1 Tuesday, 4 November 2008
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.29 p.m.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good afternoon to everybody in and around the
8 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good afternoon to
10 everyone in and around the courtroom. This is case number IT-04-81-T,
11 The Prosecutor versus Momcilo Perisic.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, very much.
13 Could we have appearances starting with the Prosecution.
14 MR. SAXON: Good afternoon Mr. President, good afternoon, Your
15 Honours. Dan Saxon for the Prosecution together with my colleagues
16 Ann Sutherland and Ms. Carmela Javier.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much and for the Defence.
18 MR. GUY-SMITH: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Appearing on
19 behalf of the Defence today are Daniela Tasic, Chad Mair, Milos Androvic,
20 Eaoadin O'Brien, Tina Drolec, Novak Lukic and I'm Gregor Guy-Smith.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
22 Madam Sutherland.
23 MS. SUTHERLAND: Good afternoon, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good afternoon.
25 MS. SUTHERLAND: The response in relation to the objection that
1 was raised by the Defence yesterday at page 937 of the transcript lines 9
2 to 12
3 going to interpreted by the witness. And that's not the case, Your
4 Honour. Mr. Treanor said in his evidence at page 938 that he doesn't use
5 the translations. He uses the original documents. And so there's no
6 basis for the objection, in our view.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Guy-Smith.
8 MR. GUY-SMITH: Well, I think it the situation that we're in at
9 the present moment presents a number of distinct issues, the first one
10 being that we all have been supplied an English translation either
11 official or unofficial of a document that is originally in B/C/S. And to
12 the extent that we all are relying on that document with regard to the
13 examination that is occurring here, the fact that we have documents that
14 are not officially translated creates one distinct problem; and I was
15 fortunate enough after yesterday's session to receive from the registrar
16 what I would call a practice directive with regard to the issue of draft
17 translations, and I think that with regard to all documents that are
18 alluded to in Mr. Treanor's report that are not official translations at
19 this time we would suggest, that as to those documents, they be marked
20 for identification, pending a final official translation.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let me try to highlight what is a problem for the
23 What is a problem for the Bench, Madam Sutherland, is that, first
24 of all, we have a translation that is not an official CLSS translation.
25 Secondly, we have the witness saying he is not relying on that
1 translation because he has got a very good working knowledge of B/C/S.
2 He is looking at the original document. And he doesn't rely on the
3 translations because these translations at times have inaccuracies.
4 The problem here is that the Defence is relying on the English
5 version, which is he is not using, which the witness is not using and the
6 Defence and the Bench doesn't know whether they are inaccuracies in this
7 particular English translation or not.
8 Now, to the extent that the witness comments on the B/C/S version
9 and not on that English translation, to that extent, is -- you see, all
10 along with us who don't know B/C/S, and there is no way of checking
11 whether what he is telling is what we have before us in the English.
12 That is my problem. And how do we finally -- because finally when we
13 write the judgement we're not going look at the B/C/S because we don't
14 know B/C/S. We're going to look at this English translation, which he is
15 not using.
16 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, you -- you say there is no way of
17 checking whether what he is telling is what we have before us in the
18 English translation.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes.
20 MS. SUTHERLAND: You can see from -- from reading the transcript
21 as to what Mr. Treanor says and what the English translation says. And
22 there may or may not be differences between those two.
23 But the Prosecution has no problem in marking the documents,
24 as -- as the Defence have suggested that any documents that are referred
25 to in Mr. Treanor's report get marked for MFI until we have an official
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: You see, if the -- the fact that the Defence is
3 saying they will be marked for MFI is one matter. But the Bench has a
4 fundamental problem here, whether or not, finally, that piece of evidence
5 is going -- those documents are going to be admitted is what -- what
6 worries us because we don't know whether that translation is correct or
7 not correct, and we don't know whether the comments that the witness made
8 are made on that English translation with its nuances and idiom or is it
9 making them on the nuance and the idiom of the B/C/S, we really don't
11 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, Mr. Treanor has said he is
12 expressing facts and his opinions based on the B/C/S document. Now, if
13 we mark all the documents that are cited in his report for identification
14 and get an official CLSS translation, then I don't -- I don't see -- I
15 don't see the issue. If Mr. Treanor still testifies to the documents, as
16 he has read them, he doesn't rely on the translations, and so then what
17 you have in evidence at the end of the day is the official translation.
18 So he is not basing any of his opinions on a draft translation or a final
19 translation because he reads the language, and he has done for 35 years.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Are you undertaking to go give us an official
21 translation at some stage.
22 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes, yes, Your Honour. That's what -- what the
23 Defence proposed and we agreed with that he we would marked for
24 identification the documents that are referred to his report and get an
25 official translation.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Indiscernible] Mr. Guy-Smith, and to the extent
2 that the cross-examination and the questions by the Judges may be
3 misguided by the English translation is of no concern.
4 MS. SUTHERLAND: That is of concern, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: And we working now here on this English version --
6 the cross-examination and the questions by the Judges can only be based
7 on the English version, which he is not going by.
8 MS. SUTHERLAND: Could Your Honour just give me a moment, please.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay, while you take the moment, Mr. Guy-Smith.
10 MR. GUY-SMITH: Yes, after I made my introductory remarks with
11 regard to the first issue I was going to proceed to what my underlying
12 concern was, and I would say based upon the colloque that just occurred
13 between you and Madam Sutherland, that's correct, which is that both my
14 cross-examination of this witness; and any questions that the Chamber may
15 pose to this witness may be misguided by the English translation, and it
16 is of great concern to me at this time.
17 And I think that it is of some importance that we recognise that,
18 in fact, the witness has testified, and I refer the Chamber to -- and
19 counsel to page 913 and 914 of yesterday's session, page 913 starting at
20 line 25, when he was discussing the categories and the methodology that
21 he used, he says:
22 "When I'm asked to produce a report, I go into my collection of
23 summaries and notes on documents most of which are embodied in a CaseMap
24 format. I put many documents in there myself and others put under my
25 direction, so I have all that available to me when dealing with a
1 specific request for a report."
2 As I understand what this means and I may be wrong but what I
3 understand that that means is the gentleman who reads the original
4 language then makes summaries and notes, and I don't know if those
5 summaries and notes are made in English or in the original language.
6 That's information that we do not have. That would be, I submit to the
7 Chamber, information that would be the working notes of an expert by
8 which we could all understand the methodology and the analysis and the
9 interpretation the expert made, and that information is the information
10 upon which he relies and apparently the information upon which he relied
11 in drafting this report.
12 So we are in fact, unfortunately, even a further step removed
13 from having an understanding of the actual source information that was
14 used by this gentleman in making his report. Not only do we have the
15 specific difficulty that the Chamber has raised but we have a secondary
16 difficulty, which is that the working notes that exist for the purposes
17 of creating this report upon request, are not within the possession of
18 either the Chamber or the Defence, which constitutes, I think, not only a
19 potential secondary translation problem but also constitutes a problem
20 with regard to access of appropriate information so that the proper
21 preparation that would go into the examination of an expert can be made
22 and considering that methodologies that is a question that has been
23 raised here already and is obviously a question that is of some concern,
24 we are, once again -- or not once again we are, in another fashion
25 foreclosed from really being in a position to appropriately cross-examine
1 or pose questions to this witness that are in fact not misguided but,
2 rather, are questions that deal directly with the materials that he
3 relied upon and which form the basis of his report.
4 So I'm concerned -- I'm concerned about both the issue that --
5 that you have raised specifically with regard to the fact that we're not,
6 quite frankly, living on the same plain in terms of this particular
7 witness. We're relying on different information, in order to reach an
8 understanding of a particular and focussed fact or interpretation of
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 MR. GUY-SMITH: And as a ...
12 [Trial Chamber confers]
13 MR. GUY-SMITH: And if I might, if one were dealing with, for
14 example, examination of an expert with regard to ballistics and had in
15 one's possession the report of such an expert, it would be expected that
16 the underlying information upon which that expert relied, in order to
17 form the basis of his or her report, would be supplied to those parties
18 who are either in an adversarial position or in a fact-finding position,
19 as the Tribunal, for purposes of being able to objectively and
20 intelligently address the areas that are contained in the report.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Guy-Smith, is that what is normally done or
22 that underlying information is it not footnoted but invariably it's in a
23 language that everyone can understand and you can go and read it there,
24 but it is not necessarily supplied to you.
25 MR. GUY-SMITH: Well, I think both of those situations have
1 occurred when dealing with someone -- an expert's working notes, and here
2 the working notes are the summaries -- are the summaries as he has
3 discussed it his collection of summaries and notes. It would be
4 something that would be supplied. Because he is -- he is -- he is
5 potentially in a -- interpretive area based upon, if we can for the
6 moment, value-neutral information. And part of the reason that this
7 becomes of some importance or of great importance for an examiner is so
8 that we can make a determination as to whether or not the methodology
9 that was -- that was used can produce the result in a similar fashion.
10 It's kind of a fundamental scientific concept.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yeah. But you're going too far to.
12 MR. GUY-SMITH: [Overlapping speakers] ...
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: My question is the underlying information on which
14 an expert relies to give his report is usually not in supplied, and it is
15 generally just footnoted and it gives references to his sources; and it's
16 up to the reader to then consult those sources to see whether the
17 methodology that is being used in the report is what other experts in the
18 field do use.
19 MR. GUY-SMITH: Yes.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Or are you saying that in this Tribunal here, even
21 those underlying documents are disclosed to the Defence.
22 MR. GUY-SMITH: I'm saying specifically in response to your first
23 question, yes, those documents that are footnoted become available to me
24 for purposes of examination to do precisely what you said. In
25 addition --
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: But are they availed by the person who called the
3 MR. HARMON:
4 MR. GUY-SMITH: That's -- in addition, at this Tribunal, because
5 that's the one question you've asked that I can be very specific about,
6 and it's a matter that actually I had some discussion with the
7 Prosecution today; in this Tribunal, I have not received the working
8 notes of an expert because they were destroyed. But, had they not been
9 destroyed, those working notes would have been supplied to us with regard
10 to that particular expert's report.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: I was having a problem with --
12 MR. GUY-SMITH: Sorry.
13 So the direct answer to your question is, no I have not received
14 that information. The explanation for why I had not received that
15 information in a particular case in this Tribunal was because the
16 information we were seeking had been destroyed.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: You're talking about a particular case. Is it
18 practice in this Tribunal that the underlying documents have been availed
19 to --
20 MR. GUY-SMITH: I don't believe I can answer the question
21 intelligently . I can answer the question anecdotally, and the anecdotal
22 information I can give you is that I have been informed by my opponents
23 and colleagues that they have not been in the practice of giving out this
24 information, but then again I don't know whether or not the information
25 was sought by the Defence or not.
1 Your Honour, so I can't answer the question in -- in that
2 particular fashion or in a fashion that is satisfactory to the Chamber.
3 I'm more than happy to go and do the research to find out whether or not
4 Defence counsel has asked for the underlying information and has been
5 accepted or denied. That I can't answer. I really can't. I don't have
6 the answer to that particular question. And I if did, I would give it to
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE DAVID: Mr. Treanor, I would like to request from you an
10 account of your own experiences with the previous report you had
11 submitted in this Tribunal in other instances, as to the way you
12 structured the report and the notes and whatever elements you want to
13 give to the Chamber. We have been discussing here the sources, you know,
14 the availability of the sources, the notes, the availability of the
15 notes, by which you prepared a report and so on.
16 We would like to get from you reflections on the way you had the
17 structure of this report and so to help the Chamber to decide the issue.
18 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour.
19 The previous reports that I submitted were written before we had
20 CaseMap available to us in this institution. Therefore, the procedure
21 that I adopted was to work directly from the documents in writing the
22 report, the quote/unquote report, whichever one it was, usual grew, took
23 shape over the course of years. The information embodied in new
24 documents is -- new documents as they were looked at were gradually
25 integrated into an analytical product without intervening notes since we
1 had the documents available, and I would mark up, highlight, that sort of
2 thing, in the documents, which is, if I may say a different procedure
3 than the one I was familiar with going back to my days as a student 30,
4 35 years ago where one took notes from documents. There would be the
5 document in an archive, and you would go to the archive take notes, or
6 the library, take notes, return to your desk and write up your analytical
7 product on the basis of your notes. People have written books about how
8 to take notes so that was an integral part of that methodology.
9 There got to be a point in time where photocopies got to be cheap
10 enough that even students could afford photocopies, so sometimes you were
11 actually able to get a copy of the document, that particular important
12 document. But that is not the methodology I used here. As I said, I
13 worked directly from the documents, and the documents are available of
14 course on Zy. And so that was the way those reports were written. There
15 weren't any meaningful notes. There was a -- a draft, I suppose you call
16 it that grew over the years, and when a report was requested, then that
17 draft would be finalised for the purposes of the given report.
18 Now, since we have CaseMap, which is a tool we -- within OTP at
19 least have been encouraged to use. It is possible to return, if you
20 will, to making notes but much more sophisticated notes than was possible
21 within the old days because it a database you can use it to search and
22 sort and filter, and you can make links to the documents, so you can go
23 directly from your notes to the document and have hard copy.
