1 Wednesday, 06 February 2002

2 [Open session]

3 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Please be seated.

5 [The accused entered court]

6 JUDGE AGIUS: Please call the case.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour. This is case number IT-99-36-T,

8 the Prosecutor versus Radoslav Brdjanin and Momir Talic.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: So let's start with the usual routine.

10 Mr. Brdjanin, good morning to you. Can you hear me in a language that you

11 understand?

12 THE ACCUSED BRDJANIN: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your

13 Honours. I can hear you and I understand you.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: And General Talic, I put the same question to you.

15 Do you hear me in a language that you can understand?

16 THE ACCUSED TALIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours. I

17 can understand you and I hear you very well.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning to you, too. So appearances for the

19 Prosecution?

20 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, Joanna Korner and Nicholas Koumjian for

21 the Prosecution, assisted by Ruth Karper. Your Honour, may I say that

22 Mr. Cayley and I, as it were, are taking turns in being in court.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: I understand that.

24 Appearances for Mr. Brdjanin?

25 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour, I'm John Ackerman. I appear with

1 Milka Maglov, my co-counsel, and Tania Radosavljevic.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: For General Talic?

3 MR. DE ROUX: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I'm Xavier de Roux

4 for General Talic, and I'm assisted by Natasha Fauveau-Ivanovic and Fabien

5 Masson.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: So, having cleared that stage, important stage, in

7 the proceedings, we can now proceed with the continuation of the

8 cross-examination of Witness Krzic by Maitre de Roux, but I see -- I

9 recognise Mr. Ackerman on his feet.

10 Yes, Mr. Ackerman.

11 MR. ACKERMAN: Thank you, Your Honour. This morning, I provided

12 the Chamber with the rest of the transcript.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. I have seen it. It's not conclusive, and in

14 any case, let's be practical about it, Mr. Ackerman. Maitre de Roux needs

15 a whole day.

16 MR. ACKERMAN: Please do not hear me as asking for that day. I'm

17 not.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. All right.

19 MR. ACKERMAN: I will go today and change my reservations and

20 change my plans regarding Sarajevo because yesterday I told you I would,

21 and that's what I'll do.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. That's very much appreciated, Mr. Ackerman.

23 MR. ACKERMAN: The other thing that I wanted to do, before I

24 forget to do it today, is request permission of the Tribunal for my

25 co-counsel Ms. Maglov to be absent from our hearings next week. She will

1 return a week from Monday. She has obligations with regard to this case

2 in Banja Luka that I've asked her to perform.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: Permission granted.

4 MR. ACKERMAN: Thank you.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Would you please bring in the witness, Mr. Muharem

6 Krzic?

7 Ms. Korner, incidentally, just to -- I would imagine that you've

8 been updated by Mr. Cayley and Mr. Koumjian, but we have had in the course

9 of the last two days, a number of documents that were shown to the witness

10 and supposedly they will be exhibited at the end of his evidence. Just to

11 remind you that this still has to be done. That's number 1. And that if

12 there are any other documents related to his evidence that you may not

13 have brought forward, that you make them available. I don't know if there

14 are any but I have a suspicion that there might be.

15 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, as far as I'm aware, all the exhibits

16 that we intend to -- that we intend to put through this witness have been

17 produced already. But I'm certainly aware of the fact that they've still

18 got to be given numbers, and if there are any others --

19 JUDGE AGIUS: They were given temporary numbers at the same time,

20 simultaneously, as they were being brought forward, which I suppose will

21 be the number that we would best follow.

22 MS. KORNER: Yes.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: I think that was the whole idea behind the exercise

24 that we went through last week.

25 MS. KORNER: If I may, we will confirm those numbers at the end of

1 the evidence.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: Please. It's very important so that -- because what

3 I am doing, at least from this side, is that I have compiled, and later on

4 I will have in the same folder, witnesses' testimony, the entire

5 testimony, including that of cross-examination and all the documentation

6 that -- to which he has referred or asked -- has been asked to make

7 reference to. So it is important that we stick to the same numbering

8 because it will be very important for future reference, okay?

9 MS. KORNER: Yes, we quite understand that, Your Honour.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: Thanks.

11 MS. KORNER: Thank you.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, please, bring him in.

13 [The witness entered court]

14 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning, Mr. Krzic. You will now be handed the

15 same document on which there is a solemn declaration which you are kindly

16 asked to read out and make. Thank you.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak

18 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

19 WITNESS: MUHAREM KRZIC [Resumed]

20 [Witness answered through interpreter]

21 JUDGE AGIUS: You may sit down.

22 And now, Mr. de Roux has -- Mr. de Roux, Xavier de Roux, counsel

23 for General Talic, will continue his cross-examination and will be

24 directing some questions to you.

25 Yes, Mr. de Roux.

1 Cross-examined by Mr. de Roux: [Continued]

2 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Krzic, while I was rereading your book, your

3 testimony, I noticed that you always called the Serbs "Chetniks." Isn't

4 that a derogative term, and why do you always use this term?

5 A. I'm sorry that you got this impression. I have to deny that. I

6 didn't always use members or some of the members of the Serbian people. I

7 didn't always call them Chetniks. But that term has been present in our

8 territory for over a century, has been familiar, and it always related to

9 people who carried weapons. As far as the Bosniaks are concerned, we

10 always had terrible experiences with people for whom this synonym, this

11 term, was used. This term remind us Bosniaks of the genocide that was

12 committed in our territory, and not for the first time.

13 Personally, I think -- when I use the term "Chetnik," I am

14 thinking of people who hate other peoples and who, because of their

15 hatred, are prepared to use the most ruthless means. This term is

16 historically very clear. It has been clarified. I don't see why I should

17 clarify it here.

18 Q. Thank you. Let's return to 1992 -- 1990, when the Congress of the

19 League of Communists failed. There were elections in Bosnia and

20 Herzegovina. The three nationalist parties that were present, neither of

21 them won a majority vote. And an agreement was signed between these three

22 parties: the SDA, your party; the SDS; and the HDZ. What was the

23 objective of this agreement, and what were the rules?

24 A. I didn't have that -- I haven't had that agreement in my hands and

25 I haven't seen it in its entirety, if we're talking about an agreement at

1 the level of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. I haven't even seen

2 the written part at the level of the municipality of Banja Luka, from the

3 municipality of Banja Luka. But the agreement between those three, let's

4 say nationalist parties, at that time was made - and this is something I'm

5 deeply convinced of - firstly, because in the course of the elections

6 themselves, there was much fear that the left parties, that is to say the

7 Communist Parties, would win the majority and that Bosnia-Herzegovina

8 would remain under the influence of the Communist Party. So each party,

9 as far as I know, saw a particular danger for itself, saw the danger of

10 each party fighting for its own people, its own nation.

11 As the Bosniaks are concerned -- as far as the Bosniaks is

12 concerned, we thought that if the Communist Parties continued to govern,

13 that would prolong -- that would extend all the negative elements that

14 were present during the communist regime. I won't go into them all. We

15 were ready, therefore, to cooperate with parties who had at least stated

16 that they were democratic but that weren't prepared to support, let's say,

17 the Communist Parties.

18 According to that agreement, there's only one thing that I am

19 aware of: A division of government, a sharing of government was agreed on

20 in accordance with that agreement, which would be proportional, which

21 would represent the election results of each party, whereas the votes of

22 the left parties would also be distributed proportionally.

23 I will give you an example. If the left party got 100 votes,

24 then -- in the case of Banja Luka, 48 plus the remaining part that is to

25 be divided out of those 100 votes would be votes for the SDS. In the case

1 of the SDA, that would be 13, plus the remainder of the votes, et cetera,

2 et cetera. So that was an agreement, as far as I know, in which no

3 essential agreements had been reached on the strategic future, first of

4 all, of Yugoslavia and then, secondly, of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

5 Q. But in your opinion, there was not an agreement on the

6 governmental level. I'm asking whether this was the case or not. Was

7 there an agreement on the governmental level between the parties?

8 A. I am sorry, but I think you haven't heard my reply very well.

9 When I said the division of power, that concerns governing either

10 municipalities or the state.

11 My answer is yes.

12 Q. Mr. Krzic, I understood your answer very well but I was only

13 asking whether in 1990, there was a governmental agreement or not.

14 A. Yes. In -- expressed in percentages.

15 Q. Thank you. You said on several occasions that at this time,

16 tension was rising in Bosnia because of the arrival of Serbian people from

17 Croatia; they were arriving in large numbers. How can you explain this

18 arrival of Serbian refugees?

19 A. In the beginning, they were mentioning the figure of about 100 and

20 then of about a thousand - I never had the precise figure - for Banja

21 Luka. Once they even said that about 5.000 of them had been --

22 accommodation had been found for them in Banja Luka in the sports hall.

23 There were several thousand of them and so on. So it's very difficult for

24 me to give you a precise answer.

25 Q. Do you know approximately how many Serbs there were in Bosnia in

1 1990, and how many there are today?

2 A. I will provide you with some percentages. As far as I know, there

3 were between about 12 and 18 per cent of Serbs in Croatia. Today, I know

4 that there are -- the percentage is smaller, but I can only give you

5 impressions. I didn't -- I haven't really been involved in this question.

6 Q. Of course, of course. You said that the refusal to obey the

7 mobilisation call created second-class citizens in Bosnia, that is to say

8 those who refused to comply with the mobilisation order at the time Bosnia

9 was part of Yugoslavia, which was a federal state. Were you shocked --

10 did it seem to you to be shocking to defend federalism against nationalist

11 ideas?

12 A. First of all, the first question that must be asked is what was

13 the objective of such mobilisation. The first question, in fact, is who

14 is authorised, in accordance with the constitution of the republic, to

15 call for a mobilisation. The second question is why was mobilisation

16 being carried out. This was not the first time that there was a

17 mobilisation in the area of the former Yugoslavia for -- the objective of

18 which was to seize territory, to occupy territory, or the objective of

19 which was to destroy other nations. So each man had to have his own

20 attitude, his own position, if mobilisation was being -- in the case of

21 mobilisation in the municipality of Banja Luka, mobilisation could be

22 called for only by the government, that is to say by the presidency of

23 Bosnia and Herzegovina. Therefore, mobilisation at the level of the

24 municipality of Banja Luka was considered by us to be illegal. In

25 addition, it contained elements - and this appeared in the public - which

1 indicated it was a mobilisation against the Ustasha. So this mobilisation

2 had, it seems, as an intention a fight against Croats. We mustn't forget

3 that Croatia was an independent state. And even if it hadn't been, it was

4 inconceivable that the people, the masses, should be used to fight other

5 people, other masses, who were only seeking, claiming, their own

6 democratic rights.

7 Q. The federal -- the Yugoslav federal army was in difficulty in

8 Croatia. The barracks had been surrounded.

9 A. I think that your questions are touching on the subject that --

10 about which I can express my opinion, but I am not competent to talk about

11 this. I'm not a historian.

12 Q. That's fine. I'm not asking you about your -- about your

13 competence. For the entire period of the indictment, you had a prominent

14 political position in Banja Luka, as you were the president of the SDA.

15 Who were you receiving instructions from?

16 A. To tell you the truth, the formation of political units, if we are

17 talking about the SDA, was quite spontaneous. It was not really

18 organised. It was a national movement, a people's movement, and although

19 the party was a legitimate one and had been established as a political

20 party, it was a people's movement, and this means that it had all the

21 insufficiencies that come along, that are entailed if it is not well

22 organised. So instructions, instructions for wide-ranging policies,

23 instructions for policies concerning relations within Yugoslavia and

24 concerning international relations, such instructions were non-existent.

25 We had a committee, and certain things were discussed there. There were

1 certain conclusions which were reached, but it was very -- we very rarely

2 discussed about such conclusions at lower levels, except for when we were

3 talking about politics, policies between republics.

4 At a local level, there were such suggestions, and I have to say

5 that I'm not the real person in this case either, because these

6 instructions you are talking about, in 1990, or the first half of 1991, at

7 that time, I wasn't the president. I was the secretary of the party.

8 Mr. Islamovic was the president at the time, and these questions should be

9 addressed to him for that period.

10 Q. That's fine. But I would like to return to your book, your

11 lengthy book, in which you described at length the resistance of the SDA

12 and the problem of Muslims arming, which -- to which you have dedicated

13 many pages in your book. You also spoke about victorious combats such as

14 in Vecici. How were the Muslim forces organised?

15 A. [No interpretation]

16 JUDGE AGIUS: Wait, Mr. Krzic, because I do not have any

17 translation in English any more. And I haven't -- I haven't had

18 interpretation of your last statement, since you started answering this

19 question. I can see the script here on the monitor but --

20 THE INTERPRETER: Your Honour, can you hear the interpreter now?

21 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, I can hear the interpreter now.

22 THE INTERPRETER: Can the witness please be asked to repeat his

23 answer?

24 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Mr. Krzic, can you repeat what you had just

25 stated? Basically I can read it out for you. No, in fact, I don't even

1 have it in script here. I don't even have it in script here. So --

2 MR. DE ROUX: [Interpretation] I can ask my question once again.

3 Q. In the area of Banja Luka, how were the Bosniak armed forces

4 organised? What was their organisation there?

5 A. We did not have armed forces. As far as we were concerned, the

6 only existing armed force was the one that existed at the time. Again, I

7 am referring to the period of time when I was the president. So we did

8 not have any armed forces in Banja Luka. When you say "forces," I assume

9 that you are referring to some organised units, which did not exist at the

10 time.

11 There must have been -- there were probably groups that I had

12 heard of consisting of 10, 12, 15, I don't know how many, young men who,

13 faced with the very dangerous situation at the time, attempted to protect

14 themselves in such a way. It was quite absurd -- an absurd idea to have

15 any kind of armed force in Banja Luka, which had a very big concentration

16 of soldiers and weaponry in its -- in its barracks. There were about

17 20.000 soldiers there, plus the population -- the local population that

18 already had weapons. But I know that there were attempts being made by

19 certain individuals to obtain weapons, because if you are surrounded, if

20 you live in a very practical -- practically in a concentration camp, you

21 have to find ways to protect your life. But we did not have armed

22 forces. When you say "armed forces," I assumed that you also refer to the

23 forces that were preparing themselves for some kind of attack. No, there

24 was not such force in Banja Luka.

