1 Thursday, 19 January 2006
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.32 p.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. This is case number
7 IT-00-39-T, the Prosecutor versus Momcilo Krajisnik.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
9 Mr. Tieger, are you ready to cross-examine the witness? May I
10 draw your attention to the fact that as far as the 60 per cent guidance is
11 concerned, a couple of times the Prosecution has taken more time at this
12 moment. It's just to draw your attention to that, that it's not something
13 that could continue.
14 And then before you continue, Mr. Tieger. Mr. Kapetina, I'd like
15 to remind you that you're still bound by the solemn declaration given at
16 the beginning of your testimony, and I would also like to draw your
17 attention to the following: When I re-read some of your answers yesterday
18 where Mr. Tieger put certain things to you, you answered by
19 saying: "Would you expect me to ignore the government," et cetera, et
20 cetera. It took us some time to get to know what you exactly meant by
21 that. If you would have said, "Mr. Tieger, your assumption is not right
22 because I acted on the instructions of Mr. Simovic, who was at that time
23 the one I received instructions from since Mr. Doko had left that to him,"
24 then in one or two lines you would have fully informed the Chamber about
25 what your position was, and it would have been far more informative rather
1 than asking Mr. Tieger what he would expect you to do.
2 I do understand. It's to some extent also a consequence, perhaps,
3 of the -- could I say the trial technique in which in cross-examination
4 something is put to you and then you can respond. But as informative as
5 you are, the better it is for the Chamber to fully understand your
7 Mr. Tieger, you may proceed.
8 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
9 WITNESS: DRAGAN KAPETINA [Resumed]
10 [Witness answered through interpreter]
11 Cross-examined by Mr. Tieger: [Continued]
12 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Kapetina. Toward the end of yesterday's
13 session --
14 A. Good afternoon.
15 Q. Toward the end of yesterday's session there was some discussion
16 about the Council of Ministers. That body, is it correct, was established
17 by the Bosnian Serb Assembly at its fourth session held on December 21,
19 A. That's probably right. I don't remember the date exactly, but if
20 you say so, then it probably is.
21 Q. And do you recall attending that session?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Okay. And after the establishment of the Council of Ministers and
24 at its first session as reflected in the record of that session as we saw
25 yesterday, the Council of Ministers determined, among other things, to
1 provide for coordination with the JNA; is that right?
2 A. I was not a member of the Ministerial Council or Council of
3 Ministers, so I don't know whether it had that task or not.
4 Q. Do you recall any reference to the -- to an interest by the
5 Bosnian Serb leadership or representatives of the Bosnian Serbs to either
6 of the December sessions of the Assembly that you attended in establishing
7 connections to or coordination with the JNA?
8 A. Well, that coordination was supposed to be there anyway before the
9 session and after the session. The JNA was the legitimate and legal part
10 of the armed forces in Bosnia-Herzegovina. And by the same token, that
11 cooperation should have been a continuous one, and not only after that
12 particular session, and not only of the leadership of the SDS in the
13 government but the whole institution of Bosnia-Herzegovina itself.
14 Q. So I take it the answer to that question is, yes, you do recall
15 such references at either or both Assembly sessions.
16 Let me --
17 A. I was a guest at the Assembly, and that's how I behaved. Now, I
18 can't remember what was discussed at the session.
19 Q. Okay. And if your answer is you can't remember, that's your
20 answer, sir.
21 And speaking of that, let me turn --
22 A. That's right. That's how it is.
23 Q. Let me turn quickly to the document presented to you by the
24 Defence, and that's the instructions of December 19, 1991, the Variant A
25 and B document. I believe you said during your examination-in-chief in
1 response to a question by Mr. Josse about the document that the first time
2 you had ever seen it was when it was presented to you here in The Hague by
3 the Defence.
4 A. I don't know whether I had perhaps seen the document when I had an
5 interview with the investigators of the OTP of this Tribunal. I didn't
6 say that I saw the document in Sarajevo in 2004 -- or, rather, I think I
7 remember seeing the document then.
8 Q. In fact, you're right, Mr. Kapetina. I misquoted and I was just
9 checking that even before you began your answer. Your answer was to the
10 question did you see this document around that time, in other words, in
11 late 1991 or 1992, and I'm referring now to page 62 of the January 17th
12 session. "The first time I saw this document was when I was interviewed
13 by the investigators of the Prosecutor's office of this Tribunal."
14 And your --
15 A. That's right.
16 Q. And it is correct that you were shown the document during the
17 course of the July 2004 interview with the investigators of the
18 Prosecution. But at that time, Mr. Kapetina, you said the following: It
19 was presented to you, you were given an opportunity to look at it. In
20 fact, the tape was shut off, and I'm now referring to page 62 of the
21 January 17th interview. And five minutes later all -- the tape machine
22 was turned back on and you were asked whether you had seen that document
23 before, and you said, "It is possible that I saw it maybe at some
24 municipality, but I did not have to use it. It was not delivered to me.
25 That's it."
1 And that's -- excuse me. That's at page 23 of the July 2004
3 MR. JOSSE: The transcript --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Could you take the other microphone for a second,
5 Mr. Josse. It doesn't help that much.
6 MR. JOSSE: It's flashing -- a green flashing light rather than
7 the normal red light.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we will have to ask the assistance of the
9 interpreters. I hope that you're convinced that it's not the policy of
10 this Tribunal to switch off microphones of Defence counsel.
11 MR. JOSSE: I won't comment on that, Your Honour. But I've --
12 thank you very much. Thank you.
13 The transcript said 17th of January. My fault. Yes. My learned
14 friend said page 62, but the 17th of January interview.
15 MR. TIEGER: Yes. The confusion is this --
16 MR. JOSSE: I can sit down here.
17 MR. TIEGER: The reference to Variant A and B during the course of
18 the witness's examination-in-chief can be found at page 62 of the
19 transcript of a couple of days ago, on the 17th, and the reference in the
20 July 2004 interview as mentioned a few moments ago is at page 23.
21 Q. Mr. Kapetina, when you -- apparently when you had an opportunity
22 to see the document in July of 2004, you acknowledged the possibility that
23 you had seen it previously, and yet when you came to this Tribunal to
24 testify you stated that the first time you had seen it was during the
25 course of that interview. It appears to be the case from the two
1 transcripts that you believed in July of 2004 that you might have seen the
2 document before. Is that not in fact the case?
3 A. I did not see it before.
4 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, for the witness.
5 MR. TIEGER:
6 Q. And can you explain why you stated in July of 2004 when the
7 document was presented to you and you were given a reasonable period of
8 time to look it over that you believed that you had possibly seen it
10 A. Let me repeat. I saw the document for the first time then, and
11 since I didn't have much time and wasn't able to leaf through it, I had
12 seen similar documents previously, but now I categorically state that
13 that -- I saw that document the first time in the interview in July 2004.
14 Q. Let me turn our attention to --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, can I ask one question?
16 When you say "similar documents," would you mean other copies of
17 this document or -- I mean, would it be same number of pages, same text
18 approximately, or would it be instructions but of a different kind? I'm
19 just trying to understand what you mean by "similar documents."
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I don't mean the same document,
21 the very same document, but similar other documents by other people.
22 Quite simply --
23 JUDGE ORIE: That clarifies your answer.
24 Please proceed, Mr. Tieger.
25 MR. TIEGER:
1 Q. During the course of your examination-in-chief, you told us about
2 your stay in Hadzici between March and May of 1992, and I believe you
3 testified that you "volunteered in Hadzici with other intellectuals," and
4 that reference, I think, can be found at page 58.
5 Can you tell us whether a separate Serbian Assembly of Hadzici was
6 formed in April of 1992 during the course of your work there?
7 A. I didn't work there. I said that as a volunteer, I became
8 involved, but -- now, I don't know whether the Serbian Assembly was
9 separated from the Municipal Assembly, but a meeting was organised,
10 anyway, of all the Serbs in the Hadzici municipality, and the president of
11 the Assembly for the Serbian municipality of Hadzici was elected and the
12 council that I mentioned a moment ago numbering 20 people, 20
14 Now, I don't know what happened with the deputies who were legally
15 elected at the elections in 1990.
16 Q. Was a Crisis Staff of the Serbian people formed in April of 1992?
17 A. I don't know that it was formed. I didn't have that kind of
18 information, nor did I work in the staff.
19 Q. So I take it, then, you wouldn't know who -- if or who -- if there
20 was a president of a Crisis Staff or who it was?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Can you tell us whether a separate Serbian TO was formed or
23 prepared in April of 1992 while you were there as a volunteer?
24 A. I don't know. I didn't work in those matters.
25 Q. Can you -- can you tell us whether there was an intention by
1 Bosnian Serb officials in Hadzici to have Serbian members of the TO
2 coordinate with or work together with the army?
3 A. I don't know that. I wasn't their superior. I know that the
4 commander of the Territorial Defence in Hadzici was a Muslim, and the
5 secretary of the secretariat I seem to feel was a Serb, and they would be
6 best placed to provide that kind of information, but I didn't contact them
7 directly myself.
8 Q. And can you tell us as of early or mid-April of 1992 there was an
9 intention by Bosnian Serb officials to form a separate Serbian police?
10 A. I think that a police station was set up, but I don't know when.
11 Q. And while you were there as a volunteer, did you participate in or
12 hear about discussions concerning the intention to set it up, the fact
13 that it had been set up, or the functioning of such a body?
14 A. Which body?
15 Q. I'm talking about a separate Serbian police station or force.
16 A. Yes. I heard people that -- people talk about that at meetings.
17 I attended some meetings, as did a group of sometimes five, sometimes more
18 members of the council. They were intellectuals, as I say, from Hadzici,
19 and for the most part the meetings were marathon meetings, very long, to
20 talk about agreements, preserving the peace, and there was also mention of
21 having the police separate.
