Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 32620

 1                           Thursday, 12 March, 2009

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           [The accused Miletic not present]

 5                           --- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.

 6             JUDGE AGIUS:  Good morning, Madam Registrar.  If you could call

 7     the case, please.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.  This is case

 9     IT-05-88-T, The Prosecutor versus Vujadin Popovic et al.

10             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, General Miletic is not present today.  We have

11     a waiver already.  The other accused are present.  Prosecution today, we

12     have Mr. McCloskey, Mr. Vanderpuye, Ms. Soljan.

13             Defence teams, I notice the absence of Mr. Nikolic in the Beara

14     Defence team; Mr. Bourgon in the Nikolic Defence team; Mr. Lazarevic in

15     the Borovcanin Defence team, and that's it.

16             Any preliminaries?  No.  Mr. McCloskey, the Borovcanin Defence

17     team has filed, as promised, the motion relating to a particular

18     document.  Do you think you are in a position to respond orally today?

19             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Mr. President, good morning.  Mr. Thayer had that

20     in his hands last night, and we discussed it briefly.  If I can check

21     with Mr. Thayer about that, I can get back to you.

22             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  Thank you.  If it is not possible for a

23     response today, perhaps you could discuss, also, with Mr. Thayer the

24     earliest you could come back to us with a response.  Thank you.  I'm

25     talking of P4104.

Page 32621

 1             All right.  Witness.

 2                           [The witness entered court]

 3             JUDGE AGIUS:  Good morning to you, Mr. Marojevic.

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.

 5             JUDGE AGIUS:  I should have addressed you as Professor Marojevic.

 6     My apologies.  Before you start giving evidence, we require from you a

 7     solemn declaration that you will be speaking the truth.  Please read out

 8     the text that is being shown to you now, and that will be your solemn

 9     undertaking with us.

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will

11     speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

12             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you.  Please make yourself comfortable.

13     Mr. Haynes who is lead counsel for General Pandurevic will be putting

14     some questions to you, and then he will be followed by others on

15     cross-examination.  Thank you.

16                           WITNESS:  RADMILO MAROJEVIC

17                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

18                           Examination by Mr. Haynes:

19        Q.   Good morning, Professor Marojevic, and good morning to everyone

20     else.  You know who I am because we met yesterday.  I'm counsel for

21     General Pandurevic.  Can we start, please, by establishing what your full

22     name is?

23        A.   My name is Radmilo Marojevic.

24        Q.   And for the first time, you're going to have to look at the

25     screen.

Page 32622

 1             MR. HAYNES:  I'm going to ask that we put 7D778 into e-court,

 2     please.

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

 4             MR. HAYNES:

 5        Q.   And can you look through that, please, and confirm that that is

 6     an accurate summary of your professional life and experience?

 7        A.   The birth place is not Markovac but Morokovo.  And the same goes

 8     for primary education; Morokovo, not Markovac.

 9        Q.   But after that, can you look at what you've been doing

10     principally since 1973?

11        A.   And after that, philological faculty and the faculty of political

12     science and MA degree, all right, and PhD degree, all right.  Now, in the

13     work experience, right.  The information is correct.

14        Q.   Thank you.  And how do you currently spend your time?

15        A.   I'm a professor at the Belgrade university, and I lecture also at

16     universities in Banja Luka and Nis.  My specialty is Slavistics and

17     especially the textology of verse and other literary works of

18     Petar Petrovic Njegos, a great Serb poet.

19        Q.   Do you know or have you ever met Vinko Pandurevic?

20        A.   Never.

21        Q.   In this case, we know from a report you've written that you came

22     to analyse two documents that have concerned us.  How did you come to be

23     involved in that?

24        A.   Mr. Drago Cupic telephoned me and asked me to receive

25     Mr. Djordje Sarapa in connection with a textological analysis of a

Page 32623

 1     document, and since this is my primary area of expertise, I accepted

 2     Mr. Sarapa, and that was around new year 2006, explained the matter to

 3     me.  And since I accepted in principle to do it, sometime later in

 4     February 2006 I received a text of the combat report dated 15 July, and I

 5     looked for another text that may have been written in the same genre

 6     signed by the same person.  And later, that must have been in the summer

 7     of 2006, I received another report of the 16 July, so that I thought over

 8     these text and as it usually happens in such cases, each element of the

 9     texts required a lot of thinking, and I started writing in September

10     2006.  And sometime in the beginning of 2008, my work was complete.

11        Q.   In addition to the two documents you've spoken about, did you

12     meet Mr. Sarapa on occasion?

13        A.   Very seldom because Mr. Sarapa did not visit Belgrade often at

14     the time when I was there because I spend around five months a year in

15     Montenegro.  Plus there was no particular need for us to meet because the

16     text itself was quite sufficient for analysis.

17             The only thing I never received and I never even expected to

18     receive is a different interpretation of that text.  I could only suppose

19     which parts of the text could give rise to some different interpretations

20     than those which were authentic.  Of course, I knew what it was all

21     about.  In fact, I knew how the Tribunal was established and in what

22     languages it worked, so I could suppose that the text would not be

23     interpreted only by native Serbian speakers, which means Serbs of

24     Orthodox, Catholic, or Islamic faith, which use the language regardless

25     of various renamings of the language; but it would be interpreted also by

Page 32624

 1     people who speak English or other languages.  And it is well known that

 2     foreigners who have a superficial knowledge of Serbian or read texts only

 3     in translation can sometimes have a different understanding.  That is why

 4     I looked at it -- I looked at the text from that perspective and tried to

 5     imagine what other broader interpretations are possible.

 6        Q.   Did you require and get any information from Mr. Sarapa about the

 7     texts?

 8        A.   A scholar who wants to identify a text would act in a

 9     methodologically proper manner only if he disregards completely any

10     outside suggestions.  Of course, I had to ask Mr. Sarapa about the

11     provenance of the texts; namely, I had to ask him to explain to me the

12     abbreviations and acronyms at the beginning of the text.  Perhaps I could

13     have found out in some other way, but that was not necessary.  Namely, ZV

14     stood for Zvornik, but I could make out myself that BR is brigade,

15     et cetera.  I did not need anything else and Mr. Sarapa did not volunteer

16     anything else.  He only asked me to provide an authentic interpretation

17     of the text, and I was well aware that scientific truth like any other

18     truth is the best contribution for the Tribunal to enable them to make

19     the right decision.

20        Q.   And is that an exercise that you had performed in the past?

21        A.   Well, I performed similar analyses, some of them published.  For

22     instance, on an authentic critical interpretation of any dark, unclear

23     spot in The Mountain Wreath by Njegos, I also interpreted a famous

24     Serbian ballad The Mournful Letters of Hasanaginica, and I did the same

25     thing for the Russian epic of The Igor Regiment as well as other Russian

Page 32625

 1     epics and Slavic texts.  I also made interpretations of Slavonic texts,

 2     and none of these interpretations have ever been disputed.

 3             In my work I use, of course, all past interpretations of the

 4     texts and I quote past interpretations so that all the arguments could be

 5     exposed to comparison.  And whenever I quote an argument, I also cite

 6     whether it has been proven or not, and if it's a controversial argument,

 7     I point out where the controversy lies.

 8             Now, this text is relatively easy to interpret because it is

 9     written in a clear and concise way.  It belongs to the official legal

10     genre of combat reports, and there was practically nothing in it that

11     would give rise to differing interpretations.  Everything is clear and

12     unambiguous based on the methods normally used to authenticate texts,

13     primarily the text in its entirety.

14        Q.   Just to clear up a couple of things with you.  Do you speak

15     English at all?

16        A.   At the philological faculty of our university, I sat two English

17     exam, English 1 and English 2.  I got top marks on both exams, but I had

18     no opportunity to use the English language because in my field there was

19     practically nothing to read in English.  However, since it is not so

20     necessary in my field, I have no emotional link to the language;

21     therefore, I would appreciate if you would address me in Serbian, in

22     Russian, or some other such language.

23        Q.   I'm not even going to try.  And in what language did you write

24     your original report?

25        A.   In Serbian.  And I did not check, although I could actually check

Page 32626

 1     the translation into English.

 2        Q.   And similarly, what knowledge do you have of the events in and

 3     around Zvornik of the 15th and 16th of July of 1995?

 4        A.   Well, I did not know anything about the specific events, and the

 5     first I heard of the surname Pandurevic -- in fact, no.  Some of my

 6     students in Banja Luka have the surname of Pandurevic, but the first I

 7     heard of Lieutenant-Colonel, later General Pandurevic was when I was

 8     asked to write this report.  I know very little about the events

 9     concerned, only as much as one can know based on available published

10     material.  What I know very well and what is not the subject of this

11     analysis is the new world order.  I know very well the scenario developed

12     in Srebrenica.  I know very well that the envoy of the new world order

13     Clinton asked Izetbegovic that everything be done to create a trap for

14     Serbs and entrap them into genocide.  I know very well and I explained

15     that in my book "The Cyrillic Script At the Crossroads of Centuries" in

16     1999.  I maintain that, and that has scientifically proven that in

17     Bosnia-Herzegovina there is only one people living there, and the new

18     world order made up a nation called Bosniaks.  There is only one single

19     nation or people there who speak a group of very similar dialects, all of

20     them being Serbian.

21             So in Bosnia-Herzegovina there are Serbs of Orthodox faith, Serbs

22     of Islamic faith, and Serbs of Catholic faith.  However, to prove a

23     genocide it was necessary to invent a pseudo-nation; first of all,

24     Muslims with a capital M, and later, Bosniaks, although Bosniaks has no

25     meaning at all.  Bosniaks are in fact Bosnians, an archaic prototype.  I

Page 32627

 1     knew all that, and I anticipated all that in my study of 1991 when I

 2     spoke about who the Serbs were, which names are used to denominate Serbs,

 3     et cetera.  And the details of the implementation of that scenario around

 4     Srebrenica were totally unknown to me because in that period I spent most

 5     of my time in Russia.  I visited, of course, and lectured in Pale and in

 6     Banja Luka occasionally, but I was not so interested in the details.  I

 7     knew that this scenario of the new world order was being implemented in

 8     Srebrenica, not only by Serbs of Islamic faith and foreign mercenaries,

 9     but there must have been, also, Serbs of the Orthodox faith involved, so

10     I could not suppose either of these things.  I had to see what this text

11     means, whether there are any hidden meanings or not.

12             Unfortunately, I see that in this Tribunal of ours, if it is ours

13     at all, there is no Mr. Clinton.  You see, when somebody is responsible

14     for an entrapment into genocide, then we don't have the person

15     responsible.  We don't see the Dutch Battalion here.  The only accused

16     are some of the possible perpetrators or some of those who fell into the

17     trap of that scenario.  Therefore, in Srebrenica and in the entire

18     Bosnia-Herzegovina, the war was ignited from outside and the objectives

19     are completely different.  The objective is to accuse the Serb people of

20     genocide, although there could have been no genocide because there is no

21     other people.  All of them are Serbs:  On one side, Orthodox Serbs; on

22     another side, Serbs of Islamic faith; and on the third side, Serbs of

23     Catholic faith.

24             Of course, in the earlier times, there had been Serbs of the

25     Moses faith, but they have joined the Serbs of the Orthodox faith in the

Page 32628

 1     death camp of Jasenovac.  Wiesenthal has said enough about -- Wiesenthal

 2     does not even mention them.

 3        Q.   Thank you for that.

 4             MR. HAYNES:  Can we have 7D917 in e-court, please.

 5        Q.   And can you identify that this is the linguistic analysis you

 6     wrote of the reports of 15th and 16th of July, 1995?

 7        A.   Yes, I can confirm this because I have a version which is part of

 8     your material and another one that I downloaded from my computer, and

 9     they are identical.  Of course, what I consider authentic is only the

10     text in the Serbian language.

11        Q.   Thank you.  And can you explain to us what it was you understood

12     your task to be in preparing this report?

13        A.   I understood that my task was to carry out a linguistic analysis

14     of the text, i.e., to carry out the textology of the combat reports,

15     which means that all those places that might be in dispute or are

16     interesting from the point of view of a linguistic analysis should be

17     explained by me.  In any case, the objective of the analysis has been

18     presented in the paper.  The objective is to show the basic meaning of

19     the passages where prisoners of war are mentioned.  I believe that it was

20     of some significance for the analysis of the text and also to put that

21     passage in context of other passages speaking of the situation on the

22     ground and the basic tasks of the Zvornik Infantry Brigade.

23             My third task was to present the textual and contextual

24     relationship between the interim combat report of the command of the

25     Zvornik Brigade dated 15 July 1995 at 1925 and the interim combat report

Page 32629

 1     of the command of the Zvornik Infantry Brigade dated 16 July 1995 at 1810

 2     hours.  So these were the frameworks within which I was to carry out my

 3     analysis.