24 So rather than continue putting things into an expanding draft of
25 a report that may never be asked for or who know what is the topic of the
1 report will be asked for is, I proceeded to put things into -- things
2 being documents, in CaseMap; and that's where they reside.
3 My general practice is to, or frequent practice, is to attempt to
4 locate a translation of the document and if it's a short document, simply
5 cut and paste the whole thing into the CaseMap. If it is a longer
6 portion, I will select certain portions and cut and paste those into the
7 CaseMap and perhaps summarize them. If they are translations, because
8 some of the documents are in English, I go through those, read through
9 them the first time around and spot any areas where I think there may be
10 problems with the translation and again look at the document because I
11 have it available to me in order to make my notes, if you will, and
12 CaseMap is accurate as possible.
13 JUDGE DAVID: Thank you very much.
14 THE WITNESS: When it comes to producing a report, Your Honour, I
15 would then, if necessary, go back to the original documents and if I'm
16 going to quote any particular portion go back to the original document
17 and look at what the original says and not rely on my notes in that
19 JUDGE DAVID: Thank you very much.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Sutherland, given your concession that it is
21 of concern, if -- it is of concern if the cross-examination and the
22 questioned by the Bench would be misguided because we would be relying on
23 a version that it is not used by the witness what then do you then
24 suggest as a way forward.
25 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, if I may just clarify.
1 I said a moment ago that the Prosecution agreed that the
2 documents that were cited in Mr. Treanor's report could be MFI and then
3 we would be producing an official translation. I misunderstood the
4 conversation, the agreement that was -- had before we entered court this
5 afternoon and that is that we would have the documents MFI and only ask
6 for an official translation if there were any problems raised by the
7 Defence or any -- any other issues and not that we would be submitting an
8 official translation of every single document that is cited in the
9 report. And I think that -- that the parties, both the Defence,
10 Prosecution and Bench, have to work on the translation that we have
11 because of the problems that have been discussed before and at the
12 pre-trial -- the trial management conference.
13 And subsequent to the trial management conversation there were
14 instructions actually from the Chamber in regard to the translation of
15 documents. And if I can read that to you, Your Honour, it said that:
16 "If the tendering party provides a draft translation of a
17 document which has not been officially translated by CLSS, the Chamber
18 allows the use of such a translation in Court provided that is promised
19 that an official translation will be given at a later stage if all
20 parties are in agreement with the correctness of the draft translation,
21 the Chamber may consider the draft translation as the final."
22 And so unless any issues arise, the Prosecution submits that we
23 should be able to have admitted into evidence the draft translation.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: I understand that. You haven't answered the
25 concern I raised with you. The concern I raised with you is that
1 notwithstanding what is written there and that is something suggested
2 that could be used, it was suggested by registry. You will see it is not
3 in the guidelines. It is a separate document. It's not in the
4 guidelines generated by the Chamber, the lacuna in that is that here
5 parties are not agreed about the translation, the witness says he is not
6 relying on that translation, the Defence and the Bench are going to rely
7 on that translation which the witness is not using because is he looking
8 at the original document and coming in with his own translation and
9 giving us his opinions based on that; and the underlying danger is that
10 most of the time we will be talking at cross-purposes, we will not be on
11 the same page as the witness.
12 My question is: How is that time being put to good use if there
13 is the danger that, in fact, this witness might be recalled later when
14 once we've got the correct translation, and he maybe have to be
15 cross-examined again.
16 MS. SUTHERLAND: But that's the point, Your Honour, until
17 something's identified as being incorrect, the -- the parties have to
18 assume that the draft translation is sufficient. And we have -- we know
19 of nothing at the moment in relation to the -- the two documents that
20 have been used by Mr. Treanor yesterday, the Defence haven't identified
21 translation errors.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes. But you note, I said to you earlier we're
23 not working from the same page. The witness is working from a B/C/S
24 version, which he interprets the way he does, which is not necessarily
25 the way it is interpreted on the translation; and the translation is
1 going to be the basis of the questions by the Defence and the Bench.
2 This is my problem, that here and now, we are -- not going to be
3 on the same page as we speak to the witness.
4 MS. SUTHERLAND: Well, the Defence -- the Defence can obviously
5 cross-examine Dr. Treanor on why he may or may not agree with the
6 translation. But if there is an material problem, a problem with the
7 translation going to a material issue, then it's at that point that we
8 would seek to have a final translation, an official CLSS translation.
9 And there would be no further examination on that document and the
10 witness can be recalled. As you know, it's -- Mr. Treanor is within the
11 building. It's not an inconvenience to have him recalled, if there
12 are -- if there are problems with translations.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let's not conflate two different issues. An
14 official CLSS translation is going to be required that is for sure now.
15 Because even based on that guideline you read, that, this draft
16 translation will become final if the two parties were ad idem about it.
17 You are not, hence, this objection that we are having.
18 So where -- in a situation where the parties are not agreed, then
19 it's got, you have to get that CLSS -- let me find out from
20 Mr. Guy-Smith. You heard what your colleague has said, if you can just
21 limit yourself to what she said now.
22 How do you want to resolve this issue?
23 MR. GUY-SMITH: I'm not sure. I have been thinking about it all
24 night, Your Honour, and trying to figure out a way of resolving the issue
25 and moving forward.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: As I see it we can either MFI and come back later
2 with an official translation and then can you check whether you did
3 things correctly or were you misled by the translation you were using; or
4 if you feel that your cross-examination may not be as intelligent as it
5 ought to be if you're not on the same page with the witness that is
6 another option. You can suggest what you think should be done in that
7 situation. Or you may agree with translation and then it's taken as
9 Those are the three options as I see them.
10 MR. GUY-SMITH: I think that takes care of one of the -- one of
11 the issues that has been presented to us. But I -- I share the same
12 discomfort that's been voiced, that since he is operating -- and when I
13 say this I mean no disrespect to him whatsoever he is operating in his
14 own isolated universe with regard to how he is calling information and
15 translating information. I have no way at the present time of knowing
16 whether or not I am on the same page irrespective of the accuracy of the
17 English translation that I have, which is why I had the one thought I had
18 come up with, was that we be supplied with the information that he
19 indicated that he used on page 913 and 914 of yesterday's transcript; and
20 perhaps armed with that information, I would be in a position to be on
21 the same page as the witness. I would know what he's basing his report
22 on. That's what I come up with as a potential solution, a solution to an
23 intelligent cross-examination, and intelligently dealing with the issue.
24 I don't know whether or not that is of assistance.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: It is not.
1 MR. GUY-SMITH: Okay.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's the problem you postulated. At the moment,
3 I'm asking you to make a submission as to how this impasse should be
4 resolved. Do you want -- what do you want? Do you want to carry on with
5 this witness and see how the situation can be remedied at a later stage;
6 do you want this witness to be called when you are -- have you been given
7 what you think you're entitled to?
8 MR. GUY-SMITH: I -- my general tendency would be the latter, to
9 have a witness called when I have been given what I'm entitled to; but
10 could I take a moment to confer with counsel.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Please do.
12 MR. GUY-SMITH: Thank you.
13 THE WITNESS: Perhaps I could say something in the interval, Your
14 Honour. I may be able to suggest a way forward.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Actually, we're in the way of resolving the
16 objection. Usually during that time, the witness is asked to remain out
17 of it. But yes you were asked to say something by the Judge earlier,
18 because he wanted to get something from you. Really, at this stage, you
19 are supposed to be out of it, until a ruling is made.
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 [Defence counsel confer]
22 [Prosecution counsel confer]
23 MR. GUY-SMITH: I want to tread very carefully here, because I
24 think it is of relatively major importance to my client.
25 I'm looking at page 16 and specifically at lines 16 through 23,
1 which is where I think I -- you posed to me what my -- what you
2 perceived -- I'm sorry. I apologise, it's page 15. Where the options
4 With regard to the second issue, which is at line 19, that if I
5 feel my cross-examination may not be intelligent as it ought to be, if
6 I'm not on the same page as the witness, that is what my concern is right
7 now. We could proceed with the witness's testimony, and at the
8 conclusion of his testimony, if I could be afforded an opportunity to
9 make a determination of whether or not it would be appropriate to proceed
10 at that point with cross-examination or not; and I would be in a position
11 to determine what areas there may be or what areas there will be that
12 we're on different pages, and resolve those areas before I proceed with
13 my cross-examination of this witness.
14 I hope I was clear.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yeah. As I understand you saying we should
16 proceed and later on you be given underlying source documents. I'm not
17 sure whether they are available.
18 MR. GUY-SMITH: Right.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: And I don't know if they're not available how then
20 are you going to cure the problem later. I'm not quite sure.
21 Madam Sutherland, do you have those documents?
22 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, the Defence has been given all of
23 the underlying documents to Mr. Treanor's report.
24 In relation to what's been referred to as the CaseMap, it's not
25 the practice of the ICTY, especially in -- well, not especially, in
1 relation to experts that -- that sort of information is disclosed. I
2 mean the Defence have the expert report, they have all the underlying
3 documents that have been cited in that report.
4 We would be opposed to that at this stage.
5 MR. GUY-SMITH: Except as the Chamber has rightfully pointed out.
6 We normally are all on the same page, speaking the same language, dealing
7 with the same information. That is not the case here. We have unique
8 situation by virtue of the fact that the witness has a skill which he has
9 used for purposes of preparing his report; and we don't have that
10 information, which normally we would.
11 And, you know, I understand that the Prosecution takes the
12 position that it's not the -- they put it in the terms of the practice, I
13 don't think that that's really the ultimate issue here, and I don't mean
14 to be radical in any fashion --
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: It's not practice, maybe, because it has never
16 been requested. If it was requested then they may have to supply it.
17 MR. GUY-SMITH: That's right.
18 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, if I may.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes.
20 MS. SUTHERLAND: It has been requested in the past, and it hasn't
21 been the practice that it has been disclosed.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: And haven't been ordered in the past to disclose
24 MS. SUTHERLAND: No, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: You might be some time in the future.
1 Now, I think we have heard enough about the objection. We need
2 to rule on it, now at this stage, unless anybody else has anything to
4 MS. SUTHERLAND: Can I just add, Your Honour, in case I wasn't
5 clear before; the Defence has made this blanket objection in relation to
6 draft translations in relation to documents used by Mr. Treanor, given
7 what I said before about the -- you know, the Bench has to make a
8 balance, they have to strike a balance between the fairness to the
9 accused and -- and considerations of judicial economy related to the
10 organisation of the ICTY and the translation services.
11 The additional work that would be borne by the translation
12 services would be considerable, if we were to get --
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: You made that point yesterday.
14 MS. SUTHERLAND: But unless --
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let me correct you, there was not a blanket
16 objection. There was an objection to a specific document that was on the
17 screen yesterday in both B/C/S and English; and this witness said he is
18 looking at the B/C/S, works straight from the B/C/S, this translation.
19 He doesn't look at, and it is a translation that is not by CLSS; and
20 these translations can have inaccuracies at some times.
21 So there was a specific objection to a specific document.
22 Now -- and I think have I heard what you said about judicial
23 economy and the resources of CLSS. You made that point yesterday and the
24 Bench is mindful of what you said. It has not forgotten. So I ask you
25 to please not repeat yourself.
1 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, if I may just take you to page 942
2 the Defence said, when I specifically asked whether they were in fact
3 making an objection whether they had an objection to the draft
4 translations, and Mr. Guy-Smith said:
5 "With regard to those documents that Mr. Treanor is using which
6 are draft translations, in the absence of information at the present time
7 concerning the accuracy of those translations, we object."
8 THE INTERPRETER: Could the speaker please be asked to slow down.
9 It is impossible to follow at this pace, thank you.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: You're asked to slow down. Can you repeat
11 yourself, please.
12 MS. SUTHERLAND: At page 942, and this was in relation to a
13 specific question to the Defence as to whether they objected to all the
14 documents, and Mr. Guy-Smith said at line 13:
15 "With regard to those documents that Mr. Treanor is using which
16 are draft translations, in the absence of information at the present time
17 concerning the accuracy of those translations we object."
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mm-hm.
19 MR. GUY-SMITH: If I might, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes.
21 MR. GUY-SMITH: You pointed out specifically why this whole issue
22 arose because of --
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Also don't repeat what has already been said to
25 MR. GUY-SMITH: No. Because of the comments made on page 929.
1 But if we continue looking at what I said with regard to this specific
2 issue, I was quite particularised, as a result of the experience that he
3 had just had, in terms of the specific document that you yourself were
4 discussing with Ms. Sutherland which I raised earlier on -- so it's --
5 it's an inaccurate presentation presently made by the Prosecution, and
6 the omission --
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: The Bench is aware of that.
8 I think we've got to rule, and ...
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm afraid the ruling is going to be somewhat
11 extended, and it's going to go like this.
12 Your objection is upheld, Mr. Guy-Smith, and in resolving the
13 matter on the way forward, the Trial Chamber gives the following ruling:
14 Mr. Treanor, you will be allowed to carry on testifying. You
15 shall use in your testifying the English version, English translations,
16 and not the B/C/S version. And if, in your view the translation does
17 not, at any point, does not accord with the B/C/S version, you shall
18 point that out.
19 The Prosecution shall make sure that as soon as possible provides
20 official translations of all the quotations that need to be translated,
21 and at that stage the Defence will make up its mind whether, based on the
22 official translations and the mistakes that may have been pointed out by
23 Mr. Treanor, whether this is an need to recall him or to raise any issue
24 with the Bench.
