Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 1715

 1                           Wednesday, 19 November 2008

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           [The witness entered court]

 5                           --- Upon commencing at 9.01 a.m.

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Good morning to everybody in and around the

 7     courtroom.

 8             Madam Registrar, will you please call the case.

 9             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Good morning

10     everyone in the courtroom.  This is case number IT-04-81-T, the

11     Prosecutor versus Momcilo Perisic.

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.

13             Could we please have appearances for today, starting with the

14     Prosecution.

15             MR. HARMON:  Good morning, Mr. President and Your Honours.  Good

16     morning, counsel.  My name is Mark Harmon.  Appearing today will be

17     Carolyn Edgerton and present is Carmela Javier.

18             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.

19             And for the Defence?

20             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Good morning, Your Honours, counsel.  Today we

21     have Daniela Tasic, Chad Mair, Milos Androvic, Tina Drolec, assisting,

22     and two of our interns Eadaoin O'Brien and Akila, whose last name I

23     always have a hard time pronouncing, which is Radhakrishwan, which I'll

24     get to the reporter the spelling.  My name is Gregor Guy-Smith and Novak

25     Lukic.

Page 1716

 1             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much, Mr. Guy-Smith.

 2             Dr. Donia, I know you know the rules of the trade, but still we

 3     have to warn you that you are still bound by the declaration you made at

 4     the beginning of your testimony to tell the truth, the whole truth, and

 5     nothing else by the truth.

 6             THE WITNESS:  Yes, Your Honour.

 7             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.

 8             Madam Edgerton.

 9             MS. EDGERTON:  Thank you, Your Honour, and good morning.  Just

10     one very quick administrative matter, just dealing with an exhibit that

11     Mr. Lukic spoke to yesterday, P149.  You will recall I had mistakenly

12     designated the wrong B/C/S passage as the highlighted passage.  We looked

13     into the matter yesterday and found the highlight passage to be at

14     e-court page 138, and I just wanted to let everyone know that passage

15     continues to e-court page 139 as well, just to put that on the record.

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you, ma'am.

17             MS. EDGERTON:  Thank you.

18                           WITNESS:  ROBERT DONIA [Resumed]

19                           Examination by Ms. Edgerton:  [Continued]

20        Q.   Good morning, doctor.  I trust you've slept well?

21        A.   Good morning.  Yes.

22        Q.   Yesterday we left having dealt with your comments on an ethnic

23     map of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and just related to that, I would like to go

24     back to further explore the strategic objectives of 12 May 1992.

25             Talking specifically about the first objective, which was the

Page 1717

 1     demarcation of the state as separate from the other two national

 2     communities, could I ask you this:  Are you aware of any specific

 3     expressions by RS leaders as to how important this objective was?

 4        A.   Yes.  Mr. Krajisnik, in his first exposition of the six strategic

 5     goals, highlighted that as a -- the most important and overriding goal.

 6             MS. EDGERTON:  Can I then ask that 65 ter number 2134 be

 7     displayed, please.  In the English, page 52, line 9 from the top of the

 8     page to line 15; and B/C/S page 42, line 9 from the bottom of the page.

 9     The transcript records my saying 3421.  I indicated, I think, 2134.

10             Now, let's deal with the English first.  To page 52, please.

11     Could I see page 52 in the English, please.  Your indulgence for a

12     moment, Your Honour, while we get warmed up, so to speak.  Thank you.

13     Can we have amplified line 9 from the top of the page.  And can we go to

14     B/C/S page 42, line 9 from the bottom of the page.

15        Q.   But perhaps in the interests of the time, Dr. Donia, while we

16     have the English version in front of you or in front of us, could I draw

17     your attention to the line which begins -- or the sentence which begins

18     "The first goal is the most important one ..."

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   Is this the passage from Mr. Krajisnik that you were referring

21     to?

22        A.   Yes.  This is the first passage to which I refer, yes.

23        Q.   And in the event I haven't asked you already, who was

24     Mr. Krajisnik?

25        A.   Mr. Krajisnik was the President of the Bosnian Serb Assembly.

Page 1718

 1        Q.   Thank you.

 2             MS. EDGERTON:  Your Honour, I wonder whether this could be marked

 3     as the next exhibit, please.  So page 52 of the English and page 42 of

 4     the B/C/S.  65 ter 2134.

 5             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes, Mr. Guy-Smith.

 6             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Yes.  I'm advised that the B/C/S page is not the

 7     appropriate page.

 8             MS. EDGERTON:  No.  That's correct.  If we could go to the proper

 9     display page, page 42, e-court page 42 of the B/C/S.

10             JUDGE MOLOTO:  That's the correct page?

11             MS. EDGERTON:  It is.

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  The exhibit is entered into evidence.  May it

13     please be given an exhibit number.

14             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit P339, Your Honours.

15             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.

16             MS. EDGERTON:  In accordance with the practice prescribed

17     yesterday, as no pages from this large document has been previously

18     admitted, if we could have page 1 admitted in there as well.

19             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Indeed.  Yes, that's a standing order, Madam

20     Registrar.

21             THE REGISTRAR:  Yes, Your Honour.

22             MS. EDGERTON:  Could we go next to 02151.02, which is a

23     transcript of the 42nd session of the RS Assembly held in Pale, 19 July

24     1994.  65 ter number again 2151.02.  This will be an extract of comments

25     given by Radovan Karadzic.

Page 1719

 1        Q.   Now, on the English page, which appears on your right, Dr. Donia,

 2     could I direct you, please, to a sentence about halfway through the

 3     second paragraph on the right-hand side.

 4             MS. EDGERTON:  If you could scroll up, please, Mr. Registrar, the

 5     paragraph on the right-hand side, beginning with "We know ..."  You'll

 6     see it three lines under the number 56 on the right-hand side of this

 7     paragraph.

 8             THE WITNESS:  Yes, I see it.

 9             MS. EDGERTON:  Before I ask for your comment, we'll wait for the

10     B/C/S to be pulled up.  And the B/C/S pages have been extracted.  That's

11     page 71.

12        Q.   Do you attribute any significance to Karadzic's comments as to

13     what their primary strategic aim is here in this passage?

14             And, for the record, the highlight passage goes to the sentence

15     which ends with "... anymore."

16        A.   Yes, this is his statement of the first strategic goal, or

17     primary strategic aim, as he calls it here, in more explicit form than he

18     stated it on the 12th of May or that is stated in the published version

19     in the Official Gazette of November 1993 when he says, "Our primary

20     strategic aim is to get rid of the enemies in our house and not to be in

21     the same state with them anymore."

22        Q.   And in this sentence, when Karadzic refers to enemies in the

23     house, does he stipulate any enemies in particular?

24        A.   Yes.  Croats and Muslims.

25        Q.   Now, based, then, on this and other remarks, have you, Dr. Donia,

Page 1720

 1     have formed an opinion as to what achieving this objective means?

 2        A.   It meant the creation of a purely Serb state, devoid of Croats

 3     and Muslims.

 4             MS. EDGERTON:  Your Honours, could I ask that 2151.02 be admitted

 5     as an exhibit, and I should note that this is an extract of 65 ter number

 6     2151.01, pages of which are admitted as P00219.  And the reason for the

 7     slightly different 65 ter number is here we're dealing with -- in terms

 8     of the English translation, a CLSS finalized translation, so we

 9     highlighted the pages on which the highlighted excerpt is contained.

10             JUDGE MOLOTO:  And must, then, this be admitted as a separate

11     exhibit or must it go with 219?

12             MS. EDGERTON:  I think because we've extracted it out - my

13     opinion, subject to what Your Honours think - because we've extracted it

14     out and provided a revised translation of the highlighted pages, it would

15     be best to cross-reference it, rather than make it part of P219.

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Madam Registrar.

17             THE REGISTRAR:  It's admitted as Exhibit P340.

18             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You can proceed, ma'am.

19             MS. EDGERTON:  Thank you, Your Honours.

20             Could I take us next to 65 ter 6703.  6703.

21        Q.   Do you see a document?  At this moment we have only the B/C/S

22     version.

23             MS. EDGERTON:  I'm sorry, the English version I don't recognise

24     at all as 6703.  Perhaps we can deal with the B/C/S version for the

25     moment until the English version is -- thank you.

Page 1721

 1        Q.   Do you see the documents in B/C/S and English on the screen in

 2     front of you, Dr. Donia?

 3        A.   Yes, I do.

 4        Q.   Do you recognise what these documents are?

 5        A.   Yes.  These are the B/C/S and English versions respectively of

 6     minutes of a meeting held in the office of Croatian President

 7     Franjo Tudjman with Nikola Koljevic, then a member of the Presidency of

 8     Bosnia-Herzegovina; and Franjo Boras, a Croat representative, on 8 June

 9     1992.

10        Q.   The document I see in front of me reads as a date 8 January --

11        A.   I'm sorry, 8 January 1992.  Excuse me.

12        Q.   Are you familiar with this meeting?

13        A.   Yes, I am.

14        Q.   Are you familiar with the topics recorded in these minutes?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   Do you have a view relating to the thing we've just been

17     discussing, the first strategic objective as to the significance of some

18     of the topics discussed at this meeting?

19        A.   Yes.  In the meeting Koljevic initiates a discussion about

20     possible population transfers in order to achieve the first strategic

21     goal as it was expressed earlier and approaches the representatives of

22     the Republic of Croatia about the feasibility of working together to

23     achieve ethnic separation and separate states.

24        Q.   Do you attribute any significance to the fact that this meeting

25     took place some four months before the announcement of the strategic

Page 1722

 1     objectives in May of 1992?

 2        A.   Yes.  This would be one of many expressions by Bosnian Serb

 3     leaders well in advance of May 1992 of the general concepts that were

 4     inherent in the strategic goals and the first strategic goal in

 5     particular, the notion of separation and population transfers.

 6        Q.   Did Nikola Koljevic hold any formal position in the structures of

 7     the Bosnian Serb republic, of Republika Srpska?

 8        A.   Not at this time because it did not exist yet.  But he was

 9     subsequently a member of the Presidency of the Serbian Republic of

10     Bosnia-Herzegovina and after that a vice-president of the Republika

11     Srpska.

12        Q.   Thank you.

13             MS. EDGERTON:  Could this be marked, please, as the next exhibit.

14             JUDGE MOLOTO:  It's so marked.  May it please be given an exhibit

15     number.

16             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit P341, Your Honours.

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.

18             MS. EDGERTON:  I'd like to go next, please, to 2144.01,

19     transcripts of the 34th session of the RS Assembly held in Jahorina on 30

20     September 1993, one page of which has previously been marked as P200.

21     Thank you.  I see the B/C/S version in front of me.  In that regard, I'd

22     like to direct us in the B/C/S to page 230, and in the English

23     translation, page 212 to extract -- an extract from a comment by

24     Velibor Ostojic.  So English page 212; B/C/S page 230.

25        Q.   Dr. Donia, I know you explained this yesterday, but perhaps you

Page 1723

 1     could remind us who Velibor Ostojic was.

 2        A.   At this time Mr. Ostojic was the Minister of Information of

 3     Republika Srpska.

 4        Q.   Thank you.

 5             MS. EDGERTON:  English page 212.  Thank you.  Yes, I think we

 6     have the display appropriate on the B/C/S.

 7        Q.   Could I direct you, please, to the very last paragraph where you

 8     see Mr. Ostojic speaking on page 212, the second and third line from the

 9     bottom of the page, which begins with the sentence "We were aiming to

10     achieve our goal ..."

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   Do you attribute any significance to this comment?

13        A.   Yes.  Mr. Ostojic is referring to a single goal which very

14     probably is the first or primary strategic goal which we've been speaking

15     and, by content, is identical, which was the ethnical geographic

16     continuity of the Serb population, and of course that would mean -- refer

17     to the notion that all Serbs should be connected somehow geographically,

18     which would also mean the movement of non-Serbs from that territory.

19        Q.   Thank you.

20             MS. EDGERTON:  In this same document, could we please move over

21     to page 33 of the English translation and page 32 of the B/C/S.  Your

22     indulgence for just a moment, Your Honours.

23             Now, I'd like to direct us to the last sentence on the bottom of

24     page 33 and -- of the English, that begins with the words "Alija is

25     offering ..."  Thank you.  And then on the English, if you could go over

Page 1724

 1     to page 34, the next page, at the very top of page 34 after this.

 2        Q.   Dr. Donia, this is an excerpt from comments by one

 3     Dobrislav Milinkovic.  Are you familiar with that name?

 4        A.   He was a delegate to the Bosnian Serb Assembly.  Further, I

 5     couldn't identify him.

 6             MS. EDGERTON:  Could we go over to page 34, please, the very top

 7     of the page.  Thank you.  The end of the highlighted paragraph that began

 8     on page 33 with "Alija is offering ..." now appears at the top of page

 9     34, ending with "... there has to be relocation."  About four lines down

10     from the top.

11             On the English, could you please scroll back up to the top of the

12     page.  Thank you.

13        Q.   Have you had a chance to see those comments now, Dr. Donia?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   Are they consistent with your view of what the first objective

16     meant?

17        A.   Yes.  They are consistent and amount to a reaffirmation of the

18     first strategic goal in the specific circumstances of that time.

19        Q.   Thank you.

20             MS. EDGERTON:  Your Honours, at this point I wonder if I could

21     ask that these two pages -- no, actually, it would be four pages,

22     pages 212 -- sorry, let me deal with the ones that are in front of me on

23     the screen now.  Pages 33 and 34 of the English and page 32 of the B/C/S,

24     and then with respect to the first excerpt, that's page 212 of the

25     English and page 230 of the B/C/S, if they could be admitted as exhibits

Page 1725

 1     as part of P200.  P200 is this larger document, but only one page has

 2     been previously exhibited.

 3             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Those pages are admitted into evidence as part of

 4     Exhibit P200.

 5             MS. EDGERTON:  And before my friend, Madam Registrar, stands up,

 6     I have a note here that the first page of P200 was never previously

 7     exhibited.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, page 1 and relevant pages discussed

 9     today will be added to the exhibit.

10             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.

11             MS. EDGERTON:

12        Q.   Now, given, Dr. Donia, the mix of ethnic communities on the

13     territory of the former Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina that we've already

14     spoken about, given the observations that we've made about the meaning

15     behind and importance of the first strategic objective, I'd like to ask

16     you this:  Do you have an opinion as to whether these strategic

17     objectives could have been achieved without the use of force?

18             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Well --

19             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes, Mr. Guy-Smith.

20             MR. GUY-SMITH:  If he's testifying as a historian, then I believe

21     this is outside of his expertise whether or not -- that particular issue.

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Madam Edgerton.

23             MS. EDGERTON:  As an expert witness, Your Honour, he's perfectly

24     entitled to express an opinion based on the breadth of his research,

25     which is exactly what I'm asking him to do here.

Page 1726

 1             JUDGE MOLOTO:  The objection is that you are asking for an

 2     opinion which is outside his area of expertise.  That's the nub of the

 3     objection.

 4             MS. EDGERTON:  In my submission, Your Honour, we have ample

 5     evidence before us that he's well-versed in and has conducted an

 6     extremely large amount of detailed research into the statements of

 7     various Bosnian Serb Assembly delegates, leaders at the Bosnian Serb

 8     Assembly sessions, reviewed a breadth of documents, and has conducted

 9     detailed researches into demographic changes in the population

10     Bosnia-Herzegovina in the period leading up to and after the war.  I fail

11     to see how this would be outside his area of expertise.

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I'll allow the question.

13             THE WITNESS:  In my opinion, it would have been impossible to

14     achieve these objectives without the use of force or the immediate and

15     credible threat of force, in other words, at the point of a gun.

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Can we have this exhibit enlarged, please?  I'd

17     like to read something from it.  The English version.  No, no, no, I'm

18     not suggesting you remove the --

19             Do you hold that view, Dr. Donia, notwithstanding the fact that

20     the speaker here on this document says that:  "Gentlemen, there is no

21     Serbian state in Bosnia in part without gradual depopulation and

22     relocating.  If you want ethnically pure Serbian state, and we do, don't

23     we, if we all know and emphasise --"

24             Could we please have it enlarged?  Thank you.  Thank you so much.

25             "If we all know and emphasise that we cannot live with them, then

Page 1727

 1     we have to realise that these draft maps are offering exactly that, and

 2     there has to be relocation.  This plan has to be accepted and signed by

 3     all three sides in order to get three republics.  Let us pray to God that

 4     other sides accept.  And we should chase the devil and accept the offer

 5     from God."

