1 Wednesday, 21 June 2006
2 [Open session]
3 [The witness entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.23 p.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. This is case number
7 IT-00-39-T, the Prosecutor versus Momcilo Krajisnik.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
9 Mr. Krajisnik, before we continue with you as a witness, I do
10 understand that Mr. Registrar has, to the extent finished already, that he
11 has tried to make lists of documents provided by Mr. Krajisnik. It also
12 shows that a great majority is already in evidence, which lessens, a bit,
13 the urgency of the matter. And I do understand that we do not have yet
14 translation of all of the inventory lists provided by Mr. Krajisnik, but
15 that translation is -- I think we have one that has been translated by now
16 and the others perhaps still to come soon.
17 [Defence counsel confer]
18 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, we'll double-check. We think the
19 position as far as what we received as far as the Court is concerned is
20 exactly as Your Honour has said. We've done some stuff ourselves.
21 JUDGE ORIE: We'll have a look at that.
22 Then we'll go into private session for a second.
23 [Private session]
12 [Open session]
13 JUDGE ORIE: One of the things that you, Mr. Harmon, asked for is
14 that we pay attention to the photographic material you provided at the
15 request of the Chamber.
16 And, Mr. Krajisnik, it was decided that you would be given an
17 opportunity to make comments on it within the limits I set out when I
18 delivered a decision.
19 Mr. Harmon, I see that I have a series of photographs on my desk.
20 MR. HARMON: Yes, Your Honour. These photographs plus the
21 companion sheet showing the municipality, the location, the census
22 figures, the object of the photograph, the date of the alleged
23 destruction, the date the photograph was taken, the -- who took the
24 photograph, and the ERN number, that has been submitted in respect of each
25 of the municipalities that are part of this compendium. I have taken the
1 instructions of the Court and eliminated certain information that was
2 contained in this according to the Court's instruction. We submit it now,
3 Your Honour. I believe it should have an exhibit number.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 Mr. Registrar.
6 THE REGISTRAR: That will be P1258, Your Honours.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 MR. HARMON: In addition to that, Your Honour, there is a CD that
9 deals with the tour of the parts of the municipality of Prijedor that is
10 identified at the -- should be at the end of the descriptive materials,
11 and I would like to submit these as well to the Court. And these also
12 should be given a number.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
14 Mr. Registrar, that --
15 THE REGISTRAR: P1259, Your Honours.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
17 MR. JOSSE: Could we have a look at one of those indexes, please?
18 JUDGE ORIE: These indexes -- I see this is an index of the video.
19 But didn't you receive the -- Mr. Harmon, did Defence not --
20 MR. JOSSE: I meant that index, the index of the video.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Of the video, that's a very short one. It gives the
22 census, the object being destroyed houses, alleged date of destruction,
23 24th to 28th of May, 1992, the date on which the video was taken, and by
25 MR. JOSSE: Thank you.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Krajisnik, you have been able to review
2 this material, and as I said yesterday an opportunity -- and as a said
3 before, as a matter of fact, an opportunity would be given to you to give
4 comments on the matter. Please do so, and if you would -- whenever you
5 have comment on a certain document, please give us time to find it. It's
6 organised municipality by municipality, as I see. Mr. Krajisnik.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
8 I have received this material from Mr. Josse, and as you have
9 said, I will try to express my objections in principle or, rather, to
10 point out certain things that could be helpful to the Trial Chamber and
11 the others.
12 Just one general remark first. I have seen such destroyed houses
13 after the war when I travelled throughout Republika Srpska, and although I
14 did not travel across the Federation, I cannot say that there are not any
15 houses destroyed in that latest war. There certainly are.
16 And now, more specifically, this is the first photograph I
17 received, it's 03265854. It's a rather large house, demolished,
18 destroyed. What I wanted to emphasise and what could have confused the
19 person who took this photo, if this photo was taken to prove that Serbs
20 had destroyed this house - because I don't think the intent was to show
21 Serbian destroyed houses - however I know from practice that there are
22 Muslim symbols there, the coat of arms of Muslims, the half crescent,
23 letters SDA, and a word "apapusa" instead of "arapusa." And there is
24 another inscription in Roman script.
25 What I want to say is this: What happened in the war is that
1 whichever army passed through a settlement would leave their emblems and
2 inscriptions. Serbs would draw crosses or SDS, Croats would write
3 something different like HDZ. I don't think that this particular
4 destruction was committed by Serbs because I see only one Serb house here,
5 but from my experience I would not say that the Serb side destroyed this
6 because they would not have written SDA, although "arapusa," as far as I
7 know, is a predominantly Muslim settlement. I have seen in many
8 settlements belonging to other ethnic communities where the Serb army
9 passed through, you can see Serb inscriptions, whereas in other
10 settlements that had been seized by the Muslim army you can see the traces
11 of that ethnic community, of that army.
12 On another photograph we see a date, 25th of July, 2001, and the
13 photograph depicts a house, complete with a roof. I haven't written down
14 the number. It's a house under a roof, an electrical transmission pillar
15 next to it. I see there is another structure there, like an outhouse, but
16 the house bears no trace of destruction. So maybe it was just the mine, a
17 shell, that fell on it. What I'm trying to say is that later on when you
18 are passing through, it's difficult to say what caused the destruction,
19 unless something was burned down of course.
20 I noted down another example, the date again is the 25th of July,
21 but I cannot see the number -- 02081901. It's not far behind the previous
23 If it is the 25th of July, 2001, you see a cornfield here and a
24 house destroyed in the middle of it, and you see another two houses, one
25 of them new and another one old, but still has a roof. It's a bit odd
1 that in such a small area, if an army indeed had passed through, one house
2 would be destroyed and the others would be left intact. I have seen such
3 examples several times. 0281906, that's number 24, 25th of July, 2001 --
4 JUDGE ORIE: If I may give one short comment. I don't think, but
5 of course I would have to discuss it with my colleagues, that the Judges
6 would consider when there's a roof on a house that it has -- perhaps it
7 has been repaired over the last ten years since destruction took place, if
8 the destruction took place in 1992. So therefore, it's good that you draw
9 our attention to it that if that roof would be the roof that had been
10 there for all those times, that you, at least, considered it odd that only
11 one house is destroyed and not the other one, which of course is based
12 already on quite a few conclusions, which the Chamber would not easily
13 draw without further evidence.
14 Please proceed.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do not wish to deny anything, and
16 I don't know who destroyed this in the first place. I'm not saying it
17 wasn't the Serbs. I was just trying to work it out because I, myself,
18 come from similar area -- from similar areas, similar lands.
19 The other examples are similar, so I don't want to repeat myself.
20 This one 02081906, it's curious the way the photographer took this
21 shot. He cut a house that is intact down by the middle in order to show
22 more houses that are destroyed. You see several houses under roofs and
23 some covered by some sort of shrubbery. What I'm trying to say is that
24 the person who took these pictures was trying to help and he wasn't
25 perhaps too objective. He only wanted to show the bad things, while not
1 showing examples that would speak to the opposite, that could help
2 comparison. You see some settlements that are intact, roofs are intact,
3 others are completely destroyed, you have both kinds of examples in this
4 material. And I cannot deny that these things do not exist, but I wanted
5 to say that it's difficult to perform expertise on the ground as to what
6 happened exactly, when. You see a house that is intact and you don't know
7 whether it was built after the war or before the war and then was simply
8 not completed and not furnished. Those would be my general remarks,
9 although I have reviewed every photograph one by one, and I do have
10 certain comments but they would be arbitrary after all because I am not
11 informed about what happened here.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Well, just to -- Mr. Krajisnik, on the basis of these
13 photographs, the Chamber will not establish that this destruction was --
14 what the Chamber wanted to get is a visual impression of what it meant.
15 And as you are aware of, the Chamber also invited the Defence -- for
16 example, if you see a village from an aerial photograph where half of
17 them, the houses, are destroyed, that gives some kind of an impression.
18 Of course, to say that if -- the kind of destruction makes it more or less
19 probable that this was destruction caused by violence rather than any
20 other means. And of course it -- it could well have been that the whole
21 of the village had been destroyed or it could also mean that from one or
22 two or three houses, that's general human experience, that the roofs have
23 been taken off for repair. That's all possible. So -- but it gives some
24 kind of impression, visual impression I would say, on what we -- on the
25 kind of things we heard during the testimony of witnesses.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, if you allow me, just
2 one sentence.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have not gone to Zabrdje where my
5 house is. Mr. Stewart travelled there. It was on Serb territory.
6 However, a shell or two fell on the house and rains compounded the damage.
7 What I'm trying to say is that if it's not lived in, the house
8 deteriorates on its own; that's what my investigators told me at least.
9 The house was not deliberately destroyed; it was just degraded by lack of
10 use. And later, refugees stripped it of windows, doors, and took
11 everything away.
12 JUDGE ORIE: I think it -- if it would have presented to the
13 Chamber that the Chamber would have received such information as how
14 houses deteriorated as a consequence of the war, we certainly would have
15 considered to receive those photographs and look at it as well,
16 Mr. Krajisnik. There's hardly any doubt --
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can bring you photographs. I
18 believe Mr. Stewart has been there, and maybe he took some photos. Maybe
19 he can tell you, because I was in The Hague at the time.
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 JUDGE ORIE: Where I said, I hardly could imagine that the Chamber
22 would deny the presentation of such material, that's now for sure. If
23 such material exists and if you would like to bring it to the attention of
24 the Chamber, we'll certainly look at it, Mr. Krajisnik, for the same
25 purposes; that is, to get a visual impression of what this war caused.
1 Then I think it's time that we -- unless there's any other comment
2 on this material. Then I'd like to continue the -- putting questions to
3 you, Mr. Krajisnik. And let me just see whether I can find my way through
5 WITNESS: MOMCILO KRAJISNIK [Resumed]
6 [Witness answered through interpreter]
7 Questioned by the Court: [Continued]
8 JUDGE ORIE: I'd like to briefly --
9 A. You can skip over a couple of those questions and then continue.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
11 I would like to go a bit back to a question I put to you yesterday
12 about the appointment of judges, which now I'm -- if you would please
13 allow me to look exactly what you said yesterday. One second, please.
14 Yes. Mr. Krajisnik, when I asked you yesterday about the
15 appointment of the judiciary, you said the following. When I -- when you
16 said that it was even a bigger problem, the problem of not having enough
17 qualified judges, it became even a bigger problem when the Assembly
18 refused to approve certain appointments, and there was no replacement
19 available or when a judge left of his own accord.
20 Would you have preferred that more judges would then have been
21 confirmed by the Assembly than the Assembly actually did?
22 A. Your Honour, I have thought this over last night, and if you want
23 me to, I can tell you the whole story about those judges because I
24 reviewed all the available material about the sessions where it was
25 discussed, the conclusions, the whole issue of judges.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'd first like you to answer my question. You
2 said yesterday that the problem was even a bigger problem because the
3 Assembly refused to approve certain appointments, and there was no
4 replacement available. My question was whether you would have preferred
5 that more appointments would have been confirmed by the Assembly?
6 A. Everything I said yesterday I stand by. It would have been better
7 if the Assembly had approved all the nominations.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. My question was whether you would have
9 preferred that; whether it's better or not is an objective assessment.
10 I'm asking whether you would have preferred that.
11 A. I would have preferred.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, I also asked you did you raise your voice
13 when the Assembly refused to approve certain appointments? And you
14 answered: "Well, we did have a consultative meeting about these
15 appointments," and I'm quoting from page 26.103, "and we were quite
16 satisfied because you cannot come across as a democratic state in the eyes
17 of the international community if your own people are against judges
18 simply because they belong to a different ethnic community. But the
19 atmosphere was such that the MPs were convinced that it was up to them to
20 decide. So when it came to a vote, they got their way. What I could do
21 and what I did do as the Speaker, I tried to organise discussions in such
22 a way as to protect these nominations because it was politically wise and
23 also fair in the humane sense. It was very politically unhelpful, to say
24 the least."
25 This suggests, Mr. Krajisnik, that as far as you're concerned that
1 you're unhappy that the Assembly did not confirm all of the proposals put
2 to it -- or as a matter of fact, these were appointments that needed
3 confirmation, and that you were unhappy that the Assembly did not approve
4 them. Is that a correct understanding of that answer?
5 A. All that I said yesterday, as you have just repeated it is true,
6 and I'll explain why, although the transcript says something different.
7 JUDGE ORIE: The transcript of what? Of this court or the
8 transcript of --
9 A. Of that session of the Assembly. The transcript of that Assembly
10 session can give a different impression.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Well, then tell us, first of all, what you actually,
12 as the president of the Assembly, did in relation to this. What positions
13 did you take, did you express any -- any view of being unhappy with
14 confirmations to be denied, or could you explain to us what you did in a
15 factual way, please. So not theories, but what happened, what you did,
16 what the others did. Please tell us.
17 A. I did what is recorded in the transcript. I put it up for a vote
18 to see who was against, who was for, and all the Yugoslavs, Montenegrins,
19 and Muslims did not pass. And Serbs, with some exceptions, did pass. And
20 I can explain why.
21 JUDGE ORIE: No. I'm still asking you -- so you're now describing
22 that it was put to a vote. My question comprised also what you did, apart
23 from putting it to a vote. Did you give support to the appointments? Did
24 you -- what was your role, if any, apart from putting it to a vote?
25 A. I played the most positive part from the very beginning, and I can
1 explain that. But if you are -- if you talk only about the 18th of
2 August, you cannot understand it. Well, I am saying it was positive, and
3 I can explain that, if you are interested.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes -- yes. First tell us what you did, and then the
5 assessment on whether and why it was positive, we'll look at that later.
6 What you said your role, apart from putting it to a vote.
7 A. You will get a wrong picture, Mr. President. I want to tell you
8 nicely how it all went from the beginning to end, and you are looking just
9 at the conclusion from the last session. I know exactly what's written
10 there, and I know what you read and what confuses you.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Whether it confuses me or not is still to be
12 seen. But I would like you to --
13 A. You must be confused, Mr. President.
14 JUDGE ORIE: My first question to you is: What did you do during
15 that session. And then I'll give you an opportunity to explain. But I'd
16 first like to focus on what happened.