25 I think, in the interests of time and fairness, that's a better
1 way to go forward.
2 So Mr. Treanor, henceforth you will use the English translations.
3 There were supplied I'm sure by the Prosecution, and the Prosecution must
4 have accepted that they were as close to the B/C/S as can be. Just so
5 that we are all on the same page, all of us.
6 THE WITNESS: I do not have copies of those translations.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yesterday we had -- they put them on the e-court
8 thing. They had the English and the -- you will look at the English so
9 that we all are looking at the same.
10 THE WITNESS: I could perhaps suggest a slight variation of that --
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: The order has been made. Sorry, you can't.
13 Yes, Madam Sutherland.
14 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, is it possible in the break that
15 the Prosecution can provide Mr. Treanor with a copy of the English
16 translations so that at least he has them in front of him as opposed --
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Whatever you please. So long as whatever you give
18 him is the same as what you are going to mount on the screen.
19 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: We've got five minutes to break.
21 MS. SUTHERLAND: Could the registrar call up Rule 65 ter number
22 06739, please.
23 WITNESS: PATRICK TREANOR [Resumed]
24 Examination by Ms. Sutherland: [Continued]
25 MS. SUTHERLAND: And page 10 in the B/C/S and page 11 in the
1 e-court and the B/C/S is obviously for the benefit of the accused.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: It is not, ma'am. Except for picking up any
3 discrepancies on the English.
4 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes, Your Honour, I'm sorry.
5 Q. Mr. Treanor my question to you yesterday was did the idea of
6 assisting Serbs outside of Serbia
7 time, and you started to testify about this document.
8 If you can begin where we left or in fact summarise what you said
9 yesterday and then move on.
10 A. Yes, just to recall, this is the programme of the socialist party
11 of Serbia
12 wanted to call the Trial Chamber's attention to the first paragraph under
13 the heading which, in the English says, "Serbian diaspora." I was going
14 to provide my own translation of that from Serbian.
15 I… and now we can all look at the English and we are all working
16 from the English, I will have to have a look at that and just note the
17 fact that it speaks about providing assistance to portions of the Serbian
18 people living in other republics and recall in this connection that the
19 new socialist party of Serbia
20 that time, they were in a position to give effect to their programme
21 since they were in power.
22 I would also call the Trial Chamber's attention to the fifth
23 paragraph under the heading, "National equality, federalism," where they
24 make reference to a new Yugoslav constitution and the formation of
25 autonomous provinces in Yugoslavia
1 have been the constitution that might have been produced out of the
2 discussions that were going on about the reform of the Yugoslav system,
3 and the programme is advocating the formation of autonomous provinces.
4 As part of that constitution, under the old constitutions there were only
5 autonomous provinces within Serbia
6 in the other republics.
7 So what is in effect being suggested here is that perhaps
8 autonomous provinces could be formed in other republics as well.
9 Q. And did that idea remain the same in 1991?
10 A. Well, as we will see in further documents, Serbian autonomous
11 provinces were in fact formed within Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina,
12 which I will refer to as BH. They were formed by the local Serbian
13 authorities in those republics.
14 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, just as a matter in relation to
15 MFIing these documents, I omitted yesterday in relation to the two that
16 were shown to the witness, to ask for them to be MFIed at that point.
17 Should we do this now, before the break?
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated] ... which were shown to
19 the witness yesterday?
20 MS. SUTHERLAND: Rule 65 number 06812, and this document we're
21 talking about is now which is 06739.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: 06812 was not even admitted just yet.
23 MS. SUTHERLAND: No. That's what I'm saying, Your Honour. I
24 wish to mark it for identification.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Indeed.
1 MS. SUTHERLAND: And I will actually give you the page of the
2 transcript that it was referred to so that we're not ...
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: 65 ter 06812 from yesterday is admitted into
4 evidence. May it please be given an exhibit number and marked for
6 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, if I may that document was first
7 called up at page 925 of the transcript yesterday.
8 THE REGISTRAR: 06812 will be Exhibit P150, marked for
9 identification Your Honours.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. The next one is 06739.
11 MS. SUTHERLAND: And if I may, Your Honour, that was called up at
12 page 931.
13 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit P151, marked for
14 identification, Your Honours.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. Would then be this -- would
16 this then be a convenient time, Madam Sutherland?
17 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: We'll take a break and come back at 4.00.
19 Court adjourned.
20 --- Recess taken at 3.33 p.m.
21 --- On resuming at 4.00 p.m.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Before you proceed, Madam Sutherland, let me just
23 clarify the ruling that the Chamber gave. I just didn't sort of --
24 didn't occur to me when you asked that -- that 65 ter 06812 be MFIed. I
25 don't think there's a need to MFI it because it was not objected against.
1 We MFI 06739, that is the only one that, at this point, the Chamber is
2 ordering the Prosecution to give official translation. However, as
3 regards the witness, right through his testimony, he must read the
4 English. Okay?
5 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: So anything else will have to be objected to
7 before an order can be given and what should be done with it, everything
9 MR. GUY-SMITH: Just so I make sure I'm clear on the rulings of
10 the road. With regard to any further exhibits that are used by the
11 witness in the event there is an objection, I should make it at that time
12 so that the record is clear if that regard.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes.
14 MR. GUY-SMITH: Okay, very good. I have a quick question based
15 upon the Chamber's previous ruling, which is, I don't know whether or not
16 the witness is in possession of any notes independent of his report for
17 purposes of assisting him in his testimony; and I would just like to be
18 clear about the fact is what is the document or the binder that he have
19 in front of him at this point so, once again, we're all working on the
20 same page.
21 I don't have if very any special notes that exist independent of
22 the document itself.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm sure can you find that out during your
25 MR. GUY-SMITH: Very well.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may proceed.
2 MS. SUTHERLAND: Thank you, Your Honour. Would the registrar
3 call up Rule 65 ter number 06628.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry. Madam Registrar, will you please delete MFI
5 to yesterday's -- 65 ter 6812. It will be an exhibit.
6 THE REGISTRAR: That will now be Exhibit P150, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
8 You were calling?
9 MS. SUTHERLAND: 06628.
10 Q. Mr. Treanor, this is a speech to the presidents of the
11 municipalities of the Republic of Serbia
12 tell the Court the significance of Mr. Milosevic's speech on the 16th of
13 March, 1991, if can you confirm that date.
14 A. Yes, that's the date of the speech. I'd just like to provide a
15 little bit of context first for the speech which takes place several
16 months later than the last document we saw.
17 In the intervening period, the new constitution of Serbia
18 been adopted on the 28th of September 1990; on the same date it was
19 announced that multi-party elections would take place in December. They
20 took place in December. They were elections for the new national
21 assembly of Serbia
22 previously there had been only been a Presidency with a president of the
24 Slobodan Milosevic was elected president of Serbia by a
25 substantial majority, I think about 65 per cent. His party the SPS the
1 Socialist Party of Serbia did not win a majority of the votes in the
2 election. However, they did win a large majority of the seats in the
3 assembly so they were still the ruling party.
4 In March, the time -- the month that the speech was given, there
5 were demonstrations in Belgrade
6 protesting against the control of the press. There were
7 counter-demonstrations. The army appeared in the streets for a while.
8 This speech was delivered in the midst of that series of demonstrations,
9 and in the portions that we're going to be looking at here,
10 Slobodan Milosevic refers to some of the points that we have seen already
11 in relation to the future of Yugoslavia
12 situation in Serbia
13 MS. SUTHERLAND: If the registrar can highlight the text starting
14 with the sentences: "We told them ... gentlemen" on page 1 of the
15 English translation.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Highlight ...
17 MS. SUTHERLAND: Blow up, Your Honour. I have been told it's
18 already at its maximum.
19 Q. So, Dr. Treanor, please take the Trial Chamber to the portions
20 that you deem important.
21 A. Yes. Well, in the sentence beginning on the fifth line from the
22 top, we told them, gentleman, I'd like to call the Court' attention to
23 that passage. The gentlemen being referred to are Croatian leaders or at
24 least Croatian officials. He is referring to discussions that they have
25 been having, the Serbian leader have been having with Croatian leaders
1 about the future of Yugoslavia
2 February 1991. It continued for several months. There were periodic
3 meetings among the presidents of all the republics to Yugoslavia
4 resolve the issue of the future of the country and the two main options
5 that were -- figured in those discussions were confederation versus
6 federation. Two concepts we have already seen.
7 Here Milosevic is expressing his -- the basis for his -- part of
8 the basis for his objection to the idea of a confederation; namely, that
9 it would make Serbs living outside of Serbia national minorities in
10 independent states.
11 Q. If we could go to page two.
12 A. I'd now like to call the Court's attention to the -- I think it's
13 the third full paragraph on that page, beginning with:
14 "We must ensure unity in Serbia."
15 And here Mr. Milosevic again refers to the idea of borders which
16 he describes as an essential state issue and expresses the thought that
17 borders are always decided by the strong.
18 Q. If we can go to page 3. Page 3 of the English translation.
19 A. As we saw before, he had indicated in one of the -- I think the
20 first speech we saw, that if it was -- if a confederation was to come
21 about that the question of the borders would be reopened.
22 Now, on page 3 right at the very top, I'd just like to point out
23 that in the first two lines, he indicates that he has been in touch with
24 Serbian leaders in Croatia
25 Croatian Serbs. And the paragraph goes on to describe the situation as
1 Milan Babic, the leader of the Croatian Serbs, has related to him.
2 Then toward the bottom of that paragraph, I would call the
3 Court's attention to the second-to-last sentence, beginning with:
4 "I hope that we shall not have these problems."
5 Here he refers to one of the solutions that he favours for
6 solving the impasse over the future of the country; namely the idea of a
7 referendum of nations. He made a distinction, a sharp distinction
8 between a referendum within a given republic, as opposed to a referendum
9 among members a particular nation; for instance, the Serbian nation. He
10 was not willing to accept, for instance, that a referendum would be held
11 in Croatia
12 independence of Croatia
13 He was perfectly happy to see the Croats leave Yugoslavia, if they so
14 desired, but that nations that wanted to stay within Yugoslavia - for
15 instance the Serbs - should be permitted to do so, and the method he
16 proposed to accomplish that by was by referendum -- a referendum among
17 individual nations in Yugoslavia
18 Q. What was Mr. Milosevic's position --
19 MR. GUY-SMITH: Excuse me, if I might, I'm sorry, and I
20 understand that the witness has been asked to point out areas that he
21 believed are important but there -- no question has been directed with
22 regard to what the importance is of these areas. He then has recited a
23 particular passage and then from then has included information that may
24 well be within the context of this particular speech or passage, or may
25 not be.
1 But right now, the question and answer procedures is relatively
2 free flowing. What is of importance to the witness, among other things
3 is most probably irrelevant unless this is a question directed as to why
4 he is giving these particular response, which we don't have any guidance
5 for right now. And I suggest that we have a question devoted to the
6 witness other than what is the next thing you believe to be of
7 importance, because that is irrelevant, what he believes to be important,
8 in the context of the manner of the questioning thus far.
9 It is not connected to a subject. It's connected to an internal
10 thinking process which we have not been exposed to.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Sutherland.
12 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, Mr. Treanor gave evidence about the
13 formation of the autonomous provinces of Yugoslavia, and then I asked him
14 about this next document to -- did that idea remain the same and brought
15 this document up. He was explaining how Milosevic addressed a number of
16 persons and told them basically we will ensure unity in Serbia
17 answering my questions and doing it through a document and directing to
18 Your Honours to what he deems is to be the most important paragraphs in
19 those documents.
20 He can simply direct Your Honours to those paragraphs but give
21 you his evidence in relation to that.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: The nub of the objection is that you -- excuse me,
23 I'm sorry. You as the person asking questions should put a question to
24 him that demonstrates why that portion that he is dealing with should be
25 regarded as important, not just say and then page 3 of English and then
1 he looks at the paragraph, talks and then page 4. That's the point of
2 the objection. Not that you are not asking question but that are you not
3 asking a question that should illustrate why that particular passage is
4 being chosen.
5 MR. GUY-SMITH: I'm going to object to another problem. I notice
6 that the witness is reading his binder in Serbian as opposed to confining
7 himself to dealing with the English translations. So he is apparently
8 preparing himself for something, I don't know the exact nature of which,
9 which is outside of the purview which the questioning process was to
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is it correct, Mr. Treanor, that you're looking at
12 your Serbian documents there.
13 THE WITNESS: Yes, indeed I'm under the impression that have I
14 been invited to call the Court's attention to any discrepancies that I
15 see between Serbian and English.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sure. Indeed you have been. You have looked at
17 the Serbian documents; you know what the Serbian documents say.
18 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour. I don't have them memorized
19 though and I have just been given the English.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Then it -- okay. To that extent, you are allowed
21 to look at them.
22 If can you sort of demonstrate the significance of the passages
23 that you are -- he is being directed to.
