1 Wednesday, 27 October 2004

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

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

5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone.

6 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Case number IT-00-39-T, the Prosecutor versus

8 Momcilo Krajisnik.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.

10 Mr. Tieger, are you ready to continue the examination of witness

11 Mr. Radic?

12 MR. TIEGER: Yes, Your Honour.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Usher, could you please escort the witness into

14 the courtroom.

15 [The witness entered court]

16 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Radic. Please be seated. May I

17 remind you that you're still bound by the solemn declaration you've

18 given -- I said good morning to you.

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Good morning.

20 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues]... come to you over

21 the ground but I'd like to remind you that you're still bound by the

22 solemn declaration you've given at the beginning of your testimony.

23 Mr. Tieger, please proceed.

24 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour.

25 WITNESS: PREDRAG RADIC [Resumed]

1 [Witness answered through interpreter]

2 Examined by Mr. Tieger: [Continued]

3 Q. Good morning, Mr. Radic.

4 A. [In English] Good morning.

5 Q. Yesterday you addressed the issue of the power and influence of

6 the deputies in the Krajina, and you mentioned some of the factors that

7 produced that power and influence. One of the factors you mentioned was

8 their linkage to the leadership and their ability to convey to people in

9 the Krajina, and people on the ground generally, the decisions that had

10 been made in the Assembly and by the leadership; correct?

11 A. [Interpretation] Correct.

12 Q. Now, is it also correct that in addition to conveying the official

13 decisions, which were available in the Official Gazette, for example, that

14 the deputies were in a position to convey their discussions and meetings

15 with members of the leadership, and therefore, to convey how decisions and

16 orders were to be implemented and which were the most important?

17 A. Yes, they could, but they didn't actually have to. In fact, if I

18 received a document, it would be quite clear to me how I was to implement

19 what was in it. Although some people did try and do their best to explain

20 what we were supposed to do.

21 Q. But it's correct, isn't it, that one of the factors that led to

22 the deputies' view of themselves as more important than the municipal

23 leaders was their proximity to the leadership and their ability to convey

24 priorities and the manner in which orders should be implemented.

25 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, the questioning this morning is

1 starting off in an extremely leading form in an area which is not

2 justified. It's not as if the particular difficulties which lead to more

3 flexibility in the manner of questioning arise in relation to this sort of

4 matter, because they plainly don't. Leaving aside the fact that there's a

5 considerable amount of repetitiveness involved here. This is really

6 Mr. Tieger setting out the propositions that eventually he would like to

7 appear somewhere in submissions made by the Prosecution in relation to

8 this case. So, just seeking the witness's rubber stamp to what he's

9 saying. These are simply, plainly leading questions, which shouldn't be

10 presented in this form.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger.

12 MR. TIEGER: Well, Your Honour, the suggestion that I'm in a

13 position to seek a rubber stamp from Mr. Radic or any other witness of

14 this type I think is clearly inaccurate. Furthermore, that's not remotely

15 what I'm attempting to do. I am putting appropriate propositions to this

16 witness, some of which may appear self-evident to the Defence, but

17 nevertheless should be addressed in court. Now, if those are put in the

18 form of more pointed questions, directing the witness's attention to the

19 precise issues that need to be addressed, I think that's perfectly

20 appropriate with such a witness.

21 [Trial Chamber confers]

22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, you're directed to avoid repetitious

23 elements. The Chamber found some. And I wouldn't say not -- that you

24 would not be allowed to lead at all, but a bit less would certainly do.

25 MR. TIEGER:

1 Q. Mr. Radic, with that guidance from the Court, let me reconfigure

2 the question slightly, but I still would like to address some of those

3 issues.

4 Yesterday you indicated that the deputies would convey the orders

5 and decisions that had been made in Pale, and with the expectation that

6 they would be implemented. Was it also understood by the people on the

7 ground that the deputies would convey back to Pale the extent to which

8 those instructions were implemented on the ground?

9 A. Well, there are two questions there. The first is whether they

10 conveyed the decisions to us, which we later received in written form, and

11 to that question I have to say that things like that did happen, although

12 because they arrived before the written decisions arrived. And anybody

13 who received this, if I can call it, a priori information would listen to

14 it, because these were new things coming down to us, being conveyed to us.

15 And quite certainly, they did take back to Pale, convey to Pale, how

16 things were being implemented on the ground and what we thought about

17 them. Because, after all, they were popular deputies, deputies of the

18 people, and it was a good idea for them to see and hear what the people

19 thought and convey it back to Pale. So in brief, that would be my answer

20 to those questions of yours.

21 Q. And in addition to the factors which you've identified that

22 generated the power and influence of the deputies in the region, is it

23 also correct that part of their power was derived from the fact that they

24 had a powerful leader?

25 A. Well, that's in the realm of conjecture and surmise whether the

1 leader was powerful or not powerful. He was president of the Assembly.

2 What he told them, I really can't say. All I can do is assume, just as

3 you can assume what he might have said. And most probably he did issue

4 certain information which was conveyed to us on the ground. Now, what it

5 was that he told them, I really can't speculate. I wasn't there. I

6 didn't attend the meetings of the People's Assembly. So I can't say.

7 Q. Well, let's take this proposition one step at a time, Mr. Radic.

8 You would agree that the power of someone in the local region would be

9 enhanced by that person's connection with a powerful figure at the

10 Republic level; correct?

11 A. What can I say? You know, sir, if you convey a certain amount of

12 authority to an individual, then it is this conveyance of authority, and

13 quite obviously, then, that individual would enjoy respect among the

14 populace. And ultimately, those of us who were there to implement things

15 on the ground, we too had to have a certain amount of authority and

16 respect because this authority was conveyed to us. He conveys something

17 to the people on the ground, and this could be done by somebody placed in

18 a higher position. Now, of course, information was conveyed orally, not

19 only by telephone and telefax, because it was wartime, so it was by word

20 of mouth as well. And of course, power could have been derived from there

21 too, in the eyes of the people and in our own eyes in the Municipal

22 Assemblies.

23 Q. And applying that principle to the deputies of 1992, it's correct,

24 isn't it, that their power in the region was enhanced by the perception of

25 their connection to a powerful figure --

1 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, we're back to just distinctly leading

2 questions. This really is in the form of propositions in the

3 Prosecution's case presented to the witness, even leaving aside the fact

4 that some of it seems to be just such blindingly obvious common sense in

5 the world that one could hardly need a witness to say that connections

6 with one person might enhance something with somebody else and so on. But

7 the last question is simply a leading question designed to get the

8 witness's approval to the proposition formulated for him, which is what a

9 leading question is.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, the questions are of a quite leading

11 character. It's also to some extent different from what is usually

12 practiced in examination-in-chief. It seems that you find a reason to do

13 it this way. If it is another relation with what you announced, then I

14 think we should formalise that. If not, then you're directed to deal with

15 the matter not in a similar leading way.

16 MR. TIEGER: Well, Your Honour, I would seek leave in this case,

17 if such formal leave is necessary, but let me explain the genesis of that

18 particular question and that and line of questioning.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Should we do that in the presence of the witness

20 or ...?

21 MR. TIEGER: Well, I hesitate to take too much time, but since

22 this is a general proposition that we'll be dealing with overall, perhaps

23 the Court will allow me some latitude with this particular issue and not

24 take it against my time with this particular witness.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It is a procedural issue which is not directly

1 related to the examination of the witness.

2 Perhaps --

3 [Trial Chamber confers]

4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Radic, there's a procedural issue we'd like to

5 discuss. Would you please be so kind to follow Madam Usher to leave the

6 courtroom for a second.

7 [The witness stands down]

8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger.

9 MR. TIEGER: A couple of points, Your Honour. First of all, the

10 line of questioning arose, as the Court may recall, from comments by the

11 witness in his interview that -- to the effect that one of the factors

12 that made the deputies think of themselves as more important and more

13 influential was that they had a masterful leader in Mr. Krajisnik. And I

14 attempted to follow up on that comment to some extent today. I

15 essentially asked the witness in a question that was not objected to and

16 that seemed quite appropriate whether or not that was one of the factors

17 that the deputies relied on to consolidate and enhance their own power,

18 that is, their connection to a powerful leader, a fairly straightforward

19 question which obviously was linked to the earlier inquiry. There was an

20 evasive response that had -- that was very generalised, and I attempted to

21 bring the witness back to it, first by seeking his general view on the

22 issue of linkage and power and then turning him back to the same question

23 I had asked him before, a question which was not objected to but which he

24 didn't answer. I think that is an example of why leading questions in

25 this context are both economical and appropriate. The witness and I could

1 continue this dance for quite a while, but it seems to me it's far more

2 productive to address the issue as directly as possible, which is what a

3 so-called leading question does. It puts the proposition to the witness

4 and asks him his position on it.

5 Now, of course, when there's a witness closely identified with a

6 party, there may be a risk that doing -- that conducting the examination

7 that way or asking a question in that manner will suggest to the witness

8 what he should answer, but in this context, where there is not only little

9 risk of the witness doing so, but more of a risk that the witness is

10 likely to give an answer contrary to what the examiner seeks, the

11 prohibition against leading questions no longer has the force it does in

12 other situations.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart.

14 MR. STEWART: A number of simple points, Your Honour. First of

15 all, yes, leading questions are nearly always going to be economical, but

16 that --

17 JUDGE ORIE: That goes without saying.

18 MR. STEWART: One could simply put the whole case to the witness

19 and say please agree. So that's not really the point. The question is

20 whether they are fair to be allowed. The second point is the fact that I

21 may not object to a particular question doesn't amount to the slightest

22 waiver of objections to other questions. I may have all sorts of

23 reasons --

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, yes.

25 MR. STEWART: -- to one question but then objecting to something

1 which seems similar.

2 The -- so -- some of the questions which Mr. -- but I will say

3 that one or two of the questions to which I did not object, the reason I

4 didn't object was precisely because they were so general, and I'm entitled

5 to form an assessment of what value they might or might not have if

6 they're put in an extremely general form. But as far as this witness is

7 concerned, it isn't -- we're not in an area where this witness has shown

8 distinct hostility in a way that would conventionally then often lead to

9 justification for something akin to cross-examination. It isn't that this

10 witness, as I submit the Tribunal will have seen, it's not so much that

11 this witness is distinctly evasive. We've seen a lot more evasive

12 witnesses in this trial than this particular witness. In fact, the

13 problem is to some extent the opposite, that when one looks at the tenor

14 of the interviews, of which we have the transcripts and his evidence, the

15 danger is this witness's slight readiness to agree to something, followed

16 a little bit later perhaps by readiness to agree to something which

17 contradicts to what he agreed to the first time round.

18 So there is actually a strong danger in relation to this

19 particular witness, and we've been very specific. It's very ad hominem

20 here. This witness's particular approach to questioning and the way in

21 which he gives his answers makes it especially important that so far as

22 possible he is not led.

23 If he does become directly evasive or if we get into a position

24 there, then, when counsel feels that his answer can be in effect impeached

25 by showing him some other material or some inconsistent statement he's

1 made, that's a different situation and we deal with that as it arises. But

2 in relation to this particular line of questioning, I simply adhere to my

3 submission that we should not have leading questions here at this point in

4 the evidence.

5 [Trial Chamber confers]

6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, I think there are two problems. One of

7 them, leading questions. The Chamber is not that much afraid that this

8 witness will come up with answers just on the basis of your suggestions.

9 So to that extent, the reasons for the -- perhaps I shouldn't say

10 prohibition, because it's not a clear prohibition in the Rules of

11 Procedure and Evidence in this Tribunal, but the reasons for not putting

12 leading questions to the witness might not be as compelling as with some

13 other witnesses. At the same time, the Chamber observes that the problems

14 arise mainly in the field of where an opinion is asked about who got power

15 and as soon as we leave the realm of facts, and that could contribute very

16 much to the problems at this moment. If we ask a witness whether he

17 considers that the power came from the air or from the ground, that's of

18 course asking for opinion rather than asking about facts. And I think

19 that what has been said about that yesterday in the testimony of the

20 witness and on these aspects is already considerable. So you are -- the

21 guidance of the Chamber is that you try to get back more to the facts,

22 that we should not be that anxious about not leading the witness at all,

23 but the Chamber has understood the position of the Defence also not to

24 object to whatever leading questions.

25 If you would keep that in the back of your mind, we could

1 continue.

2 Madam Usher, could you please escort the witness into the

3 courtroom.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for your patience, Mr. Radic.

5 Mr. Tieger, please proceed.

6 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour.

7 Q. Mr. Radic, let me move on to a slightly different topic.

8 When people on the ground disregarded or disobeyed orders, were

9 they replaced or disciplined?

10 A. I have to admit that I personally sometimes did not implement what

11 I was told to do. I was not punished in any way, but things happened to

12 me that would not have happened had I obeyed. There were removals, but I

13 cannot tell you whether they were connected with the fact that these

14 persons did not listen to what the deputies had said. There were

15 removals, but now when I'm thinking about the motives behind it for the

16 removals of some of the people in some -- working for some of the

17 municipalities quite close to the town of Banja Luka.

18 Q. Mr. Radic, when you were asked about this subject on July 28th,

19 2002, is it correct that you gave this response. Question on page 56,

20 line 23 of the July 2002 interview: "When people disobeyed instructions

21 from Pale within this region, were they generally removed?" Your answer:

22 "Well, at least they would go through what I went through in S '93" - I

23 presume that's September 93 - "they would be called in, they would go

24 through ironing, but some of them would be replaced straight on."

25 Question: "Ironing. You mean things would be straightened out with the

1 person I don't know I --" Answer: "I was -- you know very well what

2 ironing means" in inverted commas, "but it's not a tepid iron either; it's

3 a very hot one."

4 Mr. Radic, was that a correct answer and is it correct that when

5 people disobeyed instructions from Pale within the Krajina, they were

6 either replaced straight on or subjected to ironing, in inverted commas?

7 A. Some of them were replaced right away. Others were subjected to

8 disciplinary procedure, or rather, as you would put it informally,

9 ironing, in inverted commas, and then they would subsequently change their

10 views. I hope that you're not expecting me to repeat verbatim what I said

11 in July 2002, but I've given you the gist of it now and then. But some of

12 those people were replaced, but I'm not sure whether it had anything to do

13 with that. And of course, they were held responsible for what they did.

14 Q. Now, is it correct that when you made -- first of all, during the

15 course of your interviews with the Prosecutor, and obviously to some

16 extent during your testimony here in court, you've acknowledged some of

17 the bad things that happened in the Krajina. Did you also acknowledge in

18 your previous interviews that you could have done more to prevent some of

19 the bad things that happened but that you were under the control of your

20 compatriots, and that prevented you?

21 A. This was present on all the three sides. You could help others

22 only surreptitiously. This was never done in an overt manner, to help

23 anyone, to enable him to leave a given territory. So you had to keep in

24 mind what the populace thought of it, because there were many who arrived

25 from Bugojno, Bihac, Zenica, and other towns who had been expelled from

1 there. Of course I was very careful in assisting people, because I hardly

2 expected anyone to commend me for such acts.

3 Q. And is it correct that you had to work outside the existing

4 political structure to try to help non-Serbs and that if you worked inside

5 the structure, it would be dangerous for you?

6 A. It was not only the political structure that was important there;

7 it was also the general people, those who had been expelled could not

8 understand why the people who were responsible for the expelling are to be

9 assisted to leave the area. Therefore, it was not only a political view;

10 it was the view of the people who had arrived there. Because there was

11 some 15 to 20.000 people who had been expelled --

12 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction.

