1 Tuesday, July 7th, 1998
2 --- Upon commencing at 9.36 a.m.
3 (Open session).
4 JUDGE MAY: Yes, let the Registrar call the
5 case.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours,
7 Case No. IT-97-24, the Prosecutor versus Milan
8 Kovacevic.
9 JUDGE MAY: Yes. We shall dispense with the
10 appearances during this case. We shall assume that
11 lead counsel will be here for the case. There may, of
12 course, be reasons why they can't be. If that's so,
13 then, of course, the Chamber should be told at the
14 beginning of the hearing, but otherwise we won't have
15 the appearances every day.
16 Yes.
17 MS. HOLLIS: Thank you, Your Honour.
18 WITNESS: SOPHIE HANNE GREVE
19 Examination by Ms. Hollis:
20 Q. Dr. Greve, I would remind you that you are
21 still under oath.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. At the conclusion of yesterday's court
24 session, we were discussing evacuations from Trnopolje
25 by the ICRC. This morning, I would like to provide you
1 with a document we would asked to be marked as
2 Prosecution Exhibit 37 for identification.
3 I would note, Your Honours, that this is
4 information which is contained in the report. It is
5 provided as an exhibit simply for ease of discussion
6 with the witness.
7 Dr. Greve, can you tell us what this document
8 is?
9 A. This is one article taken from an agreement
10 on the release and transfer of prisoners. It's dated
11 1st of October, 1992. It was an agreement which was
12 initiated or the initiative for the agreement was taken
13 by the International Committee of the Red Cross. And
14 it is signed by all the parties to the conflict in
15 Bosnia and Herzegovina.
16 Q. And that article, what does it refer to?
17 A. It addresses the validity of documents. And
18 it is declaring that any document, it's paragraph 1 of
19 the article, any document, including a document
20 renouncing or transferring property rights, assets or
21 claims, signed by a prisoner who is to be released or
22 transferred, has no legal validity and does not in any
23 way affect that prisoner's rights or obligations.
24 And in paragraph 2, it is stated that also
25 such documents as signed by civilians to be transferred
1 to an area other than their area of former residence
2 will have no such validity.
3 Q. And, if you know, what was the reason that it
4 was felt necessary to include this article in the
5 agreement?
6 A. It is included because the ICRC, the
7 International Committee of the Red Cross, experienced
8 that almost everyone who left an area and was assisted
9 out of an area by the International Committee of the
10 Red Cross had to sign such documents, as a matter of
11 being allowed to leave the area by the de facto
12 Serb authorities in Prijedor.
13 Q. I would offer that as Prosecution Exhibit 37.
14 I would ask at this time that the witness be
15 shown what we asked be marked as Prosecution Exhibit
16 38A.
17 Dr. Greve, could you tell us what that
18 document is?
19 A. This is also a paragraph that's taken from my
20 report. It is giving the population change as by
21 nationality. That is the way people had declared
22 themselves in opstina Prijedor between 1991, which was
23 the time of the official census and in 1993, population
24 count by the then Serb authorities in opstina
25 Prijedor.
1 So, in 1991, the figures are just taken from
2 the census, the census which I used at the time of my
3 report, which has slightly different figures as had the
4 census which Your Honours were provided with yesterday,
5 which was originated from Bosnia and Herzegovina. And
6 it has for 1993, the figures as given by the then Serb
7 authorities. And it's my subtraction, addition,
8 looking at the numbers, coming up with what this means
9 in terms of reduction and new arrivals.
10 Q. I would offer that as Prosecution Exhibit
11 38A.
12 And I would ask that the witness be provided
13 with what we would ask be marked as Prosecution Exhibit
14 38B. And as that document is being provided, I would
15 ask you on the 1993 figures that you have, where did
16 you get that information?
17 A. That is information which was published by
18 the newspaper, Kozarski Vjesnik, in an article dated
19 2nd July 1993 and entitled, "Unofficial Census
20 Results: Who Are We and How Many?"
21 Q. And, Dr. Greve, the exhibit that you have
22 just been handed, is this the article of which you just
23 spoke?
24 A. Yes, it is.
25 Q. And looking at that article, if you look at
1 the third line down, could you tell us from what source
2 the information, the numbers, were received?
3 A. It's the Republika Srpska and it's the
4 Republican Bureau of Statistics.
5 Q. And then the next line indicates?
6 A. The municipal census commission.
7 Q. And if you look at that article, could you
8 highlight for us the number that is given as the total
9 number of inhabitants living in the municipality as of
10 this census?
11 A. It's listed as 65,551 inhabitants.
12 Q. And the next line down, could you tell us,
13 what is the number given for Muslims?
14 A. The number of Muslims is stated as 6,124.
15 Q. And the number of Catholics?
16 A. Is 3,169.
17 Q. And, in general terms, if you know, could you
18 tell us what ethnic group the Catholic religion was
19 associated with in Prijedor opstina?
20 A. It was associated with the Croat population.
21 And, in comparison, it's listed Orthodox figures as
22 well and that's associated with the Serbs.
23 Q. And what does it give as the percentage of
24 the Prijedor population, that is of Serbian
25 citizenship, as at the time of this census?
1 A. It's 96.3 per cent.
2 Q. I would offer Prosecution Exhibit 38B into
3 evidence.
4 And I would ask that the witness be provided
5 what we would ask be marked as Prosecution Exhibit 39
6 for identification.
7 Dr. Greve, can you tell us what that is,
8 please?
9 A. This is a press release made by the
10 International Committee of the Red Cross. It is dated
11 3rd October 1992 and headlined, "Saving Lives in
12 Bosnia-Herzegovina."
13 Q. Who is making the statement?
14 A. It's the president of the International
15 Committee of the Red Cross. It's Sommaruga.
16 Q. If you could please look at page 2 of that
17 document. The third paragraph, what is indicated in
18 that document about observance of the principles of
19 international humanitarian law?
20 A. It's stated explicitly in the third line,
21 starting almost at the end of the line, the most basic
22 principles of international humanitarian law continue
23 to be ignored in the field.
24 Q. And if you will look at the next paragraph
25 down, beginning with "moreover," what is stated in that
1 paragraph about what is termed "ethnic cleansing"?
2 A. It is given a description of what is termed
3 "ethnic cleansing." And it's stated that under
4 cover -- I am in the first line of that paragraph.
5 "Under cover of a policy of ethnic cleansing in" --
6 quotation marks, "tens of thousands of members of
7 minority groups in areas controlled by the parties are
8 still at the mercy of repressive measures applied
9 locally in accordance with a discriminatory ideology.
10 Q. And if you will please turn to the last page
11 of that document, the third paragraph, what is said
12 there that the ICRC was required to do?
13 A. ICRC sees itself as having a moral duty to
14 save people lives, civilian lives, even if that implies
15 that they will transfer them temporarily out of their
16 own areas. This was a time, if I may add, that ICRC
17 faced international criticism for participating in
18 evacuating people.
19 Q. Dr. Greve, the document that you have before
20 you and the statements therein, is that consistent with
21 your analysis and your conclusions concerning the
22 Prijedor area?
23 A. Yes, it is.
24 Q. We would offer this document as Prosecution
25 Exhibit 39.
1 MS. HOLLIS: We have no further questions,
2 Your Honour.
3 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Vucicevic.
4 Cross-examined by Mr. Vucicevic:
5 Q. Good morning, Dr. Greve.
6 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
7 Microphone for the counsel.
8 JUDGE MAY: Microphone.
9 MR. VUCICEVIC:
10 Q. Defence thanks you for coming to bring the
11 light and add your opinion in these proceedings. At
12 the beginning of your testimony, you, in an exhibit
13 marked -- I mean the Prosecution Exhibit No. 8 has been
14 introduced and that is your curriculum vitae. Could
15 you explain to us, what are the particular assignments
16 that you have in the international area that made you
17 an expert to evaluate the Bosnia situation? Just
18 briefly in summary.
19 A. My background and expertise relates to human
20 rights violations and possible human rights violations
21 and investigations of human rights violations. And
22 that goes back to work I have done. It's listed that
23 from 1979 to '81, I worked as an assistant protection
24 officer for the United Nations High Commission for
25 Refugees. I was assigned having a duty station in
1 Bangkok. I was working initially with Burmese,
2 Vietnamese refugees. It was a refugee population of
3 about a million. I was later, when more people come to
4 the area, assigned to work particularly with the
5 Cambodian situation. I worked for that for about two
6 years.
7 Q. If I may, was that your continuous assignment
8 or at the same time you were working also on some other
9 responsibilities in your native country?
10 A. No, this was a continuous assignment. And,
11 if I dare say so, it was an emergency, so we worked
12 almost day and night for two years. And having
13 finished that, I thought I should write some of the
14 basic things I had seen. I thought I could write it up
15 quickly and easily. It turned out to be my doctoral
16 thesis as I did further investigations into this. And
17 I worked. But then I had other assignments as well.
18 And I stayed in Norway and I worked for six years on
19 what became my doctoral thesis, which relates to one
20 modern refugee situation as compared to the
21 International Convention on Refugees.
22 I have worked briefly, that is, in Ethiopia
23 during the famine. It was in 1985. I was asked to
24 look particularly at the situation for children on
25 their own. I worked for Save the Children. I tried to
1 assess the situation. I did so with the assistance of
2 a local Ethiopian, who was working for Save the
3 Children in Ethiopia. And we were asked to come up
4 with recommendations on that basis.
5 Q. If I may ask, how long was your assignment in
6 Ethiopia?
7 A. This was a brief assignment. I think the
8 exact dates are listed in my curriculum vitae. If I
9 may, I could, perhaps, have it in hand and it will give
10 you the precise dates.
11 JUDGE MAY: Exhibit 8.
12 THE WITNESS: The exact dates are listed on
13 page 3. It's 20th of August to 4th of September. It's
14 a fortnight. And that was my fact finding parts. And
15 then I worked for a few months on paperwork. I did
16 some paperwork prior to going to Ethiopia and I
17 continued when coming back again. And it did result in
18 some policy changes and some recommendations for how
19 Save the Children would go about their work for
20 children on their own in that situation.
21 I did work later on a fact finding mission,
22 which was also short. It was to Angola. It was
23 looking at refugee camps for people from Namibia under
24 the leadership of SWAPO, Southwest African Peoples
25 Organisation, which was, at the time, accused of having
1 possibly violated basic human rights against their own
2 people. I did think that it was too short a visit to
3 go to Ethiopia for the time I was assigned. Excuse me,
4 Angola. It was only from the 30th of November to the
5 6th of December, 1987. So I said I am pleased to go to
6 Angola, but my work will be essentially reviewing the
7 legal platform, their constitution, and main documents,
8 their criminal procedure, to see if it fits with
9 general legal standards. And I did so and they made
10 some changes.
11 The main change which was made was that
12 criminal law was divided in two different laws. One
13 was stating what was forbidden, prohibited, and the
14 other listed the different kinds of punishment. But
15 there were no linkage between them, that depended on
16 the political connoisseur and the Court at every one
17 turn. It was later changed and they had a maximum or
18 even sometimes minimum penalty for different offences.
19 MR. VUCICEVIC:
20 Q. Do you have any other international
21 assignments that you have to observe violation of the
22 international humanitarian laws?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Besides, what I want to ask, that you went
25 into the field and you observed it on the ground? You
1 have mentioned in the China, Ethiopia and Angola.
2 A. I also worked as -- I am just looking to find
3 it. I was so-called mediator with the United Nations
4 Transitional Authority in Cambodia. On my suggestion,
5 the U.N. appointed an ombudsman office in their work
6 for the returnees to Cambodia. And there was some kind
7 of an ombudsman's office that would end the civilian
8 authority of UNTAC, United Nation Transitional
9 Authorities in Cambodia. And I worked for them for
10 half a year. It came within my responsibilities that
11 all complaints against the authorities, for different
12 authorities at the time in Cambodia, came to our
13 office. So we looked at all kind of allegations of
14 crimes and abuses and human rights violations. That
15 was a continuous half year assignment and the U.N.
16 changed, in part, on my recommendation, the wording,
17 the Secretary-General, from, "no problem" to
18 "atrocities."
19 Q. Dr. Greve, looking at your CV, what you're
20 referring to on page 5 of your assignment, of your CV,
21 is that the first paragraph that you just talked about;
22 is that the one?
23 A. No, excuse me. I should have pointed out.
24 It's on page 4 and it's listed 4th of August, 1992 to
25 3rd of February 1993. Each and every job I've had,
1 it's listed the exact date for that specific
2 assignment. There may have been paperwork that has
3 continued beyond that. As I made my doctorial thesis,
4 I was making the first prison profile for prisoners
5 inside the People's Republic of Cambodia, and that was
6 distributed. It was based on interviews with
7 refugees. It was distributed to the High Commission for
8 Refugees and to Amnesty International. I have done
9 some human rights work for Amnesty International.
10 Q. And that was listed in the original paragraph
11 of your CV?
12 A. This prison profile is not listed because
13 that was something I did on my own initiative. I was
14 not employed to do that.
15 Q. I'm just trying, quickly, to add the time
16 that you have spent on your international assignments
17 over your professional career, and it seems that it's
18 all together about three to three and a half years?
19 A. Yes, or even a little less than three years
20 in the field on assignment, yes.
21 Q. Besides being a professional lawyer at the
22 beginning of your career, you were a judge at different
23 levels in the court system of your native land, Norway;
24 correct?
25 A. That is correct.
1 Q. Isn't it fair to assume that you have carried
2 your international law assignments in work aside and
3 apart from your professional duties as a judge?
4 A. I would say that my career, or maybe it's not
5 career, but my professional life has been three-fold.
6 It has been as a judge; it has been as a professor of
7 law; and it has been in international human rights
8 issues.
9 Q. Where were you appointed or elected? I have
10 yet to learn what is the system of selecting judges in
11 your native land for the first time.
12 A. For the first time in my country, we don't
13 have a separate career for judges. It depends on your
14 marks, when you pass your exam. It depends on your
15 previous practice, and you apply for a post. And it's
16 actually our Ministry of Justice that will appoint us.
17 We have also a special system in Norway. We become
18 assistant district court judges as the first
19 assignment, as a judge normally, and that will be for a
20 time limited to two years. So you could not be a judge
21 for more than two years at that level. So then there
22 was several years when I was inactive, and I have been
23 back in for ten years as a judge, but I've had a leave
24 of absence when I've been on the U.N. missions.
25 Q. The question that I would like to propose is,
1 while you were a judge at the Court of Appeal for the
2 Western District of Norway, is it fair to say that it's
3 a full-time job?
4 A. It's fair to say it's a full-time job.
5 Q. And you were deciding on the cases, general
6 cases of law?
7 A. That is correct.
8 Q. Civil, criminal?
9 A. That is correct.
10 Q. Business and even, perhaps, violations of
11 civil rights if those even existed in Norway. Has a
12 case ever come up in your practice as a judge, in
13 Norway?
14 A. All kinds of cases, yes.
15 Q. I'm asking, has a case like that ever come up
16 that you can recall within the jurisprudence of Norway
17 that was before you?
18 A. There have been claims that, yes, we have
19 violated the European Convention on Human Rights,
20 absolutely.
21 Q. Have you sat in judgment on that case?
22 A. It may be one of the arguments used in
23 several cases, yes, particularly when it comes to
24 testimonies taken by the police and then to be ready in
25 the court, et cetera.
1 Q. Isn't it fair to state that while you were
2 working as a judge, you were not pursuing your
3 international assignments? You were, indeed, very busy
4 deciding the cases, the cases before you?
5 A. That is correct, although I should add that I
6 have been working a lot in my spare time on these
7 issues as well, out of interest. And I thought
8 particularly when it comes to the assignment relating
9 to Cambodia and to the former Yugoslavia, the nature
10 and kind has been such that I have felt obliged also to
11 use a lot of my free time to work on it.
12 Q. So you have used your after-hours to compile,
13 correlate and examine all these statements; correct?
14 A. As well, yes.
15 Q. We have heard, I believe, in your statements
16 yesterday, and if not I think it was a statement by the
17 Prosecutor given to us earlier, that you have not
18 travelled to the former Yugoslavia during the time that
19 you studied this case and prepared your statement; is
20 that correct?
21 A. No, it's not stated, neither yesterday nor in
22 my report that I have not travelled to Yugoslavia. I
23 have been to Slovenia and I have been to Croatia. And
24 I had hoped to come into the area in Croatia which were
25 protected by UNPROFOR at the time; that was rejected.
1 I had hoped to come into Bosnia; that was rejected.
2 But I have been once to Slovenia and Croatia with the
3 hope that I would be able to proceed and come to the
4 mentioned areas.
5 Q. But you have not been in Bosnia within the
6 boundaries of the former state -- as a state of the
7 former Yugoslavia at all, have you?
8 A. No, I have not. I should also add that I
9 have later received some invitations to go, but not to
10 go to the Prijedor area. And I had thought then I
11 shouldn't go, but that has been in a private capacity.
12 Q. Was that your decision not to go to the
13 Prijedor area or was that a prohibition by the
14 authorities who offered you that trip?
15 A. I have never been offered to go to Prijedor.
16 Conversely, it's always been denied me to go to
17 Prijedor. I even suggested when the Office of the
18 Prosecutor would go there at one time that I would be
19 happy if I could go with them, but I was not entitled
20 to go. But I have not formally applied to go to
21 Prijedor after I finished working with the Commission
22 of Experts.
23 Q. But you indicated earlier, we just want to
24 clear up that statement, you said that you were invited
25 to go to Bosnia but you did not get permission to go to
1 Prijedor. Who invited you and was that the same person
2 or entity who denied you access to Prijedor? Could you
3 testify to that effect, please?
4 A. Yes, I have been asked on a few occasions to
5 go to conferences, particularly in Sarajevo, and I have
6 declined to go. But I have said that if they could
7 arrange it so that I could go to Prijedor, I should be
8 pleased to go, and the answer has been no. But I have
9 made no formal application after working with the
10 Commission. When working with the Commission, I asked
11 to be allowed to go, and I was not allowed to go, but
12 that was on a general basis. The Commission of Experts
13 was generally not allowed to go.
14 Q. While doing your study on the Prijedor area,
15 have you talked to any investigators or police
16 authorities or diplomats who have furnished you with
17 the reports which are the basis of your statement?
18 A. Yes, I have talked to a few of them.
19 Q. Could you name a few and describe the nature
20 of your conversations?
21 A. Since I did not -- maybe I can give a general
22 explanation of how I went about the Prijedor study,
23 because that will, perhaps, put it in --
24 JUDGE MAY: Yes, deal with the question as
25 you want.
1 A. Thank you, Your Honour. When I wanted to
2 study Prijedor, I initially looked at the statements
3 from Sweden. And on that occasion, I did meet the one
4 who had organised that such statements were taken in
5 Sweden. The legal counsel of the Secretary-General of
6 the UN, his name is Hans Corell, and he told me how
7 and why he had arranged for such statements to be taken
8 in Sweden. He had actually, himself, participated with
9 the European Council Mission to the former Yugoslavia
10 and encountered that there were many allegations of
11 serious violations of basic law and customs of war,
12 human rights violations, allegations of that.
13 So he suggested to his ministry, he was with
14 the Swedish Foreign Ministry when coming back, that
15 everyone who had permission to stay in Sweden, refugees
16 for humanitarian reasons, they could stay there. If
17 they so wanted, they could come forward and explain
18 whatever they wanted about what they saw as having been
19 violations of their basic rights in the former
20 Yugoslavia.
21 So he told me about this on the occasion when
22 I went there and looked at the Swedish statements. So
23 having that at the back of my head and learning --
24 Q. If I may just jog your memory on this one.
25 Did Mr. Hans Corell give you any statements that he had
1 collected, either personally or they were collected for
2 his study?
3 A. No, but he gave me a general understanding of
4 how he had gone about organising things in Sweden. And
5 when I wanted to understand how I could try to
6 understand the area of Prijedor, I had to work out some
7 kind of methodology, and there was no such studies to
8 my knowledge ever made in this world before. So there
9 were no -- I could not go to some books to find out how
10 I could do that.
11 So I decided that for two main reasons, one
12 was security considerations for the witnesses, and one
13 was to have as much correct information as possible, I
14 would try to approach people who had left the former
15 Yugoslavia, living somewhere else, preferably in very
16 different countries, as many countries as possible, and
17 at a distance from one another, so that no one could
18 threaten just a handful of refugees, and by that I sort
19 of end my study.
20 Also because I thought with the experience I
21 had from interviewing refugees in Southeast Asia, it
22 would be wise that people, and forgive me for saying
23 that, but sometimes people sit together in the evening
24 preparing for next morning's interview, not that they
25 want to lie. They try to figure out, "Was it like this
1 or perhaps it was slightly different," and everyone is
2 afraid of making the mistake. They try to come forward
3 with the true information, but I did not want that to
4 happen. I wanted the people to give as genuine
5 information as possible. So I wanted the statements to
6 be taken in as many different places and preferably
7 simultaneously as possible.
8 For this reason, and as we heard with the
9 Commission of Refugees, not one cent, not a penny. We
10 did not have any money for the Prijedor study. So I
11 went, hat in hand, to some different countries,
12 including my own, and said "Well, we have a
13 neighbouring country. Hans Corell has made an
14 excellent approach to gather information. May I
15 suggest my own country do it the same way?" And I did
16 gather with some volunteers, judges, lawyers, military
17 lawyers, investigating officers, and I told them, "I
18 would like to look at and have interviewed people in
19 Norway."
20 I should perhaps add that since I had been a
21 staff member with UNHCR, I did approach UNHCR, and
22 UNHCR did inform me that a lot of people with whom UNHCR
23 had been in contact when they had come out of Bosnia to
24 Karlovac, and UNHCR was entitled to be in charge of
25 them or mandated to be in charge of them, UNHCR had
1 asked to see them resettled or evacuated to third
2 countries. So UNHCR could give me a list to which
3 countries people had been preceded, specifically also
4 from the area of Prijedor, people who came from
5 Prijedor.
6 Because as is listed in my report, on the 2nd
7 of August, 1992, an American journalist with the name
8 Roy Gutman wrote an article in the newspaper called --
9 MR. VUVICEVIC: Your Honour, I would object
10 to this part of the statement, because the Prosecution
11 would be free to call, and I was only asking about
12 methodology. And we have gone far beyond the scope of
13 cross.
