1 Friday, 11 December 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.12 a.m.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning,
6 everyone in and around the courtroom. This is case IT-08-91-T, the
7 Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin.
8 JUDGE HALL
9 everyone. May we have the appearances, please.
10 MR. DOBBYN: Good morning, Your Honours. For the Office of the
11 Prosecutor, Gerard Dobbyn with Joanna Korner and our Case Manager,
12 Crispian Smith.
13 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours. For
14 the Defence, Slobodan Zecevic, Mr. Eugene O'Sullivan, and I think you
15 have met our expert Professor Dr. Mladen Bajagic.
16 MR. PANTELIC: Good morning, Your Honours, for Zupljanin Defence
17 this morning, Igor Pantelic, Dragan Krgovic, Mr. Jason Antley, and our
18 charming assistant Ms. Anna Wallington.
19 JUDGE HALL
20 witness back to the stand.
21 MR. DOBBYN: Just one second, Your Honours, I wonder if we could
22 get the Defence expert's name again, as it wasn't picked up in the
24 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Professor Dr. Mladen Bajagic.
25 MR. DOBBYN: Sorry, could you spell that, please.
1 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] M-l-a-d-e-n B-a-j-a-g-i-c.
2 MR. PANTELIC: Bravo, Alpha, Juliet, Alpha, Golf, India
3 Thank you very much, Your Honour.
4 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Pantelic.
5 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] You are welcome, Mr. Cvijetic.
6 JUDGE HALL
7 still under oath.
8 THE WITNESS: Good morning, Your Honours.
9 WITNESS: DOROTHEA HANSON [Resumed]
10 Cross-examination by Mr. Pantelic: [Continued]
11 Q. Good morning, Mrs. Hanson.
12 A. Good morning.
13 Q. When we adjourned yesterday we were discussing some issues
14 regarding the formation and the work of region known as ARK, but now I
15 would like to have your opinion and to pose a certain couple of
16 questions, I would say, with regard to the other matter which is the --
17 to some extent the basis for the previous issue.
18 MR. PANTELIC: So I would like to call, please, document, it's
19 document on the 65 ter list 2597. It should be a document with the title
20 "Statement of Principles for the New Constitutional Arrangements for
21 Bosnia-Herzegovina." Yes, that's it.
22 Q. If you remember, Mrs. Hanson, yesterday we mentioned a number of
23 international documents with regard to the organisation of
24 Bosnia-Herzegovina. One amongst all these documents was so-called
25 Cutileiro plan or Lisbon
1 would like to outline section B in this document which is related to the
2 general principles of how constituent units would be governed and in
3 accordance with which principles.
4 Would you agree with me that these general principles mentioned
5 in section B of this document actually speak about the -- and are founded
6 on the general principles of human rights, modern constitutional law
7 principles and international law principles, would you agree with me?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And then could we move to section E of this particular document.
10 MR. PANTELIC: It should be page 3 English version, with the
11 reference SA01-7150. It's E.
12 Q. Now, I would like to draw your attention to the section E, which,
13 from my point of view, speaks of the territory of the so-called units,
14 and also speaks of other particular aspect like potential process of
15 resolving the matter with regard to Sarajevo and also with regard to the
16 position of the particular nation --
17 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Pantelic, is this within the scope, this line
18 of question, is this within the scope of the witness's expertise?
19 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE DELVOIE: You are sure?
21 MR. PANTELIC: It is in regard -- it is actually with regard to
22 the formation of Serbian municipalities and ultimately with Crisis Staff
23 and also it is in connection with the topic of ARK, that I mentioned
24 yesterday. So if you allow me, Your Honour, can I proceed? Thank you.
25 Q. Mrs. Hanson, would you agree with me that the proposal in Lisbon
1 agreement with regard to the territory division of Bosnia-Herzegovina,
2 among other criteria, was based on the census, which means the ethnic
3 composition of particular territory in Bosnia?
4 A. I see that in the English paragraph E. The B/C/S paragraph E
5 seems to be quite a different text.
6 Q. And yesterday we spoke about the development of the political
7 system in Bosnia and Herzegovina which actually on the basis of
8 Dayton Peace Accord divided country along the ethnic lines; is that
10 A. You did ask about the Dayton Peace Agreement, yes.
11 Q. Now I would like to discuss a few issues with you with regard to
12 the statute of the ARK
13 MR. PANTELIC: It's 65 ter document 17.
14 Q. Tell me, Mrs. Hanson, in your preparation of your report for this
15 case, were you able to inspect and to check and to review a number of
16 documents with regard to the ARK
17 explain to Chamber which documents you reviewed.
18 A. I looked at the documents of the ARK Crisis Staff, the decisions,
19 and issued an -- and orders issued by it. I did -- don't recall that I
20 reviewed the statute of the autonomous region itself.
21 Q. Did you, in your work, review maybe minutes or records or logs of
22 the work of Crisis Staff of ARK?
23 A. As I said, I looked at the decisions. Because -- I looked also
24 for records of other regional Crisis Staffs. Because there's such an
25 imbalance, I felt I could not draw any conclusions about a pattern. My
1 original tasking was to focus on the municipal level so I felt that to
2 focus on the -- to look in depth at the ARK Crisis Staff when I don't
3 have equivalent records from other regional Crisis Staffs would not serve
4 the purpose of my tasking, as I understood it.
5 Q. So I take from your answer that speaking of ARK in your report,
6 aside of several decisions or conclusions, you did not review minutes,
7 transcripts, or other documents related to the work of Crisis Staff of
9 A. Yes, that is correct.
10 Q. Could you tell the Chamber, please, who were the members of ARK
11 Crisis Staff, if you can?
12 A. I can't remember them all, but I can name those who I do
14 Q. Please go ahead.
15 A. Radislav Brdjanin, Vojo Kupresanin, Momir Talic, Radisav Vukic,
16 Sajic, Nenad Stevandic. I know I have the document in my -- one of my
17 exhibits. I don't -- Stojan Zupljanin. That's all I can recall right
18 now, but I can consult the document.
19 MR. DOBBYN: Your Honours, perhaps I could assist here. This was
20 a document that was exhibited during her direct and it lists exactly the
21 members that she's been asked about, so rather than having her memory
22 tested perhaps this document can be called up. It was Exhibit P441. If
23 this helps matters.
24 JUDGE HALL
25 MR. PANTELIC: I absolutely agree.
1 MR. DOBBYN: Sorry, that's in tab 11 of your binder, Ms. Hanson.
2 Tab 10, sorry.
3 MR. PANTELIC:
4 Q. So, Ms. Hanson, you were able to review or, let's say, to refresh
5 your memory now, reading the list of members, yes?
6 A. Mm-hmm.
7 Q. This is page 2 of this document because what we see here, it's
8 decision regarding the general public mobilisation, so it's the next
9 page, yes.
10 Could you tell the Chamber, Mrs. Hanson, please, the party
11 membership of the people, persons on this list, if you know, of course,
12 because you are an expert of the Crisis Staff? For example,
13 Mr. Brdjanin, he was a member of which party?
14 A. The SDS
15 Q. And --
16 MR. PANTELIC: Excuse me, could we have English version on the
17 screen of this document. Because in B/C/S we have decision of the
18 formation and ...
19 That's correct, thank you.
20 Q. And Lieutenant-Colonel Sajic, who was a vice-president, do you
21 know his party membership?
22 A. If he was a lieutenant-colonel in the JNA, I would assume he was
23 a member of the League of Communists, although what that meant at this
24 moment in May 1992 is different from what meant, say, two years earlier
25 to be a member of the League of Communists. So I can't say for sure his
1 affiliation. I would expect his earlier party affiliation to be League
2 of Communists.
3 Q. I take it from your answer, actually, that with regard to the
4 vice-president of Crisis Staff, you were not able to check or to
5 establish his party membership; is that correct?
6 A. I didn't examine that question.
7 Q. And what about person under number 3, Mr. Kupresanin,
8 Vojo Kupresanin --
9 A. He was a --
10 Q. -- do you know his party membership?
11 A. Yes, he was a member of the Main Board of the SDS.
12 Q. Under number 4, Mr. Erceg, do you know his party affiliation?
13 A. I believe he was SDS
14 Q. But you don't know for sure?
15 A. I didn't check it.
16 Q. What about Mr. Radic, under number 5?
17 A. He was also a member of the Main Board of the SDS.
18 Q. What about of Dr. Vukic?
19 A. He was a member of the Main Board and the Executive Board of the
21 Q. And Dr. Milanovic?
22 A. Below -- of the names following Vukic, I did not check the party
23 affiliation or position of anybody, although, Nenad Stevandic, I'm pretty
24 sure I've seen him as an SDS
25 another at the rest of the names.
1 Q. Including my client Zupljanin, you don't know?
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. So, Mrs. Hanson, in this particular case, we could not say for
4 certain that this Crisis Staff was run established and organised
5 exclusively by SDS
6 A. On the basis of this decision alone, no. On a wider
7 understanding of the creation of the ARK and the involvement of the
8 leadership of the SDS
9 understand the role of the SDS
10 don't see it.
11 Q. All right. Let's speak about the role of SDS. First of all,
12 would you agree with me that on the basis of the official election
13 results in 1990, multi-party -- first multi-party election in
14 Bosnia-Herzegovina, SDS
15 won a huge majority in terms of percentage; am I correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And as we discussed yesterday, in Bosnian Serb Assembly a part of
18 duly elected SDS
19 resistance --
20 A. Renewal.
21 Q. Something like SPO
22 A. Renewal.
23 Q. -- SPO
24 A. That's my general understanding, yes.
25 Q. So isn't it logical that the party who won, in terms of majority
1 percentage, has a particular responsibility to act in extraordinary
2 circumstances which, in fact, SDS
3 A. The party won the majority of the Serbian vote. It did not win
4 the majority of the vote of Bosnia
5 Q. Yes, but my question was focused specifically on Bosnian Serb
6 institutions, so my question was directed to the role of SDS within the
7 organs and the institution of Bosnian Serb municipalities.
8 So, again, am I correct if I'm saying that the role of SDS was
9 that, given the fact that they won majority of the votes, they were
10 obliged to act and to be ready for exceptional circumstances? Am I
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Like HDZ from Croatian side and SDA from Muslim side, because we
14 agreed, in our previous cross-examination with Mr. Zecevic and me, that
15 the other two national parties in Bosnia formed on a various level their
16 Crisis Staff; am I correct?
17 A. We saw the Presidency Crisis Staff and an HDZ Crisis Staff. I
18 didn't see in the cross-examination an SDA Crisis Staff. But, yes, I
19 agree that Crisis Staffs were formed on all sides.
20 Q. I will -- in due course I will give you few documents with regard
21 to this Crisis Staff. But so, okay. Let's take a look on preamble of
22 this decision of formation of ARK Crisis Staff where it says that on the
23 basis or pursuant to Article 12 of the Law on National Defence of Bosnian
24 Serb Republic
25 preamble, yes?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. In your expertise did you or were you able to take a look or
3 check the provisions of Republika Srpska national Law on National
5 A. I have looked at some of the articles.
6 Q. Article 12 particularly?
7 A. I can't recall without being shown it.
8 MR. PANTELIC: Just a second please. Could you bear with me. I
9 have to check with my assistant.
10 [Defence counsel confers]
11 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, it's one of the articles of Murphy's
12 Law when you cannot find the documents, when you will not find him. So
13 please bear with me a second.
14 I do apologise. We discussed this particular article, but we
15 didn't actually download it in the e-court. So I do apologise.
16 Q. Anyhow, Mrs. Hanson, speaking of this particular basis of the
17 establishment of Crisis Staff, would you agree with me that actually --
18 and I think you mentioned it earlier in your submissions, that actually
19 the basis was -- for formation of Crisis Staff was actually in this
20 category of national defence, am I correct? Like, you know, committees
21 for ONO and DSZ, something like that, along these lines?
22 A. As I said, I have found no explicit reference to Crisis Staffs in
23 the Law on Defence. The relevant article that Municipal Crisis Staffs
24 sometimes cite refers simply to the organisation of defence on the
25 territory. There's no reference that I know of, that I can recall, but I
1 don't have a photographic memory, to committees for All People's Defence
2 in the RS legislature, I'd be surprised to see a reference. So I don't
3 see references to Crisis Staffs or All People's Defence committees,
4 simply an obligation to organise defence, and Crisis Staffs are formed on
5 that basis. I see no explicit legislative basis for Crisis Staffs and no
6 explicit connection made in a normative document between Crisis Staffs
7 and All People's Defence committees. I have agreed that the concept is
8 the same.