 4        Q.   I want to go directly to the report of the 16th of July.  I'm not

 5     going to take you all the way through your report, but just to clarify a

 6     few remarks in it.

 7             MR. HAYNES:  So can we go to page 12 in the English, please.

 8     That's section 8.  I think the page is the same in the B/C/S.  Thank you.

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Could you please tell me what B/C/S

10     is?  What is B/C/S?  Please could you use Serbian instead of B/C/S, and I

11     don't care whether that Serbian is going to be the Ijekavian or Ekavian

12     variation, and to show you that I really don't care, I used my Ijekavian

13     variant in my report, but in the courtroom I will use the Ijekavian

14     because that's how people speak in Bosnia-Herzegovina.  This will

15     facilitate my analysis.  An exception were the combat reports because in

16     the Yugoslavia's People's Army it was customary for the text to be

17     written in the Latinic script but to be spoken in the Ekavian variant of

18     the language.

19        Q.   Well, you've probably answered my next question, which is that in

20     relation to the report of the 16th of July, you have said at the foot of

21     the report that it was written in one dialect but typed as the appendix

22     to your report in another, and I was going to ask you to explain that.

23     If there's anything that you've left out, would you do so now?

24        A.   I just wanted to say that this report was written in Ekavian

25     because -- what I meant is that the linguistic analysis was written in

Page 32630

 1     Ekavian because the report which was analysed was also written in

 2     Ekavian.  It was written in the Cyrillic script, and that's why the

 3     linguistic analysis was also in the Cyrillic, although it is not

 4     obligatory, but it is, of course, desirable.

 5             The second text which is brought in connection with the first one

 6     by intertextual analysis was written in Ekavian with certain elements of

 7     Ijekavian.  I established, which was not at all difficult, that this was

 8     under the typist who probably was Ijekavian and who obviously had not

 9     served in the army for any longer time because if he had served in the

10     Yugoslav People's Army, he would have had to be well versed in writing,

11     typing, and speaking Ekavian because that was the language of command in

12     the JNA.  Obviously, I took into account the fact that such errors may

13     have been made by somebody who was Ijekavian but not the person who

14     dictated the text.  In addition to that, the errors and mistakes are

15     completely understandable because where there is a two-syllable reflex of

16     "jat" involved, there are no mistakes there.  For example, look at the

17     words "cele", "linija fronta".  In the Ekavian, it would be "cijele."

18     The difference is between "cela" and "cijele."  The mistakes appear where

19     the differences are not in the number of syllables, so for example when

20     somebody dictates an interim combat report, an Ijekavian will use the

21     word "isvijesta" [phoen] with a J as it has been done here.  So there is

22     a combination of Serbian literally language, but this did not have a

23     bearing on the commander or did not originate from the commander but,

24     rather, from the incorrect spelling on the part of the typist in the

25     second text, whereas the typist of the first text noted the text exactly

Page 32631

 1     as it had been dictated to him.

 2        Q.   And how much difference does it make, the two dialects?

 3        A.   These are not dialects at all.  These are two literary

 4     expressions.  The first one was established by Vuk Stefanovic Karadzic,

 5     and at first it was the only literary pronunciation or expression of the

 6     new literary Serbian language.  And then in the 19th century, some 20

 7     years or 25 years after Vuk's death, the Ekavian literary expression or

 8     pronunciation was introduced, but it was identical with the Ijekavian,

 9     the only difference between that the reflection of "jat" were replaced

10     with the Ekavian expression, which means that the fundaments of both of

11     these speeches were taken from the Niksic of the eastern

12     Herzegovina, i.e., from the boundary between Montenegro,

13     Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Serbia.  The Ekavian is not based on the Ekavian

14     dialects or speeches but, rather, on the Ijekavian speeches.  This is one

15     and the same literary pronunciation with two variations.  In spontaneous

16     speech, these two variations are so minutely differentiated, and if you

17     don't pay much attention you will not even know whether the person is

18     speaking Ijekavian or Ekavian.  These two are so close that they

19     constitute one in the same Serbian literary pronunciation or language.

20        Q.   Thank you.  Now, just two other observations --

21        A.   You're welcome.

22             MR. HAYNES:  Can we go to section 5 of the report, which is page

23     5 in the English, and I think 6 in the Serbian.

24        Q.   You've said a little about this already, Professor Marojevic, but

25     you've characterized the interim combat report of the 15th of July as an

Page 32632

 1     official legal text, and I'd like to you to help us as to what the

 2     characteristics of such a text are.

 3        A.   Well, an official legal functional style is one of the five

 4     functional styles which exists -- which exist in the Serbian and other

 5     Slav languages.  What are the other functional styles?  There is a

 6     scientific functional style which is used in science papers.  Then there

 7     is conversational functional style.  Further on, journalistic or

 8     publicistic style, and of course the literary or artistic functional

 9     style in writing.  And like all the other styles, this particular style,

10     the official legal style has the strictest structure, which means that it

11     does not tolerate elements which are typical of a jargon or a

12     conversational language.  This is a style in which one needs to formulate

13     one's thoughts very clearly.  It is a style in which you do not omit

14     anything that shouldn't be omitted according to the linguistic rules.

15             And finally, this is such a functional style in which one strives

16     for a complete lack of ambiguity, which means that it has the same -- the

17     same meaning for the person who writes the text as well as for the person

18     who is going to read it, and in our case, for those who will be

19     interpreting it or use it to charge a person or defend a person charged

20     with certain acts.

21        Q.   If you stay with that paragraph for a little while, you go on to

22     talk about each paragraph in the report being a semantically meaningful

23     unit.  Would you expand upon that just a little bit, please?

24        A.   At the beginning of this paragraph number V entitled the

25     "Structure of the Interim Combat Report 15 July 1995," which was the

Page 32633

 1     subject of my linguistic analysis, when it says in this paragraph that

 2     every paragraph represents a meaningful whole, it says further on that

 3     this meaningful whole is composed of one, two, or several sentences.  If

 4     every paragraph were to represent or constitute or consist of just one

 5     sentence, then meaningful wholes would not exist because every sentence

 6     would be a paragraph.  This is one criterion that helps us to establish

 7     that one paragraph is one whole and that the text is very regularly

 8     divided into passages.

 9             The second criterion is as follows:  Where there are two or

10     several sentences, these two or several sentences could be divided by

11     full stops or commas, and they could be condensated into complex

12     sentences.  And a third criterion that could be proven here very easily

13     is this:  There is no way for the text to be connected from one passage

14     to another unless the whole text was completely changed.  In other words,

15     all the arguments presented here point to the fact that the paragraphs

16     are independent wholes and that whoever dictated the text and whoever

17     typed it did not make a single mistake of connecting two paragraphs into

18     one or breaking one meaningful paragraph in an artificial way into two

19     different wholes.

20             In other words, all the paragraphs function as a totally

21     independent logical and semantic wholes.  They could also be syntactic

22     wholes if the genre itself did not warrant for the text to be as precise

23     and possible.  What makes a text precise is to put full stops everywhere

24     where a semantic units ends, and this provides for a completely

25     transparent and clear meaning of the text.

Page 32634

 1        Q.   You have alluded to it in your answer, but were you aware of the

 2     process by which the two documents you looked at were created, namely by

 3     dictation?

 4        A.   In this sense, it may be concluded that the text was dictated and

 5     that whoever typed it did so based on the dictation.  It can be assumed

 6     that the person who dictated the text and, as it is customary in the

 7     Serbian pedagogical discourse, also spelled out the word full stop where

 8     the sentence ended and that preceded every new paragraph with the words

 9     "new paragraph."

10             The second possibility that exists, and that would result in a

11     text of this kind, was that the person who dictated the text had already

12     prepared a draft, a concept, a structure of the report and that he knew

13     exactly where the paragraphs would be because he had already prepared an

14     outline, and that made it easier for that person who dictated the text to

15     draft this text which functions as a whole and looking at its part, it

16     represents a very well structured composition.

17             MR. HAYNES:  Can we go to page 7 of the report in the English,

18     please, which I think is page 8 in the Serbian.

19        Q.   In chapter VI of your report, "Linguistic Analysis Of the Text,"

20     you pose yourself four questions.  I'm not going to read them out.  I'm

21     sure you're familiar with them.  Why did you pose yourself those four

22     questions in that chapter?

23             MR. HAYNES:  And I think we need to go back one page in the

24     Serbian version.

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In paragraph entitled "Linguistic

Page 32635

 1     Analysis of the Text," which is the central part of this linguistic

 2     analysis, I posed those questions which I deemed to be of some interest

 3     for the understanding of the meaning of this text.  The first question is

 4     this:  "This command cannot take care of these problems any longer..."

 5     This has been singled out as a particular paragraph.  I had to show in

 6     contextual terms what are the problems referred to within this text in

 7     order to avoid any confusion or misinterpretation especially if the

 8     reader's language is not Serbian.  I wanted to show that this refers to

 9     the previous paragraph, and I provided arguments to show that this does

10     not refer to the previous or, rather, not the immediately preceding

11     paragraph but, rather, to the first five key paragraphs.  The sixth

12     paragraph was just a remark in passing, and if this had been a different

13     genre of a text, if this hadn't been an official legal document, and if

14     this hadn't been an interim combat report, then the preceding paragraph

15     could be construed as a footnote.  It could have been taken out from the

16     text and included at the end of the text because it is just an additional

17     burden on the text.  This had to be said.  This had to be explained.

18             My next question was whether -- or, rather, what is the function

19     of the word "security" and the "asnacija" of the terrain.  If the

20     punctuation is correct, and we don't have any reason to doubt that,

21     security could not stand on its own if it was not separated by a

22     linguistic mark.  We had to explain what is the nature of that security.

23     Was it something that was independent, and what was its meaning, or was

24     it this providing security for the terrain, meaning "asnacija"?  And then

25     we had to explain the link between "release" and the rest of the text,

Page 32636

 1     and whether the word "release" can have the meaning of setting free from

 2     the prison.

 3             I had to explain the context in which "release" can be used in

 4     one or the other meaning because there are words which have their own

 5     independent meaning when they are used independently and have a different

 6     meaning which can be used only in a colocation.  There is this word

 7     "release" or "let go," so you can use it as, Did you let them go, and to

 8     let go or release from the prison in a conversational language can be

 9     construed as release of prison only if the word "prison" is used.  In an

10     official document, this does not mean to be released from prison.  You

11     cannot let go from prison in a legal text without using the word

12     "prison."  One can only free prisoners.  He cannot just let them go.  And

13     given the possibilities that the Serbian language inambiguously

14     demonstrates, and I have used the best six volume dictionary, the

15     Serbo-Croatian dictionary, as the Serbian language was known at the time;

16     the authors of that dictionary worked on a huge database, and they could

17     not know at the time, they could not even assume that somebody would try

18     to give the verb "release" or "let go" a meaning that would be

19     misinterpreted here in this Tribunal.  The lexicographers had provided

20     the structure of the word "release" a long time ago, and if this confirms

21     what the linguistic practice showed to them, which can be verified by

22     experiments without any exceptions, then one really needed to explain the

23     relationship with the word "release" or "let go" with the next paragraph

24     in which it says "let everybody go through," or -- and whether this "let

25     go" can have any connection with the prisoners which were referred to in

Page 32637

 1     the immediately preceding paragraph or footnote as I have just called it,

 2     and the analysis of course will show very clearly without any dilemma

 3     whatsoever, and what I'm using for the analysis of the meaning of this

 4     verb and I'm using not one but all sorts of methods in order to establish

 5     its meaning, although only one method suffice.  However, I used all the

 6     four methods because the four methods absolutely clearly show that the

 7     analysis is correct.

 8             If this was not about the Tribunal, if this was not about an

 9     expert report, if this was merely a linguistic analysis, then it would

10     suffice for me to say or use just one sentence in a footnote.  "Let go"

11     cannot mean "liberate" unless it is further expanded by saying, Let go

12     somebody who had been captured.  There is an anecdote about a person who

13     had captured an enemy, and then he calls his friend and says, I captured

14     him; and the answer is, If you had captured him, bring him over.  And

15     then the first one says, He doesn't want to go.  The second says, If he

16     doesn't want to go, then let him go.  And then the first says, I would

17     let him go but he doesn't want to let me go, which means if you capture

18     somebody, you tie his hands or restrain him in another way.  You can then

19     let him go.  But you cannot use the verb "let go" in reference to a

20     prisoner.  There's no indicator to show that this verb can have this

21     meaning.  There is no single example for that.  Obviously, I have taken

22     into account only the things that may be of relevance for the Tribunal.