14 JUDGE MAY: Well, perhaps you could go on and
15 leave Mr. Gutman out.
16 A. I shall leave Mr. Gutman out, Your Honour.
17 What I wanted to say is only this: That this was the
18 time when UNHCR and ICRC, because the press focused on
19 Prijedor, and Prijedor was the first large area from
20 which large scale transfers with international
21 assistance was taking place. For that reason, UNHCR
22 had very exact information, because they had a huge
23 group of people coming from Prijedor at about the same
24 time in October, November, December 1992, and they had
25 had to make special appeals to the world community to
1 see if they could take care of these people, bringing
2 them to other countries.
3 For that reason, they knew to what countries,
4 otherwise, I wouldn't expect the High Commissioner,
5 despite all his good work or her good work, to have
6 exact information about where people came from and be
7 able to easily find this information. But they had it
8 concerning the people from Prijedor, and that was what
9 gave me the idea of continuing the good work of
10 Mr. Hans Corell, and to follow some of the procedures
11 that had been used in Sweden. And I did meet
12 personally with the people doing the interviews in
13 Norway, but I met with them to explain the methodology
14 prior to them doing the interviews.
15 I have also spoken with some of them
16 afterwards, but I have not spoken with them about the
17 interviewing process as such. They were all
18 professionals, and I left it for them. I thought it
19 would be wiser for me to be provided with information
20 which I could look at and analyse than to, sort of, get
21 mixed into the information gathering process itself.
22 Q. Judge Greve, if I may continue, what were the
23 other countries that you got statements from, besides
24 Norway and Sweden? Could you just enumerate the
25 countries, please?
1 A. Norway, Sweden, The Netherlands, Malaysia,
2 Germany, Croatia, on my initiative directly. Having
3 happened without my knowledge and slightly on a
4 different format, the UK, US, France, Italy,
5 Switzerland and Denmark. I think I've mentioned them.
6 Q. Okay, thank you.
7 A. Excuse me. Yes, there were a few statements
8 that came slightly different from Portugal. But my
9 sort of 400 statements I referred to were those
10 gathered by me in the first six countries, and then the
11 other interviews came on top of that.
12 Q. So is it fair to conclude that you relied, in
13 your report, only on 400 statements from the six
14 countries, and I will read them for the record, Sweden,
15 Norway, The Netherlands, Malaysia, Germany and Croatia,
16 and you have disregarded the other statements from the
17 other countries?
18 A. That is not correct. I used it as my basic
19 information, but I was asked to analyse the information
20 I could gather and not to limit it to one or a few
21 sources. I sought for every possible source. I
22 approached every journalist whom I knew had been to the
23 area. I approached every agency whom I knew had been
24 to the area prior to or after what had happened. I
25 even met with -- of course, as I read to you, I also
1 met with Serb diplomats in Geneva. I tried to meet
2 with everyone.
3 Q. If I may ask you? You said Serb
4 diplomats, because at that time, there were two
5 separate entities, one is the Republika Srpska, and the
6 other is the Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia, and the
7 Republic of Yugoslavia, as it may be. Who were those
8 diplomats? Because there were diplomats at that time
9 circulating in Europe from the Republika Srpska?
10 A. When I referred to the diplomats, I may like
11 to add that Article 3 of the Constitution of the
12 Republika Srpska, or the Republic of the Serb People
13 in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which was changed to
14 the Serb Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and the
15 name again changed to Republika Srpska, Article 3 of
16 the Constitution states that this entity is a part of
17 the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. So it's not a
18 separate state. It's in its constitution that the --
19 MR. VUVICEVIC: I object to this testimony
20 because the witness is testifying to the ultimate
21 question on this.
22 JUDGE MAY: Well, I think we will accept it
23 for the moment. We'll bear in mind what you say. If
24 you can go on, Judge Greve.
25 A. So I understood that because, as I mentioned
1 yesterday, the only document we ever got from Serbian
2 authorities in the wide sense, including all of them,
3 was that particular constitution. As it was listed in
4 the constitution, as provided to us, that they belong
5 to the state, according to Article 3, we approached,
6 yes, the federal authorities in Geneva. And I dare say
7 also I tried to get hold of -- I read, of course, the
8 Nordic languages, English, French, German. I tried to
9 get hold of every source I could possibly find,
10 including also newspaper articles. Kozarski Vjesnik,
11 when we came across that, I tried to get as many of
12 them as possible and to have them translated, so any
13 source I could possibly think of.
14 I met with ICRC. For reasons of
15 confidentiality, they could not share with me; UNHCR
16 could not share with me information. But what people
17 could do would be on a private basis to tell me if I
18 was on a blind road.
19 MR. VUVICEVIC: With Your Honours permission,
20 because we have heard this testimony about the
21 constitution of the Republika Srpska, I would like to
22 address a question or two to tidy up that matter.
23 Q. Dr. Greve, are you aware that Bosnia and
24 Herzegovina were recognised as an independent state in
25 April of 1992?
1 A. Yes, I have been advised of that, yes.
2 Q. Are you aware that Bosnia and Herzegovina had
3 a constitution of their own as an independent state?
4 A. Yes, I think I am aware of that. I've not
5 read that constitution, but I assume that is correct.
6 Q. But you have read the constitution of the
7 Republika Srpska; haven't you?
8 A. Yes, I have. The draft was provided for us.
9 The final was only in August of the same year, I had
10 read that later, but we were provided a draft which is
11 dated back in -- I think we received -- it's one of the
12 exhibits, and if I recollect it rightly, it's the one
13 that was made in February.
14 Q. The constitution is supreme law of the land,
15 supreme law of an independent land; isn't that correct?
16 A. That is correct.
17 Q. Based on your statement, it logically follows
18 that Republika Srpska is an independent country; isn't
19 it?
20 A. I shall not try to judge on legal issues.
21 That --
22 JUDGE MAY: I think that is a matter for us.
23 MR. VUVICEVIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
24 Q. Therefore, when you talked to diplomats from
25 the representing government in Belgrade, you were not
1 sure whether they lawfully represented the Republika
2 Srpska or not. It just follows from your previous
3 statement; is that correct?
4 A. I did not approach them to ask them to have
5 official information in the sense that it was important
6 to know whether they were representing the legal
7 authorities also for the Bosnian Serbs or not. I did
8 approach them as a matter of courtesy, as we did not
9 receive information, but I presented them with the
10 progress of my study. I did not disclose my sources,
11 because myself, even I don't know the name of my
12 witnesses. But I explained to them the way I had
13 approached the issue. I explained to them my
14 conclusions, my findings, my assessments.
15 Q. At this level, Dr. Greve, we haven't gotten
16 into your methodology yet. I just want to ascertain
17 who denied you access to Bosnia, even though you
18 received the constitution of the Republika Srpska.
19 I'll give you an open question, but please if you can
20 give me a brief answer.
21 A. I think this is, Your Honours, in evidence
22 already, because I think the constitution -- is not the
23 constitution -- well, I don't know if it can be
24 included, but we, meaning the Commission of Experts,
25 were given that draft constitution. And there is a
1 letter with it saying that "Although we provided you
2 with this," it's addressed to our senior legal
3 secretary, we had three legal secretaries, Mr. Kotliar
4 who was a Russian, it states that "Although we provided
5 you with this, it does not mean that we want to
6 cooperate with you or that this can be taken as or seen
7 as cooperation." It was the general approach that they
8 would not want to cooperate with us in terms of letting
9 us have documents or having access. And it was
10 Mr. Kotliar of the Commission of Experts who tried to
11 facilitate, who wrote the official letters to seek
12 cooperation.
13 Q. I will probe a little deeper on this point.
14 You indicated that you did not receive permission to
15 travel to Bosnia by the federal Yugoslav diplomats in
16 Switzerland. At that time, did they represent that
17 that was the official position of the government of
18 Republika Srpska or that was their own position?
19 A. Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I should
20 emphasise that when I spoke with diplomats myself, I
21 did not raise the issue of going to Prijedor. That was
22 raised by the Commission as such, both with authorities
23 from Republika Srpska and Belgrade, but that was raised
24 on a formal basis by the Commission. Not by me
25 personally, but by our legal secretary, and not in my
1 meeting.
2 Q. Dr. Greve, you testified that you replaced a
3 member of the Commission who passed away. Were those
4 requests of the Commission made before or after your
5 appointment as a member of the Commission?
6 A. Both before and after. It's my
7 understanding, it was made several times prior to me
8 coming, and it was definitely raised on several
9 occasions later.
10 Q. When those questions were raised later, while
11 you were officially a member of the Commission, have
12 you seen any documents from either the government of
13 the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia or the Republika
14 Srpska denying access to the commission?
15 A. No, I don't think I've seen the documents,
16 save for the one I previously referred to sending us
17 the constitution.
18 Q. Have you received any oral statements from
19 any of the officers of the Commission or the United
20 Nations to the effect that either the government of the
21 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia or the Republika Srpska
22 have denied this? And if you did, who told you that
23 and when and what was the substance of that
24 conversation?
25 A. This was an issue which was raised on several
1 occasions or almost every meeting. The Commission of
2 Experts would meet every two weeks. And it was raised
3 on several occasions because every one of us had
4 different projects, different missions, different
5 undertakings. And we needed or we wanted to have and
6 would have appreciated to have general access and to
7 have documents in general.
8 So this was raised by the chairman, and it
9 was raised by our senior secretary, legal secretary,
10 who was the one who took care of paperwork in this
11 sense.
12 Q. Did you insist to gain access to Republika
13 Srpska or Prijedor at that time because that was your
14 area of study?
15 A. Maybe my way of expressing myself is not
16 insisting, but I did ask and state that I would find it
17 most useful, yes.
18 Q. Why would you -- why would you have found it
19 most useful at that time, could you explain us your
20 reasons?
21 A. Maybe I think it's always important if you
22 want to get as good a picture as possible to see the
23 area which is spoken about. I find it easier, as a
24 person, to relate to something I have seen than to
25 something I read about. It takes more effort when I
1 only read about it. It's possible, but it would have
2 been even better if I also could have seen the area of
3 Prijedor.
4 Q. Would it be fair to say that your concern was
5 that in order to get a representative sample, you might
6 want to see all the units, all the sample that you're
7 trying to picture in your report, meaning reports from
8 one group from the second group and from the third
9 ethnic group, in and out of Prijedor; would that be
10 fair to state?
11 A. I would phrase it slightly differently. I
12 think it would have been most useful, yes. I think
13 that we had one very important source as of the views
14 of the Serbs in the area and that was the official
15 newspaper, which was controlled by the new authorities
16 in Prijedor. So Kozarski Vjesnik, I read it very, very
17 carefully, all the numbers I could come cross. I tried
18 to have, but that was limited, but there were some
19 reports and information as to the news on radio
20 Prijedor. There was some television shows from radio
21 Telivitsi and Banja Luka. But, otherwise, I thought it
22 was possible to get a good understanding of the events
23 in Prijedor without going inside, but it would have
24 been very interesting. It would have facilitated my
25 work and I would very much have appreciated to meet
1 with the people locally, see the area, yes.
2 Q. So you would agree with me that even though
3 being so remote, that certain parts of the articles
4 printed in newspaper at that time was reliable, while
5 the other parts printed, it might be a free speech or
6 simply editorialising. In order to be more specific,
7 when we have an article where the newspaper reporter is
8 directly quoting an official, you would agree with me
9 at that time, that statement would be reliable?
10 A. I wouldn't make such general conclusions, but
11 I would find it most interesting if all available
12 sources speak to the same. And what was most
13 surprising to me, perhaps, about the 400 statements
14 from witnesses, which were collected under my guidance,
15 so to speak, was that it seemed as if the people, save
16 for details, would speak with one voice. And that was
17 so surprising that I thought I should look for all
18 other sources to see how could it be?
19 Q. Judge, at this time, I would like the Court
20 to admonish the witness, even though we are all learned
21 lawyers, but it might be, perhaps, with a depth of
22 study and the impressions that she has had, she's
23 sometimes not answering the question as its put. She
24 might be answering, perhaps second or third question
25 that I might be asking. And if this particular
1 statement, I would simply asking her to agree or
2 disagree and then we're going back into her study. I
3 don't want Your Honour to -- I just feel a little bit
4 that, you know, I would like to have a latitude on
5 cross to ask some questions that are going to probe.
6 JUDGE MAY: I am certainly not going to
7 admonish this witness. Perhaps, we could stick a
8 little more closely to the question.
9 THE WITNESS: I appreciate that, Your Honour.
10 MR. VUCICEVIC: Thank you, Your Honour. And
11 my apologies, Judge.
12 Q. You have testified yesterday when you have
13 made statements on the exhibits that were introduced.
14 And you have quoted a statement of a certain officials,
15 and we'll go over those statements later. At least to
16 those statements that you read into the record
17 yesterday and they were statements of the officials of
18 the various entities existing in the Republika Srpska
19 at that time. Do you feel they were reliable?
20 A. Yes, I do feel that numerous of the quotes,
21 numerous of the articles represented a view which was,
22 which supported my findings, surprisingly so.
23 Q. So you're testifying today, even though you
24 said you relied on Kozarski Vjesnik as one of the three
25 sources of information that you had, one being a radio,
1 Kozarski Vjesnik and I believe two sources that you
2 said. On one hand, and on other hand, you say that you
3 only used them to support your conclusions that you did
4 earlier. If you can reconcile it, please, because, you
5 know, the one thought that's coming to me, the chicken
6 or the egg? Have you used it in your studies or you
7 only reviewed them later on only after you made
8 conclusions on those 400 statements or 600 statements,
9 or whatever they were there? Place them, please,
10 within the context of your studies.
11 A. Actually some of the newspaper articles were
12 available to me prior to some of the statements. So --
13 Q. So did you doubt in the voracity of the
14 statements of all the statements at that time or you
15 thought that some of the statements were more true than
16 the others?
17 A. No, that was not my impression. I see that
18 some of the statements are short ones, as compared to
19 some that are very extensive. And I think they also
20 reflect the fact that people may experience different
21 aspects of an overall situation. So, obviously what
22 people are expressing in the statements, will be -- I
23 have asked that they explain about what happened prior
24 to them leaving Prijedor and also prior to any
25 problems, if they've encountered problems, came up.
1 But, if I may say so, I did not say that I was looking
2 for specific statements to support what was stated in
3 the witness statements. I was saying that I was
4 surprised to see how witness statements were supported
5 by a very outspoken, as I could see it, language.
6 Q. We are going beyond the question?
7 A. Okay.
8 Q. Because my point of interest --
9 MS. HOLLIS: I have an objection. I think
10 that she's speaking directly to the question.
11 JUDGE MAY: If you'll leave it to us to
12 decide. Yes, what's the next question?
13 MR. VUCICEVIC:
14 Q. When did you get the first few copies of
15 Kozarski Vjesnik?
16 A. Possibly mid-February, 1992 -- 1994.
17 Q. And that was just the beginning of your study
18 period?
19 A. It was actually not. Because I started
20 working with the Commission back in October. I was
21 approached by the Secretary-General's office, the 19th
22 of October I was appointed by the Secretary-General on
23 the 21st of October. And it was at that time not known
24 whether the Commission of Experts would finish its work
25 by the end of the year, Easter next year or next
1 summer. So it was not just at the beginning, because
2 we had to finish actually by Easter that year. So it
3 was around the clock work, save for when I was a
4 judge --
5 Q. Let me assist you a little bit with that
6 question. When you received the first few copies of
7 Kozarski Vjesnik, had you had on your desk at that
8 time, any of the statements you received from the
9 subjects from the various countries?
10 A. Yes, I had.
11 Q. And had you read those statements prior to
12 receiving Kozarski Vjesnik?
13 A. Yes, I had because the entire study --
14 JUDGE MAY: Let the witness finish.
15 THE WITNESS: Because the entire study
16 started with me reading statements from Sweden.
17 MR. VUCICEVIC:
18 Q. So could you tell approximately how many
19 statements? And I won't ask you any numbers, one half
20 of it? One third? Whatever percentage might come to
21 your mind that you have read at the time before you got
22 the first information from the Serbian side.
23 A. Maybe half, maybe less, I am really not able
24 to recollect.
25 Q. That's absolutely, you know, proper, because
1 so many years have past.
2 A. Excuse me, it's not a matter of years that
3 have past. It's simply that I did not pay, perhaps,
4 that much of an attention to at what time information
5 was floating in because I was -- I had so much
6 information coming at the same time. And I could even
7 have had a pile of statements at hand prior to
8 receiving it, some newspaper articles. And I could
9 have read them in this order or that and I did not pay
10 attention to in which order I read them, so that I am
11 able to state that now.
12 Q. I realised that what I said that somehow
13 could also mean that I was helping you testifying and
14 it wasn't my intention at all. It was, you know, the
15 first thing that could come in my mind.
16 You testified before where when asked about
17 reliability of certain information statements that you
18 read in Kozarski Vjesnik. So, basically, you have,
19 after having read, about half of the statements that
20 you have received, you could then look to Kozarski
21 Vjesnik and sift through and say, these articles are
22 reliable and these articles are unreliable; isn't that
23 the case?
24 A. No, that's not the case. Because, for one,
25 as you will see, a number of the articles from Kozarski
1 Vjesnik are subsequent to me having finalised the study
2 as well. So --
3 Q. Now here we are in a little bit, you know,
4 time dispute. I am only asking to those ones that you
5 received before you concluded your study. I am only
6 asking the those ones where you had 50 per cent of your
7 articles, 50 per cent of your statements before you,
8 having read them, and then received them
9 contemporaneously, they couldn't be after your study,
10 there's something that you are looking, and you
11 testified before that you used those sources. All I am
12 asking you; how did you look at those sources, having
13 said on various occasions yesterday that some of the
14 articles were inconsistent with your findings or
15 consistent with the overall study? Now the study is
16 not finished. Now we are testifying, you only have
17 half of statements and you have Kozarski Vjesnik. How
18 did you look at the various quotations of the officials
19 that were brought in that paper?
20 A. As one of many indications of what was to be
21 the overall situation, as one of my sources for trying
22 to understand how things had happened in Prijedor.
23 Q. Did you think that any of the statements made
24 were patently false in Kozarski Vjesnik?
25 A. I did not think that statements were false,
1 but I think that sometimes the language used was what I
2 would not find in an ordinary newspaper article in a
3 situation where there was no conflict.
4 Q. So you would, in other words, find out that
5 within the context of the armed conflict, even the
6 newspapers do change their stories; isn't that what
7 you're saying now?
8 A. I am saying that the language used, such as
9 some of the derogatives, et cetera, one would normally
10 not find in a newspaper article.
11 Q. But, short of having derogatory statements or
12 ethnic slurs as we may call them, if the language is
13 neutral on its face, then it could be accepted as
14 true?
15 A. It is one among several indications of what
16 is the truth, yes. And I was open to that
17 possibility.
18 Q. So that the statements that you -- I'm sorry,
19 you can finish. I'm sorry?
20 A. I approached every source with that open
21 mind. I want to see what can be concluded from this.
22 I shall make no -- I shall close no doors, I shall be
23 open-minded. I will read it and I will try to see how
24 all of this, as I was mandated to, to try to conclude
25 on this.
1 Q. I do thank you for the statements and I think
2 we'll change the line of questioning. We'll leave
3 Kozarski Vjesnik for some of the direct quotations
4 later. You mentioned the name earlier Mr. Hans
5 Corell. Are you familiar that he has presented a study
6 to an international body in conjunction with another
7 gentleman and if you could recall the other name and
8 whether you talked to him?
9 A. I have not talked to the other gentleman and
10 there was a woman as well and I have read their
11 statement later, yes.
12 Q. If I am correct, I have read it several
13 months ago, that study was submitted to an
14 international body, and I believe that was to the
15 Security Council of the United Nations before your
16 study was admitted?
17 A. I think it was conducted by, or commissioned
18 by the European Council. I think, I am not able to say
19 that exactly. I will not also be surprised if it also
20 has been submitted to the Security Council. But it was
21 not commissioned by the Security Council.
22 Q. Did Mr. Corell tell you what motivated him to
23 do that study because he was your first contact, kind
24 of a predecessor on the job?
25 A. He may have told me, but as far as I
1 understand, he was sort of asked to do that on behalf
2 of the organising entity, be it the European Council
3 or whoever. It's not something that he did on his own
4 initiative.
5 Q. Has he turned over to you any materials from
6 his study?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Do you know whether the witnesses that you
9 have, that came into your study were also the witnesses
10 who were interviewed for his study, the same
11 witnesses?
12 A. His study and his two colleague's study, they
13 made a joint study, was based on a mission to the
14 former Yugoslavia. If, by chance, they have
15 interviewed anyone who later came to be witnesses in
16 the Prijedor study among the 400, I cannot say. I do
17 not know. They were not in the report I have read,
18 they are not listed by name and, in a manner which
19 makes it possible for me -- and I am not familiar, of
20 course, with the names, even among my witnesses -- but
21 I have not been able to read anything in that report as
22 if it is a reprint which I am finding among the witness
23 statements later.
24 Q. Use the word "report", so is it fair to
25 conclude that you have read Mr. Corell's report?
1 A. Yes, I have. It was provided for the
2 Commission of Experts as such.
3 Q. Have you asked him about methodology that he
4 had used in his study?
5 A. I have not because his study was based on
6 going to the former Yugoslavia on a mission. His
7 mandate was different. He was sent on some kind of a
8 fact finding, to my understanding.
9 Q. Have you asked him whether he had access to
10 the Republika of Srpska?
11 A. I have not asked him. The questions I asked
12 him was essentially about how he had organised things
13 in Sweden where I was called upon to read statements.
14 Q. You have testified before that it would have
15 been most helpful in conducting a study to have had
16 statements or interviews from the people in Prijedor.
17 And yet, in starting your study, you have talked and
18 gotten the first page, first information from the
19 gentleman who was on the ground; haven't you?
20 A. Yes, I have. But I don't know if Mr. Corell,
21 to what areas they were let in, under what conditions.
22 With this, I am not fully familiar. Something can be
23 read straight out of the report, but I don't have the
24 full information. I didn't see it my -- to be needed
25 for my study to have in-depth information about that
1 particular mission.