25 Q. Yet in your book, you spoke about a person by the name of

1 Smiladzik who at the Banja Luka cemetery counted a certain number of

2 soldiers. And you say that it was a way of recognising Serb losses, which

3 means that there were battles and that there was fighting going on there

4 at the time.

5 A. I think that you are somewhat mistaken. The figures in question

6 refer to those killed in action at the front line. Every army deems such

7 information to be very useful, and not only useful but also confidential,

8 because every warring faction always tries to conceal such statistics.

9 Those figures referred to the soldiers who had been killed at the front

10 line in Croatia. That was something that was very important for us. And

11 it was also very important for us to find out at which front line such

12 events were taking place. And it was also important for the Serb people

13 to know that there were victims on both sides, because the military junta

14 at that time was trying to hide the number of victims, Serb victims, at

15 the front line, for reasons that you are familiar with.

16 Q. So the figures referred to Serb soldiers killed at the front

17 line. How far was the front line from Banja Luka?

18 A. Well, depends. If you're facing -- if you're looking in the

19 direction of Jajce, the front line was some 70 kilometres away by road,

20 not as the crow flies. But I think that as the crow flies, it would not

21 be not more than 35 kilometres.

22 If you're looking in the direction of Kotor Varos, that would be

23 less than 30 kilometres away.

24 As far as the area of Bihac is concerned, that was a bit further

25 away, perhaps 120 to 150 kilometres away. I believe that I have answered

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 your question.

2 Q. Yes, of course. Let us try to clarify things. When you speak

3 about the Vecici battle, you mentioned that a number of armoured vehicles,

4 armoured Serb vehicles, were destroyed on the way to the front. Is that

5 correct?

6 A. The Vecici battle was a spontaneous resistance. The area in

7 question had had some terrible experiences with Chetniks in the Second

8 World War, and the local population was aware of the difficult position

9 they found themselves in without weapons, if they didn't have any

10 weapons. So it was a local uprising, local resistance. I know that a

11 number of armoured vehicles, APCs were destroyed. When I say "armoured

12 vehicles," I'm also referring to tanks. But I also mentioned the Air

13 Force, which bombed them with napalm bombs and cluster bombs, which we

14 know are prohibited from the Banja Luka airport. So it is impossible for

15 us not to be on their side, especially in view of the statistics that I

16 had received, a number of murders, rapes that had taken place before the

17 conflict broke out in Kotor Varos.

18 I don't know what you're trying to say, but this was a case of a

19 local uprising, local resistance, and I think that it is a very bright,

20 shiny example of the way people attempted to defend their homes and to

21 resist a form of fascism and aggression. Croats and Bosniaks were

22 fighting on one side, and I believe that there were Serbs among their

23 ranks as well. And the other side -- well, you know who was the other

24 side. The fourth army in the world, in terms of its strength and one

25 of -- and the military -- the local military base was one of the strongest

1 in Europe.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, Mr. de Roux.

3 Mr. Krzic, I sense in a way that the way we are going might lead

4 us into a confrontation between you and Mr. de Roux, which this Trial

5 Chamber is definitely determined to -- not to let happen. Please try to

6 answer the questions that are put to you without going into other details,

7 unless these are absolutely necessary to explain further the point that

8 you wish to make. But please avoid going into matters which can only

9 provoke further questions and further answers and reactions from you,

10 which would eventually lead us into unnecessary exchange of

11 confrontational remarks.

12 I hope that you have both, Mr. de Roux and yourself, taken the

13 message. And I would invite you to proceed in accordance with what I have

14 suggested. Thank you.

15 Please, Mr. de Roux, go ahead.

16 MR. DE ROUX: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I don't think that

17 this is a confrontation. I'm trying to obtain some clarification. But I

18 believe that the witness could be a bit more succinct in his attempts to

19 provide this explanation to the Court.

20 Q. Let me go back to something that you mentioned in your testimony,

21 Mr. Krzic. You told us that Vecici was an area where Muslims remembered

22 very well the genocide they experienced in the Second World War. Don't

23 you think that the Serbs in this region also remembered very well the

24 genocide of which they were victims when Bosnia was annexed by Croatia

25 during the Second World War?

1 A. I'm not trying to deny that.

2 Q. Thank you. Let us go back to General Talic and what you said

3 about him. You mentioned two occasions on which you met with General

4 Talic. Your delegation was the one of the religious and social

5 organisation or association of local Muslims. You wanted to see General

6 Talic, and he received you. He was accompanied by members of his staff,

7 including Colonel Osman Selak. What was the ethnic background of Colonel

8 Selak?

9 A. He was a Bosniak, as far as I know.

10 Q. In your book, you mention the fact that you were in constant

11 contact with Colonel Selak, who was a member of General Talic's staff but

12 who, at the same time, according to you, belonged to your network, to your

13 group of resistance. Do you think that General Talic would have kept

14 amongst -- in his ranks Colonel Selak, Colonel Osman Selak, because of

15 this tradition in the army, the multi-ethnic tradition in the former army,

16 or because he was simply mistaken as far as his loyalty was concerned?

17 A. First of all, I have to deny what you're saying. I did not have

18 frequent contacts with Colonel Selak. Quite the contrary. On the other

19 hand, it is perfectly clear to everyone that there were Bosniaks and

20 Croats within the former JNA, but it is also clear that, as time went by,

21 the ratio of personnel or staff within the former JNA deteriorated, as

22 regards their ethnic composition. It is common knowledge that Serb

23 nationals were predominant within the past ten years. But let us go back

24 to Colonel Selak. I believe that he will be the best person to describe

25 the situation. I don't see any reason for me to speculate. I can tell

1 you what my attitude is in that regard.

2 Q. I'm not asking you to speculate, Mr. Krzic.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: Please finish your answer, Mr. Krzic, and try to be

4 as concise as possible. The question was a very direct one and you can

5 answer it in two -- in two sentences, actually.

6 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I'm sorry to interrupt, but the actual

7 question is -- was to the witness: Why was Colonel Selak kept on by

8 General Talic? How can he say?

9 JUDGE AGIUS: Exactly. "I can't answer the question myself," and

10 we certainly don't have -- but he's definitely not the kind of witness who

11 is not capable of giving the answer that you would have wished or

12 anticipated. I mean, he's a diplomat and he can answer that question very

13 easily.

14 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honour --

15 JUDGE AGIUS: If he's not in a position to answer it, I can think

16 that he can tell us that --

17 MS. KORNER: I think he did. But I merely make the point he was

18 actually being asked what was in General Talic's mind.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: I know, Ms. Korner, but let him finish his answer

20 and then you proceed with the next question or another question related to

21 this one.

22 Yes, Mr. Krzic, can you tell us something more about this, and

23 perhaps conclude?

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course, I cannot tell you what

25 was in General Talic's mind. However, I can tell you that it was my

1 belief that Colonel Selak and other Bosniaks who still existed within the

2 former JNA were the last remnants of this tradition. As far as Colonel

3 Selak is concerned, I think it was his professional attitude that

4 prevailed, because the members of the Army of Republika Srpska were to a

5 large extent dilettantes. However, Mr. Selak was a professional and he --

6 it would have been very difficult to replace him. I don't know to what

7 extent any personal attitude of General Talic may have played an important

8 role.

9 MR. DE ROUX: [Interpretation] Mr. President, my question is very

10 specific. I'm not trying to --

11 JUDGE AGIUS: Allow, please, an interval of time between the end

12 of his reply, his answer, and the next question, because of

13 interpretation, for interpretation purposes. Could you please rephrase or

14 put your question again?

15 MR. DE ROUX: [Interpretation]

16 Q. Mr. Krzic, I'm not asking you to tell us what General Talic

17 thought about Colonel Selak. All I wish to know - and I'm basing myself

18 on your book - what was the information that Colonel Selak provided to

19 you?

20 A. That is much more clear. Colonel Selak -- let me try to be as

21 direct as possible. Colonel Selak provided information on several

22 occasions about the prevailing currents within the Army of the Republika

23 Srpska at the time. He also provided some military information, military

24 intelligence, the most important one being about the existence of an air

25 attack against the town of Sarajevo, in my opinion.

1 Q. Thank you. As regards other staff officers of General Talic, do

2 you know Colonel Mensud Azutic? Are you familiar with that name?

3 A. No, I'm not.

4 Q. When you met with General Talic for the second time, on the second

5 occasion, that is on the 22nd of June - you had asked to see him

6 concerning security problems and security situation in Banja Luka - what

7 was the attitude of General Talic? How did he receive you?

8 A. I can say that he received us in a correct manner; however,

9 reserved.

10 Q. I will go back to -- I'm now going to go back to what happened on

11 the 22nd of June. You described the meeting as being correct but

12 reserved. But concerning the first meeting which took place in the month

13 of May, you told us that he himself had told you, but that you had also

14 heard that in the corridor -- actually, that he had told the Banja Luka

15 mufti that there might be trouble in Prijedor, and you testified that he

16 had provided you with some important information. How did you use that

17 particular piece of information?

18 A. I discussed the information, once we were outside, with

19 Mr. Filipovic, who was also a member of our delegation, because, of

20 course, we were not sure as to what it meant. However, it was our

21 assessment that the information was valuable and that we should check for

22 ourselves what was going on in Prijedor, what the information related to.

23 And as you know, we went to Prijedor to check on the very spot, what was

24 going on, with the local authorities in Prijedor at the time.

25 Q. With the president of the Prijedor branch of the SDA, Mr. Mujagic?

1 A. Excuse me? Mr.?

2 Q. It's my pronunciation. Mr. Mujagic?

3 A. No. Mujagic came later on, but the -- the then president was

4 present. He was later killed. You will have to remind me of his name,

5 which escapes me at the moment, with the then president of the municipal

6 assembly.

7 Q. That is perhaps not important. Apart from these two meetings, you

8 also told us that you had informed General Talic via an American diplomat

9 of the risk of summary executions in Celinac, and you also said that

10 General Talic had sent the military police in order to prevent these

11 executions. What was the relationship with Mr. Kelly, the American

12 diplomat?

13 A. I must say that I don't quite understand the first part of your

14 question. I don't know which period of time you have in mind. However, I

15 can give you a direct answer to the second part of your question, which I

16 believe is more important, no? Mr. Kelly, as far as I remember, was the

17 second secretary of the American embassy, and in that capacity, he visited

18 Banja Luka on several occasions. He showed interest in the events, and it

19 was easy to communicate with him because he spoke our language, which was

20 an honour for us, I must say, to have such a high-ranking diplomat visit

21 our area, which was, after all, a country.

22 Mr. Kelly didn't ask any questions regarding plans and -- or

23 prospects for the future of Yugoslavia, for example. His questions

24 concerned the local situation. I think that his -- the objective of his

25 visit was to gain some impression as to what was going on. However -- is

1 it okay? I'm sorry, I perhaps have not expressed myself accurately.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: The question was a very simple one. You may be

3 right that the first part of question as put forward to you was not that

4 clear, but the substance of the question was abundantly clear. Counsel

5 for General Talic wanted to know what kind of relationship you had at the

6 time with this Mr. Kelly, the second secretary of the American embassy,

7 who used to pay these visits to Banja Luka. Did you have any kind -- what

8 was the nature of your contacts? Or if there was a relationship between

9 you and this Mr. Kelly, what kind of relationship was it?

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I tried to explain with these two or

11 three sentences what kind of relationship it was. I'm trying to find the

12 right word. It was a friendly relationship, without any commitments, any

13 obligations. I would answer his questions if he -- if he had any. His

14 questions were ordinary questions that one might have expected.

15 MR. DE ROUX: [Interpretation]

16 Q. Yes. But did you ask Mr. Kelly to intervene with General Talic so

17 that executions in Celinac might be prevented?

18 A. Yes, I did.

19 Q. Thank you. You then asked General Talic to liberate, to release a

20 certain number of prisoners from the Manjaca prison. Did you achieve

21 that?

22 A. You're now referring to another group of people.

23 Q. Yes. It's a different question, and it concerns a different group

24 of people.

25 A. I did not make any personal request. This request was contained

1 in our memorandum. And yes, you are correct.

2 Q. You also asked that General Talic provide a safe conduct, a travel

3 authorisation for Zagreb. Did you obtain that safe conduct?

4 A. As far as I know, the request was accepted in principle. The

5 authorisation was given at one point in time, but then it was revoked. It

6 didn't concern me personally but a humanitarian organisation that needed

7 to go to Zagreb. And then the humanitarian organisation in question would

8 have provided the names of people who were supposed to travel.

9 Q. But you yourself did go to Zagreb on several occasions, didn't

10 you?

11 A. No. I never went to Zagreb during the occupation. I was never

12 permitted to do so. I was granted authorisation on one occasion, but it

13 was subsequently revoked.

14 Q. When did you go to Zagreb, then?

15 A. The last time I went to Zagreb I believe was on the 2nd or the 3rd

16 of April, and I went back on the 6th or the 7th of April, 1992.

17 Q. It is possible that my memory doesn't serve me right, but you

18 spoke about a trip to Zagreb to negotiate weapons, to procure weapons.

19 When was that?

20 A. Oh, that was before I went to my company, to the seat of my

21 company, Pliva, to attend one of the meetings. And in a local cafe, I

22 asked a friend of mine if it would be possible to obtain weapons. I meant

23 a piece of -- a weapon for myself. But nothing came of that.

24 Q. Why did you ask for authorisation -- such authorisation or such

25 services from General Talic and not from local civil authorities?

1 A. The reason is a very simple one. You must know that terror

2 reigned in the area, that there were many -- there was a lot of crime

3 going on, and people were not prosecuted or tried. They simply

4 disappeared. There were no courts, properly speaking, for the members of

5 the non-Serb population. And of course that was the reason why we

6 believed that the only hope lied with the -- with the military, the only

7 hope that we had.

8 Q. On May 9th, 1992, the general staff of the 1st Army Corps

9 addressed to the crisis staff a request, given the situation, the

10 unsatisfactory security situation. Were you informed of the position of

11 the general staff in that respect?