23     There is a dictionary of the Croatian or Serbian language, but it is a

24     historical dictionary.  I didn't want to have this taken against me.  I

25     did not quote from the historical dictionary, but it would prove exactly

Page 32638

 1     what I'm saying.  It is impossible.  There is not a single example to

 2     show that verb "let go" can be used with this meaning.

 3             I have also used a large database of the dictionaries of the

 4     Serbian and Croatian literary and languages of the Serbian academy of

 5     arts and sciences; however, that dictionary did not reach the letter P,

 6     which would stand for the Serbian "let go."  However, everything in the

 7     database, and there are a lot of examples, that illustrate my claim that

 8     the verb "let go" cannot independently stand for "release" or "set free"

 9     from prison on the one hand; and on the other hand, in any case it can

10     mean let somebody go out, in, or through.  So that this analysis was

11     obviously indispensable for the text to gain its full meaning, not only

12     for a linguistic expert and not only for the native speaker of the

13     Serbian but for all the others, as well, for those who learn the Serbian

14     language, for those who interpret into English, and for those who use the

15     English text in order to understand the Serbian language and charge the

16     Serbian language with what it is not and what it shouldn't be blamed for.

17             There is no word "let go," which would also mean release from

18     imprisonment.  So it is in vain to accuse the Serbian language of that

19     attempt, and I'm here to defend the Serbian language in a scientific

20     manner.

21             MR. HAYNES:  Can we have a look, please, at page 16 of your

22     report in English, 18 in Serbian.  Maybe 17 in Serbian.

23        Q.   This is paragraph 3 we are looking at, Professor Marojevic, of

24     the interim combat report of the 16th of July, and I want to look with

25     you, please, at the penultimate sentence, which reads in English:

Page 32639

 1             "I requested that a captured policeman and my missing soldiers be

 2     released."

 3             What verb is used by the author in that sentence?

 4        A.   Well, first, a clarification:  It's not the penultimate; it's the

 5     third from the end.  It's not for me.  It's for the opposite side; maybe

 6     they will say that it's not in the penultimate sentence.  We have to be

 7     clear for the sake of the structure of the text itself.

 8             The word used is "oslobodjenje," to be released.  It's a verb

 9     noun.  It's a gerund.  In Serbian, you could say, I asked that the

10     captured policeman be released.  But instead it was said, I asked for the

11     release of the captured policeman.  It's perfectly clear.  The verb is

12     "osloboditi"; the verb noun is "oslobodjenje."  It is used in the proper

13     style, and, of course, it is not replaced by the "let go" verb,

14     "pustiti," "pustanje"; the proper word is used.  That is the proper word

15     to be used to denote that meaning.  "Osloboditi," "oslobodjenje," meaning

16     release from imprisonment.  In the old language, it was not "sloboda" for

17     freedom; it was "svobode," but that's the only difference.

18        Q.   What significance do you ascribe to the fact that the same author

19     used that same in this context in this report but "pustiti" not once but

20     twice in the report of the 15th of July?

21        A.   That's just the sign that in the previous report the word was not

22     used in that meaning.  That meaning was not present, and since there was

23     no such meaning, the word corresponding to that meaning was not used.

24     What was said there was that everybody should be let through, let pass,

25     let all of them go because we see from the prior passages that the

Page 32640

 1     commander was willing to let all the civilians go, and then later let

 2     everybody go, including those who were armed.  Let all of them get out.

 3     That's why I asked for this post-dated text, which sheds light on the

 4     previous text from the semantic and from the lexical point of view.

 5        Q.   Thank you.  I just want to move on to a couple of other things.

 6             MR. HAYNES:  Can we have a look, please, at 7D109.

 7        Q.   And it's a fairly straightforward question.  You talk at length

 8     in your report about the conceptual link between the word "oslobodjenje"

 9     and the word "terena" in one of the paragraphs of the combat report.  In

10     this document, the second and third words of the text we see are

11     "oslobodjenje teritorija."  Is there any difference in meaning between

12     the words "terena" and "teritorija" in your opinion?

13        A.   Well, these are synonyms.  Practically in every context you can

14     use to secure territory and to secure terrain as mutually interchangeable

15     words.  Territory and terrain are not 100 per cent synonyms.  They are

16     not always used in exactly the same meaning, but to secure territory and

17     to secure terrain are complete synonyms.  These colocations are absolute

18     synonyms.  The only thing I could say here as a textologist is that in

19     this right-hand text, it's written "for the purposes of securing

20     territory" because what it says in the original is "teritorij" instead of

21     "teritorija," and "teritorij" is the Zagreb variant, and the proper

22     Zagreb genitive would be "teritorija."  In any case, securing territory

23     and securing terrain is one in the same meaning, and they are always

24     interchangeable.

25        Q.   Staying with that for a minute, can you help us as to the

Page 32641

 1     etymological derivation of the word "obezbedjenje"?

 2        A.   "Obezbedjenje," or in the Ekavian variant "besbijadjenje"

 3     [phoen], is a Serbian word, but it was taken over originally from the

 4     Russian word "abispecinja," [phoen] and the Russian politicians often put

 5     the accent in the wrong place and say "abispecinja."  It can be used in

 6     all sorts of meanings.  It can mean securing terrain from landslides;

 7     when rain starts and rock and soil give way, the terrain needs to be

 8     secured.  But in this meaning, it's always a transitive word.  You cannot

 9     say secure; you have to say, Secure what?

10             It is a feature of the Serbian language but not the Russian

11     language, which is the source, that "obezbedjenje" has another use which

12     is independent, not transitive.  In our days we have the security

13     service, and by abbreviating the colocation we can just say security or

14     meeting service.  However, the origin of "obezbedjenje" is the Russian

15     word "bezopasnost", and Security Council in Russian would be

16     "Sovjet Bezopasnosti," and our language developed in many ways under the

17     influence of the Serbian literary language but also the Czech language.

18     Both of these are Slavic languages, one of them eastern Slavic, another

19     Western Slavic, and they impacted both the variant used in Zagreb and the

20     basic variants, Ekavian and Ijekavian used in Belgrade, Podgorica, and

21     other Serbian lands.  So the conclusion here would be that

22     "obezbedjenje teritorija":  Is the same thing as "obezbedjenje terena,"

23     securing the terrain.  But with regard to "asnacija," in combination with

24     security, the rule is strict and the whole sentence would read "to secure

25     and clear up terrain":  "Obezbedjenje I Asanacija Teritorija."  I

Page 32642

 1     can interpret this text by saying that "obezbedjenje teritorija,"

 2     securing the territory, is one meaning; and if I had another text, I

 3     could have used it to establish intertextual connections because

 4     intertextual connections cannot -- are not necessarily between two texts

 5     made by the same persons, but two texts in the same language.

 6        Q.   Thank you.  Just one final thing on that issue.  You said earlier

 7     that "obezbedjenje" is always a transitive word.  "You cannot say secure;

 8     you have to say, Secure what?"  What do you mean by a transitive word?

 9        A.   Well, a transitive verb is defined as a verb used with an

10     addition in the accusatory case, but there are verbs that can be used

11     without that addition or with.  They are also transitive verbs.  However,

12     purely transitive verbs cannot exist without that addition.  What is the

13     difference?  The difference is very important.  To read and to read a

14     book:  "To read" is a transitive verb.  It may and does not have to have

15     an object.  If I say I'm reading a book, then "to read" is one part of

16     the sentence and the book is the object.  "To secure the territory" are

17     not two elements of the sentence; it's one because "I secure" means

18     nothing unless I add "territory."  In this case, syntactic analysis shows

19     clearly that I'm securing territory or securing terrain.  All of this is

20     the subject of the sentence.  If the linguistic analysis cannot separate

21     the two, the law cannot do it either.  If you separate these two words,

22     then the meaning is lost.  It's not only a transitive verb.  It's a

23     transitive verb that requires an object, a noun in the accusatory case so

24     that it's called a paraphrastic element.  This is not idiosyncratic; it

25     exists also in English, but it's not the English language that's in the

Page 32643

 1     dock here.  It's not only the Serbian people who are in the dock, but the

 2     Serbian language is accused, as well, of having to carry the meanings

 3     that somebody wants to impose on it.  I guarantee that it has no such

 4     meanings.  I have defended the Serbian language before, and I

 5     successfully defended it from attempts to expel the Ijekavian variant

 6     from the Serbian language in Bosnia-Herzegovina whereby it was attempted

 7     to prove that Serbs were the aggressors there, and I also successfully

 8     defended the Ijekavian dialect as an integral part of the Serbian

 9     language.  I successfully defended Njegos from fallacious

10     interpretations, and I hope that ultimately I'll be able to defend the

11     Serbian language here from erroneous analysis.

12             Securing terrain is one syntagm, securing territory and securing

13     terrain.  Everything is clear and logical here.

14             MR. HAYNES:  I think I'm done, but can we take a break so that I

15     can check that?

16             JUDGE AGIUS:  I think that's a good idea, Mr. Haynes.  25

17     minutes.  Thank you.

18                           --- Recess taken at 10.26 a.m.

19                           --- On resuming at 10.58 a.m.

20             JUDGE AGIUS:  Mr. Haynes?

21             MR. HAYNES:  No, thank you.

22             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you.  Mr. Zivanovic?

23             MR. ZIVANOVIC:  Good morning, Your Honours.  I have no questions

24     for this witness, thank you.

25             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you, Mr. Zivanovic.  Mr. Ostojic?

Page 32644

 1             MR. OSTOJIC:  Thank you, Mr. President.  Good morning, Your

 2     Honours.  I do have --

 3             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, go ahead.

 4             MR. OSTOJIC:  Thank you.

 5                           Cross-examination by Mr. Ostojic:

 6        Q.   Good morning, Mr. Marojevic.  My name is John Ostojic, and I

 7     represent Ljubisa Beara in this case.  I have a couple of questions for

 8     you.  And sir, at the outset, although I'd like you to know that we do

 9     not agree on the many things that you have said, especially the political

10     rhetoric and the philosophy that you've shared with us today, but I'll

11     try to move away from that and focus on your report.

12             Sir, with respect to the experience that you have, can you tell

13     us how many cases you have testified in in court as an expert?

14        A.   I've never been in this Tribunal before.  This is my first time,

15     and this is the first linguistic analysis I've ever performed for this

16     Tribunal.

17        Q.   What about outside this Tribunal, any other courts anywhere in

18     Belgrade or former Yugoslavia or Russia or any other place you may have

19     lectured or studied?

20        A.   Well, no.  I've never appeared before any other court, and I have

21     never provided any linguistic expert analysis for any other courts.

22        Q.   Okay.  How about the topic of the linguistic report that you

23     conducted here, and I understand from your proofing note that was

24     conducted yesterday, you state that you analysed many things, something

25     other than poetry and literature.  Now, I'm familiar or I've looked up

Page 32645

 1     some of the analysis you've done with respect to poetry and literature,

 2     but have you ever analysed an official text, as you call it, official

 3     fundamental style as one of the five fundamental styles that you discuss

 4     in your direct?  Have you ever done that before, or is this your first

 5     time as well?

 6        A.   Of course I've analysed Russian Pravda Dusan's Code of Law, the

 7     letters that were sent to poet Njegos by the ruler of Montenegro.  There

 8     were no limitations in genre, but official legal texts are not of such an

 9     importance for the history or culture such as literary texts.

10        Q.   So you have really no experience whatsoever in analysing official

11     legal texts, correct, with the exception of this case here that you've

12     given us, this report; and really, your emphasis or concentration, if you

13     will, is strictly in the poetry and literature arts; correct?

14        A.   Nothing of what you have just put to me is true.  I have

15     performed analysis of the constitution, the law on associated labour, and

16     these analyses are part of my bibliography.  Second of all, there's no

17     other linguist, and I am aware of that, has ever performed such analysis.

18     I have been the only one to do them.  For somebody to carry out such

19     analysis, that person has to have some knowledge in philology but also in

20     the subject topic of the area to which such an official legal document

21     belongs.  If you have studied my bibliography, then you must have seen

22     that I graduated from the school of political sciences, and at that

23     school one has to study all the relevant legal subjects, and I completed

24     those studies together with the study of philology at the same time,

25     which means I have all the necessary qualifications to perform a

Page 32646

 1     linguistic analysis of legal texts, and I've done that.  Legal text in

 2     legal terms because of the genre that I've already explained are not such

 3     to mandate scientific discussions.  You can also read my very first

 4     papers that were published in the students' paper in Belgrade where I

 5     analysed the constitution and its amendments from the linguistic point of

 6     view.  None of those analyses were ever challenged.