17 A. I'll tell you what I did. The session was held on the 11th of
18 August, and the nominations of judges from Banja Luka was not discussed
19 there. I told you -- in fact, I told them, all the items that you are not
20 ready to discuss today, put them on the agenda tomorrow, on the 12th of
21 August. And on the 12th of August they brought this list that was not
22 harmonised. It was not finalised. Some were against, some were for. And
23 at the meeting of the Deputies' Club I realised they wanted to get
24 Muslims -- Muslims, Montenegrins and Yugoslavs off the list. And from
25 the 25th of July, I knew that the situation had not matured, had not
1 ripened, because the issue of citizenship was not resolved.
2 JUDGE ORIE: I think I was clear. I want -- when the matter was
3 put to a vote, we're talking about the Banja Luka judges, I want to know
4 what you said and what you did during that Assembly meeting. Later, if
5 there's any need to hear that, we'll hear about what happened during the
6 Deputies' Club meeting, of which we have no minutes. But first I'd like
7 to see what happened on this Assembly meeting.
8 A. At the session itself, the minister came to the rostrum and said
9 there is a harmonised list of judges to be appointed. I have the list
10 with me. Do you want to go through the names one by one? So that's what
11 we did. Some names were taken off the list and others were left there.
12 The ones that were taken off were mainly Muslims, Croats, Montenegrins,
13 and Yugoslavs, so what you read is true, is correct.
14 JUDGE ORIE: And what was -- what did you do? That was also part
15 of my question, not only what the minister did, and apart from putting it
16 to a vote, whether you intervened in the debate and what did you say about
18 A. Yes, I did intervene -- I did intervene when Mr. Karadzic said:
19 Why are we taking Muslims, Croats, and Yugoslavs off the list? And I
20 answered: We are not taking them off the list because they are Yugoslavs,
21 Muslims, and Montenegrins, it's just that we're not filling those
22 vacancies right now. We can prepare them for a vote tomorrow, because
23 there was a problem around it. And those who were proposing them
24 quarrelled among themselves; that's in the transcript. There was an
25 objection when a Serb was taken off the list because some people were
1 saying he was communist, others said he wasn't. I know every single thing
2 I did at that session.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And then what happened then on the next day --
4 so do I understand that you say -- you explained to Mr. Karadzic that you
5 are not taking Muslims, Croats, and Yugoslavs off the list because they
6 are Muslims, Croats, and Montenegrins, but you are just not confirming
7 their appointment, that's how I understand, filling those vacancies, or --
8 A. No, no. No, no. They were not voted for, but the vacancies were
9 not filled. There were no other judges who were appointed, so then we
10 could prepare for the next session.
11 You know what the atmosphere was like? It could have gone on for
12 a hundred years that session, and no appointments would have come through.
13 It's all in the transcript.
14 JUDGE ORIE: And then the next day, what happened the next day,
15 that's, I take it, the 12th of August?
16 A. Well, that was on the 12th.
17 JUDGE ORIE: This was on the 12th. And did you then -- so you
18 would say it was not that whether they were taken off the list or was
19 their appointment not confirmed? What happened?
20 A. The vacancies just remained. In order to overcome the problem on
21 that particular day, that is. I wanted this to get through as if it were
22 just judges and that there was nothing else involved, and then the next
23 day, say, you could have appointed other judges. But others didn't
24 understand that and then they kept insisting: Well, he's a Yugoslav but
25 he's good; and he's a Montenegrin, but he's good, and so on and so forth.
1 And that turned out to be a problem, and nothing went through. And I can
2 tell you why not.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Please tell me.
4 A. On the 20th of June, on the 3rd of July, and on the 15th of July,
5 we had a consultative meeting. I have it here. Many judges were
6 appointed there at the proposal of the minister and of the grassroots,
7 Muslims, Croats, Serbs, Montenegrins, everybody. I was there at the
8 meeting, and you have that session there that is called the Presidency.
9 Karadzic signed it, and this was published in the Official Gazette.
10 On the 27th of July, when that session was held on the 25th and
11 the 27th, a man came from Konjic. He said that there were 3.500 Serb
12 civilians imprisoned in Celibici. A high representative of the SDS spoke
13 then and said: I see this list. I see Muslim judges here. They are
14 drinking coffee up there in Bijeljina, whereas other people are getting
15 killed and our people are in prison. And that caused the mayhem.
16 The Muslims stayed there, but when they came to take the solemn
17 oath, they didn't take the solemn oath. You will see that Milan Novakovic
18 says on the 12th of August that they could not take the solemn oath. On
19 the 12th of August, we got this unprepared material from Banja Luka, and
20 that was when we were discussing the proposal of the Vance-Owen Plan. The
21 MPs were so bitter because Republika Srpska was being done away with, and
22 I realised that nothing would get through because the conclusion of the
23 27th of July was -- well, that's what lawyers said anyway, that a law on
24 citizenship had to be passed and that only citizens of Republika Srpska
25 could be appointed judges.
1 We were in a hurry then in order to get to the meeting in London,
2 and then on the 12th we had a discussion about this proposal, which was
3 disastrous. The MPs were so angry at the Montenegrins and at the Serbs
4 from Serbia and the Yugoslavs and everybody else. So the climate simply
5 wasn't right for this to get through. And I quite simply said: Well,
6 wait a minute, let's go ahead as if there were no one there. Let us adopt
7 a list of 50 judges, but let's not handle it in this atmosphere. In this
8 atmosphere we could have gone on for years and years, and we wouldn't have
9 finished this.
10 It says there was an attack on Pale as well. I didn't want the
11 session to go on for three days. I wanted to go back to Pale because my
12 family was there. I wasn't the only one. That was the situation that we
13 are all facing. That is the actual truth.
14 If I wanted to be against Muslims or Croats, I would have been
15 against them on the 20th of June, the 3rd of July. I would have said to
16 Karadzic: Why are you making this proposal? But I was at this
17 consultative meeting, and all these people were proposed, and this was
18 very important for us politically, in addition to the fact that this was a
19 humane thing. If somebody was a good judge, there is no reason hat they
20 should be discriminated against.
21 I was looking through all this until this morning, and I knew that
22 something happened, and then I remembered what it was all about. And
23 you've got it all in the documents here, too.
24 You know what Karadzic said out there? He said: Gentlemen, Alija
25 is paying Serbs with gold so that he would have them there, whereas look
1 at what you're doing. But they said: No, no, and they got rid of the
2 Montenegrins, the Yugoslavs, the Muslims, everybody, so what could I do?
3 JUDGE ORIE: What did Mr. Karadzic say in respect of these judges
4 to be appointed?
5 A. I really have to apologise I got so carried away.
6 I'm saying that what was indicated then was the fact that it was
7 not good for us to turn down other ethnic groups, but believe me everybody
8 considered Montenegrins to be Serbs and they didn't want them either. And
9 then communists? No. If somebody was a Serb but a communist, a former
10 communist, no way. The atmosphere was so electrified. So then I said:
11 Well, you know, let's try to prepare this tomorrow when the climate is
12 better. That's the whole story.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Are you talking about tomorrow or about half a year
14 later or a year later?
15 A. Figuratively, figuratively. It could be in five days. The
16 Presidency could also send this list of people out apart from the Assembly
17 or say to the next Assembly, but once the atmosphere was a bit different.
18 We also discussed the platform there for London, you'll see, the 12th of
20 JUDGE ORIE: So it was the atmosphere in the Assembly rather than
21 war situation that would guide you in not appointing or confirming the
22 appointment of Muslim, Croat, Montenegrin judges. Is that a correct
24 A. No, they were not being confirmed, Your Honour. New ones were
25 being elected, new ones in Banja Luka.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But the role of the Assembly was to confirm
2 appointments, new appointments?
3 A. No, no. No, no. What I was telling you about, the 20th of June,
4 the 3rd of July. This, on the other hand, was the 27th of July, whereas
5 this was the 12th of August, Banja Luka, new ones brought to the Assembly,
6 and no one had agreed on that before.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Okay. Let's see what happens -- by the way,
8 you're very much blaming the atmosphere created by the Assembly members
9 that you could not make these appointments. Let me then perhaps repeat my
10 last question but in a slightly different way. Was it the atmosphere in
11 the Assembly at that time or was it that in a war situation you would
12 consider it not a good idea to appoint Muslim judges, Croat judges? I
13 mean, you very much emphasised that the Assembly members -- the atmosphere
14 would change in one or two or three, five days, and then everything would
15 be possible. Is it -- therefore, is it the atmosphere created by the
16 Assembly members that guided you in not promoting or not further promoting
17 the appointment of these Muslim, Croat, and Montenegrin judges in
18 Banja Luka?
19 A. On the 12th of August, I did not want to insist on something that
20 could not be carried through only due to the atmosphere. Was I opposed to
21 it? I would have been opposed to it on the 20th of June, the 3rd of July,
22 and so on. I would have said: What do we need Muslims for? But this
23 simply could not get through. It had not prepared sufficiently.
24 JUDGE ORIE: It's not an answer to my question. My question
25 was -- you said: I did not want to insist. Was it because of the
1 atmosphere created by the Assembly members, or was there any other reason
2 that led you not to insist -- or even not to encourage the appointment of
3 judges of non-Serb nationality?
4 A. Well, I knew that it could not be carried through, because there
5 was this conclusion reached on the 27th of July, the proposal of
6 Milojevic. I also knew that it could not be carried through the club, and
7 I found this Solomonic solution. He had given a different proposal, not
8 to fill the vacancies -- or rather, to move on as if there was no
9 ethnicity involved. Let us try to appoint whoever we can, and then when
10 the right atmosphere is created, let us try to appoint whoever. I didn't
11 know about any one of the names. I didn't know who had proposed them.
12 Later on during the war -- you're absolutely right. The further
13 the war went, there were more opponents to having Muslims and Croats
14 appointed to such positions, but it wasn't that way at that moment, it was
15 just a momentary thing.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Momentary thing caused by the Assembly members?
17 A. Oh, no. I mean, I don't want all of this to be taken so
19 On the 27th of July, when we went to the London Conference and
20 when we brought back this material that did not suit the MPs, that was the
21 atmosphere where they felt so bitter, because they realised there was no
22 Republika Srpska. And they blamed everybody, the international community,
23 the Muslims and the Croats, and the Yugoslavia that voted, Montenegro that
24 voted. Everybody was being blamed.
25 So now at that moment you bring in this unprepared material and
1 there are people from Banja Luka who are in favour of it and people from
2 Banja Luka who are opposed to that. All of that is in the record, and I
3 know exactly what it is like. And then presidents of courts came out and
4 spoke and besieged them. I know what the atmosphere was like, and I know
5 every particular MP and I know exactly how they reacted.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Would you have given it a chance to have them all
7 appointed as proposed, as far as you were concerned?
8 A. I absolutely would have, like on the 20th of June, absolutely,
9 because I think it was a great pity for you not to take these people in.
10 I mean, really. I know what it was like politically speaking, and then in
11 addition to that you don't have experts. A judge has to be a
12 professional. What am I supposed to say now? There are no Serbs and I am
13 being tried? No. You have to have professionals.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So if the atmosphere among the Assemblymen
15 would not have been so much against it, then you would have seen no
16 problems in appointing them all?
17 A. Well, I would have said: Well, let's adopt the whole list, the
18 whole list. Believe me, that is what I would have said, because I was in
19 a hurry. You have a list, who is for, who is against, that's it. But
20 they said: Well, let's move along individually so that we could have at
21 least some appointments. The courts could not operate. They had no
22 judges, and it was the month of August and there were no judges.
23 I see no reason why these people could not be appointed to these
24 positions in Republika Srpska to this day. And they can do their work.
25 They can conduct trials, they can do whatever they're supposed to do. I
1 see no reason why that could not be done. That is what we said in our
2 discussion on the 20th of June, when Karadzic said: Let us not be against
3 this, we should have it wherever possible, and that's what we did -- or
4 rather, that's what he did. But I was there at that meeting, and on the
5 3rd of July and on the 15th of July, and so on and so forth, and it was
6 published in the Official Gazette, too.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Did you support Mr. Karadzic when he was expressing
8 himself in favour of multi-ethnic appointments in the judiciary?
9 A. On the 12th of August, you mean?
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
11 A. I did not support him.
12 JUDGE ORIE: You did not support him. Why didn't you support him?
13 A. Well, because he pointed out something that was really wrong.
14 Let's go through this here -- I mean, he could have appointed them
15 five days later without the Assembly had he not pointed that out as the
16 problems of Muslims and Croats. And when you bring that to the fore, then
17 they're going to say: Why did you make these appointments when we were
18 opposed to it?
19 I didn't want that to be seen, Muslims, Croats, whatever. I
20 simply wanted to have a vote on judges. He somehow pointed this out,
21 other MPs did, too, and, quite simply, it became obvious, whereas I wanted
22 us to go through all these proposals. And after all, you adopt the whole
23 list, and then the next day the Presidency could adopt it and make it
24 public. And then there would be a Assembly with a better atmosphere, but
25 he did not understand me when I was saying that.
1 JUDGE ORIE: So your suggestion, more or less, was: Let's do it
2 silently, let's do it in such a way, it will be done within a week, and
3 then we have them all appointed, and there's no problem, and it would not
4 arise any further discussion and debate. Is that a correct understanding?
5 A. No. This is the whole truth. I knew that that proposal, the way
6 it was, could not come through. It was not prepared and there were great
7 antagonisms involved. People were bitter for other reasons. I didn't
8 want to have a debate on this, who was a Serb, a Croat, or a Muslim. I
9 wanted to move down the list, who was in favour, who was against, and that
10 ultimately we adopt a certain number. These other people, because there
11 were these vacancies, could be discussed at a different session when the
12 atmosphere is better or the Presidency could appoint them. But if they're
13 being discussed as Muslims, Croats, Yugoslavs, whatever, no. But then
14 when you look at them as judges only. When they realise that, then it
15 turned in to be a problem. They said: Ah, we appointed a Muslim in
16 Bijeljina, he didn't even come to take the solemn oath. There was a war
17 going on. They thought that they were our enemies. I mean, really.
18 There was a proposal involving a man when they said: He is not a
19 Croat, his mother is a Serb. It is such a problem when you start
20 discussing these things that are so bad and unpopular. The whole proposal
21 was unprepared. It was presented by the president of the Banja Luka
22 municipality instead of the chairman of some appointments commission or
23 something, because this is a pretty big area. That's the reason.