12 A. No, I wasn't.

13 Q. During the crisis in Banja Luka, a crisis committee had been set

14 up which was set up on the basis of a resolution of the Municipal Assembly

15 of Banja Luka. And you said that the SDA had been represented at that

16 crisis committee by Emir Djanic. What was Emir Djanic's role within the

17 crisis staff?

18 A. Well, first of all, at the beginning it was -- at the beginning,

19 the staff was called differently. The Council of National Defence was its

20 name, and then subsequently, it became a staff. In the National Defence

21 Council -- in fact, this represented a body, a commission, so to speak,

22 which was on the basis of the municipal statute. It was in fact

23 registered in compliance with the statute. And in it, all the parties

24 that won at the elections were to take part.

25 In the National Defence Council, there were representatives of all

1 the parties, including the left wing parties. But as time went by -- and

2 here Mr. Djanic's role was to take part in the workings of the National

3 Defence Council, which was a regular body and which was not formed only in

4 crisis situations. And this was Mr. Djanic's role. As far as I know,

5 Mr. Djanic, as well as other representatives who were not the SDA party,

6 abandoned the National Defence Council, which subsequently became the

7 crisis staff.

8 Q. In 1990, two elected persons of the SDA to the Municipal Assembly

9 of Banja Luka became -- entered the government. This was Mr. Kuzmic

10 [phoen]. Why in 1992 were they ordered to leave, to abandon the

11 government, and why did they refuse to do so?

12 A. When the agreement between the parties in power had been -- was

13 being ignored, when it was not being carried out, in many different

14 spheres, and when in fact the practice was quite different, and which I

15 described to you, when not only participation of SDA representatives and

16 representatives of the HDZ was rendered impossible in the different

17 segments of the government -- not only made impossible. They were even

18 made to leave if Bosniaks and Croats were employed there. And when the

19 town was in fact occupied by the Serb defence forces -- it was actually a

20 putsch that was going on. And when our democratic rights were being

21 ignored, that is, the right to propose and appoint, that is, designate,

22 point to the negative events taking place -- when the deputies were being

23 threatened, in many situations we -- and when all this was added up, we

24 felt that the representatives of the SDA in such a government which was

25 basically an SDS government was no longer tenable both from the political

1 point of view -- how can you be in a political government when you have no

2 power at all? Also, from the moral aspect. And that is why we had

3 insisted that they should leave such a government.

4 Moreover, I explained that at the time, tremendous pressure was

5 being exerted on the non-Serb population. It was impossible for us to

6 take part in such a government, given those circumstances, which we in

7 fact informed Mr. Vance and Owen later on about. These two people did not

8 respect the decisions of the executive committee of the SDA.

9 Q. So the only reply that I was expecting was that Mr. Djanic and the

10 other gentleman mentioned remained in the government. Now that you

11 mention Lord Owen and Mr. Vance, during the entire period of the

12 indictment, international negotiations -- an international mission was

13 being conducted to try to find a solution to the Bosnian crisis, to the

14 crisis in Bosnia and Herzegovina. You yourself met Mr. Vance and Lord

15 Owen. Can we know what your opinion was of the plan that they had

16 proposed to submit to the different parties concerned?

17 A. Well, I didn't meet with them myself. There was a whole team of

18 people involved, where we had representatives of the SDA political party

19 and representatives of our deputy team, that is the president of the

20 deputies group. The Vance-Owen Plan, and similar plans, as far as the SDA

21 party was concerned, could only be discussed within a narrow circle of

22 persons. As regards decisions and positions in that respect, we could

23 only say this to this narrow circle of people, but for more important

24 decisions, a main council, a main board, had to be convened, and the

25 assembly of the party too. So these are matters that had been -- that

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 were being discussed on a very high level, but what we mentioned from time

2 to time in regard to the plan was something of a practical nature. If

3 governors of so-called cantons was to be -- were to be Serbs, there had to

4 be two deputies of Bosniak -- a Bosniak and a Croat. This was our

5 conclusion because, through that key, we saw a way of protecting the

6 interests of the people, and this we were able to do in this sense in a

7 practical way.

8 Q. In your book, you mentioned that you had set up a network charged

9 with intelligence work, information work. You were in permanent contact

10 with journalists, with diplomats, with members of humanitarian

11 organisations. To whom were these -- this information, in fact -- to whom

12 was this information intended?

13 A. You didn't mention which information, but that doesn't matter. In

14 our work, we were quite transparent.

15 Q. To be more precise, throughout the whole record, we examined a

16 number of documents addressed to His Excellency, Mr. Sacirbey, head of the

17 Bosnian mission to the United Nations. How did you think that

18 Mr. Sacirbey would use this information? And would this information be

19 able to exert an influence on the international mediators?

20 A. Well, to begin with, information was, of course, submitted to all

21 the international representatives in Banja Luka. All the information at

22 the time, which was sent out abroad from the political aspect, and from

23 the security aspect, the security aspect in respect of the population, all

24 this was sent to all the international organisations, the ICRC, the other

25 humanitarian organisations, to the international observers, and of course,

1 it was only natural that this information be sent to our mission too.

2 Why? Not only for the reason that you yourself mentioned, but because it

3 was impossible to communicate with Sarajevo. Perhaps it's also a question

4 of personal affinity because we believed that when information reached the

5 U.S.A., that it was very highly likely that it would be put to a good

6 use. The U.S.A. are considered to have a principled policy, generally

7 speaking, and especially in respect of conflict situations.

8 MR. DE ROUX: [Interpretation] Well, Mr. President, I have

9 completed my cross-examination of this witness.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Maitre de Roux. It's quarter past ten.

11 THE INTERPRETER: Excuse me, we cannot hear the Judge.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Maitre de Roux. It's quarter past ten.

13 Within 15 minutes, we will break. We will have the usual break.

14 Mr. Ackerman, we can either break now and then you start after the

15 break, or you can start now, stop in 15 minutes' time and then resume

16 after. I'm giving you the option.

17 MR. ACKERMAN: It probably makes sense for me to begin now, Your

18 Honour.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.

20 MR. ACKERMAN: If I don't break everything before I start, I'll

21 start now, please. May I proceed, Your Honour?

22 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.

23 Cross-examined by Mr. Ackerman:

24 Q. Good morning, Mr. Krzic. How are you today?

25 A. [In English] Thank you. I'm keeping well. And you? How about

1 yourself?

2 Q. I'm okay. I didn't expect to be talking to you quite this early

3 in the day, but we will begin. You have given a number of statements to

4 investigators from the Office of the Prosecutor of this Tribunal, have you

5 not?

6 A. [Interpretation] Yes, I did.

7 Q. The first one was given over a period of time extending from 27

8 December, 1994, through 23 August, 1995, yes?

9 A. Yes, on a number of occasions.

10 Q. It appears that maybe -- that there were about five different

11 sessions with regard to that statement before it was finally prepared and

12 signed by you.

13 A. I expect that was the case. I don't remember all the details.

14 Q. Can you tell the Chamber why it took so long for that statement to

15 be taken and finished? Were there some problems of any kind? What was

16 the reason it took so long to do that?

17 A. Of course, I cannot explain the reasons, but my impression was

18 that this protracted statement was due to the fact that we kept checking

19 up information. That is how I understood it.

20 Q. You mean checking -- the investigators were checking on the

21 information that you were giving them? Is that what you're saying?

22 A. Yes, I think that was the case. I cannot guarantee that this was

23 so, however.

24 Q. There was another statement that was given between -- given,

25 actually, on the 24th and the 28th of October, 1999. Do you recall that

1 statement?

2 A. Well, it's very difficult for me to say so, because I hadn't --

3 wasn't prepared for this kind of information, that is to say how long the

4 interviews took. This is not what I was told that I would have to say.

5 But all this information has been noted down.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, Mr. Ackerman.

7 Ms. Korner, this is precisely what I had in mind to address your

8 attention to this morning, when I said I would imagine that -- or I would

9 expect that there are further documents that ought to be exhibited later

10 on, because these statements were not actually brought forward yesterday

11 or the day before, during the evidence of Mr. Krzic. They were handed to

12 the Trial Chamber, and I also am aware that they had been disclosed to the

13 Defence teams. But unfortunately, we are in a situation now that the

14 witness is being faced with questions relating to these four documents --

15 four statements that he had made on prior occasions without him having

16 them in front -- in front of him to be able to -- so I think if we can

17 deal with that in a very expeditious manner, it would help the witness to

18 be able to answer. Because he's been referring to dates four, five, six

19 days -- seven days here, eight days there. It's not fair on the witness

20 himself.

21 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, the statements, of course, cannot become

22 exhibits unless by agreement or great chunks of it are put to the witness,

23 in which case an application can be made. But we can provide copies for

24 the witness. And Mr. Ackerman is going to pursue the matter of dates of

25 the statements. Or Your Honour, we can make an admission as to the dates

1 when the statements were made.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: I think we can start with that first.

3 MS. KORNER: Yes.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: But in any case, if the witness is going to be asked

5 to answer questions on the contents of these statements in particular or

6 events related in these stated statements -- as described in these

7 statements, he ought to have them in front of him. There's no question

8 about that.

9 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, we can certainly make -- we would

10 certainly agree the dates that Mr. Ackerman is putting to the witness. If

11 Mr. Ackerman wants to ask further questions, we'll make copies available

12 for the witness.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Ms. Korner.

14 MR. ACKERMAN: I'm going to suggest, Your Honour, that we go ahead

15 and break now, that the Prosecution provide the witness with these

16 statements, because I will question him about them for the balance of this

17 day and probably most of the next session.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: Well, I take --

19 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I'm taking that the witness should be

20 provided -- they were written in English, but they've been translated. So

21 for his benefit, he would have to have --

22 JUDGE AGIUS: I think the witness has shown us that he understands

23 English as well. And in any case, in the very first part of his evidence

24 on Monday, he did state that he knows English but that he would be

25 obviously answering questions in his own language. So I don't think that

1 should present any problems. And there would be simultaneous

2 interpretation, in any case.

3 MS. KORNER: Yes.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. I thank you, Ms. Korner, for you cooperation,

5 and you, Mr. Ackerman, for yours.

6 I think we will break now, and we will resume at ten to -- ten to

7 11.00.

8 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour, may I --

9 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.

10 MR. ACKERMAN: May I just make certain that they will be provided

11 to him in both languages, because I will want him to refer to the English

12 on occasion.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.

14 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, we've got -- I'm assisted by

15 Ms. Karper. We've certainly got the English version here, and we can

16 almost certainly get the Bosnian language one.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Ms. Korner.

18 So we'll resume at ten to 11.00.

19 --- Recess taken at 10.23 a.m.

20 --- On resuming at 11.03 a.m.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: Please be seated.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Korner?

23 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, we now have got versions of the

24 statements both in English and in the Bosnian language.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: Perfect. And the understanding is the following:

1 You are perfectly correct that in the normality of things, these

2 statements would not form part of the exhibits, but if obviously the

3 witness is going to be asked on the contents, then eventually we will

4 definitely have to revise this position and -- because ultimately this

5 Trial Chamber will have to decide also on the credibility of the witness,

6 and that may entail an anticipation of what I am expecting from

7 Mr. Ackerman, some deep exercise.

8 So please call --

9 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, may I just say, my understanding is, and

10 it's, I suppose, the common law system but I think it's the same in the

11 United States, as in the U.K. -- as in England, Wales and Your Honour's

12 jurisdiction, is that if large parts of the statement are put in order, as

13 Your Honour says, at the end of the day, to remind yourselves of what was

14 in the statement and of -- to assess the credibility, then the statement

15 will be made an exhibit.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, perfect.

17 Yes, Mr. Ackerman?

18 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour, something occurred during the break

19 that just has me -- I can't think of a proper word. "Flummoxed" is the

20 only word that comes to mind.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: Is that a Texan word?

22 MR. ACKERMAN: It may be.

23 On the 13th of December -- and I hope the camera can see this. On

24 the 13th of December, I submitted this box of documents, at the

25 instructions of the Registry, to CLSS for translation. I was given to

1 understand that the people that I used to do translations for me on

2 occasion could not do translations of documents that I might -- that I

3 would seek to use or might seek to use as exhibits in the case, that they

4 had to be submitted to CLSS. There are about 1500 pages of material here

5 that was submitted on the 13th of December.

6 Today, during the break, almost two months later, they are brought

7 back to me with the explanation that nothing has been done with regard to

8 translating them, absolutely nothing, because somebody in the translation

9 department is taking the position that there may be a document or

10 documents in here somewhere that they have already translated in some

11 other case or for the Prosecution in this case. And thus, all this time

12 has gone by, and here I am with documents, many of which I was hoping I

13 could have back in time to use for cross-examination of some of these

14 Banja Luka witnesses, because these are Banja Luka documents. I was

15 labouring under the impression that the matter was proceeding forward

16 normally and properly, only to find today that not a page, not one, has

17 been translated.

18 To my knowledge, there is not one document in here that has been

19 previously translated. It would be foolish for me to submit previously

20 translated documents to them for translation. I wouldn't do that kind of

21 thing intentionally.

22 The other thing that they now want me to do - and I don't mind

23 doing that; I mean, this is a sensible thing - they want me to take the

24 time that it will take me to prepare an itemised index of these documents

25 before I resubmit them for translation. So it will be - I don't know how

1 many days - several days before I'll even have them in the condition that

2 I can submit them back in the form using their itemised index that they

3 want me to use. I was not told, at any time prior to my submission on

4 December 13th, that they would require an itemised index of these

5 documents. I put them together as well as I could. I described them as

6 well as I could. And I submitted a letter on the 13th of December to the

7 translation document, delivered the documents. And the first thing I've

8 heard about them since then was a few moments ago when they were brought

9 back to me in the Defence room.

10 I can't try a case like this. Nobody can try a case like this,

11 when they can't have the materials necessary to defend their client in a

12 very serious genocide case, when they can't have them processed and

13 translated in any kind of a reasonable way.

14 That man sitting over there is entitled to a fair trial. He's

15 absolutely entitled to a fair trial. He's charged with the most serious

16 offence that a person can be charged with. And for the Registry of this

17 Tribunal to sit on these documents for two months without advising me that

18 there was a problem that needed to be solved is unforgivable. And I don't

19 know what the Chamber wants to do about this, and I don't know what the

20 Chamber can do about this, but I've lost two months now. I have to start

21 over again from where I was back on December 13th.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Ms. Korner, do you have anything to say about

23 this?