 7             Your question, however, is not good, is not properly formulated.

 8     What you are trying to say, actually, is if something didn't do something

 9     in the area but in an associated area, an area which is 28.000 times

10     harder than a legal text.  If one is to analyse a literary text, they

11     have to be aware of the essence of the literary text.  For somebody to

12     analyse a legal text, they have to be familiar with law.  When I studied

13     political sciences, I passed all the exams within the legal area with the

14     highest degrees, and I would like to add, if I may, and I think I may,

15     your first question and my first answer to that question was whether any

16     other linguist has every analysed any text of this type.  The answer is

17     no.  Why not?  Because a linguist has also to be an expert in economy and

18     law to the extent of being able to understand the essence of the text.

19     I've done that, although this was not exactly the narrow scope of my

20     interest.

21        Q.   Okay.  Well, let's narrow it further, then.  How many cases have

22     you been retained or that you've analysed that focus specifically on an

23     official military combat report such as the one that you've done here?

24     How many other instances?  If you can be brief, that may help me out with

25     the time constraints that I have.  Many?  None?

Page 32647

 1        A.   Well, you can't lead me in answering your questions.  I defended

 2     two doctoral theses about a scientific functional style, which also

 3     comprised texts that are of interest to you and to all of us here, and

 4     those dissertations were about the syntax of a scientific style in the

 5     Russian and Serbian style by candidate Andrej Stojanovic and the

 6     stylistics of the verb by Professor Tosovic at the University of

 7     Sarajevo.

 8        Q.   I'm sorry to interrupt you, and I'm sorry to the panel of Judges

 9     and Mr. President.  I just want to know how many times you've analysed an

10     official military combat report other than this one time?  Just give me a

11     number, whatever it is.  How many, sir?

12        A.   Your question has no deeper meaning because nobody has ever

13     analysed them.

14        Q.   Excuse me.  I'll move on because I think we know the answer to

15     that question.  Let me talk about your political affiliation, sir.

16     Presently, are you affiliated with any political party?

17        A.   At one point I was a member of the Serbian Radical Party when I

18     was appointed as the dean of the school of philology.  At that time, Mr.

19     Seselj expressed his wish for me to become a member of the Serbian

20     Radical Party, but this was just a formality.  I never participated in

21     the work of the party.  I participated in three scientific symposia to

22     defend Mr. Seselj.  The symposia were held in Belgrade.  I also published

23     two articles in the paper The Greater Serbia, and I also published

24     several studies mostly about Njegos in the magazine, The Serb Freedom

25     Thought.

Page 32648

 1        Q.   We'll get to your appointment as dean in 1998 and 1999 at the

 2     University of Belgrade while you were with Vojislav Seselj's party, but

 3     presently are you a member of any political party?  And you can answer

 4     yes or no, or you don't know, maybe.

 5        A.   Well, I suppose if I were a member of the party, I would be able

 6     to answer you, sir.  I never withdrew from the Serbian Radical Party;

 7     however, if they don't invite me to their meetings or don't offer me any

 8     jobs to do, I would say that I'm not an active member of the party.

 9        Q.   Fair enough.  Now, you said you analysed some constitutional laws

10     and all this.  In May of 1998, are you familiar with a law that was

11     passed in Belgrade immediately prior to you being appointed dean of the

12     faculty of philology in Belgrade called the University Law?  Are you

13     familiar with that act or enactment?

14        A.   That was not its name, but it was about that area, that's the law

15     that came into effect.  I studied it immediately as a philologist, as a

16     politologist as well.

17        Q.   Thank you.  Here is what many people have said in the press about

18     that specific act.  They said that:

19             "It's seriously undermines academic freedom and the autonomy of

20     Serbian universities."

21             I can get you the exhibit.  We have about five of them that

22     discuss you in particular as being the extreme linguist who adopted and

23     promoted that type of philosophy.  Do you agree with that, that that

24     University Act that was enacted in May of 1998 actually undermines

25     academic freedom?

Page 32649

 1        A.   I totally disagree.  This law did not undermine academic or any

 2     other freedoms.  It only prescribed that all university professors and

 3     other members of staff had to sign a work contract, and that work

 4     contract was an incentive for those who worked for the others.  And it is

 5     well known that opposition parties were all on the payroll of foreign

 6     intelligence services at the time.

 7             On the other hand, you mixed some things.  You say that I'm an

 8     extreme linguist and so on and so forth.  My linguistic activity has

 9     nothing whatsoever to do with the work I performed as the dean of the

10     school of philology.  This is not correct.  May it be seen that the new

11     administration that was instituted in Belgrade in 2000 have retained the

12     same law and university, and that law was in effect for a long time, and

13     those new parties came as a result of Puc.  And these new authorities,

14     the new administration which were instituted in Serbia -- I apologise,

15     I'm not finished.  The new authorities, when they were evaluating the law

16     in university, they stated that the only person who fully implemented the

17     law was Dean Radmilo Marojevic.  I was at the time duty-bound to

18     implement the law of my state, and my maxim was "dura lex, sed lex," and

19     that means that even a law may be bad, one has to implement it.  I was

20     also trying very hard to pin-point its weaknesses and if possible amend

21     them.  In addition to that, those who were duty-bound to sign the

22     contract under the law, I said I would be the one who would not sign it.

23     You have to because you are duty-bound.  If I don't sign it, your

24     obligations will not come into effect.  Your information is wrong, and if

25     it is correct, then you have to tell me how were the academic freedoms

Page 32650

 1     threatened?  The Belgrade university and other Serbian universities had

 2     such a legal procedure imposing the signing of the work contract.  What

 3     was restricted by the work contract?  No freedoms or liberties were

 4     restricted by the work contract.  All the other states and I'm sure you

 5     belong to one and that your state and its universities have similar laws

 6     that prescribe that a member of the faculty has to sign a contract on

 7     rights and obligations when joining that faculty.

 8        Q.   Okay.  Thank you.  I don't want to spend too much time on that,

 9     but you're familiar with who Professor Ranko Bugarski is, are you not?

10     Because when you talk about contracts, that's one name that should come

11     right up to shed some light for you, doesn't it?

12        A.   Ranko Bugarski is a sociolinguist in Belgrade.  He graduated in

13     English at the moment when I was appointed the dean of the school of

14     philology.  He met all the criteria to be retired, and the previous dean

15     had extended his work contract by two years, and when I became dean, I

16     issued a decision that this contract would be valid until the

17     30th September 1998.  And after that, Ranko Bugarski while I was dean no

18     longer lectured at the school of philosophy in Belgrade.

19        Q.   But he was fired, sir, despite of the fact immediately prior to

20     May of 1998 he had a two-year extended contract, and you fired him in

21     essence because of his opposition to the nationalistic policies or

22     politics that were prevalent in Serbia and Belgrade at that time; isn't

23     that accurate?

24        A.   Sir, none of what you have just said is true.  I can give you

25     evidence that there were others who criticized then government of Serbia

Page 32651

 1     and its policies, and I never fired them.  It was just about the

 2     implementation of the law on universities.  Since Mr. Ranko Bugarski was

 3     a sociolinguist who did not meet any criteria to call himself that, for

 4     somebody to be a sociolinguist they have to be familiar with the methods

 5     of both linguistics that he is not familiar with and sociology, which he

 6     also isn't familiar with.  And as for the work of Ranko Bugarski, if you

 7     are not informed about that, I criticized him already in 1991 in a book

 8     of mine.  His work was just the rephrasing of some fashionable works from

 9     the western literature and had no significance whatsoever for his

10     teaching of English language.  As the dean of the school of philology, it

11     was my duty to protect science and profession, and I know at the

12     extension of his contract, I had realised that he should no longer be

13     allowed to institute harm to science and the professionalism at the

14     school of philology.

15        Q.   Let's just quickly look at 2D649, please, and it's in English,

16     but I could read the paragraph that relates to Professor Bugarski for you

17     unless you would like to read it for yourself.  It's going to come up on

18     your screen, and it comes up on the second page on the top of this.  This

19     is a publication, sir, that I found from the AAAS Science and Human

20     Rights Programme, which discusses in September of 1998 this academic

21     freedom and the new law that was enacted in Belgrade at that time, upon

22     which you became the dean of the faculty.  And as it's coming up, I think

23     I can just begin by reading from my text if no one objects.  It says --

24             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, please go ahead.

25             MR. OSTOJIC:  Thank you.

Page 32652

 1        Q.   It says on the top here, it says:

 2             "The appointment of Radmilo Marojevic as the new dean of the

 3     faculty of philology, also a member of the SRS ..." which is the Serbian

 4     Radical Party, "... and the junior professor of Russian, Mr. Marojevic

 5     determined that a prominent linguists Professor, Ranko Bugarski, who is a

 6     critic of nationalistic policies, was no longer eligible to work at the

 7     university, even though he had signed a new two-year contract in May

 8     1998.  Although Professor Bugarski has the support of other faculty

 9     member, under the new law, Marojevic has the authority to nullify his

10     contract.  While the consequences of Marojevic's efforts are not yet

11     clear, such arbitrary actions have a significantly negative impact on the

12     academic climate."

13             Are you familiar that's what people were writing about you, sir,

14     when you became dean of the faculty in 1998?

15        A.   Sir, at the time a lot more was written about Dean Marojevic than

16     about Milosevic and Seselj together, which means that the new world order

17     and its servants were bothered by the scientific and constructive

18     position that I advocated at the time.  And as far as Professor Bugarski

19     is concerned, there had been changes in all postgraduate studies in

20     Serbia, Montenegro, and in Republika Srpska, and the curriculum of

21     post-graduate studies were derobed of the totally unnecessary subject,

22     general linguistics, that is part of graduate studies.  So the services

23     of Bugarski were no longer needed.  For scientific reasons, therefore,

24     Ranko Bugarski had to have his contract modified - not nullified, but

25     modified - and was made to be valid until the 30th September, 1998.

Page 32653

 1             It was completely legitimate.  Mr. Bugarski never filed an appeal

 2     against that decision, and there was no other possibility to contest a

 3     decision or challenge the decision which was based on a profession,

 4     science, and moral, and the decision that was made by myself as dean.

 5        Q.   Okay.  Let me show you another publication, which is 2D647, which

 6     is from a source called Times Higher Education, which is THE, is the

 7     acronym.  And on that one, again, 2D647, it says the following, and I'll

 8     wait a minute just so it can come up on the screen for you, and that's

 9     the middle of the paragraph.  It talks about your conflict that you had

10     with the students' federation and with another student organisation

11     called Otpor.  You recall those organisations, do you not, sir?

12        A.   Of course I remember.  The leader of that organisation Otpor was

13     a former student of the school of Germanistics who has never graduated

14     until this very day.  And that former student or maybe even current

15     student participated in the occupation of Serbian television on the 5th

16     of October.  This organisation Otpor was a militant fascist organisation

17     who was in charge of demolishing everything and preparing the occupation

18     of Serbia.  In addition to that, you are talking about students, and let

19     me try and convince you or the Trial Chamber by saying that of those

20     students, only a dozen of them remained, and finally, I negotiated with

21     those students to see what their problems were.  And their problems were

22     the fact that they did not like some of the provisions of the law.  And

23     then I told them, Okay, we have to implement the law that is in effect,

24     but we have every right to ask for the amendments to the law.  And all of

25     those students -- and I swear to you once again that this is the truth,

Page 32654

 1     and everything that I have said so far has been the truth.  In Serbia, if

 2     you give your word, your word is your bond.  This is a part of the

 3     concept of the Serbian culture, let me just tell you in passing.  All the

 4     students agreed with that meeting to end that students' strike, to ask

 5     for the amendments to the law.  I enjoyed a lot of respect in the

 6     government at that time, and I could do that.  However, unfortunately,

 7     those students must have had some other ties, and overnight they had been

 8     consulted by their partners and, you know, sir, that the international

 9     organisations bribe our politicians and our students, as well, and

10     unfortunately those young people who had promised to me that they would

11     talk to me and everybody else, finally they didn't.

12             And just for your information, all these students when they come

13     across me in the street, they speak to me with reverence, and also, the

14     professors had obligation, and in order -- instead of quoting what you

15     have, I refer to Allen Dulles from 1945 who says that is every possible

16     means would be used to destroy the Soviet union; in this case, the

17     supplies to the Serb countries.  Please find the doctrine of Allen Dulles

18     who subsequently was the director of CIA, and according to his doctrine,

19     the Soviet union would be destroyed together with all the other free

20     countries, and he tells exactly how this would be done.  One of the

21     things would be to bribe all those who are prone to bribe.  Those who

22     could be blackmailed should be blackmailed, and if anybody remains who

23     understands their plans - I didn't say yours, I said theirs; I hope they

24     are not yours as well - then we would proclaim them insane.  As the dean

25     of the school of philology, I was the first one to introduce into a

Page 32655

 1     Serbian university the so-called Serbistics as a science of Serbian

 2     language and culture which had not existed before or since.  For your

 3     information, there are Russian studies, there are Slovak studies, English

 4     studies everywhere.  That's what the names of those subjects are.  The

 5     only that cannot exist in Serbia is the science of Serbian language,

 6     culture, and science.  That's the only thing that is not to allowed to

 7     exist in Serbia at Serbian universities.

