1 Tuesday, 30 May 2006

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 9.12 a.m.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone.

6 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is the case

8 number IT-00-39-T, the Prosecutor versus Momcilo Krajisnik.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.

10 There may have been some confusion as to whether we would start

11 at 10.00, but I do understand, Mr. Krajisnik, that your dentist fell ill.

12 I also was informed that you would now see the dentist on Thursday

13 morning, so we would have a late start on Thursday morning. Then I do

14 understand, Mr. Krajisnik, that you have provided the registrar with a

15 document in B/C/S. May I just have a look at it?

16 This is, it seems, a part of an --

17 MR. JOSSE: May we have one, please, Your Honour?

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It seems to be a copy of pages 216 up to 218 of

19 a book written by Mr. Sefer Halilovic.

20 MR. JOSSE: It's "Cunning Strategy," I think, Your Honour.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, Mr. Krajisnik, could you explain what this

22 document -- why you provided this -- I may have asked for it, but I don't

23 remember that. Could you please explain in one word why we receive it

24 now?

25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honour, there are two

1 documents, maybe you only have one before you. Actually, I was only

2 trying to assist the Chamber and the Office of the Prosecutor. Yesterday

3 we spoke about whether someone said they were advocating an Islamic state

4 and the moving in of people from Sandzak, and this is evidence to this

5 effect. So I think it's useful for you to have it, and I can tell you

6 exactly where this is.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, Mr. Krajisnik, I leave it to the

8 parties -- I leave it to the parties whether they want to present any

9 documentary evidence in support of your testimony. For example, I can

10 imagine that if a certain answer has been given to a certain question,

11 that perhaps in re-examination that Mr. Josse would say: Well, I want to

12 present this because it's -- it is the basis on which you -- but unless

13 the parties would take a different position - I'm looking to both

14 parties - I think that if you have any document, tell us that it exists

15 and we then leave it to the parties, whether they'll ask you to --

16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes.

17 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber is a bit hesitant to create a huge

18 collection of whoever wrote about the events in the early 1990s because it

19 may not come as a surprise to you that it mainly adds to the different

20 views on what happened at that time, and the Chamber wants to concentrate

21 mainly on the evidence presented here. This is not, by all means,

22 excluded, but to have this spontaneously, not only brought to our

23 attention that it exists, but spontaneously introduced might be a step too

24 far.

25 Would you agree?

1 MR. JOSSE: Whilst I, with respect, broadly speaking, agree with

2 what Your Honour said, I wouldn't want Mr. Krajisnik to be in any way

3 dissuaded from bringing to the Chamber documents, particularly original

4 documents, as opposed to book extracts the day after a particular piece of

5 cross-examination which he says demonstrates an assertion put to him is

6 wrong. I would not like him to -- not to do, so it's a double negative.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Josse, I mainly agree with you. Of course I

8 was mainly focussing now on the type of document that is in front of us.

9 As I said before, I think that -- what I said is we are hesitant to create

10 a huge collection of whoever wrote about the events. That, of course,

11 focussed very much on this type of documents. If there is any specific

12 document which would support your answer or would be relevant in the

13 context of an answer you have given on a question, of course you're

14 invited to come with it. Draw the -- first of all, the attention of the

15 parties to the existence of such a document, then the parties will be the

16 first to decide whether or not they want to look at that document and to

17 decide whether they want to introduce it. If the parties would finally

18 say: We're not going to introduce this, not to tender this document in

19 evidence, it's always up to the Chamber to say, we nevertheless would like

20 to have it, and then you might invited to give it to us. So for the time

21 being, I would be inclined to return this and -- but, of course, Mr. Josse

22 and Mr. Tieger, I take it you will --

23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Excuse me, but you have my response.

24 You gave me a task. You have my response.

25 JUDGE ORIE: That's the next matter then.

1 Yes. What I see that you have, not always in three lines, but you

2 have given a short explanation of what the documents were that you gave in

3 the bundle. My counting to three sometimes is a bit different from yours,

4 but I also see that there are some which are even less than three lines,

5 Mr. Krajisnik. It corresponds to that extent, I would say, to 90 per cent

6 of what I asked you to do, and I take it that this has now been put in

7 priority order of importance? That is, most important document first --

8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Then this will be the first document -- yes?

10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I have highlighted

11 the important documents in yellow, the more important ones. The ones that

12 are not highlighted, as I was going in order, those are the less important

13 documents.

14 JUDGE ORIE: And there are more important than unimportant

15 documents. Mr. Krajisnik, as a matter of fact, I invited you to -- I

16 invited you to indicate the priority order. You still can do so by adding

17 handwritten -- perhaps you take the alphabet, A, B, C, D, et cetera, A

18 being the most important one among the important ones. Because we

19 really -- now you have left to us the choice 1, 2, 3 --

20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. I can do that here. I can

21 prioritise the ones highlighted in yellow during the break.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Because we have now to make up our mind as to

23 the priority among the first 21.

24 So I suggest that we return -- or at least -- do you still have

25 one copy left for yourself, Mr. Krajisnik?

1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. If you would please indicate clearly, among

3 the yellow ones, which is the most important ones, so just priority order,

4 and at the same time the parties could be provided already with the copies

5 of it. We should keep one for translation -- we asked for it, so I take

6 it that the Chamber has sent it to CLSS and asked it to be translated with

7 priority.

8 MR. TIEGER: Just one comment, Your Honour, if I may.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

10 MR. TIEGER: As urged by the Court, we will, of course, consider

11 the suggestions made by the Chamber this morning with respect to this

12 procedure. But one matter does come to mind, and that is that whatever

13 the outcome, we want to ensure that there continues to be a clear

14 distinction between the time -- any time consumed in that process and the

15 time allocated to the OTP for cross-examination.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do understand. Mr. Tieger, you may have seen

17 that in the decision we gave on the Defence, we had a kind of an estimate

18 of the average effective time for [indiscernible] witness. We, well, most

19 likely, of course, will apply a similar standard. And we were talking in

20 about in 15 days.

21 What has not been done yet is -- 15 days was for Prosecution and

22 Chamber. We have not made a division there yet. We will consider that

23 soon. And of course there, as well as always with the Defence, we'll take

24 into account also how cross-examination is conducted.

25 Please proceed in order not to lose any further time.

1 Yes, Mr. Josse, yes.

2 MR. JOSSE: Your Honour, I have one or two procedural matters;

3 they could wait until the end of the session. However, could I just again

4 mention the very last answer that Mr. Krajisnik gave yesterday and urge --

5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I've seen an e-mail on that.

6 As a matter of fact, to read the answer again to Mr. Krajisnik, I

7 suggested yesterday that we first -- what we first should do is to listen

8 to what Mr. Krajisnik said. Of course, I can't do it myself, but we

9 should not put a translation right or wrong and see. But let's first look

10 at what the actual spoken words in B/C/S were and start on the basis of

11 that rather than on a translation.

12 MR. JOSSE: I could explain why we didn't do that. That in itself

13 would take me some time. I simply invite the Chamber to proceed in a way

14 that it would had this not been at the end of the session - namely, sought

15 clarification - by asking the witness -- it's the second sentence of that

16 answer that's the problem, as far as the Defence are concerned.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but ...

18 [Trial Chamber confers]

19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Josse, the Chamber is firm that we should start

20 with the words spoken. If you say that would have taken me too much time,

21 I'm offering to you in the first break to -- because it's for the Chamber,

22 of course, it's important as well to see whether I can have the assistance

23 of some native B/C/S speakers and to listen to the -- ask them to listen

24 to the tape and ask them to listen carefully what was said in B/C/S and

25 ask for a translation again of those words and to also ask them whether

1 there's any doubt as to whether these original words --

2 MR. JOSSE: Your Honour's more or less identified the problem. If

3 Your Honour does it that way, I have no objection whatsoever.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, of course. If there's any doubt as to what he

5 actually said in B/C/S, then of course the next step would be to invite

6 the witness to --

7 MR. JOSSE: Thank you.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's --

9 MR. JOSSE: Perhaps I could raise the other matters just before

10 the end of this session.

11 JUDGE ORIE: That's fine. You know when, more or less, to expect

12 the breaks. So -- yes.

13 May I then take it that -- has the tape been listened again by --

14 MR. JOSSE: It has not. It has not.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. That's the first step we'll do, whether

16 there's any ambiguity in what he said. If there's no ambiguity, we start

17 on the basis of the B/C/S; if there's ambiguity, we'll follow another

18 route.

19 MR. JOSSE: Thank you.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger.

21 But Mr. Krajisnik, I would first like to remind you that you're

22 still bound by the solemn declaration you've given at the beginning of

23 your testimony.

24 Mr. Tieger, please proceed.

25 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour. If it hasn't been done

1 already, I'd like the anticipated materials for today distributed.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, thank you.

3 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]

4 MR. JOSSE: Your Honour, I'm sorry to interrupt, but one of the

5 two procedural matters is precisely this, and it might be better,

6 actually, on reflection, for me to deal with it now.

7 I spoke to Mr. Harmon about this yesterday. I am anxious that

8 Mr. Krajisnik be in a position to take with him back to the UNDU any

9 document that has already been put to him in cross-examination. My

10 learned friends, I think, have no objection to that; however, they do

11 object to him being able to take any document with him back to the UNDU

12 which has not yet been put to him in cross-examination.

13 Now, frankly, I'm not in a position to argue with that. The

14 difficulty is a logistical one, because of course all the documents are

15 together in one or more binders. So we've basically reached a

16 compromise. However, we need to work out how to execute that --

17 JUDGE ORIE: [indiscernible].

18 MR. JOSSE: Yes, precisely, Your Honour.

19 JUDGE ORIE: You'll take care that -- I mean, it's your interest

20 how to split up -- what we could, of course, ask is that whatever -- we

21 take one extra binder. Whatever document has been used should be removed

22 from the old binder and put into a new binder. The new binder can be

23 taken by Mr. Krajisnik to the UNDU. Is that a solution?

24 MR. TIEGER: Of course, Your Honour. It never struck me as a

25 particularly difficult logistical issue.

1 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. So let's work on this basis.

2 MR. JOSSE: Thank you.

3 JUDGE ORIE: And I take it that the Chamber doesn't have to look

4 at the implementation of that.

5 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, and I --

6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

7 MR. TIEGER: Just one minor clarification, Mr. -- with respect to

8 the 1991/1992 Assembly sessions --

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

10 MR. TIEGER: -- those -- and early 1993, those bindered materials,

11 Mr. Krajisnik has all those, we know, and so I don't think there's any

12 point in re-copying them and having him add to his archives in the DU,

13 with respect to those only is what I had in mind.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The only thing that matters at this moment is

15 whether he has them in front of himself when questions are put to him.

16 MR. TIEGER: Right. Thank you.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

18 WITNESS: MOMCILO KRAJISNIK [Resumed]

19 [Witness answered through interpreter]

20 Cross-examination by Mr. Tieger: [Continued]

21 Q. Mr. Krajisnik, I'd like to turn first to the remarks of

22 Mr. Milojevic at the 24th Session. That would be at page 49 of the

23 English, and in the B/C/S you'll find it at 02149912. Last four digits

24 again, 9912.

25 First of all, Mr. Krajisnik, Mr. Milojevic was also a minister of

1 the RS government. Isn't that right?

2 A. Excuse me, this is -- yes, yes. Yes, it was at this time.

3 Q. Okay. And he was a -- had also been a member of the SDS Executive

4 Board. And his ministerial post was, as I understand it, the minister of

5 development and spatial planning. Is that correct?

6 A. Yes, in another government. The name is similar to the one you

7 have used. He was not a minister on the first government; on the second

8 government he was.

9 Q. So after the -- so at the time of this session, therefore, he was

10 the minister of development and spatial planning; this session that took

11 place in January of 1993 after the shake-up of the government in late

12 1992?

13 A. I can only say that the old government was replaced by the end of

14 the year, and he was a minister designate. And I don't know whether he

15 participated in the first one as a minister or as a professor, but in the

16 second government he was a minister. I don't know in which role he was

17 saying this, but he eventually did become a minister, you're right.

18 Q. Okay. Well, what -- Mr. Milojevic who was or was to become the

19 minister of development and spatial planning said at the 24th Session was

20 the following: "One criterion seems unacceptable to me. Owen followed

21 the pre-war ethnical criterion. This criterion is unacceptable, and we

22 have to achieve that it is necessary negotiations to find the way to say

23 that this pre-war" --

24 A. Could you just point me to the exact paragraph, please, so I can

25 follow? I'm sorry to give you so much trouble.

1 Q. Best thing to do, if you look right in the middle of the page,

2 you'll see the numerals 50 to 100. And if you look up several lines --

3 A. Yes, I found it.

4 Q. If you look up several lines there, you'll see the beginning of

5 the passage to which I'm referring.

6 A. I have it now, thank you.

7 Q. Okay.

8 So Minister Milojevic is saying: "The post-war criterion is what

9 counts. If he does not believe it, let him find a way to check it, but

10 Serbs will not return to Tuzla the same way Muslims will not return to

11 Brcko. They will be in favour of the exchange."

12 Then he goes on to talk about the massive relocations that took

13 place, comparing them to the relocations of the previous 50 -- or during a

14 period of 50 years, noting that: "During these five months, for sure

15 nearly a million relocated. This is almost a period of a hundred years

16 while the direction is the same. Many migrations from the multi-ethnic to

17 the ethnically clean regions occurred. This principle was not abandoned.

18 We have to insist, I think, that we finish up the job soon, should it be

19 recognised and should we succeed in having it changed in the way that what

20 has happened. This ethnical change to be seen not as a war change but as

21 something which can be finished in peace, should the peace accept it as an

22 accomplished fact. If we could have that, we would practically have our

23 ethnical state."

24 Now, Mr. Krajisnik, Minister Milojevic is talking there about

25 cementing the effect of the ethnic changes, the changes in population and

1 demographics that occurred during the war, as opposed to restoring the

2 pre-war demographic situation. Correct?

3 A. He was a professor, and you're right, he is talking from a

4 scientific point of view, not as a member of the SDS. And he often said

5 things of this kind, totally uncontrolled and unexpected for us. He was a

6 university professor. You are right in saying that he did say this.

7 Q. And that's what he meant and when he said that: "Serbs will not

8 return to Tuzla the same way Muslims will not return to Brcko," and urged

9 that: "We finish up the job soon," your explanation is he was talking

10 scientifically, rather than urging and -- a policy that should be pursued

11 by the Bosnian -- by the RS?