24 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, nothing at all. I think all sides have

25 raised the question of the problem with translations a number of times. I

1 don't know that we can assist any. I mean, as Mr. Ackerman says, he's

2 unlikely to have submitted documents which he knows that we've submitted

3 for translation. But without knowing what the documents are, we can't

4 assist.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Ackerman, I will understand that I will need to

6 discuss this with the other two Judges, and I'll -- we'll come back to you

7 on this matter later on.

8 In the meantime, I think it would help this Trial Chamber to know

9 precisely what kind of documents these are, if you are aware yourself. In

10 other words, what kind of documents are we talking about? I take your

11 words that you consider them necessary for the purposes of

12 cross-examination and also for the Banja Luka chapter, in any case;

13 however, the Trial Chamber would be in a better position to come forward

14 with a better decision if it is made aware of the nature of those

15 documents. In other words, we want to make sure that these are not

16 documents which we can easily do without. This is -- this is what we

17 want.

18 MR. ACKERMAN: Well, I'll just -- I'll take a moment and give you

19 an example. This binder is full of what we call in the US onion-skin

20 paper documents. They're all originals. They have original signatures.

21 They have original stamps. The stamps are -- the stamps are blue. The

22 signatures are in ink. They are original documents. Every one of these

23 documents comes from the ARK, the Autonomous Region of Krajina. They are

24 signed primarily by Mr. Nikola Erceg, who was the president of the

25 executive committee of the Autonomous Region of Krajina. They are

1 extremely relevant to issues that are going on in this case. The

2 documents are important enough that I did have a significant portion of

3 them translated in rough draft form so that I could have some knowledge of

4 what it is they say. I intend, however, to use all or most of them as

5 exhibits, and so they must be translated officially by the Tribunal before

6 I can do that.

7 With regard to these documents, some of them have already been

8 provided to the Prosecutor in that rough-draft form. I'm in the process

9 of doing that with regard to the rest of them. They're -- to my

10 knowledge -- I'm convinced there is not one document in here that the

11 Prosecution has submitted for translation.

12 There are a number of newspaper articles that have been identified

13 by my staff in Banja Luka as being extremely important to the issues in

14 this case and as being additional to the newspaper articles that have been

15 submitted from that same area by the Prosecutor and tend to provide a more

16 complete picture of what was appearing in the newspapers during the period

17 in question.

18 This stack is a large number of documents that have been secured

19 from various government organs and individuals by my investigative staff

20 in Republika Srpska. I can only rely upon their representation to me that

21 these are extremely important documents for the presentation of our

22 Defence.

23 This is another List of Documents in this package that I can

24 represent have come from a -- an archive of documents kept by someone who

25 was -- and I don't know everything about this particular group, but

1 they're documents that come from the Trnopolje Detention Centre. They're

2 documents that were kept in the regular course of the operation of that

3 Detention Centre during the course of its operation, and they shed a great

4 deal of light upon -- on how that facility operated and how -- I think

5 it's safe to say, although I'm a little reluctant, but I think it's safe

6 to say that they are extraordinarily contrary to what you heard in the

7 opening statement of the Prosecutor regarding the operation of that

8 particular facility.

9 I would not, and will not, submit documents for translation to

10 CLSS that I already have in translation from the Prosecutor or that I

11 think are of no relevance to what I'm trying to do in the defence of this

12 case. I don't operate that way. I'm not that kind of a lawyer. And I

13 don't think there is any history that I have with this Tribunal to cause

14 anybody to believe that I'm that kind of a lawyer. I will defend my

15 client vigorously. I'll defend my client to the absolute best of my

16 ability. And I will work myself ill almost to get that done. But I don't

17 know how to do that if I'm told that I have to do it a certain way, and

18 then when I do it that way, I'm told, "That's still not good enough, and

19 you can't have your documents." I don't know what to do. Maybe we should

20 have a two-month adjournment so I can start this process over again and

21 get these documents done.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: [Previous translations continues] ... Ms. Korner is

23 going to agree with you straight away.

24 MS. KORNER: No. Ms. Korner is going to raise something slightly

25 different, and that is this: Your Honour will recall that we had a

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 discussion about disclosure to the Prosecutor of documents that they were

2 aware that they were going to use. It appears from what Mr. Ackerman says

3 that he's aware, obviously because he has Serbo-Croat speakers both on his

4 team and with his client, that he is going to use these documents.

5 Apart from translation problem, I would ask that if these

6 documents will be used, that they be disclosed to us now. It may be that

7 we can assist in some way, in any event, particularly in respect of

8 newspaper articles, because we have sent a number in for translation which

9 haven't come back because they weren't high on the priority list, and we

10 were asked to prioritise our translations.

11 It seems to me that, as Your Honour and we have all discussed

12 before, that the only way to try and get over this in some form is to get

13 what are called draft or not properly authorised translations done by both

14 sides and then, only if there is a real dispute or the document is

15 obviously so important that we ought to have a properly authorised

16 translation, to submit it to CLSS. I regret to say that our information

17 is we have got the same problems as Mr. Ackerman, not quite to the same

18 extent, that the Milosevic trial is taking precedence over everything else

19 in this place, and I think every other trial is falling behind, and that's

20 the real difficulty.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: But that certainly shouldn't carry any weight in the

22 decision that this Trial Chamber will have to take eventually. So I think

23 what you have mentioned is actually the obvious. I mean, I certainly --

24 and I'm sure that my two colleagues on the Chamber agree with me, without

25 the need to consult them now. This is definitely important. However,

1 there is the time factor. Even if we adopt the solution that you are

2 suggesting, if you are suggesting it, there is still a time factor. We

3 will practically be opening, in the widest terms, the Banja Luka chapter,

4 if we haven't opened it already, very soon.

5 There is a further solution. I mean, there is always the

6 possibility to reserve for the Defence team, both teams obviously, the

7 right to summon back witnesses that would have already given evidence in

8 chief and in cross-examination, if fresh material, fresh evidence, emerges

9 from these documents once they are formally or informally translated. But

10 again, the idea terrifies me. The whole idea having to sit on a

11 moratorium not knowing exactly whether one particular witness is going to

12 be summoned here once, twice, possibly three times, as we go along, and as

13 we have new documents translated, is frightening.

14 So at this point in time, I think my experience tells me to sleep

15 on it for a while, a very short while, discuss it with my two colleagues,

16 and investigate further, within the possibilities that we have, what

17 possible other solutions there could be, and then come back to you, in the

18 spirit you all know it. I appreciate that you both consider this as a

19 problem. You yourself find yourself in the same situation, although not

20 as acute as it is for Mr. Ackerman at the present moment, and it's

21 certainly not a pleasant situation in the eyes of this Trial Chamber or

22 for the purposes of the work that this Trial Chamber has to conduct. I

23 mean, we have the same interest as you both have, that's the pursuit of

24 the truth and justice, and the striking of a balance of the rights,

25 substantial and procedural, of the accused with those of victims and

1 justice in general. But if it is necessary for these documents to play an

2 important part, then we have to find a way, we have to find a solution.

3 So Mr. Ackerman, I will, of course, give you the floor again but

4 this is what I intend doing. I intend to take my time, me and the other

5 two Judges on this Trial Chamber, and face the issue again, the problem

6 again, with a concrete solution. Yes, Mr. Ackerman?

7 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honours, I have a couple of things. I have a

8 suggestion and a comment. First a comment. I had felt that I was not in

9 -- on good ground, I guess is the way to put it, to -- at this stage in

10 the case, since I only submitted these two months ago, to complain that I

11 didn't have material translated that I could use for cross-examination of

12 witnesses that are coming up.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: That is something that, in my mind, the Tribunal,

14 the Chamber, could throw back in your lap.

15 MR. ACKERMAN: Yes.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: But let's --

17 MR. ACKERMAN: I understand that.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's go to something different.

19 MR. ACKERMAN: What I do want to tell you about that is that the

20 only documents that I have -- most of these documents I've not had before

21 I -- a few days before I submitted them.

22 The other thing that -- my suggestion, and it would require the

23 aid of the Chamber, I think, for this to work. I have two people ready,

24 willing and able to sit down and spend significant hours doing

25 translations of these documents. They are highly competent. They do

1 excellent work. But they have been told by the Registry of this Tribunal,

2 that they are not permitted to do translations of documents that are

3 destined to become or could become exhibits before the Tribunal. That is

4 -- I understand that to be a rule of the Tribunal that is somewhat

5 sacrosanct. If that rule can be relaxed because of the expediency of what

6 we are trying to do, I have no problem with that. I would submit these to

7 them tomorrow and get this process going. If I have to go through CLSS,

8 then it's going to take me a lot longer. It's going to take us all a lot

9 longer. So if you can aid me in that regard, it would be very much

10 appreciated.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: We will go into that and see if that could be done.

12 I know that there is something cooking that would streamline, more or

13 less, the practice as far as which documents ought to be translated and

14 which documents -- or not exactly which documents ought to be translated

15 but an order of precedence. But I can't give you more information on

16 that. I think we need time, as you would understand, to try and not only

17 to discuss it amongst ourselves, because this is not something that we can

18 discuss here and now. We require time. And we also, I think, have to

19 find out exactly what possibilities there are.

20 You have my word, we will come back to you as quickly as

21 possible. This is not something to be taken lightly.

22 I am unfortunately very much aware that the system that this

23 Tribunal -- that prevails in this Tribunal is problematic in itself,

24 because -- even as far as the Prosecution is concerned. I mean, they may

25 come tomorrow morning with the good or bad news that they have just come

1 across some fresh information, and as I understand it, with the

2 discussions that we have had, not I or those present, I mean all the

3 Judges, we are made aware of this and that this constitutes a big problem,

4 a major problem, because evidence comes in in the course of a trial which

5 may be fundamentally important. And so when I said I could throw back

6 those documents on your lap, saying -- I mean, you can't expect miracles

7 to happen from the 13th of December to date. At the same time, I mean, if

8 there was a problem in having those documents translated, there was no

9 reason on earth why you weren't told so at the -- then, if not necessarily

10 on the same day. I know that there was a Christmas recess but certainly

11 no justification for that. But anyway, we will go into it. We'll see

12 what can be done. I appreciate that you have not tried to make a divisive

13 issue out of this, that you see the problem and that you are cooperating

14 with the Trial Chamber. I appreciate that.

15 Yes, Ms. Korner.

16 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I think the only thing, though is --

17 because I said something else. We are making a formal request for

18 disclosure to us of documents that Mr. Ackerman now knows, whether

19 translated or not, he's going to be using.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Ackerman.

21 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour requires that I make disclosure of any

22 document that I intend to use as an exhibit in the case, as evidence in

23 the case. And I will comply with the rule, absolutely completely.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, please.

25 MR. ACKERMAN: As soon as I know that I'm going to use a document

1 as an exhibit, I will give it to the Prosecutor. I'm in the process of

2 giving them documents right now. It's just that with everything else I've

3 been doing --

4 JUDGE AGIUS: But from the way -- let's -- from the way you tried

5 to explain the importance and relevance of those documents, I understood

6 that it is certainly not your intention to -- not to use those documents.

7 It's certainly your intention to make use of those documents and fully

8 so. Because one set of the documents come from the ARK crisis. One set

9 of documents were given to you from or were collected by your

10 investigators from I can't remember where. And you attached so much

11 importance to those documents that you've managed to convince the Trial

12 Chamber here and now that it is certainly a set of documents that we ought

13 to take -- give serious consideration to in the light of what your

14 complaint was.

15 MR. ACKERMAN: Yes.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: So certainly I was not understanding that you still

17 had doubts as to whether you would be making use of those documents. If I

18 was reading your mind's -- your mind and your lips well, you certainly

19 were referring to documents that you are going to make use of, and full

20 use of.

21 MR. ACKERMAN: I suspect that I will. When I haven't read them,

22 it's difficult for me to make that decision. If they are what they were

23 represented to me to be, then, yes, I'll be using them. But I don't know

24 that they are until I look at them. I will say that I have received

25 documents that they weren't exactly what they were represented to be. But

1 I'll go through them as quickly as I can, because apparently I'm going to

2 have to index them in any event.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.

4 MR. ACKERMAN: I now have someone who can help me and look at them

5 and tell me what they say. And I can make rather quick decisions about

6 whether I'm going to use them or not. And I will make disclosure as

7 quickly as I can, I really will.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Mr. Ackerman.

9 So perhaps we could bring in the witness.

10 Yes. Mr. Krzic, you will continue now being cross-examined by

11 Mr. Ackerman. Of course you don't need to make the solemn declaration

12 again. We take it that you will continue your evidence on that same

13 declaration that you entered before.

14 You may sit down. Thank you.

15 I suppose we better make available the documents that were

16 referred to earlier immediately to Mr. Krzic.

17 MS. KORNER: I'm just wondering, does Mr. Ackerman want him to

18 have all of the statements together or just one at a time?

19 MR. ACKERMAN: Yes.

20 MS. KORNER: All of them. Okay.

21 Your Honour, they've been marked. So the English version and the

22 date is shown. And then next to it is the Bosnian version. And there are

23 four statements. They've been numbered "1" through to "4."

24 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Ms. Korner.

25 MR. ACKERMAN: Chronologically, Ms. Korner?

1 MS. KORNER: Backwards, actually.

2 MR. ACKERMAN:

3 Q. All right. Mr. Krzic, welcome back. We were speaking about what

4 I believe is the statement that the Prosecution has numbered as number 2.

5 That would be your statement of 24 and 28 October, 1999. Would you see if

6 you can find that one, please.

7 A. Yes. I've found it.

8 Q. The statement indicates that there were interviews on the 24th of

9 October and the 28th of October. There was a three-day break between

10 those sessions, the 25th, 26th, 27th. Can you tell the Chamber why there

11 was a three-day break there?

12 A. Well, as regards the schedule of the investigation team, I think

13 that it was their position that was decisive in this manner. I've never

14 thought about it. I don't know why there were breaks.

15 Q. Would that be true with the breaks in the other two statements

16 that you gave, that you really don't know why there were gaps in the times

17 that they talked to you?

