1 Tuesday, 27 June 2000

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The witness entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 9.35 a.m.

6 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Nice.

7 WITNESS: STJEPAN MESTROVIC [Resumed]

8 Cross-examined by Mr. Nice: [Cont'd]

9 Q. Can you tell, please, when you were first

10 retained by lawyers to appear in this case?

11 A. I believe it was around July 1999.

12 Q. Before or after, on your recollection, either

13 Dr. Donia or Dr. Allcock had given evidence?

14 A. I don't recall when Dr. Donia gave evidence.

15 Q. Before or after Allcock gave evidence?

16 A. It was before Dr. Allcock gave evidence.

17 Q. So that the allegations you make about

18 Dr. Allcock were available to the Defence lawyers to

19 put to him if they chose to?

20 A. No, because my report was not completed or in

21 progress at that time.

22 Q. Was it drafted?

23 A. The section on Dr. Allcock was most certainly

24 not drafted.

25 Q. Had you been invited by the lawyers to

1 comment on Dr. Allcock's report?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. And your comments were thus available to the

4 Defence lawyers?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And may we assume arising from consistency

7 that they would have been broadly in line with the

8 nature of your allegations against him in your report?

9 A. I'm sorry, what would have been broadly in

10 line?

11 Q. Well, your comments on Dr. Allcock's report

12 would have been broadly in line with the allegations

13 you now make against him?

14 A. It's hard to say. At that time, I was not as

15 thoroughly engrossed in the empirical studies by Dusko

16 Sekulic.

17 JUDGE MAY: Yes.

18 MR. NICE:

19 Q. But in general, at the very least,

20 Mr. Kordic's lawyers at that time, I think it was

21 Mr. Stein, were in a position to raise with Dr. Allcock

22 the various criticisms you now make?

23 A. I really don't know that.

24 Q. Well, if you told them about it, they were.

25 JUDGE MAY: I think it's probably a matter of

1 comment.

2 MR. NICE:

3 Q. Because you as a sociologist would accept,

4 wouldn't you, that there are a range of competing

5 theories on many, if not most topics?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. And the only fair way to deal with these

8 matters is for competing theories to be thrashed out by

9 competing theorists?

10 A. I would put it to be empirically verified.

11 Q. It's just, therefore, -- it would probably be

12 easier, you would accept, for a Tribunal dealing with

13 the issues raised by these various reports simply to

14 hear from the various experts rather than have it all

15 filtered by lawyers. It would probably be easier that

16 way, wouldn't it?

17 A. I'm sorry, I don't understand that question.

18 Q. I'll move on. Your report contains a passage

19 dealing with your curriculum vitae, to which I will

20 return, and then just to remind the Judges, if they

21 don't have it before them, it contains a huge number of

22 appendices and to which I'm not going to go into them

23 in detail at all, but I just want to identify them.

24 Appendix A1 simply sets out the various plans

25 for partition and reorganisation and cantonisation of

1 Bosnia-Herzegovina; correct?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. In Appendix A2, you list mini wars and

4 civil -- it must be wars that raged within, you say,

5 Bosnia-Herzegovina, even as Croats and Muslims fought

6 as an alliance. You remember that?

7 A. I'm going by recollection, yes.

8 Q. So you are acknowledging internal warfare not

9 just a matter of the Serbs attacking, things like that?

10 A. I'm saying one could characterise this as

11 several conflicts going on simultaneously.

12 Q. Thank you. Appendix A3 is headed, "Competing

13 interpretations and the chaos of concepts." Can you

14 just tell me what that -- what part that has to play in

15 your report?

16 A. Well, I don't have the report in front of me,

17 but --

18 Q. Well, you can have it, of course. You had

19 the marked one yesterday, you can have it today.

20 A. Well, I think I can go by memory. It is

21 simply to state that there are, indeed, many different

22 interpretations upon what happened in

23 Bosnia-Herzegovina and that the ones offered by the

24 Prosecution's expert witnesses are two among many.

25 Q. What was the purpose of your report, as you

1 understood it, you were providing? What was its

2 purpose?

3 A. Well, it was first of all to rebut the expert

4 testimonies of Drs. Allcock and Donia; and then second,

5 to offer an alternative explanation of what occurred.

6 Q. To rebut -- I'll come to the specific purpose

7 of rebuttal in a minute, but just help me with this

8 before I move on. Was the tone of your report your own

9 decision or was that suggested to you by the lawyers?

10 A. What do you mean by "tone"?

11 Q. Well, the tone of your report could hardly be

12 stronger. You accuse people of bias, you try and link

13 the experts with the Prosecution. Was that all your

14 idea?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. I see. We then come to appendix A4, which is

17 an interview with Muhamed Filipovic.

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. The significance of that? Just trying to get

20 somebody else's evidence in, or what's its

21 significance?

22 A. Its significance is that because Dr. Donia

23 puts so much emphasis on the Karadjordjevo meeting,

24 that Dr. Filipovic, who was very close to President

25 Izetbegovic, reports that he and Mr. Zulfikarpasic made

1 forays for negotiation, cantonisation, reorganisation

2 of Bosnia-Herzegovina, around the same time as

3 Karadjordjevo, with the Belgrade regime.

4 So the point of that is that there were many

5 competing plans for the reorganisation of

6 Bosnia-Herzegovina going on at roughly the same time.

7 Q. Well, either witness statements or summaries

8 of witness statements -- that takes us through appendix

9 A5 as well, which is Adil Zulfikarpasic's statement,

10 and I'm not going to deal with those. Likewise, A6 is

11 Sefer Halilovic, another account of somebody else who

12 fell out with Izetbegovic; yes?

13 A. Well, not quite. I think that given that

14 General Halilovic was the Chief of Staff of the Bosnian

15 army, that his account is something worthwhile here to

16 take note of, and it basically puts into context the

17 other actors in this drama. Whereas, as I've noted in

18 my report, Drs. Donia and Allcock tended to focus

19 primarily on President Tudjman.

20 Q. Again, in the absence of the witness being

21 here, we can't weigh him, and I shan't deal with him.

22 Appendix B, Huntington's view on the cultural

23 East/West divide. Just explain, please, so that I can

24 understand that. What's the significance of that?

25 A. Both of your expert witnesses take Franjo

1 Tudjman's 1981 book on contemporary nationalism in

2 Europe and treat it as some sort of blueprint or some

3 sort of relationship to the events that occurred during

4 this tragic war in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and the purpose

5 was to show that Franjo Tudjman makes historical

6 comments that are very similar to what an eminent

7 Harvard historian -- namely, Samuel Huntington -- says

8 about the general deterioration of Islamic Western

9 relations in the post-Cold War world.

10 Q. The mere fact that Huntington may be, in your

11 terms, eminent, says nothing about the underlying

12 purposes or intentions of Tudjman, does it?

13 A. Well, Mr. Tudjman's intentions are a matter

14 for the Court to decide. I was referring very clearly

15 to historical writings.

16 Q. Akbar Ahmed --

17 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] I should

18 like to know what is the relationship between

19 Dr. Tudjman and the well-known Croatian historian and

20 Samuel Huntington, the author of the famous book called

21 "Clash of Civilisation." Would you please try to

22 explain to me, because I don't really understand what

23 is the link between them.

24 A. Is the question being posed to me?

25 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] Yes.

1 A. Your Honour, there is no, that I know of,

2 direct or personal link between them. What I was

3 trying to say was that President Tudjman's writings, as

4 a historian, in his 1981 book do bear some resemblance

5 on this issue of there being an East/West clash with

6 those of Professor Huntington, and that therefore the

7 way that Dr. Donia and Dr. Allcock take some of the

8 statements out of context in Mr. Tudjman's book to

9 suggest intent on the partition of Bosnia-Herzegovina

10 seems to me to be an arbitrary conclusion. So that

11 I'm, by bringing in Samuel Huntington, simply widening

12 the context and saying historians, intellectuals write

13 and discuss about these matters without there

14 necessarily being any sort of a blueprint for war.

15 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] Yes, but I

16 think that this comparison is rather daring, because we

17 have a book which is written by a historian, who at the

18 same time is a man of action, on a particular situation

19 which concerns the future of a people, of a nation; and

20 on the other hand, there is a very general conjecture

21 post-Cold War, and the end of ideologies and the

22 conflict, the confrontation between civilisations. I

23 do not really think that there is anything in common

24 between them. Are we talking about a man who is a

25 historian, at the same time a man of action, such as

1 Mr. Tudjman? We are not now discussing an academician

2 or an academic or a man of learning, a professor.

3 A. Your Honour, at the time Franjo Tudjman wrote

4 that book, he was a professor. He was not a man of

5 action. He became a man of action and a politician

6 after he had been imprisoned and following the

7 elections in 1990. So that I am making a comparison, a

8 contrast, strictly on the basis of what Mr. Tudjman

9 wrote before he became a man of action.

10 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] Very well.

11 Thank you.

12 MR. NICE:

13 Q. Appendix C, Akbar Ahmed. Significance,

14 please.

15 A. Akbar Ahmed is a distinguished anthropologist

16 at Cambridge University who also writes about a general

17 world-wide clash between Islam and the West. Moreover,

18 he believes that this very general clash, which he sees

19 going on from Kashmir to Palestine to Bosnia, to

20 Chechnya, and other places, is the result, actually, of

21 a vacuum in Western leadership. And I think again it

22 offers an interesting contrast, which is what a scholar

23 should do, in examining, as I did examine the works of

24 Dr. Allcock and Dr. Donia, to present competing,

25 opposing, different points of view and explanations for

1 the phenomenon being considered here.

2 Q. This particular expert's field of expertise

3 is where? It's the Indian subcontinent, isn't it?

4 You're not suggesting, are you, that his works in some

5 way excuse or justify the actions of individual

6 politicians or soldiers in the Balkans?

7 A. No, and I don't see where you would get such

8 a conjecture. He is an expert on the South Asian

9 continent, but he's also a distinguished anthropologist

10 who has written many books on many topics, and

11 certainly his book "Living Islam" pertains to Islam all

12 over the world and was a BBC televised series.

13 Q. Appendix D was public opinion studies -- I'm

14 probably going too fast, I'll try and slow

15 down -- was public opinion studies in Croatia as

16 against the rest of Europe. I'm not going to deal with

17 those. We don't have the raw material with us.

18 Appendix E was empirical research conducted

19 by Lazic and his team on the status of ethnic

20 minorities and inter-ethnic relations in Croatia.

21 Would you accept that that fits with and isn't in

22 contradiction with what Dr. Allcock says?

23 A. Sorry. You said fits with and contradicts?

24 I don't understand that?

25 Q. I didn't say "in contradiction."

1 A. I'm sorry.

2 Q. At least, I hope I didn't. It fits with and

3 supports what Dr. Allcock says, is what I intended,

4 whatever I said.

5 A. He does not cite that study. There's no way

6 for me to determine.

7 Q. Do its findings fit with and support what he

8 says or do they contradict them? Because if they

9 contradict them, let me know exactly how and then I

10 might be able to deal with it. Otherwise I'll move

11 on.

12 A. Well, I think I made it clear yesterday, it's

13 very hard to find a clear statement in Dr. Allcock's

14 testimony because he cites so few scholars. He does

15 not cite the study.

16 Q. I'll come to that point immediately rather

17 than later. Citation is one thing, clear statement is

18 another. Dr. Allcock's statements are entirely clear,

19 aren't they, about what you take exception to in such

20 strong and sometimes virulent language. You understand

21 what he's saying.

22 A. No, I disagree with that.

23 Q. Well, we'll have a look at some passages

24 later. As to citation, Dr. Allcock was instructed, as

25 he makes clear, to provide a general background to

1 assist the Court, not necessarily a learned study. Do

2 you really make complaint of the lack of citation?

3 A. As I have already stated, when one looks at

4 some of his claims, it's really difficult to know what

5 he's saying because he does not cite. I can give you a

6 very specific example, if you'd like.

7 Q. Yes, give it.

8 A. Well, on page 32 of his report, if you have

9 it.

10 Q. Yes, we can find it, that's not a problem.

11 A. And I need a copy in front of me, please.

12 Q. That can be provided by the Defence.

13 A. Thank you.

14 Q. There was a problem in your page numbering,

15 sorry -- it was not in his -- I'll come back to that

16 later.

17 A. Yes, if you look at seven, Roman numeral six,

18 he writes, "Expressions of social distance".

19 THE INTERPRETER: Could it be placed on the

20 ELMO, please.

21 A. Somebody asked to put it on the ELMO.

22 JUDGE MAY: Put it on the ELMO, could you?

23 Yes, can we have the relevant part?

24 A. Yes. Only one part. "Expressions of social

25 distance are notably sensitive to changes in political

1 climate. Two studies done in 1985 and 1990, for

2 example, found that in that period the degree of

3 closure or distance manifested by Albanians had grown

4 remarkably."

5 Now, the problem here is Albanians could

6 refer to the actual Albanian minority which is very

7 small in Yugoslavia, or to the Albanian people in

8 Albania, or to the Kosovo Albanians but then again, it

9 doesn't say where. One has to assume that these are

10 the same studies that I have spoken about by Lazic and

11 by Sekulic, but it is not at all clear. But even then,

12 what's most problematic here, as I stated yesterday

13 very clearly, in 1985 and 1990 the point of comparison

14 is Croatia. These studies were not done on Kosovar

15 Albanians or any Albanians in 1985 so this is, in fact,

16 a misleading statement. It does not cite, and as a

17 colleague, as a reader, as anyone, one has to make

18 guesses as to what it's true intention is. So this is

19 what I meant.

20 Q. As to that example, you were quite right --

21 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the counsel,

22 please.

23 MR. NICE:

24 Q. You are quite right about the studies he was

25 basing it on.

1 A. It's not clear. One has to guess.

2 Q. Well, they are dealt with in your Appendix E,

3 aren't they, where you indeed do make the appropriate

4 guess because you deal with Lazic's research and you

5 say, 'implies but doesn't cite' this study of

6 Dr. Allcock?

7 A. Yes, but I wouldn't think one had to guess in

8 circumstances such as these. I mean as a professor, as

9 an editor of books, I'm used to things that when

10 somebody makes an argument to present very clearly what

11 they are saying, why, and who they are drawing upon.

12 Q. If he'd cross-examined on this complaint then

13 the matter could have been clarified.

14 JUDGE MAY: That's not a matter for the

15 witness.

16 MR. NICE:

17 Q. Appendix F is the empirical research

18 conducted by Dusko Sekulic and I have no observations

19 to make on that at all. Appendix G is USIA surveys and

20 again in the absence of raw material, we can't deal

21 with that. Appendix H is the 30-page, 31-page rebuttal

22 of John Allcock's testimony which wasn't put to him and

23 so I can't and won't deal with that in detail.

24 Appendix J is the 10-side or 9-side rebuttal

25 of Robert Donia's testimony and again, that not being

1 explored with him I am not going to deal with that.

2 And then we have Appendix K, Senator Daniel Patrick

3 Moynihan on the self-determination versus the

4 sovereignty of nation. Can you just explain that,

5 please?

6 A. Yes, along the lines of Professor Akbar

7 Ahmed, who is saying in the post-Cold War world, there

8 is a general tendency towards scission, towards chaos,

9 because the world seems to have been thrown out of

10 control. So to speak, Senator Moynihan wrote a book

11 called "Pandemonium" to that effect and, again, I think

12 it was an interesting alternative and an interesting

13 contrast to the focus of your expert witnesses.

14 Q. Providing what answer so far as the Balkans

15 is concerned, so that I can understand it?

16 A. So far as what is concerned.

17 Q. So far as the Balkans are concerned and this

18 particular war, what is the answer that it provides?

19 A. Similar to the answer I gave to one of the

20 Justices yesterday, that precisely because the

21 International Community was disorganised at the time

22 the war erupted in the former Yugoslavia, that gave

23 rise to people falling back on nationalism as a

24 fall-back position.

25 Q. Well, does that in any way legitimise any

1 specific activity in Yugoslavia, Patrick Moynihan's

2 theory?

3 A. No.

4 Q. And then is it finally, I think, we have

5 Tudjman's theory of nationalism and what's the

6 significance of that?

7 A. Again, for the sake of scholarly

8 completeness. Since that book is used by your expert

9 witnesses, I think it should be noted simply for

10 context. This is a book about nationalism throughout

11 Europe, not about Bosnia-Herzegovina, not just about

12 the former Yugoslavia. When one analyses a text, one

13 generally notes the general context. So he was

14 concerned with the rise of nationalism and how this

15 problem could be dealt with throughout Europe.