24 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, the significance -- I mean, I don't
25 want to give evidence from the bar table.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated]
2 MS. SUTHERLAND.
3 Q. So, Mr. Treanor, what was the significance of ensuring unity in
5 A. Well, Mr. Milosevic indicates that Serbia had to be strong in
6 order to obtain the borders that it might desire.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: That is not an answer to the question,
8 Mr. Treanor. You're repeating what Milosevic is saying. The question is
9 what is the significance of what -- of wanting to be strong, to obtain
10 their desires.
11 THE WITNESS: Well, it -- I could indicate, as is indicated in
12 the next passage that I'd like to direct the Court's attention to, in the
13 same document, which is on page 4 of the English. Toward the bottom of
14 the page, just above where it says, "Cvetkovic," out in the left hand --
15 Mr. Milosevic indicates that if anyone wanted to secede from Yugoslavia
16 by attacking Serbian settlements that the -- that the army might
18 In other words, the use of force and a show of strength might be
19 necessary to prevent attacks on Serbian settlements and the purpose of
20 which will be presumably to take them out of Yugoslavia.
21 MS. SUTHERLAND:
22 Q. What was Mr. Milosevic's position, after Slovenia and Croatia
23 declared independence at the end of June 1991?
24 A. I think that the next document that we're going to look at will
25 indicate that.
1 MS. SUTHERLAND: If 65 ter number 06667 could be shown, please.
2 Sorry, can I -- can I tender that document into evidence, please, Your
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Guy-Smith.
5 MR. GUY-SMITH: We would object to the admission of this document
6 at this time.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mm-hm. Basis?
8 MR. GUY-SMITH: I have noted that there are some differences
9 between information that is contained in Mr. Treanor's report, in terms
10 of translation and the document itself. And in the absence of being able
11 to go through this document completely, and specifically with regard to
12 those portions just testified to by Mr. Treanor, in terms of the accuracy
13 of the information contained therein, we would object. Because I
14 can't -- my concern is that if Mr. Treanor is indicating at this point
15 that he does not have any distinction as between his -- his
16 interpretation/translation of the document, that was in English and this
17 is not an official translated document, we're in a position where we
18 can't agree at the moment to this document.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, Mr. Guy-Smith. What is the discrepancy?
20 We're in the dark. You picked up the discrepancy between the information
21 in the report and the translations. What is that discrepancy?
22 MR. GUY-SMITH: It is on -- in his report -- I'm sorry. Just a
23 minute, please.
24 In his report, which is 65 ter number 06646-01, with regard to
25 the specific issue of strength, as he is characterizes it, he indicates
1 in his report at page 11 that, at the very bottom of the page, with
2 regard to what he has quoted, the last two sentences:
3 "These are issues of the borders; therefore, essential state
4 issues and borders, as you know, are always dictated by the strong, never
5 by the weak."
6 And the term "dictated" as opposed to the term "decided" have a
7 context just difference.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Where is decided mentioned? Here it says dictated
9 where you referred us to and where is decided mentioned not with the
10 previous page on this document, on the screen.
11 MR. GUY-SMITH: Yes, I believe it would be.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can we go back to the previous page, please.
13 In the English, Madam Registrar.
14 MS. SUTHERLAND: If I can assist, Your Honour, it's on page 2, at
15 the middle of the page.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mm-hm. It hasn't been tendered yet.
17 MR. GUY-SMITH: Yes, at page 2 in the middle of the page, it
19 "The border should, therefore, is an essential state issue and as
20 you know borders are always decided upon by the strong, never the weak."
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm just waiting for the page to be turned.
22 MR. GUY-SMITH: Oh, I'm sorry.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: While we're waiting, your learned friend conceded
24 that it says decided there, I guess you are, Madam Sutherland. Does the
25 document on the screen talk of decided, do you agree with that?
1 MS. SUTHERLAND: The document says decided, yes; and the report
2 says dictated.
3 MR. GUY-SMITH: Very well. I withdraw my objection, and then I
4 guess I withdraw my objection at this time and aware that it is a matter
5 of the accuracy of the report.
6 THE WITNESS: Well I think I get to say something.
7 MR. GUY-SMITH: Excuse me, Mr. Treanor there is it no pending
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, Mr. Treanor.
10 MR. GUY-SMITH: I apologise, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sure. Sorry, sorry.
12 Mr. Treanor, as I indicated to you earlier, when this is an
13 objection you're out of it.
14 THE WITNESS: Sorry, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.
16 So you withdraw your objection.
17 You may proceed, Madam Sutherland.
18 MS. SUTHERLAND: So, Your Honours, that is admitted into
19 evidence, that document?
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes. It will have to be MFIed because your
21 learned friend has now raised an objection, at least there is a
22 difference that you agree that the one document says "decided" the other
23 one says "dictated."
24 This is it, 06628, isn't it? Is that it?
25 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay, fine.
2 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit P152, marked for
3 identification, Your Honours.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
5 You may proceed.
6 MS. SUTHERLAND: Could the registrar please call up Rule 65 ter
8 Q. Mr. Treanor, you asked for this document to be called up in
9 relation to the question that I put to you.
10 A. May I be allowed to comment on discrepancy between the
11 translation -- that you have been provided and my rendering of the
12 previous document, an issue which has been broached?
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: You can offer the discrepancies, explanation.
14 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry I didn't earlier, Your Honour. I have
15 just been presented with these documents in English which I have never
16 seen them before, and I'm new to this particular process.
17 In the Serbian, the word that apparently rendered as decided or
18 decide in the translation is "dikteriu," [phoen] which is a much stronger
19 term which I rendered as dictated or dictate.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. We will wait for official
22 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour. I do note in the English
23 translation that the sentence starts:
24 "We must ensure unity in Serbia if we want to dictate the course
25 of the events."
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sure. But that is it not the sentence that was
2 being referred to by Mr. Guy-Smith. It's a different sentence.
3 THE WITNESS: It's the same verb used later on in that passage.
4 So the same verb has been translated in different ways.
5 MR. GUY-SMITH: I think that's why we have the benefit of CLSS so
6 they can make an independent determination of what is accurate or
7 appropriate unless at this time Mr. Treanor is offering himself also as
8 an expert, as a translator, which I don't think he was proffered as.
9 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, can I note for the record that is a
10 final CLSS translation that we're looking at on the screen.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's fine. We've got to resolve the problems.
12 The point of the matter it may very well, Mr. Treanor, that we still need
13 the official translation from CLSS. We note your pointing the difference
14 and talking about it, and giving your view about it; but, still, we must
15 await the official translation.
16 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour.
17 MS. SUTHERLAND: Thank you, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
19 MS. SUTHERLAND:
20 Q. Mr. Treanor, if you can proceed to answer the question that was
21 put to you?
22 A. I'm sorry, could you repeat the question.
23 Q. It was, what was Mr. Milosevic's position after Slovenia and
25 A. In that connection, I would direct the Court's attention to the
1 last paragraph on this page. The sentence beginning with:
4 And he advocates that the solution be based on respect or the
5 right to self-determination of peoples.
6 And if we can move to the next page. And then he concludes that
7 the passage by saying:
8 "The Yugoslav People's Army should provide the aforementioned
9 peoples with support and with the support of all the political
10 institutions and peace forces."
11 So he is suggesting that the Yugoslav People's Army can be -- can
12 play a role in that process.
13 Q. What was happening on the ground at this time?
14 A. Pardon me, I think we lost track of the course of the
15 developments. I think you mentioned that Croatia and Slovenia
16 declared independence on the 25th of June, 1991. The speech was
17 delivered a week or so later. Fighting had broken out in Slovenia
18 this time had stopped, but the situation in Croatia was becoming very
20 MS. SUTHERLAND: I would ask for that document to be admitted,
21 Your Honour.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: 65 ter 06667 is admitted into evidence. May it
23 please be given an exhibit number.
24 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit P153, Your Honours.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
1 MS. SUTHERLAND:
2 Q. Mr. Treanor, if we can start with the Serbs in the Republic of
4 A. I think we're moving on to the next document now?
5 MS. SUTHERLAND: Could I have Rule 65 ter number --
6 A. Or we haven't quite finished with this one. I think there may
7 be ...
8 I wanted to call the Court's attention to the second sentence in
9 the next paragraph.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry which document are we dealing with?
11 MS. SUTHERLAND: Sorry we're back on 06667, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sure. They have been --
13 MS. SUTHERLAND: Sorry P153, I'm sorry, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Make sure you are conducting the proceedings,
15 ma'am. Okay, what page is that? Same page?
16 THE WITNESS: Yes, the page that is on the screen, Your Honour,
17 in the next paragraph, he makes reference to the -- his belief that the
18 Yugoslav People's Army should be present in the territories inhabited by
19 the peoples that have chosen to live in Yugoslavia. He gets more
20 specific about what he thinks the role of the army should be in this
21 situation, among the peoples, of course, that ones that remained in
23 Q. Now, can we, looking at document, Rule 65 ter number 06702, what
24 were the basic principle and goals for the Serbian people in Croatia
25 A. Right. Now we're moving back a little bit in time to follow
1 developments on a little bit closer to the ground in Croatia,
2 specifically among the Serbs in Croatia
3 the process had begun of the formation of non-Communist political parties
4 in the various republics in Yugoslavia
5 of us now is a founding document of what was known as the Serbian
6 Democratic Party in Croatia
7 its programmatic goals; and I just want to draw the Court's attention to
8 one point in that programme.
9 MS. SUTHERLAND: I think if the registrar can bring up page
10 number 15 of the English translation and it's page number 9 of the B/C/S.
11 A. Here we see the newly formed party advocating the idea of the
12 formation of what refers to as territorial autonomies within Yugoslavia
13 Again, reference is made to federalism; that is, territorial autonomies
14 within a federal Yugoslavia
15 that was later used in the new constitution of the Republic of Serbia
16 referred to earlier. It used that phrase to describe type of autonomy
17 that that constitution provided for the provinces of Vojvodina and
19 So, here, the Serbian Democratic Party in Croatia is advocating
20 that type of solution as well and would like to see that happen in
22 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, I would ask that that document be
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it
25 please be given an exhibit number.
1 THE REGISTRAR: That would be Exhibit P154, Your Honours.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
3 MS. SUTHERLAND:
4 Q. Mr. Treanor was this territorial autonomy realized in Croatia
5 A. Not at this time. The document we just saw, February 1990, was
6 issued before the elections in Croatia
7 took place in April, which resulted in the victory of the Croatian
8 democratic community, the HDZ, which was a non-Communist party led by
9 Franjo Tudjman. That party formed the government, the new government of
10 the Croatia
11 of Croatia
12 Q. Were any --
13 A. That government was not disposed to -- to grant territorial
14 autonomy to -- at that time to the Serbs in Croatia, and in fact
15 proceeded with the process of drafting a new constitution for Croatia
16 Q. Just briefly, were there any community of municipalities
17 constituted in Croatia
18 A. Yes. On their own initiative, certain municipalities in Croatia
19 which -- which had Serbian majorities, formed after the elections in
21 end of June 1990.
22 The -- within the Yugoslav system, communities of municipalities
23 were a recognised substitution they were ordinarily formed by
24 municipalities in a republic that had similar interests; for instance
25 developing the tourist trade and they would band together for the purpose
1 of promoting the joint interests in that area. They were voluntary
2 associations. They didn't have any power to make laws. They -- they
3 could, however, agree among themselves as to certain courses of action
4 which the municipal assemblies would have to adopt.
5 The one that was formed in Croatia that we're referring to by the
6 Serbian municipalities did not in fact really assign itself any
7 particular function.
8 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, may that -- no, that is already
9 admitted, I'm sorry.
10 Q. Mr. Treanor, what further steps did the Serbs in Croatia take in
11 pursuit of the goals? Was any declaration made by them?
12 A. Yes. I think the next document we'll see --
13 MS. SUTHERLAND: If 65 ter 06709 could be brought up.
14 A. This document provides a little more concrete expression as to
15 what certain Serbian leaders in Croatia
16 document is dated the 25th of July, 1990, about a month after the
17 community of municipalities was formed.
18 This is a declaration that was adopted at a meeting of what was
19 called a Serbian Assembly in the village of Srb
20 and this declaration asserts that the Serbian people in Croatia are a
21 sovereign people. That's in the -- item number 1. And then in the next
22 paragraph, it -- the next paragraph on the page we were looking at.
23 It asserts that the Serbian nation in Croatia is entitled to opt
24 either for a federal or a confederal system, a state, either jointly with
25 the Croatian nation or independently. So it is raising the idea here
1 that the Serbian nation in Croatia
2 Q. Did they take steps to do that?
3 A. Well, as part of this particular document, if we can go to item
4 number 3 on the next page. Must be the next page in the English. This
5 declaration establishes a -- what is called as a -- the Serbian Assembly as
6 the political representative of the Serbian people. So they began to
7 establish their own hierarchical structure. And as an executive organ
8 for that assembly, it established a -- which is here referred to as a
9 Sabor, it established as a executive organ a Serbian National Council
10 in -- which is further described in paragraph number 4 on that page,
11 referring to a referendum of the Serbian people.
12 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, may that document be admitted into
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it
15 please be given an exhibit number.
16 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit P155, Your Honours.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
18 MS. SUTHERLAND:
19 Q. Mr. Treanor, was the referendum, in fact, held?
20 A. Yes. The -- I think the next document will tell us something
21 about that.