18 A. Yes. I do remember that there were reasons given to me for that.

19 I believe that they had something to do with the obligations and

20 commitments that they had in the relevant country. I was probably not the

21 only witness that they interviewed at the time, so I assume that perhaps

22 those were the reasons for these gaps.

23 Q. Throughout this period of time when you were -- from 27 December

24 1994 until 29 August 2001, which apparently was your last statement, the

25 last day you spoke with them, were you provided any kind of financial or

1 other assistance by the Prosecutor?

2 A. No.

3 Q. I take it you have had a chance to review all of these statements

4 after coming here to The Hague in preparation for your testimony in this

5 case. Is that true?

6 A. I didn't insist on reviewing the statements. I received a copy

7 each time, and it was -- I was able to decide whether to review it or

8 not. But because every statement was signed by me, I didn't think it was

9 necessary.

10 Q. My question, then, is: Have you reviewed them in recent days in

11 preparation for the testimony you've given here?

12 A. What do you mean in recent days? During my stay here in The Hague

13 or -- I don't understand.

14 Q. I don't know how long a period of time you were involved in

15 preparing for your testimony here. But during that preparation time,

16 however long it was, did you review these four statements?

17 A. Here in The Hague, no. But of course I have all these

18 statements.

19 Q. Are you prepared at this point, as you sit here under oath, to

20 swear to this Trial Chamber that every statement made by you in each of

21 these four statements is absolutely true and correct?

22 A. Not once did I fail to speak the truth in my statements.

23 Q. Have you, in your review of the statements, found any translation

24 problems? I assume you reviewed them both in English and your native

25 language. Have you found any translation problems that you would like to

1 bring to our attention?

2 A. I usually had the translation in my language, and I never felt the

3 need to check the translation because I trust the interpreters. But also,

4 I must say that I'm not an expert in the English language. I don't know

5 it sufficiently well so as to be able to make any suggestions, especially

6 in cases of some nuances and so on and so forth.

7 Q. I want to direct your attention now to the first statement that

8 you gave, the one given over that period of several months in 1994 and

9 1995. Would you find that and get it in front of you, please?

10 A. Yes. I have it here.

11 Q. If you would look at what in the English version is the second

12 page, the statement indicates that you were granted an FAO scholarship to

13 Copenhagen in 1975. Can you tell me what an FAO scholarship is?

14 A. I applied for an FAO scholarship. It is a scholarship which

15 covers the area of agriculture, generally speaking, and in my case, the

16 area in question was meat processing industry, or more specifically meat

17 products. I don't know whether it is necessary for me to explain in

18 further detail. I can do it, if you want.

19 Q. My question is what is FAO? What does that stand for?

20 A. [In English] Food and Agricultural Organisation.

21 Q. And that was an organisation of what entity or government or

22 country?

23 A. [Interpretation] Well, it is part of the organisation of United

24 Nations.

25 Q. Okay. So the scholarship was actually provided to you by a

1 division of the United Nations?

2 A. Indirectly, yes, because it was provided by the government of

3 Bosnia and Herzegovina, which acted as a representative of a state agency

4 which was called Technical Assistance or something like that, and it was

5 through that particular agency that we applied for scholarships such as

6 the FAO scholarship.

7 Q. Yesterday, Mr. de Roux began his questioning of you, Mr. Krzic,

8 with a question about the goals of the SDA. You remember being asked that

9 question, do you not?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And you indicated that one of the objectives was to help the

12 development of democracy in Bosnia and Herzegovina?

13 A. Yes. It follows from the provisions of the statute of the party.

14 Q. To work toward the development of a democratic society? Yes?

15 A. Well, of course, it is my -- my interpretation of it.

16 Q. That was your understanding of what the goals of the SDA was?

17 A. One of the goals.

18 Q. And as president, those were goals that it was your job to try to

19 put into reality?

20 A. By all means, yes.

21 Q. I want to ask what you meant on page 4 of your statement - and I

22 don't know where to find it in the Serbo-Croat version but the English

23 version, at the bottom of page 4, it reads: "We Bosniaks" - speaking of

24 the development of the SDA party - "We Bosniaks had the first possibility

25 to express our nationality for 70 years."

1 A. [In English] Could you tell me which -- [Interpretation] Which

2 paragraph are you referring to, please?

3 Q. It's under a section called, "Banja Luka SDA." It's on page 4 of

4 the English version, halfway through.

5 A. Yes, I see. I found it. Thank you. Thank you. What was your

6 question, sir?

7 Q. What were you -- what was your meaning, what were you intending to

8 convey, when you said, with regard to the SDA, "We Bosniaks had the first

9 possibility to express our nationality for 70 years"?

10 A. You see, during the so-called first Yugoslavia, if I may call it

11 that way, we did not have the right to declare ourselves as Bosniaks.

12 During the second Yugoslavia, in Mrkonjic Grad, at the meeting which took

13 place in 1943, which was a meeting where -- attended by the

14 representatives of all ethnic groups of Yugoslavia, as far as I know, it

15 was during that meeting that their nationality was recognised. But

16 practically speaking, during the communist Yugoslavia, we did not have the

17 right to refer to ourselves as Bosniaks. We were granted that right only

18 later on, although in the meantime - and I'm sure you are aware of that -

19 we were given the right to use the term "Muslims." And that is the reason

20 why I described that period of time the way I did, and the reason why I

21 felt that it was only then that we were given the right to use the term

22 "Bosniaks," which is something that had belonged to us as citizens of

23 Bosnia and Herzegovina for ages.

24 Q. So you weren't permitted to use the term "Bosniaks" until the

25 creation of the SDA?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 A. We were not, no. Of course, it was possible to use the term

2 unofficially, but officially, no.

3 Q. Was there some kind of a law that prohibited you from calling

4 yourselves Bosniaks?

5 A. I'm sure that you know that during the times of the communist

6 Yugoslavia, we had three possibilities in Bosnia and Herzegovina to

7 declare ourselves in terms of nationality - Croat, Serb, Yugoslav - and

8 yes, there was a fourth possibility, as not declared. A huge number of

9 Muslims in Bosnia and Herzegovina chose not to declare themselves or to

10 declare themselves as Yugoslavs.

11 Again, I wish to emphasise that I'm not a politician and I have

12 not prepared myself for this subject, but it was only sometime in 1955 or

13 even later that we were given the right to declare ourselves as - no, I

14 think I'm mistaken; it was even later than that - as Muslims. So we often

15 declare ourselves as Muslims, although it was not a traditional,

16 historical term, and in my opinion, it was an unnecessary way of avoiding

17 the use of the term "Bosniaks." I still don't see the reasons for that,

18 because the term "Bosniak" is a traditionally acceptable term, whereas any

19 religious affiliation is not relevant when we are speaking about

20 citizenship and nationality and the fact of belonging to one particular

21 country or state.

22 Q. I take it you'd agree with me that at least by the time of the

23 1974 constitution, that you had been -- you were able to declare

24 yourselves as Muslims, at least.

25 A. Yes. But we were not consulted on this term. There was no

1 referendum organised for that purpose. We did not even have adequate

2 representatives who would have been our deputies and who would have

3 advocated our interests in this regard.

4 Q. Well, in 1974, the key system was in effect. There was

5 proportional representation of all of the nationalities of Yugoslavia in

6 the assemblies. You had a number of deputies in the assemblies that

7 reflected the population -- the Muslim population of Yugoslavia and

8 Bosnia-Herzegovina. That had been the case with Yugoslavia since its

9 creation following World War II. Isn't that correct?

10 A. I believe I have already stated that the Communist League made

11 sure that at least in terms of names or ethnic background, all ethnic

12 groups be represented in a proportional way. However, very often

13 attention was paid only to the name of the individual in question, not to

14 his background or his convictions. And as you probably know, two

15 individuals of two different ethnic groups could have the same name. Such

16 cases were also possible. But if it was all just a great show, it was the

17 way things looked like, the way they seemed. But to a certain extent, it

18 was satisfactory. One could be satisfied with the state of affairs to a

19 certain extent, because again, to a certain degree we were given

20 possibility to express our views.

21 Q. Is it your testimony that what you meant when you made the

22 statement we're referring to, "We Bosniaks had the first possibility to

23 express our nationality for 70 years," is it your testimony that all

24 you're talking about there is that you had the right to call yourselves --

25 finally after 70 years, to call yourselves Bosniaks?

1 A. I had in mind the fact that even during the Austro-Hungarian

2 times, the Bosniaks had the right to use the term "Bosniak." However,

3 after the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was created and during the communist

4 years, they did not have that right. And that was the period of time that

5 I had in mind.

6 Q. You recall, I'm sure, the census that was conducted in 1981. How

7 were the Muslim people permitted to identify themselves in that census in

8 1981?

9 A. I think that the majority -- again, I'm really reluctant to

10 mention any statistics. It would go beyond my competence. I would like

11 to leave it to experts. But it is true that the majority of Bosniaks

12 identified themselves as Muslims ever from the first census that gave them

13 that option.

14 Q. The next sentence after you say, "We Bosniaks had the first

15 possibility to express our nationality for 70 years," in the next sentence

16 you say: "We considered it a chance given to us by the West." What does

17 that mean?

18 JUDGE AGIUS: Before you answer the question, Mr. Krzic, may I ask

19 you, Mr. Ackerman, what are you trying to prove by this series of

20 questions?

21 MR. ACKERMAN: I'm trying to find out, Your Honour, what he means

22 when he makes these statements, what --

23 JUDGE AGIUS: But for the purpose of this trial, what's the

24 relevance?

25 MR. ACKERMAN: Yes. The relevance is -- is his credibility, Your

1 Honour.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead.

3 Mr. Krzic, answer this question, and then we'll see about the

4 other questions that may be following.

5 A. Of course I am merely expressing my opinion here. And then you

6 must be aware of the fact that this was all written in a book which was

7 perhaps written without recourse to adequate and reliable information.

8 What I had in mind when I said that was the fact that the issue of ethnic

9 or national affiliation had long been solved in the West. The way it was

10 solved did not endanger or threaten anyone. All ethnic groups were

11 allowed to express themselves socially, politically, and culturally. And

12 it was that freedom of expression that I had in mind when I said this.

13 MR. ACKERMAN:

14 Q. I want to go to another issue now. On Monday, in this room, you

15 were asked by Mr. Koumjian about your tenure as president of the Banja

16 Luka SDA. And your answer from the transcript about how you left the

17 leadership of the Banja Luka SDA was as follows:

18 "Several members of the Executive Council of the SDA in Banja

19 Luka and some of the deputies of the SDA of Banja Luka convened a meeting

20 in Sarajevo. And during that meeting, the leadership of the party was

21 entrusted with a different person."

22 Do you recall that testimony?

23 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, Mr. Ackerman.

24 Yes, Mr. Koumjian.

25 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, could I just ask as a procedure to be

1 followed by both sides that when a transcript is quoted, for the sake of

2 the Trial Chamber and opposing counsel, we could cite the page so that we

3 could go to it and find what counsel is talking about.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Your observation is perfectly correct.

5 And Mr. Ackerman is kindly invited to state whether he is

6 referring from the official -- or an official transcript - because until

7 now, it will still be unofficial - and what page he is reading from.

8 MR. ACKERMAN: Page 1414, Your Honour, line 16 through 19.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Ackerman.

10 And thank you, Mr. Koumjian.

11 MR. ACKERMAN:

12 Q. Do you recall that?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Well, let me just ask you this request: How was it that the

15 leadership was entrusted to a different person at that point? Were you a

16 candidate?

17 A. Well, the explanation is a simple one. I was already in the state

18 service, in the public service. I was working in London. And I was not

19 able to work in the -- to participate in the work of the party. I was a

20 professional then. And to perhaps present party's views or an

21 organisation was unacceptable for me at the time, if that is what you are

22 referring to.

23 Q. So did you advise this group of people, then, in some way that you

24 had no interest in continuing as president of the Banja Luka SDA?

25 A. Well, I took advantage of my visit to Sarajevo to bring together

1 members of the -- other members of the executive council, and to see that

2 something be done in, in fact, animating the work, activating the work, of

3 the SDA.

4 Q. And at the same time, you resigned as president of the SDA in

5 Banja Luka, I take it?

6 A. In practical terms, yes, I did.

7 Q. Would you look, please, at the -- in the English version, it's the

8 last paragraph on page 5, and the last two lines of that paragraph, where

9 you say in your statement, "In 1993, I was secretly elected president of

10 the regional board of the occupied territories of Bosanska Krajina." Do

11 you find that?

12 A. Yes, I did.

13 Q. I have a number of questions about that. What do you mean when

14 you say you were secretly elected?

15 A. Well, the agreement was within the executive council of the SDA.

16 I mentioned this. Perhaps you have failed to realise what I said, that we

17 should formally proclaim ourselves in Banja Luka as a regional board of

18 the SDA, because members of the boards in other towns were either escaped

19 or were killed. We believed that we could only be protected - perhaps

20 this was not the right way of thinking - but we believed that we could be

21 at least partially protected from arrests and from being killed if we had

22 higher political functions. That is to say, when we -- if we were to be

23 arrested, that we could inform the international public and that this and

24 that person was arrested, and add to this his function in the SDA, and

25 also mention that he was one of the vice-presidents of the regional

1 board. In my case, it was said that I was also president of the regional

2 board of the SDA. It was believed that this would attract international

3 reaction if their position were to be mentioned.

4 This was not legally a valid act, but those were the conditions we

5 were living in within a concentration camp, so to speak.

6 Q. Let me go back to the question I asked you. Are you looking at

7 the transcript there on your screen? Do you see the transcript on your

8 screen, Mr. Krzic?

9 A. I am -- I occasionally glance at it.

10 Q. The question I asked you was: "What do you mean when you say you

11 were secretly elected?" I must ask you that again. What do you mean,

12 "secretly elected"?

13 A. Well, we didn't -- did not render this public through the press or

14 any other media. We wanted to avail ourselves of this only in instances

15 where we might be arrested.

