Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 10394

 1                           Tuesday, 18 May 2010

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 10.17 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             Thank you, Your Honours.

 9             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

10             Good morning to everyone.  May we have the appearances, please.

11             MS. PIDWELL:  May it please Your Honours, Joanna Korner,

12     Belinda Pidwell and Crispian Smith for the Prosecution.

13             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.  For

14     the Defence team of Mr. Stanisic, Slobodan Cvijetic, Eugene O'Sullivan,

15     Deirdre Montgomery, and Ivana Batista.

16             MR. PANTELIC:  Good morning, Your Honours.  For Zupljanin

17     Defence, Igor Pantelic, Dragan Krgovic and Mr. Lennart Poulsen.  Thank

18     you.

19             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

20             Would the Usher please escort the witness back to the stand.

21             MR. PANTELIC:  Your Honours, I apologise for -- for this delay

22     because we were obliged to -- to go through these materials which were

23     more than 30 minutes, so we split our tasks, and we -- we -- we covered

24     everything.  Thank you for your indulgence.

25             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

Page 10395

 1             While the witness is on his way in, we propose to sit from -- in

 2     two 90-minute sessions which would take us up to the ordinary end of

 3     the -- the usual end of the morning sitting at 1.45; and, then, if

 4     necessary, we have the afternoon reserved as we would have previously

 5     notified.

 6             Mr. Traynor, good morning to you.  Before I invite Mr. Pantelic

 7     to begin his cross-examination, I remind you you're still on your oath.

 8             Yes, Mr. Pantelic.

 9                           WITNESS:  IAN TRAYNOR [Resumed]

10                           Cross-examination by Mr. Pantelic:

11             MR. PANTELIC:

12        Q.   Good morning, Mr. Traynor.  I'm Defence counsel Igor Pantelic for

13     Mr. Stojan Zupljanin.

14             Yesterday you testified about the contact, your personal contact

15     based on your interview with my client, Mr. Stojan Zupljanin, at the

16     premises of CSB police building in Banja Luka.  That's correct?

17        A.   Mm-hm.

18        Q.   And during that interview, the, I would say, issue or the case of

19     killings of non-Serbs at Vlasic mountain occurred and you discussed that

20     with Mr. Zupljanin, this -- this case.

21        A.   Correct.

22        Q.   Do you recall whether you -- during your stay in -- in CSB

23     premises, do you recall that you visited other premises like forensic

24     department or criminal investigation department of the Banja Luka police

25     with regard to the same issue, the ongoing investigation with that

Page 10396

 1     regard?

 2        A.   No.

 3        Q.   So you were only in the office of Mr. Zupljanin and you were

 4     discussing various issues; is that correct?

 5        A.   That's what I recall, yes.

 6        Q.   And we saw yesterday, I think it was the -- I don't know exact

 7     reference but it was, I think, the last video-clip showed to all of us by

 8     the Prosecution and a certain part, I think the author was Ms. Marshall,

 9     showing us the work of criminal investigation department and this portion

10     where Mr. Zupljanin showing certain photographs from the scene.  Did you

11     see this kind of evidence or materials during your conversation with

12     Mr. Zupljanin?

13        A.   I think the clip you're referring to was not the Marshall ITN

14     material.  I think it was the American ABC Nightline report, where they

15     reconstructing and drawing a map and stuff like that.  It wasn't on the

16     ITN.  I didn't visit any of those places that I recall, no.

17        Q.   And you were not shown the relevant photographs, relevant to that

18     case, during your interview with Mr. Zupljanin?

19        A.   Not that I recall.

20        Q.   I believe that you mentioned that -- during your testimony that

21     Mr. Zupljanin, during interview with you, gave you a figure of the

22     victims in Vlasic mountains, non-Serb victims, and I think you mentioned

23     40 or 50, something like that?

24        A.   I think we put the figure to him and he said that figure is not

25     right, and he mentioned a figure of around 50.

Page 10397

 1        Q.   And according to your sources and informations, figure was rather

 2     higher, like -- around 150 victims?

 3        A.   I recall being told by an international official in Banja Luka

 4     that he been told by the Banja Luka police department that the figure was

 5     188 and that they had confirmed that to him.

 6        Q.   So we could agree upon the fact that actually the particular

 7     investigation related to that massacre on Vlasic was ongoing at the time?

 8        A.   I can't say what the police were doing, I mean, that's what I was

 9     being told, yes.

10        Q.   Because in your previous answer you just mentioned that from

11     police sources, the person from international organisation confirmed that

12     the figure was around 188.

13        A.   That's just what I said, I think, yeah.

14        Q.   Well, certain documents speak from -- for themselves, but in

15     order to -- to have a clarity here, Mr. Traynor, I was made certain

16     consultations with client and he recalled that event, that he mentioned

17     that in accordance of his personal and official knowledge, the exact

18     number was around 100 -- more than 140 and that, to that extent, in this

19     previous stage of criminal proceedings, the investigation was -- was

20     launched.  Do you accept that?

21        A.   I'm not quite -- I don't quite understand actually.

22        Q.   Well, what I'm putting to you is that according to the

23     recollection of my client, during the interview with you he mentioned

24     that it was not 50 victims on Vlasic massacre but rather around 140, at

25     least.  Do you agree with me?

Page 10398

 1        A.   No.

 2             MR. PANTELIC:  Now, could we have Exhibit 2D35, please.

 3        Q.   Now, Mr. Traynor, on your screen you have Defence exhibit which

 4     is document, actually, form of criminal charges in accordance with the

 5     relevant law.  And these criminal charges are filed on the September --

 6     September 8, 1992.

 7             Do you see this document?

 8        A.   Yep.

 9             MR. PANTELIC:  Could we have another page.  Next page, please.

10        Q.   And, unfortunately, on English version we don't have a seal and a

11     name of the official in charge so we shall -- we are going to ask our

12     friends from translation unit to -- to make necessary translation here.

13     But on the left side, which is a B/C/S document, and you are, as you

14     said, more or less familiar with Serbian language, we see the signature

15     and we see name and family name and function of the person, and it is

16     Stojan Zupljanin, chief of centre.  Is that correct?

17        A.   Yeah.  That's what it looked like to me, yeah.

18             MR. PANTELIC:  Could we have previous page of this document,

19     please.

20        Q.   As we can see here, Mr. Traynor, the relevant parts of these

21     criminal charges are that there is a description of the events in first

22     paragraph, and then, in the third paragraph, you can see that -- it is

23     actually paragraph --

24             MR. PANTELIC:  Could we have this page scrolled up, please, just

25     a bit.  English version, yeah.

Page 10399

 1        Q.   So it's actually second paragraph from the bottom, where in

 2     accordance to the previous informations collected by the criminal

 3     investigation department, this is an allegation -- there are allegations

 4     that around 140 victims were found at Vlasic Mount.

 5             Do you see this part?

 6        A.   Yeah, yeah.

 7        Q.   So given the fact that these criminal charges were filed on

 8     8th of September, 1992, and you were speaking with Mr. Zupljanin at the

 9     end of September, are you now in situation to correct your statement with

10     regard to the number which was, according to you, disclosed during the

11     interview.  Because obviously Mr. Zupljanin, who signed these criminal

12     charges, was informed that at least 140 victims were there.

13        A.   In which case I ask myself why he didn't mention the figure 140

14     to us.  Because that's not what I recall.  And what's more, he did

15     confirm indeed that there was an investigation being carried out and it

16     was being hampered, and he was asking us, the reporters, the journalists

17     who were travelling in different parts of the country, if we could get in

18     contact with the "Ustashas" in -- on the other side of the line in

19     Travnik and get their assistance because they couldn't complete their

20     investigation.  I mean, that's what he told us.

21        Q.   In any case, Mr. Traynor, you were in the, more or less, same

22     situation many times during your stay in the region.  Sometimes it is a

23     matter of interpretation so maybe -- if you will allow that possibility

24     that it was just maybe simple mistake of interpretation or understanding

25     of this particular fact, which is a number.  Do you allow this

Page 10400

 1     possibility?

 2        A.   There's always a possibility, of course.

 3        Q.   Thank you.

 4             Next event that you mentioned in your testimony was -- yes.  It's

 5     page 11 of your --

 6             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Pantelic.

 7             MR. PANTELIC:  Yes, Your Honour.

 8             JUDGE DELVOIE:  I would like to have a clarification on that last

 9     question of yours.  You asked the witness to allow for the possibility

10     that it was just maybe a simple mistake.  What do you mean by a "simple

11     mistake"?  Made by the witness, by mishearing what Mr. Zupljanin said or

12     mistake made by Mr. Zupljanin citing the wrong figure?

13             MR. PANTELIC:  Your Honours, I already -- I -- I -- I put to this

14     witness the position of Mr. Zupljanin in my earlier questions.  My

15     particular questions was related to the possibility that -- where

16     interpretation was wrong and that -- that was the actually option that I

17     explore with this witness.

18             JUDGE DELVOIE:  So the interpretation on the part of the witness.

19             MR. PANTELIC:  Or translation --

20             JUDGE DELVOIE:  He misheard.

21             MR. PANTELIC:  To be precise, Your Honour, it is a translation --

22     it's a matter of translation from English to B/C/S, because this witness

23     was with -- obviously there with an interpreter, so simply as that, I

24     allow that possibility that it's a matter of translation.  Proper

25     translation from English to B/C/S and B/C/S to English.

Page 10401

 1             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Okay.  So then let me ask this precisely to the

 2     witness, do you allow for the possibility that Mr. Zupljanin said 140 and

 3     that you, how -- I -- that you understood 50.

 4             THE WITNESS:  My understanding of what's happening here is that

 5     Mr. Pantelic is suggesting that there was a translation error or a

 6     translation misunderstanding that -- that Mr. Zupljanin was talking about

 7     a figure of 140, which I wasn't given, and I was given a figure of around

 8     50.  I don't think -- I don't know whether he's inferring that I made the

 9     error.  I don't believe that I did.  It is always, of course, a

10     possibility that there was mistranslation and I -- and, you know, there

11     were mixed communications.

12             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you.

13             MR. PANTELIC:

14        Q.   Next topic, Mr. Traynor, which I would like to discuss with you

15     is related to Celinac incidents, I would say, and you are speaking about

16     this particular incident on page 11 of your -- of your statement dated

17     8th and 9th of March, 2000, year 2000.

18             Anyhow, you already testified that -- that Mr. Zupljanin said

19     that certain problems, incidents occurred -- occurred in -- in -- in

20     Celinac, where, according to his knowledge, seven Serb soldiers from

21     Celinac were killed at the front line and that possible revenge can be

22     expected.  And, finally, at that time it was a fact that actually a

23     number of Muslims killed in Celinac.

24             You remember that?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 10402

 1        Q.   And that, at the same time, Mr. Zupljanin said that police

 2     arrested alleged perpetrators and that certain procedure will be

 3     instigated, legal procedure.

 4             Now I would like with you to comment on Prosecution exhibit.

 5     It's P1279.

 6             MR. PANTELIC:  Could we have this on our screen, please.

 7        Q.   So what we can see here, this is an indictment against a number

 8     of perpetrators.

 9             MR. PANTELIC:  And could we have page 4 of this indictment,

10     please.

11        Q.   So, Mr. Traynor, we see here the first paragraph of the statement

12     of reasons, which is a form of the indictment in accordance with the

13     criminal law at that time, that, on 7th of July, 1992, two Serbs, Sugic

14     Obrenko and Miladin, with the assistance of the other, killed a number of

15     non-Serbs.

16             Do you see that part, please?

17        A.   Mm-hm.  Yes.

18        Q.   And I, of course, state that you are not an expert of legal

19     issues, but this is actually an example that the individuals of Serb

20     nationality were arrested, as Mr. Zupljanin mentioned in the interview

21     with you, and that eventually, public prosecutor filed the indictment

22     which is actually the -- the -- the crucial moment for the court criminal

23     proceedings.

24             Do you agree with me?

25        A.   Well, what do you mean do I agree with you?  I'm looking at these

Page 10403

 1     league documents for the first time.  I've got no idea of the background.

 2     So I'm just being presented this and asked to agree with you.  The point

 3     about Celinac was not about who was killing who or who was murdering who

 4     or who was firing guns at who.  It was about an official document in the

 5     municipality declaring Draconian restrictions on the rights of citizens,

 6     and in human rights circles at the time it created a bit of a scandal.

 7     And everybody was talking about the parallels with the edicts against the

 8     Jews in the Third Reich.  That was the issue on Celinac and that's what

 9     we were discussing.  I was not discussing which particular individual

10     attacked which particular lorry on the 7th of July, 1992, or any other

11     time.

12        Q.   I agree with you.  But, Mr. Traynor, the point in this case is

13     that police did whatever is necessary in accordance with the law and

14     finally indictment was filed against the perpetrators for this particular

15     accident that you were discussed with Mr. Zupljanin, and that he

16     mentioned it -- that police arrested perpetrators and finally brought

17     them to justice.  That's my point.

18             Do you agree with me?

19        A.   Well, I'm not really in a position to authentic that.

20        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Traynor.