24 JUDGE ORIE: You now introduced the circumstance that it was a war
25 time. Would that mean for you that during such a war judges of a
1 different nationality should not or it would not be wise to appoint them
2 during a war?
3 A. That was mentioned very often because people did not feel right.
4 Those who were on trial, too.
5 JUDGE ORIE: I'm not asking what others thought. My question was:
6 Would that mean for you, so what was your opinion about that, whether you
7 should or you should not or whether it would not be wise to appoint judges
8 of another ethnicity in this wartime.
9 A. Well, I said that it wasn't wise. I know what you're reading
10 now. But I was in favour of these appointments on the 20th of June, on
11 the 3rd of July, and so on and so forth. I wanted them to be there
12 because we needed that. Look it up and you'll see. There were many
13 people who were appointed.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let's have a look at what happened. Could you
15 please look -- I -- we have a B/C/S version of --
16 A. I've got all of it right here.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. P583, tab 87, copies are available. Yes.
18 Page 10 in the B/C/S, page 11 in the English.
19 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note, could we please have a
21 JUDGE ORIE: I have -- in the B/C/S, I have it on page 10, but do
22 we have copies? I tried to distribute everything. And it's page 11 out
23 of 82 in English.
24 Do you have copies?
25 THE INTERPRETER: We haven't received any copies and we need to
1 know what session it is.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It's the 19th Session of the Assembly, 12th of
3 August, 1992, in Banja Luka.
4 Mr. Krajisnik, when you opened the debate, you said: "I hereby
5 open a separate debate on every judge separately."
6 Then the following passage, that is still you who is speaking
7 where it says: "1. Vesna Antonic: I would only like to reiterate." Is
8 that you who is speaking?
9 A. Yes, yes, that's right. All of that is me.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let's slowly go through it.
11 You said: "I would only like to reiterate the conclusions from a
12 session in Pale, when we discussed the appointment of judges to the lower
13 court in Bijeljina. At that time Mr. Milojevic gave an acceptable
14 explanation that we should not appoint judges of different nationality
15 until the issue is resolved, that this will be a state of Serbs and other
16 citizens, while the rights of the citizens and the positions to which they
17 can be appointed would be decided later on. Therefore," you said, "I
18 believe, if we have reached such conclusions in Pale, we could then delay
19 the appointment of judges until a constitution precisely defines which
20 positions citizens of other nationalities can occupy. Mr. Milojevic, the
21 person who gave the explanation, could define that better than me.
22 Perhaps even here we should proceed in this manner and appoint only the
23 proposed Serb judges, while the Croat and Muslim candidates would be
24 appointed only by the constitution, which we're definitely going to
25 change, ensures such rights for them."
1 This was more or less your opening remark on the matter. Is that
3 A. Yes, yes, that's right.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Isn't this an opening remark that clearly
5 disencourages the appointment of any other judges than those of Serb
7 A. Oh, no. I'm telling you. I knew exactly that they wanted to
8 reject the whole list of judges. I wanted this to be carried through.
9 That's what they were saying at the club, that they wanted -- they
10 concluded that they would actually reject everything, but I wanted at
11 least something to be adopted. And the constitution was changed at this
12 session -- or rather, one of these sessions.
13 JUDGE ORIE: You just explained a couple of minutes ago that it
14 was just a matter of change of the atmosphere created by the Assemblymen,
15 and that after five days, you said, or just soon after that there would
16 be -- you could just fill the vacancies and then the matter would be
17 resolved. Here you suggest that you would need to change the constitution
18 to reach such new appointments. I see some contradiction in what you just
19 said and what I just read. Could you please clarify.
20 A. There is no contradiction, none whatsoever. I am trying to
21 forestall things because Mr. Milojevic said all of that and then there was
22 the conclusion, too. I wanted to forestall things. And you will see
23 later on what the discussion was like. If I allow them to continue the
24 discussion, it could have gone on for three days and nothing could have
25 happened. I mean, if you want to believe differently, I cannot convince
1 you otherwise. Look at the discussions and you will see what it's like.
2 Look at the 27th of July, too. It's not my conclusion.
3 JUDGE ORIE: And that is because the Assembly members, the
4 atmosphere was such that they would not want to appoint any Muslim, any
5 Croat, any Montenegrin. Is that a correct understanding? That in that
6 atmosphere you would have lost the whole of the list?
7 A. Well, yes. We were the Deputies' Club, I know that exactly, and
8 people were first opposed to it. You have it here who made the proposals
9 and who said who was a communist and how did they have the right to do
10 this and that. There were hundreds of objections in addition to who's a
11 Muslim, who's a Croat. They wanted to reject the whole list. The
12 president of the court is asking them: Please, appoint at least this one
13 man. I wanted to forestall that kind of conclusion. They knew about it.
14 It was there ten days ago on the 27th of July. You will see what the
15 discussion was like, and you will see later who said what and who
16 persecuted Serbs and what have you not.
17 JUDGE ORIE: And then you started the vote and you said: "Thank
18 you very much." That's on page 13, both of the English and the
19 B/C/S. "We're going to take a vote on each one and you should bear
20 everything in mind. For your reference I'm going to read out everyone's
21 name, surname, father's name, and nationality."
22 Why was it necessary to read the father's name? Is that because
23 that's usually done?
24 A. Oh, Your Honour, I have no way of explaining this to you. I have
25 no way of explaining to you that the way you are drawing conclusions is
1 wrong. I have told you exactly what I wanted to do and what this was all
3 You will find it here what I said after Slobodanka Hrvacanin
4 spoke. If you wanted to conclude that I was against Muslims, then why did
5 I support them on the 12th -- on the 20th of June? I simply cannot
6 convince you, I cannot persuade you, I cannot. I can go on explaining for
7 five years and it's no use. I mean, if you want to conclude something,
8 then what can I do about it?
9 JUDGE ORIE: I have no conclusions in my mind. I'm trying to
10 establish at this moment facts, Mr. Krajisnik.
11 A. Oh, no, the facts are here, and I know all of that. I'm telling
12 you, three times before that we discussed this. I knew who was a Muslim
13 and who was a Croat, and so on and so forth. And all of this was made
14 public, and the situation was the way it was. And now when we're taking
15 things out of context, there is no way for me to explain it. If you want
16 to make a different conclusion, then what --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, would you please answer my questions
18 and refrain from --
19 A. I will, please go ahead.
20 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, may I make one observation.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 MR. STEWART: Mr. Krajisnik in the answer before last said: "You
23 will find it here, what I said after Slobodanka Hrvacanin."
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
25 MR. STEWART: With just a little bit of respect, Your Honour, I
1 suggest that when Mr. Krajisnik says that, it might be helpful to look at
2 the passage he plainly is referring to a section of --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, if he has a specific part in mind. I don't know
4 whether it's among the portion --
5 MR. STEWART: Well, I suppose that's the question really, Your
6 Honour, whether he does, in which case perhaps Your Honour might just give
7 him the opportunity if he does have a specific thing in mind.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, if he can do that precisely.
9 MR. STEWART: That's was my request, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Then -- the problem is, Mr. Krajisnik, that I copied
11 those portions of the session on which I would like to ask --
12 MR. STEWART: He speaks on page 23, Your Honour, if it's possible,
13 without my leading too directly. It is possible that that is the bit he
14 has in mind.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, we'll come to that. We'll come to later
17 MR. STEWART: Thank you, Your Honour. Thank you.
18 JUDGE ORIE: We'll certainly come to other parts of it.
19 Mr. Krajisnik, if you would look at number 8 on the list on who
20 was voted which is Dusanka Fazlic. The --
21 A. [No interpretation].
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The minutes read that there was laughter.
23 Could you explain why there was laughter, when I take it you have read
24 Dusanka Fazlic, a Serb daughter of Avdo.
25 A. Well, here lies the answer as to what I tried to explain about
1 what kind of atmosphere prevailed. People were simply against all those
2 nominees, and I told them to get serious, stop laughing.
3 JUDGE ORIE: But why was there laughing? I mean, laughing appears
4 only on number 8 and not on any of the other numbers.
5 A. Because her father is a Fazlic, which means Muslim, and she is a
6 Serb. That's why they were laughing because she was a daughter of an
7 Avdo, and Avdo is a Muslim name.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 A. From a mixed marriage, obviously.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's then clear to me why there was laughter
12 Then -- well, then we see that we go through the first 11. I move
13 on now, and we then have on page 16, on page 17, and on page 18 we have
14 many other names. And the general impression is that Serbs are usually
15 elected, other nationalities usually not. Most of the times the names --
16 A. Therein lies my answer.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Most of the times the name of the father is
18 mentioned, not always. And you just explained to us that the name of the
19 father, being Avdo, on number 8 gave a clue as to the Muslim origin of the
21 Now, I move to page 18, both of the B/C/S and the English. There
22 Dr. Karadzic says, after you've dealt with number 29: "I need to say
23 something, not only about this proposal but about the principle of the
24 matter, if I may. Look, as we said yesterday we have to determine if he
25 or she is appropriate, but as far as other nations are concerned we have a
1 percentage, a proportion participating in the municipal authorities. We
2 have to be responsible, as we are creating a state. You are the organ
3 creating it. The state must be created swiftly and in the best way. The
4 state must have all its elements in order to survive and remain as a
5 state. I can't elaborate on this longer, but I know what I'm saying.
6 Believe me, Alija pays fortune to any Serb willing to stay and work on his
7 territory. He begs the metropolitan bishop there and sends his people to
8 convince him. I think that the Serbian people know how to make a state,
9 and because we know how to make a state we need to make it with all
11 Then in the transcript you intervene, Mr. Krajisnik, and you say
12 the following: "Radovan, let me explain. Nobody rejects because they are
13 not good or because they are Muslims or Croats. Simply, we have decided
14 to declare ourselves now because we are in the state of a civil war. So
15 they will lose this number of judges, and when the war is over they will
16 be re-elected."
17 I would have two questions to you, Mr. Krajisnik. At that time
18 did you expect either the constitution to be changed within a couple of
19 days or did you consider the war to be over in a couple of days?
20 A. I thought that the atmosphere, the prevails sentiment, would
21 change in just a few days and those people could then be elected without
22 any problem. Just as the first batch was elected, they could be elected,
23 too. I didn't think about --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, would you please answer my question.
25 We have now seen three reasons for -- possible reasons for not appointing
1 non-Serb judges at that time. You gave -- before we looked at these
2 texts, you said it was the atmosphere created by the Assembly members
3 mainly that made clear to you that nothing would come through. Then in
4 the beginning, let me call it your opening statement, you said: There is
5 a constitutional problem, we have to change the constitution before we can
6 appoint. And now in the midst of the discussion you explained to
7 Mr. Karadzic that the non-Serbs will lose the number of judges and that
8 when the war is over -- so I'm focussing only on the last two, where you
9 said before that the way would be free to appoint them in a couple of
10 days, I think you mentioned five but -- well, soon, very soon.
11 So my question now is not whether the atmosphere would change but
12 whether you would consider the constitution to have been changed within a
13 couple of days or the war to be over in a couple of days.
14 So focussing on these two possible reasons for not appointing the
15 non-Serb judges at that time. We'll come to the -- no, no --
16 A. It was just a question of atmosphere. Only a question of
17 atmosphere that --
18 JUDGE ORIE: I'll come to the atmosphere later, Mr. Krajisnik.
19 I'm just asking you at this moment whether you --
20 A. Well, I thought the prevailing sentiment would change in just a
21 few days, and then they would be able to be elected.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, now for the third time you seem to
23 refuse to answer my question. Of course I do understand that you thought
24 that the atmosphere would change quickly, but since you gave two other
25 elements which would make it unwise or even impossible, that is the
1 constitution and the state of a civil war; I'm asking you since you said:
2 After a couple of days everything would be fine, whether you expected
3 either the constitution to be changed within a couple of days or the war
4 to be over in a couple of days.
5 A. I didn't think either.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then let's move on. We got a --
7 A. May I just say this one thing, Mr. President? Here Karadzic made
8 his statement here and there was a vote later. Look at the vote.
9 Karadzic presented it all to them -- if you think it's I who --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes -- no, we'll come to the vote. We'll go through
11 it slowly, step by step.
12 Then on page 21, spilling over to 22, of the English, and it might
13 be 20 to 21 in the B/C/S, after number 47, we see that a discussion
14 develops on Rada Sumbo, where people are starting -- making remarks on the
15 qualities of that person, some saying that -- that they wouldn't know what
16 she had done as a judge; others claiming that this lady while she was the
17 president of the court in Jajce employed mostly Muslims in the court and
18 that no Serbian judges could have any influence.
19 So there starts a debate on the qualities of this lady, including
20 her previous behaviour in relation to non-Serb judges in the court of
21 Jajce. Is that -- do we agree that that's what happens then,
22 Mr. Krajisnik?
23 A. I didn't quite understand. Do you mean whether what is written
24 here is correct? I don't remember. But since it's written there, it must
1 JUDGE ORIE: I'm summarising what it says, and I just wanted to
2 find out whether you agree with the summary I just gave so that we are
3 talking on the same --
4 A. I'm sorry. I wasn't following you. I was kind of reading
5 through, and I didn't quite understand what you said.
6 JUDGE ORIE: But you agree that such a discussion here started and
7 then a vote was taken on Rada Sumbo?
8 A. Yes, because the deputy Prime Minister for justice intervened.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, with different views on -- different
10 appreciations of that person. Then -- by the way, she is then not
12 Then we have a few more. And then we come to Milorad Krkeljas,
13 who is Serb. And then Slobodanka Hrvacanin expresses that she was
14 unpleasantly surprised by the proposal of Mr. Krkeljas. This is the
15 portion, I take it, that you wanted to refer. This is where
16 Mrs. Hrvacanin speaks.
17 A. Well, she says she would rather vote for any Muslim than for him.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and why doesn't she want to vote for him?
19 A. What do I know? She lived in Zenica where he was a judge, and she
20 must have had something against him. I don't know who he is in the first
21 place and what he did.
22 JUDGE ORIE: No, but my question was why Ms. Hrvacanin was opposed
23 to him. She expressed that, didn't she?