13 A. 10 to 15.000 people who had been expelled from Bihac and Bugojno,

14 and they were very sensitive to such issues, and of course I had to be

15 very careful in taking any such actions.

16 MR. TIEGER:

17 Q. So the problem was both the political structure itself and the --

18 what you call the general people; is that right? Is that what you're

19 trying to explain?

20 A. Yes. We keep returning to the political structure. The political

21 structures included the SDA, HDZ, and SDS. They all held identical views

22 vis-a-vis the people that they did not advocate for. And it is quite

23 certain that whatever I had done in that respect would not have been

24 looked upon favourably by the political structure.

25 Q. Just to understand your answer: That's part of an effort you made

1 during your interviews, and also in court, to point out that things that

2 were happening within the Serbian -- the Bosnian Serb political structures

3 were, in your view, were also happening within the Bosnian Muslim and

4 Bosnian Croat political structures; is that right?

5 A. I will tell you the following, sir: That many of the things that

6 we were attributed as being the main players or actors of, these were

7 things that were already done on the other sides, and I have to tell you

8 this belatedly: Whatever happened in Republika Srpska had also happened

9 previously in the other parts of Bosnia-Herzegovina. That's what I wanted

10 to tell you also earlier on when I responded to your answers. And I will

11 tell you that whatever the side we're talking about, the people who helped

12 those who were not looked upon favourably in the particular area, these

13 people exposed themselves to quite greater risk.

14 I have to tell you, of course, that even on the other sides, there

15 were people who were helping their neighbours, and even relatives, because

16 there were many mixed marriages. And one could not avoid not helping

17 persons coming from mixed marriages.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, I'm a bit confused about both questions

19 and answers, and perhaps you could seek clarification with the witness.

20 You asked him about whether he acknowledged in the previous

21 interviews that he could have done more to prevent some of the bad things.

22 First of all, the bad things have not been specified. But that he was

23 under the control of his compatriots, that kept him off from doing so.

24 In questions and answers, it's quite unclear whether we're talking

25 about helping specific individuals or helping groups, I would say masses

1 rather than individual cases. I would like to know, first of all, what we

2 understand by "bad things." Is that that one person was driven out of his

3 area or helping an individual? Is that to allow him to leave the

4 territory? It's all too vague for me at this moment. And I'm really

5 confused about individuals or groups. Could you please clarify that.

6 MR. TIEGER:

7 Q. Mr. Radic, the Court would like me to put some of those earlier

8 questions in context. I asked you about your response to -- or the

9 information you provided during the course of your interviews. During

10 those interviews, you spoke about dismissals of non-Serbs, expulsions of

11 non-Serbs, large-scale killings of non-Serbs. Were those the bad things

12 that you were talking about when you indicated to the interviewers that

13 there were more things that you might have done but for the fact that you

14 were under the control of or pressure from your compatriots?

15 A. Yes, precisely as you've said now. Perhaps I could have done

16 more, but that's what I think now, with hindsight. And now I wonder

17 whether I could have done more. The Honourable Judge asked what these bad

18 things were. Well, when you decide to move a person to another apartment,

19 or when a person is left without a job, especially without any apparent

20 reason. For instance, the differentiation case concerning the music

21 teacher. Under the pretext of him having access to some information. He

22 could only have had access to musical notes and not to any information of

23 relevance to Republika Srpska. Of course, quite the other case is that of

24 the postal workers or myself, as the president of the municipality.

25 The same is true for the people who wished to join their families,

1 and that's where I had to intervene, because I thought it very bad not to

2 do that. Later it was different, because you had the Red Cross Committee

3 that arrived there and helped families reunite.

4 Now, when you mentioned mass-scale murders, in the town where I

5 lived, there were no mass-scale murders, and this was proved. But, as

6 I've said, wherever I could, I tried to use my influence to prevent such

7 things from happening. Unfortunately, this was not within my competence.

8 That's what these bad things were. When I'm looking at it now, with

9 hindsight, it does seem to me that I could have done more. However, under

10 those wartime conditions, it was very dangerous when you have refugees

11 arriving from other parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina every day looking for

12 safety in Banja Luka. It was very difficult to help non-Serbs keep their

13 apartments from being taken by the Serbs who had been expelled from other

14 areas of Bosnia-Herzegovina. But this was a matter to be dealt with by

15 the police. I tried at least to advocate for people of great repute who

16 were university professors, of all ethnicities, and that's what I tried to

17 do. And this is how I tried to answer the question about the bad things

18 and about what I could have done or could not have done. Of course, had

19 we not had the war, had we not had these people arriving from other parts

20 of Bosnia-Herzegovina who were following closely what was going on,

21 perhaps I could have done more.

22 JUDGE ORIE: When you're talking about what you perhaps could have

23 done, are you talking about intervening in favour of groups of the

24 population or are you talking about intervening in favour of certain

25 individuals that addressed you? So when you're talking about apartments,

1 did you consider to intervene for all those who are not having apartments,

2 or were you considering to intervene for a specific person?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Nobody intervened, Your Honour, for

4 those who did not have any apartments. But for those who had them and who

5 were supposed to be evicted in order for those who were expelled from

6 other parts of Bosnia-Herzegovina to be put up there. Now, if you are

7 asking me about the specific groups, there was a group of Jews in Banja

8 Luka who were already ready to leave Banja Luka for Tel Aviv. They

9 applied to me. We met, and I took upon myself the responsibility of

10 ensuring their safety. And they were safe throughout the war, and they

11 are still in Banja Luka today.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Let me bring you back to the example. When I said

13 those without an apartment, I meant to refer to once they would be

14 evicted. But about these apartments: If you considered to intervene, or

15 when you are considering that you might have done more, is this because

16 you should have protected those who were at a point to be evicted, or are

17 you talking about individual cases?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, they were not thrown

19 out of their apartments into the streets. We had another euphemism that

20 was called the rationalisation of housing space.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Please answer my question. My question was whether

22 you're talking about -- I mean, the specific methods and where they were

23 housed afterwards is not the issue. My issue -- I'm asking you whether

24 you considered that you could have done more for the groups or just for

25 individual cases.

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I could not have done more for the

2 entire groups, simply because the position was that those who were

3 arriving to Banja Luka, who had been expelled from other areas, had to be

4 put up somewhere. Accommodation had to be found for them. And that is

5 why the occupants of certain apartments were moved to other apartments. I

6 tried to protect some of them and have them keep their apartments.

7 JUDGE ORIE: You did that in individual cases but not for the

8 group as a whole?

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It wasn't possible to do something

10 of the sort for the entire group. Excluding this example that I've given

11 of the group of Jews.

12 JUDGE ORIE: And why was it not possible?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I wouldn't be able to tell you why

14 not. But this was in fact not done by the authorities but by the

15 companies, because they were owners of these apartments, and they were

16 ordered that they had to carry out the rationalisation of housing space,

17 give the apartments to families of fallen soldiers, and so on.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Ordered by whom?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I wouldn't be able to tell you, but

20 there has to be somewhere this document about the rationalisation of

21 housing space. I know for a fact that this document did not originate

22 from the Municipal Assembly that I presided. It had to have come from the

23 authorities, and this document must be somewhere, because it was sent to

24 all the companies that owned apartments.

25 JUDGE ORIE: And when you said before that you were kept off from

1 doing anything against the bad things because your compatriots - and let

2 me just find the literal wording - yes, that you couldn't do anything

3 because you were under the control of your compatriots, that kept you off

4 from doing so. Is this an example where your compatriots kept you off

5 from interfering at that moment with -- well, eviction of apartments and

6 how it was all arranged?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Let me tell you. When someone

8 arrives from a war theatre, it was difficult to prevent the person from

9 doing anything. The police even could not prevent them from -- especially

10 when they are armed, you could not prevent them from evicting people, to

11 put some people who had arrived from Bugojno or elsewhere. Not even

12 myself, as president of the Municipal Assembly, could not stand in front

13 of these barrels and prevent them from doing so.

14 JUDGE ORIE: I noticed that we have now two potential sources for

15 eviction, one because the employers were ordered to evict people, and you

16 now come with an answer which indicates that those who wanted to occupy

17 those apartments would be armed, and therefore, no one could stop them,

18 which of course are two different reasons.

19 My question, however, was whether this whole, let's say, housing

20 problem, was that an example of where compatriots kept you off from

21 perhaps what you would have wished to do or which you would have thought

22 was good to do in order to avoid the bad things?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Let us start with employers.

24 Employers had the task of providing for those who were in the war and for

25 their families and who had no apartments. There was one such case where I

1 prevented the eviction. There was a person coming to my office with a

2 weapon. I said: Okay. I do agree for that particular person to keep

3 their apartment, but give me another apartment. And I had no other

4 apartment to provide them with. And there were also cases where employers

5 are asked for apartments, but you also had people arriving from the front

6 line who never even consulted the employers or the owners of the

7 apartments. They would simply go armed to some of the apartments and

8 asked the people who lived there to leave. And that was the case where a

9 president of the Municipal Assembly could do nothing about. We had the

10 ethnic Ukrainians there. They also asked for protection. There was quite

11 a large group of ethnic Ukrainians there.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Would you have wished to prevent people coming armed

13 to an apartment and kick those who are living there out by force of arms?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I had no such opportunity. They

15 were not under my command or competence. But I did caution and warn the

16 military authorities.

17 JUDGE ORIE: My question was whether you would have wished to

18 prevent this to happen. Your answer was that you had no power to do that.

19 My question was not whether you had any power. The question was whether

20 you would have wished to do that.

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course I wished to prevent that,

22 because it was clear to me then that these were never to be their

23 apartments.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Then you said you warned the military authorities.

25 What did they do?

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They could order them not to enter

2 these apartments, but these were workers in the very companies that owned

3 the apartment. So if the company itself had nothing against it, what

4 could the military do there? Because it was the company giving them the

5 apartment that they owned. The apartment that was at the time occupied by

6 someone who was not at the front, unlike the person that was given the

7 apartment. There were also Serbs who dodged these mobilisation call-ups

8 who had to then move to smaller apartments, and then the families of

9 soldiers would be given their apartments.

10 JUDGE ORIE: You say the military couldn't do anything about it.

11 Why did you warn them?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was warning about those who came

13 by apartments in a different fashion, not this way. For instance, armed

14 men entered one of the apartments, and that's where I asked for their

15 assistance, and these people were then thrown out, because they had not

16 entered the apartment pursuant to a company's orders or anybody else's

17 orders.

18 JUDGE ORIE: The answer to my question what the military

19 authorities did upon your warning is that they threw them out, those who

20 had taken these apartments by force; is that correct?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In those cases where these people

22 had not been given the apartments by companies or any other way, in such

23 cases, these people were thrown out by the military police.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So the police in the military could do

25 something under those circumstances.

1 Mr. Tieger, please proceed.

2 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, may I just -- it goes back quite a long

3 way, but I wanted, of course, to allow Your Honour's line of questioning

4 to be completed. But way back at page 15, line 22 --

5 JUDGE ORIE: I can't follow you, because I had a problem with my

6 laptop and I have to borrow. Yes. You said page 15 --

7 MR. STEWART: Yes, line 22, Your Honour. There was a -- there's a

8 passage which appears in the transcript as quite the other -- I hope I can

9 be heard through the microphone. "Quite the other case is that of the

10 postal workers or myself as the president of the municipality." Ms.

11 Cmeric tells me that where it says "the postal workers or myself," there

12 was actually something said rather more extensive in relation to the

13 interception of communications, that there was perhaps a whole phrase or a

14 whole point included in what the witness said there, which seems to have

15 got dropped from the interpretation.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Perhaps that's too much to deal with at this

17 very moment, but is it essential at this moment for the continuation?

18 MR. STEWART: Not really, Your Honour. Since we're pages on from

19 it, it's probably inconvenient as Your Honour indicates. I didn't want it

20 to slip by, because apparently it was quite a chunk that got dropped from

21 the interpretation.

22 JUDGE ORIE: The attention then is drawn that it should be checked

23 on the basis of --

24 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I think there's one other point. At

25 page 19, line 25, the -- all I know is that the phrase is "I said." It's:

1 "I said: Okay. I do agree for that particular person," and so on.

2 Ms. Cmeric tells me it's "he said," not "I said."

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Okay. That has to be checked. The attention

4 has been drawn to it and if there's any need to correct that --

5 MR. STEWART: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, please proceed.

7 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour.

8 Q. Mr. Radic, you used a local police official, Mr. Tutus, I believe

9 his name was, to assist you in efforts to minimise the evictions or

10 expulsions of non-Serbs; is that correct?

11 A. Correct.

12 Q. And when the authorities in Pale found out that Mr. Tutus was

13 helping you, he was replaced; is that right?

14 A. I don't know whether when you say the authorities in Pale," you

15 mean the Ministry of the Interior. If you do, then yes, he was replaced

16 with the knowledge of the Ministry of the Interior.

17 Q. Mr. Radic, in 1992 and -- well, in 1992, you knew that mosques

18 were being destroyed in municipalities across the Krajina; correct?

19 A. Correct.

20 Q. What was the purpose of destroying those mosques?

21 A. The same purpose as destroying the Orthodox churches in

22 Herceg-Bosna, for example, and Bosnia as well, for that matter, the same

23 purpose, exactly the same: To wipe out the traces of the existence of the

24 peoples whose churches they were.

25 Q. And to prevent them from returning; correct?

1 A. No. The destruction of mosques wouldn't have prevented them from

2 returning. That is the example of Kozarac, Janja, and all the other towns

3 where the mosques were destroyed, Zvornik. New mosques were built and

4 people returned, so that didn't prevent it.

5 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, it's too late to object to the question

6 because it's been given, but I would like to observe nevertheless that

7 that question to prevent them from returning, what Mr. Tieger did then

8 was, having not got the answer he was looking for he then by his next

9 question in a blatantly leading form gave the witness the answer that he'd

10 actually been looking for when he asked the previous question. It's too

11 late now because it's done and one can't object in a split second

12 sometimes, but I would ask through the Trial Chamber that this does not

13 happen.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, is there any basis for the suggestion you

15 put to the witness in the written statement.

16 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, that's precisely the point I was going

17 to make.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Then please proceed.

19 MR. TIEGER:

20 Q. Mr. Radic, during your interview in July 2001 you were asked that

21 same question I asked you. And if we turn to page 73, at line 7, the

22 question by Ms. Korner was: "Right. What I want to know is what was the

23 purpose as you understood it of destroying mosques?" And your answer was:

24 "Same as the destruction of Orthodox churches. To destroy the faith so

25 that people wouldn't go back." That was the -- and then there's something

1 unintelligible, "destroy the spiritual basis and they won't be coming

2 back. It's crazy."

3 A. Correct, yes. And just how crazy it was has been borne out by

4 practice today, that new mosques are built, the Muslims are coming back,

5 new Catholic churches are being built. The only thing is that in

6 Herceg-Bosna the Orthodox churches are not being rebuilt. Very few are

7 being rebuilt in Croatia, whereas a large number were destroyed. So

8 that's why I called it crazy. And it proved to be just that. And you

9 know yourself full well that I myself, immediately after the destruction

10 of two mosques, two old mosques in Banja Luka I convened a press

11 conference and you know what I said on the occasion. And it wasn't

12 greeted with applause, let me tell you. You can be quite sure of that.

13 Q. Now, you've made the point before that Banja Luka was the last

14 place in Republika Srpska where mosques were destroyed; is that right?