 6             It comes from the previous page where Alija is allegedly offering

 7     something.  Now, this seems to me to be a basis for a negotiated

 8     settlement.

 9             THE WITNESS:  Yes, Your Honour, I would agree that it -- in the

10     perception of the speaker, Mr. Milinkovic, it was an objective that could

11     be obtained by negotiation.

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  And if the people were prepared to take that

13     perception, then they could sign and do it by negotiated settlement.

14             THE WITNESS:  Yes, Your Honour.  But I think that the problem was

15     the people which he claimed to speak for proved themselves to be quite

16     unmoved by the prospect of relocating voluntarily in response to some

17     diplomatic agreement.

18             JUDGE MOLOTO:  But then it doesn't seem to me as if that violence

19     was the only alternative here.

20             THE WITNESS:  I think from the point of view of those people who

21     were on the ground living in these communities, as I say, it was -- or

22     the immediate and credible threat of violence would be required to

23     achieve that end.  And I base that on seeing so many situations or

24     observing, as a historian from a distance, so many situations in the war,

25     in the course of the war, in which territory changed hands and people

Page 1728

 1     wanted to stay in their homes.  They were not eager to relocate until

 2     they saw the point of the gun directed at them.  The leaders had a very

 3     different notion that this would somehow be a very easy, acceptable

 4     process, if only the leaders of the three groups could come together on a

 5     solution.  The response on the ground was very different.

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Doctor, do I understand you to be saying that you

 7     come to this conclusion based on your observation of other situations

 8     elsewhere or based on what you observed happening within Bosnia and

 9     Herzegovina amongst the three ethnic groups?

10             THE WITNESS:  Based on what I observed as a historian among the

11     ethnic groups in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Right.  And I'm just suggesting that amongst these

13     groups, there is this viewpoint that is expressed by this person here and

14     I'm asking, are you holding to the view that that situation could not be

15     resolved but through violence or the threat of it, notwithstanding this

16     viewpoint?

17             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

18             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

19             Madam Prosecutor, I am advised that you are left with about 15

20     minutes of your time.

21             MS. EDGERTON:  That's fine, Your Honour.  I'll endeavour to move

22     forward.

23             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

24             MS. EDGERTON:  As efficiently as possible.

25        Q.   Dr. Donia, this statement by Mr. Milinkovic made at the 34th

Page 1729

 1     session of the RS Assembly was made in September 1993.

 2             Are you aware as to whether ethnic cleansing on the territory of

 3     Bosnia-Herzegovina had taken place by that time?

 4        A.   Yes, it had.

 5        Q.   Thank you.  Have you, Dr. Donia, seen any evidence of expressions

 6     in the course of your research, expressions by Bosnian Serb leaders that

 7     they contemplated the use of force in achieving their territorial

 8     objectives?

 9        A.   Yes.

10             MS. EDGERTON:  Could I ask, then, that 65 ter number 9150 be

11     displayed.  Thank you.

12        Q.   We have a B/C/S document on the screen in front of us.  Do you

13     recognise that document, Dr. Donia?  And I see the English is now

14     displayed.

15        A.   Yes.  This is a transcript in B/C/S and English respectively of a

16     telephone conversation between Dr. Karadzic and his long-time friend and

17     fellow writer Gojko Djogo on the 12th of October, 1991.

18        Q.   Do you attach any significance to this conversation in terms of

19     the question I've just asked you?

20        A.   Yes.  It is demonstrably a very forceful statement of Karadzic's

21     -- of his contemplation of physical violence and preparedness to use it.

22             MS. EDGERTON:  In that regard, could we go over, please, to page

23     3 of the translation and page 2 of the B/C/S.

24        Q.   When you refer to the contemplation of physical violence, looking

25     at the statements at the top of the right-hand -- top of the

Page 1730

 1     English-language document on the right-hand side, is this what you're

 2     referring to?

 3        A.   Yes, it is.

 4        Q.   Thank you.

 5             MS. EDGERTON:  Could I ask that the transcript of this

 6     conversation, Your Honours, be marked as the next exhibit.

 7             JUDGE MOLOTO:  The exhibit is admitted into evidence.  May it

 8     please be given an exhibit number.

 9             THE REGISTRAR:  P342, Your Honours.

10             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

11             MS. EDGERTON:  Your indulgence now for one brief moment, Your

12     Honours.

13             Your Honour, just having a look at the rest of the material, I'd

14     like to go through, I think to be as effective as possible, I would take

15     until the end of this session in my examination-in-chief, and while

16     recognising that this does go over our original estimate, I note that we

17     may, in the event we have saved time with the examination-in-chief of

18     other witnesses, we may transfer that time as the examining party to

19     witnesses.  And I'd ask your leave, Your Honour, given that we have saved

20     time in the witnesses up to this date, to just be allowed to go over to

21     the end of this first session.

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Where did you save time, by the way?

23             MS. EDGERTON:  I don't stand corrected, Your Honour.  I can't

24     answer your question as directly as I would hope because I need to -- I

25     would need to double-check on which witnesses we have managed to save

Page 1731

 1     some time, so my apologies in that regard, Your Honour.

 2             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You are forgiven.

 3             MS. EDGERTON:  Thank you, sir.

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You may proceed.

 5             MS. EDGERTON:  Thank you, sir.

 6        Q.   At what level, in 1992 particularly, Dr. Donia, did ethnic

 7     cleansing take place?

 8        A.   The ethnic cleansing in the spring and early summer of 1992

 9     really took place at the municipal level.  It took place one municipality

10     at a time on different dates over a period of about six, seven weeks, and

11     was executed by local SDS operatives in conjunction with local units of

12     the JNA or paramilitary groups or police forces.  So it was very much a

13     municipality-based activity in the spring and early summer of 1992.

14        Q.   Now, you've noted that the JNA had a role in that activity.

15             MS. EDGERTON:  And in that regard could I direct you to 2065,

16     please.  2065.  Page 159 of the English transcript and page 75 of the

17     B/C/S original.

18        Q.   And while we have, albeit sideways, a cover of a document in

19     Serbo-Croatian on the screen, I'd like to ask you:  Do you recognise

20     this?

21        A.   Yes, I do.  It's the cover of a book, a memoire volume by

22     General Veljko Kadijevic, "Moje vidjenje raspada," or "My View of the

23     Breakup."

24        Q.   Who was General Kadijevic?

25        A.   I believe he was the Chief of Staff of the Yugoslav People's Army

Page 1732

 1     at that time, in 1992.

 2        Q.   Thank you.  Now could I direct you to the passage half way

 3     through this page, the middle main paragraph that begins with the

 4     sentence "Since the JNA ..." and ends with the words "... never closing

 5     the door to cooperation with others."  Have you seen that passage?

 6        A.   I'm sorry, I don't see the passage.

 7        Q.   On the right-hand side, the large paragraph in the middle of the

 8     screen in front of you begins with the sentence "Since the JNA ..."

 9        A.   Yes, I see that.

10        Q.   Does that document support your view that the JNA was involved?

11        A.   Yes, it does.

12             MS. EDGERTON:  Could we move one page over now to page 160 of the

13     English translation and page 76 of the original.  Just the next page on

14     the English.  Just the next page, page 160, of the English.  Are you not

15     finding the next page?

16             THE USHER:  Just one moment.

17             MS. EDGERTON:  If it's not found --

18             THE WITNESS:  There it is.

19             MS. EDGERTON:  Thank you.

20        Q.   Could I direct you, Dr. Donia, to the third sentence in this top

21     paragraph that reads "The commands and units of the JNA ..."

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  If it could be centralised, please.  Could we

23     centralise that page, please, so that we can read the rest of the page.

24     No, to the left.  Move it to the left, please.  Thank you so much.

25             MS. EDGERTON:

Page 1733

 1        Q.   Yes.  And the highlight -- the end of the highlight paragraph

 2     ends with "... which would reflect its national interests and goals."

 3             Dr. Donia, is this further support of your position?

 4        A.   Yes, it is.

 5             MS. EDGERTON:  Your Honour, could I ask these pages be marked as

 6     the next exhibit, please.

 7             JUDGE MOLOTO:  They are so marked.  May they please be given

 8     exhibit numbers.

 9             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit P343, Your Honours.

10             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

11             MS. EDGERTON:  Thank you.

12        Q.   Now, Dr. Donia, have you seen evidence during the course of your

13     research that the VJ, the Yugoslav Army, had a role in supporting the VRS

14     in their operations during the conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina?

15        A.   Just to clarify, the VJ didn't exist at that time.  We're talking

16     about the JNA, the Yugoslav People's Army.  And with that proviso --

17        Q.   Sorry, Dr. Donia, my question took us forward in time, and my

18     question was:  Have you seen evidence during the course of your research

19     that the VJ had a role in supporting the VRS --

20        A.   Yes.  Excuse me.

21        Q.   -- in the operations during the conflict?

22        A.   Pardon me, I misunderstood the context of your question.  Yes, I

23     have.

24             MS. EDGERTON:  Could I take us, please, to 65 ter 00532.  00532.

25             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Excuse me.

Page 1734

 1             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes, Mr. Guy-Smith.

 2             MR. GUY-SMITH:  We seem to be having a difficulty with

 3     Mr. Perisic seeing the B/C/S screen.

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  It is very small, as it appears here.

 5             MR. GUY-SMITH:  It's been consistent for him all day.  He hasn't

 6     been able to read it.

 7             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Can we suggest that -- thank you, Mr. Guy-Smith.

 8     We'll make sure that ...

 9             MS. EDGERTON:  Thank you.  Could we go to page 51 of the

10     English -- of the English, page 51.  And, Your Honour, I am -- I may at

11     the end of the session be asking for a brief period of your indulgence in

12     the next session because of these technical things, but, as I said, I am

13     trying to move forward as efficiently as possible.

14             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Let's deal with that at the time.

15             MS. EDGERTON:  Thank you.  And page 42 of the B/C/S, please.

16        Q.   Now, this is an excerpt from the transcript of the tape-recording

17     of the 50th session of the RS Assembly, dated 15 April 1995, a report

18     given by General Ratko Mladic.

19             MS. EDGERTON:  Could I -- your indulgence for a moment.

20        Q.   Could I direct your attention, Dr. Donia, to the paragraph that

21     begins with the words "As an illustration ..." and concludes with

22     "... this year's requirements."

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   Can I have your comment, if any, on this report by

25     General Mladic?

Page 1735

 1        A.   General Mladic here is providing very specific information about

 2     the source of materiel, weapons, and ammunition from various sources,

 3     including from the VJ, and he makes clear that the VJ was a major

 4     provider of those provisions in the course of the war up to that point.

 5        Q.   Up to that point being spring 1995, then?

 6        A.   Yes.  April 1995.

 7             MS. EDGERTON:  Could we move in this same document to page 191,

 8     which is an extract from a comment by General Manojlo Milovanovic.

 9     English page 191, and B/C/S page 163.

10             JUDGE MOLOTO:  And could we enlarge the B/C/S sufficiently for

11     Mr. Perisic to see.

12             MS. EDGERTON:  English page 191, please.

13             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Your 15 minutes are up, ma'am.  Are you ready now

14     with where you saved time?

15                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

16             MS. EDGERTON:  Your indulgence for a moment, Your Honour.  No,

17     I'm not ready, but people are working to gather the information as to

18     where we saved time.

19             JUDGE MOLOTO:  And what do we do if we don't find it, and in the

20     meantime you have gone beyond your 15 minutes?

21             MS. EDGERTON:  I would be asking the Court's indulgence, Your

22     Honour, given the technical and administrative matters that are implied

23     in presentation of testimony that involves such large documents to bear

24     with me for a short period of time.

25             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You mean you haven't taken them into account when

Page 1736

 1     you gave the estimate of the amount of time that you would need for this

 2     witness?

 3             MS. EDGERTON:  Perhaps I may have been optimistic, Your Honour,

 4     to be perfectly honest.  I had some familiarity with the import, but I

 5     was optimistic.

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you for your honesty.  You may proceed.

 7             MS. EDGERTON:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 8             And I'm just not sure, if I can recover myself for a moment, that

 9     we have the pages that we're looking for.  Page 191 of 532.  Thank you.

10     That should be the fourth paragraph on the page.  That would be the large

11     paragraph I'd like to direct everyone's attention to, the eighth to

12     eleventh line from the top of the paragraph, and on the B/C/S transcript

13     it's page 163, first paragraph, fifth to ninth line, as I indicated, an

14     extract from a comment by General Milovanovic.

15        Q.   First of all, Dr. Donia, are you familiar with who

16     General Milovanovic is?

17        A.   Only that he was a high-ranking general in the VRS by virtue of

18     the fact that only high-ranking generals spoke to the Bosnian Serb

19     Assembly.

20        Q.   Thank you.  Now, if I can direct you down to about the seventh

21     line, General Milovanovic begins a comment regarding salaries.

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   And notes in particular --

24             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Excuse me, I think we're having some --

25             JUDGE MOLOTO:  We've got two counsel standing on the opposite

Page 1737

 1     side.

 2             MR. GUY-SMITH:  We have difficulties with the B/C/S page.  If you

 3     would just read it in English, it could be translated, and then you can

 4     figure out what the appropriate page would be at a later point in time.

 5     But that way Mr. Perisic would at least be in a position to hear what's

 6     being said and would be aware of the particular information that's being

 7     discussed.

 8             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes, Madam Edgerton.

 9             MS. EDGERTON:  Thank you.  Just for the record, I'll indicate

10     again, it will be page 163 of the B/C/S, first paragraph.  I'm sorry now

11     I can't read the English version.

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I was just going to say I hadn't caught up with

13     you where you were talking about salaries on the English, so if you can

14     also sort of show us where.

15             MS. EDGERTON:  Yes, Your Honour.

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Right.

17             MS. EDGERTON:  Seventh line down from the top of this large

18     paragraph.

19             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Starting with "Consequently ..."

20             MS. EDGERTON:  Starting with "We did not regard these salaries as

21     charity, nor did we accept them, as somebody from the benches is

22     shouting, in order to serve them ..."

23             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.  Now I'm fine.  Attend to the B/C/S for

24     Mr. --

25             MS. EDGERTON:  I'll continue reading, then, as my friend's

Page 1738

 1     requested.

 2             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.

 3             MS. EDGERTON:  "We received them following an agreement which the

 4     RS Presidency made with the Presidency of Yugoslavia.  We never accused

 5     you, or rather the state, Why don't you pay us?  We know that with your

 6     signatures, you made sure that we should be paid by Yugoslavia."

 7        Q.   Dr. Donia, in relation to this theme of support, do you attribute

 8     any significance to this comment?

 9        A.   Yes.  It specifically demonstrates the payment of salaries from

10     the Yugoslav government, the Government of Yugoslavia, to officers of the

11     VRS.

12        Q.   Thank you.

13             MS. EDGERTON:  Then dealing with these lines from document 00532,

14     or these pages, I'd like to tender them, please, as a Prosecution exhibit

15     and note that already some pages of 532 have been admitted as P312.  So

16     my submission, Your Honour, would be that page -- pages 51 and 191 of the

17     English and pages 42 and 163 of the B/C/S be admitted as the -- as

18     Prosecution exhibits, part of P312, please.

19             JUDGE MOLOTO:  They are so admitted, and they will form part of

20     Exhibit P312.

21             THE REGISTRAR:  The pages are added, Your Honours.

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.

23             MS. EDGERTON:  And could we turn, please, to 2160.01, parts of

24     which are admitted, as far as I understand - and I'll double-check with

25     Ms. Javier - as P231.

Page 1739

 1             JUDGE MOLOTO:  That is correct.  And what pages of that 65 ter

 2     number do you now want?