2 Q. You said that you haven't talked to him about
3 his methodology. Did you presume because he was on the
4 ground and you are on the ground in Bosnia and you are
5 not, that those methodologies must be different and
6 therefore you didn't ask him about it?
7 A. I asked him about methodology in terms of how
8 he had gone about things in Sweden, as I had been
9 called upon to read things which he had, so to speak,
10 created the methodology for receiving in Sweden. But I
11 did not, at that time, I had not even yet, I think read
12 his report. It had been provided to the Commission of
13 Experts and I did read it at one time. But I have
14 never spoken to him about methodology on that
15 particular report.
16 Q. Judge Greve, would it be fair to say that the
17 time was so short, the funds were scarce or hardly
18 available as you testified, that your report had to be
19 prepared because the Security Council ordered prepared
20 by certain time, that even a learned professional in
21 this field, sometimes couldn't have enough time or
22 right opportunity to ask Mr. Corell, what did you do in
23 Bosnia?
24 A. If I had thought it useful for my study to
25 know the exact ways and means of that mission, I would
1 not have hesitated to give Mr. Corell a telephone call
2 and ask him directly. I see clearly that it would have
3 been useful to have had more time, more sources, access
4 to Prijedor. I believe, nonetheless, that, yes, we
5 were asked to give a report. Of that reason we gave it
6 within the time limit we were given. But I think,
7 nonetheless, it outlines the basics.
8 JUDGE MAY: Are you going to move on to
9 another topic now?
10 MR. VUCICEVIC: Pardon me.
11 JUDGE MAY: I am looking at the clock, it's
12 five to eleven, we'll adjourn at eleven, so when you
13 find a convenient moment, Mr. Vucicevic, we'll adjourn.
14 MR. VUCICEVIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
15 Q. In indicating among the six countries that
16 you have collated the statements, you indicate
17 Malaysia, Germany and Croatia. How did you give
18 instructions to the officers, your assistants, even
19 though you might have not never met them, who
20 interviewed the former citizens of Bosnia, in those
21 countries?
22 A. This was done differently for different
23 countries. That is to say, that I had, I was lucky to
24 have my -- my predecessor had a personal assistant in
25 the region, a gentleman called Bergsmo, Morten Bergsmo,
1 and he was assigned to work with me as my predecessor
2 had died. And he assisted when it came to the Prijedor
3 study. His name is listed on the front page as well
4 that he assisted in this.
5 I also had the advantage of my Dutch
6 colleague, Christine Claron, who was able to be
7 the coordinator informing the people taking interviews
8 in this country. So I worked with my colleagues in
9 this as well.
10 And as for the Malaysian situation, I only
11 spoke with the diplomatic mission in Geneva to organise
12 it all. I did not go to Malaysia. I visited Malaysia
13 on several occasions, but not in this context.
14 Q. My question is, do you know what instructions
15 were given to the investigators in the field who
16 interviewed the subjects? How much did they know about
17 your studies, about methodology, overall plan for your
18 studies? Who communicate you to them and how they were
19 controlled in a scientific way meant control, in order
20 to give you the results for your study?
21 A. They had specific information that I wanted
22 to study the area of Prijedor, the Municipality of
23 Prijedor. They had been advised that I wanted not to
24 limit the information I sought to possible human rights
25 violations. I wanted to know what had happened prior
1 to the Serbs taking power in Prijedor. And I wanted to
2 know what had happened in the period before they left
3 Prijedor. And I wanted to know under what
4 circumstances they left Prijedor and
5 Bosnia-Herzegovina. That is to say, those who had come
6 first to Travnik, a number was sent to Travnik to
7 central Bosnian areas --
8 Q. Judge Greve, you know, we'll come to Travnik
9 later on, you know --
10 A. I am just saying that they were asked about
11 the situation.
12 JUDGE MAY: Go on, was there something else
13 you wanted to add.
14 THE WITNESS: I just wanted to say, I didn't
15 ask about the general situation in Travnik, I only
16 asked about before leaving the Serb controlled areas
17 and how they came to leave those areas. And everyone
18 during the interviews, knew I wanted to have that broad
19 basis of information. And I said I want to write down
20 what they are saying, nothing else, nothing more. And
21 I wanted there to be many different people taking the
22 interviews. I did not want to be one format, this
23 question or that question. I wanted the people to
24 speak and tell them with their own words how they
25 perceived all this period. And that was my
1 instruction. So there were numerous people taking
2 these interviews and my guarantee in terms of
3 scientific control, as you worded it, would be that
4 these were people who were used to take interviews.
5 There would be investigation officers, immigration
6 officials, judges, lawyers. I admit that I am sure
7 their professional qualities may vary, but nonetheless,
8 they were all professionals.
9 JUDGE MAY: Yes, thank you. It's eleven.
10 We'll adjourn, to twenty past eleven.
11 --- Recess taken at 11.04 a.m.
12 --- On resuming at 11.25 a.m.
13 (The accused entered court)
14 (The witness entered court)
15 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Vucicevic?
16 MR. VUCICEVIC:
17 Q. Dr. Greve, we left off with your data
18 collection from Malaysia, Germany and Croatia. You
19 said that you had given instruction to the diplomatic
20 representatives of those countries to carry your
21 instructions to their investigators who would be
22 interviewing the subjects; is that correct?
23 A. That is not correct. I said as for Malaysia
24 I spoke with the diplomatic representatives in Geneva.
25 Q. What about Germany and Croatia?
1 A. That was not through diplomatic
2 representatives.
3 Q. Can you explain how you relayed your
4 instructions to the actual investigators in those two
5 countries?
6 A. Yes, in the same general, broad sense as
7 previously done and, in part, through my assistant
8 Morton Bergsmo.
9 Q. Being your assistant, he certainly would know
10 how to carry out your orders. What did he do about it?
11 A. He is a very good man in terms of carrying
12 out instructions. I think he did a --
13 Q. And working with such a fine person, as you
14 are.
15 A. I may say, perhaps, it's not your direct
16 question, but all the statements were, of course, made
17 available to the Security Council. And although they
18 were never published, they were free for everyone to
19 read within the Security Council as well. So they were
20 made available to the Security Council, all of them.
21 Q. Dr. Greve, being a Ph.D., I'm referring to a
22 little bit of a bias in conducting any study. Because
23 you referred in your testimony in Tadic's case that
24 your methodology was imprecise. And if you could
25 reconcile the statement made in Tadic's case and my
1 question now. How did you guard against the bias
2 directing your instructions to Germany and Croatia?
3 And were you at all concerned about the bias in getting
4 the statements from the officials of those two
5 countries?
6 A. I did not get statements from officials. I
7 got statements from witnesses, but they were
8 interviewed through people who had professional
9 backgrounds. I was concerned that, as for any
10 statement, it could be biased, it could be everything
11 and anything wrong with it. I was open-minded to see
12 if there could be anything into the allegations that
13 were made. So I wanted to compare the information, not
14 to have it from one area, from one source. Yes, I
15 foresaw that the Croats were, of course, involved in
16 the conflict, so perhaps things could be biased.
17 But what I have stated, I believe, previously
18 also, definitely in the Tadic case, I was surprised to
19 see that, on the average, people were speaking very
20 much along the same lines. That was the most
21 surprising part of this, and that was what made me
22 think that the information I gathered could be
23 imprecise, yes, but none the less as to basics, it was
24 as if speaking with one voice.
25 I must say that I'm not able to recollect
1 exactly the quotation you are making from my statement
2 in the Tadic case. If you want my comment on that, I
3 would appreciate it if I could possibly have it quoted
4 to me or --
5 JUDGE MAY: Well, obviously if a quotation is
6 going to be used from another case, the witness should
7 be referred to the passage. If you don't have it, you
8 can find it, Mr. Vucicevic, maybe during the
9 adjournment or perhaps afterwards.
10 MR. VUCICEVIC:
11 Q. In your report, you have indicated that in
12 April or at the end of April of 1992, the situation in
13 Bosanska Krajina became so dangerous that two members
14 of the United Nations military mission in Bosnia, I
15 believe it was UNPROFOR at that time, who were
16 stationed in Banja Luka were removed?
17 A. UNPROFOR has a special entity called Military
18 Observers. And it is my understanding from visiting
19 the UNPROFOR headquarters, all my information about
20 UNPROFOR and the UNMO’s has been collected through that
21 headquarters which I visited. It was then located in
22 Zagreb.
23 It so happened that my senior superior in
24 Cambodia, Yasushi Akashi was the head of relations at
25 the time, and a number of his senior staff were my own
1 friends from Cambodia. They had come straight from
2 Cambodia to Yugoslavia. So I was greatly assisted by
3 the Office of the Special Representative in terms of
4 having access to UNPROFOR and to the military observers
5 leadership.
6 I have tried to guide the Prosecutor's office as
7 to where the exact source could be for the date
8 mentioned in my report. Because I came or I handed
9 over to this Tribunal a suitcase and several boxes of
10 documents which was handed to Deputy Prosecutor Blewitt
11 at the time, and it was taken into the documentation
12 information unit in the Prosecutor's office at that
13 time. They have not been able to find the specific
14 document. I should say I have kept no document with
15 me, and I don't have copies of documents. So I am
16 unable to find the exact paper where it's stated that
17 two UNMO’s, two military observers, left Banja Luka.
18 Q. I will supply that paragraph after the break
19 to the Trial Chamber, but I vividly remember that in
20 your statement, what I would like to follow up with:
21 Have you talked to those two military officers, those
22 military observers, that were pulled from Banja Luka on
23 April 28th?
24 A. Unfortunately not. They were out of the office
25 at the time, and they could not be identified according
1 to the UNMO’s leader in Zagreb at the time, because I
2 specifically asked and wanted to meet with them, as I
3 had wanted to meet with anyone and everyone who had
4 been in. I asked if there were any specific reports
5 related to this. I was told there was not, save for
6 the date.
7 Q. So it seems that United Nations military
8 mission in Yugoslavia at that time had made the
9 evaluation that there was, indeed, so -- the conditions
10 are so dangerous in Bosanska Krajina, and the two
11 observers were ordered to leave the area for the
12 reasons, obviously, of their personal safety. However,
13 you were not being provided any documents about the
14 decision of the appropriate United Nations office on
15 making that particular finding, communications to the
16 officers, nor could the officers could be located; is
17 that correct?
18 A. Yes and no. Part of your statement is
19 correct.
20 Q. Judge Greve, what I'm basically driving at,
21 I'm driving at -- because you just said there were
22 several suitcases and boxes of documents. To the best
23 of your recollection, what is in those boxes so that
24 you can help me later on ask the Trial Chamber to allow
25 us access to those documents?
1 A. As stated, I believe the two were military
2 observers. Military observers will normally be in an
3 area if the U.N. thinks they can achieve something in
4 particular with having them there. It would be ideal
5 to have military observers out everywhere at every
6 time. But in an armed conflict, they may have quite a
7 low level for deciding when to withdraw staff, which
8 has, in part, been the case in Bosnia-Herzegovina. I
9 don't know what the reason was that made them decide to
10 withdraw the two representatives from Banja Luka at
11 that time.
12 Q. Dr. Greve, the statement that you just made,
13 the answer to my previous question is two-fold. The
14 first is a statement on the United Nations policy on
15 the military observers; the second one is that you did
16 not get to receive any information about it. Where is
17 the source of your knowledge on military policy of the
18 United Nations in this particular case? Where did you
19 receive this information, when you were in Cambodia,
20 Zagreb, later on in your office, telephone
21 conversation? How did you get to know this?
22 A. I think I stated that my information on this
23 is from the UNPROFOR headquarters and the special unit
24 that has to deal with the military observers. I met
25 both the leadership of the UNPROFOR and the leadership
1 of that specific unit in Zagreb in early 1993. And my
2 information as to their presence in Bosnia and
3 Herzegovina is obtained from there. I think I have the
4 date, as I used it as a specific date in my report,
5 that I have it in writing from that source. And I
6 believe it to be -- it could be a situation report.
7 It's called "SITREP" for short which is issued, I
8 think, daily under circumstances like this. And it is
9 giving main facts and it could be very, very brief. I
10 mean, all that happens in one day could be, perhaps, in
11 five lines. It could be "Military observers in Banja
12 Luka taken out, dangerous conditions," like that.
13 I'm not saying this was the wording. I'm
14 saying this could possibly be the wording. I
15 apologise. I have not been able to find that specific
16 document, but there can be no question of the source of
17 the information.
18 Q. The line of questioning is just going to that
19 very last statement you made, the source of the
20 information. When you read this information, whatever
21 initial document it is that you read, you explained
22 what it could have been, it kind of jogged your
23 interest. You saw that it was very important, and you
24 pursued the inquiry. You have talked with civilian
25 authorities and military authorities. Do you remember
1 the names of the officers whom you particularly
2 inquired about these two military observers who were
3 removed, names of either the civilian or military
4 officers, if you know, or if you have it written
5 someplace?
6 A. I know it was the commander at the time, and
7 I shall be pleased if I can use the lunch hour to try
8 to help the people look for this particular document.
9 I have --
10 JUDGE MAY: Well, let me interrupt for the
11 moment. I think we must move on from this topic. If
12 you can find it, Judge Greve, please bring it. Let's
13 move on to another topic now.
14 MR. VUCICEVIC: Your Honour, if I may suggest
15 that it will not be necessary over this lunch break.
16 We can pursue it tomorrow.
17 JUDGE MAY: Well, I hope you're not going to
18 be too long with this witness, Mr. Vucicevic. Perhaps
19 you would look over the lunch break and we might be
20 able to finish more quickly.
21 THE WITNESS: Would it perhaps help you if I
22 added that the reason I wrote this was also I had
23 looked for military sources. There were none in
24 Prijedor and there were none in Banja Luka at the
25 actual time. So I specifically stated that.
1 MR. VUCICEVIC:
2 Q. Yesterday, you testified about the
3 Prosecution Exhibit, I will get the number, but it's
4 "CSO Declaration of Bosnia and Herzegovina." Could
5 you tell us whether you received any information that
6 you included in your study from the CSO, from the
7 Organisation of Economic Cooperation in Europe?
8 A. If I may, the CSO is within the then CSCE,
9 not OSCE, which is the known Organisation of Security
10 and Cooperation in Europe. Yes, what they had of
11 publications, and I dare to say this is a declaration
12 which was made by them, and when the CSO, or the then
13 CSCE, made declarations that were published. Those
14 were published and made available. Among the sources I
15 approached was every international and national and NGO
16 agency I could possibly come across that possibly could
17 have worked in the area. So it was natural for me to
18 also try to find whatever I could from this agency.
19 Q. Again, my question was: Did you get any
20 information on those 400 people that were examined
21 through OSCE or you didn't, or from them you just got
22 general information and background information?
23 A. From the CSO and from the agency, I got
24 nothing about the 400. Those were separate sources,
25 and I tried to get the overall understanding and to
1 compile the information and to see if information from
2 other sources other than the witnesses would support or
3 contradict their statements. So it was one of many
4 sources. I did not obtain it through the witnesses,
5 and the witnesses, I was not alerted to them through
6 any of these sources.
7 Q. In testifying earlier about the particulars
8 of your study, you testified that you gave instruction
9 to the investigators in the field to look into
10 Prijedor, to the conditions in Prijedor before the 1990
11 election and post-election, and subsequently what
12 happened after the armed conflict erupted.
13 In your background, you are an expert on
14 humanitarian law and on refugees. However, the
15 statement that was introduced, CSO Declaration
16 Bosnia-Herzegovina, contains basically, most of it,
17 military information, who the combatants were; is that
18 correct?
19 A. Yes, it is sort of a general declaration that
20 assesses the overall situation in Bosnia and
21 Herzegovina, but within this declaration, it also
22 addresses aspects of what I was studying.
23 Q. Dr. Greve, you are not an expert on military
24 law or military activities. In reading the general
25 papers, you had gotten information just like any other
1 citizen of the world would, that there was an armed
2 conflict, and there are various participants in the
3 armed conflict; isn't that true?
4 A. I'm not an expert on military issues. I am,
5 I dare say, reasonably familiar with the law of war,
6 but that's something different and I shall not testify
7 to that. I read this as a contemporary historian would
8 do as one of several pieces of information that should
9 be considered to try to understand the overall
10 situation.
11 Q. So that basically any view that you might
12 have expressed on the relationship between JNA and the
13 army of Republika Srpska are not being given as an
14 expert, but just as a citizen of the world who has
15 followed the press and reports; isn't that correct?
16 A. That is not correct. I did consider this, I
17 think, as a contemporary historian would do, to try to
18 look at all the different sources and assess the
19 situation. But it is, of course, correct that I am not
20 specialised in military issues.
21 Q. You have used the words "contemporary
22 historian." Could you list all the courses in the
23 subject of history --
24 JUDGE MAY: We don't need to go through
25 that. The witness was using an expression, not meaning
1 literally a contemporary historian.
2 MR. VUCICEVIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
3 A. For your convenience, I may mention that it's
4 listed on my curriculum vitae that I had one year of
5 study related to old history, but there are some
6 courses in history as well, Roman culture.
7 JUDGE MAY: Very well.
8 MR. VUCICEVIC:
9 Q. Moving on to Prosecution Exhibit 18, that is
10 a statement of several military officers of the army of
11 Republika Srpska; isn't that correct?
12 A. Yes, I think it's particularly two people who
13 are quoted and referred to, Colonel Radmilo Zeljaja and
14 Pero Colic. Excuse me for my pronunciation.
15 Q. You have emphasised certain aspects of this
16 article. I'm directing your attention to the full
17 paragraph 2. You don't have to read it out loud, just
18 read it for yourself and then we will have some
19 questions.
20 A. I have read it.
21 Q. What is the meaning of Prince Lazar to
22 the Serb people?
23 A. I think he is rightly venerated as one of
24 their most noble, outstanding persons in history. He
25 died at the battlefield of Kosovo Polje in 1389 when
1 the Turks were invading.
2 Q. You mentioned the battle of Kosovo Polje with
3 Prince Lazar dying in battle. Do you know what
4 happened to, and I would use the term, "Ottoman
5 Empire," because Turkey is a nation today that is not a
6 successor to the Ottoman empire, except in the
7 historical sense. What happened to the commanding
8 officer of the opposing army of the Ottoman Empire at
9 Kosovo Polje?
10 A. Excuse me. What had happened?
11 Q. What happened to the Turkish sultan who
12 opposed Prince Lazar at Kosovo Polje?
13 A. I believe I don't know that particular
14 historical person, but as they came to power in the
15 region, after that, I believe those who opposed Prince
16 Lazar somehow invaded the area. Maybe I misunderstood
17 your question.
18 Q. I will state it. The Ottoman Empire was
19 coming on to the Balkans, and the decisive battle
20 whether they would invade the Balkans or not at that
21 time was on Kosovo Polje. I asked the name of the
22 Turkish sultan and what happened to him because you
23 brought it up. If I may jog your memory, his name was
24 Sultan Murat. Do you know what happened to him at
25 Kosovo Polje?
1 A. I'm afraid I do not, Your Honours.
2 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Vucicevic, we're now getting
3 rather far away from the subject.
4 MR. VUCICEVIC: Okay.
5 A. I should, perhaps, apologise, but I have not
6 taken the time to go into detail about the complex and,
7 I'm sure, also a very interesting and important history
8 of the Serb people.
9 Q. Indeed, there is a particular meaning in
10 Serb history that is tied up to the Kosovo battle,
11 and you have testified to the meaning of that day in
12 Tadic's case. You're quite aware of that, aren't you?
13 A. I know that I have mentioned also the battle
14 of Kosovo Polje in the Tadic case. I am not --
15 Q. St. Vitus's Day, as you said and Ragodsaj
16 Vivodan, if that would help you?
17 A. Yes, St. Vitus is a saint and King Lazar died
18 on the day of this saint. So in celebrating that day,
19 one also celebrates the loss of the life of King Lazar
20 at Kosovo Polje.
21 Q. This article has been printed on the day
22 which basically the army of Republika Srpska took as
23 their day of glory, and that day was what? Because you
24 testified from this article, and the article --
25 A. The article is dated 1st of July, 1994.
1 Q. I direct your attention in the second line of
2 the first paragraph.
3 A. Yes, I have read that line.
4 Q. Is it fair to say that the statements made on
5 the glory day of the Serb army, which was the same
6 day as Vidovdan is traditionally a day of glory or day
7 of martyrdom of Serb people?
8 A. This is how I read and understand the article
9 and it would fit with the history, as far as I know it.
10 Q. Just to take these statements in the proper
11 context, when two military commanders are talking to
12 the troops, at least in the countries that do have a
13 long, long span of history, they do refer to some of
14 the glory days of their national past. That would be
15 entirely proper?
16 A. I appreciate that.
17 Q. I'm directing your attention to the last two
18 sentences on the paragraph on page 1 beginning with
19 "Fate has decided"; can you read that out loud?
20 A. Excuse me, the last two --
21 Q. The last two paragraphs on the first page of
22 Exhibit 18. That's "The Glory of all Serb Glories."
23 A. Does it start with "But our honourable"?
24 Q. It starts, "Fate has decided St. Vitus Day to
25 be the day," the last paragraph on the first page, the
1 bottom two sentences.
2 A. Excuse me, yes, I've found it now. "Fate has
3 decided that St. Vitus Day is to be the day of the
4 Serbian truth and because of that the Serbs will win
5 this third World War, too, although it is being waged
6 only against the Serbs. We will win because we have
7 firmly decided not to live any longer in brotherhood
8 with those who slaughter our children and with false
9 brothers who have spat several times at Serbian
10 goodness and decency." Did you want me to continue?
11 Q. No, no. So in making such a statement, a
12 military officer could reasonably make the statement
13 believing that it is true what he is saying? You, in
14 other words --
15 A. I am not suggesting that he is not believing
16 what he is saying.
17 Q. In other words, you're suggesting that what
18 he is saying, that we have no reason to doubt that he
19 is, that he is speaking what he believes to be the
20 truth?
21 A. He is speaking the way he sees things and
22 finds it suitable to present it to his troops, yes. I
23 assume.
24 Q. I am asking you to read Paragraph No. 2,
25 starting, "If that honourable Serb nobleman had done
1 that."