15 A. Right, yes.

16 Q. And until the time that the mosques in Banja Luka were finally

17 destroyed in 1993, you were always being told that this was your fault,

18 isn't that right, and asked how you could allow a mosque to stand in Banja

19 Luka when everywhere else there was not a single mosque left?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And the people who were objecting that you were permitting or that

22 Banja Luka still had mosques standing when all the others were down

23 included those in the highest authority; correct?

24 A. They were people in whose towns, in the places they lived in,

25 there were no more mosques left standing. And it was a thorn in their eye

1 that here the mosques did exist. Of course, there were those who were

2 attached to the higher echelons of government. I said attached to the

3 higher echelons.

4 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, given the way in which this witness's

5 evidence is being approached and the submissions made by the Prosecution,

6 I submit that it's not -- this is not a witness where points such as the

7 one I'm about to make should be left to cross-examination to clear up.

8 When Mr. Tieger says to the witness by way of a question: "And the people

9 who were objecting that you were permitting or that Banja Luka still had

10 mosques standing when all the others were down included those in the

11 highest authority; correct," it is only fair in the presentation of this

12 case and it is only fair in the presentation of the Prosecution case that

13 Mr. Tieger, so far as possible, is specific in relation to such matters.

14 So rather than leave it to me for cross-examination, at this point, we

15 submit that Mr. Tieger should be invited to make it clear in such

16 questions who he is suggesting, if he is able to make a suggestion, or if

17 not, to invite the witness to make clear who gave -- made any such

18 statements. Because otherwise we've got -- we know what the case is

19 about, and there's no reason for me to be secretive or to disguise this

20 even in the witness's presence. Some label like the higher echelons or

21 top leadership is brought into the question, and we know who is then going

22 to be embraced in that very general, broad phrase in the Prosecution's

23 case.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, if you're referring in your question to

25 the highest authority, then it certainly would assist the Chamber to

1 further explore what the basis of the knowledge of the witness is and

2 whether he could give any further specifics.

3 MR. TIEGER: Well, with respect, Your Honour, I would say that

4 objection was a bit premature in the course of this examination. I had

5 just asked the first question on that subject, and I was moving on.

6 However, I -- in this instance, I'm pleased to identify the source of

7 those questions immediately, and we can move on from there.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Of course, it's difficult for Mr. Stewart, and

9 for the Chamber as well, to know exactly what's going to happen next, but

10 this would cause us to be hesitant to interfere when it's not yet clear

11 that specification that the Defence or the Chamber would consider

12 important still could come. Please proceed, Mr. Tieger.

13 MR. TIEGER:

14 Q. Well, in light of that, Mr. Radic, let me turn your attention to

15 some exchanges during the course of the interview in July, 2001.

16 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, may I make it clear. It's not the

17 source. Mr. Tieger sought to answer my point there by saying that he was

18 going on to identify the source of the questions. That was not the

19 substance of my submission.

20 JUDGE ORIE: The substance was that -- well, let me paraphrase it.

21 If you say from whom did you get orders, from -- if the answer would be

22 from important people, that would not assist unless you know who are

23 important people. But I do agree with Mr. Stewart that when you're

24 referring to the source, it was not a matter of a source but of course the

25 source could lead us to the specification. So to that extent,

1 Mr. Stewart, you could have waited for a while to see whether it was just

2 source or sources which would give an entry to further specification.

3 Please proceed, Mr. Tieger.

4 MR. STEWART: I could have taken that risk, Your Honour, yes,

5 certainly.

6 JUDGE ORIE: You're guided.

7 MR. STEWART: Yes, thank you, Your Honour.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed, Mr. Tieger.

9 MR. TIEGER:

10 Q. Now, at page 73 of the July 2001 interview, you indicated that, as

11 we discussed earlier, that mosques were being destroyed, what the reason

12 for that was, and further, that you tried to prevent mosques from being

13 destroyed and that people asked you -- people complained to you about

14 that. And then at line 26, Ms. Korner asked you: "Okay. But who was

15 talking to you about blowing up mosques?" And your answer was: "You're

16 asking me who said it. Everybody, even those in the highest authority.

17 There was complaining. They said, they always said "Radic, Banja Luka is

18 fine. You're doing well. The only problem is you still have the mosques

19 there. And, but -- and the first thing that I took the last USSR

20 ambassador to see when he -- just before USSR fell apart, the first thing

21 I took, first thing I showed him was the Ferhat Pasa Mosque because it was

22 a building under UNICEF [sic] protection and it was one of the greatest

23 treasures we had in Banja Luka." Ms. Korner continued: I'm sorry, I

24 still want to ask you this you said people higher up were talking to you

25 about destruction of the mosques. Who do you mean by people higher up?"

1 And you said: "They didn't talk about the destruction as much as

2 objecting to me for having -- for still having mosques a year after they

3 were all destroyed. They all said it. And don't ask me for names. From

4 the highest authority all the way down to the lowest." And Ms. Korner

5 asked you: "All right does it include Mr. Karadzic, Mr. Krajisnik?"

6 Mr. Radic said: "They are wise enough not to say it out loud but they had

7 their emissaries who said it all the time and one of them was especially

8 persistent." And then you were asked who that was and you said: "Ask the

9 CSB and ask the judges. They know everything." And she continued to

10 press you: "Mr. Radic, I mean if you don't want to tell us, you don't

11 have to but we'd like to have who you say Karadzic and Krajisnik sent as

12 an emissary. Again you said again: "You're asking me to rat on people."

13 And she said: "I am. I am so, Mr. Radic, you were prepared to talk to us

14 because you wanted to assist us. It's clearly important who was sending

15 whom Mr. Karadzic and Mr. Krajisnik were sending to say that the mosques

16 should be destroyed." And you said: "I don't know if they sent them

17 here, but Velibor Ostojic was on my back all the time." And then you

18 explained, when asked: "He was like a political commissioner in the old

19 Russian sense of the word. He was from Foca. He was -- he held a high

20 position."

21 Those answers were correct, isn't that right, Mr. Radic?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. And you were being --

24 A. I'd just like to say that I can't be certain -- all right, if

25 that's what it says. Although I noticed, I did note that there were some

1 errors, some mistakes. But I'm not sure I said -- I actually said that

2 Mr. Karadzic and Mr. Krajisnik did that. But if it says so there, let it

3 stand. Because the person who came didn't come without the knowledge of

4 others, without anybody's knowledge.

5 Q. Now, you've indicated that the --

6 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please -- Mr. Tieger, could you please --

7 perhaps I'll do it my myself.

8 You said, but if it says so here, let it stand. Because the

9 person who came, I take it that's Mr. Ostojic, didn't come without the

10 knowledge of others, without anybody's knowledge.

11 Who did you have in mind when you said that he didn't come without

12 the knowledge of others?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it was a general

14 climate that prevailed, a general mood, and the result of that mood was

15 the destruction of every mosque until the day the Banja Luka -- up until

16 the Banja Luka mosque. So those who didn't react to the destruction of

17 other mosques had to agree to his instructions, the instructions he gave

18 in other towns and in Banja Luka as well. Now, who those were who gave

19 him what they gave him, I don't know. I can't say with any certainty.

20 JUDGE ORIE: If you said that he didn't come without the knowledge

21 of others, you certainly would not have had in mind a local cab driver

22 or -- I mean, what did you have in mind when you said that?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Somebody who had to have been higher

24 up in hierarchical terms than him. Because if I said what I said, then he

25 was only the political commissar, secretary, who conveyed the party

1 positions. But --

2 JUDGE ORIE: Do I understand you well that with others, you meant

3 others in a hierarchical higher position than he was, and he is then

4 Mr. Ostojic?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's right.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

7 Please proceed, Mr. Tieger.

8 MR. TIEGER:

9 Q. Mr. Radic, as indicated in previous questions, the purpose, the

10 intent of destroying the mosques was to -- in part, to discourage people

11 of that ethnicity from returning and the purpose of destroying the mosques

12 was to keep Muslims permanently out of Republika Srpska; correct?

13 A. I've already stated my opinions about views of this kind and

14 efforts of that kind. Unfortunately, in practice today, we see that

15 Sarajevo is a Muslim city, thanks to the enormous number of mosques that

16 have been built, which means that that concept and that philosophy is

17 still in place on the soil of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Ferhat Pasa's mosque is

18 a case in point, other mosques have been built, rebuilt, and people are

19 coming back. So it was crazy, as I said, just as it was crazy to think

20 that once you take over somebody else's apartment that it will be yours

21 for all times. And now we see that 95 per cent of the apartments have

22 been returned to their previous owners of non-ethnic Serbs in Banja Luka,

23 for example.

24 Q. Did Mr. Krajisnik and Mr. Karadzic ever complain to you that Banja

25 Luka had not been properly cleansed, that is, that there were still

1 Muslims and Croats in Banja Luka?

2 A. The two of them never did, never directly.

3 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, it didn't -- again, it didn't matter in

4 that particular case, because of the answer the witness gave and was in

5 fact likely to give. But I do suggest that questions of this sort, if

6 they are coming up again, shouldn't present Mr. Krajisnik and

7 Mr. Karadzic, as far as possible, as a package in this way. So that if a

8 similar question does arise, more care should be taken not to package them

9 together.

10 JUDGE ORIE: The answer is in the negative, so there's still a

11 possibility to do that.

12 Mr. Tieger, you are invited to do it.

13 MR. STEWART: I'm not asking for repetition of this question,

14 Your Honour. There's no problem --

15 JUDGE ORIE: It's not repetition. It's a different question.

16 MR. STEWART: I wanted to make that clear. I'm not inviting this

17 question to be redone in any different form. It's an indication of a flaw

18 in that question which I'm submitting should not appear in other

19 questions.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But of course...

21 Mr. Radic, the question was put to you whether Mr. Krajisnik and

22 Mr. Karadzic ever complained to you that Banja Luka had not been properly

23 cleansed. Your answer was that two of them never did, never directly.

24 Did they ever come one by one, just Mr. Karadzic, just Mr. Krajisnik, and

25 complain to you, by whatever means, in a meeting, in a telephone

1 conversation, by letter, by telefax, by -- to complain about Banja Luka

2 not being properly cleansed?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't remember. I would have to

4 remember a letter, a fax, a telephone conversation, or remarks of that

5 kind by either one of them, either individually or together. I would have

6 to have remembered that. But if there is a document in which it says so,

7 I'd like to see it.

8 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues]... meeting? Because

9 you did not mention a meeting?

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Neither at a meeting, no. There was

11 no mention of that, of the fact that Banja Luka would have to do the job

12 or to give me instructions to do that. And I must say that I would have

13 refused, quite certainly.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Tieger. I found some similarity in their

15 last question if I compare it with page 75 of an interview. You may

16 proceed.

17 MR. TIEGER:

18 Q. Mr. Radic, you say that you can't remember and would like to see a

19 document which says so. Let me direct your attention to page 75 of the

20 interview that was conducted in July of 2001. And beginning at line 21,

21 you were asked by Ms. Korner: "Was there a meeting at some stage in Banja

22 Luka between you and Karadzic and Krajisnik, when Karadzic was saying to

23 you that Banja Luka hadn't been properly ethnically cleansed? In other

24 words, they were blaming you that there were still Muslims and Croats in

25 Banja Luka." Your answer was: "That was not just once; that happened a

1 lot. But I can't recall exactly when they said all that, but that

2 objection was made against me."

3 And just a bit later in the interview, that point is raised again,

4 and Ms. Korner says: "I'm sorry, I asked --" this is at page 76,

5 beginning at line 4. "I'm sorry. I absolutely accept what you say that a

6 large number of Serb refugees came to Banja Luka but you've told us that

7 Mr. Krajisnik and Mr. Karadzic complained on a number of occasions that

8 you didn't cleanse Banja Luka of the Muslims and Croats. Therefore, it

9 follows, Mr. Radic, does it not, that that was what they wanted to

10 happen?" And then you go on to say: "As I say -- as I said, this would

11 not have happened if we were not under such pressure. I would not have

12 even allowed it to happen when it did if Banja Luka had not been under

13 such pressure with so many refugees who were -- who saw Banja Luka as

14 their haven, safe haven. Let me just tell you something if you're

15 interested..." and you go on to talk about a document between

16 Mr. Sommaruga and Mr. Koljevic entitled "The document on the voluntary

17 departure of non-Serb population from Banja Luka."

18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, you're invited to slow down.

19 MR. TIEGER: Sorry, Your Honour. Thank you.

20 Q. Mr. Radic, does that refresh your recollection about a meeting or

21 meetings between you, Mr. Karadzic, and Mr. Krajisnik during which they

22 complained that Banja Luka hadn't been properly ethnically cleansed?

23 A. This document means nothing to me, in view of the fact that it's

24 all in English. There's no Serbian translation. But what I can see here

25 is some passages that you read out, but this isn't a continuation of the

1 question referring to the mosques. It doesn't follow on from that. We

2 have now moved on to another area, if I -- and that's the question of

3 ethnic cleansing. Is that right, sir?

4 Q. That is -- I think that's clear, Mr. Radic, that we are talking

5 about a meeting during which Mr. Karadzic and Mr. Krajisnik complained to

6 you about ethnic cleansing and their complaint was that Banja Luka had not

7 been properly ethnically cleansed. That is the subject, and that is the

8 question.

9 A. So we're done with the mosques, are we? We've finished with that

10 question and we're now moving on to the question of ethnic cleansing as a

11 continuation of the mosques topic. Once again, I have the English in

12 front of me, so I can't really follow it that well. But what I said, I

13 said fairly -- we went through it fairly quickly. You read it out fairly

14 quickly. And at one point I saw the names Krajisnik, Karadzic and that

15 Karadzic told me and not Krajisnik. You can look back to the text.

16 That the proper ethnic cleansing hadn't been conducted. So it wasn't

17 Krajisnik in that instance.

18 There were objections all the time, criticisms all the time. You,

19 I'm sure, have the intercept of the conversation between Mr. Brdjanin and

20 the -- and President Karadzic, and he's complaining that I was dismissing

21 Muslim managers -- that I was not dismissing Muslim managers. So I had

22 objections of that kind and criticisms made of me of that kind on many

23 occasions and as I said it was difficult to protect those people because

24 there were quite of a lot that didn't agree with a policy of that kind,

25 that people shouldn't be allowed to remain in Banja Luka, for instance.

1 And the largest portion of the conversation with [indiscernible], which is

2 something is doesn't say here, is that the majority of Muslims and Croats

3 left after the ethnic cleansing of Krajina and the 450.000 people who

4 passed through Banja Luka.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, I'm looking at the clock and at the same

6 time I'm looking at some of the comments by Mr. Radic, who says I can't

7 follow it because I've got an English text in front of me. I take it that

8 the interview was recorded in the original language used and that was

9 B/C/S, I take it?

10 MR. TIEGER: No. The interviews were conducted in -- well, in

11 both. Conducted in English, translated into B/C/S during the course of

12 the interview.

13 JUDGE ORIE: So finally the tape could give confirmation of

14 whether the transcript is correct. But I have first one additional

15 question to you, Mr. Radic.

16 You have drawn our attention to the fact that you said: Where I

17 saw the names Karadzic and Krajisnik, that Karadzic was saying that Banja

18 Luka hadn't been properly ethnically cleansed, and not Mr. Krajisnik. Did

19 you want to draw our attention to the fact that that is what this text

20 says, or did you want to draw our attention to that was actually the case,

21 that is, that Mr. Karadzic said it and not Mr. Krajisnik?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's what it says in written form,

23 Your Honour, in the letter that -- or rather, interview which the

24 Prosecutor placed before me here in English. I can follow English that

25 much. It says Krajisnik and Karadzic said. That's what it said. So one

1 of them said this, and that one was Karadzic.