22 Q. And was that the interest in having the police separate realised?
23 Did it happen?
24 A. When I said a moment ago that a police station was formed of the
25 Serbian people, as far as I understood it, and I wasn't involved directly
1 in the negotiations about that, but the station was set up to have
2 complete control over the Serb people in Hadzici to avoid having the Serb
3 people create any excessive incidents. So this police station might have
4 been formed to set up a fuller control over the Serbian population in
5 Hadzici in which they were a minority.
6 Q. Now, we've heard testimony from another person from Hadzici who
7 provided some information about the council or advisory body that you --
8 that you mentioned, and he testified that there was talk of forming a
9 Crisis Staff at the founding Assembly. Do you remember that discussion,
10 about the possibility of forming a Crisis Staff at the founding Assembly
11 of the Serbian people in Hadzici?
12 A. As far as I remember, there wasn't the mention of the formation of
13 a Crisis Staff or I didn't pay enough attention, and I thought that the
14 Assembly, and I think so now, was prepared by the Serbs and not by a
15 political party at all. So all the Serbs, in actual fact, asked that a
16 meeting be held to look into the situation, to see where things had
17 escaped control, and so on and so forth.
18 Q. He also testified that the advisory -- council advisory body made
19 a decision around April 24th to form the Crisis Staff. Does that refresh
20 your recollection around the involvement of the council in the
21 establishment of the Crisis Staff and the timing of the establishment of
22 the Crisis Staff?
23 A. I don't think that that could have been on the 24th, because at
24 the end of April I had already left Hadzici myself, and I don't know about
25 this particular initiative and the formation of the Crisis Staff.
1 Q. I'd like to look quickly at two documents that are found in the
2 Prosecution packet. The first is found at tab 10, and I'd like that
3 marked with a number, please.
4 THE REGISTRAR: It will be P1041.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
6 MR. TIEGER: I'm advised -- I didn't see it on my list -- this has
7 a Defence number already. That's D110.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Then the number P1041 is free again.
9 Please proceed.
10 MR. TIEGER:
11 Q. Just very quickly, Mr. Kapetina, if you'd look at D110. That's a
12 list of those present at the Assembly of the Serbian People of Hadzici
13 municipality on April 11th, 1992. And can you find your name at
14 number 31, and does that conform with your recollection of your presence
15 at that meeting?
16 A. Well, I said I was present.
17 Q. Secondly, I'd like you to look at tab 11, and I believe that does
18 need a number.
19 THE REGISTRAR: Tab 11 will be P1041, Your Honours.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
21 MR. TIEGER:
22 Q. P1041 reflect the minutes of a meeting of April 11th, 1992, of the
23 council of the Serbian Municipal Assembly and advisory organ of the
24 Hadzici Serb Municipal Assembly, and in addition to a list of names, it
25 also contains an agenda and a reflection of the discussion that took place
1 at that meeting. And can you see that discussion, Mr. Kapetina, and in
2 particular, can you see your name found at the bottom of the portion that
3 contains references to particular persons and comments they made?
4 A. Yes, but -- it's a very poor copy, difficult to see.
5 Q. I agree, and I appreciate that certain portions may be difficult
6 to read. I'll just try to direct your attention to those that are in fact
8 First of all, we see toward the top that Ratko Radic speaks and
9 indicates that the Serbian TO and an army unit may act together. The
10 Serbian population needs to be protected from all possible attacks.
11 And if you go toward the bottom of the page, just two people up
12 from yourself, Veljko Banduka says: "The Serbian TO is already being
13 organised into military units and there is cooperation with the units,"
14 and I believe the rest is illegible.
15 Doesn't that reflect the existence of and the activities of the
16 Serbian TO by April 11, 1992?
17 A. I didn't know about that piece of information. But let me add
18 this: People don't know, are not well-versed in the system of defence.
19 They heard that some sort of Territorial Defence existed and some sort of
20 JNA, but they didn't actually have any knowledge about that. And they
21 very often say a lot of nonsense at these meetings and propose things that
22 are not quite illogical and not reasonable. So these are arbitrary
23 discussions on the part of people who never had any knowledge about what
24 national defence meant. And we will see that later on.
25 People think they know everything very often, and then they tell
1 some tales about the JNA and bodies like this, but they don't really have
2 any knowledge about what this means, and I'd like the Trial Chamber to
3 realise that, because people don't have sufficient knowledge and
4 information and not the right professional information and legal
5 information about all these things. So people can go to a meeting and say
6 what they like. But it's not a document and it's not a fact.
7 Q. Well, I'm a little confused then, Mr. Kapetina. I thought you had
8 described yourself as being relatively uninvolved in events in Hadzici and
9 yet I now understand you to be telling the Court that the reference, the
10 specific references here during the course of this meeting are not to be
11 trusted because you know better than the people who were talking.
12 So which is it? Were you involved enough to be able to say
13 whether or not there was a Serbian TO, or were you sufficiently uninvolved
14 that you'd have to defer to others who purport to know about it?
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, before you continue, could you please
16 indicate exactly where the witness said not in general terms that people
17 would often speak about matters they hardly had any knowledge about but
18 that in this specific respect the speakers during this meeting were
19 speaking without knowledge?
20 MR. TIEGER: Well, perhaps I misunderstood, Your Honour. I asked
21 the witness if his reference to -- if his -- what the Court has described
22 is a reference in general terms to people who speak without knowledge was
23 a reference to these speakers who were talking about the Serbian TO.
24 That's how I understood it.
25 JUDGE ORIE: The witness said: "And I didn't know about that
1 piece of information. But let me add this: People don't know, are not
2 well-versed in the system of defence, and they usually say a lot of
3 nonsense. It's all in very general terms."
4 MR. TIEGER: I understand, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: "So these are arbitrary discussions. It was not one
6 arbitrary discussion but arbitrary discussions." I think the witness
7 explained to us that people are often speaking without knowledge.
8 Please proceed.
9 MR. TIEGER:
10 Q. Mr. Kapetina, in light of --
11 A. Of course.
12 Q. So you're just cautioning us not based on your own knowledge of
13 what was happening in Hadzici but as a general matter to -- that you have
14 found that people sometimes speak without sufficient knowledge. Is that
15 basically it, as the Court understood it?
16 A. Of course. I couldn't correct everybody. I couldn't tell
17 everybody how this should function, how things should be done or shouldn't
18 be done, you know.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You say: "I couldn't correct everyone." Are
20 you now -- "I couldn't correct everybody. I couldn't tell everybody how
21 this should function ..." Are you now again speaking in general terms or
22 are you referring to that meeting? What are you telling us?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In more specific terms, when we're
24 talking about this meeting, they -- I can't see my name in the first list.
25 As far as I can see, it is not there. Maybe I joined the meeting later,
1 because in this list --
2 JUDGE ORIE: That's another matter. I think your name appears on
3 the document, even if it's not --
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What I'm saying here, I may not even
5 have heard all the -- the interventions, all that was said at the meeting.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Which draws your attention, Mr. Tieger, to
7 another matter, which is the following: That on the list of those
8 attending, it appears that -- at least I read that there was a Cedo
9 Kapetina. Whereas in the agenda we have one reference to Cedo Kapetina,
10 and that's the one I think you referred to, whereas Dragan Kapetina
11 appears at the very end which you did not refer to. Is that correct?
12 MR. TIEGER: I think that's correct, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
14 MR. TIEGER:
15 Q. Mr. Kapetina, can you turn to item 12 of the Prosecution packet.
16 MR. TIEGER: And can that be given a new number, please.
17 THE REGISTRAR: Tab 12 will be P1042, Your Honours.
18 MR. TIEGER:
19 Q. P1042 is an announcement to the Serbian people of Hadzici
20 municipality. It's -- it bears the names at the end of the president of
21 the working Presidency, Ratko Radic; the secretary of the Assembly, Ratko
22 Gengo; the president of the Assembly of the Serb People, Drago Milosevic;
23 and the vice-president of the Assembly of the Serb People in Hadzici,
24 Dragan Kapetina. It indicates after the preparatory language concerning
25 the difficult political security situation the election of those persons
1 and in item 2 some of the decisions passed by the Assembly of the Serb
2 People in Hadzici, including the decision on the creation of a Serb police
3 station, the appointment of its chief, and a decision on the appointment
4 of the Serbian people's TO staff with Milo Bratic appointed Staff
6 Is this an announcement, Mr. Kapetina, that you, Mr. Milosevic,
7 Mr. Gengo, and Mr. Radic prepared or had prepared and disseminated to the
8 Serbian people of Hadzici municipality?
9 A. I can't see the date on this announcement. Do you have any
10 indication as to when this was drafted? Could you do that?
11 Q. Item 1 says the Assembly of the Serb People in Hadzici
12 municipality constituted the organs and bodies of the Assembly of the Serb
13 People in Hadzici municipality at its meeting on 11 April 1992 and they
14 are as follows, and goes on to indicate the passage of the items I just
15 referred to.
16 A. I asked this because I can see that this announcement was not
17 signed by the individuals indicated here. I'm not aware of this
18 announcement. I suppose that this announcement was printed and
19 disseminated after I left Hadzici. I don't know when the announcement was
20 written. I know that there is a reference to the Assembly and when it was
21 set up, but I don't know why these people did not sign this announcement.
22 This announcement may have --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kapetina, you have drawn our attention to the
24 fact that it is undated and it may have been issued after you left.
25 Any more questions, Mr. Tieger, about the matter?
1 MR. TIEGER: Just one, Your Honour.
2 Q. The call on the document for all Serb conscripts to register with
3 the Serbian TO, it would appear to be something of a time-sensitive
4 matter. Wouldn't you agree, Mr. Kapetina? It would be something that the
5 Serbian officials of Hadzici would be anxious to disseminate as quickly as
7 A. My intervention went to the date and the signatures, because I
8 don't remember an announcement of this sort. If I could remember this
9 announcement, I would provide you with an explanation. That's why I
10 wanted to know the date, because it is quite likely that I was no longer
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kapetina, I think Mr. Tieger is interested to
13 know whether you have any recollection that on the 11th of April that you
14 were elected vice-president of the Assembly.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
16 JUDGE ORIE: That on that date did the Assembly take a decision on
17 the creation of a Serb police station?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. At that Assembly, no decision
19 on a police station was taken. This happened later.