2 A. "It's not only that that honourable Serb
3 nobleman had done that, when you're saying to King
4 Lazar, the Serbian men and people would have
5 disappeared exactly 605 years ago, the world would have
6 lacked the most tolerant and greatest people on the
7 entire planet. In that case, freedom would look
8 different and Europe would look different today."
9 Q. From a historical perspective, what is he
10 relating to?
11 A. I think he is relating again to the decisive,
12 as you explained it, battle at Kosovo Polje. And he is
13 telling them that this was an achievement and that
14 there are good causes for celebrating this.
15 Q. In making the statement, are you aware that
16 the Ottoman Empire reigned Serbian people for 500
17 years?
18 A. Yes, I am.
19 Q. And that statement is, that historical fact
20 is figured in his statement; is that correct?
21 A. This is correct. I believe it was together
22 with Russian brothers and the peace settlement of 1888
23 that finally they were withdrawn from the area
24 completely, Serbian area, that is.
25 Q. I am going to get a map here now. If I may
1 have this map displayed.
2 JUDGE MAY: Which exhibit number is that,
3 please, Mr. Vucicevic?
4 THE REGISTRAR: It's No. 17.
5 MR. VUCICEVIC: It's 17, I believe.
6 Could we have it displayed on the overhead
7 projector, so that the judges could see it. I mean, if
8 it would be easier. If the Judges do have a map, we
9 can look on the map.
10 THE WITNESS: They were collected yesterday,
11 I believe.
12 JUDGE MAY: Judge Cassese points out quite
13 rightly, this is the one that was withdrawn, in fact,
14 for the Prosecution to do some redaction.
15 MS. HOLLIS: Yes, Your Honour, that is
16 correct.
17 JUDGE MAY: We don't have copies of it. What
18 is the point that you're seeking --
19 MR. VUCICEVIC: The point was that the term,
20 Krajina, because I was under the misapprehension that
21 it was admitted only to the fact that it was a map and
22 all other statements were stricken. But it seems, you
23 know, that it was withdrawn, I didn't get a point.
24 JUDGE MAY: What is the point about it now?
25 MR. VUCICEVIC: The point is if I could use
1 only this to aid and assist the witness with the next
2 question.
3 Q. This is your own drawing, Dr. Greve, right,
4 these markings, in yellow, right?
5 A. The yellow is my marking, yes.
6 Q. And you have used statement, Krajina,
7 Bosanska Krajina and Croatian Krajina?
8 A. That is correct.
9 Q. And do you know the meaning within a
10 historical context of Krajina?
11 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Vucicevic, you must
12 understand that this Trial Chamber now has some
13 experience of these matters. And, of course, we're not
14 going to stop you exploring things which are necessary,
15 but these are matters which I think that we are
16 familiar with. So there is no need to go over Krajina,
17 unless there is some particular point that you want to
18 make about it.
19 MR. VUCICEVIC: Indeed within the context of
20 the statement of Colonel Colic is where he is using
21 that in that case freedom would look different and
22 Europe would look differently today. It's within that
23 context that I am going to use -- to explain what he
24 has meant.
25 JUDGE MAY: Let me interrupt. If you would
1 move on from the history as soon as you could.
2 MR. VUCICEVIC: Absolutely, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE MAY: Yes, very well.
4 MR. VUCICEVIC:
5 Q. Are you aware of the fact -- I will go and I
6 will try to assist with this very quickly to the
7 witness if I may, Your Honour.
8 If you're aware that Krajina is a term
9 translated as a military district. And that the --
10 after the Ottoman invasion of the Balkan peninsula,
11 that over the centuries there were the constant clashes
12 between Christian monarchies to the north and Ottoman
13 muslims to the south. And the Serbian population being
14 a Christian that were always sided and protected their
15 co-faith neighbours to the north. And, in turn, the
16 Hungarians, Austrians and Italians to the west have
17 supplied and helped Serbia in their long resistance to
18 the Turkish occupation. Therefore, that was all of
19 those areas starting from Belgrade along river Sava
20 into the northwestern Bosnia, that was all called
21 Krajina, meaning military district. Do you agree with
22 me on that?
23 A. I listened to your explanation and I have no
24 reason to question it, but I have to admit, I did not
25 know the Krajina as name used when the Ottoman Empire
1 advanced after 1389, but I do know and I do appreciate
2 and I think Europe is grateful for what the Serb people
3 has done as being sort of guardian of the borders with
4 the Ottoman Empire and has stopped the advance of the
5 Ottoman Empire.
6 Q. And within that, since we have understanding
7 on that point, I just wanted to say, is it reasonable
8 to conclude that Colonel Colic was referring to that
9 fact in that statement? A fact of which a Serb
10 people are proud and you indicated that, perhaps,
11 Europe is grateful?
12 A. I have no reason not to share Europe's
13 feelings about what the Serbs have done for the
14 European community in a historical perspective.
15 JUDGE MAY: The question was, is that what
16 the general or the colonel was referring to? And it
17 appears that it was.
18 So I think, Mr. Vucicevic, you -- just a
19 moment. These are all matters which we will have to
20 consider in due course. It will be for us to interpret
21 the documents. All the witness can do is produce
22 them. If you want to make any particular points, of
23 course, you're free to do so, but perhaps we can move
24 on.
25 MR. VUCICEVIC:
1 Q. There is in this article, for the first time,
2 we come across the term "corridor". And that's on page
3 2, in the middle of the paragraph.
4 A. I am afraid that it was taken away from me,
5 so maybe I could have it again. Forgive me for
6 interrupting.
7 Q. And --
8 A. Could I ask you to repeat the reference?
9 Q. The second page of the Prosecutor's Exhibit
10 No. 18, the last paragraph, which starts with, "In the
11 operation to open the so-called corridor." And you can
12 just read it for yourself and I'll ask you a question.
13 A. I have read it.
14 Q. Okay. Are you familiar with the fact that
15 that corridor was closed, militarily, at the end of April
16 or beginning of May of 1992?
17 A. I am not familiar with it as being closed.
18 That is to say, I am familiar with it being a
19 battlefield. So when war was waged, there may have
20 been opening and closing. I did not specifically
21 consider the entirety of the corridor at every
22 different time.
23 Q. So, basically, you just referred in your
24 testimony to corridor, but you're not familiar with the
25 military significance or any other significance of the
1 corridor?
2 A. I am familiar with the significance of it,
3 but I am not familiar with day by day, the size of the
4 corridor, it being fully open or open in part, being
5 fought over. I know it was a battlefield.
6 Q. So, since you testified yesterday, the
7 corridor was important to the Serbs. If I ask a
8 hypothetical question, tell you, that corridor was
9 closed militarily by Muslims and Croats and that
10 Bosnian, that Bosnian Serbs were encircled, would
11 that help you explain the statements that you have just
12 read, there were military operations to break down the
13 blockade? Could that make sense?
14 A. That could make sense, I suppose.
15 Q. Thank you. You, in the next exhibit, I mean
16 the Prosecutor's Exhibit 19, you have made remarks to
17 the JNA and the connection between SDS and JNA. At the
18 time that war in Croatia was being waged, the Bosnia
19 and Herzegovina were a state, a federal unit of the
20 Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, wasn't it?
21 A. That's correct.
22 Q. And the authorities of any nation, sovereign
23 nation, could issue a mobilisation orders, could they?
24 A. That's correct.
25 Q. And in all civilised countries, there are
1 penalties for not responding to the mobilisation order,
2 isn't that correct?
3 A. That's normal.
4 Q. And in the times of war, the civilian
5 authorities and political authorities have to cooperate
6 within the bounds of the laws of that country as a
7 general proposition?
8 A. That is the normal situation, yes.
9 Q. Yes. And, at that time, the citizens of
10 Prijedor, who responded to the mobilisation orders,
11 they lawfully carried out their duties, correct?
12 A. That's correct.
13 Q. And the war in Croatia ended in December,
14 roughly, December/November, end of November, beginning
15 of December of 1992?
16 A. I believe there was a formal cease fire
17 agreement beginning of January, 1992.
18 Q. And the old JNA troops after that time were
19 being pulled out?
20 A. They were being withdrawn from Croatia. To
21 what extent there were any left, I have not the full
22 knowledge.
23 Q. So SDS was a party, one of the political
24 parties in Bosnia at that time?
25 A. That is correct.
1 Q. And as the general proposition, the Serbs
2 mostly responded to this mobilisation, correct?
3 A. That is all the information I have seen,
4 yes. At least my information is limited to Prijedor
5 and the information I have on that is yes.
6 Q. And the most of the population that didn't
7 respond to this mobilisations, these mobilisation order
8 were Croats and Muslims, isn't that correct?
9 A. These were people who declared themselves as
10 Croats and Muslims, yes.
11 Q. And refused to carry out the orders of their,
12 at that time, independent countries, the country of
13 which they were citizens and subject to the laws?
14 A. That's correct.
15 Q. Is it fair to conclude that this caused a
16 great discord among those two or three entities, at
17 least, in Prijedor?
18 A. It may well have been a reason for that. I
19 also think that the entire war in Croatia was reason
20 for people disagreeing or looking differently at that
21 war.
22 Q. In this article you also used a term being
23 called a "Turk" is a derogatory for a Bosnian Muslim.
24 Are you sure, absolutely sure about that?
25 A. My understanding from the Muslims is that
1 they prefer to be called Bosniaks, Muslims,
2 Prijedorians, whatever, but not to be referred to with
3 the name of an alien people.
4 Q. But is that was their preference as of the
5 later date, perhaps with the modern history that you're
6 testifying on, or we could look at just a little bigger
7 expansion. Let's say from 1945 to '95, when the
8 relationship among the citizens of Prijedor were
9 normal. Perhaps that could be, hypothetical again,
10 most of the Muslim population of Bosnia is Slav
11 population that converted to Islam throughout Ottoman
12 times, you would agree on that, would you?
13 A. Yes, I would.
14 Q. Okay. So for somebody who was an original
15 faith, it perhaps, could be a compliment to be called,
16 you are a Turk? If you know, and if you don't, you can
17 say so.
18 A. As to my understanding as Defence counsel
19 rightly pointed out, in the early days, it was the
20 incoming Ottoman Empire and not a Turkish state. And
21 it is my understanding that those who, and I have
22 spoken to some people on this issue because it was not
23 sort of -- I read it in the testimonies that they saw
24 it as derogative. And I have spoken with people on a
25 general basis on the issue later and they say that they
1 did not find it good. And it had not been common to
2 speak about Muslims as Turks and it was not
3 appreciated. That's my understanding. I have just not
4 spoken to people just after World War II, which was, of
5 course, prior to my time.
6 And also, if I may, Turkish history during
7 World War II, possibly made it less pleasant for anyone
8 to be referred to as Turkish considering that the
9 Partisans took power and ruled Yugoslavia after 1945.
10 Q. Now I am a little bit at sea with that
11 statement. If you would, I cannot see a connection
12 between Partisans and--
13 JUDGE MAY: We're going quite away from the
14 main point of this case. Can we move on?
15 MR. VUCICEVIC: Yes, yes, Your Honour.
16 Q. Dr. Greve, you might have been referring in
17 your last statement, perhaps World War I, not World War
18 II and activities of Turkey and independent nations
19 and --
20 JUDGE MAY: It really doesn't matter.
21 MR. VUCICEVIC: Thank you, Your Honour, I'll
22 move on.
23 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
24 MR. VUCICEVIC:
25 Q. In the same article, you are, the same
1 article contains in the, "For the good of the people."
2 And if you could read that paragraph and I will have
3 three or four questions because I think it's rather
4 important.
5 A. Excuse me, would you advise me where I find
6 it?
7 Q. On the page 2, Exhibit 19. Midsection
8 titled, "For the good of the people." Second paragraph
9 in that subheading, starting with, "From the very
10 start."
11 A. I have read the paragraph.
12 Q. Okay. Are you familiar with the name Jovan
13 Raskovic?
14 A. Yes, I am.
15 Q. Could you tell the Court who was he?
16 A. I know that he was an SDS leader in Krajina.
17 Krajina in this context being the Croat part of
18 Krajina. And he was a Serb, who was, at the time, a
19 Croat national, living in Croatia that was. And he
20 was one of the people who early spoke up for the
21 Serb cause in that region as a politician.
22 Q. Was he a nationalist, a Serb nationalist?
23 A. I am hesitant to use the word --
24 Q. That will be fine. Quite so, you know, I
25 appreciate your hesitancy on this question. We can
1 define a nationalism as the good nationalism and bad
2 nationalism. And I would say the good nationalism is
3 somebody who appreciates his own culture, history,
4 population, but at the same time doesn't want to hurt
5 others living in their midst or the people who are
6 willing to give him them the same civil rights, if
7 reciprocity exists. You would agree with that?
8 A. I have no reason to doubt that he was all in
9 favour of the good of his own people. If he was
10 unprepared to hurt anyone else and give them full
11 rights, I have no basis for ascertaining.
12 Q. But you don't know anything else besides what
13 you just stated of the late Dr. Jovan Raskovic?
14 A. No, I have seen references to him in several
15 articles. I believe I have read some of his early
16 writings in articles. But as it did not concern
17 aspects of what I then was addressing, I have not paid
18 so strong attention to it that I would be able to
19 repeat it or inform the Court about it.
20 Q. Within this section here, he is considered
21 like the ideological father of SDS in Prijedor; isn't
22 he?
23 A. I did not read the paragraph to make him the
24 ideological father. I read him, I read the paragraph
25 to praise him for having been visionary and having been
1 positive for the cause of the SDS.
2 Q. If I were to -- let's assume the fact that
3 the late Dr. Jovan Raskovic was present when SDS was
4 established in Prijedor. And if I were to tell you
5 that fact that his wife is still living is a Croatian,
6 would he have less base to assume that he was a
7 vitriolic nationalist?
8 MS. HOLLIS: Your Honour, if I may object on
9 a technical point as to the statement that's being
10 made. If it's a hypothetical that these are facts,
11 then perhaps that's a further question. What he is
12 stating as a fact is he is, in essence, testifying and
13 I would object to that.
14 JUDGE MAY: Well, he can put matters -- and,
15 counsel, I should say, I do deprecate the use of he.
16 Mr. Vucicevic, if you're referring to him.
17 Mr. Vucicevic, you can put the matter, but if
18 you're putting it as a fact, you should do so or if
19 it's a hypothesis. Again, I don't know that we're
20 going to much assisted by this. This is going to be
21 comments by the witness on matters which she really
22 knows nothing about.
23 MR. VUCICEVIC: Okay, Your Honour, it's in
24 the same paragraph, Dr. Greve, there are two terms
25 mentioned. And one that prominently comes to mind of
1 anybody who is familiar with the history of Balkan is
2 Jasenovac, what is Jasenovac?
3 A. Jasenovac is a concentration camp. One of
4 the worst. Definitely the worst in World War II,
5 located not so far from Prijedor on the border inside
6 Croatia.
7 JUDGE MAY: I am going to interrupt you. We
8 are familiar with these matters. In a case we have
9 recently done, there was extensive evidence about
10 Jasenovac, so there is no need to go over that again.
11 MR. VUCICEVIC: Thank you very much, Your
12 Honour. As the legal principles and due processes we
13 are applying here. And then I am asking, not some
14 latitude, but the concern that I have.
15 JUDGE MAY: You can make any point that you
16 want, but would you bear in mind that we have heard
17 evidence in other matters about it.
18 MR. VUCICEVIC: Your Honour, if this witness
19 was not present there and when that evidence was
20 introduced and this witness' testimony contains those
21 statements and she has testified to --
22 JUDGE MAY: Let's not waste any more time
23 about it. The only point I want you to have in mind is
24 that the Trial Chamber is not ignorant of the history,
25 is familiar with it, and so, therefore, what I am
1 concerned about is that we don't spend too much time
2 going over matters which are not going to assist us in
3 the long run in trying the case because we know about
4 them.
5 MR. VUCICEVIC: Your Honour, but --
6 JUDGE MAY: Let's move on.
7 MR. VUCICEVIC: Okay.
8 Q. Having heard this ruling, Dr. Greve, I have
9 to point out in the Tadic's testimony, you have
10 testified about the influence of the Serb press to
11 the media, on to the state of mind of the Serb
12 population in Prijedor area, have you?
13 A. Yes, I have.
14 Q. And and what was the influence of the Serb
15 press on the state of mind of the citizens of
16 Prijedor?
17 A. The understanding which is given from the
18 witness statements from all of the sources is that
19 opposed to previous years, one starts speaking about
20 the Muslims as being people prepared as fanatics to
21 start a religious war. And one refers to the Croats as
22 being hands to the very, very bad Ustasha behavior.
23 Q. Could you, please, explain who were Ustashas?
24 A. Ustashas, to my knowledge, was first a
25 minority party. Perhaps it was with past religion in
1 Croatia. It was -- its leaders were more or less
2 living in fascist Italy and raised by the fascists in
3 Italy. And when the Germans started World War II, they
4 came into power in then independent Croatia, which also
5 covered Bosnia-Herzegovina. And they had an extreme,
6 terrible, utterly ugly policy of treating all Serbs
7 extremely bad. That is, I believe they had as part of
8 their programme, that they wanted to convert one-third
9 of the Serbs to the Roman Catholic faith, whilst to
10 excise one-third of the Serbs. And, even worse, to
11 exterminate the final third of the Serbs. That is all
12 Serbs living within that area.
13 As it came out in Prijedor, if I may draw
14 your attention to that, is an area that was early
15 controlled by the Partisan and suffered tremendously in
16 1942. At that time, it is my information, that the
17 Germans, the Austrians, at the time, of course, one
18 time, met the Secretary-General of the United Nations
19 who was number two in the command in Banja Luka. So
20 this is an area that's been sort of investigated by a
21 number of different, not so open sources, but it has
22 been investigated. And this joint forces, Austrian,
23 German, Ustasha and a fraction of the Chetnik movement,
24 not all Chetniks, but also a fraction of the Chetniks,
25 committed extreme atrocities in 1942, July of 1942, in
1 the Prijedor area, which is why one of the main
2 monuments, war monuments and memorials in former
3 Yugoslavia, from World War II, was in Prijedor.
4 Q. And Jasenovac was just in the same area,
5 wasn't it?
6 A. It's a bit further to the east and the
7 North. It's on the other side of the Croatian border.
8 Yes, well, I could point it out on a map, but it's
9 further north and east. But it's in the same larger
10 area, not within the opstina, not within
11 Bosnia-Herzegovina, but, yes.
12 Q. About 30 kilometres away?
13 A. I would have guessed more, but...
14 Q. Okay.
15 A. Prijedor, if you think of it, the size of
16 Prijedor, it's perhaps something like 25 by 30
17 kilometres, so somehow a rectangular shape. But this
18 is approximate of course.
19 Q. You mentioned Ustasha and also mentioned the
20 context of this paragraph is that they had a policy of
21 exterminating at least one-third of the Serbian
22 people. And that's what I understand in the history
23 and tell me if you agree with me, that they were
24 exterminating regardless, men, women and children?
25 A. That's my understanding, absolutely. And I
1 would not be surprised if they have actually also
2 exterminated more than they had in their programme.
3 Their policy was utterly inhumane.
4 Q. One minor point that you mentioned that the
5 former Secretary General of the United Nations was a
6 second in command in that area and that event was
7 investigated, but not as openly as perhaps it should
8 have been to give the picture to the world of what had
9 happened, if you agree?
10 A. I don't know why the information about such
11 investigations were not disclosed, but such
12 investigations were carried out. And, in my opinion,
13 it would have been fair to publish information also
14 about what had happened during World War II. When I
15 said he was number two within the intelligence unit,
16 number two in command in Banja Luka. I have heard that
17 that's number three in the overall command. I am not
18 able to say yes or no.
19 Q. And you are aware there was some survivors
20 from those Ustasha camps around surrounding Prijedor?
21 A. I am aware of that and also, very
22 unfortunately, but people from Prijedor after the
23 slaughter, after the horrors of July of 1942, was taken
24 in part to Jasenovac, but some of them were actually
25 also taken under the label "viking" to my country,
1 which is Norway as slave labour, taken to the Nazi
2 minority government in Norway and treated extremely
3 badly. I did gather from sources in Belgrade the exact
4 lists of all the names of people who came to Norway
5 from the Prijedor area after what had happened in
6 1942. The majority of those were Serbs, but there were
7 also Croats and Muslims among them. Very
8 unfortunately, but a number died in my country.
9 Q. And the ruling from those great sufferings of
10 the former, of the internees in the Nazi camps, in
11 Norway, subsequently, there was, you know, a
12 friendship, associations formed between people of
13 Norway and people in Yugoslavia and quite a few visits
14 have taken place, if you followed anything there?
15 A. Yes, I am familiar; yes, I followed; yes,
16 there is a strong friendship between the people of the
17 former Yugoslavia and Norway.
18 JUDGE MAY: Very well, we'll adjourn now.
19 How much longer do you anticipate being with this
20 witness, Mr. Vucicevic?
21 MR. VUCICEVIC: Your Honour, we are going to
22 review the facts of the exhibits with this witness and
23 maybe, perhaps, Mr. Vann will ask a few questions
24 because in preparing for this witness, we have had the
25 first statement. And we are thinking, you know, that
1 he was going to do a cross-examination. But, however,
2 when the exhibits were introduced and Mr. Vann had come
3 in just about ten, fifteen days ago, then I have to go
4 over these statements because, you know, I have been on
5 the case from the very beginning.
6 JUDGE MAY: We'll consider the matter. But
7 as a matter of practice, only one cross-examination is
8 going to be allowed. I'll consider an application if
9 you want to make one. But the normal practice is one
10 cross-examination per defendant.
11 I hope that matters can be speeded.
12 Obviously this witness is here, having to stay here.
13 And also, we have to think of the clock generally for
14 the trial.
15 MR. VUCICEVIC: Your Honour, I appreciate
16 your kind words. Your Honour, this is the first
17 witness testifying on issues and the ultimate issues of
18 fact in historical terms, quite candid witness, and I
19 believe her function to aid the Court to see that most
20 objects the picture. That is our intent. And if it
21 takes a little longer, Your Honour, I do apologise.
22 JUDGE MAY: Five past two.
23 --- Luncheon recess taken at 12.40 p.m.
24
25
1 --- On resuming at 2.10 p.m.
