1 Wednesday, 20 July 2005
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- On commencing at 9.11 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case
7 IT-00-39-T, the Prosecutor versus Momcilo Krajisnik.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
9 Good morning to everyone as well.
10 Mr. Tieger, are you -- no. Mr. Stewart, are you ready to
11 continue the cross-examination of witness Neskovic?
12 MR. STEWART: Yes, I am, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll ask the usher to escort Mr. Neskovic into
14 the courtroom.
15 [The witness entered court]
16 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Neskovic.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
18 JUDGE ORIE: I'd like to remind you that you're still bound by
19 the solemn declaration you've given at the beginning of your testimony.
21 Mr. Stewart, please proceed.
22 MR. STEWART: Thank you, Your Honour.
23 WITNESS: RADOMIR NESKOVIC [Resumed]
24 [Witness answered through interpreter]
25 Cross-examined by Mr. Stewart: [Continued]
1 Q. Mr. Neskovic, you'll remember that last -- or yesterday afternoon
2 when we adjourned, I had put a question to you which you had responded by
3 saying it was a very difficult and complex question. You were therefore
4 given yesterday afternoon and overnight to have a think about it. But
5 it's sensible perhaps just to remind you specifically of the question.
6 It was this: By the time we got to late 1991 and early 1992, such
7 instructions or directions as went down to the municipal level of the
8 SDS, did such instructions or directions come from Dr. Karadzic as the
9 president of the party, or from the Main Board, or from the Executive
10 Board, or some mixture, or from somewhere else?
11 A. Instructions issued to the local organisations arrived in the way
12 that I have already mentioned when we discussed Variant A and B and the
13 way in which these plans were distributed. There was direct
14 communication between the Municipal Boards and functionaries, with
15 President Karadzic in the form of Variant A and B. And subsequent
16 contact was also possible when people came from the field to see Dr.
17 Karadzic. So people could also see him in this way.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It seems not to be an answer to your question,
19 Mr. Stewart.
20 MR. STEWART: That had struck me, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Neskovic, it's clearly asked to you:
22 Instructions or directions as went down to the municipal level of the
23 SDE [sic] --
24 I took it, Mr. Stewart, you're talking about the instructions or
25 directions that the witness would bring to the lower levels. Is that
1 correct or is it a wrong understanding?
2 MR. STEWART: Well, to clarify, well, the witness or anybody else
3 for that matter, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So if you or anyone else would have to convey
5 any instructions or directions to the municipal level, from whom did you
6 or did the others receive instructions to do so?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not issue instruction or
8 directives during that period of time, as I have already said. I
9 mentioned the sort of work I had to do. I didn't convey instructions of
10 any kind or directives of any kind. I think that the Municipal Boards
11 acted in accordance with the instructions from Variant A and B and in
12 various manners and they had contact with Karadzic, whom they would
13 visit. As far as I am concerned, I didn't play a role of any kind when
14 it came to conveying instructions or orders. No specific secret couriers
15 were used or representatives or something like that.
16 MR. STEWART:
17 Q. Witness, perhaps -- Mr. Neskovic, I'll put this to you, then:
18 Are you saying that apart from the Variant A and B instructions, as you
19 put it, that you were not yourself aware of any instructions, directions,
20 or guidelines given to municipalities from the higher levels of the party
21 in late 1991 and early 1992?
22 A. No.
23 Q. There's always -- it's my fault perhaps, Mr. Neskovic. There's
24 always an ambiguity with yes or nos. You are saying you agree with what
25 I just put to you, are you?
1 A. I was familiar with instructions -- or rather, the instructions
2 contained in Variant A and B. That's what I was familiar with, although
3 I had not received those instructions. I didn't have them on me. As to
4 what municipal functionaries discussed with Dr. Karadzic when they went
5 to see him, I really don't know. I wasn't present and I didn't issue
6 instructions of any kind. So that's why I know nothing about that,
7 because I wasn't involved in that kind of work. And there's nothing more
8 I can tell you about that, because I know nothing about it.
9 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I -- I'm on the record there as saying
10 there's always an ambiguity with yes or no. I don't think --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 MR. STEWART: -- I mean anything as sweeping as that. But Your
13 Honour sees what I meant in the context.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Neskovic, I'd like to know: You told us that
15 you visited quite a lot of municipalities and would speak with the SDS
16 people over there. Who did send you there?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I usually went when the Main
18 Board took such a decision or the Executive Board, and sometimes it was
19 at the proposal of Mr. Karadzic.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So Mr. Karadzic asked you to go there; is that
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In some cases, yes. For example,
23 when there was a problem in the municipality of Modrica, in some cases
24 Karadzic sent me there too.
25 JUDGE ORIE: You say in some cases it was Karadzic. In the other
1 cases, who sent you in the other cases?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There were decisions taken by the
3 Main Board or by the Executive Board. There were conclusions according
4 to which a certain representative should go into the field in order to
5 resolve a certain problem there.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So sometimes it was Mr. Karadzic who asked you
7 to go there and sometimes it was on the basis of decisions by the Main
8 Board and the Executive Board, and your task, then, was to resolve
9 problems at the local level.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's clear.
12 Please proceed, Mr. Stewart.
13 MR. STEWART:
14 Q. Mr. Neskovic, you -- you must have had quite a lot of discretion
15 yourself as to when and in what circumstances you visited a municipality
16 to solve problems. Is that correct?
17 A. No. I had a certain amount of freedom. And when I arrived in a
18 certain municipality, I could carry out the task assigned to me in my own
19 way, by using my own method. But as to acting independently in the
20 municipalities, no, that was not the case.
21 Q. No, I think perhaps we're at cross-purposes here, Mr. Neskovic.
22 What I'm putting to you is that on a significant number of occasions the
23 decision to visit a municipality to solve whatever problems there were
24 there was a decision that you could take yourself, without any need to
25 refer to higher authority at all. That's right, isn't it?
1 A. No, that's not right.
2 Q. So you always had, before you visited a municipality -- you
3 always had to get some sort of clearance or approval from a higher level,
4 did you?
5 A. Yes, if there was a problem in a municipality - I mentioned this
6 yesterday - then this problem would be discussed at the Main and
7 Executive Board, and then I would be sent there as a representative in
8 order to deal with the problem. When dealing with the problem, I was
9 able to deal with it in my own way. I would then submit a report. But I
10 never went anywhere on my own initiative. I never tried to deal with any
11 such problems on my own initiative. I always carried out the tasks
12 assigned to me.
13 Q. So you waited, then, did you, until the next meeting of the Main
14 or the Executive Board before getting approval for you to visit a
16 A. Yes. According to the statute, I did not have the right to visit
17 municipalities and implement my own policies there. I was a member of a
18 collective body, such as the Main and Executive Board, and it was not for
19 me to act as a maverick.
20 Q. You never received any instruction from Mr. Krajisnik to visit a
21 municipality, did you?
22 A. No. Krajisnik was not a member of the Executive Board. He was
23 only a member of the Main Board. As far as I can remember, as far as my
24 visits to municipalities are concerned, I never discussed these matters
25 with Krajisnik. Krajisnik didn't have the right to discuss such matters
1 with me. He was only one of the 45 members of the Main Board.
2 Q. And, in fact, Mr. Krajisnik had no -- himself had no executive
3 authority over you at all, did he?
4 A. No, he didn't.
5 Q. At page 25 of Monday's transcript - don't trouble about the page
6 reference yourself, please, Mr. Neskovic - page 25, I guess it will be 24
7 on Mr. Tieger's, there's a long answer from you that begins: "Yes, I
8 would just like to provide you with a brief explanation."
9 Mr. Neskovic, I think there is no need for you to -- to look at
10 any piece of paper at this point.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Neskovic, if there's any -- if you would feel
12 any need, please address me and ask whether you can consult any papers.
14 MR. STEWART: Thank you, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
16 MR. STEWART:
17 Q. And what you say is that -- in the middle of that answer - I'm
18 trying not to skip any relevant context - but you say after the elections
19 -- and you're talking about the multiparty elections in November 1990 --
20 Dr. Karadzic "didn't pay as much attention to the Main and Executive
21 Board; he focussed on members of executive and legislative power who had
22 assumed state positions on behalf of the SDS. He had far more intense
23 contact with Plavsic and Koljevic, as members of the Presidency, and with
24 Krajisnik, as the president of the Assembly, with eight Serbian ministers
25 who are in the government of Bosnia and Herzegovina. He had more contact
1 with functionaries in the MUP of Bosnia and Herzegovina who are acting on
2 behalf of the SDS."
3 First of all, Mr. Neskovic, can we take it that your -- your
4 knowledge of such matters was largely a matter of impression, rather than
5 any personal involvement?
6 A. What I know about that is that after the elections, the party
7 became marginal in a certain sense when it cake to decision-making. Mr.
8 Karadzic and Krajisnik and others who were part of the executive power
9 structure had the most power to take decisions, as far as I know, on the
10 basis of conversations, on the basis of their contact. Well, I know very
11 little about their discussions, their contacts, et cetera, because I
12 wasn't present when Karadzic discussed matters with various Serbian
13 representatives in the executive power structure, so I really don't know
14 what they discussed. I can only say that I stand by my position that
15 Karadzic focussed more on representatives in power and after the
16 elections, the party -- parties became in a certain sense marginalised.
17 Q. And is it correct that when you talk about Dr. Karadzic having
18 more contact with functionaries in the MUP of Bosnia and Herzegovina who
19 are acting on behalf of the SDS, that you were not yourself personally
20 involved in any contact with those functionaries in the MUP of Bosnia and
22 A. No.
23 Q. You referred - and this was page 28 of my transcript of Monday -
24 an answer beginning -- an answer from you beginning, "Well, yes, it's a
25 fact." And about 15 lines down in that answer, you say that you and
1 others "believed that Mr. Krajisnik had become the president of the
2 Assembly not thanks to his work within the party but thanks to his
3 personal relationship with Karadzic."
4 Do you recall that there was also, Mr. Neskovic - I should make
5 clear and to the Trial Chamber I'm not -- not challenging that particular
6 point about personal relationship - but do you recall that there was also
7 a question of Mr. Krajisnik being a suitable geographical compromise
8 candidate in the sense that he was living in Sarajevo but he originally
9 came from the Krajina and that was a positive point, in favour of his
10 taking that position? Do you remember that?
11 A. No. Mr. Krajisnik was Mr. Karadzic's personal choice. And I
12 think that the candidate before him for the post of president of the
13 Assembly was Mr. Trbojevic, who's a lawyer from Sarajevo, but Karadzic,
14 for reasons that are familiar to him, decided to choose Krajisnik and he
15 intervened to ensure that Krajisnik became the president of the Assembly.
16 The geographical reasons you mentioned I think are irrelevant.
17 Q. Mr. Neskovic, are you saying that you -- you don't know about
18 those geographical reasons, or you positively assert that they didn't
19 come into the equation?
20 A. Well, I wouldn't say that geographical factors played a
21 significant role at the time. There was a tendency towards
22 centralisation and most of the functionaries in the executive power and
23 in the MUP came from Sarajevo. So geographical factors were represented
24 in certain constituencies alone. I'm not aware of the fact that after
25 the elections in 1990 geographical factors played a role of any kind when
1 it comes to the executive bodies, such as the government, the MUP, the
2 Ministry of the Interior, and other governmental bodies.
3 Q. Yes. Thank you. Mr. Neskovic, you -- well, no, let me put this
4 to you: In fact Mr. Krajisnik was a good choice for that position,
5 wasn't he?
6 A. I couldn't say. That was Mr. Karadzic's opinion. Others
7 believed that Mr. Trbojevic would be a good choice, since he was a
8 lawyer, and they believed that it would be appropriate to have a lawyer
9 as the president of the Assembly. Mr. Krajisnik was a financial manager,
10 so it was Radovan's opinion that Mr. Krajisnik was the best choice for
11 that post.
12 Q. Let me put the question -- it's a slightly different point I had
13 in mind. As it turned out, Mr. Krajisnik was a good choice, wasn't he?
14 He was good in that position.
15 A. Could you clarify your question. Are you asking me for my
16 personal opinion about that or are you asking for a general assessment?
17 Q. I'm asking for your -- if you say you don't know enough to -- to
18 answer the question, then that would be a helpful answer, Mr. Neskovic.
19 I'm asking -- I'm putting it to you from your observation of the work of
20 the SDS and the Assembly, such as you were able to observe that, do you
21 agree that Mr. Krajisnik turned out to be a good choice and was good at
22 that job?
23 A. From the point of view of Mr. Karadzic's policies, from the point
24 of view of his vision and his overall view of the situation, there is no
25 doubt that Krajisnik was a good choice. He suited Mr. Karadzic and his
1 ideas. As to whether Mr. Krajisnik was a good choice generally speaking
2 for that post, I couldn't say. There are various opinions and I could
3 not really provide you with a good answer. From the point of view of Mr.
4 Karadzic's politics, Krajisnik was the best choice for the position of
5 president of the Assembly.
6 Q. Mr. Neskovic, at the turn of the year 1991 to 1992 - right? So
7 we're talking about 31st December 1991, 1st of January, 1992 - where did
8 you disagree with Dr. Karadzic's policies?
9 A. Well, I am not sure whether I disagreed with his policies. I
10 can't remember having any clashes. But there was a large group that did
11 not agree with certain personnel policies because Mr. Karadzic and Mr.
12 Krajisnik often visited party bodies when it came to personnel policies
13 and they would appoint individuals to posts in executive power structures
14 and they didn't ask the party bodies, such as the Main Board. Out of
15 eight ministers in the government of Bosnia and Herzegovina who were
16 representing the SDS, there was only one who was a prominent SDS member,
17 and that was Mr. Ostojic, whereas the other seven were the personal
18 choice of Mr. Karadzic and of his associates. They were not active
19 members of the SDS.
20 In the MUP, there were no active SDS members. The personnel in
21 the MUP were also personally chosen by Mr. Karadzic. As to the extent to
22 which Krajisnik participated in such matters with Karadzic, I really
23 don't know. That's something that the two of them know.
24 So this is where there was a disagreement, because there were a
25 lot of people involved in executive power on behalf of the SDS, whereas
1 the Main Board of the SDS and even the personnel committee of the SDS had
2 no say in such matters, or if anyone asked them about such matters, it
3 would only be after decisions had already been taken. And it's in that
4 sense that there was a disagreement with Mr. Karadzic.
5 Secondly, there was a disagreement because of the fact that Mr.
6 Karadzic frequently went to Belgrade and came back to us with directives
7 from Milosevic. They wanted to know why we always had to listen to
8 Milosevic --
9 Q. Mr. Neskovic, with His Honour's permission, I wonder if I might
10 interrupt you there because I did ask you where you disagreed with Dr.
11 Karadzic's policies, and I wasn't asking you to tell the Court where
12 everybody else disagreed and all about Belgrade and so on.
13 MR. TIEGER: Well, I --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger.
15 MR. TIEGER: Yeah, I -- okay. I think the witness needs some
16 room for --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Latitude.
18 MR. TIEGER: Yeah, I understood him to be answering the question
19 in just that way. I mean, if there is a distinction between the
20 disagreements he's outlining in his own view, He can certainly clarify
21 that. But I certainly understood him to be talking about disagreements
22 with those policies that he shared -- or disagreements that he shared.
23 But that can be clarified. But I certainly understood him to be
24 answering the question.
25 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, I -- in a sense, I'm not too
1 fussed. It's just that I -- I don't want the 60 per cent guideline to be
2 applied if my questions are treated as a free range for the witness to
3 explore such issues as he feels are relevant.
4 JUDGE ORIE: As a matter of fact, the same happened when he was
5 answering questions from the Prosecution.
6 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour --
7 JUDGE ORIE: You may interrupt him if he goes away from your
8 question, and I would not mind, but in this particular instance, I think
9 he was answering the question, although in a perhaps bit different way.