 3             MS. EDGERTON:  Your indulgence for a moment, please, Your Honour.

 4     Page 73 of the English and page 93 of the B/C/S.  Would you please scroll

 5     down to the third paragraph.  No, I'm sorry, that's not the correct page,

 6     and my apologies, Your Honour.  Your indulgence for a moment.  I'll move

 7     on, Your Honour, rather than take some time.

 8             JUDGE MOLOTO:  What do you want to do with this 65 ter number?

 9             MS. EDGERTON:  No, Your Honour.  I want to scroll up.  I've

10     actually just spotted the sentence that I was looking for.  Thank you.

11        Q.   Halfway through this first paragraph, which is an extract of a

12     passage from General -- from Dr. Karadzic during the 53rd session of the

13     RS Assembly held in Jahorina on 28 August 1995.  I'd like to direct

14     everyone to the line that begins halfway through this first paragraph

15     "Gentlemen, one should know that we took over personnel ..."

16             Do you see that, Dr. Donia?

17        A.   It's within this sentence, yes.

18        Q.   Yes.

19        A.   The sentence actually begins "You know that well ..." and then on

20     the following line, continues, "Gentlemen, one should know that we took

21     over personnel."  Yes, I see that.

22        Q.   Down to the sentence that ends with "... we were also given a

23     large amount."

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   Is this articulation by Dr. Karadzic consistent with your

Page 1740

 1     position?

 2        A.   Yes, it is.

 3             MS. EDGERTON:  Then, Your Honour, could I ask that this page be

 4     admitted, please, as the next Prosecution Exhibit?  That's page 73 and

 5     B/C/S page 93.  I should note some pages have been exhibited, as I said

 6     earlier, as part of P231.  Could they be added to P231.

 7             JUDGE MOLOTO:  This page is so admitted, and it is added to

 8     Exhibit P231.

 9             THE REGISTRAR:  The page is added, Your Honours.

10             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you so much.

11             MS. EDGERTON:  Your Honour, we have the basic data that we were

12     looking for.  We'd like to compute this at the break and then report back

13     in detail to you after the break, if that could be possible.

14             JUDGE MOLOTO:  That's fine.

15             MS. EDGERTON:  Thank you, sir.

16        Q.   I'd like to move on to one final area now please, Dr. Donia, and

17     that's related to the fifth strategic objective, partition of the city of

18     Sarajevo into Serbian and Muslim sections and the establishment of an

19     effective state authority in each section.  Do you have a view based on

20     your detailed research into Sarajevo and related to your report on the

21     background of the siege of Sarajevo as to the rationale behind the siege

22     of the city?

23        A.   Yes.  The Bosnian Serb leaders viewed the siege of Sarajevo as

24     necessary to prevent the functioning of the government of

25     Bosnia-Herzegovina and as a critical collective hostage, creating in

Page 1741

 1     Sarajevo a collective hostage which would be of value in gaining

 2     concessions from the Government of Bosnia-Herzegovina and from the

 3     international community.

 4             MS. EDGERTON:  Could I turn to 65 ter 2301.01, which is an

 5     excerpt from a transcript of the 17th session of the RS Assembly, held in

 6     Jahorina in July 1992.  English page 15; B/C/S page 13.  Do you recognise

 7     the -- thank you.  I'd like to draw everyone's attention to an excerpt

 8     from a comment by Radovan Karadzic in the English page at line 8 and

 9     B/C/S page 13, lines approximately 17, 18, and 19.

10        Q.   Dr. Donia, do you see the sentence that begins with the word

11     "Thanks to the Sarajevo battlefield ..."?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   Ending with "... was never established outside Yugoslavia."  Is

14     this consistent with your position?

15        A.   Yes, it is.

16             MS. EDGERTON:  Could this page, please, be marked as the next

17     Prosecution exhibit?

18             JUDGE MOLOTO:  It is admitted into evidence.  May it be so

19     marked, please.

20             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, pages 1, page 13 in the English and

21     page 13 in B/C/S will become Exhibit number P344.

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.

23             MS. EDGERTON:

24        Q.   Can you comment or describe for the Trial Chamber the

25     geographical situation of the city of Sarajevo, Dr. Donia?

Page 1742

 1        A.   The city grew up in a narrow valley, east-west valley that is

 2     narrowest at its east point and widens as one goes to the west in the

 3     city to become actually a plain, the Sarajevo plain, to the west.

 4     Consequently the historic centre of the city is surrounded by -- flanked

 5     on at both north and south by relatively high hills which render the

 6     valley position very visible and vulnerable to anyone who would come in

 7     and wish to subdue the area.

 8        Q.   Now, in your report prepared for the Dragomir Milosevic case, you

 9     talk about the political and military surrounding of the city of

10     Sarajevo, but I wonder if you're in a position to relate this to the

11     fifth objective, partition of the city of Sarajevo?  Do you see any

12     congruity between the surrounding of the city and the partition of the

13     city?

14        A.   Yes.  And that congruence lies in the demographic distribution

15     within the city itself and in its surrounding hills, or perhaps more

16     accurately, the Bosnian Serb leaders' understanding of the demographic

17     distribution.  Specifically, the city itself, the urban part located in

18     that valley, that east-west valley, was very ethnically mixed and at many

19     points in the highrise communities, ethnically indeterminate or

20     completely mixed by individual apartment.

21             The surrounding hills had historically, that is, say, from the

22     nineteenth century, been largely inhabited by Serb -- by Serb peasants

23     and rural villages.  That was diluted somewhat in the course of the

24     latter part of the twentieth century, but nonetheless the distinction can

25     still be seen in the census numbers from 1991.

Page 1743

 1             Therefore, the concept of division really amounted to

 2     encirclement in this situation based on the Serb notion, the notion of

 3     the Bosnian Serb nationalist leaders that the surrounding areas would be

 4     Serbian and the centre of the city would be what they call its Muslim

 5     part.

 6        Q.   Thank you.

 7             MS. EDGERTON:  Your indulgence for a moment, please, Your

 8     Honours.

 9        Q.   Have you seen evidence in your research that would reflect how

10     important the Sarajevo battlefield was to Bosnian Serb leaders?

11        A.   Yes.

12             MS. EDGERTON:  One final exhibit, then.  65 ter 2301.01, please.

13     English page 15; B/C/S page 12.

14             JUDGE MOLOTO:  We have just had that as Exhibit P344, ma'am.

15             MS. EDGERTON:  Could we please go back to P344, then.  Thank you,

16     Your Honours.  There's a further passage I'd like Dr. Donia to highlight.

17     After that, Your Honours, one or two very short areas, and I note the

18     time that I estimate wouldn't be longer than ten minutes.

19             JUDGE MOLOTO:  We're at the time for break actually right now.

20             MS. EDGERTON:  Yes, I see that.

21             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You can't add two more points, but go back to

22     P344, please.

23             MS. EDGERTON:  Thank you.

24             Alternatively, Your Honour, if we -- with respect, if we take the

25     break now, I might be able to profit from a few minutes to deliver the

Page 1744

 1     figures that I had promised to Your Honour accurately and make sure the

 2     technical side of this goes smoothly so we can conclude with some measure

 3     of alacrity.

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.  We'll then take a break and come back at a

 5     quarter to 11.00.  Court adjourned.

 6                           --- Recess taken at 10.16 a.m.

 7                           --- On resuming at 10.48 a.m.

 8             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes, Madam Edgerton.

 9             MS. EDGERTON:  Thank you, Your Honour.

10             If I may, I'd like to report back to you on the matter of where

11     we had gained time, Your Honour, from our estimates.  Shall I do that?

12     Although it won't be a complete picture, you can appreciate it's a

13     complicated calculation that Ms. Javier has been doing exclusively, but

14     I'd like to advise you and report back, as I indicated, if I may.

15             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes.

16             MS. EDGERTON:  In respect of the evidence of Mr. van Lynden, it

17     was estimated 3 hours, and the Prosecution took 2 hours and 27 minutes,

18     approximately, so a gain of approximately 30 minutes.  In respect of the

19     estimated time for the witness MP-229, the estimated time for

20     examination-in-chief was 30 minutes and the Prosecution took

21     approximately 15 minutes, so there a further gain.  In respect of the

22     witness Slavica Livnjak, the estimated time was 1 hour; the time for

23     examination-in-chief, 30 minutes, so again an approximate gain of 30

24     minutes.  Would you like me to go on, Your Honour?

25             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I've just been doing calculations.  So far you've

Page 1745

 1     got 45 minutes saved, which taken the time you've taken with this

 2     witness, you have a credit of 45 minutes.

 3             MS. EDGERTON:  Your Honour, I hope I'll only need to ask for your

 4     indulgence for a credit of about half of that, 20 minutes or so, to

 5     conclude, if I may.

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Please do so.

 7             MS. EDGERTON:  Thank you.  Having looked at P334, the passage I

 8     would have highlighted is incorporated into the exhibit.  So I'd like to

 9     move to two more final exhibits, but let me ask this question of the

10     witness first.

11        Q.   Dr. Donia, we left talking about -- we left where, at page 28,

12     lines 15 to 18, you equated the concept of division to encirclement with

13     regard to the situation in Sarajevo, and I'd like to ask you this:  Can

14     you date -- or have you seen any evidence of Bosnian Serb leaders

15     contemplating encirclement of Sarajevo?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   Do you recall where that might have been?

18        A.   The 16th Assembly session discussed encirclement.  It was

19     referenced in a number of other -- Bosnian Serb nationalist leaders

20     referenced the concept of encirclement in a number of other Assembly

21     sessions as well.

22             MS. EDGERTON:  Perhaps I could ask that 65 ter 9148 be displayed,

23     which is a transcript of an intercepted telephone conversation between

24     Radovan Karadzic and Slobodan Milosevic on September 9, 1991.  It appears

25     in B/C/S on the left.

Page 1746

 1        Q.   Are you familiar with this transcripted conversation, Dr. Donia,

 2     which now appears in B/C/S -- or in English on the left?

 3        A.   Yes, I am.

 4             MS. EDGERTON:  If I could take us to page 4 of the English and

 5     page 4 of the B/C/S, the very last paragraph in respect of both of those

 6     versions.  Can we at all have the -- all right.  We have B/C/S on the

 7     left.  Can we have the English on the right?  Wonderful, thank you.  Can

 8     I direct you to Radovan Karadzic's comment at the very bottom of the

 9     page, please, on the English, very bottom of the page.  Thank you.

10        Q.   Where Karadzic says:  "Let them do this as soon as possible ..."

11     to Slobodan Milosevic.  I'd like to ask you two questions.  How do you

12     interpret Karadzic's comment in this conversation?

13             No, actually, first, could I just ask you to, in a nutshell,

14     explain to the Trial Chamber the context within which this conversation

15     takes place.

16        A.   Yes.  The conversation took place in the midst of a situation

17     along the border between Bosnia-Herzegovina on the one hand and Croatia

18     on the other in which Milan Martic, the designated Minister of the

19     Interior of the Serb entity in Krajina had been detained by police of

20     Bosnia-Herzegovina in the tiny town of Otok, and this had angered

21     Karadzic to the point where he was calling for the -- he was asking

22     Milosevic to get the JNA to intervene to liberate Martic from the custody

23     of the Bosnian police.

24             This touched off a number of conversations between Karadzic,

25     Milosevic, and several other leaders of the Bosnian Serbs, in an effort

Page 1747

 1     to make this happen.  And in the course of this particular conversation,

 2     Karadzic is reporting that he has received word that the people from the

 3     area of Romanija were preparing to cut off access to the city of

 4     Sarajevo.

 5        Q.   Do you attribute any significance to this comment?

 6        A.   Yes.  It is the first time that I've seen -- chronologically it's

 7     the first time that I note Karadzic expressing the possibility of

 8     isolating, cutting off, Sarajevo as an act of, in a sense, revenge or

 9     retaliation against something that the Bosnian Muslim leaders were doing.

10             MS. EDGERTON:  Your Honour, could I ask that this transcript 9148

11     be tendered as a Prosecution exhibit, please.

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  It is admitted as an exhibit.  May it please be

13     given an exhibit number.

14             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit P345, Your Honours.

15             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

16             MS. EDGERTON:  And the final exhibit, 65 ter 9149, being a

17     transcript of an intercepted conversation, the same date, between

18     Radovan Karadzic and Nikola Koljevic.  9149.  I see the B/C/S version.

19        Q.   Dr. Donia, I'd like to ask you, is this one of the string of

20     conversations you -- or a number of conversations you were referring to

21     at page 33, line 11, just now?

22        A.   Yes.

23             MS. EDGERTON:  Could we move in both documents over to page 2,

24     please.  Could I just direct everyone in the English version to the

25     seventh line from the top where Karadzic is noted as the speaker and

Page 1748

 1     he -- can you scroll up, please.

 2        Q.   And he says, "They'll cut off Sarajevo ..."

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   Do you have any comment or attribute any significance to this

 5     conversation?

 6        A.   This is very similar to the statement that he made to Milosevic

 7     in approximately the same time frame and refers to the isolation or

 8     cutting off of Sarajevo as a possible course of action.

 9        Q.   Thank you.

10             MS. EDGERTON:  If this is the next exhibit, please.

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  It is admitted.  May it please be given an exhibit

12     number.

13             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit P346, Your Honours.

14             MS. EDGERTON:

15        Q.   And a final area, please, Dr. Donia.  I'd like to know, given

16     your experience in events in the city of Sarajevo, in particular over the

17     years, have you seen public evidence that the citizens of Sarajevo were

18     targeted by -- or were the subject of shelling and sniping during the

19     conflict?

20        A.   Yes, I have.

21             MR. GUY-SMITH:  You see --

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes, Mr. Guy-Smith.

23             MR. GUY-SMITH:  A couple of things.  First of all, this is

24     certainly outside the proffered area of his testimony, that being an

25     expert historian, and he is now -- is he now being offered as a fact

Page 1749

 1     witness?  I mean, if so, so be it, and I'll deal with it as you will.

 2     But I'm somewhat taken aback.

 3             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Madam Edgerton, do you have any response?

 4             MS. EDGERTON:  I do, Your Honour.  If I can just have a moment to

 5     turn to the page of Dr. Donia's report.  Actually, it's a series of

 6     pages, and without having the e-court number, there's a chapter in his

 7     report called "Sarajevo and its Siege in the International Spotlight,"

 8     and on the actual document it's pages 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, and part of

 9     page 35, that touch on the subject of public exposure of events in the

10     city of Sarajevo during the course of the siege, and the question was

11     merely relating to that.

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You say that's from page?

13             MS. EDGERTON:  Of the document, page 29.  In fact, that whole

14     chapter, Your Honour, generally deals with the international reaction to

15     the events in Sarajevo, and related to that theme, I'm simply asking him

16     about public evidence, and depending on the witness's answer, I may go

17     further with that.

18             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Is this the chapter that's headed "International

19     Diplomacy"?

20             MS. EDGERTON:  No.  It's headed "Sarajevo and its Siege in the

21     International Spotlight."

22             MR. GUY-SMITH:  On reflection, I'll let it go.

23             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

24             You may proceed, madam.

25             MS. EDGERTON:  Thank you.  If I may just have a moment to go back

Page 1750

 1     to my question.

 2        Q.   So, Dr. Donia, have you seen evidence during the course of your

 3     research that the citizens of Sarajevo were the subject of -- public

 4     evidence that the citizens of Sarajevo were the subject of shelling and

 5     sniping during the conflict?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   And is that evidence in the media?

 8        A.   It was -- there was a great deal of evidence that was

 9     disseminated by international media and regional media about shelling and

10     sniping directed against the city of Sarajevo or civilians in the city of

11     Sarajevo.

12        Q.   When you say "regional media," can you identify any media sources

13     in particular?

14        A.   Well, the media sources are numerous.  Certainly the media within

15     Sarajevo.  Sarajevo Television and Oslobodjenje carried reports of this,

16     as well as publications like The New York Times, Christian Science

17     Monitor, Washington Post, and, on occasion, media based in Belgrade or

18     Zagreb.

19        Q.   And do you recall, and if you don't, please indicate, but do you

20     recall which media sources based in Belgrade -- or any media sources

21     based in Belgrade or Zagreb in particular?