21             Next issue is so-called Celinac edict that you mentioned in your

22     testimony yesterday.

23             MR. PANTELIC:  And, Your Honours, this is actually the point

24     where the concept of 92 ter package is -- is actually under big question,

25     because this particular document is not related to the indictment, not

Page 10404

 1     related to the municipalities charged by OTP against my client.  And

 2     92 ter approach, this is a good example, adopting a package, for example,

 3     from Brdjanin case, which was completely other by its nature, is now

 4     creating certain -- certain --

 5             MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated]

 6             MR. PANTELIC:  -- problems.

 7             MS. PIDWELL:  Microphone not activated] ... never testified

 8     before.  There was no 92 ter package for Brdjanin, so I'm not quite sure

 9     what -- what your issue is.

10             MR. PANTELIC:  My -- my actually reference was to Mr. Krzic

11     package.  Because you tendered these particular documents through Witness

12     Krzic, one -- who was testifying in -- in the other case, so that's the

13     problem.  Because that case, Brdjanin, is not directly related to this

14     case and now we have to clarify this document.  That's my point,

15     Your Honours.

16        Q.   So going back to this particular part is -- you said yesterday

17     that, actually, Mr. Zupljanin, during the interview with you, actually

18     confirmed the existence of so-called Celinac edict.  That was your words

19     yesterday.

20        A.   He said it was no longer in operation and that it was no longer

21     effective, and that was not a denial that it had been.

22        Q.   So that was your conclusion.

23        A.   Indeed.

24        Q.   But in your statement from 9th of March, 2000, you, in relation

25     to so-called Celinac edict, you said that, according to your notes and

Page 10405

 1     recollection in -- in -- I underlined that, in year 2000, Mr. Zupljanin

 2     said the following:

 3             "The Celinac document is not available and is practically out of

 4     use."

 5             Which is completely different, that you are trying to, I would

 6     say, add in your testimony yesterday.  Where you say --

 7        A.   That's exactly what I've just said.

 8        Q.   -- where you -- where you just gave your personal conclusion that

 9     he actually -- he actually said that he was aware of that document, which

10     is actually not the situation.

11             So, Mr. Traynor, I am putting to you that, number one,

12     Mr. Zupljanin did not tell that you he is aware of the existence of that

13     document; that's point number one.  And point number two, I'm putting to

14     you that Mr. Zupljanin said that this is not -- this document cannot be

15     available and it's not available, and there are some, I would say

16     unofficial informations and rumours about that but he is not aware of

17     that particular document.

18             Do you agree with me?

19        A.   No, I don't agree with you at all, no.  He said -- my

20     understanding of English is, when you say that something is no longer in

21     use, by definition, it means that it was at one point in use.

22        Q.   That's your interpretation, of course.  And, tell me,

23     Mr. Traynor, you were -- you were based in the region since 1988.  And

24     how many times you actually visited Banja Luka itself?

25        A.   Well, overall, in the years since 1988, I would imagine four or

Page 10406

 1     five times altogether --

 2        Q.   In 1992 --

 3        A.   But by 1992, this particular trip that you're talking about was

 4     the first time I had been in Banja Luka.

 5        Q.   And during 1992, later on, did you visit Banja Luka?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   Can you recall how many times and which period?

 8        A.   In October, month later, and then off the top of my head at the

 9     moment, I would need to think closely.  I mean, it was 18 years ago.

10     That was 1992.  The war went on until 1995 in Bosnia itself --

11        Q.   Well, I am just interested in 1992.

12        A.   Well, twice, in that case.

13        Q.   Being based in the region, Mr. Traynor, you are a quite

14     well-informed journalist about the political events in Bosnia and

15     Herzegovina, I would say.

16        A.   My editor seemed to think so.

17        Q.   You are aware of the fact that some -- in the mid of

18     October 1991, in -- in Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina, actually,

19     Muslim and Croat parties over-voted Serbian SDS party with regard to the

20     so-called issue of independence.  You -- you know?

21        A.   Indeed, yes, mm-hm.

22        Q.   At that time, were you in Sarajevo or elsewhere when -- when --

23     I'm speaking about the mid of October 1991.

24        A.   No.  I would imagine I was almost certainly in Croatia.  There

25     was a rather, you know, quite hot war raging at the time in places like

Page 10407

 1     Vukovar and Dubrovnik and other parts of Croatia, and I was covering

 2     that, of course, before I covered the Bosnian war.

 3        Q.   Are you able to comment on the events where -- where in contrary

 4     to the -- to the constitutional standards in Bosnia, Croat and Muslim

 5     party over-voted Serbian side with regard to the vital interest?

 6        A.   I don't understand.  What do you want me to comment on the

 7     politics of Serb Croats and Muslims in Bosnia, in former Yugoslavia --

 8        Q.   No, no, no.  I just want to ask your comments on that particular

 9     action instigated by Muslim and Croat part -- party against Serbian party

10     in the Parliament.  Do you have any knowledge about the constitutional

11     aspects of this particular action?

12        A.   I have plenty of knowledge about it, but I mean, we were in the

13     process of -- not Bosnia but the socialist Federation of Yugoslavia was

14     in the process of disintegration.  Slovenia had gone.  Croatia was in the

15     middle of a war, it was already independent, and Bosnia was in the throws

16     of disintegration as well.  You had a problem in Kosovo and you had

17     problems eventually in Macedonia, and you had, you know, problems all

18     over this country which was falling apart.  So I mean, I really don't

19     think if you are suggesting that the constitution -- what was happening

20     in the -- in the -- in the Assembly in Sarajevo in October 1991 could be

21     taken in isolation here.

22        Q.   In any event you would agree with me that this action --

23     actually, Mr. Traynor, you were aware about the specific constitutional

24     frame of Bosnia-Herzegovina where three constituent nation created

25     actually Bosnia-Herzegovina?  You know about that?

Page 10408

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   And you know that that each constituent nation exercises its --

 3     its -- I would say, a right to be protected to -- for their vital

 4     interest.  You are aware about that?

 5        A.   Indeed.

 6        Q.   And my question to you is that, are you aware about the fact that

 7     in the mid of October 1992, in contrary -- in contrast of vital interest

 8     of Serbian -- Serbian nation in Bosnia, two other nations over-voted on

 9     an unconstitutional way Serbian part in B and H Assembly.  Are you aware

10     or not?

11        A.   I think you mean October 1991.

12        Q.   October 1991.

13        A.   Yes, I'm aware.

14        Q.   And I believe that you have a plenty of informations with regard

15     to the efforts of international community in the course of 1991, but now

16     I'm focussing at the first half of 1992, of various international

17     negotiators, EU representatives, and, of course, US -- US envoys.

18             You are aware about this -- these activities?

19        A.   I tried to follow it closely, yes.

20        Q.   And probably you are aware about the so-called Lisbon Agreement,

21     where, in his capacity of EU envoy, Portuguese diplomat Jose Cutileiro

22     was actually a chairman of this commission in order to find a peaceful

23     solution for Bosnia?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   And that, at that time, in accordance with the -- I would say,

Page 10409

 1     suggestions from international community and also in accordance with

 2     the -- certain, I would say, political position of three nations in

 3     Bosnia, so-called Lisbon Agreement was -- was -- was created, I would

 4     say.

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   And in that agreement, provisions were that Bosnia and

 7     Herzegovina will be independent and sovereign state with three cantons

 8     run by -- by three -- three people in Bosnia, I would say?

 9        A.   That's right.

10        Q.   And that, suddenly, there are many evidence on that, including

11     former American ambassador in Serbia, Mr. Zimmermann, he is mentioning

12     this particular episode in his book.  Suddenly, Mr. Izetbegovic withdrew

13     his consent from that agreement.  You are aware about that fact?

14        A.   Yep.

15        Q.   Do you know, maybe from your sources or from your personal

16     knowledge, what was motive of Mr. Izetbegovic to withdraw his consent

17     from that particular -- particular, I would say, basic agreement,

18     important agreement for Bosnia.  Do you have any informations about this

19     episode?

20        A.   I've got lots of opinion but I've got really no idea.  I mean, it

21     is very difficult to say.  You know, this is a convoluted and complicated

22     and extremely long, you know, difficult thing to sum up in a sentence.

23     He could have thought he was getting a bad deal.  He could have thought

24     it wouldn't work.  He thought it could have failed.  He could have been

25     promised other stuff from other major powers, all sorts of reasons.  But

Page 10410

 1     if the fundamental kind of point that you seem to be making, if I

 2     understand you properly, is perhaps you think that the Serbs got a raw

 3     deal here, given that they were constituent nation in the Republic of

 4     Bosnia, and if that's your point, I would tend to agree with you.  In

 5     Yugoslavia generally, of course, in the collapse of this country, the

 6     Serbs had an argument.  They had a strong case in what would happen to

 7     the Serbs in Croatia and what would happen to the Serbs in Bosnia, what

 8     would happen to the Serbs in Kosovo.  These are all legitimate and

 9     totally warranted concerns.

10             The problem is when you get into a war, if you have an argument,

11     it is how you prosecute your argument, and you can also, in my view at

12     least, you can invalidate your case by the way you prosecute it.  And

13     that's exactly, in my view, what happened.  Basically, the means

14     obliterated the end.  Basically because, you know, the way they behaved

15     and the actions that they took, they lost the moral argument.

16        Q.   Well, in general terms, of course, I -- I -- I cannot but agree

17     with you.  But in criminal cases, actually, are we are dealing with the

18     individual responsibility and we are not going in such a broad -- broad,

19     I would say, space.  But --

20        A.   Well, it wasn't me that raised the Cutileiro Plan.

21        Q.   Of course, what I would like to point out with you is that, maybe

22     you are aware or not, but in accordance with Lisbon Agreement, each, I

23     would say, constituent unit will have in this new created

24     Bosnia-Herzegovina its own police forces.  Are you aware about that fact?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 10411

 1        Q.   And, finally, in 1995, the crown of international mediation and

 2     efforts, peaceful efforts, Dayton Peace Accord actually was signed.  Is

 3     that correct?

 4        A.   Yep.

 5        Q.   And it's a fact of common knowledge that in accordance with this

 6     particular international document two -- I would say, two -- two

 7     constituent units of Bosnia-Herzegovina created Republika Srpska and

 8     Bosnian actually -- actually Muslim-Croat Federation.  Is that correct?

 9        A.   Correct.

10        Q.   Of course, with its -- both of these units, they have their own

11     jurisdiction over the police and they have their own governments.  Of

12     course, certain, I would say, certain part of -- of power was transferred

13     to the -- to the -- to the common -- common organs of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

14     Is that correct?

15        A.   Correct.

16        Q.   Okay.  Now, Mr. Traynor, I would like to ask you a few questions

17     about the -- your -- your -- about your yesterday's testimony and your

18     comments on related to -- to Prijedor area, Kozarac area, et cetera.

19             First of all, Mr. Traynor, when you gave your comments on the

20     Kozarac village with regard to the destruction, do you allow possibility

21     that this kind of destruction was a result of -- of armed conflict and

22     clashes in the region?

23        A.   Well, I wasn't there at the end of May 1992 when the place was,

24     you know, destroyed.  Everything that I had been told about it was that

25     it was surrounded and shelled, also by outsiders, by international people

Page 10412

 1     that investigated what happened there, that it was surrounded by Serbian

 2     forces and it was mercilessly shelled with the people -- with the

 3     civilian population still in their houses there.

 4        Q.   And did you collect certain informations with regard to the

 5     Muslim armed forces in the region, in time -- in that time, May or

 6     June 1992?  Do you have any knowledge about the -- the -- the size of --

 7     of their forces?

 8        A.   No.

 9        Q.   If I suggest to you that in the region of Kozarac and Prijedor at

10     least 3.000 Muslim armed soldiers were operating, would you accept this

11     proposition?

12        A.   Well, I would have to, you know, take you at your word.  I mean,

13     I can't accept it or reject it.

14        Q.   But well, I -- I would be grateful to you to explain us.  When

15     you -- when you come to certain information, do you have a process to

16     double-check it?  For example, if you saw Kozarac area destroyed, did

17     you -- did you ask some Serb military officials what was going on in that

18     area, I mean, in terms of, I would say, balanced -- balanced approach?

19             Did you have any contact with Serbian military officials with

20     that regard?

21        A.   I went to Kozarac, and I was almost arrested by Serbian military

22     officials.

23        Q.   Well -- well, I'm not -- it was not my -- my understanding that

24     these soldiers, I would say, and guards are officials.

25             My question to you is:  Did you try to obtain informations from

Page 10413

 1     General Talic who was a commander of the region at the time?

 2        A.   No.

 3        Q.   Did you try to obtain information about the combat activities in

 4     the region from, I don't know, a military commander of the Prijedor area?

 5        A.   No.

 6        Q.   So simply, you just passed through the region of Kozarac.  You

 7     collected certain informations from -- from -- from non-Serb refugees

 8     with regard to the events in Kozarac, and you actually wrote your story,

 9     which is an article.  Is that correct?

10        A.   No.

11        Q.   But, actually, you wrote your story without any particular voice

12     or informations from the other warring party; is that correct?