10 Where you asked him whether he disagreed with the policies, he described
11 in what way he disagreed with the personnel policy as was conducted by
12 Mr. Karadzic and that is, although an indirect answer, relevant for your
13 question. Please proceed.
14 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, may I say in relation to -- if Your
15 Honour is suggesting some sort of equation, one should subtract such
16 answers --
17 JUDGE ORIE: I --
18 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, may I say this, please. That
19 one should subtract from the Prosecution time for purposes of
20 calculations in the same way one should subtract from the Defence. They
21 are not symmetrical because long answers given during the course of
22 Prosecution evidence are material on which I would therefore need to
23 consider cross-examination and to cross-examine -- cross-examine
24 accordingly. But, Your Honour, when it comes to my time, if the witness
25 is straying into areas which are not what I am looking for, not what I am
1 asking him about, then it is fundamentally unfair to count that in any
2 way as part of the allocation of calculation in relation to
3 cross-examination, because as far as I am concerned, it is not part of my
4 cross-examination; it's a frolic of the witness's own into areas which I
5 didn't ask him about.
6 JUDGE ORIE: You expressed your opinion. Please proceed.
7 MR. STEWART: I expressed my submission, Your Honour. My
8 opinions I generally keep to myself, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, to the extent that the witness has --
10 went into many details totally irrelevant for the Prosecution's case, I
11 do not think that there will be any need to cross-examine the witness on
12 those irrelevant, non-assisting parts of his answers. But let's proceed
13 at this moment.
14 MR. STEWART:
15 Q. Mr. Neskovic, I'm not reviving my previous question. I'm going
16 on to page 29 of your transcript of your evidence on Monday, which -- the
17 point -- it's the first long paragraph of your answer. The second
18 paragraph begins: "So it was a very important position." If that's the
19 reference point. And a few lines above that, you said: "So the
20 president of the Municipality" -- and that was that translation issue
21 when I was otherwise engaged, Your Honour. But it's completely obvious
22 and we're all agreed, Mr. Tieger and I, that it should say "Assembly."
23 So the president of the Assembly "in the former system of Bosnia and
24 Herzegovina," the president of the Assembly, "has an extremely important
25 position because this involves legislative power, constitutional power,
1 executive power."
2 Mr. Neskovic, the phrase "executive power," what executive power
3 did the position of president of the Assembly in the former system of
4 Bosnia and Herzegovina give to the holder?
5 A. We're talking about two things here, if I may. The president of
6 the Assembly and the former -- in the former Bosnia-Herzegovina is one
7 thing and the president of the Assembly of the Republika Srpska is quite
8 another. We are talking about two separate political systems and things
9 are rather different there.
10 Q. Mr. Neskovic, I'm going to stop you, please, with respect, there
11 because what we are actually talking about, with respect, is what my
12 question is talking about.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
14 MR. STEWART: Which --
15 JUDGE ORIE: I think it's -- Mr. Stewart, if you'd look at the
16 transcript, I think your question is not transcribed as you put it to the
17 witness. Perhaps you could repeat it.
18 MR. STEWART: Well --
19 JUDGE ORIE: I think you said what executive power in the
20 constitutional system was given to the holder of the office of the
21 president of the Assembly. I think that's what you --
22 MR. STEWART: In the former Bosnia and Herzegovina, Your Honour.
23 That's what it says, at line 25.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. -- yes, but I think you referred to the
25 constitutional system. And here the question - please read it again -
1 now it says: "What executive power did the president of the Assembly in
2 the former Bosnia and Herzegovina give to the holder?" That's certainly
3 not what you meant to ask and it's also not my recollection that that's
4 what you asked him. I mean, as we read it now, it says if what executive
5 power the president of the Assembly gave to the holder of the office of
6 the president of the Assembly, which doesn't make that much sense.
7 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour --
8 JUDGE ORIE: I think you referred to --
9 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, tremendous confusion is being
10 produced. It's quite likely that the word "president" in that line
11 should simply be Presidency, which would make the whole thing clear.
12 Your Honour, in case my -- in case my question as a combination of the
13 transcript, Your Honour's observations, my question is now confusing,
14 it's better if I simply put it very clearly to the witness and indicate
15 to him what the constraints of my question are.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think, as a matter of fact, Mr. Stewart,
17 that what I did is to serve the interest of the Defence here where the
18 question did not appear properly on the transcript. And, of course, you
19 are invited to put the question to the witness again.
20 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, that would serve the interest of
21 the Defence now. Thank you for Your Honour's assistance.
22 Q. Mr. Neskovic, I'm not asking you in this next question about
23 Presidency of the Assembly of Republika Srpska or the Serb republic. I'm
24 not asking you about that. This question relates to the Assembly of
25 Bosnia and Herzegovina, when it was a multi-national Assembly. You said
1 in your own evidence that the -- that position involved legislative
2 power, constitutional power, executive power. And my question is: What
3 executive power did that position give to its holder?
4 MR. STEWART: Thank you, Your Honour, for your help. I hope
5 that's clear now.
6 A. If that's what I said, because I -- if that's what I said, I must
7 admit I must have made a mistake, because the president of the Assembly
8 in the former Bosnia and Herzegovina had no executive powers. He had the
9 following authority: To convene the meetings of the Assembly, to propose
10 the agenda for those meetings, and on the basis of his authority, he
11 could influence the make-up of different commissions and committees, such
12 as for defence, security, et cetera. And on the basis of his capacity,
13 he was a member of the constitutional committee and on the basis of that
14 and together with the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina, he was a part
15 of the top leadership of the state, also with respect to any emergency or
16 special circumstances. And I think he would have also been a member of
17 some kind of top command or defence council or something like that.
18 So in the old system of the former Bosnia and Herzegovina the
19 president of the Assembly was a role which was something that you had to
20 reckon with with regard to developing any policies of the state. And
21 also there was an extra role: He would have been a secretary of the
22 central committee and then was the president of Bosnia and Herzegovina,
23 the president of the Assembly, the president of the government, the head
24 of government, and those people made up the top political leadership. In
25 the former system of Bosnia and Herzegovina, it is indeed true that they
1 did not have any direct executive powers, but this president was
2 nevertheless a member of the top body at the state level and he had a
3 certain level of control over the executive branch of the authority that
4 -- of power - that is to say, the government - through either the MPs
5 club or the committee for the control of work.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Neskovic, I have to ask you to slow down because
7 the French translation is already a couple of lines behind. Please slow
9 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, may I also just observe this: Your
10 Honour, again, it's not -- it's for me to request but not in the end to
11 restrict. This answer is straying to the very edges of my question and
12 Your Honours will be aware that we have had in the course of the last
13 year and a half an enormous amount of evidence explaining the structures
14 and the basic positions that people held. And this witness to be adding
15 to that is not, in my submission, is not actually assisting, But it's
16 Your Honours' judgement there, assisting the Trial Chamber in gathering
17 the evidence and the facts in relation to this case.
18 JUDGE ORIE: At least the witness corrected his testimony to the
19 extent that where he said that he had executive powers, that under the
20 system he had not -- and then he started describing the influence -- the
21 influential positions the speaker of the Assembly might have had.
22 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, the first -- the first bit was
23 directly an answer to my question and is certainly of extreme valuable
24 assistance to the Trial Chamber. That's why I asked the question.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart --
1 MR. STEWART: I'm thinking of where we got to now, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, I said at least the witness at the very
3 beginning - but I didn't add that - corrected his testimony to the extent
4 that where he said that he had executive powers, that under the system he
5 had not. So I fully acknowledge both the correction the witness made to
6 his earlier testimony and the importance of it.
7 Please proceed.
8 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, I --
9 MR. STEWART: I'm 100 per cent agreeing with Your Honour about
10 that. But it doesn't mean the question should be allowed -- the answer
11 should be allowed to go on forever.
12 JUDGE ORIE: I'm not -- no, I'm not -- I would not intervene if
13 you would have stopped the witness halfway his explanation, if you did
14 not want to ask him what -- in what other ways he might not have had any
16 Mr. Tieger.
17 MR. STEWART: I'm inviting Your Honour's approval since I was --
18 JUDGE ORIE: You have it.
19 MR. STEWART: -- in fact reprimanded a few minutes ago for
20 stopping the witness. I really do no know where I am, Your Honour. If I
21 stop the witness I should have carried on; if I don't stop the witness,
22 I'm told I should have stopped him.
23 I have to invite Your Honour to take the decision as to when and
24 where to stop the witness, because frankly I give up on that.
25 JUDGE ORIE: You have the approval -- and you're invited to slow
1 down for the purposes of the record.
2 Mr. Tieger.
3 MR. TIEGER: Yes, Your Honour. I -- I'm glad the witness had an
4 opportunity to answer the question. In my submission, the witness
5 attempted as rigorously as possible to focus --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Let's --
7 MR. TIEGER: No, by --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Let's not comment on the answer of the witness. The
9 witness started to answer the question. Then further elaborated on
10 matters which are, well, let's say in the margin of the question but not
11 anything more. And I gave Mr. Stewart the approval to stop the witness
12 at this moment and ask his next question. Please proceed.
13 MR. TIEGER: And I just wanted to say they thought it was
14 directly within the purview of the question.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. So there's some disagreement on that.
16 You may proceed, Mr. Stewart.
17 MR. STEWART: I'm very much obliged, Your Honour.
18 Q. Mr. Neskovic, this next question relates to the Bosnian Serb
19 Assembly. Do you say that Mr. Krajisnik had more executive power as the
20 president of the Bosnian Serb and Republika Srpska Assembly than he had
21 had as the president of the Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina?
22 A. Yes. Except we should drop the term "executive." He had greater
23 powers and was more powerful all round as president of the Assembly of
24 the Bosnian Serbs than he had in Bosnia-Herzegovina --
25 Q. Witness, I'm going to stop you straight away because I'm afraid
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 it's not in your prerogative to drop the "executive" which was in my
2 question. You are not entitled, Mr. Neskovic, with respect, to rephrase
3 my question and answer the question you wish to answer. You used the
4 phrase "executive power" in your evidence and corrected yourself in
5 relation to the Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina. I asked you
6 questions which you answered fully on the -- the answer to whether is
7 there was executive power in the president of the Assembly of Bosnia and
8 Herzegovina. I am now asking you about executive power of Mr. Krajisnik
9 in relation to the Assembly -- the Serb Assembly. You did not express,
10 if I may just remark this as an introduction -- you did not express any
11 doubts or difficulties about understanding that phrase when you answered
12 the questions in relation to that Assembly. So I am now asking you with
13 reference to executive power: Do you say that Mr. Krajisnik had greater
14 executive power as the president of the Bosnian Serb Assembly than he had
15 had as president of the Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina? Do you say
17 MR. TIEGER: Sorry, Your Honour, but --
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
19 MR. TIEGER: All right.
20 JUDGE ORIE: It seems there was -- Mr. Tieger intended to object.
21 The witness answered the question.
22 Please proceed, Mr. Stewart.
23 MR. STEWART:
24 Q. So your answer is yes. Please explain where and how.
25 A. The Serb Assembly, the Assembly of the Serb Bosnia and
1 Herzegovina, was a central compact body headed by Mr. Krajisnik. That
2 Assembly was not just one in a whole range of other institutions. It was
3 the central body and the moving force behind all the other institutions,
4 and they actually set up all the other institutions, such as the Council
5 of Ministers, and they also made the decision about the setting-up of the
6 Republika Srpska and the Constitution and the judicial system and the
7 courts and the army and the army commanders and the National Security
8 Council, and it proposed all the amendments to all of that. So the
9 entire political system and the entire institutional structure is the
10 baby of that Assembly, basically, because they created it all. So that
11 Assembly was a central institution which created the entire political and
12 institutional system that followed. In that respect, that Assembly was
13 rather significant and Mr. Krajisnik had greater powers as the president
14 of the Serb Assembly, for the simple reason that it was a single
15 ethnicity that was there, and also he was extremely skilful in creating a
16 compact team, in creating a united front in a very skilful diplomatic
17 way. So at the very centre, at the very core of that body there was Mr.
18 Krajisnik, and in a way he was not just formal president of the Assembly
19 or just one of the members; in a way, he was indeed the leader or the
20 political father of that Assembly. So that Assembly was the central body
21 that created all the other bodies and the political system. That's the
22 way I see it.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Neskovic, you are moving away from the question.
24 I can imagine, Mr. Tieger, that you'd like to ask some questions rather
25 on the -- the influence and the way in which Mr. Krajisnik may have
1 exercised that position. But as far as the executive power is concerned,
2 the last part of your answer is not any more directly related to that.
3 Mr. Stewart, please proceed.
4 MR. STEWART: [Microphone not activated]
5 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
6 MR. STEWART: Sorry. May I put down a marker, Your Honour. That
7 implicit invitation to Mr. Tieger in relation to re-examination, if such
8 matters arise properly out of my cross-examination and don't simply go
9 over ground which really was supposedly covered in chief, well, no doubt
10 that will be legitimate.
11 Q. Mr. Neskovic, His Honour - and I have no quarrel, I should say,
12 with respect - His Honour stopped you at that point. I just want to be
13 clear. That's -- that answer you gave, that's as -- that's as much as
14 you can say about executive power of Mr. Krajisnik, as the president of
15 the Bosnian Serb Assembly, is it?
16 A. As the president of the Assembly, he was not entrusted with any
17 executive authority. It was up to the executive branch, such as the
18 Council of Ministers and at a later stage the government and all the
19 various other bodies in that respect, because there was a division
20 between legislative -- the legislative and the executive branches of
22 Q. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Neskovic. That was a helpfully succinct
23 answer, if I may say so. The -- Mr. Neskovic, a different topic. And
24 this was around pages 52 through to about 59 on my transcript of Monday's
25 hearing. There was questioning about your application for a loan, and
1 then there were various questions about your contention that people had
2 managed to acquire flats in Belgrade and make money and people being on
3 friendly terms with Mr. Krajisnik and Dr. Karadzic and so on.
4 I'm going to try, Mr. Neskovic, to reduce this to a very simple
5 question. Mr. Neskovic, could you confirm that you have absolutely no
6 basis of knowledge yourself to suggest that Mr. Krajisnik was ever
7 involved in any unlawful or improper financial dealings in 1991 or 1992
8 or 1993?
9 A. I have no evidence of that, and I don't want to engage in
10 guesswork. I have knowledge, as many other citizens do, on the basis of
11 many reports in the media, of quite a few scandals that sent shock waves
12 through the Republika Srpska with regard to government and other bodies.
13 Q. Mr. Neskovic, do you know that there had been a previous time
14 when Mr. Krajisnik and Dr. Karadzic had both been on trial together for
15 some alleged illegal financial and fraudulent activities?
16 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters didn't hear the answer.
17 MR. STEWART:
18 Q. They didn't hear your answer, Mr. Neskovic. It was nice and
19 short, I hope.
20 A. Yes, I do know.
21 Q. And do you know the result of those legal proceedings?
22 A. There were those proceedings for white-collar crimes. It was
23 about a company within the framework of the Energoinvest company and the
24 outcome was a verdict of not guilty from the Supreme Court of Bosnia and
25 Herzegovina. I really don't know how long it took, the entire
1 proceedings, I mean. Between one and three years. But I think the end
2 result was a ruling in favour and I believe that came from the Supreme
3 Court of the BH.
4 Q. Do you, in fact, recall that the end result was that Mr.
5 Krajisnik and Dr. Karadzic, for that matter, was completely acquitted?
6 JUDGE ORIE: Isn't it that that's what the verdict of not guilty
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've already said that as far as I
9 know, they were pronounced not guilty of those accusations. That means
10 that they had indeed been acquitted. But the company in question did
11 also go bankrupt and the employees lost their jobs.
12 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I just didn't see the phrase "not
13 guilty" previously on the transcript. If I've overlooked it, then my
14 apologies. I didn't see it there. That was all.
15 JUDGE ORIE: I heard it, at least. Whether it's -- perhaps it's
16 not on the --
17 MR. STEWART: Yes. Well, it isn't, I think, Your Honour, which
18 is -- and perhaps I didn't hear it either. Well, perhaps the person
19 doing the transcript didn't hear it and is in the same position as me.