9 Q. Absolutely, I agree with you, and I can confirm that in
10 Article 12, there is no -- any reference to Crisis Staff in this term,
11 but rather, a broader basis which is a, let's say, development from
12 previous legislation from former Yugoslavia
13 for ONO and DSZ, I agree with you.
14 But tell me, in this particular decision, the actually, I
15 understand it, the Executive Board of ARK Assembly, and we see the
16 president was Mr. Nikola Erceg, actually adopted this decision of
17 formation of Crisis Staff; am I correct?
18 A. That's what it states in this decision, yes.
19 Q. And would you agree with me that in ARK actually -- I mean, in
20 accordance with your previous work on this topic, actually we got two
21 bodies. We've got Crisis Staff of ARK and we got War Staff of ARK; am I
23 A. No, I see them as the same body here because the title reads
24 "Decision on the Formation of the Crisis Staff" and then it names the War
25 Staff, so I take those terms to be interchangeable here.
1 Q. Well, according to my knowledge, in fact, and I'm putting to you
2 this fact, although you mentioned that you didn't check, I'm putting to
3 you that Crisis Staff was actually organised and run by Mr. Brdjanin and
4 his associates without any other official member. Do you know this fact?
5 A. I know that Brdjanin was the president of the Crisis Staff. I
6 know that he was indicted and tried here. I am aware of that case. I'm
7 not aware of the extent of his other -- of other people being excluded
8 from the staff. I know that Talic was originally indicted and tried with
9 him, so I know that he was not alone. I did not read into that case when
10 I prepared for my testimony here so I'm not going to comment on the
11 extent to which he operated alone.
12 Q. And actually, the War Staff of ARK actually was a body for more,
13 I would say -- body for focused for more other aspects of the life in
14 terms of organisation, defence, et cetera, not actually politically, and
15 that's why the list of -- this list of members is quite long. That is my
16 position. Are you aware about this fact?
17 A. I'm not aware that there were two bodies co-existing at the same
18 time, the Crisis Staff and War Staff of ARK.
19 Q. Okay.
20 MR. PANTELIC: Okay, let's now take a look on the next page of
21 this document, which is -- yes.
22 Q. I see here that on the session or meeting of Crisis Staff, which
23 was held on 8th of May, 1992, ARK Crisis Staff adopted following
24 conclusions --
25 A. The decision on the board is the 6th of May. I think there's two
1 different ones again. The English and the B/C/S are not the same.
2 Q. Yes, you are right. It's next -- yes, you are right.
3 MR. PANTELIC: It's under -- English version should be under 4.
4 This is 3, so next decision.
5 Q. Thank you for correct me, Mrs. Hanson. Yes, that's right.
6 So here we see that the ARK Crisis Staff adopted the following
7 conclusions, and the conclusion number 1 is that:
8 "The presidents of the National Defence Councils are to supply
9 detailed information to the War Staff of ARK..."
10 So this is completely new body, I mean, related to another issue.
11 It is not -- Crisis Staff directs, Crisis Staff of ARK directs the
12 presidents of National Defence Councils to report to War Staff; am I
14 A. That's what it reads here in this decision. I --
15 Q. And then in paragraph 3 of the same conclusion, again ARK Crisis
16 Staff direct presidents of the National Defence Councils to inform
17 War Staff of ARK. And then again, under 4, we have a part of this
18 conclusion that mass media are directed to promptly inform all citizens
19 of the orders of War Staff. And then again, under 7 of the same
20 conclusions, we have decision that travel agencies should be put under
21 the control of War Staff of ARK. And then under 9, we also have a
22 mention of War Staff. And then under 13, instead of
23 Mr. Rajko Kuzmanovic, by the way, who is the president of
24 Bosnia-Herzegovina now and Republika Srpska, instead of him as a
25 War Staff, nomination was done for Dr. Mirjanic. So we see how it's
1 function -- how it's functioning, the Crisis Staff directs to various
2 institutions and body to report with regard to certain issues to
3 War Staff. Is that what is said here in this decision?
4 A. That's what it says here.
5 Q. Thank you. And then we have a meeting on 9th of May. This is
6 number 6 here in this document.
7 MR. PANTELIC: This is number 6, I believe. It is ERN number
8 0049-7843 of the same Official Gazette. So if this is document
9 number 4 -- you see on the top left number 4, so we have to go to the
10 document with number, please. Yes. Okay. So we have 6 in B/C/S and we
11 have --
12 Q. We are not going to comment into details all this documents, but
13 I'd just like it to draw your attention to the conclusions under 1 and 2
14 where, for example, under 1 we have decision that media centre should be
15 formed for needs of War Staff, and then the decision that all operative
16 orders of War Staff should be followed. And then again, on the session
17 of 11th of May, ARK
18 also there are some directions with regard to the -- to the ...
19 Now, this is actually -- correction. Decisions -- now we have
20 another line of work of Crisis Staff. Now we have in the -- on the
21 session of 11th of May, we have all decisions relevant to -- to Crisis
22 Staff. So two days before we have -- and earlier we have certain
23 directions with regard to the War Staff, and now we have something which
24 is strictly related to Crisis Staff.
25 Were you able to check these two documents, please?
1 A. I see the difference in the term used, yes. I see that the
2 earlier documents within the text refer to War Staff, whereas this one
3 within the text refers to Crisis Staff.
4 Q. Of course. And, again, you were not able to check any minutes,
5 records, log-books of the work of War Staff or ARK Crisis Staff; am I
7 A. I did not check any minutes, records, or log-books of either
8 War Staff or Crisis Staff.
9 Q. So your, I would say, assumption is expressed in your expert
10 report, rather than expert conclusions on the basis of more profound and
11 detailed documents; am I correct?
12 A. I have explained why I did not look in depth at the ARK
13 documents. So, yes, my conclusions as regard regional Crisis Staffs are
14 very different as compared to those regarding Municipal Crisis Staffs. I
15 do recall, however, the Sanski Most Crisis Staff saying that the
16 Crisis Staff now functions as a War Staff, publicly the old name will be
17 used. And on the basis of my reading, I would say that that is a
18 possible interpretation of these documents as well. But I cannot draw
19 that conclusion as regarding ARK
20 draw many conclusions regarding regional Crisis Staffs.
21 Q. That was my point actually with regard to the ARK Crisis Staff.
22 Thank you, Ms. Hanson, for your answer.
23 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Pantelic.
24 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE DELVOIE: Just for me to be sure --
1 MR. PANTELIC: Yes.
2 JUDGE DELVOIE: -- in what document are we right now? In which
4 MR. PANTELIC: We are -- Your Honour, we are in the document
5 which is provided to us by our friends from the Prosecution. This is a
6 document --
7 JUDGE DELVOIE: Is it 147?
8 MR. PANTELIC: Just a moment, Your Honour, please bear with me.
9 This is 65 ter document 147. That's correct.
10 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you very much.
11 MR. PANTELIC: So in this document, actually this is Official
12 Gazette of ARK
13 published, et cetera. Thank you.
14 Q. And now --
15 JUDGE HALL
16 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE HALL
18 to how much time you had left and at that point it was 30 minutes, so you
19 will bear that in mind.
20 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, time is really passing very fast
21 especially here in Courtroom I, but, please, I was extremely --
22 Your Honour, I beg you for your kindness, I will almost finish, but if
23 couple of minutes I will need, please allow me that because I just want
24 to finish this.
25 JUDGE HALL
2 MR. PANTELIC: Much obliged, Your Lordship.
3 Q. Now, Mrs. Hanson, please, could we take a look on --
4 MR. PANTELIC: I call Exhibit P68, please.
5 Q. I believe, Ms. Hanson, that we agreed upon the fact that region
6 of ARK
7 constitution of -- Bosnia-Herzegovina constitution in September 1991
8 covering all this area, or maybe we are not agreed upon that fact. What
9 is your position?
10 A. I agreed that it was constituted, but I do not agree that it was
11 necessarily established in accordance with the constitution.
12 Q. I put to you a fact that on the basis and in accordance of the
13 constitution of Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, three constituent
14 nations through their respective MPs formed ARK region. What is your
15 position with regard to that fact? You agree or you disagree?
16 A. I do not believe that the constitution --
17 Q. Or you don't know?
18 A. -- of Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina
19 Q. No, no, no, please stop, Ms. Hanson. I put to you -- you are an
20 expert, you have to be expert. I put to you a fact, you can say, Yes, I
21 agree, I disagree, or I don't know. Please one of these three options,
22 and then you can clarify that in redirect. Please my question was very
23 simply and straightforward.
24 MR. DOBBYN: Your Honours, if I could just intervene here. At
25 the start of this cross-examination, Mr. Pantelic put it to Ms. Hanson
1 that she was not an expert in constitutional law and she agreed with
2 that. And now he is saying that as an expert, he demands that she answer
3 this question about constitutional law, so it's outside the scope.
4 MR. PANTELIC: Absolutely -- well, no. No, it's a very simple
5 question. Ms. Hanson is your expert for the work of Crisis Staff.
6 Crisis Staff are actually derived from the municipalities from certain
7 regions, which we are speaking here of ARK. So my question is, what is
8 the basis of Crisis Staff of ARK. It should be in certain institutions,
9 so this institution is ARK
10 is not to do with the constitutional law issues, with the, I don't know,
11 international law issues, it's a simple fact, she is an expert. She know
12 or she doesn't know.
13 JUDGE HALL
14 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you.
15 Q. What is your answer?
16 A. I disagree.
17 Q. Thank you. Please take a look on the list of deputies. It's
18 Prosecution Exhibit, as I mentioned, 68. And could you tell me from your
19 knowledge, because you spent a lot of time in analysing documents in
22 A. The name would certainly suggest that. I don't know the man
23 personally so I don't know how he identifies himself, but certainly it's
24 a Muslim name.
25 Q. Absolutely, I'm limited to the formulation that you just used.
1 Absolutely. So under 27, could you agree that this gentleman Kozjan
2 might be of Croat origin?
3 A. The first name certainly suggests Croat origin.
4 Q. And under 31, Mr. Biscevi, Edib, being a Bosnian Muslim?
5 A. Yes, that's what the name would suggest.
6 Q. And also under 32?
7 A. Yes, the name is Muslim.
8 Q. And then under 52, Mr. Karahodzic?
9 A. Yes, it's a Muslim name.
10 Q. And, sorry, number 58?
11 A. Yes, it's a Muslim name.
12 Q. And then 86, Mrs. Sehovic?
13 A. Yes, it's a Muslim name.
14 Q. So, Mrs. Hanson, I put to you that in accordance with the
15 legislation of Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1991, a number of municipalities
16 being a part of ARK
17 representatives from municipality Assembly to ARK municipality. Do you
18 agree with me or not? Or you are not informed about this process?
19 A. I do not believe that ARK
20 Bosnia-Herzegovina. Therefore, I cannot agree with your statement.
21 Q. All right. That's your position.
22 MR. PANTELIC: But let's go now to document 2D25.
23 Q. This document speaks about the relation between CSB Banja Luka
24 and local police stations. First of all, Mrs. Hanson, were you able to
25 see or to read or to check this document?
1 A. Yes, it's one of my exhibits. Tab 34.
2 Q. I will not go into every detail of this document, but would you
3 agree with me that in the part, the first part of document, introductory
4 part, so let's establish that the author of this document is the CSB
5 Banja Luka
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And it's dated on 30th of July, 1992?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. So in the first part of this document, namely from page 1
10 until 3, Mr. Zupljanin, of course, you don't have reason to -- not to
11 believe me, but Mr. Zupljanin with his associates, with his services
12 practically formulated this document, and in this first part of this
13 document, he is speaking about certain events and certain, I would say,
14 problems which was located in the work of local police stations; am I
15 correct? I mean in general terms.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And then on, it's page 3 of B/C/S, Mr. Zupljanin -- it's page 3
18 but it's bottom of the page 3 where he states, yes.
19 And then Mr. Zupljanin -- let's wait for the English version.
20 Mr. Zupljanin orders very specifically under 1, he directs that
21 all activities of local police stations must be within the provisions of
22 the Law of Interior of Republika Srpska; am I correct?