12 A. I shall be very clear. As for movements of population, he spoke

13 as a scientist. And as for whether the job was finished, the point that

14 you're making concerning an incriminating affair, he would often make

15 proposals of this kind that never met with approval. So this second part

16 of his contribution was not met with approval, was not welcomed by the

17 attendees, although there was some people who thought exactly like he did,

18 but not many.

19 Q. Well, we'll look at who thought exactly like he did in a moment,

20 but first I'd like to turn to similar remarks by Mr. Milojevic at the very

21 next session located at tab 9. That's found at page 54 of the English and

22 at 02 -- 02149992 of the B/C/S, Mr. Krajisnik.

23 A. I found it. Just give me a line that I should follow.

24 Q. If you can look almost exactly halfway down the page, and you'll

25 see a reference to Vance-Owen.

1 A. Yes, I see it. "What is it in the Vance-Owen Project," is that

2 the line?

3 Q. And Mr. Milojevic is complaining that: "The Vance-Owen Project

4 does not accept resettlement until a situation is resolved as one of the

5 final solution. It proceeds from the pre-war situation as if nothing had

6 happened in the war and massive settlement actually took place."

7 He goes on for a bit, and then if you'll -- as we move on to

8 page 55 of the English, at the second sentence before the end of that long

9 paragraph, Mr. Milojevic concludes: "The peace plan must provide, and

10 that is not contained in it, must check the extent to which this war

11 settlement contains a civilian message and a civilian solution. We have

12 to ensure that in our future diplomatic struggle and prove and show on

13 civilian principles that the war settlement which has taken place is

14 permanent."

15 And again, Mr. Krajisnik, Mr. Milojevic is referring to the

16 massive changes of population that took place in the previous months, the

17 creation of new ethnic space, and the need to ensure that it remains

18 permanent. Is that correct?

19 A. Yes, but your interpretation is wrong. He proposes to adopt the

20 Vance-Owen Plan while saying it is a project that may not work out. And

21 it is true that movements of population happened, regardless of whether

22 they were justified or not. But he is saying that the plan needed to be

23 adopted, and it was the general sentiment.

24 Q. Mr. Krajisnik --

25 A. You can find here --

1 Q. Excuse me. That's a deflection of what I was talking about.

2 Whether or not he wants the Vance-Owen Plan adopted under some

3 circumstances, Mr. Milojevic is clearly talking here at the 25th Session

4 and was talking in the 24th Session about the need to ensure that the

5 changes in demographics, that the relocations of population that occurred

6 in the previous months remained permanent. Isn't that right?

7 A. No. I said the interpretation is different. I can confirm what

8 you said without reading, but look at the following sentence and you will

9 see what I mean. If you just take this out of context, then it looks

10 exactly the way you put it. He was just saying that those movements of

11 population happened, whether they -- it was right or not. But he was

12 advocating the adoption of the plan, although everybody else was against

13 it, and you take this sentence in isolation, whereas if you look at the

14 rest it means something different.

15 Q. Mr. Krajisnik, Mr. Milojevic --

16 MR. TIEGER: Yes, Your Honour.

17 Q. Mr. Milojevic was reflecting an attitude and, indeed, a policy

18 that was discussed and pursued by the RS following the massive relocations

19 to which Mr. Milojevic referred. Isn't that right? That is, insofar as

20 possible, ensure that the relocations of population remain permanent.

21 A. I've just told you that this interpretation is not correct, and I

22 can explain why I'm saying that.

23 It is written here, but what you say is right only if you look at

24 it in isolation. He spoke about relocations from both sides, in both

25 directions. He spoke of it as a reality and said that the Vance-Owen Plan

1 should take them into account. He wasn't talking only about the Serbs; he

2 was saying that mutual movements of population need to be taken into

3 account because people would not come back, that things would remain that

4 way.

5 Q. In fact, Mr. Milojevic was referring to the objective that Serbian

6 ethnical space remain as Serbian as possible and that, to the extent

7 possible, Muslims not be permitted to return, that homogenisation be -- to

8 the extent it existed be maintained and, if possible, increased. Isn't

9 that right?

10 A. I'm just telling you that it's very dangerous to look at this in

11 isolation without looking at the context. He said the Vance-Owen Plan

12 needed to be adopted. It's different when you talk about implementing

13 policy. It's January 1993. What he said was the reality; that people

14 would not come back. He spoke as a scientist. He mentioned the United

15 Nations and other institutions. That's why he said the Vance-Owen Plan

16 needed to be adopted, contrary to the policy of the Serbian Assembly and

17 the Serbian people. That's the context in which he said it. He didn't

18 say that we should cement the situation in which Muslims had left. That's

19 not what he said. He said it happened and the Vance-Owen Plan should be

20 adopted.

21 JUDGE ORIE: May I then intervene for one second.

22 Mr. Krajisnik, you're drawing our attention to the context. The

23 next lines read: "When we prove that, if they do not recognise that,

24 recognition of the acceptance as permanent of the relocation, we will

25 probably make new friends in the world and then it will be easier for us,

1 even if we go to war again," which I understand to be: We have to accept

2 the Vance-Owen Plan. The Vance-Owen Plan is not very satisfactory, since

3 it does not contain any of the -- not contain the acceptance of the

4 permanent character of the relocation. So, therefore, that's what we have

5 to work at by diplomatic means. We'll make new friends, and even if we're

6 not satisfied we even could go to war again for this.

7 That's one observation which I'd like you to comment on, because

8 you're asking us to look at it in the context.

9 The second one is there seems to be some misunderstanding between

10 you and Mr. Tieger. If Mr. Tieger says: Isn't Mr. Milojevic advocating

11 the permanence of the situation as far as relocation is concerned, you

12 said you should not look at it one-sided. It's not only that the Muslims

13 should not return to Serb territory, but it's also the other way around.

14 I did not understand Mr. Tieger's question to exclude the other side of

15 that mirror, that where it's advocated, that the Muslims should not

16 return, that Mr. Milojevic does not say at the same time that the Serbs

17 should not return to the place where they come from. At least,

18 Mr. Tieger, I don't know whether I misunderstood you, that it -- the one

19 might even be the corollary of the other.

20 MR. TIEGER: No, your understanding is correct, Your Honour.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

22 So Mr. Tieger doesn't say it's only the Serbs -- it's only the

23 Muslims that should not return, but he draws the attention of this element

24 of the totality of the plan of Mr. Milojevic, which says neither Muslims

25 nor Serbs should return to the place. And I read in the context that if

1 this is not, which is not in the Vance-Owen Plan yet, if it is not

2 achieved later on in further negotiations, that with new allies, even a

3 war would be a possibility.

4 Would you please comment on that?

5 THE INTERPRETER: Could Mr. Krajisnik's microphone be brought

6 closer to him, please.

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I keep it the way it's set

8 for me.

9 I'm saying that Milojevic said that these things had happened,

10 movements of population on both sides. I'm not saying that he isn't

11 noting this as something in favour of our acceptance of the Vance-Owen

12 Plan, which would not be feasible. I'm just saying that he said it as a

13 scientist, because he mentions here a seminar and the United Nations. He

14 was given a raspberry because nobody wanted the Vance-Owen Plan accepted.

15 He wasn't presenting a policy. The policy was different. He was

16 presenting his opinion as a scientist, although he was a minister, if he

17 was a minister. I'm just saying in which role he said this, and it's

18 important to look at the entirety of his contribution instead of

19 staying -- instead of reducing it to an attempt to cement the situation as

20 it was for the sake of the Serbs.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, the Chamber will not be assisted by any

22 further interpretation of this text at this moment.

23 MR. TIEGER:

24 Q. Mr. Krajisnik, you mentioned January 1993 and the context. Did

25 Bosnian Serb leaders, including you, discuss the issue of homogenisation

1 and the need to stimulate migration of Muslims in one direction and Serbs

2 in another in order to improve further on the migrations that actual --

3 that had already occurred and the homogenisation that had already existed

4 in January 1993 or before or after?

5 A. After your discovery of yesterday that I said "Turks," something I

6 was never aware of, I don't rule out that I could have said this, too, on

7 another occasion, but that was not my position.

8 But to answer your question, yes, there were certain people who

9 publicly said those things. But the official position was that everybody

10 had the right to return to their home, and it was accepted in every plan.

11 It was not my policy that people should move out, but if you found this

12 passage somewhere, then I must have said it.

13 Q. We'll talk -- we'll talk about the official position in a bit.

14 But let me ask you quickly about who some of those certain people, who

15 publicly advocated homogenisation, and the maintenance and improvement of

16 the situation caused by the relocations of the previous months. Who were

17 those people?

18 A. I cannot remember individual people, but I know that at Assembly

19 sessions President Tudjman was frequently quoted speaking on humane

20 relocation. However, it was not our official policy, because our

21 position, as stated under every plan, was that everybody had the right to

22 return to their homes.

23 If you give me a specific example, I will tell you whether it's

24 correct or not. I cannot even -- I cannot remember anyone really. Maybe

25 it was said by some very highly ranked people. I can't remember.

1 Q. That could very well be the case. Let's turn to tab 19, please.

2 Tab 19 contains the stenographic notes from a meeting of the council for

3 harmonising view-points on state policy held on 21 January 1993, attended

4 by, among others, you, Mr. Krajisnik; Dr. Karadzic; Dr. Koljevic; General

5 Mladic; Slobodan Milosevic; Mr. Jovanovic, the foreign minister for

6 Serbia; and others. And let's turn first to the remarks of Mr. Jovanovic

7 at page 17 of the English and page 19 of the B/C/S.

8 Mr. Jovanovic says, beginning at that second

9 paragraph: "Territorial link with Serbia and Montenegro, that is

10 Yugoslavia, must be secured in a way that is indisputable and not

11 transitional, but it is more important that the territory we get become,

12 as soon as possible, nationally homogenised, but not by ethnic cleansings,

13 ethnic cleansings are frame-ups, thus by peacetime process of population

14 exchange, that is migration and immigration. It is important that

15 everyone realises that life in that future Bosnia is impossible and that

16 everyone starts moving to his parent province. That is the strategic goal

17 we should pursue and which is to be achieved."

18 And he continues ending with the remarks: "If, on the contrary,

19 freedom of movement would result in freedom of residence and mixing of

20 population to our disadvantage, then the things we have achieved would

21 gradually disappear and we would eventually lose everything. Accordingly,

22 that should be our goal, not to direct the topic of discussion to the fact

23 that large number of Serbs have remained in other nation's provinces, to

24 take territories that are suitable for living and then to stimulate

25 migration of our people to our parent provinces and of their people to

1 their provinces. One should be wise to identify how the above can be

2 achieved, but I think that should be our guiding principle."

3 Now, in discussing those things we have achieved, the objective of

4 ethnic homogenisation and the need to stimulate migration to achieve it,

5 Mr. Jovanovic is raising essentially the same issue that Mr. Milojevic

6 was; that is, saying that while a great deal has been achieved over the

7 past months through the relocations of population, that situation needs to

8 be maintained and even improved. Isn't that right? Isn't that the

9 position he was urging at that meeting?

10 A. His position was a bit broader. He included Yugoslavia and Serbia

11 as well. I can explain what this is all about, because the context of

12 this meeting is important.

13 Q. All right. So first of all, we agree that that was the position

14 he was taking, but you're explaining that he was referring, in addition,

15 to aspects of what could happen or should happen in Serbia and Montenegro?

16 A. His position, as read out here, is what it is, but the context is

17 different from that of Milojevic, and I can explain if you allow me.

18 Q. Well, whether or not the context was different, Mr. Jovanovic is

19 talking about the need to maintain, and even improve, national or ethnic

20 homogenisation by stimulating migrations in the territories held by the

21 Bosnian Serbs, in the territory of RS. Correct?

22 A. No. By homogenisation of Serbs he meant the entire Serb ethnic

23 area, Serbs, not only territories. That's important -- that's why it's

24 important to explain what Mr. Milojevic had explained. Then maybe you

25 would draw the right conclusion.

1 Q. The entire Serb ethnic area, including RS. Correct?

2 A. Please let me explain first. You're extracting things out of

3 context without listening to my explanation. It will certainly be useful

4 to you because the more we go on, the greater the misunderstanding. I

5 have to say yes or no. Yes, all this is correct, but I have to explain

6 why.

7 Q. Okay. Now, please explain.

8 A. This is a meeting held at the initiative of the late Slobodan

9 Milosevic, where we discussed the Vance-Owen Plan. Mr. Jovanovic is

10 speaking against the Vance-Owen Plan here, whereas four months later he

11 brought a letter in which he was in favour of the Vance-Owen Plan. So he

12 was saying one thing here, but five months later he was saying something

13 else.

14 In this discussion, he says the Vance-Owen Plan is not a good one

15 because it does not make homogenisation possible. Mr. Milojevic says the

16 Vance-Owen Plan is a good one because we've already created the

17 homogenisation of the Serbs in Republika Srpska.

18 This same Jovanovic brought us a letter saying we had to accept

19 the Vance-Owen Plan in Bijeljina, because if we didn't they would impose

20 sanctions on us and they did. Here he himself admits that he is an

21 amateur, layperson, even though he was a minister of the interior and a

22 wonderful man.

23 Q. Well, let's look at the reaction of the Bosnian Serb leaders to

24 the remarks of Mr. Jovanovic. At page 19 of the English and page 21 of

25 the B/C/S, Dr. Karadzic points -- I'll wait till you find that, sir.

1 A. Yes, yes, I have found it. Thank you.

2 Q. Dr. Karadzic points out that: "The thing Jovanovic is talking

3 about, I think that has already happened to a great extent. There were

4 50/50 of us in Zvornik, now Zvornik has the same number of inhabitants,

5 around 50.000, and they're all Serbs. Over 24.000 Serbs from Zenica and

6 Central Bosnia arrived and settled in Zvornik."

7 And then he goes on to talk about: "... Serbia assisting by not

8 receiving refugees, that would be a great solution. And that would be a

9 matter of fact, he notes, which nobody could change."

10 So there Dr. Karadzic is acknowledging Minister Jovanovic's

11 endorsement of homogenisation and pointing out to -- in various places, to

12 a large extent, it's already happened?

13 A. Yes. Mr. Karadzic was against the Vance-Owen Plan here, and he

14 supported Mr. Jovanovic; that's the point. And what you said is correct.

