1 Thursday, 28 October 2004

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 9.07 a.m.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in the courtroom, which is

6 not as cold as the last few days.

7 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.

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

9 Momcilo Krajisnik.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.

11 I was informed that where the failure in the heating the last few

12 days was fixed, that the next step to make is to fix the air conditioning,

13 so that I hope that the temperature will go down.

14 First of all, I'd like to know, Mr. Tieger, is there any response

15 to a confidential motion which would cause us to go into private session?

16 MR. TIEGER: No, Your Honour. The Prosecution has reviewed both

17 submissions. We're satisfied that there's more than sufficient

18 information upon which the Court can base its determinations.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then there's no need to go into private

20 session. I might have some additional information for the Prosecution in

21 respect of conflicting treaty obligations, or international obligations,

22 but that would come later.

23 Then, Madam Usher, would you please escort the witness into the

24 courtroom.

25 MR. STEWART: Customary in these circumstances in England for me

1 to ask for permission to take my wig off, but I've already taken that

2 step.

3 JUDGE ORIE: As a matter of fact, I thought that you had taken the

4 liberty already.

5 MR. STEWART: Well, it simply doesn't go with this clothing,

6 Your Honour.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Stewart, just take care that you don't

8 catch a cold sooner or later.

9 [The witness entered court]

10 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Radic.

11 THE WITNESS: Good morning.

12 JUDGE ORIE: I'd like to remind you that you're still bound by the

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

14 Mr. Stewart.

15 WITNESS: PREDRAG RADIC [Resumed]

16 [Witness answered through interpreter]

17 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

18 Cross-examined by Mr. Stewart [Continued]:

19 Q. Mr. Radic, good morning.

20 A. [In English] Good morning.

21 Q. In your evidence given on Wednesday, and for the reference, it's

22 page 78, you said, when you were asked: "So that, for example, in

23 relation to policing matters" -- please excuse me one moment, Your Honour.

24 The headphones I've got on are not the same ones that are connected to

25 the ... That's better.

1 At page 78, it was, for everybody's reference, on Wednesday, you

2 were asked by Mr. Tieger: "So that, for example, in relation to policing

3 matters, you would most likely expect the instructions to come from the

4 minister, minister of the interior or whatever the precise phraseology

5 would be, that was responsible for policing."

6 I think that yesterday, of course you're getting what I'm saying

7 in translation, but when I used in English the phrase "minister of the

8 interior," you seemed to be happy with that, Mr. Radic, as the label for

9 that particular minister responsible for policing. Is that correct?

10 A. [Interpretation] That's correct.

11 Q. Having been asked that, you would most likely expect instructions

12 to come from the minister, and you said: "Absolutely correct. That's

13 what the case was before the war during the war, and it's still like that

14 now. There is this subordination."

15 And then, well, you were asked about instructions. But,

16 Mr. Radic, you're not suggesting that the minister interfered with

17 day-to-day policing matters in your region or your municipality, are you?

18 A. That is -- it is difficult to even assume that whenever anything

19 happened he would not have been informed by the chief of the security

20 services centre. He would have received a request by the minister to the

21 effect of informing him as to what had happened.

22 Q. What I'm exploring with you, Mr. Radic, is this: That policing

23 activity involves all sorts of on-the-ground actions which in some cases

24 don't even get reported back to your local police station if they're just

25 incidental matters in the course of a day, but that the minister - and

1 this is correct, isn't it - the minister is only concerned in policing

2 activities so far as larger policy issues or strategic issues or major

3 problems are concerned?

4 A. I am not aware of whether the minister deals only with strategic

5 issues. That is the policy of the police. But the subordinates would

6 receive orders from him and report back to him. I say that I merely

7 assume that it could not have been otherwise because they did not have

8 links with any other bodies, particularly not with the presidents of

9 municipal assemblies.

10 Q. Let's be specific, Mr. Radic. Do you yourself have any personal

11 knowledge of instructions or reports going backwards and forwards between

12 the minister of the interior and the police in your region or your

13 municipality, for that matter, in 1991 and 1992?

14 A. I am not aware of anything specific, but judging by the police

15 activities, one could assume so. But I haven't seen these documents.

16 Q. Well, can you give an illustration of some specific instruction or

17 report going backwards and forwards between the minister of the interior

18 and the police in the region which you derive from some assumption or

19 inference yourself?

20 A. Let us take, for instance, the dismissal -- the removal of people

21 who have in any way tried to assist me in maintaining peace in the town of

22 Banja Luka. At that point, they would be removed and replaced by others.

23 From that, I infer that such an instruction had come from the ministry,

24 because it was only the ministry that could have appointed or removed such

25 people.

1 Q. Can you give us a single example of such a removal or replacement?

2 A. Commander of the public security station, Mr. Vladimir Tutus, was

3 replaced on account of that. Mr. Kutlija was replaced on account of that

4 and was clearly informed as having been replaced for that reason.

5 Q. And your inference then is that his removal and replacement were

6 on the instructions of the minister?

7 A. There was nobody else who could have removed him and appointed him

8 immediately afterwards in Bijeljina, therefore, far from Banja Luka.

9 Q. Now, you've been asked quite a lot of questions, Mr. Radic, about

10 what might or might not have been said to you, and that's what I want to

11 explore, on the question of ethnic cleansing, deportation or some such

12 other word or label in Banja Luka. On Wednesday this week, you were

13 asked, and the transcript reference is page 31, you were asked by

14 Mr. Tieger: "Did Mr. Krajisnik and Mr. Karadzic" -- that's the order in

15 which their names often get presented in this case: "Did Mr. Krajisnik

16 and Mr. Karadzic ever complain to you that Banja Luka had not been

17 properly cleansed, that is, that there were still Muslims and Croats in

18 Banja Luka?" And then you said: "The two of them never did, never

19 directly." Then a little bit further on, foot of page 32,

20 His Honour Judge Orie asked you whether they'd ever come one by one, just

21 Mr. Karadzic, just Mr. Krajisnik, and complain to you, by whatever means,

22 that Banja Luka had not been properly cleansed. You said you couldn't

23 remember. And then His Honour asked about the meeting. And you said:

24 "No, not at a meeting. No, there was no mention of that. The fact that

25 Banja Luka would have to do the job or to give me instructions to do that.

1 I must say that I would have refused quite certainly."

2 Now, I want to try to clarify with you first, Mr. Radic. It

3 seemed to be clear from your evidence yesterday that you never had any

4 business meetings at which you and Mr. Krajisnik were present.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Tieger.

6 MR. TIEGER: I think that is not a correct presentation of the

7 evidence.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Wasn't it sit-down meetings?

9 MR. TIEGER: I think it also focused on the period prior to April

10 1992.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could you please -- Mr. Stewart, I do not

12 remember, but perhaps I'm mistaken. Then please correct me. I think the

13 question yesterday was about sit-down meetings and the limitation in time

14 is not --

15 MR. STEWART: What I put to the witness this morning, Your Honour,

16 was -- well, I'm just looking to see. It seemed to be clear from your

17 evidence yesterday that you never had any business meetings at which you

18 and Mr. Krajisnik were present.

19 Your Honour, that was based on the passage at page 81 of the

20 transcript on Wednesday, when I asked the question: "Well, you've said a

21 little bit earlier you had no meeting with him alone." And him was

22 Mr. Krajisnik. "Just the two of you, because I asked you specifically.

23 But it seems from the answer you've just given that the slightly wider

24 meeting at which there was you, Mr. Krajisnik, and other, any other

25 people, what you've said, just said, applies to that. You never had any

1 specific meeting of that type, including Mr. Krajisnik; that's correct?"

2 That was a question. The answer from Mr. Radic was: "I can even state

3 quite certainly that even if we had a broader meeting with other people,

4 it never had anything to do with any business decisions or anything like

5 that. It was just -- happened to be a courteous exchange after some

6 meeting and I state once again that I never had a meeting with

7 Mr. Krajisnik, any contact with him, nor did he with me, because, quite

8 simply, the jobs we did were different, so we didn't have any need to meet

9 except at meetings of the Main Board, of course, but then I did not have a

10 meeting with him. I was there with all the members of the Main Board."

11 Well, I must say, Your Honour --

12 JUDGE ORIE: Business decisions.

13 MR. STEWART: -- seems to be absolutely supported and confirmed by

14 that passage --

15 JUDGE ORIE: At least it's now put to the witness in the right

16 context, as far as time is concerned, Mr. Tieger.

17 MR. TIEGER: It's the precisely right context, Your Honour. Page

18 80, Mr. Stewart says: "Let's give it a time frame now. In 1990, 1991,

19 and 1992, so let's say from multi-party elections up to the start of the

20 war, let's say, did you ever have any sit-down meeting with

21 Mr. Krajisnik," et cetera. And that was the time frame upon which those

22 questions were premised.

23 JUDGE ORIE: To seek clarification, it doesn't -- you just have

24 read the transcript of what the witness said, and could you please keep in

25 mind that if there's any relevance of time, Mr. Stewart, that we will not

1 miss it. Please proceed.

2 MR. STEWART: Well, I must say, Your Honour, that Mr. Tieger's

3 objection was absolutely unfounded there, because apart from anything

4 else, there are two points. First of all, the witness's answer appears to

5 be perfectly general, but even if we assume that it's linked to the time

6 frame I gave him, nobody could possibly be sensibly supposing that all

7 this evidence in relation to the meetings with Dr. Karadzic and

8 Mr. Krajisnik could have taken place outside the time frame of 1991 and

9 1992. That would simply be absurd.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger.

11 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, the time frame posed by Mr. Stewart

12 himself yesterday went up to April 1992.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The question is whether the time frame further

14 is the beginning of further questioning on something the witness had to

15 answer.

16 MR. STEWART: [Microphone not activated]

17 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

18 MR. STEWART: With respect, Your Honour, Mr. Tieger should read

19 what he's citing to the Court more carefully, because what I said at page

20 80 was: "Did you ever have -- let's give it a time frame now. In 1990,

21 1991, and 1992 so let's say from multi-party elections up to the start of

22 the war, let's say." So that takes it from -- right through 1990, add an

23 extra year 1991 and then up to the beginning of the war. So I'm prepared

24 to take it to there but I will then, in order to clarify with this witness

25 now:

1 Q. Mr. Radic, you said yesterday -- I'm sorry -- on Wednesday -- you

2 can state quite certainly that even if we had a broader meeting with other

3 people it never had anything to do with any business decisions or anything

4 like that, et cetera. And that's the passage that I read just now. Would

5 that answer be different if we were talking about the period from April

6 1992 onwards? Tell me if the question is not clear.

7 A. The question is clear. I have already answered that question to

8 the Prosecutor as well, yesterday, and I've said that up until the war, I

9 knew of Mr. Krajisnik only through the National Assembly of Bosnia and

10 Herzegovina. And I had no direct contacts with him whatsoever. From the

11 start of the war onwards, I also assert that I had no need for any such

12 meetings, nor did I meet alone with Mr. Krajisnik. It was only at broader

13 meetings that we possibly exchanged some words, but it was no special

14 separate meeting between myself and Mr. Krajisnik, the two of us alone.

15 That's what I've said yesterday and I repeat today. We would meet, but

16 again, not the two of us alone, after the war, when I had a couple of

17 contacts with Mr. Krajisnik. And that's what I've said yesterday as well.

18 MR. STEWART: Yes, Your Honour. Ms. Cmeric mentions to me that at

19 line 15 on this page, page 9, line 15, where the transcript refers to no

20 special separate meetings between myself and Mr. Krajisnik, the word

21 "business" came -- in the witness's language, of course, but the word

22 "business" came in there as well.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It's noted down and I take it it will be

24 checked on the basis of the audio recording.

25 Mr. Stewart, I think, as a matter of fact, it doesn't -- is of

1 such influence that we couldn't continue. It's just for the transcript

2 that it has been --

3 MR. STEWART: Oh, indeed, Your Honour. Yes.

4 JUDGE ORIE: So please proceed.

5 MR. STEWART: It's just useful to make these observations as we

6 go.

7 Q. So I don't know there to be any doubt about this, Mr. Radic, so I

8 want you to have a full opportunity to clear up any misunderstanding here.

9 So your statement that: "Even if you and Mr. Krajisnik had a broader

10 meeting with other people, it never had anything to do with business

11 decisions or anything like that, which is your quoted answer, that applies

12 to the whole time frame: 1990, 1991, 1992, and then, in fact, onwards

13 from that date?

14 A. Is that a question?

15 Q. Yes.

16 A. That's correct.

17 Q. So would you agree, then, Mr. Radic, that having had no such

18 meetings with Mr. Krajisnik, that any suggested meeting at which questions

19 of the efficiency of ethnic cleansing or the efficiency or completeness of

20 deportation or removal of non-Serbs from Banja Luka could not have taken

21 place between you and Mr. Krajisnik, with or without other people being

22 present?

23 A. Correct.

24 Q. Did -- you've given a general answer, which logically covers this

25 already, but nevertheless, so that there is no misunderstanding at all,

1 I'm going to put it in the more limited, specific form. Did you ever

2 receive any communication, in any form whatever, from Mr. Krajisnik,

3 concerning ethnic cleansing, deportation, expulsion, removal of non-Serbs

4 from anywhere to anywhere?