13        A.   I also spoke to other people, international people --

14        Q.   No, no, no, please.

15        A.   -- officials --

16        Q.   Please, Mr. Traynor, my question is very straightforward.  I'm

17     asking you, you did not actually write your article on the basis of

18     informations, potential informations that you could collect from Serbian

19     military officials.  Yes or no?

20        A.   No, I did not, no.  A town of 15.000 been razed and levelled, and

21     the entire population had been emptied, and I spoke to dozens of people

22     from there.

23        Q.   But you as a -- I mean, you're a well-educated and quite

24     intelligent person.

25        A.   Thank you.

Page 10414

 1        Q.   You allow the possibility that certain armed conflict between two

 2     sides occurred at that time in the region of Kozarac and Prijedor.  Is

 3     it --

 4        A.   I'm sure that there was some return fire, yes.  Armed conflict is

 5     a relative term.

 6        Q.   So practically you are not in situation to make a fair conclusion

 7     whether destruction was a part of legitimate war operation headed by

 8     army; is that correct?

 9        A.   I don't know what you're talking about.  A legitimate war

10     operation where you surround a town of 15.000 civilians and bomb them, is

11     that a legitimate war operation?  Is that what you are saying?

12        Q.   No.  I'm putting to you, Mr. Traynor, that it might be a case

13     that during a war, legitimate war conflict and operation, certain houses,

14     certain -- certain property was destroyed.  Do you allow that

15     possibility?

16        A.   Of course.

17        Q.   And do you allow possibility that, in accordance with the

18     military regulations and military law, the measure introduced by the -- a

19     warring party, by the -- by the -- by the military unit, to evacuate

20     civilians that could be a case.  Yes?

21        A.   That was not my experience, no, or observation.

22        Q.   But were not present at Kozarac in May 1992; is that correct?

23        A.   Correct.

24        Q.   So it's just your, I would say, speculation, with regard to

25     the --

Page 10415

 1        A.   No, I would say --

 2        Q.   -- particular events?

 3        A.   No, I would say it was much, much stronger than -- I would say it

 4     was not speculation, no.  It was in-depth reporting and trying to

 5     establish and recreate and reconstruct what happened there.  If just

 6     because you have been [indiscernible] in 1945, doesn't mean to say you

 7     can't find out what happened.

 8        Q.   Okay, Mr. Traynor, let's conclude this topic with the following

 9     conclusion.

10             You were not there in Kozarac in 1992.  You allow the possibility

11     that in accordance with the certain military operation, certain

12     consequences for civilians might be done, and that you wrote your

13     articles on the basis of one side source.  Am I correct?  Yes or no?

14        A.   No, no, you're not --

15        Q.   Okay.  Thank you.

16        A.   -- and you're trying to put words in my mouth.

17        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Traynor.  You will have a possibility to

18     explanation in re-direct whatever you want.  This is a -- this a --

19             MS. PIDWELL:  [Overlapping speakers] ... the witness must be able

20     to --

21             MR. PANTELIC:  No.

22             MS. PIDWELL:  -- answer the question.

23             MR. PANTELIC:  No.  No, no, and no.  This is an

24     cross-examination.  I'm --

25             JUDGE HALL:  [Microphone not activated]

Page 10416

 1             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone for the Judge.

 2             MR. PANTELIC:  Yes, yes.  Sorry, Your Honour.  Sorry, I do

 3     apologise.

 4             MS. PIDWELL:  I'm simply asking that the witness be given an

 5     opportunity to answer one question at a time.

 6             MR. PANTELIC:  I'll do that.

 7        Q.   And --

 8             JUDGE HALL:  The last question you asked Mr. Pantelic, has the

 9     witness answered it?

10             MR. PANTELIC:  He said he is not agree with me, but ... he

11     said -- I said yes or no.  He said, "I am not, and you're trying to put

12     words in my mouth," end of story.

13             JUDGE DELVOIE:  And you were interrupting him.

14             MR. PANTELIC:  Yes, Your Honour, because he is starting to give

15     his comments.  And in the cross-examination I am perfectly entitle --

16     because I'm conducting the cross-examination and -- and -- and the

17     witness, and in re-examination, Your Honour, the Prosecution can -- can

18     ask everything which is along the line of the -- of the -- of the

19     cross-examination.  That's my point.

20             So I put -- I'm putting a leading questions.  I -- it is my

21     strategy which kind of questions I will put, and --

22             JUDGE DELVOIE:  And you should draw the answer.

23             MR. PANTELIC:  And I'm asking for answers.  I am entitled to have

24     answers yes or no, do you agree with me or not.

25             JUDGE HARHOFF:  The short of --

Page 10417

 1             MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] ... because Mr. Pantelic

 2     has got it on.  Thanks.

 3             Your Honours, that's not right.  It may be what the American

 4     system is, but the British, Canadian, Australian system and most systems

 5     allow the witness to give the answer in response to the question.  It

 6     cannot be cut off, provided it is a relevant answer.  And that's the

 7     difference.

 8             So Mr. Pantelic is not correct in saying he can just tell the --

 9     instruct the witness to answer yes or no.

10             MR. PANTELIC:  Well, as usual, all the other part of the world

11     against United States, that's ...

12             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Mr. Pantelic, I'm sorry, but I'm not -- I'm not

13     into the American or the English or the whatever, but what I do resent is

14     that you asked the -- you put to the witness that he is -- he wrote his

15     article on -- on the basis of one source only.  He said no and he wanted

16     to explain what his other sources were, and you just shut him down.  I

17     don't think it is acceptable.  Not in my system.

18             MR. PANTELIC:  Yes, Your Honour, you may be right, but this

19     witness already gave the answer to that particular question.  He said

20     that he wrote his article from the source of international community

21     officials and --

22             JUDGE DELVOIE:  So if he gave that answer already, why did you --

23     why do you put to him, then, that he didn't?

24             MR. PANTELIC:  In order to save judicial economy, Your Honour,

25     because we already got this answer and I anticipated what the answer

Page 10418

 1     would be --

 2             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Then let the witness give his answer, please.

 3             MR. PANTELIC:  Okay.

 4        Q.   So, Mr. Traynor, let me have a certain -- certain conclusion.

 5     You did not write your article on the basis of Serbian military officials

 6     information.  Am I right?

 7        A.   That's correct.

 8        Q.   And you stated earlier that you wrote your article on the basis

 9     of the information that you collected from -- from non-Serb refugees as

10     well as from certain international organisation official sources.  Am I

11     right?

12        A.   Yep.

13             MR. PANTELIC:  Judge Delvoie, I think it is clarified the

14     situation.

15             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Thank you.

16             MR. PANTELIC:  You're welcome.

17        Q.   Mr. Traynor, now let's go to your opus, your journalist opus

18     in -- which I find, I mean, in total, very, very fruitful, but now I'm

19     focussing on year 1992.

20             We have been provided by the Prosecution four pages of articles

21     in 1992, and I stand corrected, in total it's a list of 170 newspaper

22     articles.  You agree with me?  In 1992.

23        A.   Referring to Bosnia, you mean?

24        Q.   Yes, referring to Bosnia.

25        A.   Yeah.  I don't know, probably.

Page 10419

 1        Q.   The work and the activity and the profession of a journalist is,

 2     I would say, a rather creative activity.  Am I right?

 3        A.   It depends what you mean by creative.

 4        Q.   I mean the -- my understanding of -- of -- of -- of that

 5     particular work is that, based on certain analytical activities,

 6     collections of informations, you are actually trying to -- to -- to

 7     inform your readers on the basis of what information you collected.

 8        A.   Absolutely.  Creative, of course, has different meanings.  It can

 9     mean that you're making things up.  That's what I'm referring to.

10        Q.   And, of course, to achieve a certain standard of -- of -- of

11     objectivity, a professional journalist will act in accordance with

12     certain professional standards, among which, when writing or transferring

13     certain information, it should be confirmed from various sources, at

14     least two.  Am I correct?

15        A.   Usually, yes, mm-hm.

16        Q.   Yes, usually.  But if, for example, certain matter of urgency is

17     a priority, then you are just sending your information from the field --

18     field without any -- any other confirmation.  Am I correct?

19        A.   Not necessarily, no.  It depends, I mean, it's -- it's a varied

20     menu.  You know, you -- I can see what you're inferring, but, of course,

21     you try -- it depends on the kind of information you're supplying.  And,

22     of course, you try and corroborate stuff with a second, and third, and

23     fourth, and fifth sources.  You can also be witnessing things and seeing

24     things directly, and you're writing about them.  You don't need to

25     confirm that with anyone else.  For example.

Page 10420

 1        Q.   Okay.  I would like to have your comments as a -- really, a

 2     well-known journalist.  We have a situation in -- in -- in Bangkok with

 3     the red shirt protestors.  I mean, at the moment when protest started,

 4     you were there in the street, and my understanding that you will simply

 5     send information and -- and you will report that something is going on on

 6     the streets of Bangkok, without entering into the cause.  Am I right?

 7        A.   Sorry, entering into what?

 8        Q.   I'm speaking of the first moment that you are personal -- that

 9     are you testifying that something is around you.  I mean, without any

10     previous knowledge that something will occur.  You are just walking on

11     the streets, you see the clashes, and then you are reporting to your --

12     to your headquarter that something is going on those streets, without

13     entering into the cause and the issue.  I mean, in details.

14             Am I right?  That's your instinct as a journalist.

15        A.   No.

16        Q.   It should be.

17        A.   No, no, no, you're not right.  No.

18        Q.   No.  Could you explain how --

19        A.   Well, I mean, if you were in Bangkok right now and then there is

20     riots on the street and you happen to be there as a reporter, the chances

21     are that you've been in Bangkok for quite a while.  You're supposed to

22     know something about the politics of country that you're in.  You are

23     perfectly aware there's been a political crisis in Bangkok for the

24     past -- in Thailand for the past two years, and all of that informs what

25     you're witnessing.  So you don't just write a report that says, Oh,

Page 10421

 1     somebody threw a petrol bomb in Bangkok.

 2        Q.   Okay.  In the case of Bosnia, practically you were there, you

 3     were collecting informations, and you will actually writing your articles

 4     and sending your reports on the basis of various sources.  Am I correct?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   But, of course, during your stay in the region, I mean, Bosnia,

 7     you were informed about the -- it was March 1992.  You were informed

 8     about the tragic accidents committed by Croat soldiers against Serb

 9     civilian population in northern Bosnia in the village of Sijekovac.  Do

10     you know this tragic episode?

11        A.   I don't recall it, no.

12        Q.   During your stay in the region, I mean, Bosnia, you were aware

13     about the attack on JNA convoy in Sarajevo which occurred the end of

14     April, beginning of May 1992.

15        A.   Yes.

16             MR. PANTELIC:  Sorry.  I do apologise if I cause certain

17     technical problems.  Thank you.

18        Q.   And, of course, you are aware that recently in -- in -- on the

19     basis of -- of Interpol arrest warrant alleged -- allegedly head of that

20     operation against JNA soldiers in Sarajevo, Mr. Ejub Ganic arrested in

21     UK, and he's still there waiting for the extradition procedures to be

22     finalised?

23        A.   I'm aware of that.  I'm not sure, I think he might -- I'm not

24     sure if he is still in the UK, but, yeah.

25        Q.   Can you help us, please, in the list of your articles, did you --

Page 10422

 1     did you write about that attack on -- on JNA soldiers in Sarajevo?  Do

 2     you recall?

 3        A.   I don't recall.

 4        Q.   And being in Bosnia, do you recall the incidents which is also a

 5     part of -- of -- of court proceedings against JNA soldiers in Tuzla, town

 6     of Tuzla.  Do you know something about this incident?

 7        A.   Which particular incident?

 8        Q.   Where Muslim forces attacked JNA soldiers during their process

 9     of -- of -- of transportation out of Bosnia and certain serious

10     casualties occurred, do you know [Overlapping speakers] ...

11        A.   Well, it's difficult -- it is a difficult at a distance of

12     18 years to remember every single incident that happened in a three-year,

13     three-and-a-half-year Bosnian war, really.

14        Q.   I'm just focussing on the events in 1992, and I'm just referring

15     to major sort of incidents where Serbian sites were -- was a victim.

16     Simply as that.  I'm just covering this -- this -- this particular, major

17     well-known incidents.

18             In your -- during your interview with Mr. Zupljanin, and you are

19     mentioning that in your statement and also in your yesterday's testimony,

20     he mentioned that it was a few days ago, before your -- your interview

21     with him, in village of Serdari, it is a Kotor Varos municipality.

22     Serbian civilians were attacked by Muslim forces, and they were killed,

23     and among them a couple of -- of young children, aged 3 or 4 years, and

24     elderly people, more than 70 years, were killed.

25             Do you remember that particular part of the interview that you

Page 10423

 1     have with Mr. Zupljanin?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   And actually it was not of your particular interest to -- to

 4     report on that event or to make an article about that.

 5        A.   No.

 6        Q.   Can you explain us why?

 7        A.   Because I wasn't there interviewing Mr. Zupljanin to research an

 8     article about the village of Serdari.