15 The Serbs had left -- had gone to one place, the Muslims to another, from

16 Zvornik. And all this is correct. Karadzic later signed the Vance-Owen

17 Plan.

18 Q. Shortly afterward you comment on the remarks of both Minister

19 Jovanovic and Dr. Karadzic. That's at page 20 of the English and page 22

20 of the B/C/S. And you say at that meeting in January of 1993,

21 Mr. Krajisnik: "I'll start with what Mr. Jovanovic stated, as Radovan

22 spoke in the same way. The problem is not 45 per cent of the territory,

23 maybe it's going to 55. What they have taken from ethnically clean

24 Serbian territories and given to them, that is the countless treasure of

25 the territories we used to have. For example, why do they take a part of

1 Bosnian Krajina and annex it to Cazin Krajina because of the Ljubija mine

2 and the bauxite mine in Bosanska Krupa. Those two mines now belong to

3 Cazin Krajina. Another thing, why did they take Posavina, two oil

4 refineries are there, Bosanski Brod and Modrica, Odzaci commerce

5 facilities, Doboj complex."

6 Now, you say that -- there you're talking about what the proposed

7 plan gives to one side or another. That's the general context of what

8 you're talking about there, as you've mentioned before. Right?

9 A. Not general, but very important and specific. And this is my

10 opinion. It's true I said this and I still think the same way today. I

11 will explain what I wanted to say here, and that's a fact.

12 Q. Well, before you do I need to ask you a few specific questions

13 about what you said.

14 A. Yes, please go ahead.

15 Q. You referred to the Ljubija mine, that's a mine in a Prijedor.

16 Right?

17 A. Yes, near Prijedor, yes.

18 Q. And the bauxite mine in Bosanska Krupa?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And those were among the countless treasures taken from the Serbs

21 from the territories, as you put it, "we used to have." Correct? Or at

22 least that would be taken under the plan?

23 A. Yes, if that's the way you look at it, you're right. But I will

24 explain what you can't see in what I said. You're right, however.

25 Ljubija is in the Croatian part, and the Krupa was Muslim majority. I

1 don't know whether Krupa is in Serb ethnical territory, but I would like

2 to explain what I actually meant here.

3 Q. What did you actually mean there?

4 A. The Vance-Owen Plan provided maps. Everybody, including

5 Mr. Karadzic and Mr. Jovanovic, were discussing the size of the territory.

6 What I'm saying, it doesn't matter whether it's 45 per cent or 55

7 per cent. What matters is the resources. I was speaking as an economist.

8 In Central Bosnia, wherever there was an ethnic space in which there were

9 resources, they gave to the Muslims. So if something, in terms of

10 territory, should belong, it's ethnically Muslim, they gave that to the

11 Muslims, too. And what we got were woods and meadows. So what I'm saying

12 as an economist is that we should not focus on the size of the territory

13 but the quality of the territory we get. But you are right, Krupa is a

14 Muslim majority and Ljubija is a Croat, and that is stated in the

15 Cutileiro Plan, but Modrica is not 100 per cent, neither is Brod where the

16 refinery is. But I was referring to the quality of the territory as

17 opposed to its size. That's why we got 49 per cent.

18 Q. We can see on its face that you're referring to the quality; that

19 is, the things you get in the territories you receive rather than the

20 precise size. You say that there, making specific percentages. But in

21 registering your complaint, part of it is that those things about which

22 you were complaining were not being allocated to the Serbs but to the

23 Muslims, is that they were taken from ethnically clean Serbian territories

24 and given to them. Those ethnically clean Serbian territories are, among

25 others, Prijedor and Bosanska Krupa because you refer to them

1 specifically. Correct?

2 A. Mr. Prosecutor, Bosanska Krajina is an ethnic area. There are two

3 small Muslim enclaves there. In the other areas, in Sarajevo, which is

4 richer than half of Bosnia-Herzegovina where the Serbs invested, and there

5 are Serbs there, that, too, was given to the Muslims.

6 You have to look at the overall economic context. Krajina, as

7 such, is Serb majority area. I wasn't referring to these two small

8 enclaves, but all of Krajina. Una, the river Una was the border, so it

9 should have belonged to the Serbs.

10 You cannot avoid the fact that Krupa was a Muslim majority

11 municipality. It wasn't a territory that was Muslim majority, but the

12 population. I don't know whether the mine is on the right- or left-hand

13 bank of the river Una. It might be on Serb territory or Muslim territory,

14 I don't know, and Ljubija is actually Croatian.

15 Q. Before the conflict began in April of 1991, there were

16 approximately 50.000 Muslims in Prijedor alone. That wasn't an ethnically

17 clean area, was it?

18 A. No. It's not about Prijedor, it's about the territory. The

19 territory of Prijedor is much more Serb than Muslim. There were more

20 Muslims in the town itself, whereas Ljubija is a separate little town

21 where the Croats are in the majority, not the Muslims.

22 Q. Let's move on to the remarks of Mr. Koljevic found at page 22 of

23 the English and page 25 through 26 of the B/C/S.

24 A. Yes, I found it. Thank you.

25 Q. Now, Mr. Koljevic merges the two discussions, noting that, as he

1 begins: "I think that along with dissimilarities one common thing emerges

2 from Momo's speech and from Mr. Jovanovic's speech earlier on. When maps

3 are in question it's better to insist on the economic principle than on

4 the national."

5 And then he continues: "In short, I think that this, using an

6 economic principle in order to cover up the other one, is very good and it

7 should be combined with something else, if possible."

8 And then he explains how to do that and finally continues at

9 pages 23 -- pages 22 through 23, after he mentions that he travels a great

10 deal around Republika Srpska: "I don't need to tell you what that means.

11 We have" --

12 A. Could you just tell me where this is, please. Excuse me, is it on

13 page 26?

14 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...

15 "I don't need to tell you what that means. We will have to

16 develop a great political activity" --

17 A. All right.

18 Q. -- "in order to win the people for this and to develop the

19 activity of homogeneous settlement while there is still time."

20 Now, there Mr. Koljevic is doing two things. Number one, he's

21 acknowledging that using an economic argument rather than an ethnic

22 argument is likely to be more persuasive to international negotiators; and

23 two, he's confirming and endorsing the objective of homogenous settlement

24 while there's still time to do it?

25 MR. JOSSE: I think the paragraph immediately above needs to be

1 read to put it into context. That's my submission.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, are you going to follow that suggestion?

3 MR. TIEGER: That can be put in -- I don't think it changes the

4 focus of my -- of the question, and if Mr. Krajisnik wants to read it, he

5 can. I see no point in reading it aloud. It's there for him, but that

6 doesn't change the --

7 MR. JOSSE: I'm happy with that, as long as Mr. Krajisnik can read

8 it.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

10 Mr. Krajisnik --

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, Mr. President, the

12 Prosecutor has confused me more than you have. I can't find it here. I

13 wish to comment on it and I wish to speak correctly. I cannot find the

14 context. I know exactly what happened at that meeting, but the question

15 is a specific one. So could I be pointed to the right place, please, so I

16 can be as specific as possible.

17 I found what you were reading out, yes, but when you skipped over

18 some things, then I got lost. If it's the last passage, yes, then I've

19 found it. Please let me read it. Just a moment, please.

20 I abide by everything Mr. Koljevic said, but I can clarify if

21 there is anything unclear here.

22 MR. TIEGER:

23 Q. No, I have no additional questions about that and don't require

24 any clarification, unless the Court does.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Not at this moment. Please proceed.

1 MR. TIEGER:

2 Q. Mr. Krajisnik, in fact the Bosnian Serb leadership would continue

3 to insist on the effect of the factual situation that had been created

4 during the war and to insist, to the extent possible, that it be

5 maintained. Isn't that right?

6 A. No, that's not right. That's why I was trying to explain just a

7 while ago. What is correct is that we continued to insist on returning to

8 the original positions of the Cutileiro Plan, where homogenisation of Serb

9 ethnic areas was there precisely in a single unit, not cleansing, not what

10 happened during the war. There were such statements, but that was not the

11 policy.

12 The Vance-Owen Plan abolished the Republika Srpska, and that was

13 the main reason why we opposed it. That's why Mr. Koljevic opposed

14 provinces, and he explained all this. But one needs to understand it.

15 Perhaps I understand this better because I knew him.

16 Q. Mr. Krajisnik, the insistence was, and I don't want to be -- make

17 sure that we're talking about the same thing, that the demographic

18 situation that had been created during the war be maintained, that now

19 that Zvornik, for example, was a Serbian municipality, as Mr. -- as

20 Dr. Karadzic explained to Minister Jovanovic at the coordination council,

21 it should stay that way, to the extent the Bosnian Serb leadership could

22 control that. Isn't that right?

23 A. Mr. Prosecutor, Mr. Karadzic and Mr. Jovanovic said what the

24 actual situation was that had been created in the war. They said that's

25 the war. After that, they proposed negotiations, and this is contrary to

1 what you've just said, in which there were no wartime gains. And in fact

2 this happened. There are no Serbs in Zvornik or Zenica now. They were

3 not enthusiastic about what had happened. They keep asking for

4 negotiations. They weren't happy that there were no Muslims left in

5 Zvornik.

6 Q. Can we turn next to the 26th Session and some remarks by

7 Dr. Karadzic.

8 MR. TIEGER: That may have to be distributed, Your Honour.

9 Q. Mr. Krajisnik, a portion of Dr. Karadzic's remarks to which I'm

10 directing your attention is found at 02150079 in almost the precise middle

11 of that paragraph.

12 MR. TIEGER: And, Your Honours, it's at the second page of English

13 portion provided.

14 Q. It's just after the reference to Lebanon, Cyprus --

15 A. Yes, yes.

16 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... about India, et cetera.

17 "Had the Muslim leadership," said Dr. Karadzic, "had their

18 composure, they would have got what they got without a drop of blood. Had

19 it been before the war we would have sacrificed more territories than we

20 are prepared to sacrifice now. If we had reached an agreement without a

21 war, we'd made some kind of demarcation between us. Now this is what we

22 have, and the international community will have to recognise the new

23 factual situation. This war has created a new factual situation. Nobody

24 is going to return 50.000 Serbs to Zenica from Zvornik or to Central

25 Bosnia. No way. Cutileiro's map gave us more than half of Zvornik."

1 Now, there, Mr. Krajisnik, Dr. Karadzic is not talking about just

2 about territory, he's talking about people, isn't he? And he's saying

3 that the Serbs aren't leaving Zvornik, and he's also indicating to the

4 Assembly that the Muslims aren't coming back. Correct?

5 A. If you take it out of context, then you're right. He did say

6 this, but he also said something before that, that you have not read out.

7 He's referring to the Vance-Owen Plan here.

8 Q. And how does that change the fact that Dr. Karadzic is talking

9 about people and where they're going to be and whether they're going to

10 come back and where they're going to go, whether it's in the context of

11 Vance-Owen or not?

12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, we have some difficulties in finding --

13 MR. JOSSE: Mine is incomplete as well, Your Honour. I don't have

14 the second page in English.

15 JUDGE ORIE: I've got one of two pages, and I've got only one

16 page.

17 MR. JOSSE: Same.

18 JUDGE ORIE: And since you did not indicate on which page to --

19 MR. JOSSE: My learned friend said it was the second page, in

20 fact, which we don't have. Perhaps it can be put on the ELMO, Your

21 Honour.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could that be put on the ELMO? And could we

23 give a second, again -- yes, to read it. Yes. Please zoom in a tiny

24 little bit. That's fine. Yes.

25 Perhaps, Mr. Tieger, if you will repeat your last question, then

1 we could move on.

2 MR. TIEGER: Yes, Your Honour.

3 Q. Mr. Krajisnik, I understand that many of these discussions take

4 place while international negotiations are ongoing. My question was: How

5 does that change the fact that Dr. Karadzic is talking about people and

6 where they're going to go and where they're not going to go?

7 A. Mr. Karadzic was explaining the Cutileiro Plan. He made an

8 introduction -- no, excuse me, not the Cutileiro Plan, the Vance-Owen

9 Plan. And he had before him people who are asking him what will happen to

10 us now? Zvornik belongs to the Muslims and we have fled from Zenica. It

11 was for this reason Mr. Karadzic was saying: Nobody's going to drive you

12 out. He says: We need to go on working, and so on.

13 It's a question of politics. If you're saying to people that they

14 have to leave the area to which they have moved, because according to the

15 plan this area is going to be Muslim, at the time the Vance-Owen Plan was

16 being discussed. In May it was signed in Athens. He's saying this for

17 the sake of the deputies, who are saying: What's going to happen to us,

18 because we belong to this province?

19 Q. And the politics was insofar as possible to rely on the factual

20 situation that had been created during the war in addition to the previous

21 ethnical territory and historical arguments that had been made to ensure

22 that Serbs could stay in the territories that RS now controlled and that

23 Muslims couldn't come back. Isn't that right?

24 A. To show that this is not so, I will show you a map showing that

25 the Serbs agreed to withdraw from 23 per cent of the territory, and this

1 is in Lord Owen's book. I will show you the map where we agreed to this.

2 He was saying this for the sake of politics. He said: We can't accept

3 the plan or they will flee from here. I will bring you the map to show

4 you what our policy was. This was for political purposes. The people

5 would leave the area because it belonged to somebody else's province and

6 they had to flee from Zenica.

7 This was not our policy. The plans show what our policy was, and

8 this was purely for political purposes. I know exactly what they were

9 saying. I'm not saying that some soldiers did not want that; this is a

10 military way of speaking. But I'm telling you that our policy was to go

11 back to negotiations and we were willing to withdraw. There is a map

12 showing from what territories we were willing to withdraw, and this was an

13 enormous concession, in view of the territories we held. I ask that the

14 map be brought tomorrow so I can show this.

15 Q. Well, we would be happy to see the map at an appropriate time, and

16 when we return from the break I want to show you some additional comments

17 relating to the effort to cement the factual situation.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but before we have a break, Mr. Josse, you --

19 MR. JOSSE: Well, I would like to go and see Mr. Krajisnik for two

20 reasons, both of which I have mentioned to my learned friends.

21 MR. TIEGER: That's correct, Your Honour. We've had that

22 discussion and we have no objection.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then I take it it's all within what the Chamber

24 would expect parties to agree upon and that you're allowed, even without

25 further information, to see Mr. Krajisnik on these matters.

1 We'll adjourned until five minutes to 11.00.

2 --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.

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

4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Josse, CLSS is working on the matter you raised

5 at the beginning of this hearing. We hope to, perhaps already during the

6 next break, to have an answer.