16 Q. Now, when you speak, then -- thank you. I appreciate that. When

17 you speak of the occupied territories of Bosanska Krajina, what

18 specifically did you consider to be the occupied territories of Bosanska

19 Krajina?

20 A. Well, this was the territory controlled by the Serb army, or the

21 Army of the Republika Srpska, the so-called Army of the Republika Srpska.

22 Q. So I assume that you would, for instance, put the Banja Luka

23 municipality in that category?

24 A. Yes, I would.

25 Q. So, in effect, what you did, then, in 1993 was create a regional

1 organisation of the SDA party, or a sort of SDA autonomous region,

2 secretly?

3 A. As you can see, these were not representatives of the people.

4 These were deputies, a group of people who, in a small room, decided that

5 this was the right way to act in order to save their lives. We did not

6 make this public, but the explanation, as you can see from the document,

7 was sent to our SDA members, explaining to them why we were doing that,

8 and simply to say to the journalists, "This is a political official and

9 let us have him saved." This was something intended for the press,

10 because it would not be possible to have interventions for every

11 individual person in Banja Luka. We had no other goal before us, neither

12 verbally or in writing, nor formally. Self-declaration of the members of

13 a non-existing political body, doing so to save our lives.

14 Q. I'm going to take you to a new subject now, on page 13 of your

15 statement, and that would be the English version. If you look at the very

16 bottom, the last paragraph, about halfway through that last paragraph, you

17 say, "There is no doubt" -- and you're speaking of a time when you had

18 been arrested. You say, "There is no doubt that the CSB leadership knew

19 that I was in the CSB building and that I was being interrogated and

20 tortured." You see that?

21 A. Yes, I do.

22 Q. Who was the CSB leadership that you were speaking of there?

23 A. Well, this, first of all, was in the building of the CSB, that is

24 in the SUP building where the security services were accommodated. I was

25 convinced that the head of that service, as -- and of the SUP as a whole,

1 was Mr. Zupljanin.

2 Q. And who else was the leadership? You seem to be speaking in

3 plural here, not just one person.

4 A. Well, I can't remember other individuals, that is his assistants,

5 if you're referring to them. I could not quote their names. But when I

6 was referring to the leadership, I had in mind the lower-ranking officers,

7 because such an information could not just pass unnoticed. It would have

8 been heard straight away, and I mentioned this.

9 Q. So when you used the term "CSB leadership," what you were

10 referring to was the lower-ranking officers of the CSB?

11 A. Yes, and on a higher level, too, the higher-ranking ones as well.

12 Q. What information do you have -- I mean, you say there is no

13 doubt. What information do you have that higher-ranking leadership

14 persons of the CSB were aware that you were there?

15 A. Well, because one of the police officers - who was indeed an

16 officer - were present when I was arrested, and once I even asked him to

17 inform one of the ex-SDA leaders, that is the lawyer, Mr. Bojanic, which

18 he accepted to do. And these were policemen. And as you know, the news

19 spread through the town and it was impossible for this piece of news not

20 to be known. And this piece of news was also transmitted through the

21 international news systems which were listened to carefully.

22 Finally, during the torture and the whole procedure, I was also

23 told quite openly that even Karadzic knew about my arrest.

24 Q. Thank you. But the sentence that I referred you to: "There is no

25 doubt that the CSB leadership knew that I was in the building and I was

1 being interrogated and tortured," you're referring to the present tense

2 there. You're saying at the time you were there, there's no doubt that

3 they knew you were there. I'm not asking about afterwards. I'm asking

4 about at the time that you were there. What proof do you have that Stojan

5 Zupljanin, for instance, knew that you were there being tortured and

6 interrogated? What proof do you have of that?

7 A. Well, policemen were present who were observing me through the

8 window. They were on duty. And they watched me when two soldiers took me

9 to the sports hall to beat me up, and they were present all the time when

10 I was being helped to stand up. These were military police members, and

11 it was impossible for them not to have informed their superiors of this.

12 Q. Well, Mr. Zupljanin was not the superior of military police, was

13 he?

14 A. I cannot answer these questions exactly because I don't have the

15 documents to base myself on. But there was -- it was generally known that

16 any event of this kind could not pass unnoticed by Mr. Zupljanin.

17 Q. So it's your position, then, is it, that you're able to say that

18 there is no doubt that he knew of your presence there at the time you were

19 there because you were being observed by some police officers? To you,

20 that's enough to prove that there's no doubt that he knew about it;

21 correct?

22 A. Because the torture went on the whole day in the SUP building and

23 as policemen went upstairs and downstairs, there were lots of policemen

24 and lots of soldiers that were doing that, it was quite logical for me to

25 conclude that they knew. The soldiers were shouting amongst each other,

1 "Do you know what sort of person we caught," and even mentioned me. So

2 it was quite public.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Ackerman. I think it's time to move to

4 something else. I think he has answered this question abundantly clear to

5 you.

6 MR. ACKERMAN: I'm moving, Your Honour.

7 Q. At the very bottom of the page, you describe yourself as a "man

8 who had stood up against the Chetniks." Now, I assume you're talking

9 about that period of time and not the Chetniks from World War II.

10 A. I apologise. I must refer to the Bosnian version.

11 Q. You don't have to apologise for doing that.

12 MR. KOUMJIAN: I would just explain. I believe that the page

13 numbering may be different, because this first statement was done in a

14 different font that's no longer on our computers. I know that when I

15 printed it out, I have different page numbers than Mr. Ackerman has.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: In any case, we're talking about the same paragraph,

17 so there shouldn't be great difficulties.

18 The same paragraph, Mr. Krzic, from which Mr. Ackerman had read

19 the short sentence regarding the CSB leadership. It's further down, two

20 sentences further down.

21 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. I have problems to find it.

22 MR. ACKERMAN:

23 Q. The heading of the section, Mr. Krzic --

24 A. [Interpretation] I've found it. I've found it.

25 You asked something about Chetniks. I apologise. Could you

1 repeat the question.

2 Q. The statement you made was -- let me give you the whole sentence

3 so that you'll have it in context. "I absolutely think that the CSB

4 leadership was informed from the beginning, otherwise they would have

5 killed me immediately."

6 And then the phrase I'm interested in: "As I was a man who had

7 stood up against the Chetniks." What do you mean that you were a man who

8 had stood up against the Chetniks? What Chetniks?

9 A. Well, I spoke about the crimes publicly. It was publicly

10 recognised by the perpetrators of the crimes that they were called

11 Chetniks. They were called Cetnika kums, vojvodas, and that they follow

12 the Chetnik tradition. I spoke about the crimes that they had committed

13 quite openly, and I can conclude that I would have been liquidated

14 immediately if they were to -- had decided about my fate. The soldiers

15 surrounding me often said that they were that, and I think that I have a

16 right to draw that conclusion.

17 Q. Mr. Koumjian was asking you during your testimony, I think on

18 Monday, about various dismissals in Banja Luka of non-Serb people between

19 April and December of 1992. And one of the group that you informed us had

20 been dismissed from their positions were most non-Serb judges. Do you

21 recall saying that?

22 A. I said that dismissals also included people working in the

23 judiciary, and I said that non-Serbs were dismissed. But I also said that

24 in some cases, that Serbs were also affected by this because they may have

25 been from mixed marriages.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 Q. The SDA party was a party that represented approximately 13 or 14

2 per cent of the population of the Banja Luka municipality; is that

3 correct?

4 A. It represented 13 to 14 per cent of the electorate.

5 Q. Yes. Do you know of a judge who was appointed in 1991 by the name

6 of Jankovic?

7 A. Yes, I do.

8 Q. What was Judge Jankovic's nationality?

9 A. I think that he was a Serb.

10 Q. And this candidacy for appointment to a judicial position was

11 supported by the SDA party, was it not?

12 A. I cannot claim that this was so. The only thing that I can

13 remember with regard to that election, that some members of the SDA

14 objected to him. But whether they voted or not, it is difficult for me to

15 say at this moment.

16 Q. Let me refer you to page 18 of your report. Not your book. Not

17 your book, your report, the first one we've been referring to, page 18.

18 A. The English version; is that right?

19 Q. That's the English version.

20 A. I have it.

21 Q. About halfway down, there is a paragraph which begins with the

22 name, Mr. Jankovic. Within that first sentence, you say, "Mr. Jankovic

23 asked for the support of the SDA. He received this support and was

24 appointed to the Basic Court."

25 A. I said this with some conviction, but not 100 per cent convinced.

1 Q. Well, when we started today, I asked you if everything contained

2 in your statements, that you would swear to as the truth, and you said,

3 "Absolutely, everything is the truth." So that must be the truth,

4 correct?

5 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, I object. That's argumentative to the

6 witness.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Ackerman. Don't you think that the

8 objection ought to be sustained?

9 MR. ACKERMAN: I think it probably should be, Your Honour.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: So it is sustained.

11 MR. ACKERMAN: I think I would have sustained it in your position.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: Exactly. So you don't need to answer that question,

13 Mr. Krzic. And Mr. Ackerman will put the next few questions before we

14 break again, unless he prefers to stop here and continue later.

15 MR. ACKERMAN: I think I'll maybe have one or two more, Your

16 Honour, to finish.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Go ahead.

18 MR. ACKERMAN:

19 Q. So this is a -- this is a fact that you have pointed out in your

20 statement that you are now saying you're not quite certain about?

21 A. Well, if you please, I gave this statement in reference to a

22 relevant event, and that is the massacre in Vlasic, so that when

23 describing the judge who attended the investigations in Vlasic, I was

24 asked what I knew about the Judge Jankovic, and I stated what I knew. I

25 didn't speak an untruth, a falsehood.

1 Q. Well, in fact, the point you were making, Mr. Krzic, was that

2 Mr. Jankovic, as the investigating judge, regarding what happened at Mount

3 Vlasic, even though he had the title of judge --

4 A. [No interpretation]

5 Q. I haven't finished the question. Even though he had the title of

6 judge, did not act independently because he was under the control, de

7 facto, of Mr. Zupljanin. That's the point you were trying to make, wasn't

8 it?

9 A. Well, I wanted to say that according to my information. And you

10 know I'm not a lawyer. I never worked in state institution of that kind.

11 To my mind, the investigating judge, on the basis of the customs in

12 practice in the state services, he was supposed to have come out on the

13 site of the crime, but the situation in Banja Luka was such at the time

14 that he couldn't have done this without consulting the most responsible

15 police officers. There was a situation where one's own regulations were

16 not respected, and he could have been ordered not to go. That is my

17 opinion. And everyone would have obeyed because if he did not obey

18 orders, in those days, this was a very dangerous thing to do.

19 I believe, and as far as I can remember - I'm not an expert in

20 that matter - the public prosecutor was the one who issued orders under

21 the old communist system. If, in the meantime, state regulations changed,

22 regulations that had to do with subordination, I'm not aware of that. But

23 it is impossible that he would have gone to the site of a massacre against

24 the non-Serbs, unless he had the consent of superiors, unless of course he

25 was an exceptionally brave person, willing to risk his own life, but then

1 again the consequences would have been quite different.

2 MR. ACKERMAN: I think we can break now, Your Honour.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: We will have a break of 25 minutes. We will resume

4 at five to 1.00, please. Thank you.

5 --- Recess taken at 12.31 p.m.

6 --- On resuming at 12.58 p.m.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: Please be seated.

8 Yes, Ms. Korner.

9 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I'd like to raise two short

10 administrative matters at the end of the proceedings. So if Mr. Ackerman

11 perhaps could just give me five minutes, it really will be short. Thank

12 you very much.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Ms. Korner.

14 Please admit the witness again.

15 Yes, Mr. de Roux.

16 MR. DE ROUX: [Interpretation] Mr. President, before the witness

17 arrives, I would like to say that I have spoken with General Talic about

18 the defence, because I won't be here on the 13th, Wednesday the 13th, and

19 he would like Ms. Natasha Fauveau to be co-counsel and be present in his

20 place -- in his name. I'm talking about Wednesday.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Let's forget about the formality, whether she

22 can be co-counsel or not co-counsel, because she cannot be a co-counsel or

23 described or accepted as co-counsel, because she isn't according to the

24 records of this case. But if there is this declaration, which I would

25 like General Talic himself to make as well, to the effect that he has no

1 objection in being represented on Wednesday when we meet next by

2 Ms. Fauveau, then I will have it on record. But not to have her described

3 as co-counsel, because you -- unfortunately, you cannot. As I said, when

4 you were absent, Ms. Fauveau did a fantastic job. So it's definitely --

5 definitely General Talic was very ably represented.

6 Yes. Mr. Krzic, you may sit down, please.

7 Yes. General Talic, you have heard what Mr. de Roux, your chief

8 counsel, has just stated.

9 THE ACCUSED TALIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have no

10 objections to being represented by Ms. Natasha Fauveau, and I agree to

11 that.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you.

13 So Mr. Ackerman, please.

14 MR. ACKERMAN: Thank you, Your Honour.

15 Q. Mr. Krzic, before the break, we were near the bottom of page 18 of

16 your statement. You say there -- it's about one, two, three, four -- the

17 sixth line up from the bottom, with regard to this issue that you were

18 discussing about Judge Jankovic and how he couldn't actually perform the

19 duties that a judge constitutionally should perform in that situation.

20 You said that at the time, referring to this period of time:

21 "There was one constitutional system and one de facto system." And that

22 is the case, isn't it, that you couldn't always determine who was in

23 charge and who had power based upon the title they had or the position

24 they held? There was a de facto power system that had grown up during

25 this period of time.

1 A. Yes. But not in general terms.

2 Q. Specifically in certain situations, however, that was the case,

3 wasn't it?

4 A. In certain cases, yes, it was.

5 Q. Let me take you now to the next page. You have a section of your

6 report that is under the heading "Mr. Brdjanin." You say at the end of

7 the first paragraph, that, referring to Mr. Brdjanin: "His father was a

8 war criminal during World War II." What proof do you have of that?

9 A. That was a well-known fact.

10 Q. Well known among who?

11 A. It was well known among the citizens, even those of Celinac. It

12 was well known that his father had been punished as a Chetnik in the

13 course of the Second World War.

14 Q. If you go to the second page, at the top, first full paragraph --

15 first paragraph, you indicate that Mr. Brdjanin became a member of the

16 Banja Luka assembly. Do you see that?

17 MR. KOUMJIAN: Could we ask, Mr. Ackerman, are you referring to

18 page 20, first full paragraph?