 8             JUDGE AGIUS:  One moment, Mr. Ostojic, and my apologies to you

 9     for interrupting you.

10             Professor Marojevic, you are being asked very simple questions,

11     which in our mind could be answered very simply, too, in a couple of

12     sentences.  As it is, you are giving very lengthy answers which are not

13     helping anyone.  So I would suggest that you keep your answers as short

14     as possible, and try not to deviate from the substance of the questions

15     that are being put to you by Mr. Ostojic.  Thank you.

16             MR. OSTOJIC:  May I proceed, Mr. President?

17             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes.

18             MR. OSTOJIC:

19        Q.   Sir, we were talking briefly about the student federation and the

20     organisation Otpor, and you mentioned the student's name.  Do you

21     remember his name?  I think the first name was Branko.  It's in the

22     Article that I pulled, which is in front of you, 2D647.  Do you remember

23     his last name?

24        A.   No.

25        Q.   You mentioned someone in your response to my question just

Page 32656

 1     moments ago, although it was quite lengthy, where you said there's a

 2     student there who was organising it, and he didn't even get his degree,

 3     and then even to this day he probably didn't get his degree, but you

 4     weren't that sure.  What student were you talking about?  You must know

 5     who it is since you know he didn't get his degree.

 6        A.   I know, but I forgot his name and surname, but I saw him after

 7     the 5th of October participating in the occupation of one Serbian TV

 8     station.  In addition, he --

 9        Q.   Thank you for that.  We don't need all that information, but

10     thank you, and I apologise for cutting you off.  Let's look at this

11     exhibit 2D647, which is the Times Higher Education where they mention you

12     among others who are the new deans that were appointed to universities at

13     Belgrade.  It says here in the middle part of it, and it talks about this

14     young student Branko having joined an organisation wanting to express

15     some of his freedoms as a student and -- both political and academic

16     freedoms that he was looking at, and it says about you here:

17             "Initially he ..." meaning Branko, "... joined the students'

18     federation, which was independent of the state, but the dean of philology

19     faculty Radmilo Marojevic, a member of the extreme Serbian Radical Party

20     of former para-military leader Vojislav Seselj, tried to shut the

21     Federation."

22             Then it goes on to say that this young student joined another

23     organisation, Otpor.  Did you, sir, ever try to shut down that student

24     organisation?

25        A.   God forbid.  I didn't try to shut it down.  On the contrary, I

Page 32657

 1     supported it.  It was the students union that first proposed me as a

 2     student vice-dean back in my student days.

 3        Q.   It talks -- sorry about overlapping.  It talks in this article

 4     about a protest, in essence, that was held with approximately 80 students

 5     and that 15 thugs were hired, they claimed by you, sir, to beat up those

 6     students in order to prevent them from protesting or expressing their

 7     free speech or any academic rights that they have may have.  It says

 8     here, if you read down, that the organisation Otpor blamed the dean for

 9     the violence, meaning you, but Professor Marojevic denied he was

10     responsible for hiring the thugs.  It guess on to say:  According to the

11     Belgrade newspaper Blic, Professor Marojevic said their orders, meaning

12     of the thugs, had come "from the top."  And then it goes on to say:

13     Nevertheless, he was forced, meaning you, to quit his job under a hail of

14     press and public criticism.

15             And now I want to ask you two questions about that, if I may.

16     First of all, sir, when they use -- or quote you from the top, who made

17     the order -- and I will.

18             THE INTERPRETER:  One by one, please.

19             JUDGE AGIUS:  Please let him the question first.  When you

20     interrupt, you are creating a lot of problems for the interpreters that

21     have to interpret what he is saying into your language and into French.

22     Plus, it is not allowed here to interrupt anyone.

23             So Mr. Ostojic, my apologies to you.  Please go ahead.

24             MR. OSTOJIC:  Thank you, and I'm sorry.  I did overlap, and I'll

25     try not to, sir.

Page 32658

 1        Q.   They're quoting you -- Blic is quoting you, although it's

 2     published in the Times Higher Education publication, as saying that the

 3     orders to beat up these students who were holding demonstrations or

 4     protests, and they quote you, sir, by saying that the orders came from

 5     the top.  I'd like to know exactly from whom do you know that those

 6     orders came from to beat up these young men and young women, actually.

 7     Three were injured -- women, three women were seriously injured in that

 8     altercation.  Who gave that order?

 9        A.   Just after this clash occurred between two groups of students, I

10     submitted my resignation to the post of dean of the philological faculty.

11     Who organised that group of students that tried to force another group of

12     students out of the hallway, outside of teaching hours, I cannot tell.  I

13     can only suppose it was ordered by the CIA.  Nobody in the authorities

14     knew about it, and I myself was not aware that any of the students are

15     being moved by force, let alone beaten up.  It was not our style, never

16     has been.  Even before that, there had been many student protests.  These

17     protests were rather innocuous.  They were almost over, and just a small

18     group of students remained that didn't create any disorder.  They just

19     didn't want to leave the premises, and then somebody put in another group

20     of students, and a clash occurred.  And since I was completely unable to

21     find out who was responsible for that, and now I can only suppose that it

22     was the CIA, which also organised various political parties, since I was

23     unable to find out, I had to resign because I could see that I couldn't

24     do anything else.

25        Q.   Okay.  Now, sir, I wanted to change topics, if I may, with you

Page 32659

 1     briefly.  I want to talk about the contacts that you've had with the

 2     Pandurevic Defence team.  You've told us that there were few or several

 3     of them.  Can you be more precise for me?  Can you tell me exactly how

 4     many times you met with the Pandurevic Defence team, whether their

 5     lawyers or investigators or assistants, in total?

 6        A.   Well, first of all, investigators, assistants, I never met, and I

 7     never met Mr. Pandurevic himself.  If I could make a request of the

 8     court, I would request that General Pandurevic get to his feet so that I

 9     can meet him for the first time.  I only had contact with attorney

10     Djordje Sarapa, and the first contact was at the suggestion of

11     Dr. Drago Cupic, former director of the institute of the Serbian Academy

12     of Art and Science after the new year, or translated from Serbian into

13     Serbian; it was either before the new year or after the new year

14     according to the Julian or the Gregorian calendar, sometime around new

15     year 2006.  And soon afterwards I first saw the text that I was supposed

16     to analyse.  And the next time was in the summer when I received the

17     second text.  So the total of encounters with attorney Djordje Sarapa

18     were several, and to translate it again from Serbian into Serbian, it is

19     not several, which would mean seven or eight or more.  I said it in a

20     form that would mean three, four, or five, not more than five.

21        Q.   Thank you for that.  Who was present at those three to four

22     meetings with Mr. Sarapa, other than yourself and Mr. Sarapa, obviously?

23        A.   Nobody was present, just Sarapa and Radmilo Marojevic.  No one

24     else.

25        Q.   How long did these meetings last, to the best of your

Page 32660

 1     recollection?

 2        A.   Well, these encounters were very brief because I didn't have much

 3     time.  Everything was pretty clear to me, so these meetings took 10 to 20

 4     minutes.

 5        Q.   Now, you mentioned that the combat report of the 15th of July,

 6     1995, is clear and concise; correct?

 7        A.   I can say that it's concise, as well, but I used actually another

 8     word, which means easy to grasp.

 9        Q.   Okay.  Well, I can go with that, too, easy to grasp.  Well, if

10     it's clear and easy to grasp or even concise, why would we need someone

11     to interpret something that's plain and obvious to us?  I mean, typically

12     - don't you agree with me, Professor - it's the ambiguous sentences or

13     words or thoughts that we would need assistance on, but if something is

14     clear as you say this July 15th, 1995, interim combat report is, why

15     would we or the Court or anyone, for that matter, including the lawyers

16     of Mr. Pandurevic need someone to explain it?

17        A.   No, sir.  Absolutely any and every text that is explained in a

18     scholarly way in an attempt to give a textological interpretation

19     requires a textology.  There is no text that doesn't have a textology.

20     So this text, too, is very interesting for a textological analysis, and

21     when an analysis is done, how would I know whether a text is clear and

22     lucid as opposed to textologically ambiguous if I hadn't done an

23     analysis?  Please don't think that I first wrote that it was clear and

24     lucid and then performed my analysis.  The fact that I wrote something in

25     the introduction does not mean that I came with it as a preconceived

Page 32661

 1     idea.  It is the result of my work.

 2        Q.   Now, you've told us in your report and in some of your testimony

 3     that you've done this textual analysis using four different supposed

 4     methodologies; correct?

 5        A.   I didn't say different.  I said all the four methods that can be

 6     applied in establishing the authentic meaning.  All these four methods

 7     were applied in this text analysis.

 8        Q.   Let's go through some of them in better detail so I can get a

 9     fair appreciation.  One of them is what you call lexicographic

10     description, and that's basically even as you define it as looking up

11     words in the dictionary and observing and perhaps even digesting their

12     common meaning.  Would that be fair?  That's one of the methods that you

13     used?

14        A.   The method of lexicographic description is not exactly as you put

15     it.  If a lexicographic analysis is correct, it is an indicator of a

16     general meaning of every lexic unit.  In addition, to analyse a text that

17     was created after that lexicographic source, the analysis can also show

18     whether the new text is completely in conformity with the analysis made

19     on prior texts, and this is quoted here as the fourth argument, which

20     means that before that, all the other standards had to be met to see if

21     the fourth one conforms and whether it's correct.  If the three other

22     methods gave the same result, that means that the fourth is also correct,

23     which doesn't mean that in some other dictionaries, for some other lexic

24     units, especially older ones, then they not be some erroneous

25     interpretations, but this particular interpretation is correct.

Page 32662

 1        Q.   We are going to go through each of the four.  I just thought I'd

 2     start with lexicographic because I want to ask you a follow-up question

 3     regarding the separate units and the opinion that you claim that each

 4     paragraph is a separate unit.  My specific question to you with respect

 5     to that, sir, is what's the basis of your opinion that each paragraph in

 6     the 15th July, 1995, interim combat report is a separate unit?

 7        A.   I arrived at that conclusion based on three arguments.  First of

 8     all, one paragraph does not consist of just one sentence, so that the

 9     formal syntactic whole is not the whole of the paragraph.  And whenever

10     we have two or three sentences in a paragraph in another style, such as

11     the scholarly style, they can be combined into one complex sentence.  And

12     a third argument is, you cannot combine into one single sentence any of

13     the segments of the previous paragraph with any segment of the following

14     paragraph.  That leads us to the conclusion that according to a semantic

15     procedure, these elements of content are correctly divided into

16     paragraphs.  When we perform a much more complex analysis of another

17     text, we would be able to establish by the same method whether this is a

18     verse, a rhyme, or not.

19        Q.   I'm not going to get into the poetry with you, sir, but I want to

20     know specifically, when you used this lexicographic analysis that you

21     did, what really goes into it if it's not simply the process of

22     physically finding a dictionary and looking up the words to see if you

23     have the proper definition or meaning of them?  What else is involved in

24     this analysis or methodology that you utilised, the fourth one that we're

25     looking at, this lexicographic analysis.  What else other than simply

Page 32663

 1     looking up the word in the dictionary?

 2        A.   Well, it's not just looking up words in the dictionary.  First of

 3     all, you have to identify the optimal dictionary or dictionaries that

 4     could be taken as an indicator of the word's value.  Second, in

 5     linguistics, a lexicographic analysis is an integral part.  This analysis

 6     is required from me because we are not dealing with linguists.  The

 7     analysis refers to the whole article.  Page 298, 299, the complete

 8     analysis is quoted, including all the phraseologyisms, which include the

 9     said verb, and it shows us how it, combination with other words, the verb

10     takes on different meanings.  And what is also analysed is the return

11     form of the verb, such as let oneself go.  Since we are not dealing with

12     that, I didn't analyse it, and I showed that it is used here, "let go,"

13     in the second meaning, meaning be, to allow someone to do or go where

14     they want.

15        Q.   Mr. Marojevic, really, all I'm looking for now, if you could be

16     as brief as possible, how long did it take you to do this lexicographic

17     description or analysis as your fourth methodology for your report?  Just

18     give me a time estimate.  Was it more or less than 15 minutes?

19        A.   To provide an analysis of a lexicographic source such as this

20     one, that doesn't mean at all that other dictionaries were not checked.