7 MR. JOSSE: I would be very grateful.

8 Your Honour, Mr. Krajisnik was working on the task Your Honour had

9 set him. He's going to complete it at the next break and have it ready

10 thereafter.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

12 Well, thank you, Mr. Krajisnik.

13 Mr. Tieger, please proceed.

14 MR. TIEGER:

15 Q. A couple more questions about the maintenance of the factual

16 situation, as I indicated before the recess. If we could turn first to

17 tab 40 -- excuse me, to the 42nd Session of the Bosnian Serb Assembly.

18 JUDGE ORIE: And where to find that now? Is that in --

19 MR. TIEGER: I think that's being distributed, Your Honour.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

21 MR. TIEGER:

22 Q. Mr. Krajisnik, the parts to which I want to direct your attention

23 are found on pages 02152880 and 02152881?

24 MR. TIEGER: And, Your Honours, found at the first and the second

25 pages of the handout in English.

1 Q. Now, again talking in the context of international negotiations,

2 Dr. Karadzic acknowledges: "We know for a fact we have to relinquish

3 something, that's beyond doubt. In case we want to achieve our first

4 strategic goal, which is to get rid of the enemy in our house" --

5 MR. TIEGER: Sorry, Your Honours, that's found at the --

6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. -- we have no cover page, so we cannot place it

7 in time. That would be the -- 42nd Session was when?

8 MR. TIEGER: 42nd Session, and I thought I had the precise date

9 written down, and I do not. I can have that for the Court in just a

10 moment.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Whoever knows that first is invited to tell

12 the Chamber.

13 MR. TIEGER: And if I could have just a moment.

14 [Prosecution counsel confer]

15 JUDGE ORIE: This would be far in 1993 or even later.

16 MR. TIEGER:

17 Q. The -- again, the portion to which I wish to direct your

18 attention, Mr. Krajisnik, and the Court's attention, begins in the English

19 about halfway down right after the numbers about the municipalities that

20 appear.

21 "We know for a fact that we have to relinquish something; that's

22 beyond doubt. In case we want to achieve our first strategic goal, which

23 is to get rid of the enemy in our house," meaning the Croats and Muslims,

24 "and not to be together in one state anymore. All divorces are costly,

25 and we have to relinquish some things, but we are winners and we not only

1 control a large territory, but we own it."

2 And then Dr. Karadzic continues after references to those towns

3 and places of worship and traditional hills that are important to the

4 Bosnian Serbs. He says: "What he think and what I think is that the

5 factual situation can be recognised. A war ended with a draw like this

6 only very rarely and such territory was returned only very rarely.

7 Montenegro did not return Skadar, but it returned 30 per cent of the

8 territory under its control."

9 And he continues talking about things to return and

10 concludes: "We have to dance along the edge of the abyss. We know that

11 we must relinquish something. We know we have to cut a finger off and we

12 know it will be painful, but we cannot allow ourselves to have both hands

13 cut off let alone have our throat cut. Even without hands a man is still

14 a man, but he cannot take care of himself, nor can he feed himself or

15 defend himself. Our desire is to move further from the factual situation,

16 and this means a defeat of one side. This means that we have to move

17 towards the factual situation and to give something up in the factual

18 situation so we can be the ones to decide what it is that we'll relinquish

19 and not have them take whatever they want."

20 Now, first, Mr. Krajisnik, in the reference to both moving further

21 from the factual situation and then moving toward the situation -- towards

22 the factual situation, Dr. Karadzic is referring to efforts after the

23 massive displacement and relocations of people in 1992, efforts to further

24 concentrate Muslims or pack Muslims into small areas of Bosnia and

25 Herzegovina. Isn't that right?

1 A. You're not right, Mr. Prosecutor, and I can explain. The meaning

2 of the words of Mr. Karadzic is clearly stated here.

3 Q. First of all, the factual situation he's talking about is the

4 factual situation on the ground. Correct? That is, the situation that

5 exists with respect to where -- which territories are controlled and to

6 where the members of the ethnic groups now reside. Right?

7 A. You're right. The factual state is what the armies of the three

8 parties were holding under their control; that's the war and that much is

9 true. That's the factual situation at the time.

10 Q. And Dr. Karadzic is acknowledging that Bosnian Serbs may be

11 obliged to relinquish some portion of what they hold, but they want to

12 relinquish as little as possible. That's the reference to the finger

13 versus the hand or the throat. Right?

14 A. No, he didn't mean that. He meant that we can't make our map in

15 advance. We don't have our own proposal. That's what's written here.

16 Why would we cut off one finger before knowing the outcome of the

17 negotiations? That's the meaning of his words, because it's very

18 dangerous to draw a map - that's what Karadzic was saying - in which you

19 have a large territory reduced to 49 per cent, because the people from

20 that territory will pack their bags, and you don't know yet whether the

21 negotiations will ultimately grant you that territory. So the issue is

22 how to reduce 65 per cent to 49 per cent, and you can see that he's ready

23 to relinquish part of the territory, but he doesn't know which part of the

24 territory. That's the meaning of Mr. Karadzic's words here.

25 Q. Mr. Krajisnik, the -- Dr. Karadzic was aware of the situation on

1 the ground, aware that the Bosnian Serbs had created realities that didn't

2 exist before the conflict, and was claiming territories based on what he

3 saw as the right that comes out of that new reality. Wasn't that a

4 position he maintained to -- he and the other members of the Bosnian Serb

5 leadership, including you, maintained during the course of the

6 negotiations?

7 A. That's not the way you put it, although it was being said. It was

8 a matter of tactics in negotiations, but there was readiness to create a

9 map as the factual situation on the ground was. And that's what we did.

10 But when negotiations are ongoing, then you put forward various tactical

11 elements and you even use tactics with relation to your own MPs to get

12 them to support your position. There was a plan, and it was only a matter

13 of tactics how to achieve that plan, which was not always palatable, even

14 to the MPs.

15 Q. Well, let's look at the exact words of Dr. Karadzic in that

16 respect. And if we could turn to the 46th Session, please, at tab 12.

17 MR. TIEGER: And, Your Honour, the previous session was -- and

18 that is the 42nd Session was held on 18 and 19 July, 1994.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Do we have the 42nd Session --

20 MR. TIEGER: The 46th was held on November 9th through 11th and

21 the 23rd of November, 1994.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Do we have the -- I apologise.

23 MR. TIEGER:

24 Q. Mr. Krajisnik, the portion of that session to which I want to draw

25 your attention begins at 02153381 in the B/C/S and continues on to

1 02153382. And there Dr. Karadzic states -- oh, I'm sorry. And it's

2 page 157, not obviously of the tabbed portioned, but labelled below 157,

3 which is about the fourth page in the extract in English.

4 A. Is it on the page you just told me the number of, 3381?

5 Q. It starts at the bottom of the page and it begins: "Our goal is

6 to create a state. How big it will be, we do not know, but it has to be

7 in one piece, and in order" --

8 A. Just give me a moment to find it.

9 Q. Sure. That's the fourth sentence from the bottom.

10 A. Yes, I've found it.

11 Q. "... and in order for the state to exist, it has to be in one

12 piece. We have to maintain this reality as long as the world accepts this

13 idea. We have created new realities. Speaking in narrow terms, Zvornik

14 used to be 60/40 to the advantage of Muslims, but the Serbs from Zenica

15 came, they occupied Kozluk. The Muslims left for Europe and I don't know

16 where else. And then those gentlemen told us: Who gives you a right to

17 ask for Zvornik? We said that the whole Bosnia was Serbian land, that's

18 the history, but it is not what we are interested in. Who gives you a

19 right to request Zvornik now? We requested Zvornik based on the right

20 which comes out of a new reality. This war had created the new reality.

21 It has never happened in history that the war did not create a new

22 reality. This war has created the new reality. There are now the Serbs

23 from Zenica here. If you want to give Zvornik to the Muslims, then you

24 have to wage a new war in order to expel these Serbs back to Zenica. We

25 request Zvornik according to this right."

1 Mr. Krajisnik, this is an explicit acknowledgment, isn't it, by

2 Dr. Karadzic of the insistence that the consequences of the military

3 campaign in 1992, in 1993 created a new reality that the Bosnian Serb

4 leadership was going to insist be maintained insofar as possible.

5 A. Well, Mr. Prosecutor, I'm telling you that that's not the way it

6 is and I want to explain. To some extent I've already explained it.

7 This is just rhetoric. I know this conversation that took place

8 with Mr. Owen and Mr. Stoltenberg about Zvornik on the terrace overlooking

9 the Zvornik lake, but he needed to pacify the people because Zvornik was

10 supposed to belong -- to be given to another ethnic community, in which

11 case the Serbs would have packed their bags. So he was trying to appease

12 the people, because everybody would withdraw, including the army. And

13 just at that time there were maps, current maps, on which we had withdrawn

14 from large territories.

15 So he's saying: I don't know what we're going to give back, but

16 we'll have to give back something. But at the same time he had to appease

17 the people and the army, because the army would also leave the territories

18 that they thought would ultimately not be ours. It's not that we were

19 pushing for maintaining the factual situation; we were pushing for

20 negotiations. We didn't know what we were going to do. We had a large

21 territory and we had to give back something. We gave back Serb

22 territories and got, in return, ultimately some Muslim territories.

23 In every discussion, the factual situation was advocated to

24 prevent the army from withdrawing from that area, because people were

25 telling us: Tell us what's going to be ours so we know where to go, and

1 we didn't know what to answer. It would have been a catastrophe if

2 Karadzic said: The things we are holding now are not ultimately going to

3 be ours, people would have withdrawn, the army would have pulled out. No

4 politician would have done that. I know exactly what I'm talking about as

5 far as Zvornik is concerned.

6 Q. And to the extent that the Bosnian Serbs were obliged to

7 relinquish any territory to the Muslims, then there would be efforts made

8 to prevent Muslims from moving out of the territories they had into Serb

9 territory. Isn't that right?

10 A. No. No. Let me give you an example. We lost Glamoc, Grahovo,

11 Drvar, all of them Serb ethnic areas in the western region on the map.

12 However, factually speaking, Muslims had captured it. We lost the Serb

13 Sarajevo that we used to hold. Factual situation was different from the

14 map. And the factual situation represented nothing, counted for nothing

15 in negotiations, and it wasn't our policy.

16 These things and things of that kind were said in order to keep

17 the army in place. Even I had to say things like that, otherwise the army

18 would have pulled out. And even so, some people deserted from the front

19 line. Policy is one thing, and the rhetoric required to implement a

20 policy is something completely different.

21 Q. Well --

22 JUDGE ORIE: Could I just ask you -- let me try to understand you,

23 Mr. Krajisnik. Do you say, for example, language which is used here:

24 "This war has created new a reality. They are now the Serbs from Zenica

25 here. If you want to give Zvornik to the Muslims, then you have to wage a

1 new war in order to expel the Serbs back to Zenica."

2 Is this what you call rhetoric?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. I remember exactly that

4 sentence. When Mr. Karadzic told Mr. Owen in Zvornik: Serbs had been

5 expelled into Zvornik and Muslims left Zvornik, he said: I don't see any

6 way of returning both ethnic communities, and they are both refugees, and

7 he sounded here as a warmongerer, just to get the point across to our

8 people that they should stay on in Zvornik until we know exactly whether

9 we would have to return it or not. That kind of language was

10 inappropriate, maybe, in -- by our standards of today, but at that time it

11 had to be put that way.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Tieger.

13 MR. TIEGER:

14 Q. So Dr. Karadzic told the Bosnian Serb Assembly on repeated

15 occasions that the factual situation and the new reality had to be

16 maintained, and he told the same thing to Mr. Owen, in a slightly more

17 diplomatic way?

18 A. At every meeting Mr. Karadzic said and repeated that the lines and

19 the factual situation had to be preserved. At every meeting he said:

20 Lines and factual situation have to be preserved. And at every meeting he

21 had to face questions like: What are our territories? What is our plan

22 so we know to defend only these things and let go of the other things? He

23 said -- he answered: I don't know what the plan is. We'll find out

24 through negotiations. Negotiations will eventually result in a map.

25 And Milan Trbojevic, a witness here, said that on hundreds of

1 occasions he asked Karadzic: What is the plan? What are we supposed to

2 defend? And Karadzic never knew what to say.

3 You have a large territory and you are faced with the problem of

4 deciding what territories to give back. And in order not to erode the

5 lines, you have to use this kind of language when talking to the people so

6 that they stay on. And of course he had to pepper his speech with

7 historical references in order to support his argument. It was not a

8 question of factual situation. Nobody managed to maintain the factual

9 situation.

10 Q. Now, I asked you earlier what would be the case if the Bosnian

11 Serbs were obliged to relinquish some territory and whether or not Muslims

12 would be discouraged, prevented, delimited from moving into Serb

13 territory, and you told me that was not the case. Correct?

14 A. I'm sorry. I didn't quite understand. If Serbs were to

15 relinquish certain territories, would we be against the Muslims settling

16 or resettling there? Is that what you are asking?

17 Q. No. Not in the territories that were allocated to the Muslims,

18 but in moving from the territories allocated to the Muslims to Serbian

19 territory, to RS?

20 A. No. In every agreement we accepted and signed that everybody had

21 the right to return to their original home. It's possible that somebody

22 stated otherwise somewhere here, but such a clause exists in every

23 agreement, accepted by all the three parties. And it was of our own

24 free -- sorry. It was up to people to decide. It was their choice

25 whether they wanted to return or not.

1 Q. Well, you and Dr. Karadzic and Mr. Koljevic and Minister Jovanovic

2 talked about strategies for maintaining and even improving homogenisation.

3 And in respect to your remark just now that it's possible that somebody

4 might have stated otherwise, well, why don't we look to Dr. Karadzic at

5 the 39th Session of the National Assembly on the 24th and 25th of March,

6 1994.

7 MR. TIEGER: And that's found at tab 16, Your Honours, at page 88

8 of the English, and page 71 or 02152322 of the B/C/S.

9 Q. And, Mr. Krajisnik, that's found in approximately the middle of

10 the page.

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Where Dr. Karadzic says, again talking about negotiations: "It

13 can happen that either they will try to dump all the Muslims on us or they

14 will try to divide Bosnia at Sandzak, one half to Serbs, one half to

15 Croats. In that case they will try to dump Tuzla on us. We may be in a

16 position to have to accept that, but we will delimit them in some kind of

17 autonomous province theirs, from which they will not be able to move

18 freely and settle in our areas."

19 Now, there Dr. Karadzic is assuring the Bosnian Serb deputies, the

20 Bosnian Serb people that to the extent possible all efforts will be made

21 to ensure that Muslims don't settle into the areas that have been claimed

22 by and taken by the Bosnian Serbs. Isn't that right?