24 A. Yes, she said here that he was in favour of Muslims, that he had
25 distanced himself from Serbs and the SDS, that he wasn't a patriot.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So the way he approached Serbs in the SDS was
2 part of the appreciation of this person. Then you intervened,
3 Mr. Krajisnik. I have no specific questions about it, but if you want to
4 explain further on your intervention I will give you an opportunity to do
6 A. Well, as I said, this was proposed by the president of the
7 municipality of Banja Luka, because she asks who nominated this man. And
8 I didn't want to root for a Serb to be elected. I used the same phrase in
9 both those cases, who's for, who's against. And I added, I believe,
10 Slobodanka and everything she says, but I believe it is in principle wrong
11 to pursue staffing policy like this.
12 It's ugly the way we are voting about judges. Something is wrong
13 with these proposals from Jajce and Zenica. It's nominated by our man
14 from Banja Luka, and we are all against in a high degree. I feel like
15 abstaining in each one of those cases. I feel like abstaining on each one
16 of these proposals, but it's true, we have the right to be for or against.
17 However, if these proposals that were rejected, if they are later
18 substantiated, there is still room for them because this is just voting
19 without any arguing. I note that we did not appoint Milorad Krkeljas
20 judge of a Banja Luka court.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Okay. So you expressed your unhappiness with
22 what happened at that time and with the procedure that was followed.
23 Then the next is about deputy prosecutors, number 1 to 11, and
24 then judges of the high court in Banja Luka, which goes on for the next
25 few pages. And then you come to -- at page 27 in the English, I think
1 it's also page 27 of the B/C/S, we come to the high court judges. And a
2 discussion starts when the appointment of Mr. Gojko Vukotic is discussed.
3 I then see that a certain Jovo Rosic takes the floor. And there
4 is some discussion on this person who is of Montenegrin or who declared
5 himself as Montenegrin. There is a discussion which goes to explain why
6 he -- whether he really was a Montenegrin, yes or no, and who made him
7 declare himself a Montenegrin. And then in earlier days he declared
8 himself as a Serb. When he was to be appointed in his previous position
9 they needed a Croat; the president of the court told him to declare
10 himself as a Croat. Please, it's up to you now, says Jovo Rosic.
11 Then you put this to a vote. It reads, and I'm now on -- still on
12 page 27: "Gojko Vukotic, a Montenegrin. Does anyone want to take part in
13 the discussion? No. Who is in favour? 31. Who is against? 5. Who is
14 abstaining? 7."
15 And then you say: "The proposal did not pass because it required
16 a 50 per cent-plus majority of votes in favour."
17 And then you say: "Let's establish a quorum with regard to the
18 Tosic case."
19 Mr. Krajisnik, could you explain to me how this functioned that 31
20 votes in favour, 5 against, and seven abstentions would not meet the
21 threshold of a 50 per cent-plus majority?
22 A. In our constitution and in the rules of procedure, out of 83 MPs
23 there has to be a majority of 42 in favour of every decision; that is to
24 say, 50-plus majority in terms of the entire number of MPs, not only of
25 MPs present. That is why the situation was the way it was.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then you say -- so that was the reason why this
2 vote was in -- well, just Mr. Vukotic didn't pass because there were no 43
3 votes. Okay.
4 Now on the next page it says: "There are 60 of us present. Shall
5 we vote again? Here is Petko Cancar to explain about Vukotic."
6 What was the reason 60 Assembly members being present, the 43
7 votes not reached -- I noted for myself that 31 is a 50-plus situation if
8 there are 60 present; it is not 43. As a matter of fact, there were 43
9 members that voted or abstained. Why should one vote again? I mean, what
10 was the purpose of it?
11 A. No, no. You see, Mr. President, there has to be a quorum at every
12 session. Out of 83, 42 represent a quorum. There have to be 42 people
13 there in order for the Assembly to work. We had 60 MPs. We had a quorum.
14 However, when the MPs voted, not all of them voted. 31 voted, 38 -- 43.
15 Then I established that either there was not a quorum or not everybody
16 voted, and that is why the vote was supposed to be taken again. Then
17 Mr. Cancar took the floor to support Vukotic once again so that he would
18 be elected because he knew him. In our Assembly, there had to be 42
19 deputies for every decision.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So Mr. Cancar was very much in favour. He
21 called Mr. Vukotic. He said -- he called him more or less one of the best
22 judges -- "I'm just saying that Gojko Vukotic is an excellent judge. We
23 lawyers have admired his sentences. I think that many of his sentences
24 will be historical."
25 So I've hardly ever seen a greater praise for a candidate as we
1 see it here.
2 Then you intervened, Mr. Krajisnik. You say: "Please, we didn't
3 reject this. If we haven't elected someone, there are still vacancies.
4 Any proposition can be re-evaluated. The climate can be changed, and they
5 can be elected at the end. Now, those who got more than half of the votes
6 will be elected."
7 And then after Mr. Kupresanin has been speaking, you again take
8 the floor and say: "Let me explain this a bit. If we don't declare
9 ourselves the deputies, we are discussing the qualities of judges. The
10 current political situation is like that. It is not clear, and therefore
11 we are taking some issues off the agenda. We are not appointing other
12 people. We are discussing the qualities and whether certain people could
13 be elected. The ones not being elected could be reconsidered in the
14 coming period, proposed again, and elected. Therefore, this is not
15 discrimination against the person that we are taking off now."
16 And then you say: "Let's go on. We are voting again because we
17 have established that not everyone has voted. Who is in favour? 16 are
18 in favour. Who is against? 19 are against. Did anyone abstain? The
19 rest abstained."
20 Do you have any explanation or did you ever hear from those who
21 changed their vote why, after such a -- as it's said in Latin, such a
22 laudatio, why Mr. Cancar was expressed and once you had emphasised, very
23 strongly, two times that if you wouldn't elect someone today you could
24 still elect him tomorrow, why 15 of the Assembly members were not voting
25 in favour of Mr. Vukotic anymore. Did you ever hear anything from those
1 who voted what made them change their mind?
2 A. Well, everybody had a reason why they vote against, but I heard
3 the reason why they were opposed to Montenegrins. At the conference in
4 London, Montenegro allegedly supported these Vance-Owen principles,
5 whatever, and now the MPs were angry at Montenegrins. That was the whole
6 philosophy involved. Had there been somebody there who was a Serb from
7 Serbia, they would have been against him too.
8 JUDGE ORIE: And this awareness came up for 15 of those who had
9 voted in favour of Mr. Vukotic within five minutes, because 31 voted in
10 favour of him, and in the second round only 16. Do I have to understand
11 that a sudden awareness of the positions of Montenegrins, of whom only
12 good words were spoken in the meantime, that that sudden awareness would
13 explain the difference of 15 Assembly members who were not in favour
14 anymore of Mr. Vukotic?
15 A. No awareness. They were against the Montenegrins from the start,
16 but then there are people who changed their positions depending on the
17 vote. I cannot know why somebody votes in favour now and then later on
18 votes against. If they take the vote 15 times, they change their position
19 every time. Some people are like that.
20 Oh, you mean this discussion affected these people? Oh, no way.
21 Believe me, nothing. Karadzic, Rosic, and the rest, the majority were
22 always against. I knew that there couldn't be 42 in favour. This man
23 happened to be a Montenegrin, and he was elected after some time. I don't
24 remember how much later. He's an excellent judge, but he wasn't appointed
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Where you say they were against the
2 Montenegrins from the start, that at least in the previous round of voting
3 seems not to have been the case where it was 31 in favour, 5 against,
4 and 7 abstentions.
5 A. Oh, are you trying to say that now there were less? Well, how can
6 I know why the number went from 31 to 16. I have no idea. Oh, it was
7 Kupresanin, Kupresanin who had an influence. His discussion was negative.
8 That is why the number went down, I think. A partial communist, that's
9 what he said, and that affected people.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You said: I could have no idea. Is it -- did
11 anyone explain to you why they changed their votes? That's what I asked.
12 That's just a fact whether anyone told you not to guess about it.
13 A. Oh, no.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. This is --
15 A. No, no. Specifically I didn't hear from anyone. I was just
16 talking about Montenegrins in general, and this was really such a surprise
17 that they were so opposed to Montenegrins. But that's the way it was at
18 the time.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'm looking at the clock. We have a break now.
20 I will move to another subject after the break. So this, as far as I'm
21 concerned, closes the questions on appointment of judges.
22 We'll have a break to 25 minutes to 5.00.
23 --- Recess taken at 4.03 p.m.
24 --- On resuming at 4.40 p.m.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, a few more questions.
1 One of the issues we have not spent much attention on was the
2 establishment of a company called Novi Privrednik. You remember that
3 it -- that it was established?
4 A. Yes, yes, I remember.
5 Q. Could you tell us more about that company. What was its purpose
7 A. Novi Privrednik, well, the idea came from people who lived in
8 Sarajevo and who remember Privrednik from the days of the Kingdom of
9 Yugoslavia. That was a Serb company that financed the schooling of
10 children, students, and was involved in humanitarian work.
11 When the Serb Democratic Party came to power, it advocated
12 privatisation, and a drive was launched to establish Novi Privrednik, a
13 new Privrednik, a company that would involve a large number of people,
14 everyone who wanted to be part of this. It was stated here that
15 Mr. Trbojevic carried out the registration on instructions from Mr.
16 Karadzic. People were supposed to invest some monies so that it would get
17 going, this company. In actual fact, I don't know whether it actually did
18 start working. I think it did for a month or two. It was supposed to
19 avail itself of a particular economic situation; namely, that there was a
20 shortage of many goods in Bosnia-Herzegovina and that could have been
21 imported from Serbia, especially food. In this way the shareholders -- or
22 should I call them the members of this company, in fact imported goods
23 through Novi Privrednik and made some money in the process.
24 In the meantime, since Novi Privrednik was not actually in
25 operation, this role was taken over in part by Boksit Milici that had its
1 office in the Holiday Inn until Novi Privrednik started operating.
2 The Executive Board of the Serb Democratic Party took care of
3 Novi Privrednik, organised its assembly, and the company was supposed to
4 get organs of its own and start operating finally. That would be it, in
5 the briefest possible terms, about Novi Privrednik. There was no major
6 effect and the war soon broke out, and I think that it dwindled away on
7 its own.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. What was the role of the SDS exactly in
9 creating such a company in which I do understand to import goods and to
10 make some money out of that?
11 A. Well, the role of the SDS was to promote the idea among its own
12 members so that people would join Novi Privrednik at regional levels, too.
13 Later on it was left to its own shareholders' assembly and other organs.
14 One thing is for sure and that is that the Serb Democratic Party
15 did not have any true sources of income, and it probably expected to get
16 some resources through donations once Novi Privrednik earned a profit.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Did you yourself play any role in
18 Novi Privrednik?
19 A. Well, as far as the preparatory work was concerned, I, together
20 with Momcilo Pejic, minister of finance, and I don't know who else was
21 there, played an active role in order to convey my own experience in this
22 attempt to set up this company.
23 Actually, it was hard to explain this to people, that now they
24 were supposed to be shareholders of a company after socialism and to see
25 whether they would earn a profit and so on. I mean, as far as
1 organisation is concerned, in part, in the beginning I played a rather
2 active role, but later on I didn't due to my commitments.
3 JUDGE ORIE: You say: "In the beginning I played a rather active
4 role." What was that in time, in the beginning until when?
5 A. Well, maybe -- how can I say? Well, perhaps a month, and later on
6 when the assembly and the organs were supposed to be established I didn't
7 take part in it. See, I remember that a meeting in Banja Luka was
8 supposed to be attended in order to explain to people what the purpose of
9 Novi Privrednik was. And I talked to Minister Pejic and asked him whether
10 he could send someone there, since he was rather immobile, in order for
11 somebody to explain the idea of Novi Privrednik to people out there. I
12 think I had a few meetings. Later on -- I don't know if I took an active
13 part in it. I don't think so. Later on, I do not think I took an active
14 part in it.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Were you financially involved in
16 Novi Privrednik?
17 A. Like all others, I was a shareholder, and my father was, my
18 brother was, my relatives, and other people. I gave Novi Privrednik some
19 shares -- or rather, I bought some shares.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Was the level of your being a shareholder the
21 ordinary level or were you -- did you take a specific position in -- among
22 the shareholders?
23 A. No, no, no. No. No one had a specific position. I did not play
24 any role. As a matter of fact, as for Mr. Karadzic and Mr. Koljevic, I
25 suggested to them that they should give some money, that they should
1 become shareholders.
2 But as for this part that you have as a shareholder, you could buy
3 some goods for that part, and then through Novi Privrednik - how should I
4 put this? - you could have it realised. It depended on the number of
5 shares you bought. I didn't have a role in that company, not in its
6 management, not in its assembly, no.
7 JUDGE ORIE: But were you a bigger shareholder or ordinary or
8 small compared to other shareholders?
9 A. Well, compared to others I guess I was a bigger shareholder. I
10 mean -- well, there was a bigger amount involved. I cannot remember now
11 how this could be converted into present-day money, but yes, I guess I did
12 have a bigger share than some others.
13 JUDGE ORIE: And some others or most of the others?
14 A. Well, I believe that there were some other people who had the same
15 amount that I did, but I cannot remember now. But I certainly did take
16 part with a significant -- well, significant. Well, sort of a significant
17 amount of money as a shareholder. There were a lot of shareholders.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Was Novi Privrednik just commercial in the
19 sense that they would buy and sell goods to the public, or did they have
20 any specific relationship with government, governmental organs in
21 Republika Srpska? So I mean were they dealing just with private parties,
22 or were they also -- was Novi Privrednik also involved in supplying goods
23 for the army, the government -- well, whatever public organs there would
24 have been?
25 A. I don't think so. I mean, at that time -- well, Republika Srpska
1 was not actually functioning. I think that every shareholder was supposed
2 to buy some goods and find a buyer. He could do that, but not, say,
3 supply government institutions. It was still Bosnia-Herzegovina, so there
4 weren't some Serb organs of government, if I can put it that way, that
5 should have been - how should I put this? - provided for, supplied with
6 goods. All of that was, say, until February, March 1992.
7 JUDGE ORIE: As a major shareholder, as you said, a more
8 substantial shareholder, what goods did you buy for which you intended to
9 find a buyer?