20 JUDGE ORIE: When did that happen?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know. I did not participate
22 in the negotiations concerning the police, but I know that at the Assembly
23 the president and the vice-president of the Assembly were appointed, and
24 the President of the Executive Board was confirmed, the person who had
25 been in that position before, and also the heads of the Serbian bodies
1 that had already been in their positions, and the council was established,
2 nothing else. Whatever is mentioned here in this announcement happened
3 later, after the 12th of April.
4 JUDGE ORIE: How do you know that it happened at all?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I know because the police station
6 was established already when I was there, and I've already told you that.
7 This was not a new police station, you have to understand. Quite simply,
8 the Serbian staff leave one room and move to another room, and that's how
9 the police station was established. It was not an entirely new
10 institution. I don't want to go into the reasons why this happened, but
11 in simple terms this was not a newly established institution. In simple
12 terms, the existing police station was divided into a Serbian police
13 station and a Muslim police station.
14 JUDGE ORIE: When did that, then, exactly happen?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] After this Assembly. The Assembly
16 took place on the 12th. Then this happened between the 12th and the 30th
17 of April. And I can tell you exactly what the cause of this division was.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The high official of the
20 Bosnian-Herzegovinian MUP was driving a lorry of arms across Mount Igman
21 to Sarajevo. He was being escorted by the police from Hadzici. On
22 Mount Igman, he was intercepted by the Serbian policemen who arrested him
23 with a lorry full of arms. And after that date there was a lot of
24 mistrust among the policemen.
25 But this was not the only case. Such cases happened across Bosnia
1 and Herzegovina, and I believe that there is an Official Note on this
2 incident. This was reported on the media. I can't remember the name of
3 this high official, but he was assistant minister of the interior, and he
4 was escorting a lorry full of arms across Mount Igman.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Was a Mr. Glavas ever chief of a Serb police station?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. He was the police commander
7 previously in the former police station. He was legally appointed.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
9 Please proceed, Mr. Tieger.
10 MR. TIEGER:
11 Q. Mr. Kapetina, yesterday there was discussion about communications
12 which I'm sure and you the Court will recall. Let me ask you a couple of
13 questions about communications in 1992.
14 First of all, is it correct that the army and the Main Staff had
15 their own communication systems and centres?
16 A. I don't know whether they had them early on. They may have had
17 only military communication systems. At the beginning, they did not have
18 centres. In May they did -- in May they didn't.
19 Q. And what about the Ministry of Interior? Did it have its own
20 communication centres?
21 A. I don't know. I can't remember. The ministry existed in various
22 places. I don't know when they moved to Bijeljina. I can't tell you
23 because I don't have that information. I was the last to arrive in Pale.
24 Q. And what about the Ministry of Defence? Did it have communication
1 A. The defence ministry did have a communication centre in Pale.
2 This is the centre that already existed before in Pale municipality, and
3 it was just transformed into the communication centre in Pale.
4 Q. And isn't it true that in fact both the army and Main Staff had
5 their own communication centres, the Ministry of Interior did, and that
6 these communication centres, with their communication devices, never
7 stopped working and were working when you arrived in Pale in May of 1992?
8 A. I think that the centre belonging to the Ministry of Defence
9 worked in Pale. I don't know about the others. I really don't know about
10 the military. The military did not even exist when I arrived in Pale.
11 The military was established on the 12th of May. What I'm referring to is
12 the decision on its establishment. And it was actually established
13 towards the end of May and the beginning of June.
14 Q. You were asked basically this same series of questions during the
15 July 2004 interview, and I'm referring to pages 51 through 53 of that
16 interview. And in particular during the -- toward the latter part of that
17 discussion the question was asked: "I trust that the army and the Main
18 Staff had their own communications with various corps."
19 Your answer was: "Of course it has -- it had. It had its own
20 communication centres, it had its own codes, its own documents."
21 "Question: Just like the Ministry of Interior had its own
22 communication between the CSBs and they had communication with the SJBs."
23 Your answer: "Yes, yes, exactly."
24 "Question: When you arrived in May of 1992, was most of the
25 communications equipment up and running and working?"
1 Your answer was: "Yeah, those communication devices never stopped
3 Comment "okay" by the investigator.
4 And then you said: "Those were centres, communication centres
5 from the previous systems, and Bosnia-Herzegovina had the regional centres
6 just like later on. What now ended up under control of Republika Srpska
7 continued to work for Republika Srpska and in the same way worked for the
8 other side. It wasn't something that was done afresh and had to be done
10 Does that correctly reflect what you said, Mr. Kapetina, and was
11 that a correct response?
12 A. You asked me very specifically when I arrived in Pale on the 10th
13 of May, and when I spoke to the investigators, I answered general
14 questions, whether there was communication in the military, in the MUP. I
15 don't remember that the investigators mentioned a very specific date or a
16 very specific period.
17 Every municipality had a communication centre, but how far that
18 reached, that's a problem. Every municipality had its centre for its own
19 territory, but the question is whether the systems of communications
20 functioned at all. I'm referring to the telephone and telex lines. And
21 there were such periods when they were not up and running.
22 I answered a very general question as to whether everybody had
23 their communications, and of course the answer was yes. But when those
24 communications were established and whether they functioned, it's a
25 different story. Very often there was no electricity. There was no oil
1 for 15 or 20 days. For example, communications could be down for 15 or 20
2 days because there was no electricity.
3 Q. Mr. Kapetina, I'll say once again in case -- in the course of
4 reminding you what was said on that occasion I didn't focus on the -- a
5 specific question and answer:
6 "Question: When you arrived in May of 1992, was most of the
7 communications equipment up and running and working?"
8 "Answer: Yeah, those communication devices never stopped
10 That would seem to direct your attention specifically to May 1992,
11 and your answer would seem to cover that period and the period thereafter
12 as well. Wouldn't you agree?
13 A. I've tried to explain just now. Having equipment is one thing,
14 but the range of that equipment is a different story.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kapetina, at this moment we're not exploring the
16 communications, but Mr. Tieger was exploring what he considers to be an
17 inconsistency between the statement you gave and the testimony you've
18 given in this -- you've just given where you said no specific question as
19 far as the date was put to me, whereas Mr. Tieger draws your attention to
20 the fact that the question was specifically about the moment of your
21 arrival in -- in May in Pale.
22 Does that change anything in the answer you've given until now?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My answer doesn't change, and ...
24 MR. TIEGER:
25 Q. Mr. Kapetina, you testified in response to questions by the
1 Defence about the Presidency of Republika Srpska in 1992. You never
2 attended meetings of the Presidency in 1992, did you?
3 A. No, never.
4 Q. And you never were provided with or read minutes of the meetings
5 of the Presidency?
6 A. Those minutes, there was no duty to deliver them to the Ministry
7 of Defence. So if there was no such duty, then of course I did not read
8 them. Maybe only if at a Presidency meeting a task was issued to the
9 minister of defence. Otherwise, those minutes did not have to be
10 delivered to the minister of defence.
11 Q. So I take it you don't recall ever reading minutes of the
12 Presidency in 1992 yourself?
13 A. I don't remember.
14 Q. You described the -- what you explained as the chronology of the
15 variations of that office in 1992. You said that there was, first, a
16 three-member Presidency, then a Presidency with one president and two
17 vice-presidents. And finally: "When Republika Srpska was established,
18 the president of the republic was appointed."
19 Now, I take it, Mr. Kapetina, that you don't recall the specific
20 constitutional provisions or legal provisions reflecting those bodies or
21 the specific dates on which they were enacted, or do you?
22 A. I don't remember. I have read the constitution and the laws, and
23 I do that still, but I don't retain any of that in my memory.
24 Q. And if those constitutional provisions or other legal provisions
25 relating to those bodies reflect a different chronology or composition,
1 would you defer to them?
2 A. There may be discrepancies. However, at the beginning there was a
3 Presidency. After the Presidency, a president and two vice-presidents
4 composing a body. There may have been a third thing in addition to those
5 two, but I don't know. I don't know what you're referring to in the first
7 Q. I think that answer is quite sufficient, Mr. Kapetina.
8 Let me turn now to -- briefly to an issue you raised yesterday.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, may I remind you about the 60 per cent.
10 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, the Court can be assured I have that in
11 mind. I have been attempting to move as quickly as possible.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, yes. I'm not saying you're not moving quickly,
13 but how much time would you still need, do you expect?
14 MR. TIEGER: I would think no more than 15 minutes, and I think
15 that's -- I hope to be finished faster than that.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If you would please do so, because the Chamber
17 would very much like to go into private session before the next break,
18 because it's not impossible that certain matters would have to be done
19 during the next break as a result of going into private session.
20 Therefore, could you please finish within the next eight or nine minutes,
21 of course depending on the direct responses to your answers -- to your
23 MR. TIEGER:
24 Q. Mr. Kapetina, yesterday you told us about a report by an assistant
25 or deputy minister of justice concerning prisons. Do you recall that?
1 A. Yes. Yes, yesterday, yes.
2 Q. And that would be the report by Slobodan Avlijas, the deputy
3 minister of justice, that was commissioned by the government on August 9,
5 A. I know that this report was drafted by Slobodan Avlijas. I don't
6 know whether he was deputy or assistant. I know that he was assistant,
7 but that doesn't really matter.
8 Q. And that was commissioned in the wake of an international outcry
9 about the -- about Omarska after journalists had gained access; correct?
10 A. I don't know why the government wanted to have this report. I
11 could not follow the work of the minister of justice as well as of the
12 minister of defence. The Ministry of Justice had just been established
13 and they drafted this report.
14 Q. Weren't you at the August 9th meeting of the government at which
15 that commission -- at which that commission was formed and tasked, or
16 which that report was tasked to the Ministry of Justice?
17 A. I may have been, but I was there to act on behalf the Ministry of
18 Defence and to submit the reports on the work of the Ministry of Defence.
19 I was not a member of the government, and I was not involved in all the
20 issues. When I was invited to a session, I acted on behalf of the defence
21 minister, and I presented issues that had to do with defence, exclusively
22 with defence, and I didn't even have the right of decision at any of those
24 Q. So you don't recall any discussion related to the Omarska camp, to
25 the international outcry surrounding that camp, and to the establishment
1 of -- to the decision to form -- to have a report about prisons and camps?
