1 Friday, 17 June 2005
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.07 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone.
6 Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case number
8 IT-00-39-T, the Prosecutor versus Momcilo Krajisnik. Thank you.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
10 A few remarks before we start. First of all, I do understand
11 that the parties would prefer to have the cross-examination of Mr. Bjelobrk
13 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, I would just like to say I have
14 no objection. But, Your Honour, I was just told that. It wasn't a
15 preference. But, Your Honour, I don't have any objection.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
17 MR. STEWART: I just don't want it to be thought that I
18 contributed to that decision. I didn't.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Neither has the Chamber, so therefore we'll first
20 start with Mr. Bjelobrk.
21 As far as the issue, we briefly discussed in relation to Mr.
22 Prstojevic in relation to the possibility of prior inconsistent statements
23 are concerned, I -- it certainly assisted me to get better aware of the
24 latest developments, at least until a couple of weeks ago, in the decision
25 taken by the Limaj Chamber, which is well-balanced common civil law
1 Chamber, where some developments in English law, Australia law are
2 mentioned. At the same time, the Chamber took the position that the
3 statement of -- at least, the transcripts of the interviews of Mr.
4 Prstojevic are not in evidence, so there might not be any need since the
5 parts on which he was examined and where small portions were quoted might
6 be such that there's no real inconsistency, so that therefore one would not
7 have to decide. And it may go without saying that such a situation of
8 inconsistency between statement and testimony, of course, should be clear
9 from the beginning. That means that since the transcripts of the interview
10 have not been tendered into evidence, that -- well, the appropriate moment
11 to do that would have been at the beginning of the testimony of Mr.
12 Prstojevic. So therefore it might not be a real problem.
13 Then the Chamber received a list of exhibits rather late, I must
14 say. The Chamber asked for it in time, and granted a short delay, but
15 received it only late yesterday, in the afternoon, and the list is not
16 entirely clear as far -- especially not in view of the numbering. It might
17 be that it's reference to pages, but it's totally unclear to the Chamber at
18 this moment what it actually is.
19 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, could I help on that.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 MR. STEWART: I hope Your Honours are going to see that in
22 practice -- and I certainly throughout this phase of the case, as always, I
23 adopt a pragmatic approach, though, of course, it's my obligation to comply
24 with directions of the Trial Chamber. But I hope Your Honours will see
25 that there isn't going to be a major problem that will emerge in this area
1 this morning. It's my optimistic expectation that so far as documentation
2 is concerned, we shall get through Mr. Bjelobrk's evidence this morning
3 without any major difficulty or hitch.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You are aware that the Chamber granted one
5 hour and a half for cross-examination, Mr. Stewart.
6 MR. STEWART: I have not forgotten that one moment, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I also take it because the situation has
8 changed a little bit since then, since Mr. Krajisnik is allowed to ask any
9 additional questions, I took it that he was the one who would have
10 suggested the exhibits to be tendered so that it would be to a great extent
11 already in your cross-examination, Mr. Stewart. At the same time, looking
12 at the list, there's a lot of books and newspapers. I think there's no
13 need to remind the parties that although now and then books and newspapers
14 assist the Chamber in reaching determinations it will have to reach, that
15 this is not a trial which is conducted on the basis of media.
16 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, may I say that -- that reminder
17 to the parties, of course, is a wide phrase. So far as such a reminder to
18 counsel is concerned, I doubt that Your Honour is not preaching to the
19 converted there. You do not see me surrounded by books and articles this
20 morning, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: No. I just noticed that that was a newspaper.
22 But, of course, we have -- since we received it only yesterday rather late
23 and we have no copies, so I could not even express any further opinion
24 apart from that -- I wouldn't say it's scaring, but it's raising some
25 concern if too much of the exhibits come from the media and not from the
1 original source.
2 MR. STEWART: Yes. I was going to say, in fact, the word I was
3 going to -- was going through my head then. I do understand that the list
4 when received by the Trial Chamber and indeed the Prosecution might have
5 been disconcerting.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
7 MR. STEWART: I'm inviting Your Honours not to be too
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 MR. STEWART: Until you see where we actually go this morning.
11 JUDGE ORIE: The best way to find out is to get Mr. Bjelobrk.
12 MR. STEWART: Indeed.
13 JUDGE ORIE: And Madam Usher, could you -- or Mr. Usher. I
14 don't know who to address. Could you please escort the witness into the
16 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, we're -- we're facing, as we so
17 frequently do, the practical difficulties of printers and photocopiers
18 breaking down. If there's any way in which support can be given in a
19 constant problem that faces Defence counsel and the ADC in this area, I'm
20 sure all my colleagues in other cases and in our case would be incredibly
21 grateful, Your Honour. It's a constant bug there for our case managers and
22 everybody else. Our team of monks doing illuminated manuscripts is not
23 available this morning as a substitute, Your Honour, and we need that
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do understand. Is there any specific issue
1 that -- I mean, you asked for our assistance, but can I do anything at this
2 moment for you, Mr. Stewart?
3 MR. STEWART: Not -- not right this second, Your Honour. Your
4 Honour made an offer to do photocopying --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
6 MR. STEWART: -- which was very kind, but we didn't need to take
7 you up on that, with respect.
8 Your Honour, as a general point, the Trial Chamber has often
9 indicated that it would do what it could behind and in front of the scenes
10 to assist. And I -- I'm really --
11 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand that there's a general problem in -
13 MR. STEWART: It is a big problem, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ORIE: -- in functioning machinery for photocopying.
15 MR. STEWART: There is a big problem, Your Honour. We are faced
16 with it constantly. Daily almost, I think is fair, Mr. Karganovic, isn't
18 JUDGE ORIE: I'll call for specific attention to that.
19 MR. STEWART: Thank you, Your Honour.
20 [The witness entered court]
21 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Bjelobrk.
22 THE WITNESS: Good morning, Mr. President.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bjelobrk, since it is quite some time ago, I'd
24 prefer that you'd repeat your solemn declaration you've given at the
25 beginning of your testimony that you'll speak the truth, the whole truth,
1 and nothing but the truth. The text is handed out to you now by Madam
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
4 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Bjelobrk. Please be seated. Mr.
6 Stewart will continue his cross-examination.
7 WITNESS: BORO BJELOBRK [Resumed]
8 [Witness answered through interpreter]
9 Cross-examined by Mr. Stewart: [Continued]
10 Q. Mr. Bjelobrk, good morning again.
11 Mr. Bjelobrk, one of the points that you made in your evidence
12 sometime ago was that Mr. Krajisnik was, in your opinion, a master of
13 obstruction so far as the work of the Bosnia-Herzegovina Assembly was
14 concerned. You recall that, do you?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And you gave -- and the page reference to the transcript is 8253
17 and then some following pages through to about 8260, for everybody's note.
18 But you gave a specific example, which I don't want to go over again in
19 painful detail, Mr. Bjelobrk, about Mr. Krajisnik, whether a resolution
20 from your party should or shouldn't have gone on the agenda, and you, Mr.
21 Krajisnik, supported it and then didn't support it and so on. You know the
22 issue that I'm talking about, don't you?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Do you -- and part of the problem, from your point of view and
25 perhaps from everybody's point of view, was that SDS and SDP deputies at
1 one point walked out of the session in June 1991, didn't they?
2 A. But for different reasons.
3 Q. Do you know that Mr. Krajisnik appealed both to the SDS deputies
4 and to the SDP deputies to return to the session?
5 A. Well, I can just try to remember that. Even if that was so, I
6 didn't really feel that that was something very convincing.
7 Q. Well, you see, at page 8259 of the transcript - and this was on
8 the 10th of November - one of the reasons I'm not going over all this
9 ground again, Mr. Bjelobrk, is just to remind you that His Honour Judge
10 Orie did explore these matters with you in some detail. But it ended up
11 with His Honour saying, line 20, at 8259, "Do I understand you well that
12 the obstruction demonstrated here by Mr. Krajisnik consisted of not taking,
13 as you thought it would be, the wise position to encourage the SDS
14 representatives to stay in the Assembly meeting?" And your answer was,
15 "Yes." His Honour said, "Thank you." And we then moved on to a different
17 So, Mr. Bjelobrk, is the position that you simply don't know
18 whether on some occasion at which you were not present Mr. Krajisnik did or
19 did not encourage SDS representatives to return to the Assembly?
20 A. Well, if I thought about that, I would get into an area of
21 speculation. The work of the Assembly is public, so my views are based on
22 what happens publicly at the Assembly. What happened behind closed doors
23 would then be subject of speculation on my part.
24 Q. Mr. Bjelobrk, therefore I would invite you just very specifically
25 to answer my specific question. Is it the position you don't know whether
1 Mr. Krajisnik did or did not encourage the SDS representatives to return to
2 the Assembly?
3 A. He did not do that at the speakers platform of the Assembly.
4 Q. Well, Mr. Bjelobrk, you were a parliamentarian. Do you accept
5 that the most likely effective way for Mr. Krajisnik to have encouraged the
6 SDS deputies to return to the session would have been to do that
7 encouragement outside the public forum of the Assembly session?
8 A. I don't think that it is that important which method you choose
9 if you are responsible for the successful work of an Assembly session,
10 which method you use, would you do that in a kind of behind-the-scenes
11 lobbying or publicly. The important thing is to exert influence so that
12 the Assembly functions in its full composition. The fact is that this did
13 not happen. Everything else to me seems to be less relevant.
14 Q. Don't worry too much, Mr. Bjelobrk, about what seems relevant to
15 -- to you, please. Is the -- is the position this, then, two elements --
16 one question but two elements: You -- you say you know that Mr. Krajisnik
17 didn't offer any such encouragement publicly, but is it secondly correct
18 that you don't know whether or not he offered any such encouragement
20 A. Mr. Stewart, I would like to ask for your understanding. The
21 Assembly functions in a public manner, so there's no need for any kind of
22 private estimates or lines of work in order to implement one's duties.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bjelobrk, you're expressing now an opinion on
24 what's the proper way to exercise the function Mr. Krajisnik held. You
25 were not asked for such an opinion. I think it became rather clear from
1 your answer that you say, "I'm not aware of any encouragement Mr. Krajisnik
2 gave. He certainly did not do it publicly." And I also do understand that
3 you have no knowledge on what he may have done privately in this respect.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Absolutely. And I try as a
5 witness not to go into that at all because this is impossible to know. I
6 mean, I don't know what you did last night, if you know what I mean.
7 MR. STEWART:
8 Q. Let's move on, Mr. Bjelobrk.
9 Thank you, Your Honour.
10 You also - and this is at paragraph 53 of your statement which
11 is in evidence. You said, "In my work in the Assembly, I drew the
12 conclusion that Krajisnik was consulted by the deputies of the SDS about
13 all issues. Whenever disputes were likely to arise in the parliament, the
14 deputies of the SDS would address Krajisnik for an answer."
15 Now, first of all, Mr. Bjelobrk, what is conceivably wrong or
16 objectionable about that position?
17 A. I'm not saying anything in that sense. I'm just stating that
18 that is the way in which I think that that particular person demonstrated
19 his authority. Nothing more than that.
20 Q. So you don't suggest anything inappropriate about Mr. Krajisnik's
21 behaviour in that area or the deputies' behaviour in that area.
22 A. In paragraph 53, which you refer to, I did not want to be
23 judgemental. I was just stating the facts as I remember them.
24 Q. The -- there was a -- well, there were deputies' clubs, weren't
25 there, of -- there were eight different deputies' clubs at the time. Do
1 you recall that? In -- in the connection with the Assembly.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And just to -- just to reel them off, one was the SDS and the SPO
4 combined. I'll go through the list and then tell me if there's anything
5 wrong with it. Secondly, the HDZ; thirdly, not in order of priority or
6 anything, SDA; fourthly, Liberal Party; fifthly, MBO; sixthly, SDP. And
7 actually I only end up with seven, I'm afraid, but Reform Forces Club. But
8 all those deputies' clubs existed, in your recollection, did they?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And I -- we've probably been over this before, but I -- can we
11 take it that on no occasion did you attend a meeting of the deputies' club
12 of the SDS?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Would you have any reason -- any basis to dispute the proposition
15 that the SDS deputies' club sessions were always chaired either by the
16 president of the SDS, who was Dr. Karadzic, or by Mr. Vojislav Maksimovic?
17 A. I don't know how the SDS club functioned from the inside.
18 Q. So you have no -- you have no basis of which -- whether you
19 accept it or not, you have no basis on which you can dispute that
21 A. Would you please be so kind as to repeat your assertion.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, wasn't it implicit in the previous
23 answer of the witness?
24 MR. STEWART: I'm happy with that, Your Honour. Thank you.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 MR. STEWART:
2 Q. The -- do you remember -- and I'm not going to take you to
3 minutes on this; they're all checkable somewhere. But do you remember, Mr.
4 Bjelobrk, that from time to time the president of the SDS deputies' club -
5 that was Mr. Maksimovic - would during Assembly sessions ask for breaks to
6 consult his deputies?
7 A. Yes, I remember that.
8 Q. And do you have any knowledge, Mr. Bjelobrk, of pressures on Mr.
9 Krajisnik, as the working president of the Assembly, which often prevented
10 him from being able to attend SDS deputies' club sessions during those
12 A. I cannot claim that Mr. Krajisnik was indeed absent from the
13 meetings of the deputies' club of his party, but I do not think that the
14 frequency of his absense from those meetings was that high, for instance,
15 out of the ten meetings that might have taken place.
16 Q. Well, first of all, Mr. Bjelobrk, do you agree it's clear that
17 when the president of the SDS deputies' club, Mr. Maksimovic, has asked for
18 a break in the Assembly session to consult his deputies, that those are
19 relatively informal meetings of the SDS deputies' club convened at -- by
20 definition, at very short notice?
21 A. As a rule - and this applies to the operation of any parliament
22 worldwide - these usually are meetings convened at short notice. At least,
23 that is how I understand it. However, my experience from that period shows
24 that very frequently the meetings of the deputies' clubs were used
25 oftentimes as a way of obstructing the work of the parliament because the
1 head of the deputies' club of a given party, after the meeting was
2 convened, needs to inform the parliamentary session why the work of the
3 session was brought to a halt because of such a meeting. However, the
4 practice at the time was that after such meetings were convened at short
5 notice, the parliament would not at all be informed as to the reason why
6 its session had been interrupted, and this was indicative of the work of
7 the parliament at the time.