5 A. No, never.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Radic, the Chamber finds it necessary to inform

7 you that the answer you've given about a meeting on which you testified

8 yesterday in quite some detail, and where you now say that such a meeting

9 could not have taken place, that it's difficult to reconcile these two

10 answers, and that if one of the answers would not be the truth, that this

11 could -- this could be understood as being a false testimony. Yesterday

12 you answered some questions I put to you on a meeting with Mr. Krajisnik

13 and Mr. Karadzic, on which -- in which you said you were blamed for, and

14 I'm not insisting on the precise wording, but you are blamed for not

15 having expelled non-Serbs from Banja Luka, and as a result, that there

16 were too many non-Serbs remaining in Banja Luka. And the answer you've

17 just given seems to be difficult to reconcile with that. I'd just like to

18 draw your attention to that and to make it clear to you that whenever you

19 would not speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,

20 that this might give rise to a suspicion of contempt.

21 Please proceed, Mr. --

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I may be allowed, Your Honour, to

23 say something.

24 JUDGE ORIE: If there's any -- if you find any misunderstanding

25 in -- misunderstanding on the part of the Chamber, then please address us.

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The text that I have before me here,

2 it said the end, three dots, then Karadzic. And then it said Kraj, K-r-j

3 [as interpreted], that that was an error, that it wasn't Krajisnik, but

4 Karadzic, and then and the question raised was why there were so many

5 Muslims and Croats, and my answer was: That is true. The lawyer asked

6 the quell quite clearly. He said: Did Mr. Krajisnik ever suggest to you

7 that ethnic cleansing be conducted? And I said: No, never. And if you

8 go back to what it says in the text, then it says: Kraj, K-r-a-j, three

9 dots, then Karadzic, and then it says the error was that it said

10 Krajisnik.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But -- well, of course, you were asked by

12 Mr. Stewart about any meeting that would have taken place with

13 Mr. Krajisnik, whether alone or with anyone else. So your answer this

14 morning has not to be understood as a denial of what you said yesterday,

15 that you had a meeting with Mr. Krajisnik and Mr. Karadzic --

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yeah, you're right.

17 JUDGE ORIE: In which Mr. Karadzic blamed you for --

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not only him, but others too.

19 Others blamed me too and criticised me for the fact that there were still

20 Muslims and Croats, when all the other cities had been cleansed.

21 JUDGE ORIE: But at least in this one meeting where Mr. Karadzic

22 and Mr. Krajisnik were present, that Mr. Karadzic expressed this.

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Krajisnik didn't ask me that

24 question. I said that he never asked me that question.

25 JUDGE ORIE: I asked you whether Mr. Karadzic expressed that to

1 you in a meeting you had together with Mr. Krajisnik or Mr. Karadzic, as

2 you testified yesterday, as a matter of fact.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yesterday it was said that the

4 K-r-a-j, three dots, was a mistake, that it was a mistake having mentioned

5 Krajisnik at all. If you find the text, then you'll see the beginning of

6 his name, K-r-a-j, three dots, and then it was said that it was a mistake,

7 an error.

8 JUDGE ORIE: I'll read the relevant part of yesterday's transcript

9 and see whether your answer today is in denial of your testimony of

10 yesterday. One moment, please.

11 If the matters could give me -- I have to find it, but ...

12 MR. STEWART: What is it Your Honour is looking for?

13 JUDGE ORIE: The questions I put to the witness yesterday.

14 MR. STEWART: Yes, it was at about, about page 47. There was a

15 run of -- I think Your Honour is talking about the questions -- it was the

16 hypothetical question that Your Honour put to the witness at page 47, I

17 think. The whole run of the transcript, I think, begins around page 41,

18 this particular issue, and then -- because Your Honour did ask some

19 questions and make some comments from page 41 onwards. "Mr. Radic, you

20 are explaining a lot to us now." That's page 41, line 12. "Why questions

21 are put to you." And then we go on to ethnic cleansing and then there's a

22 whole run of consideration of the issue until we get to page 47. Is that

23 what Your Honour is seeking?

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Specific part. I'll put it to you at a later

25 stage. I have difficulties in finding exactly what I'm trying to find.

1 You may proceed, Mr. --

2 MR. TIEGER: Sorry, Your Honour. I don't know if it will be

3 helpful, but I think Mr. Stewart mentioned page 47 at one point. It

4 appears to me that he correctly identified the commencement of the

5 questions the Court appears to be focused on, and it seems to conclude at

6 page 48, the middle of page 48.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think that's what Mr. Stewart --

8 MR. STEWART: That's absolutely right. I -- yeah. It really goes

9 down to about line 17 on page 48 and then we do go on to something else,

10 linked, but a specific issue, which doesn't really carry the matter any

11 further.

12 JUDGE ORIE: I put it to you yesterday when we spoke about a

13 meeting with Mr. Krajisnik and Mr. Karadzic that you were blamed for not

14 having expelled non-Serbs, and I asked you: "What did they then expect

15 you to do with that?" That you would have to feed and to give medication

16 to those present: "To leave them, that they would leave the area, that

17 they would leave the territory so that there was no need to feed them any

18 more. Is that what they suggested or what the one who spoke suggested?"

19 And then your answer was: "They probably had meant that the same should

20 be done as did the other side, that had expelled the Serbs and solved

21 their problems that way, that is to say, the Croats and the Muslims." My

22 next question was: "So then you are blamed for not having expelled

23 non-Serbs, as Serbs were expelled from other territories with, as a

24 result, that there were too many non-Serbs remaining in Banja Luka who had

25 to be fed and -- is that a correct understanding of -- and had to be given

1 medical care? Is that a correct understanding of your testimony?" And

2 then you said: "You've understood it well."

3 All these questions were put in the context of a meeting you had

4 with Mr. Karadzic and Mr. Krajisnik, in which Mr. Karadzic spoke the

5 words, and therefore, I corrected myself when I said not they, but the one

6 who spoke. Is the answer of this morning to be understood as a denial of

7 such a meeting having taken place with Mr. Karadzic and Mr. Krajisnik, or

8 is this a misunderstanding? If ...

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said that never with the two of

10 them did I have a separate meeting at which that was discussed, a separate

11 meeting.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Please clarify yourself. If it was not a separate

13 meeting, what kind of a meeting then it was.

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That means that there was some

15 meeting, a broader kind of meeting, and that people would step to one side

16 to discuss one topic, for example. So it wasn't with that particular

17 purpose in mind, what we've just been discussing here, but we did step to

18 one side, and I was blamed and criticised for the fact that there were so

19 many Croats and Muslims in Banja Luka and in the executive organs of the

20 Municipal Assembly as well, and in managerial posts and so on and so

21 forth, when the case wasn't like that in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

22 JUDGE ORIE: You testified yesterday that it was not only the

23 presence of non-Serbs in the governmental bodies, but also that you were

24 blamed for not having expelled non-Serbs from the territory, which you had

25 to feed and which you had to take, in medical terms, care of.

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Because we asked them to send us the

2 medicaments and food and everything else for the entire population. The

3 Serbs were coming into us from Bosnia-Herzegovina, whereas these other

4 people weren't going anywhere.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And this was in Banja Luka in a meeting where

6 Mr. Krajisnik and Mr. Karadzic were present?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In a broader meeting.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but where these two persons were present and

9 where Mr. Karadzic was speaking; is that ...

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, and I just said that here, that

11 Mr. Krajisnik never said that to me.

12 JUDGE ORIE: So we have to -- I now better understand that we have

13 to make a distinction between separate meetings and meetings. But this is

14 not a denial of what you testified yesterday; is that a proper

15 understanding?

16 Please proceed, Mr. Stewart.

17 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I wonder if the witness could be asked

18 to leave court for a few minutes.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If there's anything you'd like to raise in his

20 absence.

21 Mr. Radic, could you please follow for a moment ...

22 [The witness stands down]

23 MR. STEWART: Your Honour --

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Stewart.

25 MR. STEWART: Your Honour eventually got the witness to the

1 position a few minutes ago where the witness denied that there was any

2 contradiction between two pieces of evidence between which there is an

3 absolute inevitable contradiction. There simply is. The problem,

4 Your Honour, we submit, is this: That Your Honour has great authority

5 sitting on the Bench, and Your Honour's brother Judges have great

6 authority sitting on the Bench. We have had submissions before and we've

7 had discussion, if I may respectfully put it that way, before about the

8 ambit of questions from the Bench, and I made an objection a long time ago

9 in relation to another witness altogether that was overruled, and

10 Your Honour -- Your Honours said that it was only in the most exceptional

11 circumstances there should be any objection to questions from the Bench

12 and that those particular circumstances had not been exceptional, which

13 left me struggling to think of circumstances which would be sufficiently

14 exceptional. But the difficulty is that with the authority that the Bench

15 has, our submission is that it is even more important for the Bench to

16 take care in relation to leading questions than for counsel. And this

17 witness we have seen; he has gone backwards and forwards. And if we now

18 look at the evidence he's given this morning, and that's rather difficult

19 for us to look at immediately, as a simply mechanical thing, but if we

20 look at the evidence he's given this morning and we compare it carefully

21 with the evidence he's given yesterday, and we compare it with what he

22 said in the interviews, it's riddled with contradictions and it's riddled

23 with acceptance by this witness of suggestions put to him by other people

24 which he then subsequently withdraws. We are in a very dangerous area

25 with a witness of this type when leading questions are put to him and he's

1 invited to agree. But added to that, that Your Honour's warning, in

2 effect, to this witness in relation to perjury, which, with respect, if

3 Your Honour is giving the warning to the witness on the issue of perjury,

4 we might have suggested to Your Honour it could be given even more

5 explicitly than Your Honour gave it. So because if there is to be a

6 warning at all, then it really needs to be in the absolutely -- in

7 absolutely unequivocal terms and we suggest that that warning, if given as

8 a warning, could be given more explicitly than it has been.

9 But the difficulty with a warning like that is that it actually

10 operates as a threat to a witness. I'm not suggesting, Your Honour, that

11 of course that's Your Honour's intention. That would be quite improper.

12 But that is the effect. Because when a witness comes along and gives

13 evidence, and this may be an extreme case that we have here in court this

14 morning, but it's a feature of evidence in criminal law, civil cases, for

15 that matter, that witnesses do contradict themselves, that they do retract

16 evidence, that they do -- sometimes they simply correct it. But they

17 often do.

18 Now, in practice, Your Honour, it's up to other people, perhaps,

19 whether they launch prosecutions for perjury, in practice, prosecutions

20 for perjury I think in any jurisdiction are extremely rare in relation to

21 contradictions within the evidence that is given as opposed to evidence

22 which is then provably false by comparison with external events. So

23 realistically speaking, that doesn't happen, because, after all, that

24 would be a tremendous disincentive to a witness to correct and retract his

25 evidence as he goes along. So as a matter of policy, that would actually

1 undermine the interest of justice, for witnesses to feel that inherent

2 contradictions in the course of their evidence were going to expose them

3 to such risks. That should not be the position. The position should be

4 that a witness, as far as possible, ought to feel free to correct,

5 retract, withdraw his evidence as he goes along in the case, and should be

6 encouraged to do so, if at any point he feels that his earlier evidence

7 was not correct. Because where one should end up with a witness is the

8 witness saying: Well, I said this the other day. I might have said this

9 the other day. You asked me this the other day. But this is what I am

10 saying.

11 And a reminder to the witness that he's given a solemn

12 declaration, or in other jurisdictions he's on oath, may be appropriate,

13 but what Your Honour has -- the position that Your Honour has put the

14 witness in is that he's been told: Well, you answered a whole lot of

15 questions to the Bench yesterday, and you've given some answers this

16 morning under questioning by counsel, and the answers are inconsistent,

17 which they plainly are, Your Honour. After all, that's what my job is, to

18 some extent. They plainly are inconsistent. The answers are

19 inconsistent. That inconsistency is exposing you to a risk. And then if

20 I can put it this way, Your Honour: Have a hard rethink, Mr. Witness,

21 about whether perhaps what you said yesterday in answer to questions from

22 the Bench wasn't true.

23 Your Honour, this is not intended that way, but it is in the end

24 inordinate pressure on a witness to say: Well, yes. Actually, now you

25 mention it, yes, what I did say to the Court yesterday was true.

1 Your Honour, I was proposing anyway, of course, to explore and put

2 to the witness aspects of what he said to the Court yesterday, because

3 there is clearly a contradiction. But, Your Honour, I do invite the Trial

4 Chamber to take note of the observations that I've just made and to

5 proceed with great caution in relation to such matters. And please also,

6 may I respectfully ask that when I, and my colleagues request speak for

7 themselves, my colleagues on the other side of the case, but when I am

8 cross-examining a witness and we are getting into the area of exposure of

9 contradictions, that I might be allowed more latitude to continue with my

10 cross-examination and to explore the matter on behalf of my client, not,

11 of course, and I couldn't even presume to do that, because I can't -- the

12 Bench has every right and duty and responsibility to then come in with

13 whatever questions it feels appropriate at an appropriate stage. But I do

14 particularly invite the Bench to allow in this essentially adversarial

15 procedure, whatever the mixture of different systems, to have greater

16 freedom to complete and -- proceed with and complete my cross-examination

17 before we have the sort of exchanges and the sort of questioning that

18 we've had over the last 20 minutes or so.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, the Chamber will proceed with great

20 caution. The Chamber deemed it necessary to give a warning and Rule

21 91(A) and briefly explain to the witness the reason why the Chamber at

22 that moment wanted to give that warning. The witness then asked

23 permission to address the Court, in which he explained that it was a

24 matter of misunderstanding, and it was at that moment my duty to explore

25 whether it was a misunderstanding or not. That's what I did. But the

1 Chamber will proceed with great caution, as you asked the Chamber to do.

2 You may proceed. Could we escort -- could you escort the witness into the

3 courtroom.