2 A. I really don't remember. I know that that report was discussed at
3 the government session. As for the cause, why this report was
4 commissioned, I don't know. Maybe I was absent from the session when that
5 issue was discussed. I don't have all the information about that. It was
6 a long time ago. It's very difficult for me to remember all the things
7 that happened at that time. There were two government sessions taking
8 place within the space of seven days.
9 Q. Did you know about a government order or request for a report by
10 the minister of justice on prisoners with specific attention to the
11 treatment of both civilians and prisoners of war, a request in June of
13 A. I am not aware of the detailed request made of the government --
14 by the government of the Ministry of Justice.
15 Q. Okay. You were not aware of the detailed request. Were you aware
16 generally of a request by the government or an order by the government to
17 the Ministry of Justice for a report on prisoners with specific attention
18 to the treatment of civilians?
19 A. Well, I've already said that I did hear of a request like that. I
20 heard that the -- that the government considered a report, but I don't
21 know about a request, because I assume the government sent out a request
22 to a specific department, not to all the departments.
23 Q. Did you know about the establishment of a working group to
24 consider that issue?
25 A. I don't remember.
1 Q. You say you know that the government considered a report. Was
2 that a report in June of 1992 that we're talking about?
3 A. Well, probably that first report. If it was the first report,
4 then that's it.
5 Q. And do you know the results of that report?
6 A. No, I don't.
7 Q. Do you know whether the issue of prisoners or confinement of
8 civilians was ever raised at this Assembly of the Bosnian People --
9 Bosnian Serb people?
10 A. I don't know.
11 Q. Finally, Mr. Kapetina, I'd like to turn to one last tab. That's
12 tab 20.
13 MR. TIEGER: And I'd like to give it a number, please.
14 THE REGISTRAR: Tab 20, Your Honours, will be P1043.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
16 MR. TIEGER:
17 Q. Mr. Kapetina, P1043 is a newspaper report of May 13, 1998,
18 reporting that a Bosnian Serb leader, in that case Mr. Krajisnik, as the
19 article goes on to say, was accused in parliament of violating the Dayton
20 Peace Accords and plotting to return hard-liners to power in the Bosnian
21 Serb entity.
22 It goes on to say that Mr. Krajisnik hired the former chief of
23 staff General Pero Colic and yourself while planning to hire around 20
24 other former military officials as advisors, according to Defence Minister
25 Milovanovic. And the article, as you can see, goes on to say that the
1 defence minister accused Mr. Krajisnik and his ultra nationalist supports
2 of wanting to "create paramilitary and police institutions aimed at
3 recovering power in Republika Srpska."
4 Were you in fact hired by Mr. Krajisnik along with General Colic
5 as an advisor during that period of time?
6 A. Mr. Krajisnik never hired me as his advisor, never. Just while
7 working in the Ministry of Defence as deputy minister, I performed the
8 function in the permanent committee for military matters, but I was never
9 employed in the Assembly, in the National Assembly of Republika Srpska.
10 And everything that it says here are pure lies. This man must be drunk
11 rather than a normal person.
12 Q. And what about General Colic? Do you know whether or not he was
13 an advisor to Mr. Krajisnik during that time?
14 A. I don't know about General Colic either.
15 Q. Okay. And does it change your answer at all that the -- to refer
16 you to the portion of the article that indicates that at that time
17 Mr. Krajisnik was a member of the Bosnian Presidency rather than being
18 hired specifically -- rather than referring to anyone's retention as an
19 advisor in the capacity of Assembly president?
20 A. Well, those are precisely the things that I was talking about.
21 People have no idea what the Presidency means, what the president is.
22 This man has absolutely no idea of what post Krajisnik had at the time.
23 He was a member of the Presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and that's what
24 he said. But when this report came out, statement came out, Mr. Krajisnik
25 was a president -- a member of the Presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina, not
1 the Presidency of Republika Srpska at all, as far as I remember, of
3 So quite simply, this entire passage are pure fabrications and
4 lies, and it's not the first time that this man has done that. He came
5 before the Assembly of Republika Srpska and spoke such nonsense that the
6 deputies asked the Premier to have him come to his senses, help him come
7 to his senses and sober up.
8 Q. Thank you, sir.
9 MR. TIEGER: I have nothing further, Your Honour.
10 Mr. Josse, any need to re-examine the witness?
11 MR. JOSSE: Yes, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
13 MR. JOSSE: I'm going to begin, I'm going to seek now to put in
14 the whole of this witness's interview with the Office of the Prosecutor.
15 Well, my learned friend rises. I'm going to need to develop my
16 argument. And I want --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps you would say that he didn't disagree with
18 you. He didn't object.
19 No. Let's proceed, Mr. Josse.
20 MR. JOSSE: I'm in your hands, Your Honour. There are quite
21 significant passages that I wish to take him through in re-examination.
22 But Your Honour might want to hear the legal argument first of all,
23 because I suspect that's going to take a little bit of time.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I -- assuming that Mr. Tieger would object if
1 MR. JOSSE: I think you can assume that.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Are there any -- then please develop your
3 arguments so that Mr. Tieger can respond.
4 MR. JOSSE: In the presence --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Should that be done in the presence of the witness?
6 MR. JOSSE: He should not be in the court.
7 JUDGE ORIE: He should not be in court.
8 MR. JOSSE: Out of an abundance of caution. I'm content.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Kapetina, you are invited to follow Madam
10 Usher since a procedural matter has to be discussed. Would you please
11 follow Madam Usher.
12 [The witness stands down]
13 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
14 MR. JOSSE: The exercise I wish to carry out falls into two
15 distinct parts. The first is I want to put in front of the witness the
16 interview. I appreciate that it's in English, and clearly we will need to
17 go through it very slowly. I want to go through all three passages that
18 my learned friend put to him, invite him to look at them, bits before,
19 bits afterwards, and then invite comments as we go through them as to the
20 answers that he was given. That, beyond a shadow of a doubt, arises from
21 the cross-examination of my learned friend.
22 Secondly, I submit that the whole interview is now admissible
23 before this Court. This witness, having been cross-examined in terms as
24 to inconsistency by my learned friend in relation to three different
25 passages, the rest of the interview is now admissible as to his
1 consistency. Clearly inconsistency having been put into question by the
2 Prosecution, consistency is a matter the Defence can deal with in the
3 course of re-examination.
4 Thirdly, and extremely significantly, it is not without -- it is
5 not a coincidence, we contend, that the Prosecution have not included this
6 document in their bundle. These Prosecutors, with all due respect to
7 them, prosecute this case with great caution. They also prepare their
8 cross-examination with great diligence, and I don't mean that in the least
9 bit ironically. They made a conscious decision, in my submission, not to
10 put this document in their bundle.
11 Let's take a look. Mr. Tieger has done me a great turn --
12 MR. TIEGER: Can Your Honour excuse me. I don't want to
13 interrupt, but before this argument is pursued much further I think it's
14 fair to say that the interviews are present. They are effectively part of
15 the bundle. They were here in court, prepared to be disseminated. It's'
16 just for logistical reasons you can't put them together there, but they've
17 been here the entire time. So I -- I --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do understand.
19 MR. JOSSE: I'll accept that. I'll accept that.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Let's continue that.
21 MR. JOSSE: I'll accept that. I'll accept that and withdraw what
22 I've just said.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
24 MR. JOSSE: But by way of contrast, and the point I was coming to
25 is still, I hope, one that I can make.
1 Let's look at the last document, tab 20. Tab 20 has just been put
2 to this witness. It contains, I needn't tell the Court, a press report of
3 something a man called Milanovic, as it happens, is alleged to have said
4 at an Assembly about this witness and about Mr. Krajisnik. That's in the
5 bundle that the Court have. But what the Court don't have are the very
6 pertinent words that this witness uttered in the course of a very long
7 interview both in May and July of last year conducted by the Prosecution.
8 If this document, tab 20, by way of example, and it's simply by
9 way of example of the way cross-examination is conducted with permission
10 in this Court is admitted into evidence, why on earth, I contend, is the
11 interview not admitted into evidence? It's clearly far more pertinent,
12 far more relevant and of far more use in a fact-finding exercise than
13 tab 20. And I emphasise tab 20 is just by way of example. It's the way
14 cross-examination is conducted. As I've already said, it's conducted in a
15 diligent and proper way under the Rules of this Tribunal. And in my
16 submission, bearing in mind the cross-examination of this particular
17 witness in particular, as I've already said, the fact that my learned
18 friend has gone through three separate passages, the whole of the
19 interview is now admissible.
20 But, Your Honour, just to recap, my submission in fact is in two
21 parts. First of all, that the Court must be entitled now to see the three
22 passages that have been cross-examined upon, what went before them and
23 what went after them, but I submit the cross-examination now permits the
24 admission of the whole interview to show consistency as against the
25 inconsistency that my learned friend understandably has relied upon.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, let's focus first on -- I think Mr. Josse
2 started saying that the witness should be in a position to comment on his
3 statement not only the lines you quoted but also little bit before, a
4 little bit after that so to give us comment in a more contextual -- his
5 comment in a more contextual way; and then the second one that since you
6 have found inconsistencies that the Defence would like to demonstrate that
7 it's I take it mainly consistent with his testimony given in this court.
8 Let's focus on that first. What are then your objections?
9 MR. TIEGER: Well, with respect to the issue of the context of
10 cited passages, there's nothing new here, and we've addressed that issue
11 before, and of course I don't have any intention of inventing new rules
12 for either this particular proceeding or for the institution generally.
13 We've established this ground rule earlier. And if there is a particular
14 portion which is appropriate for the passages cited and is contextually
15 appropriate, as we have done in the past, that's -- that's a perfectly
16 appropriate course, and I would want the context, if it is indeed context,
17 that bears on that particular passage to be available, either to the
18 witness, or to the Court, or both.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So you broadening a bit of the passages I
20 confronted the witness with is not a problem for you.