16 Q. Again, does it legitimise anything

17 specifically?

18 A. No, I offer it for the sake of context.

19 Q. Very well. Let's come back to your

20 curriculum vitae, and one thing isn't clear to me. You

21 cover a very wide area geographically. Indeed you

22 cover the world geographically, in your studies and

23 writings.

24 A. Sociology is a cosmopolitan enterprise. I

25 suppose I do.

1 Q. It's not clear, from what you set out, the

2 degree, if any, to which you engage in field work; do

3 you?

4 A. I engaged in the field work in the field of

5 mental health and I had some publications on that, but

6 I am primarily a theorist.

7 Q. Yes, you are a general, abstract theorist;

8 correct?

9 A. I don't know what a general, abstract

10 theorist means. I apply social theory to interpret

11 studies and events. That's what theorists do.

12 Q. And you are wholly dependent on the field

13 work of others in the sociology works -- in the

14 sociology works that you engage in?

15 A. I would be careful with the word

16 "dependent". I analyse, put into context, criticise

17 the work of others.

18 Q. You are also, well, you accept that, of

19 course, Dr. Allcock has been visiting Yugoslavia and

20 engaging in field work there for 20 years or more?

21 A. I don't know that for a fact.

22 Q. But you have no reason to doubt it?

23 A. No.

24 Q. Thank you. You make obvious points about the

25 performance of scholarship. I think indeed in your

1 bibliography you cite some 400 works. Are they all

2 cited in the text?

3 A. No.

4 Q. Is that padding of a bibliography, please?

5 A. No. As I state in my report, I wish to set a

6 fuller context. It's not padding, I've made it very

7 clear to show that there are a plethora of views and

8 opinions and competing interpretations of what

9 occurred.

10 Q. What was your Ph.D. dissertation in, please?

11 A. "In the shadow of Plato: Durkheim and Freud

12 on Suicide and Society".

13 Q. Did that have any connection with the

14 particular topic at hand?

15 A. Yes, I think it does.

16 Q. Better explain it.

17 A. Well, the dissertation deals with not only

18 suicide, with murder, accident rates, death and

19 destruction; how these things relate to the development

20 of societies; how we can use social theory to explain

21 these things as social facts, and I think these kinds

22 of investigations actually are connected to the kinds

23 of issues that are coming to the foreground here in

24 relation to this war.

25 Q. You got a Fulbright scholarship. Of course

1 you will recognise another fellow Fulbright scholar,

2 Bill Tomljanovich, sitting behind me, won't you?

3 Another Croat of American nationality on the same

4 scholarship; yes?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. I'll come back to that a little later. Can I

7 now look, please, at some of the comments there have

8 been on your work in various learned journals and I'm

9 going to end, you will be interested to know, with

10 comments by Dr. Allcock on your work. Have you read

11 them?

12 A. Are you referring to his review of my book

13 "Balkanisation of the West"?

14 Q. Yes.

15 A. I believe I may have read it a while ago.

16 Q. And what we will discover so far as he is

17 concerned is that he takes an even-handed approach to

18 you, he's not -- well, we'll look at in its course.

19 Your Honour, these come in bundles, I hope.

20 They don't, I'm sorry they have to be dealt with

21 separately, but I want them to be before the Court.

22 1465.8 because there aren't many of them. If we could

23 have the next one ready to go as soon as the first one

24 is distributed.

25 John Armitage's criticism on the barbarian

1 temperament and the whole thing is in context and this

2 is one view of an academic on you. Right hand column,

3 just over half way down the page, "A final criticism,"

4 if one can see that.

5 "A final criticism concerns the sheer scale

6 of Mestrovic's ambitions. Thus he claims he not only

7 wants to complete Horheimer's affinities with

8 Schopenhauer, but also to supply what he calls a depth

9 sociology and psychology to the works of Baudrillard,

10 as well as subverting the traditional view of both

11 Durkheim and Freud. This is something of a tall order,

12 to say the least. Still, if critical theory's reach

13 does not exceed its grasp, what's a post-modern

14 philosophy for?"

15 Would that be some of the reflection of the

16 criticism for you that you try and encompass far too

17 much --

18 A. I don't know if it's general, I think for me

19 the interesting line is it's a provocative and timely

20 contribution to post-modern critical theory; that's

21 merely all an author would like to see, that's

22 basically a favorable point of view.

23 Q. The next one please, 1472.9. This is on the

24 first sheet, we see under the line where it says "Garth

25 Massey, University of Wyoming":

1 "The prolific professor Mestrovic has added

2 another volume to his list of recent publications, this

3 time combining his revitalization of Durkheim's theory

4 of primacy of morality with a partisan interpretation

5 of the war in the former Yugoslavia, all in the light

6 of 'the affinities between post-modern narcissism and

7 post-communist violence'. It is a daunting and

8 original effort that earlier admirers of Stjepan

9 Mestrovic's work will enjoy. Readers new to his

10 writing may be put off by some intemperate language and

11 a point of view that eschews neutrality."

12 If you turn to the next sheet, the first

13 column, last complete paragraph, the judgement on you

14 here by a fellow academic:

15 "The books central thesis a marred by

16 chapters that may be expected to elaborate, but tend to

17 detract from, Mestrovic's formulation. Chapter 2 is

18 devoted to dismantling the link between Croatia and

19 Nazism and hanging the label of 'Nazis' on Serbia.

20 Chapter 4 applies a superficial post-modernist

21 framework to dissect and critique the U.S. media

22 presentation of the war in the former Yugoslavia,

23 including coverage of wide-scale rape of non-Serbian

24 women."

25 Do those comments reflect some of the

1 judgement of you that you are -- that you eschew

2 neutrality?

3 A. I don't think it's a general trend. Again, I

4 think this is a favourable review. Calling me prolific

5 and saying I make some significant contributions to

6 this is all an author can hope for.

7 MR. NICE: 1465.6, please.

8 THE INTERPRETER: Could Mr. Nice speak a bit

9 more slowly when he cites.

10 JUDGE BENNOUNA: Mr. Nice, we are asked to

11 speak a little bit slowly when you read the citations.

12 MR. NICE: Thank you, Your Honour. I've been

13 alerted, and I'll do my best to keep on favourable

14 terms with the interpreters.

15 Q. This, then, by Jan Kubik, and if we look to

16 the last sheet -- I think this is "Habits of the

17 Heart," isn't it?

18 A. No. That should be Thomas Cushman.

19 Q. Thomas Cushman. Thank you. Yes. I want to

20 come back to that in detail later, for a particular

21 reason. But what is said here in the second sheet and

22 in the second column, where you're dealt with in this

23 way, or your book is dealt with in this way:

24 "There are a number of potential problems

25 with an ambitious and broad theoretical study of this

1 kind, not the least of which is paucity of any data on

2 the relationship that the author suggests among family

3 dynamics, religious culture and the emerging

4 structure. At the same time, glaring contradictions to

5 his theory are ignored, such as male-centred Islamic

6 culture that also produces 'virulent' nationalism."

7 And then about ten lines further down:

8 "Most importantly, 'cultural' studies that

9 draw directly on theories of individual behaviour to

10 explain larger social phenomena oversimplify the link

11 between the two levels of analysis. If 'normal'

12 nationalism is defined by public support of the state

13 by the nation, for instance, when did the duly elected

14 Nazi government cross the line into 'virulent'

15 nationalism? By skipping over the interceding

16 structural processes and social dynamics that translate

17 individual action into larger social institutions, his

18 methodology forgoes the stuff of sociology and is

19 limited to blanket explanations that cannot explain

20 social change. Moreover, such a methodology risks

21 promulgating social stereotypes, one of which could be

22 the unregenerate chauvinism of eastern European

23 males."

24 Is that a sort of typical criticism that

25 there has been of your work, or works, with Cushman?

1 A. This is not a work with Cushman, first of

2 all. And second, your reviewer takes a pejorative view

3 of Islam here. And I'm very glad I did not make the

4 claim that she attributes to me, because I find it

5 pejorative. And given that she does have a pejorative

6 view towards Islamic males and eastern European males,

7 no, I don't find this particularly troubling.

8 Q. Well, now, what I'm going to do, because the

9 time taken to deal with this is time that is in short

10 supply, is I'm going to leave out several which I may

11 try and lay before the Chamber in another way more

12 succinctly later. But I think it's only fair that you

13 should see the Allcock review, which is 2826. You told

14 us yesterday you've never, I think, heard of --

15 THE INTERPRETER: Your microphone, please.

16 MR. NICE:

17 Q. You told us yesterday you've never heard of

18 Dr. Allcock, but it appears you may have heard of him

19 in relation to the review of your books.

20 A. I came across the review when I began the

21 project, my report.

22 Q. I see. Well, this relates to "Balkanisation

23 of the West", and of course was written entirely

24 independently of any known involvement of you in this

25 case or independent of this case altogether.

1 On the second sheet, page 575, towards the

2 bottom -- well, perhaps it's worth looking at the end

3 of the top paragraph. Would you agree with this

4 description of yourself, about eight lines town:

5 "Mestrovic is never a man to pull his

6 punches, even though some of them turn out to be wild

7 swings rather than crisply executed upper-cuts.

8 Consequently, his work is always dramatically

9 thought-provoking, although that experience may result

10 in disagreement with him."

11 Then towards the bottom of the page, about --

12 a couple of inches up, about 20 lines up:

13 "Mestrovic is obviously unaware of the huge

14 disparity which has grown up between popular and

15 governmental responses to the situation in

16 Bosnia-Herzegovina. Consequently, he moves from

17 observations about the inadequacy of politicians, and

18 especially American politicians, to a diagnosis of the

19 total moral depravity of the West, which seems to me to

20 go beyond what the evidence will support, bearing in

21 mind the fact that one of his motivating concerns is a

22 rediscovery of the social and cultural conditions which

23 support caritas. Perhaps he should have devoted a

24 little more attention to the phenomenon of a massive

25 upwelling of popular sympathy for Bosnia among the

1 ordinary people of Europe."

2 And then two lines up from the bottom of the

3 page:

4 "While taking seriously Mestrovic's

5 insistence upon the importance of cultural continuity,

6 however, we do need to be careful about the dangers of

7 overgeneralisation."

8 Then the next page, please.

9 "It seems to me to be a perfectly

10 respectable and prima facie convincing hypothesis that

11 the collapse of communist rule will not result in a

12 sudden cultural transformation of the countries of

13 eastern Europe but will reveal the strength of cultural

14 traditions older than communism which in many respects

15 are equally as infertile a soil for the growth of

16 democracy. Where Mestrovic does his own case a

17 disservice, however, is in his apparent readiness to

18 conflate the cultural history of all formerly communist

19 states to a lowest common denominator. This

20 intermittently takes the form of appeals to the work of

21 Dinko Tomasic, which, whatever its merits or demerits,

22 does not provide conceptual seven-league boots which

23 permit Mestrovic to move from the hypothesised cultural

24 attributes of Dinaric man to all Balkan peoples, and

25 thence to the cultural substratum of all communist

1 countries."

2 And then a comment by the author, which I can

3 pass over, unless it's wanted to be read. But the last

4 paragraph:

5 "If neither post-modernism nor post-communism

6 will bear close conceptual examination, what are we

7 left with? This is a fascinating book. Every

8 colleague I know who has read it has been gripped by

9 its interest. Their response, as well as my own,

10 derives as much from the desire which it rouses to

11 debate the issues which Mestrovic raises rather than

12 simply to adopt his analysis. He also offers us a

13 confluence of three important endeavours: a deep

14 engagement with the social and cultural development of

15 the South Slav peoples, driven by a realisation that

16 this is more than parochial interest; a passionate

17 concern for moral truth; and a keen interest in the

18 value of theory."

19 Here is somebody who disagrees with you, as

20 you can see, strongly, and can do so courteously. Do

21 you still think that the tone of your report was

22 appropriate in this case?

23 A. I am courteous when I disagree with

24 colleagues. And by the way, this is a very flattering

25 review and I appreciate it. I am very courteous with

1 colleagues when I disagree with them in meetings of the

2 American Sociological Association, learned societies,

3 and so forth. I did not see the task here as anything

4 personal in Dr. Allcock. He made some claims in his

5 expert report which I found wanting, I cited some

6 empirical studies that I think contradict it, and

7 that's that.

8 Q. And you think it right, do you, to suggest,

9 as we can find in your report on several occasions, do

10 you think it right to suggest that these experts,

11 Dr. Donia and Dr. Allcock, may, as it were, be fitting

12 in with the Prosecution's case? Is that what you're

13 suggesting from time to time?

14 A. Fitting in the sense that the arguments

15 you make and the arguments they make fit the general

16 pattern of top down, yes.

17 Q. You're not suggesting, are you, or are you,

18 there's been any changing of opinion by these two men,

19 neither of whom comes from the former Yugoslavia and

20 each of whom just has a long interest in the country --

21 you're not suggesting that either of these men has

22 tailored a view to fit the Prosecution, are you?

23 A. No.

24 Q. I may come back to reviews a little later,

25 but before I do, can we look, please, at just one

1 passage, page 2 of your report. There's a slight

2 difficulty with your report in that the page numbers

3 are repeated, but the body of the report is clear. So

4 if we can look at just one passage in detail --

5 JUDGE MAY: Let the witness have a copy of

6 his report.

7 MR. NICE: Page 2. It can go on the ELMO.

8 Q. And it's towards -- it's just a little

9 over -- it's about six lines down on the second

10 paragraph: "Most sociologists accept Weber's central

11 argument ..." The interpreters I think have copies of

12 this document. It's on page 2 and six lines down on

13 the second paragraph.

14 "Most sociologists accept Weber's central

15 argument that highly rational ends/means behaviour,

16 including capitalism, science, rational music and arts,

17 among other cultural products, is possible and is

18 enshrined in Western countries with a predominantly

19 Protestant, especially Calvinist cultural base; namely,

20 the USA, Canada, Great Britain, the Netherlands, and

21 Germany. Countries and societies with non-Protestant

22 cultural bases, ranging from the former Soviet Union

23 and the former Yugoslavia to India, tend to lag behind

24 in cultural activities that regard rational demand,

25 rational ends/means behaviour. Even if this finding is

1 offensive to cultural groups that seek to emulate those

2 that enshrine rational ends/means behaviour, it has

3 been replicated on numerous occasions across the

4 world. It must be emphasised that this sociological

5 argument is cultural in that it involves learned

6 behaviour and does not make any racial or biological

7 assumptions of any sort. Also, sociologists do not

8 make an inherent association between rationality and

9 values," and so on.

10 Now, that passage, would you accept that that

11 would be regarded as offensive to, for example, Croats

12 or Croats living elsewhere in this world?

13 A. No.

14 Q. Does it not suggest inferiority?

15 A. No. I think it states very clearly that I'm

16 not making a value judgement about rationality; simply

17 that rationality does refer to organised, systematic

18 ends/means behaviour, which is indeed taken for granted

19 in the West and is not so prevalent in other

20 countries.

21 For example, there are more lawyers per

22 capita in the United States than anywhere else in the

23 world. Lawyers deal with what is known, and they bury

24 in terms, as rational legal authority. There are much

25 fewer lawyers in non-Western societies. Issues that in

1 the West would go before a court would be settled there

2 by more traditional sources of authority. In no way am

3 I saying that the West is superior; I'm saying the West

4 is different, and there are studies in sociology that

5 document this.

6 Q. At one place in your report I haven't

7 immediately to hand, but we can find it, you even

8 suggest that catching a bus or going to a restaurant, I

9 think, is a qualitatively different experience in the

10 Balkans from that which it is in the West, that that is

11 somehow culturally driven and a reflection of

12 fundamental differences. It's on page 2, I think --

13 page 3.

14 A. Yes. I think if anyone has had an experience

15 of going into a restaurant in eastern Europe, I think

16 it's a fairly general one -- there may be some

17 exceptions, but in general it's a very long wait to get

18 served and to move out, whereas in the United States

19 there is a huge emphasis on fast-food restaurants, such

20 as McDonald's, Burger King, and so forth, which are

21 highly efficient, which are highly organised, and again

22 I think exemplify, not in my view, but in the views of

23 sociologists such as George Ritzer, who take this

24 varying view, do exemplify some of these principles.

25 Q. I'm going to suggest to you that the

1 proposition you advance is extreme and extended, and

2 unpalatable to people who can produce mathematicians,

3 who can run trains on time just as well as people in

4 the West. But you won't accept that?