4 [The witness entered court]

5 MR. STEWART:

6 Q. Mr. Radic, is it your position that you recall Dr. Karadzic

7 complaining directly to you that there had not been insufficient steps

8 taken to remove non-Serbs from Banja Luka?

9 JUDGE ORIE: I apologise for interrupting. Did you intend to say

10 that there had not been insufficient.

11 MR. STEWART: I didn't, Your Honour. Thank you. The double

12 negative was unintended. But I'll do the whole question again. Thank

13 you, Your Honour.

14 Q. Mr. Radic, is it your position that you recall Dr. Karadzic

15 complaining directly to you that there had been insufficient steps taken

16 to remove non-Serbs from Banja Luka?

17 A. These comments of his were not addressed to me only but to the

18 entire leadership in the Assembly of the town of Banja Luka, especially

19 those who were deputies and who were the ones who conveyed this message

20 that more had to be done in order for the Muslims and Croats to leave to

21 their areas, just as we've had Serbs arriving from other parts of

22 Bosnia-Herzegovina and from Croatia. So it was not addressed to me

23 solely; it was a criticism levelled at the entire leadership. And once

24 again, I emphasise: These were not formal meetings devoted to that

25 purpose alone.

1 Q. At the beginning of your answer to that question, you said that:

2 "These comments were addressed to the entire leadership in the Assembly of

3 the town of Banja Luka."

4 Let's be very clear, please, Mr. Radic. Which Assembly are you

5 talking about there?

6 A. The Assembly of the town of Banja Luka and the Executive Board.

7 Q. So when you talk of Dr. Karadzic addressing the entire leadership

8 in the Assembly of the town of Banja Luka, was that a meeting of the

9 Assembly of the town of Banja Luka?

10 A. No. To the individuals from the Executive Board and to

11 individuals from the legislative branch of government. One must know that

12 some of the members of the Executive Board were also deputies and could

13 also have discussions on this issue at Pale.

14 Q. When was this meeting?

15 A. I have no idea. I would not be able to tell you when the meeting

16 was held. There were several meetings held on -- for several purposes, in

17 Banja Luka, and again I repeat that these were not formal meetings

18 convened for that particular purpose, for that particular matter that we

19 are discussing now.

20 Q. When you say you have no idea, Mr. Radic, I want to press you a

21 little bit. Let's take it in steps. Was it before or after the beginning

22 of the war?

23 A. After the beginning of the war, not before the war. Before the

24 war, we had a multi-party assembly that had its members in the Executive

25 Board, and the government was a multi-ethnic one.

1 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction. We had a multi-ethnic

2 assembly.

3 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, I'm told by Ms. Cmeric, and it

4 would be quite a significant change, that that answer actually began:

5 Before the beginning of the war and after the beginning of the war.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Radic, was your answer that it was before and

7 after the beginning of the war? And we are now talking about the meetings

8 where this issue was addressed. Did you say before and after, or after

9 the beginning of the war?

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've said that before the start of

11 the war, there was no need for it, because both the executive and

12 legislative branches of government were multi-ethnic. Therefore, before

13 the war, there was no such thing. After the war, in the very beginning,

14 both branches were still multi-ethnic, but it was only later when this

15 practice was introduced in Bosnia-Herzegovina for the people, for the

16 ethnicities to relocate. That's when this was the case. And that's what

17 I said -- that's why I said not before the war, but after the war.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Stewart.

19 MR. STEWART: Well, that seems to be pretty clear, Your Honour,

20 from the explanation.

21 Q. May I just remind us all, really, but you specifically, Mr. Radic:

22 I'm asking you at the moment about a particular meeting that you have

23 referred to. You're clear about that, aren't you?

24 A. I know that you're looking for a specific meeting, but I've told

25 you that after the war, there were many meetings convened for different

1 matters. There were some ceremonies as well, if you know what I mean by

2 this. If there was some sort of a purpose to celebrate something, then

3 you would have the leadership of Banja Luka convened, and it was also at

4 that time that this matter would be raised, because it was quite obvious

5 that the numbers of the Croat and Muslim populations present in Banja Luka

6 were much higher than elsewhere in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

7 Q. Mr. Radic, I don't know how the phrase gets translated into

8 Serbian, but in English, we are going round the houses here with you. So

9 please, I'm not looking for a specific meeting. Your evidence has been of

10 a specific meeting, and therefore, I am asking you questions about that

11 meeting. So let's go back to where we were. I am -- this particular

12 meeting that you referred to, at which Dr. Karadzic addressed the

13 leadership in Banja Luka, leadership of the Assembly, and so on, you said

14 it took place after the beginning of the war, and you explained why.

15 Did it take place, as far as you recall, during the period when

16 Banja Luka, the Krajina, was cut off from south-eastern Bosnia, certainly,

17 i.e., that is, between the beginning of the war and the 26th of June when

18 the corridor was opened?

19 A. Let's take it from the end. There wasn't a single meeting. That's

20 what I keep repeating. There was not just one meeting, nor was it a

21 meeting with the entire leadership. Rather, there were several contacts

22 through which we received information about the dissatisfaction with our

23 actions in this particular matter. Of course, that all this took place

24 after the war, rather, after the opening up of the corridor. Therefore,

25 from April up until 1994, 1995. But I wasn't referring to a single

1 meeting with the entire municipal leadership present, where Mr. Karadzic

2 assigned certain tasks to us. Mr. Karadzic was exposed to the pressure of

3 those who were saying that this had not been done in Banja Luka, whereas

4 they had in their respective parts done everything. That's why we still

5 had mosques left standing and that's why we still had Muslims and Croats

6 living there, because we did not adhere to some unwritten rules valid in

7 the rest of Republika Srpska. So I was not referring to a single meeting

8 where we were given this task. And please do not insist on a single

9 meeting, because it was not just that one.

10 Q. When you say it wasn't just that one, Mr. Radic, was that meeting

11 that you referred to a few minutes ago one of a number of meetings?

12 A. When I say, for instance, festivities, that could be the

13 celebration of the patron saint of Banja Luka, where the president of the

14 Republic would come. There would be a festivity, following which he would

15 say that we had not done what others had. The other occasion could be at

16 Pale, when you would have deputies from Banja Luka present there, and they

17 would happen to say that we had not done in our town what others have done

18 in Republika Srpska.

19 Therefore, it wasn't just one meeting, nor was there this

20 particular one meeting where it had been stated that we should do this.

21 Q. Dr. Karadzic. How many times did Dr. Karadzic come to Banja Luka

22 after the beginning of the war up to the end of 1992?

23 A. I am really unable to answer the question of how many times he

24 arrived there. Sometimes he would not go to Banja Luka at all, because he

25 had other obligations and would go about fulfilling them. It is very

1 difficult for me to say how many times he was in that part that we call

2 Krajina and how many times he visited Banja Luka. I don't remember. But

3 it was on quite a few occasions that he did.

4 Q. How many times did you clap eyes on Dr. Karadzic between the

5 beginning of the war and the end of 1992 in Banja Luka?

6 A. If I knew the answer to that question, I would be able to tell you

7 how many times he visited there. I really do not recall how many times I

8 saw him, how many times and what the occasions were, and so on. There

9 were, for instance, there was the promotion inauguration of recruits in

10 the Army of Republika Srpska, the celebration of the patron saint of Banja

11 Luka, then the National Assembly of Republika Srpska, I told you that we

12 would hold the National Assembly in different towns, or when he would pass

13 through Banja Luka and just inform us that he was there. But he was on

14 his way and went on. Now, if I were able to tell you how many times I saw

15 him, I would be able to tell you how many times he came. That is,

16 however, difficult for me. He did tour Republika Srpska as president of

17 Republika Srpska. How many times, I cannot say, and I would not like to

18 give an incorrect number and then be told by His Honour that I did not

19 state a correct number of visits by Mr. Karadzic. But there were quite a

20 few.

21 Q. I hope it's entirely for His Honour what directions he gives to

22 you, Mr. Radic, but I believe that His Honour might say to you that doing

23 your honest best to remember or to give the answers to these questions and

24 to remember such things as how many times somebody came is not going to

25 cause you any problems or dangers or risks. If you are doing your honest

1 best to produce such information as accurately or as approximately as you

2 can remember, I don't believe there will be a difficulty.

3 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I hope that's a fair summary.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Radic. Mr. Radic, a question is put to you as to

5 the number of meetings. If you say: Well, it's my recollection there

6 were approximately 25 or 50 or 3 or 8, please tell us, if you can; if you

7 cannot, then of course you can't answer that question. But since you said

8 there were quite a few, if you could be more precise, even if you'd be not

9 sure about the exact number, please give that answer. If you can't, then

10 you can't.

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I would perhaps be close to

12 the number of 20 meetings, possibly 20 meetings, on different occasions,

13 because when we had the patriarch of the Orthodox Church coming, and then

14 there were other occasions as well, not only when there were Assembly

15 sessions and then he had some business matters to deal with me.

16 Therefore, let's say about 20 times that he visited or passed through

17 Banja Luka and informed us that he was there during the war.

18 MR. STEWART:

19 Q. Have I got my logic right, Mr. Radic? It seemed to follow from an

20 answer you gave earlier that Mr. Karadzic did not come and would not have

21 come to Banja Luka during that period without your seeing him. Is that

22 correct?

23 A. Well, there were occasions when he did arrive without me seeing

24 him. He would merely spend a night there and then continue onwards. And

25 actually, as a rule, I never knew where he was going to spend the night.

1 Q. Yes. Mr. Radic, may I simply make it clear: This isn't a

2 question, but just so that it can help us to proceed. You see, you're the

3 witness giving evidence, and when you give an answer and then I proceed to

4 ask you questions on the footing or on the basis of the answer that you've

5 just given, that's -- I have to do that, Mr. Radic. So when you tell me

6 and tell the Tribunal, as you did a few minutes ago, that if you knew how

7 many times you'd clapped eyes on Dr. Karadzic during that period, you

8 would know how many times Dr. Karadzic had been in Banja Luka, I, in my

9 simple way, draw the inference that when Dr. Karadzic came to Banja Luka,

10 you must have seen him. Do you follow? There is a question at the end.

11 Do you understand why it is that I put questions to you in that form? Do

12 you understand that?

13 A. I do understand you, and I am answering your questions to

14 His Honours, and I said that I've seen him for some 20 times perhaps. And

15 now when you ask me were there occasions that he would visit without you

16 seeing him. Well, there were. I would hear of his arrival, especially

17 towards the end of the war.

18 Q. All right. Mr. Radic, of course I'm primarily concerned, let's

19 make it clear, with occasions on which you, at least as a minimum saw

20 Dr. Karadzic. Leave aside when he passed through without you having any

21 dealings with him at all. Do your best, Mr. Radic. Between the beginning

22 of the war and the end of 1992, how many times do you say that you saw,

23 with your eyes, Dr. Karadzic in Banja Luka?

24 A. I've just said that. Around 20, perhaps 25 times at most. That's

25 what I've said. I suppose it was some 20 times.

1 Q. And same question, but applied to Mr. Krajisnik. How many times

2 did you clap eyes on Mr. Krajisnik in Banja Luka between the beginning of

3 the war and the end of 1992?

4 A. I would mostly see him during the sessions of the National

5 Assembly of Republika Srpska in Banja Luka, when these sessions were in

6 Banja Luka. That's when I was invited to attend the Assembly as a host,

7 as president of the Municipal Assembly. Otherwise, as I said, I did not

8 meet with Mr. Krajisnik alone on other occasions. So these would be the

9 kind of occasions that I would see him.

10 Q. So doing your best, Mr. Radic, what was the answer to my question:

11 How many times did you clap eyes on Mr. Krajisnik in Banja Luka between

12 the beginning of the war and the end of 1992?

13 A. As many times as the number of sessions held there. There could

14 have been maybe three or four sessions held in Banja Luka. Otherwise,

15 they would hold them in Prijedor, Bijeljina, I believe also in Brcko, at

16 Pale, and Trebinje, and so on. Therefore, some three to four times. But

17 I cannot tell you the exact number. That's when the National Assembly was

18 convened in Banja Luka, and Mr. Krajisnik would be there.

19 In addition to that, he might have been invited to some of the

20 festivities there, but this was very rarely. Mr. Krajisnik spent most of

21 his time at Pale and perhaps in the eastern part. But in the -- this

22 western part, particularly in Banja Luka, I don't believe that he was

23 there more often than for the times when the National Assembly met in

24 Banja Luka.

25 Q. So is this right, then, Mr. Radic. It may seem obvious, but I

1 just want to get it clear: That if we check, because there are such

2 records, then if we check to see how many sessions of the Assembly of the

3 Republika Srpska, previously known as Serb Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina,

4 but how many sessions of that assembly were held in Banja Luka from the

5 public records, that's going to give me the answer to the question I just

6 asked you: How many times was Mr. Krajisnik in Banja Luka. That would

7 tell us, wouldn't it?

8 A. That would tell you, but I cannot recall how many sessions the

9 Assembly had in Banja Luka. If there were five of them, then the

10 occasions were five. But I don't believe that there were more than four

11 sessions held there, because the sessions were also held in other towns.

12 And of course, most often, it was convened at Pale.

13 Q. Mr. Radic, I don't need to trouble you on anything which is easily

14 checkable from obtainable records. We don't need to worry about that. I

15 just want to make it clear, then: You said he might have been invited to

16 some of the festivities there, but this was very rarely. So can we take

17 it that if he was, which you apparently don't know, those were certainly

18 not visits on which any business discussions took place in which you and

19 Mr. Krajisnik were participants?

20 A. That's correct.

21 Q. And on any of the occasions -- we are at the moment dealing with

22 that period, from the beginning of the war through to the end of 1992. But

23 on any of those occasions that Mr. Krajisnik, you say, came to Banja Luka

24 for Assembly sessions, Assembly of Republika Srpska, do you say that there

25 were any business discussions at which you and Mr. Krajisnik were present

1 outside the Assembly meetings themselves?