23 A. I didn't understand your question. I really cannot make a

24 connection here and answer this. It says something completely different

25 here, so I cannot confirm this. Can you put your question a little more

1 clearly, please.

2 He is not laying claim to Muslim areas here; he is speaking about

3 the possibilities, in his view, of solving the Bosnian crisis. And this

4 actually happened later on. The Muslim-Croatian federation has been

5 established and the rest is Republika Srpska, so Bosnia has been divided.

6 And he's talking about what he learned, he's talking about the plans. And

7 he's putting forward here the different versions of what the outcome might

8 be.

9 Could you please put your question again a little more clearly?

10 Q. I had asked you about the Bosnian Serb position with respect to

11 free movement of Muslims back into the areas that were now controlled by

12 and -- by the Bosnian Serbs. And we were talking about whether or not

13 Muslims were going to be permitted to come back to the areas held by

14 Bosnian Serbs. That was clearly the subject we were talking about before,

15 and so I directed your attention to remarks by Dr. Karadzic where he

16 said: "We will delimit them in some kind of autonomous province of

17 theirs, from which they will not be able to move freely and settle in our

18 areas."

19 A. That's one segment. In the very same plan, Mr. Karadzic signed

20 that everyone can go back to their homes, and that was the policy, not

21 this. If you read everything he says, he says: I don't know what will

22 happen. And he presents the different versions. And he says: What are

23 we going to do with Tuzla? Tuzla isn't ours; it's something invented.

24 And he's talking about something that will not happen that actually didn't

25 happen, that Tuzla will be given autonomy.

1 But please, find the plan and you will see that all three sides

2 signed firmly that everyone can go back to their own homes. This is not

3 the plan. These are his fantasies about what might happen and what Europe

4 and America might think about this.

5 Q. This --

6 JUDGE ORIE: May I intervene for one moment.

7 It happens again and again and again, Mr. Krajisnik, that

8 Mr. Tieger is putting to you some text, and then you explain that it

9 finally was not done the way as said at this moment. Let's clearly

10 distinguish between what was said at that moment. So, for example, in

11 this case you would say this is what you say is right, that's what

12 Mr. Karadzic said at the time. It was not our policy, and you can learn

13 that from the final agreement that was concluded at a later stage he

14 signed, where you'll not find this in this anymore. Let's clearly

15 distinguish.

16 And it struck me several times that Mr. Tieger is putting a

17 question to you and that you are responding in a way which is not directly

18 related to the question. There's nothing wrong with saying: It's true,

19 that's what Dr. Karadzic said, it suggests that Muslims should not be

20 returned to Tuzla, but finally in the negotiations a different position

21 was taken and you can see that from the result of the negotiations. Then

22 it's perfectly clear what was said at the time and what then, after that,

23 happened. And it happened a couple of times that you more or less say:

24 You are interpreting this wrong, not because on the basis of what was said

25 at that time, but on the basis of the events that happened later. Let's

1 clearly distinguish the two.

2 Please proceed.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I understood the

4 question at the end: Was what Mr. Karadzic said here your policy? I

5 don't remember Karadzic saying this. I can read it, and of course when I

6 read this I can say: Yes, that's what it says here. But with respect to

7 the policy, I'm explaining what the policy was. This was rhetoric, and

8 that's my response to all the questions. What I am arguing here is that

9 there was no actual plan here; it was only an imaginary plan. I am

10 answering the questions as I understand them, precisely.

11 JUDGE ORIE: I think whether Mr. Karadzic at that moment expressed

12 policy or just his own views is not part of the question, at least I

13 didn't understand it, and I just re-read the questions.

14 But, Mr. Tieger, you may have heard that Mr. Krajisnik understood

15 the question in a different way as I take it from what I understood you

16 wanted to put it. Let's try to keep this as clear as possible under all

17 circumstances. So if there's any difference between what was said and

18 what was the policy, let's also distinguish between the two and say: Do

19 you understand this, Mr. Karadzic -- is the meaning of what Mr. Karadzic

20 said so and so and so, and then it's a different question on whether that

21 was generally accepted SDS policy, might be his own policy, it might be --

22 but let's avoid that question and answers are mainly based on

23 misunderstanding each other.

24 Please proceed.

25 MR. TIEGER:

1 Q. First, Mr. Krajisnik, there's a difference, we agree, between what

2 one hopes to achieve and wants to achieve and what one is able to achieve.

3 Correct? That's a simple matter of general understanding.

4 A. You're completely right. Very many people had certain wishes,

5 whereas the reality was different, and also people in official positions

6 who wanted one thing while the reality was another thing.

7 Q. Number 2, it is correct, isn't it, that Dr. Karadzic is saying

8 here that at least the desire - and he says "we" throughout, so I take it

9 he's meaning the desire of the Bosnian Serbs - is to deter or discourage

10 the free movement of Muslims from whatever territory they're allocated

11 into whatever territory Serbs retain --

12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, this is two questions in one, which

13 creates, again, a similar situation --

14 MR. TIEGER: Sorry, Your Honour, you're right.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Could we first ask whether what Mr. Karadzic is

16 saying here is an expression of a desire; and then the next question is

17 whether it was just Dr. Karadzic, his desire, or whether the use of the

18 word "we" would reflect that he was not talking in the pluralis majestatis

19 but whether he was talking as a representative of the Bosnian Serbs. This

20 is exactly an example of what I meant.

21 Please proceed.

22 MR. TIEGER:

23 Q. First, Mr. Krajisnik, it is correct, isn't it, that Dr. Karadzic

24 is expressing there the desire to deter or discourage the free movement of

25 Muslims from whatever territory they are allocated into Bosnian Serb

1 territory?

2 A. That's probably what is written here, but I guarantee that that

3 was not his wish when he said that because he was pursuing a realistic

4 policy.

5 Q. And when he said that --

6 JUDGE ORIE: Now you're -- Mr. Krajisnik, now you're doing the

7 same. You're mixing up what was in the mind of Dr. Karadzic and what his

8 words say. So the first step is if I say: The sun is shining, that has

9 the actual meaning of no clouds being before the sun. Yes, that's -- so

10 the first thing is how we should understand it from the language itself,

11 and of course the next step is whether what was said, whether these words

12 in this particular situation would have had a different meaning for the

13 person who uttered this. So we have to clearly define this.

14 Just to give an example, if we say: The sun is shining, it means

15 there are no clouds before the sun, there are no clouds covering that

16 territory. And if you would then say: But in the specific circumstances

17 it should be understood differently because the words were uttered by a

18 pilot, who was above the clouds, then it becomes clear that the normal

19 meaning of these words would not apply in the specific circumstances.

20 So here, if someone says -- whether these words should be

21 understood in its normal meaning, that free movement should be

22 discouraged, whether that's the normal meaning of the words. And then of

23 course the second question is whether you have any specific knowledge why

24 Mr. Karadzic, using these words, would nevertheless have had something

25 different in his mind. We should clearly make a distinction to that, what

1 was said, what is the normal meaning of these words, and could we apply

2 the normal meaning of these words under those circumstances. That's -- I

3 would like to have matters as clear as possible and do it step by step and

4 not confuse everything, as happened this morning, both in your answers and

5 in the questions.

6 I would rather now invite Mr. Tieger to --

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I don't remember

8 these words. I don't know --

9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. -- we are working on the basis of this

10 tape-recording. You don't have to remember -- the first question is:

11 What is the normal meaning of these words? Mr. Tieger is seeking

12 confirmation of whether there's any misunderstanding about these words.

13 If you say: It goes without saying, then I would say -- then just say,

14 yes, that's what he said. And then you add whatever you know -- whatever

15 you know, which would cause us to -- not to accept that the one who

16 uttered those words was meaning something which is the normal

17 understanding of these words, but whether he had something different in

18 his mind.

19 Let's proceed. And Mr. Tieger is asking on the basis of the text

20 he reads to you, which is the text of the tape-recording, the transcribed

21 tape-recording of the 39th Session.

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't doubt this. I'm not casting

23 doubt on this text --

24 JUDGE ORIE: No, no, that's not the issue, but you said: I don't

25 remember these words. We're working on the basis of what we see here.

1 Please proceed.

2 MR. TIEGER:

3 Q. And is it correct that Dr. Karadzic was communicating to the

4 deputies of the Bosnian Serb Assembly at that time that it was the

5 position of the Bosnian Serb leadership that, to the extent possible,

6 Muslims would be prevented or deterred from moving from whatever

7 territories they were allocated under an agreement into Bosnian Serb

8 territory?

9 A. That's not correct. That's what I want to explain. That's not

10 what Karadzic said when he uttered these words, although that's what is

11 written down here. He was saying: Were something to happen that never

12 happened, that's what he was saying. He wasn't saying: If this happens,

13 because he was not referring to a concrete plan. He was only trying to

14 calm their fears so that they wouldn't leave this territory.

15 Q. Well, whatever motivation you attribute to his comments, it is

16 correct, isn't it, that he wanted the deputies to understand -- he was

17 communicating to the deputies that this was the position of the Bosnian

18 Serb leadership. That's right, isn't it?

19 A. He was communicating to them as if the position of the Serb

20 leadership had another goal. It was as if this was the position of the

21 leadership and as if this was his position, while it really wasn't his

22 position.

23 Q. A few moments ago we looked at Dr. Karadzic saying that it would

24 be necessary to wage a new war if one wanted to give Zvornik to the

25 Muslims. Was that the position you took as well, Mr. Krajisnik, that a

1 new war would be necessary to undo the reality and -- that had separated

2 the Serbs from the Muslims?

3 A. With respect to Zvornik, this was tactical in order to calm down

4 the people who had moved there. Yes, he said that, but it was not his

5 standpoint or mine or anyone's. He was just saying that to persuade the

6 people to stay there. I agree he said that, yes.

7 Q. And did --

8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, I think the question was whether that

9 was your position as well. That was the question. Could you please

10 answer the question.

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There were two questions. Yes, I

12 will tell you whether it was my position.

13 It was not my position. And if ever I said this, if I did, I

14 would have said it for political purposes, but it was never ever my

15 position that someone could not return to their home. It was always my

16 position that everyone should be able to return to their homes, and that

17 was what I always advocated at negotiations. If ever I said that

18 anywhere, and I don't think I did, it was only for political purposes to

19 calm people down and to assuage their fears.

20 MR. TIEGER:

21 Q. Well, let's look at where you said it and what you said. If we

22 could turn next to --

23 A. Yes, all right.

24 Q. -- tab 5. Tab 5 is a transcript of a TV broadcast of the meeting

25 of Serbian unity in Banja Luka. We -- the Court has had an opportunity to

1 see a portion of that on screen. That was held on 21 August 1994.

2 Your comments, Mr. Krajisnik - if I can just have a moment - will

3 be reflected at page -- approximately beginning around page 7 of the

4 B/C/S. And in English --

5 JUDGE ORIE: It's page 9, I think.

6 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour.

7 Q. And you begin by saying: "Dear brothers and sisters, my dear

8 people of the Krajina on both sides of the union, having heard these

9 wonderful words by my predecessors, I feel great satisfaction at being at

10 this gathering here today."

11 And just so you know, the wonderful words which are being referred

12 to earlier, those include the remarks of Mr. Kupresanin at pages 4

13 through 5 of the English, who says, among other things: "There can be no

14 Muslim state on land that has been forever Serbian. There is no Muslim

15 people, and the entire world knows this. There are only Serbian people in

16 these parts."

17 And the words of Mr. Brdjanin at page 5 of the B/C/S and page 6 of

18 the English, who says, among other things: "Those leftist forces who are

19 offering us co-existence again must know it is the obligation of Serbs

20 over the next hundred years to wipe their feet from the foul

21 non-Christians who have befouled this soil of ours."

22 And your remarks continue, Mr. Krajisnik, until the point where

23 you say: "We simply want to separate because we cannot live together. I

24 must add something to the discussion and to the address delivered by

25 Mr. Kupresanin. If the Muslims do not wish to be Serbs, if they don't

1 recognise it, I believe them because I can only feel" --

2 A. Can you just tell me where this is. You're skipping over and I

3 can't follow.

4 Q. All right.

5 A. You started from the beginning, and now I can't find this

6 concerning Kupresanin.

7 Q. That can be found at page 9 --

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, while Kupresanin is --

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes. I can't find Kupresanin,

10 though.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Kupresanin is --

12 MR. TIEGER: At the bottom of the --

13 JUDGE ORIE: Kupresanin is -- is page 4.

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I found Kupresanin, but I can't

15 find --

16 JUDGE ORIE: Page 8 and following, it starts -- you start on

17 page 7, Mr. Krajisnik, and then it continues on page 8.

18 MR. TIEGER: It's page 12 of the English, Your Honour.

19 JUDGE ORIE: 12.

20 MR. TIEGER: And page 9 of the B/C/S. And now I'll -- is --

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, thank you.

22 MR. TIEGER:

23 Q. I'll continue: "If the Muslims do not wish to be Serbs, if they

24 do not -- if they don't recognise it, I believe them because I can only

25 feel sorry for anyone who does not know and who does not want to be a Serb

1 because he does not know how beautiful and glorious it is. That's why we

2 need to separate. It would take a great war to force us to live together

3 again. We don't need war to separate us; we are already separate. The

4 war would be necessary for someone to assemble us together in the same

5 state. Our goal is that we are fighting for today becomes a united state.

6 May God grant us this. All the territory now called Republika Srpska or

7 Serbian Krajina will be Serbia."

8 Now, that's an example of the same position taken by Dr. Karadzic

9 at the 46th Session; that is, to undo the reality that had been created,

10 to undo the massive relocations and redistribution of people it would take

11 another war because, to the extent possible, you and Dr. Karadzic were not

12 going to permit that to be undone.

13 A. This is so wrong, Mr. Prosecutor. I cannot understand how you can

14 interpret it like this. You have to read the whole text, and then you'll

15 see what I said, and my response to Mr. Kupresanin.

16 That is not correct, for someone to return us to a unitary Bosnia,

17 that's what I meant to say, not to assemble us together. We have accepted

18 Bosnia here.

19 Let me comment on each thing that you said, about Kupresanin,

20 about the Muslims, about everything.

21 Q. I mentioned two things, and then we'll move on from there. I

22 mentioned Brdjanin saying: We have to wipe our feet from the foul

23 non-Christians, and Kupresanin -- so let me ask you about -- what was it

24 you wanted to comment about Brdjanin's comment?