22        A.   Well, the wire service TANJUG carried very pointed, very

23     excellent coverage of the siege and the general situation in

24     Bosnia-Herzegovina throughout the war, and that was often picked up by

25     other publications, print publications.  And visual media in Belgrade as

Page 1751

 1     well did from time to time.  I recall seeing such reports, but I don't

 2     remember the specific origin of the footage that was carried.

 3        Q.   And just one last question to round things off.  Could you

 4     explain what TANJUG was?

 5        A.   TANJUG was the -- originated in the Yugoslav socialist era.  It

 6     was the official wire-service provider for newspapers throughout the

 7     former Yugoslavia, equivalent of AP and/or the French Press Agency.

 8             MS. EDGERTON:  Your Honour, with that answer, that concludes my

 9     examination-in-chief.  Of course, at the end of his testimony altogether,

10     I'll have a motion with respect to his report.

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Madam Edgerton, before you sit down, yesterday you

12     referred to a couple of 65 ter documents, and when I asked you what you

13     intended to do with them, you said I'm still using them.  I'll deal with

14     them at the end, an nothing ended up happening to those documents.  That

15     was 65 ter 02619, 02290, and 09224.  What do you want to do with those 65

16     ter documents?

17             MS. EDGERTON:  Your Honour, I recognise the first two numbers you

18     gave me as the 65 ter numbers of the reports upon which Dr. Donia has

19     based his testimony, and at the beginning of his testimony, I indicated

20     that the way I interpreted the Chamber's guidance in their decision as to

21     Dr. Donia's reports overall was that the Chamber would be prepared to

22     consider the admission of those reports at the conclusion of his

23     testimony.

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.  So 02619 and 02290 are Dr. Donia's reports.

25             MS. EDGERTON:  Correct.

Page 1752

 1             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Good.  Now, 09224?

 2             MS. EDGERTON:  That was -- oh, and if I may, Your Honour, you've

 3     just mentioned 2619, but the 65 ter is 2169, I'm advised.  Oh, I don't

 4     know.  I think Ms. Javier is going on my list of those numbers, and

 5     before I correct anybody, I should double-check what exactly --

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I think you should.

 7             MS. EDGERTON:  Yes, thank you, Your Honour.  You've seen I have

 8     this tendency now.

 9             9224, Your Honour, is the map.  I'll just check which one it was.

10     But there was a map which Dr. Donia used to illustrate ...

11                           [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much, Madam Edgerton.

13     Madam Registrar has helped us.  That was the census map, and it was

14     admitted as Exhibit P338.

15             MS. EDGERTON:  And that was his marked map which was admitted as

16     P338, and I'm wondering if it would assist everyone, for our

17     record-keeping, if I asked now for the unmarked map to be tendered as

18     well.  If it's useful, I think, for everyone in reviewing things later on

19     to have a map that's unmarked with nothing obscured with the marks the

20     witness might have made.

21             JUDGE MOLOTO:  What is the 65 ter number of the unmarked map?

22             MS. EDGERTON:  9224, Your Honour.

23             JUDGE MOLOTO:  But 9224 is now the marked map.

24             MS. EDGERTON:  Yes, Your Honour.

25                           [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

Page 1753

 1             JUDGE MOLOTO:  It's the whole question of technology, and some of

 2     us are completely illiterate in that field.

 3             MS. EDGERTON:  You're not alone, Your Honour.

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Then the registrar says that 09224 will also be

 5     admitted as the clean map, the unmarked map, and at the same time as the

 6     marked map.  Don't ask me how that happens.  The registrar can help us.

 7             Yes, Madam Registrar.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit P347, Your Honours.

 9             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.

10             All I say, and I still say this with my admission that I don't

11     understand technology, we now have two 09224 65 ter numbers, being

12     Exhibit P338 and Exhibit P347.  This is what we are trying to avoid all

13     this time.  Now we're creating it.

14                           [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

15             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much, ma'am.  You have finished

16     your cross-examination, you said?

17             MS. EDGERTON:  No, that concludes my examination-in-chief.

18             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I'm so sorry.

19             MS. EDGERTON:  That's all right, Your Honour.  That's fine.

20     Thank you very much, and thank you for your patience.

21             Thank you, Dr. Donia.

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

23             Mr. Guy-Smith.

24             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Fifteen seconds, please.  Thank you.

25                           Cross-examination by Mr. Guy-Smith


Page 1754

 1        Q.   Good morning, sir.

 2        A.   Good morning.

 3        Q.   Just so I want to make sure that we start off on the right foot,

 4     do you prefer to be called Dr. Donia or Mr. Donia?

 5        A.   You may call me Mr. Donia or anything you wish.

 6        Q.   You can call me Ray, you can call me Jay, one of those.

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   Okay.  I'd like to start for a moment, if I could, to see if I

 9     can get an understanding of your background, and by that I'm specifically

10     referring to your background with regard to your studies in history and

11     what you've done in your life, if I may.

12        A.   Certainly.

13        Q.   And as I understand the review of your CV, you, I believe, went

14     to the University of Michigan where you studied history.

15        A.   From my graduate studies, yes.

16        Q.   Okay.  And there you became enamoured with, and I use the word in

17     a positive sense, you became enamoured with a particular region of the

18     world and a particular people.

19        A.   Yes.  My first encounter and becoming enamoured with the former

20     Yugoslavia was in 1965 when I was an undergraduate at Hope College, and

21     then I renewed that in graduate school in Michigan.

22        Q.   I see.  In that regard, I think it would be fair to say that

23     you've travelled a long road in terms of attempting to understand many of

24     the disparate views and disparate issues that revolved around, for the

25     moment what I'll call, the former Yugoslavia?

Page 1755

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   And you spent some time, and I don't want to go way back in

 3     history because, among other things, I don't think we really have the

 4     time, but apart from that, I don't know how fruitful it will ultimately

 5     be, but you spent a fair amount of time dealing with the history of those

 6     peoples, and I'm using that as a collective sense for the moment, before

 7     the twentieth century.

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   There came a time when you left college and you went into the

10     world of business.

11        A.   Yes.  I left -- went into the world of business to work for

12     Merrill Lynch in 1981 when I was -- at that time I'd been teaching at the

13     University of Oregon.

14        Q.   When you left to move into the world of business, that occurred

15     at a point in time when the economy of the United States was slightly

16     different than it is today.

17        A.   It was closer to the same, unfortunately, at that time.  It was

18     not good.

19        Q.   It got better.

20        A.   It got better.

21        Q.   And better and better, if you were, for example, in the market,

22     and by that I'm referring to the stock market.

23        A.   I think it got better in general.

24        Q.   As a matter of fact, you profited handsomely from your work, did

25     you not?

Page 1756

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   And as a result of what you were able to do in that regard, you,

 3     as a matter of fact, if I'm not mistaken, have endowed the University of

 4     Michigan with a charitable trust of about two and a half million dollars;

 5     correct?

 6        A.   Yes.  Altogether that's the sum, yes.

 7        Q.   And that endowment is an endowment for the purposes of studying

 8     various aspects of history; is that correct?

 9        A.   No.  It is an endowment for a professorship, the Fred Cuny

10     professorship, a university professorship, in the history of human

11     rights.

12        Q.   Okay.  Apart from that, I take a slight digression for a moment.

13     I know that you've testified on a number of occasions here, and I believe

14     that this is a question that you've been asked a number of times.  I ask

15     you that same question which deals with what I believe to be the

16     Donja Vakuf foundation, which is a foundation that you started; correct?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   And that's a foundation that focuses itself on any particular

19     issue, or is that a foundation, once again, a generalised foundation that

20     gives -- that gives funds to those people that are deemed to be deserving

21     within the context of historical studies?

22        A.   Well, first of all, let me say it doesn't exist anymore.

23        Q.   Oh.

24        A.   I closed it three years ago.

25        Q.   Okay.

Page 1757

 1        A.   The board of directors closed it three years ago with a terminal

 2     donation to the University of Michigan.

 3        Q.   So what happened is those funds -- the Donja Vakuf funds

 4     transferred over into the charitable trust that I mentioned a few minutes

 5     ago?

 6        A.   Directly to the endowment.

 7        Q.   Okay.  While the Donja Vakuf Foundation was in existence, who

 8     were the individuals who made a determination as to how those funds, if

 9     funds were to be dispersed to anyone?

10        A.   Our family.  The --

11        Q.   That's fine.  I need no more than that.  And did you at that --

12     during the period of time that the foundation was in existence, did you

13     make a determination to fund individuals in Bosnia who were involved in

14     historical research or human rights work?

15        A.   No.

16             THE COURT REPORTER:  Is there another mic to your right that you

17     could use instead?  I'm just picking up --

18             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I'm happy to do whatever you want me to do, and

19     if my voice is dropping, I told her to yell at me.

20             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Your neighbour was fidgeting.

21             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I also told her to yell at me whenever she

22     couldn't hear me.  Is that better?

23             THE COURT REPORTER:  Yes, thank you.

24             MR. GUY-SMITH:

25        Q.   You mentioned in your testimony earlier, I believe --

Page 1758

 1             MR. GUY-SMITH:  And I tell all parties right now that we are

 2     struggling a little bit with regard to the issue of reference pages for

 3     yesterday.  The printers in the Defence room, one is out of ink; the

 4     other one is not working.  We have the -- the daily from yesterday which

 5     we have been operating off of.  We have attempted to transpose the

 6     numbers over to the daily that I was using yesterday.  So if I misstate a

 7     page at any point in time, if you need a page reference, I apologise.

 8     But we're trying to get an appropriate official transcript printed;

 9     however, there are X number of teams working, and it's an administrative

10     issue.  Hopefully, I don't think we are going to run into too many

11     problems.  Just so you know.

12        Q.   You mentioned, I believe, yesterday that you were going to be

13     teaching this summer; is that correct?

14        A.   I'll be teaching this winter.

15        Q.   This winter.

16        A.   Starting in January.

17        Q.   And is that at the University of Michigan?

18        A.   Yes, it is.

19        Q.   That's the university that you've endowed?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   You're going to be teaching history of some fashion?

22        A.   No.  I'll be teaching -- I will be teaching and coordinating a

23     survey course in the study of Eastern Europe, interdisciplinary course.

24        Q.   Is that a course that you teach as a full professor, as an

25     associate professor, as a visiting professor?

Page 1759

 1        A.   As a visiting professor.

 2        Q.   I see.  Now, again, you indicated that you have been appointed to

 3     the academy, if I'm not mistaken, and I want to make sure I've got this

 4     term correct, The Academy of Sciences in Bosnia-Herzegovina, somewhat

 5     recently, as a member.

 6        A.   As a corresponding member.

 7        Q.   Corresponding member, thank you.

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   And that particular academy, that's for Islamic studies, is it

10     not?

11        A.   The -- no.

12        Q.   It's not?

13        A.   No.

14        Q.   What is that academy for?

15        A.   The Academy of Arts and Sciences of Bosnia-Herzegovina is a

16     academic consortium which admits members or regularly recognises people

17     by membership for their scholarly achievements.  It's been there since --

18     it's been there about 55 years.

19        Q.   And at this point in time, there are a fair number of -- there

20     are a fair number of Serbian members, are there?

21        A.   You know, I don't know.  I actually was going to look.

22     Certainly, the majority of members are not Serbs or Croats, but there are

23     some Serbs and some Croats who are members of the Academy of Arts and

24     Sciences.

25        Q.   And do you think that the majority being such fall into some of

Page 1760

 1     the same theoretical bases that you've suggested to us here, which is

 2     that the decision as to who is going to be in that particular academy is

 3     a constructed one, as opposed to a primordial one?  In this sense, what

 4     I'm trying to suggest to you is that if it was a primordial one, then the

 5     issue would be one of, as a term you've used, intellectual merit, and if

 6     it was a primordial one, then it would be one that would be, let's say, a

 7     group identifiable, and in this particular situation a group identifiable

 8     of individuals as being neither Croat or Serb, as you mentioned.

 9        A.   No.

10        Q.   Okay.  You are not -- just so we're clear, because you know a

11     number of times I've stood and objecting with regard to the area of your

12     expertise, so I'd like to make sure we've defined the area of your

13     expertise.  You are not a political scientist.

14        A.   That's correct.

15        Q.   You are not an anthropologist?

16        A.   That's correct.

17        Q.   Sociologist?

18        A.   Right.

19        Q.   Psychologist?

20        A.   Correct.

21        Q.   Psychiatrist?

22        A.   Very much not so.

23        Q.   Very much not so.  A demographer?

24        A.   No.

25        Q.   Statistician?

Page 1761

 1        A.   No.

 2        Q.   Political scientist.

 3        A.   That's the second time I'm not, yes.

 4        Q.   I apologise; I don't think I said that.  So I did.  Lawyer?

 5        A.   No, I'm not.

 6        Q.   Anthropologist I've mentioned.  Archaeologist, obviously, you're

 7     not, because that would be a harder science.

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   I believe that I've covered the social sciences generally, have I

10     not?

11        A.   You could say geography, if you wish.  I'm not a geographer.

12        Q.   Okay.  Very well.  And once again, just in terms of dealing with

13     your expertise, you are not a linguist?

14        A.   Correct.

15        Q.   And you learned what I will call B/C/S late in life; is that

16     true?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   And without asking your age, because as my constitutional law

19     professor told me the two questions you never ask a woman, one is her age

20     and the other is whether she's a member of the communist party, being an

21     American, I have no interest in your age, but --

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You're not suggesting the witness is a woman.

23             MR. GUY-SMITH:  No, I'm not, Your Honour.

24             THE WITNESS:  Neither am I a member of the communist party.

25             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Okay.

Page 1762

 1        Q.   How old were you when you first learned the language?

 2        A.   I'm 63 years old now, and I started learning B/C/S before it was

 3     called B/C/S by anybody at graduate school at the University of Michigan

 4     in 1973.

 5        Q.   Okay.  So you've been working with the language for some 30-plus

 6     years.

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   And you've told us that your speaking is good, your reading and

 9     your writing, I believe, are both very good, or something like that.  I

10     mean they are above adequate, in any event.

11        A.   I said my speaking was very good.

12        Q.   Okay.

13        A.   My reading is very good, and my writing is good.

14        Q.   Okay.  In that regard, when you were doing research in the

15     original language, did you do all of the work by yourself?  And by that I

16     mean did you read the original documents and then translate them for

17     purposes of your work?

18        A.   It varied.

19        Q.   Okay.

20        A.   There are some documents for which -- first of all, there are

21     some documents in English.  There are --

22        Q.   With no translation, obviously.

23        A.   There are some documents that I encountered only in B/C/S,

24     typically noted, those documents -- that is, made notes of is documents

25     in English, and then in some cases subsequently translated them myself.

Page 1763

 1     In general, I prefer to work with English translations; mine if I have

 2     to, other peoples if they are available.

 3        Q.   With regard to the issue, first of all, of your translation

 4     efforts and those alone, and I understand that you're not in a position

 5     to quantify the number of documents that you translated on your own and

 6     then used for purposes of your research or your reports, in that regard

 7     did you obtain the benefit of anybody who was conversant in the language

 8     to a greater degree than you are?  And by that I mean it was their mother

 9     tongue?

10        A.   Very occasionally.  Every once in awhile I would consult someone

11     about a phrase that I couldn't quite understand or didn't make sense to

12     me, but probably in the course of the whole thing, not more than 10, 15

13     times.

14        Q.   Okay.  And as you've told us, you preferred to work in English,

15     so to a certain extent what you were doing is you were relying on

16     documents that had been translated by someone else for purposes of your

17     reports and research, the documents initially being in B/C/S.

18        A.   No.  In almost all cases I either encountered those in B/C/S or

19     had the benefit of seeing them in both languages if the document

20     originated in B/C/S.

21        Q.   Okay.  As I understood your testimony, your craft consists of

22     principally writing history.  Those were the words that you used.

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   And in that regard you've described, among other things, that you

25     use -- and now I'm referring to the reports that are the subject matter

Page 1764

 1     of your discussion here, and that was a report that you prepared, I

 2     believe, in 2002, which is presently identified as 20619, 65 ter number,

 3     and a report that you prepared in 2006, which is presently identified as

 4     65 ter number 02290.  And I'm just doing that for purposes of the record

 5     and for nothing more.