22 MS. SUTHERLAND: Rule 65 ter number 06704, please. Page 2 of the
23 English translation and page 1 of the B/C/S.
24 Q. What document is this, Dr. Treanor -- Mr. Treanor.
25 A. We see here a report on the results of the referendum. The
1 report states that the Serbian National Council, in fact, decided to hold
2 a referendum of the Serbian people in Croatia, a decision that was taken
3 on the 16th of August, 1990
4 And the report indicates that voting was, in fact, carried out;
5 and the results are given in paragraph 3. Or it gives the number of
6 people who voted in favour of Serbian autonomy, which is the overwhelming
7 majority of people that, according to the report, participated in this
9 So here we have the -- a declaration, an assertion, a
10 confirmation of the desire of the Serbian people in Croatia for autonomy.
11 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, can that document be admitted into
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it
14 please be given an exhibit number.
15 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit P156, Your Honours.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
17 MS. SUTHERLAND:
18 Q. After the referendum, did the Serbs in Croatia further develop
19 the use of Serbian autonomy and, in fact, institute it?
20 A. Yes. They --
21 MS. SUTHERLAND: Can we have Rule 65 ter number 06436.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: 0 ...
23 MS. SUTHERLAND: 6436.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
25 Q. Mr. Treanor, you said, Yes. When did this occur?
1 A. Well, this document is dated the 19th of December, 1990. This
2 was just a few days before the proclamation of the new constitution of
3 Croatian, an event which took place on the 22nd of December, 1990. Many
4 Serbs in Croatia
5 not provide for a type of autonomous region that they might have wanted,
6 and it failed to mention the Serbian people in the constitution as one of
7 the constituent nations of Croatia
8 We see in this document -- the proclamation -- or the statute of
9 a so-called Serbian Autonomous District or region. I'm not sure which
10 translation is being given here. Because I don't see the first page.
11 But I would just like to call the Court's attention to Article 1 which is
12 being displayed. Yes, it says here the Serbian Autonomous District of
13 Krajina will be a form of territorial autonomy within Croatia. Again,
14 the use of the expression, "territorial autonomy." If I could just check
15 that in the original, which I think I can read on the screen.
17 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, may that --
18 THE WITNESS: The Article further states the purpose for the
19 establishment of the Serbian Autonomous District, which is namely to
20 safeguard the -- among other things the national equality of the Serbian
21 people in Croatia
22 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, may that document be tendered into
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. The document is admitted
25 into evidence. May it please be given an exhibit number.
1 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit P157, Your Honours.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
3 MS. SUTHERLAND:
4 Q. Mr. Treanor, did the SAO Krajina disassociate itself from the
5 Republic of Croatia
6 A. Yes. I think we're going to see a document on that.
7 MS. SUTHERLAND: May I have Rule 65 ter number 06699. Page 2 of
8 the English translation and page 1 of the B/C/S.
9 A. This document is a resolution adopted by the Serbian National
10 Council on the 28th of February, 1991.
11 This resolution was adopted, I believe, two days after the
12 Assembly of the Republic of Croatia
13 negotiating process or participating in a negotiating process for the
14 breakup of the former Yugoslavia
15 republics as independent states and expressed a willingness to enter into
16 various types of association with the other republics on the basis of the
17 independence of each of them.
18 This was precisely what many of the Serbs in Croatia did not want
19 to see happen. So we see in this resolution, in the first paragraph, its
20 rejection -- the Serbian National Council of the idea of separating from
22 attention, the resolution states that federal laws and the laws of the
23 Serbian Autonomous District would be applied in the territory of the
24 Serbian Autonomous District and the laws of Croatia would only be applied
25 if they were not in opposition to those laws. So this represents a major
1 step towards separating from Croatia
2 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, may that document be tendered into
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it
5 please be given an exhibit number.
6 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit P158, Your Honours.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
8 MS. SUTHERLAND:
9 Q. You mentioned that it represented a major step towards separating
10 from Croatia
11 A. Yes. We'll see -- the next document relating to that.
12 MS. SUTHERLAND: Rule 65 number 06740, please.
13 Q. When was this?
14 A. This document represents a decision passed by the Executive
15 Council of the Serbian Autonomous District of Krajina on the 1st of
16 April, 1991. This was, I think, six days after the Croatian Assembly
17 passed a resolution calling for a referendum in Croatia on the issue of
18 independence and federation.
19 The referendum question had -- two referendum questions: one
20 related to whether people wanted Croatia
21 independent state, and the other question was whether they wished to
22 remain within the Yugoslav federation. Those were to be the questions in
23 a referendum scheduled for May. So we see this decision, passed on the
24 1st of April, which as we can see in Article 1 to which I draw the
25 Court's attention, the Serbian Autonomous District is now said to join
1 itself to the Republic of Serbia
2 And Article 2 goes on to describe that, stating that the laws of
4 Q. And the legal regulations that are in force within the
5 SAO Krajina?
6 A. Again those are said to be the laws of the Republic of Serbia
7 of the SFRY. That is, the Federation. Again, in Article 2.
8 Q. Does this decision make reference to whether the SAO Krajina is
9 going to become part of a unitary state?
10 A. Well, it makes reference to Serbia as being a unitary state.
11 That is, Serbia
12 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, may that document be admitted.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it
14 please be given an exhibit number.
15 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit P159, Your Honours.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
17 MS. SUTHERLAND:
18 Q. What decisions were taken at the 1st Assembly of the SAO Krajina?
19 A. I think the next document we're going to see is a decision.
20 MS. SUTHERLAND: If I could Rule 65 ter number 06666.
21 A. A decision adopted at that session on the 30th of April, 1991
22 which elects Milan Babic as the president of the Executive Council of the
23 Serbian Autonomous District of Krajina.
24 The translation uses the word "region" here which is the
25 translation of the same word that was translated as "district" in the
1 previous documents.
2 Q. And in that document it is decided to hold a referendum. Is that
3 the case? What is the question for the referendum?
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Overlapping speakers] ...
5 THE WITNESS: This document does not mention referendum. May I
6 skipped one? Have I skipped one. I'm sorry, yes. It's the previous
7 document. Which is a decision made on the same day. The previous
8 document in my binder. Perhaps it's the next one in your series. They
9 were two decisions adopted by the Executive Council of the Serbian
10 Autonomous Region on the 1st of April.
11 MS. SUTHERLAND: First of all, if document number 06666 can be
12 admitted into evidence.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Document 06666 the document is admitted into
14 evidence. May it please be given an exhibit number.
15 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit P160, Your Honours.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
17 MS. SUTHERLAND: Can we have Rule 65 ter number 06717.
18 Q. Mr. Treanor, was a referendum, in fact, held? And what were
19 the -- what was decided as to that referendum?
20 A. Yes. Now, I mentioned that a referendum had been scheduled by
21 the Republic of Croatia
22 The Serbs in Croatia
23 the Serbian Autonomous District held their own referendum on the 12th of
24 May, and I would direct the Court's attention to Article 1 of this
25 decision. Which says that on the basis of the results of that referendum
1 the SAO Krajina, the Serbian Autonomous District of Krajina, is to remain
2 in a joint state in Yugoslavia
3 wish to preserve Yugoslavia
4 MR. GUY-SMITH: I'm sorry -- I apologise, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Go ahead.
6 MR. GUY-SMITH: Perhaps I'm reading a different document than
7 that which the witness is discussing. Article 1, as I see it, doesn't
8 discuss any basis of any referendum. It just discusses a fact in terms
9 of what occurred.
10 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry.
11 MR. GUY-SMITH: Perhaps I'm looking at the wrong document.
12 THE WITNESS: [Overlapping speakers] ...
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: The Bench is looking at a document which says:
14 "Decision on-calling a referendum on the accession of SAO Krajina
15 to the Republic of Serbia
17 And Article 1 then says:
18 "Referendum on the accession of SAO Krajina to the Republic of
20 who want to preserve Yugoslavia
21 MR. GUY-SMITH: Right. As I understood it Article 1 dealt with
22 the fact of a referendum being called and nothing more.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. That's what I'm looking at.
24 Are we on the same page, Madam Sutherland.
25 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes, Your Honour. Yes, Your Honour that is what
1 Mr. Treanor just said.
2 THE WITNESS: I don't appear to have that document in my binder.
3 That's why I was confused. I'm sorry for the confusion I caused. This
4 is this another decision passed at that session on the 30th of April that
5 we saw the other two decisions from.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Overlapping speakers] ...
7 MS. SUTHERLAND: 17th May, 1991
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Say that again?
9 MS. SUTHERLAND: The document that we're looking at which is
10 06717, is dated the 17th of May, 1991.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Well, then, I've got a problem, because Article 2
12 of this document says the referendum will be carried out in the territory
13 of Serbian Autonomous Region, Krajina on the 12th of April, 1991
14 that has already passed.
15 MS. SUTHERLAND: I'm sorry, Your Honour. I'm sorry. It's my
16 fault for the confusion.
17 This, I assume.
18 Q. And, Mr. Treanor, can you shed any light on it. Is this the date
19 of the publication of the Official Gazette?
20 A. This is does not look like something from the Official Gazette.
21 What I'm looking at on the screen.
22 Q. If you can -- the page -- the English translation be the top of
23 the page.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Are you referring to 17th of May, 1991?
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 MS. SUTHERLAND:
2 Q. Is the date when the Official Gazette was published, the 17th of
4 A. Yes. If I can see the previous page in the Serbian. If we could
5 blow that up. I'm sorry, I don't have this document in my binder.
6 This is a decision that was passed on the 30th of April at the
7 session I referred to before.
8 Q. And that's in the first paragraph of the English translation, is
9 it not?
10 A. Yes, in the preamble. Pursuant to the people's right. At the
11 last line it says that a session held on 30th of April, 1991. And
12 Article 2 does in fact say that it will be held on 12/04/91 that is the
13 12th of April, 1991, which is --
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: If you say the decision was on the 30th of
15 April then the date has passed already.
16 THE WITNESS: This is obviously a misprint.
17 MS. SUTHERLAND: A typographical error in the --
18 MR. GUY-SMITH: Excuse me, I don't think anyone at this point is
19 qualified to discuss what that is. Whether it's obviously a misprint or
20 anything else questions. Obviously some questions about the -- this
21 particular document, potentially the authenticity of this document, and
22 whether or not this document is an official document; and I don't think
23 any conjecture should be made in the absence to further qualifications
24 with regard to such matters.
25 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, can we mark this document for
1 identification, please?
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: It may be so marked and be given exhibit number.
3 THE REGISTRAR: That will Exhibit P161, marked for
4 identification, Your Honours.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
6 MS. SUTHERLAND:
7 Q. Mr. Treanor, can I just take to you Article 3?
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Article 3 of what, ma'am?
9 MS. SUTHERLAND: Of the document we were just looking at, P161.
10 Q. What does Article 3 state?
11 A. Article 3 --
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can we push up the English, please.
13 A. -- relates to the question that will be used at the referendum;
14 namely do you support the accession of --
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Article -- oh.
16 A. On the next page in the English it has the question.
17 MS. SUTHERLAND: Page 2 of the English translation.
18 A. And as the Court can see, the question is: Do you support the
19 accession of the SAO, that is Serbian Autonomous District of Krajina to
20 the Republic of Serbia
21 Q. Were any constitutional laws proclaimed by the SAO Krajina?
22 A. Yes. After the referendum, which we have been discussing.
23 MS. SUTHERLAND: Could I have 65 ter number 06441 on the screen.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: 06441.
25 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes, Your Honour.
1 Q. What were the constitutional laws that were proclaimed?
2 A. On the 29th of May, 1991, it would have within ten days after the
3 Croatian referendum on the 19th of May a referendum which produced very
4 large majorities in favour of a sovereign and independent Croatia and
5 against remaining in the Yugoslavia
6 MR. GUY-SMITH: I do apologise, sir. That is non-responsive to
7 the question that was asked. The specific question was asked, which was,
8 What were the constitutional laws that were proclaimed. If he wishes to
9 explain something thereafter, that's a different matter, but he should be
10 directed to answer the question posited.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Sutherland.
12 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, I think in answering my question
13 Dr. Treanor is giving the background to the -- to the law that was
15 Q. But, Mr. Treanor, can you answer in -- in one sentence what were
16 the constitutional laws which were proclaimed?
17 A. On the -- again on the 29th of May, the Assembly of the Serbian
18 Autonomous District of Krajina, adopted a constitutional law which we see
19 before us, in which I would call the Court's attention to Article 1 in
20 which reference is now made to the Serbian Autonomous District of Krajina
21 as a form of political and territorial autonomy within federative
23 been used now that that is being expanded to describe this district as
24 having political territorial autonomy.
25 Further on in the document.
1 MS. SUTHERLAND: That's on page 3 of the English translation.
2 A. I would call the Court's attention to Article 6 of this
3 constitutional law, which establishes the -- various organs of government
4 for the autonomous district.
5 MS. SUTHERLAND: May that be admitted into evidence -- sorry.
6 A. Sorry, the particular Article goes on to -- states that the
7 Autonomous District will pass laws as opposed to the earlier community of
8 municipalities in the earlier forms of autonomy they were claiming. They
9 will now actually pass laws within the autonomous district.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it
11 please be given an exhibit number.