8 Q. Mr. Bjelobrk, may I simply observe, with respect, that although
9 you certainly did answer my question, what you said contained quite a lot
10 that was simply not an answer to my question and -- and went beyond it. If
11 we could keep as closely as possible to the question, I'm sure that the
12 Trial Chamber and everybody else would appreciate that.
13 The -- Mr. Krajisnik's -- you could observe, couldn't you, Mr.
14 Bjelobrk, that Mr. Krajisnik's job and his responsibilities as the
15 president of the Bosnia and Herzegovina Assembly were very onerous and
16 demanding, weren't they?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And Mr. Krajisnik was very conscientious and industrious in that
19 job, wasn't he?
20 A. I agree with what you say, that he was industrious. But I am not
21 sure, given my experience of the work of the parliament, that the other
22 qualification that you introduced in your assertion stands.
23 Q. Well, let's -- let's clarify or try to sweep away any
24 misunderstanding. Mr. Bjelobrk, of course you have significant
25 disagreements, political disagreements, with Mr. Krajisnik which covered
1 the whole of this period. That's understood, isn't it, by you?
2 A. Naturally. We were members of the parties that had different
3 political programmes.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, I took it that you were on a road to
5 make a point on what Mr. Krajisnik could have done or not, and we are now
6 on a side road. Please proceed, and try to come to your point.
7 MR. STEWART: No, Your Honour, I agree with that last
8 observation of -- of Your Honour's.
9 Q. Yes. Back on the main road, I hope, Mr. Bjelobrk. Apart from
10 the political disagreements which are obvious, the -- would you say that
11 the Bosnia and Herzegovina Assembly from after the multiparty elections
12 through to the crisis which emerged at the October 1991 session was, in all
13 the circumstances, a functioning and generally pretty well-functioning
14 political organ?
15 A. You are asking me to assess the work of the parliament generally,
16 which I'm not sure that is a very gratifying task. But I do believe,
17 looking back at 1991, that the parliament had not really fulfilled its
19 Q. And was that because -- well, what was the result that you
20 believe the parliament should have achieved by the end of 1991 that it
22 A. The task of that particular generation of the MPs was to solve
23 the then-problem in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1991, and given that at the
24 close of the -- of the year 1991 we had a war, I believe that they failed
25 to fulfill their duties, and their duty was -- is precisely that, given
1 that they were the highest representatives of the Bosnian people.
2 Q. There was a fairly major dispute, wasn't there, about the
3 reference of the question of independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the
4 structure of Bosnia and Herzegovina to the Council for National Equality?
5 A. This was indeed a topic. But as far as I know, when we look at
6 Europe and the United States of America, there the issue of independence is
7 a very specific one, which means that a given community gains a certain
8 status. This cannot, however, apply to Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1991
9 simply because it was a member of a community that was called Yugoslavia.
10 This is, of course, a different problem, and that is something that lawyers
11 are very familiar with.
12 Q. You know that the independence of the United States of America
13 wasn't achieved without a certain difficulty, do you, Mr. Bjelobrk?
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, are we on the main road or on the side
16 MR. STEWART: No, we're on the main road, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Let's see --
18 Q. Well, it's obvious, isn't it, Mr. Bjelobrk?
19 Mr. Bjelobrk, there was -- whatever the rights or wrongs of
20 people's positions on the constitutionality, illegality, and so on, there
21 was a very serious issue involving very sharp disagreement among the
22 parties, wasn't there, as to the constitutionalisation in relation to the
23 sovereignty of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the need to refer that issue to
24 the Council for National Equality?
25 A. The three national political parties held different views, yes.
1 Q. And that issue was very much at the heart of the crisis - and it
2 was a crisis, wasn't it - that emerged at the session on the 14th of
3 October, 1991?
4 A. The crisis lasted much longer. I suppose that just as I have,
5 you have had the opportunity of seeing some of the documents that this
6 Tribunal has. The culmination of the whole crisis was indeed in October
7 1991; however, it had been in existence and developing for the previous
8 seven or eight months.
9 Q. Mr. Bjelobrk, perhaps I -- I would rephrase my question. When I
10 referred to the crisis that emerged at the session on the 14th of October,
11 then in light of what you said, yes, I will rephrase that. That issue was
12 very much at the heart of the crisis that came to a head on the 14th and
13 15th of October, wasn't it?
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, before we invite the witness to answer
15 that question, already two questions ago you raised two issues in your
16 question about whether it was an issue. The first issue is the
17 constitutionality of the sovereignty of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the
18 second issue was whether this matter should be referred to the Council for
19 National Equality. I would like to have a clear picture of what, in your
20 next questions, is the issue.
21 MR. STEWART: Yes, Your Honour. Your Honour is quite right to -
22 - to invite me to clarify that.
23 Q. It's the second of those that I'm concerned about, Mr. -- Mr.
24 Bjelobrk, just to make it clear, and to the Trial Chamber. It's the need
25 to refer that issue to the Council of National Equality in accordance with
1 the Constitution that I'm talking about. So there -- although I made them
2 sound as though they're two different issues here, that's what I'm talking
3 about. So to -- to try and wrap all these points, then, into as simple a
4 question as -- as I can, the -- the question of the -- the requirement to
5 refer independence or sovereignty issues to the Council for National
6 Equality was at the heart of the crisis that came to a head on the 14th and
7 15th of October, 1991, wasn't it?
8 A. The issue of national equality was demonstrated in the public
9 political life ever since the multiparty elections took place. And this
10 October session was just one of such instances. The Council for National
11 Equality did not have the competencies as are known in the world. These
12 duties were equally exercised by the Presidency, by the parliament, and so
13 on, but the three national parties agreed to form a body under such a
14 title. And I would just wish to indicate that this is not the kind of a
15 body that is otherwise known in Europe.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bjelobrk --
17 THE INTERPRETER: A constitutional body.
18 JUDGE ORIE: You are taking a position in the issue at that
19 time. The question quite simply was whether at this October session,
20 whether the question whether or not to refer this issue to the Council for
21 National Equality was the issue that culminated at that time the conflict,
22 or at least was at the heart of the disagreement.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, this was the major topic in
25 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Stewart.
1 MR. STEWART:
2 Q. And whatever your point of view, Mr. Bjelobrk, and the dispute on
3 that particular issue, would you agree that the situation which Mr.
4 Krajisnik faced on the 14th and 15th of October in his capacity as speaker
5 of the Assembly was -- the president of the Assembly was an extremely
6 difficult situation to handle?
7 A. Yes. The situation was very serious, and objectively speaking
8 any speaker of the parliament would be -- would be very responsible in such
9 a situation.
10 Q. And very quick and very difficult judgements needed to be made by
11 anybody in that position, in this case, Mr. Krajisnik. That's correct,
12 isn't it?
13 A. Apart from -- or that is, excluding the part of your question
14 when you mentioned the expeditiousness, I would say that we were performing
15 our duties, but we were not making headway at the pace that we should have.
16 Q. Well, the -- the reference to expedition, Mr. Bjelobrk, to
17 clarify: You don't suggest that it would have been possible, do you, for
18 Mr. Krajisnik to have deferred the whole question of how to deal with the
19 walk-outs and whether the Assembly session should continue, to have
20 deferred it for a few days to think about it? That wasn't possible, was
22 A. During my earlier testimony here on the 10th of November, 2004, I
23 was played an intercept, I believe of 12th August 1991 between Milosevic
24 and Karadzic, and there you can see that this was a -- a very dominant
25 issue that could not and need not have been resolved in a couple of days
1 because the whole country had been dealing with the issue for several
3 Q. Mr. Bjelobrk, do you suggest that in the situation which arose on
4 the 14th and 15th of October, 1991, Mr. Krajisnik could have realistically
5 acted as if he had absolutely no affiliation whatever to the SDS?
6 A. No, I don't think that he could have acted that way.
7 Q. And it was -- and to deal with it in a nutshell, please, Mr.
8 Bjelobrk, because we've been over it -- the continuation of the session on
9 the 14th and 15th of October -- in fact, on the 15th and by the other
10 parties was plainly regarded by the SDS as illegal and unconstitutional,
11 wasn't it?
12 A. Yes, that was their view.
13 Q. Now, you have referred - in your statement particularly, and I
14 think in your oral evidence, as well - referred to that session. It was
15 the 8th Assembly Session of the Bosnia and Herzegovina parliament. And you
16 particularly quote a -- a few lines from a speech given by Mr. Karadzic.
17 What you say is, "People take it seriously. It's not good" -- I'm sorry,
18 what you quote is, "People take it seriously. It's not good what you're
19 doing. Is this the road that you want Bosnia and Herzegovina to take, the
20 same highway to hell and suffering that Slovenia and Croatia went through?
21 Don't think you won't take Bosnia and Herzegovina to hell and Muslim people
22 into possible extinction because Muslim people will not be able to defend
23 themselves if it comes to war here." And that's the end of that particular
24 quoted passage.
25 And then you say, "I recall when Karadzic made this statement
1 that I was extremely alarmed by these words. At other times I may have
2 taken these words as rhetorical threats, but in the situation we were in,
3 it was a clear message. This outburst brought something to light. It
4 brought their thinking out into the open."
5 Now, first of all, Mr. Bjelobrk, it -- it may be something
6 we've covered before, but Mr. Karadzic was generally, throughout the whole
7 period before and during the war, given to very strong language, wasn't he?
8 A. I must admit that I am not an expert in linguistic issues, but I
9 believe that in politics it doesn't really matter what sort of language you
10 use but what sort of policies you create and implement.
11 Q. Now, Mr. Bjelobrk, this isn't a seminar on politics, please. I
12 just asked you a question. It's right, isn't it -- you're a politician.
13 Mr. Karadzic is generally -- that was his style, wasn't it? Very strong
15 A. I do not accept that there exists a problem of style. When you
16 go out in public and you address the public, it is not a matter of style;
17 it is a matter of responsibility.
18 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I'm going to give up on that one and
19 move on.
20 JUDGE ORIE: No. But --
21 MR. STEWART: It's --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, I think the witness addressed the
23 matter you raised. You said he used strong language. What the witness
24 says, more or less, is it's not a matter of language or language only, but
25 it's also a matter of underlying policy. That could mean that if you use
1 strong language, that you are taking very strong policy lines or that you
2 are more forcefully supporting your views than others would do. So
3 therefore the witness has answered your question. And there's -- "giving
4 up" seems to be a comment which is not, in my view, fair to the witness.
5 Please proceed.
6 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, may I say straight away, Your
7 Honour, Your Honour has exhorted me this morning, as always, and correctly,
8 to make my questions clear and concise. I was going to come on and will
9 come on to the question of policies as a separate matter so that when I ask
10 a question which relates very specifically and very clearly to the use of
11 language, then, Your Honour, I do suggest it's incumbent upon the witness
12 with the Trial Chamber's encouragement to answer that question, and then
13 when I ask a question about policy, to answer that question.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 MR. STEWART: And not to answer the policy questions which I
16 haven't yet asked when I've confined my question very clearly and very
17 specifically to the point about use of language.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, the witness in his answer has explained
19 that they are not separable, as you suggest in your questions. And the
20 witness is entitled to do so. Please proceed.
21 MR. STEWART: But Your Honour, with respect --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
23 MR. STEWART: -- because they are seperable issues, and I ask the
24 questions, Your Honour, subject to Your Honour's guidance, and they are
25 different issues.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 JUDGE ORIE: You may proceed, Mr. Stewart.
2 MR. STEWART:
3 Q. You say that this outburst, as you describe it, by Mr. -- Dr.
4 Karadzic "brought their thinking out into the open." By "they," do you
5 mean the SDS party?
6 A. But of course. He's the president of the party, and he is the
7 one who represents the policies of the party.
8 Q. Dr. Karadzic's way of expressing himself in this sort of language
9 was very different from Mr. Krajisnik's, wasn't it?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Do you say they had the same policies?
12 A. [No interpretation]
13 Q. I'm sorry, I didn't hear anything.
14 A. I've said yes. They had the same policies.
15 Q. Thank you. I think perhaps you just spoke a little bit faintly,
16 Mr. Bjelobrk.
17 You say it brought their thinking out into the open, so whoever
18 else's thinking that you're talking about there, can we take it that you
19 are including both Dr. Karadzic and Mr. Krajisnik in -- in that thinking?
20 A. Yes, absolutely. Look at the Sarajevo Oslobodjenje interview in
21 January 1992, and you will see that there.
22 Q. Well, we will, Mr. Bjelobrk, because we will come to that.
23 The -- at this point, October 1991, you say it "brought their
24 thinking out into the open." So what thinking had previously been
25 suppressed or hidden which was brought out into the open by this outburst?
1 A. In my opinion, two -- there are two keywords that you quoted:
2 That the people had to defend themselves from someone, and that there was a
3 risk of them getting extinct. So these are the two key issues. And when
4 you speak publicly, then these are the sorts of categories that I referred
6 Q. Mr. Bjelobrk, I -- I want you to explain, please, very clearly
7 what critical elements of SDS policy were brought to light by Dr.
8 Karadzic's speech and had not previously been clear to you.
9 A. I will repeat. Two keywords in that address were irresponsible
10 to say the least, and time will show that that is so, and that is that one,
11 people needed to defend themselves against another people. That's one
12 thing. And the second thing is that they could be extinct. When you have
13 a political leader who is supposed to be advocating harmony in a society
14 comes out with something like that, then it is very likely that you are
15 going to get a war.
16 Q. Do you say, Mr. Bjelobrk, then, that what came to light by this
17 outburst of Dr. Karadzic was a policy of the SDS to proceed to war?
18 A. Yes. I think that there was an intention behind that to move to
20 Q. So it was a -- some sort of revelation to you as a result of that
21 speech, was it, of something you had not previously feared?
22 A. I must admit that that is how I felt at the time.
23 Q. And do you say that Dr. Karadzic's outburst revealed an SDS
24 policy to bring about the extinction of the Muslim people in -- in Bosnia?
25 A. That is the possibility that he foreshadowed.
1 Q. That's not quite what I asked you, Mr. Bjelobrk, but I'll do the
2 question a different way. Do you say that what was revealed to you, among
3 anything else that was revealed by this outburst, was that Mr. Krajisnik
4 was part of some group who had as a policy the extinction of the Muslim
5 people of Bosnia-Herzegovina?
6 A. Nobody from the SDS backed away from the statement that you just
8 Q. Mr. Bjelobrk, when -- when did the serious concern that there
9 might be a civil war in Bosnia and Herzegovina first come into your head?