25 And first of all, let me clarify, the non-Christians means the

1 Muslims. Right?

2 A. Yes, it refers to the Muslims, but I did not comment on

3 Mr. Brdjanin. That was a completely wrong discussion. I was commenting

4 only on Kupresanin's statement. And rhetorically I said these wonderful

5 statements simply in order to gloss over a statement I did not agree with.

6 I will comment on Kupresanin's statement.

7 Mr. Kupresanin denied the existence of the Muslims. He said they

8 were former Serbs, and everybody applauded. They applauded all kinds of

9 nonsense. And ineptly I said if the Muslims didn't want to be Serbs we

10 had to believe them. What I meant to say by this was that they had the

11 right to be Muslims; that's what I still think today. And then I wanted

12 to tell all these people who were listening that it's nice to be a Serb

13 and that it's sad that they don't want to be Serbs. But you can't tell

14 someone that he has to be a Serb if he wants to be a Muslim; you can see

15 that from here. But I had to put it this way because there were so many

16 people there and I couldn't say: Kupresanin, you're a criminal. What

17 politician would say that? I just said nicely: Well, we should believe

18 them when they say they're Muslims. You have no right to force someone to

19 be a Serb if he's not.

20 That's what I meant to say by these words. I wasn't denying the

21 Muslims their right to be a nation.

22 Q. I want to turn your attention quickly to two matters, first of

23 all, to the -- to at least one of the proposed tactics employed by the

24 Bosnian Serbs in efforts to prevent the return of Muslims to places where

25 they resided before, and I need to, in that respect, direct your attention

1 to two sessions. The first is the 37th Session.

2 MR. TIEGER: I think that needs to be distributed.

3 And I'm going to direct Mr. Krajisnik's attention to two remarks

4 there. The first is by Mr. Maksimovic beginning at page 126 of the

5 English and page 93 of the B/C/S.

6 Q. And Mr. Maksimovic's remarks begin in almost exactly the middle of

7 the page at what is the third full paragraph on that page, Mr. Krajisnik.

8 Mr. Maksimovic says: "What I'd really like to see here is a firm

9 attitude that the Muslims and the Croats will not be allowed to return to

10 the areas under our rule. Accordingly, we should not return to the areas

11 that will be under the Croatian rule. I think we should be decisive about

12 this, otherwise I'm afraid that those people from Sandzak will occupy

13 Srbinje," that was once Foca, "and surrounding areas because there are too

14 many of them in that area. So we should take a firm position and ban any

15 of their returns to the territories we have gained through these

16 international combinations, just so that we prevent that the international

17 community cheat on us after we sign this. I must say this is very

18 difficult for you, and I understand that, however, our people believe when

19 we are making the compromises, we are more concerned about their destiny

20 than the destiny of our own people. I do not care if the Muslims who live

21 at all where they will live, whether they will have a country or not, I'm

22 not interested in that. The only thing I am interested in is my people

23 and the territory where my people live. Therefore, any thought about

24 having 500 or more Muslims within our future country is out of the

25 question."

1 And then if I could turn your attention -- the Court's attention

2 to page 132 of the English and page 97 of the B/C/S. These are remarks by

3 Dr. Karadzic, and it's the second paragraph of his remarks shown on that

4 page, Mr. Krajisnik.

5 "As to the return of the refugees, I owe an answer to Vojo's

6 question. According to the international law, we have no right to ban the

7 return of the refugees. In principle, all refugees can return, but I

8 would suggest -- I would just add one sentence. This also has to be a

9 two-way process. The Muslims and the Croats accepted a two-way process.

10 Later on Owen asked me: Why do you insist on the two-way process? But

11 when the Serbs from Zvornik return [realtime transcript read in error

12 "returned"] to Zenica, then the Muslims from Prijedor will return to

13 Prijedor; therefore, it must be a two-way process. In accordance with

14 international law, we cannot declare a ban of the return on refugees."

15 Now, in responding to Mr. Maksimovic's comments in that manner,

16 wasn't Dr. Karadzic explaining a strategy, indeed a cunning strategy, to

17 forestall and prevent the return of Muslims to territories held by the

18 Serbs, notwithstanding the spirit of the international agreements?

19 A. You see, this started a polemic. Mr. Karadzic said according to

20 international conventions, the return of refugees has to be allowed. And

21 when responding to warmongering statements, he said things that would be

22 pleasing to their ears. He was far from having the meaning that you

23 suggest; he was trying to counter those warmongering statements. I hope

24 that answers your question.

25 Q. Again, let's distinguish motivation from meaning. Is it correct

1 that Dr. Karadzic was communicating to Mr. Maksimovic and the other

2 representatives of the Serbian people assembled there, that he had devised

3 a stratagem to prevent Muslims from returning to Serb areas? Isn't that

4 what he was communicating?

5 A. No. Instead he devised a stratagem for them to accept the plan

6 because he had already signed it. He had signed that they would be

7 returning.

8 Q. One more time and then I will abandon that. Isn't it correct that

9 what Dr. Karadzic was saying there, what he was communicating in the

10 passage I just read to you, is that by the inclusion of this two-way

11 process provision there was a way to satisfy Dr. -- the concerns of

12 Dr. Maksimovic and others about the risk of Muslims returning to Serb

13 territory? And I don't want to hear again about why he said it; I just

14 want you to confirm whether or not the plain meaning of those words

15 communicated to the deputies was that.

16 A. Yes, it's true that he said this to Mr. Maksimovic, but he also

17 said there were international conventions. He said those two things to

18 the gathering; whereas Mr. Maksimovic is an intelligent man and he knows

19 that international conventions have priority, are superior to, the clause

20 that Mr. Karadzic may have included. It's true he said what you just

21 quoted, but he also said there were international roles that have primacy

22 over whatever Mr. Karadzic included or didn't.

23 Q. And there are ways --

24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, would you allow me to, if it would help

25 to -- if I were to tell you what I, as a non-native speaking person

1 understand this to be, and let's also check on the basis of the original

2 whether the ambiguity I found does exist, yes or no.

3 It is clear, to start with, that Mr. -- Dr. Karadzic is referring

4 to obligations under international law. It's clear. And then he adds to

5 it: It has to be a two-way process. The Muslims and the Croats accepted

6 that. And he said -- Mr. Owen asked me: Why did you insist on a two-way

7 process. And he says: "But when the Serbs from Zvornik returned to

8 Zenica, then the Muslims from Prijedor will return to Prijedor; therefore,

9 it must be a two-way process."

10 When I read this as a non-native English-speaking person, first of

11 all, I'd like to correct on the transcript when you earlier read this part

12 it said when the Serbs from Zvornik returned to Zenica, whereas the text

13 reads when they return to Zenica. I -- just on the basis of plain

14 language I see the following ambiguity. You could understood it to be but

15 only when Serbs from Zvornik return to Zenica, then the Muslims from

16 Prijedor will return to Prijedor, then it's understood as a kind of a

17 condition and not -- unless the Serbs return, which could implicate that

18 if the Serbs do not return to Zenica that there would be no way of

19 allowing the Muslims to go to Prijedor. The second way of reading it --

20 and please correct me if linguistically I'm wrong, and I'm also looking to

21 Mr. Josse who is also very much a native English-speaking person. The

22 other way I -- and I have of course to deal with the English. The other

23 way I could understood it is that if you insist on the right of Muslims to

24 return to Prijedor, then of course the Serbs would also have the right to

25 return to Zenica. That's -- both would be two ways, and I see this

1 ambiguity from a point of view of language. If you disagree with me, I'd

2 like you, perhaps, to discuss it with Mr. Josse.

3 So therefore, the plain language here, as I read it, does not --

4 at least whatever Mr. Krajisnik would say, and of course he doesn't read

5 the English. He receives the translation in B/C/S. So I see a problem

6 here just for you to know and for you to comment on as far as the English

7 language is concerned, if I misunderstood it, and I'm of course to take

8 that into account if further questions are put to Mr. Krajisnik.

9 MR. TIEGER: Well, let me ask Mr. Krajisnik one question, if I

10 may, Your Honour, before moving on to a very closely related matter.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

12 MR. TIEGER:

13 Q. Mr. Krajisnik, is it the case that Dr. Karadzic is there saying

14 that this is a -- that he's explaining to the deputies a method by which

15 the agreement about the right of refugees and displaced persons to return

16 can effectively be frustrated and is saying, in effect, that's a way of

17 being -- of signing an agreement of being a bit cunning and getting what

18 the Serbs want. Is that it or not?

19 A. He is not saying that. In practice, Serbs did not return to

20 Zenica, whereas Muslims did return to Prijedor. He was aware of the fact

21 that intervention -- I understand your question. I'm going to explain.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, I interrupt again. You are again

23 mixing up what happened later and what was said at the time of this

24 meeting, and I invited you not to do so because it confuses very much.

25 Please proceed.

1 MR. TIEGER:

2 Q. All right. Now I'd like to turn to the 53rd Session, please,

3 found at tab 13.

4 A. I have to say that I don't have any of these transcripts with me,

5 and I had no opportunity to revise them before. I have only one

6 transcript of one session. That's why I need to read the text in order to

7 understand.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Whenever you need time to read the context, please

9 ask and we'll give you an opportunity to read a few of the lines before

10 and after that as well.

11 Please proceed.

12 MR. TIEGER:

13 Q. The portion of the --

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

15 MR. TIEGER:

16 Q. Mr. Krajisnik, the portion of Dr. Karadzic's remarks to which I

17 want to draw your attention is found at 02154335, beginning at the last

18 paragraph.

19 MR. TIEGER: And, Your Honours, at page 29 of the English

20 translation.

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Just tell me which session this was

22 and on which date.

23 MR. TIEGER:

24 Q. 53rd Session, held on 28 August 1995. There Dr. Karadzic begins

25 by reciting the following -- explaining the full catalogue of human rights

1 and fundamental freedoms and --

2 A. Excuse me. Is it page 35? I don't have page 36.

3 MR. TIEGER: Here's an extra copy of that particular page if it's

4 difficult to find or missing.

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's on page 36, right?

6 MR. TIEGER:

7 Q. Page 4335, beginning at the last paragraph of that page.

8 A. Thank you.

9 JUDGE ORIE: That page --

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I found it.

11 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... copy. I jump

12 from 35 to 37, and therefore from 334 to 336. Thank you. We now received

13 it.

14 Please proceed.

15 MR. TIEGER:

16 Q. Dr. Karadzic says: "The full catalogue of human rights," and then

17 inserted by hand, "fundamental freedoms as listed in international

18 instruments will be observed, including the right of refugees and

19 displaced persons to be able to return to their homes."

20 He's reciting the provisions contained. And continues: "We have

21 now added which must be an overall process. They don't know what that is,

22 so they keep shifting the first part of the sentence. That's our

23 intention to say: All right. Everyone has the right to return to his

24 home after the war, if that is an overall process. Now, what does that

25 mean, an overall process? That means that the Muslims from Kozluk can

1 return to Kozluk if the Serbs from Kozluk return to Zenica. If they don't

2 want to return, then we need -- and if they cannot return, then we need a

3 new war to exchange that, and that's why I think we should always insist

4 on this. So an overall process, either overall or not at all. We can act

5 the Serbian Cyrillic way and tell it all to their face, or we can be a bit

6 cunning. We do have to be a bit cunning."

7 Now, there isn't Mr. Karadzic or Dr. Karadzic explaining to the

8 deputies the purpose and intended effect of the inclusion of the overall

9 process provision?

10 A. No, he does not explain the intention. It says: "If they can't

11 return," if they can't. If you take that into account, then -- then it's

12 correct. Not if they don't want to return, but if they can't return, in

13 that case the assumption would be correct.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Is there any translation problem? Because,

15 Mr. Krajisnik, I read the following: "If they don't want to return, then

16 we need -- and if they cannot return, then we need a war to exchange

17 that." It says both, at least in English.

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes? Okay, that's clear.

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. If that is the motivation, if

21 they cannot return, then the answer is yes. And indeed they were

22 prevented from returning; you know that.

23 MR. TIEGER:

24 Q. Mr. Krajisnik, that's a disingenuous interpretation of that

25 passage. For what other reason could Dr. Karadzic have to describe it as

1 cunning than that it has the effect of undercutting and undermining the

2 provisions otherwise in the agreement?

3 A. I will explain. The only reason why Mr. Karadzic accepted that

4 everybody could return to their home is because during the war it was

5 impossible for people to return. So he was trying to explain. It was

6 cunning to explain why he signed this first part. He was aware that

7 international conventions come first, and his decision comes second. But

8 in practice it didn't work out. It was impossible to implement, and he

9 knew that it would be impossible to implement.

10 He was saying this to get people to accept the plan as a whole

11 because everybody had some objections. Some people were saying they would

12 be allowed to return to our parts and we would not be allowed to return to

13 theirs. I am explaining what it was all about, and it's true that what is

14 written here is written here. And I can tell you about what happened in

15 practice.

16 Q. Well, I think you've answered the question, Mr. Krajisnik. Before

17 the break, let me turn to the -- another part of the 53rd Session.

18 MR. TIEGER: I think this part has to be distributed, Your

19 Honours.

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Again, which session is that?

21 MR. TIEGER:

22 Q. This is again the 53rd, the same session we looked at a --

23 A. Thank you very much.

24 Q. And I want to turn to two portions of that, the first at page 64

25 of the English, and page 02154381 of the B/C/S at the very bottom,

1 Mr. Krajisnik, and continuing on to the next page. And ask you -- and

2 I'll turn you to two portions of this, and then I'll ask you whether or

3 not Dr. Karadzic wasn't describing exactly how the de facto situation had

4 been created.

5 First at page 64: "Large operations that our army had planned and

6 carried out, the sword, the sly dog, et cetera, a few of those operations

7 that expanded our territory in relation to what we had done in 1992 as

8 territorials were real operations, true operations, well-planned and

9 carried out in circumstances where we were inferior in terms of man-power

10 and superior in terms of men and weapons. But after that, packing Muslims

11 into smaller areas, thus achieving their concentration, we couldn't do

12 much more."

13 And if you could turn also, please, to page 02154387, about

14 two-thirds of the way down that page, Mr. Krajisnik.

15 MR. TIEGER: And, Your Honours, to page 68 of the English.

16 Q. Where Dr. Karadzic says: "So far we have been up to the task. We

17 were a nation. Trebinja" --

18 A. Excuse me. Just let me find this passage.

19 Q. Sure.

20 A. What is the paragraph? I found page 88.

21 Q. Okay. You can go down past the first paragraph and it's about 12

22 lines down, again beginning: "So far we have been up to the task ..."