2 JUDGE ORIE: I do agree that Mr. Tieger did not reflect properly,

3 specifically on this part, and where you said, Mr. Tieger -- let me just

4 find it.

5 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, since it's apparent that we must be

6 approaching the break, because otherwise tapes run out, the transcripts of

7 this interview does exist in B/C/S. We've got it. Ms. Cmeric has got it.

8 JUDGE ORIE: I haven't got it. Perhaps the witness could read it

9 over.

10 MR. STEWART: One of the reasons we haven't got it, Your Honour,

11 probably you and I, is because it's of limited value to us. But to

12 Ms. Cmeric, it's far more valuable. The witness has already referred, and

13 quite fairly, we suggest, to difficulties about the fact that he's only

14 been presented with it in English.

15 JUDGE ORIE: We have an opportunity then to give a B/C/S text over

16 the break so that Mr. Radic can read it. And Mr. Tieger, where I said

17 that you did not reflect the interview properly, it was -- you said: "I

18 think it's clear, Mr. Radic, that we are talking about a meeting during

19 which Mr. Karadzic and Mr. Krajisnik complained to you about." Whereas

20 the interview says that there was a meeting with the two of them in which

21 Mr. Karadzic said --

22 MR. TIEGER: I fully accept that, Your Honour. Thank you.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Radic, there is a B/C/S version of this

24 interview. Would you be willing to read that over during the next break

25 so that we are not stuck with the problem that you have an English text in

1 front of you?

2 And then I take it -- who will provide the B/C/S text? I haven't

3 got it.

4 MR. TIEGER: We'll take that responsibility, Your Honour.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You'll take the responsibility. And could we

6 then invite the witness to ask specific pages, because 75 pages is a bit

7 much. I do not know where that appears in the B/C/S version. But could

8 you identify, well, let's say two or three pages where this matter arises.

9 MR. STEWART: Yes. We obviously want to cut it down.

10 Your Honour, we were only going to say if there is any difficulty at all,

11 we do have clean B/C/S copies so --

12 JUDGE ORIE: I take it your copies are clean as well, Mr. Stewart.

13 If not, please take the ones --

14 MR. STEWART: Well, just contact us any time. We'll be in Defence

15 counsel's room. So we can help on this straight away. Your Honour, while

16 I'm on my feet, could I just mention there was an interpretation point at

17 page 35, line 9. What appeared in English transcript: "So it wasn't

18 Krajisnik in that instance." And then there was or were -- objection was

19 the next sentence with that lead-in, so page 35, line 9. "So it wasn't

20 Krajisnik in that instance." Ms. Cmeric assures me that there was no

21 Serbian or B/C/S phrase from which that instance is derived, that in the

22 witness's evidence, it simply was: So it wasn't Krajisnik. Full stop.

23 And then the next sentence continued. In that instance, certainly has

24 a --

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, it.

1 MR. STEWART: -- implication in English.

2 JUDGE ORIE: It sounds logical, but of course we could check the

3 original B/C/S tape whether it's -- what the witness said.

4 MR. STEWART: Yes. And another point, Your Honour, if I --

5 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters note they might not have been in

6 that instance.

7 MR. STEWART: Thank you.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Any further points?

9 MR. STEWART: Yes. I'm afraid I've misnoted it. It was after

10 that, so it was quite recently. There was a phrase ethnic cleansing of

11 Krajina. So I've just lost the line reference. Ms. Cmeric will probably

12 find it very quickly. It's 35, 19, the previous one was 35, 19, 35,19.

13 And in fact it was ethnic cleansing of Knin Krajina and the Knin has got

14 dropped there.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do understand. I think it's not essential

16 for the answer. It was just an explanation the witness gave. So I take

17 it that there's no problem with this understanding of his words.

18 MR. TIEGER: No. I think it makes sense in context as well.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then, Mr. Radic, you're invited to read the

20 couple of pages that will be provided to you during the break and we'll

21 have a break of 25 minutes, until 11.00.

22 --- Recess taken at 10.36 a.m.

23 --- On resuming at 11.07 a.m.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Usher, could you please escort Mr. Radic into

25 the courtroom.

1 Mr. Radic, did you have an opportunity to read the part of your

2 2002 interview relevant to the questions put to you just prior to the

3 break?

4 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I think it was 2001, that particular

5 interview.

6 JUDGE ORIE: I think, as a matter of fact, that it was the 2000

7 and -- but if so -- yes. But then just to defend myself, Mr. Tieger, if

8 you look at the top of the page 75, you'll find the 16th of July, 2002, as

9 in all the other pages, where it should read in the header 2001. So that

10 was perhaps the reason for my mistake.

11 But did you have an opportunity to read it again, Mr. Radic, or

12 read it? I don't know whether it's the first time or ...

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, if I had seen it, I probably

14 forgot all about it. But now I have read through it carefully.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, you may proceed.

16 MR. TIEGER:

17 Q. And, Mr. Radic, does that refresh your recollection about a

18 meeting or meetings with Mr. Krajisnik and Mr. Karadzic during which

19 Mr. Karadzic complained that Banja Luka had not been properly ethnically

20 cleansed, that is, that there were still Muslims and Croats in Banja Luka?

21 A. The issue of ethnic cleansing was raised, was put by Ms. Korner,

22 but later on she re-termed it into "deportation." They also insisted on

23 the transportation having been carried out by cars, which wasn't true, and

24 I corrected it later on. But however, here, Ms. Korner puts a question:

25 Was it Karadzic who told you that Banja Luka had not been ethnically

1 cleansed? And then I said that it wasn't that Karadzic had told me, but

2 she put Karadzic into her question. And then I said that it wasn't on

3 numerous occasions, and I don't recall Krajisnik having said it. But I

4 have read through this carefully. You have suggested certain things to

5 me. You were aware that the creation of your state involves deportation,

6 and I said: "No, that is not true." One should also -- keep one in mind

7 under 24, again Karadzic and Krajisnik that you hadn't cleansed Banja Luka

8 sufficiently.

9 Your Honour, these questions were put to me because my

10 vice-president of the Municipal Assembly was a Muslim. The vice-president

11 of the Executive Committee was a Croat.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Radic, you are explaining a lot to us now, why

13 questions were put to you. The first simple question is: You were asked,

14 according to this transcript, whether there was a meeting at some stage in

15 Banja Luka between you and Karadzic and Krajisnik, when Mr. Karadzic said

16 something. Your answer was: "That was not just once. That happened a

17 lot. But I can't really exactly -- recall exactly when they said all

18 that, but that objection was made against me." That was your answer.

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger is now seeking confirmation of this

21 answer. So the first question is: Was there a meeting with Mr. Karadzic

22 and Mr. Krajisnik in Banja Luka?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, there were. I cannot recall

24 how many, but there was no mention of ethnic cleansing, but rather of --

25 about what was the number of Croats and Muslims who took part in the

1 government. But yes, there were meetings.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could you -- was it that Mr. Karadzic at that

3 moment addressed what you just mentioned?

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I cannot say for a fact

5 whether it was him who spoke, but there was no mention of ethnic

6 cleansing, but merely of the representation of different ethnicities in

7 the government. These later questions put by Ms. Korner show the

8 quintessence of the problem.

9 JUDGE ORIE: You said -- but it was a meeting with Mr. -- several

10 meetings with Mr. Krajisnik and Mr. Karadzic in Banja Luka; is that a

11 correct understanding of your answer?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There were no specific meetings

13 between me, Mr. Karadzic, and Mr. Krajisnik. It must have been some other

14 meeting, perhaps a session of the assembly or some other meeting where I

15 had occasion to speak to them. But as for having separate meetings,

16 including me, Mr. Karadzic, and Krajisnik on such an issue, there were no

17 such meetings. Otherwise, there were meetings, but how many and when, I

18 cannot recall. It was in 1992.

19 JUDGE ORIE: When you're talking about the Assembly, did you mean

20 the Banja Luka, the Municipal Assembly, or do you mean any other assembly?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it was customary for

22 the Assembly to be convened always in a different town, in order for the

23 deputies to be close to the people, in Banja Luka, Sanski Most, Bijeljina,

24 Zvornik, Pale. But mostly at Pale. And whenever they would come to Banja

25 Luka, that's when we would have occasion to see each other.

1 JUDGE ORIE: So when you said the Assembly, you meant the

2 Republika Assembly and not the local assembly?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. No. Not the local.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let me just find another ... Yes. You are

5 referring to a meeting where objections were made in respect of Muslims

6 and Croats still in the government. Could you tell us how many there

7 still were at the time of this meeting.

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At the time, in the parliament,

9 there was the group of SDA deputies, a group of the HDZ deputies. And as

10 for the executive government, I told you that my vice-president of the

11 Municipal Assembly was a Muslim. And the vice-president of the Executive

12 Committee was Antun Ruzic, a Croat. And the chief of the inspectorate was

13 Mr. Kustric, a Muslim. And at lower municipal levels there were still

14 Muslims and Croats holding their positions. This could not have been the

15 case at the time in Federation and in Herceg-Bosna. And that's what I was

16 criticised for, for not having done otherwise.

17 And if I may, if you allow, Your Honour, I would like to add the

18 following: The distribution of power was done according to the election

19 results. And Banja Luka had a major majority Serbian electorate and we

20 could form the government without them according to the laws valid at the

21 time. But we chose to divide the power with Muslims and Croats to a

22 certain extent.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Now, what you now tell us is that you're discussing

24 the number -- the number of those functioning in the government was the

25 issue, whereas a few lines later you say: "Whenever we would meet

1 somebody would object to the fact that there are too many of them. It was

2 too many for them, and for the Muslims and Croats, not enough." And then

3 the next question was: "So you were aware that the creation of Republika

4 Srpska did involve the deportation of Muslims and Croats?" And then you

5 said: "Not necessarily. If the same hadn't happened at the other side."

6 So the subject of the complaints made to you, where you first

7 answered the question on ethnic cleansing, then continues about too many

8 Muslims and Croats, and then develops into the direction of deportation.

9 Was deportation not in any way mentioned when you had this meeting with

10 Mr. -- one of these meetings with Mr. Karadzic and Krajisnik?

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There was deportation, used only

12 once in Prijedor, and that was when a train was used, when I mentioned

13 Ms. Korner in connection with this, a train could be used because the

14 railway was operative at the time. Later on it stopped functioning.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Let me stop you. Please listen carefully to the

16 question. The question was whether deportation was ever the subject of

17 conversation in one of these meetings. Now you're explaining to us where

18 the deportation took place, yes or no. But the question was whether it

19 was the subject ever in such meetings.

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Tieger.

22 MR. TIEGER:

23 Q. Mr. Radic, you seem to be making a fine distinction between

24 deportations and expulsions. So deportations, as I understand it, refer

25 to a kind of specifically organised train convoy that you observed from

1 Prijedor on that occasion, as opposed to non-Serbs who were forced to

2 leave the municipality under other -- to leave municipalities under other

3 circumstances. In your view, is the question of deportation limited only

4 to specific organised train convoys?

5 A. I repeat again that trains could not be used for deportation or

6 cleansing, because the trains were not operative. It was only in the very

7 beginning of the war that they were operative. Now, whether they used

8 trains, whether they used buses, they could have used planes. They also

9 used planes for it, for people to leave. If you want me to specify what I

10 mean by deportation, I'm referring to what had been done with the

11 knowledge of Mr. Cornelio Sommaruga. The entire region was deported and

12 the non-Serbs were moved out from the entire region, with the knowledge of

13 Mr. Sommaruga and Rusa [phoen] Santo who was at the time chief of the

14 International Committee of the Red Cross for Bosnia and Herzegovina.

15 Now, that's deportation. And ethnic cleansing has nothing to do

16 with the means of transportation, whether it's the train, it's the bus, or

17 an aeroplane. What I want to say is: When you have large numbers of

18 people leaving an area with the knowledge of Red Cross, that's what you

19 call deportation, leaving aside ethnic cleansing. Here it says that the

20 document was called "Voluntary moving out of the known Serbian population

21 from Banja Luka," although basically it embraced the entire region.

22 Q. And that was the subject of this exchange between you and

23 Ms. Korner, that is, the departure of non-Serbs from Banja Luka; correct?

24 A. She did not really take in what I was saying. She was only

25 interested in the wartime and in the period up to 1995, when there was the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 greatest exodus of the non-Serb population, carried out with the knowledge

2 of Mr. Cornelio Sommaruga.

3 Q. I understand, Mr. Radic, that you were explaining your view of

4 some of the actors that affected the continued presence or departure of

5 non-Serbs from Banja Luka, but the fact is that this discussion between

6 you and Ms. Korner was about that subject, that is, the presence or

7 departure of non-Serbs from Banja Luka; isn't that right?

8 A. That's right. That's what the discussion was about. I explained

9 to her why this came about, and the explanation -- that is, the text here

10 says what the lady asked me and what my answer was. If you have 45.000

11 people arriving on the 15th of December, 1991 in Banja Luka, then you

12 can't expect people of the -- non-Serbs to be left in peace, if you have

13 had so many people who were expelled from Slavonia, 45.000 people, from

14 Western Slavonia.

15 Q. And because of your efforts or your position on the subject, or at

16 least the way others perceived your position on the subject, you were

17 criticised that there were too many Muslims and Croats in Banja Luka;

18 correct?

19 A. Yes, they did.

20 Q. And in July of 2001, you told Ms. Korner that that criticism

21 occurred during a meeting or meetings between you, Mr. Karadzic, and

22 Mr. Krajisnik, when Mr. Karadzic said to you that Banja Luka hadn't been

23 properly ethnically cleansed, that is, they were blaming you that there

24 were still Muslims and Croats in Banja Luka; isn't that right?

25 A. The term of "ethnic cleansing" was used by Ms. Korner. At no

1 point in time did I call it ethnic cleansing. Yes, I was criticised for

2 it, because a large number of Serb refugees were in Banja Luka who had to

3 be provided for. On the other hand, the Muslims and the Croats were also

4 in Banja Luka, although they were in no better position than the Serb

5 population, because they were jobless and all of these people had to be

6 fed, had to be provided with medical care, children had to be taught at

7 schools, and so on.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps I could ask one additional question, seek

9 some clarification.

10 If Ms. Korner would have asked you -- because I do understand that

11 you are not satisfied with the words she used, ethnic cleansing. If she

12 would have asked you whether during this meeting or such meetings you were

13 blamed for a too-high remaining number of non-Serbs in Banja Luka and

14 that, therefore, the expulsion had not been at a level they would have

15 required, would you then have had less hesitations to say: Yes, that is

16 what they blamed me for?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They criticised me for the fact

18 that, in addition to all the refugees coming in, there were such large

19 numbers there, because they had to provide food and medicines, and

20 everything else.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but once they are there, I mean, what did they

22 then expect you to do with that? To leave them -- that they would leave

23 the area, that they would leave the territory, so that there was no need

24 to feed them any more? Is that what they suggested, or what the one who

25 spoke suggested?

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They probably had meant that the

2 same should be done as did the other side that had expelled the Serbs and

3 solved their problems that way, that is to say, the Croats and the

4 Muslims.

5 JUDGE ORIE: So then you are blamed for not having expelled

6 non-Serbs, as Serbs were expelled from other territories, with, as a

7 result, that there were too many non-Serbs remaining in Banja Luka who had

8 to be fed and -- is that a correct understanding of -- and had to be given

9 medical care? Is that a correct understanding of your testimony?