5 A. No, because again I've cited for you George

6 Ritzer's book on the subject, and no one finds it, to

7 the best of my knowledge, unpalatable; in fact, it's

8 very popular. It is standard reading in most sociology

9 courses in the United States. There are many, many

10 conceptualisations of the United States being a sort of

11 fast-food kind of place. I don't think this should be

12 construed as offensive in a culture that does not take

13 to fast food.

14 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Nice, have you ordered a meal

15 recently in The Hague?

16 MR. NICE: I was going to make that point,

17 Your Honour, but I thought that, out of respect for my

18 host country, I shouldn't make it publicly. But, Your

19 Honour, I entirely agree with the underlying thesis.

20 May the witness please have a copy of

21 Dr. Allcock's report. I don't know if there's a marked

22 copy in the Defence bench. Is there?

23 THE WITNESS: It's right here.

24 MR. NICE:

25 Q. Can you lay on the ELMO appendix 6. This is

1 an appendix that I think you did not comment on in your

2 report, presumably because you had nothing to say about

3 it. It's right at the end. If you bring it here, I'll

4 find it. Let me lay this one on the ELMO. Here it

5 is.

6 You understand that at the time that

7 Dr. Allcock prepared his report, he had and could have

8 had no knowledge that you were involved at all in the

9 work of the defence for Kordic, so that his appendix 6

10 was written ignorant of your future involvement. And

11 we'll just read it. It's a page and a half, and I'll

12 ask for your comments. He says he heads it with your

13 name and the theory of social character and he says

14 this:

15 "The political transformation of Croatia and

16 the Croatian national movement in general has gone

17 along with several attempts on the part of academics of

18 different disciplines to provide intellectual

19 foundations for secession from Yugoslavia.

20 These are of interest and relevance to this

21 report for three reasons: One, they support the claim

22 that Croat secessionism has been more than an ad hoc

23 and pragmatic response to the course of the political

24 and economic crisis which engulfed the federation after

25 1989.

1 Two, these ideas were being advanced in some

2 case by individuals who were close to the leadership of

3 the HDZ.

4 Three, while not necessarily indicating that

5 their authors held to views which could be described as

6 racist are open, in some cases, to a reading along that

7 line and to exploitation by those who might wish to

8 find academic justification for extreme political

9 views."

10 Now, you didn't comment on this appendix in

11 your report unless I have missed it. If I have, I

12 apologise.

13 A. No, I did not.

14 Q. Do you accept his thesis?

15 A. No.

16 Q. Tell us what's wrong with it then.

17 A. As I made clear in "Habits of the Balkan

18 Heart", I've following a trajectory or tradition

19 established by writers such as Emil Durkheim, Alexis

20 De Tocqueville, David Riesman in a book entitled "The

21 Lonely Crowd" where he discussions the social character

22 of Americans in a book that sold 1.5 million copies and

23 David Riesman was my major professor at Harvard

24 University.

25 Seymour Martin Lipset who wrote a book called

1 "Continental Divide" in which he argues that there are

2 differences between social character between Canadians

3 and Americans despite similarities between these

4 peoples overall in language in religion, in ethnic mix,

5 and in other factors.

6 So it is a respectable, venerable concept

7 used by people who in no way are racist and does not

8 carry any connotations that would imply biology or that

9 this character is indelible. It simply talks about

10 what it is about a Canadian that makes him or her a

11 Canadian versus an American. So, for example, Lipset

12 talks about how Canadians tend to be conservative, tend

13 to accept big government, whereas Americans tend to be

14 very individualistic and they mistrust big government.

15 In "Habits of the Balkan Heart", I'm doing no

16 more or no less in suggesting something similar. That

17 there is this idea of social character, something that

18 makes cultural groups different.

19 Q. What we've reached in this appendix of

20 Dr. Allcock, if you look at it carefully, says while

21 the authors -- well, not necessarily indicating that

22 the authors held to views that could be described as

23 racist, "... it's open to a reading along that line and

24 to exploitation." Do you accept that?

25 A. No, that's his opinion. I've never seen it

1 used by anyone for racist points of view.

2 Q. He goes on to say this in paragraph two,

3 "Young Croatian sociologist, Stjepan Mestrovic, has

4 produced a succession of publications since 1993 in

5 which he has sought to revive the work Tomasic.

6 Tomasic issued in 1948 his personality and culture in

7 eastern European politics in which he argued that the

8 peoples of the Balkan region would be divided into two

9 broad types, ethnographically speaking, the Zadruga

10 culture and Dinaric culture. These were founded on

11 different types of ecology yielding contrasting ways of

12 life, different types of life which he believed gave

13 rise to opposed personality types.

14 His argument was that the history of the

15 Balkan region in particular, but also eastern Europe

16 more generally, could be understood in terms of cycles

17 of conflict between these antithetical cultures.

18 Tomasic interpreted the history of the

19 Balkans in terms of cycles in which the war-like

20 Dinaric pastoralists periodically descended from the

21 hills to impose themselves upon the peaceful agrarian

22 Zadruga agriculturalists. Following victory, they

23 settled in towns, became assimilated by the lowlanders

24 and embarked on a process of decadence to be replaced

25 before long with another wave of Dinaric conquest."

1 Now that is a summary but is that a summary

2 of the Dinaric culture upon which you rely to explain

3 these events?

4 A. No.

5 Q. What's wrong with it then?

6 A. Dinko Tomasic was educated at the Sorbonne.

7 He was a distinguished professor of sociology at

8 Indiana University. He was highly respected in

9 sociology. His book, which is cited, was favorably

10 reviewed, and I cite those reviews in my book, in the

11 American Journal of Sociology and a number of other

12 eminent work.

13 Basically what that theory states is again

14 something that's nonproblematic. That in mountainous

15 regions throughout the world, not only in the former

16 Yugoslavia, there is a tendency to less

17 cosmopolitanism, more isolationalism, less contact with

18 other peoples. This is in true as the Appalachians in

19 the United States, for example, as it would be in the

20 hills of the former Yugoslavia.

21 And that this isolationism, this lack of

22 cosmopolitanism, coupled with the patriarchy of the

23 way, usually the way the people are raised there, can

24 produce a value system not an unchangeable one, not a

25 permanent one that is not add odds and a cosmopolitan

1 and more democratic outlook than one will find in a

2 cosmopolitan urban setting in which people from many

3 ethnic groups are thrust upon the other. That would be

4 my summary of the significance of Dinko Tomasic.

5 Q. And have I understood your report correctly,

6 and I'm not sure that you are differing from

7 Dr. Allcock, but that it's the mountainous Serbs that

8 are more capable of top down calculated leadership and

9 the lowland Croats who aren't; is that what you are

10 saying?

11 A. No, you will find that nowhere my report.

12 Q. How does Dinaric culture as opposed to

13 Zadruga culture have any bearing, please, on the

14 unravelling by this Court of what happened in the Lasva

15 Valley?

16 A. Mr. Nice, I did not bring this theory into

17 the report. I did not bring this in to try to explain

18 the unravelling of the Lasva Valley. I brought it in

19 "Habits of the Balkan Heart", as I've stated in a

20 larger discussion of De Tocqueville, Riesman, Lipset

21 and other people in the disintegration of Yugoslavia

22 following the end of communism. These are very

23 different tasks.

24 Q. Let's just look at the last two paragraphs of

25 what, ignorant of your future involvement, Dr. Allcock

1 said. Paragraph three, just over the page, please,

2 usher.

3 "Although largely discredited since the

4 period of its publication, the work of Tomasic has been

5 taken up in the form of Stjepan Mestrovic's theory of

6 social character as providing the basis for an

7 interpretation of the events surrounding the collapse

8 of Yugoslavia. Mestrovic goes beyond Tomasic in a

9 number of respects particularly in that he quickly

10 abandons the relatively firm ecological footing of the

11 latter's ideas and frequently falls into a simple

12 equation between Dinaric peoples and Serbs or

13 Montenegrins and Zadruga types and Croats which borders

14 on straightforward racism. (It happens also to be

15 anthropological nonsense for a variety of reasons which

16 it would be distracting to enumerate here.)

17 An important point to note about the work of

18 Mestrovic is that it is acknowledged by the author to

19 be based upon his cooperation with Slaven Letica who

20 was not only a sociologist based at Zagreb University

21 but also an aide to President Tudjman. Together with

22 the work of Anto Valenta, it does suggest that

23 quasi-academic ideas which lend themselves to the

24 support of ethnic intolerance have circulated

25 regularly, and have been taken seriously, among those

1 who hold influential positions within the HDZ both in

2 Croatia and in Bosnia and Herzegovina."

3 I take it you don't accept any of that.

4 A. Correct.

5 Q. Save for the fact that it's true that you

6 were working in cooperation with Slaven Letica?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. What do you say then, please, about the value

9 of Anto Valenta's book?

10 A. May I return to Slaven Letica for a moment?

11 Q. Of course.

12 A. He's my friend's, he is my colleague. What

13 is not noted is that he resigned for working for

14 President Tudjman and has been one of President

15 Tudjman's more severe critics. So this attempt to

16 smear him and to smear me, again, in an unsubstantiated

17 way.

18 I notice here that there is no citation for

19 my book, and I will repeat here again; in my book, I

20 make it very clear I'm making a cultural argument, not

21 a biological one, no ties to politics, and that I'm

22 working in a very venerable tradition not relying upon

23 Dinko Tomasic but putting him in the context of Alexis

24 De Tocqueville's "Democracy in America," David

25 Riesman's "The Lonely Crowd" and other venerable

1 books.

2 Now as for Anto Valenta, I have no

3 connection, I don't know why Mr. -- Dr. Allcock would

4 choose to link the work of Anto Valenta. In my book, I

5 see no connection here whatsoever. I never cite him.

6 I never knew about him. I see no connection here

7 whatsoever.

8 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation]

9 Mr. Mestrovic, could we usually call you in sociology

10 is called a "culturalist"?

11 A. Yes, Your Honour.

12 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] Very well,

13 thank you. Do you draw some consequences about

14 cultural differences are they based on the respect or

15 lack of respect for human rights?

16 A. If Your Honour is asking me in general, yes,

17 I do. In this report, I do not. If you care for me to

18 elaborate in general in response to your specific

19 request, I will do that.

20 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] Does this

21 mean that the cultural diversity may justify the lack

22 of respect for the human personality in certain

23 cultures?

24 A. No, Your Honour. What I would say, which I

25 think would be supported by most cultural theorists, by

1 most sociologists, is that the West does have an

2 ingrained cultural tradition of respect for human

3 rights, again, going back to the Declaration of

4 Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the

5 Reformation, the Renaissance, a number of writings.

6 There is a very long cultural and very rich cultural

7 history in the West.

8 I do not see it as offensive but I do see it

9 as a matter of fact that those societies which did not

10 experience those events, namely the Reformation, the

11 Renaissance, the Bill of Rights and so forth will have

12 a more difficult time, culturally, with the notion of

13 human rights and therefore will have to, in a sense,

14 experience it vicariously through the West.

15 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] Thank you.

16 And my last question about your views about nationalism

17 in relation to the end of the Cold War.

18 Mr. Mestrovic, do you think that a

19 nationalist will ever come up, will invent a foreign

20 enemy in order to be able to structure himself? Would

21 you support that theory that a nationalist needs to

22 create a foreign enemy in order to structure himself as

23 a nationalist, in order to lend strength to his

24 nationalism?

25 A. Not necessarily, Your Honour. Instead, I

1 would say that there are different varieties of

2 nationalism. A certain amount of nationalism has to be

3 present even in western societies or people would not

4 go off to war. They would not want their children to

5 die for a patriotic cause. They would not pay taxes.

6 So that nationalism is tempered by other institutions

7 in the culture which promote human rights and

8 individualism.

9 In other cultures, the nationalism, if it is

10 not mitigated or tempered by other cultural factors,

11 may degenerate into a war-like stance but again there

12 will be mitigating factors.

13 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] And the --

14 does nationalism need a foreign enemy or not?

15 A. Not necessarily, Your Honour.

16 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] Thank you.

17 Mr. Nice, and of course I'm speaking in my

18 own name, but I believe that we have made a round of

19 theoretical and sociological views of Mr. Mestrovic and

20 what interests us more specifically is his report

21 insofar as it does with the case before us, so could

22 you please try to focus on these matters?

23 I believe that the Chamber has been amply

24 informed today because you have before you professional

25 judges and we are broadly informed about

1 Mr. Mestrovic's positions as a sociologist.

2 MR. NICE: Yes, and my next topic was to pick

3 up an answer of the witness to ask him this question.

4 Q. You say that the purpose of your report was

5 to offer, amongst other things, you said this, was to

6 offer alternatives to the reports of Donia -- well, in

7 particular, of Dr. Allcock. But what is your

8 alternative? What have you provided?

9 A. Well, it's set in my report that the lion's

10 share of the blame for what occurred in

11 Bosnia-Herzegovina lies with Slobodan Milosevic of

12 Serbia. It was Serbian aggression against Croatia

13 first, and Bosnia-Herzegovina second, which created a

14 set of circumstances, especially demographic

15 conditions, which basically put tremendous pressure

16 upon two peoples; the Bosnian Muslims and the Croats

17 who, by the empirical research that I have cited, were

18 extremely tolerant at the time.

19 So a very tolerant Bosnia-Herzegovina was

20 squeezed first by the fact that about 70 per cent of

21 its territories went over to the Serbs about two weeks

22 after hostilities started, and then the Bosnian Muslims

23 and the Bosnian Croats, who were allies, tragically

24 ended up fighting each other for an ever-decreasing

25 share of the pie.

1 That is the alternative explanation in

2 summary form that I give.

3 Q. Returning to His Honour's question just a

4 minute ago, about the need or necessity for an enemy.

5 The existence of an enemy creates a fertile territory,

6 intellectual territory for the generation of

7 nationalism and for the generation of ethnic

8 intolerance, doesn't it?

9 A. I would not recognise that as a sociological

10 theory. I would give alternatives to what you give.

11 Q. I wasn't suggesting it as a sociological

12 theory, I was asking it as a matter of common sense.

13 If you have an enemy to fight that gives rise to the

14 potential to build nationalism, it also gives rise to

15 the potential to build ethnic disquiet particularly if

16 -- well, go and answer that if you will, please.

17 A. I'm sorry, I don't know what the term "common

18 sense" means, I would rather stick to my sociological

19 expertise.

20 JUDGE MAY: Well, you know what common sense

21 means. Yes. Just answer the question, please.

22 A. Your Honour, I believe that intolerance does

23 not necessarily lead to violence, and tolerance does

24 not necessarily prevent war. I do believe that the

25 enemy is created. It is not something that's waiting

1 out there, it is created through a set of contingent

2 circumstances and changes.

3 MR. NICE:

4 Q. Is that any different from what Dr. Allcock

5 has proposed?

6 A. I'm not sure.

7 Q. Although I want to stay contemporaneous for

8 the time being and probably for the rest of my

9 questions which I hope won't go on much longer, there's

10 one matter broadly connected that I'd like to go

11 through with you. If you'd go to page 26 of your

12 report, please.

13 Now, on page 26 of your report, you -- bottom

14 of the page, please. You make this suggestion,

15 "Whereas the Prosecution uses the 'frame' of the

16 Ustasha as the central focus for its depiction for the

17 origins of Croatian independence in the 1990s, Sekulic

18 uses the larger frame and so on."

19 Now, where do you get that suggestion that

20 the Prosecution used the frame of the Ustasha as the

21 central focus for independence of the origins of

22 Croatian independence?

23 A. Dr. Allcock's report goes into great length

24 about the NDH, about Croatian iconography from that

25 period, about Croatian symbols, and does make the

1 suggestion that there were some connections between the

2 HDZ and the symbolism of the Ustasha.

3 Q. Shall we look, then, please, at Dr. Allcock's

4 report, which we can lay on the ELMO conveniently.

5 First of all, page 60. And we need only look at three

6 short passages, but take us wider if you think the

7 context demands it.

8 Starting at page 60, in paragraph 3.4, the

9 last few lines of which are what I refer to, what he

10 actually says, having summarised some of the matters

11 that you're referring to, but we can read in detail if

12 we need to:

13 "Not all Croat emigres were Ustasha

14 supporters by any means. The Croatian Peasant Party

15 continued to operate from headquarters in Canada."