23 A. Yes, that's what it says.
24 Q. And then under 2 of this document, Mr. Zupljanin states that
25 local police stations cannot take any orders or other decisions from
1 various Crisis Staff and other organisations, which are not in accordance
2 with the legal framework; am I correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And then on, at the same item, he actually outlined that the
5 various political decisions without any legal form cannot be followed by
6 the members of the police service; am I correct?
7 A. That's what it says, yes.
8 Q. And then under item 3, he directs local police chiefs and the
9 stations that in any delicate or complicated matter they are obliged to
10 contact CSB
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And then in number 4, he is instructing local police authorities
13 that the professional approach with regard to the detention or arrest, in
14 accordance with the law, without any ethnic discriminatory approach must
15 be followed; am I correct?
16 A. That's the gist of it, yes. I don't think he says exactly
17 professional approach, but certainly the gist is to start acting in
18 accordance with the law.
19 Q. And then under 5, local police stations are obliged to, on the
20 basis of the law, of course, perform activities with regard to the
21 collection of information or proceedings against the persons allegedly
22 committed certain crimes; is that correct?
23 A. That is what it states, yes.
24 Q. And then under 6, it's a directive to local police stations that
25 without previous accordance or approval of CSB cannot be in the escort or
1 give any assistance to the detained people?
2 A. To people detained by unauthorised persons, it says.
3 Q. Yes. And then under 7, we have a directive regarding the issue
4 of paramilitary formations and then also we have the issue that local
5 police stations must perform investigative activities against the alleged
6 criminal activities of paramilitary formations, and the other armed
7 groups and individuals. Is that the gist of item number 7 in this
9 A. Yes, that's what the document seems to be saying.
10 Q. And then item 8 speaks about the more technical issues like
11 traffic issues; yes?
12 A. It refers to checkpoints, but earlier in the text they describe
13 some problems with checkpoints set up by people other than the police, so
14 I don't think it's just a question of traffic issues.
15 Q. Checkpoints, sorry. My mistake. Yes, we agree about
17 Under item number 9, it's a direction to take immediate,
18 decisive, and uncompromising action to throw light on all alleged
19 criminal activities within the police stations, to take necessary
20 disciplinary -- to launch necessary disciplinary procedures as well as
21 criminal procedures, suspension of police officers, if any, in the
22 accordance with the provision of the law of criminal procedure; is that
23 the gist of item 9, Mrs. Hanson?
24 A. Yes, that's what it says.
25 Q. And then under 10, it is necessary when these preliminary
1 procedures will finish that all cases against members of local police
2 stations must be forwarded to the public prosecutor; am I correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And under 11, that it is forbidden for the local police chiefs
5 to, without prior approval of CSB
7 A. That's what it says.
8 Q. And then on the next page, which is the end of this document,
9 it's page 6 of B/C/S, and the English should be -- yes. He speaks and he
10 directs that direct responsibility for all these orders are local chiefs
11 of police; am I correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And that on the basis of previous collected informations, that
14 this organ, being CSB
15 against the particular -- particular individuals; am I correct?
16 A. Yes, that's what it says.
17 Q. And in conclusion of this document, a dead-line was imposed,
18 which is the 10th of August, 1992, where by this date a detailed report
19 should be submitted to CSB
20 A. That's what it says.
21 Q. And in your report, in your report, it's footnote 140, page of 39
22 of your report, your conclusion, I am not going into details because my
23 learned friend Mr. Zecevic covered all these matters and we know that you
24 are not police expert and that your conclusions with regard to the
25 provisions of law of interior are not related to this case, but what you
1 said here, you said in footnote 140, you said:
2 "Order from CSB
3 conclusion, "indicates that the local police station had been accepting
4 and carrying out orders issued by municipal and regional Crisis Staff."
5 It is not the point. The main point of this document is that
6 Mr. Zupljanin, as the head of CSB
7 officers and chiefs to follow the law, to follow the order, and the
8 principles of work, that is the spirit of this document, and you didn't
9 mention that spirit, why? You are one-sided, you are -- or you are
10 biased? Why? Why you didn't mention this spirit of this very important
12 A. I agree that that is the spirit of this document which is
13 directed from the head of the centre to the local police stations, but I
14 was looking at it from the point of view of the relations between the
15 municipal authorities and the local police stations. And I believe that
16 Mr. Zupljanin would not have written that item, that they have to follow
17 procedure and not take orders from municipal and regional Crisis Staffs
18 that don't follow proper procedure, he would not have written that had
19 they -- the local police stations not been receiving such orders that are
20 beyond their domain, that are not following procedure.
21 I agree that's the thrust of the document, but I, as an analyst,
22 I have to ask why is this document being written? Why would he write
23 something like that? He would not write it if the police stations had
24 not been receiving -- not been accepting irregular orders from their
25 Crisis Staffs. I think reading this document, anyone who looks at it
1 would certainly agree that the thrust of it is an attempt, in the end of
2 July, to assert the -- the correct procedure and the rule of law.
3 As I indicate in my report, you have to look at the time-period,
4 and it's quite consistent with my conclusions that by the end of the
5 July, the police officials are taking this stand and that he is
6 describing problems that -- and events that have occurred up until this
8 Q. I agree with you, you are the author of report and this is your,
9 I would say, approach and liberty, but my point was more directed to the
10 issue and to the aspect of objectivity as a component of independent view
11 in the report, that was my idea. But, okay, Mrs. Hanson, let's go to
12 our --
13 JUDGE HALL
14 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you very much, Your Honour. Just for
15 information, I have just a couple of questions, so in five or ten
16 minutes, I can finish, even less. Thank you so much.
17 [The witness stands down]
18 --- Recess taken at 10.25 a.m.
19 --- On resuming at 10.52 a.m.
20 [The witness takes the stand]
21 MR. PANTELIC:
22 Q. Welcome back, Ms. Hanson. Now I would like to just cover -- it's
23 more or less housekeeping matters to cover some issues with regard to
24 your testimony before the Sarajevo
25 MR. PANTELIC: So could we have please, it's an e-court document,
1 1D01-0412. Actually, this is a transcript of Mrs. Hanson testimony
2 before the Bosnian state court in Sarajevo in case of Mr. Klickovic, who
3 was, I believe, president of Crisis Staff of municipality of
4 Bosanska Krupa in 1992.
5 Q. Do you remember that testimony, Ms. Hanson?
6 A. Yes, I do.
7 Q. And it was on 27th of January, 2009, and 28th of January, 2009,
8 this year, yes?
9 A. Yes.
10 MR. PANTELIC: In transcript, you -- it is page 66 of B/C/S
11 version -- oh, sorry, 49. And English version is 66. 49, yes. And then
12 around last third of the page, just a moment. Okay.
13 Q. The accused, I don't know who asked you, maybe, Mr. Klickovic,
14 but it's not important for this moment, asked you that you filed the
15 updated version of your report of July 2008. Could you please be so kind
16 to explain us, first of all, in this particular case, you filed your
17 report which was specifically designed for the municipality of
18 Bosanska Krupa, in that case in Sarajevo
19 version, could you explain that, please?
20 A. The report which I gave to the Bosnian state court was
21 essentially the same as this report here. I don't recall if there were a
22 few paragraphs that might have differed, but it was -- certainly formed
23 the basis of this -- very similar to this report. It was not at all
24 specific to Bosanska Krupa.
25 Q. In any case, a report that you filed before the Sarajevo
1 July 2008 is practically a later version of your report from
2 February 2008; am I correct?
3 A. There are --
4 Q. Or these are completely two different reports?
5 A. No, no, no, they are very similar reports. As I say, there were
6 a few paragraphs where I may have re-worded things. I don't recall the
7 essence of the differences, but it is very much the same report. With
8 the same conclusions. The paragraphs I may have rewritten were not --
9 were better phrasing, not change of conclusions.
10 Q. Any case, I don't believe that we --
11 MR. PANTELIC: Did we, can I ask my friends from the Prosecution,
12 did we get this report, this updated from July 2008? No.
13 MR. DOBBYN: I am sorry, I can't say off the top of my head. I
14 will check that and we can get back to you, if that's what you'd like.
15 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you.
16 Q. Anyhow, Mrs. Hanson, please, the question here at this trial in
18 then on the Muslim and Croatian side during the war in Bosnia
19 said yes, and I believe you stand with your answer today also on regard
20 to this issue?
21 A. Well, I've been shown here documents showing that they were
22 formed before the war, so I would change that in my statement.
23 Q. Yes, of course, but also -- and during the war?
24 A. Yes, and during the war. I do not stand that it was only during
25 the war now.
1 Q. Okay. Thank you for that. Just a moment.
2 MR. PANTELIC: Now, can we go to page -- it's page 97. Actually,
3 this is the second day of your testimony. It was on 28th of January.
4 Let me check with my colleague. Yeah, this is page 97 of the transcript
5 English version. And this is page 4 of B/C/S of that particular day that
6 we have here.
7 Q. And, yes, okay, just a moment. The accused posed you a question
8 which starts:
9 "Are you aware that from 15 to 16 October, the Muslim Croat
10 coalition adopted a declaration," and so on and so and so forth and then
11 the line of this questions actually was finished with your answer which
12 was the following. The --
13 MR. PANTELIC: Can we please go this -- can we have this page up.
15 Q. Okay. This is what I'm interested in your answer. In your
16 answer with regard to the developments and issues in Bosnian Assembly,
17 Bosnia-Herzegovina Assembly in October 1991, you stated before the court
18 in Sarajevo
19 "These events were not pointed out; the instructions made --
20 instructions," I believe it's Variant A and B, "the instructions make no
21 explicit connection, but they were, however, events which contributed to
22 the crisis in former Yugoslavia
23 setting up of Crisis Staff of the Bosnian Serbs as part of the overall
25 Do you stand by your statement that you gave before Sarajevo
1 court today here?
2 A. Yes, I even have words from Klickovic himself that would support
4 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you. I finish with this couple issues.
5 Q. And now, it's time, Mrs. Hanson, to --
6 JUDGE HARHOFF: Sorry, I was just reading the document and it
7 seems that there was a difference in the document and the
8 interpretation -- or the transcript. Sorry, not the interpretation, but
9 the transcript. We now have the document back on the screen and what I
10 see Mrs. Hanson replying at the court in Sarajevo was the following:
11 "These events were not pointed out; the instructions make no
12 explicit connection. But they were, however, events which contributed to
13 the crisis in the former Yugoslavia
14 this setting up of Crisis Staffs of the Bosnian Serbs as part of the
15 overall process."
16 Thank you.
17 MR. PANTELIC:
18 Q. So to make conclusion, in light of the overall process of the
19 events in Bosnia
20 creation of Crisis Staff was sort of answer to the amount of
21 extraordinary circumstances around all three nations in Bosnia, I would
23 A. It was both an answer and a catalyst itself for further events.
24 Q. Thank you. So, Mrs. Hanson, it is time for us to reach certain
25 conclusions with regard to your testimony. First of all, would you agree
1 with me that on the basis of what we heard here from you that, in fact,
2 you were not able in fully capacity to assess, review, and make
3 conclusions with regard to the functioning of ARK Crisis Staff due to the
4 lack of possibility to have a review in relevant documents such as
5 minutes, records, et cetera; is that a correct conclusion?
6 A. The phrase "was not able" is where I cannot agree. I could
7 have -- I don't know the extent of our holdings on ARK. Did we -- if we
8 had minutes, records beyond the decisions and conclusions, I simply don't
9 know if I was able or not to look at them. It was the dearth of
10 documents from the other regional Crisis Staffs that led me to say, I'm
11 not going to look at ARK
12 be able to draw any conclusions about the overall pattern of regional
13 Crisis Staffs.
14 So I'm unaware of the extent of our holdings beyond the kind of
15 decisions we've seen. Had I been tasked to look at ARK in-depth, I may
16 have been able to look at more. I did not. The ability is what I cannot
18 Q. Would you agree with me with the conclusion that all three
19 national leading parties in Bosnia-Herzegovina, SDS, HDZ, and SDA, formed
20 in 1991 and 1992 their respective Crisis Staffs with the ultimate aim to
21 function in extraordinary circumstances as a period until the time when
22 the relevant municipality Assemblies could convene; would you agree with
24 A. I don't know enough about the SDA Crisis Staffs to be able to
25 answer that. But from what I've seen of just what you've shown me or
1 your colleagues showed me of the HDZ Crisis Staff and what I've seen of
2 the SDS
3 Q. Thank you. And would you agree with me that it is a fact of
4 common knowledge that Bosnian Serb institutions like Assembly,
5 government, Municipal Assemblies, are recognised as the legitimate and
6 lawful organs of today's entity known as Republika Srpska within the
7 sovereign state Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina; would you agree with
8 that fact?