10 I'll just clarify perhaps, if I may, but then repeat the question. I'm --
11 I'm not putting it to you, Mr. Bjelobrk, that you yourself had any such
12 policy, so I just want to make it clear. When did the serious concern that
13 somebody might lead matters on to a civil war in Bosnia and Herzegovina
14 first come into your head?
15 A. It came into my head in the summer. The first thing that
16 prompted me to think in this way was the unsuccessful split meeting of the
17 six presidents of the former Yugoslav republics, people who want to be
18 involved in politics and deal with serious political analysis. Even though
19 the details were quite minor at the time, you could notice at the -- for
20 the first time at the time minor possibilities for concern. In October,
21 things had already escalated, and many people were not sleeping well by
22 that time.
23 Q. Mr. Bjelobrk, part of the basically basic background is this,
24 isn't it: There had already been a war, mercifully a short one, in
25 Slovenia, hadn't there?
1 A. That's a fact.
2 Q. Yes. A simple audible answer is -- is useful, Mr. Bjelobrk.
3 And there had been and was still a very bloody war in Croatia,
4 wasn't there?
5 A. That's correct.
6 Q. The SDS, including Dr. Karadzic, were, as at 14th/15th of
7 October, were angry about the position adopted particularly by the SDA in
8 relation to the sovereignty of Bosnia and Herzegovina, weren't they?
9 A. I would say that they had a different position from that of the
12 Q. Well, that's clear, Mr. Bjelobrk, but you say they weren't -- Dr.
13 Karadzic wasn't angry about the -- the SDA's stance as at 14th/15th
14 October, 1991?
15 A. Believe me, I specified my answer because to me in politics it's
16 irrelevant whether somebody is angry or not.
17 Q. Mr. Bjelobrk, I've asked you before, please, not to concern
18 yourself with irrelevance but to answer the question.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, looking at the last few questions, the
20 war in Slovenia is something that could not be reasonably disputed; ongoing
21 war in Croatia, the same. I think that any further exploring whether the
22 SDA was angry or did not like at all what happened is not really something
23 -- of course, it's clear that there was more than just disagreement, which
24 you would have on a daily basis. It was a very special situation. That's
25 clear from all the evidence we heard until now. So whether "angry" is the
1 right word or a strong disapproval or that they did not like it at all is
2 not something that assists the Chamber at this moment.
3 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Circumstances are relatively clear.
5 MR. STEWART: I'll save the argument for another day, Your
6 Honour, and proceed with questions.
7 Q. Mr. Bjelobrk, a continued firm adherence by the SDA to
8 independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina carried with it, as at October 1991,
9 didn't it, a clear risk of civil war in Bosnia?
10 A. That assertion stands only from -- when you look at it from the
11 point of view of the SDS.
12 Q. Mr. Bjelobrk, whatever point of view and whoever was responsible,
13 isn't it correct that a continued firm adherence by the SDA to independence
14 of Bosnia and Herzegovina carried with it, as at October 1991, a clear risk
15 of civil war in Bosnia?
16 A. Yes. Only from the point of view of the SDS.
17 Q. Mr. Bjelobrk, you -- you say, do you, if the SDS had simply
18 accepted independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina, then there wouldn't have
19 been a civil war? Is that what you're saying?
20 A. Partly that is what I wish to say, but partly I want to say that
21 there was an alternative which existed to your idea of the future of Bosnia
22 and Herzegovina. This is not a category which is standard in the rest of
23 the world. The SDS only offered the following political alternative: If
24 that is what you want, then you will have war on your hands.
25 Q. Mr. Bjelobrk, if correspondingly or conversely if the SDA had
1 unequivocally given up the policy of independence of Bosnia and
2 Herzegovina, do you agree it is most unlikely there would have been a civil
3 war in Bosnia?
4 A. Perhaps you will be surprised, but probably we don't have time
5 for that. Had the SDA behaved like that - and it did not behave the way
6 you say - there would still have been a war.
7 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I've got one more topic, but this is
8 the area -- I just need to clear up with Mr. Karganovic where we are on
9 pieces of paper and printing and so on, if I might be given just a moment.
10 [Defence counsel confer]
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, what I'm coming to is the -- is the
13 article, which in fact the witness referred to a short time ago, the
14 article in Oslobodjenje - near enough, I suppose - which is already in
15 evidence at P404. Your Honour, I have a B/C/S copy for the witness. It's
16 the extra English copies I don't have for the practical reason --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If you'd put it on the ELMO. We find the
18 English version of P404.
19 Mr. Registrar, the B/C/S version can be given to the witness.
20 MR. STEWART: Yes. I'm very grateful, Your Honour. That -- that
21 seems a -- an excellent practical solution.
22 Your Honour, I'm just inviting Mr. Karganovic to -- to help with
23 just identifying the particular bits of some rather ...
24 [Defence counsel confer]
25 MR. STEWART: Yes. I was just concerned, Your Honour, because
1 the Serbian version doesn't seem to be in incredibly user-friendly form. I
2 hope the witness -- but the witness is familiar with the -- the article.
3 That's pretty clear from his statement.
4 Q. Mr. Bjelobrk, you should have in front of you the copy or a copy
5 of the article from Oslobodjenje dated 26 January 1992, which you
6 specifically referred to in paragraph 55 of your statement. And you said
7 that your reaction to this article, which is an interview or a report based
8 on an interview with Mr. Krajisnik, your reaction was negative for a number
9 of reasons, and then you list them.
10 You say in your statement at 55.1 -- you say that "Mr. Krajisnik
11 says it's impossible for Bosnia and Herzegovina to remain" -- "unitarian"
12 is the word in one -- in your statement, but -- "unitary if Yugoslavia
14 Now, you've used the word there. What do you understand your
15 own use of the word, then, "unitarian" or "unitary"?
16 A. I interpret it to mean that Mr. Krajisnik said that the
17 territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina could be placed in
19 Q. As far as its external borders are concerned?
20 A. He's talking about territorial integrity. There is the variant
21 with borders and the territory. I don't know if there is any other
22 possibility. We're talking about the change of borders or the territory.
23 Q. And he talks, doesn't he, after that particular passage, which is
24 about ten lines down in the English -- "It is impossible for Bosnia to
25 remain unitary if Yugoslavia disintegrates." He says, "That is what it is
1 inevitable that Bosnia be transformed as soon as possible, that it adjust
2 to the current time and that the federal unit of Bosnia and Herzegovina
3 become a legal subject - I deliberately use the word 'legal' - of three
4 completely equal peoples." And the three peoples that he has in mind there
5 are, of course, the Serbs, Muslims, and Croats, aren't they?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. But he goes on, doesn't he -- over the page in the English, it's
8 about -- under the next passage, the formation -- the question is "The
9 formation of the Republic of Serb people in BH has caused much criticism."
10 And then in the answer to that, about halfway into that answer
11 or a little bit further on, he says -- he talks about Republic of Serb
12 people of Bosnia and Herzegovina. "We did not want to say this out loud
13 because the Assembly of the Serb People feel that a certain demarcation of
14 the three national communities in Bosnia and Herzegovina is inevitable. A
15 Muslim, a Croat, and a Serb Bosnia will be formed as a result of the
16 demarcation. However, in no case will one state be formed at the expense
17 of another."
18 Now, Mr. Bjelobrk, would you accept that -- that throughout this
19 article Mr. -- or the interview on which it's based apparently -- Mr.
20 Krajisnik is at pains to stress the legality and the equal treatment of the
21 three peoples, in whatever solution emerges?
22 A. I disagree. The first problem in the logical understanding of
23 that message is that Bosnia and Herzegovina is not comprised only of the
24 criteria implying ethnic groups. We are talking -- it's a question of how
25 to treat the Paris Convention on Human Rights. There are people who
1 simplify things to such an extent that you have a series of human...
2 There were politicians who so simplified the definition of
3 "human rights" that they only took into account ethnic belongingness, but
4 they then went on to interpret that as lines of demarcation between the
5 different peoples. Any other question about whether if we had amongst
6 those peoples somebody who was not part of that community would stop at
7 that. So there you -- you would have different positions which were
8 difficult to clarify.
9 Q. Mr. Bjelobrk, can we be clear. When you say that your reaction
10 to this particular article was negative, are you saying that it also
11 revealed to you important features of Mr. Krajisnik's thinking which had
12 not previously been apparent to you?
13 A. These characteristics were noticeable before, but here they were
14 publicly established, even systematized, if I may say it that way.
15 Q. And throughout the early months of 1992, Mr. Krajisnik, among
16 others, was actively involved in negotiations or discussions presided over
17 by Mr. Cutilheiro, wasn't he?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And those led to an agreement known as the Lisbon Agreement,
20 dated the 18th of March, 1992. Well, whether or not you remember the
21 precise date, Mr. Bjelobrk, you -- you recall that there was a Lisbon
22 Agreement as a result of the Cutilheiro talks reached in March 1992, do
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And that agreement included as a very important element what Mr.
1 Krajisnik refers to as "cantonisation". That's right, isn't it?
2 A. I don't have that same understanding that the messages in the
3 text by Mr. Krajisnik and what was implemented based on the Cutilheiro
4 talks was on the same qualitative line. I am even convinced by the
5 conclusions of the European Union when the Cutilheiro talk groups were
6 formed that there was a difference there, so I cannot really draw a line
7 between what Mr. Krajisnik was saying and what was being discussed at the
8 Cutilheiro talks.
9 Q. Do you say that there was a significant divergence between what
10 Mr. Krajisnik was saying in public, in this interview, and what he was
11 saying publicly in relation to the Cutilheiro talks?
12 A. You mentioned the date of the realisation of the Lisbon Agreement
13 yourself. This was a couple of months after this interview. So I don't
14 see -- I cannot really answer this question. I don't see any logic there,
16 Q. Well, did it not become, after the date of this interview,
17 whatever your reaction, did it not become apparent to you over the
18 succeeding weeks -- this interview or report was 26th of January. Did it
19 not become apparent to you over the succeeding weeks that Mr. Krajisnik,
20 among others, was actively involved in trying to achieve some peaceful
21 solution to this whole problem?
22 A. Yes. There was a circle of politicians on the public scene who
23 tried or showed that they were trying to find a peaceful solution, but
24 there was a period amongst us when I was aware that there were weapons
25 being brought in, rockets, and so on. This is the overall picture, not
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 just a particular detail in the arrangement of a certain or particular
2 politician. It's very important to see the whole context.
3 Q. You say in 55.7 of your statement given to this Tribunal -- you
4 say that "The division" -- you say that "He" - that's Mr. Krajisnik - "says
5 there will be demarcation between ethnic communities, when I" -- that's
6 you, Mr. Bjelobrk -- "When I read this, it was clear that he was talking
7 about the national break-up of Bosnia and Herzegovina."
8 Just pausing there, Mr. Bjelobrk, that was -- that was your
9 assessment and your political position that what was under discussion by
10 Mr. Krajisnik here involves something that you regarded as the break-up of
11 Bosnia and Herzegovina. That's right, isn't it?
12 A. Yes, but not as a problem between two different political
13 stances. Allow me to refer back to my profession. I am a nuclear energy
14 expert by profession, so I understand a lot of things. When you have a
15 social community in which citizens of different ethnic communities live,
16 like the spots on a tiger's skin, completely mixed up, having a line of
17 demarcation indicates that you want to transfer me or resettle me by force
18 somewhere else. So that is basically the idea behind his words.
19 Q. And do you say that the idea behind Mr. Krajisnik's active
20 participation and support for the -- for the Cutilheiro proposals was also
21 designed to achieve the break-up of Bosnia and Herzegovina?
22 A. If I understood your question properly, I don't think that Mr.
23 Cutilheiro was working towards that, no.
24 Q. So do you agree, Mr. Bjelobrk, that to the extent to which Mr.
25 Krajisnik was supporting the Cutilheiro proposals, he was not working
1 towards that either?
2 A. I cannot specify anything in terms of that for one simple reason:
3 The idea of Mr. Krajisnik was based on lines of demarcation, and the idea
4 of Mr. Cutilheiro implied cantonisation in the modern sense of that word,
5 regionalization, the way it's done in Europe. And these two are completely
6 different positions.
7 Q. Well, Mr. Krajisnik refers expressly, doesn't he -- you've
8 referred to the way it's done in Europe, and Mr. Krajisnik refers, doesn't
9 he -- it's the - first, second, third, fourth, fifth heading -- "And does
10 such a model exist in the world"? Do you see that heading? It's probably
11 about halfway -- maybe about halfway through. Do you see that heading?
12 And the reference immediately after that heading to "It exists in Belgium
13 and in Switzerland."
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. So it's clear, isn't it, that Mr. Krajisnik is appealing to some
16 other European models as a basis for a solution for Bosnia and Herzegovina?
17 A. I'm not sure I've understood your question properly. Is it clear
18 that Mr. Krajisnik is drawing upon other models in Europe? Is that the
19 right understanding of your question?
20 Q. Yes.
21 A. If I've understood this text properly, of all the European
22 experiences, Mr. Krajisnik is drawing upon the examples of multi-ethnic
23 countries, and these are Belgium and Switzerland. In my experience, these
24 would be the proper models to draw upon when thinking about such a concept.
25 Q. What was your party's position in relation to the Cutilheiro
1 proposals as they came to -- towards the Lisbon Agreement in March 1992?
2 A. That's quite simple. First of all, all the principles of the
3 Charter of Human Rights and the European Statute should be taken into
4 account when developing such a concept, and one needs to be very open.
5 However, in -- in this respect, all the national parties had views that
6 were quite contrary to these -- these international provisions.
7 Q. All right. Let's -- in very simple terms, would -- would you
8 describe your party's position as for the Cutilheiro proposals, against, or
9 for with reservations, against with reservations?
10 A. Politically speaking, I am absolutely against the Cutilheiro
11 plan, but it was a good political move at the time because it served to
12 calm down the political players.
13 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I have no further questions of Mr.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll have a break.
16 Mr. Krajisnik, would you have any questions to Mr. Bjelobrk, and
17 could you give us an estimate on how much time you would need for that?
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I do have questions for Mr.
19 Bjelobrk. I hope that I will be able to work on my notes now because I
20 have to omit the questions already put to the witness by Mr. Stewart, and I
21 will use the break to do so.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's appreciated.
23 We'll adjourn until 11.00. Time made available for the Defence
24 was one-and a half hour. Approximately 1 hour and 20 minutes have been
25 used. If you would need 15 or 20 minutes, the Chamber would not oppose.