2 A. There were none.

3 Q. Mr. Radic, if I put it to you that there were two Assembly

4 sessions of Assembly of Republika Srpska in 1992, after the beginning of

5 the war, held in Banja Luka, the first on the 12th of May, 1992 - and we

6 see that very clearly, actually, from documentation that's in court for

7 the course of your evidence - the first on 12th of May, 1992, and the

8 second spread over two days, 11th and 12th of August, 1992, does that at

9 least match what you can remember?

10 A. I haven't understood you. What is it that I'm supposed to

11 remember?

12 Q. I'm sorry. I'll put it -- that perhaps wasn't crystal clear,

13 Mr. Radic. I'll put it again. I'm putting to you that -- first of all,

14 before we get to the actual question. I'm putting it to you that there

15 were two sessions of the Assembly of Republika Srpska held in Banja Luka

16 in 1992, after the beginning of the war. One was on the 12th of May,

17 1992, and the next one was over two days, on the 11th and 12th of August,

18 1992. I'm asking you whether you remember anything to contradict what

19 I've just said, that there were just those two meetings of the Republika

20 Srpska Assembly during that period, up to the end of 1992, in Banja Luka.

21 A. Up until the end of 1992, not up until the end of the war. Quite

22 possibly.

23 Q. I specifically said up until the end of 1992.

24 A. Because I've said four to five. You say two. But that's until

25 the end of 1992. It is possible that there were only two sessions until

1 the end of 1992, but to tell you the truth, what the -- what was discussed

2 at these sessions, that's something I cannot remember. But it is quite

3 possible that there were these two sessions there.

4 Q. If -- well, if there were -- Mr. Radic, take it from me. There

5 were at least meetings of the Assembly of Republika Srpska in Banja Luka

6 on those dates. That's not going to be an issue in this case.

7 First of all, do you now, having been given those dates, can you

8 say that you were at both of those sessions, in May and August 1992?

9 A. I will again use the term "possibly," but as a guest. I was not a

10 deputy. I would be invited as a guest to listen at the debates of the

11 National Assembly. Most frequently, Mr. Stewart, since I had other

12 town-related businesses to attend, I would usually leave the Assembly

13 after -- at the interval, because I did not have the right of addressing

14 them, just of listening to them. So it is possible that I was there, but

15 as a guest.

16 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, it's extremely close to the time when

17 we customarily have a break.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Usually have a break, yes. Could you give us any

19 indication on the question which --

20 MR. STEWART: Well, I'm trying to give consistent answers,

21 Your Honour. I'm -- of course, I -- in the light of the way things have

22 gone, of course I'm going to be longer. What I do know, Your Honour, is

23 that I do have a little bit of material which Mr. Krajisnik brought with

24 him first thing this morning. So I don't know what that includes. But,

25 Your Honour --

1 JUDGE ORIE: You sometimes invite persons to give an approximate

2 number.

3 MR. STEWART: Indeed, Your Honour. I'm going to do that. No.

4 I'm going to say that I -- I am confident that I won't go beyond the next

5 break, Your Honour. I'm not so confident about saying more than that, not

6 having reviewed this particular material. But I think it unlikely that I

7 would need to go the whole of the next session.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, your confidence of yesterday has been

9 shaken a bit already, but --

10 MR. STEWART: Not entirely within my control, Your Honour, as

11 Your Honour I know accepts.

12 JUDGE ORIE: I wanted to say something about that.

13 MR. STEWART: Of course.

14 JUDGE ORIE: We'll have a break until 5 minutes to 11.00.

15 MR. STEWART: I think it's why I didn't give a guarantee,

16 Your Honour. I was that careful.

17 --- Recess taken at 10.29 a.m.

18 --- On resuming at 11.01 a.m.

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

20 the courtroom.

21 Mr. Stewart.

22 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, there's a small point on the transcript

23 which could conveniently be dealt with while the witness is coming in.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

25 MR. STEWART: I'm trying to read it and stay near enough to a

1 microphone.

2 [The witness entered court]

3 MR. STEWART: It's at page 22, line 19.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

5 MR. STEWART: It's the answer, which I tried to correct, but

6 apparently I still got it wrong again. "After the beginning of the war,

7 not before the war" - that's all right, that sentence, apparently - and

8 then the next sentence: "Before the war" and then it should include "and

9 after the beginning of the war, we had a multi-party assembly."

10 So that's where the reference --

11 JUDGE ORIE: That's what he explained later, during a short period

12 of time, yes.

13 MR. STEWART: -- created some slight confusion --

14 JUDGE ORIE: So specific attention will be paid to that portion of

15 the transcript.

16 MR. STEWART: Thank you, Your Honour.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Then you may proceed.

18 MR. STEWART: Yes. Thank you.

19 Q. Mr. Radic, you talked about, almost in passing, in a sense, but

20 you mentioned that deputies who were present in Banja Luka for Assembly

21 meetings of the Republika Srpska Assembly said something to you about the

22 position in Banja Luka relating to the presence of non-Serbs. That's

23 right, is it, that deputies of the Republika Srpska Assembly broached that

24 topic with you?

25 A. Well, the deputies of Republika Srpska, I don't remember whether

1 there were five or six of them from Banja Luka in the National Assembly

2 itself. They just conveyed the opinion that in Banja Luka there were far

3 greater number of non-Serbs than there were Serbs in other municipalities.

4 Of course, they never conveyed any directives that this should be

5 cleansed, but it was a criticism to us in the authorities in Banja Luka,

6 because of that fact. And that was true. There were more Muslims and

7 Croats in Banja Luka than there were Serbs in the municipalities where

8 they were the majority population.

9 Q. But you didn't -- or you wouldn't have accepted it as a valid

10 criticism; is that right?

11 A. Well, it was the truth. It was true that we had more Muslims and

12 Croats in our town than there were Serbs, for example, in Sarajevo, Bihac,

13 which had been completely cleansed and still is today, and so on and so

14 forth. So that was true. But we couldn't reconcile ourselves to doing

15 the same thing they had done, that is to say, to expel part of the

16 population, people like that were coming in to Banja Luka and telling us

17 what had happened to them in those towns that they were expelled from.

18 Quite simply, Banja Luka could not act in similar fashion.

19 Q. So it's right that you -- you say it was a fact, it was the truth,

20 if you compare the numbers. But what I put to you is correct, isn't it,

21 that you wouldn't have accepted that as a valid criticism of any actions

22 or inactions on your part?

23 A. How we took this criticism is borne out by the fact that at the

24 end of the war in that exodus afterwards was the largest exodus of

25 citizens from Banja Luka that took place, according to Cornelio

1 Sommaruga's observation and we did not accept this as an order having to

2 do that forcibly. From our conduct and behaviour you can see how we

3 understood this.

4 Q. Did the deputies bring any pressure on you in connection with

5 this? I'm talking about those five deputies that you've mentioned.

6 A. No, they didn't bring pressure to bear. But they just told us of

7 this stance of theirs. And as I say, there were people working in the

8 municipality to whom the deputies conveyed this and, for example, there

9 was a misunderstanding that I myself had with the president of the

10 Executive Board, insisting that his vice-president, Antun Ruzic, who was a

11 Croat himself, should remain in that post because he wasn't able to get

12 another job in Banja Luka. He was ill himself and he had some children

13 that he had to bring up. And unfortunately, he died after the war.

14 Q. Now, I just want to explore with you, Mr. Radic, an answer which

15 you gave a little while ago before the break. You had said that

16 Mr. Krajisnik might have come to Banja Luka at the time of - just wait

17 until I've given the question, Mr. Radic - that he might have come to

18 Banja Luka at the time of festivities, and you didn't know, but he might

19 have done, and I asked you, and you said: Well, if he did, then there

20 weren't any business meetings. And I was -- business meetings, I was

21 really picking up a phrase from your evidence which you've talked about

22 business. So there weren't any business meetings.

23 Now, I want to be crystal clear from you, please, Mr. Radic. If,

24 and it's an if, if Mr. Krajisnik did come to Banja Luka on any other

25 occasion from the beginning of the war until the end of 1992, than the

1 Assembly meetings of Republika Srpska, you didn't have any sort of

2 political discussion meeting with Mr. Krajisnik or Mr. Krajisnik and

3 others, did you?

4 A. There are two questions there in one. First, whether I remember

5 if Mr. Krajisnik came, and then if he did come, did I have a meeting with

6 him.

7 Q. Mr. Radic, let's be clear. Actually --

8 A. So do you want me to answer the second question first?

9 Q. Actually, we all fall into that trap sometimes, but actually there

10 aren't two questions. It's based on a hypothesis. You said you weren't

11 sure whether -- it might become. So the question is a single question.

12 After all, if he didn't come then for heaven's sake there's no question

13 because you can't have had a meeting with him if he didn't come. But if

14 he did come, it's the single question whether you had any sort of

15 political discussion, meeting, with Mr. Krajisnik or Mr. Krajisnik and

16 others on those occasions.

17 A. Mr. Stewart, I said that Mr. Krajisnik did come when there were

18 National Assembly meetings of Republika Srpska. And I state again that

19 after those sessions there were no political talks with Mr. Krajisnik as

20 the English would say, face to face. I didn't have any face to face

21 meetings with him. Does that satisfy you?

22 Q. It will have to, up to a point, Mr. Radic. You're anticipating a

23 further question. I think I'm going to scrap the one I asked you before.

24 You've brought us back to the occasions on which he did come to

25 Banja Luka for Assembly meetings. So I'm going to operate on your

1 territory here, Mr. Radic, and ask you about that.

2 When he did come to Banja Luka then for Assembly meetings of

3 Republika Srpska, you say there were no political talks with

4 Mr. Krajisnik, as the English would say, and we do, face to face. You

5 didn't have any face-to-face meetings with him. Can I be clear that apart

6 from anything you heard Mr. Krajisnik say to the Assembly, that you

7 participated in no other discussions on any political issues at all at

8 which Mr. Krajisnik and you were both present?

9 A. You mean at the Assembly?

10 Q. Mr. Radic, I mean apart from the actual Assembly sessions.

11 A. Mr. Krajisnik and I were members of the Main Board of the SDS, but

12 that, once again, wasn't face-to-face meetings; it was a group of people.

13 Q. Just leave aside the Main Board for the moment, then, Mr. Radic.

14 We are talking about the occasions on which Mr. Krajisnik -- well, all

15 right. Let's clarify this. We're talking about the occasions on which

16 Mr. Krajisnik came to Banja Luka for Assembly meetings of Republika

17 Srpska. Now, you're saying, are you, that on those occasions - and we've

18 only identified two, in fact - on those occasions, you're saying there

19 might have also been a Main Board meeting? Is that what you're saying?

20 A. No, I didn't say that. I wasn't clear on whether you were asking

21 me whether I talked to Mr. Krajisnik after the Assembly session or on some

22 other occasion. And I said to you that after the Assembly, I did not have

23 a chance of having any kind of discussion with Mr. Krajisnik. And yes, I

24 was at the Main Board with him, but that is not an Assembly meeting. So

25 are we talking about meetings after the Assembly or perhaps after any kind

1 of meeting whatsoever? Because there were different types of meetings,

2 not only the National Assembly, not only meetings of the Main Board.

3 There was, for example, the Holy Synod Assembly session meeting, with the

4 patriarch, Mr. Pavle, arrived. So I can only assume that at one of those

5 two meetings Mr. Krajisnik was probably present. I assume, I don't claim,

6 because I can't actually remember whether he was in Banja Luka when the

7 Holy Synod had its meeting. But I didn't have any talks with him on that

8 occasion either.

9 Q. Let's try -- I'm going to put a --

10 A. Please, it says here "the Holy Sinard." It's not "Sinard". It's

11 Synod, S-y-n-o-d.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That will be corrected, Mr. Radic. Thank you

13 for your assistance.

14 MR. STEWART: Thank you, and that's how I was spelling it in my

15 own head as we were hearing it.

16 Q. I'm going to put a proposition to you, Mr. Radic, and I just want

17 you please, as I'm sure you always do, I want you to listen very carefully

18 and tell me whether you agree with the proposition.

19 The proposition is this: That on the occasions when Mr. Krajisnik

20 came to Banja Luka, according to your evidence, for Assembly meetings of

21 Republika Srpska from April to December 1992, there were no political

22 meetings or discussions in which you and he were both -- or at which you

23 and he were both present, apart from the Assembly sessions themselves?

24 Now, is the proposition clear?

25 A. I must say that I cannot remember that ever afterwards, after the

1 meetings of the National Assembly, that there were any gatherings at which

2 anything like that was reviewed. If there is something to bear that out,

3 please remind me of it. But as I say, I cannot remember that there were

4 any political gatherings or meetings at all which was -- which did not

5 have to do with the National Assembly.

6 Q. And when you say "afterwards," because you've used that phrase,

7 can we take it the same applies to before, during, or after the Assembly

8 meetings on those occasions when the Assembly took place in Banja Luka?

9 A. If there were, since I was not a deputy myself, I was not able to

10 attend meetings of that kind. Before the Assembly, of course, people

11 would be convened to the deputies to agree and coordinate their views with

12 the president of the Assembly, but I had nothing to look for there because

13 I wasn't a deputy myself. Now, during the Assembly meeting itself, there

14 were no interruptions to discuss any separate issues, and after the

15 Assembly sessions, if there was an analysis of any kind then it was an

16 analysis of the Assembly, to which I, as a guest, had nothing to do there.