16 That's perhaps not such an important

17 passage. If we go over to the next page, page 61,

18 paragraph 4.1, this may be the passage you have in

19 mind:

20 "It is important to acknowledge the cautious

21 and partial rehabilitation of the NDH, which the HDZ

22 was prepared to support. Its position went by no means

23 far enough for several more strident factions, notably

24 the HSP. In some respects, the HDZ can be said to have

25 adopted the superficial trappings of the NDH without

1 committing itself publicly to its substance. Although

2 the HDZ never advocated the extreme racist policies of

3 the NDH, its concern to reiterate at every opportunity

4 the narrative of the historical continuity of Croatian

5 political identity led it to adopt historical symbols

6 of the former Croatia, notably the checkerboard flag."

7 To take matters fairly, and I hope swiftly,

8 if we go to 4.2, where other matters, and in particular

9 the renaming of streets in Zagreb, has been covered,

10 Dr. Allcock says this at the end of 4.2, in brackets:

11 "This practice has been given exaggerated

12 importance on occasions in that the authorities have

13 been criticised for including individuals who, while

14 prominent in public life, were not necessarily

15 supporters of Pavelic. However ill-informed criticism

16 has been on occasions, its policy was controversial."

17 And then finally on page 62, to see how

18 Dr. Allcock really expressed the position, in paragraph

19 4.5, this, the last four lines, please:

20 "Nevertheless, it is certainly not the case

21 that the HDZ has espoused the racist policies and

22 genocidal practices of that regime, and individuals who

23 have done so have generally found their political home

24 in other more extreme organisations within Croatia,

25 such as the HSP."

1 Now, that's actually how Dr. Allcock

2 expressed himself. If we go back to what you were

3 saying on your page 26, I'll just remind you, the

4 suggestion that the Prosecution frame of the Ustasha as

5 the central focus for the origins of independence is

6 simply incorrect, isn't it?

7 A. I don't think so, because there's a long and

8 tedious discussion of the Ustasha and its symbolism in

9 the Allcock report. It is central to, despite his many

10 nuances and ramifications, to the discussion. And the

11 context of my paragraph is clearly, if you read that

12 page, in relation to Dusko Sekslic, who is making the

13 point that there were eminent Croats who were

14 instrumental in the creation of a multiethnic

15 Yugoslavia. He never mentions that. And I think

16 again, for the sake of context, I thought it was

17 important to offer a contrast and a competing point of

18 view.

19 MR. NICE: Your Honour, I notice the time. I

20 intend to reduce to the bare minimum what remains, and

21 I hope it won't be very much longer. I imagine the

22 other witness is available for this afternoon and

23 certainly can be completed in the afternoon. I observe

24 through this witness that the complaints made about or

25 comments made about Dr. Donia and Dr. Allcock were

1 never put to them, and indeed if I were to complete

2 what I have to say in half an hour, it would always be

3 possible for them to give their own explanations as

4 they're here, should the Court want it, in answer to

5 the complaints that are made, and we would be happy for

6 that to happen.

7 JUDGE MAY: We'll consider that. We'll

8 adjourn for half an hour.

9 --- Recess taken at 11.02 a.m.

10 --- On resuming at 11.40 a.m.

11 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Nice.

12 MR. NICE:

13 Q. Your top-down/bottom-up theory approach, if

14 -- and this is going to be for the Judges, of course,

15 to decide -- if it's found in due course that in

16 December 1991 President Tudjman was planning for

17 possible annexation of Bosnia and, further, was

18 planning to keep things private by having a dual-track

19 approach, doing something in public and doing something

20 in private, if that's the case, that doesn't fit with

21 your theory, does it?

22 A. That's correct.

23 Q. If it's the case in January of 1992, at a

24 meeting in Busovaca, Dario Kordic and others were

25 speaking, and one in particular, a man called

1 Kostroman, was espousing strong and, by many, thought

2 to be unacceptable views on linkage with Croatia --

3 this is in January 1992 -- would that fit with your

4 understanding of the history? This would be an HDZ

5 meeting.

6 A. Well, I don't understand the question. I

7 mean --

8 Q. It's difficult not seeing the video, but we

9 don't have time. If we have a political meeting -- I'm

10 not going to trouble you too much with what Dario

11 Kordic said, but just to take -- the man Kostroman, was

12 saying that Busovaca was Croatian land and would be

13 subject to Croatian laws. If that was a position being

14 taken by representatives of the party in January 1992,

15 publicly, so to whip up enthusiasm, does that fit with

16 your theory of an absence of top-down control?

17 A. Well, I'd have to know the context.

18 Q. Very well. Yes. He was the secretary of the

19 HDZ, the man Kostroman. Did you know anything about

20 him?

21 A. No.

22 Q. Am I right in thinking you know nothing of

23 the man Valenta, or is it that you don't wish to be

24 associated with Valenta's works?

25 A. I know nothing of the man Valenta.

1 Q. Can we look at your report, please --

2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, I wanted to ask

3 Dr. Mestrovic a question in relation to the top-down

4 and bottom-up theory. Might it not be the case that

5 what happened reflected characteristics of both top

6 down and bottom up, or is it that the discipline that

7 you pursue doesn't allow for that kind of mixture?

8 A. I think Your Honour I would agree with you I

9 think it does allow for a top down and bottom up, and

10 it does allow for that kind of mixture.

11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.

12 MR. NICE:

13 Q. Can we look, please, at page 61 of your

14 report following on the same topic. So if we just look

15 at this, the end of the first paragraph, six, seven,

16 eight lines up and I'll read it slowly. "The rational

17 top down explanation may apply to Belgrade to some

18 extent, but not to Zagreb and not to Sarajevo."

19 Pausing there, should we, in light of your

20 last answer to His Honour Judge Robinson say "but only

21 to a limited extent" or "only to some extent to

22 Zagreb"?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Thank you. Can you explain how you never

25 made that concession, really, in your report before?

1 A. Because I was responding to the rather

2 one-sided approaches of top down that I found in the

3 works of your expert witnesses.

4 Q. I'm sorry. First of all, it's not accepted

5 for one minute that that's the correct characterization

6 of their reports or anything like it, but even if it

7 were the case, do you have to respond to white with

8 black if the true answer is grey?

9 A. There are a number of places in this report

10 where I make it clear that to some extent, either one

11 of these or both explanations can be at work.

12 Q. We may have to find those places. We may not

13 have time. I press on.

14 I read on, "The Bosnian Serbs supported by

15 Belgrade, fought against the Muslim-led Sarajevo

16 government forces and those of the Bosnian Croats. The

17 two allies, Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Muslims, turned

18 against each other for a time even as they remained

19 allies during the same time in other parts of Bosnia.

20 It cannot be repeated often enough that in the northern

21 strip of Bosnia, especially, in Orasje, Bosnian Croat

22 and Muslim brigades maintained their alliance against a

23 common Serb enemy."

24 The position, I think, is this: This is the

25 Posavina you're talking about here, isn't it?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Which is the strip of land that crossed the

3 top of Bosnia providing an essential corridor so far as

4 the Serbs judged it; correct?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And if one looks at, and Your Honour to save

7 time I can lay on the ELMO my page of 92.1 which is a

8 document we looked at yesterday, the Graz agreement,

9 this is the agreement made at Graz and it's -- I want

10 your help on these things, please. We see this, one

11 and two items. One and two reveal disagreement or

12 failure to agree between Serbia and Croatia in respect

13 of Mostar.

14 One says, "In the city of Mostar, the Serbian

15 side considers the Neretva River to be the borderline,

16 while the Croatian side considers the entire city of

17 Mostar to be within the Croatian constituent unit."

18 And item two says, "South of Mostar, the

19 Croatian side considers the entire area delineated in

20 1939 to be within the Croatian constituent unit. The

21 Serbian side considers the Neretva River to be the

22 borderline."

23 So items one and two reflect, if you like, an

24 agreement to continue disagreeing; would you accept

25 that?

1 A. I know nothing of the context of this

2 document, when was it taking place, where was it taking

3 place, who signed it.

4 Q. You'll have to, of course, you'll have to

5 accept simply for the purposes of this part of the

6 discussion, that this is a document at Graz and that it

7 reflects an agreement between the Serbs and the

8 Croats.

9 Are you aware of the agreement or is it a

10 fact of which you are entirely ignorant?

11 A. I'm not aware of this particular agreement

12 and I'm not prepared to speak on something I have no

13 expertise upon.

14 Q. I want you to look at paragraph three,

15 please. "Both sides agree that in defining the

16 borderline between the two constituent units in the

17 areas of Kupres as well as Bosanska Posavina account

18 should be taken of the compactness of areas and

19 communications."

20 Now this is your area of expertise. They're

21 dealing there with the Posavina, are they not?

22 A. No, this is not dealing with my area of

23 expertise. I see nothing sociological here. I see

24 this as a matter for historians or people who are

25 experts in documents.

1 Q. Well, then what I want you to help me with is

2 this: If it be the case, following an agreement of the

3 type I've suggested is revealed here, if it be the case

4 that following such an agreement, fighting stopped in

5 the Posavina but continued on in Mostar where there was

6 disagreement, doesn't that reflect top down control in

7 respect of both sides, both sides to the agreement and

8 both sides to the disagreement?

9 A. Well, not necessarily. I'd have to know a

10 lot more about the situation. I'm not prepared to make

11 such judgements.

12 Q. Well, then, finally on this point, if you

13 have two areas, the Posavina and the Lasva Valley, in

14 one of which there is a controlling figure and in one

15 of which there is not. Would you expect, on your

16 theory -- that is a controlling figure on the Croat

17 side -- on your theory, where would you expect to find

18 ethnic intolerance, in the one with no controlling

19 figure or the one with a controlling figure?

20 A. I would expect, based on what I know as a

21 sociologist, for the ethnic intolerance to be where

22 there is a firm majority of one ethnic group and a

23 minority. Because of the general proposition found in

24 the studies I've cited that where there is a great

25 majority, it's the majority that tends to be

1 intolerant, as in Slovenia and Kosovo which were found

2 to be the most intolerant republics.

3 So that works for the enclave as well and I

4 cited the study in 1999 in "Social Forces" by Dusko

5 Sekulic to that point.

6 Q. But you really have no knowledge of the area

7 and no knowledge of the details that I've been raising

8 with you.

9 A. No knowledge upon which I can offer my

10 expertise.

11 Q. And do you accept that the Croats were in the

12 minority in most of the territory of Herceg-Bosna?

13 A. What areas are you referring to as

14 "Herceg-Bosna"?

15 Q. I'm not going to take time on that. Can I

16 have that exhibit back. Can I turn to something else,

17 please.

18 You quote Dr. Donia, and we can find it, if

19 you want, at page ten of your report. You quote

20 Dr. Donia from his book, "A Tradition of Trade" as

21 saying, "At no time did Bosnians fight civil wars," my

22 emphasis on the word civil, "along these or any other

23 ethnic lines." Do you remember that quotation?

24 A. Yes, I do.

25 Q. That comes from Dr. Donia's book written by

1 Donia and Fine, and would you accept that that comes

2 from a chapter written by Fine rather than by Donia?

3 A. I have no knowledge of that.

4 Q. Well, I can show you the copy of the

5 introduction to the book if you want to have a look at

6 it, lay it on the ELMO. I really don't think it needs

7 to be -- just that page, two pages on the ELMO.

8 Your Honour, I hope this won't need to become

9 an exhibit, it can be if it's wanted to.

10 What I'm showing you -- by showing it to you

11 on the ELMO that the book is available. In the

12 introduction to the book, there's page one of the

13 introduction. If we go to the next sheet, you'll see

14 that there is a reference to Chapters 1 to 4 dealing

15 primarily with medieval and Ottoman periods written by

16 John Fine. So that's where the quotation where you lay

17 at Dr. Donia's door actually comes from.

18 You've talked a lot about scholarship, what

19 are you saying so that I can understand this? Are you

20 saying that because he co-authored a book he should

21 accept full responsibility for what his co-author

22 writes?

23 A. It's a tricky case. I mean I've co-authored

24 and co-edited books, and generally there is a degree of

25 collaboration between the two and there should be some

1 degree of mutual responsibility. This is a rather

2 unusual thing to be doing.

3 Q. Can we look at another exhibit, please, 2825,

4 I think this is my penultimate exhibit. This is a

5 passage from a book of yours edited by Cushman and

6 yourself?

7 A. Mmm-hmm.

8 Q. It's a book in respect of which you said, I

9 think, you had an almost perfect working relationship

10 with your colleague Cushman; correct?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. If you go to the second page which is -- and

13 is in the introduction of the book something for which

14 you share responsibility, just over half -- well,

15 second paragraph, about eight lines down, we see this

16 passage. "To be sure, Croatian offensives against

17 Bosnian Muslims in 1993, particularly in the city of

18 Mostar, were contemptible and indefensible; those

19 events should be publicly exposed and those responsible

20 punished. The International War Crimes Tribunal has

21 indicted seven Croats including individuals directly

22 and closely linked to Franjo Tudjman. Indictments of

23 Bosnian Croats for war crimes is one indication that no

24 side is without blemish in this conflict."

25 A view to which you still cleave?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. If we turn, please, to the next page, in fact

3 the next page is 27 for context and it's really on 28

4 that I want your assistance, in the introduction to the

5 book.

6 And if we go over then to page 28, paragraph

7 9, just read this and see if you still stick to this,

8 "The leader of the Bosnians, Alija Izetbegovic, is an

9 Islamic fundamentalist."

10 A. That is a view we reject, of course, here.

11 Q. "This is a variant of the more general

12 orientalist theme rather than a comment on

13 Izetbegovic's own book 'Islam Between East and West',

14 in which Izetbegovic's admiration for the West is so

15 great as to be pathetic given how the West has rejected

16 him. In fact, Izetbegovic takes great pains to show

17 the distinctive identities of Bosnian Muslims as being

18 between east and west." And then this quote, or this

19 line, "Anyone even faintly familiar with the history of

20 Bosnia would find the assertion that Bosnians are

21 Islamic fundamentalists preposterous given Bosnia's

22 history of religious tolerance, pluralism and

23 cosmopolitanism."

24 Do you still stick with that?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Does that -- perhaps I should go on. "This

2 frame is taken directly from Serbian propaganda, which

3 uses a youthful work by Izetbegovic," and so on.

4 Do you say that what you're saying there

5 about the history of tolerance and pluralism and

6 cosmopolitanism is entirely consistent with the report

7 that you've presented to this Court?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Can I ask you to look, please, in your report

10 at page 53. On page 53 at the foot of the page

11 following an analysis, if we could go to the bottom of

12 the page there's a man called Zimmerman who you deal

13 with. The Court knows who he is, and you say this as a

14 conclusion: "Thus, both Zimmerman and Donia assume a

15 negative attitude toward any form of separatist

16 nationalism and assume a positive attitude toward

17 integrationist nationalism represented by Slobodan

18 Milosevic and to a lesser extent Alija Izetbegovic."

19 Do you really wish to say that about

20 Mr. Zimmerman?

21 A. Yes, because in his book he very clearly

22 singles out Franjo Tudjman as the nationalist, whereas

23 he says that Slobodan Milosevic was not a nationalist

24 but was simply bent upon power. So he, Mr. Zimmerman,

25 places his more pejorative remarks for Tudjman. Yes, I

1 would.

2 Q. Very well. I have -- the chronology that you

3 set out between pages 45 and 48 and 49 of your report,

4 50, actually, was it your own chronology or was it

5 simply copied from elsewhere?

6 A. It was copied from the Carnegie endowment,

7 which I cite, their chronology.

8 Q. I know that you cite it. Did you check it

9 for accuracy before you included it in your report, or

10 did you just put it in lock, stock, and barrel?

11 A. I don't know how well I may have checked it

12 for accuracy.

13 MR. NICE: Your Honour, I think I'm going to

14 leave comments on the chronology insofar as they're

15 material for argument later, because I don't think it's

16 going to use your time very usefully if I take time

17 with it now. Would Your Honour just give me one

18 minute.

19 Q. There's only one other general point that I

20 want to be sure I understand so that we can either lay

21 it to rest or pursue it.

22 When you speak of the clash of cultures and

23 the differences that apply to Croatia, for example, do

24 you partition up Croatia and say that it really does

25 only apply to -- I beg your pardon. I'll start again.