23 The next two sentences have the words Drvar and Trebinje in them.

24 Do you see that?

25 A. Yes, I got it.

1 Q. And in the English it's located four sentences up from the bottom

2 on page 68.

3 "So far we have been up to the task. We were a nation. Trebinje

4 must equally care about Drvar and Drvar about Trebinje, otherwise we are

5 ruined. We absolutely cannot let ourselves get any ideas about them

6 taking our traditional territories from us. To tell the truth, there are

7 towns that we grabbed for ourselves, and there were only 30 per cent of

8 us. I can name as many of those as you want, but we cannot give up the

9 towns where we made up 70 per cent. Don't let this get around, but

10 remember how many of us there were of us in Bratunac, how many in

11 Srebrenica, how many in Visegrad, how many in Rogatica, how many in

12 Vlasenica, in Zvornik, et cetera. Due to strategic importance, they had

13 to become ours, and no one is practically questioning it anymore."

14 Now, both of those passages, Mr. Krajisnik, are an reflection of

15 how the de facto situation, the new reality on the ground to which we have

16 been referring this morning was created. Correct?

17 MR. JOSSE: I think the rest of that paragraph should be read out,

18 or at least Mr. Krajisnik should examine it.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger --

20 MR. TIEGER: I would be happy to, Your Honour, that's fine.

21 "Between Grmec and Kozara, I think Milosevic must also know that.

22 Foreign negotiators have also been told this. Between Grmec and Kozara,

23 nothing can belong to anyone but us because genocide has committed there.

24 Serbian people have been killed there and the number of Muslims grew 50

25 per cent because of the genocide and not because of some natural

1 development. Genocide was also committed in the Neretva valley. There.

2 That is all I wanted to say."

3 First of all, Mr. Krajisnik, the genocide that is referred to here

4 is the genocide committed in World War II. Isn't that right?

5 A. Correct.

6 Q. And back to my earlier question, both of the passages that were

7 just read out from this session are an expression of the -- of how the

8 de facto situation, the new reality on the ground, was created. Correct?

9 And are -- excuse me, and are a reflection of that new reality?

10 A. Karadzic said here that he had taken parts of the territory that

11 didn't belong to the Serbs, and he enumerated these towns. And he said we

12 have to preserve these areas as Serb because we were 70 per cent in

13 Krajina. And he said in those areas where genocide had been committed and

14 Muslims got it in the end, he meant Mount Kozara and Jasenovac, and he

15 said we had to take care of each other. And he said about those places

16 that weren't ours and that we had taken, Bratunac and Srebrenica and

17 others, nobody was raising that question anymore. That was clear, but you

18 cannot have your cake and eat it. It's clear that people from those areas

19 that did not ethnically belong to Serbs but were Serb at the moment were

20 protesting. They wanted to stay there, and this was Karadzic's response

21 to them.

22 What you have put to me is correct. I've just given you a broader

23 explanation.

24 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, I note the time.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll have a break and we'll resume at 10

1 minutes to 1.00.

2 --- Recess taken at 12.31 p.m.

3 --- On resuming at 1.00 p.m.

4 JUDGE ORIE: I'd first like to go into private session for only a

5 very short moment.

6 [Private session]

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 [Open session]

19 JUDGE ORIE: We are in open session again.

20 Mr. Tieger, would you -- you may proceed.

21 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour.

22 Q. Mr. Krajisnik, earlier today we looked at the rally in I think it

23 was August of 1994 in Banja Luka where, among others, Mr. Brdjanin spoke,

24 Mr. Kupresanin spoke, and you spoke. And you commented upon

25 Mr. Kupresanin's remarks after those had been reviewed, and at 11.59.31 of

1 the transcript you said the following.

2 "Yes, it refers to the Muslims, but I did not comment on

3 Mr. Brdjanin. That was a completely wrong discussion. I was commenting

4 only on Kupresanin's statement, and rhetorically I said these wonderful

5 statements simply to gloss over a statement I did not agree with. I will

6 comment on Mr. Kupresanin 's statement. Mr. Kupresanin denied the

7 existence of the Muslims. He said they were former Serbs and everybody

8 applauded. They applauded all kinds of nonsense, and ineptly I said if

9 the Muslims didn't want to be Serbs we had to believe them. What I meant

10 to say by this was that they had the right to be Muslims; that's what I

11 still think today. And then I wanted to tell all these people who were

12 listening that it's nice to be a Serb and that it's sad that they don't

13 want to be Serbs. But you can't tell someone that he has to be a Serb if

14 he wants to be a Muslim. You can see that from here. But I had to put it

15 this way because there were so many people there and I couldn't say:

16 Kupresanin, you're a criminal. What politician would say that? I just

17 said nicely: Well, we should believe them when they say they're Muslims.

18 You have no right," I think, "to force someone to be a Serb if he's not.

19 That's what I meant to say by these words. I wasn't denying the Muslims

20 their right to be a nation."

21 Now, Mr. Krajisnik, that's not the only time, and that wasn't the

22 first time, that you responded to Kupresanin's comments about Muslims as a

23 nation, was it?

24 A. I don't remember. I may have commented on this at other times.

25 This, I know, was at a rally in Banja Luka.

1 But please excuse me, is the interpretation correct that I said

2 that Kupresanin was a criminal? This may have been misinterpreted. I

3 didn't use the word "criminal." I don't think I said it -- or at least I

4 didn't mean to say it. I said something that he had something bad --

5 well, it would be bad for me to say he's a criminal. He's not a criminal.

6 He's simply radical and he says the wrong things.

7 Q. Well, let's turn to page -- let's turn to the 24th Session of the

8 Bosnian Serb Assembly held on 8th of January, 1993. That's -- and --

9 MR. TIEGER: Your Honours, I want to turn first to page 78 of the

10 English and page 02149934 of the B/C/S.

11 Q. In the English Mr. Kupresanin's comments begin at the bottom of

12 the page and in the B/C/S in the middle of the page.

13 And there Mr. Kupresanin, again, turns to the question of whether

14 Muslims are a nation, saying: "We stumbled over some ideas several times

15 in the past. Gentlemen, is the Muslim nation a nation at all? The nation

16 that was created in Tito's conception in 1974 receives a position like the

17 Greeks, to say the least."

18 And then he continues talking about that, as you can see, claiming

19 it's a deception, talking -- saying: "It is true that the Turks were here

20 for some time, for 500 years. We threw out the Turks, we threw out the

21 Austrians, and we threw out the Germans, and yet Bosnia isn't Serb Muslim,

22 of a non-existent nation. Are these not Serb stupidities again? Well, if

23 we make this mistake now, we mistake an elementary mistake like in primary

24 school. I propose that we deny the Muslims as a nation on the next

25 session of the Assembly."

1 And he describes that as not a maximalist view but a realistic

2 view.

3 And then, Mr. Krajisnik, you respond: "I think that

4 Mr. Kupresanin is right, and I was wrong when I once said don't put them

5 together with us because if you push them together with us we do not know

6 what to do with them. I think this should be corrected a little. We

7 should really take a stand concerning whether the Muslims are a nation.

8 Here we had one suggestion that we say that they are a Muslim sect of

9 Turkish orientation because it would then create a discord in the Muslim

10 world, namely Saudi Arabia and some other Muslim countries believe that

11 the Turks are fake Muslims, who eat and drink like the others. It is

12 known that they are not so religious. We can take a stand at this

13 position. It is obvious that we stumble over this question all the time.

14 We can develop a discussion about this question. We can reach conclusions

15 and include them in the conclusions as well. Here, Vojo, you were right

16 and I wasn't. Let us say a religious group of Turkish orientation, that

17 would be very important to say because they are not from any Muslim world

18 but the Muslims of Turkish orientation which is different from the real

19 Muslims. Does anyone have anything against that the Muslims are not a

20 nation? How about a definition as follows?"

21 Then there's an intervention by Mr. Corda. You speak again.

22 Mr. Knezevic speaks, and then you say: "Shall we then now take the

23 Muslims out of Serbism forever? All right, gentlemen, can we now make up

24 our mind and take a position that the Muslims as a nation are the

25 communistic creation. We do not accept this artificial nation. We

1 believe that the Muslims are a sect, a group, or a party of Turkish

2 provenance. Does anyone have anything else to add? No. I put these

3 conclusions to a vote. Gentlemen, who is for? Is there anyone against?

4 Abstaining? Gentlemen, thank you. We adopted the conclusions

5 unanimously."

6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. -- let me just -- you read a line -- I can't find

7 the line about the Serbism, taken forever from Serbism --

8 MR. TIEGER: That's on page 80, Your Honour, and it's the third

9 paragraph that appears there, under "president."

10 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, you moved to the next page.

11 MR. TIEGER: I'm sorry.

12 JUDGE ORIE: I wasn't aware of that. Please proceed.

13 MR. TIEGER: Sorry, Your Honour, and -- as -- since we're on that

14 page let me read. I indicated there was an intervention from Mr. Corda

15 and then I should -- Mr. Krajisnik spoke. That's at the bottom of page 79

16 and continues to the top of page 80.

17 Q. Mr. Krajisnik, that's the second time you're listed as speaking

18 after Mr. Kupresanin speaks. And that should be found on page 02149935.

19 A. Yes, yes, I found it.

20 Q. Where you say: "Let me just explain why it isn't good. They want

21 us to say that we're all the same. They really want to create one nation,

22 that we're all the same only of different religion. We must say that we

23 are different. They are a group of Turkish orientation. Well, all right,

24 people, if we accept that they are some kind of a group, Turkish or I

25 don't know whose, then we simply give them aces to their hands to be an

1 independent nation. They will be more than happy to claim that they are

2 of Turkish origin, the same as the Siptars developed theories that they

3 are of Iloric origin. Why, we should tell them what they really are.

4 They are unbelievers, a nation that is not a nation. That is to say a

5 nation that would like to be a nation but has no arguments for a nation."

6 Now, Mr. Krajisnik, when you responded to the review of Mr. --

7 When you talked about your comments in response to Mr. Kupresanin's

8 comments in 1994 by saying that you disagreed with him and you didn't deny

9 the Muslims their right to be a nation, that was just wrong, wasn't it?

10 A. That's correct. This here is nonsense, what Momcilo Krajisnik was

11 saying. It's detrimental. I have to say I never thought like this. If I

12 could distance myself from this Momcilo Krajisnik, I would. I would have

13 to read all of this because I probably had a reason for saying this;

14 however, the reason does not justify speaking like this.

15 Q. Mr. Krajisnik, irrespective of your -- of whatever position you

16 take now about those comments, that was the position you took in January

17 of 1993. And on the basis of that position, you formulated and had

18 adopted the conclusion that we just read. Correct?

19 A. No. We should find this. There was somebody else's intervention,

20 somebody else who repeated all this. I think Savo Knezevic repeated all

21 this. There was a discussion about the Vance-Owen Plan and all this

22 contribution of mine is immoderate, it's all wrong, and it's absolutely

23 unfair because I never denied to the Muslims the existence of their

24 nation. However, this speech is absolutely authentic, and I'm very sorry

25 that this Momcilo Krajisnik said what he said.

1 But I would really like to find the background, the reason why I

2 said this. It must have been somebody else who started this. I know what

3 Kupresanin said, but I spoke in a very indecent way because there's no

4 reason why anybody should not be allowed to be a Muslim, a Croat, a Serb,

5 whatever they please. And I have to say I remember this contribution that

6 I made, vaguely but I remember it. I remember saying this. But if you

7 allow me to review this session in prison, I'll find the person who

8 brought this up in the first place, after which I formulated the

9 conclusions. But I absolutely shouldn't have said this. It was

10 absolutely inappropriate, and I accept your criticism and, of course, I

11 accept that it's correct.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, I take it that Mr. Krajisnik will have an

13 opportunity -- because I do understand he's -- he'll take these minutes

14 with him in the Detention Unit so that he can comment on it, what

15 triggered him to use these words?

16 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, the understanding was that Mr. Krajisnik

17 would be able to take with him any documents that had been presented to

18 him -- I should -- and I mentioned before the further understanding was

19 that we wouldn't copy again the sessions he already had, but if the

20 24th Session needs to be provided, that's not a problem.

21 JUDGE ORIE: So, Mr. Krajisnik, you have an opportunity to do what

22 you should intend --

23 MR. TIEGER: In fact, the record should reflect that we're doing

24 so right now.

25 MR. JOSSE: It's worth remembering that the binders, as I

1 understand it, go from 1 to 23. From 24 onwards --

2 JUDGE ORIE: [Microphone not activated].

3 MR. JOSSE: Precisely, they're not in the sequential order.

4 MR. TIEGER: I think we included 24 after we began, but in any

5 event now Mr. Krajisnik has it.

6 MR. JOSSE: Thank you.

7 MR. TIEGER:

8 Q. Mr. Krajisnik, I'd like to turn back in time now to 1991, and in

9 particular to your testimony about Dr. Karadzic's speech at the Bosnian

10 Assembly session in -- on the 14th and 15th of October, I guess the late

11 evening of the 14th or the early morning hours of the 15th , in which he

12 said: "This is the road that you want Bosnia and Herzegovina to take, the

13 same highway of hell and suffering that Slovenia and Croatia went through.

14 Don't think you won't take Bosnia and Herzegovina to hell and Muslim

15 people in possible extinction because Muslim people will not be able to

16 defend itself if it comes to war here."

17 Now, Mr. Stewart read that out to you during the course of your

18 examination, and you explained Dr. Karadzic's comments as simply being a

19 repetition of what Mr. Filipovic had said earlier, and as I understood it

20 that was your explanation of the benign aspect of Dr. Karadzic's comments.

21 Is that right?

22 A. I explained to Mr. Stewart what Mr. Karadzic had stated and what

23 the papers wrote about that, why he gave that statement that upset the

24 public, and I provided it on that DVD to the Trial Chamber. As for this

25 statement, if you want to know, I can comment upon it further.

1 Q. Well, if I understood you correctly - and please correct me if I'm

2 wrong - you wanted the Court to understand that Dr. Karadzic's remarks

3 should not be misinterpreted as a threat because he claimed that he was

4 simply repeating what Dr. Filipovic had said. Is that basically it?