2 (Closed session)
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 Page 236 redacted – in closed session
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 Page 237 redacted – in closed session
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1 (redacted)
2 (redacted)
3 (redacted)
4 (redacted)
5 (redacted)
6 (redacted)
7 (redacted)
8 (redacted)
9 (redacted)
10 (redacted)
11 (redacted)
12 (redacted)
13 (redacted)
14 (redacted)
15 (redacted)
16 (redacted)
17 (redacted)
18 (redacted)
19 (redacted)
20 (Open session)
21 MR. VUCICEVIC: While we have a short
22 intermission, if I may answer the question on
23 citations, I asked the witness about methodology
24 earlier. That's at page 609 from the Tadic transcript
25 and it's line 29.
1 (The witness entered court)
2 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Vucicevic?
3 MR. VUCICEVIC:
4 Q. We had left off with the statements about
5 Serbian media and the reporting of the current events.
6 In introducing Mr. Mazowiecki's report, you have
7 testified that Serb media in Prijedor, as far as you
8 were concerned, being your area of expertise, have been
9 inflammatory, derogatory, and reports that were
10 inciting people to genocide. Is that a fair conclusion
11 of your testimony of yesterday?
12 A. That was inciting people to have a less good
13 view on other people in the opstina, yes.
14 Q. So it was not your testimony that the press
15 was inciting them to commit violations of international
16 humanitarian law, but were contributing to a lack of
17 goodwill towards the different ethnicities?
18 A. It was not directly suggesting that they
19 should commit genocide, it was not putting words like
20 that, but it was spoken of in a very hostile manner.
21 Q. We can take the general proposition that we
22 all believe in free press; do you agree with that?
23 A. Yes, I do.
24 Q. Even if some events might be unpleasant and
25 might present as offensive to the opposing ethnic
1 group, if they are reported, they are still subject to
2 this interpretation of free press, as a general
3 proposition?
4 A. In general, yes, if the press is free, one
5 may print different issues in it. This is one element
6 in an overall situation.
7 Q. Considering Yugoslavia from 1945 through
8 1990, to the best of your knowledge, did Yugoslavia
9 have a free press?
10 A. I'm not fully familiar with the freedom of
11 the press. I would think that it was not fully free,
12 but I'm not able to evaluate that.
13 Q. But for the short period of democracy in
14 Prijedor, we can say the press was free?
15 A. I think the press changed its approach
16 because it was made, to the best of my understanding, a
17 matter of urgency for the new authorities, that is, the
18 Serb authorities, after taking power the night of the
19 30th of April, 1992, to have control over the media.
20 Q. However, you have testified only as to the
21 Mazowiecki report, you have testified only as to bias
22 in Serb media. Have you noticed anything in that
23 report that addressed the possible bias in the media of
24 the other ethnic groups?
25 A. It is referring to numerous concerns, yes. I
1 was particularly evaluating the information that could
2 relate to the problems I was addressing in the area of
3 Prijedor.
4 Q. So if you look at the territory of
5 Bosnia-Herzegovina in that report, it would seem that
6 press from all sides was biased?
7 A. It's indicated by Mazowiecki that there were
8 problems, yes.
9 Q. Do you consider it a bias if the Serb
10 press is referring to the events of Jasenovac that you
11 earlier testified? Would that be a bias or would that
12 be a reporting of the historical events?
13 A. If it's mainly reporting the historical
14 events, there is no bias. It may be a bias if, without
15 documentation, it is stated that a new Jasenovac is
16 being considered.
17 Q. Have you found any statements that said that
18 a new Jasenovac is being considered? You can answer
19 that at some time later. We don't have to look now,
20 but it would be interesting to find out. If I may
21 proceed, we can put it off until later.
22 JUDGE MAY: Yes, we will deal with it later.
23 A. It is in paragraph -- as I read, if I may, on
24 page 2 in what was given to me prior to the -- it's
25 Exhibit 19, the Kozarski Vjesnik article "Faithful to
1 the Homeland and its Ideals," page 2, second paragraph
2 underneath the headline "For the Good of the People,"
3 and I quote from the second sentence: "We used all our
4 resources to support the struggle of the Serb people
5 against new and old ustashas, against the new genocide
6 which was being prepared in places that are too well
7 known to us, Jasenovac, Jadovna," et cetera, reference
8 to the past is not biased, but it may be different when
9 one suggests that there were plans to build or to
10 continue in the way things were done during World War
11 II.
12 MR. VUCICEVIC:
13 Q. So if the author of this paragraph or the
14 gentleman that was quoted to have said such a
15 paragraph, Mr. Ranko Gnjatovic, had veritable
16 apprehension at the time that the camps like Jasenovac
17 could occur, he didn't have a right to speak about it
18 or didn't have a right to report about it; is that what
19 you're referring to --
20 A. No.
21 Q. -- as incitement through the press?
22 A. If he had information to that extent, of
23 course he would be not only free to speak about it, but
24 he should speak about it.
25 Q. But you haven't talked, as you said before,
1 to any of the Serbs, so we really cannot conclude
2 whether or not at this point there was such
3 information. That is your opinion, that he had no
4 information, without any data to substantiate that?
5 A. I have not seen in all the sources I've
6 reviewed any concrete information as to that, no.
7 Q. Let's go to Mazowiecki's report. When it's
8 dealing with the reporting of the Bosnian Muslim press,
9 especially Radio Hajat, do you remember that section of
10 Mazowiecki's report?
11 A. I'm afraid I do not because I did not attempt
12 to, sort of, judge all of his statements on every
13 issue. I believe that Mazowiecki has solid reason for
14 saying many of the things that he was saying. I was
15 testifying yesterday to what he had said about the
16 media. It's dated after I finished my report, but it
17 does support the conclusions to which I reached
18 concerning media in Prijedor.
19 Q. I'm referring you to page 9 or date stamped
20 790 on the bottom of Mazowiecki's report.
21 JUDGE MAY: Let the witness have the
22 exhibit. It's Exhibit 27.
23 MR. VUCICEVIC:
24 Q. Paragraph 32, I'm directing your attention to
25 the last sentence starting "On 1 April 1993." Could
1 you read that statement, please?
2 A. On 1 April 1993, the Tuzla journal Zmaj od
3 Bosne published an article which stated,
4 "Instinctively, every Muslim would wish to save his
5 Serb neighbour instead of the reverse; however, every
6 Muslim must name a Serb and take an oath to kill him."
7 Q. Looking at the plain language of that
8 statement, does it sound to you as an incitement to
9 break international humanitarian law?
10 A. Yes, it does.
11 Q. And it was published on?
12 A. 1st April, 1993.
13 Q. And Zmaj od Bosne is the print media
14 published in Tuzla which was, at that time, under
15 Bosnian government control, wasn't it?
16 A. I don't know, but if you stated this like
17 this, I accept that information.
18 Q. Thank you. Paragraph 30, the same page, last
19 sentence in that paragraph 30, "An example was Radio
20 Hajat ..." Could you read that, please?
21 A. Would you like me to read it?
22 Q. Yes.
23 A. An example was Radio Hajat's call on 5th
24 February, 1994 following the massacre at Markale
25 marketplace for Muslims to retaliate against Sarajevo's
1 Serbs and Croats."
2 Q. Have you read this paragraph before you
3 testified yesterday on it?
4 A. I have --
5 Q. The whole report?
6 A. I have read the whole report at a previous
7 time, yes.
8 Q. All right. Are you familiar with Markale
9 marketplace massacre?
10 A. I am familiar with the overall of that, yes.
11 It was also included in the report of the Commission of
12 Experts, although I was not the one who was
13 particularly looking at it.
14 Q. Could you tell us about that massacre?
15 JUDGE MAY: Now, again --
16 MR. VUCICEVIC: I'll withdraw the question,
17 Your Honour.
18 JUDGE MAY: Very well.
19 MR. VUCICEVIC:
20 Q. The sentence that you just read, looking at
21 the plain meaning of the language, to the best of your
22 expertise, does it incite and invite the population of
23 Sarajevo to commit violations of the international
24 humanitarian laws against Serbs and Croats?
25 A. It's an invitation to retaliation, and I
1 would assume that means also to break the law, I'm
2 afraid.
3 MR. VUCICEVIC: Your Honours, if I may
4 address on this specific point. We have an expert here
5 on international humanitarian law, and I would like to
6 ask her to clarify the term "retaliate" because of her
7 stature. I really wouldn't want this to go on the
8 record uncorrected for the learned benefit of all of
9 us.
10 JUDGE MAY: Well, you can ask the question,
11 but keep it brief.
12 MR. VUCICEVIC:
13 Q. Under international humanitarian law, is
14 retaliation a measure even arguably permitted by a
15 civilian population?
16 A. To my knowledge, retaliation, as such, is not
17 a part of international law. One may not answer to a
18 crime, I'm speaking in general terms without reference
19 to Sarajevo or anywhere else, one may not answer a
20 crime with a new crime. There may be occasions of
21 provocation, but retaliation is not a concept that's
22 included in international law and duly described. But
23 since they are asked to retaliate in terms of a
24 massacre, I'm afraid this could include new crimes.
25 Q. So is it or isn't it incitement to commit
1 violations of international humanitarian law?
2 A. As it's not stated explicitly that no crimes
3 should be made, it may be read like you're stating,
4 yes.
5 JUDGE MAY: I think that's sufficient on that
6 topic.
7 MR. VUCICEVIC:
8 Q. In your previous testimony, you have said
9 that the violation of international humanitarian law in
10 the Prijedor area throughout World War II has been
11 committed by Ustasha and supported by the government at
12 that time, the independent government of Croatia. Were
13 there any incidents that you know of where similar acts
14 were committed by Serb nationals on Muslims or
15 Croats?
16 A. I have read wartime history. I am aware that
17 certain Chetnik groups, not all Chetniks, by far not,
18 would target explicitly Muslim people in some areas. I
19 am not able to point to, in detail, specific incidents
20 from World War II.
21 JUDGE MAY: Well, Judge Greve, you are not
22 here really to deal with World War II, and I'm not
23 going to permit any more questions on it.
24 Mr. Vucicevic, could you move on, please?
25 MR. VUCICEVIC:
1 Q. Judge Greve, you have testified in your
2 statement about peacefulness and brotherhood between
3 ethnicities in Prijedor. Could you explain the meaning
4 of "brotherhood" and where it came into the modern
5 historical terminology?
6 A. To my understanding, there were very friendly
7 relations between the different groups in Prijedor.
8 That is to say, it was not an area which was troubled
9 by ethnic feuds or religious feuds. They were living
10 together as people in any ordinary community or society
11 which would not have much differences between them.
12 It's my understanding that they themselves
13 saw at least this century as having been a century of
14 botherhood, which had been particularly strengthened
15 during World War II, as this was an area where, as an
16 example, the Muslim head of the community very early
17 spoke up and against the Ustasha attacks on Serbs in
18 World War II, and where the Partisans comprised of the
19 local population which were Serbs, the majority were
20 Serbs, Croats and Muslims.
21 For what reason they fought together during
22 World War II, and some of the people that have
23 testified had said that even upon entering Logor
24 Omarska, Logor Keraterm, the camps, they did not really
25 think those who were arrested, having not experienced
1 attacks on entire villages, that this would be
2 something very difficult for them.
3 Even after the Serbs took power, the ousted
4 Muslim mayor of the community spoke on the radio, Radio
5 Prijedor, in early May saying "Remember the
6 brotherhood, sisterhood," perhaps he didn't say that,
7 but "... brotherhood, remember the good relations.
8 There are people coming from outside. They have taken
9 power. We have nothing to fear. This is essentially a
10 peaceful community."
11 By this, I'm not suggesting that it didn't
12 have the same kinds of problems that just any community
13 would have.
14 Q. The concept brotherhood was imposed by the
15 communists taking over power in 1945, isn't that true?
16 A. I know that the word "brotherhood" is used in
17 my own country, which has never been --
18 Q. But I am referring directly to the concept of
19 Bosnia, brotherhood is very broad term?
20 A. That is why I -- without knowing it for sure,
21 cannot say that this was brought in by the communists,
22 it's a very common concept. Perhaps, at least, I would
23 assume it existed in the wartime.
24 Q. So, at least, you're not sure on this
25 question?
1 A. No, I have not asked specifically when the
2 concept brotherhood was started to be used.
3 Q. But yet in presenting statistics, did it
4 raise some concerns of yours to realise that most of
5 the villages were entirely Muslim, entirely Serb and
6 entirely Croats?
7 A. If I --
8 Q. And how could you reconcile brotherhood and
9 in unity with such segregation?
10 A. If I may draw your attention again back to
11 the statistics from the census. I believe it can be
12 read out of the figures, not so easily from the
13 simplified map, but from the figures that in almost
14 every village, you would find a mixed population --
15 Q. Let's go back to the tables, Dr. Greve, and
16 then maybe we can explain this better to the Court.
17 And I am directing your attention to -- okay, that's
18 page 202 or that is Exhibit 21B. And then we go --
19 let's look at village called Bistrica. That is the
20 third row from the bottom of the page. Date stamped
21 201. And it does have 1490 Serbs and 1 Muslim. And
22 then if we go to a next village, Biscani, we have a
23 little better ratio, 1150 Muslims and 2 Serbs. And
24 let's look at some other, bigger villages. That would
25 be at page 203 because it seems that this is a big
1 spread which has been cut?
2 A. That's correct. It's two opposite pages.
3 Q. And if we take a look at the village
4 Carakovo, where there is 2128 Muslims and 38 Serbs --
5 JUDGE MAY: Those figures, I think, are in
6 1981, in fact.
7 MR. VUCICEVIC: 1981. But they have been
8 introduced and I believe, substantially, they have not
9 changed, Your Honour. But we can go into the '91
10 census.
11 JUDGE MAY: I am not inviting you to.
12 MR. VUCICEVIC:
13 Q. But basically I am drawing your attention
14 here and I want to find out the names of these
15 villages.
16 A. The names are listed on the left-hand side.
17 Q. Here we go. And there is, for example, a
18 village, Surkovac, which contains 647 Croats; no
19 Muslims and 18 Serbs. This is not a statistically
20 representative sample, however, it's just indication,
21 there was no integration whatsoever of the population,
22 in spite of that catch phrase "brotherhood," isn't that
23 true?
24 A. As I read the entire statistics, I think it's
25 much more mixed than the history samples suggested.
1 But, yes, it's correct, there will be a lot of
2 variations.
3 Q. And as I have a duty of fairness to the
4 Court, I am going to point out to the town of Prijedor,
5 which basically the population was about 50/50. Okay.
6 That's on date stamp 205 and then it's '81. We're
7 still looking at '81. But that is 10,000 Muslims at
8 that time and 10,000 Serbs. '91 there was about 24,000
9 Serbs. However there is this category of Yugoslavs.
10 Could you tell the Court a little bit more about that
11 category?
12 A. That was a category which does not state
13 which ethnic group or religion the person has. People
14 may want to declare themselves as Yugoslavs belonging
15 to any other group. Where they have the freedom of
16 choice in that respect, many would choose the
17 designation Yugoslav as a commitment to the Yugoslav
18 state. Others have chosen that for the reason that
19 they may have two grandparents in one group and one in
20 each of the others, not feeling they belonged, perhaps,
21 to any specific group. And some may have, for any
22 other reason, found it good not to be identified with a
23 group.
24 Q. Isn't it fair, also reasonable to conclude
25 there might be one reason and one conclusion. But it
1 would be another reasonable conclusion that a census at
2 that time provided for the people to declare how they
3 feel and whom they belong. And what we see that most
4 of those villages and hamlets are exclusively,
5 overwhelmingly, either Serb, Muslim or Croat without
6 any mix in municipality besides town of Prijedor?
7 A. As for the mix, I think the figures speak for
8 themselves. I mean, it could be controlled village by
9 village the exact numbers according to the figure. It
10 is correct that people were free to come forward and
11 declare themselves as belonging to a group, yes.
12 Q. Would it be also reasonable to conclude that
13 mixing in the rural areas did not occur because of the
14 memories on the atrocities of the World War II?
15 A. That is not to my opinion correct. It may
16 not in full, it may be in part. That is, there are a
17 number of people who have left Prijedor who have mixed
18 family relationships, mixed parentage and, perhaps
19 also, as we came across, decided to declare themselves
20 when they married someone from a different group they
21 could, as well, declare themselves as belonging with
22 that group.
23 Q. So they have basically converted and declared
24 themselves. And one of those famous, one of the most
25 famous Yugoslavs who converted, if you know, was a
1 Yugoslav Nobel prize winner for the literature,
2 Ivanovic. And he was born Croat, but declared himself
3 Serb and one of the Serbs greatest literary giants.
4 Are you familiar with that? So we agree that the
5 people do convert for their own reason and, indeed,
6 join the other ethnic group. But as we are looking in
7 these papers here, their declarations are such that
8 this is overwhelming segregation in all the areas or
9 municipality of Prijedor, besides Prijedor itself?
10 A. I do not agree that it's overwhelming
11 segregation in all the areas.
12 Q. I am going to modify that term. Segregation
13 that is of some concern. Would you agree with that?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Considering that they had official policy of
16 brotherhood?
17 A. I think that brotherhood could be understood
18 in more than one sense. And I think a feeling of
19 brotherhood may mean that people in an area with
20 several villages, several different administrative
21 units, do not feel alienated and hostile towards one
22 another, but still they may keep their small hamlets,
23 or whatever, which is -- and some of those which you
24 have pointed out, are predominantly with people
25 declaring themselves as belonging to one particular
1 group, yes.
2 Q. That reminds me of the old adage, that in the
3 former communist system some people are more free than
4 the others. And it seems here that distribution or
5 ethnic distribution in Prijedor municipality is such
6 that they trusted their own a little bit more than the
7 others, so they had their houses in the same location,
8 isn't that true?
9 A. I will not be able, as I have not asked
10 people that particular question.
11 Q. Okay, thank you on that one.
12 When you look to this answer to this one
13 might become indeed obvious when you look at the map of
14 Prijedor. This map of Prijedor. Sorry, I lost the
15 marking on this one.
16 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 22.
17 MR. VUCICEVIC: Exhibit 22.
18 Q. So when you look at the colour distribution
19 here, it's obvious to see that the Muslims were located
20 in a south-western section of the Municipality of
21 Prijedor and Serbs were located in southeastern
22 municipality of Prijedor. And there is a great
23 concentration of Muslim population in Kozarusa,
24 Kozarac, Brdani, Babici area. Those are along the
25 road. There is no road there, but you are familiar
1 with the maps along the road from Prijedor to Banja
2 Luka. And there is a concentration of the Serbs again
3 straight north from Prijedor.
4 A. Yes, that is the simplification and the
5 predominant ethnic group.
6 Q. And yet on the next exhibit, which is your
7 drawing, it's Exhibit 24, you have declared that
8 Prijedor and municipalities in Prijedor and Sanski Most
9 and Kotor Varos are the Muslim municipalities. What
10 did you mean -- what is your intended purpose of this
11 different colouration?
12 A. The different colouration refers to the fact
13 that the opstinas, the municipalities that have been
14 given a red colour had such a large Serb influence,
15 not a total Serb population, but such a large Serb
16 influence, that it was decided within the opstina to
17 join the autonomous region of Krajina as referred to
18 yesterday, as opposed to the three others opstinas,
19 Prijedor, Sanski Most, Kotor Varos, while, yes, there
20 were large populations that were Serbs. There were
21 small populations, essentially Croat. And there were
22 relatively large populations that were Muslim. And in
23 these three opstinas, municipalities, the Serb
24 influence was not that strong that a decision was made
25 by the local authorities to join the autonomous region
1 of Krajina. That was the only reason for giving them
2 different colours.
3 Q. I am going to take you back to time of
4 election in 1990, December of 1990. And the result of
5 that election was, as you have testified in Tadic's
6 case and your report that was introduced in this case,
7 that the SDA had obtained 30 electoral seats; that the
8 SDS had 28; Croat party had 2 seats and the others,
9 meaning the parties who were liberal parties or
10 remnants and followers of the old communist left,
11 obtained another 30 seats. Is that correct?
12 A. That is correct.
13 Q. And that members of SDA and SDS formed a
14 coalition municipal government in Prijedor; is that
15 correct?
16 A. The municipal assembly, I think reflected the
17 overall vote, yes.
18 Q. But there was an agreement between SDA and
19 SDS to run the coalition campaign against the ruling
20 communist party up to that time. Are you familiar with
21 that?
22 A. I am not familiar with pre-1990 election
23 campaigning. But I am familiar with the fact that,
24 yes, the SDA and the SDS did cooperate, did win 30 and
25 28 seats respectfully and did divide the remaining
1 seats among them accordingly.
2 Q. You're not familiar with any pre-election
3 agreements. Let's say no agreements existed as a
4 hypothetical and the election takes place and this is
5 an electoral composition, the government has to be
6 formed. So each party had free choice. SDA could join
7 the communist parties or reformist liberal SD socialist
8 party and another party, or they could join the SDS in
9 forming government. Likewise, SDS couldn't join
10 parties of the left that were defeated in that election
11 or let's say there was almost three way split. Why
12 would you think that SDA and SDS would make such a
13 coalition?
14 A. I would assume that also that naturally under
15 the circumstances, if it was a reaction to the previous
16 regimes, I am unable to say. But I would assume that
17 under the new political situation, they saw that as
18 useful and making sense, the way they have committed
19 themselves with the veto voters.
20 Q. And those commitments in taking down to
21 totalitarian government, which did not recognise a
22 right to free religious expression, would be reasonable
23 to assume that members of SDA wanted to have
24 democratically elected officers and to practice their
25 religion. At the same time, members or the people
1 having sympathies in voting for the representatives of
2 the SDS would like to have democratically elected
3 government and to practice their religion. And those
4 would be including another underlining theme that
5 democratically elected government would provide the
6 bulwark for the economy so that the society would
7 thrive. Based on those principles, is it reasonable to
8 assume that they have formed coalition government?
9 A. Based on what we know in general about what
10 happened in eastern Europe, when free elections started,
11 there were to be close cooperation between political
12 parties that were of the new political creed, so to
13 speak and those parties who preferred the previous
14 system. So I would assume in Prijedor, making a
15 general statement, that is, and it's an assumption, I
16 would think they would work together with those who
17 believed in the new, free situation.