21 MR. TIEGER: When appropriate.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, yes.
23 And then the second issue consistency/inconsistency by you.
24 MR. TIEGER: Well, there's a few problems with that, Your Honour.
25 Number one, it's logically flawed. The notion that somehow if the
1 witness is inconsistent about something elicited by the Defence during
2 examination-in-chief that that can somehow be rehabilitated by the fact
3 that he was consistent on other matters is untenable. There is no
4 relationship between the two. If the Defence elicits testimony and the
5 witness has previously said something inconsistent with that, that doesn't
6 change even if a -- if he was consistent about other matters.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 MR. TIEGER: Number two, it's a circumvention of the Rules, or is
9 an attempted circumvention of the Rules. So they want -- there are time
10 limits to everybody and everything. Now suddenly the Defence would like
11 to get in a huge amount of material without the opportunity for the
12 Prosecution to cross-examine that was neither listed in the 65 ter, that
13 was not the subject of any notice of intention to lead and was not -- no
14 cross-examination was prepared for that purpose, and that effectively
15 circumvents and subverts the time limits imposed for the case generally.
16 But number three, and I think in some respects most compelling, is
17 this issue's already been addressed earlier during the course of the
18 Prosecution case, and it was a position taken by the Defence. They
19 certainly had no interest in seeing entire interviews for the most part
20 simply provided. Now, I know entire interviews were provided on occasion
21 by agreement between the parties when there was reason to do so, but as a
22 general matter it was not available to the Prosecution simply to place in
23 evidence entire portions -- entire transcripts of previous examinations
24 and previous interviews. In fact, there was some fairly tightly
25 circumscribed rules pertaining to the ability even to impeach witnesses on
1 portions of those.
2 So for a variety of reasons, Your Honour, I submit that it's not
3 an appropriate submission and would oppose it.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 Mr. Josse, I would specifically like to hear your response to the
6 argument raised by Mr. Tieger saying that the remainder of the interview
7 is not in the 65 ter, and I stood -- understood his argument to be, but
8 it's my interpretation, that if you confront a witness with those portions
9 of his testimony in chief, limited portions that are in the 65 ter or at
10 least are close to the 65 ter summary, that if on the basis of that
11 testimony to test the credibility and reliability of the witness, you
12 would on those specific portions confront him with what Mr. Tieger
13 considers inconsistencies with his previous statements, would that open
14 the whole of the just in order to establish consistency on other matters,
15 matters perhaps that have not been dealt with at all in the
16 examination-in-chief, and also in view of the -- in view of the argument
17 by Mr. Tieger that three inconsistencies cannot be cured by a full
18 consistent story of the remainder.
19 I also would like to draw the attention, not only your attention
20 but also Mr. Tieger's attention, to the type of inconsistency, especially
21 if a witness says, "I could not exclude the possibility that I've seen
22 this document before," and if he later says, "I haven't seen it," is that
23 an inconsistency, yes or no? That's -- and if it is an inconsistency,
24 what is the importance of that inconsistency? And I'm saying this because
25 the inconsistencies were -- well, let's -- let me same the following:
1 I've seen greater inconsistencies during the examination of witnesses in
2 this courtroom.
3 MR. JOSSE: Can I deal with the last point first.
4 That was my learned friend's decision. He took the risk. He
5 chose to cross-examine on the basis of inconsistency. In a common law
6 system, if an advocate does that, puts a portion of an interview in this
7 fashion to the witness or a portion of what he said previously, then he
8 stands the risk of the re-examining party getting up and saying, Well, the
9 rest of what you said is consistent with your testimony.
10 Let me --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Let me first -- could I ask you, is that in dispute?
12 Mr. Tieger, is the remainder -- do you -- is it the position of the
13 Defence that these inconsistencies - you pointed at the three - that they
14 are an illustration of inconsistency of this testimony in general terms
15 with the statement of the witness, or would you say, "I pointed at the
16 three inconsistencies I found and I did not find any other
17 inconsistencies"? Perhaps some of what he said has not been dealt with at
18 all, but then at least you do not find any inconsistency. You understand
19 what --
20 MR. TIEGER: I -- I --
21 JUDGE ORIE: I mean -- I want to see whether how to resolve this
23 And, Mr. Josse, we need the whole of it in order to demonstrate
24 that he was consistent in other respects.
25 MR. TIEGER: No, Your Honour. It is showing or pointing to an
1 inconsistency on particular point is not a way saying that when he
2 previously spoke in general about many, many subjects that he was
3 inconsistent on all of those. Of course not.
4 JUDGE ORIE: No. And is -- if Mr. Josse wants to use the whole of
5 the interview to demonstrate that apart from the three matters you raised
6 that he can demonstrate to the Chamber that there are no further
7 inconsistencies found, is that something that would be in dispute? Would
8 you dispute that?
9 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, I think I'm pretty much stuck with the
10 position that if I haven't pointed to an inconsistency I'm not in a very
11 good position to argue that the witness was inconsistent on another point.
12 JUDGE ORIE: I'm just -- just trying to find out to what extent
13 Mr. Josse says, I want the whole of the interview in order to take away
14 any impression that the witness was any further inconsistent than raised
15 by the Prosecution up to this moment. My question is, is that in dispute;
16 or would you say, no, apart from the three points, I did not find any
17 consistencies -- inconsistencies.
18 MR. TIEGER: Well, I mean essentially -- I mean to say, as I
19 understand it, and I hope I'm not missing something here, that I'm not in
20 a position to assert that the witness was inconsistent in those interviews
21 on any other point. Now --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
23 MR. TIEGER: Because I didn't raise them. I didn't point them
24 out. So how could the Prosecution then assert that he was inconsistent in
25 the previous interview without any basis for doing so?
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Josse, so now we are at the point where you say
2 the witness -- I wanted to show the witness was consistent in the
3 remainder of his interview compared with his testimony, and Mr. Tieger
4 says, "I could not possibly argue that there were any further
5 inconsistencies than I have seen." So it seems that the parties are in
6 agreement on the remainder. Mr. Tieger, perhaps from lack of knowledge of
7 not having demonstrated it and you perhaps by conviction.
8 MR. JOSSE: Well, he has not conceded that the witness was
9 consistent for the rest of the interview. The negative will not do in
10 these circumstances, in my submission.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. I do understand your point.
12 Please proceed.
13 MR. JOSSE: Could I go back to Your Honour's first point just
14 raised, namely in relation to the 65 ter. It had crossed my mind to at
15 one point submit the whole of the interview, which of course was served on
16 us under Rule 68 as our 65 ter. That, I suspect, would have been deemed a
17 cheap trick and with some justification. And -- but I would invite the
18 Court to bear in mind, and whilst I accept that this isn't quite the same
19 principle, that the Prosecution for one reason or another were able to
20 introduce large parts of their evidence under 89(F) saving everyone a
21 great deal of time. Now, the position is, as I say, for one reason or
22 another, we certainly hitherto have not been in a position to do that.
23 We're unlikely, save perhaps for one or two witnesses, to be able to do
24 that very much. And it is bearing in mind the overall justice of the
25 situation something the Court might want to bear in mind in terms of any
1 additional matters that are raised in the course of this interview.
2 By the same token, Your Honour is quite capable, no doubt, of
3 putting a line through any part of this interview that Your Honour thinks
4 is not fair on the Prosecution, doesn't in any way assist the case as I
5 suspect Your Honour does with a great deal of the evidence, a great number
6 of the exhibits perhaps I should say, that are placed before the Court.
7 They may not be realised, but they're notionalised simply saying, We
8 ignore that passage, it hasn't been dealt with sufficiently properly, it's
9 of no interest to us, and so on and so forth.
10 So this Court, this Court of professional Judges is quite capable
11 of, in my submission, making the distinction between those parts that are
12 relevant and those parts that are irrelevant, those parts that are
13 properly admissible, those parts that are properly inadmissible.
14 And so in my submission, the position isn't the way Mr. Tieger
15 presents it. And as I say, the fair course, I submit, particularly I
16 repeat the point I've made before, bearing in mind the sort of documents
17 that do go in in the course of cross-examination, it's not unreasonable
18 for the Defence now in the light of the cross-examination of Mr. Kapetina
19 to ask for the whole of this interview to be admitted into evidence.
20 Finally, so far as what went before, most of the argument, I can't
21 promise all of it. I have a note of some of the previous arguments in
22 terms of interviews that have taken place in this case. Most of the
23 argument related to witnesses whom the Prosecution called, whom the
24 Prosecution asserted were hostile witnesses, and it was the Prosecution
25 who wanted to put large passages of their own witness' interviews before
1 the Court on the basis, as Mr. Tieger said at some point to this Court,
2 that they hadn't been proofed by the Prosecution because in effect they
3 were hostile. This is completely different in my submission. The Defence
4 are now seeking to put this interview in as a result of the
5 cross-examination of the -- of the opposing party, namely Prosecution.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I may remind you, Mr. Josse, is that of course
7 whenever any document was admitted that always an opportunity was given to
8 the Defence to carefully study it and to make redactions, and very often
9 this Chamber followed the redactions in those statements. But the Chamber
10 will consider whether and if so to what extent the Chamber will admit the
11 whole of the interview.
12 Could I just learn about how many pages there are in that
13 interview? I mean, are we talking about 20 or a hundred?
14 MR. TIEGER: One interview is 68. The other interview is 40 --
15 MR. JOSSE: 66.
16 MR. TIEGER: 66 okay.
17 JUDGE ORIE: 120.
18 MR. TIEGER: 134, Your Honour, to be more precise.
19 JUDGE ORIE: We will adjourn until 25 minutes past 4.00.
20 --- Recess taken at 3.59 p.m.
21 --- On resuming at 4.30 p.m.
22 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber will first give its ruling on the
23 application by the Defence to admit into evidence the whole of the
25 The Chamber admits the whole of the interview in evidence for the
1 sole purpose that has been given by Mr. Josse. That means that those
2 portions Mr. Tieger confronted the witness with, that it's clear that the
3 purpose of confronting him with it was about inconsistency.
4 Mr. Josse, you will have an opportunity to go beyond what
5 Mr. Tieger confronted the witness with.
6 Then as far as the remainder of that document is concerned, to the
7 extent that the interview deals with matters which are in the testimony of
8 this witness, the Chamber will use that document in order to see whether
9 it can positively establish consistency with the testimony given in court.