17 I was a guest, in the capacity of guest, not as a member of parliament on

18 a footing of equality with everybody else, the popular assembly, Serbian

19 Assembly.

20 Q. You agree, Mr. Radic, that on occasions of political meetings,

21 where there are a lot of people there, this is standard, isn't it, and

22 nothing special, perhaps, to where you were living and working, there were

23 people milling around, there are formal meetings, there are informal

24 meetings, there are people running into each other in the corridor, there

25 are people perhaps having a cup of coffee or in the bar or whatever.

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 That's politics. There are lots and lots of those types of discussions

2 going on, aren't there?

3 A. Well, I'd exclude politics when I'm having a cup of coffee. Yes,

4 we did have a cup of coffee, and I can't say that we held political

5 discussions over coffee. There would be chatting afterwards, but it

6 wouldn't be a political discussion. Of course, there were political

7 meetings, including the meetings that were mentioned yesterday and the day

8 before by the Prosecutor, for instance. But after that, we would go our

9 own ways, go our separate ways, very quickly after that. There were no

10 further political discussions. And let me say straight away that, as far

11 as Mr. Krajisnik is concerned, I had very few contacts with him, very

12 little contact with him. If you insist upon this matter, I would like

13 somebody to refresh my memory and remind me when it was that I could have

14 had a meeting with him, because quite simply, as I say, his job was one,

15 mine was another. When he came to the Assembly meetings at Banja Luka, I

16 myself was a guest. When we were at the Main Board, I would go back

17 quickly, not have to spend the night there, because it's a long way from

18 Pale to Banja Luka. You have to go a roundabout way, a circuitous route.

19 So I didn't have occasion to talk to Mr. Krajisnik at all, and he was

20 there too as a member, as I was myself. Perhaps in terms of hierarchy, he

21 was somewhat higher up, but he wasn't the person that I would talk to

22 after Main Board meetings.

23 Q. So there was between April and December 1992, there was simply no

24 occasion on which Mr. Krajisnik was present, together with you and others,

25 at which any questions of ethnic cleansing, deportation, expulsion,

1 removal of non-Serbs from Banja Luka, could have taken place; that's

2 correct, isn't it?

3 A. Correct. Right.

4 Q. And beyond the end of 1992, does what I've just put to you and

5 what you've just agreed with apply also to the whole of 1993?

6 A. Correct.

7 Q. And is it right that you have no specific recollection of any

8 occasion on which Dr. Karadzic raised with you or in your presence, apart

9 from Assembly sessions, any questions of ethnic cleansing, deportation,

10 expulsion, removal of non-Serbs from Banja Luka?

11 A. I have already said that it was his criticism mostly of what we

12 had not done and what the others had done, and this could have been

13 interpreted, and we interpreted it as a criticism, directed at the

14 leadership of the town of Banja Luka, which had failed to do what the

15 other towns had done, not only in Republika Srpska but even more so in

16 Bosnia-Herzegovina, for example.

17 Q. How was that criticism expressed -- well, was that criticism

18 expressed to you by Dr. Karadzic?

19 A. Well, he expressed this criticism to me and to the people who had

20 greater connections with Pale, such as the deputies. When they go there,

21 he would say: Gentlemen, you didn't -- haven't done what the other

22 municipalities have done, for example so that would reach us down below.

23 Of course, we had different views on the matter. The result was that

24 Banja Luka was the last from which people left. And as I say, most of the

25 people left in 1995, after the month of August. And similarly, it is also

1 true and a fact that in Banja Luka there is not a single mass grave.

2 However much you may search for any. I said I would be willing to dig

3 myself if anybody found a mass grave anywhere. Looting and killings did

4 occur, but there's not a single mass grave.

5 Q. Did Dr. Karadzic ever express that criticism to you on any

6 occasion when you and he were both physically present?

7 A. No. No, he didn't.

8 Q. And did he ever express that criticism to you in a telephone

9 conversation between you and him?

10 A. I said he didn't, neither in a telephone conversation or in

11 writing. He only sent one letter to me, corresponded with me once in

12 writing, to inform me that the commission would re-examine some of my

13 stands, positions. When I had an 11-member commission examining me on

14 some of my positions, that is the only occasion that he used his right as

15 president vis-a-vis me, the president of the Municipal Assembly. And I'm

16 sure you have that document yourself. The establishment of a commission

17 to assert the exactness of the allegations I had made in interviews given

18 to various newspapers, journals, and so on.

19 Q. Mr. Radic, you were asked yesterday some questions by His Honour

20 Judge Orie, and we've been over some of this ground already this morning,

21 but I'm afraid we are going to have to go over some of it again to get

22 everything as clear as we possibly can.

23 His Honour asked you, in relation to the interview that you'd --

24 that had been conducted in July 1991, at which -- sorry, 2001. I beg your

25 pardon. July 2001 -- that if Ms. Korner - perhaps you remember

1 Ms. Korner - but if Ms. Korner had asked you whether, during this meeting

2 or such meetings - and that was a reference to supposed meetings with

3 Dr. Karadzic and Mr. Krajisnik - you had been blamed for there being too

4 many remaining non-Serbs in Banja Luka, whether you would have been less

5 hesitant to say: Yes, that's what they blamed me for.

6 And then you referred to criticisms and so on.

7 And then a little bit later on - it's page 48 of the transcript -

8 His Honour said: "So then you are blamed for not having expelled

9 non-Serbs, as Serbs were expelled from other territories, with, as a

10 result, that there were too many non-Serbs remaining in Banja Luka who had

11 to be fed, and is that a correct understanding of, and had to be given

12 medical care? Is that a correct understanding of your testimony?" And

13 you said: "You've understood it well." And His Honour put to you: "And

14 that's what was said in meetings you had with Mr. Karadzic and

15 Mr. Krajisnik?" And you said: "Along those lines. Those were the

16 suggestions made mostly. Nobody ever mentioned the methods of ethnic

17 cleansing at all," and so on.

18 Now, when His Honour put to you: "And that's what was said in

19 meetings you had with Mr. Karadzic and Mr. Krajisnik" and you said "along

20 those lines."

21 JUDGE ORIE: May I just, Mr. Stewart, interrupt you for one

22 second. If you would look at the line starting my question with the words

23 "and that's." And if you would then look at the sixth word, in connection

24 with the fifth word, I am not quite sure that not the word "a" should be

25 added, and perhaps the "s" stricken out from that sixth word. I'm not

1 sure, but I'd like to check as a matter of fact on the audiotape what I

2 exactly said. I'm just saying this to you at this moment in order to

3 avoid whatever discussion later on I had -- of course, you can continue on

4 the basis of this, but I just want to tell it to you now and not say:

5 Well, if you had that in your mind, you should have told me at the time.

6 I think I used the wording such that you understand what I mean.

7 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, that's very helpful and I appreciate --

8 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps we should --

9 MR. STEWART: -- I do --

10 JUDGE ORIE: -- our next breaks.

11 MR. STEWART: I very much appreciate the slightly coded and

12 understandable way in which Your Honour has put the point to me.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

14 MR. STEWART: Your Honour and I are being asked to speak one at a

15 time.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

17 MR. STEWART: But I -- we -- so we --

18 JUDGE ORIE: I apologise also on behalf of Mr. Stewart.

19 MR. STEWART: Thank you, Your Honour.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

21 MR. STEWART: I appreciate that. The -- Your Honour, it's -- I'm

22 nearly at the end. It's such an important point, Your Honour, that I

23 really think we should be clear before I proceed. It's a nuisance, I

24 know, but it is a very important area.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If you'd have any other issue at this moment to

1 deal with, we could do that. Otherwise, if we have a break now, we would

2 be -- we might not -- we might have too long a period until the -- until

3 the next -- too long a period for ending at a quarter to 2.00. So if you

4 would have another subject, and I'll certainly try to do my utmost best to

5 see whether we can clarify the issue I just raised during the next break.

6 MR. STEWART: I don't know whether it's good news or bad news,

7 Your Honour, but I don't have other points. So that indicates that my

8 cross-examination shouldn't be very much longer, but it does present the

9 immediate practical question.

10 [Trial Chamber confers]

11 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Stewart, I think we should have a break at

12 this moment, and whether we could deal with the matter in 20 minutes or

13 not is still to be seen. I'll see whether it will be possible to have an

14 excerpt of the audio of that very moment to see whether we can -- I'm not

15 sure. I'm simply saying this. I'm not sure. But I just thought that if

16 it would be the case, then it could have some consequences which I'd

17 rather avoid to occur.

18 We'll have a break for at least 20 minutes, but ...

19 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

20 JUDGE ORIE: I think it would be wisest to have a break until a

21 quarter past 12.00. We adjourn until a quarter past 12.00.

22 --- Recess taken at 11.35 a.m.

23 --- On resuming at 12.24 p.m.

24 JUDGE ORIE: I checked during the break the transcript. The

25 reason why I did this, because I had in the back of my mind that I not

1 only used the plural, but also the singular. As a matter of fact, I did

2 that, but one page prior to that, where I said meeting or meetings, this

3 meeting or meetings. And I wasn't sure that it was where I said it. I

4 checked it, and the transcript is correct in every respect. So that could

5 be the basis for further questions.

6 Before we do so, however, I'd like to ask a few questions to the

7 Prosecution, but in private session. It will not take very long, I take

8 it, but ...

9 [Private session]

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 (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 [Open session]

23 JUDGE ORIE: We are in open session again.

24 Madam Usher, would you please escort the witness into the

25 courtroom.

1 [The witness entered court]

2 JUDGE ORIE: You may proceed, Mr. Stewart.

3 MR. STEWART: Thank you, Your Honour.

4 Q. So, Mr. Radic, just to refresh our memories here on the immediate

5 past, I'm talking about at page 47 of yesterday's transcript at -- I'm

6 sorry. Page 48 we'd got on to. I'll just recap. His Honour Judge Orie

7 said: "So then you were blamed for not having expelled non-Serbs, as

8 Serbs were expelled from other territories, with, as a result, that there

9 were too many non-Serbs remaining in Banja Luka who had to be fed and - is

10 that a correct understanding of - and had to be given medical care. Is

11 that a correct understanding of your testimony?" And then you said:

12 "You've understood it well." And Judge Orie said: "And that's what was

13 said in meetings you had with Mr. Karadzic and Mr. Krajisnik?" And then

14 you said: "Along those lines. Those were the suggestions made mostly."

15 And then, so, Mr. Radic, as an observation first, before I then

16 get to the question: It appears that -- well, I'll put it in the form of

17 a question. It appears that you were accepting what was implicit in His

18 Honour's question, that discussions of these matters had taken place in

19 meetings that you had had with Mr. Karadzic and Mr. Krajisnik. So, first

20 of all, do you agree that what I have just quoted to you from the

21 transcript certainly appears to contain your acceptance of that implicit

22 element of His Honour's question, that there were such meetings of

23 Mr. Karadzic and Mr. Krajisnik at which there were such discussions?

24 A. Yes. I said that yesterday. However, I also said that such

25 criticisms were not levelled at me by Mr. Krajisnik but by Mr. Karadzic.

1 And that was written down, although I don't have it here on the screen.

2 That's what I said. I said that this was not done by Mr. Krajisnik but by

3 Mr. Karadzic. Later on, I also said that Mr. Krajisnik did not discuss

4 this topic with me, be it individually with me, the two of us alone, or at

5 meetings.

6 Q. When you, in effect, accepted what His Honour was saying, that

7 that was what was said in meetings you had with Mr. Karadzic and

8 Mr. Krajisnik, and you said "along those lines," that was as to the

9 content, but you didn't dispute or comment or protest in any way at the

10 assumption there had been such meetings, did you understand His Honour's

11 question to relate only to meetings of the Assembly of Republika Srpska?

12 A. These were not formal meetings convened for that particular topic

13 we've been discussing here. These were meetings convened after the

14 Assembly session for some other purposes. And once again, I emphasise

15 that I was not given any sort of an order to ensure that non-Serb

16 populations left the area. I was simply criticised for having many more

17 Croats and Muslims in Banja Luka than Serbs in the other areas. And this

18 was written down. But I've also said that this was not something that

19 Krajisnik said. And if you look back at what was said, it can't be seen

20 here, you'll see that that's what I said.

21 Q. Mr. Radic, the -- I have been reading transcript of your interview

22 in July 2001, transcripts of your evidence that you've been giving in this

23 trial in the course of this week, and I have been listening and/or reading

24 to -- or listening to and/or reading what you've been saying this morning

25 about all this. And I apologise that this isn't a question. This is

1 simply a statement. At the moment, Mr. Radic, I am having great

2 difficulty in reconciling your answers, which is why I'm exploring it.

3 Mr. Radic, according to the evidence which you have given this

4 morning, there were no such meetings that you had with Mr. Karadzic and

5 Mr. Krajisnik at which this question of non-Serbs being expelled or

6 removed from Banja Luka was discussed. That's correct, isn't it? That's

7 been your evidence this morning.

8 A. There were no, so to speak, explicit statements to the effect

9 that's what the case is, ethnic cleansing has to be carried out. We were

10 being criticised for the fact that there were more Croats and Muslims in

11 our municipality than there were elsewhere, in other areas. I've been

12 saying this several times now. These were not statements concerning

13 ethnic cleansing. These were just passing references by Mr. Karadzic, and

14 I said that there was not a single occasion when Mr. Krajisnik addressed

15 me on this topic.