9 A. Yes, to the best of my knowledge.
10 Q. And, finally, would you agree with me that in light of the
11 position of the SDS
12 Serb Assembly which was formed in 1991 and being a leading party in
13 accordance with the official election result in Bosnia-Herzegovina from
14 1990, that SDS
16 parties? Would you agree with me?
17 A. No. I could expand on why I don't agree, but I don't know if you
18 want me to.
19 Q. Well, the facts are speaking differently. But thank you very
20 much, Mrs. Hanson, for your time being with us. I wish you, well, not
21 safe trip but safe way to your Office of the Prosecution.
22 MR. PANTELIC: And thank you so much, Your Honour, I finish my
24 MR. DOBBYN: Sorry, before Mr. Pantelic finishes, I just wonder
25 if there may be something which has been omitted inadvertently. In the
1 course of his cross-examination earlier on, he showed a document to
2 Ms. Hanson which he said appeared to suggest that in the ARK there were
3 two separate bodies; there was a Crisis Staff and a War Staff. And if
4 that is his position, then it's our submission that according to
5 Rule 90(H), he needs to actually put that to this witness as it is
6 different to what her conclusions are, and she should be given the
7 opportunity to respond to that. And he should put to her who he says
8 these two separate bodies were and who were in them and if she has seen
9 any evidence about that.
10 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Pantelic, would you like to clarify this with
11 the witness, and would you wish to tender the document into evidence?
12 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour. In fact, I will reserve my
13 right during the Defence case because we are just, you know, following
14 the development of Prosecution case and then we shall through witnesses
15 and some other ways to present our position.
16 JUDGE HARHOFF: No, I mean, the issue of the difference between
17 the war commission and the Crisis Staff.
18 MR. PANTELIC: You mean War Staff and Crisis Staff.
19 JUDGE HARHOFF: Yes, sorry, that you raised, I think you should
20 actually finalise that matter with the witness while she's here.
21 MR. PANTELIC: Well, I will put that question to her, too.
22 Q. Would you agree with me that in ARK region practically two bodies
23 were formed, one unofficial Crisis Staff of ARK led by Mr. Brdjanin and
24 also the other War Staff with the completely different functions and
25 organisation? Would you agree with this position?
1 A. No.
2 MR. PANTELIC: So, I think at this stage, Your Honour ...
3 MS. KORNER: I am sorry, Your Honour. Can I interrupt [Realtime
4 transcript read in error "get back to"] you? Obviously, as Your Honours
5 know, Brdjanin was the case I dealt with. I think what needs to be made
6 clear at this stage --
7 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
8 MS. KORNER: -- is the suggestion by the Defence -- is the
9 suggestion by the Defence that there was a totally separate body called
10 the War Staff from the ARK Crisis Staff which was simply Mr. Brdjanin
11 alone without any participation by Mr. Zupljanin. Is that the
13 MR. PANTELIC: That is my suggestion, yes.
14 MS. KORNER: Right. Well, that's very clear. Thank you very
16 JUDGE HARHOFF: And just to clarify, Mrs. Hanson, you do not
17 support that contention?
18 THE WITNESS: I don't know enough of the case to support that.
19 My -- my impression without having followed the case too closely is that
20 the term that was the same body. I don't know enough to assert
21 completely, but I've seen -- I can draw a parallel from the Sanski Most
22 documents which said, Privately we operate as a War Staff, publicly the
23 word "Crisis Staff" will still be used. And I think that the documents
24 I've been shown could be interpreted parallel to that. I'm not asserting
25 that I know definitely that they were one and the same body but I don't
1 know enough to agree with the statement.
2 JUDGE HARHOFF: Try again, Mr. Pantelic.
3 THE WITNESS: Sorry.
4 MR. PANTELIC:
5 Q. Okay. Would you -- I mean, I completely accept your position
6 that you expressed earlier that you were not able to review, assess, or
7 other way analyse relevant documents to ARK Crisis Staff, and were you
8 able maybe through a review of certain witness statements to come to the
9 conclusion that ARK Crisis Staff is the same like body of war Crisis
10 Staff of ARK
11 A. Well, war Crisis Staff, you mean War Staff, I did not rely on
12 witness statements. I relied on documents from the contemporary
13 documents, documents of the bodies concerned. I do not look at witness
14 statements for my report.
15 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honours, I finish my cross-examination.
16 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Pantelic, just for the record, on page 32,
17 line 6 in LiveNote, you asked: Would you agree with me that in ARK
18 region practically two bodies were formed, one unofficial Crisis Staff,"
19 was it "unofficial" you said?
20 MR. PANTELIC: Well, yeah, unofficial, yes. Unofficial.
21 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. Thank you.
22 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated].
23 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
24 MS. KORNER: I'm recorded as saying, "I'm sorry, Your Honour, can
25 I get back to you." I don't think I said, "Can I get back to you." I
1 rather think I said, "May I -- can I interrupt." I don't know why I
2 would be saying, "Can I get back to you."
3 JUDGE HALL
4 MR. DOBBYN: Thank you, Your Honours.
5 Re-examination by Mr. Dobbyn:
6 Q. Good morning again, Ms. Hanson.
7 A. Good morning.
8 Q. In the course of the cross-examination you've faced over the last
9 couple of days, you've had a lot of questions about the scope of your
10 report, your expertise, what was and was not in your report. You were
11 asked by Mr. Pantelic whether you were seen as an expert outside this
12 particular institution and you recall saying that no, you weren't?
13 A. He put it in terms of universities or conferences and I said no,
14 it's true that I did testify as an expert for the Bosnian state court.
15 Q. Thank you, that's what I was going to ask. Now, what exactly was
16 the terms of reference of the report you were asked to prepare for the
17 Krajisnik case?
18 A. I did not receive explicit written terms of reference for that,
19 but my tasking was to look at the Municipal Crisis Staffs. I then -- I
20 said, as I wrote it I realised I had to include War Presidencies and war
21 commissions as well. So I understood my instructions to be, Look at the
22 municipal bodies.
23 I was asked at one point, What about the regional bodies, and I
24 did as much as I could to look into them, and finding so little material
25 on the regional bodies aside from ARK
1 was also covering the regional level. So although the title of the
2 report simply says "Crisis Staffs," the thrust is very much the municipal
4 Q. When you say you were asked to write a report on Municipal Crisis
5 Staffs, was that explicitly in relation to the Municipal Crisis Staffs of
6 one political party or one ethnic group or?
7 A. Yes, the Bosnian Serbs. It was in terms of the case against
8 Momcilo Krajisnik and Biljana Plavsic, so it was very much Bosnian Serb
9 Crisis Staffs.
10 Q. Were you ever asked to include in the report or to look at Muslim
11 or Croat ethnic Crisis Staffs?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Can you recall what Momcilo Krajisnik's position was during 1992?
14 A. He was Speaker of the Assembly, the Bosnian Serb National
15 Assembly, and he was a member of the expanded Wartime Presidency of the
16 Republika Srpska as of, I believe, late May or early June 1992.
17 Q. So that wasn't a case involving a defendant who had been a member
18 of the Ministry of the Interior?
19 A. Correct.
20 Q. It did -- however, in your first report, I believe you said you
21 did briefly touch on the relationship between the Crisis Staffs and the
22 police, didn't you?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And you were later asked to provide an updated version of the
25 Krajisnik report for this case; right?
1 A. Correct.
2 Q. So your report was used in two different cases with two separate
3 sets of facts. Did you alter any of your conclusions from the first
4 report to the report for this case?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Did you alter any of the assertions that you made in the first
8 A. I may have refined some of my arguments, but the assertions
9 stayed the same.
10 Q. Now, when you expanded the section touching on the relationship
11 between the Crisis Staffs and the police, specifically in relation to
12 that section, did you change any of your assertions or conclusions from
13 the Krajisnik report to this report?
14 A. No.
15 MR. DOBBYN: Your Honours, at this time I'd like to show -- call
16 up Ms. Hanson's Krajisnik report. It has 65 ter number 10085.
17 MR. ZECEVIC: I am sorry, Your Honours, I don't believe that
18 during the cross-examination the Krajisnik report was ever brought up. I
19 don't know how it derives from the cross-examination that my learned
20 friend can use it in redirect.
21 JUDGE HALL
22 how are you permitted to show this at this stage?
23 MR. DOBBYN: Your Honours, I'm just looking for a specific
24 reference, but it's my recollection that it was actually -- the genesis
25 of the present report was referred to on several occasions, and if I'm
1 given a moment, I'll try to find a specific reference for Your Honours.
2 Yes, Your Honours if we look at transcript page 4453, from questions from
3 Mr. Zecevic, and this is line 10:
4 "In the light of the Judge's questions, let me ask you one more
5 thing. You said your first report was created on the basis of a
6 memorandum written by you as part the Prosecution team in Krajisnik, and
7 then the Prosecutors leading that case asked you to write it in the form
8 of a report."
9 Now he then goes on, Your Honour, I don't want to quote it
10 verbatim, but saying that this basic report was amended and was adjusted
11 and was updated for this case, so I believe it has been raised.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, I'm not disputing this, but the point
13 of the matter is the witness's testimony is that she only added to the
14 report, to the existing report of Krajisnik. She only added the part
15 referring to the minister of interior and therefore we never used the
16 Krajisnik report in our cross-examination. We only used the report in
17 Stanisic-Zupljanin case. And --
18 JUDGE HALL
19 unnecessary time on what is a really technical objection having regard to
20 the common basis, the common nature of these reports?
21 MR. ZECEVIC: I agree with Your Honour. I'm just trying to
22 establish sort of rules in the redirect for the future. Thank you very
23 much. That is very correct from Your Honours that it's --
24 JUDGE HALL
25 case --
1 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you very much, Your Honour. I understand.
2 MR. DOBBYN: And Your Honours, I would be happy to make it clear
3 where I'm going with these questions but I just don't think it's suitable
4 when the witness is present, so if I can just carry on.
5 JUDGE HALL
6 MR. DOBBYN: Sure. So, again, if we could call up that document.
7 That's 10085. And I'd like to look at paragraph 57. It's on page 29 of
8 the English and page 31 of the B/C/S.
9 MR. ZECEVIC: I am sorry, Your Honour, just one more technical
10 question. Is this document on the 65 ter list?
11 MR. DOBBYN: Your Honours, it's not on the 65 ter list. On the
12 basis that it has been opened by the -- sorry, this issue has been opened
13 up by the Defence in cross-examination, I believe it's only proper for us
14 to be able to address it. Again, I could go further with the
15 explanation, I just don't think it's proper in the witness's presence.
16 JUDGE HALL
17 this. If this wasn't on your 65 ter list, need we really spend time on
18 trying to do this?
19 MR. DOBBYN: I take your point, Your Honours, and perhaps I'll
20 just go back to the question I had before.
21 Q. Ms. Hanson, the section on police. Am I correct in understanding
22 that you expanded that section?
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. Did you change any other section that had been included in the
25 Krajisnik report and the report that you have written in this case?
1 A. I did not change my basic conclusions. It became a longer
2 section. Those are the changes.
3 MR. DOBBYN: Your Honours, I'm happy to move on without getting
4 into the prior report at this point.
5 Q. Now referring to transcript page 4456 onwards, you were asked a
6 number of questions about historical and political events that were
7 leading up to the formation of the Crisis Staffs. As some examples, you
8 were asked about the October proclamation of sovereignty, the
9 Lord Carrington-led negotiations, the conference in The Hague
10 Do you recall that?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. It was put to you that these events should perhaps have been
13 included in your report; do you recall that?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Now, from your knowledge, do Prosecution teams in the OTP usually
16 rely on just one expert to cover all relevant areas of their case?
17 A. No.
18 Q. As far as these historical and political events leading up to the
19 war in Bosnia-Herzegovina are concerned, would you expect these to be
20 covered by someone else other than yourself?