20 It doesn't matter, Your Honour. It's -- it is clear, isn't it. I've
21 asked respectfully.
22 Q. Mr. Neskovic, the meeting that you described in December at which
23 you say the Variants A and B document was distributed, do you remember
24 that -- well, first of all, there was to be a -- an Assembly meeting on
25 the 21st of December, wasn't there? Do you remember that?
1 A. I don't remember that. I mean, I don't remember the date, the
2 21st of December. I can't remember that.
3 Q. Well, perhaps I can jog your memory. It was a Saturday, the 21st
4 of December, 1991. There was to be an Assembly meeting on the Saturday.
5 Do you -- can you -- do you remember that, if I jog in that way?
6 A. It's no big help, because I can't recall that Assembly.
7 Q. Mr. Neskovic, is it correct that the -- the meeting that you
8 refer to, the large meeting -- and I should make it clear, so we
9 understand some basic guidelines. I'm not suggesting there was no
10 meeting of any sort. That's what I'm putting to you. So the large
11 meeting, whatever it was, was fixed for and took place at 4.00 or around
12 4.00 on the Friday afternoon, which, in fact, was the 20th of December.
13 Now, does that -- do you have a recollection of that?
14 A. No. I think it was the 19th of December, St. Nicholas' Day, at
15 the Holiday Inn. As to the 20th of December, I can't remember that. I
16 think that the meeting was held on the 19th of December. It's the day of
17 St. Nicholas. And that was in the meeting room that I had already
18 mentioned before.
19 Q. Did you keep a diary at the time, Mr. Neskovic?
20 A. No, I never kept a diary or made any notes.
21 Q. So when you went on all these visits to municipalities, they --
22 they were never recorded in any sort of personal or working diary of your
23 own; is that right?
24 A. No. What I told here about the municipalities, that was recorded
25 in the minutes of those meetings at the municipalities. And afterwards,
1 I would report back to my authorities higher up, but it was done orally.
2 So there are written records at the municipality level pertaining to that
3 activity of mine, but I myself did not tend to make any notes and I did
4 not have a diary.
5 Q. Mr. Neskovic, I'm not suggesting it's -- so we've got it clear,
6 you just personally -- it is not your practice to keep a personal diary.
7 That's what you're saying, aren't you?
8 A. Unfortunately, no. It would have been more useful had I done
9 that and at the time, I didn't feel it was necessary, so I didn't.
10 Q. Mr. Neskovic, the -- the meeting that I am putting to you took
11 place on the Friday afternoon, do you recall that after you and others
12 arrived in Sarajevo for whatever meeting or meetings were to take place
13 over those few days, that news came through that the European Union,
14 pushed by Germany, the European Union was moving towards recognition of
15 the independence of Croatia and in the direction of approving or
16 recognising independence consequently of Bosnia and Herzegovina? Do you
17 remember that?
18 A. No. After the meeting on the 19th of December at that meeting
19 room at the Holiday Inn Hotel, I went home and I did not attend any other
20 meetings afterwards, nor was I involved in any talks in relation to what
21 I -- what you've just mentioned.
22 Q. You don't remember, then, Mr. Neskovic, that this move -- Croatia
23 being very significant at that time, that this -- that this move towards
24 what appeared to be accelerated recognition of the independence of
25 Croatia caused considerable consternation among the Serb delegates and
1 representatives who had come to Sarajevo at that time in December? You
2 don't remember that?
3 A. I don't remember that. But I do remember something else perhaps.
4 Q. Well, is it an answer to my question, Mr. Neskovic, what else you
5 remember? Or is it closely relevant?
6 A. Yes. The secession of Slovenia and Croatia from Yugoslavia did
7 not cause such a huge crisis amongst the public opinion in the BH, not
8 even among the Serbs, because they did that in a constitutional way and
9 over a longer time period of about two years. What was frightening for
10 Serbs - that is to say, their representatives, politicians, and the
11 people, the public opinion - was the possibility of Bosnia and
12 Herzegovina going for independence and being recognised as an independent
13 state internationally. That did cause fear and bitterness. But as to
14 Slovenia and Croatia, they proceeded in a fully constitutional way, in
15 line with the international law, and it went over a longer period of
17 Q. Mr. Neskovic, I think perhaps I could cut this short. It's a
18 phrase used in a slightly different context in relation to a different
19 conflict, but there was a sort of domino concern, wasn't there, that --
20 Mr. Neskovic, to make it clear, I'm not putting to you that the central
21 concern of you and your colleagues was Croatia, Slovenia, but it was
22 this, wasn't it, in a nutshell: There was deep concern and consternation
23 that recognition of independence of Croatia and Slovenia increased
24 significantly the prospect of independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina and
25 -- well, that's -- that's -- let's take it in stages. That's true, as
1 far as it goes, isn't it, Mr. Neskovic?
2 A. I don't think so. When Slovenia and Croatia were internationally
3 recognised, there were intensive negotiations being conducted between
4 representatives of the Serbs and Muslims in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
5 Belgrade also acted as a player. I think this was in August 1991, and I
6 think they were trying to reach a Serbian and Muslim historical
7 agreement. Bosnia-Herzegovina would remain within Yugoslavia as part of
8 that agreement and Izetbegovic would become its first president. This
9 agreement almost succeeded. At the time, there were Muslim and Serb
10 negotiations about a historical agreement between the Serbs and the
11 Muslims. I think that Koljevic, Adil -- and Adil Zulfikarpasic was
12 involved. I think it was in August 1991.
13 Q. Mr. Neskovic, let's -- let's put on one side, if one can, Croatia
14 and Slovenia. The news had filtered through at the time of this
15 gathering in Sarajevo that the European Community, I think it was called
16 then -- the European Community had raised with the Bosnia and Herzegovina
17 government directly the question of whether it wished to proceed towards
18 independence. Do you remember that?
19 A. No. I don't think so that is what happened. I think there was
20 some document from the European Community. Perhaps it concerned a
21 meeting in The Hague or somewhere else. And it was said that all the
22 republics in Yugoslavia would be recognised if they met certain criteria.
23 So international recognition concerned all the republics, as far as I am
25 Q. And, Mr. Neskovic, it was that issue, among others, but that was
1 a very important issue which led to the meeting on the Friday being more
2 heavily attended by a wider range of people than had originally been
3 planned. Do you have any recollection as to whether what I've just put
4 to you is right or wrong?
5 A. I can't remember that meeting. I can't even remember whether I
6 attended it or not. So there's nothing I could tell you about that. I
7 can't make any guesses if I know nothing about it.
8 Q. So which meeting do you say you can't remember if you attended?
9 The ...?
10 A. The meeting at which they discussed the possibility of Europe for
11 recognising the independence of Slovenia and Croatia. I can only
12 remember the meeting at which Variant A and B were discussed, but the
13 meeting where international policies and international recognition were
14 subjects that were discussed, I can't remember that meeting or perhaps I
15 have forgotten it. But I can't remember having attended it and there's
16 nothing I can tell you about it.
17 Q. Do you remember whether there was any large meeting held in
18 Sarajevo of Bosnian Serbs over that three- or four-day period that you
19 didn't attend? Sorry, tell me if that's not clear, Mr. Neskovic.
20 A. There was a meeting. I think it was a meeting of Serbian
21 intellectuals or a session of Serbian intellectuals or something like
22 that. That's what it was called. There was one such meeting held in the
23 Holiday Inn. There were a lot of Serbian intellectuals from Bosnia and
24 Herzegovina and beyond who attended it. And at that meeting, they
25 discussed these various issues, and perhaps they discussed this issue
1 too. I did not attend this meeting and I do not know what they discussed
2 there. The meeting of Serbian intellectuals was held there and there was
3 a significant number of them there.
4 Q. Mr. Neskovic, you have described in your evidence how Dr.
5 Karadzic in a fairly formal, structured way distributed a number of
6 copies of the Variant A and B document. You recall your evidence on
7 that, do you?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And it -- it was about -- what was it? Was it about 100 copies,
10 50? What -- you said there were 200 people at the meeting. How many,
11 roughly, copies did Mr. -- Dr. Karadzic hand out in that fashion?
12 A. About 200 people attended the meeting. Fewer people were given
13 copies. I can't remember how many. He distributed the number of copies
14 that were necessary for Serbs, for presidents of municipalities. I'm not
15 quite sure how many copies were distributed. There were perhaps around
16 100 copies that were distributed.
17 Q. So is it -- was it something like this, Mr. Neskovic, that
18 something like 100 individuals walked up to the front table and received
19 their copy of Variants A and B from Dr. Karadzic? Was it like that?
20 A. Yes. Karadzic called out individuals who were on a list. I
21 think that some approached the desk and took their copies and in some
22 cases perhaps it was their assistant or the secretary who provided them
23 with a copy. But on the whole, they approached the desk, took those
24 copies from Karadzic, and as far as I can remember - but I'm not certain
25 about this - they were duty-bound to read them and then to return them to
2 Q. I'm sure school prize-givings vary around the world, Mr.
3 Neskovic. Was it something -- you make it sound as if it was like a
4 school prize-giving, with -- with people being called up and handed their
5 -- their document and then going back to their seats. Is -- is that what
6 it was like?
7 A. Well, not really. Since the documents had been marked "highly
8 confidential," individuals were called out who were allowed to examine
9 this confidential material. So it's not quite as if it resembled
10 prize-giving ceremonies in schools.
11 Q. What -- do you know that these -- you can see, in fact, from tab
12 11 -- do you want to have a look at, please -- well, please look at tab
13 11 in the bundle in front of you. We call them bundles where I come
15 Now, you -- you will look at the Serbian version, of course, Mr.
16 Neskovic, and you see it's numbered 93; right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. What -- what happened if the person being -- well, did it happen
19 occasionally that the person being called up, then, to be handed their
20 copy of Variant A and B was not there?
21 A. I cannot say what happened for sure. I wondered whether Djurovic
22 was present or not, but I thought that if someone was not present, in
23 such cases Karadzic found another way of providing that person with the
24 document. And last night I was asking myself whether Djurovic was
25 present and whether he personally collected a copy of the document. This
1 happened a long time ago, and I can't remember who was present, but most
2 of those concerned by the document were present.
3 Q. How long did the handing-out of these copies of Variant A and B
4 by Dr. Karadzic take? You can put the document aside, I think.
5 A. Well, look, as usual, Karadzic, as the leader, first gave some
6 kind of introductory speech that had to do with the position of the
7 Serbs, the threat the Serbs were under --
8 Q. Yes. Mr. Neskovic, I'm not asking about that. I -- my question
9 is a very confined one here. I'll put it a different way. From the
10 moment when Dr. Karadzic handed out the first copy of Variant A and B to
11 the moment when he'd handed out the last copy of Variant A and B, how
12 long do you say that process of distribution took?
13 A. It didn't take very long.
14 Q. How long?
15 A. Well, how long would it take 100 people to approach me or you and
16 for us to hand them a document? Well, I don't know, but I think it was
17 done very rapidly. You were just given the document and then you leave.
18 Then the following person comes, and so on and so forth. So it was all
19 done very rapidly.
20 Q. Mr. Neskovic, you ask a question and normally counsel, of course,
21 declines to answer questions, but it does give rise to this. I'm going
22 to put a specific suggestion to you to see whether you agree. There you
23 were, 200 of you, sitting in rows; correct?
24 Please stop looking at the document for the moment, Mr. Neskovic,
25 because the document's really got nothing at all now to do with the
1 questions I'm asking you. So if you could just close the file and put it
2 on one side, then you'll be able to concentrate 100 per cent, please, on
3 the questions you're being asked.
4 Well, I'll give it to you again, Mr. Neskovic. First of all,
5 there you were, about 200 of you, sitting in rows of chairs, facing the
6 top table; is that right?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Mr. Neskovic, we've all, I take it -- everybody here has been at
9 some sort of physical meeting like that. When people have to stagger
10 along rows from the middle of the row or the end of the row and clamber
11 over other people, Mr. Neskovic, you can't distribute a document like
12 this to 100 people at a meeting like that in less than about half an hour
13 or 45 minutes, can you? Think about it, Mr. Neskovic, and answer as best
14 and clearly and truthfully as you can manage.
15 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, the witness is invited, if it's suited
16 Your Honour, to think about it over the break. I don't mind. I'm
17 entirely in Your Honour's hands if he wishes to have more time to think
18 about it.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Do you remember how much time it took, Mr. Neskovic?
20 Did it take 10 minutes, 20 minutes, 30 minutes, 40 minutes? If you don't
21 remember -- it's a matter -- if it is a matter of --
22 THE WITNESS: [No interpretation]
23 JUDGE ORIE: -- please. If it's a matter of reconstructing
24 without a clear memory on how much time it approximately has taken, then
25 it doesn't assist the Chamber that much, but do you have still any memory
1 on how much time it took?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, Your Honour, some people were
3 in the third, fourth, or fifth row. Given the time it took them to stand
4 up and come forward then go back, well, it -- it could have taken about
5 an hour.
6 JUDGE ORIE: You're now reconstructing rather than talking from
7 your memory, isn't it?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. Because I can't remember. I
9 don't even have a watch, so I can't remember. I can't provide you with a
10 precise answer. I can only try and guess and reconstruct what happened.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you for that answer.
12 We'll adjourn until 11.00.
13 --- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.
14 --- On resuming at 11.12 a.m.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Stewart.
16 MR. STEWART: Thank you, Your Honour.
17 Q. Mr. Neskovic, I wonder if you would take the -- now the -- the
18 binder or file of documents in front of you and go back to that tab 11,
19 the Variant A and B document.
20 Now, at the very end of that document, in the English version -
21 and of course you'll hear this in translation now anyway, Mr. Neskovic -
22 but in the English version we see typed out as a sort of signature "SDS
23 Crisis Staff," and there's also the original Serbian at the end of the
24 version you're looking at. You told the Court that, if I summarise
25 accurately, that you had no knowledge of there being such a body or organ
1 as the -- the SDS Crisis Staff at the -- the centre. That's -- that's
2 correct, isn't it, Mr. Neskovic?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Can you from your knowledge - and if you don't know, please say
5 so - but can you offer any explanation of how it is that Dr. Karadzic
6 would have approved or endorsed the dissemination of a document
7 purportedly coming from a non-existent entity within the SDS?
8 A. I'll state once again that there was no SDS Crisis Staff. And as
9 to how Karadzic, as the president of the party, signed on behalf of a
10 non-existent body instead of signing on behalf of himself, well, I can
11 provide you no explanation of that fact. Only Karadzic could provide you
12 with an explanation.
13 Q. Mr. Neskovic, is it your position that you can positively say
14 that Mr. Krajisnik -- from -- from what you know yourself and what you
15 saw yourself, that Mr. Krajisnik had any knowledge of the contents of
16 this document before it was distributed?
17 A. The document was drafted by Mr. Karadzic or brought in by Mr.
18 Karadzic. I don't know whether he had previously informed Mr. Krajisnik
19 of the contents of the document. Krajisnik had the possibility of
20 acquainting himself with the document thanks to his relationship with
21 Karadzic. As to whether he actually drafted this document together with
22 Karadzic or participated in some other way, I really do not know.
23 Yesterday I said that as far as I can remember, Krajisnik sat next to Dr.
24 Karadzic in the Presidency. Mr. Krajisnik had the possibility of seeing
25 this document before it was distributed, but as to whether he actually
1 did that, I do not know, so I cannot answer your question.
2 Q. Can you offer any explanation of how and why Mr. Krajisnik might
3 have approved or endorsed the distribution of a document purportedly
4 coming from the non-existent SDS Crisis Staff?
5 A. I don't think that that's what I said in my answer. I said that
6 Krajisnik and Karadzic represented a supreme body. They took all the
7 decisions together. They informed each other of everything. And given
8 such a situation, I came to the conclusion that it was possible for
9 Krajisnik to familiarise himself with the document. But as to whether he
10 actually did that or not, I really do not know.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, I have some problems. You said whether
12 the witness "can offer any explanation how and why Mr. Krajisnik might
13 have approved." It's not established that he approved or endorsed it.