19 MR. ACKERMAN: Page 20, English. It's not the first full

20 paragraph. It's the paragraph at the top of the page, about halfway

21 through.

22 Q. Did you find that?

23 JUDGE AGIUS: Are you having difficulties, Mr. --

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, were you asking me? I

25 found it. I found the passage. I didn't realise that you had asked me

1 this question.

2 MR. ACKERMAN:

3 Q. And that's true, is it, that he was a member of the assembly of

4 the Banja Luka municipality?

5 A. Right now, I can't say this for sure, because in the Banja Luka

6 Dom Kultura, Centre of Culture, which is where municipal sessions were

7 held, sessions were held at the various levels. Assembly sessions were

8 held at various levels there. So there was a question concerning

9 Mr. Brdjanin, who was in Banja Luka. The question was whether he could be

10 a member of that assembly. And that was a period during which we no

11 longer participated in the work of the Banja Luka assembly. So our

12 information on certain appointments or elections was limited.

13 I was thinking of the fact that he was a member of the assembly of

14 Republika Srpska, and as far as I know, he was also a member of the

15 assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

16 Q. The question I asked you about was, you said that he was a member

17 of the assembly of Banja Luka. Have you learned since you gave that

18 statement that that's not true? Or do you still believe that to be true?

19 A. It is possible that Mr. Brdjanin moved to Banja Luka in that

20 period. It's possible that certain elections were held. So it's possible

21 that he was there. I would often see him there. I even saw him before,

22 before this period. So this is an impression I had, not only with regard

23 to him but also with regard to certain other people. I can't say this for

24 sure because I don't have any documents here. I can't say for sure

25 whether someone was or was not a member of the assembly.

1 Q. Well, you're looking at a statement that you signed, and you don't

2 say that he was possibly a member of the Banja Luka assembly. You say

3 that he was, don't you? You don't say, "It's possible that he was," or,

4 "I thought maybe he was," or, "He could have been." You say he was, as a

5 statement of fact, in a statement that you signed; right?

6 A. I agree with what you have just said.

7 Q. Thank you. If you go down to the next paragraph that starts with

8 the name "Mr. Brdjanin," you said in your statement, "He was always the

9 strongman, prepared to do everything Dr. Karadzic or others wanted him to

10 do." Right?

11 A. That's right.

12 MR. ACKERMAN: Could I ask the registry to provide the witness

13 with Prosecution Exhibit 34B and 34A?

14 Q. Mr. Krzic, I'm going to tell you what I have asked that you be

15 shown are shorthand notes of a meeting of the deputies club of the Serbian

16 Democratic Party of Bosnia-Herzegovina, held in Sarajevo on 28 February,

17 1992. I want to draw your attention to page 36 of the English version,

18 and I don't know where the same language would appear in the Serbo-Croat

19 version, the B/C/S version.

20 I will tell you that the person who is speaking is Dr. Radovan

21 Karadzic.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: Hold on a second.

23 Yes.

24 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, if I understand where the question is

25 going, I'm going to object on the basis of relevance. I believe

1 Mr. Ackerman would argue this goes to the witness's credibility, because I

2 presume he's going to show some split between Dr. Karadzic and

3 Mr. Brdjanin --

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, obviously. But I just can't see why your

5 objection ought to be sustained. It's definitely relevant.

6 MR. KOUMJIAN: Because Mr. Krzic was not present and would not

7 have had access to those documents at the time he made the statement.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: So what? He's making a blanket statement with

9 regard to Mr. Brdjanin in this particular statement, saying that

10 Mr. Brdjanin is the kind of political strong animal -- I'm using the term

11 "animal" not as -- we use it to describe a pure politician -- who as part

12 of his policy has taken to follow exactly and always everything that

13 Mr. Karadzic demands or expects from him. So if now we are coming to the

14 stage of having a witness confronted with statements, public statements,

15 made by Mr. Karadzic and others, I think of course there is a relevance.

16 MR. KOUMJIAN: That's the issue. It's not a public statement.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Of course it's relevant. He's going to be

18 asked -- I mean, he's on cross-examination, and he will definitely be

19 asked whether he will sustain or maintain the statement that he had made

20 in the first place with regard to Mr. Brdjanin. I mean, it's perfectly

21 legitimate.

22 MR. KOUMJIAN: I'm not going to argue the point further. I see

23 I'm losing it, so I'll sit down.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.

25 Yes, Mr. Ackerman.

1 MR. ACKERMAN:

2 Q. Okay. I'm asking you to look at page 36 of the English version.

3 And I think you have found that page. Correct?

4 A. I have the English version. But once again, as these are

5 sensitive issues, I would like to find the same passage in Bosnian. But

6 if you tell me what you want, maybe I wouldn't have to look for the

7 Bosnian version.

8 Q. I want to draw your attention to the statement made by

9 Dr. Karadzic with regard to Radoslav Brdjanin at this time. The English

10 translation reads: "We can and we must renounce everyone who refuses to

11 work the way we have agreed, Brdjo and all the rest. When Brdjo appears

12 somewhere, he's like a bomb. He blows up everything. Then he winks at

13 him. And I won't allow it as a psychiatrist and as the party leader."

14 Skipping a paragraph: "He's crazy. He's not normal,"

15 Dr. Karadzic continues. "He doesn't know what he can do and what he can't

16 do."

17 You see that language there, don't you?

18 A. [In English] Yeah, yeah.

19 Q. Dr. Karadzic as a psychiatrist is criticising Brdjanin, calling

20 him crazy, saying he's not normal; correct?

21 A. [Interpretation] According to what is stated here, yes.

22 Q. And you said after that, after he had called him all these things

23 and said all these things about him that, "Mr. Brdjanin was prepared to do

24 everything Dr. Karadzic or others wanted him to do."

25 Don't you think that's a bit unlikely?

1 JUDGE AGIUS: Now I can anticipate what your objection is. And

2 it's going to be sustained.

3 I think you ought to --

4 I dispense you from having to explain it, because I know exactly

5 what --

6 Mr. Ackerman, I would suggest to you to rephrase your question.

7 And I know -- and you ought to know exactly along which lines. I mean, he

8 made a statement way back in 1995, a statement that you read out to him.

9 Now you have read out to him what Mr. -- Dr. Karadzic had stated during

10 that meeting of the deputies club. The obvious question is whether he

11 would like to maintain the statement that he had made on that previous

12 occasion or whether he would prefer to revise it, but -- or something

13 along those lines. But not the way you've phrased it in the beginning,

14 anyway. Whether he still believes that --

15 MR. ACKERMAN: I'll do it.

16 Q. Do you stand by your statement, Mr. Krzic, that Brdjanin was ready

17 to do the will of Dr. Karadzic any time he was asked to?

18 A. Yes, for a certain time period.

19 Q. Well, you understand, do you not, that the statement that we just

20 read about Dr. Karadzic calling him crazy was in February of 1992,

21 preceding all of the events that are part of the allegations in this

22 indictment? You know that, don't you?

23 A. I know something else too. There are such turnarounds in

24 politics. Sometimes enemies become your best friend, and sometimes people

25 who spoke very ugly things about others turn around and say very positive

1 things. So your statement is quite relative, as is mine.

2 Q. A little further down in the same paragraph, the last sentence of

3 that paragraph on page 20 of your statement, referring to Brdjanin: "He

4 was the right person to organise ethnic cleansing, camps, and

5 deportation." Do you see that?

6 A. Yes, I do.

7 Q. Do you have any proof at all -- and when I say "proof," I mean

8 something more than what you think. Do you have any proof at all that

9 Mr. Brdjanin ever organised ethnic cleansing or organised any camps --

10 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Ackerman, this, I will not allow you to put this

11 question, because this is obviously a personal judgement of another

12 person. It's not a question of whether he has proof or not proof. This

13 is what at the time Mr. Krzic was making a statement believed. It's not a

14 question of whether he has proof or not.

15 MR. ACKERMAN: Well, Your Honour, my only point is that he made

16 the statement --

17 JUDGE AGIUS: So --

18 MR. ACKERMAN: And my question is whether it's true or not. I

19 think it's not. I want to ask him if he can justify it.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: You can only ask the witness whether he believes

21 that statement to be true but not what evidence or what proof he has that

22 Mr. Brdjanin was the right person for -- to commit all these activities.

23 MR. ACKERMAN: May I ask him, Your Honour, if he has any

24 justification beyond personal animus for having made the statement?

25 JUDGE AGIUS: No, of course not. That's even worse. That's even

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 worse. I mean, I notice that you skipped the previous sentence. And I

2 can understand why you skipped it, too.

3 MR. ACKERMAN: Well, let me find it. Maybe I won't skip it.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Oh, yes.

5 MR. ACKERMAN: "He is a man of hatred, of so little knowledge and

6 narrow perspective that he had no possibility to create anything

7 constructive." Is that the one you're referring to?

8 JUDGE AGIUS: Exactly. I mean, he is telling the interviewers

9 what is his personal assessment of Mr. Brdjanin is, and that's it. You

10 definitely know, as an experienced lawyer, Mr. Ackerman, that we are not

11 going to condemn anyone because one witness believes that that person is

12 capable of organising camps, deportation and whatever. What we will need

13 is evidence, not opinions or judgements on other persons.

14 MR. ACKERMAN: Thank you, Your Honour.

15 Q. Let me just ask this question, then, Mr. Krzic, about that entire

16 paragraph which begins, "Mr. Brdjanin," and ends, "morbid type." What

17 you're expressing there to the investigators is your personal opinion of

18 Mr. Brdjanin; correct?

19 A. My personal opinion is based on certain facts, nevertheless.

20 Q. Okay. I'll move on.

21 A. May I ask you a question, please?

22 JUDGE AGIUS: I have come across this several times before,

23 Mr. Krzic, and my answer has always been no. You're here to answer

24 questions and not to put questions. I won't even --

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's just that I omitted to say that

1 Mr. Karadzic actually confirmed my views.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: If you want to explain further, but very concisely,

3 what you mean, yes, but that's about it, and you're not entitled to put

4 questions to Mr. Ackerman.

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honour.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: It's no problem. I mean, I don't need apologies.

7 Just go ahead. If you have a further statement to make, please go ahead

8 and make it.

9 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour, if he wants to ask me questions after

10 the close of our session today, I won't object.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: No possibility of a dispensation here.

12 MR. ACKERMAN: I didn't think so.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: Exactly. So let's go ahead and not waste time,

14 because we are wasting precious time.

15 MR. ACKERMAN: I'm sorry. I'll move.

16 Q. Mr. Krzic, between April and December of 1992, you were making

17 efforts to inform the world about the things that were happening in Banja

18 Luka, weren't you?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And to be able to do that, you made efforts to keep yourself aware

21 of the things that were happening in Banja Luka?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. You paid close attention to television and the radio and the

24 press.

25 A. [No interpretation]

1 JUDGE AGIUS: Again, one moment, because I am not receiving any

2 interpretation.

3 THE INTERPRETER: Can you hear me now, Your Honour?

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, I can hear you now. Thank you.

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When you say "close attention," yes,

6 but I must qualify the statement because it was not always possible for me

7 to follow the media, because of frequent power shortages and things like

8 that.

9 MR. ACKERMAN:

10 Q. Yes. Watching TV and sometimes listening to the radio was

11 difficult because there was no electricity a lot of the time; isn't that

12 true?

13 A. True.

14 Q. How often during 1992 was the electricity non-existent?

15 A. It is almost impossible to answer that question. The question can

16 only be answered by the person who was in charge of power distribution. I

17 don't know.

18 Q. I think you said, and I can find it by next week, but you said at

19 one point, I think, that you were -- it was very rare that you were able

20 to run your fax machine because the power was off so much. So it was off

21 more than it was on; isn't that a fair statement?

22 A. I can only speculate. Perhaps it was 50/50.

23 Q. Okay. And that wasn't just for non-Serb residences but it was for

24 the entire city of Banja Luka; wasn't it?

25 A. Not exclusively, because there were certain areas of the town

1 which were more frequently cut off than others. Whether that was on

2 purpose or by coincidence, I don't know, but it was not uniform. That's

3 what I'm trying to say. The centre of the town was better supplied with

4 electricity than the outskirts of the town.

5 Q. Before 1992, the -- these problems with electricity were not

6 occurring with anywhere near this kind of frequency; were they?

7 A. To a lesser extent, at any rate, yes.

8 Q. Why is it that there was suddenly a power -- big power shortage in

9 Banja Luka, do you know? Do you know what happened?

10 A. I assume it was because of either a total or a partial breakdown

11 of electricity supply system throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina, and as the

12 war went on, this breakdown was getting more severe and becoming more

13 obvious. This is all common knowledge.

14 Q. Yesterday, you -- during your testimony, you talked about seeing

15 Mr. Brdjanin on TV a lot, and hearing him on the radio a lot, and you told

16 us about some of the things that you had heard him say.

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And your testimony yesterday was that that was during this period

19 between April and December, 1992, that you heard him say these things.

20 A. Both in 1991 and 1992.

21 Q. Yes?

22 A. But also in 1993.

23 Q. Yes. Could I refer you, then, to page 20 of your statement? The

24 paragraph that begins with, "I met Mr. Brdjanin." I think it's the second

25 sentence in that paragraph.

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Says, with regard to Mr. Brdjanin, "He was very frequently on the

3 radio, TV and in the newspapers, especially in 1993. Before that, he was

4 obviously not considered respectable as a spokesperson of the SDS. In

5 1991 and 1992, he was rarely interviewed." That's what you said in your

6 statement, wasn't it?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. With regard to his 1993 television interviews, you say in your

9 statement that he tried to get himself on TV for discussions on regular

10 administrative questions.

11 A. Yes. That is my impression.

12 Q. I assume that somebody from the television station had told you

13 that Mr. Brdjanin was always trying to get on TV.

14 A. I believe that someone who was close to the TV circles told me

15 that.

16 Q. Then you say that, "He tried to give the impression that he was a

17 man of power. The way he spoke through these interviews gave the

18 impression that he had played a very important role in Bosanska Krajina,

19 but he never directly said that he was responsible or had given orders."