1 Mr. Hannis.
2 MR. HANNIS: Nothing from me, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll adjourn until 11.00.
4 --- Recess taken at 10.35 a.m.
5 --- On resuming at 11.05 a.m.
6 JUDGE ORIE: May the witness be brought into the courtroom.
7 At the same time, I'll use the time to remind the parties that
8 you're still to negotiate and attempt to reach a compromised solution on
9 the B/C/S translation of a record of interview for Witness 648. And as far
10 as I'm aware of, we have not heard yet from the parties whether such a
11 compromise was reached.
12 I don't expect an immediate answer.
13 MR. HANNIS: Thank you. That's Mr. Tieger's witness.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 MR. HANNIS: I know it's being discussed.
16 [The witness entered court]
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bjelobrk, the Chamber gives an opportunity to
18 Mr. Krajisnik to put additional questions to you.
19 Mr. Krajisnik, you may proceed.
20 Cross-examined by Mr. Krajisnik:
21 Q. [Interpretation] 12 years later, I would first like to say hello
22 to Mr. Bjelobrk.
23 A. I'm glad to see you again and to see that you look well.
24 Q. Since we speak the same language, I would kindly ask you to --
25 for the both of us actually to make a break in order for the interpreters
1 to have time to interpret what we say.
2 Mr. Bjelobrk, you will remember that last time a statement was
3 mentioned of me having voted against on one item in June -- in July 1992 --
4 rather, 1991 for a proposal of yours. That was something that was proposed
5 by your party. I will now refer to specific pages of the minutes from that
6 particular session, and I would kindly ask for it to be placed on the ELMO.
7 The first page - that's document 54 --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Do we have these documents? Do we have an English
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If you remember, Your Honours,
11 those are the entire binders of the Assembly sessions that I had delivered
12 to the Trial Chamber. I don't know if you have them.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hannis.
14 MR. HANNIS: I know we also received a copy of those sessions
15 shortly after Mr. Bjelobrk testified last time, but we just received B/C/S.
16 We didn't translate them because we weren't intending to use them, and I
17 don't know what portions we're talking about today. I don't know if there
18 are any.
20 JUDGE ORIE: They were never tendered into evidence, were they?
21 MR. HANNIS: No.
22 JUDGE ORIE: No. Mr. Krajisnik, the Chamber -- if you want to
23 put something to a witness and use documents, then they should be provided
24 in both languages.
25 Do you have a copy of the document you would like to confront
1 the witness with? Do you have a copy there? In whatever language? Yes.
2 Do you have -- do you have a spare copy?
3 Let me just have a look at it.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. You can have a look at it.
5 These are the three pages that I would like to use.
6 Your Honours, if I may put forward a proposal.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please do so.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Bjelobrk will read that part
9 of the stenographic record, and then he can simply say whether at that time
10 he was wrong about something or not, and that would be all.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 I suggest that we'll put on the ELMO the relevant portion, that
13 we invite the witness to read the relevant part, and if the witness can say
14 anything about it, that there would then be translated subsequently and
15 tendered into evidence. That is my suggestion at this moment.
16 I see, Mr. Krajisnik, that you have given numbers. Is this your
17 only copy, or do you have another copy? Could this be used for the
18 witness? Yes. Well, CD-ROM is difficult to just read at this moment,
19 unless you would give it to someone who could put it on the screen.
20 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, if this would happen again, would
22 you please, to the extent that security issues do not oppose, provide the
23 CD to the Chamber so that -- or to the registrar so that they could be
24 printed out at this very moment.
25 If you would please give them to the registrar at this moment,
1 but we'll start first of all to proceed on the basis of these documents.
2 They will then be used on the ELMO. And if you would just give guidance on
3 what pages to be put on the ELMO. Yes?
4 And at the same time, to -- yes.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I suggest the
6 following: There's a CD-ROM. If the usher could open this CD, and if we
7 could place it within the software, and then Mr. Bjelobrk could view them
8 on the Sanction and they would be there, the documents, for all to see.
9 JUDGE ORIE: There's no problem with that if it's well prepared.
10 We'll ask the registrar to open the CD, to see whether he could find the
11 relevant pages. He would need the clues for that. And at the same time,
12 this will be put on the ELMO so that the witness can be confronted with it.
13 May I take it -- you said three pages, Mr. Krajisnik. I see
14 that you've got four pages here. We'll deal with them in the order as you
15 provided them, Mr. Krajisnik.
16 I see that there are some blue markings. I take it that these
17 are the portions you want to draw the attention of the witness to. And you
18 can look at the screen, as well, to see what we have.
19 Could you please give them to the usher, Mr. Krajisnik.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, I can. But this is my copy.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] But you have all the -- these
23 documents on the CD.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But, Mr. Krajisnik, we're not prepared at
25 this moment for opening -- please give them whatever is on the document.
1 You'll see that on your screen once the usher has put them on the ELMO.
2 Just prepare them in the right order and then ...
3 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
4 Q. First, page 54. That's the continuation of the session of the
5 Assembly and the chamber on the 27th of June, 1991.
6 Mr. Bjelobrk can read the highlighted part.
7 JUDGE ORIE: If you could please slowly read it so that the
8 interpreters can follow you.
9 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Krajisnik speaking: "Gentlemen, we are resuming the session of
11 the Assembly of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina. I owe you an
12 explanation. At the yesterday's session, the SDP deputies announced and
13 acted upon their announcement, which was that a group of the deputies
14 walked out on the session. Under the rules of procedure, under such
15 circumstances we need to make a one-hour interval. I owe you an
16 explanation as to why we did not grant that one-hour break which otherwise
17 is provided by the rules of procedure.
18 "Upon the adoption of the agenda, I gave the floor to Mr.
19 Izetbegovic. Mr. Izetbegovic was supposed to make a short intervention,
20 which he did later on.
21 "Mr. Lazovic asked to be given an opportunity to reply, and in
22 some way thus interrupted the announced intervention by Mr. Izetbegovic."
23 That's the end of the first document.
24 The next document: The president of the deputies' club, Mr. Miro
25 Lazovic, is the one addressing the Assembly here. This was in the
1 aftermath of some debates.
2 "We accept all the suggestions and comments given by the
3 legislative legal commission in relation to the text of this resolution.
4 They are first and foremost of a law-related nature, so to speak. They do
5 not change the gist of the resolution, and we also accept the title
6 proposed by the legislative and legal commission. In essence, it doesn't
7 mean anything, but it, rather, explains contents of the text, that this is
8 above all a document expressing political will."
9 And I would seize this opportunity - I don't know if there is
10 any need to read it - to put forward this to you.
11 The third document --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, just for my information, are you
13 just reading what it reads, including the last lines? Is that what the
14 document says? Where you said, "In essence, it doesn't mean anything, but
15 it, rather, explains it is contents of the text, that this is above all a
16 document" -- and that's literally all the text we find here?
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, that's the text.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
19 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
20 Q. This -- these are the words of Irfan Ajanovic, a member of the
21 SDA, therefore, from the Muslim side. I quote: "From this rostrum, I
22 would issue a mild protest to the SDA deputies for their behaviour and
23 conduct in relation to the SDP deputies at the yesterday's session. They
24 were unable to honour what was said by the president of the Presidency of
25 Bosnia-Herzegovina. The president of the Presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina
1 was given the floor by the president of the Assembly. He almost reached
2 the rostrum and wanted to address us, and while the president was
3 discussing a very important matter, the auditorium was also in the position
4 to listen and to see. The SDP deputies walked out from this chamber. I
5 believe that I share the opportunity -- or, rather, I believe that the SDA
6 deputies share the opinion of a large number of deputies in this Assembly
7 and that should not -- it should not have been done in the form of a
9 And now we will go on to the address by Miro Lazovic. Miro
10 Lazovic is the head of the deputies' club of Mr. Bjelobrk's party.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, you may put a text to the witness.
12 You are not supposed to explain who is who because then you are providing
13 the information where the witness is supposed to do so.
14 So you are now quoting the words of Mr. Lazovic.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes.
16 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
17 Q. "I simply did not have the opportunity of consulting our
18 deputies. As far as I've managed to exchange opinions with my peers to
19 overcome this position, we believe that the Assembly should speak its mind
20 on the conclusions of the Assembly and that it should be done in the way
21 proposed by the legislative legal commission."
22 Momcilo Krajisnik: "I have to put to vote this conclusion that
23 was now amended by the proposing party and by the legislative legal
24 commission. First, we should vote on the conclusion. I am putting to vote
25 the conclusion put forth by the proposing party based on the intervention
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 of the legislative legal commission. Who is in favour? Who is against?
2 Five are against. Those abstaining: Three abstained votes. I voted in
3 favour; 121 voted for. An applause.
4 "Please, we are putting to vote this statement. Can we all
5 vote? Who is in favour of the statement?" This is the statement put forth
6 by the SDP. I'm continuing my quote: "The amendments that were provided
7 by them are in order, I believe. Who is in favour? 121. Who is against?
8 Six. Who abstains? I abstain myself, in fact.
9 "Gentlemen, I thank you for making it possible for me not to
10 walk out of the parliament. I thank you for voting unanimously for this
11 because we are trying to produce a statement of the political will in
12 favour of calming down the people. In ten days this will be a platform
13 that we will be able to work on. We stand adjourned for the day," and the
14 session closed at 14.30.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, you did not only read but you also
16 explained what statement or what proposal was put to the vote. You're not
17 supposed to add anything to it. If you would like to have this clarified,
18 you should ask the witness.
19 Would you please now put your question to the witness.
20 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Mr. Bjelobrk, you've seen the stenographic record from that
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Can you tell the Trial Chamber what the contribution of Mr.
25 Krajisnik was to have this proposal voted.
1 A. This is my understanding of the text that you quoted: We offered
2 a document that was aspiring towards proposing a definite solution. The
3 debate that preceded the vote made it quite unlikely that the document
4 would be discussed at all because you see that in the first instance the
5 discussion focussed on the conclusion rather than the SDP proposal. I wish
6 to remind you that this is already the time when the SDS deputies had
7 walked out. When you offered the document to vote, it got 121 votes in
8 favour and you abstained. And I'm talking now about the proposal and not
9 about the conclusion of the legislative legal commission.
10 Q. To make this quite clear to the Trial Chamber, would the
11 conclusion have been voted -- passed had Mr. Krajisnik not voted in favour?
12 A. Yes. When you're talking about the conclusion, you did support
13 it with your vote but not the proposal.
14 Q. But would your document have been put to vote at all had the
15 conclusions not been voted?
16 A. No, they would not have.
17 Q. Did -- would your platform have 121 votes without Mr. Krajisnik's
18 vote having been known previously?
19 A. I suppose so.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Would you please make a pause between question and
22 I'm just trying to understand what you said, Mr. Bjelobrk. Do
23 you say that it was not your proposal that was voted upon?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In November, I tried to explain
25 the overall situation. First of all, it was controversial whether our
1 document would be out for debate at all. The findings of the legislative
2 legal commission with this conclusion by Mr. Lazovic was of a legal and
3 procedural nature. The participation of Mr. Krajisnik was that by
4 participating he made this possible because in the meantime the SDS
5 deputies had left the Assembly session. That is why he created the
6 conditions for proper procedure, and this is quite proper. But when we
7 came to the realisation of the things that were supposed to contribute to a
8 calming-down of the situation, we got to these results when Mr. Krajisnik
9 abstained. In November I tried to explain this problem of responsibility
10 where you as the president of the Assembly stay, you create technical
11 conditions for work, but basically it's a question of obstruction because
12 we all know that this platform was never again actually adopted by the
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, you may put your next question to
15 the witness.
16 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
17 Q. At the last session, you objected and you said that the SDS and
18 Krajisnik were in favour of the division of Sarajevo. I would now like to
19 ask the girl ...?
20 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Usher, could you assist Mr. Krajisnik.
21 Mr. Krajisnik, would you like to have these documents you just
22 have in evidence? The documents you just showed to the witness. I think
23 it would be proper to have them in evidence.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Thank you, Your
25 Honour, of course.
1 JUDGE ORIE: I suggest to you that you provide copies as soon as
2 possible without any markings on it, and then they'll have to be translated
3 before a final decision can be taken as to whether or not to admit them
4 into evidence. So the original will be given back to you -- no, we'll keep
5 it for a while. You have to -- so that we can see that we received the
7 Yes. Let's proceed.
8 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
9 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
10 Q. That is one of the maps from the Vance-Owen Plan -- actually,
11 from the book by Mr. Owen. Do you see there that a division of Sarajevo is
13 A. I see the map of the contact group from 1994, and division of
14 Sarajevo is not planned here.
15 Q. Can you see in the -- the last figure on the one side and the
16 other side where you have the federation and the Serb entity?
17 A. I can see --
18 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not see the figures and
19 did not catch the answer by the witness.
20 Q. 2.7 --
21 JUDGE ORIE: We have to make a pause between question and answer
22 since the answer of the witness was not heard. Apart from the --
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think, as a matter of fact, that I can read
25 even on my screen that for the Federation it's 51 per cent and for the Serb
1 entity it is 49 per cent. Was that your answer?
2 THE WITNESS: [No audible response]
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Everyone can read that.
4 Please proceed, Mr. Krajisnik, and take care that you make a
6 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
7 Q. I would like you to read the figure before last in the
8 Federation, in the sum for the Serbian entity.
9 A. The one before last for the Federation is 1.31 per cent, and the
10 one for the Federation is 8.25 per cent. These are the numbers, one but
12 Q. Mr. Bjelobrk, in the Federation column, do you see 2.07 per cent?
13 A. Yes, that is the last figure.
14 Q. And do you see 1.04 under the Serb entity column?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Could you please scroll the page up a little bit. Very well.
17 I'm sorry, could you please scroll it up.
18 On the map, where you see "Sarajevo," do you see the number 3.11
19 per cent?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Could you add up these figures, whether it -- it really does come
22 to 3.11 per cent.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Thank you. The next document, please.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Now, I -- it's totally unclear to me what figures
1 have been added by the witness. What now is added to reach the sum of 3.11
2 per cent? Is that the 2.07 from the Federation, last on the list of
3 numbers before a sum is reached, and the Serb entity 1.04? Yes.
4 THE WITNESS: [No audible response]
5 JUDGE ORIE: So we are now adding numbers from the one list to a
6 number from the other list.
7 Please proceed.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] You are right, Your Honour.
9 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Could you please scroll up. Thank you. Could you please scroll
11 down. A little bit more, please. Could we look at the map on the left,
12 please, and scroll down a little bit. I really apologise. I would like to
13 look at the map because you can't see it very well on the screen.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Usher, could you please zoom out a tiny
15 little bit and move a bit higher so that the map is on the screen. Yes.