14 He --
15 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, that's right. That's my pause
16 as I ask that question, was that it contains a -- that hypothetical
17 element precisely because --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So you're asking how and why something we do
19 not know, what it happened -- well, of course, it calls for a lot of --
20 it calls for a lot of speculation. But -- well, the witness couldn't
21 anxious the question anyhow, so --
22 MR. STEWART: Well, yes, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
24 MR. STEWART: It doesn't matter. I believe I could justify the
25 question. It doesn't matter. I'm not pressing -- well, I don't need to
1 pursue that particular point.
2 Q. The -- Mr. Neskovic, you cannot say, can you, with any confidence
3 at all that Mr. Krajisnik was present in the room when this Variant A and
4 B document was distributed.
5 A. I'm not quite sure, but I think Mr. Krajisnik was in the room and
6 that he was even in the working Presidency.
7 Q. I'm not asking you about the working Presidency, Mr. Neskovic, at
8 the moment. I'm asking about his physical presence in the room.
9 MR. TIEGER: Sorry, Your Honour, but that may be a confusion on
10 the part of counsel, the reference to the working Presidency in the
11 context of the information provided by this witness is clearly a
12 reference to his physical presence in the room.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Witness, Mr. Stewart puts it to you that you
14 are not certain about the presence of Mr. Krajisnik at the moment when
15 this document was distributed. That's what he puts to you. Whether you
16 agree with that or not. I think yesterday in your testimony you said --
17 you told us a few details, but Mr. Stewart puts it to you that you could
18 not be certain about that.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not sure that when the document
20 itself was being distributed Mr. Krajisnik was there. Perhaps he left
21 the room or he had perhaps left the room at the time. But Mr. Krajisnik
22 was present during that session, yes. People were coming and going. But
23 I cannot claim for certain that when the document was being distributed
24 Mr. Krajisnik was present, nor can I claim that he assisted in any way
25 when the document was being distributed, because there are many people
1 who were entering the room and leaving the room at all times. So since I
2 cannot quite remember what happened, I can't answer your question
4 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Stewart.
5 MR. STEWART: Thank you, Your Honour.
6 Q. Mr. Neskovic, can we take it that at least quite a few of the
7 people who were present in that room, apart from those who might have
8 been sitting at the top table, so those in the body of the room, at least
9 quite a few of them were personally known to you before the meeting?
10 A. Well, there were a lot of people who knew each other. We all
11 knew each other, the deputies, members of the Political Council and of
12 the Main and Executive Board, many representatives from various
13 municipalities. We all knew each other personally, with the exception of
14 some intellectuals who came from outside, some individuals whom we did
15 not know. Most of the people in the room knew each other.
16 Q. So if - and it's a hypothetical at the moment, Mr. Neskovic - if
17 you were asked to jot down the names of people that you definitely
18 remember being at that meeting, roughly how many names do you -- do you
19 say you would be able to write down?
20 A. Well, I'd write down the names of those in the Executive
21 Committee, the main committee, the entire deputy council, the POLITICAL
22 COUNCIL, Serbian representatives of municipalities, Serbian
23 representatives of Executive Boards, probably certain other regional SDS
24 functionaries, certain intellectuals. How many of them could I mention?
25 Well, out of the 200 individuals present, I believe that I could name at
1 least 100 or 150 people that I personally knew from all of these various
3 Q. Mr. Neskovic, leaving aside anybody that you might put in top
4 leadership, Dr. Krajisnik -- I'm sorry, Dr. Karadzic, Mr. Krajisnik, Dr.
5 Koljevic, and so on, could you -- could you just give immediately six
6 names of people that you definitely remember being at that meeting? Any
8 A. Well, to be quite frank, I cannot try to guess what their names
9 were. I believe that Jovan Cizmovic was there. I believe that Brdjanin
10 was there. Representatives of various Executive Boards and municipality
11 were there.
12 Q. Names, Mr. Neskovic --
13 A. I cannot tell you any names with certainty.
14 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
15 A. Your Honours, I can't name any individuals. That was a long time
16 ago and there were a lot of people there. I could not mention any names.
17 I might mistakenly name someone who was not there. But representatives
18 of most of the bodies that I have mentioned were present. I would not
19 now like to speculate and mention names if I can't really remember these
21 Q. All right. Let's move on, then, Mr. Neskovic, and let's take the
22 file -- well, you've got it. You've got it in front of you. That's
23 helpful. Let's go -- you were asked -- and we're moving on to the
24 transcript of yesterday, the 19th of July. And I don't know how far my
25 page numbering coincides there, but my page 2 starts: "Good morning."
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 If Mr. Tieger's page 2 starts "Good morning," then we're in an even
2 happier position than we were on Monday's transcript.
3 MR. TIEGER: I'm able to follow so far.
4 MR. STEWART: All right. That's all I ask, Your Honour.
5 Q. So you were asked in the middle of that page, line 12 on my
6 transcript: "May I ask" -- this was Mr. Tieger asking you: "May I ask
7 you next to turn to tab the 12 and look at item 9." So may I ask you,
8 Mr. Neskovic, to turn to tab 12 and look at item 9. Thank you.
9 Well, actually I realise straight away though that was the introduction.
10 I actually want you to look at item 7. That shouldn't cause a major
11 difficulty. The same page, 23rd of December, tab 12, item 7. Do you see
12 "Responsible" and the four names, Bogdanovic, Nastic, Prijic, Sojic? Do
13 you see that?
14 A. Yes. Yes.
15 Q. And then turning over to tab 13, you were asked about item 11.
16 The same four names appear and the task, to provide larger quantities of
17 food and medicaments and to transfer them to a safe location. And you
18 were -- it was put to you by Mr. Tieger that those were essentially the
19 same tasks and the same persons hay signed. And you said: "These tasks"
20 -- this is page 3, line 21 -- "These task do overlap to a certain
21 extent" and you referred to an item which you said was missing. I don't
22 need to go over all that.
23 First of all, Mr. Neskovic, this particular item only covered a
24 part of the ground in the Variant A and B document, didn't it?
25 A. No. We were wondering whether these duties related to Variant A
1 or B, and then when I had a look at the names, I came to the conclusion
2 that it concerned Variant A, and I said that I thought that there was
3 something missing in the document. The name of the Crisis Staff
4 commander is -- is not mentioned, because the duties assigned are very
5 precise for all groups. But then we don't have the name of the commander
6 who assigned these duties. So something is missing in the document but
7 it does relate to Variant A. There's no doubt about that.
8 Q. If we turn back to Variant A - and that's - well, it's page 5 of
9 the English, but I'll have to invite you in tab 11 to find under "first
10 level" -- "Variant A, first level," item number 11 --
11 JUDGE ORIE: It's on page 3 in the English version.
12 MR. STEWART: Yes. I'm obliged. Thank you, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: At least, it starts on page 3, going to 4.
14 MR. STEWART: Yes. Thank you.
15 Q. So do you -- do you see that, witness? Page 3 of the --
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Yes. And number 11 there, item 11 Variant A first level, it
18 self-contains, do you see --
19 MR. TIEGER: If I may. Maybe this is a quick moment. I just can
20 sense something that's going to require a lot of potential -- perhaps I
21 can mention something to Mr. Stewart when the witness doesn't have his
22 headphones on. I'll certainly leave his examination up to him. But --
23 up to him. But I don't know if there's any confusion that might be
24 resolved quickly that might pre-empt unnecessary --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Neskovic, do you -- do you speak or understand
1 any English?
2 The reaction -- it appears that he does not.
3 MR. STEWART: Apparently not, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: You don't speak or understand any English, Mr.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't speak English.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could you please take your earphones off.
8 MR. TIEGER: Again, Your Honour, I -- I certainly leave it up to
9 Mr. Stewart as to how he wants to conduct the examination, but the
10 examination-in-chief focussed on the December 23rd minutes and related
11 those items as enumerated to the enumerated items in -- in A and B. That
12 correspondence was the subject of some discussion in the
14 When -- when we turned in examination-in-chief to the January
15 document, there was certainly no suggestion that those -- the listing of
16 those items and the numbering of those items related back to Variant A
17 and B, which is why I asked whether number 11 related to number 7 in the
19 Again, if that's helpful, please take it on board. Otherwise --
20 because I would be coming back, of course, to -- to re-ask those
21 questions if we got --
22 JUDGE ORIE: In your questioning, the link as far as item 11 on
23 the -- of the 29th of January minutes were mainly related to item 7 of
24 the 23rd of December minutes.
25 MR. TIEGER: That's right, Your Honour. And there's no
1 suggestion that -- that item 11 in the January document --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Relates directly to the A and B.
3 MR. TIEGER: Correct.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed, Mr. Stewart.
5 Could you please put your earphones on again.
6 MR. STEWART: That is helpful, Your Honour, because while I did
7 appreciate that there wasn't suggested to be that correlation, I had, I
8 think, extracted from -- in error from the witness's answer that at some
9 point he was talking about Variant A and B when in fact he -- he wasn't.
10 So that is, in fact, --
11 JUDGE ORIE: From what I understood --
12 MR. STEWART: Yes.
13 JUDGE ORIE: -- the link with the A and B document is found in the
14 Crisis Staff meeting 23rd of December, where the items are numbered 6, 7,
15 8, 9, 11.
16 MR. STEWART: Yes.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Corresponding to the Variant A.
18 MR. STEWART: Yes.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Whereas the other only -- the 11 is not in any way
20 linked to the A and B document.
21 MR. STEWART: Thank you, Your Honour. That -- my confusion lies
22 elsewhere. I do -- I understand that. My confusion was when picking a
23 reference to an item 11 out of the witness's evidence and incorrectly
24 supposing that he was at that point talking about the A and B document.
25 However, Your Honour, I -- I nevertheless, in fact, wish to stick
1 with item 11, the very item to which I drew attention in Variant A and B,
2 because I -- I'm not --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Please put a question in that respect.
4 MR. STEWART: Thank you, Your Honour. I will. But I appreciate
5 Mr. Tieger's helpfulness there.
6 Q. The -- item 11 that we were looking at under Variant -- Variant A
7 first level, "carry out preparations to ensure" -- and then we see four
8 items: "The protection of children, pregnant women," et cetera;
9 "replenishment of wartime units according to JNA standards, protection of
10 material, resources of interest to defence," and then fourth item not
11 numbered, but "continuing production and services of vital interest for
12 the defence, resistance and survival of the Serbian people."
13 Now, those items were -- responsibility for item 11 there was
14 allocated on the 23rd of December, 1991, to three people, Mr. Gajevic,
15 Mr. Kovac, and Mr. Salapur [phoen].
16 Mr. Neskovic, if you have any knowledge of this matter, can you
17 say were all the aspects of item 11 in Variant A first level actually
18 implemented in practice in your municipality?
19 A. I don't think so. That's why I mentioned the fact that one other
20 document seems to be missing and it should be entitled "The report on
21 implemented activities on the part of those groups," and that document is
22 missing. Even though I do know these people referred to in item 11 and I
23 know their whereabouts and -- at the time and their duties and
24 competencies, and I think that this actually refers to yet another
25 document that had already been mentioned, that is to say, the so-called
1 evacuation of Serb population from threatened areas in case of war.
2 Jovic -- Dobrata [phoen] Jovic was an adversary to Prijic, who was to
3 replace him later on as a president of the party, and Drago Kovac appears
4 as the representative to have Territorial Defence, or some such thing.
5 Zdravko Salapur [phoen] is a party official from the local community
7 Q. And -- yes. And your task, as allocated to you and three other
8 people on the 23rd of December - that's at tab 12, item 8 - so your task,
9 if we look back to page 3 of the Variant A and B document at tab 11, your
10 task was to "step up information and propaganda to ensure that the
11 Serbian people are informed fully and in time about the political and
12 security situation in the municipality and beyond." You -- you agree
13 that that task was allocated to four people, including you?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And did you carry it out?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Why not?
18 A. Because the task in itself was useless, stepping up information
19 and propaganda activity. We had no means for doing that. And an
20 alternative would have been for the four of us to knock on people's doors
21 where Serbs used to live and we would have had to explain to people that
22 security situation. So we did not do that. But this task was to be
23 carried out to a certain extent later on in the month of March and it was
24 carried out by myself and Zarko Djurovic on our own and it was at the
25 point when the situation had already reached a point of crisis. But as
1 far as I can remember, this task number 8 had not been carried out by us
2 at that stage, because we did not have any conditions to do so.
3 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
4 MR. STEWART:
5 Q. At page 4 of Tuesday's transcript, you said -- you commented, as
6 you have done this morning, that something had seemed to be missing from
7 the document at tab 13. I'm not going over that, because you've
8 explained what you've said it was. But you also said, line 12: "I don't
9 quite understand why such a serious large-scale plan is being discussed
10 at the Crisis Staff meeting of a local commune."
11 Is -- is that -- well, first of all, is -- is it -- can you
12 confirm that is what you meant to say?
13 A. No. I think this is a misunderstanding which has been cleared up
14 already. There was a Municipal Crisis Staff here and the meeting was
15 simply taking place at the premises of the local community Lukavica. So
16 it was a higher level. It was a Municipal Crisis Staff simply holding a
17 meeting in the premises of that local community in Lukavica.
18 And what is missing here is -- the way I see it, I think there is
19 something missing in the document of the 23rd of December. There seems
20 to be something hanging in the air, as it were. We would need something
21 else, such as, for example, the report from the working parties, what did
22 they do, did they do anything indeed according to the distribution of
23 duties and what was the commander of the Crisis Staff to whom this
24 report had to be submitted, because the signature of that commander is
25 missing here.
1 Q. Mr. Neskovic, it appears clear from your evidence, but take the
2 opportunity to correct it if you need it, but in your view something was
3 missing from both documents, both the 23rd December document at page --
4 at tab 12, and also from the 29th of January document, at tab 13. That
5 -- you said at line 11, page 4: "And as in the case of the previous
6 document there, is something that seems to be missing in this document
7 too." So this is your opportunity to correct that, but you're -- which
8 I'm inviting you to do, if it needs correction. But what we have as it
9 stands is that your -- your evidence that there was something missing
10 from both documents. Did you wish to correct that?
11 A. I can only express my own personal opinion here. I believe that
12 the explanation for these things that are missing are probably -- is
13 probably due to the fact that the leadership presumably wanted to meet
14 their obligations with regard to Variant A and B and wanted to be seen by
15 Mr. Karadzic to be complying but that in practice they acted differently
16 and they basically paid lip service to this but did not do what they were
17 told to do in quite the same way as it was indicated in this Variant A
18 and B. I don't know whether it was indicative of some kind of
19 obstructionism, but I can conclude that this leadership was not really in
20 the mood to implement A and B, and, on the other hand, they had to be
21 seen to be doing something in a purely formal way, in order to be able to
22 be seen as towing the party line. And so I don't really have an
23 explanation for this. There are no reports as to who did what, but these
24 are the results. So that's the way I interpret this document.
25 Q. Mr. Neskovic, can we take it that you couldn't remember
1 yesterday, you still can't remember who was the head of the Crisis Staff
2 in January 1992?
3 A. Formally speaking, it would have had to be the president of the
4 Executive Committee of the Municipality; that is to say, Zarko Djurovic
5 in this case. And I really don't know why his signature is missing as
6 well, whether he was avoiding it. Djurovic did indeed avoid implementing
7 Variant A and B, even though he never opposed anything openly. He tried
8 to strike some kind of balance, to be kind of obedient and to be seen as
9 being obedient and, on the other hand, he tried to do as little as
10 possible or nothing at all. So that's why understand that he probably
11 wouldn't have wanted to sign anything like this. He was trying to
12 implement -- avoid implementing Variant A and B. And in the end, by the
13 beginning of the war he actually fled the area.