10 A. I was not really involved in that. I know that my brother once
11 asked before the new year: What are we going to do with this money? And
12 he bought some light bulbs and he sold them to someone. It's the only
13 business deal he carried through on his own behalf, on my behalf, and on
14 our father's behalf. With this money, he bought some imported light bulbs
15 and sold them somewhere. Well, that's what I remember. I don't remember
16 anything else.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Do you know to whom he sold it?
18 A. No, no, I have no idea -- I mean, I don't remember. It could have
19 been some company or whatever. I don't know. I think there were some
20 imported light bulbs.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And then it all stopped after the war had
22 started, because you're talking about a couple of months of activity?
23 A. Well, say, from November to February/March, not more than that,
24 November 1991 until February, perhaps, 1992. Actually, I don't think it
25 even operated for longer than a month because this includes both
1 preparations and its actual work.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you for that.
3 Mr. Krajisnik, I move to another subject, which is a meeting which
4 supposedly took place on the 2nd of September, 1992. We find that in a
5 document, a document being a diary of Colonel Novica Simic. Do you
6 remember that this document which was introduced through Mr. Brown?
7 A. If that's the meeting in Bijeljina, perhaps.
8 MR. STEWART: Sorry, could -- does Your Honour have an exhibit
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it's -- it should be -- let me just have a look.
11 It is part of the Brown material, and I'm not very precise at this moment.
12 I think it's tab 59 of the Brown material.
13 MR. STEWART: Thank you, Your Honour. I see Mr. Sladojevic is
14 working on it straight away as we speak, so we'll -- thank you for that.
15 We'll track that down, I'm quite sure.
16 JUDGE ORIE: And I would like -- and then we find that on pages 37
17 and 38. It describes a meeting, Mr. Krajisnik. It says: "Meeting with
18 RS Presidency, the 2nd of September."
19 Mr. Registrar, do we have the document here or not?
20 A copy is printed out for you.
21 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
22 JUDGE ORIE: [Microphone not activated].
23 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ORIE: I apologise.
25 I would also like to draw your attention to the 27th Presidency
1 Session -- as a matter of fact, 27A, as it is called, which is P65, 194.
2 I apologise for --
3 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
4 JUDGE ORIE: [Microphone not activated].
5 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE ORIE: I apologise for not having the copy ready.
7 Mr. Usher, would you -- because I'll then first concentrate on
8 the 27th Session.
9 Mr. Krajisnik, when we're looking at the minutes of the 27th
10 Session of the Presidency of the Serbian Republic on the 31st of August,
11 1992, I see that during that session Mr. Mladic and Mr. Gvero arrived
12 during the meeting. We find that close to the end. It then reads: "The
13 generals briefed the Presidency in detail on military and strategic
15 Now, this diary of Mr. Simic describes a meeting with the
16 Presidency, which is dated on the 2nd of September, which is close to that
17 date, but not the same date, in which at least Mr. Mladic speaks as well,
18 just as General Gvero. Do you have any recollection whether around that
19 date you had one meeting where Mr. Mladic and Mr. Gvero attended, whether
20 there were two meetings in which Mr. Mladic and Mr. Gvero were present?
21 And do you remember, if it was only one, whether Mr. Simic also attended
22 that meeting; or, if there were two, if in one of them Mr. Simic attended?
23 A. You are probably referring to this other document that I am
24 supposed to be given now?
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I asked Mr. Registrar to print that out, and I
1 first gave you the minutes of the 27th Session. I draw your attention to
2 it that it's not the same date. There is --
3 A. I understand. I remember one conference that General Mladic held
4 with his corps commanders in Bijeljina, to which he invited all of us, so
5 that we could attend his briefing. I was there in Bijeljina, and I
6 remember that meeting because of an incident involving Mr. Mauzer who held
7 a rank of major, and Mladic ripped off his major's insignia and gave them
8 to somebody else.
9 But I couldn't otherwise remember what happened at that meeting,
10 except that every commander gave a briefing about the situation in his
11 area, what was going on, what they needed. I remember two such
12 conferences that I attended. I believe that this is one of them. I don't
13 think that it could be something else. They called it a briefing or a
14 conference, something like that.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And -- so that would not be the same as a
16 meeting of the Presidency, the 27th Session, although Mladic and Gvero
17 were reported to be present there as well? This must be a different one?
18 A. No. This is the meeting to which they came. We were discussing
19 these issues, and they came in the middle of the meeting. They probably
20 joined the work. The issue here was a change of the constitution, and
21 Mr. Trbojevic was raising some issues.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, although it's reported that Mr. Mladic and
23 Mr. Gvero also reported at the very end of that meeting on the 31st of
24 August. But I now understand that this could not be the same -- could not
25 have been the same meeting.
1 Now, at the end of the 27th Session of the Presidency, it says
2 that: "The generals briefed the Presidency in detail on military and
3 strategic questions, the state, and the position of military units,
4 equipment, and other questions."
5 And then it continues, saying that: "All details were discussed,
6 but they were not put on the record because of the level of their
8 What exactly was so confidential at that time that it could not be
9 put on the record?
10 A. Nothing was secret. When something is written this way, it gives
11 free rein to imagination. This recording secretary wrote down all they
12 said, but they always said things like they need money, they need
13 equipment, they complained nobody was helping them, we are at these and
14 those positions, we lack men. There is nothing else that he could have
16 I remember those meetings. There were two or three of them at
17 most. The meetings that we, from the leadership, had with representatives
18 of the Main Staff. In Bijeljina, on the other hand, the whole -- the
19 whole military establishment was there, and we came there as guests, to
20 see what they're talking about.
21 I don't know. I mean, I don't remember that there was anything in
22 particular. It's just the way it's written. The woman who was taking
23 these notes just wrote it that way. Because if they -- they had something
24 special to say, they wouldn't have just come in the middle of the session.
25 They would have come at the beginning, they would have provided background
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then let's move to the -- to the diary.
3 Mr. Usher, could you please provide this to Mr. Krajisnik.
4 If you would look at the third of the pages that is handed out to
5 you, Mr. Krajisnik, last three digits 447 in your language. You see that
6 Mr. Simic has written down something after "President of the Assembly,
7 Mr. Krajisnik."
8 I slowly read it.
9 "Talking to the senior officers to," and then a word
10 illegible, "movement for Yugoslavia. Senior officers are distancing
11 themselves from the SDS. People think that whoever is against SDS is
12 against Serbs. Senior officers are not inclined to the church. They
13 are -- there are objections that the senior officers are meddling in
14 authority. Equal partnership must be established between civil and
15 military authorities. In case paramilitary forces should be formed,
16 80 per cent is the fault of the army and 20 per cent is the fault of the
17 civilian authorities. Discipline must be established and anarchy,
18 looting, and such things prevented."
19 If this reflects what you said, Mr. Krajisnik, could you then
20 explain exactly what that means: "In case paramilitary forces should be
21 formed, 80 per cent is the fault of the army and 20 per cent is the fault
22 of the civilian authorities"?
23 A. I was unable to make any of this out. Just give me a second,
25 No. It says: "If paramilitary forces -- if paramilitary units
1 are being formed." If paramilitary units are being formed I said that
2 it's 80 per cent the fault of the army -- I mean, I don't know exactly
3 what I said but -- other corps commanders should have been present there.
4 Yes, yes, you see there, Novakovic. All the corps commanders were present
5 and we discussed our relationship. There was president of the
6 municipality of Lopari. I remember it was a large gathering. This SK
7 movement for Yugoslavia is a political party that tried to be a successor
8 of the communist party, and it found some support among the military. And
9 I probably mentioned that in terms of a certain mistrust existing. I
10 don't know -- I don't believe that I could have said something like this,
11 but probably I did say something when I was there.
12 I remember they had a lot of critical remarks. Gvero, for
13 instance, he was saying that civilian authorities did not function in
14 certain places. They were blaming civilian authorities for certain things
15 that were happening on the ground, and they required some measures to be
16 taken to investigate, to identify, to establish all the negative things.
17 Probably if we read this through, we could find it, because Gvero
18 was in charge of morale and political affairs in the army and he had
19 certain criticism to address to municipal authorities. This was a
20 discussion about our mutual operation and coordination [as interpreted].
21 JUDGE ORIE: What kind of coordination you had in mind when you
22 say: "Our mutual cooperation" -- at least I did hear "cooperation" and
23 not operation, but I'm not quite sure what --
24 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note Mr. Krajisnik said mutual
25 functioning or mutual operation.
1 A. If an army is a component in the war, it has to cooperate with
2 civilian authorities. If there is a rift between them and the civilian
3 authorities want soldiers to work in factories and the army wants them to
4 man the trenches, if there is such a divide, it is impossible to work and
5 to function if there is no coordination between civilian authorities and
6 the army. But very often it boiled down to mutual accusations and
7 assigning of blame on both sides.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Now, what was your specific role as a Speaker of the
9 Assembly of which, if I understood you well, you often emphasised that its
10 role was limited and clearly to be separated from government and
11 Presidency, what was exactly your role to be present during such a meeting
12 which was very much discussing military matters?
13 A. Well, I was president of the Assembly. Very often representatives
14 of the Main Staff attended Assembly sessions, so of course if they invited
15 me there and if certain problems were being raised, it was quite natural
16 for me to contribute to the discussion. I wasn't saying things like
17 Howitzers should be used to fire at this or that or military actions
18 should be taken here or there. I was discussing issues that I knew
19 something about. It's always the role of a person who comes to attend a
20 meeting as a guest. Naturally, I wasn't a guest in the true sense of the
21 word. I was a representative of Republika Srpska, but I did take part in
22 the discussion on issues that were familiar to me. I didn't discuss
23 things like we need to take this territory or that territory. I don't
24 think it was even mentioned. But it was important to identify who will
25 play first violin, the army or the civilians. And it was a recurring
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. In that diary, just below where you speak, the
3 strategic goals come up.
4 A. Yes.
5 JUDGE ORIE: As we find it also in the transcript of the 12th of
6 July, 2005. What was the importance of addressing the issue of strategic
7 goals at specifically that meeting?
8 A. Well, very frequently many organs, many agencies, were saying:
9 What do we want? Why is somebody fighting in different ways? And it's
10 probably the case that the point here was to state what our goals were as
11 a republic. I don't know whether these are my words; they probably are.
12 But we were probably trying to say: These are the goals that the Assembly
13 endorsed and the goals that we advocate at every peace conference.
14 This is precisely from the beginning of September when the work on
15 Vance-Owen Plan was just starting, and this gathering was probably anxious
16 to know what the talks were about and what our objectives were.
17 Objectives can be pursued in different ways, but I assure you -- and even
18 the soldiers always emphasised that. Objectives always have to --
19 attained by political agreement.
20 In the end they did not achieve any of these goals, apart from
21 getting Republika Srpska. But the primary goal was for all goals to be
22 attained by political means, and it was stated and restated at every
24 There must have been a proposal made here -- or rather, an attempt
25 to foresee what the latest conference would propose, because what was
1 topical at the time was one form of the Vance-Owen Plan that did not
2 envisage Republika Srpska as such.
3 JUDGE ORIE: We've talked a lot about -- and I'm moving to another
5 We talked a lot about Presidency meetings, guests being present.
6 You also described informal contacts between members of the Presidency,
7 and you said: "They found the time to talk to each other, so I do believe
8 we would sit down for a cup of coffee and discuss certain matters, but I'm
9 not quite sure, perhaps while we were on the way somewhere."
10 Just to get an impression on how much of the time you spent
11 together. I'm talking about five persons; that is, Karadzic, Koljevic,
12 Plavsic, Djeric, and you, how much of your discussions is finally put on
13 record? I mean, the portion we see in the minutes, how much is that
14 approximately of what you'd discussed among yourselves? I'm not
15 qualifying -- not saying Presidency or expanded Presidency sessions, but
16 those people -- or at least three, four, perhaps five of them. I mean, to
17 what extent do we have a view on what was really discussed?
18 A. Well, I'll start with the easier question.
19 For instance, the Prime Minister was based in a different
20 location, and our meetings were rare. All these meetings that are
21 recorded are probably the sum of all meetings, because he had to come from
22 a distance of 15, 20 kilometres.
23 As for Mrs. Plavsic, she had moved out to Belgrade and she would
24 come occasionally and then go back. She would also travel across
25 Republika Srpska, so that perhaps in later years the contacts were more
1 frequent. But in 1992 I believe the meetings were rather few and far
2 between. And if all of us attended these meetings, there were probably
3 fewer of them because she left in May and already in July she was in
5 As for Mr. Koljevic and Mr. Karadzic, all of us worked on our jobs
6 during the day. We would either receive citizens or prepare papers. So
7 all of us were doing our respective jobs, but we would also take walks
8 together and discuss all sorts of things. And at those meetings we had,
9 we discussed all the same subjects over and over again. There were no
10 subjects that were left out.
11 There were no official meetings where we would sit down, start a
12 meeting, and say: Let's discuss this subject now. It was rather the case
13 that if anybody had a problem they would consult with the others and
14 finally a decision would be made.
15 We spent a lot of time with representatives of foreigners, I used
16 to call them, but representatives of the international community. We
17 would sit down and discuss with them the current problems. That was the
18 prevailing atmosphere.
19 I see now that I didn't know about a lot of decisions that they
20 had made, just as they didn't know about my decisions that I had made
21 during the day because we were involved in different jobs. But if
22 something was brought up at a meeting, then it was known to everyone. I
23 gave you the example of Branko Simic on the 9th of November. I consulted
24 them and then sent a letter. Then there was this problem of convoys not
25 being able to pass, and that was brought to Radovan Karadzic and his
1 assistant of sort. Mrs. Plavsic once came and said: We have a delegation
2 from London, can Radovan attend a meeting with them if we receive them?
3 That was our day-to-day work.
4 And if I can now be allowed to say what I worked on, I did a lot
5 of work. People just came to me with their needs. I would hear them out,
6 talk to them, and then I would say: I'm now going to dial a number and
7 direct you to see this or that person who could possibly help you. But I
8 couldn't, myself, resolve any problems because I didn't have the right
9 instruments; instead, I would call up the Prime Minister or somebody else
10 and suggest a solution. And also we spent a lot of time working and
11 preparing for conferences.