18 Q. So it's reasonable to assume that even those
19 who are members of the party at that time did not
20 harbour ill-feelings toward each other because they
21 were cooperating? I am not asking the specifics, just,
22 would it be reasonable to assume.
23 A. It is, of course, difficult to assess the
24 feelings of people. But since the general
25 understanding in Prijedor is that of brotherhood and
1 cooperation, I assume that was for the politicians as
2 well. It may have changed over time, but I think so.
3 But I think the main changes may have come when
4 parallel structures started to come into being.
5 Q. Do you think that war in Croatia preceded
6 those improvisations along the ethnic lines starting
7 with the outbreak of war in Croatia?
8 A. I know that there were political discussions
9 about, and I believe they are materialised in
10 guidelines which I have seen later, only after having
11 completed my study. There were discussions within the
12 SDS, the Serb Democratic Party, already in August,
13 1991. That is just after the -- just before or just
14 after the war in Croatia really started. And at that
15 time, alternative structures were in question. I am in
16 August 1991.
17 Q. You think -- do you have any information that
18 an ethnic cleansing of Serb population took place in
19 the war in Croatia?
20 A. I have information to the extent that when
21 war started in Eastern Slavonia, group was against
22 group, and yes, indeed, some of the victims were
23 clearly Serb.
24 Q. Do you think that such an information could
25 have had a real impact on the Serbs in Prijedor area?
1 A. Yes, I think, actually, it did have an
2 impact, particularly because it was highlighted in the
3 media and it was used to generalise the feeling of fear
4 and a need for Serbs to be particularly alert.
5 Q. And are you aware of any reports in the
6 western press that have reported ethnic cleansing of
7 Serbs in Croatia at that time?
8 A. I cannot point to any specific information,
9 but I do believe that it was reported and I think it
10 was transmitted, if not straight by journalists, so at
11 least by the High Commission for Refugees, the United
12 Nations High Commission for Refugees, that numbers of
13 people were being displaced in Eastern Slavonia, Serbs
14 among them.
15 Q. And the United Nations international
16 organisation of countries of Western Europe, that later
17 on helped stop that war, hadn't done anything at that
18 time, to the best of your knowledge?
19 A. To the best of my knowledge, at that time,
20 the western community was concerned with negotiations,
21 which had been going on for some time. It had been discussed
22 in the European Community. It had been discussed in
23 international agencies based in Europe, but I would say
24 it was paperwork, conferences, discussions. I think
25 everyone thought at that time that this war could be
1 avoided by having peaceful settlement around a
2 conference table.
3 Q. So it would be reasonable to assume, since
4 ethnic cleansing of Serbs in Slavonia had occurred and
5 some of the official organisations of the European
6 ommunity had reports about that, but it was only
7 expectation that a war should be short-lived. It was
8 reasonable for Serb in Krajina to be apprehensive about
9 it. I am not asking whether they were wrong or right,
10 but was it just reasonable for them to be
11 apprehensive?
12 A. I am just trying to focus my answer. I am
13 not trying to make judgments on this, just to assess
14 the situation and my observations. I didn't know if
15 the word "ethnic cleansing" was used already in Eastern
16 Slavonia in early August 1991. I do know that large
17 groups of people, Serbs included, were actually
18 displaced in the course of the fighting between Croats,
19 essentially, and Serbs, essentially. I do know that at
20 a later time, this was used, highlighted, emphasised
21 and I think ordinary people were scared. But still I
22 think that in Prijedor, people were relying on the
23 past. They have had very, very different experience
24 during World War II in terms of having been a Partisan
25 area that was hard hit by non-Partisans. But at that
1 time -- and that has been confirmed by numerous
2 sources. They felt they were standing together and
3 that that togetherness in the past would bring them
4 through whatever difficult times were to come.
5 Q. But that is your conclusion about that they
6 felt they were in a Noah's Ark, so to speak, just
7 because they had a partisan in the midst of World War
8 II and without paying attention of the current events
9 in the rest of their country?
10 A. Yes and no. I think, yes, they did pay
11 attention to what was happening elsewhere. Yes, I
12 think most people were very concerned about there being
13 a war. Yes, I think they followed that very
14 intensely. But, no, I don't think they were also
15 afraid of being hunted -- they didn't feel as hunted by
16 the past experiences of one group of people locally
17 against another. They had a different background and
18 experience which made it more easy for them to relate
19 to their neighbours than for Serbs in Eastern
20 Slavonia.
21 Q. Your Honours, at this time, I would like to
22 introduce Defence Exhibit No. 1. And I know, Your
23 Honours, that this is not being done to question the
24 credibility of this witness, but just to contradict the
25 validity of underlying data on which she is basing her
1 statements. This is the book by Samuel P. Huntington
2 professor at Harvard University, that's dealing on
3 page 283, he is dealing with this issue.
4 JUDGE MAY: Have you got photocopies for us
5 so we can look at it?
6 MR. VUCICEVIC: I will make some photocopies,
7 but I was thinking if you can put it on the overhead
8 projector and say the sentences, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE MAY: Well, we will need photocopies of
10 it, but you can put it to the witness.
11 A. Excuse me for turning my head.
12 JUDGE MAY: What does it say?
13 MR. VUCICEVIC:
14 Q. If you could get a little bit clearer
15 picture, just to the usher.
16 A. I'm just pointing to it so that, perhaps,
17 they can zoom in on it. I think this will do.
18 JUDGE MAY: Yes, you've got it.
19 A. Would you like me to read it?
20 MR. VUCICEVIC:
21 Q. If you could read the first two sentences on
22 the full paragraph that is in the full view here,
23 starting with --
24 A. "Western support for Croatia also included
25 overlooking the ethnic cleansing and the violation of
1 human rights and the laws of war for which the Serbs
2 were regularly denounced. The West was silent when in
3 1995, the revamped Croat army launched an attack on
4 the Serbs of Krajina, who had been there for centuries,
5 and drove hundreds of thousands of them into exile in
6 Bosnia and Serbia."
7 Q. That is enough. So it's reasonable to assume
8 that your data that you looked at this problem and
9 research that Professor Huntington has done are
10 obviously differing. Because your conclusions and his
11 conclusions are two different conclusions.
12 A. I think I shall disagree with him in his
13 first sentence. The second is after.
14 Q. Dr. Greve, what I asked, I'm not questioning
15 your opinion, nor putting his opinion against your
16 opinion. What I'm asking is, is it reasonable for you
17 to conclude that the data upon which he has relied on
18 the same issue that you here testified about, it's
19 different than yours?
20 A. You asked me previously if I was aware of
21 reports in the western press concerning Eastern
22 Slavonia, to which I testified that I could not recall
23 any in particular, but I was aware that, for instance,
24 the High Commission for Refugees had drawn attention to
25 this. And since I have not studied this, in
1 particular, I am unable -- I don't think I can be seen
2 as an expert on what the western press or those who may
3 be included in the sentence "Western support for
4 Croatia," whether or not it was like this or that. I
5 think it's beyond me to be able to make assessments on
6 this, Your Honour.
7 MR. VUCICEVIC: I will continue with the next
8 line of questioning, Your Honour.
9 Q. So it would be more reasonable -- it would be
10 reasonable to conclude that Serbs in Prijedor were
11 apprehensive of what the future might bring to them,
12 and their conclusions about brotherhood are, indeed, a
13 little bit more proper looked at in hindsight than
14 yours, because ethnic cleansing happened in Krajina in
15 a large scale, and western experts in western states
16 didn't respond at all.
17 A. The reference to Krajina and the Serbs of
18 Krajina is dated 1995. That's three years -- it's
19 August 1995, I tend to remember. That is three years
20 after the events in Prijedor. Obviously what the
21 people were feeling, I have made a general assessment,
22 their feelings are the real thing.
23 Q. I'm directing your attention now to the
24 Prosecutor's Exhibit 29. That newspaper account when
25 read in its totality indicates that there was some
1 criticism, public criticism, that was rendered against
2 the police and chief of police at that time, Delic, was
3 answering to the criticism. Isn't that your import of
4 the article?
5 A. That is absolutely so, and the criticism was
6 that strongly against, essentially, all the authorities
7 in Prijedor, that the High Commissioner’s Office for
8 Refugees and ICRC were approached by people who wanted
9 to leave the area.
10 Q. And what he is doing, he's basically blaming
11 the police in Prijedor were in control of many, many
12 items of property that were stored at Keraterm, because
13 within the context of this article, they are not
14 talking about human beings in prison there. They are
15 talking about property stored at that facility?
16 A. That's correct.
17 Q. And that property somehow disappeared?
18 A. That is also correct. But it is stated
19 explicitly that there is the cooperation between the
20 police, the army and the authorities that still govern.
21 Q. Is it unreasonable to assume that a country
22 at war, there is going to be some degree of cooperation
23 between military police and civilian authorities?
24 A. I would assume that any country that is at
25 war would try to unite forces.
1 Q. That's a reasonable assumption?
2 A. It is.
3 Q. To perform the functions that are actually
4 overlapping to support the war effort?
5 A. To work together to a lesser or larger
6 degree, yes.
7 Q. You mentioned in commenting on Exhibit 30
8 some statements that at that time Colonel Radmilo
9 Zeljaja remained. Do you know what was his rank at the
10 time when the conflict in Prijedor erupted?
11 A. I think he was the major. He was --
12 Q. A major?
13 A. A major, yes.
14 Q. When you made some comments earlier when you
15 testified about Jasenovac, you brought up the name of
16 Mr. Kurt Waldheim?
17 A. I did.
18 Q. In your readings of the paper that were not
19 available to the public, do you recall what was his
20 rank at that time, Mr. Waldheim's?
21 A. I don't recall his rank. I remember that he
22 was described as the second in line in command within
23 the intelligence unit in Banja Luka, and he was an
24 Austrian, and he worked within the German/Austrian
25 structure.
1 Q. So in that region, it seems that perhaps if
2 he was a major at that time, it seems in that region,
3 even not so high ranks of a major could command a great
4 deal of military authority?
5 JUDGE MAY: Well, I think we are straying
6 from the point to be dealing with Colonel Waldheim.
7 MR. VUCICEVIC: I will withdraw the
8 question.
9 Q. Zeljaja was an officer of the JNA; wasn't he?
10 A. He was an officer of the JNA, and the JNA was
11 transformed in 1992 to become the Bosnian Serb army.
12 Q. And Major Zeljaja at that time was commander
13 of 34 --
14 A. The then 343rd --
15 Q. Motorised Brigade?
16 A. That's correct.
17 Q. And this was stationed in Prijedor?
18 A. That is correct.
19 Q. And that brigade has been ordered into
20 military action in Slavonia sometime in the summer
21 of '91?
22 A. They were mobilising for going to the
23 Slavonian front, I think, in autumn 1991.
24 Q. The military reservist who came in to bring
25 his units to full strength, they came from the Prijedor
1 area, didn't they?
2 A. That is my understanding, yes.
3 Q. And almost all Serbs responded and most of
4 the Muslims did not, to that call-up?
5 A. That is correct. I also remember to have
6 read that he was not able to fulfil his ranks
7 completely, so they went to Croatia without having a
8 complete setup.
9 Q. So going into the battle, as a military
10 officer of the legal independent state at that time, he
11 is forced to go with 50 per cent ranks unfilled or,
12 let's say, a certain per cent of ranks unfilled, and
13 all those ranks unfilled are members of a certain
14 ethnic group, Muslims. Would it be reasonable to
15 assume that through the battles, whether they were for
16 better or worse, for whatever position we can look, but
17 the bonding between military commander and his soldiers
18 is going to happen in the battle; is that likely? Is
19 that a reasonable conclusion?
20 A. I would think that his group, the people he
21 commanded, and he himself had normal relations as for a
22 commander and his people in a war field.
23 Q. If most of the members, just by the fact that
24 the Muslims didn't respond to the callup, most of the
25 members of the 343rd Brigade were Serbs, that was not
1 an act of Major Zeljaja. That was just a fact of
2 life.
3 A. That was a fact of the current situation
4 there and not his choice.
5 Q. If a military commander is facing a situation
6 where a certain ethnic group is not responding, do you
7 think he can trust them later on?
8 A. He may find that, perhaps, difficult. It
9 depends on if he understands their reasons for not
10 turning up.
11 Q. I'm asking just is it reasonable to assume
12 that a military man would do it. He's not a
13 politician. He's a military man.
14 A. I think the answer can be, since I'm not a
15 military commander or a military person, I think it
16 could be based on the general human ability to trust
17 one another. Sometimes we understand why people will
18 refuse to do something, and still we think we can trust
19 them. On other occasions, we may find that very
20 difficult on that very basis.
21 Q. And he has proven himself to be, indeed, a
22 very reasonable, tolerant man, just as you described;
23 didn't he?
24 A. He is the --
25 Q. From this article?
1 A. Would you want me to --
2 Q. Just in general from this article, without
3 going into anything specific. If you can't recall, I
4 will continue.
5 A. This is an interview with him, yes.
6 Q. Okay. On the page date stamped 49 on the
7 bottom, I'm referring your attention to the sentence
8 starting "They were also told." "They were also told
9 (and I think that my statement was made public through
10 our news media) that this Command would not allow
11 Prijedor to be Tuzla (where Army soldiers had
12 previously been killed in a column) or Sarajevo; as
13 Arsic and I are not Kukanjac." Do you know anything
14 about the modern historical concept of which you're an
15 expert; do you know anything about that?
16 A. Kukanjac.
17 Q. Yes.
18 A. I am not familiar with that.
19 Q. Are you familiar with the -- if I tell you
20 hypothetically that Kukanjac was a JNA General who
21 ordered the pull out of his troops in the middle of May
22 from Sarajevo and that more than 120 soldiers of his
23 unarmed were killed by Muslims who ambushed him on one
24 of Sarajevo's streets, where more than a dozen of
25 medical personnel also were killed, would you consider
1 that as a violation of international humanitarian law?
2 A. I understand your statement and if I can just
3 build on the statement without making any judgment as
4 to if it's a fair description, the way it's presented,
5 it will sound as a breach of international law. But I
6 don't think I should make judgments on these issues.
7 Q. I was asking you because being an expert, and
8 I'm not quite sure whether -- I believe it's proper in
9 this court that an expert could be asked a
10 hypothetical?
11 JUDGE MAY: I think we're straying from the
12 point again. Is there anything else on this document?
13 MR. VUCICEVIC: Yes, I will ask direct
14 questions now.
15 Q. Dr. Greve, do you know anything about the
16 attack of JNA in Sarajevo in mid May of 1992 when
17 General Kukanjac, a commanding officer of the
18 Yugoslav National Army was attacked and more than
19 100 of his soldiers were slaughtered?
20 A. I have read information about attacks. I
21 have not paid that strong emphasis on this that I'm
22 able to recollect in detail, but, yes, I have read
23 information which was gathered by the Commission of
24 Experts.
25 Q. But you haven't read that report? You have
1 not read that report?
2 A. Yes, I have read it, but I'm not able at this
3 moment to --
4 Q. To recall it?
5 A. -- to recall it in detail.
6 Q. Thank you. Are you also familiar, just a
7 brief comment, are you familiar with the attack of the
8 Muslim armed civilians on the JNA pull out from Tuzla,
9 just two or three days later, still talking about mid
10 May 1992?
11 A. I'm familiar with fighting, yes.
12 Q. And yet Major Zeljaja did not open-fire on
13 the Muslim villages without any provocation, did he?
14 A. I have not been able to establish that there
15 were provocations that would justify that attack.
16 Q. If I tell you that in Tadic's trial -- strike
17 that. Are you familiar with the name Dr. Mirza
18 Mujadzic?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Who is that gentleman?
21 A. He was with the SDA, the Muslim party.
22 Q. Do you think that he would, under oath, give
23 the --
24 JUDGE MAY: You can't ask the witness to
25 comment on some evidence given by another witness,
1 Mr. Vucicevic.
2 MR. VUCICEVIC: Okay.
3 Q. I'm asking you based on this article here
4 that was introduced, based on the statement by Major
5 Zeljaja, that he said on May 22nd in the field below
6 Hambarine, there was shooting at our soldiers.
7 JUDGE MAY: Where is this in the document?
8 MR. VUCICEVIC: That's on the page stamped on
9 the bottom page 49, the long paragraph at the bottom,
10 the second sentence from the top.
11 Q. I will read it, if you don't mind: "On May
12 22nd in the field below Hambarine, there was shooting
13 at our soldiers or what was then the 5th Battalion and
14 shot two of them dead but did not even allow an
15 ambulance to come in, as there were three wounded
16 soldiers." If we assume that to be true, that he
17 believed this to be true, his response of his unit to
18 fire back when the culprits for this were not turned
19 over to the military, that would be considered a
20 reprisal, a retaliation, wouldn't it?
21 A. That word may be used, but it does not,
22 thereby, state that this is within international law to
23 retaliate in that manner. If I may say so, you asked
24 me about Kozarac, as far as I remember, in your
25 previous question --
1 Q. I was talking about this one --
2 MR. VUCICEVIC: If we are going to have
3 cross-examination, I would kindly ask the court if we
4 can go one question at a time.
5 JUDGE MAY: It's time for an adjournment.
6 Are you going to finish these documents by the
7 adjournment tonight?
8 MR. VUCICEVIC: There's two or three that are
9 very, indeed, important. They go to the crux of the
10 issues here, and I doubt it, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE MAY: Quarter of an hour.
12 --- Recess taken at 3.32 p.m.
13 --- On resuming at 3.55 p.m.
14 MR. VUCICEVIC:
15 Q. I am directing your attention to what's been
16 marked as the Prosecutor Exhibit No. 32. The
17 Prosecutor asked you to read the last sentence on this
18 first page and that's page -- dated stamped 347.
19 However, I am going to ask you to read the first
20 sentence of that paragraph, so at least that we can
21 complete that paragraph.
22 A. It reads, "At dawn, on the 30th of May,
23 'green berets' carried out an organised attack on
24 Prijedor from several sides. After several hours of
25 fighting, the attack was repulsed, the attackers routed
1 and partly destroyed. In these actions several
2 soldiers of the Serb army and five policemen were
3 killed."
4 Q. Thank you. The rest you read yesterday.
5 Could you explain who were green berets?
6 A. Green berets is a reference to Muslims and
7 those attacking may have been both Muslims and Croats.
8 It's believed approximately 150 did attack this very
9 morning.
10 Q. 150 men --
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. -- attacked? Okay. And in your written
13 statement, you use the word "small attack." In
14 describing attacking, there was a small attack by 150
15 men, armed men. Does it represent a small unit
16 attacking a city on Sunday at dawn?
17 A. It's a comparative use of the world small, as
18 compared to the forces engaged in the other
19 activities. Yes, it's small in comparison. But it's
20 stated also the number.
21 Q. But this small force of 150 resulted in a lot
22 of casualties, a lot of people being killed; is that
23 correct?
24 A. I think the number as given by the Serbs in a
25 different source is 12 killed. That's 12 too many.
1 Q. Yes, I certainly agree. But when
2 overwhelming force was used in a political coup at the
3 time, Prijedor, not even a single shot was fired. Is
4 that correct?
5 A. That is correct. The night of 30th of April,
6 force was taken without a single shot -- power was
7 taken without a single shot fired. But there
8 were a number --
9 Q. So this lead us, or lends, this statement
10 lends itself to a reasonable conclusion that there were
11 armed Muslims who were willing to carry on military
12 activities against Serbian forces in the area?
13 A. Following the events on 20th of May, which
14 you alerted us to prior to the break, which resulted in
15 an armed attack on Hambarine on the 23rd, which again
16 was followed with the large scale attack on the Kozarac
17 area, which was also before the 30th of May,
18 yes. There were Muslims at this time and there may
19 have been Croats among them. Or, numbers, I don't know
20 Muslims/Croats, the proportions, who did gang up or
21 gather on the west side of the River Sana in the Kozara
22 forested area.
23 Q. So where did the green beret Muslim forces
24 come from, do you know that? From what area?
25 A. They came, if I could have the local map, I
1 would be able to point it out. I was thinking of the
2 geographical map and I can show it on the map for Your
3 Honours. The big map, yes.
4 JUDGE MAY: Exhibit 35.
5 THE WITNESS: This area is the Hambarine
6 area, which was attacked afternoon. That is, after
7 twelve o'clock when those responsible for the shooting
8 at --
9 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please be
10 asked to speak into the microphone? .
11 JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. Dr. Greve, I know
12 it's difficult because you're talking towards looking
13 at the map.
14 THE WITNESS: Forgive me.
15 JUDGE MAY: But the interpreters ask that you
16 could also speak towards the microphone. So if you
17 could start that again, please.
18 THE WITNESS: As we were speaking about
19 previously today, there was a shooting incident on the
20 22nd of May, 1992. It was a checkpoint on the way to
21 Hambarine, where two people were killed immediately,
22 two Serbs, one Muslim, at a checkpoint. All Muslims
23 living in this area were --
24 MR. VUCICEVIC:
25 Q. If I just might ask for a quick correction,
1 might have just slipped your tongue. Is that one
2 Muslim was wounded or killed? It came across that one
3 Muslim was killed.
4 A. One Muslim was wounded immediately and died
5 from the wounds, to be precise. It was asked that
6 those responsible at the checkpoint were handed over by
7 the authorities in Hambarine, Hambarine being an
8 administrative area. And there are a number of
9 villages up here. It's next to a forested area further
10 to the south. This being the River Sana, which flows
11 south. When Hambarine was attacked, which is after
12 noon, after twelve o'clock, on the 23rd, people are
13 fleeing in several directions. Some are going in the
14 direction of Rizvanovici, Rizvanovici, which is up here.
15 Some are going to the Biscani area, which is even
16 further up. And a number went to a forested area south
17 of the road, which goes here. It goes from Prijedor
18 and the whole way to Ljubija. A number went into the
19 forested area here. After the shooting had ended, some
20 went back, some remained in the forrest. Some of the
21 forested areas were under, were hit by artillery shells
22 as well. This was on the 23rd.
23 On the 24th, there was the main attack which
24 starts on the Kozara area, which I may follow the
25 map differently, but that's further up in this
1 direction.
2 Q. If I may remind you, were there any
3 ultimatums that were delivered either to Muslim
4 authorities in Hambarine or any ultimatums that were
5 given to Muslim authorities in Kozarac?