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You've understood it well.

11 JUDGE ORIE: And that's what was said in meetings you had with

12 Mr. Karadzic and Mr. Krajisnik?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Along those lines. Those were the

14 suggestions made mostly. Nobody ever mentioned the methods of ethnic

15 cleansing at all, which was suggested as having been conducted here, the

16 suggestion made was that there was ethnic cleansing. Of course, I never

17 would have accepted anything like that, any ethnic cleansing at all.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed, Mr. Tieger.

19 MR. TIEGER:

20 Q. Mr. Radic, there was an occasion, was there not, on which you

21 called Dr. Karadzic because a Jewish Slovenian family had been killed?

22 A. Is that a question?

23 Q. Yes, sir.

24 A. That was the first killing, especially the killing of the Jewish

25 family, because if the wife is a Slovene, then you're a -- a Jew, then

1 you're a Jew. The husband might have been a Slovene. And there was one

2 working in the Municipal Assembly. As soon as I heard about that, the

3 only person that I could call up, because I didn't have any reason to tell

4 this -- to tell the police this, I phoned up the president, Mr. Karadzic,

5 and told him to do anything he could, and everything he could, to issue

6 orders that the killers be arrested. And within the space of three days,

7 Inspector Bojic.

8 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness repeat what he just said.

9 A. The people were killed. Was a typical killing for benefit.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Radic --

11 A. -- opportunistic killing.

12 JUDGE ORIE: I'm not quite sure whether we have the interpretation

13 in full. Could you please resume your answer on from where you said:

14 "And within the space of three days, Inspector Bojic" and then what you --

15 what you then say?

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Arrested that group. He rounded

17 them up and they were imprisoned. So the killers were known and the

18 motive for the killing was known. It was for gain, for -- opportunistic,

19 looting.

20 MR. TIEGER:

21 Q. And you indicated that the family was of mixed Jewish/Slovenian

22 background. That was at least part of the -- of what prompted your call

23 to Dr. Karadzic, isn't that right, because, as you've noted before, Serbs

24 were very concerned when it comes to the suffering of the Jewish people

25 because they always suffered as Serbs did; is that right?

1 A. Correct.

2 Q. And there was an order from Dr. Karadzic, and within three days,

3 everybody was arrested; correct?

4 A. That's also correct, yes.

5 Q. And so when orders came from above, it was possible to investigate

6 and arrests perpetrators of violent crimes in the Banja Luka area;

7 correct?

8 A. Yes, that's right. Although the ministry which was to have done

9 that and was to have acted before President Karadzic, they should have

10 done that. And if I might be allowed, Mr. Prosecutor, to say that I

11 wouldn't have intervened with Mr. Karadzic, with President Karadzic, had

12 the president of the Jewish community in Belgrade had let me know about

13 the case that had taken place and asked for urgent intervention.

14 Otherwise he said that he would transport all the Jews from Banja Luka to

15 a hotel in Tel Aviv. And that's why I intervened with the president - to

16 Tel Aviv, I'm sorry - to transport them to Tel Aviv, and that's why I

17 intervened and said that this could lead to greater repercussions and

18 unfortunate connotations with the international community and that is why

19 the whole affair was dealt with very speedily.

20 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Mr. Radic. I have no additional

21 questions, Your Honour.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Tieger.

23 Mr. Stewart, are you ready to cross-examine the witness?

24 MR. STEWART: Get physically ready with a --

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, yes. That's just to your right. It's not

1 shared arms any more, but it's equality of arms, as far as the lectern is

2 concerned.

3 MR. STEWART: Thank you, Your Honour.

4 Cross-examined by Mr. Stewart:

5 Q. Mr. Radic, my name is Nicholas Stewart and I'm lead counsel for

6 Mr. Krajisnik. You might have guessed some of that anyway already.

7 Mr. Radic, you were a member of the SDS Main Board for a

8 considerable period, and you --

9 A. Yes, I was.

10 Q. And you told the Court that you attended meetings of that Main

11 Board?

12 A. Not on a regular basis, but yes, I did attend. Let me repeat:

13 Not regularly, but I did attend them, and you can find that in the minutes

14 and the records. You'll find exactly how many times I was absent for

15 valid reasons. But yes, I did attend meetings.

16 Q. Well, from your own recollection, Mr. Radic, how many meetings of

17 the Main Board did you say you attended all together?

18 A. Well, it would be difficult, Mr. Stewart, for me to give you an

19 answer to that question. I don't have my own notes as to my attendance.

20 But I do believe that the SDS archives have records and minutes and would

21 be able to show you when I attended and perhaps even what I said on those

22 occasions. But I myself can't remember the number now.

23 Q. How significant was your membership at the Main Board in your own

24 overall political life in 1990, 1991, 1992?

25 A. It's like this: The Prosecutor said that I was chosen as a

1 non-party person, the SDS put me on his list -- on its list as a non-party

2 person. And I thought that if I was on the SDS ticket, I should become a

3 member of the SDS as well. And after that, I was elected as member of the

4 Main Board. And it's a good idea that I was present and heard some of the

5 things that were said at the Main Board myself. And finally, I was able

6 to convey some of my attitudes and positions directly to the Main Board.

7 That was a good thing. However, that did not mean that I used the party

8 or would use the party to implement some of my own stands and positions.

9 I had to adhere to the statute of the Municipal Assembly, the rules of

10 procedure and the statute of Republika Srpska itself, because I was

11 president of a legal body and not a political body, a legislative body and

12 not a political body. So in that respect, it was a very good idea that I

13 was at the source of all information. And I must also add that for about

14 a year the SDS was put on ice, if you happen to lack that piece of

15 information. The work of the SDS was put on ice. It was frozen.

16 Q. And for what period do you say it was put on ice?

17 A. I think Mr. Krajisnik would be better placed to give you an answer

18 to that, because I myself really wasn't at the Jahorina plenary session

19 when the work of the SDS was resumed. But you'll be able to find the

20 date, the exact date when the work of the SDS was put on ice, what the

21 period of time was, when it started, and when it ended. I myself can't

22 remember at this point. I think it was about a year, that the SDS did not

23 function for about a year, and that is unprecedented that the party should

24 put its own work on ice in wartime and not to act as a party on the ground

25 or in the army either.

1 Q. Now, it's right, is it, when you think about it, that the period

2 during which the work of the SDS was put on ice, as you've described it,

3 included the whole of 1992?

4 A. I think it was 1993, actually, but if you talk to your client, I'm

5 sure you'll be given the exact date. Because I can't really remember the

6 exact date when it was put on ice and when at the Jahorina plenary session

7 their work was resumed. But it was about a year. And I think that was

8 1992, 1993, thereabouts, in the midst of the war. And that's what no

9 party in Bosnia-Herzegovina could allow itself to do, because, quite

10 simply, the ideological leadership, either in the army or the people, the

11 political leadership, was just not there.

12 Q. Well, Mr. Radic, I'm sure you'll be delighted to know that

13 Mr. Krajisnik and I do in fact talk to each other, but you are the one

14 that's giving evidence. So try, as far as you can, please, to tell the

15 Trial Chamber as much as you can recall and not worry about what

16 Mr. Krajisnik and I might have to say to each other.

17 So following my last answer, you have in fact been able to be a

18 bit more specific in your recollection of the period during which the work

19 of the SDS was put on ice. So could you try to be a bit more specific,

20 then, in your recollection on this question, which is: When do you say

21 was the last SDS Main Board meeting that you attended before the work of

22 the SDS went on ice, in the way that you've described?

23 A. I can't remember. Not even approximately. All I know is that a

24 piece of paper arrived to the Main Board, where it stated that the SDS

25 work was put on ice, and that this led to astonishment on our part.

1 Whether there was end of 1992, beginning of 1993, I really can't say.

2 Thereabouts.

3 Q. In fact, it was -- it could have been, and I'm putting to you it

4 was, rather earlier, that it was actually around May, May 1992, that the

5 SDS work was put on ice.

6 A. Thank you for that piece of information. I really couldn't

7 remember myself.

8 Q. What I'm asking you, Mr. Radic, is that you know nothing to say

9 that that's wrong; is that correct? You're not -- you wouldn't contradict

10 that, whether you accept it or not?

11 A. If you say so, and if you say you have a document saying that it

12 was May 1992, then I'm willing to accept that. I can't say anything else.

13 And that's it. Because I don't have the document, nor did I have a chance

14 to discuss it with the Defence or the Prosecution before I came here. In

15 the Brdjanin case, I did have contact with the Prosecution, but I'm coming

16 here now and I don't know what I'm going to talk about, what you're going

17 to ask me at all.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, is there any disagreement about the

19 non-activity of the SDS starting in May 1992?

20 MR. TIEGER: No. I mean, I hesitate to be particularly precise,

21 but in general terms, no, there's not.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Then of course I wonder why we are spending a whole

23 page of transcript ... Please proceed, Mr. Stewart.

24 MR. STEWART: Well, to answer Your Honour's wonderment, I don't

25 know whether the Prosecution agrees something in advance and I'm also

1 trying to get it clear, Your Honour, which is a legitimate --

2 cross-examination what this witness knows and what this witness

3 remembers --

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed, Mr. Stewart.

5 MR. STEWART: -- in an important area.

6 Q. Mr. Radic, can you remember where you attended any Main Board

7 meetings of the SDS?

8 A. Mostly at Pale.

9 Q. Not in Sarajevo?

10 A. It was just the founders meeting, when the Main Board was

11 selected, that took place in Sarajevo, because there were still Serbs in

12 Sarajevo at the time, in the Djure Djakovica street, unless I'm mistaken.

13 That's where that first founding meeting of the Main Board was held, and

14 we could still walk around freely around Sarajevo at that time.

15 Afterwards, when the parliament separated, then the headquarters moved to

16 Pale, of course.

17 Q. So I'm going to press you, Mr. Radic, and invite you to think as

18 hard as you possibly can about these events. Can you give some indication

19 of the number of Main Board meetings that you attended before the

20 parliament split, as you've described it?

21 A. All I can remember is that I was called to Sarajevo to attend that

22 particular meeting, when the Main Board was being chosen and elected and

23 when I myself was elected to the Main Board. But I can't remember whether

24 I attended meetings of the Main Board any more in that building that was

25 assigned to us. That was already in 1991. I really can't remember that,

1 whether there were other meetings held in Sarajevo.

2 Q. Let's get it straight. Is this right: That you don't have any

3 positive recollection yourself of attending more than one meeting of the

4 SDS Main Board in Sarajevo?

5 A. Not in Sarajevo, no. I can't remember. I can't remember

6 attending more than one meeting. Now, if you were to jog my memory, I

7 would be grateful to you. I was at another one in the Holiday Inn, but it

8 wasn't the Main Board; it was a broader meeting, sometime in February,

9 just before the war broke out. And I told the Prosecutor yesterday that I

10 was ill, I had a bad cold, and that I left the meeting after the interval,

11 the meeting held at the Holiday Inn. I think that was the last time that

12 I ever went -- or that we ever met in Sarajevo.

13 Q. And that was in February 1992; correct?

14 A. Yes, that's right. Just before the war, prior to the war. That

15 was the last time that I was able to pass the turbe, because the Muslim

16 guards were already there after that.

17 Q. And the move to Pale by the Bosnian Serbs, and I'm talking

18 about -- I'm going to use the broad phrase "leadership" here or "the

19 government of Republika Srpska." The move from Sarajevo to Pale, you

20 know, do you, Mr. Radic, was in April 1992?

21 A. The beginning of the war. I couldn't go down -- they couldn't go

22 on being down below, so they had to go to the Serb area, to Pale. Because

23 at Vraca, as I say, the first shot was fired in April at Vraca, after the

24 rejection and withdrawal of Mr. Izetbegovic's signature from the Lisbon

25 document.

1 Q. So the answer is yes, you do know, Mr. Radic, that the Republika

2 Srpska --

3 A. Yes, I do.

4 Q. -- [Previous translation continues]... moved in April 1992 from

5 Sarajevo to Pale? Yes, you do know that; correct?

6 A. Well, it couldn't have remained down there. It would have to have

7 moved upwards, because the war began in April.

8 Q. I think I didn't hear the answer to your previous question, so I

9 see that you've confirmed that?

10 JUDGE ORIE: May I instruct you: Mr. Radic, we have limited time.

11 Very often you explain far more than what is asked. If Mr. Stewart would

12 like to know further details, he'll certainly ask you about it. So

13 therefore, could you please very much focus on the question put to you and

14 only at the end of the questioning if you say there is an important or

15 relevant part which was not asked of me which I would like to add, you can

16 address me, but limit yourself to answers of the question.

17 Please proceed, Mr. Stewart.

18 MR. STEWART:

19 Q. Mr. Radic, we're getting agreement. There's no problem about

20 that. We're getting agreement about those events.

21 So what you've described a few minutes ago about the need to be at

22 Pale and the difficulties about being in Sarajevo, as far as Main Board

23 meetings, any other meetings are concerned, that applies to the period

24 after April 1992; that was the point at which it was no longer feasible to

25 have meetings in Sarajevo, wasn't it?

1 A. Yes, that's right. Correct.

2 Q. And then, as you have described it, there was the ice age, or

3 there was the on-ice period for the SDS. So meetings that you attended in

4 Pale after April 1992, those were some considerable time after April 1992,

5 were they?

6 A. That's right.

7 Q. So, for example, for the whole of the summer of 1992 - and I'd

8 better define "summer" - from May 1992 through to September 1992, being

9 optimistic about summer, you didn't go to Pale; is that correct?

10 A. I can't say that I never went, but most probably I didn't, because

11 if you say that it was already on ice, then this is July 1992. Because I

12 haven't got the dates before me. I'm not quite sure about the dates.

13 Q. There was in addition a real practical difficulty about getting

14 from Banja Luka to Pale, wasn't there, through the period May, June, and

15 into July 1992?

16 A. It was dangerous. And I had to go through the corridor, through

17 Brcko, on one occasion, and Prijedor [as interpreted] was just six or

18 seven kilometres in width. I had to move along the Sava River and

19 somebody could have shot at me from the Croatian side, so it was dangerous

20 to go that way and I had to go right around. I couldn't take a short cut

21 to Pale. So that is why I was absent on many occasions, because it was a

22 very dangerous route and a very long one and exhausting one.

23 Q. Yes. I think on the transcript, Your Honour, Prijedor -- sorry.

24 Corridor has come across at Prijedor at page 58, line 6. That's a

25 simple --

1 JUDGE ORIE: It makes sense and is logical.

2 MR. STEWART: Yes.

3 Q. You said that on one occasion you had to go through the corridor,

4 through Brcko. When was that occasion?

5 A. Until the corridor was expanded at Brcko and until the line -- the

6 front line was stabilised. After the breakthrough of the corridor.

7 Q. I'm asking you when it was, as specifically as you can --

8 A. A breakthrough of the corridor took place on the 26th of June,

9 1992, and that's when the corridor expanded, became broader. On Vidovdan,

10 the 26th, St. Vitus Day, the 26th of June, 1992.

11 Q. So it was shortly before that, was it, this particular occasion

12 when you went through the corridor.

13 A. Well, there were routes bypassing this, but it was a very

14 dangerous route to take. Suljevica, Sokak, and so on. We had to pass

15 through all these passages and goodness knows what to reach Zvornik and

16 further upwards up the hill to Pale.

17 Q. Mr. Radic, I realise these are complicated events at that time,

18 but my question was rather more specific. I was asking you whether it was

19 shortly before the breakthrough on the 26th of June that you, on that one

20 occasion that you have mentioned, went through the corridor, moving along

21 the Sava River, and so on.