21     Some checks were not necessary, but I did them nevertheless out of

22     academic curiosity.  I checked the etymology of the word in very

23     different dictionaries.  It is an old Slavonic word, and then you use the

24     old meanings, the examples that illustrate that meaning, and you provide

25     a scholarly implicit critique of the scientific article.  That means

Page 32664

 1     whether the shades of meaning are set out correctly just as the meanings

 2     themselves.

 3             For every example, you state whether that shade of meaning has

 4     anything to do with the example from the text, and only then you find the

 5     right place of your own example in that dictionary.  That is where it

 6     would it be if it were used in the dictionary.  However, I didn't measure

 7     that.

 8        Q.   Let's look at the other three textual analyses that you've

 9     performed.  The first one which you call textual analyses, you also

10     mention these linguistics units, and we talked about who determines these

11     units, and I want to know from you whether this was arbitrary and

12     selective, who made a determination of these units, or was that something

13     that is just done from a linguistical expertise, that you would say, for

14     example, and what I'm getting at, Mr. Marojevic, is in the

15     15th July, 1995, combat report, you talk about how specifically paragraph

16     6 doesn't relate to either the foregoing paragraphs or the subsequent

17     paragraphs of that report.  Who makes that arbitrary decision, you as a

18     linguist, or did the lawyers for Mr. Pandurevic?

19        A.   Well, the decision to identify a certain meaning in a text is not

20     taken by vote or any such procedure.  It is taken on the basis of

21     scientific authority.  Scientific authority in this case shows which

22     methods may be used in the first place to identify a meaning.  Therefore,

23     somebody could attempt to question that only if they were a qualified

24     linguist.  This is a matter of linguistic analysis, which meaning it is.

25     If it were not so, then all this would be pointless.  Linguists are

Page 32665

 1     supposed to identify a meaning, and the lawyers can then go on to

 2     establish the relationship of that text with whatever is the subject of

 3     their work.

 4        Q.   Okay.  And the second methodology that you are using, which you

 5     call contextual analysis for reaching your opinions, all you're doing is

 6     looking at the one text and trying to take certain words and putting them

 7     in context with what was written within that document, like we know of 15

 8     July, 1995; correct?  That's basically the process in a nutshell?

 9        A.   Here we actually have two methods.  I didn't understand whether

10     you were talking about the first or the second one.  Have you finished

11     with the first one --

12        Q.   Okay.  I appreciate that.

13        A.   -- and moved on to the second, or are you still on the first one.

14        Q.   That's a good point, but I'll clarify it for you.  I am still on

15     the first one.  I'll preface my question when I move on to the

16     intercontextual analysis, which is your second methodology that you used,

17     but sticking with contextual analysis as a methodology, and I've just in

18     a nutshell tried to summarise it for the sake of being brief here.  All

19     you're doing is taking certain words or paragraphs, and within that

20     document you're comparing them in the whole context of what that writer

21     is trying to convey; is that fair?

22        A.   You didn't do the best job, but you are trying to understand.

23        Q.   Sir --

24        A.   The point is if this verb "to let" were outside of any context,

25     then we couldn't establish anything else without etymology.  To identify

Page 32666

 1     any meaning of any word, unless it's a very simple one-meaning word, we

 2     need a context.  For all multi-meaning words, we need a context to

 3     establish what the meaning is in a particular case.  And since I dealt,

 4     also, with the theory of translation, and in translation you obviously

 5     need to establish in which meaning the word is used, quite independently

 6     of this particular analysis dealing with translation as a method of

 7     semanticising a foreign text, I used context again.  Words can sometimes

 8     be used without it being clear which of the two or three meanings they

 9     are used in.  In this particular case, the context is quite sufficient to

10     understand which of the meanings the word is used in.  It is not

11     something that is used here only.  It is the first and foremost method

12     for identifying a meaning.  If a word has multiple meanings, never has it

13     been possible to establish the particular meaning without context.  If it

14     is a simple one-meaning word, nobody bothers to analyse because the

15     meaning is clear without any analysis.  Are you happy with the answer?

16        Q.   Is it's not a question of whether I'm happy, sir.  I just want to

17     make sure you give us a complete answer.

18             Let me ask you about one word in that report:  "liquidation."

19     Did anybody ask you to analyse that word, standing alone in the first

20     paragraph where they talk about liquidating the enemy forces?  Did you do

21     any analysis on that?

22        A.   I did not analyse it because the word is quite clear.  First of

23     all, nobody asked me.  As I said at the beginning - and don't you think

24     that I gave that oath lightly - when I said I analysed this text

25     independently, I really did it independently as a linguist, but also a

Page 32667

 1     linguist who understands the gist of the matter.

 2        Q.   But keeping in mind --

 3        A.   Because I'm not only a linguist.  With liquidation, do you want

 4     me to give you an oral interpretation of that word, or is it clear to

 5     you?  Well, if it's clear to you and it's clear to me, there is no need

 6     to clarify it.

 7        Q.   I have two follow-up questions staying with this first

 8     methodology, contextual analysis.  Who chose the words for you to analyse

 9     in this interim combat report of 15 July?

10        A.   The words were chosen by Radmilo Marojevic, which means myself.

11     How did I make this selection?  I took the text; then I applied the

12     method of elimination.  First, I started with a broad list of the words

13     to be analysed; and then when I eliminated straightforward words which

14     were not in dispute even in translated into a different language, then I

15     came up with a structure of the words which would be of some significance

16     in scientific and professional term, which commanded explanation.  And I

17     believe that I've done my job very successfully because even you are not

18     adding any other word to the list of those that I've analysed, and you

19     are not saying that the words that I've analysed are clear without any

20     further analysis, which I understand as your praise for my job well done.

21     We didn't even have to explain the word "liquidation" because it's clear

22     to everybody.

23        Q.   You may be misunderstanding me, sir, but I'm not going to get

24     into it.  I'm talking about just your methodology first; then I'd like to

25     go into your analysis.  The second method that you purportedly use in

Page 32668

 1     your analysis was the intertextual analysis, and what you did basically

 2     and in essence was you took one report, the 15th of July interim combat

 3     report, with the report of July 16th, 1995; correct?

 4        A.   Absolutely correct.

 5        Q.   Okay.  Would you agree with me, sir, that that's a rather limited

 6     way of doing things, if you're going to do an intertextual analysis that

 7     you should analyse more than one document?  For example, you could have

 8     looked at reports prior to July 15th, 1995, reports that bear his name.

 9     You could have looked at the report from July 18th, 1995, as well, in

10     order to be more complete, thorough, and comprehensive.  Do you agree

11     with that as well?

12        A.   I can't agree with you at all for the following reason:  I have

13     just said that in order to analyse the meaning of a word, you don't just

14     need context.  You need the context to be sufficient, and sufficient

15     context can be the context of just one sentence, one paragraph, or a

16     whole.

17             On the other hand, when it comes to an intertextual analysis,

18     depending on the complexity of the text, and you agreed with me when I

19     mentioned that, when I said that this text is very articulate and clear

20     and straightforward, you have to take a sufficient intertextual corpus in

21     order to understand the meaning of the text.

22             In view of what is written in a text since nothing that happened

23     before was in dispute, the only thing that may be in dispute is what

24     follows because this interim report, there's nothing in dispute when it

25     talks about things past but, rather, about things that will happen in the

Page 32669

 1     future.  In few of the intertextual analysis, I needed the subsequent

 2     combat report.  I received it, and it was enough.  I did not ask for

 3     anything else.  Whether or not there were other combat reports was not of

 4     any consequence for the scientific analysis.  You're trying to interrupt

 5     me, although I have not finished.  I did not have to expanded the number

 6     of text.  I did not go to go further or prior to this text.  This was

 7     quite enough.  The text that I analysed was enough.  And no other author

 8     contested my findings, which means that the body of the analysed text was

 9     enough, the context was sufficient, and that's the end of that.

10        Q.   All right.  And I didn't mean to interrupt you, sir.

11             JUDGE AGIUS:  Mr. Ostojic, I'm leaving it in your good judgement,

12     of which we are very aware, to distinguish the wheat from the chaff and

13     concentrate on what is essential, please.

14             MR. OSTOJIC:  Okay.  Thank you, Mr. President.

15             JUDGE AGIUS:  Because otherwise, we are not going to finish this

16     witness.

17             MR. OSTOJIC:  I realise that.

18             JUDGE AGIUS:  Mr. Vanderpuye, are you still sticking to your hour

19     and a half, or is it considerably less now?

20             MR. VANDERPUYE:  No, Mr. President.  It will be considerably

21     less.

22             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay, thank you.  Yes.

23             MR. OSTOJIC:  Thank you.

24        Q.   I'll move on to the next topic, and I won't debate it with you.

25     Sir, I just want to cover this non-linguistic situation, which is the

Page 32670

 1     third of four methodologies that you utilise in your analysis.  Just so

 2     that I'm clear, who provided that information to you, the non-linguistic

 3     situation?

 4        A.   When it comes to the non-linguistic situation, this

 5     non-linguistic situation in some linguistic works appears under the term

 6     and concept of context.  I have separated from the context that concerns

 7     the words in the text from the non-linguistic situation or information

 8     that the text points to.  When it comes to a non-linguistic situation, it

 9     is not a special knowledge that one has.  It is just the knowledge about

10     the linguistic reality that the text itself initiates.  You have the

11     date, so it can't be the 19th century or the 11th century; then the name,

12     the Zvornik Brigade is given, so this could not have happened in Siberia

13     or elsewhere.  This is what the text initiates, and then the genre,

14     combat report.  You can't talk about psalms or some other text because

15     the text itself points to the non-linguistic situation rather than

16     anything else.  So this is not something that I could know as the author

17     of the linguistic analysis.  This is a non-linguistic situation that

18     every native speaker or foreigner who understands Serbian will completely

19     understand based on the text and the insight into the text.

20        Q.   Thank you.  Now, let's focus specifically, although I don't know

21     that I got an answer, but on P329, which is the 15 July 1995 interim

22     combat report, so I'd just like to direct your attention.  You spent a

23     lot of time, obviously, reviewing it and analysing it.  The sentence

24     we're going to look at it the one that you analysed.  It says:

25             "An additional burden for us is the large number of prisoners

Page 32671

 1     placed in schools in the brigade zone as well as obligations of security

 2     and sanitation of the terrain."

 3             Now, in your report it says sanitation.  In the actual P329, the

 4     document that was translated, it says "restoration."  So forgive me if

 5     there's a little difference there, but I think we can clarify that.  I

 6     don't think it's that major for our purposes and our discussions.  I want

 7     to look at -- I'm sorry.

 8             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Sorry.

 9             JUDGE AGIUS:  Hold it.  Yes, Mr. McCloskey.

10             MR. McCLOSKEY:  If I can interrupt.  That translation has been

11     the official CLSS translation for many, many years through many cases.

12     It's very important, and so I wish we can keep that the way it is.  Thank

13     you.

14             MR. OSTOJIC:  And I don't object to that.  I just don't want to

15     necessarily engage in a discussion as to which is proper.  I'm going to

16     stick with P329 --

17             MR. HAYNES:  I think I should say that --

18             JUDGE AGIUS:  Let him finish.  Mr. Ostojic.

19             MR. HAYNES:  This report was translated by the Tribunal as well.

20             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Mr. Ostojic.

21             MR. OSTOJIC:  That wasn't the purpose of me asking him that.  I

22     just wanted to point it out to the court in case anyone has a question or

23     concern about it, and I don't want to -- if he's used it a different way,

24     that's his analysis, and we can go through it.  I want to focus on other

25     parts of the document, but we're sticking with P329 as the official one

Page 32672

 1     if that's what my learned friend suggested it is.  We don't have a

 2     dispute about that.

 3             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.

 4             MR. OSTOJIC:  I just don't want to get the witness more confused.

 5             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, try to simplify matters because the situation

 6     may get out of hand.

 7             MR. OSTOJIC:  Yes.  Thank you, Mr. President.

 8        Q.   Sir, in this sentence that we're referencing here, the noun, do

 9     you recognise the word "prisoners" as being a noun?

10        A.   The question is so self-explanatory, and I don't need to answer

11     that.  Of course it's a noun.  Why should I confirm that?  If I did,

12     somebody may say later, Well, there was Professor Marojevic claiming that

13     "prisoners" is a noun.  I can give you the origin of the noun.  It's a

14     non-substantive -- that would be a question for me, not whether

15     "prisoners" is a noun.  Of course it is.

16        Q.   Well, I'm sorry.  Sometimes we just don't want to take too many

17     chances with witnesses.  Now, when it talks here about security or

18     obligations of security, it has nothing to do, obligations of security,

19     with respect to this noun "prisoners," and you're saying -- and is it

20     your testimony that the security they're talking about in this case is

21     security to be provided for the restoration of the terrain, which is a

22     separate and independent thought, I would suggest to you, from the

23     discussion that is being highlighted here, which is that there's

24     prisoners in the schools?  Do you agree with me?