16 There we are.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, if we can see the whole map,
19 Maybe we can move to the next document. I cannot find here what
20 I am looking for. The next document, please.
21 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Do you see on this map that -- a ratio 2 to 1 division of
23 Sarajevo is planned, on the bottom of the map?
24 A. I see the text which says, "Sarajevo district, 3.1 per cent." I
25 don't see any other indications about all -- the only thing is in the third
1 and the fourth lines -- no, no, I don't see any other elements for
2 definition of Sarajevo.
3 Q. Can you read the following text, please: "The total for the
4 majority Muslim republic, including the area of Sarajevo, on the basis of
6 A. Yes, I see that text.
7 Q. Do you see on the map that it says in the Sarajevo district 3.1
8 per cent?
9 A. Yes, I see that.
10 Q. Thank you very much.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The next document, please. This
12 document you can take away. That's a map of Sarajevo.
13 I think that there are several copies there, so could you please
14 give me a copy.
15 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I'm -- I'm reluctant to intervene, but
16 we do have time constraints in the amount of time we have to present our
17 case, and I'm not sure what the point is.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 MR. HANNIS: Regarding these 1993, 1994 maps.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do understand. I'll say a few things about
21 it soon.
22 Mr. Krajisnik, what's your question to the witness?
23 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Mr. Bjelobrk, you have a document in front of you that was in
25 Dayton at the start of the negotiations, and that document mentions the
1 district. I would just like to ask you whether you are familiar with this
3 A. No, I -- I don't know the document. I don't know who drafted
4 this document.
5 Q. It's a document from Dayton.
6 A. But who is the author? There were several authors. This is the
7 position of the contact group, such as the maps that we saw or of somebody
8 else. I don't know.
9 Q. I'm just asking you whether you know this document. Were you in
10 the process of it?
11 A. No, no, I don't know.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, the witness had already answered the
13 question that he did not know the document.
14 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
15 Q. I would like to ask you to read the first paragraph of this
16 document in Serbian. Perhaps you can read the whole document which was in
18 JUDGE ORIE: What are you, then -- since the witness doesn't
19 know the document, Mr. Krajisnik, what did you have in mind to ask him?
20 Because if it's just reaching conclusions on the basis of a text, there's
21 no need to ask the witness about it since the Chamber can read the text, as
22 well, and one might try to find a way of introducing this document ...
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. The witness in front
24 of him has a document which during Cutilheiro's time, and it was also
25 presented during the Dayton Agreements. That's why I asked him if he knew
1 about, but if he doesn't know, very well.
2 In that case, I would like him to return the document.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Any further questions to the witness, Mr.
5 THE ACCUSED: [I0nterpretation] Yes. Yes, I have more questions.
6 I will try to be more expedient now.
7 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues]
8 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Can you read the heading of this document and tell us what date
10 it's from?
11 A. Yes. The date is the 17th of January, 1992, and the -- I know.
12 I can see the title.
13 Q. Could you read the title, please. The subheading, please.
14 A. I cite Dr. Radovan Karadzic. "The rest of Yugoslavia must be
16 Dr. Biljana Plavsic: "We looked at the backs of those who
17 destroyed Yugoslavia."
18 Q. Mr. Bjelobrk, just one moment, please. I am going to read it,
19 and you can confirm it.
20 "Press conference of the Serbian Democratic Party of Bosnia-
21 Herzegovina in Sarajevo."
22 The large heading: "Not division but transformation of Bosnia."
23 I would now like you to scroll the text down. In the bottom
24 left corner, it says, "Namely, with a realistic transformation of
25 Yugoslavia, Bosnia-Herzegovina will have to transform itself, and nobody
1 should be trying to say that this is a division of this republic. This is
2 a transformation whereby the sovereignty of all three constitutive peoples
3 in Bosnia-Herzegovina are -- their position is being made stronger."
4 Is that what it says, Mr. Bjelobrk?
5 A. Yes, that's what it says.
6 Q. Thank you very much.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Next document, please.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, it's entirely unclear to us -- it
9 has not been introduced whose words they are, who did write them down. It
10 seems to be a press conference. But whether these were your words or the
11 words of Mr. Vance or Mr. Owen or Mr. Karadzic is totally unclear to us.
12 But -- therefore it does not really assist the Chamber to introduce these
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would just like the document to
15 be placed on the ELMO again, please.
16 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Are these the words of Mr. Karadzic? Could you please look.
18 A. There is a quote mark at the beginning for someone. Yes. After
19 the first subheading, his name is mentioned and that this is what he says.
20 Q. Very well. Thank you very much.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Next document, please.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Well, at least, the newspaper says that these are
23 the words of Mr. Karadzic, which is, of course, not the same.
24 MR. HANNIS: That's my point, Your Honour. If he wants to
25 submit these newspaper articles, we don't need Mr. Bjelobrk to sit in the
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 courtroom and take up our time translating if he has no specific comment to
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I already hinted at such a solution, that if
4 you want to introduce these kind of documents, where the witness could
5 hardly say anything about it or hardly add anything to it -- there are
6 other ways of doing that, Mr. Krajisnik. Do you have any question for the
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm trying to be as
9 brief as possible. You will remember that Mr. Bjelobrk claimed that he
10 thought that the Serbian Democratic Party wanted a division of Bosnia and
11 Herzegovina. We're talking about the 17th of January here, 1992.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Krajisnik, so then the question would be
13 for the witness to confront him with this publication and ask him whether
14 on the basis of this publication he still sticks to the answer he's given
15 or whether that changes his mind. That's what you, then, should ask him
16 because the mere fact that a newspaper publishes something which is not
17 consistent with the witness's answer doesn't necessarily mean that the
18 newspaper is right and the answer of the witness is wrong.
19 Mr. Krajisnik, you're limiting your time. I said I would not
20 mind if you would take a little bit more than granted to the Defence. I'll
21 grant you another five minutes, and then we'll proceed.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.
23 Could the usher please ...
24 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Regionalisation was discussed and that it's impossible to
1 regionalise Bosnia-Herzegovina. This is an extract of the assembly meeting
2 of the 25th and 26th of January, 1992. Could you please read the words of
3 Mr. Muhamed Cengic.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, is this the BiH Assembly?
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, the Assembly of Bosnia and
6 Herzegovina. This is the last Assembly session of the Assembly of Bosnia
7 and Herzegovina.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please point to what part you'd like to
9 witness to read.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The text where Muhamed Cengic is
11 speaking. Mr. Bjelobrk has that in front of him.
12 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Could you please read it out loud.
14 A. "Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to inform you about something
15 and suggest something. The government of Bosnia and Herzegovina received
16 instructions and adopted a decision to carry out regionalisation, a new
17 regionalisation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. I believe that the Serbian
18 Democratic Party, as well as the Party of Democratic Action and the
19 Croatian Democratic Union should provide their proposals on the type of
20 regionalisation, what kind of regionalisation it should be. What should be
21 done? I think it should be useful for us to carry out this
22 regionalisation. This is a task given by the government, that we schedule
23 a referendum, determine deadlines for the referendum and a deadline for
24 that regionalisation. There will be no referendum before we receive a
25 complete plan for the regionalisation."
1 Q. Very well. Next document, please. Just one question: What was
2 the function of Mr. Muhamed Cengic in the government and in the SDA?
3 A. He was the Prime Minister of the Executive Council of the
4 government of Bosnia and Herzegovina and also the vice-president of the
6 Q. Could you please read on what Mr. Cengic says.
7 A. "Sir, Doctor, this is how we agreed, and let us then conclude
8 that here together before everybody."
9 Q. Do you remember when Mr. Cengic and Mr. Karadzic were together in
10 front of the microphone?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Thank you.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Next document, please.
14 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
15 Q. What does Muhamed Cengic say?
16 A. "Please accept that the referendum be held on the 10th instead of
17 on the 1st of March. Alija Izetbegovic, if you are interested, Mr. Kreso."
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Next document, please.
19 Next document, please.
20 Next document, please.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, it doesn't make much sense to show
22 us documents on the ELMO and then to say that now the next document may be
23 shown. You can ask the witness questions but nothing else.
24 Apart from that, your time is on. I suggest to you that you
25 discuss with counsel about a practical way of introducing documents you
1 consider relevant for your defence and to find a way -- how to introduce
2 them. You may have noticed that sometimes contextual documents or --
3 that's about municipalities, but I can imagine that even contextual
4 documents on Assembly sessions could be produced. Of course, if there's
5 any contradiction between those already in evidence and those produced in
6 this way, then we should find a way to settle that and give the parties an
7 opportunity to argue on what's the best document reflecting what happened
8 during certain meetings, and then the Chamber will finally decide upon it.
9 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, could I just make a --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
11 MR. STEWART: -- an inquiry. When Your Honour suggests to Mr.
12 Krajisnik that he discusses with counsel a practical way of introducing
13 documents, does Your Honour mean with Defence counsel, prosecuting counsel,
14 or both?
15 JUDGE ORIE: I suggested to him to discuss it with Defence
16 counsel, and, of course, if there would be any need to consult with
17 Prosecution counsel in order to find a way to introduce those documents, of
18 course, that would be the logical thing to do at that point.
19 MR. STEWART: I just had in mind that it's really as much an
20 issue between prosecuting counsel and Mr. Krajisnik as between Mr.
21 Krajisnik and Defence counsel, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think my suggestions were clear until now,
23 and I do understand that you'd rather have Mr. Krajisnik to deal directly
24 with the Prosecution. At least, that's how I understood it. That's not
25 part of --
1 MR. STEWART: I didn't go quite that far, Your Honour. But I
2 was indicating -- well, some of the underlying practical --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 MR. STEWART: -- considerations in this rather unusual system
5 that we have at the moment.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Well, it's good that you didn't go that far,
7 because it was not part of my suggestion either.
8 Mr. Krajisnik.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.
10 I would just like to ask you to allow me one question regarding
11 what I showed to Mr. Bjelobrk and then one more question in relation to
12 Sarajevo, and then I will finish my questioning.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Two short questions.
14 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Mr. Bjelobrk, you will remember this session. I would ask you
16 whether Mr. Izetbegovic withdrew this proposal by Mr. Cengic.
17 A. I really don't remember that, but I think that Cengic's option
18 did not pass.
19 Q. Thank you very much.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just this one document, please.
21 JUDGE ORIE: The last question, Mr. Krajisnik.
22 THE ACCUSED: I'm sorry, and this document, as well. They go
24 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
25 Q. You'll recall that when we were talking about Serbs leaving
1 Sarajevo. Were you aware that there was a decision by the city Assembly
2 that Serbs can leave or that they can stay?
3 A. Yes. I followed the atmosphere very specifically, and I knew
4 about that decision.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could you place the next document
6 on the ELMO, please.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could we first identify what documents we're
8 talking about. Is this Oslobodjenje, or does it just look like that? And
9 could we also have a look at the date. Is it somewhere in 1995 or is that
10 ...? It looks very much as mid-February 1996, even. Is that correct, Mr.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, that is correct.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's clear.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is a decision of the city
15 Assembly that Serbs can leave Sarajevo.
16 Another document, please.
17 JUDGE ORIE: The city Assembly of Sarajevo, I do understand.
18 What part of Sarajevo?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Serbian Sarajevo. At that time it
20 was Serbian Sarajevo.
21 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Were you informed about the threats expressed by the Federation
23 in relation to the Serbs who were supposed to leave Sarajevo?
24 A. Yes. There were threats.
25 Q. Thank you very much. But since I am out of time, I will stop now
1 though, even though I do have a lot more questions.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hannis, any need to re-examine?
5 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I have no redirect.
6 JUDGE ORIE: We have no questions for the witness either. Then
7 there's no question about whether questions in redirect or questions from
8 the Bench have triggered any need to re-examine the witness.
9 Mr. Bjelobrk --
10 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, I understood, although I'm not
11 asking you to take advantage of it -- I had understood - but perhaps my
12 memory is playing tricks, which does happen -- that I might have an
13 opportunity of asking questions after Mr. Krajisnik. But on this occasion,
14 Your Honour, I'm not needing to do that.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It's good that you remind me, that due to the
16 sensitive elements in the relation between the questions put by Defence
17 counsel and by the accused that there might be a need. But there's no
19 MR. STEWART: No. I'm grateful for that, Your Honour. Thank
21 JUDGE ORIE: Now, Mr. Bjelobrk, this concludes your testimony in
22 this court. I'd like to thank you very much, not for coming once only, but
23 even for coming two times. I wish you a safe trip home again.
24 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Usher, could you please escort Mr. Bjelobrk.
1 [The witness withdrew]
2 JUDGE ORIE: We -- let me just have a look.
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hannis, the Chamber would like to have an early
5 break. That means that we'd have a break now for 20 minutes, and then
6 after the break we would resume the cross-examination of Mr. Prstojevic.
7 If we have a break now, then there would be a time remaining, approximately
8 one and a half hours.
9 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I just wanted to raise the issue of
10 exhibits with Mr. Bjelobrk.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 MR. HANNIS: We --
13 JUDGE ORIE: I'd rather, especially since it's a bit unclear
14 what to do with the exhibits that Mr. Krajisnik might tender, I wonder
15 whether all of them are -- the problem is also that they were given back to
16 Mr. Krajisnik.
17 Mr. Krajisnik, everything you've shown to the witness was on the
18 ELMO. To that extent, it is on the record. They also have all been read.
19 You are invited to the extent you think that they would have to be in
20 evidence to provide clean copies so that translations can be prepared and
21 that we can decide on the admission into evidence. And, of course, after
22 the translation is there, then the Prosecution could make any objections it
23 would like to make.
24 MR. HANNIS: [Microphone not activated]
25 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Microphone, please, Mr. Hannis.
2 MR. HANNIS: I'm sorry. They're Exhibits 392 to 406, for
3 purposes of -- of the record that we want to --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 MR. HANNIS: -- seek admission of later.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Let's deal with the exhibits at a later stage. But
7 we'll not forget it.
8 We'll adjourn until 20 minutes past 12.00.
9 --- Recess taken at 12.01 p.m.
10 --- On resuming at 12.25 p.m.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Before we continue, Mr. Krajisnik, I'd like to say
12 a few things to you in respect of your examination of witnesses.