14 Q. You described an occasion, and you said it was the only occasion,
15 on which Dr. Karadzic and Mr. Krajisnik came to a meeting at your
16 municipality in connection with the problem over Mr. Djurovic, and you
17 said - this is page 7 of yesterday's transcript, line 5 - "So I think
18 they managed to replace Djurovic in the conflict, and when Karadzic and
19 Krajisnik arrived, I think that the two of them managed to calm the
20 situation down, and that meant maintaining the status quo."
21 Would it be correct, Mr. Neskovic, that in saying that the two of
22 them managed to calm the situation down, the person who was instrumental
23 most in calming the situation down was Mr. Krajisnik, rather than Dr.
25 A. I think that Mr. Djurovic, when he felt that the tension was
1 mounting and that his job was in jeopardy, I think he went to see Mr.
2 Krajisnik. As to whether anyone else was present at that meeting, such
3 as Karadzic or anyone else, I don't know because I wasn't present. But
4 whatever happened, both of them came over and both of them tried to calm
5 things down because calming things down would mean for the status quo to
6 continue to exist and for him not to be replaced. Had they not come, he
7 would have been sacked.
8 Q. You were asked - it's also page 7 of that transcript - Mr. Tieger
9 said: "And I understand from your testimony that Dr. Karadzic and Mr.
10 Krajisnik intervened in the manner you just described. My question was a
11 little bit different, and that's whether or not Mr. Djurovic reached out
12 to or himself sought the assistance of Mr. Krajisnik or Dr. Karadzic in
13 order to get them to intervene in this manner."
14 And your answer was: "As far as I know, before that meeting was
15 held, he" -- and that would be Mr. Djurovic -- "contacted Mr. Krajisnik,
16 his office, and the Assembly - and I don't know whether Karadzic attended
17 that meeting, too - as far as I know, he" -- that would have been
18 Djurovic -- "contacted him" -- that clearly, you meant Krajisnik -- "to
19 obtain assistance from him," Krajisnik, "before that meeting was held."
20 Mr. Neskovic, I put it to you, you just do not know that, do you?
21 A. Let me repeat that I do know that Djurovic went to see Mr.
22 Krajisnik at his office. I don't know exactly what the details of their
23 conversation were and I don't know who else was present other than the
24 two of them. I know that that critical meeting was attended by Mr.
25 Krajisnik and Mr. Karadzic and they tried to calm things down in a way
1 that I've described. I certainly do not know what exactly was said, what
2 words were uttered in Mr. Krajisnik's office, because I wasn't present
3 during the meeting.
4 Q. You talked about a huge meeting - this is at page 19 of the
5 transcript - "a huge meeting, organised at the Presidencies of the
6 Energoinvest company at Lukavica, chaired by the government commissioner
7 for new Sarajevo, Mr. Milimir Mucibabic." And you said, "Different
8 groups attended that meeting" -- I'm summarising: Armed forces,
9 soldiers, Municipal Crisis Staff, government, et cetera, it comes across
10 in the transcript, as though -- "it was a varied meeting with a
11 picturesque attendance, and it was rather difficult."
12 Mr. Neskovic, have I got it right that that meeting was in June
13 of 1992?
14 A. I think it was in July, July 1992. Crisis Staff was no longer in
15 existence. It ceased to exist on the 10th of June, 1992. And as of that
16 date, he no longer existed. So according to my recollection, it could be
17 either the end of June or the beginning of July. I rather think it was
18 in July.
19 Q. And what --
20 A. In 1992.
21 Q. And, Mr. Neskovic, you said - this is line 8, page 19 - "A great
22 deal of criticism was voiced in the direction of the leadership at Pale,
23 and the Presidency in the sense -- when we said 'Presidency,' what we
24 meant was Karadzic, Krajisnik, Plavsic and Koljevic, and a great deal of
25 dissatisfaction was discussed with regard to the government, as well."
1 Now, Mr. Neskovic, do you remember who was the head of the
2 government at that time?
3 A. Branko Djeric.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, I'm -- just I said yesterday that I
5 would do some of the bookkeeping. If we would not strictly apply the
6 60-per cent guidance, then -- if we would go well beyond that, you would
7 have another 15 minutes.
8 MR. STEWART: Thank you. Thank you, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And, Mr. Krajisnik, just for you to know, you
10 will be granted not more than 15 minutes for additional questions.
11 Please proceed.
12 MR. STEWART:
13 Q. Let's synchronise watches, Mr. Neskovic. What were the key
14 points of dissatisfaction expressed with regard to the government? Do
15 you remember? My time's running out, Mr. Neskovic. I want you to think
16 about your answers, but please also answer them as briskly as you can
17 manage consistently with thinking about them.
18 A. The main reason was that the Serb leadership had fled to Pale and
19 they left the people behind in that area at the mercy of the events of
20 war. And people tended to say if Alija Izetbegovic is happy to be with
21 his people in Sarajevo, why can't the Serb leadership be with their
22 nation here at Lukavica? So they were continued to have fled for their
23 own safety. That it was first reason.
24 And the second reason which was much more serious and much more
25 dangerous, as it were: Rumours had started that -- to the effect that
1 Sarajevo at the final moments of the war would be a bargaining chip and
2 that it would have been left to the Bosniaks. And there were, however,
3 180.000 Serbs in the area and they were extremely shocked and frustrated
4 even at the mention of such a possibility. And there were other problems
5 as well. Quite simply that the leadership at Pale went there for their
6 own safety and comfort that they cut themselves off from the day-to-day
7 problems of the population. They left the people in a lurch and that
8 their actions were slightly irresponsible and people were very
9 dissatisfied and very angry and obviously each group had their own
10 grievances as well. So that's what I remember about the reasons for all
12 Q. So so far as the government was concerned, there was a feeling
13 that -- was there, that Mr. Djeric and his colleagues in the government
14 bore a heavy responsibility which they were not satisfactorily
15 discharging? Was that the feeling?
16 A. Dissatisfaction was first and foremost with regard to the
17 Presidency; that is to say, carriage, Krajisnik, Koljevic, and Plavsic.
18 Not so much with regard to Djeric because government commissioner Mr.
19 Mucibabic was present in that meeting and in some kind -- way he was
20 there on behalf of the government and for the most part he was on our
21 side, if I may use this expression. He was with us in expressing this
23 Q. Mr. Neskovic, are you therefore saying that you wish to downgrade
24 what you said yesterday when you said specifically "a great deal of
25 dissatisfaction was expressed with regard to the government as well"?
1 Are you wanting to downgrade that from "a great deal of dissatisfaction"?
2 A. No.
3 Q. And --
4 A. The government -- no. I'm sticking to my original statement, in
5 exactly the same way as I said yesterday. I simply said that there was
6 this positive gesture on the part of Mr. Mucibabic, who came there as
7 somebody from the government. But I am not expressing a positive view of
8 the entire government because they, too, fled to Jahorina to a comfy
9 hotel far away from problems and difficulties of war.
10 Q. Thank you, Mr. Neskovic. The -- you talked about Professor
11 Mucibabic fleeing from the area. What happened to him in the end? Is he
12 alive and well now?
13 A. He was scared of the consequences and he fled to Pristina, where
14 he was a professor, and then he went on to Belgrade and he's a university
15 lecturer in Belgrade.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Neskovic, Mr. Stewart didn't ask you for the
17 itinerary but whether he's safe and well. That's what Mr. Stewart would
18 like to know.
19 MR. STEWART: Thank you, Your Honour.
20 A. Yes, of course. He's fine, in excellent health.
21 Q. I'm delighted to hear it, Mr. Neskovic.
22 The -- you -- you've never had any personal fear of Mr. Krajisnik, have
23 you, Mr. Neskovic?
24 A. Well, I wasn't afraid of Krajisnik. I took notice of him. But
25 my activities and his activities did not mean that we ever had to cross
1 paths. I was involved with party activities and he did the Assembly
2 work. So our relationship was neither good nor bad. We did not have
3 many contacts. So what I can say is that yes, we did not have a
4 relationship that was either good or bad. I wasn't in touch with him
5 very often. I had no special need to do so.
6 Q. At page 42 of yesterday's transcript, you said - this is line 8 -
7 "And also you've heard the fact that the top leadership at Pale was told
8 about Batko by Biljana Plavsic and it never yielded any results."
9 Now, as a matter of fact, Mr. Neskovic, I have been unable to
10 find in the transcript where the Trial Chamber had heard the fact that
11 the top leadership at Pale had been told about Batko by Biljana Plavsic.
12 What I was able to find was a reference to Biljana Plavsic knowing
13 something about that. But therefore in order to clear this up, I want to
14 put this to you: Do you know anything to support the proposition that
15 Mr. Krajisnik was told about Batko by Biljana Plavsic?
16 A. As to the relationship between Batko and Biljana Plavsic, I can
17 only say what I read in her book. She found out about him. She visited
18 the municipality to try and glean some extra information about him. She
19 was told many horrible things. Then she went to Pale, and I think she
20 went -- she went and got in touch with Momcilo Mandic and Mico Stanisic
21 straight away because one was the justice minister and the other was the
22 police chief, and so she felt that they would be the best-placed people
23 to look into this issue. As to whether she informed the rest of the
24 Presidency with Koljevic, Krajisnik, and Karadzic, whether they discussed
25 Batko together, I do not know.
1 Q. The -- Mr. Neskovic, you were interviewed over two days on behalf
2 of the -- or by representatives of the offices of the Prosecution,
3 weren't you?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And it was expressly made clear to you at the very beginning of
6 that interview that you were regarded by them as in -- within the
7 definition - that's at page 1 - it says - you needn't look at it. I'm
8 just reading verbatim - "Based on the information" -- it's Finn Tollefsen
9 talking. "Based on the information the Tribunal has, we consider that
10 you fall into the definition of a suspect" -- or "the suspect," it says
11 -- "under the Statute of the Tribunal. Therefore, before we ask you
12 further questions we are required to advise you of certain rights that
13 you have. Do you understand?" And you said: "Yes."
14 Mr. Neskovic, at the time that that interview began, as
15 succinctly as you can, what did you understand to be the particular
16 matters which put you in the category of a suspect?
17 A. Well, given the interview -- Mr. Margetts interviewed me. He
18 informed me of the rules. He said that I had the right to speak or to
19 remain silent. He said I had the right to a lawyer and that they could
20 pay for a lawyer if I had no resources and that I had the right to an
21 interpreter, et cetera. I said there were no problems, that we could
22 have this interview. They then told me that I fell in the category of a
23 suspect --
24 Q. Mr. Neskovic, excuse me. That is not my question at all.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I -- Mr. Stewart wants to know from you, Mr.
1 Neskovic, what you thought could be the basis for the Office of the
2 Prosecution to consider you to be a suspect.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I could not work that out
4 because Mr. Margetts had told me that I could be held responsible for
5 certain things. That's all I was told.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I couldn't guess what he meant.
8 JUDGE ORIE: The question is not what Mr. Margetts told you but
9 when they told you "you, in our view, are a suspect," what you thought
10 could be the basis of a suspicion against you.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I believed that I was
12 innocent, that there were no grounds for suspecting me, and I wasn't
13 afraid of any documents or of any questions. I quite simply believed
14 that there were no grounds upon which I could be considered to be guilty.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed, Mr. Stewart.
16 MR. STEWART:
17 Q. Mr. Neskovic, that does not answer my question. You -- you
18 assert your belief - I make no comment - you assert your belief that
19 there were no grounds, but you acknowledge that you were being
20 interviewed as someone within the definition of a suspect in the eyes of
21 the Prosecution. Mr. Neskovic, are you saying that you had not the
22 faintest idea what matters and what activities or inactivities on your
23 part might have put you into that category in the eyes of the
25 A. No, I haven't the faintest idea.
1 Q. And you didn't ask, then, for any particulars or any indication
2 from the Prosecutors or anybody else as to what it was that put you in
3 that category? Is that what you're saying?
4 A. No, I didn't ask them.
5 Q. So there you were, Mr. Neskovic -- let's get it straight -- being
6 interviewed as a suspect, no idea why. You make no inquiry why. You
7 decline the opportunity of having any legal assistance, and you go ahead
8 with the interview. Is -- is that -- I just want to get it clear. If
9 that is your position, please just confirm that that is your position.
10 A. Yes, I didn't ask them any questions. I quite simply went ahead
11 with the interview.
12 Q. And is it still your position that you still don't have any idea
13 what it is that put you in the category, in the eyes of the Prosecutors,
14 of a suspect?
15 A. Yes, this is still my position.
16 MR. STEWART: I have no further questions, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Stewart.
18 Mr. Krajisnik, do you have any questions for Mr. Neskovic?
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honour, have I understood you
20 correctly? Did you say that I would only have 15 minutes to put
21 questions to this witness?
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll first listen to your -- your time is
23 limited to 15 minutes at this moment. As you know, it is the experiment
24 of the Chamber was not to have two cross-examinations but a
25 cross-examination and additional questions by you. So clearly select
1 what you find most important.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
3 Cross-examined by Mr. Krajisnik:
4 Q. [Interpretation] Good day, Mr. Neskovic.
5 A. Good day.
6 Q. I would just like to put a few questions to you. Firstly, you
7 said that Mr. Karadzic proposed me as a president of the Assembly. In
8 the course of your interview with the Prosecution, you went into more
9 details. Could you please elaborate on how I was proposed as president
10 of the Assembly.
11 A. Karadzic insisted on Krajisnik being the president of the
12 Assembly and he told us that he had spoken to you on a number of
13 occasions and that you resisted the idea. You said that you were
14 involved in agriculture, that you didn't want such a position, et cetera.
15 So Karadzic said that he was trying to persuade you to accept the
16 position, and in the end you accepted to assume the position. As far as
17 I can remember, these are the explanations that were provided by Radovan.
18 Q. I have to pause briefly for the sake of the interpretation.
19 Who proposed Mr. Trbojevic as a candidate? Can you remember that?
20 A. I really can't remember. All I know is that Trbojevic prepared a
21 sort of celebration one evening together with his wife to celebrate his
22 appointment and in the morning the situation had completely changed and
23 he was no longer a candidate for that post. I was one of the guests at
24 that celebration, but as to who proposed him as a candidate, I do not
1 Q. This all took place in 1990; is that correct? After the
3 A. After the elections.
4 Q. Do you know who proposed the other candidates, the ministers, et
5 cetera, who were from the Serbian Democratic Party within the authorities
6 of Bosnia and Herzegovina? Please pause briefly before you answer the
8 A. As far as I know, Karadzic proposed them. Perhaps he did that in
9 a restaurant in Kula. There were eight ministers representing the SDS
10 and only one gentleman, Ostojic, was an active party member. The others
11 were there for other reasons. They weren't prominent members of the SDS.
12 As far as I know, Karadzic proposed them in the Kula restaurant.
13 As to whether you were involved in that matter with him, I do not
14 know, because I was not present in the Kula restaurant when they compiled
15 those lists.
16 Q. I have another question for you now. When candidates were
17 proposed for members of the Presidency, when a founding committee was
18 established, when a list of deputies was compiled, at that time, as far
19 as you know, was I close to Karadzic? Was I an acquaintance of
21 A. Well, as far as I know, you have been acquainted with Karadzic
22 since before the war. You knew each other privately.
23 Q. So your answer is yes; is that correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Could you provide a logical explanation as to why Karadzic didn't
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 then suggest that Krajisnik should be a member of the Presidency? Could
2 you provide a reason for which I was not a member of the founding
3 committee if I was close to Karadzic and if that was the reason for which
4 Karadzic proposed me as president of the Assembly.
5 A. Well, I believe that Karadzic told a group to compile a list of
6 candidates for the electoral unit in Sarajevo. I think you were the last
7 person on that list, so you only barely managed to get through and
8 Plavsic and Koljevic entered the Presidency and Koljevic [as interpreted]
9 too. I don't know how this was done though, but I think it went through
10 the Political Council. I think it was done through the Political
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could the registrar just provide
13 document number 4, please. -- I apologise, not number 4 but number 5.