12 If all our talks had been recorded -- I mean, it's all very
13 similar to what is recorded. The discussions are the same, about
14 politics. We didn't have any other topics, just politics.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Could you give a few examples -- you said: "Now I
16 know about a lot of decisions they had made," you are not aware of at that
17 time. Could you give some major decisions which you were not aware of at
18 the time, so not about appointments or -- major decisions that were
19 decisive for the developments at the time.
20 A. Well, for instance, I didn't know about a single decision taken by
21 the government concerning appointments, launching of companies, maybe
22 orders, because the government was far away from me and I didn't think I
23 should know about it. I read about them here.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now you're referring to the government. I was
25 mainly focussing on -- on -- let's say the five, without qualifying them.
2 A. Well, I meant Djeric. That's easiest to explain because he was
3 far away. He issued an order, sent some ministers out into the field,
4 sent out a report that I wasn't aware about because that was his job.
5 As for Karadzic, there's a quite large number of laws that the
6 government presented directly to Karadzic, he signed them, and they were
7 published, and I didn't know about that process. Later, when the laws
8 were promulgated they would be sent to the Assembly. For instance, the
9 law about the expanded Presidency; I didn't know about that one. I didn't
10 know about the clemency granted to three foreign citizens; French as it
11 turns out. I didn't know about some appointment of some councillor or
12 other. I didn't know about orders. I have now a book of orders. I
13 didn't know a single one of them at the time, but they were issued by
14 people in whose jurisdiction it was. Of course it was his job and it was
15 his privilege. He had his advisor, he would issue orders, and I didn't
16 have to know about that.
17 As for Mr. Koljevic I didn't know about his meetings with
18 Mr. MacKenzie about what they had agreed concerning the airport.
19 Mrs. Plavsic also brought many issues to discuss with Mr. Karadzic
20 without me. There are lots of examples. For instance, declarations and
21 especially statements that people made to the press or the public. Of
22 course everyone worked within their area of competence. It was not my
23 area of competence and I didn't do those things.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Now, just a question which is related to your last
25 answer; therefore, I've not prepared from any source. But I take it that
1 this confirms again that you said: I was not involved in the negotiations
2 on the airport agreement. Is that a correct understanding? Because there
3 is evidence which goes in a different direction.
4 A. No, no, absolutely wrong, absolutely wrong. I had nothing to do
5 with the airport. That's not a problem; that's a positive thing. But I
6 know exactly who it was. I mean, had I been involved, I would have said
7 that I was. But no, I had nothing to do with the airport. I don't even
8 know the man who testified here. I don't know -- well, perhaps I sat with
9 him, but I don't remember him.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then a different subject, brief question. You
11 explained to us that the Serb Assembly that was established would discuss
12 various problems and adopt certain recommendations to the councilmen in
13 terms of the areas where they were outvoted. That's what you said on
14 the -- on the 28th of April.
15 When reading the activities of the Serb Assembly -- also right in
16 the beginning, let's say, for example, the 2nd Session, I read that there
17 is a lot of attention to legislation, constitution, et cetera, and not
18 just recommendations for Serb Assemblymen in areas they were outvoted.
19 The activities, as described, very much reflect an active effort to
20 establish instruments one would usually find in a functioning state.
21 Could you clarify why you said it was mainly functioning as a --
22 well, just as a forum to discuss and to see how -- to adopt
23 recommendations in the area, as -- where the Assemblymen were outvoted,
24 whereas on paper it gives quite a different picture?
25 A. You're talking about the Republic Assembly, are you?
1 JUDGE ORIE: I'm talking about the Serbian Assembly in the early
2 stages --
3 A. The Republic Assembly? Yes.
4 JUDGE ORIE: I think it was then called the Serb Assembly of --
5 well, let's say not the BiH Republic Assembly, but there where the
6 Assembly members would discuss, as you said, and adopt recommendations to
7 the councilmen in terms of the areas where they were outvoted.
8 A. Well, I really don't know how this was translated. Please, there
9 was a recommendation to Municipal Assemblies. As for the Republican Serb
10 Assembly, if I can call it that for short, it was established on the 19th,
11 on the 19th of October, 1991.
12 On the 14th of October, when this outvoting took place, in
13 violation of the constitution, we called upon the other side asking them
14 to withdraw that decision by 5.00 on the 19th and then we would not
15 establish this Assembly. Once we established the Assembly, we stated
16 publicly: MPs will work in the joint Assembly, while this Assembly will
17 only decide on questions that are of vital interest to the Serb people.
18 That was the month of October. Things were moving fast. First of
19 all, the other side did not give a positive response. They went along
20 with secession. The 15th of December happened, the European community
21 asked their questions, and everything went in terms of us going in
22 different directions rather than in the same direction.
23 The Serb Assembly in Bosnia-Herzegovina started assuming the role
24 of a real Assembly, rather than discussing only questions where the MPs
25 had been outvoted. Things were moving in the direction of independent
1 Bosnia; there was no agreement. There is a proper sequence of events.
2 Now I just remembered something. On the 21st of November -- on
3 the 21st of November, we had an Assembly meeting. The Presidency and the
4 government, in spite of the fact that there was no agreement on the part
5 of Serb representatives, they adopted a request for Bosnia-Herzegovina to
6 ask for independence. Then everything went in a different direction.
7 Then the Serb Assembly started working as any other Assembly rather than
8 just confining itself to what was written down in the declaration on its
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Perhaps my question was not very clear. What
11 you did, as a matter of fact, on the 28th of April, when you described
12 what it meant to create Serb Assemblies, that you compared the
13 functioning -- you said that would be called a Serb Assembly that could,
14 and then you make a comparison, just like the Republican Assembly, which I
15 understood to be just like the Republican Serb Assembly, discuss various
16 problems and adopt certain recommendations to the councilmen in terms of
17 the areas where they were outvoted.
18 So you made a comparison of the functioning of the Republican Serb
19 Assembly and the municipal Serbian Assemblies. Therefore, that's the
20 reason why I noted that -- at least at the Republican level in very early
21 stages it very much went in the direction of putting great emphasis on
22 creating legislation, talking about constitution, et cetera. Yes.
23 Then --
24 A. Yes, later, yes. But the establishment was exactly the way it
25 was, as I've said just now, what the point was of both.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'm almost finished. I've got two relatively
2 short questions.
3 The Deputies' Club was, at least at one occasion, used as a place
4 where instructions would be given in the -- you have been -- it has
5 been -- you were asked about -- well, as a matter of fact, it was on the
6 10th of May parts of the -- I think it was the 12th Assembly Session was
7 read to you, part of it being a speech by Mr. Karadzic, who said: "The
8 police must be under the control of the civilian authorities. It must
9 obey it. There's no discussion about that. That's the way it must be. I
10 think we shall hear it today in the form of instructions at the Deputies'
12 Which suggests that the Deputies' Club was a place where
13 instructions were issued which then, I take it, were not issued at the
14 Assembly meetings. Could you tell us, first of all, whether you were
15 aware of this; and second, what you could tell us about the Deputies' Club
16 as a place where important matters were dealt which finally were not in a
17 similar way dealt with in -- or not at all perhaps, in a public Assembly
19 A. Mr. President, this is probably the 12th of May, right? It's not
20 the 12th Assembly. It's the 16th Assembly in 1992.
21 JUDGE ORIE: I could check it. If you continue -- let's just
22 assume that you're right and I'm wrong, which is a likely possibility,
23 then I'll check that right away.
24 Please proceed.
25 A. All right. As far as the Deputies' Club is concerned, the
1 Deputies' Club in the Serb Assembly was a talk shop. We'd have an agenda,
2 and then people would talk about their problems. They would engage in
3 discussions. They would take views. And perhaps they'd use up a lot of
4 energy at the Deputies' Club. Every deputy on his own was an Assembly.
5 There was no solidarity, there was no respect. Quite simply, people would
6 often oppose many things.
7 As for these instructions, that is the police being under civilian
8 government, it probably has to be before the month of May. What is meant
9 is that the police cannot be autonomous. It probably has to be under the
10 minister, under the government, I don't know how I could explain this in a
11 different way. It is unbelievable how, in a war, everybody wants to be a
12 power in his own right and not to have anyone above him.
13 The president of the club chaired the meetings and the deputy
14 president sat next to him. They always honoured their guests, like
15 Karadzic, Plavsic, Djeric, and I don't know who else - I was not a guest -
16 if they were supposed to explain something. I would take the floor like
17 everyone else. Of course I cannot say that they did not set store by what
18 I had to say, but very often they would pass decisions that were different
19 from my views. Quite simply, they thought that that is what democracy
20 was. For instance, I so insisted on this declaration on the establishment
21 of Republika Srpska on the 9th of January should be conditional, that is
22 to say only if Bosnia is proclaimed as such, then it should enter into
23 force; however, I had to relent because they insisted to such a great
24 extent. There are these two examples and many other important examples.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think it was the 12th Session on the 24th of
1 March, which I referred to, Mr. Krajisnik --
2 A. When the MUP was established, yes -- or rather, when the law was
3 established about the MUP probably and when the minister was appointed.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I don't know exactly what happened all during
5 that. I'm just referring to this specific portion where Mr. Karadzic said
6 that further instructions, that one would hear about that in the form of
7 instructions at the Deputies' Club.
8 I have one or more -- one or two more questions for you, but we'll
9 have to need a break.
11 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, may I just mention one point. It may
12 be helpful to raise it before the break.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
14 MR. STEWART: At the very end of yesterday's session.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 MR. STEWART: It's page -- sorry, it's 26.109 of the continuous
17 transcript, but it's page 81. It's the very last page of yesterday's
19 JUDGE ORIE: If you give me one moment, please.
20 MR. STEWART: Yes. Your Honour put this question, it was the very
21 last question of the day. "Yes, Mr. Mandic also testified that he
22 specifically informed you about all matters in his knowledge, including
23 irregularities and inhumane treatment in detention facilities. Could you
24 confirm this or ..."
25 And then Mr. Krajisnik's answer included his disputing or
1 disagreeing with what Your Honour had said, and then the clock intervened
2 and the law of the clock applied to Your Honour, and that's where we were.
3 My question is this, just it might be helpful over the break, I
4 wonder if Your Honour was working from a specific transcript reference
5 there because, if so, it would be most helpful to have it.
6 JUDGE ORIE: I had several in my mind, but if it would assist you,
7 then it might be that I haven't got them with me at this very moment.
8 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, that's why I raised it before the
9 break in case it was helpful to Your Honour to --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I certainly have them somewhere on my desk,
11 which does not necessarily mean that it's easy to find.
12 MR. STEWART: Well, I know that feeling, Your Honour, so ...
13 JUDGE ORIE: I'll have a look at it, what I had exactly in mind,
14 and where we find information about that.
15 MR. STEWART: Yes, that's much appreciated, Your Honour. Thank
17 JUDGE ORIE: Then the parties should be prepared that I will be
18 finished soon after the break. We'll adjourn until ten minutes past 6.00,
19 and I apologise for being such a bad manager of time when you put the
20 questions yourself to a witness.
21 --- Recess taken at 5.48 p.m.
22 --- On resuming at 6.17 p.m.
23 JUDGE ORIE: [Microphone not activated].
24 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
25 JUDGE ORIE: You asked for some information, pages on which I find
1 relevant information in relation to this are 8.932 up till 33, then 9.072
2 to 74, and 9.376. These are the -- the -- I had the first one on my mind,
3 but I find on the others information as well.
4 MR. STEWART: Yes, thank you, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
6 Then, Mr. Krajisnik, let's -- let me put the last few questions to
7 you. Yes, I've got only one question left. And let me just see where we
8 were with the last one.
9 Yes, I don't know whether I fully understood how the Deputies'
10 Club could function as an instrument where matters were -- such as these
11 instructions -- and today we earlier heard your testimony that in the
12 Deputies' Club -- at least that's what I understood that you got the --
13 you gained the impression in the Deputies' Club also that the atmosphere
14 was such that you couldn't move on when we were talking about the
15 appointment of judges, that a lot of substantial matters were dealt with
16 not in public but mainly in these secluded meetings, which makes it not
17 that easy to follow exactly all the movements and to interpret what was
18 done in public then. If you would like to assist me in further
19 understanding, you're invited to do so. But if you say: Well, I said
20 whatever I could say about it, then it's -- I would then move on.
21 A. I said that the Deputies' Club had the agenda of the Assembly.
22 Very often this was sort of a night before the first night. However, it
23 was a talk shop, too, as I said. People put different questions, there
24 were discussions, and there was this energy that was used. You could feel
25 what the views were with regard to certain issues, what the thinking of
1 the deputies was regarding things that would be on the agenda of the
2 Assembly the next day.
3 The atmosphere was more relaxed, but it was an official meeting,
4 that is to say it was chaired by the president of the club, people asked
5 for the floor, there were discussions, and of course certain positions
6 were taken at the Deputies' Club. It wasn't that positions were not taken
7 and that conclusions were not drawn.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and -- of course we heard a lot about it, but
9 there are no minutes of those meetings; they were not in public.
10 A. Well, no. There are a few meetings, say, of the club that - well,
11 how should I put this? - they were sort of similar. What was discussed at
12 the Assembly was discussed at the club, too.
13 I don't think it was too secret. People were sort of relaxed
14 there. They could talk freely, as opposed to the Assembly where they
15 weighed every word. Now, that may be the difference.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you for that answer.
17 Were at such meetings or at Assembly meetings, did it often happen
18 that hard copies of documents were distributed, and it would not surprise
19 you that I'm thinking about the distribution of the 19th of December
20 instructions. Did it happen frequently that such documents were
21 distributed and then, perhaps more specifically, distributed in numbered
23 A. Absolutely. Variants A and B were not distributed at the club as
24 a club. Now, if this was a joint meeting with the SDS -- and perhaps it
25 was distributed there, now that's possible. But if somebody distributed
1 that at the club, no instructions were given at club meetings. I mean in
2 writing. I do not remember a single case. I mean, apart from A and B. I
3 don't remember any other such thing.
4 JUDGE ORIE: As a matter of fact, I -- but I was not clear in that
5 respect. I was referring to whatever kind of meetings in this atmosphere,
6 so would it be -- you said already not in deputy club meetings but Main
7 Board meetings -- well, whatever organ, either of the -- the state not yet
8 established or the entity not yet established or organs of the party. I
9 mean, please understand the question to cover all kind of meetings we have
10 discussed over the last years.