21 A. Yes, I would.
22 Q. Having had all these questions about these events put to you, do
23 you believe now that a discussion of these events was necessary to be
24 included in your report to an understanding of how the Bosnian Serb
25 Crisis Staffs were formed and how they functioned?
1 A. No, I did not.
2 Q. On Tuesday - I'm referring to transcript page 4441 at line 12 -
3 it was put to you that in reviewing documents for your report, you only
4 selected those documents that fit the Prosecution's case of -- theory of
5 the case. Do you recall that?
6 A. Yes, I recall.
7 Q. You said at that time that when you found documents that went
8 against the Prosecution, you would bring them to the Prosecutor's
9 attention. Do you recall that answer?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Now, I'd like to just ask you to explain this a little further.
12 Are you referring to documents specifically that undermined your report,
13 or are you talking more generally about Rule 68 in general?
14 A. I mean Rule 68 in general. It's one of my taskings to bring such
15 material to the Prosecution's attention.
16 Q. Could you just perhaps expand on that little bit, exactly what
17 this tasking is, what it involves?
18 A. Well, it's one of our ongoing jobs. Whatever we see, material
19 that we consider potentially Rule 68, we identify it, sometimes we
20 participate in some system-wide searches on certain topics, but just in
21 the course of reviewing documents, if I see something that strikes me as
22 supporting my understanding of the Defence case or something that
23 contradicts my understanding of the Prosecution's general theory, it's my
24 duty to pass it on to the team lawyers.
25 Q. Thank you. Just to move on, on Wednesday - and I refer to
1 transcript page 4449 - you were asked to identify documents in your
2 report which perhaps do not support the Prosecution's case. Do you
3 recall being asked that?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And do you recall that at that time being asked there and then
6 you couldn't point to any. Do you recall that?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. First can I ask, was the Prosecution's theory of the case ever
9 explained to you in any detail?
10 A. No.
11 Q. And at the time of preparing this report, did you know what the
12 Defence theory of the case would be?
13 A. No, I did not.
14 Q. So do you think you are in any position to say for certain
15 whether any of your documents, aside from your report, are contrary to
16 the Prosecution's case or support the Defence case?
17 A. No.
18 MR. DOBBYN: Your Honours, at this time if we could show
19 Exhibit P186.
20 Q. Now, do you remember being shown this document yesterday,
21 Ms. Hanson?
22 A. Yes, I do.
23 Q. And I think it was put to you, and wouldn't you agree, that on
24 its face this document appears to undermine your assertions regarding
25 Djeric's 26 April instructions?
1 A. It indicates that the text of the instructions were withdrawn,
2 but as I've indicated, I have other reasons to believe that the
3 instructions were, in fact, issued and implemented.
4 Q. You included this document in your report and a footnote,
5 footnote 47, with an explanatory note. Why did you specifically bring
6 this document to attention in your report?
7 A. Because it's relevant. It obviously has some bearing on
8 understanding the instructions. In fact, I think I had a much longer
9 section explaining why -- that I am aware of this document but how I
10 interpret it in the light of other copies of the instructions that we
11 found. But since my basic conclusion is that the instructions were in
12 fact issued, received and implemented, I kept it in a footnote, but I
13 certainly want to call the attention to -- of the reader to the fact of
14 the existence of this document.
15 Q. Thank you. Now apart from this document or any other document --
16 actually if I just go back for one second.
17 Were you ever asked to remove any document from your report
18 because it was damaging to the Prosecution's theory of the case.
19 A. Never.
20 Q. Did you do that on your own accord?
21 A. No.
22 Q. And to move on, at transcript page 4463, do you remember being
23 asked whether you had only looked at documentary evidence for those
24 municipalities contained in the indictment? Do you remember that being
25 put to you?
1 A. I don't recall that question per se but I've been asked a lot of
3 Q. Okay.
4 MR. DOBBYN: If we could call up Ms. Hanson's report. That's
5 P434, marked for identification. I'd like to go to page 25 in the
6 English, page 26 in the B/C/S. And sorry, if we could scroll down, it's
7 the footnotes that I'm interested in.
8 Q. Ms. Hanson, the municipalities that are in bold, what does that
10 A. I bold the -- just for ease of reading I bold the name of the
11 municipality and many of these ones here on this page are not -- as far
12 as I know, not part of the indictment.
13 Q. Could you just quickly perhaps read the names in bold, the
14 municipalities in bold?
15 A. Bosanski Novi, Bratunac, Kotor Varos, Novo Sarajevo, Rogatica,
16 Sanski Most, Sipovo, Bosanska Krupa, Kljuc, Bihac, Bosanski Samac.
17 Q. Thank you. On Wednesday, transcript page 4463, you were asked if
18 all SDS
19 that you couldn't claim that because they're municipalities for which the
20 OTP has no documentary evidence. Do you recall that exchange?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Now, from the documentation that you were able to review, was --
23 would you say that the formation of SDS Crisis Staffs was an isolated
25 A. Isolated in what --
1 Q. That it only happened in a few municipalities or was it
3 A. It was widespread.
4 Q. On Wednesday, again, you were asked about the secrecy or
5 otherwise of the Variant A and B instructions, and you were shown one
6 example, document from Zvornik, this is Exhibit P437, where it appeared
7 that the instructions may not have been kept secret; do you recall that?
8 A. Yes, I do.
9 MR. DOBBYN: Could we show Exhibit P438.
10 Q. Ms. Hanson, this is in tab 5 of your binder.
11 MR. DOBBYN: And if we can go to page 306 in the English and
12 page 278 in the B/C/S.
13 Q. Ms. Hanson, we have looked at this already, but could you perhaps
14 direct us -- sorry, I'll just wait for the correct page to come up.
15 Could you tell us how Radovan Karadzic himself characterised these
16 instructions, if at all, on this page?
17 A. Yes, he says:
18 "In the municipalities where we were a minority, we formed a
19 secret government Municipal Board, Municipal Assembly, president of the
20 Executive Board. You remember A and B variants."
21 Q. Thank you. Now, you've been asked questions by both of my
22 learned colleagues about the Bosanski Samac Crisis Staff and particularly
23 in relation to the apparent membership of a Muslim and I believe possibly
24 a Serb from a party other than the SDS. Do you recall those questions?
25 A. Yes, I do.
1 Q. Are you aware of any other cases from the municipalities you
2 looked at where there were non-Serbs on SDS Crisis Staffs?
3 A. No, I'm not.
4 Q. Was membership of non-SDS
5 that you've seen?
6 A. Where they become the Municipal Crisis Staffs, they do -- usually
7 in April or May, they do sometimes add members who were heads of fairly
8 practical municipal institutions, I think of -- in the case of Bratunac
9 the head of the bus company was added. And I think at that point it was
10 noted that he was not SDS
11 affiliation of these added later people, but the Crisis Staff themselves
12 saw themselves as continuous with the SDS Crisis Staffs.
13 Q. Now, in a series of questions - and this starts from transcript
14 page 4478 - it was put to you by my learned colleague that there were
15 great similarities between the committees for All People's Defence and
16 Self-Protection, the Crisis Staff that was established by the BiH
17 Presidency in September 1991, and the SDS Crisis Staffs. Do you remember
18 those questions?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And in particular it was put it to you that their composition and
21 their powers are very similar and that these were sort of precedent for
22 the SDS
23 A. Yes, I do.
24 Q. Now, regarding these earlier precedents for Crisis Staffs, to
25 your knowledge, was the membership drawn from just one ethnic group?
1 A. No.
2 Q. Particularly in the case of the presidential Crisis Staff, was it
3 drawn from a single political party?
4 A. No, it was not.
5 Q. So apart from the possible exception of Bosanski Samac you were
6 aware of, how does this compare to what you've seen of the SDS Crisis
8 A. The SDS
9 to defend the interests of that one particular ethnic group.
10 Q. I'll just move on to another area now. Some questions were put
11 to you --
12 MR. DOBBYN: Direct Your Honours to transcript page 4510 and
14 Q. -- that SDS
15 totally separate organs and that the SDS had no influence over the
16 Municipal Crisis Staffs. Do you recall that?
17 A. Yes, I do.
18 MR. DOBBYN: Your Honours, at this time I would seek your leave
19 to call up a document. This is 65 ter number 1850. I did send notice of
20 this document, but it's -- although it was originally on our 65 ter list,
21 it was withdrawn, the reason being that this question of two separate
22 bodies, a Crisis Staff and a War Staff, and SDS authority over them was
23 not seen as an issue. It was brought up in cross-examination, so we
24 would seek leave to be able to use this now and perhaps have it MFI'd,
25 and seek your leave in writing to have it added and admitted later on.
1 MR. ZECEVIC: We strongly object, Your Honours. This is not
2 appropriate at all. This document, first, is not on the 65 ter list.
3 Now they are seeking to readmit it at the redirect, during the redirect.
4 Of course we should have had that document before and we would have used
5 it if it was on the 65 ter list, for example, because I don't know what
6 is the document. We might have used it in our cross-examination.
7 MR. DOBBYN: Your Honours, if I could just add, it's been
8 disclosed. It was originally on the --
9 MR. ZECEVIC: But I am sorry, that is not the point.
10 MR. DOBBYN: Well, if I could just finish what I'm saying perhaps
11 and then I'll be happy to listen to your response. It's footnoted in
12 Ms. Hanson's report. It goes directly to the point which my learned
13 colleague cross-examined her on. It's in her report. She was asked
14 about this very topic, so I can only assume that they must have looked at
15 this document themselves at some point before opening up this line of
16 questioning with Ms. Hanson.
17 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, the ruling of this Trial Chamber is
18 that only the documents which are on the 65 ter list which are the part
19 of the -- of the expert report are admitted, therefore, we are put on
20 notice that only the 65 ter documents which are noted in the expert
21 report are to admitted in this case. Therefore, if it's not on the
22 65 ter list, it doesn't exist for us. It's not -- it is not -- it is
23 not -- it is not a potential exhibit. If we use it, that's a different
24 story. It is disclosed to us. I assume it's disclosed to us. But I
25 think it's completely inappropriate that in the redirect the Prosecution
1 seeks to amend the 65 ter list and admit another document. Then we will
2 be -- we would need to be given time to assess that document and
3 cross-examine the witness on the basis of that document. That's my
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, can I, as it were, take over again,
7 with respect. If the logic of this was followed through -- Your Honours,
8 can I just say something?
9 MR. ZECEVIC: I need to object now. Your Honours, it is
10 Ms. Korner who insisted that there should be only one counsel speaking on
11 behalf of the party during a certain witness's presentation.
12 MS. KORNER: Yes, Your Honours, but this is outside. This is a
13 matter of principle relating to documents which, of course, is an issue
14 that concerns both sides and the whole case.
15 Your Honours, the logic of what Mr. Zecevic is as follows: The
16 Defence having seen that there is a document in a footnote not on our
17 65 ter list because we haven't seen the relevance because an issue has
18 not been made clear, and the Defence knowing that that document is not in
19 favour of the argument that they are going to advance to the witness,
20 would be able, in the sure and certain knowledge if Mr. Zecevic's
21 argument is right, that because it wasn't on our 65 ter list because the
22 issue had not been made plain, to cross-examine knowing that if the, as I
23 say, the logic is followed, we would never be able to put in that
24 document in re-examination. And that cannot be right. And what the
25 suggestion here is that the witness should be shown the document,
1 Your Honours should see the document, and then MFI it because it's not on
2 our 65 ter list, although I would hope the relevance is then obvious, we
3 would obviously add it to the list of documents that we would formally
4 apply to put in.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE HALL
7 gainsaying [Realtime transcript read in error "again saying"] the
8 principle which has been previously enunciated and repeated that this
9 particular report may be exhibited by the Prosecution at this stage
10 subject to the right of the Defence if they wish to further cross-examine
11 on it now that it is an exhibit, an event which was not anticipated by
12 them having regard to where the -- where they were at the time the
13 cross-examination began.
14 JUDGE HARHOFF: The implications of this is that we think that
15 the subject which apparently the document deals with, which, I don't know
16 what the document is, I haven't seen it, but this subject apparently is
17 this dual relation between a Crisis Staff and a War Staff. And if I'm
18 right in assuming that the document actually helps clarify this issue,
19 then I must say that the Chamber is inclined to -- then I must say that
20 the Chamber is inclined to allow the document to be shown because --
21 simply because this issue is really an important issue that comes out of
22 this witness's testimony. So we need to have the issue clarified and,
23 for that purpose, we would like to see the document. But then in
24 allowing the Prosecution to show it even though it was not on the 65 ter
25 list, then in order to make sure that the Defence is not prejudiced by
1 this, we would allow the Defence to take up that issue subsequently.