22 A. Well, I've just said that there was the route that we took even

23 before the corridor was broken through. There was a path through the

24 forest, a bypass, Trebava and that route so that's the route we took and

25 did reach Pale that way.

1 Q. All right. I'm going to give up on that particular question,

2 Mr. Radic. But what was the purpose of that visit to Pale?

3 A. What purpose? Well, I was invited to come. Now, what the purpose

4 was, I really can't say. I don't know. But I was up there. It wasn't

5 that I wasn't there. It was the Main Board. Whether it was another kind

6 of meeting up there. As I say, it was very rarely, because at the very

7 dangerous to get up there. Now, what the purpose -- you want me to

8 remember what the purpose was. I really can't. I can't remember.

9 Q. You can't remember, Mr. Radic, then that's your answer. That is

10 your answer. You having made this dangerous trip --

11 A. Correct.

12 Q. -- To Pale, you nevertheless, and that's your answer, you simply

13 can't remember why you went; isn't that correct?

14 A. I can't remember, no. Just as I can't remember most of the Main

15 Board meetings, what the agenda was, what the subjects discussed was, what

16 I said, what somebody said to me, and I really do not see that that --

17 well, my memory doesn't serve me that well after so many years, 12 years,

18 in fact. And I haven't taken any notes with me, any papers with me.

19 Q. So more generally, then, talking about meetings of the Main Board,

20 leaving aside exactly when, where, how many, and so on, but meetings of

21 the Main Board, you said -- you said previously in your evidence: "Those

22 were meetings at which SDS policy was formulated." And that was your

23 evidence.

24 Could you give an illustration of a formulation of SDS policy that

25 took place at a Main Board meeting at which you were present?

1 A. One such document was here on the desk, and now that I had the

2 chance of reading it, I concluded that I would not have really discarded

3 anything that we decided upon there. We were, first of all, establishing

4 a system, because we had the municipalities that were taken on from the

5 former system. We didn't have a government. We received all those orders

6 that I was shown by Mr. Tieger here. And if I look at them now, I would

7 not really distance myself from any of them, because we were talking about

8 commodity reserves, stocks. Because the war had already started. We had

9 to feed the people, give them medications, take care of the old and the

10 young. And all of that you can read in these minutes that we had here,

11 minutes from the Main Board meeting that was sent to all the municipal

12 boards, that were then ordered to implement these decisions. And I would

13 still stand by this document and sign it today, with a peace of mind.

14 MR. STEWART: I wonder if the witness could have -- it's P65. It's

15 in binder 6, tab 66. It's a mystery. It's what has come to be known over

16 many years as variants A and B.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I would be grateful to you if you

18 gave me my copy that I returned to you, where I scribbled some of my

19 notes. I made a lot of annotations there, highlighted some parts. But if

20 that can't be done ... But I have read it.

21 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I don't have the slightest objection if

22 it helps to the witness having that particular copy back. Obviously, he

23 didn't hand it back to me, as it happens, but I have no objection whatever

24 to that. I'm in the Trial Chamber's hands.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The question just is where that annotated

1 document is. I haven't got any copy of your annotations.

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Because I received a copy and read

3 it in my room there. I underlined certain things, made -- put my comments

4 there, and it would facilitate and make things faster. But anyway, I can

5 use this copy as well.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If you could please do that, because we can't

7 retrieve that. We usually do not save any personal copies as annotations.

8 So if you have left it somewhere, it might not be available any more.

9 MR. STEWART: I didn't want to deny your request, Mr. Radic, but

10 it probably won't matter. I don't think it's going to hamper you or

11 anybody else.

12 Q. First of all, I just wanted to clarify: When you talked about a

13 document a few minutes ago in your answer, that this is the document that

14 you were referring to.

15 A. Yes. I've read this and I am familiar with it as a document. And

16 now that I've read it once more, I've said that I would sign it again, I

17 would put a seal on it, and I would stand by it. Because there's nothing

18 in it that would point to anything harmful for other ethnicities. Quite

19 the contrary; in several places, it says that care should be taken of

20 these people, and this is the 19th of December, 1991, before the start of

21 the war. This was a period when the Yugoslav People's Army had not been

22 disbanded yet. But it concerns Bosnia and Herzegovina, and whatever it

23 says about the mobilisation there, it talks about the mobilisation for the

24 Yugoslav People's Army. So that if you have any specific questions

25 arising from this document, I would like to listen to them very readily.

1 Q. Let's do that, Mr. Radic, shall we, and then if I do have -- I

2 will have some specific questions, and then we can -- then you can deal

3 with those.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, just on the question whether this was

5 the document he was referring to, the witness took the opportunity to --

6 well, to take 15 lines. Could you please keep the witness to the

7 questions you are putting to him.

8 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, with respect, I'm sure we can all

9 do that. Your Honour is in a very strong position to do that as well as

10 me. I will absolutely do my best, Your Honour. I will assist, Your

11 Honour.

12 JUDGE ORIE: I would not have minded if you had interrupted the

13 witness.

14 MR. STEWART: That's helpful, Your Honour, then, because I'm

15 always -- well, I don't like to be too aggressive with the witnesses.

16 JUDGE ORIE: No. I do understand. But this was a clear example

17 of where you certainly could have done it. Please proceed.

18 MR. STEWART: I will aggress more, Your Honour, then, in that

19 respect. Thank you for the invitation.

20 Q. Mr. Radic, you talked about this document as a Main Board

21 document, but it's already clear, isn't it: You did not yourself see this

22 document at a Main Board meeting, did you?

23 A. No, I didn't.

24 Q. And generally, is this the position: That you now, after a space

25 of really many years, you have very little recollection, quite naturally,

1 of what was said, what was done at particular meetings, unless on

2 occasions your memory is jogged by looking at a document?

3 A. I really urge you to do that, to refresh my memory, by asking me a

4 question, and I'll answer you. As for this particular document, I can

5 tell you a lot about it, because it does contain very many things.

6 Q. Mr. Radic, we will do it perhaps in exactly the way His Honour

7 suggests -- is that everything that you are going to tell the Trial

8 Chamber about this document, if we could do it by my asking questions, and

9 of course the Trial Chamber asking any questions it wishes to do, and you

10 answering those questions. That would be a good way to proceed.

11 The -- but the general point being that unless I do or somebody

12 does put in front of you a document which you invite us to do -- to jog

13 your memory, your actual recollection of, for example, discussions at Main

14 Board meetings is, for practical purposes, zero, isn't it?

15 A. Without refreshing my memory, 10, 12 years later, it is difficult

16 for me to talk about it without exposing myself to the risk of saying

17 something that is not true or is not wrong [as interpreted], and that's

18 really something I would like to avoid.

19 Q. And this particular document, we call it Variant A and B, as a

20 convenient shorthand, this particular document you get yourself in your

21 evidence earlier, you get the link with the Main Board just from the fact

22 that it says, top left-hand side on the cover page "Serbian Democratic

23 Party of Bosnia-Herzegovina Main Board." That's right. That's the only

24 basis of your link between this document and the Main Board, isn't it?

25 A. Correct. There is another title and another cover, but that's --

1 I have nothing to do with that.

2 Q. But returning to the Main Board, then. The description that

3 you've given so far rather suggests that the Main Board was concerned at

4 meetings you attended with, if you like, establishing a structure, some

5 mechanics, because it was all a new organisation. Is that the way you

6 remember it or is that wrong?

7 A. That is not wrong. That is something you can read in this

8 document. That's the main part of the document.

9 Q. You said earlier in your evidence that -- and this is page 27 of

10 yesterday's transcript. You don't have that, Mr. Radic, so don't -- I'm

11 just helping others in court with the cross-reference. So don't worry

12 about that.

13 You said that you couldn't really say for a fact that this

14 document, the one I'm calling Variant A and B, had reached all the

15 municipalities, but you said "probably it did." And then the following

16 page it was, page 28, you were asked about a meeting on or about December

17 the 19th, 1991, and you said: "I don't recall being at this meeting at

18 all, but having read this document here, I can see that this document was

19 distributed to the municipal boards of the SDS, and that's when this

20 so-called partisan document was then produced."

21 So again, is this right: That you have actually no memory of such

22 a document being distributed to the municipal board, no firsthand

23 knowledge of it being distributed to municipal boards, plural, but that's

24 the conclusion you draw from looking at the document?

25 A. When I look at this document and when I try to recall what had

1 been done, and this is something that this document talks about, then I

2 remember that the municipal board received this document, that it

3 implemented it, and that we established the Assembly, the executive

4 bodies, and many of the things stated here were actually carried out.

5 This was a political document, an enactment for the creation of Republika

6 Srpska, of its executive and legislative organs. I don't think that there

7 are some parts of it that will be contrary to the protection of pregnant

8 women or elderly, the manning of units according to the JNA quotas.

9 Therefore, everything was functioning in accordance to the laws of the

10 SFRY, including the army and everything else, and that's how it was

11 proceeded. If there is any element here that you believe is --

12 Q. Mr. Radic, I'll just stop you for a moment and return to this

13 question. You said in your evidence earlier here: "Please believe me

14 when I say that I don't recall receiving it." That's this document. So

15 it appears clear that you yourself have no recollection of receiving this

16 document back in 1991, 1992. That's right so far, isn't it?

17 A. It says here "to all the municipal boards of the SDS," and the SDS

18 municipal board is a political organisation that received the document and

19 was tasked with implementing it in its territory. It did not go to the

20 Municipal Assembly but to the municipal boards. And it says "strictly

21 confidential," number, and so on and so forth. So why should I recall

22 this since I wasn't the president of the SDS municipal board at that point

23 in time?

24 Q. Just to make it clear for us, Mr. Radic, where precisely on the

25 document that you're looking at it says -- you're getting that from within

1 the text of the document, aren't you, that it went to all the municipal

2 boards?

3 A. Since I don't have the text that I underlined, the other copy --

4 this was not sent -- well, it says "the SDS municipal board will

5 immediately proceed to establishing the item 2, maintain the

6 round-the-clock duty of all the SDS boards." And then you have Variant A,

7 then the II. It says here that this was sent to them and that they were

8 tasked with implementing this. Nowhere here does it read that we are to

9 have anything to do with it.

10 Q. Just wanted to get it clear. The -- your inference from the

11 document that it was sent to the SDS municipal boards is gleaned from the

12 content of the document, because there are things to be done in connection

13 with the composition of boards and their activities, you infer that it

14 went to all those boards. That's the position, isn't it?

15 A. That's right. Because at the time, the municipal assemblies were

16 not even established, sir. It says clearly here that the SDS candidates

17 should be selected for the Municipal Assembly, its organs, and that

18 government should be put in place, and so on, wherever it had not been

19 already done. And that was a task for the municipal boards.

20 Q. The question I asked you a couple of minutes ago, Mr. Radic, was

21 to invite your confirmation that you have no actual recollection yourself,

22 no actual memory in your head --

23 A. No.

24 Q. That's correct?

25 A. Correct.

1 JUDGE ORIE: Memory of what, Mr. Stewart?

2 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, obviously he doesn't have no

3 memory of anything at all in the world or his -- your life, Mr. Radic, so

4 I should complete the question.

5 Q. You anticipated it. I was asking you: No recollection or memory

6 of having received this document. That I understood was the question you

7 were anticipating.

8 A. Correct.

9 JUDGE ORIE: A lot of the questions were about whether the

10 Municipal Board received it and that's many --

11 MR. STEWART: Well, I'm going to add that as well, then,

12 Your Honour, since the -- in the light of the witness's anticipation, put

13 it as two separate questions.

14 Q. And you also have no actual recollection yourself of anybody

15 receiving this document?

16 A. Is this a question?

17 Q. Yes. I'm inviting you to confirm that you have no actual

18 recollection of anybody, Municipal Board, anybody, receiving this

19 document.

20 A. That's not what I said. I said that the SDS Municipal Board

21 certainly did receive it, and I believe that the secretary of the

22 Municipal Assembly also received all the documentation related to the

23 establishment of government in Banja Luka. And I said that this document

24 must be somewhere in the archives of the Municipal Assembly of the town of

25 Banja Luka.

1 Q. Mr. Radic, what I'm trying to get clear, because it's just a

2 fairly -- it's a fairly basic point here that I'm trying to get clear.

3 You have told the Trial Chamber, you've just told the Trial Chamber then,

4 and you have told the Trial Chamber a few times, that you -- this document

5 must have got to Municipal Assemblies, that it's your view that it did,

6 that it's your inference or whatever. I'm asking you something much more

7 specific. I'm asking you whether you can confirm that you yourself don't

8 have any actual memory of this document being received by municipal board

9 or anybody.

10 A. I can only assert one thing, that the secretary of the Municipal

11 Assembly, who was a lawyer, who was supposed to work on this and prepare

12 it for the Assembly of the municipality, that he had to have received it.

13 I did not have to receive it. It was the secretary and the Executive

14 Board who were preparing material for the Assembly session who had to have

15 received it. I was not suppose to receive it. But I wish to add once

16 more that I do fully agree with everything that is stated contained in

17 this document.

18 Q. And then you said in your evidence that -- you said: "I know that

19 there was a discussion on this document." And then you gave your reason.

20 But again, were you present at any discussion of this document in 1991 or

21 1992?

22 A. I do not recall, sir.

23 Q. Did anybody report to you any discussion that they had had of this

24 document?

25 A. Judging by what had been done, not only were discussions carried

1 out, but many of the points stated therein were actually implemented.

2 Q. That's a different point, Mr. Radic. We'll come to that in a

3 moment. My question was more specific. It was whether anybody ever

4 reported to you any discussion they had had of this document.

5 A. To be frank, I do not remember whether anyone reported this to me.

6 Q. Were you yourself involved in the implementation of any of the

7 matters which are directed, apparently, by this document?

8 A. Shall I take it in an order, these matters as they are stated

9 here, or would you like me to respond to any specific matters?

10 Q. I'd like us to start, Mr. Radic, by you answering my question,

11 which is really just a yes or no, I invite you to accept, a yes or no as

12 to whether you were yourself involved in the implementation of any of

13 these matters, before we then go on to look at them separately.

14 A. Yes, I was. And now you ask me, and then I'll tell you which

15 points -- which matters were dealt by me and which by the SDS Executive

16 Board. For instance, the first point here was dealt with by the Municipal

17 Board.

18 THE INTERPRETER: The witness is reading quickly. The interpreter

19 couldn't catch.

20 MR. STEWART:

21 Q. Mr. Radic, I'm going to follow the course His Honour invited me to

22 do which is to interrupt you, frankly, if you do not simply answer and

23 stick to the questions which I'm asking, because I will have quite a lot

24 of questions. So, if you answer all the questions I don't ask as well,

25 we'll be here a very, very long time?

1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Radic, you've now answered the question, saying

2 that you were involved, and perhaps now Mr. Stewart will not let you

3 explain who exactly was involved in what. But perhaps he's specifically

4 interested in your own involvement in certain points. He might ask you

5 questions about that. So the first response -- answer is quite clear.

6 Listen to the next question.

7 MR. STEWART:

8 Q. I've only got one question in this area maybe. We shall see where

9 we go, Mr. Radic, but it is this: So it seems to follow - and confirm

10 whether you accept that it does follow - that any involvement that you

11 personally had in discussion, arrangement, implementation of any of the

12 matters set out in this document were done with no reference whatever to

13 this document; that's correct, isn't it?

14 A. Well, if this is an instruction, how can I proceed without

15 referring to this document? If a document states that we are supposed to

16 do something, then whenever we do act upon it, we refer back to it.