16 Q. Mr. Radic, it goes further, doesn't it? You have been saying this

17 morning, and I'm just inviting you to make it as clear as can be made,

18 that there was not a single occasion on which the question of ethnic

19 cleansing, expulsion, removal of non-Serbs from Banja Luka was discussed

20 when you and Mr. Krajisnik were both present, if we leave aside Assembly

21 sessions?

22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger.

23 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, I've tried to give Mr. Stewart as much

24 latitude as possible, but I think it's clear now that that question has

25 been asked and answered, more than once.

1 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, many questions have been asked

2 and answered more than once, but -- well, I'll go a small way with the

3 witness present, Your Honour.

4 JUDGE ORIE: I'll allow you to put this question to the witness.

5 I wouldn't fully disagree with what you said in response to that. But --

6 MR. STEWART: Yes, I understand, Your Honour. Thank you.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps, Mr. Radic, I'll put -- Mr. Stewart is

8 putting to you that this morning, at various moments, you said: Well,

9 there could not have been such meetings or such occasions where we could

10 have discussed this matter. And he says that this is difficult to

11 reconcile with what you told us yesterday and what was just put to you.

12 That's, I think, the question Mr. Stewart is putting to you. He said:

13 How could you say that such meetings could not have taken place, and at

14 the same time, you told us about such a meeting yesterday?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I kept saying here that a formal

16 meeting dedicated to what was now discussed by Mr. Stewart never took

17 place, that this was always on the occasion of something else taking

18 place, whether an Assembly session or something else. It was on that

19 occasion that I would be criticised for the large numbers of the Muslims

20 and the Croats.

21 Now, here you keep insisting on this one meeting being held for

22 that, and I keep saying that there was no such one meeting dedicated to

23 this particular issue. And specifically, Mr. Krajisnik never told me, not

24 even at a broader meeting, involving more persons, anything about ethnic

25 cleansing. And I don't know how many times I ought to repeat this in

1 order to really say what I am supposed to be saying.

2 MR. STEWART:

3 Q. All you're supposed to be saying, Mr. Radic, is the truth, as best

4 you can remember it. That's absolutely basic. So let's proceed on that

5 footing.

6 Also, Mr. Radic, I'm going to have to invite you, please, not to

7 concern yourself with how many times you might have previously answered a

8 particular question. That is a matter for the Trial Chamber to concern

9 themselves with and to give directions on, and it's a matter on which we

10 counsel have responsibilities. It is not your problem. Please, when

11 you're asked a question, even if you think you've been asked it a hundred

12 times, if you're asked the question, please answer it.

13 Mr. Radic, was there ever an occasion on which you and

14 Mr. Krajisnik were both present when Dr. Karadzic made any sort of

15 criticism in relation to ethnic cleansing, expulsion, removal,

16 deportation, presence of numbers of non-Serbs in Banja Luka?

17 A. It is possible that there was. But the last part you mentioned,

18 that was what was mentioned, the greater numbers of Muslims and Croats.

19 But there was no mention of ethnic cleansing. But it is possible that

20 there was this issue discussed. That's why I insisted on that error where

21 the names of Krajisnik and Karadzic were put together.

22 Q. You see, and just to remind you: His Honour's questions

23 yesterday, in effect, accommodated your objection to the phrase "ethnic

24 cleansing," and so the gist of His Honour's questions were: Well, if we

25 take away ethnic cleansing and we talk in terms of expulsion, then would

1 your evidence be different, in effect, or would you accept such-and-such a

2 position. And that's how it proceeded.

3 So -- and the answer you've just given, you said, and you've given

4 evidence to that effect, that the numbers of non-Serbs remaining in Banja

5 Luka came up in some discussions. But let's take it in stages. Was there

6 ever an occasion on which you and Mr. Krajisnik were both present when

7 Dr. Karadzic made any sort of criticism in relation to ethnic cleansing?

8 A. Whether Mr. Krajisnik was there or not, I cannot claim with

9 certainty. I say it is possible. But I do know that it was Mr. Karadzic

10 who criticised me. Now, whether Mr. Krajisnik was there, I cannot

11 confirm. And I've been saying this from the very beginning. Why put

12 Krajisnik and Karadzic together at all costs, when Mr. Krajisnik never

13 expressed this criticism, be it individually or in a meeting?

14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Radic, it's not for you to put questions to why

15 certain persons are united in one question. If you would, however, like

16 to know, it would be on the basis of your statement.

17 Now, the issue is: You have told us yesterday that you are not

18 happy with the ethnic cleansing expression, that that was not the terms

19 that were used. You also told us that in meetings with Mr. Karadzic and

20 Mr. Krajisnik, the remaining numbers of non-Serbs in Banja Luka was put to

21 you and that you were blamed for not having done the same as was done in

22 other municipalities. You made clear to us that it was Mr. Karadzic who

23 expressed those words. And you also testified that it was during meetings

24 with -- or at least a meeting with Mr. Karadzic and Mr. Krajisnik being

25 present. Is this correct? Yes or no.

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When talking about Mr. Karadzic, the

2 answer is yes. As for Mr. Krajisnik, it is possible that he was there,

3 because the nature of the meetings was such that we were all there.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Yesterday you told us that, when I specifically

5 asked you whether this was said in meetings with Mr. Karadzic and

6 Mr. Krajisnik, you, as you did this morning, you confirmed that that was

7 the case. I think you also explained to us that this was a meeting which

8 was not a formal meeting of the Assembly, but that it was just in the

9 margin of such meetings. Where you now say that it was possible that

10 Mr. Krajisnik was present, when you said yesterday this was said at

11 meetings where Mr. Krajisnik and Mr. Karadzic were present although

12 Mr. Karadzic expressed those words.

13 Do we have to understand you -- answer of today to say that

14 yesterday, when you said it was in meetings with Mr. Karadzic and

15 Mr. Krajisnik that that was not a correct answer?

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not saying that Mr. Krajisnik

17 was not there with Mr. Karadzic. But it does not mean that he took part

18 in it all. It was Mr. Karadzic who told me what I told you. And it

19 wasn't Mr. Krajisnik.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Krajisnik was not expressing those words,

21 he was not -- he did not take part in it, but was he present, at least

22 during one?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He was present, as I say, but he did

24 not take part in the conversation, nor did he say anything on that

25 particular issue.

1 [Trial Chamber confers]

2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, the Chamber considers the subject

3 sufficiently dealt with at this moment. So you may proceed.

4 MR. STEWART: What subject, Your Honour, please?

5 JUDGE ORIE: The subject of the presence of Mr. Krajisnik at an

6 occasion where Mr. Karadzic expressed words on the issue of too many

7 non-Serbs remaining in the Banja Luka area. And I think that this is what

8 the issue is really about.

9 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, may I ask for the witness to leave

10 court, please, before I make my next submission?

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

12 MR. STEWART: Thank you.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Radic.

14 [The witness stands down]

15 MR. STEWART: My submission is very simple.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

17 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, this is absolutely the wrong approach.

18 This is an absolutely unfair approach to adopt. We have been to-ing and

19 fro-ing with this witness with him chopping and changing his answers. The

20 Trial Chamber has exercised its prerogative to ask extremely leading

21 questions, and the witness has gone backwards and forwards and at the

22 point where Your Honour has led the witness back to the position in which

23 the Prosecution largely want him to be, the Trial Chamber is then saying

24 the subject is closed. In the middle of my cross-examination, the Trial

25 Chamber intervenes, undermines the answers which I have obtained out of

1 the witness, and the contradictions I've obtained out of the witness,

2 leads him back to this point and then says that's the end of the question.

3 JUDGE ORIE: No. It's not the end of the question.

4 MR. STEWART: The end of the topic.

5 JUDGE ORIE: The contradiction in the answer is still there.

6 MR. STEWART: Well --

7 JUDGE ORIE: I mean, let's not discuss the matter any further,

8 Mr. Stewart. The Chamber is not unaware that this witness testified that

9 he had a meeting with Mr. Krajisnik and Mr. Karadzic where Mr. Karadzic

10 spoke about certain subjects. The Chamber is also not unaware that the

11 witness also testified that such meetings could not have taken place at

12 the same time, that such meetings did not take place, apart from Assembly

13 meetings. So the Chamber is fully aware, and it's not the last word of

14 this witness which is the final word for the Chamber. But we have to stop

15 somewhere, because the risk is there that if we would continue with this

16 line of questioning, that it would be one quarter of an hour to the left,

17 another quarter of an hour to the right. I mean, the Chamber is aware of

18 that. And that could perhaps continue for hours. So on the basis of the

19 testimony given until now, the Chamber has decided that the -- this

20 factual matter has been dealt with sufficiently.

21 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, my -- my only submission on that

22 is that what Your Honour sayings would, in principle, be more consonant,

23 with respect, with a fair approach to this witness's evidence if the Trial

24 Chamber's questions were not so clearly questions which were supportive of

25 and consistent with what the Prosecution wished to get from this witness

1 rather than what the Defence wished to get from this witness.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The Chamber has noticed that you consider the

3 questions of the witness to be supportive to the Prosecution and insupport

4 [sic] of the Defence. The ruling is there. If you would have any further

5 questions to the witness, we could ask the usher to escort the witness

6 into the courtroom. And if not ...

7 Yes.

8 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, actually, well, the only thing I did

9 want to do, but if I need the witness back to do it, then the witness

10 comes back to do it, is we would like the whole of the statements of this

11 witness to be in evidence, not as his evidence, because he hasn't endorsed

12 them all in that way, but we would wish the whole of those statements to

13 go in and be available as part of the evidence.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Perhaps we could discuss this matter.

15 Mr. Tieger, this has come into the mind of the Chamber as well, although

16 we might have a slightly different approach.

17 MR. STEWART: Sorry, Your Honour. I said statements. I beg your

18 pardon. It was a slip of the tongue. Your Honour knows I mean the

19 transcripts of the interviews.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Of course.

21 MR. STEWART: Yes.

22 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber has considered whether we should admit

23 them into evidence, which would make those transcripts exhibits. Because

24 the relevant portions have been read to this witness. At the same time,

25 the witness has read some B/C/S portions of the statement which are not in

1 the transcript. He has done that during a break. So I'd like to hear

2 from the parties whether it would be more appropriate to admit them into

3 evidence or to mark them for identification so that at least the copies

4 are there and that whomever at a later stage would like to see what the

5 witness has read is able to do so. So should it be in evidence or should

6 it just be marked for identification?

7 MR. STEWART: I'll just have a word, if I may.

8 [Defence counsel confer]

9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart.

10 MR. STEWART: Yes. Your Honour, the Defence would wish the

11 documents to be in evidence, because we wish to be able to say: Yes,

12 that's what -- that's what Mr. Radic did say on those occasions during the

13 course of those interviews.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Tieger.

15 MR. TIEGER: That's acceptable, Your Honour. If I could raise one

16 minor point.

17 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber will follow the preference of the Defence

18 not objected by the Prosecution. If they are tendered, we'll admit them

19 into evidence rather than to mark them for identification.

20 MR. TIEGER: I would note with respect to a similar issue, there

21 is a -- as I know counsel is aware, a similar reference to this issue in

22 the Brdjanin transcript. I would like to have that -- I can either ask

23 about it in redirect or have it just simply have it agreed upon for

24 admission. It's just a few pages, roughly 22319, line 11 through 22321,

25 line 10. But we're dealing with the matter in this fashion then it seems

1 it would be more efficient.

2 MR. STEWART: Yes, in principle, what's sauce for the goose is

3 sauce for the gander, as we say, Your Honour, as well. No, we couldn't

4 possibly object to passages of the Brdjanin transcript going in in that

5 way. Yes, that was the evidence given in the Brdjanin case. And if it

6 turns out on examination that there might be more pages in due course

7 which might be relevant, then we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

8 JUDGE ORIE: The position of the parties is clear. Then,

9 Madam Usher, could you please escort the witness into the courtroom.

10 MR. STEWART: Just like to note while -- I'm sorry, Your Honour.

11 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

12 [The witness entered court]

13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, any further questions to the witness?

14 MR. STEWART: No, Your Honour. The observation I was just going

15 to make was that Ms. Cmeric has expressed quite a lot of unhappiness over

16 the translation of those -- the transcripts of those interviews. I'm not

17 entirely sure of the order of events as far as the translation is

18 concerned, but we just want to have a look at that, Your Honour, and

19 perhaps come back to it in due course. It's not something we can explore

20 today anyway.

21 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand. If there are any submissions to be

22 made on incorrectness of translation of the statements, we can't deal with

23 it at this point and at a later stage we'll have to find out whether it

24 has had any influence on the testimony of this witness in this court.

25 Mr. Tieger, any need for further questions to the --

1 MR. TIEGER: No, Your Honour.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Judge El Mahdi has one or more questions for

3 you, Mr. Radic.

4 Questioned by the Court:

5 JUDGE EL MAHDI: Thank you, Mr. President.

6 [Interpretation] Witness, I should like, please, to know a little

7 more about this question that you were asked during your testimony, and

8 I'm referring to what you said with respect to the interventions of

9 deputies and their insistence upon the fact that you were not doing or not

10 following the directives along the lines of having a presence, if I can

11 put it that way, of the Croat and Muslim inhabitants, at least in the

12 administration.

13 Now, in this context, you were asked a specific question, and it

14 was about realistic power, the realistic power that the deputies had. And

15 you said, among other things, that: Yes, they did wield power, because

16 they were the elected deputies, elected by the people. And you also

17 added, and I'm quoting you in English: [In English] [Previous

18 translation continues] "... and if they have a skilful leader like

19 Krajisnik, then ..." [Interpretation] And that's where you stopped.

20 Now, my first question is this: What were you going to add? What

21 were you going to say in that context?