14 It's document number 5. I don't think this is the right one.
15 It's a handwritten note.
16 I can provide Mr. -- I can provide the gentleman with my copy.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please give us the last three digits of
18 the ERN number.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I apologise. I didn't have my
20 headphones on.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Could you --
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 0205269, minutes from the session
23 of the Executive Committee. It's the 7th Session of the Executive
24 Committee or Executive Board. SA038957.
25 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I think there might be a digit
1 missing. It's 02052469, is the first page of this document.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's in front of us.
3 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Could you just have a look at the note from the Executive
5 Committee. Could you have a look at the last page of that document.
6 Have a look at item 5. You can see that the Executive Board was informed
7 of the establishment of a new body. Is that what it says?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Perhaps you have forgotten this. You said the Executive Board
10 did not know what Novi Privrednik was. Could you please read that
11 through to yourself and you attended the meeting.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Have a look at the section that concerns Novi Privrednik, or New
14 Privrednik. Here it says that this should have been --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, where exactly are we? What page, as
16 far -- I only need the last three digits of the ERN number.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 8961. SA 03 --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 8961.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Now you are reading from number 5; is that
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Item 5.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Please read slowly.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'll try to read it slowly.
2 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
3 Q. "The Executive Board was informed of the fact that the New
4 Privrednik was founded and after the action taken to date as well as of
5 the subsequent tasks that had to be carried out. In this respect, the
6 conclusion was reached that it was necessary to support the founding
7 Assembly of the company as soon as possible and to start implementing
8 decisions taken by the Assembly. The party, as a -- the body that
9 founded this company, cannot have any shares for the simple reason that
10 as a political organisation it cannot make any profit. The conclusion
11 was that the shares should immediately be put on the market and a
12 shareholders' meeting should be held, after which the party as a
13 political organisation would distance itself, in inverted commas, from
14 the company. It is necessary to immediately send a letter to inform the
15 Municipal Boards of the fact that the New Privrednik has been
16 established, inform them of the importance to have company and tell them
17 that shareholders are being sought and that 10.000 dinars should be
18 invested as shares."
19 And this was at a meeting at which Mr. Milivojevic explained what
20 Novi Privrednik or New Privrednik was. Do you remember that meeting in
21 the reports?
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, the last lines: "And this was at a
23 meeting at which Mr. Milivojevic explained what" -- that is not the text,
24 that is comment, isn't it?
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No. This relates to a document
1 that comes before this one.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Could you --
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It's not in this document.
4 JUDGE ORIE: It's not in this document. Then you should have
5 refrained from putting it to the witness. I invited you to read it and
6 you can put questions to the witness. However, you cannot explain to the
7 witness what happened at that meeting.
8 Please move to your next question.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I read out this part
10 and I put a question to the witness. Perhaps there's a misunderstanding.
11 I asked him whether he remembered this record when he was informed of the
12 New Privrednik. I wanted to mention that there was a meeting at which
13 all of this was mentioned. Everything that's contained in this document
14 was also mentioned.
15 A. I can't remember the minutes, but I now see that minutes were
16 taken and there was an Executive Board that I attended. To this very
17 day, I don't know what Novi Privrednik is. Here it says that "The party
18 established the Privrednik company and that the party was selling shares
19 for private individuals through parties and they should pay 10.000 dinars
20 for the shares. They said they would take their distance from the
21 company, in inverted commas. Percentages were also mentioned."
22 So as far as I know, as a member of the Executive Board, at the
23 time I did not know what Novi Privrednik was nor do I know what Novi
24 Privrednik is today. I also don't know what sort of transactions it was
25 involved in. I don't know what sort of resources it had.
1 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Mr. Neskovic, at the time, why didn't you ask for any
3 explanations from Mr. Dukic? Because there's a document here and it says
4 that you were present at a meeting, and this is a document that is on the
5 first page of document number 5.
6 A. Well, Dukic as the president of the Executive Committee was
7 responsible for business and for commercial matters. He was involved in
8 his own affairs. I wasn't involved in business of any kind. I was
9 involved in the party. Novi Privrednik or New Privrednik didn't interest
10 me much, because it wasn't my intention to become a shareholder and I
11 didn't try to obtain much information about Privrednik. I wasn't very
12 interested in this. It was Dukic's responsibility to establish a link
13 between Privrednik and the party. He was responsible for such business
14 in the party.
15 Q. Please have a look at document number 6.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could this document please be shown
17 to the witness.
18 JUDGE ORIE: This will be your last question.
19 Mr. Krajisnik, I might have been too quick where I ignored that
20 what seemed to me to be a comment finally ended up being a question, so
21 therefore I was perhaps too quick.
22 Please proceed.
23 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, while it's being distributed, if Mr.
24 Krajisnik could indicate the title of that document in addition to the
25 number in which it was distributed, it would make it easier to find.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Krajisnik, do you have -- could you give
2 us a clue on --
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. I apologise. It's document
4 -- one of the pages is from Grkovic's diary. SA0403905.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Is that in evidence already or is that ...?
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No. I apologise. I said 6. It's
7 SA 023626. It's the 6th Session of the Executive Board, of the SDS
8 Executive Board. 023623. The page is SA023623 and it's interesting.
9 It's the last page or the penultimate page, for Mr. Neskovic.
10 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
11 Q. It's item 6. With Your Honours' leave, I would like to read this
12 page. It's not much. And I will then have no further questions.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so, Mr. Krajisnik.
14 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
15 Q. The text on page 6 is as follows: "It has been decided that
16 there should be assistance for filming a film on refugees and 100.000
17 dinars will be provided. It has been decided that assistance should be
18 provided to the Municipal Board of the SDS in Tesanj. They will be given
19 50.000 dinars. It has been decided that in accordance with what is
20 possible, all municipal SDS boards in Bia [phoen] should be provided with
21 assistance that they need. It has also been decided that the league for
22 fighting epilepsy should be assisted and they should be provided with
23 50.000 dinars. It has been decided that the municipal SDS board in Stari
24 Grad, Sarajevo should contact the town board of the Sarajevo SDS for
25 assistance. It has been concluded that the requests submitted by Mr.
1 Radomir Neskovic that concerns regulating the status of his work in the
2 BSDS and that he should be granted a loan of 350.000 dinars to construct
3 a house. This request should be submitted to the Commission for
4 Personnel and Organisational Matters. They will consider this request.
5 It has been decided that oil and oil products should be provided more
6 sparingly, more economically. The president of the Executive Committee
7 of Bia [phoen] should send a letter to the director of Jugopetrol in
9 My question is as follows: In the course of the examination, in
10 the course of your testimony, did you see the document about the contract
11 between the SDS and Boxit, between Karadzic and Djukic?
12 A. No.
13 Q. I can show you this document, but you commented on the document
14 in your testimony.
15 A. While you're looking for it, could I just say something? The
16 problem was that Mr. Karadzic did not have the right to sign financial
17 contracts in the party. Those who had such a right were Mr. Dukic and
18 myself. And then an odd situation occurred, because the party had to
19 sign some kind of a contract with Boxit and the director of Boxit was Mr.
20 Dukic, whereas the representative of the Executive Board was Mr. Dukic.
21 So the situation was a little odd because this gentleman would have had
22 to sign a contract with himself. In order to avoid such a situation, Mr.
23 Karadzic probably signed the contract, although Karadzic did not have the
24 right to sign such financial documents. He wasn't someone who had the
25 right to sign such documents. He wasn't registered in the court that
1 authorised such matters.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Could we put the document on the ELMO. The witness
3 can see it on his screen.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is a document that the
5 Prosecution has used on a number of occasions.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Is this in evidence already? I don't know what it
7 is; therefore, I wanted it to be put on the ELMO if there are no copies.
8 Is there any -- please put it on the ELMO, yes. And take care that the
9 witness sees -- yes.
10 Okay. Please put a question to the witness, Mr. Krajisnik.
11 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
12 Q. This is a contract which is based on the decision taken by the
13 Executive Board according to which one should sign a contract with
14 Jugopetrol and Karadzic and Mr. Dukic signed it. It is a contract
15 between the SDS and the Boxit company and Mr. Dukic was its director. Do
16 you remember this contract?
17 A. Yes. But what was signed on the contract and what's stated in
18 the decision of the Executive Committee doesn't completely tally. The
19 conclusion says: "In order to provide oil more sparingly, the director
20 of the Jugopetrol company should be contacted by post." It doesn't say
21 that something has to be signed with -- that a contract has to be signed
22 with Boxit. It's something that can be explained with difficulty because
23 we have a situation in which Mr. Rajko Dukic signed a contract with
24 himself, because he was the president of the Executive Board and, on the
25 other hand, he was the director of the Boxit company. And since it's
1 impossible to sign a contract with oneself, Karadzic signed the contract.
2 But once again, I'll repeat that Karadzic didn't have the right to sign
3 such a financial document. Dukic had this right. We had been registered
4 at the court as individuals who were authorised to sign such documents.
5 So this involves financial acrobatics and I was not involved in this.
6 Q. Mr. Neskovic, Mr. Dukic --
7 JUDGE ORIE: This is your last question, Mr. Krajisnik.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes.
9 MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]
10 Q. In this contract, Mr. Dukic, as the director of the company,
11 assumes the responsibility of obtaining oil from Jugopetrol in Belgrade
12 because that was a privilege that Karadzic and Dukic had. That was their
13 prerogative. And they said that they would then provide the party with 3
14 per cent. In your opinion, is such a contract completely legal?
15 A. I don't think so. Not because Mr. Dukic was the president of the
16 Executive Board and if he should have signed a contract with some
17 company, it should have been with some other company, not with the Boxit
18 company. The contract should have been a lot clearer so that the party
19 could then control the percentages involved, the prices involved. When
20 you have such a large-scale transaction, well, the contract is very
21 short, in fact, given the size of the transaction. And I believe that
22 this contract is not quite regular.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'd like to thank Your Honours and
24 the witness.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 Mr. Tieger, I'm looking at the clock. How much time would you
2 need for re-examination?
3 MR. TIEGER: I've got, I believe -- well, I would say 10 to 15
4 minutes, Your Honour, and because a couple of the documents are involved.
5 But there is an issue with -- with setting up the courtroom for the next
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 MR. TIEGER: So I'm prepared to proceed or we can proceed
9 afterwards with some accommodation by the Defence or the Court.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE ORIE: Then for setting up the protective measures, we
12 invite you to continue at this moment.
13 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
14 Re-examined by Mr. Tieger:
15 Q. Mr. Neskovic, I have a few questions for you. First, a quite
16 minor matter, I think. In connection with a portion of yesterday's
17 transcript that Mr. Stewart asked you about, you were talking at that
18 point about Mr. Djurovic contacting Mr. Krajisnik. And I'm just
19 wondering if there's a -- a mistranslation or mispronunciation in the
20 English transcript we received. The answer was, as written in the
21 transcript: "As far as I know, before that meeting was held, he
22 contacted Krajisnik, his office, and the Assembly," the transcript reads.
23 And I wanted to know if you said that he contacted Krajisnik in his
24 office in the Assembly.
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Okay. Next you were asked yesterday at page 69, I believe, some
2 questions about liaising with the government, and you had said that "The
3 liaison with the Republika Srpska government always went through Karadzic
4 and Krajisnik, at all times, in all the relevant years."
5 Then you were asked about liaising with the government of Bosnia
6 and Herzegovina as well, and you said at some point - this is page 69, as
7 I say - "I am also thinking about the government of Bosnia and
8 Herzegovina," and then you continued, "in which there were eight Serbian
10 And later on you were asked a question - that's at the bottom of
11 page 69 - about whether -- or about high-level contacts between the
12 Bosnian Serbs and the government of Bosnia and Herzegovina going through
13 Dr. Karadzic and Mr. Krajisnik, and your answer was yes.
14 I simply wanted to ask you: In connection with your comment
15 about liaising with the government of Republika Srpska and your mention
16 of the eight Serbian ministers, did liaising with the Serbian ministers
17 and the Serbian officials within the Bosnia and Herzegovina government
18 before the split, was that also something that went through Karadzic and
20 MR. STEWART: I'm sorry, Your Honour, I wonder could -- could I
21 have -- because it may be that there's a discrepancy in numbers here.
22 Could I have more specifically the transcript reference there?
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, could you assist Mr. Stewart?
24 MR. TIEGER: All of the references I made were on page -- I'm
25 sorry, either the bottom of page 68 or the top of page 69 on the -- what
1 is now the draft official transcript. That would begin, for Mr.
2 Stewart's benefit, I would think -- I mean, he apparently has a version
3 that goes farther on. So if he began with the -- he says -- the Court
4 says to him: "Perhaps if you'd very much limit yourself."
5 Mr. Stewart says: "Thank you, Your Honour."
6 He begins a question: "Thank you, Mr. Neskovic." And the
7 beginning of my references are contained in the answer to that question.
8 MR. STEWART: I'm still -- I'm still struggling. A phrase like
9 -- perhaps "if you very much limit yourself" is far from unique, but some
10 of the others -- I'm sorry --
11 MR. TIEGER: If you looked at: "So, Mr. Neskovic, you're talking
12 about Mr. Ostojic." That's one reference. That's a question on that
14 There's also a question that begins above that: "Can I just say,
15 Mr. Neskovic, you're being doubly enthusiastic." I ...
16 MR. STEWART: I don't know whether I'm -- I'm sorry, I don't know
17 whether I'm pages apart here. That's the trouble. It's a problem for
18 Mr. Tieger as well.
19 JUDGE ORIE: In the -- in the electronic version, it's page 68,
20 line 10, where it says: "So, Mr. Neskovic, you are talking about Mr.
22 MR. STEWART: I've got it, Your Honour. I'm on page 72. We're
23 three pages apart. I don't know how that happens but --
24 JUDGE ORIE: No, neither do we.
25 MR. STEWART: One day, perhaps over the next month or two, three,
1 four, we might sort that out. Thank you.
2 MR. TIEGER: After all that, perhaps --
3 MR. STEWART: Yes. Thank you very much. I have it now. I beg
4 your pardon. Thank you.
5 MR. TIEGER: If I could simply ask Mr. Neskovic the question
6 again in a simple way.
7 Q. Mr. Neskovic, did the liaison with the Serbian officials, the --
8 in the Bosnian-Herzegovinian government, the ministers and so on, go
9 through Dr. Karadzic or Mr. Krajisnik?
10 A. Yes. It was quite usual for them to communicate with Mr.
11 Krajisnik, Karadzic, Koljevic, and Mrs. Plavsic, so that they did talk to
12 one another.
13 And just one correction with regard to Mr. Ostojic. I only
14 mentioned his name within the overall context, as him being the only
15 prominent member who was not an SDS, whereas the others got into
16 government in different ways. And then, of course, they had the same
17 sorts of contacts between Muslims with their own parties and the Croats
18 with their own and the Serb leadership had contacts with their own
19 ministers. Sometimes the ministers initiated those contacts; sometimes
20 the other way around. Basically those contacts existed.
21 Q. Thank you. You were also asked about instructions from the
22 leadership of the SDS to municipalities. May I ask you, please, to turn
23 to tab 3 of the binder.
24 MR. TIEGER: Tab 3, I believe, is already in evidence, although I
25 don't have the number in front of me. It's a document dated August
1 15th,1991 to all SDS boards signed by Dr. Karadzic as Serbian president
2 of the -- government of BH entitled "Operating instructions obligatory
3 for everybody."
4 Q. Are you familiar with the instructions and activities reflected
5 in that document?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And if I could also ask you to turn quickly to tab 4.
8 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, is -- is Mr. Tieger re-examining or is
9 he plugging gaps which he's now identified on review in his
10 examination-in-chief? Because I don't recall asking anything at all
11 about tab 3. And it's -- everything in a sense is related to everything
12 else in this case, but that's not the guideline for re-examination. So
13 far Mr. Tieger has --
14 MR. TIEGER: I'd be happy to respond.
15 MR. STEWART: Yes. Mr. Tieger's previous question simply went
16 over exactly the same ground and elicited the same answer has I have not
17 challenged, so that didn't really advance the matter.