17 Because this seems to be a very general question.

18 Q. Mr. Radic, I'll perhaps be very plain about what is underneath my

19 question and why I am suggesting to you that that is the position. You

20 have really made it clear to the Trial Chamber on a number of occasions in

21 your evidence that you did -- you do not recall ever seeing this document

22 in 1991 and 1992. And then you tell the Trial Chamber that you were --

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. -- involved in implementation of a number, and we needn't worry at

25 the moment how many, but a number of items in this document. What I am

1 suggesting to you, from a practical point of view, Mr. Radic, is it is

2 just inconceivable that you and your colleagues were sitting around

3 discussing the implementation of a number of matters in this document,

4 with you having no recollection whatever of this document at all. It just

5 makes no sense, does it, Mr. Radic?

6 A. I have received many documents. And if I said that I did not

7 remember this document, then it means I just do not remember it. I

8 received a great many documents. But some of the matters mentioned herein

9 were indeed implemented. Now, pursuant to what were they implemented,

10 then?

11 Q. Well, isn't this the position, without going through them too

12 painfully, Mr. Radic: That there are a number of items in this document

13 that would have made perfect sense to do in the situation if this document

14 never existed? That's right, isn't it?

15 A. That's right.

16 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, that -- if that were not an unsuitable

17 point for a break.

18 JUDGE ORIE: We are close to 12.30.

19 MR. STEWART: That would suit, with respect.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Radic, we'll have a break for 20 minutes.

21 We'll resume at 10 minutes to 1.00.

22 --- Recess taken at 12.28 p.m.

23 --- On resuming at 12.53 p.m.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Usher, could you please escort Mr. Radic into

25 the courtroom.

1 Mr. Radic, I'm aware that you asked again during the break whether

2 the document where you made some annotations, that's the 19th of December,

3 1991 document, could be retrieved, but unfortunately it could not. So we

4 have to do without.

5 Please proceed, Mr. Stewart.

6 MR. STEWART: Thank you, Your Honour.

7 Q. Mr. Radic, just looking at the copy of the document, then, that

8 you have got, the same one we were looking at before, the instructions for

9 the organisation and activity and so on, Variants A and B. Would you turn

10 to the very last page, please. Do you see it says in typed letters, does

11 it say "SDS Crisis Staff"? You're nodding.

12 A. Yes, I can see that, yes.

13 Q. Yes. Except in that sense, otherwise it's not signed, is it?

14 Well, that's clear, isn't it? It's got no signature of any sort on it.

15 A. Mr. Stewart, may I be allowed to say something that I have been

16 wanting to say for quite some time now?

17 Q. Mr. Radic, as far as I'm concerned, you may answer my question

18 freely. Beyond that, I'm in the Trial Chamber's hands.

19 A. Your Honour --

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Radic. You may say something you have

21 already for a long time on your mind.

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] A document of this document, we must

23 bear in mind, which ends with the words Crisis Staff, SDS Crisis Staff,

24 without a big stamp of the SDS, a round SDS stamp, and without the

25 signature of the president of the Crisis Staff, if any body existed at the

1 level of Republika Srpska in that capacity, that I am very wary towards

2 any document of that kind, lacking those two things.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do understand that --

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not a single document that we

5 received from the Main Board or from an organ of authority in Republika

6 Srpska failed to have a stamp, a signature, and a date.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, asking for the obvious triggers these

8 kinds of things, that it's without a tamp and without a signature, even if

9 the witness would say it is a stamp and a signature on it, the Chamber

10 might not accept this. It's obvious that there is no signature, there's

11 no stamp. Is there any need to ask that to the witness?

12 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, my next question --

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, yes, I do understand. I only say that asking

14 for the obvious sometimes triggers these comments which -- please proceed.

15 MR. STEWART:

16 Q. Can you cast any light, Mr. Radic, on what might be meant in this

17 document by "SDS Crisis Staff" on the last page?

18 A. You mean this last paragraph?

19 Q. Yes.

20 A. -- that a secret procedure, et cetera, et cetera?

21 Q. Yes. Forget about for the moment, unless it helps you to answer

22 the question. I'm not concerned about the text above, apart from it being

23 just the context of the whole thing. But specifically, the typed "SDS

24 Crisis Staff," as if it were some kind of signature. I'm just putting it

25 in those broad terms. Where it says SDS Crisis Staff, can you, from your

1 knowledge, can you cast any light on what sort of -- what "SDS Crisis

2 Staff" might be being referred to there?

3 A. I do not know that an SDS Crisis Staff existed at the level of

4 Republika Srpska. Had it existed, and knowing our weaknesses, the person

5 who would be president of the Crisis Staff would certainly have signed

6 such a document.

7 Q. The -- when you were interviewed in July 2001, you were -- page

8 80, this is, page 80. I don't think, Mr. Radic, you, for the moment, you

9 needn't trouble about the actual document, but it's page 80, for the

10 reference. You were asked by Ms. Korner: "Do you remember any kinds of

11 instructions being received from or given by you because you were a member

12 of the Main Board about the takeover of power in municipalities?" And I

13 should say it's very clear here that Ms. Korner is asking you about this

14 Variant A and B document. That comes very clearly from the previous page

15 and the passage that's what it was all about. And your answer was:

16 "There was nothing I could receive or issue, since the power was never

17 taken over in Banja Luka. This probably referred to municipalities where,

18 with a relative or absolute majority of non-Serbian population, it did not

19 refer to Banja Luka." And then Ms. Korner put it to you: "It referred to

20 both, didn't it? It referred to municipalities where there was a Serb

21 majority and those where there was a Muslim majority?" And you answered:

22 "What could they need? Why would they need it for those with a Serbian

23 majority when by simple voting we had a majority in the Assembly? No

24 measures were to be applied there because --" and then Ms. Korner says:

25 "I'm asking you, when you saw this document, did you appreciate --" and so

1 on. In fact I should say Ms. Korner seems to have been -- made an

2 erroneous assumption there that you'd seen the document.

3 But the -- is this right, Mr. Radic: That when you were being

4 asked in the course of that interview and to -- it was specifically Ms.

5 Korner at that point, about this document, that you didn't actually read

6 through it before you answered those questions? Is that right?

7 A. I've already said that. I said that in my previous answers, and I

8 told Mrs. Korner loud and clear that we did not have any need to undertake

9 any measures except those which were determined by the statute of the

10 municipality, where it says, for instance, that if there was a majority

11 number of deputies, they could set up government. So we had no need to

12 snatch authority from anybody because we had the majority, the majority of

13 Serb deputies, SDS ones, or those from the leftist parties, the communist,

14 liberals, and so on and so forth, who supported the Serb majority. So we

15 had no need to usurp anything or snatch anything from anybody. And we

16 even gave the Muslims and Croats a certain number of seats in the

17 executive organs. And as I've already said, the vice-premier was a

18 Muslim, although according to the statute of the day, we were not

19 duty-bound to give him that post.

20 So we had no need to.

21 Q. Mr. Radic, you can put that document on one side now, if that's

22 convenient. We're not -- I'm not asking any more questions for the moment

23 about that document.

24 Then you were asked, and this is page 43 of yesterday's

25 transcript, you were asked, with respect to the ARK Crisis Staff, you were

1 asked: "Did that Crisis Staff receive instructions from above,

2 instructions from Pale?" And your answer was: "It's difficult for me to

3 answer that question. Most probably there had to have been some

4 instructions, because it's difficult to imagine that Brdjanin himself

5 would have made any decisions on his own."

6 Do you say that Mr. Brdjanin never made any decisions on his own?

7 I beg your pardon. You go on in that answer to say: "Although there were

8 such decisions taken by him personally alone." And then you say: "There

9 were also some decisions that were signed but not signed in his own hand."

10 So can you indicate any decisions that you recall Mr. Brdjanin

11 taking on his own?

12 A. Well, for example, we mentioned a moment ago a case in point, when

13 the professor, music professor from the school was dismissed. And then

14 the case of the rector of the university. I drew his attention to the

15 fact that the university rector could only be replaced by the university,

16 which was autonomous. Unfortunately, he didn't listen to me. He didn't

17 heed me. And we have the example of the former academician Samardzic from

18 Belgrade that he would lose the possibility of having his diploma ratified

19 before this had been solved. So this was one of the cases and instances

20 in which Mr. Brdjanin did as he felt fit. I don't think anybody could

21 have instructed him to replace or dismiss a rector, for example.

22 Q. And then, same passage in your evidence yesterday, page 43. You

23 had some evidence that you'd given in the Brdjanin case quoted to you, and

24 you had an answer quoted to you: "Surely they must have obeyed the

25 instructions that were coming from the republican government. That's for

1 sure." And it was the regional authorities you were saying must have

2 obeyed the instructions that were coming from the republican government.

3 Then you said: "They had to receive instructions from someone about what

4 they were supposed to do, and that someone was the republican authorities

5 in Pale; correct?" Answer: "Someone from a higher level, naturally." And

6 then just a tiny bit further on you say again: "I have to say that some

7 things were done without the knowledge of the people from the top."

8 Mr. Radic, when you talk about the republican authorities in Pale,

9 you're talking in -- you're meaning, are you, to talk in very general

10 terms about all the government offices and organs of Republika Srpska?

11 A. They were the executive organs, law-making organs that we had to

12 respect and listen to. That's quite clear.

13 Q. So that, for example, in relation to policing matters, you would

14 most likely expect the instructions to come from the minister, minister of

15 the interior, or whatever the precise phraseology would be, that was

16 responsible for policing?

17 A. Absolutely correct. That's what the case was before the war,

18 during the war, and it's still like that now, that there is this

19 subordination, the Ministry of the Interior down to the regional MUPs and

20 the centres of security services within the centres of public security in

21 towns, et cetera, so that not a single civilian organ of power and

22 authority could wield any influence on them. Local civilian organs, like

23 the president of the Municipal Assembly or someone like that. And not

24 even the mayors of today; they couldn't do that either.

25 Q. Do you have any knowledge yourself of any instruction coming

1 either to the region or to your local municipality from Mr. Krajisnik?

2 A. Only the one signed as an act enacted in the National Assembly.

3 Otherwise, any other acts signed by Mr. Krajisnik, as president of the

4 Municipal Assembly, I didn't have occasion to receive. I didn't receive

5 anything else except, for example, greeting cards or a letter he might

6 have sent. But he didn't write anything else, apart from the decisions

7 made in the Assembly. If there's a document of that kind written by

8 Mr. Krajisnik, then I'd like to ask you to show it to me. So I don't want

9 it said or translated that I saw a document of that kind.

10 Q. Are you aware of any such document?

11 A. I state now: If a document of that kind is in existence, I'd like

12 to see it, but I can't remember of any such document being in existence by

13 which Mr. Krajisnik made it incumbent on the president of the

14 municipality, Municipal Assembly of Banja Luka, to do anything. As to

15 others, I don't know, but I personally didn't see a document of that kind

16 ever.

17 Q. Or in which Mr. Krajisnik made it incumbent on anybody to do

18 anything; that's correct, isn't it? You have no awareness of any document

19 coming from Mr. Krajisnik making it incumbent on anybody to do anything,

20 apart from that Assembly document you mentioned?

21 A. They were decisions taken at the Assembly of a legislative order,

22 and by virtue of that, they were signed by Mr. Krajisnik. And let me say

23 straight away that it didn't come directly to me but to my secretary, the

24 secretary of the Municipal Assembly, who then transformed it into the

25 corresponding decisions of our Assembly if it had to do with us. So my

1 secretary knows that, to matters of that kind far better than I do. I

2 wasn't always kept abreast.

3 Q. Have you ever had a meeting between you and Mr. Krajisnik, just

4 the two of you?

5 A. Just once, in the post-electoral campaign, in the year 2000, I

6 think it was, when we discussed a possible coalition between my deputies

7 and the SDS deputies. And I think on the occasion, Mr. Krajisnik -- no.

8 No. That was in 1996, after the war. Otherwise, with Mr. Krajisnik, I

9 did not have any separate meetings. Quite simply, according to the nature

10 of his business, the work he did and the work I did, I didn't have any

11 need to, because Banja Luka was full of deputies conveying what was

12 happening over there.

13 Q. Did you ever have any -- let's give it a time frame now. In 1990,

14 1991, and 1992, so let's say from multi-party elections up to the start of

15 the war, let's say. Did you ever have any sit-down meeting with

16 Mr. Krajisnik, and any other people, at which you were -- understand what

17 I'm talking about by a sit-down meeting. I'm excluding any casual

18 meetings or meetings where you run into each other in a corridor or chat

19 in the course of an assembly session, something which is a meeting at

20 which you are there to talk about something. Did you ever have any such

21 meeting with Mr. Krajisnik and other people?

22 A. Mr. Stewart, I saw Mr. Krajisnik for the first time at a rostrum

23 when I was standing at the rostrum of the National Assembly of

24 Bosnia-Herzegovina. And we were all invited, all presidents of Municipal

25 Assemblies were invited to attend the National Assembly. Unfortunately, I

1 didn't have a meeting with him then or talk to him, and I doubt that

2 Mr. Krajisnik even knew who I was at the time. He was the president of

3 the National Assembly of Bosnia-Herzegovina until the split. I was

4 president of the Municipal Assembly of the town of Banja Luka. So that

5 was it. We never met alone during that period of time that you mentioned.

6 I never had a meeting with him during that time.

7 Q. Well, you've said a little bit earlier you had no meeting with him

8 alone just the two of you, because I asked you specifically. But it

9 seems, from the answer you've just given, that the slightly wider meeting

10 at which there was you, Mr. Krajisnik, and other -- any other people, what

11 you've just said applies to that. You never had any specific meeting of

12 that type, including Mr. Krajisnik; that's correct?

13 A. I can even state quite certainly that even if we had a broader

14 meeting with other people, it never had anything to do with any business,

15 decisions, or anything like that. It was just -- happened to be a

16 courteous exchange after some meeting. And I state once again that I

17 never had a meeting with Mr. Krajisnik, any contact with him, nor did he

18 with me, because, quite simply, the jobs were did were different so we

19 didn't have any need to meet, except at meetings of the Main Board, of

20 course, but then I did not have a meeting with him. I was there with all

21 the members of the Main Board.

22 Q. You were asked in your evidence earlier in this case, and that was

23 page 50 of yesterday's transcript, there had been discussions about the

24 music teacher and so on and then you were asked about orders in relation

25 to what was euphemistically called differentiation of personnel that might

1 have come from Pale. And you were asked: "These balancing orders or

2 differentiation of personnel orders, these dismissals, came from Pale; is

3 that right, came from the very top?" And you said: "I don't know if this

4 term of differentiation of personnel was used or not, but although I

5 know -- I don't know where it originates from, that is, but I know that it

6 was indeed applied at the municipal level under such a name."

7 And then you were asked: "And with that clarification, is it

8 correct that the orders for that to be applied at the municipal level came

9 from the very top, came from Pale?" Then you said: "They did not. They

10 did not come from the very top but from the level immediately superior to

11 us, to the municipality. There were maybe one or two instructions that

12 arrived directly from the top, but not more than that."

13 Given that there's a maybe in your answer anyway there, Mr. Radic,

14 but when you say there were maybe one or two instructions that arrived

15 directly from the top, do you have any recollection at all of what any

16 such instructions might have involved?