25        A.   I wouldn't at all, no.

Page 32673

 1        Q.   Your entire analysis hinges on if after the word "security"

 2     someone of would have placed a comma or the words "as well as," then you

 3     would think that those are two independent thoughts.  But I suggest to

 4     you, sir, that, the words or phrase "as well as" appears prior to

 5     "security," which really indicates that it's the prisoners that the

 6     security concern is for, and then the use of the word "and" is a separate

 7     independent thought, so it's a compound sentence.  Perhaps a period

 8     should have been right after the word "security," and then the next

 9     thought would have been "restoration of the terrain," which would then

10     make this paragraph having more than one sentence in it.  Wouldn't you

11     agree with that?

12        A.   I wouldn't agree with you at all.

13        Q.   Okay.

14        A.   And you never allowed me to say why I don't agree.  First of all,

15     with regard to your previous question, whether "prisoners" is a noun, one

16     should say that this is just one form of that particular noun.  But in

17     this particular case, it could be out of the context.  It is a genitive

18     singular or a genitive plural.  It could be both, but let me tell you the

19     meaning of the context here.  There's a multiple meaning, and it points

20     to the fact that in this case genitive is a plural.  The second thing

21     that I don't agree on and you're not allowing me to say why, I didn't say

22     that security is tied to the restoration.  But rather, that both security

23     and restoration are tied to the form terrain.  And one additional

24     evidence that this analysis is completely accurate is your completely

25     objective translator who has translated the text who has translated the

Page 32674

 1     sentence absolutely correctly.  Security and restoration of the terrain

 2     is a whole in which case security is one attribute of the terrain as well

 3     as restoration.  So this is the structure comprising both security and

 4     restoration of the terrain.  I don't know how else I could translate or

 5     utter this.  I'm absolutely sure that from the expert of monolinguistic

 6     analysis or the feeling for the Serbian language, it is absolutely

 7     correct and true.  Of course, one can translate from the Serbian into

 8     English correctly or subjectively or incorrectly.  I did not analyse the

 9     translation, mind you.

10        Q.   Let me ask you about the first phrase in that paragraph number 6,

11     I believe, which says "an additional burden," and it goes on, obviously.

12     We got a proofing note yesterday after your meeting with counsel for

13     Mr. Pandurevic, and it states as follows:

14                 "He ..." meaning you, Mr. Marojevic, "... looked at and

15     further explained section 6 of the report.  He said that the 'additional

16     burden' in paragraph 6 was not at the same level as the responsibilities

17     described in the first five paragraphs, as it was a worry rather than a

18     responsibility.  It was a secondary rather than a primary consideration."

19             Is that what you told them yesterday or whenever?

20        A.   Well, I said that and that is indeed the case, and you can

21     conclude that from at least two things, and one would suffice.  The only

22     -- this passage contains the word "additionally."  "Additionally" is --

23     is part of a different style, something that would be appropriate for a

24     footnote.  This could have been under the text as a footnote.  And the

25     second word is "burden."  One meaning of burden comes from physics.

Page 32675

 1     However, this burden is concern more than anything else.  "Additional

 2     burden" generates concern about what might happen.  So this is an

 3     additional concern.  What concern is that a large number of prisoners

 4     deployed or billeted in schools --

 5        Q.   Sir, if you objectively look at the prior paragraph, they are

 6     discussing in the prior -- five paragraphs, but in the fifth paragraph

 7     they're discussing an attack by the enemy, and in fact he writes in this

 8     report that they repelled or repulsed that attack successfully, so what

 9     was the worry with the attack of the Bosnian Muslims?  If you've defeated

10     them militarily, wouldn't the worry be more primarily to be with respect

11     to the POWs that were in the schools?  Isn't that the only burden that

12     was left for them at that time?  Because if you look at paragraph 5, in

13     the middle of it, it talks about repelling.  It's in your report, but in

14     the P329 it uses the word "repulsed successfully so far."

15        A.   Well, if we followed your route and analysed from the end to the

16     beginning of the document, I hope that we will come to the relationship

17     between the 8th and the 7th.  Now we are analysing the relationship

18     between the 6th, 5th, and the 4th paragraphs.  Please pay attention.  All

19     the brigade forces are fully engaged.  This is five, and you have

20     confused the passages.  All the brigade forces are completely or fully

21     engaged.  What does it mean, fully engaged?  It means that it's not just

22     one unit that is engaged, but fully engaged.  And we have no reserves,

23     you know, that reserves are not on the front-line.  They should be a bit

24     further from the front-line.  This means that the back is not protected.

25     There are no reserves, and all the forces are fully engaged.  This is

Page 32676

 1     your fifth paragraph that you have confused with passage 4.  And in the

 2     fourth paragraph again, there is this additional burden, and it's very

 3     clear from the linguistic point of view.  Look at the fourth -- actually,

 4     the fifth -- no, the fourth.  With all available forces -- you know the

 5     meaning of "all," so with all available forces we have sealed off.  If

 6     the enemy forces had not been strong, they would not have used all

 7     available forces, and they say that they sealed off the wider area of

 8     Crni Vrh and Planinica and partially the area of Kamenica.  The weight of

 9     the previous paragraphs is completely understandable and is not matched

10     by the subsequent passage, which just increases the argument when he asks

11     for additional equipment and personnel because he doesn't have anybody in

12     reserve.  Have you ever served an army?  Do you know what reserves means?

13     Do you know what logistics means, what the meaning of the reserve is?

14     Can I ask you?  I believe that this is clear.  It does not warn any

15     further explanation, does it?

16        Q.   I did say paragraph 5, but really, when I talked about repelling

17     the enemy combatants, it appears in paragraph 3, you're right to say that

18     there was a block or, as they put it on P329, they sealed off the wider

19     area.  My point is, sir, once they repelled the enemy combatants, once

20     they completely and totally, as you say, blocked the area, really, the

21     only concern left was the concern of the prisoners in the schools;

22     correct?

23        A.   Again, you are not right because you are taking one part of the

24     paragraph out of its context.  In future, could you please read the whole

25     paragraph?  You said that a paragraph is one whole.  Nobody contested

Page 32677

 1     that.  That's why I'm asking you to read the whole paragraph, which would

 2     show you that so far the attacks had been repelled.  But what will happen

 3     in the future, nobody knows.  Please read from the beginning, in the text

 4     were regularly supported by all calibres of artillery and tanks, which

 5     means all calibres and tanks.  I hope that you understand, that you

 6     appreciate what I'm saying, that acts of varying intensity followed one

 7     other, which means varying intensity.  I suppose that I as a linguist

 8     should know that and you as a lawyer, of course, you're my opponent here,

 9     but you should know that.  And then it says the attack on [indiscernible]

10     is still in progress.  Do you know the meaning of the term "in progress"?

11     They have been repelled, but they have not been neutralised because they

12     are still in progress.  If you take something out of the context, one

13     sentence or something else, and the paragraph is a whole, you cannot look

14     at anything without a whole, then what you're doing is you're trying to

15     misinterpret or you are trying to make me misinterpret a text.  Please

16     take a paragraph as a whole, and then you will be given an answer.  The

17     paragraph in itself will give you an answer.

18             JUDGE AGIUS:  Your answers are becoming longer and longer and

19     longer, and you are engaging in arguments with the Defence counsel, who

20     has got a right to put any question to you that is allowed by the Court.

21     So you either conclude here, Mr. Ostojic, because --

22             MR. OSTOJIC:  A few more questions.  Just a few more,

23     Mr. President, please.

24             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  All right.

25             MR. OSTOJIC:  Just quickly.

Page 32678

 1        Q.   And I know, sir, I'm not going to read out the entire paragraph.

 2     We're familiar with it.  I just wanted to point out certain things for

 3     you.  If you look, the interim combat report of the 15th July, 1995, was

 4     that written, sir, in the past, present, or future tense?

 5        A.   I could take things in turn one by one, but I don't think that

 6     the Trial Chamber has the time for it.  I would be able to tell you which

 7     verbs are in present, which in past, and which in future tense.

 8        Q.   If you look at the paragraph that you spent sometime analysing,

 9     paragraph 6, and it's just that one sentence.  I know it's a little long

10     and maybe compound, but that one sentence, you think that was written in

11     past, present, or future tense when it references prisoners distributed

12     throughout the schools.  And actually, it says:

13             An additional burden for us is the large number of prisoners

14     distributed throughout schools in the brigade area."

15             Do you see that?

16        A.   It says "they represent."  The future tense would be "will

17     represent."  This is a present, but it is not a temporarily well defined.

18     It is, rather, something that started in the past, continues, and will

19     probably continue being a fact.  So this is an extratemporal present

20     tense.

21        Q.   So at the time of the writing of this report, the prisoners are

22     alive and distributed throughout the schools.  That's the plain and

23     obvious read of this, is it not?

24        A.   In any case, one could read it a bit differently.  The person

25     writing this report speaks about them as living.  There's no background

Page 32679

 1     information.  He doesn't have any contact with the fact.  He starts from

 2     the fact that the prisoners are there, that they are distributed in

 3     various schools, and that they represent or that they constituted a bad

 4     end for the brigade.

 5        Q.   The past tense usage of that sentence in essence would have been

 6     that an additional burden was the prisoners who were at the school,

 7     et cetera, right?  You would just use that word instead of the

 8     present-tense use of the word "is."  You told us about the future, so now

 9     we're just talking about the past, right?  Or you could have said it by

10     using the word "were":  An additional burden for us were the prisoners at

11     the school.  Then would know he's talking about a past tense, an event

12     that happened before; correct?

13        A.   Yes, that would be the past tense, but here we have a present.

14     The sentence is "the additional burden are..." but the word "now" is

15     missing.  If there was word "now," then the present would be narrowed

16     down.  This verb "are" does not pin-point the present time, but in any

17     case it does comprise present as well.

18        Q.   Two or three more questions, I think, and I'm done.  If we could

19     just quickly look at P330, and thank you, Mr. President.  P330, which is

20     the 16th of July, 1995, report that you looked at when you did this

21     intratextual analysis as one of your methods of your report.  And I think

22     when you looked at this, you were trying to compare it, and you -- and

23     obviously, and especially from your report, it certainly seems you spent

24     sometime reading it and digesting it, but if you look on and if you look

25     -- doing a contextual analysis of this report, you look that the author

Page 32680

 1     mentions 7.000 combatants, civilians, and soldiers in the first

 2     paragraph; that's identified with the number 1, and then if you look at

 3     the third paragraph, they talk about - and I know you spent a significant

 4     amount of time - of letting go or releasing of 5.000 enemy combatants.

 5     Do you, sir, from reading this get the idea of what happened to the

 6     difference between the 7 and the 5, the 7.000 that were present and the

 7     5.000 that were let go?  Where are the 2.000 remaining soldiers and

 8     civilians?

 9        A.   Could you please jog my memory.  Where do they refer to the

10     5.000?

11        Q.   I'm not sure if you are looking at the correct one.  I'm looking

12     at the 16th July report.

13        A.   I'm looking at that, yes.

14        Q.   Okay.

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   In the first paragraph numbered 1, it talks about:  "Using their

17     numerical advantage, they surrounded the 4th Battalion counting soldiers

18     and civilians armed and unarmed altogether about 7.000."

19             And then in the third paragraph, when they are discussing opening

20     the corridor, it says "opening the corridor along the line of the three

21     lost trenches for the civilian population, about 5.000 of them."  And

22     just I wanted to get -- draw from you based on your methodology of work

23     contextually and even intratexturally, you know they mentioned on the

24     15th of July 3.000 people who were coming from behind.  Now they're

25     talking about 7.000 and 5.000.  What happened to the -- contextually

Page 32681

 1     speaking, to the 2.000 remaining soldiers and civilians?

 2        A.   Before I answer your question, I have to say that you did not

 3     take these figures out of the context.  We have to see what they refer

 4     to.  An elementary analysis shows that under item 1, when it says using

 5     the numerical advantage they surrounded soldiers and civilians, armed and

 6     unarmed, altogether about 7.000.  So they're talking about soldiers and

 7     civilians, 7.000 of them altogether.  And then in order to justify his

 8     case before his command, having let them go through, he says that three

 9     trenches had been lost, that the corridor was open to the civilian

10     population, and there were about 5.000 civilians.  He points to the fact

11     that there were about 5.000 civilians, and this is his justification for

12     letting them through.  This mean that is there were 2.000 soldiers.  But

13     it doesn't say here that he never let the soldiers go through.  He

14     doesn't specify the soldiers.  He says that he let the civilians go

15     through, and the soldiers went with them unless some of them were killed.