1 When you speak of the clash of cultures and

2 the differences that apply to the former Yugoslavia,

3 you really do, do you, partition up the former

4 Yugoslavia and say that different standards should be

5 applied to the Serbs from that which are applied to the

6 Croats?

7 A. What kind of standards, Mr. Nice?

8 Q. Well, when you were speaking, as we saw in

9 page 2 of your report, which we looked at in detail,

10 and when we looked at the passage about ordering food

11 in restaurants and matters of that sort, do you say

12 that those comments apply to all of the former

13 Yugoslavia or only to Croatia or only to Bosnia?

14 What's the position?

15 A. Well, of course there will be a complex

16 continuum, where I think the United States, as I've

17 indicated already, has a sort of fast-food

18 orientation. There are McDonald's openings in Zagreb

19 and Belgrade but not as many, of course, as there would

20 be in Miami. It's a continuum.

21 Q. Just help me, because I'm not a sociologist,

22 that you would understand; I don't pretend to be. In

23 order to distinguish these two opposing cultures,

24 advanced and less advanced, do we also have to look not

25 just at where people come from, but at what they do?

1 A. I'm sorry. I don't accept the premise of

2 advanced or less advanced. I believe I answered that

3 very clearly earlier on. I am not saying one is more

4 advanced than the other; simply different.

5 Q. All right. On the concept of difference, do

6 we have to look not just at where cultures come from,

7 but at what they're doing at a particular time? For

8 example, to build on your example of the train service

9 and the restaurants and so on, do we have to look at

10 what cultures are doing at particular times to judge

11 their difference, one from another?

12 A. One has to look at a particular time, but one

13 has to also look at development over time.

14 Q. Here we've got warring parties at some

15 stage. Were it to have been the case that one party or

16 the other was formerly wandering around the streets

17 armed with sharp and dangerous knives and other

18 weapons, would that be an indicator that they were

19 different, and significantly different, from what

20 you've described as "the West"?

21 A. Mr. Nice, these are hypothetical sorts of

22 questions. I mean, I really am at a loss how to answer

23 them.

24 Q. You deal in theory and other people's

25 research and you deal in the hypothetical, don't you?

1 A. No. Again, I stated clearly: I use very

2 solid theory to interpret very specific events and

3 works by others.

4 Perhaps I can cut to the chase and say that

5 in the case of Slobodan Milosevic, there was a certain

6 degree of rational top-down planning in that, one can

7 see that there was an ideology of Greater Serbia that

8 had been present for a long time; that in 1986, Serb

9 Academy of Arts and Sciences memorandum had established

10 this as a platform; that there was preparation for war;

11 that the Orthodox church did not oppose it. And so

12 there, because the Serbs had inherited much of the

13 machinery of the West in terms of having embassies and

14 government centres, and even because Marxism, Leninism

15 is itself a Western cultural product, we see more,

16 again on a continuum, of a rational top-down system or

17 planning.

18 My point is that when one looks at the

19 Croats, one sees a nationalism that is less prepared

20 for war. They simply did not have, in 1990, the armies

21 and the weapons that the JNA had. You had the Roman

22 Catholic Church, which was much more independent of the

23 government than was the situation in Serbia. You did

24 not have anything like an equivalent of a Croatian

25 Academy of Arts and Sciences that was making a

1 programme like this. So there are differences, and

2 that's the way I would answer your question as a

3 sociologist, to look at mitigating factors and a matter

4 of continuum, not these kind of black-and-white

5 hypotheticals.

6 Q. I'm not going to take that any further

7 because, as His Honour Judge Bennouna said, we've gone

8 through theory earlier today.

9 1472.8, please. This is my last exhibit.

10 This is a review of your book "Habits of the Balkan

11 Heart," and we can see, if we turn to the second sheet,

12 the last page, I think, it's by Andrei Simic. You

13 would accept he is a respected academic from the

14 University of Southern California?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. This is what he has to say. If we just lay

17 it, top of the page, on the ELMO. Next page, please.

18 Thank you very much. And it's just the top section, if

19 we can get into that.

20 "One of the most disturbing aspects of this

21 book is its thinly veiled biases coupled with the

22 intemperate use of judgmental buzz words. A blatant

23 example of this is the description of the consumption

24 of hard liquor at morning business meetings in former

25 Yugoslavia is 'barbaric.' In a similar vein, after

1 having established that the Croats and Slovenes are not

2 really part of a Balkan culture, the authors hold that

3 'the Balkans exhibit more extremely the opposition

4 between the barbaric and peaceful traits found all

5 around the world.' .

6 'Habits of the Balkan Heart' cannot really

7 be taken seriously as a piece of dispassionate or

8 careful scholarship in spite of its reliance on a

9 constellation of sociological and psychological

10 classics. Rather, it constitutes a primer on the

11 misuses of theory and data. Its principal value lies

12 in its study as an example of political and national

13 discourse transparently cloaked in scholarly regalia."

14 And I'm going to have to suggest to you,

15 Doctor, that that judgement on your book reflects very

16 much what you've given us today in your -- and

17 yesterday, in your report.

18 A. I would respond that there are two very

19 positive reviews of this book in the "Journal of

20 Psychiatry and Law" and in "Contemporary Sociology."

21 Yes, this is a negative review. This happens to

22 authors. And I would also comment on the use of this

23 word "barbaric," which is here taken out of context. I

24 use it in the sense of Thorstein Veblen in his book

25 "The Theory of the Leisure Class."

1 In that sense, in my lectures I've discussed,

2 for example, the bonfire at Texas A & M University

3 legitimately as barbaric because it wastes trees. And,

4 as you probably know from CNN, there was a horrific

5 accident last year which killed 17 students at my

6 university. And people have an emotional reaction to

7 that word "barbaric," but I use it in a very strict

8 sociological sense of wastefulness.

9 I think that consumption of hard liquor at

10 morning business, which is indeed very frequent in the

11 former Yugoslavia, qualifies under Thorstein Veblen's

12 theory. So this is a negative review, yes.

13 Q. Where I've asked you detailed questions about

14 the facts, you have made it clear that you don't have

15 knowledge of the facts and you have returned to

16 theoretical positions because you are a theorist.

17 A. No. I was very careful to say that I did not

18 have the full context of the documents you put in front

19 of me, and I, as a professional, I have to be very

20 careful in giving my professional judgement.

21 MR. NICE: Thank you very much.

22 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Browning.

23 MR. BROWNING: No questions, Your Honour.

24 JUDGE MAY: Thank you.

25 Dr. Mestrovic, that concludes your evidence.

1 Thank you for coming to the Tribunal to give it.

2 You're free to go.

3 THE WITNESS: Thank you.

4 [The witness withdrew]

5 MR. NICE: Just before Mr. Naumovski

6 addresses the Court, the Court will have in mind that I

7 raise the possibility of the --

8 JUDGE MAY: Yes. I was going to give a

9 ruling on that matter.

10 MR. NICE: Thank you.

11 JUDGE MAY: Whatever the Rules about

12 cross-examination, it would appear that the Prosecution

13 are probably right in their interpretation of the

14 relevant Rule, that matters should have been put.

15 There has, however, in this case been very much

16 evidence, and we have to consider that in the light of

17 the need to get on with the case. And as a result, the

18 Trial Chamber has come to the conclusion that it has

19 sufficient evidence, and we will not trouble the

20 witnesses for more evidence on the topic.

21 MR. NICE: I'm obliged, and I will respond --

22 or we will respond in due course, as perhaps suggested

23 by His Honour Judge Robinson, by dealing with these

24 issues, as perhaps with other issues, more by way of

25 argument in due course than by extensive adduction or

1 cross-examination of evidence.

2 JUDGE MAY: There will be the appropriate way

3 to deal with it, and of course if the gentlemen want to

4 withdraw, they can.

5 MR. SAYERS: Mr. President, may I just point

6 out that actually Rule 90(H)(ii) was changed on

7 November 30th, 1999, as I'm sure the Court is well

8 aware. Rule 90(H)(ii) is the Rule that actually

9 requires matters to be put to witnesses during the

10 course of an examination. And Dr. Donia testified on

11 July 16th of last year and Dr. Allcock on July 22nd,

12 finishing up his testimony on September 13th. So the

13 actual regime envisaged by Rule 90(H)(ii) after seven

14 days, after November 30th, was not in effect at the

15 time that these two expert witnesses testified.

16 JUDGE MAY: You don't want the witnesses to

17 give evidence, do you?

18 MR. SAYERS: No.

19 JUDGE MAY: Very well. Yes.

20 Mr. Naumovski.

21 MR. NAUMOVSKI: [Interpretation] Your Honours,

22 our next witness is Dr. Petar Pavlovic, who is prepared

23 to testify in public. However, since the Honourable

24 Trial Chamber has already decided for this matter to be

25 discussed in closed session, so let it be.

1 [Trial Chamber confers]

2 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Nice.

3 MR. NICE: Your Honour, although I certainly

4 will be in a position to deal with this witness

5 immediately this afternoon, I've been entirely occupied

6 with the experts up until this very minute, and the

7 other steps I have to take in order to be able to deal

8 with Dr. Pavlovic have yet to be taken by me. I

9 forecast, from the little I know already, that it may

10 not be necessary for the whole matter to be conducted,

11 or any part of it, in private session. I will

12 certainly need some time to discuss matters before I'll

13 be able to make that concluded decision.

14 May I, in the circumstances, ask for either

15 an early break or an adjournment? We are, in any

16 event, ahead of the Defence timetable for this week,

17 which allocated all of yesterday and today, originally,

18 for experts, and we will finish Dr. Pavlovic this

19 afternoon.

20 [Trial Chamber confers]

21 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Nice, what are you really

22 asking us to do? If we have a quarter of an hour

23 break, will you be ready then to cross-examine?

24 MR. NICE: Quite possibly not, but --

25 JUDGE MAY: It would be better if the whole

1 evidence is heard in one piece.

2 MR. NICE: I would respectfully agree.

3 JUDGE MAY: We can adjourn now until 1.00.

4 Yes, Mr. Naumovski.

5 MR. NAUMOVSKI: [Interpretation] Your Honour,

6 I just wanted to help you with your decision.

7 Actually, we have already informed the Honourable Court

8 that one witness would not be able to come this week,

9 as we had previously agreed upon. However, yesterday

10 afternoon we realised that we had problems with yet

11 another witness coming in. Something was wrong with

12 his passport. He has to get a new passport. That

13 means a visa as well.

14 So we are afraid that as far as this week is

15 concerned, we're going to lose this other witness as

16 well. Unfortunately, there were circumstances beyond

17 our control that were in place, so we could not really

18 organise somebody else's coming in. So to put it

19 mildly, we'll have quite a bit of free time this week,

20 regrettably. So I wish to say that what the Prosecutor

21 asked for just now, that is, to be given additional

22 time for preparation, is quite acceptable for the

23 Defence as well.

24 [Trial Chamber confers]

25 JUDGE MAY: We'll adjourn now until 2.00.

1 --- Luncheon recess taken at 12.20 p.m.

2

3 --- On resuming at 2.03 p.m.

4 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Nice.

5 MR. NICE: I'm grateful for the time.

6 Mr. Cicak is here, and in the public gallery. There is

7 no objection to this part of the evidence being heard

8 so far as he is concerned in open court and I, indeed,

9 would ask that it takes place in open court.

10 If the time comes when the Chamber considers

11 that it would be preferable for Mr. Cicak to withdraw,

12 he can, of course, do so against the possibility of his

13 giving evidence and the Chamber preferring him not to

14 hear the cross-examination. But for the time being, I

15 propose that he should stay in the public gallery.

16 JUDGE MAY: Yes, very well. Let the witness

17 be brought in open session.

18 [The witness entered court]

19 JUDGE MAY: Let the witness take the

20 declaration.

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly

22 declare that I will speak the truth, the whole truth,

23 and nothing but the truth.

24 WITNESS: PETAR PAVLOVIC

25 [Witness answered through interpreter]

1 MR. NAUMOVSKI: [Interpretation] Thank you,

2 Your Honour.

3 Examined by Mr. Naumovski:

4 Q. Doctor, please be so kind as to give your

5 full name and surname to the court?

6 A. Petar Pavlovic.

7 Q. Dr. Pavlovic, you signed on the 19th of

8 January [as interpreted] this year a statement, an

9 affidavit before the court in Vitez; is that correct?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. There is a mistake. It says January in the

12 transcript rather than May. We were talking about May,

13 weren't we?

14 A. Yes, May.

15 Q. So the 19th of May. Please, Dr. Pavlovic,

16 tell me, this sworn affidavit that you have signed

17 before the court in Vitez, does it contain everything

18 you know to the best of your knowledge and

19 recollection?

20 A. I fully agree with what I stated, with what I

21 signed, and I -- that fully matches what I know about

22 this case.

23 Q. Along with this sworn affidavit of yours,

24 there are some attached documents. Are these attached

25 documents a faithful copy of the originals that were in

1 the files of your institute?

2 A. Yes. I must admit that these are only copies

3 but that they fully coincide with the original. These

4 are special forms that are made by the institution for

5 the evaluation of work ability attached to the

6 retirement insurance company in Sarajevo. At that

7 time, it was called the Community for Retirement and

8 Disability Insurance of Bosnia-Herzegovina. It is part

9 of the disability and retirement insurance, and it is

10 the only professional organ that is entitled to give an

11 assessment and opinion concerning an insured person

12 whose work ability is to be evaluated.

13 Q. Very well. I think that that is sufficient

14 by way of introduction and, if necessary, you are going

15 to give a wider explanation later.

16 Dr. Pavlovic, the affidavit, the sworn

17 affidavit that you gave, did you give it first and

18 foremost as the long-time head of the Zenica office of

19 this particular institution for the evaluation of work

20 ability?

21 A. I was chief of the institute for the

22 evaluation of work ability for two big regions, the

23 region of Zenica and the region of Doboj in which there

24 were 20 municipalities. I can also say that I worked

25 there for 15 years, that is to say, that I -- my

1 experience is exceptionally good. I worked with very

2 good people, and I believe that this assessment

3 evaluation and opinion was given with the greatest

4 possible degree of professional knowledge, professional

5 attention.

6 Q. Thank you. My last question, Dr. Pavlovic:

7 You were not the personal doctor of Mr. Cicak, never;

8 is that right?

9 A. No, never. There are certain doctors, I mean

10 every insured person was entitled to choose his or her

11 own doctor. Certain work organisations had their own

12 doctors that treated the persons employed in such

13 organisations, so I personally was never this man's

14 doctor. I knew this man just in passing from the

15 street, it's not a big town. We would say hello to

16 each other, but I never had anything to do with his

17 medical care.

18 MR. NAUMOVSKI: [Interpretation] That would be

19 all. Thank you Dr. Pavlovic. Your Honour this

20 concludes the examination-in-chief.

21 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Naumovski, do you wish

22 to exhibit the two documents which were attached to the

23 affidavit?

24 MR. NAUMOVSKI: [Interpretation] Your Honour,

25 I believe that the witness has this affidavit along

1 with the attached documents. I thought that he needed

2 that if this would be necessary for the

3 cross-examination so if the Court deems it necessary,

4 we can handle it now, but then I would require another

5 copy for myself.

6 JUDGE MAY: Well, there ought to be a copy.

7 If you want to make these records part of the court

8 file, then you've got to exhibit them. Now, is that

9 what you're applying to do with Exhibit A and Exhibit

10 B?

11 MR. NAUMOVSKI: [Interpretation] Absolutely.

12 Absolutely, Your Honour.

13 JUDGE MAY: Hand in, then, two copies,

14 please. And we'll get a number for A and then a number

15 for B.

16 THE REGISTRAR: Document A will be number

17 D281/1, and B will be number D282/1.

18 JUDGE MAY: Thank you. Mr. Mikulicic,

19 anything you want to ask about this?

20 MR. MIKULICIC: No, Your Honour. We have no

21 questions.

22 Cross-examined by Mr. Nice:

23 MR. NICE:

24 Q. Do you have your affidavit before you,

25 Dr. Pavlovic?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Before we come to what's in your affidavit

3 and some other matters, tell me, please, how -- tell

4 me, please: When were you first contacted by lawyers

5 representing Mr. Kordic?

6 A. I think it was in the second half of December

7 last year.

8 Q. On the 27th of April of 1999, when Mr. Cicak

9 was giving evidence, questions were being asked by

10 Mr. Kordic's lawyers about you, so they knew something

11 of your contact with Mr. Cicak. How did they know of

12 your contact with Mr. Cicak? Can you help me?