17 A. All I can do is to assume what it said, what was written. I

18 cannot assume, nor can I say with any certainty, who sent it. However,

19 that went through a transformation, and it happened not only to music

20 teachers, but, as I said yesterday, to people of Serb ethnicity who

21 weren't members of the SDS and who didn't want -- who they didn't want to

22 dismiss. So I said that with the intervention of President Karadzic, this

23 was stopped and the question was never raised again. Now, what do you

24 mean that somebody had -- which means that somebody probably created or

25 came by a decision of that kind at the level of the Crisis Staff on his

1 own. So I didn't see a document of that kind, but I assume that it would

2 have said that the Serbs too, that it applied to Serbs too, who weren't

3 members of the SDS, that they should be replaced from managerial posts.

4 Q. And so far as you were asked in your evidence yesterday, page 55,

5 Mr. Tieger said: "First of all, I indicated I would direct your attention

6 to portions of the interview." And that's the July 2001 interview, in

7 which you indicated two different reasons why you knew and concluded that

8 the balancing instructions, and we explored that this morning. That's

9 again the euphemistic label of balancing instructions in relation to

10 dismissals of non-Serbs. Indicated two different reasons why you knew and

11 concluded that the balancing instructions came from Pale. And then let me

12 focus on the first one. Did you indicate on -- in July 2001 one of the

13 reasons why you knew they had come from Pale was that the instructions

14 were implemented all over Republika Srpska? Correct. And did you

15 indicate that an additional reason why you knew that was because there was

16 a document which was brought to the Crisis Staff in order to be

17 implemented, a document from Pale referring to the balancing? I don't

18 know because I didn't see the document. Quite possibly, I said that a

19 document existed; however, I never saw such a document about this

20 balancing business.

21 I just want to be clear, Mr. Radic. Is this the position: You

22 simply do not know whether there was or wasn't such a document? That's

23 correct, isn't it?

24 A. That's correct.

25 Q. You gave some evidence about -- well, the position is this: We

1 explored this a bit. Banja Luka was very cut off from the beginning --

2 early in the war, April 1992, through to -- and you've given the date, at

3 the end of June, I think you said, the 26th of June. But whether it was

4 late June, early July, over that period, Banja Luka was very cut off

5 from -- well, certainly from Pale, wasn't it?

6 A. It was very dangerous, but we did find a route to reach Pale,

7 although it was very risky. But it is true that in the Brcko area, it was

8 cut off. There was the army there, hostile to the Republika Srpska army.

9 Q. Mr. Radic, to the point where for a considerable period, there was

10 not even telephone communication between Banja Luka and Pale; that's

11 correct, isn't it?

12 A. Correct.

13 Q. And for how long was telephone communication cut off?

14 A. Until the liberation, so to say, of the corridor, until the

15 passage was opened.

16 Q. Starting when? So what was the -- overall. Precise number of

17 days doesn't matter, Mr. Radic, but how long do you recall telephone

18 communication being cut off between Banja Luka and Pale?

19 A. I recall that it was on the 26th of June in 1992 that the

20 telephone lines were connected, reconnected. Now, when they were cut off

21 with Serbia and Pale, it's very difficult to say. Different methods were

22 used to restore the communication lines, not to have it discontinued.

23 There were military lines that were used for those purposes, in order for

24 us to receive and send information, that is, between us and Pale, as far

25 as I can remember.

1 Q. When you referred in evidence yesterday, and this is page 62, to a

2 deputy, an Assembly deputy in Prijedor having had a radio set to report

3 regularly to Pale what was happening in Prijedor, are you talking about

4 that period immediately before 26th of June, when telephone communications

5 were cut off?

6 A. Quite possibly. I don't recall when it was that he had it, but I

7 recall his colleagues from Prijedor and around telling me that he had the

8 radio set and that he was keeping in touch. But I don't know when it was.

9 But the deputy involved was one of the most senior deputies in the

10 Assembly of Republika Srpska.

11 Q. Well, you'd agree with this rather obvious proposition, wouldn't

12 you, Mr. Radic, that if there were telephone communications between

13 Prijedor and Pale, a radio set would hardly have been a matter of any

14 great significance or extra value, would it? That's obvious, isn't it?

15 A. Many things are obvious. The important matter is whether he had

16 the radio set in that particular period of time. If he did, that's quite

17 understandable. Because I, for my part, had to go to the army to ask them

18 to help me establish communication lines with Pale, which they did, in

19 order for me to know what was going on and what I was supposed to do.

20 Therefore, there were no communication lines and it was very dangerous to

21 use wires, because they could easily be cut off. But I noticed that

22 telephone conversations were intercepted even in the period of time when

23 these lines weren't functioning as well as they should have.

24 Q. So when you said you had to go to the army to ask them to help you

25 establish communication lines with Pale in order for you to know what was

1 going on and what you were supposed to do, when was that?

2 A. It was also in the period subsequent to this one, when certain

3 lines had to be maintained that were not supposed to be deciphered. They

4 had to be secure. And in this way, we made sure that we could communicate

5 with --

6 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter didn't catch the last word the

7 witness said.

8 MR. STEWART:

9 Q. Mr. Radic, I'm going to have to just invite you to, if you can, to

10 just repeat your last sentence. It wasn't picked up by the interpreter.

11 You said: "They had to be secure. In this way we made sure we could

12 communicate --" something or other.

13 A. With the top, with the leadership. Right. This was also the

14 practice later on when the lines were resumed, when the corridor was made

15 passable, that we would use these special lines for information that was

16 of confidential nature.

17 Q. So when is the first time that you went to the army to ask them to

18 help you establish communication lines with Pale?

19 A. I cannot tell you the date, but I can tell you that up until the

20 26th, this was the only way I could maintain communication. But it is

21 very difficult for me to say when it was for the first time that I used

22 this method to keep up communication.

23 Q. It was after the beginning of April 1992, was it?

24 A. As soon as the corridor was cut off. As soon as the Army of

25 Bosnia-Herzegovina cut off the route there, that was when the lines went

1 down as well.

2 Q. And was that request that you made -- well, where did you go?

3 What army establishment did you go to to make that request?

4 A. To the only army that was in existence, and that was regular, and

5 that was the Yugoslav People's Army. That was still the Yugoslav People's

6 Army. It was there. Later on it became the Army of Republika Srpska. As

7 soon as the war broke out on the 15th of May, the Yugoslav People's Army

8 withdrew, the Army of Republika Srpska was established. Those members of

9 the JNA who wanted to stay there, stayed there; others withdrew. And

10 those were the two armies that we could appeal to to let us use their

11 lines.

12 Q. And you said you went to make that request for them to establish

13 communication for you. But was that line of communication that you've

14 asked to be established to Pale, was that for you and other colleagues of

15 yours?

16 A. It didn't happen as often, you know. Only when the situation was

17 very urgent for me, when I had to get in touch with them, when they had to

18 get in touch with us. But you couldn't use the army all the time, because

19 they had to guard their secure lines. It was wartime. Everybody was

20 spying on everybody else, intercepting lines in order to find out what was

21 going on. Therefore, we did not use them as often. But, fortunately,

22 this situation did not prevail for that long, because on the 26th, the

23 corridor was made passable and that's when we could resume, re-establish

24 the lines.

25 Q. Mr. Radic, can we get a couple of specifics clear, then. It was

1 on each separate occasion that you wanted to communicate that you went and

2 made a request to the army, and on each specific occasion they would help

3 you out with that? Is that the correct picture?

4 A. Yes. They helped us to keep in touch through their lines, to keep

5 in touch with the top. Therefore, not -- it wasn't through the army

6 itself; it was by using their communication lines that we would establish

7 contact. And as I said, it lasted for some two months, as long as the

8 blockade lasted.

9 Q. Yes. I just want to get it clear. I mean, perhaps this is a

10 trivial illustration, but I hope it will make it clear. It's as if you

11 were home and your telephone line has gone down for some reason and then

12 from time to time when you want to make a call you go to one of your

13 neighbours and ask to use their telephone and they allow you to do it. It

14 was that sort of arrangement rather than the army providing you with some

15 general continuing facility; is that right?

16 A. They would not give us these facilities at all. Whenever we

17 requested this from them, they would allow us to use them. But, of

18 course, they preferred that we use it as infrequently as possible, because

19 they did not really look upon it favourably that we would come so often

20 there.

21 Q. How often did you go during the period up to June 26th?

22 A. I really cannot say, but very rarely.

23 Q. Once, twice, five times? It was a period of two or three months.

24 A. Let us say five times, although the period was from April until

25 the 26th of June. The recommendation was: Don't use it very often, but

1 only when in dire need.

2 Q. And did you ever use -- it was telephone, was it, they provided

3 you with? Telephone or radio? It was telephone, was it?

4 A. Whatever they had at their disposal, they provided to us. They

5 had their own lines. You had satellite telephones at the time. Everything

6 was there. What the particular line was that they gave us to use, I'm not

7 an expert, I cannot say, but I did keep in touch, just as I kept in touch

8 with the secretariat for the implementation of measures against Yugoslavia

9 when those 12 babies were dying on me, and that was the only way I could

10 establish contact with the United Nations. Unfortunately, it was to no

11 use.

12 Q. When you used the -- or when you obtained the army's help to

13 communicate with Pale -- well, perhaps I should ask you this. You said

14 just a few occasions and a figure of five as a very rough figure was put

15 on it. Are we talking, then, and those, if they were five occasions, but

16 on those occasions, are we talking about communication only with Pale or

17 with other places as well?

18 A. It would have been too much for me to keep in touch with Sanski

19 Most, Prijedor, this way, when I could have gotten into a car and gone

20 there. It was with Brcko that I should have gone to, and then with

21 Zvornik, there was no need for me to really keep in touch with them that

22 much. As for the rest, I could always have used the car to go and talk to

23 them directly.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Radic, may I again instruct you to answer the

25 question. The question was whether these telephone facilities put at your

1 disposal by the army were used only for contacts with Pale or with anyone

2 else. I take it from your answer that it's a simple: Just for Pale.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Only for the top leadership. For

4 the rest, it wasn't necessary.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.

6 MR. STEWART:

7 Q. That means only for Pale, does it?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Did you ever on those occasions, did you ever have any direct

10 communication with Mr. Krajisnik?

11 A. No, I didn't.

12 Q. When you referred in your interview in July 2001, and then it's

13 been discussed again in the course of your evidence here, to Mr. Krajisnik

14 as a masterful leader that -- it sounds, and was that intended by you,

15 Mr. Radic, as complimentary?

16 A. Is that a question?

17 Q. Yes. Well, yes, it was.

18 A. I never said that Mr. Krajisnik was a powerful leader. He was

19 president of the National Assembly, respected by the deputies, and

20 whatever the documents he sent me, I implemented them. And this was

21 something that was said by Ms. Korner. I said that I would never talk

22 about him in those terms.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I just wondered whether the witness was

24 answering the question as if it would have said powerful leader, where the

25 words were different. Perhaps you could confront the witness with the --

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 MR. STEWART: Yes. We've slipped backwards and forwards between

2 masterful and powerful. It may be it's going -- translating backwards and

3 forwards and we're getting a different word back. Your Honour, this is

4 why I wanted to explore it in these terms.

5 Q. However this word is coming across to you, Mr. Radic, in your own

6 language, in -- you won't hear this, but it's -- there's a phrase in

7 English which is now being translated for you, "masterful leader". And

8 that's coming across to your in your own language. And whatever the

9 phrase is that's coming across to you in your own language, I just want to

10 clarify that you intended it and you intend it as a description of

11 Mr. Krajisnik in a positive, complimentary sense; is that correct?

12 A. I have said a moment ago that he was a respected president of the

13 National Assembly of Republika Srpska. In our language, a leader has a

14 completely different meaning.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, would you please check in the B/C/S

16 original what word is used.

17 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, that's exactly what we're doing.

18 Because this is precisely the purpose of this line of questioning.

19 JUDGE ORIE: And then perhaps you would ask Ms. Cmeric to read

20 exactly the part.

21 MR. STEWART: Your Honour read our minds here.

22 JUDGE ORIE: And again, could you indicate it to the English text

23 where exactly, what page we have to look at.

24 MR. STEWART: Yes. What would do, Your Honour, and Mr. Radic, so

25 that you know, Ms. Cmeric is going to read just the relevant few lines,

1 which you can also, I hope, follow. I'm not sure. Has Mr. Radic got at

2 the moment, physically got a B/C/S version? No, he hasn't, has he? We

3 have a spare, Your Honour.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And in the English version --

5 MR. STEWART: And then Ms. Cmeric can perhaps give us also the

6 page reference in the English version so that everybody can follow it.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Again, it's the 2001 or the 2002.

8 MS. CMERIC: 62, Your Honour.

9 JUDGE ORIE: 62. Thank you, Ms. Cmeric.

10 MR. STEWART: That matches my note, Your Honour. Yes, it will be

11 page 62 and 63 of the 2001 interview. And it's at the bottom -- or

12 towards the bottom of page 62. It starts -- we're starting at line 30:

13 "And if they have ...". That's the English phrase: "And if they

14 have ..." And Ms. Cmeric is going to give us the Serbian version of that.

15 MS. CMERIC: [Interpretation] And now that they have skilful

16 leader like Krajisnik, then that's why I tell you - excuse me -

17 Ms. Korner: Who has a skilful leader? Mr. Radic: Answer: The deputies.

18 He was their president.

19 [Previous translation continues]... you would like me to stop.

20 JUDGE ORIE: I just wanted to verify with the interpreters that

21 where in writing we have what was just read as masterful leader, where

22 it's now translated as skilful. Do the interpreters competent in those

23 languages agree that it should be skilful rather than masterful?

24 THE INTERPRETER: The word vjesto is skilful. Of course, you can

25 take it a step further and use a different word and maybe use masterful,

1 but vjesto, basic meaning skilful there. Thank you very much for your

2 clarification.

3 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, that is most helpful.

4 INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

5 MR. STEWART: Sorry. Your Honour, that's extremely helpful. We

6 have been slightly troubled by this translation all the way along and of

7 course what we -- what would have happened at the original interview,

8 Ms. Korner -- it was Ms. Korner, I think, Ms. Korner speaking in English,

9 she would have received an English translation picked up the word from the

10 English translation offered to her and it goes backwards and forwards.

11 JUDGE ORIE: At least we have now a proper translation of at least

12 the words used by this witness during that interview, because I take it

13 that the B/C/S correctly transcribes what he said. At least we have no

14 reason to -- at this moment to doubt that.

15 MR. STEWART: Yes.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Then it's a quarter to 2.00. Mr. Radic, we'll finish

17 if the day, but we're not ready yet. We'll continue tomorrow morning at

18 9.00 in this same courtroom. May I again instruct you not to speak with

19 anyone about the testimony you have given yesterday and today and the

20 testimony you're still about to give tomorrow.

21 Madam Usher, could you please escort the witness out of the

22 courtroom.

23 And then, Mr. Stewart, perhaps you could already prepare for an

24 answer, but the question I put to Mr. Tieger will be the next question put

25 to you.

1 [The witness stands down]

2 JUDGE ORIE: That is, about tomorrow and about time.

3 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I expect to come in comfortably within

4 the guideline. That's the first answer to Your Honour's question. The

5 second, more specific answer to Your Honour's question is that I am

6 confident, we give confidence rather than guarantees, Your Honour, as

7 everybody will appreciate, I'm confident of finishing before the first

8 break.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you very much.

10 Then I have one other issue, Mr. Stewart. I meanwhile read the --

11 perhaps I should -- no. I think I should go into private session just for

12 one second.

13 [Private session]

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.48 p.m.,

23 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 28th day of

24 October 2004, at 9.00 a.m.

25