13 First of all, I'd like to clearly express that what you did, for
14 example, with the previous witness, clarifying that a photograph where
15 certain people appear was a photograph taken in a reception certainly adds
16 to creating a context which enables the Chamber to better understand the
17 evidence as it was there. On the other hand, the way you dealt with the
18 documents today did not assist the Chamber in any way, and I think that it
19 would be wise to seek further guidance and further information from your
20 counsel, how to deal with these kind of matters, and you could even wonder
21 whether it would not be wiser to leave handling documents in the hands of
23 The Chamber allowed you today more time than was envisaged to do
24 it. The Chamber is not willing to spend more time on inadequate handling
25 of documents in the examination of a witness.
1 Then we will proceed with the cross-examination of the next
2 witness, the witness that was still waiting, Mr. Prstojevic.
3 Mr. Or Madam Usher, could you escort the witness into the
5 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, while that's happening, just using
6 the time, may I say, Your Honour, in relation to the apparently entirely
7 unresolved question of how the guideline 60 per cent applies in this
8 situation, I don't -- a number of comments to be made. I've said nothing.
9 I don't wish to be taken to have accepted anything in relation to that
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 MR. STEWART: My position is entirely reserved as far as what I
13 might say in relation to that is concerned.
14 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand.
15 [The witness entered court]
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, the Chamber is neither seeking to
17 spend more time on cross-examination as of now. At the same time, the
18 Chamber is also not seeking a new source for a conflict between you and Mr.
19 Krajisnik. So we'll have to deal with that at a later stage, and we'll
20 have to reconcile these two elements.
21 Mr. Stewart, you may continue your cross-examination of Mr.
23 MR. STEWART: Thank you, Your Honour.
24 WITNESS: NEDJELJKO PRSTOJEVIC [Resumed]
25 [Witness answered through interpreter]
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Cross-examined by Mr. Stewart: [Continued]
2 Q. Mr. --
3 JUDGE ORIE: But before doing so, Mr. Prstojevic, I would like
4 to remind you that you're still bound by the solemn declaration you've
5 given at the beginning of your testimony that you'll speak the truth, the
6 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
7 And for your information, Mr. Stewart, in the beginning of the
8 cross-examination, quite some time was spent on clarifying issues which are
9 not in evidence.
10 MR. STEWART: I beg your pardon, Your Honour?
11 JUDGE ORIE: Ambiguities in statements which are not in
13 MR. STEWART: Well, I -- well, I understand that, Your Honour.
14 I don't quite understand --
15 JUDGE ORIE: In fact, there was quite some time spent on
16 unprecise or unclear information. At least, that's how we understood it.
17 It's just that if you say no, I was doing something else, then we have to
19 MR. STEWART: No, I was doing that, Your Honour, but I was doing
20 it legitimately because the fact that something is not in evidence does not
21 mean that it may not be a fact which in cross-examination with the witness
22 I nevertheless wish to clear up.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I fully agree with you if you think that
24 those portions -- well, the transcripts that are not in evidence, that they
25 nevertheless give rise to eliciting evidence from a witness and then in a
1 clear fashion, rather than in an unclear way, as you may have found it in
2 the transcript. That's, of course -- you're fully entitled to that if you
3 find it of such importance.
4 Please proceed.
5 MR. STEWART: I did, Your Honour. Thank you.
6 Q. Mr. Prstojevic, you talked about -- you were asked about --
7 certain questions about the -- the structure of the Serb Democratic Party,
8 and in your earlier oral evidence this week we went over a certain amount
9 of familiar territory there. So far as the Main Board of the SDS is
10 concerned, can you say from your recollection how often that body met in
11 1991 and 1992?
12 A. How frequently the Main Board met in 1991 is not something I know
13 because I was not a member of the Main Board. As for 1992, from April
14 onwards the party was non-active, I believe, until the end of the year,
15 until the Jahorina plenary when the party would resume its operation, both
16 the Main and the Executive Boards.
17 Q. Does that mean that you are able, whether or not you were present
18 yourself -- but does that mean that you are able to give some figures or
19 some assessment of how many times the Main Board ever met in 1992?
20 A. I cannot because I do not know how many times it met until the
21 April 1992, and I believe the Jahorina plenary was held at the end of the
22 year; although, I am not certain about it.
23 Q. In your evidence earlier in this case - this is at page 64. Your
24 Honour, I'm talking about the -- the transcript numbered obviously from 1
25 to whatever for Tuesday of this week, rather than the continuously numbered
1 transcript. So it's at page 64, lines 10, 11 - you said, "In terms of
2 hierarchy, the work of the Municipal Boards was orchestrated by the Main
4 First of all, when you said "the work of the Municipal Boards,"
5 can we take it that you -- you actually only really have any worthwhile
6 knowledge about the activities or the work of your own municipality board,
7 rather than that of -- those of other municipalities?
8 A. I was talking about the operation of our Municipal Board. I
9 believe that the communication flow and the coordination of work was the
10 same for all the Municipal Boards.
11 Q. That's just an assumption you make, Mr. Prstojevic, is it not?
12 A. Yes. For the latter part, yes.
13 Q. So talking about your own Municipal Board, that work, you say,
14 was orchestrated by the Main Board. Well, first of all, you've clearly
15 given evidence that in the hierarchy of the SDS, the Main Board came above
16 the municipality board. But in what -- when you say "orchestrated," what
17 do you mean?
18 A. After the Republican Assembly of the Serb Democratic Party, the
19 Main Board is the highest body. The Main Board comprises the Executive
20 Board as its executive body, in fact. All the documents, statements,
21 position papers, or decisions were sent from the Main Board to the
22 Municipal Board or from the Executive Board to the Municipal Board.
23 However, in Sarajevo we had the city board of the Serbian Democratic Party
24 for Sarajevo, which sometimes emerged as a structure in between, which had
25 its own meetings, and the materials produced by this board were sent
1 directly to the Municipal Board, which had to familiarise itself with the
2 document and implement it.
3 Q. Mr. Prstojevic, was there a clear hierarchy among the Main Board
4 of the SDS, the Executive Board of the SDS, the city board of Sarajevo, and
5 the Ilidza municipality board?
6 A. Clearly there was a hierarchy in place.
7 Q. Mr. -- Mr. Prstojevic, my question was something not -- it wasn't
8 whether there clearly was a hierarchy but whether the hierarchy was clear.
9 Let me make it more specific. It seems a possibility - say whether this is
10 right from the answers that you've given - that there was a less than clear
11 hierarchy and interrelationship between, number one, the neighbourhood and
12 Executive Board of the SDS; number two, the city board of Sarajevo; and
13 number three, the Ilidza municipality board. Do you -- do you agree that
14 there was a less-than-clear hierarchy and interrelationship among those?
15 A. In fact, I disagree. The hierarchy of the party was quite clear.
16 Q. Well, let me ask you this: Was the city board in any way in
17 between the Main Board and the Executive Board and the Ilidza municipality
19 A. Yes, it was.
20 Q. So sometimes the Main Board would receive materials direct from
21 the Main Board or the Executive Board and sometimes receive materials via
22 the city board of Sarajevo. Is that or is that not the position?
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger.
24 MR. TIEGER: Sorry, I -- yeah, I think if Mr. Stewart looks at
25 the question, he'll see it's -- it's unclear. It's the Main Board
1 receiving materials from the Main Board. I'm sure that's not what he
3 MR. STEWART: I -- you're absolutely right. I didn't. Slip of
4 the tongue. Thank you.
5 Q. Sometimes the Ilidza municipality board - thank you for that -
6 sometimes the Ilidza municipality board would receive materials direct from
7 the Main Board or the Executive Board of the SDS, and sometimes it would
8 receive materials from those bodies via the city board of Sarajevo. Is --
9 is that right or wrong?
10 A. That's right.
11 Q. I'm going to return though to press you, Mr. Prstojevic, on what
12 you meant by saying, "The work of the Municipal Board of Ilidza was
13 orchestrated by the Main Board." Do you mean any more than receipt of
14 whatever correspondence or other documents came through one route or
15 another from the SDS Main Board?
16 A. I meant that there was written correspondence and telephone
17 communication on a daily basis and that, where necessary, there were also
18 personal contacts with the members of both the Main and Executive Boards.
19 In addition to that, members of the Main Board and people's deputies were
20 also in charge of dealing with Municipal Boards. They were duty-bound to
21 take part in the work of the Municipal Board of Ilidza, to follow the
22 board's work, assist, and ultimately to evaluate its work.
23 Q. Were you personally ever on the receiving end of telephone calls
24 made on behalf of the Main Board in relation to the activities of your
25 Municipal Board?
1 A. I was not in the Municipal Board full-time. I did not have a
2 desk there. But we had a secretary of the board and a technical secretary
3 who worked there full-time. At the end of my working hours at my
4 workplace, I would drop by the board's premises and try to keep abreast of
5 the communications, the mail that arrived. There were cases when President
6 Karadzic called me over the phone, and, of course, there were cases when I
7 placed a phone call to him.
8 Q. The secretary of your Municipal Board was Mr. Momcilo Ceklic.
9 That's right, isn't it?
10 A. No. The secretary of our Municipal Board during my term of
11 office was Ignjat Simic, and I cannot recall the lady's -- or, rather, the
12 name of the lady who was the technical secretary. I believe her name was
13 Biljana. Momo Ceklic is the secretary of the Municipal Assembly of Ilidza.
14 He was a functionary in the multiparty Assembly established in 1990.
15 Q. So how often during the period from when you were first elected
16 in June 1991 through -- let us take it to April 1992. How often did you or
17 the people working for you -- did the Municipal Board receive a call from
18 Dr. Karadzic?
19 A. I cannot tell you exactly, but Mr. -- Dr. Karadzic did not call
20 very often, because there was the Executive Board and the people who --
21 there were the people who were on duty in the Executive and the Municipal
22 Boards. In fact, I can only remember one phone call placed by Dr.
23 Karadzic, and I know that I called him two or three times, asking him to
24 receive me.
25 Q. Was that in relation to the issue about replacement of a
2 MR. TIEGER: Sorry, was what in relation?
3 MR. STEWART: That contact, that phone call.
4 MR. TIEGER: Well, I only say that because the witness indicated
5 there was one phone call placed by Dr. Karadzic and two or three phone
6 calls by the witness.
7 MR. STEWART: No, you're quite right. I -- I'd probably jumped
8 to a conclusion.
9 Q. Were all those phone calls to do with an issue relating to the
10 replacement of a secretary?
11 A. Are you asking me?
12 Q. Yes.
13 A. I had quite a long conversation with our president in relation to
14 the dismissal of a secretary in Kasindol. There was just this one
15 conversation where I was told that -- that everything was proceeding in
16 accordance with the procedure and the law.
17 Q. So is -- is the answer that those phone calls that you described,
18 those very few phone calls between you and Dr. Karadzic, did all at least
19 include the issue of the replacement of dismissal of that local secretary
20 in Kasindol?
21 A. This was exactly the issue we discussed, only about the removal
22 of the secretary because the local board there wanted to proceed in a way
23 that was contrary to the procedure in place and hastily.
24 Q. Can you recall the names of anybody -- let's leave aside Dr.
25 Karadzic without exploring that. But can you recall the names of anybody
1 who telephoned to the Municipal Board in Ilidza between end of June 1991
2 and April 1992 on behalf of either the Main Board or the Executive Board of
3 the SDS?
4 A. That is something I really cannot remember. There was Mr.
5 Velibor Ostojic from Ilidza, who was a member of the Main Board. We also
6 had the people's deputy, Ljubo Bosankic, who was a deputy representing
7 Croats, Serbs, and Muslims. This facilitated our communication to a great
9 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, my apologies. You may have noticed
10 I'm looking for a piece of paper, which is just hard to find while I'm
11 proceeding. I wonder if I might just take two minutes to see -- or less to
12 if I can see if I can find it.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
14 MR. STEWART: Thank you.
15 Thank you, Your Honour. Less than two minutes. It was driving
16 me nuts, and probably everybody else looking at my trying to find it.
17 Thank you.
18 Q. The -- Mr. Prstojevic, according to information which comes from
19 a report which you will have been spared but which is in evidence.
20 MR. STEWART: This is Mr. Treanor's report, Your Honour.
21 Q. There are only six meetings of the Main Board of the SDS recorded
22 to have occurred between October 1991 and April 1992. We have the dates,
23 but I won't trouble you, unless anybody presses me to, with all the
24 detailed dates. But there was one in November, two in December of 1991,
25 one in February 1992 and two in March of 1992. So that's six meetings in
1 five months.
2 MR. TIEGER: Just excuse me, Your Honour. Sorry to interrupt.
3 And I -- I think it's fair to note that if it's Mr. Treanor's report we're
4 -- that Mr. Stewart is relying on, that was based, as he told us, on the
5 documentation available to the OTP, not necessarily an exhaustive -- or
6 reflection of all the meetings that might have been recorded and are
7 reflected elsewhere.
8 MR. STEWART: Yes. I --
9 JUDGE ORIE: I take it, Mr. Stewart, that you wanted to confront
10 the witness with the information on the basis of minutes available that
11 during that period, we are aware at this moment, of a certain number of
12 meetings. Is that ...?
13 MR. STEWART: Indeed, Your Honour. Mr. Tieger's point is a
14 perfectly fair one, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 MR. STEWART: I had attempted to cover it by the use of the word
17 "recorded." Of course, Mr. Tieger could say it might have been recorded in
18 a lot of different ways. So, yes, I should make it clear. On the basis of
19 what we see, or Mr. Treanor's evidence, what have been identified by him as
20 recorded, there were those meetings.
21 Q. Mr. Prstojevic, would you have any information that would enable
22 you to confirm or reject or qualify the suggestion that there were of the
23 order of six meetings of the Main Board during that period November 1991 to
24 March 1992?
25 A. I have no information whatsoever on the basis of which I could
1 confirm either way, and I cannot speculate about that.
2 Q. And if I say to you -- and it's a bit more specific -- that
3 between July 1991 and the 26th of February -- end of July, 1991 and the
4 26th of February, 1992, the same report, same sources, we have nine
5 sessions of the Executive Board. In that case, they are, I believe,
6 identified as first and ninth sessions. Do you -- again, do you have any
7 knowledge which enables you to confirm, deny, qualify the proposition that
8 there were of the order of nine Executive Board session during that period?