 9        Q.   Actually, you were not interested in this particular story

10     because your editors directed you to -- to produce and to -- to -- to --

11     to work only on the stories where Muslims were victims.  Am I correct?

12        A.   You're completely, 100 per cent wrong.

13        Q.   But -- I mean, you will describe yourself as a good professional,

14     good journalist, very balanced and objective.  Am I right?  I mean, if

15     you would qualify yourself as a professional.  Or maybe --

16        A.   It is for others to judge.

17        Q.   Well, I would suggest, very, very soon, how I understand your

18     work.  But tell me, Mr. Traynor, is there any word or article in the list

19     of 170 articles that you made in Bosnia in 1992, which is a list in front

20     of us, can you indicate any single article reporting and speaking about

21     the atrocities against Serbian population?

22             Can you give me a simple example?

23        A.   I don't know that I can.

24             MS. PIDWELL:  The witness might be -- if you provided him with a

25     list, he may be able to assist.

Page 10424

 1             MR. PANTELIC:  I would be really happy.

 2             Mr. Smith, do you have copy, or I can give my -- thank you.

 3             THE WITNESS:  Thank you.

 4             MS. PIDWELL:  Your Honours, I see it's time for the break.  I

 5     wonder if we could --

 6             JUDGE HALL: [Microphone not activated] 15 minutes.

 7             MS. PIDWELL:  Oh.  I do apologise.

 8                           [Defence counsel confer]

 9             THE WITNESS:  I'm sorry this is taking so long, but it's

10     difficult to tell just from the headlines, but on the surface, it doesn't

11     look like there are any.  Plenty of stories from Serbia, of course, lots

12     of stories from Belgrade, lots of stories about Serbian politics,

13     et cetera.

14             MR. PANTELIC:

15        Q.   I mean, take your time.  I don't have problem during the break.

16     But in -- I mean, I didn't find any article made by you about Serb

17     victims.  That's the problem, Mr. Traynor.  That's the problem.  And you

18     can write of any other political events in the region, et cetera, but I'm

19     specifically asking you, do you have any article produced by you in 1992

20     with regard to Bosnia events where you were writing about Serbian

21     victims.  Yes or no?

22        A.   Not very many in 1992.

23        Q.   No.  No, no, Mr. Traynor, I am suggesting to you, there is not a

24     single article made by you with regard to the Serbian victims.  That's

25     my --

Page 10425

 1        A.   No, that's not true --

 2        Q.   That's my position.

 3        A.   No, that's not true.  I remember driving -- for example, off the

 4     top of my head, I remember driving into Sarajevo at one stage, driving

 5     through a fire-fight on the road from Belgrade.  I didn't know where I

 6     was, didn't know which side of the line I was on, had to take cover.  I

 7     was in a village and I was with Serbs who were being attacked, and I

 8     wrote about it.

 9        Q.   Mr. Traynor, I mean, my question was -- was very, very

10     straightforward.  I'm not speaking about your chats, about your drinking

11     rakija or, you know, gathering with Serbian soldiers and Serbian friends.

12     No.  I'm not speaking about cevapcici.  I'm not speaking about your nice

13     time in the region.

14             Mr. Traynor, what I'm asking you, to indicate in the list

15     provided to us by the Prosecution, list of your articles, a single

16     example where you wrote about Serb victims on the basis of your knowledge

17     and your sources in Bosnia in 1992.  Please, do you have this information

18     or no?  Yes or no, and let's move to the other topics.  Please.

19        A.   Well, I've already answered you.  I said I don't recall any.

20             MR. PANTELIC:  Your Honour, I don't know what is our timing

21     today.  Is it about time for the break?

22             JUDGE HALL:  11.45.

23             MR. PANTELIC:  Ah, okay.  Thank you.

24        Q.   So being in Banja Luka for these couple of days, and previously

25     being in Croatia, I am almost sure that you were informed about the

Page 10426

 1     significant number of Serbian refugees in the region of Banja Luka coming

 2     from Croatia and elsewhere from Bosnia.  Am I correct with this

 3     assessment?

 4        A.   Yep.

 5        Q.   The -- well, main reason I would like to -- to hear your comment,

 6     of course, the main reason for this flow of -- of Serb refugees in the

 7     region of Banja Luka was caused by the war operation in -- in -- in

 8     Croatia.  Am I correct?

 9        A.   I think so, yeah.

10        Q.   And also the other, I would say, part of -- of that flow of

11     Serbian refugees in the region of Banja Luka caused by the clashes and --

12     and -- and war operations in the Muslim- and Croat-controlled territory

13     in Bosnia.  Am I correct?

14        A.   I wasn't aware of any big flow of refugees in that direction --

15     from that direction, no.

16        Q.   But you want to tell us that, actually -- you want to tell us

17     that actually Serbs were living freely and with all -- with respect of

18     their rights in the Muslim- and Croat-held territory in Bosnia.  Is that

19     your assessment or your confirmation?

20        A.   Well, there was certainly a lot of Serbs living freely in

21     Sarajevo, that's for sure.  Who chose to live there, yeah.

22        Q.   You want to tell us that, speaking of Sarajevo, of course, you

23     want to tell us that during the war a significant number of Serbs were

24     living freely in Sarajevo under the Muslim-controlled territory?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 10427

 1        Q.   And when was the last time that you visited Sarajevo recently?

 2        A.   Recently?

 3        Q.   Yeah, recently.

 4        A.   Oh, a few years ago.

 5        Q.   And, still, lot of Serbs are living there, according to your

 6     informations?

 7        A.   Of course, you know, I mean, the Serbian forces separated

 8     Sarajevo, and at the end of war, in 1996, they organised a mass exodus

 9     of -- of as many Serbs as they could muster out of Sarajevo.  I remember

10     that, after the Dayton conference agreement.

11             During the war, which is what we were talking about I think,

12     there were plenty of Serbs living in Sarajevo, including politicians,

13     including military officers.

14        Q.   That's really a new information for us, and you are really of

15     great assistance to give us completely new aspect of that life.  Of

16     course, the facts are against your assessment.

17             But speaking of this organised exodus, would you agree with me

18     when I put to you that actually in accordance with the Dayton Peace

19     Accord, Serbian-held territory of Sarajevo was actually left to -- to

20     Muslim side.  Am I correct?

21        A.   Under the peace agreement, yes.  The --

22        Q.   And that this particular exodus is related to the movement of

23     Serbian -- Serbian people from previously Serbian-held territory of

24     Sarajevo.  Am I correct?

25        A.   You may be correct, but you are asserting -- you're asserting

Page 10428

 1     your own facts.  I don't share your assessment of what actually happened.

 2        Q.   Actually you're surprising me with your findings, I would say.

 3     Well, on the other hand, it's -- you are very cooperative for Defence

 4     case with your statements.

 5             So you want to tell us here, Mr. Traynor, that Serbs lived

 6     peacefully, without any problem, in the Croat- and Muslim-held

 7     territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina.  Is that your information that you want

 8     to --

 9        A.   That is absolutely not what I said.

10        Q.   Are you aware of the various --

11             MR. PANTELIC:  Your Honour, of course, this line of question is

12     not related to tu quoque.  It is just a concept and I'm relating to --

13     I'm relating to the -- to some extent credibility of this witness, so I'm

14     not going explore in bigger terms these issues so be -- be relaxed that

15     I'm not to go through all this stuff.

16        Q.   So, Mr. Traynor, you -- I mean, your conclusion is that, actually

17     in this tragic civil war in Bosnia-Herzegovina, that actually Serbs are,

18     I would say, main actor or perpetrator of all these atrocities.  I'm

19     speaking about the relations between Serbs, Croats and Muslims in Bosnia.

20     What is your personal assessment?

21        A.   Well, I feel again that words are being put in my mouth.  But in

22     any case, I don't share your fundamental premise.  I don't think it was a

23     civil war in the first place, so I would rather, you know, emphasise that

24     these are -- this is not my opinion.

25             In the period in question which speaking you're about and in

Page 10429

 1     relation to the fact that there don't appear to be any articles from 1992

 2     about Serb victims, the fact of the matter is that in the war in Bosnia,

 3     between April and November 1992, the war was effectively over by then,

 4     and it was controlled 65, 66, two-thirds, by Serbian forces within that

 5     six-month period.  Sarajevo was under siege.  Eastern Bosnia had been

 6     cleansed.  Roughly 2 million people had been uprooted from their homes.

 7     The overwhelming majority of those people were Bosnian Muslims.  And in

 8     the west of the country, of course, you had tremendous tensions between

 9     Croats and Muslims, and it was not a nice place for Serbs to be living

10     either, whether in Mostar or in other parts of central Bosnia.  And, of

11     course, there was plenty of Serbian victims there.

12             The fundamental direction in 1992 was one of the superior Serbian

13     forces taking control of large -- more than half of Bosnia and hundreds

14     of thousands of people, predominantly Bosnian Muslims, being forced to

15     leave homes, and one is reflecting that during one's work during this

16     period.  When you're covering a war, if a capital city of Europe is under

17     siege, you tend to write about it from the point of view of the victims.

18     That's what the world wants to hear about, that's what editors want to

19     know about.  And similarly, if you are, you know, travelling with

20     UN forces or aid convoys, et cetera, and you can see who is getting the

21     aid, and how it's being blocked, and who is not getting it, and who is

22     doing the blocking, et cetera, et cetera, one tends to write about it

23     from that point of view.  That is what we do.

24        Q.   And on the basis of -- of -- of this personal assessment,

25     actually, you started to write one-sided articles during 1992.  Am I

Page 10430

 1     correct?

 2        A.   These are not one-sided articles.

 3        Q.   Yes --

 4        A.   These are reflecting the reality on the ground.  That is not --

 5     it would be one-sided to be doing it the other way around.  The reality

 6     on the ground is that one side is taking control of more than half of the

 7     country and creating a -- killing a lot of people and creating an awful

 8     lot of victims in the process, and in fact, what is routinely called

 9     one-sided is actually an accurate reflection of the reality of Bosnia in

10     the time.

11        Q.   In fact, Mr. Traynor, that was the gist of my question to you.

12     You consider Serb side as a dominant in this conflict and as a main, I

13     would say, in general terms, perpetrator against non-Serbs.  That's your

14     personal position.  Yes or no?

15        A.   In 1992, the -- they -- the war was virtually over by November.

16     Next three years were just basically --

17        Q.   No, no, no.  Please I'm asking for your personal position with

18     regard to who is the main perpetrator of the crimes in Bosnia in 1992.

19     Your personal position, please.

20        A.   Well, as far as I am aware, the --

21        Q.   Yes or no.  I mean, I'm suggesting you --

22             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Pantelic.

23             MR. PANTELIC:  Yes, Your Honour.

24             JUDGE HALL:  I understand the thrust of your questions over the

25     last 15 minutes or so, seeking to indicate the lack of objectivity, my

Page 10431

 1     words, you used the word "bias," on behalf of the witness.  But when you

 2     narrowed it down to asking his opinion, remember he is not being called

 3     as an expert.  He is tendered by the Prosecution as a witness to give his

 4     observations, and whereas those observations would have included certain

 5     incidental conclusions, we must draw the line when you're asking directly

 6     his opinion because it is really irrelevant.

 7             MR. PANTELIC:  I absolutely agree with you, Your Honour.

 8             Is it the time for a break?

 9             JUDGE HALL:  [Microphone not activated]

10             MR. PANTELIC:  Yes, thank you.

11             JUDGE HALL:  We resume at 12.15.

12                           [The witness stands down]

13                           --- Recess taken at 11.46 a.m.

14                           --- On resuming at 12.19 p.m.

15             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Pantelic.

16             MR. PANTELIC:  Yes, Your Honour.

17             JUDGE HALL:  Any idea how much longer you expect that you would

18     be with this witness.

19             MR. PANTELIC:  As I just answered my learned friend Ms. Korner,

20     depending of my inspiration.  But I would say I would try to do that in

21     maximum half an hour, even less.

22             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

23             MR. PANTELIC:  But it will depend on the answers of the witness,

24     you know, on some evidence.

25                           [The witness takes the stand]

Page 10432

 1             MR. PANTELIC:

 2        Q.   Mr. Traynor, earlier you -- during your quite lengthy answer, you

 3     mentioned that you do not agree with me when I stated that there was a

 4     civil war in Bosnia.  But, of course, Mr. Traynor, you're not a legal

 5     expert.  Am I right?

 6        A.   Absolutely.

 7        Q.   And probably you are not aware of the findings in Samac case,

 8     where I was a Defence counsel, where the Prosecution theory with regard

 9     to the international aspect of that completely failed.  You are not aware

10     about this judgement?

11        A.   No.

12             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Pantelic.

13             MR. PANTELIC:  Yes, Your Honour.

14             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Where are we going with this?