11 Would it happen at other meetings that such documents were handed
12 out, and especially more specifically that they were numbered when
14 A. I do not remember a single document of that nature having been
16 When I spoke of Variants A and B -- well, if it was distributed.
17 That was a meeting of the Deputies' Club and the Main Board, together. So
18 if it was distributed, it could have been distributed at that meeting
19 prior to the session itself. However, when club meetings were held as
20 such, and that was most often the case, there were never any instructions
21 given, apart from the agenda of the Assembly itself. I do not recall any
22 such cases.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for that answer.
24 Then finally a very short question. A question was put to you in
25 relation to an answer you gave to Hasan Brkic, who was a journalist at
1 Tesanj. He asked you: "What fund is being used to pay for arming the
2 Bosnian Serbs with Kragujevac weapons? Do you know anything about that?"
3 And then your answer was: "I don't know. I think they are being
4 armed, but if such a fund exists, then really -- I think that the question
5 is more of a provocative one."
6 And then you later explained that your answer was provocative as
7 well. I didn't understand that. In this answer, what's the provocation,
8 apart from blaming the journalist for provoking you?
9 A. Well, if a journalist asks me, I don't even know when I said that
10 or where, if he's asking me from what funds the Serb people are being
11 armed rather than asking me whether the Serb people are being armed and do
12 you have funds for that, well, then I would have taken it as a
13 non-provocation. But if he's asking me from what funds, I took that as a
14 provocation, because he's accusing you in advance.
15 JUDGE ORIE: You said: I gave a provocative answer. What is
16 provocative in that answer?
17 A. Well, I answered in the same tone. I don't know, you can read the
18 answer, the same tone. I pretended not to realise what this was all
19 about, so I used the same tone but for me it was a provocative question
20 because he's accusing you, what funds? Meaning to say that that was
21 correct. I mean, why would I give that kind of answer to Hasan Brkic from
22 those funds, if I knew? I don't even know who this Hasan is and when I
23 stated that.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you for that answer.
25 These were my questions.
1 Is there any need to put further questions to Mr. Krajisnik? I
2 have a few procedural matters as well, but -- which would take I don't
3 think more than ten minutes. So we would have 20 minutes remaining.
4 Have the questions of the Bench triggered any need to put further
5 questions to Mr. Krajisnik? Mr. Josse? Mr. Stewart?
6 MR. STEWART: Yes, Your Honour, I think normally the Prosecution
7 get asked first, unless they say no, are they? I don't ...
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes -- well, you see, it's your witness.
9 MR. HARMON: Your Honour, it's the Defence witness, so I think the
10 questions should be asked first of the Defence.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I think we usually --
12 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I think we normally do it the other way
13 round. We -- I thought this had been resolved, Your Honour, that in the
14 same way that they get to cross-examine our witness and we get to
15 re-examine. By the same token, we'd done it that way -- I thought we had
16 a ruling at some point that that was the same procedure when it came to
17 questions arising out of Judges' questions.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Let's first make an inventory whether there's any
19 need to put further questions to the -- to Mr. Krajisnik.
20 MR. HARMON: There will be on behalf of the Prosecution.
21 MR. STEWART: Well, in that case, Your Honour, may we respond to
22 that when the Prosecution have put their questions?
23 JUDGE ORIE: To be quite honest, I don't have a clear memory how
24 we did it, which is very bad for a Presiding Judge, but --
25 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, I mean we don't need to go further. The
1 Prosecution is prepared to go first. On the other hand, I will say the
2 question before everyone is whether the questions of the Bench have
3 prompted any need to ask additional questions --
4 JUDGE ORIE: By the party who called the witness.
5 MR. TIEGER: The Defence can certainly respond to that before it
6 hears the Prosecution's --
7 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I can respond to that by saying that at
8 the moment we don't. But, Your Honour, that is, with respect -- whether
9 the Bench's questions ultimately have given rise to the need for questions
10 from the Defence in Mr. Krajisnik's interests is a question that can only
11 finally be answered when we have heard the Prosecution's questions arising
12 out of the Bench's questions. That is a correct and fair way of
13 approaching it.
14 JUDGE ORIE: I will just have to check on the basis of the
15 transcripts. I -- could I say spontaneously I addressed the Defence, and
16 I'm old enough to be aware that sometimes you make mistakes. So therefore
17 I'll review whether that's the practice --
18 MR. STEWART: [Indiscernible].
19 JUDGE ORIE: At this moment the Defence has not expressed any need
20 for further questions.
21 MR. STEWART: The reason I put it that way, Your Honour, is
22 because that is our position at the moment. If the Prosecution have no
23 questions, we have no questions, but I didn't want it to be understood
24 that that would necessarily remain our position if the Prosecution do ask
1 JUDGE ORIE: That's -- well, let's get started, that's one; and
2 the Chamber reserves a final determination to make on the basis of what
3 we've done over the last few months and -- in relation to witnesses called
4 by the Defence.
5 Mr. Harmon.
6 MR. HARMON: Your Honour, I will ask a few questions of
7 Mr. Krajisnik, and then my colleague, Mr. Tieger, will ask additional
9 Further cross-examination by Mr. Harmon:
10 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Krajisnik.
11 I wanted to turn to the topic of arming and specifically the to
12 your evidence yesterday when you were asked by Judge Hanoteau whether or
13 not you felt that information was being hidden from you on the subject of
14 whether the Serbs were receiving arms. That testimony was -- the question
15 was found at 14:49:10 of yesterday's transcript.
16 Your answer, Mr. Krajisnik, was that you didn't have the
17 impression that people with whom you cooperated, Mr. Koljevic,
18 Mrs. Plavsic, and Mr. Karadzic, were keeping things from you. And you
19 further answered that, and I quote: "I was not really informed whether
20 somebody was shipping weapons by trailer from some other parts of Bosnia
21 and Herzegovina." That answer being found at 14:51:45.
22 Then Judge Hanoteau directed your attention, Mr. Krajisnik, to the
23 incident that occurred in Bileca on the 24th of May, 1991, where a member
24 of parliament and a member of the SDS Main Board Dusan Kozic was detained
25 by the police, eight crates of automatic weapons, 16.800 bullets, a
1 pistol, 78 bullets for a pistol were found. And the MUP prepared a
2 report, a copy of which is an exhibit in this case; it's P1213. You said
3 that you had never heard of that report.
4 In your evidence on the 7th of June, 2006, at page 25.296,
5 line 17, you asserted, Mr. Krajisnik, that there had been some talk in the
6 corridors of the Assembly, but that you "had heard nothing and I didn't
7 even know it was Kozic."
8 At page 25.297, lines 1 through 3 you testified: "There was no
9 discussion about this, and this person was not identified as Kozic. Now I
10 see it's Kozic. Well, probably it was. I don't know about this."
11 Judge Hanoteau asked you yesterday at 14:57:20 if you believed
12 that the minister of the interior wanted to hide the reality from you.
13 And, Mr. Krajisnik, your answer at 14:58:46 was: "If it were an official
14 piece of information, it would have had to be filed to Assembly. The
15 Assembly would have forwarded it to the Prosecutor's office, and then
16 things would have run their course."
17 Contrary, Mr. Krajisnik, to your assertions that you were only
18 vaguely aware about an incident in Bileca and that you were unaware that
19 Dusan Kozic was involved in this incident, the contrary is true,
20 Mr. Krajisnik. You were, in fact, informed officially by the MUP in your
21 capacity as the Assembly president of this incident, weren't you,
22 Mr. Krajisnik?
23 A. When I listen to you, I really could not link this up in the sense
24 of me having said that because the Judge asked me whether they were hiding
25 some information from me. I said that I had the impression that the
1 people around me were not, and that was not linked to arming and to Kozic.
2 Then I talked about Kozic, and I said that in the Assembly, in the
3 corridors, there was this news. And I told you what the course the MUP
4 should have taken in order to resolve this problem.
5 I don't know whether the translation is different, but this is so
6 confusing. Please tell me; I was telling you what the procedure was that
7 the MUP of Bosnia and Herzegovina should have followed. They didn't have
8 to send anything to me. They could have only sent it -- they should only
9 have sent it to the prosecutor's office. I didn't know about -- well, of
10 course I knew about Kozic, but Kozic wasn't at the Assembly at that time.
11 I didn't know whether he did that or not because the other day
12 Mr. Karadzic was at the press conference, and then that was stated. I
13 have no idea how all of this is being interpreted, but in the Assembly
14 this was not an official piece of information that was debated. That's
15 what I said.
16 Now, what you stated here and now, I'm sorry, but this is really a
17 totally disparate. I can explain things -- I can explain everything. I
18 didn't know that they were being armed. I knew that there was a case
19 of -- in Bilic, the MUP did not inform me. The MUP was supposed to inform
20 the Assembly, government, whatever. That's what I said yesterday and that
21 is what I assert today. They could have sent information to the cabinet,
22 but not to me. I mean, why would this go to Krajisnik? It should go to
23 the prosecutor's office, and especially if they wanted to file criminal
24 charges. I mean, I'm not hiding anything. I knew of the Bileca case.
25 That's not a problem. I said that over here, too, and I know of another
1 case as well.
2 Q. Mr. Krajisnik, in addition to being informed by the MUP about this
3 specific incident, you were informed about it by several people from
4 Bileca as well, weren't you?
5 A. Oh, no, no, nothing, that's not correct. The MUP didn't inform me
6 and nobody from Bileca informed me. Well, sort of by way of a story but
7 that was much later, after Karadzic's press conference. But no, at that
8 time, no, they did not inform me. Why would they inform me? I mean, they
9 have the prosecutor's office, for heaven's sake, they informed the
10 prosecutor's office and they initiated procedure. Who am I for that?
11 No one informed me. Karadzic had his press conference on another
12 day. You saw that press conference and it was no secret and it had to do
13 with a completely different matter.
14 Q. And, Mr. Krajisnik, finally you personally had a discussion with
15 Mr. Kozic about the arming allegations that had been made against him. Is
16 that correct?
17 A. I do not remember. Possibly. I do not remember. I do not
18 remember having done that, but it's possible. Maybe much later, not then.
19 Q. How much later, Mr. Krajisnik, would you have had a discussion
20 with Mr. Kozic?
21 A. I have no idea.
22 Q. A week? Two weeks? A month?
23 A. He hadn't been to the Assembly for almost two months, if I
24 remember correctly. He hadn't been at the Assembly for quite a while, and
25 after that he grew a beard. I remember that. He didn't come to Sarajevo.
1 I mean, if I talked to him. I don't know.
2 Q. Okay. So after May 24th, it would have been almost two months
3 before you talked to Mr. Kozic about the event?
4 A. I don't know. I don't know.
5 Q. I have an exhibit.
6 MR. HARMON: If we could distribute the next exhibit.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Let's have it. Let's have it, this
8 exhibit, and then I'll explain.
9 MR. HARMON: This next exhibit, Your Honours, is an exhibit -- it
10 is a newspaper article taken from Oslobodjenje on the 29th of May, 1991.
11 The headline of which is "Mr. Momcilo Krajisnik, president of the SR BH
12 Assembly on Bileca case."
13 Subject: "Everybody should answer."
14 And I refer Your Honours to the second paragraph on the first
16 Q. And Mr. Krajisnik, in the B/C/S it's found right in the middle of
17 the page. It is in bold print, "Neka Svi Odgovaraju" is the title of it.
18 And you can see your name above that in smaller upper case letters.
19 I will read this. It says in the bottom of the first
20 paragraph: "Momcilo Krajisnik, president of the SR BH Assembly, stated
21 for Oslobodjenje and added: There is no justification for the creation of
22 paramilitary formations despite the existing weaknesses in activities of
23 the young coalition, which are frequently used to justify the actions of
24 self-organisation, self-protection, and within these frames, also illegal
25 arming. In this specific case of Bileca of which I was informed as
1 president of the Republic Assembly both officially by the BH MUP and
2 verbally on a couple of occasions by several people from Bileca,
3 regardless of their opposing opinions, I can say that I am in favour of
4 the law being implemented and everybody answering for their own actions
5 without exceptions. This is also valid (if the court considers this case
6 and finds him guilty) for Dusan Kozic, an SDS deputy in the SR BH
7 Assembly, with whom I talked personally and who told me that on that
8 occasion that he had found himself there by accident but once he was in
9 that situation he tried to prevent the transport and distribution of
11 Now, Mr. Krajisnik, you were fully informed about this incident by
12 the proper authorities. Isn't that correct? Does this article refresh
13 your recollection?
14 A. Let me just tell you this: It says in Bileca they have opposing
15 opinions, and he has a different opinion. My position is clear. I was
16 informed only in corridors, not at the Assembly. It should have been
17 presented to the Assembly officially, and that's what I said. And you can
18 see what my position is from this, if this is really so. This is the
19 Muslim Oslobodjenje. They must have told the truth. I don't know.
20 This is the 29th of May. I don't know when the shipping of
21 weapons took place. It's impossible that I had talked to him within five
22 days, because he hadn't attended the Assembly for two months. There is a
23 sequence, and you can see that he didn't come for two months. I don't
24 know how this is possible because he didn't attend the Assembly sessions
25 at that time, nor did he come to Sarajevo.
1 But this is my position. It was my position then, and I later
2 said it on TV that nobody can arm themselves without being held
3 responsible. And there is again a little piece of news in a box here, a
4 statement of MUP concerning the shipment of arms.
5 Q. Mr. Krajisnik, just focus on the question that I asked you. The
6 question I asked you, Mr. Krajisnik --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Could we first, Mr. Harmon, could we first -- is this
8 what you told Oslobodjenje? So apart from how to interpret it, but is
9 this approximately what you told them, Mr. Krajisnik?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This corresponds to my position that
11 there may not be any paramilitary units and it's impossible for people not
12 to answer for their actions. I don't know what I said and what I answered
13 and I don't remember giving that statement, that is to say I don't
14 remember it now. But that is my position.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 Please proceed.
17 MR. HARMON:
18 Q. Mr. Krajisnik, this incident took place on the 20 -- this
19 interview or this newspaper article is dated the 29th of May, 1991. The
20 incident took place on the 24th of May, 1991. Whether or not you had a --
21 strike that.
