, it was all at
3 cabinet level, and the government worked on this persistently. I know
4 that the president of the government, the ministers and the others, kept
5 insisting on it. And how the commission did its job, well, I don't know
7 JUDGE ORIE: Judge Hanoteau has a question.
8 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. Krajisnik, you said, "[In
9 English] Officially, I knew nothing."
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Should I explain?
11 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] My question is the following: Do
12 you mean by this that you had unofficial knowledge or informed in an
13 unofficial way? Does it also mean that you had a certain number of
14 information -- you had some information but that that information had not
15 arrived to you by official means?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is an official document. I did
17 not receive such a document for my information. I don't exclude the
18 possibility that while the government was working on this someone said
19 something about it, but I don't remember having received any such
20 information while the commission was at work. Had I received it, it would
21 have been at the Assembly or somewhere. That's my answer. If I had
22 received this and discussed it, but I didn't, not until it was all over.
23 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. Krajisnik, if you had
24 received those documents, for instance, would you have been happy with
25 them? Would you have examined them?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I wouldn't have been. I would
2 have asked for a debate to see what could be done, and if there was
3 anything negative, I would have demanded that those who were responsible
4 should take steps. But I was not able to punish anyone or take any steps.
5 I could only demand that the government do so.
6 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, but my question was
7 not exactly that. If we take this report, I would call it very succinct,
8 it's a very short report. It's not an investigation report, per se. The
9 Prosecutor asked you a question regarding this. There's no real
10 investigation on what happened, there's no real hearing as to see who was
11 responsible for anything, there was no real work done by investigators who
12 then at the end of that particular phase created or drafted a report. And
13 I haven't finished. I'm terribly sorry for interrupting you,
14 Mr. Krajisnik, but my question is the following: If you had had such a
15 succinct report, what would have been your reaction?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As someone who is close to those who
17 are responsible, I could only influence them or suggest that this should
18 be fuller, but I could not ask for a report on my own. The Presidency
19 could do that. I could speak out within the Presidency, and that was the
20 end of all my activity. I couldn't punish. I couldn't not trust the
21 government if the government issued a conclusion. I could say, Wait a
22 minute, is this correct? if there were any indications elsewhere that this
23 was not the case, but there was nothing I could do.
24 Had I had any indications, had I heard, well, it's not 25, it's
25 150, then I could say something, but without such indications I could only
1 believe them as someone who participated in a meeting where this was
3 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Thank you, sir.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, you said if not all, then at least
5 almost all prisons were disbanded. Were you informed about that? Did you
6 know that they were disbanded?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I can remember,
8 Mr. Karadzic took some measures. I know he released 5.000 prisoners.
9 That's why I think all prisons were disbanded, but I cannot recall now
10 what prisons and whether it was really all of them. I may have spoken too
11 decidedly when I said all. If the Muslims did not want to carry out an
12 exchange, our people were left in Muslim prisons, and I know that some
13 measures were taken. Karadzic released these people one-sidedly because
14 he was under pressure, while the other side did not want to carry out an
15 exchange and Serbs remained in Muslim prisons. That's why I know about
16 this, and you'll probably find this somewhere. If I had the minutes here,
17 I would find it. It was a unilateral decision taken by Mr. Karadzic. I
18 know he released about 5.000 people. I think it was from Trnopolje, but
19 I'm not sure. I don't recall exactly.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's one facility you're talking about. You
21 said that after that, the prisons were disbanded. We know that there were
22 far more. At least, that's what the evidence suggests.
23 I mean, if -- I asked you whether you knew that the prisons were
24 disbanded, and you then said perhaps not all of them. Now you're talking
25 about the release of 5.000 people from Trnopolje.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, my information when
2 Mr. Karadzic unilaterally disbanded prisons - I don't know which - and
3 released the Muslims, I know there were complaints by Serbs. That's how I
4 know about all this, because the Muslims had not released the Serbs, and
5 now we could not ask for an exchange and get our Serbs back. But I don't
6 know now off the top of my head, but I could find in the documents which
7 prisons were disbanded and which were not.
8 JUDGE ORIE: I'm interested in what you knew at the time.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I knew that he released a certain
10 number of people, 5.000. I may have exaggerated this, but I know that
11 there were complaints about this decision of his and that we could not
12 carry out exchanges of prisoners and that deputies were complaining about
13 that. I know that.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Did you share that criticism? Whether you expressed
15 it or not is a different matter, but did you share that criticism?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I listened to all the information
17 from all three sides, and I was sorry that Serbs had remained in Muslim
18 prisons because we had agreed that an all-for-all exchange should be
19 carried out. Of course I was concerned about the Serbs. I would have
20 preferred there to have been an exchange rather than a unilateral release.
21 JUDGE ORIE: So you to some extent shared that criticism. You
22 think that an exchange should have taken place rather than a release.
23 I mean, you're -- you say whether you agree or did not agree with
24 those who criticised Mr. Karadzic for what he did, or to some extent -- do
25 I have to understand that to some extent that you shared the criticism but
1 perhaps not in full or ...
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. I supported Mr. Karadzic. I
3 knew why he had done this, but I regretted that an exchange had not been
4 carried out and that the Serbs remained in prison. I knew that he had
5 been under pressure and that he had to release those people. Others
6 didn't know that, and so they criticised him for not carrying out an
8 JUDGE ORIE: Pressure by whom?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, Mr. Sommaruga, various
10 foreigners, and then he said, "All right, I'll release them all, and I
11 think that the Muslims will do the same unilaterally on the other side,"
12 but the Muslims didn't. It was the representatives of the international
13 community who continued exerting pressure to have the Muslims released
14 after all those visits.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Was there no criticism that Mr. Karadzic released
16 people that belonged in a prison, that should be prison?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Why would Mr. Karadzic release those who were
19 rightfully in a prison?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He released many people who should
21 have remained in prison. He released them all. He said, "All right. We
22 will release them all because we want an all-for-all exchange, and I hope
23 that now the Muslims will release our prisoners." I know that's how it
24 happened. He didn't release only those who shouldn't have been in prison.
25 I know that.
1 JUDGE ORIE: So there was an awareness at that time that there
2 were also people in prison who should not have been there. You said he
3 released both the ones who should have been in prison and the others. So
4 there was awareness of people being in prison who should not have been
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. You asked whether
7 he had released those who should have been released and who shouldn't have
8 been released. I said he released them all because he wanted an
9 all-for-all exchange. He released them all. I don't know who these
10 people were. And then the Muslims were to have done the same, but they
11 didn't. The international community said that they would, but they
12 didn't. There should have been an all-for-all exchange, and that would
13 have been the end of it.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Your answer was he didn't release only those who
15 shouldn't have been in prison. That seems to be --
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was responding to your question,
17 Your Honour, whether he had released those who should have remained in
18 prison and shouldn't have remained. I said he let them all out. I didn't
19 know whether they should or shouldn't have been in prison. He released
20 everyone, hoping there would be an all-for-all exchange. I don't know
21 whether there were people in there who shouldn't have been in there.
22 JUDGE ORIE: You didn't know whether -- yes. Okay. Thank you for
23 those answers.
24 Mr. Tieger, please proceed.
25 MR. TIEGER:
1 Q. Mr. Krajisnik, please turn to tab 312. That's P583, tab 100.
2 This is a report on the situation in prisons and collection camps from the
3 RS Ministry of Justice dated 22 October, 1992. Mr. Krajisnik, is this the
4 other, that is the third, commission report to which you've been referring
5 during the course of your testimony regarding this issue?
6 A. I don't know what number it is, but I have seen it here, yes.
7 Q. I'm sorry, you don't know what number it is? Does that mean --
8 are you aware of any other reports, other than the three we've looked at,
9 that were responses to what you called the decisive steps of the
10 Presidency after the international outcry about camps?
11 A. Well, first of all, the way you put the question is completely
12 wrong. I don't know why you're putting words into my mouth.
13 I said I saw this report when I arrived here. I don't know
14 whether it's the second or the third report. I don't know. We saw three
15 reports here which you presented yesterday and today. Now there is a
16 third one here.
17 I don't know whether there are any other reports. If you show me
18 any other reports, I will be able to tell you whether I saw them or not.
19 Q. That's a very long way of answering my question, Mr. Krajisnik. I
20 asked you whether you were aware of any additional reports. The answer
21 was no; is that right?
22 JUDGE ORIE: There seem to have been -- there seem to have been --
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, that's not what you asked.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik. Mr. Krajisnik. There seems to have
25 been to some extent a mistranslation when the number was mentioned. Well,
1 mistranslation, perhaps not a translation that made the words of
2 Mr. Krajisnik fully understandable, which is that he doesn't know whether
3 it was the second or the third.
4 The first question, however, was a very simple question,
5 Mr. Krajisnik, that has been put to you before: That this is one of the
6 reports that you referred to earlier. If you would have said yes, because
7 then whether it was the second or the third might have been important,
8 might not have been important. Is this one of the reports you referred to
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's not the question. The
11 question was --
12 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... was the first
13 question, Mr. Krajisnik.
14 MR. JOSSE: The problem, with respect, was Mr. Tieger asked two
15 questions at the same time, and that is where the difficulty arose. He
16 first asked about the number, and then he asked about whether there were
17 subsequent reports. There's actually a question --
18 JUDGE ORIE: I'll re-read it so that I ...
19 Yes. I do agree with you that the question was a mixed one --
20 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: -- which is whether it was the third report --
22 MR. TIEGER: That was the first question. When he started to make
23 that an issue, I simply asked, Are you aware of any other reports?
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. By the way, it's -- I wouldn't call it a comedy
25 of errors, but of course then Mr. Krajisnik, when he said, "I don't know
1 what number it is," he didn't say, "But it is the report I referred to."
2 He didn't say that but "I have seen it here," which is of course not the
3 same as I referred to, whether it was the second or third. Let's proceed
4 and let's not spend any more time on misunderstandings. Mr. Tieger.
5 MR. TIEGER:
6 Q. Let's try that again, Mr. Krajisnik. This report at tab 12 --
7 312, which is P583, tab 100, was this one of the reports that was a
8 response to what you called the decisive steps taken by the Presidency?
9 A. I'm telling you, I saw this report for the first time here. I can
10 assume that, yes, that was it.
11 Q. Are you aware of any other steps to determine what was happening
12 in camps, how people, Muslims and Croats, had been placed there and why,
13 whether abuse had occurred, and who was responsible other than the three
14 reports we've looked at today and yesterday? That is, the report by Beara
15 and Skondric in August of 1992 -- and others, in August of 1992 regarding
16 Omarska, Keraterm, Krings, et cetera, the report by Avlijas we looked at a
17 few moments ago, and this report by Avlijas on October 22nd, 1992.
18 A. I did not receive these reports at the time. That's the first
19 correction I want to make.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, the question is relative simple, that
21 is, whether you are aware of any other than the three reports mentioned.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If there were some military reports
23 presented at some meeting, if I attended, perhaps I heard about it, but
24 then measures were taken immediately. I know that. I was never at a
25 meeting where measures were not taken. I think there was this one report
1 from the military.
2 JUDGE ORIE: So you say there may have been more reports among the
3 military --
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. I mean honestly I don't know
5 whether the interpreter is interpreting this properly. I am speaking so
7 Perhaps there was some report from the military. Perhaps. If I
8 was present, then I heard it and measures were certainly taken. I always
9 keep getting the wrong reaction as if I were saying something different.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I do not see a major difference with how I
11 summarised it, but --
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I see it.
13 JUDGE ORIE: The answer is --
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I see the difference. There's
15 always a tendentious difference and a tendentious question. I give clear
16 answers to clear questions, and tendentious questions upset me. Today the
17 Prosecutor keeps putting words into my mouth, and he says things that are
18 wrong. A public that is being upset or was upset or whatever. To clear
19 questions I will give clear answers, yes, no, I did not know. Please do
20 not put words into my mouth.
21 MR. TIEGER:
22 Q. Is that right, Mr. Krajisnik, you're disputing that the
23 international community was - what are your words? - upset by the
24 disclosures concerning Omarska, Keraterm, and so on? Was I wrong in
25 suggesting in any way that that was the case?
1 A. Wrong. And I told you very nicely that there were complaints,
2 that the delegation went there, that journalists went there, that there
3 was writing about it, and that there were contacts all the time, and
4 objections, objections, and that people from the government kept denying
5 that, saying that that was not correct. That is the truth. That's what I
7 It's not being upset, it's simply complaints. And being upset is
8 quite different from objections.
9 Q. Mr. Krajisnik, please turn to tab 306 -- oh, sorry.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Judge Hanoteau has a question.
11 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. Krajisnik, at the time was it
12 possible to think that the president of the National Assembly, in other
13 words yourself, could you have taken an initiative? For instance, could
14 you have designated members of the parliament deputies to make an
15 investigation regarding something that you could call rumours, troublesome
16 rumours or rumours that were unsettling, that those rumours, for instance
17 whether they were rumours that came from the international community or
18 whether you heard rumours internally, for instance, could you have done
19 something? Thank you. Yes, please answer my question.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Presidency of the Assembly and the
21 Assembly had commissions, and within their own province of work they could
22 investigate certain matters, and they did indeed investigate a particular
24 As for this particular matter, they could not because this was
25 under the jurisdiction of the government. It would have to interfere with
1 the powers of the government. It was for the government to investigate
2 this, to submit a report to the Assembly; we were supposed to discuss
3 that. That is the proper channel. It would be that we were interfering
4 in the province of work of someone who was in charge of that. We sent a
5 commission to investigate the rumours that had to do with Mr. Simic and
6 Mr. Bijelic. We indeed did that because that was within our
7 jurisdiction. We were not supposed to check out prisons.