15             MR. PANTELIC:  We are going just in the middle of the role of

16     press in conflict and certain personal, I would say, information with

17     that regard.  With regard to the figures, with regard to the process of

18     spinning up things because this witness yesterday mentioned in his

19     testimony that he -- he was a witness of certain -- certain process of --

20     of spinning the -- the -- the informations that -- that's -- I would like

21     to -- to explore with him.  It was the answer on the question of

22     Ms. Pidwell yesterday.

23             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Then move directly to that topic because the

24     question of whether there was an international or internal conflict

25     doesn't appear to be conducive to questioning the witness's credibility.

Page 10433

 1             MR. PANTELIC:  I agree with you, because he just mentioned that

 2     from his point of view it's a civil war.  Just I want to clarify that --

 3             JUDGE HARHOFF:  So get on with it.

 4             MR. PANTELIC:  Yes, yes.

 5        Q.   So, Mr. Traynor, tell me, are you aware of the article, I think

 6     it was in "New York Times" or "Washington Post", I think it was published

 7     sometimes in 1993 or 1994, about the alleged persecution of

 8     17.000 non-Serb -- non-Serb population from area of Samac, northern

 9     Bosnia.  Are you aware of that article?

10        A.   No.

11        Q.   Are you aware of the fact that, as you mentioned earlier in your

12     testimony during the examination-in-chief -- well, you can confirm, can't

13     you, that the -- the -- the mechanism during conflicts for producing

14     certain information and to -- to achieve certain goals is actually a

15     process of spinning informations, in terms of achieving certain goals.

16        A.   I don't --

17        Q.   I am speaking about -- to be more specific, I'm speaking about

18     so-called media war during the war in Bosnia, practically each side --

19     this is a part of the conflict and elsewhere, each side of warring --

20     each warring party would like to present its own -- its own truth, I

21     would say.

22        A.   There's been plenty of studies of the role of the media in the

23     disintegration of Yugoslavia.  I mean, I could recommend, for example,

24     "Forging War" by Mark Thompson.  It's a book written on the subject.

25     There's no --

Page 10434

 1        Q.   Yes --

 2        A.   There's a consensus view that the media played a strong role in

 3     the war, yes.

 4        Q.   Absolutely.  That was exactly my point, especially speaking of

 5     the Bosnia arena.  You would agree with me, would you not, that's also

 6     that's a case also with domestic and -- I mean, local media and

 7     international media.  I mean, same -- same -- same system applies, I

 8     would say.  You would agree with me --

 9        A.   I would disagree with that, yeah.

10        Q.   You aware of the fact that, in 1992, a number of 200.000 Muslim

11     women was raped.  That was a fact which was circulated in -- in -- in

12     international circles in the area, something like that.

13        A.   I'm not aware of the exact figure.  I mean, it's been well

14     established, including in this Tribunal, I think, that, you know, that --

15     that rape was used as a weapon of war.

16        Q.   Yes, yes, but I'm speaking about figures.  So you are not aware

17     of numbers at the time?

18        A.   These are very difficult figures to corroborate.

19        Q.   Because you said - correct me if I'm wrong - that how many,

20     2 million Muslims in -- in Bosnia -- or from Eastern Bosnia moved out

21     from the territory.  Is that what -- the gist of your testimony?

22        A.   No, I said that 2 million, according to UNHCR, were uprooted.

23     Not all of them were Muslims but the majority were.  In Bosnia.

24        Q.   Yes.  Because my understanding was that you referred only to

25     Muslim population.  Now you clarified that, and -- yes, thank you.

Page 10435

 1             About the victims, total number of victims in war conflict in

 2     Bosnia, can you -- can you give us your personal knowledge about the

 3     number?

 4        A.   Well, the most kind of detailed and forensic examination that I'm

 5     aware of into the deaths in Bosnia was run by a man called Tokaca, in

 6     Sarajevo, funded by -- I think by the Danish government.  And he did a

 7     fairly painstaking examination and came up with a figure of just under

 8     100.000, I think, with about two-thirds of the dead being, again, Bosnian

 9     Muslim.

10        Q.   I mean, we all agree that a victim is a victim no matter which

11     nationality and these are tragic consequences of the war.

12             But, Mr. Traynor, can you tell us which figures of -- of -- of --

13     I'm specifically asking you of Muslim victims, circulated in -- in 1992

14     in international community and in journalist community, I would say.  Can

15     you recall that number?

16        A.   No.  There was all sorts of figures being bandied around at the

17     time.  It was too early.

18        Q.   With regard to the -- your -- your contacts in Banja Luka in this

19     particular period, you testified that -- first of all, let me -- let me

20     ask you a -- another question.

21             Could you tell us, please, if it not -- not within your -- I

22     would say, certain security obstacles.  I'm not asking, Mr. Traynor, to

23     hear about the names of your sources, like -- like some international

24     officials, international -- and, please, I would like to ask you, during

25     your stay in Banja Luka the names of -- of officials with whom you -- you

Page 10436

 1     spoke or you -- you -- you collect certain informations or made

 2     interviews.

 3             You mentioned Mr. Zupljanin.  Did you speak with -- were you able

 4     to speak with General Talic, who was the commander of that area at that

 5     time?

 6        A.   No.

 7        Q.   Could you indicate us or could you -- could you give us other --

 8     other names of -- of -- of -- I would say, sort of -- not high rank but

 9     upper-ranked officials that you were contacted at the time, no matter of

10     which nationality.

11             Can you give us?

12        A.   Karadzic, Radovan Karadzic, for example.  David Owen, Lord Owen.

13     The head of the UNHCR in Banja Luka at the time, Robin Zebuk [phoen].

14     People from the International Committee of the Red Cross.  Off the top of

15     my head that's what I recall.

16        Q.   All of these persons that you just mentioned, you conducted

17     interview with them?

18        A.   I talked to them.

19        Q.   I mean, in the formal interview?

20        A.   No.  It's not always formal interviews.

21        Q.   Well, I take it that with -- with Mr. Karadzic you spoke

22     unformally about the quality of beer or stuff like that, or maybe your

23     further -- that -- that I found in your statement.  Am I correct?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   So the beer was the topic with him.  Thank you.

Page 10437

 1        A.   Not the only topic.

 2        Q.   The issue, maybe.

 3             Okay.  So could you tell us, please, Mr. Traynor, apart of this

 4     persons, I would say, high -- high-ranked officials that you just

 5     mentioned, can you indicate another individuals that you contacted in

 6     Banja Luka during this stay?

 7        A.   Well, lots of individuals.  You're asking about high-ranking

 8     officials.

 9        Q.   Okay.  I'm asking for -- I think you mentioned that you were in

10     contact with the local political leaders in Banja Luka.  Am I right?

11        A.   I was at the meeting with -- between the political leadership and

12     Vance and Owen, so it was an easy opportunity to talk to people, so you

13     could talk to people like Karadzic and Owen at these meetings, plus

14     Mr. Zupljanin, plus lots of people -- ordinary people living in

15     Banja Luka, plus the international aid community and relief workers there

16     at the time.  In a matter of three or four days, I mean, that's, you

17     know, quite a full agenda.

18        Q.   You were in contact with the HDZ political leader in Banja Luka,

19     I mean, Croat party leader.  Yes or no?

20        A.   No, I don't think so.

21        Q.   Maybe you were in contact with the SDA political leader in

22     Banja Luka?

23        A.   Yes, Muharem Krzic, yes, mm-hm.

24        Q.   And before that period that you were in Banja Luka, did you --

25     did you have any -- any previous contact with him or ...

Page 10438

 1        A.   No.

 2        Q.   And later?

 3        A.   No.

 4        Q.   And were you able to contact or to be -- to be -- to be -- to try

 5     to interview or to -- to -- to get some informations from Serbian

 6     political leader in Banja Luka that you just mentioned before.  I think

 7     Mr. Vukic who was the president of SDS party in Banja Luka.

 8        A.   We asked for interviews with the local political leaders, and we

 9     were granted an interview with Mr. Zupljanin.

10        Q.   Who you ask to be -- to be granted with the ...

11        A.   The press service.  I don't exactly recall.  We put in requests

12     for interviews.  That's how we ended up interviewing Mr. Zupljanin.

13        Q.   In any case you requested contact with SDS political leader, I

14     think --

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   Yeah.  You were testifying yesterday about the police presence

17     in -- in Banja Luka, and according to your assessment, you found that it

18     was quite odd to have a number of police officers on the street of

19     Banja Luka.  Am I correct?  Again, you can --

20        A.   Well, again, I mean it's -- I'm constantly having my own words --

21     you know, words put into my mouth.  I didn't say it was odd.  I said

22     there was a lot of police on the streets.

23        Q.   Which is an absolutely usual -- usual thing, when it's a time of

24     war.

25        A.   Could well be.

Page 10439

 1        Q.   I don't believe - correct me if I'm wrong - that you wrote an

 2     article on the basis of the information that you collected from -- from

 3     SDA chief, political SDA chief in Banja Luka.  Am I right?

 4        A.   No.  There would have been information included from him in the

 5     article, not on the basis of it.

 6        Q.   I mean, it was long time ago, but what -- what actually was

 7     the -- the -- your, I would say, description of certain events in

 8     Banja Luka based on?

 9             MS. PIDWELL:  I'm sorry, could we have a reference to the article

10     that you're referring to?

11             MR. PANTELIC:  I'm not referring, I'm just asking witness whether

12     he -- he mentioned this informations.  I actually -- that's the first

13     time that -- that --

14             MS. PIDWELL:  I'm sorry.  I heard and I'm reading that you were

15     asking about:

16             "... an article on the basis of information you've collected from

17     the SDA chief, political SDA chief in Banja Luka.  Am I right?"

18             You wrote an article on the basis of the information received

19     from this man.  I'm asking for the reference to that, please.

20             MR. PANTELIC:

21        Q.   Can you help us, Mr. Traynor?  What was the article --

22             MS. PIDWELL:  No.  I'm asking for a reference from you, because

23     I'm assuming that you have read the article, if you're putting it to him

24     in that form.

25             MR. PANTELIC:  Well, to be honest, with particular issue, I was

Page 10440

 1     just trying from witness to confirm that fact, whether he wrote article

 2     or not.  He just said that yes, he -- he -- he wrote that article.  And

 3     I'm ... yeah.

 4             THE WITNESS:  Can I say something?

 5             MR. PANTELIC:

 6        Q.   Yes.

 7        A.   I mean, the article's probably been submitted.  I'm sure Muharem

 8     Krzic is mentioned in at least one of the articles I wrote at the time.

 9     It's very easily established.  I mean, I don't have it here to hand.

10        Q.   No.  My point, Mr. Traynor, is the following.  Actually I'm not

11     speaking by your article itself.  I'm speaking about your recollection of

12     the certain descriptions or event in Banja Luka at that time.  So could

13     you -- could you tell us what was the gist, I would say, of your

14     conversation with -- with gentleman that you just mentioned.

15        A.   I don't recall exactly but it will be reflected in the article.

16             JUDGE HARHOFF:  What's the point, Mr. Pantelic?

17             MR. PANTELIC:  I'm -- I'm asking this witness -- okay.  Let me

18     rephrase my question.

19        Q.   Mr. Traynor, do you have any personal knowledge of the security

20     situation in Banja Luka at the time when -- when you were there in

21     September or October?  I mean, based on your various sources?

22        A.   Yes.  On the basis of people that we were speaking to, the

23     international aid workers or relief workers who were running around at

24     their wits' end, trying to organise convoys and accompany convoys, and

25     bus-loads and truck-loads of people criss-crossing the entire region at

Page 10441

 1     the time by the dozen, looking for somewhere to go, this is what we were

 2     being told by the people who were on the ground monitoring it, including

 3     the local SDA leader who had been to the railway station; for example,

 4     when trains were being taken full of refugees to the front line, I think

 5     at Maglaj or Doboj, as I recall off the top of my head.

 6             Diplomats in Belgrade were aware of the situation.  I spoke to

 7     them, and on the basis of -- I spoke to people who were -- had police

 8     cars on the streets and loud-speakers, and they were being ordered out of

 9     their homes and they'd be taken out and they'd be told to walk to the

10     other side of the road.  And a little while later, they'd be told to

11     return to their homes, and they'd find this rather frightening and

12     terrifying, et cetera.

13             That was the information based on first-hand interviewing in

14     Banja Luka that I was given at the time.

15        Q.   First of all, Mr. Traynor, I kindly ask you to speak a bit slower

16     due to the efforts of our interpreters and for the benefit of the court

17     recording.  Thank you.

18             So, yeah, what I would like to ask you is the following.  During

19     this state of war in Banja Luka when -- I mean, you were there in -- a

20     couple of times in the second part of 1992.  You would agree with me,

21     would you not, that actually Krajina region was just the edge of the

22     front line, with lot of battles going around.  Am I correct?

23        A.   Hmm, yeah.

24        Q.   And you agree with me, would you not, that due to the -- the --

25     the heavy presence of -- of military personnel and all other armed unit,

Page 10442

 1     a serious security situation in Banja Luka was -- was -- was affected --

 2     I mean, seriously affected due to the presence of armed units and

 3     individuals.

 4             Would you agree with me, with that assessment?

 5        A.   That wasn't my sense of Banja Luka, the city, no.  No.

 6        Q.   In your quest for information -- for -- for -- for the sources

 7     and information, were you aware that in first nine months in Banja Luka,

 8     actually, police recorded and -- and filed criminal charges in number of

 9     5.294 criminal acts.