2 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, if I may just --
3 JUDGE HALL
4 indicate that at pages 22 and 23 of page 47 -- 48, lines 22 and 23, the
5 transcript records me as saying "without again saying." What I did say
6 was "gainsaying," one word, g-a-i-n-s-a-y-i-n-g. Without gainsaying the
8 Yes, Mr. Zecevic.
9 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, I just want to put on the record, it
10 is the principle, as I understand, according to the rules and the
11 procedure and the jurisdiction of this court, that the Prosecution must
12 know its case before it starts. That's number 1. Now, if -- I, there is
13 nothing else what I can do since Your Honours have decided as you have
14 decided, but what I would suggest is that my learned friend moves on into
15 another area and then returns to this particular document by first giving
16 me an exact reference in my cross-examination where did I mention
17 anything remotely to this particular document, and giving me the
18 opportunity during the break to review the document. That is what I
19 would suggest as a practical matter. Thank you very much.
20 JUDGE HALL
21 needs to be made, is that we have tried to be deliberately careful and
22 economical in our use of language in admitting this document because we
23 don't want to appear to compromise the principle to which you have
25 MR. ZECEVIC: I understand, Your Honours.
1 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I don't want to go on arguing this, but
2 the point is this: We have always made our position clear. We have
3 said it doesn't matter. It's in our pre-trial brief and it was my
4 opening. It doesn't matter what this body calls itself, whether
5 War Staff or Crisis Staff, it's one and the same thing. The first
6 indication we've had that this is not accepted is through the
7 cross-examination of Mr. Zecevic. Had the pre-trial briefs by the
8 Defence set up chapter and verse as did Your Honour Judge Harhoff invite
9 them to do, this is a real issue, then we would have known. And we
10 cannot be penalised in the way that Mr. Zecevic would like us to be
11 penalised because we have no indication that this an issue. And that is
12 the point that I wish to make. I have no objection to what Mr. Zecevic
13 wants more time, but that is, I think, the issue of principle in this
15 JUDGE HARHOFF: We have ruled and let's take a break now.
16 JUDGE DELVOIE: Let's perhaps first see what the exhibit number.
18 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
19 MR. DOBBYN: Your Honours, I just --
20 JUDGE HARHOFF: [Microphone not activated].
21 MR. DOBBYN: No, it's not -- 65 ter 1850. I just want to make it
22 clear there has been one point which perhaps has been misunderstood a
23 little. This document is not about the relationship between Crisis
24 Staffs and War Staffs. What this document relates to is the authority or
25 the influence of the SDS
1 transformation from SDS
2 was an issue that was raised in cross-examination. So it's a little
3 different from perhaps what you may have got the understanding to be from
4 something I'd said earlier.
5 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, I'm speechless, Your Honours.
6 JUDGE HARHOFF: Let's have a look at it during the break and see
7 what comes out of it.
8 [The witness stands down]
9 --- Recess taken at 11.59 a.m.
10 --- On resuming at 12.27 p.m.
11 JUDGE HALL
12 wherever we are, in terms of whichever witness is on the stand, at 1.30
13 we intend to excuse the witness at that point so that a number of
14 administrative matters with which we have to deal we can deal with in the
15 remaining 15 minutes and take the adjournment at the prescribed time of
17 MR. DOBBYN: Your Honours, while we are waiting for the witness,
18 I just thought I should take this opportunity to apologise for a slip of
19 the tongue which obviously caused some confusion. I went back over the
20 transcript and directed the witness to the fact that we'd be moving on to
21 an issue concerning the separation between SDS Crisis Staffs and
22 Municipal Crisis Staffs. Then the very next stage when I asked Your
23 Honours for permission to use this document, in the slip of the tongue I
24 referred to the two separate organs as being Crisis Staffs and War
25 Staffs. So I can understand now where the confusion came from and I do
1 apologise for that.
2 JUDGE HALL
3 heard you correctly, we were prepared to recall the ruling that we had
4 made allowing you to proceed as you had asked. So we are back on track.
6 [The witness takes the stand]
7 MR. DOBBYN: Thank you, Your Honours. And could we call up
8 65 ter 1850, please.
9 Q. Ms. Hanson, while we are waiting for the document to come up you
10 recall that I had turned to a series of questions that you had been asked
11 about the apparent difference between SDS Crisis Staffs and
12 Municipal Crisis Staffs, and whether the SDS had any influence over
13 Municipal Crisis Staffs. Do you recall that?
14 A. Yes, I do.
15 Q. Now, if you look at the document in front of you, you'll see that
16 it's from the SDS
17 appears to have been sent to various regional Crisis Staffs. Now in the
18 light of the issues that we've just been discussing, can you review this
19 document. First of all, have you seen this document before?
20 A. Yes, I've seen it and I refer to it more than once in my report,
21 I believe.
22 Q. And in relation to the issues we've just been discussing, can you
23 tell us how, if at all, this relates to authority of SDS, the SDS party
24 over Municipal Crisis Staffs?
25 A. Well, we see that it's the SDS instructing the presidents of
1 regional Crisis Staffs to implement the Presidency decision of 31 May on
2 abolishing Crisis Staffs and setting up War Presidencies. Interestingly
3 enough, in the first paragraph, he -- the author confuses War
4 Presidencies and war commissions, even, but he is clearly, by the date,
5 referring to the decision on War Presidencies. I also note in the first
6 sentence that he refers explicitly to Djeric's instructions of
7 26 April 1992
8 but were regarded, by the SDS
9 framework for the structure and method of work of Crisis Staffs.
10 So it's not purely a municipal matter; it's not purely a state
11 matter; it's the SDS
12 are helping the implementation of a Presidency decision.
13 Q. Thank you.
14 MR. DOBBYN: Your Honours, and could this document be marked for
15 identification at this time.
16 JUDGE HALL
17 MR. DOBBYN: Oh, thank you, Your Honours.
18 JUDGE HALL
19 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P452, Your Honours.
20 MR. DOBBYN: Next I'd like to call up document 65 ter 637.
21 Q. Ms. Hanson, still discussing the same issue, you'll see that this
22 document is from the Sanski Most Crisis Staff, dated 19 June 1992. Can
23 you tell us if this has any relevance to the issue of SDS authority over
24 Municipal Crisis Staffs?
25 A. To my mind, it indicates the close relationship between the SDS
1 and Municipal Crisis Staffs. This document is from the Crisis Staff of
2 the Serb municipality of Sanski Most but it says that the subcommittees
3 of the SDS
4 MR. DOBBYN: Your Honours, I'd seek to tender this document at
5 this time.
6 JUDGE HALL
7 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P453, Your Honours.
8 MR. DOBBYN: I'd like to go back to a document actually that we
9 looked at earlier today, if we could call up Exhibit P186.
10 Q. Now, Ms. Hanson, you were shown this exhibit during
11 cross-examination, and on a couple of occasions yesterday, you tried to
12 explain the context of this document and whether it shows that the
13 26 April instructions were ever withdrawn but you weren't able to do so.
14 So I'd invite you now, if you could explain the context behind this
15 document and how you assert that it was not withdrawn?
16 A. One of the versions found in the government archives is in the
17 Latin script with a few typographical errors, and I note that this
18 document withdrawing the instruction says:
19 "An unfinished text had been delivered to you by mistake."
20 The version that we've seen both in government archives and found
21 in the field is a Cyrillic document, so one possible interpretation of
22 this, given the documents found, is that the Latin text with the
23 typographical errors was withdrawn and a different text sent out.
24 Moreover, there is so much evidence that the text as we know it
25 was received and implemented that I cannot regard this as outweighing the
1 variety of evidence I found showing -- including the document we just saw
2 previous to this, indicating that those instructions were considered to
3 be still binding.
4 MR. DOBBYN: And I would refer Your Honours and counsel to
5 footnote 47 of Ms. Hanson's report in that respect.
6 Q. Yesterday you were also asked about the formation of war
7 commissions, and referring to paragraph 44 of your report, you were asked
8 by Mr. Pantelic if you agreed that the only logical explanation for the
9 formation of war commissions was that no one had been able to establish
10 any control over Crisis Staffs at the local level. You said you did not
11 agree with this assertion. Could you expand on that, please?
12 A. I do not see the issue as Crisis Staffs were running wild and the
13 government was -- or the republican level was trying to get control over
14 them. I see Crisis Staffs as having been formed on the initiative with
15 the instructions of the republican level and receiving instructions,
16 orders from, communicating with the republican level.
17 So I see these steps that I -- the various decisions in May 1992
18 not as an establishment of control, but more as part of the process of
19 formalising the organs that had previously been SDS organs into state
20 organs of the Republika Srpska.
21 Q. Thank you.
22 MR. PANTELIC: I do apologise. I don't have objection to this
23 particular question, but in terms of clarity, frankly, I didn't -- I
24 believe I didn't pose this question to witness. Maybe I'm wrong. Sorry.
25 MR. DOBBYN: It may be my mistake, Mr. Pantelic, and if so, I do
1 apologise. It may have been, yes, Mr. Zecevic. Sorry about that.
2 Q. Finally, it was -- not finally, but it was put to you yesterday
3 that, in 1991, before the Variant A and B instructions were sent out,
4 there were over 900 Crisis Staffs in Bosnia-Herzegovina. And you said
5 that these Crisis Staffs are not the same as the Crisis Staffs which are
6 the subject of your report. Do you recall that?
7 A. Yes, I do.
8 Q. Can you explain what these 900 or so Crisis Staffs were? Do you
9 know anything about them?
10 A. I don't know, as I say, the 900. I've been shown a few documents
11 of a Presidency Crisis Staff, HDZ Crisis Staff mentioned, there was
12 mention of a police -- a MUP Crisis Staff. What I have heard from
13 witnesses but not seen in any documents is that "Crisis Staff" was a
14 known term that could be used even [indiscernible] by government organs
15 within an enterprise, within a company or something even to deal with a
16 crisis situation. So my focus is on the municipal organs of the Bosnian
17 Serb state and how they arose from the Crisis Staffs formed within the
19 Crisis Staffs.
20 Q. Thank you. Today you were asked about Article 12 of the Law on
21 National Defence and basically whether this was the basis for the
22 formation of Crisis Staffs. You responded that your understanding was
23 that it doesn't mention Crisis Staffs. Do you recall that?
24 A. Yes, I do.
25 MR. DOBBYN: Your Honours, I wonder at this time if we can call
1 this document up; it's 65 ter 8000. Simply it wasn't actually shown at
2 the time and so I would like to see exactly what is said in that article.
3 MR. ZECEVIC: Is this one on 65 ter list?
4 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated].
5 MR. ZECEVIC: Okay. Thank you.
6 MR. PANTELIC: To be frank with you, I got this particular
7 article but we didn't find it during cross-examination, so I agree
8 absolutely to show to the witness specifically the last portion of this
9 article. Thank you.
10 MR. DOBBYN: Sorry, what we are looking for is Article 12 of that
11 document. And I just want to make it clear this is the February 1992
12 law, because I believe there's a later one.
13 Q. Ms. Hanson, looking at Article 12, is there any mention of
14 Crisis Staffs in there?
15 A. No.
16 MR. PANTELIC: Again, I do apologise. Could we have also the
17 rest of the article, the other part of Article 12 in B/C/S, because
18 it's --
19 MR. DOBBYN: Certainly.
20 MR. PANTELIC: Yeah, thank you.
21 MR. DOBBYN:
22 Q. And do you see any mention of Crisis Staffs in that portion of
23 Article 12, Ms. Hanson?
24 A. No, I do not.
25 Q. Thank you. Now, I'm on to my last few questions. Earlier on
1 this morning you were asked -- well, it was actually put to you that
2 there were two bodies existing at one time in the ARK; a Crisis Staff and
3 a War Staff. Ms. Hanson, in the course of your research, have you seen
4 any document showing that there were these two separate bodies existing
5 at one time?
6 A. No, I have not.
7 Q. Thank you for your time, Ms. Hanson.
8 MR. DOBBYN: I have no further question, Your Honours.
9 JUDGE HALL
10 cross-examine on -- re-cross-examine in respect of the -- those companion
11 documents which were exceptionally exhibited during re-examination?