8 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] I would not like to start a
9 debate on constitutional law here, but tell us, please, can the Assembly
10 not also control, in a way, the actions of the government?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, but really, that
12 would have been very unusual. If there is a government commission -- if
13 you were to send an Assembly commission consisting of MPs to control the
14 work of the government, that kind of thing never happened. They could
15 only check on the work of the government within the Assembly, but they
16 could not go after the government. I don't know whether that exists
17 somewhere else, but it never existed in our area. You have to believe
18 someone. If you don't believe anyone, that will lead you nowhere. It's
19 only if I followed every single person around, seeing that they were
20 doing. That's impossible. Then I would also have to check on this
21 Assembly commission, and so on and so forth, and that is quite impossible.
22 That has nothing to do with the Assembly. It has to do with the
23 government, so that's what the government did. Perhaps all of this is
24 wrong, but this is what the Prime Minister received. The Prime Minister
25 could not have received any other kind of information, only this. And
1 those people from the commission could only receive what they got from the
2 ground, what they were told there. That's how UN commissions work too.
3 They come, they interview people, they see what the situation is. Very
4 often they make mistakes too.
5 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Thank you, sir.
6 MR. TIEGER:
7 Q. Mr. Krajisnik, please turn to tab 306.
8 MR. TIEGER: It will need a number, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
10 THE REGISTRAR: That will be P1250, Your Honours.
11 MR. TIEGER:
12 Q. Now, P1250 reflects a meeting at Manjaca on 20 August, 1992,
13 concerning the views on the treatment and processing of the persons who
14 participated in armed rebellion. Participants are Lieutenant Colonel
15 Popovic, the camp commander; Major Stupar, the coordinator of the 1st
16 Krajina security organ; Vaso Skondric, and we've seen before as a
17 participant in one of the investigative visions; and Radomir Radinkovic.
18 As you can see on the first page, Mr. Krajisnik, Major Stupar made
19 introductory remarks about the views of the Presidency of Republika
20 Srpska, and he said: "List of 92 persons for whom there is no evidence
21 that they carried out - participated in combat activities and who have
22 serious health problems and attract the attention of journalists and the
23 representatives of humanitarian organisations because of their physical
24 appearance." And then the task is to consider their status for these
1 And we see a list of such people attached. And just going through
2 it quickly, we see Mr. Alibegovic, who had a stroke, Mr. Pobric who had
3 one hand, Mr. Salihovic who had active pulmonary tuberculosis, Mr. Mehmet
4 Sistek who had diabetes and could not stand up - that's on page 5 of the
5 English. Page 6, Mr. Fazlic who had an operation of the large intestine
6 and no control over bowel movement. Mr. Dedic, kidney disease, and so on
7 and so on and so on.
8 Before I go -- Mr. Krajisnik, when did the Presidency convey to
9 Major Stupar the views of that body concerning the treatment and
10 processing of prisoners for whom there is no evidence that they carried
11 out or were involved in combat activities and whose medical condition and
12 health problems were attracting the attention of journalists and
13 representatives of humanitarian organisations?
14 A. I don't know. That can be seen in the records. But I know that
15 part of these activities aimed at releasing the elderly were based on
16 Mr. Karadzic's order, as far as I can remember. But you can see in the
17 records whether there is such a discussion. Probably after the return of
18 Mr. Ostojic and this commission. They probably established that
19 independently from the commission, and they proposed that. If it was in
20 the Presidency, then it's there. If not, then he did it at his own
21 initiative, and he had the right to do so.
22 Q. Now, there are -- the list, the P1250, also indicates persons who
23 were known not to have had any alleged involvement at all in what is
24 called here armed rebellion but who -- whose medical conditions apparently
25 weren't attracting the attention of journalists and representatives of
1 humanitarian organisations, and we see that at page 15 of the English and
2 page 15 of the B/C/S. It's one of the tasks following Major Stupar's
3 contact with the Presidency concerning their views, and that is to review
4 the list of 400 persons for whom there is no evidence that they committed
5 the crime of armed rebellion in cooperation with civilian authorities,
6 hand-over at reception camps, or other type of accommodations --
8 That was another step that, following contact with the Presidency,
9 that the officials at Manjaca were engaged in or considering on 20 August,
10 1992; is that right?
11 A. I don't know. Probably if it's contained in the records of the
12 Presidency, then yes, but I don't know. I mean, this way -- well, I find
13 this to be normal, this order that those for whom there is no evidence
14 should be released.
15 Many people get detained, and they think that they have evidence
16 for that, and then they start collecting evidence, and then ultimately
17 they get released. And some people get released even when there is
19 Q. Well, here it's not a case of thinking there's evidence. Here it
20 says there's no evidence. So it's apparent, is it not, that at least
21 these 400, if not others, were among those people who were rounded up as
22 indicated, for example, in Mr. Stanisic's 17 July, 1992, report to the
23 Presidency -- or to the president of the Presidency.
24 A. Well, yes. Many people get detained in even more serious prisons,
25 and it is only then that evidence is compiled and then it is presented at
1 trials. If there is no evidence, then they are released. I'm just saying
2 this by way of a comment. Of course, if there is no evidence, they should
3 be released.
4 Q. And if we look at the list of people falling into that overlap
5 category, that is people against whom there is no evidence and whose
6 medical conditions are so severe that they are attracting the negative
7 attention of the international community, we can see the dates of their --
8 at the beginning of their detention, such as 29 May, 1992, and 31 --
9 A. I beg your pardon. Is that at the beginning of the text? Could
10 you please just tell me where it is.
11 Q. It's the list that appears immediately after the comments by --
12 concerning the meeting.
13 A. Yes, yes. These tasks, assignments.
14 Q. So just leafing through quickly, we see Nermin Pobric captured on
15 29 May, 1992; Mehmed Sistek 27 May, 1992, that's page 4; Mr. Salihovic 29
16 May, 1992, on page 5; Mr. Draganovic 31 May, 1992, also on page 5;
17 Mr. Vuckic, on page 6, 27 May, 1992; Mr. Dervisevic 29 May, 1992, and so
19 So those were persons against whom there was no evidence and whose
20 medical condition was so severe as to attract or be capable of attracting
21 the attention of journalists and representatives who had been in prisons
22 and detention facilities for months and were still being considered for
23 release because of the attention they were attracting or potential
24 attention they might attract by the international community; correct?
25 A. Yes. That's what's written here.
1 Q. Now, you mention one of the Presidency sessions. Could we turn
2 next to --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps, Mr. -- Mr. Krajisnik, part of your answer
4 was that it was -- that you considered it to be normal that if there was
5 no evidence that you would release the people and you would not know right
6 from the beginning. If I look at this document, it says that the 92
7 people who are apparently visibly ill or in bad condition, and where there
8 is no evidence, they should be released, but other, the other 400 - that's
9 at page 15 - to review the list of 400 persons for whom there's no
10 evidence that they committed the crime of armed rebellion in cooperation
11 with civilian authorities, hand-over at reception camps or other types of
12 accommodations. Why were they not immediately released if there was no
13 evidence? Why were only those who were visibly ill immediately released?
14 As for the others without any evidence, they should be handed over to
15 collection centres?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, to be released from prison
17 here and to be accommodated. I don't know about this. But for all of
18 those for whom there was no evidence --
19 JUDGE ORIE: But you permitted yourself to say this was quite
20 normal, so you commented on this document.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.
22 JUDGE ORIE: And I'm now asking you, since you -- since you gave
23 this comment, whether this comment is -- where it says that it's quite
24 normal, I'm asking you not about the 92 that were immediately released but
25 whether you consider it then normal for the 400 people who were not
1 immediately released and who were sent to reception centres rather than to
2 have the same opportunity to leave the prison immediately. It says that
3 there was no evidence. Do you find that normal as well?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was normal for them to be set
5 free if they had not been set free. It is only normal. If there is no
6 evidence, they should be set free. They should be released. And had I
7 been the one to be asked, I would have released all the rest too. And I
8 can explain why I would have done that.
9 JUDGE ORIE: No. We're more interested whether you have an
10 explanation why it was not done to the 400.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no, no. No. I do not have an
12 explanation, but it's only normal that they should be released. Because
13 there is no evidence, then they should be released. Why would they be in
14 prison? Of course.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Allow only those who could be identified by
16 journalists as being unfit to be there for release, and the others,
17 although there was no evidence, were not released. And would you agree
18 with me that that is what is described in this document?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is what is written in the
20 document, but I don't know. I did not know of this document, but there
21 were views that all should be released, not only these but the others too.
22 That's what I'm trying to say.
23 Mr. President, can I just say something, why I would have released
24 the others for whom there was evidence? May I?
25 JUDGE ORIE: No. As a matter of fact, unless Mr. Josse wants to
1 put that question to you at a later stage.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no.
3 MR. JOSSE: Your Honour --
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Only if you're interested.
5 MR. JOSSE: The very last question Your Honour asked, could I ask
6 Your Honour to ask it again? It doesn't read easily in English.
7 JUDGE ORIE: I briefly described who were released, who were not
8 released, and then I asked Mr. Krajisnik whether -- and would you agree
9 with me that that is described in this document? So whether we have the
10 same understanding of what this document says. That was my question. And
11 then Mr. Krajisnik said, "That is was -- that is what was written in the
12 documents, but," and then he said he didn't know the document and that
13 there were other views. But I was just trying to establish whether we
14 have a similar understanding as to what this document says.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no. Mr. President, I beg your
16 pardon. Please.
17 JUDGE ORIE: I gave an answer to an issue that was raised by
18 Mr. Josse. Mr. Tieger, you may proceed.
19 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
20 Q. If we could turn next to the 30th session of the Serbian Republic
21 held on September 6, 1992. That needs to be distributed. It is P65, tab
22 196. And we may as well distribute the next item at the same time, Your
23 Honour, which will need a number.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
25 THE REGISTRAR: That will be P1251, Your Honours.
1 MR. TIEGER:
2 Q. Mr. Krajisnik, this -- the first document, as indicated, is the
3 30th session of the Presidency. Present are Dr. Karadzic, Dr. Koljevic,
4 Dr. Plavsic, and you. The item on the agenda is discussion of the
5 proposal for the pardon of prisoners of war held in Manjaca camp, and
6 indicates that the military prosecutor's office has submitted a list of a
7 certain number of prisoners of war held in the Manjaca camp and a proposal
8 for the adoption of a decision that they be spared further criminal
9 prosecution. The Presidency recognised the reasons, it says in the second
10 paragraph, and circumstances of the proposal and adopted the decision to
11 spare the persons named in the list enclosed from criminal prosecution.
12 And if you'll turn to P1251, that's a document of the 1st Krajina
13 Corps command, confidential number 655, dated September 11, 1992. That
14 appears to reflect the list of the 69 persons pardoned or granted amnesty
15 from criminal prosecution.
16 First of all, Mr. Krajisnik, can we confirm that this list of 69
17 people is the list of prisoners who were pardoned by the Presidency on 6
18 September, 1992?
19 A. I cannot confirm anything. I don't know. I just see that there
20 was a discussion about this. I don't think that this list was at the
22 Q. Well, it -- does it help to look at the telegram that was received
23 from the Presidency that says, "Pursuant to Article 80 ..." et cetera, et
24 cetera, and then at the conclusion: "At its session held on 6 September,
25 1992, the Presidency of the Serbian Republic adopted the following
1 decision on granting amnesty for the following prisoners"?
2 A. Well, yes, but obviously their names are not referred to in the
3 record. A certain number of people were supposed to be pardoned, and they
5 Q. Now, this list is a list of those persons who fell within the
6 category of persons identified by Major Stupar on 20 August, 1992, when he
7 made his introductory remarks about the views of the Presidency, that
8 there should be a list prepared of people against whom there is no
9 evidence that they participated in combat activities and who have serious
10 health conditions and attract the attention of journalists and
11 representatives of humanitarian organisations. That's who these people
12 are. Correct, Mr. Krajisnik?
13 A. Oh, no. It's the other way around. The prosecutor sent this list
14 to the Presidency, and the Presidency pardoned these people. That is what
15 I see here. I don't know about this list. I just know that this is what
16 was done.
17 Q. You didn't know that these were 69 sick people who were held in
18 that camp -- in those camps? That the remaining people who hadn't done
19 anything but weren't sick enough to attract international attention
20 continued to languish in that camp?
21 A. Mr. Prosecutor, I told you what I know. I was present at this
22 meeting that was dealing with the pardon. I was not there. I did not
23 know about their condition. I did not know whether they were sick or not.
24 I didn't know anything about this. This is the document that was there
25 then. I mean, I never looked at it. I never saw it. I didn't know what
1 this was all about. The prosecutor made a proposal to have a certain
2 number of persons pardoned, and they were pardoned by the Presidency.