10             Are you aware of that fact?

11        A.   No.

12        Q.   And are you aware of the fact that during these first nine months

13     of 1992 in Banja Luka, police actually resolved 55 per cent of all

14     recorded criminal acts?

15             Are you -- were you aware of that fact at the time?

16        A.   No.

17        Q.   And were you aware of the fact that at that time 50 -- I mean,

18     speaking of first nine months of -- of 1992, that 50 --

19             MS. PIDWELL:  Your Honours, I must object.  This witness wasn't

20     here, in Banja Luka, for the first nine months of 1992.

21             MR. PANTELIC:  Yes, but --

22             MS. PIDWELL:  He testified that his first visit to Banja Luka was

23     in September 1992.  I fail to see where this line of questions is going.

24             MR. PANTELIC:  Yes, Ms. Pidwell, but --

25             JUDGE HALL:  [Microphone not activated].

Page 10443

 1             MR. PANTELIC:  Sorry.  Yeah, yeah.  Sorry.

 2             MS. PIDWELL:  I think it is inappropriate that he be asked to

 3     comment on things that he has not testified about and has no knowledge

 4     about.

 5             MR. PANTELIC:  Your Honour, Mr. Traynor, is a professional

 6     journalist so I am just exploring the area of his work in Banja Luka.  If

 7     one could assume if -- if a professional journalist is going to collect

 8     certain information, in certain area, probably he would be able to ask

 9     officials about the security situation.  Because with -- with -- with

10     political leader in -- in Banja Luka, Mr. Traynor said that he collected

11     a number of informations regarding the security.

12             So I'm now asking this witness to confirm, or not, his personal

13     knowledge about the facts.  And I'm just getting to get these answers.

14             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Pantelic, I'm sorry, but it seems to me that

15     throughout your cross-examination of this witness you have been very

16     indirect in your questions and the effect of it -- of this is, that we

17     are not going ahead very quickly.  So I would, actually, appreciate if

18     you would go head on with your questions to the witness and put them

19     directly to him rather than beating around the bush, as it seems to me

20     that you have been doing most of the time.

21             The Presiding Judge reminded the parties yesterday that the

22     Chamber is fully aware of the profession of this witness, that he is a

23     journalist, and we will assess his testimony in light of that fact.

24             So you don't have to make it more difficult than necessary to get

25     directly to the points that you wish to make.  Be -- please be more

Page 10444

 1     direct and -- and quicken up, please.

 2             MR. PANTELIC:  Yes, I will -- yes.  I will try to -- to -- to do

 3     that, Your Honour.

 4        Q.   So, Mr. Traynor, during your stay in Banja Luka, did you get

 5     certain informations about the judicial and -- and court proceedings, I

 6     mean, investigation against political leader of SDA in Banja Luka and the

 7     other members of his group, with regard to the conspiracy and armed

 8     resistance?

 9        A.   No.

10        Q.   During your conversation with the police officials, Mr. Zupljanin

11     and others maybe, did you came to the information that Muslim charity

12     organisation Merhamet was involved in military organisation and

13     preparation for the resistance and the insurgence in Banja Luka?

14        A.   Mr. Zupljanin said that, yes.

15        Q.   Did you try to -- to verify this information from the other

16     sources?  Did you discuss that issue with -- with some other sources

17     maybe?

18        A.   I also discussed with it Krzic.  I never wrote about it, but I

19     discussed it.

20        Q.   And what was the position of Mr. Krzic with that regard?

21        A.   Quite predictable.  That that wasn't happening.

22        Q.   So I take it you are not aware that in 1994 there was criminal

23     proceedings against these people before the military court in Banja Luka.

24     You are not aware of that fact?

25        A.   Well, I don't see how I could be aware of something that happened

Page 10445

 1     two years later.

 2        Q.   I mean now.

 3        A.   No.

 4        Q.   You mentioned that in your interview with Mr. Zupljanin he said

 5     that the main reason for -- for people to -- to -- to -- to leave the

 6     territory in the wartime period, according to him, was actually economic

 7     reasons.  You -- you remember that part?

 8        A.   Yep.

 9        Q.   And are you aware of -- or maybe you can comment, or maybe you

10     can give us the figures, how many refugees from -- from -- from Bosnia

11     actually left country to -- to -- to third -- third countries?

12        A.   I don't know if this is a test of my expertise or a kind of quiz

13     game or something, but I don't know the answer to that.

14        Q.   In any case, this is a fact of common knowledge that I'm not now

15     not speaking of the nationality of the refugees, I'm speaking about the

16     refugees no matter of nationality including, I mean, Serbs -- Serb

17     refugees, Croat refugees, as well as Muslim refugees.

18             So you would agree with me, would you not, that a significant

19     number of them are still living in third countries and they are not

20     returning to Bosnia?

21        A.   I should think so, yes.

22        Q.   And what is the reason for that?  There is no war in Bosnia now.

23             MS. PIDWELL:  How can the witness possibly answer that question.

24     He is seeking an opinion from him, he is not an expert.  It is not

25     relevant at all.

Page 10446

 1             MR. PANTELIC:

 2        Q.   Well, I'm not asking your opinion, Mr. Traynor.  I would like to

 3     ask you as a professional journalist.  You know, writing about the -- the

 4     events in Bosnia and in this present period, did you come to certain

 5     informations with regard to the issue why refugees are not returning back

 6     to Bosnia?

 7             MS. PIDWELL:  Once again he is seeking his opinion.

 8             THE WITNESS:  Well, I'll say -- I mean, I'm not a sociologist,

 9     and there are very, very complicated reasons why this might be the case.

10     What I do know is that what Mr. Zupljanin told me, of what I do remember,

11     is that these were economic migrants that were leaving for a better life.

12     They would prefer to get 400 Deutschemarks a day and stay in a German

13     hotel, and that he was organising transports with dignity.

14             Judging by what I was seeing around me, I found this extremely

15     inappropriate.

16             MR. PANTELIC:

17        Q.   Yes.  But would you agree with me, as I said, that a number of

18     all three nationalities, refugees, left Bosnia during the war.

19        A.   That's an objective fact.

20        Q.   And during your stay in the region, I'm specifically speaking

21     about year 1992, I mean, what is your informations with regard to the

22     significant number of -- of workers leaving former Yugoslavia and working

23     elsewhere in Europe, like in Germany, et cetera.  Are you aware of that

24     fact?  I mean --

25        A.   I have no idea.

Page 10447

 1        Q.   You don't know?

 2             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Pantelic, where on earth are we going with

 3     this?

 4             MR. PANTELIC:  Your Honour, my client, during the conversation

 5     with Mr. Traynor, gave his opinion with regard to the motives of a number

 6     of people leaving territory as refugee.  So now I just want to explore

 7     this fact with the witness and his personal knowledge about the factors

 8     in the region.  Historical and economical.  Simply as that.  On the basis

 9     of his personal knowledge, nothing more.

10             JUDGE HARHOFF:  But, honestly, Mr. Pantelic, the reasons why

11     refugees from the former Yugoslavia have not returned to their homes are,

12     first of all, not relevant to the trial, as far as I can tell, and are

13     way beyond the knowledge of Mr. Traynor.

14             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Furthermore, Mr. Pantelic, if I may, the witness

15     gave you the answer to your question, so perhaps we could move to another

16     topic.

17             MR. PANTELIC:  Yes.

18        Q.   Mr. Traynor, I would like to put to you that -- actually, prior

19     to that, would you -- would you give me your personal knowledge and

20     comment on the way how -- I would say, form of how you -- you -- you

21     prepared your articles during your stay in -- in Bosnia in 1992.

22     Actually, what I'm interested in is that I would like to know, did you

23     work by yourself or -- or -- or it was a kind of office that you have,

24     with various assistants collecting documents and then preparing --

25             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Pantelic.

Page 10448

 1             MR. PANTELIC:  Yes.

 2             JUDGE HALL:  As the interventions of Judge Harhoff and

 3     Judge Delvoie have implied, the purpose of -- of a trial, even in

 4     cross-examination, is to move things forward.  We -- we --  the -- how

 5     this last question about the method that he used in terms of doing his

 6     work as a journalist, and as Judge Harhoff has reminded you, we know that

 7     he's a journalist.  The nature of the craft means that he synthesises

 8     material from a variety of sources and writes stories that his editor

 9     deem newsworthy.  That's as far as it goes.  How does it assist us, how

10     does it move the matter forward, in terms of these -- these types of

11     questions?

12             MR. PANTELIC:  That was, Your Honour, exactly my point.

13        Q.   I would like to put to Mr. Traynor actually that on the basis of

14     the standards of your profession, of your work, I find that you are not

15     balanced in your informations, that are you biased towards the Serbian, I

16     would say, side, and that's why your articles are not accurately

17     reflecting the situation in 1992 in Bosnia.

18             Do you agree with me?  Yes or no?

19        A.   I completely disagree with you.  I spend a lot of time in Serbia,

20     in Belgrade, speaking to lots of people under the Milosevic years, from

21     1988 onwards.  The biggest --

22        Q.   No, no, no.  Please, Mr. Traynor --

23        A.   And speaking to lots of people in Belgrade, the human -- the

24     democrats, the Djindjic people, Natasa Kandic, very brave human rights

25     activists operating in Belgrade, getting a lot of information from them

Page 10449

 1     and reflecting that as well.

 2        Q.   Okay.  I agree with you that you collected lot of informations,

 3     but I am putting to you that you were actually disregard the golden

 4     rule of journalism in your work, and that is rule to get independent

 5     information from various independent sources from all -- at least two

 6     sides.  I am putting to you that your work is seriously lacking

 7     objectivity and that's why that your articles could not be a source of

 8     any relevant assessment on information.

 9             Do you agree with me or not?

10             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. Traynor, you needn't answer that question.

11             Mr. Pantelic, next question.

12             MR. PANTELIC:  I don't have further questions for this witness,

13     Your Honours.  Thank you.

14             JUDGE HALL:  Re-examination.

15                           Re-examination by Ms. Pidwell:

16        Q.   Mr. Traynor, I won't take up too much more of your time.  Just a

17     few questions in re-examination.

18             Firstly, you may recall earlier today you were asked some

19     questions about the number of people allegedly killed at the Vlasic

20     mountain massacre and the interchange between you and Mr. Zupljanin

21     during your interview with him, about the possible mistake,

22     misinterpretation of those figures.

23             Can you tell us, please, or do you recall who was doing the

24     interpreting for you during that interview?

25        A.   It was an -- I'm almost certain [Realtime transcript read in

Page 10450

 1     error "uncertain"] it was a police interpreter.  It wasn't my regular

 2     interpreter in the -- the person that I had been working in Banja Luka

 3     who was a Bosnian Muslim and who wasn't comfortable going to the police

 4     building.

 5        Q.   Sorry, there's a correction to the transcript.  It currently

 6     reads:  "I'm uncertain it was a police interpreter."  I think the witness

 7     said:  "I'm fairly certain."  Perhaps I can clarify that with him.  If

 8     there's an issue.

 9        A.   That's right.

10        Q.   And your notes made at the time, which you read into the -- the

11     transcript yesterday on this issue, and if I can just refresh your memory

12     on that, you read -- you wrote down:

13             "It is not the number you mentioned.  Our information is about

14     50," you have written 50 in numbers not letters, "or more, but in the --

15     in this region the war is still on."

16             And my question is, when you -- when you wrote, "It is not the

17     number you mentioned," I'm assuming that you are writing down what

18     Mr. Zupljanin is saying at that point in time?

19        A.   That note is -- I -- we have asked the question about the numbers

20     that were circulated about the Vlasic massacre, which were in the region

21     of 190, if I recall accurately, and we put that figure to him.  What I

22     have written down is his answer.

23        Q.   Do you recall there being any issue at the time that that number

24     50 was a mistake or misinterpretation?

25        A.   No.

Page 10451

 1        Q.   And taking into account your knowledge of the B/C/S language at

 2     the time, do you think would you have heard the difference, if the -- if

 3     the Mr. Zupljanin had said one number and the interpreter had said

 4     something else?

 5        A.   Well, to be honest, having looked at -- seen the court documents

 6     that were up on the screen here an hour ago and the figure that is

 7     mentioned in the police documents of 140, there is -- there is an obvious

 8     correlation here.  140 plus 50 [Realtime transcript read in error "350"]

 9     is 190.  So that is making me think that there was perhaps a

10     misunderstanding or a mistranslation, but at the time, definitely not.

11     And I was not alone, I was with a colleague, and we compare notes

12     afterwards.

13        Q.   The colleague that you were with, she was from "The Washington

14     Post"; is that right?

15        A.   Correct.

16        Q.   And did she make notes at the time as well?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   And to your recollection, did she write any articles as a result

19     of the interview that you did with Mr. Zupljanin?

20        A.   She -- she wrote a fairly sizeable article on -- on the -- on the

21     Vasic mountain incident.  And she was really leading the questioning on

22     this because she was working on that specific incident.