12 MR. ZECEVIC: No, Your Honour. Thank you very much.
13 JUDGE HALL
14 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour, with your permission, if this
15 particular article is applied to this document, if I understand?
16 Article 12 that we just seen? No.
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: It was document 1850.
18 Questioned by the Court:
19 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mrs. Hanson, if I could just take you back to
20 your testimony just a little while ago where you said that, in your view,
21 and let me quote you, you did not see the issue as Crisis Staffs were
22 "running wild and that the government was trying to get control over
23 them." So my question would be: If it wasn't a matter of getting
24 control over the Crisis Staffs, then why were they abolished?
25 A. The Bosnian Serb state was in the process of formalising its
1 structures and passing -- we see passing provisions such as for a
2 municipal War Presidency that didn't exist before. And because, as I
3 see -- I see no legislative basis for Crisis Staffs, so they create --
4 using the previous model of a collective municipal Presidency, they
5 introduce that into the constitution which was not part of the RS
6 constitution until the 2nd of June, 1992. So I see it more of a process
7 of regularising institutions that have been set up by the party,
8 generally secretly, separating from the existing constitutional framework
9 of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, creating their own parallel state
10 and then creating the normative documents to match the situation on the
12 JUDGE HARHOFF: So, in your view, it was merely a cosmetic change
13 that was established in order to give them another name but otherwise to
14 allow them as to perform as business as usual with the Crisis Staffs?
15 A. No, I would not say merely cosmetic. I think there was an
16 element of getting the house in order. Similar as we see the creation of
17 the VRS and the establishment of a command structure there and the
18 police, we see asserting more authority of the ministry at this time, say
19 June/July 1992.
20 I think that Crisis Staffs were set up on the initiative of the
21 party, given a broad mandate to take power. In the take-over of power,
22 they were allowed to use considerable initiative on their own, and once
23 they had established power on the ground, then the Serbian state could be
24 effectively created. And certainly we do see that there's some instances
25 where the state structures felt individual Crisis Staff presidents had
1 gone -- too far gone beyond their mandate and the rule of law should be
2 asserted over them, but I see that as a factor of a product of them
3 having been given their head early on. Given a task, take your
4 initiative, go out and get this done, was what we see in the March
5 Assembly sections. Wait for our instructions, you'll get instructions
6 and then you guys on the ground do it. Once it's been done and the
7 territory is being held and made part of the Bosnian Serb state, then we
8 see the formal structures being regularised.
9 So it's not merely cosmetic but it's not that the Crisis Staffs
10 were spontaneously formed on the ground and had no relation to the higher
11 structures which were the structures that were themselves in the process
12 of changing from party organs to state organs.
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: Can you explain why apparently it was so
14 important for the Bosnian Serb leadership to ensure that the
15 Crisis Staffs were actually abolished and replaced by War Staffs or war
16 commissions? I don't know which term to use now.
17 A. The term "War Staff" I haven't seen enough that I don't use it in
18 my report. Occasionally it's crept in but it could also be refer to more
19 strictly military things, such as the staff of the TO at the time could
20 be called a War Staff. So I'm reluctant to use that term much. I don't
21 think it was all that important because we see some organs calling
22 themselves Crisis Staffs until July. I think that it was not seen as a
23 practical difference. I see the -- Rajlovac saying, Well, we had a
24 War Presidency, then a war commission, and in the War Presidency the
25 tasks were the same. We see the confusion even in that document from
1 Trifko Komad, that within two -- between two paragraphs he confuses
2 commissions and presidencies.
3 I think it was generally understood that they were the same
4 organs and I think that there was an attempt that Crisis Staffs didn't --
5 the sound of the word "Crisis Staff" didn't coincide or didn't agree with
6 their desire to have a functioning state. If we have established power,
7 we've moved beyond a crisis and now we just need a collective Presidency.
8 But the fact that we see the terms used practically interchangeably and I
9 don't see a very strong dissatisfaction in the top levels that they are
10 still calling them Crisis Staffs -- calling themselves Crisis Staffs, I
11 don't know how much it mattered. I do see I think in July in the
12 government minutes somebody reporting that people on the ground are
13 confused about these terms, but I don't see a government response of, By
14 God, they've got to stop calling them Crisis Staffs. It's more, For ease
15 of understanding, let's all settle on one term.
16 Why the Presidency decision on war commissions of 10 June
17 abolishes both Crisis Staffs and overturns the earlier decision on War
18 Presidencies, I don't understand because I see so few war commissions
19 functioning subsequent to those instructions. And where I do see them
20 functioning, they look exactly like the War Presidencies. And in the
21 Ilidza document, for example, that I mentioned, from January 1993, they
22 use the term apparently interchangeably or inconsistently. So I can't
23 explain that one terribly well, I am afraid.
24 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thanks. Now, let's go back to the more
25 substantive powers that were held by the Crisis Staffs. You told us that
1 the Crisis Staffs began to pop up throughout the municipalities sometime
2 very early in 1992 or perhaps even late 1991, and that certainly by
3 April 1992, they were fully functioning almost everywhere. And you also
4 told us that there were duplicates which was -- which the Defence
5 reminded us of, duplicate in the sense that also the Muslim and the Croat
6 communities set up their own Crisis Staffs.
7 My question to you or the line of questions that I wish to put to
8 you has to do with the functions of the Serbian Crisis Staffs in relation
9 to the armed forces in the area. So I want you to describe to us just
10 how did the Crisis Staffs perform their leadership or control over the
11 various armed forces that were present in each municipality. We are
12 speaking about, first of all, of course, the army, the JNA, and then
13 there might be special units associated with the army, then you have the
14 paramilitary formations, and then, of course, you have the police. How,
15 if you can -- how, if you can describe this to us, how did the Crisis
16 Staffs actually coordinate this? How did they exercise their functions?
17 A. As I say, this question is the one that has -- that lacks a
18 consistent pattern, the question of the extent of the Crisis Staff
19 control over the various armed forces. One factor was if there was a JNA
20 unit in the municipality, and if so, what its relation to the SDS and the
21 plans of the Bosnian Serbs. We see in the Prijedor example that Colonel
22 Zeljaja is later even boasting about how he was advising the SDS and
23 encouraging them and telling them how best to take over. We see that in
24 the radio broadcast as well. In other places, as Karadzic indicates in
25 his speech from April 1995, in some places the SDS had to hide their
1 plans from the JNA, if the commander, he said, was Uso or Huso, Muslim
3 THE INTERPRETER: Kindly slow down for the sake of the record and
4 the interpreters, please. Thank you.
5 THE WITNESS: My apologies. In Karadzic's speech he said that:
6 "Sometimes we had to form our armies in secret where the JNA
7 commander was a Huso or a Uso," meaning a Muslim name.
8 Where there was a standing JNA unit station in the municipality,
9 I see much less control by the Crisis Staff. Although we see, for
10 example, in Zvornik that the commander of the JNA staff is supposed to be
11 a member of the Crisis Staff. Where in some places the SDS set up its
12 own armed units calling them a Serbian TO, again the relation with the TO
13 would depend on who was in charge of the municipal TO. If it was a
14 non-Serb majority municipality, the head of the TO might well be a Muslim
15 or a Croat, in which case the SDS
16 units. Another source was the reserve police force, we see A and B
17 instructing the Crisis Staffs to act -- mobilise the reserve police
18 forces from the ranks of Serbs.
19 These, the leaders of these various armed forces were part of the
20 Crisis Staff. They were included within the Crisis Staff. We see the
21 commander of the TO. The head of the police, the commander of the
22 largest army unit or the principal army unit being part of the
23 Crisis Staff. The Crisis Staff brought these various forces together
24 with the common goal of establishing Serbian power in the territory.
25 What I've seen is how they work is they receive reports on the
1 battle-field and general conditions, security conditions from the police
2 commander, the TO commander, the army commander, if there is one, or a
3 representative. By June or July we see rather than the army commander, a
4 representative, which I take to mean -- be an assertion of the VRS as
5 having its own effective command structure now and they will consult with
6 the Crisis Staff but have their own structure. Then decisions are taken
7 collectively on how best to proceed, to defend the territory, to take
8 more territory, to establish Serbian power. And from the discussions, it
9 can vary the extent of the, say, the president's ability of the Crisis
10 Staff to actually order in some places. I know, for example, in
11 Bratunac, the head of the Crisis Staff called himself commander of the TO
12 and said he ordered an attack. In other cases, it would be more
13 collectively, Well, we ought to take this area, or we ought to defend and
14 therefore, okay, the TO will have that tasking. And then the commander
15 of the TO will go back to his unit and implement that decision.
16 But I see it as collective decision-making with a common purpose,
17 and who is issuing specific orders and how they will be implemented
18 differs so much from municipality to municipality that I'd have to look
19 at each one on a basis. In some places we see very clear orders from the
20 Crisis Staff to specific units. In other cases we see simply
21 consultation. In Bosanska Krupa, we can see the change quite clearly
22 because in April we have an order from the Crisis Staff. In May it's a
23 recommendation to the army, and I think that indicates the evolution, the
24 change from direct command to simply a recommendation and a collective
1 The army itself in its review of the history of the VRS notes
2 that some -- that Crisis Staffs form their own infantry brigades and
3 commanded them in the early days.
4 Paramilitaries can be more difficult, simply that they are
5 difficult to define exactly what one person might term a paramilitary,
6 another might say, Well, it's our reserve police force or our Serbian TO,
7 or it's something calling itself a TO group come from another
8 municipality. We see that in Zvornik, for example. So I'd really have
9 to say that has go on a case-by-case basis. I note the -- in the report
10 from Bosanska Krupa, that they say, We had to -- we worked on integrating
11 our TO into the JNA so that we would not be regarded as paramilitaries.
12 It's clear from that report they secretly armed the Serbs, formed their
13 own secret Serbian TO, then sought to integrate it in consultation with
14 the JNA unit in the next municipality so that we would not -- so that
15 they would not appear to be paramilitaries.
16 JUDGE HARHOFF: And the police?
17 A. Similarly, the police commander was part of the TO. We see many,
18 many examples of orders from the Crisis Staff to the police to carry out
19 various tasks. So I think again it was agreed that the commander of the
20 police usually would brief, report to the Crisis Staff at every session,
21 tasks would be decided collectively and then either the commander would
22 simply take those tasks back or there would be a written order to the
24 JUDGE HARHOFF: Does that include reserve forces as well? Police
1 A. I do not at the moment recall seeing anything explicit making a
2 distinction between police active -- a Crisis Staff order to reserve
3 forces as opposed to active forces. I see the mobilisation. I'm sorry,
4 I'd have to look at my documents. It doesn't strike me as a distinction
5 that I've seen.
6 MR. DOBBYN: Excuse me, Your Honour, sorry to interrupt. I just
7 wonder, looking at line 22, Ms. Hanson, according to the transcript,
8 said: "Similarly the police commander was part of the TO." I just
9 wondering if that was what was said or what was meant.
10 THE WITNESS: It certainly wasn't what I meant. I meant Crisis
11 Staff. I don't know if what I said ...
12 JUDGE HARHOFF: I understood as much. Would the Crisis Staff be
13 the appropriate body locally to resubordinate, say, police units to the
14 armed forces or the purpose of a concrete military action or operation?
15 A. It could be. I could see it happening that because you'd have
16 both the commander of the police and the commander of the armed forces at
17 the Crisis Staff meeting that the issue would be raised. We need more
18 forces for this action, okay, let's subordinate the police. I can't
19 speak to the exact procedure that would be required. From what I see, as
20 they were in the process of setting up their own state and their own
21 municipality, they didn't always follow or didn't even have a letter of a
22 law to follow.
23 We see, for example, in Kotor Varos they take a more distant --
24 the Crisis Staff takes a more distant approach, saying, We are not going
25 interfere with how you do it, but you, both the armed forces and the
1 police, are responsible for security in the municipality. So it could
2 well happen through the Crisis Staff, but it could be that in a place
3 like Kotor Varos, which seemed to be take keeping a distance, it might
4 not, but they certainly received reports from both the TO and police in
5 Kotor Varos.
6 JUDGE HARHOFF: We will move to the regional level in just a
7 little instant, but before we leave the local level, my last question in
8 relation to this is whether the Crisis Staff would also exercise some
9 control over the judiciary that was existing in the municipality. Do you
11 A. Yes, very much so. It dismissed a lot of members due to
12 officials of the local Prosecutor's Office or courts and named -- almost
13 invariably these were non-Serbs, and named new officers, almost
14 invariably Serbs. I know in Krupa, for example, the Crisis Staff set up
15 a wartime court. We also saw that in Sanski Most. In many places they
16 are setting up specific war time courts. They are dismissing the
17 existing judicial officials and appointing their own.