10 Everything that has not -- is of -- has not been raised during the
11 testimony, the Chamber will not use that as a basis for establishing facts
12 which may be contained in those portions of the statement on which the
13 Prosecution hasn't had an opportunity to cross-examine the witness.
14 That's the ruling of the Chamber. So it is admitted into
15 evidence, but the purpose of admission into evidence is, I hope, entirely
16 clear now to the parties.
17 MR. JOSSE: It's clear to me, Your Honour, and the Court will be
18 glad to hear that I'm only going to re-examine on two passages and then
19 I've got one or two other short questions in re-examination. I'm not
20 going to go through with the witness all those parts that are consistent
21 with his evidence. I'll have the --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we'll be able to read that and to see to what
23 extent it covers the matters raised.
24 Mr. Tieger, I hardly dare to ask you whether you understood it,
25 but I only do it because I might have been unclear on the purposes.
1 MR. TIEGER: Well, I believe understand the Court's ruling. I'm a
2 little perplexed about how the parties are to know what portions will be
3 ultimately available for citation or unavailable for citation in later
4 portions of the case.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If there is any question about that, and if one
6 of the parties would like to know about it, you can seek the guidance of
7 the Court. So we'll consider that even previous to -- if one party says,
8 Is this something you considered in establishing positively whether
9 there's any consistency, yes or no, we'll give you that answer. So if
10 there's any reason for you to know what exactly -- what portions the
11 Chamber considers to cover matters that have been raised in -- in the
12 examination of the witness, the Chamber -- the parties could seek guidance
13 on that.
14 MR. TIEGER: And if I may, Your Honour, and also simply -- it
15 maybe goes without saying, maybe it doesn't, reserve the opportunity to
16 consider both the ruling and the implications of the ruling and perhaps
17 raise it at later time if there is anything pertinent.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, yes. Of course if for any other reason at a
19 later stage other portions of that statement that you would like to
20 introduce that in evidence but for totally different reasons, then of
21 course the Chamber will hear what your argument is at that time. But as
22 it stands now, these are the limited purposes of admitting the whole of
23 the interview into evidence.
24 Then, Mr. Josse, are you ready so that we could ask the witness to
25 be brought in?
1 MR. JOSSE: Yes, I am, and I'll hand out the interviews in a
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 [The witness entered court]
5 JUDGE ORIE: Then perhaps we first invite the registrar to give
6 numbers to the documents. Let's take them in chronological order.
7 Interview, 13th of July 2004, would be, Mr. Registrar -- I think a D
8 number would be appropriate.
9 THE REGISTRAR: That will be D121, Your Honours.
10 JUDGE ORIE: And then 14th of May, 2004 will be 122.
11 THE REGISTRAR: 122, yes.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Josse, you may proceed.
13 Re-examined by Mr. Josse:
14 Q. I'm going to ask you a little bit more, Mr. Kapetina, about this
15 interview. The difficulty that you face is that though the interview was
16 of course conducted in both English and B/C/S, the transcript that is now
17 being handed out is only in English, as I think you're aware. It's fair
18 to say, isn't it, that the investigators very properly gave you a CD
19 containing the contents of the interview which you took home with you?
20 A. What I took home was a cassette covering one day of interview.
21 However, I was never provided with another second cassette covering the
22 second day of the interview.
23 Q. If we could look, but the Court at least to look at the interview
24 dated the 13th of July. Mr. Tieger asked some questions about page 14 of
25 that interview, and you were asked a question: Did you send an identical
1 report to the prime minister, the corps commander, and the TO commander?
2 And your reply was -- the interpreter wasn't clear there, and so
3 I'm going to go on. You answered: "I don't think so." And then you
4 said: "And if I did send them, if I did send something to them, then it
5 was just an information because I really did not cooperate with them, and
6 I did not. They were not under me, but I think I did not send anything
7 like that to them."
8 What do you now say about that answer, please?
9 A. I didn't send them a written caution, but I explained yesterday
10 that it is possible that those institutions and heads of those
11 institutions had received a caution and an invitation to attend a meeting
12 of the Council for National Defence. That's why I said that they may have
13 been provided with information, but I was not the one who sent that
14 information to them because I was not duty-bound to do that.
15 Q. Thank you. I'd like now to turn, if we may, to page 23, and this
16 passage we're going to look at, if we may, in a little bit more detail.
17 And it's right I can summarise the top of the page as we've already heard,
18 the interviewer put the document known in this Court as the Variant A
19 and B document to you. You were given five minutes to read it. You were
20 asked whether you've ever seen it before. And you said: "It is possible
21 that I saw it, maybe at some municipality, but I did not have to use it.
22 It was not delivered to me that."
23 You then denied actually drafting or writing -- I beg your pardon.
24 You were then asked whether you had written or drafted the manual,
25 and it was at that point that you were shown the manual that is -- I think
1 it's tab 1 of -- excuse me. It is tab 1 of the binder that has been
2 presented to this Court by the Defence in the course of your evidence.
3 And again summarising matters, you actually asked for a copy because you'd
4 lost it; isn't that right?
5 A. I asked for a copy of my own manual that the investigators showed
6 to me. I did not have a single copy of my manual. That's why I asked to
7 be provided with one.
8 JUDGE ORIE: And simple yes would have done, Mr. Kapetina.
9 Please proceed.
10 MR. JOSSE:
11 Q. And then at the bottom of the page 23, you confirm that you'd
12 written the manual. You give some answers about it which the Court can
13 read perhaps at its leisure.
14 And then turning the page, the top of page 24, you were asked
15 about any similarities between your publication and the plans for
16 extraordinary circumstances in the document I just showed you. And you
17 said, and I'll read this slowly: "Mostly not, not even by coincidence.
18 If you analyse this manual, then you will see that you can see over here
19 that everything is done according to structure like every subject is.
20 Everything is analysed according to structure, and everything over here is
21 based on laws and regulations, so it's not based on my personal
22 assumptions. It's based on law. But this is a public document, and
23 everybody who wanted it could have used it. This is not the only work
24 that I had that was published."
25 Was that a truthful answer?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And then if I could go, again in the interests of time as much as
3 anything else, to the bottom of page 24. You were asked the following
4 question: "So where did they get the documents from? Do you have any
5 idea who have been involved in drafting it?" This is a reference, I
6 think, again to the Variant A and B document. "That document that was
7 made by SDS, and that was in accordance with one plan that was present in
8 all bodies, and it was present in the plan for defence of subjects and
9 plans for and had the title like a plan of readiness, and the plan had
10 certain steps and the plan of readiness had JNA units."
11 And you go on and describe, I'm going to summarise this here, the
12 type of planning that really existed in the old Yugoslavia and that this
13 document fitted in to that scheme of things.
14 Is that an accurate assessment of what you said or an accurate
15 summary of what you said to the investigators?
16 A. Yes.
17 MR. TIEGER: Excuse me. I'm sorry, but maybe I'm not fully
18 understanding this new system, but I thought it was to make clear what the
19 witness had said. I guess -- if this is -- this portion is in evidence,
20 then I won't bother to repeat it for the record, but it's clearly not a
21 full summary of the answer, which concludes the line, "So the SDS
22 leadership could have also used the form of that kind of planning."
23 JUDGE ORIE: It seems, Mr. Josse, that where you are seeking the
24 further context of what Mr. Tieger raised, Mr. Tieger now in return wants
25 to get the further context of what you raise.
1 MR. JOSSE: Your Honour, could I -- can I deal with it like this:
2 I thought -- I asked a few questions. I'm unsurprisingly content with
3 Your Honour's ruling. Based on that ruling, the document is now before
4 the Court for its consideration subject to the rider that Your Honour has
5 given. So far as the interview is concerned, I don't seek to ask any
6 further questions. I accept what Mr. Tieger has said. The Court needs to
7 read the whole of the answer in order to assess it properly.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Is this now for consistency purposes that you have
9 drawn our attention to this paragraph?
10 MR. JOSSE: Yes.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Just consistency.
12 MR. JOSSE: Yes.
13 JUDGE ORIE: So, Mr. Tieger, it's clear that if you want to get
14 anything more out of that you'll have to further ask questions about that.
15 Please proceed, Mr. Josse.
16 MR. JOSSE:
17 Q. I want to ask you, please, to turn to the Prosecution bundle of
18 exhibits and to tab 6.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Tab 6 is P1040.
20 MR. JOSSE:
21 Q. And in particular, could you turn to paragraph 11, the last page
22 on the B/C/S, the penultimate page in the English. This was put to you in
23 the course of cross-examination. It relates to this note from the meeting
24 of officials and top-ranking personnel of republican state organs, members
25 of the SDS, Bosnia-Herzegovina, propose the establishment, it says, at
1 number 11, "of a system of duty shifts to monitor the activities, an
2 execution of tasks and the operation of state organs, resolution of
3 existing problems in the various fields, and maintaining contacts with" --
4 THE INTERPRETER: Please read a bit slower. Thank you very much.
5 MR. JOSSE:
6 Q. "Ljubisav Terzic and Dragan Kapetina are entrusted with this and
7 the development of a means of communication between SDS and SDS personnel
8 in republican state organs with the municipalities."
9 I want to first ask you, bearing in mind what's said there, the
10 extent to which the SDS put you into your job as Chief Inspector.
11 A. First of all, I think that this wording is due to the fact that
12 Ljubisav Terzic, who was a member of the Ministerial Council, proposed
13 that I should be in charge of this task.
14 Q. Try and answer my questions. We'll come back perhaps to the
15 document in a moment.
16 You were Chief Inspector in the ministry, you've told us that;
18 A. Correct, yes.
19 Q. And you've told us you took that job or were appointed to it prior
20 to the multi-party elections?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Did the SDS have any part in getting you that job?
23 A. When I was appointed to that duty, I believe that the SDS may have
24 existed but it was not in power. So it was not the SDS that put my name
25 to that duty. I was appointed by the previous Communist government, the
1 Executive Council of Assembly of Bosnia-Herzegovina and not its
3 Q. You told us that in those elections in 1990 you in fact stood for
4 the SDP party; is that correct?
5 A. That is correct.
6 Q. To what extent did the SDS support you in keeping the job after
7 the 1990 elections?