6 A. Yes, as mentioned, the ultimatum in Hambarine
7 was to hand over, to my understanding, those who had
8 manned the checkpoint and a policeman who lived in that
9 area who had been -- it was so arranged that after the
10 Serbs took power on the night of 30th of April, some
11 from the police force were just asked to leave their
12 jobs. Others were called forward and asked to abandon
13 the authorities, their loyalty to the authorities in
14 Sarajevo and pledge loyalty to the new Serbian rulers
15 in Prijedor.
16 One policeman, who had belonged to the
17 general police force, was known in this job, he lived
18 in this district, and allegedly from the sources we
19 had, it was asked as an ultimatum on Radio Prijedor, on
20 the 22nd, after the shooting the same day, that this
21 policeman, who was allegedly not involved in the
22 shooting, and the people who had manned the checkpoint,
23 it was allegedly a checkpoint where normal officials
24 were asking people who passed on the road not to pass
25 with arms. The ultimatum would ask that all these
1 people were turned over to the authorities in Prijedor
2 and that ultimatum was not met.
3 Following that ultimatum not having been met,
4 the Hambarine area, as such, a larger area that is, was
5 shelled.
6 Q. Let's just dwell on the point of the
7 ultimatum and killings of two Serbian soldiers. So, at
8 that time, there was already disrespect for the law in
9 general in that area, a murderer could not be
10 prosecuted for his act; is that correct? Whoever he
11 might have been, either Serb, Croat or Muslim? So
12 there was a complete paralysis of the legal system, in
13 other words, there was a war.
14 A. There was not a situation as you described
15 it. There was a disagreement as to who opened fire at
16 a checkpoint. As you will see from my report,
17 information as to the fact that even over Radio
18 Prijedor, it was stated that fire was opened by Serbs.
19 There was a dispute concerning the facts and it seems
20 that the authorities in Hambarine did not feel that
21 they were in a position to hand over anyone at this
22 time, even if they had possibly committed murder to
23 those who had taken power in Prijedor on the night of
24 the 30th of April.
25 Q. Dr. Greve, I am glad you stated the point
1 that you made in your earlier report. But neither your
2 report nor testimony that you have heretofore presented
3 are being, it's being based on some facts uttered.
4 Could you describe that checkpoint that you so
5 eloquently testified about? What were the Serbs
6 doing? I mean, how was it that Serbs, all of a sudden,
7 found themselves at a Muslim checkpoint?
8 A. That, if I may, will bring me back a little
9 in time because as it was stated in one of the
10 documents yesterday and that is confirmed in a
11 newspaper article by one of the Serb military, the
12 weaponry and equipment which used to belong to the TO,
13 Territorial Defence units, was essentially taken care
14 of by Serb authorities prior to them taking power.
15 When there was a cease-fire in Croatia, troops from
16 Croatia, that is, JNA forces that had been to the war,
17 particularly the Vukovar battlefield in Croatia and
18 Western Slavonia, marked the directed back to the
19 former Yugoslavia or to, I should say, to either
20 Bosnia-Herzegovina or Serbia through the area of
21 Prijedor. At that time, the then elected authorities
22 in Prijedor, there was one assembly, which we have
23 referred to as for the general elections and its
24 composition. There was also a local committee for
25 national defence. And this --
1 Q. Dr. Greve, all I asked you was a simple
2 question. Could you just describe the scene where the
3 shooting happened. So that we can logically follow it
4 from one to one. We can talk about, you know, how they
5 were armed and who was armed, more or less, and just to
6 see who happened to be on the checkpoint on the evening
7 of 22nd in Hambarine, how did the shooting occur?
8 A. I think the previous question you asked me
9 was, how the Serbs could find themselves in this
10 situation? And that is what I wanted to explain in
11 some detail. But I shall appreciate that you want me
12 to answer in brief. The brief answer is, there was a
13 roadblock. This had been ordered by the local
14 authorities in Prijedor that there would be local
15 roadblocks everywhere. This had been arranged prior to
16 the takeover of power.
17 Subsequent to the Serbs taking power, not
18 every roadblock was closed down immediately. The
19 people, obviously, were not easy with the situation.
20 They were appointed by, ultimately, the authorities
21 based in Sarajevo. Now there were new people in charge
22 in Prijedor, demand a roadblock, which they had been
23 ordered to put up, according to instruction from their
24 then authorities. So it was an ordinary roadblock with
25 a few Muslims. There could have, I would not be able
1 to recount exactly if there were four who manned the
2 roadblock, three, four or five is the number. And
3 there were four or five Serbs coming in a car and they
4 were, as far as I understand, military people and they
5 were carrying arms. And they were asked to stop --
6 this is the way we've been able to re-establish or to
7 establish the facts in retrospect from the statements
8 and from other open sources. And they asked that they
9 stop and hand over their arms and there was a fire
10 exchange between them.
11 Q. In your description of the roadblock, you
12 mentioned it was just an ordinary roadblock with a few
13 Muslims. Were there any other roadblocks, that are not
14 ordinary, that are heavily fortfied, or something like
15 that, you know, could you explain? I don't mean to be
16 disrespectful, but I can't help but note the
17 qualification of a roadblock.
18 A. I think there were many roadblocks prior to
19 the Serbs taking power on the 30th of April, the night
20 of the 30th of April and it had been a disputed issue
21 in the local National Defence Council, for the reason
22 that the non-Serbs did not want to redeploy soldiers
23 who had come back from the battlefield in Croatia.
24 They would want weapons to be laid down and they would
25 not, at that time, as it has been reported, want
1 roadblocks.
2 There are reports of two more roadblocks.
3 The one in Hambarine. I am not suggesting there could
4 not be any others. But in the open sources, there have
5 been references, the Kozarski Vjesnik newspaper
6 articles among them, there are references to three such
7 roadblocks and these are also spoken about. The one in
8 Hambarine I have, perhaps the most information about.
9 There are two more.
10 Q. Which are the two more? Could you enlighten
11 the Court, please?
12 A. If I may refold the map, I will take you to
13 the area of Kozarac, and that is, one is in the Kozarac
14 area, I think it's closer to the Kozarusa, but it's on
15 this side. You have two roads, as you may see, that
16 pass through Kozarac, and it is an old and a new road,
17 but it runs between the two same cities. In west
18 Prijedor, and further on to the east, it's not within
19 the map, it will be Banja Luka.
20 But there was a kind of checkpoint in the
21 Kozarac main area, and there has been mention made of
22 another roadblock. I assume that was a smaller
23 roadblock in the Jakupovici area. As you may see, Your
24 Honours, again, this is an intersection, and Jakupovici
25 is both north and higher up. And it's south and
1 further down, down near Minning, lower, Gornji Minning,
2 upper, so it is somewhere in this area at the
3 intersection. There has been also reference made to a
4 roadblock.
5 But when it comes to the day since this --
6 Q. If I may ask you a little bit more about the
7 roadblocks, and then we will go back to the day. You
8 mentioned that there was a checkpoint established
9 before the power takeover in Prijedor; correct?
10 A. Correct. Excuse me, not one, not "a," but
11 some.
12 Q. Some, including the three that you testified
13 about?
14 A. I'm not able to say that all of these --
15 Q. I'll retract the question. Let's just say on
16 some, okay? Those roadblocks were ordered by the then
17 existing authorities, either of the Prijedor
18 municipality or the state of Bosnia-Herzegovina; is
19 that correct?
20 A. They were ordered by the Prijedor
21 municipality which was part of the state of
22 Bosnia-Herzegovina.
23 Q. Do you know who was the officer of the
24 municipality of Prijedor that ordered those roadblocks?
25 A. I believe it was General Arsic who was the
1 chief commander who was participating in the meeting in
2 the national defence council, the local committee for
3 national defence, which was a unit that existed in
4 every opstina. And it was politicians normally who
5 would participate in this defence council.
6 There were several politicians, as named in
7 my report as well, who participated in this local
8 council. But there was a special situation when the
9 issue of the roadblocks was debated in the defence
10 council or committee. That is, the Muslims who were
11 the majority did not want to have the roadblocks. They
12 did not want to have soldiers returning from the
13 battlefield, most of them being Serbs, redeployed in
14 the area. But they were given what they understood as
15 an ultimatum, told that at least if they wanted this,
16 they could go on a guided tour, and some did, to one or
17 two villages in Croatia, not so far away from Prijedor,
18 but on the Croatian side of the border, which had been
19 razed to the ground in military --
20 MR. VUCICEVIC: Your Honours, if I may
21 interrupt. This might be difficult to follow because
22 Judge Greve, you know, has compiled all this
23 information. If she can break it down into smaller
24 segments, because I did do quite a bit of research on
25 this matter too. And having been in Prijedor on
1 several occasions and walked all those grounds, I might
2 be able to help you with questioning in smaller
3 segments to see this. Because whatever the judge is
4 saying, it's truthful information. However, we are
5 missing certain bits and pieces of the narrative form.
6 JUDGE MAY: I think I would be assisted if
7 this matter could be dealt with more expeditiously. I
8 must ask the witness if you would shorten your answers
9 so that we can follow, and just deal, if you would,
10 with the relevant questions about roadblocks.
11 MR. VUCICEVIC: Absolutely, Your Honour.
12 Q. You said that the Council for National
13 Defence of the Prijedor municipality where Colonel Arsic
14 participated issued an order for the roadblocks; is
15 that correct?
16 A. For redeployment and the erection of
17 roadblocks, yes.
18 Q. At that time, the presiding officer of the
19 Municipal Council for Defence was Mohamed Cehajic;
20 correct? He was a mayor.
21 A. He was the mayor. If he was in the council
22 for national defence, the committee, I don't know.
23 Q. Or do you know, perhaps, Colonel Arsic was
24 president of that council, was he?
25 A. I'm not able to say that. I know he was in
1 this very discussion.
2 Q. So from the sources that you have gathered,
3 is the very import of having Colonel Arsic at that
4 committee, that means those were his wishes that
5 controlled the issuance of the order for the
6 checkpoints? That's according to your sources.
7 A. According to my sources, it was disputed
8 between Serbs on the one side, those who had declared
9 themselves as Serbs on the one side, and people who had
10 not declared themselves as Serbs on the other side.
11 Q. Judge, if I may direct your attention, those
12 three villages that you just testified about, if you
13 look back in your report, those are 95 per cent Muslim
14 villages, and members of these checkpoints, as you
15 testified, the Serbs were killed, the Muslims shot at
16 them. You also testified -- let me just finish. You
17 also testified that from this meeting, while Cehajic was
18 the president, and Arsic was present at the meeting,
19 the orders came. The only thing, if you know, who
20 issued the order?
21 A. The council issued the order. The people
22 follow the order.
23 Q. So that was a lawful government of the
24 Bosnia-Herzegovina through its municipality or from
25 above, issued the orders for checkpoints?
1 A. Correct.
2 Q. And those checkpoints, even after the Serb
3 power takeover in Prijedor, were still manned in three
4 major Muslim areas; isn't that correct? You just
5 testified to that.
6 A. Yes, that is correct.
7 Q. And even though on April 30th, the Serbs have
8 taken a bloodless political coup, have replaced the
9 officers of the municipality, but didn't go out there
10 to attack Muslims of the checkpoints, which still were
11 maintained by Muslims according to the order of the
12 previous authority; isn't that correct?
13 A. That is also correct. They took power in the
14 town of Prijedor initially.
15 Q. So as far as the most noxious things that the
16 Serbs have done in the power takeover, they have played
17 nationalistic songs, they have played the national flag
18 on the municipal building, but they have not cleared
19 the roads which were the obstacle for their free
20 movement if they, indeed, have a power. So the power
21 takeover was symbolic, wasn't it?
22 A. No. May I fill you in on what else happened
23 after they took power? It was explained as if I
24 limited it to nationalistic songs and flags on the
25 building. There was a huge gap, which I shall be
1 pleased, if Your Honours so wish, to explain in detail.
2 JUDGE MAY: Dr. Greve, matters have been put
3 to you, so you should be able to answer --
4 A. Then I disagree. If the question is, whether
5 nationalistic songs and flags only, no. They were much
6 more than that.
7 MR. VUCICEVIC:
8 Q. Let's go back to the checkpoints and we're
9 talking about Hambarine. So it was a military
10 confrontation between the armed Muslim civilians or the
11 members of the army of the Bosnia-Herzegovina? Do you
12 know whether or not a government of Bosnia-Herzegovina
13 in Sarajevo has called up their Territorial Defence
14 shortly after their international recognition?
15 A. This is a disputed issue. As you will see in
16 my report, there is a faxsimile or a reprint of a
17 telefax which was published by certain medias --
18 Q. I know the item that you're referring to.
19 You're referring to the order that was sent to the
20 Ministry of police on April 29. I'm not referring to
21 that one. I'm referring to the fact whether or not the
22 Territorial Defence units, who were controlled under
23 the state government, were called up to the active duty
24 or by the authorities of the Bosnia-Herzegovina soon
25 after the recognition of independence?
1 A. They were already working prior to that, yes,
2 and they were inactive service continued to be.
3 Q. Inactive service, because at that time there
4 was a Yugoslav military; did Yugoslav military control
5 the Territorial Defence or government independence, now
6 state of Bosnia-Herzegovina? Who controlled the
7 Territorial Defence units? Those are plain facts from
8 this -- in these proceedings.
9 A. The authorities in Bosnia-Herzegovina
10 controlled the Territorial Defence as being local units
11 within their country.
12 Q. So when you indicated they were already
13 working, what do you mean? So they were called up and
14 in service?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And that's a result of them being in service
17 called the government of Bosnia-Herzegovina, that they
18 remain in these checkpoints?
19 A. To remain in place, yes. They had not
20 received orders otherwise.
21 Q. So with reference that we talked about
22 before, fire being opened at the JNA members in
23 Sarajevo with the great loss in life, with fire opened
24 on pulling units from Tuzla, and again in Hambarine,
25 military units of government of Bosnia-Herzegovina are
1 opening fire on the units of the Serbian army. That
2 seems like a provocation, a reasonable conclusion. It
3 might be, but a reasonable conclusion?
4 A. That is your statement, yes.
5 Q. If the fact that we had in a previous
6 exhibit, that is, a statement by Major Zeljaja, that
7 the units of the government of Bosnia-Herzegovina did
8 not allow access of the ambulance to take the wounded
9 and sick to the hospital; that wouldn't be reasonable?
10 JUDGE MAY: You know, all this is a matter of
11 comment, really, comment which you can make in
12 submissions to us. It's not assisting us to go into
13 this sort of detail, Mr. Vucicevic. It's not assisting
14 us when you're inviting the witness to make comments on
15 this sort of matter. Can we move on to the next
16 document, please?
17 MR. VUCICEVIC: Your Honour, if I may
18 explain.
19 JUDGE MAY: No, would you move on, please?
20 MR. VUCICEVIC: Your Honour, could I have a
21 minute just to confer with my co-counsel in this,
22 please?
23 JUDGE MAY: Yes, you can.
24 MR. VUCICEVIC: Thank you.
25 JUDGE MAY: But I want you to move on.
1 MR. VUCICEVIC: Yes.
2 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Vucicevic, my permission to
3 have a conference with your co-counsel did not include
4 permission to leave the court, which in some areas
5 would be regarded as discourteous. If you want to
6 confer, would you kindly do that in future.
7 MR. VUCICEVIC: Thank you, Your Honour, for
8 this warning. This is not meant as a discourtesy, just
9 a different understanding.
10 Q. Dr. Greve, I'm directing your attention now
11 to Prosecutor's Exhibit 33. I'd like you to
12 concentrate and read the last paragraph on the page
13 stamped page 284.
14 A. Did you wish that I read it aloud?
15 Q. Yes, please.
16 A. "The cooperation between the civil
17 authorities and the police station were satisfactory
18 during the period of the seizure of authority.
19 Everyone did his job. After the takeover of authority,
20 however, the new people did not understand the real
21 role of the police. The attempt to transform the
22 police into a Council body which would execute orders
23 given by the Council civil authorities was unacceptable
24 and misunderstandings arose. A complete change of
25 staff was demanded, and they were to be replaced by SDS
1 members, irrespective of education and expertise. I
2 think it is best that I leave and the professionals
3 remain untouched. They will always remain
4 professionals in any system and still are even now that
5 SDS is in power. If something was not done correctly,
6 then I should be replaced and not they, because they
7 executed my orders and those from the Chief of the
8 Central Police Headquarters in Banja Luka and the
9 Minister of Interior."
10 Q. So in plain language, the article from the
11 Kozarski Vjesnik which was introduced through your
12 testimony indicates that at that time the living
13 Mr. Drljaca pointed out that him and the minister of
14 police were in charge of police in Prijedor, and he did
15 not allow any of the politicians from the SDS to
16 influence him or control him; isn't that correct?
17 A. He is addressing the issue that the police
18 are being criticised for some of their police
19 activities, and, yes, he's answering in the police
20 activities, yes, they are taking orders from him and
21 from the central police headquarters in Banja Luka.
22 Q. What he is saying, you are basically
23 editorialising this statement, and I think the language
24 is clear.
25 A. Yes, it is.
1 Q. Thank you. At page 283, the late Mr. Drljaca
2 was making a statement, as he called it, "6,000
3 informative talks were held at the gathering centres of
4 Omarska, Keraterm and Trnopolje"?
5 A. That is correct.
6 Q. As brutal as they might have been, they were
7 still police investigations of some kind; is that
8 correct?
9 A. They were, in part, police investigations,
10 yes.
11 Q. And a lot of people survived these detention
12 centres, gathering centres, if you will?
13 A. There were absolutely -- his stating that "A
14 group of 1,503 Muslims and Croats were taken to the
15 camp of Manjaca."
16 Q. But also there was a statement introduced
17 that the International Red Cross evacuated some -- and
18 I'm remembering only, 2,000 inmates from Trnopolje at
19 the end of October, if I'm not mistaken; is that
20 correct?
21 A. That is correct, and the groups that had been
22 taken to -- if I may say so, some people were taken
23 straight from Omarska to Trnopolje. Some had been
24 detained in Trnopolje all the time. And a few had come
25 when released from Manjaca to Trnopolje. So it was
1 three different categories.
2 Q. So people even from Manjaca were released and
3 they were coming to Trnopolje?
4 A. Not to stay in the camp, but on their way, so
5 to speak.
6 Q. So international humanitarian agencies were
7 accepting the refugees from Trnopolje and taking them,
8 being that it was closer to the northwestern route?
9 A. That could have been the reason for it, yes,
10 and sometimes maybe they just --
11 Q. So there were some prisoners that were taken
12 from Omarska to Trnopolje, some that were taken to
13 Manjaca, some prisoners were taken from Manjaca to
14 Trnopolje; all of these are correct?
15 A. I believe that if they stayed for any period
16 of time on their way from Manjaca, they were mainly
17 taken to Karlovac. I won't be able to say, but they
18 were sort of --
19 Q. So we cannot take as the simple arithmetic
20 statement that 6,000 informative talks were held and
21 only 1,503 were transferred to Manjaca. So this does
22 not add that up, that approximately four and a half
23 thousand people were killed; this is not the
24 mathematics intended?
25 A. No, and I think this is elaborated on in my
1 report where I've tried to recollect the numbers taken
2 straight from Omarska to Trnopolje. And the majority
3 were moved from Omarska on the 5th and 6th of August; a
4 limited few, perhaps 100, 150, were taken only on the
5 22nd, 23rd of August, and also then to Trnopolje. So
6 you are right.
7 Q. Directing your attention to Prosecutor's
8 Exhibit 34, you quoted only one sentence from this,
9 maybe, perhaps, two. You read in the third paragraph
10 from the top on the first page, and I'm asking you to
11 read the whole paragraph out loud.
12 A. The first paragraph on the first page?
13 Q. The third paragraph on that page.
14 A. Excuse me, I will read it: "Two years ago,
15 the Serb people sensed instinctively that once again
16 they were faced with the danger from the same villains
17 who in 1941 started the extermination process of the
18 Serbian people and therefore formed their own party.
19 On 2nd August 1991, we in the District of Prijedor have
20 formed the SDS" --
21 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please
22 slow down for the benefit of the interpreters.
23 A. "... said Miskovic. Prior to that we tried
24 hard to reach an agreement with the Muslim and Croatian
25 party" --
1 JUDGE MAY: I'm sorry. Could you slow down,
2 please? The interpreters are complaining.
3 A. Excuse me, Your Honour.
4 MR. VUCICEVIC:
5 Q. Okay, that would be enough. How would you
6 understand this statement when Mr. Miskovic says
7 "Serb people sensed instinctively"? Would you
8 consider him to report based on what he heard from the
9 people, from his own, or him making a political
10 statement a year after the camps had been formed?
11 A. This is --
12 Q. By that time, the inmates of the detention
13 centres had all been transferred. This was, time-wise,
14 really unconnected. Would you see this to be a
15 self-serving statement or he has objectively stated
16 what he felt at the time?
17 A. He is stating what he finds reasonable to
18 state, and he is using the words "sense instinctively."
19 Q. He is telling his feelings of what he -- he
20 is expressing his views that he has correlated through
21 being the people's representative?
22 A. That could well be the case, yes.
23 Q. Thank you. We are now on Exhibit 36 which
24 deals with the international evacuation. You have
25 testified on Prosecution Exhibit 39 that ICRC report
1 dated October 3rd, 1992. Is there anything in this
2 record that indicates that the Serbians are
3 perpetrators of ethnic cleansing which you elaborated
4 in the second paragraph from the bottom on the second
5 page of the report?
6 A. Excuse me, the --
7 Q. The page that was stamped 987, right bottom
8 corner.
9 A. Oh, I was just given another one. I was
10 looking at the wrong one. Excuse me.
11 JUDGE MAY: Have you got Exhibit 39?
12 A. I have just received it. Thank you, Your
13 Honour. And it's page 937?
14 MR. VUCICEVIC:
15 Q. Yes.
16 A. In the second last paragraph, the ICRC is
17 making a general comment on how they conceive that
18 under cover of a policy of ethnic cleansing, tens of
19 thousands of members of minority groups, examples are
20 not given, in areas controlled by "the parties," in the
21 plural, examples not given, were still at the mercy of
22 the repressive measures applied locally in accordance
23 with a discriminatory ideology.