23             MR. PANTELIC:  I do apologise.  Just a correction to transcript.

24     Page 54, line 13, instead of a figure 350, I believe witness said 50,

25     because obviously 140 plus 350 is not 190.  Thank you.

Page 10452

 1             MS. PIDWELL:

 2        Q.   Mr. Traynor, you will also recall being asked questions by my

 3     learned friend about the large article you wrote on the town of Kozarac

 4     and your -- your sources for that article, and the way that you gathered

 5     your information for that article.

 6             How long -- do you recall how long it took you to undertake that

 7     research?

 8        A.   Oh, about a month, I would say.

 9        Q.   And did you have a -- an overall focus or a theme for that

10     article or were you writing it simply from a general specific?

11        A.   Well, I mean, this was -- the destruction of Kozarac was already

12     four or five months old and it was quite a large place, and it really had

13     never been reported before and it was 15.000 civilians.  And nobody knew

14     what had happened there.  It was quite an extraordinary thing.  They was

15     no basically minimal, unlike in the rest of Bosnia at the time and

16     Sarajevo and other parts where you had aid convoys and UN and UNPROFOR

17     troops, et cetera, there was no international witnesses in the Banja Luka

18     region, in -- in the key months of May, June and July.  So it struck me

19     as a rather important subject, to try and research and recreate what

20     happened to this basically -- almost 100 percent Muslim town on the main

21     road of 50.000 civilians and what had happened to them.  That was -- I

22     only discovered it in the course of being there and then basically set

23     about trying to establish what had happened.

24        Q.   And during this month of your research trying to establish what

25     had happened, did you check with all available sources to you?

Page 10453

 1        A.   All available sources to me at the time, yes, mm-hm.  I mean, I

 2     went to the police and couldn't get any further with the local Serb

 3     police and local Serb military.

 4        Q.   Sir, you were asked to recall or read through a list of articles

 5     that you had written in 1992, some of 170 articles, when Mr. Pantelic was

 6     putting to you that you weren't writing any articles about -- which had

 7     Serb victims in them.

 8             The list that you looked through only had the headings of the

 9     articles.  Is that correct?

10        A.   Yeah, this list here, yeah, mm-hm.

11        Q.   Have you actually read through all of those articles in the past

12     few months?

13        A.   No.  Sorry, no, I haven't.

14        Q.   When would be the last time that you had reviewed your work from

15     1992?

16        A.   I have no idea.  Not in living memory.  Not that I can remember.

17             MS. PIDWELL:  Your Honours, when you decided to permit this

18     witness to testify pursuant to Rule 92 ter last year in October, part of

19     his 92 ter package was a list of all of the articles that he wrote on the

20     conflict in the former Yugoslavia from 1992 until 1995.  It was a list of

21     some 843 articles which had his byline and the heading and some of them

22     had a -- the first sentence.  That was part of the 92 ter package and put

23     in by the Prosecution to show the -- the general background of his

24     reporting and so forth throughout that time.  It was specifically

25     excluded by Your Honours in that ruling as being irrelevant and not

Page 10454

 1     necessary.  In the circumstances, and in view of the fact that

 2     Mr. Pantelic has spent an enormous amount of time trying to allege a bias

 3     or some swaying of this journalist's viewpoint, I would submit that it is

 4     appropriate to reinstate that list, and Your Honours can, if necessary,

 5     review it for yourselves at a later time.

 6             JUDGE HALL:  May we have a moment, please.

 7                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 8             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Mr. Pantelic, yes.  Yes, of course.

 9             MR. PANTELIC:  May I make a short submission on that issue,

10     Your Honour.

11             Point number one, we discussed the matter of -- of -- of

12     articles, sources, media sources, et cetera, before and Your Honour rules

13     on that issue.  I don't have any problem for Prosecution to locate -- I

14     mean, what I said just was based on the danger or future for us to become

15     a library of newspaper articles, video-clips, et cetera, from both sides,

16     because it is a never-ending story and who knows how it will end at the

17     end, how it will be finished.

18             My point is, if Prosecution is sure, I don't have any problem to

19     have only this particular article from 1992, from the list of 170,

20     because it covers the -- the -- the time-frame of the indictment, if my

21     friends can find and locate article with regard to the -- to the -- to

22     the Serb victims and -- and -- and -- I don't have problem to tender that

23     in the evidence.

24             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you.

25             MR. PANTELIC:  Because there is no such article.  That is my

Page 10455

 1     point.  There is no.  Whatever the title of the article, there is no.

 2     That is my point.

 3             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Ms. Pidwell, have you finished your re-direct?

 4     Then let's deal with your requests by the end of the witness's testimony.

 5             So please finish up.

 6             MS. PIDWELL:

 7        Q.   Sir, you were asked by my learned friend about how it came about

 8     that you were -- you came to interview Mr. Zupljanin.  And you -- you

 9     said -- and the transcript is not quite clear on this, but you referred

10     to a press service.

11             Can you expand on that?

12        A.   I'm having difficulty recalling exactly, but, you know, anywhere

13     you go you go to -- there was a press -- there was a spokesman, and we

14     were at the Vance-Owen meeting with the assembled local Serbian political

15     leadership and there would have been somebody dealing with the press

16     there, and I don't remember who it was, and we would ask could we arrange

17     some appointments.  And that's how it happened.

18        Q.   And do you recall if you specifically asked to interview

19     Mr. Zupljanin or was it a more general request?

20        A.   It was more general.

21        Q.   And did you -- do you recall whether you asked -- qualified the

22     general question in any way by nationality?

23        A.   No, no.  It was a Serbian authority that we were -- you know, it

24     would have been the mayor, it would have been the head of the party, the

25     head of the police, military figures, people like Brdjanin, Vukic, and so

Page 10456

 1     on.  And you know, these were the kind of people we were looking for to

 2     speak to -- to interview, and we were granted interview with Zupljanin.

 3        Q.   Were you granted an interview with anyone else?

 4        A.   No.

 5        Q.   And, finally, when you were asked a question by Mr. Pantelic,

 6     just a few moments ago, about the events in Banja Luka, and the issue

 7     about why refugees were not returning to Bosnia, in answer you said, I'm

 8     not a sociologist.  These were economic migrants leaving for a better

 9     life to get 400 Deutschemarks and stay in hotels.  And then you said,

10     Judging by what I see around me, I found this extremely inappropriate.

11             Now can you just please expand and tell the Trial Chamber what

12     you found extremely inappropriate?

13        A.   Well, we had just been hearing lots of -- there was lots of

14     people being uprooted.  I mean, my colleague on the same newspaper had

15     just spent three or four days walking through the hills, with convoys of

16     refugees being kind of emptied out of that particular region south of

17     Banja Luka, walking through front lines, civilians, women and children,

18     and judging from what we were hearing from the UNHCR and ICRC, et cetera,

19     there were dozens of buses and trucks on the move in that particular

20     region at the moment, crossing front lines, getting turned back, going

21     back, getting charged lots of money, getting their valuables taken away,

22     et cetera, et cetera.

23             So, you know, this is what one knew at the time, and to hear that

24     basically these people were just looking for a better live and

25     400 Deutschemarks and a night in a German hotel was thoroughly perverse.

Page 10457

 1        Q.   Thank you, sir.

 2             MS. PIDWELL:  I have no further questions.

 3             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you, Mr. Traynor, for your assistance to the

 4     Tribunal.  You are now released as a witness.  You're free to go and we

 5     wish you a safe return and/or onward journey.

 6                           [The witness withdrew]

 7                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 8             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Ms. Pidwell, let us get back to the issue of

 9     admission into evidence of the 92 ter package.

10             The Trial Chamber has discussed how we should deal with this, and

11     our decision is that we will admit into evidence the two statements made

12     by the witness in 1999 and 2000.  And that's it.  That is to say, that

13     the 15 articles which were also part of the package will not be admitted

14     into evidence.  The reason is that we don't think that they have

15     sufficient evidentiary value.  They're interesting articles, they're

16     good, but we wouldn't rely on them for the purpose of -- of -- of

17     reaching our conclusions in the case.

18             MS. PIDWELL:  Your Honours, the Prosecution is not seeking to

19     tender those as truth of the contents so -- the back-door approach that

20     Mr. O'Sullivan alluded to yesterday.  The Prosecution is seeking to

21     tender them as -- as the writings of this witness to provide you with the

22     insight into what was happening from his perspective at the time, as a

23     journalist on the ground, and -- and as an example of the media reporting

24     in at the time.  And as you are aware, the media played a large role in

25     Bosnia in 1992.

Page 10458

 1             JUDGE HARHOFF:  We are fully aware of it.  We have Mr. Traynor's

 2     testimony and we now have the two statements, and that will suffice.

 3             MS. KORNER:  There is a real difficulty with this and it's one I

 4     raised at the beginning of the case, that we really need to know, at the

 5     beginning, what is to be admitted as part of the 92 ter package and what

 6     is not.  Because if we don't know -- if we'd known that was going to be

 7     your view, we would have gone into a much grater detail about these

 8     articles and the information that was contained in them because it's the

 9     notice that is being given to -- apart from any other context of the

10     articles, to those who are engaged in this conflict about what the

11     reporting was.  And there's evidence already, and there will be further

12     evidence, that the international reporting was of some importance to

13     those who -- I imagine all sides in this conflict.

14             But it's the principle of it, Your Honours.  And I did raise this

15     some time ago.  We need to know at the beginning whether a package, a

16     92 ter package is admitted or not.  And that's the whole idea.  And

17     indeed my understanding was that the ruling -- sorry, may I finish.  I

18     apologise, but may I finish.

19             Your ruling was the package was admitted.  Yes, on -- so, I mean,

20     that's what -- if we have a ruling that a 92 ter -- that a witness may be

21     92 ter, a witness may be admitted under the 92 ter package, we assume

22     that the exhibits go with it; or if not, then we should be told at the

23     time which exhibits are not going in.

24             May I say it is unfair, otherwise.

25             JUDGE HALL:  Could you assist me Ms. Korner.  You indicated that

Page 10459

 1     we -- the application would have been made at the time when -- in respect

 2     of this -- the 92 ter package relating to this witness would have only

 3     been made when this witness -- when this person became a witness and we

 4     specifically reserve that question.

 5             So I'm -- perhaps I'm -- I'm misunderstanding you when you say

 6     that we would have ruled on the admission of the 92 ter package.

 7             MS. KORNER:  If Your Honours say -- Your Honours deferred a

 8     decision on the 92 ter package until cross-examination had finished which

 9     is -- you have done it occasionally with some witnesses and not with

10     others, so at the moment it is not always the same practice.  And I

11     raised some time ago, I think right at the first witness, that we should

12     know at the beginning of the examination-in-chief, which is based, at the

13     moment -- and the time we ask for is based on the admission of the

14     statement or the interview and the documents that go with it, unless

15     we're specifically told, in advance, we will not admit those documents.

16             Now, had we known that, in this case, Your Honours would have

17     ruled inadmissible all the articles, we would have gone into -- certainly

18     we'd have listed all the articles so it is on the transcript.  We might

19     have gone into some detail.  So we're at a disadvantage from this ruling.

20             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the counsel please speak more slowly.

21     Thank you.

22             JUDGE HALL:  With respect, Ms. Korner, I'm not sure that I

23     appreciate - and the fault may be entirely mine - why, in the OTP's view,

24     the result is unfair.  Inasmuch as Ms. Pidwell has said that the

25     accompanying documents were not being sought to be tendered as proof of

Page 10460

 1     the truth of the contents but merely of the fact that they were made, but

 2     inasmuch as the -- whatever role the press would have played in the

 3     course of conflict is not subject of the inquiry by this Chamber, the --

 4     I don't see how that -- the fact that this particular -- the witness just

 5     released would have written a number of articles moves the matter

 6     forward, and for that reason, I'm not sure that I follow how the OTP

 7     feels that it is prejudiced.

 8             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour, one of the main -- or a main issue in

 9     this case is going to be the knowledge and notification which the two

10     accused, in particular, had in this case.  Articles which were published

11     by members of the international press were brought to the attention, we

12     know that, we've heard evidence about it, of the various -- the

13     leadership in this case if you like.  That's one of the reasons that

14     prompted, eventually in August, the major outcry over the camps which

15     prompted the investigations which Your Honours have seen.  And the giving

16     of notice -- and indeed these articles themselves, although they are

17     hearsay, they're first-hand hearsay.  In other words, that the -- the --

18     the author has spoken to the various people that he says he has spoken to

19     and they are admissible as directly going to some of the major events in

20     this case.  And you've heard from the journalist.  It is suggested that

21     he heard only one side.  That is a matter Your Honours will take into

22     account.

23             But, Your Honour, the articles themselves -- I'm sorry, there

24     are -- which is a separate issue from giving notice to us of what is

25     going to be admitted or not, but is a separate issue that those articles

Page 10461

 1     in themselves, such as they are, given the weight that he has spoken to

 2     only limited numbers of people, are admissible evidence and have been as

 3     admissible evidence in many cases.  Your Honours --

 4             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Ms. Korner, there is -- in the ruling that we

 5     have just given, there is no principle position that would suggest that

 6     the Chamber will not admit any article, newspaper article.  In fact, I

 7     think we have already admitted quite a few.