5 A. There are two things to be said here. I presented a new fact

6 about how Mr. Karadzic explained his statement before the Assembly, and I

7 provided a document to support that. And as for the "quality" of that

8 statement, I have to say I read through that statement ten times in its

9 entirety. And it has never been read in its entirety before the Trial

10 Chamber. He repeated ten times: I am not threatening, I am not

11 threatening, I am not threatening. And we should take a look at that. I

12 heard him speak on that occasion, and I was embarrassed but I didn't

13 understand his tone to be threatening. You will see there are three or

14 four entire pages dedicated to his pleas for an agreement. He said: I am

15 not threatening. I am begging you, meaning the other two sides.

16 However, the passage most often quoted before the public is the

17 ugliest passage that sounds threatening. However, I know exactly what he

18 said, all of it, and there is even video footage of it.

19 Q. Well, when you say it's not a threat, but that mean that

20 Dr. Karadzic was saying something to the effect of: Please, don't make us

21 do this?

22 A. Mr. Karadzic said: I'm not threatening. I'm not threatening.

23 I'm not threatening. And then he said exactly what you now suggested in a

24 different context, but he said: I'm not threatening, please. He said

25 that several times, and that's why I understood it was not a threat, it

1 was a warning. And if the Muslims had been scared by his words, they

2 would not have voted for the platform and the memorandum, as they did,

3 which means they weren't frightened.

4 Q. Did I understand you correctly that you cited Mr. Filipovic's

5 remarks to explain further to the Trial Chamber that this was not a

6 threat? Because Dr. Filipovic had said it also?

7 A. No. I presented a new fact to the Trial Chamber, a fact that

8 wasn't known. And I know it because I asked Mr. Karadzic about it, and he

9 explained to me the same thing he explained to the press. I presented it

10 to the Trial Chamber so that the Trial Chamber should know Mr. Karadzic's

11 own explanation of why he said what he said.

12 Q. Well, first of all, perhaps it's useful to look at what

13 Mr. Filipovic actually said, and in that respect if we could turn to

14 tab 26, please.

15 A. I don't know what Mr. Filipovic said; I only know what the press

16 wrote about it. I don't remember the statement of Mr. Filipovic.

17 MR. TIEGER: Excuse me, Your Honour, just one moment, if I may

18 have a moment.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

20 [Prosecution counsel confer]

21 MR. TIEGER: Sorry, Your Honour, we've moved through that first

22 bundle of materials and we're just retrieving the next bundle.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

24 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

25 MR. JOSSE: Sorry, could I ask my learned friend is there an index

1 with this?

2 MR. TIEGER: If there's not one available at the moment, I'm sure

3 one is -- can be produced or can be made available.

4 MR. JOSSE: That's fine. I just wanted to know whether there was

5 one at the moment.

6 MR. TIEGER:

7 Q. Mr. Krajisnik, I'm going to be directing your attention to

8 page 03531269 at the top of the page.

9 MR. TIEGER: And it's page 4, Your Honours, of the English,

10 beginning at approximately the middle of the page.

11 Q. And for ease of reference, the portion to which I am referring

12 occurs shortly after a number of statistics, including 90 per cent, 92.1,

13 and 55, et cetera. So you'll see a lot of numbers and then the portion

14 below --

15 A. Which session is this?

16 Q. This is the -- you mean which date of the session?

17 A. I mean which document and which date, if you know. I don't want

18 to --

19 Q. This is Dr. -- this is Mr. Filipovic speaking at the session of

20 the Bosnian Assembly at which Dr. Karadzic also made his address. That's

21 the session from October --

22 A. Is that the same session?

23 MR. JOSSE: Could we just have the date, please?

24 JUDGE ORIE: We have looked at several sessions in which

25 Mr. Karadzic spoke, one of them being the 42nd Session.

1 MR. TIEGER: I believe this is from the first date of the session,

2 Your Honours.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Of 14th/15th --

4 MR. TIEGER: No, of the 10th, I think, but I'll double-check on

5 that.

6 JUDGE ORIE: The 10th of what?

7 MR. TIEGER: Of October, I believe. But again I can double-check.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please tell us whenever you find out.

9 MR. TIEGER:

10 Q. And Mr. Filipovic states: "What does this mean? This means that

11 the separation of the SAO Krajinas is nothing but the establishment of

12 ethnically clean territories because the consequence of regionalisation is

13 the transport of people. That transport already exists. Refugees from

14 Herzegovina are already coming to Bosnia. Refugees are leaving

15 Sipovo-Kljuc. Territory will be ethnically cleansed, but considering

16 quantitative relations, this ethnic cleansing of the territory will not

17 lead to the creation of an ethnically clean Bosnian Krajina or a Bosnian

18 Krajina or Bosnia-Herzegovina or remaining Bosnia where the Muslims are

19 out-voted. It will again be Bosnia-Herzegovina or its remainder in which

20 the Serbs, Croats, and Muslims will co-exist and where there will be a

21 50 per cent Muslim population, so they won't be a majority, and hence

22 history will repeat itself. This means that the permanent process of the

23 dissolution of Bosnia-Herzegovina, its disintegration, and I'm interested

24 in this above all because I'm convinced that the disintegration of

25 Bosnia-Herzegovina, its regionalisation, it being reduced to something

1 that will later also be regionalised and will dissolve is the beginning of

2 the end of my people. This is why I want to say that we have to face the

3 cause of this process."

4 Now, this, Mr. Krajisnik, is a clear expression of Mr. Filipovic's

5 concerns about and objections to actions being taken by the SDS in respect

6 to the regionalisation of Bosnia and to any form of ethnic division of

7 Bosnia. Isn't that right?

8 A. Mr. Filipovic was saying that we had to reach agreement, otherwise

9 Bosnia and Herzegovina would break up. He was saying this on occasion of

10 the historic agreement, and the rest of his -- of his contribution

11 provides an explanation. He says: Unless we manage to reach an

12 agreement, my people will disappear. He did say that, although not in the

13 same language as Karadzic.

14 Q. And Mr. Filipovic was expressing his fear about what would happen

15 to Muslims at the hands of the Bosnian Serbs or the SDS, right, if

16 agreement wasn't reached?

17 A. No. Let me read to you the sentence.

18 "The cause is that the Serbs feel that Bosnia and Herzegovina

19 doesn't guarantee them the rights they want. We have to open discussions

20 and seek agreements, which is the only political logic and the only way.

21 There are no other means except war. In today's conditions, we cannot

22 ensure permanent order, security, and the territorial integrity and

23 sovereignty of Bosnia and Herzegovina."

24 Q. And he was expressing his concerns in the passage I read out, that

25 the impact on the Bosnian Muslims of SDS policies and actions. That's

1 what he was concerned about. Right?

2 A. You asked me about regionalisation. Correct. He was against

3 regionalisation, thinking that it was a division of Bosnia. He advocated

4 instead a historic agreement whereby Bosnia would remain in Yugoslavia.

5 That was the position of Mr. Filipovic and he was presenting it here.

6 Q. And beyond that, the idea that Dr. Karadzic was merely quoting

7 Mr. Filipovic and that somehow justified or explained his remarks is

8 something that Mr. Filipovic has, himself, not only denied but explained

9 as completely untrue. Isn't that right? Dr. Filipovic, like many, many

10 others in attendance understood that Dr. Karadzic was making a threat

11 against Muslims.

12 A. This preceded the contribution by Mr. Karadzic. The meaning of

13 these words is clear. Mr. Filipovic says: Unless we agree, the resulting

14 threat to my people would be disappearance. What Mr. Karadzic later said

15 to the press was his justification of what he said before the Assembly.

16 It's not I who had made that statement, it was Mr. Karadzic.

17 But just compare these two things. Mr. Filipovic is speaking

18 here, advocating an integral Bosnia within Yugoslavia. And he says: My

19 people will disappear if we accept regionalisation, if we don't manage to

20 reach an agreement. And Mr. Karadzic said basically the same thing. He

21 said we had to agree, we had to seek an agreement. But maybe the Muslims

22 understood it differently. If you look at the entire statement, you'll

23 see that what I'm saying is correct.

24 Q. Well, Mr. Krajisnik, I'm suggesting to you that Mr. Filipovic

25 understood it as a threat, Dr. Karadzic meant it as a threat, and that you

1 understood that that was meant as a threat or a warning about the

2 extinction or physical destruction of the Muslims.

3 A. Mr. Prosecutor, find the date of this session. This must be

4 before the statement by Mr. Karadzic. Mr. Filipovic could not have

5 understood something as a threat if he hadn't heard it at all. He was

6 afraid of regionalisation, he was against it, he was advocating reaching

7 an agreement. He was against the dissolution of Bosnia, and he was right

8 there. He wanted a Bosnia within Yugoslavia. Look at the date, whereas

9 what Karadzic said was said on the 14th or 15th of October. Take a look

10 at the date of this session.

11 Q. Rather than discussing the logic of that, let's turn to the three

12 prongs of that issue, first to tab 27, if we can.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Nevertheless, the date of this Bosnian Assembly

14 session, which you guessed would be the 10th of October, becomes more

15 relevant in view of the answer of Mr. Krajisnik.

16 MR. TIEGER: Well --

17 JUDGE ORIE: You said Mr. Filipovic --

18 MR. TIEGER: I just note -- I don't think there's any question

19 that if --

20 JUDGE ORIE: When you said Mr. Filipovic --

21 MR. TIEGER: No, I don't think there's any question that it

22 preceded the remarks of Dr. Karadzic. I mean, that's not --

23 JUDGE ORIE: So the understanding of Mr. Filipovic that this was a

24 threat does not find its basis in --

25 MR. TIEGER: No.

1 JUDGE ORIE: -- what he said on the 10th of October?

2 MR. TIEGER: No.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.

4 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

5 MR. TIEGER:

6 Q. Now, Mr. Krajisnik, if we could turn to tab 27 --

7 A. Just let me understand this. Is it beyond dispute that this

8 statement was made before Karadzic's statement? That's all I want to

9 know. Yes. All right. Please proceed.

10 Q. Mr. Krajisnik.

11 MR. TIEGER: Your Honours.

12 Q. Tab 27 contains an article from March 1994 by Mr. Filipovic. I

13 want to direct your attention, Mr. Krajisnik's attention to a couple of

14 portions. The first is found in the English at page 2 and on the first

15 page, I believe, of the printed article where Mr. Filipovic says: "In his

16 well-known address at a session of the Assembly of Bosnia-Herzegovina,

17 Karadzic did nothing else but roughly embody and illustrate this strategy

18 aimed at creating and sustaining a third Yugoslavia by means of a

19 genocidal threat towards Bosnia and Herzegovina. His programme was based

20 on the position: Either you accept Yugoslavia or you disappear as a state

21 and as a people."

22 So I think we can agree that there Mr. Filipovic makes clear his

23 understanding that Dr. Karadzic's remarks were a threat directed at the

24 Muslim people, a threat that they would be physically destroyed as a

25 people. Is that right?

1 A. Yes, in 1994 he made this comment. In 1991, just like Karadzic,

2 he advocated Bosnia remaining within Yugoslavia, in July 1991. Those are

3 facts. He did make these comments in 1994 referring to the statements

4 made by Mr. Karadzic in 1991. A month before that he had advocated Bosnia

5 within Yugoslavia. He and Mr. Zulfikarpasic suggested a historical

6 agreement and people still say today that this could have saved Bosnia.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, I'm going to interrupt you. Here

8 again a similar thing seems to happen, that is how Mr. Filipovic

9 understood the language by Mr. Krajisnik [sic] as threatening or not --

10 MR. JOSSE: Karadzic, Your Honour.

11 JUDGE ORIE: I'm sorry, Mr. Karadzic, yes. As he -- well, the

12 transcript says "Karadzic." I don't know what I said.

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's all the same.

14 JUDGE ORIE: It's not all the same, Mr. Krajisnik, and you know

15 the Chamber doesn't take that view. The -- we are mixing up again. Even

16 if Mr. Filipovic at the time would be in favour of Yugoslavia, that does

17 not exclude him from telling us in 1994 that he considered this language

18 to the threatening. You're mixing up argument and facts at this moment,

19 and I invite you to first look at what he said -- what he writes here,

20 whether you could agree with Mr. Tieger that he, at least in 1994, says

21 that at the time when he heard it or on the basis of thoughts developed

22 later on, he considered this to be threatening. And a totally different

23 question is whether, apart from the threat, he would be in favour of

24 staying within Yugoslavia or not, either in 1991 or 1994. We are mixing

25 up at this moment several matters, and I would like to avoid that as much

1 as possible, because questions and answers do not match anymore.

2 I'm also looking at the clock, Mr. Tieger. I am aware that I'm

3 interrupting.

4 But before we adjourn for the day, Mr. Krajisnik, and before I

5 instruct where do you not to speak with anyone about the testimony you

6 have given or are still about to give, we have the correction -- well,

7 correction. The review of the B/C/S and English given by the CLSS.

8 Mr. Josse, you are perfectly right. There was a need to review because

9 where -- and I think that's the most relevant line. The remainder will be

10 filed. But where the transcript -- the uncorrected transcript read: "I

11 thought that when there is a map being drawn, that there should be as many

12 Serb territories as possible, as in accordance with the -- where the Serbs

13 did not have a majority."

14 The review brings us, and the report includes the B/C/S, but the

15 review brings us to the following text: "I thought that when the map was

16 being drawn, there should be as many Serb territories as possible,

17 according to the principle envisaged by the Lisbon agreement, not to be

18 megalomaniacs and demand areas where the Serbs did not have a majority."

19 So the portion did not appear in the English transcript, as you

20 read it at first, which I would say changes the meaning of this portion of

21 the testimony by a full 180 degrees.

22 MR. JOSSE: We're grateful to the Chamber for organising that.

23 Thank you.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And it will be filed so that -- and of course

25 the transcript will be corrected. That means that the definitive

1 transcript will reflect the testimony as given by Mr. Krajisnik.

2 Then we will adjourn for the day. We will continue tomorrow

3 morning at 9.00 in this same courtroom. And I remind the parties that we

4 will have an early finish tomorrow; that would be approximately 20 minutes

5 earlier than usual.

6 MR. TIEGER: And, Your Honour, before we recess, can we have the

7 bundle returned so we can extract the relevant portions and then return

8 them to Mr. Krajisnik.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I take it that can be done before Mr. Krajisnik

10 leaves this building?

11 MR. TIEGER: Yes.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then, Madam Usher, you are required -- no, no,

13 not at this moment, but could you please assist Mr. Tieger in having this

14 material returned.

15 And then you will receive whatever has been dealt with already,

16 Mr. Krajisnik.

17 We stand adjourned.

18 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.50 p.m.,

19 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 31st day of

20 May, 2006, at 9.00 a.m.

21

22

23

24

25