16     The context is very clear.

17             If that had been the subject of my analysis, if I had had this

18     document, I would have paid attention to that, I would have established

19     my facts, and then you would never have to ask me the question.  The

20     difference in the figures is completely clear.  The first figure speaks

21     about soldiers as the most important ones; then about civilians, some of

22     them armed, the others unarmed; and then the second figure speaks about

23     the opening of the corridor for the civilian population and the fact that

24     some soldiers also passed through is not his fault, and there are 5.000

25     civilians.  He did not say that there were 5.000 civilians and soldiers

Page 32682

 1     to contradict himself.  He said there were 5.000 civilians.  He may have

 2     arrived at the information subsequently.  He could not have known how

 3     many --

 4             JUDGE AGIUS:  I think we had a clear answer straightaway in the

 5     beginning, and he has repeated it three times.

 6             MR. OSTOJIC:  Thank you.  I have no further questions, Your

 7     Honour.  Sorry.

 8             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  Thank you.  Will you finish today,

 9     Mr. Vanderpuye?

10             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I hope so, Mr. President.  I'm going to

11     discussion that with my co-counsel.

12             JUDGE AGIUS:  Will you please try to make a humongous effort and

13     finish today, please.

14             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I'll make that effort, Mr. President.

15             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you.  We'll have a 25-minute break.  Thank

16     you.

17                           --- Recess taken at 12.30 p.m.

18                           --- On resuming at 12.58 p.m.

19             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.

20             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.  Good afternoon to

21     you, Your Honours.  Good afternoon to my colleagues.

22                           Cross-examination by Mr. Vanderpuye:

23        Q.   And good afternoon to you, Professor Marojevic.  I only have a

24     few questions.  First, let me introduce myself is as is the custom.  My

25     name is Kweku Vanderpuye.  On behalf of the Prosecution, I'll put some

Page 32683

 1     questions to you in respect of your report, in respect of your testimony.

 2        A.   Thank you.

 3        Q.   If there's anything that I ask you that's unclear to you, let me

 4     know, and I'll try to rephrase it in a way that you can better understand

 5     it.

 6             Prior to testifying here today, sir, did you follow the testimony

 7     of General Pandurevic in this trial?

 8        A.   No, not at all.  I rarely watch television except for sports

 9     programs, but I certainly don't watch trials.

10        Q.   In the preparation of your report, it's fair to say that you did

11     not consider the testimony of General Krstic regarding his views --

12     regarding his views of the 15 July interim report that was the subject of

13     your report?

14        A.   I not only did not take it into account, but I'm not familiar

15     with his views.  I analysed only these two reports, and I knew only them.

16        Q.   You didn't take into consideration the testimony of

17     General Radovan Radinovic in respect of his views concerning the same

18     report; that's true, right?

19        A.   Correct, and I don't know of his views.

20        Q.   Thank you very much, Professor.

21             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Mr. President, the Prosecution opposes the

22     testimony of Mr. Marojevic as an expert in this case.  We have full faith

23     that the Court will accord the appropriate weight to the testimony as has

24     been entered in the record in this case.  We have no further

25     cross-examination, as we don't feel that it will be fruitful.

Page 32684

 1             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you, Mr. Vanderpuye.

 2             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 3             JUDGE AGIUS:  Is there re-examination, Mr. Haynes?

 4             MR. HAYNES:  No, thank you.

 5             JUDGE AGIUS:  And you don't wish to comment on Mr. Vanderpuye's

 6     statement?

 7             MR. HAYNES:  I understand his position.

 8             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  Thank you.  Do you have questions, Judge

 9     Kwon?

10             Professor, we don't have any further questions for you, which

11     basically means that your testimony ends here.  On behalf of the Trial

12     Chamber, I wish to thank you for having come over to give testimony, and

13     I wish you a safe journey back home.

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

15             JUDGE AGIUS:  Now, Mr. McCloskey.

16             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Yes, Mr. President.  I -- in thinking about the

17     motion of -- that Mr. Gosnell referred to and the document associated

18     with the MUP, the dog document, as we call it, I realise that when --

19     it's 4104.  When Mr. Momir Nikolic testifies, he will testify at length

20     about the units, the forces at Potocari, along the road, and it would be

21     our intention to use that document in our questioning of him.  Therefore,

22     I think it would be best to save any ruling on that document until after

23     the testimony of Momir Nikolic.

24                           [The witness withdrew]

25             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you, Mr. McCloskey.  Do you wish to comment,

Page 32685

 1     Mr. Gosnell?

 2             MR. GOSNELL:  Thank you, Mr. President.  Well, first of all, we

 3     don't concede necessarily that the document would be admissible through

 4     any future witness, and it's premature, of course, to comment on that.

 5     But given what the Prosecution has just said, I think what they are

 6     saying is that they are content with the document being in e-court, being

 7     marked for identification, and not being an exhibit.  In that case, I

 8     would be content for that to be the situation.  But in a sense, I think

 9     that what that means is that you should sustain our objection and that

10     the document should not be considered admitted and that it does remain,

11     of course, in e-court as with any other document that's uploaded.

12             JUDGE AGIUS:  Maybe we are all tired, but I didn't think --

13             MR. McCLOSKEY:  I must be tired because that sounded like a bunch

14     of legal gobbledy-gook to me.  We don't need to enter it into evidence.

15     It just stays where it is.  We'll deal with it at the end of that other

16     testimony, and we can argue about it then.  Why argue about it now?

17             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  Thank you.

18                           [Trial Chamber confers]

19             JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.  Having heard what you had to say, the

20     document will remain MFI'd, and we'll decide in due course if it becomes

21     necessary.

22             Documents, Mr. Haynes?

23             MR. HAYNES:  Yes.  In relation to the last witness, I don't know

24     if an e-mail has yet gone out, but there are only two.

25             JUDGE AGIUS:  I haven't seen any e-mails.

Page 32686

 1             MR. HAYNES:  That's 7D778, the curriculum vitae of

 2     Professor Marojevic, and 7D917, the report with attachments.  The only

 3     reason we called him at all was in response to Judge Prost's question.

 4     The report and attachment was translated by the translation service of

 5     this Tribunal.  I would invite her attention to attachment number 1,

 6     paragraph 6.

 7             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  Thank you, Mr. Haynes.  Any objections from

 8     any of the other Defence teams?

 9             MR. HAYNES:  I'm very sorry.  I apparently used another document,

10     7D775, the mobilisation order.

11             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  You did, in fact.  Any objection?

12     Objections from Prosecution?

13             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Mr. President, I have the same objection as I

14     made with respect to the testimony.

15             JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.  But he has given evidence in any case

16     now, so I think the documents have to -- yes, exactly.  So the documents

17     are admitted.

18                           [Trial Chamber confers]

19             JUDGE AGIUS:  Do you have any documents that you wish to tender,

20     Mr. Ostojic?

21             MR. OSTOJIC:  I think we've seen the articles.  I don't think it

22     would be necessary.  But thank you very much.

23             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you.  Mr. Vanderpuye?

24             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Yes, Mr. President.  I'm sorry, I hope we've

25     completed the tendering process.  There was one issue I wanted to bring

Page 32687

 1     to the attention of the Court and also to my colleagues.  But I don't

 2     want to interrupt you.

 3             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, please, go ahead.

 4             MR. VANDERPUYE:  We have been discussing with the Miletic team

 5     the possibly of reaching a stipulation with respect to convoy-related

 6     documents that we think are important for the Court to have in terms of

 7     assessing the convoy approval process, the players that are involved,

 8     et cetera.  I just wanted to let you know that we are currently trying to

 9     sort that out.  We expect that we will arrive at something relatively

10     soon.  But I just didn't want to take you by surprise when we are

11     completed -- when we've completed the process.  We're also talking to the

12     Gvero team with respect to those documents as well.

13             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  I thank you, Mr. Vanderpuye.  Incidentally,

14     Mr. McCloskey, before we proceed with the next thing we have in mind, is

15     yesterday Ms. Nikolic made some submissions in relation to 3D556 after

16     having withdrawn her request in relation to 3D555.  You were supposed to

17     think about it and come back to us in a final way.  Have you done -- are

18     you in a position to give us your final position?

19             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Yes, we've just reached an agreement.  We don't

20     have any objection to the material she would like from -- the short

21     material from the testimony of General Hadzihasanovic.  No problem.

22             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  So having heard that, we are going to

23     dispose now of the various other issues relating to various documents.

24     We start with documents 2D639, 2D644, 2D645, all being documents tendered

25     by the Beara Defence team to which the Prosecution objected.

Page 32688

 1             After deliberations, we have come to the conclusion not to admit

 2     any of these three documents on the following grounds:  2D639, this is,

 3     as you will recall, the interview of Milos Tomovic.  The Beara Defense

 4     team, Mr. Ostojic actually read a limited part of this interview into the

 5     record, as you recall.  The Trial Chamber then disallowed further use of

 6     the interview upon objection by the Prosecution and the Pandurevic

 7     Defence team.  To the extent that limited use of the document was

 8     permitted, that portion of the interview was read directly into the

 9     record, and we see no need for having the interview admitted into the

10     record, and that is the reason for dismissing the Beara Defence team's

11     request.  Second document is 2D644, which is a statement on information

12     of Bruce Bursik regarding an interview with the person I mentioned

13     before, Milos Tomovic; and 2D645, which is another statement of Milos

14     Tomovic.  Having gone through this transcript, we come the conclusion

15     that neither of these two documents were put to the witness, and

16     circumstances being what they are, we do not see a reason why they should

17     be admitted into the records as exhibits.

18             The Nikolic issue has now been agreed upon, so we don't need to

19     decide upon it.  And 3D556 is therefore being admitted into the records.

20     We have a last document, which is a Prosecution document, P4402, to which

21     the Gvero Defence team objected and submitted that if admitted, the

22     documents used should be limited to matters of the credibility of the

23     witness.

24             As you will recall, P4402 is an extract from Karadzic's

25     handwritten notes of a meeting held in 1992 which show that Pandurevic

Page 32689

 1     was present.  The document was shown to witness Pandurevic who did not

 2     deny that he was present at the meeting.  Although the notes also appear

 3     to suggest the presence of General Gvero at the meeting, the Trial

 4     Chamber finds that admitting the document without any restrictions is not

 5     unfairly prejudicial to Gvero, especially considering what General

 6     Pandurevic himself testified on this issue.

 7             So that disposes of the pending issues relating to documents,

 8     leaving the one raised by Mr. Gosnell in deep freeze for the time being

 9     as we explained earlier on.

10             Now, tomorrow, as we had intimated to you, we are not sitting.  I

11     take it, Mr. Haynes, you don't have any further witnesses?

12             MR. HAYNES:  No, but I would like to trouble you for a minute or

13     two.

14             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, of course.

15             MR. HAYNES:  Shall I do that now?

16             JUDGE AGIUS:  I suppose so.

17             MR. HAYNES:  My focus has been elsewhere for the last ten days,

18     and the Prosecution's motion for rebuttal and re-opening actually impacts

19     upon my client's case probably rather more than anybody else's, and I've

20     seen and heard your remarks from yesterday.  I will do my very best in

21     the next 24 hours to file something, but I'm not making any promises that

22     it will come before the weekend.

23             JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.  I thank you, Mr. Haynes.  That's fair

24     enough.  I measured my words yesterday.  I did not tell that you needed

25     to, only that it would be preferable if you did.  But of course, we did

Page 32690

 1     not shorten the time-limit, and the time-limit therefore remains.

 2     However, any filings before that date will be helpful.

 3             All right.  And I take it, because you haven't answered my

 4     question, you don't have further --

 5             MR. HAYNES:  No.  I need to attend to some technical difficulties

 6     with some 92 bis statements, but other than that and subject to any

 7     remarkable departure in my instructions, that's all the evidence I'm

 8     going to present other than, as I say, some 92 bis statements and a bar

 9     table motion.

10             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  Thank you.  There is no way we can hear your

11     remaining witness on the re-opening any time soon?  I think you indicated

12     that you would want that in the week starting on the 23rd, Mr. McCloskey;

13     is that correct?

14             MR. McCLOSKEY:  We can go into private session on that briefly.

15             JUDGE AGIUS:  Let's go into private session for awhile.  Thank

16     you.

17                           [Private session]

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 32691

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7                           [Open session]

 8             JUDGE AGIUS:  So for the time being, there are no sittings

 9     scheduled for next week, as I see it, unless there are matters, urgent

10     matters that arise that need to be addressed.  We will be working on the

11     rebuttal motion, of course, and we hope to be in a position to come down

12     with our decision as early as possible.  But we necessarily and you have

13     necessarily got to earmark the following week for any further business to

14     transact depending, of course, on our decision on rebuttal.

15             We stand adjourned.  Thank you.

16                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.19 p.m.