18 JUDGE HARHOFF: Are you aware of any determination made by one or
19 more Crisis Staffs about the direction of investigations against war
20 crimes committed within the area -- within the local area? Do you
21 understand my questions?
22 A. I do. Only war crimes committed against Serbs. I have not seen
23 a Crisis Staff ordering an investigation of the treatment of non-Serbs.
24 I do see them receiving Plavsic's instructions about documenting war
25 crimes committed against Serbs and mention of that, although, that's -- I
1 don't recall it being a -- seeing much about that and it may be that it
2 wasn't -- it was not something that I was looking at in particular. But
3 I certainly did not see the Crisis Staffs ordering investigations into
4 crimes against non-Serbs.
5 JUDGE HARHOFF: Are you saying -- I wish to understand your
6 answer correctly. Are you saying that you have not come across any
7 example of a Crisis Staff ordering investigations and prosecutions
8 against crimes committed by Serbs, war crimes? Is that what you are
10 A. Yes.
11 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you. Now let's move to the regional level
12 because you have given us now your picture of how it worked on the
13 ground, and my question would then be, well, how did all of this relate
14 to the vertical co-ordination with the regional Crisis Staffs above the
15 level of the local Crisis Staff?
16 A. As I say, the picture, the documentary evidence is so unbalanced
17 that I'm reluctant to draw any conclusions. We can see what was going on
18 in ARK. We can see the close connections to -- between the Municipal
19 Crisis Staffs and the ARK Crisis Staff and the ARK's then connection to
20 the republican level. I think it was a Sanski Most document where we see
21 that for certain problems they say, We'll consult with the ARK and, if
22 necessary, the republican level. But clearly ARK is their first stop.
23 We see ARK
24 telling the municipalities to carry it out.
25 I don't have anything like that kind of documentary evidence from
1 the other regions, and from the general -- my general understanding of
2 the events of the war, the other regions were simply not -- the other
3 regional organs were simply not as robust, didn't meet as often, didn't
4 have as much to say, and the documentary evidence is so poor that I can't
5 say how they operated. We see that they are there, we certainly see them
6 seeing themselves part of the state, part of the state system, following
7 the line of the SDS
8 that we see from the ARK
9 JUDGE HARHOFF: You have made yourself very clear about this in
10 your earlier testimony. Can I just clarify whether this -- these
11 observations also apply to the period after, say, July/August 1992, when
12 the war commissions were taking over?
13 A. By the late summer of 1992, I believe, the regions were in the
14 process of being abolished, although I'm not quite sure of the exact
15 dates, and again, I don't see war commissions taking over. War
16 commissions, according to the decision of 10 June, were intended to get
17 the municipal organs, particularly the Municipal Assembly running. So if
18 a Municipal Assembly could meet, it would take over.
19 Although in many places, it couldn't meet or didn't meet until
20 August or sometime even in the fall. They preferred to have a small
21 collective body running the municipality instead. Where I do see war
22 commissions operating, they look exactly like a War Presidency. And as
23 we see in Ilidza changed -- or Rajlovac changed their names without
24 changing their structure or function. So although the document
25 indicates -- the 10 June decision would indicate that war commissions
1 should take over everywhere, we don't see commissioners appointed or war
2 commissions appointed everywhere. And as I said, it's -- I can't explain
3 the difference between the stipulations of the 10 June decision that the
4 decision on War Presidencies is superseded because we see them all three
5 bodies existing in June and July.
6 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you. My last question is if you are aware
7 of any example either on the local level or on the region level of
8 co-operation between the Serbian Crisis Staffs and the Muslim and the
9 Croat Crisis Staffs? Did you ever come across any degree, any examples
10 of --
11 A. No, co-operation --
12 JUDGE HARHOFF: Incidents where they were able -- where they were
13 able to actually meet up and regulate local matters or any attempt to
14 have such co-ordination?
15 A. No, I saw no attempt at co-ordination or co-operation like that.
16 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, Madam Hanson.
17 JUDGE HALL
18 MR. PANTELIC: I do apologise, Your Honour. I think during
19 the -- this part of examination on the question of Honourable Judge
20 Harhoff, certain issues arise so we could have a right for clarification
21 for additional cross-examination.
22 JUDGE HALL
23 MR. PANTELIC: Which honestly, Your Honours, having in mind the
24 topics and the, I would say, one huge flow of information that we just
25 seen from Mrs. Hanson in the end of her testimony, I kindly ask you
1 because I need to review and to classify -- to make certain systemisation
2 of parts of her answer, so I kindly ask you for a time that I can proceed
3 with this re-cross on Monday session, because this is a really huge area
4 that she actually now covered.
5 JUDGE HALL
6 MR. ZECEVIC: I do not wish to re-cross Ms. Hanson.
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE HALL
9 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE HALL
11 proceeding may be - especially having regard to the fact that Ms. Hanson
12 is resident within the Tribunal - to coordinate some point at which it
13 would be convenient to -- for you to exercise your right for further
14 cross-examination, rather than fixing it for Monday, because that might
15 throw a spanner in the works of the Prosecution's plans.
16 MR. PANTELIC: Absolutely, thank you, Your Honour. I do
17 appreciate your position. Thank you.
18 JUDGE HARHOFF: Maybe we should ask if Mr. Dobbyn has any
19 questions that he wishes to put to the witness in light of the questions
20 by the Chamber.
21 MR. DOBBYN: I don't have any questions, Your Honour. The only
22 issue is that if Ms. Hanson was to be called later, we would ask that in
23 the meantime she be allowed to communicate with the Prosecution
24 particularly with the Karadzic team for who she is also an expert.
25 MR. PANTELIC: The Defence has no objections at all. Thank you.
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: That would actually allow us to benefit from
2 Ms. Hanson's testimony if we have sort of an empty spot at some point
3 that we could fill out.
4 JUDGE HALL
5 being ready first thing on Monday morning so that if -- even if it
6 involves interrupting the witness then on the stand, then we can get her
7 out of the way?
8 MR. PANTELIC: By all means, Your Honour, I'm absolutely ready
9 for Monday morning. To be honest with you, Your Honour, I do apologise,
10 I would be ready even today but I lost my reading glasses so I cannot
11 follow. Thank you so much.
12 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Pantelic, how much time do you think you
13 would need?
14 MR. PANTELIC: Not more than 10 minutes.
15 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
16 MR. PANTELIC: Well, 15 maximum, but 10 minutes, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE HALL
18 excused but we ask you to return to this courtroom for 9.00 Monday
20 THE WITNESS: And I'm still under oath, therefore not --
21 JUDGE HALL
23 THE WITNESS: All right. Thank you.
24 JUDGE HALL
25 [The witness stands down]
1 JUDGE HALL
2 MR. HANNIS: Yes, Your Honours, the next witness is
3 Christian Nielsen. However, given your indication that you wanted to
4 deal some procedural matters at 1.30, I would ask that we delay starting
5 him until Monday. A couple of reasons. One is because of in light of an
6 answer Ms. Hanson gave to a question from Judge Harhoff about the Crisis
7 Staff perhaps subordinating police to the army is something that I would
8 like to discuss before he comes on. It's not something that has occurred
9 to me before until I've heard that, and I don't know what else may have
10 arisen with her that it would be beneficial for me to raise them.
11 THE INTERPRETER: Would the counsel please slow down.
12 MR. HANNIS: In addition -- I'm sorry. In addition, yesterday, I
13 know at the end of the day, Judge Harhoff suggested or asked that the
14 parties get together to give the Chambers a heads-up on the content of
15 his record, and I assume that you meant something by what you had
16 requested from Mr. Dobbyn and Mr. Zecevic at the beginning of
17 Ms. Hanson's testimony. We've had some conversations. I think it would
18 be easier to talk about one or two things we agree on than what we
19 disagree on, if that's fair, Mr. Zecevic.
20 JUDGE HARHOFF: The purpose of the requests made by the Chamber
21 is limited to the expert witnesses because the Chamber believes that when
22 we have to do with expert witnesses, then there is a report, and that it
23 is a huge advantage not only to the Chamber but also to the parties if
24 the parties would indicate their position on the main aspects of the
25 report, what in your view, Mr. Hannis, is the essential conclusions that
1 are made in Mr. Nielsen's report. And where -- and we put the similar
2 question to the Defence, and we would then ask the parties also to
3 indicate where do you disagree on the substance of the report because we
4 think that this will facilitate the examination-in-chief and the
5 cross-examination of these witnesses. So that's the task.
6 MR. HANNIS: Okay. Well, I would defer to Mr. Zecevic on where
7 we disagree.
8 JUDGE HARHOFF: But you will have plenty of time in the weekend
9 to --
10 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes, we would certainly appreciate more time to
11 discuss over the weekend.
12 JUDGE HARHOFF: I'm sure you have nothing better to do.
13 MR. ZECEVIC: That's right.
14 MR. HANNIS: And for fear of being impertinent, Your Honours, it
15 will be useful to me, instructive, it will give me good guidance if I
16 know if the Trial Bench has had an opportunity to read the report.
17 Because if you've already read the report, then there's certain things I
18 won't bother to try and bring to your attention.
19 JUDGE HARHOFF: No, no, we have read the report.
20 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, that's very helpful.
21 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
22 JUDGE HALL
23 would go into private session to deal with, but the first one is the --
24 and this relates to the -- this is relevant to the Prosecution's timing
25 as regards the witnesses who are expected to testify by videolink. The
1 Chamber has determined that although the court resumes on the
2 11th of January, that that week will be devoted, because counsel would
3 recall that there was an application in respect of the 14th of January to
4 accommodate the Christmas according to the Julian calendar, that the --
5 that week will not be used for sittings, but the Chamber will use that
6 time in order to dispose of certain outstanding matters, especially
7 adjudicated facts, so that the resumption of hearing would be on the
8 18th. And the -- my recollection is that the Prosecution had intended
9 that the videolink witnesses would follow in the second week of hearings.
10 So the question for the Prosecution to decide is whether they would
11 retain that second week, which would be the 18th, or whether they would
12 remain with that, and the Registry would require a -- to be -- a firm
13 decision on that before the winter recess begins next week.
14 MR. HANNIS: We can certainly do that, Your Honour. I think
15 we'll consult and notify witnesses and advise you early next week.
16 JUDGE HALL
17 could have by 4.00 p.m.
18 of -- notice of all the witnesses who the Prosecution intends to call
19 during the week of the 18th and 25th.
20 MR. HANNIS: We can certainly do that.
21 JUDGE HALL
22 yes, all the witnesses for the week of the 18th and 25th.
23 The second item is that yesterday the Trial Chamber issued a
24 ruling concerning a missing English translation of a 2003 statement of
25 ST-48. However, the transcript is unclear as to the manner in which the
1 translation is to be provided and it would be insufficient for the
2 Prosecution to put the translation in e-court. So to ensure a complete
3 record, the Prosecution is requested to file the translation by the
4 14th of December. Is there anything else before we move into private
6 JUDGE DELVOIE: I would kindly ask the parties to give us before
7 the start of the recess the -- not only the planning for the first week's
8 witnesses, but also the estimates of the time needed for the, let's say,
9 the next witnesses for two months or something like that. Thank you.
10 JUDGE HALL
11 Mr. Zecevic.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, Mr. Bajagic, who is our expert, would
13 need to be excused [Realtime transcript read in error "executioned"] if
14 we are going into the private session because --
15 JUDGE HALL
16 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honours. I saw that the transcript
17 was saying "executioned." I said "excused."
18 JUDGE HARHOFF: It is Friday afternoon, isn't it.
19 [Private session]
2 [Open session]
3 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
4 JUDGE HALL
5 this courtroom at 9.00. I trust everyone has a safe weekend.
6 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.30 p.m.
7 to be reconvened on Monday, the 14th day of
8 December, 2009, at 9.00 a.m.