12 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit P162, Your Honours.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
14 THE WITNESS: I was going to call the Court's attention to
15 Article 9 of that decision as well.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Wait for questions from counsel.
17 MS. SUTHERLAND:
18 Q. Were the -- was any decision taken as to the implementation of
19 the decisions?
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm not quite sure I understand the question.
21 Maybe if you understand, you can answer it.
22 THE WITNESS: Well, the organs referred to in the -- in the
23 decision were in fact -- did in fact begin to function.
24 MS. SUTHERLAND:
25 Q. Does this constitutional law that was passed make any reference
1 to the implementation of decisions and general acts. And if I could take
2 to you Article 9.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Would it be convenient, now that the document is
4 taking time to come on the screen, that you follow up after the break.
5 We're way past time for break.
6 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
8 Let take a break. We'll come back at quarter to.
9 Court adjourned.
10 --- Recess taken at 5.19 p.m.
11 --- On resuming at 5.45 p.m.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Madam Sutherland.
13 MS. SUTHERLAND:
14 Q. Mr. Treanor we were looking at Exhibit P162, and I was talking
15 you -- I misspoke and said I wanted you to look at Article 9. If you
16 could look at Article 6, subparagraph 9. Article 6, then
17 paragraph numbered 9.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And of course my question was: Was that law that was adopted
20 make reference to the implementation of the decisions? If could you
21 look --
22 A. Yes. As point 9 makes mention of the -- ensuring the
23 implementation of decisions?
24 Q. And is that what you were referring to earlier?
25 A. As far as the implementation is concerned, yes.
1 MS. SUTHERLAND: Can document Rule 65 ter number 066790 be
2 brought on the screen, please.
3 Can we go to page 50 of the English translation and page 83 of
4 the B/C/S.
5 Q. Mr. Treanor, in relation to the announcement by Milosevic that
6 you talked about earlier in your testimony, did the JNA enforce the
8 A. Yes. This document is a little more specific than the Milosevic
9 speech that we saw published on the 7th of July in which he refers to the
10 JNA --
11 Q. And what is it --
12 A. -- preserving Yugoslavia
13 basis of the right of the peoples to self-determination. I would direct
14 the Court's attention to --
15 Q. And first of all, what is this document?
16 A. Yes. This document is the verbatim record of a session of the
17 Serbian National Assembly held, I believe, on the 26th of September,
18 1991. At this time the fighting in Croatia had greatly intensified
19 compared to the situation in early July.
20 The bottom paragraph of the page we're looking at, which is page
21 50 of the translation, indicates what the Speaker sees as the aim of the
22 JNA in Croatia
23 -- who was a member of the Presidency of the SFRY. He was the member
24 from Serbia
25 He notes in the paragraph that the aim of the army in Croatia
1 not to topple the Croatian government but to promote the right of every
2 nation to self-determination and particularly promoting the right of --
3 to protect the Serbian people in Croatia.
4 Q. Does this document set out what the goals of what the army are?
5 A. Yes. Even more specific is a passage further on, on page 91 of
6 the English translation.
7 Q. And that's on page 149 of the B/C/S --
8 MR. GUY-SMITH: Excuse me.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, sorry, Madam Sutherland. Your learned
10 friend is on his feet.
11 MR. GUY-SMITH: Excuse me, I don't know whether or not the
12 witness misspoke himself, at line seven, the document says -- he used the
13 word particularly promoting and dealing with particularly, and the word
14 that is actually in the document itself is "practically" promoting. I
15 don't know whether he misspoke himself. I just wanted to deal with that
16 as a potential correction to the statement now. So we didn't lose sight
17 of it.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: What was the correct point you wanted to make.
19 MR. GUY-SMITH: On line 7 it says particularly and the word is
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Mr. Treanor, did you mean to say
22 particularly or did you mean it say practically.
23 THE WITNESS: Actually, Your Honour, I meant to say particularly.
24 I wasn't reading from the English. I was trying to briefly summarize
25 some of the words that are in the translation that we can all see.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.
2 MS. SUTHERLAND: On page 91 --
3 MR. GUY-SMITH: Excuse me, then. If he is summarizing a part of
4 a document, a specific phrase of a document where he uses 99.9 per cent
5 of the words that are contained in the phrase and one would think he
6 should remain consistent if he now wishes to render -- assuming it is of
7 any use to the Chamber based on what his summary may be, if he wishes to
8 render some opinion, that is a different matter; and whether or not his
9 summary admits to an opinion as a historical matter is an entirely
10 different question. But right now for purposes of discussion the
11 document -- I mean -- if I'm not mistaken that the only distinction is
12 between "practical" and "particularly," and since words can be used
13 either as swords or shield and specifically here where the interpretation
14 of is of some moment, if he is going to be dealing with a particular
15 passage and highlighting it for the Chamber's attention; and I think it
16 would be appropriate to be spot-on accurate.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Any response, Madam Sutherland?
18 MS. SUTHERLAND: Mr. Treanor, in relation to the Defence
19 objection, Your Honour, I think that Mr. Treanor can -- can give his
20 opinion as to whether he thinks that the word is better particularly used
21 or practically in that sentence. The --
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: But did you hear the gravamen of the objection.
23 The gravamen of the objection is that --
24 MS. SUTHERLAND: Sorry. Yes, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: -- every other word he is paraphrasing is exactly
1 as it is in the document, and it is only one word that differs; and we
2 don't know why he chooses to depart what is on the document to what he is
3 now saying.
4 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes, Your Honour. If Mr. Treanor is going to
5 summarize a portion of the transcript -- the document, then he needs to,
6 if he is going to use a different word in that summarisation, then needs
7 to justify why he is changing the word, yes.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now he hasn't done so.
9 MS. SUTHERLAND: No. I'm just about to ask him whether he wants
10 to justify why he used the words particularly as opposed to practically.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Go ahead.
12 MS. SUTHERLAND:
13 Q. Mr. Treanor.
14 A. Is that a question? I would be happy to withdraw the word
15 particularly and replace it with practically. In the interest of being
16 spot-on accurate, I will simply read out the entirety of all the passages
17 that have been selected in the future.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. It would actually be helpful if you do
19 that, Mr. Treanor, because if you are telling us of what is written, it
20 is important to read it exactly as it is without embellishment.
21 THE WITNESS: Very good, Your Honour.
22 MS. SUTHERLAND:
23 Q. Mr. Treanor, if we could go to the passage on page 91 of the
24 translation and page 149 of the B/C/S.
25 A. Just below the centre of the passage now at the bottom of the
1 page on the screen there's a paragraph that I'd like to call the Court's
2 attention to which is more specific in connection with the goal of the
3 army. Namely it says:
4 "The army has a strategic goal. I can tell you," I, still being
5 Borisav Jovic. "I can tell you that clearly and surely the strategic
6 goal of the army is to hold the Serbian territories in Croatia until the
7 crisis is politically solved. It will withdraw its forces to these
8 territories as much as it can, even before the crisis is solved."
9 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, can that document be admitted into
10 evidence, please.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it
12 please be given an exhibit number.
13 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit P163, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
15 MS. SUTHERLAND: By the end of 1991, were the hostilities still
16 prevailing in Croatia
17 A. By the end of the year, meaning December, a cease-fire was in
18 place as of the 24th of November, which seemed to be holding; so
19 hostilities had wound down to a great extent. There was still some
20 fighting going on, I think, notably perhaps in the Dubrovnik area. And
21 progress was being made toward the adoption of what was known as the
22 Vance Plan for Croatia
23 peacekeeping forces in Croatia
24 that were under the control of Serbian forces at that time.
25 This document, therefore, speaks to the tasks of the army in the
1 new situation. It was issued on the 10th of December.
2 MS. SUTHERLAND: If I could Rule 65 ter number 06625, please.
3 Page 3 of both the B/C/S and the English.
4 The paragraph that I'm interested in it under the Roman numeral
6 Q. Mr. Treanor, is this the document that you were just referring
8 A. Yes. This is a directive signed by Veljko Kadijevic, general of
9 the army. Veljko Kadijevic, who was the federal secretary for national
10 defence. And we can see in that paragraph under Roman numeral II, he
11 specifies that:
12 "Our armed forces are entering a new period of exceptional
13 significance for accomplishing the ultimate aim of the war: The
14 protection of the Serbian population. A peaceful resolution of
16 be preserved for those people that wish to live in it. Therefore, the
17 preservation of the combat readiness of the JNA and the armed forces as a
18 whole is still the central task of command and control and its members at
19 all levels. Until such time as --"
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. --
21 MR. GUY-SMITH: Excuse me, I'm sorry. I have been following
22 along quite well. We have just been double-checking our 65 ter lists,
23 with regard to documents that were submitted and gone through the -- a
24 number of them and don't seem to find this particular document as being
25 one of the documents that was --
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: If I may just add if it might be of help. I don't
2 see any Roman numeral II on this document and listening to what
3 Mr. Treanor has been reading, it doesn't seem to tally with what I see on
4 paragraph 2 of this document, under tasks.
5 THE WITNESS: On page 3 of the English translation, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: I don't know what page I'm on. I'm looking at the
7 page on the screen.
8 MS. SUTHERLAND: On the top of the page on the English
9 translation there is a Roman numeral II.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: It was not visible at the time. Thank you very
12 MS. SUTHERLAND: Sorry.
13 Q. Mr. Treanor was in the middle of reading out that paragraph. The
14 Defence had an objection.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes.
16 Mr. Guy-Smith.
17 MR. GUY-SMITH: I'm sorry, Your Honours, I have that as a removed
18 document from the list, according to our records. We'll double-check it.
19 Let's just proceed. We'll just double-check it.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.
21 MR. GUY-SMITH: The reason I'm raising is that I have a binder
22 full of all -- I believe all of those are 65 ter exhibits that would be
23 presented through this witness. I'm not finding that in my binder. We
24 may have made a mistake. I'm looking through the list right now. It
25 seems to have been a dropped document. I may well be wrong. Let's just
1 proceed at this point, and if there is a problem, we'll pick it up at a
2 later time.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Carry on, Madam Sutherland.
4 MS. SUTHERLAND: Thank you, Your Honour. This is certainly
5 not one that would have –- I’ll withdraw that.
6 Q. Mr. Treanor, you were talking about -- I don't think you finished
7 the paragraph that you were reading, the sentence that you were reading.
8 I think you got halfway through the last sentence of that paragraph?
9 A. I'll read the --
10 Q. I think you got up to, "... the central task of command and
12 A. I'll read that sentence again:
13 "Therefore, the preservation of the combat readiness of the JNA
14 and the armed forces as a whole is still the central task of command and
15 control and its members at all levels until such time as a political
16 solution to the Yugoslav crisis is found."
17 The reference to a political solution is based on the fact that
18 the Vance Plan that I mentioned was a -- a transitional measure to bring
19 peace to the areas of -- to Croatia
20 to maintain that peace, pending the outcome of negotiations.
21 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, may that document be admitted into
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Sutherland, if I may just ask, how many
24 pages is this document?
25 MS. SUTHERLAND: Five.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it
2 please be given an exhibit number.
3 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit P164, Your Honours.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
5 MS. SUTHERLAND:
6 Q. Mr. Treanor what was the position of the Presidency of the SFRY
7 in relation to the position taken by the Federal Secretariat for the
8 National Defence.
9 MS. SUTHERLAND: If I could 65 ter number 06791 on the screen,
10 please. Pages 25 to 27 of the English translation and page 34 of the
12 A. Yes, I think we can find the answer to that question in the
13 document we're looking at.
14 This is the verbatim record of a meeting that was held in
16 at this meeting were the four remaining members of the Presidency of the
17 SFRY who were the members from Serbia
18 other high officials of the federation and numerous Serbian leaders from
20 Milan Babic was not at this meeting.
21 The object of the meeting was to inform the -- what was for the
22 federal officials to inform the Serbian leaders in Croatia and Bosnia
23 about the Vance Plan and basically urge that they accept it.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Treanor, the question put to you was: What
25 was the position of the Presidency of the SFRY in relation to the
1 position taken by the Federal Secretariat of National Defence?
2 THE WITNESS: I think we're --
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can you zoom in on that question and give the
5 THE WITNESS: I think we're on page 145 of the translation.
6 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm advised, sir, that the document that is on the
8 screen has only 96 pages, not 145.
9 But in any case the question was not related to a page. The
10 question was: What was the relation, the position of the Presidency of
11 the SFRY in relation to the position taken by the Federal Secretariat of
12 National Defence.
13 MS. SUTHERLAND:
14 Q. Did Mr. Milosevic have a position, does he take a position in
15 this -- sorry.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, Sorry. You were asked a question earlier,
17 we need an answer to that question. I'm trying to get an answer to that
19 MS. SUTHERLAND: I'm sorry, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Will you please answer the question that was put
21 by counsel.
22 Do you want me it repeat the question?
23 THE WITNESS: Yes, please, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: The question is: What was the position of the
25 Presidency of the SFRY in relation to the position taken by the Federal
1 Secretariat of National Defence?
2 THE WITNESS: Well, if reference is being made to the previous
3 order, the SFRY Presidency was the Commander-in-Chief of the armed
4 forces. So the order would have been issued under its authority.
5 MS. SUTHERLAND:
6 Q. Did they --
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry. So you're talking in relation to a
8 previous order?