8 A. Well, they just supported me in that duty, which means that they
9 did not propose any other person to fill that position in my stead.
10 Q. Did you understand that they expected anything in return?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Were you ever a member of the SDS?
13 A. No.
14 Q. It's been suggested that you were an SDS lackey when you wrote the
15 letter that you've told us about. What do you say to that suggestion?
16 A. That is not correct.
17 Q. My final question is this: In the course of your evidence
18 yesterday, you were giving an answer where you talked about Mr. Mesic, and
19 at some point, and I, if need be, can tell you the context, you were
20 talking about the fact that Oslobodjenje was partial, as was other media,
21 that there was a general propaganda campaign so that writing of the media
22 doesn't mean much.
23 And you said: "I can remind you of another statement of Mr. Mesic
24 when he completed his term of office, when he said, 'I have completed my
25 task. Yugoslavia is no more.'" .
1 And I think you were then interrupted in the answer you were
2 given. Could you tell the Court what it is you were going to say about
3 this statement by Mr. Mesic, please?
4 A. Well, what I was going to say is that other statements issued by
5 Mr. Mesic could have been presented here to the Trial Chamber, which
6 are -- were all part of the goal when he was appointed to that position,
7 and the goal was to make Yugoslavia disappear. That was the goal, and the
8 statements that may have been presented were with that goal in mind. And
9 this was also part of the context -- overall context of other questions
10 put to -- put by the Prosecution. But what I'm saying is that whatever
11 information Oslobodjenje published quoting the Presidency is not correct,
12 because the Presidency very often quoted both the Federal Executive
13 Council and the Presidency and they sent false reports. I don't have any
14 arguments to corroborate that. I don't have any documents to corroborate
15 that, although there are documents to that effect. They informed the
16 Presidency and the Federal Executive Council in a biased manner on what
17 was going on on the ground in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The situation on the
18 ground and what information they sent did not match.
19 Q. That doesn't quite answer my question, which was: Do you remember
20 the quote of Mr. Mesic that you were in the middle of telling the Court
21 about yesterday? If you don't remember it, don't worry, just say so.
22 A. I don't remember.
23 MR. JOSSE: Thank you.
24 Questioned by the Court:
25 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps it would be a good idea that if there are any
1 questions from the Bench that they are put to the witness now so that then
2 finally we can see whether there is anything for the parties to remain to
3 be asked.
4 I have the following question for you: Your attention was drawn a
5 minute ago to the meeting on the 12th of September, 1991. You have said
6 you -- I think you were not a member of the SDS. Let me just check that.
7 Yes. You said you were never a -- were you ever a member of the
8 SDS? The answer was no.
9 Now, I read in this 12th of September, 1991 report the following,
10 and I don't know whether you've got it in front of you. If you need it,
11 please tell me. It reads: "In his opening remarks, Simovic emphasised
12 the need to hold these kinds of meetings and that the practice should be
13 continued in the future and that besides the SDS personnel and the
14 ministries, SDS personnel from the judicial organs and certain events and
15 agencies and the like should be invited to the meetings in future."
16 Were you ever invited for these kind of meetings? I think you
17 already told us that you were not at this meeting. Were you ever invited
18 on these kind of meetings?
19 A. No, I was not invited.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Yes. Then I have one other question for you.
21 Are you aware of the -- did that War Presidencies or War
22 Commissions were created in 1992?
23 A. In municipalities?
24 JUDGE ORIE: In the municipalities, yes.
25 A. I think that they existed in some municipalities, that they were
1 established in some municipalities.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And could you explain to me what or whether you
3 see any difference between War Presidencies or War Commissions, both in
4 the municipalities?
5 A. It all depends on the situation and on people's understanding.
6 And as for major differences -- I suppose not both of these could be in
7 keeping with the regulations. It would be more appropriate in Bosnia and
8 Herzegovina to have had a War Presidency. A commission is not a word that
9 was used in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
10 JUDGE ORIE: So were these War Presidencies, did they have a basis
11 in the legal framework of the -- of the republic, of the Serb republic of
12 the Serb people in Bosnia-Herzegovina? I'm now talking about May, June
14 A. Well, they were formed exclusively during the war. If you haven't
15 got a war situation, then you couldn't form a War Presidency. It wouldn't
16 be in conformity with the law, because the very term "War Presidency"
17 means that it is something set up during the war. If there is no state of
18 war, then there's no need for the existence of a War Presidency, and the
19 regular organs would go about their business because it's considered that
20 the regular organs company function in peacetime, and there's no need to
21 set up a collective organ if all the other organs perform their duties.
22 So the War Presidency is exclusively linked to a war. If there is no war,
23 there's no need to set up a War Presidency.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Was that a legal requirement that there was a state
25 of war in order to form these War Presidencies?
1 A. Certainly. Precisely. There must have existed a situation of war
2 pursuant to the provisions.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I read that also in tab 6, which is the law on
4 the amending -- the constitutional law for implementing the constitution
5 of the Serb Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina which we were confronted
6 with yesterday in relation to the expanded Presidency, at least a legal
7 basis for such an expanded Presidency.
8 Now, I read in this same Article 1, after paragraph 5, new
9 paragraph 6 and 7 are added and read: "During a state of war, the
10 Presidency may decide to establish War Presidencies in the
12 Is that what you were referring to a minute ago?
13 A. Yes, that's right. So as I said, there must be a state of war for
14 War Presidencies in the municipalities to be established.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Now, this creates the following dilemma for me, and
16 please assist me to perhaps further clarify the matter: You testified
17 that there could not have been an expanded Presidency because a state of
18 war was never declared. You just answered my questions that War
19 Presidencies were created in some municipalities. Now, the law requires a
20 state of war for the establishment of such Presidencies, so you say on one
21 hand an expanded Presidency could never be there is because a state of war
22 was never declare; whereas for the creation -- or for at least for the
23 establishment of War Presidencies you say this was a legal requirement as
24 well, and you say they were establish.
25 Do you understand my dilemma? Was the state of war there for the
1 establishment of War Presidencies but not for the Presidency to become an
2 expanded Presidency? How do I have to interpret this?
3 A. In May 1991 -- 1992, I'm sorry, the municipalities did the best
4 they could, and probably some municipalities did set up War Presidencies.
5 But when this area was regulated by war and constitutional law -- by laws,
6 I'm sorry, by laws and constitutional laws, then there was one
7 commissioner set up to follow the work of the municipalities and the
8 decision was taken not to declare a state of war but for institutions to
9 continue working regardless of the threat of war, which meant that the
10 situation was this: The presidencies were abolished in the municipalities
11 and the various organisations were asked to go about their business and
12 take on the responsibility of carrying out their tasks.
13 JUDGE ORIE: These commissioners, could they be sent apart from
14 a -- the existence of a state of war?
15 A. They could be sent on a special assignment if power and authority
16 was not functioning in any given municipality. Then commissioners could
17 be sent out to take measures to establish the structures of power and
18 authority and see that the -- that civilian life went ahead and the
19 civilian authorities went ahead with their work. So you could send a
20 commissioner regardless of whether a state of war had been proclaimed or
22 JUDGE ORIE: This Chamber has heard evidence about the appointment
23 of war commissioners. Are you aware of commissioners being called war
25 A. No, I'm not aware of that. As far as I'm concerned, a
1 commissioner is every commissioner. There's no distinction between a war
2 commissioner or whatever. I don't know what other people understood by
3 that. I can't say.
4 JUDGE ORIE: And are you aware of the use of the term "War
5 Commissions" rather than just "commissions"?
6 A. I don't know of that. Otherwise, the language is rich. So people
7 can use different terms and have them understand different things by
8 different terms. So in Bosnia you had a conglomerate of three languages.
9 Perhaps the same institution is called by some people the commission and
10 by other people Presidency.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And if we are talking about commissioners,
12 would commissioners have the authority to establish War Commissions or War
13 Presidencies in the municipalities?
14 A. No. You can't establish something when a state of war has not
15 been proclaimed.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you very much for those answers.
17 Mr. Tieger, I noticed that you may have some questions on a matter
18 where you said you wouldn't fully understand at that moment the
20 But before doing so -- Mr. Josse, the witness is your witness. Is
21 there any issue raised by the Bench which would cause you to put further
22 questions to the witness?
23 MR. JOSSE: I thought Mr. Tieger should go first, but I can tell
24 the Court I don't have any questions.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger.
1 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour. Actually, I just have a
2 question about another matter raised by Mr. Josse.
3 Further cross-examination by Mr. Tieger:
4 Q. And in that regard, I will need to use a document that I only
5 have -- happen to have one copy of here. I can provide it so all the
6 parties --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Could it be put on the ELMO, then, so that we can all
8 have a look at it.
9 MR. TIEGER: This is an intercepted telephone conversation between
10 Dr. Karadzic and Mr. Simovic of September 28, 1991. I'll need to look at
11 it on the ELMO, too, in connection with my questions, I think.
12 If we look first at the bottom of page 2. Right. That's fine.
13 Q. Mr. Kapetina, the question -- the questions I have arise in
14 connection with those questions that Mr. Josse asked you about. First of
15 all, let me explain the procedure. Perhaps that will help.
16 There will be a document that will be placed on the screen so the
17 parties can read it. That document is in English. Therefore, I will read
18 aloud relevant portions of it so that you can hear the interpretation, and
19 then I'll just have a question or two about that.
20 I'll tell you first of all it's in connection with the questions
21 that Mr. Josse asked you in connection with support by the SDS and your
22 comment that the SDS supported you by not seeking another person to -- for
23 your position after you were already occupying the position of Chief
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, may I take it that it's not the same as
1 in the binder and under tab 5 of your binder, because that's the same date
2 and is same interlocutors, as far as I can see quickly.
3 MR. TIEGER: Well, as -- insofar as I can see, Your Honour, tabs 4
4 and 5 unfortunately are the same document, and that's the conversation of
5 August 27th, about a month before.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Although tab 5 says -- oh, yes, 27th. I
7 apologise. I made a mistake.