18 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, there's a simple response.
19 MR. STEWART: And this --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Could Mr. -- yes, Mr. Tieger.
21 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
22 I attempted to conduct an efficient examination-in-chief as
23 possible so I did not go to those documents. In cross-examination, Mr.
24 Stewart asked whether Variant A and B it was -- the only such instruction
25 issued by the party to the Municipal Board.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 MR. TIEGER: So I'm obliged -- this is a very efficient way of
3 coming back to that question.
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 JUDGE ORIE: You may put the question to the witness.
6 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
7 Q. Mr. Neskovic, looking quickly at tab 4, and that document, which
8 is a session of the Club of Deputies of the SDS. On the second-to-last
9 page of the English - and I think it's perhaps on page -- the page number
10 that ends 506, with the -- with the listing at the top 506 in your
11 version - Dr. Karadzic says: "I have decided to impose a state of
12 emergency in the party." This Court has already received in evidence
13 telegrams to and from municipalities reflecting a state of emergency that
14 was introduced on October 18th. My question is: Were you familiar with
15 that state of emergency imposed by Dr. Karadzic on October 18th?
16 A. I was not aware of that state of emergency. And since I was a
17 member of the Executive Board, I should have known. And I really don't
18 know what it meant and -- by virtue of what it was any different from the
19 normal routine functioning of the party.
20 If I may, with regard to those guidelines of the 15th of August,
21 this is a public document in order to start to implement the program in
22 the statute of the Assembly of the 12th of July, that is to say, to step
23 up work within the party in that respect. And then so these guidelines
24 are being provided in order to be able to intensify all that activity.
25 And as to the October thing and the extraordinary situation, I
1 really don't know. I have no idea what Karadzic meant by that.
2 Q. Excuse me. And could I ask you to turn quickly to tab 30.
3 MR. TIEGER: That needs to be marked next in order, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Tab 30 would be Prosecution Exhibit P915, Your
7 MR. TIEGER:
8 Q. Mr. Neskovic --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
10 MR. TIEGER: Oh, I'm sorry, Your Honour.
11 Q. P915 reflect the minutes of the Municipal Board of Novo Sarajevo
12 SDS. If I could ask you to turn -- that was held, by the way, on October
13 29th, 1991. And if I could ask you to look quickly at item 2, the second
14 entry, which indicates that "Ranko Jugovic informed that the state of
15 emergency had been declared in the party."
16 A. No, it's clear to me now. I think it is the activities of the
17 party with regard to the referendum, and I think that the party was
18 supposed to engage in a sustainable effort in order to promote vote in
19 favour of staying within the former Yugoslavia on the part of the Serb
20 people. So I think that's what they called an emergency, in order to be
21 able to impose a bit more discipline. So it is clear to me now. What
22 they meant was the maximum level of effort, the sustained effort, in
23 organising the referendum for the Serbs in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the
24 month of November. So all the activities that had to do with that
25 upcoming referendum, that's what I gather it must mean on the basis of
1 these minutes.
2 Q. Is it fair to say that the document in tab 3, the August 15th
3 instructions and the imposition of the state of emergency by Dr. Karadzic
4 on October 18th, reflect ways through which the party leadership issued
5 directives and instructions to lower-ranking SDS bodies?
6 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, I don't know -- what sort of
7 question is that? It -- it is -- they are what they are, really. And --
8 and what possibly can an answer to that question add to any knowledge of
9 the Trial Chamber in relation to this matter?
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, according to Mr. Stewart, the document
11 speaks for itself.
12 MR. TIEGER: Well, if the document speaks for itself in exactly
13 the way I asked the question, I'm more than satisfied.
14 MR. STEWART: I didn't say that, Your Honour. The document
15 speaks for itself.
16 MR. TIEGER: That's precisely the point.
17 MR. STEWART: No, it's not. Your Honour --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Then you may ask the question, Mr. Tieger.
19 MR. TIEGER: Thank you.
20 MR. STEWART: Mr. Tieger is not entitled to put his own
21 interpretation to the witness in that way.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, could you formulate your question in a
23 way that clarifies the content of the -- the meaning of the document,
24 without giving the answer in the question.
25 MR. TIEGER:
1 Q. Was the document in August -- the document issued on August 15th
2 and sent to all Municipal Boards a mandatory instruction that was
3 required to be implemented?
4 MR. STEWART: It was addressed to all the Municipal Boards, Your
5 Honour. We -- I don't believe we have evidence that it was sent to all
6 the Municipal Boards.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm going to try and answer. This
8 August document, in my view, represents a legal and regular party
9 procedure within the framework of which the president of the party on the
10 strength of his authority instructs municipal bodies to step up their
11 activities based on the programme which was approved on the 12th of July
12 and since the organisation structure of the party had changed after the
13 15th of July, those instructions were to the effect for the new -- that
14 the new membership should adjust to this new organisation structure and
15 that it should become fully operational. So that's the way I read it, as
16 a normal, regular, usual way of functioning.
17 And after the 12th of July, as I said, the structure had changed
18 and so they have to adjust to that change.
19 And as to the second document, it is about an emergency situation
20 -- or I would rather tend to call it party activities in the course of a
21 rather special period of time; that is to say, when the referendum was
22 being organised. And so that's why they keep using the term of an
23 emergency. In other words, they are asking every single member and every
24 part of the party to do their utmost in order to make sure that as many
25 Serbs as possible vote in the referendum and that they should engage in
1 party propaganda. And so that was their preparation for the upcoming
3 And so I really fail to see any link between the two documents.
4 The first one is a party routine kind of document, whereas the second one
5 is about the functioning to have party in relation to a specific event,
6 in this case a referendum. So it was a kind of an extraordinarily active
7 period for the party.
8 MR. TIEGER: That's fine.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger.
10 MR. TIEGER: Yeah, I have -- I have one more question.
11 JUDGE ORIE: I'm looking at the clock and I'm also -- I would
12 have to look back, but you said that you thought 10 minutes would do
13 approximately --
14 MR. TIEGER: Well, I also did indicate that there were a number
15 of documents and I tried to move through as quickly as possible.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 MR. TIEGER: I'm willing to, Your Honour, ask the last question
18 under the conditions -- we've done that before, I know -- under the
19 protective measures conditions then simply release the transcript in the
20 normal fashion. If that --
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart.
22 MR. TIEGER: Mr. Stewart is looking puzzled. The idea is we're
23 going to impose some --
24 JUDGE ORIE: That we work under the conditions of face and voice
25 distortion and then immediately release that to the public.
1 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, we could maybe get through the
2 question and answer in the time that we're debating the procedure.
3 JUDGE ORIE: It seems that Mr. -- Mr. Tieger, you said
4 approximately 10 minutes and you said a few documents. Let's finish
5 within the next three minutes.
6 MR. TIEGER: Okay. Your Honour, thank you.
7 Q. I'm referring now to the transcript the day before yesterday.
8 And in my version, approximately -- begins approximately the series of
9 questions around page 22 but the -- and the specific portion I'm
10 referring to is at page 25 of my version. The reference -- phrase, I
11 guess, would be -- the witness says: "Could you please clarify
12 something." And the beginning of my question is: "Well, I understood
13 you to say."
14 MR. STEWART: I have it. Thank you.
15 MR. TIEGER:
16 Q. Mr. Neskovic, the day before yesterday I had asked you some
17 questions about who made decisions or established policy and who enforced
18 policy within the party after people assumed positions within government,
19 after the elections. And you explained that and identified certain
20 people in your answer.
21 Today Mr. Stewart asked you some questions about Mr. -- and let
22 me just say -- before I say that, and you identified Mr. Krajisnik as
23 being one of those persons. Today Mr. Stewart asked you about who had
24 executive power or what executive authority Mr. Krajisnik had within the
25 party. I just want to ask you a question distinguishing between formal
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 executive authority and the reality of who had power within the party.
2 Today you said that Mr. Karadzic and Mr. Krajisnik were supreme
3 authorities in the party. When you referred, then, yesterday to people
4 who had the power to make decisions and enforce decisions within the
5 party, would Mr. -- would Dr. Karadzic and Mr. Krajisnik have been the
6 two top people to do that?
7 MR. STEWART: That's a bit more than leading, Your Honour.
8 MR. TIEGER: No, I think it's clarifying, given all the --
9 MR. STEWART: Well, leading often is clarifying and clarifying is
10 often leading but it's the leading bit which is objectionable, not the
12 JUDGE ORIE: If you have to rank those with most power in the
13 party, what would your ranking be from the top down to the bottom? Well,
14 first three, four, five.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At the very top, Mr. Karadzic. At
16 the Main Board, well, there were elections and it was a collective body
17 and it was 45 people. But within the party --
18 JUDGE ORIE: I'm talking about persons. Who would be next? Who
19 would be number two most powerful in the party?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The second one within the party
21 itself? Velibor Ostojic maybe, Rajko Dukic. And for a certain period of
22 time, Jovo Mijatovic from Zvornik and Bozo Vucurevic and I think Vojo
23 Kupresanin as well. Well, basically the power within the party was in
24 the hands of those who were members of the central party bodies and
25 structures and at the same time they had positions of authority in their
1 own municipalities. They had large and powerful constituencies.
2 And another person who played another important role within the
3 party was Aleksa Buha and -- and I can't remember. And the late Jovo
4 Jovanovic, who was the head of the Municipal Board for Sarajevo. I don't
5 know. Some others.
6 Is this enough or do you want me to go on?
7 MR. TIEGER:
8 Q. No, I don't --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Well, it's at least a surprising in view of -- of
10 the interview that until now -- no, let me -- I would like to -- I'll
11 leave it to Mr. Tieger.
12 MR. TIEGER:
13 Q. Yesterday you told us about -- and today I think you mentioned it
14 as well, the extent to which the party was -- I think you used the word
15 "marginalised" after the assumption of power in positions of government
16 following the elections by SDS officials. Do you recall that?
17 A. Yes. Yes, I do.
18 Q. Then you told us about the people who held the most power in the
19 party after that time, the people with whom Dr. Karadzic worked most
20 closely with and the people who with him made --
21 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps, Mr. Tieger -- perhaps, Mr. Tieger, let's
22 put it to the witness right away. In your answer, you did not mention
23 Mr. Krajisnik. In your interview, the following question was put to you:
24 "In relation to the implementation of instructions" --
25 MR. STEWART: May I have a paragraph, please.
1 JUDGE ORIE: I'm referring to page 89.
2 MR. STEWART: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE ORIE: -- you said: "Who were the supreme authorities of
4 the Serb movement." Is the Serb movement something else than the SDS
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Precisely. The Serb movement and
7 the Serb leadership and the leadership of the party are not one and the
8 same thing. So maybe that's why my answer was a bit confusing.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Well, then who were the supreme authorities of the
10 Serb movement?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The supreme authorities there would
12 be Mr. Krajisnik and Mr. Karadzic and I would not be able to say who was
13 the more important. I would say that they were equal in authority there
14 and they were both number one and in a way they represented the top level
15 of power, and then there was a void behind them, nothing at all, and then
16 lagging somewhat behind was Koljevic, Plavsic, Maksimovic, and others.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So that was the permanent
19 leadership and the top people in power, because supreme power does not
20 always tally with the positions -- formal positions with the party.
21 They'd tally in the case of Mr. Karadzic. But I do apologise, Your
22 Honours. I was a bit confused. Because the party structure is one
23 thing. The Serb movement and the leaders of that movement is another
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 Mr. Tieger.
2 MR. TIEGER:
3 Q. And were the policies of Dr. Karadzic and Mr. Krajisnik
4 implemented through the party, through the Republika Srpska governmental
5 structures or political structures or through both?
6 A. There are many answers to that question. For the most part,
7 through the Deputies' Club and the MPs basically, and through government
8 ministers and -- and the MUP staff and officials. And then businessmen
9 of -- of certain standing, heads of companies, et cetera. And also
10 through the Serb Democratic Party wherever necessary, such as, for
11 example, in the case of the referendum, because no other body other than
12 the SDS could have done that, and so on occasion it was done through the
13 structures of the Serb Democratic Party.
14 But most policies were implemented through people in the
15 government, whether they were in the joint structures of government of
16 Bosnia and Herzegovina or in the Republika Srpska. And I believe that
17 the Deputies Club played a very important role there and later on the
18 Presidency. There were quite a few bodies. To be quite honest, I can't
19 sometimes even tell one from the other because there were all sorts of
20 Presidencies and changes to the Constitution and all that.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, yes.
22 MR. TIEGER: I'm sure I've exhausted the Court's patience. I
23 appreciate it.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
25 Any need for re-examination, Mr. Stewart? The Bench has no
2 MR. STEWART: Well, in a sense the Bench is -- the Bench has put
3 its questions, Your Honour --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. No. No. We have -- yes. Well, if there's
5 any need to put any further questions to the witness.
6 MR. STEWART: Excuse me one moment, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Triggered by re-examination. I do understand that
8 Mr. Krajisnik would have -- we have four minutes left on the tape, so
9 that ...
10 [Defence counsel confer]
11 [Defence counsel and accused confer]
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, if you have any question at this
13 moment, please put it to the witness or after Mr. Stewart has put his
14 questions to the witness. We've got four minutes left.
15 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, what I'm trying to do at the
16 moment is just establish whether Mr. Krajisnik wishes to address the
17 Trial Chamber or wishes to consult with me. May I just find out which of
18 those it is.
19 [Defence counsel confer]
20 MR. STEWART: Yes. I have a question, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 MR. STEWART: It's nice and simple.
23 Further cross-examination by Mr. Stewart:
24 Q. Mr. Neskovic, you've talked a lot over the last few minutes about
25 supreme authorities and so on. Can you give a single example that you
1 can recall of Mr. Krajisnik issuing an order to anybody?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Thank you.
4 A. I wasn't present in any such situation when orders were formally
6 Q. But the answer is no. I just want to make that clear. You added
7 something at the end.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. No further questions?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I know, no.
10 MR. STEWART: Thank you. No further questions, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Then we will have a break until 25 minutes past
12 1.00. And I'll start with one -- a couple of procedural issues which
13 then will later have to be made public. They're all of a technical
14 nature, but we have to deal with them today. So the parties should be
15 prepared that that might take five minutes in the beginning.
16 Mr. Neskovic, this concludes your testimony. I'd like to thank
17 you very much for coming to The Hague and to answer the questions put by
18 all the parties and to the Bench -- by the Bench. I wish you a safe trip
19 home again. You are excused.
20 We'll adjourn until -- and we'll deal with the exhibits at a
21 later moment.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
23 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We cannot have a break for 20 minutes because
25 we need half an hour to prepare for the next witness's protective
1 measures, therefore we spend rather our time on the procedural issues.
2 That might take us some 10 or 15 minutes. Whatever is left could be
3 dealt with. And then we'll start with the next witness tomorrow morning.
4 Mr. Margetts, it's not the way I had it in mind, but it is as it is.
5 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour. I believe Mr. Gaynor has five
6 minutes of matters he'd like to address as well.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we'll adjourn until 25 minutes past 1.00.
8 [The witness withdrew]
9 --- Recess taken at 1.06 p.m.
10 --- On resuming at 1.33 p.m.
11 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
12 JUDGE ORIE: The remaining minutes we'll spend on some procedural
14 First of all - and I'm specifically addressing you, Mr. Krajisnik
15 - the Chamber received this morning a memo from the representative of the
16 Registry. The Chamber was earlier already informed by yourself that no
17 agreement had been reached as a result of the conversations you had with
18 the representatives of the Registry, no results, part of it on the basis
19 of the amount of money to be paid to investigators. We don't have to
20 discuss this matter. The Chamber offered also on your request its good
21 services to see whether any solution could be reached in the disagreement
22 that existed between you and the Registry. This agreement has not been
24 The Chamber at that time considered that it should not move to
25 decide on your request for self-representation at that time moment.