13 A. I don't know how they knew about my contact.

14 I don't know what kind of contacts these are. But my

15 relationship with Mr. Cicak dates back to the distant

16 past. But this was just on very specific terms, saying

17 hello to each other, that's all, if that's what you can

18 call a relationship. But I mean it's not a contact by

19 way of that kind of communication.

20 Q. I only want to know, please -- I only want to

21 know how, as you understand it, Kordic's lawyers were

22 able to come and see you. What was their introduction

23 to you?

24 A. Well, there are different ways of getting in

25 touch with a person. I don't know exactly, but I do

1 know that they called me to come to an office in

2 Busovaca. That's where we first met. That's where we

3 first saw each other. They presented the problem that

4 had cropped up, and I said that there's no problem

5 whatsoever and that I was there.

6 Q. Please pause. I don't want to know, and you

7 mustn’t tell me, what passed between you and them. I

8 only want to know if you know how they got to learn of

9 you. For example, if it was a question of a friend of

10 yours saying, "Why don't you go and see Dr. Pavlovic,"

11 then you can tell me, "Well, it was my friend, Mr. X or

12 Mr. Y."

13 Now, do you know how it was that they got to

14 find your name? And if the answer is no, we'll move on

15 to something else.

16 A. Well, it's not that I don't know. I think

17 that my name is well-known generally speaking, not only

18 in Zenica but also in Busovaca, where I work at

19 present. Everybody knows me. So I don't know.

20 Perhaps somewhere this question was raised, who was the

21 chief at that time, or perhaps everybody said it was

22 Dr. Pavlovic. So that's it. People know where I work

23 and where I go, so there's no problem.

24 Q. Are you still working at the same office or

25 not?

1 A. No. I now work at the health centre in

2 Busovaca. Until 1995 I worked at the Institute for the

3 Evaluation of Work Ability. And then, due to certain

4 personal matters --

5 Q. Please, by all means, if you feel you must

6 expand an answer, do, but some of my questions will be

7 capable of a yes/no answer or a very short answer.

8 Who copied the documents that you have

9 produced to this Court?

10 A. Well, with the assistance of the lawyers,

11 most probably Mr. Mitko Naumovski, and the service, or

12 rather the office in Busovaca. I think it was them.

13 It was not me.

14 Q. So you personally had nothing to do with

15 getting these documents; they were simply handed to you

16 by the lawyers?

17 A. Exactly.

18 Q. They did not tell you from which individual,

19 if they obtained them from an individual, they got

20 them?

21 A. No.

22 Q. You therefore technically -- I'm not going to

23 take really an issue on this, but you can't technically

24 say whether they're genuine copies or not, can you?

25 A. I can, on the basis of the correctness of the

1 form, on the basis of the facsimile of the doctors who

2 worked with me for 15 years, on the basis of signatures

3 that cannot easily be forged, on the basis of the

4 complete form, on the basis of the complete anamnesis.

5 I can claim that the form is correct, or rather that

6 the copy is right.

7 Q. Do you accept that in your country, to take

8 the medical records, for whatever purpose they're

9 lodged, of an individual is a serious violation of that

10 individual's rights?

11 A. At any rate, any kind of information

12 concerning the health of an insured person is not

13 permissible. However, obtaining certain papers, I

14 mean -- how should I put this? Perhaps I did not fully

15 understand the question.

16 Q. Do you accept that in your country, to take

17 the medical records of an individual is a serious

18 violation of that individual's rights, wherever those

19 medical records may have been lodged, may have been

20 kept?

21 A. Believe me, I don't know about this. I don't

22 know what to say. Violation or non-violation, I know

23 that in our country, medical files are kept by certain

24 institutions. These medical files are sent from one

25 person to another until finally a person obtains his

1 insurance. So it is possible for quite a few people to

2 get in touch with medical documents, but the question

3 is the extent to which they understand medical

4 language, medical terms.

5 Q. And just yes or no to this, before signing

6 your affidavit, the medical man though you are, you

7 made no inquiry as to whether Mr. Cicak had consented

8 to copies of his records being in the hands of the

9 lawyers who spoke to you.

10 A. No, I did not ask and ...

11 Q. The lawyers haven't shown you, is this

12 correct, any originals, they have only shown you

13 copies?

14 A. No. No, no originals.

15 MR. NICE: I don't know if the Court has full

16 affidavits before it, and if it does, if it has the

17 registry page numbers legible in the top right-hand

18 corner, they are on in handwriting, they are really the

19 only way of really tracking one's way through the

20 document because I want to ask, first of all, about the

21 document.

22 I don't know whether the witness will be able

23 to find it, it's probably simply better if I take mine

24 out. 14823 is the English translation and the original

25 of that is 14809, and I'll take that out as well. It

1 will probably be easier for Your Honour's colleagues if

2 they don't have the affidavit before them, if the usher

3 would be good enough.

4 In fact, the original is all I need lay on

5 the ELMO, 14809, and incidentally, I call for the

6 original of this document to be produced to the Court,

7 if that's possible.

8 Q. Now, you're looking at an original document,

9 and those of us who don't speak your language are

10 following it in an English version so forgive us taking

11 some time. I'll find another version of mine for me to

12 have look at.

13 You say the documents you looked at are in

14 order. This one, tell us about it, first of all, and

15 then we'll see whether it's in order or not. What is

16 it?

17 A. These are discharge papers from a hospital,

18 the Institute for Occupational Medicine, which is

19 involved in curative and preventive medicine as far as

20 occupational diseases are concerned. This is an

21 institution which is not an ordinary hospital. It is a

22 hospital for all examinations, not only for

23 occupational diseases, but also for general diseases.

24 This hospital, or rather this institution,

25 the Zavod, catered to over 100.000 or 150.000 people;

1 the population of Zenica and its immediate

2 surroundings.

3 Q. I'm sorry, I'm going to stop you. We don't

4 have all afternoon. You must focus on the questions,

5 please. This document is the only document or copy

6 document you have produced apart from the various

7 actual retirement forms that purports to suggest that

8 Mr. Cicak was ever treated for anything; would that be

9 correct?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. So let's examine it together, because you

12 tell us that the documents are all in order, Doctor.

13 What dates was he treated as this form will reveal?

14 Please look at the form, it's on the overhead projector

15 beside you.

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. You're not looking at that document, you're

18 looking at something else, will you please --

19 A. No, no. On the monitor, it doesn't say the

20 date or it's very illegible, but on the letter of

21 discharge, because what you are showing me on the

22 monitor now hardly means a thing, that is what I can

23 tell you. It is the letter of discharge that is

24 important.

25 This is just a piece of information stating

1 that somebody was treated in the certain institution.

2 However, the letter of discharge says very nicely that

3 the insured person was there from the 24th of January,

4 1984 and that a certain diagnosis was made, that is to

5 say, this was 15 years ago.

6 You will have to understand that I won't be

7 able to remember absolutely everything, but will try to

8 do something.

9 Q. Can you explain to me please why the document

10 that has been produced as a piece of raw material

11 purporting to show that someone was treated in hospital

12 is manifestly incomplete?

13 A. I can say like many other documents, we can

14 always find various shortcomings, however, in this

15 letter of discharge, it says very nicely -- there's

16 everything. He was observed not only for psychiatric

17 reasons but also for eye treatment, internal medicine,

18 psychology, everything that was possible at the time

19 was used to see whether there was an illness or not.

20 It says very nicely there. This is a very strong

21 institution, a very good institution, exceptionally

22 good. I don't see any mistakes.

23 Q. You are a general practitioner or some kind

24 of specialist, please?

25 A. Specialist of occupational medicine for over

1 20 years.

2 Q. But you have no experience of psychiatry?

3 A. I do, and how, may I tell you straight away,

4 that I worked -- perhaps this is not important, but I

5 worked as a general practitioner, as a specialist of

6 occupational medicine when evaluating work ability. I

7 also worked in health protection where I worked as an

8 advisor, and I worked on legislation related to these

9 matters. From 1993 I was employed at the institute for

10 evaluating work ability, I became the boss there.

11 And may I tell you straight away that every

12 doctor who comes to work at this institute for

13 assessing work ability has to undergo certain course,

14 has to attend a certain course for at least three

15 months, that is to say, where we refresh some of our

16 knowledge from psychiatry, internal medicine, surgery,

17 eye illnesses, et cetera.

18 This is a specialised institution that deals

19 with assessing work ability. Right.

20 Q. I'll stop you because I'm trying to get on.

21 Would you look at paragraph 14 of your affidavit,

22 please. This paragraph -- tell us, was your affidavit

23 drafted for you by the lawyers, or was it all your own

24 idea?

25 A. This was recorded and it was presumably

1 signed and I stand by what is written here.

2 Q. Whose idea was it to put in this paragraph a

3 comment or commentary on the various documents that

4 you've produced, was it your idea or was it the

5 lawyer's idea?

6 A. Well, I can't be sure. I think both mine and

7 the lawyer's. The important thing was to bring here an

8 accurate opinion about a letter and Mr. Cicak and

9 answer any question that you may have about Mr. Cicak.

10 Q. You were attempting to say in this paragraph

11 that the diagnosis of syndroma paranoides would show

12 bizarre behaviour and other symptoms, weren't you? You

13 were trying to do damage to Mr. Cicak's testimony,

14 correct?

15 A. I don't really want to say whether I will

16 damage or won't damage anyone. I'm sorry I have to say

17 I am not an expert witness on psychiatry, but I, like

18 any other psychiatrist, I can tell you what syndroma

19 paranoides is. I know I'm quite competent to testify

20 as expert about all the diseases which affect one's

21 fitness to work.

22 I do not say that I can testify as an expert

23 about psychiatry cases here or elsewhere. All I can

24 say that the diagnosis established by the expert team,

25 and I was their boss at that time, all I can say is

1 that they were correct. I can tell you that enough

2 time has elapsed over course -- according to this

3 documentation, I never treated Mr. Cicak nor saw him

4 all this time, nor do I look at him now, but I -- his

5 case history shows that for two years, he was treated,

6 that all the possibilities of psychiatric treatment

7 were exhausted after two years and after two years,

8 naturally, under the disability law, he had to be sent

9 to the medical board.

10 I do not see that the physicians who were

11 involved in this had made any omission. They were all

12 excellent people, good ones. Unfortunately, one of

13 them died, another one is still alive, but he is of a

14 rather advanced age.

15 Q. If this man was treated for two years, can

16 you tell us, please, where we can find his medical

17 notes, because such notes must have been kept and they

18 must be available. Tell us where they are, please.

19 A. I am not Mr. Cicak's physician, so I do not

20 know what particular health unit he belonged to. I

21 can't tell you that. He must have had a particular

22 health centre where he had his medical card, and every

23 time he would go there, they would put it on record

24 what kind of treatment was prescribed for him and so on

25 and so forth. Because you must know, these diseases

1 are sometimes bad, sometimes good, but everybody knows

2 what their outcome is.

3 Q. There is nothing to suggest in your file of

4 papers that we've looked at so far that there was any

5 communication from his treating doctor or his treating

6 health centre, is there? Find me a reference, if you

7 can, in the papers to the health centre that you must

8 have referred to.

9 A. Sorry. I didn't quite understand.

10 Q. Of course, we're trying to approach this

11 problem with our own perceptions of how doctors

12 behave. But if somebody is going to be retired through

13 ill health, on the grounds of long-term or substantial

14 ill health, one would expect to find communication with

15 the treating doctor or the treating health centre. And

16 I'm asking you, please, in the papers you produce and

17 say are entirely genuine, to point me to any place that

18 shows where the treating centre or the general

19 practitioner is. Maybe it's here, but just find it for

20 me.

21 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] Mr. Nice,

22 together with this question, I'd like Dr. Pavlovic to

23 explain what he means by what he stated earlier on in

24 the transcript. He stated the following: [In English]

25 "Sometimes bad, sometimes good, but everybody knows

1 what their outcome is." [Interpretation] What did

2 Dr. Pavlovic mean by that, that everybody knows what

3 the outcome is, how they end?

4 A. In psychiatric patients, one knows that they

5 simply lose their fitness to work. That's what I

6 meant. Nothing special. Psychiatric patients are

7 under separate treatment, and if the treatment is good,

8 then for a while they may be in a good condition and

9 there is no distinction between a psychiatric patient

10 and a healthy man. And at times a psychiatric patient,

11 and one knows that, in their behaviour, in their manner

12 of conversation and communication, can be very easily

13 told apart from healthy people.

14 MR. NICE:

15 Q. You don't have the slightest idea what you're

16 talking about, have you?

17 A. You're addressing me?

18 MR. NICE: The witness, of course. I

19 certainly wasn't addressing Your Honour. I was

20 addressing the witness. I thought Your Honour had

21 finished. I'm sorry.

22 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] Yes, I did

23 understand that you're not turning to me, and just as

24 well for you. You're not turning to me to say that.

25 So I did understand you. Sorry, Mr. Nice, for

1 interrupting. I just wanted, following this question,

2 to ask Dr. Pavlovic if I had understood him properly.

3 Could he confirm whether I got him right?

4 So you're somehow rectifying what you just

5 said, but you say that this type of disease, illness,

6 can be treated, that you can return to normality, and

7 that therefore it does not necessarily mean that you're

8 no longer able to work or that you have to give up your

9 work for good, forever. Did I understand you properly?

10 A. Well, yes, quite. Some diseases may be

11 brought back to some more normal state than before but

12 never revert back to normal. I think you did

13 understand my point. Perhaps I didn't express myself

14 properly. But I think that psychiatric patients, as a

15 rule, always move towards the worse and ever worse

16 situation. Perhaps I may be putting it in

17 oversimplified terms.

18 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] Yes. Well,

19 I must confess that I do not understand you well. Can

20 psychiatric diseases be cured or treated, especially

21 paranoia, which is nothing exceptional? Can they be

22 treated or not?

23 A. Are you asking me?

24 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] Indeed,

25 indeed.

1 A. Syndroma paranoides is something different

2 from paranoia. And I should like to ask [as

3 interpreted] you, I'm not a neuropsychiatrist and I did

4 not treat Mr. Cicak, and I was not called to give

5 expert testimony here. If I was, then that's a

6 different matter. But then tell me. I came here to

7 simply confirm certain documents which were shown me

8 here, to say whether this was done by my institution,

9 whether it was done by my physicians, whether this

10 corresponds, the original, of which I was the boss.

11 Because let me tell you, I never treated Mr. Dragutin

12 [as interpreted], I never examined him at the time, nor

13 is this my opinion. This was done by my physicians,

14 who worked at the institute of which I was the boss.

15 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] Therefore,

16 Dr. Pavlovic, can you explain to the Chamber what is to

17 be understood by syndroma paranoides, which is stated

18 as such in the document. We're not doctors either.

19 You are a specialist. We're neither doctors, and

20 therefore, a fortiori, not specialists either.

21 A. I am not a specialist in that particular

22 field, but a couple of minutes ago I said that we go

23 through the training for all the diseases, or rather

24 all the medical branches: neuropsychology, internal

25 and all the rest. Syndroma paranoides is a set of

1 syndromes. It is a multiple -- even the symptomatology

2 is a multiple, from affective responses to impulsive

3 responses, alienation, loss of concentration, loss of

4 concentration at work, separation from the family,

5 simply strange behaviour, strange behaviour of all

6 patterns. That is what I, as a physician, can tell

7 you, and I was involved in assessing one's fitness to

8 work.

9 As for the expert evidence, psychiatric, I do

10 not think I am competent to do that today.

11 JUDGE MAY: How do you think that your

12 production of these documents is going to help us

13 assess the evidence of a witness who gave evidence 15

14 years after this diagnosis?

15 A. Yes, quite. I wonder myself, after 15 years,

16 how can one say about an insuree or a patient -- that

17 is, after all the time, how can I say now that he was

18 such-and-such? Or if I already stated on one occasion

19 that I never treated Mr. Cicak, nor followed him as a

20 patient, nor do I have any insight into his medical

21 card, which possibly records all his visits to the

22 clinic and the therapy that he received. I see

23 Mr. Cicak only on paper here, and in no other way at

24 all. My assistance, that is, my help to bring this

25 case to a close is all -- that is, the discharge from

1 the hospital and everything that it says here, that is,

2 the assessment, the findings, and the opinion of the

3 disability commission, are 100 per cent accurate. That

4 is, they are identical with the original.

5 MR. NICE:

6 Q. You in fact know, Doctor, that you've come

7 here actively to mislead this Court, because these

8 documents are in reality not at all what they seem.

9 And I'm just going to explain that in a little more

10 detail.