 8             The Chamber's point is that what needs to be on the record for

 9     the purpose of the Prosecution in relation to the point that you have

10     just raised, namely, to -- to -- to show that the international press was

11     writing about the events and that this information was being brought to

12     the accused by way of the international press coverage, is clearly on the

13     record, so we don't think that it is necessary to admit into evidence the

14     articles that have you included in your 65 ter package.  In -- to show

15     that extra point.

16             And as Ms. Pidwell said and the Presiding Judge reminded you, the

17     articles anyway weren't brought for their contents.

18             MS. KORNER:  Well, I heard Ms. Pidwell say that, Your Honour, and

19     I don't like to -- to disagree with a member of my own team.  But I

20     actually I do think it does have an element of that -- I don't think.

21     What I think is irrelevant, as I keep pointing out.  We would submit that

22     it is also, although it is hearsay evidence, it is admissible for the

23     truth of the contents.

24             But, Your Honours -- but can I return to my original point which

25     is the fact that we respectfully say to Your Honours that we should be

Page 10462

 1     notified at the beginning of the -- the evidence of a witness, where he

 2     is a 92 ter, he or she is a 92 ter witness, what is going to be admitted

 3     and what is not because if is not going to be admitted at the end of --

 4     when we have no chance to go back over it, in respect of documents, then

 5     we would probably go into more detail.

 6             And, Your Honours, in rulings you have given, you've indicated

 7     where you've excluded documents before this.  And no indication was given

 8     with this witness.

 9             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Ms. Korner, I don't think that admitting a 92 ter

10     witness means admitting the 92 ter package you propose.  And we've always

11     said, in numerous decisions, that it is after having heard the witness,

12     that we will determine in what way, and if the documents on your proposed

13     92 ter list are supporting the statement.  And that's the 92 ter Rule.

14     It has to be supporting the documents.

15             Well, we consider that these articles are not supporting the

16     statement.  And it's the statement that is what it is all about.

17             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours, of course -- and of course,

18     Your Honour, I'm not suggesting for one moment that Your Honours are not

19     entitled to take that view.  And you've heard my arguments and you don't

20     accept them, that's -- and I'm not seeking to [indiscernible] that.

21             What I'm talking about now is giving us notice through the

22     rulings that you make, as you have done, as to what you consider to be

23     inextricably linked and what not, what you will admit out of the document

24     packages.  And I think out of fairness we should be entitled to know that

25     before we examine in-chief.

Page 10463

 1                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 2             JUDGE HALL:  Mr. O'Sullivan, you had something to offer on this?

 3             MR. O'SULLIVAN:  Very briefly and I believe we can go back.

 4     Probably the first witness where this arose was Djeric, going back to

 5     last October.  In our submission, the position that Judge Delvoie has

 6     just enunciated is the practice we have been following, that the witness

 7     comes, and where there are times or certain documents where it may be

 8     contentious whether or not they should be admitted, those decisions are

 9     made by the Chamber following direct and cross.

10             So we have been following this practice at least since Djeric.

11     That is my first recollection, maybe earlier.

12             JUDGE HALL:  [Overlapping speakers] ...

13             MS. KORNER:  [Overlapping speakers] ...

14             JUDGE HALL:  And I would add to that that to the extent that it

15     appears that that position is exceptional, the easy explanation is that

16     the -- where the 92 ter -- where there is obviously no controversy about

17     the 92 ter package accompanying -- the package accompanying a 92 ter

18     witness, then we needn't go through this exercise.  And it really only

19     arises where it is necessary to look at the question, and as

20     Mr. O'Sullivan has said, as Judge Delvoie has reminded, that we have --

21     this is the practice that we have followed and, quite frankly, I see no

22     other way in dealing with it but to examine where there is a controversy,

23     it -- on a case-by-case basis, and it would be well-nigh impossible,

24     perhaps impossible is putting it too high, but I don't see how we could

25     do it beforehand, as you -- you -- you are suggesting --

Page 10464

 1             MS. KORNER:  That's -- can I go back to Mr. O'Sullivan's

 2     intervention in this.  The point about us filing a motion, saying here is

 3     the package and here are the documents and the Defence response is that

 4     the Defence are not meant to leave it, as I pointed out yesterday, until

 5     the witness is here and waiting to give evidence, and then not give any

 6     notice at all properly to the Prosecution or the Trial Chamber.  It is

 7     meant to respond saying it objects.  And at that stage both Your Honours

 8     and the Prosecution are on notice.  The Defence did not do so, as I've

 9     already said twice now, in this particular case.  And, Your Honours, I

10     think it would have been only right and fair that we should have been

11     given advance notification and, as I say, it is likely that we would have

12     taken a different course with this witness.

13             So that is the only point I am making.  So Your Honours, I'm

14     asking that in future, in particular with the witness who's coming

15     tomorrow, particularly as he's on video-line, that if there is to be any

16     objection taken from the Defence to any of the documents that are in the

17     package, we should be notified no later than 4.00 this afternoon.

18             JUDGE HALL:  Well, I think that is as far as we can take this

19     matter now.  We would --

20             Yes, Mr. Pantelic.

21             MR. PANTELIC:  Your Honour, I terribly apologise.  If you are

22     going to adjourn now, or we are sitting still, ten minutes.  That's just

23     my --

24             JUDGE HALL:  Well, I didn't think there was anything left for us

25     to deal with, but if you have a matter --

Page 10465

 1             MR. PANTELIC:  Oh, yes, Your Honour.  I would really ask for your

 2     attention.

 3             Yesterday at the end of --

 4                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

 5             JUDGE HALL:  Sorry.  The -- the -- such of the 92 ter packages we

 6     have admitted as has been tendered -- as we have admitted would now be

 7     marked as an exhibit.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Yes, Your Honour.  And they shall be admitted in

 9     a package as Exhibit P01356.01 until .17.  Thank you, Your Honours.

10             I shall repeat that the 92 ter package of --

11                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

12             THE REGISTRAR:  I will make that correction.  The two statements

13     shall be admitted as Exhibit P01356.01 and P01356.02.  Thank you,

14     Your Honours.

15             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

16             Yes, Mr. Pantelic.

17             MR. PANTELIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.  Yesterday when I was

18     conferring with my client, my learned friend Mr. Krgovic was very precise

19     and he made a submission with regard to adjudicated facts issue.  And I

20     take it it is not completed so I just have a few remarks with that regard

21     which might be of assistance.

22             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, thank you.

23             MR. PANTELIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.

24             In addition what my learned friends Mr. Zecevic, Mr. O'Sullivan,

25     and Mr. Krgovic said on that topic, I would like to -- to -- to add the

Page 10466

 1     following submission.

 2             Your Honours, the -- the -- I mean, my understanding of -- of

 3     Article, I believe, it's 94(B) which is related to judicial notice, is

 4     that by all means in terms of judicial economy, in terms of efficiency of

 5     trial, certain standards must apply and finally we have a case law within

 6     the Tribunal with that regard, so on and so forth.

 7             My -- actually the Zupljanin Defence position is the following.

 8     This approach should be taken only in very limited occasions.  I will

 9     give you example.  We have Srebrenica case.  Srebrenica case started with

10     case against General Krstic, then against the other number of accused

11     so-called Srebrenica 1.  Now we have Srebrenica 2.  Also we a case

12     Sarajevo bombing campaign relating to General Galic and

13     General Milosevic.  We also have a Prijedor number of cases, starting

14     from Dusko Tadic, then Chief of Crisis Staff Stakic, and then number of

15     officers guards, in the camps.

16             My point is the following.  Yes, I could personally agree in

17     order to speed up proceedings to follow certain judicial economy

18     standards but only for these kind of limited groups of cases.  Yes, it

19     was applicable to certain extent subject to conditions; for example, for

20     Srebrenica, or for Sarajevo, or for Prijedor.  But here, we don't have a

21     previous case specifically related to a high-ranked police officials; I'm

22     speaking on behalf of Mr. Zupljanin.  For example, you would have

23     previous case against his associate or his, I don't know, deputy, then

24     certain findings on that basis could -- could, as I said, reach that

25     standard, to be -- to be assessed as adjudicated facts.

Page 10467

 1             So my point is, when you asked me what is my position - bless

 2     you, Your Honour - what is my position with regard to -- what is the

 3     Defence position with regard to adjudicated facts.  I said on the basis

 4     of what I just said, I'm objecting.  And my learned friend Mr. Krgovic

 5     was very efficient showing you, for example, in Tesic case, how in fact

 6     adjudicated facts principle is -- is -- is relative and that we have

 7     to -- to go from case to case to know what we are going -- what we should

 8     challenge or not.

 9             I can give you example.  I think it was Judge Harhoff or

10     Judge Delvoie asking me do I challenge, for example, census for Teslic,

11     figures about the demographic census in 1991.  I said yes.  I'm

12     challenging that.  On which basis?  On the following basis:  Number one,

13     it is beyond the scope of the indictment because that was the census in

14     1991.  And then this particular fact does not consist another aspect,

15     which is the number of workers, I mean, three nationalities, for example,

16     in Teslic, working abroad, and they are appearing in the census but

17     actually they are not there.  So that -- that's the point why we are

18     challenging this kind of fact, and we were quite successful in -- in

19     against Ewa Tabeau, demographic expert, in Samac case because, you know,

20     that was dismissed.  Her demographic study was completely dismissed as

21     absolutely irrelevant to the case.

22             Now, I am going back, Your Honours, to the fundamental issue of

23     this case.  This is a case on the basis of Prosecution theory which is

24     abbreviation of JCE, which is just convict everyone, which calls joint

25     criminal enterprise.  With this kind of theory, I am absolutely entitled

Page 10468

 1     to challenge even -- I don't know, a minor fact of -- of -- of certain

 2     perpetrator in -- in certain area because this broad theory which is --

 3     which is advocated by the OTP is such that even -- even this adjudicated

 4     fact goes to the legal issues.  Because the point is that -- that such a

 5     broad theory is going to provoke reaction, in terms of challenging

 6     certain adjudicated facts, based on the legal issue.  Because, you know,

 7     these standards person A, B, C, sees not a part of JCE of where A and B

 8     are, and then principal perpetrator D is acting and so and so forth.  I

 9     mean, this is absolutely messy, messy theory.

10             What is our position?  Our position, Your Honours, is that we

11     are -- we are actually -- we are actually -- and Judge Harhoff, being

12     presiding Pre-Trial Judge may -- may correct me if I am wrong.  It was

13     during -- during one of the Pre-Trial Conference in June 2009.  In order

14     to be efficient and in order to avoid -- you asked me, Judge Harhoff,

15     whether I will accept certain adjudicated fact.  I said yes.  I will

16     accept many of them, but only in the case where this umbrella crime

17     theory catch them all, whole JCE advocated by the OTP will be -- will

18     be -- will be set aside.  I am ready to admit number of adjudicated

19     facts, only if this Office of the Prosecution will follow

20     well-established practice of the ICC Court on the basis of civil law

21     jurisdiction and the principles and enshrined in the principle of

22     co-perpetration through control.  That's the theory that I'm -- just five

23     seconds, Your Honour.

24             That's a theory that I'm, if they will plead this theory, will

25     accept certain adjudicated facts.  Why?  Because they have to show

Page 10469

 1     whether my client was in which kind of relation and nexus to consequences

 2     and to principal perpetrators.  Not to say simply no, you have trouble

 3     here, you have members of army, you have a civilian aspect, you have a

 4     guard, you have officers.  You're responsible for natural and foreseeable

 5     consequences.  No, Your Honour.  We have to go to get back to the real

 6     and proper and fair standards.  And I must say that, that I'm very

 7     happy -- I'm not sure that I'm right, but that Honourable Judge Agius,

 8     who was quite, I would say, he was -- he was an excellent Judge, found in

 9     Brdjanin discussing the issue of JCE in Brdjanin case that now he is

10     sitting on Appeals Chamber so we have some lights even on that part of

11     theory that a certain -- that certain legal minds will -- will take care

12     about the limitations and the dangerous aspect of JCE, which is advocated

13     by the OTP in such a broad terms.

14             Thank you very much for your attention, Your Honour.

15             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you, Mr. Pantelic, for your assistance.

16             Ms. Pidwell, we're past the hour of adjournment.

17             MS. PIDWELL:  I know, sir, I have 20 seconds on an issue raised

18     by Judge Harhoff yesterday, the date of the Kozarac video.  I have that

19     information if Your Honours would like that now.  The last video tendered

20     by the Prosecution was first aired -- it's P1360, was first aired on

21     British television on the 3rd of February, 1993, and that was verified by

22     the British Film Institute library.

23             JUDGE HARHOFF:  Thank you very much, Ms. Pidwell.

24             JUDGE HALL:  And so we rise to reconvene tomorrow in

25     Courtroom III, at 2.15 in the afternoon.

Page 10470

 1                            --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.48 p.m.,

 2                           to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 19th day of May,

 3                           2010, at 2.15 p.m.