9 Can you talk about the Presidency of the SFRY and the Federal
10 Secretariat of National Defence and tell us what the position of these
11 two were in relation to each other. That's the question put to you,
12 whatever the purpose of the question.
13 THE WITNESS: The relationship between the Presidency and the
14 Federal Secretariat.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: What was the position of each in relation to each
17 THE WITNESS: The Presidency of the SFRY was the
18 Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. The Federal Secretary of defence
19 who signed the order that we were just looking at is the next in the
20 chain of command in the SFRY system. So he reports as the chief military
21 officer to the Presidency of the SFRY.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: The question is not Secretary of Federal
23 Secretary. It is Federal Secretariat of National Defence.
24 THE WITNESS: The Federal Secretariat was the bureaucratic
25 institution that the federal secretary headed. It included the civilian
1 components of -- included civilian components as well as the JNA.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: And what was its function?
3 THE WITNESS: It was the main defence organisation -- one of the
4 defence organisations within the SFRY. The SFRY also had a system of
5 Territorial Defence.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Did it go by any other name?
7 THE WITNESS: The Federal Secretariat?
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mm-hm.
9 THE WITNESS: At this time it was still known as the Federal
10 Secretariat for national defence. Later on under the FRY, the name would
11 have changed to being a ministry. And each, if I can clarify, what we
12 would, perhaps, ministries in the SFRY were called Secretariats, and the
13 heads of those organisations were called Secretaries.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
15 MS. SUTHERLAND:
16 Q. Mr. Treanor, the directive that Kadijevic gave on 10th of
17 December, 1991, said that the ultimate aim was for the protection of the
18 Serbian population and the peaceful resolution of the Yugoslav crisis and
19 the creation of the conditions in which Yugoslavia may be preserved. Did
20 the Presidency of the SFRY agree with that position that was taken by the
21 Federal Secretary of National Defence or not?
22 A. Again, the Presidency was the commander of the Federal Secretary,
23 if I can put it that way and the Presidency strongly supported the
24 self-determination certainly of the peoples including the Serbian people
25 in Croatia
1 Q. And so what did they have to say about it?
2 A. About this order?
3 Q. What did they discuss at the meeting on the 9th of December,
4 1991, if you can briefly tell the Court about that.
5 A. As I think I said before, this meeting was held to inform the
6 Serbian leaders from Croatia
7 Plan, which was designed to bring peace to Croatia and to urge those
8 leaders to support it.
9 Q. Was there any further developments in the Croatia Krajina in --
10 at the end of 1991?
11 A. Later in the month, the -- Serbian Autonomous District of Krajina
12 proclaimed itself as the Republic of Serbian Krajina, in unity with two
13 other Serbian Autonomous Districts that had been established in Croatia
14 That is the three Autonomous Districts joined together to form the
15 Republic of Serbian
16 MS. SUTHERLAND: Could I have Rule 65 ter number 06657 on the
17 screen, please.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: What do we do with 06791?
19 MS. SUTHERLAND: Could we admit that into evidence, Your
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: It's so admitted. May it please be given an
22 exhibit number.
23 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit P165, Your Honours.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
25 MS. SUTHERLAND: If we could, first of all go to pages 2 and 3 of
1 the English translation and page 1 of the B/C/S. That's 65 ter number
3 Q. Mr. Treanor, you mentioned that the SAO Krajina became the
4 Republic of Serbian
5 A. That's correct.
6 Q. Is the document that we're looking at the moment the
7 constitution -- yes. What's the important provisions in this
8 constitution that you would like to draw the Court's attention to?
9 A. I would draw the Court's attention to the first two Articles,
10 which are very brief.
11 Article 1 stating that the Republic of Serbian Krajina
12 national state of the Serbian people and a state of all people who live
14 Article 2 goes on to state that the sovereignty shall belong to
15 the Serbia
16 who live there. Serbian people and citizens of the Republic of Serbian
17 Krajina shall realize their sovereignty through referendums national
18 initiate and through their freely appointed representatives.
19 I would point out that Article 1 we have the Autonomous Region
20 under this new constitutional describing itself as -- now as a state.
21 And it -- Article 2, I'm sorry I missed that over in the next page in the
22 English, describes the territory of this new state which is the territory
23 of the three Autonomous Districts as I mentioned, of the Autonomous
24 District of Krajina. The other two Autonomous District, subsequently and
25 indeed, one of them on the same day adopted the same constitution to
1 effectively unite three of them in one republic.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: And you say that is in Article 2.
3 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, Article 3, Your Honour. The territory
4 of the Serbian Krajina shall be the territory of the Serbian Autonomous
5 Districts of Krajina. The other two autonomous districts, Serbian
6 Autonomous Districts in Croatia
7 them on the same day and one a few days later; and they effectively
8 united into one republic in February of the following -- of 1992, they
9 amended the constitution to reflect that fact.
10 MS. SUTHERLAND:
11 Q. And did the constitution -- sorry. Did the Republic of Serbian
12 Krajina have its own army?
13 A. Well, I think we want to look at Article 9.
14 MS. SUTHERLAND: If we could go to page 23 of the English
16 THE WITNESS: No we don't. It's Article 78. I'm sorry, we're
17 much further along in the document, yes.
18 MS. SUTHERLAND: And page 11 of the B/C/S.
19 Q. And in particular, subparagraph 5 of Article 78.
20 A. Yes. This Article specifies the powers of the president of the
21 republic, and we can see in point 5 that one of them, one of his
22 responsibilities to is a lead the armed forces in peacetime and war time
23 and the people's resistance in wartime, orders general and partial
24 mobilisation and organises preparations for defence in accordance with
25 the law.
1 Under point 6 when the assembly is not able to meet, he detects
2 the existence of an immediate threat of war or announces the state of war
3 according to the Prime Minister's opinion.
4 And under point 7 under his initiative or under the government's
5 proposal during a state of war, or imminent threat of war adopts acts
6 about issues from the assembly's jurisdiction and is required to submit
7 them before the assembly as soon as the assembly is able to meet.
8 These are some of the powers of the president under the
9 constitution, and it's reference to the armed forces indicates that this
10 Republic was to have its own armed forces.
11 Q. Did the Republic of Serbian Krajina seek recognition -- I'm
12 sorry, Your Honour. If that document can be admitted into evidence?
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it
14 please be given an exhibit number.
15 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit P166, Your Honours.
16 MS. SUTHERLAND: Could I have Rule 65 ter number 06617, please.
17 Q. Mr. Treanor, my question was did the Republic of Serbian Krajina
18 seek recognition?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. When was that?
21 A. On the same day, I believe, that the constitution which we just
22 looked at was adopted. Milan
23 the president of the Republic sent a letter to the European Community as
24 we can see. It is a request for the recognition of the Republic of
25 Serbian Krajina in the last paragraph of the letter he indicates that
1 your conditions, meaning the European Community's conditions for the
2 recognition are completely fulfilled by the Republic of Serbian Krajina
3 The reference there is to a document that the European Community
4 had adopted, I believe, on the 16th of December which laid out certain
5 conditions under which the European Community would recognise the
6 independence of the republics, the individual republics of Yugoslavia
7 should they so desire and should they so request. He here is saying that
8 he believes we fulfil those conditions and asking for recognition as a
9 state that is certainly independent of Croatia and apparently independent
10 of Yugoslavia
11 One of the points that had to be dealt with in getting the Vance
12 Plan accepted by the Serbian leaders in Croatia related to the fact that
13 many of them, including Milan Babic, were very dissatisfied that that
14 plan described their territories as being part of Croatia, whereas, as
15 we've seen, they considered themselves to be part of Serbia and part of
17 can put it in that fashion, to that situation. They're declaring to
18 the world that they're an independent state.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: If I may just be clear, are you saying this
20 document also requests recognition for the independence of Yugoslavia
21 THE WITNESS: No, they had hitherto consider themselves to be
22 part of Yugoslavia
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can we just look at lines 12 to 14 on page 72. On
24 the screen and just tell -- are you mistranscribed there? You can read,
25 independent at both places as independence.
1 THE WITNESS: Lines 14 through --
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Lines 12 through 14. He here is saying that --
3 THE WITNESS: Yes, Yes, he is saying in effect having declared
4 independence or having defined themselves in their constitution as a
5 state and now asking for international recognition, they are saying that
6 they are independent of both Croatia
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Certainly independent of Croatia
8 apparently -- okay. Sorry. Thank you very much.
9 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, may this document be admitted into
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: It is so admitted. May it please be given an
12 exhibit number.
13 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit P167, Your Honours.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
15 MS. SUTHERLAND:
16 Q. Mr. Treanor, was a convention held in Belgrade in early 1992, in
17 relation to territories whose population had expressed a wish to remain
18 in Yugoslavia
19 A. Yes, there was. I think we've seen numerous references in the
20 documents we have been looked at, to that expression, people who wished
21 to live in Yugoslavia
22 MS. SUTHERLAND: If could I have Rule 65 ter number 06681
23 [Realtime transcript read in error, "06682"].
24 THE WITNESS: At the beginning of January 1992, a big meeting
25 described as the convention for Yugoslavia
1 attended by representatives from various republics mostly from Serbia
3 a few non-Serbs who wished to continue living in Yugoslavia. They
4 devised a plan, if you will, for the formation of a new Yugoslavia, a
5 third Yugoslavia
6 peoples, by peoples that wished to remain living in Yugoslavia.
7 MS. SUTHERLAND:
8 Q. Who organised this conference or convention?
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry. Madam Sutherland did I hear you well that
10 you asked for 65 ter 06681.
11 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: We've got 82 on the screen. Okay, it's 81. Now
13 we know.
15 MS. SUTHERLAND: If I could just ask for pages 4 to 5 of the
16 English translation and 4 to 5
17 Q. Mr. Treanor, who organised this conference, convention?
18 A. Well, the convention was organised under the auspices of the
19 federal officials in Belgrade
21 of the same people that attended the previous meeting we were looking at,
22 Serbian -- in addition there were also some other leaders there from --
23 from Bosnia
24 Q. Where was the convention held?
25 A. It was held at Belgrade
1 building it was held in offhand. I believe it was the Sava Centre in
3 Q. If I can direct you to page 10 -- sorry, page 4.
4 Did they discuss at this conference who -- who was going to --
5 what territory was going to form this new Yugoslavia or the new federal
7 A. Yes. As I indicated it was to include areas inhabited by those
8 peoples that wished to remain living in Yugoslavia. In this
9 paragraph which comes from an article about that meeting, we see those
10 territories specified.
11 The magazine that this article appeared in is called the Polka
12 [phoen], and it was connected with the socialist party of Serbia
13 Slobodan Milosevic's party. And in this paragraph we can see that it
15 "The process of building new Yugoslavia will definitely depend on
16 the will of nations, citizens, and republics that want to join it. So
17 far, Serbia
18 Republic of BH
20 declared one way or another that they want to stay in this new federal
21 state. All together 12 million citizens."
22 As you can see, reference is made also to Serbian Autonomous
23 District in Bosnia
24 that relate to the development of those districts.
25 The article is accompanied by a map, which I'm not sure how well
1 it comes out in the black and white copies you have; but it depicts on
2 the map the -- some territorial limits of those various Serbian
3 Autonomous Districts.
4 Q. Can I direct your attention to page 5.
5 A. We're seeing the map now on the left-hand side.
6 Q. And page -- was there a debate about whether the territory should
7 be put under the protectorate of the UN?
8 A. Well, the reference in the article here is to the issue I
9 referred to before. That is, the dissatisfaction in some circles with
10 the Vance Plan. Here they -- the idea is emphasised that this is only
11 going to be a transitional arrangement. Namely, it says:
12 "All debatable territories should be put under the protectorate
13 of the OUN and UN blue helmets. In this way, better protection may be
14 provided for Serbian people in Croatia
15 Croatian army, and at the same time create the possibility for the
16 population to declare about their new state in five or more years. In 90
17 per cent of the cases, the territories that had been under UN protection
18 sooner or later got the right for independence."
19 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, can that document be admitted into
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it
22 please be given an exhibit number.
23 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P168, Your Honour.
24 MS. SUTHERLAND:
25 Q. Mr. Treanor, you mentioned that Mr. Babic, Milan Babic was the
1 first president of the Republic of Serbian Krajina. Who was the second?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And, sorry, if can we could have Rule 65 ter number 06718 on the
5 A. Milan Babic was replaced as president in February 1992. He had
6 been very public in his opposition to the Vance Plan. Another big
7 meeting was held in Belgrade
8 January attended by many of the same leaders that attended the meeting in
9 December that we were looking at. I do not have a record of that
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Treanor, may I sound a caution here. We don't
12 have much time. There are certain questions which really don't need any
13 background information, like the question that was asked you of you,
14 which in fact you have not answered. You have answered it in one, two,
15 three, four, five, six lines and two words mentioning the first name and
16 second name of the successor will have sufficed.
17 THE WITNESS: Yes, I was just trying to explain the reasons for
18 his removal.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: You were not asked about the reasons. Listen to
20 the question, answer the question directed. If the lawyer wants
21 reasons, she will ask you for reasons. We really don't have much time.
22 MS. SUTHERLAND: Could we go to page 4 of the English
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Have you got the answer to your question, ma'am?