3 How, how come, I don't know.
4 Q. Please turn to the 20th session --
5 JUDGE ORIE: May I ask one thing? Mr. Krajisnik, did you ask
6 yourself at that time on what basis a certain number of detainees were
7 freed from criminal prosecution?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Maybe. I don't know. I'm just
9 telling you that it is only normal that people should be pardoned and
10 released from prison on the basis of a proposal made by the public
11 prosecutor. Maybe I did know at the time, I don't know. I didn't go into
12 the core of the matter at all. They said they should be pardoned.
13 Perhaps all of these arguments were presented there. I don't know, I
14 don't remember.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Now, you say 5.000 people were released by
16 Mr. Karadzic at a certain moment, and suddenly a small number pops up --
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Maybe it was 500. I know that
18 that's what people said, how many people he released unilaterally. I know
19 there were complaints by deputies that it was no longer possible for us to
20 exchange our people. Because I know that they mentioned a large number.
21 Whether it was just this or whether there was more, I don't know. There
22 was probably more, because this refers just to Manjaca here.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you. And did you see any similar
24 discussions and similar decisions made in the Presidency sessions?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I only heard the stories they were
1 saying, that there had been a unilateral release and that the Muslim was
2 do the same on the other side, and then they didn't, and some people were
3 angry about this.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's what you told us before.
5 Please proceed, Mr. Tieger. I'm looking at the clock.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Josse, the Chamber is considering whether -- we
8 have taken quite some time from Mr. Tieger this morning, and I noticed
9 that you're reluctantly preparing for starting re-examination. At the
10 same time, we told you yesterday that we would expect you to do so. So
11 therefore I'm a bit hesitant, but we might decide during the break how to
12 proceed this morning. Would you, also in view of what we told you
13 yesterday, which certainly might not have made life easier for you
14 yesterday, would you -- would you oppose under those circumstances if we
15 would allow Mr. Tieger to take the whole of the day and then for you the
16 whole of the Monday, or would you say no, I even prefer that?
17 MR. JOSSE: I certainly wouldn't oppose it, Your Honour. Could I
18 -- could I also make this point?
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 MR. JOSSE: For my part, the more questions that my client is
21 asked by anyone in this courtroom, the better. So if the Court is
22 prepared to grant some extra time, whoever is asking the questions, I, on
23 his behalf, am only too pleased.
24 JUDGE ORIE: All right. Then we'll consider, Mr. Tieger, whether
25 we'll allow you to finish this morning rather than after the next break.
1 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ORIE: We will resume at 11.00.
3 --- Recess taken at 10.34 a.m.
4 --- On resuming at 11.11 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, before you continue --
6 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Your Honour, please.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, before you continue, you more or less
8 suggested that the list of the persons, P1251, would be the same, because
9 you said, "This is a list, a list of those persons who fell within the
10 category of persons identified by Major Stupar on the 20th of August."
11 And a few lines further down, "people against whom there's no evidence
12 that they participated in combat activities and who have serious health
13 conditions and attract the attention of the journalists," which seems to
14 be a reference to the list of 60 --
15 MR. TIEGER: 92, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE ORIE: 92 people. We tried to find on P1251 - we just took
17 the first column, 22 - we find only two out of the first 22 on the other
18 list, that is number 6, then is Gromilic, who is, by the way, not a sick
19 person, who is not described as a sick person but as an underaged person,
20 and number 17, Refik Salihovic, who is, as number 11, on the sick persons
22 By the way, another matter is that a list of 92 persons seems to
23 exist of 40 sick people only, which of course raises some additional
24 questions as to the consistency of this document.
25 The Chamber would have appreciated if you would have drawn our
1 attention to these inconsistencies and would like to hear from you whether
2 the remaining 47 on the list, whether we would find a similar outcome if
3 we would compare that with the list of 92, that is that 10 per cent is
4 only on that list of sick people.
5 MR. TIEGER: Well, here's what I can tell you, Your Honour:
6 Number one, the Court would have heard that, and I think the Court could
7 see how anxious I was to continue with the examination and, with the
8 break, interrupted.
9 Number two, the court is correct, I believe there are three
10 persons on the list of 92 who appear on the list of 69. That's number 6,
11 Mr. Gromilic who you've already indicated, number 17, Mr. Salihovic, and
12 number 29, Dedic. On the list that -- the numbers I'm indicating are on
13 the list of 69.
14 JUDGE ORIE: So there's -- the overlap is very limited.
15 MR. TIEGER: But, Your Honour, the Prosecution's position was not
16 that the list -- that it was the same list but that the category was the
17 same, and I was anxious to proceed with the examination to make that
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 MR. TIEGER: They represent -- they reflect the same general
21 category of -- of prisoners; sick and innocent. Your Honour, I haven't
22 finished the examination --
23 JUDGE ORIE: That was at least not clear to us and whether -- what
24 caused the confusion, we'll re-read the transcript in that respect, and
25 please proceed at this moment. Yes.
1 MR. JOSSE: Has the Chamber decided on the time issue, Your
2 Honour? Could I make one other brief observation which might help --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 MR. JOSSE: -- and that's this: When we were reviewing the
5 documents that Mr. Krajisnik has submitted over the last few weeks, we
6 remembered the document that he submitted at Your Honour's request at the
7 it end of examination-in-chief and just before cross-examination, that the
8 Chamber, in effect, sent to the CLSS itself for translation. As I
9 understand the position, having liaised with Mr. Aquaviva, who is dealing
10 with the matter, that has not yet come back from the CLSS.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Is that the priority list?
12 MR. JOSSE: It is.
13 JUDGE ORIE: The priority list is expected not to arrive not later
14 than Monday morning, and of course the Chamber can't decide on the matter.
15 MR. JOSSE: Well, that, of course, would help us in our
16 preparations because we might try and incorporate it. It's clearly
17 somewhat -- bearing in mind what Your Honour has said to Mr. Krajisnik
18 about that list, someone needs to deal with it. With respect, either the
19 Court or the Defence. The Prosecution quite obviously are not going to
20 deal with it. So if Your Honour was to say Monday, it would help in that
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We would agree, Mr. Tieger, to continue today
23 and finish his cross-examination by the end of this day.
24 MR. JOSSE: I'm grateful, thank you.
25 MR. TIEGER: I hope there is no misunderstanding about any
1 intention to convey -- that was my next questions in the list were about
2 the relationship between the list and then moving on to another clarifying
3 point, and it was the --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Well, what may have confused us is the transcript,
5 and if you would read specifically 10:27:53, a question which was --
6 starts approximately at -- 26 minutes past ten up till 28 minutes -- 28,
7 29 minutes past 10. But please proceed at this moment, Mr. Tieger.
8 MR. TIEGER: Okay. Thank you, Your Honour.
9 Q. Mr. Krajisnik, you've heard the comparisons made by both Their
10 Honours and the Prosecution between the list of persons contained in the
11 August 20 or -- meeting - that is tab 306 - which was in at least for the
12 first 42 people, as the Court has indicated, a list of -- a list of
13 persons for whom there is no evidence that they carried out or
14 participated in combat activities and who have serious health problems.
15 Three of those people, as you've heard, appear on the lists of persons who
16 were granted amnesty from criminal prosecution by the Presidency on
17 September 6th, and -- so my question is: Isn't it correct that the list
18 of these 69 people granted amnesty from criminal prosecution on September
19 6th at that session of the Presidency is a list of people who were both
20 innocent under the terms of the -- that is, people who were known not to
21 have participated in any way in combat activities and people who were
22 known to be sick?
23 A. I don't know what the reason for the amnesty was, but I know from
24 practice that amnesties usually pertain those who are guilty and then they
25 are amnestied. But here there was a proposal from the 1st Krajina Corps
1 and the Presidency did this. I truly cannot recall what the reason for
2 the amnesty was, but I do know that something like that was done at the
3 proposal of the late Mr. Talic. I mean the Krajina Corps. That's what I
4 mean when I say "Talic."
5 Q. Well, Mr. Krajisnik, I'm suggesting to you that in fact you knew
6 very well, and so did many other people, why these people were released
7 from detention, and that was because their condition was such as to
8 attract the attention of the international community. They were sick
9 people who by now the international community was aware of, and releasing
10 at least those people blunted criticism and was an effort to earn some
11 credit with the international community. You knew that.
12 A. No, I didn't know that. I only knew that this was done, and I
13 felt it was positive. But what the reason was, I can't recall that.
14 There was some reason.
15 Q. Let's turn to the 20th session of the Bosnian Serb Assembly, at
16 page 55 of the English, please, and page 6251 of the B/C/S. That session
17 was held on the 14th and 15th of September, 1992.
18 MR. TIEGER: And given potential page inconsistencies, Your
19 Honour, I want to ensure that the Court has -- that we're on the same page
20 with this. I'm looking now at a portion on page 55 approximately nine
21 lines down from the top, a sentence that begins in the middle of the page,
22 "About the prisoners of war ..."
23 JUDGE ORIE: I'm afraid that we have the minutes and not -- we've
24 got here the --
25 MR. TIEGER: We will provide -- and again, I really -- okay. I'm
1 sorry about that.
2 JUDGE ORIE: It may well be -- do you know -- it's submitted under
3 what number?
4 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, this -- my best recollection is when the
5 Court asked whether it had all the sessions from 1991 and 1992, we
6 indicated that all of them were being provided. This was the last one
7 provided because it was the last one we received, and so I think in the
8 original materials the Court did not have that.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And then we received it at a later stage.
10 MR. TIEGER: Correct.
11 JUDGE ORIE: And then we were not able to bring every day
12 everything --
13 MR. TIEGER: No, of course. Of course.
14 JUDGE ORIE: -- we were provided.
15 MR. TIEGER: But we have a copy here.
16 JUDGE ORIE: If there is an exhibit number, I could get it on my
17 screen, hopefully. That would be 20th. Yes, this is the --
18 MR. TIEGER: And I think we discussed this the other day. It was
19 the one we --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 MR. TIEGER: Yes.
22 JUDGE ORIE: And you take us to page --
23 MR. TIEGER: 55, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ORIE: 55, yes.
25 MR. TIEGER: About the ninth line down from the top.
1 JUDGE ORIE: And, Mr. Tieger, the exhibit number, was that
3 MR. TIEGER: I think we agreed that that should be done. I don't
4 remember that it was.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, do you remember whether we did? If
6 not, then we'll provisionally then assign a number.
7 THE REGISTRAR: P1252, Your Honours.
8 JUDGE ORIE: P1252. I do everything with pencil, so -- we'll
9 check whether this is.
10 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
11 Q. That section begins -- Mr. Krajisnik, I see you've been reading
12 that section, so I'm confident that you're familiar with it now, but just
13 in case you haven't located it, it is toward the bottom half of page 6251
14 in the B/C/S, and it states -- this is Dr. Karadzic speaking, saying the
15 following: "About the prisoners of war, about three weeks before they
16 started talking about the camps, we submitted a 16-page pamphlet to the
17 British parliament to all important foreign correspondents about
18 concentration camps for Serbs but no one paid any attention. We must know
19 that we have to act like whores and talk to foreign journalists. We
20 cannot not reply when the foreign journalists call either Nikola or me and
21 talk to them, waste our time with them. But despite all that, we have to
22 do the elementary things. We cannot let up regarding the elementary
23 things. The army will not let up, and neither will we by not asking the
24 army. Disbanding Trnopolje does not mean letting up. If they want to
25 take them abroad, let them. If they want to take 69 sick people tomorrow,
1 let them. That will give us great credit among the international public.
2 We want to cooperate. We want to deal with humanitarian issues, and that
3 helps us. Don't worry about that. We don't need Manjaca. If only all
4 the Green Berets had been killed with a rifle in their hand, but once
5 they've been captured, then we must abide by the Geneva Conventions and
6 it's all for nothing. It would suit us if it were shut down, disbanded,
7 shut down and sent somewhere, but not for them to return to the
9 Now, Mr. Krajisnik, Dr. Karadzic's reference to the 69 sick people
10 whom the international community wanted, that was a reference to the 69
11 people on the Presidency list who were granted amnesty on September 6th,
12 1992; correct?
13 A. I don't know. Maybe the Red Cross visited them and established
14 that they were sick and drew up a list and the prosecutor decided they
15 should be released. That was the route to be followed. Somebody had to
16 establish that they were ill. Maybe that was done in prison. But it's
17 not innocent people who are amnestied. It's only those who are guilty.
18 If we're talking about an amnesty, if they were innocent then the
19 prosecutor should have released them immediately. The prosecutor and the
20 judges have the right to release them. The army could have released them
21 without the Presidency. I'm just interpreting here.
22 I remember that there were objections made to Mr. Karadzic, and he
23 responded that all prisons should be disbanded, that we have no use for
24 them. I don't know where I heard that.
25 Q. No. He also responded by telling the deputies, "Don't worry about
1 it. We're sending them out of here, and that's good."
2 A. No. If they're fit for military service and if they want to go
3 abroad rather than return to their territory, that was a plus, otherwise
4 they would take up their rifles and fight against us. As they have
5 decided to go abroad, he says that's a good thing. It's better than them
6 going back there and fighting against us. It doesn't mean that the
7 international -- that had the International Red Cross wanted them to go to
8 Bosnia they wouldn't have released them, because those who were released
9 were arrested again two or three times, maybe two times. You release
10 someone and he goes to their territory and then he fights again with a
11 rifle in his hand. That's how it was when there were exchanges.