 6             You've described to us that you used a narrative form in those

 7     reports for purposes of conveying the information that you deemed

 8     appropriate.

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   Before you wrote the first report, and that's the report in 2002,

11     could you tell us, please -- and that's the report -- do you remember

12     which case you did that report for?

13        A.   Yes.  That was the report for the Krajisnik case.

14        Q.   Okay.  Before you began writing that report, were you supplied

15     with any documents by the Prosecution?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   What were you supplied with?

18        A.   I was supplied with the transcripts and minutes of a number of

19     sessions, not all but a number of sessions, of what you have suggested we

20     call the Bosnian Serb Assembly.

21        Q.   Okay.

22        A.   I also was provided with some documents from the SDS minutes and

23     correspondence that were left in the SDS -- were acquired by the Office

24     of the Prosecutor from SDS sources in Sarajevo.

25        Q.   You were also supplied with a copy of the indictment, were you

Page 1765

 1     not?

 2        A.   Yes, I was.

 3        Q.   And the same would be true in regard to the report that you

 4     prepared in 2006.  You were supplied with a series of documents; correct?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   And you were supplied with a copy of the indictment.

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   With regard to the report that you prepared in 2002, were there

 9     any memorialised conversations or communications with regard to the

10     purpose of your report?

11        A.   Not that I recall.

12        Q.   With regard to the report in 2006, were there any memorialised

13     conversations or communications with regard to the purpose of that

14     report?

15        A.   Not that I recall.

16        Q.   Okay.  With regard, then, to the first report, the report that

17     you prepared in 2002, who were you dealing with for purposes of this

18     report?  And by that I mean who called you or how were you contacted in

19     the first instance for purposes of determining whether or not you were in

20     a position to supply the Prosecution with a report?

21        A.   Alan Tieger contacted me, a prosecutor with the Office of the

22     Prosecutor.

23        Q.   And when Mr. Tieger contacted you, he indicated -- once again,

24     I'm putting this in terms of general subject matter, not in terms of

25     specific words, he indicated that he was involved in a prosecution, was

Page 1766

 1     the prosecution of a particular individual, that individual was

 2     Mr. Krajisnik, and he wished for you to assist him in preparing a report

 3     with regard to information that he was concerned with to further his

 4     prosecution, and in that regard he also gave you a copy of the indictment

 5     so you would be aware of the facts as he perceived them to be.

 6        A.   Aware of the facts?

 7        Q.   The facts, as he perceived them to be.

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   And aware of the -- without getting involved in the law, aware of

10     the theoretical bases upon which he was intending to proceed with his

11     prosecution.

12        A.   No.  I wouldn't say he -- he didn't provide me with that.

13        Q.   Well, when you read the indictment, the indictment supplied that

14     to you, did it not?  The indictment said more than just fact, fact, fact.

15     It gave you information concerning what the theories were upon which the

16     Prosecution believed there was liability as regards Mr. Krajisnik.

17        A.   I'm not familiar enough with the legal interpretation of this,

18     but he never, nor did the indictment, give me an idea of the theory that

19     he was proceeding on.

20        Q.   Did the indictment give you an idea of what criminal activity

21     Mr. Tieger believed Mr. Krajisnik was guilty of?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   And it identified certain crimes; right?

24        A.   Alleged crimes, yes.

25        Q.   And it -- very well.  And it identified what Mr. Tieger believed

Page 1767

 1     Mr. Krajisnik's role was in those crimes.

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   Okay.  And that was information that you were armed with before

 4     you undertook the writing of this report.

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   And the same would be true for the report that you wrote in 2006

 7     with regard to Mr. Milosevic, Dragomir Milosevic.

 8        A.   That's correct.

 9        Q.   Now, those are not the only cases that you've been involved in.

10     This is either your ninth or tenth case here.

11        A.   Somewhere around 12 or 13, I believe.

12        Q.   Okay.  I was looking at your CV.  I think I got up to -- I got up

13     to nine, but perhaps there are more.  In each of those cases, were you

14     supplied with an indictment by the Prosecutor to assist you in an

15     understanding of what they were seeking to prove against particular

16     individuals?

17        A.   Yes, either supplied with or directed to on a web site.

18        Q.   Okay.  And as a matter of fact, an examination of the indictment,

19     for your purposes to be fair, is a critical document in understanding the

20     nature and contours and parameters of the report that you were going to

21     write.

22        A.   Yes, and the topic of the report.

23        Q.   Very well.  Just in passing here, you were asked the question, I

24     believe, of whether or not you've ever testified or been approached by

25     the Defence for purposes of writing a report on behalf of the Defence.

Page 1768

 1        A.   I answered that I had -- I never had.

 2        Q.   And the answer was you had not.  Well, considering your

 3     expertise, I wish to pose to you just for a moment just a quick

 4     hypothetical question, which is based upon your view, if the Defence were

 5     to approach you and ask you to submit a report which, for example, the

 6     assertion of a defence for purposes of countering the charges against the

 7     defendant, for example, a defence that an attempt to legitimise the

 8     Bosnian war by arguing that Serbia and Croatia's claims to the area have

 9     been long-standing and that Bosnia-Herzegovina was and still is part of a

10     medieval Croatia, would you undertake that task?

11        A.   Well, I'm always looking for work.

12        Q.   I understand that.

13        A.   But I think the answer to the question is, if I prepare the

14     report that I am prepared to prepare on such a topic, will it be accepted

15     by the person commissioning it as useful, and the answer to that question

16     has normally been yes, but not always.

17        Q.   My question is slightly different, I think, which is:  As an

18     expert historian, if you were asked to -- if I called you up on the phone

19     and said, Listen, my client is being charged, and this is the defence,

20     and I believe there is a historical basis to this defence and I would

21     like to have your involved, I'd like for you to write this report for me,

22     sir, because you're the expert, would you undertake that task?  For

23     example, the example that I just gave you, which is that the Bosnian war

24     was legitimate and the argument that I wish to pose is that Serbia and

25     Croatia's claims to the area have been long-standing and that

Page 1769

 1     Bosnia-Herzegovina was and still is part of medieval Croatia.  Would you

 2     do it?

 3        A.   I would do it, yes.

 4        Q.   You would do it.

 5        A.   Mm-hm.

 6        Q.   Now, similarly, if I was going to make a --

 7             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Just for my own understanding, when we say the

 8     Bosnian war is legitimate, who is speaking?  Is this from the perspective

 9     of the Bosniaks?

10             MR. GUY-SMITH:  This is -- this would be from the standpoint of

11     an individual who is being charged who is either Serbian or Croatian.

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Not Bosnian.

13             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Not Bosnian, no.

14             JUDGE MOLOTO:  So by "Bosnian war," you mean that the attack of

15     Bosnia by some outsider.

16             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Well, it's difficult -- I think you've focused on

17     one of the issues as kind of difficult.  It's hard to really determine

18     who -- and I'm doing this internally here for the moment.  There were a

19     number of different factions or sides within what has been called the

20     Bosnian war, so let me be more specific because I think I understand what

21     your concern may be.

22        Q.   Having the Judge's question in mind, I'm defending a Croatian

23     general.  Based upon all of the information that you have, would you

24     undertake the task, as I've framed it here?

25        A.   I'm not sure how you've framed it, actually.

Page 1770

 1        Q.   Okay, which is -- let me do it again.  Which is to legitimise --

 2     my position is that -- as Croatian general is that my activity was

 3     legitimate.  The war I fought was a legitimate war.  And the reason it

 4     was legitimate was because the -- my claims to the area have been

 5     long-standing and that area, Bosnia-Herzegovina, was and still is part of

 6     medieval Croatia.  Would you undertake to write that report to me?

 7        A.   Not that report, no.

 8        Q.   Okay.  So if I called you up and said, This is what I want, this

 9     is my defence, you would say, Listen, I can't do that, I'm sorry, because

10     based upon my assessment of history, that is not something I can do.

11        A.   That's correct.  I would not.

12        Q.   Okay.  Now, if I were to mount -- if I were to mount another

13     potential defence argument that -- well, I won't do that.  That's okay.

14             And the reason that you wouldn't do what I suggested is because

15     you have at this point, and you've had for some years, a definite view of

16     who is responsible for criminal behaviour with regard to the

17     Bosnia-Herzegovina conflict between the years of 1990 - I'm starting a

18     little bit before - up to and including the signing of the Dayton Accord,

19     don't you?

20        A.   No.

21        Q.   In all fairness -- you don't?

22        A.   As you've posed that question, no.  You've kind of mixed two

23     concepts here of criminal behaviour and the sources of the conflict.

24        Q.   Okay.

25        A.   And I think those are different issues.  My views on criminal

Page 1771

 1     behaviour would have to be further, you know, broken down by particular

 2     situations, and those of the conflict in general would be -- may be more

 3     germane, more accessible.

 4        Q.   Okay.  With regard to the cases that we've discussed in a very

 5     general sense in terms of cases you've been asked for assistance by the

 6     Prosecution, were you asked to assist the Prosecution with regard to the

 7     Delic case, to write a report in Delic?

 8        A.   No.

 9        Q.   Halilovic?

10        A.   No.

11        Q.   Oric?

12        A.   No.

13        Q.   Or Hadzihasanovic?

14        A.   No.

15        Q.   Those are all cases that involved Muslim defendants; correct?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   You said just a moment ago that your views on criminal behaviour

18     would have to be broken down by particular situations.  So I'd like to

19     spend a moment there, if I could.

20             With regard to your views on, for example, Slobodan Milosevic,

21     you have a definite view with regard to his criminal responsibility, do

22     you not?

23        A.   Yes, I do.

24        Q.   You believe that he's guilty of the crimes for which he was

25     charged, don't you?

Page 1772

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   That is a view that you have, as a matter of fact, articulated on

 3     more than one occasion.

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   That is a view that you have, as a matter of fact, and we may

 6     discuss it later, you've actually sent at least one letter concerning

 7     your position about the judgement that was rendered by the International

 8     Court of Justice as being a political decision because they didn't use

 9     certain information.

10        A.   I don't believe I sent a letter.

11        Q.   You signed a letter that was sent by 54 -- you and 54 of your

12     colleagues; do you recall that?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   And in that letter you made it very clear that in your

15     estimation, Milosevic was guilty.

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   And you also made it very clear that as far as you were

18     concerned, the judgement finding -- the finding of that court was a

19     political decision that, as a matter of fact, avoided what you believed

20     to be compelling evidence that should have brought them to a different

21     position.

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   Now, concerning Milosevic, I want to talk about Milosevic now for

24     a moment not as an individual but as a leader, because one of the terms

25     that you have used I think a fair amount is "Serb leaders" or "Bosnian

Page 1773

 1     Serb leaders"; correct?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   And I have, as a matter of fact, have asked -- and you have been

 4     very kind in that regard to identify when you were dealing with Bosnian

 5     leaders, as opposed to when you were dealing with Serb leaders.

 6        A.   Yes, I normally use the term Bosnian Serb nationalist leaders in

 7     reference to the people we were talking about in the SDS.

 8        Q.   When we're talking about Bosnian Serb nationalist leaders, you're

 9     discussing such people as Mr. Karadzic?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   And General Mladic?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   And based upon your historical review, am I correct -- not am I

14     correct, but is your view that General Mladic was subordinate to

15     Mr. Karadzic, as the president?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   And Mr. Karadzic, he was the -- he was like -- he was like

18     George Bush, the one who's just -- who will be leaving shortly.  He was

19     the Commander-in-Chief.

20        A.   Don't tempt me, but -- he was the Commander-in-Chief of the VRS.

21        Q.   Well, I just want to make sure you were on the same page there.

22        A.   I think we are, sir.

23        Q.   Now, in terms of the -- in terms of the Serb leadership, and now

24     I'm not using the term "Bosnian Serb nationalist leadership" but the Serb

25     leadership, you count among those, I would take it, Mr. Milosevic?

Page 1774

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   And by that I'm talking about Slobodan Milosevic, not the

 3     Milosevic in whose case you testified in.

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   Although you testified in both, did you not?

 6        A.   Two Milosevics, yes.

 7        Q.   You've done two Milosevics.  You've done Slobodan and you've done

 8     Dragomir.

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   And in the Dragomir Milosevic case is the case involving the 2006

11     report?

12        A.   Is the report before you, yes.

13        Q.   He was in a slightly different position.  You wouldn't consider

14     him to be Serb leadership, would you?

15        A.   Well, I would consider him to be part of the Bosnian Serb

16     leadership on the military side.

17        Q.   Okay.  And for the moment, taking a look at Milosevic, would you

18     consider Lilic -- do you know who he is?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   Would you consider him to be part of the leadership?

21        A.   Part of the leadership of the Republic of Serbia.

22        Q.   And --

23             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Guy-Smith, now that we have introduced two

24     Milosevics, may I suggest that each time you refer to a Milosevic, you

25     tell us which one.

Page 1775

 1             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I shall.

 2             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You've just said at line 13 --

 3             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I'm with you.  I'm totally with you, Your Honour.

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.

 5             MR. GUY-SMITH:

 6        Q.   When I said "take a look at Milosevic," I was speaking about

 7     Slobodan Milosevic."

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   And with regard to Slobodan Milosevic, he was involved with his

10     group of people involved, for example, Mr. Lilic.

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   And Mr. Lilic was the president of what, precisely, if you know?

13        A.   I believe he was the President of the Socialist Federal Republic

14     of Yugoslavia.

15        Q.   Okay.

16        A.   As reconstituted in April 1992.

17        Q.   When you say "as reconstituted," that's when the Socialist

18     Federal Republic of Yugoslavia became the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia?

19        A.   The FRY, yes.

20        Q.   Okay.  We'll talk about that in a bit.

21             Have you -- I want to move away from that for a moment or two and

22     discuss the issue of how you compiled the information that you used for

23     your first report, the report that you submitted in 2002, "The Origins of

24     Republika Srpska, 1990-1992 - A Background Report."

25        A.   Okay.

Page 1776

 1        Q.   Now, with regard to that report, did you, as you were preparing

 2     that report, apart from the documents you discussed with us earlier that

 3     you received from the Prosecution, did you ask the Prosecution for an

 4     index of a list of the documents that they had available so that you

 5     could search through that list and make a determination of what documents

 6     they had that were available might be germane to you compiling your

 7     report?

 8        A.   No.

 9        Q.   You did not?

10        A.   I did not.

11        Q.   Okay.  And as a matter of fact, the same would be true, would it

12     not, of the report that you compiled in 2006, that report which is

13     entitled "From Elections to Stalemate:  The Making of the Sarajevo Siege,

14     1990-1994."

15        A.   That's correct, I did not.

16        Q.   At some point, I think at some point in time in some previous

17     case, you were asked the question of whether or not it would be an

18     important thing to do, so that you had gone through a comprehensive

19     analysis and research of all the information that was available, and I

20     believe you said something to the effect, and I may be paraphrasing,

21     that, No, life is too short to do that.

22        A.   Well, it is too short to do that.  But at the same time, I ask

23     them to give me whatever they can.

24        Q.   My question was slightly different than that, Dr. Donia.  When

25     you were asked the question in the previous proceedings, and you said

Page 1777

 1     something to the effect, No, that's not something I would do.

 2        A.   I don't recall exactly what I said.  I would have to see the

 3     document to be able to affirmatively answer that.

 4        Q.   Let me see if I can refresh your recollection.

 5        A.   Okay.

 6        Q.   You were asked the following question, and this is the

 7     proceedings on Wednesday, 10 May 2006, in the Prlic case, page 1861, case

 8     number IT-01-74-T, you were asked the following question and gave the

 9     following response, which is --

10             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Can you give us the line, please.

11             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Starting at line 9 through 17.

12        Q.   "All right.  Do you by chance ask for an index so that you would

13     know the documents they might have, because, after all, let me cue you

14     in, the Prosecution has been going around the former Yugoslavia having

15     access to various archives.  All right.  Did you ask by any chance, Could

16     I look at the list of the documents from the various archives, be they

17     from the BiH, be they from Croatia, and so on and so forth?  Did you ever

18     ask for that list?"