11 Between 1968 -- I beg your pardon, 1978 and

12 1984, or thereabouts, Mr. Cicak was, maybe as is his

13 want, vocally critical of the communist party of which

14 he was a member. Do you remember that? Do you

15 remember that?

16 A. No. I'm not a man of politics, and I don't

17 remember.

18 Q. Very well. By 1984, Mr. Cicak, having been

19 expelled from the party and been at certain forms of

20 risks, needed to retire, or certainly wanted to, and it

21 was well within the experience of your bureaucracies

22 that retirement could be used as a way of freeing

23 people from being where they otherwise were obliged to

24 be and to work. This sort of medical discharge could

25 be used as a ruse; correct? Something that happened

1 not infrequently?

2 A. I wouldn't agree with you.

3 Q. Are you saying it never happened, it happened

4 sometimes, or that it happened frequently?

5 A. I wouldn't know even though I was 15 years

6 there. I am not susceptible to political games or

7 anything else.

8 Q. I suggest you know perfectly well your wife

9 and Mr. Cicak worked in the same department, I think.

10 A. No.

11 Q. Did they know each other?

12 A. I suppose so, through the spouses, yes. Well

13 that's a small place, everybody knows everybody else,

14 but it does not affect the commission anyway because

15 then it wouldn't be a commission but something

16 completely different, a private ...

17 Q. Go on. It may seem irrelevant, but you can

18 confirm, as a matter of fact, that Mrs. Cicak is the

19 maker of what were and may still be prized wall

20 decorations, namely needle-point designs and pictures

21 of one kind and another, correct, and that you have

22 some of them probably on your walls; correct?

23 A. No, that is not true.

24 Q. Is it right that she does needle-point --

25 A. No, believe me, no. I don't know. I did not

1 see her for the past 10 years or so. I do see

2 Mr. Cicak in the street from time to time, but it's --

3 we only greet one another.

4 Q. It may be that you received both prints and

5 money perhaps about a month's salary in order to

6 provide and sign these documents. What do you say to

7 that?

8 A. This is preposterous. I don't write these

9 documents, nor may I sign these documents. What is

10 important to us are findings. I can't understand that

11 you are asking me such a question.

12 Q. Would you go to page 14811, please, in the

13 exhibits, the little writing on the top right-hand

14 corner, 14811. No, it's not there, it's an original

15 document. I'll lay mine on the ELMO.

16 Now, you have examined these documents and

17 you tell us that they are all entirely sensible and

18 consistent and straightforward. Above Cicak's name, we

19 see his wife's signature. Would you explain to me

20 why? Who produced these documents?

21 A. I am not sure. I am guessing now. Possibly

22 Mr. Cicak did not take this, perhaps he was

23 unaccountable at the time but I cannot affirm that. So

24 it must have been why Mrs. Dubravka took this.

25 Q. Because the original of the document, which I

1 can produce -- I am so sorry, did you want to say

2 something?

3 A. By statute -- no, no, no, I mean we do not

4 have Mr. Cicak's signature here so it wasn't Mr. Cicak

5 who picked up the finding but his wife because it is on

6 the basis of these findings and the opinions. Certain

7 rights, certain insurance rights derive for retirement

8 or disability pension, and I believe that is why

9 Mrs. Cicak took them.

10 Q. I don't wish to produce to the Court the

11 original, but if you just look at the document that

12 you've got in front of you which is the original, we

13 can lay it on the ELMO, Mrs. Cicak's signature is

14 certainly not there. So --

15 A. No, if you compare it with the original.

16 Q. Can you explain, please, how it can come

17 about that these very important documents that relate

18 to Mr. Cicak and his retirement are passed to his wife,

19 unless, as I suggest to you, there was an exchange for

20 money and indeed for prints, and you and your doctor

21 colleagues were all involved.

22 A. Let me tell you right away, I should like to

23 ask you not to use those words because that is not

24 true. As for the delivery of the document, it says

25 clear here who it is delivered to, Mr. Dragutin Cicak,

1 then the health institution, the physician on duty, the

2 organisation that the man worked for, the health

3 insurance community because the man was on a sick

4 leave, and that's it.

5 How did it come about that Mrs. Cicak

6 received this finding and how it was signed, that is

7 something I don't know.

8 Q. May we now go back, please, to the question I

9 asked you earlier. Can you find in the documents

10 you've produced to us, any document that goes to show

11 either where Mr. Cicak was being treated or even the

12 name and address of his treating general practitioner

13 or the medical centre where he was apparently treated

14 for two years?

15 A. Believe me, I can't.

16 Q. No. And are you really telling this Chamber

17 that a major institution presided over by you dealing

18 with the retirement of a person for ill health would

19 neither send nor receive a communication from that

20 man's treating doctor; is that really what you're

21 telling us?

22 A. Let me explain it a little bit how one is

23 sent to the disability board. An insuree is treated at

24 the general practice clinic. If no results are

25 obtained there, then that patient is sent to a higher

1 institute, and that is the occupational medicine

2 institute. They have the specialist services so there

3 is a higher level of treatment. And if that doesn't

4 produce any result, then that person is sent to the

5 disability board which then gives its view about the

6 person's work fitness.

7 In addition to medical documentation, we also

8 need the legal documentation or rather the job

9 description of that particular insuree. So that we

10 have medical documentation on the one hand, on the

11 other hand, we have labour and legal documentation.

12 Then, this insuree comes to us and we examine him head

13 to foot while fully respecting every patient.

14 So a patient stays an hour or two, sometimes

15 more, sometimes less, depending on the diagnosis. The

16 patient is examined and at the end of it, the patient

17 goes out and then the council, the board stays here,

18 like you are here, and then the chamber discusses

19 whether that person is fit to work or not.

20 And I have to repeat, I have two physicians

21 on my board and from time to time -- on my council, and

22 from time to time, we also bring in a psychologist.

23 Since there is a psychological test, that everything

24 that has to do with the medicine has been treated. He

25 was with us, we examined him and, at the end, the

1 chamber meets and decides on that person's fitness to

2 work, ability to work.

3 Q. Very well. Just breaking it down into two

4 parts. As a doctor, you will accept, won't you, just

5 yes or no to this, that any person suffering mental ill

6 health for a couple of years and being treated for it

7 will have medical records going to show the treatment

8 and the consultations that he has had; correct?

9 A. That is what it should be, yes.

10 Q. And your last very long answer given to the

11 Judges, not only showed a great knowledge of the law,

12 as you say it to be, it also was a way of trying to

13 avoid the need for your assessment to build on a

14 general practitioner's records. I must suggest to you

15 that's wholly unrealistic. No doctor would avoid

16 turning to a general practitioner for help on a matter

17 as serious as this.

18 A. The board uses all the methods in order to

19 obtain the best knowledge, the best information

20 possible about the state of health of the person who

21 comes to us. Why I'm telling you that, health cards,

22 and then we visually look whether the person has had

23 any case history, whether it was treated or not treated

24 for diseases or not. I do not know whether this expert

25 team used this or not, because one of the doctors who

1 examined him and assessed him died, and I'm really

2 sorry I have to say that, because we've known one

3 another for 15 years, I'm sorry about that. So this

4 doctor cannot tell you that himself.

5 But we use all the methods like -- and again,

6 I must compare it with you as you do it. So we use all

7 the methods in order to establish one's true state of

8 health. We have instructions. We have a manual.

9 Q. Turn, please, to what is in the English in

10 the pages of the affidavit 14820 and more materially

11 14819, and I'll find the original for the witness. I

12 think it's all on 14806.

13 I don't know if Your Honour has any of those

14 pages. But if Your Honour's colleagues don't, I better

15 put one on the ELMO if not. And I'll make the original

16 available for the witness to look at.

17 While they are coming to you, I should tell

18 you, Doctor, that I've had these notes considered by a

19 Dutch psychiatrist. Unfortunately he's gone on

20 holiday, and unfortunately he has locked his report

21 away before it was faxed to me so I can only give you a

22 summary of what I understand he will explain to us if

23 it ever becomes necessary.

24 The Chamber will see on -- absolutely at the

25 foot of page 120, can you lay, literally, the foot of

1 120 on the ELMO for His Honour's colleagues.

2 Your Honour, give me a minute.

3 Just to look at it, the first page simply

4 shows that at this part of the report, we reach at the

5 bottom of the page the findings of the psychologist.

6 So now if we can go to the next page, please, because

7 it's not headed we start at the top so what we're

8 looking at here in English, and I hope you have there

9 in the original is, first, the findings of the

10 psychologist and then the findings of the

11 neuropsychiatrist.

12 Let's just see what they say, shall we? The

13 first psychologist apparently says, "Emotional tension

14 which influences general neurosis. Differential

15 neurotic stages in the level of concentration." It

16 deals with memory and as far as personality is

17 concerned, "a general neurosis is expressed with

18 presence of hypersensitive anxietal and partially

19 obsessive, compulsive and depressive tendencies. On

20 the basis of diagnosed abilities shows a change of

21 personality."

22 Then we come to the findings of the

23 neuropsychiatrist. He apparently finds for the same

24 patient on information gathered from wife and

25 co-workers to which I will return, a clinical picture

1 after testing and a psychiatric examination of paranoid

2 syndrome as was previously found and treated. Never

3 hospitalised because never wanted to accept something

4 like that, but took medication. It sets out the

5 medication.

6 Incidentally, one of those medications is

7 quite dangerous, isn't it, and would have to be the

8 subject of a prescription, would you accept that?

9 Nozinan, do you accept that it's quite dangerous?

10 A. Yes, Moditen and Nozinan and also this

11 intramuscular Moditen injection that is given for one

12 month, yes, all of these medicines require

13 prescription. I don't know whether that time or all of

14 these medications required prescription, but now all of

15 these Depo Moditen and Nozinan require prescriptions,

16 and there is strict control over who takes it, how,

17 why, et cetera.

18 Q. He goes on, the psychiatrist, the

19 neuropsychiatrist, "...because of the illness and rigid

20 attitude within his illness to treatment by a

21 psychiatrist and institution, we are of the opinion

22 that he shouldn't work. Syndroma paranoides."

23 Now, do you know whether one way or another

24 whether the conclusions of the psychiatrist are

25 consistent with those of the psychologist or whether

1 they are incompatible?

2 A. Well, right now I would not go into the

3 entire problem as far as evaluation is concerned. I am

4 an individual. This conclusion is relevant. The

5 Institute for Occupational Medicine is a highly

6 specialised institution, and it has a very high

7 standing and it involves professionals of all kinds.

8 It is their duty to give recommendations and

9 conclusions regarding work ability. That is their

10 opinion. We on the commission can accept it, but we

11 don't have to.

12 Q. I'm going back to my question, but I'll

13 recast it. In a document which makes a total of sort

14 of five different symptoms, you have the psychologist

15 talking of neurotic symptoms and the psychiatrist

16 talking of paranoid symptoms. Incompatible, simply

17 borrowed from somebody else's records, Doctor, and you

18 know it.

19 A. A psychologist looks at things from a

20 psychologist's point of view and a neuropsychiatrist

21 looks from a neuropsychiatrist's point of view, and the

22 two should not collide with one another. Different

23 expressions are used. A psychologist uses

24 psychological terms; a neuropsychiatrist uses

25 psychiatric terms. Not both use the same terms.

1 A medical doctor has medical terminology. A

2 lawyer has legal terminology. In medicine,

3 neuropsychiatrists have neuropsychiatric vocabulary,

4 but they all work towards a final diagnosis. I do

5 apologise. I'm only looking at a piece of paper here,

6 not a man, and I'm saying something about what has been

7 written.

8 MR. NICE: My last question probably. I've

9 taken long enough on this. It can be found on Your

10 Honours' page 14825, and I'll try and find it in the

11 original. And I'll hand my copy of 14825 for placing

12 on the ELMO and I'll find the original for the witness,

13 if I can.

14 Q. This man was quite ill, wasn't he?

15 A. Yes. Different psychiatrists would describe

16 this in different ways.

17 Q. Why didn't he have to be followed up? We've

18 got -- I can't find the original at the moment. The

19 papers are confusing, but why didn't he have to be

20 followed up?

21 A. I believe that they did follow this for about

22 two years. At least, that's what the papers say.

23 People should be trusted. I must mention once again

24 that I did not examine him, nor was I involved in the

25 follow-up.

1 Q. I'm going to show you the reference. Here it

2 is. It's on 14812. If I can have it back. "Follow-up

3 not necessary." There it is in your own document. Not

4 followed up because there was nothing to follow up.

5 A. When the loss of work ability is concerned,

6 there is no need to have a follow-up. If our

7 assessment is that he is not able to work anymore, not

8 work at all, why would we, from the institute -- I

9 mean, we are talking about that kind of follow-up, from

10 the institute. As far as a neuropsychiatrist is

11 concerned, that is different. He is still being

12 followed by his own doctor or a service that he belongs

13 to.

14 However, as far as the institute is

15 concerned, in terms of evaluating his work ability, and

16 also in terms of the panel that assesses this is

17 concerned, the commission, the panel doesn't have to

18 re-evaluate this. In some countries, it is necessary

19 after five years or so. However, in our country, the

20 situation was such that it was not necessary to

21 re-examine things or follow up. It is not the health

22 condition that did not have to be followed up and

23 monitored, et cetera; it is the findings of the

24 commission that did not have to be looked at again.

25 Q. From four statements or affidavits, and in

1 some cases, evidence has been produced by Mr. Kordic's

2 lawyers that seek to confirm ill health. One is a

3 person called Anto Stipac -- sorry. Only three others

4 -- one is a person called Zoran Maric, and one is

5 someone called Niko Grubesic. Do you know how they got

6 the idea to allege, at least in their written form, if

7 they didn't say it in evidence, ill health, and mental

8 ill health in this man? Did you have anything to do

9 with that?

10 A. No. I'm a doctor. I'm a physician. I'm

11 telling you that once again. I'm not involved in

12 politics. I know some people by sight only, but I was

13 not told anything. Probably in contact with

14 the insuree or -- I don't know -- perhaps some other

15 way.

16 Q. I'm not going to ask the questions that would

17 be built on the premise of these being genuine records

18 and their irrelevance medically, in any event, to

19 activities later or to recollection 14 years later,

20 because I don't need to in the circumstances.

21 Just to give you an opportunity in case it

22 arises later, I'm going to suggest to you, Doctor, that

23 it's not just in relation to this case that you may

24 have done things like this, but that you may have done

25 it on many other occasions.

1 A. I'm sorry that you have such an opinion. No

2 way. Once again, I'm stating that at least I did not

3 do anything dishonourable. I read this solemn

4 declaration and I am responsible for everything I

5 said. The medical documents that were presented to the

6 Institute for Occupational Medicine are faithful

7 copies, and I think that the institute worked fairly

8 and honestly.

9 MR. NICE: That's all I ask, Your Honour,

10 although I repeat, for obvious reasons, I would like to

11 see the best original that exists of the document that

12 seeks to show the medical discharge that bears no

13 dates.

14 MR. NAUMOVSKI: [Interpretation] Thank you,

15 Your Honour.

16 Re-examined by Mr. Naumovski:

17 Q. Dr. Pavlovic, I think that because of the way

18 in which you were examined, we have to put things into

19 right order, so to speak, so I have only a few

20 questions in this connection.

21 This Exhibit A that you have, D188/1, as it

22 was numbered today, that is the opinion and the finding

23 of your institute that you were head of for 15 years;

24 is that correct?

25 A. Yes. Yes.

1 THE INTERPRETER: Could Mr. Naumovski's

2 microphone please be adjusted. The interpreters are

3 having difficulty in hearing what he says.

4 MR. NAUMOVSKI: [Interpretation]

5 Q. This was signed by the doctors that you

6 already mentioned. These are doctors who work in the

7 institute?

8 A. Yes. These are doctors who were employed by

9 the institute only. These are their only jobs.

10 Q. Exhibit A is number D -- it is D281/1, so we

11 want to correct the transcript. Right.

12 So these are doctors who were permanently

13 employed by the institute. One question related to

14 your institute, another one as well. You have teams of

15 experts who evaluate the work ability of a person for

16 whom this is required; is that correct?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. However, you do not treat people. Your

19 institute, and I imagine things have not changed until

20 the present day, does not have the ability to carry out

21 full examinations and medical supervision and

22 check-ups, et cetera, such as classical hospitals do;

23 is that right?