12 Q. Did you have any idea why these 69 sick people, and many, many
13 others, of course, wanted to go abroad rather than returning home?
14 A. I have no idea. It was the Ministry of Health are that issued an
15 order to the MUP. They probably established that these people were ill.
16 I don't know why this was agreed, but there must have been a reason. If
17 they were ill, they had to be released so they could be treated, or I
18 don't know. They shouldn't have been detained at all, if I may say that.
19 They should have received medical treatment. I don't know how.
20 Q. And what were the elementary things that Dr. Karadzic assured the
21 deputies that the leadership and the army would not give up on?
22 A. Well, the way I interpret it, what is meant is, and as a reference
23 to the conference above this, we have to worry about the elementary
24 things, don't worry about these people, because the deputies were saying
25 they'll go back there and fight against us again. So elementary things,
1 that doesn't refer to the prisoners, it refers to negotiations, defence
2 lines, demarcation lines; those things.
3 I remember when he said that prisons should be disbanded, and you
4 see he mentions Manjaca here and Trnopolje. So probably that's what
5 happened, I don't know, but it was about this time that it happened.
6 Q. Turn to tab 315, please. That's P892, tab 99. This is a report
7 from the 1st Krajina Corps command to the Republika Srpska army Main Staff
8 on December 16, 1992. Item number 3, situation on the territory: "1001
9 prisoners were released today from the Manjaca camp. They were escorted
10 out of the RS territory. 413 of them still remain, scheduled to be
11 released on Friday, 18 December, 1992. There have been no other
12 significant changes."
13 Were new prisoners brought into Manjaca between what you said was
14 around this time, between mid-September, 1992, or did the same prisoners
15 who were there at the time of the Assembly session we just looked at
16 continue to languish in Manjaca until the time of the 1 KK report?
17 A. I don't know what prisoners this is about. I can only add that in
18 many prisons there were prisoners who were there for four years on both
19 sides. If they were released in late 1992, then compared to others,
20 that's good, but I don't know what this is about. I have to say I don't
21 know what prisoners this refers to.
22 Q. Could you turn, please, to tab 317.
23 MR. TIEGER: That needs a number, Your Honour.
24 THE REGISTRAR: That will be P1253, Your Honours.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
1 MR. TIEGER:
2 Q. Hamdija Suhonjic was the first person on the list of those granted
3 amnesty from criminal prosecution on September 6 by the Presidency, and
4 indeed as -- well, I mean, first I should say that P1253, for
5 identification, is a May 31, 1993, article from the Guardian that focuses
6 in part on Mr. Suhonjic.
7 Mr. Suhonjic, as the article indicates, who was in his 60s, was a
8 carpenter. He describes his arrest. He indicates on page 2 of the B/C/S
9 and the top of page 2 in the English that by the time he was rescued from
10 a third camp, Manjaca, he was suffering from starvation and dysentery and
11 had lost 40 pounds, and on September 15th was identified, was -- he
12 attracted, I guess, the attention of the international community, who saw
13 him, as it says here, "one of 68 inmates of Manjaca in need of urgent
14 medical treatment." And he was taken to Britain, as the article
15 indicates, for that emergency care.
16 If you would turn to one more tab, tab 311.
17 MR. TIEGER: That needs a number.
18 THE REGISTRAR: That will be P1254, Your Honours.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
20 MR. TIEGER:
21 Q. P1254 is an article from the Houston Chronicle from October --
22 A. Do you happen to have it in Serbian?
23 Q. It's coming to you. The article begins by describing Omarska and
24 then the treatment of the prisoners in Manjaca, indicating that thousands
25 packed the offices, workshops, and storage rooms and the hangar and glass
1 and brick administration building. All were on starvation diets. That's
2 on the first page.
3 And then if we continue down to the bottom of page 2, after a
4 description of the general fate of many of the detainees, including
5 beatings, executions, disease and starvation, we see a reference to
6 Mr. Edin Elkaz, who is number 3 on the list. His name is found at the
7 very bottom of the second page, which is -- the last four digits of which
8 are 7471. "900 miles from here outside London" the article states, "Edin
9 Elkaz lies awake nights, his head filled with the screams of the men being
10 tortured in the room next door in the white house."
11 On the next page the document indicates that interviews had been
12 conducted of the 68 people taken to Britain to recover from beatings and
13 shootings, Mr. Elkaz being one of them, Mr. Elkaz appearing as number 3 on
14 the list of the 69 persons granted amnesty by the Presidency on September
16 Those people we've mentioned, Mr. Krajisnik, were obviously just a
17 fraction of the people and the experiences on the list of those who were
18 released by the Presidency on September 6th for the reasons described by
19 Dr. Karadzic at the 20th session. Isn't that right?
20 A. Yes. What it says in the minutes, that more people were released
21 in addition to these 60.
22 THE INTERPRETER: 68, interpreter's correction.
23 MR. TIEGER:
24 Q. All right. We've had an opportunity to look at and ask you
25 questions about the extent of the investigations conducted into the
1 reasons why people were in camps, their treatment in camps, and the
2 responsibility of these who were in direct contact with those prisoners
3 and detainees.
4 I just want to look at two more documents in connection with that.
5 You earlier referred to Simo Drljaca, and before we took a look at
6 some of the documentation concerning Omarska, you referred to him as the
7 person who essentially ran a secret camp in Omarska.
8 A. I didn't say that. I don't know when I said he ran a secret camp.
9 What I said was that he reported that there was no camp in Prijedor. I
10 didn't have any knowledge about him running a camp. I don't know when I
11 said that he was running a camp.
12 Q. There's no question, is there, that Simo Drljaca was the chief of
13 police and in charge of the police forces that operated or participated in
14 the operation of the Omarska, Keraterm, and Trnopolje camps; right?
15 A. Mr. Simo Drljaca was the chief of police in Prijedor, and if the
16 police was securing - and I saw from the documents that they were - then
17 he was in charge of them. That's my reply.
18 Q. What investigative efforts were made, to your knowledge, to
19 identify the criminal responsibility of Simo Drljaca for the fate of those
20 thousands of people who passed through, some many of whom did not make it
21 out, of Omarska, Keraterm, and Trnopolje? How was Mr. Drljaca treated for
22 his responsibility for Omarska, Keraterm, and Trnopolje by the Bosnian
23 Serb authorities, by the Bosnian Serb leadership? Tell the Judges.
24 A. I had no knowledge of what his role was, but I can tell you what
25 happened to him. He was replaced by the minister and transferred to
1 Bijeljina. Why, I don't know. And I know that later on he was an
2 inspector in the MUP. I did not know what he was doing. This was within
3 the competence of the minister. Well, later on he was killed, but that is
4 not relevant to your question.
5 There is a report here where he complains that there are some
6 disagreements with the civilian authorities in Prijedor and that they are
7 to be blamed for his removal. I read that in some report. When I came
8 here, that's where I read the report.
9 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, I'd like to distribute the next item,
10 which is an article in Kozarski Vjesnik, P752D.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Ah, this article I have read, yes.
12 I mean, I glanced at it, I skimmed through it.
13 MR. TIEGER: I'm sorry, Your Honour. This is not the item I
14 identified. This item apparently needs a number. It is an article from
15 Kozarski Vjesnik of April, 1993.
16 THE REGISTRAR: That will be P1255, Your Honours.
17 MR. TIEGER:
18 Q. As indicated, Mr. Krajisnik, P1255 is an article from Kozarski
19 Vjesnik of 9 April, 1993, with Simo Drljaca, by then the assistant
20 minister of the interior of the Republika Srpska. And if we look quickly
21 at page 2 of the English, the last paragraph before the subheading on that
22 page, "A huge job done. Assistant Minister Drljaca reflects upon
23 and identifies the number of interviews conducted in the Omarska,
24 Keraterm, and Trnopolje collection centres."
25 JUDGE ORIE: Did you find it, Mr. Krajisnik? It's the left
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "A huge job was done." Is that what
3 you're saying?
4 MR. TIEGER:
5 Q. Just above that, Mr. Krajisnik.
6 JUDGE ORIE: You found reference to Omarska, Keraterm and
7 Trnopolje, and the number 6.000.
8 MR. TIEGER:
9 Q. And then he continues: "Instead of meting out just punishment to
10 them, the world powers forced us to release them all from Manjaca."
11 Now, two things, Mr. Krajisnik, two questions about that article.
12 Number one, it reflects that by April of 1993, Mr. Drljaca had received a
13 promotion to the position of assistant minister.
14 A. That was formally so, but you see here, it says that he was
15 removed and that he's embittered by that. I did not know that that was
16 the case. I thought that he was some kind of official, an inspector, but
17 I see here he was assistant minister. I know that he was an insignificant
18 personality. He -- well, what mattered to him was that he lost power, and
19 that matters to all policemen.
20 I mean, really, I haven't seen this before. That's the title he
21 had, but he was so bitter because he had been removed. And why these
22 disagreements took place, well, as I said, I just scanned the article.
23 Q. Let's look at one more document, then, concerning --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, you say that he was bitter. Do you
25 know what happened to him after he had been assistant minister? Do you
1 know his further career of Mr. Drljaca?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know. I know that he was
3 replaced. Later, at some point in time, he was removed from the police.
4 I know that he was demobilised. I know that an arrest warrant was issued,
5 an indictment was issued against him, and he was killed during the arrest.
6 But I did not follow --
7 MR. JOSSE: We've been trying to find out, Your Honour - because
8 we've worked out he was indicted here - if my learned friend could inform
9 certainly the Defence and perhaps the Chamber what happened to those
10 proceedings. We're quite anxious to know. We've been unable to find out
11 on the website, actually.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Well, what happened to Mr. Drljaca, it was in the
13 newspapers, I think that when -- I think there was an attempt to arrest
14 him in the Prijedor area by foreign military and that this resulted in an
15 exchange of fire in which Mr. Drljaca died.
16 MR. JOSSE: Thank you. Thank you very much.
17 JUDGE ORIE: That's what my general knowledge is.
18 MR. JOSSE: Presumably that's what Mr. Krajisnik was just alluding
20 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that he was referring to that. And I
21 remember reading it in the newspaper, that it was -- I was on holiday, I
22 remember that, so therefore it must have been somewhere in August, I don't
23 know which --
24 MR. JOSSE: I'm very grateful.
25 MR. TIEGER:
1 Q. Mr. Krajisnik, in your responses concerning Mr. Drljaca's
2 subsequent positions, are you trying to suggest that the Bosnian Serb
3 leadership disapproved of what he and his subordinates had done in
4 Prijedor and in Omarska and Keraterm and Trnopolje?
5 A. I didn't know why he was removed, and no one knew about it. This
6 is the line of work of the minister. They probably had some reasons. He
7 is saying here that there was a disagreement between him and the municipal
8 authorities, as far as I can see here. I don't have any other knowledge.
9 There was some kind of problem, and that is why he was removed, replaced.
10 Somebody had asked for that. I don't know who.
11 Q. Mr. Krajisnik, the fact is that Prijedor, which had once had over
12 49.000 Muslims in it, was violently cleansed by, among other military
13 forces, the police under the direction of Mr. Drljaca. Muslims were
14 rounded up and placed in Keraterm, Omarska, and Trnopolje and mistreated
15 in the manner we've seen in that article, and Mr. Drljaca and numbers of
16 his subordinates received awards from the Republika Srpska leadership for
17 those efforts. Isn't that the fact?
18 A. I don't know whether he received any awards, but if he did receive
19 a decoration, then a proposal was made to that effect, and that falls
20 under the jurisdiction of the Presidency or, rather, the president of the
21 republic. If that is so, well, many people got decorations. But I don't
22 think it was on account of torturing the Muslims. Probably because of a
23 description stating that he fought for Prijedor or something like that.
24 He certainly would not have been decorated if people knew that he had
25 killed, tortured Muslims, and so on. I'm convinced that no one would ever
1 have done such a thing.
2 There is a commission for decorations that receives these
3 proposals, then presents proposals to Karadzic, and then he confers a
4 decoration upon someone.
8 And that article relates a large ceremony in Prijedor attended by,
9 among others, General Major Subotic. And, as we can see further on down
10 the page, an award was bestowed by Dr. Karadzic. In the speech before the
11 -- apparently before the awards were bestowed, they -- Bogdan Delic
12 talked about, among other things, "The taking over of power and the attack
13 on Prijedor, the events that followed and the participation of the members
14 of the police in military operations in Republika Srpska and Srpska
15 Krajina, for which they were thanked under decorations. The President of
16 Republika Srpska, Dr. Radovan Karadzic, awarded the medal Petar Mrkonjic
17 to the police station in Prijedor and the Karadjordje Star medal to the
18 former head and now assistant in the Ministry of the Interior, Simo
19 Drljaca." Dusan Jankovic, the Prijedor Police Station assistant; Milutin
20 Cadjo, commander; and Miroslav Paras, all of whom we heard about during
21 the course of this case, also received awards.