19             And your answer is:  "No, life is too short to look over that

20     list in one of those archives alone."

21             Does that refresh your recollection?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   That was your position then?

24        A.   Yes, it's my position.

25        Q.   And that's your position now?

Page 1778

 1        A.   Mm-hm.

 2        Q.   So the body of information that you're relying upon -- I'm sorry,

 3     that you relied upon, because we're now talking about two reports you've

 4     done in the past, is that information which, in large measure, was

 5     supplied to you by the Prosecution.

 6        A.   No.

 7        Q.   Okay.  Do you think, while we're here just at this moment, do you

 8     think that it's important for a fact-finder to have available to them

 9     from an expert, such as yourself, as comprehensive a report as possible

10     that discusses all sides of the situation?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   And is that something which you believe with regard to the two

13     reports that we're discussing right now, the one prepared in 2002 and the

14     one that you prepared in 2006, is something that you did, that you

15     prepared as comprehensive a report?

16        A.   Within the limits of the guidelines that were requested of me by

17     the Prosecution at the time.

18        Q.   Okay.  You've -- within the limits of the guidelines.

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   Now, with regard to the issue of preparing as comprehensive a

21     report as possible, you've taken a different position in that regard,

22     have you not, in your testimony here before the Tribunal?

23        A.   I don't recall.  You'll have to suggest a ...

24        Q.   Let me see what I can do here.  I'm referring the Court and

25     counsel to 1858, proceedings on 10 May 2006, case number IT-04-74-T,

Page 1779

 1     commencing at page -- at line 15, on page 1858.

 2             Question:  "Okay.  Do you think --"

 3             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You said you're referring to?  There's a word I

 4     don't understand on the screen.  When you started that sentence.  "I'm

 5     referring to ..." something something, "... counsel to 1858."

 6             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Got it.  I'm with you.

 7        Q.   "Okay.  Do you think, do you think, and help me out here, but do

 8     you think it would be member for the honourable members of our Trial

 9     Chamber to have that information so at least you could say, Well, here's

10     what I looked at, here's what I agree with, here's what I don't agree

11     with, here's what I came up with my conclusion and here's why.  Do you

12     think that might be important?"

13             And your answer is:  "I think that would be up to the honourable

14     judges to decide.  My own purpose is, let's say, more restricted than

15     that.  It is to provide a narrative account which can, in fact, be

16     challenged and alternative interpretations presented.  But, again, I

17     don't want to run into 200 pages or multiple volumes for the purpose of

18     historical background."

19             I continue, moving to page 1859, line 3:

20             Question:  "That wasn't my question.  Do you think it would be

21     important for the Trial Chamber to have a comprehensive report from an

22     historian such as yourself, if indeed that is what you are coming here to

23     testify about, historical facts and drawing conclusions?"

24             And your answer:  "No."

25             So my question to you is:  You've taken a different position with

Page 1780

 1     regard to this same issue in a previous proceeding; correct.

 2        A.   I don't see how it's different.

 3        Q.   Okay.

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Just so that I don't forget, my question wasn't

 5     answered.  What case is that?  Maybe it will answer the question.

 6             MR. GUY-SMITH:  That case is the Prlic case, and the case number

 7     is IT-04-74-T.

 8             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you for that.  Would that be a convenient

 9     point in time?

10             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Absolutely.

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  We'll take a break and come back at half past

12     12.00.  Court adjourned.

13                           --- Recess taken at 12.02 p.m.

14                           --- On resuming at 12.29 p.m.

15             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes, Mr. Guy-Smith.

16             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Thank you, Your Honour.

17        Q.   To pick up where we left off, if I could, since your work on

18     these two reports, am I correct in my understanding that you have not

19     edited, modified, them in any substantial regard.  I know you've made

20     some corrections.  But with regard to the report that has been submitted

21     here, a report that you've done in 2002, that report remains essentially

22     in the same iteration that it was when you initially submitted it;

23     correct?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   And the report that you did in 2006, that report similarly

Page 1781

 1     remains in the same iteration.  There have been some, I think, maybe

 2     minor modifications, corrections.

 3        A.   Corrections, I believe.

 4        Q.   You haven't -- you haven't really --

 5        A.   I haven't rewritten it.

 6        Q.   You haven't worked it over.

 7        A.   No.

 8        Q.   Okay.  And with regard -- with regard to those two reports,

 9     because the question I have is the same for both of them, have you had a

10     chance to reflect and make a determination of whether or not any further

11     information should be included in those reports based upon the work that

12     you've done since 2002 or the work you've done since 2006?

13        A.   Yes.  I actually did expand substantially the topics that I

14     covered in the 2006 report in my book on Sarajevo.

15        Q.   Okay.

16        A.   So the answer is yes, I have contemplated and certainly see areas

17     that could be added or expanded through both documentation that's newly

18     available to me and other work.

19             JUDGE MOLOTO:  But you do that -- you did that expansion in your

20     book, you say?

21             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Not with the reports themselves.

23             THE WITNESS:  That's correct.

24             MR. GUY-SMITH:

25        Q.   Would it be fair to say that at the time that you wrote those

Page 1782

 1     reports, that your purpose was not to be comprehensive; it was, in fact,

 2     to be synthetic, to be a provider of a digested, abbreviated account of

 3     these topics.

 4        A.   No.  I would say concise.

 5        Q.   Okay.  Did you take a different position or, put in other terms,

 6     did you take the precise position that I just mentioned to you when

 7     testifying in the Prlic case?

 8        A.   I don't recall.

 9        Q.   Okay.  Let me see if I can refresh your recollection in that

10     regard, Mr. Donia.  I don't believe we need the specific language before

11     us because it's a relatively long question and answer on page 1863.  But

12     going on to page 1864, lines 4 through 6:

13             "I would again say my purpose here is not to be comprehensive.

14     It is, in fact, to be synthetic, to be as much a provider of a digested,

15     abbreviated account of each of these topics."

16             That was your answer on Wednesday, May 10th, 2006, with regard to

17     your purpose of writing reports; correct?

18        A.   No.  That was my answer to the question of writing the Prlic

19     report.

20        Q.   I see.  So the Prlic report you distinguish from all other

21     reports that you've written?

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   All other reports but for the Prlic report obtain a different

24     emphasis.

25        A.   The Prlic report was the only report that was not in narrative

Page 1783

 1     form that I have prepared for the Office of the Prosecutor --

 2        Q.   Okay.

 3        A.   -- before this body.

 4        Q.   So if I take your answer as you stated, then with regard to the

 5     two reports that exist here, you went through extensive archival

 6     research; correct?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   You wrote as comprehensive a report here?

 9        A.   No.

10        Q.   Okay.

11        A.   Not as comprehensively as I possibly could.  That would be a

12     voluminous undertaking.

13        Q.   Do you consider, as you review your reports, that your reports

14     deal with the, apart from in passing, the critical issues as they relate

15     to, for example, the Badinter Commission and the effect the Badinter

16     Commission had upon what was occurring during late 1991 and 1992.

17        A.   I've treated it briefly.

18        Q.   You've given it a whiff of perfume, haven't you?  You haven't

19     discussed the effect of Badinter was, did you?

20        A.   I belive I have in the report.

21        Q.   Okay.  When you say "briefly," you mentioned Badinter, but you

22     didn't get into the effect of what Badinter had, did you?

23        A.   I believe I did.

24        Q.   Okay.  We'll discuss that more fully.

25             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes, Madam Edgerton.

Page 1784

 1             MS. EDGERTON:  I'm not rising by way of objection at all, but

 2     you'll recall yesterday that Dr. Donia had his previous reports in front

 3     of him, and I have those copies that were returned to us --

 4             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Please --

 5             MS. EDGERTON:  I'm wondering if it would assist anybody if we

 6     could be provided with them again.

 7             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Well, it would assist Dr. Donia, then I'd be

 8     happy for him to have them.

 9             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

10             MR. GUY-SMITH:

11        Q.   Now, you mentioned -- we'll get to Badinter.  You mentioned that

12     with regard to archives that -- you've been in archives primarily in

13     Sarajevo, Belgrade, Zagreb, Budapest, Vienna, and London, for purposes of

14     your research.

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   And with regard to the report that you did in 2002, did you go to

17     all of the archives that you mentioned in your direct testimony?

18        A.   No.

19        Q.   With regard to the report that you did in 2006, did you go to all

20     of those archives that you mentioned in your direct testimony for

21     purposes of - not there yet - for purposes of preparing that report?

22        A.   No.

23        Q.   With regard to both of these reports, during the period of time

24     that you were preparing these reports, did you have occasion to speak

25     with any of what I will call the "principals" who were involved in

Page 1785

 1     the on-the-ground activity, movement, argument, discussions, for example,

 2     Mr. Izetbegovic?

 3        A.   No.

 4        Q.   He's a pretty important character, and I mean that in a neutral

 5     fashion, with regard to the development of what was going on during this

 6     period of time, is he not?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   He was alive, was he not?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   Did you attempt to speak to any of the principal players?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   And who did you speak with?

13        A.   Well, I spoke extensively with Mirko Pejanovic, who was a member

14     of the Presidency at the time.

15        Q.   When you say "Presidency," that's the Bosnian nationalist --

16        A.   I'm sorry, the Presidency of the government of

17     Bosnia-Herzegovina, and he was a member of the Presidency through much of

18     the war.

19             I've spoken to a number of party leaders from the HDZ,

20     Stjepan Kljujic, a number of HDZ leaders, various municipal leaders.

21     Remember, this is after the war that I'm speaking to them.  But who had

22     experienced the, let's say, life on the Serb side of the lines during the

23     course of the war.

24        Q.   And with regard to those individuals, are those -- did you record

25     those sessions or take notes of those sessions?

Page 1786

 1        A.   In many cases I did, yes.

 2        Q.   Okay.  Did you then include those recordings and notes in the

 3     reports that you've submitted to us --

 4        A.   I didn't include them, no.

 5        Q.   So did you cite them?

 6        A.   I didn't cite to them, no.

 7        Q.   Okay.

 8        A.   I think I -- I don't recall that I cited to any of them.

 9        Q.   So we're not, at least for purposes of either a cursory or an

10     in-depth review of your report, concerned whether or not some of the

11     information -- the body of the information you have in your own head

12     which forms the basis of some of the things written in your report are

13     predicated upon conversations that you had with others or not.  We can't

14     do that.

15        A.   That's correct.

16        Q.   I was thinking.  I forgot.  Do you know who Mr. Sacirbey is?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   Did you have occasion to speak with him?

19        A.   Yes.  There's two Sacirbeys.  One is the senior, Sacirbegovic,

20     who was around for a long time and then his son, who was the foreign

21     minister, I believe, in the course of the war.  I've spoken to them both

22     very briefly.

23        Q.   Now, the son, he was somebody who was quite active in the

24     negotiations through 1991/1992, was he not?

25        A.   I believe a little later in the course of things, he was very

Page 1787

 1     active.

 2        Q.   And he had a definite perspective with regard to the developments

 3     in Bosnia-Herzegovina, did he not?

 4        A.   Certainly.

 5        Q.   Am I correct in my understanding that the purposes of these two

 6     reports were to offer enlightenment on the background of the major

 7     developments of events institutions that are referenced in the

 8     indictment.

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   When you said that, you're referring to the indictment that we

11     have here in this case, and that's the indictment against Mr. Perisic.

12        A.   Well, I certainly looked -- am familiar with that indictment or

13     looked over that indictment and saw some relevance.  But the reports were

14     prepared in response to reviewing the indictments of the particular cases

15     involved.

16        Q.   Okay.  So with regard to -- with regard to the statement made

17     that they were enlightenment with regard to, as I said, the major

18     development of events and institutions referenced in the indictment,

19     meaning the Perisic indictment, that statement is not entirely accurate,

20     is it?

21        A.   I don't think you cited the statement accurately.  I think my

22     statement was that I was responding to the --

23        Q.   I don't want to misquote you.  I don't want to misquote you.

24             "What were the objectives, then, of these reports"?  And your

25     answer was:  "I was asked by the Prosecution to prepare a report which

Page 1788

 1     explained in light of the background of the major developments, events,

 2     and institutions referenced in the indictment."

 3             So when you made that answer, considering what you've just said,

 4     that answer dealt with those two indictments and did not deal with the

 5     Perisic indictment, would be a proper interpretation of what you said

 6     there.

 7        A.   That's correct.

 8        Q.   Okay.  Then we're on the same page.

 9             Your reports are, as I understand it, based upon a particular

10     theory, as you've suggested to us, an overarching theory upon which you

11     approach this particular subject.  And by that I'm referring to the

12     language that you used, and here I want to make sure that we're talking

13     to each other and that I'm accurate, because I don't want to be

14     inaccurate here, which is you said, in terms of discussing the method of

15     preparation - and I believe we start on page 1635 and go on to page 13 --

16     there it is.  Perfect.

17             You discussed the method of preparation, and then you say that

18     there is a "viewpoint," at the bottom of page 1635, at line 25, "or

19     perhaps one could call it a theory underpinning these reports."  And I

20     just want to stop there for a moment.  I'll continue on with what you

21     said.  But when you say there's a "viewpoint" or a theory, I take it that

22     that means that you were approaching these reports from a particular

23     historical perspective, a school of thought, as it were.

24        A.   A school of thought that is shared by history and several other

25     disciplines.

Page 1789

 1        Q.   I understand that.  I'm just trying to, first of all, make sure

 2     I'm understanding precisely this -- the point here, which is that your

 3     work is predicated upon a theoretical view of history that guides you

 4     through your application of the historical facts to a particular event or

 5     a particular question that's being asked of you.

 6        A.   That's kind of a long complex question.  I would probably say

 7     "informed by" this approach, rather than "predicated upon."

 8        Q.   Now, this is, would it be fair to say, one of a number of

 9     theories that exists with regard to historical interpretation of facts in

10     general?  That's my first question.  And by that I mean nationalities and

11     national movements are constructed entities rather than primordial ones.

12        A.   Well, I can't accept quite the way that you've put that question.

13     It's more than historical.  It's anthropological, political scientific,

14     and sociological.  And it's one of many theories that pertains to

15     knowledge in general.  It's one of two primary viewpoints with regard to

16     nationalities and national movements and their origins and development.

17        Q.   Can you parse out for us.  Since you've told us that you are not

18     an expert in sociology and you're not an expert in anthropology, can you

19     parse out for us the extent to which your reliance as an historian is in

20     those fields in which you're not an expert in terms of this particular

21     theory?

22        A.   Well, as an historian, I'm always consuming information from

23     other fields, and I've done so extensively from anthropology, which is

24     really the, I'd say, origins of this notion.  It really began as a debate

25     between Clifford Gertz who articulated the notion that nationalities are

Page 1790

 1     primordial and was contested by people like Benedict Anderson who, the

 2     very title is suggestive, "Imagined Communities."  And then two

 3     historians who've edited a book of essays called "The Invention of

 4     Tradition."  These things overlap disciplines very easily, and the

 5     theoretical work by people like Anderson is reflected also in -- or

 6     carried out in, let's say, a more historical context by a number of

 7     authors who've applied this point of view to different parts of the

 8     world.

 9        Q.   You've mentioned -- you've mentioned two authors, and perhaps now

10     would not be a bad time to just put some more names into the mix to see

11     whether or not these are also individuals upon which you have focused or

12     thought about, relied on, considered.  Henk Dekker?

13        A.   No.

14        Q.   Okay.  Eric Hobsbawm?

15        A.   Very much so.

16        Q.   And Homi Bhabha?

17        A.   No.

18        Q.   Eric Hobsbawm, he has, a matter of fact, wrote a book

19     specifically -- or has done a lot of work specifically in the area of

20     nations and nationalism, has he not?

21        A.   Yes, he has.  And he was co-editor of one of the books I just

22     mentioned.

23        Q.   Okay.  There's another fellow.  I think his name is Gellner.

24        A.   Yes, Ernst Gellner.

25        Q.   Ernst Gellner.  And the issue here of nationalism and national

Page 1791

 1     movements and nationalities is a bit, for the moment, confusing to me

 2     because I want to make sure that we're using terms that we understand,

 3     which is when you said that nationalities and national movements are

 4     constructed entities.  Are you equating here nationalities and national

 5     movements as one and the same?