20 Correct?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And that was interviews in 1993; correct?

23 A. Correct, yes, according to the statement here.

24 Q. Then you go on to say that, "His signature can be found on several

25 documents about ethnic cleansing and discrimination of non-Serbs." Do you

1 have those documents?

2 A. At this point, I cannot precisely refer to any document bearing

3 his signature. However, I think that the document from Celinac concerning

4 discrimination against non-Serb residents, which you have seen, I believe,

5 should be consulted for that purpose.

6 Q. Well, Mr. Brdjanin's name doesn't appear anywhere in that

7 document, does it?

8 A. I really cannot --

9 JUDGE AGIUS: Well, if you are going to ask such a direct

10 question, I would want to have this document shown to the witness so that

11 he is in a position to answer it, because otherwise he's going to

12 speculate whether there is Mr. Brdjanin's name or signature on that

13 document. He has specifically made reference to that document. Now he's

14 being asked a very specific question, too.

15 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour, if there's anyone in the courtroom

16 that knows what exhibit it is --

17 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't know.

18 MR. ACKERMAN: -- I'd appreciate being told. Otherwise I'll just

19 plod along and find it. It will take me just a moment.

20 It's Exhibit 450A and B.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: It's one of the documents that was introduced

22 yesterday.

23 MR. ACKERMAN: Yes.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: It's the second document, actually. The first one

25 was 449.

1 Mr. Krzic, please first confirm whether that -- the document that

2 you are seeing now is the Celinac document that you referred to earlier on

3 a few moments ago.

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Now perhaps you can answer Mr. Ackerman's question.

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I wanted this document to be checked

7 for presence, if any, of Mr. Brdjanin's signature on this document. I

8 don't have any other documents here at hand.

9 MR. ACKERMAN:

10 Q. Well, you don't see a signature on that document or his name, do

11 you?

12 A. No, I cannot see a signature or a name.

13 Q. Mr. Krzic, yesterday during your testimony -- and for purposes of

14 the Prosecution and the record, I'm referring to the LiveNote transcript

15 at 13.11.04. That would be 13.11.04 through 13.11.17. I don't know how

16 else to refer to it other than the time of the -- in the transcript.

17 You said, Mr. Krzic, did you not, that -- with respect to things

18 that you heard Mr. Brdjanin say, that he had made some very dangerous

19 remarks to the effect that "the non-Serbian population were worms, lice,

20 insects that had to be trodden on." That's what you told the Trial

21 Chamber yesterday; correct?

22 A. Yes, I did.

23 Q. Did you personally hear Mr. Brdjanin make such statements?

24 A. Yes, I did.

25 Q. Now, if you personally heard Mr. Brdjanin make such statements,

1 then I must ask you why you would say in your statement at the bottom of

2 page 20: "It is known that he used such expressions," rather than, "I

3 personally heard Mr. Brdjanin say these things."

4 A. I did hear similar things, such as subversive elements. I had

5 even read such terms. I had heard him speak over the radio to the effect

6 that Bosniaks and Croats should be prevented from doing any political

7 work. He made similar statements for the press. And these statements

8 were generally known and reported by numerous people in Banja Luka.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Ackerman. When it's convenient for you to

10 stop your cross-examination for the day, please do, remembering that we

11 still require about five minutes for Ms. Korner to deal with some

12 organisational matters.

13 MR. ACKERMAN: It's convenient now, Your Honour. I've lost track

14 of time.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. I think the witness can -- but we need to

16 explain to the witness that he needs to be here again --

17 MS. KORNER: Your Honours --

18 JUDGE AGIUS: That has been taken care of?

19 MS. KORNER: He knows that.

20 Perhaps Your Honour will be kind enough to explain something which

21 I don't think would have arisen before. It may be in the intervening

22 period that Mr. Krzic will meet potentially other witnesses. And if Your

23 Honour were to explain to him that he mustn't discuss the testimony he's

24 giving. Clearly, we can't speak to him because he's being cross-examined

25 at the moment.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: As I understood yesterday from what Mr. Cayley said,

2 that there won't be any other witnesses next week.

3 MS. KORNER: No, Your Honour. I mean in the future, not next

4 week.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Oh, I see. All right.

6 Mr. Krzic, have you heard what Prosecutor Ms. Korner has just

7 said?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: That is one of the most important principles that

10 you have to adhere to as a witness.

11 Do you understand me?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I understand you, Your Honour,

13 and I will adhere to that principle.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: You have not finished your evidence yet. There are

15 some further questions that you will be asked by the Defence counsel for

16 Mr. Brdjanin, following which there can be a re-examination from the

17 Prosecution, possibly one or two further questions, but also this Trial

18 Chamber may put questions to you. So it is important that between now and

19 whenever you will be asked to come again, to return here for the next

20 session of your evidence, you will not discuss these matters with anyone.

21 I have your word?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You do, Your Honour.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. I think you may withdraw now so that we

24 can discuss what we need to discuss. I thank you, Mr. Krzic. I thank

25 you.

1 [The witness withdrew]

2 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Ms. Korner?

3 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, two very short matters. The first is

4 this: We applied to Your Honours for a reconsideration of the decision in

5 relation to protective measures, and I wonder whether Your Honours would

6 be able to give us a decision on that, perhaps by next Wednesday. I know

7 that people are disappearing, but clearly, we have to be in a position to

8 deal with the potential witnesses.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: What I can tell you is that it is being taken care

10 of. It presents more than one problem, not just the merits of it but also

11 organisational problem. That is being considered anyway. But

12 fortunately, between now and next Wednesday, there is ample time to go

13 deeper into the merit and to the problem, and -- the merits of the problem

14 and hopefully we will come down with a decision at our earliest. That's

15 number one.

16 MS. KORNER: Thank you very much. Your Honour, the second matter

17 relates to your colleagues in this case. I understand that Vasiljevic has

18 got various hearings still outstanding. I wonder whether that, for the

19 purposes of warning our witnesses, whether that would affect our trial at

20 all? It won't.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: No. I have made sure that that won't be the case.

22 So you can put your mind at rest. At least it's not anticipated, it's not

23 envisaged, and precautionary measures have been taken in that regard.

24 Anything else?

25 MS. KORNER: And the third matter is this, Your Honour: The

1 question of hearsay evidence arose yesterday. We intend, as Your Honour

2 knows, to deal with the question of admissibility, again, of disputed

3 documents. I'm hoping perhaps it may be resolved this afternoon in the

4 Status Conference, but if it isn't, we will be dealing with it.

5 In addition to that, I wonder if I may deal with the question of

6 hearsay, which was something that Your Honour did, in fact, make a ruling

7 about. But it seems to me that we perhaps need a little more

8 clarification, and I could deal with that at the same time.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: Well, that chapter is closed and is not going to be

10 reopened, neither the chapter on admissibility in general nor the chapter

11 on hearsay. I don't agree with you that we have not been clear enough.

12 We have been abundantly clear. With regard to hearsay evidence, we made

13 it abundantly clear that that is not one of the established principles of

14 this Tribunal. It is a characteristic that belongs more or derives more

15 from the common law system than from other systems. This is a mixed

16 system. And that this Tribunal, following previous decisions in regard,

17 will adhere to what has been decided on previous occasions, that it is

18 certainly not an absolute rule in the common law and it is certainly less

19 absolute in this jurisdiction or in this Tribunal.

20 MS. KORNER: Your Honour is absolutely right. Your Honour made it

21 absolutely clear. All I wish to revisit is the way that Your Honour dealt

22 with yesterday the question of some of the documentation that was

23 submitted and how it applies, how the rule applies.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: Which documentation?

25 MS. KORNER: Yesterday, Your Honour -- I only have the LiveNote

1 here. When Mr. Koumjian put in documents, I think the very first two

2 documents, from -- through Mr. Krzic, Your Honour raised the question --

3 in fact, this is the LiveNote version -- I'm conscious of the time.

4 Perhaps it would be better dealt with next week.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: It can be dealt with later but please be advised

6 that we don't agree with you that the matter on hearsay or the position of

7 this Trial Chamber on hearsay has not been clear enough. It has been

8 clear enough.

9 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, the position, Your Honour made

10 absolutely clear. It is what Your Honour said yesterday that I wanted to

11 --

12 JUDGE AGIUS: I still can't place what you are referring to

13 because the first two documents were not controversial.

14 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, it was a document looking at the --

15 JUDGE AGIUS: Reports of the -- internal reports by the party of

16 -- by the SDA, submitted to the -- Mr. Sacirbey in New York. And the

17 second one --

18 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, it was a document that was labelled,

19 "Personal testimony."

20 JUDGE AGIUS: Oh, yes. That's not 449.

21 MS. KORNER: No, no. It was an early document, as I say.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: The position was not exactly on whether it's hearsay

23 or not. What Mr. Koumjian was trying to introduce in this -- in the

24 records of this case was a statement made by unidentified people who

25 preferred to remain anonymous, depriving eventually the Defence from being

1 able to cross-examine those persons on the statements that they were

2 making, and that statement was being presented by a witness purportedly as

3 proving the contents thereof. It could never be accepted as a document

4 trying to prove the contents thereof.

5 MS. KORNER: That's just the problem, Your Honour, because that's

6 not quite what the authority says. Of course there are degrees. But

7 there are cases, and in the case where it's an unidentified witness,

8 obviously, but if it's a blanket rule that Your Honour is making that it

9 is -- that hearsay evidence can never be admitted --

10 JUDGE AGIUS: That specifically referred to that, directed to that

11 document.

12 MS. KORNER: Very well.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: I think I made it clear that I would -- I wouldn't

14 have tolerate -- I couldn't tolerate a situation whereby the witness would

15 present that statement, say, "I had this statement made by a group of

16 persons who described themselves at the bottom of the page as a group of,"

17 without identifying their -- themselves, and then have it presented as a

18 document alleging this fact and that fact and that other fact, which form

19 actually the substance of some of the charges that are being brought

20 against the accused, and then have a situation obtain whereby Mr. Ackerman

21 and Maitre de Roux cannot cross-examine anyone upon those facts because

22 the authors of those -- of that document cannot be produced.

23 MS. KORNER: Yes, Your Honour, that is something that is going to

24 arise on a number of occasions.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: We will deal with it as it arises, and we will deal

1 with it in accordance with the importance of the document and whether

2 there is a substitute for that kind of evidence or proof.

3 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honour, perhaps the best thing to do, as

4 far as we are concerned, rather than take up more time, is to see what the

5 situation is next time it arises.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: In the meantime, also, if you are going to mention

7 anything about this particular subject, I would suggest you don't.

8 Okay, Mr. Ackerman, then, please.

9 MR. ACKERMAN: There is two things. One is just very tangentially

10 related to that subject, and that is, I wish we could have a rule that

11 when Your Honours make a ruling, that that be a ruling and --

12 JUDGE AGIUS: You don't need a ruling that a ruling is a ruling.

13 A ruling is always a ruling.

14 MR. ACKERMAN: Well, it seems like every day the Prosecutor wants

15 to --

16 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. But I have already stated that that chapter is

17 closed. It will not be reopened.

18 MR. ACKERMAN: Thank you.

19 Someone needs to inform Mr. Von Heble or some of your staff that

20 they should come collect us from the Defence room when they are ready

21 because we are second-class citizens here, and we're not allowed access to

22 most of this Tribunal. We just have --

23 JUDGE AGIUS: Your client is in good company.

24 Ms. Jarvis will deal with that. Okay?

25 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]

1 JUDGE AGIUS: I am being informed, Mr. Ackerman, that you do have

2 access to this room. It's one which is adjacent to Courtroom I, the

3 corridor, where there is the coffee machine and the toilet. No? It's

4 177, no?

5 MR. ACKERMAN: It's the room that's right next door to the Defence

6 room?

7 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. The information that I received earlier is

8 obviously not the correct one upon cross-examination.

9 MS. KORNER: I don't think the Defence do have access. It's our

10 side of the hallway --

11 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Anyway, that will be looked into.

12 Yesterday, Ms. Korner, we discussed very shortly with Mr. Cayley

13 what will happen next week. Obviously, Mr. Krzic is going to be with us

14 again, so that the cross-examination will -- of Mr. Ackerman will be

15 terminated. Then there will be possibilities, as I said, for

16 re-examination, if it's the case, and for some questions on our side, if

17 it's the case, following which we discussed first whether it was wise or

18 practical to have another witness come over. And we agreed that it's not

19 a practical thing to do.

20 I would invite you -- like to invite you that you try to find time

21 in the two days we have next week to make some submissions, oral

22 submissions, on the -- on your request to have the statement of the dead

23 witness - I forgot his name now - be admitted into evidence. The reason

24 is that I -- if -- perhaps you could discuss it very briefly in the

25 presence of Mr. Von Hebel later on today. If there is agreement on the

1 part of the Defence that there's no objection to such an admission, then

2 you don't need to discuss. But already I have had an indication from

3 Mr. de Roux that there is an objection.

4 MS. KORNER: Yes.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: So we will need to go into that.

6 MS. KORNER: Yes. Your Honour may recall that I said that Your

7 Honours might feel that it was better left until we've heard in fact the

8 last witness, because he's going to be dealing with the military --

9 JUDGE AGIUS: I do recall that.

10 MS. KORNER: I'm perfectly prepared to argue it on the merits

11 without that, but the relevance or otherwise will become apparent when

12 that witness testifies.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: I --

14 MS. KORNER: But I'm prepared to do it next week if Your Honour

15 wants me to.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: The important thing is that if we eventually have to

17 come to that, that it will not stop us from -- in other words, at least if

18 we have the submissions, then if we have to cross that juncture, we will

19 be prepared for it and we would be able to do it straight away.

20 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I'm perfectly prepared if there's time

21 next week, which there probably will be, to deal with the matter then.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. If you could find time, I think that would be

23 useful.

24 MS. KORNER: Yes.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay? Thank you.

1 So we will continue on the 13th. That's Wednesday, Wednesday.

2 That's Wednesday. And we will continue with the cross-examination or

3 what's left of the cross-examination of -- yes, at 9.00 -- the

4 cross-examination of Mr. Krzic.

5 I thank you.

6 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned

7 at 1.57 p.m., to be reconvened on Wednesday,

8 the 13th day of February, 2002, at 9.00.

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25