1 Since now these talks have not been -- have not resulted in an agreement,
2 the Chamber just wants to know build -- whether you still insist or
3 whether you wish to represent yourself -- your wish to represent yourself
4 is still standing, because if so, the Chamber will decide on the matter;
5 if not, of course, there's nothing to decide any more.
6 Could you tell the Chamber whether you still -- whether your
7 request to represent yourself is still standing.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'd have to provide
9 you with some detailed explanations.
10 JUDGE ORIE: No.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It wouldn't take very long.
12 JUDGE ORIE: No, Mr. Krajisnik. The Chamber wants to know
13 whether your request for self-representation still stands, because then
14 the Chamber will decide. If it doesn't stand any more, there's nothing
15 to decide. We do not want explanations. We just want to know what we
16 have to do at this moment, and that is whether we have to give a
17 decision, yes or no.
18 If you say, "I need another three hours to -- to think about
19 whether it's a yes or no," please do that, but we are not going into any
20 discussions. We are not going into any negotiations. We are not going
21 into any if this, then that, or who is to be blamed for the failure. It
22 may be the Registry; it may be you. The Chamber just wants to know quite
23 simply whether there's a request it has to decide upon or whether there's
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I can't answer a question phrased
1 in such a manner. That's why I would like to have at least half a
3 JUDGE ORIE: No. The Chamber is not going to allow you to give
4 further explanations. If you say, "I can't give an answer," it's quite
5 simple. We -- you have requested to represent yourself. We did not give
6 a decision until now because there were ongoing conversations with the
7 Registry and perhaps with counsel as well. We offered our good services
8 to promote them. We now just want to know, since we have been informed
9 both by you and by the Registry that there's no agreement, so whether it
10 has resulted in anything or not, yes or no, is another matter. We want
11 to know whether this request is there to be decided upon.
12 MR. STEWART: Yes. Your Honour, could I just observe --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
14 MR. STEWART: -- that when Mr. Krajisnik said he would like to
15 have at least half a minute, it wasn't clear whether he meant half a
16 minute to say something or half a minute think about it. If he is
17 requesting half a minute --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I thought half a minute of thinking. I
19 thought to be half a minute to explain.
20 MR. STEWART: Yes. If it would be half a minute to think, Your
21 Honour, might he be allowed a little bit more.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I offered him --
23 MR. STEWART: Your Honour did indeed. And, of course, it may be
24 that that's what he meant. I don't know.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you very much for drawing my attention to a
1 possible misunderstanding.
2 Mr. Krajisnik, did you want to think for 30 seconds or did you
3 want to explain? Because we want a yes or a no.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I wanted to spend half a minute to
5 say that we have agreed on certain issues. There is one matter that is
6 outstanding and nothing else.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, whether you agreed or everything, I
8 did understand -- but if I'm wrong, it doesn't make any difference. If
9 you have full agreement, fine; if you have 95 per cent of agreement,
10 fine; if you have 60 per cent of agreement -- everything's fine. The
11 only thing the Chamber wants to know is whether at this moment your
12 request to represent yourself is still a pending request or whether it's
13 -- it has to be struck off the record. That's the only thing the Chamber
14 wants to know.
15 And it's -- yes, please.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If only I could receive a response
17 from the Registry, we can strike this item from the agenda. But I've
18 done everything that was necessary in my contacts with the Registry. The
19 task was --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, you are again doing what you did
21 before, that is, to start negotiating; if I would get this, then perhaps
22 -- there's no way of that. The Chamber wants to know -- and if you don't
23 give an answer, then there's no clear withdrawal. We offered our good
24 services. We told you that we would wait to decide. So if you do not
25 give a clear answer, a yes or a no, then it's quite clear; then the
1 Chamber will give a decision. The Chamber will then give a decision on a
2 matter which has been dealt with in this court in quite some depth, that
3 is, the right to represent yourself or the circumstances or the case law,
4 et cetera. It has been fully discussed. We then decided just to
5 postpone our decision in order to give an opportunity to have further
6 talks. Now we want to know whether that request is still pending, in
7 which case the Chamber will give a decision.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honours, could I have just
9 half a minute? If you can't grant me half a minute, do as you please.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE ORIE: It may have been clear to you, Mr. Krajisnik, that
12 the Chamber wanted a yes or a no and that if it doesn't get it, it will
13 take it to be that the matter is pending and the Chamber will then give a
14 decision on your request. So therefore you are at this moment in a
15 position to tell us whether it's still pending or not. If you don't do
16 it, the Chamber will consider the matter still to be pending, since
17 there's no clear withdrawal.
18 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, could -- could I -- perhaps I'll try
19 to be helpful, Your Honour. I certainly, with respect, endorse what the
20 -- Your Honour has just said, but we're starting from the position where
21 Mr. Krajisnik's initial position was clear, and if there is no
22 unequivocal withdrawal, the position would be as -- as Your Honour says.
23 On the assumption that this decision is clearly not going to be -- I take
24 it it's not going to be given today that, it would be --
25 JUDGE ORIE: I offered Mr. Krajisnik to think it over. If he
1 needs a couple of hours, that would almost make impossible when we would
2 decide and when that decision will be a full-reasoned decision or whether
3 reasons will be given at a later stage is another matter. But I cannot,
4 if that is -- today there will be no decision. That is one thing I can
5 tell you for sure.
6 MR. STEWART: Yes, Your Honour, simply from a practical point of
7 view --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 MR. STEWART: It would appear to be this, Your Honour that, Your
10 Honours will be proceeding on the basis there hasn't been an unequivocal
11 withdrawal and therefore no withdrawal. But the position would be, one
12 supposes, that any time up to the point where Your Honours actually
13 deliver the decision if at any point before then Mr. Krajisnik did
14 unequivocally withdraw his decision --
15 JUDGE ORIE: The matter would be moot.
16 MR. STEWART: -- then the matter would be moot and then --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, the matter would be moot and then --
18 MR. STEWART: So that Mr. Krajisnik understands that in effect
19 the opportunity is at least there.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 MR. STEWART: I make no comment whatsoever on his inclination to
22 avail himself of it.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Of course, that's clear. So if first thing
24 Mr. Krajisnik would do when we enter court tomorrow morning is say it is
25 a withdrawal, then of course the matter would be moot and he would not be
1 surprised by a decision taken overnight.
2 MR. STEWART: Yes, exactly, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's clear. So that matter having been
4 dealt with, yes, Mr. Krajisnik. Not on this issue, unless you want to
5 give the Chamber yes or no.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we have a few other matters.
8 The first one I'd like to deal with is about a Prosecution
9 exhibit provisionally assigned with the number P566.
10 Mr. Guy, I'm not -- Mr. Gaynor, I'm not -- I have been informed
11 that we had not yet decided on P566 because it had to be resubmitted. I
12 am now informed that you -- that the Defence through Ms. Loukas informed
13 you that they would have no further objections against admission of P566
14 as you intend to submit it today.
15 MR. GAYNOR: That's correct, Your Honour. And I can submit it
16 right now.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Thank you very much. Then, Mr. Usher, could
18 you please -- that's P566.
19 MR. GAYNOR: Yes, and P566.1, which is the B/C/S translation.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, would be the B/C/S translation.
21 Since there were no other reasons that -- the Chamber, as always,
22 relies on the correctness of the information provided by you, in this
23 case, Mr. Gaynor, and therefore we'll admit P566 now in evidence.
24 Then we have another matter. There has been a lot of confusion
25 about the Zvornik contextual documents. They had been provided to the
1 Defence and finally it turned out that they had not been provided to the
2 Chamber. The Chamber then in some respects was a bit confused by the
3 documents. Finally, they have been submitted again on the 7th of July --
4 no, not on the 7th of July. I think on the 4th of July. Then the
5 Chamber still saw some technical problems. The Prosecution then
6 responded that they did not understand what our technical problems were.
7 Then the matter has been discussed by your case manager with one of the
8 legal officers from the Chamber. This has led to a new corrected CD
9 which has been submitted on the 12th of July.
10 Usually, if an exhibit or at least contextual documents have been
11 exhibited, usually a week is granted to the Defence to object or to
12 further comment. They have been -- we have received it, and I take it
13 Defence at the same day, on the 12th of July we have received this new
14 CD. The Chamber established that practically all the technical problems
15 had been solved. Normally the Defence would have until the 19th, but
16 that's already behind us, so therefore if the Defence could please submit
17 any objection by next Friday.
18 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
19 JUDGE ORIE: This Friday, yes. I'm always making the mistakes
20 what in English is this Friday and Dutch the next Friday. In some other
21 languages it is the Friday of next week. That's good that I am
23 Then we have -- there is resubmitted 92 bis material for the
24 witnesses Zujo --
25 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
1 JUDGE ORIE: It's not -- it's not a very exciting matter.
2 Perhaps we ...
3 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
4 JUDGE ORIE: Just out of caution, I wanted to check whether there
5 were any protective measures involved.
6 The -- there was a problem with the 92 bis materials in relation
7 to the witnesses Zujo, Mesic, and Dobraca. The Chamber has deferred its
8 decision on these three witnesses. The Office of the Prosecution has
9 reviewed the material, and on the 15th of July the Prosecution has
10 resubmitted the revised materials; therefore, the normal time to respond
11 to that would be until the 22nd of July, and that's the date the Chamber
12 would like to receive any objections, if there is -- are any.
13 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I'm afraid that's not possible. I --
14 I'm not sure exactly when, but I -- I would have to double-check, but my
15 clear recollection, though one can always -- memory place tricks -- is
16 that we -- we did not have this material in our possession on the 15th of
17 July, which was last Friday, wasn't it? It's -- it could be that -- that
18 all that happens is these things slip over the weekends. But -- but,
19 Your Honour, the -- it's not any particular complaint, but the whole
20 point about this material was it was a fantastic mess. I'm not saying
21 it's anybody's fault necessarily, but it was an incredible mess. And
22 I've got a big pile of paper at home in relation to these people. And
23 quite frankly, Your Honour, I do not have time to go through this -- this
24 mess and check it all between now and Friday. I just don't.
25 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
1 JUDGE ORIE: The parties are invited to inform the Chamber by
2 tomorrow morning at what time at least -- that's the first factual matter
3 to be established -- at what time the Defence received this reorganised
5 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, may I say that --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
7 MR. STEWART: -- just -- that -- of course, it's fair enough and
8 we will check on our side, because I am working a little bit from memory
9 and of course it may have got transmitted through. But even if it is
10 assumed that we had it on Friday, in the particular circumstances, Your
11 Honour, having this stuff landed on our plates at that point is just --
12 is just unrealistic to add that to everything else this week. Your
13 Honours --
14 JUDGE ORIE: It was about -- these were the -- I think, the --
15 yes, these were mainly the exhumation reports and --
16 MR. GAYNOR: They're that's correct, Your Honour. We've -- we've
17 cut down the material involved. We've organised it so that it's much
18 easier to navigate. We did file it on Friday.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 MR. GAYNOR: I think the Registry, due to their own copying and
21 distribution issues may not have provided a copy to the Defence on
22 Friday. But it was formally filed on Friday.
23 JUDGE ORIE: I think it was mainly the Chamber that had problems
24 with the material, rather than the Defence, isn't it?
25 MR. GAYNOR: Well --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Did we not at that time -- that the Chamber said --
2 MR. GAYNOR: Yes. Well --
3 JUDGE ORIE: -- they said there were no objections against it.
4 Perhaps --
5 MR. STEWART: That isn't the position, Your Honour. What had
6 happened is it was many, many, weeks ago -- what had happened was that
7 we'd -- we'd specifically said that it was just in so much of a tangle
8 that we invited the Prosecution, invited through the Trial Chamber to go
9 away and revisit it, which they've very helpfully gone, and that was
10 understood. Your Honour, what Mr. Fergal says does absolutely match what
11 I recall has happened over the last full couple of days. The first time
12 I have been given - and I think I was given it immediately by my team,
13 this material - was after the weekend.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, what I intended to do was to have as
15 clear as possible the information by tomorrow and, of course, whether
16 what would that result in is another matter. But at least to -- not to
17 discuss these factual issues where we can just listen, whereas you can
18 speak to each other in a way and either agree or ask further information
19 from the Registry or whatever to see whether you can agree on when it was
20 provided to the Defence.
21 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I'd just like to say this. It seems
22 -- I detect that what's happening is there is some notion, with respect,
23 that, everything, everything, like this has all got to do be done by the
24 22nd of July. Your Honour there, are limits.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mr. Stewart, it is five minutes to 2.00 and we
1 are ten minutes over time. That's what the situation is.
2 MR. STEWART: Oh, I'm sorry. Your Honour. In that case I'll sit
3 down immediately because I'm as keen to get away as anybody, I'm sure.
4 JUDGE ORIE: So therefore the Chamber would like to be informed
5 about the date of receipt of these documents by the Defence.
6 Let me just see what else was on my ...
7 Yes. I just want to be -- to have confirmed in an open session:
8 Did the Chamber understand you well, Mr. Gaynor, that the witness
9 Kahrimann will not appear for cross-examination and that therefore you
10 withdraw the material submitted under 92 bis?
11 MR. GAYNOR: That's correct, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: That's, then, on the record.
13 Then is it correct, Mr. Gaynor, that Prosecution Exhibit 740,
14 which was introduced through the witness Selak, that you seek the
15 admission of the pages 1 to 6 of the transcript of the video?
16 MR. GAYNOR: That's correct. And pages 1 to 7 of the B/C/S
18 JUDGE ORIE: And 1 to 7 of the B/C/S translation. So 1 to 6 for
19 the English; 1 to 7 for the B/C/S.
20 MR. GAYNOR: I have copies here for Your Honour and for the
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If you'd please be so kind to provide them to
24 MR. GAYNOR: This is P740.A and P740.A.1.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then the -- it was indicated in court on the
1 14th of July that you'd like to have the transcript in the Blaskic case
2 of the evidence of Mr. Kaiser to be admitted. I do understand it was Ms.
3 Richterova who told us that. I -- we have been informed by now that the
4 application to have the Blaskic transcript in evidence is withdrawn. Is
5 that a correct understanding?
6 MR. GAYNOR: Yes, our application in respect of that transcript
7 is withdrawn.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then that is clear.
9 Then for the information of the parties, the Kotor Varos dossier
10 - I think it was tab 4 in the Kotor Varos dossier - on the index it
11 indicated that I think the 57th or 58th and 59th Session were in under
12 tab 4, where only the 58th was. The Chamber has ex officio corrected the
13 index attached to the Kotor Varos dossier to the extent that only the
14 58th Session is found under tab 4.
15 I also do understand that now for the Bratunac dossier the
16 registrar, on the basis of what the Prosecution has said on the 15th of
17 June, under tab 1 of the Bratunac dossier all minutes of meetings other
18 than the three the OTP wished to be admitted into evidence are by Madam
19 Registrar now removed from the original of the Kotor Varos dossier and
20 the parties are invited to do the same. And which three are remaining
21 can be found in the transcript of the hearing of the 15th of June.
22 As far as the Foca dossier is concerned, the B/C/S translation of
23 tab 6 was missing from the dossier. On the 6th of July, the Office of
24 the Prosecution has tendered the missing translation to all parties, and
25 Madam Registrar has now placed that translation in the original of the
1 Foca -- of the Foca binder, the Foca dossier.
2 Then there were some documents Mr. Krajisnik has handed up in
3 relation to the witnesses Bjelobrk, Prstojevic and Topajic and Witness
4 680. These have been sent for translation and we hope to receive the
5 translation very soon.
6 These were the technical and perhaps not that much exciting
7 procedural matters I would like -- I wished to bring to your attention.
8 Let me just ...
9 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
10 JUDGE ORIE: We still have to deal with today's exhibits, but we
11 are not going to ask more from the patience of the interpreters and the
12 technicians and we'll have to find a moment to -- to deal with them.
13 We adjourn until tomorrow morning, 9.00, Courtroom I.
14 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.01 p.m.,
15 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 21st day of
16 July, 2005, at 9.00 a.m.