25 MS. SUTHERLAND: No, Your Honour. I just want to direct the
1 registry so they can bring the document up while I ask the question
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Get the answer to the question because you want to
4 make a note of it.
5 MS. SUTHERLAND: Thank you, Your Honour.
6 Q. Can you tell the Court who became president after Babic?
7 A. Yes. On the 26th of February 1992 --
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Who.
9 THE WITNESS: Goran Hadzic was elected the president of the
10 Republic of Serbian
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
12 MS. SUTHERLAND:
13 Q. When did this occur?
14 A. On the 26th of February, 1992.
15 Q. And the document you see on the screen is the decision taken by
16 the Republic of Serbian Krajina assembly?
17 A. Yes that's the decision electing him president.
18 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, may that be admitted into evidence.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: 06718 is admitted into evidence. May it please be
20 given an exhibit number.
21 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit P169, Your Honours.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
23 MS. SUTHERLAND:
24 Q. Mr. Treanor, who took over the Presidency from Goran Hadzic?
25 A. Milan Martic was the next president of the Republic of Serbian
2 MS. SUTHERLAND: Can we have Rule 65 ter number 06788 on the
3 screen, please.
4 Q. When did this occur?
5 A. This occurred in January 1994.
6 Q. And what was the reason why Martic took over from Hadzic, if you
8 A. They actually held elections at this time. We've seen the
9 previous decision Goran Hadzic was elected by the assembly, but they
10 actually held popular elections in 1994. And this document gives the
11 results of the elections.
12 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, may that be admitted into evidence.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: It's so admitted. May it please be given an
14 exhibit number.
15 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit P170, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
17 MS. SUTHERLAND:
18 Q. You mentioned that the Republic of Serbian Krajina had an armed
19 force. What was the name of that army?
20 A. It was known as -- or at least a certain point in time became
21 known as the Serbian army of Krajina.
22 Q. And the acronym for that?
23 A. It's SVK in B/C/S.
24 Q. After Martic became president on the 25th of January, or in
25 January 1994 who was appointed as military commander of the SVK?
1 A. Milan Celeketic was appointed commander of the SVK by
3 MS. SUTHERLAND: Rule 65 ter number 06123 , please.
4 Q. The document that is on the screen, is that the degree appointing
6 A. Yes.
7 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, can that be admitted into evidence,
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: So admitted. May it please be given an exhibit
11 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit P171, Your Honours.
12 MS. SUTHERLAND:
13 Q. After Celeketic, do you know who took over?
14 A. A new commander was pointed in 1995, toward the middle of 1995,
15 General Mrksic.
16 Q. Mr. Treanor, I now want to turn your attention to dealing with
17 the Bosnian Serbs in Bosnia-Herzegovina. And I want to take you back to
18 1990. What was the position of the Bosnian Serbs at the founding
19 assembly of the political party, the Serbian political party in Bosnia
20 and Herzegovina
21 And if I could have on the screen Rule 65 ter number 06696,
23 A. I take it you're referring to the position they adopted on some
24 of the current issues of the day.
25 Q. Yes.
1 A. Yes. If we can see that --
2 Q. That's on page 3.
3 A. -- in this document.
4 This document is a speech given by Radovan Karadzic at the
5 founding assembly of the Serbian Democratic Party of Bosnia and
7 in Croatia
8 In this speech he indicates some of the objectives of that party
9 and the same assembly on the same day elected him president of the party
10 and adopted the party programme and statutes which reflect what he says
12 If I can draw the Court's attention to the bottom half of page 3,
13 in the paragraph beginning with:
14 "The basic objective of the party is full and unconditional
15 civil, national, cultural, religious, and economic equality for the Serbs
16 in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Here we cannot have peoples who lead or follow,
17 first or second-rate citizens, nation-building and non-nation-building
19 "The objective of the party is to improve multi-national
20 relations, establish stability and reciprocity, enhance civilian
22 "The objective of the party is Federative Yugoslavia consisting
23 of an equal federal Bosnia-Herzegovina. Should this objective not be
24 attainable, the party will strive to facility democratic methods
25 including those which will enable the Serbian people to respond to a new
2 So the Serbian Democratic Party of Bosnia and Herzegovina also
3 wished for the Serbs in their republic to remain within Yugoslavia
4 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, can that document be admitted.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: It is so admitted. May it please be given an
6 exhibit number.
7 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit P172, Your Honours.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
9 MS. SUTHERLAND:
10 Q. And what was the Bosnian Serb's position by the end of 1990? Did
11 it change in any way?
12 MS. SUTHERLAND: Could we have Rule 65 ter number 06675 on the
13 screen, please, page 4.
14 A. Yes, they maintained that position.
15 Q. What is this document, Mr. Treanor?
16 A. Yes. This is -- this document is the transcript of an audio and
17 sound recording that was made of a meeting held in Banja Luka on the 13th
18 of October, 1990, at a time when elections, the multi-party elections had
19 already been scheduled in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Elections that the SDS in
20 BH were going to take part and at this meeting, a Serbian National
21 Council for BH was founded.
22 Q. Who was on that council?
23 A. The council included leaders of the Serbian Democratic Party, and
24 Radovan Karadzic was the president of the council.
25 Q. And what -- what position were they taking in October 1990, in
1 relation to boundaries, state boundaries?
2 A. As I think -- to answer that question, I think I can direct you
3 to -- I'm sorry, I'm still looking at the original here.
4 Q. If we could perhaps go to the middle of the page?
5 A. I think it's page 4 of the translation.
6 Here Radovan Karadzic addresses the issue of borders. He says:
7 "They have changed the concept of borders. Change of quality and
8 nature of our internal borders. So the administrative lines that
9 supposedly connect us have been transformed or will soon be transformed
10 into hard state borders which divide us. These gentlemen care about the
11 shape of the borders if it runs along this or that bank of a river or
12 side of the meadow. They don't care to preserve the nature of these
13 borders which are internal administrative lines between brotherly
14 nations. One should know that most of these future hard borders are
15 supposed to cut through the living tissue of Serbian people. They would
16 like to cut and divide Serbian people against Serbian people's will.
17 Hatred against Serbs and Serbia
18 was a well-designed and carefully executed plan."
19 The reference to the borders is to the existing borders of the
20 republics of the former Yugoslavia
21 borders; they were internal borders, and Radovan Karadzic is here
22 objecting to their being changed into international borders by the
23 recognition of the independence of individual republics, which as we've
24 discussed, was something that for instance Croatia was moving toward and
25 this was something that as we've seen that Slobodan Milosevic was
1 objecting to.
2 Q. Mr. Treanor, can I direct your attention to the bottom of page 5
3 of the English translation.
4 What was the point that -- that Radovan Karadzic was making
6 A. Well, here he is reemphasizing the idea that the Serbs in Serbia
7 want to remain in one state with Serbia
8 he says:
9 "But this did not help us in achieving constitutional guarantees
10 for federation and founding an assembly of nations. Serbian people in BH
11 will not give up their demands to live in one same state with our parent
12 country, Serbia
13 And just below that, on top of the next page, where that passage
14 ends, at the top of the page, after an interruption.
15 Dr. Karadzic says:
16 "Nobody can confederalise us against our will. Here today with
17 your consent we will form the Serbian National Council of BiH."
18 Here we see him objecting to the idea of confederalisation, which
19 is something we have seen that Slobodan Milosevic was also objecting to.
20 Q. We can see the decision was then taken on forming the national --
21 the Serbian National Council. I can direct you to the bottom of the… that
22 page 6. What was the outcome of the decision of the Serbian National
24 A. Yes. They took a decision along the lines that he had been
25 referred to remaining in one country, stating that the decision was
1 adopted pursuant to this decision by the Serbian National Council of BiH:
2 "Serbian people in BiH will not accept any decisions altering the
3 character of the BiH state except for a decision which would be reached
4 on a referendum of Serbian people."
5 So here we see a reference to the idea of a referendum of the
6 Serbian people. Again, something that Slobodan Milosevic had advocated.
7 We had seen a referendum of people by republics, and the reference to not
8 accepting decisions is a reference to any decision that the assembly of
9 BiH may pass, regarding the independence of Bosnia, which would separate
10 the Serbs from Serbia
11 having their own referendum.
12 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, may that document be admitted into
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: It is so admitted. May it please be given an
15 exhibit number.
16 THE REGISTRAR: That would be Exhibit P173, Your Honours.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. P173.
18 MS. SUTHERLAND:
19 Q. Leading up to the November 1990 elections what if anything was
20 intimated to happen if decisions altering the character of
21 Bosnia-Herzegovina were adopted.
22 MS. SUTHERLAND: And if we could have Exhibit number, Rule 65 ter
23 06716 on the screen, please. On page 3 of the English translation and
24 page 2 of the B/C/S.
25 Q. What was the position of the Bosnian Serbs, if -- if there were
1 any decisions altering the character of Bosnia-Herzegovina?
2 A. Yes, in this interview Radovan Karadzic makes reference to the
3 situation that could develop as he puts it in the passage at the bottom
4 of page 3, the paragraph beginning:
5 "Without the Chamber of peoples."
6 Q. Sorry may I interrupt you. What is this document?
7 A. Yes, I'm sorry. This document is an interview with
8 Radovan Karadzic that was published in November 1991, on the 9th of
9 November, 1991, in the Belgrade
10 paragraph in discussing that issue, he makes references to a Chambers of
11 peoples. At the beginning of the paragraph what the discussion here
12 refers to is the idea that the Serbs or the Serbian representatives in
13 the assembly which was about to be elected. This is just before the
14 elections, could be outvoted by the representatives, the deputies who
15 were members of other nations in a simple majority vote. This was
16 something that they did not -- the Serbian leaders, the Bosnian Serb
17 leaders did not want to see happen, and they had suggested that a new
18 chamber in the assembly be created called the Chamber of peoples in which
19 the representatives of any particular people would be able to block any
20 measure in the assembly that they felt threatened the vital interests of
21 their people.
22 That the SDS had suggested that to the existing assembly, the
23 outgoing assembly, in November in a letter, it doesn't draw any -- it
24 didn't happen at that time, let me put it that way, and that's what the
25 reference is to here, his fear of being outvoted on the question of
1 independence in the assembly.
2 He says:
3 "The BH assembly could become a place of dramatic events because
4 the Serbs could be outvoted by a two-thirds majority regarding for
5 instance the change of the state character of BH. Should that happen all
6 conditions for a civil war would be in place because the Serbs in BH are
7 no longer helpless but very powerful and united."
8 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, can that document be admitted into
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: It is so admitted. May it please be given an
11 exhibit number.
12 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit P174, Your Honours.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
14 MS. SUTHERLAND:
15 Q. Mr. Treanor, briefly, what happened as a result of the
16 November 1990 elections?
17 MS. SUTHERLAND: And if I could Rule 65 ter number 02232 on the
18 screen, please, at page 2 of the English translation and page 4 of the
20 A. Yes, the elections were held later in November at various levels
21 in the republic. That is there were elections for republic level posts
22 as well as for municipal level posts. On the federal level, the
23 elections were for the two Chambers, two existing Chambers of the
24 assembly of BH and for the Presidency of BH.
25 As a result of those elections, the SDS won 72 seats in the
1 combined in the two houses, the two houses of the BH assembly, which
2 was -- the total number is important because the assembly sometimes met
3 in joint session to consider particularly important issues.
4 The party for democratic action, which was basically a Muslim
5 party won 80-some odd seats, and the HDZ in Croatia won a smaller number
6 of seats, each of those parties won a number of seats in the assembly
7 roughly proportionate to the representation of their respective
8 nationalities in the population of BH.
9 The Croats representing about 20 per cent, the Serbs 30 per cent,
10 and the Muslims 43 per cent. They were all anti-Communist parties, and
11 they had been afraid that the Communists were going to rig the elections
12 somehow and so they cooperated to a certain extent before the elections
13 and they in fact formed a coalition government after the elections; and
14 they also came to an agreement on the division of power in the
15 municipalities as well.
16 So as a result of the elections the SDS entered a coalition
17 government at the republic level and won a majority in a -- an outright
18 majority in a sizeable number of municipalities in Bosnia and
19 participated in government in many other municipalities where it was
20 cooperating with the other parties. So it came out of the elections with
21 a very strong political position within the republic. As a result of the
22 agreement among the parties, the position of president of the assembly
23 was allotted to the SDS; and Momcilo Krajisnik became the president of
24 the assembly, and the Presidency, two Serbs backed by the SDS were
25 elected, so two of the seven members of the Presidency were SDS people.
1 Not necessarily members of the party but had been supported by them in
2 the government the SDS received a number of ministries but not the
3 position of prime minister, which went to the HDZ.
4 Q. Mr. Treanor I think we have to stop there. We'll come back to
5 that document tomorrow.
6 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, I note the time.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes. Thank you very much. Because of the latest
8 of the hour, we have to adjourn.
9 Tomorrow we are not sitting.
10 MS. SUTHERLAND: Sorry, Thursday.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: So we will adjourn to Thursday, at quarter past
12 2.00 in the afternoon, same courtroom. Am I right?
13 Yes, Courtroom II, quarter past 2.00 in the afternoon, Thursday,
14 the 6th.
15 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.02 p.m.
16 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 6th day of
17 November, 2008, at 2.15 p.m.