22 Mr. Krajisnik, do you now -- does this article refresh your
23 recollection in any way, Mr. Krajisnik, about this event in Bileca?
24 A. I said that I knew about the Bileca case, and I know that MUP
25 submitted some sort of report. I didn't know the details. I did not
1 discuss this with anybody in Bileca. I don't know how they could say that
2 I did. That they -- they say here that they have opposing views, but I
3 didn't hear about the details of how it happened, neither from them nor
4 from the MUP.
5 It's probably the truth, I don't know anymore now. MUP should
6 have filed a criminal report, and that would be the end of it. The MUP
7 doesn't explain why they did not file a criminal report to the
8 prosecutor's office, that is. What do I have to do with it except that I
9 gave a statement is ...
10 Q. Mr. Krajisnik, in your evidence and your answer to Judge Hanoteau
11 at 14:58:46 you said: "If it were an official piece of information, it
12 would have had to be filed to Assembly, the Assembly would have forwarded
13 it to the prosecutor's office, and things would have run their course."
14 That was your evidence according to the transcript, Mr. Krajisnik.
15 A. No, no, no, that's not what I said. I said if there had been a
16 piece of information, it would have gone to the government, and from the
17 government to the Assembly. But it's not the Assembly that can give it to
18 the prosecutor's office. That sort of thing does not exist. I said the
20 JUDGE ORIE: Well, what you said, Mr. Krajisnik, will be verified
21 on the basis of the audio transcript so that we know that.
22 MR. HARMON: Mr. --
23 JUDGE ORIE: We'll take the necessary action to --
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I did say that, it was a slip of
25 the tongue. The minister gives it to the government and the government to
1 the Assembly.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik --
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] To the office of the prosecutor.
4 What does the Assembly have to do with it? I didn't say that.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Krajisnik, you said: I didn't say that. I said
6 we would verify that. If there -- if it's different, then we'll look at
7 whether it was the slip of the tongue or not, but let's first verify what
8 it is and not speculate on anything else.
9 Please proceed, Mr. Harmon.
10 MR. HARMON: I have no further questions, Your Honour. Thank you.
11 This needs an exhibit number, Your Honour.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I beg you, Mr. President, just one
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. Krajisnik, I'm sorry to come
16 back on this, but I'm reading the transcript and you have answered a
17 question that was asked to you.
18 [In English] "There was no discussion about this, and this person
19 was not identified as Kozic. Now" -- now we are in the court now, "I see
20 it is Kozic."
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I will review my own video
22 recording. At that time, it was not identified -- I didn't know it was
23 Kozic at this moment, but you will see tomorrow that -- I mean, the next
24 day Karadzic gave a press conference and mentioned Kozic as having found
25 himself there by chance. I'll check it on the video recording and see
1 exactly what I said about it. And it cannot be sent to the Assembly.
2 Just tell me, please, what date so that I can check.
3 JUDGE HANOTEAU: [Interpretation] Thank you.
4 JUDGE ORIE: The testimony was given on the 7th of June, 2006,
5 and -- although it might not assist you, but perhaps if you have the page
6 numbers it is -- it's page 25.297, and that is approximately at
7 10 per cent of the transcript of that day. And we'll pay specific
8 attention to that.
9 Mr. Harmon.
10 MR. HARMON: Your Honour, there is also another reference at
11 25.296, at line 17 as well, from the transcript.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and that's -- yes, there it says: "I heard of
13 nothing and I didn't even know it was Kozic."
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct, correct. At that time I
15 didn't know anything, but later on you gave me the press conference given
16 by Karadzic, you know, when we discussed those automatic weapons. I'll
17 see the recording and see -- and see what I said and I'll inform you.
18 I'll give you the exact description of what it was like.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just check a -- one thing.
20 MR. HARMON: While you're checking, Your Honour, the press
21 conference --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes -- no, Mr. -- I'm just looking at -- because you
23 made reference at that time to Assembly sessions. The question was: "So
24 how did you become aware of this incident" -- oh, no, it's -- I haven't
25 the full agenda of the 1991 Assembly sessions, I'm afraid. I do not know
1 exactly when sessions were held in 1991, BiH Assembly, but --
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I gave it to you, Mr. President, all
3 the Assembly sessions, no problems. I provided all the Assembly sessions.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was never on the agenda, not that
6 I remember.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I'm not talking about whether it was on the
8 agenda; I'm mainly trying to orient myself on the basis of your testimony
9 where you said: We had a session of the Assembly, then deputies in the
10 corridor started discussing this, et cetera, et cetera. And then -- so
11 you're locating the rumours at the time of an Assembly session, which
12 would then have to be anything between the 24th and the -- well, first
13 coming Assembly sessions. And I just do not have a full --
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'll check that, too. I'll check
15 that, too, and I'll inform you tomorrow.
16 JUDGE ORIE: We'll have a look at it. At the same time -- yes.
17 No further questions, Mr. Harmon?
18 MR. HARMON: I have no further questions, Your Honour. I do need
19 an exhibit number for that last exhibit.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Registrar.
21 THE REGISTRAR: That will be P1260, Your Honours.
22 MR. HARMON: Thank you.
23 Q. Thank you, Mr. Krajisnik.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. --
25 MR. STEWART: I thought Mr. Tieger was -- I'm not changing sides,
1 Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ORIE: No, no. Mr. Tieger, when I ignored your importance,
3 then I apologise for that. Please proceed.
4 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour. Your Honour, I expect to be
5 brief, but not that brief.
6 JUDGE ORIE: No, no, not that brief. And I have a few procedural
7 matters to discuss -- no, not to discuss, to -- yes, a few procedural
8 matters. I'll try to be as briefly as I can.
9 First of all, has the Prosecution considered what its position
10 would be on the admission of the totality or parts of Mr. Karadzic's
12 MR. TIEGER: Yes, we have, Your Honour. And the Prosecution is
13 seeking the admission of that document in its totality. I know the Court
14 has been referring to it as the -- maybe -- actually, maybe we're talking
15 about two different documents now.
16 JUDGE ORIE: I'm talking about P1148.
17 MR. TIEGER: And let me make sure I -- we're talking about
18 precisely the same thing. That's the handwritten document, Your Honour?
19 It is --
20 JUDGE ORIE: I take it it is, yes.
21 MR. TIEGER: Well, the -- I'd have to look quickly at the --
22 JUDGE ORIE: If that would need more time, perhaps you could
23 already inform the Defence on what your position will be and see whether
24 there is any disagreement.
25 MR. TIEGER: I can see the document now. That is a document to
1 which we've been referring. I've had discussions --
2 MR. JOSSE: Could I interrupt simply to say that Mr. Tieger did
3 speak to me earlier. I think it would be helpful, bearing in mind we are
4 going to be here tomorrow, if this was adjourned until tomorrow, and I
5 will consider it further overnight.
6 MR. TIEGER: I have no objection to that, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then yesterday you indicated that as far as
8 the letter written by Mr. Karadzic to the Defence is concerned, where the
9 Defence did not adopt it but neither did object against admission into
10 evidence, you said that you would get back to the Court very quickly.
11 MR. HARMON: I'll get back to the Court right now, Your Honour.
12 Yes, we do oppose its admission. There is no procedural rule that
13 permits a statement such as that to come in. So we oppose it. It isn't a
14 92 bis statement, it's not attested to by a court officer. Under those
15 circumstances, we oppose its admission.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 I take it that if -- the Chamber would appreciate if the Defence
18 would -- would say not only we do not object but we do not adopt the
19 document either, whether they would take a position in view of what the
20 objections by the OTP are.
21 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, we -- for practical purposes I
22 think we know our position, but, Your Honour, it seems sensible in the
23 circumstances. Can we consider it and give our position in the morning?
24 Thank you.
25 JUDGE ORIE: That's fine.
1 Then we turn into private session for one second.
2 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, before -- should I -- I have got a
3 small point to raise in open session. Should I get that out of the way
5 JUDGE ORIE: We'll return into open session.
6 [Private session]
25 [Open session]
1 JUDGE ORIE: We are now in open session.
2 MR. STEWART: Yes, I understand, Your Honour. They're separate
3 entirely, appropriately open session points, Your Honour, I'm raising now.
4 Thank you.
5 JUDGE ORIE: I had two other ones as well.
6 MR. STEWART: I beg your pardon. I'm so sorry, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: The first one being that D254, that is the transcript
8 of -- and translation of a -- of a video. Mr. Josse, I think you
9 addressed the Chamber through an e-mail -- the Chamber staff to see
10 whether the Chamber would really insist on having it all transcribed,
11 being it's subtitled and whether not a more practical solution could be
12 reached. The Chamber is always open for practical solutions. At the same
13 time, if you could communicate a matter with the OTP, if the parties would
14 come with a shared solution for the problem, we'll certainly -- it might
15 be more easy for us to consider it and to follow that, compared to the
16 situation where it's only one party who would agree.
17 MR. JOSSE: I'll speak to my learned friends about it.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So D254 is in the freezer at this point -- in
19 the fridge for the time being until we have heard from the parties whether
20 any agreement -- could we -- well, let's say a week should be sufficient
21 to deal with the matter.
22 MR. JOSSE: Thank you.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Then finally I've got one very technical matter to
24 pronounce. That is an issue about Nielsen source material.
25 On the 27th of March, the Chamber directed the Prosecution to
1 submit the source material cited in paragraph 347 of the report of expert
2 witness Christian Nielsen. Specifically, the Chamber requested documents
3 which, according to the report, were received by the Presidency.
4 On the 25th of April, the Prosecution provided four such
5 documents. On the 10th of May, the Defence filed a submission, to the
6 effect that three of the documents had already been admitted into
7 evidence. The Defence stated that it had no objection to the admission of
8 the remaining document.
9 The source material provided by the Prosecution consisted of the
10 following documents, which have been assigned provisional exhibit numbers.
11 P1177.A is a report on, I quote: "Some aspects of the work done to date
12 and the tasks ahead," which is dated the 11th July, 1992. This document
13 has already been admitted into evidence numerous times under exhibit
14 numbers P447; P529, tab 454; and P583, tab 77.
15 P1177.B is correspondence from the deputy minister for police
16 affairs, dated the 8th of August, 1992. This document has already been
17 admitted into evidence as exhibit number P583, tab 84.
18 P1177.C is a report from the Ministry of the Interior, dated the
19 22nd September 1992. This document is not yet in evidence.
20 P1177.D is information about the involvement and activities of the
21 Ministry of the Interior in the area covered by the Bijeljina security
22 services centre, dated the 2nd of August, 1992. This document is similar
23 to Exhibit P776; however, it includes a cover letter which is not in
25 The Chamber hereby instructs the registrar to vacate exhibit
1 numbers P1177.A through P1177.D, and to re-assign exhibit numbers P1177.A
2 and P1177.B to the 22nd of September, 1992 report of the Ministry of the
3 Interior, and the 2nd of August, 1992 report of the Ministry of the
4 Interior, including a cover letter. And this concludes the Chamber's
6 Next time when the Chamber invites one of the parties to provide
7 additional material, the Chamber will at least make a serious effort to
8 find out whether it's asking for something that is already in evidence, be
9 assured of that.
10 Mr. Stewart.
11 MR. STEWART: Yes. Your Honour, the first point was only to clear
12 up a possible misunderstanding that we thought might have arisen in
13 relation to those inventories. I had said that the Defence had done some
14 work of its own, which is true, but I wanted to make it clear, Your
15 Honour, that we are not proposing to submit any of those items ourselves
16 or to adopt them, and we haven't done full translations, except for one in
17 any case.
18 So, Your Honour, it's just that we're not -- we're not providing
19 those translations. With respect, we're not doing that. So if anyone
20 wishes to have that --
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. No, I think if one of the purposes was that if
22 Mr. Krajisnik wanted to further explain why some of these documents were
23 really of importance that we at least would know what we are talking
24 about, and therefore I asked the inventories to be translated first for
25 the parties to see whether they would adopt any of these exhibits. We see
1 that many of them are already in evidence, but also to give Mr. Krajisnik
2 an opportunity to further explain why this Chamber, although the parties
3 have not seen the importance of it, should really look at some or -- some
4 of these documents.
5 MR. STEWART: Well, I understand that's Your Honour's
6 understanding. We're not at all being difficult. The Defence is not
7 providing translations; it is not providing that service.
8 JUDGE ORIE: No. Then we have to look tomorrow at what we -- what
9 we do have and what we do not have.
10 I think I promised Mr. Krajisnik that at the end he could add
11 whatever he thought of importance to add to his testimony, so an
12 opportunity will be given tomorrow. If there are no other questions --
13 MR. STEWART: That last question of Your Honour's has dealt with
14 my second point, Your Honour. I was seeking confirmation of exactly that.
15 So I have nothing more to say this evening. Thank you.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then, yes, Mr. Krajisnik, we are late in time.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think I can say this in open
18 session. May I receive the CDs that the Defence and the Prosecution have
20 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, may I say that we were going to make
21 that request, that that should happen as soon as Mr. Krajisnik's evidence
22 is finally completed, which would be tomorrow.
23 JUDGE ORIE: That would be most likely tomorrow.
24 Mr. Krajisnik, you'll most likely receive the CDs tomorrow -- at
25 least they are available to you tomorrow because then the -- the blockade
1 of contact, although not real concrete blockade it was, but the functional
2 blockade will be over and then there's no problem anymore.
3 This then concludes the hearing for today. We'll start tomorrow,
5 We hope, Mr. Krajisnik, that you'll not have to suffer too much
6 from the dentist. It's common human experience what it can be and
7 sometimes it's not too bad. We'll start at 9.30. We'll have a longer
8 break on from --
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 JUDGE ORIE: We'll have a longer break of approximately one hour
11 and a half, starting at a quarter to 11.00, so we have five quarters of an
12 hour to start with. Then we'll resume after most likely approximately one
13 hour and a half, and then see how much more time we would need. But I
14 take it that we'll easily finish tomorrow with these matters.
15 I apologise to the interpreters and the technicians for, again,
16 bad time management.
17 And we'll adjourn until tomorrow, 9.30, same courtroom.
18 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.08 p.m.,
19 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 22nd day of
20 June, 2006, at 9.30 a.m.