22 By 26th of November, 1993, Mr. Krajisnik, much of the world, if
23 not the entire world, knew what had happened in Omarska from a variety of
24 sources. Isn't it the case that Dr. Karadzic bestowed this award on
25 Drljaca and his subordinates and, just as was indicated earlier in the
1 article, for their efforts in Prijedor, including Omarska, Keraterm and
2 Trnopolje through which the Muslim -- many, many, many members of the
3 Muslim community passed before they were sent out of Republika Srpska?
4 A. I'm convinced that the commission for decorations and the
5 responsible people in the republic did not know about what was learned
6 about later. Had they known at the time what had happened in Prijedor, if
7 these people are guilty, they would not have bestowed decorations upon
9 As for the writings of foreign journalists, I told you about what
10 this same Kozarski Vjesnik wrote and what people who visited the prisons
11 said. I am not challenging that this happened, but at this time when the
12 decorations were being given, I'm convinced that no one would have been
13 awarded for committing crimes. Probably they didn't even know about this.
14 Rather, they were decorated for the liberation of Prijedor, and they said
15 that the police did that without a single shot being fired.
16 Q. What about you, Mr. Krajisnik? When do you say that you learned
17 about the atrocities in Omarska, about the treatment of the Muslims and
18 Croats in Omarska?
19 A. I'm telling you, when I came here I learned of many things that I
20 had never known. I did not know about these crimes in Prijedor. When I
21 was a member of the Presidency, delegations came to see me. A delegation
22 a people from Prijedor who were indicted. They were saying, "We're not
23 guilty. Somebody's indicting us." And I even made an effort for this
24 being established. I attended the funeral of Mr. Drljaca, and I did not
25 know that he was involved in that. Had I known, I mean, would I go to the
1 funeral of someone who had killed people, and would I go to express my
3 Crimes were being concealed terribly, and they are revealed only
4 later when peace is established.
5 Can you have a look at the first article? Mr. Drljaca says, "When
6 we establish rule of law, things will be known that are unknown now." I
7 saw that in the first article. He himself is saying that.
8 No one was bragging about war crimes. Everybody was hiding them.
9 MR. TIEGER: Unless the Court has some additional questions, I'm
10 going to -- I need, in light of the time, to move on to a different topic.
11 MR. JOSSE: Could we briefly go into private session, please, Your
13 JUDGE ORIE: We turn into private session.
14 [Private session]
22 [Open session]
23 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Tieger, the -- please proceed. I think we
25 need still a number for the document you referred to in your last
1 question. Is that -- last series of questions.
2 MR. TIEGER: Yes, Your Honour, that would have been the last
4 JUDGE ORIE: That's Kozarski Vjesnik, 26 November, 1993.
5 Mr. Registrar that would be number?
6 THE REGISTRAR: P1256, Your Honours.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar. Please proceed,
8 Mr. Tieger.
9 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
10 Q. Mr. Krajisnik, over the course of your examination-in-chief, you
11 were asked on a number of occasions about aspects of the War Presidency or
12 expanded Presidency, and on May 19th, for example, you -- as a general
13 matter, of course, as you said on May 25th, the expanded Presidency or War
14 Presidency -- you said that the state of war was never declared and there
15 was never an expanded Presidency, and as you explained in somewhat more
16 detail on May 19th, referring to the document establishing War
17 Presidencies, you indicated that that decision had no foundation in the
18 constitutional law and was wrong in the way it was formulated. You said,
19 "The expansion of the Presidency was not something that was supposed to
20 be done in case of an immediate threat of war, only the state of war, but
21 in doing this they must have been assuming -- they must have been thinking
22 that they were going to introduce the state of war. However, that didn't
23 occur and so those War Presidencies were abolished very soon." And as I
24 understood you, that was -- you were explaining that it was quickly
25 recognised that there was no basis for the establishment of War
1 Presidencies and so the War Presidencies were very quickly abolished soon
2 after their enactment at the beginning of June.
3 Now, Mr. Krajisnik, in that connection I'd like to quickly run
4 through a few documents before moving on.
5 I think we need to have additional documents distributed, Your
6 Honour, for that purpose. Let me check the bundle. They have been
7 distributed? All right. Spare me a moment.
8 Can we turn first to tab 327. That's P64, P65, tab 144, and P529,
9 tab 111. Also P1109.
10 Just very quickly, Mr. Krajisnik. This is the law on amending the
11 constitutional law for implementing the constitution. It states in
12 Article 1: "During state of war, the Presidency is expanded with the
13 following members: The president of the National Assembly and the Prime
14 Minister of the government of the Serb Republic." It indicates also that
15 after paragraph 5 new paragraphs 6 and 7 are added and read: "During a
16 state of war, the Presidency may decide to establish War Presidencies in
17 the municipalities."
18 And looking quickly at tab 324. P64, P65, tab 142. That's the
19 decision by the Presidency on the adoption by the Presidency of the
20 decision on the establishment of War Presidencies in municipalities during
21 war or imminent threat of war. That's from 31 May, 1992.
22 And then quickly in -- at tab 325 we can see the decision. P64,
23 P65, tab 143. P529, tab 110. And that states: "Pursuant to Article 5,
24 paragraphs 6 and 7 of the constitutional law on implementing the
25 constitution, decision on the formation of War Presidencies in
1 municipalities in times of war or the immediate threat of war." And in
2 Article 3 we can see what the War Presidencies were about; organising,
3 coordinating, adjusting activities, et cetera. In Article 4 we see the
4 responsibilities of the Republic's representative, to ensure permanent
5 coordination, as it states at the top of the page in English on 9978.
6 Now, Mr. Krajisnik, you've already brought our attention to the
7 difference between, and that -- the state of war as it appears in -- at
8 tab 327 in the law on amending the constitutional law, and the Presidency
9 minutes of 31 May we've just looked at, and the decision on formation of
10 the War Presidencies. In fact, that was a distinction that was brought to
11 the Court's attention, to the best of my recollection, early on in the
12 Prosecution case as well. So those are the decisions and the law to which
13 you were referring in the portion of your testimony that I read out
14 earlier; correct?
15 A. First of all, the decision was reached autonomously by the
16 Presidency of Republika Srpska.
17 Q. Mr. Krajisnik, I --
18 A. No. No, it does not pertain to that.
19 Q. Were you referring to other decisions?
20 A. Well, I'm trying to tell you that the decision was reached before
21 the constitutional law, on the 31st, and the constitutional law was on the
22 2nd and the 1st and it was up before the Presidency. This constitutional
23 law was not at the Presidency.
24 JUDGE ORIE: I think Mr. Tieger only asked you whether the
25 decisions he just mentioned and the law, that these are the documents you
1 were referring to in the portion of your testimony --
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Ah, yes. Yes, yes, yes. These are
3 documents that I was actually referring to. I'm so sorry.
4 MR. TIEGER:
5 Q. And then you pointed out that -- or you testified that everyone
6 quickly became aware of -- well, a state of war wasn't declared and that
7 the War Presidencies were then abolished as a result of that, and that
8 indicates that there were no War Presidencies and there was no republic
9 War Presidency either. That's what I understood you to say. Is that
11 A. I never said that we knew then that this was an unlawful decision.
12 It was replaced on the 10th of June with a war commissioner, and that's
13 when the War Presidency was abolished. That is to say the decision was
14 replaced before it entered into force with a municipal commissioner,
16 Q. So are you saying that everybody at the time believed that the
17 establishment of War Presidencies was lawful?
18 A. Oh, no. We didn't even give it any thought. This was a decision
19 that was proposed by the government directly to the Presidency, and we
20 adopted it. It doesn't say there on the basis of which constitutional law
21 this is being done at the Presidency, it's just stated that a decision was
22 reached. You have that in the government records that this decision was
23 being reached, not on the basis of what.
24 Q. And the decision to establish War Presidencies in the municipality
25 -- in the municipalities was based on the same law on amending the
1 constitutional law for implementing the constitution that the
2 establishment of the republic War Presidency was based on; right?
3 A. No. Please. This was adopted autonomously. The government
4 proposed it to the Presidency. We didn't know pursuant to what it would
5 be done. And these two decisions are treated separately. Later on, when
6 they formulated the decision, they wrote down pursuant to what, but this
7 was before the constitutional law was passed, the 2nd of June, whereas
8 this was on the 31st of May. And Mrs. Plavsic gave instructions on the
9 25th of May.
10 Q. I'm sure -- I think it's going to be helpful, then, to look at
11 what happened after that, including the establishment of commissioners, as
12 you've just mentioned. So why don't we look next at tab 329.
13 By the way, before we go there, I think the interpreters recognise
14 this distinction, but I am told that the term in B/C/S for commission and
15 commissioners in this context is "povjerenistvo," and, commissioner
16 "povjerenik," rather than "komisija" or something of that nature.
17 JUDGE ORIE: From nodding, I see that this is confirmed by the
18 interpreters, and interpreted half way. Please proceed.
19 MR. TIEGER:
20 Q. Tab 329 is P64, P65, tab 157. That's a decision by the Presidency
21 of the Serbian Republic of BH held during an imminent threat of war on 10
22 June, 1992. And item number 8 reflects the decision on the establishment
23 of War Commissions in the municipalities during war or an imminent threat
24 of war or in the state of war.
25 And as we see further on down in that session, the list of
1 commissioners was compiled and the persons indicated were appointed
3 And if we could then look next at the decision on establishing War
4 Commissions at tab 330. That's P64A, P529, tab 112.
5 Now, first of all, Mr. Krajisnik, looking at the very top of the
6 page, it states: "Pursuant to Article 5, paragraphs 6 and 7 of the
7 constitutional law on the implementation of the constitution of the
8 Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina," those are the same provisions
9 we have seen -- we saw just a moment ago in the law on implementing -- on
10 amending the constitutional law and in the official decision on formation
11 of the War Presidencies. So let's read on down the page. "The decision
12 on the establishment of War Commissions in municipalities in time of
13 imminent threat of war or during a state of war."
14 And in that decision, Mr. Krajisnik, you will see three separate
15 references to the existence of the War Presidency of the Republic, that is
16 the Republic war -- the war -- the Republic War Presidency. In Article 3,
17 it states: "War Commissions shall maintain the closest possible
18 cooperation with the legal authorities. They shall convey directives
19 issued by the War Presidency of the Republic."
20 In Article 4, beginning at the send sentence: "State
21 commissioners shall appoint the War Presidencies in consultation with the
22 War Presidency of the Republic." Next sentence: "State commissioners
23 shall dissolve the municipal War Presidencies and appoint new members in
24 consultation with the War Presidency of the Republic."
25 Now, this decision, Mr. Krajisnik, is the one that abolished or
1 rescinded or superseded the War Presidencies, replacing them with war
2 commissioners; right?
3 A. Yes. Abolishing War Presidencies and establishing War
5 Q. It was based on the same amendment to the constitutional law that
6 established the War Presidencies in the first place and that also
7 established the Republic War Presidency, the one that's found at tab 327.
8 A. The Republican War Presidency was not formed pursuant to these
9 amendments. This is wrong. It could only have been done during the state
10 of war. Take a look and you'll see. It's quite clear.
11 There is not a War Presidency anywhere. It is just that the
12 Presidency is being extended. However, the term "War Presidency" is not
13 used in -- in here, of the Republika Srpska.
14 Q. Is not used in where; in the decision on the establishment of War
16 A. In the law. In the law. It's not used in the war, the term "the
17 War Presidency of Republika Srpska." It's only said that the Presidency
18 is being extended.
19 Q. During a state of war the War Presidency is extended, thereby
20 becoming, colloquially, a War Presidency. No?
21 A. No. It becomes the Presidency. The Presidency. There is no War
22 Presidency mentioned here. It would have been called the War Presidency.
23 It only says the Presidency is being extended, and it bears the name of
25 Q. All right. And before we move on, let's just take a look --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Could I just ask you a question. Mr. Krajisnik, we
2 have gone through most of this problem five if not 10 times. Now,
3 Mr. Karadzic signs a decision in which that functioning of War Commissions
4 is established, and several times reference is made to the War Presidency
5 of the Republic. Now, you say it's not under law, so it isn't there. At
6 least Mr. Karadzic, at the time he signed this, he issued this, at least
7 he must have been under the impression that such a thing did exist, and --
8 so therefore do you have a solution for that? I mean, in the thinking of
9 those who drafted this, who signed this, there must have been a -- well,
10 an idea that such a thing did exist. And you said, well, it's contrary to
11 the law, that's more or less to say, because the law is talking about an
12 expanded Presidency, so it couldn't be there. But in real life it seems
13 that it was on paper there, although conflicting legal instance, and it
14 may have been in the minds of persons as well.
15 So just to sum up, it's contrary to the law, so your testimony
16 sounds as if the matter has been resolved by that answer. Couldn't exist
17 contrary to the law, therefore it didn't exist.
18 Could you comment on, or at least give your views on --
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes, I can.
20 JUDGE ORIE: -- perhaps on the issue I raised, not to repeat that
21 the terminology was not exactly what you find in the law.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This proposal was made by
23 Mr. Djokanovic for Mr. Karadzic to sign, and he testified about this. In
24 the decision we heard at the Presidency, it was only municipal commissions
25 that were established. Not a single meeting of that Presidency was in
1 wartime or as a War Presidency. It was only a Presidency during an
2 imminent threat of war. Had Karadzic known this, he would have referred
3 to it as a meeting of the War Presidency later on, but they were all
4 meetings during an imminent threat of war. There is not one except when
5 the military were there.