24 Q. So this report, on its face, is neutral. It
25 doesn't blame Muslims, Serbs, or Croats; it just says
1 these events are happening. Correct?
2 A. ICRC is reporting it this way, and what I
3 testified to yesterday was that, as for the area of
4 Prijedor, this is in harmony with how I have described
5 the changes in Prijedor.
6 Q. There was another International Committee of
7 the Red Cross report which I would like to call your
8 attention to. That's the report of International
9 Committee of the Red Cross issued by Cornelis Sommaruga
10 on July 29, 1993, and this one --
11 JUDGE MAY: Exhibit 12.
12 MR. VUCICEVIC: Exhibit 12.
13 I have looked over this end for on the second page and
14 page numbering is on the top of the page, the fourth
15 paragraph from the top, starting with, "Behind this
16 nightmare situation."
17 THE WITNESS: I have found the paragraph,
18 yes.
19 MR. VUCICEVIC:
20 Q. And there is a term "ethnic cleansing"
21 further down the paragraph?
22 A. Correct.
23 Q. At that time, did the world know about the
24 detention centres in Prijedor? This was July 2, 1992.
25 A. To my knowledge, there were representatives
1 of the international community that were aware of it.
2 But the public, as such, were not made aware of it
3 before on the 2nd August, when the newspaper article
4 appeared in an American newspaper.
5 Q. Have you read any reports by the
6 International Red Cross, any statements from the
7 persons who had firsthand knowledge about it?
8 A. No, I have not read statements as ICRC as a
9 matter of policy would not make such reports
10 available. The ICRC will give press releases and
11 public statements, but they will not give any outsider
12 access to any of their files. It's a matter of their
13 basic policy. They think that they cannot do their
14 work if they start sharing information.
15 Q. But, yet, if the evaluation -- the violations
16 of international criminal law by are against Kalor
17 being committed by being silent, it really
18 doesn't help anybody, at least the victim. So if I
19 would assume that a responsible international officer
20 of any organisation being faced with the atrocities of
21 a grand scale as they are alleged that have happened in
22 Prijedor, would react if they had known, just as the
23 reporters reacted once they heard about it. But, yet,
24 this is a neutral on its face. It does not indicate,
25 it doesn't indicate where it's committed by any of the
1 groups, ethnic groups in Bosnia. However -- yes, is it
2 neutral?
3 JUDGE MAY: I think all this is a comment.
4 MR. VUCICEVIC: I'll take that question
5 back.
6 JUDGE MAY: If you'd like to move on.
7 MR. VUCICEVIC: The report on page 3, it's
8 commenting that in Sarajevo, ICRC relief convoy came
9 under deliberate attack. And Frederick Marice
10 died of the injuries that resulted in suspension of
11 ICRC relief efforts. Do you know anything of the
12 circumstances how Mr. Marice was attacked and was
13 injured?
14 A. No, I have read this, yes, and his name has
15 just been made familiar to me. I have no further
16 information. I may, however, add I think it's useful
17 that the fact that the ICRC may not go public on every
18 piece of information they have, may decide not to go
19 public, does not mean that they do not work on
20 something or react on something. ICRC have constant
21 continuing contact with all parties in armed conflict.
22 And I am perfectly sure they were asking access to each
23 and every camp they knew of prior to any information
24 coming out to the outside world.
25 Q. Within the context of the civil war, a relief
1 agency worker or officer is being killed right in the
2 beginning of the war. Wouldn't it be appropriate, at
3 least for the Commission of Experts to look who have
4 committed this act?
5 A. I think that every person who was killed in
6 the conflict in the former Yugoslavia deserved that the
7 Commission of Experts to the extent possible should look
8 at the situation. I think when it comes to the
9 International Red Cross, that was an entity, an agency,
10 international agency, present and able itself to handle
11 this specific case. And as long as they did not
12 explicitly ask us to assist them on that, I am not
13 aware that that was given priority. But, yes, every
14 life and every life was one to much lost in
15 Bosnia-Herzegovina deserved attention.
16 Q. The reason I am inquiring into this, Judge
17 Greve, is civil war is like a brush fire, the very
18 first few shots are important and then later on nobody
19 could even count who is shooting and sometimes very
20 difficult for you to find who are the people that
21 perished. But, yet, is that correct?
22 A. That may be correct. I don't think that it
23 can be made as such a general statement. It may vary.
24 Q. So if a member of the first member of
25 international organisation is being killed in a civil
1 war, it is indeed very important to find who did it and
2 assign the blame. And I was just asking you whether
3 you ever expressed interest to find it?
4 A. I worked wholeheartedly and devoted all my
5 available time to look into the aspects I could of the
6 conflict in the former Yugoslavia as long as I worked
7 with the Commission. But I did try to focus primarily
8 on the events in Prijedor to have some general
9 understanding of the overall situation.
10 Q. I have another question or two to Dr. Greve.
11 In your statement on page, base page 626, and that's
12 Prosecutor's Exhibit No. 10, paragraph 56. And also in
13 the Tadic's testimony on page 765, you have elaborately
14 testified about historical events that impacted the
15 Serbs in the Prijedor area. There you are
16 discussing --
17 A. Excuse me, I was only now given the papers.
18 Q. I am very sorry, I apologise. And I will
19 direct your attention again.
20 A. Thank you.
21 Q. That is page 17 on the top of Exhibit 10.
22 That is your report. And you have paragraph 56. And
23 you have page 765 in the Tadic's transcript, which
24 is --
25 JUDGE MAY: Where is the 765 number, Mr.
1 Vucicevic, in the transcript?
2 MR. VUCICEVIC: 765 on Tadic's transcript.
3 JUDGE MAY: Yes, where is that? Wait a
4 minute, I have it.
5 MR. VUCICEVIC: Starting from the line 1.
6 JUDGE MAY: Yes, I have it.
7 MR. VUCICEVIC: And going for the next two
8 pages -- three pages as a matter of fact.
9 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
10 MR. VUCICEVIC:
11 Q. You don't have to read it, Judge Greve, if
12 you remember the content. I'll ask you some general
13 question because here I have some question concerning
14 the underlying data on which you made those statements
15 and those are fair, subject to, I believe, Your Honour,
16 fair subject to our examination.
17 Where did you get the information for those
18 statements?
19 A. For my statements on Prijedor as such and
20 limited to Prijedor and informations in Prijedor, I
21 had --
22 Q. What I am referring here specifically, you
23 are talking about Chetniks, you are talking about
24 Dragisa Vasic you are talking about Moljevic, you are
25 talking about Drazen Mihajlovic and those are all names
1 on the paragraph 57.
2 A. The quote in paragraph 57 is taken from the
3 book of Noel Malcolm, who wrote, "Bosnia: A Short
4 History." And that's a direct quote from him.
5 Q. Is Mr. Malcolm the only source that you got
6 information on all of these historical figures?
7 A. No, but the, the specific quote which is in
8 paragraph 57 is from that source. I have read general
9 books about World War II. I have not made in depth
10 studies of World War II. It occurred to me as
11 confusing at one point that I got two very different
12 opinions about the meaning of the word "Chetnik". Some
13 thought it was honourable, good, signified something
14 dignified. And others had the opposite point of view.
15 So I thought I should try to understand why it was that
16 so different approaches would be linked to the word
17 "Chetnik".
18 Q. Okay. So you have resolved those questions
19 that you had in your mind about this issue?
20 A. We resolved this, perhaps is not a good
21 word. But I have had some broad understanding to come
22 to appreciate there are good reasons for having good
23 feelings, honourable remarks linked to some of the
24 Chetnik movements. And I have come to understand that
25 some other Chetnik movements have not given reason to
1 respect. And I have come to know that a number have
2 been disputed. And I believe the role of Drazen
3 Mihajlovic, General Drazen Mihajlovic is disputed. I
4 know that in Jajce in 1943 the parties have decided to
5 break away from him. Churchhill did the same quite
6 later, so that the Americans, and he was executed after
7 World War II, for his work during World War II, but it
8 was disputed.
9 Q. Was there a trial of General Mihajlovic?
10 A. If it was a court marshal, I shall not say, I
11 know that he was taken and it was definitely disputed.
12 Q. Your Honour, I am presenting the Defence
13 Exhibit 2 and 3 that are going to controvert the
14 underlying facts about which the witness has testified
15 now.
16 JUDGE MAY: Is this about events fifteen and
17 more years ago?
18 MR. VUCICEVIC: Your Honour, they are going
19 about the facts that she has just testified. And if
20 the witness had introduced the facts in three pages of
21 her, Tadic's testimony, which are part, which are now
22 part of the evidence in this court, and the witness has
23 in her statement has introduced a page of her statement
24 and report, we are going to rebut the underlying
25 statements upon which the opinion of this witness is
1 being rendered.
2 JUDGE MAY: How is this going to assist us,
3 Mr. Vucicevic? It may be that the witness has made
4 these comments, but what assistance is it to us dealing
5 with events in the early 1990s to know about events in
6 the 1940s? How is it relevant to your case?
7 MR. VUCICEVIC: Your Honour --
8 JUDGE MAY: How are you going to connect it
9 up? What's the point?
10 MR. VUCICEVIC: That goes as my assistant
11 just, Judge, Vann has suggested it goes to the
12 credibility of the Prosecutor case. They injected this
13 testimony on this case. They have brought it in.
14 They have testified about the role of Chetniks in
15 extermination by Jasenovac. They were talking about
16 the Serbs being involved with it. They are painting
17 a war with a broad brush to make it even and that's
18 basically what we are challenging. We are challenging
19 the underlying premise, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE MAY: I am not going to stop you
21 putting this evidence in because it's quite right that
22 the Prosecution, as it were, started it by introducing
23 this sort of evidence. Therefore, it's only fair that
24 you have the opportunity to deal with it. But I must
25 tell you that as far as the Trial Chamber is concerned,
1 we are anxious to preserve the rules of relevance and
2 we shall apply them ourselves.
3 Now, if you would like as rapidly as possible
4 to deal with this, we shall not be paying a great
5 attention, as I said, to this sort of evidence as
6 produced by the Prosecution.
7 MR. VUCICEVIC: This is Exhibit 2 and this is
8 Exhibit 3.
9 Q. Dr. Greve, this is a reprint from Time
10 magazine, are you familiar with this magazine?
11 A. In general, yes.
12 Q. Yes. And I am directing your attention to
13 the date of publication of this magazine. May 25,
14 1942.
15 JUDGE MAY: Just one moment.
16 MR. VUCICEVIC: Yes, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE MAY: Yes, if you'd like to go on.
18 MR. VUCICEVIC:
19 Q. And if you read it, I am going to ask you the
20 question.
21 A. Excuse me, I did not read it just like that.
22 But if you want me to do that before you ask me
23 questions?
24 Q. I will direct you to -- will you just read on
25 the page 23, the last paragraph there.
1 A. The last paragraph --
2 Q. The Nazi press. Next to this long map.
3 A. The paragraph reads, "The Nazi press has
4 revealed Mihajlovic's army as rebels, Jews and
5 communists. Unquestionably, they are rebels.
6 Unquestionably, some are Jews, some are Marxist,
7 communists of one shade or another. Many more are
8 probably are Balkan and communists which usually means
9 Partisans of the country as against -- of the country
10 as against the city. The farmer as against the
11 businessman. These people in general have, Slavic,
12 pro-Russian terrorist or Stalinist leanings. The
13 United Nations press has often referred to Mihajlovic's
14 forces as Chetniks. The name of a Serb patriotic
15 body, which long fought humanists within the wars
16 against Serbia's suppressors. Many are Chetniks or
17 their descendants, but Mihajlovic's army is best
18 described as the patriotic Balkan force with a majority
19 of Serbs built around a large nucleus of trained
20 Yugoslav troops."
21 Q. That will be enough. So if we are going to
22 take into consideration articles in the press or the
23 comments by the historians subsequently who were not
24 witnessing the current events, it seems we can place at
25 least the same, if not undoubtedly, much more reliability
1 on the article published in the Time magazine at the
2 time, at the height of the war. And Mihajlovic and his
3 forces, Chetniks, were considered allies, fighters
4 against Nazis by the Nazi press and by allied press.
5 Is that fair to conclude from this article?
6 A. In 1942, that is correct.
7 Q. Yes. And then, now, I would like before I go
8 here, I would like to ask you why was General
9 Mihajlovic executed and who executed him? Which
10 government and for what?
11 A. I am not able to tell you the precise
12 whereabouts. It is my understanding that those who
13 came to power after the war had ended quickly executed
14 him.
15 Q. Okay. If I were to remind you that he was
16 executed as collaborator with the Nazis, would it jog
17 your memory?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. So he was executed as a collaborator as the
20 Nazis, would you agree with me?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. I would like you now to take a look at the
23 Defence Exhibit No. 3, entitled, "Truman's Statement."
24 And you can read the whole article for yourself. When
25 you get to the Backstein (phoen) statement, I would
1 appreciate it if you can read it out loud.
2 A. I'll read this as a statement which is giving
3 an honour to Drazen Mihajlovic, posthumous honour to him,
4 expressed by a group of Balkan aviators whom he had
5 rescued during the war. And in 1946 decided his
6 disrecognition of his services to the allied course.
7 Q. And title of the article is?
8 A. The award Truman statement, the award of the
9 Legion of Merit to General Dragn Jub Mihajlovic.
10 Q. And I hope that my learned counsel on the
11 other side, being very much familiar with the military
12 decorations will stipulate that this is the highest
13 American decoration that could be given to a foreign
14 officer, isn't that correct?
15 MS. HOLLIS: I would have to do research on
16 that, I am afraid.
17 MR. VUCICEVIC: How about a hypothetical?
18 Q. Judge Greve, will you please read the
19 statement, basically a statement for which General
20 Mihajlovic has received the highest United States
21 military decoration?
22 A. The citation accompanying the award signed by
23 President Truman reads as follows: "General Dragoljub
24 Mihajlovic distinguished himself in an outstanding
25 manner as Commander in Chief of the Yugoslav Army
1 Forces and later as Minister of War by organising and
2 leading important resistance forces against the enemy
3 which occupied Yugoslavia from December 1941 to
4 December 1944. Through the undaunted efforts of his
5 troops, many United States airmen were rescued and
6 returned safely to friendly control. General
7 Mihajlovic and his forces, although lacking adequate
8 supplies and fighting under extreme hardships,
9 contributed materially to the allied course and were
10 instrumental in obtaining a final allied victory."
11 Q. Thank you. The date of this decoration was
12 March 29, 1948; that's correct?
13 A. That's correct.
14 Q. Thank you, Judge Greve. I have no more
15 questions.
16 JUDGE MAY: Do you have any re-examination,
17 Ms. Hollis, because I'm looking at the clock, and it's
18 about time that we adjourn. But, no doubt, if you had
19 a few minutes of re-examination, we could deal with it,
20 otherwise we must sit again tomorrow.
21 MS. HOLLIS: I do have a few questions, Your
22 Honour, but very few.
23 JUDGE MAY: Very well, if we can deal with it
24 in five minutes, please.
25 MS. HOLLIS: Thank you, Your Honour.
1 Re-examined by Ms. Hollis:
2 Q. If we could ask that Prosecution Exhibit 34
3 be supplied again to the witness, that is an article of
4 the third anniversary of the Serbian Democratic Party?
5 A. I have that.
6 Q. Defence counsel directed your attention to
7 the third paragraph beginning, "Two years ago the
8 Serbian people sensed instinctively," and it goes on
9 from there. In that connection, Defence counsel asked
10 you about the existence of camps. Now, if you would
11 look at the date of that article, please, what is the
12 date of the article?
13 A. It's 1993.
14 Q. And that is August of 1993?
15 A. That is correct.
16 Q. So two years prior would have been August of
17 1991?
18 A. That is correct.
19 Q. Had the Serbs taken over power in Prijedor at
20 that time?
21 A. No, they had not.
22 Q. Had there been any of the incidents referred
23 to at Hambarine, any of the checkpoints you discussed
24 established at that point?
25 A. There had not. But if I may, I wonder if
1 there is not some kind of a mistake written in this,
2 because it's on the occasion of the third anniversary,
3 and it's 1993. Then it's referring to the 2nd of
4 August, 1991 when they had already participated in
5 elections. So I assume it's mistaken for 1990.
6 Q. So in 1990 instead of 1991?
7 A. I think that is correct, since it's referring
8 to the third anniversary, and they did participate in
9 the election in 1990.
10 Q. So almost three years before the takeover of
11 Prijedor and the subsequent events; is that your
12 understanding?
13 MR. VUCICEVIC: Objection, Your Honour. Even
14 if that version is correct, it only says "Two years
15 ago."
16 JUDGE MAY: Yes, I agree.
17 MS. HOLLIS:
18 Q. If I could ask you to look at Prosecution
19 Exhibit 30, please? When Defence counsel was
20 questioning you about this article with now Colonel
21 Radmilo Zeljaja, he asked you if Colonel Zeljaja had
22 been the commander of the 343rd Motorised Brigade; do
23 you recall that question?
24 A. I do.
25 Q. Would you please look at the third page of
1 the article, and you see the caption "General Talic's
2 wisdom"?
3 A. I do.
4 Q. Would you look at the paragraph above that,
5 and if you look at the second line beginning with the
6 words "Especially Colonel Arsic"?
7 A. Paragraph?
8 Q. Above "General Talic's wisdom" beginning with
9 "I repeat"?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. If you look at the second line of that
12 paragraph beginning with the language "Especially
13 Colonel Arsic"?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And what follows as to what Colonel Arsic's
16 position was?
17 A. "At that time he was the Commander of the
18 brigade and I was the Chief of Staff."
19 Q. So that we can be clear on it, at several
20 times, Defence counsel asked you whether you had talked
21 with Serbs in Republika Srpska or in the Prijedor area
22 when you were in the course of writing your report and
23 doing your analysis. You had indicated that you were
24 denied access to the area. Were you allowed to receive
25 any documents or have any interviews set up with Serbs
1 in that area?
2 A. I did not specifically ask for a special
3 structure to make interviews in Prijedor. I asked to
4 be able to go there. I sought people from that area
5 with whom I could speak, but that was not possible.
6 That is to say, there are some mixed families with
7 people, people who have been married or are married to
8 Serbs and have left the area.
9 Q. So that you made unsuccessful efforts to
10 obtain that type of information?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Concerning Mr. Raskovic, the Krajina SDS
13 leader, Defence counsel asked you what you had knew
14 about him, and you indicated you had done some reading
15 in articles about him. Based on your reading, were you
16 able to learn anything about the type of views that he
17 espoused?
18 A. He espoused, to use the word of the Defence
19 counsel, some of the biased nationalistic language.
20 Q. What do you mean by that?
21 A. I would say that he was using to divide
22 between two different kinds of nationalistic views --
23 MR. VUCICEVIC: Your Honour, I'm misquoted
24 here. I was trying to basically, at that time, have
25 the witness agree whether there was good nationalism
1 and bad nationalism, but that line of questioning was
2 abandoned. We really have not qualified through this
3 witness at all Mr. Raskovic, whom I know very well.
4 MS. HOLLIS: It's my recollection that, in
5 fact, Defence counsel did ask what she knew about him
6 or had read about him. I'm simply following up on
7 that. I will continue, Your Honour.
8 Your Honour, at the break I asked that
9 several pages of Defence Exhibit 1 be reproduced. Was
10 that done? Thank you. If that book could be returned
11 to the Defence, please, with my thanks for allowing me
12 to review it.
13 Q. Dr. Greve, Defence counsel showed you Defence
14 Exhibit 1 and asked you to read from a certain page,
15 and that was page 283, where they were discussing the
16 author's view about Western support for Croatia; do you
17 recall that?
18 A. I recall that. I was asked to read that,
19 yes.
20 Q. Defence counsel also posed to you several
21 questions asking you whether certain events might lead
22 the Prijedor Serbs to be apprehensive or worried about
23 what would happen to them in the future?
24 A. I recall that.
25 Q. That was in the context of actions they may
1 have taken during the time period of your analysis?
2 A. I recall that.
3 Q. If I could at this time, I would ask that
4 Defence Exhibit 1 for identification be provided to the
5 witness?
6 MR. VUCICEVIC: The book?
7 MS. HOLLIS: Please.
8 Q. I would ask that you please turn to page 281
9 of that book. On that page, if you would go
10 approximately one-third of the way down that book where
11 you see the line beginning "Croatia, the Croatian
12 government and Croats"; do you see that line?
13 A. I do.
14 Q. Would you please go down and begin with the
15 end of that line, the word "and," read down to the next
16 line, and see "At the secondary level"; do you see that
17 language?
18 A. "And in Bosnia-Herzegovina"?
19 Q. Just to yourself read to the end of that
20 statement, it goes down to the next line, and then on
21 the next line there is a sentence beginning, "At the
22 secondary level"; do you see that?
23 MS. HOLLIS: Your Honour, if I would be
24 allowed to assist the witness, I could highlight it --
25 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
1 MS. HOLLIS: -- and then the Defence could be
2 provided back their copy.
3 Q. If you would please look at the highlighted
4 portion there, could you please read that highlighted
5 portion?
6 A. "At the secondary level, the Serbian
7 government promoted a greater Serbia by helping Bosnian
8 and Croatian Serbs and the Croatian government aspire
9 to greater Croatia and supported the Bosnian Croats."
10 Q. Thank you. During the Defence
11 cross-examination, you were asked about various sources
12 and whether you considered them reliable or not
13 reliable. I would ask you, in the analysis and report
14 that you did, were you trying to determine reliability
15 or overall consistency or inconsistency?
16 A. I was trying to determine overall
17 consistency.
18 MS. HOLLIS: No further questions, Your
19 Honour. Thank you.
20 JUDGE MAY: Is there any objection to the
21 witness being released?
22 MR. VUCICEVIC: No, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE MAY: I take it not. In fact,
24 throughout this trial, we have assumed that the
25 witnesses can be releaseed, unless there's objection
1 from either side.
2 Judge Greve, thank you for coming, indeed.
3 You are released.
4 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE MAY: We will adjourn now until
6 tomorrow morning.
7 --- Whereupon hearing adjourned at
8 5.27 p.m. to be reconvened on Wednesday,
9 the 8th day of July, 1998 at 9.30 a.m.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25