22 A. Well, without a doubt, Mr. Krajisnik was very skilful. He was a

23 very skilful leader and a very skilful president, who was well able to

24 chair meetings and to have those meetings arrive at conclusions. Now,

25 it's quite another matter how the deputies used that. Some of them would

1 come with requests and demands that weren't discussed at all, nor were

2 they made at National Assembly meetings.

3 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] May I interrupt you there,

4 Witness. I am interested more in knowing, within the scope of this

5 subject, the interventions made by the deputies and their insistence upon

6 the fact that there was a malfunctioning in Banja Luka in the extent to

7 which you were not following the example set and the directives given

8 obliging you to replace or get rid of or carry out a balancing policy, or

9 expelling the non-Serb population, in view of their numbers, their

10 existing numbers.

11 A. Your Honour, I didn't receive any order to expel the non-Serb

12 population.

13 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] No, no. I wasn't speaking about

14 orders. It seemed to me -- I seemed to understand you as saying that the

15 deputies, five or six of them, at least, encouraged you to react

16 differently, in the sense of getting rid of a certain number of non-Serb

17 inhabitants.

18 A. You also asked me whether they intervened to have Croats and

19 Muslims dismissed from their jobs.

20 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Yes. And it is that subject that

21 I'm interested in.

22 A. My answer to you, Your Honour, is the same answer that I gave here

23 previously, that I did not allow, I did not permit people to be dismissed

24 from their jobs. But not especially in the Municipal Assembly where they

25 worked, not especially there.

1 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Yes, I understand that. But my

2 interest lies elsewhere. We have the facts, and you have confirmed that

3 the deputies intervened either to have you get rid of the non-Serb

4 functionaries, officials, or -- and to expel a certain number of non-Serb

5 inhabitants. So that's a question. Do you say yes or no? Was that the

6 case or was it not?

7 A. They couldn't say to me that I should expel them. What they said

8 was that there were too many of them and that this should be solved and

9 resolved in the same way it had been resolved in other municipalities. So

10 you must know, Your Honour, that in the municipalities in Republika

11 Srpska, the process had already been completed. And as it had indeed in

12 Bosnia-Herzegovina itself.

13 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Yes. But in your opinion, what

14 was the relationship between those deputies and the Presidency of the

15 Assembly, for example?

16 A. Well, the type of relationship that always exists between the

17 president of the Assembly and the deputies. What is concluded at the

18 Assembly, the deputies were duty-bound to implement on the ground. But I

19 saw on many occasions that what they had asked for was not the position

20 taken by the People's Assembly itself. One of them asked for example that

21 the vice-president of the Assembly be expelled from his office so that he

22 could replace him. And when I said what are you doing he said he was

23 interpreting the laws that were enacted at the Assembly and he was just a

24 teacher. So there were cases and examples of that kind quite a lot but I

25 was always opposed to that and I don't say that Mr. Krajisnik gave

1 instructions to that effect at all.

2 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] No. I'm not saying that. I

3 should just like to go back to what you yourself said when you said that

4 these deputies gained an importance, took on more importance through the

5 fact that they had a skilful, as you yourself said, leader. Therefore, my

6 question is quite simply this. It's a very simple question. I would like

7 to understand what you have told us. So why, when it comes to deputies

8 and their power, the power they yielded, did you add that they gained

9 their importance or weight, that they gained more weight through the fact

10 that they had a president who was indeed, as you said, skilful? So my

11 question, quite simply, is this: The power that the president of the

12 Assembly wielded, did it go beyond the powers of a president of a mere

13 president of the Assembly? Or did he have the power that he exerted over

14 his deputies and then this explains what you yourself said and quoted?

15 A. I said a moment ago that they acted and behaved outside their

16 competences and that Mr. Krajisnik was a very skilful president of the

17 National Assembly who led them and solved problems with them. It does not

18 mean that what they asked me to do that they ever heard that from him.

19 And that proved to be so because what they asked me to do was something

20 they could not have heard from Mr. Krajisnik, either at the National

21 Assembly or elsewhere. So they came from those heights up above, took --

22 assumed this high-up position and tried to behave in that way.

23 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] And now this brings me to my last

24 question, which has to do with what you said, and I'm quoting you [In

25 English] [Previous translation continues] ... the unwritten rules."

1 [Interpretation] You said that there were certain unwritten rules or

2 directives which were applied in all the municipalities, in the sense of

3 getting rid of the non-Serb inhabitants. Now, do you know something more

4 about that, the source of those unwritten rules, where that came from?

5 A. Well, those rules were not equal for all municipalities. It

6 depended on who and how individual things were interpreted, things that --

7 decisions made by the government or brought up at assemblies. And one of

8 them was this delocation of the population or the rationalisation of

9 accommodation, as we referred to it.

10 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Came from whom?

11 A. Well, it came from those people who insisted upon the

12 implementation of this and it reached the enterprises in some way.

13 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [In English] Who are these people?

14 A. I never saw the document myself, but it arrived at the enterprises

15 and companies, and that's how they settled the question of their

16 combatants, those who were factory employees.

17 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] And you didn't ask yourself where

18 the documents emanated from, where they originated from? You didn't ask

19 yourself that question, you didn't have information about the source of

20 the documents?

21 A. No, because it was never brought up at the municipal meeting of

22 Banja Luka, for example, Municipal Assembly meeting of Banja Luka. So I

23 can't say if such a document existed, I can't say who gave such an

24 instruction and that's what I said before. I said there were some very

25 strange sources on the basis of which some people, for example,

1 interpreted the fact that a music professor was at the source of

2 information and that's why he should be dismissed from his job. So even

3 if a document did exist, it had to have said that a music teacher was not

4 an important -- importantly placed.

5 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] But a music teacher can also play

6 a political role, can he not, and we have had testimony to the effect that

7 there were certain refrains which represented an ethnicity, things that

8 were said representing an ethnicity. So he wasn't an ordinary professor.

9 For example, a professor of music can have political overtones. But let's

10 move on.

11 Anyway, with respect to what you said about the unwritten rules,

12 what you're saying now is that you didn't have any information as to who

13 these rules came from; is that right?

14 A. Yes, that's right. Although, as a rule, they would come to us, to

15 the municipality, looking for protection. And we never adopted a document

16 of that kind in the Assembly. We didn't get it from the National Assembly

17 or from the government. We never received a document of that kind which

18 would allow us to act that way in any particular case. So those are the

19 sources on the basis of which things like that happened.

20 JUDGE EL MAHDI: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Radic, I have a few short questions for you.

22 Would you please carefully listen to the question.

23 First you testified about the knowledge of Mr. Sommaruga of, well,

24 a large number of non-Serbs going through the territory of Banja Luka.

25 A. Serbs.

1 JUDGE ORIE: Let me then ... Yes. Yes. You said he was aware of

2 that. Did he agree with these transports, in your view?

3 A. Serbs, you mean?

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. No, no. Mr. Sommaruga. Because you told about

5 his knowledge.

6 A. Yes. Cornelio Sommaruga. Mr. Sommaruga came by helicopter. He

7 flew over Banja Luka at a time when 250.000 Serbs from the Knin Krajina

8 were passing through Banja Luka. And he was frightened of what he saw.

9 Because the information he received was that in every second or third

10 truck there were weapons. Now, had those people entered the city centre,

11 they would have destroyed it. So we let them go, circumvent Banja Luka

12 and pass around it. He saw President Koljevic's own [as interpreted].

13 They talked late into the night. Mr. Koljevic went to Pale and had a

14 meeting with Mrs. Lucy Santer [phoen], and they wrote -- compiled a

15 document about the voluntary departure of the non-Serb population, signed

16 by Mrs. Lucy Santer and Mr. Koljevic, and I think that I gave a Mr. Conner

17 that - Mrs. Conner - that document when she was in Banja Luka.

18 Mrs. Korner. If you don't have it in your archives I shall be happy to

19 send it to you both in English and in Serbian.

20 So after that, as I say, that was the greatest exodus that took

21 place, when the realisation of the treaty began to be implemented, the

22 treaty on the departure of the population, where these people were taken

23 off to the Croatian border. He was afraid that untoward incidents would

24 take place when -- there was a clash with 250.000 armed Serbs who had been

25 expelled from Croatia came to a head.

1 JUDGE ORIE: If you'd just allow me one second to reread your

2 answer. It's still not entirely clear to me why the non-Serb population

3 had to leave as a result of the arrival of 250.000 Serbs from the Knin

4 Krajina. Because you put them in the same context.

5 A. I'm not putting them in the same context, Your Honour.

6 Mr. Cornelio Sommaruga put them in the same context because he was

7 terribly afraid of the possible consequences of a clash breaking out

8 between people left without their homes and saw that this place was

9 inhabited by non-Serbs. So that was the reason. The reason was: Let's

10 get rid of them for the time being until this convoy of 250.000 people

11 goes through and then have the population return. And I can tell you that

12 in Banja Luka, 95 per cent of the property that was not destroyed was

13 returned to the Muslims and Croats. That is what is happening in

14 Prijedor, and so on and so forth, elsewhere. So that was his idea because

15 he was petrified, and I think he was right to have been petrified and

16 terribly afraid of this happening.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I now understand better the context.

18 Did you ever visit the Omarska camp when there was -- when there

19 were still detainees? I'm just asking you whether you did or not.

20 A. Yes, I did, Your Honour.

21 JUDGE ORIE: What caused you to visit Omarska camp? What was the

22 reason why you went there?

23 A. Well, I have to say that the organisation of that visit, and I

24 myself, well, yes, I did have reason to go and see it but the organisation

25 of the visit was Mr. Brdjanin, because he wished to have a see whether

1 anything could be done to get those people away from there. That was his

2 initiative.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Were you aware of a situation that existed that

4 perhaps should change?

5 A. When I saw what the situation was, I immediately asked the

6 representative of the ICRC to go and register those people urgently.

7 Because once their names are taken down and listed in the camp, then you

8 put an end to all unfortunate incidences, anything evil happening. And

9 then I asked him if we could find a way to get the people away altogether.

10 JUDGE ORIE: My question was focusing on what you knew before you

11 went to Omarska, because I do understand your last answer to be that when

12 you saw what the situation was during your visit, what did you know or

13 what did you hear or see about possible situations in Omarska before you

14 went there?

15 A. I think that immediately after the events, that information did

16 pour into us. They even suggested from the Prijedor authorities that they

17 would send these people to us to Banja Luka, for example. What would we

18 do with all those people in Banja Luka in addition to all the refugees

19 that we had from all over Bosnia-Herzegovina coming to us and from the

20 Knin Krajina? So what I did then was I went to see for myself. I

21 responded to the invitation and went to see for myself.

22 JUDGE ORIE: You said that immediately after the events, that

23 information did pour into us. Could you tell us what information. That's

24 one. And then by which means that came to you.

25 A. The links between Prijedor and Banja Luka were not severed.

1 People who had relatives in Omarska, for instance, came and said what was

2 going on there. And it was through them that I learnt that the people

3 were living in terrible conditions on the premises of an Omarska mine,

4 others in Keraterm, which was a tile factory. They were completely

5 inappropriate conditions. Nobody had prepared for that. They just put

6 the people in these premises, the premises they had. But they had no

7 proper conditions to accommodate those people. And when I saw Omarska, I

8 had had enough. I'd seen enough. I came back and said what I said, what

9 I told Mr. Manning [phoen].

10 JUDGE ORIE: You now told me what information came to you, and you

11 mentioned as the source relatives from Omarska. And you said: "For

12 instance, came to see you." Were there any other sources of information,

13 apart from the relatives that came to you?

14 A. Well, that kind of information was not given out in the papers, in

15 the form in which I saw things. Quite simply, the detainees, the

16 prisoners in Omarska and in Keraterm were there, but I learnt the real

17 truth of the matter from the Serbs, whose parents, for example, lived

18 nearby, were near the Omarska mine and detention facility, for example,

19 and of course, afterwards bench called us to have a look for ourselves and

20 we saw it all. We didn't receive any other information, because not

21 everybody had access to those sites, just the people that were allowed in,

22 permitted to enter, asked to be allowed in.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Was there any foreign media coverage that gave you

24 some information?

25 A. At the time, at that time, no, they could not. The foreign media

1 could have access only once the people had been transferred to the

2 military barracks at Manjaca. Then they could go up to them and talk to

3 them. But otherwise, while they were down there, no, they couldn't. It

4 was all blocked off.

5 JUDGE ORIE: How were you aware that the foreign media could have

6 access once the detainees were transferred to Manjaca? How do you know

7 that?

8 A. Because they came to see me too. Because, as far as I was

9 concerned, Manjaca, for us, the civilian authorities, was ex-territorial.

10 It was a military facility, a military premises. And when they came back

11 from there, I remember Jelinek, a lady journalist from Austria, a case in

12 point, she came to see me and then we discussed that whole issue.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Did you see the result of this press coverage in any

14 way on television broadcasted? I mean, those journalist reports. Did you

15 see them?

16 A. As for journalist reports from that locality in Republika Srpska,

17 no. They were not broadcast. They were broadcast in Austria, in Holland.

18 There were some even in Norway. Broadcast in the countries from which

19 those journalist had come to film it all. There were even -- there was

20 even a crew from Japan, for example. But quite understandably, you

21 couldn't have had Japanese reports and Norwegian reports and it was only

22 after all that that I learnt from some journalist that they had filmed all

23 this, of course with the presence of representatives of the ICRC and the

24 military authorities.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Were you satisfied with the conditions in which the

1 detainees were in Manjaca, once transferred to there?