6 This is a decision which was written down which I didn't look at.
7 There was a decision about commissioners. What the form was, well,
8 somebody wrote it down, but it couldn't have been that the War Presidency
9 was established, it was only a Presidency pursuant to the law. But it was
10 Mr. Djokanovic -- well, he may have thought there was a War Presidency,
11 what do I know?
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You limit the awareness to Mr. Djokanovic. You
13 said you -- or you didn't read this, and therefore -- well, I leave it to
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
16 JUDGE ORIE: So if this exists in one person's mind who writes it
17 down, and then if it's contrary to the law, you say, well, it wasn't
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, Mr. President, it
20 wasn't important to me what the form was if there was a war. I learnt
21 here that it was he who wrote that decision. I never read it. Perhaps I
22 knew that commissioners existed, but now I see this could not have been
23 established pursuant to that law. Only municipal presidencies could have
24 been established in wartime. These articles were not for the commission.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you.
1 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, I intend to get into some
2 contemporaneous accounts of -- of the understanding of the situation, so
3 that may help and I indicated that to the Court if it had any questions.
4 Could I ask -- I'm grateful for the additional time, but might I ask for a
5 slightly shorter than usual break so we could reassemble and maximise my
6 -- nothing out of the ordinary, but just if we could --
7 JUDGE ORIE: You would say -- it's a very kind way of saying,
8 Mr. Tieger, that 20 minutes is 20 minutes. Let 20 minutes be 20 minutes
9 today. That is we will resume at 12.50 sharp.
10 --- Recess taken at 12.28 p.m.
11 --- On resuming at 12.48 p.m.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, please proceed.
13 MR. TIEGER: Thank you very much, Your Honour.
14 Q. Mr. Krajisnik, we just looked at the provisions, the conditions
15 and provisions giving rise to the -- to a Republican War Presidency, war
16 -- municipal War Presidencies, and municipal War Commissions, and I
17 indicated to the Court that we would turn to the contemporaneous
18 understandings of what was occurring with respect to the existence of a
19 War Presidency.
20 We've already seen, for example, during the course of this case
21 Mr. Subotic's remarks at the 19th session on 12 August, his complaint that
22 he's probably the only Defence Minister in the world who is not a member
23 of the War Presidency of the Republic, and also Mr. Bijelic's comment --
24 that's at page 58 of the English, Your Honour. And also Mr. Bijelic's
25 comment that -- shortly thereafter, that, "However, at this moment when we
1 have the army, when we have the War Presidency, my question is who needs
2 paramilitaries? Whose are those paramilitaries?" Et cetera.
3 But I wanted to take you in particular to a session at which this
4 issue was discussed at -- was focused on and discussed at some length, and
5 that is the 22nd session of the RS Assembly, held in November of 1992.
6 MR. TIEGER: Your Honours, for the benefit of the Court, that can
7 be found at tab 345, I believe. It's P65, Treanor 14, tab 213. So that I
8 think in this instance we'll have -- all have the same version.
9 JUDGE ORIE: 345 seems to be the 22nd session.
10 MR. TIEGER: Did I not say the 22nd, Your Honour?
11 JUDGE ORIE: At least it appears on the transcript --
12 MR. TIEGER: 22nd, Your Honour, correct.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
14 MR. TIEGER:
15 Q. And let's turn first to the remarks of Mr. Trbojevic at page 49 of
16 the English and page 9680 of the B/C/S. And, Mr. Krajisnik, those remarks
17 that I will be focusing on begin at the bottom of page 9679 and continue
18 on to the top of 9680.
19 MR. TIEGER: Your Honours, the remarks are contained at the
20 beginning of what would be essentially the third paragraph, which begins,
21 "The third aspect ..." on page 49.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
23 MR. TIEGER:
24 Q. And I'm looking at the second sentence now, or the third sentence.
25 "First of all, we have a parallel system of authority. The public and
1 'legal' wartime Presidency is an organ of authority that isn't mentioned
2 in the constitution. Wartime commissioners working in the field are
3 neither recognised by the constitution nor the law. What this means is
4 that from the top of the state down to the level of municipality, there is
5 parallel system of authority."
6 A. I can't find it on this page.
7 Q. Which page are you on, Mr. Krajisnik?
8 A. All this here, 680 you said.
9 Q. I said it starts at the bottom of page 9679 and continues on to
10 the top of 9680.
11 A. Yes, yes.
12 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... fourth line from
13 the bottom. Please proceed.
14 MR. TIEGER:
15 Q. Now, at pages 58 through 59 of the English -- well, let's just
16 move straight on. Let's turn to Dr. Karadzic at page 60 of the English
17 and page 9691 of the B/C/S.
18 MR. TIEGER: Just one moment, Your Honour.
19 Q. At the bottom of page 60 of the English and page 9691 of the
20 B/C/S, Dr. Karadzic addresses himself to that issue, and I can turn you --
21 before I move on to that, Mr. Krajisnik, I can turn you to some other
22 comments in the session at which at least one other deputy raises the
23 question of whether there should be any Presidency at all, which he refers
24 to as a rudiment of communism. So by the time Dr. Karadzic speaks - he
25 speaks shortly before Dr. Karadzic - two questions are on the table; the
1 one raised by Mr. Trbojevic, the legality of the wartime Presidency and
2 the commissioners, and the one raised by Mr. Bosiljcic about whether there
3 should be any Presidency at all, instead just have a president rather than
4 a communist artefact of a collective body. And then Mr. Karadzic speaks
5 at the bottom of page 60: "I was always on the side of the Presidency,
6 not the president. There are only a few of us as it is. If Koljevic and
7 I go somewhere, then Biljana stays. At least there is one of the three of
8 us. But if Biljana leaves, then Mr. Krajisnik. But we receive calls from
9 50 different places. We are overextended."
10 And then, Mr. Krajisnik, at page 100 of the English, after some
11 period of time goes on and some inquiry has been made on this subject, you
12 speak. That's at page 9729 of the B/C/S.
13 A. 729?
14 Q. 9729 are the last four digits of that.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And this starts, Your Honour, at the first full paragraph after
17 the declaration of the appointment of a public prosecutor in Krupa Na
18 Uni. Mr. Krajisnik states: "Gentlemen, we have received a response to
19 the deputy question on wartime Presidency and commissioners. The question
20 was raised by Mr. Trbojevic and it has been clearly stated that this isn't
21 compliant with the constitution. It should be forwarded to the
22 constitutional committee if we decide that we need to have a wartime
23 Presidency and commissioners. If we don't opt for that, this has to be an
24 initiative and it doesn't need to be sent to the --"
25 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's apologies, can you give us a
1 precise reference, please, in the B/C/S. Thank you.
2 MR. JOSSE: Mr. Krajisnik's got it.
3 MR. TIEGER: I understand the problem. I'm sorry about that.
4 It's -- let me see. Correct. That portion begins on 9728, I believe. If
5 you see the reference to Krupa Na Uni, just above the last two paragraphs,
6 that's where that section begins. "Gentlemen, we have received a response
7 ..." Do you see it?
8 THE INTERPRETER: Yes. Thank you very much.
9 MR. TIEGER:
10 Q. Okay. So, Mr. Krajisnik, here you indicate that you've received a
11 response to the question on wartime Presidency and commissioners raised by
12 Mr. Trbojevic, stating that it isn't compliant with the constitution and
13 should be forwarded to the constitutional committee if there is a decision
14 to keep the wartime Presidency, and the decision that we need to have this
15 wartime Presidency and commissioners, and if we don't decide to have it,
16 then there'll need to be an initiative for that but it won't have to be
17 sent to the constitutional committee.
18 Then you say: "I hereby open the discussion first, or if we need
19 to vote, if discussion isn't necessary, but we first need to decide
20 whether or not we need a wartime Presidency and commissioners. If we do,
21 then we should send the initiative to the constitutional committee so that
22 it can prepare changes to the constitution and that they can be
24 Then a little further on, after a quick departure to discuss the
25 editor-in-chief of Serbian Voice, you say: "We now move on to the
1 Assembly's position on whether or not we need a wartime Presidency.
2 Wartime Presidency consists of three members of the Presidency, the
3 president of the National Assembly and the Prime Minister. Since a state
4 of war haven't been declared, this is deemed unconstitutional, as is the
5 appointment of commissioners. I hereby open the discussion. Who wants
6 the floor? Please, we are dealing with the wartime Presidency of the
7 Republic and the commissioners. Are commissioners appointed by the state,
8 in other words, deputies? Does anyone have anything to discuss? No. Let
9 us decide, please. Do we need to change the constitution to include that
10 wartime Presidency will be formed during a declared immediate threat of
11 war or a declared state of war? Who is in favour? Who is opposed?"
12 You give the floor to someone "since we haven't voted yet." And
13 you indicate, "We are now discussing whether or not we need a wartime
14 Presidency without stating who will perform the function."
15 So apparently the question that can be heard from the benches is
16 about who will be on it. "We are now discussing whether or not we need a
17 wartime Presidency without stating who will perform the function. That's
18 how it's been so far. Now we need to incorporate it into the
19 constitution. We need to have this initiative to have a minister of
21 Again a reflection of Subotic's interest in being on the wartime
22 Presidency. "Who will perform this function? Let's not decide this now.
23 We should definitely have a wartime Presidency during an immediate threat
24 of war whereas the members of wartime Presidency will be nominated by the
25 constitutional committee. We don't need to vote again. Let us decide on
1 commissioners. The opinion here is that we need commissioners in
2 Republika Srpska."
3 And just a couple of additional comments made during that session,
4 Mr. Krajisnik, first by Mr. Maksimovic at page 103 of the English and page
5 9732 of the B/C/S, found at the very -- beginning -- it's the beginning of
6 the Mr. Maksimovic's remarks but it's the last three lines of the page in
7 English on 103: "Sometime at the end of May or beginning of June,
8 following a decision issued by our wartime Presidency, wartime
9 commissioners were established for certain regions and deputies were
10 tasked with that duty."
11 And then at the end of his remarks, found at the bottom of page
12 104 of the English and the very top of 105, Mr. Maksimovic says, after
13 describing some of his experiences, having been tasked: "This is some of
14 my experience: I don't think this should be a permanent or constant
15 institution. I think that only the wartime Presidency should decide about
16 numbers and the people, that the wartime Presidency alone should assess
17 which areas need deputies it. It should be good for them to rotate
18 frequently, not to remain in one place for long but move on for the exact
19 reasons Mr. President already mentioned."
20 And immediately thereafter we see Mr. Djokanovic addressing
21 everyone assembled, who says, "I am one of those who participated in the
22 creation of the concept of commissioners and their work and the
23 establishment of commissioners' offices and I think I was one of the first
24 commissioners of the wartime Presidency of Republika Srpska."
25 His comments go -- continue, talking about his task as was that of
1 Mr. Maksimovic, and then he states, about a dozen lines up from the
2 bottom, after listing the municipalities in which he served as a
3 commissioner: "Now the wartime Presidency should, if the Assembly decides
4 to keep commissioners, make a selection and exactly determine which
5 municipalities commissioners need to visit, because the function of
6 civilian organs of authority has now been restored and commissioners can
7 now concentrate on their part of the job, because in my opinion they
8 really completed the part of the job that was necessary at that moment."
9 Now, those remarks, Mr. Krajisnik, are a reflection of the uniform
10 understanding of all of those assembled; members of the Bosnian Serb
11 leadership, the deputies, that there was a wartime Presidency consisting,
12 as you said, of the three members of the collective Presidency, the Prime
13 Minister and the president of the Assembly, that it turns out not to
14 comply, as Trbojevic pointed out, with the technicalities of the law, and
15 so there was a decision made whether to keep it and change the
16 constitution so that it would comply or to have an initiative and discard
18 A. First of all, everything you have read out goes to support the
19 fact that there was no extended Presidency. I will only remind you that
20 Mr. Trbojevic complained about a three-member Presidency because it is not
21 there in the constitution. There is only the president of the Republic.
22 There were two legal members of the Presidency and one illegal one, and
23 that was Mr. Karadzic, and that was what he meant when he said extended
25 Let me remind you of Mr. Karadzic's statement that you read out
1 here. He says, "When I'm not there, Koljevic is there. When Koljevic
2 isn't there, Plavsic is there. One of the three of us." Then there is a
3 comma, "and if Plavsic is not there, Krajisnik is there." Why didn't he
4 say Mr. Djeric is there too if the extended Presidency existed?
5 In order to save time, I will tell you there is an Assembly
6 decision on abolishing the Presidency or, rather, the municipal
7 Presidencies. Had there been a Republic Presidency, there would have been
8 a decision on abolishing the Republic extend Presidency, but, however, it
9 was only the municipal Presidency that was abolished because those were
10 the only ones that existed. And you can have a look at that. It was in
11 November, 1992. There would have been a Presidency. It wouldn't have
12 been implied.
13 At that time, people called everything wartime and Serbian. The
14 commission looked into the fact -- into whether we needed a Presidency,
15 and they concluded that it could not be done now. Had -- so the
16 constitution was changed, the Presidency was abolished, and the president
17 of the Republic was established at the end of the year. It was not an
18 extended Presidency that was established.