 6        A.   Not equating them but stating that both are constructed entities.

 7        Q.   Okay.  So could you give us a definition for your historical

 8     purposes of what a nationality -- how you would define "nationality"?

 9        A.   The term or the meaning that I use in this context is national

10     identity, the identity of a group which claims to be a nation.

11        Q.   And in that regard, if you were to use the term, for example, "a

12     people," a people who claim to be a nation, would that be the same term?

13     Would we be using the same term here?  Who "nationalities" equate with

14     "people"?

15        A.   In my usage here, yes, it would.

16        Q.   Okay.

17        A.   Unfortunately, the term "people" is the most common translation

18     and, in my view, correct translation of the word in the B/C/S, "narod"

19     and that has a specific meaning within political discourse in the former

20     Yugoslavia, which refers to a people that, if you want me to define it

21     as --

22        Q.   Please do because we're going to have to spend a moment or two

23     here, if you could.

24        A.   A narod, translated "people," is a nation which, and again this

25     is in the political discourse of the region, has a homeland within the

Page 1792

 1     country in question.  It has a republic homeland.  It may have peoples

 2     in -- members of the group in other republics and even in other

 3     countries, but it is a group that is identified with a particular

 4     republic in the socialist federal republic arrangement.

 5        Q.   Does that, as you've defined it just now, go back to -- and I

 6     think this is only the time that I'm going to go back over 50 years, does

 7     that go back to the concept that was promulgated, in the

 8     Corfu Declaration I believe in 1917 or 1918, in which there was a

 9     recognition of sovereign states of peoples?

10        A.   I think it goes more back to the Stalinist understanding of a

11     nation and a people, in his nationality theory.

12        Q.   When I referred to the Corfu Declaration, you know what I was

13     referring to?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   At that point in time that many years ago, there was the

16     establishment of a number of distinct states predicated upon it

17     definition, as I understand it, and please do correct me if I'm wrong, of

18     peoples, which were the Serbs, the Croats, and the Slovenes.

19        A.   Among others.

20        Q.   Among others.  And there was a recognition then of a nationality,

21     as we're defining it, by those distinct groups.

22        A.   Yes.  Let me revise that, when you refer to the

23     Corfu Declaration, my answer, among others, is not correct.  It's wrong.

24        Q.   Let's make it right.

25             THE INTERPRETER:  Would the speakers kindly not overlap.

Page 1793

 1             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You are being requested not to overlap.  You are

 2     being requested by the interpreters not to overlap.

 3             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Thank you.

 4             THE WITNESS:  Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes.

 5             MR. GUY-SMITH:

 6        Q.   So the concept of the identity of people and the concept of a

 7     sovereign state is something that has resonated within the region, and by

 8     that I'm going to talk about the former Yugoslavia, for an appreciable

 9     period of time, has it not?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   And as a matter of fact, over time, moving away from Stalin and

12     into Tito, there was, in fact, a recognition of the importance of an

13     equality between the peoples that was expressed through something that

14     I've been told is called the key system, but I'm sure there's a specific

15     name in B/C/S for that.

16        A.   Well, the key system is kind of a different subject, but your

17     fundamental question is quality between peoples in Tito's socialist

18     federal scheme, yes.

19        Q.   And within Tito's socialist federal scheme, there was a

20     recognition, was there not, of distinct -- the necessity to give distinct

21     peoples who've identified themselves as such some form of identity above

22     and beyond the identity of being Yugoslavian.  I'm sorry, I wouldn't say

23     necessarily above and beyond the identity of being Yugoslavian.  That's

24     probably incorrect.  But in addition to that of being Yugoslavian.

25     Because he had -- he had, in fact, a real -- a real dynamic situation to

Page 1794

 1     work with, which were all these different peoples who identified

 2     themselves as distinct groups.

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   Now, are those peoples who identified themselves as distinct

 5     groups, are those peoples, in your terms when we're talking about the

 6     underlying theory, are they constructed entities?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   Rather than --

 9        A.   In the viewpoint of -- yes.

10        Q.   In your viewpoint.

11        A.   In my viewpoint they are, yes.

12        Q.   Okay.  Now, in Bosnia-Herzegovina, we have -- I believe we have

13     three major identifiable groupings, if I might.

14        A.   Give me a time frame that you're talking about.

15        Q.   I'm in 1990 through 1995.

16        A.   Okay.  Well, I think three -- the three largest being Serbs,

17     Croats, and Bosnian Muslims.

18        Q.   Okay.  Now, with regard to the Bosnian Muslims, the Bosnian

19     Muslims find themselves for purposes of what we're talking about here,

20     constructed entities, in I think somewhat of a unique position, do they

21     not?  And by that I mean that there were both ethnic as well as religious

22     components unique to the Bosnian Muslims that held them together as a

23     cohesive group in their mind.

24        A.   There's two questions there.  Number 1, are they unique or

25     somewhat unique, and my answer to that is no.  Were there religious --

Page 1795

 1     ethnic and religious components unique to the Bosnian Muslims?  Yes,

 2     there were, just as there were to Serbs, Croats, even Jews.

 3        Q.   Well, let's leave the Jews out of this one, shall we, just for

 4     the purposes of the discussion.

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   With regard to -- with regard to the three groups that you've

 7     mentioned, can you define for us what you mean by "constructed entity"?

 8     Because as I'm understanding what you're saying, a constructed entity is

 9     something that occurred -- and I'm putting that in terms of rather than a

10     primordial one, is a constructed entity is an entity that exists from the

11     top down, whereas a primordial one is an entity that would grow from, and

12     I can't resist in a certain sense, from the primordial views.  It's

13     something that is a natural construct over the history of time.  And so

14     I'm trying to make -- I'm trying to make sure I understand what you're

15     saying here when you're talking about the theoretical basis upon which

16     you're relying, which is that you have a top-down definition of a group,

17     as opposed to something that is defined by the people to which a leader

18     may emerge.

19        A.   No.

20        Q.   Okay.  Could you explain.

21             MS. EDGERTON:  I'm sorry.

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes, Ms. Edgerton.

23             MS. EDGERTON:  With your leave, I'm just -- there's so much

24     packed into this question, I'm not sure what part of the question "no"

25     was an answer to, and I wonder if you could clarify.

Page 1796

 1             MR. GUY-SMITH:

 2        Q.   Can you clarify what part of the no, or do you need me to break

 3     the question down?  I'm happy to do it either way.

 4        A.   If you'll give me lead to try to explain the -- I think your

 5     description of a primordial concept is pretty accurate to what their the

 6     viewpoint of those thinkers is.  But on the constructed side, what

 7     constitutes a constructed entity is not necessarily top-down.  It may

 8     very well be a result of inter-action between elites who were seeking to

 9     define and order a national identity or national movement and the masses

10     who may or may not to already differentiated along the lines that the

11     elites wishes -- whish to create.

12             In most cases you're looking at a constructed process in which

13     intellectuals or political leaders come along and seek to create new

14     lines of division or differentiation between peoples.  If they find no

15     response in the populous, then the construction doesn't happen.  There

16     have been many efforts, for example, to create a Bosnian identity, going

17     back to the 1860s.  None of those have worked because they didn't

18     respond -- there was no response from the populous.

19        Q.   Let me understand -- see if I understand you correctly here.  I'm

20     going to, for a moment, ask you to consider someone else, if you would,

21     because this might help us all.  Are you familiar with Edward Bernays?

22        A.   No.

23        Q.   Okay.

24             MS. EDGERTON:  Again, I'm not rising by way of objection at all,

25     but I just note some of these names might be unfamiliar to my colleague,

Page 1797

 1     the court reporter, and for the accuracy of the record, perhaps, my

 2     friend, if you could spell sometimes for her, it will save us doing work

 3     later.

 4             MR. GUY-SMITH:  We've got a deal that whenever there are any

 5     problems she comes to me, and it's taken care of.  So if she doesn't know

 6     how to spell something, it's been dealt with.

 7        Q.   You said no.  I won't take that any further, except that I invite

 8     you to take a look at him.  He was a nephew of Freud's and instrumental

 9     in manipulating the masses.

10        A.   Thank you.

11        Q.   You're welcome.  Based upon what you've said right here, if I

12     understand you correctly, if we were to take a look at the historical

13     view of the movements, and I'm going to give you a couple, which are the

14     revolution in Cuba, are you suggesting that that is a movement in which

15     the elite, and by that I mean Mr. Castro, his brother, and others,

16     created lines of division or differentiation between people, that they

17     found -- that they're the ones who did that and that was not a popular

18     movement?

19        A.   I'm not sure that the case you're pointing to is one of national

20     movement or national identity.

21        Q.   Okay.

22        A.   It may be a revolutionary movement.  But I'm not, in any case,

23     saying that this was not a popular movement.

24        Q.   The movement that we're dealing with here is not a popular

25     movement?

Page 1798

 1        A.   No, that's not what I --

 2             THE INTERPRETER:  Again, would the speakers kindly not overlap.

 3             MR. GUY-SMITH:

 4        Q.   And by here I'm talking about Bosnia-Herzegovina.

 5             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Again, you're being asked to please not overlap.

 6     Could you please break in between question and answer and answer and

 7     question.

 8             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Yes.  Yes, Your Honour.

 9             THE WITNESS:  Can you ask the question again, Mr. Guy-Smith.

10             MR. GUY-SMITH:

11        Q.   Yes, I can, Dr. Donia.  You've said as far as you're concerned,

12     what occurred in Cuba was not a national movement, but rather a

13     revolutionary movement, as I understood your answer, and you were drawing

14     a distinction between a revolutionary movement and a national movement.

15        A.   I said I wasn't certain whether the movement in Cuba was a

16     national movement.

17        Q.   Okay.

18        A.   I don't know enough about it, really, to call it a national

19     movement.

20        Q.   In days gone by, when we were -- when we were young and gay,

21     there was a movement in the United States which was considered to be a

22     national movement.  That was the Civil Rights Movement.  I take it that

23     for purposes of your analysis here, that is not a national movement.  And

24     I'm asking the question just to see if I can understand.

25        A.   As great as my affection is for the Civil Rights Movement, I

Page 1799

 1     would not classify it in terms I am using here as a national movement,

 2     no.

 3        Q.   And with regard to -- if we were to take the survey of the world

 4     and we were for a moment to stop in South Africa with regard to the

 5     struggle to overcome apartheid, would that be considered to be a national

 6     movement by your definition or would that be another form of movement?

 7        A.   I don't know.

 8        Q.   Okay.  And with regard to the indigenous people in Mexico who are

 9     presently in a struggle to obtain independence, once again, is that a

10     situation that you don't know about?

11        A.   I would say it's more likely to fall into the definition that I

12     have for national movement, but I really don't know enough about it to so

13     conclude.

14        Q.   So part of what -- so part of what is involved in your definition

15     of a national movement has to -- has to do with perhaps indigenous people

16     or some kind of particular way of identifying the group; is that correct?

17        A.   Some particular way of identifying the group.  Yes.

18        Q.   Okay.  And if we have -- and I'm going on with what your

19     answer -- what your answer was with regard to your theory.  You say:

20              "That is a debate that has flourished in a number of disciplines

21     over the past three decades, with the view that I share being that ethnic

22     groups ..."

23             So that's one area where I think we're clear about what you're

24     defining, an ethnic group.

25        A.   Yes.

Page 1800

 1        Q.   "And national movements," and national movements, as I understand

 2     it, are defined as potentially a group of peoples who have a particular

 3     national identity.

 4        A.   A people that has a particular -- or seeks to define a particular

 5     national identity.

 6        Q.    "Are dynamic, constantly changing phenomena that mutate over

 7     time."  I understand what you're saying there.  "Depending on the actions

 8     of the elites that form them and lead them."

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   And that's the area in which I was asking you the question about

11     being an organised movement from the top down, because as I understand

12     the language there, as I understand this particular language, it seems to

13     me that you're implying something in the form of a ruling intelligentsia

14     or a ruling elite of some form that determines what is good for the

15     people, and based upon that determination, then makes policies and

16     decisions for the people, as opposed to listening to what the people have

17     to say and working with their -- with what galvanises the people

18     themselves.

19        A.   If you were to use the word "aspiring" instead of "dominant" or

20     "ruling," I would, I think, accept -- agree with your statement.  The

21     makers of these movements are rarely power-holders or preordained holders

22     of wisdom, as recognised intellectuals.  They are entrepreneurs.  They

23     are aspiring intellectuals or aspiring rulers.

24        Q.   And that would be your definition then, I take it, of

25     Mr. Karadzic and Mr. Milosevic.  They were, as you put it, aspiring

Page 1801

 1     entrepreneurs?

 2        A.   They certainly were in 1990.

 3        Q.   And throughout the period of which you wrote your reports.

 4        A.   They ceased to -- or became less and less innovators and

 5     entrepreneurial as the period goes along.

 6        Q.   And is that because from a historical perspective, they had

 7     obtained a certain level of power which they were holding on to, as

 8     opposed to, using your language, "aspiring towards some entrepreneurial

 9     state"?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   Okay.

12             MR. GUY-SMITH:  There should be.  If we could have a correction

13     on line 85, I said Karadzic and Mladic.  It's written as Milosevic.  I

14     meant to say Mladic.

15        Q.   I take it you would take the same position with Mr. Milosevic,

16     since his name was mentioned on the transcript?

17        A.   Yes, I would.

18        Q.   Now, with regard to -- and I have a better understanding of what

19     you meant, and I hope we all have a better understanding of what you

20     meant by that particular theory.  Now, is this a theory that has been

21     tested empirically?  Do you know?

22        A.   I haven't seen any efforts to test it in, let's say, an applied

23     mathematics sense, if that's what you mean by "empirically."

24        Q.   Yes, I am talking about --

25        A.   There are many studies that have applied the theory through a

Page 1802

 1     process of assessing the historical record or the contemporary record and

 2     concluded that the theory illuminates and holds as valid for the

 3     particular subjects being discussed.

 4             JUDGE DAVID:  May I ask a question.

 5             Professor Donia, when you speak of theory, as you know, there is

 6     a very epistemological meaning of theory, which is to say a set of

 7     propositions, empirical, verifiable, and with predictability for the

 8     future.  The paradigm of this law are mathematical laws.  Rather than

 9     theory, in this context of social sciences which could not equate the

10     theorys of social sciences, what you call viewpoint or theory would be

11     rather a theoretical orientation.

12             THE WITNESS:  I fully agree.  That is a better description of it

13     than --

14             JUDGE DAVID:  So the usage of "theory" does not correspond in

15     your usage to either strict theorys in the political sciences, but rather

16     what will be called empirical generalisations apart from theory and are

17     just viewpoints, workable hypotheses of explanation.  So what you call

18     theory is rather an instrumental or realistic way of an hypothesis to be

19     applied to a given mass of data.

20             THE WITNESS:  I absolutely agree, and you put it certainly much

21     better than I ever could or would.  But I think the -- one of the points

22     that you're making is its explanatory power is the test, in a sense,

23     in lieu of the strict empirical kind of result that one would have in

24     such a theoretical --

25             JUDGE DAVID:  You use also the term, and I hope you will discount

Page 1803

 1     my intervention from the time allotted to the Defence, you have used also

 2     "empirical narrative ."  In one of the phrases in the last session, you

 3     said in page 17, lines 3 to 4, "empirically based narrative accounts,

 4     topically organised of the major developments and institutions pertaining

 5     to these topics," and then you refer, as the Defence said, about the

 6     indictment.

 7             To what extent is theoretical broad orientation which is that

 8     vessel like this.  I have been familiar for the last four years with all

 9     the theories in relation from anthropologists, from Radcliffe, Rowan and

10     Malinovski to Robert Redfield and whatever, you know.  I have tragically

11     enough taught sociology for 20 years at an US university.