2 A. Well, it's like this: Whether I was satisfied or not is of a

3 lesser importance. But I was dissatisfied, let me say, because there

4 weren't the proper conditions there. Right up until the International

5 Committee of the Red Cross arrived and organised health protection, they

6 clothed the people and asked to have the proper standards, or at least the

7 kind of standards that those barracks could provide. Otherwise, where

8 they were, the conditions were very poor, very bad. But once again let me

9 say they were better than they had been at Omarska and Keraterm, for

10 instance.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Did you participate in any way to have the

12 conditions in Manjaca improved? I do understand that it was a military

13 facility, as you told me. Did you address the military or did you address

14 anyone else to improve the situation?

15 A. I've already said that the International Red Cross committee

16 existed and that I did everything I could in my power to ensure that they

17 had access, to ensure medical protection and care, and of course they had

18 food and they had clothing and they had blankets and everything else that

19 was necessary. And they sent it up there. Banja Luka at that time didn't

20 have all this. They didn't have enough food for it to be able to send

21 food out to that military facility. So, as I say, what we could do, we

22 did. And of course, after that, there was organised transport from the

23 civilian airport in Banja Luka from whence they were flown out all over

24 Europe and got out of there.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Communication with the ICRC, was that done on the

1 municipal level or any other level?

2 A. Well, it was a regional level where we were, because they covered

3 a broader area. So they covered an area that was, for example, under

4 Muslim and Croatian jurisdiction. They went there too, with their help

5 and assistance, from Banja Luka. So that it was of a regional character,

6 a broad regional character. And the very fact that the president of the

7 International Committee of the Red Cross, for example, came to Banja Luka

8 frequently and visited Banja Luka and Sarajevo, speaks to the fact that

9 this was indeed a regional centre.

10 JUDGE ORIE: The decision on whether or not to cooperate with or

11 to lend assistance to the ICRC, was that a decision taken on the regional

12 level or would that need any approval from other levels?

13 A. You see, when these matters are discussed, I wouldn't ask for any

14 sort of an approval. But I must say that the vice-president of the

15 National Assembly of Republika Srpska, the late Nikola Koljevic, he was in

16 charge for these matters. And I had his full support in this area. In

17 addition to this, as vice-president, he was in charge within the

18 Presidency for the humanitarian matters with the international community.

19 Of course, I had his support and was able to have his approval, sometimes

20 even before informing him of anything, he had already undertaken some

21 actions.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Informing him about what?

23 A. Of these events, about what I think needed to be undertaken. He

24 never opposed me. Quite the contrary; I think that he encouraged Ms. Lucy

25 Santer and others who were in charge of Bosnia-Herzegovina to do whatever

1 was in their power. I must say that late Nikola Koljevic, he was a

2 professor, a Shakespeareologist and humanitarian, and whatever is --

3 despite of what is being said about him, he was a human being in the true

4 sense of the word. One could rely upon him and he was -- and he stayed in

5 Banja Luka very often, because he hailed from Banja Luka.

6 JUDGE ORIE: You said he took action already before you informed

7 him. Did you ever in your conversations or discussions or communication

8 with him, did you ever experience that he was aware already of the

9 situation you just described for Omarska and Keraterm as -- I think as

10 terrible conditions and unsatisfactory conditions in Manjaca?

11 A. The very fact of him intervening immediately speaks to the fact

12 that he was informed, that he merely was looking for a way to solve the

13 situation in a way that will be most favourable for the people. But he

14 reacted, intervened immediately, and equally so, he stayed late with

15 Mr. Cornelio Sommaruga at a meeting, until midnight. The very next

16 morning, he was with Lucy Santer drafting the document, signing the

17 agreement, and immediately they started providing for these 250.000 Serbs

18 who were very narrow-minded, especially because of the fact that they had

19 been expelled from an area they had lived for centuries, so they

20 immediately started to try and remove them from the area. They had been

21 expelled from Kordun, Banija, and Lika.

22 JUDGE ORIE:

23 JUDGE ORIE: So is it a correct understanding of your testimony

24 that you understood Mr. Koljevic's actions based on similar knowledge as

25 you had about these conditions?

1 A. The very fact that he reacted immediately shows that he must have

2 known. He probably was well informed about the goings-on.

3 JUDGE ORIE: These were my questions.

4 Is there any need to put any further questions to the witness on

5 the basis of issues raised by the Bench?

6 MR. TIEGER: Yes, Your Honour. One issue.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please do so.

8 Further examination by Mr. Tieger:

9 Q. Mr. Radic, Judge El Mahdi asked you a few questions about the

10 power of the deputies and the relationship between their power and the

11 skilfulness of their leader, in the words that you used in your interview.

12 Now, this is also a matter that was raised and that you discussed during

13 the course of your testimony in the Brdjanin case; is that correct? Just

14 yes or no, sir.

15 A. I apologise. May I say -- yes, yes, that is right.

16 Q. And if I could direct your attention to comments beginning on page

17 22134, line 13. You had been asked a question about a decree issued by

18 Dr. Karadzic. You said: "That's something else so forget about what I

19 said above about the decree law issued by Mr. Karadzic and we'll refer to

20 the part which starts with we were a lower municipal level for them and

21 that is how they behaved. Is that what you're asking me about now?"

22 Question: "Exactly but I don't need you to read it all out, Mr. Radic.

23 Everybody's read it. I'm just asking you if that's what you were saying

24 in terms, in other words, if it was people at the level of deputies like

25 Krajisnik, like Karadzic, and like Mr. Brdjanin, who were planning these

1 matters which then were given as orders to the municipal levels."

2 Answer: "What I wanted to say is quite clear in the text. I said that

3 the deputies thought that they were more important than people at the

4 municipal level and that is how they behaved. I said if they had such a

5 masterful leader as Krajisnik, it resulted from all of this. I never

6 mentioned Karadzic as someone who participated in this."

7 That ends at page 22135, line 1.

8 Understanding that masterful in that context very may well be more

9 correctly translated as skilful, were those your comments, Mr. Radic,

10 during the course of the Brdjanin case, with respect to this passage in

11 the interview?

12 A. First of all, this expression here, masterful leader, I've said

13 several times already that this term "leader," "vodja," in B/C/S, that the

14 English term is the correct one. Because in B/C/S, the term vodja perhaps

15 should be interpreted differently. I -- that is not what I had in mind.

16 I've said a moment ago -- I apologise. May I continue?

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. As such you may continue but let me first ask

18 one thing to the parties. The question was whether this is the testimony

19 of this witness in the Brdjanin case. I do understand that the portions

20 of the Brdjanin testimony will be tendered into evidence anyhow.

21 MR. TIEGER: That's fine, Your Honour. I hadn't specifically

22 identified that and we can dispense with the issue that way.

23 MR. STEWART: Your Honour we were asking ourselves --

24 JUDGE ORIE: It's okay.

25 MR. STEWART: -- one answer, but we didn't bother to say that.

1 JUDGE ORIE: Any further questions, Mr. Tieger?

2 MR. TIEGER: No, Your Honour.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Any questions, Mr. Stewart?

4 MR. STEWART: Sorry, Your Honour. We -- Ms. Cmeric suggests, and

5 actually even without being able to follow the B/C/S, it seems she must be

6 right, that that answer the witness just gave at page 76, lines 3 to 7, it

7 seems to be completely mangled, because first of all -- I don't think the

8 witness could have said: "I said several times already this term leader"

9 and then he gives a B/C/S word, that the English term is the correct one.

10 He must be saying it wasn't the correct one. And then Ms. Cmeric tells me

11 that the rest of the answer has got mangled up in some way as well.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could we ask the witness --

13 You're not asked now any more whether this was your testimony in

14 the Brdjanin case but you made some comments on the translation of the

15 word "vodja." Could you please give them so that we can hear them. So

16 you started that you were then interrupted and there was so the confusion

17 anyhow. So could you please repeat or tell us what you wanted to tell us

18 at that moment about the term vodja?

19 A. To put it simply, I believe it quite sufficient to say "president

20 of the parliament." Now, a leader, a ringleader, that is something that

21 could be perceived in our language as in a pejorative manner, so not just

22 as a person who is leading someone. So to say president of a National

23 Assembly is quite enough. I've never said that he's a leader, vodja, in

24 B/C/S.

25 And there's another matter that I would like to address you, if --

1 with your leave, Your Honour.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. First of all, to -- I now understand that you

3 said you never used the word just pronounced, vodja, and that would have

4 been the term you would have used if you would have referred to him as a

5 leader. And you did not use that term.

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Leader could be a party leader,

7 whereas the president of the Assembly is the president of the Assembly.

8 But there's another matter that I wanted to apply to you on. Do I have

9 your leave?

10 Throughout the documents here, two things have constantly been

11 present. In those interviews with Ms. Korner. There were some

12 interruptions with several dots there, where it said that Mr. Krajisnik

13 was skilful. That was -- and then there are some dots following that.

14 And implicitly one could perceive the "him" there as being a manipulator

15 in that sense being skilful, whereas I just wanted to say that he was a

16 skilful president of the National Assembly and he was skilful in running

17 it. Now, what the implementation was like by others, that's something

18 that I told you about. And that's why I also said -- I used the term

19 "Deputate," meaning in that Soviet sense because they thought of

20 themselves very highly, thought of themselves as being superior to the

21 people they were representing. That's how they behaved. And that's why I

22 called them Soviet "deputate."

23 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you once again for clarifying these two issues,

24 Mr. Radic. This conclude your testimony in this court. You've answered

25 the questions of the parties and of the Bench. I would like to thank you

1 very much for having done that and I wish you a safe trip home again.

2 Madam Usher, could you please escort the witness.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.

4 [The witness withdrew]

5 JUDGE ORIE: Just a few practical matters. The witness scheduled

6 for tomorrow is a witness which testifies through a videolink.

7 MR. HANNIS: That's correct, Your Honour. We have another witness

8 scheduled for today.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hannis --

10 MR. HANNIS: I'm sorry. We had another witness scheduled for

11 today, Mr. Odobasic, but we weren't able to get to him. We anticipated

12 the videolink would take precedence.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's what I understood. Do you know how much

14 time you would need approximately for - I haven't go the schedule in front

15 of me - for the videolink.

16 MR. HANNIS: That videolink is only for cross-examination.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's -- I -- yes. Since the

18 examination-in-chief, Mr. Stewart, took a little bit over two hours, could

19 you give us an indication on how much time you would need for the

20 cross-examination.

21 MR. STEWART: I'd indicated to the Prosecution earlier this

22 morning that I expected to complete cross-examination before the second

23 break.

24 JUDGE ORIE: That would be three hours. And that is for two hours

25 and 18 minutes in chief, is quite lengthy.

1 MR. STEWART: I'm just indicating what I said to the Prosecution

2 earlier this morning, Your Honour. But I can't actually remember offhand

3 whether Mr. Biscevic's evidence was shortened by 89(F), which obviously

4 affects the guidelines every time. But I was just trying to do my best

5 there. And I'm aware of the guidelines, Your Honour, which we pretty

6 consistently come well within on the Defence side anyway.

7 JUDGE ORIE: I would not contradict that.

8 MR. STEWART: Thank you, Your Honour.

9 JUDGE ORIE: With appreciation, I do this. Because we have

10 another few matters on our agenda as well, that is, the parties were

11 invited to give their views on the -- I would say the overall schedule.

12 Perhaps we could find time tomorrow for that as well. Mr. Hannis.

13 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I'm not sure what Mr. Odobasic's

14 schedule is. I know next week we have three days and we only have two

15 witnesses. There's a possibility that if we could get Mr. Odobasic done

16 tomorrow, we might have more time Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, to discuss

17 additional issues.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Backgrounds that was one of the other -- one of

19 the other procedural issues is whether or not the parties finally could

20 agree on the schedule which would include a possibility for the

21 investigators to visit The Hague and not to lose too much time in court.

22 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, we had agreed with the Defence that we

23 thought they could use Thursday and Friday for their meeting next week and

24 that we would then only have witnesses Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday next

25 week.

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but how many witnesses in view of the original

2 schedule would we lose?

3 MR. HANNIS: One would be pushed over to begin on the 8th of

4 November. That was Mr. Cengic.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Scheduled for how long approximately.

6 MR. HANNIS: Four and a half hours, Your Honour.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Four and a half hours. We'll consider that. Then

8 another outstanding issue we still have is Exhibits 200 to 203.

9 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, that's again my responsibility. I have

10 sent an e-mail to Mr. Resch to try and obtain the information from him.

11 I've advised Mr. Acquaviva of my awaiting that information.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could you in one way or another speed that

13 up --

14 MR. HANNIS: I will, Your Honour.

15 JUDGE ORIE: -- so we could finally deal with these matters.

16 Then one -- perhaps a bit more urgent matter is when can we

17 receive the information asked at the beginning of this session? Because

18 we have to take a decision. No. Let me just turn into private session

19 for one second.

20 [Private session]

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Page 7625 redacted. Private session.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Page 7626 redacted. Private session.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Page 7627 redacted. Private session.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Page 7628 redacted. Private session.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Page 7629 redacted. Private session.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 [Open session]

2 JUDGE ORIE: We are in open session again. The Registry will be

3 instructed that the latter part of the transcript will be made public and

4 not remain confidential, as it is now.

5 We will adjourn until tomorrow morning, 9.00, same courtroom.

6 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.57 p.m.

7 to be reconvened on Friday, the 29th day of

8 October 2004, at 9.00 a.m.

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25