19 People were against a three-member Presidency. They wanted a
20 single person, and then those two were appointed deputy presidents. And
21 Mr. Krajisnik and Mr. Djeric remained at the positions they had held up to
22 that point.
23 This does not show that there was a War Presidency. It's another
24 matter when people use that word because there was a war going on, so they
25 called it a War Presidency. However, in the law it says Presidency, not
1 War Presidency. I may have said War Presidency myself sometimes, but that
2 doesn't mean that it was based on this law. I would have known if I had
3 been a member of the Presidency. I would have signed my name or I would
4 have said that I was a member of the Presidency, but you find a single
5 document which I signed as a member of the Presidency. It can't be that I
6 was the only person who didn't know I was a member of the Presidency and
7 that everybody else knew. I never used the authorities of president. I
8 never signed any decisions as such or punished anyone or did anything else
9 in that capacity. I only attended meetings, just as some other people
10 were present at those meetings from the government and Assembly and so on,
11 and that's the truth.
12 According to this, the Presidency had a session and the Assembly
13 had a session after that, and there was a decision on abolishing the
14 municipal commissions because it had been an unconstitutional decision.
15 THE INTERPRETER: Could Mr. Krajisnik please slow down.
16 MR. TIEGER:
17 Q. Let's turn next, Mr. Krajisnik, to tab 344, the minutes of the
18 22nd session of the National Assembly of Republika Srpska.
19 MR. TIEGER: The minutes of that same session, that needs a number
20 Your Honour.
21 THE REGISTRAR: That will be P1257, Your Honours.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
23 MR. TIEGER:
24 Q. P1257, as indicated, are the minutes of the 22nd session. Let's
25 turn, please, to the last page, item 39, which states: "There was a
1 wide-ranging debate on a question posed by a delegate at the last session
2 of the Assembly concerning whether the formation of a War Presidency and
3 commission was in line with the constitution. Various opinions were
4 expressed on whether the existence of the commission and its activities
5 were justifiable. After the discussion, it was concluded that the
6 Republican Presidency should thoroughly investigate the justification for
7 the existence of the War Presidency and submit its position to the
8 Assembly constitutional commission. The constitutional commission will
9 examine all aspects of this question and submit a specific proposal to the
11 And it is signed and stamped -- stamped, and then it is signed by
12 you, Mr. Krajisnik.
13 A. Yes, I did sign this. And this explains what I've just said. I
14 don't know how it's been translated, but you have a decision pursuant to
16 Q. Regarding the justification for the existence of the War
17 Presidency, as it says in the last paragraph?
18 A. Well, give me the session of the Presidency, please, and you'll
19 see exactly what the standpoint taken by the Presidency was. About
20 establishing a War Presidency, that's what this is about. It was a
21 decision as to whether a War Presidency existed or not.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, before we turn to other documents, you
23 said this just supports what I just said. I cannot follow you yet,
24 because item 39 explains that the discussion was about the formation of a
25 War Presidency and commission was in line with the constitution, and then
1 it says that it should be thoroughly investigated. Well, the
2 justification for the existence of the War Presidency should be thoroughly
4 I -- I can't follow you if you say, "This is exactly what I said,
5 what this supports," because it very much looks as if the existing War
6 Presidency is deemed to be not in accordance with the constitution, and
7 that's not what I remember you told us. You said it didn't exist.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, it didn't exist. That's right.
9 I will just read -- the forming of a War Presidency was not according to
10 the constitution. It couldn't be established according to the
11 constitution. You can see there's a decision about that.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I don't know whether there's a decision about
13 that. "Concerning whether," as it reads in English, "the formation of a
14 War Presidency and commission was in line with the constitution." It says
15 "was in line with the constitution," not whether the formation of a War
16 Presidency would be in line or is in line with the constitution, at least
17 in the translation, but perhaps we have to look at that very carefully.
18 It says, "was in line," which suggests that the War Presidency --
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's not what it says here.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Then we should perhaps very carefully look at what it
21 says in the B/C/S. But in the second portion, it says "to investigate the
22 justification for the existence of the War Presidency." It doesn't say to
23 investigate the justification to form a War Presidency, or -- it says "for
24 the existence." But if you say there's a translation problem, I think
25 it's important enough to have this portion of this -- to be reviewed very
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I just read what I mean?
3 "After a discussion, it was concluded that the Presidency of the Republic
4 -" so the Presidency, not the War Presidency - "should thoroughly
5 investigate the justification for the existence of the War Presidency."
6 So had a War Presidency existed, it would have said here that the War
7 Presidency should thoroughly investigate the justification for the
8 existence of the War Presidency. That's why I said it supports what I
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. At the same time, Mr. Krajisnik, it speaks
11 about the existence of the War Presidency should be investigated, not the
12 formation --
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. I don't know how it reads in
14 English, but it says here that there was a whole discussion about the
15 justification for the existence of the War Presidency, and the conclusion
16 that was reached was that it should not exist, and you can see the
17 constitution. So the constitution was not to be changed in order to
18 introduce a War Presidency, because that's what would have had to be done.
19 The establishing of a War Presidency would have been unconstitutional. So
20 only the commissions were abolished. The War Presidency was not abolished
21 because it didn't exist. There's a decision about that.
22 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, excuse me. I don't want to deflect the
23 Court from this document but maybe the next document will be of some
24 assistance in that regard as well.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
1 MR. TIEGER:
2 Q. Can we turn, please, to tab 346. That's P64, P65, tab 214. The
3 minutes of the session of the Presidency of Republika Srpska of 30
4 November, 1992, present: Karadzic, Plavsic, Koljevic, and you,
5 Mr. Krajisnik.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And turn to item number 3. We find the following -- that's page 2
8 of the B/C/S. "In response to a parliamentary question, the Presidency
9 discussed whether it was justified to introduce a war commission and an
10 expanded Presidency under the current circumstances. It was established
11 that for well-known reasons a state of war had not been declared and that
12 an expanded Presidency, including the president of the National Assembly
13 and the Prime Minister of Republika Srpska could be introduced only under
14 such circumstances. The same is the -- the case is the same with the War
15 Presidency which was introduced to replace the commission." Actually it
16 has it backwards. It goes on to say: "The law on amendments to the
17 constitutional law of Republika Srpska, which was adopted on June 2nd,
18 1992, stipulates that during a state of war the Presidency shall be
19 expanded to include the president of the National Assembly and the Prime
20 Minister of Republika Srpska. The same law also stipulates that War
21 Presidencies can be established during a state of war."
22 In both cases, if these institutions are retained, these
23 regulations must be amended and after the words "a state of war," the
24 words, "an imminent threat of war," need to be added. And after the
25 words, "War Presidencies," the words "War Commissions." And then each
1 member of the Presidency spoke about his or her position or work, et
3 A. Yes, I'll read it. They probably didn't have the original there,
4 the translation sounded different to me. Can I read the first item and
5 the rest and then you will see that this confirms what I had said.
6 Q. If you think there is some sort of translation problem,
7 Mr. Krajisnik, we can have it read again, but the interpreters have the
8 original in B/C/S before them.
9 A. Well, they weren't reading from the original, no. May I read the
11 JUDGE ORIE: That's -- what portion would you like to read
12 exactly, Mr. --
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 83, number 2, and the rest that the
14 Prosecutor was reading.
15 JUDGE ORIE: What exactly is your concern about? Where do you
16 have doubts? What --
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'll read it out. I'll read it out,
18 Mr. President.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Which part, Mr. -- Where do you --
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The first sentence worries me, the
21 one here.
22 JUDGE ORIE: And the first sentence -- okay. You read one
23 sentence that worries you, and that is the first one of item 3, the second
24 item 3?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. I'd have to read the whole
1 thing, the whole article, because it was understood differently.
2 "The Presidency discussed whether it was justified to introduce a
3 war commission and an expanded Presidency under the current conditions and
4 in response to a parliamentary question, a question that was put by a
5 Member of Parliament. It was established that a state of war had not been
6 declared for well-known reasons and that it was only under such
7 circumstances that an expanded Presidency, including the president of the
8 National Assembly and the Prime Minister of Republika Srpska could be
10 I can go on.
11 JUDGE ORIE: No, Mr. Krajisnik. If -- I invited you if there's
12 any -- if there's a specific concern. We get exactly the same translation
13 as we have on paper at this moment, so therefore there's no need -- if
14 there's any reason to believe that this translation is not correct --
15 Mr. Josse, I see you're --
16 MR. JOSSE: I must be following a different place. That
17 translation certainly wasn't word for word --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Sometimes, when it's in response to a parliamentary
19 question, it was put at the end of the sentence rather than at the
20 beginning, but that's structure of sentencing. But where is the major
21 difference between what was just translated and what we find on paper?
22 MR. JOSSE: I haven't gone so far as to work out what --
23 JUDGE ORIE: But of course if I say "Mr. Josse said" or "he said,"
24 "he said, Mr. Josse," that of course is the same. You understand what I
1 MR. JOSSE: I do, Your Honour. I'm sorry to quibble, but --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Let's do the following: Mr. Krajisnik, you have read
3 a major portion and what we received as translation is for 90 -- not
4 substantially different from what we have on paper.
5 If there are any concerns about the translation of this portion, I
6 would allow you to read one line and say here there must be some
7 misunderstanding, but not to read the whole of the document. I don't have
8 it translated in a similar way as before.
9 MR. JOSSE: One other question, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
11 MR. JOSSE: Is it possible to ask those who are interpreting from
12 English into B/C/S whether, when they were interpreting what Mr. Tieger
13 was reading out in English -- sorry, I've not put that very well.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, yes, I do understand. When Mr. Krajisnik
15 read --
16 MR. JOSSE: Mr. Tieger read.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger read.
18 MR. JOSSE: What Mr. Tieger was reading.
19 JUDGE ORIE: What, then, the question is?
20 MR. JOSSE: Whether when Mr. Tieger was reading out the English,
21 whether the interpreter was reading from the B/C/S original.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Were you taking the B/C/S original? Sorry.
23 THE WITNESS: No.
24 JUDGE ORIE: No, Mr. Krajisnik, you couldn't answer that question,
25 I'm afraid -- well, of course, unless you were reading at the same time.
1 When Mr. Tieger's quotations were translated, how was that done?
2 THE INTERPRETER: Your Honour, we had the text in B/C/S, but we
3 didn't have the exact paragraph 3, because there are two of them, and it
4 took some time for us to find it, actually.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So therefore you were translating and not
6 following the written translation. Okay.
7 MR. TIEGER: In any event --
8 THE INTERPRETER: One part of it, Your Honour. The first part of
10 MR. TIEGER: Okay. So we've covered that now. I think
11 Mr. Krajisnik was looking at the original. I was reading from the written
12 translation of the original. Now we know from the retranslation that that
13 original translation is essentially accurate. I think we can move on.
14 JUDGE ORIE: I think we can move on. Unless there's any need to
15 have the translation of this document be reviewed, of course everyone is
16 -- it's important enough to --
17 MR. JOSSE: Thank you.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
19 MR. TIEGER:
20 Q. In the minutes, Mr. Krajisnik, of the Assembly we see a reflection
21 of the existence of the wartime Presidency. In the minutes of the
22 Presidency session we've just read, we see that the question is whether or
23 not that institution explicitly comprised of the Prime Minister and the
24 president of the National Assembly should be retained.
25 A. Not retained, established. Should it be established. Should it
1 be introduced. That's the only difference. Should you introduce it, not
2 retain it.
3 Q. I understand that --
4 JUDGE ORIE: There, of course, I can imagine, therefore I invited
5 you, Mr. Krajisnik, to -- there is a line which starts in English with "In
6 both cases if these institutions are retained ..." that's how it reads.
7 Could you please read that in B/C/S, if you can find it, Mr. Krajisnik.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I'll read it. Of course I'll
9 read it.
10 JUDGE ORIE: And not any further, just that line.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, let me just find this.
12 MR. TIEGER: That's at the -- it's on page 7947, seven lines down.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "This question remains pending," is
14 that it?
15 JUDGE ORIE: No. "In both cases if these institutions are --"
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. "In both cases, if one stays
17 with these institutions, these regulations should be amended, and after
18 the words 'a state of war --'"
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We had as a translation, "If these institutions
20 are retained ..." We now have "If these --" no. "If one stays with these
21 institutions ..." Well, Mr. Krajisnik -- let me ask the interpreters.
22 Is there any possibility that what Mr. Krajisnik tells us, that
23 "If these institutions would be established," that it could be understood
24 in the original as something to be newly established rather than something
25 to be retained or to stay with?
1 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters note it is quite ambiguous in the
2 original. It is not "retained" as such. It is not "kept" or "retained,"
3 but the original wording, which was now interpreted as "If one stays
4 with," is ambiguous, and that's why the ambiguity was left in English as
5 well. It can be interpreted in different ways. But it is not to
6 introduce for the first time, no. It is not explicitly stated in the
8 JUDGE ORIE: No. If you say it's ambiguous, what -- where's the
9 ambiguity exactly?
10 THE INTERPRETER: The wording itself in B/C/S is ambiguous. It is
11 an expression that is ambiguous, "If one stays with ..."
12 JUDGE ORIE: You say you could give that different meanings.
13 THE INTERPRETER: It doesn't say specifically "retained."
14 JUDGE ORIE: That now has been sufficiently clarified, I would
15 say, Mr. Tieger.