24 A. That's right. However, we have specialised

25 doctors. For example, when there are head injuries,

1 brain injuries, for example, when the CT was not

2 performed, when magnetic resonance was not done, that

3 is to say, all these methods that the institute could

4 not have carried out, then we are ourselves required

5 from our services to get these additional findings so

6 that we would assess a person's working ability to the

7 best of our ability. So we have all these

8 possibilities made available to us. Actually, we did.

9 Q. Of course. I do apologise. Perhaps I should

10 tell you that you should not answer my questions

11 immediately, because my questions have to be

12 interpreted into the official languages of the

13 Tribunal, and we should try to facilitate the work of

14 the interpreters. And I do apologise to them once

15 again.

16 So of course your institute has the

17 possibility of asking for all the necessary

18 examinations to be carried out, but it is not a

19 hospital in the classical sense of the word, that has

20 wards where all these check-ups are done; is that

21 correct?

22 A. To put it briefly, we use all methods to

23 objectivise a certain illness, bearing in mind the

24 illnesses that may lead to a loss of work ability.

25 That is to say that we use all methods. Even in the

1 institute in Sarajevo, if we do not have super experts

2 -- neurologists, internists, cardiologists, et cetera

3 -- then we ask for an even higher instance, if

4 necessary. If we have the relevant -- if we have the

5 relevant documentation, if we have the right kind of

6 documents, we don't require anything in addition to

7 that. Then we -- I want to say this once again. We

8 look at all the medical documents. We look at the

9 patient as a patient. We interview the person and then

10 we deliberate, just as deliberations are carried out

11 over here.

12 Q. I do apologise for having interrupted, but I

13 believe that the Honourable Trial Chamber has heard

14 quite a bit about this. However, as far as the last

15 page of this document of yours is concerned, that is,

16 concerning the assessment, the evaluation -- I'm

17 talking about the institute, not you personally -- and

18 it can be seen that it was addressed to seven different

19 addressees; is that right?

20 A. Yes. And these documents, these findings,

21 were invariably present.

22 Q. In my opinion, this means that this original,

23 so to speak, was done at least in seven copies that

24 were sent to different addresses; is that correct?

25 A. Correct.

1 Q. The Prosecutor showed you a copy which was, I

2 assume, sent directly to Mr. Cicak.

3 A. Yes. This could have been obtained by

4 anyone.

5 Q. My question is the following: This copy,

6 this copy that was sent to Mr. Cicak, it does not have

7 the signature of Mrs. Dubravka Cicak, whereas the copy

8 that was attached to your affidavit does have a

9 signature. My question is the following: As far as

10 the institute is concerned, I believe that you will

11 agree with me, in the files in the institute, there is

12 a single original where it says who it was given to,

13 and then these people sign it, the people who received

14 it; is that right?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Only the original remains in the institute;

17 is that right?

18 A. Yes. Yes.

19 Q. Very well. Thank you. So that is the first

20 set of documents.

21 The other one is Exhibit B, that was attached

22 to your affidavit, and it was marked D282/1. This set

23 of documents was sent to your institute before you made

24 your own findings and gave your own opinion; is that

25 correct?

1 A. Yes. That is the procedure that is required.

2 Q. The Prosecutor asked you about the discharge

3 papers, and quite a bit of time and words were spent on

4 this. However, it is important, perhaps, to draw the

5 attention of the Honourable Judges only to what it says

6 here before the stamp itself. It says: "Attached

7 letter of discharge." See, over here in the discharge

8 papers, that is document B? It says: "Attached letter

9 of discharge."

10 A. Yes, yes. This is it, the paper I'm showing

11 you now.

12 Q. In other words, discharge papers from a

13 hospital is just a technical paper?

14 A. It's just information.

15 Q. That's right. And this paper contains the

16 expertise, the expert opinion; is that right?

17 A. Yes.

18 MR. NICE: [Previous translation

19 continues]... Mr. Naumovski's examination, but I really

20 must protest.

21 MR. NAUMOVSKI: [Interpretation] Your Honours,

22 I concur with what my colleague says, but this is such

23 an obvious question that I was dealing with. It is

24 technically such an obvious issue. So I'll try to

25 redefine myself.

1 Q. Dr. Pavlovic, please, this letter of

2 discharge was drawn up at the -- you said Cicak, not

3 Zenica. Zenica is the correct word. That is the

4 Zenica Steel Works Institution.

5 A. Oh, yes. I'm sorry.

6 Q. So this was signed by the doctors who are in

7 that -- who worked in that institute, and their

8 specialities are also mentioned here on page 3; is that

9 correct?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. You have already said this a few times to the

12 Honourable Judges, but for the last time: These

13 doctors whose names are mentioned here, and who looked

14 through all the documents, who examined Mr. Cicak, they

15 suggest, by way of a conclusion, that he be sent to the

16 Commission for Disability Insurance in order to

17 evaluate the work ability that he still has.

18 My question is the following: As doctors, as

19 physicians who have had insight into Mr. Cicak's full

20 medical condition, they believe it is necessary to send

21 him to the commission?

22 A. Yes, that's right, it says here syndroma

23 paranoides. That is to evaluate work ability it is

24 necessary to have regular check-ups with

25 neuropsychiatrists every three weeks. You see, they

1 still suggest check-ups every three weeks. The

2 possibility has been given for us to assess whether the

3 insuree has lost his ability to work or whether there

4 is some remaining work ability or whether he should be

5 sent to do some other kind of work, that would be in

6 keeping with the professional qualifications that he

7 has.

8 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation]

9 Mr. Naumovski, you're now referring to what document in

10 which it would be -- or the names of the doctors that

11 have examined Mr. Cicak would be mentioned and those

12 doctors would have sent a report to the Institute for

13 Occupational Medicine. Which is that document,

14 please?

15 MR. NAUMOVSKI: [Interpretation] Your Honour,

16 D282/1 that was admitted today, and it was called

17 Exhibit B in relation to the affidavit of

18 Dr. Pavlovic. This is a document that was drawn up by

19 the Institute for Occupational Medicine of the Zenica

20 Steel Works. That is a completely separate institution

21 from the institution that Dr. Pavlovic worked in.

22 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] Could you

23 put it on the ELMO, please?

24 MR. NAUMOVSKI: [Interpretation] The last

25 page, please. That is the document --

1 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] This is the

2 document we saw earlier on, that's the same document,

3 isn't it, which was presented by the Prosecution?

4 MR. NAUMOVSKI: [Interpretation] Exactly, Your

5 Honour.

6 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] That comes

7 from another institute; is that so?

8 MR. NAUMOVSKI: [Interpretation] I do

9 apologise, I'm waiting for the interpretation. Yes.

10 That is another institute, and then on the basis of

11 their documents, the institute where Dr. Pavlovic

12 worked continued to work and ultimately made a

13 decision, so these are completely different doctors.

14 That is what I wish to highlight for the Court.

15 However, I don't believe that there is any controversy

16 involved there so we can continue.

17 Q. Of course, Doctor, you already answered

18 this. It was suggested to you by the Prosecutor that

19 in your document, in the document of your institute it

20 says, "Unnecessary to have further check-ups," but it

21 says here that it is necessary to have regular

22 check-ups with a neuropsychiatrist, and that is what is

23 suggested by doctors; is that right?

24 A. I'm saying this that from the point of view

25 of the institute for assessing work ability. When we

1 are presenting an evaluation of one's work ability, we

2 are saying -- very often we say that that it's not

3 necessary to have any follow up. For example if a man

4 does not have an arm or a leg or whatever, why would

5 there have to be further check-ups in this respect? So

6 that is the way things are, but on the basis of our

7 opinion, there are certain legal aspects involved. So

8 we are just a professional authority that is supposed

9 to give a medical professional opinion concerning the

10 insuree, that's all.

11 Q. The last question concerning this document

12 that is on the ELMO right now. In these documents that

13 you have the opportunity of seeing, is there anything

14 unusual there? Is there anything inappropriate there?

15 Is there anything that brings into question the

16 correctness of this document of the Institute of Health

17 of the Zenica Steel Works and you say that they were a

18 very professional institution?

19 A. I'm saying, once again, that the Institute

20 for Occupational Medicine is an institution that is

21 highly professional and that enjoys a very high

22 reputation until the present day.

23 Q. So there is no reason to doubt the

24 correctness of the information in the letter that was

25 sent to you, to your institute?

1 A. All of this is quite right.

2 Q. Dr. Pavlovic, basically today you were told

3 that you were bribed, you and your doctors at your

4 institute?

5 A. Believe me, nothing was more difficult for me

6 than that. I am not afraid of this. This is all

7 fine. I am glad to have come here, but the only thing

8 that pains me is that. I made this oath and I am

9 saying it once again, that never ever did I accept

10 anything in my life. You can ask other people about me

11 also. Let people who know me speak about me. I should

12 not speak about myself.

13 I'm so sorry that it is this Court that is

14 putting such questions. This really hurts a person, I

15 mean, I'm really sorry.

16 JUDGE MAY: The questions are a matter for

17 the Court, and the Prosecution are entitled to put

18 their case to you.

19 Now, Mr. Naumovski, is there anything more

20 that you have?

21 MR. NAUMOVSKI: [Interpretation] No, Your

22 Honour. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Pavlovic.

23 JUDGE MAY: Thank you, Dr. Pavlovic. You are

24 free to go.

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you too.

1 [The witness withdrew]

2 MR. NICE: If I can just intervene, the Court

3 will, of course, recall that Mr. Cicak was asked

4 questions about retirement when he was here last year.

5 He was also asked questions about a Mr. Pero Pavlovic

6 but nothing was suggested about ill mental health or

7 anything else of the kind that I've raised.

8 The Court knows that he's here today. If the

9 Court may think it would be assisted on this issue by

10 hearing from him, I realise, of course, the various

11 ways in which this can become a peripheral issue either

12 medically or for the reason that I've advanced one way

13 or the other and I'm anxious, of course, not to clutter

14 the Court's mind or the transcript with material that

15 has become or may become ultimately marginal. But he

16 is here, and he can stay, he will be staying until

17 tomorrow in any event.

18 We understand that the Defence are a witness

19 short, and if the Court will want to hear evidence from

20 him, he's only too happy to give evidence straight away

21 or tomorrow morning.

22 [Trial Chamber confers]

23 JUDGE BENNOUNA: Mr. Nice, may I ask you what

24 is the -- why do you suggest for the Court to listen

25 again to Mr. Cicak? [In French] I'm going to speak

1 French. What point do you want to make? What do you

2 wish to achieve? What do you think Mr. Cicak can add

3 to all the things we've just heard in relation to the

4 issue of ill health, ill mental health?

5 MR. NICE: If the Court wished to hear this

6 particular issue that's been raised by the Defence

7 dealt with in evidence by both sides, the Chamber --

8 and I'm, in a sense, I'm neutral on the topic. I'm

9 anxious not to press the Chamber one way or the other,

10 but I make it quite plain that both we and Mr. Cicak

11 are entirely willing to give evidence.

12 If I can diffidently remind you of how all

13 this arose, it was never heralded in the

14 cross-examination of Mr. Cicak that he was mentally

15 unwell and that this could have, in any way, affected

16 his evidence. There were some rather delphic questions

17 asked about retirement and Pavlovic and there it was

18 left.

19 Then, when summaries, that is, first of all

20 the short summaries, yes, and then the longer summaries

21 emerged, we started hearing the suggestions that he was

22 unwell mentally. Rather interestingly and curiously at

23 the time, one or two of the witnesses departed

24 significantly from any attribution of mental illness to

25 a much lesser form of complaint about him which made

1 one concerned about the summaries. But that was all

2 detailed microargument given the scale of evidence in

3 this case.

4 Then Pavlovic's affidavit was advanced and it

5 was clear from that affidavit that by a side wind or

6 back door, which ever analogy is most appropriate, and

7 describe via paragraph 14 there was now a positive

8 effort to attack him so that in the closing arguments,

9 the written briefs, we will find -- I don't think

10 Mr. Naumovski wants to say, but -- so that we would

11 find arguments which will say you can discount this

12 man's evidence because of mental illness. That's what

13 is going to be forthcoming.

14 Therefore, we first of all decided simply not

15 to trouble Mr. Cicak with all this and to try to

16 eliminate the affidavit on the grounds of tangential or

17 limited relevance. When we failed to do that, we had

18 to take his instructions, not his instructions, but

19 what his account was, and his account is how I have

20 advanced it.

21 And therefore, if the Chamber needs to

22 resolve this issue as one of the many small issues in

23 evidence, it should probably have the witness before it

24 and he's available to do that, but I am a not pressing

25 it.

1 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] If I

2 understand you properly, you want to ask Mr. Cicak in

3 what conditions he went into retirement. Thank you.

4 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Naumovski.

5 MR. NAUMOVSKI: [Interpretation] Yes, thank

6 you, Your Honours. All I wanted to say was our

7 opposition to this Prosecution's suggestion. I believe

8 this is the third time that while Mr. Kordic's Defence

9 adduces his evidence, some rebuttal elements are being

10 introduced. The Prosecutor will have the opportunity

11 to produce every evidence that he wishes in rebuttal,

12 but I see no reason to do this during our case, and if

13 that was the idea, that is why Mr. Cicak appeared

14 today, then I think it would have been the minimum of

15 decorum not to have Mr. Cicak sitting in the gallery

16 listening to this testimony. So we oppose this idea of

17 having him testify in our case.

18 JUDGE MAY: Thank you.

19 [Trial Chamber confers]

20 JUDGE MAY: No, we've -- we have enough

21 evidence on which we can decide the matter.

22 MR. NICE: I'm grateful.

23 JUDGE MAY: Thank you. Now, I think it's

24 about time to adjourn. Can I deal with one or two

25 while they are in mind, administrative matters.

1 We shall not be sitting on this case on the

2 afternoon of the 19th of July. That has been already

3 noted as a Chambers day and in fact on that afternoon

4 we shall be hearing motions in another case. And that

5 may also, although this isn't confirmed, it may also be

6 the case that we shall not be sitting on this case on

7 the morning of the 28th of July when, again, the

8 motions in another case will have to be heard.

9 That last date is not confirmed, the first

10 date is. Tomorrow, if it's convenient, we need to be

11 working on the calendar for the autumn and I would like

12 to hear submissions from the parties on that, for

13 instance, I note that if we start Mr. Cerkez's case as

14 predicted two weeks before the recess, we should finish

15 it by the 20th of October.

16 I will be grateful, Mr. Mikulicic, if you

17 would consider that proposition.

18 I also have in mind that we should sit on the

19 final round of this case, that is on the rebuttal case

20 rejoinder case, and submissions for two weeks in

21 December, the 4th and the 11th of December.

22 I would be grateful for your assistance,

23 because it's difficult in this Tribunal to fix matters

24 because one has to do it so far ahead, and there is not

25 the flexibility to which many of us are used to in

1 domestic courts. Therefore, your assistance about

2 those matters would be helpful tomorrow.

3 And you've got two witnesses, Mr. Sayers or

4 Mr. Naumovski?

5 MR. SAYERS: We have -- I think we have one

6 witness who is ready to testify today, but if the Court

7 wants to defer him until tomorrow that's perfectly

8 acceptable and a second witness coming this afternoon

9 who should also be available tomorrow and Thursday for

10 the Court to hear.

11 JUDGE MAY: How long do you anticipate those

12 will be?

13 MR. SAYERS: The first witness is

14 Mr. Marusic, his direct examination we would anticipate

15 as being 15 minutes, 15 to 20 minutes. And then the

16 second witness is a former ECMM monitor, Mr. Garretson

17 [phoen], specifically with reference to Bugojno, one of

18 the municipalities that we informed you about in our

19 opening statement that we would address. His

20 testimony, Your Honour, I would think 30 minutes.

21 JUDGE MAY: So we're going to run out

22 tomorrow.

23 MR. SAYERS: I think we will.

24 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Sayers, no criticism at this

25 stage because this sort of thing can happen, but

1 obviously, we want to remain on target and we're going

2 to lose two days.

3 MR. SAYERS: Yes, if I may just say to the

4 Trial Chamber we do not anticipate that the loss of the

5 two witnesses for this week is going to affect the

6 estimate that we have given for the completion of our

7 case in the least. We still adhere to our prediction

8 of July 17th and it may be earlier in the week than

9 later in the week of the 17th.

10 JUDGE MAY: Thank you. We'll adjourn until

11 tomorrow at half past nine.

12 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned

13 at 3.45 p.m., to be reconvened on

14 Wednesday, the 28^th day of June, 2000,

15 at 9.30 a.m.

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25