8 Yes. Please proceed.
9 MR. JOSSE: Your Honour, something I don't do personally very
10 often. I do want to put something on the record. I don't object to this,
11 but this is a highly irregular course. The questions I asked in
12 re-examination were completely proper, in my submission, arose from
13 cross-examination. This is a point that should have been dealt with in
15 JUDGE ORIE: I don't know what the issue is, whether -- we still
16 haven't heard the question, so therefore it's difficult for us to --
17 MR. JOSSE: I'm not going to take that point in any event.
18 JUDGE ORIE: All right. Yes. Okay.
19 MR. TIEGER: My thanks to my learned friend.
20 Q. At the bottom of page 2 Mr. Simovic says: "However, we, apart
21 from Sipovac, Micevic, Brdjanin, but don't hold me to that, all our
22 personnel are in. Even Kapetina got it. The thing that you signed for
23 Chief Inspector so that we don't lose that position.
24 And Mr. Karadzic says: "Yes."
25 And Mr. Simovic answers: "Everything has been accepted. I
1 mean" -- and if we turn the page, we continue.
2 Dr. Karadzic: "Have I signed for Kapetina, have I?"
3 Mr. Simovic: "Yes, you have, or you haven't. I don't know.
4 Maybe Rajko Dukic signed."
5 Dr. Karadzic: "Probably. Maybe he now ..."
6 Mr. Simovic: "We are afraid of losing him, you know."
7 Dr. Karadzic: "Yes, that he does not start behaving again as ..."
8 Mr. Simovic: "No. He was appointed general director last year."
9 Dr. Karadzic: "Yes."
10 MR. SIMOVIC: "And he will not ... all our personnel appointed by
11 the government can be relieved of their duties within 15 days. We are
12 only about to start working. There are some I am not pleased with."
13 Mr. Kapetina, my question is: Does that reflect some active
14 course by the SDS in 1991 to ensure that you were retained in that
15 position as opposed to simply not taking action to replace you, and is
16 that essentially how the process worked in 1991?
17 A. Yes, he did have the intention to actively retain me, but you must
18 be aware of the fact that the SDS offered that to apply to dozens of
19 people who were not members of the party. It wasn't stated that you have
20 to be a member of the SDS, but a Serb to give support to the government --
21 to the party in power. So in state institutions, in legal institutions
22 and so on. Not only Dragan Kapetina, and that is true.
23 MR. TIEGER: That's all. Thank you, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then if there are no further questions,
25 Mr. Kapetina, I'd like to thank you for coming to The Hague and to answer
1 all the questions of both parties and the questions of the Bench. I can
2 imagine that it may not have been easy for you to testify in this court,
3 being taken back to a time where, as you told us, within your family life
4 things happened that one would wish never to happen in anyone's family
5 life. So, therefore, the Chamber appreciated very much your coming to
6 The Hague, and we wish you a safe trip home again.
7 Madam Usher, would you please escort the witness out of the
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you for the very proper
10 cooperation between the Trial Chamber, the Defence, and the Prosecution.
11 [The witness withdrew]
12 JUDGE ORIE: Could we first deal with the exhibits in relation to
13 the witness Kapetina. Mr. Usher -- Mr. Registrar.
14 THE REGISTRAR: D118, Your Honours, the article from Narodne
15 Novine dated 18 September, 1991. D119, the CD of intercept of
16 conversation between Rado and Karadzic and Dragan Kapetina dated 1st July
17 1991. D1120, excerpt from Sefer Halilovic's book, "Cunning Strategy."
18 D121, interview of 13 July 2004. D122, interview of 14 May 2004.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. What I missed I don't know whether a number has
20 been assigned, but what we find under tab 1, which is not translated, but
21 which was used to ask the witness's comment is not on the list at this
23 MR. JOSSE: Well, I noticed that as the registrar helpfully went
24 through that list, and we're in something of a dilemma about that, Your
25 Honour. I mean, it's a very long document. It would take a lot of public
1 money for it to be translated, and we have some concerns about that in
3 Having said that, I would be anxious that at least the first and
4 perhaps the second, third, and last pages be admitted in evidence, but if
5 the Chamber was anxious to have a whole translation, then of course we
6 will send it to the CLSS. I instructed the person dealing with that in
7 our team not to do that until we'd had a direction from the Court.
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, the suggestion is that four pages will be
10 translated and that they'll be tendered and admitted into evidence.
11 The purpose of the whole exercise, Mr. Josse, if I well
12 understood, is to demonstrate that instructions or manuals in difficult
13 times were not uncommon and that the 19th of December document is
14 resembling to some extent this manual. That's what I understood the
15 purpose to be.
16 MR. JOSSE: Correct.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Tieger.
18 MR. TIEGER: Well, Your Honour, hearkening -- today I've been
19 talking about previous procedures where I thought it furthered my
20 arguments, so I'm going to recite or cite a previous procedure that I
21 think applies here as well, and that is I think in the past we've
22 translated only particular portions of documents out of necessity and
23 submitted those and with the proviso that if anyone thought there was a
24 reason to have the remainder translated that could be done. So I don't
25 have any objection.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. So then, Mr. Registrar, this document of which
2 only a couple of pages --
3 Now, Mr. Josse, do you then tender the whole of the document with
4 only four pages translated or just the relevant pages in B/C/S?
5 MR. JOSSE: You will excuse my ignorance, Your Honour. I'm not
6 sure what the Rules are. I thought I was able, under the Rules, to submit
7 the whole document if it wasn't all translated.
8 JUDGE ORIE: No, no, I think you're right as a matter of fact. So
9 that we -- then I take it you'll come up with a selection of the pages in
10 B/C/S together with the translation of those pages, and perhaps we already
11 provisionally assign a number to the relevant pages of this document. I
12 take it that the cover page would be translated as well, so that the
13 chronology is at least more or less intact.
14 Mr. Registrar.
15 THE REGISTRAR: That will be number D123, Your Honours.
16 JUDGE ORIE: 123. And that's then provisionally -- portions of
17 this document provisionally be admitted, awaiting translation and further
19 MR. JOSSE: Your Honour, whilst I'm on my feet.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 MR. JOSSE: And whilst we're dealing with this, we have got now
22 clean copies of the Halilovic directive that is found at page 223 of his
23 book. And perhaps I could hand those out to all concerned.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Tieger, I didn't ask whether there were any
25 objections against any of the other exhibits that were read by -- but I
1 see you're nodding no so that answers my question.
2 Then all the documents just read by Mr. Registrar are admitted
3 into evidence; D123 only provisional.
4 Mr. Registrar.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution number P1036, intercept of
6 conversation between Miodrag Simovic and Radovan Karadzic. P1037, parties
7 in arms. P1038, press conference by Stipe Mesic. P1039, intercept of
8 conversation between Radovan Karadzic and Miodrag Simovic.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And that's of the 27th of August, the first one
10 being of the 31st of July, because we have two intercepts of conversations
11 between Simovic and Karadzic.
12 Yes, please proceed.
13 THE REGISTRAR: P1040, note of meeting between republican state
14 organs and SDS of BiH. P1041, minutes of meeting of council of Hadzici
15 dated 11th of April, 1992. P1042, announcement to the Serbian people of
16 Hadzici re election. P1043, Milanovic accuses Krajisnik of plotting
17 against Dodik dated 13th May 1998.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And then we need another number for the last
19 intercept the witness was confronted with. That's --
20 THE REGISTRAR: That will be P1044, Your Honours.
21 JUDGE ORIE: P1044, copies to be provided soon by the Defence.
22 Before we move on to our next witness, I think we first should go
23 into private session.
24 [Private session]
11 Pages 20111-20113 redacted. Private session.
12 [Closed session]
11 Pages 20115-20132 redacted. Closed session.
2 [Open session]
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Josse, I take it that you had an opportunity to
4 briefly speak with the witness who has already given us the solemn
5 declaration but who has not yet been assigned a pseudonym. It would be?
6 MR. JOSSE: D14, please.
7 JUDGE ORIE: D14, yes.
8 Witness, we will address you as D14. Face and voice distortion
9 are in place. That also means that we have to switch to the other. Yes.
10 WITNESS: WITNESS D14
11 [Witness answered through interpreter]
12 JUDGE ORIE: I'd like to remind you that the solemn declaration
13 that you've given is also valid for your testimony. You are still bound,
14 of course, during the course of your testimony by the solemn declaration
15 you're given. Oh, there's no translation. Could we just check that?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Now I can hear the interpretation.
17 I have not been able to hear anything so far.
18 JUDGE ORIE: What I said, and I'll just -- I just reminded you
19 that you're still bound by the solemn declaration you have given at the
20 very beginning even where the questions were not about your real testimony
21 but about the other matter we have discussed before, the protective
23 May I remind counsel to switch off their microphones once the
24 witness has answered the question.
25 Then please proceed, Mr. Josse.
1 MR. JOSSE: Your Honour will have to guide me to some extent. I'm
2 unclear as to the status of the proceedings at this precise moment. We --
3 JUDGE ORIE: We are at this moment in open session but face
4 distortion, voice distortion, and pseudonym.
5 MR. JOSSE: Right. So I need to deal with the sheet. Do I do
6 that in open session?
7 JUDGE ORIE: You can deal with the sheet in open session if you
8 invite the witness not to read what's on the sheet but just to look at it
9 and to verify whether it's the correct name and date of birth of the
10 witness. So he should not read it allowed.
11 Examined by Mr. Josse:
12 Q. I'd like you to have a look at this sheet. I'd like you to be
13 given a pen, and I'd like you to put your date of birth on this sheet
14 which already has your name upon it, I suspect.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The pseudonym sheet would have ...
16 THE REGISTRAR: D124 under seal, Your Honours.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
18 The question is whether your name appears on it and whether you
19 would be willing to write your date of birth on it.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, the name is mine.
21 JUDGE ORIE: And for any identifying matter, please apply for
22 closed session, Mr. Josse.
23 MR. JOSSE:
24 Q. Well, I'd like you, D14, to tell the Court a bit about yourself,
25 and to do that, I submit we need to go into closed session.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We turn into closed session.
2 [Closed session]
11 Page 20136 redacted. Closed session.
13 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.00 p.m.,
14 to be reconvened on Friday, the 20th day of January,
15 2006, at 2.15 p.m.