16 MR. TIEGER: Okay. Thank you, Your Honour.
17 Q. I've got a few minutes left, Mr. Krajisnik, so I'm going to ask
18 you a few more questions.
19 Regardless of your position about the existence of the wartime
20 Presidency or the expanded Presidency, the fact is that your position on
21 the Presidency was, in any event, a reflection of your already-existing
22 power at the very apex of the Bosnian Serb leadership structure as we
23 heard from many witnesses, and as we saw reflected in intercepts and
24 documents. So when Dr. Karadzic wanted to discuss who would implement
25 what "we introduced last night," it was you he was talking to.
1 When Mr. Kovacevic, on February 28th at the Deputies Club, when
2 the issue was retaining Bosnian Serb unity and the possibility of Krajina
3 unification with RSK, and he wanted to ensure that that didn't happen, he
4 urged, "our leaders," meaning you and Dr. Karadzic, to go to the Krajina
5 to take care of it.
6 And also, Mr. Krajisnik, when it came to selecting the military
7 figure who would lead the Bosnian Serb forces in the effort to establish
8 Republika Srpska, to divide Bosnia-Herzegovina, there were two people
9 again involved, and that was you and Dr. Karadzic.
10 A. First of all, none of that is correct. Actually, it's different,
11 and I can explain all of it, why.
12 Q. Let's take it one at a time while we have time. It was you and
13 Dr. Karadzic who were involved in the selection of General Mladic;
15 A. No. I was present when he talked. I know. You found a
16 quotation. Let me help you so you don't waste any time. We were present
17 in Mr. Kukanjac's office when he talked to Mr. Mladic, and then he thought
18 that he was a good commander. I did not take part in the selection of
19 Mr. Mladic in the least bit. That's what Mr. Karadzic said. I hadn't
20 known of Mr. Mladic before.
21 You can put your next question to me while you find it.
22 Q. Are you saying that Dr. Karadzic said that you didn't participate
23 in the least bit or that Dr. Karadzic was talking about the selection of
24 Mladic but you were merely -- it may have been misunderstood, because you
25 were merely present.
1 A. I was present in the office, as he said -- Mr. Kukanjac's office
2 when he was looking -- or, rather, when he was listening to what kind of
3 commands Mr. Mladic was issuing. I did not take part in the selection of
4 Mr. Mladic, and no one asked me about it anyway. And at that time, I
5 didn't even know who Mladic was.
6 Q. Dr. Karadzic said at the 50th that you two were there night after
8 A. Could you put your questions one at a time, and I'll answer all of
9 them, please.
10 Q. I just asked you about that: What about Dr. Karadzic's remarks at
11 the 50th that you two were there night after night, selecting him, because
12 -- well, how about that? Let's start there. You spent countless nights
13 Mr. Kukanjac's office. Do you remember that at the 50th?
14 A. Twice. I was with Kukanjac twice in my life. Once he accompanied
15 me home, and the other time was in his office. It wasn't a countless
16 number of times, and I'll give you an answer in terms of how important I
17 was. When Mr. Karadzic left his office, who replaced him? Of course I
18 was only consulted as president of the Assembly, but it was Mrs. Plavsic
19 and Mr. Buha who replaced him. I would have replaced him if I were -- I
20 mean, I'm not trying to say that I was the mailman. I was the president
21 of the Assembly.
22 Q. And you cited an extract from Mr. Jovic's diary. He also spoke
23 about the selection of General Mladic and the establishment of the VRS,
24 didn't he?
25 A. Mr. Jovic said that he informed us that the army of Yugoslavia
1 would leave our area and that I was concerned what the financing would be
2 and how we would manage this, because they had promised us that the JNA
3 would remain in Bosnia-Herzegovina. That's what he said, and I know that
4 because I read that. Now, was I there as a member of some delegation?
5 Well, perhaps I was. Probably I was. That, yes. But I did not select
6 Mladic. I told you, I was -- well, as Karadzic says, in the gentleman's
7 office when he was commanding somewhere in Kupres, wherever, but I did not
8 take part at all in his selection. I mean, had I taken part in it I would
9 have said so now. I mean, had I been asked then, I could have said I
10 agree, but nobody asked me and I wasn't the one who selected him, and I
11 didn't know that he'd be promoted at all.
12 At that time, however, I did not know anything about Mladic, and I
13 could have said yes, I agree. So -- and if that were the case, I would
14 now say yes, no problem.
15 Mr. Koljevic, Mr. Buha, everybody was in Belgrade when Mr. Jovic
16 was there. It wasn't only me. I don't know who else was there. It
17 doesn't matter.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, the question simply was whether
19 Mr. Jovic also spoke about the selection of General Mladic and the
20 establishment of the VRS. That was the question, nothing more.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, the VRS was referred to.
22 MR. TIEGER:
23 Q. And at the time Dr. Karadzic said at the 50th Assembly that
24 General Mladic was selected in part because of his blunt statements in the
25 media, he was also selected because of his efforts in Croatia; correct?
1 A. Mr. Mladic and Mr. Karadzic were in a conflict at the 50th
2 session, and the whole session was in a conflict on account of the two of
4 Q. No, no. Mr. Krajisnik --
5 A. No. I don't know what he stated, but everything he stated is
6 probably written there. I just told you what the reason was. They were
7 in a conflict then. Mr. Karadzic had then replaced Mr. Mladic, so there
8 was this conflict.
9 Q. And I'm asking you isn't it the case that General Mladic was
10 selected, at least in part, because of the fact that he was known for his
11 efforts in Croatia? It's a pretty simple question. You and Dr. Karadzic
12 knew that General Mladic had led forces in Croatia and what he'd done?
13 JUDGE ORIE: Now we have two different questions.
14 MR. TIEGER: You're right, Your Honour. Thank you.
15 JUDGE ORIE: The first question was whether Mr. Mladic was
16 selected at least in part because that he was known for his efforts in
17 Croatia. Yes or no or don't you know?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My understanding was because he had
19 asserted himself as a soldier. Probably because he was in war in Croatia.
20 He was well known in the media as a good soldier. That was probably the
21 case. That's what Karadzic said.
22 MR. TIEGER:
23 Q. And Dr. Karadzic knew full well what was happening in Croatia, as
24 reflected in the intercept with Gojko Djogo on October 12, 1991, that
25 we've heard, where Dr. Karadzic said -- talked about the carnage in
1 Croatia, saying that 40.000 had died and less than a thousand Serb.
2 A. I don't know. I really don't know. I would have to try to
3 remember. Karadzic would not have selected him for that. Because he was
4 a war criminal? Because of that? I'm not going to comment on a later
5 period, but he selected him as a good soldier, a good military leader,
6 whatever, and somebody probably from the Yugoslav People's Army put his
7 name forth as a proposal. He became commander of the 2nd Military
8 District and then he took over as commander of the Main Staff in Sarajevo.
9 He replaced over Kukanjac.
10 Q. He was selected to lead the effort on behalf -- the military
11 effort on behalf of Republika Srpska, to divide what you once called, in
12 the Club 91 interview, the live tissue of Bosnia. And that would be done,
13 Mr. Krajisnik -- that necessitated the establishment of divided areas that
14 would be Muslim, Serb, and Croat; that is areas that would be pure Serb
15 areas, as you said on February 28th at the Deputies' Club, or areas that
16 would be clean, as you said at the 34th session of the Bosnian Serb
18 A. I've already explained what I meant when I said clean areas.
19 Ethnic, ethnic Serb areas, that we shouldn't take the areas that belonged
20 to others. I explained that question.
21 I'll tell you about Mladic. Please go ahead.
22 Q. With respect, you have explained the pure territories. Let me
23 just play a quick clip of you speaking about the clean territories.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If you play that, and of course I take it
25 there's a question related to that, and then we should finish.
1 [Videotape played]
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't hear anything. I really
3 don't know what's going on.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Could we restart so that the B/C/S is ...
5 MR. JOSSE: Your Honour, I just hope that Mr. Krajisnik will have
6 an opportunity to deal with this properly. In other words, a question
7 will follow and --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, of course. No, I suggested that just playing
9 the video is not what I --
10 MR. JOSSE: Thank you.
11 JUDGE ORIE: The sound seems to be problematic.
12 MR. TIEGER: I agree, Your Honour.
13 [Videotape played]
14 MR. JOSSE: Your Honour, I'm sorry to interrupt, but there's
15 clearly French translation but no English translation.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 THE INTERPRETER: The English booth cannot hear the original.
18 MR. TIEGER: Let's dispense with --
19 JUDGE ORIE: The only thing I wanted to do is to just wait and see
20 whether Mr. Krajisnik can hear anything at all. But we have now talked
21 all through this video clip seven times, so everybody will have lost
23 MR. TIEGER: I'll move forward. We have the transcript, Your
25 JUDGE ORIE: We have the transcript. Of course there should be a
1 possibility to check whether this transcript reflects what has been said.
2 Mr. Krajisnik, do you remember the occasion when this was filmed?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I read this transcript, so I can
4 answer, yes.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't hear any of this, but never
7 mind. I am going to answer the questions.
8 JUDGE ORIE: There must have been a moment when someone could hear
9 it otherwise it wouldn't have been transcribed and translated.
10 MR. TIEGER: This is taken from that, Your Honour.
11 MR. JOSSE: I'm not going to dispute that.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then please put your questions to
13 Mr. Krajisnik, who says that he has read the transcript.
14 MR. TIEGER:
15 Q. Mr. Krajisnik, I put to you before the -- your remark -- well,
16 here you say, put it this way, after the suggestion by Mr. Kasagic that
17 Sarajevo should be traded for the Banja Luka area, and you intervene and
18 object, and you chastise him, and then you say, about 12 lines down from
19 the beginning of your comments: "If you want me to say so, gentlemen, the
20 Muslims, the Croats sought, and the Muslims a municipality in Banja Luka,
21 and we did not accept it because that territory of ours must be clean."
22 On February 28th, you told the deputies that everything you do is
23 for pure territories. Those comments, Mr. Krajisnik, reflected what was
24 necessary to divide what you had once called the live tissue of Bosnia, an
25 effort that would --
1 A. It is clearly stated here that the Muslims wanted a municipality
2 in Banja Luka. The Muslims and the Croats are there. I said that we were
3 against those municipalities, want to have our territory without Muslim
5 This has to do with the Vance-Owen Plan, because they want to give
6 Sarajevo for some municipalities in Krajina. And when I say "clean
7 territories," I mean they should be annexed to Republika Srpska, not that
8 the Muslims and Croats should be cleansed. I mean, we want to have clean
9 territories, no Muslim municipalities there when there's few of them and,
10 on the other hand, 150.000 Serbs. It has nothing to do with ethnic
12 And I did not think about ethnic cleansing then, and it doesn't
13 say so here. 150.000 Serbs for 15 municipalities, they want Glamoc,
14 Grahovo, because there was this discussion of the Vance-Owen Plan. You
15 see that. It's 1993. It has nothing to do with ethnic cleansing, no
16 ethnic cleansing and no clean territories where somebody would have to be
18 I know this exactly. When the people from Krajina said we're
19 going to give Sarajevo so we'd get some municipalities in Krajina, and I
20 said no, we advocated both when I talked about the negotiations. This is
21 about negotiations, not about ethnic cleansing.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, this was your last question, I take it.
23 MR. TIEGER: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, this concludes the cross-examination.
25 After the weekend, on Monday -- and Mr. Registrar, we are sitting next
1 week --
2 THE REGISTRAR: In the afternoon in the same courtroom, Your
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, there will be re-examination by
5 Mr. Josse, there may be further questions by the Bench -- you are familiar
6 with the procedure.
7 Mr. Josse, perhaps if that would assist you, there's always a
8 small chance that if one expects the priority list to be translated by
9 next Monday morning, you could --
10 MR. JOSSE: We've got it.
11 JUDGE ORIE: You've got it already.
12 MR. JOSSE: Yes.
13 JUDGE ORIE: I was instructed not to express myself
14 over-optimistic but that there was a small chance that it would be ready
15 by today, so therefore I raised the matter, but it's good to hear that
16 it's there already.
17 Yes, Mr. Krajisnik, although we have to be brief because there is
18 a videolink this afternoon in this courtroom.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] One second. Can I bring on Monday a
20 decision on abolishing the Presidency in the Assembly? That's the 12th of
21 December, 1992. Can I bring it in Monday, and can I submit it to you so
22 that you see what it was that we abolished at the Assembly; was it a War
23 Presidency or a commission, so that you could see what existed.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, at least what was abolished. That doesn't mean
25 that you abolish everything that exists, but -- Mr. Josse --
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Of course you always can bring it, and then of course
3 we have to see how to deal with the translation issues at that very
5 MR. JOSSE: Yes, I'd encourage that. Thank you.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Then please bring it, Mr. Krajisnik. Decisions have
7 the advantage that they are usually a bit shorter than minutes.
8 If nothing else, if we don't need to discuss anything else before
9 this weekend, I wish everyone a good weekend, and we'll adjourn until
10 quarter past two, same courtroom next Monday.
11 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.51 p.m.,
12 to be reconvened on Monday, the 19th day of June,
13 2006, at 2.15 p.m.