9 A. I've already said it earlier on, that in this period I attended
10 only one Assembly session, and that was the Republican Assembly of the
11 Serbian Democratic Party. However, it does seem logical that the Main
12 Board -- that the Executive Board should have met more frequently than the
13 Main Board. I believe that is something that applies everywhere in the
15 Q. Did you have -- did you have more contact yourself or through
16 your secretaries of the Main Board with the Executive Board than with the
17 Main Board, or can't you say?
18 A. We had more contacts with the Executive Board because the
19 Executive Board is a direct operational body which works with -- directly
20 with the Municipal Boards to implement the policies planned. Whatever was
21 agreed or decided upon had to be then discussed on a daily basis in order
22 to ensure the implementation of the same.
23 Q. And can you remember who it -- who on behalf of the Executive
24 Board you dealt with during that period, June/July 1991 through to April
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 A. As far as I can remember, the first president of the Executive
2 Board was Mr. Velibor Ostojic. There was Rajko Dukic after him. But most
3 of the contacts we had were with the secretary of the Executive Board, and
4 that was Mr. Trivko Komad.
5 Q. Well, you see, just concentrating for the moment, Mr. Prstojevic,
6 on who you dealt with, rather than who held offices, you've said that most
7 contacts were with Mr. Komad, was it? How often -- let's stick all along
8 with the period from end of June 1991 to April 1992 for the -- for the
9 moment. During that period, how often were you personally in direct
10 contact with Mr. Komad?
11 A. I had contact with him on several occasions, as many times as I
12 needed to, but I cannot remember, not even approximately, how many times
13 that was.
14 Q. So you couldn't tell us, then, for -- you say you couldn't
15 remember even approximately. Do you mean that you couldn't even tell the
16 Trial Chamber whether it was six times or sixty times?
17 A. That's exactly what I'm trying to say. I could even call Mr.
18 Trivko Komad five times in a day if I needed something.
19 Q. Was that something that happened?
20 A. It probably did. I think that it did. If I spoke with him or if
21 I received some information about something that I had to do or to check,
22 then I would get back to him. Or if I was asking for something, then I
23 would be on that until it was finished.
24 Q. Did you keep any sort of logbook or notebook of calls and
25 activities on behalf of the Municipal Board?
1 A. The secretaries of the Municipal Board and the protocol officer,
2 the administrative person, would be the ones who would note down the calls
3 in order to transfer them. I personally did not jot down the calls, and I
4 don't have any kind of agenda or diary with notes on the party work.
5 Q. Well -- so, Mr. Prstojevic, if you were, for example, as you
6 suggest was a possibility, if you were talking to -- sorry. I've just
7 forgotten the name for a moment. Mr. Trivko Komad. If you were talking to
8 -- to him five times in a day, do you -- you say you didn't make any notes,
9 then, of any of those calls or during those calls?
10 A. No. No.
11 Q. So your practice in relation to calls to that gentleman was very
12 different from the practice you are adopting in this courtroom, of keeping
13 a fairly careful notebook of the questions that I'm asking you.
14 A. It was our practice that telephone calls with representatives of
15 the Main Board, the Executive Board were not to be jotted down anywhere or
16 recorded anywhere because we simply didn't need that. The only thing to be
17 noted down was that if -- if I needed some information or some name,
18 something that I couldn't remember, then I would do that as a reminder.
19 What notes I'm making here, I didn't spend a minute thinking about my
20 testimony here because my activities at home do not allow me or permit me
21 to do that.
22 Q. So if Mr. -- I'm not quite sure whether the name is the right way
23 around. But Mr. Trivko. We know who we're talking about. If Mr. Trivko
24 indicated to you some action that was required on your behalf or on behalf
25 of the Ilidza municipality board, you still wouldn't make any note of that.
1 Is that correct?
2 A. I was simply not following you. I'm sorry, I wasn't
4 Q. Alright. No problem, Mr. Prstojevic. I'll repeat the question.
5 If Mr. Trivko indicated to you on the telephone some action that was
6 required on your behalf or on behalf of the Ilidza municipality board, you
7 still wouldn't make a written note of that action. Is that right?
8 A. Yes, that's right. I would not because that was how we worked,
9 usually. It was easy to remember those tasks at that time.
10 Q. Because they weren't all that frequent? Such actions to be
12 A. No. It had nothing to do with the frequency of the events. It
13 was just the manner and the method of work in the SDS -- in the Ilidza SDS
14 Municipal Board.
15 Q. Did your secretaries follow the same practice as you of not
16 needing to write down any such actions that were to be taken?
17 A. I already said that the secretary and the technical secretary and
18 the administrative staff member were obliged to note down calls, messages,
19 everything else that had to be passed on or conveyed.
20 Q. Could we just have the names, please. You've given us the name
21 of the secretary. What was the name of the technical secretary?
22 A. Ignjat Simic was secretary. The technical secretary was a woman;
23 she was a lawyer. Her name was Biljana. We also had an administrative
24 assistant. I don't remember her name; I know that she was from Ilidza.
25 Q. Do you remember any part of her name?
1 A. If it's important, that woman is now working in the Kasindol
2 Hospital. I think her name is Mila. When I really strain or try very
3 hard, then it comes to me. Perhaps later the last name also will come to
4 me. She's working as a nurse in the Kasindol Hospital now.
5 Q. Thank you, Mr. Prstojevic. If the name does come back to you
6 while you're giving evidence here, I'd be grateful if you could just then
7 give it to the Trial Chamber and to me. Thank you.
8 The -- in your evidence in this case at page 65, this was on
9 Tuesday this week, you said that "Very often presidents of Municipal and
10 city boards would be present at the Main Board meetings of the SDS." Was
11 it that -- you say "very often." Was the position this: That in the
12 fairly normal way, if you -- if people were available to go to such
13 meetings and could with reasonable convenience go, then they would go? If
14 they couldn't go for some reason, then it was perfectly acceptable to send
15 apologies and not be there? Was -- was that the position?
16 A. Excuse me, but if it was like that, then that would be complete
17 anarchy. We were obliged to attend the meetings if we were invited. If we
18 were not invited, perhaps it was possible that somebody because for some
19 need would attend uninvited, but they would have to request permission to
21 Q. Well, Mr. Prstojevic, in your own case, for example, whatever
22 other meetings there might or might not have been, as I put before you
23 earlier, between 21st November 1991 and 23rd of -- of March 1992, there
24 were six, according to Mr. Treanor's report, clearly recorded Main Board
25 meetings of the SDS, and yet during that period - and we'll come to that -
1 but the maximum number of meetings you appear possibly to have attended
2 during that time was one. That's right, isn't it? You -- you -- whether
3 or not you even attended one, you didn't attend more than one meeting of
4 the Main Board between November 1991 and March 1992, did you?
5 A. Yes, that's correct. I was there in 1991; that was in November.
6 And then later I was at the Jahorina plenary meeting when the party was
7 just starting its work. I did not attend other meetings.
8 Q. Yes. The Jahorina one you're talking about was way back before
9 November 1991, wasn't it?
10 A. The Jahorina plenary was in 1992 during the war, when the party
11 was beginning its work. It was towards the end of the year. I believe
12 that you have the date, probably, when this was held.
13 Q. Mr. Prstojevic, I -- I see myself and just ought to clear this
14 up, then. In your previous answer when you talked about the Jahorina
15 plenary meeting when the party was just starting its work. Confirm this,
16 which appears from your answer. You mean starting its work during the war?
17 A. Yes. Yes, that's true. When it relaunched its work or renewed
18 its work in the wartime period.
19 Q. And you had attended a meeting not in Jahorina, of course, but
20 you had attended a meeting earlier in June 1991, hadn't you? Around the
21 time that you took -- first took office.
22 A. No. No, I don't know where that information comes from. I did
23 not attend any meetings of the Main Board or the Assembly of the SDS in
24 June, but I did at the end of 1991.
25 Q. Those meetings that -- I've just reminded you of, those six
1 recorded meetings. So the majority of those that you didn't attend, you --
2 did you send your apologies, or was that your practice to send your
3 apologies if you couldn't attend such a meeting?
4 A. No. I wasn't invited to these meetings, so I wasn't supposed to
5 inform them about not attending, either.
6 In order to clarify, I would like to say that the presidents of
7 the Municipal Boards were not automatically members of the Main Board.
8 Q. So where you say in -- at page 65 on Tuesday this week, "and very
9 often presidents of municipal and city boards would be present at the Main
10 Board meetings, and so they would have heard all that," that's subject to
11 the clarification you've just given that they were not automatic attenders.
12 That's what you're saying, are you?
13 A. Yes, that is exactly what I want to say, that they were not
14 automatically obliged to come, nor was it made possible for them to attend
15 automatically. Once the party renewed its work in the war, the presidents
16 of the Municipal Boards would then attend the meetings of the Main Board
17 more frequently than was the case before.
18 Q. So the position is not -- not just that you were not
19 automatically obliged to go but actually you were not automatically
20 entitled to go, were you?
21 A. Yes, exactly.
22 Q. Now -- oh, there's just one point I want to clear up with you.
23 So far as correspondence -- we talked about telephone calls. But so far as
24 written communications were concerned as between the Main Board and
25 Executive Board on the one hand and your local municipality board on the
1 other, is it right that you -- you really don't have any real idea of the
2 frequency of such correspondence during the period June 1991 to April 1992?
3 A. I said that I personally did not jot down telephone conversations
4 and telephone interventions and messages, but it's customary that the
5 materials from the Main Board and the Executive Board which relate to the
6 Municipal Boards were forwarded by mail to us, and we would inform
7 ourselves about the material at Municipal Boards. We would act in
8 accordance with them, and so on and so forth.
9 Q. It's just that in your interview, the first one actually, at page
10 12 of the 207-page transcript, Mr. Mitford-Burgess said to you - it's the
11 middle of that page - "You were in the capacity as the president of the SDS
12 party at Ilidza. You received correspondence are from the Main Board of
13 the SDS party at Sarajevo." And your answer was, "Normally the
14 correspondence should be and it was, but I do not know what was the
15 intensity of that correspondence."
16 Do you stand by that answer, Mr. Prstojevic?
17 A. Yes, I do.
18 Q. And Mr. Mitford-Burgess said, "Why?" You said, "See, it was long
19 time ago, and I can't remember now how often meetings of the Municipal
20 Board occurred and how often we were receiving some materials or how often
21 the Assembly had its sessions, Assembly of the city board, because that was
22 the period after the elections that took place in 1990."
23 Do you stand by that answer, as well?
24 A. I do.
25 MR. TIEGER: Just for clarification, it appears to me from the
1 context of this exchange that it begins with a period of time -- it
2 addresses the period of time from 1990 to 1991. That's -- it seems to be
3 reflected in the later answer, as well. But if you look up at the page
4 that -- in the comments of the witness, he appears to be talking about the
5 period of time from 1990 to 1991, a period of certain training for work,
6 and then later on the answer is the limited -- the answer reflects a
7 limited activity that took place in 1990.
8 MR. STEWART: Well, that would be, no doubt, apt if it weren't
9 for the fact that we already know from evidence, Your Honour, that this
10 witness did not become the president of the SDS party at Ilidza until the
11 end of June 1991, and that was what Mr. Mitford-Burgess was asking him
13 It's quite true that above, in the longer answer, that was the
14 period, but -- well, one can debate perhaps without the witness, Your
15 Honour, what it means, but it is -- Mr. Mitford-Burgess's question was very
16 specifically directed towards his position as the president of the SDS
17 party, and we do know that he only took up that position in June 1991. So
18 1990 doesn't have anything to do with that.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, does that sufficiently clarify the
20 issue? The problem, of course, is that the relevant portion of the
21 transcript of the interviews is not in evidence, so we have to work on the
22 basis of what has been quoted now. And if you say this is sufficient, then
23 we could proceed; if you say no, then someone would have to tender that
24 page of the document so that we ...
25 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I don't have the slightest
1 difficulty, if it makes everybody feel more comfortable -- in fact, I do
2 have a question in relation to the previous passage anyway. So I don't
3 have the slightest difficulty in having that additional paragraph
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll hear from Mr. Tieger if he finds that
6 still the question does not properly reflect what appears in the interview.
7 MR. TIEGER: Well, I would only continue the quote that I
8 truncated, that it was -- the witness's answer: "That was the period after
9 the elections that took place in 1990, and there was no real -- some level
10 activities as we were working in the elections," which, again, appears to
11 be a reflection of the period of time referred to in the earlier answer.
12 I'm not purporting to --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Page 11, 12, and 13 should be received in evidence
14 in order to better understand this portion of the evidence.
15 You may proceed, Mr. Stewart.
16 MR. STEWART: Yes. I -- Your Honour, with respect, I don't have
17 any problem at all with that. They're received in evidence on the basis
18 that it is -- the evidence is that those things were said by Mr. Prstojevic
19 in his interview.
20 Q. What you did say -- and it's a different point, Your Honours --
21 picking up an answer which you gave. I better get the question, then, so
22 we've got the context. Mr. Mitford-Burgess said, "We want to" -- something
23 unintelligible -- "your activities" -- probably "consider" or something.
24 "We want to look at your activities from the period of the outbreak of war
25 in April 1992. You said that you were president of the -- the war in April
1 of 1992. You said you were president of the SDS party. What did that
2 involve? What were your functions?"
3 And then you said -- your answer: "We were not used to
4 parliamentary life and multiparty life. So the period of time from 1990 to
5 1991 is a period of certain training for work in the parties. There were
6 very weak, normative acts, and I remember that at that time there was a
7 statute for Serb Democratic Party for Bosnia and Herzegovina which
8 prescribed municipal structure, which prescribed municipal structure of the
9 Municipal Board and in one word, the work of the whole party. Then that's
10 why we in Ilidza on our self-initiative tried to issue a document which we
11 called like a main act for the work of the Municipal Board of Ilidza. That
12 act -- that document was worked on by the end of 1991."
13 Is -- is that document that you mentioned there in your
14 interview, is that any document that we have seen since you began your
15 evidence in this court this week?
16 A. That document was called the statutory decision of the municipal
17 -- of the SDS Ilidza Municipal Board, and it was completely in line in
18 everything with the statute of the SDS party of Bosnia-Herzegovina. It was
19 drafted by a team of lawyers, economists, and so on and so forth, and it
20 was adopted by the Municipal Board. However, that statutory decision, we
21 didn't see at all, not when I was questioned in Sarajevo and not since I've
22 been here in The Hague, either.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Prstojevic, if you just would have said, No,
24 that's not a document we've seen, then you would have answered the
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Please proceed.
2 MR. STEWART: Thank you, Your Honour.
3 Q. When you say you tried to issue a document which "we called like
4 a main act," what happened to it? Did it not get the whole way to being
5 issued or proclaimed?