12             To what extent your report will have been oriented in different

13     way had you accepted the primordial structure of the theory?  And give me

14     concrete examples, given the fact that you're saying here it's an

15     empirically based narrative account.  It's not a theory.  It's not a

16     prediction.  It's not amenable to verification because of the large mass

17     amount of data.  And I don't know of any theory in history or sociology

18     who has been able to empirically be verified.  And I'm talking of all the

19     literature of sociology in the last 50 years up to this point.

20             THE WITNESS:  Yes.  How would it be different if it were informed

21     by the primordial view?  I think it would be much more related to the

22     distant past as a factor that molded behaviour in the period in question,

23     starting with 1990.  By "distant," I mean as far back as the Middle Ages,

24     as recently, perhaps, as the Second World War, and viewed those

25     developments as sort of baked into the identity of the primordial entity

Page 1804

 1     that we are examining.  So it would have a much longer, let's say,

 2     horizon and argue for direct causation from events in the relatively

 3     distant past.

 4             JUDGE DAVID:  Do you believe that your conclusions in the report

 5     given the constraints of the past outlined by the Prosecutor?  Because

 6     you said, "I was asked by the Prosecutor --" on page 16, lines 24:

 7             "I was asked by the Prosecutor to write a report which explained

 8     and enlightened the background of the major institutions and referred to

 9     in the indictment," which the Defence has just cited.  In what ways -- or

10     in which ways the conclusions of your report will have been different

11     from the present ones in relating decisions, in analysing the data?

12             THE WITNESS:  That's a very good question.  I'm kind of

13     hard-wired to think the other way, and so it's difficult maybe for me to

14     think through that.  But I would say, at least preliminary, without

15     giving it a bigger think, is that I would trace the origins of the major

16     institutions to much earlier time periods and the proclivities or the

17     behaviour of the actors to reprising those of historical personalities.

18             JUDGE DAVID:  Thank you very much, Dr. Donia.

19             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Thank you, Your Honour.  May I proceed?

20             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I think you may.

21             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Thank you.

22        Q.   You've given us four separate criteria that you applied in your

23     analysis of the documents that you used as being important in determining

24     how to choose, what to choose, why to choose.  Those were relevance,

25     reliability, verifiability, and richness; correct?

Page 1805

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   With regard to the issue of relevance, you chose, based upon the

 3     information that was given to you by the Prosecution and the particular

 4     question that they asked you to proceed upon, which was pertaining to

 5     that which was referenced in two indictments, the Krajisnik indictment

 6     and the Dragomir Milosevic indictment, that information that you felt

 7     applied directly to those two indictments; correct?

 8        A.   No.  That's a long convoluted question.  I can parse it, if you

 9     wish.  I would say that the information was referenced or the issues set

10     forth in the indictment.  I don't know I would accept the formulation

11     that it was applied directly.  The materials that I used were only in

12     small matter those that were given to me by the Prosecution, and the

13     import of your question suggests that I based it on the information given

14     to me by the Prosecution.  I certainly was seeking to respond to the

15     particular question that was asked of me but not solely or even

16     principally upon the information that was given to me by the Prosecution.

17        Q.   What was the specific question that was asked of you by

18     Mr. Tieger with regard to your report concerning the Krajisnik

19     indictment?

20        A.   I don't recall, sir.

21        Q.   What was the specific question asked of you -- was it someone

22     other than Mr. Tieger, that asked you to become involved in the

23     Dragomir Milosevic report?

24        A.   Yes.  I believe it was Susan Somers, but I can't recall.

25        Q.   Assuming that you're correct, and we can identify a Prosecutor,

Page 1806

 1     assuming it was Ms. Somers, be that as it may, once again, what was the

 2     specific question, what was the specific task, that you were asked to

 3     perform as regards the Dragomir Milosevic indictment, if you recall?

 4        A.   I can't recall the specific question.  The task that I was asked

 5     to perform, I indicated, I believe, yesterday, it was to address those

 6     issues, institutions, and developments suggested or referenced in the

 7     indictment.

 8        Q.   And did you -- was -- after you received the original request,

 9     were you involved in any kind of colloquies back and forth, or just after

10     receiving the original request, for example, from Mr. Tieger, did you go

11     off and write the report, submit it to him, without any further

12     conversation?  That's my first question.

13        A.   I did submit a draft for the Prosecutors to review.

14        Q.   Before you submitted the draft, did you have any conversation

15     with the Prosecution concerning the direction in which the report was

16     going, concerning questions that had arisen in your mind as you were

17     writing the draft report?

18        A.   No.

19        Q.   Once you submitted the draft for review, did you have any

20     memorialised, once again, communications with the Prosecution concerning

21     the draft that you had prepared and submitted for their review?

22        A.   No.

23        Q.   After you submitted the draft for their review, did you have

24     occasion to modify, edit, the report in any manner?

25        A.   Certainly to edit, yes.

Page 1807

 1        Q.   I take it the same would be true, so we don't have to go through

 2     all the same questions, I take it the same would be true with regard to

 3     the report that you submitted in the Dragomir Milosevic case.

 4        A.   Yes, it would.

 5        Q.   Okay.  Now, you've indicated that another important factor for

 6     you is that of reliability.

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   And if I'm not mistaken, reliability was defined in two different

 9     ways.  How you determined a document's reliability, you defined it in two

10     different ways.  That's what you told us yesterday.  Do you remember

11     that?

12        A.   I don't remember the two different ways that I defined it.

13     Please could I --

14        Q.   Sure.  The question was asked:  How do you determine reliability?

15     How do you make an assessment of the document's reliability?  And your

16     answer, this is on page 1367:  "There are two ways one can do that.

17     First you look at the source.  The words of an actor in a particular

18     event clearly bear more weight and have greater validity than there was

19     of a third- or fourth-hand person or someone who is not in a position to

20     directly observe events."

21             So in that situation, when, for example, you are reviewing the

22     stenographic notes of an SDS session, you are in a situation where you

23     are hearing -- hearing or reading verbatim what the individual said.

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   And with regard to the document's reliability, there are two

Page 1808

 1     issues, then, that flow from that, which is, 1, is the document itself is

 2     an accurate account of what transpired.  That's one kind of reliability,

 3     correct?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   And the other is is whether or not the words that are being

 6     spoken are, in fact, internally true words.

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   And in that regard you have to take a look at a series of other

 9     issues.  You have to take a look at, for example, what was the purpose of

10     those words in any given context.  Were they political in nature?  Were

11     they directive in nature?  Were they in response to a particular

12     situation or were they in response to an argument that was had on the

13     floor?  I mean, there are a myriad of different things you have to make a

14     determination about with regard to the issue of reliability, meaning that

15     the words spoken actually mean, have a particular meaning; correct?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   And you say that the second -- then you go on to say:  "So that

18     character of the source is the first important thing," and I think we

19     understand what you mean by that.

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   You're not talking about the character of the individual, whether

22     somebody has a good character or a bad character, for example, in your

23     estimation.

24        A.   Nature of the source.

25        Q.   Nature of the source.  The second thing would be from the

Page 1809

 1     outside, the value of the document from other documents that were

 2     generated at the time.

 3             And if I understand, what you mean by that, what you're saying is

 4     that if I'm looking at one particular document, I'm going to engage in a

 5     comparative analysis with other documents to see whether or not I'm

 6     picking up the same information, contradictory information, how the

 7     document -- how the document responds to the issues that are addressed

 8     within itself as an internal matter.

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   Is that fair?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   Now, in terms of the sources -- in terms of the sources that you

13     used in your report, you've used a variety of different sources.

14        A.   Yes, I have.

15        Q.   Okay.  Some of those sources, for example, are what I would call,

16     just for the moment, primary verbatim sources, like the one we were just

17     talking about where you have the actual words of a speaker.

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   And there can be little dispute over whether there's any

20     interpretation with regard to those -- to the actual words that are

21     spoken.  The meaning may be different, but the actual words can be little

22     dispute about.

23        A.   There will inevitably be disputes about them, but in general it

24     is the highest level of reliability.

25        Q.   Okay.  You also -- you also have documents which are documents

Page 1810

 1     that you received that were interpreted documents, and by that, where the

 2     spoken word in B/C/S was translated into the English word, written.  Am I

 3     correct in that regard?

 4        A.   Very rarely in this case was -- or in my long investigations and

 5     in preparing specifically for these papers was that the case.  Very

 6     rarely.

 7        Q.   Okay.  And with regard to those, those sources that you relied

 8     upon where you were listening to the -- did you have any audio?

 9        A.   I never listened to any more than a few audiotapes.

10        Q.   So you did not have to worry about the age-old adage "Tradutiore

11     e traditore"?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   Translation is trigger; right?  Trigger.  With regard to another

14     source that you used, another source that you used were newspaper

15     articles.

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   And another source that you used were books.

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   And papers.

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   Okay.  Now, with regard to the books and papers, what you did

22     then is you read the views of others who you either deemed to be experts

23     in the field or deemed to have some knowledge in the field or had even

24     written about in the field and drew your own conclusions from that

25     information.  So you were interpreting their interpretation -- you were

Page 1811

 1     doing two things.  You were interpreting their interpretation of facts,

 2     and you were gleaning from them those facts that they presented.

 3        A.   Not all books are scholarly accounts.  Some of those books are

 4     memoirs and personal recollections.

 5             So I think the answer to your question is partially, yes, I'm

 6     involved in a process of reading and assessing secondary accounts,

 7     accounts by scholars, but a lot of that information that comes into my

 8     world of preparation is, in fact, the written words of participants.

 9        Q.   And you mentioned there memoirs and personal recollections.

10             Now, with regard to the issue of -- with regard to the issue of

11     reliability and accuracy, I'm now paraphrasing here, and I'm wondering

12     whether or not you take this on -- you took this on when you were doing

13     that, I believe it may have been Mr. Churchill who said, "History will be

14     kind to me, since I'm writing my own memoirs."

15        A.   That is typical of memoirs.

16        Q.   Right, which is that the individual casts themselves in a

17     particular position.  So when you're dealing with memoirs, that is ann

18     area which you take with a grain, and I'm asking you here, you take with

19     a grain of salt.

20        A.   No.  I wouldn't say a grain of salt.  I think it has to be

21     critically assessed in the sense of "critically" that we referred to

22     yesterday, an objective assessment of the account is more likely to be

23     objective or accurate if, in fact, the writer does put him or herself

24     into an unfavourable light at times.

25        Q.   Okay.  And in that same regard, when you're dealing with memoirs,

Page 1812

 1     do you take into account, for example, something else that was said,

 2     which is that anyone who believes you can't change history has never

 3     tried to write his memoirs?

 4        A.   I'm sorry, I missed that.

 5        Q.   Sure.  Anyone who believes you can't change history has never

 6     tried to write his memoirs.  That would been expression, a pretty clear

 7     expression of the power of the pen to change the facts that actually

 8     occurred, would it not?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   For your purposes, that was said by Mr. Ben Gurion.

11             Now, with regard to the issue of richness, one of the things I've

12     noted in your report, and refreshingly so, is that you use not only

13     language but you use a tone of presentation which is, let me put it this

14     way, convincing to the reader, and I commend you for that, and I'm very

15     serious when I say that.

16        A.   Thank you.

17        Q.   And as I understood, since your craft is that of writing history,

18     one of the things you've attempted to do both in your writing away from

19     these reports as well as in terms of the writing of these reports is

20     you've attempted to present the information in a way that is not only

21     palatable, but it is also convincing.

22        A.   That's a major aim, yes.

23        Q.   Okay.  And in terms of being convincing, it's convincing with

24     regard to -- with regard to the conclusions that you've drawn.  I mean,

25     you just don't throw out a bunch of facts and say, Here's a conclusion.

Page 1813

 1        A.   Right.  And the narrative itself is partly persuasive in

 2     character, in that I'm attempting to persuade the reader that I have

 3     correctly connected the facts referenced in the paragraph.

 4        Q.   In that regard, and perhaps we'll speak about this probably not

 5     in the time that we have left today, probably tomorrow, but in that

 6     regard, for example, what you've done in a number of places in your

 7     report is you've quoted somebody and then you have a bridging sentence

 8     and then there's another quote, and in leading that whole phrase, one

 9     comes away with a particular viewpoint based upon the bridging sentence.

10     Do you understand what I'm talking about?

11        A.   Yes.  Mm-hm, yes.

12        Q.   That, as a matter of fact, is a function of what you did as a

13     writer in order to convince the reader of the position you take.  You

14     take a fact, you then put in your opinion or interpretation, and you put

15     in another fact.  There's nothing wrong with that.

16        A.   Not quite that simple, but I agree, in essence, that that's the

17     process.

18        Q.   Okay.  I want to return just for a moment to the issue of the

19     newspaper that you used.  As I recall, you relied on a newspaper, and I'm

20     sure I'm going to mispronounce it, so I apologise to everybody, you

21     relied on a newspaper that was called Oslobodjenje.

22        A.   Very good, yes.

23        Q.   Thank you.  And you also relied on NIN and Glas.

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   But Oslobodjenje obtained a kind of a different position than NIN

Page 1814

 1     and Glas, if I'm not mistaken, because I believe you define that one as

 2     being a newspaper of record.  Am I correct?  Or were all three of them

 3     newspapers of record?

 4        A.   I don't believe NIN was.  But Glas and Oslobodjenje were

 5     newspapers of records -- of record, yes.

 6        Q.   Okay.  And a newspaper of record is something that has, and I'm

 7     asking whether you would agree with this, high standards of journalism?

 8     One component.

 9        A.   Yes.  To distinguish between its function as a newspaper of

10     record and its editorial approach, newspaper of record will try to

11     maintain very close position to the actual sources of information --

12        Q.   Mm-hm.

13        A.    -- and to provide essential data, it may have an editorial

14     approach which may tend to discount the information that it conveys or

15     argue with it.  But the essential function of the -- a function of the

16     newspaper of record is, indeed, to do that reporting.

17        Q.   In that regard, would you agree that the articles that are

18     presented in a newspaper of record such as Oslobodjenje, which was a

19     newspaper of record, as I understand it, in your estimation.

20        A.   It served that function, yes.

21        Q.   Established a definitive record of current events; is that --

22        A.   Good.

23        Q.   Do we like that?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   Okay.  And would you also agree with me that such a newspaper

Page 1815

 1     would have a policy, both in its editorial aspect and its news-gathering

 2     functions, which would be considered to be professional and unbiased?

 3        A.   No.

 4        Q.   So for purposes of our discussion, the issues -- I take it your

 5     "no" was probably more focused on the "unbiased" than it was on the

 6     "professional."

 7        A.   You asked me a question about its editorial aspect and its

 8     news-gathering functions.

 9        Q.   Okay.

10        A.   My answer to the news-gathering functions is it seeks to be

11     objective and unbiased, but I don't -- I don't think there's a newspaper

12     that has an editorial policy that is deliberately neutral or even

13     unbiased.

14        Q.   Okay.  With regard to the one newspaper that you have identified

15     as a newspaper of record, that being Oslobodjenje, I take it that you

16     take the position that with regard to its news-gathering function, the

17     manner in which it gathered news, it was, in your estimation, unbiased?

18        A.   Let me correct you and say I also identified Glas --

19        Q.   Okay.

20        A.   -- as a newspaper of record.

21        Q.   But just with regard to Oslobodjenje first.  Glas is another

22     matter.

23        A.   Not quite.  I think the news-gathering function includes being a

24     newspaper of record but also includes gathering news through

25     investigative journalism, reports of commentators.  So I would say the

Page 1816

 1     news -- the paper-of-record function is only part of its news-gathering

 2     philosophy.

 3        Q.   What I'm driving at, and I appreciate that expansion of your

 4     answer, what I'm driving at, and this is my last question, and I was

 5     hoping to be able to go quite at it now, is that in your estimation, they

 6     were unbiased.  There was no bias in the gathering of the news.

 7        A.   No.

 8        Q.   Not at all.

 9        A.   That's not my position.

10        Q.   Oh, okay.  Then we will pick up tomorrow what your position is.

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.  We'll then stand adjourned

12     to tomorrow morning, 9.00, Courtroom I.  Court adjourned.

13                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.45 p.m.,

14                           to be reconvened on Thursday, the 20th day of

15                           November, 2008, at 9.00 a.m.