6 A. It was adopted and published.
7 Q. Published how?
8 A. It was adopted at the Municipal Board of the Serbian Democratic
9 Party of Ilidza, and it was internally -- it was sent to the municipal or
10 local boards by mail. It wasn't published in the official bulletin, and it
11 did not have to be published in other documents. It had to be given to the
12 Executive Board and to the Main Board of our party, however.
13 Q. And it was in some way sent or transmitted, was it, to the
14 Executive Board and the Main Board of the SDS?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And when was it adopted by the Municipal Board of the SDS of
18 A. In late 1991, as soon as it was completed.
19 Q. And this team, as you describe it, "team of lawyers, economists,
20 and so on and so forth," that included you, did it?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Were you one of the more active significant members of that team?
23 A. The most significant ones were lawyers, who had to make sure that
24 the document was in line with the statute.
25 Q. How many lawyers did you have working -- in the team working on
1 this document for Ilidza SDS Municipal Board?
2 A. I cannot recall, but the teams that we had for such matters
3 usually numbered three to five people. I know that the key person was a
4 lawyer, Mr. Slobodan Marilovic, who worked at the Sarajevo court at the
6 Q. Now --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart. Mr. Stewart.
8 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, yes.
9 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber really asks itself in what way it
10 assists to know whether there were four, three, two, or five lawyers, and
11 then to know their names. It's really -- relevance -- you'll hardly ever
12 hear me say "no relevance." It's low relevance, in the view of the
13 Chamber, and the Chamber would invite you to focus on high relevant issues.
14 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I don't mind being absolutely open
15 about what the relevance is. We like to know the names of people so that
16 we might be able to contact them. And therefore it certainly has relevance
17 and would indirectly have relevance to the Trial Chamber if we were able to
18 contact them and they were able to give evidence. It's as simple as that,
19 Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ORIE: I didn't say zero relevance. I said "low
21 relevance," and I said you are invited to seek higher relevant issues.
22 MR. STEWART: Well, may I say, with respect, that is of very
23 high relevance to the Defence, and I hope Your Honour can understand
24 exactly why.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Stewart.
1 MR. STEWART:
2 Q. Mr. Prstojevic, you were asked -- and this is at page 39, for
3 everybody's reference, of the interview transcript -- you were asked about
4 a document which has come to be known as Variants A and B. The -- you were
5 asked when you first saw the document. This is at page 39. You said,
6 "Practically immediately after it was brought by the end of December 1991,"
7 and you were asked by Mr. Margetts, who showed you that document. You
8 said, "Certain structures and certain officials of the party got this
9 document at some meeting or session in Holiday Inn, I think." And you --
10 you were asked by Mr. Margetts: "And who was the representative from
11 Ilidza that received the document?" And you said, "I cannot remember
12 really, but there was probably more of us who received it."
13 Now, do you agree, Mr. Prstojevic, that at that point in the
14 interview you were far from sure whether you personally had been at any
15 such meeting in the Holiday Inn when that document was produced?
16 A. The document was not drafted at that particular meeting.
17 Q. Mr. Prstojevic --
18 A. It was, rather, distributed to us at that meeting.
19 Q. Mr. Prstojevic, nothing in my question suggested it was drafted
20 at that meeting. I didn't, in fact, ask you to go into the question of
21 distribution. It's clear the focus of my question was your degree of
22 sureness or unsureness at that point in your interview about whether you
23 yourself had been at that meeting, and that's the point which I would
24 invite you to address in your answer.
25 A. I was personally present at this meeting.
1 Q. So when you said, "Certain structures" -- you were asked, "Who
2 showed you that document?" And you said, "Certain structures and certain
3 officials of the party got this document at some meeting or some session in
4 Holiday Inn, I think." So that language was being applied to a meeting
5 which you were already sure you had attended? Is that right?
6 A. I stand by what I said before. It's a fact that I and several
7 others from Ilidza were present at that meeting and that, at some point at
8 the meeting, towards the end of the meeting perhaps, was distributed to us.
9 We each received one copy.
10 Q. At page 40 of that interview - and it was later the same day, the
11 25th of November - you were asked by Mr. Margetts, about ten lines down:
12 "Mr. Prstojevic, if you could proceed with the explanation of who received
13 that document, in what circumstances they received it, and what
14 instructions accompanied the receipt of that document." And you said,
15 "See, I think that this document was being received at one session, one
16 meeting, maybe of the Main Board in Holiday Inn. By all means in that
17 meeting, the members of the Main Board had to be present, I think
18 presidents of Municipal Boards and the highest officials of municipalities.
19 In this case, president of the Executive Board and the secretary of the
20 Municipal Assembly and maybe somebody else from the municipal officials."
21 Now, first of all, you were not a member of the Main Board, were
22 you, at that time, December 1991?
23 A. You're right.
24 Q. So you did not have to be present.
25 A. I received an invitation to attend the meeting, and therefore I
1 was duty-bound to attend it.
2 Q. You remember, do you, that you specifically received an
3 invitation to that meeting?
4 A. I do because that was the reason why I attended the meeting.
5 Q. Later on, the same page, page 40, Mr. Mitford-Burgess: "Did you
6 attend this meeting at the Holiday Inn when this document was
8 Your answer: "I think I was, but I don't know who got this
10 Mr. Prstojevic, when you are sure you've attended a meeting, do
11 you normally answer a question with "I think I was," as opposed to just
13 A. I agree with what you're saying, but the fact is I was present,
14 regardless of how I termed my answer.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, the issue of the presence of the
16 witness at that meeting has been sufficiently dealt with. Please proceed.
17 MR. STEWART:
18 Q. At the foot of page 41 of the same interview, you said, "See" --
19 well, I'll give the lead-in of the question so we get the context. Mr.
20 Margetts said, "So what we would like you to do for us is just to describe
21 for us" --
22 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, I would invite the witness to -
23 - well, Your Honour says it's sufficiently dealt with. May I in the same
24 way, then, as we did with those few pages earlier, may I ask for the whole
25 of page 40, from where I started, and 41 to be admitted in the same way as
1 -- as evidence of what he said during that meeting, and then I needn't
2 dwell on the -- would that be satisfactory to Your Honour?
3 JUDGE ORIE: 40 and 41 will be received in --
4 MR. STEWART: Thank you.
5 MR. TIEGER: With respect, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
7 MR. TIEGER: I don't recall having the same opportunity, and I
8 trust in future that it will be extended to the Prosecution, when it's not
9 in a position to deal with a topic in its entirety because of time
11 JUDGE ORIE: The -- yes, we are not -- Mr. Stewart is asking
12 specific questions on the basis of the interview, especially where the
13 wording of the interview is of importance. Mr. Stewart has -- and I have
14 suggested, as a matter of fact, in relation to page 12, to have that in
15 evidence so that in order to assess the probative value of the testimony of
16 the witness. We would at least know what the wording of the interview is
17 with which he's confronted. It's not to say that it's the substance of it.
18 If there would be any question you've put to the witness, Mr. Tieger, where
19 you would feel that it would be appropriate that at least the Chamber has
20 at its disposal in evidence, therefore, the exact wording the witness used
21 during the interview because that was an element of your questions, then
22 you're invited to let the Chamber know, and we'll decide about admission
23 into evidence.
24 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
25 MR. STEWART: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour. And I'm obliged
1 with the way we've dealt with that passage, which speeds things along.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, I'm informed that -- you know that
3 usually we stop at a quarter to 2.00. We could, I'm informed, take a few
4 minutes more, but certainly not much because of duties for the
5 transcribers. It looks as if we would not finish with this witness today,
6 if we would give an opportunity to Mr. Krajisnik to ask some questions, if
7 you, Mr. Tieger, would have some questions perhaps triggered by cross-
8 examination, and we would have some questions. So I would rather first try
9 to find out whether the witness would still be available in the beginning
10 of next week.
11 Mr. Prstojevic, it looks as if we cannot finish your testimony
12 today. Would you still be available in the beginning of next week?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I would.
14 JUDGE ORIE: It would be presumably in -- certainly not more
15 than just on Monday.
16 Then you have another seven minutes at this moment, Mr. Stewart,
17 and then we will finish for the day.
18 MR. STEWART: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.
19 Q. Mr. Prstojevic, then moving on into those seven minutes. You
20 were -- Mr. Margetts said, "We also understand" -- or he talked about a
21 meeting on the 14th of April. And then you said, "See, according to my
22 opinion, I would have to refresh my memory a lot about this. There was
23 some meeting, I suppose, in a Holiday Inn Hotel of the mentioned
24 structures. This document is not in my hands. That means was not given to
25 me but" -- well, I'll stop there.
1 So is this the position, Mr. Prstojevic: That you are, as you
2 indicated, sure that you were at a meeting at the Holiday Inn Hotel in
3 Sarajevo in late December 1991, first of all? You're sure about that?
4 MR. TIEGER: I thought that aspect --
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think --
6 MR. TIEGER: Excuse me. But I thought that aspect of this
7 examination had been dealt with. I don't know if we're moving on to
8 something else as a predicate, but -- which is what I was waiting for.
9 MR. STEWART: Well, we are. We would have got there by now.
10 Thank you.
11 Q. Mr. Prstojevic, I just -- you are sure about that? I'm giving
12 you --
13 MR. TIEGER: Again, asked and answered.
14 MR. STEWART: Please, Mr. Tieger.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, I said that the presence of the witness
16 has been sufficiently dealt with, and then, of course, we could ask him
17 whether he was sure or whether he was perfectly sure or the that was dealt
19 MR. STEWART: But, Your Honour, for an advocate, when the Trial
20 Chamber says, "The matter has been sufficiently dealt with," that does not
21 tell the advocate clearly that -- what the Trial Chamber's conclusion was.
22 Your Honour did not say to me, "The Trial Chamber has decided" -- and
23 frankly, I'd be rather dismayed if the Trial Chamber had decided since the
24 evidence in this case is a long way from complete.
25 JUDGE ORIE: The Trial Chamber has heard three times the witness
1 saying clearly that he attended a meeting at that time and the meeting was
2 referred to as the Holiday Inn meeting and that he at that moment received
3 with others and he explained that he was specifically invited for it. The
4 Chamber does not establish any fact at this moment, but the Chamber finds
5 that as far as the evidence of this witness is concerned, that it has heard
6 sufficient about a pertinent answer three times given. And what the final
7 finding of the Chamber in this respect will be depends on the whole of the
8 evidence presented in this case.
9 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, on the footing, the witness has said
10 he was sure he was at the meeting; I leave it there.
11 Q. The next question, Mr. Prstojevic, is this: You are clearly --
12 do you agree, you are not sure and you have no clear recollection about
13 what happened about any such document - and this is the Variant A and B
14 document - at that meeting?
15 A. I cannot recall the discussion at that particular meeting about
16 this specific document.
17 Q. Can you recall anything with any confidence relating to that
18 document at all at that meeting?
19 A. I can recall with clarity what I've already mentioned; that one
20 of the four of us who were there from Ilidza - and I cannot recall their
21 names now - that we received the document and that we acted upon that
22 document by implementing one of its phases.
23 Q. Mr. Prstojevic, is -- is this the position: That you are
24 inferring from the fact that at some point you had this document, that it
25 was given to one of your colleagues at that meeting?
1 A. This is not an inference; it's a fact. One of the four of us did
2 receive the copy, and Momcilo Cencic [phoen] was, I believe, also present
3 on one of the commmissions there. Whether it was Kezomovic [phoen], the
4 people's hero, --
5 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter missed the name.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- whether it was Chencic or
7 myself, but one of us received the copy in person.
8 MR. STEWART:
9 Q. You don't even know who was present at that meeting from Ilidza,
10 do you, Mr. Prstojevic, apart from yourself?
11 A. I am certain that the persons I've indicated here were present at
12 the meeting.
13 Q. Well, if you were certain, why did you say, then -- and this is
14 at page 40 of your interview, when asked by Mr. Margetts: "Who were
15 representatives from Ilidza that attended the meeting," your answer was, "I
16 do not know who was present, but I suppose Ljubo Bosilic [phoen], Radomir
17 Kaseonovic [phoen], Momcilo Ceklic." Because, Mr. Prstojevic, do you agree
18 that is a very different answer, "I do not know who was present," from
19 saying now that you are certain that those persons were present? Do you --
20 do you accept yourself -- they're your words in both cases. Do you accept
21 that is something very different?
22 A. I do accept that it is different, but at that time, without any
23 preparations, I left the manager's office to attend this interview. I had
24 not prepared myself beforehand, and I did not have the opportunity to
25 refresh my memory as I do have today in The Hague.
1 Q. Well, you said specifically, Mr. Prstojevic, that you had not
2 prepared yourself and had not had time to prepare yourself for this
3 evidence. That's what you told the Trial Chamber earlier this week, didn't
5 A. That's quite true.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart. Mr. Stewart, I'm looking at the
8 MR. STEWART: Yes. I'm in Your Honour's hands entirely on that,
9 of course.
10 JUDGE ORIE: But I would have one question for you, Mr.
11 Prstojevic. Earlier today you said, "It is a fact that I and several
12 others from Ilidza were present at that meeting and that at some point at
13 the meeting, towards the end of the meeting perhaps, was distributed at
14 the" -- so you were talking about the distribution of the document. And
15 then you said, "We each received one copy." Whereas, now you tell us that
16 one of you received a copy.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I said that we each received
18 one copy, then it was a mistake of mine because that was not the case. It
19 must have been a slip of the tongue or maybe a misinterpretation. Every
20 Municipal Board received a copy each.
21 And as you see, Your Honours, the documents are numerated.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for that answer.
23 Mr. Prstojevic, we'd like to see you back next Monday at 9.00 in
24 this same courtroom, and I again instruct you not to speak with anyone
25 about the testimony you have given or you are still about to give.
1 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
2 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Usher, would you please --
3 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Usher, would you please escort the witness
5 out of the courtroom.
6 And for the parties: Mr. Tieger, Friday is dossier day.
7 MR. TIEGER: It certainly is, Your Honour. And I'm pleased to
8 report the submission of the following dossiers: Bijeljina, Ilijas,
9 Prijedor, Rogatica, and Sokolac.
10 [The witness stands down]
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. They'll be distributed, and we'll then have a
12 look at it and see whether there are any questions arising out of it.
13 If there are no further urgent matters to be dealt with at this
14 moment, we'll adjourn until next Monday, 9.00, same courtroom.
15 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.54 p.m.,
16 to be reconvened on Monday, the 20th day of
17 June, 2005, at 9.00 a.m.